text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Cygnus X-3 is an X-ray binary system located in the Galactic plane at a distance of $``$10 kpc (e.g. , ) in or behind one of the spiral arms. There is ongoing debate as to the nature of the compact object (e.g. ,). The large interstellar extinction to the source precludes any optical spectroscopy, making it difficult to obtain a reliable mass function and hindering identification of the companion star. Analysis of infrared spectra  suggests that the companion is a WN7 Wolf-Rayet star, although more recent observations  indicate a WN8 subclass. The orbital period, as confirmed in X-ray and infrared flux modulations, is 4.8 hours (e.g. ). The source occasionally undergoes huge radio outbursts where the flux density increases to a level of up to 20 Jy. Two-sided jets have been seen on arcsecond scales in a N-S orientation , whereas a highly-relativistic ($`\beta 0.81`$) one-sided jet with the same orientation has been reported on milliarcsecond scales with the VLBA .

## 2 Observations of spectral evolution

Cygnus X-3 went into flare during September 2001, with the RATAN monitoring programme detecting the start of the outburst on 14th September . Brief 2-3 minute VLA snapshot observations were made every day between 18th and 24th September, and then every few days until the end of October. The VLA was in its most compact “D” configuration, meaning that the source was unresolved, yet that none of the emission was resolved out. Data were taken at seven different frequencies between 74 MHz and 43 GHz. Between the 20th and 26th September, data were also taken at 100 GHz at OVRO, extending the frequency coverage to span three decades in frequency. In addition, six longer observations were made with the VLBA between the 18th and the 23rd September, and appear as before to show a one-sided jet .

The high-frequency spectral indices taken in the first week of observations are shown in Figure 1. The spectra display the power-law form characteristic of synchrotron emission at high frequencies, together with a low-frequency cutoff, which moves to lower frequencies as time progresses.

After the outburst the source flux decreases, and the spectral index of the power law increases from $`\alpha =0.3`$ on the 18th to a terminal value of $`\alpha =0.6`$ (implying an electron index of $`p=2.2`$) by the 21st September, after which $`\alpha `$ remains approximately constant. This is shown in Figure 2. Such behaviour (the increase during the outburst of the spectral index to a terminal value) was observed in the outburst of 1972 (, , , ). Various explanations were invoked, including synchrotron losses \[Marscher & Brown(1975)\], repeated sporadic electron injection , and bremsstrahlung losses . It has also been seen in later outbursts (e.g. , ).

The steepening of the spectral index cannot be explained by adiabatic expansion of the source (e.g. , ), and is usually explained in extragalactic sources by invoking synchrotron losses. However, in this case, the radiative lifetime of the electrons is far too long (of order $`10^8`$ years) given the magnetic field estimated in section 3. Moreover, the standard synchrotron loss models all produce a break in the spectrum . Since the spectrum is sampled over three decades in frequency, and appears to maintain a power law, this explanation must be rejected.

The standard explanation for a flat-spectrum source is that it is composed of a superposition of self-absorbed components (). While this can explain a single flat spectrum, it would seem difficult to ensure that the components evolve in such a way as to both preserve a power-law form, and steepen the spectral index gradually. Initial attempts to model this scenario indicate that the initial conditions would need to be very contrived in order to achieve this.

Particle injection would steepen the spectrum, but again on a timescale of $`10^8`$ years, as synchrotron losses take effect (as in the continuous injection model ). However, the injected particles would radiate, so unless the injection parameters varied with each injection event in a contrived manner, the same difficulties arise as for the superposition model.

One possibility is that bremsstrahlung emission from the synchrotron-emitting population is causing Coulomb cooling of the electrons. Since the power emitted in bremsstrahlung radiation scales as $`\rho ^2`$, where $`\rho `$ is the ionised plasma density, then as the source expands, $`\rho `$ decreases and the effect becomes less significant. This could also in principle explain the cessation of the steepening of the spectral index. The energy loss rate by bremsstrahlung emission for ultra-relativistic electrons in a fully ionised plasma is proportional to the electron energy. This would ensure that the highest-energy electrons lost energy fastest, leading to a steepening of the spectral index as required. A similar scenario was first put forward by , who also invoked neighbouring thermal plasma to generate the bremsstrahlung emission. While this is plausible, given the strong stellar wind of the Wolf-Rayet companion, electron motion between mirror points in an extended stellar atmosphere is additionally required in their model.

We are currently exploring other physical models which replicate the details of Cygnus X-3’s behaviour in intensity and spectral evolution over the appropriate timescales.

## 3 Source parameters

As time passes, the low-frequency turnover gradually moves to lower frequencies. Assuming that this is due to synchrotron self-absorption, and fitting the data with a steep and an inverted power-law, the turnover frequency may be found, given the flux density at this frequency. From , these parameters, together with a source size, may be used to place an upper limit on the magnetic field in the plasmon.

$$B=10^5b(\alpha )\theta _\mathrm{d}^4\nu _\mathrm{m}^5F_\mathrm{m}^2\delta _{\text{max}}\text{G}$$
(1)
where $`\theta _\mathrm{d}`$ is the angular diameter of the source in mas, $`\nu _\mathrm{m}`$ is the turnover frequency in GHz, and $`F_\mathrm{m}`$ is the source flux density (in Jy) at the turnover frequency. $`b(\alpha )`$ is a dimensionless function tabulated in , $`\delta _{\text{max}}`$ is a beaming parameter, taken as 2 , and the angular size is assumed to be 1 mas . With the fitted turnover frequencies and flux densities, the turnover was found to be at 2.4 GHz on the 18th and at 0.74 GHz on the 23rd, giving a magnetic field of 12 $`\mu `$G on the 18th and 5 $`\mu `$G on the 23rd. Assuming flux conservation holds, $`Br^2`$, which implies expansion of the plasmon by a factor 1.6 over the 5 days. As a consistency check on the magnetic field, it is possible to use the ratios of the flux densities and the frequencies of the self-absorption turnovers on the two days to derive an expansion factor $`F`$ .

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{log}\nu )=2\mathrm{log}F$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{log}S_\nu )=4\mathrm{log}F$$
(3)
This method gives an expansion factor $`F`$ of 1.3 and 1.9 respectively for the frequency and flux estimates. This is remarkably consistent with that derived from the magnetic field and inspires confidence in the field derivation, since the methods are wholly independent.

## Acknowledgements

JMJ thanks the workshop organisers, St. John’s College, Oxford, and Oxford Astrophysics for support. This work is supported by a PPARC studentship. We also thank the organisers for a very stimulating workshop.


format: text

text:
# Fitting optical source counts with an infrared-defined model: insights into galaxy evolution

## 1 Introduction

The cosmic history of star formation has been extensively investigated in recent times. There is a general consensus that the star formation rate (SFR) increases with look-back time to peak somewhere at $`1<z<2`$, then levels off, with a possible decline at higher redshifts. However, the issue is far from closed. In particular, the location of the peak and the behaviour of the SFR at high redshifts are still a matter of extensive debate.

The nature of the star formation history (SFH) can be determined using a number of different observational techniques. Perhaps the most direct method is to make use of observations in the rest-frame near-ultraviolet (UV), as this part of the spectra of galaxies with no active galactic nuclei (AGN) are dominated by emission from short-lived, massive stars (e.g. Lilly et al. 1996; Madau et al. 1996; Connolly et al. 1997; Madau, Pozzetti & Dickinson 1998; Treyer et al. 1998; Cowie, Songaila & Barger 1999). It is also possible to observe the luminosities of nebular emission lines (especially H$`\alpha `$), which are due to reprocessed ionizing radiation from the young, massive stars (e.g. Hogg et al. 1998; Tresse & Maddox 1998; Glazebrook et al. 1999; Hopkins, Connolly & Szalay 2000; Teplitz et al. 2000; Pettini et al. 2001). Neither of these methods, however, account for the effects of dust extinction.

The importance of extinction has been shown by numerous studies that show the disagreement of different SFH diagnostics, which are affected by extinction in different ways (e.g. Mushotzky & Loewenstein 1997; Rowan-Robinson et al. 1997; Cram et al. 1998; Flores et al. 1999; Adelberger & Steidel 2000; Sullivan et al. 2001) and from the large fraction of energy in the cosmic far-infrared and submillimetre backgrounds (Puget et al. 1996). Estimates of the extinction correction factor are around 2–10 (e.g. Meurer et al. 1997; Dickinson 1998; Pettini et al. 1998; Glazebrook et al. 1999; Steidel et al. 1999; Hopkins et al. 2000; Teplitz et al. 2000). It is, however, possible that some star formation could be totally hidden in heavily obscured objects, which would not be accounted for at all by a correction to the UV/optical estimates (Franceschini et al. 1997; Guiderdoni et al. 1998; Elbaz et al. 1999; but see Adelberger & Steidel 2000). Furthermore, it has recently been shown that the far-infrared (FIR) to UV flux ratio breaks down for some star-forming galaxies (Bell & Kennicutt 2001), ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs; Meurer et al. 2000) and Lyman Break Galaxies (e.g. Baker et al. 2001), which makes it difficult to determine the SFR by simply applying an extinction correction.

To avoid these problems, it is necessary to look at the radiation re-emitted from dust heated by the young stellar population, which will also reveal any obscured star-forming population. Since thermal dust emission peaks in the rest-frame far-infrared (IR), this is done with submillimetre and far-IR surveys (e.g. Rowan-Robinson et al. 1997; Hughes et al. 1998; Blain et al. 1999b). The main drawback with this method is the uncertainty of the contributions of cumulative heating of the dust by the old stellar population and AGNs (Blain et al. 1999c; Brusa, Comastri & Vignali 2001).

A very different way of approaching the issue of how to determine the SFH is to use source count models. Broadly speaking, these fall into one of two categories: the so-called ‘forwards’ and ‘backwards’ models (Lonsdale 1996). The forwards method statistically follows the growth of dark matter haloes forwards in time by accretion and mergers (e.g. Kauffmann & White 1993; Cole et al. 1994; Blain et al. 1999c; Granato et al. 2000; Somerville, Primack & Faber 2001) then assumes a semi-analytic galaxy formation paradigm and evolutionary framework. In the backwards method, by contrast, a local luminosity function is evolved backwards in time, assuming some form of evolution, such as a change in SFR (e.g. Pearson & Rowan-Robinson 1996; Eales & Edmunds 1997; Xu et al. 1998; Takeuchi et al. 1999; Pearson 2001; Rowan-Robinson 2001; Xu et al. 2001).

In Rowan-Robinson (2001; hereafter RR01), a source count model using a parametrized approach to the SFH was presented. This method models the SFH as a combined power-law and exponential, the relative strengths of which are allowed to vary freely. This is capable of reproducing most physically realistic forms of the SFH and allows a large set of possible histories to be investigated. Source count predictions are then compared to observations, allowing the range of SFH parameters to be limited. This method is similar in some ways to those of Guiderdoni et al. (1998) and Blain et al. (1999b).

The parametrized approach of RR01 provided good fits to data in the submillimetre and far- and mid-IR regions of the spectrum ($`10\mu \text{m}<\lambda <1250\mu `$m). However, the best-fitting model shows a deficit of faint ($`B>24,K>20`$) optical and near-IR sources compared to observations. Also, the number of high redshift sources are over-predicted. RR01 proposes that these problems could be caused by density evolution, or by a steepening of the faint-end luminosity function at $`z>1`$.

In this work, an attempt to solve the faint optical count issue by allowing a variation of optical depth with redshift using the Calzetti & Heckman (1999) evolution model and by including density evolution is presented. The objective is to produce an effective, multi-wavelength source count model, based on that detailed in RR01.

The layout of this paper is as follows. In §2, a brief explanation of the RR01 parametrized source count model is presented. Then, in §3, the optical depth history correction is detailed. Section 4 discusses the method of fitting to the optical counts and presents the best-fitting model. Section 5 shows the predicted counts in other wavebands and the background spectrum, with comparisons to available data. In §6, the nature of the fits to source count data, the nature of the optical depth history, the implications for the SFH and galaxy evolution and comparisons to a semi-analytic model are discussed. Finally, the conclusions are presented in §7.

## 2 Parametrized Source Count Model

A backwards source count model can be constructed using four basic ingredients: a cosmology, a luminosity function, a form of evolution (luminosity and/or density) and a spectral energy distribution (SED). In this work, the model of RR01 is used as a base: a more detailed description of the model can be found in that paper. For computational speed, an Einstein–de Sitter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) Universe with $`H_0=100`$ kms-1Mpc-1 is examined first. The results of this are used to limit the free parameter space of the Lambda cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$).

### 2.1 Luminosity Function

The luminosity function used is determined from the IRAS PSCz sample (Saunders et al. 2000). This is then fitted with the empirical form of Saunders et al. (1990) for a single, composite population:

$$\eta (L)=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{d\mathrm{lg}L}=C_{}\left(\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)^{1\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}\mathrm{lg}^2\left(1+\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)\right],$$

where $`C_{},\alpha `$ and $`\sigma `$ are constants. This behaves as a power law for $`LL_{}`$ and as a Gaussian in log L for $`LL_{}`$, $`L_{}`$ being the ‘knee’ of the curve. For $`\alpha `$ and $`C_{}`$, fixed values of $`\alpha =1.09`$ and $`C_{}=0.027(H_0/100)^3`$ have been assumed. The other parameters take into account the change of the 60-$`\mu `$m luminosity function as the rate of evolution is varied (see §2.2).

### 2.2 Parametrized form of Evolution

Changes in the SFR within a galaxy will affect its luminosity. RR01 assumes that the changes of SFR are the dominant factor in luminosity evolution, and parametrizes this evolution to allow a wide range of model star formation histories to be explored. The form of the star formation rate, $`\dot{\varphi _{}}(z)`$ (in units of M yr-1 Mpc-3), adopted to allow most physically realistic, single population SFH scenarios to be reproduced is:

$$\frac{\dot{\varphi _{}}(t)}{\dot{\varphi _{}}(t_0)}=\left[\mathrm{exp}Q\left(1\frac{t}{t_0}\right)\right]\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^P,$$

where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are positive variable parameters (see fig. 1 of RR01 for examples of this form). In an Einstein-de Sitter (E-dS) Universe, this becomes:

$$\frac{\dot{\varphi _{}}(z)}{\dot{\varphi _{}}(z_0)}=\left\{\mathrm{exp}Q\left[1(1+z)^{3/2}\right]\right\}\left(1+z\right)^{3P/2}.$$
(1)
The physical meanings of the SFH parameters are as follows. $`P`$ measures how steeply the process of buildup of rate of star formation due to mergers of fragments, which are incorporated into galaxies, occurs with time. $`Q`$ describes an exponential decay in the star formation rate, on a timescale $`t_0/Q`$, which is a product of the process of exhaustion of available gas for star formation – this being the result of a competition between the processes of gas being formed into stars and it being returned to the ISM by winds and supernovae.

It is assumed, for computational purposes, that $`\dot{\varphi _{}}(z)=0`$ for $`z>10`$. Although this introduces an unphysical discontinuity in eqn. (2.2), RR01 finds that the effect on the results is negligible.

Now that the luminosity evolution has been selected, the remaining parameters in the luminosity function can be approximated in the E-dS case by least-squares fitting the Saunders et al. (1990) form to the Saunders et al. (2000) data set as follows:

$$\sigma =0.7440.033W,$$

$$\mathrm{lg}L_{}=8.50+0.05W2\mathrm{lg}(H_0/100),$$

where

$$W=Q1.125P.$$

In a hierarchical galaxy-formation scenario, it is expected that a lower total density of galaxies will be seen at low redshifts as a result of merger events. In addition to the luminosity evolution, this density evolution also needs to be considered. This can be parametrized simply as:

$$\rho (z)=\rho (0)(1+z)^n.$$
(2)
In this case, the evolution parameter, $`W`$, becomes

$$W=Q1.125(P0.5n).$$

Many source count models consider only pure luminosity evolution or pure density evolution, but here both forms will be considered simultaneously.

In the Lambda cosmology with density evolution, these parameters become:

$$\sigma =0.7830.030W,$$

$$\mathrm{lg}L_{}=8.39+0.05W2\mathrm{lg}(H_0/100),$$

where

$$W=Q1.067(P0.5n).$$

### 2.3 Spectral Energy Distributions

To transform the 60-$`\mu `$m luminosity function to other wavelengths, some model of the SED must be constructed. RR01 explored a variety of assumptions about the SEDs. The method that was most consistent with available data was to derive the counts separately for each of four components – starburst (M82-like), ‘cirrus’ (normal, non-active galaxy), ULIRG (Arp 220-like) and AGN – then sum them.

For the starburst and cirrus components, predictions for infrared SEDs from Efstathiou, Rowan-Robinson & Siebenmorgen (2000) are used, and near-IR/optical/UV SEDs are added, corresponding to an Sab galaxy (Yoshii & Takahara 1988) for the cirrus component and an H ii galaxy, Tol 1924 – 416 (Calzetti & Kinney 1992), for the starburst component. These are selected as ‘typical’ galaxies, rather than as averages. For the cirrus component, the optical SED has been divided into a contribution of young, high-mass stars (dominating at $`\lambda <0.3\mu `$m) and of old, low-mass stars (dominating at $`\lambda >0.3\mu `$m). This is obviously a quite approximate treatment, but produces reasonable counts in the K\- and B-bands. For the AGN component, the dust torus model of Rowan-Robinson (1995) is used (see also Rowan-Robinson & Efstathiou 1993 and Efstathiou & Rowan-Robinson 1995). The complete SEDs are shown in fig. 3 of RR01.

The proportions of the four components at 60-$`\mu `$m as a function of luminosity were chosen to give correct relations in colour-colour diagrams, as detailed in RR01. The relative proportion of the 60-$`\mu `$m emission due to AGNs is derived from the 12-$`\mu `$m luminosity function of Rush, Malkan & Spinoglio (1993).

## 3 Optical depth history

The models of RR01 fit the available source count data well from mid-infrared to submillimetre wavelengths. However, in the K-band, the number of faint ($`K>20`$) sources is under-predicted (see fig. 18 of RR01; also plotted on Fig. 7 of this work) by the preferred $`P=1.2,Q=5.4`$ model. This problem is even more pronounced in the B-band, where the faint ($`B>24`$) counts are significantly under-predicted (see fig. 19 of RR01; also plotted on Fig. 1 of this work) by the same model.

This faint blue excess could be caused by a number of factors, such as uncertainties in the faint end of the local luminosity function, some form of evolution or a missing population of objects (see review by Ellis 1997). One factor that is known to occur, and could cause a faint blue excess, is the variation of optical depth with redshift (Calzetti 1999; Pei, Fall & Hauser 1999). It is probable that the opacity changes differently for the various types of sources, but we have used a ‘characteristic’ opacity variation, in the manner of Calzetti 1999 and Pei et al. 1999, as this reduces the number of free parameters.

Star formation produces stars with a range of masses, some of which will be sufficiently massive to explode as supernova very quickly ($`10^6`$ years; Leitherer & Heckman 1995), injecting heavy metals into the interstellar medium and producing large quantities of dust on short time scales ($`100`$$`200`$ Myr, e.g. Jones et al. 1994; Dwek 1998). The global star formation rate varies with redshift, so the co-moving density of metals, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, and hence the dust density, will also vary. This variation takes the form of an increase with redshift, peaking somewhere between $`z1`$ and $`z3`$, then declining (see fig. 8, bottom panel of Pei et al. 1999). This form is the result of a competition between the release of metals into the interstellar medium (ISM) and the metals being taken-up from the ISM as the gas is locked into stars.

As the opacity of the ISM is determined by the combination of the dust column density (dependent on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the gas column density), the extinction curve and the dust distribution, it is possible to model the opacity change with redshift. This new factor can be included in the source count model of RR01 by altering the luminosity distance accordingly.

Initially, the obscuration model of Pei & Fall (1995) was investigated, using the dust model of Rowan-Robinson (1992) and the colour excess model of Pei et al. (1999), assuming the local mean fraction of starlight absorbed by dust, $`A_{V_0}=0.4`$. Here, the obscuration of the flux, $`F`$, is parametrized as:

$$F_{obs}(\lambda )=F_0(\lambda )10^{(0.4\times 0.4(E_S(BV))k(\lambda )/3.1)},$$

where $`E_S(BV)`$ is the colour excess and $`k(\lambda )`$ is the dust obscuration factor.

However, this model does not solve the faint excess problem, as the opacity drops at $`z>1`$, and we are trying to reduce the number of faint (hence mostly high redshift) galaxies. A model is required which predicts that the optical depth does not drop until a higher redshift. In order to meet this criterion, the Calzetti (1999) obscuration model was investigated, using model 3 from Calzetti & Heckman (1999) for $`E(BV)`$, as this does not begin to drop until $`z>3`$ (see fig. 9, top panel of Calzetti & Heckman 1999). The Calzetti (1999) model analytically parametrizes the ‘net’ obscuration as:

$$F_{obs}(\lambda )=F_0(\lambda )10^{0.4E_S(BV)k(\lambda )},$$
(3)
based on observations of high redshift galaxies, where:

$$k(\lambda )=2.656\left(2.310+\frac{1.315}{\lambda }\right)+4.88$$

for $`0.63\mu \text{m}\lambda 1.60\mu \text{m}`$, and

$$k(\lambda )=2.656\left(2.156+\frac{1.509}{\lambda }\frac{0.198}{\lambda ^2}+\frac{0.011}{\lambda ^3}\right)+4.88$$

for $`0.12\mu \text{m}\lambda <0.63\mu \text{m}`$.

Outside this range of $`\lambda `$, the Rowan-Robinson (1992) dust form is used. This is based on a multigrain model, fitted to the interstellar extinction curve and the far-IR spectrum of dust in our galaxy. A look-up table of values of $`A_\lambda /E(BV)`$ for different wavelengths is used, interpolating where necessary.

This correction for the optical depth history requires a new parameter, $`A_{V_0}`$, to be introduced into the source count model. This represents the mean V band extinction in the local ($`z=0`$) universe and can be varied whilst retaining the dependence on redshift of the Calzetti & Heckman (1999) model 3 extinction, $`g(z)`$. It is introduced into the net obscuration (eqn. 3) as follows:

$$F_{obs}(\lambda )=F_0(\lambda )10^{0.4\times A_\lambda (z)},$$

where

$$A_\lambda (z)=A_{V_0}\times \left(\frac{A_\lambda }{A_V}\right)\times g(z).$$

The effect of the optical depth variation introduced here is wavelength-dependent. The magnitude of the effect is smaller at higher wavelengths. It was found that at wavelengths of approximately 5-$`\mu `$m and higher the effect is negligible. For computational speed, therefore, the correction was applied only at $`\lambda <10\mu `$m.

## 4 Fitting Optical Counts

The source count model, with the optical depth history correction, has four free parameters: the characteristic visual extinction in the local universe, $`A_{V_0}`$, the density evolution parameter, $`n`$, and the two star formation parameters, $`P`$ and $`Q`$. To determine if the opacity correction could solve the fitting problem in the B band, these parameters were varied and the resulting model predictions compared to the available observations.

For a given waveband, there are two types of data available against which the models can be compared: source count data and redshift distribution data. Generally, it is possible to obtain large statistics for source counts much more easily than for redshift distributions (few spectroscopic redshifts are available and photometric redshifts can be unreliable). As the source counts are much more robust, statistically speaking, the procedure adopted was to first use the available redshift data – a catalogue of photometric and spectroscopic redshifts in the Hubble Deep Field (Fernández-Soto, Lanzetta & Yahil 1999) derived from data at 0.3, 0.45, 0.6 and 0.8 $`\mu `$m (filters F300W, F450W, F606W and F814W, respectively) and in the J, H and K bands (1.2, 1.6 and 2.2 $`\mu `$m, respectively) – to constrain the parameter space to those sets that were as good as, or provided an improvement over, the $`P=1.2,Q=5.4`$ E-dS model of RR01. This was done by generating a large number of models ($`2500`$) with a wide range of different parameters, then using a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ method to remove those that have a worse fit than the $`P=1.2,Q=5.4`$ model.

As the number of sources at high redshift for the available data is small, the bins $`z=4.0`$$`4.5,4.5`$$`5.0`$ and $`z>5.0`$ are summed up to give one bin, $`z>4.0`$. This gives the number of model points, $`n_m=12`$ and the number of free parameters, $`n_c=4`$ ($`P,Q,n`$ and $`A_{V_0}`$) and, hence, the number of degrees of freedom, $`\nu =8`$. Around 200 models had better fits than the $`P=1.2,Q=5.4`$ model.

After a reasonable fit to the redshift distributions had been obtained, the source count data was investigated to find the best-fitting model. The data used are compiled from Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) observations to a depth of $`B23.5`$ (Jones et al. 1991), Hubble Space Telescope observations of the Hubble Deep Fields (North and South) and William Herschel telescope (WHT) observations to a depth of $`B28.5`$ (Metcalfe et al. 2001), and observations made during the commissioning phase of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to a depth of $`B20`$ (Yasuda et al. 2001).

For the models that showed an improved fit to the redshift distribution, the $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ method was again used to find those that had a better fit to the source count data than the $`P=1.2,Q=5.4`$ model. In this case, 4 model parameters are compared to the 28 data points, giving $`\nu =24`$. All but six of the parameter sets examined showed a better fit than the $`P=1.2,Q=5.4`$ model. Of these, the best-fitting model was $`P=1.5,Q=5.4,n=1.3,A_{V_0}=0.4`$. As can be seen from Figs. 1 and 2, this model gives a reasonable redshift distribution whilst significantly improving the fit to the source count data. Since the luminosity and density evolution parameters have been altered, these figures also show a model with the same evolutionary parameters, but no optical depth correction ($`P=1.5,Q=5.4,n=1.3,A_{V_0}=0.0`$). This shows that the improvement of goodness of fit is not due solely to the change in evolutionary parameters, but relies on the new optical depth history.

Once this had been done for the E-dS cosmology, the Lambda model was investigated. The best-fitting Lambda model of RR01 had SFH parameters $`P=3.0,Q=9.0`$. As the Lambda model with density evolution is very computationally intensive, a ‘first guess’ was made, based on the results of fitting the E-dS model. In the E-dS case, the SFH parameter $`Q`$ did not change and $`P`$ was slightly increased when density evolution was introduced, so $`Q`$ was fixed and $`P`$ allowed to vary. As the best-fitting value of $`A_{V_0}`$ was consistent with local observations, this was also fixed, so allowing only the density evolution parameter, $`n`$, and $`P`$ to vary freely. The best-fitting model was $`P=3.4,Q=9.0,n=1.1,A_{V_0}=0.4`$. As can be seen from Fig. 3, this model is a very good fit to the B band source counts, so no further variations of the parameters were investigated.

## 5 Predicted Counts

Once the best-fitting sets of parameters in the B band had been determined ($`P=1.5,Q=5.4,n=1.3,A_{V_0}=0.4`$ for E-dS, $`P=3.4,Q=9.0,n=1.1,A_{V_0}=0.4`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), these sets were used to generate models in other wavebands to determine if the fit in the UV/optical/near-IR wavebands had been improved.

The best-fitting models of RR01 under-predict the faint counts in the UV/optical/near-IR regions. If the new optical depth history correction works, it should increase the goodness of fit in these other bands without tuning the free parameters.

The fits to the U band is shown in Fig. 4. The overall goodness of fit has been improved significantly across the whole flux range for both cosmologies, although the faint ($`U>24`$) counts are still under-predicted in the E-dS case. Figs. 5, 6 and 7 show the fits to the R, H and K bands, respectively. In each case the goodness of fit has been substantially improved for both cosmologies, though the very faintest counts tend to be under-predicted in the E-dS case.

The $`A_V`$ correction is wavelength-dependent and is negligible for $`\lambda >5\mu `$m, so this will have no effect on source counts at mid-IR, far-IR and submillimetre wavelengths. However, the values of $`P`$ and $`n`$ are different to the preferred models of RR01, which will introduce changes. Predictions at 15, 60, 170 and 850 $`\mu `$m are shown in Figs. 8, 9, 10 and 11, respectively. Across all these wavebands, and for both cosmologies, the best-fitting models of this work predict higher values of the faint source counts than the RR01 models. For 60 and 170 $`\mu `$m, the available observations are not deep enough to be able to distinguish between the models. At 15 and 850 $`\mu `$m there is no significant change in the overall goodness of fit.

## 6 Discussion

### 6.1 Fits to Data

The $`P=1.5,Q=5.4,n=1.3,A_{V_0}=0.4`$ model was selected to provide the best possible fit to the B band source counts (Fig. 1), whilst not worsening the fit of the redshift distribution (Fig. 2). As expected, this model provides a significant improvement of fit in this band. It does, however, still slightly under-predict the faintest end ($`B>26`$) of the source count slope. Models with a higher value of $`A_{V_0}`$ can provide a better fit to the faint end, but significantly decrease the goodness of fit to the redshift distribution. The $`P=3.4,Q=9.0,n=1.1,A_{V_0}=0.4`$ model in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, however, fits the faint end of the counts well.

Having introduced the optical depth variation correction to make the model more physical, and selected the parameters to fit the B band, the model is then ‘translated’ to other wavebands. The fits in the optical, UV and near-IR bands (U, R, H, K; Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, respectively) are all substantially better for both cosmologies, although there is again an under-prediction in the faint ends ($`U>24,R>25,H>21,K>21`$) of the slopes for the E-dS model.

Quasar counts in the optical (B band) region are shown in Fig. 1. There are, however, insufficient faint counts to be able to distinguish between the models.

As the parameter set used is derived from optical observations, it is possible that the fit in the mid-IR to submillimetre bands might be worsened. Since the goodness of these fits is the main strength of the RR01 model it is important to check the effects of altering the parameter set in these wavebands. At 60 and 170 $`\mu `$m (Figs. 9 and 10), insufficient faint source counts are available to be able to distinguish between the models. At 15-$`\mu `$m (Fig. 8) the goodness of fit is improved in the faint ($`S<1`$ mJy) region for the E-dS cosmology and essentially unchanged for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case. At 850-$`\mu `$m (Fig. 11) the goodness of fit is decreased in both cosmologies, but the models are still within the limits of the observations.

The best-fitting model was also compared to the available data on the integrated background spectrum (Fig. 12). Here, the data is compiled from surveys in the optical and UV (Pozzetti et al. 1998), mid-IR (Serjeant et al. 2000) and far-IR and submillimetre (Puget et al. 1996; Fixsen et al. 1998; Lagache et al. 1999). The new E-dS model \[solid curve\] shows a better fit in the optical, UV and near-IR regions, but a worse fit in the mid-IR (15-$`\mu `$m), although this point is derived by summing counts. The goodness of fit in the far-IR (140, 240, 350 and 500 $`\mu `$m) is approximately the same, but the submillimetre (750 and 850 $`\mu `$m) background is over-predicted. The dotted curve in this figure shows the comparative $`P=1.5,Q=5.4,n=1.3,A_{V_0}=0.0`$ model to illustrate that it is the optical depth correction, not just the change in $`P`$ and $`n`$ that is responsible for the better fit. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model is little different to the best-fitting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model of RR01 - the submillimetre and FIR are over-predicted, but close to the upper limits of the errors.

The over-prediction of faint submillimetre source counts is dominated by the introduction of density evolution. There are certain limitations to the model that might, if corrected for, give a good fit to the optical region with a lower density evolution parameter. Possible candidates for improvement are:

1. Accounting for ellipticals. The count model is based on the 60-$`\mu `$m luminosity function, which provides a good fit in the infrared. However, this does miss out elliptical galaxies, which have little or no 60-$`\mu `$m emission. A simplistic way of remedying this would be to multiply the old star component by a factor to account for the missing ellipticals (see §6.2).
2. Separately evolving SED components. In the current model, the form of evolution adopted is applied to all the components equally. This simplifies the model and produces reasonable fits to source count data, but is not ideal. Different types of galaxies will evolve differently with redshift, so separating them out would make the model more physical.
3. Redshift-dependent cirrus SED. The RR01 model does not account for the fact that the temperature of dust, and hence the SED, of cirrus galaxies will evolve with redshift. Including this, perhaps as a look-up table of SEDs at different redshifts, would again make the model more physically realistic.

Introducing one or more of these might allow the density evolution parameter, $`n`$, to be lowered, and hence the fit to the faint submillimetre counts improved, whilst retaining the goodness of fit in the optical region. The first of these factors is quite simple to correct for and is discussed in §6.2.

### 6.2 Ellipticals

Initial results from the IRAS sky survey showed that very few elliptical galaxies had been detected in the FIR (de Jong et al. 1984). Further

Analysis of the IRAS sky survey showed that $`35`$ per cent of ellipticals are detected at 60-$`\mu `$m to a flux densities limit of $`300`$ mJy (Knapp et al. 1989). As the 60-$`\mu `$m emission is dominated by emission from cold ($`T20`$$`40`$ K) dust, this implies that ellipticals typically have low dust densities (e.g. Goudfrooij & de Jong 1995; Merluzzi 1998). These galaxies will not be accounted for by the 60-$`\mu `$m luminosity function, which is used by the RR01 model, so some correction is needed.

Martel, Premadi and Matzner (1998) have used the observed galaxy morphology-density relation (Dressler 1980) and a Monte Carlo technique based on the distribution of dark matter to simulate $``$ 40,000 galaxies in the local universe. For an E-dS Universe, they find that ellipticals make up, on average, $`15`$ per cent of galaxies. Hence, since only $`35`$ per cent of ellipticals are detected at 60-$`\mu `$m, the RR01 model misses out $`10`$ per cent of ‘cirrus’ galaxies.

A simple way to correct for this is to multiply the number density of the low-mass cirrus component by a factor of 1.104 at each flux bin for those models that split the cirrus component into low- and high-mass ($`\lambda <20\mu `$m). The result of applying this correction is shown in Fig. 13. The only effect is a very slight increase in the brightest counts, where the low-mass component is dominant. The overall effect of correcting for ellipticals is negligible.

### 6.3 Optical Depth

In order to determine how much of the improvement of fit is due to introducing the optical depth correction, and how much is due to the change of $`P`$ and $`n`$, Figs. 1 and 2 show a model with the same parameter set as the best-fitting E-dS from this work ($`P=1.5,Q=5.4,n=1.3`$), but with $`A_{V_0}`$ set to zero, so that the optical depth correction is not applied. Fig. 1 shows that the alteration in $`P`$ and $`n`$ results in a general increase in the number of counts, especially in the fainter regions, whereas the addition of the change in optical depth is responsible for increasing the slope at the faint end of the curves. This shows that it is necessary to include the optical depth correction to achieve this goodness of fit.

The overall goodness of fit to the redshift distribution (Fig. 2) is little changed between the models. The change in shape is a result of both the optical depth correction and the change in evolutionary parameters.

Observations of local spiral galaxies (e.g. Berlind et. al. 1997; González et al. 1998) show the visual extinction, $`A_V0.1`$$`0.2`$ in the inter-arm regions and $`A_V1`$ in the arms and centres (Giovanelli et al. 1995; Moriondo, Giovanelli & Haynes 1998). The best-fitting model of this work has $`A_{V_0}=0.4`$, which is perfectly reasonable, given known observational results. It is a validation of the optical depth history correction that the value of $`A_{V_0}`$ for the best-fitting model is a physically realistic value purely by fitting to source count data, with no tuning to achieve this result.

### 6.4 Star Formation History

The main strength of the parametrized approach to the SFH, as presented in §2.2 (eqn. 2.2), is that it is capable of reproducing most physically realistic, single-population scenarios. This allows a wide range of models to be explored.

Once the best-fitting model in the B band has been determined, the luminosity and density evolutions (eqns. 2.2 & 2) can be combined to give a star formation history:

$$\frac{\dot{\varphi _{}}(t)}{\dot{\varphi _{}}(t_0)}=\left[\mathrm{exp}Q\left(1\frac{t}{t_0}\right)\right]\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^P(1+z)^n.$$

The predicted SFH for the E-dS cosmology is shown in Fig. 14 compared to the $`P=1.2,Q=5.4`$ model of RR01. There is no significant change in the goodness of fit. The SFR at high redshifts ($`z>2`$) is probably too high, due to the introduction of density evolution. As with the over-prediction of the faint submillimetre counts, this might be resolved by allowing the components to evolve separately or evolving the SEDs with redshift. For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case, shown in Fig. 15, the goodness of fit is improved in the high-redshift region.

It is important that the form of the star formation history in the model produces a total mass of stars consistent with observed values. Lanzetta, Yahil & Fernández-Soto (1996) used optical and UV observations of the Hubble Deep Field to determine the total mass fraction of stars, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0.0030\pm 0.0009h^1`$. As this is not corrected for extinction, this is the lower limit on the actual mass of stars. The upper limit is the mass fraction of baryons, which is found by Bania, Rood & Balser (2002) to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0.020_{0.003}^{+0.007}h^2`$.

The theoretical value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ can be calculated from

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=\frac{\rho _{}}{\rho _c}=10^{11.44}h^2t_0\dot{\varphi _{}}(t_0)\xi ,$$

where

$$\xi =_0^1\frac{\dot{\varphi _{}}(t)}{\dot{\varphi _{}}(t_0)}d(t/t_0).$$

The SFR in the local universe, $`\dot{\varphi _{}}(t_0)`$, is derived from the 60-$`\mu `$m luminosity function by Rowan-Robinson (2002) using eqn. (7) of Rowan-Robinson et al. (1997), modified to take into account the latest Bruzual & Charlot galaxy evolution models (Madau et al. 1998), assuming that the fraction of optical-UV light being re-radiated in the IR, $`ϵ=2/3`$:

$$\dot{\varphi _{}}(t_0)=10^{9.66}l_{60},$$

where the 60-$`\mu `$m luminosity density, $`l_{60}=h_{10^6}^{10^{14}}\eta (L)𝑑L`$. Hence, given $`t_0=2/3H_0`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=10^{11.29}\xi l_{60}h^3.$$
(4)
For the $`P=1.2,Q=5.4`$ model of RR01, $`l_{60}=4.38\times 10^7h`$LMpc-3 and $`\xi =5.74`$, giving $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0.0013h^2`$. For the best-fitting model of this work, $`l_{60}=4.58\times 10^7h`$LMpc-3 and $`\xi =12.45`$, giving $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0.0029h^2`$. In this scenario, the $`P=1.5,Q=5.4,n=1.3,A_{V_0}=0.4`$ model is most consistent with observations.

However, the age of the Universe for this calculation has been set to $`t_0=6.5`$ Gyr, which, although consistent with the cosmology, is not consistent with the observationally-determined age. Using a more realistic value of $`t_0=13`$ Gyr, eqn. 4 becomes:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=10^{10.99}\xi l_{60}h^2.$$
(5)
This gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0.0026h^1`$ for the best-fitting model of RR01 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0.0058h^1`$ for the best-fitting model of this work. In this case, the RR01 model is more consistent with the observed lower limit value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$. The higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ in the best-fitting model is due, as with the over-prediction of the submillimetre background, to the inclusion of density evolution.

### 6.5 Comparison to semi-analytic model

It is possible to compare the evolution from this parametrized backwards model against a semi-analytic forwards model to determine if they are compatible. Fig. 16 shows the differential luminosity function at different redshifts. The semi-analytic model used is based on work by Kaviani, Haehnelt & Kauffmann (2002).

The two luminosity functions are broadly similar, fitting best in the intermediate redshift range $`z1`$$`2`$. The results are broadly consistent, which is interesting, given that they are derived using entirely different methods. A more extensive comparison to the semi-analytic model will be conducted in a future work.

## 7 Conclusions

An attempt to improve the optical count fit of the RR01 IR-defined source count model by introducing density evolution and a variation of optical depth with redshift has been presented.

1. By introducing an optical depth correction and tuning the luminosity and density evolution parameters, the goodness of fit to the source counts in the B band has been significantly increased. This improvement is not due solely to the change in existing parameters, but also substantially affected by the introduction of the optical depth correction and density evolution.
2. The parameter set derived in the B band can then be translated to other wavebands, showing significantly improved goodness of fit in the optical, UV and near-IR as well as reasonable fits in the far-IR and submillimetre.
3. In the Einstein-de Sitter case, the model still under-predicts the faint end of the source count slope in the optical, UV and near-IR, though to a lesser degree. There is also an over-prediction of very faint submillimetre counts and the high-redshift SFR. These effects are not removed by accounting for ellipticals. It is possible that further corrections to the model could resolve these problems. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology does not suffer from these effects, though it does over-predict the FIR region of the background spectrum.
4. The mean local value of $`A_V`$ of the best-fitting model is 0.4, which is consistent with what we know about the opacity of the local universe.
5. The form of the luminosity function and the luminosity and density evolutions is broadly consistent with those predicted by a semi-analytic model.
6. The predicted form of the SFH provides approximately the same goodness of fit in the E-dS case, and a better fit in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case.
7. It is not possible to to reproduce the multi-wavelength counts using a model without density evolution (the monolithic model).
8. The model provides a fairly good fit to data from UV to submillimetre. Future work will investigate expanding this to the radio and X-ray regions.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Duncan Farrah, Matthew Fox, Ali Kaviani, Chris Pearson and the referee for their valuable comments on this manuscript.


text:
# Konus catalog of short GRBs

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The gamma-ray burst (GRB) duration has a bimodal distribution (Mazets et al. 1981; Norris et al. 1984; Hurley 1992; Kouveliotou et al. 1993). This indicates the existence of two distinct morphological classes of events, namely short-duration (\< 2 s) bursts and long-duration (\> 2 s) bursts. Approximately 20 per cent of the observed bursts are short. Their energy spectra are usually harder than the spectra of long bursts (Kouveliotou et al. 1993).

The catalog contains data on 130 short GRBs observed with the Konus-Wind experiment on the Wind spacecraft in 1994–2002. The catalog presents time histories, energy spectra, fluences, peak fluxes, spectral parameters, and hardness ratios. Most of hardness ratios reveal spectral variability. The catalog is available electronically at http://www.ioffe.ru/LEA/shortGRBs/Catalog/.

Searches for the optical and radio afterglow of short GRBs have been carried out in only a few cases. Four GRBs were localized with high accuracy by the Interplanetary Network (IPN) (Hurley et al. 2002). No optical and radio afterglow emission was detected for these four events. No X-ray counterparts have been detected so far for the short bursts localized by Beppo-SAX (Gandolfi et al. 2000) or by HETE-2 (Lamb et al. 2002). The rapid follow-up observations have resulted in only upper limits on the brightness of the afterglows from these GRBs.

At the same time early X-ray and gamma-ray afterglows of short bursts were detected in a bumber cases by the GRB detectors themselves, in time intervals from seconds to tens of seconds after the trigger. BATSE observations showed that such a weak afterglow exists for some of the short bursts, lasting several tens seconds (Burenin, 2000; Lazatti et al. 2001; Connaughton, 2002). The afterglows of short GRBs were also detected by the Konus-Wind experiment. Afterglow emission in the energy range bellow 1 MeV is seen for about 10 per cent of events. These bursts are included in the catalog. A statistical analysis of burst sampling reveals that the afterglow is a more common feature of short GRBs. These results will be discussed in more detail elsewhere.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS

The Konus-Wind instrument is a gamma-ray spectrometer consisting of two identical gamma-ray detectors S1 and S2 which observe the southern and northern ecliptic hemispheres respectively in all-sky monitoring mode. Each detector contains a NaI(Tl) crystal, 5” in diameter and 3” in height, in a housing with an entrance window made of beryllium. The nominal energy range of gamma-ray measurements covers the interval from 12 keV up to 10 MeV. The instrument operates in two main modes: background measurements and triggered burst detections. While in the “background” mode, the count rates are recorded in three energy windows G1 (12–45 keV), G2 (45–190 keV), and G3 (190–770 keV). The time resolution of such observations is 2.94 s. When the count rate in the G2 window exceeds the 6$`\sigma `$ trigger threshold the instrument is switched into the “burst” mode. The count rates in the three energy windows are recorded with time resolution from 2 ms up to 256 ms. These time histories, of total duration 230 s, also include 0.512 s of pre-trigger history. The spectral measurements are carried out in two energy intervals, 12–760 keV and 200 keV – 10 MeV, with 64 spectra being recorded for each interval over the 63-channel quasilog energy scale. The first four spectra are measured with a fixed accumulation time of 64 ms in order to study short bursts. An adaptive system varies the accumulation time for next spectra from 256 ms to 8.192 s depending on the current count rate in the G2 window. A detailed description of the Konus-Wind instrument and its operational modes is given in Aptekar et al. (1995). The gain of the Konus-Wind detectors has slowly decreased during the long period of operation. Instrumental control of the gain was exhausted in 1997. The low energy threshold grown to 20 keV for the S1 detector and to 17.5 keV for the S2 detector, from the original 12 keV. For convenience of comparison, the data for fluences and peak fluxes have been reduced to a 15 keV threshold. Results of the Konus-A experiments were used for the analysis of several short bursts in the absence of the Konus-Wind data. The spectrometric detectors of the Konus-A instruments are identical to the Konus-Wind detectors. The Konus-A experiments were carried out on board the low-orbiting spacecraft Kosmos-2326 (1995–1997) and Kosmos-2367 (1999–2001).

## 3 DATA PROCESSING

The process of gamma-ray photon spectral deconvolution from the count rate spectra is based on the Monte Carlo response function calculations and the results of the laboratory calibration described by Terekhov et al. (1998). The response functions of the Konus-Wind detectors were calculated in the energy range 5 keV – 10 MeV for angles of incidence in the 0–90 range. The angles between the GRB direction and the detector’s axis (GRB angles) have been determined using IPN or BATSE localizations. The ratio of the S1 and S2 detector count rates were used to estimate the GRB angle in those cases when GRBs were not localized. The dependence of the GRB angle on the S1/S2 ratio was derived from bursts with known localization. It allows the evaluation of the GRB angle for bursts with an unknown localization with an accuracy of 5–20. The deconvolution procedure (Terekhov et al. 1998) permits fits to the bursts spectra using different proposed models or their combinations. Most of the appropriate spectral models of GRBs were considered by Preece et al. (2000). For convenience, we follow their notation:

1. The power law model (PL):

$$f(E)=\mathrm{d}N(E)/\mathrm{d}E=A(E/100)E^\alpha $$
2. The broken power law model (BPL):

$$f(E)=\{\begin{array}{cc}A(E/100)^\alpha ,\hfill & \text{if }EE_b\hfill \\ A(E_b/100)^\alpha (E/E_b)^\beta ,\hfill & \text{if }E>E_b\hfill \end{array}$$
3. The COMP model:

$$f(E)=A(E/100)\mathrm{exp}(E/E_0)$$
4. The GRB model:

$$f(E)=\{\begin{array}{cc}A(E/100)^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(E/E_0),\hfill & \text{if }E(\alpha \beta )E_0\hfill \\ A[(\alpha \beta )E_0/100]^{(\alpha \beta )}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \alpha )(E/100)^\beta ,\hfill & \text{if }E>(\alpha \beta )E_0\hfill \end{array}$$

where: $`A`$ is the intensity coefficient in photons s-1cm-2keV-1, $`E_b`$ is the break energy in keV, $`E_0`$ is the energy parameter in keV and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are the spectral indexes, $`E`$ is the photon energy in keV.

## 4 CATALOG

### 4.1 Catalog Structure

The catalog contains tables, a set of figures with the time histories and energy spectra, and some statistical distributions.

Table 1 lists the main characteristics of the events. The first three columns specify burst order numbers, burst names according to the date of appearance, and trigger times T0. The burst duration T90 measures the duration of the time interval during which 90% of the total observed counts in the energy windows G2+G3 were detected. The next two columns present values of peak fluxes and fluences. GRB fluences are calculated for emission observed above 15 keV. Peak fluxes are calculated using an average spectrum accumulated in the time interval around the peak. The seventh column presents the energy interval for which fluence and peak flux have been calculated. The last column presents information about the burst localization. The events localized by BATSE are marked “B” with the trigger number (Paciesas et al. 1999). The bursts localized by the IPN have the references on the Gamma-Ray Burst Coordinates Network (GCN) Circulars with the list of spacecraft or experiments which detected the burst (U—Ulysses, K—Konus (“Wind”), N—NEAR).

Table 2 contains the spectral data. The first two columns indicate the burst names and trigger times. The third and fourth columns indicate the start and stop times of the spectral measurements. The fifth column contains the energy interval in which the energy spectra were fitted. The sixth column indicates the type of spectral model used for fitting. The last four columns contain the parameters of spectral model 111In case the error of paremeter is not given, the parameter was fixed when fitting: A, $`\alpha `$, $`E_0`$, $`\beta `$ (in the notation of section 3).

A set of figures, from Fig. 1 up to Fig. 164, includes time histories and deconvolved background-subtracted photon spectra (panels “a” and “b”), respectively, for observed bursts. Time histories are usually given for the three energy windows G1, G2, and G3 together with the count rate ratios G2/G1 and G3/G2. Energy spectra were accumulated in the indicated time intervals. On the time history graphs, these intervals are marked by two vertical dotted lines.

### 4.2 Afterglows of short bursts

The early afterglows of short GRBs are observed for 11 of 130 short bursts. These afterglows appear in time intervals from several seconds up to 100 seconds after the trigger. Characteristics of these bursts and their afterglows are collected in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3 contains the data for fluences and peak fluxes. The first three columns specify burst names according to the date of appearance, the figure number on which time history and spectral data are displayed, and trigger times T0. In the next columns, one of two lines presents characteristics of the burst. The other line contains characteristics of its afterglow. The energy intervals in which parameters of the burst and its afterglow have been determined are shown in the fourth column. The following columns present the time intervals of the fluence measurements, the fluences, the time intervals of the peak flux measurements and the peak fluxes.

Table 4 summarizes the spectral parameters of the bursts and their afterglows. Its first columns present burst names and trigger times T0, starting and ending times of the spectral measurements, and energy range covered. The next columns indicate the spectral model used for fitting, and parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`E_0`$ (in the notation of section 3). The multichannel energy spectra were obtained only in the initial stage of the afterglow for five of the eleven events in Table 4. These spectra are shown in Figures 93, 99, 103, 117 and 131. In the other cases, the spectra were too weak for meaningful values to be obtained. In these cases, accumulated count rates in the energy windows G1, G2, and G3 were used to estimate spectra using the procedure developed for the analysis of fast spectral variability of GRB emission (Mazets et al. 2000). These estimates are also given in Table 4.

An early afterglow search for all the other short bursts has been carried out using the background mode data. Summing the time histories for numbers of events has permitted improved statistics which reveal the existence of an afterglow in 60 per cent of the strongest events at time interval up to 250 seconds after the burst trigger. This results, suggesting that an early afterglow is a typical feature of short bursts will be considered further elsewhere.

Here we discuss only two examples, which show that the distinguishing between short bursts with an afterglow and the more common long bursts may not always be easy. The event GRB 000727 begins with a typical short hard peak, but 7 seconds later a second short peak appears with a power law energy spectrum that is typical of the final stage in the evolution of long bursts. GRB 000218 may be either a short burst with an afterglow or a long burst with an intense initial stage.

## 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Some statistical distributions of the main characteristics of the short GRBs are presented in Figures 165–172. The electronic version of the catalog is available at http://www.ioffe.ru/LEA/shortGRBs/Catalog/. It contains detailed information about the characteristics of the short GRBs archived as ASCII files.

This work was supported by Russian Aviation and Space Agency Contract, and RFBR grant N 01-02-17808.


text:
# Do LEP results suggest that quarks have integer electric charges?

## 1 Open heavy quark production in two-photon collisions at LEP2

As can be appreciated in figure (1), it is possible to reproduce the total cross section for the production of charm pairs at LEP2 by using contributions from both direct and resolved processes, at next-to-leading-order (NLO) in QCD. In the same plot we see that even with substantial contributions from resolved processes the theory is unable to reproduce the data for bottom quark production. The Standard Model prediction is a factor of 3 lower than the experimental results. It is clear from fig. (1) that perturbative physics alone is insufficient, in the SM, to reproduce the experimental results, this despite the theoretical predictions having some dependence on the input quark mass and the choice of renormalisation scale. Detailed measurements of the photon structure functions revealed the importance of their non-perturbative component - at low energies or transverse momentum it is impossible to disentangle the perturbative contributions from the non-perturbative ones. However, it seems a reasonable expectation that at the very high LEP2 energies the non-perturbative contributions should be small (that is certainly true for FCQ theories, see for instance ref. ). Plus, for charm or bottom quark production, the mass of these quarks being so large, we have a “natural” large scale for QCD processes. Once again, it seems reasonable to assume that perturbative physics should dominate. We will take this as our starting point and calculate only perturbative cross sections.

We will see in section 3 that single photon reactions give identical results for ICQ or FCQ theories. There we will give a general argument for why it is so but for the moment let us consider a particular example, that of the quantity $`R=\sigma (e^+e^{}q\overline{q})/\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$. We begin by noting that we do not observe quarks of a given colour individually, rather mesons or baryons containing them; as such the amplitude of the process $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ is the sum of the amplitudes for each quark’s colour,

$$(e^+e^{}q\overline{q})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(e^+e^{}q^i\overline{q}^i).$$
(1)
Now, the probability of “finding” a quark of a particular colour in the final state is $`1/3`$, so the cross section $`\sigma (e^+e^{}q\overline{q})`$ is proportional to the square of the modulus of the amplitude (1) multiplied by a factor of $`1/3`$ and the quantity $`R`$ is given by

$$R=\frac{1}{3}\underset{q}{}\left(\underset{\text{i=colours}}{}e_q^i\right)^2,$$
(2)
where $`e_q^i`$ is the electric charge of quark $`q`$ with colour $`i`$. It should be noted that in ICQ theories quarks have charges that depend on their colour index. An up-type quark, for instance, has charge $`(+1,+1,0)`$ for the quark’s colour indices $`(1,2,3)`$. For a down-type quark, the charge is $`(0,0,1)`$. It is then trivial to see that for both ICQ and FCQ theories we obtain the same contributions to $`R`$ ($`4/3`$ from an up-type quark, $`1/3`$ from a down-type one). The existing measurements of $`R`$ are not proof of FCQ - rather, they make a very good case for the existence of colour. Unlike $`R`$, the quantity $`R_{\gamma \gamma }=\sigma (e^+e^{}e^+e^{}q\overline{q})/\sigma (e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ (both processes going through the two-photon channel) gives very different results for both types of theory, namely (at tree-level):

$$\begin{array}{cc}R_{\gamma \gamma }^{FCQ}=\hfill & 3\underset{q}{}e_q^4\hfill \\ R_{\gamma \gamma }^{ICQ}=\hfill & \frac{1}{3}\underset{q}{}\left(\underset{\text{i=colours}}{}e_{q}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
Notice how the ICQ result reduces to the FCQ one when the quark electric charges do not depend on the colour. From equation (3) we deduce immediately that for an up-type quark we would have $`R_{\gamma \gamma }^{ICQ}/R_{\gamma \gamma }^{FCQ}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}/4`$ and for a down-type one, $`R_{\gamma \gamma }^{ICQ}/R_{\gamma \gamma }^{FCQ}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}`$. Given that the production of muon pairs occurs identically in both models the cross section for the production of charm pairs by photon-photon collisions in an ICQ theory is 9/4 the value of the same quantity calculated in an FCQ model. For bottom production, the ICQ cross section is 9 times greater than the FCQ one. At this point we are ready to compare ICQ and FCQ predictions for open heavy quark production - we follow the procedure of ref.  to calculate $`\sigma (e^+e^{}e^+e^{}q\overline{q})`$ in the Equivalent Photon Approximation . We use their suggested spectrum of Weizsäcker-Williams photons and cut-off on the photon’s maximum virtuality. We set the free quark production thresholds at $`(3.8\text{GeV})^2`$ (for charm quarks) and $`(10.6\text{GeV})^2`$ (for bottom quarks). In figure (2) we show the tree-level cross sections. The dashed lines are the FCQ results (in agreement with the values of ref. , the solid lines the ICQ ones. The comparison with fig. (1) is revealing - the ICQ theory not only describes as well the production of charm pairs, it also succeeds where the SM fails, the production of bottom quarks.

The QCD corrections to this calculation should improve the agreement, as we expect them to increase the tree-level cross section (by no more than 30% for the SM). In ICQ theories gluons generally acquire mass and electric charge; the QCD corrections will depend on the particular model we choose. We give two examples: in ref.  a model was considered with eight massive gluons of mass $`0.3`$ GeV to explain the $`\gamma \gamma `$ results from PETRA. More recently massive gluons of mass about 1 GeV were considered to explain the radiative decays of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons . For such reasonably low gluon masses we expect the NLO QCD corrections from the SM to be similar in form to those of the ICQ theory. A good estimate of the NLO QCD ICQ cross section is therefore to multiply the “direct” results of fig. (1) by factors of 9/4 and 9 for the charm and bottom quarks respectively. As can be seen from table 1 the agreement between data and these estimated ICQ predictions is, again, excellent.

Recently  an ICQ model with three massless gluons and five massive ones, with masses larger than $`76`$ GeV, was proposed. In such a model the gluon bremsstrahlung corrections will involve only three gluons, not eight. Also, given that the gluons’ mass is so large, an approximation to the one-loop cross section would be to consider the contributions of the massless gluons alone. So, from the results of ref. , an estimate of the one-loop QCD correction to the FCQ cross section would be

$$\sigma (\gamma \gamma q\overline{q})_{1loop}\frac{12\pi \alpha ^2e_Q^4}{s_{\gamma \gamma }}\beta \frac{3\alpha _s}{4\pi }\left[\frac{\pi ^2}{2\beta }\left(5\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right)+O(\beta )\right],$$
(4)
where $`s_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is the two-photon total energy squared and $`\beta =(14m_q^2/s_{\gamma \gamma })^{1/2}`$, with $`m_q`$ the quark mass. With three massless gluons the $`SU(2)`$ Casimir $`3/4`$ appears. Repeating the calculations that led to fig. (2) we see that this estimated correction increases the cross sections by no more than $`7\%`$. This is probably an underestimation of one-loops effects and it improves the agreement with the experimental results only slightly.

An exact calculation for particular ICQ models, including NLO QCD corrections, is clearly necessary at this stage. Such calculation could put bounds on the masses of the ICQ gluons (or the colour-breaking vevs of ref. ). As striking as the numerical agreement is the fact that we obtained these results from a purely perturbative ICQ theory. More detailed calculations or measurements would indicate if there is the need of a (small, surely) non-perturbative component to the cross sections at these high energies. A small resolved component seems necessary to improve the charm cross section, judging by our estimated results. Let us also emphasize that the analysis that led to the experimental data presented in refs.  assumed normal QCD backgrounds. Rigorously that analysis would have to be re-made assuming a gluon (massive or otherwise) background from an ICQ theory, but it seems reasonable to expect the end results would not be significantly different from those now available.

## 2 Inclusive hadron production in two-photon collisions at LEP2

Unlike the total $`c\overline{c}`$, $`b\overline{b}`$ cross section, even a leading order (LO) calculation for an inclusive process requires some non-perturbative input in the form of fragmentation functions. In fact, in inclusive processes we are interested, not in the result of the partonic interaction (like in the open channels) but rather on a specific hadron appearing from the hadronisation of quarks. For the reaction $`e^{}(P_1)+e^+(P_2)h(P_h)+X`$ via the two-photon channel the differential cross section for inclusive production of a given hadron $`h`$ (with four-momentum $`P_h`$, rapidity $`y`$ and transverse momentum $`p_T`$ is given, at LO, by

$$\frac{\sigma }{yp_T}=\frac{2p_T}{S}\underset{l}{}_{1V+VW}^1\frac{dz}{z^2}_{VW/z}^{1(1V)/z}\frac{dv}{v(1v)}f_{}(x_1)f_+(x_2)D_l^h(z,M_F^2)\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma \gamma l\overline{l}}}{dv}$$
(5)
where $`S`$, $`V`$ and $`W`$ are the usual Mandelstam variables, defined by $`S=(P_1+P_2)^2`$, $`V=1+T/S`$ and $`W=U/(S+T)`$, with $`T=(P_1P_h)^2`$, $`U=(P_2Ph)^2`$. We also define the partonic Mandelstam variables $`s`$, $`t`$, $`u`$ and $`v`$ using the four-momenta of the partons instead of that of the external particles: if $`P_1^\gamma `$, $`P_2^\gamma `$ and $`P_q`$ are the momenta of the photon emitted by the electron and positron and the momentum of the hadronising quark we have $`s=(P_1^\gamma +P_2^\gamma )^2`$, $`t=(P_1^\gamma P_q)^2`$ $`u=(P_2^\gamma P_q)^2`$ and $`v=1+t/s`$. $`s`$ is clearly the center-of-mass energy of the two-photon system. In equation (5) $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$ and $`z`$ are the momentum fractions carried by both photons and the hadron (thus defined as $`P_1^\gamma =x_1P_1`$, $`P_2^\gamma =x_2P_2`$ and $`P_h=zP_q`$), related to each other by $`x_1=VW/vz`$ and $`x_2=(1V)/z(1v)`$. $`f_{}(x_1)`$ and $`f_+(x_2)`$ are the probability functions for finding a photon inside the electron or positron with momentum fractions $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ respectively. $`D_l^h(z,M_F^2)`$ is the fragmentation function of a quark of flavour $`l`$ into a hadron $`h`$ carrying a fraction $`z`$ of $`l`$’s momentum. It is evaluated at an a priori unknown fragmentation scale $`M_F`$. Finally, the last term in this expression is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma \gamma l\overline{l}}}{dv}=\frac{2\pi \alpha ^2C_F}{s}\left[\frac{t}{u}+\frac{u}{t}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\frac{sm^2}{tu}4\left(\frac{sm^2}{tu}\right)^2\right],$$
(6)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the quark $`l`$ (set to zero if $`l=u,d,s`$) and $`C_F`$ is a colour factor, related to the fourth power of the quarks’ electric charges. For an FCQ theory, $`C_F`$ equals $`16/27`$ and $`1/27`$ for up and down type quarks respectively. For an ICQ theory, those factors become $`4/3`$ and $`1/3`$. The fragmentation functions $`D_h^l`$ are not known from first principles: they must be extracted from experimental data and are inherently non-perturbative in nature (though their evolution with the scale $`M_F`$ is governed by an Altarelli-Parisi type equation). For pions, for instance, NLO parameterizations were first given in . The current state-of-the-art fragmentation functions, parameterized to include scale dependence in a very useful manner, were elaborated by Kniehl et al  and will be used throughout this paper (at LO only for consistency, since we use the tree-level partonic cross section in eq. (5)).

At this point let us consider the current experimental data from the L3 collaboration for inclusive $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction at LEP2 . As is plain from fig. (3) there is a huge discrepancy between the NLO QCD SM prediction and the actual data for $`p_T5`$ GeV, a discrepancy that grows worse for higher values of $`p_T`$: for $`p_T17`$ GeV the SM prediction is roughly 6 times smaller than the experimental data. This is not a new fact: Gordon  compared the first NLO QCD calculation for inclusive $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction with MARKII data  and concluded that a discrepancy between theory and experiment at high $`p_T`$ was already present. The other important piece of information to retain from fig. (3) is that at low $`p_T`$, as expected, it is the non-perturbative resolved contributions that dominate, whereas at high $`p_T`$ the direct processes constitute the bulk of the cross section. We will perform only a LO perturbative calculation so we cannot expect to find good agreement in the low $`p_T`$ region - but an ICQ theory should increase the high $`p_T`$ agreement considerably. Consider: in an ICQ theory the partonic cross section $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma q\overline{q}}`$ in eq. (5) is multiplied by a factor of 9/4 (vis a vis the FCQ cross section) for q = u, c and a factor of 9 if q = d, s, b. However, unlike the open channel, we do not expect the ICQ cross section to be given simply by an overall multiplicative constant times the FCQ result - in fact, the charm quark contribution to eq. (5) does not “kick in” until $`s`$ has values superior to the charm production threshold (set to 2.97 GeV in the fragmentation functions of ref. ). Likewise the bottom contribution only affects the cross section for $`s`$ larger than the $`b\overline{b}`$ threshold, set to 9.46 GeV. Because $`s=p_T^2/z^2v(1v)`$ the ICQ contributions are therefore larger, compared to the FCQ ones, for larger $`p_T`$: for instance, if above the charm threshold the FCQ charm contribution is, say, $`X`$, the ICQ term will be $`9X/4`$. Above the $`b\overline{b}`$ threshold the bottom contribution would be $`Y`$, so the FCQ cross section would be given by $`X+Y`$; the ICQ one would thus equal $`9X/4+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9}Y`$. So, the ICQ cross section is always larger than the FCQ one, and the ratio between the two is expected to grow with $`p_T`$. This behaviour is exactly what we need to explain the discrepancy in fig. (3) - multiplying the direct FCQ cross section by a single numeric factor would be useless, but the ICQ prediction is that that factor increases with the value of $`p_T`$.

We follow closely the calculation of ref. , adopting their Weizsäcker-Williams  spectrum; the LO fragmentation functions of  are used with the fragmentation scale initially set to the standard value $`M_F=p_T`$. The tree-level cross section we present in figure (4) is in agreement with the results of . Multiplying the partonic cross sections by the appropriate factors gives us the ICQ cross section - it is clear there is a considerable improvement over the FCQ prediction for high $`p_T`$. Obviously, at low $`p_T`$ we do not agree (FCQ or ICQ) with the data. As explained that was to be expected, since in that region the resolved processes are dominant and we are not including them in this calculation. The horizontal error bars in this plot are calculated from the power law fits to the cross section performed by the L3 collaboration: for $`p_T1.5`$ GeV they found that the cross section goes like $`p_T^{4.1}`$ . With this power law it is a trivial matter to calculate the root mean square deviation for the $`p_T`$ bin intervals considered in the experiments. For instance, for the 15-20 GeV bin interval the mean value found is 17.36 GeV and the error bar we find is 1.4 GeV, which seems quite reasonable 111I thank Pablo Achard for clarifying this issue for me.. If, like Gordon , we push the fragmentation functions to their limit and evaluate each quark’s contribution at the lowest fragmentation scale allowed by the parameterizations of  ($`\sqrt{2}`$ GeV for the light flavours, the quark’s mass for the two heavy ones), we find, as he did, an increase in the cross section. The agreement with the data at high-$`p_T`$ is then found to be very good. This may seem an outré choice of fragmentation scale but it must be said it is as justified, in principle, as taking $`M_F=p_T`$ 222 Lest the reader thinks we are dishonestly favoring ICQ theories let them be assured that even considering the $`p_T`$ error bars and the same extreme choice of fragmentation scale the discrepancy between the data and the SM predictions remains immense.. This choice of scale, in fact, allows us to reproduce the data for $`p_T`$ as low as $``$ 3 GeV without the need for any resolved contributions.

We next consider the $`K_S^0`$ results from  \- these are perfectly reproduced by the SM predictions (see figure 3.b from ref. ) but we remark they do not extend to large values of $`p_T`$. It would be interesting to check if, for large $`p_T`$, one finds a discrepancy like that seen in the $`\pi ^0`$ cross section. For such low values of $`p_T`$ we cannot expect to fully reproduce the $`K_S^0`$ data but we must confirm if the ICQ hypothesis does not ruin a possible agreement with experiment (in other words, we need to verify that the ICQ predictions are not larger than the data). As we see in fig. (5), again the low-$`p_T`$ points are not reproduced by the ICQ curve but interestingly, the experimental point immediately above the charm threshold is - this agrees nicely with our hypothesis in the previous section, in which we considered that charm production was a process already dominated by perturbative contributions. Recent results for inclusive charged hadron production in two-photon collisions  have also revealed large discrepancies between the SM predictions and the experimental results. For charged kaons our results are shown in fig. (6). Again, we see that the ICQ calculation with the standard choice $`M_F=p_T`$ improves the agreement with the experimental results; the same choice of lowest possible fragmentation scale gives very good agreement for all values of $`p_T`$ larger than about 2 GeV, except for the final point 333The error bars shown in fig. (6) were calculated in the same manner as those of fig. (4).. The deviation there is small and would surely be overcome if NLO contributions were taken into account. More problematic are the charged pion results, as this is the channel for which the deviation between SM prediction and experimental result is largest - a factor of almost 40, judging from fig. (7). We see from fig. (8) that with the “normal” choice of fragmentation scale the ICQ theory only fits the data until $`p_T6`$ GeV. Pushing the fragmentation functions to their limit we get agreement up to about 12 GeV, but a large discrepancy remains for the experimental point with the highest value of $`p_T`$, a factor of about 3. One could say that it is impressive enough that with a tree-level calculation alone we passed from a factor of 40 to a factor of 3, but the disagreement with the data remains.

A general comment about these results: they are strongly dependent on the fragmentation functions, as we showed by varying the fragmentation scale. The improvement over the FCQ predictions, regardless of that dependence, is unequivocal, but good agreement with experimental results is achieved in three cases only with a peculiar (if allowed) choice of scale. The disagreement we found for the case of charged pions might have to do with a feature observed by the L3 collaboration - they compared, in ref. , the $`\pi ^\pm `$ data obtained with the $`\pi ^0`$ results from ; it was expected that the ratio between both sets of data points should be around 4, a factor of 2 due to doubled $`\eta `$ coverage for charged pions - an assumption verified by the data, see figure (3) of  \- and a factor of 2 from the assumption in the fragmentation functions of  that $`D_q^{\pi ^0}(z,M_F^2)=D_q^{\pi ^\pm }(z,M_F^2)/2`$. Now, this latter assumption is well motivated by various sets of experimental data (see  and references therein) but the fact remains that (see figure (2.b) of ) for $`p_T4`$ GeV the ratio between $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`\pi ^0`$ data seems to be centered around 6, not the expected value of 4. So perhaps the data is showing us that the assumption relating the fragmentation functions of neutral and charged pions is incorrect in this domain of $`p_T`$ and $`s`$. The question remains open. Another important remark: these are LO results. The NLO fragmentation functions are not largely different from the LO ones, but clearly a NLO calculation in specific ICQ models is necessary. Finally, agreement with the high-$`p_T`$ data is found but the question remains as to whether one hasn’t destroyed the agreement found for small values of transverse momentum within the SM, where non-perturbative calculations dominate. The obvious comment to make is that the resolved contributions considered in refs.  were calculated in the context of the SM; to verify whether an ICQ model agrees with the data for low $`p_T`$ it would be necessary to repeat those calculations within the framework of the particular model under study.

## 3 Evidence for fractional quark charges

The SM is an extraordinarily successful theory, a fact reinforced by precision measurements agreeing with two and three loop calculations made in the framework of the Glashow-Weinberg-Salam theory. And yet, as we shall shortly see, direct experimental evidence for fractional electric quark charges is very limited. This is not surprising: due to confinement we have no direct access to quarks and must study the results of their hadronisation, a task complicated by non-perturbativity at low energies. An overview of the experimental evidence for the nature of quarks’ charges was done elsewhere , we analyze in detail some of the evidence for FCQ usually quoted in the literature and try to argue that ICQ models are not excluded by it. Before we start we point out that in what concerns purely leptonic processes both models are obviously identical.

$``$ Single photon processes: as was mentioned in section 1 the $`R`$ quantity is usually presented as evidence for FCQ; and yet we showed it is predicted identically for both FCQ and ICQ theories. This is an example of an interesting feature of ICQ theories - for any process involving a single photon they mimic FCQ models (at tree level at least). This can be shown in a general manner if we recall that in ICQ theories, due to different gauge symmetry breaking, the electromagnetic current $`J_\mu ^I`$ is the sum of two pieces: $`J_\mu ^I=J_\mu ^F+J_\mu ^8`$ where $`J_\mu ^F`$ is the usual FCQ current, corresponding to the electric charge operator $`Q_F=T_3+Y/2`$. $`J_\mu ^8`$ is the extra ICQ contribution, non-zero only for particles with colour - the charge operator associated with it is $`Q_8=\lambda _8/\sqrt{3}=\frac{1}{3}\text{diag}(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2)`$, where $`\lambda _8`$ is the eighth Gell-Mann matrix. As a consequence in an ICQ theory the electric charge of a quark becomes colour dependent, for an up-type quark it is $`q_u=(+1,+1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ and for a down-type one, $`q_d=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1)`$. The fundamental thing to retain from this is the fact the ICQ current is the sum of the FCQ one with a term that is traceless in colour space. Now, we know colour is not observed in nature, only $`SU(3)`$ singlets. If the initial and final states of any given process are colour singlets then the basic tenets of quantum theory tell us that we must sum the amplitude on the colour indices and divide its square by the total number of colours (as if we were dealing with an interference experiment). The sum on the colours will correspond to taking the amplitude’s trace in colour space. Thus, for any process involving a single photon (a single current, then), the extra ICQ contribution is cancelled and the result is the same of an FCQ theory. The current $`J_\mu ^I`$ being the result of gauge symmetry breaking, this result holds for any order of perturbation theory as ICQ theories are renormalisable.

ICQ and FCQ theories are therefore indistinguishable for single photon processes (also single $`Z^0`$ processes - see ref. , for instance). This would in principle include deep inelastic scattering experiments (two-photon interactions in these are an extremely small correction to the main interaction) although in studying these one will have to take into account the different spectrum of gluons of ICQ models. ICQ theories also predict identical rates for (most) meson radiative decays. There is a wealth of data on radiative decays of heavy mesons (for reviews, see for instance ), but these involve dipolar transitions between different states of the quark bound states, with the emission of a single photon. And because a single photon is involved both ICQ and FCQ theories would have the same predictions for those processes. Of course, cascade decays with the emission of several photons are a succession of single photon decays and as such are identical in both models.

The only way to obtain a difference between ICQ and FCQ models in photonic processes is to consider a situation where at least two $`J^I`$ currents are involved; this will lead to a transition amplitude between two states $`|i>`$ and $`|f>`$ of the form $`<i|\mathrm{}J_\mu ^IJ_\nu ^I\mathrm{}|f>`$. The end result must still be a colour average but this time there will be a $`(J^8)^2`$ term which is not cancelled and produces a substantial difference between ICQ and FCQ, as was apparent in the values of $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$ found earlier.

$``$ Jet charges: Feynman and others  proposed a clever way of measuring the quarks’ electric charges using neutrino-nucleon inelastic scattering. In a $`\nu p`$ collision, if the final state includes a positron then an interaction with the exchange of a $`W^+`$ boson surely occurred and inside the proton only $`d`$ or $`s`$ quarks could interact with the $`W^+`$. Thus the jets produced in this reaction will almost certainly result from the hadronisation of an up-type quark and a measurement of their average charges should yield information about the quark’s own. The experiments were performed  and the results agree with fractional quark charges. How do ICQ theories fit in this picture? An ICQ theory such as the one proposed in  has $`W`$ bosons identical to the SM’s so the partonic interactions would not be different. But once again ICQ and FCQ predictions are found to be the same and the explanation is essentially the same used in single-photon processes: because no individual colours are observed the result of any attempt to measure a quark’s charge in this manner will be the colour average of the electric charge; for an up-type quark the result of a jet-charge measurement should then be

$$Q_{up}^{jet}=\frac{1}{3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}q_{up}^i=\frac{1}{3}(1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})=\frac{2}{3},$$
(7)
and likewise for a down-type quark, with the result $`1/3`$. So, though ingenious, jet-charge measurements do not allow us to distinguish between ICQ and FCQ models.

$``$ Meson radiative decays: we already discussed dipolar transitions in heavy mesons and argued they are predicted identically in both ICQ and FCQ models. There are however many experimental results of two-photon meson decays and these could in principle distinguish between both models. An important case is the decay of $`\eta `$ mesons into two photons, which have been used in the past as evidence against ICQ theories . This is based on the fact that a simple PCAC analysis of such decays yields for its width the expression

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \gamma }^X=\left(\underset{\text{colour}}{}<e_q^2>\right)^2\frac{\alpha ^2}{32\pi ^3}\frac{m_X^3}{f_X^2},$$
(8)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, $`m_X`$ and $`f_X`$ are the mass and decay constant of the meson under consideration and $`<e_q^2>`$ the mean value of the squared charges of the quarks in the state given by the meson’s wave function. At this point, in a simple approach, one considers the so-called “nonet symmetry”, that is, the equality of the decay constants for the mesons belonging to the same flavour multiplet. The emblematic cases for comparison between ICQ and FCQ theories are the pion, the $`\eta _1`$ and the $`\eta _8`$ states, so we assume $`f_1=f_8=f_\pi `$. It is simple to show that for the pion and $`\eta _8`$ states the widths are the same for both cases but, for the $`\eta _1`$, the ICQ width is 4 times larger than the FCQ one. The first obvious retort to this “evidence” against ICQ theories is that it relies heavily on untested theoretical assumptions, to wit the equality of the decay constants. There is in fact no a priori reason why nonet symmetry should hold - in a naïve quark model such an assumption might be plausible if the physical mesons $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ (which result from the mixing of the $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _8`$ states) were ideally mixed but as argued in ref.  that is hardly the case. Further, more elaborate calculations have found serious deviations from nonet symmetry - for instance, using a Hidden Local Symmetry model, the authors of ref.  have found $`f_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.4}f_8`$. Chanowitz  deduced equations for a $`\xi `$ parameter ($`\xi =1`$ for FCQ, $`\xi =2`$ for ICQ) in terms of experimentally measured quantities which were in principle independent of the nonet symmetry hypothesis and seemed to favour FCQ over ICQ. The problem there is that from the start those equations were less reliable if the theory being tested was ICQ. And it was shown later that even for the “normal” FCQ theory Chanowitz’s equations could not be applied in a naïve manner as they did not take into account the existence of a more complex mixing between $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _8`$ . Pseudoscalar meson decays are an exceedingly difficult field of study, where great doubts still persist. For instance, different groups claim evidence for the presence of a significant gluon component in the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ states  or against it .

Heavier quarkonia two-photon decays have also been studied in detail but one finds a situation similar to the lighter mesons - the FCQ prediction is ,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta _c\gamma \gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\mathrm{\Psi }e^+e^{})}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}3}Q_c^2\frac{|\eta _c(0)|^2}{|J/\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|^2}.$$
(9)
If one assumes the equality of the meson’s wave functions at the origin (the same hypothesis that nonet symmetry is based on) the FCQ prediction is a factor of $`4/3`$, whereas the ICQ result would be 3. The current experimental values favour the FCQ result. However, to obtain this “prediction” we needed to make an extra assumption regarding the (unknown) wave functions of quark bound states, and such an assumption is an oversimplification: it has been shown  that the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma \eta _c`$ magnetic transition is substantially underestimated if one assumes both particles’ wave functions are identical. Theoretical calculations of the $`\eta _c`$ two-photon amplitude also vary considerably (from 5 to 10 KeV , the experimental value being $`7.2\pm 1.2`$ KeV, depending on whether one uses QCD sum rules  or a Bethe-Salpeter formalism ). In fact, the authors of ref.  find considerable differences between both mesons’ wave functions. With the charm quark mass dependence taken into account in corrections to eq. (9), we find that if the $`\eta _c`$ and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ wave functions differ by about only 20%, the current experimental results would actually favour ICQ theories. Like in the lighter mesons, then, the theoretical description of the mesons’ structure is much more complex than simple formulae like (9) lead to believe. With this in mind we must ask ourselves, are we testing the character of the quarks’s electric charges or our models about their bound states? We argue that this uncertainty leaves room for speculation on ICQ models.

$``$ Final state radiation in hadronic interactions: Brodsky and collaborators  suggested an interesting method for establishing the character of the quarks’ charges, by measuring the asymmetry between deep inelastic scattering of the proton using electrons or positrons. The difference between the cross sections for the processes $`e^{}pe^{}\gamma X`$ and $`e^+pe^+\gamma X`$ would select the Bethe-Heitler-Compton interference term, proportional to the cube of the partons’ electric charges at tree-level. This would in principle, then, provide us with a clear measurement of the values of the quarks’ charges. The initial experiments  were inconclusive, with results that could even be seen favoring the ICQ models. Further experiments were conducted, adapting this idea to final state radiation measured in $`e^+e^{}\text{2 jets}`$ , and still, the results were inconclusive. A detailed theoretical analysis of these results was given in refs. , where it was shown that the proposed measurements were not sensitive to the model considered.

The best argument against ICQ theories is an indirect one: the fact they (usually) predict gluons having mass and electric charge. The authors of refs. , for instance, choose a gauge symmetry breaking mechanism that gives mass to all gluons all the while preserving a global $`SU(3)`$ symmetry. Others have given mass to gluons by means of a four-vertex ghost field . Cornwall proposed a mechanism for dynamic generation of gluon masses within a theory with unbroken colour gauge symmetry . According to the Particle Data Group  the current limit on the mass of the gluon is “a few MeV”. That, however, is a theoretical bound, derived from arguments that assume all gluons are degenerate in mass . Also, as others have discussed , the arguments of  neglect to take into account the quantum field theoretical aspects of the gluon-quark interactions, which casts doubt over their final conclusions. The best experimental evidence for the existence of eight massless gluons is the precision measurements agreeing with two and three loop QCD calculations, from which it is established that the running of the strong coupling constant is in agreement with an $`SU(3)`$ $`\beta `$-function , on an energy range from $`2`$ to 200 GeV. This remarkable result has to be taken into consideration when considering ICQ theories, whatever model we consider has to reproduce the low-energy behaviour of $`\alpha _S`$. A trivial remark is that these experimental results do not, in principle, contradict the existence of light massive gluons, with masses of the order of 1 GeV (possibly even larger, considering the experimental uncertainty in the values of $`\alpha _S`$ at low energies). This because the coefficients of the $`\alpha _S`$ $`\beta `$-function at a given energy scale $`M`$ depend on the number of particles (both fermions and gluons) with masses smaller than $`M/2`$ \- a crude explanation for this well-known fact is to say that those are the particles “circling” in the loops that contribute to the renormalisation of the gluonic propagator. Particles with larger mass have been “integrated out” of the theory (a simple example of this is the change in the coefficient of $`\beta _{\alpha _S}`$ once the bottom quark threshold is crossed). It seems reasonable, then, that the $`\alpha _S`$ low-energy evolution does not preclude ICQ models such as those considered in refs. , with gluon masses smaller than $`1`$ GeV. In fact, in ref. , Field gives additional experimental arguments for the existence of massive gluons by showing that the decays of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mesons are better explained assuming a gluonic mass of about 1 GeV. Furthermore, we must remark that it is not a necessary implication that ICQ models have no massless gluons - in ref.  a model is constructed in which three gluons remains massless and neutral and five others gain mass, four of which are charged. This example shows that quarks having integer charge is not necessarily tantamount to gluons having mass and charge. Again, we would argue that these considerations - though hardly conclusive - leave us enough room to speculate on the possibility of ICQ models.

## 4 Concluding remarks

Any conclusions on this matter must necessarily be modest. The Standard Model, and QCD in particular, are established theories responsible for a wealth of extremely precise predictions, well confirmed by numerous experiments. The results from LEP2, however, are undeniable: at high energies, when our perturbative models should work best, they fail to reproduce the experimental results in four separate measurements. That these huge discrepancies occur in the two-photon channel is also very important - this is a direct probe into the electric charges of quarks and the exact place where one would expect sizeable differences between ICQ and FCQ models. They are a clear indication that something is wrong in our understanding of particle physics at very high energies, and we studied a particular solution for this problem. We have performed tree-level calculations using integer charged quarks and showed that such models reproduce the open production of heavy quarks in photon-photon collisions at LEP2. An estimation of higher order contributions to these cross sections was also made and indicates the agreement should remain if loop calculations are performed. ICQ theories also improve considerably the agreement between theory and experiments on the inclusive production of pions and charged kaons via the two-photon channel at LEP2. Perhaps we could discount these results as numeric coincidence if we had found agreement with the data on a single observable, but in this paper we studied four different channels. Very good agreement with the data is even obtained for $`\pi ^0`$’s and $`K^\pm `$’s by choosing the lowest fragmentation scale possible. We must remember that ICQ models improve the agreement with data for high $`p_T`$ values but we do not know what will happen in the low energy region once non-perturbative contributions are taken into account. We have reviewed the evidence for fractional quark charges and argued that it was not conclusive - the best arguments stem from two-photon meson decays but their analysis only points to FCQ under the assumption of stringent theoretical assumptions. Nonet symmetry has proven to be false and, for heavy mesons, the equality of wave functions is not supported by relativistic calculations. The issue of gluon masses is a fundamental one, but there are ICQ theories that have massless gluons, and others for which the gluonic masses are so small as to not challenge, for instance, the low energy evolution of the strong coupling constant. Evidence for gluons being massless is also indirect, whereas the two-photon results provide direct evidence on the quark charges. It is also worth mentioning that though ICQ models help explain the two-photon discrepancies found at LEP2, they will not, in principle, have an impact on the excess of open bottom quark production observed at HERA . Regardless of whether one believes in ICQ models or not, it seems clear they do a better job than the SM at describing the two-photon data. As such they are, to the best of our knowledge, at present the only explanation for the discrepancies observed at LEP2. We cannot and should not throw away the Standard Model on these experimental disagreements alone - but if as time passes we find ourselves unable to find an explanation for them in the framework of the SM new ideas will have to be considered. We believe it is worthwhile to make the observation that ICQ-type theories are a possible way out of this problem. If indeed no other alternative presents itself ICQ theories may have to be reconsidered. At this point more refined calculations, involving higher order contributions and those coming from resolved processes, are necessary to make sure that the agreement with the data we found here remains. It would also be desirable to obtain data on inclusive hadron production in the two-photon channel from LEP collaborations other than L3 - despite their excellent work in studying these channels, independent confirmation of large discrepancies with the SM would clearly be reassuring.

Acknowledgments: I thank Pablo Achard, Augusto Barroso, Mario Greco and Rui Santos for discussions and suggestions. This work was supported by a fellowship from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, SFRH/BPD/5575/2001.