text:
# Derivative moments in turbulent shear flows

## I Introduction

The postulate of local isotropy  implies an invariance with respect to spatial rotations of the statistical properties of small scales of turbulence. Even though the large scales are anisotropic in all practical flows, it is thought that the small scales at high Reynolds numbers are shielded from anisotropy because of their separation by a wide range of intermediate scales. At any finite Reynolds number, some residual effects of small-scale anisotropy may linger, but all proper measures of anisotropy are expected to decrease rapidly with Reynolds number. An understanding of the rate at which small scales tend towards isotropy is a basic building block in turbulence theory.

A particularly appealing manner of generating large-scale anisotropy is by a homogeneous shear characterized by a constant shear rate $`SdU/dy`$, where $`U(y)`$ is the mean velocity in the streamwise direction $`x`$, and $`y`$ is the direction of the shear. During the last few years, nearly homogeneous shear flows, both experimental  and numerical,  have examined the rate at which local isotropy is recovered with respect to the Taylor microscale Reynolds number, $`R_\lambda `$. The notation is standard: $`R_\lambda u^{}\lambda /\nu `$, $`u`$ is the velocity fluctuation in the longitudinal direction $`x`$, $`u^{}\sqrt{u^2}`$, $`\lambda ^2=u^2/(u/x)^2`$, $`\nu `$ is the kinematic viscosity and $``$ denotes a suitably defined average. The discussion has often been focused on the behavior of normalized odd moments of transverse velocity derivatives defined as

$`M_{2n+1}(u/y)={\displaystyle \frac{(u/y)^{2n+1}}{(u/y)^2^{(2n+1)/2}}},`$ (1)
where $`n`$ is a positive integer. The velocity derivatives are small-scale quantities, and symmetry considerations of local isotropy demand that the odd moments of transverse velocity derivatives be zero. In practice, they should decrease with $`R_\lambda `$ relatively rapidly. Though the postulate of local isotropy does not by itself stipulate this rate, simple estimates can be made by retaining the spirit of local isotropy and making further assumptions. Let us assume that the non-dimensional moments $`M_{2n+1}`$ depend on some power $`p`$ of the shear, which is the ultimate source of anisotropy in homogeneous shear flows, and non-dimensionalize the shear dependence by a time scale formed by the energy dissipation rate $`ϵ`$ and fluid viscosity $`\nu `$; this non-dimensionalization accords with Kolmogorov’s first hypothesis that small-scale properties depend solely on $`ϵ`$ and $`\nu `$. We may then write

$$M_{2n+1}(u/y)=S^pf(ϵ,\nu )R_\lambda ^p,$$
(2)
where it is further assumed that $`S=𝒪(u^{}/L)`$ and $`L`$ is the large scale of turbulence. Lumley  considered a linear dependence on the shear (i.e., $`p=1`$). This yields an inverse power of $`R_\lambda `$ for the decay of all odd moments. The choice $`p=1`$ accounts for the dependence of the sign of the odd moments on the sign of $`S`$ in a simple manner.

The existing experimental and numerical data on the skewness of the transverse velocity derivative are collected in Fig. 1. Data from any given source seem to fit a power-law of the form

$`M_3(u/y)R_\lambda ^m`$ (3)
with $`m`$ differing from one set of data to another. Though the power-law is not a particularly good fit for the totality of the data, the average roll-off seems to be less steep than the inverse power discussed above. Atmospheric data at much higher Reynolds numbers  are consistent with this slower rate of decay.

The situation with respect to the hyperksewness, $`M_5`$, is as follows. Two independent laboratory experiments in nearly homogeneous shear flows  draw different conclusions on the $`R_\lambda `$ behavior of $`M_5`$. On the one hand, Shen and Warhaft  find no dependence on $`R_\lambda `$ in the range between $`10^2`$ and $`10^3`$. On the other hand, Ferchichi and Tavoularis  regard their data to be essentially consistent with expectations of local isotropy. (For one perspective on this difference, see Warhaft and Shen ). A collection of all known data is given in Fig. 2. The overall impression from the figure is that, while there is probably a weak decreasing trend for $`R_\lambda >300`$, the hyperskewness does not diminish perceptibly even when $`R_\lambda `$ is as high as 1000. Shen and Warhaft  measured the seventh normalized moment of the velocity derivative and found that it increased with $`R_\lambda `$ instead of decreasing.

Such findings have been interpreted (e.g., Refs. 4 and 5) to mean that, in the presence of large-scale shear, small-scale anisotropy persists to very high Reynolds numbers. The intent of this paper is to clarify, at least partially, the simultaneous role played by shear, intermittency and the Reynolds number—all of which have an impact on trends displayed by odd derivative moments.

We now consider in Sec. II the issue of intermittency versus anisotropy. In Sec. III, we highlight the effects of shear by discussing the limiting cases of large shear and local isotropy, and argue that $`R_\lambda `$ determines the state of the flow only partially. In Sec. IV the derivative skewness data are plotted in the plane spanned by the non-dimensional shear parameter $`S^{}`$ and $`R_\lambda `$, where we use the definition

$$S^{}=Su^2/ϵ.$$
(4)
This broader perspective may help resolve some seemingly contradictory claims on the recovery of isotropy of small scales.

## II Intermittency versus anisotropy

A large number of measurements have shown convincingly that high-order $`even`$ moments of small-scale features of turbulence increase with $`R_\lambda `$. Consider the longitudinal velocity derivative $`u/x`$. The product of its second moment and fluid viscosity is essentially the energy dissipation, which is known to remain independent of $`R_\lambda `$ when $`R_\lambda `$ exceeds some moderately high value (see Refs. 14,15). On the other hand, all high-order moments of longitudinal velocity gradients grow with $`R_\lambda `$ (see, for example, the compilation in Ref. 16 of the data on the flatness factor of $`u/x`$). Sixth and higher order moments increase at increasingly faster rates with $`R_\lambda `$. These growths are attributed to the intermittency of small-scale turbulence. At the present level of our understanding, intermittency is independent of anisotropy effects. Therefore, just as the growth of high-order even moments with increasing $`R_\lambda `$ is unrelated to anisotropy, it is legitimate to ask if, at least in part, the slower-than-expected decay—or even modest growth—of odd moments, may be related to intermittency.

To separate intermittency effects from those of anisotropy, at least in some approximate way, it is useful to plot the ratio $`M_{2n+1}(u/y)/M_{2n+1}(u/x)`$. It is plausible to assume that the $`R_\lambda `$-growth due to intermittency effects is the same for the moments of $`u/x`$ and for the moments of $`u/y`$, the intermittency effects of odd moments of $`u/y`$ are cancelled in these ratios by those of $`u/x`$. Though this not a rigorous statement, it is useful to see the outcome. Figure 3 shows the results. It is clear, despite large scatter, that all the moments show a tendency to diminish with Reynolds number. The odd-moments in Fig. 3 are normalized by powers of their respective variances. It would have been desirable to plot ratios of unnormalized, or “bare”, moments of the two derivatives, but Ref. 4 does not include those data. In any case, this should not make much difference because $`(u/x)^2/(u/y)^2`$ is essentially a constant at high Reynolds numbers.

This same issue can be rephrased and reexamined in a somewhat different light. When we consider the moments such as skewness and hyperskewness, we usually normalize them by the appropriate power of the variance of the variable. This is perfectly reasonable for Gaussian or near-Gaussian variables, but not so for intermittent quantities with highly stretched tails. Perhaps a more reasonable alternative is to consider how an odd moment of a certain order varies with respect to the even moment just below or just above, or the geometric mean of those just below and just above. We illustrate the results of this consideration for the third, fifth and seventh order moments of $`u/y(=x)`$ in Fig. 4. The lack of data on the eight moment of $`u/y`$ makes the analysis of the seventh moment incomplete. Nevertheless, it is clear that all these alternative ways of normalization show substantial decay. It is hard to be precise about the rates of decay, partly because of the large scatter and partly because the incomplete manner in which the seventh moments have been analyzed, but it is conceivable that increasingly high-order moments, within a given normalizing scheme, decay more slowly. At the least, a careful discussion of the restoration of anisotropy requires the proper inclusion of intermittency effects. This is our first point.

## III Shear effects in two limiting cases

It is reasonable to suppose that, to a first approximation, the mean shear $`S`$ and the viscosity $`\nu `$ determine the gross state of the flow. Expressing time units in terms of $`S^1`$, length units in terms of the integral length scale $`L`$, and the mean profile as $`𝐔=Sy𝐞_x`$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐯}{t}}+(𝐯)𝐯+Sy{\displaystyle \frac{𝐯}{x}}+Sv𝐞_x`$ $`=`$ $`p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Re_s}}^2𝐯+𝐟,`$ (5)
$`𝐯`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
where $`𝐯=(u,v,w)`$ and $`𝐞_x`$ is unit vector in the streamwise direction $`x`$. The volume forcing is denoted by $`𝐟`$. The two parameters may be expected to set the steady state fluctuation level and energy dissipation rate. It also follows that the derived parameters $`R_\lambda `$ and $`S^{}`$ adjust themselves dynamically, in ways that are understood only partially, to the imposed values of $`\nu `$ and $`S`$. We then expect

$`R_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`g_1(\nu ,S)=g_1(Re_s),`$ (7)
$`S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_2(\nu ,S)=g_2(Re_s),`$ (8)
where $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are unknown functions of their arguments.

All the homogeneous shear experiments to be discussed below have been done in air. This fixes the viscosity to be approximately constant, so we can test the dependence of $`S^{}`$ and $`R_\lambda `$ on the shear rate $`S`$. The relevant plots (Figs. 5 (a) and (b)) show no obvious trend but only large scatter. This scatter may be related in part to the fact that $`P/ϵ1`$ in some of the experiments, leading to nonstationarity. Here $`P`$ is the production of turbulent kinetic energy, defined as $`P=uvS`$ for homogeneous shear. In part, it demonstrates that the flow might depend additionally on initial conditions, $`𝐯^2_{t=0}`$, or the type of driving of small-scale fluctuations characterized globally by an input energy. From Eq. (5), the latter is given by

$`ϵ_{in}=𝐯𝐟.`$ (9)
We then get more complex relations such as

$`R_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_1(\nu ,S,ϵ_{in})=\stackrel{~}{g}_1(Re_s,ϵ_{in}),`$ (10)
$`S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g}_2(\nu ,S,ϵ_{in})=\stackrel{~}{g}_2(Re_s,ϵ_{in}).`$ (11)
If we add to Figs. 5 the atmospheric data from Refs. 9 and 10, the situation becomes even more complex. However, it is likely that, in such inhomogeneous flows, one has to take into account secondary factors such as convective effects (though conditions in which they are modest can always be chosen carefully). In laboratory experiments, secondary effects might arise from the use of specific passive or active grids for the generation of turbulence. Further differences can arise when measuring at a fixed point instead of following the downstream evolution. This discussion merely underlines the inadequacy of $`R_\lambda `$ as the sole indicator of the state of the flow. At the least, we have to possess some knowledge of the other parameters influencing the state of the flow before drawing firm conclusions on the recovery of isotropy.

To keep matters simple, we will focus below on homogeneously sheared flows. Because the initial conditions are not known in all quantifiable details, we shall tentatively stipulate a simple generalization of Eq. (1) in the form

$`S_3=\stackrel{~}{f}(R_\lambda ,S^{}),`$ (12)
and regard other effects as superimposed “noise” . If so, we should investigate the behavior of the derivative moments by keeping one of the two parameters fixed while varying the other, for example by fixing $`S^{}`$ and varying $`R_\lambda `$. This is the topic of the next section. However, it is useful to preface this consideration by examining two limiting behaviors in which some inequalities between $`R_\lambda `$ and $`S^{}`$ can be established.

### A Large shear case

Consider the case of large shear rate for which the coupling of the mean shear to the small-scale flow dominates. In the rapid distortion limit, namely $`S\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (5) becomes linear because the viscous term as well as the $`(𝐯)𝐯`$ term can be dropped, so that any shear rate dependence can be eliminated by the rescaling of the variables, e.g. $`tSt`$.

Our dimensional estimates are related to large but finite shear rates. For this case, the term representing the coupling of the turbulent velocity component to the mean shear is important and large in comparison to the nonlinear advective transport. Our situation corresponds to the case in which

$`\left|v_i{\displaystyle \frac{U_j}{x_i}}\right|\left|v_i{\displaystyle \frac{v_j}{x_i}}\right|.`$ (13)
For the homogeneous shear flow, we get for the left-hand-side of this equation

$`\left|v{\displaystyle \frac{U}{y}}\right|=|v|Sv^2^{1/2}Su^2^{1/2}S.`$ (14)
In the last step above, we have used the fact that the root-mean-square velocity in the streamwise direction is larger than that in the shear direction, as has been found in all numerical and physical experiments. The term on the right hand side can be estimated roughly as $`u^2/\mathrm{}`$ where the scale $`\mathrm{}`$ is characteristic of turbulent velocity gradients, and can therefore be assumed to be of the order of the Taylor microscale, $`\lambda `$. We then require

$`u^2^{1/2}S{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\lambda }}.`$ (15)
With $`ϵ=c_ϵu^3/L`$ and $`L/\lambda =Re_L^{1/2}/\sqrt{10}`$, and the constant $`c_ϵ𝒪(1)`$ for sufficiently large $`R_\lambda `$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}}{R_\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{200}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}.`$ (16)
In reality, $`c_ϵ`$ depends weakly on $`S^{}`$. For example, Sreenivasan  has examined the data and concluded that $`c_ϵc_o\mathrm{exp}(\alpha S^{})`$, where $`\alpha 0.03`$, is a good empirical fit. Since this dependence is quite weak, we have taken $`c_ϵ`$ to be a constant for simplicity. Presumably, if Eq. (14) holds, the effects of shear will always be felt no matter how high the Reynolds number.

### B Local isotropy limit

At the other extreme is the case in which local isotropy can be expected, a priori, to prevail. A suitable criterion (see Corrsin ) is that a sufficiently large separation should exist between the shear time scale, $`S^1`$, and the Kolmogorov time scale, $`\tau _\eta =(\nu /ϵ)^{1/2}`$. This can be written as

$`S\tau _\eta 1,`$ (17)
or as

$`S\tau _\eta =S^{}\sqrt{c_ϵ}\sqrt[4]{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}Re_L^{1/2}.`$ (18)
With $`c_ϵ𝒪(1)`$ and $`R_\lambda =(20Re_L/3)^{1/2}`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}}{R_\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt[4]{3}}{\sqrt[4]{200}}}0.35.`$ (19)
The implication is that local isotropy prevails for all $`S^{}/R_\lambda `$ substantially smaller than 0.35. For all other conditions, one should expect that the magnitude of $`S^{}`$ will play some role in determining how high an $`R_\lambda `$ is required for local isotropy to prevail. This explicit dependence on shear has been noted for passive scalars by Sreenivasan and Tavoularis; see their figures 2 and 3.

## IV The $`R_\lambda `$-$`S^{}`$ phase diagram

We now plot in Fig. 6 all available data on the skewness of the transverse derivative, $`u/y`$, on a phase plane consisting of $`S^{}`$ and $`R_\lambda `$. The conventional normalization factors in the definition of $`S^{}`$ are the total turbulent energy and its dissipation rate. This can be done quite readily for the numerical data, but experiments usually provide information only on the streamwise component of the turbulent energy and on the energy dissipation estimate from the local isotropy formula, $`ϵ=15\nu (u/x)^2`$. The error made in this estimate for the energy dissipation depends on the magnitudes of shear and $`R_\lambda `$, but it appears to be a reasonable approximation for the present conditions. We have recalculated for all numerical data the energy dissipation rate as in experiments. It is clear from the figure that there is no simple correlation between the two parameters $`S^{}`$ and $`R_\lambda `$.

We have replotted the same data in Fig. 7. Different symbols correspond now to different magnitudes of the skewness, as indicated in the legend, and not to different experiments. Superimposed are islands in shades of grey to obtain a rough idea of the surface plot of $`\stackrel{~}{f}(R_\lambda ,S^{})`$. We used an interpolation routine with local thin plate splines that can reconstruct a surface from scattered data. The data are sparse in most of the regions of the plane so any surface-fitting routine will introduce some peculiarities. For reasons explained above, we can expect that the derivative skewness will become small in the local isotropy limit (lower right corner) and that the values will grow above 0.8 in the large shear case (upper left corner). Although the latter fact is not reflected by the surface fit because the data points are absent there and almost all data points are in the intermediate region, we think that the surface plot is not unreasonable.

This plot offers additional perspectives. For instance, Fig. 1 is just a projection of the data on to the $`R_\lambda `$ axis and masks the fundamental effect of the applied shear (among other effects). We have marked in this figure the trends of the data sets of Warhaft and co-workers (parabolic solid line labelled by GW/SW) and of Ferchichi and Tavoularis (straight line labelled by FT), respectively. They show that the two experiments follow different paths: while the Ferchichi-Tavoularis data run directly down the ‘mountain range’, the Shen-Warhaft data seem to run in a kind of spiral around the ‘mountain’, presumably resulting in a slower decay of the skewness when projected on to the $`R_\lambda `$ axis. Finally, the two limiting regimes of Sec. III are also plotted. The local isotropy limit is not reached for any of the data. The large shear case is reached for very large $`S^{}`$. A threshold $`S_c^{}`$ grows when $`R_\lambda `$ increases; alternatively, local isotropy requires larger $`R_\lambda `$ if the shear parameter is larger.

## V Concluding remarks

Considerable attention has been paid recently to the fact that in shear flows the moments of transverse velocity derivatives do not vanish with Reynolds number as fast as was expected. We have introduced two considerations for interpreting these observations, invoking small-scale intermittency and the magnitude of the shear parameter. These two effects work in combination with the Reynolds numbers in determining the magnitudes of odd moments of velocity derivatives. The fact that the odd moments, when normalized by an appropriate power of the variance (a procedure steeped in studies of Gaussian processes), decay more slowly than expected should not be considered a priori as incontrovertible evidence against local isotropy. We believe that the broader perspective of this paper may explain some seeming contradictions that exist in the literature.

The conclusions we draw in this paper would be more definitive if the data spanned much higher Reynolds number range. This can be done with adequate resolution only in atmospheric flows at present. The existing measurements are in conformity with the discussion here, but it is difficult to be definitive because of the usual problems that often exist in atmospheric measurements. On the other hand, it seems quite feasible in numerical simulations to fix the Reynolds number and vary the shear parameter, even though the Reynolds number range may be limited. Such a study will tell us more about the restoration (or otherwise) of small-scale isotropy.

In the recent past, various efforts have been made to understand the effects of anisotropy through an SO(3) decomposition of structure functions and other tensorial objects (see Ref. 29 for the basic theoretical idea and Refs. 30-32 for implementations of the idea and further references). The method offers a transparent way of determining the degree of anisotropy in turbulent statistics. The relation between that effort and the present global picture needs to be explored.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank A. Pumir and Z. Warhaft for providing raw numbers for some of their published figures, and acknowledge fruitful discussions with A. Bershadskii, S. Chen, J. Davoudi, B. Eckhardt, R.J. Hill, S. Kurien, S.B. Pope, I. Procaccia (especially) and Z. Warhaft. J.S. was supported by the Feodor-Lynen Fellowship Program of the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation and Yale University. The work was supported by the NSF grant DMR-95-29609. Numerical calculations were done on a Cray T90 at the John von Neumann-Institut für Computing and on the IBM Blue Horizon at the San Diego Supercomputer Center. We are grateful to both institutions for support.


format: text

text:
# Observational clues for a role of circumstellar accretion in PMS X-ray activity

## 1 Introduction

The influence of accretion disks surrounding young PMS stars on their observed X-ray activity levels is presently debated. The topic has been investigated many times through imaging X-ray observations of star forming region but contradictory results are reported. Mentioning just a few recent examples, Feigelson et al. (2002) analyze Chandra ACIS-I data finding no indication that the presence of an accretion disk modifies activity levels of Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) stars. The same negative result, although somewhat controversial, is reported for IC 348 members by Preibisch & Zinnecker (2001, 2002), also using Chandra ACIS-I observations; by Lawson et al. (1996) for the Chamaeleon I cloud using ROSAT PSPC data; by Flaccomio et al. (2000) for NGC 2264 using the ROSAT HRI; by Grosso et al. (2000) for $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi again with the ROSAT HRI; by Getman et al. (2002) for NGC 1333 (ACIS-I).

On the other hand, Classical T-Tauri Stars (CTTS) belonging to the Taurus-Aurigae association are found to be sub-luminous in the X-ray band respect to Weak Lined T-Tauri Stars (WTTS) by both Neuhäuser et al. (1995) and Stelzer & Neuhäuser (2001). Flaccomio et al. (2002b), using Chandra HRC-I data, report a similar result, with high statistical confidence and at odds with Feigelson et al. (2002), for the rich ONC population. Other indications of a difference between CTTS and WTTS have been found in X-ray band variability characteristics and spectra. Namely, Stelzer et al. (2000) in Taurus-Aurigae, Flaccomio et al. (2000) in NGC 2264 and Flaccomio et al. (in preparation) in the ONC, all find that CTTS are more variable than WTTS. Some studies have also indicated that CTTS may have different X-ray spectral characteristics respect to WTTS: Tsujimoto et al. (2002) find that the mean $`kT`$ for CTTS is about 3 keV, compared to $`1.2`$ for WTTS. Such a large $`kT`$ difference may in part be due to a selection effect: in the X-ray selected sample of Tsujimoto et al. (2002) class II sources (CTTS) are significantly more absorbed respect to class III-MS sources (WTTS) and it is therefore possible that only the hardest CTTS have been observed. Other contrasting indications have been also presented: Kastner et al. (2002), using high resolution X-ray spectra of the 10Myr old CTTS TW Hydrae, derive a differential emission measure distribution peaking at $`0.3`$ keV and propose that the emission mechanism is related to matter accretion. No systematic difference in $`kT`$ between CTTS and WTTS is observed by Preibisch & Zinnecker (2002) in IC 348 members.

Are these contradictory results due to real differences between different star forming regions or to the different approaches used in analyzing and interpreting data? We will touch upon four important points that can affect the result: 1) accounting for the mass/$`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ dependence of PMS activity; 2) choosing a relevant accretion/disk indicator; 3) avoiding selection effects in the reference stellar sample; 4) converting observed X-ray photon detection rates to X-ray luminosities.

#### Mass/$`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ dependence.

It is possible that the failure to detect a difference in activity levels between stars with different circumstellar/accretion properties is due to the fact that the activity levels are also influenced by other stellar characteristics, and the various contributions have not been disentangled. In particular a dependence of mean $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ on stellar mass (or bolometric luminosity) has been widely found for PMS stellar groups. Most of the studies mentioned above compare the X-ray Luminosity Function (XLF) of CTTS with that of WTTS, both XLFs being computed from stellar samples comprising a wide range of masses. Such a procedure tends to hide possible differences because: 1) the presence and/or magnitude of the effect sought might depend on stellar mass; 2) if a different mass-$`L_\mathrm{X}`$ relation holds for these two classes, stars having the same $`L_\mathrm{X}`$, but different mass, will contribute to both XLFs. A more sensible approach, in order to eliminate this source of confusion (see e.g. Flaccomio et al. 2002b), is to compare XLFs of stars in restricted mass ranges; this however requires, for meaningful statistical comparisons, sufficiently large samples of well characterized members. To the same effect, considering that the ratio $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ is, for low mass PMS stars ($`3M_{}`$), on average much less dependent from mass than $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ (e.g. Flaccomio et al. 2002b), it is also sensible to compare the distributions of this latter parameter for the two classes. As an added advantage, $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ is arguably less sensitive to interstellar extinction corrections (although the newly introduced variable, $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$, also carries non-negligible uncertainties). Both of these approaches were successfully followed by Flaccomio et al. (2002b) to establish the difference in activity levels between accreting and non-accreting ONC members.

#### Disk/accretion indicator.

There is no widespread consensus on which indicator of presence of disk or of accretion is to be used to search for effects on activity levels. Some studies have correlated X-ray data with accretion indicators, such as the $`H_\alpha `$ or $`CaII`$ line emission. Others have instead employed circumstellar disk indicators such as near IR excesses (in K or L band). The relation between presence of disks and matter accretion phenomena is not yet fully understood. A statistical correlation between accretion and disk indicators is generally observed but it seems clear that not all IR detected disks are associated with accretion and it is also possible that the presence of accretion is not always related to a near-IR detectable disk (e.g. because of a large inner disk hole that suppress the K band excess or because of the disk view-angle). It is presently unclear whether X-ray emission levels are influenced by one (or both) of the two phenomena. It seems therefore reasonable to explicitly distinguish between the two. As a clarifying example, Preibisch & Zinnecker (2002) find statistically significant evidence that accreting stars in IC 348 have lower $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ respect to non accreting ones, but no evidence of a difference between stars with and without $`KL`$ color excess (a disk indicator). They consider these two results contradictory, maintain that the infrared excess gives a more realistic picture of the circumstellar properties of the T Tauri stars than the $`H_\alpha `$ emission111The reason Preibisch & Zinnecker (2002) do not trust $`H_\alpha `$ as an indicator are its time variability and the fact that part of the $`H_\alpha `$ flux can be of chromospheric origin. However variability should if anything tend to lower the significance of the difference between CTTS and WTTS and the chromospheric origin of part of the $`H_\alpha `$ flux should at most produce an effect opposite to that observed: the sample of strong $`H_\alpha `$ stars, interpreted as accreting stars, will be indeed contaminated by chromospherically active stars, which are also likely to have high coronal activity and thus $`L_\mathrm{X}`$. and attribute the detected difference in X-ray luminosity functions to selection biases. An alternative point of view would be that accretion and not the presence of an IR-detectable disk influences X-ray activity and the two are not simply related. We note that in other cases in which a difference in activity levels is reported the distinction was performed on the basis of accretion indicators: $`H_\alpha `$ in Taurus (e.g. Stelzer & Neuhäuser 2001) and $`CaII`$ in the ONC (Flaccomio et al., 2002b).

#### Parent sample selection.

Ideally, a complete and not-contaminated sample of members of a given SFR should be used to investigate the matter. However, this is in practice hardly possible. Understanding selection biases is therefore crucial: in the case of IC 348 discussed above, Preibisch & Zinnecker (2002) suspect that strong, easily detectable $`H_\alpha `$ emission may favor the inclusion in the reference stellar sample of optically (and X-ray) faint accreting stars and therefore artificially depress the mean $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ of CTTS. This, i.e. selecting members on the basis of their circumstellar/accretion properties, or in any other way that favors the selection of faint CTTS over that of WTTS, is indeed the main risk to be avoided, or accounted for, in such a study. Taking the approach of dividing the whole sample in narrow mass ranges (see above), this problem, usually worse for low mass, low $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ stars, is reduced for the higher mass ranges. Other member selection methods, are not likely to result in spurious results: selection through sensitivity limited X-ray observations, for example, will sample to the same minimum $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ both CTTS and WTTS (assuming similar X-ray spectra and absorptions), so that if the two underlying (i.e. complete) XLFs do not differ, the detection fraction of both classes will be the same and the two distributions of observed $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ will not differ either. Inclusion in the reference sample of contaminating non-members, usually low $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ stars, will depress the mean activity levels inferred for non accreting/disk-surrounded stars, therefore going in the direction of producing the opposite result respect to the observed one.

#### X-ray count-rate to $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ conversion.

X-ray telescopes detect photons in wide energy ranges. The conversion between detected count-rate and X-ray luminosity depends therefore on the incoming spectra. Given the low statistic of most X-ray sources with present day instruments and/or the lack of spectral resolution of some X-ray detectors, it is necessary to assume a source spectrum.222Even in the case of detectors with intrinsic spectral resolution, the low source counts practically prevent in many cases the determination from the data of a reliable spectral model. For coronal sources this usually reduces to assuming the $`kT`$ of a thermal emission spectrum and the hydrogen column density, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, of the absorbing material between the source and the observer. Differences in the way these two parameters are estimated can lead to significantly different conversion factors and therefore affect the result of our search for a difference between CTTS and WTTS. On one hand, systematic differences in the X-ray spectra ($`kT`$ and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$) of CTTS and WTTS might result, if not properly accounted for, in spurious results regarding the different X-ray luminosity of the two classes.333Differences in the intrinsic spectra would however be interesting ”per se” for the understanding of the physical mechanism that determines X-ray emission. On the other hand, significant random errors in the conversion could easily wash out an existing correlation between $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and accretion/disk indicators. In the works of Feigelson et al. (2002) and Getman et al. (2002), for example, the evidence presented against a difference of WTTS and CTTS is obtained using detector plane (non absorption-corrected) X-ray fluxes. Likewise Lawson et al. (1996) and Flaccomio et al. (2000), also obtaining a negative result, assume a single count-rate to flux conversion factor and therefore neglect any difference in absorption between sources. Flaccomio et al. (2002a, b) on the other hand, although assume a single $`kT`$ for all sources, correct for individual absorption values ($`N_\mathrm{H}A_\mathrm{V}`$), finding a positive result. Stelzer & Neuhäuser (2001) also correct for absorption (through a low energy hardness ratio) and find a positive result. Is it possible that a peculiarity in the $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ vs. $`A_\mathrm{V}`$ relation or in the intrinsic spectra of CTTS and WTTS results in artificially lowering the luminosities derived for CTTS respect to those derived for WTTS? Regarding the relation between X-ray and optical extinction, recent studies correlating $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, derived from X-ray medium resolution spectra, and optically derived $`A_\mathrm{V}`$ confirm the relation between the two and do not evidence any such difference (cf. Imanishi et al., 2001; Flaccomio et al., 2002a; Feigelson et al., 2002; Kohno et al., 2002). It is however possible, although presently not still fully established, that CTTS have harder X-ray spectra respect to WTTS (Tsujimoto et al., 2002). We may wonder how a different $`kT`$ would affect the luminosities we derive. Figure 1 shows the value of the conversion factors for the ROSAT HRI, as a function of $`kT`$ and $`N_\mathrm{H}`$. Qualitatively similar plots are obtained for the ROSAT PSPC and for the Chandra HRC-I, the two other instruments used for the observations discussed later in this paper. We observe that, for a given source $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, the difference in $`kT`$, if eventually confirmed, will indeed go in the direction of decreasing the inferred $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ of lower $`kT`$ sources respect to high $`kT`$ ones, thus potentially accounting for part of the observed differences between CTTS and WTTS. However it is also clear that for typical $`A_\mathrm{V}0.54.0`$ the mistake committed in not accounting for individual source temperatures could be at most of the order of $`0.10.2`$ dex, smaller than the difference between CTTS and WTTS found by Flaccomio et al. (2002b) in the ONC. We stress however that even if this effect were to be confirmed, therefore reducing the actual difference in luminosities respect to that inferred assuming a single $`kT`$, the difference between the X-ray emission of CTTS and WTTS would be confirmed, and the spectral differences would provide additional clues for the understanding of its physical origin.

In this paper, keeping the above four points in mind, we further discuss and extend the evidence for a role of accretion and/or disk in determining the observed X-ray activity level of ONC members, as already reported by Flaccomio et al. (2002b). In the light of newly available optical/IR data we then critically reanalyze the results obtained by Flaccomio et al. (2000) and Lawson et al. (1996), both of which concluded that stars surrounded by disks, in NGC 2264 and Cha I respectively, have the same activity levels as those that do not have a disk. Here we derive the opposite result.

The structure of this paper is as follows: in Sect. 2 we discuss the new observational evidence for a difference in activity levels between CTTS and WTTS belonging to the ONC. In Sect. 3 and Sect. 4 we then discuss the cases of NGC 2264 and the Chamaeleon I cloud. Finally in Sect. 5 we briefly summarize our results.

## 2 The ONC: an update

Our analysis method throughout this paper is based on the work of Flaccomio et al. (2002a, b) on the ONC. This cluster is arguably the best target available for our study because we have access to a rich and well characterized sample of members spanning a wide range of masses. We refer the reader to Flaccomio et al. (2002a, b) for a full description of the X-ray and optical data used here. The extinction limited sample ($`A_\mathrm{V}<3.0`$) discussed in this latter work has little field contamination and is complete almost down to the lowest stellar masses. Using the $`CaII`$ line ($`\lambda =8542\AA `$) as an indicator for circumstellar accretion, Flaccomio et al. (2002b) obtained with high statistical significance the result that low mass stars ($`M3M_{}`$) with this line in strong emission ($`EW<1`$) have systematically lower $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ values respect to stars with the line in absorption ($`EW>1`$).

Here we state that an analogous result is obtained, albeit with smaller significance ($`2.53\sigma `$), comparing the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ distributions of stars with large and small near IR excess ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(IK)>0.8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(IK)<0.4`$ respectively). The X-ray and optical/IR data are presented in Flaccomio et al. (2002a) and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(IK)`$ values are taken from Hillenbrand et al. (1998). Figure 2 and 3 shows the maximum likelihood $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ distributions for these two classes of stars in 6 different mass bins. The range of confidence with which we can exclude that the two distributions are randomly extracted from the same parent population, according to the tests in the asurv package (Feigelson & Nelson, 1985), is given inside each panel.

We also note that very similar results are obtained, both with the $`CaII`$ line and with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(IK)`$ as a discriminant, if only X-ray detected members are considered in the distribution functions. As reminded in the introduction, these latter results exclude that the difference in the distributions is due to the preferential selection of faint CTTS (which is anyway not expected given that the sample is not selected from either accretion or disk indicators).

## 3 NGC 2264

Stellar activity in NGC 2264 has been studied most recently by Flaccomio et al. (2000) through 6 different ROSAT HRI observations covering, in two different pointings, a large fraction of the star forming cloud. One hundred sixty nine distinct sources were detected, $`95\%`$ of which are estimated to be associated with members of the association. One of the main problem at the time of this work was the lack of good optical characterization of the members, so that, for example, lacking individual measurements, extinction toward sources had to be assumed uniform and placement of counterparts in the HR diagram was performed solely from optical photometric data, an error-prone procedure for PMS stars. Moreover the distinction between CTTS and WTTS was not well established, as indications on the NIR excesses were not available and $`H_\alpha `$ measurements were in most cases qualitative and non-uniform. Since that work new improved optical data have been recently published by Rebull et al. (2002). We therefore updated the previous analysis according to the general principles stated in the introduction.

### 3.1 The reference sample

We adopted optical data from tables 1 and 3 of Rebull et al. (2002). Out of the full list of 687 photometrically selected candidate members (i.e. the in cloud, in locus population defined by Rebull et al. 2002) we selected the 202 stars for which reliable spectral types and extinction ($`A_\mathrm{V}`$) estimates (through $`R`$ and $`I`$ photometry $`+`$ spectral types) were available. This latter is a subset of the full spectroscopic sample studied by Rebull et al. (2002), initially selected primarily from a list of I-band variable stars, with the addition of previously known candidate members based on their X-ray or $`H_\alpha `$ emission or on their proper motion. Our reference sample is therefore the intersection (logical and) of the photometrically selected member sample and of the spectroscopic sample. While the former is arguably free from selection biases in favor of faint CTTS, the degree of representativeness of the latter in this respect is less clear: $`H_\alpha `$ is however only a secondary selection criterion and I-band variability (periodic in $`>50\%`$ of the stars), although maybe more frequent in CTTS, does not obviously favor the inclusion of optically faint stars. Moreover the disk (CTTS) fractions Rebull et al. (2002) derive for the spectroscopic and the photometric sample (cf. their Table 6) are remarkably similar, suggesting that the former is not strongly biased toward CTTS.

Contamination of our reference sample from field stars may on the other hand be non negligible: according to preliminary proper motion data Rebull et al. (2002) report that $`50\%`$ of their photometric candidates are actually non-members. The spectroscopic sample, selected on the basis of PMS stellar characteristics, is expected to be less contaminated, although an estimate based on proper motion data is not provided. We recall (cf. Sect. 1) that field star contamination is expected to artificially lower the activity levels of WTTS.

We place stars in our reference sample in the HR diagram. Effective temperatures and bolometric corrections are estimated from spectral types and Kenyon & Hartmann (1995) conversions.444The effective temperature for spectral type A6 was modified from 8350 K to 8050. The former value seems to be at odds with the spectral type-$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ relation; we suspect a typographical mistake. We then evaluate bolometric luminosities from I band magnitudes. Out of the 202 spectrally characterized candidate members, 193 fall within the Siess et al. (2000) evolutionary model grid and have therefore been assigned a mass and an age.

The reference sample used for our following analysis comprises the 178 stars, out of these 193 candidate members characterized in terms of mass and age, that fall in the field of view of the X-ray observations described by Flaccomio et al. (2000).

### 3.2 X-ray data

We matched the photometric catalog of Rebull et al. (2002), out of which our reference member list is drawn, with the list of 169 X-ray sources published by Flaccomio et al. (2000). The identifications were carried out as described in Flaccomio et al. (2000), i.e. assuming as identification radii the the off-axis dependent X-ray source position error summed in quadrature to 1′′, i.e. a conservative estimate of the optical position error. Before performing the final identification we first registered the coordinate systems of the optical and X-ray lists by comparing the positions of 125 uniquely identified pairs ($`RA_\mathrm{X}RA_{\mathrm{opt}}=1.7^{\prime \prime }`$, $`Dec_\mathrm{X}Dec_{\mathrm{opt}}=1.9^{\prime \prime }`$). Sixty seven stars in our reference sample were identified with an X-ray source, 56 of which uniquely, while the the remaining 11 fell in the identification circle of an X-ray source along with other objects in the photometric catalog. To each of the 67 candidate members with X-ray counterparts we then assigned a Maximum Likelihood (ML) X-ray count rate: these are values computed by Flaccomio et al. (2000) in order to define a mean source brightness among 6 different observations. Due to source variability, five of these mean values are actually upper limits. The count rates of the 11 ambiguous identifications were also treated as upper limits and upper limits, computed as in Flaccomio et al. (2000), were also assigned to 111 X-ray undetected candidate members lying within the FOV of the HRI observations.

Finally we converted count-rates, measured and upper limits, to X-ray luminosities in the 0.1-4.0 keV band555Conversion factors to un-absorbed flux are computed using PIMMS (Portable, Interactive, Multi-Mission Simulator), version 3.0, available on-line at: http://asc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp. We assumed a thermal emission spectrum with $`kT=2.16`$ keV, close to recent estimates for PMS stars (e.g. Flaccomio et al., 2002b; Imanishi et al., 2001; Getman et al., 2002). The hydrogen column density was assumed proportional to the optical extinction measured individually for each star: $`N_\mathrm{H}=210^{21}A_\mathrm{V}`$. The distance was assumed to be 760pc like in Flaccomio et al. (2000). Figure 4 compares the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ derived by Flaccomio et al. (2000) to those derived here from the same count-rates. Our new estimates are $`0.3`$ dex higher respect to the old ones, with the main differences due to the assumed $`kT`$ (2.16 vs. 0.75 keV) and the increased absorption (mean $`A_\mathrm{V}0.45`$ vs. a constant $`A_\mathrm{V}=0.19`$) and a small difference, $`0.1`$ dex, due to the different spectral band in which $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ is computed.

### 3.3 Activity vs. circumstellar environment

We will now try to establish whether the activity levels of our sample of NGC 2264 candidate members depend on circumstellar properties, evidenced either by accretion or by IR disk indicators. We will use two indicators provided by Rebull et al. (2002): $`H_\alpha `$ equivalent width, $`EW_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$, and excess in the $`HK`$ near IR color, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(HK)`$. In the former case we will consider as accreting those stars with $`EW_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }>5`$ and non-accreting those with $`EW_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }<5`$666We choose 5 instead of the more customary 10 as $`EW`$ threshold because we so obtain a better distinction between activity indicators of the two classes. As noted in the introduction lowering the threshold could, if anything, result in a reduction of the inferred difference in activity levels; the most active WTTS might indeed have strong chromospheric $`H_\alpha `$ emission and be mistaken for CTTS.. In the latter case we take as threshold $`\mathrm{\Delta }(HK)=0.15`$ with stars showing larger excesses considered as surrounded by circumstellar disks.

Figure 5 shows the scatter plots between $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and stellar mass and $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ and mass, for the accreting and non-accreting stars. Similarly to what seen in other SFRs, $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ is seen to correlate with stellar mass, although the relation appears somewhat fuzzier in this case respect to, e.g., the ONC or the Chamaeleon I cases (see below). A systematic difference between the two classes is not readily apparent. However, given the large number of upper limits a more quantitative analysis is needed. Figure 6 shows XLFs and $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ distributions for the two $`H_\alpha `$ separated stellar classes, in two different mass ranges, marked in Fig. 5 by vertical lines, and for the whole sample. In all cases the distributions of accreting stars appear to lie below those for non-accreting ones. Statistical test (in the asurv package) confirm such differences with varying degree of confidence (results of the tests are given in the figure, along with the number of detection and upper limits that enter in the distributions; the same information is repeated in the first part of Table 1, where the results of other tests described below are also reported). Particularly significant is the difference in $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ for the whole sample ($`>3.9\sigma `$). Such a difference might however result from a larger fraction of low mass, and low $`L_\mathrm{X}`$, accreting stars (see Fig. 5). In the two narrower mass ranges, the result is however retrieved, with greater than $`3\sigma `$ confidence in the $`0.51.0M_{}`$ mass range. The difference is also observed in $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$. Note that, as pointed out above, our reference sample may be significantly contaminated by field stars, and this would tend to depress the non-accreting stars distributions, thus lowering the significance of the result. If we repeat the same analysis including only stars confirmed as members by their IR excess ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(IK)>0.3`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }(HK)>0.15`$), $`H_\alpha `$ emission ($`EW>5`$) and X-ray detection, we indeed find even more significant differences. Particularly interesting are the differences in $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$, because they are less likely to be influenced by selection effects, a concern for this latter restricted sample. Table 1 reports the results of these tests.

Table 1 also reports the results of the comparisons between the stars with and without near IR excess, for the same mass ranges and the two stellar samples described above. The same results is retrieved: stars showing a $`\mathrm{\Delta }(HK)`$ excess, indicating the presence of a disk, have lower activity levels respect to the complementary sample.

## 4 Chamaeleon I

Our main source of data regarding the Chamaeleon I association is the work by Lawson et al. (1996): we use their member list (117 stars in their Table B1) and their estimates of $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (available for 78 stars, Table 6). We adopt here a distance to the Chamaeleon I cloud of 160pc (Whittet et al., 1997; Wichmann et al., 1998), 20pc larger than the distance assumed by Lawson et al. (1996) in estimating bolometric luminosities. We therefore increased the $`L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ values accordingly. Masses of 71 candidate members were derived from placement in the HR diagram and interpolation of Siess et al. (2000) evolutionary tracks.

The selection of candidate members in Lawson et al. (1996) is performed mainly on the basis of either their $`H_\alpha `$ or X-ray emission. The danger of preferentially selecting faint stars (both optically and in X-rays) with strong $`H_\alpha `$ emission is therefore present. However the Chamaeleon I association is close enough that a large fraction of intermediate mass members is probably detected in the ROSAT PSPC X-ray observations. Also, as anticipated in the introduction, other than $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ we will also investigate the dependence of $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ on circumstellar characteristics and, as a further test, we will also consider a fully X-ray selected sample.

X-ray data were taken from Lawson et al. (1996): they quote X-ray luminosities (or upper limits) for members of the region, computed from ROSAT PSPC count rates in the 0.4-2.5keV spectral band (Feigelson et al., 1993), using a constant count-rate to $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ (in the same band) conversion factor: 1 PSPC count $`\mathrm{ks}^1`$=$`3\times 10^{28}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$ . Feigelson et al. (1993) find that this conversion factor corresponds to assuming a plasma temperature $`kT1`$keV and an absorption by a hydrogen column, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, corresponding to $`A_\mathrm{V}1`$.

In order to account for differential extinction (i.e. the fact that star are subject to different extinctions) and to uniform our assumptions to the ONC and NGC 2264 studies, we re-estimated X-ray luminosities, in our standard 0.1-4.0 keV band. We started from PSPC count rates in the 0.4-2.5 keV band, i.e. from the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ reported in Lawson et al. (1996) divided by the above mentioned conversion factor. We then multiplied these count-rates by conversion factors between PSPC count-rates (in the 0.4-2.5 keV band) and luminosities (in the 0.1-4.0 keV band), computed for a $`kT=2.16`$ keV thermal plasma emission absorbed by an hydrogen column $`N_\mathrm{H}=210^{21}A_\mathrm{V}`$ and our assumed distance to the association (160pc). Estimates of individual optical extinction values are taken from the following works: Lawson et al. (1996, $`A_\mathrm{J}`$, Table 3), Gauvin & Strom (1992, $`A_\mathrm{V}`$, Table 2), Walter (1992, $`E_{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V}}`$, Table 1) and Cambresy et al. (1998, $`A_\mathrm{V}`$, Table 1); whenever multiple estimates were available for a given star we choose one of the four values, the precedence order being the same as the order of citation given above. $`A_\mathrm{J}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V}}`$ were converted to $`A_\mathrm{V}`$ by multiplying by 3.55 and 3.1 respectively (Mathis, 1990). Figure 7 compares the new X-ray luminosities with those reported in Lawson et al. (1996) and indicates the effects that contribute to the considerable average discrepancy between the two estimates. First of all a difference of $`0.15`$ dex, indicated by the lowest diagonal thin line, is of unclear origin: we recomputed the conversion factor, in the 0.4-2.5keV band, assuming $`kT=1.0`$keV and $`N_\mathrm{H}=2.010^{21}`$, i.e. following Feigelson et al. (1993), and derived a larger conversion factor, by $`0.15`$dex, respect to the value reported by these authors. The other light lines show the effect of having changed the assumed cluster distance, the chosen spectral band, the plasma temperature, and the average source extinction. The combined effects of these changes results in our X-ray luminosities being on average $`5`$ (0.7 dex) times larger than the ones formerly derived.

### 4.1 Activity vs. circumstellar environment

We adopt the distinction between CTTS and WTTS presented by Lawson et al. (1996, Table B1), excluding from our analysis 4 stars with uncertain classification, out of our 71 with mass estimates. The distinction is based on $`H_\alpha `$ emission. Our final sample comprises 28 CTTS and 39 WTTS.

Figure 8 shows, with different symbols for CTTS and WTTS, the scatter plots of $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ with mass. Disregarding for the moment the difference between CTTS and WTTS, a trend of increasing $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ with increasing mass, already noted by Lawson et al. (1996) and also seen in other star forming regions, can be clearly observed. $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ seems to be close to the saturation level ($`10^3`$) at all masses. We note that Lawson et al. (1996), on the basis of their lower X-ray luminosities had excluded that coronal activity in Chamaeleon I members was saturated, contrary to what reported for other star forming regions. Our re-analysis of the same data shows that this result can be attributed in large part to the assumptions made in the conversion between count-rates and X-ray luminosities and to the choice a non standard X-ray spectral band for the calculation of $`L_\mathrm{X}`$.

Figure 9 shows the $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ distribution functions, separately for CTTS and WTTS, in the same two mass ranges investigated in NGC 2264 and for the whole sample. First of all we note that there is little difference (at the $`1\sigma `$ level) between the two XLFs referring to the whole population. This is indeed the same result reported by Lawson et al. (1996). However a look at Fig. 8 shows that this might be due to the inclusion of stars over an ample range of masses. If we indeed consider only stars in the $`0.51.0M_{}`$ range CTTS appear to be underluminous respect to WTTS at the $`3\sigma `$ level, both in absolute terms and respect to their bolometric luminosities. $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ is indeed lower (at the $`22.8\sigma `$ level) even if we consider the whole sample. We obtain similar results, although of somewhat lesser significance, if we only consider X-ray selected stars: for example, the significance of the difference in the $`0.51.0M_{}`$ range are $`1.5`$ and $`2.0\sigma `$ for $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{bol}}`$, respectively.

As a final note we remark that less significant results are obtained if the same analysis is performed with the values of $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ reported by Lawson et al. (1996). The scatter of points around the mean relations observed in Fig. 8, as well as in the distribution functions in Fig. 9, appear in this case to be larger. However the difference in the $`0.51.0M_{}`$ mass range remains (at the 2.2/2.8$`\sigma `$ level).

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

We have considered three SFRs: the ONC, NGC 2264 and Chamaeleon I. After a critical re-analysis of the optical and X-ray data published in recent literature, we have tried to answer the question of whether stars with different circumstellar properties have different observed X-ray emission, both in absolute terms and in relation to their bolometric luminosities.

In all of the analyzed cases we find that CTTS are underluminous respect to WTTS. This result is found in spite of large differences in the selection of members and in the optical and X-ray data used. We believe that it indicates a difference either in the intrinsic properties of X-ray emission or, alternatively, in the radiation transport (e.g. absorption) in the proximity of the stellar system. However we tend to prefer the first option: a difference in the relation between optical and X-ray circumstellar extinction, for example, might explain our result, but no such indication has been found to date.

When we could investigate the matter, i.e. in the cases of the ONC and NGC 2264, we found that the difference holds both when we discriminate stars on the basis of accretion and disk presence indicators. Therefore we are not able to say which of these two related aspects is most relevant for the mechanism responsible for the difference.

Having established the reality of this effect, work remains to be done to better characterize it and to identify its physical source. Thanks to sensitive X-ray data from modern X-ray space-borne telescopes and high-throughput optical/IR instruments this goal seems well within the reach of near future research.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to acknowledge support from the Italian Space Agency (ASI) and MURST.


text:
# Springer correspondence via p-adic analytic methods

## Introduction

Despite its alluring title, this note contains hardly anything original: it is really a footnote to \[Ra\], and the author regrets that his ignorance of representation theory prevented him from including this material in *loc.cit*. In an effort to make a virtue of necessity, we hail the lack of originality instead of dissimulating it: indeed, the main purpose of this article is to show that the usual proof (via Deligne-Fourier transform) of the Springer correspondence for semisimple groups over a field $`k`$ of positive characteristic, works *verbatim* even when $`k`$ has characteristic zero, up to replacing Deligne-Fourier transform by the ($`p`$-adic analytic) Fourier transform of \[Ra\], and the usual étale site by the analytic étale site. We will be rather sketchy, except in the few points where $`p`$-adic techniques are brought to bear that might be unfamiliar to an expert of representation theory.

Especially, we will need to assume that $`k`$ is complete under a non-archimedean valuation, but this is not really a restriction.

Of course, there are better ways (due to Lusztig and others) to obtain the Springer correspondence in a characteristic-free way; this note should be regarded as a proof of concept which hopefully might suggest new applications.

## Semisimple groups

We begin by recalling a few notations and definitions, following \[KW, Ch.VI\]. Let $`k`$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.

We let $`G`$ be a semisimple connected algebraic group of dimension $`n`$ over $`\mathrm{Spec}k`$, $`W`$ the Weyl group of $`G`$, $`BG`$ a Borel subgroup, $`UB`$ the unipotent radical of $`B`$, $`𝔤`$, $`𝔟`$ and $`𝔲`$ the Lie algebras of respectively $`G`$, $`B`$ and $`U`$; set $`b:=dim(B)`$ and $`u:=dim(U)`$. Let moreover $`𝒩𝔤`$ be the nilpotent variety, i.e. the Zariski closed subset consisting of all the nilpotent elements of $`𝔤`$. The adjoint action of $`G`$ on $`𝔤`$ induces a proper surjective morphism of schemes

$$q_𝒩:X:=G\times ^B𝔲𝒩.$$

It is well-known, and shown in \[KW, Ch.VI, §11, Lemma 1\] that $`q_𝒩`$ is semi-small; as a consequence, if we let $`m:=dim𝒩`$, the complex

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:=Rq_𝒩\overline{}_{\mathrm{},X}[m](\frac{m}{2})$$

is a $`G`$-equivariant perverse sheaf on the étale site of the nilpotent variety $`𝒩`$ (here $`[m]`$ denotes the shift operator in the derived category, and $`(\frac{m}{2})`$ denotes Tate twist: notice that $`m`$ is always an even number).

On the other hand, the Killing form induces a natural $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism

$$𝔤𝔤^{}:=\mathrm{Hom}_k(𝔤,k).$$

Under this isomorphism, $`𝔟`$ is naturally identified with the orthogonal $`𝔲^{}`$ of the subspace $`𝔲`$. We deduce a map

$$q^{}:Y:=G\times ^B𝔲^{}𝔤^{}$$

which is dual to the above $`q_𝒩`$. In particular, the complex

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:=Rq_!^{}\overline{}_{\mathrm{},Y}[n]$$

is a $`G`$-left-equivariant perverse sheaf on the étale site of $`𝔤^{}`$, with a $`G`$-action covering the coadjoint action of $`G`$ on $`𝔤^{}`$. In addition, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ carries a natural right $`W`$-action covering the trivial $`W`$-action on $`𝔤^{}`$(see \[KW, Ch.VI, §10\]).

## Fourier transform

We recall some results from \[Ra\]. Here we assume that $`k`$ is complete under a non-archimedean valuation and its residue characteristic is $`p>0`$, different from $`\mathrm{}`$. Let $`S`$ be an analytic variety over $`k`$, in the sense of V.Berkovich \[Be\] or R.Huber \[Hu\]; let also $`E`$ be an analytic vector bundle over $`S`$, $`E^{}`$ the dual of $`E`$, $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ the two projections of $`E\times _SE^{}`$ onto respectively $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$, and $`:E\times _SE^{}𝔸_S^1`$ the natural bilinear pairing. Furthermore, let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a torsion ring, filtered union of its finite subrings, such that:

1. $`\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ for sufficiently large $`n`$, and
2. the group of units $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\times `$ contains a homomorphic image of $`\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}`$, the group of all $`p`$-primary roots of $`1`$ in $`k`$.

The Fourier transform

$$:\text{D}^b(E,\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{D}^b(E^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

is a triangulated functor on the bounded derived category of sheaves of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules on the (analytic) étale site of $`E`$, with values in the bounded derived category of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules on the étale site of $`E^{}`$. As for any transform of its kind, it is defined as an “integral operator”

$$(K^{}):=Rp_{2!}(p_1^{}K^{}^{}_\psi )(\text{for all }K^{}\text{D}^b(E,\mathrm{\Lambda }))$$

whose “kernel” is of the form $`_\psi :=\times ^{\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\psi :\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\times `$ is an injective group homomorphism (that exists by our assumption) and $``$ is a certain $`\mu _p^{^{\mathrm{}}}`$-torsor on the analytic étale topology of $`𝔸_S^1`$ (the sheaf of étale local sections of the logarithm mapping : see \[Ra, §6.1\] for the full details).

The main point is the claim that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ (up to a twist), which enables one to transfer the $`W`$-action from $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ onto $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. However, before being able even to state this assertion, we have to take care of a minor technical nuisance: namely, the formalism of the $`p`$-adic Fourier transform is (currently) available only for complexes of torsion modules (and not for complexes of $`\mathrm{}`$-adic sheaves). More generally, due to some subtle issues, a workable definition of a (triangulated) derived category of analytic $`\mathrm{}`$-adic sheaves is still missing. Luckily, for our present purposes, one does not need a full-fledged formalism of $`\mathrm{}`$-adic complexes; instead, we can proceed in a more *ad hoc* manner, as follows.

First, let us denote by $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$ the integral closure of $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$; for every $`r`$ the quotient ring $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r:=\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}/\mathrm{}^{r+1}\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$ fulfills the conditions (1) and (2) above.

Recall that the constant $`\mathrm{}`$-adic sheaf $`\overline{}_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`X`$ is represented by the inverse system of torsion sheaves $`\underset{¯}{S}:=(/\mathrm{}^{r+1}_X|r)`$ and the complex $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is represented by the corresponding inverse system $`\underset{¯}{T}:=(Rq_𝒩/\mathrm{}^{r+1}_X[m](\frac{m}{2})|r)`$. Instead of dealing with the finite rings $`/\mathrm{}^{r+1}`$, we wish to work with coefficient sheaves that are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r`$-modules; to this aim, it suffices to tensor termwise the inverse system $`\underset{¯}{S}`$, which gives the inverse system $`\underset{¯}{S^{}}:=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r,X}|r)`$; next, instead of applying termwise the functor $`Rq_𝒩`$ to the system $`\underset{¯}{S}`$, we do the same thing with the system $`\underset{¯}{S^{}}`$; this is a rather harmless procedure: indeed, the functor $`Rq_𝒩`$commutes with the change of ring mapping induced by the (unique) ring homomorphism $`/\mathrm{}^{r+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r`$, hence the result is the same as tensoring termwise the inverse system $`\underset{¯}{T}`$ by the ring extensions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$. Likewise, one replaces $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ by an inverse system of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r`$-modules.

We are therefore reduced to compare the complexes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_r:=Rq_𝒩\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r,X}\text{and}\mathrm{\Phi }_r^{}:=Rq_!^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r,Y}.$$

Now we jump to the analytic étale site of the analytic spaces $`X^{\mathrm{an}}`$ and $`Y^{\mathrm{an}}`$, analytification of the $`k`$-schemes $`X`$ and $`Y`$; the complexes $`\mathrm{\Psi }_r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_r^{}`$ determine complexes on the étale sites of respectively $`X^{\mathrm{an}}`$ and $`Y^{\mathrm{an}}`$, which we shall denote by the same names. Since the transition to associated analytic étale complexes is compatible with all cohomological operations, this does not give rise to ambiguities.

## Sketch of the proof

Now the argument proceeds as in \[KW, Ch.VI, §13\] : we let $`:=G/B`$; one has natural closed imbeddings

$$i:X^{\mathrm{an}}𝔤\times ^{\mathrm{an}}i^{}:Y^{\mathrm{an}}𝔤^{}\times ^{\mathrm{an}}$$

We regard the analytic space $`𝔤\times ^{\mathrm{an}}`$ as a trivial vector bundle over $`^{\mathrm{an}}`$, whose dual bundle is $`𝔤^{}\times `$ and notice that $`i`$ (resp. $`i^{}`$) realizes $`X^{\mathrm{an}}`$ (resp. $`Y^{\mathrm{an}}`$) as a sub-bundle of $`𝔤\times `$ (resp. of the dual bundle). We choose a compatible family of characters $`\psi _r:\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^\times `$ for every $`r`$, and we consider the corresponding Fourier transforms:

$$_{}:\text{D}^b(𝔤^{}\times ^{\mathrm{an}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_r)\text{D}^b(𝔤\times ^{\mathrm{an}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_r).$$

Using \[Ra, Prop.7.2.1\] we deduce a natural isomorphism:

$$_{}(i_{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r,Y^{\mathrm{an}}}[n](b))i_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r,X^{\mathrm{an}}}[m].$$

On the other hand, we have also the Fourier transforms on the affine space $`𝔤^{}`$, regarded as a vector bundle over a point:

$$:\text{D}^b(𝔤^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_r)\text{D}^b(𝔤,\mathrm{\Lambda }_r).$$

Let $`\mathrm{pr}:𝔤\times ^{\mathrm{an}}𝔤`$ be the projection; by \[Ra, Prop.7.1.19\] we have a natural isomorphism:

$$R\mathrm{pr}_!_{}(i_{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r,Y^{\mathrm{an}}}[n])(Rq_!^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{r,Y^{\mathrm{an}}}[n]).$$

Let $`i_𝒩:𝒩𝔤`$ be the closed imbedding; since $`\mathrm{pr}i=i_𝒩q_𝒩`$ we finally obtain a compatible system of natural isomorphisms:

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_r^{})i_𝒩\mathrm{\Psi }_r(n)\text{for every }r.$$

From here on it’s all downhill : the $`G`$-equivariance of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ allows one to decompose it (in the category of perverse sheaves) as a sum of factors supported on the orbits of the $`G`$-action on $`𝒩`$; on the other hand, the relation just found shows that the decomposition must also be $`W`$-equivariant and thus we obtain a map from the set $`\widehat{W}`$ of irreducible representations of $`W`$ to the nilpotent conjugacy classes in $`𝔤`$, which turns out to be injective: this is the (Brylinski-)Springer correspondence (see \[KW, Ch.VI, §§12-13\] for the complete story).

Lorenzo Ramero
Institut de Mathematiques
Université de Bordeaux I
351, cours de la Liberation
33405 Talence cedex
FRANCE
ramero@math.u-bordeaux.fr
http://www.math.u-bordeaux.fr/$``$ramero


text:
# Measurement of 𝑒𝑝→𝑒^'𝑝𝜋⁺𝜋⁻ and baryon resonance analysis

## Abstract

The cross section for the reaction $`epe^{}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ was measured in the resonance region for 1.4$`<`$W$`<`$2.1 GeV and 0.5$`<Q^2<`$1.5 GeV2/c2 using the CLAS detector at Jefferson Laboratory. The data shows resonant structures not visible in previous experiments. The comparison of our data to a phenomenological prediction using available information on $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states shows an evident discrepancy. A better description of the data is obtained either by a sizeable change of the properties of the $`P_{13}`$(1720) resonance or by introducing a new baryon state, not reported in published analyses.

Electromagnetic excitation of nucleon resonances is sensitive to the spin and spatial structure of the transition, which in turn is connected to fundamental properties of baryon structure, like spin-flavor symmetries, confinement, and effective degrees of freedom. In the mass region above 1.6 GeV, many overlapping baryon states are present, and some of them are not well known; measurement of the transition form factors of these states is important for our understanding of the internal dynamics of baryons. Many of these high-mass excited states tend to decouple from the single-meson channels and to decay predominantly into multi-pion channels, such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ or $`N\rho `$, leading to $`N\pi \pi `$ final states Pdg96 . Moreover, quark models with approximate (or “broken”) SU(6)$``$O(3) symmetry Kon80 ; Gia90  predict more states than have been found experimentally; QCD mixing effects could decouple these unobserved states from the pion-nucleon channel Kon80  while strongly coupling them to two-pion channels Kon80 ; Cap94 ; Sta93 . These states would therefore not be observable in reactions with $`\pi N`$ in the initial or final state. Other models, with different symmetry properties and a reduced number of degrees of freedom, as e.g. in ref. Kir97 , predict fewer states. Experimental searches for at least some of the “missing” states predicted by the symmetric quark models, which are not predicted by models using alternative symmetries, are crucial in discriminating between these models. Electromagnetic amplitudes for some missing states are predicted to be sizeable Kon80  as well. Therefore, exclusive double-pion electroproduction is a fundamental tool in measuring poorly known states and possibly observing new ones.

In this paper we report a measurement of the $`epe^{}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ reaction studied with the CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) at Jefferson Lab. Beam currents of a few nA were delivered to Hall B on a liquid-hydrogen target, corresponding to luminosities up to $`4\times 10^{33}`$ cm-2s-1. Data were taken in 1999 for about two months at beam energies of 2.6 and 4.2 GeV. Important features of the CLAS Bro99  are its large kinematic coverage for multi-charged-particle final states and its good momentum resolution ($`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p`$1%). Using an inclusive electron trigger based on a coincidence between the forward electromagnetic shower calorimeter and the gas Cerenkov detector, many exclusive hadronic final states were measured simultaneously. Scattered electrons were identified through cuts on the calorimeter energy loss and the Cerenkov photo-electron distribution. Different channels were separated through particle identification using time-of-flight information and other kinematic cuts. We used the missing-mass technique, requiring detection in CLAS of at least $`ep\pi ^+`$. The good resolution allowed selection of the exclusive final state, $`ep\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. After applying all cuts, our data sample included about $`2\times 10^5`$ two-pion events.

The range of invariant hadronic center-of-mass (CM) energy $`W`$ (in 25 MeV bins) was 1.4-1.9 GeV for the first two bins in the invariant momentum transfer $`Q^2`$, 0.5-0.8 (GeV/c)2 and 0.8-1.1 (GeV/c)2, and 1.4-2.1 GeV for the highest $`Q^2`$ bin, 1.1-1.5 (GeV/c)2. Data were corrected for acceptance, reconstruction efficiency, radiative effects, and empty target counts. They were further binned in the following set of hadronic CM variables: invariant mass of the $`p\pi ^+`$ pair (10 bins), invariant mass of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair (10 bins), $`\pi ^{}`$ polar angle $`\theta `$ (10 bins), azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ (5 bins), and rotation freedom $`\psi `$ of the $`p\pi ^+`$ pair with respect to the hadronic plane (5 bins). The full differential cross section is of the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dWdQ^2dM_{p\pi ^+}dM_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi ^{}d\varphi _\pi ^{}d\psi _{p\pi ^+}}}=`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _v}{dM_{p\pi ^+}dM_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi ^{}d\varphi _\pi ^{}d\psi _{p\pi ^+}}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_v{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _v}{d\tau }}`$ (1)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_v=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }\frac{1}{E^2M_p^2}\frac{W(W^2M_p^2)}{(1ϵ)Q^2}$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ is the virtual photon flux, $`\frac{d\sigma _v}{d\tau }`$ is the virtual photon cross section, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, $`E`$ is the electron beam energy, $`M_p`$ is the proton mass, and $`ϵ`$ is the virtual photon transverse polarization Ama89 .

Systematic uncertainties were estimated as a function of $`W`$ and $`Q^2`$. The main sources were acceptance modeling, finite integration steps, and modeling of the radiative corrections, each one being at the 3 to 10% level. Each of the various cuts applied (fiducial, missing mass, etc.) contributed 2 to 5%. In Fig. 1 (left) we report the total virtual photon cross section as a function of $`W`$ for all $`Q^2`$ intervals analyzed. The CLAS data points clearly exhibit structures, not visible in previous data Eck73  due to limited statistical accuracy.

Since existing theoretical models Ose00  are limited to $`W<`$1.6 GeV, we have employed a phenomenological calculation Mok01  for a first interpretation of the data. This model describes the reaction $`\gamma _vpp\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in the kinematic range of interest as a sum of amplitudes for $`\gamma _vp\mathrm{\Delta }\pi p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\gamma _vp\rho ^0pp\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, while all other possible mechanisms are parameterized as phase space. A detailed treatment was developed for the non-resonant contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$, while for $`\rho p`$ production they were described through a simple diffractive ansatz. For the resonant part, a total of 12 states, classified as 4 Pdg96 , with sizeable $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ and/or $`\rho p`$ decays, were included based on a Breit-Wigner ansatz. A few model parameters in non-resonant production were fitted to CLAS data at high $`W`$, where the non-resonant part creates a forward peaking in the angular distributions, and kept fixed in the subsequent analysis. The phase between resonant and non-resonant $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ mechanisms was fitted to the CLAS data as well. To simplify the fits, we reduced eqn. (1) to three single-differential cross sections, $`\frac{d\sigma }{dM_{p\pi ^+}}`$, $`\frac{d\sigma }{dM_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}}`$, and $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi ^{}}`$, by integrating over the other hadronic variables. These three 1-D distributions were then fitted simultaneously. Here $`\frac{d\sigma }{dM_{p\pi ^+}}`$ and $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pi ^{}}`$ are both connected with the dominant $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^{}`$ production reaction, while $`\frac{d\sigma }{dM_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}}`$ is connected with $`p\rho ^0`$ production. For each $`W`$ and $`Q^2`$ bin, a total of 26 data points from the three single-differential cross sections were used in our fits. The two edge points in both the $`p\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass distributions were excluded as the model did not take into account the kinematic smearing in the $`M_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ versus $`M_{p\pi ^+}`$ plot caused by the $`W`$ bin width.

The data analysis was performed in the following steps: (A) We produced reference curves using the available information on the $`N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances in 1.2-2 GeV mass range. Discrepancies between the CLAS data and our calculation were observed, which led to the subsequent steps B and C. (B) Data around $`W`$=1.7 GeV were fitted using the known resonances in the PDG but allowing the resonance parameters to vary in a number of ways. The best fit, corresponding to a prominent $`P_{13}`$ partial wave, could be attributed to the PDG $`P_{13}`$(1720) resonance, but with parameters significantly modified from the PDG values. (C) As an alternative description, we introduced a new baryon state around 1.7 GeV. In what follows we describe each of the steps above in more detail.

Step (A) - To produce our reference curves, the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the $`A_{1/2}`$ and $`A_{3/2}`$ electromagnetic couplings for the states was taken either from parameterizations of existing data Bur94 , or from Single Quark Transition Model (SQTM) fits Bur94  where no data was available. For the $`P_{11}`$(1440) (Roper), given the scarce available data, the amplitude $`A_{1/2}`$ was taken from a Non-Relativistic Quark Model (NRQM) Clo90 . Partial $`LS`$ decay widths were taken from a previous analysis of hadronic data Man92  and renormalized to the total widths from Ref. Pdg96 . Results for step (A) are reported in Fig. 1 (left). The strength of the $`D_{13}`$(1520) resonance at 1.5 GeV and the underlying continuum are well reproduced, except for the region on the low-mass side of the peak. However, a strong discrepancy is evident at $`W`$ around 1.7 GeV. Moreover, at this energy the reference curve exhibits a strong peak in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass (Fig. 1, right), connected to sizeable $`\rho `$ meson production. This contribution was traced back to the 70-85% branching ratio of the $`P_{13}`$(1720) into this channel Pdg96 ; Man92 ; Dyt00 .

Step (B) - Starting from the above mentioned reference values, the parameters of various states were varied in order to fit the CLAS data. In this discussion, we restrict ourselves to the discrepancy around 1.7 GeV and the few resonant states relevant in this energy region. All fit $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ values were calculated from the 8 $`W`$ bins between 1.64 and 1.81 GeV and from the 3 $`Q^2`$ bins (624 data points). The number of free parameters ranged from 11 to 32, depending on the fit, corresponding to $`\nu `$=613 to 592 degrees of freedom. Assuming the resonance properties given by the PDG, the bump at about $`W`$=1.7 GeV cannot be due to the $`D_{15}`$(1675), $`F_{15}`$(1680), or $`D_{33}`$(1700) states; the first because its well known position cannot match the peak; the second because of its well known position and photocouplings Bur01 ; the third due to its large width ($``$300 MeV). The remaining possibilities from the PDG are the $`D_{13}`$(1700), the $`P_{13}`$(1720), and the $`P_{11}`$(1710) (the latter not present in step (A)), for which no data on $`A_{1/2}`$ or $`A_{3/2}`$ at $`Q^2>0`$ are available Bur01 . If no configuration mixing occurs, the $`D_{13}`$(1700) cannot be excited in the SQTM, while the SQTM prediction for the $`P_{13}`$(1720) relies on ad hoc assumptions. According to the literature Pdg96 ; Man92 ; Dyt00 , hadronic couplings of the $`D_{13}`$(1700) and the total width of the $`P_{11}`$(1710) are poorly known, while the $`P_{13}`$(1720) hadronic parameters should be better established. Several other partial waves were investigated in step (C).

To improve our reference curves before fitting the bump at around 1.7 GeV, the following steps were carried out: the $`P_{11}`$(1440) strength was fitted to our low W data; the $`D_{15}`$(1675) and the $`D_{13}`$(1700) photocouplings (which vanish in the SQTM) were replaced by NRQM values from Ref. Clo90 ; an empirically established $`A_{1/2,3/2}`$ SQTM fitting uncertainty or NRQM uncertainty of 10 or 20% ($`\sigma `$) was applied to all $`N^{}`$ states; the hadronic parameters were allowed to vary for the $`D_{13}`$(1700) according to Ref. Man92 ; and finally, the curves providing the best $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ were selected as the starting points. Then, first we performed three fits, (B1), (B2), and (B3), where the photocouplings of only one resonance at a time were varied. In (B1), we varied A1/2, A3/2, hadronic couplings, and position of the D13(1700) in a wide range. In (B2), the same was done for the P13(1720), and in (B3) for the P11(1710). In both fits (B2) and (B3), we also varied the hadronic parameters and the position of the D13(1700) over a range consistent with their large uncertainties from Ref. Man92 . Fits (B1) and (B3) gave a poor description of the data, with $`\chi ^2/\nu `$=5.2 and 4.3, respectively. The best fit ($`\chi ^2/\nu `$ =3.4) was obtained in (B2) (Fig. 2). However, the resulting values for the branching fractions of the P13(1720) were significantly different from previous analyses reported in the literature and well outside the reported errors Pdg96 ; Man92 ; Dyt00 . Starting from (B3), we then performed a final fit, (B4), for which the $`P_{13}`$(1720) hadronic couplings were fixed from the literature, and varying the photocouplings of all three candidate states, D13(1700), P13(1720), and $`P_{11}`$(1710), by 100% ($`\sigma `$). No better solution was found, the $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ being 4.3 (Fig. 2). In Fig. 3 we report the final comparison of fits (B2) and (B4) with the total cross section data.

Table 1 shows our results (first row) with statistical uncertainties, in comparison with the PDG values (second row). Our fits were not providing an unambigous separation of $`A_{1/2}`$, $`A_{3/2}`$, and the longitudinal $`S_{1/2}`$, so we report as result the total photocoupling strength, $`\sqrt{A_{1/2}^2+A_{3/2}^2+S_{1/2}^2}`$. Such value for the $`P_{13}`$(1720) fit is reported in the first three rows of Table 2. The errors reflect the statistical uncertainties in the data and the correlations among the different resonances.

As discussed above, fitting the data around 1.7 GeV with established baryon states leads either to a poor fit or to a drastic change in resonance parameters with respect to published results. In the framework of our analysis, there is no way to assess the reliability of the previously determined hadronic parameters of the PDG $`P_{13}`$(1720). The resonant content of the reaction $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$, which is used to obtain the hadronic parameters, may be different from that of reactions initiated by an electromagnetic probe. In particular, the $`P_{13}`$(1720) state seen in $`\pi N\pi \pi N`$ may not be excited in electroproduction, while some other state that decouples from $`\pi N`$ may be excited electromagnetically. This possibility is studied in the next step.

Step (C) - We investigated whether our data could be fitted by including another baryon state, while keeping the hadronic parameters of the $`P_{13}`$(1720) as in Refs. Pdg96 ; Man92 . The quantum numbers $`S_{I1}`$,$`P_{I1}`$,$`P_{I3}`$,$`D_{I3}`$,$`D_{I5}`$, $`F_{I5}`$,$`F_{I7}`$ were tested on an equal footing, where $`I`$/2 is the isospin, undetermined in our measurement. We then simultaneously varied the photocouplings and the hadronic parameters of the new state and the $`D_{13}`$(1700). The total decay width of the new state was varied in the range of 40-600 MeV, while its position was varied from 1.68-1.76 GeV. The best fit ($`\chi ^2/\nu `$=3.3) was obtained with a $`P_{I3}`$ state, while keeping the $`P_{13}`$(1720) hadronic parameters at published values. Other partial waves gave a $`\chi ^2/\nu `$ $``$ 4.2. Curves obtained from the best fit were nearly identical with the red solid lines in Figs. 2 and 3. In order to avoid the unobserved $`\rho `$ production peak (Fig. 1, right), the photocouplings of the PDG $`P_{13}`$(1720) had to be reduced by about a factor of two with respect to the SQTM prediction, making its contribution very small. Instead, in this fit the main contribution to the bump came from the new state. Resonance parameters and total photocoupling value obtained for the hypothetical new state are reported in Table 1 (last row) and 2 (last 3 rows), respectively.

A second $`P_{13}`$ state is indeed predicted in the quark model of Ref. Cap94 , however with a mass of 1870 GeV. The presence of a new three-quark state with the same quantum numbers as the conventional $`P_{13}`$(1720) in the same mass range would likely lead to strong mixing. However, as mentioned above, a different isospin and/or partial wave cannot be excluded. Finally, the new state may have a different internal structure, such as a hybrid baryon with excited glue components. Such a $`P_{13}`$ hybrid state is predicted in the flux tube model Pag00 . Yet another possibility is that some resonance parameters established in previous analyses may have much larger uncertainties than reported in the literature. In this case, outlined in our step (B), our analysis would establish new, more precise parameters for a known state, and invalidate previous results.

In conclusion, in this letter we presented data on the $`epe^{}p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ reaction in a wide kinematic range, with higher quality than any previous double pion production experiment. Our phenomenological calculations using existing PDG parameters provided a poor agreement with the new data at $`W`$ 1700 MeV. We explored two alternative interpretations of the data. If we dismiss previously established hadronic parameters for the $`P_{13}`$(1720) we can fit the data with a state having the same spin/parity/isospin but strongly different hadronic couplings from the PDG state. If, alternatively, we introduce a new state in addition to the PDG state with about the same mass, spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$, and positive parity, a good fit is obtained for a state having a rather narrow width, a strong $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ coupling, and a small $`\rho N`$ coupling, while keeping the PDG $`P_{13}`$(1720) hadronic parameters at published values. In either case we determined the total photocoupling at $`Q^2>0`$. A simultaneous analysis of single and double-pion processes provides more constraints and may help discriminate better between alternative interpretations of the observed resonance structure in the CLAS data. Such an effort is currently underway.

We would like to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of the staff of the Accelerator and the Physics Divisions at JLab that made this experiment possible. This work was supported in part by the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, the French Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, and the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation. U. Thoma acknowledges an “Emmy Noether” grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-84ER40150.