text:
# Comparison of Source Images for protons, 𝜋⁻’s and Λ’s in 6 AGeV Au+Au collisions

## Abstract

Source images are extracted from two-particle correlations constructed from strange and non-strange hadrons produced in 6 AGeV Au + Au collisions. Very different source images result from pp vs p$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vs $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ correlations. These observations suggest important differences in the space-time emission histories for protons, pions and neutral strange baryons produced in the same events.

Relativistic heavy ion collisions of 1-10 AGeV produce a fireball of nuclear matter with extremely high baryon and energy densitystocker86 . The dynamical evolution of this fireball is driven by such fundamental properties as the nuclear Equation of State (EOS) and possibly by a phase transition, e.g., to a Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) rischke96 ; sor97 ; dan98 ; qm96 ; pin99 . Two-particle correlation studies, for various particle species, provide an important probe of the space-time extent of this fireballlis00 ; E866 ; pratt93 ; Na44 . Recent model calculations suggest that the time scale for freeze-out of strange and multi-strange particles may be much shorter than that for non-strange particleshecke98 ; senger98 , implying a much smaller space-time emission zone for strange particles. If this is indeed the case, then correlation studies involving strange particles may serve as important “signposts” for dynamical back-tracking into the very early stage of the collision where large energy densities are achieved wan99 .

In this letter we compare the source properties for protons, $`\pi ^{}`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons extracted from $`pp`$, $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlation functions, as produced in 6 AGeV Au+Au collisions. These data are unique in that they constitute the first measurement of $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlations. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons are in fact emitted from a source with a smaller space-time extent, then between this and $`\pi ^{}`$ source broadening from resonance decays, one might naively expect an ordering of two-particle source sizes: $`R_{p\mathrm{\Lambda }}<R_{pp}<R_{\pi \pi }`$. On the other hand, at these energies the 3-dimensional $`\pi ^{}`$ radii exhibit $`m_T`$ scaling lis00 ; ahle02  and this should manifest itself in the angle-averaged $`\pi ^{}`$ sources. Furthermore, since $`m_T`$ scaling can be ascribed to position-momentum correlations in the particle emission function mTscaling , one might expect similar effects in the $`pp`$ and $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sources. As we will show, neither an interpretation based solely on position-momentum correlations nor on naive geometrical arguments can fully account for the relative size of the three sources.

Traditional correlation analyses rely on the weakness of Final-State Interactions (FSI). With this, one may correct for FSI leaving a correlation that is the Fourier Transform of the two-particle source function. This approximation is mostly valid for pions; for massive and/or strongly interacting particles, such as protons or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons, this approximation breaks down. Recently, Brown and Danielewicz have presented an imaging technique for analyzing two-particle correlations bro01 . The technique actually uses the FSI, encoded in the form of the particles’ final state wavefunction, to extract the two-particle source function directly bro01 . The imaging technique has been used to address only a few data sets; Panitkin et al.pan01  have shown that this approach gives source radii similar to the conventional HBT approach (under the assumption of a Gaussian source) for $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ pairs emitted in central collisions for 2-8 AGeV Au+Au. By contrast, Verde et al.verde01  have shown very different results for $`pp`$ pairs from 75 AMeV 14N+197Au. For our purpose, the imaging technique’s key feature is that one can easily compare source functions across different species and assess the different space-time scales relevant for each particle pair – a feature that has been mentioned bro01 , but never seriously utilized.

We use the imaging technique on $`pp`$, $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$, and $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairs to extract and compare the source properties for protons, $`\pi ^{}`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons. The measurements have been performed with the E895 detector at the Brookhaven Alternating Gradient Synchrotron. Here, we concentrate on the construction of the $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`pp`$ correlations and the results of the imaging analysis. Details on the detector and its setup have been reported elsewhere pin99 ; chu00b ; rai90 .

We reconstructed the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s from the daughters of their charged particle decay, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p+\pi ^{}`$ (Branching Ratio $``$ 64 %), following the procedure outlined in Refs.chu00b . Figure 1 shows the invariant mass spectrum for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s obtained in semi-central (upper 23% of total inelastic cross-section, b $``$7 fm) 6 AGeV Au + Au collisions. For the p$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlation analysis, an enriched sample ($`80`$%) of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s with 1.11 $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 1.122 GeV was used.

Figures 2(a),(b),(c) show the correlation functions, $`C(q)`$, obtained by taking the ratio of foreground to background distributions in relative-momentum for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p, pp and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ pairs respectively. Here, $`q=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(p_1p_2)^2}`$ is half of the relative momentum between the two particles in the pair c.m. frame. We applied no explicit gates on transverse momentum and rapidity except those implicit in the tracking acceptance. The mean transverse momenta $`P_t`$ for particles from pairs with $`q<50`$MeV were 0.3GeV and 0.12GeV for pp and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ pairs and the mean rapidities $`y`$ were -0.33 and 0.1 . $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p pairs with $`q<50`$MeV have $`P_t`$ = 0.46GeV and $`y`$=-0.18 for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`P_t`$ = 0.38GeV and $`y`$=-0.18 for protons.

We constructed the numerator (or foreground) distribution from pairs of particles from the same event, and obtained the denominator (or background) distribution by pairing particles from different events. We used a track-merging filter similar to that outlined in Ref.lis00  to eliminate possible distortions resulting from track-merging effects in the TPC. For each correlation function, we used the accepted range of particle multiplicities to specify impact parameters b $`<`$ 7 fm. This range was chosen to optimize the statistical significance for p$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairs.

We utilized approximately 100,000 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s (80% purity) to yield about 31,000 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p pairs in the foreground distribution, with $`q100`$ MeV/c, after applying the track-merging cut for the 6 AGeV data. We have corrected the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p correlation function for: (a) the combinatoric background ($`20`$%) included in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sample, (b) feed-down due to the electromagnetic decay of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ (estimated to be $`25`$% from RQMD calculations) and (c) smearing due to momentum resolution of the detector.

We corrected the sources for momentum resolution using two independent methods, both leading to consistent results. In the first method, we left the data uncorrected and modified the kernel used in the imaging analysis to include the smearing effect, assuming an average $`\delta p`$ for each $`p_T`$ and $`y`$. This technique will be detailed elsewhere smearker . In the second method, we first corrected the correlation functions via an iterative procedure and imaged with an unsmeared kernel. We explain this procedure in the next paragraph. We determined the momentum resolution for $`\pi ^{}`$ and p from GEANT simulations giving an average value of 2.0% and 3.1% for each component of the $`\pi ^{}`$ and proton momentum resolution, respectively. For the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ momentum resolution, we extracted an average value of 4.0% for each component of the resolution using the width of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ mass peak ($`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ decays to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^{}`$) and the $`\pi ^{}`$ momentum resolution.

Our iterative procedure starts with model calculations (Gaussian sources) for the particle momenta and their (unsmeared) correlations, $`C_u`$(q). We then use a Monte Carlo method to smear their momenta and use these to calculate the smeared correlation $`C_s`$(q). The ratio $`C_s`$(q)/$`C_u`$(q) is used to make a first-try correction to the raw observed data correlation C(q). This gives a first iteration unsmeared correlation $`C_u^{}`$(q). The latter is then smeared in the second iteration (using pairs of particle from mixed data events) to give a second smeared correlation, $`C_s^{}`$(q). Typically, the comparison between the raw observed C(q) in the data and the second smeared correlation function led to a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ 1. The associated function $`C_u^{}`$(q) was then taken as the unsmeared correlation for the data. Figure 2 shows both smeared and unsmeared correlation functions. The results presented in this paper are from the iterative method.

p$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlations can lead to residual correlations between primary protons and daughter protons from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decays. Wang has calculated the magnitude of this residual effect on the pp correlation wang99 . We have determined its effect on our pp correlations to be negligible. This is due to (1) the intrinsically small residual pp correlation (maximum 3%) arising from our observed p$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlation and (2) the small fraction of secondary protons resulting from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay ($``$ 6% of the total number of protons). The same reasoning applies for the expected perturbation of p$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlations from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlations na49  and of $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ correlations from $`\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\pi ^{}K^0`$ correlations chu02 .

Figures. 3(a),(b),(c) show correlation functions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p, pp and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ pairs respectively. We have not corrected the pp and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ correlation functions for the Coulomb interaction since this effect is included in the imaging procedure. The two particle correlation and the source function are related through the Koonin-Pratt equation koopratt :

$$C(q)1=4\pi 𝑑rr^2K(q,r)S(r).$$
(1)
This is a linear integral equation that we may invert to obtain the source function $`S(r)`$ using the techniques in Ref. bro01 . Here, the imaged source function $`S(r)`$ gives the probability of emitting a pair of particles a distance $`r`$ apart in the pair c.m. frame. The derived source functions are shown in Figs. 3 (d),(e),(f). As a consistency check, we have recalculated the correlation functions from the derived source functions and these are shown in Figs. 3(a),(b), (c) as restored correlations.

In Eq. (1), the kernel $`K(q,r)`$ encodes the FSI and is given in terms of the final state wavefunction as $`K(q,r)=\frac{1}{2}d(\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{𝐪,𝐫}))(|\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐪(𝐫)|^21)`$. In this work, we used the Coulomb force for the pion and proton pairs. Additionally, we used the Reid93 nucleon-nucleon force for protons reid93  and the phenomenological potential of Bodmer and Usmani for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p pairs bodusmani . Since the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p potential is not very well known, we reanalyzed the p$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlation using a simplified kernel that depends only on the p$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ effective range and scattering length. We found no significant change in the imaged $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$p source.

The sources in Figs. 3 (d),(e),(f) appear Gaussian, although we cannot definitively conclude this given the size of the error bands on the imaged sources. In principle, the source function can be composed of an admixture of short and large-range emission sources bro01 . In practice, the shape of the correlation is strongly dominated by the short-range source and the less-correlated pairs from any large-range source essentially dilute the strength of the observed correlation. Let us then assume a Gaussian for the short-distance part of the time integrated emission function for particle type $`i`$: $`D_if_i\mathrm{exp}\left(r^2/2R_i^2\right)`$. The fraction of particles emitted from this source is $`0f_i1`$. This choice gives us a Gaussian two-particle source function for particles $`i`$ and $`j`$:

$$S_{ij}(r)\lambda _{ij}\mathrm{exp}\left(r^2/2(R_i^2+R_j^2)\right).$$
(2)
To ensure that we use the same source parameterization for like and unlike pairs, we choose $`R_{ij}^2=\frac{1}{2}(R_i^2+R_j^2)`$. With this choice the emission function radius is exactly the two particle source radius if $`i=j`$ (i.e. $`R_{ii}=R_i`$) radii . Here the fraction of pairs $`\lambda _{ij}`$ is related to the fraction of particles in each emission function through $`\lambda _{ij}=f_if_j`$. In all subsequent discussion, we take the $`R_{1/2}`$ value (the radius at half maximum density) directly from the sources, but we convert the source height into an equivalent Gaussian $`\lambda `$. Values for $`\lambda `$ and $`R_{1/2}`$ of the short-range sources are indicated in Fig. 3 (d),(e),(f).

Scanning Fig. 3(d),(e),(f), the pion source is clearly the broadest. However, our naive expectation that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$ source would be the smallest source appears wrong. In an effort to understand why, we investigate the source sizes in more detail.

The results in Fig. 3(c),(f) for $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ show that $`R_{1/2}`$ = 8.2$`\pm `$0.6 fm. This radius, corresponding to a centrality range of b $`<`$ 7 fm, is identical to that reported by Panitkin et al for b $`<`$ 5 fmpan01 ; rhalf . The $`\lambda `$ value of 0.25$`\pm `$0.03 indicates that half of the pions arise from a source with $`R_{1/2}8.2`$ fm and the other half from a considerably larger source, possibly caused by resonance decays. For $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairs \[cf. Figs. 3(a),(d)\] the correlations are dominated by a source of smaller size ($`R_{1/2}`$ = 4.8$`\pm `$0.8 fm) comprising 60% $`\pm `$ 20% of the $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairs.

The contrast in size with the $`pp`$ source is pronounced (cf. Figs. 3(b),(e)). The pp correlations are dominated by a very compact source $`R_{1/2}`$ = 3.3$`\pm `$0.2 fm and this source comprises only 26% of the pairs or 51% of the total protons. Both in 75 AMeV 14N+197Au verde01  and 200 AGeV S+Pb bro01  investigators have also found relatively small source sizes ($`R_{1/2}=2.9`$ fm and $`R_{1/2}=3.2`$ fm, respectively) for roughly the same fraction of protons. From these observations, we suspect that the there is a common feature in nucleus-nucleus collisions that span a broad range because (1) strong collective motion focuses the source to much smaller radii pan00 , and (2) pp correlations are insensitive to the long distance parts of the source, as discussed by Wang and Pratt wan99 . While we cannot separate these two effects in this study (or even rule out other more exotic causes) we comment that pions are much less focused by collective effects because of their much lower mass flow . Consequently, we expect the pion correlation function to probe a larger portion of the emission region and hence be associated with a larger source.

Previous works lis00 ; ahle02  have indicated that the 3-dimensional pion radii exhibit $`m_T`$ scaling attributable to collective flow. $`R_{1/2}`$ in the pair c.m. frame can be computed from the 3-dimensional source radii $`R_{\text{out}}`$, $`R_{\text{side}}`$ and $`R_{\text{long}}`$ in the Longitudinally Comoving Source (LCMS) frame via

$$R_{1/2}1.66\sqrt[3]{\gamma R_{\text{out}}R_{\text{side}}R_{\text{long}}},$$
(3)
where the Lorentz factor is $`\gamma =m_T/m`$. In the various models of $`m_T`$ scaling of correlation radii, the radii in the LCMS frame all have the same form: $`R=R^0\sqrt{T/m_T}`$. Here $`T`$ is the source temperature and the $`R^0`$’s for each radius depend on the details of the model in question. Inserting this dependence into Eq. (3) gives

$$R_{1/2}R_{1/2}^0\sqrt{T/m_T^{\text{eff}}},$$
(4)
where $`m_T^{\text{eff}}=\sqrt[3]{m_Tm^2}`$. This implies that $`R_{1/2}`$ for a given system scales weakly as $`m_T^{1/6}`$ regardless of the $`m_T`$ scaling model as is evident in Fig. 4.

If one assumes that $`R_{1/2}^0`$ and T are the same for both $`\pi ^{}`$ and proton sources then Eq. (4)predicts the ratio $`R_{pp}/R_{\pi ^{}\pi ^{}}=\sqrt{m_{T\pi ^{}}^{\text{eff}}/m_{Tp}^{\text{eff}}}=0.4`$ which is consistent with the value of the experimental ratio ($`0.40\pm 0.04`$).

In contrast to the $`pp`$ and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ sources, the $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ source size does not show this $`m_T`$ scaling. Naively applying Eq. (4) and keeping a constant temperature and geometrical source size, one obtains a predicted $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ source size of $`3.1\pm 0.2`$ fm which is significantly smaller than the experimental value. This value cannot be accounted for via the proton-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mass difference of $``$20%. It could reflect differences between the emission time and the extent of collective focusing for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and protons. In fact, the magnitude of collective flow for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s is known to be smaller than that for protons chung2001 .

As a possibility, let us assume that the underlying proton emission function is common to both the $`pp`$ and $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ correlations. For this assumption to hold, we must assume that any flow induced focusing affects the $`pp`$ and $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sources similarly and that we may concentrate on only the short-range proton and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sources. In this context, we can use Eq. (2) and the $`pp`$ source function values to extract information about the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ emission function. We find that $`f_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda _{\mathrm{\Lambda }p}/\sqrt{\lambda _{pp}}=1.18\pm 0.40`$ and $`R_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\sqrt{2R_{\mathrm{\Lambda }p}^2R_{pp}^2}=5.93\pm 1.30`$ fm. Given that $`f_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$, we may argue that all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s are made from this source. Such a moderate sized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ source could indicate the geometrical size of the hot central region of the collision zone, where the energy density is high enough for the production of the strange quarks that form the observed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s.

In summary, we have measured small-angle correlations for $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`pp`$ and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ pairs produced in 6 AGeV Au+Au reactions and have analyzed them by the source imaging technique bro01 . The strong differences in effective source radii reflect very different dynamical histories for each pair. The $`pp`$ and $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ pairs may reflect a small homogeneity length caused by flow focusing the source while the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ emission functions reflect a spread out participant zone.

This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. This work was also supported by NSF grant PHY-00-70818, U.S. DOE grant DE-FG02-88ER40412 and other grants acknowledged in Ref.chu00b .


format: text

text:
# Neutrino Mass and Dark Energy from Weak Lensing

(February 4, 2003)

## Abstract

Weak gravitational lensing of background galaxies by intervening matter directly probes the mass distribution in the universe. This distribution, and its evolution at late times, is sensitive to both the dark energy, a negative pressure energy density component, and neutrino mass. We examine the potential of lensing experiments to measure features of both simultaneously. Focusing on the radial information contained in a future deep $`4000`$ square degree survey, we find that the expected ($`1`$-$`\sigma `$) error on a neutrino mass is $`0.1`$ eV, if the dark energy parameters are allowed to vary. The constraints on dark energy parameters are similarly restrictive, with errors on $`w`$ of $`0.09`$. Much of the restrictive power on the dark energy comes not from the evolution of the gravitational potential but rather from how distances vary as a function of redshift in different cosmologies.

Introduction. Rapid advances in astronomical observations have enabled us to learn about the dark sector in the universe, both dark matter that dominates over ordinary baryonic matter and dark energy which apparently pervades the universe, with energy density a factor of two larger than that of matter. Some of the dark matter is in the form of massive neutrinos. We know that neutrinos have mass because we have seen evidence for the transformation of one species into another fukuda ; sno ; lsnd , a transformation that is impossible for massless neutrinos. The standard cosmology mc  predicts a definite relation between the cosmic neutrino abundance and the cosmic photon abundance. Since the latter is well-measured, a non-zero neutrino mass translates into an unambiguous prediction for the energy density contributed by massive neutrinos. The evidence for the existence of dark energy is twofold. First, distant Type Ia supernovae are fainter than they would be if the universe were decelerating riess , and acceleration can take place only with negative-pressure dark energy. Second, observations of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) cmbflat ; wmap  confirm that the universe is flat (so that the total density is equal to the critical density), while many independent measurements matter  place the matter density at one third of the critical density: the remaining two-thirds is called dark energy.

There is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding both neutrino masses and dark energy. Both phenomena await a convincing theoretical interpretation in the context of particle physics models. Beyond this theoretical uncertainty, several relevant parameters have not been well measured. There is a wide range of allowed neutrino masses: neutrinos might contribute as much as $`20\%`$ of the matter density in the universe 2df  or as little as $`0.3\%`$. The pressure of the dark energy is constrained to be negative, but how negative is still unknown. In particular, a cosmological constant has $`w=1`$ where $`w`$ is the ratio of pressure to energy density. Many dynamical models however predict much different values of $`w`$. Better measurements of each of these fundamental parameters, the energy density in massive neutrinos and the equation of state of the dark energy, are clearly needed.

Remarkably both of these new pieces of physics — neutrino masses and dark energy — leave similar signatures in the matter distribution in the universe. In particular, how rapidly structures grow is determined by the energy content of the universe. Since neutrinos are somewhat relativistic even at late times, they inhibit the growth of structure. Similarly, since the dark energy does not cluster, growth in the dark matter slows in a dark-energy dominated universe. If one could measure how rapidly the gravitational potential was evolving in time, one could learn about this new physics.

Weak gravitational lensing offers the promise of making measurements of precisely this evolution. In 2000, four groups weaklensing  announced detection of the distortion of the shapes of distant galaxies due to intervening large scale structure. Since then, the observations have steadily improved, prompting a number of proposals for larger and deeper surveys. Here we explore the potential that these surveys have for measuring neutrino masses and properties of the dark energy hannestad ; wlw . Although the angular correlations of the galaxy ellipticities contain useful cosmological information, we focus on the radial information: the change in the shear field for background galaxies in different redshift bins. Radial tomography has recently been applied to measure the properties of the shear field of a cluster of galaxies wittman .

Lensing of Galaxies at Fixed Redshift. Hu Hu1999 ; Hu2002  pointed out that, by breaking up the background galaxies in a wide, deep survey into redshift bins, one could essentially do tomography. The deeper bins probe an integral of the 3D gravitational potential over distances farther away from us than the nearer bins.

With many background galaxies at a fixed redshift $`z_s`$, one can hope to recover the lensing convergence $`\kappa `$ in different angular pixels. The convergence in any one of these bins is sensitive to the matter distribution between us and the sources at $`z_s`$. In particular,

$$\kappa (z_s,\stackrel{}{\theta })=_0^{z_s}𝑑zP(z,z_s)\delta (z,\stackrel{}{\theta }),$$
(1)
where $`\delta `$ is the fractional deviation of the density from its average value and $`P`$ is the kernel relating this deviation to the convergence. If we discretize Eq. (1) so that $`\kappa _i=\left[P_{\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }}\right]_{ij}\delta _j`$ (where $`i,j`$ label different redshift bins), then the projection operator is

$$\left[P_{\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }}\right]_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_mH_0^2\delta \chi _j\frac{(\chi _{i+1}\chi _j)\chi _j}{\chi _{i+1}}\hfill & \chi _{i+1}>\chi _j\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \chi _{i+1}\chi _j\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\chi _i`$ is the comoving distance out to redshift $`z_i`$ and $`\delta \chi _j`$ is the comoving width of the $`j`$th redshift bin. We take bins of width $`\delta z=0.1`$ and angular bin size of 1 deg2 in all that follows. Comoving distance depends on the energy density in the universe at various times; it can be expressed as $`\chi _i=_0^{z_i}𝑑z/H(z)`$, where $`H`$ is the expansion rate of the universe. The bottom panel of Figure 1 shows the projection operator for background galaxies at redshift two. The convergence signal is most sensitive in this case to the matter distribution at redshift $`0.5`$. As the background galaxies move closer to us, they probe the structure at lower redshifts, later times.

It is possible to invert Eq. (1) and extract an estimate of $`\delta `$ from the measurements of convergence keeton . On large scales, $`\delta `$ is drawn from a Gaussian distribution with mean zero and a variance which evolves with time. How this evolution takes place depends upon the underlying cosmology; this dependence is expressed in the growth function, $`D(a=(1+z)^1)`$, which is governed by mc

$$D^{\prime \prime }+\left(\frac{H^{}}{H}+\frac{3}{a}\right)D^{}\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{a^5}\frac{H_0^2}{H^2}D=0,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the matter density today in units of the critical density. When neutrino masses are introduced, the growth function becomes more complicated, and varies for modes with different wavelengths. To a rough approximation, a nonzero neutrino mass produces a fractional decrease in the power on scales probed by lensing surveys equal to $`12f_\nu `$, where $`f_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_\nu /\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the ratio of the massive neutrino energy density to that in matter. More accurate fitting formulae for the growth function and power spectrum were calculated including nonzero neutrino mass in Ref. hueis . In the standard cosmology, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ due to one massive neutrino species is equal to $`m_\nu /(94h^2\mathrm{eV})`$ where $`h`$ parametrizes the Hubble constant. For a flat universe, then,

$$f_\nu =0.081\frac{m_\nu }{1\mathrm{eV}}\frac{0.13}{\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2}.$$
(4)
The combination $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$ is well-determined by CMB experiments netterfield ; pryke ; it is currently currently measured to be $`0.13\pm 0.01`$spergel .

The convergence then depends on the expansion history of the universe via both the growth function and the projection operator. The Friedman equation expresses the expansion rate in terms of energy density

$$\frac{H(z)}{H_0}=\left[(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}})(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}(1+z)^{3(1+w)}\right]^{1/2},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}`$ is the dark energy density, and $`w`$ is the dark energy equation of state. In principle, we can hope to measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}},w,`$ and $`f_\nu `$ from a deep, wide lensing survey.

The top panel in Figure 1 shows the growth function for the base model we use throughout, one in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}=0.65,w=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2=0.13,`$ and $`f_\nu =0.005`$. Also shown are the slight changes in the growth function as these parameters vary. Note that the changes induced by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}`$ and $`w`$ are very similar to each other. The bottom panel illustrates that the projection operator depends almost exclusively on the dark energy density.

Results. As mentioned above, there are two effects measured in a tomographic weak lensing survey. The first is the evolution of the power spectrum, or the growth function, while the second is the projection of physical distances onto redshift space. Figure 2 shows the relative constraining power of these two effects in a $`4000`$ square degree survey which measures ellipiticites and (photometric) redshifts for a hundred galaxies per square arcminute. We use a galaxy redshift distribution of $`dN/dzd\chi /dz\mathrm{exp}[(\chi /\chi _{})^4]`$, such that $`\chi _{}`$ gives a mean redshift of one, but the results are insensitive to this choice depth . We assume a constant effective equation of state $`w`$, and an intrinsic r.m.s. galaxy ellipticity of 0.3. The inner region in Figure 2 includes both effects; the outer ignores projection effects. The growth function depends on only a combination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}`$ and $`w`$: a change in one can be offset by a change in the other. Thus, without projection, weak lensing strongly constrains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}+w`$ but not either parameter separately. Projection effects break this degeneracy, because (bottom panel of Figure 1) projection is so much more sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}`$ than to $`w`$.

How do the constraints change when the uncertainty in the neutrino mass is included? Projection is completely independent of neutrino mass, so the constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}`$ remains unchanged. But the limits on the dark energy equation of state are compromised.

The top panel of Figure 3 indicates that the effect of the neutrino mass is very correlated with the dark energy equation of state. When we lack knowledge about the neutrino mass, we therefore lose discriminatory power over the equation of state. How does the marginalized region tighten up as external constraints on the neutrino mass come in? If the absolute neutrino mass or its uncertainty were constrained by a laboratory experiment (tritium endpoint katrin  or neutrinoless double-beta decay doublebeta ) to be less than $`0.1`$ eV, then the resulting constraint also appears in the top panel of Figure 3. Future measurements or limits on neutrino mass will then contribute to precision measurements of the cosmological dark energy density and evolution.

Also of interest are the constraints on the neutrino mass. These we indicate in the bottom panels of Figure 3. There must be a neutrino mass as least as large as the square root of the atmospheric $`\delta m^2`$, i.e., $`0.05`$ eV. This corresponds to $`f_\nu =4.1\times 10^3`$ for the current best value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$. Figure 3 shows that this limit is barely within reach of a comprehensive weak lensing survey if we can assume that the dark energy is a cosmological constant ($`w=1`$) and that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}`$ will be determined by other means to within a few percent. On the other hand, if we allow for freedom in the dark energy equation of state, then the mass limit gets worse by a factor of order five. It is conceivable that both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DE}}`$ and $`w`$ will be determined through other means, e.g., type Ia supernovae, cluster abundances, or the CMB. If so, then the neutrino mass will be detectable with weak lensing.

These projected limits on the neutrino mass are even more powerful than they appear. If there are only three light neutrinos, then the solar neutrino and atmospheric neutrino measurements constrain two mass squared differences, as illustrated in Figure 4 (adapted from Ref. bb ). The cosmological limit discussed here is on the sum of all neutrino masses. More stringent limits on the neutrino mass fraction must incorporate the texture of neutrino masses, i.e., if the neutrino masses are a standard or inverted hierarchy. If we assume that the probability distribution for $`f_\nu `$ is Gaussian with mean $`f_\nu =0.005`$ and rms error corresponding to the marginalized case $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\nu =0.008`$, then the $`95\%`$ confidence limit on $`f_\nu `$ would be $`0.02`$, corresponding to an upper limit on the sum of the masses of $`0.25`$ eV. Figure 4 shows that the region in which all three neutrino masses are degenerate can be ruled out then by this cosmological measurement, again even accounting for the uncertainty in the dark energy sector.

We have assumed here that other cosmological parameters – the amplitude and slope of the primordial spectrum, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ – are fixed. If future observations constrain these parameters tightly enough that the resulting uncertainty in the power spectrum is small, then this assumption is valid. Figure 1 indicates that the effects we have considered here induce of order ten percent changes in the power spectrum (which scales as the growth function squared). Uncertainities in the power spectrum from ambiguity in the other parameters are projected to be smaller than one percent after Planck Hu2002 . Also, we have not included any angular information, which would further pin down the power spectrum of mass extremely well. Overall, the information of the growth of structure from radial tomography of large scale structure via weak lensing will be a powerful method for discovering the nature of both the dark energy and neutrino components of the universe.

We thank John Beacom, Wayne Hu, Dragan Huterer and Eric Linder for useful conversations. This work is supported by the DOE, by NASA grant NAG5-10842, and by NSF Grant PHY-0079251.


text:
# Intrinsic parton transverse momentum in next-to-leading-order pion production

## I Introduction

Today’s collider facilities raise the interest in testing perturbative QCD (pQCD) at work, and in searching for phenonema beyond its capability. However – at least for the experimentally available transverse momentum region – pQCD parton models underestimate the production of mesons in proton-proton ($`pp`$) collisions LOBp ; xnwang , even at next-to-leading order (NLO) aur1 . In order to restore the consistency with the data, two methods were proposed at leading order (LO): inclusion of the intrinsic transverse momentum of partons LOBp ; xnwang , and/or an effective correction factor ($`K`$ factor), accounting for higher order contributions Eskola ; Ramona . The physical background is to account for both, the missing higher order perturbative corrections and radiation effects. The latter is not present in electron-proton processes, however, it becomes important in $`pp`$ collisions lai .

In this paper we present the first results on pion production in $`pp`$ collisions applying a NLO pQCD parton model with intrinsic transverse momentum, taken from a Gaussian distribution with width $`k_{}^2`$. In Section II the intrinsic transverse momentum is introduced into the formalism, and the appropriate NLO expressions are presented. The necessity of such an extension is demonstrated at $`\sqrt{s}=27.4`$ GeV in Section III. Next, we display the best fit values of the width of the intrinsic transverse momentum distribution at NLO level for available $`pp\pi +X`$ experiments, in the energy range $`20`$ GeV $`\sqrt{s}200`$ GeV. Similarly to Ref. LOBp , we study the pion production in the $`2`$ GeV $`<p_T<6`$ GeV transverse momentum region, where nuclear effects are considered to be important.

Finally, we extract the ratio of the NLO cross section to the Born term ($`K`$ factor) at different energies and transverse momenta, and study its dependence on the amount of the included intrinsic transverse momentum. This way we provide a numerical foundation to the correction factors used in LO calculation Wong . We demonstrate, that a leading order calculation with a fitted, c.m. energy, transverse momentum and scale dependent $`K`$ factor and additional intrinsic transverse momentum reproduces well the full NLO results at higher energies and momenta, and can be used as a fast method to get a reasonable estimate of a full NLO calculation.

## II Model

In order to extend the applicability of the original, infinite momentum frame parton model field  to smaller transverse momenta, we introduce the intrinsic transverse momentum of the partons owens . We write the four-momenta of the interacting partons ($`a`$ and $`b`$) as Wong

$`p_a`$ $`=`$ $`(x_a{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{,a}^2}{2x_a\sqrt{s}}},\stackrel{}{k}_{,a},x_a{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{,a}^2}{2x_a\sqrt{s}}}),`$ (1)
$`p_b`$ $`=`$ $`(x_b{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{,b}^2}{2x_b\sqrt{s}}},\stackrel{}{k}_{,b},x_b{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{,b}^2}{2x_b\sqrt{s}}}).`$
In this notation $`x`$, the momentum fraction carried by the parton, becomes a parameter. The apparent fraction is $`xk_{}^2/(xs)`$, however, for practical applications at high energy ($`p_T3`$ GeV; $`\sqrt{s}40`$ GeV; $`k_{}^22`$ GeV2), the distinction has a negligible ($`5\%`$) effect. Furthermore, we require that the longitudinal direction of the partons does not change sign due to the transverse momentum, i.e. $`x>k_{}/\sqrt{s}`$.

The starting point of our calculation is factorization: the hadronic cross sections up to a power correction may be written as a convolution over hard partonic (pQCD) processes,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}y\text{d}^2p_T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{abc}{}}{\displaystyle \text{d}x_a\text{d}x_b\text{d}^2k_{,a}\text{d}^2k_{,b}\frac{\text{d}z_c}{\pi z_c^2}}`$
$`f_{a/p}(x_a,Q;k_{,a})f_{b/p}(x_b,Q;k_{,b}){\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\widehat{t}}}D_{\pi /c}(z_c,Q_f),`$
where $`\text{d}\sigma /\text{d}\widehat{t}`$ is the partonic cross section of the reaction $`a+bc+d`$ (LO with condition $`\delta (1+(\widehat{t}+\widehat{u})/\widehat{s})`$), or $`a+bc+d+e`$ (NLO with fixed $`z_c`$) and (at fixed scales) is the function of the partonic Mandelstam variables only. In order to avoid singularities due to the intrinsic transverse momentum we use regularization

$`\widehat{s}\widehat{s}+M^2,\widehat{t}\widehat{t}M^2/2,\widehat{u}\widehat{u}M^2/2,`$ (3)
with $`M=1.8`$ GeV. The factorization is done at the factorization scale $`Q`$, where the parton content of the initial proton is determined by the parton distribution function $`f_{a/p}`$ (PDF). For simplicity, we assume a Gaussian dependence of the PDFs on the intrinsic transverse momentum, with a width $`k_{}^2`$,

$`f(x,Q,k_{}^2)=f(x,Q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi k_{}^2}}e^{k_{}^2/k_{}^2}.`$ (4)
We note, that such a separation may be viewed as a first approximation to the unintegrated PDF, where recent studies indeed found a shape close to Gaussian updf . Finally, the hadrons are created collinearly with the outgoing parton $`c`$ with momentum fraction $`z_c`$ at fragmentation scale $`Q_f`$. The partonic cross section explicitly depends on three scales, $`Q`$, $`Q_f`$ and the renormalization scale $`Q_r`$.

In principle, the scales can be determined such that the final result has the minimum sensitivity to them aur1 , and usually are set to be equal. However, in this paper we use the results of a previous study BP2002  of $`pp`$ and $`pA`$ data, where the reproduction the Cronin effect in $`pA`$ reactions Cronin  imposed such scales, that the corresponding $`k_{}^22`$ GeV2.

We note that there is some ambiguity in the choice of scales. In the literature typical scales are fixed to hadronic or partonic variables, $`\kappa p_T`$ or $`\kappa p_T/z_c`$, respectively, where $`\kappa `$ is an $`𝒪(1)`$ number. Other choices are also possible, e.g. an invariant scale, $`Q^2=\kappa ^2\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}/(\widehat{s}^2+\widehat{t}^2+\widehat{u}^2)`$ as proposed in Ref. field . However, in our case we found that this choice is equivalent to $`\kappa p_T/z_c`$.

At NLO level and no intrinsic transverse momentum Eq. (II) is usually rewritten with variable change ($`x_a`$,$`x_b`$,$`z_c`$)$``$ ($`\widehat{v}`$,$`\widehat{w}`$,$`z_c`$), where $`\widehat{t}=(1\widehat{v})\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{u}=\widehat{v}\widehat{w}\widehat{s}`$, as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}y\text{d}^2p_T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{s}}}{\displaystyle \underset{abc}{}}{\displaystyle \text{d}\widehat{v}\text{d}\widehat{w}\frac{\text{d}z_c}{\pi z_c^2}J}`$
$`\text{d}^2k_{,a}\text{d}^2k_{,b}f_{a/p}f_{b/p}D_{\pi /c}(z_c,Q_f){\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma ^{NLO}}{\text{d}\widehat{v}}},`$
with the proper kinematical boundaries, $`J`$ being the Jacobian of the transformation ($`1/J=\widehat{v}(1\widehat{v})\widehat{w}`$ for $`k_{}^2`$=0), and $`\text{d}\sigma ^{NLO}/\text{d}\widehat{v}`$ is the sum of $`22`$ and $`23`$ cross sections aversa ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma ^{Born}}{\text{d}\widehat{v}}}\delta (1\widehat{w})+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(Q_r)}{\pi }}𝒦^{abcd}(\widehat{s},\widehat{v},\widehat{w},Q,Q_r,Q_f),`$ (6)
with renormalization scale $`Q_r`$ (chosen to be equal to the factorization scale $`Q`$). In this paper, however, we use Eq. (II) directly, since for $`k_{}^20`$ the momentum fraction $`x`$ cannot be expressed analytically from $`\widehat{v}`$ and $`\widehat{w}`$, while the inverse transformation can be done.

Several codes are available for calculating jet cross sections at NLO level aversa ; othernlo . Here we have chosen to extend the one by the Aversa group aversa  calculating the partonic cross sections at next-to-leading-log level, with the intrinsic transverse momentum distribution. The calculations presented in the following sections were performed with the MRST-cg PDF MRST  and KKP FF KKP  parameterization.

## III Results

### III.1 Comparison to data

First, we demonstrate the importance of the intrinsic transverse momentum to reproduce experimental data in the transverse momentum region $`3`$ GeV $`<\sqrt{s}<6`$ GeV. In this part, we use the scales proposed in Ref. aur1  to make a direct comparison to the 400 GeV FNAL experiment Antreasyan . Fig. 1. shows, that at $`\sqrt{s}=27.4`$ GeV the NLO calculations of pion production in $`pp`$ collision underpredict the experimental data by a factor of 2 using the scale parameters $`Q=Q_r=Q_f=p_T/2`$ and neglecting intrinsic transverse momentum (as in aur1 ). Decreasing the scales (but still keeping them hard for the applicability of pQCD) the agreement can be improved, however, without intrinsic transverse momentum, even if lower scales are chosen, the data are still underestimated.

The lower line in Fig. 1. presents the NLO calculation with a partonic intrinsic transverse momentum distribution of width $`k_{}^2`$ =1 GeV2, and shows a nice agreement with the data. We note, however, that there is a delicate interplay between the choice of the scales and the intrinsic transverse momentum $`k_{}^2`$, needed to reproduce the data usnew . Typically, increasing the scales increases the value of $`k_{}^2`$.

### III.2 Intrinsic transverse momentum

In this section we summarize the results on the intrinsic transverse momentum width of the partons in the nucleon fitting the NLO pQCD calculations to the data, generalizing the LO scale choice of BP2002  to $`Q=Q_r=\kappa p_T/z_c`$, $`Q_f=\kappa p_T`$, where $`\kappa `$ is a $`𝒪(1)`$ number. In this work, we fix $`\kappa =2/3`$ at NLO level. Our previous study BP2002  also showed, that the reproduction of the Cronin peak in $`pA`$ collision requires the width of the intrinsic transverse momentum distribution to be on the order of $`k_{}^2`$ 2 GeV2 at energies $`\sqrt{s}`$ 30 GeV, which is achieved by the above choice of scales. A similar value of $`k_{}^2`$ was extracted from the experimental analysis of jet-angle distribution EXPBROAD .

Analyzing the $`pp\pi +X`$ experimental data Antreasyan ; EXPBROAD ; Exp , we deduced the best fit value $`k_{}^2`$ for each experiment, similarly to what is shown in Fig. 1, minimizing the $`\chi ^2(D/T1)`$ (data over theory) ratio in the range $`36`$ GeV. The result is presented in Fig. 2, separately indicating the runs from different experiments and shows a need for a considerable amount of partonic transverse momentum. We also checked, that similarly to the LO results LOBp , the extracted width does not depend on the charge of the pion.

Usually, changing the order of a calculation requires changing of the underlying scales. Comparing NLO result to the previous LO ones LOBp  one notices that in order to keep the average transverse momentum width, we had to increase the scales, dictated by the experimentally obtained Cronin peak BP2002 . Keeping LO scales ($`\kappa =1/2`$) would lead to a substantial reduction of the width, originating in the mechanism of NLO graphs to automatically generate transverse momenta. It is remarkable, that fitting to the nuclear reaction data requires the same width independent of the order of the calculation used!

Recent $`dAu`$ data at RHIC dAu  also indicate that at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV more transverse momentum is necessary, than $`k_{}^200.5`$ GeV2, indicated in Fig. 2. This shows, that the scale parameter $`\kappa `$ possibly may also depend on the energy, and a higher, $`\kappa =4/3`$ scale with $`k_{}^2=2.5`$ GeV2 reproduces well both the $`pp`$ and the $`dAu`$ data without jet quenching effects dAuUS . The dependence of the scale parameter on the c.m. energy and its consequences will be studied in a separate paper.

### III.3 $`K`$ factor

Since most calculations (especially, for nucleus-nucleus collisions) are still based on LO, it is useful to provide a well-founded $`K`$ factor for these faster calculations. Fig. 3 shows the ratio of the full NLO calculation to the Born term with no intrinsic transverse momentum. Indeed, at high energy and transverse momenta $`K_\pi `$ approaches the well known value of 2, however, in the low transverse momentum region it has a strong $`p_T`$ dependence. As a first approximation, for $`\sqrt{s}`$ 60 GeV, the pionic $`K`$ factor can be taken energy independent JPG .

Since the intrinsic transverse momentum may have a different effect on the Born term than on the higher order (HO) processes, the latter contributing the dominant part, it is worth to study the dependence of the $`K`$ factor on the width $`k_{}^2`$. We present this behavior in Fig. 4, indicating the ratio $`R=K(k_{}^2)/K(0)`$ at $`k_{}^2=`$ 1 and 2 GeV2 (with $`\kappa =2/3`$ scale parameter) and at different energies from $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 20 to 1800 GeV. While at low energies the ratio $`R`$ shows a large decrease with increasing $`k_{}^2`$ (mainly due to the efficiency of the intrinsic transverse momentum at low energies in enhancing the Born term faster than the HO corrections), from $`\sqrt{s}`$ 60 GeV its value is always above 1, indicating, that HO corrections are gaining more from transverse momentum, than the Born term. The maximal enhancement is peaked at $`p_{}23`$ GeV, with 10% correction at $`k_{}^2=1`$ GeV2 and 20% correction at $`k_{}^2=2`$ GeV2, while for $`p_T`$ 4 GeV, the transverse momentum driven correction vanishes, validating LO calculations in this range with $`k_{}^2`$ independent $`K`$ factors Wong ; BP2002 .

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we introduced initial transverse momentum distributions into the parton-based description of hadron production in NLO level pQCD calculations and demonstrated, that such an extension is necessary even in NLO to reproduce the $`pp`$ experimental data. From the analysis of most experiments in the 3 GeV $`p_T`$ 6 window a width of intrinsic transverse momentum distribution on the order of $`k_{}^22`$ GeV2 was fitted. The obtained precision of the description of pion production in $`pp`$ collisions is high enough to find possible collective effects in nuclear collisions.

We presented the pionic $`K`$-factor (full NLO cross section to the Born term) for several energies and transverse momentum values, and found a pronounced dependence on $`p_T`$ in the 3 GeV $`p_T`$ 6 window, where nuclear effects show up most prominently. Furthermore, we investigated in detail the modifications of the Born and higher order terms due to the presence of an intrinsic transverse momentum and concluded, that above certain energy in the above mentioned $`p_T`$ window the higher order contribution raises faster, than the Born term and hence the $`K`$-factor increases compared to its value without intrinsic transverse momentum. For $`p_T`$ 4 GeV this enhancement may be neglected, justifying $`k_{}^2`$ independent $`K`$-factor calculations, however, at smaller transverse momenta the correction goes up to 20%, just in the order of the measured nuclear enhancement. The detailed study of the nuclear enhancement, and its role in fixing the scales of an NLO calculation will be carried out separately.

## Acknowledgements

We thank G. David for many useful discussions. This work was supported in part by U.S. DOE grant DE-FG02-86ER40251, NSF grant INT-0000211, and Hungarian grants FKFP220/2000, OTKA-T034842 and OTKA-T43455. The support of the Bergen Computational Physics Laboratory in the framework of the European Community - Access to Research Infrastructure action of the Improving Human Potential Programme is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Direct simulations of small multi-fermion systems

## Appendix A Counting bits

Counting the set bits in a given computer word lies at the heart of the discussions in this paper. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this. Some computers have an assembly instruction that directly returns this “population count.” However in the interest of portability it is useful to implement this counting in a higher level language. A variety of fast schemes exist, but one well known approach increments a counter while $`i`$ is non vanishing and repeatedly takes $`i`$ to $`i\&(i1)`$. This latter operation resets the lowest non-vanishing bit of $`i`$, and the repetition stops when all bits are cleared. Thus the following implementation in C:

```
inline int bitcount(int i) {
  /* counts the set bits in a word */
  int result = 0;
  while (i) {
    result++;
    i &= (i - 1);               /* finds and resets rightmost set bit */
  }
  return result;
}

```

Another useful operation given an integer $`i`$ is to find the next integer with the same number of set bits. For this first locate the lowest run of set bits. Move the highest of these up one position and slide the remainder down to start at bit 0. For example, if our integer in binary is, say, (0011001110), we take the run of three set bits from position 1 to 3, move the highest of these to position 4, drop the other two to the beginning of the word, and obtain (0011010011) as the next integer with five set bits. This leads to the following implementation

```
int nextone(int i){
  /* find the next integer with the same bitcount as i */
  int bit=1,count=-1;
  if (i==0) return 1<<nsites;
  /* find first one bit */
  while (!(bit&i)){
    bit<<=1;
  }
  /* find next zero bit */
  while (bit&i){
    count++;
    bit<<=1;
  }
  if (!bit) die("overflow in nextone");
  i &= (~(bit-1));           /* clear lower bits */
  i |= bit | ((1<<count)-1); /* put them in new places */
  return i;
}

```

Defining a variety of routines for manipulating wave functions can be quite useful. For these I define a “wavefunction” type as a pointer to a complex array. Once a generic set of routines is set up, one can quickly run through a variety of experiments as discussed above. Some such functions whose action should be clear from their names are

```
double complex overlap(wavefunction psi1, wavefunction psi2);
double norm2(wavefunction psi);
double normalize(wavefunction psi);
void cmultiply(double complex factor, wavefunction psi);
void caxpby(double complex a, wavefunction dest,

```


text:
# 4-valent plane graphs with 2-, 3- and 4-gonal faces

## 1 Introduction

See \[Grün67\] for terms used here for plane graphs. It is well-known that the p-vector of any $`4`$-valent plane graph satisfies to $`2p_2+p_3=8+_{i5}(i4)p_i`$. Some examples of applications of plane $`4`$-valent graphs are projections of links, rectilinear embedding in VLSI and Gauss crossing problem for plane graphs (see, for example, \[Liu98\]).

Call an $`i`$-hedrite any plane $`2`$-connected $`4`$-valent graph, such that the number $`p_j`$ of its $`j`$-gonal faces is zero for any $`j`$, different from $`2,3`$ and $`4`$, and such that $`p_2=8i`$. So, an $`n`$-vertex $`i`$-hedrite has $`(p_2,p_3,p_4)=(8i,2i8,n+2i)`$. Clearly, $`(i;p_2,p_3)=(8;0,8)`$, $`(7;1,6)`$, $`(6;2,4)`$, $`(5;3,2)`$ and $`(4;4,0)`$ are all possibilities.

An $`8`$-hedrite is called octahedrite in \[DeSt02\]; in fact, this paper is a follow-up of \[DeSt02\]. In a way, this paper continues the program of Kirkman (\[Kir85\] p. 282) of classification of projections of alternating links.

See on the Table below short presentation of $`i`$-hedrites and their symmetry groups. In the last column we indicate Goldberg-Coxeter operation $`GC_{k,l}(G_0)`$ starting from $`i`$-hedrite $`G_0`$ with smallest number of vertices (see \[Gold37\], \[Cox71\] and \[DD03\]).

For $`3`$-connected plane graphs without $`2`$-gons, the following Theorem of Mani is valid: the symmetry group of the graph can be realized as point group of a convex polyhedron having this graph as skeleton. But in the presence of $`2`$-gonal faces, one cannot speak of convex polyhedra but we expect that the Mani result still holds for this more general case.

| $`i`$ | $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$  $`n`$-vertex | All possible point  symmetry groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ | First $`i`$-hedrite $`G_0`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`4`$ | $`4`$,$`0`$  $`n2`$,  $`n`$ even | $`5`$: $`D_2`$, $`D_{2d}`$, $`D_{2h}`$,  $`D_4`$, $`D_{4h}`$,  i.e. all  $`D_2\mathrm{\Gamma }D_{4h}`$ |  |  | all-$`D_4`$, $`D_{4h}`$  $`4`$-hedrites,  $`n=2\left(k^2+l^2\right)`$ |
| $`5`$ | $`3`$,$`2`$  $`n3`$,  $`n4`$ | $`6`$: $`C_1`$, $`C_s`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_{2v}`$  and $`D_3`$, $`D_{3h}`$ |  |  | all-$`D_3`$, $`D_{3h}`$  $`5`$-hedrites,  $`n=3\left(k^2+l^2\right)`$ |
| $`6`$ | $`2`$,$`4`$  $`n4`$ | $`9`$: $`C_1`$, $`C_s`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_{2v}`$,  $`C_i`$, $`C_{2h}`$,  $`D_2`$, $`D_{2d}`$, $`D_{2h}`$,  i.e. all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }D_{2h}`$  or $`D_{2d}`$ |  |  | $`D_2`$, $`D_{2d}`$  $`6`$-hedrites,  $`n=4\left(k^2+l^2\right)`$ |
| $`7`$ | $`1`$,$`6`$  $`n7`$ | $`4`$: $`C_1`$, $`C_s`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_{2v}`$,  i.e. all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }C_{2v}`$ |  | Not exist | $`C_2`$, $`C_{2v}`$  $`7`$-hedrites,  $`n=7\left(k^2+l^2\right)`$ |
| $`8`$ | $`0`$,$`8`$  $`n6`$,  $`n7`$ | $`18`$: all $`13`$ above  and $`D_{3d}`$, $`D_{4d}`$,  $`O`$, $`O_h`$, $`S_4`$ |  |  | all-$`O`$, $`O_h`$  $`8`$-hedrites,  $`n=6\left(k^2+l^2\right)`$ |

## 2 Central circuits partition

In this Section, we consider a connected plane graph $`G`$ with all vertices of even degree, i.e. an Eulerian graph. Call a circuit in $`G`$ central if it is obtained by starting with an edge and continuing at each vertex by the edge opposite the entering one; such circuit is called also traverse (\[GaKe94\]), straight ahead (\[Harb97\]), \[PTZ96\]), straight Eulerian (Chapter 17 of \[GoRo01\]), cut-through (\[Jeo95\]), intersecting, etc. Clearly, the edge-set of $`G`$ is partitioned by all its central circuits.

Such CC-partition can be considered (see, for example, \[Harb97\]) for any drawing on the plane of any Eulerian (in general, not planar) graph, so that edges are mapped into simple curves with at most one crossing point.

Denote by $`CC(G)=(\mathrm{},a_i^{\alpha _i},\mathrm{};\mathrm{},b_j^{\beta _j},\mathrm{})`$ its CC-vector, where $`\mathrm{},a_i,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{},b_j,\mathrm{}`$ are increasing sequences of lengths of all its central circuits, simple ones and self-intersecting, respectively, and $`\alpha _i,\beta _j`$ are their respective multiplicities. Clearly, $`_ia_i\alpha _i+_jb_j\beta _j=2n`$, where $`n`$ is the number of vertices of $`G`$.

For a central circuit $`C`$, denote by $`Int(C):=(c_0;\mathrm{},c_k^{\gamma _k},\mathrm{})`$, the intersection vector of $`C`$, where $`c_0`$ is the number of self-intersections of the circuit $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{},c_k,\mathrm{}`$ is decreasing sequence of sizes of its intersection with other central circuits, while the numbers $`\gamma _k`$ are respective multiplicities.

Two central circuits intersect in an even number number of vertices. The length of a central circuit is twice the number of its points of self-intersection plus the sum of its intersections with other circuits, so the length of a central circuit is even.

We will say that an $`i`$-hedrite is pure if any of its central circuits simple, i.e. has no self-intersections. Easy to check that any pure $`i`$-hedrite has an even number $`n`$ of vertices. In fact, any vertex in this case belong to the intersection of exactly two central circuits.

Call an Eulerian graph $`G`$ balanced, if all its central circuits of same length have the same intersection vector. Any $`8`$-hedrite with $`n21`$ is balanced, but there is unbalanced $`22`$-vertex $`8`$-hedrite, which is $`8`$-hedrite 14-7 of Table 2 inflated along a central circuit of length $`8`$. We do not find unbalanced $`5`$-hedrite or $`7`$-hedrite for $`n15`$. The first unbalanced $`6`$-hedrite is 12-12. Any $`4`$-hedrite is balanced (Theorem 5).

For a plane graph $`G`$, denote by $`G^{}`$ its plane dual and by $`Med(G)`$ its medial graph. The vertices of $`Med(G)`$ are the edges of $`G`$, two of them being adjacent if the corresponding edges share a vertex and belong to the same face of the embedding of $`G`$ in the plane. So, $`Med(G)`$=$`Med(G^{})`$.

Clearly, $`Med(G)`$ is a $`4`$-valent plane graph and, for any $`i`$-hedrite $`G`$, $`Med(G)`$ is an $`i`$-hedrite with twice the number of vertices of $`G`$ and all $`2`$-, $`3`$-gonal faces being isolated. The medial of smallest $`8`$-hedrite 6-1, $`7`$-hedrite 7-1, $`6`$-hedrite 4-1, $`5`$-hedrite 3-1, $`4`$-hedrite 3-1 are, respectively, $`8`$-hedrite 12-4, $`7`$-hedrite 14-9, $`6`$-hedrite 8-3, $`5`$-hedrite 6-2, $`4`$-hedrite 4-1. The operation of taking the medial is a particular case of the Goldberg-Coxeter construction for the parameters $`(k,l)=(1,1)`$ (\[Gold37\], \[Cox71\], \[DD03\]).

## 3 Intersection of central circuits

The following Theorem is a local version (for “parts” of the sphere) of the Euler formula $`2p_2+p_3=8+_{i5}(i4)p_i`$ for $`p`$-vector of any $`4`$-valent plane $`3`$-connected graph $`P`$.

For any $`4`$-valent planar graph $`P`$, a patch $`A`$ is a region of $`P`$ bounded by $`q`$ arcs (paths of edges) belonging to central circuits (different or coinciding), such that all $`q`$ arcs form together a circle. A patch can be seen as a $`q`$-gon; we admit also $`0`$-gonal $`A`$, i.e. just the interior of a simple central circuit. Suppose that the patch $`A`$ is regular, i.e. the continuation of any of bounding arc (on the central circuit to which it belongs) lies outside of the patch. See below two examples of patch.

Let $`p^{}(A):=p_1^{},\mathrm{}`$ be the $`p`$-vector enumerating the faces of the patch $`A`$. The curvature of the patch $`A`$ is defined as $`c(A)=_{k1}(4k)p_k^{}`$. So, the $`k`$-gon can be seen as, respectively, positively curved, flat, or negatively curved, if $`k<4`$, $`k=4`$, or $`k>4`$.

###### Proposition 1

(i) If $`A`$ be a regular patch, then $`c(A)=4q`$, moreover:

(i.1) $`c(A)=4`$ if and only if $`A`$ is bounded by a simple central circuit.

(i.2) $`c(A)=0`$ if and only if $`A`$ is a rectangle formed by $`4`$-gons put together.

(ii) Any patch $`A`$ is the union of regular patches $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_p`$; one has $`c(A)=(4q_1)+\mathrm{}+(4q_p)`$, where each patch $`A_i`$ is bounded by $`q_i`$ arcs.

(iii) If a graph $`G`$ is the union of patches $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_p`$, then $`8=c(A_1)+\mathrm{}+c(A_p)`$.

Proof. (i) is a restatement in our terms of Theorem 1 of \[DeSt02\], (i1) and (i2) are easy consequences. The properties (ii) and (iii) follow from the definition of the curvature of a patch and from Euler formula.

###### Proposition 2

(i) Any $`4`$-valent plane graph whose faces are $`k`$-gons with $`k`$ even has central circuits with no self-intersection vertices.

(ii) At least one central-circuit of a $`7`$-hedrite self-intersects.

Proof. In fact, if a central circuit of a $`4`$-hedrite self-intersects, then we have an $`1`$-gonal regular patch. The equality of above Theorem becomes $`_i(4i)p_i^{}=3`$, an impossibility since the left hand side is even.

Take a central circuit containing an edge of the unique $`2`$-gon, then the sequence (possibly empty) of adjacent $`4`$-gons will necessarily finish by a $`3`$-gon, or this $`2`$-gon; both cases yield a self-intersection.

Let us call graph of curvatures of an $`i`$-hedrite $`G`$, the graph (possibly, with loops and multiple edges) having as vertex-set all $`2`$-gons and $`3`$-gons of $`G`$. Two vertices (say, $`2`$\- or $`3`$-gonal faces $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ of $`G`$) of this $`i`$-vertex graph are adjacent if there is a pseudo-road connecting them. A pseudo-road is sequence of $`4`$-gons, say, $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_l`$, such that putting $`F_0=F`$ and $`F_{l+1}=F^{}`$, we have that any $`F_k`$ with $`1kl`$ is adjacent to $`F_{k1}`$ and $`F_{k+1}`$ on opposite edges (cf. the definition of a rail-road in next Section). Clearly, in the graph of curvatures, the vertices corresponding to $`2`$\- and $`3`$-gons, have degree $`2`$ and $`3`$, respectively.

###### Proposition 3

Let $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ be any two central circuits of an $`i`$-hedrite. Then they are disjoint if and only if they are simple and there exist a ring of $`4`$-gons separating them.

Proof. In fact, if both $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are simple circuits, Theorem is evident: the curvature of the interior of a patch is $`4`$ and so, two circuits are separated by $`4`$-gons only. Suppose that $`C_1`$ is self-intersecting. Then it has at least three regular patches and each of them has curvature at most $`3`$. The circuit $`C_2`$, being disjoint with $`C_1`$, lies entirely inside one of those patches, say, $`A`$. So, all its $`3`$-gons and $`2`$-gons, except, possibly, those from its exterior patch, lie in $`A`$. So, $`c(A)5`$, since the exterior patch of $`C_2`$ has curvature at most $`3`$. It contradicts to the fact that $`A`$ has curvature at most $`3`$.

###### Remark 1

Consider a $`4`$-valent plane graph $`G`$ having only one central circuit; then, the set of faces of $`G`$ can be partitioned into two classes $`𝒞_1`$, $`𝒞_2`$ in chess manner. Every vertex $`v`$ is contained in two faces $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$. Also, the unique central circuit can be given an orientation, which induces an orientation on the set of edges.

The vertex $`v`$ is incident to two edges of $`F`$, $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$, and to two edges of $`F^{}`$, $`e_1^{}`$ and $`e_2^{}`$. If $`e_1`$, $`e_2`$ have both arrow pointing to the vertex or both arrow pointing out of the vertex, then the same is true for $`e_1^{}`$ and $`e_2^{}`$, and then, we say that $`v`$ belongs to Class I. Class I and its complement, Class II, form a bipartition of the set of vertices of the knot; reversing orientation of the central circuit or interchanging $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ does not change the bipartition.

If the graph consists of $`p`$, $`p2`$, central circuits $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_p`$, then, one can put orientations on every central circuit and get a bipartition of the set of vertices. But in that case the bipartition will depend on the chosen orientations.

## 4 Adding and removal central circuits

The deleting of a central circuit $`C`$ in an $`i`$-hedrite $`G`$ consists of removal of all edges and vertices contained in $`C`$. It produces a $`4`$-valent plane graph $`P^{}`$ having only $`k`$-gonal faces with $`k4`$. But since cases $`k=0,1`$ are possible, we do not always obtain an $`i`$-hedrite.

The cutting of an $`i`$-hedrite $`G`$ consists of adding another central circuit to it. The faces of the new $`i^{}`$-hedrite $`G^{}`$ with $`8i^{}i`$ comes from the cutting of faces of $`G`$. This operation is only partially defined, since arbitrary cutting can produce $`k`$-gons with $`k>4`$. The cutting of a $`4`$-gon in several $`4`$-gons (two, if the face is traversed only once) is possible only if the $`4`$-gon is traversed on opposite edges. This corresponds to the notion of shore-zone in \[DeSt02\]. A cutting changes CC-partition of an $`i`$-hedrite only in the following way: new central circuit $`C`$ is added and all others central circuits remain unchanged, except that the length of each of them increases by one for any intersection with $`C`$.

Call a rail-road a circuit of $`4`$-gons, possibly self-intersecting, in which every $`4`$-gon is adjacent to two of its neighbors on opposite edges. A rail-road is bounded by two “parallel” central circuits. The deleting of one of those central circuits (in other words, collapsing rail-road into one central circuit) is called reduction. The cutting produces a rail-road if and only if it is an inflation along a central circuit $`C`$, i.e. replacing it by (thin enough) rail-road. A $`t`$-inflation along a central circuit $`C`$ is replacing this central circuit by $`t1`$ parallel (thin enough) rail-roads. A $`t`$-inflation of an $`i`$-hedrite is new $`i`$-hedrite obtained from original one by simultaneous $`t`$-inflation along all of its central circuits. A $`t`$-inflation of $`G`$ is $`G`$ if $`t=1`$, and it is just inflation of $`G`$ if $`t=2`$.

An $`i`$-hedrite is called irreducible if it contains no rail-road. It is called maximal irreducible if it cannot be obtained from another $`i^{}`$-hedrite by a cutting.

###### Remark 2

Let $`C`$ be a central circuit of $`G`$ with $`CC(G)=(\mathrm{},a_i^{\alpha _i},\mathrm{};\mathrm{},b_j^{\beta _j},\mathrm{})`$, and let $`Int(C)=(c_0;c_1^{\gamma _1},\mathrm{},c_r^{\gamma _r})`$. The $`t`$-inflation of $`G`$ denoted by $`G^t`$ has $`CC(G^t)=(\mathrm{},ta_i^{t\alpha _i},\mathrm{};\mathrm{},tb_j^{t\beta _j},\mathrm{})`$; if $`C^{}`$ is one of $`t`$ parallel copies of $`C`$, then $`Int(C^{})=(c_0;c_1^{t\gamma _1},\mathrm{},c_r^{t\gamma _r},(2c_0)^{t1})`$.

## 5 Connectivity of $`i`$-hedrites

For any integer $`m2`$ denote:

by $`I_{6,2m}`$ the $`2m`$-vertex $`6`$-hedrite, such that each $`2`$-gon is adjacent to two $`3`$-gons;

by $`I_{5,2m+1}`$ the $`(2m+1)`$-vertex $`5`$-hedrite, such that two $`2`$-gons share a vertex and remaining $`2`$-gon is adjacent to two $`3`$-gons;

by $`I_{4,2m+2}`$ the $`(2m+2)`$-vertex $`4`$-hedrite, such that four $`2`$-gons are organized into two pairs sharing a vertex;

by $`J_{4,2m}`$ the $`m`$-inflation of only one central circuit of $`4`$-hedrite 2-1; they are projections of composite alternating links $`2_1^2\mathrm{\#}2_1^2\mathrm{\#}2_1^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}2_1^2`$ ($`m`$ times), which we denote by $`m\times 2_1^2`$.

See in Table 1 the first occurrences (for $`2m5`$) of those graphs, followed by their symmetry groups and CC-vectors.

###### Lemma 1

Any $`i`$-hedrite is $`2`$-connected.

Proof. Let $`G`$ be an $`i`$-hedrite and assume that there is one vertex $`v`$, such that $`G\{v\}`$ is disconnected in two components $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. Then two edges from $`v`$ will connect to a vertex $`w`$ of $`C_1`$ and two edges from $`v`$ will connect to a vertex $`w^{}`$ of $`C_2`$, because, otherwise, the exterior face is $`m`$-gonal with $`m>4`$. See below the corresponding drawing.

But the vertex $`w`$ will disconnect the graph and so, iterating the construction, we obtain an infinite sequence $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ of vertices that disconnects $`G`$. This is impossible since $`G`$ is finite.

Any $`i`$-hedrite (moreover, any Eulerian graph) has at least one Eulerian circuit of edges; so, there is no cut-edge. But a cut-vertex appears already for some Eulerian ($`3`$-vertex) and $`4`$-valent ($`4`$-vertex) plane graphs.

###### Theorem 1

Any $`i`$-hedrite, which is not $`3`$-connected, is one of $`I_{6,2m}`$, $`I_{5,2m+1}`$, $`I_{4,2m+2}`$, $`J_{4,2m}`$ for some $`m2`$.

Proof. Let $`G`$ be an $`i`$-hedrite and assume that it is not $`3`$-connected. Then there are two vertices, say, $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$, such that $`G\{v,v^{}\}`$ is disconnected in two components, say, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. Amongst the $`4`$ edges from $`v`$ (respectively $`v^{}`$), the edges $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_s\}`$ (respectively $`\{e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_s^{}^{}\}`$) go to $`C_1`$. Two numbers $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ can takes values $`1`$, $`2`$ or $`3`$; we will consider all possible cases.

Assume that $`s=1`$ and $`s^{}=1`$, then the edges $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$ must be distinct, since, otherwise, $`C_1`$ is the empty graph. Moreover, $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$ have no common vertices, since, otherwise, $`G`$ would not be $`2`$-connected. So, $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are connected by $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$ to a vertex $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$, respectively. Since face-size is at most $`4`$, the vertices $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$, (respectively, $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$) are linked by two edges (see Figure 1). Two points $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$ can either be connected by two edges and we are done, or disconnect the graph. In the latter case, we can iterate the construction. Since the graph is finite, the construction eventually finish and we get a graph $`J_{4,2m}`$. If $`s=1`$ and $`s^{}=3`$, then by a similar reasoning, one gets again a graph $`J_{4,2m}`$.

Assume that $`s=2`$ and $`s^{}=2`$. One has $`\{e_1,e_2\}\{e_1^{},e_2^{}\}=\mathrm{}`$, since, otherwise, one can attribute an edge to $`C_2`$ and get the case $`s=1`$ and $`s^{}=1`$. So, one has, say, $`e_1e_1^{}=\{w_1\}`$ and $`e_2e_2^{}=\{w_2\}`$, and the following two possibilities (see Figure 1): either $`w_1=w_2`$ (this corresponds to $`\{e_1,e_2\}`$ and $`\{e_1^{},e_2^{}\}`$ being the edges of two $`2`$-gons) and we are done, or $`w_1w_2`$. Assume now that $`w_1w_2`$; two points $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ can either be connected by two edges and we are done, or disconnect the graph. In the latter case, we can iterate the construction. Since the graph is finite, the construction eventually finish. If we do the same construction on the other side, then we get a similar structure and the graph is of the form $`I_{4,2m+2}`$, $`I_{5,2m+1}`$ or $`I_{6,2m}`$ with $`m2`$.

Assume now that $`s=2`$ and $`s^{}=1`$. The edges $`e_1`$, $`e_2`$ and $`e_1^{}`$ are all distinct, since, otherwise, the vertex $`v`$ disconnects the graph. So, $`v^{}`$ is connected by $`e_1^{}`$ to a vertex $`w^{}`$. Now, either $`v^{}`$ or $`w^{}`$ is connected to $`v`$, since, otherwise, we would have a $`5`$-gonal face. If $`w^{}`$ is connected to $`v`$, then the pair $`\{w^{},v\}`$ disconnects the graph. This construction is infinite (see Figure 1); so, we get a contradiction.

###### Theorem 2

(i) If $`G`$ is an $`i`$-hedrite with two adjacent $`2`$-gons, then this is a $`4`$-hedrite 2-1 or a $`J_{4,2m}`$ with $`m2`$.

(ii) If $`G`$ is an $`i`$-hedrite with two $`2`$-gons sharing a vertex, then it is either $`4`$-hedrite 4-1, or an $`I_{4,2m+2}`$, or $`5`$-hedrite 3-1, or an $`I_{5,2m+1}`$ with $`m2`$.

Proof. The proof for (i), (ii) is similar to the cases $`(s,s^{})`$=$`(1,1)`$, $`(2,2)`$ of Theorem 1.

###### Theorem 3

(i) an $`n`$-vertex $`4`$-hedrites exists if and only if $`n2`$, even.

(ii) an $`n`$-vertex $`5`$-hedrites exists if and only if $`n3`$, $`n4`$.

(iii) an $`n`$-vertex $`6`$-hedrites exists if and only if $`n4`$.

(iv) an $`n`$-vertex $`7`$-hedrites exists if and only if $`n7`$.

(v) an $`n`$-vertex $`8`$-hedrites exists if and only if $`n6`$, $`n7`$.

Proof. The case (v) is proven in \[Grün67\], page 282. The case (i) is trivial; take, for example, the serie $`J_{4,2m}`$.

The series $`I_{6,2m}`$, $`I_{5,2m+1}`$ for any $`m2`$, give $`6`$-hedrites and $`5`$-hedrites with even and, respectively, odd number of vertices.

For $`5`$-, $`6`$\- and $`7`$-hedrites, we get by $`(t1)`$-inflation along a central circuit of length $`4`$ in corresponding $`i`$-hedrite 6-1, 5-1 and 7-1, series with $`4t+2`$, $`4t+1`$ and $`4t+3`$ vertices. By $`(t2)`$-inflation along such central circuit in $`7`$-hedrite 8-1, we get a serie of $`7`$-hedrites with $`4t`$ vertices. By $`(t1)`$-inflation along central circuit in $`6`$-hedrite 11-4, we get serie of $`6`$-hedrites with $`8t+3`$ vertices. By $`t`$-inflation along central circuit of length $`8`$ in $`6`$-hedrite 15-10, we get serie of $`6`$-hedrites with $`8t+7`$ vertices.

Inscribing consecutively $`4`$-gons in the $`4`$-gon, which is adjacent only to $`3`$-gons, in $`7`$-hedrite 9-1 and 10-2, we get series of $`7`$-hedrites for the remaining cases of $`4t+1`$ and $`4t+2`$ vertices.

In case of $`5`$-hedrites, it remains to prove existence for the case $`n=4t>1`$. We obtain existence in the sub-cases $`n=m\times 4^b`$, where $`m3`$ and not divisible by $`4`$, $`n=8\times 4^b`$, and $`n=16\times 4^b`$, respectively:

by $`b`$-inflation of some $`m`$-vertex $`5`$-hedrite; we showed their existence,

by $`b`$-inflation of $`5`$-hedrites 8-1,

by $`b`$-inflation of any $`16`$-vertex $`5`$-hedrite (for example, one coming from 10-2 by inflation along central circuit of length $`6`$).

Our computation (see the last Section) present all $`i`$-hedrites with at most $`15`$ vertices.

## 6 Irreducible $`i`$-hedrites

###### Theorem 4

Any irreducible $`i`$-hedrite has at most $`i2`$ central circuits and equality is attained for each $`i`$, $`4i8`$.

Proof. For $`i=8`$, the Theorem is proved in \[DeSt02\]. We will show, using suitable cutting, that this result implies the Theorem for $`i<8`$.

Let us start with the simplest case of $`7`$-hedrites. Consider a simple circuit $`S`$ in its curvature graph, which contains the vertex corresponding to unique $`2`$-gon. Remind that the vertices in the curvature graph correspond to $`2`$\- or $`3`$-gons, while edges correspond to pseudo-roads. So, the simple circuit $`S`$ corresponds to the circuit of faces of $`G`$, containing our $`2`$-gon, some $`4`$-gons and, possibly, some of six $`3`$-gons; see the picture below.

Suppose that the $`7`$-hedrite $`G`$ is irreducible and has $`k`$ central circuits. By adding the central circuit $`C`$, which is shown by dotted lines on picture above, we produce an $`8`$-hedrite (since, the $`2`$-gon is cut by $`C`$ in two $`3`$-gons), which is still irreducible and has $`k+1`$ central circuits. So, $`k+16`$, by Theorem 3 of \[DeSt02\].

For remaining cases of $`i`$-hedrites with $`i=4,5,6`$, the proof is similar. In each case, we consider all possible distribution of $`2`$-gons by simple circuits in the graph of curvatures and, for each such circuit, we add suitable number of new central circuits.

All possibilities are presented on Figure 2: two for $`i=6`$, three for $`i=5`$ and two for $`i=4`$. In the last case, there are no $`3`$-gons and so, simple circuits in the curvature graph contain only even number of $`2`$-gons by local Euler formula of Theorem 1. Note that the case of $`4`$-hedrites is obvious by Theorem 5 of \[DeSt02\].

###### Lemma 2

Let $`G`$ be an irreducible $`8`$-hedrite and $`C`$ a central circuit, which is incident to three $`3`$-gons on one side. Then one can add another central circuit to $`G`$, so that the resulting graph is still irreducible.

Proof. From every one of the three $`3`$-gons, say, $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$, $`T_3`$, one can define two pseudo-roads from the sides of the $`3`$-gon, which do not belong to the central circuit. Each such pseudo-road defines an edge, say, $`e_1`$, $`e_2`$, $`e_3`$ in the graph of curvatures and so, a triangle in that graph. Then, either two triangles $`T_i`$ and $`T_j`$ are linked by a path, which does not involve the edges $`e_k`$, or they are not linked by such a patch. In both cases we can cut the $`8`$-hedrite according to Figure 3 and obtain another $`8`$-hedrite, which is still irreducible.

See below example of an irreducible $`7`$-hedrite (its CC-vector is $`(10^2,12^2;20)`$, its symmetry group is $`C_{2v}`$) with the maximum number of central circuits.

For all other $`i`$, there is an example of irreducible $`i`$-hedrite with $`i2`$ central circuits (see Theorem 6), which is, moreover, pure.

###### Conjecture 1

An irreducible $`i`$-hedrite is maximal irreducible if and only if it has $`i2`$ central circuits.

## 7 Classification of pure irreducible $`i`$-hedrites

The easiest case, $`i=4`$, of i-hedrites admits following complete characterization:

###### Theorem 5

(i) Any $`4`$-hedrite can be obtained from some $`4`$-hedrite with two central circuits by simultaneous $`t_1`$\- and $`t_2`$-inflation along those circuits; it is irreducible if and only if $`t_1=t_2=1`$.

(ii) Any $`4`$-hedrite with two central circuits is defined by its number of vertices $`n`$ and by shift $`j`$, $`0jn/4`$ with $`gcd(n/2,j)=1`$, vertices between the pair of boundary $`2`$-gons on the horizontal circuit (see, for example, $`4`$-hedrite 8-1) and the remaining pair of $`2`$-gons. Remark that several different values of shift can yield the same graph.

(iii) Any $`4`$-hedrite is balanced.

Proof. (i) and (ii) are proved in \[DeSt02\], while (iii) is obvious for $`4`$-hedrite with two central circuits and remain true under $`t_1`$\- and $`t_2`$-inflation.

The shift $`j=0`$ corresponds to 2-1 and its only-on-one-circuit $`m`$-inflations $`J_{4,n=2m}`$. The shift $`j=1`$ corresponds to 4-1 and $`I_{4,n=2m+2}`$. Denote by $`K_{4,4m}`$, for any $`m2`$, any $`4m`$-vertex $`4`$-hedrite obtained from 4-1 by $`m`$-inflation of only one its central circuit; so, its CC-vector is $`(4^m,4m)`$, its symmetry is $`D_{2d}`$ and it is reducible. Clearly, any $`K_{4,n=4m}`$ has the maximal shift $`j=n/4`$.

###### Theorem 6

Any pure irreducible $`i`$-hedrite is, either any $`4`$-hedrite with two central circuits, or a $`5`$-hedrite 6-2, or one of $`6`$-hedrites 8-6, 14-20, or one of the following eight $`8`$-hedrites: 6-1, 12-4, 12-5, 14-7, and (see Figure 5) 20-1, 22-1, 30-1, 32-1.

Proof. Let $`G`$ be a pure irreducible $`i`$-hedrite having $`r`$ central circuits. If one deletes a central circuit, then, in general, $`1`$-gon can appear. It does not happen for $`G`$, since it would imply a self-intersection of a central circuit. So, the result of deletion of a central circuit from $`G`$ produces an pure irreducible $`i`$-hedrite with $`r1`$ central circuits.

First, if $`r=2`$, then the Theorem 5 from \[DeSt02\] gives that such $`G`$ are exactly $`4`$-hedrites with two central circuits; all of them are classified in Theorem 5.

We prove the Theorem by systematic analysis of all possible ways to add to $`G`$ (for $`r=2,3,4,5`$) a central circuit, in order to get a pure irreducible $`i`$-hedrite with $`r+1`$ central circuits.

Let $`r=2`$. Then $`G`$ can be only one of two smallest $`4`$-hedrites. In fact, if $`G`$ is another $`4`$-hedrite, then, because of classification Theorem 5, it has a form as in Figure 4.

New central circuit should cut both $`2`$-gons on opposite edges, since, otherwise, there is a rail-road. But Figure 4 shows, on example for $`n=6`$, that a self-intersection appears if two central circuits intersect in more than four vertices.

So, the only possible $`4`$-hedrites with two central circuits, which can be cut in order to produce irreducible pure $`i`$-hedrite are $`4`$-hedrites 2-1 and 4-1. All cases are indicated below.

Now, all irreducible pure $`i`$-hedrites with three central circuits are $`5`$-hedrite 6-2, $`6`$-hedrite 8-5 and $`8`$-hedrite 6-1 (i.e. the projections of links $`6_1^3`$, $`8_6^3`$ and $`6_2^3`$). In fact, we apply the same procedure to those three $`i`$-hedrites; see picture below:

Next, all irreducible pure $`i`$-hedrites with four central circuits are $`8`$-hedrites 12-4, 12-5, 14-7 and $`6`$-hedrite 14-20.

By the same method, one can see that there are exactly two pure irreducible $`i`$-hedrites with five central circuits and two with six central circuits (see Figure 5).

###### Remark 3

Any pure $`i`$-hedrite comes from a pure irreducible $`i`$-hedrite with, say, $`j`$ central circuits by simultaneous $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_j`$-inflation along those circuits; it is irreducible if and only if $`t_1=\mathrm{}=t_j=1`$.

## 8 Symmetry groups of $`i`$-hedrites

We consider below the maximal symmetry groups of plane graphs; these groups are identified with the corresponding point groups.

###### Theorem 7

We indicate here the lists of symmetry groups of $`i`$-hedrites, together with the smallest number of vertices, for which they appear:

* The only symmetry groups of $`4`$-hedrites are point subgroups of $`D_{4h}`$, which contain $`D_2`$ as point subgroup, i.e. $`D_{4h}`$($`n=2`$), $`D_4`$($`n=10`$), $`D_{2h}`$($`n=4`$), $`D_{2d}`$($`n=6`$), $`D_2`$($`n=12`$).
* The only symmetry groups of $`5`$-hedrites are: $`C_1`$($`n=10`$), $`C_2`$($`n=8`$), $`C_s`$($`n=7`$), $`C_{2v}`$($`n=5`$), $`D_3`$($`n=15`$), $`D_{3h}`$($`n=3`$).
* The only symmetry groups of $`6`$-hedrites are: $`D_{2d}`$($`n=4`$), $`D_{2h}`$($`n=6`$) and all their point subgroups, i.e. $`D_2`$($`n=12`$), $`C_{2h}`$($`n=10`$), $`C_{2v}`$($`n=5`$), $`C_i`$($`16n30`$), $`C_2`$($`n=6`$), $`C_s`$($`n=9`$), $`C_1`$($`n=9`$).
* The only symmetry groups of $`7`$-hedrites are point subgroups of $`C_{2v}`$, i.e. $`C_{2v}`$($`n=7`$), $`C_2`$($`n=11`$), $`C_s`$($`n=8`$), $`C_1`$($`n=11`$).
* The only symmetry groups of $`8`$-hedrites are: $`C_1`$($`n=16`$), $`C_s`$($`n=14`$), $`C_2`$($`n=12`$), $`C_{2v}`$($`n=11`$), $`C_i`$($`22n46`$), $`C_{2h}`$($`22n26`$), $`S_4`$($`22n60`$), $`D_2`$($`n=10`$), $`D_{2d}`$($`n=14`$), $`D_{2h}`$($`n=22`$), $`D_3`$($`n=18`$), $`D_{3d}`$($`n=12`$), $`D_{3h}`$($`n=9`$), $`D_4`$($`n=18`$), $`D_{4d}`$($`n=8`$), $`D_{4h}`$($`n=10`$), $`O`$($`n=30`$), $`O_h`$($`n=6`$).

Proof. For $`4`$-hedrites, see \[DeSt02\]. Any transformation stabilizing a $`2`$-gon, can interchange its two edges and two vertices. So, the stabilizing point subgroup of a $`2`$-gon can be $`C_{2v}`$, $`C_s`$, $`C_2`$ or $`C_1`$ only.

The unique $`2`$-gon of a $`7`$-hedrite has to be preserved by the symmetry group; so, all possibilities are: $`C_{2v}`$, $`C_s`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_1`$.

Every symmetry of an $`i`$-hedrite induces a symmetry on its $`2`$-gons and $`3`$-gons. Since the stabilizer of a $`2`$-gon, $`3`$-gon has maximal size $`4`$, $`6`$, this imply that the order of the symmetry group of an $`i`$-hedrite is bounded from above by $`4|Sym(8i)|=4(8i)!`$ and $`6|Sym(2i8)|=6(2i8)!`$.

So, in particular, the order of symmetry group of an $`6`$-hedrite is at most $`8`$. If $`f`$ is an element of order three, then it fixes each of two $`2`$-gons. Since the stabilizer of a $`2`$-gon does not contain an element of order three, no such $`f`$ exists. If $`f`$ is a rotation of order $`4`$, then $`f^2`$ is a rotation of order $`2`$ stabilizing each $`2`$-gon; so, the axis of $`f`$ goes through the two $`2`$-gons. This is a contradiction. By a search in the Tables of the groups one can see that the only possibilities are: $`C_1`$, $`C_s`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_i`$, $`C_{2v}`$, $`C_{2h}`$, $`D_2`$, $`D_{2h}`$, $`D_{2d}`$. But there exists a $`6`$-hedrite for any of such symmetries, in Figure 6 and subsection 9.3 below.

For $`5`$-hedrites, since there are two $`3`$-gons, the maximal order of the group is $`12`$. The oddness of the number of $`2`$-gons excludes central symmetry, axis of order $`4`$, and groups $`D_2`$, $`D_{2h}`$, $`D_{2d}`$. If $`G`$ is a $`5`$-hedrite with a $`3`$-fold axis then this axis goes through the two $`3`$-gons, say, $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$. If one consider a belt of $`4`$-gons around $`T_1`$, then, after a number $`p`$ of steps, one will encounter a $`2`$-gon and so, by symmetry, three $`2`$-gons. So, we will have the following possibilities for $`p=1`$:

There is only one way to extend this graph to a $`5`$-hedrite and the obtained extension has symmetry at least $`D_3`$. So, the group is $`D_3`$, $`D_{3h}`$ or $`D_{3d}`$.

An $`8`$-hedrite $`G`$ has $`k`$-fold axis of rotation with $`k=2`$, $`3`$ or $`4`$. If $`k=3`$, then the axis of the rotation goes through two $`3`$-gons, say $`T_1`$ and $`T_8`$. If one consider, around $`3`$-gon $`T_1`$, a belt of $`4`$-gons, then, after some number $`p`$ of steps, one will encounter a $`3`$-gon and so, by symmetry, three $`3`$-gons, say, $`\{T_2,T_3,T_4\}`$. Adding, if necessary, belts of $`4`$-gons, one will encounter the last three $`3`$-gons, say, $`\{T_5,T_6,T_7\}`$. The patch formed by the six triangles $`T_2,\mathrm{},T_7`$ has symmetry $`D_3`$ at least and so, $`G`$ has also this symmetry. Consequently, the symmetry of $`G`$ is $`D_3`$, $`D_{3h}`$ or $`D_{3d}`$.

If $`k=4`$, then the axis of the rotation goes through a vertex or a $`4`$-gon. Assume, for simplicity, that this axis goes through a vertex; then, by repeating above reasoning, one obtains two orbits of $`3`$-gons, say, $`\{T_1,T_2,T_3,T_4\}`$ and $`\{T_5,T_6,T_7,T_8\}`$, under $`4`$-fold symmetry and the symmetry group is $`D_4`$, $`D_{4h}`$, $`D_{4d}`$, $`O`$ or $`O_h`$.

So, one obtains the above list of $`18`$ possible point groups. All these groups appear in subsection 9.5 (groups $`O_h`$, $`D_{4d}`$, $`D_{3h}`$, $`D_2`$, $`D_{4h}`$, $`C_{2v}`$, $`D_{3d}`$, $`C_2`$), in Figure 6 (groups $`D_{2d}`$, $`C_s`$, $`C_1`$, $`D_4`$, $`D_3`$, $`C_{2h}`$, $`C_i`$, $`S_4`$) and in Figure 5 (groups $`D_{2h}`$, $`O`$); for all groups (except, possibly, $`C_i`$, $`C_{2h}`$ and $`S_4`$) those examples of $`8`$-hedrites have smallest number of vertices.

###### Remark 4

The simplest case, $`i=4`$, of $`i`$-hedrites admits following characterization for each of its five possible groups. It has symmetry $`D_{2h}`$ (respectively, $`D_{2d}`$) if and only if it is an $`t`$-inflation, for some $`t1,m2`$, of $`J_{4,2m}`$ or $`I_{4,2m+2}`$ with even $`m`$ (respectively, of $`K_{4,4m}`$ or $`I_{4,2m+2}`$ with odd $`m`$). Any $`4`$-hedrite with group $`D_4`$ or $`D_{4h}`$ has $`2(k^2+l^2)`$ vertices for some $`kl0`$ (the group $`D_{4h}`$ corresponds to the case $`l=k`$ or $`0`$); it comes from the smallest $`4`$-hedrite 2-1 by Goldberg-Coxeter construction (see \[Gold37\], \[Cox71\] and \[DD03\]). All other 4-hedrites have symmetry $`D_2`$; in shift terms, they are exactly those, for which interchange of central circuits changes the value of shift.

We expect, that a $`7`$-hedrite with the highest symmetry $`C_{2v}`$ exists for any $`n10`$.

## 9 Small $`i`$-hedrites

Here and below all links are given in Rolfsen’s notation (see the table in \[Rol76\] and also, for example, \[Kaw96\]) for links with at most 9 crossings and knots with 10 crossings, or, otherwise, in Dowker-Thistlewhaite’s numbering (see \[Thi\]), if any. We write $``$ if the projection in the pictures and Table below is different from the one given in corresponding cases above.

We give on the pictures below all $`i`$-hedrites with at most $`12`$ vertices, indicating under picture of each its symmetry, CC-vector and corresponding alternating link. If an $`i`$-hedrite is $`2`$-connected but not $`3`$-connected, then we add a symbol $``$ just after the number. If an $`i`$-hedrite is reducible, i.e. has a rail-road, then we add mention “red.”. All $`i`$-hedrites with $`13`$, $`14`$ and $`15`$ vertices are listed in Table 2.

Only three reducible $`i`$-hedrites with $`n15`$ have self-intersecting railroad: $`5`$-hedrites 12-3, 14-6 and $`6`$-hedrite 13-11.

On the pictures below, in order to express better the (maximal) symmetry of an $`i`$-hedrite, we put:

(i) a double arrow, in order to represent an edge passing at infinity,

(ii) a quadruple arrow, in order to represent a vertex at infinity.

### 9.1 $`4`$-hedrites

Nr.2-1$`D_{4h}`$

$`2_1^2`$$`\left(2^2\right)`$

Nr.4-1$`D_{4h}`$

$`4_1^2`$$`\left(4^2\right)`$

Nr.4-2$`D_{2h}`$

$`2\times 2_1^2`$$`(2^2,4)`$ red.

Nr.6-1$`D_{2d}`$

$`6_2^2`$$`\left(6^2\right)`$

Nr.6-2$`D_{2h}`$

$`3\times 2_1^2`$$`(2^3,6)`$ red.

Nr.8-1$`D_{2h}`$

$`8_4^2`$$`\left(8^2\right)`$

Nr.8-2$`D_{2d}`$

$`8_4^3`$$`(4^2,8)`$ red.

Nr.8-3$`D_{4h}`$

$`8_1^4`$$`\left(4^4\right)`$ red.

Nr.8-4$`D_{2h}`$

$`4\times 2_1^2`$$`(2^4,8)`$ red.

Nr.10-1$`D_4`$

$`10_{121}^2`$$`\left(10^2\right)`$

Nr.10-2$`D_{2d}`$

$`10_{120}^2`$$`\left(10^2\right)`$

Nr.10-3$`D_{2h}`$

$`5\times 2_1^2`$$`(2^5,10)`$ red.

Nr.12-1$`D_{2h}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`\left(12^2\right)`$

Nr.12-2$`D_2`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(6^2,12)`$ red.

Nr.12-3$`D_{2d}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(4^3,12)`$ red.

Nr.12-4$`D_{2h}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(4^3,6^2)`$ red.

Nr.12-5$`D_{2h}`$

$`6\times 2_1^2`$$`(2^6,12)`$ red.

### 9.2 $`5`$-hedrites

Nr.3-1$`D_{3h}`$

$`3_1`$$`\left(6\right)`$

Nr.5-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`5_2`$$`\left(10\right)`$

Nr.6-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`6_3^2`$$`(4;8)`$

Nr.6-2$`D_{3h}`$

$`6_1^3`$$`\left(4^3\right)`$

Nr.7-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`7_5`$$`\left(14\right)`$

Nr.7-2$`C_s`$

$`7_5^2`$$`(4;10)`$

Nr.7-3$`C_{2v}`$

$`7_1^3`$$`(4^2;6)`$

Nr.8-1$`C_2`$

$`8_{15}`$$`\left(16\right)`$

Nr.9-1$`C_2`$

$`9_{38}`$$`\left(18\right)`$

Nr.9-2$`C_{2v}`$

$`9_{18}`$$`\left(18\right)`$

Nr.10-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`10_{155}^3`$$`(4^2;12)`$ red.

Nr.10-2$`C_1`$

$`10_{85}^2`$$`(6;14)`$

Nr.10-3$`C_{2v}`$

$`10_{173}^4`$$`(4^2,6^2)`$ red.

Nr.11-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`11_{236}`$$`\left(22\right)`$

Nr.11-2$`C_2`$

$`11_{124}`$$`\left(22\right)`$

Nr.11-3$`C_1`$

$`11_{226}^2`$$`(6;16)`$

Nr.11-4$`C_s`$

$`11_{500}^3`$$`(4^2;14)`$ red.

Nr.11-5$`C_s`$

$`11_{547}^4`$$`(4^2,6;8)`$ red.

Nr.12-1$`C_1`$

$`12_{431}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-2$`C_{2v}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`\left(12^2\right)`$

Nr.12-3$`D_{3h}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`\left(12^2\right)`$ red.

### 9.3 $`6`$-hedrites

Nr.4-1$`D_{2d}`$

$`4_1`$$`\left(8\right)`$

Nr.5-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`5_1^2`$$`(4;6)`$

Nr.6-1$`C_2`$

$`6_3`$$`\left(12\right)`$

Nr.6-2$`D_{2h}`$

$`6_3^2`$$`\left(6^2\right)`$

Nr.7-1$`C_2`$

$`7_7`$$`\left(14\right)`$

Nr.8-1$`D_{2d}`$

$`8_{12}`$$`\left(16\right)`$

Nr.8-2$`C_2`$

$`8_{17}`$$`\left(16\right)`$

Nr.8-3$`D_{2d}`$

$`8_{14}^2`$$`(4;12)`$

Nr.8-4$`C_2`$

$`8_8^2`$$`(6;10)`$

Nr.8-5$`D_{2h}`$

$`8_6^3`$$`(4,6^2)`$

Nr.9-1$`C_2`$

$`9_{31}`$$`\left(18\right)`$

Nr.9-2$`C_1`$

$`9_{33}`$$`\left(18\right)`$

Nr.9-3$`C_s`$

$`9_{38}^2`$$`(4;14)`$

Nr.9-4$`C_{2v}`$

$`9_{12}^3`$$`(4^2;10)`$ red.

Nr.9-5$`C_s`$

$`9_{11}^3`$$`(4,6;8)`$

Nr.10-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`10_{120}`$$`\left(20\right)`$

Nr.10-2$`C_2`$

$`10_{88}`$$`\left(20\right)`$

Nr.10-3$`C_2`$

$`10_{45}`$$`\left(20\right)`$

Nr.10-4$`C_2`$

$`10_{115}`$$`\left(20\right)`$

Nr.10-5$`D_{2h}`$

$`10_{87}^2`$$`\left(10^2\right)`$

Nr.10-6$`C_2`$

$`10_{86}^2`$$`(6;14)`$

Nr.10-7$`C_2`$

$`10_{43}^2`$$`(4;16)`$

Nr.10-8$`C_{2h}`$

$`10_{136}^3`$$`(4;8^2)`$

Nr.10-9$`C_{2v}`$

$`10_{136}^3`$$`(4,6;10)`$

Nr.11-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`11_{332}`$$`\left(22\right)`$

Nr.11-2$`C_{2v}`$

$`11_{297}`$$`\left(22\right)`$

Nr.11-3$`C_1`$

$`11_{125}`$$`\left(22\right)`$

Nr.11-4$`C_2`$

$`11_{317}^2`$$`(8;14)`$

Nr.11-5$`C_2`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(8;14)`$

Nr.11-6$`C_s`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(8,14)`$

Nr.11-7$`C_s`$

$`11_{351}^2`$$`(10,12)`$

Nr.12-1$`D_{2d}`$

$`12_{477}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-2$`D_2`$

$`12_{1152}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-3$`C_2`$

$`12_{499}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-4$`C_2`$

$`12_{458}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-5$`C_2`$

$`12_{1102}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-6$`C_2`$

$`12_{1167}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-7$`C_1`$

$`12_{626}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-8$`C_1`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(6;18)`$

Nr.12-9$`C_2`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(10,14)`$

Nr.12-10$`C_s`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(8,16)`$

Nr.12-11$`D_{2d}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(4^2;16)`$ red.

Nr.12-12$`C_{2v}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(8;8^2)`$

Nr.12-13$`C_s`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(6;8,10)`$

Nr.12-14$`D_{2h}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(4^2,8^2)`$ red.

### 9.4 $`7`$-hedrites

Nr.7-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`7_6^2`$$`(4;10)`$

Nr.8-1$`C_s`$

$`8_{13}^2`$$`(4;12)`$

Nr.9-1$`C_s`$

$`9_{34}`$$`\left(18\right)`$

Nr.10-1$`C_s`$

$`10_{121}`$$`\left(20\right)`$

Nr.10-2$`C_{2v}`$

$`10_{111}^2`$$`\left(10^2\right)`$

Nr.10-3$`C_s`$

$`10_{69}^2`$$`(8,12)`$

Nr.11-1$`C_2`$

$`11_{288}`$$`\left(22\right)`$

Nr.11-2$`C_1`$

$`11_{301}`$$`\left(22\right)`$

Nr.11-3$`C_s`$

$`11_{150}^2`$$`(8,14)`$

Nr.11-4$`C_{2v}`$

$`11_{487}^3`$$`(4^2;14)`$ red.

Nr.12-1$`C_1`$

$`12_{361}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-2$`C_1`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(6;18)`$

Nr.12-3$`C_s`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(10,14)`$

Nr.12-4$`C_{2v}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(6^2;12)`$

Nr.12-5$`C_s`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(4^2;16)`$ red.

### 9.5 $`8`$-hedrites

Nr.6-1$`O_h`$

$`6_2^3`$$`\left(4^3\right)`$

Nr.8-1$`D_{4d}`$

$`8_{18}`$$`\left(16\right)`$

Nr.9-1$`D_{3h}`$

$`9_{40}`$$`\left(18\right)`$

Nr.10-1$`D_2`$

$`10_{56}^2`$$`(6;14)`$

Nr.10-2$`D_{4h}`$

$`10_{169}^4`$$`(4^2,6^2)`$ red.

Nr.11-1$`C_{2v}`$

$`11_{520}^3`$$`(6^2;10)`$

Nr.12-1$`D_{3d}`$

$`12_{1019}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-2$`D_2`$

$`12_{868}`$$`\left(24\right)`$

Nr.12-3$`C_2`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`(6;18)`$

Nr.12-4$`O_h`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`\left(6^4\right)`$

Nr.12-5$`D_{3h}`$

$`\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}`$$`\left(6^4\right)`$


text:
# Oxygen in the Galactic thin and thick disks

## 1. Introduction

The Galactic thin and thick disks are two distinct stellar populations in terms of age distributions and kinematics. The chemical trends in the two systems are also most likely different although recent works give conflicting results, see e.g. Chen et al. (2000) and Fuhrmann (1998). We show that the abundance trends for oxygen are different for the thin and thick disks.

## 2. Observations

The selection of thin and thick disk stars was based on kinematics and is fully described in Bensby et al. (2003a, in prep). We calculated Gaussian probabilities for each star that it belongs to the thin and thick disk respectively, using the galactic velocity components $`U`$, $`V`$, and $`W`$ of the stars. Stars with high probabilities of belonging to either the thin or the thick disk were then selected. The sample consists of 21 thick disk stars and 42 thin disk stars.

Spectra were obtained with the CES spectrograph on the ESO 3.6m telescope with a a resolution of $`R\mathrm{215\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ and a signal-to-noise $`S/N>400`$. Telluric lines were divided out using spectra from fast rotating B stars. Further details are given in Bensby et al. (2003b, in prep).

## 3. Abundances and results

Oxygen abundances were determined through fitting of synthetic spectra to the observed spectra. The forbidden oxygen line at 6300 Å that has a blend of nickel in its right wing. At low metallicities this blend is often negligible, but becomes severe at higher metallicities. This is illustrated in Fig. 1 where we plot synthetic and observed spectra for three stars at different metallicities. Fe and Ni abundances have been determined from our FEROS spectra (R$`\mathrm{48\hspace{0.17em}000}`$) by measuring equivalent widths of approximately 140 Fe i, 30 Fe ii, and 50 Ni i lines for each star (Bensby et al. 2003a in prep.)

The two plots in Fig. 2 presents our results. These are our findings:
1. The thin and thick disk stars clearly show different abundance trends. This is a strong indication of their disparate origin and different epochs of formation.
2. A turn-down for $`[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}]`$ at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.35`$ for the thick disk stars, from being roughly flat, continuing down to solar values. This feature is most likely a signature of the onset of SNIa.
3. The thin disk stars show a shallow decrease when going from the lowest metallicities to solar values, not showing a knee. This implies that the star formation rate in the thin disk was quite low compared to that in the thick disk.
4. At super-solar metallicities the trend found at sub-solar metallicities continues linearly for the thin disk stars. In contrast Nissen and Edvardsson (1992) found $`[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}]`$ to level out at these metallicities. However, they did not take the Ni i blend in the \[O i\] line into account, which becomes important at these metallicities, see Fig. 1. This result has implications for different models of supernova yields, and will be investigated further.

All stars have also been observed with the FEROS spectrograph and abundances for other elements have been determined (Na, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Zn, Y, Ba, Eu). For the $`\alpha `$-elements we find the same signature from the onset of SNIa in the thick disk which appears to be absent in the thin disk, see Feltzing et al. (2002) and Bensby et al. (2003a, in prep), in good agreement with the trends we find for oxygen.

A few stars merits, due to their positions in Fig. 2, further comments: two thick disk stars at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.3`$ and one thin disk star at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.6`$. The latter may be due to the fact that the thick disk also contain stars with “cold” kinematics. The first two are a bit harder to understand but their kinematics might have been heated through close encounters or they might have been kicked-out from a double or multiple stellar system.

## References

Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Lundstöm, I. 2003a and 2003b, both in preparation

Chen, Y.Q., Nissen, P.E., Zhao, G. et al. 2000, A&AS, 141, 491

Feltzing, S., Bensby, T., & Lundstöm, I. 2002, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0211589)

Fuhrmann, K. 1998, A&A, 338, 161

Nissen, P.E., & Edvardsson, B. 1992, A&A, 261, 255