text:
# BeppoSAX observations of soft X-ray Intermediate Polars

## 1 Introduction

Intermediate Polars (IPs) are the hardest X-ray emitting Cataclysmic Variables (CVs) containing a magnetized white dwarf (WD) that is accreting material from a late-type Main Sequence star. Unlike the strongly magnetized (B$``$10-230 MG) orbitally phase–locked Polars for which $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{orb}}=\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{rot},\mathrm{WD}}`$, the magnetic field of the white dwarf is not strong enough ($`\mathrm{B}<`$10 MG) to lock its rotation to the binary orbit and thus $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{rot},\mathrm{WD}}<\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{orb}}`$. IPs typically populate the long period distribution of magnetic CVs, whilst Polars are generally found at short orbital periods. Hence, the wide orbits and the low magnetic fields in IPs can allow the formation of an accretion disc, which is truncated at the magnetospheric radius. However, other accretion configurations can occurr in IPs, such as the complex disc-overflow, where the stream of matter from the secondary star overpasses the accretion disc and is channeled towards the magnetic poles (Hellier 1991) or the direct (or stream) accretion without an intervening disc. This latter configuration is encountered in Polars, where the accretion material directly flows towards the magnetic poles of the white dwarf.

The X-ray emission in IPs is generally strongly pulsed at the spin $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{rot}}=1/\omega `$ period of the white dwarf, indicating that material accretes onto the magnetic poles via a disc, as it loses memory of the orbital motion (disc-fed systems). This material flows onto the poles in an arc–shaped accretion curtain (Rosen et al. 1988). However, not all systems are found to pulse only at the white dwarf rotation. The presence of additional frequencies in the X-ray power spectra, such as the orbital $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the beat (or synodic) $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, indicate a disc-overflow accretion whose relative proportion can vary from system to system and with time (Hellier 1991; Wynn & King 1992; Norton et al. 1992). Only one system, RX J1712$``$24 (V2400 Oph) is known to date to be pulsed at the beat period (Buckley et al. 1997), thus being an unique example of a discless IP.

The X-ray emission of IPs is hard and optically thin ($`\mathrm{kT}_{\mathrm{Brems}.}530\mathrm{keV}`$), originating from the post-shock region above the magnetic pole. These hard X-rays are highly absorbed by cold material (column densities up to $`10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) within the accretion flow (Ishida et al. 1994) and are expected to be reflected by the WD atmosphere (Beardmore et al. 1995; Done et al. 1995; Matt 1999; Ezuka & Ishida 1999; de Martino et al. 2001). Unlike Polars, which also show a strong soft X-ray black-body component (20-50 eV), only three systems, RE 0751$`+`$144 (PQ Gem), RX J0558.0$`+`$5353 (V405 Aur) and the faint RX J0512.2$``$3241 (UU Col), were discovered as soft X-ray IPs (Mason et al. 1992; Haberl et al. 1994; Burwitz & Reinsch 2001). The first two are also known to show circular polarized optical emission, suggesting a close link of soft X-ray IPs to the Polars. Indeed the soft X-ray emission in Polars is due to reprocessing, in the white dwarf atmosphere, of hard X-rays and cyclotron radiation, which are emitted from the post-shock region. In particular, the relative proportion of hard-to-soft X-ray emissions was found to depend on the magnetic field strength and local mass accretion rate (Voelk & Beuermann 1998). Hence, the soft IPs might be considered as true non-synchronous Polars and probably as their progenitors. Why most IPs do not show such a soft X-ray component is still an open question.

In this paper we present BeppoSAX observations of RE 0751$`+`$144 (PQ Gem) (henceforth RE 0751), RX J0558.0$`+`$5353 (V405 Aur) (henceforth RX J0558) and RX J1712.6$``$2414 (V2400 Oph) (henceforth RX J1712), which together with RX J0028.8$`+`$5917 (V709 Cas) (de Martino et al. 2001) are so far the only IPs for which a simultaneous broad-band X-ray coverage has been performed. All three IPs are characterized by circular polarization in their optical emission. Also, while the first two were discovered as soft X-ray IPs by ROSAT, RX J1712 was only recently found by XMM-Newton (Haberl 2002) to possess a soft, but hot (80-100 eV) X-ray component. Here we discuss their temporal and spectral properties over the wide energy range of the BeppoSAX instruments.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

The BeppoSAX satellite (Boella et al. 1997) performed pointed observations of RX J0558 in Oct. 1996, RE 0751 in Nov. 1996 and RX J1712 in Aug. 1998 with its co-aligned Narrow Field Instruments (NFI), covering the wide 0.1-300 keV energy range, as detailed in Table 1. All three sources were detected with the LECS (0.1-10 keV) and MECS (1-10 keV) instruments. Due to the failure of one of the three MECS units in May 1997, RX J1712 MECS data were collected by two units. Because of LECS orbital limitations, LECS exposures were much shorter than those of the MECS (but see also sect. 3.1). The PDS (13-300 keV) is a collimated instrument, which monitors the background continuously switching two (of the four) detectors with a dwell time of 96 s. While RE 0751 and RX J0558 are detected up to 90 keV, for RX J1712, the presence of a bright close-by cluster of galaxies, which heavily contaminates count rates above 13 keV, the PDS data could not be safely extracted.

LECS light curves and spectra have been extracted using a circular region centred on the sources with a radius of 8 arcmin for RE 0751 and RX J1712 and 6 arcmin for the faint RX J0558. The MECS light curves and spectra for all three sources have been extracted with a 4 arcmin radius. While the whole LECS band was used for timing analysis, the spectra from this instrument have been analyzed only below 4 keV due to calibration problems at higher energies. For both intruments, the background was measured and subtracted using the same detector regions during blank field pointings. The PDS light curves and spectra were extracted using a standard routine provided by the BeppoSAX Data Center (SDC). We conservatively extracted the data in the energy range 13–90 keV, above which the sources are hardly detected. The procedure allows rejection of particle background events, as well as spikes caused by single-particle hits, which produce fluorescent cascades that are mainly recorded below 30 keV. The background spectrum is evaluated for each of the two half arrays accumulating the off–source spectra. The background light curves are constructed by linear interpolation between two off–source pointings in each array. Then the spectra and light curves from the two arrays are merged together to construct the background spectrum and light curve for final subtraction.

Net on-source exposure times and count rates for the three sources are reported in Table 1.

## 3 Timing Analysis

A search for periodicities was performed on light curves extracted in the MECS energy range between 1-10 keV. For sake of clarity, the left panels of Figs. 1, 3 and 5 report the extracted light curves with a binning time of 60 s. They show clear periodic pulses on time scale of minutes, with no apparent variability on timescales of hours, implying no orbital modulations.

### 3.1 The spin pulse characteristics in RX J0558

RX J0558 was discovered as a soft IP by Haberl et al. (1994) with an X-ray period of 272 s. This period is also confirmed by optical photometry (Skillman 1996, Allan et al. 1996). A further detailed re-analysis of the ROSAT data showed that RX J0558 is dominated by the 272 s period below 0.7 keV, whilst at higher energies it shows a 545 s periodicity, indicating that the latter is the spin period of the white dwarf and the soft X-ray period is related to the first harmonic of the spin frequency (Allan et al. 1996). Hence, our timing analysis was done on LECS soft 0.1-0.4 keV, 0.4-1 keV bands and on the whole range of the MECS instrument. The light curves were extracted with a binning size of 68 s (LECS) and 32 s (MECS) and Fourier analysed using the DFT algorithm (Deeming 1975). In order to remove the windowing effects of unevenly sampled data due to the BeppoSAX orbit, the CLEAN algorithm (Roberts et al. 1987) has been applied. The corresponding power spectra (the DFT and CLEANED) are shown in the right panels of Fig. 1. Similarly to the ROSAT observations, they do not reveal the 4.15 h orbital period. A strong peak at 545 s is detected in the MECS band, while below 1 keV no periodicity is found (middle and lower panels). Differently from the ROSAT data, the first harmonic is also clearly detected in the hard X-rays. Consistency checks on the LECS 1-10 keV band show that the 545 s period is present but at a very low level. As noted in sect. 2., the effective exposure of LECS instrument was very short ($``$ 14 ks) over a 65 ks of observing time, during which no data were acquired for $``$16 ks. We then performed separate analysis of the first (19 ks) and second (25 ks) interval, having an effective on-source time of $``$7 ks only. We could detect the 545 s modulation only in the first interval, implying that the lack of detection of the soft X-ray modulation is due to the low quality of LECS data and to the small number ($``$25) of spin cycles covered. Here we note that ASCA observations carried out during the same period and simultaneously with SAX for $``$5 hrs confirm the presence of the 272 s modulation in the soft 0.4-0.6 keV band with an amplitude of $`34\%`$ (Mukai et al. 1997). Hence the LECS soft X-ray band for this source will not be discussed further for variability purposes.

Allan et al. (1996) provide a spin ephemeris based on the soft X-ray double-humped light curve. The time of their maximum, however, does not correspond to the maximum observed in the hard X-rays and therefore the MECS light curve has been fit with a composite sinusoidal function accounting for the base and second harmonic frequencies. We derive:

$`\mathrm{HJD}_{\mathrm{max}}=2450364.159695(2)+0.006311(6)\mathrm{xE}`$.

This ephemeris is less precise than the one derived from ROSAT data (Allan et al. 1996), probably due to the low statistics of the BeppoSAX light curve and to the non sinusoidal shape of the hard X-ray pulsation. However, it allows a proper phasing of the hard X-ray maximum as shown in Fig. 2, left panel. As for the LECS instrument, the lack of modulation in the high energy PDS data is probably due to the limited quality. As expected, the modulation in the 1-10 keV band is not sinusoidal with a broad shoulder maximum and a shallow minimum and hints of a secondary pulse feature. The pulsed fraction (max-min/average) is 56$`\%`$ in the 1-2 keV band and $`4045\%`$ in the 2-5 keV and 5-10 keV bands. The hardness ratios \[2–5/1–2 keV\] and \[5–10/2–5 keV\], tracing the hard component (right panels of Fig. 2) do not show significant variations with spin phase, confirming the lack of energy-dependent modulation in the hard bands. The spin variability of the hard component is then due to aspect angle changes of the emitting region.

### 3.2 The spin modulation in RE 0751

RE 0751 was the first soft X-ray IP to be discovered from the ROSAT survey (Mason et al. 1992). A period derivative $`\dot{\mathrm{P}}=1.1\times 10^{10}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{s}^1`$ was subsequently found from X-ray and optical timings of the 833 s white dwarf rotational period spanning five years (Mason 1997), indicating that the white dwarf is spinning down at the largest rate ever found in an IP. Its behaviour in both soft and hard X-ray bands has never been monitored simultaneously. The BeppoSAX MECS (1-10 keV ) light curve reported in Fig. 3 (left panel) clearly shows the presence of rapid pulses and the absence of variability at the 5.2 h orbital period. The DFT and CLEANED power spectrum in the LECS 0.1-0.4 keV, 0.4-1 keV and MECS 1-10 keV range are reported in the right panels of Fig. 3. Above 1 keV, the power spectrum shows a strong signal at the 833 s spin period and higher harmonics up to the third. In the 0.4–1 keV range, instead, the signal at these frequencies is at the noise level. Here the CLEAN algorithm does not detect even the base frequency. Below 0.4 keV the signal at the base frequency is strong again, but not those at the higher harmonics. This indicates that the 833 s modulation is structured in the hard X-rays, then mostly disappears at decreasing energies and appears again as a strong single pulse below 0.4 keV.

The energy dependent behaviour of the spin modulation has been inspected in different energy bands from 0.1 to 40 keV. In Fig. 4, we report the folded rotational pulses using the quadratic ephemeris provided by Mason (1997), which is based on the stable presence of a narrow dip and is accurate enough to extrapolate to the BeppoSAX observation epoch (i.e. the propagated phase error is $`\delta \varphi `$=0.03). The light curves confirm the very complex morphology, detected previously by ROSAT, Ginga, ASCA and RXTE (Duck et al. 1994; Mason 1997; Kiziloglu et al. 1998; James et al. 2002). In the 0.1-0.4 keV band (as well as in the 0.1-0.5 keV one, used by Duck et al. 1994) the pulse profile is single peaked, with count rates increasing by a factor of 4, with a hardly detectable narrow dip of 0.06$`\pm `$0.01 width in phase. In the higher 0.4-1 keV range, the dip increases in breadth (0.1 in phase) and in place of the broad minimum observed in the softer band, a secondary maximum is observed, making the overall modulation highly structured, with large excursions throughout the spin cycle. The modulation at energies higher than 1 keV shows an increase in depth of the dip feature up to 5 keV. When compared to GINGA or ASCA data, the pulse is not double-peaked with primary and secondary maxima of the same intensity, but rather consists of a more structured primary maximum and a weaker secondary maximum which is detected up to 5 keV. Alternatively, a secondary dip at $`\varphi `$=0.55, more pronounced in the 2-5 keV range, might be present, simulating a double-peaked light curve. The modulation becomes very sinusoidal at 5-10 keV, with no apparent hint of a secondary maximum, which is instead observed by Ginga and broadly resembles that observed by RXTE (James et al. 2002). In the harder band (10-40 keV), again, we cannot detect any modulation due to the limited statistics of PDS data. The BeppoSAX data confirm the energy dependence of the dip which is not visible above 5 keV. The hardness ratios \[5–10/2–5 keV\] and \[0.4–1/0.1–0.4 keV\] show a different behaviour. Above 2 keV, the spectrum hardens during the dip and it is still hard at spin maximum and is softer at spin minimum. A hardening is also observed around phase 0.55. This confirms that the dip as well as the underlying modulation is energy dependent. There is probably an additional absorption component that produces the secondary dip, thus indicating that the absorbing material in the accretion flow is very structured. On the other hand, the soft X-rays harden at spin minimum, implying that either the X–ray reprocessing region is hardest, or that there is an additional contribution of a harder emitting region seen at spin phases between 0.6–0.9. This aspect will be reconsidered in sects. 4 and 5.

### 3.3 The beat pulsation of RX J1712

This system was discovered as a hard X-ray IP (Haberl & Motch 1995) pulsating at a period of 1003 s, but with a 927 s period in its optical polarised light (Buckley et al. 1995; 1997). This led to the identification of the longer 1003 s period as the synodic period between the 3.42 h orbital and the 927 s white dwarf spin periods, thus making RX J1712 the only discless IP known so far, where accretion occurs via pole-flipping each half of a beat cycle. The MECS (1-10 keV) band light curve is shown in the left panel of Fig. 5. The DFT and CLEANED power spectra are reported in the right panels of that figure. A strong signal at the synodic frequency is detected in the harder bands ($`>`$1 keV), whilst in the softer 0.1-1k̇eV range this frequency is not detected, although evidence of power is found between between 100 and 190 $`\mathrm{d}^1`$. No power is observed at the 927 s spin and 3.42 h orbital frequencies, confirming the ROSAT and RXTE results (Hellier & Beardmore 2002). Consistency checks on the LECS data have been carried out and the strong beat pulsation is present in different bands above 1 keV.

To study the energy dependence of beat pulses, we obtained the time of X-ray maximum for our BeppoSAX data set by a sinusoidal fit to the MECS (1-10 keV) light curve: $`\mathrm{HJD}_{\mathrm{max}}`$=2451063.62405(5). We then folded the light curves in different energy bands as shown in Fig. 6 (left panel). The modulation is stronger in the hard bands, with a pulsed fraction of 80$`\%`$ in the 5-10 keV range, 60$`\%`$ in the 2-5 keV band and 50$`\%`$ in the 1-2 keV range. In this latter range the modulation is not sinusoidal, with a structured minimum. The 0.1-1 keV range instead shows excursions up to 60$`\%`$ over the synodic cycle, although an underlying sinusoidal trend might be present. The softer bands (below 2 keV) might be indicative of a different emission component. A hardening at pulse maximum is observed above 2 keV, while at lower energies no variations are detected (Fig. 6, right panels). The hardening at pulse maximum in this discless system is similar to that observed in Polars (Matt et al. 2000), which accrete via a column fed directly from the stream. Hence, pulse maxima are observed when the column points towards the observer and the absorption is maximum, with the hardest regions contributing most. The lack of strong pulsations below 1 keV and the fact that the X-ray modulation does not vanish at pulse minimum (which is seen in Polars) suggest an additional source of X-rays. This aspect will be discussed in sect. 5.

## 4 The broad-band spectral properties

We studied the broad-band spectra by means of spectral fits (using XSPEC) to the phase–averaged spectra. We used the combined LECS, MECS and PDS data for RX J0558 and RE 0751 allowing the study from 0.1 to 90 keV. For RX J1712 we used the LECS and MECS data only and hence spectra are limited from 0.1 to 10 keV. We have adopted a composite model consisting of an isothermal plasma emission (MEKAL) with temperature $`\mathrm{kT}_{\mathrm{hard}}`$ and metal abundance A (in number with respect to solar), a black–body component with temperature $`\mathrm{kT}_{\mathrm{BB}}`$, two cold media consisting of a simple absorber with column density $`\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{H}`$ and a partial covering absorber with column density $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{H}(\mathrm{pcfabs})}`$ and covering fraction $`\mathrm{C}_\mathrm{F}`$. The model also includes a Gaussian fixed at E=6.4 keV to account for the iron Kα fluorescent line and a Compton reflection component, with relative normalization R, which represents the solid angle subtended by the material in units of $`2\pi `$ for an average viewing angle fixed to 60o. The iron and other element abundances of this component (REFLECT in XSPEC) have been linked to the abundance of the MEKAL model. A Compton reflection component has been demonstrated to be present in mCVs (both Polars and IPs) (Done et al. 1995; Matt 1999; Ezuka & Ishida 1999; Matt et al. 2000; de Martino et al. 2001). Here we note that the BeppoSAX data are not of enough quality to derive the multi–temperature structure of the post–shock region. Indeed a power law temperature profile (CEMEKL in XSPEC) gives worse fits with respect to an isothermal plasma. Hence, we are unable to estimate the white dwarf masses as we lack reliable shock temperatures. In Table 2, we report the results of the spectral fits with the mentioned model, which are shown in Fig. 7. Here we note that for RX J1712, because of the lack of PDS data, we first assumed no reflection (i.e. R=0). We also allowed for this parameter to change and obtained an upper limit of 0.16. This is however unrealistic for the large EW of the iron line and the low abundances and, therefore, we assumed R=1.

For all three sources, the column densities of the simple absorber are compatible within errors with the ROSAT determinations (Haberl & Motch 1995; Duck et al. 1996) and are also in agreement with the estimates of $`\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{V}}`$ obtained from UV spectra (Mouchet et al. 1998; de Martino et al. 1998). These are lower or at most equal to the galactic column densities in the direction of the three sources, implying that the simple absorber can be regarded as of interstellar origin. From the fits, the partial covering (up to 40$`\%`$) cold absorber has instead much higher densities than that of the galactic medium and its origin is intrisic to the systems. As will be seen in sect. 4.1, this intrinsic absorber is likely to be more complex, but this approximation allows us to identify in a simple way, the presence of localized cold material close to the X-ray source.

The black–body component is found to be ubiquitous in all three systems with temperature that are at the higher end of the temperature range found in Polars (20–60 eV). The hottest black–body component is found in RX J1712 (100 eV) which confirms the surprising results of Haberl (2002) obtained from XMM–Newton observations for this source and 1RXS J154814.5-452845 (Haberl et al. 2002). Very hot temperatures are not observed in Polars. The relatively high black–body temperature in RX J0558 is within errors compatible with the earlier ROSAT results by Haberl $`\&`$ Motch (1995). For RE 0751, our spectral fit gives a slightly higher temperature but is still consistent within errors with that derived by Duck et al. (1994) from ROSAT observations at 46 eV, but not with the one determined from ASCA (James et al. 2002) which however was not well constrained. Here we note that James et al. (2002) also fix the temperature of this component to the ROSAT value in their ASCA phase–average spectral fit, but in the phase–resolved analysis the temperature is fixed to the value of 83 eV, found for the spectrum at maximum. The normalizations of the black–body components are loosely constrained (60-70$`\%`$ uncertainty).

The average temperature of the optically thin post–shock plasma is well constrained except for RX J0558 which also has a poorly determined abundance. For this parameter we also find indication of underabundances in RX J1712 and RE 0751. Ezuka & Ishida (1999) also find that magnetic CVs generally display subsolar iron abundances. The temperatures of the hard X-ray component are substantially lower than those derived excluding the reflection, which is however required by the data. The 6.4 keV iron line EWs are too large to be accounted for by the partial covering absorber (Inoue 1985; Matt 2002), and they are likely produced by the white dwarf surface along with the Compton reflection component (Matt 1999), as also found for the IP RX J0028.8+5917 (de Martino et al. 2001). For RE 0751, the line EW is consistent with the measured value of R, even allowing for the low iron abundance (Matt et al. 1997). The same is true for RX J0558 when the rather large errors are considered, even if the value of EW, taken at face value, appears rather large when compared to R. For RX J1712, the value of R is very loosely constrained due to the lack of usable PDS data; for this source, a non-negligible contribution from the partial covering absorber is also expected, given the large column density. Although poorly constrained, the ratios between bolometric black–body and hard X-ray components are found to be close to unity in RX J0558 and RX J1712, and lower in RE 0751.

### 4.1 Phase–resolved spectral variations

To investigate in more detail the spectral behaviour of pulsations, we performed fits to the spectra at maximum and minimum of the pulse cycle of the three sources and also to the dip spectrum of RE 0751. We used only LECS and MECS data due to the lack of variability in the PDS. The spectral fits consist of a composite model of a MEKAL plus black–body component, the interstellar column density, the partial absorber and a Gaussian line fixed at 6.4 keV. For RE 0751 and RX J0558, we also included the reflection component as this is expected to be angle–dependent (Matt 1999). We have therefore fixed the interstellar hydrogen column densities to the values found from the fits of the phase–averaged spectra. Also the temperature and abundance of the optically thin plasma are fixed at the values obtained from the phase–averaged spectra. This was done because the former is an average temperature over the emitting post–shock region and the latter is not expected to change with phase. The temperature of the black–body, the partial covering parameters, the normalization of the Gaussian and those of the hard and black–body components as well as the reflection parameter are kept free. In Table 3 we report the results of the spectral fits for the three systems.

RX J1712 shows an increase of the partial covering absorber (both in column density and covering fraction) at beat maximum which is consistent with the behaviour observed in the hardness ratios (hardening at maximum). On the other hand, the fits do not indicate variations of the temperature of the black–body component. The normalizations of the black–body and of the optically thin component increase at beat maximum and thus the ratio of their bolometric luminosities remains constant. This implies that the spectral changes are due to variations of the absorber and of the normalizations of the black–body and of the hard X-ray component. The EW of the 6.4 keV iron line obtained for these two phases does not vary within errors. The unabsorbed bolometric flux of the hot black–body component ranges between $`1.10.64\times 10^{10}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ at beat maximum and minimum respectively. The lack of clear modulation at the synodic frequency in the softest band might then be due to the concurrence of phasing of the high density absorbing material which increases when the black–body area is largest.

RX J0558 shows a different behaviour; the partial covering absorber (both column density and covering fraction) is constant within errors at spin maximum and minimum. The spin variability is then only due to changes in the normalization of the optically thin component which varies by a factor of 1.3 between the two phases. The black–body component is constant due to the lack of variability in the LECS data. Its average unabsorbed bolometric flux is $`4\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The ratio between this and that of the optically thin component slightly increases at spin minimum, due to the decrease in the normalization of the hard X-ray emission at this phase. The EW of the iron $`K_\alpha `$ line does not change within the errors, although taking the EW and R at their face values at spin minimum, a decrease might be suggested. The lack of spectral changes does not allow us to isolate the secondary pole in the hard X-rays at the minimum of the spin pulse.

In RE 0751, we infer a different spectral behaviour with respect to the other two sources. The temperature of the black–body component as well as the EW of the iron fluorescent line and reflection do not change with spin phase. The normalization of the black–body component is about the same during the maximum and the dip and larger than that during minimum by a factor of about 3. The unabsorbed bolometric black–body flux at maximum and dip is $`3\times 10^{11}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. This indicates that the overall soft spin modulation is essentially due to changes in the projected area of the black–body, with no indication of an additional component. The partial absorber largely covers the X-ray source during the dip but with a lower column density, suggesting photo-electric absorption by an intervening phase–dependent and very localized material. The reflection is unrealistically high during the dip, but it indicates that the cold material is facing the observer. The partial covering absorber is also larger (both column density and covering fraction) at spin maximum. The emission measure of the optically thin component EM=2.5$`\pm 0.4\times 10^{55}`$ cm-3, linked to its normalization, changes by a factor of 1.2 between maximum and minimum, but during the dip it is lower by a factor of 2. Why the emission measure of the hard X-ray component is lower during the dip phases is not understood. The ratio of the bolometric fluxes of the black–body and the optically thin component is about unity during the dip and it is much lower during maximum and minimum (0.5 and 0.2 respectively). Then, the overall pulsation at higher energies is due to absorbing material which is different from that causing the dip. The different shapes of the modulation between 0.4 and 5 keV are likely due to an even more complex and structured absorbing material, for which our simple modeling of the spectra at the three spin phases cannot account. Indeed Duck et al. (1994), and similarly Kiziloglu et al. (1998), use in their spectral fits two columns with different densities ($`10^{22}`$ and $`10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$), but the latter is not constrained from their data. However, and unlike Duck et al. (1994), who conclude that the general rotational modulation is only due to the normalization of each spectral component, we find that it is true only for the black–body.

## 5 Discussion

In these systems, the pulsations are complex and different from each other.The basic difference is that RX J0558 and RE 0751 are disc–fed systems, while RX J1712 is a disc–less accretor. All of them are characterized by a soft and relatively hot (60-100 eV) and a hard (13–30 keV) optically thin component whose behaviour at the dominant periodicity reveals great differences.

RX J0558 was known to show a single-peaked pulsation at the spin period of the white dwarf in the hard X-rays, but a double–peaked pulse in the soft bands. We cannot derive constraints on the soft X-ray variability due to limitations of the LECS data. The lack of spin variation of the partial absorbing material does not fit with the general picture of IPs, where spin pulses are due to aspect angle changes of the emitting regions combined with photoelectric absorption in the accretion curtain fed by the disc. Allan et al. (1996) and Norton et al. (1999) proposed that rapid rotators, like RX J0558, possess weak magnetic fields, allowing the accretion material to flow onto large surface areas of the white dwarf. In this configuration the optical depth along the curtain is smaller than perpendicularly and, hence, absorption effects, as seen by the observer, can be opposite to those encountered in high field IPs. This modified accretion scenario is not supported by either our observations or ROSAT data (Haberl et al. 1994), where the 0.1–2.4 keV pulses did not show any energy dependence. Also, optical polarized radiation has been detected in RX J0558 (Shakhovskoj & Kolesnikov 1997), indicating that the magnetic field can be as high as that in RE 0751 and RX J1712. Furthermore, since RX J0558 shows a double humped soft X-ray light curve in other observations, both poles are visible and hence its inclination is likely larger than 40o. The lack of X-ray eclipses also gives an upper limit of 80o to the binary inclination. In this range, we should expect changes in the absorption with the spin phase, unless the absorbing material is far away from the X-ray emitting region. For this system the black–body and optically thin component mostly balance and hence, we use the hard X-ray luminosity to estimate the accretion rate. Assuming a white dwarf mass in the range 0.6-1.1$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (the latter from Ramsay 2000), we derive $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}35\times 10^{14}(\mathrm{d}/100\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})^2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Due to the lack of magnetic field measures and knowledge of the distance, we cannot derive the Alfven radius to infer up to what distance the absorbing material might be located.

In RE 0751, the spin modulation is highly structured and energy dependent, confirming previous results (Duck et al. 1994). We find that details of the medium energy pulsation change with respect to previous observations and we derive simultaneous information on the soft and hard spectral components. The energy-dependent pulses are affected by absorption from material partially covering the X-ray source, but with a phase behaviour (minimum at spin minimum), which is not expected from the classical accretion curtain scenario. The dip feature is due to further intervening phase–dependent material in the accretion flow which mostly (70$`\%`$) covers the X-ray source. The soft X-ray pulsation is instead due to variations in the projected area of the X–ray irradiated polar region. A strong magnetic field (9-21 MG) has been estimated, with a dipole offset of 30o and an inclination angle of 60o, allowing two extended arc-shaped accreting regions, placed ahead of the magnetic poles (Potter et al. 1997). In this model, material couples at large radii and travels out of the orbital plane, producing large absorption effects when the accretion region passes through the line of sight at some phases and in particular the dip. At pulse maximum and at the dip, the projected area of the black–body component and the absorption are largest, in agreement with Potter et al.’s model. The ratio of the bolometric black–body and the hard X-ray luminosities is quite low and different from that derived by Duck et al. (1994) who instead found 2.2-1.5, compared to our 0.5. We note that RE 0751 was at a similar flux level as that observed during ROSAT observations. The differences are, however, within the errors of our bolometric fluxes. Given the lack of balance between these fluxes in our fits, we use again the bolometric luminosity of the hard X-ray component to estimate the mass accretion rate. Adopting a distance of 400 pc (Patterson 1994), we derive a luminosity of 8.3$`\times 10^{32}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and, assuming a white dwarf mass between 0.6-1.35 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (the latter from Cropper et al. 1998), we derive $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}`$ = 2-8$`\times 10^{15}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Adopting a value for the magnetic moment of 3$`\times 10^{33}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, obtained for a 15 MG field and an average radius corresponding to the above mass range, and using the derived mass accretion rate, we find that the Alfven radius $`\mathrm{r}_\mathrm{A}=0.52(\mu _{\mathrm{WD}})^{4/7}(2\mathrm{G}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{WD}})^{1/7}(\dot{\mathrm{M}})^{2/7}4\times 10^{10}\mathrm{cm}`$. This implies that indeed the material can be captured at large radii.

In RX J1712, the pulsation at the synodic period indicates a disc–less accretion, which switches from one pole to the other each half of a beat cycle. Hence, differently from Polars or disc–fed IPs, where the spin modulation is purely geometrical, in stream–fed systems the poles experience changes in mass accretion rate. As already pointed out by Buckley et al. (1997) and Hellier & Beardmore (2002), the pulsation is not total, implying that an accreting region is visible during the inter–pulse phases. The absence of an orbital variability typically expected in a disc–less configuration indicates that RX J1712 is a low inclination system. Indeed, a 10o inclination is reported by Buckley et al. (1995) and hence the secondary pole is never observed and the primary pole is mostly visible throughout the spin cycle. Our data do not support an additional emitting region in both soft and hard X-rays. It is thus possible that the pole flipping is not total, with the primary pole still accreting but at a lower level, so that at beat minimum we are still viewing parts of the accretion flow. Then, when the visible pole is accreting at a higher rate (beat maximum), a higher flux and higher absorption are expected as is observed. To account for the low amplitude of the beat modulation, Hellier & Beardmore (2002) suggest that the accretion involved in the pole–flipping is only 25 percent of the total flow. The remaining material is circulating in a diamagnetic blob flow threading the magnetosphere and forming a non–coherent accretion curtain, thus making the spin pulsation undetectable. If so, it is reasonable to expect spectral changes during the faint phase but our spectral fits do not show this in both soft and hard X-ray components. Since the bolometric luminosities of the black–body and optically thin components roughly balance, we use the hard X-ray bolometric luminosity to estimate the accretion rate. We assume a conservative distance of 50 pc (Väth 1997) and a 0.7$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ white dwarf (Ramsay 2000), thus giving $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}3\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which changes by a factor of $``$ 1.7 between maximum and minimum of the beat pulse.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented the first simultaneous soft and hard X-ray data of the three soft X-ray IPs, RE J0751, RX J0558 and RX J1712, over the wide energy range of the BeppoSAX satellite. All three sources have strong X-ray modulation at periods identified as the white dwarf rotations in RX J0558 and RE 0751, and as the synodic period in RX J1712. We have inferred the temperatures of both post–shock flow and of the irradiated polar region of the white dwarf. The temperatures of the black–body component are very high, up to 80-100 eV in RX J0558 and RX J1712, much higher than those found in the Polars. The temperature of the hard X-ray emitting region is found between 13-30 keV. Furthermore, a Compton reflection component is definitely present in RX J0558 and RE 0751, while in RX J1712 it is favoured. The reflection likely originates at the white dwarf surface.

In the three systems, we find differences in the periodic behaviour of the spectral components. We find that the absorbing material partially covering the X-ray source is phase–dependent in RE 0751 and RX J1712 but not in RX J0558. The column densities can be as high as 10$`{}_{}{}^{23}\mathrm{cm}_{}^{2}`$, as in RX J1712, which can heavily hamper the detection of soft X-rays in other hard X-ray IPs.

Although these soft X-ray IPs share common properties, their X-ray temporal and spectral characteristics suggest accretion patterns that cannot be reconciled with a single and simple configuration.

###### Acknowledgements.

DdM and GM acknowledge financial support from ASI.


format: text

text:
# Iterative maximum-likelihood reconstruction in quantum homodyne tomography

## References


text:
# Comment on “Solutions of the Schrödinger equation for the time-dependent linear potential”

## Abstract

We show that the solution obtained by Bekkar et al. in their comment \[Phys. Rev. A 68, 016101 (2003)\] on Guedes’s work of solving the quantum system with a time-dependent linear potential is still not the general one of the Schrödinger equation. It is concluded that Bekkar et al.’s solution (corresponding to the linear Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant) and our solution (corresponding to the quadratic-form Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant) presented here will constitute together a complete set of solutions (general solutions) of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation of the system under consideration.
PACS number(s): 03.65.Fd, 03.65.Ge

Recently, Guedes used the Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant formulation and solved the one-dimensional Schrödinger equation with a time-dependent linear potential, the Hamiltonian of which is $`H(t)=\frac{p^2}{2m}+f(t)q`$ with $`q`$ and $`p`$ being the canonical variables. More recently, Bekkar et al. pointed out that the result obtained by Guedes is merely the particular solution (that corresponds to the null eigenvalue of the linear Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant) rather than a general one. In the comment, Bekkar et al. stated that they correctly used the invariant method and gave the general solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation with a time-dependent linear potential. However, in the present comment, we will show that although the solutions of Bekkar et al. is more general than that of Guedes, what they finally achieved in their comment may be still not the general solutions, either. On the contrary, I think that their result  might also belongs to the particular one. The reason for this may be as follows: according to the Lewis-Riesenfeld invariant method, the solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation can be constructed in terms of the eigenstates of the Lewis-Riesenfeld (L-R) invariants. It is known that both the squared of a L-R invariant (denoted by $`I(t)`$) and the product of two L-R invariants are also the invariants, which agree with the Liouville-Von Neumann equation $`\frac{}{t}I(t)+\frac{1}{i}[I(t),H(t)]=0`$, and that if $`I_a`$ and $`I_b`$ are the two L-R invariants of a certain time-dependent quantum system and $`|\psi (t)`$ is the solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation (corresponding to one of the invariants, say, $`I_a`$), then $`I_b|\psi (t)`$ is another solution of this quantum system. So, in an attempt to obtain the general solutions of a time-dependent system, one should first analyze the complete set of all L-R invariants of the system under consideration. Historically, in order to obtain the complete set of invariants, Gao et al. suggested the concept of basic invariants which can generate the complete set of invariants, as stated in Ref., the basic invariants can be called invariant generators. As far as Bekkar et al.’s result is concerned, the obtained solutions are the ones corresponding only to the linear invariant (i.e., $`I_\mathrm{l}(t)=A(t)p+B(t)q+C(t)`$) that is simply one of the L-R invariants constituting a complete set. It is apparently seen that the quadratic form, $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)=D(t)p^2+E(t)(pq+qp)+F(t)q^2+A^{}(t)p+B^{}(t)q+C^{}(t)`$, is also the one that can satisfy the Liouville-Von Neumann equation, since it is readily verified that the generators of $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ form a Lie algebra. However, for the cubic-form invariant, it is easily seen that there exists no such closed Lie algebra. This point holds true also for the algebraic generators in various-power L-R invariants $`I_\mathrm{l}^n`$ ($`n>3`$). So, it is concluded that for the driven oscillator, only the linear $`I_\mathrm{l}(t)`$ and quadratic $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ will form a complete set of L-R invariants. Note that here $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ should not be the squared of $`I_\mathrm{l}(t)`$, i.e., $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)cI_\mathrm{l}^2(t)`$, where $`c`$ is an arbitrary c-number. The existence of $`I_\mathrm{q}`$ that cannot be written as the squared of any $`I_\mathrm{l}`$ was demonstrated in Ref.. It is emphasized here that Bekkar et al.’s solution is the one constructed only in terms of the eigenstates of the linear invariant $`I_\mathrm{l}(t)`$. Even though for the linear invariant $`I_\mathrm{l}(t)`$ only, Bekkar et al.’s result can truly be viewed as the complete set of solutions (in a certain sub-Hilbert-space), it still cannot be considered the general one of the Schrödinger equation, since the latter should contain those corresponding to the quadratic invariant $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$. In brief, Bekkar et al.’s solution and our solution, which will be found in what follows, together constitute the complete set of solutions of the Schrödinger equation involving a time-dependent linear potential.

In accordance with the L-R theory, solving the eigenstates of the quadratic invariant $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ will enable physicists to obtain the solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. But, unfortunately, it is not easy for us to immediately solve the eigenvalue equation of the time-dependent invariant $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$, for $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ involves the time-dependent parameters. So, in the following we will use the invariant-related unitary transformation formulation, under which the time-dependent invariant can be transformed into a time-independent one $`I_V`$, and if the eigenstates of $`I_V`$ can be obtained conveniently, the eigenstates of $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ can then be easily achieved.

For this aim, we will employ two time-dependent unitary transformation operators

$$V_1(t)=\mathrm{exp}[\eta (t)q+\beta (t)p],V_2(t)=\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (t)p^2+\rho (t)q^2]$$
(1)
to get a time-independent $`I_V`$. The time-dependent parameters $`\eta `$, $`\beta `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$ in (1) are purely imaginary functions, which will be determined in what follows. Since the canonical variables (operators) $`q`$ and $`p`$ form a non-semisimple Lie algebra, here the first step is to transform $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ into $`I_1(t)`$, i.e., $`I_1(t)=V_1^{}(t)I_\mathrm{q}(t)V_1(t)`$, which no longer involves the canonical variables $`q`$ and $`p`$, and the retained Lie algebraic generators in $`I_1(t)`$ are only $`p^2`$, $`pq+qp`$, $`q^2`$. Here the time-independent parameters in $`V_1(t)`$ are chosen

$$\eta =\frac{EB^{}FA^{}}{2i(E^2DF)},\beta =\frac{DB^{}EA^{}}{2i(E^2DF)}.$$
(2)
Note that the three generators ($`p^2`$, $`pq+qp`$, $`q^2`$) in $`I_1(t)`$ also form a Lie algebra. The second step is to obtain the time-independent $`I_V`$, which will be gained via the calculation of $`I_V=V_2^{}(t)I_1(t)V_2(t)`$. In this step, the obtained $`I_V`$ has no other generators (and time-dependent c-numbers) than $`p^2`$ and $`q^2`$, namely, $`I_V`$ may be written in the form $`I_V=\frac{1}{2}\varsigma \left(p^2+q^2\right)`$ with $`\varsigma `$ being a certain parameter independent of time. For the detailed and complicated derivation of the functions $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$, readers may be referred to Ref.. It is well known that the eigenvalue equation of $`I_V`$ is of the form $`I_V|n,q=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\varsigma |n,q`$, where $`|n,q`$ stands for the familiar stationary harmonic-oscillator wavefunction. Hence, the eigenstates of the time-dependent L-R invariant $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ can be achieved and the final result is $`V_1(t)V_2(t)|n,q`$ with the eigenvalue being $`\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\varsigma `$.

According to the L-R invariant theory, the particular solution $`|n;q,t_\mathrm{S}`$ of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is different from the eigenfunction of the invariant $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$ only by a phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{i}\varphi _n(t)\right]`$, the time-dependent phase of which is written as (in the unit $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$\varphi _n(t)=_0^tn,q|V^{}(t^{})\left[H(t^{})i\frac{}{t^{}}\right]V(t^{})|n,qdt^{}$$
(3)
with $`V(t)=V_1(t)V_2(t)`$. This phase $`\varphi _n(t)`$ can be calculated with the help of the Glauber formula and the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula.

The particular solution $`|n;q,t_\mathrm{S}`$ of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation corresponding to the invariant eigenvalue $`\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\varsigma `$ is thus of the form

$$|n;q,t_\mathrm{S}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{i}\varphi _n(t)\right]V_1(t)V_2(t)|n,q.$$
(4)
Hence the general solution of the Schrödinger equation (corresponding to $`I_\mathrm{q}(t)`$) can be written in the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t)_\mathrm{S}=\underset{n}{}c_n|n;q,t_\mathrm{S},$$
(5)
where the time-independent c-number $`c_n`$’s are determined by the initial conditions, i.e., $`c_n=n,q|V^{}(t=0)|\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t=0)_\mathrm{S}`$.

Thus we found the general solutions of the Schrödinger equation for the time-dependent linear potential, which corresponds only to the quadratic-form invariant. As stated above, Bekkar et al.’s solution is not the general one of the Schrödinger equation. Likewise, the solution obtained here still does not form a complete set of solutions of this time-dependent Schrödinger equation, either. We conclude that Bekkar et al.’s solution and our solution presented here will together constitute such a complete set of solutions of the Schrödinger equation.

In addition, Guedes recently stated in his reply to Bekkar et al. that in order to obtain the general solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation one must follow the L-R invariant theory step by step. I think that “step by step” may not be the essence of getting the general solutions of Schrödinger equation. Instead, the key point for the present subject is that one should first find the complete set of all L-R invariants of the time-dependent quantum systems under consideration.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The production of gauge bosons at hadron colliders provides fundamental tests of perturbative QCD. The understanding of transverse momentum distribution is of particular interest in this context. The data from the Tevatron collider cover regions of both small and large gauge-boson transverse momenta ($`p_t`$) . At large $`p_t`$ the standard fixed-order pQCD approach is adequate. At small $`p_t`$ of vector bosons ($`p_tM_V`$) one encounters large logarithms of $`M_V^2/p_t^2`$. The leading term is of the form

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dp_t^2}\frac{\alpha _s}{p_t^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_V^2}{p_t^2}.$$
(1)
The logarithms can be resummed to give a Sudakov form factor. In recent years the resummation approach became the standard in calculating transverse momentum distribution of gauge-bosons . The most often used is the formalism proposed by Collins, Soper and Sterman . In the following we shall refer to it as CSS or “the b-space resummation approach”. The b-space resummation approach is subjected to an ambiguity in setting the matching condition between the resummed and fixed-order results. Different prescriptions have been used throughout the literature.

The collinear parton approach was used by a few specialized group to calculated many high-energy observables. Not all of them can be fully explained in the fixed-order collinear parton model. The $`k_t`$-factorization approach, using unintegrated parton distributions, is an alternative approach. In recent years there were many calculations of specific observables using different sets of unintegrated parton distributions. Mainly observables sensitive to unintegrated gluon distributions have been discussed, like the dijet or heavy-quark pair production in high-energy electron-proton scattering at HERA or the production of heavy quark pairs in hadron-hadron collisions at high energy. The existing unintegrated gluon distribution differ one from another. In some approaches (models) the unintegrated gluon distributions are limited to the small-$`x`$ region by construction. The unintegrated (anti)quark distributions are very sparse and often not available. Clearly, the program of a systematic study of the world data in terms of unintegrated parton distributions (uPDFs) is at its beginning.

Gluon radiation along the ladder generates transverse momentum of partons through the recoil effect. Evolution of the unintegrated distributions is described then by the so-called CCFM equation . The CCFM equation has a nice virtue that it interpolates between the BFKL evolution at very small values of $`x`$ and the DGLAP evolution at intermediate and large values of $`x`$. For many practical applications it is very useful to solve the CCFM equation by means of a Monte Carlo method . The CCFM approach turns out very succesful in resolving some high-energy puzzles . In the so-called b-representation the CCFM equation for b-dependent unintegrated distributions takes a simple diagonal form . This approach can be generalized to include in addition to unintegrated gluon distributions also unintegrated (anti)quark distributions .

The similarities and differences betwen the standard soft gluon resummation and the CCFM resummation have been discussed recently on the example of the $`ggH`$ fusion mechanism . It has been shown how the soft gluon resummation formulae can be obtained as the result of an approximate treatment of the solution of the CCFM equation in the so-called b-representation.

We shall show that in contrast to the collinear approach the use of uPDFs leads to a non-$`\delta `$-like transverse momentum distribution of the produced gauge bosons already in the leading order for matrix elements. It is our aim here to calculate the transverse momentum distribution of the charged gauge bosons based on the unintegrated parton distribution originating from the numerical solution of the CCFM equation. This will be a first phenomenological test of the CCFM parton distributions from . In addition, we wish to concentrate on the $`W^+W^{}`$ asymmetry, especially for proton-proton collisions at RHIC and LHC. We shall show that this asymmetry strongly depends on the $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry of parton distributions, providing a new interesting tool to limit the latter somewhat better.

## 2 Formalism

In the fixed-order perturbative treatment the situation is as follows. In the 0-th order collinear calculation the produced gauge bosons carry no transverse momentum, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dyd^2p_t}}=\sigma _0^W{\displaystyle \underset{qq^{}}{}}|V_{qq^{}}|^2`$
$`\left[x_1q_1(x_1,\mu ^2)x_2\overline{q}_2^{}(x_2,\mu ^2)+x_1\overline{q}_1^{}(x_1,\mu ^2)x_2q_2(x_2,\mu ^2)\right]\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{p}_t).`$ (2)
For brevity, above we have introduced $`\sigma _0^W=\frac{2\pi G_F}{3\sqrt{2}}`$. The quark/antiquark momentum distributions are evaluated at momentum fractions $`x_{1,2}=\frac{M_W}{\sqrt{s}}\mathrm{exp}(\pm y)`$.

A nonzero transverse momentum of gauge bosons is obtained only in the next-to-leading order calculation. Then the gauge bosons with nonzero transverse momenta are produced in the weak-QCD annihilation or Compton processes in association with a gluon (annihilation) or quark/antiquark (Compton). The cross section associated with the 2 $``$ 2 subprocess (1+2 $``$ W+4) is given by the standard parton formula

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dy_3dy_4d^2p_t}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2\widehat{s}^2}\underset{ij}{}x_1p_1(x_1,\mu ^2)x_2p_2(x_2,\mu ^2)\overline{}|M_{ij}|^2,$$
(3)
where the matrix elements squared, averaged over spins and colors of incoming partons and summed over spins and colors of final particles read:

$$\underset{qq^{}}{}|M_{q\overline{q}^{}Wg}|^2=\pi \alpha _s(\mu _r^2)\sqrt{2}G_FM_W^2|V_{qq^{}}|^2\frac{8}{9}\frac{\widehat{t}^2+\widehat{u}^2+2M_W^2\widehat{s}}{\widehat{t}\widehat{u}}$$
(4)
for the annihilation and

$$\underset{qq^{}}{}|M_{gqWq^{}}|^2=\pi \alpha _s(\mu _r^2)\sqrt{2}G_FM_W^2|V_{qq^{}}|^2\frac{1}{3}\frac{\widehat{s}^2+\widehat{u}^2+2M_W^2\widehat{t}}{\widehat{s}\widehat{u}}$$
(5)
for the weak Compton subprocess. In the equations above $`V_{qq^{}}`$ are elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. The parton distributions are evaluated at $`x_{1,2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}\left(m_{t,W}\mathrm{exp}(\pm y_1)+p_t\mathrm{exp}(\pm y_2)\right)`$ where the transverse mass $`m_{t,W}=\sqrt{M_W^2+p_t^2}`$.

The poles at $`\widehat{t}`$ = 0 or $`\widehat{u}`$ = 0 cause the theoretical cross section to diverge as $`p_t`$ 0 and exceeds the experimental data at $`p_t<`$ 5 GeV (see Fig.1). Virtual corrections to $`q\overline{q}^{}W`$ contribute only at $`p_t`$ = 0 ($`d\sigma ^W/dp_t^2\delta (p_t^2)`$), ensuring that the transverse momentum integrated cross section is finite, while leaving problems at small finite transverse momenta.

In the CCS approach  the resummed cross section for $`W`$ production can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{d\sigma }{dyd^2p_{t,W}}=\sigma _0^W/(2\pi )^2\underset{qq^{}}{}|V_{qq^{}}|^2d^2bJ_0(p_tb)W_{q\overline{q}^{}}^{NP}(Q,b,x_1,x_2)\\ \hfill x_1\left[q_1(x_1,\mu (b))+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu (b))}{2\pi }C_{vc}q_1(x_1,\mu (b))+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu (b))}{2\pi }(C_{qg}g_1)(x_1,\mu (b))\right]\\ \hfill x_2\left[\overline{q}_2^{}(x_2,\mu (b))+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu (b))}{2\pi }C_{vc}\overline{q}_2^{}(x_2,\mu (b))+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu (b))}{2\pi }(C_{\overline{q}^{}g}g_2)(x_2,\mu (b))\right]\\ \hfill \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(S_q(b,Q)+S_{\overline{q}^{}}(b,Q)\right)\right],\end{array}$$
(6)
where the exponents in the Sudakov-like form factors read

$$S_q(b,Q)=S_{\overline{q}}(b,Q)=_{\overline{\mu }_{min}^2}^{Q^2}\frac{d\overline{\mu }^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}\right)A_q(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }))+B_q(\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }))\right].$$
(7)
The coefficient $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be expanded in the series of $`\alpha _s`$:

$`A_q`$ $`=`$ $`2C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\overline{\mu })}{2\pi }}(\mathrm{})+\mathrm{},`$
$`B_q`$ $`=`$ $`3C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\overline{\mu })}{2\pi }}(\mathrm{})+\mathrm{}.`$ (8)
The CSS formalism  leaves open the question of small $`b`$. Different prescriptions have been proposed to treat this region (see e.g.). The lower limit of the integral in Eq.(7) is usually taken $`\mu _{min}^2=\left(\frac{C_b}{b}\right)^2`$, where $`C_b`$ = 2 $`\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _E)`$ 1.1229. This prescription leads to a kink for the Sudakov form factor if $`C_b/b=Q`$. In order to allow a smooth dependence of the cross section on the gauge-boson transverse momentum and to quarantee that the lower limit is really lower than the upper limit, one could make the following replacement $`\mu _{min}^2=\left(\frac{C_b}{b}\right)^2\left(\frac{C_b}{b}\right)^2\left[1+C_b^2/(b^2Q^2)\right]^1`$ (see e.g. ). In order to quarantee that the scale of parton distribution does not take unphysically small values we shall use in addition the following prescription:

$$\mu ^2(b)=\mu _{min}^2+\mu _0^2,$$
(9)
where $`\mu _0^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$ is the starting value for the QCD evolution. For illustration, in the present paper we shall use easy to handle the leading order parton distributions from Ref..

In the formalism of unintegrated parton distributions the nonzero transverse momenta of gauge bosons are obtained already in the leading order. The invariant cross section for inclusive gauge boson production reads then as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dyd^2p_{t,W}}}=\sigma _0^W{\displaystyle \underset{qq^{}}{}}|V_{qq^{}}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\kappa _1}{\pi }\frac{d^2\kappa _2}{\pi }\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{p}_t\stackrel{}{\kappa }_1\stackrel{}{\kappa }_2)}`$
$`\left[f_{q/1}(x_1,\kappa _1^2,\mu ^2)f_{\overline{q}^{}/2}(x_2,\kappa _2^2,\mu ^2)+f_{\overline{q}^{}/1}(x_1,\kappa _1^2,\mu ^2)f_{q/2}(x_2,\kappa _2^2,\mu ^2)\right].`$ (10)
In the equation above the delta function assures the conservation of transverse momenta in the $`q\overline{q}^{}`$ fusion subprocess. The momentum fractions are calculated as $`x_{1,2}=\frac{m_{t,W}}{\sqrt{s}}\mathrm{exp}(\pm y)`$, where in contrast to the collinear case $`M_W`$ is replaced by the transverse mass $`m_{t,W}`$. In the case of the gauge boson production, the scale $`\mu ^2`$ is taken as $`M_W^2`$ or $`M_Z^2`$.

We note that formally, as far as matrix elements are considered, formula (10) is the $`k_t`$-factorization counterpart of the collinear formula (2).

Introducing unintegrated parton distributions in the space conjugated to the transverse momenta  111In the present paper we shall use the notation $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ instead of $`\overline{f}`$ as in Refs. to avoid confusion with antiquark distributions needed here.

$$f_q(x,\kappa ^2,\mu ^2)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{b}\right)\stackrel{~}{f}_q(x,b,\mu ^2)d^2b,$$
(11)
and taking the following representation of the $`\delta `$ function

$$\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{\kappa _1}+\stackrel{}{\kappa _2}\stackrel{}{p}_t)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}d^2b\mathrm{exp}\left[(\stackrel{}{\kappa _1}+\stackrel{}{\kappa _2}\stackrel{}{p}_t)\stackrel{}{b}\right],$$
(12)
the formula (10) can be written in the equivalent way

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dyd^2p_{t,W}}}=\sigma _0^W/\pi ^2{\displaystyle \underset{qq^{}}{}}|V_{qq^{}}|^2{\displaystyle d^2bJ_0(p_tb)}`$
$`\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_{q/1}(x_1,b,\mu ^2)\stackrel{~}{f}_{\overline{q}^{}/2}(x_2,b,\mu ^2)+\stackrel{~}{f}_{\overline{q}^{}/1}(x_1,b,\mu ^2)\stackrel{~}{f}_{q/2}(x_2,b,\mu ^2)\right].`$ (13)
In the next section we show and discuss the results obtained with the formula (13). In the formulae for $`Z^0`$ boson production $`|V_{qq^{}}|^2`$ is replaced by $`\delta _{qq^{}}\frac{1}{2}(V_q^2+A_q^2)`$.

As already mentioned in the introduction, it is our intention here to use uPDFs $`\stackrel{~}{f}_q^{CCFM}(x,b,\mu ^2)`$ which fulfill b-space CCFM equations . However, the perturbative solutions $`\stackrel{~}{f}_q^{CCFM}(x,b,\mu ^2)`$ do not include nonperturbative effects such as, for instance, intrinsic momentum distribution of partons in colliding hadrons. In order to include such effects we propose to modify the perturbative solution $`\stackrel{~}{f}_q^{CCFM}(x,b,\mu ^2)`$ and write the modified parton distributions $`\stackrel{~}{f}_q(x,b,\mu ^2)`$ in the simple factorized form

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_q(x,b,\mu ^2)=\stackrel{~}{f}_q^{CCFM}(x,b,\mu ^2)F_q^{NP}(b).$$
(14)
In the present study we shall use two different functional forms for the form factor

$$F_q^{NP}(b)=F^{NP}(b)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b^2}{4b_0^2}\right)\text{or}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b}{b_e}\right)$$
(15)
identical for all species of partons. In Eq.(15) $`b_0`$ (or $`b_e`$) is the only free parameter. In the next section we try to adjust this parameter to the experimental data on transverse momentum distribution of $`W^\pm `$.

We wish to note an almost identical structure of the b-space resummation formula (6) and our formula (13). Assuming a factorizable form for the nonperturbative form factor $`W_{q\overline{q}^{}}^{NP}`$:

$$W_{q\overline{q}^{}}^{NP}(Q,b,x_1,x_2)=F_q^{NP}(Q,b,x_1)F_{\overline{q}^{}}^{NP}(Q,b,x_2),$$
(16)
the formulae (6) and (13) are identical as far as the formal structure is considered, if we define effective b-space unintegrated (anti)quark distributions

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{q_1}^{SGR}(x_1,b,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_q^{NP}(Q,b,x_1)\left[x_1q_1(x_1,\mu (b))+\mathrm{}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_q(b,Q)\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\overline{q}_2^{}}^{SGR}(x_2,b,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{\overline{q}^{}}^{NP}(Q,b,x_2)\left[x_2\overline{q}_1^{}(x_2,\mu (b))+\mathrm{}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_{\overline{q}^{}}(b,Q)\right).`$ (17)
The index $`SGR`$ above stands for “soft-gluon resummation”. The $`k_t`$-dependent unintegrated distributions of (anti)quarks corresponding to the b-space resummation can be then obtained through the Fourier-Bessel transform

$$f_q^{SGR}(x,\kappa ^2,Q^2)=𝑑bbJ_0(\kappa b)\stackrel{~}{f}_q^{SGR}(x,b,Q^2).$$
(18)
With the simple Ansatz (15) for $`F_q^{NP}`$ the whole $`Q^2`$ dependence resides exclusively in the Sudakov-like form factor.

## 3 Results

For further reference in Fig.1 we present results of the collinear NLO calculation. In this calculation the argument of the running strong coupling constant $`\mu _r^2=M_W^2`$ and the scale argument is $`\mu ^2=M_W^2`$. In panel (a) we show the low-$`p_t`$ region, whereas in panel (b) the whole measured region. The low-$`p_t`$ problems are clearly visible. At the Fermilab energy the annihilation contribution dominates over the Compton one in the entire measured region. The 2 $``$ 2 NLO contribution underestimates the experimental data, especially in the interval 5 GeV $`<p_t<`$ 50 GeV.

In our CCFM calculation we have taken $`\mu ^2=M_W^2`$ as the factorization scale in the b-space unintegrated parton distributions. In Fig.2 we present a two-dimensional map ($`y,p_t`$) of the invariant cross section. Large transverse momenta of W bosons are generated in the leading order calculations, which is due to transverse momenta of fusing partons contained in unintegrated (anti)quark distributions.

In Fig.3 and Fig.4 we show transverse momentum distribution (integrated over rapidities) of $`W^\pm `$ in proton-antiproton collissions at Fermilab at W = 1.8 TeV for the CCFM parton distributions (left panel) and standard soft-gluon resummation (right panel). The three curves in Fig.3 show results obtained according to formula (13) with different values of the Gaussian form factor parameter $`b_0`$: $`b_0`$ = 0.5 GeV-1 (dashed), $`b_0`$ = 1.0 GeV-1 (solid) and $`b_0`$ = 2.0 GeV-1. Similarly, the curves in Fig.4 correspond to $`b_e`$ = 0.5 GeV-1 (dashed), $`b_e`$ = 1.0 GeV-1 (solid) and $`b_e`$ = 2.0 GeV-1 in the exponential form factor. The results are overimposed on the D0 collaboration data  measured at Fermilab. In order to convert the measured cross section ($`e\nu `$ channel) to the cross section for W production we have taken the corresponding branching ratio $`BR(e\nu )`$ =0.1073 . For the Gaussian form factor (see Fig.3) somewhat better agreement with the data is obtained with the CCS approach, while for the exponential form factor (see Fig.4) it is the opposite. One should remember, however, that the situation may change if 2 $``$ 2 NLO processes, neglected here, are included to the CCFM formalism. In the region of large momenta those contributions are expected to be similar in size to the collinear NLO contributions shown in Fig.1 (this is roughly the missing strength at $`p_t`$ = 20 GeV). In the CCS approach one somewhat arbitrarily matches the soft-gluon resummation result with the fixed order collinear result at the certain (chosen ad hoc) value of $`p_t`$. We hope that in the formalism of unintegrated parton distributions in the next-to-leading order approximation this can be done less arbitrarily. The $`D0`$ data for W production are not precise enough to determine the parameter $`b_0`$ (or $`b_e`$) of the nonperturbative form factor with high precision. The low-$`p_t`$ $`D0`$ data for production of Z boson should be better in this respect.

In Fig.5 we show transverse momentum distribution (rapidity integrated) of $`Z`$ bosons in proton-antiproton collisions at Fermilab at W = 1.8 TeV. As for the W production the theoretical results are compared with the D0 experimental data . We have chosen the somewhat older data set  instead of the most recent one  because of the binning with slightly better resolution at small $`p_t`$. In order to convert the measured cross section ($`e^+e^{}`$ channel) to the cross section for Z production we have taken the corresponding branching ratio $`BR(e^+e^{})`$ =0.033632 . The D0 data allow better extraction of the parameter $`b_0`$ of the nonperturbative form factor $`F_{np}`$. By comparison to the data we find $`b_0`$ = 0.5–1.0 GeV-1 (Gaussian) as giving the best description of the low-$`p_t`$ $`Z^0`$-production data.

Comparing Fig.1 and Figs.3 and 4 one observes that the leading-order CCFM approach generates more W’s with 10 GeV $`<p_t<`$ 20 GeV than the standard next-to-leading order collinear approach. The leading-order CCFM approach leaves some room at $`p_t>`$ 5 GeV. This is especially visible for the Gaussian form factor. In this context it would be very interesting to calculate the cross sections with the help of CCFM uPDF’s up to the next-to-leading order.

In the future, the gauge bosons will be measured also in proton-proton collisions at the BNL RHIC and at the CERN LHC. As an example of our predictions in Fig.6 we present the transverse momentum distribution of $`W^\pm `$ for three different center-of-mass energies W = 200, 500, 14000 GeV. In this calculation -2 $`<y<`$ 2 and the parameter $`b_0`$ was fixed at 1 GeV-1. The larger energy, the smaller-$`x`$ region of (anti)quark distributions is probed. In principle, the form factor in (15) can be not only a function of impact parameter $`b`$, but also of partonic momentum fraction $`x`$. Having precise data at different energies could help then to pin down the $`x`$ dependence of the nonperturbative form factor. Other partonic processes could also be helpful in this respect.

The precise determination of parton distributions is one of the most important goals of high-energy physics. It was suggested in Ref. that studies of the difference in the production of $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ in proton-proton collisions could put further constraints on the $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry as obtained from other sources, like deep-inelastic inclusive and exclusive scattering or Drell-Yan processes. In this illustrative leading order calculations, however, one could not address the problem of transverse momentum dependence of the $`W^{}/W^+`$ ratio. In contrast, it is very simple in our leading-order CCFM approach. In Fig.7 we present the ratio as a function of W-boson transverse momentum at a typical RHIC energy $`W`$ = 500 GeV for selected W-boson rapidities y=0 (left panel) and y=$`\pm `$ 1 (right panel). The solid curve corresponds to the calculation with the $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry, while the dashed curve shows the result with $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry switched off. In general, the ratio $`R=\sigma (W^{})/\sigma (W^+)`$ is smaller if the $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry is included. The relative effect is larger for y=0. Fig. 7 illustrates therefore the potential to study the $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry in W-boson production at RHIC. There is only a very weak dependence on W-boson transverse momentum. In order to illustrate the dependence on W-boson rapidity in Fig.8 we display also the two-dimensional maps ($`y`$,$`p_t`$) of the asymmetry defined as

$$A_\pm =\frac{\sigma (W^+)\sigma (W^{})}{\sigma (W^+)+\sigma (W^{})}$$
(19)
for asymmetric (left panel) and symmetric (right panel) antiquark distributions. The asymmetry so-defined is an asymmetric function under the operation $`yy`$ for proton-antiproton collisions and a symmetric one for proton-proton collisions. The STAR collaboration intends to measure the W-boson production in a few year perspective. It is not clear to us whether the map shown in Fig.8 can be studied experimentally in the near future at the Brookhaven RHIC.

## 4 Conclusions

The zeroth order collinear calculation leads to the $`\delta `$-like distribution in the W-boson transverse momentum. The 1-st order calculation overestimates the experimental data at $`p_t<`$ 5 GeV and underestimates the data at $`p_t>`$ 5 GeV. In contrast, already the leading order CCFM approach leads to a reasonable transverse momentum distributions of W-bosons. The small transverse momenta $`p_t<`$ 10 GeV are sensitive to the nonperturbative physics embodied in our calculation in the extra b-dependent form factors. The parameter(s) of the form factor can be adjusted to the experimental low-$`p_t`$ distributions provided the data are sufficiently precise. The simple leading order calculation leaves some room for next-to-leading order contributions at $`p_t>`$ 5-10 GeV.

In the present study we have used very simple functional forms of the nonperturbative form factors responsible for intrinsic momentum distribution of partons in colliding hadrons. It is not obvious a priori if these forms are sufficient to describe the variety of data including Drell-Yan dilepton production, prompt photon production, heavy quark pair production, etc. This will be a subject of the forthcoming research.

We have studied the dependence of the cross section ratio $`W^{}/W^+`$ in proton-proton collisions on transverse momentum and rapidity of the W-boson. We find a potential to study the $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry at BNL RHIC quantitatively.

There are many other possible ways to study the unintegrated parton distributions further. For instance at RHIC energy the topics to study can be jet or/and particle production .

Acknowledgments This paper was completed after Jan Kwieciński passed away. One of us (A.S.) is indebted to Krzysztof Golec-Biernat for a discussion.


text:
# Frustrated Heisenberg Antiferromagnets between 𝑑=2 and 𝑑=3

## Abstract

The anitiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on a stacked triangular geometry with a finite number of layers is studied using Monte Carlo methods. A topological phase transition occurs at finite temperature for all film thicknesses. Our results indicate that topological excitations are important for a complete understanding of the critical properties of the model between two and three dimensions.

The behavior of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet on triangular geometries is quite unusual. The ground state order parameter has SO(3) symmetry which allows for a $`Z_2`$ topological defect. In $`d=2`$, there is a finite temperature vortex unbinding transition which is purely topological in characterKawamura and Miyashita (1984); Kawamura and Kikuchi (1993); Southern and Xu (1995); Stephan and Southern (2000, 2001); Caffarel et al. (2001). Both above and below this temperature the spin-spin correlation function decays exponentially with distance. This behavior is quite different from the Kosterlitz-Thouless transitionKosterlitz and Thouless (1973); Kosterlitz (1974) which occurs in two-dimensional $`XY`$ models. In the latter case the correlations are exponential at high $`T`$ and decay with a power law at all temperatures below the transition. There is no long range order but there is a finite spin wave stiffness in the low temperature phase. In the Heisenberg antiferromagnet, both the sublattice magnetizations and the spin wave stiffness are zero at all finite temperatures. On the other hand the vorticity modulus is nonzero at low T and drops to zero at the transition. Hence the phase transition is similar to the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in that vortices are involved but it is different in that the correlations decay exponentially at all finite temperatures.

Field theoretic studies of this model in terms of the nonlinear sigma model ($`NL\sigma `$) predict that there is only a transition at $`T_c=0`$ in two dimensions. However a fixed-dimension perturbative approach Calabrese and Parruccini (2001); Calabrese et al. (2003a) in $`d=2`$ using the corresponding Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson (LGW) Hamiltonian has located a fixed point which may describe a topological phase transition. In $`d=3`$ both theory and experiment indicate that there is a conventional phase transition with the appearance of an order parameter below the critical temperature. However there is a great deal of debate about the nature of this transition. Monte Carlo studies and perturbative field theory calculations in fixed dimension Calabrese et al. (2003b) indicate a continuous transition which belongs to a new chiral universality class whereas non-perturbative RG (NPRG) studies indicate a phase transition which is very weakly first order with effective exponents Tissier et al. (2000); Delamotte et al. (2003). A very recent numerical study of the RG flow in the $`LGW`$ Hamiltonian by Itakura Itakura (2003) also suggests a possible weak first order transition for the Heisenberg spin model but with much stronger evidence for a first order transition in the case of $`XY`$ spins Peles (2003); Peles et al. (2003). The experimental studies of these three dimensional stacked triangular systems find that they exhibit a continuous phase transition with a set of critical exponents that do not belong to any of known universality classes .

In this work we explore the crossover of the $`d=2`$ behavior to $`d=3`$. We study the nature of the ordering process of a layered triangular system having dimensions $`L\times L\times H`$ with the number of stacked triangular layers ranging from $`H=2`$ to $`H=24`$ and the linear size of each layer $`L`$ ranging from $`18`$ to $`120`$ by means of Monte Carlo simulations.

We consider an isotropic Heisenberg model of classical spins interacting via nearest neighbour exchange on a layered triangular lattice described by the following Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i<j}{}J_{ij}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j$$
(1)
Within each triangular layer the spins interact antiferomagnetically $`J_{ij}<0`$. Between adjacent layers the interaction can be taken to be positive or negative with no essential difference since there is no frustration associated with these interactions and hence there is a symmetry with respect to the sign. We shall choose it to be ferromagnetic $`J_{ij}>0`$ and set $`|J_{ij}|=J=1`$ for all interactions. Periodic boundary conditions are applied in the plane of each triangular layer where, in order to preserve the $`3`$-sublattice structure, it is important to choose $`L`$ to be a multiple of $`3`$. The finite layer thickness, $`H`$, can have any integer value since we have chosen the inter-planar interactions to be ferromagnetic. The top and bottom surface layers are subject to free boundary conditions.

The spin stiffness Azaria et al. (1992); Peles and Southern (2003), or helicity modulus, is a measure of the increase in free energy associated with a twisting of the order parameter in spin space by imposing a gradient of the twist angle about some axis $`\widehat{n}`$ in spin space along some direction $`\widehat{u}`$ in the lattice. Diagonal elements of the spin wave stiffness tensor can be calculated by choosing an orthogonal triad for the directions of three principal axis in spin space. The symmetry of the ground state suggests that two of the principal axes correspond to two perpendicular directions $`\widehat{}_1`$ and $`\widehat{}_2`$ in the spin plane and that the third is perpendicular to this plane This third axis is conveniently chosen to point along the average chirality direction $`\widehat{K}`$.

Another quantity of interest when topological properties of the system are to be considered is the vorticity Southern and Xu (1995). The vorticity is a measure of the response of the spin system to an imposed twist about an given axis $`\widehat{n}`$ in spin space along a closed path that encloses a vortex core. The vorticity $`V_{\widehat{n}}`$ contains a contribution due to the vortex core as well as part which is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(L/a)`$. This can be written as

$$V_{\widehat{n}}=C_{\widehat{n}}+v_{\widehat{n}}\mathrm{ln}(L/a).$$
(2)
where $`C_{\widehat{n}}`$ is a temperature dependent constant describing the core and $`v_{\widehat{n}}`$ is called the the vorticity modulus. It plays a similar role to the spin stiffness and vanishes at a phase transition.

Azaria et al. Azaria et al. (1992) have made detailed predictions for the dependence of the stiffnesses on the linear size of the system for single layers based on the continuum limit of this model. Their results for a nonlinear sigma model (NL$`\sigma `$) using renormalization group (RG) techniques showed that the spin wave stiffness of the triangular antiferromagnet is a nontrivial function of $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ at low temperatures where $`L`$ is the linear dimension of the triangular lattice. At any finite temperature $`T`$, the stiffnesses are zero on length scales large compared with the correlation length. However, on length scales $`1L\xi `$, the stiffnesses are nonvanishing at low $`T`$.

In order to make a comparison of our calculated stiffnesses with the predictions of the RG equations, we first calculate the stiffnesses for linear size $`L=18`$ so that the condition $`HL`$ is satisfied. Using the values at this length scale, we numerically integrate the expressions of Azaria et. al. with these initial values to predict the behavior at larger length scales. We then compare the predicted curves with the values obtained directly using Monte Carlo methods at the relatively low temperature $`T=0.2`$ for different layer thicknesses. The dependence of the average of the three principal stiffnesses, $`\overline{\rho }=\frac{1}{3}_{n=1}^3\rho _n`$, on $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ is shown in figure 1 for various values of $`H`$ . In this figure the solid lines are the low temperature $`T=0.2`$ RG predictions and the points are the Monte Carlo results. The data points agree very well with the predictions of the NL$`\sigma `$ model at this low temperature. The stiffnesses decrease proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ and the results indicate that there is no stiffness at large length scales. Hence it would appear that the finite layer systems behave in the same way as the single layer system with no indication of a finite temperature phase transition in the stiffnesses. However, as the the number of layers increases the slopes of the lines in figure 1 decrease indicating that the stiffnesses should approach a finite value at large length scales as the system becomes fully three dimensional.

The excellent agreement of the Monte Carlo results and the RG predictions above indicate that topological excitations are not important in this system at low $`T`$. However, at higher temperatures they may play an important role. These topological degrees of freedom are not included in the RG analysis. In order to study the vortex degrees of freedom directly, we have also calculated the response of the system to the presence of a single virtual vortex. We calculate this vorticity response for a fixed number of layers $`H`$ and for various linear sizes $`L`$. In figure 2 the temperature dependence of the vorticity data for $`H=2`$ is shown. The curves for different sizes $`L`$ all cross at a common temperature point near $`T=0.51`$. This behavior suggests that there is a free energy cost to creating isolated vortices in the system below this temperature but that they should spontaneously appear above it. At any value of $`T`$ we can study the size dependence of the vorticity using equation (2) to extract the coefficient of the $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ term which we call a vorticity modulus.

The vorticity moduli have been determined for systems having a different number of layers $`H`$. In each case, the vorticity moduli abruptly drop to zero at the same temperature where the vorticity curves cross. Figure 3 shows the average vorticity moduli $`v=\frac{1}{3}_{n=1}^3v_n`$ multiplied by the layer thickness $`H`$ as a function of temperature for several layer thicknesses. The solid line represents the ratio $`Hv/T=\frac{1}{\pi }`$ which intersects the corresponding layer vorticity modulus at the temperature where the raw vorticity curves cross. This suggests that the average vorticity modulus exhibits a universal jump , $`v/T_c=1/(\pi H)`$, at the transition which decreases as the number of layers $`H`$ increases.

Figure 4 shows a plot of $`T_c`$ as well as the temperature of the specific heat maximum versus the inverse number of layers . As $`\frac{1}{H}0`$ the system becomes three dimensional with the critical temperaturePeles and Southern (2003) equal to $`T_c(3d)=0.958`$. The specific heat maxima lie above the temperatures where the vorticity modulii drop to zero but the two temperatures merge together as $`1/H0`$.

The data points can be fit very well by a slightly modified form of the usual finite scaling (FSS)

$$T_c(H)=T_c(3d)\left(1\frac{C_1}{(H+H_1)^{\frac{1}{\nu }}}\right)$$
(3)
where both $`C_1`$ and $`H_1`$ are constants. The correlation length exponent $`\nu `$ in the above expression is the value for the three dimensional casePeles and Southern (2003) and equals $`\nu `$= 0.59. Attempted fits of the data in figure 4 (solid line) using this form with $`H_1=0`$ are are only possible for large values of $`H>8`$ and there are strong deviations for smaller values of $`H`$. The dotted line in figure 4 corresponds to the values $`C_1=7.28`$ and $`H_1=3.06`$. This modified form provides an excellent fit over the entire range of layer thicknesses.

The quantity $`H+H_1`$ behaves as an effective layer width which may be related to the boundary conditions at the upper and lower surfaces. Figure 5 show the average vorticity modulus $`v(z)`$ for each individual layer for the case of $`H=14`$ . The dotted horizontal curve is the average over all layers. The deviations of $`v(z)`$ from the average are larger for thin films than for thicker films. For small values of $`H`$ the effect of surface layers is significant and in the vicinity of the critical point the thickness $`H`$ is not the only relevant length scale. It is being modified by the additional constant $`H_1`$ which is related to how quickly $`v(z)`$ changes near the surface due to the free boundary conditions.

Modifying finite scaling theory to include the effective width for small $`H<8`$ predicts that the vorticity moduli $`v`$ should scale with respect to the layer thickness $`H`$ as follows

$$(H+H_1)v=f((H+H_1)^{1/\nu }|t|).$$
(4)
where $`\nu =0.59`$ is the three dimensional correlation length exponent and $`t`$ is the reduced temperature $`(T_c(3d)T_c(H))/T_c(3d)`$. Figure 6 shows a plot of $`H_{eff}v`$ in terms of the variable $`H_{eff}^{1/\nu }|t|`$. The vorticity moduli curves for different thicknesses collapse onto a universal curve.

The results above are similar to those found in studies of 4He superfluid fimsAmbegaokar et al. (1980); Schultka and Manousakis (1995, 1997). In these systems the order parameter is a complex number which has the same symmetry as the ferromagnetic $`XY`$ model. The superfluid transition in $`d=2`$ can be described in terms of the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition where vortices destroy the ordered phase. Ambegaokar et. al.Ambegaokar et al. (1980) argued that the KT theory can be extended to films of finite thickness and that the transition should continue to have the $`2d`$ character provided the thickness is not too large. Schultka and ManousakisSchultka and Manousakis (1995) have studied the same problem numerically and found that the results could indeed be described by the KT theory using finite scaling theory. However, a detailed fit for a small number of layers required the introduction of an effective width for the films.Schultka and Manousakis (1997) Our results for the frustrated Heisenberg model are quite similar but there are some important differences. In the $`XY`$ model, the transition is accompanied by a jump in the stiffness with a power law decay of the correlations below this temperature. This behavior perists for films of arbitrary thickness until the $`3d`$ bulk limit is reached where the transition becomes the usual $`\lambda `$ transition. In our case, the $`d=2`$ behavior observedKawamura and Miyashita (1984); Southern and Xu (1995); Stephan and Southern (2000, 2001) for a single layer also persists as the number of layers increases. The stiffness is zero at all finite $`T`$ indicating that the spin correlations decay exponentially at all temperatures. However, the vorticity modulus exhibits a universal jump at a finite temperature indicating that a topological phase transition occurs involving vortices. The size of the jump varies as $`1/H`$ and hence approaches zero in the limit of $`d=3`$. In addition, the stiffness also approaches a nonzero value at temperatures below the critical temperature in this same limit. This indicates that the $`2d`$ behavior approaches the $`3d`$ behavior in a continuous way and that topological excitations play an important role between the two limits. The actual role that they play in determining the nature of the transition in $`3d`$ is still not clear. It is possible that the Heisenberg model has a weak first order transition as predicted by the NPRG field theories and that the critical exponents are only effective exponents. However, the evidence for first order behavior is much clearer for the $`XY`$ model and the differences between Heisenberg and $`XY`$ behavior may in fact be due to the different types of topological defects.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Research Council of Canada and the HPC facility at the University of Manitoba and HPCVL at Queen’s University.