text:
# GRB 030226 in a Density-Jump Medium

## 1 Introduction

The gamma-ray burst (GRB) 030226 was detected by the High Energy Transient Explorer 2 Satellite (HETE-2) at 03:46:31.99 UT on 26 February 2003 (Suzuki et al. 2003). The burst duration in the 30-400 keV band was beyond 100 seconds, and the fluence in this energy band was $`5.7\times 10^6\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Owing to the rapid localization of HETE-2, an early afterglow of this burst was observed. Fox, Chen & Price (2003) detected an optical counterpart $`0.11`$ days after the burst, and Price, Fox & Chen (2003) found about 9 minutes later that it had faded. The subsequent spectroscopic observations revealed some absorption lines, indicating that this burst was at a redshift of $`z=1.986\pm 0.001`$ (Greiner et al. 2003a). Thus, the isotropic $`\gamma `$-ray energy release is estimated to be $`6\times 10^{52}`$ ergs, assuming a cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`H_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

The afterglow light curve of GRB 030226 has one unusual feature. The R-band afterglow declined as $`t^{1.2}`$ shown by the four observations during the period of $`0.130.20`$ days after the burst, and about seven hours later, it began to decay with another simple power-law of $`t^{2.0}`$ as late-time afterglows from jets usually do. However, contrary to jetted afterglows observed previously, the extrapolation of the early afterglow light curve of GRB 030226 crosses with the late-time light curve at $`2`$ days rather than $`0.5`$ days, which implies an obvious rebrightening. Such a feature could result from post-burst energy injection. A few variants of this model have been studied (e.g., Dai & Lu 1998a; Panaitescu, Mészáros & Rees 1998; Zhang & Mészáros 2002; Nakar, Piran & Granot 2003). In this Letter, we explain the GRB 030226 afterglow light curve by assuming this burst to be in a density-jump medium (see §2). In §3 we discuss scenarios for density-jump formation and give order-of-magnitude estimates of the density-jump factor, which are consistent with required by our fitting. Our results are summarized in §4.

## 2 The Model

Before proposing our model, we first discuss implications of the observations on the GRB 030226 afterglow: The observed light curve index ($`\alpha _2`$) after $`0.5`$ days since the HETE-2 trigger suggests that this afterglow might have originated from a highly collimated relativistic shock, because the transition of this shock from the spherical to spreading phase could lead to steepening of the light curve to the flux proportional to $`t^p`$ for $`p>2`$, where $`p`$ is the spectral index of the shock-accelerated electrons (Rhoads 1999; Sari, Piran & Halpern 1999; for the case of $`1<p<2`$ see Dai & Cheng 2001). Thus, $`p=\alpha _22`$ for GRB 030226. If the early afterglow is assumed to result from the shock expanding in a medium with density of $`n_wR^k`$, then the light curve index in the slow-cooling regime becomes $`\alpha _1=3(p1)/4+k/(82k)`$ (Dai & Lu 1998b; Mészáros, Rees & Wijers 1998). The observed value of $`\alpha _11.2`$, combined with the inferred value of $`p`$, implies $`k2`$, revealing a wind surrounding the burst. This environment as an expected signature of massive progenitor stars of GRBs was discussed theoretically in detail (Dai & Lu 1998b; Mészáros et al. 1998; Chevalier & Li 1999, 2000) and confirmed observationally for some bursts (see, e.g., Price et al. 2002 for GRB 011121). Recently, the wind interaction model was also shown to explain well the early afterglow of GRB 021004 (Li & Chevalier 2003).

Therefore, we consider an ultrarelativistic jet with an isotropic energy of $`E`$, which first expands in a circumburst wind of the density profile of $`n_w(R)=AR^2`$ with $`A=3\times 10^{35}A_{}\mathrm{cm}^1`$ for $`R<R_0`$. Here $`A_{}=(\dot{M}/10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1)/(V_w/10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)`$, where $`\dot{M}`$ and $`V_w`$ are the mass loss rate and velocity of the wind respectively. After the internal shock emission, the jet will start to sweep up its ambient wind, leading to an ultrarelativistic blast wave. The initial hydrodynamics and emission were recently discussed by Wu et al. (2003) and Kobayashi & Zhang (2003). We further assume this blast wave which will hit an outer high-density homogeneous region for $`RR_0`$. Dai & Lu (2002, hereafter DL02) have analyzed the hydrodynamics and afterglow emission from a relativistic blast wave in detail when it expands in a density-jump medium, which might have been produced around $`10^{18}`$ cm due to the interaction of a stellar wind with the ambient matter (see §3).

The interaction of a relativistic blast wave with a large density jump can be described through two shocks: a reverse shock that propagates into the hot shell (viz., the $`RR_0`$ wind matter swept up by the blast wave), and a forward shock that propagates into the outer high-density medium. Thus, there are four regions separated in the system of interest by the two shocks: (1) the unshocked high-density medium, (2) the forward-shocked high-density medium, (3) the reverse-shocked hot shell, and (4) the unshocked hot shell. We denote $`\gamma _i`$ as the Lorentz factor of region “$`i`$” measured in the local medium’s rest frame, and $`n_1`$ is the baryon number density of the medium at $`RR_0`$ (region 1). Defining the ratio ($`f`$) of the energy densities of regions 4 and 1, DL02 have got

$$\gamma _2=\gamma _3=\frac{\gamma _4^{1/2}f^{1/4}}{3^{1/4}},$$
(1)
and found that a density jump with a factor of much more than $`21`$ can lead to a relativistic reverse shock. In this case, the Lorentz factor of regions 2 and 3 can further be scaled as $`\gamma _2=\gamma _3=1.4(1+z)^{1/2}A_{}^{1/4}n_{1,3}^{1/4}t_0^{1/2}(R/R_0)^1`$, where $`n_{1,3}=n_1/10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and $`t_0`$ is the observed time (in 1 day) at $`R=R_0=8.0\times 10^{17}(1+z)^{1/2}E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}^{1/2}t_0^{1/2}\mathrm{cm}`$ (where $`E_{53}`$ is the isotropic-equivalent energy of the jet in units of $`10^{53}`$ ergs). Comparing $`\gamma _2`$ (or $`\gamma _3`$) with the Lorentz factor of region 4 at the crossing time, $`\gamma _4=8.8(1+z)^{1/4}E_{53}^{1/4}A_{}^{1/4}t_0^{1/4}`$, it is easy to see that the Lorentz factor of region 3 is much less than that of region 4 for typical parameters, showing that most of the initial kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy by the shocks. The radius at which the reverse shock has just crossed region 4 is derived as $`R_\mathrm{\Delta }=R_0[1+1.25\times 10^2(1+z)^{1/2}E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}n_{1,3}^{1/2}t_0^{1/2}]`$ (DL02). Thus, $`R_\mathrm{\Delta }/R_011`$ for typical parameters, so that the Lorentz factor of region 2 at $`R=R_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is well approximated by its Lorentz factor at $`R=R_0`$. If the initial half opening angle of the jet is $`\theta _00.1`$ as in most of the afterglows analyzed by Frail et al. (2001), then it is possible that after the crossing time the Lorentz factor of the jet is far below $`\theta _0^1`$ and therefore the flux decays as $`t^p`$ due to sideways expansion as long as the jet is still relativistic (Rhoads 1999; Sari et al. 1999).

In the standard afterglow model (Sari, Piran & Narayan 1998), the synchrotron flux $`F_{\nu ,i}`$ of region “$`i`$” in optical to X-ray bands is determined by three quantities: the typical synchrotron frequency $`\nu _{m,i}`$, the cooling frequency $`\nu _{c,i}`$, and the peak flux $`F_{\nu ,max,i}`$ . We divide the whole evolution into three stages: (I) before, (II) during, and (III) after the crossing time. Using Chevalier & Li’s (2000) results, we get these three quantities at stage I: $`\nu _m^\mathrm{I}(t)=4.8\times 10^{13}(1+z)^{1/2}ϵ_{e,1}^2ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}\xi ^2E_{53}^{1/2}t^{3/2}`$ Hz, $`\nu _c^\mathrm{I}(t)=6.6\times 10^{13}(1+z)^{3/2}ϵ_{B,1}^{3/2}E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}^2t^{1/2}`$ Hz, and $`F_{\nu ,max}^\mathrm{I}(t)=0.59(1+z)^{3/2}ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}t^{1/2}D_{L,28}^2`$ Jy, where $`\xi =(p2)/(p1)`$, $`ϵ_e=0.1ϵ_{e,1}`$ and $`ϵ_B=0.1ϵ_{B,1}`$ are constant fractions of the internal energy density going into the electrons and the magnetic fields respectively, $`t`$ is the observer’s time in units of 1 day, and $`D_{L,28}`$ is the luminosity distance to the source in units of $`10^{28}`$ cm.

At stage II, the spectral break frequencies and the peak flux evolve as

$$\nu _{m,i}^{\mathrm{II}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1.3\times 10^{12}(1+z)ϵ_{e,1}^2ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}\xi ^2A_{}n_{1,3}^{1/2}t_0^2(R/R_0)^4\mathrm{Hz},\hfill & \mathrm{if}i=2,\hfill & \\ 1.0\times 10^{15}ϵ_{e,1}^2ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}\xi ^2E_{53}A_{}^1n_{1,3}^{1/2}t_0^1(R/R_0)^2\mathrm{Hz},\hfill & \mathrm{if}i=3,\hfill & \\ \nu _m^\mathrm{I}(t_0)(R/R_0)^4,\hfill & \mathrm{if}i=4.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
$$\nu _{c,i}^{\mathrm{II}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.0\times 10^{12}(1+z)^1ϵ_{B,1}^{3/2}A_{}^1n_{1,3}^{1/2}(t/t_0)^2(R/R_0)^4\mathrm{Hz},\hfill & \mathrm{if}i=2,3,\hfill \\ \nu _c^\mathrm{I}(t_0)(R/R_0)^4,\hfill & \mathrm{if}i=4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
$$F_{\nu ,max,i}^{\mathrm{II}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}470(1+z)^{1/2}ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}E_{53}^{1/2}A_{}^1n_{1,3}t_0^{1/2}D_{L,28}^2[(R/R_0)^31](R/R_0)^2\mathrm{Jy},\hfill & \mathrm{if}i=2,\hfill & \\ 28(1+z)ϵ_{B,1}^{1/2}E_{53}n_{1,3}^{1/2}D_{L,28}^2[(R/R_0)^21](R/R_0)^2\mathrm{Jy},\hfill & \mathrm{if}i=3,\hfill & \\ F_{\nu ,max}^\mathrm{I}(t_0)\zeta (R/R_0)^2,\hfill & \mathrm{if}i=4,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`\zeta `$ is the ratio of the total electron numbers of region 4 at radius $`R(R_0,R_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and at radius $`R_0`$. It should be emphasized that $`\nu _{c,4}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ in equation (3) is in fact a cutoff frequency because of adiabatic expansion of region 4, implying that there is no emission from this region at frequencies above $`\nu _{c,4}^{\mathrm{II}}`$

From DL02, we obtain the time at which $`R=R_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as follows: $`t_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}=t_{\mathrm{\Delta },3}=2.0t_0`$ for regions 2 and 3. If the afterglow originates from a jet, one expects that at stage III the break frequencies and the peak flux of region 2 are given by $`\nu _{m,2}^{\mathrm{III}}=\nu _{m,2}^{\mathrm{II}}(t_{\mathrm{\Delta },2})(t/t_{\mathrm{\Delta },2})^2`$, $`\nu _{c,2}^{\mathrm{III}}=\nu _{c,2}^{\mathrm{II}}(t_{\mathrm{\Delta },2})`$, and $`F_{\nu ,max,2}^{\mathrm{III}}=F_{\nu ,max,2}^{\mathrm{II}}(t_{\mathrm{\Delta },2})(t/t_{\mathrm{\Delta },2})^1`$ (Sari et al. 1999). For the parameters adopted below, the cutoff frequency of region 3 is less than the optical frequency so that there is no emission from this region at frequencies above the optical band.

Figure 1 presents an example case of our fitting to the multiwavelength light curves of the GRB 030226 afterglow. Please note that an error of 0.05 mag for the initial four afterglow data points in the figure has been taken as the error in the observed brightness of two calibration stars by Garnavich, von Braun & Stanek (2003). This error is smaller than a conservative estimate of 0.3 mag by Zeh et al. (2003). The model parameters are taken: $`ϵ_{e,1}=0.9`$, $`ϵ_{B,1}=4`$, $`E_{53}=1.0`$, $`A_{}=0.01`$, $`p=2.01`$, $`t_0=0.22`$ days, and $`n_{1,3}=0.1`$. If the emission off the line of sight (LOS) were neglected, one would see an initial drop at $`tt_0`$, a rapid brightening at $`t_0tt_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$ and an abrupt decay at $`tt_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$ for all the light curves (DL02). However, such features are expected to be smoothed by the off-LOS emission. In Figure 1, we have considered the off-LOS emission effect for region 4 due to its ultrarelativistic expansion (e.g., $`\gamma _4531`$ for the taken model parameters) at $`tt_0`$, following Kumar & Panaitescu (2000). However, this effect is insignificant for region 3 because $`\gamma _32.9`$ is not far greater than unity at $`tt_{\mathrm{\Delta },2}`$.

We next discuss implications of the fitting. First, because the late-time afterglow at high frequencies in our model results from fast-cooling electrons, the spectral index should be $`\beta =p/21.0`$, which is consistent with the observed values, $`\beta _{\mathrm{opt},\mathrm{ob}}=0.99\pm 0.42`$ at the optical band (Nysewander et al. 2003) and $`\beta _{\mathrm{X},\mathrm{ob}}=1.0\pm 0.1`$ at the X-ray band (Pedersen et al. 2003; Sako & Fox 2003), respectively. Second, the jet’s isotropic-equivalent energy ($`10^{53}`$ ergs) from our fitting is close to the isotropic $`\gamma `$-ray energy release ($`6\times 10^{52}`$ ergs). This shows that the efficiency of $`\gamma `$-ray emission from internal shocks is as high as $`40\%`$. Third, our fitting gives a weak wind $`A_{}0.01`$, which implies non-detection of an optical flash from GRB 030226, as in most of the GRBs observed previously (Wu et al. 2003). Finally, the required value of $`n_1`$ indicates that the progenitor star of GRB 030226 could have been in a dense medium such as a giant molecular cloud (GMC).

## 3 Density-Jump Formation

In this section we show that a large density jump seems to form in the vicinity of a massive progenitor star. A natural scenario for density-jump formation is the interaction of a wind from a massive star with its outer environment. This interaction produces a stellar wind bubble. Numerical simulations of the bubble dynamics in a homogeneous interstellar medium were performed by Ramirez-Ruiz et al. (2001), and here we give analytical studies to obtain the order-of-magnitude factor of a density jump by considering two kinds of environment. First, we discuss a simple case in which the outer environment of a massive star is a homogeneous GMC with density $`n_1`$. Owing to the presence of two shocks (viz., a reverse shock that propagates into the wind gas and a forward shock that propagates into the GMC gas), the system has a four-zone structure consisting of (1) the unshocked GMC gas, (2) the shocked GMC shell, (3) the shocked wind gas, and (4) the unshocked wind gas moving with a velocity $`V_w`$ and with a mass loss rate $`\dot{M}`$, where zones 2 and 3 are separated by a contact discontinuity. Assuming an adiabatic expansion and two strong shocks (Castor, McCray & Weaver 1975; Wijers 2001; Mirabal et al. 2003), we get the forward shock radius

$$R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{f}4.8\times 10^{18}\dot{M}_7^{1/5}V_{w,3}^{2/5}n_{1,2}^{1/5}t_{w,5}^{3/5}\mathrm{cm},$$
(5)
and the reverse shock radius

$$R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{r}7.0\times 10^{17}\dot{M}_7^{3/10}V_{w,3}^{1/10}n_{1,2}^{3/10}t_{w,5}^{2/5}\mathrm{cm},$$
(6)
where $`\dot{M}_7=\dot{M}/10^7M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, $`V_{w,3}=V_w/10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`n_{1,2}=n_1/10^2\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and $`t_{w,5}`$ is the wind lifetime in units of $`10^5`$ years. Here the reason for scaling the stellar mass loss rate with $`10^7M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ is that $`A_{}0.01`$ in our fitting implies $`\dot{M}10^7V_{w,3}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. This scaling is typical for main-sequence stellar winds, and further not far below typical mass loss rates of Wolf-Rayet stars (Willis 1991). One large density jump appears at the contact discontinuity, whose factor is approximated by

$$\chi =\frac{n_c}{n_w(R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{r})}1.7\times 10^4\dot{M}_7^{2/5}V_{w,3}^{6/5}n_{1,2}^{2/5}t_{w,5}^{4/5}.$$
(7)
The radius at which the density jump is required to appear in our fitting is estimated as $`R_02.2\times 10^{18}`$ cm, which is larger than $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{r}`$ and closer to $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{f}`$ for reasonable wind parameters, so the afterglow shock wave would be able to reach the density jump at the early time when the rebrightening was observed in the GRB 030226 afterglow light curve.

Second, the surrounding medium of a fast wind from a massive star (e.g., a Wolf-Rayet star) may be a dense slow wind, because this star could have passed through a red supergiant (RSG) phase. During such a phase, the star has produced a wind with a larger mass loss rate $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG}}`$ and a slower velocity $`V_{\mathrm{RSG}}`$. This wind has formed a medium with density $`n_{\mathrm{RSG}}(R)=3\times 10^{37}(\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}/V_{\mathrm{RSG},1})R^2\mathrm{cm}^1`$, where $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG}}/10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{RSG},1}=V_{\mathrm{RSG}}/10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The interaction of a RSG wind with its homogeneous environment (e.g., a GMC) could have given rise to a RSG wind bubble. The dynamics of this bubble is similar to the case discussed above, provided that they are both adiabatic. From equation (5), we can write directly the radius of a thin shell swept up by the RSG wind as $`R_{\mathrm{sh},\mathrm{RSG}}1.9\times 10^{18}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{1/5}V_{\mathrm{RSG},1}^{2/5}n_{1,2}^{1/5}t_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{3/5}\mathrm{cm}`$, where $`t_{\mathrm{RSG},5}`$ is the RSG wind lifetime in units of $`10^5`$ years. Also, we obtain the factor of a density jump appearing at the contact discontinuity in the RSG wind bubble, $`\chi _{\mathrm{RSG}}11\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{2/5}V_{\mathrm{RSG},1}^{6/5}n_{1,2}^{2/5}t_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{4/5}`$.

Furthermore, a fast wind from the Wolf-Rayet phase sweeps up the pre-existing slow wind, leading possibly to another wind bubble. Chevalier & Imamura (1983) gave self-similar solutions of this bubble. Assuming an adiabatic evolution and two strong shocks (Garcia-Segura & Mac Low 1995), we have the forward shock radius

$$R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{f}8.6\times 10^{18}\dot{M}_7^{1/3}V_{w,3}^{2/3}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{1/3}V_{\mathrm{RSG},1}^{1/3}t_{w,5}\mathrm{cm},$$
(8)
and the reverse shock radius

$$R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{r}1.6\times 10^{18}\dot{M}_7^{1/2}V_{w,3}^{1/2}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{1/2}V_{\mathrm{RSG},1}^{1/2}t_{w,5}\mathrm{cm}.$$
(9)
Letting $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{f}`$ in equation (8) be equal to $`R_{\mathrm{sh},\mathrm{RSG}}`$, we define a critical lifetime of the Wolf-Rayet wind,

$$t_w^{\mathrm{cr}}2.2\times 10^4\dot{M}_7^{1/3}V_{w,3}^{2/3}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{8/15}V_{\mathrm{RSG},1}^{1/15}n_{1,2}^{1/5}t_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{3/5}\mathrm{yrs}.$$
(10)
If $`t_wt_w^{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the Wolf-Rayet wind only sweeps up the RSG wind. In this subcase, a large density jump occurs at the contact discontinuity and its factor is $`\chi _w=n_{\mathrm{RSG}}(R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{f})/n_w(R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{r})360\dot{M}_7^{2/3}V_{w,3}^{2/3}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{2/3}V_{\mathrm{RSG},1}^{2/3}`$, where $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{f}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{r}`$ are given by equations (8) and (9) respectively. When $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{f}R_{\mathrm{sh},\mathrm{RSG}}`$, the above two density jumps merge to one larger density jump with a factor of

$$\chi \chi _w\chi _{\mathrm{RSG}}4\times 10^3\dot{M}_7^{2/3}V_{w,3}^{2/3}\dot{M}_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{4/15}V_{\mathrm{RSG},1}^{8/15}n_{1,2}^{2/5}t_{\mathrm{RSG},5}^{4/5}.$$
(11)
On the other hand, if $`t_w>t_w^{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the Wolf-Rayet wind not only sweeps up the RSG wind but also the outer GMC gas, in which subcase the dynamics can be approximated by equations (5) and (6), and thus the factor of a large density jump that occurs at the contact discontinuity is estimated by equation (7). Because $`R_0`$ is larger than $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{r}`$ and closer to $`R_{\mathrm{sh}}^\mathrm{f}`$ in both subcases, the afterglow shock wave would be able to arrive at the large density jump at an expected early time of GRB 030226.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have shown that density jumps (or bumps) are likely to occur in the vicinity of a GRB, especially if a stellar wind has interacted with the ambient matter or if winds ejected at different velocities have collided each other, prior to the GRB onset. We have considered an ultrarelativistic jetted blast wave in a density-jump medium to explain the unusual temporal feature of the GRB 030226 afterglow. A large density jump can produce a relativistic reverse shock, which leads naturally to (1) effective conversion of the initial kinetic energy to thermal energy and (2) rapid deceleration of the jet. Therefore, the assumption of one large density jump has two advantages. Based on them, the observed rebrightening is understood as due to emissions from reverse and forward shocks forming in the interaction of the blast wave with the density jump, and the late-time afterglow is caused by sideways expansion of the jet.

We thank the referee and X. Y. Wang for valuable comments. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 10233010) and the National 973 Project (NKBRSF G19990754).


format: text

text:
# Gigantic anisotropic uniaxial pressure effect on superconductivity within the CuO2 plane of La1.64Eu0.2Sr0.16CuO4 - strain control of stripe criticality

## Abstract

The effect of uniaxial pressure on superconductivity was examined for a high-Tc cuprate La1.64Eu0.2Sr0.16CuO4, which is located at the boundary between the superconducting and stripe phases. We found remarkably large anisotropy of the uniaxial pressure effect not only between the in-plane and out-of-plane pressures but also within the CuO2-plane. When the pressure is applied along the tetragonal  direction, we found the largest pressure effect ever observed in cuprates, dTc/dP $``$ 2.5 K/kbar, while the change of Tc was not appreciable when applied along . This substantial in-plane anisotropy is attributed to an intimate link between the symmetry of the one-dimensional stripes and that of the strain produced within the CuO2 plane.

Recently, self-organized states of strongly correlated electrons, created by the intimate interplay between charge, spin, and orbital degrees of freedom, have been attracting considerable interest, because of the rich variety of physics behind it. One of the hallmarks of such self-organized states is the “stripe” phase in high-Tc cuprates ref1 . Stripes in high-Tc cuprates form a periodic pattern of charge and spin rivers running along the tetragonal  or  directions (parallel to the Cu-O bonds). The signature of stripes is most significant in La2CuO4-based cuprates. In the prototypical cuprates a pronounced suppression of superconductivity is observed due to the formation of static stripes when the doping level is close to a magic number x = 1/8 ref2  and/or when the crystal has a low temperature tetragonal (LTT) structure ref3 . The former is attributed to commensurability of the stripe pattern with the lattice. The latter is due to a tilting of the CuO6 octahedron towards  in the LTT phase, which stabilizes the formation of charge and spin channels running along the  direction.

To date, statically ordered stripes have been observed only in La2CuO4-based cuprates. It has been argued, however, that the stripe instability is not specific to the La2CuO4 family but generic to the two-dimensional CuO2 planes. The observation of incommensurate spin correlations in YBa2Cu3O7-δ by inelastic neutron scattering ref4  suggests that dynamical stripe fluctuations are present universally in layered cuprates, though alternative views have been raised ref5 . A close link between the stripe formation and high-Tc superconductivity has been discussed. The static stripes seem to suppress and to compete with high-Tc superconductivity. We clearly observe an anomalous absence of superconductivity around x = 1/8 in La2-xBaxCuO4 ref2 , where statically ordered stripes are formed. Dynamically fluctuating stripes, however, have been argued to promote superconductivity and are now taken as one of potential candidates for the mechanism of high-Tc superconductivity ref6 ; ref7 ; ref8 .

Such a delicate balance between stripes and high-Tc superconductivity has been promoting attempt to finely tune the phase competition using external parameters such as pressure ref9 ; ref10  and magnetic field ref11 . Enhancement of superconductivity by hydrostatic pressure around the 1/8 anomaly has been known for many years ref9 ; ref10 . In this work, we propose uniaxial pressure as a novel and promising control parameter to explore the critical region of the stripe-superconductivity phase boundary, which provides by far richer information than the conventional hydrostatic pressure and therefore is distinct. The stripes in high-Tc cuprates are one-dimensional self-organized objects formed within the two-dimensional CuO2 plane and, therefore, a strong coupling with an anisotropic distortion of the tetragonal CuO2 plane is anticipated. The fact that the stripes are stabilized in the presence of LTT distortion along  can be understood in terms of such a coupling. Hydrostatic pressure is essentially a volume effect and cannot generate any anisotropic distortion. Uniaxial pressure, on the other hand, produces an anisotropic lattice distortion and can thereby change the symmetry of lattice. This will modify the stability of stripes drastically and hence superconductivity. In the past, so-called pressure control of stripes and superconductivity has been conducted by utilizing hydrostatic pressure, except for a very limited number of uniaxial studies ref12 .

We have attempted to examine such a coupling between stripes and the anisotropic distortion using La1.8-xEu0.2SrxCuO4. It is well known that the introduction of rare earth ions to the La site tends to stabilize the LTT structure ref13 . In La1.8-xEu0.2SrxCuO4, by introducing 10% of Eu for La, the LTT phase is stabilized over a wide range of hole concentration from x = 0 to 0.3 ref14 . This provides a unique opportunity to observe the stripe criticality in the absence of the first order LTO-LTT phase transition. More interestingly, the underdoped side of the superconducting dome in the phase diagram gives a way to a “stripe” magnet, as if the superconducting phase were replaced with the “stripe” phase ref14 , as schematically shown in the inset of Figure 1(b). As a result, an intriguing phase competition between the stripe phase and the superconducting phase appears around a critical composition of x = 0.16 which appears as a bicritical point. It should be emphasized that the boundary is located away from the 1/8 anomaly, which implies that commensurability is less important.

La1.64Eu0.2Sr0.16CuO4 single crystals in critical vicinity to the phase boundary were grown by a traveling solvent floating zone (TSFZ) technique ref15a ; ref15b . Three different samples were cut from the same crystalline rod. At ambient pressure, all the crystals showed superconducting transition at around 10 K. The out-of-plane resistivity $`\rho `$z, shown in Figure 1(a), indicates two clear anomalies at 340 K and 125 K. These correspond to transitions from HTT to LTO and from LTO to LTT, respectively. As shown in Fig. 1(b), the signature of static stripe formation was observed below 50 K, which manifests itself as a rapid decrease of Hall resistivity $`\rho `$xy with decreasing temperature ref16 . Whether this stripe signature represents the coexistence of stripes and superconductivity or a two-phase admixture is not clear at this stage, but does not affect the main point of this paper.

Magnetization measurements were conducted on the La1.64Eu0.2Sr0.16CuO4 single crystals under uniaxial pressures up to 5 kbar applied along three independent directions, ,  and . A uniaxial pressure cell, which can be used in a commercial SQUID magnetometer (MPMS, Quantum Design), was developed. In order to reduce the background signal from the pressure cell, the main body is made of a high-strength plastic material. The background signal was found to be negligibly small, as compared with the Meissner signal of a few mg of the sample. The sample was pressurized uniaxially in the cell until it breaks up. On applying pressure, we sometimes observed a reduction of the magnitude of the superconducting signal. We believe that this is due to micro-cracks, which likely reduce the uniaxial nature and cause a broadening of the transition. In the following, therefore, we deal only with data, which did not show any appreciable reduction of the shielding signal.

In this work on La1.64Eu0.2Sr0.16CuO4, we found for the first time anisotropy of the pressure effect on Tc within the CuO2 plane. A gigantic uniaxial pressure effect was observed only for pressures applied along the tetragonal  direction, i.e. at 45 degrees to the stripe orientation. This demonstrates that stripes, the one-dimensional charge objects, indeed strongly couple to an anisotropic distortion of the lattice.

The pressure dependence of the temperature dependent magnetization is summarized in Figure 2. The data clearly demonstrate that the anisotropy of the uniaxial pressure effect exists not only between the in-plane and the out-of-plane directions but also within the tetragonal CuO2 planes. As seen in Fig. 2(a), the superconducting transition shifts to a lower temperature with increasing pressure applied along . In remarkable contrast, Tc increases when the pressure is applied parallel to the CuO2 planes (both the  and the  directions), as shown in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c). This contrast between the in-plane pressure and the out-of-plane pressure has been known for many years. A substantial change of Tc, associated with anisotropic pressure induced by epitaxial strain, was observed in underdoped La2-xSr(Ba)xCuO4 thin films ref17 ; ref18 . In the case of films on LaSrAlO4 substrate, a substantial increase of Tc up to 50 K was observed. The LaSrAlO4 substrate has a slightly smaller in-plane lattice constant than those of bulk La2-xSrxCuO4, which results in the in-plane compression and the out-of-plane expansion of the La2-xSrxCuO4 film. The rapid increase of Tc has been ascribed to such an epitaxial strain effect. Consistent with this, a substantial decrease of Tc was observed for SrTiO3 substrate with a large lattice constant which gives rise to the in-plane expansion and the out-of-plane compression. This strong dependence of Tc on anisotropic pressure was also directly demonstrated by a recent uniaxial pressure measurement ref12 . Our observation of distinct differences between the in-plane and the out-of-plane pressure effects agrees well with these observations.

The most remarkable result here is the substantial difference between the  direction and the  direction, both within the CuO2 plane. This is the first observation of an in-plane anisotropic pressure effect in high-Tc cuprates. Only when the pressure is applied along  do we see a strikingly large increase of Tc with increasing pressure. Indeed, the application of only several kbar causes Tc to almost double. In contrast, when the pressure is applied along , only a small change in Tc is observed. This implies that the in-plane pressure effect cannot be simply described by a superposition of pressure effects along two orthogonal directions but strongly depends on the symmetry of strains induced. This novel anisotropic pressure effect is visually summarized in Figure 3. Note that the increase of Tc with P// upon pressure, dTc/dP $``$ 2.5 K/kbar is even larger than observed on La2-xBaxCuO4 around x $``$ 1/8 with hydrostatic pressure ref9 ; ref10 , previously the largest pressure effect ever observed in high-Tc cuprates.

We ascribe this striking in-plane anisotropy to the intimate coupling between the one-dimensional stripes and an anisotropic lattice distortion within the CuO2 planes. The stripes are running along either  or , switching alternately from plane to plane along the c-axis ref1 . Note that the  direction is rotated 45 degrees to the stripe directions. Since the symmetry of strain induced by the  pressure does not match with those of the one-dimensional stripes, it appears natural that the  pressure suppresses stripe formation and therefore enhances superconductivity. The  pressure, on the other hand, is parallel or perpendicular to the stripes, which gives rise to an orthorhombic strain matching with the local symmetry of stripes within each CuO2 plane. The  strain therefore might not be so detrimental to stripe formation. In addition, the 90 degree rotation of the stripe direction from plane to plane may act to cancel out the  strain effects.

Such an intimate link between the symmetry of strain and the stripes may become even clearer by considering the presence of the LTT distortion, an alternate tilting of the CuO6 octahedron along the stripe direction, that is known to stabilize stripe formation. In rare earth (RE = Nd, Eu, Sm) substituted La2-xSrxCuO4, the system switches from a stripe magnet to a superconductor upon hole doping at a composition away from the magic number 1/8. It has been proposed ref19  that this critical phase boundary is determined by the strength of the LTT distortion, which can in turn be quantified by the tilting angle of the CuO6 octahedra. The presence of a universal critical angle for switching was also demonstrated. The tilting angle decreases upon Sr doping and, eventually at the critical angle, drives the stripe magnet into SC. The  strain, at 45 degrees to the stripe direction  or , very likely reduces the LTT tilting angle because of the symmetry mismatch. This decrease of the tilting angle will shift the phase boundary between stripes formation and superconductivity to lower x and will substantially enhance Tc of the sample in the critical region. From these considerations, we believe that the extremely large uniaxial and anisotropic pressure effect within the CuO2 planes in La1.64Eu0.2Sr0.16CuO4 is realized by an intimate interplay of the strain-stripe coupling mediated by the lattice distortion and the stripe criticality.

The remarkable uniaxial pressure effect observed in this study should help to clarify the longstanding issue of the interplay between stripes and high temperature superconductivity and, as a result, might shed new light on the high-Tc problem. First, by checking for this anisotropy, we may identify the contribution from the stripes and particularly dynamical stripes to superconductivity itself. Indeed, uniaxial pressure measurements are now under progress on samples with Sr content x away from the critical composition x = 0.16, in order to explore the influence of dynamical stripes. Second, using  pressure, we should be able to switch the stripe magnet to a superconductor using relatively low pressures of a few kbars, if the sample is located at the stripe side of the critical region. We indeed observed such a stripe magnet to superconductor transition at 1 kbar in a nonsuperconducting La1.65Eu0.2Sr0.15CuO4, which has a marginally smaller Sr content than the samples shown in Figures 1-3. This magnitude of pressure can be generated quite easily without any special facility. Besides, in contrast with the hydrostatic pressure, the sample in the uniaxial experiments is covered by the piston cylinder only from the top and bottom and beam probes can reach the sample quite easily. It could be possible therefore to carry out a variety of physical measurements, including angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES), neutron diffraction etc., to trace the evolution from stripe magnet to superconductor continuously using the same piece of crystal.

In summary, we have discovered a substantially large in-plane anisotropic uniaxial pressure effect on Tc in La1.64Eu0.2Sr0.16CuO4, located at the critical vicinity to the (static) stripe-superconductivity boundary. This result implies very strong coupling between the stripe formation and the anisotropic lattice distortion. The charge ordered state, a self organization of electrons, has a lower symmetry than that of the original lattice and is stabilized by coupling to the lattice. In this sense, what we have observed in La1.64Eu0.2Sr0.16CuO4 should be universal to charge ordered systems in general. Uniaxial pressure has proved itself as an extremely useful probe to explore novel strongly correlated electron systems.

The author would like to thank K. Kitazawa for discussion and his continuous encouragement and N. E. Hussey for discussion and critical reading of manuscript. This work is partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan and New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), Japan.


text:
# McRunjob: A High Energy Physics Workflow Planner for Grid Production Processing

## I Introduction

McRunjob (Monte Carlo Run Job) was first created in the context of the DZero Experiment at Fermilab during the 1999 DZero Monte Carlo Challenge. At the time, there was no easy generic way to organize large batches of Monte Carlo jobs, each possibly involving multiple processing steps. McRunjob was originally designed so as to be generic enough so that the addition of new production processing executables would not pose a significant integration problem into the existing framework and so that different executables could be linked together in possibly complex tree-like workflows in which each node represents a processing step. The main focus of McRunjob provides a metadata based abstraction of each job step and to provide tools that allow for specification of the metadata, functional dependencies of the metadata among distinct steps, delegation of methods to build and or run jobs, and linkages to external frameworks, databases, or servers. While McRunjob has been used continuously at DZero since then, it has only been in use at CMS since the end of 2002 for regular production operations.

Typically, McRunjob operates during the job building stage to turn structured metadata into jobs. It does this by establishing interfaces to do the following:

* Define and access a unit of schema called a Configurator
* Register functions to the schema to perform job building, or
* Optional delegation of job building responsibilities to other Configurators
* Support User driven framework operation
* Support linkages to external databases, catalogs, or resource brokers.
* Register parsers to the schema to allow for customized access to the Configurator interface as text macros
* Specify dependencies among the metadata elements
* Support rudimentary ontologies through specification of synonyms and versioning
* Support inter-Configurator communication and User Interface through a Configurator container object known as the Linker.

## II Architecture of McRunjob

McRunjob is implemented in Python and consists of three major components:

* *The Configurator* Configurators are essentially packages of metadata that describe applications. Configurators can be defined to describe application input, environment, and output. However, since the Configurators are completely generic, they can also describe batch queues, grid execution environments, information from a database, local computing site information, etc. Taken together, the Configurators describe workflow and provenance of data.
* *The Script Generator* The Script Generator is a specialization of a Configurator that also implements the ScriptGen interface. The ScriptGen interface makes it possible for Configurators to delegate specific job generating tasks to a single common ScriptGen object. This helps keep job generation consistent in an environment where there may be different schemes for creating or handling jobs.
* *The Linker* The Linker is a container for Configurators. It also acts as a communication bus for Configurators, a driver for the job building framework, and a user interface to the Linker and Configurator APIs.

Figure 1 shows the simplest McRunjob scenario. A User or Production Coordinator needs to run three applications: let’s call them A, B, and C. Let’s say further that the output of A is the input of B and that the output of B is the input to C. The user will communicate to the Linker directives to instantiate pre-defined Configurators corresponding to A, B, and C.111This is the most common case: that the Configurators corresponding to production applications are written beforehand by experts. However, directives also exist for the creation of Configurators and specification of schema ”on the fly.” Usually such job building directives are kept in an McRunjob macro script, the syntax of which is described below. The user issues a set of configuration macro commands which are routed to the relevant Configurators. These configuration commands may include specification of values for the schema, specification of inter-Configurator dependencies, and the specification of functional dependencies among schema elements in different Configurators. Since each Configurator is required to have a unique description within the Linker space, so the Configurators themselves function much like namespaces. An example of a simple functional dependency is B:InputFile = A:OutputFile.222Such obvious I/O dependencies have a special place in many job handling systems, but McRunjob treats all possible metadata dependencies on an equal footing. The “MakeJob” and “MakeScript” directives, examples of framework calls, are issues. These particular framework call cause the Configurators to generate shell scripts to handle their respective applications in serial order. The scripts are then collected by the Linker and a composite shell script that represents the entire workflow is produced. This procedure can be reset and re-run as many times as desired to kick out as many jobs as desired. The procedure is also generic in that different targets than shell scripts (eg- directed graphs) can be selected by including different ScriptGen modules.

In addition to modeling the application space, the Configurators also provide a useful abstraction through which to exchange information with other external sources such as databases, batch queues, etc. Figure 2 shows a generalized picture of how Configurators may do this. Typically, the user writes a script of McRunjob macro commands which are interpreted by the Linker framework (shown in light blue.) The Linker takes these commands and distributes them to the Configurators attached below. The Configurator layer exposes to the Linker sets of metadata key-value pairs, but with additional customizable backends. For example, one class of Configurators (”InputPlugins”) have backends that communicate to external databases, planners, or servers. More conventional Configurators just hold on the application metadata. ScriptGenerators collect results from previous Configurators and produce composite workflows (as described above). Finally, a Batch Portal Configurator may take the produced composite script object and submit it to a batch queue.

In the DZero context, Monte Carlo production is coordinated with the SAM database at FNAL. Two of the common applications in the workflow are PYTHIA Generation and D0gstar (GEANT Simulation.) The ScriptGenerator targets executable scripts for the DZero executable script environment333There is only one ScriptGen at DZero so usually no distinction is made., and one possible execution environment is the SAM/JIM grid service. In upcoming DZero production on the grid, there may no jobs; rather the focus is on automatic production of McRunjob macros which replace scripts and are executable by remote Linkers. Also, there is work being done to leverage existing McRunjob tools to do monitoring on the DZero farms.

Some typical dependency relationships among configurators include modeling of the sequence in which applications have to run on a set of events in order to reach a given data product or modeling of parameter flows in environments where several databases or configuration files may be consulted in the process of job creation. One feature of the McRunjob framework in CMS that is disabled in the DZero framework is the requirement that such dependency relationships be clearly defined before inter-Configurator parameter lookup can take place. This discipline is useful, however, in an environment where a clear provenance of the produced data is not already established by central means. At DZero, this is largely handled by the SAM database.

Three final points can be made. The first is that although McRunjob was conceived in a Monte Carlo production environment, it is perfectly and immediately well suited to any problem involving complex workflow specification and job templating in a production processing environment. The second is that while McRunjob was designed to describe production workflows in the Monte Carlo setting (ie- applications and files) there is no reason that it cannot be extended into more fine grained settings to describe Analysis Object Data (AOD) and their relationships and provenances. Finally, McRunjob typically operates after metadata is specified and before jobs are actually submitted; McRunjob could conceivably be extended into runtime to bring parameter lookup services into runtime.

### II.1 The Configurator

The Configurator API provides methods for automating many of the procedures inherent in specifying workflow for Monte Carlo Production or Analysis. The Configurator is essentially a value added metadata container. It comprises a special TriggerDictionary class used to hold the metadata key/value pairs and the methods provided to manipulate the metadata in a production processing environment.

* The TriggerDictionary allows the user to provide an implementation for the internal dictionary. The implementation must use the regular Python UserDict interface.
* The TriggerDictionary makes calls to user supplied functions on reads or writes to the internal dictionary implementation.

The TriggerDictionary triggering mechanism is used to implement several Configurator functionalities, such as parameter lookup or construction. It is also used to implement parameter monitor and watch functions for debugging purposes. The internal implementation object is swappable, enabling GUI linkage on demand. There are four kinds of triggers: (1) Global Read: Functions that are called when any element is read. (2) Global Write: Functions that are called when any element is written to. (3) Indexed Read: Functions that are called only when a specific element is read. (4) Indexed Write: Functions that are called only when a specific element is written to. Functions that handle any of the triggers must be registered to the TriggerDictionary object as described below, and must accept a Python list as argument. In all cases, the first element in the list is always a back reference to the TriggerDictionary object, and the second is always the key that was called. The remaining elements, is present, are defined at registration time. NOTE: Trigger handlers registered to TriggerDictionary, if they are going to alter dictionary state, must always interact with the TriggerDictionary using the UntriggeredRead and UntriggeredWrite methods; otherwise an infinite loop could occur.

The feature that the TriggerDictionary can accept any conformant implementation of its internal dictionary structure implies that structures can be built for this purpose that have external linkage to graphics or GUI packages. Furthermore, these can be “HotSwapped” so that graphics packages or debugging mechanisms can be inserted into running McRunjob programs.

Configurators are themselves described by metadata. This metadata is used internally by McRunjob to resolve dependencies, keep track of schema versions, resolve entries in synonym tables, and distinguish Configurators within the memory space of a Linker. Configurators can function within the Linker as namespaces; the ConfiguratorDescription objects allow the namespaces to be referenced.

The ConfiguratorDescriptions are generally used internally for two things: to implement inter-Configurator dependencies and to aid in parameter lookup. In the first capacity, a Configurator can declare dependencies on other Configurators. This can occur *statically* when a developer is modeling underlying relationships among applications or *dynamically* when a user is modeling relationships among servers, planners or databases. When adding a Configurator to the Linker or when altering the dependencies of Configurators already in the Linker, the dependencies are checked and an Exception is thrown if not satisfied. The mechanism is that the dependencies of the new or changed Configurator are matched against the list of existing Configurators in the Linker If there is not a match, then an exception is thrown. NOTE: This behavior is disabled in DZero.

The Configurators support a parameter lookup service based on namespaces within the Linker and on declared dependencies. Since the ConfiguratorDescriptions of Configurators must be unique within the Linker, they define a partition (namespaces) on the parameters. Thus a parameter in the Linker is defined by a complete specification of the ConfiguratorDescription and the parameter name. From a Configurator point of view, a parameter in Configurator B is only visible if there exists a declared dependency on Configurator B. This last behavior is also disabled in DZero.

Configurators contain synonym tables. These are lookup tables that translate local metadata key names into different key names in other Configurator types. The behavior of a workflow can therefore change depending upon what synonyms are loaded at any given time. The synonyms tables can be loaded for different environments or changing versions, thus providing for a rudimentary ontology.

Finally, Configurators can have explicit metadata translation or construction rules attached directly to each metadata element. These are available to the developer, but not yet available in the macro script language.

Examples of Configurators include those that have connectivity with external databases (ie- RefDB in CMS through SQL queries or SAM in DZero through system commands,) those which model applications steps (ie- Monte Carlo generation, detector simulation, digitization,) those which submit jobs to specified batch portals (ie- LSF or PBS batch systems, Condor, DAGMan/Condor-G.)

### II.2 The Script Generator

One of the problems encountered in practice using the above model of Configurators generating custom bits of code which are then collected by the Linker for submission to an execution manager is that there is no organization in place to help guarantee that all of the independently generated bits of code will be compatible. For example, they may be targeted for an environment in which the code bits cooperate at runtime through non-McRunjob interfaces. The only way to organize this is at the level of the Configurator itself; so the number of modules potentially needing modification in case of a change to the runtime environment is as large as the number of Configurators.

ScriptGen is a special interface implemented by some Configurators that enable Configurators to delegate specific calls to a single Configurator. In the case of delegation, the ScriptGen must declare ConfiguratorDescriptions and method calls which it can handle. The Configurator must specify which method calls it will delegate and the description of the ScriptGen module to which it is delegating. With this functionality, a new way to organize code is available: all of the script generating code targeting specific runtime environments can be collected in a single ScriptGen module. The ScriptGen module is also usually the agent which the Linker uses to collect code bits targeted for a specific environment in order to create a composite job or DAG.

Examples of different ScriptGen modules in CMS are the default ImpalaScriptGen module, which generates executable scripts compatible with the legacy Impala production environment, the ImpalaLiteScriptGen module, the CMSProdScriptGen module, the VDLScriptGen module for generating specifications written in the Chimera Virtual Data Language, and the MOPDagGen module for taking the output of other specified ScriptGen modules and producing a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) for use by the Condor DAGMan tool.

### II.3 The Linker

The Linker is a Container class for Configurators. It handles all communication between the User and the Configurators and between any two Configurators. It also contains a repository for “script Objects”. Configurators that need to generate code bits to implement a given workflow or job can store these bits in the Linker as script Objects. As described above, a ScriptGen module may later collect script Objects targeted for a specific environment and create a composite script Object. It may also, as in the case of MOPDagGen, wrap existing scriptObjects or composites into a DAG.

The Linker also supports some simple looping structures within the McRunjob macro scripts, and also drives the framework, described in the next section.

## III The Framework

The Configurators build jobs together by contributing their specialized knowledge of application steps or external resources to the overall whole in structured ways. One part of this structure is the Configurator dependencies444Or, when not enabled, just the order in which Configurators are added.. Another structure which organizes the order in which tasks are completed is the Framework. The framework is basically a sequence of strings used as messages sent to framework handlers in the Configurators. The messages can include things like Reset, MakeJob or MakeScript for shell script building, listing of derivations and transformations in CHIMERA, etc.

Traditionally in McRunjob, framework calls are handled directly by the Configurators themselves through subclassing the Framework handling methods. However, to better support flexibility without using inheritance, the Configurator base class also provides methods for registering functions (possibly user supplied in certain simple cases) to handle specific framework messages. As described above, as a double indirection supporting code maintenance tasks, these functions can also be registered to a special Configurator that inherits the ScriptGen interface and then delegated.

The Linker thus provides the drumbeat according to which the Configurators march: it provides a context within which to order the Configurators by their dependencies and a framework within which to sequence method invocations.

## IV The Macro Language

The McRunjob macros are intended to provide a user interface to the Configurator and Linker APIs. It is possible to construct the macros as a complete declarative specification of the workflow, but even in a procedural environment where parameters are being “constructed” or “discovered” in external databases the resulting state of the McRunjob program can at any time be dumped in declarative format. Thus macros can also serve as a rudimentary ”provenance” for the described or constructed workflow.

The Linker macros comprise commands that attach Configurators, route macro commands to specified Configurators, and simple looping and conditional constructs. In the Configurator, the handling of macros is done in a “class distributed” fashion. Configurator classes can have macro handlers registered to them so that it is very easy to extend their macro interfaces. A particular Configurator object passes a particular macro to each of the registered macro handlers until it finds one that can handle the particular macro. The Configurator base class registers a base parser which is called last, and Configurator subclasses extend this. Following is a list of simple Linker directives:

* attach cfgIdentifier attaches a configurator of the given type.
* cfg cfgIdentifier cmd issues the macro “cmd” to the specified Configurator.
* framework run cmd issues the framework message “cmd” to all Configurators in sequence. Framework commands can be grouped together and run in groups as well.

Following is a list of simple Configurator macros:

* additem keyname Adds a metadata element named “keyname”
* define keyname expression Sets the value of “keyname” to “expression” where expression can be a literal or a reference to the value of a key in another configurator or a reference into the internal Configurator synonym table555‘Real expressions like “a+b/c” are not yet supported.  or a directive to construct the value by registered function.
* addreq cfgIdentifier Adds cfgIdentifier as a dynamic dependency for this configurator.
* synonym key ::cfgIdentifier:newkey Defines a possible synonym for “key” to target “newkey” in another Configurator.
* oncall fmk do cmd Store command “cmd” and execute it on receipt of framework call “fmk”.

Macros can source other macros. In this way, McRunjob macro commands can be separated into synonym definitions and stored commands on one hand and pure workflow descriptions on the other hand. The former are seen as part of the environment and are in some sense independent of the pure workflow descriptions. The management of these environments leads to a rudimentary ontological management system.

### IV.1 The “Hello World” Example

In the CMS implementation of McRunjob, a HelloWorld example is provided which consists of a HelloWorld Configurator with metadata element HelloMessage and a HelloWorldScriptGen that also serves as a metadata server. Each HelloWorld configurator is equipped to produce a short script which echos its HelloMessage to the screen. The HelloWorldScriptGen collects these scripts into a composite. The following is a simple example macro script fragment that would print out a HelloWorld message in English, French, and German666This uses new syntax instituted as of May 2003..

```
# Attach the ScriptGen which will in this
# case also serve metadata values to the
# HelloWorld configurators
attach HelloWorldScriptGen
cfg HelloWorldScriptGen additem English
cfg HelloWorldScriptGen define English \
                               Hello World
cfg HelloWorldScriptGen additem French
cfg HelloWorldScriptGen define French \
                            Salut le Monde
cfg HelloWorldScriptGen additem German
cfg HelloWorldScriptGen define German \
                            Hallo Welt

# Attach the HelloWorld Configurators
# themselves
attach HelloWorld named English
attach HelloWorld named French
attach HelloWorld named German

# Enable HelloWorld to delegate script
# generation to ScriptGen. (This also
# sets correct dependencies.)
cfg HelloWorldScriptGen register HelloWorld

# Route the metadata to correct
# configurators
cfg HelloWorld named English define \
 HelloMessage ::HelloWorldScriptGen:English
cfg HelloWorld named French define \
 HelloMessage ::HelloWorldScriptGen:French
cfg HelloWorld named German define \
 HelloMessage ::HelloWorldScriptGen:German

# Fork the resulting jobs in background
# Set it to get executables list every time
# ‘‘RunJob’’ is executed.
attach Fork
cfg Fork define ScriptGenName \
              HelloWorldScriptGen
cfg Fork oncall RunJob do \
      define ExecutableList ::construct

```

Upon invocation of the framework, this will result in the sequence of framework calls shows in table 1 and will result in the output

```
Hello World
Salut le Monde
Hallo Welt

```

## V Conclusions and Future Plans

McRunjob has been successfully used in both the DZero and CMS experiments to model HEP workflows for Monte Carlo productions both on local controlled farms resources and in Grid environments. In both experiments, there is a desire to see how far we can extend McRunjob into the realm of interactive analysis; The extension to batch analysis should be straightforward. More immediately, full expression support will be added to the macro language. A common project at Fermilab between USCMS and DZero is also being started to address common goals and support issues.

There are many exciting directions being explored. In the context of DZero, runtime McRunjob is being explored as an answer to the need for monitoring jobs on the farms. The declarative specifications of jobs are converted to XML and stored in a local XML database, and the McRunjob created job is instrumented to update this database. Furthermore, the extension of the rudimentary ontologies as described above presents an interesting research problem as the environments (as defined above) become large. Also, how the workflow description plus and annotations from the environment informs the provenance of a particular derived data product is an open question. Finally, as the Grid itself adopts a more Web Services oriented model of operation, it may become important to include extensions to proposed standards such as Web Services Flow Language (WSFL).

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank the members of the DZero and CMS experiments who have provided many insights (and bug reports) over the years; especially Boaz Klima, Kors Bos, Willem van Leeuwen, Lee Lueking, and the SAM team at DZero; and Tony Wildish, Veronique Lefebure, and Julia Andreeva at CMS; and Jaideep Srivastava and Praveen Venkata of the University of Minnesota, Peter Couvares, Alan DeSmet, and Miron Livny of the University of Wisconsin, and Richard Cavanaugh and Adam Arbree of the University of Florida, and Muhammad Anzar Afaq of Fermilab for helpful discussions.


text:
# 1. A Family of Asymptotically deSitter S-Brane Spacetimes

## 1. A Family of Asymptotically deSitter S-Brane Spacetimes

One approach to understanding time-dependent backgrounds in string theory is based on the concept of S-branes , branes with a purely spatial world-volume. Many S-brane spacetimes are known \[for example, \] and various interpretations of them have been proposed . Unfortunately, S-brane spacetimes are plagued by singularities, including naked singularities. Back-reaction effects  tend to ameliorate these singularities, but it has been argued  that they cannot be eliminated entirely. This is worrisome, since earlier investigations  suggested that the naked singularities were among those resistant to resolution.

The argument of  is based on a demonstration that “tachyon matter” satisfies the Strong Energy Condition \[SEC\], so that the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems guarantee the existence of some kind of singularity. Now the fact that the SEC is satisfied by string-theoretic matter in general is of course a major problem, since it is now known that the SEC is violated on a colossal scale in our Universe . However, an ingenious way of dealing with this difficulty has been advanced in , where it was shown that a period of cosmic acceleration can be obtained not by violating the SEC but by circumventing it by allowing the internal metric to depend on time. \[One can achieve particularly good results using a hyperbolic internal space , as in , but acceleration was obtained earlier using a time-dependent internal circle in .\] Admittedly, it seems that it is difficult to obtain a long period of acceleration , but, in principle, it seems that the SEC problem can indeed be circumvented in this way. \[See  for a discussion.\] This is interesting, because it appears that the Townsend-Wohlfarth scenario is in fact closely related to S-Branes . One can therefore hope that the TW method may not only lead to accelerated cosmologies, but also to singularity resolution of S-Brane spacetimes, by circumventing the SEC. After all, the violation of the SEC in deSitter space is responsible not just for the acceleration, but also for the absence of singularities $``$ the two features are related. \[Alternatively, it has been suggested recently  that it may actually be possible to violate the SEC in the S-Brane context.\]

While these developments once again allow us to hope that the S-Brane singularities can be resolved, circumventing or violating the SEC is not a guarantee that this will happen. Unfortunately a fully general theory is out of reach, but we can investigate a concrete example of an asymptotically deSitter S-Brane spacetime, to see whether, in the spirit of , back-reaction effects can resolve its singularities. Although this example is by no means a completely generic S-Brane spacetime, and although of course none of the putative deSitter S-brane solutions in the literature has been constructed in a fully string-theoretic context, our conclusions only depend on the topology of conformal infinity, and so they are independent of many details: they apply to the whole family of spacetimes with this asymptotic structure. Thus, the example is much less special than it seems.

The simplest of all S-Brane spacetimes is the temporally asymptotically flat \[hence non-accelerating\] four-dimensional manifold obtained as follows. It is now well known that black holes in asymptotically anti-deSitter space can have topologically non-trivial event horizons ; in four dimensions, with cosmological constant $`3/L^2`$, such a black hole with a negatively curved \[Riemann surface\] event horizon has external metric

$$g(external)=F(r)dtdt+F^1(r)drdr+r^2(d\rho d\rho +sinh^2(\rho )d\theta d\theta )$$
(1)
with

$$F(r)=1\frac{8\pi G\mu }{r\mathrm{Area}(H^2/\mathrm{\Delta })}+\frac{r^2}{L^2};$$
(2)
here $`H^2`$ is the hyperbolic plane of curvature -1, $`H^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a Riemann surface \[with fundamental group $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$\], covered by $`H^2`$, with area $`\mathrm{Area}(H^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ \[ taking the place of the more familiar Schwarzschild unit sphere with area $`4\pi `$\] and $`\rho `$ and $`\theta `$ are dimensionless polar coordinates on $`H^2`$, descending to local coordinates on $`H^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Notice that we have to factor out by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, for two reasons: first, because the area of $`H^2`$ is not finite, so failing to factor by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ would be tantamount to letting the mass tend to zero; and second, because we need a compact surface to separate the internal region from the external region $``$ otherwise we would not have a black hole.

Now we are interested in time-dependent spacetime geometry, which, in the case of a black hole, is to be found inside the event horizon. In that region $`r`$ and $`t`$ exchange roles in the usual way, and it is better to write the metric in its non-static form as

$$g(internal)=f_{AdS}(t)drdr(f_{AdS})^1(t)dtdt+t^2(d\rho d\rho +sinh^2(\rho )d\theta d\theta )$$
(3)
with

$$f_{AdS}(t)=1+\frac{8\pi G\mu }{t\mathrm{Area}(H^2/\mathrm{\Delta })}\frac{t^2}{L^2}.$$
(4)
\[Here and henceforth we understand that the various coordinate systems we use do not cover the entire respective spacetimes. The Penrose diagrams should be used for global questions.\]

There are of course well-known theorems  prohibiting non-spherical topology for black holes when the cosmological constant is zero or positive, so we must expect bad behaviour if we try to construct a Schwarzschild-like metric of this kind. But let us proceed anyway, letting $`L`$ tend to infinity \[so that we obtain an asymptotically flat metric\] and reversing the sign of t for convenience:

$`g(S0Brane)`$ $`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G\mu }{t\mathrm{Area}(H^2/\mathrm{\Delta })}})drdr(1{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G\mu }{t\mathrm{Area}(H^2/\mathrm{\Delta })}})^1dtdt`$ (5)
$`+t^2(d\rho d\rho +sinh^2(\rho )d\theta d\theta ).`$
As the event horizon topology theorem predicts, this is not a black hole: the Penrose diagram, which takes the form given in Figure 1, shows very clearly that the singularities are naked. Generic points in this diagram correspond to Riemann surfaces.

The metric we have found is in fact precisely the metric corresponding to an S0-Brane , and the naked singularities shown are the subject of the recent work  with which we are concerned here. The point of this derivation of the S0-Brane metric from the AdS black hole metric is that it is now easy to derive the metric in the case where the geometry is asymptotically deSitter instead of asymptotically flat. But, in addition, the derivation makes it clear that the naked singularities arise from the deep structure of space-time geometry $``$ the topological restrictions on black hole event horizons. They are not accidental results of choosing to examine a particular, relatively simple spacetime.

Turning to the deSitter case, the event horizon topology theorem again guarantees trouble if we reverse the signs of $`1/L^2`$ \[to obtain a positive cosmological constant\] and $`t`$ in equation (4). Doing so, we obtain the “deSitter S0-Brane” metric

$$g(deS0Brane)=f_{dS}(t)drdr(f_{dS})^1(t)dtdt+t^2(d\rho d\rho +sinh^2(\rho )d\theta d\theta )$$
(6)
with

$$f_{dS}(t)=1\frac{8\pi G\mu }{t\mathrm{Area}(H^2/\mathrm{\Delta })}+\frac{t^2}{L^2}.$$
(7)
\[Again, if this looks odd, the reader should remember that the coordinates cover only part of the spacetime. In this case we are interested in very late times, and these coordinates are valid then.\] The Penrose diagram in this case is just like that in Figure 1, but, since the spacetime is asymptotically deSitter, the conformal boundary is spacelike instead of null. \[This metric was discussed in a different context in  and in an appendix of .\] Again, of course, the singularities are naked.

Our question is this: if we introduce some matter into a spacetime of this kind, and take the back-reaction into account, can the geometry be deformed so that the singularities are resolved? The point is that, with the aid of explicit SEC-violation resulting from the positive cosmological constant in the background of $`g(deS0Brane)`$, it should be easier to achieve this here than it is in the asymptotically flat case. Certainly the singularity theorem of  will not apply.

Our derivation suggests, however, that it will be no easy matter to resolve the naked singularities, even with the aid of a SEC-violating positive cosmological constant. For we have seen that the trouble arises from the topology of the spatial sections, and it is hard to see how this can be changed. As we shall see in the next section, there are other pieces of evidence suggesting that it will be difficult to eliminate the singularities of this spacetime.

## 2. Positive Scalar Curvature at Infinity

In an important work motivated by the dS/CFT correspondence, Andersson and Galloway  have given a singularity theory for asymptotically deSitter spacetimes. In particular they give a rigorous definition of the term “asymptotically deSitter” in terms of manifolds with boundary, in an analogous way to the usual definition of asymptotic flatness; see  for the details, and note that it is not assumed a priori that the boundary components have 3-sphere topology \[as is of course the case for deSitter space itself.\] A spacetime of this kind is said to be future \[past\] asymptotically simple if every future \[past\] inextendible null geodesic has an endpoint on future \[past\] conformal infinity. Then Andersson and Galloway prove the following remarkable result. Suppose that an asymptotically deSitter spacetime is future or past asymptotically simple and that it satisfies the Null \[not the Strong\] Energy Condition. Then the spacetime must be globally hyperbolic, with compact Cauchy surfaces having a finite fundamental group. This also implies that future and past conformal infinity are compact with finite fundamental group. Essentially this just means that an asymptotically deSitter spacetime which is non-singular must either violate the Null Energy Condition or have conformal infinities which, as in deSitter space, are compact with finite fundamental group.

The relevance of this result here becomes clear if we allow $`t`$ to tend to infinity in equations (6) and (7). The result is a representative of the conformal structure at future infinity:

$$g(deS0Brane)^+\mathrm{}=drdr+L^2(d\rho d\rho +sinh^2(\rho )d\theta d\theta ).$$
(8)
Since the topology of a Riemann surface is $`IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, this is a metric either on $`IR\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ if $`r`$ is interpreted in the most obvious way \[that is, if the two naked singularities are distinct\] or on $`S^1\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ if $`r`$ is identified periodically. This second interpretation is actually rather reasonable, since there seems to be no physical reason to assume that S-Branes must always occur between symmetrical pairs of singularities. That is, in this picture, there is only one naked singularity, and the appearance of two in Figure 2 is due to “unwrapping” $`S^1`$. \[This is analogous to the interpretation of Schwarzschild-deSitter space in which the topology of the spatial sections is $`S^1\times S^2`$.\] Compactifying in this way is also suggested by the Andersson-Galloway theorem, which requires a compact conformal infinity. With either interpretation, however, we can see that the topology of infinity in this spacetime actually forbids any resolution of the singularity. For neither $`IR\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ nor $`S^1\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ has a finite fundamental group: every compact Riemann surface has an infinite fundamental group. The Andersson-Galloway theorem therefore implies that even if we allow matter to back-react on the geometry of this space-time \[after the manner of \] then, as long as the Null Energy Condition continues to hold, the spacetime can never be asymptotically simple. \[Taking the universal cover of the Riemann surface is not an option here, because the theorem also requires compactness, and the universal cover of a Riemann surface is of course non-compact.\] Some inextendible null geodesic fails to arrive at infinity: it is waylaid by a singularity. The key point here is that the Andersson-Galloway theorem is a result on the topology of infinity, and it is hard to believe that back-reaction effects can effect a \[necessarily discontinuous\] modification of that topology. Thus it appears that we cannot resolve the S-Brane singularities merely by circumventing or violating the SEC, unless we are willing to go beyond that and violate the Null Energy Condition. This latter point will be considered in the next section.

We can understand this situation from a different, perhaps more physical point of view as follows. The metric (8) has scalar curvature equal to $`2/L^2`$. Experience with the AdS/CFT correspondence has taught us  that it is dangerous to allow the scalar curvature of the conformal boundary to be negative, particularly when that boundary is Euclidean, as is the case here. One way of explaining the problem is simply to note that the conformal Laplacian \[in three dimensions\] is

$$_{conformal}^2=^2+\frac{1}{8}R,$$
(9)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature. This is not a non-negative operator if $`R<0`$, and this leads to instability \[“Seiberg-Witten instability” \] in any “holographic” CFT on a boundary of negative scalar curvature. Now even if the reader does not believe in a dS/CFT correspondence , and doubts have been raised , it is a fact  that the limiting values of correlation functions for a theory on a deSitter background do define correlation functions for a Euclidean CFT on the boundary. Hence, Seiberg-Witten-style misbehaviour of a CFT on a boundary manifold with a metric like (8) surely indicates some kind of instability in the bulk, perhaps resulting in a singularity, whether or not a full “correspondence” \[in the AdS/CFT sense of complete equivalence\] is valid.

Now, once again, we can ask whether back-reaction of matter introduced into the spacetime can modify the geometry at infinity in such a way that the scalar curvature there is in fact positive, thereby averting Seiberg-Witten instability. This would be analogous to the mechanism of singularity resolution by back-reaction discussed in . However, it is actually possible to prove $``$ see  for a discussion of the mathematical techniques $``$ that, no matter how $`S^1\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is distorted, it is completely impossible to force its scalar curvature to be positive \[or zero\] everywhere. \[Surprisingly, this is also true of geodesically complete metrics on $`IR\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$; the non-compactness does not help in this particular case.\] Thus, back-reaction cannot prevent the instability from getting out of control. This is an example of “topologically induced instability” : once again, it is the topology of the boundary that enforces the instability, not its geometry. Thus, from this \[apparently\] quite different point of view, we again see that back-reaction is ineffective in resolving the singularity of the deSitter S-Brane spacetime.

Every Riemannian metric on $`S^1\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$, and every geodesically complete metric on $`IR\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$, has a scalar curvature function which is negative somewhere on the manifold. Consider any four-dimensional asymptotically deSitter spacetime with compact conformal infinity having this property. Then \[modulo standard conjectures on three-manifold topology, namely the Poincarè conjecture and the conjecture that all free actions by finite groups on $`S^3`$ are orthogonal\] the fundamental group must be infinite; see . As we have seen, this forces the spacetime to be singular. That is, in four dimensions, the Andersson-Galloway singularity and the Seiberg-Witten instability have a common origin in a curious property of certain manifolds: their refusal to accept any metric of positive scalar curvature. \[This fascinating and extremely deep branch of geometry has been applied recently  to Calabi-Yau manifolds.\] This suggests a second way out of the problem, which we shall discuss in the next section.

## 3. Two Ways Out

The Andersson-Galloway theorem, and our discussion of topologically induced instability, suggest two ways out of the unwelcome conclusions of the preceding section. Either we must violate the Null Energy Condition, or we must do something about the topology of conformal infinity.

While it is almost certain that the Strong Energy Condition is violated in our Universe, the Null Energy Condition \[NEC\] is a much weaker condition, and it may hold true. The theoretical evidence in favour of it is not as strong as is sometimes thought; the “traditional” arguments in favour \[such as the fear that the speed of sound might exceed that of light\] are weak indeed $``$ see  for a review of these and more recent arguments for and against the NEC. The most obvious kinds of NEC violations do seem to lead to serious problems , but the theoretical situation is unclear for more complex models; see  for recent theoretical developments, and note particularly that NEC violation arises rather naturally in string-theoretic accounts of “bounce” cosmologies .

In cosmology, a violation of the NEC would correspond to a value for $`w`$, the dark energy equation-of-state parameter, below -1. Obviously the real answer to the question, “Can the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w be less than -1?” must come from observations, not theory. In fact the latest data offer very little support for a value above -1; if anything, they \[slightly\] favour $`w<1`$; readers are urged to examine figures 13 and 14 of . The relevant WMAP data are discussed in . It is clear from these references that the possibility of NEC violation in cosmology cannot be ignored.

In view of this, we should ask whether the assumption that the NEC holds in the Andersson-Galloway theorem is really necessary. The answer is that it is indeed necessary: in  a family of cosmological models was presented with the metric

$$g(\gamma ,A)=dtdt+A^2\mathrm{cosh}^{\left(\frac{4}{\gamma }\right)}\left(\frac{\gamma t}{2L}\right)(d\theta _1d\theta _1+d\theta _2d\theta _2+d\theta _3d\theta _3).$$
(10)
Here $`A`$, $`L`$, and $`\gamma `$ are positive constants, and the spatial sections are cubic tori with angular coordinates $`\theta _i`$. This spacetime is asymptotically deSitter and future and past asymptotically simple, but the Cauchy surfaces \[and future and past conformal infinity\] are tori with infinite fundamental groups. The apparent contradiction with the Andersson-Galloway theorem is explained when one examines the NEC in this spacetime: it is indeed violated by a time-dependent $`w`$ which is always less than -1, but which approaches -1 rapidly towards the future and past. \[This last property allows the spacetime to avoid the “Big Smash”  or “Big Rip”  which is the fate of NEC-violating cosmologies with constant $`w`$.\] Hence our conclusions based on the Andersson-Galloway theorem in the previous section did indeed depend on the validity of the NEC. One possible way out of the S-Brane singularity problem is therefore to arrange for the NEC to be either circumvented \[in the Townsend-Wohlfarth manner\] or explicitly violated \[perhaps “effectively”, as in the Kachru-McAllister  cosmology\]. Constructing an explicit singularity-free model of this kind may however be a challenging exercise; we suggest that the metric $`g(\gamma ,A)`$ may be a good place to start.

An alternative approach would proceed as follows. We saw above that the unpleasant features of the deSitter S0-Brane spacetime arose, fundamentally, from the topology of conformal infinity. Can Figure 2 be re-interpreted in such a way that the topology is usefully different? As we saw, one can question whether the “two” singularities are really distinct; perhaps they should be identified. The topology of future infinity is then $`S^1\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$. That certainly does not help to render the fundamental group more finite, but it does suggest the following approach. Suppose that we perform a $`ZZ_2`$ projection on the circle, in the manner of the Horava-Witten  model, so that the singularity is at one fixed point. Then the topology of the future and past infinities of our spacetime becomes $`\frac{S^1}{ZZ_2}\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The Penrose diagram is as shown in Figure 3.

Here the vertical line on the right represents the other fixed point on the circle; the reader should think of it as a timelike brane, just as in brane cosmology. At infinity, instead of a conformal manifold, we have a conformal manifold with boundary. This may not seem to be much of a difference, but in fact it changes everything. As we stated above, it is completely impossible to find a metric of positive scalar curvature on either $`IR\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ or $`S^1\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$. But it is possible to find a metric of positive scalar curvature on $`\frac{S^1}{ZZ_2}\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$. A simple example is as follows. Let $`r`$ parametrise the closed interval $`[\frac{L}{2},+\frac{L}{2}]`$, and let $`\rho `$ and $`\theta `$ be local coordinates on $`IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as in equation (8). Then \[recalling that $`S^1/ZZ_2`$ is the same as a closed line interval\] we can define a metric on $`\frac{S^1}{ZZ_2}\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ by

$$g=sech^2(\frac{r}{L})[drdr+L^2(d\rho d\rho +sinh^2(\rho )d\theta d\theta )].$$
(11)
The scalar curvature of this metric is simply

$$R(g)=\frac{2}{L^2}[3\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}cosh^2(\frac{r}{L})],$$
(12)
which is indeed positive everywhere since $`r`$ is confined to $`[\frac{L}{2},+\frac{L}{2}]`$. This example is too simple to be useful, since it is conformal to a metric of negative scalar curvature, but it does illustrate the point that curvature controls topology much more weakly for manifolds with boundaries than it does for ordinary manifolds. \[It also shows why this is so: we can use the boundary conditions to manipulate the parameters. For example, simply by choosing a different range for $`r`$ $``$ say \[L, 2L\] $``$ we can force the scalar curvature to be negative everywhere on this same manifold with boundary, with a metric defined by the same formula.\]

In fact, Gromov  has proved that it is possible to find a metric of positive sectional curvature\] on every manifold with boundary \[of dimension at least two\]. It is also possible to find a metric of negative sectional curvature on the same space. That is, essentially, every curvature component can be made positive or negative, not just the sum. In effect, this means that there is no relation between topology and curvature on manifolds with boundaries. \[This is of course in very sharp contrast to the case of ordinary manifolds: in particular, in three dimensions, a compact manifold with positive \[not necessarily constant\] sectional curvature has to have the topology of a sphere or of a finite quotient of a sphere.\] Therefore, to the extent that our problems are due to the absence of positive scalar curvature metrics on the conformal boundary, we can in principle solve them in this way.

We do not know whether the Andersson-Galloway theorem can be extended to cover this case. Let us assume the worst and suppose that it can. Even then, we have to re-consider our assumption that a failure of asymptotic simplicity signals the presence of a singularity. For inextendible null geodesics will have endpoints on the timelike brane in Figure 3 $``$ and therefore fail to reach conformal infinity $``$ whether or not the naked singularity remains. That is, the spacetime can fail to be asymptotically simple in this case without being singular. Once again, the obstruction to resolving the naked singularity has been removed: in effect, we can try to replace one kind of “discontinuity” by another which is less obnoxious \[because it is under control, as a physical object\].

To summarise: $`g(deS0Brane)`$ is undoubtedly a metric on a nakedly singular spacetime. But if we think of it as a metric on the space pictured in Figure 3, with future and past boundaries having the structure $`\frac{S^1}{ZZ_2}\times (IR^2/\mathrm{\Delta })`$, then there is nothing to prevent back-reaction from changing the sign of the scalar curvature at infinity, and there is no reason to insist that the failure of some null geodesics to reach infinity signals the presence of a singularity. That might well mean that the singularity in the original spacetime can be resolved. As in the case of the first escape route, however, it will not be easy to produce a concrete example.

In view of the Andersson-Galloway theorem and the topological nature of Seiberg-Witten instability in this case, it is hard to see any other possible way of resolving the singularities in evidence in Figure 2. If the reader feels that neither method proposed in this section is likely to work, then he or she can conclude that violating the SEC is unlikely to change the conclusions of  regarding the intrinsically singular nature of this whole family of spacetimes \[that is, those with asymptotic structure of the kind typified by equation (8).\] It seems that we need a different ansatz, one which not only does away with the symmetries \[as proposed in \] but also has a different underlying topology.


text:
# Chapter 1 Correlations and Charge Composition of UHECR without Knowledge of Galactic Magnetic Field

## Chapter 1 Correlations and Charge Composition of UHECR without Knowledge of Galactic Magnetic Field

### Abstract

We develop a formalism which allows to study correlations of charged UHECR with potential sources without using any Galactic Magnetic Field (GMF) model. The method is free of subjective chose of parameters on which the significance of correlations depends strongly. We show that correlations of the AGASA dataset with BL Lacs (found previously after reconstruction of particle trajectories in a specific GMF) are present intrinsically and can be detected without reference to a particular model of magnetic field.

### 1. Introduction

Correlations between UHECR and BL Lacs  improve noticeably after correction of UHECR arrival directions for deflections in GMF . The GMF model and its parameters were chosen in Ref.  following the literature where they were obtained by fitting to the observed Faraday rotation measurements. Because of the uncertainties in the model of magnetic field, it is clearly desirable to have an alternative procedure capable of detecting charged correlations of UHECR without referring to a particular GMF.

Any chance coincidences between cosmic rays and potential sources should be distributed over the sky according to the local density of sources and exposure of a cosmic ray experiment. Any significant deviations from this distribution gives independent signature that the correlations are real and should reflect physical effects. There are a priori reasons to expect such deviations from “uniformity” for real signal. The extra-galactic magnetic fields are unlikely to be small in all directions . If primary particles are protons, one may expect good correlation with sources in some areas of the sky and no correlations in the other. Poor knowledge of the Galactic magnetic field may have similar effect: the directions of cosmic rays before they enter the Galactic magnetic field may be obtained correctly only in the regions where actual GMF is described well by the model used. Thus, one may expect that correlating rays will not cover the acceptance region uniformly, but will form spots where the rate of correlations is high, while in other areas the number of correlating rays will not exceed the random background. Such spots in distribution of correlating rays were indeed found . But are they due to deviations of GMF from a model in certain regions, or the reason is different? The method which is insensitive to the GMF model may give answer to such questions.

Why should such a procedure exist at all? Deflections by GMF form a regular vector field; they are expected to point in close directions in relatively small regions of the sky. On the contrary, if extra-galactic fields dominate the deflections, or if the association between cosmic rays and “sources” is due to a mere coincidence, the vectors of deflections would form a random field. In this talk we develop the statistical test to distinguish between these two situations, and confront it with the AGASA data, Ref. .

### 2. Formulation of the procedure

The procedure which we propose consists in the following steps: (1) Choose reasonably small region on the sky (the domain where the deflections are expected to point roughly in the same direction). (2) Within this domain, identify pairs source – cosmic ray by choosing rays which have nearest source not further than maximum expected deflection angle; this defines a set of directions of deflections corresponding to the data. (3) Perform Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test to compare these directions with the ones obtained for the same domain, the same set of sources, but randomly generated cosmic rays. The test which is reparametrization-invariant on the circle should be used.

Consider this procedure in more detail in the case of AGASA cosmic rays with energy $`E>4\times 10^{19}`$ eV  and the set of confirmed BL Lacs with $`\text{mag}<18`$ (the same set as in Refs. ):

(1) First, we have to divide the sky in regions. A natural choice is the regions introduced previously in Ref. . There, the part of the sky overlapping with AGASA acceptance region was divided into 4 equal area domains corresponding to north/south and inner/outer Galaxy. These regions are labelled as follows:

| I: | $`0^{}<l<120^{}`$, | $`b>0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| II: | $`120^{}<l<240^{}`$, | $`b>0`$ |
| III: | $`120^{}<l<240^{}`$, | $`b<0`$ |
| IV: | $`0^{}<l<120^{}`$, | $`b<0`$ |

For a particular GMF model adopted in Ref. , significant correlations between cosmic rays and BL Lacs were found in regions I and III, while no signal was observed in regions II and IV, see . Note that in all existing models the deflections point roughly in the same directions throughout region II or III (outer Galaxy), but field of deflections is complicated in regions I and IV (inner Galaxy).

(2) To proceed, we have to find a set of pairs source – cosmic ray which define the deflections $`\delta 𝐧_i\left(𝐧_i^{\mathrm{cr}}𝐧_i^{\mathrm{src}}\right)/𝐧_i^{\mathrm{cr}}𝐧_i^{\mathrm{src}}`$, where $`𝐧_i^{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and $`𝐧_i^{\mathrm{src}}`$ are unit vectors pointing in the direction of i-th cosmic ray and its candidate source, respectively. We identify such pairs as follows. For a typical energy of cosmic ray $`4\times 10^{19}`$ eV and typical magnitude of GMF, the deflections are of order $`38`$ degrees. So, we look for candidate sources within $`10^{}`$ of the rays (we have verified that the results change insignificantly when this parameter is increased to $`20^{}`$). We select the closest source if there are many candidates, and reject the ray if there are none within specified region. Thus obtained deflections $`\delta 𝐧_i`$ are projected onto a fixed direction $`𝐞_l`$ of constant Galactic latitude $`b`$. This defines the set of angles, $`\alpha _i\mathrm{arccos}\left(\delta 𝐧_i𝐞_l\right)`$, which are expected to be distributed roughly uniformly from 0 to $`2\pi `$ if cosmic rays and sources are uncorrelated, or if the deflections are due to a random field.

(3) Finally, we perform a KS test to compare this distribution to the one obtained for a large number of randomly generated cosmic rays. Since both distributions are defined on a circle, we use a cyclic version of the KS test . This eliminates the dependence on the fixed direction $`𝐞_l`$ the deflections were projected onto.

### 3. Results

In the region III, we find that deflections are aligned: their directions vary within $`60^{}<\alpha <\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}^{}`$. Corresponding cumulative distribution is shown in Fig. 1, where solid and dotted curves represent the real data and Monte-Carlo simulation with random cosmic rays, respectively. These two distributions are incompatible at the significance level of $`P=410^5`$.

One should be careful applying correlation analysis to highest energy CR data. Namely, the AGASA dataset is autocorrelated on the scale of $`2.5^{}`$  and this may cause spurious correlation effects. Within present procedure it is meaningless to incorporate UHECR clustering into Monte-Carlo generator (as it was done e.g. in Ref ) since the expected distribution will be uniform anyway. But we can eliminate any effects related to clustering by replacing each cluster in the real data (regardless of its multiplicity) by a single cosmic ray located at the cluster center. Real significance can be only higher compared to the one found with clusters being removed. We carried out this procedure of cluster reduction (eliminating three doublets in region III) and found $`P_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{clusters}}=1.310^4`$ in cyclic KS test.

In regions I and II we also find that the data deviate from uncorrelated distribution, with KS significance $`10^2`$ in each region. In region IV we see no signal (note however that this region has the smallest number of AGASA CRs).

### 4. Conclusions

In region III the AGASA data are incompatible with uncorrelated distribution; the significance is $`410^5<P<10^4`$. Overall deflection angle is consistent with expectation derived in GMF models with small vertical component of the magnetic field. In region II the deflections are also expected to be aligned; smaller signal in this region may be due either to a fluctuation, or to the effect of extra-galactic magnetic fields.

### 5. References

1. Berezinsky V., Gazizov A. Z., Grigorieva S. I., astro-ph/0210095

2. Hayashida N. et al. 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1000

3. Hayashida N. et al. 1999, Astrophys. J. 522, 225 and astro-ph/0008102

4. Press W. H. et al. 1992, Numerical Recipes, chapter 14 (Cambridge
University Press)

5. Takeda M. et. al. 2001, Proc. of 27th ICRC, p. 341

6. Tinyakov P. G., Tkachev I. I. 2001, JETP Lett. 74, 1

7. Tinyakov P. G., Tkachev I. I. 2001, JETP Lett. 74, 445

8. Tinyakov P. G., Tkachev I. I. 2002, Astropart. Phys. 18, 165

9. Tinyakov P. G., Tkachev I. I. 2002, International Workshop on Extremely
High Energy Cosmic Rays, Wako, Japan, 5-6 Nov 2002, hep-ph/0212223