format: text

text:
# Decay in a uniform field: an exactly solvable model

## I Introduction

Exponential decay is a common feature of many physical processes; in particular, it is the universal hallmark of unstable systems such as radioactive nuclei. However, it is known that under very general conditions quantum mechanics predicts deviations from the exponential decay within short as well as long time intervals . As pointed out by Khalfin , the latter situation occurs whenever the spectrum of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is bounded from below; in this case, the Paley-Wiener theorem  on Fourier transforms implies that the non-decay or survival amplitude $`A(t;[\psi ]):=\psi (0)|\psi (t)`$ necessarily satisfies

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{|\mathrm{ln}|A(t;[\psi ])||}{1+t^2}𝑑t<\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
This condition clearly rules out an exponential decay for $`t\mathrm{}`$, as this would cause the integral above to diverge.§§§Another measure of decay, used for states initially confined inside a region $``$ (i.e., $`\psi (x,t=0)`$ vanishes outside $``$), is the nonescape probability, defined as $`P(t):=_{}|\psi (x,t)|^2𝑑x`$. Using Schwarz’s inequality one can easily show that $`P(t)|A(t)|^2`$, so that Khalfin’s argument also rules out the exponential decay of $`P(t)`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$. Explicit calculations in a number of models  show that, in fact, there occurs a crossover from exponential to power law decay when $`t\mathrm{}`$.

One may wonder what happens if the Hamiltonian is not bounded from below. At first glance this might appear to be an academic question, since any realistic Hamiltonian should be bounded from below. However, such “unrealistic” Hamiltonians are often found in physics. Some examples are the decay of a metastable vacuum through the formation of bubbles of the true vacuum , the droplet model for first order phase transitions in statistical physics , or the ionization of an atom by a static electric field . In the latter case Herbst  provided a partial answer to that question. Let $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }+V+Fx`$ be the Hamiltonian describing a one-electron atom in a uniform electric field. If $`V(x,y,z)`$ is holomorphic in $`x`$ and $`V(x+ia,y,z)`$ is bounded and decreases to zero as $`r:=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{}`$ for each $`a`$, whereas $`\psi `$ is an eigenvector of $`\mathrm{\Delta }+V`$ with negative eigenvalue, then (for $`F0`$)

$$\psi |e^{iHt}|\psi =\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\alpha }{}C_je^{iE_jt}+O\left(e^{(\alpha +\epsilon )t/2}\right),$$
(2)
where $`E_j`$ are the resonances of $`H`$ (i.e., the complex poles of $`(EH)^1`$ in the lower half-plane) whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j:=2\mathrm{Im}E_j`$ are their widths and $`\alpha `$ and $`\epsilon `$ are suitable positive numbers. Herbst also showed that $`\mathrm{inf}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\}>0`$, in such a way that Eq. (2) ensures the exponential decay of $`A(t;[\psi ])`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the decay law in a very simple (albeit non-trivial) model, namely, a one-electron atom in which the Coulomb attractive potential is replaced by a point-like attractive well — an idealization of a very short-range attractive interaction — and put under the influence of a static and uniform electric or gravitational field (for related simple models, see Refs. ). The model will be studied in $`D=1,2,3`$ space dimensions and will be shown to be exactly solvable in the one- and three-dimensional cases, whereas in the two-dimensional case it is solvable up to a quadrature. In spite of its simplicity, this model unravels some remarkable features that can be actually evaluated in detail and become worthwhile to be used as a paradigm with respect to more realistic situations, without any substantial change in the basic physical contents. To this concern, it is known that, in the absence of the uniform field, this model exhibits a bound state — see for instance Refs. .

It turns out that, once a background uniform field has been switched on, an infinite number of resonances arise in this model. In particular, the state vector that corresponds to the bound state in the absence of the uniform field is turned into a bona fide quasi-stable state for a sufficiently weak external field. For instance, if the bound state energy is of the order of 1 eV, the lifetime of the corresponding quasi-stable state in the presence of the Earth’s gravitational field is much longer than the present age of the Universe; even in the presence of a rather strong laboratory static electric field, its lifetime is long in comparison to the typical time scales of atomic and condensed matter physics. On the other hand, very strong external fields are expected to create non-perturbative deviations from the naive exponential decay law. This has been observed in previous numerical studies of the present model  and will be qualitatively explained in this work.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we first analyze the one-dimensional case, where a direct one-to-one correspondence takes place between the strength of the attractive potential well and the bound state energy. All the main features of the model are explicitly exhibited and discussed. In Section III we generalize our investigation to the two- and three-dimensional cases. Here the renormalization procedure is mandatory, in order to remove the ultraviolet divergences of the Green’s functions. In so doing, the bound state energy in the zero-field case achieves a deeper physical meaning — it specifies the self-adjoint extension of the quantum Hamiltonian operator — whereas the renormalized coupling parameters become running auxiliary quantities. Mutatis mutandis, all the main physical properties of the one-dimensional case are essentially recovered. In Section IV we draw our conclusions, whilst we defer some technical although important details to the Appendices.

## II The one-dimensional model

Let us consider the HamiltonianWe use atomic units such that $`\mathrm{}=2m=1`$.

$$H=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\lambda \delta (x)Fx,\lambda >0,F>0,$$
(3)
describing a particle interacting with an attractive $`\delta `$-potential and a uniform background field. In the absence of the field (i.e., when $`F=0`$) there is a single bound state with energy $`E_B=\lambda ^2/4`$, the corresponding wave function being given by $`\psi _B(x)=(\lambda /2)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\lambda |x|/2)`$. Once the uniform field is turned on, this bound state becomes unstable, in the sense that $`A(t;[\psi _B])0`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. The precise way in which this occurs will be the subject of this Section.

### A Retarded Green’s function

The retarded Green’s function $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ is the solution to the differential equation

$$(EH)G^+(E;x,x^{})=\delta (xx^{}),E,$$
(4)
that satisfies the boundary condition

$$\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}G^+(E;x,x^{})=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{Im}(E)>0;$$
(5)
it is defined for $`\mathrm{Im}(E)0`$ by analytic continuation. The solution to Eq. (4) is known , but we shall derive it here for the sake of completeness.

To solve Eq. (4), let us first consider the case $`\lambda =0`$; it can then be rewritten as

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}+\rho \right)G_0^+(\rho ,\rho ^{})=F^{1/3}\delta (\rho \rho ^{}),$$
(6)
where

$$\rho :=F^{1/3}\left(x+\frac{E}{F}\right).$$
(7)
The solution to Eq. (6) that satisfies the boundary condition (5) is given by

$$G_0^+(\rho ,\rho ^{})=a\mathrm{Ai}(\rho )\theta (\rho ^{}\rho )+b\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\rho )\theta (\rho \rho ^{}),$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{Ai}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(x):=\mathrm{Bi}(x)+i\mathrm{Ai}(x)`$ are Airy functions  and $`\theta (x)`$ is the Heaviside step function. The coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ are fixed by the matching conditions at $`\rho =\rho ^{}`$:

$$G_0^+(\rho ^{}+0,\rho ^{})=G_0^+(\rho ^{}0,\rho ^{}),$$
(9)
$$_\rho G_0^+(\rho ,\rho ^{})|_{\rho =\rho ^{}+0}_\rho G_0^+(\rho ,\rho ^{})|_{\rho =\rho ^{}0}=F^{1/3}.$$
(10)
Solving these equations one finally arrives at

$$G_0^+(\rho ,\rho ^{})=\pi F^{1/3}\mathrm{Ai}(\rho _{})\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\rho _+),$$
(11)
where $`2\rho _\pm :=\rho +\rho ^{}\pm |\rho \rho ^{}|`$.

In order to obtain $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ for $`\lambda 0`$, we rewrite Eq. (4) as an integral equation:

$`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`G_0^+(E;x,x^{}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yG_0^+(E;x,y)\lambda \delta (y)G^+(E;y,x^{})`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`G_0^+(E;x,x^{})\lambda G_0^+(E;x,0)G^+(E;0,x^{}).`$ (13)
Taking $`x=0`$, solving for $`G^+(E;0,x^{})`$, and reinserting the result into Eq. (13) yields the so called Krein’s formula :

$$G^+(E;x,x^{})=G_0^+(E;x,x^{})\frac{G_0^+(E;x,0)G_0^+(E;0,x^{})}{g(\lambda ,E)},$$
(14)
where

$$g(\lambda ,E):=\frac{1}{\lambda }+G_0^+(E;0,0).$$
(15)
### B Resonant-mode expansion of the propagator

From $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ one can obtain the retarded propagator $`K^+(t;x,x^{})`$ by a Fourier transformation:

$$K^+(t;x,x^{})=i_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{dE}{2\pi }e^{iEt}G^+(E;x,x^{}).$$
(16)
It turns out that the following bound on $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ holds true in the lower half-planeMore precisely, the bound is valid only outside the sectors $`|\mathrm{arg}(E)+2\pi /3|<\delta `$ and $`\delta <\mathrm{arg}(E)<0`$, with $`\delta >0`$ depending on $`|E|`$. As shown in Sect. II C and Appendix D, these regions contain poles of $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ with arbitrarily large absolute values, where the inequality (17) is obviously false. One can, however, make $`\delta `$ arbitrarily small by taking $`|E|`$ sufficiently large. for $`|E|`$ sufficiently large (see Appendix A):

$$|G^+(E;x,x^{})|C|E|^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{|E|^{1/2}(|x|+|x^{}|)\right\},|E|\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where $`C`$ is a suitable constant.

This bound allows one to close the contour of integration of (16) when $`t>0`$ with a semi-circle of infinite radius in the lower half-plane without changing the value of the integral. Using Cauchy’s theorem, one then obtains the so-called resonant-mode expansion of the propagator :

$$K^+(t;x,x^{})=\underset{n}{}e^{iE_nt}\phi _n(x)\phi _n(x^{}),$$
(18)
where the sum runs over the poles\**\**\**In writing (18) and (19) we have made use of the fact that the poles of $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ are simple, as it can be explicitly checked by direct inspection. of $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ located in the lower half-plane and the functions $`\phi _n(x)`$ are given by

$$\phi _n(x)=\frac{G_0^+(E;x,0)}{[_EG_0^+(E;0,0)]^{1/2}}|_{E=E_n}.$$
(19)
The functions $`\phi _n(x)`$ can be recognized as the so-called Gamow states . On the one hand, just like the bona fide energy eigenfunctions, they satisfy the differential equation $`H\phi _n(x)=E_n\phi _n(x)`$. On the other hand, the complex quantities $`E_n`$ do not correspond to the eigenvalues of the self-adjoint Hamiltonian operator and, moreover, the Gamow states are neither normalizable (not even in the sense of generalized functions, because they diverge when $`x\mathrm{}`$) nor mutually orthogonal.

Using Eq. (18) and the fact that

$$\psi (x,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x^{}K^+(t;x,x^{})\psi (x^{},0),t0,$$
(20)
we can recast the non-decay amplitude $`A(t;[\psi ]):=\psi |e^{iHt}|\psi `$ in the form of a resonant-mode expansion:

$$A(t;[\psi ])=\underset{n}{}\stackrel{~}{C}_nC_ne^{iE_nt},$$
(21)
where

$$C_n:=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\psi (x,0)\phi _n(x),\stackrel{~}{C}_n:=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\psi ^{}(x,0)\phi _n(x).$$
(22)
Notice that $`\stackrel{~}{C}_nC_n^{}`$ and $`|\phi _n(x)|^2\mathrm{exp}(F^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_nx^{1/2})`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$. It follows therefrom that the wave function $`\psi (x,0)`$ of the initial state must decrease sufficiently fast at infinity in order that the coefficients $`C_n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_n`$ exist. This condition is fulfilled by $`\psi (x,0)=\psi _B(x)`$. This still leaves open the question of whether the series (21) converges. Here we shall assume that it does, at least in the $`l^2`$-topology.

### C Poles of the Green’s function

The unperturbed Green’s function $`G_0^+(E;x,x^{})`$ is an holomorphic function of $`E`$, so that the poles of $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ are all given by the zeros of $`g(\lambda ,E)`$. Inserting the explicit form of $`G_0^+(E;0,0)`$ into Eq. (15) and noting that when $`F=0`$ there is a bound state with energy $`E_B=\lambda ^2/4`$, we arrive at the following equation:

$$\mathrm{Ai}(\epsilon )\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\epsilon )=\frac{1}{2\pi }(\epsilon _B)^{1/2},\epsilon _B:=E_BF^{2/3}.$$
(23)
For a given value of $`\epsilon _B`$, Eq. (23) has an infinite number of solutions, all located in the lower half-plane. Some of them are shown in Fig. 1. They can be numbered according to their values in the limit $`\epsilon _B\mathrm{}`$, which corresponds to a very weak field ($`F0`$) or a very strong attractive interaction ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$). One of the poles approaches the negative real axis and behaves asymptotically as (see Appendix B)

$$\epsilon _0\epsilon _B\left\{1+i\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{3}(\epsilon _B)^{3/2}\right]\right\},\epsilon _B\mathrm{}.$$
(24)
Its real part corresponds to the energy of the (unique) bound state of the atom in the absence of the uniform field. Its imaginary part is half the decay rate of the atom via tunneling through the potential barrier created by the external field.

The other poles approach the zeros††††††Note that the r.h.s. of Eq. (23) vanishes in the limit $`\epsilon _B\mathrm{}`$. of $`\mathrm{Ai}(\epsilon )`$, which are real and located on the positive real axis,

$$\underset{\epsilon _B\mathrm{}}{lim}\epsilon _n=a_n,n,$$
(25)
and of $`\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\epsilon )`$,

$$\underset{\epsilon _B\mathrm{}}{lim}\epsilon _n=a_ne^{2i\pi /3},n.$$
(26)
In Eq. (25), $`a_n`$ denotes the $`n`$-th zero of $`\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$; Eq. (26) follows from the identity $`\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(z)=2e^{i\pi /6}\mathrm{Ai}(ze^{2i\pi /3})`$ .

If the external field is very weak, but nonvanishing — i.e., $`|\epsilon _B|1`$ — then the poles $`\epsilon _n`$ with $`n>0`$ exhibit a small negative imaginary part (see Fig. 1). However, while $`\mathrm{Im}(\epsilon _0)`$ approaches zero exponentially fast as $`\epsilon _B\mathrm{}`$, one has $`\mathrm{Im}(\epsilon _n)(\epsilon _B)^1`$ in the same limit (provided $`n`$ is not very large, see Appendix C). This means that the transient effects associated to the poles $`\epsilon _n`$ with $`n>0`$ — and a fortiori those ones associated to $`\epsilon _n`$ with $`n<0`$ — disappear much faster than the corresponding effects associated to the resonance $`\epsilon _0`$.

Looking at Fig. 1, one can notice that the imaginary parts of the first few poles $`\epsilon _n`$ with $`n>0`$ have the same order of magnitude. This explains the short time oscillatory behaviour of $`|A(t;[\psi ])|^2`$ observed in numerical studies  of the model (3) in the weak field regime: it is a consequence of the interference among the resonances associated with those poles. As a matter of fact, these resonances have a simple physical interpretation: when the external field $`F`$ is turned on, it may excite the particle to a state of positive energy. Once excited, the particle is pushed to the positive $`x`$-direction by the field — recall that we are assuming $`F>0`$ — but it is scattered by the potential $`V(x)=\lambda \delta (x)`$. Because the potential is strongly attractive as $`\lambda `$ is very large, the transmission probability is small, so that the particle can bounce back and forth many times in the region to the left of the origin before it finally “jumps over” the potential well.

Let us now examine the strong field regime $`|\epsilon _B|1`$. In this case, as shown in Fig. 1, the decay rates $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j|j\}`$ form a monotonic decreasing sequence, with $`lim_j\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=0`$, as shown in Appendix D. Thus, in contrast with the class of potentials considered by Herbst , there does not exist a slower decaying resonance, which would eventually dominate the decay process. As a consequence, the decay is not asymptotically exponential: $`\alpha >0`$, $`lim_t\mathrm{}e^{\alpha t}|A(t;[\psi ])|^2=\mathrm{}`$. By the way, strictly speaking this result actually holds true even in the weak field regime $`|\epsilon _B|1`$, because $`lim_n\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=0`$ regardless the value of $`\epsilon _B`$ (see Appendix D). In the weak field case, however, one should have to wait an extremely long time until a deviation from the exponential decay $`|A(t;[\psi ])|^2\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0t)`$ became appreciable. Besides, $`|A(t;[\psi ])|^2`$ would be so small by then that such a deviation would be practically unobservable.

The crossover from weak to strong field regime occurs at $`\epsilon _B1`$. At this value, $`\mathrm{Im}(\epsilon _0)\mathrm{Im}(\epsilon _1)`$ (see Fig. 1) — an indication that the two mechanisms of decay discussed above become equally important.

## III The two- and three-dimensional cases

### A Retarded Green’s function

We can use the same strategy employed in Sec. II A to solve the $`D`$-dimensional version of Eq. (4), which reads

$$\left[E+^2+\lambda \delta ^{(D)}(𝐱)+Fx\right]G^+(E;𝐱,𝐱^{})=\delta ^{(D)}(𝐱𝐱^{}),$$
(27)
where $`𝐱=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_D):=(x,𝐫)`$ and $`E`$. Thus we can formally write $`G^+(E;𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ as in Eq. (14), in which $`G_0^+(E;𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ denotes the solution to Eq. (27) in the case $`\lambda =0`$. The latter can be written as

$$G_0^+(E;𝐱,𝐱^{})=\frac{d^{D1}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}e^{i𝐤(𝐫𝐫^{})}𝒢_0^+(E,𝐤;x,x^{}),$$
(28)
where $`𝒢_0^+(E,𝐤;x,x^{})`$ satisfies

$$\left(E𝐤^2+\frac{^2}{x^2}+Fx\right)𝒢_0^+(E,𝐤;x,x^{})=\delta (xx^{}).$$
(29)
This has precisely the form of Eq. (4) with $`\lambda =0`$ and $`EE𝐤^2`$, the solution to which is given by Eq. (11). Inserting it into Eq. (28) we finally obtain

$$G_0^+(E;𝐱,𝐱^{})=\pi F^{1/3}\frac{d^{D1}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}e^{i𝐤(𝐫𝐫^{})}\mathrm{Ai}(\rho _{})\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\rho _+),$$
(30)
where now $`\rho :=F^{1/3}[x+(E𝐤^2)/F]`$ and $`2\rho _\pm :=\rho +\rho ^{}\pm |\rho \rho ^{}|`$.

### B Renormalization

In contrast with the one-dimensional case, the Green’s function is ill-defined at coincident points for $`D2`$. Indeed, after setting $`𝐱=𝐱^{}=0`$ in Eq. (30) and performing the angular integration, we obtain

$$G_0^+(E;0,0)=C_DF^{1/3}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Ai}(q)\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(q)k^{D2}𝑑k,$$
(31)
where

$$C_D:=\frac{2^{2D}\pi ^{(3D)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(D1)/2]},q:=F^{2/3}(𝐤^2E).$$
(32)
Since

$$\mathrm{Ai}(q)\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(q)\frac{q^{1/2}}{2\pi }\frac{F^{1/3}}{2\pi k}\mathrm{for}k\mathrm{},$$
(33)
the integral in Eq. (31) turns out to be ultraviolet divergent in $`D2`$. In the two- and three-dimensional cases the divergence can be absorbed through a redefinition of the coupling parameter $`\lambda `$. To do this we follow the same procedure employed in . Let us introduce a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the upper limit of integration in Eq. (31) and add to the resulting expression the following integral:

$$I_D(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu ):=\frac{C_D}{2\pi }_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{k^{D2}dk}{\sqrt{k^2+\mu ^2}},$$
(34)
which contains the arbitrary momentum scale $`\mu >0`$. At the same time, we subtract $`I_D(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )`$ from $`\lambda ^1`$ and define the renormalized coupling parameter $`\lambda _R`$ as

$$\left[\lambda _R(\mu )\right]^1:=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\lambda ^1I_D(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu )\right],$$
(35)
where it is understood that $`\lambda `$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in such a way that the limit exists. In this way, the denominator of the Krein’s formula (14) is replaced by an expression that is finite when the cutoff is removed:

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}g_D(\lambda ,E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _R}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_D}{F^{1/3}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{Ai}(q)\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(q){\displaystyle \frac{F^{1/3}}{2\pi \sqrt{k^2+\mu ^2}}}\right]k^{D2}𝑑k`$ (36)
$`:=`$ $`g_D(\lambda _R,\mu ,E).`$ (37)
In the next two subsections we shall analyze this expression separately in $`D=2`$ and $`D=3`$ dimensions. It turns out that the latter is simpler than the former, so we discuss it first.

### C Three-dimensional case

In $`D=3`$ the integral in Eq. (37) can be computed in closed form‡‡‡‡‡‡ $`y_1y_2𝑑x=xy_1y_2y_1^{}y_2^{}`$ for any two solutions of Airy’s equation $`y^{\prime \prime }xy=0`$. yielding ($`\epsilon :=EF^{2/3}`$)

$$g_3(\lambda _R,\mu ,E)=\frac{1}{\lambda _R}\frac{\mu }{4\pi }\frac{1}{4}F^{1/3}\left[\epsilon \mathrm{Ai}(\epsilon )\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\epsilon )+\mathrm{Ai}^{}(\epsilon )\mathrm{Ci}_{}^{(+)}{}_{}{}^{}(\epsilon )\right].$$
(38)
Using the asymptotic expressions of the Airy functions for large argument , one can easily show that in the limit $`F0`$ the expression above is reduced to

$$g_3(\lambda _R,\mu ,E)|_{F=0}=\frac{1}{\lambda _R}\frac{\mu }{4\pi }+\frac{\sqrt{E}}{4\pi }.$$
(39)
Thus, provided $`\lambda _R>4\pi /\mu `$, the quantity $`g_3(\lambda _R,\mu ,E)`$ has a real zero given by

$$E_B=\left[\mu \frac{4\pi }{\lambda _R(\mu )}\right]^2,$$
(40)
which can be identified as the energy of the unique bound state of the system. It is worthwhile to remark that the bound state energy is a physical quantity and turns out to be independent of the arbitrary scale $`\mu `$. From this physical requirement one can readily obtain the flow equation for the renormalized running coupling parameter:

$$\lambda _R(\mu )=\frac{\lambda _R(\mu _0)}{1+(\mu \mu _0)[\lambda _R(\mu _0)/4\pi ]},$$
(41)
which exhibits asymptotic freedom, i.e., $`\lambda _R(\mu )0`$ as $`\mu \mathrm{}`$.

After setting $`\epsilon _B:=F^{2/3}E_B`$ we can rewrite the resonance equation $`g_3(\lambda _R,\mu ,E)=0`$ in the form

$$\frac{1}{\pi }(\epsilon _B)^{1/2}+\epsilon \mathrm{Ai}(\epsilon )\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\epsilon )+\mathrm{Ai}^{}(\epsilon )\mathrm{Ci}_{}^{(+)}{}_{}{}^{}(\epsilon )=0,$$
(42)
that generalizes Eq. (23) to the three-dimensional case. As in the one-dimensional case, Eq. (42) has a solution $`\epsilon _0`$ that tends asymptotically to $`\epsilon _B`$ in the weak-field regime (see Appendix B):

$$\epsilon _0\epsilon _B\left\{1+\frac{i}{4}(\epsilon _B)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{3}(\epsilon _B)^{3/2}\right]\right\},\epsilon _B\mathrm{}.$$
(43)
It has the same physical interpretation of its one-dimensional counterpart — see Eq. (24).

In addition to $`\epsilon _0`$, Eq. (42) has an infinite number of solutions. Some of them are shown in Fig. 2 for three different values of $`\epsilon _B`$. Their distribution in the complex $`\epsilon `$-plane bears some resemblance with the one-dimensional case (see Fig. 1); in particular, they approach asymptotically the half-lines $`\mathrm{arg}(\epsilon )=2\pi /3`$ and $`\mathrm{arg}(\epsilon )=0`$ (see Appendix D). There are, however, two important differences:
(i) for fixed $`n>0`$ we have that\**\**\**Note that this fact is not in conflict with Eq. (D6), which is valid under the condition that $`|\epsilon _n||\epsilon _B|`$. $`lim_{\epsilon _B\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}(\epsilon _n)0`$, as shown in Fig. 2, which clearly exhibits that the larger $`|\epsilon _B|`$ the farther is $`\epsilon _n`$ from the real axis;
(ii) there is no clear distinction between the weak and strong field regimes — $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is always smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, even for $`\epsilon _B0`$.

The first difference has a simple geometric interpretation: in three dimensions a particle can avoid a localized obstacle by going around it. Hence, the field $`F`$ can easily detach a particle with positive energy from a localized potential.

### D Two-dimensional case

Let us now finally discuss the two-dimensional case. To this concern, it is important to realize that the integral in Eq. (37) is no longer expressible in closed form when $`D=2`$. Here we shall content ourselves with deriving an asymptotic expression for $`\epsilon _0`$ in the limit $`F0`$. To this aim let us assume that $`|\epsilon _0|`$ is large and close to the negative real half-axis. In this case — see Eq. (32) — $`|q|`$ is large and $`|\mathrm{arg}(q)|\pi `$ for all $`k[0,\mathrm{})`$, hence the following approximation is uniformly valid in the range of integration in Eq. (37) :

$$\mathrm{Ai}(q)\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(q)\frac{F^{1/3}}{2\pi \sqrt{k^2E}}\left\{1+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{3}F^1\left(k^2E\right)^{3/2}\right]\right\}.$$
(44)
Inserting this into Eq. (37) we obtain, in $`D=2`$,

$$g_2(\lambda _R,\mu ,E)\frac{1}{\lambda _R}\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{E}\right)\frac{i}{4\pi }I_2(E),$$
(45)
where

$$I_2(E):=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{\sqrt{k^2E}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{3}F^1\left(k^2E\right)^{3/2}\right].$$
(46)
Consistently with our assumptions on $`E`$ and $`F`$ we can compute $`I_2(E)`$ using the saddle-point approximation and obtain

$`I_2(E)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{\sqrt{E}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F^1\left[(E)^{3/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(E)^{1/2}k^2\right]\right\}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi F}{8}}}(E)^{3/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}F^1(E)^{3/2}\right].`$ (48)
In the limit $`F0`$, the integral $`I_2(E)`$ vanishes and $`g_2(\lambda _R,\mu ,E)`$ has a single real and negative zero $`E_B`$, corresponding to the energy of the bound state in the absence of the external field:

$$E_B=\mu ^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4\pi }{\lambda _R(\mu )}\right].$$
(49)
We notice that in $`D=2`$ a bound state exists — provided, of course, $`F=0`$ — even if the renormalized strength of the point-like potential is negative, in which case one could naively expect the potential to be repulsive.

As the bound state energy must be independent of the arbitrary scale $`\mu `$, one can readily obtain the flow equation for the renormalized running coupling parameter, that now reads

$$\lambda _R(\mu )=\frac{\lambda _R(\mu _0)}{1+[\lambda _R(\mu _0)/2\pi ]\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\mu _0)},$$
(50)
leading again to asymptotic freedom.

Now, let us consider Eq. (45) in the case of a weak field $`F`$. Using Eq. (49), we can rewrite it as

$$g_2(E_B,E)\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{E}{E_B}\right)iI_2(E)\right].$$
(51)
An approximate solution to the equation $`g_2(E_B,E)=0`$ is given by $`E_0=E_B\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+iI_2(E_B)\right]`$; in terms of the dimensionless variable $`\epsilon =EF^{2/3}`$ we obtain, cf. Eq. (48),

$$\epsilon _0\epsilon _B\left\{1+i\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{8}}(\epsilon _B)^{3/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{3}(\epsilon _B)^{3/2}\right]\right\},\epsilon _B\mathrm{}.$$
(52)
Moreover, as in the one- and three-dimensional cases, it is possible to show that an infinite number of resonances arise as solutions to the equation $`g_2(\lambda _R,\mu ,E)=0`$, approaching asymptotically the half-lines $`\mathrm{arg}(E)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{arg}(E)=2\pi /3`$ when $`|E|\mathrm{}`$.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have analyzed the ionization of a very simple (though non-trivial) model atom submitted to the influence of a uniform static field. The model we have considered here is that of a one-electron atom in which the Coulomb interaction between the electron and the nucleus is replaced by an attractive short range (in fact, point-like) interaction. We have analyzed the problem in $`D=1`$, 2 and 3 spatial dimensions. In spite of its simplicity and of the fact that — due to the external field — the Hamiltonian is not bounded from below, the study of the present model is far from being academic as it allows to grasp the basic features of the quantum dynamical behaviour of many realistic physical systems. In particular, its main prediction is a sensible deviation, in the strong field regime, from the naively expected exponential decay law of the survival probability of the bound state after the external field is turned on. Actually, more or less important deviations from the exponential decay law do occur even when the field is weak, specially in its short-time behaviour, with the presence of oscillatory transient effects (which are more pronounced in $`D=1`$). Such deviations are caused by the presence of a purely continuous spectrum and the appearance of an infinite number of resonances once the uniform field is switched on. Deviations from the exponential decay law are also expected for very large times; this, however, may be an artifact of the model studied here, since for more realistic potentials one can prove asymptotic exponential decay . (On the other hand, as noted before, the survival probability would be so small when such deviations took place that they would be practically unobservable.)

An important development of the present investigation, which will be presented elsewhere, is the generalization of our analysis to the additional presence of a uniform magnetic field. In this way, it might be eventually possible to precisely evaluate the lifetimes of the so called non-conducting states — within the Integer Quantum Hall Effect (IQHE) conventional terminology — and to explicitly verify the widely popular picture according to which the presence of impurities, described in the simplest way by point-like attractive wells, gives rise to the plateaux formation in the IQHE .

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Roman Jackiw for his useful suggestions. R. M. Cavalcanti acknowledges the kind hospitality of Università di Bologna and the support from CNPq and FAPERJ. P. Giacconi and R. Soldati would like to thank the Institute of Physics of the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro for the warm hospitality during a stage of this work.

## A

In this Appendix we shall sketch the proof of the bound (17) on $`G^+(E;x,x)`$ in $`D=1`$. Let us first examine the asymptotic behavior of $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ for $`|E|\mathrm{}`$ in the sector $`\pi <\mathrm{arg}(E)<2\pi /3`$. Since $`\mathrm{arg}(\rho )\mathrm{arg}(E)`$ as $`|E|\mathrm{}`$, cfr. Eq. (7), we have $`|\mathrm{arg}(\rho )|=|\mathrm{arg}(e^{i\pi }\rho )|<\pi /3`$ for $`|E|`$ large enough, so that

$$\mathrm{Ai}(\rho )\frac{1}{2}\pi ^{1/2}(\rho )^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{3}(\rho )^{3/2}\right],$$
(A1)
$$\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\rho )\pi ^{1/2}(\rho )^{1/4}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{3}(\rho )^{3/2}\right]+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2}{3}(\rho )^{3/2}\right]\right\}.$$
(A2)
Inserting Eqs. (A1) and (A2) into Eq. (11), and dropping the second term in curly brackets in Eq. (A2) since it is negligible compared to the first one, we obtain

$$G_0^+(E;x,x^{})\frac{i}{2}F^{1/3}(\rho _{}\rho _+)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2i}{3}\left(\rho _{}^{3/2}\rho _+^{3/2}\right)\right].$$
(A3)
In addition, taking Eq. (7) into account, we have

$$\rho ^{3/2}F^1E^{3/2}+\frac{3}{2}E^{1/2}x,|E|\mathrm{},$$
(A4)
so that

$$G_0^+(E;x,x^{})\frac{i}{2}E^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(iE^{1/2}|xx^{}|\right).$$
(A5)
Inserting this expression into Eq. (14) and using the fact that $`\mathrm{Im}(E^{1/2})<0`$, one can easily show that there is a positive constant $`C`$ such that $`|G^+(E;x,x^{})|<C|E|^{1/2}`$ for $`|E|`$ sufficiently large and $`\pi <\mathrm{arg}(E)<2\pi /3`$. Notice that Eq. (17) is a trivial consequence of this inequality.

Let us now examine the asymptotic behaviour of $`G^+(E;x,x^{})`$ in the sector $`2\pi /3<\mathrm{arg}(E)<0`$. For this purpose it is convenient to rewrite Eq. (14) as

$$G^+(E;x,x^{})=\frac{G_0^+(E;x,x^{})+\lambda R(E;x,x^{})}{1+\lambda G_0^+(E;0,0)},$$
(A6)
where

$$R(E;x,x^{}):=G_0^+(E;0,0)G_0^+(E;x,x^{})G_0^+(E;x,0)G_0^+(E;0,x^{}).$$
(A7)
Again, since $`\mathrm{arg}(\rho )\mathrm{arg}(E)`$ as $`|E|\mathrm{}`$, we have $`|\mathrm{arg}(\rho )|<2\pi /3`$ for $`|E|`$ large enough, in which case we have

$$\mathrm{Ai}(\rho )\pi ^{1/2}\rho ^{1/4}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2}{3}\rho ^{3/2}+\frac{\pi }{4}\right),$$
(A8)
$$\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\rho )\pi ^{1/2}\rho ^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\frac{2}{3}\rho ^{3/2}+\frac{\pi }{4}\right)\right],$$
(A9)
so that

$`G_0^+(E;x,x^{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}F^{1/3}(\rho _{}\rho _+)^{1/4}`$ (A11)
$`\times \left\{i\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{3}}\left(\rho _+^{3/2}+\rho _{}^{3/2}\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{3}}\left(\rho _+^{3/2}\rho _{}^{3/2}\right)\right]\right\}.`$
Using (A4) and neglecting the second term in curly brackets we obtain

$$G_0^+(E;x,x^{})\frac{1}{2}E^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left[\frac{4}{3}E^{3/2}F^1+E^{1/2}(x+x^{})\right]\right\}.$$
(A12)
The asymptotic behavior of $`R(E;x,x^{})`$ depends upon the signs of $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. Let us first consider the case $`x,x^{}0`$. If we insert Eq. (11) into Eq. (A7), and use the identity $`f(\rho )f(\rho ^{})=f(\rho _{})f(\rho _+)`$, we obtain ($`\epsilon :=EF^{2/3}`$)

$`R(E;x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^2F^{2/3}\mathrm{Ai}(\rho _{})\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\epsilon )`$ (A14)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{Ai}(\epsilon )\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\rho _+)\mathrm{Ai}(\rho _+)\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}(\epsilon )\right].`$
Furthemore, inserting Eqs. (A8) and (A9) into Eq. (A14) and using Eq. (A4) we obtain

$$R(E;x,x^{})\frac{1}{2E}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\frac{4}{3}E^{3/2}F^1+E^{1/2}x_{}\right)\right]\mathrm{sin}\left(E^{1/2}x_+\right),x,x^{}0,$$
(A15)
where subdominant terms have been dropped. A similar analysis shows that

$$R(E;x,x^{})\frac{1}{2E}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\frac{4}{3}E^{3/2}F^1+E^{1/2}x_+\right)\right]\mathrm{sin}\left(E^{1/2}x_{}\right),x,x^{}0,$$
(A16)
and that $`R(E;x,x^{})0`$ for $`x0x^{}`$ or $`x^{}0x`$. Replacing $`G_0^+(E;x,x^{})`$ and $`R(E;x,x^{})`$ in Eq. (A6) with their asymptotic expressions, and using the inequalities $`|\mathrm{sin}z|\mathrm{exp}(|\mathrm{Im}z|)`$, $`|\mathrm{Im}E^{1/2}||E|^{1/2}`$ and $`|x\pm x^{}||x|+|x^{}|`$, one can easily derive the bound (17).

## B

In this Appendix we derive the asymptotic expression of $`\epsilon _0`$ in the weak field limit. Let us first consider the one-dimensional case. If we assume that $`|\epsilon |1`$ and $`\mathrm{arg}(\epsilon )\pi `$, then we may use the asymptotic expressions (A1) and (A2) for the Airy functions $`\mathrm{Ai}`$ and $`\mathrm{Ci}^{(+)}`$. Equation (23) then becomes

$$(\epsilon )^{1/2}\left\{1+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{3}(\epsilon )^{3/2}\right]\right\}(\epsilon _B)^{1/2}.$$
(B1)
This equation can be solved iteratively. As a first approximation, one may neglect the second term in square brackets, thus obtaining $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _B`$. In order to obtain the imaginary part of $`\epsilon _0`$ one must iterate once more: replacing $`\epsilon `$ in the exponential with $`\epsilon _B`$ and solving the resulting equation, one finds

$$\epsilon _0\epsilon _B\left\{1+i\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{3}(\epsilon _B)^{3/2}\right]\right\},\epsilon _B\mathrm{},D=1.$$
(B2)
One can derive a systematic expansion in powers of $`\epsilon _B`$ if one includes more and more terms in the asymptotic expansion of the Airy functions. In particular, the real part of the resulting expansion for $`E_0=F^{2/3}\epsilon _0`$ agrees with the Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation series for the bound state energy when the external field is treated as a perturbation .

Following the same strategy, we can approximate Eq. (42) of the three-dimensional case by

$$(\epsilon _B)^{1/2}(\epsilon )^{1/2}\frac{i}{8\epsilon }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4}{3}(\epsilon )^{3/2}\right]=0.$$
(B3)
We can obtain an approximate solution to this equation using the iterative method employed above. This way, we finally arrive at the result displayed in Eq. (43). The result for the two-dimensional case is worked out in Subsection III D and is given in Eq. (52).

## C

In this Appendix we derive the asymptotic behavior of $`\epsilon _1`$ in the weak field limit, $`\epsilon _B\mathrm{}`$. As discussed in Subsection II C, in that limit the r.h.s. of Eq. (23) vanishes so that, to the lowest order, one has $`\epsilon _1a_1`$, where $`a_1=2.33810\mathrm{}`$ is the smallest (in absolute value) zero of $`\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$. In order to obtain a more refined approximation, valid for a finite though large value of $`|\epsilon _B|`$, we expand the l.h.s. of Eq. (23) in powers of $`x=\epsilon +a_1`$ and, assuming that $`|x|1`$, we truncate the series and solve the resulting polynomial equation in $`x`$. The first non-trivial correction to the imaginary part of $`\epsilon _1`$ is obtained when one truncates the series at $`O(x^3)`$. In so doing, Eq. (23) is then approximated by a quadratic equation in $`x`$,

$$ax^2+bx+c=0,$$
(C1)
where $`a=\mathrm{Ai}^{}(a_1)\mathrm{Ci}_{}^{(+)}{}_{}{}^{}(a_1)`$, $`b=\mathrm{Ai}^{}(a_1)\mathrm{Bi}(a_1)`$, and $`c=(1/2\pi )(\epsilon _B)^{1/2}1`$. Of the two solutions to Eq. (C1), $`x_\pm =(b\pm \sqrt{b^24ac})/2a`$, the one with the minus sign must be discarded, as it violates the condition that $`x0`$ as $`\epsilon _B\mathrm{}`$ ($`c0`$). Expanding $`x_+`$ in powers of $`c`$, we obtain

$$x_+=\frac{c}{b}\frac{ac^2}{b^3}+O(c^3).$$
(C2)
Substituting $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ with their explicit expressions, we finally obtain

$`\epsilon _1`$ $`=`$ $`a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Ai}^{}(a_1)\mathrm{Bi}(a_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon _B)^{1/2}}{2\pi }}`$ (C4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Ci}_{}^{(+)}{}_{}{}^{}(a_1)}{\mathrm{Ai}^{}(a_1)^2\mathrm{Bi}(a_1)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon _B)^1}{4\pi ^2}}+O\left[(\epsilon _B)^{3/2}\right],\epsilon _B\mathrm{}.`$
An important consequence of this result is that $`\mathrm{Im}(\epsilon _1)(\epsilon _B)^1`$ for $`\epsilon _B\mathrm{}`$.

One could be tempted to apply the reasoning above to any $`\epsilon _n`$, $`n`$. However, there is an important caveat: the r.h.s. of Eq. (C2) is a good approximation to $`x_+`$ only if $`|ac/b^2|1`$, or

$$\left|\frac{a}{b^2}\right|=\left|\frac{\mathrm{Ci}_{}^{(+)}{}_{}{}^{}(a_n)}{\mathrm{Ai}^{}(a_n)\mathrm{Bi}(a_n)^2}\right||c|=2\pi (\epsilon _B)^{1/2}.$$
(C5)
Using the asymptotic expressions of the Airy functions and of $`a_n`$ — the $`n`$-th zero of $`\mathrm{Ai}(z)`$  — one can show that $`|a/b^2|\pi (a_n)^{1/2}`$. Hence, Eq. (C4) is also valid for $`\epsilon _n`$, $`n>1`$ (with the obvious substitution $`a_1a_n`$), provided $`|a_n||\epsilon _B|`$. (See Appendix D for the asymptotic behavior of $`\epsilon _n`$ when $`|a_n||\epsilon _B|`$.)

## D

In this Appendix we derive the asymptotic behavior of the resonances $`\epsilon _n`$, $`n0`$, which are located very far from the origin in the complex $`\epsilon `$-plane. Let us first discuss the one-dimensional case. Assuming that $`|\epsilon |1`$ and $`\theta :=\mathrm{arg}(\epsilon )0`$, we are allowed to use the asymptotic expressions (A8) and (A9) to the aim of approximating Eq. (23) by

$$\epsilon ^{1/2}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4}{3}i\epsilon ^{3/2}\right)+i\right](\epsilon _B)^{1/2}.$$
(D1)
If we further assume that $`|\epsilon ||\epsilon _B|`$, we may neglect the second term in square brackets; the resulting complex equation is then equivalent to the following pair of real equations:

$$\frac{4}{3}|\epsilon |^{3/2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{3\theta }{2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon _B}\right|,\frac{4}{3}|\epsilon |^{3/2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{3\theta }{2}\frac{\theta }{2}+2n\pi ,n.$$
(D2)
Assuming $`n1`$ and $`|\epsilon |`$ large, one can easily solve these equations, obtaining

$$\theta \frac{1}{4}|\epsilon |^{3/2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon _B}\right|,|\epsilon |s_n:=\left(\frac{3n\pi }{2}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(D3)
Since $`|\theta |1`$, we can write $`\epsilon =|\epsilon |e^{i\theta }|\epsilon |(1+i\theta )`$, so that

$$\epsilon _ns_n\frac{i}{4}s_n^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{s_n}{\epsilon _B}\right|,n1,D=1.$$
(D4)
Next we consider the case $`|\epsilon |1`$ and $`\theta :=\mathrm{arg}(\epsilon )2\pi /3`$. Using the very same approximations we readily come to the following estimate

$$\epsilon _ne^{2i\pi /3}\left\{s_n+\frac{i}{4}s_n^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{s_n}{\epsilon _B}\right|\right\},n1,D=1.$$
(D5)
A straightforward generalization of the above treatments to the basic resonance equation (42) in the three-dimensional case eventually leads to the following asymptotic expressions:

$$\epsilon _ns_n\frac{i}{2}s_n^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}\left(4s_n^{3/2}\right),\epsilon _ne^{2i\pi /3}\epsilon _n^{};n1,D=3.$$
(D6)


text:
# GALACTIC POPULATIONS OF ULTRACOMPACT BINARIES

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Recent discoveries have revealed that the X-ray binary population of the Galaxy extends to orbital periods as short as 20 minutes. Their existence in both the Galactic field and in the dense stellar environments in globular cluster systems has motivated theoretical work on their formation and evolution. The class of previously known ultra-short period systems known as AM CVn systems are generally believed to consist of a white dwarf (WD) accreting material from another degenerate white dwarf or from a low mass semi-degenerate companion (for a review, see Warner 1995). In contrast, the X-ray emitting systems, some of which are millisecond pulsars, contain a neutron star (NS) accretor and, most probably, a degenerate low mass donor. To date, only 4 systems are confirmed while another 4 are strong candidates of UCBs with a NS accretor in the Galactic field (Chakrabarty 2003). So far, no system with a black hole (BH) accretor has been discovered.

There are three proposed scenarios of UCB formation, involving the evolution of a NS-WD or NS-He star binary (descendant of a common envelope episode), or the mass transfer (MT) from an evolved main sequence (MS) donor to a NS. Although the ultracompact phase has been studied in detail (Tutukov et al. 1987; Rasio, Pfahl & Rappaport 2000; Yungelson, Nelemans, & van den Heuvel 2002; Nelson & Rappaport 2003; Deloye & Bildsten 2003), the prior evolution of progenitor systems was usually assumed or only briefly discussed in different contexts (e.g. Nelemans, Yungelson & Portegies Zwart 2001). Our analysis of possible evolutionary channels leading to the formation of the UCBs with NSs and possibly BHs shows the limitations of such an approach. We point out in the following sections that a large fraction of NS-WD systems evolve first through NS-He star MT phase, with a NS forming predominantly via an accretion induced collapse (AIC) of a white dwarf. In addition, we show that the NS-MS formation channel is less important for the overall production of UCBs.

## 2. MODEL DESCRIPTION

The calculations are based on a binary population synthesis method. The StarTrack code (Belczynski, Kalogera, & Bulik 2002) has recently undergone major revisions and updates (Belczynski, Kalogera, Taam & Rasio 2003, in preparation), among which include: detailed treatment of tidal synchronization and circularization, individual treatment of various MT phases, full numerical orbit evolution with angular momentum losses due to magnetic braking, gravitational radiation (GR), mass transfer/loss and tides, and incorporate the stabilizing influence of optically thick winds on accreting white dwarfs (Hachisu, Kato, & Nomoto 1996) allowing for growth of different types of WDs to either the disruption of the white dwarf in a Type Ia supernova explosion or to the formation of a NS via AIC (see Li & van den Heuvel 1997; Ivanova & Taam 2003). For the accumulation of helium or carbon/oxygen matter on CO or ONeMg WDs, we make use of the helium accumulation efficiencies determined by Kato & Hachisu (1999) and the off center ignition results of Kawai, Saio, & Nomoto (1987) in determining the fate of the underlying WD.

A large sample of single ($`10^6`$) and binary ($`10^6`$) stars in the Galactic field are evolved for 10 Gyrs assuming a constant star formation rate. The more massive primaries of the binaries (and single stars) are drawn from an initial mass function with a slope of -2.7 within the range of $`4100\mathrm{M}_{}`$, while the less massive secondaries of the binaries are taken from a flat mass ratio distribution within $`0.08100\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Here, the mass ratio, $`q`$, is defined as the mass of the secondary to the primary. The initial binary separations are taken from a distribution flat in the logarithm up to $`10^5\mathrm{R}_{}`$, while we assume a thermal equilibrium distribution for the eccentricities. All stars are evolved based on the results of Hurley, Pols, & Tout (2000) for models with a solar metallicity. We adopt parameters corresponding to the standard model of Belczynski, Kalogera, & Bulik (2002), changing the maximum NS mass to $`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$, incorporating the latest natal kick distribution of Arzoumanian, Chernoff & Cordes (2002), and limiting the accretion rate onto the NS and the BH at the maximum Eddington limit with the rest of the transferred material lost with specific orbital angular momentum of the accretor during the dynamically stable MT events, but allowing for hyper-critical accretion at common envelope (CE) phases. Besides the dynamically unstable MT events we also allow for evolution into the CE phase in cases in which the trapping radius exceeds the Roche lobe radius of the accretor (e.g., King & Begelman 1999; Ivanova, Belczynski, Kalogera, Rasio & Taam 2003).

## 3. RESULTS

Since the entire spectrum of binaries and single stars are produced by our calculations we shall adopt as a working definition for UCBs any system in which mass is transferred to a NS or a BH at orbital periods less than some value. For definiteness, 80 minutes is chosen as a customary value, but 5 hours is also used for a broader definition.

### 3.1. Formation Channels

The various UCB formation channels realized in our StarTrack evolutionary model are presented in Table 1. The majority of UCBs are formed with a NS accretor, in particular along the channel NS:01. A typical progenitor system corresponds to an intermediate mass primary and low mass secondary in an orbit sufficiently wide such that the primary evolves up to the asymptotic giant branch stage prior to filling its Roche lobe. The ensuing MT is dynamically unstable, leading to the formation of a CE (see Iben & Livio 1993; Taam & Sandquist 2000). Systems emerging from the CE phase consist of an ONeMg WD (descendant of primary) and a MS secondary at an orbital separation such that the secondary can overfill its Roche lobe while expanding in the Hertzsprung gap or the first giant branch. The further evolution leads to a second CE phase. Provided that the system avoids merger the remnant system consists of an ONeMg WD and a low mass He star or WD companion. Hence, initially wide systems become very tight after the successful ejection of mass in the two common envelope phases. The secondary fills its Roche lobe for a second time due to the action of angular momentum losses associated with GR emission and, for sufficiently massive He stars, stellar expansion induced by nuclear evolution. However, in this Roche lobe overflow phase, the two components of the system are of comparable mass and the mass transfer proceeds stably. Provided that the mass transfer rates exceed a critical value such that the the accreting WD accumulates sufficient matter to exceed the Chandrasekhar mass, a NS may form by the AIC process as discussed by Taam & van den Heuvel (1986) and Webbink (1992) for the formation of low mass X-ray binary systems. More recently, Yungelson, Nelemans, & van den Heuvel (2002) described the formation of the UCB X-ray pulsar 4U 1626-67 in terms of the AIC scenario. In general, the outcome of this formation channel is a UCB system consisting of a He star or WD donor transferring mass to its NS companion.

In contrast to the NS UCBs, there is no single major formation channel for the BH UCB systems. Although the BH:01 dominates in the formation of BH UCBs, the effect is not as strong as in the case of NS UCBs with the NS:01 channel. Close inspection of Table 1 reveals that the NSs in UCBs are either formed through AIC or Type II SN (core collapse and explosion of a massive star). However, the BHs are not formed directly from the core of a massive star, but rather formed in the collapse of the accreting NS when its mass exceeds $`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Therefore, the formation channels of BH UCBs without an SN entry, are characterized by two AIC events: a WD to a NS, and then a NS to a BH.

Most of the UCB accretors are formed through AIC of a heavy ONeMg WD to NS ($``$ 80%). Contrary to previous assumptions on the type of donor formed in NS-WD systems, the last CE episode results in the formation of not only WD ($``$ 40%) but also low mass He-stars ($``$ 40%) secondaries. Either the WD or the He-star companion fills its Roche lobe and starts transferring material to the ONeMg WD. The AIC interrupts the MT due to the loss of binding energy of the collapsing dwarf. However, in the case of a He-star donor, MT may restart on a short timescale as nuclear expansion of the He-star is faster in bringing the system to contact than GR in the case of a WD donor. The He-star donors eventually lose sufficient mass to become low mass ($`0.35\mathrm{M}_{}`$) hybrid WDs (with a mixture of helium and carbon/oxygen in the core) while the systems enter a long-lived ($`1`$ Gyr) UCB phase. These donors, given enough time, may cool down and crystallize, forming a Ne-enriched layer in their interiors (Yungelson, Nelemans & van den Heuvel 2002). The subsequent MT eventually uncovers the deeper layers of the hybrid WD giving rise to a Ne-enriched accretion flow, claimed to be observed in several of the NS UCBs (Juett, Psaltis & Chakrabarty 2001). As our simulations show, a significant fraction of the NS UCBs have hybrid WD donors.

The initial binary parameters of the systems forming UCBs with orbital periods less than 80 minutes are illustrated in Fig. 1. The progenitors of both classes of UCBs with NS and BH originate in a wide range of initial orbital periods and mass ratios. Upon detailed inspection, the initial component masses exhibit traces of correlations. For example, the secondary mass, for BH UCB progenitors, is confined to a narrow range of 4 - 7 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and although the primary mass spans a wide range, most of the primaries have a mass close to $`8\mathrm{M}_{}`$. On the other hand, the progenitor systems that form NS UCBs are characterized by secondaries mostly within the range of 1 - 5 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, while the primaries concentrate around $`7\mathrm{M}_{}`$. It is natural that the progenitors of BH systems are more massive than the progenitors of NS binaries, however, contrary to expectation, the separation of the two sub-populations is not well defined, with the two groups partially overlapping. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the BHs are formed from the NSs via the AIC process and, thus their progenitors do not significantly differ from the progenitors of NS UCBs. A few BH accretors in UCBs originate from the primaries of $`30\mathrm{M}_{}`$, which is not shown in Fig. 1.

### 3.2. Evolution at Ultracompact Phase

At the short orbital periods characteristic of the UCBs, its evolution is governed by the mass and angular momentum loss from the system. The orbital evolution is dependent on the fractional amount of matter which is ejected from the system, angular momentum losses associated with this ejection of matter and GR or magnetic braking, as well as the possible nuclear evolution of the donor.

An example of the evolution for one particular BH UCB is illustrated in Fig. 2. In this example, the system enters the ultracompact phase via channel BH:02. The system emerges from the second CE phase as a binary composed of a $`1.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ main sequence helium star and a heavy ONeMg WD companion of $`1.4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ orbiting about their common center of mass with a period of about 1 hour. The helium star initially transfers material at a rate of $`8\times 10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and very quickly the accreting WD collapses to form a NS. In our present calculations we assume that there is no natal kick associated with the AIC process. The MT rate initially exceeds the Eddington limit for the NS accretor, but soon thereafter decreases and the NS accumulates the material efficiently. The evolution in this phase is similar to the evolution of a helium star - NS system as calculated by Savonije, de Kool, & van den Heuvel (1986). After about 30 Myrs into the MT phase, the NS exceeds $`2.0\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and a second AIC takes place, with the NS collapsing to form a BH. As the MT continues, the He star loses most of its mass eventually becoming a degenerate low mass hybrid WD. The system becomes detached and the MT terminates. Since the onset of ultracompact MT phase, the orbital period has decreased from 60 to about 20 minutes, as mass and angular momentum were lost from the system. The calculations reveal that the MT phase was interrupted briefly as the donor became degenerate, with the subsequent evolution leading to the increase in the orbital separation as the donor expands. Although the MT rates are initially high, they very soon become sub-Eddington. It should be pointed out that the detached phase is a result of our simplified treatment of the transition of the donor from a semi-degenerate to a degenerate state. However, the evolution of the system, especially at later times, is not significantly affected by this treatment. Eventually, the WD has been reduced to 0.09 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, marking the end of the rapid evolution of the system. In an additional 1 Gyr the MT rate slowly decreases to $`10^{12}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, and the period slowly increases to $`70`$ minutes until the WD reaches the mass of 0.01 $`M_{}`$ at which point our calculations were terminated. We note that although finite temperature effects of the WD on the MT have not been taken into account (cf., Deloye & Bildsten 2003) this evolution should be indicative of NS and BH UCBs formed via this channel.

In the above example the system becomes a transient X-ray source, when the MT rate falls below certain critical value (see Menou, Perna, & Hernquist 1999; marked on Fig. 2). In our standard simulation we have assumed that all the material transferred during the transient stage is accreted by the compact star (NS or BH). However, it is possible that little material is accreted during the transient outburst stage. Had we assumed that accretion was not effective during this stage in our example, the results would have been unchanged since the NS already had accreted sufficient matter to become a BH prior to the system entering the transient stage.

### 3.3. Content of Current Population

The population of NS/BH UCBs formed in the disk of our Galaxy at the current epoch (t=10 Gyrs) is listed in Table 2. Systems with NS accretors dominate the population (80%), however there is a non-negligible contribution of systems with BH accretors (20%). The majority of the systems (both with NS and BH accretors) have WD companion donors. As expected for systems with orbital periods less than 80 minutes the only other donors found are low mass He-stars ($`M2\mathrm{M}_{}`$). Many of the systems with WD donors have evolved through the phase when the donor was a He-star. However this phase is extremely short lived (by about 2 orders of magnitude less than with WD donors, see Fig. 2), and therefore would be difficult to observe. BH UCBs may also evolve through a phase with a He-star donor, but for these systems the lifetimes at this phase are even shorter (due to the lower mass of the He-star donors) than in case of NS UCBs and are not detected in our simulated observed sample (see Table 2). For longer period binaries some BH UCBs (or heavy NS UCBs had we raised the maximum NS mass to $`2.5\mathrm{M}_{}`$ – see below) may be fed by low mass MS donors. Interestingly, we find that few NSs (below 10%) in our population of UCBs are born in SN explosions, but are preferentially formed in AIC of heavy accreting ONeMg WD. The case is more extreme for BH UCBs, for which all the BHs are formed without a SN explosion through the AIC of a heavy accreting NS.

Systems with orbital periods less than 5 hours, but above 80 minutes are BHs or heavy NSs with MS donors. These binaries evolve as proposed by Podsiadlowski, Rappaport, & Pfahl (2002), starting as intermediate mass systems. After a CE phase, the primary forms a NS in a SN explosion. A MS secondary of $`24\mathrm{M}_{}`$ initiates MT at an orbital period of about 0.5 day. Prior to reaching a period of 5 hrs the NS mass exceeds $`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and it collapses to form a BH (this explains the absence of NS-MS systems with periods shorter than 5 hrs in our sample of UCBs). As the mass of the MS donor decreases, the orbital period decreases further near to the point at which the donor ceases nuclear burning in the core (corresponding to a mass lying between $`0.08\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for a unevolved main sequence star to $`0.35\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for an initially non degenerate helium core). Subsequently, the donor becomes a degenerate WD and the MT causes an increase of the orbital period (up to $``$ 60 min or longer) until the exhaustion of the donor (e.g., BH:06 formation channel). Although these systems may constitute a tenth of BH UCBs, they give only a small contribution to the entire NS/BH UCB population (less than a few percent).

In order to assess the uncertainty of our predictions, we have calculated several additional models with different assumptions on our input physics. In one calculation we have relaxed the assumption of full accumulation during the transient stages, and have assumed that no material is accreted during these stages. The results of that calculation show only a slight change of the UCB population, increasing the relative number of NS to 83.7% and decreasing the relative number of BH to 16.3% of the total UCB population.

Yet another limiting factor for the formation of BH UCBs is the adopted maximum NS mass. The maximum mass has been estimated to be in the range of $`1.82.3\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (see Akmal, Pandharipande, & Ravenhall 1998) in comparison to an assumed maximum of $`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ in our standard calculation. However, most of the BHs in UCBs have rather low masses ($`22.5\mathrm{M}_{}`$), and an increase in the maximum mass has a significant effect on the BH population. An increase of the maximum NS mass to $`2.5\mathrm{M}_{}`$ enhances the population of NS UCBs to 1.2, and reduces the expected number of BH UCBs to 0.1 ($`P_{orb}80`$ min) or to 0.2 ($`P_{orb}5`$ hrs) of the standard model number.

At least one more factor may affect the BH population. We have assumed that NSs may accrete all the transferred material up to the Eddington limit. This assumption led directly to the formation of BH systems, since some of the accreting NSs were able to accumulate enough material to collapse to BHs during the long lived MT episodes. Had we relaxed that assumption, and allowed all the material to escape the systems, we would end up with no BH UCBs in our population. However, neither the number of NS UCBs nor our conclusions about dominance of AIC systems in the current UCB population would be significantly altered.

Although there may be sufficient energy to eject the CE, the envelope in less evolved phases may not be sufficiently distended to significantly decelerate the spiral in process before the companion merges with the evolved core. Hence, those systems with less evolved donors which evolve into the CE phase may merge rather than survive. We estimate the reduction of systems entering into the UCB phase by assuming that donors which enter into the CE phase in the Hertzsprung gap do not survive. In this case, the number of NS UCBs is not significantly reduced, decreasing to 0.7 of the standard model number, however the BH UCBs would either vanish entirely ($`P_{orb}80`$ min) or are reduced to only 0.1 ($`P_{orb}5`$ hrs) of the standard model number.

We have also calculated two models with different choices for the efficiency of the common envelope ejection (in our standard model we assume $`\alpha \times \lambda =1`$; for details see Belczynski, Kalogera, & Bulik 2002). An increase of the efficiency ($`\alpha \times \lambda =3`$) barely changes the results, however, a decrease of the efficiency ($`\alpha \times \lambda =0.1`$) drastically reduces the number of the formed UCBs. In particular, the number of NS UCBs (71%) is reduced by factor of $`20`$, while BH UCBs (29%) is reduced by factor of $`15`$. This is easily understood in the framework of the possible formation scenarios of UCBs, many of which involve two episodes of CE. With a decreased efficiency the components of the binary progenitor systems merge, as there is insufficient orbital energy to eject the CE, thus aborting the formation of many UCBs. We note that in this case, the numerical results reveal that all UCBs are formed via the AIC channel.

The formation of ONeMg WDs plays an important role in our calculation since most of our UCBs are formed through the AIC of an ONeMg WD to a NS. The lower mass threshold for ONeMg WD formation is found at an initial stellar mass of $`6.4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (ONeMg WD mass of $`1.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$) and the high end is at an initial mass of $`8.0\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (ONeMg WD mass of $`1.43\mathrm{M}_{}`$) for a solar metallicity within the framework of single stellar evolution models we use (Hurley et al. 2000). Since the IMF in this mass range ($`68\mathrm{M}_{}`$) is rather steep, most of ONeMg WD are formed with mass close to $`1.21.3\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Our models show that even if the ONeMg WD were formed at a reasonably lower mass, some would be still pushed over the Chandrasekhar mass limit forming NSs and UCBs, due to the sufficient mass reservoir in the progenitor systems.

We have also chosen a different initial condition for our population of primordial binaries. Instead of using correlated initial masses for two binary components (via a flat mass ratio distribution) we have calculated a model in which both masses are drawn independently. Both components were taken within the same mass ranges as before (see § 2). A broken power-law IMF for the stars in the Galactic disk which flattens out for low mass stars is used (Kroupa, Tout & Gilmore 1993). For stars with initial masses $`0.08<M<0.5\mathrm{M}_{}`$ the IMF slope is $`\alpha _1=1.3`$, for $`0.5<M<1\mathrm{M}_{}`$ the slope is $`\alpha _2=2.2`$, while for $`1<M<100\mathrm{M}_{}`$ we use $`\alpha _3=2.7`$. Such a prescription resulted in quite a drastic change of initial mass ratios for our primordial binaries. After independently drawing two component masses for each binary, and recording the resulting mass ratios, we have obtained a distribution peaking below 0.1 and decreasing rapidly so there were almost no binaries with q $`>`$ 0.4. Such a distribution may be described by $`q^{2.7}`$. Due to the extreme mass ratio of most binaries, many of the previous progenitors of UCBs do not survive the first episode of MT as a result of the occurrence of a dynamical instability, leading to merger in the ensuing CE. We note an order of magnitude reduction of number of UCBs formed as compared to our standard model presented in Table 2. This is very similar to findings of Han & Podsiadlowski (2003) who noted the order of magnitude decrease in the formation of Type Ia SNe progenitors with the independent choice of binary component masses. There is also a significant reduction of relative number of systems with BH (6%) as compared to the ones with NS (94%) for $`P_{orb}5`$ hrs, with no BH UCBs formed for $`P_{orb}80`$ min. The majority of NS systems are found with WD donors, while all BH systems are formed with MS donors close to core hydrogen exhaustion. However, even in this model our population is dominated by AIC systems ($`90\%`$) as compared to the UCBs with compact objects formed in SNe explosions ($`10\%`$).

### 3.4. Predicted Number of Systems in the Galactic Field

In this section we address the issue of the predicted absolute number of UCBs in the Galactic field.

Suggestions have been made (Clark 1975; Katz 1975; Verbunt & Hut 1987) that dense stellar environments and, in particular, globular clusters are very efficient in producing LMXBs. The hypothesis was put forward, that most if not all the systems were formed as the result of dynamical interactions in clusters, and then released from the clusters to populate the field (e.g., Grindlay 1984; White, Sarazin & Kulkarni 2002). Different release mechanisms were proposed, including disruption of the clusters in the Galactic tidal field, ejection of systems due to 3- or 4-body interactions, and escape of the binaries with NS due to the gain of extra systemic velocities in SN explosions.

In the following we will show that the primordial field binaries are sufficient to produce the field NS UCBs (which are the subgroup of LMXB population). Although the formation of such systems in globular clusters is possible, we point out that binary evolution with no dynamical processes involved can account for the entire population of observed Galactic field UCBs.

The calibration of the population synthesis results may be performed in several ways. We choose to obtain absolute numbers using the observed star formation rate in the disk of the Milky Way. However, for consistency calibration is also obtained by comparison of our study to the measured rate of Type II and Ib/c SNe. Galactic SFR have been estimated to lie in ranges of $`13\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (Blitz 1997; Lacey & Fall 1985) and $`110\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (Gilmore 2001). Cappellaro et al. (1999) estimated the rates of Type II SN and Type Ib/c SN to be $`1.86\pm 0.35`$ SNu and $`0.14\pm 0.07`$ SNu for Sbc-d galaxies, where 1 SNu corresponds to one SN per 100 yr and the estimates are normalized to a blue luminosity of $`10^{10}L_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}`$. For an estimated Galactic blue luminosity of about $`L_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}=2\times 10^{10}L_{}`$ (van der Kruit 1987) we obtain 1.72 and 0.28 SNu for Type II and Ib/c SN respectively.

Extending our study of stellar masses to the H burning limit ($`0.08M_{}`$) with the use of Kroupa et al. (1993) broken power-law IMF the average (continuous) star formation rate which corresponds to the number of UCBs formed in our sample can be estimated. Comparison with the observed rate requires an upward revision for the numbers presented in Table 2 by a factor of 100 to account for the entire population within the Galaxy. To be conservative, and not to overestimate the number of UCBs formed in the field, we use the lower bound on the star formation in the disk of $`1\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. The X-ray duty cycle (DC) for transients sources is required, and we adopt $`DC1\%`$ (Taam, King & Ritter 2000). Only $`1\%`$ of our transient systems (listed in Table 2) have a chance to be observed in the outburst state, leading to a reduction by factor $`33`$. We also note the possible further reductions of UCBs due to the largest uncertainties of stellar evolution, in particular CE evolution (factor of $`20`$) and the rather arbitrary choice of initial mass function (factor of $`10`$). Combining all the above factors lead us to estimate the number of active UCBs in the field at the present time to be 7. However, we should understand this estimate as a lower limit, due to our conservative choice of models tending to reduce the predicted number of UCBs. Utilizing the combined observed rate of Type II and Ib/c SN for our calibration results in essentially the same number.

The number of observed confirmed field UCBs hosting NS is 4, with 4 strong candidates and a few additional systems potentially connected to that group. Moreover, there are observational uncertainties since many of the faint X-ray sources have no orbital information, and some may yet contribute to the UCB population. Therefore, one may expect the number of the active field systems to be $`10`$, which is consistent with our conservative estimate.

## 4. Conclusions

We have calculated the galactic population of short period ($`P<80`$ min) ultracompact binary systems and shown that their formation follows from the evolutionary channels of progenitor binary systems characterized primarily by stars of an intermediate mass range ($`5<M/\mathrm{M}_{}<8`$). Although UCBs exist in the dense cores of globular clusters, their population in the Galactic field does not necessarily require their production in these stellar systems. Our population synthesis results reveal that UCB systems with BH accretors as well as NS accretors can be formed with the ratio of the former to the latter systems amounting to 1 - 20% (accounting for a reasonable range of input parameters).

An examination of the formation process of the compact objects in these systems reveals that, in contrast to previous investigations, the immediate progenitors of the majority of UCBs are ONeMg white dwarfs which undergo accretion induced collapse to a neutron star in response to the accretion of matter from hydrogen exhausted companions. This new pathway results in the unexpected potential importance of the accretion induced collapse channel for the majority (90%) of the UCB systems. Similarly, the BHs formed in these systems are not produced directly from the collapse of a massive star, but rather by the accretion induced collapse of a neutron star which has accreted sufficient mass from its companion.

With our adopted IMF slope (-2.7) ONeMg WDs (40%) are formed almost as frequently as NSs (60%). Frequent MT episodes in close binaries further enhance the number of the WDs relative to NSs. However, the most important effect reducing the number of binaries hosting NSs, formed through direct core collapse, are SN explosions which tend to disrupt the binaries (due to the mass loss and natal kicks). Considering the above arguments, and noting that ONeMg WDs are formed with a mass within several tenths of a $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ to the Chandrasekhar limit (so that the mass accumulation during MT required to convert them into NSs is not large) it is understandable why the NS UCB population is dominated by NSs formed through AIC. All BHs in our population of UCBs are formed through AIC. Since BHs formed through SN/core collapse originate from more massive stars, there is only a very small probability that a progenitor system with a low/intermediate mass companion survives a first MT episode, thus aborting this evolutionary channel for the formation of UCBs.

The donors in systems with NS accretors are restricted to helium WDs (60%) and hybrid WDs (40%) with a small contribution from low mass He stars (1%). In contrast, the donors of BH UCBs are hybrid WDs (95%) and CO WDs (5%). For longer period binaries ($`P5`$ hrs) there is a small but significant (10%) fraction of MS donors in BH UCBs (or NS UCBs had we raised the maximum NS mass to $`2.5\mathrm{M}_{}`$).

Those UCBs with NS accretors and He-rich donors are likely to give rise to Type I bursts as a result of a thermonuclear instability on the NS surface. Depending upon the amount of residual hydrogen present on the white dwarf surface superbursts may be produced via thermonuclear burning of the underlying carbon layer (Strohmayer & Brown 2002; see also Taam & Picklum 1978) or due to the photodisintegration of heavy elements produced in the rapid proton capture process (see Schatz, Bildsten, & Cumming 2003). Note, that only those WDs formed from the cores of hydrogen rich stars could be donors for the photodisintegration scenario, whereas the He WDs formed from the evolution of He stars would lead to the carbon burning scenario for superbursts. For those rare UCBs with CO donors it is possible that they also ignite unstably and may produce a rare, but energetic outburst on the NS.

Many (40%) of the NS-WD systems have evolved through the MT phase with the He-star donor after the last CE phase. As a result these systems host hybrid low mass WDs, which may give a rise to a Ne-enriched accretion flow later in the further evolution of these systems (Yungelson et al. 2002).

Only a small fraction (2.2%) of UCBs are persistent X-ray sources, with X-ray luminosities of $`L_x=7\times 10^{36}3\times 10^{38}`$ erg s<sup>-1</sup>. The majority of the UCBs are transient X-ray sources (97.8%) with low MT rates of $`10^{11}10^{12}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. Without a reliable knowledge of the recurrence times we are unable to predict the precise number of active sources at the present time. However, if only a small fraction of them are active (say 0.1) they still would dominate the current population of UCBs, both in number as well as in X-ray brightness with typical peak luminosities of $`L_x=48\times 10^{38}`$ erg s<sup>-1</sup> (assuming accretion at the Eddington rate during active states).

Out of 4 observed systems, 2 are transients, one is probably a persistent source, and one is X-ray burster. Moreover, the majority host millisecond pulsars (3 out of 4) and their orbital periods span the range of 40 to 50 minutes. Given the theoretical and observational uncertainties, these observations are not inconsistent with our results. Specifically, more transient sources are predicted than persistent sources, however, about half of the systems (with a He rich donor) are expected to be X-ray bursters. Since most of the NSs have accreted $`0.1\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the NSs would likely have been spun up to millisecond spin periods. Finally, most of these systems spend 90% of their ultracompact lifetime after emerging from a period minimum at orbital periods $`4060`$ minutes, with very low mass ($`0.010.1\mathrm{M}_{}`$) H-depleted degenerate donor stars.

We would like to thank N. Ivanova, V. Kalogera, F. Rasio, A. Gurkan, J. Grindlay, A. King, and Gijs Nelemans for very useful discussions on this project. We also want to express our thanks to the anonymous referee who supplied us with vital suggestions and comments. This research was supported in part by the NSF under Grant No. AST-0200876 to RT and KBN grant 5PO3D01120 to KB.