text:
# Baryogenesis from the Kobayashi-Maskawa Phase

WIS/36/03-Dec-DPP

hep-ph/0401012

thanks: Incumbent of the Recanati Career Development chair for energy research

## Abstract

The Standard Model fulfills the three Sakharov conditions for baryogenesis. The smallness of quark masses suppresses, however, the CP violation from the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase to a level that is many orders of magnitude below what is required to explain the observed baryon asymmetry. We point out that if, as a result of time variation in the Yukawa couplings, quark masses were large at the time of the electroweak phase transition, then the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism could be the source of the asymmetry. The Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism provides a plausible framework where the Yukawa couplings could all be of order one at that time, and settle to their present values before nucleosynthesis. The problems related to a strong first order electroweak phase transition may also be alleviated in this framework. Our scenario reveals a loophole in the commonly held view that the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism cannot be the dominant source of CP violation to play a role in baryogenesis.

Introduction. The Standard Model (SM) fulfills all three of Sakharov conditions Sakharov:dj  for generating a baryon asymmetry in the Universe. The model fails, however, to explain the observed value of the asymmetry, $`n_B/s10^{10}`$, for two reasons:

1. CP violation from the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) mechanism Kobayashi:fv  is highly suppressed. Explicitly, the relevant suppression factor Jarlskog:1985ht  is given by

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}=\frac{1}{T_c^{12}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i>j}{u,c,t}}{}(m_i^2m_j^2)\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i>j}{d,s,b}}{}(m_i^2m_j^2)J_{\mathrm{CP}}10^{19},$$
(1)
where $`T_c100`$ GeV is the critical temperature at which the electroweak phase transition (EWPT) takes place, and $`J_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ is a combination of CKM parameters, $`J_{\mathrm{CP}}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}\mathrm{sin}\delta _{\mathrm{KM}}`$.
2. The EWPT is not strongly first order. The experimental lower bound on the Higgs mass, $`m_H>114`$ GeV, implies that the EWPT is second order. Consequently, sphaleron-induced $`(B+L)`$-violating interactions are not sufficiently suppressed in the broken phase and wash out the baryon asymmetry.

Both failures are related to the numerical values of the Standard Model parameters. Had quark masses been heavier, the suppression factor of eq. (1) would be milder. Had the Higgs mass been lighter, the EWPT could be first order. Therefore, if quark and Higgs masses have been subject to time variations, it is possible that the Standard Model baryogenesis is the only source of the observed baryon asymmetry. In this paper, we explore this idea, with focus on four main issues:

1. We are assuming that the Yukawa couplings have been time-varying. Is it plausible that the variation was such that they all had been of order one in early times?
2. Cosmology implies that the Yukawa couplings had values close to their present ones at the time of nucleosynthesis (NS). Is it plausible that the required time variation took place between EWPT and NS?
3. Can we estimate the baryon asymmetry that is produced at the EWPT by the KM mechanism with all quark masses of $`𝒪(m_W)`$?
4. What are the implications of time varying couplings on the strength of the EWPT?

The Froggatt-Nielsen Mechanism. The smallness and the hierarchy in the Yukawa couplings are unexplained within the SM. One of the more attractive frameworks where these features find a natural explanation is the Froggatt-Nielsen (FN) mechanism Froggatt:1978nt . In this framework, one invokes a horizontal Abelian symmetry. Fields of different generations carry different charges under the symmetry. The symmetry is spontaneously broken by a VEV of a SM-singlet scalar field $`S`$. The breaking is communicated to the SM fields through intermediate quarks and leptons in vector-representations of the SM gauge group, which have large masses at a scale $`M`$. The ratio $`\lambda S/M`$ is assumed to be small, $`\lambda 1`$. Normalizing the horizontal charges by defining the charge of $`S`$ to be $`1`$, effective Yukawa couplings suppressed by $`\lambda ^{|n|}`$ are induced for terms that carry charge $`n`$ under the FN symmetry.

In the simplest FN models, the horizontal group is $`Z_N`$ or $`U(1)`$, and it is broken by a single scalar field. The value of $`\lambda `$ is often taken to be of order $`0.2`$ (the value of the Cabibbo angle). A typical set of FN charges for the quark doublet ($`Q_i`$) and antiquark singlet ($`\overline{U}_i`$ and $`\overline{D}_i`$) fields is the following:

$`Q_3(0),`$ $`Q_2(+2),`$ $`Q_1(+3),`$
$`\overline{U}_3(0),`$ $`\overline{U}_2(+1),`$ $`\overline{U}_1(+4),`$
$`\overline{D}_3(+2),`$ $`\overline{D}_2(+2),`$ $`\overline{D}_1(+3),`$ (2)
leading to the following parametric suppression of the flavor parameters (with the FN charge of the Higgs field set to zero):

$`Y_t1,`$ $`Y_c\lambda ^3,`$ $`Y_u\lambda ^7,`$
$`Y_b\lambda ^2,`$ $`Y_s\lambda ^4,`$ $`Y_d\lambda ^6,`$
$`s_{12}\lambda ,`$ $`s_{23}\lambda ^2,`$ $`s_{13}\lambda ^3.`$ (3)
With the KM phase being of order one, the suppression factor of eq. (1) is $`ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}\lambda ^{28}`$.

It is not unlikely that the VEVs of scalar fields have been time varying. Such a variation could happen for various reasons. One possibility is that at high enough temperatures, $`HT^2/m_{\mathrm{Pl}}m`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the scalar, the scalar may be frozen away from the minimum. Another possibility is that the minimum of the scalar potential has shifted as a result of finite temperature effects. Let us consider the case where, for one reason or another, the value of $`S`$ has been time varying, with $`SM`$ prior to the EWPT, compared to its present value of order $`0.2M`$. Note that we are considering a rather mild shift, by a factor of order five. Such a modest variation would, however, change the Yukawa couplings in a drastic way. There will be no small parameter to suppress them, and they are all of order one. In particular, at the EWPT

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}(TT_c)=𝒪(1).$$
(4)
We learn that in the FN framework, a time variation such that at early times there is neither smallness nor strong hierarchy in the Yukawa couplings is not a contrived scenario. Since the smallness of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ is a result of its dependence on a very high power of a mildly small parameter, once that single parameter is order one, there is no suppression of $`ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}`$.

Shifting $`S`$ between EWPT and NS. Our scenario requires that the scalar field $`S`$ is frozen away from its present minimum until the EWPT, but to assume its present value before nucleosynthesis. The simplest mechanism that ensures that the scalar is frozen until the EWPT but starts to oscillate and redshift shortly afterwards is by giving it a mass that is close to the Hubble constant at the time of the EWPT, $`H_{\mathrm{EWPT}}=𝒪(10^{15}\mathrm{GeV})`$. Such a light scalar poses, however, problems to cosmology which are known as ‘the moduli problem’:

* Light stable scalars should have masses lighter than the Hubble constant at the time of matter-radiation equality, $`H_{\mathrm{eq}}=𝒪(10^{37}\mathrm{GeV})`$, in order not to dominate the energy density of the Universe from rather early times.
* Light unstable scalars should have decay rates faster than Hubble constant at the time of nucleosynthesis, $`H_{\mathrm{ns}}=𝒪(10^{25}\mathrm{GeV})`$.

Since $`m_S10^{15}`$ GeV, it is too heavy to fulfill the first condition. Moreover, to avoid being too long lived to fulfill the second condition, $`S`$ must decay to final photons or neutrinos with an effective coupling larger than $`𝒪(10^5)`$. An explicit calculation, assuming that nonrenormalizable couplings are suppressed by powers of $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, shows that the actual couplings are much smaller than that.

Various ways to solve the moduli problem have been suggested in the literature (see e.g. Randall:fr ). Here, we present a model where the problem is circumvented. Other possible solutions will be explored in future .

The usual scenarios assume that the scalar potential does not change during the cosmological evolution. We present here a simple model where the potential does change at the EWPT. Thus, it is not the fast expansion which freezes $`S`$ but rather the potential itself. This situation allows for a larger $`m_S`$ which, in turn, gives a fast enough decay rate.

Consider the following potential for the scalar $`S`$ and the SM Higgs field $`\varphi `$:

$`V(S,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`m_W^4f\left({\displaystyle \frac{S^{}S}{M^2}}\right)\mu _\varphi ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi \left[1+g\left({\displaystyle \frac{S^{}S}{M^2}}\right)\right]`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _\varphi (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2\left[1+h\left({\displaystyle \frac{S^{}S}{M^2}}\right)\right].`$
Before EWPT, we have $`V(S)=m_W^4f`$. After EWPT, we have $`V(S)=m_W^4f\mu _\varphi ^2\varphi ^2(1+g)+\lambda _\varphi \varphi ^4(1+h)`$. We learn that the required shift of $`S`$ from $`M`$ to $`\lambda M`$ can occur naturally during the EWPT.

For $`Mm_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, we still run into the cosmological moduli problem. Assuming that the nonrenormalizable $`S`$ couplings to SM fields are suppressed by powers of $`M`$ and that its mass is of order $`m_W^2/M`$ (as is the case for the potential (5)), we find that the leading decay mode is $`S\gamma \gamma `$ giving $`\mathrm{\Gamma }m_S^3/M^2`$. Requiring that $`S`$ decays before nucleosynthesis, we obtain $`M\text{ }<10^7`$ GeV. This upper bound on $`M`$ implies that $`m_S\text{ }>`$ MeV.

The mass $`m_S\text{ }>`$ MeV and the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S\text{ }>10^{25}`$ GeV lie outside of the regions excluded by various astrophysical and cosmological considerations and by direct laboratory searches Masso:1995tw . A lower bound on $`M`$ arises from the contribution of $`S`$-mediated tree diagrams to flavor changing neutral current processes. Estimating $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K/m_K[(m_dm_s)/(\lambda ^2M^2)](f_K^2/m_K^2)`$ (and analogous relations for $`D`$\- and $`B`$-mixing), we obtain $`M\text{ }>5\times 10^5`$ GeV, consistent with the nucleosynthesis constraint.

In spite of the fact that $`Mm_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, $`S`$ would start rolling only at the EWPT because earlier it is stabilized by the potential rather than by the expansion.

One may ask whether it is possible to have a full high energy theory that induces (5) in a natural way. We have been able to construct a supersymmetric model with a horizontal $`Z_N`$ symmetry (in the spirit of models for the scalar potential in ref. Leurer:1993gy ) where this is the case. A very large $`N`$ is, however, required in order to make the model consistent with all our requirements. We are presently exploring other models future .

Suppression from CP Violation. The possibility that the Standard Model accounts for baryogenesis is intriguing Farrar:sp , but in the end the suppression from the Kobayashi-Maskawa CP violation \[$`ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ of eq. (1)\] is too strong for it to make a significant contribution Huet:1994jb ; Gavela:dt . (For SM values of the flavor parameters, this statement holds model independently and, in particular, independent of the dynamics of the phase transition Huet:1994jb .) The situation is of course different in our scenario, where $`ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}=𝒪(1)`$. We now explain which of the usual suppression factors related to CP violation are lifted in our scenario and which are not. We also explain why the analysis of the SM baryogenesis Huet:1994jb  cannot be simply applied to our case. (An analysis of SM baryogenesis with quark masses of $`𝒪(T_c)`$ is beyond the scope of this paper future .)

During the EWPT, a bubble of the true vacuum ($`\varphi =v0`$) expands, sweeping out space until it becomes our observed universe. While the bubble expands, equal number of quarks and antiquarks hit the bubble wall, some reflected and some transmitted through the wall. CP violating interactions induce an asymmetric distribution of quarks and antiquarks. In a simplified picture where baryon-number violating interactions are infinitely fast in the unbroken phase, but do not exist in the broken phase, an excess of baryon number outside the bubble is immediately washed out while an opposite amount of baryon number is preserved inside. One can then calculate $`n_B/s`$. Taking the thin wall approximation, ref. Huet:1994jb  obtains (to leading order in the wall velocity $`v_W`$)

$$\frac{n_B}{s}\frac{10^3}{T^2}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }n_0(\omega )(1n_0(\omega ))\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )(\stackrel{}{p}_L\stackrel{}{p}_R)\widehat{v}_W.$$
(6)
Here $`n_0(\omega )=1/(e^{\omega /T}+1)`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution, and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{L,R}`$ are the left-handed/right-handed quark momenta. The reflection asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$ is given by $`\mathrm{Tr}(\overline{R}_{LR}^{}\overline{R}_{LR}R_{LR}^{}R_{LR})`$ where $`R_{LR}`$($`\overline{R}_{LR}`$) is the reflection coefficient for $`q_Lq_R`$ ($`\overline{q}_R\overline{q}_L`$).

In the standard scenario, the main suppression factor of $`n_B/s`$ comes from $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}`$. This is expected on general grounds, since the KM mechanism of CP violation is operative if and only if $`ϵ_{\mathrm{CP}}0`$. For Yukawa couplings of order one, however, this suppression factor is entirely lifted. Another, milder suppression comes from $`(\stackrel{}{p}_L\stackrel{}{p}_R)\widehat{v}_W/T\alpha _W`$ Huet:1994jb . This is, again, expected since usually the dominant interaction that distinguishes left-handed from right-handed particles is the weak interaction. Yukawa interactions with the Higgs also distinguish between left- and right-handed quarks. In our scenario, with Yukawa couplings of order one, the Yukawa interaction gives the dominant contribution and lifts this suppression factor too. Thus, in our scenario, there is no parametric suppression of $`n_B/s`$, but there are still numerical suppression factors, $`\frac{1}{T}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }n_0(\omega )(1n_0(\omega ))f_9(\omega )10^3`$ (where $`f_9(\omega )`$ is defined in ref. Huet:1994jb ). Combined with the explicit factor of $`10^3`$ in eq. (6), related to $`g_{}`$ (the number of relativistic degrees of freedom), it leads to a suppression of $`n_B/s`$ by $`𝒪(10^6)`$.

At this stage, we cannot make a more precise statement about the size of $`n_B/s`$ in our scenario. The reason is not only that the precise values of the (order one) Yukawa couplings before EWPT are not known, but also because the calculation is different from the light quark case in several important ways.

1. In order to calculate eq. (6), a picture of quasiparticles was introduced, where the massless quarks acquire a complex effective mass due to interactions with the hot plasma. In the standard picture, there are several mass scales: the light quark masses ($`m_d,m_s`$), the typical momentum difference between left- and right-handed quarks ($`6`$ GeV) and the critical temperature ($`100`$ GeV). The clear hierarchy between these scales in the standard scenario no longer exists, and various approximations based on the hierarchy are not valid.
2. To calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\omega )`$, an effective Dirac equation is employed for the quasiparticles. It takes into account the damping rate for the quasiparticles at zero momentum, $`\gamma 0.15g_s^2T20`$ GeV. For particle momenta that are not much smaller than the temperature, there may be large corrections to this result. Furthermore, the effective Dirac equation has been solved by treating the quasiparticle masses as perturbations Huet:1994jb . The perturbative expansion is valid only for $`m_q/6\gamma 1`$. Within the standard scenario, this is a good approximation to all but the top quark. In our case, this is a questionable approximation for all quarks.

Therefore, our analysis above should be used only to identify the small parameters which still play a role in suppressing the baryon asymmetry (and those which do not). It should not be taken for a reliable estimate of other, apriori order one, factors.

The Electroweak Phase Transition. In order for EW baryogenesis to successfully produce the baryon asymmetry, it is necessary that the EWPT is first order. The condition of first order phase transition is commonly quantified by demanding that baryon number that was produced during the phase transition will not be diluted by baryon violating interactions inside the bubble. By calculating the rate of interactions, one obtains the sphaleron bound on $`\varphi `$, the VEV of the SM higgs (for a pedagogical review, see Quiros:1999jp ):

$$\varphi (T_c)/T_c1.3.$$
(7)
The VEV is related to the Higgs mass and so the above constraint is translated to a constraint on the mass of Higgs which, at one loop, reads:

$$m_h42\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(8)
Such a low value (and the somewhat weaker bound when higher loops are taken into account) is experimentally ruled out. Thus, not only CP violation has to have new sources, but also the EWPT has to be different from the SM one, ı.e. the scalar sector must be extended.

In our scenario, the Higgs mass is, in general, different from its present value. As can be seen from eq. (5), the corrections are of order $`m_W^2\left(\frac{S^{}S}{M^2}\right)=𝒪(m_W^2)`$. The change is then significant and could easily take the Higgs mass to be low enough at the time of EWPT to make it first order.

Conclusions. The Standard Model fulfills all three Sakharov’s conditions that are necessary for baryogenesis. The failure of the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism to account for the observed baryon asymmetry is related to the numerical values of the Standard Model parameters. The smallness of the quark flavor parameters (masses and mixing angles) suppresses CP violation too strongly, while the mass of the Higgs boson is too heavy for a first order electroweak phase transition to occur.

The possibility that there have been time variations in the Yukawa couplings opens up a window for the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase to be the only source of CP violation and to drive baryogenesis. Within the Froggatt-Nielsen framework, where the structure of the flavor parameters is a result of an approximate horizontal symmetry, it is plausible that the time variation has been such that all flavor parameters were order one at early times.

The dynamics of electroweak baryogenesis when none of the quarks is much lighter than the electroweak breaking scale may be quite different from the case of light quarks and needs to be carefully investigated. There are no obvious parametric suppression factors and the produced baryon number may even be as large as $`𝒪(10^6)`$. We conclude that the observed baryon asymmetry can be explained by the KM mechanism, provided that there are no strong dilution factors coming from the dynamics.

The possibility that there has been time variation in the Higgs potential parameters opens up a window for the EWPT to be first order with only the single Higgs doublet playing a direct role.

It is worth emphasizing that our scenario can also be implemented in the supersymmetric framework. The Froggatt-Nielsen selection rules are somewhat different Leurer:1992wg , but the analysis presented here is unchanged. The EWPT could be first order even without time variations in the couplings. While in generic supersymmetric models there are additional sources of CP violation that affect baryogenesis, our mechanism is particularly interesting for models of minimal flavor violation, where the CKM matrix is the only source of flavor and CP violation.

Our scenario introduces a loophole in the commonly held view that the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism cannot be the only source of CP violation to play a role in baryogenesis.

Acknowledgments. We thank T. Banks, R. Brustein, M. Dine, S. Davidson, W. Fischler, M. Losada, A. Nelson and M. Peskin for useful discussions. The work of M.B. is supported by the Israeli Academy of Science centers of excellence program, by the Minerva Foundation, and by EEC RTN-2000-001122. M.B. would like to thank the KITP for its hospitality during the final stages of this project. The research of Y.N. is supported by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, by a Grant from the G.I.F., the German–Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development, by a grant from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, Israel, by the Minerva foundation, and by EEC RTN contract HPRN-CT-00292-2002.


format: text

text:
# 1. Spectroscopy of Ultra-Cool Dwarfs

## 1. Spectroscopy of Ultra-Cool Dwarfs

Ultra-cool dwarfs have been defined as dwarfs with spectral types of M7 or later (Kirkpatrick, Henry, & Irwin 1997) and thus include the new L and T spectral classes. The previous IAU report on ultra-cool dwarfs in 1999 described the optical and IR spectral features that characterize these spectral types. In this report, I review the latest progress on the spectral classification of ultra-cool dwarfs, which are divided into two categories: old dwarfs in the field ($`>1`$ Gyr) and their young progenitors in the nearest star-forming regions and open clusters (1-100 Myr). Because the former are nearby and the latter are young, these two groups are relatively bright and lend themselves to discovery and detailed study. I conclude by discussing some of the major results from two recent meetings. Technically, the luminosity class of young ultra-cool objects is closer to subgiant than dwarf; nevertheless, I include them in this report on ultra-cool dwarfs.

### 1.1. The Field

Three years ago, L-type objects had been discovered in abundance ($`100`$), while only a dozen T-type sources were known. Since then, 2MASS, SDSS, and other surveys have identified another 150 L dwarfs and 20 T dwarfs free-floating in the field (Cuby et al. 1999; Strauss et al. 1999; Kirkpatrick et al. 2000; Reid et al. 2000; Tsvetanov et al. 2000; Leggett et al. 2000; Burgasser et al. 1999, 2000b, 2002a; Hawley et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2002b). The first L and T dwarfs were discovered as companions (GD165B, Becklin & Zuckerman 1988; Gl229B, Nakajima et al. 1995), and companion searches have continued to reveal new members of these spectral classes. Ultra-cool dwarfs orbiting field stars have been found at wide angular separations through 2MASS images and followup spectroscopy by Kirkpatrick et al. (2001), Wilson et al. (2001), Gizis, Kirkpatrick, & Wilson (2001), and Burgasser et al. (2000a). Companions that are likely to be ultra-cool have appeared at small angular separations in images obtained with HST and ground-based telescopes using adaptive optics (AO) (Martín et al. 2000b; Reid et al. 2001b; Els et al. 2001; Close et al. 2002a, 2002b), some of which have been observed with newly available AO spectroscopy (Potter et al. 2002; Goto et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2002a).

Spectral classification of ultra-cool dwarfs began with optical data for M and L types (Kirkpatrick et al. 1999; Martín et al. 1999b). Classification at these types has since been developed at IR wavelengths (Reid et al. 2001a; Leggett et al. 2001; Testi et al. 2001). The numerous discoveries of ultra-cool dwarfs have produced a well-sampled spectral sequence into late L and T types, enabling the definition of spectral subclasses in the T regime (Burgasser et al. 2002a; Geballe et al. 2002). To first order, the T spectral class was originally defined by the presence of methane absorption at IR wavelengths. However, under the accepted classification schemes for L and T types, late L dwarfs exhibit methane absorption at 3.3 $`\mu `$m (Noll et al. 2000), and possibly at 2.2 $`\mu `$m as well (McLean et al. 2001; Nakajima, Tsuji, & Yanagisawa 2001). The temperatures below which methane absorption appears in each photometric band have been compared to theoretical predictions by Schweitzer et al. (2002). In addition to temperature, clouds are probably responsible for much of the variation in spectral features among L and T types (Burgasser et al. 2002b).

### 1.2. Open Clusters and Star-forming Regions

Searches for ultra-cool dwarfs in nearby open clusters and star-forming regions have been motivated by the fact that brown dwarfs ($`M<0.075`$ $`M_{}`$) are brightest and warmest when they are young, which enables their detection down to very low masses. For instance, objects near the hydrogen burning mass limit have spectral types of M6-M7 when they are younger than 100 Myr, and eventually cool to mid-L types after several Gyr. In other words, a given ultra-cool spectral type corresponds to a much lower mass (by an order of magnitude) in a star-forming region than in the field.

The Pleiades open cluster (125 Myr) was the first site to prove fruitful in surveys for young ultra-cool dwarfs (Stauffer, Hamilton, & Probst 1994; Martín et al. 2000a). Members of this cluster have been found with spectral types as late as early L ($`0.035`$ $`M_{}`$, Martín et al. 1998). In the last few years, the emphasis has shifted to very young associations and star-forming clusters ($`<10`$ Myr), where the brown dwarfs should be even more luminous. Free-floating ultra-cool objects have been identified with optical and IR spectroscopy toward IC 348 (Luhman 1999), Chamaeleon I (Neuhäuser & Comerón 1999; Comerón, Neuhäuser, & Kaas 2000), Ophiuchus (Luhman, Liebert, & Rieke 1997; Wilking, Greene, & Meyer 1999; Cushing, Tokunaga, & Kobayashi 2000), Taurus (Martín et al. 2001a), the Orion Nebula Cluster (Hillenbrand 1997; Lucas et al. 2001), $`\sigma `$ Ori (Béjar et al. 1999; Zapatero Osorio et al. 2000; Barrado et al. 2001), and the TW Hya association (Gizis 2002). In addition, companion searches have located late-type secondaries to young stars in the Taurus star-forming region (White et al. 1999) and in the associations of Tucanae (Lowrance et al. 2000; Guenther et al. 2001) and TW Hya (Lowrance et al. 1999; Neuhäuser et al. 2000). Most of these sources are late-M (0.01-0.1 $`M_{}`$), while a smaller number of L-type objects (0.005-0.01 $`M_{}`$) have been found toward Orion and $`\sigma `$ Ori.

I now describe the spectral features that vary between ultra-cool dwarfs in the field and their young counterparts in clusters. Over time, the processes of convection and nuclear burning deplete Li at the surfaces of young low-mass stars and brown dwarfs. This depletion occurs faster for more massive objects, resulting in a boundary between non-Li and Li objects that evolves to lower masses, and thus fainter luminosities and cooler temperatures. For instance, the Li depletion boundary is near the hydrogen burning mass limit for an age of $`100`$ Myr. Stauffer, Schultz, & Kirkpatrick (1998), Barrado et al. (1999), and Stauffer et al. (1999) have used this phenomenon to estimate ages for the Pleiades (125 Myr), IC 2391 (53 Myr), and $`\alpha `$ Per (90 Myr) open clusters. In star-forming clusters, ultra-cool sources are too young to have depleted their Li and thus exhibit strong absorption at 6707 Å (Martín, Basri, & Zapatero Osorio 1999a). At M types, the presence of Li absorption can be used to distinguish young late-type members of a cluster from foreground field dwarfs. However, the time scale for Li depletion becomes longer with lower masses, so that some L-type members of the field ($`>1`$ Gyr) can exhibit Li absorption. As a result, at L types Li is not a definitive indicator of membership in a young cluster.

Because ultra-cool objects are extremely faint at optical wavelengths, the high-resolution data necessary for Li measurements are difficult to obtain. Instead, youth and membership are more easily determined with the gravity-sensitive Na I and K I absorption lines, which are stronger than Li and reside at brighter regions of the optical spectrum. At late M types, these features are weaker in members of open clusters and star-forming regions than in field dwarfs, which has been attributed to the lower surface gravities of the former (Martín, Rebolo, & Zapatero Osorio 1996; Luhman et al. 1998). However, at types later than $``$L0, these lines are difficult to use as diagnostics of youth because they become weaker and the optical flux continues to decrease. Ultra-cool field dwarfs and young sources can be differentiated at IR wavelengths, which is where these objects are most easily observed. Steam absorption at each end of the H and K bands results in a plateau in the spectra of dwarfs, while for young sources this plateau is less apparent and the spectrum is instead more sharply peaked (Lucas et al. 2001).

L-type objects found toward star-forming regions are sometimes referred to as “planetary-mass objects” (Lucas et al. 2001; Zapatero Osorio et al. 2000) because L0 corresponds roughly to the deuterium burning mass limit (0.013-0.015 $`M_{}`$) for ages of $`<10`$ Myr (Burrows et al. 1997; Baraffe et al. 1998). The relationship between the L types reported by Lucas et al. (2001) from IR spectra and the standard optically-based classifications for field dwarfs is unclear, but these sources are likely to be young members of Orion because they show IR steam features that are distinctive from those of field dwarfs, and in a manner that is consistent with predicted variations with surface gravity (Allard et al. 2001). However, many of the L-type objects toward the $`\sigma `$ Ori cluster lack convincing spectroscopic evidence of youth and membership in the cluster. Although the early L source found by Zapatero Osorio et al. (1999) appears to have Na I and K I line strengths that are indicative of youth, the remaining objects are too faint ($`I>21`$) for such measurements. Barrado y Navascués et al. (2001) reported strong H$`\alpha `$ emission for some these sources, which would be evidence for youth, but most of these detections appear to have marginal significance by the spectra presented in that study. Indeed, the distinctive shape of the steam absorption bands observed for young objects in Orion by Lucas et al. (2001) is not present in the $`\sigma `$ Ori objects (Martín et al. 2001b), which may indicate that the latter are foreground field dwarfs rather than cluster members.

For the spectral classification of young objects at late-M types, Luhman (1999) found that the various spectral features between 6000 and 9000 Å are best matched with averages of spectra for standard dwarfs and giants. Because some of the IR steam bands become stronger at a fixed temperature from dwarfs to young objects (Allard et al. 2001), optically-classified young sources are probably the appropriate standards when using IR spectra to measure spectral types for young late-type objects.

## References

Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 357

Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A&A, 337, 403

Barrado y Navascués, D., Stauffer, J. R., Song, I., & Caillault, J.-P. 1999, ApJ, 522, L53

Barrado y Navascués, D., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Béjar, V. J. S., Rebolo, R., Martín, E. L., Mundt, R., & Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2001, A&A, 377, L9

Becklin, E. E., & Zuckerman, B. 1988, Nature, 336, 126

Béjar, V. J. S., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., & Rebolo, R. 1999, ApJ, 521, 671

Burgasser, A. J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 522, L65

Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2000a, ApJ, 531, L57

Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2000b, AJ, 120, 1100

Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2002a, ApJ, 564, 421

Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2002b, ApJ, 571, 151

Burrows, A., et al. 1997, ApJ, 491, 856

Close, L. M., Potter, D., Brandner, W., Lloyd-Hart, M., Liebert, J., Burrows, A., & Siegler, N. 2002a, ApJ, 566, 1095

Close, L. M., Siegler, N., Potter, D., Brandner, W., & Liebert, J. 2002b, ApJ, 567, L53

Comerón, F., Neuhäuser, R., & Kaas, A. A. 2000, A&A, 359, 269

Cuby, J. G., Saracco, P., Moorwood, A. F. M., D’Odorico, S., Lidman, C., Comerón, F., & Spyromilio, J. 1999, A&A, 349, 41

Cushing, M. C., Tokunaga, A. T., & Kobayashi, N. 2000, AJ, 119, 3019

Els, S.G., Sterzik, M.F., Marchis, F., Pantin, E., Endl, M., & Kürster, M. 2001, A&A, 370, L1

Geballe, T. R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 564, 466

Gizis, J. E. 2002, ApJ, 575, 484

Gizis, J. E., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Wilson, J. C. 2001, AJ, 121, 2185

Goto, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, L59

Guenther, E. W., Neuhäuser, R., Huélamo, N., Brandner, W., & Alves, J. 2001, A&A, 365, 514

Hawley, S. L., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 3409

Hillenbrand, L. A. 1997, AJ, 113, 1733

Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, 802

Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 447

Kirkpatrick, J. D., Dahn, C. C., Monet, D. G.; Reid, I. N., Gizis, J. E., Liebert, J., & Burgasser, A. J. 2001, AJ, 121, 3235

Kirkpatrick, J. D., Henry, T. J., & Irwin, M. J. 1997, AJ, 113, 1421

Leggett, S. K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 536, L35

Leggett, S. K., Allard, F., Geballe, T. R., Hauschildt, P. H., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 908

Liu, M. C., Fischer, D. A., Graham, J. R., Lloyd, J. P., Marcy, G. W., & Butler, R. P. 2002a, ApJ, 568, 107

Liu, M. C., Wainscoat, R., Martí, E. L., Barris, B., & Tonry, J. 2002b, ApJ, 568, L107

Lowrance, P. J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 512, L69

Lowrance, P. J., et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 390

Lucas, P. W., Roche, P. F., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 695

Luhman, K. L. 1999, ApJ, 525, 466

Luhman, K. L., Briceño, C., Rieke, G. H., & Hartmann, L. W. 1998, ApJ, 493, 909

Luhman, K. L., Liebert, J., & Rieke, G. H. 1997, ApJ, 489, L165

Martín, E. L., et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, L41

Martín, E. L., et al. 2000a, ApJ, 543, 299

Martín, E. L., Basri, G., Zapatero Osorio, M. R. 1999a, AJ, 118, 1005

Martín, E. L., Delfosse, X., Basri, G., Goldman, B., Forveille, T., & Zapatero Osorio, M. R. 1999b, AJ, 118, 2466

Martín, E. L., Dougados, C., Magnier, E., Ménard, F., Magazzù, A., Cuilandre, J.-C., & Delfosse, X. 2001a, ApJ, 561, L195

Martín, E. L., Koresko, C. D., Kulkarni, S. R., Lane, B. F., & Wizinowich, P. L. 2000b, ApJ, 529, L37

Martín, E. L., Rebolo, R., & Zapatero Osorio, M. R. 1996, ApJ, 469, 706

Martín, E. L., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Barrado y Navascués, D., Béjar, V. J. S., & Rebolo, R. 2001b, ApJ, 558, L117

McLean, I. S., Prato, L., Kim, S. S., Wilcox, M. K., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Burgasser, A. 2001, ApJ, 561, L115

Nakajima, T., Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., Golimowski, D. A., Matthews, K., & Durrance, S. T. 1995, Nature, 378, 463

Nakajima, T., Tsuji, T., & Yanagisawa, K. 2001, ApJ, 561, 119

Neuhäuser, R., & Comerón, F. 1999, A&A, 350, 612

Neuhäuser, R., Guenther, E. W., Petr, M. G., Brandner, W., Huélamo, N., & Alves, J. 2000, A&A, 360, 39

Noll, K. S., Geballe, T. R., Leggett, S. K., & Marley, M. S. 2000, ApJ, 541, 75

Potter, D., Martin, E. L., Cushing, M. C., Baudoz, P., Brandner, W., Guyon, O., & Neuhäuser, R. 2002, ApJ, 567, L133

Reid, I. N., Burgasser, A. J., Cruz, K. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Gizis, J. E. 2001a, AJ, 121, 1710

Reid, I. N., Gizis, J. E., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Koerner, D. W. 2001b, AJ, 121, 489

Reid, I. N., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 369

Schweitzer, A., Gizis, J. E., Hauschildt, P. H., Allard, F., Howard, E. M., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2002, ApJ, 566, 435

Stauffer, J. R., et al. 1999, ApJ, 527, 219

Stauffer, J. R., Hamilton, D., & Probst, R. G. 1994, AJ, 108, 155

Stauffer, J. R., Schultz, G., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. 1998, ApJ, 499, 199

Strauss, M. A., et al. 1999, ApJ, 522, L61

Testi, L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, L147

Tsvetanov, Z. I., et al. 2000, ApJ, 531, L61

White, R. J., Ghez, A. M., Reid, I. N., & Schultz, G. 1999, ApJ, 520, 811

Wilking, B. A., Greene, T. P., & Meyer, M. R. 1999, AJ, 117, 469

Wilson, J. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gizis, J. E., Skrutskie, M. F., Monet, D. G., & Houck, J. R. 2001, AJ, 122, 1989

Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Béjar, V. J. S., Martín, E. L., Rebolo, R., Barrado y Navascués, D., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., & Mundt, R. 2000, Science, 290, 103

Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Béjar, V. J. S., Rebolo, R., Martín, E. L., & Basri, G. 1999, ApJ, 524, L115


text:
# Presynaptic modulation as fast synaptic switching: state-dependent modulation of task performance

## I Introduction

Neuromodulators (NM’s) such as dopamine, serotonin or acetylcholine have the capacity to activate presynaptic receptors, located at axon boutons and involved in the regulation of both glutamate and GABA release , , . For the most part, these receptors depress synaptic transmission when they become activated by a strong neuromodulatory signal. Neuromodulatory signals are generated by phasic increases of firing of e.g. dopamine or serotonin neurons (located in central brain areas such as the ventral tegmental area or dorsal raphe) and their effects generally last for seconds to minutes , , .

The plasticity expressed by NM receptors points to a targeted regulation at specific presynaptic sites , . This means that the capacity for synaptic depression upon engagement of a NM receptor will be different for each synapse. The amount of change in synaptic strength is governed by the distribution and efficacy of presynaptic receptors at a given time. Plasticity in the distribution of NM receptors happens on a similar time-scale as long-term potentiation (hours for induction, days to weeks at least for retention). Thus the distribution of receptors at a presynaptic site is capable of reflecting experience on a similar time-scale as long-term potentiation, which influences the strength of glutamatergic transmission .

This paper explores the functional significance of presynaptic neuromodulatory receptors and their localization.

We choose conventional, fully trained neural networks as experimental material. Even though work in computational neuroscience during the past decade has shifted the focus within its major paradigm towards the investigation of precision in spike timing and the importance of short-term variability in synaptic transmission, network plasticity is still for the most part modelled by long-term potentiation as a way to set synaptic weights.

Thus the mechanisms for network plasticity are essentially the same in both artificial and biological networks, even though tighter constraints on architecture and a limited precision of synaptic weights need to be imposed on biological models.

We have therefore opted for conventionally trained neural networks as starting points for an investigation on how presynaptic modulation of synaptic weights may affect the function of biological networks in a state-dependent way.

Behavioral evidence shows that neuromodulators affect performance on recognition and learning tasks in ways that are clearly measurable yet difficult to conceptualize , . For instance, dopamine and noradrenaline have been linked to the ideas of ”attention”, ”arousal”, ”novelty” and ”reward”. Mathematically, they are usually analysed as regulating a single global parameter. This may guide reinforcement learning , set thresholds for signal detection  or alter the level of (recurrent) connectivity . Here we propose an alternative mathematical model, the existence of a second matrix of stored values designed to be subtracted or added to the primary matrix. Obviously, the computational power expressed by weight modulation goes considerably beyond that of a global parameter. However, we also aim to show that the idea of weight modulation, which is synapse-specific and experience-dependent, is entirely compatible with the generalized notion of a subtle modulation of task execution which leaves basic performance intact. Thus we provide a theoretical basis towards further conceptualizing the role of neuromodulators in neural processing and the regulation of brain state.

## II Function of Presynaptic NM receptors

Synapse-specific modulation of neural transmission means that a given weight matrix may be switched to a different but related one upon engagement of presynaptic receptors. More precisely, this ”switch” will be often gradual, leading to a blending of stored weight values in at least two matrices. (Since there are a number of different presynaptic receptors, each targeted by a different substance, the brain may operate with several modulation matrices. Alternatively, we might define a single matrix for the extreme values when all receptors are engaged, and the look at the various intermediate states. This question is not further addressed in this paper, rather all experiments are carried out with a single modulation matrix).

Since these effects are global on a short time scale throughout the brain, much work on neuromodulation has rested on the assumption that these effects are also uniform at each neuron or synapse. But recently, experimental evidence has emerged to the effect that NM receptors may indeed be individually regulated by a host of intracellular pathways and gene expression mechanisms , , overlapping with the mechanisms that guide glutamatergic strength (such as AMPA receptor regulation).

The activation of presynaptic NM receptors may be conceptualized as fast switching of synaptic weights - where ”fast” refers to the time required to produce a strong neuromodulatory signal in response to a specific stimulus (approximately 100 ms) (Figure 1).

The change will usually last for several seconds to minutes, with termination of the effect being tightly regulated by a number of complex factors such as re-uptake mechanisms, continuing firing of NM neurons and excitation levels of the neuron (e.g. calcium and cAMP-levels).

Synaptic switching can be realized by introducing a second matrix that can be used to reset specific weights in a primary matrix. Physiologically, this corresponds to the capacity of local regulation of NM receptor activation by both transporter and receptor placement and efficacy. In this way, both depression and release from depression of fast glutamatergic/GABAergic signalling can be realized by the neural system.

Fast synaptic switching allows specific modulations of task performance in trained neural networks.

These modulations become specifically interesting when we are faced with a task or aspects of task performance, which cannot be solved by a single optimal distribution of weights.

For instance, a set of weights that classifies one set of patterns well may be less well adapted for another set of patterns. In this case, rather than choosing a weight matrix that covers both patterns in a suboptimal way, or learning and maintaining two separate networks for each set of patterns, the brain’s solution may have been to combine different weight sets within a single network, and provide stimulus-specific switching between them. Rather than training different networks from scratch, the brain may thus reduce training complexity on highly related tasks. This will work when a basic performance on each aspect of the task is guaranteed with either weight distribution. Furthermore, if the weights are similar and derived from each other, incomplete switches (blends) will produce intermediate results without disrupting basic task performance. In a similar vein, the brain’s answer to the problem of how to store patterns precisely for memorization but also in a more generalized, noisy fashion to facilitate classification of novel patterns may have been to accommodate both: a set of weights that closely represents a specific pattern set, and modifications to this weight matrix to obtain a looser fit, and promote generalization. In this paper we present two specific examples for task modification that can be realized by synaptic switching between two weight sets each optimized for a specific aspect of the task. The application is taken from the realm of face identification and recognition of emotional expressions of faces. The examples presented are very simple and designed to exemplify the principle of weight modulation rather than present a technical solution. They are primarily meant to illustrate the computational power of presynaptic receptors, once we accept the notion that the localization of NM receptors may be functionally regulated, rather than uniformly distributed.

## III Modulation of Task Performance

In the first example, we classify a set of patterns in a combined task (face identification and recognition of emotional expression) by supervised learning. We show that the performance of the network for each of the subtasks separately can be improved beyond the maximum performance for the whole task. Even though this means that performance for the other subtask goes down and the combined error level remains constant, we have identified a situation, where basic task performance is guaranteed and synaptic switching allows an allocation of precision in memory to one rather than the other task. Thus a network can adapt itself towards a focus on face identification or a focus on emotional recognition by engaging a neuromodulatory signal that subtly alters the weight distribution.

We created a network based on an input representation for a face image and trained on both face identification and recognition of emotional expression.

The data were taken from a publicly accessible database . 53 different persons were used, and three different emotions (neutral, smiling, crying) were contained in the set (159 different patterns). Images were scaled and normalized to a size of 20x20 pixels which comprised the input of the network. For task A (identification), the output consisted in 6 bits coding for 53 classes, for task B (emotional recognition), the output consisted in 3 bits coding for each emotional expression. A general backpropagation algorithm was used to obtain weight matrices for a network with architecture 400x80x9 trained on both tasks simultaneously. After 4000 iterations of the training set we receive a fairly constant result of approximately 73% (face ID) and 86% (emotional recognition) correctness. (see Table I, combined network).

The weight matrix is then stored and copied twice. One copy is further trained on only subtask A, the other on subtask B. This improves performance considerably for either task A or B, and results in small losses in the task not trained (s. Table I, network A and network B).

The reduction of training complexity compared to training and storing two different networks may not seem significant in the case of a back-propagation trained neural network. But for a living neural system which takes hours to days to change individual synaptic weights, the issue of training time (not storage area) is a huge problem. Furthermore the advantage of having a coarse, roughly correct system which undergoes subtle modulation as needed in contrast to a set of highly specialized modules cannot be overestimated.

In a technical sense, whenever we are dealing with a situation, where a sequential focus on subtasks occurs, but a basic level of performance needs to be maintained at all times, this technique of ”weight splitting” into two different, but similar sets of weights will optimize performance beyond the level of a single set of weights and a generalized combined ability.

We may analyze the complexity of the mechanism by a weight difference map for networks A and B (Figure 2). Very small differences in weight ($`<`$ 0.03) are not shown.

This results in a picture with significant differences only in certain columns rather than others (the figure shows a cutout from the complete network).

We can see that the differences involve selected synapses and are fairly local, clustering in certain regions of the input space. The source units, connected to these sites of strongest discrepancy are are shown in Figure 3, on a 20x20 layout. In particular, weights encoding features for the eye and mouth region are affected by changes in the task setting.

This means that the given example has a low complexity in the additional training needed for the switching mechanism.

We may also compare the hidden representations for selected patterns.

Figure 4, left panel shows the representations that result from superimposing all patterns with ”smiling” face expression, the right panel shows the representations for all patterns for face id #23. In both cases, we see that the representation is similar, but not identical for networks A and B. This creates a situation, where blending of two networks can be applied without losing basic performance (s. IV). In contrast, the effort involved in training two different networks independently with essentially highly similar outcomes would not be justified. Another reason for applying synaptic switching rather than continued training of a combinatory task consists in the assumption that we cannot substitute panel 1, B (optimal) into panel 2, B (suboptimal) without affecting panel 2 A (optimal) as well. A mathematical analysis of the ”restriction of optimality” will help to establish this empirical observation. This should show that certain feature nodes are specifically affected and cannot exist in a single ”best” position independent of the task that they are used for.

## IV Modulation of Generalization Performance

Another modulation that can be implemented with the help of synaptic switching concerns the trade-off between pattern storage and generalization. Generally, training a network with optimization for the error level for storing a pattern may lead to ”overfitting”, i.e. a decrease in generalization performance, when the learned discriminant becomes too irregular. A number of techniques have been proposed to influence the degree of generalization vs. the storage of patterns (e.g. ”early stopping”, ”weight decay” ). This trade-off is generally regarded to be resolved at the discretion of the modeller in accordance with task requirements.

Here we attempt to show that the brain may have implemented this design decision with the help of neuromodulation. The basic idea that neuromodulation may regulate trade-off between pattern storage and novel classification has been pioneered by Hasselmo , where the self-organization of feedforward connections was described as benefiting from suppression of strongly modified intrinsic connections associated with specific prior learning. The mechanism proposed here is more general, but a state-dependent modulation of learning vs. storage optimization seems to be one of the tasks of neuromodulation.

We select a training and a test set from the face identification problem. The training set consists of 100 patterns (2 for each face) and the test set of 50 patterns (1 for each face randomly selected).

Using a weight-decay backpropagation algorithm, we first obtain a network which performs well on the training set and minimizes the error in generalization (see Table II, network A, 1500 iterations, architecture of the network is 400-10-3).

Then, we perform additional training (without weight decay) to improve the network’s capability to recall the training data (network B, additional 4000 iterations). This training results in 98% correct identification of the faces in the training set, but slightly decreases the generalization performance. By this method, as in the previous example, we obtain two different networks that are highly similar but different enough in selected synaptic weights to subtly alter task performance.

The comparison of the difference in weights between the two networks is shown in Figure 5. There is no clearly discernible structure to the weight difference diagram, thus we would expect complexity to be higher in this case.

An interesting possibility that is supported by the physiological evidence is partial weight modulation. There are essentially two different mechanisms for that, some combination of which probably occurs in the brain. One mechanism assumes a partial activation of receptor sites by a limited increase of neuromodulator availability. This would result in a linear change of weight values. The other mechanism assumes that only a percentage of receptor sites are activated fully - other receptors being decoupled or desensitized. This would result in a potentially skewed change in weight values.

Figure 6 shows the effects of both techniques on performance measures for the generalization-storage trade-off. Endpoints of the trajectories for storage and generalization are given by the values in Table II. Interestingly, shutting off a percentage of the receptors leads to fluctuations in performance (dashed line), while the linear interpolation approximates a corresponding linear change in performance (continuous line).

Finally, another way to compare the weight matrices that result from training for storage versus training for generalization is to look at the distribution of actual weight values (Figure 7).

We can see that the variance for the generalizing network is lower (1.2) than for the storing network (2.0). This is in accordance with the observation that weight decay helps in achieving better generalization. Physiologically, weight modulation may have the side effect of decreasing the range of synaptic strengths. Here we can see that this feature may have been applied in a functionally useful way by the brain.

Similarly, we may compare the firing rate distribution for both networks (Figure 8).

This shows that the network optimized for storage has more neurons with low activation than the network which has been optimized for generalization. Again, this may point to a focusing of activation on selected neurons and less distributed activity in the network, which is a result that is compatible with neuromodulatory alterations of network activity.

## V Conclusion

In general, neuromodulators define brain state and alter neural processing according to current needs of the organism. Often it is assumed that the effects of NM are uniform at all synapses. In this sense, the modulation mediated by e.g. dopamine receptors depends only on a global signal, namely phasic increase of dopamine neuron firing and release. Accordingly, the function of neuromodulation has been linked to general, unspecific alterations in processing mode, such as increased signal-to-noise ratio, vigilance or arousal , (p.225-226), a general reinforcement signal , (p. 339-340) or increased recurrent connectivity , .

Here we show that the experimental evidence which supports localized responses greatly enhances the computational power associated with neuromodulation.

In particular, the technique of fast synaptic switching to a second weight matrix can be applied to increase performance levels of related tasks individually. We have applied this to classification of faces according to identity versus recognition of an emotional expression and to the memorization of face images versus the ability to classify novel images.

The basic idea of fast synaptic switching is not novel. A related form of synaptic switching within a neural processing network has been explored in the context of the ”dynamic link architecture” , , . The dynamic link architecture has been mostly used for the extraction and storage of invariants in perceptual processing. Its possible link to the physiological substrate of neuromodulation has not been explicitly explored. But the dynamic link architecture incorporates techniques for learning not only the primary weight matrix, but also a secondary matrix which stores information on the target weights that undergo switching. Our work has not addressed the question of a ”learning rule” for the weight modulation matrix, i.e. the placement of presynaptic receptors. Rather we have explicitly constructed complete, fully trained weight matrices by conventional means, and explored the consequences of being able to blend or switch them by neuromodulatory signals. We have however made the observation that the complexity of learning can be expressed by the number of receptors that have to be placed.

We have taken care to ensure that the results are compatible with the forms of state-dependent processing which have been documented as behavioral modifications due to neuromodulatory function. Subtle alterations in task performance due to engagement of neuromodulator receptors provide a form of adaptivity that ensures basic performance but allows task-specific optimization. We feel that this description of neuromodulatory function provides a framework for further experimental and theoretical studies.

Acknowledgments: We want to thank Pramod Gupta, Tony Bell, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions during the preparation of this manuscript. This work was supported in part by project NASA ECS RSO ”Adaptive Control Technologies”.


text:
# A numerical model for the 𝛾-ray emission of the microquasar LS 5039

## 1 Introduction

Microquasars are a selected class of X-ray binaries that produce relativistic radio jets (Mirabel & Rodríguez Mirabel&rodriguez99 (1999); Fender Fender04 (2004)). The origin of the jets is related to the matter accreted by the compact object, a neutron star or a black hole, from the companion star. These systems behave as scaled-down versions of quasars and active galactic nuclei. The population of microquasars is still a very reduced one, with about sixteen known objects up to now (Ribó Ribo02t (2002)). Several models have been developed to explore the high energy emission from the jets of microquasars. Two kinds of model can be found in the literature depending on whether hadronic or leptonic jet matter dominates the emission at such an energy range: the hadronic jet models (e.g. Romero et al. Romero03 (2003)), and the leptonic jet models. Among leptonic jet models, there are IC jet emission models that can produce X-rays and $`\gamma `$-rays, based in some cases on the synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) process (i.e. Band & Grindlay Band&grindlay86 (1986); Atoyan & Aharonian Atoyan&aharonian99 (1999)), and in other cases on external sources for the IC seed photons (EC) (i.e. Kaufman Bernadó et al. Kaufman-Bernado02 (2002); Georganopoulos et al. Georganopoulos02 (2002)). In addition, there are synchrotron jet emission models that can produce X-rays (i.e. Markoff et al. Markoff01 (2001)).

The microquasar nature of LS 5039 was clearly established when non-thermal radiation produced in a jet was detected (Paredes et al. Paredes00 (2000)). Interest in this source has grown significantly because it has turned out to be a source of persistent radio emitting relativistic jets (Paredes et al. Paredes02 (2002)), and because of its proposed association with the unidentified source 3EG J1824$``$1514 (Paredes et al. Paredes00 (2000)) of the 3rd EGRET catalogue (Hartman et al. 3rdEGRETC (1999)). Recently, Collmar (Collmar03 (2003)) reported the detection of an unidentified $`\gamma `$-ray source by the COMPTEL experiment, and LS 5039 is one of the possible counterparts. We are interested in investigating if microquasars are able to generate the high-energy $`\gamma `$-ray emission detected by EGRET111http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/egret, using a numerical model based on IC scattering, taking into account energy losses, EC and SSC interactions. In this paper, we focus our attention on the microquasar LS 5039. In Sect. 2 we present the physical scenario of our model, and the model itself is described in Sect. 3. We apply the model to the microquasar LS 5039 in Sect. 4, and the obtained results are discussed in Sect. 5.

## 2 The physical scenario

The scenario of our model consists on an X-ray binary system where the compact object has a disk coplanar with the orbital plane and a jet not necessarily perpendicular to it. It includes also a hot spherical region, called corona, surrounding the compact object. We assume that the leptons dominate the radiative processes that generate $`\gamma `$-rays. Relativistic electrons, already accelerated and flowing away into the jet, are exposed to photons from the star (assumed to be an isotropic photon field) as well as to photons from the synchrotron emission of the same population of electrons, since we suppose the presence of a magnetic field. This magnetic field is tangled in such a way that the resulted synchrotron emission is isotropic in the jet’s reference frame. Although some features like disk-jet interaction (e.g. for blazars, Dermer et al. Dermer92 (1992)), reacceleration of the jet’s particles (e.g. Markoff et al. Markoff01 (2001)), corona-jet interaction and pair creation-annihilation phenomena (e.g. both for Cygnus X-1, Romero et al. Romero02 (2002)) could be significant at some level, their study is beyond the scope of this paper and they will be treated in upcoming works. The $`\gamma `$-ray emitting region, the $`\gamma `$-jet, is assumed to be closer to the compact object than the observed radio jets.

## 3 Description of the model

We have developed a numerical IC model for the $`\gamma `$-ray emission from relativistic electrons in a cylindrical jet (the $`\gamma `$-jet). This $`\gamma `$-jet is assumed to be short enough to allow the magnetic field ($`B_\gamma `$) to be considered constant. We have included the interaction between the relativistic electrons and both the magnetic and the radiation fields. The energy losses of the leptonic plasma in the $`\gamma `$-jet are due to its own synchrotron emission, the SSC scattering and the EC scattering of the stellar photons by the relativistic electrons. Due to the strong losses, the electron energy distribution density along the $`\gamma `$-jet model varies significantly, and in this sense the $`\gamma `$-jet is non-homogeneous. Thus, the $`\gamma `$-jet is studied by splitting it into cylindrical transverse cuts or slices. The size of the slices has to be suitable to get almost homogeneous physical conditions within them (energy densities for the radiation and the electrons).

The code used for our $`\gamma `$-jet model is run in two steps. The first computes, for each slice, both the total radiation energy densities and the radiation energy densities per frequency unit from both the star and the synchrotron process. Then, the calculated radiation energy densities are introduced jointly with the electron distribution function (see Sect. 3.1) in the second step of the program to calculate the IC emission at each slice. Because such slices evolve due to the changes of both the electron energy and the radiation energy densities, the resulting IC radiation will be different depending on the age of the slice (i.e. depending on the distance to the compact object). Once we have computed the IC emission from all the slices, we can sum the contribution of all of them to get the whole emission. Since our model is applied to a wide range of energies for both the electrons and the seed photons, we have taken into account both the low and the high energy regimes (i.e. the Thomson and Klein-Nishina regimes). We have used the cross section of Blumenthal & Gould (Blumenthal&Gould70 (1970)). The free parameters of the model are just three: $`B_\gamma `$, the maximum electron Lorentz factor ($`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$) and the leptonic kinetic luminosity or leptonic jet power ($`L_{\mathrm{ke}}`$).

### 3.1 Energy distribution of the electrons

The differential equation that describes the electron energy evolution in our model is:

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=(a_\mathrm{s}B_\gamma ^2+a_\mathrm{c}U_{\mathrm{syn}}+a_\mathrm{c}U_{\mathrm{star}})E^2$$
(1)
where as and ac are constants (of values $`2.37\times 10^3`$ and $`3.97\times 10^2`$ respectively, in cgs units), $`U_{\mathrm{star}}`$ is the companion star’s radiation energy density, $`U_{\mathrm{syn}}`$ is the synchrotron radiation energy density, computed using the local approximation (Ghisellini et al. Ghisellini85 (1985)), and $`E`$ is the electron energy. It is worth noting that we work now in the jet’s reference frame. Solving this equation for the given conditions, after some algebra we get the electron Lorentz factor evolution function:

$$\gamma _\mathrm{e}=\frac{\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}}{1+\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}m_\mathrm{e}c^2[C_\mathrm{s}(tt_0)+\frac{C_\mathrm{c}}{v_{\mathrm{jet}}^2t^{}\mathrm{sin}\varpi }(\mathrm{arctan}\frac{tt^{}\mathrm{cos}\varpi }{t^{}\mathrm{sin}\varpi }\mathrm{arctan}\frac{t_0t^{}\mathrm{cos}\varpi }{t^{}\mathrm{sin}\varpi })]}$$
(2)
where $`t`$ is the time and $`t_0`$ is the starting time in slice evolution. Electrons are injected at a distance $`z_0`$ to the compact object, which corresponds to the time $`t_0`$, and their evolution continues along the jet axis (to farther $`z`$). $`v_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is the jet velocity, $`\varpi `$ is the angle between the jet and the orbital plane, and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}`$ is the value for the electron Lorentz factor at $`t_0`$. $`R_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ is the orbital radius of the binary system, and $`t^{}`$ is $`R_{\mathrm{orb}}/v_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. $`C_\mathrm{s}`$ is $`(a_\mathrm{s}B_\gamma ^2+a_\mathrm{c}U_{\mathrm{syn}})`$, and $`C_\mathrm{c}`$ is $`a_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jet}}L_{\mathrm{star}}/4\pi c`$, where $`L_{\mathrm{star}}`$ is the bolometric luminosity of the companion star, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is the Lorentz factor of the jet and $`c`$ is the speed of light. We describe the energy distribution of the (injected) electrons, $`N`$, with a power law in the slice at t0. The initial slice (like the following ones) is assumed to be spatially homogeneous and the particle motion direction follows an isotropic distribution (in the reference frame of the jet). So, at $`t_0`$:

$$N(\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}})=Q\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^p,\text{for}\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{min}}\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}$$
(3)
where $`Q`$ is the normalization constant of the electrons, related to the jet power (Georganopoulos et al. Georganopoulos02 (2002)), and $`p`$ is the power law index of the electron energy distribution function. $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum Lorentz factor of the electrons in the first slice, which will be treated later. $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the minimum electron Lorentz factor in the first slice, whose value is determined according to both the upper limit of the seed photon energy and the lower limit of the outgoing photon energy (see Sect. 3.3). Taking into account the conservation of the number of particles, $`N(\gamma _\mathrm{e},t)d\gamma _\mathrm{e}=N(\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}})d\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}`$, the time evolution of Eq. (3) is found:

$$N(\gamma _\mathrm{e},t)=Q\gamma _\mathrm{e}^p\left[1\gamma _\mathrm{e}m_\mathrm{e}c^2\left(C_\mathrm{s}(tt_0)+\frac{C_\mathrm{c}}{v_{\mathrm{jet}}^2t^{}\mathrm{sin}\varpi }\left(\mathrm{arctan}\frac{tt^{}\mathrm{cos}\varpi }{t^{}\mathrm{sin}\varpi }\mathrm{arctan}\frac{t_0t^{}\mathrm{cos}\varpi }{t^{}\mathrm{sin}\varpi }\right)\right)\right]^{p2}$$
(4)
### 3.2 The radiation fields

Assuming that the stellar photon energy density is isotropic, $`U_{\mathrm{star}}`$ in the reference frame of the jet is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jet}}L_{\mathrm{star}}/4\pi cd^2`$, where $`d`$ is the distance between the companion star and a certain slice of the $`\gamma `$-jet. Assuming that the star emits like a black-body and taking into account its spectral type (see Sect. 4.1), we can obtain the radiation energy density per frequency unit ($`U_{\nu \mathrm{star}}`$). The numerical calculation of $`U_{\mathrm{syn}}`$ is difficult when this seed photon field becomes the dominant one. The problem is to know previously the evolution of the $`U_{\mathrm{syn}}`$ within a slice along the $`\gamma `$-jet. To know $`U_{\mathrm{syn}}`$, $`N(\gamma _\mathrm{e},t)`$ has to be determined, but $`N(\gamma _\mathrm{e},t)`$ depends on the value of $`U_{\mathrm{syn}}`$ in the previous slice, as can be seen in Eq. (4). We solve this in the following way: $`U_{\mathrm{syn}}`$ and the radiation energy density per frequency unit ($`U_{\nu \mathrm{syn}}`$) are found initially starting with Eq. (3), determining their own values for the next step and so on. The synchrotron emission is numerically integrated following the standard formulae from Pacholczyk (Pacholczyk70 (1970)). The two integrals for computing numerically the emission and absorption coefficients are:

$$j_\nu (z)=c_3B_\gamma _{\gamma _\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{min}}(z)}^{\gamma _\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{max}}(z)}N(\gamma _\mathrm{e},z)F(\nu /\nu _\mathrm{c})𝑑\gamma _\mathrm{e}$$
(5)
$$k_\nu (z)=\frac{c_3B_\gamma c^2}{2m_\mathrm{e}c^2\nu ^2}_{\gamma _\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{min}}(z)}^{\gamma _\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{max}}(z)}\frac{d}{d\gamma _\mathrm{e}}\left(\frac{N(\gamma _\mathrm{e},z)}{\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2}\right)\gamma _\mathrm{e}(z)^2F(\nu /\nu _\mathrm{c})𝑑\gamma _\mathrm{e}$$
(6)
where $`c_3`$=$`1.87\times 10^{23}`$ (in cgs units) and $`F(\nu /\nu _\mathrm{c})=x_x^{\mathrm{}}k_{5/3}(z)𝑑z`$, in which $`K_{5/3}(z)`$ is the Bessel function of the second kind. $`\nu `$ and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ are the frequency and the characteristic frequency respectively. After some algebra, $`U_{\nu \mathrm{syn}}`$ is obtained.

### 3.3 IC interaction

The code developed for reproducing the radiation-matter IC interaction operates over files created by the first step. The seed photon energies ($`ϵ_0`$) should be such that the scattered photons had energies inside the chosen energy band following the relationship:

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{4ϵ_0\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2}{1+4ϵ_0\gamma _\mathrm{e}}$$
(7)
In the second step, both the radiation and the matter interact throughout the cross section of the IC process (Blumenthal & Gould Blumenthal&Gould70 (1970)):

$$\sigma (x,ϵ_0,\gamma _\mathrm{e})=\frac{3\sigma _\mathrm{T}}{4ϵ_0\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2}f(x)$$
(8)
where $`\sigma _\mathrm{T}`$ is the Thomson cross section constant and $`f(x)`$ is:

$$f(x)=\left[2x\mathrm{ln}x+x+12x^2+\frac{(4ϵ_0\gamma _\mathrm{e}x)^2}{2(1+4ϵ_0\gamma _\mathrm{e}x)}\right]P(1/4\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2,1,x)$$
(9)
in which $`x`$ is:

$$x=\frac{ϵ}{4ϵ_0\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2(1ϵ/\gamma _\mathrm{e})}$$
(10)
and

$$P(1/4\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2,1,x)=1,\text{for}1/4\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2x1,\text{and}0\text{otherwise}.$$
(11)
$`P(1/4\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2,1,x)`$ restricts the cross section to a physical case, where $`ϵ`$ cannot be lower than $`ϵ_0`$ or higher than $`ϵ_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The resulting IC spectral energy distribution in the observer’s reference frame is:

$$ϵL_ϵ=\delta ^{2+p}ϵ^2\underset{z_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{z_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}V_{\mathrm{slice}}(z)_{ϵ_0^{\mathrm{min}}(z)}^{ϵ_0^{\mathrm{max}}(z)}_{\gamma _\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{min}}(z)}^{\delta \gamma _\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{max}}(z)}U_{\mathrm{total}}(ϵ_0,z)N(\gamma _\mathrm{e},z)\sigma (x,ϵ_0,\gamma _\mathrm{e})𝑑\gamma 𝑑ϵ_0$$
(12)
Here, $`\delta `$ is the jet Doppler factor, viz. $`\delta =\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jet}}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\right]^1`$ and $`\beta =v_{\mathrm{jet}}/c`$. $`V_{\mathrm{slice}}`$ is a slice volume, which varies depending on the accuracy needed by each slice, $`\theta `$ is the angle between the jet and the observer line of sight, and $`U_{\mathrm{total}}(ϵ_0,z)=U_{\mathrm{syn}}(ϵ_0,z)+U_{\mathrm{star}}(ϵ_0,z)`$, which is the total radiation energy density per seed photon energy unit and slice, taking into account both the synchrotron and the star radiation field components. The integral has been calculated numerically taking suitable integration steps from the behavior of the involved functions. We note that this is the optically thin case because, in the $`\gamma `$-jet conditions and at the EGRET energy range, the IC absorption coefficient is negligible. It is worth mentioning that the electron energy evolves following Eq. (2). Therefore, in order to obtain the desired high-energy photons, the frequency range for the seed photons will change with the evolution of the electron energies, since there is a link (the limits of Eq. (10) induced by the function $`P(1/4\gamma _\mathrm{e}^2,1,x)`$) between the incoming photon energy, the outgoing photon energy and the scattering electron energy. The electron Lorentz factor integration limits in Eq. (12) have been adopted following Georganopoulos et al. (Georganopoulos01 (2001)).

## 4 Application of the model

### 4.1 Parameter choice for LS 5039

Although this model can be applied to other cases, we will test its prediction capabilities with LS 5039. The optical counterpart of LS 5039 is a bright (V $``$ 11) star of ON6.5 V((f)) spectral type (McSwain et al. Mcswain04 (2004)), at an estimated distance of 2.9 kpc (Ribó et al. Ribo02 (2002)). The bolometric luminosity of the companion star has been taken to be $`L_{\mathrm{star}}1.2\times 10^{39}`$ erg s-1. A new value of the orbital period, $`P=4.4267\pm 0.0005`$ days, the eccentricity, $`e=0.48\pm 0.06`$, and the semi-major axis of the orbit, $`a=2.6\times 10^{12}`$ cm ($`R_{\mathrm{orb}}=a`$ except where otherwise stated), have been determined recently by McSwain et al. (Mcswain04 (2004)). We adopt these values in our study. At radio wavelengths (1.5–15 GHz), the spectral index was determined to be $`\alpha 0.5`$ (where the flux density is $`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$) by Martí et al. (Marti98 (1998)). From this spectral index, we have deduced the electron power law index ($`p`$) following the known relationship $`p=12\alpha =2`$. From VLBI observations (Paredes et al. Paredes00 (2000), Paredes02 (2002)), the radio constraint $`v_{\mathrm{jet}}\mathrm{cos}\theta 0.15c`$ was found. The observed spectrum over 100 MeV has been obtained from the third EGRET catalogue (Hartman et al. 3rdEGRETC (1999)). The total luminosity in the range 100–1500 MeV is $`2\times 10^{35}`$ erg s-1. The spectral energy index, $`\eta =0.2\pm 0.2`$, corresponds to an observed photon index of $`2.2\pm 0.2`$ (photon energy distribution $`\varphi _ϵϵ^{2.2}`$). All these parameters are summarized in Table 1.

McSwain & Gies (Mcswain02 (2002)) proposed a value of $`\theta =30^{}`$. Having this, and the radio constraint shown above ($`\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta 0.15`$), we obtain a $`v_{\mathrm{jet}}/c=0.2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jet}}=1.02`$). We stress that our model is weakly sensitive to changes on $`v_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ and $`\theta `$ around the quoted values because of the adopted low value of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. Such a low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is not in disagreement with the value found in similar systems (e.g. 1.04 for SS 433, Spencer Spencer79 (1979), Hjellming & Johnston Hjellming&johnston81 (1981)). For LS 5039, we have assumed $`\varpi =90^{}`$. In order to fix the $`\gamma `$-jet radius, we have imposed that $`R_\gamma `$ should be neither wider than the inner disk (a few $`10^7`$ cm) nor thinner than some few electron Larmor radii ($`10^6`$ cm). Thus, $`R_\gamma `$ has been taken to be $`10^7`$ cm. Regarding $`z_0`$, since in this scenario ($`R_{\mathrm{orb}}z_0`$) its size does not affect the results, it is taken to be zero. To determine the power of the jet, we need to fix also the accretion luminosity of the disk (Falcke & Biermann Falcke&Biermann96 (1996)). A typical value for a microquasar with an O-type stellar companion can be $`L_{\mathrm{ac}}10^8M_{}c^2`$ yr-1. All these parameters are summarized in Table 2.

To determine $`L_{\mathrm{ke}}`$, we will use the jet-disk coupling hypothesis for Galactic jet sources of Falcke & Biermann (Falcke&Biermann96 (1996)): $`L_\mathrm{k}0.1`$$`0.001L_{\mathrm{ac}}`$, where $`L_\mathrm{k}`$ is the total kinetic luminosity of the jet. Since not all the jet power is carried just by the electron population, the former scaling relationship turns to $`L_{\mathrm{ke}}L_{\mathrm{ac}}`$, where the prior scaling factor limits are now upper limits. In fact, $`L_{\mathrm{ke}}`$ will be fixed through comparison between the observed fluxes and the model. From the EGRET energy range, and the involved photon and electron energy relationships shown above, the initial maximum Lorentz factor of the electrons should be about $`10^4`$. A more accurate value will be found when we try to reproduce the observed spectrum slope. Regarding $`B_\gamma `$, we will study our model behavior along a wide range of magnetic values, from $`B_\gamma `$ close to estimated radio jet upper values to 100 G.

### 4.2 Results

First, we explore the range of validity of the free parameters of the model taking into account observational constraints. Once this is done, we can reproduce the observational data with our model. Finally, additional comments on the model are made.

#### 4.2.1 Exploring $`B_\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$

To determine the behavior of the model with magnetic field strength, we have run our model for different values of the magnetic field strength and a fixed value of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}=5\times 10^4`$. We show at the top of Fig. 1 the computed IC spectral energy distribution ($`ϵL_ϵ`$) for three representative cases (1, 10 and 100 G). The spectral slopes in the energy range 100–1000 MeV, where EGRET detected the source, are similar. Since our model generates similar spectra for a wide range of magnetic field values, we have to focus our attention on the distances reached by the $`\gamma `$-jet, which is strongly dependent on $`B_\gamma `$. Then, high magnetic fields (tens of G or higher) would imply a $`\gamma `$-jet evolving very fast, whereas low magnetic fields (few G or lower) would imply a $`\gamma `$-jet evolving smoothly (see Sect. 4.2.3, Figs. 3 and 4). Moreover, regarding values well below 1 G, we notice that upper limits of 0.2 G have been estimated from radio observations (Paredes et al. Paredes02 (2002)) for the magnetic field in the radio jet. Therefore, $`B_\gamma `$ of about several tenths of G could be taken as a lower limit.

In order to explore the dependence of the IC spectral energy distribution on $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$, three $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ ($`10^4`$, $`5\times 10^4`$ and $`10^5`$) have been used, fixing $`B_\gamma =10`$ G. The results are shown at the bottom of Fig. 1. For $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}=10^4`$, the computed $`\eta `$, about 0.7, is 2.5 $`\sigma `$ softer than that given by EGRET observations. Therefore, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}>10^4`$ is needed. An upper limit cannot be clearly fixed yet, since we do not know properly the spectral energy cutoff.

#### 4.2.2 Reproducing the EGRET data

The computed IC spectral energy distributions for two different values of the magnetic field are shown in Fig. 2. We also show the EGRET data points of 3EG J1824$``$1514 (Hartman et al. 3rdEGRETC (1999)). The kinetic luminosity has been adopted such that the level of the observed flux at 100 MeV can be reproduced. The parameter values used in both cases are summarized in Table 3. Since we are dealing with an eccentric system, the star’s radiation density in the jet is affected by the orbital distance variation. We have explored the importance of this effect by computing the IC spectral energy distribution at periastron and apastron passage as well as for $`R_{\mathrm{orb}}=a`$. In the case $`B_\gamma =10`$ G, since SSC is strongly dominant, the effect of the orbital eccentricity on the computed IC luminosity is not significant. However, for a $`B_\gamma =1`$ G, the EC scattering is dominant and the orbital distance variation between apastron and periastron passages produces a change of about 50 per cent in the computed IC luminosity. At the top of Fig. 2, we have plotted our results obtained at three orbital distances: $`1.35\times 10^{12}`$ cm for periastron, $`2.6\times 10^{12}`$ cm for the semi-major axis of the orbit and $`3.85\times 10^{12}`$ cm for apastron. Since the viewing periods of EGRET are longer than the orbital period of the system, we are not able to relate the variability predictions of our model to the variability detected by EGRET. As can be seen in Fig. 2, our model reproduces properly the EGRET data below about 1 GeV. Beyond this energy, the computed spectrum becomes significantly softer, but it is not in disagreement with the upper limits given by EGRET at this energy range.

#### 4.2.3 Further comments

Additional comments have to be made about the magnetic field in the $`\gamma `$-jet. We have plotted the temporal evolution of the synchrotron and companion star radiation energy densities for both a $`B_\gamma `$ of 1 G and a $`B_\gamma `$ of 10 G within a given slice moving along the jet (Figs. 3 and 4). It shows that a variation of one order of magnitude in $`B_\gamma `$ implies a variation of more than two orders of magnitude in the synchrotron radiation energy density. Therefore, in the context of our model, magnetic fields between 1 and 10 G or higher could be tightly related to the high-energy $`\gamma `$-ray emission in LS 5039, as the SSC loss process is important and even dominant. Finally, we have explored the infrared synchrotron emission from the $`\gamma `$-jet. Taking a $`B_\gamma =10`$ G, we have obtained a total luminosity in the range 1012–1014 Hz of about $`10^{32}`$ erg s-1 for LS 5039. If we compare this value to the luminosity of the companion star in this frequency band, we find that the infrared jet luminosity is five orders of magnitude lower.

## 5 Discussion

As we have shown, our model is able to reproduce the high-energy $`\gamma `$-ray emission of the EGRET source 3EG J1824$``$1514 by assuming its origin in the microquasar LS 5039. Since there are no special constraints associated with a particular source in our model, it could be applied to other unidentified EGRET sources that might be also associated with microquasars. A maximum electron Lorentz factor higher than $`10^4`$ is a good parameter range to obtain the observed spectral slope. An upper limit on $`\gamma _{\mathrm{e0}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ has not been determined yet due to the lack of knowledge about the high-energy cutoff. Further observations by the next, more sensitive, hard $`\gamma `$-ray instruments (AGILE222http://agile.mi.iasf.cnr.it, GLAST333http://glast.gsfc.nasa.gov) are needed to determine this cutoff. To reproduce the observed luminosities, $`L_{\mathrm{ke}}10^{36}`$ erg/s is needed for a magnetic field of 1 G, and $`L_{\mathrm{ke}}3\times 10^{36}`$ erg/s is needed for a magnetic field of 10 G. Both values for $`L_{\mathrm{ke}}`$ are well within the range of allowed values established in the parameter discussion.

For LS 5039, regarding the intensity of the magnetic field, the SSC effect would be dominant for values of about 10 G or higher, and at least non-negligible for values of about 1 G. In the second case, due to the importance of the star’s seed photons, variations in the orbital distance have a significant effect on the IC flux on the scale of the orbital period of the system. In the case of high $`B_\gamma `$ (above 10 G), due to the strong energy losses, the electrons might need to be reaccelerated after leaving the $`\gamma `$-jet to reach the observed radio jet. However, for $`B_\gamma =1`$$`10`$ G, reacceleration might not be necessary in regions closer to the compact object than the radio jet.

Our approach is an attempt to join radiation and matter in a complete physical way. The introduction of losses is a necessary step to obtain realistic results, and a way to determine at the end the importance that these losses can have. The importance of the synchrotron process gives strong relevance to the magnetic field. Such a question is relevant studying the seed photon origin in the IC interaction and the timescales of the energy processes involved, and it is also related to variability. Additional elements in our scenario such as the corona, disk, environment interaction, reacceleration processes, pair creation-annihilation phenomena and accretion variability will be considered in future studies. Also, emission at other wavelengths will require a proper scenario, different from the one presented here.

Although future observations have to be done to confirm the nature of LS 5039 as a $`\gamma `$-ray emitter, our numerical model is able to produce significant $`\gamma `$-ray emission levels. AGILE, an italian hard $`\gamma `$-ray satellite expected to be in orbit in 2005, with an angular resolution two times better than EGRET, will make it possible to improve the accuracy of the hard $`\gamma `$-ray source position. Also, its sensitivity, almost three times better than that of EGRET, could define more clearly the spectral shape and its cutoff. The next generation of hard $`\gamma `$-ray satellites represented by GLAST, which will be put in orbit around 2008, will improve even more the study of the variability and spectral features at this energy range, in order to better understand the physics underlying the very high energy processes.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Gustavo Romero, Marc Ribó, and Joan García-Sánchez for their useful comments and suggestions.V.B-R. and J.M.P. acknowledge partial support by DGI of the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Spain) under grant AYA-2001-3092, as well as additional support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER). During this work, V.B-R has been supported by the DGI of the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Spain) under the fellowship FP-2001-2699.