text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) is an effective field theory approximating QCD for problems with a single heavy quark having mass $`m`$, when characteristic momenta of light fields are much lower than $`m`$, and there exists a 4-velocity $`v`$ such that characteristic residual momenta $`k=pmv`$ of the heavy quark are also small. It has substantially improved our understanding of heavy quark physics during the last decade . Methods of perturbative calculations in HQET are reviewed in .

In this paper, we calculate the quark-gluon vertex in the leading-order HQET ($`1/m^0`$) at one loop, for arbitrary external momenta, in an arbitrary covariant gauge, in space-time dimension $`d=42\epsilon `$. This allows us to take all on-shell limits (introducing additional $`1/\epsilon `$ divergences) directly. The general $`d`$-dimensional results can also be used for expansion around a dimension other than 4; for example, 2-dimensional HQET was considered in the literature in some detail.

A one-loop calculation of the QCD quark-gluon vertex with a finite quark mass $`m`$ has been recently completed  (where references to earlier partial results can be found). We check how the HQET result can be obtained by taking the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ in the QCD result.

Let the sum of bare one-particle-irreducible vertex diagrams in HQET (Fig. 1) be $`\mathrm{i}g_0t^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (k,q)`$. The “full” momenta of the incoming quark and the outgoing one are

$$p=mv+k,p^{}=mv+k^{},$$
(1)
where $`v`$ is the heavy-quark 4-velocity ($`v^2=1`$), and $`k`$, $`k^{}`$ are the residual momenta. The momentum transfer is $`q=p^{}p=k^{}k`$. In the HQET limit, $`m\mathrm{}`$, $`kk^{}q𝒪(1)`$. The heavy quark propagator in HQET is

$$S(k)=\frac{\text{/}v+1}{2}\frac{1}{kv+\mathrm{i0}},$$
(2)
and the elementary quark-gluon vertex is $`\mathrm{i}g_0t^av^\mu `$.

In the leading-order HQET, heavy-quark propagators and vertices do not depend on the component of the heavy-quark momenta orthogonal to $`v`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (k,q)`$ does not depend on $`k_{}=k(kv)v`$. The only vectors in the problem are $`v`$ and $`q`$, and (see )

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (k,q)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_v(\omega ,\omega ^{},q^2)v^\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(\omega ,\omega ^{},q^2)q^\mu ,$$
(3)
where

$$\omega kv,\omega ^{}k^{}v$$
(4)
are the residual energies, and $`qv=\omega ^{}\omega `$. The functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ can be reconstructed from the contractions

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_v=\frac{(\omega ^{}\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu q_\mu q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu v_\mu }{Q^2},\mathrm{\Gamma }_q=\frac{(\omega ^{}\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu v_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu q_\mu }{Q^2},$$
(5)
where

$$Q^2(\omega ^{}\omega )^2q^2$$
(6)
is the 3-momentum transfer squared in the $`v`$ rest frame.

At the tree level, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =v^\mu `$. One-loop corrections are shown in Fig. 2. The contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^\mu `$ of the diagram Fig. 2a is proportional to $`v^\mu `$; that of Fig. 2b has both structures.

The contraction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (k,q)q_\mu `$ can be simplified using the identities shown in Fig. 3. Here a gluon line with a black triangle at the end denotes a “longitudinal gluon insertion”; when attached to a vertex, it means just the contraction with the incoming gluon momentum (note that it contains no gluon propagator!). A dot near a propagator means that its momentum is shifted by $`q`$. The colour structures are singled out as prefactors in front of the propagator differences. The circular arrow in Fig. 3b shows the order of indices in the colour structure of the three-gluon vertex $`\mathrm{i}f^{abc}`$. Two last terms in Fig. 3b contain longitudinal gluon insertions again; for them, the identities of Fig. 3 can be recursively used.

Application of these identities to the diagrams of Fig. 2 is shown in Fig. 4. Here the non-standard vertices of Fig. 5 are $`\mathrm{i}g_0t^a`$ and $`g_0^2f^{abc}t^cv^\mu `$. This is, of course, just the one-loop case of the general Ward–Slavnov–Taylor identity for the quark-gluon vertex, which is discussed in  in detail. The one-loop contributions to this identity are collected in Eqs. (2.28) and (2.29) of . They can be easily associated with the diagrams shown in Fig. 4. The only term which requires some explanation is the diagram involving one-loop ghost self-energy contribution (the first diagram in the second line of Fig. 4b). Its connection with the last contribution on the r.h.s. of Eq. (2.29) of  is shown in Fig. 6. This relation can be easily verified by direct calculation. Using Fig. 6, we can avoid introducing the non-standard vertex shown in Fig. 5b.

For the contributions of the diagrams of Fig. 2a,b, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^\mu (k,q)q_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2C_F}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ^{})\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu (k,q)q_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2C_F}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ^{})\right)+(\text{ghost terms}).`$ (7)
Here $`\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ is given by the one-loop self-energy diagram of Fig. 7:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}\left(2+(d3)\xi \right)(\omega ),`$ (8)
$`(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\pi ^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dl}{(lv+\omega +\mathrm{i0})(l^2+\mathrm{i0})}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`2(2\omega )^{d3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/21)`$
(see ). In what follows, we shall not explicitly write $`+\mathrm{i0}`$ in denominators. Here $`\xi =1a_0`$, $`a_0`$ is the bare gauge-fixing parameter. We can see that the Yennie gauge  (see also in ) is of special interest, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ is finite at $`\xi =2`$. Moreover, if the generalization of Yennie gauge to an arbitrary dimension is chosen as $`\xi =2/(d3)`$ , then in the Abelian case (and, in particular, at one loop), the heavy-quark self energy vanishes  (see  for a tutorial). The two-loop HQET self energy was obtained in ; the three-loop one can be calculated using the methods of . These calculations are based on integration by parts .

Using the identity (7), we can obtain the result for the diagram of Fig. 2a without calculations:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^\mu (k,q)=\left(1\frac{C_A}{2C_F}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )}{\omega ^{}\omega }v^\mu .$$
(10)
This result is also confirmed by direct calculation. Feynman integrals of the type of Fig. 2a,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^dl}{(lv+\omega )^{\nu _1}(lv+\omega ^{})^{\nu _2}(l^2)^{\nu _3}},$$
(11)
can always be calculated, for integer $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$, by applying

$$\frac{1}{(lv+\omega )(lv+\omega ^{})}=\frac{1}{\omega ^{}\omega }\left[\frac{1}{lv+\omega }\frac{1}{lv+\omega ^{}}\right]$$

required number of times. We note that in  integrals of the type (11) with different velocities $`v`$ have been examined.

Calculation of Fig. 2b requires more complicated Feynman integrals. A method of their calculation is presented in Sect. 2. Results for the HQET vertex, as well as various limiting cases, are discussed in Sect. 3. Sect. 4 contains a brief summary of the results obtained. In Appendix A, we present general results for the Feynman integrals of the type of Fig. 2b, for arbitrary $`d`$ and powers of the denominators. In Appendix B some issues related to the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit of scalar integrals occurring in QCD are examined. In Appendix C, we discuss the relation between the QCD vertex at $`k,qm`$ and the HQET vertex. In Appendix D, we present the HQET vertex for the heavy-quark scattering in an external gluon field in the background-field formalism.

## 2 Triangle integrals

### 2.1 Recurrence relations

We consider the class of Feynman integrals (Fig. 8)

$$V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\pi ^{d/2}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^dl}{(lv+\omega )^{\nu _0}(l^2)^{\nu _1}((lq)^2)^{\nu _2}}.$$
(12)
The cases $`\nu _0=0`$, $`\nu _2=0`$, $`\nu _1=0`$ are trivial, the results are proportional to

$`V(0,1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒢(q^2)=(q^2)^{d/22}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2d/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(d/21)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d2)}},`$
$`V(1,1,0)`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega ),V(1,0,1)=(\omega ^{}).`$ (13)
When all the indices are non-zero, we use integration by parts , similarly to . Applying the operators $`(/l)v`$, $`(/l)l`$, and $`(/l)(lq)`$ to the integrand of (12), we obtain the recurrence relations

$`\left[\nu _0\mathrm{𝟎}^++2\nu _1\mathrm{𝟏}^+(\mathrm{𝟎}^{}\omega )+2\nu _2\mathrm{𝟐}^+(\mathrm{𝟎}^{}\omega ^{})\right]V`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
$`\left[d\nu _0\nu _22\nu _1+\omega \nu _0\mathrm{𝟎}^++\nu _2\mathrm{𝟐}^+(q^2\mathrm{𝟏}^{})\right]V`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (15)
$`\left[d\nu _0\nu _12\nu _2+\omega ^{}\nu _0\mathrm{𝟎}^++\nu _1\mathrm{𝟏}^+(q^2\mathrm{𝟐}^{})\right]V`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{𝟎}^\pm V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)=V(\nu _0\pm 1,\nu _1,\nu _2)`$, etc. When constructing the recurrence procedure we assume that all indices $`\nu _i`$ are integer.

If $`\nu _1<0`$ and $`\nu _21`$, we can raise $`\nu _1`$ by (15); if $`\nu _1<0`$ and $`\nu _2=1`$, $`\nu _01`$, we can raise $`\nu _1`$ or $`\nu _2`$ by (14); if $`\nu _1<0`$ and $`\nu _2=\nu _0=1`$, we can raise $`\nu _1`$ or $`\nu _0`$ by (16). The case $`\nu _2<0`$ is symmetric. If $`\nu _1>1`$, we can lower it or $`\nu _2`$ by (16); the case $`\nu _2>1`$ is symmetric. We are left with $`V(\nu _0,1,1)`$.

Let us take $`q^2/2`$ times (14), add $`\omega `$ times (16) and $`\omega ^{}`$ times (15), and subtract the $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{}`$ shifted sum of (15) and (16). We obtain at $`\nu _1=\nu _2=1`$

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}\nu _0\mathrm{𝟎}^++(d2\nu _02)(\omega +\omega ^{})2(d\nu _02)\mathrm{𝟎}^{}\right]V(\nu _0,1,1)`$
$`=\left[\mathrm{𝟏}^+\mathrm{𝟐}^{}(\omega \mathrm{𝟎}^{})+\mathrm{𝟐}^+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}(\omega ^{}\mathrm{𝟎}^{})\right]V(\nu _0,1,1),`$ (17)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }q^2+4\omega \omega ^{}=(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2Q^2.$$
(18)
The integrals on the right-hand side of (17) are trivial. This relation allows us to raise or lower $`\nu _0`$.

Therefore, all integrals (12) can be expressed, exactly at any $`d`$, as linear combinations of three trivial integrals (13) and a non-trivial one, $`V(1,1,1)𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)`$. An implementation of this algorithm in REDUCE can be obtained at
http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/Publications/progdata/mzth0101/ .

### 2.2 Master integral

The master integral

$$𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\pi ^{d/2}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^dl}{(lv+\omega )l^2(lq)^2}$$
(19)
is convergent at $`d=4`$, except for the case $`q^2=0`$ when it has a collinear divergence (infrared if $`q=0`$). We shall consider the region $`\omega <0`$, $`\omega ^{}<0`$, $`q^2<0`$, where no real intermediate states exist.

Using the HQET version of Feynman parametrization (see, e.g., )

$$\frac{1}{a^\alpha b^\beta }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{y^{\beta 1}\mathrm{d}y}{(a+by)^{\alpha +\beta }}$$
(20)
twice, we have

$`𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{i}}{\pi ^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dl\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}y^{}}{\left[yl^2y^{}(lq)^22lv2\omega \right]^3}}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon ){\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}y^{}}{(y+y^{})^{12\epsilon }\left[12(\omega y+\omega ^{}y^{})q^2yy^{}\right]^{1+\epsilon }}},`$
where $`y`$ and $`y^{}`$ have the dimensionality of inverse energy.

For $`\epsilon =0`$ ($`d=4`$), calculating the integral in $`y^{}`$ and substituting $`y=1/z`$, we obtain

$$𝒱=2\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}\frac{q^22\omega ^{}z}{z(z2\omega )}\mathrm{d}z}{(z+Q\omega +\omega ^{})(zQ\omega +\omega ^{})},$$
(22)
where $`z`$ has the dimensionality of energy. Separating the logarithm as

$$\mathrm{log}\frac{q^22\omega ^{}z}{z(z2\omega )}=\mathrm{log}\frac{z2\omega ^{}}{Q\omega \omega ^{}}+\mathrm{log}\frac{q^22\omega ^{}z}{z(Q\omega \omega ^{})}$$

and making the substitution $`z=(q^2)/z^{}`$ in the second integral, we obtain the representation

$`𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\frac{z2\omega }{Q\omega \omega ^{}}\mathrm{d}z}{(z+Q\omega +\omega ^{})(zQ\omega +\omega ^{})}}`$ (23)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\frac{z2\omega ^{}}{Q\omega \omega ^{}}\mathrm{d}z}{(z+Q+\omega \omega ^{})(zQ+\omega \omega ^{})}},`$
which is explicitly symmetric under $`\omega \omega ^{}`$. The poles of the denominators at $`z=Q\pm (\omega \omega ^{})`$ are compensated by the corresponding zeros of the numerators.

Finally, we obtain

$`Q𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)`$ $`=`$ $`Li_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q+\omega +\omega ^{}}{2\omega }}\right)+Li_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q+\omega +\omega ^{}}{2\omega ^{}}}\right)`$ (24)
$`+Li_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q+\omega \omega ^{}}{2\omega }}\right)+Li_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega +\omega ^{}}{2\omega ^{}}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega \omega ^{}}{2\omega }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega +\omega ^{}}{2\omega }}`$
$`+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{Q\omega \omega ^{}}{2\omega ^{}}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{Q+\omega \omega ^{}}{2\omega ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}.`$
This expression has cuts at $`\omega >0`$, $`\omega ^{}>0`$, and $`Q<|\omega ^{}\omega |`$, where real intermediate states exist.

## 3 HQET quark-gluon vertex

### 3.1 General results

Here we present the one-loop HQET vertex, for arbitrary $`d`$ and $`\xi `$. The contribution of the diagram of Fig. 2a was given in (10). For Fig. 2b, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu q_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2C_F}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ^{})\right)C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}\omega }{4\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$
$`\times \{2(\omega ^{}+\omega )[q^2+\omega \omega ^{}(4+(d4)\xi )]𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)`$
$`\left[q^2(4\xi )+4\omega \omega ^{}(4+(d4)\xi )\right]𝒢(q^2)`$
$`+(d3)\xi (\omega ^{}(\omega )+\omega (\omega ^{}))\},`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu v_\mu =C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{8q^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\{2(d4)(\omega ^{}+\omega )`$
$`\times [(d6)\xi Q^2q^2\omega \omega ^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }Q^2(2q^2+(4+(d4)\xi )\omega \omega ^{})`$
$`+(2+(d3)\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }q^2\omega \omega ^{}]𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)`$
$`+[4(d3)(d6)\xi q^2\omega \omega ^{}(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2`$
$`2\mathrm{\Omega }q^2\left(q^24\omega \omega ^{}(d4+(d3)\xi )\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }Q^2((d4)(4+(d4)\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`+(d3)(4(d4)\xi )q^2)]𝒢(q^2)`$
$`(d3)(d6)\xi q^2(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2\left(\omega (\omega ^{})+\omega ^{}(\omega )\right)`$
$`(d3)\mathrm{\Omega }[2q^2(\omega ^{}\omega )((\omega ^{})(\omega ))`$
$`+(4+(d4)\xi )(\omega ^2\omega ^2)\left(\omega (\omega ^{})\omega ^{}(\omega )\right)`$
$`+2(3+\xi )q^2(\omega (\omega ^{})+\omega ^{}(\omega ))]\},`$ (26)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined in (18). We have also derived the first contraction using (7) (Fig. 4). The second contraction vanishes in the Feynman gauge, because the three-gluon vertex yields 0 when contracted with $`v`$ in all 3 indices. We also note that there are some cancellations in the generalized Yennie gauge, $`\xi =2/(d3)`$, as well as in the “singular” gauge $`\xi =4/(d4)`$ (which was discussed in  in connection with the three-gluon vertex).

When the bare vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ is expressed via the renormalized quantities

$$\frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}=\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{4\pi }\mu ^{2\epsilon }e^{\gamma \epsilon }\left[1+𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})\right],a_0=a\left[1+𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})\right],$$

it should become $`Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{r}^\mu `$, where $`Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }=1+Z_1\alpha _\mathrm{s}/(4\pi \epsilon )+\mathrm{}`$ is a minimal renormalization constant, and the renormalized vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{r}^\mu `$ is finite in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. Retaining only the pole parts $`(\omega )2\omega /\epsilon `$, $`𝒢(q^2)1/\epsilon `$, $`𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)0`$, we obtain, either from (25) or from (26),

$$Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }=1+\left[(a3)C_F+\frac{a+3}{4}C_A\right]\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{4\pi \epsilon }$$
(27)
When $`g_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =g\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{r}^\mu Z_\alpha ^{1/2}Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is multiplied by the external leg renormalization factors $`Z_QZ_A^{1/2}`$, it should give a finite matrix element. Using

$`Z_A`$ $`=`$ $`1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a{\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}T_Fn_l\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{4\pi \epsilon }},`$
$`Z_Q`$ $`=`$ $`1(a3)C_F{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{4\pi \epsilon }}`$
($`Z_Q`$ follows from (8), $`n_l`$ is the number of light flavours), we arrive at

$$Z_\alpha =Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2Z_Q^2Z_A^1=1\beta _0\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{4\pi \epsilon },\beta _0=\frac{11}{3}C_A\frac{4}{3}T_Fn_l.$$
(28)
This means that the heavy-quark coupling with the gluon field in HQET is renormalized in the same way as the other QCD couplings. Of course, this must be the case, because otherwise renormalization would destroy gauge invariance of HQET.

### 3.2 $`q`$ parallel or orthogonal to $`v`$

In the parallel case $`q=(\omega ^{}\omega )v`$, $`Q=0`$. The denominators of (19) are linearly dependent. Inserting

$$1=\frac{(lq)^2l^2+2(\omega ^{}\omega )(lv+\omega )}{\omega ^2\omega ^2}$$

into the integrand, we obtain

$$𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},0)=\frac{1}{\omega ^{}+\omega }\left[2𝒢\left((\omega ^{}\omega )^2\right)\frac{(\omega ^{})(\omega )}{\omega ^{}\omega }\right],$$
(29)
exactly at any $`d`$.

The vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ is, of course, proportional to $`v^\mu `$. Therefore, we obtain, either from (25) or from (26),

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v=1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2C_F}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )}{\omega ^{}\omega }}`$
$`C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{4(\omega ^{}+\omega )}}[(d3){\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}(\omega ^{})\omega (\omega )}{\omega ^{}\omega }}`$
$`+2\omega \omega ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega ^{})(\omega )}{\omega ^2\omega ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega ^{}\omega )^2}{\omega ^{}+\omega }}𝒢((\omega ^{}\omega )^2)].`$ (30)
It has an imaginary part, which is contained in $`𝒢((\omega ^{}\omega )^2)`$.

The case when $`q`$ is orthogonal to $`v`$ ($`\omega ^{}=\omega `$, $`q^2=Q^2`$) does not lead to great simplifications. The contribution (10) of Fig. 2a now contains $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )/\mathrm{d}\omega =(d3)\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )/\omega `$. The contraction (25) is zero, and hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu `$ is parallel to $`v^\mu `$, too. The contribution of Fig. 2b to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v`$ is obtained from (26) by putting $`\omega ^{}=\omega `$.

### 3.3 $`q`$ on the light cone

When $`q^2=0`$, the reduction algorithm of Sect. 2.1 breaks down. All $`V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)`$ with $`\nu _00`$ vanish. We can use (14) to lower $`\nu _0`$ down to 1. Let us suppose that $`\nu _2>0`$; otherwise, we can interchange $`\nu _1\nu _2`$, $`\omega \omega ^{}`$. The relation

$$\left[(d\nu _0\nu _1\nu _2)(\omega ^{}\omega )\nu _1\omega ^{}+\nu _2\omega +\omega \nu _1\mathrm{𝟏}^+\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\omega ^{}\nu _2\mathrm{𝟐}^+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\right]V=0,$$
(31)
which is $`\omega ^{}`$ times (15) minus $`\omega `$ times (16), allows us to lower $`\nu _2`$ down to 1. We are left with $`V(1,\nu _1,1)`$. Taking (16), subtracting $`\omega ^{}`$ times (14) and adding $`2\omega ^{}`$ times $`\mathrm{𝟏}^+`$ shifted (31), we obtain at $`\nu _0=\nu _2=1`$

$`\left[d\nu _13+2\omega ^{}(\omega ^{}\omega )(d2\nu _14)\mathrm{𝟏}^+\right]V(1,\nu _1,1)`$
$`=\left[\nu _12\omega \omega ^{}(\nu _1+1)\mathrm{𝟏}^+\right]\mathrm{𝟏}^+\mathrm{𝟐}^{}V(1,\nu _1,1),`$ (32)
where the integrals on the right-hand side are trivial. Using this relation, we can lower or raise $`\nu _1`$ to 0. Therefore, all the integrals $`V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)`$ at $`q^2=0`$ can be reduced to $`(\omega )`$ and $`(\omega ^{})`$. For example, for $`V(1,1,1)`$ we have

$$𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},|\omega ^{}\omega |)=\frac{(d3)\left(\omega ^{}(\omega )\omega (\omega ^{})\right)}{2(d4)\omega \omega ^{}(\omega ^{}\omega )},$$
(33)
at arbitrary $`d`$.

Repeating, with the new algorithm, the calculation of the diagram in Fig. 2b at $`q^2=0`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu q_\mu =C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8(d4)\omega \omega ^{}}}`$
$`\times [2(d5+(d3)(d4)\xi )\omega \omega ^{}((\omega )(\omega ^{}))`$
$`(d3)(2+(d4)\xi )(\omega ^2(\omega )\omega ^2(\omega ^{}))],`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu v_\mu =C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(d3)\xi }{16(d6)\omega ^2\omega ^2(\omega ^{}\omega )}}`$
$`\times [2(d6)\omega ^2\omega ^2((\omega )(\omega ^{}))`$
$`+\left(2(d7)\xi \right)\omega \omega ^{}\left(\omega ^2(\omega )\omega ^2(\omega ^{})\right)`$
$`+(2+(d5)\xi )(\omega ^4(\omega )\omega ^4(\omega ^{}))].`$ (35)
These results can be also obtained from (25), (26), if we expand the numerator of (26) up to the $`q^2`$ term.

The case $`q=0`$ belongs to all the categories considered above. We obtain, from each of the above results, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q=0`$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v=1{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}(d3){\displaystyle \frac{(\omega )}{8\omega }}\left[4\left(2+(d3)\xi \right)C_F\left(4+(d5)\xi \right)C_A\right],`$ (36)
$`𝒱(\omega ,\omega ,0)={\displaystyle \frac{(d3)(\omega )}{2\omega ^2}},`$
exactly at any $`d`$.

### 3.4 $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$

Another interesting case is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ ($`q^2=4\omega \omega ^{}`$). After reducing $`V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)`$ to $`V(\nu _0,1,1)`$ and trivial integrals (Sect. 2.1), we can use (17) to reduce $`\nu _0`$ to 0. In particular,

$$𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},\omega ^{}+\omega )=\frac{d3}{2(d4)(\omega ^{}+\omega )}\left[4𝒢(4\omega \omega ^{})\frac{(\omega )}{\omega }\frac{(\omega ^{})}{\omega ^{}}\right],$$
(37)
for any $`d`$. Repeating the calculation of the vertex, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu q_\mu =C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16(d4)(d6)\omega \omega ^{}(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2}}`$
$`\times \{4[(d6)(4+(d4)\xi )(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2`$
$`+4(d3)(d4)\xi \omega \omega ^{}]\omega \omega ^{}(\omega ^{}\omega )𝒢(4\omega \omega ^{})`$
$`+[(4(d6)+(d3)(3d16)\xi )(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2`$
$`4(d3)(d4)\xi \omega \omega ^{}]`$
$`\times (d4)(\omega ^{}+\omega )\left(\omega ^{}(\omega )\omega (\omega ^{})\right)`$
$`+[(4(d6)(d3)(d4)(d8)\xi )(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2`$
$`4(d3)(d4)\xi \omega \omega ^{}]`$
$`\times (\omega ^{}\omega )(\omega ^{}(\omega )+\omega (\omega ^{}))\},`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu v_\mu =C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{32(d6)(d8)\omega ^2\omega ^2(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2}}`$
$`\times \{[(d6)(d8)(4+(d4)\xi )(\omega ^{}+\omega )^4`$
$`+4(d8)\left(2d(d3)(d4)\xi \right)\omega \omega ^{}(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2`$
$`+32(d3)(d83\xi )\omega ^2\omega ^2]\omega \omega ^{}𝒢(4\omega \omega ^{})`$
$`[(2(d7)(d8)(d4)(d5)\xi )(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2`$
$`4(d5)(d83\xi )\omega \omega ^{}]`$
$`\times (d3)(\omega ^{}+\omega )\left(\omega ^2(\omega )+\omega ^2(\omega ^{})\right)`$
$`+[(d5)(2(d8)+(d4)\xi )(\omega ^{}+\omega )^2`$
$`+4(d83\xi )\omega \omega ^{}]`$
$`\times (d3)(\omega ^{}\omega )(\omega ^2(\omega )\omega ^2(\omega ^{}))\}.`$ (39)
### 3.5 Quark(s) on the mass shell

If one of the quarks is on its mass shell, say $`\omega ^{}=0`$, then

$$Q𝒱(\omega ,0,Q)=2Li_2\left(\frac{Q+\omega }{2\omega }\right)+\mathrm{log}^2\frac{Q\omega }{2\omega }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}^2\frac{Q\omega }{Q+\omega }\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}$$
(40)
at $`d=4`$. The contractions of the vertex are obtained from (25), (26) by setting $`(\omega ^{})=0`$ and then $`\omega ^{}=0`$.

When both quarks are on shell ($`\omega =\omega ^{}=0`$),

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu q_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu v_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{8}}\left[2(4d13)+(d4)\xi \right]𝒢(q^2).`$ (41)
In this case, $`𝒱(0,0,Q)`$ does not appear.

It is easy to consider the cases when $`q`$ is parallel to $`v`$ and $`\omega ^{}=0`$, and when $`q^2=0`$, $`\omega ^{}=0`$.

## 4 Conclusion

We have obtained general expressions (10), (25) and (26) for the one-loop HQET quark-gluon vertex. Using recurrence relations (14)–(17), we expressed the results in terms of one non-trivial integral $`𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)`$ (19) and some trivial integrals (13). For the integral (19) in four dimensions, we have obtained an analytic result (24) in terms of dilogarithms. In Sections 3.23.4 we have also studied some special limits of interest.

In Appendix A we have provided some results for the integrals (12) with arbitrary indices and in arbitrary dimension. We have also discussed, in Appendix B, how the HQET limit can be obtained directly from the standard integrals occurring in the QCD calculation. Using this prescription, in Appendix C we have examined the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit of the general QCD result  for the one-loop quark-gluon function, and we have found that it is in agreement with our calculation. We have also presented the result for the background field vertex (Appendix D).

*Acknowledgements.* We are grateful to V. A. Smirnov for useful comments on the manuscript, and to T. Mannel and P. Osland for useful discussions. A. G.’s work was supported in part by the RFBR grant 00-02-17646. A. D.’s research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Partial support from RFBR grant 01-02-16171 is also acknowledged.

## Appendix A One-loop HQET integrals

Result for the two-point HQET integral is well known ,

$`I(\nu _0,\nu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\pi ^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^dl}{(lv+\omega )^{\nu _0}(l^2)^\nu }}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`(1)^{\nu _0+\nu }2^{\nu _0}(2\omega )^{d\nu _02\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0+2\nu d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}}.`$
For the triangle integral (12), using Feynman parameters, we arrive at the following double integral representation:

$`V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2}2^{\nu _0}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2d/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _2)}}`$ (43)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}y\mathrm{d}y^{}y^{\nu _11}y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu _21}(y+y^{})^{\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2d}}{\left[12\omega y2\omega ^{}y^{}q^2yy^{}\right]^{\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2d/2}}}.`$
The symmetry $`(\omega ,\nu _1)(\omega ^{},\nu _2)`$ is explicit.

In the special case $`\omega =\omega ^{}=0`$, the integral (43) can be evaluated in terms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ functions,

$`V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)|_{\omega =\omega ^{}=0}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2}2^{\nu _01}(q^2)^{d/2\nu _0/2\nu _1\nu _2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _0/2d/2)`$ (44)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2\nu _0/2\nu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2\nu _0/2\nu _2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d\nu _0\nu _1\nu _2)}}.`$
In particular, for $`\nu _i=1`$ we get

$$𝒱(0,0,Q)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }((5d)/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2((d3)/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d3)Q^{1+2\epsilon }}=\frac{\pi ^2}{Q}+𝒪(\epsilon ).$$
(45)
In another special case, $`q^2=0`$, we get a hypergeometric function,

$`V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)|_{q^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2}2^{\nu _0}(2\omega )^{d\nu _02\nu _12\nu _2}`$ (48)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0+2\nu _1+2\nu _2d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2\nu _1\nu _2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _1+\nu _2)}}`$
$`\times _2F_1(\begin{array}{c}\nu _2,\nu _0+2\nu _1+2\nu _2d\\ \nu _1+\nu _2\end{array}|1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}}{\omega }}).`$
Using simple transformations of $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ function, it is easy to see that the result obeys the symmetry $`(\omega ,\nu _1)(\omega ^{},\nu _2)`$, as it should. Note that the structure of the result (48) is quite similar to that of the two-point integral with different masses and zero external momentum, see eq. (2.9) of . When $`\nu _1=\nu _2=1`$, the result (48) reduces to

$`V(\nu _0,1,1)|_{q^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\nu _0}2^{d4}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0d+3)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/22)`$ (49)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(\omega ^{})^{d\nu _03}(\omega )^{d\nu _03}}{\omega ^{}\omega }}.`$
Let us represent the denominator of (43) in terms of double Mellin–Barnes integral, expanding with respect to $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ (see, e.g., Eq. (3.4) of ). Then, the resulting momentum integral can be recognized as

$$V(\nu _0+t_1+t_2,\nu _1+t_1,\nu _2+t_2)|_{\omega =\omega ^{}=0,dd+2t_1+2t_2},$$
(50)
where $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are the contour integration variables. Using (44) we can evaluate the integral (50) in terms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ functions. Making a linear substitution for the contour integration variables ($`t_1=s+t`$, $`t_2=st`$), we arrive at the following double Mellin–Barnes representation for the integral (12):

$`V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2}2^{\nu _01}(q^2)^{d/2\nu _0/2\nu _1\nu _2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d\nu _0\nu _1\nu _2)}}`$ (51)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{i})^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{}}}dsdt\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\omega \omega ^{}}{q^2}}\right)^s\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega ^{}}}\right)^t\mathrm{\Gamma }(st)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ts)`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2\nu _0/2\nu _1t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2\nu _0/2\nu _2+t)`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0/2+\nu _1+\nu _2d/2+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0/2+s).`$
## Appendix B QCD integrals in the HQET limit

Here we discuss the relation of massive integrals occurring in standard QCD calculations and HQET integrals. First, let us consider the two-point integral with one massive line and one massless line,

$$J(\nu _0,\nu ;m,0)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^dl}{\left[(p+l)^2m^2\right]^{\nu _0}(l^2)^\nu }.$$
(52)
For general values of $`\nu _0`$, $`\nu `$ and $`d`$, such integrals have been examined in .

When we substitute $`p=mv+k`$, the massive denominator in (52) becomes

$$\left[2m(l+k)v+(l+k)^2\right]^{\nu _0}.$$
(53)
For $`km`$, several regions of integration in $`l`$ are essential. When $`lk`$, we can expand the heavy propagator (53) in both $`k/m`$ and $`l/m`$, and it becomes the HQET propagator. The leading term of this HQET contribution (called “ultrasoft” in ) yields $`1/m^{\nu _0}`$ times an HQET integral (42), which is proportional to $`(2\omega )^{d\nu _02\nu }`$, by dimensionality. Higher terms form an expansion in $`k/m`$.

Let us subtract and add this expansion of the heavy propagator to the exact one. In the difference, the contribution of small $`lk`$ is suppressed; typically, $`lm`$. Therefore, we can expand this integrand difference in regular series in $`k/m`$, and integrate term by term. Integrals of all terms of the HQET integrand expansion in $`k/m`$ vanish in dimensional regularization, because they contain no scale. Therefore, this “hard” contribution can be obtained by expanding the exact QCD integrand (53) in $`k/m`$, and integrating term by term. It is analytical at $`k=0`$, by construction. The leading term is proportional to $`m^{d2\nu _02\nu }`$, by dimensionality, whereas the higher terms form an expansion in $`k/m`$. This separation of $`J(\nu _0,\nu ;m,0)`$ at $`km`$ into two contributions  is a particular case of a more general threshold expansion . Note that $`k`$ plays a role of the threshold parameter, since $`p^2m^2mk`$.

We can check these qualitative considerations, using an explicit expression for $`J(\nu _0,\nu ;m,0)`$. It can be presented in terms of $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ function of $`z=p^2/m^2`$ (see Eq. (10) of ). Note that in the HQET limit $`z`$ approaches 1,

$$z=\frac{(mv+k)^2}{m^2},1z=\frac{2\omega }{m}\frac{k^2}{m^2},$$

i.e., it is at the border of convergence of the $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ function. Transforming from the variable $`z`$ to $`1z`$, we obtain (see also Eqs. (1.12)–(1.15) of )

$`J(\nu _0,\nu ;m,0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\pi ^{d/2}(1)^{\nu _0+\nu }m^{d2\nu _02\nu }`$ (59)
$`\times \{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0+\nu d/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d\nu _02\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d\nu _0\nu )}}_2F_1(\begin{array}{c}\nu ,\nu _0+\nu d/2\\ \nu _0+2\nu d+1\end{array}|1z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0+2\nu d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}}(1z)^{d\nu _02\nu }`$
$`\times _2F_1(\begin{array}{c}d/2\nu ,d\nu _0\nu \\ d\nu _02\nu +1\end{array}|1z)\}.`$
We see that the first term here is nothing but the “hard” contribution. It has a prefactor $`m^{d2\nu _02\nu }`$. The prefactor of the second $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ function is

$$m^{d2\nu _02\nu }(1z)^{d\nu _02\nu }m^{\nu _0}(2\omega )^{d\nu _02\nu },$$

up to higher powers of $`1/m`$. This is the HQET (“ultrasoft”) contribution; in the leading order, it yields

$$J(\nu _0,\nu ;m,0)\mathrm{i}\pi ^{d/2}(2m)^{\nu _0}I(\nu _0,\nu ),$$

where $`I(\nu _0,\nu )`$ is defined in (42).

The value of $`(2m)^{\nu _0}J(\nu _0,\nu ;m,0)`$ at the singular point $`1/m=0`$ is (up to a factor $`\mathrm{i}\pi ^{d/2}`$) the HQET integral (42). When setting $`1/m=0`$, we discard the “hard” contribution, which is proportional to $`m^{d\nu _02\nu }`$, because we can always choose $`d`$ small enough for this contribution to vanish. The naive Taylor expansion in $`1/m`$ is given by the HQET contribution. Similarly, the value of $`J(\nu _0,\nu ;m,0)`$ at the singular point $`k=0`$ is the QCD on-shell integral. When setting $`k=0`$, we discard the HQET contribution, which is proportional to $`(2\omega )^{d\nu _02\nu }`$, because we can always choose $`d`$ large enough for this contribution to vanish. The naive Taylor expansion in $`k`$ is given by the “hard” contribution. Neither of these naive expansions, taken separately, describes $`J(\nu _0,\nu ;m,0)`$ at $`kl`$. It is given by the sum of both contributions, “hard” and HQET (“ultrasoft”) ones (see in ).

Now, let us consider off-shell three-point integrals with one massive and two massless internal lines. For arbitrary powers of propagators, such vertex integrals has been considered in  (see Eqs. (25)–(29)) and  (Eqs. (4.1)–(4.5)). Using the Mellin–Barnes representation, Eq. (4.2) of  (see also Eq. (26) of ), we see that two (of three) arguments, $`p_1^2/m^2`$ and $`p_2^2/m^2`$ (we denote $`p_1^2=k_{23}^2`$, $`p_2^2=k_{13}^2`$, $`p_3^2=k_{12}^2`$) are approaching 1 in our limit, which is at the border of convergence of the corresponding function.

Again, as in the two-point case, we need to construct analytic continuation of this representation, in terms of the variables containing $`(m^2p_1^2)`$ and $`(m^2p_2^2)`$. To do this inside the Mellin–Barnes representation, we use the contour-integral version of the corresponding formula for $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$, namely, Eq. (A7) of  (where we put $`\nu _3=\nu _0`$). In this way, we arrive at

$`J_1(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _0;m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}\pi ^{d/2}(1)^{\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2}m^{d2\nu _02\nu _12\nu _2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d\nu _1\nu _2\nu _0)}}`$ (60)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{i})^3}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}s\mathrm{d}t\mathrm{d}u({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p_1^2}{m^2}})^s({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p_2^2}{m^2}})^t({\displaystyle \frac{p_3^2}{m^2}})^u`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d\nu _02\nu _12\nu _2st2u)`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0+\nu _1+\nu _2d/2+s+t+u)`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _1+t+u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _2+s+u).`$
Now, we need to analyse the contributions of the poles in the right half-plane of the contour variable $`u`$, since they correspond to increasing powers of $`p_3^2/m^2`$. There are only two series of poles (with $`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$),

$`\text{(i)}u`$ $`=`$ $`j(\text{due to}\mathrm{\Gamma }(u))\text{and}`$
$`\text{(ii)}u`$ $`=`$ $`d/2\nu _0/2\nu _1\nu _2s/2t/2+j/2`$
$`(\text{due to}\mathrm{\Gamma }(d\nu _02\nu _12\nu _2st2u)).`$
The prefactors contain $`m^{d2\nu _02\nu _12\nu _2}`$ (case (i)) and $`m^{\nu _0}`$ (case (ii)). The series (i) yields the “hard” contribution. The HQET (“ultrasoft”) contribution is given by the series (ii), whose leading term is $`j=0`$. These two contributions are related to the singular limits $`1/m=0`$ and $`k=q=0`$ in a way similar to the two-point case.

Picking up this leading HQET contribution, we arrive at a double Mellin–Barnes representation (in terms of the remaining contour integrals over $`s`$ and $`t`$), where the kinematical variables involved yield (in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$) the HQET variables,

$$\frac{m^2p_1^2}{m\sqrt{p_3^2}}\frac{2\omega ^{}}{\sqrt{q^2}},\frac{m^2p_2^2}{m\sqrt{p_3^2}}\frac{2\omega }{\sqrt{q^2}}.$$

After introducing the new contour variables $`(s+t)/2`$ and $`(st)/2`$ we see that the resulting Mellin–Barnes representation is equivalent to (51), so that

$$J_1(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _0;m)\mathrm{i}\pi ^{d/2}(2m)^{\nu _0}V(\nu _0,\nu _1,\nu _2).$$

Therefore, the HQET integrals can be formally obtained *directly* from the standard loop integrals, by picking up the formal Taylor series in $`1/m`$ which has no prefactors containing $`m`$ to the power depending on $`d`$. Such prescription is similar to some other prescriptions in dimensional regularization. For instance, considering the massless limit of the integral (52) we need to represent the result in terms of the functions of the variable $`m^2/p^2`$, and then discard the contribution containing $`m^{2\epsilon }`$ (see Eq. (11) of ). We have also demonstrated that the HQET contributions are equivalent to the “ultrasoft” ones, in the language of the threshold expansion . In other words, in the cases considered the exact result is given by the sum of two contributions. The first one is given by a formal Taylor expansion of the integrand in the small parameter of the threshold expansion (the “hard” contribution). The second one is nothing but the HQET series in $`1/m`$.

## Appendix C QCD vertex at $`m\mathrm{}`$

If we substitute the “hard” parts of all scalar integrals into the QCD vertex, then, in the limit $`k0`$, $`q0`$, we just get the on-shell vertex at $`q=0`$. Corrections to this limit are regular expansion terms in $`k/m`$, $`q/m`$. Since we do not consider $`1/m`$ suppressed terms here, these corrections can be omitted.

If we substitute the HQET parts of all scalar integrals (see Appendix B), we should obtain the HQET vertex, which was calculated in Sect. 3. In order to make a strong check of both the results of  (where the one-loop quark-gluon vertex was calculated in arbitrary gauge and dimension) and of the present ones, we consider here the HQET limit of the QCD vertex .

Using the standard decomposition of the quark-gluon vertex  (see also in ), it can be split into longitudinal and transverse parts,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\lambda _iL_i^\mu +\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}\tau _iT_i^\mu ,$$
(61)
where $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\tau _i`$ are scalar functions depending on kinematical variables, whereas $`L_i^\mu `$ and $`T_i^\mu `$ are vectors which also involve Dirac matrices (see Sect. IID of  for further details).

We substitute

$$p_1=mvkq,p_2=mv+k,p_3=q.$$

At the leading order in $`1/m`$, the initial and final quark spinors obey $`\text{/}vu=u`$. Therefore, we can sandwich $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ between the projectors $`(\text{/}v+1)/2`$, and use

$$\frac{\text{/}v+1}{2}\gamma ^\mu \frac{\text{/}v+1}{2}=\frac{\text{/}v+1}{2}v^\mu \frac{\text{/}v+1}{2}.$$

With the required accuracy, there are three independent structures:

$`L_1^\mu v^\mu +𝒪(1/m),`$
$`T_3^\mu q^2v^\mu (\omega ^{}\omega )q^\mu +𝒪(1/m),T_5^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\gamma ^\mu ,\text{/}q].`$
The others are

$`L_2^\mu 4m^2L_1^\mu +𝒪(m),L_3^\mu 2mL_1^\mu +𝒪(1),L_4^\mu 𝒪(1),`$
$`T_1^\mu mT_3^\mu +𝒪(1),T_2^\mu 2m^2T_3^\mu +𝒪(m),`$
$`T_4^\mu 𝒪(m),T_6^\mu 𝒪(1),T_7^\mu 𝒪(m),T_8^\mu mT_5^\mu +𝒪(1).`$
According to Appendix B, the HQET-relevant “ultrasoft” parts of the scalar integrals are

$`\eta \stackrel{~}{\kappa }0,\eta \kappa _{2,3}0,\eta \kappa _{0,3}𝒢(q^2),`$
$`\eta \kappa _{1,2}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega )}{2m}},\eta \kappa _{1,1}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega ^{})}{2m}},`$
$`\eta \phi _1{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)}{2m}},\eta \phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2m)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega ^{})(\omega )}{\omega ^{}\omega }},`$
where the notations $`\phi _i`$, $`\kappa _{i,l}`$ and $`\eta `$ are defined in Sect. IIA of .

Therefore, at the leading order ($`1/m^0`$) the HQET limit of the QCD vertex (61) yields

$$(\lambda _1+4m^2\lambda _22m\lambda _3)L_1^\mu +(m\tau _1+2m^2\tau _2+\tau _3)T_3^\mu +(\tau _5+m\tau _8)T_5^\mu .$$

Using the results for $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\tau _i`$ listed in , we have obtained that at the order $`1/m^0`$ the coefficient of the chromomagnetic structure $`T_5^\mu `$ vanishes, whereas those of $`L_1^\mu `$ and $`T_3^\mu `$ reproduce the results (10), (25) and (26), for arbitrary $`d`$ and $`\xi `$.

Thus the QCD vertex at small $`k`$, $`q`$ is equal to its on-shell value at $`k=q=0`$ plus the HQET vertex, up to $`1/m`$ corrections. We can reformulate this statement: the QCD vertex in the on-shell renormalization scheme is equal to the HQET vertex in the on-shell renormalization scheme, up to $`1/m`$ corrections. In QCD, the on-shell renormalization subtracts from the one-loop correction its value at $`k=q=0`$. In HQET, the on-shell renormalized vertex equals the bare one, because its value at $`k=q=0`$ vanishes.

## Appendix D Background-field vertex

The background field formalism  is convenient for considering heavy quark scattering in an external gluon field. In this method, the vertex (Fig. 1) with the background gluon differs from the ordinary one. The diagram of Fig. 2a still gives (10), because the quark-gluon elementary vertex does not change. The contraction of the three-gluon vertex with a background gluon momentum contains no ghost terms, just the first difference in Fig. 3b. Therefore,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu q_\mu =\frac{C_A}{2C_F}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ^{})\right).$$

This is also confirmed by a direct calculation. For the other contraction, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^\mu v_\mu =C_A{\displaystyle \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8q^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}`$
$`\times \{2(\omega ^{}+\omega )[2\mathrm{\Omega }^2q^2(d8)\xi \mathrm{\Omega }^2Q^2d\xi \mathrm{\Omega }Q^2q^2`$
$`(16+(d^218d+40)\xi )\xi \mathrm{\Omega }Q^2\omega \omega ^{}`$
$`(d3)(d4)\xi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }q^2\omega \omega ^{}d^2\xi ^2Q^2q^2\omega \omega ^{}`$
$`8(5d12)\xi ^2Q^2\omega ^2\omega ^2]𝒱(\omega ,\omega ^{},Q)`$
$`+[8\mathrm{\Omega }^2q^2+(4(2d7)(d4)\xi )\xi \mathrm{\Omega }^2Q^2`$
$`8(d3)(2(d5)\xi )\xi \mathrm{\Omega }Q^2\omega \omega ^{}`$
$`+4(d3)(d4)\xi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }q^2\omega \omega ^{}`$
$`16(d3)(d6)\xi ^2Q^2\omega ^2\omega ^2]𝒢(q^2)`$
$`+2(d3)\xi [(2+\xi )q^2(\omega ^3(\omega )+\omega ^3(\omega ^{}))`$
$`+2(4+(d4)\xi )\omega \omega ^{}(\omega ^2\omega ^2)\left(\omega ^{}(\omega )\omega (\omega ^{})\right)`$
$`\left((1+\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }+(d6)\xi \omega \omega ^{}\right)q^2\left(\omega ^{}(\omega )+\omega (\omega ^{})\right)`$
$`(q^2+(6+(d5)\xi )\omega \omega ^{})q^2(\omega (\omega )+\omega ^{}(\omega ^{}))]\}.`$


format: text

text:
# A SIMPLE MODEL FOR r-PROCESS SCATTER AND HALO EVOLUTION

## 1 Introduction

Neutron capture processes dominate the nucleosynthesis of elements beyond the iron peak. The physics of two neutron capture mechanisms has long been understood, and the astrophysical site for slow neutron capture nucleosynthesis (the s-process) has been shown to be low-mass stars (e.g., Busso, Gallino, & Wasserburg bgw (1999)). However, the site for rapid neutron capture nucleosynthesis (the r-process) has not yet been unambiguously identified, although it is very likely connected to massive stars. The production site itself might be found in some or all Type II supernova (SN) events (e.g., Woosley, Wilson, Mathews, Hoffman, & Meyer wwmhm (1994)), or in binary neutron star mergers (e.g., Eichler, Livio, Piran, & Schramm elps (1989); Rosswog, Davies, Thielemann, & Piran rdtp (2000)). Truran jim81 (1981) showed that the halo stars are a particularly useful laboratory for study of the r-process, as the observed neutron capture abundance patterns in these stars indicate that the s-process component drops out, and the r-process dominates, as one looks at stars with $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2.2`$ (Burris et al. burris (2000)). Recent years have shown that halo stars indeed give unique insight into the r-process. With the advent of high dispersion, high S/N measurements, the abundance observations within and among halo stars has led to surprising new discoveries with important consequences for theories of the r-process as well as halo formation.

The halo star with perhaps the most striking r-process composition is CS 22982-052. With $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=3.1`$, this is an ultra-metal-poor star;111 In the standard notation, $`[A/B]=\mathrm{log}(A/B)_{}\mathrm{log}(A/B)_{}`$; we take ultra-metal-poor stars to be those with $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<2.5`$.  its abundance ratios through the iron peak are typical for a halo star However, this star also has been observed in 20 r-process elements from barium upwards (the “heavy” r-process), with abundances (Sneden et al. sneden96 (1996, 2000))

$$\left[\frac{r}{\mathrm{Fe}}\right]1.7\frac{r}{\mathrm{Fe}}50\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{Fe}}\right)_{}$$
(1)
The element-to-element scatter in this ratio is consistent with the observational errors. This remarkable trend does not appear to hold for the “light” r-process, $`40<Z<56`$ (Sneden et al. sneden2000 (2000)). Nevertheless, the fact that the heavy r-process elements agree so well with each other is stunning, given that this star could well have abundances that reflect the nucleosynthesis of a single supernova, while the solar abundances average over many generations of supernovae. The strong implication is that there is a unique astrophysical site for the r-process (at least for the heavy $`r`$-elements, which for brevity we will refer to simply as “$`r`$-elements” hereafter).

This result has profound implications. First, the mere presence of r-process in very metal-poor stars points to origins associated with massive stars. Moreover, given the apparent universality of the r-process, one might expect that all ratios among r-process nuclides to always be constant (with pollution by the $`s`$-process increasing with \[Fe/H\]). This leads to the prediction that at the lowest metallicities, when the $`s`$-process has not turned on, ratios among r-process elements should be fixed and the same across all stars. So far this appears to be true in the other ultra-metal-poor star for which there is similarly good data, HD 115444 (Westin, Sneden, Gustafsson, & Cowan wsgc (2000)), which has $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=3.0`$ and $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]=0.96`$. Very recently, Cayrel et al. cayrel (2001) have shown that CS 31082-001 (with $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=2.91`$) has Os/Fe and Ir/Fe abundances which give $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]=1.98`$ and $`R=96`$. This would be the highest r-process overabundance yet observed. Clearly, a systematic study of r-process abundance patterns in this star is of the highest priority (particularly since this is the first star in which uranium has been detected).

CS 22892-052 and HD 115444 have iron abundances that are identical within errors, and both show a remarkable constancy in their $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratios for different r-elements within each star. However, these stars show a significant difference in their mean $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratios. This is an example of the large scatter in $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratios that has been observed in halo stars. As we will see, the dispersion in $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratios is small at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1`$, but grows with decreasing metallicity, finally spanning two orders of magnitude for ultra-metal-poor stars. The observed large scatter in $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ in Pop II stars — and the very high $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ in a few — demands that not all stars make both the r-process and iron.

Models for r-process nucleosynthesis and for Pop II chemical evolution must account at once for the remarkable constancy of $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ among different elements within individual stars, as well as for the variability of $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ between stars. These facts together suggest the following simple picture for Pop II $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$. We assume that the observed Pop II $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ abundances in each star reflect r-process contributions of a few supernovae. The basic idea is that

* Different $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ arise from different mixing between the dominant r-process sources and the dominant Fe sources; and
* The $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter then reflects the amount of mixing between the two sources.

The key is the inhomogeneity of the halo, which this scheme in fact quantifies.

This scenario makes quantitative predictions:

1. There is a maximum to $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$, which is the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ production ratio in those stars which produce r-process elements, undiluted by any (r-poor) Fe events
2. The minimum to $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ is the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratio in the r-poor events. This minimum may be as small as $`r/\mathrm{Fe}=0`$.
3. The placement of a star between these extremes quantifies a admixture of nucleosynthesis sources recorded in the star. Thus, (a) at the very earliest times, when single SN events are really all that contaminate a given star, the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter should only populate the extremes. (b) At later times, but before mixing is efficient, the regions between the extremes will be filled in. (c) At still later times, mixing becomes efficient, and then the scatter decreases towards a ”universal” mix of the two sources.

If this line of reasoning is correct, it has the very significant implication that $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ becomes a tracer of the inhomogeneity of the halo. One can see the transition from single to multiple events, and also the transition from multiple sources to a well mixed Galaxy. The details of these transitions allow one to correlate metallicity and mixing. And we can at least grossly confirm the time sequence of the nucleosynthesis events.

Several groups have used similar arguments to motivate detailed models which explain $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter in terms of r-process nucleosynthesis and an inhomogeneous chemical evolution of the Galactic halo. Ishimaru & Wanajo iw (1999) construct a one-zone model for the halo, but introduce abundance dispersion through a Monte Carlo realization of individual supernova events with yields of Fe and Eu which are strong function of mass. They obtain good fits to the observed scatter for models in which the r-process is produced by a small fraction of supernovae. Argast, Samland, Gerhard, & Thielemann asgt (2000) use similar r-process progenitor masses, but drop the assumption of one-zone evolution. They model the spatial inhomogeneity and incomplete mixing of expanding supernova remnants in the halo, and again find good agreement with the observed Eu/Fe dispersion.

The goal of the present paper is to aid in the understanding of these detailed models, and to help focus attention on the key physics relevant for this problem. We will show (§2) that the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter follows quite generally from the stochastic behavior of the halo chemical evolution, and that one can derive simple, explicit, analytical expressions for the abundance scatter as a function of metallicity. We will do this for two scenarios, one in which the r-process occurs in only a small fraction of supernovae but Fe is ubiquitous (§2.1), and the scenario of Wasserburg & Qian wq (2000), in which the converse holds (§2.2). Fortunately, these scenarios can be distinguished by future measurements of $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter in ultra-metal-poor stars, and we present observational strategies to do this (§3). Discussion and conclusions appear in §4.

## 2 Two Scenarios for r-process Origin

The $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter demands that the r-process and iron are not co-produced in the same ratios in the same events, but rather there will be r-rich and r-poor events. Also, very high and very low $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratios are observed. The highest $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ event observed places a lower limit on the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ yields of the r-rich events. Furthermore, the fact that the highest $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ is much larger than the Pop II mean implies that the r-rich, high $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ events occur at a very different rate than low $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ events. One can envision either “iron-dominated” schemes in which high $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ events are rare, but iron-producing events are not; or, alternatively, the possibility that r-process events are the more common, with iron-producing events rarer. We now consider each of these scenarios in turn.

### 2.1 Iron-dominated Models

We assume (1) that the supernova r-process yields are bimodal, i.e., that some supernovae have a high r-process yield and others a low one (possibly zero); and (2) for simplicity, we assume not only that all supernova make iron, but also that the Fe yield takes the same constant value for all supernovae.222It is possible that some supernova make neither $`r`$ nor Fe; if such events exist, they are irrelevant to the present discussion. With these assumptions, supernova ejecta can take one of two values of $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$. We will denote the objects with the larger $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratio as class $`A`$, and those with the lower ratio as class $`B`$. We purposely avoid a more descriptive nomenclature–e.g., “high” and “low”–as we wish to avoid both confusion (high yields? rates? masses?) and prejudice with regard to the nature of the progenitors which are the dominant $`r`$ producers. To simplify notation, we will define the scaled $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratio to be

$$R\frac{r/\mathrm{Fe}}{(r/\mathrm{Fe})_{}}$$
(2)
which implies that $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]=\mathrm{log}R`$.

Thus, a supernova will produce a fixed amount of iron, and yields r-elements at either the high value $`R_a`$ or the low value $`R_b`$. Denote the fraction of class $`A`$ supernovae (averaged over the halo IMF) to be $`f_a`$; then the fraction of class $`B`$ supernovae is of course $`f_b=1f_a`$.

The $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ data show that at a metallicity $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}1`$, $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]`$ converges to a value of $`0.3`$, i.e., $`\overline{R}2`$.333Above this metallicity $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ decreases, but this is presumably due to the addition of the Fe yields of Type Ia supernovae. We do not include these events (and implicitly assume their r-process yield to be zero); thus we will not attempt to model $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]>1`$. We take this value as the mean $`R`$ attained when averaging over a large sample of progenitors, whose fractions reflect the underlying $`f_a`$ and $`f_b`$ dictated by the IMF. Thus we have that

$$\overline{R}=f_aR_a+f_bR_b=R_b+f_a\left(R_aR_b\right)$$
(3)
We can use the observed scatter to estimate the values of $`R_a`$ and $`R_b`$. The highest observed is $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]1.7`$ (eq. 1); we take this as a measure of $`R_a50`$. On the other hand, the lower limit of the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter is not as well determined. The available data suggests that the minimum, if any, differs depending on the elemental r-tracer used. At most, we have $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{min}}0.6`$, giving $`R_b0.25`$; it is also possible that $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{min}}1.7`$, giving $`R_b=0.020`$. Upper limits to $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ have not been reported, but this may be a selection effect. A key issue is whether there could have been lower $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ values than the ones reported; such information places useful constraints on r-process production. For our purposes, as long as $`R_b\overline{R}`$, then we may take $`R_b=0`$, as we will now see.

Once one establishes the observed values for $`\overline{R}`$, $`R_a`$, and $`R_b`$, then the relative numbers of class $`A`$ and $`B`$ supernovae is now fixed. Eq. (3) gives

$$f_a=\frac{\overline{R}R_b}{R_aR_b}\frac{\overline{R}}{R_a}$$
(4)
where the last expression uses the observed fact that $`R_b/\overline{R}1`$. For $`\overline{R}=2`$ and $`R_a=50`$, eq. (4) gives $`f_a=3.5\%`$ for $`R_b=0.25`$, and $`f_a=4.0\%`$ for $`R_b=0`$. Thus we see that observed fact of the very large $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ variations immediately implies that class $`A`$ events are required to be uncommon, regardless of their physical nature. That is, the events which produce the r-process originate from a small fraction, $`4`$%, of all massive stars.

#### 2.1.1 Basic Model

Using these numbers, we are now in the position to model the scatter of $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$. To do this, we create a set of halo stars and deduce the history–the nucleosynthetic ancestry–of each. We assume that each of the halo stars we create incorporates gas which has been enriched by some number $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ of supernova of either type: this is the number of supernova ancestors for the star. We create stars by allow $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ to run from 1 to $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and sample equal intervals in $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$. Note that we are free to chose the number of halo stars we create, and that this number is unrelated to the number of supernova ancestors assigned to a given halo star.

The metallicity follows from the assumption that all stars have the same iron yield, so that $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$. We introduce a parameter $`(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{min}}`$, the iron enrichment from a single star. Then $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}=N_{\mathrm{SN}}(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{min}}`$, and $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{min}}+\mathrm{log}N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$.

The r-process pattern of the stars is also fixed in terms of the stellar ancestry. We assume that the mean value of $`R`$ for our population of stars is always $`\overline{R}`$.444As long as both classes $`A`$ and $`B`$ exist; below we will consider the effect when there is a time delay before the onset of one class. The constancy of $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ can be determined observationally. Current data samples the low metallicities too sparsely to make a strong statement (Burris et al. burris (2000)), but with more observations one should be able to test for a metallicity dependence of $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$. We then introduce scatter around $`\overline{R}`$ by sampling stars whose ancestry (in class $`A`$ and $`B`$ stars) is a random variable. The underlying physics of this random process is ultimately controlled by the physics of r-process nucleosynthesis and the mixing of stellar ejecta. However, even in the absence of this detailed physics, simple assumptions allow for a stochastic behavior that resembles the observations. We will illustrate two such simple assumptions regarding the random distribution of “ancestors.”

First, we treat $`N_a`$, the numbers of ancestors of class $`A`$, as a discrete random variable. That is, we imagine that the number ancestors from each class take integer values. We choose $`N_a`$ from a binomial distribution with mean $`\overline{N}_a=f_aN_{\mathrm{SN}}`$; it then follows that $`N_b=N_{\mathrm{SN}}N_a`$. For each star, the fraction of class $`A`$ (high r) progenitors is $`f_{a,}=N_a/N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, and

$$R_{}=f_{a,}R_a+f_{b,}R_b=R_b+(R_aR_b)N_a/N_{\mathrm{SN}}$$
(5)
The dispersion in $`N_a`$ naturally induces a dispersion in $`R_{}`$: $`\sigma (R_{})=(R_aR_b)\sigma (N_a)/N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ Since $`\sigma (N_a)\sqrt{N_a}`$, this gives

$$\sigma (R_{})(R_aR_b)\sqrt{N_a}/N_{\mathrm{SN}}\overline{R}/\sqrt{N_a}=(f_a\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min}})^{1/2}\overline{R}$$
(6)
where we have assumed successively that $`f_b1`$ and $`R_b\overline{R}`$. Thus we see that the fractional error in $`R`$ is just given by the counting statistics of $`N_a`$: $`\sigma (R_{})/\overline{R}_{}1/\sqrt{N_a}`$. We now can put each star on the ($`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$,$`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$) plane, and the model is complete.

This model thus has three free parameters which can be fixed by observations: $`\overline{R}`$, $`R_a`$, and $`R_b`$; there is one parameter, $`(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{min}}`$ which is (for now) determined by theory. We can rewrite eq. (6) explicitly in terms of these parameters:

$$\sigma _R=(f_a\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min}})^{1/2}\overline{R}$$
(7)
and thus

$$\sigma _{[r/\mathrm{Fe}]}=\frac{1}{f_a^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}10}10^{([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{min}})/2}=10^{([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+3.3)/2}$$
(8)
The model thus predicts that the intrinsic scatter in $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ falls as $`(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})^{1/2}`$. As we will see, this is indeed consistent with the halo star data. Of course, the data also contain observational errors, both in \[$`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$\] and \[$`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}`$\]. We include these in the model, using $`\sigma ([r/\mathrm{Fe}])_{\mathrm{obs}}=0.10`$ dex, and $`\sigma ([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}])_{\mathrm{obs}}=0.05`$ dex, with the supposition that the errors are uncorrelated with the intrinsic dispersion.

Results for a Monte Carlo realization of a population drawn from a binomial distribution appear in Figure 1. The predicted envelope is shown, and provides a reasonable fit for the observed data. Note that the envelope includes both the observational errors as well as the intrinsic scatter given by (eq. 7). In the binomial model just described, there are quantization effects due to the integral values of $`N_i`$. These are particularly noticeable when $`\overline{N}_a<1`$, which occurs when $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}<1/f_a25`$, or $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2.6`$. In this regime, most points will cluster at $`R_b`$, with only a few at higher values. Furthermore, $`R=\overline{R}N_a/N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is also quantized. The lower envelope of the nonzero values is given by the case when $`N_a=1`$, so that $`R_{\mathrm{env}}=\overline{R}/N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ and $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{env}}=\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}+\mathrm{log}\overline{R}`$; this is clearly seen in Figure 1.

One need not require that a star’s heavy element ancestry be quantized in this way. For example, one can plausibly imagine that the mixing of successive generations of supernova ejecta is not an “all or nothing” prospect, but rather that a given parcel of ISM gas and dust can be enriched to different degrees by the ancestors it had. This is indeed very likely to be the case, which would mean that the quantization effects of the binomial model are spurious (and thus the binomial results are only to be trusted in the regime where $`\overline{N}_a>1`$, or $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2.6`$.

Thus, it is of interest to consider making the number of ancestors of each class a continuous random variable. This can be done in a way that naturally generalizes from the binomial distribution; in that case, the total number of supernova progenitors $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is fixed, and the fraction $`f=N_a/N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ of progenitors of class $`A`$ is a random variable which has a mean $`f=f_a`$ but can take only discrete rational values due to the integral nature of $`Na`$. We will continue to take $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ to be fixed, but we will now assume that the fraction $`f`$ of progenitors of class $`A`$ is now a continuous random variable, with mean $`f=f_a`$. We thus want to draw $`f`$ from a continuous distribution with values in the interval $`[0,1]`$ and with a fixed mean. These requirements are met by the beta distribution, which has a distribution function

$$\xi (x)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{B}(a,b)}x^{a1}(1x)^{b1}$$
(9)
for $`f[0,1]`$ and where $`\mathrm{B}(a,b)`$ is the beta function, which can be expressed in terms of the gamma function $`\mathrm{B}(a,b)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b)`$. We fix the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the distribution by simultaneously fitting the mean $`f=a/(a+b)`$ to the observed value $`f_a`$, and forcing the variance $`\sigma ^2(f)=ab(a+b)^2(a+b+1)^1`$ to the same value as the binomial case, $`\sigma ^2(f)=f_a(1f_a)/N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$. These conditions are satisfied if $`a=f_a(N_{\mathrm{SN}}1)`$ and $`b=(1f_a)(N_{\mathrm{SN}}1)`$.

Our procedure is to draw $`f`$ according to the beta distribution $`\xi (f)`$. We then find $`N_a=fN_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ and $`N_b=(1f)N_{\mathrm{SN}}=N_{\mathrm{SN}}N_a`$. Since $`f`$ is a continuous variable, so are $`N_a`$ and $`N_b`$. Our choices of the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ guarantee that $`R=\overline{R}`$ and that $`\sigma (R)`$ is identical to the value found for the binomial case, so that eqs. (6) and (7) still hold. Results for a Monte Carlo simulation of a stellar population appear in Figure 2. We see that the general trend is quite similar to that for the binomial case, but that the continuous nature of the parent distribution guarantees that quantization effects are now absent. We see that at the very lowest metallicities $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]3.5`$, the points cluster at $`r/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min}}`$, and have a mean value below that at higher metallicity. This feature has as similar origin to that of its counterpart in Figure 1. At the lowest metallicities, the small number statistics in the SN parents is a dominant effect, and the r-rich events are too rare to be expected in a sample of the size presented here.

A comparison with the observed data in Figure 2 shows that the beta distribution model gives a good fit to the available data. We thus conclude that the observed scatter in $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ may be understood by our simple scenario in which halo stars stochastically sample the yields of two different populations of heavy element producing events. In this interpretation, the degree of scatter increases with decreasing metallicity due to counting statistics, so that the lowest-metallicity events record the nucleosynthesis of a few ($`N_{\mathrm{SN}}=\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min}}`$) events. Furthermore, since $`\sigma (R)/\overline{R}\sqrt{f_a}/N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$, a good measure of the scatter in $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ allows one to find $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ and thus one can fix the parameter $`(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{min}}`$. In this way, one can empirically measure the single-event iron yield, and also determine the number of nucleosynthesis events recorded at a particular metallicity. The fact that the observed distribution is reasonably enclosed by the theory curves which use $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{min}}=4`$ (e.g., Audouze & Silk as (1996)) indicates that this value is a reasonable first approximation.

#### 2.1.2 Introducing Stellar Lifetimes

Having achieved a reasonable fit to the data, we are emboldened to consider refinements to this model. Specifically, we turn to the question of timescales. Thus far, we have implicitly assumed that there is always the same relative probability of r-rich and r-poor nucleosynthesis events. However, this assumption is likely to break down at very early times. One expects that the to classes $`A`$ and $`B`$ of nucleosynthesis events stem from different physics. For example, the r-rich and -poor classes could correspond to progenitor stars with different masses and thus different lifetimes, or r-process production could arise from binary neutron star mergers, and thus require some time delay for inspiral. In either case, one expects a time lag between the first events of one class versus the first events of the other. During this initial period, the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratio of the ISM and of any new stars will be only that of the allowed class of nucleosynthesis events. There will thus be no dispersion in $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ or rather, the dispersion will be due to the smaller intrinsic dispersion within the allowed class. Once events of the other class can occur, $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ dispersion will set in, and the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ will scatter around its mean value.

We can crudely simulate this time delay between the onset of the two classes as follows. We note that the iron abundance increases with time. Thus, a time delay can be encoded as a delay in $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}`$. We choose a value $`(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ as the cutoff that marks the onset of the lagged class of nucleosynthesis events. To allow for dispersion in the birth times of the first stars, we introduce some randomness in this cutoff by making the cutoff number $`N_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ of events a poisson random variable, with mean $`\overline{N}_{\mathrm{cut}}=\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{cut}}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min}}`$. We then require that if $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}<N_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, only events of the allowed class $`i`$ can occur, and thus $`R=R_i`$. If $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}>N_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, then we follow the standard procedure described above.

Results appear in Figure 3, using $`\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{cut}}=10\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min}}`$, which roughly corresponds to timescales $`\tau _{\mathrm{long}}=10\tau _{\mathrm{short}}`$, where the longer lifetime is that of the species cut off. As expected, we see that the very low $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}`$, the dispersion vanishes and the points lie at the level of the allowed class. While this is clearly an oversimplified description, it nevertheless gives a qualitative sense of the kind of behavior one expects if there is indeed a significant disparity between the timescales for the production of r-rich and -poor events. A discrepancy in timescales is required if the r-process production “switch” is related the progenitor star’s mass. As we suspect the mass to be the controlling parameter, our prediction is that one of the panels in Figure 3 represents the trend that will be observed in ultra-metal-poor stars.

Thus, a discovery of the sort of behavior seen in Figure 3 would indicate which class has the sorter production timescale, and thus provide a key clue as to the astrophysical origin of the dominant r-process site. Furthermore, a determination of $`\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{cut}}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ would help to quantify (in a model-dependent way) the time delay itself. If class $`A`$ stars have the longer timescale, $`\tau _a>\tau _b`$, then physically this means that (1) the r-process producers evolve more slowly and thus (2) these stars should show up later, so that there should be a limiting low metallicity below which all stars have $`R_{}=R_b`$. The appearance of the first stars with $`R_{}>R_b`$ marks the time of the first r-process stars and thus $`t\tau _a`$.

We can be more specific by using the fact that r-process stars must be a small fraction of all supernovae. This means that the progenitors must represent a limited range in the massive star IMF: either $`810M_{}`$ or $`25M_{}`$. If $`\tau _a`$ is long, this would select the $`810M_{}`$ range, and thus mean that $`\tau _a\tau (10M_{})3\times 10^7`$ yr. Now consider the opposite case. If $`A`$ stars have the shorter timescale, the $`\tau _a<\tau _b`$, and the r-process stars should appear first. Consequently, there should be a limiting low metallicity below which all stars have $`R_{}=R_a`$, and the appearance of the first stars with $`R_{}<R_a`$ marks the time of the first non-r-process stars and thus $`t\tau _b`$. The short $`\tau _a`$ implies the high mass ($`m25M_{}`$ )progenitor mass range, and thus $`\tau _b\tau (25M_{})10^7`$ yr.

While massive stars seem required to explain the r-process simply due to their evolutionary timescale, it is possible that the r-process is not made in the core collapse and explosion, but rather through the merger of supernova remnants, via neutron star-neutron star mergers (e.g., Eichler, Livio, Piran, & Schramm elps (1989); Rosswog, Davies, Thielemann, & Piran rdtp (2000)). As pointed out recently by Qian qian (2000), an important constraint on this scenario comes from magnitude of the halo star $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter, which appears to be too small (!) to reconcile with the low merger rate and thus high yields of the coalescence events. An additional issue for neutron star coalescence is the timescale of the merger, which is an extra delay in the appearance of the r-process compared to the other supernova products (such as iron). This timescale is a strong function of the orbital semimajor axis and particularly eccentricity (Peters peters (1964)). As shown in population synthesis calculations (e.g., Fryer, Woosley, & Hartmann fwh (1999)), this leads to a wide distribution of inspiral timescales, spanning a few Myr to $`1`$ Gyr. Thus, if the r-process does come from binary neutron star mergers, then the first events had to have the correct orbital parameters to allow a very rapid evolution.

Finally, even if observations establish the lack of a signature of the kind seen in Figure 3 would provide useful information about the r-process as well. We would learn that there is no significant difference in the timescales for production of the two classes of events. This would rule out any models which require such a delay, and would challenge the presumption that the r-process yields are a function of the mass of the progenitor stars. Alternatively, it may suggest a very different scenario entirely, as we now shall see.

### 2.2 r-process-dominated Models

In the previous section, we assumed that r-process nucleosynthesis events are rare, while iron production events are ubiquitous (for massive stars). We now turn to the reverse case, which has been developed in some detail by Wasserburg & Qian (wq (2000); hereafter, WQ2000). The essential ingredients are the following, in chronological order: (1) “Pop III.” A very rapid burst of star formation produces an uneven Galactic floor of $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]4`$ to $`3`$, but no r-process. The inhomogeneity of this population will lead to $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter in this metallicity range. (2) “Pure r-process.” The first of the Pop II supernovae produce the (heavy) r-process without any Fe. These are WQ2000’s high-frequency H events. (3) “Fe added.” After $`10`$ H lifetimes, the first iron-producing supernovae go off. These make the light r-process (i.e., sub-barium, which we do not consider here), but none of the heavy r-process. They occur at lower frequency and thus are dubbed L events.

We model the Wasserburg & Qian scenario as follows; our approach and some details are very similar to the model discussed in the previous section. WQ2000 note that the Pop III events need not occur in a homogeneous or well-mixed way, which will lead to global \[$`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}`$\] variations between $`4`$ and about $`3`$. Thus, we assume that a single Pop III parent would have ejecta which mix with it surroundings, leading to an enrichments of $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{III}}=4`$; this is the Pop III iron yield. This sets the Fe floor. These events do not make any r-process, which raises the possibility of an observable abundance record of this stage remains, as we will discuss shortly. It is possible, indeed it is likely, that the first stars of the next stage of Galactic evolution form prior to the onset of first H events which make the first r-process elements. Any such stars will have only Pop III abundances and thus will be void of any r-process. The number of such r-free stars depends on the details of star formation immediately after Pop III, and thus are difficult to estimate. We will thus make the simple assumption that the first H events are not significantly delayed after the formation of the first halo stars, so that there is not a significant population of Pop III, r-free stars.

In the next stage, the Pop II stars commence. The pure-$`r`$ H events occur first, as they have lifetimes 10 times shorter than those of the Fe-only L events. Each H event is taken to produce the same r-process yield, and thus the total $`r`$-production is just the number $`N_h`$ of parents times the yield of a single event. Once the L events commence, they produce only Fe (and the light r-process, which we don’t consider). WQ2000 put the Fe yield of a single event to be about $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{}}=2.5`$, i.e., 30 times more than that of the Pop III events. We assume all L events have this yield.

We thus have two epochs to model. The first is the period after the Pop III events but before the first L event, and the second is the rest of the Pop II phase, up to $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=1`$. We begin modeling each halo star’s ancestry by determining which of these epochs it samples. To do this, we choose a metallicity in the range $`4[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1`$.555Again, we are free to sample any metallicity in this range, as we are not modeling the massive stars but only the present-day halo stars which record the nucleosynthetic past. We note that whenever $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{}}=2.5`$, then the star must have arisen in the first, H-only epoch, and have no L event progenitors. In this case, the number of Pop III progenitors is then fixed to be $`N_{\mathrm{III}}=\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{III}}`$.666This may not be an integer, but we will interpret fractional progenitor numbers as indicative of partial mixing, as done in the previous section.

We then determine the number of H events in our halo star’s lineage, by choosing $`N_h`$. As in the previous section, we note that the specific distribution of $`N_h`$ is determined by the detailed physics of star formation and gas dynamics in the earliest epoch in our Galaxy. The distribution is constrained by the H event-to-L event ratio of 10, which demands that on average, there are 10 H events before the first L event occurs. Independent of the specific distribution, a crucial issue is the expected correlation between $`N_h`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{III}}`$ (and thus Fe). Since these events occur in two different phases by two different population, we will make the simple assumption that the two are uncorrelated. We then have $`R_{}=r_hN_h/\mathrm{Fe}`$, with Fe already fixed and with $`r_h`$ the r-process yield of a single H event (determined below). Note that since $`N_h`$ is uncorrelated with Fe, then the mean trend $`R=N_hr_h/\mathrm{Fe}`$ which scales as $`\mathrm{Fe}^1`$. That is, the mean $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ trend for $`4[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2.5`$ should not be constant, but should decrease with logarithmic slope -1. Scatter about the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ trend is created by the variance in $`N_h`$: $`\sigma _R=\sigma (N_h)r_h/\mathrm{Fe}=\sigma (N_h)/N_hR`$. For illustration, we will choose $`N_h`$ from a uniform distribution. in $`(0,10)`$, which gives $`R=5r_h/\mathrm{Fe}`$, and $`\sigma _R/R=1/\sqrt{3}`$.

We now turn to the case of stars for which we have picked a higher $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}>\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}`$. For these stars, some contribution by iron-producing L events is necessary. As before we generate a number $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ of supernova parents for each halo star Thus, each star generated has $`N_h`$ H parents and $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$ L parents, but the star’s iron abundance constrains our choice of $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$ and thus $`N_{\mathrm{SN}}`$. Namely, the star has a metallicity

$$(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{}=N_{\mathrm{III}}(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{III}}+N_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{}}=\left(N_{\mathrm{III},\mathrm{eff}}+N_{\mathrm{}}\right)(\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H})_{\mathrm{}}$$
(10)
with $`N_{\mathrm{III},\mathrm{eff}}=(\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{III}}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{}})N_{\mathrm{III}}`$. We choose $`N_{\mathrm{III}}`$ from a distribution between 0 and $`\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{}}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{III}}30`$; for illustration, we will use the uniform distribution Once given $`N_{\mathrm{III}}`$, then $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$ is fixed by eq. (10).

Turning to $`N_h`$, we must choose this in a way that is consistent with our choice of $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$. Note that since the L events are 10 times rarer, the variance in $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$ is much larger than that in $`N_h`$, and thus we should expect a large span in the allowed $`N_h`$ choice at fixed $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$. We proceed by first estimating the total number of supernova events to be $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{SN}}=N_{\mathrm{}}/f_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`f_{\mathrm{}}=1/11=1f_h`$ is the fraction of supernova of type L. Using a beta distribution, we choose $`f_\mathrm{},`$, with $`a=f_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{SN}}1)`$ and $`b=f_{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{SN}}1)`$. We then have $`f_{h,}=1f_\mathrm{},`$, and can determine $`N_{\mathrm{SN},}=N_{\mathrm{}}/f_\mathrm{},`$. From these, we find $`N_h=f_{h,}N_{\mathrm{SN},}=f_{h,}/f_{\mathrm{}}N_{\mathrm{}}`$, and the star’s $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ ratio,

$$R_{}=\frac{N_h}{N_{\mathrm{III},\mathrm{eff}}+N_{\mathrm{}}}R_{\mathrm{yld}}$$
(11)
where $`R_{\mathrm{yld}}=r_h/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the ratio of the (number) yields from the two event types. Note that at high metallicity, we have $`N_h,N_{\mathrm{}}N_{\mathrm{III},\mathrm{eff}}`$ and thus

$$R_{}\frac{N_h}{N_{\mathrm{}}}R_{\mathrm{yld}}\overline{R}$$
(12)
But since Wasserburg & Qian specify that H events occur 10 times more frequently than L events, we have $`N_h/N_{\mathrm{}}=10`$, and from eq. (12) we can infer the proper $`R_{\mathrm{yld}}=r_h/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{}}`$ parameter to give the correct $`\overline{R}`$. Namely, we have $`R_{\mathrm{yld}}=\overline{R}/10=0.2`$, and $`r_h=\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{}}R_{\mathrm{yld}}=6.3\times 10^4`$.

We now turn to the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ dispersion at $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}>\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Note that simple analytic formulae are not easily derived for the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter in the WQ2000 scenario, owing to the presence of random variables in both the numerator and denominator of eq. (11). Nevertheless, one can roughly estimate that $`\sigma (R)/R1/\sqrt{N_{\mathrm{}}}`$. For $`\mathrm{Fe}>\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{}}`$, this gives an intrinsic dispersion of $`\sigma (R)/R\sqrt{\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{}}}`$, the same $`\mathrm{Fe}^{1/2}`$ scaling as that in the Fe-dominated case.

Results from a Monte Carlo realization appear in Figure 4. the dashed curve shows the $`2\sigma `$ envelope which includes observational errors and the intrinsic scatter predicted by $`\sigma (R)/R=\sqrt{\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{Fe}_{\mathrm{}}}`$ and plotted over its range of validity. We see that the scatter at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]>2.5`$ is similar to that in the Fe-dominated case, and in reasonable agreement with the present data. However, the low metallicity convergence behavior seen in Figure 3 does not appear in the Wasserburg & Qian scenario. Rather, at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<2.5`$ we see the $`R1/\mathrm{Fe}`$ trend discussed above. We again conclude that observations of the $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter in this regime can thus provide important information about r-process astrophysics.

## 3 Observational Tests of $`r`$-Process Astrophysics

The models we have presented for $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter all show similar trends from $`\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}=1`$ down to about $`2.5`$. However, below this metallicity, the differences become increasingly stark, as seen in the figures. The predicted behaviors are for points to cluster above, below, or around the mean value $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{avg}}`$.

* If the points all cluster around $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}][r/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{avg}}`$, this points to a very early population which, regardless of the small number of ancestors, maintained high $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$. This would confirm that the earliest stars produced both iron and $`r`$-elements, and thus that the sources of the r-process are short-lived and thus high-mass stars.
* If, conversely, the points all cluster around $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}][r/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{avg}}`$ (or which have only upper limits for r-process elements), this indicates that the earliest stars produced iron but failed to produce significant $`r`$. This is thus evidence for a delay until the first $`r`$-producing stars, and thus points to longer-lived progenitors (lower mass supernovae or NS-NS binaries).
* Finally, the points could continue to cluster around $`[r/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{avg}}`$. This would indicate that the earliest stars could collectively produce both the r-process or iron, but the persistent scatter would demand that individual stars could only produce one of the two. This points to a picture of the kind suggested by Wasserburg & Qian, wherein an early (and non-uniform) Pop III production of iron is quickly followed by rapid production of iron-free r-process ejecta.

Thus we see that ultra-metal-poor stars can provide “smoking gun” evidence for r-process astrophysics.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented an analytical approach to understanding the scatter in r-process-to-iron ratios in metal-poor halo stars. The observed $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter demands that the bulk of the r-process and of iron cannot be produced in the same stars. We have used a simple stochastic description of the different populations of nucleosynthesis events which contribute to r-process and iron abundances in each halo star. The random star-to-star variations in nucleosynthetic “ancestry” lead to scatter in $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$. The models we present are all successful in reproducing the scatter in the available data, which go down to about $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=3`$. We see that the abundance scatter can be understood simply in terms of the variance due to counting statistics of the ancestry of each star. We present simple and convenient analytic expressions for the scatter in this regime.

We model two basic scenarios for r-process production; one in which the r-process is rare, occurring in about $`4\%`$ of all massive stars. The other scenario, that of WQ2000, takes the reverse approach in which r-process production is ubiquitous and iron production rare in massive stars.777In the final stages of completion of this paper, we became aware of the work of Qian qian2001 (2001), which also considers $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter in the WQ2000 model. His methods and conclusions are very similar to ours. We find that these scenarios give very similar $`r/\mathrm{Fe}`$ scatter at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2.5`$, but show divergent behavior at lower metallicity. Observations in this regime can discriminate among these scenarios and give important clues regarding the lifetimes and thus the masses of the astrophysical r-process production sites. We therefore strongly urge an observational effort to measure r-process abundances (and upper limits!) in the ultra-metal-poor halo stars.

We thank Roberto Gallino, John Lattanzio, Chris Sneden, and Ron Webbink for useful discussions. This research has received support from NSF grant AST-9986974 to J.J.C. and from DOE contract B341495 to J.W.T.