text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Here we solve $`N\times N`$ Riemann-Hilbert (inverse monodromy) problems with all monodromy matrices having the structure of matrices of quasi-permutation (i.e. matrices which have only one non-zero element in each column and each row). Such Riemann-Hilbert problem may be associated to arbitrary Hurwitz space of algebraic curves $``$ of genus $`g`$ realized as $`N`$-sheeted covering over $`1`$, and allowes solution in terms of Szegö kernel on $``$. If we denote coordinate on $`1`$ by $`\lambda `$ and projections of the branch points to complex plane by $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ then the solution of inverse monodromy problem of that type has the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )_{jk}=S(\lambda ^{(j)},\lambda _0^{(k)})E_0(\lambda ,\lambda _0),j,k=1,\mathrm{},N$$

where $`\lambda ^{(j)}`$ is the point on $`j`$th sheet of $``$ having projection $`\lambda `$ on $`1`$; $`S(P,Q)`$ is Szegö kernel on $``$:

$$S(P,Q)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(P)U(Q))}{E(P,Q)};$$

$`E(P,Q)`$ ($`P,Q`$) is the prime-form on $``$ and $`E_0(\lambda ,\lambda _0)=(\lambda \lambda _0)/\sqrt{d\lambda d\lambda _0}`$ is the prime-form on $`1`$; $`𝐩,𝐪^g`$ are two vectors such that the combination $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪`$ ($`𝐁`$ is the matrix of $`b`$-periods on $``$) does not belong to theta-divisor $`(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ on Jacobi variety $`J()`$.

Function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ has determinant $`1`$ and is normalized at $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$ by the condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda =\lambda _0)=I`$. It solves the inverse monodromy problem with quasi-permutation monodromy matrices which can be expressed in terms of $`𝐩,𝐪`$ and intersection indeces of certain contours on $``$. If parameter vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ (and, therefore, also the monodromy matrices) don’t depend on $`\{\lambda _j\}`$, we fall in the framework of isomonodromy deformations; then the residues $`A_j(\{\lambda _j\})`$ of the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }^1`$ satisfy the Schlesinger system.

The associate $`\tau `$-function can be shown to be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)`$ up to some factor which depends only on $`\{\lambda _j\}`$. In $`N=2`$ case the factor can also be calculated explicitly (see ) to give

$$\tau (\{\lambda _j\})=[\mathrm{det}𝒜]^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{j<k}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^{\frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0|𝐁).$$
(1.1)
where $`n=2g+2`$; $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{2g+2}`$ are branch points on the hyperelliptic curve $``$; $`𝒜`$ is the matrix of $`a`$-periods of non-normalized holomorphic differentials on this curve.

As it was demonstrated by Malgrange , the tau-function of Schlesinger system may be interpreted as determinant of certain Toeplitz operator. It was further argued by Palmer  that the tau-function could also be interpreted as determinant of Cauchy-Riemann operator acting on certain class of matrix spinors with prescribed singularities at certain points on Riemann sphere. However, the non-standard type of the domain of the Cauchy-Riemann operators defined in this way makes it rather difficult to establish the links with more conventional framework of .

On the other hand, the Cauchy-Riemann determinants corresponding to compact Riemann surfaces were very actively exploited in the context of perturbartive string theory in late 80’s (see . Comparison with formulas of works  shows that formula (1.1) coincides with the determinant of Cauchy-Riemann operator acting on on spinors on $``$ which have twists $`e^{2\pi ip_j}`$ and $`e^{2\pi iq_j}`$ along cycles $`a_j`$ and $`b_j`$ respectively. Therefore, it seems tempting to speculate that this observation is also true for arbitrary curves; this should be a subject of further study.

Another result of these notes concerns the divisor $`(\vartheta )^n`$ in the space of parameters $`\{\lambda _j\}`$ introduced by Malgrange. This is the divisor of zeros of $`\tau `$-function in $`^n`$, or, equivalently, divisor in $`\{\lambda _j\}`$-space where the solution of inverse monodromy problem with given monodromy data fails to exist. For our class of monodromy data we have

$$\{\lambda _j\}(\vartheta )\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪(\mathrm{\Theta }),$$

where $`(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is theta-divisor on Jacobian $`J()`$.

## 2 Schlesinger system and $`\tau `$-function

Let us fix the notations. Consider the following Riemann-Hilbert problem on $`1`$: for a given set of $`n+1`$ points $`\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$, construct a function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda ):1\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n\}SL(N,)`$, which has the following properties:
\- $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ is holomorphic on universal covering of $`\lambda 1\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n\}`$ and on some sheet of this covering $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda _0)=I`$.
\- $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ has regular singular points at $`\lambda =\lambda _j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ with given monodromy matrices $`M_jSL(N,)`$.

If in addition to monodromy matrices we fix the logarithms of their eigenvalues, this RH problem is always solvable outside of submanifold of codimension 1 in the space of parameters $`\{\lambda _j,M_j\}`$. Outside of this submanifold function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies the matrix differential equation

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{d\lambda }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{A_j}{\lambda \lambda _j}\frac{A_j}{\lambda _0\lambda _j}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(2.2)
with certain matrices $`A_jsl(N,)`$; eigenvalues $`t_j^{(1)},\mathrm{},t_j^{(N)}`$ of $`A_j`$ are equal (up to the factor $`2\pi i`$) to the logarithms of eigenvalues of matrices $`M_j`$. We call the set $`\{M_j,t_j^{(k)}\}`$ the monodromy data.

If we impose the isomonodromy conditions, $`dM_k/d\lambda _j=0`$, $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and assume that $`t_j^{(l)}t_j^{(s)}`$ for any $`l`$ and $`s`$, then function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies the following equations with respect to $`\lambda _j`$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{d\lambda _j}=\left(\frac{A_j}{\lambda _0\lambda _j}\frac{A_j}{\lambda \lambda _j}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(2.3)
Compatibility condition of (2.2) and (2.3) gives Schlesinger system for the residues $`A_j`$ as functions of poles $`\{\lambda _k\}`$.

In particular, if we choose $`\lambda _0=\mathrm{}`$, the Schlesinger system has the following form:

$$\frac{A_j}{\lambda _k}=\frac{[A_j,A_k]}{\lambda _j\lambda _k},jk;\frac{A_j}{\lambda _j}=\underset{kj}{}\frac{[A_j,A_k]}{\lambda _j\lambda _k}.$$

The $`\tau `$-function of Schlesinger system is defined by the formula :

$$\frac{d}{d\lambda _j}\mathrm{ln}\tau =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{res}|_{\lambda =\lambda _j}\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }^1\right)^2\underset{j<k}{}\frac{\mathrm{tr}A_jA_k}{\lambda _j\lambda _k}.$$
(2.4)
According to Malgrange , the function $`\tau (\{\lambda _j\})`$ vanishes in the space $`^n\{\lambda _j=\lambda _k,j,k=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ precisely on the submanifold where function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ corresponding to a given set of monodromies $`M_j`$ and eigenvalues $`t_j^{(k)}`$ fails to exist.

## 3 Riemann-Hilbert problems associated to hyperelliptic curves

In this section we give a modified version of construction proposed in . Take $`n=2g+2`$ and consider hyperelliptic curve $``$ given by equation

$$w^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{2g+2}{}}(\lambda \lambda _j).$$
(3.5)
Let us define two $`1/2`$-forms $`\phi _{1,2}`$ in fundamental polygon $`\widehat{}`$ of $``$ by the formulas:

$`\phi _1(P)=\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(P)+U(D_1))E(P,D_1)`$ (3.6)
$`\phi _2(P)=\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(P)+U(D_2))E(P,D_2)`$ (3.7)
where $`𝐩,𝐪^g`$; $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are two arbitrary points of curve $``$; $`E(P,Q)`$ is the prime form on $``$; initial point of the Abel map $`U(P)`$ is chosen to be $`\lambda _1`$. Define auxiliary $`2\times 2`$ function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{kj}(\lambda )=\phi _k(\lambda ^{(j)}),$$

where $`k,j=1,2`$; $`\lambda ^{(j)}`$ denotes point of $``$ belonging to $`j`$th sheet and having projection $`\lambda `$ on $`1`$. Define function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}^1)}{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )}}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{}^1)\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ).$$
(3.8)
The $`1/2`$-differentials in the denominator of prime-form in $`\phi _{1,2}`$ cancel out in expression for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$; thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a function i.e. 0-form on $``$. The following theorem takes place, which is slightly modified version of the statement formulated in 222In a different form solution of the same RH problem was obtained in ..

###### Theorem 3.1

Let us fix some points $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{2g+2}`$ and vectors $`𝐩,𝐪^g`$. Consider hyperelliptic curve $``$ (3.5) with matrix of $`b`$-periods $`𝐁`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0|𝐁)0`$ i.e. vector $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪`$ does not belong to theta-divisor. Then function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ defined by (3.7),(3.8) gives a solution to matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem with $`\lambda _0=\mathrm{}`$ and singularities at the points $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{2g+2}`$ with off-diagonal monodromies

$$M_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_j\\ m_j^1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3.9)
where

$$m_1=1,m_2=\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi i\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}p_k\},$$

$$m_{2j+1}=\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi iq_j2\pi i\underset{k=j}{\overset{g}{}}p_k\},$$

$$m_{2j+2}=\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi iq_j2\pi i\underset{k=j+1}{\overset{g}{}}p_k\},$$
(3.10)
Proof. We can rewrite the expression for $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ using Fay identities :

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐳+U(c)U(a))\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐳+U(d)U(c))E(c,b)E(a,d)$$

$$+\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐳+U(c)U(b))\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐳+U(d)U(a))E(c,a)E(d,b)$$

$$=\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐳+U(c)+U(d)U(a)U(b))\mathrm{\Theta }(𝐳)E(c,d)E(a,b).$$

where $`𝐳^g`$; $`a,b,c,d`$ are four arbitrary points of $``$. After identification $`𝐳\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪`$, $`aD_1`$, $`bD_2`$, $`cP`$, $`dP^{}`$, the left-hand side of Fay identities gives $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(P)`$. Evaluating the right-hand side we obtain

$$\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(D_1)+U(D_2))E(P,P^{})E(D_1,D_2).$$
(3.11)
Since function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is independent of $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is undefined precisely at the points where the first prefactor vanishes i.e. vector $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪`$ belongs to the theta-divisor $`(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ on Jacobian $`J()`$. Outside of this singular variety function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is well-defined, non-singular and invertible in $`\lambda `$-plane outside of the points $`\lambda _j`$. At the points $`\lambda _j`$ it has regular singularities; expressions for monodromy matrices (3.10) follow from periodicity properties of theta-function.

If we assume that vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ are $`\{\lambda _j\}`$-independent, functions $`A_j(\{\lambda _k\})\mathrm{res}|_{\lambda =\lambda _j}\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }^1`$ satisfy the Schlesinger system; corresponding tau-function is given by the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.2

 The tau-function of Schlesinger system corresponding to monodromy matrices (3.10) is given by

$$\tau (\{\gamma _j\})=[\mathrm{det}𝒜]^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{j<k}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^{\frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0|𝐁).$$
(3.12)
i.e. coincides with determinant of Cauchy-Riemann operators $`_{1/2}^{𝐩,𝐪}`$ on $``$ .

Proof. Here we give a version of the proof which is slightly simplified comparing with the original version of (). Taking into account the following identity valid for $`2\times 2`$ matrices,

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }^1)^2=\frac{\mathrm{det}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda )}{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{(\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi })_\lambda }{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)^2,$$

we find that

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }^1)^2(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}\frac{^2\left\{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(\mu )U(\lambda ))\right\}}{\lambda \mu }|_{\mu =\lambda }\frac{^2\left\{\mathrm{ln}E(\lambda ,\mu )\right\}}{\lambda \mu }|_{\mu =\lambda ^{}}$$
(3.13)
Dependence of $`\tau `$-function on vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ is contained in the first term of right-hand side. This term can be further rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{g}{}}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}{z_kz_l}\frac{dU_k}{d\lambda }\frac{dU_l}{d\lambda }4\pi i\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{g}{}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}{𝐁_{lk}}\frac{dU_k}{d\lambda }\frac{dU_l}{d\lambda },$$

where we used the heat equation for theta-function; $`z_k`$ denotes the $`k`$th argument of theta-function. Dependence of matrix of $`b`$-periods on the branch points is given by the following equations :

$$\frac{𝐁_{kl}}{\lambda _j}=\pi i\frac{U_k}{\kappa _j}(\lambda _j)\frac{U_l}{\kappa _j}(\lambda _j),$$

where $`\kappa _j=\sqrt{\lambda \lambda _j}`$ is a local parameter near point $`\lambda _j`$. On the other hand, value $`4\frac{U_k}{\kappa _j}(\lambda _j)\frac{U_l}{\kappa _j}(\lambda _j)`$ is nothing but the residue of the rational function $`\frac{dU_k}{d\lambda }(\lambda )\frac{dU_l}{d\lambda }(\lambda )`$ at $`\lambda =\lambda _j`$. Continuing the calculation of the first term in (3.13) we get

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}\frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _j}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}{\lambda _j},$$

and, therefore,

$$\tau =f(\{\lambda _j\})\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0),$$
(3.14)
where function $`f`$ does not carry any dependence on $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$. Now, to determine function $`f`$ we can choose vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ in such a way that the tau-function may be explicitly calculated in elementary functions. One of possible choices of that kind is to take $`𝐩,𝐪`$ to coincide with some even half-integer characteristic $`𝐩^T,𝐪^T`$. We choose characteristic $`𝐩_T,𝐪_T`$ to correspond to some subset $`T=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_{g+1}\}`$ of the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},2g+2\}`$ via the standard relation

$$\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}^T+𝐪^T=U(\lambda _{i_1})+\mathrm{}+U(\lambda _{i_{g+1}})K.$$

According to Thomae formulas ,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^4[{}_{𝐪^T}{}^{𝐩^T}](0)=\pm \frac{(\mathrm{det}𝒜)^2}{(2\pi i)^{2g}}\underset{j,kT}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)\underset{j,kT}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k),$$

where $`𝒜_{jk}=_{a_k}\frac{\lambda ^{k1}d\lambda }{w}`$. Therefore, the $`\tau `$-function (3.14) may be up to unessential overall constant factor rewritten as follows:

$$\tau =f(\{\lambda _j\})(\mathrm{det}𝒜)^{1/2}\underset{\lambda _j,\lambda _kT}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^{1/4}\underset{\lambda _j,\lambda _kT}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^{1/4}.$$
(3.15)
Alternatively, we can easily calculate the same $`\tau `$-function directly. Taking into account that $`U(\lambda _1)=0`$; $`U(\lambda _2)=\frac{1}{2}_{k=1}^g𝐞_k`$; $`U(\lambda _{2j+1})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝐁𝐞}_j+\frac{1}{2}_{k=j}^g𝐞_j`$; $`U(\lambda _{2j+2})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝐁𝐞}_j+\frac{1}{2}_{k=j+1}^g𝐞_j`$, we find:

$$q_{j+1}^Tq_j^T=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{2j+2}+\delta _{2j+3}+1);p_j^T=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{2j+1}+\delta _{2j+2}+1),$$

where $`\delta _j=1`$ for $`jT`$ and $`\delta _j=0`$ for $`jT`$. Substituting these formulas to (3.10) we see that the monodromy matrices have the following form:

$$M_j=i(1)^{\delta _j+\delta _1}\sigma _1,$$

where by $`\sigma _j`$, $`j=1,2,3`$ we denote the standard Pauli matrices. By simultaneous similarity transformation which does not modify associate $`\tau `$-function this set of monodromy matrices may be transformed to the set of diagonal matrices

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_j=i\sigma _3,\lambda _jT;\stackrel{~}{M}_j=i\sigma _3,\lambda _jT.$$

The associate function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ may be chosen to be diagonal: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )=\mathrm{diag}(\phi _0(\lambda ),\phi _0^1(\lambda ))`$ with

$$\phi _0(\lambda )=\underset{jT}{}(\lambda \lambda _j)^{1/4}\underset{jT}{}(\lambda \lambda _j)^{1/4},$$

which leads to the following formula for $`\tau `$-function:

$$\tau =\underset{j,kT}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^{1/8}\underset{j,kT}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^{1/8}\underset{jT,kT}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^{1/8}.$$
(3.16)
Comparing (3.15) and (3.16) we get

$$f(\{\lambda _j\})=(\mathrm{det}𝒜)^{1/2}\underset{j<k}{}(\lambda _j\lambda _k)^{1/8},$$

proving (3.12).

## 4 Solution of matrix Riemann-Hilbert problems in terms of Szegö kernel on algebraic curves

Consider non-singular algebraic curve $``$ defined by polynomial equation

$$f(\lambda ,w)=0$$

of degree $`N`$ in $`w`$. Hurwitz space is the moduli space of curves of fixed genus $`g`$ and fixed number of sheets $`N`$. In analogy to Dubrovin  we shall in addition fix the types of ramification at all branch points. Denote projections of branch points on $`\lambda `$-plane by $`\lambda _j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (admitting little inaccuracy we shall also call $`\lambda _j`$ the branch points). If we denote multiplicities of branch points $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ by $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_n`$ respectively, the genus of $``$ is given by Riemann-Hurwitz formula

$$g=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_jN+1.$$

We consider Hurwitz space $`H`$ consisting of the curves which can be obtained from $``$ by variation of branch points $`\lambda _j`$ without changing their type of ramification. Assume that the normalization point $`\lambda _0`$ does not coincide with any of $`\lambda _j`$.

To each Hurwitz space $`H`$ we can associate solution of certain RH problem with singularities at points $`\lambda _j`$ and quasi-permutation monodromy matrices (For brevity we call any matrix which has only one non-vanishing element in each row and only one non-vanishing element in each column the quasi-permutation matrix.)

Denote by $`\pi :1`$ the projection of $``$ to $`\lambda `$-plane. Let us denote by $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_n`$ the natural basis in $`H^0(1\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n\},)`$. As a starting point of all $`l_j`$ we choose $`\lambda _0`$. Consider $`\pi ^1(l_j)`$. This is a set of $`N`$ non-intersecting contours $`l_j^{(k)}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$ on $``$, where by $`l_j^{(k)}`$ we denote contour starting at $`\lambda _0^{(k)}`$. Denote the endpoint of $`l_j^{(k)}`$ by $`\lambda _0^{(k^{})}`$ with some $`k^{}=k^{}(k)`$. If $`\lambda _j^{(k)}`$ is not a branch point, then $`k=k^{}`$, and contour $`l_j^{(k)}`$ is closed; if $`\lambda _j^{(k)}`$ is a branch point, then $`kk^{}`$ and contour $`l_j^{(k)}`$ is non-closed.

Assume now that point $`\lambda _0`$ does not belong to the set of projections of basic cycles $`(a_j,b_j)`$ on $`1`$. Introduce intersection indexes

$`\alpha _{js}^{(k)}=l_j^{(k)}a_s,\beta _{js}^{(k)}=l_j^{(k)}b_s`$ (4.17)
$`\mathrm{where}j=1,\mathrm{},n;s=1,\mathrm{},g;k=1,\mathrm{},N`$ (4.18)
Choose on $``$ a canonical basis of cycles $`(a_j,b_j),j=1,\mathrm{},g`$. Introduce the basis of holomorphic 1-forms $`dU_j`$ on $``$ normalized by $`_{a_j}𝑑U_k=\delta _{jk}`$, matrix of $`b`$-periods $`𝐁`$ and the Abel map $`U(P),P`$. Denote initial point of Abel map by $`P_0`$.

Let us introduce function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ in analogy to (3.8):

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )=\left[\frac{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda _0)}{\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )}\right]^{1/N}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ).$$
(4.19)
Function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )`$ is defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )_{kj}\frac{\lambda \mu }{\sqrt{d\lambda d\mu }}\phi _k(\lambda ^{(j)}),$$
(4.20)
where by $`\lambda ^{(j)}`$ we denote the point of $`j`$th sheet of curve $``$ having projection $`\lambda `$ on $`1`$; $`\mu `$ is an arbitrary point. Here $`\phi _k(P)`$ are holomorphic spinors on $``$. To define them choose an arbitrary set of $`N`$ positive non-special divisors $`D_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$ of degree $`N1`$ each i.e $`D_k=_{j=1}^{N1}D_k^j`$. Take

$$\phi _k(P)=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(P)+U(D_k)C)_{j=1}^{N1}E(P,D_k^j)}{_{j=1}^NE(P,\mu ^{(j)})}$$
(4.21)
where $`𝐩,𝐪^g`$; $`E(P,Q)`$ is the prime-form; $`C_{k=1}^NU(\lambda ^{(k)}).`$

It is clear that vector $`C`$ does not depend on $`\lambda `$; it depends only on the choice of initial point of Abel map $`P_0`$. This follows from the fact that for any holomorphic 1-form $`dU(P)`$ on $``$ the sum $`_{j=1}^NdU(\lambda ^{(j)})`$ is holomorphic 1-form on $`1`$, therefore identically vanishing. The function $`\phi _k(\lambda ^{(j)})/\sqrt{d\lambda }`$ behaves near branch point $`\lambda _j`$ as $`\tau _j^{m_j/2}`$ where $`\tau _j=(\lambda \lambda _j)^{1/(m_j+1)}`$ is the local parameter near $`\lambda _j`$. Therefore, to completely define this function on $`\widehat{}`$, one has to define system of contours on $``$ which connect the branch points with odd $`m_j`$, and where functions $`\phi _k(P)/\sqrt{d\lambda }`$ change sign. Denote this system of contours by $`L`$.

###### Theorem 4.1

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)0`$. Then function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (4.19) is independent of the choice of divisors $`D_k`$ and point $`\mu `$ and solves the RH problem on $`1`$ with quasi-permutation matrices $`M_j`$ which can be expressed in terms of vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$.

Proof. By counting number of poles and zeros it is easy to check that $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )`$ does not vanish outside of branch points $`\lambda _j`$. The spinors $`\phi _k(P)`$ (4.21) transform as follows under the analytical continuation along basic cycles:

$$T_{a_j}[\phi _k(P)]=e^{2\pi ip_j}\phi _k(P),T_{b_j}[\phi _k(P)]=e^{2\pi iq_j}\phi _k(P).$$
(4.22)
When we consider analytical continuation of $`\psi (\lambda ^{(k)})/\sqrt{d\lambda }`$ along contour $`l_j^{(k)}`$ from $`\lambda _0^{(k)}`$ to $`\lambda _0^{(k^{})}`$, we come to the value $`\psi (\lambda _0^{(k^{})})/\sqrt{d\lambda }`$ up to the factor which is collected from crossing the contours $`\{a_j,b_j\}`$ and contour $`L`$, where this function has jumps. Denote by $`I_j^{(k)}`$ the intersection index of $`l_j^{(k)}`$ and $`L`$. Then the total factor we collect along contour $`\lambda _j^{(k)}`$ is $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{\pi iI_j^{(k)}+2\pi i\left[_{s=1}^g\alpha _{js}^{(k)}q_s+\beta _{js}^{(k)}p_s\right]\right\}`$, where intersection indeces $`\alpha _{js}^{(k)}`$ and $`\beta _{js}^{(k)}`$ are given by (4.18). Therefore, monodromy matrices corresponding to our $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, have the following form

$$(M_j)_{kl}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\pi iI_j^{(k)}+2\pi i\left[\underset{s=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _{js}^{(k)}q_s+\beta _{js}^{(k)}p_s\right]\right\}\delta _{\stackrel{~}{k}(k),l}$$
(4.23)
($`\delta _{ab}`$ is the Kronecker symbol); obviously, this is a matrix of quasi-permutation. Independence of function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ on the choice of divisors $`D_k`$ and point $`\mu `$ follows from uniqueness of solution of Riemann-Hilbert problem with given $`\{M_j\}`$ and $`\{t_j^{(s)}\}`$.

Condition $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)0`$ of the theorem guarantees the non-vanishing of $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )`$ in (4.19). Namely, for arbitrary $`N`$ points $`P_j`$ we can prove that

$$\mathrm{det}_{N\times N}\{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(P_j)+U(D_k)C)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}E(P_j,D_k^j)\}$$

$$=F(\mu ,\{\lambda _j\},\{D_k\})\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}U(P_j)C)\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}E(P_j,P_k)$$
(4.24)
for some $`\{P_j\}`$-independent section $`F`$. The proof of formula (4.24) may be obtained in a standard way. First, it is easy to prove that the r.h.s. and l.h.s. are sections of the same bundle on $``$ with respect to each $`P_j`$. Then we check that positions of zeros of l.h.s. and r.h.s. with respect to each $`P_j`$ coincide. Choosing $`P_j=\lambda ^{(j)}`$ we get $`_{j=1}^NU(P_j)=C`$; therefore, $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda )`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)`$ as in $`2\times 2`$ case (3.11). Thus function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (4.19) is undefined if $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)=0`$ i.e.

$$\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪(\mathrm{\Theta })$$

where $`(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is theta-divisor on Jacobian of $``$.

The previous construction of function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ may be simplified by choosing $`\mu =\lambda _0`$, and $`D_k=_{jk}\lambda _0^{(j)}`$.

###### Corollary 4.1

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)0`$. Then function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ with components

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )_{kj}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(\lambda ^{(j)})U(\lambda _0^{(k)}))}{E(\lambda ^{(j)},\lambda _0^{(k)})}\frac{\lambda \lambda _0}{\sqrt{d\lambda d\lambda _0}}$$
(4.25)
belongs to $`SL(N,)`$ for any $`\lambda `$, is non-singular on $``$ outside of points $`\lambda =\lambda _j`$, satisfies normalization condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda _0)=I`$ and solves Riemann-Hilbert problem with monodromy matrices (4.23).

###### Remark 4.1

Formula (4.25) may be rewritten in terms of Szegö kernel on $``$:

$$S(P,Q)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(P)U(Q))}{E(P,Q)},$$
(4.26)
which is $`(1/2,1/2)`$ differential on $`\times `$, as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )_{kj}=S(\lambda ^{(j)},\lambda _0^{(k)})E_0(\lambda ,\lambda _0)$$
(4.27)
where $`E_0(\lambda ,\lambda _0)=(\lambda \lambda _0)/\sqrt{d\lambda d\lambda _0}`$ is the prime-form on $`1`$.

Proof of the Corollary. For any two sets $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_N`$ and $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N`$ we have the following identity (see , p.33):

$$\mathrm{det}\{S(P_j,Q_k)\}=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}]\left(_{j=1}^N(U(P_j)U(Q_j))\right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}\frac{_{j<k}E(P_j,P_k)E(Q_k,Q_j)}{_{j,k}E(P_j,Q_k)}$$
(4.28)
analogous to(4.24). Choosing $`P_j\lambda ^{(j)}`$ and $`Q_k\lambda _0^{(k)}`$ and using the basic properties of prime-form we conclude that $`\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )=1`$. Normalization condition $`\psi _j\left(\lambda _0^{(k)}\right)=\delta _{jk}`$ is the corollary of asymptotic expansion of prime form:

$$E(P,Q)=\frac{z(P)z(Q)}{\sqrt{dz(P)dz(Q)}}(1+o(1))$$

as $`PQ`$, where $`z(P)`$ is a local parameter.

Let us consider separately the case $`\lambda _0=\mathrm{}`$. In this case the above formulas should be slightly modified.

###### Corollary 4.2

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)0`$. Define function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ with components

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )_{kj}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(\lambda ^{(j)})U(\mathrm{}^{(k)})}{\mathrm{\Theta }[S](U(\lambda ^{(j)})U(\mathrm{}^{(k)})}\sqrt{\frac{dW(\lambda ^{(k)})}{d(1/\lambda )}(\mathrm{})}\sqrt{\frac{dW(\lambda ^{(j)})}{d\lambda }}$$
(4.29)
where $`[S]`$ is an arbitrary non-degenerate odd half-integer characteristic and $`dW(P)=_{j=1}^g\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }[S]}{z_j}(0)dU_j`$. Then function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ belongs to $`SL(N,)`$ for any $`\lambda `$, is non-singular on $``$ outside of points $`\lambda =\lambda _j`$, satisfies normalization condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{})=I`$ and solves Riemann-Hilbert problem with monodromy matrices (4.23).

If we now assume that vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ don’t depend on $`\{\lambda _j\}`$, matrices $`M_j`$ also don’t carry any $`\{\lambda _j\}`$-dependence and the isomonodromy deformation equations take place.

###### Theorem 4.2

Assume that vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ don’t depend on $`\{\lambda _j\}`$. Then functions

$$A_j(\{\lambda _j\})\mathrm{res}|_{\lambda =\lambda _j}\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }^1\}$$
(4.30)
where function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\lambda )`$ is defined in (4.29), satisfy Schlesinger system outside of hyperplanes $`\lambda _k=\lambda _j`$ and submanifold of codimension one, on which vector $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪`$ belongs to theta-divisor $`(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ on $``$.

Let us discuss now the calculation of corresponding $`\tau `$-function. It is known  that the $`\tau `$-function vanishes outside of the hyperplanes $`\lambda _j=\lambda _k`$ precisely at those points where the Riemann-Hilbert problem does not have a solution; together with explicit calculations in $`2\times 2`$ case this suggests that the tau-function should be proportional to $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)`$. Explicit calculation shows that this is really the case, and, moreover, this factor contains the whole dependence of $`\tau `$ on vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$. So,

$$\tau =f(\{\lambda _j\})\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](0)$$

with some function $`f`$ depending only on $`\{\lambda _j\}`$. Explicit calculation of function $`f`$ is possible in some special cases, like the curves of $`_N`$ class .

Taking into account the coincidence of the $`\tau `$-function in $`2\times 2`$ case with determinant of Cauchy-Riemann operator acting on $`1/2`$-forms $`w(P)`$ on $``$ satisfying boundary conditions $`w(P+a_j)=e^{2\pi ip_j}w(P)`$, $`w(P+b_j)=e^{2\pi iq_j}w(P)`$ i.e.

$$\tau =\mathrm{det}\overline{}_{1/2}^{𝐩,𝐪}$$
(4.31)
it is tempting to suggest that this coincidence takes place for arbitrary curves; then function $`f`$ would coincide (see ) with $`[\mathrm{det}\overline{}_0]^{1/2}`$ where operator $`\overline{}_0`$ acts on 0-forms on $``$.

###### Remark 4.2

It is clear that $`\mathrm{det}\overline{}_{1/2}^{𝐩,𝐪}`$, as well as $`\tau `$-function, vanishes if $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪(\mathrm{\Theta })`$, since in this case $`1/2`$-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }[{}_{𝐪}{}^{𝐩}](U(P)U(Q))/E(P,Q)`$ for any $`Q`$ belongs to its kernel.

Another argument suggesting possible coincidence of $`\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{det}\overline{}_{1/2}^{𝐩,𝐪}`$ in general case arises from consideration of Palmer . It is also relevant to notice that close link between Cauchy-Riemann determinants and tau-functions arising in the theory of KP equation was mentioned in .

Finally, following , denote the divisor of zeros of $`\tau `$-function in $`^n`$ by $`(\vartheta )`$. Then we get the following relationship between Malgrange’s divisor $`(\vartheta )`$ and theta-divisor $`(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ on Jacobian $`J()`$:

$$\{\lambda _j\}(\vartheta )\mathrm{𝐁𝐩}+𝐪(\mathrm{\Theta }),$$

Acknowledgements I thank John Harnad, Alexey Kokotov and Alexandr Orlov for important discussions at different stages of this work.


format: text

text:
# Bogomol’nyi decomposition for vesicles of arbitrary genus∗

## References


text:
# Vector Meson Decay of Baryon Resonances

## 1 Introduction

One of the evidences for the discovery of a new state of matter that was quoted by the CERN press release in 2000 was the result of the CERES experiment that showed an excess of dileptons at invariant masses below the vector meson mass. In order to understand this phenomenon it is essential to consider the effect of conventional hadronic interactions on the vector mesons. We emphasize the relevance of the excitation of baryon resonances in this context. To this end we analyze the decay of nucleon resonances into vector mesons within an isospin selective VMD model. In the isovector channel we compare the results to fits to the hadronic $`N\rho `$ decay width. In the isoscalar channel we then predict the $`\omega `$ coupling strength.

## 2 VMD Analysis of the Electromagnetic Resonance Decay

Vector Meson Dominance (VMD), a theory which describes photon-hadron interactions exclusively in terms of vector meson-hadron interactions, relates the hadronic coupling strength of resonances to vector mesons $`f_{RN\rho (\omega )}`$ and the isoscalar and isovector part of the photon-coupling:

$$f_{RN\omega }=g_sm_\omega \frac{2g_\omega }{e},f_{RN\rho }=g_vm_\rho \frac{2g_\rho }{e}.$$
(1)
As values for $`g_\rho `$ and $`g_\omega `$ – the coupling strengths of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ meson to the photon – we take $`g_\rho =2.5`$ and $`g_\omega =8.7`$ (ref. ). The isoscalar and isovector coupling strength of the resonance to the $`N\gamma `$ system is given by $`g_s`$ and $`g_v`$, respectively, see Eq. 2. Thus VMD gives access to both $`f_{RN\omega }`$ and $`f_{RN\rho }`$, if it is possible to obtain $`g_s`$ and $`g_v`$ from experimental data. In order to achieve this goal, the coupling has to be decomposed into an isoscalar and an isovector part, which is readily done by constructing suitable linear combinations of proton- and neutron-amplitudes.

The isospin part $`I`$ of the electromagnetic coupling is given by:

$`I=\chi _R^I\left(g_s+g_v\tau _3\right)\chi _N^I`$ (2)
For simplicity we restrict ourselves here to the case of isospin 1/2; the case of isospin 3/2 contains additional Clebsch-Gordan coefficients which are given in ref.. The spinors $`\chi _R^I`$ and $`\chi _N^I`$ represent resonance and nucleon iso spinors and $`I_R`$ denotes the isospin of the resonance. $`\tau _3`$ refers to the Pauli matrix. From the structure of the isospin coupling $`I`$ it follows that the linear combinations

$$_{s/v}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_p\pm _n\right)$$
(3)
are proportional to $`g_s`$ and $`g_v`$ respectively.

At the pole-mass of the resonance the helicity amplitudes $`A_{\frac{1}{2}}^{p/n}`$ and $`A_{\frac{3}{2}}^{p/n}`$ are known from experiment. Therefore also $`g_s`$ and $`g_v`$ are determined except for a normalization factor. We calculate this factor by introducing the $`\gamma `$-width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s/v}^\gamma `$, defined in terms of the helicity amplitudes $`A_{s/v}`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s/v}^\gamma (m_R)=\frac{𝐪_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐦}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\pi }\frac{2m_N}{(2j_R+1)m_R}\left(|A_{\frac{1}{2}}^{s/v}|^2+|A_{\frac{3}{2}}^{s/v}|^2\right),$$
(4)
with $`j_R`$ and $`m_R`$ denoting spin and pole-mass of the resonance and $`𝐪_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐦}}`$ the cm-momentum of the photon. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s/v}^\gamma `$ can also be expressed using Feynman amplitudes:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{s/v}^\gamma (k^2)=\frac{1}{(2j_R+1)}\frac{𝐪_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐦}}}{8\pi k^2}|_{s/v}|^2,$$
(5)
where $`\sqrt{k^2}`$ is the invariant mass of the resonance. After summing over the photon polarizations, $`|_{s/v}|^2`$ assumes the following form:

$$|_{s/v}|^2=4m_Nm_R\kappa g_{s/v}^2q^2F(k^2).$$
(6)
The formfactor $`F(k^2)`$ at the $`RN\gamma `$ vertex is taken from ref.. The numerical factor $`\kappa `$ depends on the quantum numbers of the resonance (ref.). The two expressions Eqs. 4 and 5 can now be equated allowing to solve for $`g_{s/v}`$:

$$g_{s/v}^2=\frac{4}{\kappa }\frac{|A_{\frac{1}{2}}^{s/v}|^2+|A_{\frac{3}{2}}^{s/v}|^2}{𝐪_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐦}}}$$
(7)
In this way it is possible to obtain $`g_{s/v}`$ from helicity amplitudes. The hadronic couplings $`f_{RN\omega (\rho )}`$ are then readily deduced from the VMD relation Eq. 1. The corresponding values are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

## 3 The $`\rho `$ Meson

### 3.1 VMD in the Isovector Channel

In this section we investigate the applicability of VMD for the isovector channel of the resonance decay. For the helicity amplitudes we use different parameter sets in order to provide an estimate for the experimental uncertainties entering this analysis. They are taken from Arndt et al and Feuster et al. The $`\rho `$ decay widths are taken from the analysis of Manley et al.

In Table 1 the results for the coupling constants and the corresponding error-bars are given. As a general tendency, VMD works well within a factor of two. This can be seen particularly well in the case of the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ and the $`F_{15}(1680)`$, which are the most prominent resonances in photon-nucleon reactions, and whose $`\rho `$ decay widths are also well under control. Note in particular the large coupling constant for the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ in the hadronic fit which is possible only because of the large width of the $`\rho `$ meson.

For the $`P_{13}(1720)`$ and the $`F_{35}(1905)`$ resonances VMD is off by an order of magnitude. We argue that this mismatch does not necessarily indicate a failure of VMD, but can be traced back to the unsatisfactory experimental information on these two resonances. Neither the helicity amplitudes nor the partial $`N\rho `$ width are well determined from experiment. Obviously, the extraction of the resonance parameters is very complicated and might be sensitive to the details of the underlying theoretical model, such as the treatment of the non-resonant background. For a conclusive VMD analysis of these resonances it is therefore mandatory to enlarge the data base and to describe hadron- and photoinduced reactions within one and the same analysis.

We conclude that VMD works remarkably well in the isovector channel. Therefore, our approach should yield reasonable predictions of the unknown coupling constants $`f_{RN\omega }`$.

### 3.2 The $`\rho `$ Spectral Function in Nuclear Matter

Using the coupling constants obtained from the hadronic $`N\rho `$ decay width of the resonance, we calculate the spectral function $`A_\rho ^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪)`$ of the $`\rho `$ meson in nuclear matter at density $`\rho =\rho _0`$. It is defined as:

$$A_\rho ^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪)=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\text{Im }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪)}{(\omega ^2𝐪^2m_\rho ^2+\text{Re }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪))^2+\text{Im }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪)^2}.$$
(8)
Note that in nuclear matter transverse and longitudinal modes – denoted by T and L, respectively – have to be treated independently. Here $`\omega `$ and $`𝐪`$ denote energy and momentum relative to the rest frame of nuclear matter. The selfenergy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪)`$ is a sum of vacuum and in-medium contributions. The vacuum part is given by the 2-pion decay mode and we estimate the in-medium part within the low-density approximation:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{med}^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪)=\frac{1}{8m_N}\rho _NT_{tot}^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪).$$
(9)
The main quantity entering this expression is the $`\rho N`$ forward scattering amplitude $`T_{tot}^{T/L}`$. In Fig. 1 we show the results for $`A_\rho ^{T/L}(\omega ,𝐪)`$. They highlight an important consequence of the strong coupling of the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ to the $`N\rho `$ system, namely the strong modification of the $`\rho `$ spectral function in nuclear matter. In particular at low momenta the mass spectrum is dominated by the excitation of a $`D_{13}(1520`$), leading to a substantial shift of spectral strength down to lower invariant masses. This, of course, is of relevance for the interpretation of the CERES data. At large momenta the $`P_{13}(1720)`$ and the $`F_{35}(1905)`$ dominate the spectrum. The predominant feature is the different modification of transverse and longitudinal $`\rho `$ mesons.

## 4 The $`\omega `$ Meson

### 4.1 VMD in the Isoscalar Channel

In this section we present our results for the coupling constants $`f_{RN\omega }`$ and discuss their compatibility with experimental information obtained from pion- and photon-induced $`\omega `$-production cross sections.

All nucleon resonances with $`j_R<\frac{7}{2}`$, for which helicity amplitudes have been extracted, are included. Thus we consider only one resonance above the $`N\omega `$ threshold in our analysis, namely the $`D_{13}(2080)`$. We use again the helicity amplitudes from Arndt et al and Feuster et aland consider also the PDG estimates. The corresponding results for $`f_{RN\omega }`$ together with the error-bars are given in Table 2. We find a strong coupling to the $`N\omega `$ channel in the $`S_{11}`$, $`D_{13}`$ and $`F_{15}`$ partial waves; especially the $`S_{11}(1650)`$, the $`D_{13}(1520)`$ and the $`F_{15}(1680)`$ resonances show a sizeable coupling strength to this channel.

It is noteworthy that the resonances with the largest coupling are well below the $`N\omega `$ threshold. Subthreshold resonances in the $`N\omega `$ channel are also reported elsewhere. The coupled-channel analysis of $`\pi N`$ scattering enforces resonant structures in the $`N\omega `$ channel, in particular in the $`S_{11}`$ and $`D_{13}`$ partial waves. However, the coupling strength extracted in their analysis is $`f_{RN\omega }6.5`$, nearly twice as large as our value. In the quark model calculation of ref. a value of about $`f_{RN\omega }2.6`$ is found, which is surprisingly close to our result.

The quality of the VMD predictions can further be tested by a comparison with experimental data on the reactions $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ and $`\gamma p\omega p`$. Comparison with data allows also to discuss the results for the $`D_{13}(2080)`$, the only resonance in our analysis above threshold. We find for this resonance an $`\omega `$ decay width of about $`70`$ MeV and argue that its contribution to both reactions is too small to be seen in experiment. As a first approximation, we take the full production amplitude as an incoherent sum of Breit-Wigner type amplitudes, describing $`s`$-channel contributions.

The results are shown in Fig. 2. The data for the $`\pi `$-induced reaction are taken from ref. and we use the photoproduction data of ref.. The cross-section for $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ is reproduced rather well near threshold. This is in agreement with the findings of ref., where a satisfactory description of this process around threshold in terms of near or subthreshold resonances is presented. This suggests that the excitation of subthreshold resonances constitutes an essential ingredient to the production mechanism. The contribution coming from the only resonance above threshold – the $`D_{13}(2080)`$ – is about $`0.1`$ mb, roughly $`10\%`$ of the total cross-section.

On the other hand, the photoproduction data cannot be saturated within the resonance model; this gives little hope to find the $`D_{13}(2080)`$ in this reaction. However, adding the contribution from $`\pi ^0`$-exchange yields a qualitative explanation of the data over the energy range under consideration.

Overall it seems that the predictions of the resonance model are in reasonable agreement with the data and can be viewed as a confirmation of the VMD analysis.

### 4.2 The $`\omega `$ Spectral Function in Nuclear Matter

Within the same formalism as for the $`\rho `$ meson we investigate the effects of resonance-excitation on the properties of $`\omega `$ mesons in nuclear matter. Again the calculations are performed at $`\rho =\rho _0`$. We find a broadening of the $`\omega `$ meson of about $`50`$ MeV and a repulsive mass shift of roughly $`20`$ MeV, see Fig. 3. These findings are in surprising agreement with those of various other groups. The $`\omega `$ meson thus is much less modified in nuclear matter than the $`\rho `$ meson, which follows within our model from the much smaller coupling constants. As can be seen in Fig. 3 the in-medium effects are most pronounced at small momenta.

## 5 Conclusions

We have demonstrated that through the excitation of baryon resonances the in-medium spectral functions of vector mesons receive a substantial shift of spectral strength down to lower invariant masses. These effects play a key role in understanding the in-medium properties of vector mesons.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This work was supported by DFG and BMBF.


text:
# The Continuing Slow Decline of AG Pegasi

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The symbiotic binary AG Peg began a slow nova eruption in the mid-1850’s, rising from 9th magnitude to 6th magnitude in $``$ one decade or less (Lundmark, 1921). Although spectra at optical maximum are not available, later spectra revealed a peculiar Be-type spectrum with strong P Cygni-like emission lines and additional absorption from He I and TiO (Fleming, 1907; Payne-Gaposchkin, 1957; Merrill, 1916, 1929a,b, 1959). Since the 1920’s, the hot component of the binary has slowly evolved from a Be-type star to a Wolf-Rayet star (WN6 spectrum) to a hot “subdwarf” with an effective temperature exceeding $`10^5`$ K (Gallagher et al., 1979; Kenyon et al., 1993, and references therein). The red giant companion to the eruptive star has an M3 spectral type, does not fill its tidal lobe, and loses mass in a low velocity wind (Kenyon & Fernández-Castro, 1987; Kenny et al., 1991; Mürset & Schmid, 1999).

The eruption of the hot component in AG Peg may be the slowest classical nova outburst ever recorded (Gallagher et al., 1979; Kenyon & Truran, 1983; Nussbaumer, 1992; Kenyon et al., 1993). Historical data – together with ultraviolet (UV) spectra acquired with the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) and other UV satellite missions – indicate that the hot component maintained a roughly constant bolometric luminosity from $``$ 1850 to $``$ 1980. The last few pairs of IUE spectra suggest that the luminosity of the hot component began to decline as the intensity of the broad emission lines weakened considerably (Kenyon et al., 1993; Vogel & Nussbaumer, 1994, Nussbaumer, Schmutz, & Vogel 1995). At about the same time, the source of strong emission lines may have shifted from an H II region surrounding the hot component to the illuminated hemisphere of the red giant (e.g., Proga, Kenyon, & Raymond 1998). Radio, X-ray, and other satellite data show features indicative of colliding winds, where material ejected from the hot component interacts with the slow-moving wind of the red giant (Kenny et al., 1991; Mürset et al., 1995; Nussbaumer et al., 1995; Contini, 1997). If these analyses are correct, the hot component may be slowly transforming from a slow classical nova at maximum into a nova remnant.

To elucidate further the slow decline of the hot component in AG Peg, we analyzed new optical spectra and UV spectra acquired with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The optical spectra demonstrate that most of the low ionization emission lines, such as H I and He I, arise in the photoionized wind of the red giant. Some high ionization emission from He II is also produced in this region. Although more spectra are required to follow the evolution of the hot component in detail, the UV data provide further evidence for a decline in the bolometric luminosity of the hot component. The forbidden and intercombination emission lines indicate that an ionized nebula with a wide range of densities, $``$ $`10^5`$ to $`10^{10}`$ cm-3, surrounds the binary system. Lines of low ionization potential, e.g., \[O III\], suggest a low density, photoionized nebula with an electron temperature, $`T_e10^4`$ K; lines of higher ionization potential, e.g., \[Ne V\] and \[Fe VII\], are formed at higher electron density, $`n_e10^7`$ cm-3, in gas mechanically heated to electron temperatures of at least $`10^5`$ K.

We describe the HST and new optical data in §2, analyze these data in §3, and conclude with a brief summary in §4.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS

We acquired high quality ultraviolet and optical spectra of AG Peg with the Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS) on board the Hubble Space Telescope. These data were taken as part of a calibration program to evaluate the absolute FOS wavelength scale and to measure the throughput for the small apertures and the amount of internal “out of band” grating scatter recorded in FOS exposures. The spectra cover 1150–4800 Å at a resolution of R = 1300 over the entire spectrum. To attain the best photometric accuracy, the most precise target acquisition and centering procedure was used. The centering accuracy should be roughly 0$`^{\prime \prime }.`$025 for all of the data, with a 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainty in the HST guiding and orbit-to-orbit re-centering of 0$`^{\prime \prime }.`$007. Most of the observations were taken in RAPID mode, which yields several individual readouts of the spectrum. We averaged all readouts to produce a final spectrum for each wavelength region. We acquired observations with both FOS detectors, FOS/BL and FOS/RD, through several apertures, 4$`^{\prime \prime }.`$3 square, 1$`^{\prime \prime }.`$0 round, 0$`^{\prime \prime }.`$5 round, and 0$`^{\prime \prime }.`$3 round. Observations with the largest apertures should have the best photometric accuracy. In practice, line fluxes derived from different apertures agreed to 5% or better; we thus averaged the line and continuum fluxes described below.

We reduced the data using the standard “calfos” pipeline routines in STSDAS using the STScI-recommended reference files and calibration procedures appropriate to each epoch of observation. Thus, the FOS calibration closeout reference file suite, as described in the HST Data Handbook, Volume II (Keyes, 1997), was used for all data.

P. Berlind, D. Koranyi, and T. Lappin acquired low resolution optical spectra of AG Peg with the FAST spectrograph mounted at the Fred L. Whipple Observatory 1.5-m telescope on Mount Hopkins, Arizona. FAST is a high throughput, slit spectrograph equipped with a thinned, back-side illuminated 320 $`\times `$ 2704 Loral CCD (Fabricant et al., 1998). These spectra cover 3800–7500 Å at a resolution of $``$ 3 Å with a 3′′ slit. We calibrated the FAST spectra on the Hayes & Latham (1975) flux scale using observations of standards from Barnes & Hayes (1982). Repeat observations of several standards and a comparison of photoelectric B and V magnitudes with those derived from the spectra indicate the calibration has an uncertainty of $`\pm `$0.10 mag.

We acquired additional optical spectrophotometry of AG Peg on 1992 November 5–11 with the white spectrograph and GoldCam CCD dewar (WhiteCam) at the Kitt Peak National Observatory (KPNO) 0.9-m telescope. Grating 26 and a 7$`^{\prime \prime }.`$5 slit resulted in a resolution of $``$ 10 Å on a Ford 3K $`\times `$ 1K CCD. Roughly 200–300 pixels at each end of the CCD are vignetted with WhiteCam, which reduced our free spectral range to 3500–6200 Å at 1.25 Å/pixel. This interval includes most of the strong emission lines detected on the FAST spectra but misses H$`\alpha `$ and several He I lines. We reduced these data to the Hayes & Latham (1975) flux scale using observations of standard stars from Barnes & Hayes (1982) and estimate our flux calibration has an uncertainty of $`\pm `$0.05 mag.

Figure 1 shows a composite FOS spectrum. The data shown in this figure and all subsequent figures have not been corrected for interstellar extinction. The spectrum has a Rayleigh-Jeans tail from a hot continuum for $`\lambda 2000`$ Å, a flat nebular continuum for $`\lambda `$ 2000–3646 Å, and a red continuum from the cool giant for $`\lambda `$ 4000 Å. Strong emission lines from a wide range of ionization states are superimposed on these continua. FAST spectra show a red continuum, strong TiO absorption bands, and more emission lines at longer wavelengths (see Figure 1 of Kenyon et al., 1993). The overall appearance of the spectrum has changed slightly since the early 1990’s: the Rayleigh-Jeans tail and the nebular continuum are more prominent on the FOS spectra than on earlier IUE spectra.

To quantify the spectral changes of AG Peg, we measured continuum magnitudes and emission line fluxes on all of the spectra. We define narrow-band continuum magnitudes in 30 Å bandpasses as

$$m_\lambda =2.5\mathrm{log}F_\lambda 21.1,$$
(1)
where $`F_\lambda `$ is the average flux in the bandpass. Tables 1 and 2 list continuum magnitudes and 1$`\sigma `$ errors derived from the FOS and the FAST/WhiteCam observations. We measured emission line fluxes using interactive gaussian fitting routines. Simple gaussians produce good fits for all emission lines except H$`\alpha `$, which has a broad wing superimposed on a narrow gaussian feature. We used two gaussians to fit this feature. Tables 3–5 list emission line fluxes for the FOS and the FAST/WhiteCam observations. The typical error for FAST measurements in Table 5 is 5% for strong lines and 10% for weak lines based on repeat FAST observations acquired on the same night and a comparison of contemporaneous FAST and FOS observations. The FOS line fluxes in Tables 3–4 have accuracies of 5% or better.

Figure 2 shows the continuing slow decline of the far ultraviolet (far-UV) and near-ultraviolet (near-UV) continuum. We adopt the Fernie (1985) photometric ephemeris to time maximum light in the system, when the hot component lies in front of the red giant:

$$\mathrm{Max}(\mathrm{V})=\mathrm{JD}2442710.1+816.5\mathrm{E}.$$
(2)
Data in Figure 2 and subsequent figures for photometric phases less than 7 are from Keyes (1981) and Kenyon et al. (1993). In addition to the 2.0–2.5 mag decline at 1300–3300 Å, there are obvious maxima in the near-UV continuum at $`\varphi `$ = 2, 7, and 8. These maxima have amplitudes of 0.5-1.0 mag and are weak or absent in the far-UV.

Figures 3 and 4 show that several emission lines vary in step with the near-UV continuum. The N IV\] $`\lambda `$1486 line rises by a factor of two at $`\varphi `$ = 2 and has a weaker rise at $`\varphi `$ = 8. He II $`\lambda `$1640 displays the opposite behavior, with a weak rise at $`\varphi `$ = 2 followed by a stronger variation at $`\varphi `$ = 8. Both lines were saturated on IUE spectra at $`\varphi `$ = 7. The optical lines shown in Figure 4 have more obvious variations correlated with photometric phase. The H I and He I lines are roughly a factor of two more intense at $`\varphi `$ = 8 and $`\varphi `$ = 9 than at photometric minima. Higher ionization optical lines, such as He II $`\lambda `$4686, have a weak maximum. Both sets of lines are a factor of 2–3 weaker at $`\varphi `$ = 8–9 compared to data at $`\varphi `$ = 2–4.

## 3 ANALYSIS

The behavior of the lines and continuum in AG Peg continue to support the phenomenological model developed by Belyakina (1968a, b, 1970), Boyarchuk (1966, 1967), and Gallagher et al. (1979). The overall decrease in the optical and UV line and continuum fluxes results from the continuing slow nova-like decline of the hot component. Kenyon et al. (1993) showed that the bolometric luminosity of the hot component has remained roughly constant for nearly a century (see also Gallagher et al., 1979). As the photospheric radius contracted, the effective temperature of the hot component increased. The optical and UV continua faded. Fluxes from low ionization lines also declined; fluxes from the highest ionization lines increased. Because high energy photons from the hot component ionize the outer atmosphere of the red giant, the system displays photometric maxima in phase with the orbit. The nebular continuum and recombination lines of H I and He I are strongest when we see the heated hemisphere and weakest when we see the opposite, unheated hemisphere. Prior to 1990, higher ionization lines formed closer to the hot component; the fluxes of these lines thus were only weakly modulated by the orbit.

The high quality FOS and FAST data yield new tests of this picture. Based on an analysis of IUE data, Kenyon et al. (1993) suggested that AG Peg might be evolving towards lower luminosities along a white dwarf cooling curve. They proposed that the transition from a Wolf-Rayet spectrum with broad emission lines to a nebular spectrum with narrow emission lines marked the start of this evolution. At the same time, the source of the strong high ionization emission lines moved from an H II region surrounding the hot component to the illuminated hemisphere of the red giant. Contini (1997) and several other studies suggest that some emission features form in an interaction region between the two stars, where the low velocity wind of the red giant collides with the higher velocity wind from the hot component.

To test these proposals in more detail, we first consider the evolution of the hot component in §3.1. We then analyze emission lines produced in the illuminated red giant atmosphere (§3.2) and in shocked gas in the outer portions of the red giant wind (§3.3). We conclude this section with some comments on colliding winds in the AG Peg binary (§3.4).

### 3.1 Evolution of the Hot Component

To understand the evolution of the hot component, we follow previous studies and derive the time variation of luminosity $`L_h`$ and effective temperature $`T_h`$. Because the complete energy distribution of the hot component cannot be observed directly, we need accurate proxies for $`L_h`$ and $`T_h`$. Three techniques have been proposed in previous studies. Kenyon & Webbink (1984) adopted a blackbody model for the hot component and predicted UV color indices for sources surrounded by a photoionized nebula; Kenyon (1985) generalized this approach and derived $`L_h`$ and $`T_h`$ from fits to the UV spectral energy distribution (see also Kenyon et al., 1993). Fernández-Castro et al. (1988) developed a UV Zanstra temperature to derive $`T_h`$ from measurements of the He II $`\lambda `$1640 emission line and the continuum flux at 1400 Å. Mürset et al. (1991; see also Keyes, 1981; Mürset & Nussbaumer, 1994) estimated $`L_h`$ and $`T_h`$ from He II $`\lambda `$1640 and the UV spectral energy distribution. Following Iijima (1981), Kenyon (1986) inferred $`L_h`$ and $`T_h`$ from the optical H I and He II lines, which are less sensitive to uncertainties in the interstellar extinction to the source.

Figure 5 shows results for the time variation of $`L_h`$ and $`T_h`$ in AG Peg from these three techniques. We used data from Keyes (1981), Kenyon et al. (1993), and this paper, corrected for $`E_{BV}`$ = 0.10 using the Mathis (1990) extinction curve for an adopted distance of 800 pc. We estimate $`L_h`$ and $`T_h`$ from (i) the UV continuum fits of Kenyon (1985), (ii) the UV Zanstra temperature of Fernández-Castro et al. (1988), and (iii) the optical Zanstra temperature of Kenyon (1986). The formal uncertainties are $`\pm `$ 0.1 in log $`L_h`$ and $`\pm `$ 0.05 in log $`T_h`$. The uncertain distance adds a systematic uncertainty to the luminosity but not to the effective temperature. In the top panel, the luminosity derived from the UV Zanstra temperature monotonically decreases from $`\varphi `$ = 1 to $`\varphi `$ = 9 (filled circles). The luminosity derived from the UV continuum is roughly constant with time and may decline some at $`\varphi `$ 7–8 (plus signs). As expected, the luminosity derived from optical data follows the illumination effect (open circles): $`L_h`$ is largest at photometric maxima and smallest at photometric minima. The average luminosity is comparable to the $`L_h`$ derived from UV data and shows the same overall trend: a roughly constant $`L_h`$ for $`\varphi `$ = 1–7 followed by a decline.

The time evolution of $`T_h`$ is shown in the lower panel of Figure 5. The $`T_h`$ derived from the optical emission lines is always 25% to 50% larger than the $`T_h`$ estimated from the UV lines. This difference is easily understood. Because the H I line fluxes change by factors of 2–3 with orbital phase, the flux ratio F($`\lambda `$4686)/F($`\lambda `$4861) is largest at photometric minima and smallest at photometric maxima. The $`T_h`$ derived from this ratio thus varies with phase, as shown by the open circles in Figure 5. The $`L_h`$ derived from the optical line fluxes is anti-correlated with $`T_h`$. For much of the evolution, the $`T_h`$ derived from the UV continuum is 25% to 50% smaller than the $`T_h`$ estimated from the UV lines (plus signs). AG Peg resembled a Wolf-Rayet star during this period; its UV energy distribution was very similar to the energy distribution of the luminous Wolf-Rayet star HD 50896. Assuming that the Hillier (1987) models for HD 50896 also fit AG Peg, Kenyon et al. (1993) derived a luminosity for the hot component in AG Peg from the observed Voyager spectrum. This estimate is $``$ 50% larger than derived from UV continuum fits. To produce a larger luminosity from the same continuum flux, the $`T_h`$ implied by this analysis must also be $``$ 50% larger. Broad Wolf-Rayet emission lines began to disappear from low resolution UV spectra of AG Peg at $`\varphi `$ 6. The UV continuum data then begin to yield a $`T_h`$ similar to that derived from the UV Zanstra temperature.

This analysis suggests that the results for $`L_h`$ and $`T_h`$ from the UV Zanstra temperature are more reliable indicators of the evolution of the hot component in AG Peg. We conclude that $`L_h`$ was roughly constant during $`\varphi `$ = 1–3, when $`T_h`$ rose by $``$ 20%. As $`T_h`$ remained roughly constant at $`\varphi `$ = 3–8, $`L_h`$ declined by a factor of 2–3. The HST data suggest that $`T_h`$ may have declined by $``$ 10% to 20% during $`\varphi `$ = 8.0–9.5, but this decline is comparable to the size of the uncertainties in the temperature estimates.

### 3.2 Illumination of the Red Giant

Since the 1930’s, the ionization of the red giant atmosphere by the hot component has been an important feature of the AG Peg binary (see Merrill, 1959; Belyakina, 1970, and references therein). Merrill’s observations demonstrated that fluxes of low ionization emission lines vary in phase with the orbital motion of the red giant. Belyakina (1970) interpreted these variations as the reflection effect, where the hot component heats the outer red giant atmosphere. She showed that the observed amplitude and the relative phasing of the variation were consistent with model predictions. The observed variations in He II and other high ionization lines, however, were not consistent with the reflection effect. The radial velocity variations and the broad widths – $``$ 1000 km s-1 – of these features were more consistent with line formation in the outer atmosphere of the hot component.

Evolution of the emission line fluxes in 1985–1990 suggest a modest change in this picture. The broad WN-type emission lines from He II, N V, and other species faded to reveal narrow emission features with profiles similar to those of low ionization lines (Kenyon et al. 1993). Although the phase coverage of the UV data is poor after $``$ 1990, our optical data show a weak modulation of He II with orbital phase (Figure 4). This behavior suggests that at least some He II emission is produced in the ionized red giant atmosphere.

To investigate the illumination of the red giant atmosphere in more detail, Proga et al. (1996, 1998) developed a non-LTE photoionization model. They showed that the spectrum of an illuminated red giant atmosphere is too weak to explain the strong line spectrum observed in AG Peg and other symbiotic stars. A normal red giant does not intercept enough radiation from the hot component to produce prominent emission lines (Proga et al., 1996). However, a red giant wind can intercept enough high energy photons from the hot component if the optical depth in the wind is large (Proga et al., 1998). Winds with mass loss rates of $`10^7`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ can generally account for the observations of symbiotics such as AG Peg. These models reproduce observed fluxes of metallic lines if the O/N and C/N abundances are similar to those of field red giants. Predicted fluxes for H and He lines fall below the observations.

Proga et al. (1998) summarized the simplifications and weaknesses of their calculations. They derived an accurate solution for illumination along the line of centers connecting the two stars and assumed that the total flux from the illuminated atmosphere $`F_{tot}`$ is

$$F_{tot}=r_{cs}F_{1D},$$
(3)
where $`F_{1D}`$ is the flux derived from a unit area along the line of centers and $`r_{cs}`$ is the geometric cross-section of the red giant wind. This simplification ignores any wind from the hot component, the complex geometry of the red giant wind, and any interaction region between the two winds. Proga et al. noted that this simplified approach was a first step in understanding complex systems like AG Peg and many other symbiotics. They suggested several ways to reconcile the model with the observations and commented that better observations of weaker UV and optical lines might allow a choice between different models.

As a further guide to understanding illumination in AG Peg, we compare our new data with the theoretical results of Proga et al. (1996, 1998). Figure 6 indicates line fluxes for wind models and observations of AG Peg (the lines are $`H\beta `$, He I $`\lambda `$5876, O III\] $`\lambda `$1664, CIV $`\lambda `$1550, He II $`\lambda `$4686, and N V $`\lambda `$1240). We use the data from this paper (filled triangles, $`\varphi `$ 9) and from Kenyon et al. (1993, open circles, $`\varphi `$ 7–8). The solid and dashed lines indicate model predictions of Proga et al. (1996, 1998). We adopt $`T_h=10^5`$ K and $`L_h=620\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for the hot component, and use red giant parameters for Vogel’s velocity law (Vogel, 1991) with red giant mass loss rates of $`\dot{M}=10^8`$ and $`10^6\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (see also Figure 12 in Proga et al., 1998). Solid curves show predictions for $`r_{cs}=R_g^2`$; dashed curves show predictions for $`r_{cs}=3^2R_g^2`$. The line fluxes increase with $`\dot{M}`$ for each set of models. Because the emission measure of the ionized wind increases linearly with $`\dot{M}`$, the predicted line fluxes vary approximately linearly with $`\dot{M}`$ at high $`\dot{M}`$. At lower mass loss rates, the line fluxes are limited by the amount of material in the static red giant atmosphere. This material provides a lower limit to the emission measure – for a particular hot component luminosity – so the line fluxes vary little for $`\dot{M}`$ $`<`$ $`10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$.

Figure 6 shows that the fluxes of all emission lines decreased by a factor of 1.5–3.0 during $`\varphi =79.5`$. This decline in the fluxes coincides with the appearance of a modest orbital modulation of the He II line fluxes (see Figures 3–4). We interpret this behavior as a change in the location of high ionization emission lines. Prior to $`\varphi `$ = 7, nearly all of the high ionization lines formed in a compact H II region surrounding the hot component (see Figure 11 of Kenyon et al. 1993). These lines were broad and diffuse, as expected for material in an outflowing wind from a hot, luminous white dwarf star. After $`\varphi `$ = 7, the lines are narrow; the illuminated red giant atmosphere produces some of the high ionization line emission. Thus, the illumination model can better account for observations at $`\varphi 9`$ than at $`\varphi 7`$. Observed fluxes at $`\varphi `$ = 7 lie above optimistic model predictions (dashed lines); data for $`\varphi `$ = 9 generally lie below these predictions. Although the illumination models are still crude, it is encouraging that as the wind from the hot component weakens and AG Peg becomes a less complex system, the models can better explain the observations with reasonable input parameters.

### 3.3 High Ionization Forbidden Lines

The ionized nebula surrounding AG Peg consists of several distinct components. The 1–20 cm VLA data are consistent with an unresolved central source embedded in several extended shells of gas (Kenny et al., 1991; Seaquist & Taylor, 1992; Taylor & Seaquist, 1984). The unresolved radio source is probably optically thick, free-free emission from the photoionized wind of the red giant (Kenny et al., 1991; Seaquist & Taylor, 1992; Kenyon et al., 1993). Kenyon et al. (1993) suggested that most of the \[O III\] and \[Ne III\] emission observed in 1980–93 is also produced in this volume (see also Kenny et al., 1991). These lines have continued to decline in intensity since 1993; their flux ratios are consistent with an electron density, $`n_e<10^7`$ cm-3, for an electron temperature, $`T_e10^4`$ K (Ferland & Shields, 1978). This evolution suggests an overall decrease in the electron density during the past decade.

Kenyon et al. (1993) noted that results for high ionization forbidden lines were uncertain because the lines were not very prominent on their relatively low signal-to-noise spectra. The new FAST and HST data allow us to make more progress on this region. We have accurate UV and optical fluxes for several \[Fe VII\], \[Mg V\], and \[Ne V\] lines, which yield more information on the ionized nebula.

We begin with the \[Fe VII\] lines, which have remained roughly constant in intensity since their first appearance in 1984–1986. Several \[Fe VII\] intensity ratios, $`I(\lambda `$5721)/$`I(\lambda `$6087) and $`I(\lambda `$3586)/$`I(\lambda `$3758), do not depend on $`n_e`$ or $`T_e`$. Our result for $`I(\lambda `$5721)/$`I(\lambda `$6087), 0.6–0.8, brackets the predicted value of 0.65; our result for $`I(\lambda `$3586)/$`I(\lambda `$3758), 0.3, is significantly smaller than the predicted value of 0.75. The small observed value of the $`I(\lambda `$3586)/$`I(\lambda `$3758) ratio suggests that the $`\lambda `$3758 line is blended with an O III Bowen fluorescence line. The relative intensities of other O III lines suggest that O III $`\lambda `$3758 should contribute $``$ 2/3 to 3/4 of the $`\lambda `$3758 flux. If so, the \[Fe VII\] $`I(\lambda `$3586)/$`I(\lambda `$3758) ratio is then close to the predicted value (see Tables 3–4 and Saraph & Seaton, 1980).

With this correction to the $`I(\lambda `$3758) flux, the reddening-corrected \[Fe VII\] intensity ratios sensitive to density and temperature are $`I(\lambda `$2015)/$`I(\lambda `$3758) $``$ 0.4–0.6 and $`I(\lambda `$3758)/$`I(\lambda `$6087) $``$ 1.1–1.4. Both intensity ratios are consistent with $`T_e3\times 10^4`$ K if $`n_e10^8`$ cm-3 and $`T_e5\times 10^4`$ K if $`n_e10^8`$ cm-3 (Nussbaumer & Storey, 1982; Keenan & Norrington, 1987, 1991). Weak detections of \[Fe VII\] $`\lambda \lambda `$4942, 5159 favor $`n_e10^7`$ cm-3 over other values.

To better constrain the physical conditions in the $`\mathrm{Fe}^{+6}`$ region, we also consider data for \[Ne V\]. The ionization potential of $`\mathrm{Ne}^{+4}`$ (126 eV) is comparable to $`\mathrm{Fe}^{+6}`$ (128 eV); \[Ne V\] and \[Fe VII\] should form in similar physical conditions. The intensity ratio for $`I(\lambda `$3346)/$`I(\lambda `$3426) is 0.3–0.5, which brackets the predicted value of 0.36 (Nussbaumer & Rusca, 1979). The $`I(\lambda `$3426)/$`I(\lambda `$2976) intensity ratio is sensitive to $`n_e`$ and $`T_e`$ (Kafatos & Lynch, 1980). Our measured ratio of $`I(\lambda 3426)/I(\lambda 2976)`$ $``$ 17 requires $`n_e10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`T_e10^5`$ K.

The critical densities for all of the \[Fe VII\] and \[Ne V\] lines on our spectra are $`10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$ to $`10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (Kafatos & Lynch, 1980; Nussbaumer & Storey, 1982; Keenan & Norrington, 1987, 1991). Although there are some uncertainties in the atomic physics for both ions, the line ratios strongly imply line formation in a very hot, low density gas. This result favors mechanical heating over photoionization as the energy source for this emission. To place a better limit on the electron density and on the origin of the highly ionized forbidden lines, we can estimate the forbidden line fluxes expected from a photoionized gas. The volume $`V`$ for the \[Fe VII\] Strömgren sphere is

$$V=N_\gamma /n_{Fe}n_e\alpha _r,$$
(4)
where $`N_\gamma `$ is the number of $`Fe^{+5}`$-ionizing photons, $`n_{Fe}`$ is the number density of Fe atoms, and $`\alpha _r`$ is the recombination rate. The luminosity in a single \[Fe VII\] emission line is

$$L_{[FeVII]}=x_in_{Fe^{+6}}A_{ji}h\nu _{ij}V,$$
(5)
where $`x_i`$ is the fraction of Fe VII ions in the $`j`$th level, $`n_{Fe^{+6}}`$ is the number density of Fe VII ions, $`A_{ji}`$ is the transition probability, and $`\nu _{ij}`$ is the line frequency. If we assume that all of the Fe in the nebula is in the form of Fe VII, substitute our expression for the volume into equation (5) and adopt the appropriate coefficients (Woods, Shull, & Sarazin, 1981; Nussbaumer & Storey, 1982; Keenan & Norrington, 1987; Arnaud & Raymond, 1992), the luminosity in the $`\lambda `$6087 line is

$$L_{\lambda 6087}0.1\mathrm{L}_{}\left(\frac{N_\gamma }{10^{43}\mathrm{s}^1}\right)\left(\frac{10^8\mathrm{cm}^3}{n_e}\right).$$
(6)
The coefficient in equation (6) varies by a factor of 2–3 for $`T_e`$ = $`10^4`$ K to $`10^5`$ K if the hot component has an effective temperature of $`10^5`$ K and emits as a blackbody. This result – together with similar expressions for other \[Fe VII\] and \[Ne V\] lines – suggests that photoionization can account for the observed optical and ultraviolet line fluxes, $`L_{obs}`$ 0.05–0.10 $`\mathrm{L}_{}`$, for $`n_e10^8`$ cm-3. Although photoionization rarely produces the large electron temperatures, $`T_e10^5`$ K, implied by the intensity ratios of the forbidden lines, this limit on the electron density is consistent with the electron density derived from the flux ratios of the \[Ne V\] and \[Fe VII\] lines, $`n_e10^7`$ cm-3.

We conclude that the \[Fe VII\] and \[Ne V\] emission comes from a region with a low electron density, $`n_e10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and a relatively high electron temperature $`T_e>10^5`$ K. These regions have considerable emission measures, $`n_e^2V10^{57}`$ cm-3, for $`T_e10^5`$ K and $`n_e10^7`$ cm-3. The size of the spherical $`\mathrm{Ne}^{+4}`$$`\mathrm{Fe}^{+6}`$ zone is $``$ 10 AU. Although the hot component emits enough high energy photons to produce large \[Ne V\] and \[Fe VII\] emission regions, the large electron temperature indicates that mechanical heating also is an important energy source. If the high ionization gas forms in a thin shell with a thickness of $``$ 1 AU, the shell lies $``$ 30 AU from the central binary.

The \[Mg V\] features are the last set of useful high ionization forbidden lines in AG Peg. The ionization potential of $`\mathrm{Mg}^{+4}`$ (141 eV) is larger than for $`\mathrm{Ne}^{+4}`$ and $`\mathrm{Fe}^{+6}`$. The critical density for both $`\lambda `$2784 and $`\lambda `$2930 is $`n_e=10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The intensity ratio, $`I(\lambda `$2784)/$`I(\lambda `$2930) = 3.4, is very close to the predicted value of 3.7 (Kafatos & Lynch, 1980). The $`I(\lambda `$2784)/$`I(\lambda `$2417) intensity ratio is sensitive to $`n_e`$ and $`T_e`$ (Kafatos & Lynch, 1980). Our measured ratio of $`I(\lambda `$2784)/$`I(\lambda `$2417) = 10 requires $`n_e<10^9\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`T_e>10^5`$ K. This density is close to the critical density for $`\lambda `$2417. Thus, this emission forms in denser material than the \[Ne V\] and \[Fe VII\] lines. The emission measure for \[Mg V\] suggests a shell which is factor of 10 or more thinner than the $`\mathrm{Ne}^{+4}`$$`\mathrm{Fe}^{+6}`$ zone.

### 3.4 Colliding Winds and Shocks

Colliding winds have become a popular explanation for high energy phenomena in symbiotic and other interacting binary systems (e.g., Wallerstein & Brugel, 1988; Nussbaumer & Walder, 1993; Mürset et al., 1995; Formiggini, Contini & Leibowitz, 1995; Contini, 1997; Contini & Formiggini, 1999). First developed by Kwok & Leahy (1984) and Wallerstein et al. (1984, see also Willson et al., 1984), these models use the kinetic energy in the winds from the red giant and the hot component – instead of photoionization – to power X-rays and high ionization emission lines observed in many systems (Girard & Willson, 1987; Nussbaumer & Vogel, 1989). The momenta in the two winds roughly balance in an interaction region, where shocks produce X-ray emission and lead to the formation of highly ionized atomic species. The bow-shape of the interaction region also naturally produces emission line profiles similar to those observed in some systems.

The intensity ratios of the high ionization forbidden lines in AG Peg suggest that some of the ionized nebula in this system is mechanically heated (see also Contini, 1997). For the hot component effective temperatures and bolometric luminosities observed in most symbiotic stars, photoionization yields much smaller electron temperatures, $``$ 1–3 $`\times 10^4`$ K, for $`n_e10^5`$ to $`10^{10}`$ cm-3 (e.g., Mürset & Nussbaumer, 1994; Schwank et al., 1997; Proga et al., 1996, 1998). We showed in §3.3 that photoionization can explain the observed line fluxes for $`n_e10^8`$ cm-3. Shocks from colliding winds are a natural mechanism to produce high temperature gas. We now consider whether colliding winds in the system can also power the line fluxes.

Two sources of mechanical energy can potentially power the forbidden line emission in AG Peg: (i) an interaction region between the two stars, where material recently lost by the hot component collides with matter recently ejected by the red giant (see Contini, 1997; Nussbaumer & Walder, 1993), or (ii) the ‘inner nebula’ of Kenny et al. (1991), where material ejected throughout the outburst compresses gas lost by the red giant prior to the outburst.

The outer atmosphere of the red giant is a promising source of mechanically heated gas in AG Peg (see Contini, 1997, and references therein). This region has the required density and emission measure. From Figure 1a of Proga et al. (1998), the density in the red giant wind is $`n_e10^7`$ cm-3 at distances of $``$ 10 AU from the central binary. The density falls to $`n_e`$ $`3\times 10^6`$ cm-3 at $``$ 30 AU. The shock velocity needed to reach electron temperatures exceeding $`10^5`$ K is modest, $``$ 10–20 km s-1, compared to the red giant wind velocity of 30–60 km s-1 (Kenny et al., 1991). As envisioned in the Wallerstein et al. (1984) picture, the colliding winds of the red giant and the hot component might yield this shock velocity if the collision is oblique. Achieving the proper forbidden line energy from this region, however, may be difficult. For a shock velocity of 10–20 km s-1, the mechanical energy in the wind is $``$ 0.001–0.004 $`\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for a red giant mass loss rate of $`10^7\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. This energy is small compared to the luminosity in a single \[Ne V\] forbidden line, $``$ 0.05–0.10 $`\mathrm{L}_{}`$. Much larger mass loss rates are ruled out by the radio data; much larger shock velocities imply higher ionization emission lines such as \[Fe X\] not detected on our spectra. The wind from the hot component does not help this problem significantly: the mass loss rate is now probably smaller than that of the giant (Kenyon et al., 1993; Nussbaumer et al., 1995) and the wind velocity of 1000 km s-1 is much larger than the needed shock velocity unless we have considerably underestimated the electron temperature of the forbidden line region.

The inner radio nebula of Kenny et al. (1991) is also a potential location for shocked gas in AG Peg. The compressed inner shell of this nebula is an ideal location for shocks. The apparent gas velocity of $``$ 60 km s-1 is close to the 10–20 km s-1 shock velocity required for $`10^5`$ K gas. The emission measure of this material, $`n_e^2V`$ $``$ $`10^{57}`$ cm-3 (Kenny et al., 1991), is identical to our estimate for the $`\mathrm{Ne}^{+4}`$$`\mathrm{Fe}^{+6}`$ zone. However, there is an important problem associating the high ionization forbidden lines with this region. From fits to the radio spectral index and flux from the inner nebula, Kenny et al. (1991) estimate $`n_e`$ $`2\times 10^4`$ cm-3 for the compressed shell. This density is a factor of $`10^3`$ smaller than our estimate from the \[Ne V\] and \[Fe VII\] line ratios. The luminosity of the compressed shell is also insufficient to power the forbidden lines. Kenny et al. (1991) derive a rate 3 $`\pm `$ 3 $`\times 10^6`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for spherical mass loss, which implies a mechanical luminosity of $``$ 0.2 $`\mathrm{L}_{}`$ for a 20 km s-1 shock. The observed luminosity in the \[Ne V\] and \[Fe VII\] lines exceeds this estimate by a factor of $``$ 2.

Both explanations for shocked gas in the AG Peg wind are sensitive to the adopted distance. For a given radio flux, the mass loss rate is linearly proportional to the distance. The optical emission line luminosity depends on the square of the distance. Better agreement between observations and theory requires a smaller distance than our adopted value of 800 pc. Either of our explanations for the shocked gas requires a distance of 400 pc or less to allow the mechanical energy in the wind to match the energy needed for the high ionization forbidden lines. Such a small distance seems ruled out by Kenny et al. (1991), who prefer a 600 pc distance to reconcile the size of the inner nebula with proper motion data.

We thus conclude that neither colliding wind picture for the formation of high ionization forbidden lines can account for the observed line fluxes in AG Peg. If the hot component emits enough high energy photons to account for the forbidden line fluxes, mechanical heating from the colliding winds may explain the high electron temperatures. A detailed photoionization calculation which includes shock excitation would test this proposal.

Making more progress on the high ionization forbidden lines also requires new observations to constrain the geometry of the ionized nebula. At a distance of more than 0$`^{\prime \prime }.`$5 from the central binary, the inner nebula of Kenny et al. (1991) can be resolved with STIS on board HST. These observations would test the notion that the forbidden emission lines form well outside the red giant atmosphere. Resolving the nebula at 30 AU, $``$ 0$`^{\prime \prime }.`$05 from the central binary, is more difficult but may be possible with ground-based interferometers or future space missions. Higher spectral resolution UV or optical observations would yield line profiles for the high ionization lines and provide better constraints on the shock velocity and geometry.

## 4 Summary

Our analysis of new optical and UV data demonstrates that the AG Peg binary continues to evolve. The optical data show clear evidence for a more pronounced reflection effect, where high energy photons from the hot component ionize the wind and outer atmosphere of the red giant (Boyarchuk, 1966; Belyakina, 1970; Kenyon & Gallagher, 1983). Many low ionization optical lines, such as H I and He I form in this region. Some high ionization optical emission lines, such as He II, also form in the ionized wind. We do not have good enough UV phase coverage to verify that higher ionization UV lines such as C IV or N V are also produced in the ionized wind.

Detailed illumination models generally account for the observed fluxes of the low and moderate ionization emission lines. The H I and He I fluxes imply larger mass loss rates in the red giant wind than the fluxes of other emission lines. Because the H II and He II recombination regions in the red giant atmosphere are difficult to model accurately, Proga et al. (1996, 1998) noted that their illumination models underestimate the fluxes of these lines. The illumination models thus imply a mass loss rate of $`10^7`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ if the red giant wind has a geometric cross-section of $``$ $`2^2`$$`3^2R_g^2`$. This mass loss rate is comparable to mass loss rates derived for the red giants in AG Peg and other symbiotic stars (see Kenny et al., 1991; Seaquist & Taylor, 1992; Seaquist, Krogulec, & Taylor, 1993; Ivison et al., 1995).

The UV data imply that the hot component continues to decline in luminosity. Figure 7 summarizes the evolution of the optical and bolometric magnitude $`M_{bol}`$ of the hot component since its eruption in the mid 1800’s. The dashed line indicates the evolution of the optical continuum. The symbols indicate the evolution of $`M_{bol}`$. Data shown as filled symbols without boxes adopt bolometric corrections to estimate $`M_{bol}`$ from optical spectra (Kenyon et al., 1993); data shown as filled symbols inside boxes use UV data from this paper and Kenyon et al. (1993). As described by Gallagher et al. (1979) and Kenyon et al. (1993), the hot component maintained a roughly constant $`M_{bol}`$ from 1900–1980 and then began to decline. Our new data suggest a factor of 2–3 decline in luminosity and a 10%–20% decline in effective temperature. Further UV observations are necessary to follow the evolution of the hot component to quiescence.

The high ionization forbidden lines indicate that some portion of the nebula is mechanically heated to temperatures of $`10^5`$ K or larger. This region has a density of $`10^7`$ cm-3 and lies at least 10–30 AU from the central binary. If our estimates for the effective temperature and luminosity of the hot component are correct, the hot component emits enough high energy photons to produce the observed level of emission from high ionization forbidden lines. Shocks in the red giant wind are a potential excitation mechanism for this gas, but the kinetic energy in the winds from the hot component and the red giant is smaller than the emitted energy by a factor of $``$ 10 or more. Because it has a very low density, a compressed shell in the inner radio nebula also seems an unlikely source of forbidden line emission in AG Peg. However, this region has an emission measure and gas velocity close to our estimates for the $`\mathrm{Ne}^{+4}`$$`\mathrm{Fe}^{+6}`$ zone. Additional high resolution imaging and spectroscopic observations are needed to understand this emission. Detailed photoionization calculations of shocked gas are necessary to see if a combination of photoionization and mechanical heating can explain the large amount of emission from high ionization forbidden lines in this system.

We acknowledge support from an archival grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, AR-08369-01-A, and from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. This work was performed while D.P. held a National Research Council Research Associateship at NASA/GSFC. We thank J. Raymond for advice and comments on our analysis of the high ionization forbidden lines.