text:
# Ages and metallicities of five intermediate-age star clusters projected towards the Small Magellanic Cloud

## 1 Introduction

It has been well known for some time that the Magellanic Clouds contain rich star clusters of all ages (Hodge 1960, 1961). The distribution of cluster ages, however, differs strongly between the two Clouds (see, e.g., Feast 1995, Olszewski et al. 1996, Westerlund 1997). The population of recognized genuine old clusters (with ages $`12`$ Gyr) in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) includes possibly fifteen objects, 7 projected on the bar: NGC 1835, NGC 1898, NGC 2005, NGC 2019, NGC 1916, NGC 1928 and NGC 1939, and 8 outside the bar: Reticulum, NGC 1466, NGC 1754, NGC 1786, NGC 1841, NGC 2210, Hodge 11 and NGC 2257 (Suntzeff et al. 1992, Olsen et al. 1998, Dutra et al. 1999). On the contrary, although some populous metal-poor star clusters with ages between $``$ 5 and 9 Gyr are known in the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), only one object (NGC 121) is known in this galaxy with an age of $``$ 12 Gyr (Stryker et al. 1985), comparable to the ages of the Galactic globular clusters and the oldest LMC clusters.

Regarding the intermediate-age clusters (IACs), there exists a pronounced gap in the LMC between a large number of IACs (age $``$ 1-3 Gyr) and the classical old globular clusters noted above (Jensen et al. 1988, Da Costa 1991, van den Bergh 1991). The populous star cluster ESO 121-SC03 with an age of $``$ 9 Gyr (Mateo et al. 1986) is the only IAC in the LMC within the range 3 and 12 Gyr, although recent work suggests that three other populous LMC clusters (NGC 2155, SL 663 and NGC 2121) may fall within the “age gap” (Sarajedini 1998). As emphasized by Olszewski et al. (1996), this gap in the LMC cluster distribution also represents an “abundance gap” in that the old clusters are all metal-poor ($`<`$ \[Fe/H\] $`>`$ $``$ -2), while the IACs are all relatively metal-rich (Olszewski et al. 1991), approaching even the present-day abundance in the LMC ($`<`$ \[Fe/H\] $`>`$ $``$ -0.5). In contrast, the SMC is known to have a different distribution of cluster ages from the LMC (e.g., Da Costa 1991), as it has at least six populous metal-poor star clusters with ages between $``$ 5 and $``$ 9 Gyr, namely Lindsay 113, Kron 3, NGC 339, NGC 416, NGC 361 and Lindsay 1 (Mould et al. 1984, Rich et al. 1984, Olszewski et al. 1987, Mighell et al. 1998 - hereafter MSF). Therefore, the present observational data suggest that the LMC has formed clusters in at least two different bursts, whereas the SMC has formed clusters more uniformly over the past 12 Gyr (although see Rich et al. 2000 for evidence favouring bursts in SMC cluster formation as well). The relationship between age and metallicity among the star clusters in both galaxies provides fundamental insight into their star formation/chemical enrichment history. Recent summaries of the LMC and SMC age-metallicity relations may be found in Olszewski et al. (1996), Geisler et al. (1997), Bica et al. (1998), MSF, Da Costa & Hatzidimitriou (1998) and Da Costa (1999). However, although ages and abundances for well studied clusters in the SMC are well established, a larger sample of SMC clusters with age/metallicity data is needed to fill out the observed cluster age - metallicity relationship. Unlike the LMC, the SMC does not have a cluster “age gap” which would prevent one from using its star clusters to learn about details of the galaxy’s age-metallicity relationship. Existing SMC cluster age-metallicity relationships vary widely: e.g., that of Da Costa & Hatzidimitriou (1998) shows continuous enrichment from the oldest to the youngest clusters and suggests the data are well fit by a closed box chemical evolution model, with a few anomalously metal-poor clusters at intermediate ages, while that of Olszewski et al. (1996) shows essentially no chemical enrichment from $`10`$ Gyrs ago until only $`12`$ Gyrs ago, when the metallicity increased very rapidly. Clearly, more clusters are needed to define this relationship more accurately.

The goal of the present paper is twofold: (1) to derive age and metallicity for a sample of 5 intermediate-age cluster candidates projected towards the SMC using new CCD Washington $`C,T_1`$ photometry, and (2) to compare the cluster properties with those of their surrounding fields. The present data are particularly useful to improve our understanding of the age and metal-abundance distributions and stellar content of SMC clusters.

The selected IAC candidates are: Lindsay 32 (L 32) or ESO 51-SC2, Lindsay 38 (L 38) or ESO 51-SC3, Kron 28 (K 28) also known as Lindsay 43 (L 43), Kron 44 (K 44) also known as Lindsay 68 (L 68) and Lindsay 116 (L 116) or ESO 13-SC25, where cluster designations are from Kron (1956), Lindsay (1958) and Lauberts (1982). All these clusters were considered IAC candidates based on their smooth structure and brightness distribution of the stars, as seen on ESO/SERC Schmidt plates. Fig. 1 shows their positions in relation to the SMC bar. K 28 and K 44 are near the edge of the SMC main body. If the position (J2000): 00h 49m 27s, -73$`\mathrm{°}`$ 09$`\mathrm{}`$ 30$`\mathrm{}`$ is assumed to be the centre of the SMC bar, K 28 is located at $``$ 1.1$`\mathrm{°}`$ to the north, and K 44 the same amount to the southeast. L 32 and L 38 at $``$ 4.2$`\mathrm{°}`$ and 3.3$`\mathrm{°}`$, respectively north of the bar, are among the outermost SMC clusters. Finally, L 116 at 6.1$`\mathrm{°}`$ southeast of the bar centre is the outermost projected cluster, except for objects located in the Bridge (Lindsay 1958, Bica & Schmitt 1995). No colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) has been obtained so far for any of these SMC objects.

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the observations, while Section 3 describes the cluster and field CMDs. Section 4 focuses on ages and metallicities. Section 5 discusses the age-metallicity relationship in the SMC and its implication for star cluster formation. Finally, Section 6 deals with the conclusions of this work.

## 2 Observations

The five SMC clusters and surrounding fields were observed during four photometric nights with the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) 0.9m telescope in 1998 November with the Tektronix 2K #3 CCD, using quad-amp readout. The scale on the chip is 0.4$`\mathrm{}`$ per pixel yielding an area covered by a frame of 13$`\stackrel{^{}}{.}`$5$`\times `$13$`\stackrel{^{}}{.}`$5. The integrated IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation.-Arcon 3.3 interface for direct imaging was employed as the data acquisition system. A mean gain of 1.5 e-/ADU and a mean readout noise of 4.2 e- resulted for the chosen settings. We obtained data with the Washington (Canterna 1976) $`C`$ and Kron-Cousins $`R`$ filters. The latter has been shown to be an efficient substitute for the standard Washington $`T_1`$ filter (Geisler 1996). Exposures of 40 minutes in $`C`$ and 15 minutes in $`R_{KC}`$ were taken for the SMC fields. Their air-masses were always less than 1.5 and the seeing was typically 1$`\mathrm{}`$. The observations were supplemented with nightly exposures of bias, dome- and twilight sky- flats to calibrate the CCD instrumental signature. Several LMC fields were also observed in the same run using the same technique and they were presented in Piatti et al. (1999), where a detailed description of the data collection and reduction procedures is given. In summary, the DAOPHOT II/ALLSTAR stand-alone package (Stetson 1994) was used to obtain the photometry for which the typical magnitude and colour errors provided by DAOPHOT II are shown in Fig. 2. It shows a typical trend of $`T_1`$ and $`(CT_1)`$ photometric errors with $`T_1`$, for the cluster K 44 and for its rich associated field. For the 49857 stars measured in all clusters and fields, the mean magnitude and colour errors for stars brighter than $`T_1=19`$ were $`\sigma `$($`T_1`$)=0.016 and $`\sigma `$($`CT_1`$)=0.029; for stars brigther than $`T_1=21`$, $`\sigma `$($`T_1`$)=0.042 and $`\sigma `$($`CT_1`$)=0.063. Although our photometry reaches only slightly deeper than the turnoff magnitudes, its quality allowed us to detect and measure the turnoff for all of them, which was used in our age estimates. Indeed, by using the relation between the turnoff $`R`$ magnitude and age according to theoretical isochrones by Bertelli et al. (1994) and by comparing it to our data, we concluded that we are able to define turnoffs for stellar populations as old as 6.3$`\pm `$1.1 Gyr ($`R`$ $``$ 22) with an error of 0.2 in $`R`$. Slightly fainter turnoffs can be reached at expenses of larger errors. On each photometric night, a large number (typically 19-32) of standard stars from the list of Geisler (1996) were also observed. Care was taken to cover a wide colour and air-mass range for these standards in order to calibrate the program stars properly. Table 1 presents the logbook of observations of the SMC cluster fields while Fig. 3 shows the CMDs for the entire observed field around each cluster. The data are available from the first author upon request.

## 3 Analysis of the Colour-Magnitude Diagrams

The relatively large size of the field of view allowed us not only to properly sample the entire extent of each cluster but also to sample a significant area of their surrounding field. To build cluster CMDs, we estimated the cluster radii by eye, selecting a limiting radius within which most of the cluster’s light seemed to fall. The estimated radii range between 35 (14$`\mathrm{}`$) and 80 (32$`\mathrm{}`$) pixels, with a typical radius of 60 (24$`\mathrm{}`$) pixels. Fig. 4 shows the resulting cluster CMDs using all the observed star within the adopted radii. All the clusters exhibit clear red giant clumps (RGCs) near $`T_1`$ $``$ 19 and Main Sequence (MS) turnoffs which lie roughly 0.50-0.75 magnitudes above the limit of our photometry, except for L 116, whose features are more difficult to identify.

Before estimating cluster ages and metallicities, we cleaned the cluster CMDs of stars which can potentially belong to the foreground/background fields. We used four circular extractions placed well beyond the clusters and distributed throughout the observed fields. The four field regions have radii that equal half of the radius corresponding to the cluster in that field, so that the total field comparison area is equal to that of the cluster area. We then built field CMDs and counted how many stars lie in different magnitude-colour boxes with sizes ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`T_1`$,$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$($`CT_1`$)) = (0.5,0.5) mag. We then subtracted from each cluster CMD the number of stars counted in the corresponding field CMD in each ($`T_1`$,$`CT1`$) bin, subtracting the star closest to that of each field star. In Fig. 4 we represent remaining cluster stars with filled circles and subtracted stars with open circles. In the subsequent analysis we used the former as defining the fiducial cluster sequences. Although the cleaned cluster CMDs may still contain some field interlopers, the CMDs of K 28 and K 44 now appear to be better defined.

On the other hand, more cluster stars should also be at distances larger than the adopted radii, at least, as far as cluster stellar density profiles extend (see discussion below). Fig. 5 shows the resulting cluster CMDs for circular extractions (open clusters) with radii three times larger that the adopted cluster radii, as well as cluster stars which define fiducial sequences (filled circles) superimposed (see Fig. 4). As can be seen, the RGC of L 32 includes some additional stars, the red giant branch of L 38 is much better defined and the CMD of L116 has more RGC stars and a more populated MS down to fainter magnitudes. The CMDs of K 28 and K 44, although containing more cluster stars, also show much greater contamination from SMC field stars and are presented for completeness purposes only. To estimate cluster ages and metallicities we used these larger circular extraction CMDs weighted by the fiducial cluster stars.

Surrounding cluster field CMDs also need to be cleaned from contamination by cluster and foreground/background stars in order to determine their fundamental parameters and to compare properties of clusters and associated SMC fields. Cluster extents were then delimited by adopting as field stars objects beyond 3 cluster radii. This criterion statistically constrains cluster star contamination in the field CMDs at a confidence level higher than 95%. Fig. 6 shows the resulting field CMDs plotted using all the star located between 3$`\times `$(cluster radius) and CCD boundaries. The CMDs of the two inner SMC clusters of the sample (K 28 and K 44) clearly reveal the main SMC field features, characterized by the mixture of young and old stellar populations. The most obvious features are the long MS which extends approximately 7 mags in $`T_1`$, the populous and broad sub-giant branch, indicator of the evolution of stars with ages (masses) within a non negligible range, the RGC and the red giant branch (RGB). The RGC is somewhat elongated in $`T_1`$ and appeards to be populated at brighter magnitudes by the so-called “vertical red clump” structure (see, e.g., Zaritsky & Lin 1997, Gallart 1998, Ibata et al. 1998). However, no evidence for the Vertical Structure stars seen in some LMC fields (Piatti et al. 1999) exits.

Surrounding field CMDs are more affected by the presence of stars which belong either to the SMC or to the foreground Galactic field than by contamination from cluster stars. Since these Galactic field stars are distributed over the entire field of view, we applied the statistical procedure described by MSF in order to remove them from the surrounding field CMDs. We assume that the Galactic field is well represented by the surrounding field CMD of L 116, since it has no evidence of clump or horizontal branch (HB) or turnoff of any kind, so that no SMC field stellar population is detected in this frame. The method is suitably designed to clean CMDs in which the intrinsic features are well defined by many stars, as is the case for K 28 and K 44. Note that the cleaning method was only applied to L 32 and L 38 fields for completeness purposes, since RGCs and MS turnoffs are clearly visible in the observed CMDs. In Fig. 7 we present probable SMC stars. The main features of the surrounding fields CMDs of K 28 and K 44 are now better defined, especially the most evolved ones, as expected.

## 4 Ages and metallicities

### 4.1 Star clusters

The magnitude difference between the clump/HB and the turnoff has proved to be a useful tool for estimating ages of IACs and old clusters as well (see Phelps et al. 1994 and references therein). Geisler et al. (1997) calibrated this difference for the $`T_1`$ magnitude of the Washington system and applied it to a sample of LMC IACs. Following the same method, we used their calibration for estimating ages of our cluster sample. $`\delta T_1`$ magnitude differences were measured on CMDs of Fig. 5, assigning more weight to fiducial stars (filled circles). The cluster RGCs have an average magnitude of $`T_{1_{clump}}`$ $``$ 19.0$`\pm `$0.1 mag, except for L 116 whose RGC lies at $`T_{1_{clump}}`$ = 18.2$`\pm `$0.1 mag. This suggests that L 116 is located not only several degrees from the SMC bar but also in front of it (see Section 5). Cluster turnoffs were more difficult to determine, mainly because of intrinsic dispersion and photometric errors at these faint mags. This was especially true for L116 which is particularly sparse. Its turnoff appears to lie either at $`T_119.5`$ or 20.2. Our preferred value is the latter, leading to an age of 2.8 Gyr; the former value yields 1.6 Gyr. Clearly, the age for this cluster is particularly uncertain. Photometric errors at the turnoff level were always $`(\sigma )T_1`$ $``$ 0.15-0.20 mag. The mean $`\delta T_1`$ values and their errors were estimated from independent measurements of turnoff points and RGCs by three authors using lower and upper limits in order to take into account the intrinsic dispersion. The difference between maximum and minimum $`\delta T_1`$ values resulted in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta T_1)`$ $``$ 0.2 - 0.4 mags. Table 2 lists the resulting cluster ages computed with eq.  of Geisler et al. (1997). We would like to ensure that our age scale is the same as that of MSF in which L 1 is 9$`\pm `$1 Gyr old. We measured $`\delta V`$ = 3.0$`\pm `$0.1 for L 1 which transforms into $`\delta T_1`$ = 3.1$`\pm `$0.1 using eq.  of Geisler et al. (1997), resulting in an age of 9.5$`\pm `$1.0 Gyr. This value is in good agreement with that derived by Olzsewski et al. (1996) and Rich et al. (2000) and adopted by MSF. We did not apply any offset to our age scale because it is within the errors and we want to maintain consistency with the previous age scale of Bica et al. (1998).

As noted above, no previous CMDs exist for any of these clusters. Some age information does exist for K 44, however. Elson & Fall (1985) found K 44 to be among the oldest SMC clusters, based on their s value of 47 derived from the integrated $`(UB):(BV)`$ diagram. This s value is the same they find for NGC 121, generally accepted to be the oldest SMC cluster, with an age of $`12`$ Gyr (e.g. Rich et al. 2000). A search for RR Lyraes in K 44 by Walker (1998) did not turn up any candidates, indicating an age $`<10`$ Gyr. We find this cluster to be only a few Gyrs old. Geisler et al. (1997) discussed the problems inherent in deriving reliable ages from integrated $`UBV`$ photometry of faint clusters in crowded fields and it appears that the Elson & Fall estimate for K 44 may suffer from this same effect.

Cluster metallicities were derived by interpolating by eye in the standard giant branches of the Washington system recently defined by Geisler & Sarajedini (1999). They demonstrated that this technique is three times more sensitive to metallicity than the corresponding $`VI`$ technique of Da Costa and Armandroff (1990). To trace the standard giant branches, they used the mean loci of giant and subgiant branches of Galactic globular and several old open clusters with known metallicities as fiducial clusters. We then entered in their $`M_{T_1}`$ vs. $`(CT_1)_o`$ diagram the T1 magnitudes and $`CT_1`$ colours for our cluster stars, previously corrected for foreground reddening and distance, and estimated the mean cluster metallicities. Note that Geisler & Sarajedini (1999) derived their metallicity calibration for three metallicity scales – here we use the Zinn (1985) scale. Reddening and distance corrections were performed using the expressions $`E(CT_1)=1.97E(BV)`$ and $`M_{T_1}=T_1+0.58E(BV)(mM)_V`$ (Geisler & Sarajedini 1999). For the SMC clusters, we assumed an apparent distance modulus $`(mM)_V`$ = 19.0, except for L 116, taking into account results recently obtained by Cioni et al. (2000) using data extracted from the DENIS catalogue towards the Magellanic Clouds. We used a foreground reddening E(B-V) depending on the Galactic coordinates (Table 1) and the values from the maps by Burstein & Heiles (1982, hereafter BH) and Schlegel et al. (1998, hereafter SFD). SFD produced a full-sky map of the Galactic dust based upon its far-infrared emission (100 $`\mu `$m) which allowed us to check the BH values. SFD have not removed the SMC so that we could take into account not only possible Galactic dust variations but also the internal SMC reddening, especially in the innermost SMC fields K 28 and K 44. The BH map is based on the H I emission of the Galaxy. Table 3 lists the resulting E(B-V) values. Except for K 28, the cluster sample shows only small differences between the two colour excess estimates. The average of the BH values is 0.034$`\pm `$0.023, while the typical reddening estimated by SFD for the SMC is 0.037. Given the large discrepancy for K 28, we will derive metallicities based on both reddening values. For the other clusters, we use the BH values. We recall that an increase of the assumed reddening by E(B-V) = 0.03 decreases the derived metallicity by 0.12 dex (Bica et al. 1998).

Fig. 8 shows an example of a cluster CMD compared with the standard giant branches, while Table 3 lists the resulting \[Fe/H\] values. Note that the metallicity for L 116 is very uncertain given the sparcity of giants and the uncertainty in its distance (we used a value of 18.2 based on its RGC mag.). Since for metallicities lower than \[Fe/H\] $`0.5`$ dex, the red giant branches were derived using Galactic globular clusters with ages $`>`$ 10 Gyr, the calibration is not directly applicable to most of our SMC clusters because of the noticeable effect of the age differences on broadband colours. Geisler & Sarajedini (1999) found that the age effect on metallicity derivation should be small or negligible for clusters $`>5`$ Gyrs old. Bica et al. (1998) investigated the effect for younger clusters and found a mean offset of 0.4 dex, in the sense that the metallicities derived from the standard giant branch technique for younger clusters were too low compared to spectroscopically derived values. However, most of their sample were only 1 – 2 Gyrs old. Lacking further details, we correct our metallicities by $`+0.2`$ dex for clusters of 3 – 5 Gyrs and $`+0.4`$ dex for clusters of 1 – 3 Gyrs. It is important to note that the high reddening value for K 28 takes into account the dust along the line of sight through the entire SMC body, and it would be appropriate for dereddening the cluster if it were behind the Small Cloud, which is probably not the case as judged from the position of its RGC. The iron-to-hydrogen ratio corresponding to SFD’s colour excess appears in parenthesis, and for further analysis we use the value based on the BH reddening. The metallicity uncertainties were estimated at $`0.2`$ dex in all cases, including the uncertainty in deriving the original mean value, the uncertain age correction, and reddening and calibration errors.

### 4.2 Surrounding fields

Ages for surrounding fields were determined employing the same method described for clusters. Since fields are in most cases obviously a composite of stellar populations with different ages, we measured the $`\delta T_1`$ values for the most populous turnoffs, as done for our LMC sample (Bica et al. 1998). To assess such turnoffs along MSs of the surrounding fields of K 28 and K 44, we applied the following criterion. First, in the Galactic foreground-cleaned CMD, we defined the region corresponding to the MS. This was accomplished by tracing a lower envelope composed of two straight lines and a reddest envelope shifting the lower envelope by +0.4 mag. The lines defining the lower envelope are given by the expressions : $`T_1=18.0\times (CT_1\alpha _1)+28.5`$ and $`T_1=4.4\times (CT_1\alpha _2)+21.6`$, where $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are constants equal to 0.0 and 0.1 for K 28 and L6̇8, respectively. We then built MS luminosity functions by counting all the stars distributed in the previously delimited CMD zone and within intervals of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_1`$ = 0.5 mag. Assuming that the observed MS is the result of the superposition of different MSs, we considered the magnitude associated with each bin as that corresponding to a MS whose turnoff lies at that $`T_1`$ value. Such MS is also assumed to have a uniform number of stars per magnitude interval. To obtain the number of stars per bin which only belong to the MS turnoff in that bin, we subtracted from each interval the number of stars counted in the following fainter bin. Negative values reflect either that the turnoff of the fainter bin is less populous than that of the adjacent brighter bin or incompleteness effects due to reaching the limiting magnitude. The $`T_1`$ magnitude of the interval with the highest number of stars, after subtraction of fainter MS stars, was adopted as the turnoff magnitude of the most numerous stellar population of the surrounding cluster field. For the surrounding fields of L 32 and L 38, we directly measured $`\delta T_1`$ because their turnoffs are clearly visible in CMDs. The L 116 surrounding field does not present any evidence of SMC features so that no age estimate was obtained. Table 2 lists the derived field ages. We point out that each field likely contains stars old enough that their turnoff is fainter than the limit of the data. The ages that we estimate for the fields correspond to the majority of detected stars. The more populated fields of K 28 and K 44 will certainly deserve detailed modeling to explore the age structure, but the basic age of the detected stars could be inferred.

Metallicities for the surrounding cluster fields were derived in the same manner as for clusters. We did not estimate the metallicity of the L 116 field because of the lack of any SMC feature. To transform the observed ($`T_1,CT_1`$) diagrams into the absolute ($`M_{T_1},(CT_1)_o`$) plane, we used the colour excesses E(B-V)BH listed in Table 3. The upper MSs of the clusters and their surrounding fields show a slight difference in colour, probably due to differences in the younger stellar population composition of these fields. The colour difference between the RGCs of the K 28 and K 44 fields is also less than 0.03 mag, which is in very good agreement with the cluster BH reddening difference. Fig. 9 shows a typical IAC field. Note that the fields generally showed a significant range in metallicity, amounting to $``$ 0.4 dex (although some of this scatter can be explained by SMC asymptotic giant branch stars), and that the values quoted are crude means. The same metallicity correction required for age effects for IAC objects were applied as for the clusters. The final metal abundance values are listed in Table 3, where colon means uncertain value.

## 5 Discussion

The five studied SMC clusters are spatially distributed along a curve which starts at the northwest of the SMC and crosses its bar practically perpendicular to the southeast. The SMC bar is approximately oriented in the southwest – northeast direction. L 32, L 38 and K 28 are on the northwest side of the bar, while K 44 and L 116 are located on the other side (see Fig. 1). According to the derived ages, the cluster sample seems to be composed of objects distributed in two age-groups with ages $``$ of 2.5 and 5.5 Gyr, respectively. Clusters in these age-groups would also appear spatially located in different SMC regions. The oldest clusters are preferably distributed on the northwest side of the bar, while the youngest ones are located on the other side. We checked this spatial age distribution by considering the ages of L 113, K 3, NGC 339, NGC 416, NGC 361, L 1 and NGC 121 derived by MSF, since they are on the Zinn metallicity scale and used an age scale where L 1 is 9 Gyr, i.e., the same age-metallicity scale adopted in the present study. Joining our 5 clusters with these additional 7 clusters results in a sample of 5 and 7 objects distributed on each side of the bar. Fig. 1 presents clusters from MSF with open triangles. The mean ages turned out to be (4.9$`\pm `$1.7) Gyr (n=5) and (6.8$`\pm `$2.9) Gyr (n=7) for the southeast and northwest groups, respectively. The derived mean ages are comparable within dispersions so that star formation processes and dynamical evolution have produced a homogeneous distribution. However the sample should be increased, and the present observations suggest that more IACs should turn up in future studies.

Cluster metallicities appear to follow an age-metallicity relation since our most metal-rich objects are also the youngest clusters and the most metal-poor ones are the oldest ones of the sample. The mean metallicity of southeast and northwest cluster groups (MSF’s clusters included) resulted in \[Fe/H\] = -1.28$`\pm `$0.17 (n=5) and -1.39$`\pm `$0.21 (n=7), respectively. If we did not include MSF’s clusters, the mean metallicities would be \[Fe/H\] = -1.1$`\pm `$0.10 (n=2) and -1.35$`\pm `$0.21 (n=3) instead of -1.3 and -1.4, respectively. This result suggests that the oldest clusters in the southeast group are responsible for the most metal-poor averaged \[Fe/H\] value. In addition, this result also shows that there is no evidence of any bias, in the sense that clusters older than 5.0 Gyr should not have had their forming regions confined to some parts of the galaxy, but throughout the whole SMC body.

Our cluster sample considerably enlarges the number of SMC IAC and old clusters with ages and metallicities on the same system, thus providing us with a sufficient large number of objects with which to investigate their age distribution. Fig. 10 shows the resulting histogram for 11 SMC clusters (7 clusters from MSF and 4 clusters from this study). As can be seen, it would appear that clusters have been formed during the entire SMC lifetime, with some epochs with more intense cluster formation activity. In particular, Fig. 10 reveals that there could be at least two important cluster formation epochs at $``$ 3 and $``$ 6 Gyr qualitatively in-line with the findings of Rich et al. (2000). The resulting absolute distance modulus for L 116 is $`(mM)_o`$ = 17.8 implying a distance from the Sun d = 36 kpc. The cluster appears to be in the foreground of the SMC, and possibly also slightly closer than the LMC, assuming that the latter is at 50 kpc (see Bica et al. 1998). The projected distance from the LMC bar is $``$ 16$`\mathrm{°}`$, which at the LMC distance is $``$ 14 kpc. This value is smaller than the derived cluster distance to the SMC $``$ 20 kpc assuming the SMC distance to the Sun as 63 kpc. This suggests that the cluster belongs rather to the LMC, although deeper observational data are really required to sort out the nature of this object. Two Population II globular clusters considered as LMC members are as distant: Reticulum at 15.7$`\mathrm{°}`$ and NGC 1841 at 20.3$`\mathrm{°}`$ convert at the LMC distance to 14.0 and 18.5 kpc from the LMC bar respectively. The outermost LMC IAC cluster known is OHSC 37 (Bica et al. 1998) at a projected distance from the LMC bar centre of $``$ 13$`\mathrm{°}`$, or 11.5 kpc. Population II globular clusters are expected at large distance since they may be part of an extended spheroid, but such far away intermediate age clusters may be rather explained by (i) cluster scattering during LMC-SMC interactions or (ii) star cluster formation during early LMC-SMC interactions in features such as bridges and tidal arms.

A comparison between the derived cluster and surrounding field ages shows that clusters are projected towards SMC fields generally composed of a similar stellar population; the difference between them being $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{(\mathrm{cluster}\mathrm{field})}`$ = -0.5$`\pm `$1.0 Gyrs. The fields of K 28 and K 44, besides the intermediate age component denoted by the clump and RGB, present a young component as revealed by the blue MS extending well above the clump level. This shows that the edge of the SMC main body has been active in star formation until quite recently. The projected linear distances from the bar centre for L 32 and L 38 are 4.6 kpc and 3.6 kpc, respectively, and at such distances the SMC field population is clearly present (Fig. 6). However, the CMDs of these more distant fields do not show young components; at such distances the intermediate ages prevail. The field around L 116 does not show evidence of an SMC population, the field appearing as foreground Galactic stars. We recall that at the SMC distance the linear separation would be 6.7 kpc. Similarly, metallicities of both clusters and their surrounding fields seem to be indistinguishable within the errors, with a difference of $`\mathrm{\Delta }[Fe/H]_{(\mathrm{cluster}\mathrm{field})}`$ = 0.04$`\pm `$0.17 dex.

Finally, we studied the chemical enrichment of the SMC using ages and metallicities of the 7 star clusters observed by MSF and our present IAC sample. We included 5 young SMC clusters from Da Costa & Hatzidimitriou (1998), which represent the present-day properties of the SMC, because they were also included by MSF in their figure 13. Fig. 11 shows the resulting age-metallicity relationship, where we present previously studied clusters and those discussed in this paper with open and filled circles, respectively. The error bars are also included. Only one cluster in our sample (L 38) is as metal-poor as those of MSF. Six of eight clusters older than 5.0 Gyr have metallicities in the range -1.7 $``$ \[Fe/H\] $``$ -1.4, which could suggest that the chemical enrichment would not have been very efficient until the last 5 Gyr. After that period, the age-metallicity relation would seem to undergo a change in its mean metallicity, as the metal content increases in average from \[Fe/H\] $``$ -1.5 up to -1.1 dex. We compare our age-metallicity relation with two theoretical models of the SMC star formation history. The dashed line represents a simple-closed system with continuous star formation under the assumption of chemical homogeneity (Da Costa & Hatzidimitriou 1998), whereas the solid line depicts the bursting star formation history of Pagel & Tautvaišienė (1998). The appearance of Fig. 11 indicates that a closed box continuous star formation model is a poor representation of the SMC star formation history. Instead, the refinement of the Pagel & Tautvaišienė bursting model is closer to the observed cluster data points. In particular, MSF suggest that the bursting model would be a better fit if the initial star formation epoch lasted 2 Gyr instead of 2.7 Gyr as originally assumed by the Pagel & Tautvaišienė models. Our additional cluster data points corroborate this modification by MSF. Furthermore, we note that Da Costa (1999) has emphasized one specific weakness of the Pagel & Tautvaisiene (P&T) model. He points out that between $``$ 4 and $``$ 12 Gyr, the P&T model predicts a star formation rate that is likely to be too low to produce the relatively large number of star clusters present in this age range. However, Da Costa (1999) also notes that this apparent difficulty can be resolved if the star formation rate in the model is increased to a level that is adequate to produce the numbers of star clusters and, at the same time, the abundance of the ISM is diluted by the infall of primordial or low abundance gas, which would serve to keep the overall metal abundance nearly constant during this time interval. Given the past interactions of the SMC with the LMC and the Milky Way, the possibility that the SMC was not a perfect closed-box is quite plausible.

## 6 Conclusions

New Washington photometry was presented for five clusters (L 32, L 38, K 28, K 44, and L 116) and surrounding fields projected onto the SMC body and outskirts. On the basis of their colour-magnitude diagrams we have determined age and metallicity for both clusters and respective surrounding fields. All clusters turned out to be of intermediate age. One of them (L 116) probably does not belong to the SMC, as indicated by its proximity to the LMC. Including clusters and fields, the range of ages found was 2.1 to 6.7 Gyrs and that of metallicities was $`1.70<`$\[Fe/H\]$`<0.90`$. The whole sample of known intermediate-age and old SMC clusters with ages and metallicities determined on a uniform scale has now increased to 11.

The frequency distribution of clusters with age suggests two cluster formation epochs: one at 3 and another at 6 Gyr, although more cluster observations are needed for a better definition of these events. On the basis of the RGC magnitude, a distance of 36 kpc to L 116 was obtained. Assuming 8.5 kpc for the distance Sun-Galactic centre, the distance of the cluster from the Galactic centre is $``$ 34 kpc. The derived deprojected distance of L 116 to the LMC is 18 kpc and to the SMC is 27 kpc. Therefore, the cluster is in the Galactic halo and closer to the LMC than to the SMC. There are 10 Galactic globular clusters farther than $``$ 34 kpc from the Galactic centre. However, old Galactic open clusters, more similar to L 116, are not found that far. In the LMC, the farthest known intermediate-age cluster is OHSC 37, at more than 10 kpc from the LMC bar centre. This suggests that the properties of the intermediate-age cluster L 116, including its distance, are more compatible with LMC membership.

Concerning the SMC field population, it is clear that a young stellar population component is mixed with the intermediate-age one in the inner fields at projected distances of 1.2 kpc from the SMC centre (K 28 and K 44 fields). In the outer fields associated with L 32 and L 38 (at 5 kpc and 4 kpc respectively), the intermediate-age component is dominant and the young component does not show up. This demonstrates that recent star formation has occurred in regions closer to the SMC body.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the CTIO staff for their kind hospitality during the observing run. We would also like to acknowledge Carlos Dutra who provided us the reddening values for the cluster sample from the SFD et al. dust map. We also thank the referee for his valuable comments and suggestions. A.E.P. and J.J.C. acknowledge the Argentinian institutions CONICET and Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (ANPCyT) for their partial support. E.B. also acknowledges the Brazilian institutions CNPq for its support. D.G. acknowledges financial support for this project received from CONICYT through Fondecyt grants 1000319 and 8000002, and from the Universidad de Concepción through research grant No. 99.011.025.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Correlated Fermi systems are of increasing interest in many fields, including plasmas, astrophysics, solids and nuclear matter, (see Kraeft et al. ) for an overview. Among the topics of current interest are Fermi liquids, metallic hydrogen (see DaSilva et al. ), plasma phase transition (see Schlanges et al. ), bound states etc. In such many particle quantum systems, the Coulomb interaction is essential. There has been significant progress in recent years to study these systems theoretically, and especially numerically, (see e.g. Bonitz (Ed.) , Zamalin et al. , Filinov, A. V. et al. ). A theoretical framework which is particularly well suited to describe thermodynamic properties in the region of strong coupling and degeneracy is the path integral quantum Monte Carlo (PIMC) method. There has been remarkable recent progress in applying these techniques to Fermi systems. However, these simulations are essentially hampered by the fermion sign problem. To overcome this difficulty, several strategies have been developed to simulate macroscopic Coulomb systems (see Militzer and Pollock , Militzer and Ceperley , and Militzer ): the first is the restricted PIMC concept where additional assumptions on the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }`$ are introduced which reduce the sum over permutations to even (positive) contributions only. This requires the knowledge of the nodes of the density matrix which is available only in a few special cases. However, for interacting macroscopic systems, these nodes are known only approximately, (see, e.g., Militzer and Pollock  and Militzer and Ceperley ), and the accuracy of the results is difficult to assess from within this scheme.

Recently, we have published a new path integral representation for the N-particle density operator (see Filinov, V. S., et al. , Bonitz (Ed.) , Filinov, V. S., et al. ), which allows for direct Fermionic path integral Monte Carlo simulations of dense plasmas in a broad range of densities and temperatures. Using this concept we computed the pressure (equation of state, EOS), the energy, and the pair distribution functions of a dense partially ionized and dissociated electron–proten plasma (see Filinov, V. S., et al. ). In this region no reliable data are available from other theories such as density functional theory or quantum statistics (see, e.g., Kraeft et al. ), which would allow for an unambiguous test. Therefore, it is of high interest to perform quantitative comparisons of analytical results and independent numerical simulations, such as restricted and direct fermionic PIMC, which is the aim of this paper.

## 2 Path integral representation of thermodynamic quantities

We now briefly outline the idea of our direct PIMC scheme. All thermodynamic properties of a two-component plasma are defined by the partition function $`Z`$ which, for the case of $`N_e`$ electrons and $`N_p`$ protons, is given by

$`Z(N_e,N_p,V,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q(N_e,N_p,\beta )}{N_e!N_p!}},`$
$`\text{with}Q(N_e,N_p,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}𝑑q𝑑r\rho (q,r,\sigma ;\beta ),`$ (1)
where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$. The exact density matrix is, for a quantum system, in general, not known but can be constructed using a path integral representation (see Feynman and Hibbs ),

$`{\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}𝑑R^{(0)}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\rho (R^{(0)},\sigma ;\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}𝑑R^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝑑R^{(n)}\rho ^{(1)}\rho ^{(2)}\mathrm{}\rho ^{(n)}`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}(\pm 1)^{\kappa _P}𝒮(\sigma ,\widehat{P}\sigma ^{})\widehat{P}\rho ^{(n+1)},`$
where $`\rho ^{(i)}\rho (R^{(i1)},R^{(i)};\mathrm{\Delta }\beta )R^{(i1)}|e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta \widehat{H}}|R^{(i)}`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta \beta /(n+1)`$. $`\widehat{H}`$ is the Hamilton operator, $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{K}+\widehat{U}_c`$, containing kinetic and potential energy contributions with $`\widehat{U}_c=\widehat{U}_c^p+\widehat{U}_c^e+\widehat{U}_c^{ep}`$ being the sum of the Coulomb potentials between protons (p), electrons (e) and electrons and protons (ep). Further, $`R^{(i)}=(q^{(i)},r^{(i)})(R_p^{(i)},R_e^{(i)})`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{}n+1`$, $`R^{(0)}(q,r)(R_p^{(0)},R_e^{(0)})`$. Also, $`R^{(n+1)}R^{(0)}`$ and $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma `$, i.e., the particles are represented by closed Fermionic loops with the coordinates (beads) $`[R][R^{(0)};R^{(1)};\mathrm{};R^{(n)};R^{(n+1)}]`$, where $`r`$ and $`q`$ denote the electron and proton coordinates, respectively. The spin gives rise to the spin part of the density matrix $`𝒮`$, whereas exchange effects are accounted for by the permutation operator $`\widehat{P}`$, which acts on the electron coordinates and spin, and the sum over the permutations with parity $`\kappa _P`$. In the fermionic case (minus sign), the sum contains $`N_e!/2`$ positive and negative terms leading to the notorious sign problem. Due to the large mass difference of electrons and protons, the exchange of the latter is not included.

Recently, we have derived a new representation for the high–temperature density matrices $`\rho ^{(i)}`$ in eq.(2) (see Filinov, V. S., et al. ) which is well suited for direct PIMC simulations. A crucial point is that the electron–proton interaction can be described by an (effective) quantum pair potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{ep}`$ (Kelbg–potential, see Kelbg ). For details of the derivation see Filinov, V. S., et al. . Here, we present only the final result for the energy and for the EOS. Consider first the energy:

$`\beta E={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(N_e+N_p)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _p^{3N_p}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _e^{3N_e}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{N_e}{}}}{\displaystyle }dqdrd\xi \rho _s(q,[r],\beta )\times `$
$`\{{\displaystyle \underset{p<t}{\overset{N_p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta e^2}{|q_{pt}|}}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}}[{\displaystyle \underset{p<t}{\overset{N_e}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta e^2}{|r_{pt}^l|}}+{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{N_e}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_l^{ep}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{p<t}{\overset{N_e}{}}}C_{pt}^l{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta e^2}{|r_{pt}^l|^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{N_e}{}}}D_{pt}^l{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^{ep}}{|x_{pt}^l|}}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{det}|\psi _{ab}^{n,1}|_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{det}|\psi _{ab}^{n,1}|_s}{\beta }}\},`$
$`\mathrm{with}C_{pt}^l={\displaystyle \frac{r_{pt}^l|y_{pt}^l}{2|r_{pt}^l|}},D_{pt}^l={\displaystyle \frac{x_{pt}^l|y_p^l}{2|x_{pt}^l|}},`$ (3)
and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l^{ep}\mathrm{\Delta }\beta [\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ep}(|x_{pt}^l|,\beta ^{})]/\beta ^{}|_{\beta ^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }`$ contains the electron-proton Kelbg potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{ep}`$. Here, $`\mathrm{}|\mathrm{}`$ denotes the scalar product, and $`q_{pt}`$, $`r_{pt}`$ and $`x_{pt}`$ are differences of two coordinate vectors: $`q_{pt}q_pq_t`$, $`r_{pt}r_pr_t`$, $`x_{pt}r_pq_t`$, $`r_{pt}^l=r_{pt}+y_{pt}^l`$, $`x_{pt}^lx_{pt}+y_p^l`$ and $`y_{pt}^ly_p^ly_t^l`$, with $`y_a^n=\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _e_{k=1}^n\xi _a^{(k)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _a^2=2\pi \mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\beta /m_a`$. We introduced dimensionless distances between neighboring vertices on the loop, $`\xi ^{(1)},\mathrm{}\xi ^{(n)}`$, thus, explicitly, $`[r][r;y_e^{(1)};y_e^{(2)};\mathrm{}]`$.

The density matrix $`\rho _s`$ is given by

$`\rho _s(q,[r],\beta )=C_{N_e}^se^{\beta U(q,[r],\beta )}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{N_e}{}}}\varphi _{pp}^l\mathrm{det}|\psi _{ab}^{n,1}|_s,`$ (4)
where $`U(q,[r],\beta )=U_c^p(q)+\{U^e([r],\mathrm{\Delta }\beta )+U^{ep}(q,[r],\mathrm{\Delta }\beta )\}/(n+1)`$ and $`\varphi _{pp}^l\mathrm{exp}[\pi |\xi _p^{(l)}|^2]`$. We underline that the density matrix (4) does not contain an explicit sum over the permutations and thus no sum of terms with alternating sign. Instead, the whole exchange problem is contained in a single exchange matrix given by

$`\psi _{ab}^{n,1}_se^{\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _e^2}\left|(r_ar_b)+y_a^n\right|^2}_s.`$ (5)
As a result of the spin summation, the matrix carries a subscript $`s`$ denoting the number of electrons having the same spin projection. For more detail, (see Filinov, V. S., et al. , Bonitz (Ed.) ). In a similar way, we obtain the result for the equation of state,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta pV}{N_e+N_p}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_e+N_p}}{\displaystyle \frac{(3Q)^1}{\lambda _p^{3N_p}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda _e^{3N_e}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{N_e}{}}}{\displaystyle }dqdrd\xi \rho _s(q,[r],\beta )\times `$
$`\{{\displaystyle \underset{p<t}{\overset{N_p}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta e^2}{|q_{pt}|}}+{\displaystyle \underset{p<t}{\overset{N_e}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta e^2}{|r_{pt}|}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{N_e}{}}}|x_{pt}|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^{ep}}{|x_{pt}|}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{p<t}{\overset{N_e}{}}}A_{pt}^l{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta e^2}{|r_{pt}^l|^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{N_e}{}}}B_{pt}^l{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^{ep}}{|x_{pt}^l|}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{det}|\psi _{ab}^{n,1}|_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{det}|\psi _{ab}^{n,1}|_s}{\alpha }}\},`$
$`\mathrm{with}A_{pt}^l={\displaystyle \frac{r_{pt}^l|r_{pt}}{|r_{pt}^l|}},B_{pt}^l={\displaystyle \frac{x_{pt}^l|x_{pt}}{|x_{pt}^l|}}.`$ (6)
## 3 Analytical approximations for the thermodynamic functions of dense plasmas

To describe dense plasmas, it is necessary to have thermodynamic functions valid at arbitrary degeneracy. Here, we restrict ourselves to the Hartree–Fock (HF) and the Montroll–Ward (MW) contributions. This approximation is appropriate at temperatures high enough such that the Coulomb interaction is weak and the possibility of the formation of bound states is excluded. HF and MW contributions have been computed numerically (see Kraeft et al. ). The analytical evaluation of the MW contribution is possible in limiting situations only, namely in the low and very high density cases. In the intermediate region Padé formulae can be used to interpolate between the limiting cases. In between, the formulae are fitted to numerical data; (see Ebeling et al.  , Haronska et al.  and Ebeling and Richert ). We give the excess free energy and the interaction part of the chemical potential of the electron gas,

$$f^P=\frac{f_D\frac{1}{4}(\pi \beta )^{1/2}\overline{n}+8\overline{n}^2f_{GB}}{1+8ln\left[1+\frac{3}{64\sqrt{2}}(\pi \beta )^{1/4}\overline{n}^{1/2}\right]+8\overline{n}^2},$$
(7)
and

$$\mu ^P=\frac{\mu _D\frac{1}{2}(\pi \beta )^{1/2}\overline{n}+8\overline{n}^2\mu _{GB}}{1+8ln\left[1+\frac{1}{16\sqrt{2}}(\pi \beta )^{1/4}\overline{n}^{1/2}\right]+8\overline{n}^2}.$$
(8)
In (7,8) Heaviside units $`\mathrm{}=\frac{e^2}{2}=2m_e=1`$ and the dimensionless density $`\overline{n}=n\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ were used.

In formulae (7,8), the correct low density behaviour (Debye limiting law) is guaranteed by choosing $`f_D=(2/3)(\pi \beta )^{1/4}\overline{n}^{1/2}`$ and $`\mu _D=(\pi \beta )^{1/4}\overline{n}^{1/2}.`$ The correct high degeneracy limit is recovered by using the (slightly modified) Gell-Mann Brueckner approximations (including Hartree–Fock) for the free energy and for the chemical potential

$$f_{GB}=\frac{0.9163}{r_s}0.08883\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{4.9262}{r_s^{0.7}}\right]\frac{0.9163}{r_s}+0.0622\mathrm{ln}r_s,$$
(9)
$$\mu _{GB}=\frac{1.2217}{r_s}0.08883\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\frac{6.2208}{r_s^{0.7}}\right]\frac{1.2217}{r_s}+0.0622\mathrm{ln}r_s.$$
(10)
The free energy is now equal to the internal energy at $`T=0`$ and reads, according to Carr and Maradudin,

$$\frac{U}{N}=\frac{2.21}{r_s^2}\frac{0.916}{r_s}+0.0622\mathrm{ln}r_s0.096+0.018r_s\mathrm{ln}r_s+\mathrm{}.$$

The Brueckner parameter $`r_s`$ is given by $`r_s^3=3/(4\pi n)`$. While the Hartree Fock term, i.e., the $`1/r_s`$ term in (9,10), was retained unaffected, the additional terms in these equations and in formulae (7,8) were modified, or fitted, respectively, such that (7,8) meet the numerical data in between, where the analytical limiting formulae are not applicable.

Consider now the proton contributions. In the low density regime, the proton formulae are practically the same as for the electrons, whereas in the high density limit we adjust the formulae to (classical) Monte–Carlo (MC) data. We have for the free energy density and for the chemical potential

$$\frac{f_p}{k_BTn_p}=\frac{(f_p^{\mathrm{int}}/k_BTn_p)_D[1a\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{2/3}(f_p^{\mathrm{int}}/k_BTn_p)_{MC}]}{1a\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/2}[\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/2}/(\frac{f_p^{\mathrm{int}}}{k_BTn_P})_D+\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/6}(\frac{f_p^{\mathrm{int}}}{k_BTn_p})_D]}$$
(11)
$$\frac{\mu _p}{k_BT}=\frac{(\mu _p^{\mathrm{int}}/k_BT)_D[12a\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{2/3}(\mu _p^{\mathrm{int}}/k_BTn_p)_{MC}]}{12a\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/2}[\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/2}/(\frac{\mu _p^{\mathrm{int}}}{k_BT})_D+\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/6}(\frac{\mu _p^{\mathrm{int}}}{k_BT})_D]}.$$
(12)
We used the abbreviation $`a`$ which depends only on temperature

$$a=\sqrt{\pi ^3k_BT}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\sqrt{\frac{k_BT}{4\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\pi }/2}{\mathrm{ln}(4/k_BT)^{1/6}2\sqrt{k_BT}}\right)\right]0.29931\right\}.$$
(13)
For the protons, we introduce the dimensionless density to be used in the plasma parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, namely $`\stackrel{~}{n}_p=\frac{8}{(k_BT)^3}n_p`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\frac{4}{3}\pi \stackrel{~}{n}_p\right)^{1/3}`$. The Debye approximations (i.e., the low density case) for free energy density and chemical potential read $`(f_p^{\mathrm{int}}/k_BTn_p)_D=2.1605\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/2}`$ and $`(\mu _p^{\mathrm{int}}/k_BT)_D=\frac{3}{2}2.1605\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/2}`$. In the high density region, we use a fit to (classical OCP) Monte–Carlo data.

For the free energy we write

$`(f_p^{\mathrm{int}}/k_BTn_p)_{MC}=0.8946\mathrm{\Gamma }+3.266\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/4}0.5012\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }2.809`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_s\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/3}}{1+r_s^2}}\left[0.0933+1.0941\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/4}0.343\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/3}\right],`$ (14)
and for the chemical potential

$`(\mu _p^{\mathrm{int}}/k_BT)_{MC}=1.1928\mathrm{\Gamma }+3.5382\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/4}0.5012\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }2.9761`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_s\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/3}}{1+r_s^2}}\left[0.0933+0.8206\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/4}0.2287\stackrel{~}{n}_p^{1/3}\right].`$ (15)
The correlation part of the pressure for an $`H`$–plasma is then given by

$$p^{\mathrm{corr}}=p_e^{\mathrm{corr}}+p_p^{\mathrm{corr}}=n_e\mu _e+n_p\mu _pf_ef_p.$$
(16)
The contributions are determined by (7,8) and (11,12). The ideal pressure is given by Fermi integrals $`I_\nu (\alpha )`$

$$p^{\mathrm{id}}=k_BT\underset{a}{}\frac{2s_a+1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^3}I_{3/2}(\alpha _a),\alpha _a=\mu _a/(k_BT).$$

The internal energy may be constructed from the excess free energy $`f=\frac{F}{V}`$ given above in addition to the ideal part according to $`U=FT\frac{F}{T}|_{V=\mathrm{const}}`$ , where the ideal free energy is given by

$$F^{\mathrm{id}}=k_BTV\underset{a}{}\frac{2s_a+1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_a^3}\left\{\alpha _aI_{1/2}(\alpha _a)I_{3/2}(\alpha _a)\right\}.$$

At very high degeneracy, the free energy is equal to the internal energy.

## 4 Hydrogen isotherms

In this section we present results for the thermodynamic functions of dense hydrogen versus density at constant temperature. The PIMC simulations have been performed as explained in Filinov, V. S., et al. , and Filinov V. S., et al. . Figures 1-3 show the simulation results together with the Padé results for three hydrogen isotherms $`T=50,000`$; $`100,000`$; and $`125,000K`$. In all figures the agreement between numerical and analytical data is good for temperatures and densities, where the coupling parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is smaller than or equal to unity. Reference points related to RPIMC and DPIMC calculations in Fig. 1 correspond to data available for the temperature $`T=62,500K`$.

At low densities, pressure and energy are close to those of an ideal plasma. Increasing the density above $`10^{19}cm^3`$, Coulomb interaction becomes important leading to a decrease of pressure and energy. Differences between analytical and numerical calculations in Fig. 1 are observed for densities above $`10^{22}`$ $`cm^3`$ where the coupling parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ exceeds unity. At temperatures of $`100,000`$ and $`125,000K`$, differences are observed for $`n`$ above $`5\times 10^{22}cm^3`$. The degeneracy parameter $`n_e\lambda ^3`$ reaches here values of $`0.4`$. At higher densities (around $`10^{24}cm^3`$) the degeneracy $`n_e\lambda ^3`$ becomes larger than unity, and the interaction parts of pressure and energy decrease as compared to the respective ideal contributions, which leads to an increase of pressure and energy. At lower temperatures, this tendency is accompanied by the vanishing of bound states, i.e., a transition from a partially ionized plasma to a metal–like state. This tendency is correctly reproduced by all methods, however the density values of this increase vary. In Fig. 3 we compare our results with data from RPIMC simulations (see Militzer et al ). Obviously, the agreement is very good up to densities below $`10^{24}cm^3`$.

## 5 Discussion

This work is devoted to a Quantum Monte Carlo study of a correlated proton-electron system with degenerate electrons. We compared our direct PIMC simulations with independent restricted PIMC results of Militzer and Ceperley and analytical formulae for isotherms corresponding to $`T=50,000`$; $`100,000`$; and $`125,000K`$. The values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`n_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_e^3`$ are varying in a wide range of values. This region is of particular interest as here pressure and temperature ionization occur and, therefore, an accurate and consistent treatment of scattering and bound states is crucial. We found that the results agree sufficiently well for coupling parameters smaller or equal to unity. This is remarkable because analytical formulae, the DPIMC and RPIMC simulations are completely independent and use essentially different approximations. We, therefore, expect that these results for hydrogen are reliable which is the main result of the present paper. We hope that our simulation results allow us to derive and test improved analytical approximations in the future.

## 6 Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Sonderfor-
schungsbereich 198: M.B., D.K., and W.D.K; Mercator-Programm: V.S.F.). Our thanks are due to W. Ebeling and M. Schlanges for stimulating discussions.


text:
# A multidimensional generalization of Shukla’s {_𝟖}𝝍_𝟖 summation

## 1. Introduction

In this article, we provide a multidimensional generalization of H. S. Shukla’s \[23, Eq. (4.1)\] very-well-poised $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation. In the classical (one-dimensional) case, it reads as follows (cf. H. Exton \[7, Eq. (3.8.1.2) or (A.28)\]):

(1.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}[\begin{array}{c}q\sqrt{a},q\sqrt{a},b,c,aq^2/c,e,f,g\\ \sqrt{a},\sqrt{a},aq/b,aq/c,c/q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g\end{array};q,\frac{a^2}{befg}]\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(1\frac{(1be/a)(1bf/a)(1bg/a)}{(1bq/c)(1bc/aq)(1befg/a^2)}\right)\frac{(1c/bq)(1bc/aq)}{(1c/aq)(1c/q)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(q,aq,q/a,aq/be,aq/bf,aq/bg,aq/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/b,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g,q/b,q/e,q/f,q/g,a^2q/befg;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

provided $`|q|<1`$ and $`|a^2/befg|<1`$.

Here, and throughout the article, we are using the following notations. For a complex number $`q`$ with $`|q|<1`$, the $`q`$-shifted factorial is defined by

$$(a;q)_{\mathrm{}}:=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1aq^j),$$

and

(1.2)
$$(a;q)_k:=\frac{(a;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq^k;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\text{where }k\text{ is an integer}.$$

Further, for brevity, we are employing the notation

$$(a_1,\mathrm{},a_m;q)_k(a_1;q)_k\mathrm{}(a_m;q)_k,$$

where $`k`$ is an integer or infinity. Finally, we use

(1.3)
$${}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{t1}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_t\\ b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_{t1}\end{array};q,z]:=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_t;q)_k}{(q,b_1,\mathrm{},b_{t1};q)_k}z^k,$$

and

(1.4)
$${}_{t}{}^{}\psi _{t}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_t\\ b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_t\end{array};q,z]:=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_t;q)_k}{(b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_t;q)_k}z^k,$$

to denote the basic hypergeometric $`{}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{t1}^{}`$ series, and bilateral basic hypergeometric $`{}_{t}{}^{}\psi _{t}^{}`$ series, respectively. For a survey of classical results in the theory of basic hypergeometric series, see G. Gasper and M. Rahman . For applications of basic hypergeometric series to various areas, including number theory, combinatorics, and physics, see G. E. Andrews .

The $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation in (1.1) generalizes W. N. Bailey’s \[4, Eq. (4.7)\] very-well-poised $`{}_{6}{}^{}\psi _{6}^{}`$ summation, to which it reduces for $`c0`$.

By an elementary computation it follows that H. S. Shukla’s $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation can also be written in the following eqivalent form:

(1.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}[\begin{array}{c}q\sqrt{a},q\sqrt{a},b,c,aq^2/c,e,f,g\\ \sqrt{a},\sqrt{a},aq/b,aq/c,c/q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g\end{array};q,\frac{a^2}{befg}]\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(1\frac{(1a/bg)(1cf/aq)(1ce/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1ef/a)(1c/bq)}\right)\frac{(1c/bq)(1c/gq)}{(1c/aq)(1c/q)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(q,aq,q/a,aq/be,aq/bf,aq/bg,a/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/b,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g,q/b,q/e,q/f,q/g,a^2/befg;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

provided $`|q|<1`$ and $`|a^2/befg|<1`$. In Section 3, we provide a multidimensional generalization of this form of H. S. Shukla’s $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation, see Theorem 3.4.

H. S. Shukla  derived (1.1) by specializing a transformation of a very-well-poised $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ into a sum of three balanced $`{}_{4}{}^{}\varphi _{3}^{}`$ series due to M. Jackson \[13, Eq. (3.1)\]. Unlike H. S. Shukla , we give a proof of the $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation formula (1.5) using a weaker result, namely L. J. Roger’s  $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ summation, which is a special case of (1.5). As further ingredients in our derivation of (1.5) we utilize a simple decomposition identity, see Eq. (2.4), and an application of M. E. H. Ismail’s  analytic continuation argument. We display our proof of (1.5) in Section 2.

Surprisingly, the whole analysis carries over to the multivariate case, in the setting of multiple basic hypergeometric series very-well-poised over the root-system $`A_{r1}`$. In fact, the main achievement of this article is an $`A_{r1}`$ generalization of H. S. Shukla’s $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation (1.5), see Theorem 3.4.

Our article is organized as follows. In Section 2, after briefly explaining some basic concepts which we need from the theory of basic hypergeometric series , we give a new proof of H. S. Shukla’s $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation. The one-dimensional analysis in Section 2 turns out to be very much motivated by the multivariate case. In Section 3, after some preparations, we state and prove our $`A_{r1}`$ generalization of H. S. Shukla’s very-well-poised $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation theorem. Our $`A_{r1}`$ $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation in Theorem 3.4 includes R. A. Gustafson’s  $`A_{r1}`$ $`{}_{6}{}^{}\psi _{6}^{}`$ summation as a special case. Our proof utilizes an $`A_{r1}`$ nonterminating very-well-poised $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ summation by S. C. Milne , a partial fraction decomposition (see Lemma 3.2), and analytic continuation.

## 2. Some basic concepts and proof of the $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation in one-dimension

### 2.1. Some basic concepts

We first recall some basic concepts from the theory of basic hypergeometric series (cf. G. Gasper and M. Rahman ).

By definition (1.2) it is clear that $`(q;q)_k^1=0`$, for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. More generally, $`(q^{1+m};q)_k^1=0`$ for $`k=m1,m2,\mathrm{}`$. Thus, using the definitions (1.3) and (1.4), a bilateral $`{}_{t}{}^{}\psi _{t}^{}`$ series becomes a unilateral $`{}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{t1}^{}`$ series if one of the lower parameters, say $`b_t`$, is $`q`$ (or more generally, $`q^j`$ where $`j`$ is a positive integer). In this case, the $`{}_{t}{}^{}\psi _{t}^{}`$ series terminates naturally from below. Similarly, a $`{}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{t1}^{}`$ series terminates naturally from above if one of the upper parameters, say $`a_t`$, equals $`q^n`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

The ratio test gives simple criteria of when the series in (1.3) and (1.4) converge, if they do not terminate. Remember that we assume $`|q|<1`$. The $`{}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{t1}^{}`$ series in (1.3) converges absolutely in the radius $`|z|<1`$, while the $`{}_{t}{}^{}\psi _{t}^{}`$ series in (1.4) converges absolutely in the annulus $`|b_1\mathrm{}b_t/a_1\mathrm{}a_t|<|z|<1`$.

The classical theory of basic hypergeometric series consists of several summation and transformation formulae involving $`{}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{t1}^{}`$ or $`{}_{t}{}^{}\psi _{t}^{}`$ series. Some classical summation theorems for these series require that the parameters satisfy the condition of being very-well-poised. A $`{}_{t}{}^{}\varphi _{t1}^{}`$ basic hypergeometric series is called well-poised if $`a_1q=a_2b_1=\mathrm{}=a_tb_{t1}`$. It is called very-well-poised if it is well-poised and if $`a_2=q\sqrt{a_1}`$ and $`a_3=q\sqrt{a_1}`$. Note that the factor

(2.1)
$$\frac{(q\sqrt{a_1},q\sqrt{a_1};q)_k}{(\sqrt{a_1},\sqrt{a_1};q)_k}=\frac{1a_1q^{2k}}{1a_1}$$

appears in a very-well-poised series. The parameter $`a_1`$ is usually referred to as the special parameter of such a series, and we call (2.1) the very-well-poised term of the series. Similarly, a bilateral $`{}_{t}{}^{}\psi _{t}^{}`$ basic hypergeometric series is well-poised if $`a_1b_1=a_2b_2\mathrm{}=a_tb_t`$ and very-well-poised if, in addition, $`a_1=a_2=qb_1=qb_2`$.

In our subsequent computations (in this section and in Section 3), we make heavily use of some elementary identities involving $`q`$-shifted factorials, listed in G. Gasper and M. Rahman \[8, Appendix I\].

### 2.2. Proof of the $`{}_{\mathrm{𝟖}}{}^{}𝝍_{\mathrm{𝟖}}^{}`$ summation

The main ingredient in our derivation of H. S. Shukla’s $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation (1.5) is L. J. Roger’s \[19, p. 29, second eq.\] nonterminating very-well-poised $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ summation:

(2.2)
$${}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,q\sqrt{a},q\sqrt{a},b,c,d\\ \sqrt{a},\sqrt{a},aq/b,aq/c,aq/d\end{array};q,\frac{aq}{bcd}]=\frac{(aq,aq/bc,aq/bd,aq/cd;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/b,aq/c,aq/d,aq/bcd;q)_{\mathrm{}}},$$

provided $`|q|<1`$ and $`|aq/bcd|<1`$. Note that (2.2) is equivalent to the special case $`ba`$, $`c0`$ of (1.5).

We derive the $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation (1.5) in two steps. In the first step, we establish the $`ba`$ case of (1.5) by using L. J. Roger’s $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ summation (2.2) twice. I.e., we first establish the unilateral summation

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{8}{}^{}\varphi _{7}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,q\sqrt{a},q\sqrt{a},c,aq^2/c,e,f,g\\ \sqrt{a},\sqrt{a},aq/c,c/q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g\end{array};q,\frac{a}{efg}]\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(1\frac{(11/g)(1cf/aq)(1ce/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1ef/a)(1c/aq)}\right)\frac{(1c/gq)}{(1c/q)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(aq,a/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/e,aq/f,aq/g,a/efg;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

where $`|q|<1`$ and $`|a/efg|<1`$. In the second step, we extend (2.3) to (1.5) by analytic continuation, or equivalently, by an application of M. E. H. Ismail’s  argument.

The details of the first step are as follows. Since

(2.4)
$$\frac{(1cq^{k1})(1aq^{k+1}/c)}{(1c/q)(1aq/c)}=q^k+\frac{(1aq^k)(1q^k)}{(1c/q)(1aq/c)},$$

we have

$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{8}{}^{}\varphi _{7}^{}[\begin{array}{c}a,q\sqrt{a},q\sqrt{a},c,aq^2/c,e,f,g\\ \sqrt{a},\sqrt{a},aq/c,c/q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g\end{array};q,\frac{a}{efg}]\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1aq^{2k})}{(1a)}\frac{(a,e,f,g;q)_k}{(q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g;q)_k}\left(\frac{a}{efg}\right)^k\frac{(1cq^{k1})(1aq^{k+1}/c)}{(1c/q)(1aq/c)}\\ \hfill =\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1aq^{2k})}{(1a)}\frac{(a,e,f,g;q)_k}{(q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g;q)_k}\left(\frac{aq}{efg}\right)^k\\ \hfill +\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1aq^{2k})}{(1a)}\frac{(a,e,f,g;q)_k}{(q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g;q)_k}\left(\frac{a}{efg}\right)^k\frac{(1aq^k)(1q^k)}{(1c/q)(1aq/c)}.\end{array}$$

Now in the second sum, because of the factor $`(1q^k)`$ in the numerator of the summand, we shift the index $`kk+1`$. We then obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1aq^{2k})}{(1a)}\frac{(a,e,f,g;q)_k}{(q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g;q)_k}\left(\frac{aq}{efg}\right)^k\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{a(1aq)(1aq^2)(1e)(1f)(1g)}{efg(1c/q)(1aq/c)(1aq/e)(1aq/f)(1aq/g)}\\ \hfill \times \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1aq^{2+2k})}{(1aq^2)}\frac{(aq^2,eq,fq,gq;q)_k}{(q,aq^2/e,aq^2/f,aq^2/g;q)_k}\left(\frac{a}{efg}\right)^k.\end{array}$$

Next, we simplify both sums by the $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ summation in (2.2) and obtain

(2.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{(aq,aq/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/e,aq/f,aq/g,aq/efg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{a(1aq)(1aq^2)(1e)(1f)(1g)}{efg(1c/q)(1aq/c)(1aq/e)(1aq/f)(1aq/g)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(aq^3,aq/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq^2/e,aq^2/f,aq^2/g,a/efg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\\ \hfill =\left(1\frac{(1e)(1f)(1g)}{(1c/q)(1aq/c)(1efg/a)}\right)\frac{(aq,aq/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/e,aq/f,aq/g,aq/efg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}.\end{array}$$

Since

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(1\frac{(1e)(1f)(1g)}{(1c/q)(1aq/c)(1efg/a)}\right)\frac{(1a/efg)}{(1a/ef)}\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(1\frac{(11/g)(1cf/aq)(1ce/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1ef/a)(1c/aq)}\right)\frac{(1c/gq)}{(1c/q)}\end{array}$$

(as can be readily checked by using a symbolic computer algebra program such as Maple or Mathematica), the last expression in (2.5) is equivalent to

$$\left(1\frac{(11/g)(1cf/aq)(1ce/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1ef/a)(1c/aq)}\right)\frac{(1c/gq)}{(1c/q)}\frac{(aq,a/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/e,aq/f,aq/g,a/efg;q)_{\mathrm{}}},$$

which is the right side of (2.3).

Having established (2.3), we are now ready to proceed with the second step, where we extend the unilateral summation (2.3) to the bilateral (1.5) by analytic continuation, by a method commonly referred to as “Ismail’s argument” (see M. E. H. Ismail , and R. Askey and M. E. H. Ismail ). This works as follows: Both sides of the identity in (1.5) are analytic in $`b^1`$ in a domain around the origin. Now, the identity is true for $`b=aq^m`$, for all $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, by the $`{}_{8}{}^{}\varphi _{7}^{}`$ summation in (2.3) (see below for the details). Since $`lim_m\mathrm{}q^m/a=0`$ is an interior point in the domain of analyticity of $`b^1`$, by the identity theorem of analytic functions, we establish the identity (1.5) for $`b^1`$ throughout the whole domain. Finally, by analytic continuation we esatblish the identity (1.5) to be valid for $`|b^1|<|efg/a^2|`$, the region of convergence of the series.

We still need to show that the identity (1.5) is true when $`b=aq^m`$. In this case, the left side of (1.5) is

(2.6)
$$\underset{k=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1aq^{2k})}{(1a)}\frac{(aq^m,c,aq^2/c,e,f,g;q)_k}{(q^{1+m},aq/c,c/q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g;q)_k}\left(\frac{aq^m}{efg}\right)^k.$$

We shift the summation index in (2.6) by $`kkm`$ and obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{(1aq^{2m})}{(1a)}\frac{(aq^m,c,aq^2/c,e,f,g;q)_m}{(q^{1+m},aq/c,c/q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g;q)_m}\left(\frac{aq^m}{efg}\right)^m\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1aq^{2m+2k})(aq^{2m},cq^m,aq^{2m}/c,eq^m,fq^m,gq^m;q)_k}{(1a^{2m})(q,aq^{1m}/c,cq^{m1},aq^{1m}/e,aq^{1m}/f,aq^{1m}/g;q)_k}\left(\frac{aq^m}{efg}\right)^k.\end{array}$$

Now we apply the $`aaq^{2m}`$, $`ccq^m`$, $`eeq^m`$, $`ffq^m`$, and $`ggq^m`$ case of the summation formula in (2.3) to simplify this expression to

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{(1aq^{2m})}{(1a)}\frac{(aq^m,c,aq^2/c,e,f,g;q)_m}{(q^{1+m},aq/c,c/q,aq/e,aq/f,aq/g;q)_m}\left(\frac{aq^m}{efg}\right)^m\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left(1\frac{(1q^m/g)(1cf/aq)(1ce/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1ef/a)(1cq^m/aq)}\right)\frac{(1c/gq)}{(1cq^{m1})}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(aq^{12m},a/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq^{1m}/e,aq^{1m}/f,aq^{1m}/g,aq^m/efg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}.\end{array}$$

Now, this can easily be further transformed into

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(1\frac{(1q^m/g)(1cf/aq)(1ce/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1ef/a)(1cq^m/aq)}\right)\frac{(1cq^m/aq)(1c/gq)}{(1c/aq)(1c/q)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{(q,aq,q/a,q^{1+m}/e,q^{1+m}/f,q^{1+m}/g,a/ef,aq/eg,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{1+m},aq/e,aq/f,aq/g,q^{1+m}/a,q/e,q/f,q/g,aq^m/efg;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

which is exactly the $`b=aq^m`$ case of the right side of (1.5). ∎

## 3. An $`A_{r1}`$ very-well-poised $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation formula

### 3.1. Preliminaries on $`𝑨_{𝒓\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ basic hypergeometric series

We consider multiple series of the form

(3.1)
$$\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}S(𝐤),$$

where $`𝐤=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_r)`$, which reduce to classical (bilateral) basic hypergeometric series when $`r=1`$. We call such a multiple basic hypergeometric series well-poised if it reduces to a well-poised series when $`r=1`$. Very-well-poised multiple basic hypergeometric series are defined analogously. In case these series do not terminate from below, we also call such series multilateral basic hypergeometric series.

In our particular cases, we also have

(3.2)
$$\underset{1i<j<r}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{k_i}z_jq^{k_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)$$

as a factor of $`S(𝐤)`$. A typical example is the right side of (3.3). Since we may associate (3.2) with the product side of the Weyl denominator formula for the root system $`A_{r1}`$ (see e.g. D. Stanton ), we call our series $`A_{r1}`$ basic hypergeometric series, in accordance with I. M. Gessel and C. Krattenthaler \[9, Eq. (7.1)\]. Very often these series are also called $`U(r)`$ basic hypergeometric series, where $`U(r)`$ is the unitary group. For some selected results in the theory of $`A_{r1}`$ basic hypergeometric series, see the references .

For convenience, we frequently use the notation $`|𝐤|:=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_r`$. Furthermore, we often use capital letters to abbreviate the ($`r`$-fold) products of certain variables. Specifically, in this article we use $`Bb_1\mathrm{}b_r`$, $`Ee_1\mathrm{}e_r`$, and $`Yy_1\mathrm{}y_r`$, respectively.

Since multidimensional $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ series play a significant role in our derivation of our $`A_{r1}`$ $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation, we find it useful to make the following definition. Let $`a`$, $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_r`$, $`c`$, $`d`$, $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_r`$, and $`w`$ be indeterminate. We define for $`r1`$,

(3.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{6}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{5}^{(r)}[a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_r;c,d;z_1,\mathrm{},z_r|q,w]\hfill \\ \hfill :=\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{k_i}z_jq^{k_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{k_i+|𝐤|}}{1az_i}\right)\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(b_jz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}{(qz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}\\ \hfill \times \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(cz_i;q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq/b_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(az_iq/d;q)_{k_i}}\frac{(d;q)_{|𝐤|}}{(aq/c;q)_{|𝐤|}}w^{|𝐤|}).\end{array}$$

The above $`{}_{6}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{5}^{(r)}`$ series is an $`r`$-dimensional $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ series (which reduces to a classical very-well-posied $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ when $`r=1`$).

In our proof of Theorem 3.4, or more precisely, of the intermediate Proposition 3.5, we utilize S. C. Milne’s \[15, Theorem 1.44\] $`A_{r1}`$ extension of L. J. Roger’s $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ summation theorem.

###### Theorem 3.1 ((Milne) An $`A_{r1}`$ nonterminating very-well-poised $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ summation).

Let $`a`$, $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_r`$, $`c`$, $`d`$, and $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_r`$, be indeterminate, let $`Bb_1\mathrm{}b_r`$, $`r1`$, and suppose that none of the denominators in (3.4) vanishes. Then

(3.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{6}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{5}^{(r)}[a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_r;c,d;z_1,\mathrm{},z_r|q,\frac{aq}{Bcd}]\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{(aq/Bc,aq/cd;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/Bcd,aq/c;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq,az_iq/b_id;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/d,az_iq/b_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

provided $`|q|<1`$ and $`|aq/Bcd|<1`$.

The $`r=1`$ case of (3.4) clearly reduces to (2.2).

Further, we make use of the following ($`q`$-analogue of the) partial fraction decomposition

(3.5)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1tz_iy_i)}{(1tz_i)}=y_1y_2\mathrm{}y_r+\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{_{i=1}^r(1y_iz_i/z_l)}{(1tz_l)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_i/z_l)}$$

(see \[16, Appendix\]). In particular, for a multivariate extension of (2.4), we utilize the following extension of (3.5):

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`Yy_1y_2\mathrm{}y_r`$. Then

$$\frac{(1uY)}{(1u)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1tz_iy_i)}{(1tz_i)}=Y+\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1uYtz_l)_{i=1}^r(1y_iz_i/z_l)}{(1u)(1tz_l)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_i/z_l)}.$$

###### Proof.

Since

$$1Y=\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{_{i=1}^r(1y_iz_i/z_l)}{_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_i/z_l)},$$

by the $`t=0`$ case of (3.5), we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{(1uY)}{(1u)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1tz_iy_i)}{(1tz_i)}\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(1+\frac{(1Y)}{(1u)}u\right)\left(Y+\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{_{i=1}^r(1y_iz_i/z_l)}{(1tz_l)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_i/z_l)}\right)\\ \hfill =Y+\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{(1u+(1tz_l)uY+(1Y)u)}{(1u)}\frac{_{i=1}^r(1y_iz_i/z_l)}{(1tz_l)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_i/z_l)}\right)\\ \hfill =Y+\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1uYtz_l)_{i=1}^r(1y_iz_i/z_l)}{(1u)(1tz_l)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_i/z_l)}.\end{array}$$

###### Remark 3.3.

In the multivariate analysis of our proof of Theorem 3.4, the partial fraction decomposition of Lemma 3.2 plays a crucial role. Applications of partial fraction decomposition have often proved to be useful in the derivation of results for $`A_{r1}`$ series, see e.g. .

After these preparations, we are ready to state and prove our multiple extension of (1.5).

### 3.2. The main result

Our $`r`$-dimensional generalization of H. S. Shukla’s \[23, Eq. (4.1)\] very-well-poised $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation is as follows:

###### Theorem 3.4 (An $`A_{r1}`$ very-well-poised $`{}_{8}{}^{}\psi _{8}^{}`$ summation).

Let $`a`$, $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_r`$, $`c`$, $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r`$, $`f`$, $`g`$, and $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_r`$ be indeterminate, let $`Bb_1\mathrm{}b_r`$, $`Ee_1\mathrm{}e_r`$, $`r1`$, and suppose that none of the denominators in (3.6) vanishes. Then

(3.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{k_i}z_jq^{k_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{k_i+|𝐤|}}{1az_i}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(e_jz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq/b_jz_j;q)_{k_i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(b_iz_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(fz_i;q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq/e_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(az_iq/g;q)_{k_i}}\frac{(g;q)_{|𝐤|}}{(aq/f;q)_{|𝐤|}}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(1cq^{|𝐤|1})}{(1c/q)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_iq^{k_i+1}/c)}{(1az_iq/c)}\left(\frac{a^{r+1}}{BEfg}\right)^{|𝐤|})\\ \hfill =\left(1\frac{(1a^r/Bg)(1cf/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1Ef/a)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1ce_i/az_iq)}{(1c/b_iz_iq)}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1c/b_iz_iq)}{(1c/az_iq)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(1c/gq)}{(1c/q)}\frac{(a/Ef,aq/fg,a^rq/Bg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(a^{r+1}/BEfg,aq/f,q/g;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(qz_i/z_j,az_iq/b_je_iz_j;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/b_jz_j,z_iq/e_iz_j;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\\ \hfill \times \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq,q/az_i,az_iq/e_ig,aq/b_ifz_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/e_i,az_iq/g,q/b_iz_i,q/fz_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

provided $`|q|<1`$ and $`|a^{r+1}/BEfg|<1`$.

Theorem 3.4 generalizes R. A. Gustafson’s \[10, Theorem 1.15\] $`A_{r1}`$ $`{}_{6}{}^{}\psi _{6}^{}`$ summation, to which it reduces for $`c0`$.

Following closely the univariate analysis of Section 2, we prove Theorem 3.4 in two steps. First, we prove the $`b_i=a`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, special case of Theorem 3.4, which is Proposition 3.5 below. Then we extend Proposition 3.5 to Theorem 3.4 by an $`r`$-fold application of M. E. H. Ismail’s  analytic continuation argument.

###### Proposition 3.5 (An $`A_{r1}`$ nonterminating very-well-poised $`{}_{8}{}^{}\varphi _{7}^{}`$ summation).

Let $`a`$, $`c`$, $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r`$, $`f`$, $`g`$, and $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_r`$ be indeterminate, let $`Ee_1\mathrm{}e_r`$, $`r1`$, and suppose that none of the denominators in (3.7) vanishes. Then

(3.7)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{k_i}z_jq^{k_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{k_i+|𝐤|}}{1az_i}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(e_jz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}{(qz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(fz_i;q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq/e_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(az_iq/g;q)_{k_i}}\frac{(g;q)_{|𝐤|}}{(aq/f;q)_{|𝐤|}}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(1cq^{|𝐤|1})}{(1c/q)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_iq^{k_i+1}/c)}{(1az_iq/c)}\left(\frac{a}{Efg}\right)^{|𝐤|})\\ \hfill =\left(1\frac{(11/g)(1cf/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1Ef/a)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1ce_i/az_iq)}{(1c/az_iq)}\right)\frac{(1c/gq)}{(1c/q)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(a/Ef,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(a/Efg,aq/f;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq,az_iq/e_ig;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/e_i,az_iq/g;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

provided $`|q|<1`$ and $`|a/Efg|<1`$.

Proposition 3.5 generalizes S. C. Milne’s $`A_{r1}`$ $`{}_{6}{}^{}\varphi _{5}^{}`$ summation in Theorem 3.1, to which it reduces for $`c=0`$.

###### Proof of Proposition 3.5.

Since

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{(1cq^{|𝐤|1})}{(1c/q)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_iq^{k_i+1}/c)}{(1az_iq/c)}\hfill \\ \hfill =q^{|𝐤|}+\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_lq^{|𝐤|})_{i=1}^r(1q^{k_i}z_i/z_l)}{(1c/q)(1az_lq/c)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_i/z_l)},\end{array}$$

by the $`taq/c`$, $`uc/q`$, $`y_iq^{k_i}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, case of Lemma 3.2, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{k_i}z_jq^{k_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{k_i+|𝐤|}}{1az_i}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(e_jz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}{(qz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(fz_i;q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq/e_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(az_iq/g;q)_{k_i}}\frac{(g;q)_{|𝐤|}}{(aq/f;q)_{|𝐤|}}\\ \hfill \times \left(\frac{a}{Efg}\right)^{|𝐤|}\frac{(1cq^{|𝐤|1})}{(1c/q)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_iq^{k_i+1}/c)}{(1az_iq/c)})\\ \hfill =\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{k_i}z_jq^{k_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{k_i+|𝐤|}}{1az_i}\right)\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(e_jz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}{(qz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}\\ \hfill \times \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(fz_i;q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq/e_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(az_iq/g;q)_{k_i}}\frac{(g;q)_{|𝐤|}}{(aq/f;q)_{|𝐤|}}\left(\frac{aq}{Efg}\right)^{|𝐤|})\\ \hfill +\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{k_i}z_jq^{k_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{k_i+|𝐤|}}{1az_i}\right)\\ \hfill \times \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(e_jz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}{(qz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(fz_i;q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq/e_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(az_iq/g;q)_{k_i}}\frac{(g;q)_{|𝐤|}}{(aq/f;q)_{|𝐤|}}\\ \hfill \times \left(\frac{a}{Efg}\right)^{|𝐤|}\frac{(1az_lq^{|𝐤|})_{i=1}^r(1q^{k_i}z_i/z_l)}{(1c/q)(1az_lq/c)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_i/z_l)}).\end{array}$$

We arrived at a sum of $`1+r`$ infinite multisums. In the $`(1+l)`$th sum, for $`l=1,\mathrm{},r`$, due to the factor $`_{i=1}^r(1q^{k_i}z_i/z_l)`$ in the numerator of the summand, we shift the index $`k_lk_l+1`$. We then obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}{}_{6}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{5}^{(r)}[a;e_1,\mathrm{},e_r;f,g;z_1,\mathrm{},z_r|q,\frac{aq}{Efg}]\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{a(1fz_l)(1g)(1az_lq^2)}{Efg(1c/q)(1az_lq/c)(1az_lq/g)(1aq/f)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{_{i=1}^r(1az_iq)_{i=1}^r(1e_iz_l/z_i)}{_{i=1}^r(1az_iq/e_i)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_l/z_i)}\\ \hfill \times {}_{6}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{5}^{(r)}[aq;e_1,\mathrm{},e_{l1},e_lq,e_{l+1},\mathrm{},e_r;f,gq;\\ \hfill z_1,\mathrm{},z_{l1},z_lq,z_{l+1},\mathrm{},z_r|q,\frac{a}{Efg}].\end{array}$$

Next, we simplify all the $`1+r`$ $`{}_{6}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{5}^{(r)}`$ series according to Theorem 3.1, and obtain

(3.8)
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{(aq/Ef,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/Efg,aq/f;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq,az_iq/e_ig;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/g,az_iq/e_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{a(1fz_l)(1g)(1az_lq^2)}{Efg(1c/q)(1az_lq/c)(1az_lq/g)(1aq/f)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{_{i=1}^r(1az_iq)_{i=1}^r(1e_iz_l/z_i)}{_{i=1}^r(1az_iq/e_i)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_l/z_i)}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(aq/Ef,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(a/Efg,aq^2/f;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\frac{(1az_lq/g)}{(1az_lq^2)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq^2,az_iq/e_ig;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/g,az_iq^2/e_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\\ \hfill =\left(1\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1fz_l)(1g)_{i=1}^r(1e_iz_l/z_i)}{(1c/q)(1az_lq/c)(1Efg/a)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_l/z_i)}\right)\\ \hfill \times \frac{(aq/Ef,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/Efg,aq/f;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq,az_iq/e_ig;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/g,az_iq/e_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}}.\end{array}$$

Now we apply the $`tc/aq`$, $`uaq/cEf`$, $`y_ie_i`$, and $`z_i1/z_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, case of Lemma 3.2, which can be rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{l=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1fz_l)_{i=1}^r(1e_iz_l/z_i)}{(1cEf/aq)(1az_lq/c)_{\begin{array}{c}i=1\\ il\end{array}}^r(1z_l/z_i)}\hfill \\ \hfill =1\frac{(1cf/aq)}{(1cEf/aq)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1ce_i/az_iq)}{(1c/az_iq)},\end{array}$$

to simplify the expression obtained in (3.8) to

(3.9)
$$\begin{array}{c}\left(1\frac{(1g)(1cEf/aq)}{(1c/q)(1Efg/a)}\left(1\frac{(1cf/aq)}{(1cEf/aq)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1ce_i/az_iq)}{(1c/az_iq)}\right)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{(aq/Ef,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq/Efg,aq/f;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq,az_iq/e_ig;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/g,az_iq/e_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}}.\end{array}$$

Finally, using

$$1\frac{(1g)(1cEf/aq)}{(1c/q)(1Efg/a)}=\frac{(1c/gq)(1a/Ef)}{(1c/q)(1a/Efg)},$$

we can easily transform the expression in (3.9) into

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(1\frac{(11/g)(1cf/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1Ef/a)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1ce_i/az_iq)}{(1c/az_iq)}\right)\frac{(1c/gq)}{(1c/q)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{(a/Ef,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(a/Efg,aq/f;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq,az_iq/e_ig;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/e_i,az_iq/g;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

which is the right side of (3.7), as desired. ∎

Similar to the one-dimensional case, where we deduced the bilateral summation (1.5) from the unilateral summation (2.3) by using M. E. H. Ismail’s  argument, we can now readily deduce Theorem 3.4 from Proposition 3.5.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.4.

To establish (3.6), we apply Ismail’s argument successively to the parameters $`b_1^1,\mathrm{},b_r^1`$ using Proposition 3.5. Both sides of the multiple series identity in (3.6) are analytic in each of the parameters $`b_1^1,\mathrm{},b_r^1`$ in a domain around the origin. Now, the identity is true for $`b_1=aq^{m_1},b_2=aq^{m_2},\mathrm{},`$ and $`b_r=aq^{m_r}`$, by the $`A_{r1}`$ summation in Proposition 3.5 (see below for the details). This holds for all $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_r0`$. Since $`lim_{m_1\mathrm{}}q^{m_1}/a=0`$ is an interior point in the domain of analyticity of $`b_1^1`$, by the identity theorem of analytic functions, we obtain an identity for $`b_1^1`$. By iterating this argument for $`b_2^1,\mathrm{},b_r^1`$, and analytic continuation, we establish (3.6) for general $`b_1^1,\mathrm{},b_r^1`$ where $`|B^1|<|Efg/a^{r+1}|`$.

The details are displayed as follows. Setting $`b_i=aq^{m_i}`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, the left side of (3.6) becomes

(3.10)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\begin{array}{c}m_ik_i\mathrm{}\\ i=1,\mathrm{},r\end{array}}{}(\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{k_i}z_jq^{k_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{k_i+|𝐤|}}{1az_i}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(e_jz_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}{(q^{1+m_j}z_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq^{m_i};q)_{|𝐤|}(fz_i;q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq/e_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(az_iq/g;q)_{k_i}}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(g;q)_{|𝐤|}}{(aq/f;q)_{|𝐤|}}\frac{(1cq^{|𝐤|1})}{(1c/q)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_iq^{k_i+1}/c)}{(1az_iq/c)}\left(\frac{aq^{|𝐦|}}{Efg}\right)^{|𝐤|}).\end{array}$$

We shift the summation indices in (3.10) by $`k_ik_im_i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, and obtain

(3.11)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{m_i}z_jq^{m_j}}{z_iz_j}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{m_i|𝐦|}}{1az_i}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(e_jz_i/z_j;q)_{m_i}}{(q^{1+m_j}z_i/z_j;q)_{m_i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq^{m_i};q)_{|𝐦|}(fz_i;q)_{m_i}}{(az_iq/e_i;q)_{|𝐦|}(az_iq/g;q)_{m_i}}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(g;q)_{|𝐦|}}{(aq/f;q)_{|𝐦|}}\frac{(1cq^{|𝐦|1})}{(1c/q)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_iq^{1m_i}/c)}{(1az_iq/c)}\left(\frac{aq^{|𝐦|}}{Efg}\right)^{|𝐦|}\\ \hfill \times \underset{\begin{array}{c}m_ik_i\mathrm{}\\ i=1,\mathrm{},r\end{array}}{}(\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{m_i+k_i}z_jq^{m_j+k_j}}{z_iq^{m_i}z_jq^{m_j}}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{m_i|𝐦|+k_i+|𝐤|}}{1az_iq^{m_i|𝐦|}}\right)\\ \hfill \times \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(e_jq^{m_i}z_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}{(q^{1+m_jm_i}z_i/z_j;q)_{k_i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq^{m_i|𝐦|};q)_{|𝐤|}(fz_iq^{m_i};q)_{k_i}}{(az_iq^{1|𝐦|}/e_i;q)_{|𝐤|}(az_iq^{1m_i}/g;q)_{k_i}}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(gq^{|𝐦|};q)_{|𝐤|}}{(aq^{1|𝐦|}/f;q)_{|𝐤|}}\frac{(1cq^{|𝐤||𝐦|1})}{(1cq^{|𝐦|1})}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_iq^{k_i+1m_i}/c)}{(1az_iq^{1m_i}/c)}\left(\frac{aq^{|𝐦|}}{Efg}\right)^{|𝐤|}).\end{array}$$

Next, using the identities

$$\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}(e_jz_i/z_j;q)_{m_i}=(1)^{r|𝐦|}E^{|𝐦|}q^{r_{i=1}^r\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_i+1}{2}\right)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}z_i^{|𝐦|rm_i}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}(z_iq/e_iz_j;q)_{m_j}^1,$$

and

$$\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}(q^{1+m_j}z_i/z_j;q)_{m_i}^1=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(qz_i/z_j;q)_{m_j}}{(qz_i/z_j;q)_{m_jm_i}},$$

together with the $`nr`$, $`x_iz_i`$, and $`y_im_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, case of \[17, Lemma 3.12\], specifically

(3.12)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}(qz_i/z_j;q)_{m_jm_i}=(1)^{(r1)|𝐦|}q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|𝐦|+1}{2}\right)+r_{i=1}^r\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_i+1}{2}\right)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}z_i^{|𝐦|rm_i}\underset{1i<jr}{}\left(\frac{z_iq^{m_i}z_jq^{m_j}}{z_iz_j}\right),\end{array}$$

and further the $`aaq^{|𝐦|}`$, $`ccq^{|𝐦|}`$, $`e_ie_iq^{m_i}`$, $`ggq^{|𝐦|}`$, and $`z_iz_iq^{m_i}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, case of the multidimensional summation formula in (3.7), we simplify the expression in (3.11) to

$$\begin{array}{c}(1)^{|𝐦|}q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|𝐦|}{2}\right)}\left(\frac{fg}{a}\right)^{|𝐦|}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\frac{1az_iq^{m_i|𝐦|}}{1az_i}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(qz_i/z_j;q)_{m_j}}{(z_iq/e_iz_j;q)_{m_j}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq^{m_i};q)_{|𝐦|}(fz_i;q)_{m_i}}{(az_iq/e_i;q)_{|𝐦|}(az_iq/g;q)_{m_i}}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(g;q)_{|𝐦|}}{(aq/f;q)_{|𝐦|}}\frac{(1cq^{|𝐦|1})}{(1c/q)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1az_iq^{1m_i}/c)}{(1az_iq/c)}\\ \hfill \times \left(1\frac{(1q^{|𝐦|}/g)(1cf/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1Ef/a)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1ce_i/az_iq)}{(1cq^{m_i}/az_iq)}\right)\frac{(1c/gq)}{(1cq^{|𝐦|1})}\\ \hfill \times \frac{(a/Ef,aq/fg;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq^{|𝐦|}/Efg,aq^{1|𝐦|}/f;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq^{1m_i|𝐦|},az_iq/e_ig;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq^{1|𝐦|}/e_i,az_iq^{1m_i}/g;q)_{\mathrm{}}}.\end{array}$$

Now, this can easily be further transformed into

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(1\frac{(1q^{|𝐦|}/g)(1cf/aq)}{(1c/gq)(1Ef/a)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1ce_i/az_iq)}{(1cq^{m_i}/az_iq)}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(1cq^{m_i}/az_iq)}{(1c/az_iq)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \frac{(1c/gq)}{(1c/q)}\frac{(a/Ef,aq/fg,q^{1+|𝐦|}/g;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(aq^{|𝐦|}/Efg,aq/f,q/g;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(qz_i/z_j,z_iq^{1+m_j}/e_iz_j;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q^{1+m_j}z_i/z_j,z_iq/e_iz_j;q)_{\mathrm{}}}\\ \hfill \times \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{(az_iq,q/az_i,az_iq/e_ig,q^{1+m_i}/fz_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(az_iq/e_i,az_iq/g,q^{1+m_i}/az_i,q/fz_i;q)_{\mathrm{}}},\end{array}$$

which is exactly the $`b_i=aq^{m_i}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, case of the right side of (3.6). ∎