text:
# 1 Motivations and example

## 1 Motivations and example

Finding a general non-perturbative definition of string theory remains one of the most challenging problem in theoretical physics. One may hope that such a definition will automatically follow from an understanding of the basic principles of the theory and/or of quantum gravity, but for the moment we must rely on the ‘universal’ or ‘unique’ nature of the theory in order to gain an insight . Historically, the first serious attempt at a non-perturbative approach was through the study of matrix models  and the double scaling limits . The idea  was that near critical points, very large Feynman diagrams dominate, and thus in the ’t Hooft representation  the matrix theory reduces to a sum over continuous world-sheets. Comprehensive discussions of these subjects can be found in , and short introductions are in recent papers by the author . Unfortunately, the detailed investigations of the matrix integrals revealed that a non-perturbative definition of the most interesting theories, the unitary models which have non-Borel summable partition functions, could not be achieved. This point is discussed in details for example in Section 7 of . Typically, the matrix model approach yields a differential equation, called the string equation, that determines unambiguously the perturbative, asymptotic series expansion, but that has several solutions differing by exponentially suppressed terms. For example, the string equation for the simplest critical point, that corresponds to pure two-dimensional gravity, is the Painlevé I differential equation

$$z=u^2(z)+\frac{1}{3}u^{\prime \prime }(z),$$
(1)
where the closed string coupling constant is $`\kappa =z^{5/4}`$, and the connected partition function

$$W=\underset{h=0}{\overset{H}{}}W_h\kappa ^{2h2}+𝒪(\kappa ^{2H})$$
(2)
is such that $`W^{\prime \prime }(z)=u(z)`$. Equation (1) implies a recursion relation that determines all the coefficients $`W_h`$ once the sphere contribution $`W_0`$ is known. However, at large $`h`$, the coefficient $`W_h`$ goes like $`(2h)!`$, and thus the expansion (2) is not Borel summable and does not define a unique function. It turns out that solutions to (1) with the asymptotic expansion (2) are parametrized by an arbitrary real number, and differ at small $`\kappa `$ by terms of order $`\mathrm{exp}(4\sqrt{6}/(5\kappa ))`$ . Those crucial non-perturbative contributions remain unknown. It is actually possible to understand in an elementary way why the matrix model fails to provide a non-perturbative definition. The model is defined by the integral over hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices $`M`$,

$$d^{N^2}M\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}trM^2\frac{g}{N}trM^4\right),$$
(3)
and it turns out that the critical point lies at a negative value of $`g`$, for which the integral (3) is divergent. The same critical point could be obtained by starting from more general matrix integrals

$$d^{N^2}M\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{g}trU(M)\right),$$
(4)
with an arbitrary potential $`U(M)`$, but the fact is that the pure gravity, or any other unitary critical point, is always unstable. Shortly after the discoveries of , it was realized  that the same procedure could be applied to theories of polymers, by replacing matrix integrals like (4) by $`\mathrm{O}(N)`$ symmetric vector integrals like

$$d^N\stackrel{}{V}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{g}U(\stackrel{}{V}^2)\right).$$
(5)
In addition to their intrinsic interest, the polymer integrals are useful toy models for the more complicated string theories. An interesting aspect is that higher dimensional vector path integrals can be easily studied , in contrast to the matrix case. Works on the vector models are reviewed in . However, the basic problem stressed above, that non-perturbative results cannot be obtained in the most interesting non-Borel summable cases, plagues the vector integrals in the same way as it plagues the matrix integrals, and for the same reasons. In spite of several attempts over the years (see in particular  and references therein), this fundamental drawback of the matrix (or vector) models approach could never be satisfactorily solved. However, very recenty, the author made a simple proposal that automatically overcome the difficulty . The purpose of the present note is to show explicitly how this proposal works in the simplest possible examples.

The idea is to replace the simple matrix (4) or vector (5) (path) integrals by some gauge theory or non-linear $`\sigma `$ models (path) integrals respectively. The non-trivial result is that analogues of the Kazakov critical points  exist in those cases as well. For two dimensional non-linear $`\sigma `$ models, it was shown in  that mass terms for the would-be Goldstone bosons could be adjusted to critical values, and double scaling limits defined. It was also argued at length in  that mass (or more generally potential) terms in non-linear $`\sigma `$ models are very similar to Higgs vevs in gauge theories. And indeed in  is was shown that in four dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories, the adjoint Higgs vevs moduli can also be adjusted to critical values and double scaling limits defined, with the Argyres-Douglas singularities  playing the rôle of the Kazakov critical points. This yields four dimensional non-critical (or five dimensional critical) string theories . In all those examples, the double scaling limits are always non-perturbative, because the original integrals are convergent for all values of the parameters.

To illustrate this point, we will focus in the following on $`D=0`$, $`1`$ or $`2`$ dimensional non-linear $`\sigma `$ model examples, akin to the model studied in . In those cases, the large $`N`$ expansion is a loop expansion in the dual representation of Feynman diagrams and, as reviewed in , this implies that the double scaled theories are field theories themselves (in contrast with the gauge theory case which yields string theories). In spite of this considerable simplification, the basic difficulty remains the same. For example, the simplest non-Borel summable double scaled field theoretic partition function we will encounter is

$$e^{W(\kappa )}=Z(\kappa )=\frac{dx}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{x^2/2+\kappa x^4/4}.$$
(6)
Obviously, this integral diverges, but admits a well-defined perturbative expansion

$$Z(\kappa )=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\frac{(4k1)!}{2^{4k1}k!(2k1)!}\kappa ^k+𝒪(\kappa ^{K+1}).$$
(7)
The integral representation (6) makes ‘unitarity’ obvious: each diagram will have a positive weight. This has the usual consequence that all the coefficients in the series expansion for $`W=\mathrm{ln}Z`$ are positive, and the series is not Borel summable. The ‘string equation,’ analogue to (1), is the Schwinger-Dyson equation for (6). It takes a simple form when written in terms of $`Z`$,

$$16\kappa ^2Z^{\prime \prime }+4(8\kappa 1)Z^{}+3Z=0.$$
(8)
With the condition $`Z=1+𝒪(\kappa )`$, this equation implies the asymptotic expansion (7), in the same way as (1) implies a unique expansion (2). And also in strict parallel with (1), there is a one parameter family of solution to (8) with the correct asymptotic behaviour. It can be written in terms of modified Bessel functions,

$$Z_\theta (\kappa )=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }e^{1/(8\kappa )}}{4\sqrt{\kappa }}\left[I_{1/4}\left(\frac{1}{8\kappa }\right)+I_{1/4}\left(\frac{1}{8\kappa }\right)+\theta \left[I_{1/4}\left(\frac{1}{8\kappa }\right)I_{1/4}\left(\frac{1}{8\kappa }\right)\right]\right].$$
(9)
The combination $`I_{1/4}I_{1/4}`$ is a purely non-perturbative contribution to $`Z`$. In agreement with the high order behaviour of (7), it yields terms proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(1/(4\kappa ))`$ that remain unknown.

In the standard matrix case , equations (1) and (2), we have no hint to the value of the $`\theta `$ parameter. It is actually far from being obvious that there exists a ‘correct’ solution to (1), in the sense that it corresponds to a well-defined non-perturbative string theory. It is not even known how to make this statement precise. On the other hand, in the case of equations (8) and (7), the problem can be formulated easily, because a non-perturbatively defined zero-dimensional field theory is simply characterized by a potential which is bounded from below. This means that ‘correct’ values of $`\theta `$ should be such that there exists $`V_{\kappa ,\theta }`$ for which

$$Z_\theta (\kappa )=\frac{dx}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{x^2/2V_{\kappa ,\theta }(x)}.$$
(10)
We have not tried to solve directly (10) for $`\theta `$ and $`V_{\kappa ,\theta }`$, but we will see that the non-linear $`\sigma `$ model approach yields unambiguously the potential

$$V_\kappa (x)=\mathrm{ln}2+\sqrt{\kappa /8}x^3+\kappa x^4/16$$
(11)
which corresponds to $`\theta =0`$. The $`\mathrm{ln}2`$ term takes care of the two equivalent minima of $`V_\kappa `$ that occur at $`x=0`$ and $`x=2\sqrt{2/\kappa }`$. The fact that (11) is a solution relies on the nice identity

$$e^{\sqrt{\kappa /8}x^3\kappa x^4/16}_{\mathrm{pert}}=e^{\kappa x^4/4}_{\mathrm{pert}},$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ is the perturbative expansion in $`\kappa `$ with $`x^2_{\mathrm{pert}}=1`$. Remarkably, we will see in Section 3 that (12) can be generalized to the case of path integrals.

We have not proven that $`\theta =0`$ with the potential (11) is the only solution to (10), but we believe that this is likely to be the case, because identities like (12) are very peculiar. This illustrates the point  that the gauge theory or non-linear $`\sigma `$ model integrals we start from yield the correct and probably unique non-perturbative definitions of the double scaled theories. This is an important point of principle, because even though the general arguments  show that double scaled matrix integrals reproduce the perturbative expansion of string theories, there might be a priori a distinction between non-perturbative string theory and non-perturbative matrix integral.

## 2 Simple integrals

We will consider the most general $`\mathrm{O}(N)`$ symmetric non-linear $`\sigma `$ model with a compact target space $``$ of dimension $`N`$ and quadratic mass terms. By using cartesian coordinates $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N,x_{N+1}=z)`$, the equation for the target space can be written in terms of a single function $`f(z)`$ as

$$:\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}x_i^2=\stackrel{}{x}^2=f(z).$$
(13)
We will limit our investigations to the cases where $`f(z)`$ is a polynomial. At the North pole $`z=z_N>0`$ we have $`f(z_N)=0`$ and $`f^{}(z_N)<0`$. We will see below that for theories with critical points, there exists a $`z<z_N`$ for which $`f^{}`$ vanishes. We will choose the coordinates $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`z`$ such that

$$f(0)=1,f^{}(0)=0,f^{}(z)<0\mathrm{for}z]0,z_N].$$
(14)
The metric can be written in terms of the local inverse $`F=f^1`$ of $`f`$ as

$$g=\left(\delta _{ij}+4F^{}(\stackrel{}{x}^2)^2x_ix_j\right)dx_idx_j,$$
(15)
and the partition function is

$$𝒵=_{}\frac{d^N\stackrel{}{x}\sqrt{detg}}{\mathrm{Vol}()}e^{Nr\stackrel{}{x}^2/2},$$
(16)
where $`r`$ is the mass parameter and $`\mathrm{Vol}()`$ the volume of $``$. The large $`N`$ limit will be taken at fixed $`r`$. By rescaling the coordinates, we see that taking the large $`r`$ limit is equivalent to taking the large target space, or weak coupling, limit. The coupling constant for the theory is thus $`1/r`$. Equivalently, we can say that our models are asymptotically free, and the large mass limit corresponds to a weak coupling limit.

### 2.1 Sphere

Let us start with the simplest case corresponding to $`=S^N`$ and

$$f(z)=1z^2.$$
(17)
The first question one may ask is whether a proper ‘polymer’ interpretation of the theory can be given. This is not obvious, because the contribution of the metric in (16), which in the case of the sphere is $`\sqrt{detg}=1/\sqrt{1\stackrel{}{x}^2}`$, does not scale properly. However, this is due to a bad choice of coordinates, and it is possible to cast (16) in the form (5). To do that, we first introduce the spherical angle $`\theta `$, in terms of which

$$𝒵=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((N+1)/2)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(N/2)}_0^\pi 𝑑\theta (\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{N1}e^{\frac{Nr}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }.$$
(18)
We then interpret $`\theta `$ as a radial coordinate emanating from the North (or South) pole for an $`N`$-dimensional plane $`(V_1,\mathrm{},V_N)`$, $`\theta =|\stackrel{}{V}|/\sqrt{r}=\rho /\sqrt{r}`$. Physically, this plane approximate the sphere for large $`r`$, and we can expect that the effects of the deviation from the sphere can be taken into account in an effective potential. Indeed, the partition function (18) can be rewritten as

$$𝒵=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((N+1)/2)}{2\pi ^{(N+1)/2}r^{N/2}}_{|\stackrel{}{V}|\pi \sqrt{r}}d^N\stackrel{}{V}e^{NU_N(\stackrel{}{V}^2)}$$
(19)
with

$$U_N(\rho ^2)=\frac{r}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2(\rho /\sqrt{r})\frac{N1}{N}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{r}\mathrm{sin}(\rho /\sqrt{r})}{\rho }$$
(20)
One can then show straightforwardly that for the purposes of the double scaling limits, which involve the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, we can use the $`N`$-independent potential

$$U(\rho ^2)=\frac{r}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2(\rho /\sqrt{r})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{r}\mathrm{sin}(\rho /\sqrt{r})}{\rho }$$
(21)
and the integral

$$_{|\stackrel{}{V}|\pi \sqrt{r}}d^N\stackrel{}{V}e^{NU(\stackrel{}{V}^2)}.$$
(22)
We thus get a standard Feynman diagram interpretation, because the constraint $`|\stackrel{}{V}|\pi \sqrt{r}`$ cannot be seen in perturbation theory. We could then keep using (22) and study the critical point and double scaling limit. However, we prefer to present alternative derivations using (16) or (18).

The integral (18) can be explicitly calculated, by expanding $`\mathrm{exp}((Nr/2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )`$ in power series and performing the integrals using Euler $`B`$ function. This yields a series for a confluent hypergeometric function, and we get

$$𝒵={}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(N/2,(N+1)/2;Nr/2)=e^{Nr/2}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1/2,(N+1)/2;Nr/2).$$
(23)
The first expression is useful to obtain the asymptotic expansion at large $`r`$,

$$𝒵=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((N+1)/2)}{\sqrt{\pi }(Nr)^{N/2}}\left[\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N/2+k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1/2)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(N/2)k!}\left(\frac{2}{rN}\right)^k+𝒪(1/r^{K+1})\right],$$
(24)
while the second expression yields a convergent strong coupling expansion

$$𝒵=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((N+1)/2)}{\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1/2)}{k!\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+(N+1)/2)}\left(\frac{rN}{2}\right)^k.$$
(25)
The large $`N`$ expansion can be obtained as usual from the perturbative expansion (24) by resumming the contributions at each order in $`1/N`$. It is convenient to introduce a rescaled partition function

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒵}=\sqrt{11/r}\frac{\sqrt{\pi }(Nr/2)^{N/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((N+1)/2)}𝒵,$$
(26)
for which we have when $`r>1`$

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒵}=1+\frac{3}{4(r1)^2N}+\left(\frac{5}{2(r1)^3}+\frac{105}{32(r1)^4}\right)\frac{1}{N^2}+𝒪(1/N^3).$$
(27)
We see that the $`1/N`$ expansion breaks down when $`r1^+`$. At $`r=1`$ we have a Kazakov critical point, and (27) suggests to consider the double scaling limit

$$N\mathrm{},r1^+,N(r1)^2=1/\kappa =\mathrm{constant}.$$
(28)
In such a limit, only the most singular, universal, terms in (27) survive, and we get

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒵}Z=1+\frac{3}{4}\kappa +\frac{105}{32}\kappa ^2+𝒪(\kappa ^3).$$
(29)
To show that the scaling (28) is consistent to all orders, one can use directly (23) and check that the corresponding hypergeometric differential equation reduces to the ‘string equation’ (8). However, this method does not yield the value of $`\theta `$ in (9). The most fruitful approach, that can be generalized to the case of path integrals (see for example ), is to implement the constraint (13) with a Lagrange multiplier $`\alpha `$ and then perform explicitly the integral over $`\stackrel{}{x}`$. We obtain

$$𝒵_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑z𝑑\alpha e^{Nv_{\mathrm{eff}}(z,\alpha )},$$
(30)
with the effective potential

$$v_{\mathrm{eff}}(z,\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}(r\alpha )f(z)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\alpha .$$
(31)
We are not keeping track of the trivial prefactors, because they can be restored easily on the double scaled partition functions by using the normalization condition $`Z=1+𝒪(\kappa )`$. At large $`N`$, $`𝒵`$ is dominated by the minima of $`v_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. It is straightforward to check that for $`r>1`$ (weak coupling) the stable saddle points are

$$z_{}=\pm \sqrt{11/r},\alpha _{}=r,$$
(32)
while for $`r<1`$ (strong coupling) we have

$$z_{}=0,\alpha _{}=1.$$
(33)
We recover the critical point at $`r=1`$, where a transition corresponding to the merging of the two weakly coupled saddle points occurs.111Note that the $`_2`$ symmetry $`zz`$ is never broken, because in zero (or one) dimension we have to sum over all the saddle points. Symmetry breaking does occur at weak coupling for the two-dimensional version of the model, see Section 3 and , and the Kazakov critical point corresponds to a genuine phase transition in that case. Since we are interested in the vicinity of the critical point only, and the critical variable is $`z`$, we can integrate over $`\alpha `$ by using the equation $`v_{\mathrm{eff}}/\alpha =0`$ which yields $`\alpha =1/f(z)`$. By rescaling $`zz/N^{1/4}`$ and expanding the potential (31) around $`z=0`$, we get

$$𝒵_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑ze^{\sqrt{N}(r1)z^2/2z^4/4+𝒪(1/\sqrt{N})}.$$
(34)
We then immediately see that the scaling (28) yields

$$Z(\kappa )=\frac{e^{1/(4\kappa )}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{x^2/2\kappa x^4/4},$$
(35)
where we have used the variable $`x=\kappa ^{1/4}z`$ and we have restored the prefactors. The formula (10) with the potential (11) is obtained by substituting $`x1/\sqrt{\kappa }+\sqrt{2}x`$.

As opposed to the case of ordinary vector or matrix models, our partition function is perfectly well-defined at strong coupling and we can go through the critical point at $`r=1`$. Equation (34) is actually valid both for $`r>1`$ and for $`r<1`$, and it shows that we can consider a double scaling limit from strong coupling,

$$N\mathrm{},r1^{},N(r1)^2=1/\kappa =\mathrm{constant},$$
(36)
yielding a “dual” double scaled partition function

$$Z_\mathrm{D}(\kappa )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{x^2/2\kappa x^4/4}.$$
(37)
Of course, $`𝒵`$ does not have a Feynman diagram expansion for $`r<1`$ and thus $`Z_\mathrm{D}`$ does not have an interpretation in terms of ‘polymers.’ However, the very existence of $`Z_\mathrm{D}`$, which relies on the fact that our non-linear $`\sigma `$ model is non-perturbatively defined, has some interesting consequences. The common origin (34) of the weak-coupling (35) and strong coupling (37) partition functions implies that $`\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2\kappa x^4/4)𝑑x`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(x^2/2\kappa x^4/4)𝑑x`$ satisfy the same ‘string’ equation

$$16\kappa ^2y^{\prime \prime }+4(8\kappa +1)y^{}+3y=0.$$
(38)
The Borel summable, alternate series solution of (38) yields $`Z_\mathrm{D}`$ while the non-Borel summable solution yields $`\mathrm{exp}(1/(4\kappa ))Z`$. $`Z`$ itself actually satisfies (38) with $`\kappa \kappa `$, see (8), and thus the equation (37) immediately implies the identity (12).

### 2.2 Multicritical metrics

Let us now study the case of a general metric (15). Equation (30) is replaced by

$$𝒵_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑z𝑑\alpha e^{Nv_{\mathrm{eff}}(z,\alpha )+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(4f(z)+f^{}(z)^2)},$$
(39)
with the potential (31). The saddle point equations read

$$\alpha =1/f(z),(r\alpha )f^{}(z)=0.$$
(40)
The analysis is then very similar to the case of the sphere, equations (32) and (33). At weak coupling, the stable saddle point is222There can be several saddle points, given by the different branches of $`f^1`$, as in (32), but this is irrelevant for our purposes.

$$z_{}=f^1(1/r)=F(1/r),\alpha _{}=r.$$
(41)
This is valid as long as $`r>1`$. Because on the conditions on $`f`$ listed in (14), a critical point occurs at $`r=1`$ and the stable saddle point for $`r<1`$ is given by (33). The critical variable being $`z`$, we can integrate out $`\alpha `$ for the purposes of the double scaling limits. The term $`\mathrm{ln}(4f+f^2)`$ is also irrelevant in these limits. We can thus work with

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑ze^{Nv(z;r)},$$
(42)
where the potential is

$$v(z;r)=\frac{r}{2}f(z)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}f(z).$$
(43)
We have $`v(z;r=1)=v(0,r=1)+𝒪(z^p)`$. It turns out that only even values of $`p4`$ can be obtained. The $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$-critical point, $`m2`$, is defined by the condition $`v(z;r=1)=v(0;r=1)+𝒪(z^{2m})`$. It corresponds to the choice

$$f_m(z)=1a_mz^m,$$
(44)
where $`a_m`$ is an arbitrary positive real number. Relevant deformations are defined to be the perturbations of $`f_m`$ that generate terms of order $`z^k`$ for $`k2m1`$ in the potential $`v`$. A priori one may want to consider

$$f(z)=f_m(z)z^2\underset{k=0}{\overset{2m3}{}}ϵ_kz^k,$$
(45)
but it is easily checked that only the $`ϵ_k`$ for $`0km3`$ can survive in a consistent double scaling limit. Together with $`\delta =r1`$, we thus have $`m1`$ relevant operators at the $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$ order critical point. The correct scaling is

$$N\mathrm{},N\delta ^2=\mathrm{cst}=1/\kappa ,N^{\frac{mk2}{2m}}ϵ_k=\mathrm{cst}t_k.$$
(46)
With a suitable normalization for the $`t_k`$s, and by defining $`t_{m2}=1`$, the $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$ order double scaled partition function can then be written as

$$Z_m_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{k=0}{\overset{m2}{}}t_kx^{k+2}\kappa \underset{k=0}{\overset{2m4}{}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_1+k_2=k}{0k_1,k_2m2}}{}t_{k_1}t_{k_2}x^{k+4}\right).$$
(47)
The ‘coupling constant’ $`\kappa `$ could of course be absorbed in the definition of the $`t_k`$s. It is singled out by the fact that it is the most relevant deformation, as the scaling (46) shows. For $`m=2`$, we recover (35), while for higher criticality we obtain, for example,

$$Z_3_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{t_0x^2+x^3\kappa (t_0^2x^4+2t_0x^5+x^6)},$$
(48)
$$Z_4_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{t_0x^2+t_1x^3+x^4\kappa (t_0^2x^4+2t_0t_1x^5+(t_1^2+2t_0)x^6+2t_1x^7+x^8)},\mathrm{etc}\mathrm{}$$
(49)
From (47), all correlators can of course be calculated, by taking derivatives with respect to the parameters. One can also study positivity by looking at the partition functions when only $`\kappa `$ is turned on. The formula generalizing (35) is

$$Z_m(\kappa )=\frac{me^{1/(4\kappa )}}{2^{(1+(1)^m)/2}\sqrt{2\pi }(2\kappa )^{1/21/m}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{x^m\kappa x^{2m}},$$
(50)
where the normalization is chosen such that $`Z_m=1+𝒪(\kappa )`$. The ‘string equation’ is

$$4m\kappa ^2Z_m^{\prime \prime }+\left(2(5m2)\kappa m\right)Z_m^{}+\frac{(2m1)(m1)}{m}Z_m=0,$$
(51)
from which one can deduce the perturbative expansion of $`Z_m`$, for which all the coefficients are positive. The same is true for $`\mathrm{ln}Z_m`$, as required by a correct statistical polymer interpretation. This is manifest from equation (12) in the case $`m=2`$, and can be proven for general $`m`$ from the differential equation. Finally, let us note that it is possible to evaluate explicitly the integrals (50). The idea is to perform a strong coupling expansion at large $`\kappa `$. From experience, we know that such expansions are often convergent. The expansion is obtained by rescaling $`x^{2m}x^{2m}/\kappa `$ in (50) and expanding the exponential in powers of $`1/\sqrt{\kappa }`$. The resulting integrals are elementary, and the final result is a hypergeometric series. We end up with

$$Z_m(\kappa )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/(2m))e^{1/(4\kappa )}}{2^{11/m+(1)^m/2}\sqrt{2\pi }\kappa ^{1/21/(2m)}}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1/(2m),1/2;1/(4\kappa ))$$
(52)
for $`m`$ odd and

$`Z_m(\kappa )={\displaystyle \frac{e^{1/(4\kappa )}}{2^{11/m+(1)^m/2}\sqrt{2\pi }\kappa ^{1/21/(2m)}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/(2m)){}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1/(2m),1/2;1/(4\kappa ))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+1/(2m))}{\sqrt{\kappa }}}{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1/2+1/(2m),3/2;1/(4\kappa )))`$ (53)
for $`m`$ even. In the special case $`m=2`$, there is a relation between the confluent hypergeometric functions appearing in (53) and the Bessel functions, and we recover (9) with $`\theta =0`$.

## 3 Path integrals

The results of the previous Section can be generalized to the case of path integrals. For the sake of brevity, we will consider only the lower critical point corresponding to a sphere target space. In one dimension, the resulting model is the quantum version of a famous integrable mechanical problem first studied by C. Neumann : the motion of a particle of mass $`m`$ on the $`N`$ dimensional sphere of radius $`a`$, with a quadratic potential characterized by the pulsation $`\omega `$. Quantum mechanically, there are two regimes. When the sphere is very large, the effects of the curvature are negligible, and the problem is well approximated by the $`N`$ dimensional harmonic oscillator. This weakly coupled regime is valid as long as the harmonic oscillator wave functions extend on a distance much smaller that $`a`$, that is

$$r=\frac{m\omega a^2}{N\mathrm{}}1.$$
(54)
On the other hand, when $`r1`$, the hamiltonian reduces to the exactly solvable rigid rotator, around which a strong coupling expansion can be performed. At the transition between these two qualitatively different regimes lies the critical point we will use to define the double scaling limit. In suitable units, the euclidean partition function that generalizes (16) is

$$𝒵_T=\left[d^N\stackrel{}{x}(t)\sqrt{detg(\stackrel{}{x}(t))}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{Nr}{2}_{T/2}^{T/2}𝑑t\left(g_{ij}\frac{dx^i}{dt}\frac{dx^j}{dt}+\stackrel{}{x}^2\right)\right],$$
(55)
where the path integral measure is normalized such that the ground state energy $`E`$ for the hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{\stackrel{}{L}^2}{2N^2}+\frac{r^2}{2}\stackrel{}{x}^2,$$
(56)
where $`\stackrel{}{L}^2`$ is the Laplacian on the $`N`$-sphere, is given by

$$E=\frac{r}{N}\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}𝒵_T}{T}$$
(57)
It is interesting to note that, as in the case of the zero-dimensional integrals (equations (19) and (20)), the perturbation theory in $`1/r`$ for the quantum mechanical non-linear $`\sigma `$ model (55) is reproduced by a linear $`\sigma `$ model with a suitable potential that encodes the effects of the curvature of the sphere. By using the coordinates $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ defined at the beginning of Section 2.1, and by rescaling the wave functions $`\psi \psi /(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{(N1)/2}`$, the Schrödinger equation for the ground state of (56) can indeed be cast in the form

$$\frac{1}{2N^2}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi +U_N(|\stackrel{}{V}|)\psi =\frac{E}{r}\psi ,$$
(58)
where now $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the flat $`N`$-dimensional Laplacian and

$$U_N(\rho )=\frac{N1}{4rN^2}+\frac{(N3)(N1)}{8N^2}\left(\frac{1}{r\mathrm{tan}^2(\rho /\sqrt{r})}\frac{1}{\rho }\right)+\frac{r}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2(\rho /\sqrt{r}).$$
(59)
As a side remark, let us note that the formulation given by the equations (58) and (59), in addition to providing a consistent polymer interpretation in the double scaling limit, allows one to evaluate, using standard linear $`\sigma `$ model techniques, the large order behaviour of perturbation theory for a non-linear $`\sigma `$ model. As we will see later, the perturbation series is not Borel summable. From the linear $`\sigma `$ model point of view, the non-perturbative contributions depend on the boundary conditions at $`\rho =\pi \sqrt{r}`$ that must be imposed to recover the full non-linear model. This is particularly obvious in the case $`N=1`$, which can be solved exactly in terms of Mathieu functions. In general, by taking into account the exponential decrease of the harmonic oscillator wave functions, we see that the non-perturbative contributions are of order $`\mathrm{exp}(N\pi ^2r/2)`$, which is an instanton effect from the non-linear $`\sigma `$ model point of view.

Equation (58) shows that the large $`N`$ limit is a semi-classical limit, since $`N^2`$ plays the rôle of $`\mathrm{}`$. We could use this idea to study the $`1/N`$ expansion. However, it is more convenient to use the Lagrange multiplier method, as in the case of the zero dimensional integrals (30). We obtain

$$𝒵\left[dz(t)d\alpha (t)\right]e^{Ns_{\mathrm{eff}}[z,\alpha ]},$$
(60)
with the effective action

$$s_{\mathrm{eff}}[z,\alpha ]=\frac{r}{2}𝑑t\left[\left(\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^2+(\alpha 1)z^2\alpha \right]+\frac{1}{2}tr\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{d^2}{dt^2}+\alpha \right).$$
(61)
The saddle points can be deduced from the effective potential which is derived from (61) by taking $`\alpha `$ constant,

$$v_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{r}{2}[(\alpha 1)z^2\alpha ]+\frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{2}$$
(62)
For $`r>1/2`$ (weak coupling) we get

$$z_{}=\pm \sqrt{11/(2r)},\alpha _{}=1,$$
(63)
while for $`r<1/2`$ (strong coupling) we have

$$z_{}=0,\alpha _{}=1/(4r^2).$$
(64)
The critical point occurs at $`r=1/2`$. To perform explicitly the double scaling limit, we introduce the rescaled variables

$$\tau =N^{1/3}t,x=N^{1/3}z,\beta =N^{2/3}(\alpha 1),\kappa ^1=N(r1/2)^{3/2},$$
(65)
in terms of which

$$Ns_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{4}𝑑\tau \left[\left(\frac{dx}{d\tau }\right)^2+\beta (x^22\kappa ^{2/3})\frac{\beta ^2}{4}\right]+𝒪(1/N^{2/3}).$$
(66)
Rescaling $`\tau \kappa ^{1/3}\tau /\sqrt{2}`$ and $`x2^{1/4}\kappa ^{1/6}x`$, we see that the double scaling limit

$$N\mathrm{},r1/2^+,N(r1/2)^{3/2}=1/\kappa =\mathrm{constant}$$
(67)
yields the double scaled partition function

$$Z(\kappa )=[dx(t)]\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑\tau \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{dx}{d\tau }\right)^2x^2+\frac{\kappa x^4}{2\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\kappa }\right)\right],$$
(68)
where we have integrated out the auxiliary field $`\beta `$ and the $`\kappa `$-independent measure $`[dx]`$ is normalized such that $`Z=1+𝒪(\kappa )`$ as usual. Equation (68) is the one-dimensional version of equation (35).

There remains to check our main point, that the perturbative expansion of (68), or more precisely of $`W=\mathrm{ln}Z`$, has only positive coefficients and is not Borel summable. The perturbative series is obtained by expanding around the two equivalent minima of the potential $`V(x)=x^2+\kappa x^4/(2\sqrt{2})`$. After a shift of the variable $`x`$, we obtain the one-dimensional version of (10) and (11),

$$Z(\kappa )=[dx(t)]\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑\tau \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{dx}{d\tau }\right)^2+2x^2\left(1\frac{\sqrt{\kappa }}{2^{5/4}}x\right)^2\right)\right].$$
(69)
In zero dimensions, positivity was obvious thank’s to the identity (12). Remarkably, a similar and highly non-trivial identity exists in one dimension as well . It reads

$$Z(\kappa )\underset{\mathrm{pert}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\kappa }{2^{7/2}}𝑑\tau |z|^4\right)_{\mathrm{pert}},$$
(70)
where $`z=z_1+iz_2`$ is a complex coordinate, and the average $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ is defined by the canonically normalized propagator $`z_i(\tau )z_j(0)_{\mathrm{pert}}=e^{|\tau |}\delta _{ij}/2`$. The equality is valid to all orders of perturbation theory. The left hand side can be viewed as giving the probably unique field theoretic non-perturbative definition of the manifestly positive and non Borel summable partition function on the right hand side.

One could go further and study multicritical metrics as in Section 2. We will let this exercise to the reader, and rather close this paper with a two dimensional example. The partition function we start from, that replaces (16) and (55), is

$$𝒵=\left[d^N\stackrel{}{x}(\sigma )\sqrt{detg(\stackrel{}{x}(\sigma ))}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{N}{2g^2}d^2\sigma \left(g_{ij}_ax^i_ax^j+m^2\stackrel{}{x}^2\right)\right].$$
(71)
The theory needs to be renormalized, and quantum mechanically the dimensionless coupling $`g`$ is replaced by a mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The only dimensionless parameter is then $`r=m^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. One can give straightforwardly a ‘polymer’ interpretation to (71), by using dimensional regularization, because in that case the non-trivial factor in the path integral measure drops out, and the other terms have automatically the correct ’t Hooft scaling. This is unlike the $`D=0`$ or $`D=1`$ cases discussed previously, for which a reformulation in terms of a linear $`\sigma `$ model was needed. One can then show that there is a critical point at $`r=1`$, and that in the double scaling limit

$$N\mathrm{},\delta =r10^+,N\delta 3\mathrm{ln}N=\mathrm{constant}=\frac{1}{2\kappa }+3\mathrm{ln}\kappa ,\sigma ^a=\sqrt{N}x^a,$$
(72)
the partition function reduces to

$$Z(\kappa )=[d\varphi (x)]\mathrm{exp}[d^2x(\frac{1}{2}_a\varphi _a\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4\kappa }:\varphi ^2:+\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2:\varphi ^4:)].$$
(73)
The proof can be found in . The $`\mathrm{ln}N`$ correction to the naïve scaling in (72) is reminiscent of the $`c=1`$ matrix model . The normal ordering is defined at the scale $`\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }/\sqrt{\kappa }`$ so that there is no tadpole in perturbation theory. The perturbative expansion is indeed obtained after shifting the field $`\varphi 1/\sqrt{8\pi \kappa }+\varphi `$ and writing (73) in the form

$$Z(\kappa )=[d\varphi (x)]\mathrm{exp}[d^2x(\frac{1}{2}_a\varphi _a\varphi +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2\kappa }:\varphi ^2:+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{\kappa }}:\varphi ^3:+\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2:\varphi ^4:)].$$
(74)
We have not been able to prove that the coefficients of the expansion of $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ in powers of $`\kappa `$ are positive, because we don’t know a two dimensional analogue of the identities (12) and (70). We conjecture that this is the case, and that the series for $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ is not Borel summable. We have checked explicitly the positivity of the first two coefficients (see Figure 1), with the result

$$\underset{V\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z(\kappa )}{V\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=0.2798+0.2078\kappa +𝒪(\kappa ^2),$$
(75)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the two dimensional space-time. The coefficient of order $`k`$ grows like $`k!`$ and probably becomes more and more positive for $`k2`$. The formula (73) nevertheless yields a non-perturbative definition of the non-Borel summable sum, as in all the examples that we have studied in the present paper.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge discussions with V.A. Kazakov. This work was supported in part by a Robert H. Dicke fellowship and by the Swiss National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Galactic Cosmic Rays from Superbubbles and the Abundances of Lithium, Beryllium, and Boron

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The evolution of the light nuclides (6,7Li, 9Be, and 10,11B) has been, since the early 70’s, a major topic in the studies of galactic chemical evolution. The theoretical scenario for the synthesis of lithium, beryllium, and boron has remained unchanged for years since the pioneering work of Meneguzzi, Audouze, & Reeves (1971). Recent observations (see Molaro et al. 1997; Boesgaard et al. 1999b, for instance) have revealed an almost linear correlation of both Be and B with Fe at low metallicities. This new trend seems to rule out the common view of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles being accelerated from material of the interstellar medium (ISM), as the latter predicts a quadratic dependence on metallicity, and it has motivated models of LiBeB nucleosynthesis that consider new sites for the production and acceleration of the GCR (Ramaty et al. 2000; Fields et al. 2000; Parizot & Drury 2000). A source of low–energy cosmic rays, enriched in C and O, was one of the first suggested solutions to the problem, mainly inspired by gamma–ray observations in Orion which, however, once revised appeared spurious (Bloemen et al. 1999). That has led, temporarily at least, to discard the low–energy component hypothesis.

Scenarios where the composition of the GCR was identical to that of the ejecta from individual supernovae have also been ruled out by observations with the *Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer* (CRIS) on board of the *Advanced Composition Explorer* (ACE) that measured the abundance of the radioactive isotope 59Ni and its decay product 59Co in current epoch GCR (Binns et al. 1999). 59Ni decays by electron capture with a half life of 7.6$`\times `$104 years, but it does not decay if it is accelerated. The abundance measurements show a very small amount of 59Ni in GCR, and so there must be a minimum delay of 105 years between the explosive nucleosynthesis of the material entering in GCR and its acceleration. Such a delay, however, could be accounted for in models where the GCR originated in a superbubble (SB) region of hot, rarefied, metal–rich gas swept out by the collective effects of massive star winds and supernova explosions.

In the SB scenario of Ramaty et al. (2000) LiBeB nucleosynthesis is a primary mechanism (i.e., production $``$ O), as the composition of the GCR, that exclusively comes from the ejecta of supernovae inside the SB, does not change in time, and it is quite metal–rich. Other authors preferred a combination of a primary and a secondary (i.e., production $``$ O2) mechanism. Parizot & Drury (2000) considered also a SB scenario for the acceleration of GCR, but they adopted a composition of the SB material that is a mixture of ISM plus a 2 or 3% of SN ejecta, according to non–magnetic SB models. On the other hand, Fields et al. (2000) combined two sources of GCR: one accelerated from the ISM, that has a secondary character, and a second component coming from SB and made of pure ejecta of SNe, having thus a primary behaviour. In the last two cases, the primary mechanism dominates at low metallicities, while the secondary one takes over when the ISM becomes more metal–enriched. Nevertheless, despite that it seemed that the old secondary–only GCR nucleosynthesis paradigm was unable to reproduce the Be and B vs Fe slope, Fields & Olive (1999) succeeded in doing so by using the recently observed O/Fe relationship, with a single slope $``$0.35 for \[O/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] at all metallicities (Israelian, García López, & Rebolo 1998; Boesgaard et al. 1999a; Israelian et al. 2001). The situation about \[O/Fe\] evolution is, however, far from being clear, as stated in Fulbright & Kraft (1999).

Most of the models for light element evolution published in recent years used analytical approximations for the evolution of some of the important elements in the LiBeB synthesis: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and iron (Fields & Olive 1999; Fields et al. 2000; Parizot & Drury 2000; Ramaty et al. 2000). Some were closed models (Vangioni-Flam et al 1998, Fields & Olive 1999, Fields et al. 2000), which are unable to solve the G–dwarf problem, as stated in Pagel (1997).

Concerning lithium evolution, several works have recently been published, involving different types of possible stellar sources (Romano et al. 1999), one of which, massive AGB stars, seems to be recently ruled out as an important source (Ventura, D’Antona, & Mazzitelli 2000). Casuso & Beckman (2000) have proposed a model that only considers galactic cosmic ray nucleosynthesis, but with a GCR rate proportional to the gas ejection rate from stars with masses lower than 3 M.

In this article we analyze the evolution of the light elements by means of a detailed numerical model for the galactic chemical evolution (Alibés, Labay, & Canal 2001; hereafter ALC). Our model assumes that the Galaxy builds by infall of extragalactic material, in an inside-out scenario for Galaxy formation, and adequately reproduces the main solar neighborhood observational constraints: age–metallicity relation, G–dwarf metallicity distribution, current star formation (SFR) and supernova rates, and the evolution of the main elements up to the iron peak (see figures and tables in ALC). In section 2 the model is briefly described and the results are presented in section 3. The conclusions are given in section 4.

## 2 THE MODEL

We solve numerically the classical equations for the chemical evolution of the Galaxy, relaxing the instantaneous recycling approximation. The same ingredients as in ALC are used for our LiBeB evolution model. That includes the double infall of Chiappini, Matteucci, & Gratton (1997) given by:

$$\frac{d\sigma (t)}{dt}=Ae^{t/\tau _\mathrm{T}}+Be^{(tt_{\mathrm{max}})/\tau _\mathrm{D}}$$
(1)
where $`\sigma (t)`$ is the total surface mass density, $`\tau _\mathrm{T}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{D}`$ are the characteristic infall timescales for the halo–thick disk phase and for the thin disk phase, respectively, and $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the time of maximum accretion into the thin disk. We take $`t_{\mathrm{max}}=\tau _\mathrm{T}=1`$ Gyr and $`\tau _\mathrm{D}=7`$ Gyr. The coefficients $`A`$ and $`B`$ are fixed by imposing that they reproduce the current solar neighborhood values of the total and halo mass surface densities.

An enriched infall model is adopted, which accretes primordial matter during the first Gyr, and then begins to incorporate slightly enriched material, with a metallicity of Z = 0.1 Z, as suggested by the recent observations by Wakker et al. (1999) of a massive ($``$107 M) metal–enriched (0.09 Z) cloud that is now falling into the disk. We have also considered the more usual assumption of a primordial composition for the whole infall process. Although in the first case there is a small contribution to the light element abundances from the infall, the final results for both types of infall are almost indistinguishable, as it will be shown later.

The initial mass function (IMF), $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, used is that of Kroupa, Tout, & Gilmore (1993), which takes different slopes for M/M$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}0.5`$, $`0.5`$ M/M$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}1.0`$, and M/M$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}1.0`$. The range of stellar masses considered goes from 0.08 to 100 M.

The star formation rate is from Dopita & Ryder (1994) (eq. 2) with $`m=5/3`$, $`n=1/3`$ and $`\nu =1.2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r,t)=\nu \frac{\sigma ^n(r,t)\sigma _\mathrm{g}^m(r,t)}{\sigma ^{n+m1}(r_{\mathrm{}},t)}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{pc}^2\mathrm{Gyr}^1$$
(2)
applied to the solar galactocentric distance of 8.5 kpc.

To account for the CNO evolution some of the most recent and most extensive (both in mass and metallicity) yield calculations are used: van den Hoek & Groenewegen (1997) for low– and intermediate–mass stars, Woosley & Weaver (1995)111It is reminded here that, as in our previous solar neighborhood model (ALC), only half the iron yields calculated by these authors is adopted for type II supernovae and model W7 from Thielemann et al. (1996) for type Ia supernovae. Our results for the CNO evolution are shown in Figure 1 for the two infall compositions. Carbon and nitrogen follow the observational data, while \[O/Fe\] shows a gradual increase towards low metallicity with a slope of $`0.28`$. This value is slightly lower than the values obtained from observations of the O I triplet (Abia & Rebolo 1989; Israelian et al. 1998, 2001; Boesgaard et al. 1999a) of $`0.35`$.

### 2.1 LiBeB Sources

In Meneguzzi et al. (1971), only spallation reactions induced by GCR and Big Bang nucleosynthesis of 7Li were considered as sources of LiBeB. Since then, several stellar mechanisms have been proposed as sources of some of the light elements: the $`\nu `$–process (possible solution to the solar system boron and lithium isotopic ratios problem), nova outbursts (possible producers of 7Li) and C–stars (identified producers of 7Li). All of them are included in our evolution code. Massive AGB stars are not included as a source of 7Li, since recent works (Ventura et al. 2000) insist on their small contribution to the evolution of this isotope.

#### 2.1.1 Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

7Li is the only light element that is produced in a significant amount in standard big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) models. In non–standard BBN, some amount of other isotopes could also be produced, but the data available at low metallicities do not indicate the presence of any kind of abundance plateau for them. A BBN contribution of \[7Li\] = 2.2222\[X\]=12$`+\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{X}{H}\right)`$ has been included according to Molaro (1999), which ensures the existence of the lithium or Spite plateau (Spite & Spite 1982) up to \[Fe/H\]$``$1.5. Due to this BBN production of 7Li, open and closed box models of Li evolution do not give the same results, since in closed box models all the primordial lithium is already in place when the evolution begins. Therefore, closed box models with the same nucleosynthetic prescriptions than open ones do produce an overabundance of Li at \[Fe/H\] = 0 by a factor $`1.6`$. This is not the case for Be and B, for which open and closed box models give similar results.

#### 2.1.2 Galactic Cosmic Ray Nucleosynthesis

As in Parizot & Drury (2000), we adopt a composition of the Galactic Cosmic Rays ($`X_{i,\mathrm{GCR}}`$) corresponding to their being accelerated inside a superbubble, where newly synthesized material ejected by a supernova ($`X_{i,\mathrm{ej}}`$) is accelerated by the shock waves generated by other SN and mixed with the ISM of that epoch ($`X_{i,\mathrm{ISM}}`$), the evolution of the latter being that shown in Figure 1.

$$X_{i,\mathrm{GCR}}(t)=\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}X_{i,\mathrm{ej}}(t)+(1\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}})X_{i,\mathrm{ISM}}(t)$$
(3)
Different compositions of the GCR are used by changing the free parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ in eq. 3. For $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}=0`$ we have pure ISM CR composition and for $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}=`$ 1, pure SNII ejecta CR composition.

The CR source spectrum considered is the so–called shock acceleration spectrum:

$$q(E)\frac{p^s}{\beta }e^{E/E_0}$$
(4)
where $`p`$ and $`E`$ are the particle momentum and kinetic energy, both per nucleon, $`\beta =v/c`$ and, for the two parameters, we have chosen $`s=2.2`$ and $`E_0=10`$ GeV/n. $`E_0`$ takes into account the possibility that the spectrum is cut off at high energies. Since a leaky box model for GCR propagation is adopted, a escape path of CR from the Galaxy of $`X_{esc}=`$ 10 g cm-2 has been included in the propagation calculations.

For the calculation of the production rate by spallation reactions we have used a revised version of the LiBeB code from Ramaty et al. (1997), which includes the cross sections of Read & Viola (1984) and takes into account all the possible reactions leading to any LiBeB isotope, both direct and inverse reactions (including two–step processes like 16O($`p`$,$`x`$)12C($`p`$,$`x^{}`$)7Li). Since GCR particles are supposed to come from the material inside a SB, the GCR flux, and therefore the spallation reaction production rate, is made proportional to the Type II supernova rate.

We do not consider any low–energy cosmic rays (LECR), since the only observational evidence of this type of CR, spotted in the Orion star formation region, has been withdrawn (Bloemen et al. 1999). Future X–ray and gamma–ray line observations should clarify whether LECR actually exist.

#### 2.1.3 The $`\nu `$–process

Woosley & Weaver (1995), in their calculations of the yields from type II supernovae, took into account the contribution from the neutrino–induced nucleosynthesis, i.e. the spallation reactions between the huge flux of neutrinos ejected by the explosion and the material, newly synthesized, in the intermediate layers of the star. This primary mechanism, which has not been observationally corroborated, produces mainly 7Li and 11B, so it could be quite important because GCR nucleosynthesis alone can not reproduce the Solar System lithium and boron isotopic ratios. Since these yields are quite uncertain because the flux intensity and energy spectrum of the neutrinos are not well known, a correction factor, $`f_\nu `$, is introduced, its value being obtained by fitting the meteoritic boron isotopic ratio.

#### 2.1.4 Novae

Nova outbursts could be important nucleosynthetic sites for those elements which have overproduction factors there, relative to solar, above 1000. According to the recent yields for CO and ONe nova outbursts from José & Hernanz (1998), that is the case for 7Li (nova outbursts produce, during the thermonuclear runaway, 7Be, which decays into 7Li). We have, thus, adopted a 7Li average yield per nova outburst of 1.03$`\times `$10-10 M, taking into account that 30% of the nova outbursts come from ONe white dwarfs, and an outburst rate given by the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dR_{outburts}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`D{\displaystyle _{M(t)+0.5}^{9.5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(M_B)}{M_B}}𝑑M_B`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mu _m}^{\mu _M}}f(\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }(t\tau _{M_B(1\mu )}t_{\mathrm{cool}})𝑑\mu `$
where $`D`$ ensures that the current nova outburst rate is $``$40 yr-1 (Hatano et al. 1997), $`M_B`$ is the binary mass, $`\mu `$ is the ratio of the mass of the secondary star to that of the whole binary system and finally $`f(\mu )`$ is the binary mass–ratio distribution function of Greggio & Renzini (1993). The time for the WD to cool enough to be able to start producing outbursts, $`t_{\mathrm{cool}}`$, is set to 1 Gyr. 7Li production by nova outbursts could be confirmed by the future INTEGRAL mission.

#### 2.1.5 C–stars

Even if supernovae ($`\nu `$–process) and novae are theoretically possible sources of 7Li, carbon–rich stars (C–stars) with C/O $`>1`$ give the only undeniable evidence for an stellar origin of this isotope, since they are seen to be Li–rich. The majority of them show low carbon isotopic ratios (12C/13C$`<15`$) and are of J type (Abia & Isern 1997), with masses lower that 2–3 M. The mechanism by which 7Li is produced and ejected to the ISM is not well established, so the only way to estimate the yield is empirical. Abia, Isern, & Canal (1993) statistically analyzed the contribution of C–stars to the 7Li nucleosynthesis and suggested a time–dependent production rate:

$$S_7(t)=S_7^{\mathrm{}}\frac{_{M_\mathrm{l}}^{M_\mathrm{u}}\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{\Psi }(t\tau _M)𝑑M}{_{M_\mathrm{l}}^{M_\mathrm{u}}\mathrm{\Phi }(M)\mathrm{\Psi }(t_G\tau _M)𝑑M}$$
(6)
where $`M_\mathrm{l}=1.2`$ M and $`M_\mathrm{u}=3`$ M. They estimated empirically a current production rate, from a sample of galactic C–stars, of $`S_7^{\mathrm{}}=2\times 10^9`$ Mpc-2Gyr-1. The authors point out that this 7Li production rate can only be a lower limit and they needed to increase it to $`6\times 10^8`$ Mpc-2Gyr-1 (Abia, Isern & Canal 1995) in order to obtain a good fit to the solar system data. In the present model, this rate has only to be increased up to $`1.5\times 10^8`$ Mpc-2Gyr-1.

### 2.2 Destruction of LiBeB

Traditionally, LiBeB isotopes are supposed to be completely destroyed in stars, so when they die they do not contribute to the ISM abundance. This assumption has been checked by means of main–sequence stellar models (Hansen & Kawaler 1994) that include all the nuclear reactions involved in LiBeB destruction, whose rates are taken from Caughlan & Fowler (1988). We have evaluated, for the whole range of stellar masses, the fraction of each LiBeB isotope that survives and is ejected from the star. Our results are displayed in Figure 2. As expected, the two lithium isotopes are the most fragile ones within the LiBeB group, and they are almost completely destroyed in stars over a wide range of stellar masses. Beryllium and both boron isotopes are more resistant, since they are destroyed at higher temperatures, but nevertheless the fraction of the original BeB that survives is, as in the case of the lithium isotopes, very small.

These destruction terms are included in our calculations, and there are only minute differences in the final results as compared with those obtained assuming complete destruction.

## 3 RESULTS

We have analyzed the evolution of the light elements, taking into account all the sources described in section 2.1 and the restrictions that energetics puts on spectrum and composition of GCR. In Table 1 a summary of all the different sources considered is presented. It is important to notice that no other combination of the contribution from the different sources could reproduce all the constraints considered (Li plateau, beryllium evolution versus iron, and solar system boron isotopic ratio and lithium abundance).

### 3.1 Abundances Evolution

Concerning the GCR composition, we show in the left panel of Figure 3 that for values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ (see eq. 3) near 0.25 (solid line) good fits to the observed Be and B evolution as a function of \[Fe/H\] are obtained. The $`\chi ^2`$ test gives an interval for the possible $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ values of (0.12,0.41) for a level of confidence of 90%. For values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ near 0 (GCR made only from accelerated ISM), a slope of 2 results, while, if taking a value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ close to 1 (GCR made of SNe ejecta) the contribution from GCR nucleosynthesis to LiBeB evolution at low metallicities is too large. The preceding means that a double origin for the composition of GCR must be considered, since both a pure SNII composition and a pure ISM composition can be rejected. Such a mixture is not well explained in non–magnetic SB models (which favour $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}0.02`$), unless we assume that the bulk of the GCR comes from the central part of the SB, where the SN ejecta material would be more dominant (Higdon et al. 1998). However, magnetic SB models (Tomisaka 1992) give higher values for $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$, because magnetic fields reduce heat conduction, and thus the evaporation of the ISM shell surrounding the SB. The value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ for these latter models is close to our best fit. In the right panel of Figure 3, we compare the evolution, in the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}=0.25`$ case, for the two different infall compositions. One sees that the evolution is practically unaffected by the chemical composition of the accreted matter, as long as its enrichment remains moderate.

The very recent beryllium abundance determination in the very metal–poor halo star G 64–12 (\[Fe/H\]= $``$3.30 and \[Be\]= $``$1.1) by Primas et al. (2000) is not well fitted. As stated by the authors, this value would either suggest a flattening of the Be vs Fe relationship at low metallicities or dispersion of values in the early Galaxy. More low–metallicity data are needed to confirm either of these suggestions.

Parizot (2000), also within the framework of a SB model for the acceleration of GCR, analyzed the proportion of pure ejecta of supernovae accelerated in superbubbles (our parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$). He found a best value of $`0.03`$ when adopting a GCR energy spectrum $`q(E)E^1\mathrm{exp}(E/E_0)`$ with a rather low cut-off energy of $`E_0=500`$ MeV/n, that is supposed to mimic the results of particle acceleration in SB by a collection of weak shocks. Thus, our best value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}=0.25`$ is a factor of $`8`$ larger than the result obtained by Parizot (2000). Such discrepancy comes in part from the higher efficiency of his weak SB spectrum. Had this spectrum been used instead of that in eq. (4), a larger Be production per erg would have been obtained, by a factor of $`2.2`$, thus reducing by the same factor our mixing coefficient $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$. A further factor of $`3`$ is due to the fact that Parizot (2000) did not calculate the evolution of the actual Be/O abundance ratio, but only that of the Be/O production ratio by dividing the yields of Be and O per supernova. In that way, stellar astration, which is important for late times and high metallicities, was not taken into account. Astration severely reduces the abundance of Be, but not that of O, thus lowering the Be/O abundance ratio at late times (Fields et al. 2001). Our model, neglecting stellar astration, produces a Be abundance at \[Fe/H\]$`=0`$ which is $`3`$ times larger than the value measured in the Solar System. Finally, the study by Parizot (2000) does not follow the detailed evolution of the composition of the ISM by means of a chemical evolution model. Instead, he assumes solar composition scaled with metallicity, i.e. O/H, which translates into overestimated C and N abundances, both in the ISM and in the $`1\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ fraction of GCR accelerated from the ISM.

Since beryllium is supposed to be produced only by GCR, and therefore its abundance is expected to be directly dependent on the oxygen abundance in the ISM, it is interesting to compare our model results with the observational data in a \[Be\] vs \[O/H\] plot (Fig. 4). We notice that if we use the oxygen calculated in ALC, the best value of the parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ does not seem to be the same as that obtained from the \[Be\] vs \[Fe/H\] plot. This flaw was expected since our calculated oxygen evolution does not perfectly fit the Israelian et al. (1998, 2001) and the Boesgaard et al. (1999a) data, although our results are closer to them than those obtained in other recently published galactic chemical evolution models. However, when their relationship for \[O/Fe\] vs \[Fe/H\] is used to transform the Be-Fe plot to a Be-O one, a reasonable fit is recovered for $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}=0.25`$, at least for the low metallicity region where our results closely follow the mean trend of the data. At high metallicity we slightly overpredict the Boesgaard et al. (1999b) data, but the Solar System value is well reproduced still.

In Figure 5, the evolution of total lithium and 6Li are shown: in the left panel for several values of the parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ and in the right panel for the two infall compositions and fixed $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$. The lithium plateau is well reproduced, as well as the upper envelope of the population I stars and the Solar System value. As shown in Figure 6, the increase of the lithium abundance for \[Fe/H\] $`>`$1.5 is due to the contribution from the neutrino–induced nucleosynthesis, and continues by the additional Li from C–stars and nova outbursts, whose contribution is delayed to intermediate and high metallicities due to the long lifetimes of the low–mass progenitors of those objects. C–stars are the main contributors at high metallicities, as it is clearly seen in the Figure. The parameter $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$ has little effect on the lithium evolution, because at low metallicities, where changes of this parameter make the GCR nucleosynthesis production rate change, the Li from the Big Bang and from the $`\alpha +\alpha `$ reactions dominate. In the case of 6Li, the less abundant lithium isotope and still not sufficiently measured at low metallicities, our model reproduces the Solar System value, but not the low–metallicity observations. As indicated by Ramaty et al. (2000), this may suggest the need for an extra source of 6Li in the Galaxy. A possible solution to this defect of 6Li production would be a higher primordial value (some non–standard BBN models produce large 6Li abundances: Jedamzik & Rehm 2001), but that would mean the existence of plateaus at low metallicities also for Be and B (or a 7Li primordial value not compatible with the Spite plateau), which have not been observed up to now.

As it happens for Be and B, the Li evolution is almost independent of the assumed composition of the infalling matter.

### 3.2 Ratios Evolution

Isotopic and elemental ratios are crucial to analyze the importance of the different contributions to LiBeB abundances. The boron isotopic ratio shows, for a given value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$, the importance of the neutrino induced nucleosynthesis. This source is necessary to reach the solar system value. On the other hand, the boron over beryllium ratio data are quite constant at all metallicities, implying that the $`\nu `$–process can not be dominant. The data on the next element ratio considered, Li/B, show a steep descent from the large value at low metallicities, due to the Li plateau, down to the solar value. Finally, there are quite few available data for 6Li, so the lithium isotopic data are not a strong constraint, the solar system data excepted.

In all cases we have used a value of the parameter that restricts the contribution of the neutrino induced nucleosynthesis of $`f_\nu =0.29`$ (similar to that found by Ramaty et al. 2000), which allows to reproduce the Solar System boron isotopic ratio, as displayed in the upper panel of Figure 7. Higher values of $`f_\nu `$ would increase the ratio 11B/10B up to values not allowed by the Solar System data. We see that the ratio is quite constant during the halo phase (a higher ratio for lower values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$) due to the contribution of the $`\nu `$–process and the primary character of GCR nucleosynthesis in those early epochs, and it decreases towards the Solar System value when the secondary behaviour of the GCR becomes important enough. The lack of data at low metallicity hinders a more firm conclusion, but the descending trend after \[Fe/H\] = 0 is compatible with the current ISM ratio (3.4$`\pm `$0.7, Lambert et al. 1998).

A similar behavior is shown by the B/Be ratio (lower panel of Fig. 7). The constant ratio is higher for lower values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ej}}`$, and the standard GCR nucleosynthesis also dominates at high metallicity.

Finally, the two other ratios considered include lithium (Figure 8, with 6Li/7Li in the upper panel and Li/B in the lower one). As we have already pointed out, our model can not account for the 6Li at low metallicities, so the lithium isotopic ratio obtained is much lower than the nonzero 6Li/7Li data around \[Fe/H\] $`=2.5`$. The values at intermediate metallicities are not reproduced, since the stars where they have been measured may have suffered some amount of lithium destruction (more important in the case of 6Li than for 7Li). For the Li/B ratio this lack of 6Li is not important and our models fit well the available data.

### 3.3 Energetics

Since supernovae, either individually or in SB, are supposed to be the site of GCR acceleration, the total energy of a SN explosion must be larger than the energy of the GCR particles produced by it. The mean value of the Be/Fe ratio in low–metallicity stars measured by Molaro et al. (1997) and Boesgaard et al. (1999b) is about $`1.37\times 10^6`$ and the average yield of 56Fe from SN, according to ALC prescriptions, is $`Q_{\mathrm{SN}}(\mathrm{Fe})=0.0515`$ M$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}1.1\times 10^{54}`$ atoms. Then, as shown by Ramaty et al. (1997), one can evaluate the number of atoms of Be produced by each SN event:

$$Q_{\mathrm{SN}}(\mathrm{Be})=\frac{\mathrm{Be}}{\mathrm{Fe}}Q_{\mathrm{SN}}(\mathrm{Fe})1.5\times 10^{48}\mathrm{atoms}$$
(7)
We have also evaluated the number of atoms of beryllium produced per erg ($`\dot{Q}(\mathrm{Be})/\dot{W}`$, upper panel in Figure 9), so we can show in the lower panel the amount of energy per SN required to accelerate GCR, as

$$W_{\mathrm{GCR}}^{\mathrm{SN}}=\frac{Q_{\mathrm{SN}}(\mathrm{Be})}{\dot{Q}(\mathrm{Be})/\dot{W}}$$
(8)
Since the early Galaxy was poor on metals, more energy per SN was required to account for the Be/Fe ratio than in the present day, when the secondary mechanism also contribute to the synthesis of Be. In the halo phase, the value of $`W_{\mathrm{GCR}}^{\mathrm{SN}}`$ is about 2$`\times `$1050 erg, so the energy constraint is fulfilled because only 15–20% of the kinetic energy of any supernova has to be involved in GCR acceleration.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

The results of a recent and successful galactic chemical evolution model are applied to the particular problem of the light elements. To calculate the LiBeB evolution, it is necessary to know which are the abundances of hydrogen, helium, and the CNO nuclei in the ISM, since they are the main targets of the GCR to produce lithium, beryllium, and boron. The evolution of iron is also important, because traditionally the light element evolution has been plotted in \[LiBeB\] vs \[Fe/H\] graphs and iron has been taken as representative of the metallicity of the stars where LiBeB have been measured. In order to achieve this goal, we have used some of the latest and most complete calculations of the yields from different types of stellar scenarios for nucleosynthesis: low– and intermediate–mass stars, Type Ia and II supernovae, and nova outbursts.

Our calculations show that a mixture of 25% of SN ejecta (with upper and lower limits of 12% and 41%, respectively) and 75% of ISM, for the GCR composition, can account for the linear trend of BeB vs Fe. If the O/Fe vs Fe relationship of Boesgaard et al. (1999a) (somewhat steeper than the one obtained by ALC) is used, an acceptable fit to the Be vs O plot is also obtained.

On the other side, the lithium plateau is easily reproduced with a BBN contribution, as usual, and the increase of the Li abundance after the halo phase is quite nicely reproduced as well by taking into account several sources (the $`\nu `$–process, nova outbursts, and C–stars).

Concerning the isotopic evolution, our model fails to reproduce the early–time 6Li/7Li ratio, due to a lack of 6Li at low metallicities. We point out the necessity of an extra source for this isotope. The other calculated ratios, however, nicely reproduce the data.

Finally, the energy problem has been addressed, in order to check that not too large a fraction of the supernova energy is required to produce the light elements.

This work has been supported by the DGESIC grant PB98–1183–C03–01 and the DGI grant AYA2000–0983. We thank late Dr. R. Ramaty for kindly providing us with his numerical code for cosmic–ray induced nucleosynthesis of the light elements.