text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, we report a preliminary measurement of the $`B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ branching fraction. The motivation for studying these decays comes in part from the possibility of including the $`J/\psi \rho ^0`$ mode in the BABAR $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ analysis . It is also expected that due to the Cabibbo and colour suppression of these decays, interference with rare or exotic processes, such as a box diagram containing charged Higgs bosons, could be significant. These effects may appear as deviations of the branching ratio from the Standard Model prediction of $`(B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{})=(4.6\pm 0.8)\times 10^5`$ . The only previous measurement related to this analysis is an upper limit on the $`B^0J/\psi \rho ^0`$ branching fraction by CLEO , $`(B^0J/\psi \rho ^0)<2.5\times 10^4`$ at 90% confidence level.

The method used is a fit to the distribution of the invariant mass of the two pions, $`M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$, with the goal of isolating the separate components. Both the $`B^0J/\psi \rho ^0`$ and $`B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant) contributions are modelled in the fit function. However, in the present analysis the branching fraction is quoted for the sum of these two modes, as the individual fractions are highly correlated and depend sensitively on model assumptions. The total yield is only sensitive to the normalization of various background sources and so is quite stable. It is expected that separation of the two components will be possible with a considerably larger data set, when a mass dependent angular analysis of the decay products will be possible.

## 2 The BABAR detector and data set

The data used in this analysis were collected with the BABAR detector at the PEP-II storage ring. The BABAR detector is described in detail elsewhere . Surrounding the beam pipe is a silicon vertex tracker (SVT) to provide precise measurements of positions and angles of charged particles emerging from the interaction region and stand-alone track finding, particularly for particles with momentum below 120 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$. Outside this is a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH) filled with an 80:20 helium-isobutane gas mixture to minimize multiple scattering. The DCH provides measurements of track momenta, as well as energy-loss measurements that contribute to charged particle identification. Surrounding the drift chamber is a novel detector of internally reflected Cherenkov radiation (DIRC) that allows charged hadron identification in the barrel region. Outside the DIRC is a CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC), which is used to detect photons and neutral hadrons and to provide electron identification. The EMC is surrounded by a superconducting coil, which provides a magnetic field of 1.5T for momentum measurements. Outside the coil the flux return is instrumented with resistive plate chambers interspersed with iron (IFR) for the identification of muons and long-lived neutral hadrons. The GEANT4  software is used to simulate interactions of particles traversing the BABAR detector. A coordinate system is defined with the $`z`$ axis aligned along that of the detector in the electron beam direction.

The data sample used for the analysis contains approximately 56 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, corresponding to 51.7$`\text{ fb}^1`$ taken near the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. An additional 6.4$`\text{ fb}^1`$ of data, taken approximately 40$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ peak, was used in studies of the effect of light $`q\overline{q}`$ pair backgrounds.

## 3 Analysis method

### 3.1 Event selection and $`B`$ reconstruction

The aim of the event selection is primarily to accept events containing a $`B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay while rejecting background both from $`u,d,s,c`$ quark continuum and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ events which do not contain a $`B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay.

Events containing $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs are selected based on track multiplicity and event topology. Tracks in the polar angle region $`0.41<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<2.54`$$`\mathrm{rad}`$, with transverse momentum greater than 100$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ are required to pass quality cuts, including number of DCH hits used in the track fit and impact parameters with respect to the nominal beam spot in the $`r\varphi `$ and $`rz`$ planes. At least three tracks must pass the above selection. To reduce continuum background the ratio of second to zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments , $`R_2=H_2/H_0`$, is required to be less than 0.5. The total charged and neutral energy must be greater than 4.5$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the fiducial region of the detector (charged tracks in the DCH and neutral clusters in the EMC) and the primary vertex of the event must be within 0.5$`\mathrm{cm}`$ of the average measured beam spot position in the plane transverse to the beamline.

Electron candidates must satisfy the requirement that the ratio of calorimeter energy to track momentum lies in the range $`0.75<E/p<1.3`$, have a cluster shape and size consistent with an electromagnetic shower, and DCH $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ consistent with an electron. If an EMC cluster close to the electron track is consistent with originating from a bremsstrahlung photon, it is added to the electron candidate.

Muon candidates must satisfy requirements on the number of interaction lengths of IFR iron penetrated of $`N_\lambda >2`$, the difference in the measured and expected interaction lengths penetrated of $`|N_\lambda N_\lambda ^{exp}|<2`$, the position match between the extrapolated DCH track and the IFR hits, and the average and spread of the number of IFR strips hit per layer.

Pion candidates are accepted if they originate from close to the beam spot and fail a charged kaon identification algorithm that is designed to reject pions. The algorithm uses $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ information from the SVT and DCH, and Cherenkov angle and number of photons from the DIRC.

Tracks are required to lie in fiducial ranges within which the efficiency is well known from control samples and the material in the detector is accurately modelled in the simulation. The accepted ranges in laboratory polar angle are $`0.41<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<2.41`$$`\mathrm{rad}`$ for electrons, $`0.3<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<2.7`$$`\mathrm{rad}`$ for muons, and $`0.35<\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}<2.5`$$`\mathrm{rad}`$ for pions. These ranges correspond approximately to the geometrical acceptances of the EMC, IFR and DIRC, respectively.

$`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ candidates are formed from pairs of identified electrons or muons which are fitted to a common vertex and must lie in the invariant mass interval 2.95 (3.06) to 3.14$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for the $`e^+e^{}`$ ($`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$) channel.

$`B^0`$ candidates are formed by combining a $`J/\psi `$ candidate with pairs of oppositely-charged pion candidates that are fitted to a common vertex. We require that both two-prong vertices coincide spatially by demanding

$$\chi _{\psi ,\pi \pi }^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\frac{(x_\psi ^ix_{\pi \pi }^i)^2}{(\sigma (x_\psi ^i)^2+\sigma (x_{\pi \pi }^i)^2)}<6,$$
(1)
where $`x^i`$ and $`\sigma (x^i)`$ are the positions and errors of the vertices in the $`i`$th spatial dimension. Further selection requirements for $`B^0`$ candidates are made using two kinematical variables: the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ between the energy of the candidate and the beam energy $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cm}}`$ in the center-of-mass frame and the beam-energy substituted mass $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}=\sqrt{(E_{\mathrm{beam}}^{\mathrm{cm}})^2(p_B^{\mathrm{cm}})^2}`$. After applying the loose requirements $`5.2<m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.3\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<120\mathrm{MeV}`$, if more than one $`B^0`$ candidate remains in the same event only the candidate with the smallest $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ is kept. Those candidates with $`|m_{\mathrm{ES}}5279.0|<9.9\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<39\mathrm{MeV}`$ form the final signal sample. These ranges correspond to $`3\sigma `$ in the expected resolutions for $`m_{\mathrm{ES}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. After all selection criteria have been applied, there are 212 events remaining.

### 3.2 Fitting to the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum

An unbinned, extended maximum likelihood fit is performed on the invariant mass distribution of the two pions for selected events. We consider five categories of events:

* $`B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant) events
* $`B^0J/\psi \rho ^0`$ events
* $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0(K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ events
* Background from events with a fake $`J/\psi `$
* Inclusive-$`J/\psi `$ background (that originating from events containing a real $`J/\psi `$)

A probability density function (PDF) is constructed for each of these five cases. The total PDF is then formed from the sum of the five PDFs and fitted to the data. The $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ mode is not considered signal for the purposes of determining the branching fraction $`B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

#### 3.2.1 The signal and $`K_S^0`$ PDFs

The PDF used to model the $`B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant) mode is the two-body phase space distribution of the pion pair and is given by

$$F_{n.r.}(m)=(mM_{on})^A\times (M_{off}m)^B,$$
(2)
where the kinematic limits are $`M_{on}=2M_\pi `$ and $`M_{off}=M_{B^0}M_{J/\psi }`$. The parameters $`A,B`$ are determined by fitting to the $`M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ distribution in simulated $`B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant) events.

The PDF used to model the $`B^0J/\psi \rho ^0`$ mode is a relativistic p-wave Breit-Wigner  function multiplied by the phase-space shape described above. The $`\rho ^0`$ mass and width for the Breit-Wigner are fixed to their PDG values .

The $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ two-pion invariant mass distribution is modelled by a single Gaussian function with the mass and width fixed to values obtained by fitting a sample of simulated $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ events.

#### 3.2.2 The background PDFs

The $`M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ distribution for events without a real $`J/\psi `$ is derived from a fake-$`J/\psi `$ sample from data. The sample is selected as in Sec. 3.1 except that at least one of the lepton candidates must fail the appropriate particle identification requirements, thus providing a high statistics data set that models the shape of the non-$`J/\psi `$ background. In addition the final kinematic requirements are relaxed to $`5.2<m_{\mathrm{ES}}<5.3\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<120\mathrm{MeV}`$, which further enlarges the sample. A Monte Carlo study confirms that the $`M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ distribution obtained with this procedure correctly describes the shape of the non-$`J/\psi `$ background. The resulting distribution is parameterized using the sum of two Weibull functions (see Eq. 3.2.2) and a Breit-Wigner.

The $`M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ background shape from events containing a real $`J/\psi `$ is obtained with a sample of simulated $`BJ/\psi X`$ events equivalent to a luminosity of 81$`\text{ fb}^1`$. Events where the system $`X`$ is $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant), $`\rho ^0`$ or $`K_S^0`$ ($`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) are removed from the sample. The resulting shape is well described by a Weibull function :

$`F_{J/\psi X}(m)`$ $`=`$ $`CV(mM_{on})^{(C1)}\times \mathrm{exp}[V(mM_{max})^C]`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`(C1)/(C(M_{max}M_{on})^C),`$ (3)
where $`M_{max}`$ (the peak position) and $`C`$ are determined from the fit to the simulated events and $`M_{on}`$ is the kinematic limit as described above.

#### 3.2.3 Background normalization

The normalization of the background components is obtained from control samples in data. The level of non-$`J/\psi `$ background is obtained from the data $`J/\psi `$-sideband sample. This sample is selected by accepting only events where the $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ candidate lies in the invariant mass region 3.156 to 3.300$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ or the $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ candidate lies in the region 2.980 to 3.024$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ or 3.156 to 3.300$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The $`m_{ES}`$ distribution is fit to an ARGUS function  for $`B`$ candidates in which the $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ or $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ candidate lies in the $`J/\psi `$ sideband. The fit is done separately for $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ candidates to obtain the number of background events passing the final kinematic selection in each case. These numbers are then reweighted to make them correspond to the fitted level of background in the $`M(e^+e^{})`$ or $`M(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ distribution in the $`J/\psi `$ mass interval.

The normalization of inclusive-$`J/\psi `$ background is obtained from the distribution of $`m_{ES}`$ for events in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ signal region. The $`m_{ES}`$ distribution is parameterized by a Gaussian (to represent signal and peaking background) and an ARGUS function, which has one shape parameter and an endpoint fixed by the average beam energy in the center-of-mass frame. The peaking background is defined as that which accumulates at $`m_{ES}=5.279\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. It originates from $`BJ/\psi X`$ decays such as $`BJ/\psi K^{}`$. The non-peaking component of the inclusive-$`J/\psi `$ background comes from subtracting the non-$`J/\psi `$ contribution, on the basis of the scaled sideband events described above, from the total ARGUS background in data. We then add a peaking component, which is obtained from the Gaussian part of the $`m_{ES}`$ distribution in $`BJ/\psi X`$ simulation (with $`X=\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant), $`\rho ^0`$ and $`K_S^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ removed). The total background from events containing a real $`J/\psi `$ is then the sum of peaking and non-peaking components. The peaking component comprises only 5% of the total background. Thus any associated uncertainties, such as those on the branching ratios used in the $`J/\psi X`$ simulation, will have a relatively small effect on the final systematic error.

### 3.3 Branching fraction determination

The branching fraction is obtained from

$$(B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{})=\frac{N_{\pi \pi }}{N_{B^0}\times ϵ_{\pi \pi }\times (J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})},$$
(4)
where $`N_{\pi \pi }`$ is the yield of resonant and non-resonant components obtained from the fit, $`N_{B^0}`$ is the total number of $`B^0`$ and $`\overline{B}^0`$ in the data sample  and $`ϵ_{\pi \pi }`$ is the signal efficiency. The $`J/\psi `$ branching fraction $`(J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ is fixed to the current world average value . We assume that the branching fraction $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^0\overline{B}^0`$ is 50%.

The signal efficiency in Eq. 4 is derived from simulated signal events. Imperfect modelling of particle identification is corrected by studies of independent control samples derived from data. The lepton and pion particle identification efficiencies are measured in data with control samples of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\gamma `$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}e^+e^{}`$, $`e^+e^{}`$, $`e^+e^{}\gamma `$, $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ ($`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$) and $`K_S^0`$ $``$ $`\pi ^+`$ $`\pi ^{}`$. The efficiencies are determined as a function of momentum, and polar and azimuthal angle. We find $`ϵ(J/\psi \rho ^0)=(27.0\pm 0.3)\%`$, $`ϵ(J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{},`$ non-resonant$`)=(26.5\pm 0.3)\%`$ and $`ϵ(J/\psi K_S^0)=(2.31\pm 0.06)\%`$. The final corrected signal efficiency is taken as the average of the $`J/\psi \rho ^0`$ and $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant) efficiencies and is found to be ($`26.8\pm 0.2`$)%, where the error is from Monte Carlo statistics.

## 4 Results

The full model for the $`M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ mass distribution is obtained by summing the five PDFs described in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. A likelihood fit is performed on the $`M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ distribution in data with the normalization of the non-$`J/\psi `$ background fixed to 36.9 events and the inclusive-$`J/\psi `$ background to 55.1. Thus the only parameters that are allowed to float in the fit are the numbers of $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant), $`J/\psi \rho ^0`$ and $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ events. The result of the fit is shown in Fig. 1 where the data has been binned and overlayed. The $`\chi ^2`$ of the curve and the data as binned in Fig. 1 is 40.9 for 38 data points.

The fit finds $`N_{\pi \pi }=89.9\pm 13.3`$ events, where $`43.3\pm 12.7`$ are included in the $`\rho ^0`$ component and $`46.6\pm 14.5`$ are included in the non-resonant component. The number of events in the $`K_S^0`$ component is $`29.0\pm 5.5`$. Inserting the result into Eq. 4 yields the branching ratio

$$(B^0J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{})=(5.0\pm 0.7)\times 10^5,$$

where the error is statistical. The results are summarised in Table 1.

## 5 Systematics studies

The systematic errors on the final branching fraction measurement arise from uncertainties in the signal efficiency, fitted yield, number of $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs produced and $`J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ branching fraction. $`N_{B\overline{B}}`$ is known to $`1.1\%`$ with the dominant contribution to the uncertainty coming from the error on the efficiency of the $`B`$-counting selection. $`(J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ is known to 1.7% .

The uncertainty on the pion particle identification efficiency is 2.5% per pion. This is determined in part by the limited number of events in the control sample. Other contributions are from applying different techniques to deduce the kaon contamination in the control sample and deviations between the efficiency for pions in the control sample and in the $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ sample. Thus the final systematic error from pion identification is 5%. Uncertainties on electron and muon particle identification efficiencies come from studies of yields in $`BJ/\psi X`$ data events and give an error of 1.3%. The total systematic error on particle identification efficiency is then 5.2%.

The uncertainty in the determination of the tracking efficiency is 1.3% per track, which sums coherently for the four tracks coming from the $`B^0`$.

The efficiency of the convergence requirement on the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ vertex fit has been studied with a sample of $`\psi (2S)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays. Data and simulation are found to be in good agreement with an associated systematic error of 1%.

The $`J/\psi \rho ^0`$ component of the final sample will introduce an uncertainty on efficiency due to the unknown polarisation of the $`\rho `$. Studies of efficiency variations between samples of simulated events with longitudinal and transverse polarisations lead to a systematic error estimate of 2.5%.

To account for imperfect simulation of selection variables, the requirements on $`J/\psi `$ invariant mass, $`\chi _{\psi ,\pi \pi }^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ are varied within reasonable limits, and the analysis is repeated for each selection. The deviation of the efficiency-corrected yield from the fit, in each case, is assigned as a systematic error. Varying the size of the $`J/\psi `$ mass interval by $`\pm 14\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|`$ requirement by $`\pm 1\sigma `$, where $`\sigma =13\mathrm{MeV}`$ is the standard deviation observed in data, shows variation at the level of 0.4% and 6.8%, respectively. The $`\chi _{\psi ,\pi \pi }^2`$ requirement is varied between 3 and 9 yielding an error of 2.1%. These errors are added in quadrature to give the total systematic uncertainty due to modelling of the selection requirements.

To assess the effect of the chosen signal and background shapes on the fitted yields, the fixed parameters of these PDFs are varied within their statistical errors, allowing for correlations. This produces a total systematic error due to fit parameter variation of 4.9%. The total systematic uncertainty from all sources is found to be 11.8%, as summarized in Table 2.

## 6 Cross checks

The fit was repeated using a simple Breit-Wigner (non-relativistic, width independent of mass) for the $`\rho ^0`$ lineshape. While the $`J/\psi \rho ^0`$ yield decreased by 23% and that for $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant) increased by 27%, the total $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ yield increased by less than 1%. This check is also equivalent to varying the parametrization for $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (non-resonant) and is strictly a test of the stability of the total $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ yield. It should be noted that the simple Breit-Wigner is technically the wrong shape to use for the $`\rho ^0`$ parametrization.

Another way to model the backgrounds is to use a smoothing algorithm on the data rather than impose definite PDF shapes. The chosen method creates a Gaussian kernel for each event in order to build a shape that describes the input data . The resulting PDF follows fluctuations in the input data as accurately as possible and checks how strongly the fitted signal yield depends on the chosen method of background parameterization. Changing the background modelling in this way alters the total fitted yield by less than one event.

The signal yield can also be calculated by counting the number of data events passing all the cuts and subtracting the estimated numbers of background and $`J/\psi K_S^0`$ events. This method gives $`91.0\pm 16.6`$ $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events, to be compared to the $`89.9\pm 13.3`$ given by the fit to the $`M(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ distribution.

There are $`43.3\pm 12.7`$ events in the $`\rho ^0`$ resonance component. On the assumption that the non-$`\rho ^0`$ signal component is well modelled by $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ phase space, we measure $`(B^0J/\psi \rho ^0)=(2.4\pm 0.7)\times 10^5`$, where the error is statistical only.

## 7 Conclusion

In summary, we have measured the branching fraction for $`B^0`$ meson decay to the final state $`J/\psi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ to be $`(5.0\pm 0.7(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.6(\mathrm{syst}))\times 10^5`$. The technique of fitting the mass spectrum of the $`\pi \pi `$ system will become important for future measurements in this channel, particularly as it will provide separation between the resonant and non-resonant components given a larger data set. It is important to reliably isolate the $`J/\psi \rho ^0`$ component in order to contribute to a measurement of the Unitarity Triangle angle $`\beta `$.

## 8 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the extraordinary contributions of our PEP-II colleagues in achieving the excellent luminosity and machine conditions that have made this work possible. The success of this project also relies critically on the expertise and dedication of the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and the kind hospitality extended to them. This work is supported by the US Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), Institute of High Energy Physics (China), the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Germany), the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), the Research Council of Norway, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation, and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A. P. Sloan Foundation, the Research Corporation, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


format: text

text:
# The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: The environmental dependence of galaxy star formation rates near clusters

## 1 Introduction

The effect of local environment on galaxy evolution in general is not well understood. Studies of environmental effects in the past have been largely devoted to the study of galaxies in the cores of rich clusters, which differ so dramatically from more common galaxies (e.g. Dressler, 1980; Dressler et al., 1985; Couch & Sharples, 1987; Balogh et al., 1997, 1999; Poggianti et al., 1999; Moss & Whittle, 2000; Couch et al., 2001; Solanes et al., 2001). However, galaxies in cluster cores comprise only a small fraction of the stellar content within the universe, and thus it is not obvious that the processes which effect these galaxies are important for galaxy evolution in general.

More recently, however, work has begun to show that star formation is suppressed in cluster galaxies far from the core. From the CNOC1 cluster sample, Balogh et al. (1997, 1998) found that the mean cluster galaxy star formation rate may be suppressed as far as twice the virial radius ($`R_v`$) from the cluster centre, relative to a field sample selected in the foreground and background of the clusters. However, the data at large radii were sparse, and being derived from only a few clusters were sensitive to the effects of substructure and non-sphericity. Thus it is not possible to draw strong conclusions about the relative cluster galaxy star formation rate beyond the $`R_v`$ from these data. Wide field photometric analysis of clusters using Subaru has recently suggested that the tight red sequence of early type galaxies first presents itself in small groups of galaxies within the infall region of the massive cluster Cl0939+47 at $`z=0.39`$ (Kodama et al., 2001). This is the first work to suggest that a “critical” environment for galaxy evolution exists. A larger survey, designed specifically to study the outer regions of clusters is the Las Campanas/Anglo Australian Observatory Rich Cluster Survey (LARCS), a sample of 17 rich, X-ray bright clusters, with photometry and spectroscopy extending out to very large radii ($`6`$ Mpc). Early results confirm the radial gradient in photometric and spectroscopic properties out to the virial radius and, perhaps, beyond (O’Hely, 2000; Pimbblet et al., 2001a, b).

It therefore seems likely that galaxy star formation rates are reduced before they are accreted by a cluster, for example in smaller groups. If this is the case, the implications could be profound, as most galaxies at the present day are in groups (Turner & Gott, 1976; Geller & Huchra, 1983; Tully, 1987; Carlberg et al., 2001); if environmental processes are important in these regions, they will clearly be reflected in the evolution of the universe as a whole. As structure builds up in the universe, more and more galaxies can be found in groups and, if these environments serve to terminate star formation, the mean star formation rate of the universe will decline. This might explain at least part of the observed decline in global star formation with cosmic time (Lilly et al., 1996; Madau et al., 1996; Cowie et al., 1999).

The 2dF galaxy redshift survey (2dFGRS) allows the unprecedented opportunity to study the spectroscopic properties of galaxies at an arbitrarily large distance from any given cluster. The details of the survey strategy are given elsewhere (Colless et al., 2001), but summarized briefly in Section 2.1. Analysis of the whole sample will allow a definitive study of any correlation between spectral properties (i.e. emission line strength) as a function of a continuous variable like local density. For this preliminary study, we are specifically interested in establishing precisely where galaxies in the vicinity of known clusters begin to exhibit properties which differ from those of the average galaxy. We base this on a sample of 17 known rich clusters within the 2dFGRS, from the catalogue of De Propris et al. (2002).

Our cluster selection, galaxy sample, and star formation rate measurements are described in Section 2. In Section 3 we show the trend of increasing star formation activity with both increasing cluster-centric distance, and decreasing local projected density. This is compared with numerical models in Section 4. We summarize our findings in Section 5. Throughout this paper, we use a cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. We use the symbol $`M_b`$ to denote absolute magnitudes measured in the 2dFGRS photographic blue system.

## 2 Data Analysis

### 2.1 Spectroscopic Data

The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey has obtained over 220 000 spectra of galaxies located in two contiguous declination strips, plus 99 randomly located fields. One strip is in the southern Galactic hemisphere and covers approximately 80$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 15^{}`$ centred close to the SGP. The other strip is in the northern Galactic hemisphere and covers 75$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 10^{}`$. The 99 random fields are located over the entire region of the APM galaxy catalogue in the southern Galactic hemisphere outside of the main survey strip. Full details of the survey strategy are given in Colless et al. (2001).

The survey spectra cover the wavelength range 3600–8000Å at 9Å resolution. Only the wavelength range of 3600–7700Å is used during the line fitting procedure due to poor signal to noise and strong sky emission in the red part of the spectrum. The wide wavelength range is made possible by the use of an atmospheric dispersion compensator (ADC) within the 2dF instrument (Lewis et al., 2002).

### 2.2 Cluster Selection

We select 17 clusters from the catalogue of De Propris et al. (2002), in which clusters from the Abell catalogues (Abell, 1958; Abell et al., 1989), the APM (Dalton et al., 1997) and the EDCC (Lumsden et al., 1992) were cross-referenced with the 2dFGRS. This catalogue is still partially incomplete, but the completeness is generally better than 75% within $`5`$ Mpc of the cluster centres. The mean redshift and velocity dispersions of the clusters in this catalogue have been recomputed from the 2dFGRS spectra, and the cluster centroid is taken to be the brightest cluster galaxy with early-type morphology, identified from POSS plates.

For this analysis, we extract from the 2dFGRS all galaxies within $`20`$ Mpc of the centre of 17 clusters, selected to lie at $`\mathrm{18\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1<cz<\mathrm{29\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The lower velocity bound is chosen to limit the angular size to a reasonably small, manageable value; the upper limit is defined as the velocity at which H$`\alpha `$ is redshifted into the first set of strong night-sky OH emission lines. Ten clusters were selected to have velocity dispersions $`\sigma >800`$ km/s, while the remaining seven are systems with $`400`$ km s-1$`<\sigma <800`$ km s-1. The redshift histograms for the 17 clusters, including all galaxies brighter than $`M_b=19`$ within 5 Mpc (projected) of the centre, are shown in Fig. 1. Details of the clusters, including their redshifts ($`cz`$), velocity dispersions ($`\sigma `$), number of cluster members brighter than $`M_b=19`$, and completeness (within 5 Mpc), are summarized in Table 1. De Propris et al. (2002) resolved Abell 1238 into two clusters aligned along the line of sight; we here consider the lower redshift cluster, designated Abell 1238L. The cluster centres and velocity dispersions are generally better determined than they appear in Fig. 1, as they are computed including fainter galaxies over a smaller projected area (where the contrast with the field is greater).

### 2.3 H$`\alpha `$ measurements

All of the measurements of equivalent width have been performed using a completely automatic procedure. For each spectrum we remove the continuum by subtracting the median over a 133Å (31 pixel) wide window after first excluding known absorption and emission line regions by making use of the known galaxy redshift. Bad pixels and sky line residuals and the atmospheric and fibre absorption bands are also excluded from the continuum fitting.

Both emission and absorption lines are fitted with Gaussian profiles which are adequate for most of the emission lines and cores of the absorption lines. Up to 20 individual absorption and emission lines are fitted simultaneously using a modified Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. The width and height of each line are fitted together with a small perturbation of the observed redshift. Some lines were constrained to be emission or absorption. Others were allowed to be either. Note that the relative wavelength spacing of all lines remains fixed, but the fitted redshift is allowed to vary slightly (typically $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.00025`$, and always $`\mathrm{\Delta }z<0.005`$). By fitting many lines simultaneously we avoid individual line fits shifting to the nearest available peak or dip in the spectrum. By fitting both absorption and emission lines we ensure that the method is robust to the redshift solution whatever type of spectrum is being fitted.

With this technique of simultaneous line fitting it is possible to allow for line blends by simply requesting two or more lines to be fitted to the blend. For example H$`\beta `$ is best fitted by a combination of a narrow emission and a broad absorption line, and the H$`\alpha `$ emission line can be accurately deblended from the adjacent \[Nii\]$`\lambda 6548`$Å and \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583Å lines, despite the 9Å resolution of the spectra. The \[Nii\] lines are constrained to be in emission while the H$`\alpha `$ line may be either emission or absorption. To fit the Gaussian profile to the data points a consideration has to be made for the effect of the undersampling of the data. The solution is to model a Gaussian profile which, when undersampled, fits the observed data closely. Fig. 2 shows the resulting fit for four spectra with varying \[Nii\]/H$`\alpha `$ ratios, and demonstrates the effect of the undersampling.

After line fitting, the parameters of the fit (amplitude, sigma and area) and the rms residuals are used to classify the quality of the line fit. Usual reasons for rejecting a fit are if the line is too narrow (e.g. a noise spike or residual cosmic ray hit), or too broad (for a forbidden line). Some combinations of lines are also rejected, for example H$`\alpha `$ absorption combined with \[Nii\] emission. Lines which are too weak for a good fit are also flagged; however they are not rejected from the analysis, so that we retain a dispersion in the flux which reflects the measurement uncertainties. Partial failures are flagged often due to large rms residuals to the fit (broad non-thermal emission lines are poorly fitted by Gaussian profiles) or a poor wavelength calibration at the blue end of the spectrum, which can lead to a poor line profile for \[Oii\]. The latter is usually the case when the observed spectrum was close to the edge of the CCD. Care is also taken when a bad pixel has been masked out from the spectrum within 2$`\sigma `$ of the line centroid.

Equivalent widths are then simply calculated using the continuum fit and the measured line flux. A small number of spectra are degraded by poor sky subtraction at the data reduction stage, which can result in a negative continuum, making the EW meaningless. These cases can be easily removed from subsequent analysis.

### 2.4 Sample Selection and Star formation Rates

2dFGRS spectra within 20 Mpc of each cluster centre were extracted from the database. The extreme ends of spectra taken earlier than August 1999 are severely affected by problems with the ADC (Lewis et al., 2002); hence we restrict our analysis to data taken after this date. This leaves us with 53018 galaxies, but to limit the effect of aperture bias and sky-subtraction residuals, we restrict the sample to those galaxies which lie within $`0.05<z<0.1`$. Within this redshift range, the galaxy sample is complete to $`M_b=19`$, and we adopt this as our luminosity limit. This leaves us with 12020 galaxies. For computations of star formation rates, we exclude galaxies in which the continuum was negative, or a Gaussian was a poor fit to the line (see Section 2.3). This removes an additional 734 galaxies from the sample ($`6`$%). Finally, for galaxies with a significant H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width ($`W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }>10`$ Å) we exclude galaxies in which the equivalent width of the adjacent \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583 line is greater than 0.55$`W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$. These 280 galaxies (2.3% of the sample) are likely to have a significant non-thermal component (Veilleux & Osterbrock, 1987). This leaves us with a final sample of 11006 galaxies. We take cluster members to be those within 3$`\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the cluster velocity dispersion determined by De Propris et al. (2002), shown in Table 1. The number of such members within the virial radius (see below) is denoted $`N_{\mathrm{mem}}`$ in the table. Note that for the three highest redshift clusters A0933, A0954 and A1189, the highest velocity members are not included due to our overall redshift cut ($`0.05<z<0.1`$); however, all galaxies within 2$`\sigma `$ are still available. 5829 galaxies in our final sample are thus defined as cluster members.

Kennicutt (1983, 1992) derived a conversion from H$`\alpha `$ luminosity to star formation rate, under the assumptions of Case B recombination, no escape of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ photons, and a Salpeter-like initial mass function. This may underestimate the current star formation rate by a small factor, due to extinction in the line-emitting regions (Charlot & Longhetti, 2001). Also, if the nature of star formation is burst-like, the instantaneous star formation rate may not be representative of the average over even short ($`100`$ Myr) timescales (Sullivan et al., 2001). However, neither of these effects are likely to affect a comparison of galaxy populations with similar luminosity functions, as is the case in the present work.

Since the 2dFGRS spectra are not flux calibrated, we cannot derive H$`\alpha `$ luminosities, or star formation rates. However, after making a small (2Å) correction for the underlying stellar absorption, we can use the equivalent widths to calculate the star formation rate normalised to a fiducial luminosity (essentially a star formation rate per unit normalized luminosity). If $`\mu `$ is the star formation rate in units of $`M_{}`$ yr -1 and $`L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ is the total luminosity of the $`H\alpha `$ emission line in ergs s-1, we can define

$$\eta =\mu /L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }.$$
(1)
We will use the “average” conversion factor of $`\eta =7.9\times 10^{42}`$ $`M_{}`$ s yr-1 ergs-1(Kennicutt, 1992). The equivalent width of H$`\alpha `$, corrected for stellar absorption, is given by

$$W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }L_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }/L_c,$$
(2)
where $`L_c`$ is the continuum luminosity in units of ergs s-1Å-1. We can then calculate $`\mu ^{}`$ as

$$\mu ^{}=\frac{\mu }{L_c/L^{}}=\eta W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }L^{},$$
(3)
where $`L^{}`$ is a characteristic luminosity, for normalisation, in units of ergs s-1Å-1. We take $`L^{}`$ to correspond to the knee in the luminosity function in the $`r^{}`$ band (near rest-frame H$`\alpha `$), as determined by Blanton et al. (2001), $`M_R=21.8`$ ( $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`h=0.7`$), or $`L^{}=1.1\times 10^{40}`$ ergs s-1Å-1. Therefore, we have

$$\mu ^{}=0.087W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha },$$
(4)
which gives the star formation rate, in units of $`M_{}`$yr-1, normalized to $`L^{}`$.

We measure the projected distance of each galaxy from the cluster, as defined by the brightest central galaxy. In some cases the cluster membership of a galaxy is ambiguous, because it lies within 20 Mpc and the 3$`\sigma `$ redshift limits of more than one cluster (e.g. clusters S0258 and ED652). In this case, the galaxy is assumed to belong to the cluster which is nearest in projected distance.

In order to put all the clusters (which span more than a factor of two in velocity dispersion) on a common scale, and to facilitate comparison with theory, we need to relate projected distances to the virial radius, $`R_v`$, of the cluster. We show the spatial distribution of the cluster members within 1 degree of the centre for each cluster in Fig. 3. From this figure it is evident that many of our clusters are not spherically symmetric. Thus we must be cautious in our interpretation of $`R_v`$ as a physically meaningful scale, particularly when considering individual clusters.

The definition of $`R_v`$ is

$$\overline{\rho }(<R_v)=\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)\rho _c(z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)\rho _b(z)/\mathrm{\Omega }_m(z),$$
(5)
where $`\overline{\rho }(<R_v)`$ is the mean cluster mass density within $`R_v`$, $`\rho _c`$ and $`\rho _b`$ are the critical density and mean background mass density, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ is the redshift-dependent contrast parameter, determined from spherical collapse theory. For a flat $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ universe, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=178`$; for our adopted cosmology at $`z=0.07`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c107`$ (Eke et al., 1996), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m(z)=0.343`$, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(z)/\mathrm{\Omega }_m(z)=312`$. We will assume that the number density of galaxies is directly proportional to the dark matter density, independent of scale or galaxy luminosity. In this case, we can take the mean background density $`\rho _b`$ from the luminosity function. Integrating the best fit Schechter function from Cross et al. (2001), we find that the number density of galaxies brighter than $`M_b=19`$ is $`\rho _b=0.0076`$ Mpc-3 ($`h=0.7`$). We determine $`\overline{\rho }(<R_v)`$ by counting the number of cluster members $`N`$ within $`R_v`$ (weighting by the completeness given in Table 1) and assuming a spherical cluster geometry, so $`\overline{\rho }(<R_v)=3N/(4\pi R_v^3)`$. Substituting this into Equation 5, we need to solve $`R_v=0.465N^{1/3}`$. This is done iteratively, by first estimating $`R_v`$, counting the number of members $`N`$ within $`R_v`$, and then recomputing $`R_v`$. This is repeated until the solution converges, usually within $`3`$ iterations. These measurements of $`R_v`$ are given in column 7 of Table 1.

Alternatively, the virial radius can be determined directly from the velocity dispersion, under various assumptions, as outlined in Girardi et al. (1998). If $`M_v`$ is the virialised mass, and $`R_v`$ is the cluster virial radius, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\frac{3M_v}{4\pi \rho _cR_v^3}.$$
(6)
The virial mass can be related to the velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ and $`R_v`$ under the assumption of spherical symmetry, through

$$M_v=3G^1\sigma ^2R_v,$$
(7)
so we have

$$R_v=\frac{3\sigma }{4\pi G\rho _c\mathrm{\Delta }_c}=\sqrt{\frac{6}{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}}\sigma /H_0.$$
(8)
For either a flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ cosmology (with $`h=0.5`$) or the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated cosmology we have adopted ($`h=0.7`$), the virial radius in Mpc is $`R_v3.5\sigma (1+z)^{1.5}`$, for $`\sigma `$ in units of $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}000}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$.

For 9 of the 17 clusters, this calculation (listed as $`R_v`$ (alt.) in Table 1) agrees with the previous one to within $`20`$%. For most of the remaining cases, where there is a large discrepancy between the two measurements of $`R_v`$, the velocity histograms are significantly non-Gaussian, and thus the velocity dispersion is likely to be a poor tracer of the mass. For this reason, we will always adopt the first calculation of $`R_v`$ as the most likely to be correct. Moreover, this occaisional discrepancy, and the non-Gaussianity of the corresponding velocity histograms, likely implies that the computed velocity dispersions are not always simply related to the virialised mass. For example, some clusters (ED119, S0333, S0340) may have velocity dispersions which are artificially inflated by the presence of foreground and background structures. Thus, our division of the sample into two based on velocity dispersion may not reflect a perfect division into low- and high-mass clusters.

We will draw the reference field population from the 2400 galaxies more than $`6\sigma `$ from the cluster redshift; i.e. in the foreground and background of the clusters. Due to the small redshift range considered, $`0.05<z<0.1`$, and the use of an absolute luminosity limit, the field sample is also volume limited. The luminosity function of the field sample is comparable to that of the cluster sample, as shown in Fig. 4 (see also De Propris et al., 2002).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 General Cluster Properties

In Fig. 5 we show the distribution of normalized star formation rate, $`\mu ^{}`$, in the cluster and field samples, excluding galaxies with relatively strong \[Nii\]$`\lambda `$6583 emission (see Section 2.4). The cluster sample is limited to the 440 members within $`R_v`$, while the field sample is drawn from the 2400 galaxies beyond 6$`\sigma `$ in velocity. The difference between the distributions is highly significant111The probability that the two distributions are not drawn from the same population is $`>99.999`$% as determined by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test., with the field galaxy population weighted toward galaxies with stronger star formation.

### 3.2 Radial Dependences

It is well known that star formation activity in clusters increases with distance from the centre (Balogh et al., 1997, 1998, 1999). In Fig. 6 we show how the mean and median value of $`\mu ^{}`$ depend on radius in our cluster sample, and compare that with the field value. We also show, in the third panel, the fraction of galaxies with $`\mu ^{}>1`$, which represent the tail of the distribution, comprised of galaxies that are currently forming stars at a high rate relative to their luminosity. The sample is also broken up into clusters with high ($`\sigma >800`$ km s-1, triangles) and low velocity dispersions ($`\sigma <800`$ km s-1, crosses). The properties of the field sample are shown as the horizontal, solid line. The dashed lines bracketing the field line represent the 1-$`\sigma `$ standard deviation from field to field, computed by ordering the field galaxies in right ascension and treating every 200 galaxies as an individual sample. This gives some estimate of the expected cosmological variance in the field value.

All three statistics demonstrate that the cluster distribution of $`\mu ^{}`$ becomes equivalent to the field value only well outside the virial radius, at $`R>3R_v`$, in excellent agreement with preliminary results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (Gomez et al., 2002). The implications of this are that a representative sample of field galaxies cannot be obtained within $`<6`$ Mpc of the cluster core. Thus, photometric studies of clusters which attempt a statistical background subtraction by taking the field from the cluster outskirts (e.g. Kodama & Bower, 2001; Pimbblet et al., 2001b) are not subtracting enough star-forming galaxies, and artificially inflating the number of blue galaxies within the cluster.

Since many of the clusters are not spherically symmetric, the interpretation of radial gradients, and the physical meaning of $`R_v`$, is not straightforward. From Fig. 3 it is clear that there is often considerable structure, both within and without the virial radius. Furthermore, the galaxies with strongest H$`\alpha `$ emission (solid points in Fig. 3) appear to be spread evenly throughout the field, avoiding the densest regions, regardless of clustercentric distance. Thus, in the following section we consider the correlation between star formation rate and local density.

### 3.3 Density Dependences

There has been controversy over whether or not galaxy populations correlate most closely with cluster-centric radius (Whitmore et al., 1993) or local density (Dressler, 1980; Postman & Geller, 1984). If radius is the primary determinant anywhere, it is most likely only within the very central regions of the cluster (Domínguez et al., 2001). Studies which stack many clusters to approximate a spherically symmetric supercluster circumvent this difficulty, since average density becomes a monotonic function of radius within $`R_v`$ (e.g. Balogh et al., 1997, 1998). In our case, the outer regions of the clusters often contain several large groups or other clusters of galaxies (see Fig. 3). Thus, it is probably more appropriate to consider the local density of the galaxies as the most physically interesting variable.

To compute the local density of cluster members, we consider all galaxies in the spectroscopic catalogue (including those with bad ADC or H$`\alpha `$ measurements) brighter than $`M_b=19`$, and within 3$`\sigma `$ of the cluster redshift. We then take the distance to the tenth nearest galaxy, in projected radius, as $`r_{10}`$; the local projected density is then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=10/\pi r_{10}^2`$. For galaxies near the boundary of a cluster catalogue, this will underestimate the true density. To partially account for this, we only consider galaxies within 18 Mpc of the cluster centre, so they are at least 2 Mpc from the edge of the catalogue. In some cases, however, the current 2dFGRS database is incomplete within the 20 Mpc extracted area, and the densities of galaxies near these incomplete regions will still be underestimated.

In Fig. 7 we show the distribution of density, for galaxies in three radial bins. In the cluster centre, almost all galaxies are in regions of very high local density. However, at large radii galaxies can be found in a wide range of environments; in particular it is not uncommon to find galaxies at $`R>3R_v`$ with local densities as large as those within the virialized region. Within the virial radius, the distribution of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is similar for both high and low velocity dispersion clusters; the means are the same within $`5`$%, and the probability that both distributions are drawn from the same population is 0.12 as determined by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Between $`1<R_v<5`$, however, there is a significant ($`>99.999`$%) difference, and the mean local density of the clusters with $`\sigma >800`$ km s-1 is more than twice as large as that of the lower velocity dispersion clusters.

In Fig. 8, we show the properties of the cluster $`\mu ^{}`$ distribution, as in Fig. 6, but plotted against $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The vertical line shows the mean projected density of galaxies within the virial radius, $`N(<R_v)/\pi R_v^2`$ (note that this is not the same as the average of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ values calculated for each galaxy). As in Fig. 6, the horizontal lines show the values of each statistic in the field. The field actually spans a range of densities, likely similar to that seen far ($`>5R_v`$) from the cluster centre (see Fig. 7); however, our density estimate in clusters is a measure of the galaxy density projected along a line-of-sight column of unknown length, and thus cannot be directly applied to field galaxies to obtain a comparable measurement of local density. Thus, it is evident that star formation is suppressed at densities of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }1.5`$ galaxies Mpc-2, approximately 2.5 times lower than the mean projected density of the cluster virialized region.

As in Fig. 6, the star formation rate distribution at a given density is similar in both high- and low-velocity dispersion clusters. This suggests that galaxy star formation rates depend only on the local density, regardless of the larger-scale structure in which they are embedded, although we repeat our caution that the velocity dispersions may not be directly related to the cluster mass in all cases. Furthermore, as we show in Fig. 9, the correlation of star formation rate with density holds at $`r>2R_v`$, well outside the virialised cluster region. This demonstrates that star formation is low relative to the global average in any region exceeding the critical density of 1 galaxy (brighter than $`M_b=19`$) per Mpc2, regardless of its proximity to a rich cluster (see also Postman & Geller, 1984).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Comparison with the morphology-density relation

We have shown that the dependence of star formation rate on local galaxy density is independent of cluster velocity dispersion and thus, presumably, mass (see Section 3.3). In a recent photometric study based on Hubble Space Telescope imaging of 17 clusters, Balogh et al. (2002) found some evidence that the morphology-density relation does depend on cluster X-ray luminosity, which is likely to be a better tracer of mass than velocity dispersion; at a given local density, low-mass clusters have more disk-dominated galaxies than high-mass clusters. Furthermore, they showed that this is most likely due to a difference in the population of galaxy bulges; the disk luminosity function at a fixed local density does not depend on cluster mass. Since star formation is generally limited to the galaxy disk, our results are consistent with this picture. The luminosity of a disk, and its star-forming activity, depend only on galaxy density, while the luminosity of the bulge component has an additional, small dependence on the mass of the embedding structure.

It would be of great interest to compare the dependence of $`\mu ^{}`$ on density with the similar density-dependence of morphology, to determine the degree to which the two correlations are independent. In particular, any difference between the two shows that cluster galaxies differ from their morphological counterparts in the field, which supports the hypothesis that they have undergone a physical transformation (Balogh et al., 1998). However, we note that this test is not conclusive; if the star formation rate of a spiral galaxy is reduced gradually, on timescales similar to that for morphological change, the correlation between morphology and star formation rate may be retained, despite the transformation.

Unfortunately, morphological classifications are not yet available for our sample. However, we can use the local morphology-density relation computed by Dressler (1980), assuming that it is universal. The luminosity limit of our sample ($`M_b=19`$) is similar to that of Dressler, $`M_b19.2`$, after accounting for the difference in cosmology and making the transformation $`M_b=M_V+0.72(BV)`$, assuming an average galaxy colour $`BV=0.8`$ (Fukugita et al., 1995). Thus, our density measurements should be comparable. We will assume that the field galaxy sample is composed of 18% E, 23% S0 and 59% spiral and irregular galaxies (Whitmore et al., 1993; Dressler et al., 1997). We therefore divide the field galaxy $`\mu ^{}`$ distribution (Fig 5) into three populations, identifying the lowest 18% of $`\mu ^{}`$ values with the E population, the next 23% with the S0s, and the remainder with spirals. It is then straightforward to recompute the statistics shown in Fig. 8 for any morphological mix. We show the expected $`\mu ^{}`$-density relation computed in this way, assuming Dressler’s morphology-density relation, as the solid curves in Fig. 8. Two things are immediately clear. First, at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ Mpc-2, the lowest density point in Dressler’s study, the cluster morphological mix is close to that adopted for the field, so the predicted curve is in good agreement with our measurements. Note that this is dependent on an accurate determination of the early-type fraction in the field, estimates of which have increased from the 20% adopted by Dressler (1980), to 30% (Sandage & Tammann, 1981), adopted by Postman & Geller (1984), and finally to the 41% used here and elsewhere (Whitmore et al., 1993; Dressler et al., 1997). This high value for the early-type fraction is a consequence of the bright luminosity limit, and is consistent with that derived from type-dependent luminosity functions of Marzke et al. (1994, 40% at $`M^{}`$). The second point is that the predicted $`\mu ^{}`$-density correlation appears to be shallower than the observed relation. This suggests that the morphology-density relation may be distinct from the star formation-density relation. In making this comparison we have made the extreme assumption that the lowest values of $`\mu ^{}`$ are associated with elliptical galaxies, and the highest values with spiral galaxies. Any dispersion in the natural morphology-$`\mu ^{}`$ relation will serve to further flatten the predicted $`\mu ^{}`$-density relation and increase the discrepancy with the data. On the other hand, there is an important caveat, as Dressler (1980) did not subdivide the late-type morphology class, and Sa galaxies are known to have much less current star formation than irregular galaxies (Kennicutt, 1992; Jansen et al., 2000). If the fraction of Sa galaxies relative to later types increases with density, this will steepen the curves in Fig. 8.

### 4.2 Possible mechanisms: comparison with theoretical models

These results show conclusively that suppressed star formation is not limited to the cores of rich clusters, but is found in any environment in which the local projected galaxy density exceeds one galaxy brighter than $`M_b=19`$ per Mpc-2. This is in approximate agreement with the results of Kodama et al. (2001), though a direct comparison is not possible because that survey probes much deeper down the luminosity function, so the local projected galaxy densities are higher in the same environments. Whatever mechanism is responsible for terminating star formation in galaxies, then, is not particular to the cores of rich clusters, but is associated with dense groups in the cluster infall regions as well. This means that ram pressure stripping of galaxy disks cannot be completely responsible for the correlation of star formation with local density, since this is only expected to take place in the cores of rich clusters (Gunn & Gott, 1972; Fujita, 2001; Quilis et al., 2000).

Most hierarchical models of galaxy formation do not include a calculation of ram-pressure stripping of the cold, disk gas, nor of other physical processes like galaxy harassment (Moore et al., 1999) which might play a role in dense environments. The only environmental effect on star formation rate in these models – apart from a possible difference in merging history – is related to the hot, halo gas hypothesised to surround every isolated galaxy. It is assumed that galaxies maintain the supply of cold gas – fuel for star formation – via continuous cooling from a hot, diffuse gas halo associated with the dark matter potential (Somerville & Primack, 1999; Kauffmann et al., 1999; Cole et al., 2000). In haloes with more than one galaxy, this hot gas is only associated with the central galaxy; satellite galaxies are assumed to lose their supply of fresh fuel through ram pressure stripping and tidal effects (though these are not directly modelled). In these models, therefore, star formation rates begin to decline for any satellite galaxy, whether in a poor group or a rich cluster.

These models are able to reproduce radial gradients in star formation within the virial radius of clusters to a remarkably high degree of accuracy (Diaferio et al., 2001; Okamoto & Nagashima, 2001). In particular, Diaferio et al. (2001) predict that the mean star formation rate should be equivalent to the field value beyond $`2R_v`$, in physical (i.e. not projected) space. The model of Balogh et al. (2000) is a greatly simplified version of this more complete model, as the properties of the field galaxy population are not modelled directly, but are taken empirically from observations of the $`z0.3`$ field. The advantage is that the effects of the halo-stripping can be seen directly, since that is the only physical process (apart from gravity) which is accounted for. In Fig. 10, we show the predictions of this model, for the mean star formation rate relative to the field, as a function of local projected density. The simulations on which the model is based were kindly provided by Julio Navarro. Here, local density is defined as the projected surface mass density, computed by finding the radius encompassing the ten nearest (in projection) particles in the simulations. The model is the “group” model in Fig. 1 of Balogh et al. (2000); galaxies are assumed to lose their reservoir of hot gas when they are associated with a group with circular velocity $`V_c>600`$km s-1. While a direct comparison with the data is not possible, since these simulations only provide the dark matter density, a comparison relative to the mean surface density within $`R_v`$ should be fair if mass traces light. First we note that the approximately power-law dependence on local projected density has a similar slope in the data and the model; the mean star formation rate decreases by a factor of $`3`$ for every factor 10 increase in surface density. Secondly, in the model the correlation flattens out at surface densities $`1/7`$ that of the mean projected density within $`R_v`$. Although this threshold is a factor $`2`$ lower than seen in the data, given the crudity of the model, we consider the agreement reassuring. Unfortunately, the simulations used in this model did not include a large enough volume to probe beyond a few $`R_v`$. Thus, the low density regions in the simulations are not drawn from the same regions in space as the low density regions in the observations, most of which are found well beyond $`2R_v`$.

Thus, models in which halo-stripping is the only direct environmental-influence on the galaxy star formation rate provide a reasonably good match to the data. This is especially remarkable given that the stripping is not even directly modelled; it is simply assumed that every satellite galaxy has no reservoir of hot gas, immediately after it merges with a larger halo. Improvement in this respect alone may well improve the models’ success in the lower density regions, far from the cluster core.

### 4.3 Consequences on the evolution of the global star formation rate

What mechanisms are responsible for driving the strong observed evolution of the global star formation rate (e.g. Lilly et al., 1996)? One possibility is that the decline in star formation activity is related to physics internal to individual galaxies — for example, consumption of a limited gas supply, or a time-dependent cooling rate — regardless of their environment. On the other hand, some of the decline is likely to be tied to the hierarchical growth of structure; as time progresses, more and more galaxies are locked up in clusters where, perhaps, star formation is directly inhibited.

According to extended Press-Schechter theory (Bower, 1991; Bond et al., 1991) the fraction of mass in haloes greater than $`10^{14}M_{}`$, approximately the limit of our cluster sample, is only 11% at the present day, and negligible by $`z=1`$. Thus it is not immediately obvious that the lower star formation rates in these systems can have any effect on the global average. However, we have shown that lower star formation rates are seen in environments with densities $`0.3`$ times lower than the mean cluster density, regardless of their proximity to the cluster. This density corresponds approximately to the density at the virial radius; by definition, if mass traces light then any virialised structure will have a mean density which exceeds this threshold. Since our density estimate is based on the tenth nearest galaxy brighter than $`M_b=19`$, we cannot be sure how our results apply to systems with fewer than ten such galaxies. A virialised system with more than ten galaxies brighter than this limit is expected to have a total gravitational mass $`M>10^{13}M_{}`$, assuming a total mass-to-light ratio of 100 (e.g. Girardi et al., 2002). In contrast with the more massive clusters, these haloes account for $`35`$% of the mass in the present day Universe, and contribute significantly to the global average star formation rate. Furthermore, at $`z=1`$ only about 10% of the mass was in such environments; the rapid growth to $`z=0`$ on these mass scales may well be able to explain the rapid evolution in the global star formation rate. The hypothesis that the growth of structure is largely responsible for the observed decline in star formation with cosmic time (e.g. Lilly et al., 1996) therefore becomes much more attractive.

## 5 Conclusions

We have presented a study of seventeen known galaxy clusters, using redshifts and H$`\alpha `$ equivalent widths measured from 2dFGRS spectra. We have used this to trace the dependence of relative star formation rates as a function of radius and local density. We conclude the following:

* The distribution of star formation rates is correlated with both distance from the cluster centre, and with local projected density. The distribution becomes equivalent to that of the global average for radii $`>3R_v`$, and local projected densities $`<0.3`$ times that of the mean cluster virialized region. These results are in good agreement with preliminary results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (Gomez et al., 2002).
* The correlation between star formation rate and local projected density holds for galaxies more than two virial radii from the cluster centre. Thus, star formation rates depend primarily on the local density, regardless of their proximity to a rich cluster.
* This means that galaxy transformation is not primarily driven by processes like ram pressure stripping, which only operate in the most extreme environments, but by processes which are effective in lower density, group environments.
* The dependence of star formation rate on density is the same for clusters with $`\sigma >800`$ km s-1 and for clusters with $`\sigma <800`$ km s-1, which implies that the star formation rate is insensitive to the global, large-scale structure in which the galaxy is embedded.
* The correlation between star formation and density that is predicted from the morphology-density relation of Dressler (1980) is less steep than observed. This provides conditional support for the view that the correlations with density are due to physical transformation of galaxies in dense regions, and that morphological change occurs on a different timescale from changes to the current star formation rate. However, it may also be explained by a lower fraction of early type spiral galaxies, relative to late types.

## Acknowledgements

We thank an anonymous referee for useful comments. MLB acknowledges support from a PPARC rolling grant for extragalactic astronomy at Durham. R.D.P. and W.J.C. acknowledge funding from the Australian Research Council. We thank Julio Navarro for providing the numerical simulations, and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey collaboration for sharing their results in advance of publication. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the staff of the Anglo-Australian Observatory for their assistance supporting 2dF throughout the survey, and of the Australian and UK time assignment committees for their continued support for this project.


text:
# Optical potentials of halo and weakly bound nuclei

## 1 Introduction

In the last years since the advent of Radioactive Beams (RIBs)  a new phenomenon called ’nuclear halo’  has appeared in nuclear physics. In typical halo nuclei such as 11Be, 19C or $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ - the valence neutron (proton) or the last couple of neutrons, as in 11Li, occupy weakly bound single particle states of low angular momentum (s or p). The single particle wave function of a nucleon halo has a long tail which extends mostly outside the potential well. Then the reactions initiated by such nuclei give large reaction cross sections and neutron breakup cross sections. Also the ejectile parallel momentum distributions following breakup can be very narrow, typically $`4045MeV/c`$.

Elastic nucleus-nucleus scattering with a radioactive projectile  is another reaction which has been studied to some extent in the attempt to find characteristics that would be typical for a weakly bound nucleus and would help understanding the halo structure. It has been established that the halo breakup is responsible for a damping in the elastic angular distribution in the range 5o-20o about. Recently charge exchange reactions which produce radioactive nuclei in the final state, have also been studied. The effect of the halo breakup is very dramatic in this case, reducing the absolute cross sections by about 50%.

All theoretical methods used to describe the above mentioned reactions, require at some stage of the calculation the knowledge of the nucleus-nucleus optical potential. The optical potential is the basic ingredient for the description of elastic scattering, but it is important also in breakup calculations, since we need to take into account the core quasi-elastic scattering by the target while the halo neutron breaks up. Furthermore in some breakup reactions like those initiated from 12Be or from a core orbital of 11Be it is the ejectile that most likely is going to have a halo structure . In the charge exchange reaction $`{}_{}{}^{11}B(^7Li,^7Be)^{11}Be`$ the halo nucleus-nucleus optical potential necessary to describe the final channel has a volume part obtained with a double folding plus a very diffuse surface term fitted phenomenologically to reproduce the final channel angular distribution.

The problem of the determination of the optical potential for a halo projectile has already been studied by many authors and a review of the present situation can be found in . One method is to start from a phenomenologically determined core-target potential and then the effect of the breakup of the halo neutron is added. This process leads to adding a surface part to the core-target potential. This new surface peaked optical potential has been seen to have a quite long range which should reflect the properties of the long tail of the halo neutron wave function. Such kind of potentials are often called dynamical polarization potentials.

The papers published so far can be divided in two categories: those in which the potential is calculated microscopically -, and those in which it is obtained phenomenologically by fitting elastic or quasielastic data .

In this contribution we propose a new approach to the calculation of the imaginary part of the optical potential due to breakup. It is based on a semiclassical method described by Broglia and Winter in  and used also by Brink and collaborators  to calculate the surface optical potential due to transfer and on the Bonaccorso and Brink model for transfer to the continuum reactions-. The latter is based on the idea that breakup is a reaction following the same dynamics as transfer but leading manly to continuum final states for incident energies per nucleon higher that the average nucleon binding energy. The calculations are almost completely analytical and we will show that a simple approximated formula can be obtained which will help us discussing the origin of the long range nature of the potential and its dependence on the incident energy as well as on the initial neutron binding energy. The characteristics of our potential are consistent with those of potentials obtained with other methods, in particular our theory is close in spirit to the eikonal method of Canto et al. and application to the description of experimental data are encouraging.

## 2 Theory

The method we will present here is based on the extraction of an optical potential from the calculation of a phase shift.

The elastic scattering probability is $`P_{el}=|S_{NN}|^2`$, given in terms of the nucleus-nucleus S-matrix. We know that

$$|S_{NN}(b)|^2=e^{4\delta _I(b)}.$$
(1)
In a semiclassical approximation , the imaginary part of the nucleus-nucleus phase shift $`\delta _I`$ is related to the imaginary part of the optical potential by

$$\delta _I(b)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left(W_V(𝐫(t))+W_S(𝐫(t))\right)𝑑t$$
(2)
where the volume potential is responsible for the usual inelastic core-target interaction, while the surface term takes care of the peripheral reactions like transfer and breakup. $`𝐫(t)=𝐛+vt`$ is the classical trajectory of relative motion for the nucleus-nucleus collision.

According to - the surface optical potential $`W_S(𝐫(t))`$ due to transfer can be related to the transfer probability by

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}W_S(𝐫(t))𝑑t=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\underset{(i,n)}{}P_n^{(i)}$$
(3)
where $`P_n^{(i)}`$ are the transfer probabilities in the various channels n. In the traditional formulation the index (i) stands for stripping and pickup to bound states, here we extend it to hold for breakup reactions in which the final neutron state is in the continuum. Breakup of both absorptive and diffractive type will be included. Absorptive breakup has often been called stripping within the halo community. The justification of the use of Eq.(3) to calculate the imaginary potential due to breakup is simply given by the analogy between breakup and transfer as expressed by the transfer to the continuum model introduced in Refs.-. There it was shown that the formalism for transfer to bound states goes over transfer to the continuum in a natural way if the kinematics of the reaction is taken into account correctly within a time dependent approach which ensures neutron energy conservation.

Using Eq.(2) and (3), in (1) the nucleus-nucleus S-matrix, in the case of a halo projectile, can be written as

$$|S_{NN}|^2=|S_{CT}|^2e^{P_{b_{up}}}$$
(4)
where $`S_{CT}`$ takes into account all core-target interactions while the term $`e^{P_{b_{up}}}`$ depends only on the halo neutron breakup probability. For a halo nucleus at high incident energy the transfer probability is going to be much smaller than the breakup probability, therefore the surface potential has be identified here with the breakup potential.

In order to obtain the surface imaginary potential equation (3) should be calculated as an identity in the distance of closest approach, which amounts to require that $`W_S(r)`$ be a local, angular momentum independent function. We remind the reader that since we are using a semiclassical method, the non locality, which is in principle a characteristic of microscopic optical potentials has been transformed into an energy dependence.

Now we discuss the hypothesis leading to Eq.(4). The reactions with halo projectiles we are concerned with in this paper have been performed at energies well above the Coulomb barrier where many inelastic channels open at about the same distance of closest approach. The effect of the breakup is most important at large distances ($`b>R_s`$) of closest approach, where it represents the dominant reaction mechanism. If the breakup probability is needed at smaller impact parameters, then the values calculated by perturbation theory, have to be multiplied by the core survival probability, as discussed in Eq.(V.8.1) of Broglia and Winther and also used in relation to halo breakup by several authors. The effect of all inelastic channels $`n`$ different from the one we are interested in, can be taken into account by introducing a damping factor $`P_0`$. Therefore the breakup probability $`P_{b_{up}}`$ at all distances can be defined as

$$P_{b_{up}}=p_{b_{up}}\underset{n}{}(1p_n)p_{b_{up}}\mathrm{exp}(\underset{n}{}p_n)=p_{b_{up}}P_0$$
(5)
Each elementary inelastic probability $`p_n`$ and breakup probability $`p_{b_{up}}`$ is small and $`p_{b_{up}}`$ in particular, can be calculated in time dependent perturbation theory, as done in . In this paper we will treat only the nuclear breakup channels, which are important for light targets. In the case of heavy targets also the Coulomb breakup has to be taken into account.

In reactions with halo projectiles the damping factor $`P_0`$ has also been referred to as the core survival probability after the halo breakup or as the core elastic scattering probability. The breakup probability Eq.(5) integrated over the impact parameter b has been widely used in the literature to get total breakup cross sections.

The breakup probability $`p_{b_{up}}`$ with the index $`b_{up}`$ standing for one neutron breakup can be obtained by integrating the neutron energy or momentum spectrum as given for example in .

$$p_{b_{up}}𝑑\epsilon _f\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l_f}(|1S_{l_f}|^2+1|S_{l_f}|^2)B(l_f,l_i).$$
(6)
It is important to remark that the above expression takes into account to all orders the neutron target final state interaction via an energy and angular momentum dependent optical model wave function of the breakup neutron. In this way neutron elastic scattering and absorption are treated consistently via an unitary S-matrix. Eq.(6) is the neutron transfer probability from a definite single particle state of energy $`\epsilon _i`$, momentum $`\gamma _i=\sqrt{2m\epsilon _i}/\mathrm{}`$, and angular momentum $`l_i`$ in the projectile to all possible final continuum state of energy $`\epsilon _f`$, momentum $`k_f=\sqrt{2m\epsilon _f}/\mathrm{}`$. It is the sum of the transfer probabilities to each possible final $`l_f`$-state for a given final energy $`\epsilon _f`$. In Ref. it was shown that the first term of Eq.(6), proportional to $`|1S_{l_f}|^2`$ , gives the neutron elastic breakup spectrum while the second term proportional to the transmission coefficient $`T=1|S_{l_f}|^2`$ gives the absorption spectrum. This term contains contributions from inelastic scattering of the breakup neutron by the target nucleus and also from compound nucleus formation.

The factor $`B(l_f,l_i)`$ is an elementary transfer probability which depends on the details of the initial and final states, on the energy of relative motion and on the distance of closest approach $`b`$ between the two nuclei. Its explicit expression reads:

$$B_{l_f,l_i}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{mv}\right]^2\frac{m}{\mathrm{}^2k_f}(2l_f+1)|C_i|^2\frac{e^{2\eta b}}{2\eta b}P_{l_i}(X_i)P_{l_f}(X_f),$$
(7)
where $`X_i=2(\eta /\gamma _i)^21`$, $`X_f=2(\eta /k_f)^2+1`$. Also $`k_1=(\epsilon _i\epsilon _f+\frac{1}{2}mv^2)/(\mathrm{}v)`$ and $`k_2=(\epsilon _i\epsilon _f\frac{1}{2}mv^2)/(\mathrm{}v)`$ are the $`z`$ components of the neutron momentum in the initial and final state, respectively. $`\eta ^2=k_1^2+\gamma _i^2=k_2^2k_f^2`$ is the modulus square of the transverse component of the neutron momentum. $`mv^2/2`$ is the incident energy per nucleon at the distance of closest approach $`b`$ for the ion-ion collision. $`|C_i|^2`$ is the asymptotic normalization constant of the initial state wave function and $`P_{l_i}`$ and $`P_{l_f}`$ are Legendre polynomials coming from the angular parts of the initial and final wave functions respectively . Coulomb breakup can be taken into account as well, following the formalism of . One advantage of calculating the breakup probability by Eq.(7) is that no sudden approximation hypothesis is made and thus the method is valid also for any initial separation energy.

In Eqs.(6) the main dependence on the core-target distance of closest approach $`b`$ is contained in the exponential factor $`e^{2\eta b}`$. Equation (7) has a maximum in correspondence to the minimum value of $`\eta =\gamma _i`$. Therefore after integrating over $`\epsilon _f`$ the $`b`$-dependence of the breakup probability $`p_{b_{up}}(b)`$ will still be of the exponential form $`p_{b_{up}}(b)e^{b/\alpha }`$ with $`\alpha (2\gamma _i)^1`$ where $`\gamma _i`$ is the decay length of the neutron initial state wave function. We now assume at large distances, where $`P_0=1`$ the same exponential dependence for the absorptive potential, $`W_S(r)=W_0e^{r/\alpha }`$ and as indicated earlier on, a straight line parameterization for the trajectory $`𝐫(t)=𝐛+vt`$, then Eq.(3) reads

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}W_S(b,z)𝑑z=\frac{\mathrm{}v}{2}p_{b_{up}}(b).$$
(8)
The LHS can be approximately evaluated as

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}W_S(b,z)𝑑z=W_0{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}e^{(b+\frac{z^2}{2b})/\alpha }𝑑z=W_0\sqrt{2\pi b\alpha }e^{b/\alpha },`$ (9)
where we assumed $`b>>z`$ in the second step. Equating the RHS of Eqs.(8) and (9) and renaming the distance $`b`$ as $`r`$ gives

$`W_S(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}v}{2}}p_{b_{up}}(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha r}}}`$ (10)
The exponential form of $`W_S(r)`$ implies that the strength of the breakup potential be a function of $`r`$. However we know that in nuclear induced peripheral reactions like breakup and transfer most of the cross section comes from impact parameters around the strong absorption radius. Therefore writing $`p_{b_{up}}(r)p_{b_{up}}(R_s)e^{(rR_s)/\alpha }`$ we finally get that Eq.(10) can be written as

$$W_S(r)W_0e^{\frac{rR_s}{\alpha }}$$
(11)
where

$$W_0W_0(R_s)=\frac{\mathrm{}v}{2}p_{b_{up}}(R_s)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha R_s}},$$
(12)
which gives an estimate of the strength parameter of the surface breakup potential at the typical distance $`R_s`$.

Equation (11) has a number of interesting features. First of all it shows explicitly that the long range nature of the breakup potential originates from the large decay length of the initial state wave function. For a typical halo separation energy of 0.5MeV, $`\alpha =(2\gamma _i)^1=3.2fm`$, while for a ’normal’ binding energy of 10MeV, $`\alpha =0.7fm`$ as expected. Therefore the parameter $`\alpha `$ will depend only on the projectile characteristics and not on the target. Furthermore looking at Eqs. (11) and (12) we notice that for a fixed initial state the strength of the potential will be larger the smaller the neutron binding energy. On the other hand for a fixed binding energy the potential strength will be lower the higher the initial angular momentum. Finally the strength parameter $`W_0`$ is seen to be energy dependent from different sources. If we consider $`R_s`$, the typical distance at which the strength is calculated, to be the same at all energies, then the energy dependence of $`W_0`$ is given by its linear dependence on the velocity of relative motion $`v`$, which is a function of the projectile-target combination. Another energy dependence is trough the breakup probability, whose behaviour in turn is determined in part by the neutron-target energy dependent optical potential. At the large distances we are interested in, the overall energy dependence of the breakup probability is an exponential decrease with incident energy due to the dependence on $`v`$ and on the neutron-target optical potential. Therefore $`W_0`$ is expected to rise up to about 40 A.MeV and then to decrease at higher energies. Another interesting way to look at the behaviour of the strength $`W_0`$ is to consider instead explicitly that the strong absorption radius $`R_s`$ is itself decreasing with energy. If we take this dependence into account, then $`W_0`$ increases up to about 80 A.MeV and then starts to decrease. However the precise energy dependence of $`R_s`$ requires an accurate knowledge of the energy dependence of the core-target volume optical potential. This is beyond the scope of the present work, therefore we will discuss the energy dependence of the surface potential at a fixed distance large enough to have unit core survival probability at all incident energies.

It is very well known that the dynamical polarization potential due to surface reactions gives rise also to a correction to the real part of the nucleus-nucleus optical potential. In terms of Feshbach potential both the real and imaginary parts of the dynamical polarization potential come from the second order term and therefore the real polarization term gives a correction to the first order term, which is purely real and it is often referred to as the folding potential. The relative magnitude of this correction with respect to the first order real potential depends on the system involved and on the incident energy. One characteristic of the real dynamical potential, discussed by many authors is to become repulsive at some energies. The imaginary polarization potential on the other hand is by definition negative from Eq.(10). The real dynamical potential is expected to have the same exponential dependence as the imaginary part. The simple and consistent way we have used here to obtain its strength is by applying a dispersion relation.

### 2.1 Dispersion relation

The theoretical optical potential is highly nonlocal and energy dependent. In most applications it is replaced by an equivalent local potential $`U(r,E)=V_R(r,E)+\mathrm{\Delta }V(r,E)+iW(r,E)`$. The term $`V_R`$ is usually associated with the folding potential and contains a spurious energy dependence due to the finite range of the underlying nucleon-nucleon effective interaction and Pauli principle. We have further assumed that the imaginary potential splits into contributions coming from coupling to breakup ($`W_S`$) and other inelastic excitations ($`W_V`$) so that $`W(r,E)=W_V(r,E)+W_S(r,E)`$. The real part of the dynamic polarization potential (DPP) arising from coupling of elastic channel to the breakup is calculated from the dispersion relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V(r,E)=\frac{P}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{W_S(r,E^{})dE^{}}{E^{}E}.$$
(13)
The numerical evaluation of this term requires the knowledge of the imaginary potential at all energies. Our model provides accurate values in a limited range of energies $`E<1600`$ MeV for which the nucleon target potential is known with reasonable accuracy. At higher energies we assume a reasonable energy dependence of the form $`W_SE^1`$ in such a way that the integral in Eq. (13) converges and it can be evaluated accurately for the energies of interest. An algebraic exact model similar to that used in  has been used to check the numerical accuracy.

## 3 Results

In order to sample the quantitative accuracy of the simple analytical model presented above we discuss now some numerical examples. The potentials we will discuss derive from the breakup of the $`2s_{1/2}`$ and $`1p_{1/2}`$ states of $`{}_{}{}^{11}Be`$, with separation energies $`0.5MeV`$ and $`0.18MeV`$ respectively. It has been shown that during the charge exchange reaction of , $`{}_{}{}^{11}Be`$ can be populated in the final channel in either the ground state or the first $`1/2^{}`$ excited state. There are in the literature a number of papers discussing the breakup potential for a $`{}_{}{}^{11}Li`$ projectile, among others . $`{}_{}{}^{11}Be`$ breakup from the $`2s`$ has been discussed in . However the potential due to breakup of the $`1p_{1/2}`$ bound excited state has never been discussed before.

The neutron-target optical potential used here to calculate the breakup probabilities is the same as in . The core survival probability has been parameterized as

$$P_0(b)=|S_{CT}|^2=exp(ln2e^{[(R_sb)/a]}),$$
(14)
where $`a=0.6fm`$ and the strong absorption radius $`R_s=1.4(A_P^{1/3}+A_T^{1/3})fm`$.

We start by showing in Fig.(1) the radial shapes of the potentials calculated for the breakup from the $`2s`$ and $`1p_{1/2}`$ states of $`{}_{}{}^{11}Be`$ in the interaction with $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ relevant to the charge exchange reaction of . In both figures we show results for two laboratory scattering energies for the ion-ion system: $`E=57MeV`$ (dashed lines) and $`E=550MeV`$ (solid lines). The lines with symbols correspond to the exponential approximation for the potentials, Eqs.(10), (11), (12) while the lines without symbols are obtained from Eq.(10) using for the breakup probability the $`P_{b_{up}}p_{b_{up}}P_0`$ definition valid at all distances. The potential due to the $`1p_{1/2}`$ state breakup is about one order of magnitude weaker than the potential due to the $`2s`$ state, although the binding energy is smaller. This is due to the fact that for $`l>0`$ states the effect of the centrifugal barrier hinders breakup. Our results show a strong dependence of the potential on the incident energy (compare solid and dashed lines) and also a quite strong state dependence. In fact in the case of the s-state the diffusness of the potential is about 2.3fm, while for the p-state is about 2fm while the strength for the s-state is about five times more than for the p-state. The values of the diffusness are slightly smaller than the estimate given in Sec.2 because of the integration over the neutron final energy of the breakup probability. Finally we would like to stress that the internal part of the surface polarization potential has no effect on the nucleus-nucleus scattering as it can be seen also from the nucleus-nucleus S-matrix of Fig. (2) which we are going to discuss next.

Another important application is in fact to see how the elastic scattering total probability changes as a function of the impact parameter or angular momentum when there is a strong breakup probability. In Fig.(2) we show the core-target S-matrix, $`S_{CT}`$ of Eq.(14) (solid line) and the nucleus-nucleus S-matrix $`S_{NN}`$ (dashed line) from Eq.(4), calculated with $`P_{b_{up}}=p_{b_{up}}`$, which contains the effect of the halo breakup. In this case the exponential approximation for the surface potential is used at all distances. At a fixed impact parameter ( or angular momentum) the effect of the breakup is to reduce the elastic probability given by the modulus square of the S-matrix. The unitarity limit is attained at much larger b-values and the reaction cross section receives significant contributions from a large range of impact parameters. This result is analogous to the discussion reported in . The reduction is more pronounced at the impact parameters larger than the strong absorption radius. The value of the strong absorption radius does not change appreciably because it is mainly determined by the core-target interaction which is strongly absorptive. On the other hand it is in a sense obvious that surface reactions such as breakup would change the S-matrix behaviour at large impact parameters where they represent the dominant reaction channels.

The dotted line is the S-matrix also calculated from Eq.(4) but this time we have used $`P_{b_{up}}=p_{b_{up}}P_0`$ with $`P_0`$ given by Eq.(14). With this prescription one gets an imaginary breakup potential valid at all distances. The fact that the two S-matrices (dashed and dotted line) are hardly distinguishable is a proof of the fact that elastic scattering is not sensitive to the internal part of the polarization potential.

Fig. (3) contains the energy dependence of the imaginary and real strengths of the dynamical polarization potential due to breakup of the halo neutron in the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{11}Be+^9Be`$. The solid line gives the energy dependence of the imaginary potential calculated at the fixed distance 7 fm which is slightly larger than the sum of the projectile and target radii. This distance is about the smallest at which absorption into channels other than breakup can be neglected and the core survival probability is $`P_0=1`$. The real part of the potential obtained from the dispersion relation is given by the dashed line. It shows a change of sign which gives a repulsive real potential from around the energy (70A.MeV) at which the imaginary part starts to have a clear decrease toward zero. This is the obvious and consistent result of having applied the dispersion relation. Physically it means that the mean field will prevent from entering the interaction region those waves that cannot be absorbed.

Since the optical potential has one of its most interesting application in the calculation of elastic scattering angular distributions, we finally show in Fig.(4a) an example for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{11}Be+^{12}C`$ at 49.3 A.MeV. The data are from P.Russel-Chomaz et al. . The optical model parameters for the volume parts of the bare potential are taken from  and were fitted to $`{}_{}{}^{10}Be`$ elastic scattering data at 59.4 A.MeV. They are

$$V_R=123MeV,r_R=0.75fm,a_R=0.8fm,$$

$$W_V=65MeV,r_I=0.78fm,a_I=0.8fm.$$

In our case we have defined the real and imaginary radii by multiplying the radius parameters by $`(11^{1/3}+12^{1/3})`$, in order to take into account in the volume potential the presence of the extra neutron with respect to the core. The consequences of this choice are discussed in the following in relation to Fig.(4b).

In Fig (4a) the solid line is the calculation with the bare volume potential. The dashed line is obtained instead including the surface imaginary potential calculated according to the method proposed in this work. The large diffusivity in the breakup absorption leads to changes in the S-matrix in all partial waves as discussed above and the angular distribution is damped. The inclusion of the real polarization potential (dotted line) gives a negligible modification to the quality of the fit since its strength (-0.15MeV) at this incident energy (50 A.MeV) is very small with respect to the volume part. Also variations in the strength of the imaginary surface potential up to about 30% result in negligible differences in the angular distribution. As expected the effect of breakup is to suppress scattering at all angles larger than about 5o. The angular distribution shows the usual Fraunhofer oscillations at small angles followed by an almost exponential decrease of the cross section due to a far side dominance. No Airy like oscillation are seen since the absorption is already too strong.

In order to clarify the dependence of the calculated angular distribution on the choice of the radius parameters of the bare potential, in Fig (4b) we show again the data and the angular distribution with the bare potential as in Fig(4a) (full line), plus the angular distribution with the bare potential in which the radii have been calculated from the above radius parameters but multiplied by $`(10^{1/3}+12^{1/3})`$ (dotted line). This is to show that, as expected, a small decrease in the radius of the optical potential would give a slight shift toward larger angles. With the dotdashed line we show instead the calculation done with the radii chosen as $`R_R=r_R(11^{1/3}+12^{1/3})`$fm and $`R_I=r_I(10^{1/3}+12^{1/3})`$fm. This calculation agrees very well with the full line calculation up to about 10o. For larger angles only a change in the magnitude of the cross section is seen while there is no shift in the peak position, which is then determined by the radius of the real volume potential.

Another significant effect of the imaginary surface potential is seen in the calculated total reaction cross section given in Table I. We obtain an increase of 150 mb with respect to the bare (no breakup) optical potential mainly due to an increase of about 10% in the rms radius and 5% in the volume integral of the absorption. The increase in the reaction cross section is very close to the total breakup cross section $`\sigma _{b_{up}}170`$ mb expected at this energy. This is consistent with the hypothesis that $`P_{b_{up}}`$ is small in Eq.(4). In fact expanding the exponential in Eq.(4) to first order in $`P_{b_{up}}`$ and integrating over the impact parameter b one immediately finds

$$\sigma _{NN}\sigma _{CT}+\sigma _{b_{up}}$$
(15)
In the case of the charge exchange reaction the effect of the surface breakup potential is more dramatic, giving a decrease in the cross section of about 50% necessary to fit the data.

## 4 Conclusions

In conclusion we have presented a simple analytical method to obtain the surface component of the real and imaginary parts of the nucleus-nucleus optical potential in the case in which one partner of the reaction is a halo or weakly bound nucleus. The main purpose here was to relate the characteristics of the potential to the special properties of the breakup channel for weakly bound nuclei. The evaluation of the potential amounts in fact just to the calculation of the breakup probability. If breakup from core excited states is to be included, then it suffices to sum up the relative probabilities according to Eq.(3).

The method is an extension of that previously used to calculate microscopically the effect of transfer channels on the imaginary potential. The shape of the surface imaginary potential and its parameters are determined univocally by the shape of the breakup form factor. An interesting result is that the diffusness of the potential reflects the decay length of the neutron wave function entering breakup and therefore depends mainly upon the projectile characteristics, but in a model independent way. The strength parameter has a rather complicated but physically understandable energy dependence which we have discussed. At a given distance the uncertainty on the strength would be of about 30%, reflecting mainly the model dependence of the breakup probability values . The real potential has been obtained via the use of a dispersion relation and shows the interesting property of becoming repulsive when the imaginary part starts to decrease due to the closing up of the breakup channel when the energy becomes too high. Sample calculations have shown that the potential proposed here is consistent with other theoretical models Refs. for similar, light halo systems and also with existing experimental data. Furthermore we have given an explicit justification for the long range of the polarization potential as coming from the small decay length of the initial neutron wave function.