text:
# Reheating as a surface effect

\[

HIP-2002-18/TH

## Abstract

We describe a new mechanism for reheating the Universe through evaporation of a surface charge of a fragmented inflaton condensate. We show that for a range of Yukawa coupling of the inflaton to the matter sector evaporation gives rise to a much smaller reheat temperature compared to the standard perturbative decay. As a consequence, reheating through a surface effect could solve the gravitino and moduli over production problem in inflationary models without fine tuning the Yukawa sector.

\]

Inflation gives naturally the initial condition for the hot big bang cosmology by reheating the Universe through a conversion of the energy density stored in the inflaton field into radiation of elementary particles . However, as it is well known, the entropy thus dumped into the Universe may pose a problem for big bang nucleosynthesis. This constraints the number densities of light quanta (or massive quanta which later decay) at the time of reheating, which is given by  $`n/s\eta (T_\mathrm{R}/10^{11})\mathrm{GeV}`$, where $`n`$ is number density, $`s`$ is the entropy density of the thermal bath with a reheat temperature $`T_\mathrm{R}`$, and $`\eta 10^{11}`$ is the matter-to-entropy ratio at the time of big bang nucleosynthesis. For a successful big bang nucleosynthesis one requires $`n/s10^{13}`$, which translates into $`T_\mathrm{R}10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$ . Such a low reheat temperature is a challenge to inflation models as well as a perennial problem. For example, in models involving supersymmetry and superstrings one is often faced with an overproduction of gravitinos and moduli unless the reheat temperature can somehow be made low .

Reheating is based on the decay of the inflaton field while it oscillates about its minimum . The amplitude of the oscillations gradually decreases as the Universe expands, and the energy density redshifts as $`\rho a^3`$, where $`a`$ is the scale factor of the Universe. There exists two conceptually different realizations for the decay: direct (and slow) decay of the inflaton quanta, and a resonant conversion of the inflaton field to decay products by a process called preheating .

The decay lifetime of the inflaton can be computed in the limit $`mH`$, where $`m`$ is the inflaton mass and $`H`$ is the expansion of the Universe. In particular decay of an inflaton to a pair of fermions with an interaction $`_{int}=h\varphi \overline{\psi }\psi `$, when $`mm_\psi `$, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi \overline{\psi }\psi )=\frac{h^2m}{8\pi },$$
(1)
where $`h`$ is the Yukawa coupling smaller than one. In order to estimate the reheat temperature one equates the decaying inflaton energy density to the radiation energy density; $`\rho _r=(\pi ^2/30)g_{}T_R^4`$, at the moment when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=H`$. Assuming that thermalization occurs quickly, one obtains a reheat temperature

$$T_R=\left(\frac{90}{8\pi ^3g_{}}\right)^{1/4}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }M_\mathrm{P}}0.1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }M_\mathrm{P}}.$$
(2)
where $`g_{}𝒪(100)`$ is the relativistic degrees of freedom at the time of reheating, and $`M_\mathrm{P}=1.2\times 10^{19}`$ GeV.

Preheating requires specific conditions which may or may not occur. However, the important point is that the standard reheating phenomena is a volume effect. If instead of the inflaton decaying inside some fixed volume it were to evaporate through the surface, the decay rate would naturally be suppressed by the ratio

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎}}{\mathrm{𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒}}R^1,$$
(3)
where $`R`$ is the effective size of an object whose surface is evaporating. The larger the radius, the smaller is the evaporation rate, and therefore, the smaller is the reheat temperature. Reheating through a surface effect would thus be a natural way to achieve low reheat temperatures.

Note that such a phenomenon takes place in a self gravitating system such as a black-hole. Indeed, it has been claimed that in case of a self-gravitating object there holds a holographic principle according to which all the degrees of freedom lie on the surface . A black-hole with a mass $`M_{bh}`$ evaporates from its gravitational radius $`r_g=2M_{bh}/M_\mathrm{P}^2`$ as a black body with temperature inversely proportional to the radius of a black hole $`T_{bh}=(M_\mathrm{P}^2/8\pi M_{bh})`$ . However, because of the small density contrast in the early Universe implied by the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background, a sufficient number of primordial black holes might be very difficult to form.

However, a non-topological defect, which might encompass an inflaton condensate within a sub-horizon radius, would typically also decay through its surface. An example is the $`Q`$-ball  that can exist in theories with scalar fields carrying a conserved global $`U(1)`$-charge. The $`Q`$-balls are long-lived non-topological solitonic ground state solutions for a fixed charge $`Q`$. This means that the energy of a $`Q`$-ball configuration is less than a collection of free scalars carrying an equivalent charge. The $`Q`$-ball field configuration is given by $`\varphi (x,t)=e^{i\omega t}\phi (x)`$, its energy and charge are given by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2\phi ^2+\frac{1}{2}|\varphi ^2|+V(\varphi )\right]},`$ (4)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`\omega {\displaystyle \phi ^2d^3x}.`$ (5)
The potential $`V(\varphi )`$ has a global minimum at the origin and it is invariant under global $`U(1)`$-transformation. Depending on the slope of the potential it is possible to have energetically stable $`Q`$-ball, for which we require $`E\mu Q`$, where $`\mu `$ is given by

$$\mu =\mathrm{min}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2V(\varphi )}{\varphi ^2}}\right).$$
(6)
In order to form $`Q`$-balls a negative pressure is required for the scalar condensate to fragment . Several analytical and numerical studies have verified this in the context of the MSSM flat direction Affleck-Dine condensate .

An example of a potential which can lead to a $`Q`$-ball formation is given by

$$V(\phi )=m^2\left(1+|K|\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\phi ^2}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}\right]\right)\phi ^2,$$
(7)
The one-loop logarithmic running of $`\phi `$ appears due to the presence of finite Yukawa couplings to bosons and fermions, or, if $`\phi `$ has some gauge interactions. Such a correction to the potential appears in supersymmetry and in particular if $`\phi `$ has gauge interactions then $`K<0`$ . In non-supersymmetric theories it is possible to obtain $`K<0`$, provided the Yukawa coupling to the fermions dominate, or if there are more fermionic loops than bosonic ones.

Let us now assume that our inflaton sector has a global $`U(1)`$ symmetry with a running mass governed by Eq. (7). Although the inflaton is often taken to be a real, there seems to be no reason why it should not be a complex field (and perhaps this would be even more natural). Then chaotic inflation occurs for initial values $`\phi >M_\mathrm{P}`$ . The running mass inflation has been a topic of recent investigation and interesting details can be found in .

We note that right after the end of inflation, when the inflaton condensate starts to oscillate at $`Hm`$, the condensate can fragment due to the perturbations in $`\varphi `$ field and eventually form a $`Q`$-ball. In this case $`Q`$-balls can form due to the oscillations in $`\varphi `$ field .

The oscillating inflaton field will fragment into $`Q`$-balls if $`|K|<0`$. To see this, the potential Eq. (7) can be expanded in a form $`V(\phi )\phi ^{2+2|K|}`$. The equation of state for such a potential is given by $`p=(K/2)\rho `$ . Hence, oscillating inflaton field does not behave effectively as pressureless matter, as it is usually assumed, but feels a negative pressure. A perturbation in the inflaton field will then obey

$$\delta \ddot{\phi }_\mathrm{k}=\frac{K\mathrm{k}^2}{2}\delta \phi _\mathrm{k}.$$
(8)
Therefore, the fluctuation of the field grows on scale $`\mathrm{k}=2\pi /\lambda `$ in time

$$\delta \phi _\mathrm{k}=\delta \phi _{i\mathrm{k}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{|K|\mathrm{k}^2}{2}}t\right),$$
(9)
where $`t=0`$ corresponds to the beginning of a coherent oscillations of the inflaton field, and $`\delta \varphi _i`$ is the initial perturbation in the field when $`Hm`$. Here, obviously we have neglected the effect of expansion, but we keep in mind that a physical momentum redsifts during the expansion of the Universe, and as long as the wavelength of the excited mode is well within the Hubble length it is possible to follow the fragmentation of the inflaton condensate. Note that perturbations of wavelength $`\lambda `$ take a finite time to grow non-linear $`t(1/2\pi )\left(2/|K|\right)^{1/2}\lambda `$. This may be taken as an estimate for the time it takes to fragment the inflaton condensate and to form lumps of charged $`Q`$-balls .

A potential of the form Eq. (7) generically gives rise to a thick-wall $`Q`$-ball with a Gaussian profile $`\phi (r)\mathrm{exp}(|K|m^2r^2/2)`$. The size of such a $`Q`$-ball can be estimated by

$$R|K|^{1/2}m^1,$$
(10)
Therefore, a $`Q`$-ball of size $`R`$ forms when

$$H_f\frac{1}{t}𝒪(1)|K|m.$$
(11)
The exact proportionality depends on details which we are neglecting at the moment for an order of magnitude estimate.

The total charge accumulated by a $`Q`$-ball will therefore depend on $`Q=2\omega \phi _0^2V=(8\pi /3)m\phi _0^2R^3`$, where $`\phi _0`$ is the inflaton field value at which the $`Q`$-ball forms. Since $`|K|<1`$, we can approximate the decay in the amplitude of the oscillations by $`\phi _0\phi _i(H_f/H_i)`$ similar to a matter dominated era, where $`\phi _iM_\mathrm{P}`$, denotes the end of inflation in chaotic model, and $`H_im`$ when the oscillations begin. Therefore, the total charge of a $`Q`$-ball can be given by

$`Q{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|K|^{1/2}m}}\right)^3|K|^2mM_\mathrm{P}^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}|K|^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{P}}{m}}\right)^2.`$ (12)
Note, that the charge is fixed by the ratio of $`m/M_\mathrm{P}`$ determined by the anisotropies seen in the cosmic micro wave background radiation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }\frac{m}{M_\mathrm{P}}10^5,$$
(13)
which results in $`m10^{13}`$ GeV.

The evaporation of a $`Q`$-ball through the decay of a charged massless fermion has been studied in . Analytical estimates in the thin-wall case have yielded an upper limit on the evaporation rate, which is saturated even in thick-wall case for $`h\phi _0\omega `$, where $`h`$ is the Yukawa coupling . The evaporation rate is bounded by

$$\frac{dQ}{dt}\frac{\omega ^3A}{192\pi ^2},$$
(14)
where in our case $`\omega =m`$. The above estimation is valid for strong Yukawa coupling. In Eq. (14), $`A=4\pi R^2`$ denote the surface area of a $`Q`$-ball, and the above expression simplifies to

$$\frac{dQ}{dt}\frac{1}{48\pi }\frac{m}{|K|}.$$
(15)
Therefore, we can estimate the decay rate of a $`Q`$-ball in the process of reheating the Universe

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{Q}\frac{dQ}{dt}\frac{m}{18|K|^{3/2}}\left(\frac{m}{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)^2.$$
(16)
In general $`K`$ and $`h`$ are not independent quantities but are related to each other by $`KCh^2/16\pi ^2`$, where $`C`$ is effective number of bosonic and fermionic loops. Even though we are in the strong coupling limit, the decay rate mimics that of a Planck suppressed interaction of the inflaton made $`Q`$-ball to the matter fields. The estimated reheat temperature is then given by

$$T_R\frac{1}{|K|^{3/4}}10^8\mathrm{GeV}5C^{3/4}h^{3/2}\times 10^9\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(17)
If the inflaton sector does not belong to a hidden sector then it is very natural that inflaton coupling to other matter fields is sufficiently large, i.e. $`1h(m/M_\mathrm{P})`$. As an example, we may consider $`C10`$, and $`h1`$, we obtain $`|K|0.1`$. The resulting reheat temperature is then $`T_R5\times 10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$. We notice that the dependence of the reheat temperature on $`|K|`$ is in general rather weak. For such a low reheat temperature gravitinos and moduli can never be over produced from a thermal bath . Therefore, reheating through a surface of a $`Q`$-ball solves the gravitino and moduli problem without invoking very small Yukawa coupling. This is the main application of reheating through a surface.

We notice that for couplings $`1h𝒪(m/M_\mathrm{P})`$, Eq. (17) predicts in this particular model much lower reheat temperature than direct decay of inflaton, which from Eq. (1), yields

$$T_R2\times 10^{14}h\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(18)
In the weak Yukawa coupling case when $`h\phi _0m`$ (so that $`hm/M_\mathrm{P})`$, the evaporation rate of a $`Q`$-ball , and subsequently the decay rate are bounded by

$$\frac{dQ}{dt}\frac{1}{16}\frac{h\phi _0}{|K|},\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{h\pi }{6|K|^{1/2}}\frac{m^2}{M_\mathrm{P}},$$
(19)
and the limit on the reheat temperature reads now

$$T_R0.1\left(\frac{h}{|K|^{1/2}}\right)^{1/2}m0.3C^{1/4}m.$$
(20)
Note that the dependence on $`h`$ is cancelled out. Thus for a sufficiently small $`h(m/M_\mathrm{P})10^5`$ the reheat temperature saturates and would be larger than through the perturbative decay of inflaton. This result may appear counter-intuitive as it suggests that the evaporation rate is faster than the perturbative decay rate for small $`h`$. The point is that a fermion gets an effective mass $`m_\psi h\phi _0`$ inside a $`Q`$-ball. The corresponding Compton wavelength $`m_\psi ^1`$ then actually becomes larger than the size of a $`Q`$-ball for very small $`h`$. In fact the ratio between the evaporation and perturbative decay rate goes as $`m_\psi ^1/R>1`$, and therefore the evaporation through a surface effect given by Eq. (19) cannot be trusted any longer. This is an example where a simple relationship given by Eq. (3) does not hold.

We have pointed out a new possibility of reheating the Universe through an evaporation of a surface. We have shown that without invoking very low fine tuned Yukawa coupling, the evaporation of a surface charge from the inflaton condensate inevitably gives much smaller reheat temperature compared to the standard perturbative decay of inflaton. This new mechanism could be perhaps the simplest option to solve the gravitino, polonyi and dilaton problems in general .

Even though we have considered $`Q`$-ball formation and reheating of the Universe in a chaotic inflationary scenario, it is conceivable that similar behaviour could arise in many other inflaton models with an effective $`U(1)`$ global charge. It is quite possible that the inflaton condensate fragmentation and $`Q`$-ball formation can occur even if $`U(1)`$ would be slightly broken. Hence, in addition to the standard reheating, which is a volume effect, for a range of parameters the Universe may be reheated in a novel way, through surface evaporation of a $`Q`$-ball.

A.M. is thankful to Rouzbeh Allahverdi, and Altug Ozpineci for helpful discussion, and S.K. is thankful to M. Kawasaki for a useful discussion. A.M. acknowledges the support of The Early Universe network HPRN-CT-2000-00152, and a kind hospitality of the Helsinki Institute of Physics where this work has been carried out.


format: text

text:
# Orbitally Excited Baryon Spectroscopy in the 1/𝑁_𝑐 Expansion

## 1 Introduction

In the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ ’t Hooft limit QCD  has a contracted dynamical spin-flavor symmetry $`SU(2F)_c`$ for the ground state baryons ($`F`$ is the number of light flavors). This is a consequence of unitarity in pion-nucleon scattering in that limit and at fixed energy of order $`𝒪(N_c^0)`$ . In general $`SU(2F)`$ is broken at $`𝒪(1/N_c)`$ but for some observables only at $`𝒪(1/N_c^2)`$ , which makes the $`1/N_c`$ expansion around the $`SU(2F)`$ symmetric limit a powerful tool of analysis as it is shown in numerous works. The excited baryons are expected to reveal further the details of strong QCD and are therefore of current theoretical interest and also a central goal of lattice QCD studies. In the context of the $`1/N_c`$ expansion this baryon sector is less well understood, the principal reason being that even in the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limit the spin-flavor symmetry is broken. However, most of the known baryons of negative parity seem to fit very well in the $`(3,70)`$ irreducible representation (irrep) of $`O(3)SU(6)`$. The $`1/N_c`$ operator expansion for the full 70-plet can be implemented along the lines developed for two flavors and shows that the leading order spin-flavor breaking ($`𝒪(N_c^0)`$) is indeed small, thus justifying $`SU(2F)`$ as an approximate symmetry useful for classifying excited baryons.

The $`1/N_c`$ expansion is an appropriate tool for the study of some long-standing problems of the quark model in a model independent way. For a long time the quark model in its different versions has been the preferred framework for investigating the properties of baryons. Despite the success of this model in reproducing general features of the spectrum, it is not a complete representation of QCD. One consequence of this incompleteness is that, in those cases where the quark model does not agree with phenomenology, such as the problem of the mass splittings between spin-orbit partners in the negative parity baryons (spin-orbit puzzle), it is not clear whether the problem is due to the quark model itself or to specific dynamical properties of the states involved. This situation is clarified in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion where the presence of other operators, the leading one being of $`𝒪(N_c^0)`$, solves the contradictions that arise in the quark model when the spin-orbit interaction is considered.

## 2 The space of states

The states in the $`(3,70)`$ of $`O(3)SU(6)`$ decompose into five octets ($`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}d_{J}^{}=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}8_{1/2}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{2}8_{3/2}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}8_{1/2}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}8_{3/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}8_{5/2}^{}`$, where $`S`$ is the total spin, $`d`$ the degeneracy of the $`SU(3)`$ irrep and $`J`$ is the total angular momentum), two decuplets ($`{}_{}{}^{2}10_{1/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}10_{3/2}^{}`$) and two singlets ($`{}_{}{}^{2}1_{1/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}1_{3/2}^{}`$). An explicit representation of these states can be obtained from a tensor product of quark states. Coupling an orbitally excited quark with $`\mathrm{}=1`$ to $`N_c1`$ s-wave quarks that constitute a spin-flavor symmetric core gives the following states with core spin $`S^c`$

$`|J,J_z;S`$ ; $`(\lambda ,\mu ),Y,I,I_z;S^c>=`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(\begin{array}{ccc}S& \mathrm{}& J\\ S_z& m& J_z\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}S^c& \frac{1}{2}& S\\ S_z^c& s_z& S_z\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\lambda ^c,\mu ^c)& (1,0)& (\lambda ,\mu )\\ (Y^c,I^c,I_z^c)& (y,\frac{1}{2},i_z)& (Y,I,I_z)\end{array}\right)}`$
$`|\begin{array}{cc}S^c& (\lambda ^c,\mu ^c)\\ S_z^c& (Y^c,I^c,I_z^c)\end{array}|\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}& (1,0)\\ s_z& (y,\frac{1}{2},i_z)\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\\ m\end{array}.`$
The $`(\lambda ,\mu )`$ labels indicate the $`SU(3)`$ irrep, $`Y`$ is the hypercharge, $`I`$ the isospin and $`J_z`$, $`I_z`$ the obvious projections. For arbitrary $`N_c`$ the (3,70) states are embedded in a larger multiplet and are taken to have strangeness of order $`N_c^0`$. From the decomposition of the $`SU(6)`$ symmetric representation into irreps of $`SU(2)SU(3)`$ the relations $`\lambda ^c+2\mu ^c=N_c1`$ and $`\lambda ^c=2S^c`$ follow. They are the generalization of the $`I=J`$ rule well known for two flavors. The (3,70) states are in the mixed symmetric irrep of $`SU(6)`$, which for the octets with $`S=1/2`$ corresponds to a linear combination of states of the form of Eq.(14)

$`|^28>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}}|S^c=0>+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N_c}}}|S^c=1>,`$ (15)
where the coefficients can be obtained diagonalizing the quadratic Casimir operator of $`SU(6)`$

$`C_{SU(6)}^{(2)}=2G_{ha}G_{ha}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{SU(3)}^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}C_{SU(2)}.`$ (16)
The core state for the $`{}_{}{}^{4}8`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}10`$ irreps is $`|1,(2,\frac{N_c3}{2})>`$, in the $`{}_{}{}^{2}1`$ irrep the core state is $`|0,(0,\frac{N_c1}{2})>`$ and the corresponding states given by Eq.(14) are already in the mixed representation of $`SU(6)`$.

The physical states are in general a mixing of states with the same $`J`$. In the $`SU(3)`$ symmetric limit only the octets with $`J=1/2`$ and $`J=3/2`$ mix. The mixing angle $`\theta _{2J}`$ is defined as

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}8_J\\ 8_J^{}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}\theta _{2J}& \hfill \mathrm{sin}\theta _{2J}\\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}\theta _{2J}& \hfill \mathrm{cos}\theta _{2J}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}^28_J\\ ^48_J\end{array}\right).`$ (23)
## 3 Construction of operators

A basis of mass operators can be built using the generators of $`O(3)SU(2F)`$. A generic $`n`$-body mass operator has the general structure

$`O^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c^{n1}}}O_{\mathrm{}}O_qO_c,`$ (24)
where the factors $`O_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`O_q`$, and $`O_c`$ can be expressed in terms of products of generators of orbital angular momentum ($`\mathrm{}_i)`$, spin-flavor of the excited quark ($`s_i,t_a`$ and $`g_{ia}s_it_a`$) and spin-flavor of the core ($`S_i^c,T_a^c`$ and $`G_{ia}^c_{m=1}^{N_c1}s_i^{(m)}t_a^{(m)}`$), respectively. The explicit $`1/N_c`$ factors originate in the $`n1`$ gluon exchanges required to give rise to an $`n`$-body operator. The matrix elements of operators may also carry a nontrivial $`N_c`$ dependence due to coherence effects: for the states considered, $`G_{ia}^c`$ ($`a=1,2,3`$) and $`T_8^c`$ have matrix elements of $`𝒪(N_c)`$, while the rest of the generators have matrix elements of higher order.

In the case of the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ baryons the highest orbital angular momentum operator that contributes is the rank 2 tensor

$`\mathrm{}_{hk}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{}_h,\mathrm{}_k\}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{3}}\delta _{hk}.`$ (25)
## 4 Counting the number of operators

For $`N_c=3`$ and in the $`SU(3)`$ symmetric limit there are eleven independent quantities: nine masses (one for each $`SU(3)`$ multiplet) and two mixing angles $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _3`$, which correspond to the mixing of the $`{}_{}{}^{2}8_{J}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}8_{J}^{}`$ octets with $`J=1/2`$ and $`J=3/2`$. This leads to the basis of eleven $`SU(3)`$-singlet mass operators which are listed in Table 1. Further information about the structure of these operators can be obtained from the $`SU(3)`$ singlets in the decomposition of

$`\overline{70}70`$ $`=`$ $`4(1,1)5(1,3)2(1,5)(1,7)\mathrm{}`$ (26)
which shows that there are four operators with $`\mathrm{}=0`$ ($`O_1,O_6,O_7,O_{10}`$), five operators with $`\mathrm{}=1`$ ($`O_2,O_4,O_5,O_9,O_{11}`$), two operators with $`\mathrm{}=2`$ ($`O_3,O_8`$) and one operator with $`\mathrm{}=3`$ that does not contribute in the case of interest. In terms of $`1/N_c`$ one operator is of $`𝒪(N_c)`$, namely the identity, $`O_{2,3,4}`$ are of $`𝒪(N_c^0)`$, and the remaining seven $`O_{5,\mathrm{},11}`$ are of $`𝒪(1/N_c)`$, one of which is the very important hyperfine operator. They are a simple generalization of those known for two flavors, although the calculation of their matrix elements is in general more involved.

When $`SU(3)`$ breaking is included with isospin conservation, the number of independent observables raises up to 50, of which 30 are masses and 20 are mixing angles. However, if $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking is restricted to linear order in quark masses only isosinglet octet operators can appear, and the number of independent observables is reduced to 35 (21 masses and 14 mixing angles) implying 24 linearly independent octet mass operators. As a consequence of this reduction several mass relations exist, among them there is a Gell-Mann Okubo relation for each octet and an equal spacing rule for each decuplet. The octet contributions are proportional to $`ϵ(m_sm_{u,d})/\nu _H`$ where $`\nu _H`$ is a typical hadronic mass scale, for instance $`m_\rho `$; for $`N_c=3`$ the quantity $`ϵ`$ counts as of the same order as $`1/N_c`$. Explicit construction shows that up to order $`𝒪(ϵN_c^0)`$ only a small subset of independent octet operators $`B_i`$ appears. Since such octet operators are isospin singlets, it is possible to modify them by adding singlet operators so that the resulting operators vanish in the subspace of non-strange baryons. This procedure of improving the flavor breaking operators may change the $`1/N_c`$ counting: for instance, after improving $`T_8`$ with the identity operator $`O_1`$ the resulting operator is of order $`N_c^0`$. Indeed, the improved operators give the splitting due to $`SU(3)`$ breaking with respect to the non-strange baryons in each multiplet, and they must be of zeroth order or higher in $`1/N_c`$ for states with strangeness of order $`N_c^0`$. The four improved flavor breaking operators $`\overline{B}_1`$ through $`\overline{B}_4`$ that remain at $`𝒪(ϵN_c^0)`$ when $`N_c=3`$ are shown in Table 1.

## 5 Fitting the data

As a result of the above analysis the 70-plet mass operator up to $`𝒪(ϵN_c^0)`$ has the most general form:

$`M_{70}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{11}{}}}c_iO_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}d_i\overline{B}_i,`$ (27)
where $`c_i`$ and $`d_i`$ are unknown coefficients which are reduced matrix elements (of a QCD operator) that are not determined by the spin-flavor symmetry. Calculating these reduced matrix elements is equivalent to solve QCD in this baryon sector. Fortunately, the experimental data available in the case of the 70-plet is enough to obtain them by making a fit. The resulting values are given in Table 1. The natural size of coefficients associated with the singlet operators is set by the coefficient of $`O_1`$, and is about $`500\mathrm{MeV}`$, while the natural size for the coefficients associated with octet operators is roughly $`ϵ`$ times $`500\mathrm{MeV}`$. The experimental masses (three or more stars status in the the Particle Data listing) shown in Table 2 together with the two leading order mixing angles $`\theta _1=0.61`$, $`\theta _3=3.04`$  are the 19 empirical quantities used in the fit. The resulting $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom turns out to be $`\chi ^2/4=1.29`$. The best fit masses and state compositions are displayed in Table 2.

## 6 Splitting relations

Because at $`𝒪(ϵN_c^0)`$ there are only four flavor breaking operators, it is possible to find new mass splitting relations which are independent of the coefficients $`d_i`$. These relations involve states in different $`SU(3)`$ multiplets. Of particular interest are the following five relations that result when the operator $`\overline{B}_3`$ is neglected (from the fit it is apparent that $`\overline{B}_3`$ gives very small contributions):

$`9(s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1/2}}+s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1/2}^{}})+21s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5/2}}`$ $`=`$ $`17(s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1/2}}+s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1/2}^{}})+5s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{5/2}},`$
$`2(s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{3/2}}+s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{3/2}^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`3s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5/2}}+s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{5/2}},`$
$`18(s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3/2}}+s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3/2}^{}})+33s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5/2}}`$ $`=`$ $`28(s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1/2}}+s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1/2}^{}})+13s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{5/2}},`$
$`9s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1/2}^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`=`$ $`s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1/2}}+s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1/2}^{}}+3s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5/2}}+4s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{5/2}},`$
$`18s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3/2}^{\prime \prime }}+3s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{5/2}}`$ $`=`$ $`8(s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1/2}}+s_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1/2}^{}})+5s_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{5/2}}.`$ (28)
Here $`s__i`$ is the mass splitting between the baryon $`_i`$ and the non-strange baryons in the $`SU(3)`$ multiplet to which it belongs. These relations are independent of mixings because they result from relations among traces of the octet operators. If $`\overline{B}_3`$ is not neglected there are instead four relations. The first relation in equation (6) predicts the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1/2}`$ to be $`103\mathrm{MeV}`$ above the $`N_{1/2}`$, consistent with the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1620)`$, a two star state that is not included as an input to the fit. Each of the remaining relations makes a similar prediction for other states but requires further experimental data to be tested.

## 7 The singlet Lambdas

The singlet Lambdas are the two lightest states of the 70-plet, something that has its natural explanation in the dominant effect of the hyperfine interaction. Although spin-flavor symmetry is broken at $`𝒪(N_c^0)`$, it is apparent from our fit that the $`𝒪(N_c^0)`$ operators are dynamically suppressed as their coefficients are substantially smaller than the natural size. It turns out that the chief contribution to spin-flavor breaking stems from the $`𝒪(1/N_c)`$ hyperfine operator $`O_6`$, as in the ground state baryons. Since $`O_6`$ is purely a core operator, the gross spin-flavor structure of levels is determined by the two possible core states. In particular, the two singlet $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s are not affected by $`O_6`$, while the other states are moved upwards, explaining in a transparent way the lightness of these two states. Indeed, by keeping only $`O_1`$ and $`O_6`$ the $`{}_{}{}^{2}8`$ masses are $`1510\mathrm{MeV}`$, the $`{}_{}{}^{4}8`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}10`$ masses are $`1670\mathrm{MeV}`$, and the $`{}_{}{}^{2}1`$ masses are left at the bottom with $`1350\mathrm{MeV}`$. This clearly shows the dominant pattern of spin-flavor breaking observed in the 70-plet.

The long standing problem in the quark model of reconciling the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ splitting with the splittings between the other spin-orbit partners in the 70-plet is resolved in the large $`N_c`$ analysis. The singlet $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s receive contributions to their masses from $`O_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}s`$ while the rest of the operators give vanishing contributions because the core of the singlets carries $`S^c=0`$. The splitting between the singlets is, therefore, a clear display of the spin-orbit coupling. The problem with the splittings between spin-orbit partners in the non-singlet sector, illustrated by the fact that the $`\mathrm{}s`$ operator gives a contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{3/2}`$ splitting that is of opposite sign of what is observed, is now solved by the presence of the operators $`O_4`$, $`O_5`$, $`O_9`$ and $`O_{11}`$, with the contribution from $`O_4`$ being the dominant one in accordance with the $`1/N_c`$ counting. While $`O_2`$ and $`O_4`$ are of order $`N_c^0`$ separately, their sum $`O_2+O_4`$ is of order $`1/N_c`$ for the non-singlet states, as can be seen from the explicit expressions for their matrix elements given in Table 3. $`O_4`$ is therefore the natural operator that cancels the effect of $`O_2`$ at large $`N_c`$. This also leaves $`O_3`$ as the dominant contribution to the leading mixing angles $`\theta _1`$, $`\theta _3`$. The analytic expressions for the rest of the operators will be given elsewhere.

In principle, a similar situation would be expected for states with one quark excited at higher angular momentum $`\mathrm{}>1`$. It is interesting to note that the splittings of the observed states $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)\frac{1}{2}^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)\frac{3}{2}^{})`$, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(1890)\frac{3}{2}^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }(2110)\frac{5}{2}^+)`$, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(1830)\frac{5}{2}^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }(2100)\frac{7}{2}^{})`$, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }(2020)\frac{7}{2}^+,\mathrm{\Lambda }(2350)\frac{9}{2}^+)`$ are in a relation $`3.0:5.7:7.0:8.6`$ while the $`\mathrm{}s`$ operator predicts $`3.0:5.0:7.0:9.0`$. Thus, the observed data also hints that $`c_2`$ may be of approximately the same size in different spin-flavor multiplets. Further support to this picture can be drawn from scaling down to the strange sector the mass splitting between the $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2593)\frac{1}{2}^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2625)\frac{3}{2}^{})`$ as suggested by Isgur.

## 8 Conclusions

The $`1/N_c`$ expansion provides a systematic approach to the spectroscopy of the excited baryons. In the case of the negative parity $`\mathrm{}=1`$ baryons it successfully describes the existing data and, to the order considered, also makes numerous testable predictions. In addition to the well known Gell-Mann-Okubo and equal spacing relations, new splitting relations between different multiplets that follow from the spin-flavor symmetry have been found. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is well described as a three-quark state and the spin-orbit partner of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$. Available experimental data for higher $`\mathrm{}`$ states and extrapolations from the charmed sector also seem to hint at the presence of a spin-orbit interaction. Effective interactions that correspond to flavor quantum number exchanges, such as the ones mediated by the operators $`O_3`$ and $`O_4`$, are apparently needed. Although the corresponding coefficients seem to be dynamically suppressed their relevance shows up in the well established finer effects, namely mixings and splittings between non-singlet spin-orbit partners. These interactions are not accounted for in the standard quark model based on one gluon exchange.

## Acknowledgments

The results reported here were obtained in collaboration with J.L. Goity and N.N. Scoccola. I want to thank the organizers for inviting me and also to acknowledge partial support from the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington and from CONICET(Argentina).


text:
# M–type Vega–like Stars

## 1 Introduction

During the past fifteen years, about two dozen papers have been published that describe searches for stars with excess infrared (IR) emission (for recent reviews on these “Vega–like” stars, see Lagrange et al. 2000 and Zuckerman 2001). These searches employed different techniques for cross correlating IR and stellar sources with no consistent definition of what defines an IR excess (see Song 2000 for a summary). To date, about 400 Vega–like stars have been identified. The Vega phenomenon overlaps with some very important solar system formation epochs; gas giant planet formation at $`10`$ Myr and terrestrial planet formation at $`100`$ Myr. Thus, knowing stellar ages of Vega–like stars is essential to studying extra solar planetary system formation in detail. Consequently, there have been many efforts to estimate the ages of Vega–like stars (see Song, 2000; Spangler et al., 2001, and references therein). Stellar ages can be fairly accurately and relatively easily determined for late–type stars (e.g., Song et al. 2000), however, ages of early–type stars are less reliable (Song et al. 2001). Most of the currently known Vega–like stars are early–type because more luminous stars produce larger IR fluxes for stars with the same quantity of dust and the surveys conduced by IRAS were flux limited. Thus, it is desirable to increase the known number of late–type Vega–like stars for more precise age estimates of such stars. Additional identification of late–type Vega–like stars is very useful to statistically strengthen studies such as planetary formation in different environments and dust lifetime as a function of stellar mass and luminosity (see Song’s (2000) suggestion of dichotomy of Vega–like stars for example). Also, late–type Vega–like stars are excellent laboratories for studying the early evolution of our solar system.

Despite the great number of M-type stars compared to earlier types, only two with IR excesses, GJ 803 (Tsikoudi, 1988) and Hen 3-600 (de La Reza et al., 1989; Jaywardhana et al., 1999) have been identified to date. Almost all previous studies (exceptions include Aumann & Probst 1991 and Odenwald 1986) searched only for far-infrared (60 $`\mu `$m) excess and were limited by the IRAS $``$90% completeness sensitivity of 280 mJy in that band. IRAS sensitivity at 25 $`\mu `$m was 210 mJy, and an M0 star located 10 pc away with 200 K dust grains absorbing and emitting like blackbodies such that LIR/Lstar=1.5 $`\times 10^3`$, would have been detected by IRAS at 25 $`\mu `$m (F$`{}_{star+disk}{}^{}250`$ mJy) but not at 60 $`\mu `$m (F$`{}_{star+disk}{}^{}100`$ mJy).

A more complete survey for dust must be able to detect the stellar photosphere at high precision in order to evaluate excess emission above that level. One can do a fairly thorough disk excess assessment for stars whose photospheres were detected by IRAS. However, around stars whose photospheres were too faint to be detected, only unusually large disk excesses could be detected. At 60 $`\mu `$m, IRAS could detect the photosphere of an A0 star out to $``$20 pc, but an M0 only out to $``$2 pc. The situation is somewhat better at 25 $`\mu `$m, where IRAS could detect the photosphere of an A0 star out to $``$50 pc and an M0 photosphere out to $``$5 pc. By searching the catalog only at 60 $`\mu `$m, previous surveys have not probed large regions of phase space where excess may exist around late-type stars.

In this study, we concentrated mainly on M–type stars and attempted to perform the most thorough search for M–type Vega–like stars to date, especially at 25 $`\mu `$m, based on the *IRAS* FSC (Moshir et al., 1992) and *Hipparcos* catalog (Perryman et al., 1997). As a check on recently reported infrared excess stars, however, we also report on the F–type star HD 2381.

## 2 Search

Based on the *Hipparcos* catalog, we selected $`530`$ nearby ($`<25`$ pc) stars with $`(BV)+\sigma _{(BV)}>1.40`$, where $`\sigma _{(BV)}`$ is uncertainty of $`(BV)`$. The *Hipparcos* catalog contains almost all early M–type (M0–2) stars within 10 pc. Many IR sources in the FSC with optical stellar identifications are giant stars (Zuckerman et al., 1995; Odenwald, 1986). Therefore, one needs luminosity class information to identify Vega–like stars. Following Silverstone (2000), we used a constraint on the absolute visual magnitude ($`M_V>7.5\times \left(BV\right)5.0`$) to ensure that a candidate is not a giant star whose IR–excess mechanism may be different from that of a dwarf. Six stars from our initial sample do not meet the absolute visual magnitude cut and they are HIP 21421, 50798, 66212, 66906, 75187, and 82099. HIP 21421 and HIP 66212 are K–type giants and the other four stars appear to be main sequence stars with large uncertainties in $`(BV)`$. Among the four rejected main sequence stars, HIP 75187 is the only one detected by IRAS (only at 12 $`\mu `$m) and the measurement agrees with the flux density expected from its photosphere alone. Then, our sample stars were cross correlated with FSC sources with a maximum allowed offset of $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ between *Hipparcos* and *IRAS* source positions (both at epoch 1983.5 and equinox 1950). Only 152 stars from our initial sample have IR counterparts; among them, 96 stars were detected only at 12 $`\mu `$m and 55 stars were detected at both 12 and 25 $`\mu `$m. GJ 803 (AU Mic) was detected at 12 and 60 $`\mu `$m and was the only dwarf M–type star that has been detected at the *IRAS* 60 $`\mu `$m band. No objects were detected at 100 $`\mu `$m. A previously known M–type IR excess star, Hen 3–600 (TWA 3), is not identified in our search because it is not bright enough to be included in the *Hipparcos* catalog.

Positions given in the published *IRAS* catalog are weighted means of 12, 25, 60, and 100 $`\mu `$m source positions based on their signal-to-noise ratios. Sometimes, 25 and 60 $`\mu `$m sources are background objects far away from the stellar 12 $`\mu `$m sources. Thus, in IR–excess surveys, it is mandatory to check each band’s source position and to confirm that source positions in each band are coincident. We checked the offsets among 12 and 25 $`\mu `$m positions (60 $`\mu `$m position also for GJ 803) by using the “LONG FSC” from *The Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC)* at Caltech and found that only one object (GJ 433) shows a substantial (36′′) offset between the 12 and 25 $`\mu m`$ *IRAS* sources. For comparison, a median positional uncertainty of IRAS FSC sources in the cross scan direction is 20′′. Offsets between the 12 and 25 $`\mu `$m source positions for the other stars are negligible with respect to the *IRAS* positional uncertainties.

To identify IR excesses, we performed spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting by using all known photometric data from the literature (queried through *SIMBAD*) including online *2MASS* data. For GJ 413.1 and GJ 433, JHK magnitudes (see Table 1) were measured on 24 November, 2000 (UT) with the NASA IRTF telescope at Mauna Kea Observatory. Since the accuracy of the photospheric flux estimation at 12 $`\mu `$m depends strongly on the availability of near IR photometric data (i.e., JHK magnitudes), we have not carried out a SED fit to stars with only 12 $`\mu `$m detections because most of these stars lack near IR photometry. Stellar SEDs are different from that of a blackbody. Opacity sources absorb light at wavelengths with high opacities and re-radiate it at wavelengths with relatively low opacities. This results in a spectral energy distribution very different from that of a black-body. Therefore we used PHEONIX NextGen synthetic stellar spectra (Hauschildt et al., 1999) instead of a blackbody SED. Among three SED fitting parameters (parallax, stellar radius, and effective temperature), *Hipparcos* parallax has been treated as constant. Stellar radius and effective temperature were estimated from the *Hipparcos* $`(BV)`$ value by using the spectral type versus colors/$`T_{eff}`$/radius relation of de Jager & Nieuwenhuijzen (1987).

To quantify the strength of IR excesses, we defined $`r`$, the specific IR excess, (“specific excess” hereafter) as

$$r\frac{F_{25\mu m}^{IRAS}F_{25\mu m}^{est}}{F_{25\mu m}^{est}}$$
(1)
where $`F_{25\mu m}^{IRAS}`$ and $`F_{25\mu m}^{est}`$ are *IRAS* FSC 25 $`\mu `$m flux and estimated photospheric contribution at 25 $`\mu `$m, respectively. For GJ 803, we used $`F_{60\mu m}^{IRAS}`$ and $`F_{60\mu m}^{est}`$ to calculate its 60 $`\mu `$m specific excess ($`r_{60\mu m}`$).

As shown in Figure 1, we found three stars (GJ 154, 413.1, and 433) with $`r>2.0`$ based on 25 $`\mu `$m fluxes and a different star (GJ 803) with $`r=7.60`$ based on 60 $`\mu `$m flux. Contrary to an expected median specific excess value of zero for non–IR–excess stars, Figure 1 shows a median value of $`0.1`$ which may be due to the 25 $`\mu `$m flux overestimation as explained in the *IRAS* Explanatory Supplement Version 2, III–131. All IRAS flux density values in Table 1 and Figures 2–3 are color corrected using Table VI.C.6 of the *IRAS* Explanatory Supplement Version 2. For 12 and 25 $`\mu `$m fluxes, stellar effective temperatures were used to estimate color correction factors. However, for 60 $`\mu `$m fluxes, if any IR excess exist (e.g., GJ 803), then dust temperatures were used instead of stellar effective temperatures.

## 3 Ground–based mid–IR Photometry

Mid–infrared imaging was performed with the facility instrument, the Long Wavelength Spectrograph (LWS) (Jones & Puetter, 1993), on the 10 m Keck I telescope on UT 11 December 2000 and 4–5 February 2001. During all three nights, the weather was photometric with low water vapor optical depth. LWS uses a $`128\times 128`$ pixel Boeing Si:As detector, and has a plate scale of 0.08 arcsec/pixel, resulting in a focal–plane field of view of $`10.^{^{\prime \prime }}24\times 10.^{^{\prime \prime }}24`$. Each object was measured in filters centered at 11.7 $`\mu `$m (FWHM=1.0 $`\mu `$m) and 17.9 $`\mu `$m (FWHM=2.0 $`\mu `$m). Images were obtained at four positions by chopping the secondary at 2.5–5 Hz with a throw of $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ and nodding the telescope $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ after $`20`$ s. In basic data reduction, the images were double differenced to remove the sky and telescope background, and bad pixels were corrected by interpolation. Throughout the nights, including just before and after each of the M–star measurements, bright infrared standard stars were observed for photometric calibration. Standard star measurements over the whole of each night were averaged and the standard deviation in their photometry was used as an estimate of calibration uncertainty. On 11 December, the uncertainty in the calibration was 5% and 6% at 11.7 and 17.9 $`\mu `$m, respectively. On 4 and 5 February, the uncertainties were 15% at both wavelengths.

Photometry was performed in a 16 pixel ($`1.^{\prime \prime }3`$) diameter synthetic aperture on each image and the results are reported in Table 1. For an M–star of luminosity $`0.1\mathrm{L}_{}`$, blackbody-like grains at a thermal equilibrium temperature of 200 K will sit 0.6 AU from the star. Therefore, at a distance of 10 pc, any 12 or 18 $`\mu `$m excess should appear $`<0.^{^{\prime \prime }}1`$ in size, or spatially unresolved. It is clear from Figure 2 that the apparent 25 $`\mu `$m *IRAS* excesses of GJ 154, 413.1, and 433 are not real. We interpret this discord as follows:

For the faint stars under consideration whose real fluxes are near detection threshold, a downward noise fluctuation could place the 25 $`\mu `$m fluxes below the *IRAS* detection threshold; thus none displays a significant 25 $`\mu `$m flux deficit (negative $`r`$). Occasional large upward noise fluctuations could boost 25 $`\mu `$m fluxes so that they would be classified as IR excess stars (positive $`r`$, ”Detection threshold bias” or ”Malmquist bias”). The final configuration thus resembles our Figure 1, with some excess stars but with no significant deficit star. In fact, the *IRAS* 25 $`\mu `$m S/N ratios of all of our three false IR excess stars are $`4`$ which is the IRAS threshold value.

## 4 Statistical significance of IR excess

Recently, Fajardo–Acosta et al. (1999, 2000) suggested that certain stars possess excess emission as measured by IRAS or ISO. We checked IR excesses at GJ 816 and HD 2381 with 11.7 and 17.9 $`\mu `$m (18.7 $`\mu `$m for GJ 816) Keck photometry. Apparent excesses for both stars turned out to be false positives (Figure 3). GJ 816 is not an *IRAS* FSC source and Fajardo–Acosta et al. (1999) used *Infrared* *Space Observatory (ISO)* data. An incorrect *ISO* flux calibration (for GJ 816) and Malmquist bias (for HD 2381) similar to our three false IR–excess stars may be responsible for these apparent excesses.

An occasional large upward noise fluctuation (e.g., $`2\sigma 2\%`$ probability) does not significantly influence stars with high signal-to-noise ratios; however, it can significantly affect stars with low signal-to-noise data. For our initial 152 *IRAS* sources, we expect $`3`$ to have flux overestimates $`2\sigma `$, in apparent agreement with what we have found. Based on this fact, some suggested Vega–like stars — generally identified through huge surveys often encompassing thousands of input stars — could also be non–IR–excess stars. Thus, we suggest the following criteria for bona–fide Vega–like stars; (1) high S/N not subject to a Malmquist bias, (2) low S/N detections at 2 or more wavelengths, or (3) ground/space–based confirmation (e.g., Silverstone 2000 and this study) with higher sensitivity and better spatial resolution than *IRAS*.

## 5 Summary and Discussion

We have performed a search for IR excess emission among M–type stars by correlating the *IRAS Faint Source Catalog* with *Hipparcos* selected late–type stars. Besides the previously known Vega–like star (GJ 803), three tentative excess stars were identified, but these excesses turned out to be false based on our ground–based mid–IR photomtery. Detection threshold bias (Malmquist bias) is thought to be responsible for these bogus *IRAS* IR excesses. Two other stars (GJ 816 and HD 2381), suggested to be Vega–like in the literature, are also shown to be non–IR–excess stars. In future studies, one should be aware that some Vega–like stars reported in the literature with low S/N ratios may be non–IR–excess stars as well. This is likely to be the case for most stars listed by Fajardo–Acosta et al. (2000).

GJ 803 and Hen 3–600 show strong 60 $`\mu `$m excesses; they are the only unambiguously identified M–type dwarf stars with IR excesses. This could be due to the extreme youth of GJ 803 (12 Myr, Zuckerman et al., 2001) and Hen 3–600 ($`810`$ Myr, Webb et al., 1999). Song et al. (2001) have found two very young ($`12`$ Myrs) late–type stars (HIP 23309, M0 and HIP 29964, K6) co–moving with $`\beta `$ Pictoris. Even if one assumed that these two *Hipparcos* stars have the same fractional IR luminosity as $`\beta `$ Pictoris ($`L_{IR}/L_{star}10^3`$), their corresponding 60 $`\mu `$m fluxes ($`<80`$ mJy and $`<40`$ mJy, respectively) are below the *IRAS* detection threshold. This is true for late–type stars with $`\beta `$ Pic-like excess in nearby young stellar groups, i.e, TWA. These stars would be excellent targets for future IR excess surveys by *SOFIA* or *SIRTF*.

We are grateful to Mr. Michael Schwartz for assistance obtaining JHK data for GJ 413.1 and GJ 433 and Dr. M. Jura for helpful discussion and assistance with a Keck observation. We also thank an anonymous referee for suggestions that clarified the paper. This research was supported by the UCLA Center for Astrobiology and by NASA. We have used the SIMBAD/Vizier database.