format: text

text:
# MKPH-T-02-06 Influence of final state interaction on incoherent pion photoproduction on the deuteron in the region of the Δ-resonance

## I Introduction

The particular interest in pion photoproduction on the deuteron lies in the fact that the simple and well known deuteron structure allows one to obtain information on the production process on the neutron which otherwise is difficult to obtain in view of the absence of any free neutron targets. The essential idea behind this reasoning is that for quasifree kinematics the dominant production process is given by the elementary reaction on one nucleon while the other acts merely as a spectator. However, this is possible only if competing two-body processes like final state interaction (FSI) in the $`\pi NN`$ system and possible two-body exchange current contributions are under control.

Early studies of this reaction are done in ChL51 ; LaF52 ; BlL77 . Approximate treatments of final state interaction effects within a diagrammatic approach have been reported in Lag78 ; Lag81 . In that work, a comparison with experimental data was possible only for $`\pi ^{}`$ production Be+73 , and a satisfactory agreement was found. The authors noted that the FSI effects are quite small for the charged pion photoproduction reactions in comparison to the neutral channel. More recently Levchuk et al. LeP96  studied quasifree $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction on the neutron via the $`d(\gamma ,\pi ^0)np`$ reaction using the elementary photoproduction operator of Blomqvist and Laget BlL77 . In agreement with the results of Lag81 , they found that the largest rescattering effects arise from the $`np`$ final state interaction leading to a strong reduction of the cross section at pion forward angles, but are much less important in backward direction. The experimental data from Kru99  for the $`d(\gamma ,\pi ^0)np`$ reaction qualitatively support this prediction although a direct comparison was not possible. The threshold region was explored in Le+00  where a sizeable effect from $`\pi N`$ rescattering was noted via intermediate charged pion production with subsequent charge exchange. Recently, Levchuk et al. LeS00  modified the theoretical predictions of LeP96  using a more realistic elementary production operator and including also the charged pion production channels but considering only $`NN`$ rescattering for which the Bonn r-space potential MaH87  was used. The elementary production operator was taken from the SAID Said  and MAID Maid  multipole analyses. The sizeable effects from $`NN`$ FSI were confirmed and good agreement with the experimental data was achieved.

The present paper is a natural extension of our work in ScA96  where this process was studied in the pure impulse approximation (IA), i.e., without inclusion of any FSI or two-body currents. First of all, we were interested in the question whether inclusion of FSI would lead to a good description of the available data, in particular with respect to the recent data on incoherent $`\pi ^0`$ production on the deuteron Kru99 . Although quite a good description was already achieved in LeS00 , we were puzzeled by the fact that the results for the IA of this work showed certain significant differences to our IA results ScA96  for charged pion production, which is most obvious in the differential cross sections at forward angles. The origin of this discrepancy was not clear. Furthermore, it was an open question whether the inclusion of rescattering contributions would lead to a different result. Therefore, we have included in the present work as a first step the presumably must important part of the FSI, namely the full hadronic rescattering in all two-body subsystems of the final state, i.e., $`NN`$\- and $`\pi N`$-rescattering, whereas the third particle is treated as a spectator. It is still an approximate treatment, the same as in LeS00 , insofar as only the complete scattering in either the $`NN`$\- or the $`\pi N`$ subsystems are considered, and not a genuine three-body approach. In particular, it will remain a future task to see how critical the violation of unitarity will be.

In the next section we will briefly review the model for the elementary photoproduction amplitude which will serve as an input for the reaction on the deuteron. Sect. III will introduce the general form of the differential cross section for incoherent pion photoproduction on the deuteron. The separate contributions of the impulse approximation and the two rescatterings to the transition matrix are described in Sect. IV. Details of the actual calculation and the results are presented and discussed in Sect. V. Finally, we close in Sect. VI with a summary and an outlook.

## II The elementary pion photoproduction on the nucleon

For the elementary photoproduction operator, we have taken the effective Lagrangian model of Schmidt et al. ScA96  since it is given in an arbitrary frame of reference and allows a well defined off-shell continuation as required for studying pion production on nuclei. It is in contrast to other approaches, where the elementary amplitude is constructed first on-shell in the photon-nucleon c.m. frame with subsequent boost into an arbitrary reference frame and some prescription for the off-shell continuation. In the latter method, one loses terms which by chance vanish in the c.m. frame BrA97 . In our approach, the only uncertainty arises from the assignment of the invariant energy for the photon-nucleon subsystem in the resonance propagators as has been discussed in detail in BrA97 . Here we use the spectator on-shell approach. The model of ScA96  consists of the standard pseudovector Born terms and the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance. For details we refer to ScA96 . The parameters of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance are fixed by fitting the experimental $`M_{1+}^{3/2}`$ multipole. With respect to the parameters used in ScA96 , there was only a slight change in the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance for which we took a value of 1233 MeV. The quality of the model can be judged by a comparison with the MAID analysis Maid , the Mainz dispersion analysis HaD98  and the VPI analysis Said  as shown in Fig. 1, and one notes quite a good agreement.

In Fig. 2 we compare our results for the differential cross sections with the MAID analysis Maid  and with experimental data. For $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction on the proton the data are taken from Be+97 ; Leu00 ; Pre00  (MAMI), whereas for $`\pi ^{}`$ photoproduction we took the data from Fu+77  (Tokyo). In general, we obtain quite a good agreement with the data, especially in the region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) resonance at 330 MeV. Also in comparison with the MAID analysis our elementary production operator does quite well in this energy region. One notes only small discrepancies which very likely come from the fact that no other resonances besides the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) are included in our model.

The total cross sections for the different pion channels are shown in Fig. 3 and compared with experimental data. In general, we obtain a good agreement with the data using the small value $`f_{\pi N}^2/4\pi =0.069`$ for the pion-nucleon coupling constant. The agreement with the data from Fu+77  and Bagheri88  for $`\pi ^{}`$ photoproduction on the neutron is again satisfactory. In case of the $`\pi ^+`$ photoproduction, the agreement is good up to a photon energy of about 400 MeV. For higher energies, the $`D_{13}`$ resonance, which is not included in our calculation, gives a non-vanishing contribution Maid . The $`\pi ^+`$ data from Fu+77  are slightly underestimated in the resonance region by our calculation but also by the MAID analysis. Except for a tiny overestimation in the maximum, the description of the data for $`\pi ^0`$ production on the proton is also very good. Therefore, this model for the elementary photoproduction amplitude is quite satisfactory for our purpose, namely to incorporate it into the reaction on the deuteron.

## III Incoherent pion production on the deuteron

We will briefly review the general formalism for incoherent pion production on the deuteron. The general expression for the unpolarized differential cross section of pion photoproduction reaction on the deuteron is given, using the conventions of Bjorken and Drell BjD64 , by

$`d\sigma =(2\pi )^5\delta ^4\left(k+dp_1p_2q\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{v}_\gamma \stackrel{}{v}_d|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{2\omega _\stackrel{}{q}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_1}{E_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_2}{E_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_N^2}{4\omega _\gamma E_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,m,t,m_\gamma ,m_d}{}}|_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )}|^2,`$ (1)
where initial photon and deuteron four-momenta are denoted by $`k=(\omega _\gamma ,\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`d=(E_d,\stackrel{}{d})`$, respectively, and the four-momenta of final meson and two nucleons by $`q=(\omega _q,\stackrel{}{q})`$ with $`\omega _q=\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}`$, $`m_\pi `$ as pion mass, and $`p_j=(E_j,\stackrel{}{p}_j)`$ ($`j=1,2`$) with $`E_j=\sqrt{M_N^2+\stackrel{}{p}_j^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}`$, respectively, and $`M_N`$ as nucleon mass. Furthermore, $`m_\gamma `$ denotes the photon polarization, $`m_d`$ the spin projection of the deuteron, $`s`$ and $`m`$ total spin and projection of the two outgoing nucleons, respectively, $`t`$ their total isospin, $`\mu `$ the isospin projection of the pion, and $`\stackrel{}{v}_\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_d`$ the velocities of photon and deuteron, respectively. The states of all particles are covariantly normalized. The reaction amplitude is denoted by $`_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )}`$. As in ScA96 , we have chosen as independent variables the pion momentum $`q`$, its angles $`\theta _\pi `$ and $`\varphi _\pi `$, the polar angle $`\theta _{p_{NN}}`$ and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi _{p_{NN}}`$ of the relative momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}`$ of the two outgoing nucleons as independent variables.

The total and relative momenta of the final $`NN`$-system are defined respectively by

$$\stackrel{}{P}_{NN}=\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}\text{and}\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2\right).$$
(2)
The absolute value of the relative momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}`$ is given by

$`p_{NN}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_{NN}^2(W_{NN}^24M_N^2)}{E_{NN}^2P_{NN}^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{Pp_{NN}}}}},`$ (3)
where $`E_{NN}`$ and $`W_{NN}`$ denote total energy and invariant mass of the $`NN`$ subsystem

$`E_{NN}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1+E__2=\omega _\gamma +E_d\omega _q,`$
$`W_{NN}^2`$ $`=`$ $`E_{NN}^2P_{NN}^2,`$ (4)
and $`\theta _{Pp_{NN}}`$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{P}_{NN}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}`$.

For the evaluation we have chosen the laboratory frame where $`d^\mu =(M_d,\stackrel{}{0})`$ with $`M_d`$ as deuteron mass. As coordinate system a right-handed one is taken with $`z`$-axis along the momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ of the incoming photon and $`y`$-axis along $`\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{q}`$. Thus the outgoing pion defines the scattering plane. Another plane is defined by the momenta of the outgoing nucleons which we will call the nucleon plane (see Fig. 4).

In the later discussion of the main features of the processes we will consider the semi-inclusive differential cross section $`d^2\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi `$, where only the final pion is detected. It is obtained from the fully exclusive cross section

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_{NN}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi dq}}={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,m,t,m_\gamma ,m_d}{}}|_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )}|^2`$ (5)
by integration over $`q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_{NN}}`$

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi }=_0^{q_{max}}𝑑q𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_{NN}}\frac{d^5\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p_{NN}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi dq},$$
(6)
where the maximal pion momentum $`q_{max}`$ is determined by the kinematics. The phase space factor $`\rho _s`$ in (5) is expressed in terms of relative and total momenta of the two final nucleons

$`\rho _s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{NN}^2M_N^2}{\left|E_2(p_{NN}+\frac{1}{2}P_{NN}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Pp_{NN}})+E_1(p_{NN}\frac{1}{2}P_{NN}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Pp_{NN}})\right|}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{16\omega _\gamma M_d\omega _q}}.`$ (7)
## IV The transition matrix

The general form of the photoproduction transition matrix is given by

$`_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p_1},\stackrel{}{p_2})`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{()}\stackrel{}{q}\mu ,\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p_2}smt\mu |ϵ_\mu (m_\gamma )J^\mu (0)|\stackrel{}{d}m_d\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00},`$ (8)
where $`J^\mu (0)`$ denotes the current operator and $`ϵ_\mu (m_\gamma )`$ the photon polarization vector. The electromagnetic interaction consists of the elementary production process on one of the nucleons $`T_{\pi \gamma }^{(j)}`$ $`(j=1,2)`$ and in principle a possible irreducible two-body production operator $`T_{\pi \gamma }^{(NN)}`$. The final $`\pi NN`$ state is then subject to the various hadronic two-body interactions as described by an half-off-shell three-body scattering amplitude $`T^{\pi NN}`$. In the following, we will neglect the electromagnetic two-body production $`T_{\pi \gamma }^{(NN)}`$, and the outgoing $`\pi NN`$ scattering state is approximated in this work by

$$|\stackrel{}{q}\mu ,\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p_2}smt\mu ^{()}=|\stackrel{}{q}\mu ,\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p_2}smt\mu +G_0^{\pi NN()}(T^{\pi N}(1)+T^{\pi N}(2)+T^{NN})|\stackrel{}{q}\mu ,\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p_2}smt\mu ,$$
(9)
where $`|\stackrel{}{q}\mu ,\stackrel{}{p_1}\stackrel{}{p_2}smt\mu `$ denotes the free $`\pi NN`$ plane wave, $`G_0^{\pi NN()}`$ the free $`\pi NN`$ propagator, $`T^{\pi N}(j)`$ the reaction operator for $`\pi N`$-scattering on nucleon “$`j`$”, and $`T^{NN}`$ the corresponding one for $`NN`$-scattering. This means, we include besides the pure impulse approximation (IA), which is defined by the e.m. pion production on one of the nucleons alone, only the complete rescattering by the final state interaction within each of the two-body subsystems. Therefore, the total transition matrix element reads in this approximation

$`_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )}`$ $`=`$ $`_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )IA}+_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )NN}+_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )\pi N},`$ (10)
in an obvious notation. A graphical representation of the transition matrix is shown in Fig. 5. We will now consider the different contributions in detail.

### IV.1 The impulse approximation

Here we briefly review the relevant formulae from ScA96 . In the IA the final state interaction is neglected and the pion and the NN-final states are described by pure plane waves (see Fig. 5(a)). For the spin $`(|sm)`$ and isospin $`(|t\mu )`$ part of the two nucleon wave functions we use a coupled spin-isospin basis $`|sm,t\mu `$. The antisymmetric final NN plane wave function thus has the form

$$|\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2,sm,t\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\stackrel{}{p}_1^{(1)}|\stackrel{}{p}_2^{(2)}()^{s+t}|\stackrel{}{p}_2^{(1)}|\stackrel{}{p}_1^{(2)})|sm,t\mu ,$$
(11)
where the superscript indicates to which particle the ket refers. In the case of charged pions, only the $`t=1`$ channel contributes whereas for $`\pi ^0`$ production both $`t=0`$ and $`t=1`$ channels have to be taken into account. Then the IA matrix element is given by

$`_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )IA}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p_1},\stackrel{}{p_2})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2,sm,t\mu |t_{\gamma \pi }^{NN}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q})|\stackrel{}{d}m_d,00`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_1^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3p_2^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{M_N^2}{E_1^{}E_2^{}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}}{}}\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2,sm,t\mu |t_{\gamma \pi }^{NN}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q})|\stackrel{}{p}_1^{}\stackrel{}{p}_2^{},1m^{},00\stackrel{}{p}_1^{}\stackrel{}{p}_2^{},1m^{},00|\stackrel{}{d}m_d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}.`$
with

$$t_{\gamma \pi }^{NN}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q})=t_{\gamma \pi }^{N(1)}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q})+t_{\gamma \pi }^{N(2)}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q}),$$
(13)
where $`t_{\gamma \pi }^{N(j)}`$ denotes the elementary production amplitude on nucleon “$`j`$”. As mentioned above, we use covariant normalization for the nucleon, deuteron and meson states, i.e.,

$`\stackrel{}{p}^{}|\stackrel{}{p}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^3{\displaystyle \frac{E_p}{M_N}}\delta ^3\left(\stackrel{}{p}^{}\stackrel{}{p}\right),\stackrel{}{d}^{}|\stackrel{}{d}=(2\pi )^32E_d\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{d}^{}\stackrel{}{d}),\stackrel{}{q}^{}|\stackrel{}{q}=(2\pi )^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\omega _q\delta (\stackrel{}{q}^{}\stackrel{}{q}).`$ (14)
The deuteron wave function has the form

$$\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2,1m,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}|\stackrel{}{d}m_d,00=(2\pi )^3\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{d}\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2)\frac{\sqrt{2E_1E_2}}{M_N}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{m,m_d}(\stackrel{}{p}_{NN})$$
(15)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{m,m_d}(\stackrel{}{p})=(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{2E_d}\underset{L=0,2}{}\underset{m_L}{}i^LC_{m_Lmm_d}^{L11}u_L(p)Y_{Lm_L}(\widehat{p}),$$
(16)
denoting with $`C_{m_1m_2m}^{j_1j_2j}`$ a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient. Using (13) one finds in the laboratory system for the IA-matrix element the following expression

$`_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )IA}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}}{}}sm,t\mu |(\stackrel{}{p}_1|t_{\gamma \pi }^{N(1)}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q})|\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{m^{},m_d}(\stackrel{}{p}_2)()^{s+t}(\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2))|1m^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}.`$ (17)
Note that in (17) the elementary production operator acts on nucleon “1” only. This matrix element possesses the obvious symmetry under the interchange of the nucleon momenta

$$_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )IA}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_2,\stackrel{}{p}_1)=()^{s+t+1}_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )IA}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2).$$
(18)
### IV.2 $`NN`$ rescattering

As next we will evaluate the $`NN`$-rescattering contribution whose Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 5 (b). The transition matrix element has the form

$`_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )NN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p_1^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3p_2^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{M_N^2}{E_1^{}E_2^{}}\underset{m^{}}{}_{smm^{}}^{NN,t\mu }(W_{NN},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2,\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})}`$ (19)
$`𝒢_0^{\pi NN(+)}(E_{\gamma d},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})_{sm^{}m_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )IA}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{}).`$
Here $`^{NN,t\mu }(W_{NN})`$ contains the half-off-shell $`NN`$-scattering matrix at the invariant energy of the $`NN`$-subsystem $`W_{NN}`$, and $`𝒢_0^{\pi NN(+)}(E_{\gamma d},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$ denotes the free $`\pi NN`$ propagator. The latter is given by

$`𝒢_0^{\pi NN(+)}(E_{\gamma d},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(E_{\gamma d}\omega _\pi (\stackrel{}{q})E_1(\stackrel{}{p}_1^{})E_2(\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})+iϵ\right)^1,`$ (20)
where $`E_{\gamma d}=\omega _\gamma +M_d`$. Now we introduce relative and total momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}^{()}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}^{()}`$, respectively, of the interacting nucleons in initial and final states

$$\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}^{()}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{p}_1^{()}\stackrel{}{p}_2^{()}),\stackrel{}{P}^{()}=\stackrel{}{p}_1^{()}+\stackrel{}{p}_2^{()}.$$
(21)
Using nonrelativistic kinematics for the nucleons, one finds for the propagator

$`𝒢_0^{\pi NN(+)}(E_{\gamma d},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{\stackrel{~}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_{NN}^2+iϵ}},`$ (22)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}^{}`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_N\left(E_{\gamma d}\omega _\pi (\stackrel{}{q})2M_N{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})^2}{4M_N}}\right).`$ (23)
As next we separate the c.m. motion of the two-nucleon subsystem and obtain for the $`NN`$ rescattering amplitude $`^{NN}`$

$`_{smm^{}}^{NN,t\mu }(W_{NN},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2,\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2(2\pi )^6\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{P}^{}\stackrel{}{P}){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{E_1E_2E_1^{}E_2^{}}}{M_N^2}}\stackrel{~}{}_{smm^{}}^{NN,t\mu }(W_{NN},\stackrel{}{p}_{NN},\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}^{}).`$ (24)
Here we have introduced the conventional $`NN`$-scattering matrix $`\stackrel{~}{}_{smm^{}}^{NN,t\mu }`$ with respect to noncovariantly normalized states, which is expanded in terms of the partial wave contributions $`𝒯_{Js\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}^{NN,t\mu }`$

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{smm^{}}^{NN,t\mu }(W_{NN},\stackrel{}{p}_{NN},\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}{}}_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}mm^{}}^{NN,Js}(\widehat{p}_{NN},\widehat{p}_{NN}^{})𝒯_{Js\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}^{NN,t\mu }(W_{NN},p_{NN},p_{NN}^{}),`$ (25)
where orbital and total angular momenta of the two-nucleon system are denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`J`$, respectively. The purely angular function $`_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}mm^{}}^{NN,Js}(\widehat{p}_{NN},\widehat{p}_{NN}^{})`$ is defined by

$`_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}mm^{}}^{NN,Js}(\widehat{p}_{NN},\widehat{p}_{NN}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Mm_{\mathrm{}}m_{\mathrm{}^{}}}{}}C_{m_{\mathrm{}}mM}^{\mathrm{}sJ}C_{m_{\mathrm{}^{}}m^{}M}^{\mathrm{}^{}sJ}Y_\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\widehat{p}_{NN})Y_\mathrm{}^{}m_{\mathrm{}^{}}(\widehat{p}_{NN}^{}).`$ (26)
Collecting the various pieces and substituting (24) and (22) into (19), one obtains the following expression for the $`NN`$ rescattering contribution

$`_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )NN}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m^{}}{}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}^{}\sqrt{\frac{E_1E_2}{E_1^{}E_2^{}}}\stackrel{~}{}_{smm^{}}^{NN,t\mu }(W_{NN},\stackrel{}{p}_{NN},\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}^{})}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_N}{\stackrel{~}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_{NN}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+iϵ}}_{sm^{},m_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )IA}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{}).`$
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_{1/2}^{}=\pm \stackrel{}{p}_{NN}^{}+(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q})/2`$ and $`E_{1/2}^{}`$ the corresponding on-shell energies.

### IV.3 $`\pi N`$ rescattering

The last contribution concerns the $`\pi N`$-rescattering in the final state whose diagram is shown in Fig. 5 (c). The corresponding transition matrix element has formally a similar structure as the one for $`NN`$-rescattering and is given by

$`M_{sm,m_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )\pi N}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_1^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_2^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{M_N^2}{2\omega _q^{}E_1^{}E_2^{}}}`$ (28)
$`\left[_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2,\stackrel{}{q}^{},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})()^{s+t}_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_2,\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{q}^{},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})\right]`$
$`𝒢_0^{\pi NN(+)}(E_{\gamma d},\stackrel{}{q}^{},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})_{s^{}m^{}m_\gamma m_d}^{(t^{}\mu ^{})IA}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q}^{},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{}),`$
where we have introduced as a shorthand for the quantum numbers $`\alpha =(smt\mu )`$ and have made use of the symmetry (18). Furthermore, $`_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2,\stackrel{}{q}^{},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$ containes the half-off-shell $`\pi N`$-scattering matrix. Separating the non-participating spectator nucleon and the c.m. motion of the interacting $`\pi N`$ subsystem, switching to an uncoupled spin-isospin basis, and coupling the isospins of the interacting pion and nucleon to a total isospin $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$, one obtains

$`_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p_1},\stackrel{}{p_2},\stackrel{}{q}^{},\stackrel{}{p}_1^{},\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi )^9\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{\omega _q\omega _q^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_1}{M_N}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_2E_2^{}}{M_N^2}}}\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_1^{})\delta (\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{q}^{}\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_2m_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _2\mu _2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{}}𝒞_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}(m_2,m_2^{},\mu _2,\mu _2^{})\stackrel{~}{}_{m_2m_2^{}}^{\pi N,\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}(W_{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{p}_2),\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N},\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N}^{}),`$
where

$$𝒞_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}(m_2,m_2^{},\mu _2,\mu _2^{})=C_{\mu \mu _2\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^{1\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{t}}C_{\mu ^{}\mu _2^{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^{1\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{t}}\underset{m_1}{}C_{m_1m_2m}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}s}C_{m_1m_2^{}m^{}}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}s}\underset{\mu _1}{}C_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu }^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}t}C_{\mu _1\mu _2^{}\mu ^{}}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}t^{}}$$
(30)
contains the recoupling coefficients, and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{m_2m_2^{}}^{\pi N,\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$ denotes the half-off-shell $`\pi N`$-scattering matrix at the invariant mass $`W_{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{p}_2)=\sqrt{(E_2+\omega _q)^2(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{p}_2)^2}`$ of the $`\pi N`$ subsystem. Furthermore, $`m_2`$ ($`m_2^{}`$) and $`\mu _2`$ ($`\mu _2^{}`$) denote the spin and isospin projections of the final (initial) nucleon in the $`\pi N`$ subsystem, respectively. The relative momentum of the final (initial) pion-nucleon subsystem is given, respectively, by

$$\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N}=\frac{M_N\stackrel{}{q}m_\pi \stackrel{}{p}_2}{M_N+m_\pi },\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N}^{}=\frac{M_N\stackrel{}{q}^{}m_\pi \stackrel{}{p}_2^{}}{M_N+m_\pi }=\frac{M_N}{M_N+m_\pi }(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{p}_2)\stackrel{}{p}_2^{}.$$
(31)
The $`\pi N`$ scattering matrix is now expanded in terms of partial wave amplitudes

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{m_2m_2^{}}^{\pi N,\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}(W_{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{p}_2),\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N},\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J\mathrm{}}{}}_{J\mathrm{}m_2m_2^{}}^{\pi N}(\widehat{p}_{\pi N},\widehat{p}_{\pi N}^{})𝒯_J\mathrm{}^{\pi N,\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}(W_{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{p}_2),p_{\pi N},p_{\pi N}^{}),`$ (32)
where we have defined

$`_{J\mathrm{}m_2m_2^{}}^{\pi N}(\widehat{p}_{\pi N},\widehat{p}_{\pi N}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_{\mathrm{}}m_{\mathrm{}}^{}M}{}}C_{m_2m_{\mathrm{}}M}^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}J}C_{m_2^{}m_{\mathrm{}}^{}M}^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}J}Y_\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\widehat{p}_{\pi N})Y_\mathrm{}m_{\mathrm{}}^{}(\widehat{p}_{\pi N}^{}).`$ (33)
Inserting (29) with (32) into (28), one obtains the final form for the $`\pi N`$-rescattering contribution

$`M_{smm_\gamma m_d}^{(t\mu )\pi N}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{p}_2^{}\sqrt{\frac{\omega _qE_2}{\omega _q^{}E_2^{}}}\underset{m_2m_2^{}}{}\underset{\mu _2\mu _2^{}}{}\underset{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{}𝒞_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}(m_2,m_2^{},\mu _2,\mu _2^{})}`$ (34)
$`[{\displaystyle \underset{J\mathrm{}}{}}_{J\mathrm{}m_2m_2^{}}^{\pi N}(\widehat{p}_{\pi N},\widehat{p}_{\pi N}^{})𝒯_J\mathrm{}^{\pi N,\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{\mu }}(W_{\pi N}(\stackrel{}{p}_2),p_{\pi N},p_{\pi N}^{})𝒢_0^{\pi NN(+)}(E_{\gamma d},\stackrel{}{q}^{},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$
$`_{s^{}m^{},m_\gamma m_d}^{(t^{}\mu ^{})IA}(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q}^{},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})()^{s+t}(\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2)],`$
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi N}`$ are given in (31) and $`\stackrel{}{q}^{}=\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_2^{}`$.

## V Results and discussion

The three contributions to the pion production amplitude, i.e., the IA in (17) and the two rescattering contributions in (27) and (34) are evaluated by taking a realistic $`NN`$ potential model for the deuteron wave function and the $`NN`$ scattering amplitudes, in this work the Paris potential. Specifically, we have taken the deuteron wave function from La+81  and the interaction in the separable representation of HaP84 ; HaP85 . Explicitly, we have included all partial waves with total angular momentum $`J3`$. Also in the case of $`\pi N`$ rescattering we have used the separable energy-dependent $`\pi N`$ potential of NoB90  and have considered all $`S`$-, $`P`$\- and $`D`$-waves. The remaining three dimensional integrals in (27) over $`\stackrel{}{p}_{NN}^{}`$ and in (34) over $`\stackrel{}{p}_2^{}`$ are evaluated numerically. We would like to remark, that we have obtained essentially the same results if we take the Bonn r-space potential MaH87  instead of the Paris one.

The discussion of our results is divided into two parts. First, we will discuss the influence of FSI on the total cross section by comparing the pure IA with the inclusion of two-body rescattering in the final state. Furthermore, we will confront our results with experimental data and other theoretical calculations. In the second part, we will then consider the semi-exclusive differential cross section $`d^2\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi `$ where only the pion is detected in the final state.

### V.1 Total Cross Section

Our results for the total cross sections in IA alone and with FSI effects included are presented in Fig. 6. In order to show in greater detail the relative influence of rescattering effects on the total cross sections, we show in Fig. 7 the effect of complete rescattering relative to the IA by the ratio $`\sigma _{tot}^{IA+NN+\pi N}/\sigma _{tot}^{IA}`$ and in Fig. 8 the effect of $`\pi N`$-rescattering alone relative to the complete effect by the ratio $`\sigma _{tot}^{IA+NN+\pi N}/\sigma _{tot}^{IA+NN}`$, where $`\sigma _{tot}^{IA}`$ denotes the total cross section in the impulse approximation, $`\sigma _{tot}^{IA+NN}`$ the one including only $`NN`$ rescattering, and $`\sigma _{tot}^{IA+NN+\pi N}`$ the one including in addition $`\pi N`$ rescattering contributions. One readily notes the importance of rescattering effects, in particular for the $`\pi ^0`$ channel. FSI leads in all cases, to a reduction of the total cross section, except close to the production threshold, where for charged pions one notes a sizeable increase and above about 450 MeV. The sizeable effect of $`\pi N`$ rescattering in the threshold region confirms the previous results in BlL77  for the coherent reaction and in KoW77 ; Le+00  for the incoherent one. Furthermore, it has been pointed out already in Le+00 , that also for charged pion channels rescattering effects are important in the threshold region.

In the energy range of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) resonance, one finds the strongest reduction by rescattering effects which arise predominantly from $`NN`$ rescattering, whereas the influence of $`\pi N`$ rescattering appears almost negligible, about an order of magnitude smaller, as is evident from Fig. 8. Only for neutral pion production $`\pi N`$ rescattering becomes noticable below the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region and amounts to about 40 percent of the total effect near 175 MeV. The reason for this relatively small effect from $`\pi N`$ rescattering lies in the much smaller $`\pi N`$-interaction in comparison to the $`NN`$-interaction. This is manifest by the fact that the $`S`$-wave scattering length of $`\pi N`$-scattering is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the one of $`NN`$-scattering.

While for charged pion photoproduction FSI effects are relatively small, not more than about 5 percent, they are quite strong in the case of neutral pion photoproduction, reaching a maximum of about 60 percent at 175 MeV and still about 35 percent in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region. The large $`NN`$ FSI effect in neutral pion production has two related sources. The first arises from the fact that for the $`\pi ^0`$ channel the IA contains a contribution from the coherent process because the final $`NN`$ plane wave contains a deuteron bound state component. This part, which is absent for charged pion production, is automatically excluded as soon as the $`NN`$ interaction is switched on, because the scattering state is orthogonal to the deuteron ground state. The second source is the change in the radial wave function of the final $`NN`$ partial waves by the interaction. The latter is also responsible for the reduction of the charged pion channels.

Fig. 9 shows a comparison of our results for the total cross sections for $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction with experimental data. In view of the fact that data for $`\pi ^+`$ production in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region are not available, we concentrate the discussion on $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ data. In the case of $`\pi ^{}`$ production we have taken the experimental data from Be+73 ; ChD75 ; As+90  while for $`\pi ^0`$ production we compare our results with the experimental data from Kru99 . One readily notes, that in agreement with earlier results the pure IA cannot describe the experimental data, especially in the case of $`\pi ^0`$ production. The inclusion of such effects improves the agreement between experimental data and theoretical predictions considerably. Only in the maximum of $`\pi ^0`$ production our model overestimates the measured total cross section by about 6$`\%`$.

Finally, we compare our results with the theoretical predictions from LeS00  as shown in Fig. 10. Surprisingly, one notes for the impulse approximation a significant difference for charged pion production which cannot be attributed to the use of different elementary production operators. A possible explanation for this feature will be presented in the next section, where we will discuss the differential cross sections. On the other hand, inclusion of FSI leads in our case to a reduction whereas an enhancement was found in LeS00  for charged pion production. As a result, one finds quite close agreement for the two calculations, if FSI is included. On the contrary, for neutral pion production we obtain reasonable agreement in the IA with LeS00 , only in the maximum and at higher energies one notes some differences which very likely come from the neglect of higher resonances in our elementary photoproduction model. Both calculations predict a strong reduction by FSI leading to a satisfactory agreement. The remaining small differences probably stem from different pion photoproduction operators and from different realistic $`NN`$ potential models, since in LeS00  the Bonn r-space potential model MaH87  has been used.

### V.2 Differential Cross Section

We begin the discussion by presenting the results for the differential cross sections in the pure IA and with rescattering included in Fig. 11. Here one sees that the major contribution from FSI appears at forward pion angles, i.e., at angles less than 90, predominantly from $`NN`$ rescattering, whereas rescattering effects become quite small for backward angles. As already noted for the total cross section, the overall effect is quite small for charged pions, reaching a maximal reduction at $`\theta _\pi =0^{}`$ of about 15 percent and decreasing rapidly with increasing angle. In the case of the $`\pi ^0`$ channel, the results for the total cross section have already shown that the effect of rescattering is large. Again one notes that the dominant effect appears at forward pion angles resulting in a strong reduction of the order of 40 percent. At 90 the reduction is still sizeable but decreases to a tiny effect at 180.

Another interesting feature is that for charged pion production in contrast to $`\pi ^0`$ production the angular distribution of the emitted pion is more and more forward peaked with increasing photon energy. Its origin are the Born terms which are absent for $`\pi ^0`$ production. This is demonstrated in Fig. 12 where the separate contributions from Born and resonance terms are shown. More than 70 percent of the differential cross section at $`\theta _\pi =0`$ comes from the Born terms.

A comparison with experimental data from Be+73  for $`\pi ^{}`$ production and from Kru99  for $`\pi ^0`$ production is shown in Figs. 13 and 14. Since in Kru99  the differential cross sections for the reaction $`d(\gamma ,\pi ^0)np`$ are given in the so-called $`\gamma N`$ c.m. frame we have transformed the differential cross sections from the lab frame to the $`\gamma N`$ c.m. frame. The pion angle in the $`\gamma N`$ c. m. frame is denoted by $`\theta _\pi ^{}`$.

For $`\pi ^{}`$ production the small reduction at forward angles leads at 350 MeV to an improved and satisfactory description of the data at forward angles. At the lower energy of 250 MeV FSI effects are small, but one notes in the maximum around 90 an underestimation of the data by about 15 percent while at 180 the theory is slightly higher than the data. Also at 420 MeV the theory is at forward angles slightly above the data but below in the backward direction. However, the overall description is quite satisfactory. The comparison between theory and experiment is even better for $`\pi ^0`$ production, where the inclusion of FSI yields an almost perfect description.

Now we compare our results for the differential cross sections with the theoretical predictions of Levchuk et al. LeS00  in Fig. 15. For the $`\pi ^0`$ channel we find quite a good agreement in the maximum. At forward angles one notes for the pure IA as well as with inclusion of FSI only at the lowest energy agreement, whereas for the two higher energies larger differences appear. In the backward direction we find for all three energies a significantly larger cross section already for the IA while FSI effects are tiny (see right panels of Fig. 15). Again we suspect differences in the elementary production amplitude to be responsible for this fact. However, for charged pion production the situation is quite different. Major discrepancies are evident in the forward direction for the IA. While we find an increased forward peaking of the cross section with increasing energy, the cross section remains small in LeS00  at $`\theta _\pi =0`$. Analysing in detail the contributions from the $`s=0`$ and $`s=1`$ parts of the $`NN`$ final state plane wave (see left panel of Fig. 16), we discovered that we could reproduce the results of LeS00  if we assume a wrong antisymmetrization for the $`s=0`$ channel, i.e., using instead of (11) for $`s=0`$

$$|\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2,00,t\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|\stackrel{}{p}_1^{(1)}|\stackrel{}{p}_2^{(2)}+()^t|\stackrel{}{p}_2^{(1)}|\stackrel{}{p}_1^{(2)}\right)|00,t\mu ,$$
(35)
and keeping the form of (11) for the $`s=1`$ channel. This is demonstrated in the right panel of Fig. 16 where we obtain in this case also a decrease of the cross section at 0 very similar to LeS00 . This wrong antisymmetrization for the $`s=0`$ channel corresponds in the uncoupled representation, as used in LeS00 , to an interchange of the momenta of the two nucleons alone without interchanging the spin quantum numbers. This we have checked by using also an uncoupled, i.e., helicity basis leading to the same result. However, we can only suspect that the difference to the results of LeS00  may originate from such an error in the antisymmetrization.

## VI Summary and conclusions

In this work we have investigated the influence of final state interaction effects on incoherent single pion photoproduction on the deuteron in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ resonance region. The elementary production operator on the nucleon is taken in an effective Lagarangian model used earlier in a study of the same process in the impulse approximation, where all kind of final state interactions and other two-body operators were neglected. As presumably dominant final state interaction effects we have included the complete rescattering contributions in the two-body $`NN`$\- and $`\pi N`$-subsystems. As models for the interaction of the $`NN`$\- and $`\pi N`$-subsystems we used separable representations of realistic $`NN`$ and $`\pi N`$ interactions which give a good description of the corresponding phase shifts. For $`NN`$ rescattering, we have included all partial waves with total angular momentum $`J3`$ and for $`\pi N`$ rescattering $`S`$\- through $`D`$-waves.

We found that the influence of $`NN`$ and $`\pi N`$ rescattering reduces the total cross sections in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) resonance region for charged pion photoproduction by about 5 percent and for $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction reaction, where rescattering is much more important, by about 35 percent in the maximum. Furthermore, $`\pi N`$ rescattering appears to be much less important compared to $`NN`$ rescattering. In comparison with experimental data, the inclusion of rescattering effects leads to an improved agreement with experimental data. Only in the maximum of $`\pi ^0`$ production our model overestimates slightly the measured total cross section by a few percent. With respect to the theoretical predictions of LeS00 , we obtained very similar results when FSI is included.

The study of the differential cross section revealed that the reduction by inclusion of FSI appears predominantly at pion forward angles by about 15 percent for charged pion production and for the $`\pi ^0`$ channel by about 40 percent. For pions emitted in the backward direction the influence of rescattering is much less important. As already noted for the total cross section, $`\pi N`$ rescattering has a very small effect on the final results. In comparison with experiment, the inclusion of FSI yields a very satisfactory agreement with data. Small discrepancies remain at backward pion angles. In comparison with the results of LeS00  in the IA, we found for charged pion channels at forward angles a large difference between both calculations. A detailed analysis gave as possible explanation a wrong antisymmetrization for the final two-proton or two-neutron state. After inclusion of rescattering effects we obtained a satisfactory agreement with LeS00 .

The present study will serve as a basis for further investigations including a three-body treatment the final $`\pi NN`$ system for the lowest and most important partial waves. This will insure the important unitarity condition and may result in an even better agreement between experimental data and theoretical predictions for $`\pi ^0`$ photoproduction. A further interesting topic concerns the study of polarization observables giving more detailed information on the dynamics and thus providing more stringent tests for theoretical models. As future refinements we consider also the use of a more sophisticated elementary production operator, which will allow one to extend the present approach to higher energies, and the role of irreducible two-body contributions to the e.m. pion production operator, e.g. interaction of the intermediate particle of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ pole diagrams with the spectator nucleon. In the long run, one would also need to extend the formalism to the threshold region for which the elementary production operator has to be improved. This process is of great interest since experimental data for the reaction $`d(\gamma ,\pi ^0n)p`$ have been measured recently in Mainz (MAMI/TAPS) and Saskatoon (SAL) Hor01 . Moreover, the formalism should be extended to investigate coherent and incoherent electroproduction of pions on the deuteron including final state interaction effects in both the threshold and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) resonance regions in order to analyze recent results from MAMI Mer00 .

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Alexander Fix for useful discussions and a critical reading of the manuscript. E.M. Darwish acknowledges a fellowship from Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) and would like to thank the Institut für Kernphysik of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz for the very kind hospitality. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443).


text:
# Unabsorbed Seyfert 2 galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Seyfert galaxies belong to the class of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN). According to the standard model, in active galaxies an accretion disk around a massive black hole produces a hard X-ray continuum, which photoionizes the Broad Line Region (BLR, where broad emission lines originate) and the Narrow Line Region (NLR, where narrow emission lines originate) located at $`<`$ 1 pc and at $`<`$ 100 pc from the nuclear engine respectively. Seyfert galaxies are classified as type 1 or type 2. Type 1 have both narrow forbidden lines (FWHM $``$ 103 km/s) and broad Balmer lines (FWHM $``$ 104 km/s) in their optical spectrum, while type 2 have only narrow lines. Actually they are the same object: type 2 Seyferts harbour a BLR, but this is obscured from view in some directions by a molecular torus (Unification Model; Antonucci, 1993).

Optical spectropolarimetry measurements of scattered broad permitted lines provide strong evidence in favour of the unified model (Antonucci & Miller 1985). At least 35% of Seyfert 2 galaxies have broad emission lines seen in polarized light (Tran 2001; Moran et al. 2000), therefore a good fraction of Seyfert 2 galaxies seem to host a hidden Seyfert 1 nucleus.

More evidence in favour of the unified model comes from the X-ray spectra: the column density of neutral hydrogen in type 2 Seyferts is significantly higher than in type 1 objects as would be expected if, for the type 2 sources, the nucleus is observed through the torus (Turner et al. 1997; Smith & Done 1996). Observed column densities range from 1022 cm-2 to higher than 1024 cm-2 for $``$ 96% of the objects (Risaliti et al. 1999; Bassani et al. 1999).

However, not all Seyfert 2 galaxies have a Broad Line Region in polarized light and not all Seyfert 2 galaxies have column densities higher than 1022 cm-2. Polarimetric surveys of complete samples of Seyfert 2s indicate that a large fraction of these objects (up to 50%) do not show a hidden BLR typical of an obscured Seyfert 1 nucleus. Furthermore there have been some recent examples of Seyfert 2 galaxies, such as NGC 3147 (Ptak et al. 1996), NGC 4698 (Pappa et al. 2001) and NGC 7590 (Bassani et al. 1999), which have no or low absorption measured from the X-ray spectrum. It can be argued that these are Compton thick objects i.e. in which the medium is thick to Compton scattering such that the transmitted component is completely suppressed below 10 keV and the 2-10 keV spectrum is dominated by reprocessed components. In this case the hard X-ray spectrum is characterized by a flat Compton reflection component from the inner surface of the torus and/or a steeper component ascribed to an ionized, warm scattering medium. When the absorbing medium has column density NH $`>`$ 1024 cm-2, then the transmitted component can be observed above 10 keV. Therefore, in these sources the true column density can only be estimated by higher energy data for NH $`>`$ 1024 cm-2 or measured indirectly by comparing the X-ray luminosity with the Far-Infrared or \[OIII\] luminosities for even higher column densities. In the above mentioned sources these absorption indicators suggest that they are actually Compton thin objects. At the moment at least $``$ 4% of Seyfert 2s have NH $`<`$ 1022 cm-2 (Risaliti et al. 1999). The exact nature of these peculiar Seyfert 2s is still unclear, as it is not obvious what obscures their Broad Line Region: they may be intrinsically different objects than those explained by the unified theory or in other words they may be the “true” Seyfert 2 galaxies which are sometimes discussed in the literature (Tran 2001).

In this paper we have collected a sample of Seyfert 2 galaxies characterized by low X-ray absorption in order to study their properties, estimate their abundance and understand better their nature.

## 2 The sample

The sample consists of objects which are classified in NED as type 2 Seyferts111In type 2 optical classification we also include Seyferts 1.9 and 1.8. and are characterized by low absorption in X-rays (NH $`<`$$``$ 1022 cm-2).

The 17 objects of the sample are listed in table 1 with optical positions in equatorial coordinates for epoch J2000, redshift z as reported in NED, Galactic column density from 21 cm measurement in units of 1020 cm-2 obtained from the HEASARC (High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center) on-line service and NED classification (S=Seyfert, L=Liner, SB=Starburst). In table 2 we list the main X-ray spectral parameters in addition to the Infrared and \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007 flux values.

### 2.1 Optical classification

All objects in table 1 are reported as pure or composite Seyfert 2s in NED. In order to check the NED Seyfert 2 classification accurately, we have employed the two optical diagnostic diagrams by Veilleux & Osterbrock (1987) which use line-intensity ratios that are relatively insensitive to reddening and are considered good excitation indicators. Line ratios such as \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007/Hβ, \[NII\]$`\lambda `$6583/Hα, \[OI\]$`\lambda `$6300/Hα delineate the different excitation mechanisms which operate in HII regions, high-excitation AGNs (Seyferts) and low-excitation AGNs (low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions, LINERS; Heckman 1980).

Although the boundaries between these three classes are not rigorously defined, these diagrams represent a valid system to distinguish between various types of narrow emission line objects. The line ratios shown in fig. 1 are taken from the literature (see the \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007 flux references of table 2). For those sources with more than one observation we adopted the most recent reference; note that not in all cases are the data available or complete.

Most of the objects plotted in fig. 1 show a well defined optical classification: they are classical type 2 sources. As expected, a few objects are located at the boundaries between Seyfert 2 and Liner/Starburst and so are likely to be Composite objects. The composite Seyfert/Liner nature of NGC 4579 and NGC 4594 is clear cut as seen in both diagrams confirming their NED classification; NGC 5033 and NGC 3147 are much less clear examples as they lie at the boundaries in one diagram but not in the other and so we maintain their NED definition.

Transition objects between Seyfert 2 and Starburst are NGC 6221 and NGC 7679; IC 1631 could be similar but unfortunately we lack information on the \[OI\]/Hα ratio to confirm this hypothesis. IRAS 20051-1117 which is classified as composite in NED is confirmed as this type only in one of the two diagrams and even in this case it is a borderline object: we therefore take this as an indication of the predominance of the Seyfert 2 signature. Therefore we substantially confirm the NED classifications (except in three cases which are flagged in table 1) and conclude that all sources of our sample are characterized by an optical type-2 signature.

### 2.2 Diagnostic diagrams

The X-ray characteristics of the sample sources (described in table 2) strongly suggest the presence of an AGN often of low-luminosity in most objects (the photon indices are canonical and Iron lines are sometimes detected). However this evidence is not sufficient to establish the presence of an active nucleus in all objects and in particular in low luminosity sources, where the luminosity does not allow us to discriminate between emission from an active nucleus or a starburst galaxy. Furthermore our objects could be Compton thick (NH $`>`$ 1024 cm-2) but since the photoelectric cut-off would not be detectable in the 2 - 10 keV spectrum, the column density measurements would be too low. However the presence of an AGN and the Compton nature (thin or thick) of each source can be checked by comparing isotropic versus anisotropic properties.

If a molecular torus is present in Seyfert galaxies, then it should block the X-ray emission coming from the central engine but it shouldn’t intercept emission coming from larger scale structures like the Narrow Line Region or a non nuclear starburst region. The column density could then be inferred from the flux ratios of the X-ray fluxes versus various isotropic emission measurements. The \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007 flux is considered a good isotropic indicator because it is produced in the Narrow Line Region (Maiolino & Rieke 1995; Risaliti et al. 1999; Bassani et al. 1999). Also the Far-Infrared emission seems to be produced over a larger region than that of the molecular torus and it has been used as an isotropic indicator too.

The FX/F\[OIII\] ratio has been studied in a large sample of Seyfert 2 galaxies: all Compton thin Seyferts show ratios higher than $``$ 1 while Compton thick sources show ratios below this value (Bassani et al. 1999). The FX/FIR ratio has also been largely discussed and used in the literature to investigate the presence of high column densities. Typically type 1 and Compton thin type 2 AGN show ratios of $``$ 0.1, while Compton thick type 2 objects show ratios lower than 5 $`\times `$ 10-4 (David et al. 1992; Mulchaey et al. 1994; Risaliti et al. 1999). Finally, since infrared emission is associated mainly with star-forming activity while the \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007 emission is produced by photons generated in the active nucleus, by comparing the F\[OIII\]/FIR ratio of all the starbursts and AGNs in the Ho et al. (1997) sample, Bassani et al. (in preparation) find that $``$ 90% of the starburst galaxies show a value below 10-4 while $``$ 88% of AGNs show a value above 10-4, therefore they suggest this value as a means of discriminating between one galaxy class and the other. In conclusion, these 3 ratios can provide an independent way to establish which is the dominant component between AGN or starburst and at the same time they are a powerful tool in the detection of Compton thick sources when an X-ray spectral analysis is not sufficient.

The fluxes used in our diagrams (figures 2 and 3) are listed in table 2. All far-infrared fluxes are based on IRAS data, taken from NED. For this paper we adopt the same definition used in Mulchaey et al. (1994) for the far-infrared flux:

$$F_{IR}=F_{25\mu m}\times \nu _{25\mu m}+F_{60\mu m}\times \nu _{60\mu m}$$
(1)
Note that due to the IRAS angular resolution the FIR value is likely to be overestimated for the nuclear region of each galaxy; this translates into FX/FIR and F\[OIII\]/FIR ratios smaller than in reality. The \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007 flux of each galaxy has been corrected for extinction using the formula given in Bassani et al. (1999).

In both figures 2 and 3 the starburst region is empty suggesting that the dominant component is likely to be an AGN; the region populated by our sources is that of the Compton thin regime, indicating that indeed we measure the real amount of absorption in all our objects. This result is confirmed also for those objects for which the data are not complete: the FX/F\[OIII\] ratios for MRK 273x, NGC 6221 and NGC 6251 are 71, 654 and 24 respectively and the FX/FIR ratio for IRAS 01428-0404 is 5.4 $`\times `$ 10-3.

The major problem when dealing with low luminosity AGN is the possible contamination from off nuclear sources in the observed galaxy: in this case the measured flux is overestimated by non-imaging/low-angular resolution instruments and the spectrum alterated. This is what is emerging from recent works based on Chandra and XMM-Newton observations: the X-ray fluxes are in most cases lower than those measured by past satellites (see Chandra results by Ho et al. 2001). A consequence of this could be a mistaken evaluation of the column density and/or of the Compton nature of the source. However, for those 5 sources of our sample which have Chandra or XMM-Newton data the spectral parameters are substantially in agreement with the old values and even if the 2 - 10 keV luminosities are somehow decreased, all these objects are still in the Compton thin region.

In any case, it is important to consider the possibility that more accurate and higher spatial resolution observations could reduce the flux of some of our sources.

## 3 How many unabsorbed Seyfert 2 galaxies are there?

Bassani et al. (1999) presented a column density distribution for a sample of Seyfert 2s for which X-ray data were available. The distribution was shifted toward high NH values and only $``$ 20% of the sources had a column density less than 1022 cm-2. However, the sample used by Bassani et al. (1999) was a collection of data and so it did not fulfill the requirements of completeness. When a complete sample was considered (Risaliti et al. 1999) the column density distribution found was similar for high column density values: 75% of type 2 Seyferts were found to be heavily obscured (NH $`>`$ 1023 cm-2) with 50% of the sources being Compton thick (NH $`>`$ 1024 cm-2). However, only $``$ 4% of the sample was characterized by low absorption (NH $`<`$ 1022 cm-2). The sample considered by Risaliti et al. (1999) was derived by the Maiolino & Rieke (1995) sample completed with NGC 1808 and integrated with 18 new sources found by Ho et al. (1997) which would have been included in the Maiolino & Rieke (1995) sample if they had been discovered earlier. This sample has been limited in \[OIII\] flux (F\[OIII\] $`>`$ 40 $`\times `$ 10-14 erg cm-2 s-1) in order to be independent of absorption effects and to have the greatest possible range in column density.

We have reconsidered the total sample reported in Risaliti et al. (1999), considering also the sources with F\[OIII\] $`<`$ 40 $`\times `$ 10-14 erg cm-2 s-1 and we have updated the column density distribution with NH measurements which have become available in the meantime. Finally, we have used the X-ray versus \[OIII\] flux ratios to assess the possible Compton thick nature of the sample sources, if a column density was not available: sources found to be Compton thick were ascribed to NH $`>`$ 1024 cm-2 range. This sample consists of 92 sources and for 59 sources we have the value of the column density. We find that the fraction of objects with NH $`<`$ 1022 cm-2 increases to $``$ 12% and this is to be considered a lower limit as not all sources have the column density measured. If we consider only the 59 sources with known NH, the fraction is $``$ 18%.

In order to check this result we also considered all sources which are classified as type 2 Seyferts (including the transition objects indicated as Liner2/Seyfert2 or Transition2/Seyfert2) in the Ho et al. (1997) sample, which is complete in magnitude to BT $`<`$ 12.0 mag. The total number of these objects is 49 and the column density has been determined for 19 of them. For all these sources the lower limit for the fraction of objects with NH $`<`$ 1022 cm-2 still remains around 10%, while for only those with known NH (19) the fraction is $``$ 26%. If we limit the sample in distance to $`<`$ 22 Mpc, in order to limit the number of sources without a column density measurement, we obtain a sample of 27 sources and 14 objects have an estimation of the NH. In this case, the lower limit for the fraction increases to 15%, while for the 14 sources this fraction is $``$ 28%. In table 3 we show the lower limits for the column density distributions derived in the three samples.

Although the number of sources for which there is no information available is high in all samples, the agreement found is reassuring. It is also interesting to note that an important fraction of unabsorbed objects is found only when low luminosity AGNs (LLAGNs) are considered: this is evident in the Risaliti et al. (1999) total sample when objects at low luminosity are included and it is obvious in the Ho et al. (1997) sample which is mainly made up by such sources.

Recently, Mainieri et al. (2002) have presented the results of the X-ray spectral analysis of the deep survey of the Lockman Hole field with the XMM-Newton observatory. Nearly 30% of type 2 Seyfert galaxies show NH $`<`$ 1022 cm-2.

If confirmed by future studies, the fraction of low absorbed Seyfert 2 galaxies obtained (presumably in the range of 10%-30%) could have important implications for synthesis models of the X-ray background and the Unified Theory of Seyfert galaxies.

In fig.4 we plot the column density, measured from the X-ray spectra, against 2 - 10 keV luminosity corrected for absorption. As expected we find no significant correlation (at 90% level for a two tailed test) between these two quantities confirming previous findings by Risaliti et al. (1999). Nevertheless it is interesting to note that we have extended the parameter space in fig. 4 considerably towards lower NH and X-ray luminosities compared to Risaliti et al. (1999) work: this further supports the idea that more unobscured Seyfert 2s are observed going towards low luminosities. Since the LLAGNs constitute the majority of the nearby AGN population, it becomes evident that unobscured type 2 objects may constitute a non-negligible part of the type 2 class.

## 4 What kind of objects are unabsorbed Seyfert 2s?

None of the sources in our sample show evidence of the broad (FWHM $`>`$ 1000 km/s) permitted emission lines observed in Seyfert 1s. However, some of our sources show a broad Hα component (NGC 2992, Gilli et al. 2000; NGC 4579, Ho et al. 1997; NGC 4594, Faber et al. 1997; NGC 5995, Lumsden & Alexander 2001; NGC 7679, Kewley et al. 2000); this is sometime variable (NGC 5033, Ho et al. 1995) and sometime extremely weak (IRAS 00317-2142, Coziol et al. 1993; NGC 4565, Ho et al. 1997).

Polarized spectroscopic measurements are available only for three objects: for both NGC 2992 (Rix et al. 1990) and NGC 5995 (Lumsden & Alexander 2001 and Tran 2001) a polarized broad Hα line has been measured, while for NGC 7590 no polarized broad Hα component has been detected (Heisler et al. 1997).

We have indications that at least 8 sources have broad components, but the broad components are not necessarely associated with an AGN Broad Line Region since they are too narrow for BLR standards. It is likely that the unabsorbed Seyfert 2 galaxies host a hidden BLR but we cannot rule out that in some of these objects the BLR is intrinsecally weak or absent. Therefore two scenarios are plausible:

* A standard BLR exists, however to provide a type 2 classification the BLR must be hidden by a non-standard absorbing medium.
* The BLR is non-standard (very weak or fading away) or it does not exist at all, in this case no absorbing material is required and our sources are truly not absorbed.

A possible solution within the first scenario is to assume a gas-to-dust ratio different from the Galactic one. This is a reasonable assumption since it has already been shown to be the case for a number of Seyfert galaxies (Maiolino et al. 2001). However, contrary to previous studies, in our case we need a dust-to-gas ratio higher than Galactic: in fact galaxies with NH $``$ 1021 cm-2 would have an extinction AV $``$ 0.45 insufficient to hide the BLR unless the AV/NH is a factor 10 - 50 higher than the Galactic value. This points to dust properties in our galaxies which are anomalous with respect to the great majority of AGNs. This result confirms previous findings of Maiolino et al. (2001) who notice that a few LLAGNs in their sample were characterized by an AV/NH ratio consistent with or even higher than the Galactic value.

Indeed, in the HST imaging survey of the nearest Seyferts, Malkan et al. (1998) found that the center regions of Seyfert 2 galaxies are intrinsically more dusty than those of Seyfert 1 galaxies, this property manifests itself in the form of lanes and patches that are irregular and reach close to the nucleus. However, this dusty and irregular environment is likely to be located on larger scale than the BLR and is likely to be associated with the inner regions of the host galaxy (Galactic Dust Model, GDM).

Another large scale structure which could be responsible for the absorption measured in X-rays is a starburst region (Weaver 2001; Levenson et al. 2001a, Starburst Model, SBM). Such regions can have large X-ray column densities of up to a few times 1022 cm-2. Such values can obscure the central AGN at optical wavelengths making a Seyfert 1 galaxy into a Seyfert 2 without requiring a pc-scale torus. This model also explains a higher presence of dust lanes, bars and star-forming activity in type 2 Seyferts than in type 1 Seyferts (Maiolino et al. 1997). Some objects of our sample are indeed characterized by the presence of a bar (IRAS 00317-2142, IRAS 01428-0404, NGC 4579, NGC 5995, NGC 6221 and NGC 7679) or emission from an HII region comparable to those of starburst galaxies (IC 1631, NGC 3147 and IRAS 20051-1117) and can therefore be explained within the GDM and SBM.

We can therefore check if the absorption present in our Seyfert 2 sample is compatible with these two models. This is feasible since in our objects the optical extinction at larger scales (i.e. in the NLR) can be assessed from the narrow emission lines using the narrow H$`{}_{\alpha }{}^{}/H_\beta `$ ratios and applying the Ward et al. (1987) formula:

$$A_V=6.67\times (log(H_\alpha /H_\beta )log(2.85))(mag)$$
(2)
These values can then be translated into gas column densities using equation 2 from Gorenstein (1975) and compared to the NH values measured from X-ray data to obtain the AV/NH ratio relative to the NLR. This AV/NH distribution is plotted in figure 5 where it is evident that the obscuration seen in X-rays is consistent with that measured in the NLR, expecially after considering the large errors affecting both the optical and X-ray measurements.

This conversely implies that in our sources the obscuring torus is either not visible or not present. This result conforms with both the GD and SB models in the sense that the absorbing material in X-rays is located at larger scale and that the AV/NH ratio measured in our sources allow for a dust-to-gas ratio equal to or even higher than Galactic. In this second hypothesis the optical extinction could be sufficient to hide the BLR and provide the type 2 classification of our sources.

In the second scenario no absorption is required to hide the broad line region which is therefore absent or very weak. This scenario is more likely applicable to low luminosity AGNs where the brightness of the active nucleus may be insufficient to photoionize the BLR.

## 5 Discussion

Under the Unified Theory hypothesis, when we are looking at a Seyfert 2 we should expect to measure a high X-ray column density produced by a thick molecular torus which hides the BLR. According to the results detailed above, the column density measured in our Seyfert sample is consistent with the extinction obtained from the reddening of the lines produced in the NLR. This means that the presence of an obscuring torus is not required and, therefore, that the objects considered in our sample are somehow anomalous Seyfert 2 galaxies. A column density of NH $``$ 1022 cm-2 or slightly under this value can be associated with the presence of a dust lane, a bar or an HII region. This could be the case for the objects in the present sample which in figure 4 populate the high X-ray luminosity - high column density region (IRAS 01428-0404, IC 1631, NGC 2992, NGC 5995, NGC 6221, NGC 6251 and IRAS 20051-1117); these have NH values sufficient to cover the BLR. These objects could be seen perpendicularly to the torus and some other type of absorbing material obscures the BLR. To summarise, if the BLR of these galaxies is obscured, then a larger-scale dusty environment is likely to be responsible for their obscuration.

However, in figure 4 at lower X-ray luminosities and lower column densities we find those objects with NH very low and sometimes compatible with the Galactic absorption; i.e. a value not sufficient to obscure the BLR (IRAS 00317-2142, NGC 3147, NGC 4579, NGC 4594, NGC 4565, NGC 4698, NGC 5033, MRK 273x, NGC 7590 and NGC 7679). A dust-to-gas ratio different from the Galactic one could be a possible solution to the problem, i.e. a strong dust contribution obscures the BLR and it is not detectable in X-rays. It is worth noting that, except for MRK 273x and NGC 7679, these low NH Seyferts are all LLAGNs. The nature of LLAGNs is a hotly debated issue, since it is not clear what powers such objects and it is not obvious that the unified model is valid at these low luminosities (Ho et al. 2001).

A few of our galaxies have very massive black holes ($`>`$ 109 M for NGC 4594 and 6 - 13 $`\times `$ 107 M for NGC 4579) and they accrete at extremely sub-Eddington rates (L/LEdd $`<`$ 10-5, Ho 1999). It is possible that in these extreme conditions there is not sufficient ionization power to illuminate the BLR or there is insufficient gas to feed the clouds in this region or the structure of the accretion flow is uncapable of activating it (Barth 2002). Such objects would be preferentially detected in early type galaxies with massive black holes because a sub-Eddington accreting AGN would be too faint to be visible in a spiral with a low black hole mass. About 50% of our LLAGNs are in early type galaxies. There is observational evidence to support the above suggestion: several recent works have investigated the size-mass-luminosity relations in AGNs (Wandel et al. 1999; Kaspi 2000; Collin & Huré 2001) supporting the idea that there is a correlation between the luminosity of the AGN and its BLR size in the sense that the BLR size decreases as the AGN luminosity decreases.

There are also theoretical studies which lead us to believe that in intrinsically weak AGNs the BLR is extremely faint or absent. Nicastro (2000) suggests a model in which the FWHMs of the broad emission lines are related to the accretion rate222In this model the broad emission lines originate in a vertical disk wind, at a critical distance in the accretion disk and the widths of such broad emission lines are the Keplerian velocities of the accretion disk at the radius at which the wind originates. The disk wind forms for external accretion rates higher than a minimum value below which a standard disk is stable., in particular at very low accretion rates the clouds of the BLR would cease to exist. Therefore for sufficiently weak AGNs no BLR is expected. This is the ’pure’ Seyfert 2 model (Tran 2001).

Furthermore, we consider the hypothesis of ’Fossil’ objects in which the central engine has turned off (Maiolino 2000). Shortly after this occurs, the BLR fades away and the nucleus appears as a type 2 object. If the nucleus remains quiescent for a sufficient time then even the echo of the NLR will fade away. Under this hypothesis unabsorbed Seyfert 2s are simply a transition state of an AGN. Since this phase should rapidly decay, the fraction of fossil AGNs may be very small.

The obscuring material around an active nucleus has been proven by some recent evidence to be complex and variable and the possibility that in some objects our line-of-sight might be intercepting a ’hole’ in the absorber at a certain time must also be taken into account (Risaliti 2002).

To summarize, in the 17 unabsorbed Seyfert 2 galaxies the low absorption is not likely to be related to the torus but to material distributed over larger scale, very likely the NLR unless the BLR is particularly dusty. Some of these objects could be seen perpendicularly to the torus with some types of absorbing material obscuring the BLR; the material may be slightly dusty and associated with lanes, patches or starburst regions. In a few cases, the lack of evidence for the existance of a BLR suggests that this is weak, absent or has just faded away. In this case the nucleus is of low luminosity and this may explain the weakness or lack of a BLR.

## 6 Conclusions

We present a sample of type 2 Seyfert galaxies which behave differently than classical type 2 objects. We have shown that there are strong indications in favour of the ’true’ Compton thin nature of such sources.

We estimate the fraction of Seyfert 2s with low absorption to be in the range of 10%-30% and this fraction is likely to increase at low luminosities. The study of a complete sample of LLAGNs will provide a more reliable estimate of their incidence in the Seyfert galaxies population.

The unabsorbed Seyfert 2 galaxies cannot be described by the Unified Model in its simple formulation. The standard BLR of Seyfert galaxies is either obscured by something other than the torus or it is weak, absent or has just faded away.

As a concluding remark, it is worth noting that the results presented in this paper add further complications to the classification scheme of AGNs in general and of Seyfert galaxies in particular.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Massimo Cappi and Luigi Foschini for useful comments and John Stephen for the help in the final revision. We thank the referee for the helpful comments that improved the manuscript. This work has made use of XMM-Newton data. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC extragalactic database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC) provided by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the BeppoSAX Science Data Center, the ASCA archive and the TARTARUS database.