text:
# The Narrow-Line Region of Seyfert Galaxies: Narrow-Line Seyfert 1s versus Broad-Line Seyfert 1s

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Seyfert nuclei are typical active galactic nuclei (AGNs) in the nearby universe. They have been broadly classified into two types based on presence or absence of broad emission lines in their optical spectra (Khachikian & Weedman 1974); Seyferts with broad lines are type 1 (hereafter S1) while those without broad lines are type 2 (S2). These two types of Seyfert nuclei are now unified by introducing the viewing angle dependence toward the central engine surrounded by the geometrically and optically thick dusty torus (Antonucci & Miller 1985; see for a review Antonucci 1993).

In addition to these typical types, narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) have also been recognized as a distinct type of Seyfert nuclei. The optical emission-line properties of NLS1s are summarized as follows (e.g., Osterbrock & Pogge 1985). (1) The Balmer lines are only slightly broader than the forbidden lines such as \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 (typically less than 2000 km s-1). This property makes NLS1s a distinct type of ordinary broad-line S1s (BLS1s). (2) The \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007/H$`\beta `$ intensity ratio is smaller than 3. This criterion was introduced to discriminate S1s from S2s by Shuder & Osterbrock (1981). And, (3) They present strong Fe ii emission lines which are often seen in S1s but generally not in S2s. Moreover, the X-ray spectra of NLS1s are very steep (Puchnarewicz et al. 1992; Boller, Brandt, & Fink 1996; Wang, Brinkmann, & Bergeron 1996; Vaughan et al. 1999; Leighly 1999b) and highly variable (Boller et al. 1996; Turner et al. 1999; Leighly 1999a). Because of these complex properties, it is still not understood what NLS1s are in the context of the current AGN unified model.

In order to understand what NLS1s are, it is important to investigate the narrow-line regions (NLRs) of NLS1s because of the following two reasons. First, the intrinsic spectral energy distribution (SED) of the nuclear radiation of NLS1s is rather different from that of BLS1s; i.e., the soft and hard X-ray spectra of NLS1s are steeper than those of BLS1s (Boller et al. 1996; Brandt, Mathur, & Elvis 1997; Vaughan et al. 1999; Leighly 1999b). It is often considered that the NLRs are photoionized by the nonthermal continuum radiation from central engines (Yee 1980; Shuder 1981; Cohen 1983; Cruz-González et al. 1991; Osterbrock 1993; Evans et al. 1999) though shock ionization may play an important role of ionization of the NLR (e.g., Contini & Aldrovandi 1983; Viegas-Aldrovandi & Contini 1989; Dopita & Sutherland 1995). If the dominant mechanism of ionization is the photoionization, the degree or the structure of ionization of NLRs in NLS1s may be different from that of BLS1s. Such difference can be probed by forbidden emission-line ratios. Second, it is known that there are some differences between the NLR properties of S1s and S2s, for example, the gas temperature in the \[O iii\] zone (e.g., Heckman & Balick 1979; Shuder & Osterbrock 1981). Although the reason of such differences has not yet been understood fully, it is meaningful to investigate how the NLRs in NLS1s share the properties with those in S1s or those in S2s.

Analyzing optical spectra of 7 NLS1s and 16 BLS1s, recently, Rodríguez-Ardila, Pastoriza, & Donzelli (2000b) and Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2000a) reported that the NLRs of NLS1s are less excited than those of the BLS1s. They suggested that this is due to the difference in the shape of the SEDs of nuclear radiation between NLS1s and BLS1s. In their analysis they used the intensities of the forbidden lines normalized by the narrow components of Balmer lines. However, it is not clear whether or not the “narrow components” of the Balmer lines of NLS1s are radiated from only the NLRs. For example, line widths of the Balmer lines radiated from broad-line regions (BLRs) may be narrow like NLR emission if we see NLS1s from a nearly pole-on viewing angle (Taniguchi, Murayama, & Nagao 1999 and reference therein). Therefore it seems better to use some combinations among forbidden emission lines.

In this paper, we present the comparisons of some emission-line flux ratios among NLS1s and BLS1s (see Nagao, Taniguchi, & Murayama 2000c for highly ionized emission lines) using the data compiled from the literature.

## 2. DATA COMPILATION

### 2.1. Data

In order to investigate the properties of the NLRs in NLS1s and in BLS1s, we compiled the following emission lines from the literature; \[O i\]$`\lambda `$6300, \[O ii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$3726,3729, \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363, \[N ii\]$`\lambda `$6583, and \[S ii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$6717,6731. These lines are respectively referred as \[O i\], \[O ii\], \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363, \[N ii\], and \[S ii\] below. As mentioned in Section 1, we do not use the flux of the Balmer lines in order to avoid any ambiguity. The number of compiled objects is 119; 36 NLS1s and 83 BLS1s. The so-called Seyfert 1.2 galaxies (see Osterbrock 1977 and Winkler 1992) are also included in the BLS1 sample.

All the Seyfert galaxies are listed up in Table 1 together with their redshifts and 60$`\mu `$m luminosities111 In this paper, we adopt a Hubble constant H0 = 50 km s-1 Mpc-1 and a deceleration parameter q0 = 0. . The 60 $`\mu `$m luminosities are taken from the IRAS Faint Source Catalogue (Moshir et al. 1992). The emission-line flux ratios for each object are given in Table 2. Each ratio is the averaged value among the references given in Table 1. Since it is often difficult to measure the narrow Balmer component for S1s accurately, there might be the systematic error if we make reddening corrections using the Balmer decrement method (e.g., Osterbrock 1989) for both types of Seyferts. Therefore, we do not make the reddening correction. The effect of dust extinction on our results is discussed in Section 3.3.

Some galaxies do not have all the emission-line ratios. The lack of the data in Table 2 is attributed to the following five reasons; (1) the observation did not cover the wavelengths where the emission lines exist, (2) the emission-line was not detected and the upper limit is not given in the reference, (3) the only upper limit is given in the reference, (4) the flux of the emission lines were not given in the reference because the author(s) of the reference were not interested in those emission lines, and (5) the de-blending of the \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363 emission from the H$`\gamma `$ emission and the \[N ii\]$`\lambda `$6583 emission from the H$`\alpha `$ emission were not performed in the reference. Since the number of the upper-limit data is quite small and those values are too large to be used for any scientific discussion, we do not use these upper-limit data in later analyses.

### 2.2. Selection Bias

Because we do not impose any selection criteria upon our samples, it is necessary to check whether or not the two samples are appropriate for our comparative study. If there are some systematic differences in the redshift distribution and in the intrinsic AGN power distribution between the two samples, there would be possible biases.

First we investigate the redshift distribution. We show the histograms of the redshift in Figure 1. The average redshifts and 1$`\sigma `$ deviations are 0.0568 $`\pm `$ 0.0502 for the NLS1s and 0.1141 $`\pm `$ 0.1455 for the BLS1s. It is noted that the average redshift of the BLS1s is a little higher than that of the NLS1s. In order to investigate whether or not the frequency distributions of the redshift are statistically different between two samples, we apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) statistical test (Press et al. 1988). The null hypothesis is that the redshift distributions of the NLS1s and the BLS1s come from the same underlying population. The resultant KS probability is 4.650 $`\times `$ 10 -1, which means that the two distributions are statistically indistinguishable. Hence we conclude that there is no redshift bias.

Second, we investigate whether or not the intrinsic AGN power is systematically different between the two samples using the IRAS 60$`\mu `$m luminosity, which is regarded as a rather isotropic emission (Pier & Krolik 1992; Efstathiou & Rowan-Robinson 1995; Fadda et al. 1998). The 60$`\mu `$m luminosity is thought to scale the nuclear continuum radiation which is absorbed and re-radiated by the dusty torus (see Storchi-Bergmann, Mulchaey, & Wilson 1992). The histograms of the 60$`\mu `$m luminosity are shown in Figure 2. The average 60$`\mu `$m luminosities and 1$`\sigma `$ deviations in logarithm (in units of solar luminosity) are 11.646 $`\pm `$ 0.646 for the NLS1s and 11.627 $`\pm `$ 0.487 for the BLS1s. We apply the KS test where the null hypothesis is that the distribution of the 60$`\mu `$m luminosity of the two samples come from the same underlying population. The resultant KS probability is 3.884 $`\times 10^1`$, which means that there is no systematic difference of the 60$`\mu `$m luminosity between two samples. Although the 60$`\mu `$m luminosity might be contaminated with the influence of circumnuclear star formation and have the weak unisotropic tendency, this test supports the validity of the statistical comparisons in our study.

In Figure 3 we also show that the line ratios which we compiled do not correlate with the redshift and the 60$`\mu `$m luminosity.

## 3. COMPARISON OF LINE RATIOS

### 3.1. The Ionization Degree of the NLRs

To investigate whether or not the ionization degree of the NLRs is different between NLS1s and BLS1s, we compare some emission-line ratios between the two samples. Although emission-line ratios of AGNs have been traditionally discussed in the form normalized by a narrow component of Balmer lines, for example \[O III\]$`\lambda `$5007/H$`\beta `$, we do not use such line ratios because of the difficulty in deblending of the narrow component of Balmer lines from the broad component.

In this study, we investigate the ionization degree of NLRs using \[O i\], \[O ii\], and \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007. The ionization potentials of the lower stage of ionization (to produce the relevant ions) are 0.0 eV, 13.6 eV, and 35.1 eV, respectively. This set is free from the chemical abundance effect. Here we use \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 and \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007. It is noted that the critical density of \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 is similar to that of \[O i\] (7.0 $`\times `$ 105 cm-3 and 1.8 $`\times `$ 106 cm-3, respectively) and far larger than that of \[O ii\] (4.5 $`\times `$ 103 cm-3). This may mean that \[O i\] and \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 are radiated from the similar region in NLRs while the \[O ii\] emission comes from relatively lower-density clouds. For example, it may be such the case that matter-bounded parts of a relatively high-density cloud radiate the \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 emission while ionization-bounded parts of the same cloud radiate the \[O i\] emission (see Figure 4b of Binette, Wilson, & Storchi-Bergmann 1996). Therefore \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 seems better to investigate the ionization degree of gas clouds in NLRs than \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007.

We show the histograms of these emission-line ratios for the NLS1s and the BLS1s in Figure 4. Though the NLS1s appear to have larger \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 than the BLS1s, it seems that there is no systematic difference in \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 between the two samples. In order to investigate whether or not these distributions of the emission-line ratios are statistically different between the two samples, we apply the KS test. The null hypothesis is that the distributions of the relevant ratio of the samples come from the same underlying population. The KS probabilities are 7.089 $`\times 10^1`$ for \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 and 6.318 $`\times 10^3`$ for \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, which lead to the following results. 1) There is no statistical difference in \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 between two samples. 2) It is, however, not clear whether or not there is statistical difference in \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 between them. These results seem to suggest that there is little difference of the ionization degree of the NLRs between the two types of Seyferts. If this is true, it is contradictory to the result of Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2000b), who reported that NLS1s are less excited objects than BLS1s. To make this issue clear, we have carried out the model calculations, which is presented in Section 4.

### 3.2. The \[O iii\] Line Ratio

We investigate the \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratio, which is sensitive to the gas temperature (e.g., Osterbrock 1989). In Figure 5, we show the histograms of \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 for the NLS1s and the BLS1s. In order to investigate whether or not these distributions of both samples are statistically different, we also apply the KS test where the null hypothesis is that the distributions of the emission-line ratio between two samples come from the same underlying population. The KS probability is 7.877 $`\times 10^1`$, which means that there is no statistical difference in this line ratio between the NLS1s and the BLS1s.

### 3.3. The Effects of the Dust Extinction

As mentioned in Section 2.1, no reddening correction has been made for all the collected emission-line ratios analyzed here. However, it is known that dust grains are present in the NLR of Seyferts (e.g., Dahari & De Robertis 1988a, 1988b; Netzer & Laor 1993). Hence we check how the extinction affects the emission-line ratios discussed in previous sections. Because the difference of the average amounts of the extinction between S1s and S2s is about 1 magnitude (Dahari & De Robertis 1988a; see also De Zotti & Gaskell 1985), we investigate the extinction effect in the case of $`A_V`$ = 1.0 mag using the Cardelli’s extinction curve (Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis 1989). Correction factors for the observed values of \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, and \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 for the extinction ($`A_V`$ = 1.0 mag) are 0.786, 1.471, and 1.222, respectively. These values correspond to about a half bin in Figures 3, 4, and 5. This suggests that the extinction might affect the results in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 $`if`$ there is a systematic difference in the amounts of the extinction much more than 1 magnitude between NLS1s and BLS1s. However, the sample of Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2000b) showed little difference in the amounts of the extinction between NLS1s and BLS1s: $`A_V`$ = 0.457 $`\pm `$ 0.137 for 7 NLS1s and 0.663 $`\pm `$ 0.345 for 16 BLS1s. Though the number of objects is small, this suggests that the difference in the amounts of the extinction is so small that the extinction does not affect the results presented in previous sections.

## 4. MODEL CALCULATIONS

Now we must consider the following problem. It has been known that the shape of SEDs of nuclear radiation is different between NLS1s and BLS1s particularly in X-ray band. Since UV to X-ray photons are closely connected with the photoionization process, such difference in the SED may cause some distinctions in physical properties of the ionized gas in NLRs, such as the ionization degree and the temperature. On the other hand, our comparative study described in Section 3 suggests that there is little difference in the ionization degree and in the temperature of the gas in NLRs between NLS1s and BLS1s. Is this result plausible in terms of photoionization models? In order to investigate this issue, we carry out photoionization model calculations and compare the model results with the compiled emission-line ratios.

### 4.1. The SEDs of NLS1s and BLS1s

Up to now, many efforts have been made to reveal the difference of the SEDs between NLS1s and BLS1s. We summarize such studies and construct template SEDs for the NLS1s and the BLS1s which will be used in the following model calculations.

#### 4.1.1 Observational Properties

First, we mention the infrared properties of NLS1s and BLS1s. Rodríguez-Pascual, Mas-Hesse, & Santos-Lleó (1997) pointed out that the FIR properties of the NLS1s and the BLS1s are very similar to each other. Murayama, Nagao, & Taniguchi (1999) have reported that the mid-infrared properties of the NLS1s are also similar to those of the BLS1s. Therefore we assume that the infrared properties of NLS1s are nearly the same as those of BLS1s.

Second, we mention the X-ray properties of NLS1s and BLS1s. Boller et al. (1996) revealed that NLS1s have generally steeper soft X-ray spectra observed by ROSAT than BLS1s. The weighted mean soft X-ray photon index for their sample of NLS1s is 3.13 with an uncertainty in the mean of less than 0.03. This is statistically larger than that of BLS1s: the weighted mean soft X-ray photon index for the 51 BLS1s in the sample of Walter & Fink (1993) is 2.34 and the uncertainty in this mean is 0.03 (see Boller et al. 1996). Moreover, it is known that the hard X-ray spectra of NLS1s are also steeper than those of BLS1s. Brandt et al. (1997) gave the average photon indices of the hard X-ray spectra observed by ASCA for 15 NLS1s and 19 BLS1s: the mean hard X-ray photon index of the NLS1s is 2.15 where the variance of this value is 0.036 and the standard error is 0.049, and the mean hard X-ray photon index of the BLS1s is 1.87 where the variance of this value is 0.025 and the standard error is 0.036.

Third, we mention optical to X-ray properties of NLS1s and BLS1s. The ratios of optical (i.e., 2500 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$) to X-ray flux at 2 keV are parameterized using $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$, which is defined as

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}\frac{\mathrm{log}[F_\nu (2\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})/F_\nu (2500\mathrm{\AA })]}{\mathrm{log}[\nu (2\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})/\nu (2500\mathrm{\AA })]}$$
(1)
(Tananbaum et al. 1979). The average $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ for optically-selected radio-quiet AGNs is –1.46$`{}_{0.07}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.05}`$ (Zamorani et al. 1981). The mean value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ derived by Puchnarewicz et al. (1996), whose sample is X-ray selected one, is harder than the others: –1.14 $`\pm `$ 0.18. In order to investigate whether or not this value is systematically different between NLS1s and BLS1s, we compare $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ of 10 NLS1s222 The NLS1s used in this test: NGC 4051, NGC 4748, Mrk 359, Mrk 478, Mrk 766, I Zw 1, Akn 564, IRAS 13349+2438, Kaz 163, and PG 1448+273.  and 28 BLS1s333 The BLS1s used in this test: NGC 4593, Mrk 10, Mrk 79, Mrk 142, Mrk 279, Mrk 352, Mrk 590, Mrk 704, Mrk 705, Mrk 1383, 3C 263, 3C 273, 3C 382, 4C 73.18, VII Zw 118, Akn 120, ES O141-G55, Fairall 9, IC 4329A, Kaz 102, PG 0804+761, PG 0953+415, PG 1116+215, PG 1211+143, PG 1444+407, Q 0721+343B, Q 1821+643, and Ton 1542.  taken from the sample of Walter & Fink (1993). It is noted that the values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ for the sample of Walter & Fink (1993) have slightly different from those described as equation (1) because they measured the optical continuum flux at 2675 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, not at 2500 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$: this leads to a difference of 0.02 in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ (see Puchnarewicz et al. 1996). The average spectral indices and 1$`\sigma `$ deviations for the NLS1s and the BLS1s are –1.31 $`\pm `$ 0.16 and –1.36 $`\pm `$ 0.24, respectively. The KS probability that the underlying distribution of these two distributions are the same is 5.984 $`\times `$ 10-1. Therefore there is little or no difference in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ between NLS1s and BLS1s. This seems to be rather contradictory to some previous works (Walter & Fink 1993; Laor et al. 1994; Puchnarewicz et al. 1996), which claimed the existence of the correlation between $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ and the X-ray spectral index, because the large X-ray spectral index is one of the characteristic properties of NLS1s. The reason why such a complex situation is caused may be that some of NLS1s in the sample of Walter & Fink (1993) is out of the correlation (see Figure 8 of Walter & Fink 1993) although it is not clear whether or not this property is a general one in NLS1s.

#### 4.1.2 SED Templates

Here we construct the template SEDs of the NLS1 and the BLS1 taking the above observational properties into account. We adopt the following function for the templates:

$$f_\nu =\nu ^{\alpha _{\mathrm{uv}}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{h\nu }{kT_{\mathrm{BB}}})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{kT_{\mathrm{IR}}}{h\nu })+a\nu ^{\alpha _\mathrm{x}}$$
(2)
(see Ferland 1996). We adopt the following parameter values. (I) $`kT_{\mathrm{IR}}`$ is the infrared cutoff of the so-called big blue bump component, and we fix $`kT_{\mathrm{IR}}`$ = 0.01 Ryd following to Ferland (1996). (II) $`\alpha _{\mathrm{UV}}`$ is the slope of the low-energy side of the big blue bump component. We adopt $`\alpha _{\mathrm{UV}}`$ = –0.5, which is the typical value for AGNs (Ferland 1996; see also Francis 1993). Note that the photoionization process is not sensitive to this parameter. (III) $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ is the UV–to–X-ray spectral slope mentioned above, which determines the parameter $`a`$ in the equation (2). We adopt $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ = –1.35, which is the average value for the sample of Walter & Fink (1993) mentioned above, for both sample. However, there are some claims that this parameter correlates to the X-ray spectral index (Walter & Fink 1993; Laor et al. 1994 Puchnarewicz et al. 1996), that is, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ may be different between NLS1s and BLS1s. Hence we check the dependence of the calculation outputs on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ in Section 4.3.3. (IV) $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}`$ is the slope of the X-ray component. We adopt $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}`$ = –1.15 for NLS1s and –0.85 for BLS1s corresponding to the observational results by $`ASCA`$ described in Section 4.1.1. This power-law component is not extrapolated below 1.36 eV or above 100 keV. Below 1.36 eV, this term is set to zero, while above 100 keV, the continuum is assumed to fall off as $`\nu ^3`$. And finally, (V) $`T_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ is the parameter which characterizes the shape of the big blue bump. We choose this parameter to reproduce the soft X-ray spectral index measured by ROSAT described in Section 4.1.1. It results in 1,180,000 K for NLS1s and 490,000 K for BLS1s. They correspond to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ROSAT}}`$ = 3.13 and 2.35, respectively. The template SEDs constructed in such a way are shown in Figure 6; hereafter we refer the NLS1 SED and the BLS1 SED, respectively.

It is notable that these template SEDs are not theoretically predicted ones, but the empirical ones. Although it has not been understood whether or not the soft excess component is well described by a blackbody, Pounds et al. (1994) mentioned that the soft excess can be characterized by a blackbody of $`kT_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ = 70 $`\pm `$ 10 eV \[or $`T_{\mathrm{BB}}=(8.1\pm 1.2)\times 10^5`$ K\]. This suggests that the temperature of our adopted SEDs is not too high. Puchnarewicz et al. (1996) also mentioned that the soft excess may be represented by thermal bremsstrahlung with $`T_{\mathrm{brem}}`$ = 106 K. Mineshige et al. (2000) proposed a slim disk model whose maximum blackbody temperature is $`kT_{\mathrm{BB}}0.2(M_{\mathrm{SMBH}}/10^5M_{})^{1/4}`$ keV \[or $`T_{\mathrm{BB}}2.3\times 10^6(M_{\mathrm{SMBH}}/10^5M_{})^{1/4}`$\] for the soft excess of NLS1s where $`M_{\mathrm{SMBH}}`$ is the mass of a supermassive black hole. These studies are almost consistent with our empirical template SEDs.

### 4.2. The Calculation Procedure

We perform photoionization model calculations using the spectral synthesis code Cloudy version 90.04 (Ferland 1996), which solves the equations of statistical and thermal equilibrium and produces a self-consistent model of the run of temperature as a function of depth into the nebula. Here we assume an uniform density gas cloud with a plane-parallel geometry.

The parameters for the calculations are (1) the hydrogen density of the cloud ($`n_\mathrm{H}`$), (2) the ionization parameter ($`U`$), which is defined as the ratio of the ionizing photon density to the electron density, (3) the chemical compositions of the gas, and (4) the shape of the input SED. We perform several model runs covering the following ranges of parameters: 103 cm$`{}_{}{}^{3}n_\mathrm{H}10^6`$ cm-3 (and 107 cm-3 in Section 4.3.4) and 10$`{}_{}{}^{4}U10^1`$. We set the gas-phase elemental abundance to be either solar or subsolar. The adopted solar abundances relative to hydrogen are taken from Grevesse & Anders (1989) with extensions by Grevesse & Noels (1993). The subsolar abundances are assumed that 90% of Mg, Si, and Fe, 50% of C and O, and 25% of N and S are locked into dust grains, as estimated for the Orion H ii region (e.g., Baldwin et al. 1991, 1996). For the input SEDs, we use the two types of SED: the NLS1 SED and the BLS1 SED, mentioned in the last section. The calculations are stopped when the temperature fall to 3000 K, below which gas does not contribute significantly to the optical emission lines.

### 4.3. The Results of the Calculations

#### 4.3.1 Excitation

We show the results of the model calculations in the case of the solar abundances and compare them to the observations in Figure 7, which is a diagram of \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 versus \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007. This diagram has been used to discuss the physical properties of ionized gas traditionally (e.g., Heckman 1980; Baldwin, Phillips, & Terlevich 1981; Ferland & Netzer 1983; Evans et al. 1999). It is shown that there is a slight difference of \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 between the two model grids. The reason for this difference is thought as follows. The relative intensity of soft X-ray of NLS1s is stronger than that of BLS1s. This results in a larger partially ionized zone in NLRs of NLS1s. Since \[O i\] is selectively radiated from such partially ionized zone because its ionization potential is close to the ionization potential of hydrogen, NLS1s tend to exhibit stronger \[O i\]. However, the dispersion of the compiled data is larger than this difference. This means that the line ratios used in this diagram are insensitive to the difference of the shape of the template SEDs. This result is consistent with the previous work of Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2000a). They presented their photoionization model calculations assuming two types of SEDs; i.e., the NLS1-like SED and the BLS1-like SED444 The shapes of their template SEDs are simpler than ours. They are double power-law functions, whose powers are based on the spectral indices found from ROSAT and ASCA data. See Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2000a) for the details of their models. . As shown in Figure 7 of Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2000a), the ratio of \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 is not so different between the model NLS1 and the model BLS1 (less than factor 3).

The comparison between the models and the observations shown in Figure 7 suggests $`10^4\mathrm{cm}^3n_\mathrm{H}10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`10^{3.5}U10^3`$ for the NLRs of both samples. The estimated $`U`$ values seem to be rather lower than those calculated in some previous works (e.g., Ferland & Netzer 1983; Ho, Shields, & Filippenko 1993). In order to make it clear that this is not due to any selection effect of the samples, we show model grids on the diagram of \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007/H$`\beta `$ versus \[N ii\]/H$`\alpha `$, which is a familiar diagnostic diagram proposed by Veilleux & Osterbrock (1987), in Figure 8. Comparing this with Figure 4 of Veilleux & Osterbrock (1987), typical Seyferts are reproduced by the models with $`10^{3.5}U10^3`$. This discrepancy between the result by us and by previous literature is thought to be partly because the following reason. The energy peak of the template SEDs in our models is at rather high energy than those in previous studies. Accordingly the relative amounts of photons whose energy is near the ionization potential of hydrogen increase. This leads to the lower $`U`$ because this parameter is defined using all photons which exceed the ionization potential of hydrogen although the photoionization is effective in the energy of near the ionization potential of hydrogen.

We investigate the gas properties with another diagnostic diagram: \[S ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 versus \[N ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 (Figure 9). It results in that the derived ranges in both $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`U`$ are consistent with those obtained in Figure 7. There is very little difference between the model grids for NLS1s and those for BLS1s. It is notable that the scatter of the plotted data in this diagram is larger than that in Figure 6. This may be due to that the deblending H$`\alpha `$ from \[N ii\] is not be well done in some case if the spectral resolution is not so high. If this is the case, the flux measurement of H$`\alpha `$ may not also be well done. It means that it is dangerous to use traditional emission-line ratios such as \[N ii\]/H$`\alpha `$, \[S ii\]/H$`\alpha `$, and \[O i\]/H$`\alpha `$ for S1s. Alternatively, the scatter may reflect the variety of the nitrogen abundance because some previous works reported that some of Seyferts show evidences in favor of a nitrogen overabundance (Storchi-Bergmann & Pastoriza 1990; Storchi-Bergmann 1991; Storchi-Bergmann et al. 1998). In any case, the diagram of \[S ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 versus \[N ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 is less suitable to discuss the properties of gas in NLRs than that of \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 versus \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007.

In Figures 10 and 11, we show the result of the model calculations for the case of the subsolar abundances and compare them with the observations on the diagrams of \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 versus \[O ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 and \[S ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 versus \[N ii\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, respectively. The loci of model grids in Figure 10 slightly shift to be larger in \[O i\] than those in Figure 7. This may be attributed to the fact that the partially ionized region become thicker due to the decrease of the heavy elements. However, the estimated parameters, $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`U`$, are almost the same as those in the case of the solar abundances.

#### 4.3.2 \[O iii\] Emitting Region

As mentioned in Section 3.2, the temperature-sensitive emission-line ratio, \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, is scarcely different between the NLS1s and the BLS1s though the intrinsic SEDs are clearly different between them. In order to investigate whether or not this difference in SEDs causes a detectable difference in the temperature of NLR gas through photoionization processes, we carry out the model calculations concerning the \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratio. In Figure 12, we show the diagram of \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 versus \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 for the case of the solar abundances. It is shown that the very high density condition (10$`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{cm}_{}^{3}`$ or higher) is needed to explain the observed \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratios for both NLS1s and BLS1s. This derived $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ is far higher than the value obtained using the diagnostic diagrams presented in Section 4.3.1. The reason for this is partly because of the oversimplification of the photoionization models: the \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratio is difficult to be reproduced by one-zone photoionization models as mentioned in other works (e.g., Filippenko & Halpern 1984; Tadhunter, Robinson, & Morganti 1989; Wilson, Binette, & Storchi-Bergmann 1997; Nagao, Murayama, & Taniguchi 2000a). We are not going to make further discussion for this problem because this is out of the purpose of this paper. In this diagram, the loci of the model grid for NLS1s slightly shift to be larger \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 with respect to those for BLS1s, which means that the temperature of gas in NLRs of the model NLS1 is higher than that of the model BLS1. This is because the number of high energy photon is larger in NLS1s than in BLS1s (see Figure 6). However, it is evident that this difference of the model loci is much smaller than the dispersion of the observed data points. Therefore, we conclude that the difference of SEDs between the NLS1s and the BLS1s is not important when one investigates the \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratio. As shown in Figure 13, almost the same results are obtained when the subsolar abundances are assumed on the model calculations.

In order to investigate the difference of gas temperature between NLS1s and BLS1s in more detail, we show the temperature structure in a cloud as a function of the hydrogen column density from the inner surface in Figure 14. Here we adopt $`n_\mathrm{H}=10^{4.5}`$ cm-3 and $`U=10^3`$ for the four model calculations. It is shown that the gas temperature in the case of the subsolar abundances is higher than the other, which is due to a decrease of coolant elements. Generally the temperature decreases as the column density increases. However, there is a small turn-up just before the ionization front where the temperature drops off. This is attributed to the fact that the most effective coolant, O2+, is exhausted at this region. It is important that the abundances more affect the temperature than the input SED. Therefore, the difference of SEDs between the NLS1s and BLS1s does not affect significantly the gas temperature proved by the \[O iii\] emission lines. This result is also consistent with Rodríguez-Ardila et al. (2000a), in which the ratio of \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 is not so different between the model NLS1 and the model BLS1 (less than factor 3) though they suggested that the calculated ratio of \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 is higher in the BLS1 than in the NLS1.

#### 4.3.3 Dependence of the Calculation Results on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$

As mentioned in Section 4.1, we have assumed that NLS1s and BLS1s have similar $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$. However, there are some previous studies (Walter & Fink 1993; Laor et al. 1994; Puchnarewicz et al. 1996) in which it is claimed that the soft X-ray spectral index correlates with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$. Since the large X-ray spectral index is one of the characteristic properties of NLS1s, their claim means that NLS1s have the softer $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ than BLS1s, systematically. Therefore, we investigate the dependence of the calculations on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$.

When various values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ are adopted, $`T_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ must be correspondingly adjusted to reproduce the observed soft X-ray photon index, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ROSAT}}`$ = 3.13. We adopt $`T_{\mathrm{BB}}`$ = 980,000 K, 840,000 K, 730,000 K, 650,000 K, and 590,000 K for the cases of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ = –1.40, –1.45, –1.50, –1.55, and –1.60, respectively.

In Figure 15, we show a diagram of calculated line ratios versus $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$, adopting $`n_\mathrm{H}=10^{4.5}`$ cm-3, $`U=10^3`$, solar abundances, and the SED template of NLS1s. It is clearly shown that the \[O II\]/\[O III\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratio is almost independent of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$. On the other hand, the \[O I\]/\[O III\]$`\lambda `$5007 and the \[O III\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O III\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratios become smaller and to be close to the value of BLS1s as $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ becomes softer. Thus, we conclude that the difference of intrinsic SEDs between NLS1s and BLS1s scarcely affects the NLR emission even if $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ of NLS1s is systematically softer than that of BLS1s.

In Figure 16, we show the temperature structure in a NLR cloud for various values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$, adopting $`n_\mathrm{H}=10^{4.5}`$ cm-3, $`U=10^3`$, solar abundances, and the SED template of NLS1s. The gas temperature also becomes to be close to that of BLS1s as $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ becomes softer.

#### 4.3.4 Highly Ionized Emission Lines

Seyfert galaxies often present highly ionized emission lines such as \[Fe vii\]$`\lambda `$6087, \[Fe x\]$`\lambda `$6374, \[Fe xi\]$`\lambda `$7892, and \[Fe xiv\]$`\lambda `$5303 (see Nagao et al. 2000c and references therein). These emission lines are useful to investigate the viewing angle toward dusty tori of Seyfert nuclei (Murayama & Taniguchi 1998a; Nagao et al. 2000c). Therefore it is important to investigate how the feature of intrinsic SEDs affects such highly ionized emission-line intensities.

We show the results of the model calculations for the case of the solar abundances and compare them with the observations in a diagram of \[Fe vii\]$`\lambda `$6087/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 versus \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 (Figure 17). The data of observations are taken from Nagao et al. (2000c). Being different from the results described in Section 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, there are evident differences in the behavior of the calculated line ratios between two models as follows. (1) The calculated \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratio for NLS1s is smaller than that for BLS1s when $`U10^1`$ although the opposite trend is seen when $`U<10^2`$. This is because the volume of the fully ionized region becomes larger with increasing ionization parameter, and thus the \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 emission becomes more prominent relative to the \[O i\] emission. (2) The calculated \[Fe vii\]$`\lambda `$6087/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 ratio for NLS1s is several times larger than that for BLS1s when $`U10^2`$. This is because the number of the high-energy ionizing photons555 The ionization potential of the lower stage of ionization and the critical density for \[Fe vii\] is 99.1 eV and 3.6 $`\times 10^7`$ cm-3, respectively.  producing Fe6+ in the model for NLS1s is much larger than that in the model for BLS1s when we adopt the same ionization parameter and the gas density for both cases.

However, clearly shown in Figure 17, the calculated \[Fe vii\]$`\lambda `$6087/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 is much smaller than the observed one in both models. This means that another component which radiates highly ionized emission lines is needed to explain the observations, which is consistent with previous studies (Stasińska 1984; Ferland & Osterbrock 1986; Binette et al. 1996; Murayama & Taniguchi 1998a, 1998b). Therefore this result does not suggest that the observed \[Fe vii\]$`\lambda `$6087/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 of NLS1s should be larger than that of BLS1s.

In Figure 18, we show the same diagram adopting the subsolar abundances. Similar to the case of the solar abundances, the calculated \[Fe vii\]$`\lambda `$6087/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 for BLS1s is smaller than that for NLS1s. In the case of the subsolar abundances, the large fraction of iron is depleted (see Section 4.2). Therefore, the calculated \[Fe vii\]$`\lambda `$6087/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007 is much smaller than that calculated adopting the solar abundances.

## 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper has presented the comparisons of emission-line ratios which represent the ionization degree and the gas temperature of NLR clouds between the NLS1s and the BLS1s. The emission-line ratio of \[O i\]/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, which probes the ionization degree of NLRs, and that of \[O iii\]$`\lambda `$4363/\[O iii\]$`\lambda `$5007, which probes the gas temperature of NLRs, are indistinguishable between the two samples. This means that there is little difference in the physical properties of NLRs between NLS1s and BLS1s. Using photoionization models, we have confirmed that these results are consistent with the presence of differences in SEDs between NLS1s and BLS1s. In both cases, using the template SEDs of NLS1s and BLS1s, we have shown that the observed emission line ratios are well reproduced when we adopt $`10^4\mathrm{cm}^3n_\mathrm{H}10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`10^{3.5}U10^3`$ for either solar or subsolar abundances.

This study tells us that we need not consider the effects of difference of intrinsic SEDs between NLS1s and BLS1s when we discuss ionized gas properties using diagnostic diagrams as used by, e.g., Ferland & Netzer (1983) and Ho et al. (1993), unless the high ionization nuclear emission-line region (Binette 1985; Murayama, Taniguchi, & Iwasawa 1998; Murayama & Taniguchi 1998a, 1998b; Nagao et al. 2000b, 2000c) is concerned.

We would like to thank the anonymous referee for useful comments and Gary Ferland for making his code $`Cloudy`$ available to the public. This research has made use of the NED (NASA extra galactic database) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under construct with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. TM is supported by a Research Fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists. This work was financially supported in part by Grant-in-Aids for the Scientific Research (Nos. 10044052 and 10304013) of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Science.


format: text

text:
# Azimuthal angular dependence of decay lepton in 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻→𝑡𝑡̄

## 1 Introduction

Since the discovery of the top quark, with a large mass , its properties have been widely discussed to obtain a better understanding of the electroweak symmetry breaking and to search for hints of physics beyond the standard model (SM). It has been known that top quarks decay before hadronization . Therefore there will be sizable angular correlations between the decay products of the top quark and the spin of the top quark . Based on this observation, it is expected that we can either test the SM or obtain some signal from new physics by investigating the angular distributions of the decay products from polarized top quarks. Applying the narrow width approximation to the top quarks, we can discuss the production process and decay process separately. There are many works on the spin correlations in top quark production at lepton and hadron colliders . The angular dependence of the decay products from polarized top quark has also been discussed .

Although it was common to use the helicity basis to decompose the top quark spin, it has been pointed out by Mahlon, Parke and Shadmi  that there is a more optimal decomposition of the top quark spin depending on the process and the center- of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. For instance, at a lepton collider, $`\sqrt{s}`$ of which is around several hundred GeV, it was shown  that the so-called off-diagonal basis (ODB) is superior to other bases since top quarks (and/or anti-top quarks) are produced in an essentially unique spin configuration. The QCD one-loop radiative corrections to the spin correlation in top quark production are also investigated in ref.. These radiative corrections induce an anomalous $`\gamma /Z`$ magnetic moment for the top quarks and allow for single, real gluon emission. Therefore, these effects possibly modify the tree level results. However what was found in ref. is that the effect of the QCD corrections is mainly just the enhancement of the tree level result and does not change the spin configuration of produced top quarks (and/or anti-top quarks). This means that the ODB remains as a good basis even after including the QCD corrections.

On the other hand, there are also many detailed studies on the effects of new operators which might come from physics beyond the SM . The fact that the SM is consistent with the data within the present experimental accuracy tells us that the size of the effects of new physics is at most comparable to or smaller than the radiative corrections in the SM. Therefore, although the QCD correction to the top quark production is not so large, it should be included to detect these “small” signals from possible new physics beyond the SM.

In this article, we investigate the top quark production and its subsequent decay at lepton colliders both in the helicity and off-diagonal basis (ODB) including both the QCD correction and the assumed anomalous couplings for the $`t\overline{t}\gamma /Z`$ interaction. For the angular distribution of the decay products, the interference between the amplitudes with different spin configurations plays an important role which disappears in the production cross section. We show that the azimuthal angular dependence in the top quark decay $`tb\overline{l}\nu `$ is one of the characteristics of the cross section in the ODB.

The article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the top quark production amplitudes including both QCD one-loop corrections and the anomalous couplings for the $`t\overline{t}\gamma /Z`$ interaction. In Section 3, we analyze the angular dependence of the decay products from the top quark. Here we compare the results in the ODB with those in the helicity basis. Finally Section 4 contains the conclusions.

## 2 Top quark production with QCD corrections and anomalous couplings

The process we are considering now is, in principle, a very complicated $`e^{}e^+6\mathrm{particles}`$ one. However, the narrow width approximation for the top quark, which is valid for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_tm_t`$ (1.02 $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ 1.56 GeV for 160 $`m_t`$ 180 GeV), makes the situation very simple. Namely, we can separate the physics into the top production and the decay density matrices .

Let us first discuss the top quark production (density matrix). We assume a general form for the $`t\overline{t}`$-$`Z/\gamma `$ vertex as,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^V=g^V\left\{\gamma _\mu \left[Q_L^V\omega _{}+Q_R^V\omega _+\right]+\frac{(t\overline{t})_\mu }{2m_t}\left[G_L^V\omega _{}+G_R^V\omega _+\right]\right\}$$
(1)
where $`t,\overline{t}`$ are momenta of the top and top antiquarks, $`m_t`$ is the top mass, $`\omega _\pm =(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$ is the right/left projection operator, and $`V=Z`$ or $`\gamma `$. Here we use the normalization, $`g_\gamma =g\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ and $`g_Z=g`$ for the coupling constants with $`g`$ and $`\theta _W`$ the $`SU(2)_L`$ coupling and Weinberg angle, respectively. The form factor which will vanish in the zero electron mass limit is neglected. For the $`e\overline{e}`$-$`Z/\gamma `$ vertex, we use well established SM interaction. At the tree level in the SM, the coupling constants $`G_{L,R}^V`$ are zero and

$$Q_L^\gamma =Q_R^\gamma =Q_t\frac{2}{3},Q_L^Z=Q_L^t\frac{34\mathrm{sin}\theta _W^2}{6\mathrm{cos}\theta _W},Q_R^Z=Q_R^t\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\theta _W^2}{3\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}.$$
(2)
The combination of form factors $`G_R^{\gamma ,Z}+G_L^{\gamma ,Z}f_2^{\gamma ,Z}`$ is induced even at the one-loop level in the SM. Whereas, another combination $`G_R^{\gamma ,Z}G_L^{\gamma ,Z}if_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$ which is related to a CP violating interaction, called electric and weak dipole form factors (EDM and WDM) appears as, at least, the two-loop order effect. Thus they are negligibly small and non-zero value of $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$ is considered to be a contribution from new physics beyond the SM. We presume some non-zero value for $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$ and consider the top production.

To incorporate the QCD one-loop correction into this analysis, we utilize the fact  that the full one-loop QCD result can be reproduced quite accurately in the soft gluon approximation (SGA) by choosing an appropriate cut off $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ for the soft gluon energy. There, the formula $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}=\left(\sqrt{s}2m_t\right)/5`$ was suggested. The difference between the SGA using this $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and the full one-loop correction is smaller than the expected size of the two-loop corrections. In the SGA, all QCD effects can be absorbed into the modified $`t\overline{t}`$-$`Z/\gamma `$ vertex, eq.(1), using the two universal functions $`𝒜`$ and $``$.

$`Q_L^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`Q_R^\gamma Q^\gamma =Q_t(1+\widehat{\alpha }_s𝒜),`$
$`Q_L^Z`$ $`=`$ $`Q_L^t(1+\widehat{\alpha }_s𝒜)+(Q_L^tQ_R^t)\widehat{\alpha }_s,`$ (3)
$`Q_R^Z`$ $`=`$ $`Q_R^t(1+\widehat{\alpha }_s𝒜)(Q_L^tQ_R^t)\widehat{\alpha }_s.`$
and

$$G_{L,R}^\gamma =Q_t\widehat{\alpha }_s,G_{L,R}^Z=\frac{Q_L^t+Q_R^t}{2}\widehat{\alpha }_s.$$
(4)
where the strong coupling constant is $`\widehat{\alpha }_s\frac{C_2(R)}{4\pi }\alpha _s=\frac{C_2(R)}{(4\pi )^2}g^2`$ with $`C_2(R)=\frac{4}{3}`$ for SU(3) of color. As mentioned before, the one-loop QCD correction does not contribute to the combination $`G_R^{\gamma ,Z}G_L^{\gamma ,Z}`$. Since we assume an anomalous coupling to this combination, eq.(4) is modified to be,

$`G_{L/R}^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`Q_t\widehat{\alpha }_s{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}f_3^\gamma ,`$
$`G_{L/R}^Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_L^t+Q_R^t}{2}}\widehat{\alpha }_s{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}f_3^Z.`$ (5)
The “renormalized” form factors $`𝒜`$ and $``$ read after multiplying the wave function renormalization factor (we employ the on-shell renormalization scheme),

$`\mathrm{Re}𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4\omega _{\mathrm{max}}^2}{m_t^2}}4+{\displaystyle \frac{2+3\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{\beta }}\left\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }}\left(3\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{1+\beta }}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{1\beta }}\right)+4\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2\right\},`$
$`\mathrm{Im}𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \left(3\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4\beta ^2}{1\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m_t^2}}\right),`$
$`\mathrm{Re}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }},`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{Im}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^21}{\beta }},`$
where $`\beta `$ is the speed of the produced top (anti-top) quark. In the form factor $`𝒜`$ eq.(6), we have already took into account the contribution from the real gluon emission. Therefore, there is no infrared singularity in the real part and instead there appears the soft gluon cut-off $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$. We have introduced an infinitesimal mass $`\lambda `$ for the gluon to avoid the infrared singularity which remains in the imaginary part of $`𝒜`$. However it will be shown that the imaginary part of $`𝒜`$ does not contribute to any observable within our approximation which keep only the linear terms in $`\alpha _s`$ and $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$.

Before presenting the production amplitudes, let us define the spin basis according to ref. . In this paper, we consider the case in which the spin of the top quark and anti-top quark in the production plane. The spins of the top and anti-top quarks are parameterized by $`\xi `$ as given in Fig.1. The top quark spin is decomposed along the direction $`𝐬_t`$ in the rest frame of the top quark which makes an angle $`\xi `$ with the anti-top quark momentum in the clockwise direction. Similarly, the anti-top quark spin states are defined in the anti-top rest frame along the direction $`𝐬_{\overline{t}}`$ having the same angle $`\xi `$ from the direction of the top quark momentum. The state $`t_{}\overline{t}_{}(t_{}\overline{t}_{})`$ refers to a top with spin in the $`+𝐬_t(𝐬_t)`$ direction in the top rest frame and an anti-top with spin $`+𝐬_{\overline{t}}(𝐬_{\overline{t}})`$ in the anti-top rest frame. Note that the value $`\mathrm{cos}\xi =1`$ corresponds to the helicity state. For the initial leptons, we use the helicity basis with the notation $`e_{R,L}^+`$ and $`e_{R,L}^{}`$, where the subscripts $`R,L`$ denote the helicities of the particles.

Now, the production amplitudes of top quark pairs in $`e_L^{}e_R^+`$ annihilation turns out to be written in the following general forms in the zero momentum frame (ZMF),

$`M(e_L^{}e_R^+t_{}\overline{t}_{},t_{}\overline{t}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha \left[\left(A_{LR}C_{LR}\right)\mathrm{cos}\xi B_{LR}\mathrm{sin}\xi \pm iE_{LR}\right],`$ (8)
$`M(e_L^{}e_R^+t_{}\overline{t}_{},t_{}\overline{t}_{})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha \left[\left(A_{LR}C_{LR}\right)\mathrm{sin}\xi +B_{LR}\mathrm{cos}\xi \pm D_{LR}\right],`$ (9)
employing an appropriate phase convention for spinors . $`\alpha `$ is the QED structure constant. The coefficients $`A_{LR}`$ , $`B_{LR}`$ $`D_{LR}`$ and $`E_{LR}`$ are given by,

$`A_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(f_{LL}+f_{LR})\sqrt{1\beta ^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \right],`$
$`B_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[f_{LL}(\mathrm{cos}\theta +\beta )+f_{LR}(\mathrm{cos}\theta \beta )\right],`$
$`C_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(h_{LL}+h_{LR}){\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{1\beta ^2}}},`$ (10)
$`D_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[f_{LL}(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )+f_{LR}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\right],`$
$`E_{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(h_{LL}h_{LR}){\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{1\beta ^2}}},`$
with

$`f_{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`Q^\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{Q_I^eQ_J^Z}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{sM_Z^2}},`$
$`h_{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`G_J^\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{Q_I^eG_J^Z}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{sM_Z^2}},`$ (11)
where the angle $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle of the top quark with respect to the electron in the ZMF. $`M_Z`$ is the Z-boson mass and we neglect the $`Z`$ width since it is negligible in the region of center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ far above the production threshold for top quarks. $`I,J(L,R)`$ and $`Q_I^e`$ is the electron coupling to the Z boson given by,

$$Q_L^e=\frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W1}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W},Q_R^e=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}.$$

In eq.(10), $`C_{LR}`$ is proportional to $`f_2^{\gamma ,Z}`$ and the contribution from CP violating form factors $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$ enter through $`E_{LR}`$ only. The contributions from $`f_2^{\gamma ,Z}`$, WDM and EDM form factors $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$, are enhanced when $`\beta `$ becomes large, and become zero for $`\beta 0`$. The amplitudes for $`e_R^{}e_L^+`$ can be obtained by interchanging $`R`$ and $`L`$ as well as $``$ and $``$ in Eqs.(8)–(11).

At the tree level in the SM ($`𝒜==f_3=0`$), the coefficients $`C_{LR}`$ and $`E_{LR}`$ are zero and other coefficients become real in eqs.(8,9). The ODB for the process $`e_L^{}e_R^+t\overline{t}`$ is defined by,

$$\mathrm{tan}\xi =\frac{A_{LR}}{B_{LR}}|_{\mathrm{tree}},$$

which makes the like-spin configurations $`t_{}\overline{t}_{}`$ and $`t_{}\overline{t}_{}`$ be zero. The up-down ($`t_{}\overline{t}_{}`$) configuration dominates the cross sections in the ODB whereas the down-up ($`t_{}\overline{t}_{}`$) is numerically negligible, less than $`1\%`$ of the total cross section.

The problem now is how to detect the anomalous coupling in the top quark events. It is easily understood that the effects of the anomalous coupling on the top quark production cross sections should be small and undetectable because (1) the anomalous coupling is assumed to be comparable to or smaller than the QCD correction in size and we already know the QCD correction itself to be very small and (2) the interference terms disappear in the production cross sections. Therefore we consider the angular distribution of top decay products which depends on the interferences between various amplitudes.

## 3 Decay distribution with anomalous coupling

In the decay process, we assume V-A interaction of the SM in $`t`$-$`b`$-$`W`$ vertex. We employ the semi-leptonic decay, $`tbWb\overline{l}\nu `$ for simplicity. Neglecting the mass of the final state fermions, the decay amplitude $`D_{s_t}`$ (for $`t_{s_t}b\overline{l}\nu `$) is known to be given by

$$D_{}=\frac{2g^2V_{tb}\sqrt{b\nu m_tE_{\overline{l}}}}{2\nu \overline{l}M_W^2+iM_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta _{\overline{l}}}{2},D_{}=\frac{2g^2V_{tb}\sqrt{b\nu m_tE_{\overline{l}}}}{2\nu \overline{l}M_W^2+iM_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta _{\overline{l}}}{2}e^{i\varphi _{\overline{l}}},$$
(12)
where the names of final particles are used as substitute for their momenta. $`M_W(\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)`$ and $`V_{tb}`$ are the mass (width) of the W boson and the Cabbibo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix.

The polar and azimuthal angles of the $`\overline{l}`$ momentum ($`\theta _{\overline{l}},\varphi _{\overline{l}}`$) are defined in the top quark rest frame, in which $`z`$-axis coincides with the chosen spin axis $`s_t`$ and the $`xz`$ plane is the production plane, Fig.2. We have a similar expression $`\overline{D}_{}`$ also for the anti-top quark decay.

Now, the differential cross-section for the process $`e^{}e^+t\overline{t}`$ followed by the decays $`tX_t,\overline{t}\overline{X}_t`$ is described in terms of the production and decay density matrices $`\rho _{s_t\overline{s}_t,s_t^{}\overline{s}_t^{}}`$ , $`\tau _{s_ts_t^{}}`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_{\overline{s}_t\overline{s}_t^{}}`$ as,

$$d\sigma \left(e^{}e^+t\overline{t}X_t\overline{X}_t\right)\underset{s_t,\overline{s}_t,s_t^{},\overline{s}_t^{}}{}\rho _{s_t\overline{s}_t,s_t^{}\overline{s}_t^{}}\tau _{s_ts_t^{}}\overline{\tau }_{\overline{s}_t\overline{s}_t^{}}dL,$$
(13)
where $`dL`$ is the phase space of the final particles and the density matrices can be obtained from eqs.(8), (9) and (12.

$`\rho _{s_t\overline{s}_t,s_t^{}\overline{s}_t^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{s_t\overline{s}_t}M_{s_t^{}\overline{s}_t^{}}^{},`$
$`\tau _{s_ts_t^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{s_t}D_{s_t^{}}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{l}}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\overline{l}}e^{i\varphi _{\overline{l}}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\overline{l}}e^{i\varphi _{\overline{l}}}& 1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{l}}\end{array}\right)_{s_ts_t^{}}.`$ (16)
$`\overline{\tau }_{\overline{s}_t\overline{s}_t^{}}`$ is also given by the similar expression. When we calculated the production density matrix, we have kept only terms which are linear in $`\alpha _s`$ and $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$ for the consistency of our approximation. Within this approximation, the factor $`1+\widehat{\alpha }_sA`$ can be effectively factorized from the amplitudes as a multiplicative factor. Therefore its imaginary part which has the infrared divergence does not contribute to the production density matrix.

Here we take an advantage of the freedom for the choice of the spin basis to detect the effect of the anomalous couplings . Note that the differential cross section itself is (should be) independent of the choice of the spin basis. However, the “choice of the variables” can depend on the spin basis. We have calculated the angular distribution of $`\overline{l}`$ in the top quark decay after integrating out other variables,

$$\frac{d\sigma \left(e_L^{}e_R^+t\overline{t}\overline{l}+X\right)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\overline{l}}d\varphi _{\overline{l}}}.$$

All input masses and coupling constants used in the numerical computations are the central values as reported in the 1998 Review of Particle Properties . We plot the $`\theta _{\overline{l}}\varphi _{\overline{l}}`$ correlations both in the helicity (Fig.3) and the off-diagonal basis (Fig.4). We set $`\sqrt{s}=400`$ GeV and assume $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}=0.2`$ just for an illustration. The both figures are for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$. However the pattern of the correlation is essentially the same for all scattering angles. One can see that it is very hard to identify the effects of the anomalous couplings in Fig. 3. This situation changes drastically if we take the ODB (Fig. 4). As the SM produces almost no azimuthal angular dependence in this basis (although the QCD corrections produce some dependence, it is numerically negligible), we can recognize the effect of the anomalous coupling as a deviation from the flat distribution.

The above results are easily understood if one notices that the azimuthal angular dependence is caused by interference effects in a given spin basis. From eq.(16), the azimuthal angular dependence comes from the off diagonal $``$ or $``$ element of the decay density matrix. On the other hand, the production amplitudes, therefore the density matrix, take the following characteristic forms (see eqs.(8,9)) in the ODB,

$`M_{}`$ $``$ $`M_{}E_{LR},`$
$`M_{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{finite},M_{}0,`$
except small contributions from the QCD correction. This means that the azimuthal angular dependence receives significant contributions only from the elements,

$$\rho _,,\rho _,,$$

of the production density matrix and it linearly depends on $`E_{LR}`$, namely $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$. The $`\varphi _{\overline{l}}`$ dependence is controlled by the value of $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$. At the tree level, it has a simple form,

$$\mathrm{Re}f_3^{\gamma ,Z}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{\overline{l}}\mathrm{Im}f_3^{\gamma ,Z}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{\overline{l}}.$$

In order to show the effect of the $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$ more clearly, we partially integrate the cross section over the azimuthal angle and define the azimuthal asymmetry. Let $`\sigma ^{1,2}`$ denote the partially integrated cross-sections over the azimuthal angle,

$`\sigma ^1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\varphi _{\overline{l}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi _{\overline{l}}}}\right),`$
$`\sigma ^2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\pi ^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi _{\overline{l}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi _{\overline{l}}}}\right),`$
where other variables have been integrated out already. We define the azimuthal asymmetry in order to pull out the effect of anomalous interactions,

$$𝒜(\theta )=\frac{\sigma ^2(\theta )\sigma ^1(\theta )}{\sigma ^2(\theta )+\sigma ^1(\theta )}.$$

We plot the asymmetry as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ in Fig.5 at $`\sqrt{s}=400`$ GeV for the $`e_L^{}e_R^+`$ and $`e_L^+e_R^{}`$ annihilation. We have assumed two cases for the anomalous couplings, $`\mathrm{Re}f_3^\gamma =\mathrm{Re}f_3^Z=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}f_3^\gamma =\mathrm{Re}f_3^Z=0.2`$.

In this figure, the dot-dashed line comes from the SM (with QCD corrections) and, the solid (dashed) line corresponds to the case $`\mathrm{Re}f_3^\gamma =\mathrm{Re}f_3^Z=0.2`$ ($`\mathrm{Re}f_3^\gamma =\mathrm{Re}f_3^Z=0.2`$). At the SM tree level, the asymmetry is exactly zero and the QCD radiative corrections induce a numerically negligible asymmetry as shown in Fig.6. As explained before, the asymmetry linearly depends on the absolute value of $`f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$ and also their sign. In the case of $`e_L^{}e_R^+`$, the effect of the anomalous interactions $`f_3^\gamma `$ and $`f_3^Z`$ are additive and have a larger asymmetry when their signs are the same. But when their signs are opposite, these effects become subtractive and lead to a smaller asymmetry. This feature changes in the case of $`e_L^+e_R^{}`$. In the off-diagonal basis, the anomalous couplings produce the asymmetry of the order 10% for the values of the anomalous couplings we have chosen. In the helicity basis, however, the deviation from the SM is only around 1.5% since there exists some amount of asymmetry already in the SM. If we take the asymmetry by defining $`\sigma ^{1,2}`$ as,

$`\sigma ^1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}+{\displaystyle _{\frac{3\pi }{2}}^{2\pi }}\right)d\varphi _{\overline{l}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi _{\overline{l}}}}\right),`$
$`\sigma ^2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{3\pi }{2}}}𝑑\varphi _{\overline{l}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi _{\overline{l}}}}\right),`$
we can obtain information for $`\mathrm{Im}f_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$.

## 4 Conclusion

We have studied the top quark pair production and subsequent decays at lepton colliders. For a realistic next lepton collider, let us say $`\beta 0.5`$, the off-diagonal basis is considered to be a good choice since the contribution from some spin states is zero or negligible even after including the QCD corrections and this small interference makes the correlations between decay products and the top spin very strong. Using this advantage, we analyzed the angular dependence of the decay product of the top quark including both the QCD corrections and the anomalous couplings. We have shown that the asymmetry amount to the order of 10% in the off-diagonal basis with chosen parameters which may be detectable.

Although we have considered the anomalous couplings only for the production process, the inclusion of new effects to the decay process and more detailed and/or realistic phenomenological analyses for various choices of the new interactions are straightforward exercises.

## Acknowledgment

We would like to thank S. Parke for valuable suggestions. Y. K. was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# S 10947 Aql ≡ RX J2009.8+1557: A probable RS CVn star which sometimes stops its eclipsesTable 1 is available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html

## 1 Introduction

RS Canum Venaticorum (RS CVn) variables are described by Hall (1972; see also Biermann & Hall 1976), as close binaries comprising a G- or K-type subgiant and a F- or G-type star of luminosity class IV–V with the following special property (see also Zeilik et al. 1979): Their light curves are characterized by long waves with amplitudes up to 0.2 mag which, if the binary is eclipsing, as a rule move towards smaller phase of the orbital light curve. This is typically interpreted as the effect of large star spots on one hemisphere of the cool component when rotating with a speed slightly different from the synchronous rotation (e.g. Catalano 1983). Thus, these waves are assumed to be the beat between the orbital period and the slightly out-of-phase differential rotation of the spotted star. The assumption of substantial chromospheric activity is supported by additional observational features, such as strong Ca II emission lines, lively flaring activity in the optical and other spectral regions and variable X-ray emission (e.g. Walter et al. 1980, Charles 1983).

## 2 Observations and Discussion

As part of our programme of investigating the optical long-term behaviour of selected ROSAT sources (e.g. Richter et al. 1995) we discovered a new variable star as the likely optical counterpart of RX J2009.8+1557. This object which we called S 10947 Aql, varies in the B band between 13$`.^\mathrm{m}`$4 and 14$`.^\mathrm{m}`$8. It is identical to GSC 0161801655. The optical coordinates are:

R.A. = 20h09m51$`.^\mathrm{s}`$43, Dec. = +155734$`.^{\prime \prime }`$2

(equinox 2000.0), consistent with our measurement on the digitized Palomar Sky Survey plate (see marked object in Fig. 1).

RX J2009.8+1557 was detected during the ROSAT all-sky survey in 1990 at a count rate of 0.019$`\pm `$0.005 cts/s with a likelihood of detection of 12.4 (corresponding to about 4$`\sigma `$ confidence). With a total of only 9 counts collected during the total exposure time of 495 sec this source is below the brightness limit of the 1 RXS catalog (Voges et al. 1999). Nonetheless, these few photons supply both a well-defined position of RA (2000.0) = 20h09m51$`.^\mathrm{s}`$9, Decl. (2000.0) = +155735′′ with an error radius of 30′′ as well as an indication for an absorbed, hard X-ray spectrum (in ROSAT standards). The hardness ratios are HR1 = (N52-201 – N11-41)/(N11-41 \+ N52-201) = 0.70$`\pm `$0.32, and HR2 = (N91-200 – N50-90)/N50-200 = 0.52$`\pm `$0.34, where Na-b denotes the number of counts in ROSAT’s position sensitive proportional counter between channel a and channel b). Adopting a Raymond-Smith spectrum with a 1 keV temperature and an absorbing column of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$=1$`\times `$1021 cm-2 (corresponding to $``$50% of the total column of $`N_\mathrm{H}`$=1.95$`\times `$1021 cm-2 in this direction; Dickey & Lockman 1990) we derive an unabsorbed X-ray intensity of $`L(0.12.4\mathrm{keV})=1.8\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. This corresponds to an emission measure of 1.3$`\times `$1052 (D/100 pc)2 cm-5. No ROSAT pointing exists for this sky area which could allow to derive better constraints.

Altogether 709 archival plates taken between 1934 and 1995 of the Sonneberg astrographs 400 mm, 170 mm and 140 mm were used for investigating the long-term behaviour of S 10947 Aql. Tab. 1 gives the details of these measurements. Unfortunately, the object is invisible on all plates of the Sonneberg sky patrol.

Spectroscopic observations of S 10947 Aql do not exist, but the kind of brightness changes together with the detected X-ray emission seem to indicate that it is a chromospherically active binary of the RS CVn type.

The major results of the variability study can be summarized as follows:

* We find occasional brightness humps which can be recognized and followed over several months to years, with a cycle length of about Ph = 8$`.^\mathrm{d}`$628 (in the mean) and an amplitude of $`<`$ 0.5 mag (migrating waves).
* Eclipsing minima occur with a mean period of Po = 8$`.^\mathrm{d}`$6294.
* We observe the occasional disappearance of the eclipsing minima (see Fig. 2 and 3). This is probably only partly caused by the overlapping of the minima with the maxima of the migrating waves. Also, in some other RS CVn stars the depth of the primary minima varies, but it does not approach zero as is the case in S 10947 (e.g. RT Lac: the amplitude varies between about 0.7 and 1.0 mag, see Evren 1989; UX UMa: the amplitude varies from 0.4 to about 0.6 mag, see Geyer 1980).
* During the whole time of observation the period Po is decreasing (Tab. 2 and Fig. 4). The observed minima may formally be described by

$$m=\mathrm{242\hspace{0.17em}9811.30}+8.^\mathrm{d}6321\times E1.14\times 10^6\times E^2$$

The period of most, if not all, RS CVn stars is changing, but in our case the numerical value of the quadratic term is quite large (see below). Of course, it is not known whether the periods are in reality changing smoothly, or whether the changes are abrupt (polygonal).

According to the classical interpretation of RS CVn stars the brightness changes can be interpreted solely by starspot activities in a binary system (e.g. Geyer 1976). But until now it was not yet possible to unambiguously explain the physical processes in RS CVn systems. This is because photoelectric and spectroscopic observations are not available to a sufficient extent since the phenomenon was discovered by Hall (1972).

Systematic changes of the orbital period are observed also in most other RS CVn systems. Hall & Kreiner (1980) and Hall et al. (1980) gave a compilation of 34 such objects where both, decreasing and increasing periods are found in the ratio of about 2:1. The value of d log $`P`$/d$`t`$ = –2.3 $`\times `$ 10-6 for S 10947 is large but not extraordinary. It is surpassed only by SZ Psc (–5.25 $`\times `$ 10-6), CQ Aur (–2.45 $`\times `$ 10-6) and AR Mon (–1.22 $`\times `$ 10-6).

In any case, large period changes are an indication of rapid evolutionary efects (e.g. p. 427 in Kopal 1978). However, it is difficult to estimate more details, such as mass loss or mass transfer rates in RS CVn stars because the period changes may be caused by effects which are not directly related to the mass transfer in the binary system. As far as known, RS CVn stars have binary components of similar mass. Though RS CVn stars are detached systems, mass exchange, if occuring, does not much influence the period length. Though Evren (1989) shows that in the case of RT Lac an intermittent gas flow seems to exist between the binary components, additional quantities must be known to answer this question with more confidence. Hall (1972), for example, proposes that ejection of matter in regions of very strong starspot activity on one side of the cooler component may give large contributions to the changes in orbital period (rocket effect). Sahade & Wood (1978, on page 66) write that “the large period changes found in the RS CVn variables are still not well understood … and the energy required to eject larger amounts of mass must be very large”. Other authors (e.g. Kopal 1978) state that it is difficult to estimate the mass loss. Nevertheless, Hall & Kreiner (1980) and Hall et al. (1980) tried to give crude estimates of the range of mass loss rates in 34 RS CVn-type stars based on the hypothetical assumptions of magnetic field strengths and further quantities. They got values up to about 10-6 M/yr in some extreme cases.

As already mentioned, the eclipsing minima in S 10947 occasionally disappear (see Fig. 2 and 3). Apart from S 10947 only very few binaries (none of which is a RS CVn star) are known to have occasionally vanishing eclipse amplitudes, and thus not much is known about their cause.

There are several possible explanations for varying eclipse amplitudes:

* Triple system: An obvious explanation of varying orbital period and eclipse depth is due to the influence of a third body in orbit (e.g. Africano & Wilson 1976). This possibility was later abandoned as a general explanation since (i) $`OC`$ variations were actually observed in too many cataclysmic variables to attribute all to third bodies, and (ii) for the case of UX UMa the apparent sinusoidal $`OC`$ variation was found not to repeat (Rubinstein et al. 1991). One exception is SS Lac which has ceased eclipsing completely. This is believed to be due to a change of the orbital inclination angle caused by a third stellar component which gives not only rise to an apsidal motion of probably $``$ 1000 years, but also to a periodic oscillation of the orbital inclination with a very long time scale (Milone et al. 2000, Torres & Stefanik 2000).
* Dust obscuration: Irregularities of production and destruction of carbon dust can hide the minima. As far as we know, this phenomenon primarily leads to small amplitude variations rather than a change of 0.5 mag as observed in S 10947.
* Strong wind: Variations of the accretion rate may easily affect variations in the amount of matter expelled by the system in a wind. As an example, the eclipsing binary CV Ser (not a RS CVn star) showed no eclipse light variations at all in 1970. According to Cowley et al. (1977) (see also Hoffmeister et al. 1984), it is not one of the stellar binary components which is eclipsed, but rather some bright material between the stars.

For S 10947, the short time scale and the non-periodic behaviour of the times of vanishing amplitude seem to rule out the influence of a third component. We therefore suppose that these eclipses are caused by circumstellar matter or changes in the accretion disk, variable in size and/or brightness. This supports earlier statements by Hall & Ramsey (1992) that extended matter in RS CVn systems may play a greater role than hitherto assumed.

## 3 Conclusions

Because of (1) the small difference to the best-fit X-ray position of only $``$5′′ (far below the X-ray position error), (2) the lack of any other optical objects within the X-ray error circle brighter than 19 mag. and (3) a X-ray-to-optical luminosity ratio of $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{opt}}0.01`$ which is in the range exhibited by RS CVn stars, we are quite certain about the identification of RX J2009.8+1557 with S 10947 Aql.

S 10947 Aql shows interesting properties in its eclipsing light curve which may contribute to a better understanding of the RS CVn systems.

This work demonstrates the importance of plate archives where many still unknown secrets and information are hidden. Detailed spectroscopic observations are urgently needed to further the understanding of this enigmatic source S 10947 Aql. Also, continued long-term monitoring should determine the further evolution of the $`OC`$ curve, and thus can prove/disprove the influence of a third body.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are pleased to acknowledge post-facto photoelectric calibration of the field by Arne Henden (see Tab. 3) as suggested by the referee. We are indebted to P. Kroll (Sonneberg Observatory) for transforming the photographic measurements into electronic format. GAR and JG were partly supported by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (BMBF/DLR) under contract 05 2S 0524 and 50 OR 96 02 3, respectively. The ROSAT project is supported by BMBF/DLR and the Max-Planck-Society. The finding chart (Fig. 1) is based on photographic data of the National Geographic Society – Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (NGS-POSS) obtained using the Oschin Telescope on Palomar Mountain. The NGS-POSS was funded by a grant from the National Geographic Society to the California Institute of Technology. The Digitized Sky Survey was produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under US Government grant NAG W-2166. This research has made use of the USNO-A1.0 catalog produced by the U.S. Naval Observatory.
Note added in proof:

Arne Henden, following our request in response to a suggestion of the referee, has performed a CCD-based photometric calibration as given below.