text:
# Population synthesis for double white dwarfs II. Semi-detached systems: AM CVn stars

## 1 Introduction

AM CVn stars are helium-rich faint blue objects that exhibit variability on time-scales of $``$1000 seconds. Smak (1967) discovered that the prototype of the class, AM CVn (=HZ 29), shows photometric variability with a period $`18`$ min and suggested that it is a binary. Immediately Paczyński (1967) realised that it could be a semi-detached pair of degenerate dwarfs in which mass transfer is driven by loss of angular momentum due to gravitational wave radiation. After flickering, typical for cataclysmic binary systems, was found in AM CVn by Warner & Robinson (1972), this model was used to explain this system by Faulkner et al. (1972). There are currently 8 AM CVn candidates (Table 2) which have been studied photometrically in great detail (for reviews see Ulla (1994), Warner (1995) and Solheim (1995)). AM CVn stars also attracted attention as possible sources of gravitational waves (Hils & Bender 2000, and references therein).

After the introduction of the concept of common envelope evolution for the formation of cataclysmic variables and X-ray binaries (Paczyński 1976), the formation of close double white dwarfs through two of such phases was anticipated by Tutukov & Yungelson (1979, 1981). The emission of gravitational waves would subsequently bring the two white dwarfs into a semi-detached phase. Nather et al. (1981) independently suggested this scenario for the formation of AM CVn itself. In an alternative scenario the white dwarf donor is replaced by a helium star that becomes semi-degenerate during the mass transfer (Iben & Tutukov 1991).

Throughout this paper we use the term AM CVn for binaries in which a white dwarf accretes from an another white dwarf or from a semi-degenerate helium star, irrespective how they would be classified observationally.

This paper continues our study on the formation and evolution of the Galactic population of close double white dwarfs (Nelemans et al. 2000, 2001b). Here we study the population that becomes semi-detached and transfers mass in a stable way. In addition we examine the alternative case where the donor is a semi-degenerate helium star.

In Sect. 2 we outline the evolution of binaries driven by gravitational wave radiation. We review the models for the formation of AM CVn stars and discuss the stability of the mass transfer in Sect.3. The results of our population synthesis and a comparison with observations are presented in Sect. 4. The differences with previous studies are discussed in Sect. 5 after which the conclusions follow.

## 2 Mass transfer in close binaries driven by gravitational wave radiation

The rate of angular momentum loss ($`\dot{J}`$) of a binary system with a circular orbit due to gravitational wave radiation (GWR) is (Landau & Lifshitz 1971):

$$\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_{\mathrm{GWR}}=\frac{32}{5}\frac{G^3}{c^5}\frac{Mm(M+m)}{a^4}.$$
(1)
Here $`M`$ and $`m`$ are the masses of the two components and $`a`$ is their orbital separation.

In a binary with stable mass transfer the change of the radius of the donor exactly matches the change of its Roche lobe. This condition combined with an approximate equation for the size of the Roche lobe (Paczyński 1967),

$$R_\mathrm{L}0.46a\left(\frac{m}{M+m}\right)^{1/3}\text{ for }m<0.8M,$$
(2)
may be used to derive the rate of mass transfer for a semi-detached binary in which the mass transfer is driven by GWR (Paczyński 1967)

$$\frac{\dot{m}}{m}=\left(\frac{\dot{J}}{J}\right)_{\mathrm{GWR}}\times \left[\frac{\zeta (m)}{2}+\frac{5}{6}\frac{m}{M}\right]^1.$$
(3)
Here $`\zeta (m)`$ is the logarithmic derivative of the radius of the donor with respect to its mass ($`\zeta `$ d $`\mathrm{ln}r/`$ d $`\mathrm{ln}m`$). For the mass transfer to be stable, the term in brackets must be positive, i.e.

$$q\frac{m}{M}<\frac{5}{6}+\frac{\zeta (m)}{2}.$$
(4)
The mass transfer becomes dynamically unstable when this criterion is violated, probably causing the binary components to coalesce (Pringle & Webbink 1975; Tutukov & Yungelson 1979).

## 3 The nature of the mass donor: two formation scenarios

### 3.1 Close double white dwarfs as AM CVn progenitors

From the spectra of AM CVn stars it is inferred that the transferred material consists mainly of helium. Faulkner et al. (1972) suggested two possibilities for the helium rich donor in AM CVn: (i) a zero-age helium star with a mass of 0.4 - 0.5 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and (ii) a low-mass degenerate helium white dwarf. The first possibility can be excluded because the helium star would dominate the spectrum and cause the accretor to have large radial velocity variations, none of which is observed. Thus they concluded that AM CVn stars are interacting double white dwarfs. Their *direct progenitors* may be detached close double white dwarfs which are brought into contact by loss of angular momentum due to GWR within the lifetime of the Galactic disk (for which we take 10 Gyr). The less massive white dwarf fills its Roche lobe first and an AM CVn star is born, if the stars do not merge (see Sect. 3.2). We discussed the formation of such double white dwarfs in Nelemans et al. (2001b).

To calculate the stability of the mass transfer and the evolution of the AM CVn system, one needs to know the mass-radius relation for white dwarfs. This depends on the temperature, chemical composition, thickness of the envelope etc. of the white dwarf. However, Panei et al. (2000) have shown that after cooling for several 100 Myr the mass - radius relation for low-mass helium white dwarfs approaches the relation for zero-temperature spheres. As most white dwarfs that may form AM CVn stars are at least several 100 Myr old at the moment of contact (Tutukov & Yungelson 1996), we apply the mass - radius relation for cold spheres derived by Zapolsky & Salpeter (1969), as corrected by Rappaport & Joss (1984). For helium white dwarfs with masses between 0.002 and 0.45 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, it can be approximated to within 3% by (in solar units)

$$R_{\mathrm{ZS}}0.01060.0064\mathrm{ln}M_{\mathrm{WD}}+0.0015M_{\mathrm{WD}}^2.$$
(5)
We apply the same equation for the radii of CO white dwarfs, since the dependence on chemical composition is negligible in the range of interest.

### 3.2 Stability of the mass transfer between white dwarfs

In Fig. 1 we show the limiting mass ratio for dynamically stable mass transfer (Eq. (4)) as the upper solid line, with $`\zeta (m)`$ derived from Eq. (5). The initial mass-transfer rates, as given by Eq. (3), can be higher than the Eddington limit of the accretor (Tutukov & Yungelson 1979). The matter that cannot be accreted is lost from the system, taking along some angular momentum. The binary system may remain stable even though it loses extra angular momentum. However heating of the transferred material, may cause it to expand and form a common envelope in which the two white dwarfs most likely merge (Han & Webbink 1999). Therefore, we impose the additional restriction to have the initial mass transfer rate lower than the Eddington accretion limit for the companion ($`10^5\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1). This changes the limiting mass ratio below which AM CVn stars can be formed to the lower solid line in Fig. 1. In this Figure we over-plotted our model distribution of the current birthrate of AM CVn stars that form from close binary white dwarfs (see Sect. 4).

In the derivation of the Eq. (3) it is implicitly assumed that the secondary rotates synchronously with the orbital revolution and that the angular momentum which is drained from the secondary is restored to the orbital motion via tidal interaction between the accretion disk and the donor star (see, e.g. Verbunt & Rappaport 1988, and references therein).

However, the orbital separation when Roche lobe overflow starts is only about 0.1 $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the formation of the accretion disk is not obvious; the matter that leaves the vicinity of the first Lagrangian point initially follows a ballistic trajectory, passing the accreting star at a minimum distance of $`10\%`$ of the binary separation (Lubow & Shu 1975), i.e. at a distance comparable to the radius of a white dwarf $`(0.01R_{\mathrm{}})`$. So, the accretion stream may well hit the surface of the accretor directly instead of forming an accretion disk around it (Webbink 1984).

The minimum distance at which the accretion stream passes the accretor is computed by Lubow & Shu (1975) (their $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{\mathrm{min}}`$), which we fit with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{\mathrm{min}}}{a}}`$ $``$ $`0.04948\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.03815}\mathrm{log}(q)`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.04752}\mathrm{log}^2(q)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.006973}\mathrm{log}^3(q).`$
The value of $`q`$ at which the radius of the accretor equals $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is presented as a dotted line in Fig. 1; above this line the accretion stream hits the white dwarfs’ surface directly and no accretion disk is formed.

In absence of the disk the angular momentum of the stream is converted into spin of the accretor and mechanisms other than disk - orbit interaction are required to transport the angular momentum of the donor back to the orbit. The small separation between the two stars may result in tidal coupling between the accretor and the donor which is in synchronous rotation with the orbital period. The efficiency of this process is uncertain (Smarr & Blandford 1976; Campbell 1984), but if tidal coupling between accretor and donor is efficient the stability limit for mass transfer is the same as in the presence of the disk (Eq. (4)). In the most extreme case all the angular momentum carried with the accretion stream is lost from the binary system. The lost angular momentum can be approximated by the angular momentum of the ring that would be formed in the case of a point-mass accretor: $`\dot{J}_{\dot{m}}=\dot{m}\sqrt{GMar_\mathrm{h}}`$, where $`r_\mathrm{h}`$ is the radius of the ring in units of $`a`$. This sink of angular momentum leads to an additional term $`\sqrt{(1+q)r_\mathrm{h}}`$ in the brackets in Eq. (3). As a result the condition for dynamically stable mass transfer becomes more rigorous:

$$q<\frac{5}{6}+\frac{\zeta (m)}{2}\sqrt{(1+q)r_\mathrm{h}}.$$
(7)
This limit (with $`r_\mathrm{h}`$ given by Verbunt & Rappaport (1988) and again the additional restriction of a mass transfer rate below the Eddington limit) is shown in Fig. 1 as the dashed line.

Figure 1 shows that, with our assumptions, none of the AM CVn binaries which descend from double white dwarfs (which we will call the *white dwarf family*) forms a disk at the onset of mass transfer. After about 107 yr, when the donor mass has decreased below 0.05 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (see Fig. 4) and the orbit has become wider a disk will form.

Only one of the currently known 14 close double white dwarfs possibly is an AM CVn progenitor; WD 1704+481A has $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=3.48`$ hr, $`m=0.39\pm 0.05\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M=0.56\pm 0.05\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Maxted et al. 2000). It is close to the limit for dynamical stability, but because the initial mass transfer rate is expected to be super-Eddington it may merge.

### 3.3 Binaries with low mass helium stars as AM CVn progenitors: a semi-degenerate mass donor

Another way to form a helium transferring binary in the right period range was first outlined by Savonije et al. (1986). They envisioned a neutron star accretor, but the scenario for an AM CVn star, with a white dwarf accretor, is essentially the same (Iben & Tutukov 1991). One starts with a low-mass, non-degenerate helium burning star, a remnant of so-called case B mass transfer, with a white dwarf companion. If the components are close enough, loss of angular momentum via GWR may result in Roche lobe overflow before helium exhaustion in the stellar core. Mass transfer is stable if the ratio of the mass of the helium star (donor) to the white dwarf (accretor) is smaller than $`1.2`$ (Tutukov & Fedorova 1989; Ergma & Fedorova 1990)111This stability limit is the same as for hydrogen-rich stars with radiative envelopes.. When the mass of the helium star decreases below $`0.2\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$, core helium burning stops and the star becomes semi-degenerate. This causes the exponent in the mass-radius relation to become negative and, as a consequence, mass transfer causes the orbital period to increase. The minimum period is $``$10 min. With strongly decreasing mass transfer rate the donor mass drops below 0.01$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ in a few Gyr, while the period of the system increases up to $`1`$ hr; in the right range to explain the AM CVn stars. The luminosity of the donor drops below $`10^4\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and its effective temperature to several thousand K. We will call the AM CVn stars that formed in this way the *helium star family*. Note that in this scenario a disk will always form because the orbit is rather wide at the onset of the mass transfer. The equations for efficient coupling thus hold.

The progenitors of these helium stars have masses in the range 2.3 – 5 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. The importance of this scenario is enhanced by the long lifetimes of the helium stars: $`t_{\mathrm{He}}10^{7.15}M_{\mathrm{He}}^{3.7}`$ yr (Iben & Tutukov 1985), comparable to the main-sequence lifetime of their progenitors, so that there is enough time to lose angular momentum by gravitational wave radiation and start mass transfer before the helium burning stops.

Our simulation of the population of helium stars with white dwarf companions, suggests that at the moment they get into contact the majority of the helium stars are at the very beginning of core helium burning. This is illustrated in Fig. 2. Having this in mind, we approximate the mass-radius relation for semi-degenerate stars by a power-law fit to the results of computations of Tutukov & Fedorova (1989) for a 0.5 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ star, which filled its Roche lobe shortly after the beginning of core helium burning (their model 1.1). For the semi-degenerate part of the track we obtain (in solar units):

$$R_{\mathrm{TF}}0.043m^{0.062}.$$
(8)
Trial computations with the relation $`R0.029m^{0.19}`$ from the model of Savonije et al. (1986) which had $`Y_\mathrm{c}=0.26`$ at the onset of the mass transfer reveals a rather weak dependence of our results on the mass - radius relation.

As noticed by Savonije et al. (1986), severe mass loss in the phase before the period minimum, increases the thermal time-scale of the donor beyond the age of the Galactic disk and thus prevents the donor from becoming fully degenerate and keeps it semi-degenerate.

Another effect of the severe mass loss is the quenching of the helium burning in the core. Tutukov & Fedorova (1989) show that during the mass transfer the central helium content hardly changes (especially for low mass helium stars). Therefore, despite the formation of an outer convective zone, which penetrates inward to regions where helium burning took place, one would expect that in the majority of the systems the transferred material is helium-rich down to very low donor masses. However, donors with He-exhausted cores at the onset of mass transfer ($`Y_\mathrm{c}0.1`$) may in the course of their evolution start to transfer matter consisting of a carbon-oxygen mixture (see Fig. 3 in Ergma & Fedorova 1990, who used the same evolutionary code as Tutukov & Fedorova).

Figure 3 shows the population of low-mass helium stars with white dwarf companions which currently start mass transfer, (i.e. have $`q1.2`$), derived by means of population synthesis. It is possible that only a fraction of them evolves into AM CVn stars. Upon Roche lobe overflow, before the period minimum, most helium donors lose mass at an almost constant rate close to $`3\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1. Accretion of He at such rates by a carbon-oxygen (CO) white dwarf may trigger a detonation in the layer of the accumulated matter (Taam 1980). This may further cause the detonation of the underlying CO dwarf, so-called edge-lit detonation, ELD (Livne 1990; Livne & Glasner 1991; Woosley & Weaver 1994; Livne & Arnett 1995). The conditions for ELD to occur: the mass of the white dwarf, the range of accretion rates, the mass of the accumulated layer, etc. are still actively debated.

However, examples computed by Limongi & Tornambè (1991) and Woosley & Weaver (1994) show that if $`\dot{M}10^8\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 the helium layer inevitably detonates if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{He}}0.3\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{CO}}0.6\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Therefore, as one of the extreme cases, we reject all systems which satisfy these limits from the sample of progenitors of AM CVn stars, assuming that they will be disrupted before the helium star enters the semi-degenerate stage. As another extreme, we assume that only 0.15 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ has to be accreted for ELD (as a compromise between results of Limongi & Tornambè (1991) and Woosley & Weaver (1994)). The relevant cut-offs are shown in Fig. 3.

For CO white dwarf accretors less massive than 0.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ we assume that accretion of helium results in “flashes” in which the He layer is ejected or lost via a common envelope formed due to expansion of the layer. Such events may be repetitive.

Limongi & Tornambè (1991) show that for accretion rates below $`10^8\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 more than $`0.4\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ helium has to be accreted before detonation. For systems in which the donor becomes semi-degenerate and the mass accretion rates are low we limit the accumulation of He only by adopting the Chandrasekhar mass as a maximum to the total mass of the accreting white dwarf.

### 3.4 Summary: two extreme models for AM CVn progenitors

We recognise two possibilities for each family of potential AM CVn systems, which are: efficient or non-efficient tidal coupling between the accretor and the orbital motion in the white dwarf family, and two limits for the disruption of the accretors by ELD in the helium star family. We compute the populations for every possible solution and combine them into two models: model I, in which there is no tidal coupling and ELD is efficient in the destruction of potential progenitor systems (an “inefficient” scenario for forming AM CVn systems) and an “efficient” model II, in which there is an effective tidal coupling and ELD is efficient only in systems with the most massive donors. However, we give the birth rates and number of the objects for the four different solutions separately in Table 1.

Figure 4 presents two examples of the evolution of the orbital period and the mass transfer rate for both families of AM CVn systems. Initially the mass transfer rate is very high but within a few million years it drops below $`10^8`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1. In the same time interval the orbital period increases from a few minutes, in the case of the white dwarf family, or from a little over 10 minutes, for the helium star family, to a few thousand seconds. The semi-degenerate donor systems have lower mass transfer rates and larger periods for the same donor mass due to their larger radii. The fact that the period is independent of the accretor mass ($`M`$) is a consequence of Eq. (2) and Keplers 3rd law leading to $`P(R^3/m)^{1/2}`$.

## 4 The population of AM CVn stars

We used the population synthesis program SeBa, as described in detail in Portegies Zwart & Verbunt (1996), Portegies Zwart & Yungelson (1998) and Nelemans et al. (2001b) to model the progenitor populations. We follow model A of Nelemans et al. (2001b), which has an IMF after Miller & Scalo (1979) and flat initial distributions over the mass ratio of the components and the logarithm of the orbital separation and a thermal eccentricity distribution. We assume an initial binary fraction of 50% and that the star formation decreases exponentially with time, which is different from other studies of close double white dwarfs that assume a constant star formation rate. The mass transfer between a giant and a main-sequence star of comparable mass is treated with an “angular momentum formalism” which does not result in a strong spiral-in (Nelemans et al. 2000).

### 4.1 The total population

We generate the population of close double white dwarfs and helium stars with white dwarf companions and select the AM CVn star progenitors according to the criteria for the formation of the AM CVn stars as described above. We calculate the birthrate of AM CVn stars, and evolve every system according to the recipe described in Sect. 2, to obtain the total number of systems currently present in the Galaxy (Table 1) and their distribution over orbital periods and mass loss rates (Fig. 5).

The absence of an effective coupling between the accretor spin and the orbital motion (model I) reduces the current birth rate AM CVn stars from the white dwarf family by two orders of magnitude as compared to the case of effective coupling (model II). The fraction of close double white dwarfs which fill their Roche lobes and continue their evolution as AM CVn stars is 21% in model II but only 0.2% in model I (see also Fig. 1).

In model I the population of AM CVn stars is totally dominated by the helium star family. In model II where tidal coupling is efficient both families have a comparable contribution to the population. Increasing the mass of the critical layer for ELD from 0.15 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ to 0.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ almost doubles the current birth rate of the systems which are able to enter the semi-degenerate branch of the evolution. In the latter case almost all helium star binaries that transfer matter to a white dwarf in a stable way eventually become AM CVn systems (see Fig. 3).

In Fig. 5 we show the total current population of AM CVn systems in the Galaxy in our model. The evolutionary paths of both families are indicated with the curves (see also Fig. 4). Table 1 gives the total number of systems currently present in the Galaxy. The evolution of the systems decelerates with time and as a result the vast majority of the systems has orbital periods larger than one hour. The evolutionary tracks for the two families do not converge, since the mass loss of the helium stars prevents their descendants from recovering thermal equilibrium in the lifetime of the Galactic disk (see sect.3.3).

The minimum donor mass attainable within the lifetime of the Galactic disk is $`0.005\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the descendants of the helium white dwarfs and $`0.007\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the descendants of the helium stars. This is still far from the limit of $`0.001\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ where the electrostatic forces in their interiors will start to dominate the gravitational force, the mass-radius relation will become $`RM^{1/3}`$ (Zapolsky & Salpeter 1969), and the mass transfer will cease.

In Table 1 we give the local space density of AM CVn systems estimated from their total number and the Galactic distribution of stars, for which we adopt

$$\rho (R,z)=\rho _0e^{R/H}\text{sech}(z/h)^2\text{pc}^3$$
(9)
as in (Nelemans et al. 2001b). Here $`H`$ = 2.5 kpc (Sackett 1997) and $`h`$ = 200 pc, neglecting the age and mass dependence of $`h`$. These estimates can not be compared directly to the space density, estimated from the observations: $`3\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ pc-3 (Warner 1995). In our model the space density is dominated by the long-period, dim systems, while Warner’s estimate is based on the observed systems which are relatively bright. For a comparison of the observed and predicted populations we have to consider selection effects.

### 4.2 Observational selection effects: from the total population to the observable population

The known systems are typically discovered as faint blue stars (and identified with DB white dwarfs), as high proper motion stars, or as highly variable stars (see for the history of detection of most of these stars Ulla 1994; Warner 1995). The observed systems thus do not have the statistical properties of a magnitude limited sample.

Moreover, the luminosity of AM CVn stars comes mainly from the disk in most cases. Despite the fact that several helium disk models are available (e.g. Smak 1983; Cannizzo 1984; Tsugawa & Osaki 1997; El-Khoury & Wickramasinghe 2000) there is no easy way to estimate magnitude of the disk. Therefore, we compute the visual magnitude of the systems from very simple assumptions, to get a notion of the effect of observational selection upon the sample of interacting white dwarfs.

The luminosity provided by accretion is

$$L_{\mathrm{acc}}0.5GM\dot{m}\left(\frac{1}{R}\frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{L1}}}\right).$$
(10)
Here $`R`$ is the radius of the accretor and $`R_{\mathrm{L1}}`$ is the distance of the first Lagrangian point to the centre of mass of the accretor. We use an “average” temperature of the disk (see Wade 1984), which may be then obtained from $`L=S\sigma T^4`$, where $`S`$ is the total surface of the disk:

$$S=2\pi (R_{\mathrm{out}}^2R_{\mathrm{WD}}^2).$$
(11)
We use $`R_{\mathrm{out}}=0.7R_{\mathrm{L1}}`$. The visual magnitude of the binary is then computed from the effective temperature and the bolometric correction (taken from Kuiper 1938), assuming that the disk is a black body . This allows us to construct a magnitude limited sample by estimating the fraction of the Galactic volume in which any system in our theoretical sample may be observed as it evolves.

We derive $`P\dot{M}`$ diagrams for both models, similar to the ones for the total population, but now for the “observable” population, which we limit by $`V=15`$. Changing $`V_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ doesn’t change the character of graphs, since only the nearby systems are visible. The expected number of observable systems for the two families of progenitors is given in Tab. 1 and shown in Fig. 6. The observable sample comprises only one star for every million AM CVn stars that exists in the Galaxy. A large number of AM CVn stars may be found among very faint white dwarfs which are expected to be of the non-DA variety due to the fact, that the accreted material is helium or a carbon-oxygen mixture.

In the “inefficient” model I about one in 30 observed systems is from the white dwarf family. This is a considerably higher fraction than in the total AM CVn population where it is only one out of 100 systems. In the “efficient” model II, the white dwarf family comprises $`60\%`$ of the total population and $`50\%`$ of the “observable” one. The ratio of the total number of systems of the white dwarf family in models I and II is not proportional to the ratio of their current birthrates. This reflects the star formation history and the fact that the progenitors of the donors in model I are low mass stars that live long before they form a white dwarf. In model I the fraction of the observable systems which belong to the white dwarf family is higher than the fraction of the total number of systems that belong to this family. This is caused by the fact that the accretors in these systems are more massive (see Fig. 1), thus smaller, giving rise to higher accretion luminosities.

To compare our model with the observations, we list the orbital periods and the observed magnitude ranges for the known and candidate AM CVn stars in Table 2. For AM CVn we give $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ as inferred by Patterson et al. (1993) and confirmed as a result of a large photometry campaign (Skillman et al. 1999) and a spectroscopic study (Nelemans et al. 2001a). For the remaining systems we follow the original determinations or Warner (1995). Most AM CVn stars show multiple periods, but these are close together and do not influence our qualitative analysis. KL Dra is identified as an AM CVn type star by its spectrum (Jha et al. 1998), but still awaits determination of its period. The periods of the observed AM CVn stars are shown in Fig. 6 as the vertical dotted lines. The period of RX J1914+24 is not plotted because this system was discovered as an X-ray source and it is optically much fainter than the limit used here.

Figures 5 and 6 show that the uncertainty in both models and observational selection effects make it hard to argue which systems belong to which family. According to model I the descendants of close double white dwarfs are very rare. However, in that case one might not expect two observed systems at short periods (AM CVn and HP Lib). In both models I and II, systems with long periods (like GP Com) are more likely to descend from the helium star family. In the spectrum of GP Com, however, Marsh et al. (1991) found evidence for hydrogen burning ashes in the disk, but no traces of helium burning, viz. very low carbon and oxygen abundances. It is not likely that any progenitor of the helium star family completely skipped helium burning. More probably, this system belongs to the white dwarf family.

Most systems in the “observable” model population have orbital periods similar to the periods of the observed AM CVn stars that show large brightness variations; thus most modelled systems are expected to be variable. These brightness variations have been interpreted as a result of a thermal instability of helium disks (Smak 1983). In Fig. 6 we show the thermal stability limits for helium accretion disks as derived by Tsugawa & Osaki (1997): above the solid line the disks are expected to be hot and stable; below the horizontal dashed lines the disks are cool and stable and in between the disks are unstable. Note that the vast majority of the total Galactic model population (Fig. 5) is expected to have cool stable disks according to the thermal instability model, preventing them from being detected by their variability.

The period distributions of the “observable” population in our models agree quite well with the observed population of AM CVn stars. Better modelling of the selection effects is, however, necessary.

### 4.3 Individual systems

Table 2 gives theoretical estimates of the masses of the donor stars in the observed AM CVn stars, derived from the relation between the orbital period and the mass of the donor (see Sect. 3.4 and Fig. 6).

AM CVn stars may be subject to tidal instability due to which the disk becomes eccentric and starts precessing. Such instabilities are used to explain the superhump phenomenon in dwarf novae (Whitehurst 1988).

For AM CVn and CR Boo the observed 1051.2s (Solheim et al. 1998) and 1492.8s (Provencal et al. 1997) periodicities are interpreted as superhump periods. Following Warner (1995) we compute the mass ratio of the binary system using the orbital period ($`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$) and the superhump period ($`P_\mathrm{s}`$) via:

$$\frac{P_\mathrm{s}}{P_\mathrm{s}P_{\mathrm{orb}}}3.73\frac{1+q}{q}.$$
(12)
This results is $`q`$ = 0.087 and 0.057 for AM CVn and CR Boo respectively. Assuming that they belong to the white dwarf family their accretor masses are $`M=0.38\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M=0.37\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. These values are at the lower end of the predicted distribution. If we apply the semi-degenerate mass - radius relation, the estimated masses of the accretors are high, even close to the Chandrasekhar mass for AM CV. The formation of systems with high-mass accretors has a low probability (see Fig. 3), which suggests that either Eq. (12) is not applicable for helium disks or alternatively that these binaries do not belong to the helium star family.

Maybe the most intriguing system is RX J1914.4+245; detected by ROSAT (Motch et al. 1996) and classified as an intermediate polar, because its X-ray flux is modulated with a 569 s period, typical for the spin periods of the white dwarfs in intermediate polars. Cropper et al. (1998) and Ramsay et al. (2000) suggest that it is a double degenerate polar with an orbital period equal to the spin period of the accreting white dwarf. The mass transfer rate in this system, inferred from its period ($`\dot{m}1.8\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1) is consistent with the value deduced from the ROSAT PSPC data (Cropper et al. 1998) if the distance is $``$100 pc.

Even though polars have no disk, the coupling between the accretor and donor is efficient due to the strong magnetic field of the accretor. We therefore anticipate that Eq. (4) applies without the correction introduced by Eq. (7). It may well be that magnetic systems in which the coupling is maintained by a magnetic field form the majority of stable AM CVn systems of the white dwarf family. We do not expect this system to belong to the helium star family, since its period is below the typical period minimum for the majority of the binaries in this family.

RX J0439.8-809 may be a Large Magellanic Cloud relative of the Galactic AM CVn systems. This system was also first detected by ROSAT (Greiner et al. 1994). Available X-ray, UV- and optical data suggest, that the binary may consist of two degenerate stars and have an orbital period $`<35`$ min (van Teeseling et al. 1997, 1999).

RX J1914.4+245 and RX J0439.8-809 show that it is possible to detect optically faint AM CVn stars in supersoft X-rays, especially in other galaxies. The possibility of supersoft X-rays emission by AM CVn stars was discussed by Tutukov & Yungelson (1996). There are two probable sources for the emission: the accreted helium may burn stationary at the surface of the white dwarf if $`\dot{m}10^6\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 and/or the accretion disk may be sufficiently hot in the same range of accretion rates. However, the required high accretion rate makes such supersolf X-ray sources short-living (see Fig. 4) and, therefore, not numerous. Note that AM CVn, CR Boo, V803 Cen, CP Eri and GP Com are also weak X-ray sources (Ulla 1995).

The most recently found suspected AM CVn star, KL Dra, is also variable. Therefore we expect it to lie in the same period range as CR Boo, V803 Cen and CP Eri. Taking the limits for stability as given by Tsugawa & Osaki (1997) we expect the orbital period to be between 20 and 50 minutes (Fig. 6).

## 5 Discussion

A population synthesis study for AM CVn stars (and related systems) was done by Tutukov & Yungelson (1996), who considered only an “efficient” model. Their derived birthrate for the white dwarf family is $`1.3\times 10^2`$ yr-1, a factor three higher than the value in our “efficient” model. This difference can in part be explained by the different treatment of the mass transfer from a giant to a main sequence star of comparable mass (see Nelemans et al. 2000, 2001b). Most close double white dwarfs in our model have a mass ratio close to unity for which stable mass transfer is impossible (Sect. 2), while in the model of Tutukov & Yungelson (1996) they predominantly have $`q0.50.7`$ which is more favourable for stable mass transfer. Our higher integrated star formation rate only partly compensates for the loss of stable systems.

Another difference is that Tutukov & Yungelson (1996) conclude that the helium star family (non-degenerate helium stars in their terminology) do not contribute significantly to the AM CVn population. This is a consequence of their assumption that these systems, after the period minimum, live only for $`10^8`$ yr. In contrast, our calculations show that their evolution is limited only by the lifetime of the Galactic disk. Tutukov & Yungelson estimate the total number of AM CVn stars from the helium star family as $`(1.94.6)\times 10^5`$ depending on the assumptions about the consequences of the accretion of helium. We find $`2\times 10^7`$ even when we let ELD destroy the systems which accrete only 0.15 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$.

An additional complication is the possibility of the formation of a common envelope for systems where the accretion rate exceeds the rate of stationary helium burning at the surface of the accreting white dwarf ($`10^6\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1). If such a common envelope forms the components of system may well merge. If it happens, it will occur directly after the Roche-lobe contact, when the highest accretion rate occurs. We do not consider this possibility in our model, because it involves too many additional (and unknown) parameters. Applying only the requirement that stable systems should accrete below the Eddington rate, we may overestimate the birthrate of AM CVn stars.

We did not discuss the Roche lobe overflow by low mass stars with almost exhausted hydrogen cores ($`X_c0.01`$) which may also result in the formation of helium transferring systems with orbital periods $`10`$ min (Tutukov et al. 1987) because of its extremely low probability.

The prescription for ELD is related to the problem of SN Ia progenitors. In model I almost all accretors in the helium star family with initial $`M0.6`$$`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ “explode” and the ELD rate is close to 0.001 yr-1. If ELDs really produce SNe Ia, they may contribute about 25% of their currently inferred Galactic rate. In model II 0.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ must be accreted prior to the explosion, and the ELD rate is only about $`4\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ yr-1. Even in model I we find a much lower ELD rate than Tutukov & Yungelson (1996, who find 0.005). This is partly due to a lower birthrate, but also to the different treatment of the mass transfer from a giant to a main sequence star of comparable mass (Nelemans et al. 2000), which causes the accretors in our model mainly to have masses below 0.6 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. Such systems probably never experience ELD.

In model II the accretors in both families may accrete so much matter that they reach the Chandrasekhar mass. The rates for the white dwarf and helium star families for this process are $`3\times 10^6`$ and $`5\times 10^5`$ yr-1.

In both families the accretors can be helium white dwarfs (see Figs. 1 and 3). It was shown by Nomoto & Sugimoto (1977) that accretion of helium onto helium white dwarfs with $`\dot{m}=(14)\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ yr-1 results either in a helium shell flash (at the upper limit of the accretion rates) or in central detonation which disrupts the white dwarf (for lower $`\dot{m}`$). The detonation occurs only when the mass of the accretor grows to $`0.7\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$. In our calculations this happens for the helium star family at a rate of $`4\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ yr-1. For the white dwarf family it happens only in model II, at a rate of $`2\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ yr-1.

## 6 Conclusions

We study the formation of AM CVn stars from (i) close detached double white dwarfs which become semi-detached and (ii) helium stars that transfer matter to a white dwarf and stop burning helium due to mass loss and become dim and semi-degenerate.

We find that, with our assumptions, in all cases where a double white dwarf potentially can form an AM CVn star no accretion disk will be formed in the initial phase of mass transfer. Normally the disk provides the feedback of angular momentum to the orbit, stabilising the mass transfer. In absence of a disk, the stability of the mass transfer in the semi-detached white dwarf binary depends critically on the efficiency of the coupling between the accretor and the donor. If this coupling is not efficient most systems merge, and the formation rate of AM CVn stars from double white dwarfs becomes very low. In this case it is possible that magnetically coupled systems are almost the only ones to survive. RX J1914.4+245 may be such a system.

In the second channel the formation of AM CVn stars may be prevented by explosive burning of the accumulated helium layer which may cause detonation of the CO white dwarf accretor and the disruption of the system.

We combine our population synthesis results into two models, an “efficient” model in which the stability of mass transfer is not affected by the absence of an accretion disk and the explosive helium burning disrupting the system happens when 0.3 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is accumulated and an “inefficient” model in which the absence of an accretion disk is very important and the explosive helium disrupting the system happens already when 0.15 $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is accumulated. Applying very simple selection effects we estimate that in the “inefficient” model only one in 30 potentially observed systems descends from double white dwarfs. In the “efficient” model both families produce comparable numbers of observable systems. The observed systems fall roughly in the expected range of periods for a magnitude limited sample.

We conclude that to learn more about the AM CVn population both theory (stability of the mass transfer and helium accretion disks) and observations (especially the distances and the completeness of the sample) need to be improved.

###### Acknowledgements.

LRY and SPZ acknowledge the warm hospitality of the Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek”. This work was supported by NWO Spinoza grant 08-0 to E. P. J. van den Heuvel, RFBR grant 99-02-16037, the “Astronomy and Space Research Program” (project 1.4.4.1) and by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01112.01-98A awarded (to SPZ) by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5-26555.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Pion-nucleon interaction plays a fundamental role in determining the nuclear dynamics involving pions. Despite very extensive investigations in the past two decades, several outstanding problems remain to be solved. For example, an accurate description of pion absorption by nuclei  is still not available and hence the very extensive data for pion-nucleus reactions and pion productions from relativistic heavy-ion collisions have not been understood satisfactorily. To make progress, it is necessary to improve our theoretical description of the $`\pi N`$ off-shell amplitude which is the basic input to most of the existing nuclear calculations at intermediate energies. The importance of the $`\pi N`$ off-shell t-matrix in a dynamical description of pion photoproduction has also been demonstrated  in recent years.

Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is now commonly accepted as the fundamental theory of strong interactions. However, due to the mathematical complexities, it is not yet possible to predict $`\pi N`$ interactions directly from QCD. On the other hand, models based on meson-exchange picture  have been very successful in describing the $`NN`$ scattering. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the $`\pi N`$ dynamics at low and intermediate energies can also be described by the same approach. Most of the recent attempts  in this direction were obtained by applying various three-dimensional reductions of the Bethe-Salpeter equation for $`\pi N`$ scattering.

As is well known , the derivation of a three dimensional formulation from the Bethe-Salpeter equation is not unique. It is natural to ask whether the resulting off-shell dynamics in the relevant kinematic regions depends strongly on the choice of the reduction scheme. This question concerning the $`NN`$ models was investigated  quite extensively in 1970’s. No similar investigation for the $`\pi N`$ interactions has been made so far. In this paper we report the progress we have made on this question.

In section II, we specify the approximations that are used to derive a class of three-dimensional $`\pi N`$ scattering equations from the Bethe-Salpeter formulation. In section III, we define the dynamical content of the resulting meson-exchange models. The phenomenological aspects of the models are described in section IV. The results and discussions are presented in section V.

## 2 Three-dimensional reduction of Bethe-Salpeter formulation

To illustrate the derivations of three-dimensional equations for $`\pi N`$ scattering from the Bethe-Salpeter formulation, it is sufficient to consider a simple $`\pi NN`$ interaction Lagrangian density

$`L_{int}(x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\psi (x)\varphi (x),`$ (1)
where $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$ denote respectively the nucleon and pion fields and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is a bare $`\pi NN`$ vertex, such as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=ig\gamma _5`$ in the familiar pseudo-scalar coupling. By using the standard method , it is straightforward to derive from Eq. (1) the Bethe-Salpeter equation for $`\pi N`$ scattering and the one-nucleon propagator. In momentum space, the resulting Bethe-Salpeter equation can be written as

$$T(k^{},k;P)=B(k^{},k;P)+d^4k^{\prime \prime }B(k^{},k^{\prime \prime };P)G(k^{\prime \prime };P)T(k^{\prime \prime },k;P),$$
(2)
where $`k`$ and $`P`$ are respectively the relative and total momenta defined by the nucleon momentum $`p`$ and pion momentum $`q`$

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`p+q,`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _\pi (y)p\eta _N(y)q.`$
Here $`\eta _N(y)`$ and $`\eta _\pi (y)`$ can be any function of a chosen parameter $`y`$ with the condition

$`\eta _\pi (y)+\eta _N(y)=1.`$ (3)
Obviously we have from the above definitions that

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _N(y)P+k,`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _\pi (y)Pk.`$ (4)
In analogy to the nonrelativistic form, it is often to choose $`\eta _N=m_N/(m_\pi +m_N)`$ and $`\eta _\pi =m_\pi /(m_\pi +m_N)`$. The choice of the $`\eta ^{}`$s is irrelevant to the derivation presented below in this section provided that Eq. (3) is satisfied.

Note that $`T`$ in Eq. (2) is the ”amputated” invariant amplitude and is related to the $`\pi N`$ S-matrix by $`S\overline{u}Tu`$ with $`u`$ denoting the nucleon spinor. The driving term $`B`$ in Eq. (2) is the sum of all two-particle irreducible amplitudes, and $`G`$ is the product of the pion propagator $`D_\pi (q)`$ and the nucleon propagator $`S_N(p)`$. In the low energy region, we neglect the dressing of pion propagator and simply set

$`D_\pi (q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2m_\pi ^2+iϵ}},`$ (5)
where $`m_\pi `$ is the physical pion mass.

The nucleon propagator can be written as

$`S_N(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ip/m_N^0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N(p^2)+iϵ}},`$ (6)
where $`m_N^0`$ is the bare nucleon mass and the nucleon self energy operator $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N`$ is defined by

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N(p^2)={\displaystyle d^4k\mathrm{\Gamma }_0G(k;p)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k;p)}.`$ (7)
The dressed vertex function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ on the right hand side of Eq. (7) depends on the $`\pi N`$ Bethe-Salpeter amplitude

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k;P)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+{\displaystyle d^4k^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0G(k^{};P)T(k^{},k;P)}.`$ (8)
It is only possible in practice to consider the leading term of $`B`$ of Eq. (2). For the Lagrangian Eq. (1) the leading term consists of the direct and crossed $`N`$ diagrams, as illustrated in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)

$`B(k,k^{};P)=B^{(a)}(k,k^{};P)+B^{(b)}(k,k^{};P),`$ (9)
where

$`B^{(a)}(k,k^{};P)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0S_N(P)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,`$ (10)
$`B^{(b)}(k,k^{};P)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0S_N(\overline{P})\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,`$ (11)
with $`\overline{P}=[\eta _N(y)\eta _\pi (y)]P+k+k^{}`$.

Equations (2)-(11) form a closed set of coupled equations for determining the dressed nucleon propagator of Eq. (6) and the $`\pi N`$ Bethe-Salpeter amplitude of Eq. (2). It is important to note here that this is a drastic simplification of the original field theory problem defined by the Lagrangian Eq. (1). However, it is still very difficult to solve this highly nonlinear problem exactly. For practical applications, it is common to introduce further approximations.

The first step is to define the physical nucleon mass by imposing the condition that the dressed nucleon propagator should have the limit

$`S_N(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{ip/m_N+iϵ}},`$ (12)
as $`p^2m_N^2`$ with $`m_N`$ being the physical nucleon mass. This means that the self-energy in the nucleon propagator Eq. (6) is constrained by the condition

$`m_N^0+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N(m_N^2)=m_N.`$ (13)
The next step is to assume that the $`p`$-dependence of the nucleon self-energy is weak and we can use the condition Eq. (13) to set $`m_N^0+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p^2)m_N^0+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(m_N^2)=m_N`$. This approximation greatly simplifies the nonlinearity of the problem, since the full $`\pi N`$ propagator $`G`$ in Eqs. (2), (7) and (8) then takes the following simple form

$`G(k;P)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ip/m_N+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2m_\pi ^2+iϵ}}.`$ (14)
To be consistent, the driving terms Eqs. (10) and (11) are also evaluated by using the simple nucleon propagator of the form of Eq. (12).

The next commonly used approximation is to reduce the dimensionality of the above integral equations from four to three. In addition to simplifying the numerical task, this is also motivated by the consideration that the above covariant formulation is not consistent with most of the existing nuclear calculations based on the three-dimensional Schroedinger formulation.

The procedure for reducing the dimensionality of the above equations is to replace the propagator $`G`$ of Eq. (14), by a propagator $`\widehat{G}_0`$ which contains a $`\delta `$-function constraint on the momentum variables. In the low energy region, this new propagator must be chosen such that the resulting scattering amplitude has a correct $`\pi N`$ elastic cut from $`(m_\pi +m_N)^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ in the complex $`s`$-plane, as required by the unitarity condition. It is well known (for example, see Ref. ) that the choice of such a $`\widehat{G}_0`$ is rather arbitrary. In this work, we focus on a class of three dimensional equations which can be obtained by choosing the following form

$`\widehat{G}_0(k;P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{ds^{}}{ss^{}+iϵ}}f(s,s^{})[\alpha (s,s^{})P/+k/+m_N]`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`\delta ^{(+)}([\eta _N(s^{})P^{}+k]^2m_N^2)\delta ^{(+)}([\eta _\pi (s^{})P^{}k]^2m_\pi ^2).`$
In the above equation, $`s=P^2`$ is the invariant mass of the $`\pi N`$ system, and $`P^{}=\sqrt{\frac{s^{}}{s}}P`$ defines the ”offshellness” of the intermediate states. The superscript (+) associated with $`\delta `$-functions means that only the positive energy part is kept in defining the nucleon propagator. The relative momentum $`k`$ in the $`\delta `$-functions is defined by setting $`y=s`$ in $`\eta ^{}s`$, i.e., $`k=\eta _\pi (s)p\eta _N(s)q`$. To have a correct $`\pi N`$ elastic cut, the arbitrary functions $`f(s,s^{})`$ and $`\alpha (s,s^{})`$ must satisfy the conditions

$`f(s,s)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (16)
$`\alpha (s,s)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _N(s).`$ (17)
It is easy to verify that for $`(m_\pi +m_N)^2s\mathrm{}`$, Eqs. (15)-(17) give the correct discontinuity of the propagator $`\widehat{G}_0`$

$`Disc[\widehat{G}_0(k;P)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^2}}(\eta _N(s)P/+k/+m_N)\delta ^{(+)}([\eta _N(s)P+k]^2m_N^2)`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`\delta ^{(+)}([\eta _\pi (s)Pk]^2m_\pi ^2).`$
Several three dimensional formulations developed in the literature can be derived from using Eqs. (15)-(17). These are given by Blankenbecler and Sugar ($`BbS`$) , Kadyshevsky ($`Kady`$) , Thompson ($`Thomp`$) , and Cooper and Jennings ($`CJ`$) . In Table 1, we list their choices of the functions $`f(s,s^{})`$ and $`\alpha (s,s^{})`$. All schemes set $`\eta _N(s)=\epsilon _N(s)/(\epsilon _N(s)+\epsilon _\pi (s))`$ and $`\eta _\pi (s)=\epsilon _\pi (s)/(\epsilon _N(s)+\epsilon _\pi (s)),`$ where $`\epsilon _N(s)=(s+m_N^2m_\pi ^2)/2\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\epsilon _\pi (s)=(sm_N^2+m_\pi ^2)/2\sqrt{s}`$ are the center of mass (CM) energies of nucleon and pion, respectively.

In the rest of the paper, we will present the formulation in the CM frame. In this frame, we have $`P=(\sqrt{s},\stackrel{}{0})`$ for the total momentum, $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{k}`$. The integral over $`s^{}`$ in Eq. (15) can then be carried out to yield

$$\widehat{G}_0(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\delta (k_0\widehat{\eta }(s_\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}))}{\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}+iϵ}\frac{2\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}}{\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}}f(s,s_\stackrel{}{k})\frac{\alpha (s,s_\stackrel{}{k})\gamma _0\sqrt{s}+k/+m_N}{2E_N(\stackrel{}{k})2E_\pi (\stackrel{}{k})},$$
(19)
where $`E_N(\stackrel{}{k})=(\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_N^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`E_\pi (\stackrel{}{k})=(\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_\pi ^2)^{1/2}`$ are the nucleon and pion energies, and we have defined

$`\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_N(\stackrel{}{k})+E_\pi (\stackrel{}{k})`$
$`\widehat{\eta }(s,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\sqrt{s}+E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_\pi (\stackrel{}{k})2\eta _N(s)\sqrt{s}].`$
Replacing $`G`$ by $`\widehat{G}_0`$ in Eq. (2) and performing the integration over the time component $`k_0^{\prime \prime }`$, we then obtain a three-dimensional scattering equation of the following form

$$t(\stackrel{}{k^{}},\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})=v(\stackrel{}{k^{}},\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})+𝑑\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }}v(\stackrel{}{k^{}},\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }};\sqrt{s})g(\stackrel{}{k}^{\prime \prime };\sqrt{s})t(\stackrel{}{k^{\prime \prime }},\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s}),$$
(20)
where

$`t(\stackrel{}{k^{}},\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k_0^{}𝑑k_0\delta (k_0^{}\widehat{\eta }^{})T(k^{},k;\sqrt{s})\delta (k_0\widehat{\eta })},`$ (21)
$`v(\stackrel{}{k^{}},\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k_0^{}𝑑k_0\delta (k_0^{}\widehat{\eta }^{})B(k^{},k;\sqrt{s})\delta (k_0\widehat{\eta })},`$ (22)
$`g(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑k_0\widehat{G}_0(k;\sqrt{s})},`$ (23)
with $`\widehat{\eta }^{}=\widehat{\eta }(s_\stackrel{}{k^{}},\stackrel{}{k^{}})`$ and $`\widehat{\eta }=\widehat{\eta }(s_\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k})`$.

Substituting the $`\alpha ^{}s`$ and $`f^{}s`$ listed in Table 1 into (23), we find  that the propagator of the three-dimensional scattering equation Eq. (20) for each reduction scheme is

1. Cooper-Jennings propagator

$`g(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}}{\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ss_\stackrel{}{k}}}{ss_\stackrel{}{k}(m_N^2m_\pi ^2)^2}}\left[\gamma _0\epsilon _N(s)\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{k}+m_N\right].`$
2. Blankenbecler-Sugar propagator

$`g(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}}{\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_\pi (\stackrel{}{k})}}\left[\gamma _0E_N(\stackrel{}{k})\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{k}+m_N\right].`$
3. Thompson propagator

$`g(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}+iϵ}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s_\stackrel{}{k}}{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_\pi (\stackrel{}{k})}}\left[\gamma _0\epsilon _N(s)\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{k}+m_N\right].`$
4. Kadyshevsky propagator

$`g(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}\sqrt{s_\stackrel{}{k}}+iϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E_N(\stackrel{}{k})E_\pi (\stackrel{}{k})}}\left[\gamma _0E_N(\stackrel{}{k})\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{k}+m_N\right].`$

If we consistently replace $`G`$ by $`\widehat{G}_0`$ in evaluating Eqs. (7-8), we then also obtain a numerically much simpler three-dimensional form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$ for the nucleon self energy $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the dressed vertex function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. The resulting equations in the CM frame are

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{k}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0g(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})},`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{k^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0g(\stackrel{}{k}^{^{}};\sqrt{s})t(\stackrel{}{k}^{^{}},\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})}.`$ (25)
Accordingly, the nucleon pole condition Eq. (13) becomes

$`m_N^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(m_N)=m_N`$ (26)
This completes the derivations of the three-dimensional formulations considered in this work.

## 3  Model Lagrangian and the $`\pi N`$ potentials

To define the $`\pi N`$ potential by using Eq. (22), we assume that the driving term $`B(k^{},k;\sqrt{s})`$ is the sum of all tree diagrams calculated from the following interaction Lagrangian

$`_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi NN}^{(0)}}{m_\pi }}\overline{N}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{\tau }^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }Ng_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{(s)}m_\pi \sigma (\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\pi }){\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{(v)}}{2m_\pi }}\sigma ^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }`$ (27)
$`g_{\sigma NN}\overline{N}\sigma Ng_{\rho NN}\overline{N}\{\gamma _\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _V^\rho }{4m_N}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }(^\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{\nu }^\nu \stackrel{}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{\mu })\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{}{\tau }N`$
$`g_{\rho \pi \pi }\stackrel{}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\stackrel{}{\pi }\times _\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }){\displaystyle \frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }}{4m_\rho ^2}}(\delta 1)(^\mu \stackrel{}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{\nu }^\nu \stackrel{}{\rho }{}_{}{}^{\mu })(_\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }\times _\nu \stackrel{}{\pi })`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}}{m_\pi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\mu [g^{\mu \nu }(Z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu ]\stackrel{}{T}_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}N_\nu \stackrel{}{\pi }+h.c.\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ is the Rarita-Schwinger field operator for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\stackrel{}{T}_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}`$ is the isospin transition operator between the nucleon and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The notations of Bjorken-Drell  are used in Eq. (27) to describe the field operators for the nucleon $`N`$, the pion $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$, the rho meson $`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$, and a fictitious scalar meson $`\sigma `$. For $`\sigma \pi \pi `$ coupling, a mixture of the scalar and vector couplings is introduced to simulate the broad width of the S-wave correlated two-pion exchange mechanism . As illustrated in Fig. 1, the resulting driving term consists of the direct and crossed $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ terms, and the t-channel $`\sigma `$\- and $`\rho `$-exchange terms.

To write down the resulting matrix elements of the $`\pi N`$ potential, defined by Eq. (22), we introduce the following notations: $`q=(E_\pi (k),\stackrel{}{k})`$ is the four-momentum for the pion and $`p=(E_N(k),\stackrel{}{k})`$ for the nucleon. The nucleon helicity is denoted as $`\lambda `$. We then have (isospin factors are suppressed here)

$`v(\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k};\sqrt{s})={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =a,..f}{}}V^{(\alpha )}(p^{},q^{};p,q).`$ (28)
The diagrams (a)-(b) of Fig. 1 give

$$V^{(a)}(p^{},q^{};p,q)=(\frac{f_{\pi NN}^{(0)}}{m_\pi })^2\gamma _5q^{}/\frac{p/+q/+m_N}{(p+q)^2m_N^2}\gamma _5q/,$$
(29)
$$V^{(b)}(p^{},q^{};p,q)=(\frac{f_{\pi NN}^{(0)}}{m_\pi })^2\gamma _5q/\frac{p^{}/q/+m_N}{(p^{}q)^2m_N^2}\gamma _5q^{}/.$$
(30)
The $`\sigma `$-exchange diagram Fig. 1(c) has a component from the scalar coupling and a component from the vector coupling

$`V^{(cs)}(p^{},q^{};p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\sigma NN}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{(s)}m_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(pp^{})^2m_\sigma ^2}},`$ (31)
$`V^{(cv)}(p^{},q^{};p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\sigma NN}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{(v)}}{2m_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{}q}{(pp^{})^2m_\sigma ^2}},`$ (32)
while the $`\rho `$exchange diagram of Fig. 1(d) gives

$`V^{(d)}(p^{},q^{};p,q)=g_{\rho NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi }{\displaystyle \frac{B_1q/+B_2q^{}/+B_3+B_4}{(pp^{})^2m_\rho ^2}},`$ (33)
with

$`B_1=(1+\kappa _V^\rho )(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 1}{4m_\rho ^2}})(pp^{})q^{},`$
$`B_2=(1+\kappa _V^\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta 1}{4m_\rho ^2}}(pp^{})q,`$
$`B_3={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _V^\rho }{2m_N}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 1}{4m_\rho ^2}}(pp^{})q^{}](p+p^{})q,`$
$`B_4={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _V^\rho }{2m_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta 1}{4m_\rho ^2}}[(pp^{})q][(p+p^{})q^{}].`$ (34)
The contributions from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitations are depicted in diagrams of Figs. 1(e) and 1(f)

$`V^{(e)}(p^{},q^{};p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}}{m_\pi }})^2[g^{\mu \mu ^{}}(Z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\gamma ^\mu ^{}\gamma ^\mu ]`$ (35)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mu ^{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }(p+q)q_\nu ^{}}{(p+q)^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}[g^{\nu ^{}\nu }(Z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\nu ^{}],`$
$`V^{(f)}(p^{},q^{};p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}}{m_\pi }})^2[g^{\mu \mu ^{}}(Z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\gamma ^\mu ^{}\gamma ^\mu ]`$ (36)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }q_\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }(pq^{})q_\nu ^{}^{}}{(pq^{})^2m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}[g^{\nu ^{}\nu }(Z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\nu ^{}],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }(P_\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{P/_\mathrm{\Delta }+m_\mathrm{\Delta }}{2m_\mathrm{\Delta }}[g_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \frac{2P_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }P_{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }}{3m_\mathrm{\Delta }^2}+\frac{P_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }\gamma _\nu P_{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu }\gamma _\mu }{3m_\mathrm{\Delta }}].$$
(37)
The partial-wave decomposition of these potential matrix elements was discussed in detail in Ref. .

## 4 Renormalizations in $`P_{11}`$ channel

Because of the appearance of one-particle intermediate state in of Fig. 1(a), the $`\pi N`$ scattering amplitude, defined by Eq. (20), in $`P_{11}`$ channel can be decomposed into a sum of pole and non-pole (background) terms. In the operator form, the $`P_{11}`$ amplitude can be written as

$`t(E)=t^{bg}(E)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(E^{})|N_0><N_0|\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)}{Em_N^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(E)}},`$ (38)
where $`|N_0>`$ is the bare one-nucleon state and

$`t^{bg}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`v^{bg}(E)+v^{bg}(E)g(E)t^{bg}(E),`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0[1+g(E)t^{bg}(E)],`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(E)`$ $`=`$ $`<N_0|\mathrm{\Gamma }_0g(E)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(E^{})|N_0>.`$ (41)
In the above equations, $`E=\sqrt{s}+iϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ denotes the bare $`N_0\pi N`$ vertex in Fig. 1(a). $`t^{bg}`$ is due to the background potential $`v^{bg}`$ which is the sum of contributions (b), (c), (d), and (f) of Fig. 1. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the dressed $`\pi NN`$ vertex. We follow the procedure of Afnan and his collaborators  to constrain the fit of $`P_{11}`$ phase shifts by imposing the nucleon pole condition Eq. (26). This also leads to a condition which relates the bare coupling constant $`f_{\pi NN}^{(0)}`$ to the empirical $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant.

As $`Em_N`$, the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(E)`$ can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(E)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(m_N)+(Em_N)\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(m_N)+\mathrm{}`$ (42)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(m_N)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_N(E)}{E}|_{E=m_N},$$
(43)
The above relations lead to a renormalization of the $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant. The renormalized coupling constant $`f_{\pi NN}`$ is related to the bare coupling constant $`f_{\pi NN}^{(0)}`$ by

$`f_{\pi NN}=f_{\pi NN}^{(0)}[1+g(m_N)t^{bg}(m_N)]Z_2^{1/2}.`$ (44)
where the nucleon wave function renormalization constant is given by

$`Z_2^1=1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(m_N).`$ (45)
The renormalized coupling constant is identified with the empirical value $`g_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi =(2m_N/m_\pi )^2(f_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi )=14.3`$. Equations for $`P_{33}`$ channel can also be written in the form of Eqs. (39)-(43) with $`N`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

## 5 The parameters and the Fitting Procedures

To complete the model we need to introduce form factors to regularize the potential matrix elements defined by Eqs. (28)-(38). In this work we follow Pearce and Jennings  and associate each external leg of the potential matrix elements with a form factor of the form

$$F(\mathrm{\Lambda },p)=\left[\frac{n\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{n\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+(p^2m^2)^2}\right]^n,$$
(46)
where $`p=(p_0,\stackrel{}{p})`$ with $`p_0=(m_N^2+p_E^2)^{1/2}`$ defined by the on-shell momentum $`p_E`$ of the incident energy. It is interesting to note that as $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`F(\mathrm{\Lambda },p)`$ approaches to a Gaussian form.

The parameters which are allowed to vary in fitting the empirical phase shifts are: $`(g_{\sigma NN}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{(s)}),(g_{\sigma NN}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{(v)}),(g_{\rho NN}g_{\rho \pi \pi })`$, and $`\delta `$ for the t-channel $`\sigma `$ and $`\rho `$ exchanges, $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)},g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)},Z`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mechanisms, and the cut-off parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s of the form factors of Eq. (46). In the crossed $`N`$ diagram, the physical $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant is used. For the crossed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ diagram, the situation is not so clear since the determination of the ”physical” $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coupling constant depends on the nonresonant contribution in the $`P_{33}`$ channel. In principle, it can be determined by carrying out a renormalization procedure similar to that used for the nucleon. However, it is a much more difficult numerical task. The complication is due to the fact that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ pole is complex. As in Ref. , such a renormalization for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not carried out in this work and we simply allow the coupling constant used in the crossed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ diagram to also vary in the fit to the data. This coupling constant is denoted as $`g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

## 6 Results and Discussions

We first consider the models using rank $`n=2`$ form factor defined by Eq. (46). The constructed models are called $`C2`$, $`B2`$, $`T2`$, and $`K2`$ for the Cooper-Jennings, Blankenbecler-Sugar, Thompson, and Kadyshevsky reduction schemes, respectively. For each model, we adjust the parameters described in the previous section to fit the data of $`\pi N`$ scattering phase shifts . The results for the $`K2`$ model is shown in Fig. 2. We see that the data can be described very well. The results of other three models are very similar in all channels except in the $`P_{11}`$ channel. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. The difficulty in getting the same fit to this channel is mainly due to the nucleon renormalization conditions Eqs. (26) and (44). This difficulty is well known in the literature. Our results for the K2, B2 and T2 are acceptable. We, however, are not able to improve the result for C2 unless we ignore the fit to other channels.

The resulting parameters of the constructed four models are listed in Table 2. We first notice that the bare $`\pi NN`$ coupling constant $`g_{\pi NN}^{(0)}=(2m_N/m_\pi )f_{\pi NN}^{(0)}`$ is considerably smaller than the physical value $`g_{\pi NN}`$ in all models. This large vertex renormalization is closely related to an about 150 MeV mass shift between the bare mass $`m_N^{(0)}`$ and $`m_N`$, as seen in the first two rows of Table 2. The determined physical coupling constant $`g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ for the crossed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ term, Fig. 1(f), is also significantly larger than the bare coupling constant $`g_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(0)}`$. The large difference between the bare mass $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }^{(0)}1400`$ MeV and the resonance position $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }=1232`$ MeV seems to be a common feature of the constructed models.

The parameters associated with the $`\rho `$-exchange are comparable to that of other meson-exchange $`\pi N`$ models. The $`\sigma `$exchange turns out to be not important in the fit. If we set the coupling constant $`g_{\sigma NN}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{(v)}`$ of all models to zero, the resulting phase shifts are not changed much. This is consistent with Ref.  in which the fit was achieved without including a $`\sigma `$-exchange mechanism.

It is also interesting to note that the fit to the data seems to favor a soft $`\pi NN`$ form factor with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 700`$ MeV for the models $`C2`$, $`B2`$, and $`T2`$. The value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 860`$ MeV for the model K2 is also not too hard compared with the range used in defining nucleon-nucleon potential and consistent with previous findings .

An essential phenomenology in constructing the meson-exchange models is the use of form factors to regularize the potential. To develop theoretical interpretations of the determined parameters listed in Table 2, it is important to investigate how the models depend on the parameterization of the form factors. For this we also consider models with very high rank form factors defined by Eq. (46) with $`n=10`$. As discussed in Ref. , this very high rank form is close to the Gaussian form. We find that a fit comparable to that shown in Figs. 2 and 3 can also be obtained with this parameterization of form factors. There are some significant, though not very large, changes in the resulting parameters. This is illustrated in Table 3 in which the parameters from using $`n=2`$ (T2 and K2) and $`n=10`$ (T10 and K10) form factors are compared.

The constructed four models can be considered approximately phase-shift equivalent. We therefore can examine how the resulting $`\pi N`$ off-shell dynamics depends on the chosen three-dimensional reduction. The $`\pi N`$ off-shell amplitudes are needed to study nuclear dynamics involving pions. To be specific, let us first discuss how the constructed models can be used to investigate the near threshold pion production from nucleon-nucleon collisions. The most important leading mechanism of this reaction is that a pion is emitted by one of the nucleons and then scattered from the second nucleon. The matrix element of this rescattering mechanism can be predicted by using the dressed $`\pi NN`$ form factor and the half-off-shell t-matrix. The predicted $`\pi NN`$ form factors for the near threshold kinematics, $`E=m_N`$, are compared in Fig. 4. In Fig. 5, we compare the half-off-shell t-matrix elements in the most relevant $`S_{11}`$ and $`S_{31}`$ channels at at pion lab. energy $`1MeV`$ above threshold. We see that there are rather significant differences between the considered reduction schemes at $`k500`$ MeV/c which is close to the momentum of the exchanged pion at the production threshold. Consequently, a study of near threshold pion production from NN collisions could distinguish the considered four different reduction schemes.

We next discuss the reactions at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation region. In Figs. 6 and 7, we show the predicted dressed $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ form factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, defined analogously to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi NN}`$ of Eq. (40), and the half-off-shell t-matrix at the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance energy. These quantities are the input to the investigations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excitation in pion photoproduction . The results shown in Figs. 6 and 7 suggest that the considered reduction schemes can also be distinguished by investigating the pion photoproduction reactions. This however requires a consistent derivation of the photoproduction formulation for each reduction scheme, and is beyond the scope of this work.

The differences shown in Figs. 6 and 7 can also have important consequences in determining pion-nucleus reactions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region. For instance, the constructed four models will give rather different predictions of pion double-charge reactions which are dominated by two sequential off-shell $`\pi N`$ single-charge exchange scattering. They can also be distinguished by investigating pion absorption which is induced by the dressed $`\pi N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vertex, Fig. 6, followed by a $`N\mathrm{\Delta }NN`$ transition.

In summary, we have shown that the $`\pi N`$ scattering data up to 400 MeV can be equally well described by four reduction schemes of Bethe-Salpeter equation. The resulting meson-exchange models yield rather different off-shell dynamics. With the high quality data obtained in recent years, they can be best distinguished by investigating pion productions from NN collisions and pion photoproductions. Their differences in describing pion-nucleus reactions are also expected to be significant. Our effort in these directions will be published elsewhere.

Acknowledgment

We thank Drs. B. Pearce and C. Schütz for useful communications concerning their works. C.T.H. also wishes to thank Mr. Guan-yeu Chen for checking part of the program. This work is supported in part by the National Science Council of ROC under grant No. NSC82-0208-M002-17 and the U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under contract No.W-31-109-ENG-38, and also in part by the U.S.-Taiwan National Science Council Cooperative Science Program grant No. INT-9021617.


text:
# The X–ray Emission in Post–Merger Ellipticals

## 1 Introduction

A potential problem with forming ellipticals from merging spirals is how to account for the different gas properties in the two types of galaxies. In particular, spirals contain relatively high masses of cold (T $``$ 100 K) gas, whereas ellipticals have very little. The opposite situation is true for the hot (T $``$ 106 K) gas masses – normal spirals contain rather little hot gas, while ellipticals may possess extensive hot halos. Since the total gas masses per unit stellar mass are broadly comparable in early and late-type galaxies, this raises the possibility that inefficient merger–induced star formation might heat the cool interstellar gas in spirals to form the hot halo in post–merger ellipticals. Recently, ? have shown that the cold gas mass indeed decreases in an ‘evolutionary sequence’ from merging spirals to post–merger ellipticals.

However, it is not clear that gas heated in an intense starburst can be retained within the galactic potential. ? examined the X–ray properties of eight on–going mergers placed in a chronological sequence. Their study revealed that material is ejected from merging galaxies soon after the first encounter. Massive extensions of hot gas are seen (involving up to 1010 M) at the ultraluminous peak of the interaction, as the two nuclei coalesce. There is evidence for this in in the Antennae, Arp 220, and NGC 2623. However, after this phase of peak activity, the X–ray luminosity actually declines. For example, NGC 7252 (a prime example for the remnant of a merger that occurred 0.7 Gyr ago) shows some evidence of a hot halo, but one that is much smaller than the halos seen in typical ellipticals.

Two post–merger ellipticals were studied in the X–ray by ?. They found that neither galaxy had an extensive hot halo. Given the correlation between X–ray luminosity and isophotal boxiness (thought to be a signature of a past merger) demonstrated by ?, this was a somewhat surprising result. If post–merger ellipticals are to resemble ‘normal’ ellipticals they need to acquire a hot gas halo. Possible mechanisms include:
1) The late infall (i.e. after a few Gyr) of HI gas associated with the tidal tails (?). This cold gas may be shocked to X–ray emitting temperatures as it falls back into the merger remnant.
2) A reservoir of hot gas, possibly expelled at the nuclear merger stage, might infall from large radii, where its low density makes it undetectable to current X–ray satellites.
3) After the initial violent starburst, the continued mass loss from stars and heating from stellar winds recreates a hot ISM.

The first study to attempt an ‘evolutionary sequence’ for post–merger ellipticals was that of ?. For 32 galaxies they showed a weak trend for LX/LB to increase with a decreasing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ parameter. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ parameter is defined by ?, and is a measure of a galaxy’s fine structure, i.e. optical disturbance. They showed that it correlates with blue colours and Balmer line strength, and is thus a rough indicator of dynamical youth. The Mackie & Fabbiano trend therefore suggested that post–merger ellipticals became more X–ray luminous, for a given optical luminosity, as the galaxy aged. They also plotted LX/LB against H$`\beta `$ absorption line EW, which revealed a similar trend. A more recent study by ? confirms the trend in X–ray overluminosity with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for 38 galaxies, and suggests that it might be explained by the build up of hot gas in post–merger galaxies. However, both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and H$`\beta `$ EW have their drawbacks – $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is only semi–quantitative at best and the strength of H$`\beta `$ is affected by both stellar age and metallicity.

Here we reexamine the trend seen by ? for a larger sample, and investigate two new measures of galaxy age: residual from the Fundamental Plane and spectroscopic age. Using these three measures we explore the X–ray luminosity evolution of post–merger ellipticals.

Throughout the paper we assume H0 = 75 km s-1 Mpc-1 and normalise LB using the solar luminosity in the B band, LB⊙ = 5.2$`\times `$1032 erg s-1.

## 2 Results

We first reexamine the trend of normalized X–ray luminosity with Fine Structure parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, presented initially by ? for 32 galaxies. Here we use a sample of 47 early–type galaxies with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ taken from ?, and normalized LX values from our recent catalogue (?) of X–ray luminosities (mostly based on ROSAT data). The LX values are approximately bolometric. The LB values are based wherever possible on BT magnitudes taken from ?. If these are unavailable, values from NED are used. Fig. 1 shows the sample of 47 early–type galaxies plotted in order of decreasing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or increasing age.

As noted by Mackie & Fabbiano, the scatter at low values of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is large, covering around 2 orders of magnitude in LX/LB, while at higher $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the scatter appears to be smaller and LX/LB limited to low values. A similar trend was seen by ? for 38 galaxies. This suggests that dynamically young galaxies have low X–ray luminosities and that aging produces a range of luminosities, presumably dependent on other factors.

In order to test the strength of this relation we apply Kendall’s K test to the X–ray detections from our sample. The test does not assume any distribution in the data, and the K statistic is unit normal distributed when at least 10 data points are present. For our data we find K = -2.31054 (using 27 data points), indicating an anti correlation between Log LX/LB and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $``$2-$`\sigma `$ significance. For comparison, we also apply the test to the sample of Sansom et al. , and find a correlation of very similar significance, K = -2.28749 for 30 detections.

### 2.1 LX/LB versus Spectroscopic Age

Fine structure only persists in dynamically young galaxies, so Fig. 1 provides information only on the early galaxy evolution of these objects. A more general measure of age is needed to show how X–ray properties evolve over a longer timescale. Galaxy spectroscopic ages are now available for a large number of early–type galaxies from the catalogue of ?. These ages are generally based on H$`\beta `$ absorption line measurements and the stellar population models of ?. The line index measurements come from the galaxies’ central regions, and are luminosity weighted. Thus they are dominated by the last major burst of star formation, which is presumably triggered by a major merger event. Although not a reliable absolute measure of the age of each galaxy, these spectroscopic ages do provide us with a much more useful estimate of their ages relative to one another. In Fig. 2 we show LX/LB plotted against spectroscopic age (from ?).

The plot shows a large degree of scatter, most notably in the age range between 4 and 10 Gyrs. This is likely to be in part caused by the uncertainties in calculating ages, which we estimate lead a typical error of $``$20%. We also expect a mean 1-$`\sigma `$ error in X–ray luminosity of $``$15%. Typical error bounds for points at 1, 7 and 15 Gys are shown in Fig. 2 by the diamonds at the top of the plot. The graph also contains a relatively large number of upper limits, so we have used the survival analysis packages available under IRAF to assess the strength of any correlation and fit regression lines. The Cox proportional hazard, Spearman’s rho and generalized Kendall’s tau tests are used to determine correlation strength. Linear regression fitting is carried out using the expectation and maximization (EM) algorithm and the Buckley–James (BJ) algorithm. In all cases we found that the two fitting algorithms agreed closely.

Using the full sample of 77 early-type galaxies, we find a correlation of at least 99.6% significance between LX/LB and age. Line fits to the sample produce slopes of 0.066 $`\pm `$ 0.022 (EM) and 0.063 $`\pm `$ 0.025 (BJ). The former is shown as the dashed line in Fig. 2.

Recent work on the X–ray properties of galaxies in groups (?) lead us to suspect that some of the scatter seen in Fig. 2 might be caused by inclusion of group or cluster dominant galaxies (marked as crossed circles) in our sample. It is also important to note that there is evidence to suggest that the largest ellipticals may have non–solar abundance ratios (e.g. ?). This could lead to their ages being underestimated by a small amount, again adding to the scatter. We therefore removed from our sample a number of galaxies listed by ? as group dominant or known cDs and retested the sample. This improves the correlation slightly (to $`>`$99.75%) and makes the line fit slightly shallower; 0.063 $`\pm `$ 0.019 (EM) and 0.061 $`\pm `$ 0.022 (BJ). The EM fit is plotted as a solid line in Fig. 2.

To confirm that the increase in LX/LB occurs across the range of ages, rather than just the first few Gyrs, we also binned the sample into subsets by age. The age range of each subset was chosen so as to have roughly equal numbers of detections in each bin. We then calculated a mean LX/LB for each bin, using the Kaplan–Meier estimator. The results are shown in Table 1, and as large crosses on Fig. 2. These show the same trend for increasing LX/LB with age, and indicate that the trend is continuous across the age range covered by the data.

The Kaplan–Meier estimator (?) includes upper limits by constructing a probability distribution function for the data in which the probability associated with each upper limit is redistributed equally over detected values which lie below the upper limit. So long as there is no systematic difference between the detected and undetected systems, this should be a reasonable procedure. A problem arises when the lowest point in a given bin is an upper limit (since there are no lower points over which to redistribute the corresponding probability). When this occurs, the Kaplan–Meier estimator treats the limit as a detection and hence may be biased.

Of the five bins chosen, two (the youngest and second oldest) have upper limits as their lowest values. For the second oldest bin, the problem data value is only slightly lower than a detected point, so the bias will be small. However, the youngest bin has two upper limits as its lowest points, one of which is considerably below the nearest detection. To check for bias, we recalculated a mean log LX/LB of 29.66 for this bin excluding these points, compared to 29.56 previously. This indicates that although the youngest bin may be slightly biased, it still supports the trend observed.

As a further check of the robustness of our conclusions, we examined the LX/LB:Age relation using detected points only, and find a correlation significant at $``$2.1-$`\sigma `$. The upper limits also show a correlation with age (at $``$2.3-$`\sigma `$). These trends cannot be selection effects in the data, since neither source distance, nor X-ray exposure time are correlated with age. They therefore point to a genuine trend in the data. Galaxies with larger spectroscopic ages typically have higher LX/LB than younger ones.

As the merger–induced starburst fades, we would expect the blue luminosity to decline with time. This will cause an increase in LX/LB, even for constant LX, which will combine with any trends in LX which are present. With this is mind, we show in Fig. 2 the expected change due to a fading starburst from stellar population models (Worthey 1994). Here we have crudely assumed that the progenitor galaxies consisted of a solar metallicity, 15 Gyr old population, and that the new stars created in the merger also have solar metallicity. The relative mass ratios are 90% progenitor stars and 10% new stars. The total B band luminosity fading of this composite stellar population is shown in Fig. 2 (we assumed that the fading of the progenitor stars after reaching 18 Gyrs old is insignificant). It can be seen that the starburst fades rapidly in the first few Gyrs, roughly matching the trend seen in LX/LB, but at later times there is very little change, whereas the observed mean LX/LB value continues to rise. So although the LX/LB evolution at early times could be simply driven by the fading starburst, this cannot account for the evolution at late times.

A further possibility to be checked is that our sample might contain a trend in mean optical luminosity with age. Since LX/LB has been widely reported (see however ?) to rise with LB, this could lead to a consequent correlation between age and LX/LB. To test this, we show in Fig. 3 a plot of log LB with measured age. An anti–correlation between LB with age could produce the observed trend in LX/LB. Fig. 3 does not appear to show any such trend, and in order to test for a correlation, we apply Kendall’s K test to the data. We find a K statistic (which is unit normal distributed) of $``$0.44 (for 77 galaxies), and excluding group dominant galaxies reduces this to $``$0.33 (for 65 galaxies). This result indicates that there is no trend in the data, even at the 1$`\sigma `$ level. We therefore conclude that our sample does not show an anti–correlation of LB with age, and that the LX/LB trend with age reflects an increasing X–ray luminosity.

### 2.2 LX/LB versus Fundamental Plane Residual

As further evidence of X–ray evolution with age we have compared LX/LB to residual from the Fundamental Plane (FP). Work by ? has shown that galaxy age appears to be a “fourth parameter” affecting the position of a galaxy relative to the FP plane. Galaxies below the plane (negative residual) are generally young, while older objects lie on or above the plane (positive residual). Fig. 4 shows 212 galaxies with Fundamental Plane residuals taken from ?.

As with Figs. 1 and 2, this shows a trend of increasing LX/LB with age. For the complete data set, the correlation strength is $`>`$99.98%. However, only a small number of points lie outside the range –0.5$`<`$FP residual$`<`$0.5. These are unlikely to be representative of the general population, but will have a strong influence on the statistical tests. Excluding them lowers the correlation strength to $``$99.95%, with a slope of 1.39 $`\pm `$ 0.40 (EM). This line is shown in Fig. 4. Again the trend shown in Fig. 4 is one of increasing X–ray luminosity, relative to the optical, as a galaxy evolves.

## 3 Discussion

In the previous section we have used three age estimators to show a strong correlation between normalized X–ray luminosity and galaxy age. The X–ray emission from early–type galaxies is known to be produced by sources of two main types; discrete sources such as X–ray binaries, and hot gas. The contribution of discrete sources has been shown to be important in low luminosity early-type galaxies (?; ?; ?) and in late-type galaxies, where they are generally the dominant source of X–ray emission. On the other hand, most early–type galaxies have a strong hot gas component, and massive ellipticals are certainly dominated by hot gas emission (?; ?). As the contribution of hot gas is known to vary a great deal, while the contribution from discrete sources is generally believed to scale with LB (?; ?) , it seems likely that the trend we observe in LX/LB is caused by changes in the hot gas content of these objects with age. We now go on to discuss possible hot halo formation mechanisms which may be responsible for this trend of increasing X–ray gas content with age.

### 3.1 Gas infall

It has been suggested (?) that the hot gas in elliptical galaxies may be produced during a merger by the shock heating or photoionization of cool gas from the progenitor galaxies. In some ongoing mergers the tidal tails are thought to contain up to half the Hi gas originally present in the progenitor galaxies (?). When this gas falls back into the body of the galaxy, shock heating should be capable of heating it to X–ray temperatures. An alternative is that the temperature of the gas is caused by heating in the starburst phase of the merger. In this case the hot gas would be blown out to large radii, but might be contained by the dark matter halo of the galaxy (?). At these large radii it would be too diffuse to be detected, but would eventually fall back into the galaxy, forming the observed X–ray halo.

In terms of available masses of gas, both these models appear to be viable formation processes. ? derived X–ray and cold gas masses for a large sample of early–type galaxies, finding MX of between $`10^6`$ and 1011 M. The mean X–ray gas mass was a few 109 M. On the other hand, very few detections of Hi were made in early–type galaxies, although Sa galaxies were found to contain between 107 and $`5\times 10^{10}`$ M of Hi . Studies of Hi masses in later–type galaxies (?; ?) give an average of a few 109 M, depending on the range of morphologies chosen. Given that large elliptical galaxies are likely to have been formed by the merger of many smaller spiral galaxies, these results suggest that fairly modest conversion efficiencies could produce the expected X–ray halo gas masses either from infalling Hi or via starburst heating and later infall.

However, the infalling Hi model fails to explain the timescale over which we observe the LX/LB trend. In the well known merging galaxy NGC 7252, 50% of the cold gas currently in the tidal tails is expected to fall back into the main body of the galaxy within the next 2–3 Gyr (?). This suggests that we should expect to see a rapid build up of X–ray emission in the first few gigayears after merger. This increase should be made even more noticeable by the fading of the stellar population, as this is the period during which LB is dropping most quickly. Rapid generation of the X–ray halo is inconsistent with our results.

A model involving infall of hot gas is likely to have similar problems. It is difficult to see how gas falling back into the body of the galaxy can do so at the steady rate needed to produce a smooth increase in LX/LB. Infall may be delayed, as the hot gas reaches larger radii than the cold, but it will still occur on a galaxy dynamical timescale. Models involving cooling and infall of gas onto central dominant galaxies in groups or clusters (?) may be able to produce an inflow over a longer period, but these are unlikely to be generally applicable. Group dominant galaxies have exceptionally large dark halos, making them more able to retain (or accrete) hot gas. They also lie at the bottom of a group potential well, and may be at the centre of a group X–ray halo, providing them with an extra reservoir of hot gas. These conditions do not apply to the majority of early-type galaxies. Therefore we suggest that infall of (cold or hot) gas is unlikely to be the dominant process in the generation of X–ray halos in typical ellipticals.

### 3.2 Ongoing stellar mass–loss and galaxy winds

Since infall of either hot or cold gas seems unable to provide the sort of long term trend in LX/LB seen in Fig. 2, we now look to models involving gas generated by mass loss from the galactic stars. This source of gas is fairly well understood, and can provide the sort of gas masses required to account for the halos of many early-type galaxies (though probably not the very brightest – ?), provided that the gas is retained within the galactic potential. Two main timescales are involved. One is the mass loss rate from stars, primarily giant stars. The second is the rate of type Ia supernovae (SNIa) which provide the main heat source (after the brief SNII phase). These two factors, and the interplay between them, can potentially lead to changes in the hot gas content of elliptical galaxies on timescales much longer than a dynamical time, and so have the potential to explain the slow trend we observe. The stellar mass loss rate is fairly well understood (e.g. ?), and for a single-aged stellar population it declines approximately as $`t^{1.3}`$. However, the SNIa heating rate, which dominates the effective specific energy of the injected gas, is highly uncertain. Recent estimates of the SNIa rate in old stellar populations (e.g. ?) have revised the classic ? value of the rate in old stellar populations down by a factor 3-4, and the evolution of this rate with population age is very model-dependent. Given our continuing ignorance about the precise nature of SNIa, it must therefore be regarded as largely unknown.

The specific energy of the injected gas determines whether gas is retained in a hydrostatic hot halo, or escapes the galaxy as a wind. The way in which the specific energy evolves, depends upon the evolution of the SNIa rate relative to the stellar wind loss rate. There are therefore two fundamentally different classes of models: those in which the SNIa rate is constant, or declines more slowly than the stellar mass loss rate (e.g. ??) and those in which the supernova rate drops more quickly than the gas injection rate (??). Broadly speaking, when the specific energy of the injected gas is smaller than its gravitational binding energy it will be retained in a hot halo. It may subsequently cool in a luminous cooling flow. However, if the specific energy of the gas substantially exceeds its binding energy it will escape from the galaxy in a fast wind, which results in a much lower X–ray luminosity. The first class of models, in which the specific energy rises with time, therefore produces an evolution from an early inflow phase to a later wind phase, predicting a declining X-ray luminosity with time. Such models are clearly inconsistent with our results.

Models in which the SNIa rate drops more quickly than $`t^{1.3}`$ evolve, in broad terms, from a low luminosity wind phase, towards a more luminous halo/cooling flow phase. The timescale for this evolution depends upon a variety of factors, such as the depth and shape of the potential, but it is typically $`10`$ Gyr (?). In fact, none of the models studied to date shows the rather simple monotonic rise in LX with age which we observe. The models of ? predict an initial luminous phase, when the gas loss rate from stars is very high. The X–ray luminosity then declines as the wind loss rate drops, and then rises again during the transition to a bound hydrostatic halo, at which point the X-ray luminosity is essentially equal to the SNIa luminosity. This whole development describes a fairly symmetrical dip and rise, lasting $`515`$ Gyr, which is again not what we see in the data. However, this model describes a galaxy in which all stars are formed at $`t=0`$. In contrast, the spectroscopic age of our galaxies probably denotes the time since a merger-induced starburst involving only a few percent of the stellar mass. In this case, the early stellar mass loss rate will be much lower than in the Ciotti et al models, and the X-ray luminosity correspondingly less (scaling approximately as the square of the mass loss rate). The main change in LX will be a rise associated with the slowing wind and transformation into a hydrostatic halo. In addition, as shown in Fig. 2, the decrease in optical luminosity as the starburst population fades will produce a rise in LX/LB over the first 1-2 Gyr.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

We have examined the evolution of the X–ray properties of early–type galaxies. For three galaxy age estimators (fine structure parameter, Fundamental Plane residuals and spectroscopic ages) we find that the normalized X–ray luminosity evolves with time. In particular, the X–ray luminosity, which reflects the mass of hot halo gas, appears to increase at a steady rate over $``$ 10 Gyrs.

Comparing the long term trend in LX/LB which we observe with expectations from possible mechanisms for hot halo formation, we conclude that the only viable mechanism appears to be the slow evolution from an outflowing wind to hydrostatic halo phase driven by a declining SNIa rate. Infalling gas seems unlikely to be the main cause of such a long term trend. Our results suggest that some of the scatter seen in the global LX versus LB relation is due to the evolutionary state, and past merger history, of early–type galaxies.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank R. Brown for early work on this project and S. Helsdon, W. Mathews and A. Renzini for useful discussions. We also thank an anonymous referee for several suggestions which have improved the paper. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. E. O’S. acknowledges the receipt of a PPARC studentship.