text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The asymmetric simple exclusion process (ASEP) has become a paradigm for nonreversible stochastic particle systems. In this note we will consider the particular case of one dimension and right jumps only (TASEP). The TASEP has state space $`\{0,1\}^{}`$ whose elements, $`\eta `$, are particle configurations with $`\eta _j=0,1`$ for $`j`$. $`\eta _j=1`$ means a particle at site $`j`$ and $`\eta _j=0`$ means no particle, resp. a hole, at site $`j`$. The stochastic dynamics is governed by the following jump rule: independently each particle jumps with rate 1, i.e. after an exponential waiting time with mean $`1`$, to the right neighboring site, provided it is empty. Our rule defines the Markov jump process $`\eta _t`$, $`t0`$. $`\eta _0`$ is the starting configuration which may be random.

For the purpose of the introduction let us assume that $`\eta _0`$ is distributed according to the Bernoulli measure $`\mu _{1/2}`$, i.e. $`\eta _{0,j}`$, $`j`$, are independent with $`(\eta _{0,j}=1)=\frac{1}{2}`$. Since $`\mu _{1/2}`$ is a stationary measure for the TASEP, the process $`\eta _{t,j},t,j`$, is stationary in space and time. We are interested in

$$N_t=\text{ number of particles which have crossed the bond }(0,1)\text{ up to time }t.$$

Clearly, $`\frac{d}{dt}N_t`$ is the current across the origin, hence our title. By stationarity,

$$𝔼(N_t)=\frac{1}{4}t$$
(1.1)
and the real issue are the fluctuations of

$$N_t\frac{1}{4}t.$$
(1.2)
To convince the reader that the current fluctuations have something interesting to offer, we first study the large deviations of $`N_t`$. For the lower tail we consider $`(N_tat)`$ with $`a<\frac{1}{4}`$. To reduce the current it suffices to let a single particle move more slowly. The other particles will then pile up behind. Therefore we expect

$$(N_tat)e^{g_{}(a)t},a\frac{1}{4},$$
(1.3)
for large $`t`$ with $`g_{}0`$ and $`g_{}(\frac{1}{4})=0`$. On the other hand for the upper tail, $`(N_tat),a>\frac{1}{4}`$, the current must be increased, which requires order $`t`$ particles to jump faster. Therefore

$$(N_tat)e^{g_+(a)t^2},a\frac{1}{4},$$
(1.4)
for large $`t`$ with $`g_+0`$ and $`g_+(\frac{1}{4})=0`$. Since the large deviations have different order of magnitude above and below the mean, we must be outside the domain of the central limit theorem.

A more detailed analysis shows that $`g_{}(a)c_{}|a\frac{1}{4}|^{3/2}`$ and $`g_+(a)c_+|a\frac{1}{4}|^3`$ for $`a`$ close to $`\frac{1}{4}`$ , also  for the PNG model. Extrapolating beyond the validity of the large deviation result, we conclude that for the lower tail

$$(N_t\frac{1}{4}tx)e^{c_{}|x/t^{1/3}|^{3/2}}\text{for }x1$$
(1.5)
and for the upper tail

$$(N_t\frac{1}{4}tx)e^{c_+|x/t^{1/3}|^3}\text{for }x1.$$
(1.6)
On this basis the fluctuations should be on the scale $`t^{1/3}`$ and

$$N_t\frac{1}{4}tt^{1/3}\xi $$
(1.7)
for large $`t`$. $`\xi `$ is a nondegenerate random variable with a distribution whose lower tail is $`\mathrm{exp}(c_{}|x|^{3/2})`$ and whose upper tail is $`\mathrm{exp}(c_+|x|^3)`$.

The goal of our note is to explain how (1.7) and related quantities like the stationary two-point function, $`𝔼(\eta _{0,0}\eta _{t,j})\frac{1}{4}`$, can be mapped to a last passage percolation problem with boundary conditions and possibly defect lines. The asymptotic analysis of such last passage percolations has been carried out by Baik and Rains  and we will make contact with their work towards the end.

## 2 Last passage percolation with boundary conditions

We generalize the set up of the introduction by taking instead of $`\mu _{1/2}`$ the Bernoulli $`\mu _{\rho _{},\rho _+}`$ as starting measure, according to which the $`\eta _{0,j}`$’s are independent with $`(\eta _{0,j}=1)=\rho _{}`$ for $`j0`$ and $`(\eta _{0,j}=1)=\rho _+`$ for $`j1`$. $`\mu _{1/2}`$ is the special case with $`\rho _{}=\frac{1}{2}=\rho _+`$. Liggett  determines the law of $`\eta _t`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. We will come back to his result. Johansson  maps the special case $`\rho _{}=1,\rho _+=0`$ to a last passage percolation. We extend his result to arbitrary $`0\rho _{},\rho _+1`$.

Let us first assign to an ASEP configuration $`\eta _{t,j}`$ the height function

$`h_t(j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2N_t+_{i=1}^j(12\eta _{t,i}),\hfill & j1,\hfill \\ 2N_t,\hfill & j=0,\hfill \\ 2N_t_{i=j+1}^0(12\eta _{t,i}),\hfill & j1.\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.4)
By fiat $`h_0(0)=0`$. $`h_t(j)`$ is even at even and odd at odd sites. We will establish that the distribution of the heights can be obtained from a last passage percolation problem on the positive quadrant $`\times `$ with suitable boundary conditions.

To each site $`(i,j)_0^2`$ we associate a random variable $`w(i,j)`$. Let $`\zeta _+`$ be geometric with parameter $`1\rho _+`$, $`(\zeta _+=n)=\rho _+(1\rho _+)^n`$, and independently let $`\zeta _{}`$ be geometric with parameter $`\rho _{}`$, $`(\zeta _{}=n)=(1\rho _{})\rho _{}^n`$, $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. The $`\{w(i,j)|(i,j)_0^2\}`$ are independent with distributions:

$`w(i,j)`$ is $`\text{exponential with mean }1\text{}i,j1,`$
$`w(0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`w(j,0)`$ $`=`$ $`0,0j\zeta _+,`$
$`w(j,0)`$ is $`\text{exponential with mean }(1\rho _+)^1\text{}j>\zeta _+,`$
$`w(0,j)`$ $`=`$ $`0,0j\zeta _{},`$
$`w(0,j)`$ is $`\text{exponential with mean }\rho _{}^1\text{}j>\zeta _{}.`$ (2.5)
Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,n}`$ be the set of all up/right paths on $`_0^2`$ starting at $`(0,0)`$ with end point $`(m,n)`$. To each path $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_{m,n}`$ we associate the passage time

$$T(\omega )=\underset{(i,j)\omega }{}w(i,j).$$
(2.6)
Then the last passage time, from $`(0,0)`$ to $`(m,n)`$, is given by

$$G(m,n)=\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_{m,n}}{\mathrm{max}}T(\omega ).$$
(2.7)
In the more physical parlance, $`\omega `$ is a directed polymer with end points $`(0,0)`$ and $`(m,n)`$. Each site carries the energy $`w(i,j)`$. The energy of the polymer $`\omega ,T(\omega )`$, is the sum of the site energies along the polymer. Thus $`G(m,n)`$ is the minimal energy, or ground state energy, of the directed polymer.

By construction $`G(m,n)`$ is nondecreasing in both arguments. Therefore the level sets of $`G`$ define a height function which we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{h}_t(j)`$. More precisely let $`A_t=\{(m,n)|m,n1`$, $`G(m,n)t\}`$ as a random set. $`A_t`$ is bordered by $`\stackrel{~}{h}_t`$ according to $`A_t=\{(m,n)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}m+n\stackrel{~}{h}_t(mn)\}`$.

###### Theorem 2.1

In the sense of joint distributions we have

$$h_t(j)=\stackrel{~}{h}_t(j)\text{for}|j|h_t(j).$$
(2.8)
Proof: The idea is to rotate the TASEP height configuration by $`\pi /4`$ relative to the origin and to identify the resulting height differences to the right as a zero range process. Similarly we rotate the TASEP height configuration by $`\pi /4`$ relative to the origin and identify the resulting height differences to the left as a zero range process. We start with the former.

We define the right dynamics by setting $`\eta _{t,0}=1`$ for all $`t0`$. The $`\eta _{t,j}`$, $`j1`$, follow the TASEP rule. For given $`\eta _{t,j}`$ let $`\zeta _{t,j}`$, $`j1`$, be the interparticle distances to the right. Thus if $`\eta _{t,1}=1`$, then $`\zeta _{t,1}=0`$, since the origin is always occupied. Since the starting measure is Bernoulli $`\rho _+`$ for $`j1`$, at time $`t=0`$, the $`\{\zeta _{0,j}\}_{j1}`$ are independently geometrically distributed with parameter $`1\rho _+`$. $`\zeta _{t,j}`$, $`j1`$, is a zero range process where the only allowed transitions are $`(\zeta _{t,j},\zeta _{t,j+1})(\zeta _{t,j}+1,\zeta _{t,j+1}1)`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and they occur with rate $`1`$ provided $`\zeta _{t,j+1}>0`$. $`\zeta _{t,1}`$ increases in units of 1 and $`w(j,0)`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, are the successive waiting times of $`\zeta _{t,1}`$. At $`t=0`$, $`\zeta _{0,1}`$ is geometrically distributed as $`\zeta _+`$. Thus $`w(j,0)=0`$ for $`1j\zeta _+`$. The zero range process $`\zeta _{t,j}`$, $`j2`$, is stationary. By Burke’s theorem  the current from $`2`$ to $`1`$ is Poisson with intensity $`1\rho _+`$. Thus $`w(j,0)`$ are independent exponentials for $`j>\zeta _+`$.

For the left boundary we only have to interchange particles and holes. Holes jump to the left only. The left hole dynamics is defined by setting $`\eta _{t,1}=0`$ for all $`t0`$. The holes $`1\eta _{t,j}`$, $`j0`$, follow the TASEP rule. $`\zeta _{t,j}`$, $`j0`$, are the interhole distances. $`\zeta _{t,0}`$ increases in units of $`1`$ and $`w(0,j)`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, are the successive waiting times of $`\zeta _{t,0}`$. At $`t=0`$, $`\zeta _{0,0}`$ is geometrically distributed as $`\zeta `$ and $`t\zeta _{t,0}`$ is a Poisson process with jump rate $`\rho _{}`$.

To build up the random set $`A_t`$ we start with $`_0^2`$ such that $`(0,j),0j\zeta _+`$, and $`(j,0),0j\zeta _{}`$ are occupied. For completeness it is useful to regard also the sites $`(j,1)`$, $`(1,j)`$, $`j=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, as occupied. All remaining sites are empty. The set of occupied sites defines $`A_0`$. The site $`(m,n)`$ is filled after the random waiting time $`w(m,n)`$ starting from the instant of time when both the left neighbor at $`(m1,n)`$ and the lower neighbor at $`(m,n1)`$ are filled. $`A_t`$ is the set of occupied sites at time $`t`$. Its boundary, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_t`$, is defined in the coordinate system rotated by $`\pi /4`$, to say the coordinates $`(m,n)`$ are transformed to the new coordinates $`(j,h)`$ through $`j=mn`$, $`h=m+n`$. The distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_t`$ agrees with $`h_t`$ inside the cone $`𝒞=\{(j,h)|h|j|\}`$: by construction the events at the boundary of $`𝒞`$ have the probability induced by the TASEP dynamics. In the interior of $`𝒞`$ the random variables $`w(i,j)`$ are the waiting times for the particle jumps of the TASEP. $`\mathrm{}`$

Returning to the problem of the introduction, we have to set $`\rho _{}=\frac{1}{2}=\rho _+`$. We define $`t\stackrel{~}{N}_t`$ as the inverse function to $`nG(n,n)`$. By Theorem 2.1 $`\stackrel{~}{N}_t=N_t`$ in distribution. Therefore, if one can control the statistics of the last passage time $`G(n,n)`$ for large $`n`$, one knows the statistics of the current across the origin for large $`t`$. More specifically, since $`N_t`$ and $`G(n,n)`$ are linear in average, their fluctuations have the same asymptotic distribution up to a linear change in scale.

## 3 Defect lines

There are other cases of interest which can be mapped to a last passage problem. As one example we choose the (deterministic) initial configuration as $`\eta _{0,j}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+(1)^j\right)`$. As before, we want to determine the statistics of $`N_t\frac{1}{4}t`$ for large $`t`$. The last passage refers now to the upper triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\{(i,j)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}i,jn,i+jn+1\}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ be the set of all up/right paths starting at the anti-diagonal $`\{(i,j)|i+j=n+1\}`$ and ending at $`(n,n)`$. Then

$$G^{\text{pl}}(n)=\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_n}{\mathrm{max}}T(\omega ).$$
(3.1)
$`G^{\text{pl}}(n)`$ is the point to line last passage time, in contrast to $`G(m,n)`$ which is the point to point last passage time. As before $`nG^{\text{pl}}(2n)`$ is the inverse function to $`tN_t`$. Odd arguments would correspond to the initial condition $`\eta _{0,j}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1(1)^j\right)`$.

One can force the alternating initial condition into the scheme of Section 2. We set $`\rho _{}=1`$, $`\rho _+=0`$, and reflect the $`w(i,j)`$ at the anti-diagonal, i.e. $`w(i,j)=w(n+1j,n+1i)`$ for $`i+jn+1`$. On the anti-diagonal we set $`w(i,j)=0`$. Then in distribution $`2G^{\text{pl}}(n)=G(n,n)`$, where $`G(n,n)`$ is defined as in (2.4). In this scheme we have point to point last passage with a passage time distribution symmetric relative to the anti-diagonal.

A second example is the semi-infinite TASEP with a source at the origin. At site $`1`$ we insert a particle with rate $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha >0`$, provided site $`1`$ is empty. All other jumps are governed by the TASEP rule. The initial measure is Bernoulli $`\rho `$. Then the last passage is restricted to the lower triangle $`\{(m,n)|nm\}`$. The right boundary of the last passage percolation is unchanged. The $`w(i,j)`$, $`j<i`$, are exponential with mean 1 and the $`w(j,j)`$ are exponential with mean $`\alpha `$. The diagonal is a defect line. To make the formal analogy even closer to the previous cases we could copy the $`w(i,j)`$ in the lower triangle to the one in the upper triangle, which does not change the statistics of the last passage time from $`(0,0)`$ to $`(n,n)`$.

A widely studied case is the slow bond problem . As initial measure we take $`\rho _{}=1`$, $`\rho _+=0`$. We assume that the jumps through the bond $`(0,1)`$ occur with rate $`r`$. This corresponds again to a defect line along the diagonal, where $`w(j,j)`$ is exponential with rate $`r`$. In contrast to the semi-infinite system the $`w(i,j)`$’s for $`i<j`$ and for $`i>j`$ are now independent. One would like to know the average current for $`t\mathrm{}`$, $`j_{\mathrm{}}(r)=lim_t\mathrm{}N_t/t`$. Clearly, $`j_{\mathrm{}}(r)=r`$ for small $`r`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{}}(r)=\frac{1}{4}`$ for $`r1`$. The critical rate $`r_c`$ is the smallest with $`j_{\mathrm{}}(r_c)=\frac{1}{4}`$. One knows that $`\frac{1}{2}<r_c1`$ and conjectures $`r_c=1`$. In terms of the directed polymer, at $`r_c`$ there is a depinning transition. For small $`r`$ the directed polymer with end points (1,1) and $`(n,n)`$ will stay order 1 close to the diagonal. As $`r`$ is increased, the size of excursions away from the diagonal increases. For $`r>r_c`$ the transverse fluctuations diverge as $`n^{2/3}`$ . The directed polymer depins from the diagonal.

## 4 The two-point function

The TASEP with Bernoulli $`\mu _\rho `$ $`(\rho _+=\rho =\rho _{})`$ as starting measure is stationary in space-time. From a statistical mechanics point of view the central quantity is the two-point function

$$S(j,t)=𝔼_\rho \left(\eta _{t,j}\eta _{0,0}\right)\rho ^2.$$
(4.1)
We list a few properties:

###### Proposition 4.1

We have $`S(j,t)0`$, $`_jS(j,t)=\rho (1\rho )`$, $`_jjS(j,t)=\rho (1\rho )(12\rho )t`$, and

$$8S(j,t)=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝔼_\rho \left(h_t(j)^2\right)𝔼_\rho \left(h_t(j)\right)^2\right)$$
(4.2)
with the discrete Laplacian $`(\mathrm{\Delta }f)_j=f_{j+1}2f_j+f_{j1}`$ and $`h_t(j)`$ defined in (2.4).

Proof: $`S(j,t)/\rho (1\rho )`$ is the transition probability for a second class particle starting at the origin , which implies the first two assertions. For the third one we note that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}jS(j,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}j𝔼_\rho \left((\eta _{t,0}\rho )(\eta _{0,j1}(1\eta _{0,j})\eta _{0,j}(1\eta _{0,j+1}))\right)`$ (4.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝔼_\rho \left((\eta _{t,j}\rho )\eta _{0,0}(1\eta _{0,1})\right)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝔼_\rho \left((\eta _{0,j}\rho )\eta _{0,0}(1\eta _{0,1})\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\rho (1\rho )(12\rho ),`$
where we used conservation of the number of particles.

To see the fourth identity we compute

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝔼_\rho \left(h_t(j)^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`𝔼_\rho \left(h_t(j+1)^22h_t(j)^2+h_t(j1)^2\right)`$ (4.4)
$`=8𝔼_\rho \left(N_t(\eta _{t,j+1}\eta _{t,j})\right)+24𝔼_\rho \left((12\eta _{0,j})(\eta _{0,j+1}\eta _{0,j})\right),`$
using (2.4) and stationarity. By translation invariance

$$𝔼_\rho \left(N_t(\eta _{t,j+1}\eta _{t,j})\right)=𝔼_\rho \left((N_t^{}N_t)\eta _{t,j}\right),$$
(4.5)
where $`N_t^{}`$ is the number of particles jumping through the bond $`(1,0)`$ up to time $`t`$. The conservation law ensures that

$$N_t^{}+\eta _{0,0}=N_t+\eta _{t,0}.$$
(4.6)
Inserting into (4.5) yields

$$𝔼_\rho \left(N_t(\eta _{t,j+1}\eta _{t,j})\right)=𝔼_\rho \left((\eta _{t,0}\eta _{0,0})\eta _{t,j}\right)$$
(4.7)
and taking into account that $`𝔼_\rho \left(h_t(j)\right)=2\rho (1\rho )t+(12\rho )j`$ we obtain (4.2). $`\mathrm{}`$

$`(\rho (1\rho ))^1S(j,t)`$ is a probability distribution with mean $`(12\rho )t`$. One expects  that its variance grows as $`t^{4/3}`$ which suggests the scaling form

$$S(j,t)\rho (1\rho )\left(4(\rho (1\rho ))^{1/3}t^{2/3}\right)^1\frac{1}{8}g^{\prime \prime }\left((j(12\rho )t)\left(4(\rho (1\rho ))^{1/3}t^{2/3}\right)^1\right).$$
(4.8)
The link to the last passage percolation is provided by (4.2) and Theorem 2.1, which tell us that the two-point function is given through the second moment of the last passage time at boundary conditions $`\rho _{}=\rho `$, $`\rho _+=\rho `$. Because of the subtracted mean in (4.8) we consider the passage from (0,0) to $`(m,n)`$ for large $`n`$ with fixed slope $`\theta (\rho )=n/m=(1\rho (1\rho )(12\rho ))/(1\rho (1\rho )+(12\rho ))`$. The second moment of this last passage time is proportional to $`g(0)`$ with $`g`$ the scaling function in (4.8). To have the full function $`g`$ we have to determine the last passage time with an end point of order $`n^{2/3}`$ away from $`(n/\theta (\rho ),n)`$.

## 5 The Baik and Rains analysis

Recently Baik and Rains  studied last passage percolation with the above described boundary conditions. Unfortunately the case of an exponential distribution is not yet accessible to their techniques. Only the result of Johansson  is available which in our notation corresponds to $`\rho _{}=1`$, $`\rho _+=0`$. For this case he proves that

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}t^{1/3}2^{4/3}(N_t\frac{1}{4}t)=\xi _{\text{GUE}}$$
(5.1)
in distribution with $`(\xi _{\text{GUE}}x)=F_{\text{GUE}}(x)`$. $`F_{\text{GUE}}`$ is expressed in terms of a solution to the Painlevé II equation. We will consistently use the notation of  for the various distribution functions and will not repeat their definitions here.

Baik and Rains study the geometric and Poisson last passage percolation.
(i) geometric. The exponentially distributed random variables $`w(i,j)`$ are replaced by $`w_q(i,j)`$, $`0<q<1`$. $`w_q(i,j)`$, $`i,j1`$, has geometric distribution with parameter $`q`$, $`w_q(i,0)`$, $`i1`$, has geometric distribution with parameter $`\alpha _+\sqrt{q}`$, and $`w_q(0,j)`$, $`j1`$, has geometric distribution with parameter $`\alpha _{}\sqrt{q}`$. The random variables $`\{w_q(i,j)|i,j0\}`$ are independent. Baik and Rains study the distribution of the passage time $`G_q(n,n)`$ for large $`n`$ in dependence on $`q`$, $`\alpha _+`$, $`\alpha _{}`$, where they allow $`\alpha _+,\alpha _{}`$ being close to 1. Specifically they set

$$\alpha _\pm =1n^{1/3}w_\pm $$
(5.2)
and establish how the asymptotic distribution of $`G_q(n,n)`$ depends on $`w_\pm `$. The particular case $`\alpha _{}=0=\alpha _+`$ is proved by Johansson , who can allow for an arbitrary end point. In  last passage percolation is investigated for $`\alpha _{}=0=\alpha _+`$ and the $`w_q(i,j)`$’s satisfying various reflection symmetries including the cases of interest here, reflection symmetric relative to the diagonal resp. relative to the anti-diagonal. The large $`n`$ distribution of $`G_q(n,n)`$ is established.

Following the scheme already explained we see that the geometric case can be interpreted as a discrete time TASEP with waiting times $`w_q(i,j)+1`$. In a single time step every particle which has an empty site ahead can jump to the right. They do so independently with probability $`1q`$. Thus the initial step, left density $`\rho _{}`$ and right density $`\rho _+`$, is covered by  and the periodic initial configuration, $`\mathrm{}0101\mathrm{}`$, by . To handle the two-point function, a small change in the boundary density as in (5.2) should be translated to a small change in the angle of the end point for the directed polymer away from the diagonal. This seems to require a nontrivial generalization of the known results.

In the limit $`q1`$ the random variables $`(1q)w_q(i,j)`$ converge to $`w(i,j)`$ in distribution. Therefore the continuous time TASEP, time $`t`$, is recovered from the discrete time TASEP at integer times $`[t/(1q)]`$ as $`q1`$.
(ii) Poisson. We consider the geometric last passage percolation and interpret $`w_q(i,j)`$ as the number of points in the square with corners $`\sqrt{q}(i\pm \frac{1}{2},j\pm \frac{1}{2})`$. Then in the limit $`q0`$ such that $`(u,v)=\sqrt{q}(m,n)`$ is fixed we obtain a Poisson point process which has unit density in the rectangle $`[0,u]\times [0,v]`$, line density $`\alpha _+`$ on $`[0,u]\times \{0\}`$, and line density $`\alpha _{}`$ on $`\{0\}\times [0,v]`$. An allowed path, $`\omega `$, connects continuously $`(0,0)`$ to $`(u,v)`$, and is piecewise linear. Each linear segment has a slope $`\theta `$ such that $`0\theta \mathrm{}`$ and connects two Poisson points, except for the first and last piece. $`T(\omega )`$ is the number of Poisson point which are transversed by $`\omega `$ and, as before,

$$G_{\mathrm{Poisson}}(u,v)=\underset{\omega }{\mathrm{max}}T(\omega ).$$
(5.3)
For $`\alpha _{}=0=\alpha _+`$ the asymptotic distribution of $`G_{\mathrm{Poisson}}(v,v)`$ is established in . Baik and Rains  extend to arbitrary $`\alpha _{},\alpha _+`$ and allow for small deviations of the boundary densities as in (5.2) with $`n^{1/3}`$ replaced by $`v^{1/3}`$. Very recently they investigate the case of reflection symmetry relative to the diagonal, in particular $`\alpha _{}=\alpha _+`$, and an extra line density along the diagonal .

The particle model behind the Poisson last passage percolation is the PNG model . It consists of point particles with velocity $`\pm 1`$. They annihilate each other at a collision and are created in $`\pm `$ pairs with rate $`1`$. If $`\rho _+(x,t)`$ is the density of right movers, and $`\rho _{}(x,t)`$ of left movers, then the field $`\varphi (x,t)=\rho _+(x,t)\rho _{}(x,t)`$ is locally conserved and corresponds to $`\eta _{t,j}`$ of the TASEP. More precisely the corresponding height function

$$h(x,t)=N_t_0^x𝑑y\varphi (y,t),$$
(5.4)
where as before $`N_t`$ is the time integrated current at the origin, $`N_t=_0^t𝑑s(\rho _+(0,s)+\rho _{}(0,s))`$. The height is related to the last passage time through $`G(u,v)=h(x,t)`$ in distribution with $`u=(t+x)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`v=(tx)/\sqrt{2}`$.

In contrast to the geometric and exponential last passage percolation, a change in the boundary densities $`\alpha _\pm `$ can be compensated by a variation of the end point. For example, for the square $`[0,v]^2`$ with boundary densities $`\alpha _\pm =(1v^{1/3}w)^{\pm 1}`$, we can stretch the $`1`$-axis by $`1/\alpha _+`$ and the $`2`$-axis by $`1/\alpha _{}`$. Then the boundary densities are $`1`$ and the end point of the polymer is tilted by a distance $`v^{2/3}`$ away from $`(v,v)`$, which is the quantity needed for the scaling form of the $`2`$-point function. Thus for the PNG model the scaling form of $`𝔼\left(\varphi (x,t)\varphi (0,0)\right)`$ follows from the analogue Proposition 4.1 for PNG and the asymptotic analysis in , compare with Section 7.2.

The defect line along the diagonal is most easily visualized in the growth version of PNG, where unit up-steps are particles with velocity $`1`$ and unit down-steps with velocity 1. If $`\alpha _{}=0=\alpha _+`$, nucleation of pairs of steps are allowed only above the ground layer $`[t,t]`$. Extra Poisson points along the diagonal with line density $`\alpha `$ correspond to a source at the origin which nucleates at rate $`\alpha `$. The full PNG droplet has no reflection symmetry at the diagonal. With reflection symmetry one restricts oneself to the half droplet, where nucleations only above the ground layer $`[0,t]`$ are allowed. In the depinned phase the extra mass is incorporated in the droplet without visible modification of the macroscopic shape. In the pinned phase an extra pile of linear slope is created on top of the PNG droplet.

## 6 Scaling theory

In limit theorems one has to separate universal from model-dependent features. To give the standard example: let $`\xi _j,j`$, be a stationary mean zero sequence of random variables which satisfies the central limit theorem as

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\xi _j\sigma x\right)=F_\text{G}(x).$$
(6.1)
Here $`F_\mathrm{G}`$ is the distribution function of a standard Gaussian random variable. $`F_\mathrm{G}`$ is universal (within well-studied limits), whereas the variance $`\sigma ^2`$ depends on the particular probability law for the $`\xi _j`$’s. In our example $`\sigma ^2`$ is easily computed as

$$\sigma ^2=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝔼\left(\xi _j\xi _0\right).$$
(6.2)
For the ASEP and similar growth models a corresponding scaling theory is available which determines the model-dependent longitudinal and transverse scales . To apply the theory one has to know the stationary measures as labeled by their mean density, $`\rho `$. The two basic quantities are

$`j(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{average current at density }\rho ,`$
$`A(\rho )`$ $`=`$ size of the density fluctuations in the stationary measure.
If the density is regarded as the slope of a height function as in (2.4), then $`A(\rho )`$ is the roughness amplitude for $`jh(j)`$ in the stationary measure, i.e. $`A(\rho )=lim_j\mathrm{}j^1𝔼\left(\left[h(j)h(0)𝔼\left(h(j)h(0)\right)\right]^2\right)`$.

For the TASEP $`j(\rho )=\mu _\rho (\eta _0(1\eta _1))=\rho (1\rho )`$ and the height diffusion constant

$$A(\rho )=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{j}\mu _\rho \left((h(j)(12\rho )j)^2\right)=4\underset{j}{}(\mu _\rho (\eta _j\eta _0)\rho ^2)=4\rho (1\rho ).$$
(6.3)
For the discrete time TASEP, jump probability $`1q`$, the stationary measure at density $`\rho `$ is a Markov chain with transition probability $`Q`$, a $`2\times 2`$–matrix which we write in the form $`Q_{00}=1r`$, $`Q_{01}=r`$, $`Q_{10}=s`$, $`Q_{11}=1s`$. $`r,s`$ are determined through $`(1r)(1s)=qrs`$ and $`(r+s)\rho =s`$. Then the average current

$$j(\rho )=\rho s$$
(6.4)
and the roughness amplitude

$$A(\rho )=4\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(𝔼_\rho \left(\eta _j\eta _0\right)\rho ^2\right)=4\left(\rho (1\rho )+2\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\rho (Q^j)_{11}\rho ^2)\right).$$
(6.5)
For the PNG model in the stationary measure the + , resp. $``$, particles are Poisson distributed with density $`\rho _+`$, resp. $`\rho _{}`$, satisfying the stationarity constraint $`2\rho _+\rho _{}=1`$. The conserved density is $`\rho =\rho _+\rho _{}`$ and the current

$$j(\rho )=\rho _++\rho _{}=(2+\rho ^2)^{1/2}.$$
(6.6)
From the Poisson property we conclude

$$A(\rho )=\rho _++\rho _{}=(2+\rho ^2)^{1/2}.$$
(6.7)
$`j^{}(\rho )=v(\rho )`$ is the velocity of the density fluctuations and $`\lambda =j^{\prime \prime }(\rho )`$ is the KPZ coupling constant . In terms of these quantities, the scale in the $`h`$-direction is

$$\text{sign}\lambda (\frac{1}{2}|\lambda |A^2)^{1/3}t^{1/3}$$
(6.8)
and the scale in the transverse $`j`$-direction is

$$2^{4/3}(\lambda ^2A)^{1/3}t^{2/3},$$
(6.9)
For the TASEP, since $`\lambda =1`$, the $`h`$-direction then comes in units of $`2^{1/3}(4\rho (1\rho ))^{2/3}t^{1/3}`$, whereas the $`j`$-direction comes in units of $`4(\rho (1\rho ))^{1/3}t^{2/3}`$.

In (6.8) and (6.9) we have fixed two dimensionless scale factors. Their role is most easily explained in our entry example, where we could have adopted a definition of the error function $`F_\mathrm{G}`$ such that the Gaussian has mean $`1/2`$. Then in (6.1) $`\sigma x`$ is to be replaced by $`\sqrt{2}\sigma x`$ independently of the value of $`\sigma `$. The particular convention is determined through the comparison with one single test case. In our context we follow  in the definition of the distribution functions, who rely on the established conventions for the Painlevé II Riemann-Hilbert problem. The test case ist the PNG model, which fixes the prefactors in (6.8) to $`2^{1/3}`$ and in (6.9) to $`2^{4/3}`$.

So far proofs are available only for a short list of models. In all cases the model-dependent parameters are such as to agree with the scaling theory. In particular the discrete time TASEP provides a two-parameter ($`\rho `$ and $`q`$) test of the theory.

## 7 Current fluctuations

There is little doubt that the results of Baik and Rains also hold in the limit of an exponential distribution when $`q1`$. Strictly speaking our results are conjectures, except for $`\rho _{}=1`$, $`\rho _+=0`$ . We discuss the list of our examples. Some of them have been announced in , where also numerical plots of $`F_{\text{GUE}}`$, $`F_{\text{GOE}}`$, and $`F_0`$ are given.

### 7.1 Initial step density

Fluctuation results for $`N_t`$ are most easily summarized in the diagram of Figure 1. We first remind the reader of the limit measure $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\{\eta _{t,j}`$, $`|j|N\}`$, $`N`$ arbitrary, $`t\mathrm{}`$ . The upper left corner is the maximal current phase with $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=\mu _{1/2}`$. In the lower left $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=\mu _\rho _{}`$ and in the upper right $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=\mu _{\rho _+}`$. Along the line $`\rho _{}+\rho _+=1`$ the long time limit is the superposition $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{2}\mu _\rho _{}+\frac{1}{2}\mu _{\rho _+}`$. In particular, we have $`𝔼\left(N_t\right)/t\mu _{\mathrm{}}(\eta _0(1\eta _1))`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

To understand the fluctuations of $`N_t`$ we use the directed polymer picture and recall that the polymer starts at $`(0,0)`$ and ends at $`(n,n)`$. If $`\rho _{}<1\rho _+`$, $`\rho _{}<\frac{1}{2}`$, then the polymer stays a finite fraction of steps at the right edge. Since for the edge steps the passage time is a sum of independent exponentials, its fluctuations are of order $`\sqrt{t}`$ and Gaussian (G). At some point the polymer must enter the bulk and we expect subleading corrections of order $`t^{1/3}`$,

$$N_t\rho (1\rho )t+t^{1/2}\xi _\text{G}t^{1/3}\xi _{\text{GUE}}$$
(7.1)
up to prefactors, with either $`\rho =\rho _{}`$ or $`\rho =\rho _+`$. If $`\rho _{}+\rho _+=1,\rho _{}<\frac{1}{2}`$, then the polymer has a choice between the left and right edge and the fluctuations of $`N_t`$ are the maximum of two independent Gaussians (G<sup>2</sup>). Recall that if $`\xi _i`$ has distribution function $`F_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, then their maximum has the distribution function $`F_1F_2`$ provided $`\xi _1,\xi _2`$ are independent, hence our notation.

If $`\rho _{}>\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\rho _+<\frac{1}{2}`$, then it does not pay for the polymer to stay at neither edge. The fluctuations must be as for the Johansson case of trivial edges, $`\rho _{}=1`$, $`\rho _+=0`$, which have $`F_{\text{GUE}}`$ as distribution function. Thus the difficult cases are the two critical lines $`\rho _{}=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\rho _+<\frac{1}{2}`$, resp. $`\rho _{}>\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\rho _+=\frac{1}{2}`$, and the critical point $`\rho _{}=\frac{1}{2}=\rho _+`$, which corresponds to the Bernoulli $`\frac{1}{2}`$ initial measure. On the line $`\rho _{}=\frac{1}{2}`$ $`(\rho _+=\frac{1}{2})`$ the directed polymer stays order $`n^{1/3}`$ at the left (right) edge, whereas at the critical point it makes a choice between the two edges. According to  the fluctuations of $`N_t`$ are of order $`t^{1/3}`$ and are $`\text{GOE}^2`$ distributed on the critical lines, $`F_0`$ distributed at the critical point.

From the point of view of the last passage percolation the end point $`(n,n)`$ is somewhat special and one might consider more generally the end point $`(m,n)`$ with the slope $`\theta =n/m`$ fixed. To have a firm link to the TASEP we will use the parameterization (2.4), in which case the quantity of interest is $`h_t([yt])`$, $`|y|<1`$, $`[]`$ denoting the integer part. $`h_t(0)=2N_t`$ is the particular case just explained. The hydrodynamic theory  establishes the law of large numbers for $`h_t([yt])`$ with the result

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}h_t([yt])=\overline{h}(y)$$
(7.2)
almost surely for $`|y|<1`$. The limit $`\overline{h}`$ depends on $`\rho _{},\rho _+`$ and is given as follows: If $`\rho _{}<\rho _+`$, then

$`\overline{h}(y)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}(12\rho _{})y+2\rho _{}(1\rho _{})\hfill & \text{for}& \hfill yy_c,\\ (12\rho _+)y+2\rho _+(1\rho _+)\hfill & \text{for}& \hfill y>y_c\end{array}`$ (7.5)
with $`y_c=\left(\rho _+(1\rho _+)\rho _{}(1\rho _{})\right)/(\rho _+\rho _{})`$. If $`\rho _{}>\rho _+`$, then

$`\overline{h}(y)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}(12\rho _{})y+2\rho _{}(1\rho _{})\hfill & \text{for}& y12\rho _{},\\ \frac{1}{2}(y^2+1)\hfill & \text{for}& 12\rho _{}<y12\rho _+,\\ (12\rho _+)y+2\rho _+(1\rho _+)\hfill & \text{for}& 12\rho _+<y.\end{array}`$ (7.9)
We are interested in the fluctuations of

$$h_t([yt])t\overline{h}(y)$$
(7.10)
for fixed $`y`$ in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$. If $`\overline{h}`$ is linear around $`y`$, then the fluctuations are order $`\sqrt{t}`$ and Gaussian. If $`\overline{h}`$ has a cusp at $`y`$ (and is linear on both sides), then the fluctuations are order $`\sqrt{t}`$ and $`\text{G}^2`$. On the other hand, if $`\overline{h}`$ has nonzero curvature at $`y`$ then the fluctuations are order $`t^{1/3}`$ and GUE. The critical lines, $`\text{GOE}^2`$, correspond to a $`y`$ where at $`\overline{h}(y)`$ the curved piece joins the linear piece. Finally the critical point, $`F_0`$, is the merger of the two critical lines.

We summarize our findings in the form of a (well-founded) conjecture. $`_{\rho _{},\rho _+}`$ refers to the TASEP with $`\mu _{\rho _{},\rho _+}`$ as starting measure. $`h_t(j)`$ is defined in (2.4), $`\overline{h}`$ in (7.5), (7.9).

###### Conjecture 7.1

(G) Let either $`\rho _{}<\rho _+`$ and $`y>y_c`$ or $`\rho _{}>\rho _+`$ and $`y>12\rho _+`$. Then

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\rho _{},\rho _+}\left(t\overline{h}(y)h_t([yt])\left(4\rho _+(1\rho _+)(y1+2\rho _+)t\right)^{1/2}x\right)=F_\text{G}(x).$$
(7.11)
Let either $`\rho _{}<\rho _+`$ and $`y<y_c`$ or $`\rho _{}>\rho _+`$ and $`y<12\rho _{}`$. Then

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\rho _{},\rho _+}\left(t\overline{h}(y)h_t([yt])\left(4\rho _{}(1\rho _{})(y+12\rho _{})t\right)^{1/2}x\right)=F_\text{G}(x).$$
(7.12)
(G<sup>2</sup>) Let $`\rho _{}<\rho _+`$ and $`y=y_c`$, then

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\rho _{},\rho _+}\left(t\overline{h}(y)h_t([yt])((\rho _+\rho _{})t)^{1/2}x\right)`$ (7.13)
$`=F_\text{G}\left((4\rho _+(1\rho _+))^{1/2}x\right)F_\text{G}\left((4\rho _{}(1\rho _{}))^{1/2}x\right).`$
(GUE) Let $`\rho _{}>\rho _+`$ and $`12\rho _{}<y<12\rho _+`$. Then

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\rho _{},\rho _+}\left(t\overline{h}(y)h_t([yt])2^{1/3}(1y^2)^{2/3}t^{1/3}x\right)=F_{\text{GUE}}(x).$$
(7.14)
(GOE<sup>2</sup>) Let $`\rho _{}>\rho _+`$ and either $`y=12\rho _{}`$ or $`y=12\rho _+`$. Then

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\rho _{},\rho _+}\left(t\overline{h}(y)h_t([yt])2^{1/3}(1y^2)^{2/3}t^{1/3}x\right)=F_{\text{GOE}}(x)^2.$$
(7.15)
(F<sub>0</sub>) Let $`\rho _{}=\rho =\rho _+`$ and $`y=12\rho `$. Then

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\rho _{},\rho _+}\left(t\overline{h}(y)h_t([yt])2^{1/3}(1y^2)^{2/3}t^{1/3}x\right)=F_0(x).$$
(7.16)
$`F_\text{G}`$ is the distribution function of a standard normal distributed random variable. $`F_0`$ and the Tracy-Widom distribution functions $`F_{\text{GUE}}`$, $`F_{\text{GOE}}`$ are defined in .

The Gaussian case (G) with $`\rho _{}=\rho _+`$ is proved in  and the case (GUE) with $`\rho _{}=1`$, $`\rho _+=0`$ in .

In (7.11) to (7.16) the random variable $`(h_t([yt])t\overline{h}(y))`$ appears because of the inversion from the passage time $`G(m,n)`$ to the height. In each case we have subtracted the asymptotic mean as computed from the hydrodynamic theory. For the variances of the Gaussians we have to determine how many steps, on the scale $`n`$, the directed polymer stays at either edge. For the prefactor $`2^{1/3}(1y^2)^{2/3}`$ in (7.14) to (7.16) we either take the limit of the discrete time TASEP or use the scaling theory of Section 6. Because of the inversion, also the lower and upper tails are interchanged. For example $`F_{\mathrm{GUE}}(x)`$ has the lower tail $`\mathrm{exp}(|x|^3/12)`$ and the upper tail $`\mathrm{exp}(4|x|^{3/2}/3)`$.

### 7.2 Stationary two-point function

The starting measure is Bernoulli $`\rho `$ and $`_\rho `$ is the corresponding path measure of the stationary TASEP, $`0<\rho <1`$. Density fluctuations propagate with velocity $`12\rho `$. Therefore the anomalous fluctuations appear in $`h_t([(12\rho )t])`$, compare with (7.16). For the full two-point function we need the height distribution a distance of order $`t^{2/3}`$ away, i.e. at $`(12\rho )t+4(\rho (1\rho ))^{1/3}t^{2/3}w`$ for arbitrary $`w`$, compare with (6.9).

###### Conjecture 7.2

We have

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_\rho (h_t([(12\rho )t+4(\rho (1\rho ))^{1/3}t^{2/3}w])+2\rho (1\rho )t`$
$`+(12\rho )((12\rho )t+4(\rho (1\rho ))^{1/3}t^{2/3}w)2(\rho (1\rho ))^{2/3}t^{1/3}x)`$
$`=F_w(x).`$ (7.17)
The distribution function $`F_w(x)`$ is defined in  and denoted there by $`H(4w^2+x;w,w)`$. The distribution function $`F_0`$ appears also in (7.16).

Note that $`𝑑F_w(x)x=0`$, since we have subtracted the average of $`h_t`$. The prefactors of $`x`$ and $`w`$ are infered from the scaling theory of Section 6. For the PNG model, the analogue of (7.2) follows from . If the convergence (7.2) holds also for the second moments, then

$`𝔼_\rho ([h_t([(12\rho ))t+4(\rho (1\rho ))^{1/3}t^{2/3}w])2\rho (1\rho )t`$
$`(12\rho )((12\rho )t+4(\rho (1\rho ))^{1/3}t^{2/3}w)]^2)`$
$`4(\rho (1\rho ))^{4/3}t^{2/3}{\displaystyle 𝑑F_w(x)x^2}`$ (7.18)
for large $`t`$. Setting

$$g(w)=𝑑F_w(x)x^2$$
(7.19)
and taking second derivatives in (7.2), we conclude the scaling form of (4.8).

$`F_w(x)`$ is the solution of a first order partial differential equation with suitable boundary conditions. A numerical plot is provided in Figure 2. In essence it shows how the distribution broadens for $`w\mathrm{}`$, reflecting the cross over to the Gaussian fluctuations as one moves away from the characteristic $`\{j=(12\rho )t\}.`$ The second moment, $`g(w)`$, is symmetric and increases linearly as $`4|w|`$ for large $`|w|`$. In Figure 3 we plot the scaling function $`g^{\prime \prime }`$ as determined from the numerical evaluation of the second moment of $`F_w`$ at various values of $`w`$. The oscillations at small $`w`$ result from numerical imprecisions for $`F_w`$. In  an approximate nonlinear integral equation for $`g^{\prime \prime }`$ has been derived, which was then solved numerically in . The approximate $`g(0)`$ differs from the exact one by an order of $`5\%`$. From the available data a more accurate comparison does not seem to be feasible.

### 7.3 Semi-infinite system

We restrict to the half-lattice $``$ and insert with rate $`\alpha `$ particles at site $`1`$, respecting the constraint $`\eta _1=0,1`$. The initial measure is Bernoulli $`\mu _\rho `$. The last passage percolation representation lives in the lower triangle $`\{(i,j)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}ji\}`$. Along the diagonal the $`w(j,j)`$ are exponential with rate $`\alpha `$ and at the lower edge the $`w(j,0)`$ are exponential with rate $`1\rho `$. By maximizing the passage time on scale $`n`$ we obtain the same phase diagram as for the critical step. However the fluctuations in $`N_t`$, now the number of particles injected up to time $`t`$, are modified. In Figure 4 we summarize the findings  which could be written more formally as in Conjecture 7.1 and so far have been proven only for the Poisson case, i.e. the semi-infinite PNG model with a source at the origin.

GSE is the distribution of the largest eigenvalue of a symplectic Gaussian random matrix. $`F_0^{\text{semi}}`$ is a novel distribution and given by

$$F_0^{\text{semi}}(x)=\left(1+\frac{1}{2}(v(x)+u(x))(x+2u^{}(x)+2u(x)^2)\right)F(x)E(x)^3$$
(7.20)
in the notation of . On the anti-diagonal a new feature appears. Recall that for the infinite system the distribution G<sup>2</sup> arose from the choice between the left and right edge. Here the directed polymer may stay for an arbitrary length at the lower edge and then switch to the diagonal. Optimizing over this one parameter family of paths yields for the passage time a distribution which is given by the largest eigen value of a $`2\times 2`$ GUE matrix, denoted by G<sup>2×2</sup> in Figure 4.

### 7.4 Defect lines, depinning

For a change let us consider the Poisson last passage percolation. As already explained, in the square $`[0,v]^2`$ we have Poisson points with density 1. The directed polymer starts at $`(0,0)`$ and ends at $`(v,v)`$. We add extra Poisson points along the diagonal with line density $`\alpha `$. Of primary interest is the last passage time, $`lim_v\mathrm{}v^1G_\alpha (v)=\tau (\alpha )`$. We know that $`\tau (0)=2`$. The critical $`\alpha _c`$ is defined as the largest $`\alpha `$ such that $`\tau (\alpha )=2`$. If $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$, the polymer is pinned and typically returns after a length $`\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )`$ to the diagonal. Between two returns the polymer makes an excursion of size $`\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )`$ away from the diagonal. The depinning transition is governed by $`\tau (\alpha ),\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha ),\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )`$ as $`\alpha \alpha _c`$. If $`\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha _c)<\mathrm{}`$, the transition is first order, while $`\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )\mathrm{}`$ as $`\alpha \alpha _c`$ signals as second order transition.

Since there is considerable interest from the physics of disordered systems, a phenomenological theory has been developed, which after some controversy seems to be widely accepted . We explain the predictions and first recall the pure problem with the path measure

$$(Z_t)^1^{BB}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _0^t𝑑sV(x_s)\right].$$
(7.21)
Here $`x_s^d`$ is a Brownian path which has the a priori weight given by the Brownian bridge $`^{BB}`$ with start and end point $`0`$. $`V`$ is a pinning potential, which by a suitable choice of units is simply $`V(x)=0`$ for $`|x|1`$ and $`V(x)=1`$ for $`|x|<1`$. $`Z_t`$ is the normalizing partition function. The analogue of $`\tau (\alpha )`$ is the ground state energy $`e(\beta )=lim_t\mathrm{}t^1\mathrm{log}Z_t`$, $`e(0)=0`$. For $`d=3`$ a certain minimal strength is required to pin the Brownian motion. Thus $`\beta _c>0`$ and $`e(\beta )(\beta \beta _c)^2`$ for $`\beta \beta _c`$. However for $`d=2`$, Brownian motion is null-recurrent and $`\beta _c=0`$. Just a tiny bit of attraction suffices to pin the polymer. Correspondingly $`e(\beta )`$ has an essential singularity as $`e(\beta )e^{1/\beta }`$, $`\mathrm{}_{}(\beta )e^{1/\beta }`$, $`\mathrm{}_{}(\beta )\mathrm{}_{}(\beta )^{1/2}`$ for small $`\beta `$.

The claim is that a directed polymer in $`1+1`$ dimensions in a random potential is pinned in essence as a directed polymer in $`2+1`$ dimensions with zero bulk potential. Specifically, any attraction along the diagonal will pin the polymer, i.e. $`\alpha _c=0`$, the passage time $`\tau (\alpha )2+e^{1/\alpha }`$, and the longitidonal excursions $`\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )e^{1/\alpha }`$ with the usual link $`\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )^{2/3}`$ for small $`\alpha `$. No rigorous result seems to be available.

Transcribed to the slow bond problem, the prediction is $`r_c=1`$ with an essential singularity for $`j_{\mathrm{}}(r)`$ at $`r=1`$.

To model the case where the Poisson points are reflection symmetric relative to the diagonal, we add in (7.21) a hard wall and replace $`V`$ by $`V_{\mathrm{hw}}`$, $`V_{\mathrm{hw}}(x_1,x_{})=V(x)`$ for $`x_10`$, $`V_{\mathrm{hw}}(x)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`x_1<0`$. The entropic repulsion shifts to $`\beta _c>0`$ even for $`d=1,2`$. Therefore the prediction of the phenomenological theory is $`\tau (\alpha )2+c(\alpha \alpha _c)^2`$, $`\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )(\alpha \alpha _c)^2`$, and $`\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )\mathrm{}_{}(\alpha )^{2/3}`$ for $`\alpha `$ close to $`\alpha _c`$, $`\alpha \alpha _c`$. This is in agreement with the exact result $`\alpha _c=1/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\tau (\alpha )=2`$ for $`0\alpha \alpha _c`$, $`\tau (\alpha )=\sqrt{2}(\alpha +(1/2\alpha ))`$ for $`\alpha _c\alpha `$, which slightly above $`\alpha _c`$ yields $`\tau (\alpha )2+2(\alpha \alpha _c)^2`$ .

## 9 Conclusions

It is rather surprising to have now, after more than 20 years of study, a technique available through which universal scaling functions can be computed, in some cases even very explicitly. The main lesson to be drawn is that the universal distribution functions on the scale $`t^{1/3}`$ depend on the type of initial conditions. It would be of interest to understand whether our list is already complete.

Despite progress there are several obvious elements missing. Firstly for the transverse fluctuations of the polymer we do not have such a fine information as on the passage time (= energy of the polymer) . More importantly, only single distributions, like the passage time with given end points, can be handled. To have a more detailed understanding of the energy landscape joint distributions must be studied, like the joint distribution of the first passage times $`G(m_1,n_1),G(m_2,n_2)`$ refering to two distinct end points.


format: text

text:
# Element Synthesis in Stars

## 1 Introduction

The most dominant influence of nuclear physics on element synthesis is given by nuclear reactions occurring in a stellar environment. Different stellar environments also require different kinds of nuclear physics knowledge. In stellar evolution all types of fusion reactions transform hydrogen to iron-group nuclei via hydrogen, helium, carbon, neon, oxygen and silicion burning, releasing eventually 8.7 MeV of binding energy per nucleon. The composition changes in stellar evolution, occurring on timescales of millions to billions of years rather than timescales of the strong interaction are dominated by reactions which can barely proceed for the temperatures involved. The latter correspond to typical bombarding energies below the Coulomb barrier. The study of such reactions needs high intensity, (very) low energy beams and either passive or active shielding . For more details and updates see the contribution by C.Rolfs .

Reactions occuring in explosive environments experience higher temperatures and thus higher bombarding energies and larger cross sections. The fact that shorter explosive timescales permit reactions for unstable nuclei before their decay makes it necessary to investigate also cross sections with unstable nuclei. For experimental methods and reviews see e.g. Refs. . Theoretical predictions involving nuclei at excitations with a sufficiently high density of states, i.e. permitting the application of the statistical model, are reviewed in , with a special attention of including isospin mixing, level densities and alpha potentials. The state of the art in weak interaction predictions, especially for electron capture on nuclei and the application of the shell model for large model spaces is discussed in . Many explosive environments with fuels of N$``$Z produce also unstable nuclei close to stability. However, explosive environments with a large surplus of hydrogen (protons) permit proton captures up to the proton dripline. This gives rise to the so-called rp-process (rapid proton capture). Early ignition stages lead to break-out reactions from reaction cycles similar to the hot CNO , so-called two-proton capture reactions via an intermediate proton-unstable nucleus can play an essential role . Very neutron-rich environments permit neutron-captures up to the neutron dripline and are the sites of the r-process (rapid neutron capture). Nuclear structure far from stability enters directly , but also features like pygmy resonances in the E1-strength at low energies (due to extended neutron skins) can have a decisive influence on the size of neutron capture cross sections .

Composition changes in astrophysical environments at low and intermediate temperatures are described by individual cross sections to follow the reaction flows. High temperatures lead to chemical equilibria. In the case of the rp- and r-process this causes abundance distributions on isotonic or isotopic lines which show maxima at specific proton or neutron separation energies. Therefore, in such cases individual reactions might not be that important, but such equilibria depend on correct reaction Q-values or separation energies, i.e. the proper knowledge of nuclear masses far from stability. The behavior of shell effects and shell closures deserves special attention , see also the contribution by W. Nazarewicz . The tendency in recent years is here to move from macroscopic-microscopic models like the droplet model to non-relativistic or relativistic mean field methods and even shell model calculations, if the model space permits this . Another aspect in the r-process is related to fission barriers and fission yields for nuclei far from stability .

While strong interaction timescales can support equilibria at high temperatures (and densities), weak interactions lead very seldom to chemical equilibria. Exceptions are early phases of the big bang and equilibrated (cooled) neutron stars. Thus, it is always necessary to follow each individual weak interaction, i.e. beta-decays, electron captures and neutrino-nucleus interactions. The present state of the art calculations for beta-decays are QRPA or shell model calculations , electron capture calculations are now possible within the shell model up to the pf-shell, i.e. the important Fe-group nuclei . The best calculations for neutrino-nucleus cross sections are available within the continuum RPA (CRPA) model .

Most of the modes responsible for energy transport in stellar environments are not nuclear physics related: mixing/convection of matter with a given heat content or transport via radiation (photons). The first category involves all types of hydrodynamic instabilities from convection due to entropy inversion in regular stellar evolution  to Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities in dynamic events  and rotationally induced meridional circulation . Radiation transport is governed by photon scattering and reaction processes. Photon-ion interactions with bound-bound and bound-free transitions are covered in atomic physics and generally addressed as opacities. In a similar way photon-electron interactions enter . Nuclear physics is addressed when ”radiation” transport proceeds by the way of neutrinos in hot neutron star evironments, be it in stellar collapse in supernovae or events which involve hot neutron stars collapsing to black holes (either in massive stars or in neutron star mergers) . Here the cross sections of neutrino-nucleus, neutrino-nucleon, neutrino-nuclear matter and neutrino-electron/positron collisions are relevant and the quest is to perform precise calculations .

Hydrodynamics is an essential feature in any stellar modeling, be it in 1D (mostly spherically symmetric)  or 2D and 3D , multigrid or adaptive grid methods , making use of implicit vs. explicit numerical methods , or employing general relativity rather than Newtonian hydrodynamics . For these issues, however, there exists no direct relation to nuclear physics properties, unless one consideres how timescales of nuclear energy release can enter hydrodynamic modeling. Nevertheless, hydrodynamics provides the environment conditions which determine nuclear reactions, composition changes and thus also energy generation.

Convection and radiation transport are both closely linked to the numerical treatment of hydrodynamics. How are convective flows modeled in 1D vs. multi-D hydro? Which methods are employed to perform radiation transport, independent on the micro-physics related cross sections involved? Two of the schemes employed in neutrino transport are flux-limited diffusion or more recently full transport via solving the Boltzmann transport equation .

Thermodynamics is an aspect also coupled strongly to hydrodynamics, as the pressure due to the equation of state enters directly into the formation of shock waves, the entropy enters into the formation of hydrodynamical instabilities and convection. In the outer zones of a star, especially the atmosphere, the EOS is mainly given by atomic physics via the mixture of a partially ionized ion, electron, and photon gas . In deeper layers ions are fully ionized and the thermalized Fermi gases (e.g. electron/positron), Bose gases of massless particles (i.e. Planck distributions of photons) and Boltzmann distributions of nuclei are needed. Here nuclear physics enters only indirectly by possibly governing the reactions which provide the composition of nuclei and the total amount of electrons available, the latter being dependent on electron captures and weak interactions in general.

A more direct involvement of nuclear physics is given for the EOS at and beyond nuclear densities $`\rho _0`$ . Important features are the different stages of dissolving nuclei into a nucleon soup (involving a number of topologies) and the creation of new particles at supranuclear densities. When do hyperons occur (sigmas, lambdas at $`2\times \rho _0`$?), do we have a formation of kaon or pion condensates, at what density does the quark-hadron phase transition occur (4–5$`\times \rho _0`$?) ?

After this short general introduction and overview, we want to discuss a number of specific astrophysical applications to show how the different nuclear aspects affect the synthesis of elements in the modeling of stellar events. In particular we address stellar evolution, type II and type Ia supernovae (SNe II and SNe Ia), novae and X-ray bursts (the sites of explosive H-burning and the rp-process), and the features and possible sites of the r-process.

## 2 Stellar Evolution

### 2.1 The Role of Individual Reactions

H-burning converts of 1H into 4He via pp-chains or the CNO-cycles. The simplest PPI chain is initiated by 1H($`p,e^+\nu `$)2H(p,$`\gamma `$)3He and completed by 3He(3He,2p)4He. The dominant CNO-I cycle chain
12C(p,$`\gamma )^{13}`$N($`e^+\nu )^{13}`$C(p,$`\gamma )^{14}`$N(p,$`\gamma )^{15}`$O($`e^+\nu )^{15}`$N(p,$`\alpha )^{12}`$C is controlled by the slowest reaction 14N($`p,\gamma )^{15}`$O. Further burning stages are characterized by their major reactions, which are in He-burning 4He(2$`\alpha ,\gamma `$)12C (triple-alpha) and 12C($`\alpha ,\gamma `$)16O, in C-burning 12C(12C, $`\alpha `$)20Ne, and in O-burning 16O(16O,$`\alpha `$)28Si. The alternative to fusion reactions are photodisintegrations which start to play a role at sufficiently high temperatures when 30$`kT`$$``$$`Q`$ (the Q-value or energy release of the inverse capture reaction). This ensures the existence of photons with energies $`>`$$`Q`$ in the Planck distribution and leads to Ne-Burning \[20Ne($`\gamma ,\alpha )^{16}`$O, 20Ne($`\alpha ,\gamma )^{24}`$Mg\] at $`T`$$`>`$$`1.5\times 10^9`$K (preceding O-burning) due to a small Q-value of $``$4 MeV and Si-burning at temperatures in excess of 3$`\times `$109K (initiated like Ne-burning by photodisintegrations of 28Si). The latter ends in a chemical equilibrium with an abundance distribution around Fe (nuclear statistical equilibrium, NSE), as typical Q-values of 8–10 MeV permit photodisintegrations as well as the penetration of the corresponding Coulomb barriers at these temperatures. Stars with masses $`M`$$`>`$8M develop an onion-like composition structure, after passing through all hydrostatic burning stages, and produce a collapsing core at the end of their evolution, which proceeds to nuclear densities . Less massive stars experience core H- and He-burning and end as C/O white dwarfs after strong episodes of mass loss . These do not exceed the Chandrasekhar mass, i.e. the maximum stellar mass stabilized against contraction due to the pressure of the degenerate electron gas.

The major uncertainties in all these hydrostatic burning stages are related to low energy fusion reactions, i.e. the cross sections at sub Coulomb barrier energies, where (until recently) a determination could be only obtained by extrapolation to low energies. The status of reactions has been discussed extensively  and is presented in the most recent compilation . The main breakthrough in recent years is due to the possibility of measuring cross sections at stellar thermal energies in underground laboratories (LUNA) . A number of uncertain reactions at low energies still wait to be explored with the aid of this new and promising method.

### 2.2 Weak Interactions and Electron Captures

The late phases of stellar evolution (O- and Si-burning) are less prone to cross section uncertainties from strong interactions due to the emergence of equilibria, as discussed above. However, the high densities result in partially or fully degenerate electrons with increasing Fermi energies . When these supercede the Q-value thresholds of electron capture reactions, this allows for electron capture on an increasing number of initially Si-group and later Fe-group (pf-shell) nuclei. Because sd-shell reactions were well understood in the past , O-burning results are quite safe. The recent progress in pf-shell rates  led to drastic changes in the late phases of Si-burning , thus also setting new conditions for the subsequent Fe-core collapse after Si-burning, the size of the Fe-core and its electron fraction $`Y_e`$$`=`$$`<`$$`Z/A`$$`>`$ .

## 3 Massive Stars and Type II Supernovae

### 3.1 The Explosion Mechanism

Electron captures on pf-shell nuclei (and later on free protons!) in the central Fe-core, resulting from preceding Si-burning, trigger a pressure decrease and the collapse of the Fe-core. The size of the homologously collapsing core (where infall velocities are proportional to the radius), which turns into nuclear matter during bounce , is dependent on the amount of prior electron captures on pf-shell nuclei . The total energy released, 2–3$`\times 10^{53}`$erg, equals the gravitational binding energy of a neutron star and is thus dependent on the nuclear equation of state (EOS)  which determines the central density. Fig. 1 shows a sequence of density profiles during collapse, bounce, and shortly thereafter , performed with the Lattimer & Swesty EOS .

Because neutrinos are the particles with the longest mean free path, they are able to carry away that energy in the most rapid fashion as seen for SN1987A in the Kamiokande, IMB and Baksan experiments. The apparently most promising mechanism for supernova explosions is based on neutrino heating beyond the hot proto-neutron star via the dominant processes $`\nu _e+np+e^{}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+`$ with a (hopefully) about 1% efficiency in energy deposition . The neutrino heating efficiency depends on the neutrino luminosity, which in turn is affected by neutrino opacities , where also inelastic neutrino scattering on nuclei  contributes. The explosion via neutrino heating is delayed after core collapse for a timescale of seconds or less. Aspects of the explosion mechanism are still uncertain and depend on Fe-cores from stellar evolution, electron capture rates of pf-shell nuclei, the supranuclear equation of state, as well as the details of neutrino transport  and Newtonian vs. general relativistic calculations . The observational fact that many core collapse supernovae show polarized light emission also hints towards a nonspherical explosion mechanism .

### 3.2 Composition of Ejecta

As long as uncertainties are still existing in self-consistent models, but typical kinetic energies of $`10^{51}`$ erg are observed in supernova remnants, light curve as well as explosive nucleosynthesis calculations have been performed by introducing a shock of appropriate energy in the pre-collapse stellar model . Such induced calculations, making use of strong and weak interaction nuclear rates , still lack self-consistency and cannot predict the ejected 56Ni-masses from the innermost explosive Si-burning layers (powering supernova light curves by the decay chain 56Ni-56Co-56Fe), due to the missing knowledge of the mass cut between the neutron star and the supernova ejecta. This relates also to the neutron-richness (or $`Y_e`$$`=`$$`<`$$`Z/A`$$`>`$) of the ejected composition and the weak interactions during stellar evolution and the explosion.

Fig. 2 shows the composition after explosive processing  due to the shock wave causing a supernova explosion. The outer ejected layers ($`M(r)`$$`>`$2M) are unprocessed by the explosion and contain results of prior H-, He-, C-, and Ne-burning in stellar evolution. The interior parts of SNe II contain products of explosive Si, O, and Ne burning. In the inner ejecta, which experience explosive Si-burning, $`Y_e`$ changes from 0.4989 to 0.494. The $`Y_e`$ originates from beta-decays and electron captures in the pre-explosive hydrostatic fuel and possible alterations via neutrino reactions during the explosion in these layers. Huge changes occur in the Fe-group composition for mass zones below $`M(r)`$=1.63M. There the abundances of 58Ni and 56Ni become comparable. All neutron-rich isotopes increase (57Ni, 58Ni, 59Cu, 61Zn, and 62Zn), the even-mass isotopes (58Ni and 62Zn) show the strongest effect. One can also recognize the increase of 40Ca, 44Ti, 48Cr, and 52Fe for the inner high entropy zones, but a reduction of these $`N`$=$`Z`$ nuclei in the more neutron-rich layers. More details can be found in extended discussions .

Recent calculations  included all nuclides important for explosive stellar burning (with the exception of a possible r-process in the neutrino wind above the proto-neutron star, see Section 6.2) in an extended reaction network up to Bi. Thus, it became possible to follow the $`\gamma `$-process  (also known as the p-process ) self-consistently. Because of the high temperatures in the explosion previously produced heavy, stable isotopes can be photodisintegrated (mainly via ($`\gamma `$,n) and ($`\gamma `$,$`\alpha `$) reactions) which leads to the formation of proton-rich stable isotopes, called the p-isotopes for historical reasons (indicated as P in Fig. 6). Currently, the $`\gamma `$-process is considered to be the source of the p-elements, however, the latest results may also still allow for a (currently hypothetical) additional contribution from type I X-ray bursts for the low mass p-nuclei (see Section 5.3).

A correct prediction of the amount of Fe-group nuclei ejected (which includes also one of the so-called alpha elements, i.e. Ti) and their relative composition depends directly on the explosion mechanism and the size of the collapsing Fe-core. Three types of uncertainties are inherent in the Fe-group ejecta, related to (i) the total amount of Fe(group) nuclei ejected and the mass cut between neutron star and ejecta, mostly measured by 56Ni decaying to 56Fe, (ii) the total explosion energy which influences the entropy of the ejecta and with it the amount of radioactive 44Ti as well as 48Cr, the latter decaying later to 48Ti and being responsible for elemental Ti, and (iii) finally the neutron richness or $`Y_e`$=$`<Z/A>`$ of the ejecta, dependent on stellar structure, electron captures and neutrino interactions. $`Y_e`$ influences strongly the ratios of isotopes 57/56 in Ni(Co,Fe) and the overall elemental Ni/Fe ratio. The latter being dominated by 58Ni and 56Fe.

The pending understanding of the explosion mechanism also affects possible r-process yields for SNe II. Some calculations seemed to be able to reproduce the solar r-process abundances well in the high entropy neutrino wind, emitted from the hot protoneutron star after the SN II explosion . However, present-day supernova models have difficulties to reproduce the entropies required for such abundance calculations and in addition face problems with abundance features in the mass range 80-120 . The inclusion of non-standard neutrino properties may perhaps achieve low enough $`Y_e`$’s for intermediate entropies to correct for such unwanted features . However, recent observations shed some doubts on the supernova origin. On average SNe II produce Fe to intermediate mass elements in ratios within a factor of 3 of solar. If they would also be responsible for the r-process, the same limits should apply. But the observed bulk r-process/Fe ratios vary widely in low metallicity stars by more than a factor of 100 .

## 4 Type Ia Supernovae

### 4.1 Thermonuclear Explosions

There are strong observational and theoretical indications that SNe Ia are thermonuclear explosions of accreting white dwarfs in binary stellar systems . High rates of H-accretion cause high temperatures at the base of the accreted matter and lead to quasi-stable H-burning and subsequent He-burning in shells surrounding the white dwarf, possibly related to supersoft X-ray sources. This increases the mass of the white dwarf consisting of C and O towards the maximum stable Chandrasekhar mass and leads to contraction.

Contraction causes carbon ignition in the central region and a thermonuclear runway with a complete explosive disruption of the white dwarf . High accretion rates cause a higher central temperature and pressure, favoring lower ignition densities. A flame front then propagates at a subsonic speed as a deflagration wave due to heat transport across the front . Here the most uncertain quantity is the flame speed which depends on the development of instabilities of various scales at the flame front. Multi-dimensional hydro simulations of the flame propagation have suggested that a carbon deflagration wave might propagate at a speed $`v_{\mathrm{def}}`$ as slow as a few percent of the sound speed $`v_\mathrm{s}`$ in the central region of the white dwarf. The nucleosynthesis consequences of such slow flame speeds witness the actual burning front velocities and can thus serve as a constraint. Electron capture affects the central electron fraction $`Y_e`$, which determines the composition of the ejecta from such explosions. The amount of electron capture depends on (i) the electron capture rates of pf-shell nuclei, (ii) $`v_{\mathrm{def}}`$, influencing the time duration of matter at high temperatures (and with it the availability of free protons for electron captures), and (iii) the central density of the white dwarf $`\rho _{ign}`$ (increasing the electron chemical potential i.e. their Fermi energy) .

After an initial deflagration in the central layers, the deflagration can turn into a detonation (supersonic burning front) at lower densities . The transition from a deflagration to a detonation (delayed detonation model) leads to a change in the ratios of Si-burning subcategories with varying entropies. This also leaves an imprint on the Fe-group composition.

### 4.2 Nucleosynthesis Details

Nucleosynthesis constraints can help to find the ”average” SN Ia conditions responsible for their contribution to galactic evolution, i.e. especially the Fe-group composition. SNe Ia contribute essentially no elements lighter than Al, about 1/3 of the elements from Si to Ca, and the dominant amount of Fe group nuclei (Ti to Ni). In addition, the average Fe-group yields of SNe II and SNe Ia differ.

Fig. 3 shows the influence of central ignition densities $`\rho _{ign}`$ 1.37 (C) and 2.12$`\times 10^9`$ g cm-3 (W) at the onset of the thermonuclear runaway and slow (S) deflagration speeds of $`v_{\mathrm{def}}/v_\mathrm{s}`$ = 0.015 (WS15, CS15), 0.03 (WS30,CS30) or 0.05 (CS50) on the resulting $`Y_e`$ due to the different amount of electron capture . $`Y_e`$ values of 0.47-0.485 lead to dominant abundances of 54Fe and 58Ni, values between 0.46 and 0.47 produce dominantly 56Fe, values in the range of 0.45 and below are responsible for 58Fe, 54Cr, 50Ti, 64Ni, and values below 0.43-0.42 are responsible for 48Ca. The intermediate $`Y_e`$-values 0.47-0.485 exist in all cases, but the masses encountered which experience these conditions depend on the $`Y_e`$-gradient and thus $`v_{def}`$. Whether the lower vales with $`Y_e`$$`<`$0.45 are attained, depends on the central ignition density $`\rho _{ign}`$. Therefore, 54Fe and 58Ni are indicators of $`v_{def}`$ while 58Fe, 54Cr, 50Ti, 64Ni, and 48Ca are a measure of $`\rho _{ign}`$. These are the (hydrodynamic) model parameters. An additional uncertainty is the central C/O ratio of the exploding white dwarf . Nuclear uncertainties based on electron capture rates are addressed in the following subsection.

### 4.3 The Effect of Electron Capture Rates

As the electron gas in white dwarfs is degenerate, characterized by high Fermi energies for the high density regions in the center, electron capture on intermediate mass and Fe-group nuclei plays an important role in explosive burning. Electron capture affects the central electron fraction $`Y_e`$, which determines the composition of the ejecta from such explosions. Recently new Shell Model Monte Carlo (SMMC) and large-scale shell model diagonalization calculations have been performed for pf-shell nuclei . These lead in general to a reduction of electron capture rates in comparison with previous, more phenomenological, approaches. Making use of these new shell model based rates, we present the results from Brachwitz et al.  for the composition of Fe-group nuclei produced in the central regions of SNe Ia and possible changes in the constraints on model parameters like ignition densities $`\rho _{ign}`$ and burning front speeds $`v_{def}`$, superceding the results of Fig. 3 .

For a better understanding of the results we employed four rate sets: (i) The original FFN rates by Fuller et al.  as a benchmark for further comparisons; (ii) inclusion of the electron captures rates calculated within the SMMC method , replacing the corresponding FFN rates. SMMC rates were used for the parent nuclei 45Sc,48,50Ti, 51V,50,52Cr,55Mn,54-56,58Fe, and 55,57,59Co, 56,58,60Ni, otherwise rates were taken from FFN; (iii) rates from large-scale shell model diagonalization calculations , labeled with SMFA. (iv) As a further option we treated even-even (ee), odd-A (oa), and odd-odd (oo) nuclei in different ways, in order to test the sensitivity of the models and the importance of the rates of particular nuclei. Such calculations are denoted by SMFA with the corresponding extension ee, oa, oo or by combinations, e.g. ee+oa. With these modifications of the electron capture rates, the nucleosynthesis for the SN Ia models WS15 and CS15  was recalculated . (It should be mentioned here that the SMMC rate set suffers from missing odd-odd nuclei.)

The resulting $`Y_e`$-curves (Fig. 4b) displays a small $`Y_e`$ shift between SMMC and SMFAee+oa, and a larger $`Y_e`$-shift between SMFAee+oa and SMFA. Therefore, the inclusion of odd-odd nuclei has the largest influence on the $`Y_e`$ difference between SMFA and SMMC. The rate change for odd-A nuclei is mostly responsible for the $`Y_e`$-shift between FFN and SMMC, and the inclusion of odd-odd nuclei causes the largest part of the $`Y_e`$-shift between SMMC and SMFA. Thus, the changes in the electron capture rates for odd-A and odd-odd nuclei are responsible for the $`Y_e`$ difference between SMFA and FFN, while the contribution of even-even nuclei is negligible, an assertion which was directly tested by case SMFAee (Fig. 4b).

Notice, however, that the changes for a given model (here WS15 and CS15) lead to almost parallel $`Y_e`$-curves in the intermediate $`Y_e`$-range responsible for the major abundances of 54Fe and 58Ni. This can also be seen in the close to constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y_e`$-curves in Fig. 4d. Thus, a change in electron capture rates does (to first order) not affect the $`Y_e`$-gradient of a model, which is therefore only determined by $`v_{def}`$ . Therefore, we can conclude that the consequences for the permitted range of burning front speeds remain the same. The conclusions to be drawn from these results are that: (i) $`v_{def}`$ in the range 1.5–3% of the sound speed is preferred (cases 15 and 30 over 50) , and (ii) the change in pf-shell electron capture rates  made it possible to have ignition densities as high as $`\rho _{ign}`$$`=`$$`2\times 10^9`$ g cm-3 without distroying the agreement with solar abundances of very neutron-rich species . It seems, however, hard to produce amounts of 48Ca sufficient to explain solar abundances in the exploding white dwarfs with these changes and more realistic C/O ratios .

## 5 The rp-Process and X-ray Bursts

### 5.1 Explosive hydrogen burning

The major astrophysical events which involve explosive H-burning are novae and type I X-ray bursts. Both are related to binary stellar systems with hydrogen accretion from a binary companion onto a compact object, and the explosive ignition of the accreted H-layer. High densities cause the pressure to be dominated by the degenerate electron gas, preventing a stable and controlled burning. In the case of novae the compact object is a white dwarf, in the case of X-ray bursts it is a neutron star. Explosive H-burning in novae has been discussed in many recent articles . Its processing is limited due to maximum temperatures of $``$3$`\times 10^8`$K. Only in X-ray bursts temperatures larger than 4$`\times 10^8`$K are possible.

### 5.2 Type I X-ray bursts

In type I X-ray bursts  hydrogen (and helium) burn explosively in a thermonuclear runaway. In essentially all nuclei below Ca, the proton capture reaction on the nucleus ($`Z_{even}`$–1,$`N`$=$`Z_{even}`$) produces the compound nucleus above the alpha-particle threshold and permits a $`(p,\alpha )`$ reaction. This is typically not the case for ($`Z_{even}`$–1,$`N`$=$`Z_{even}`$–1) due to the smaller proton separation energy, which leads to hot CNO-type cycles above Ne . There is one exception, $`Z_{even}`$=10, where the reaction 18F($`p,\alpha )`$ is possible, avoiding 19F and a possible leak via 19F($`p,\gamma )`$ into the NeNaMg-cycle. This has the effect that only alpha induced reactions like 15O($`\alpha ,\gamma )`$ can aid a break-out from the hot CNO-cycle to heavier nuclei beyond Ne . Break-out reactions from the hot CNO-type cycles above Ne proceed typically via proton captures on the nucleus ($`Z_{even}`$,$`N`$=$`Z_{even}`$-1) . They occur at temperatures of about $`3\times 10^8`$K, while the alpha-induced break-out from the hot CNO-cycle itself is delayed to about $`4\times 10^8`$K.

In the next stage of the ignition process also He is burned via the 3$`\alpha `$-reaction and the $`\alpha `$p-process (a sequence of ($`\alpha ,p`$) and ($`p,\gamma `$) reactions), which provides seed nuclei for hydrogen burning via the rp-process (proton captures and beta-decays). Processing of the rp-process beyond 56Ni is shown in Fig. 5 . Certain nuclei play the role of long waiting points in the reaction flux, where long beta-decay half-lives dominate the flow, either competing with slow ($`\alpha ,p`$) reactions or negligible $`(p,\gamma )`$ reactions, because they are inhibited by inverse photodisintegrations for the given temperatures. Such nuclei were identified as 25Si ($`\tau _{1/2}`$=0.22s), 29S (0.187s), 34Ar (0.844s), 38Ca (0.439s) . The bottle neck at 56Ni can only be bridged for minimum temperatures around $`10^9`$K (in order to overcome the proton capture Coulomb barrier), maximum temperatures below $`2\times 10^9`$K (in order to avoid photodisintegrations), and high densities exceeding $`10^6`$g cm-3 . If this bottle neck can be overcome, other waiting points like 64Ge (64s), 68Se (96s), 74Kr (17s) seem to be hard to pass. However, partially temperature dependent half-lives (due to excited state population), or mostly 2p-capture reactions (introduced in  and applied in ) can help.

### 5.3 The final composition

The initial break-out reactions from hot CNO-type cycles and the hold-ups at waiting points introduce a time structure in energy generation. One of the essential questions is whether they can/will show up in the X-ray light-curves of bursts. The other question is whether individual proton-capture reactions matter, because at peak temperatures $`(p,\gamma )`$-$`(\gamma ,p)`$ equilibria are attained, leading to an equilibrium distribution along isotonic lines, where only beta-decays might matter. The latter was claimed  based on an X-ray burst temperature profile provided by F. Rembges . This paper showed (as should be expected from the late equilibrium conditions) that with a given temporal temperature profile the resulting composition does not depend on individual reactions. Thus, the important question is whether the feedback from hydrodynamics, due to the changed energy input in the early ignition stages when the break-out reactions occur, leads to different temperature profiles and thus different final abundances.

The results of a self-consistent calculation can be seen in Fig. 6 from  which shows the radius of the burning shell, the velocity, the luminosity, and the temperature. The difference between calculations with the old REACLIB rates  and the ones with updated cross sections for the break-out points 27Si, 31S, 35Ar, and 38Ca emerges at the expected temperatures of $`(34)\times 10^8`$K, when these break-out reactions occur. At that point the nuclei beyond Ne will burn towards Ni/Fe. This energy input causes the temperature increase which will then permit the hot CNO break-out via alpha-induced reactions and later on also the triple-alpha link to 12C. This leads to the burning of 4He and the temperature peak for the rp-process with a chemical equilibrium for proton-capture reactions. However, as the initial break-out phase differs, different pre-expansions occur, causing different densities and also different peak temperatures.

A similar effect was found recently in further self-consistent burst calculations , when REACLIB rates in the mass range $`A`$=44–63 were replaced by cross sections based on predictions of resonance properties from shell model calculations . These effects are even more drastic, again due to the early burning phase when matter beyond Ne burns up to Fe, before the alpha-captures begin. This shows that a more precise determination of specific reaction rates is important, when self-consistent network plus hydrodynamics calculations are performed. The peak temperatures and densities attained in X-ray burst calculations depend on this cross sections input.

If only a small percentage of the synthesized matter escapes the strong gravitational field of the neutron star, some proton-rich stable nuclei (p-process nuclei) below $`A`$=100 (indicated as P in Fig.5) could be explained in the solar system abundances.

## 6 The r-Process

### 6.1 Abundances and Nuclear Properties far from Stability

Site-independent classical analyses, based on neutron number density $`n_n`$, temperature $`T`$, and duration time $`\tau `$, led to the conclusion that the r-process experienced a fast drop from an $`(n,\gamma )(\gamma ,n)`$ chemical equilibrium in each isotopic chain. The combination of $`n_n`$ and $`T`$ determines an r-process path in the nuclear chart along nuclei with a neutron separation energy $`S_n(n_n,T)`$. Thus, the r-process and its abundance features probe nuclear structure far from stability via mass properties and the beta-decay half-lives along contour lines of constant $`S_n`$ . This gives some indication for the need of quenching of nuclear shell effects far from stability . A continuous superposition of components with neutron separation energies in the range 1–4 MeV on timescales of 1–2.5 s, provides a good overall fit . For the heavier elements beyond A=130 this is reduced to about $`S_n`$=1–3 MeV. These are predominantly nuclei not accessible in laboratory experiments to date. Exceptions exist in the $`A=80`$ and 130 peaks and continuous efforts are underway to extend experimental information in these regions of the closed shells $`N`$=50 and 82 with radioactive ion beam facilities . A recent detailed analysis of the A=206–209 abundance contributions to Pb and Bi isotopes from alpha-decay chains of heavier nuclei permitted for the first time also to predict abundances of nuclei as heavy as Th with reasonable accuracy . These results are shown in Fig. 7.

The endpoint of the r-process path is determined by $`\beta `$-delayed fission when the path reaches fissionable nuclei. Fission fragments may alter not only the heavy element abundances but may also give rise to an exponential enhancement of the general r-process abundances, in sites where an extended duration of the high-flux neutron supply leads to fission cycling, such as in some inhomogeneous big bang models  or neutron star mergers (see the next section). The knowledge of fission barriers and an improved theoretical treatment of $`\beta `$-delayed fission (involving fission of highly excited nuclei) is crucial for the future investigation of these effects.

### 6.2 Possible Stellar r-Process Sites

A different question is related to the actual astrophysical realization of such conditions. The observations of stellar spectra of low metallicity stars, stemming from the very early phases of galactic evolution, are all consistent with a solar r-abundance pattern for elements heavier than Ba, and the relative abundances among heavy elements apparently do not show any time evolution . This suggests that all contributing events produce the same relative r-process abundances for the heavy masses, although a single astrophysical site will still have varying conditions in different ejected mass zones, leading to a superposition of individual components.

However, from meteoritic abundances and observations in low metallicity stars we also know by now that at least two r-process sources have to contribute to the solar r-process abundances . The observed non-solar r-process pattern for e.g. Ag, I, and Pd in some objects indicate the need for a second r-process component in the nuclear mass range A$``$80–120, in addition to the main process which provides a solar r-process pattern beyond Ba . It is not exactly clear which of the two processes is related to SNe II and which one is related to possible other sources.

An r-process requires 10 to 150 neutrons per seed nucleus (in the Fe-peak or somewhat beyond) which have to be available to form all heavier r-process nuclei by neutron capture. For a composition of Fe-group nuclei and free neutrons that translates into a $`Y_e=`$$`<`$$`Z/A`$$`>`$$`=`$0.12–0.3. Such a high neutron excess is only possible for high densities in neutron stars under beta equilibrium ($`e^{}+pn+\nu `$, $`\mu _e+\mu _p=\mu _n`$), based on the high electron Fermi energies which are comparable to the neutron-proton mass difference. Neutron star mergers which eject such matter are a possible (low entropy) site  and have been debated in the past. Recent calculations show that on average about $`10^2`$ M of neutron-rich matter are ejected . This amount depends on the central high density equation of state  encountered in these events. Present calculations show densities up to four times nuclear matter density and temperatures of up to 50 MeV . First nucleosynthesis calculations with assumptions on $`Y_e`$ predict a solar-type r-process pattern for nuclei beyond A=130 , shown in Fig. 8. The smaller masses are depleted due to a long duration r-process with a large neutron supply in such neutron-rich matter, which also leads to fission cycling . This seems (accidentally?) in accordance with the main observed r-process component. Given the frequency ($`10^5`$y-1 per galaxy) and amount of ejected matter, this component alone could be responsible for the heavy solar r-process pattern and also explain the large scatter of r/Fe elements found in low metallicity stars . Neutron star - black hole mergers have not yet been analyzed with the same accuracy, but bear similar options.

Another option is an extremely alpha-rich (i.e. high entropy) freeze-out in complete Si-burning with moderate $`Y_e`$$`>`$0.40, which however faces some of the problems already mentioned in the section on SNe II . A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of both possible r-process sources (SNe II vs. neutron star mergers) is given in refs. .

## 7 Conclusions

This overview concentrated on nuclear physics issues important in stellar evolution, supernovae (type II and Ia), X-ray bursts and the rp-process, and analyzed the options and sites of r-process nucleosynthesis. These are the major contributions to galactic evolution. Nucleosynthesis calculations have a right on their own to predict abundance patterns for many stellar events, but they can also serve as a tool to test the correctness of model descriptions, either in comparison to direct observations or indirect information from galactic evolution. We tried to show (especially for SNe Ia and II), how specific isotopic abundances can test ignition densities, burning front velocities or explosion energies, entropies, and temperatures. These are the astrophysical model constraints. But it was also clearly demonstrated how advances in nuclear physics (nuclear reaction cross sections, weak interaction rates in the pf-shell, neutrino-nucleus interactions, decay properties far from stability, nuclear structure far from stability, fission properties and yields, the nuclear equation of state at high densities and temperatures) are essential for the outcome and correct modeling of these events.

This review would not have been possible without discussing and presenting results from joint collaborations with J.J. Cowan, D. Dean, R.D. Hoffman, K. Iwamoto, F. Käppeler, M. Strayer, J.W. Truran, and S.E. Woosley.