text:
# Untitled Document

Fusion rules and the Patera-Sharp generating-function method\*

\*Contribution to the Proceedings of the Workshop on symmetry in physics in memory of Robert T. Sharp, September 12-14, 2002, Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal, edited by P. Winternitz. This work was supported in part by NSERC.

L. Bégin, C. Cummins, P. Mathieu and M.A. Walton

$``$ Secteur Sciences, Campus d’Edmundston,

Université de Moncton, Nouveau-Brunswick, Canada, E3V 2S8

Mathematics Department, Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3G 1M8

Département de Physique, Université Laval, Québec, Canada G1K 7P4

Physics Department, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4

Abstract

We review some contributions on fusion rules that were inspired by the work of Sharp, in particular, the generating-function method for tensor-product coefficients that he developed with Patera. We also review the Kac-Walton formula, the concepts of threshold level, fusion elementary couplings, fusion generating functions and fusion bases. We try to keep the presentation elementary and exemplify each concept with the simple $`\widehat{su}(2)_k`$ case.

1. Introduction

The Patera-Sharp generating function for $`su(2)`$ tensor products reads :

$$G^{su\left(2\right)}(L,M,N)=\frac{1}{\left(1LM\right)\left(1LN\right)\left(1MN\right)}$$
$`\left(1.1\right)`$
where the multiplicity of the representation $`(n)`$ in the tensor product $`(\mathrm{})(m)`$ is the coefficient of $`L^{\mathrm{}}M^mN^n`$ in the series expansion of (1.1). The derivation of this expression is based on manipulations of the character generating functions .

Key concepts on fusion rules have been obtained by looking for the affine-fusion extension of this simple-looking expression and its simplest higher-rank relatives. These are: the threshold level, fusion elementary couplings and fusion bases. Before reviewing these results, we briefly discuss the Kac-Walton formula. This last result can also be linked, albeit loosely, to Bob Sharp. Indeed, it is an affine extension of the Racah-Speiser algorithm for computing tensor-product coefficients, one of Sharp’s favorite techniques. He presented it in his course on group theory, where two of the authors (PM and MW) learned the fundamentals of this subject.

2. Fusion rules: the set up

Fusion rules give the number of independent couplings between three given primary fields in conformal field theories. We are interested in those conformal field theories having a Lie algebra symmetry. These are the Wess-Zumino-Witten models , whose spectrum-generating algebra is an affine Lie algebra at integer level. Their primary fields are in 1-1 correspondence with the integrable representations of the appropriate affine Lie algebra at level $`k`$. Denote this set by $`P_+^{(k)}`$ and a primary field by the corresponding affine weight $`\widehat{\lambda }`$. Fusion coefficients $`𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{(k)}^{\widehat{\nu }}`$ are defined by the fusion product

$$\widehat{\lambda }\times \widehat{\mu }=\underset{\nu P_+^{\left(k\right)}}{}𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{\left(k\right)}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{\nu }}\widehat{\nu }$$
$`\left(2.1\right)`$
To simplify the presentation, we consider only the algebra $`\widehat{su}(N)`$.

An affine weight may be written as

$$\widehat{\lambda }=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\lambda _i\widehat{\omega }_i=[\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1}]$$
$`\left(2.2\right)`$
where $`\widehat{\omega }_i`$ denote the fundamental weights of $`\widehat{su}(N)`$. If the Dynkin labels $`\lambda _i`$ are nonnegative integers, the weight $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ is the highest weight of an integrable representation of $`\widehat{su}(N)`$ at level $`k`$, with $`k`$ defined by $`k=_{i=0}^{N1}\lambda _i`$. To the affine weight $`\widehat{\lambda }`$, we associate a finite weight $`\lambda `$ of the finite algebra $`su(N)`$:

$$\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\lambda _i\omega _i=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1})$$
$`\left(2.3\right)`$
where $`\omega _i`$ are the fundamental weights of $`su(N)`$. Thus $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ is uniquely fixed by $`\lambda `$ and $`k`$.

3. Fusion rules and tensor products: the Kac-Walton formula

The fusion coefficient $`𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{(k)}^{\widehat{\nu }}`$ is fixed to a large extent by the tensor-product coefficient pertaining to the product of the corresponding finite representations. We denote by $`𝒩_{\lambda \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }`$ the multiplicity of the representation $`\nu `$ in the tensor product $`\lambda \mu `$:

$$\lambda \mu =\underset{\nu P_+}{}𝒩_{\lambda \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\nu $$
$`\left(3.1\right)`$
By abuse of notation, we use the same symbol for the highest weight and the highest-weight representation. $`P_+`$ represents the set of integrable finite weights. The precise relation between tensor-product and fusion-rule coefficients is given by the Kac-Walton formula :

$$𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{\left(k\right)}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{\nu }}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\xi P_+}{w\widehat{W},w\widehat{\xi }=\widehat{\nu }P_+^{\left(k\right)}}}{}𝒩_{\lambda \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\xi }ϵ\left(w\right)$$
$`\left(3.2\right)`$
$`w`$ is an element of the affine Weyl group $`\widehat{W}`$, of sign $`ϵ(w)`$, and the dot indicates the shifted action: $`w\widehat{\lambda }=w(\widehat{\lambda }+\widehat{\rho })\widehat{\rho }`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }`$ stands for the affine Weyl vector $`\widehat{\rho }=_{i=0}^{N1}\widehat{\omega }_i.`$

The Kac-Walton formula can be transcribed into a simple algorithm: one first calculates the tensor product of the corresponding finite weights and then extends every weight to its affine version at the appropriate level $`k`$. Weights with negative zeroth Dynkin label are then shift-reflected to the integrable affine sector. Weights that cannot be shift-reflected to the integrable sector are ignored (this is the case, for example, for those with zeroth Dynkin label equal to $`1`$).

Here is a simple example: consider the $`su(2)`$ tensor-product

$$\left(2\right)\left(4\right)=\left(2\right)\left(4\right)\left(6\right)$$
$`\left(3.3\right)`$
and its affine extension at level 4:

$$[2,2]\times [0,4]=[2,2]+[0,4]+[2,6]$$
$`\left(3.4\right)`$
The last weight must be reflected since it is not integrable: the shifted action of $`s_0`$, the reflection with respect to the zeroth affine root, is

$$s_0[2,6]=s_0\left([2,6]+[1,1]\right)[1,1]=[0,4]$$
$`\left(3.5\right)`$
and this contributes with a minus sign ($`ϵ(s_0)=1`$), cancelling then the other $`[0,4]`$ representation; we thus find:

$$[2,2]\times [0,4]=[2,2]$$
$`\left(3.6\right)`$
The relation between tensor products and fusion was further explored in , published in a special volume of the Canadian Journal of Physics dedicated to Prof. R.T. Sharp.

4. The idea of threshold level

The result of the above computation is manifestly level dependent. Let us reconsider the same product, but at level 5. The affine extension of the product becomes

$$[3,2]\times [1,4]=[3,2]+[1,4]+[1,6]$$
$`\left(4.1\right)`$
The last weight is thus ignored and the final result is $`[3,2]\times [1,4]=[3,2]+[1,4]`$. For $`k>5`$ it is clear that there are no truncations, hence no difference between the fusion coefficients and the tensor products. Moreover, we see that the representation $`(4)`$ occurs at level 5 and higher. We then say that its threshold level, denoted by $`k_0`$, is $`5`$. The threshold level is thus the smallest value of $`k`$ such that the fusion coefficient $`𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{(k)}^{\widehat{\nu }}`$ is non-zero, when $`𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{(k)}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{\nu }}\{0,1\}`$, for all levels $`k`$.1 More generally, we say there are $`𝒩_{\lambda \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }`$ couplings, each having its own threshold level $`k_0`$. For fixed $`\{\lambda ,\mu ;\nu \}`$ then, one gets a multi-set of threshold levels. A simple example: $`su\left(3\right)`$ with $`\lambda =\mu =\nu `$ labelling the adjoint representation has threshold levels $`\{2,3\}`$. If we indicate the threshold level by a subscript, we can write

$$\left(2\right)\left(4\right)=\left(2\right)_4\left(4\right)_5\left(6\right)_6$$
$`\left(4.2\right)`$
To read off a fusion at fixed level $`k`$, we only keep terms with index not greater than $`k`$. This implies directly the inequality

$$𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{\left(k\right)}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{\nu }}𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{\left(k+1\right)}^{\widehat{\nu }}$$
$`\left(4.3\right)`$
which in turn yields

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{\left(k\right)}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{\nu }}=𝒩_{\lambda \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }$$
$`\left(4.4\right)`$
The concept of threshold level was first introduced in . Its origin is directly rooted in the generating-function method applied to fusion rules. This is reviewed in the next section, focusing again on the simple $`\widehat{su}(2)`$ case.

5. Fusion generating functions

The result (1.1) on the $`su(2)`$ tensor-product generating function can be understood as follows: all couplings can be described by appropriate products of three tensor-product elementary couplings:

$$E_1=LME_2=LNE_3=MN$$
$`\left(5.1\right)`$
$`G^{su\left(2\right)}`$ can thus be written compactly as

$$G^{su\left(2\right)}(L,M,N)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{\left(1E_i\right)}$$
$`\left(5.2\right)`$
How can we construct the affine extension of this generating function? One certainly needs to introduce a further dummy variable, say $`d`$, in order to keep track of the extra variable $`k`$. Then one could try to introduce factors of $`d`$ appropriately. A natural guess is

$$G^{\widehat{su}\left(2\right)}=\frac{1}{\left(1d\right)\left(1dLM\right)\left(1dLN\right)\left(1dMN\right)}$$
$`\left(5.3\right)`$
That turns out to be the right answer: this reproduces the $`\widehat{su}(2)_k`$ fusion rules. The prefactor is justified as follows: the fusion of the ‘vacuum’ with itself, $`[k,0]\times [k,0]=[k,0]`$, exists at every level and this is precisely taken into account by the factor $`1/(1d)`$. With the threshold level insight, we can also naturally justify the factors of $`d`$ multiplying the three elementary couplings: their power yields their threshold level. This expression was first proved in . From this example and that of the $`\widehat{su}(3)`$ generating function, we conjectured that any fusion coupling is characterized by a threshold level. This was subsequently checked with the $`\widehat{so}(5)`$ case . This is now understood to be a consequence of the Gepner-Witten depth rule , as shown in .

From the above expression, we also infer the existence of fusion elementary couplings. For $`\widehat{su}(2)`$, there are four of them

|  | $`\widehat{E}_0:d:\left(0\right)\left(0\right)\left(0\right)_1`$ | $`\widehat{E}_1:dLM:\left(1\right)\left(1\right)\left(0\right)_1,`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\widehat{E}_2:dLN:\left(1\right)\left(0\right)\left(1\right)_1,`$ | $`\widehat{E}_3:dMN:\left(0\right)\left(1\right)\left(1\right)_1.`$ |

$`\left(5.4\right)`$
As explained above, subscripts indicate the threshold level.

A re-derivation of (5.3) was presented in . The method used there was amenable to generalization, unlike the original proof in . Consequently,  displays further examples of fusion generating functions.

6. Tensor products, linear inequalities and elementary couplings

There are simple combinatorial methods that can be used for calculating $`su(N)`$ tensor products, for instance, the Littlewood-Richardson (LR) rule. It is thus natural to ask whether we can read off the threshold level of a coupling from its LR tableau.

Integrable weights in $`su(N)`$ can be represented by tableaux: the weight $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1})`$ is associated to a left justified tableau of $`N1`$ rows with $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{N1}`$ boxes in the first row, $`\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{N1}`$ boxes in the second row, etc. Equivalently, the tableau has $`\lambda _1`$ columns of 1 box, $`\lambda _2`$ columns of 2 boxes, etc. The scalar representation has no boxes, or equivalently, any number of columns of $`N`$ boxes. For instance:

$$su\left(3\right):(1,1)\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1    1  }\end{array}su\left(4\right):(2,3,0)\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1  }\end{array}$$
$`\left(6.1\right)`$
The Littlewood-Richardson rule is a simple combinatorial algorithm that calculates the decomposition of the tensor product of two $`su(N)`$ representations $`\lambda \mu `$. The second tableau ($`\mu `$) is filled with numbers as follows: the first row with $`1`$’s, the second row with $`2`$’s, etc. All the boxes with a $`1`$ are then added to the first tableau according to following restrictions: (1) the resulting tableau must be regular: the number of boxes in a given row must be smaller or equal to the number of boxes in the row just above; (2) the resulting tableau must not contain two boxes marked by $`1`$ in the same column. All the boxes marked by a $`2`$ are then added to the resulting tableaux according to the above two rules (with $`1`$ replaced by $`2`$) and the further restriction: (3) in counting from right to left and top to bottom, the number of $`1`$’s must always be greater or equal to the number of $`2`$’s. The process is repeated with the boxes marked by a $`3,4,\mathrm{},N1`$, with the additional rule that the number of $`i`$’s must always be greater or equal to the number of $`i+1`$’s when counted from right to left and top to bottom. The resulting Littlewood-Richardson (LR) tableaux are the Young tableaux of the irreducible representations occurring in the decomposition.

Here is a simple $`su(3)`$ example: $`(1,1)(1,1)2(1,1)`$ since we can draw two LR tableaux with shape $`(1,1)`$ and an extra column of three boxes (the total number of boxes being preserved, the resulting LR tableau must have 6 boxes):

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1    1    1    2    1  }\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1    1    1    1    2  }\end{array}$$
$`\left(6.2\right)`$
These rules can be rephrased in an algebraic way as follows . Define $`n_{ij}`$ to be the number of boxes $`i`$ that appear in the LR tableau in the row $`j`$. The LR conditions read:

$$\lambda _{j1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k1}{}}n_{ij1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}n_{ij}01k<jNj1$$
$`\left(6.3\right)`$
and

$$\underset{j=i}{\overset{k}{}}n_{i1j1}\underset{j=i}{\overset{k}{}}n_{ij}02ikN\mathrm{and}iN1.$$
$`\left(6.4\right)`$
The weight $`\mu `$ of the second tableau and the weight $`\nu `$ of the resulting LR tableau are easily recovered from these data.

The combined equations (6.3) and (6.4) constitute a set of linear and homogeneous inequalities. We call this the LR (or tensor-product) basis. As described in , the Hilbert basis theorem guarantees that every solution can be expanded in terms of the elementary solutions of these inequalities. This is a key concept for the following (see  for an extensive discussion of these methods). A sum of two solutions translates into the product of the corresponding couplings, more precisely, to the stretched product (denoted by $``$) of the corresponding two LR tableaux. This is defined as follows. Denote the void boxes of a LR tableau by a 0, so that $`n_{0j}=_{i=j}^{N1}\lambda _i`$, A tableau is thus completely characterized by the data $`\{n_{ij}\}`$ where now $`i0`$. Then, the tableau obtained by the stretched product of the tableaux $`\{n_{ij}\}`$ and $`\{n_{ij}^{}\}`$ is simply described by the numbers $`\{n_{ij}+n_{ij}^{}\}`$, e.g.,

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1    1    1    2    2    2    3    4  }\end{array}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1    1    1    1    2    1    2  }\end{array}\end{array}=\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    2    2    2    1    2    2    3    4  }\end{array}\end{array}$$
$`\left(6.5\right)`$
Let us now turn to the $`su(2)`$ case. The complete set of inequalities for $`su(2)`$ variables $`\{\lambda _1,n_{11},n_{12}\}`$ is simply

$$\lambda _1n_{12}n_{11}0n_{12}0$$
$`\left(6.6\right)`$
The first one expresses the fact that two boxes marked by a 1 cannot be in the same column while the other two are obvious. The other weights are fixed by the relation $`\mu _1=n_{11}+n_{12}`$ and $`\nu _1=\lambda _1+n_{11}n_{12}.`$ Any solution of these inequalities describes a coupling. By inspection, the elementary solutions of this set of inequalities are

$$(\lambda _1,n_{11},n_{12})=(1,0,1),(1,0,0),(0,1,0)$$
$`\left(6.7\right)`$
(For more complicated cases, we point out that powerful methods to find the elementary solutions are described in .) These correspond to the following LR tableaux, denoted respectively $`E_1,E_2,E_3`$:

$$E_1:\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1  }\end{array},E_2:\begin{array}{c}\text{  1  }\end{array},E_3:\begin{array}{c}\text{  1  }\end{array}$$
$`\left(6.8\right)`$
It is also manifest that there are no linear relations between these couplings. Any stretched product of these elementary tableaux is an allowed $`su(2)`$ coupling. Because there are no relations between the elementary couplings, this decomposition is unique. We thus see that the description of the elementary couplings captures, in a rather economical way, the whole set of solutions of (6.6), that is, the whole set of $`su(2)`$ couplings.

7. Reformulating the fusion rules in terms of linear inequalitites

Consider now the affine-fusion extension of the reformulation of the $`su(2)`$ tensor products in terms of linear inequalitites. The elementary couplings have a natural affine extension, denoted by a hat, and their threshold levels are easily computed from the Kac-Walton formula.2 Let us mention here that for the classical simple Lie algebras, the tableau methods for tensor products have been modified to implement the Kac-Walton formula for fusions – see  in the Sharp volume of the Canadian Journal of Physics. The result is: $`k_0(\widehat{E}_i)=1`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. We observe that these values of $`k_0`$ are the same as the number of columns. Since the product of fusion elementary couplings is also a fusion and because this decomposition is unique, we can read off the threshold level of any coupling, hence of any LR tableau, simply from the number of its columns:

$$k_0=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{columns}=\lambda _1+n_{11}$$
$`\left(7.1\right)`$
And since $`k`$ is necessarily greater that $`k_0`$, we have obtained the extra inequality:

$$k\lambda _1+n_{11}$$
$`\left(7.2\right)`$
This together with (6.6) yield a set of inequalities describing completely the fusion rules. This is what we call a fusion basis, here the fusion basis of $`\widehat{su}(2)`$. As in the finite case, the fusion couplings can be described in terms of elementary fusions. These correspond to the elementary solutions of the four inequalities, which are easily found to be

$$(k,\lambda _1,n_{11},n_{12})=(1,0,0,0),(1,1,0,1),(1,1,0,0),(1,0,1,0)$$
$`\left(7.3\right)`$
They correspond respectively to the coupling

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \widehat{E}_0:[1,0]\times [1,0][1,0]\widehat{E}_2:[0,1]\times [1,0][0,1],\hfill \\ & \widehat{E}_1:[0,1]\times [0,1][1,0]\widehat{E}_3:[1,0]\times [0,1][0,1].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`\left(7.4\right)`$
Any fusion has an unique decomposition in terms of these elementary couplings. For instance

$$[3,2]\times [1,4][1,4]\begin{array}{c}\text{  1    1    1    1    1    1  }\end{array}\widehat{E}_1\widehat{E}_2\widehat{E}_3^3:k_0=5$$
$`\left(7.5\right)`$
8. Constructing the fusion basis: Farkas’ lemma

For algebras other than $`\widehat{su}(2)`$, the threshold level is not simply the number of columns. So the question is: how can we derive the fusion basis? The following strategy was developed in :

1) Write the LR inequalities;

2) from these, find the tensor-product elementary couplings;

3) from these, find fusion elementary couplings;

4) from these, reconstruct the fusion basis.

To go from step 2 to step 3, we need some tools; we describe below a method based on the outer automorphism group. Similarly to go from 3 to 4, we need a further ingredient: this is the Farkas’ lemma. We discuss these techniques in turn.

Let us start from the set of tensor-product elementary couplings $`\{E_i,iI\}`$ for some set $`I`$ fixed by the particular $`su(N)`$ algebra under study. For each $`E_i`$, we calculate the threshold level $`k_0(E_i)`$ and this datum specifies the affine extension of $`E_i`$, denoted $`\widehat{E}_i`$. We have then a partial set of fusion elementary couplings with the set $`\{\widehat{E}_i,iI\}`$. Our conjecture is that the missing fusion elementary couplings can all be generated by the action of the outer-automorphism group. For $`\widehat{su}(N)`$, this group is simply $`\{a^n|n=0,\mathrm{},N1\}`$, with

$$a[\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N1}]=[\lambda _{N1},\lambda _0,\mathrm{},\lambda _{N2}]$$
$`\left(8.1\right)`$
The conjecture is based on the invariance relation

$$𝒩_{a^n\widehat{\lambda },a^m\widehat{\mu }}^{\left(k\right)a^{n+m}\widehat{\nu }}=𝒩_{\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{\mu }}^{\left(k\right)}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{\nu }}$$
$`\left(8.2\right)`$
It amounts to supposing that the full set is contained in $`\{𝒜\widehat{E}_i,iI,𝒜\}`$. Here $`𝒜\widehat{E}_i`$ indicates a coupling of weights

$$𝒜\{\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu };\widehat{\nu }\}=\{a^n\widehat{\lambda },a^m\widehat{\mu };a^{n+m}\widehat{\nu }\},$$
$`\left(8.3\right)`$
$`n,m`$ being arbitrary integers defined modulo $`N`$, if $`\widehat{E}_i`$ has weights $`\{\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu };\widehat{\nu }\}`$. The conjectured completeness requires the consideration of all possible pairs $`(n,m)`$.3 Note that we do not suppose that the action of $`𝒜`$ on an elementary coupling will necessarily produce another elementary coupling. Indeed, the resulting coupling could be a product of elementary couplings. What is conjectured here is that all fusion elementary couplings can be generated in this way.

Let us illustrate this with the $`\widehat{su}(2)`$ case. Start with the elementary coupling $`E_1:(1)(1)(0)`$, which, as already indicated, arises at level 1: $`k_0(E_1)=1`$. The corresponding fusion is thus $`[0,1]\times [0,1][1,0]`$, denoted as $`\widehat{E}_1`$. We now consider all possible actions of the outer-automorphims group on it. Since this group is of order 2, there are 4 possible choices for the doublet $`(n,m)`$:

$$(a^n,a^m)\{(a,a),(1,1),(1,a),(a,1)\}$$
$`\left(8.4\right)`$
with $`a[\lambda _0,\lambda _1]=[\lambda _1,\lambda _0]`$. This generates the set of four elementary couplings found previously, in the respective order $`\widehat{E}_0,\widehat{E}_1,\widehat{E}_2,\widehat{E}_3`$. Thus, from one tensor-product elementary coupling, all four fusion elementary couplings are deduced.

We now turn to Farkas’ lemma. For its presentation, it is convenient to use an exponential description of the couplings, that is,

$$(k,\lambda _i,n_{ij})d^kL_i^{k_i}N_{ij}^{n_{ij}}$$
$`\left(8.5\right)`$
$`d,L_i,N_{ij}`$ being dummy variables. For instance $`\widehat{E}_1`$ is represented by $`dL_1N_{12}`$. If we collectively describe a coupling by the complete set of variables $`\{x_i\}`$, we have

$$\left\{x_i\right\}\left\{X_i^{x_i}\right\}$$
$`\left(8.6\right)`$
A particular coupling is thus described by a given product $`_iX_i^{x_i}`$ with fixed $`x_i`$. Its decomposition in terms of elementary couplings take the form $`_i\widehat{E}_i^{a_i}`$. Now, since $`\widehat{E}_i`$ can be decomposed in terms of the $`X_j`$ as

$$\widehat{E}_i=\underset{j}{}X_j^{ϵ_{ij}}$$
$`\left(8.7\right)`$
it means that reading off a particular coupling means that we are interested in a specific choice set of positive integers $`\{x_i\}`$ fixed by

$$\underset{i}{}a_iϵ_{ij}=x_j$$
$`\left(8.8\right)`$
in terms of some positive integers $`a_i`$. We are thus looking for the existence conditions for such a coupling, i.e., the underlying set of linear and homogeneous inequalities. This is exactly what the Farkas’ lemma  gives us: given the knowledge of the elementary couplings, it allows us to recover the underlying set of inequalities. For tensor products, this is of no interest since we know the corresponding set of inequalities and our elementary couplings have been extracted from them. But the situation is quite different in the fusion case, where the fusion basis is unknown.

For our application we need the following modification of the lemma, proved in :

Lemma: Let $`A`$ be an $`r\times m`$ integer matrix and let $`ϵ_j`$ $`\left(j=1,\mathrm{},n\right)`$ be a set of fundamental solutions to

$$Ax0,x\mathrm{}^m.$$
$`\left(8.9\right)`$
Let $`V`$ be the $`m\times n`$ matrix with entries $`V_{ij}=\left(ϵ_j\right)_i`$ (for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m,j=1,\mathrm{},n)`$, i.e., the columns of $`V`$ are a set of fundamental solutions to (8.9). Let $`e_w`$ $`\left(w=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\right)`$ be a fundamental system of solutions of $`u^{}V0`$, (not necessarily positive) $`u\mathrm{}^m`$, and let $`E`$ be the $`\mathrm{}\times m`$ matrix with entries $`E_{wi}=\left(e_w\right)_i`$, i.e., the rows of $`E`$ are the fundamental solutions $`e_w`$ $`\left(w=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\right)`$. Then the solution set of the system

$$Ex0,x\mathrm{}^m$$
$`\left(8.10\right)`$
is the same as the solution set of (8.9).

To link the lemma to the situation presented above, we note that the entries $`V_{ij}`$ of the matrix $`V`$ are given here by the numbers $`ϵ_{ji}`$ appearing in (8.7). The relation $`Va=x`$ describes a generic coupling $`_i\widehat{E}_i^{a_i}`$, and our goal is to find the defining system of inequalities for $`x`$ that underly the existence of this coupling.

Take a simple example, the $`\widehat{su}(2)`$ case. The elementary couplings and the corresponding vectors $`ϵ_i`$ are

|  | $`\widehat{E}_0:d:`$ | $`ϵ_0=(1,0,0,0),`$ | $`\widehat{E}_2:dL_1:`$ | $`ϵ_2=(1,1,0,0)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\widehat{E}_1:dL_1N_{12}:`$ | $`ϵ_1=(1,1,0,1),`$ | $`\widehat{E}_3:dN_{11}:`$ | $`ϵ_3=(1,0,1,0)`$ |

$`\left(8.11\right)`$
From the vectors $`ϵ_i`$ with components $`ϵ_{ij}`$, we form the matrix $`V`$ with entries $`V_{ij}=ϵ_{ji}`$:

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
$`\left(8.12\right)`$
With $`a`$ and $`x`$ denoting the column matrices of entries $`a_i`$ and $`x_i`$ respectively, we have the matrix equation

$$Va=x$$
$`\left(8.13\right)`$
Again, this equation describes a general fusion coupling $`_i\widehat{E}_i^{a_i}`$. We now want to unravel the underlying system of inequalities. For this, we consider the fundamental solutions of

$$u^{}V0$$
$`\left(8.14\right)`$
where $`u`$ is the vector of entries $`u_i`$. These inequalities read

$$u_00,u_0+u_1+u_30,u_0+u_10,u_0+u_20$$
$`\left(8.15\right)`$
In this simple case, the elementary couplings can be found by inspection and these are:

$$e_0=(1,1,1,0),e_1=(0,0,0,1),e_2=(0,1,0,1),e_3=(0,0,1,0)$$
$`\left(8.16\right)`$
Finally, we consider the conditions $`e_ix0`$, with $`(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)=(k,\lambda _1,n_{11},n_{12})`$. They read, in order,

$$k\lambda _1+n_{11},n_{12}0,\lambda _1n_{12},n_{11}0$$
$`\left(8.17\right)`$
The last three conditions define the LR basis. The first one is the additional fusion constraint. Together, they form the $`\widehat{su}(2)`$ fusion basis.

9. Constructing the fusion basis: polytope techniques

In the previous section, the Farkas’ lemma has been used to construct the fusion basis out of the set of fusion elementary couplings. There are alternative approaches, however. Another one is based on the reinterpretation of the fusion-rule computations in terms of counting points inside a polytope. A polytope can be described by its vertices or its facets. In our context, the vertices are represented by the fusion elementary couplings and the facets are the inequalities for which the elementary couplings are the elementary solutions. The reconstruction of the facets of a polytope from its vertices is thus another way to generate the fusion basis. This method is described in .

In the special case of $`su(N)`$, Berenstein-Zelevinsky triangles can also be used to derive the polytope description of a fusion basis , by considering so-called virtual triangles. Multiple sum formulas can then be written for fusion coefficients of various types. However, as are all methods to date, this one is difficult to extend to higher rank. Assigning a threshold level to a Berenstein-Zelevinsky triangle becomes very rapidly more difficult with increasing rank (see ).

10. Conclusion

The fusion bases have been constructed for $`\widehat{su}(3)`$, $`\widehat{su}(4)`$ and $`\widehat{sp}(4)`$. Note that for algebras other that $`\widehat{su}(N)`$, we replace the LR basis by the Berenstein and Zelevinsky basis . This leads to explicit expressions for the threshold levels, hence for the fusion coefficients.4 Related methods for obtaining the threshold level are presented in .

We stress that the reformulation of the problem of computing fusion rules in terms of a fusion basis solves, in principle, the quest for a combinatorial method, since it reduces a fusion computation to solving inequalities. But it is probably not the optimal solution to the quest for an efficient combinatorial description.

The main open problem concerning fusion bases is to find a fundamental and Lie algebraic way of deriving the basis, analogous in spirit to the Berenstein-Zelevinsky conjectures for generic Lie algebras in .

The methods described in section 8, involving Farkas’ lemma, are general and powerful, but they may not be Lie algebraic enough. Perhaps one should step back and look at a first principles description of the tensor product couplings, and its adaptation to fusion. This was done in . Three-point functions were calculated that can be regarded as generating functions for tensor product couplings, and a very simple method was found for adapting the results to fusion couplings. In principle, the procedure works for any semi-simple Lie algebra. Unfortunately, these more Lie algebraic methods are inevitably more involved. It gives more information (such as operator product coefficients instead of just fusion coefficients), but it is not clear that it can be implemented effectively on higher rank algebras.

REFERENCES

relax1.J. Patera and R.T. Sharp, in Recent advances in group theory and their applications to spectroscopy, ed. J. Domini (Plenum, New York, 1979); Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Verlag, New York, 1979) vol. 94, p. 175.

relax2.R. Gaskell, A. Peccia and R.T. Sharp, J. Math. Phys. 19 (1978) 727; M. Couture and R.T. Sharp, J. Phys. A13 (1980) 1925; R.T. Gaskell and R.T. Sharp, J. Math. Phys. 22 (1981) 2736; C. Bodine and R.T. Gaskell, J. Math. Phys. 23 (1982) 2217; R.V. Moody, J. Patera and R.T. Sharp, J. Math. Phys. 24 (1983) 2387; J. Patera and R.T. Sharp, J. Phys. A13 (1983) 397; Y. Giroux, M. Couture and R.T. Sharp, J. Phys. A17 (1984) 715.

relax3.V.G. Knizhnik and A.B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B247 (1984) 83; D. Gepner and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B278 (1986) 493.

relax4.M.A. Walton, Nucl. Phys. B340 (1990) 777; Phys. Lett. B241 (1990) 365; V.G. Kac, Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, 3rd edition (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), exercise 13.35.

relax5. P. Furlan, A. Ganchev and V.B. Petkova, Nucl. Phys. B343 (1990) 205; J. Fuchs and P. van Driel, Nucl.Phys. B346 (1990) 632.

relax6.M.A. Walton, Can. J. Phys. 72 (1994) 527.

relax7.C.J. Cummins, P. Mathieu and M.A. Walton, Phys. Lett. B254 (1991) 390.

relax8.L. Bégin, P. Mathieu and M.A. Walton, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 25 (1992) 135.

relax9.A.N. Kirillov, P. Mathieu, D. Sénéchal and M. Walton, Nucl. Phys. B391 (1993) 651.

relax10.L. Bégin, C. Cummins and P. Mathieu, J. Math. Phys. 41 (2000) 7640.

relax11.M. Couture, C.J. Cummins and R.T. Sharp, J. Phys A23 (1990) 1929.

relax12.R.P. Stanley, Duke Math. J. 40 (1973) 607; Combinatorics and Commutative Algebra (Birkhauser, Boston, 1983).

relax13.L. Bégin, C. Cummins and P. Mathieu, J. Math. Phys. 41 (2000) 7640.

relax14.C.J. Cummins and R.C. King, Can. J. Phys. 72 (1994) 342.

relax15.A. Schrijver, Theory of linear and integer programming (Wiley, 1986).

relax16.L. Bégin, C. Cummins, L. Lapointe and P. Mathieu, J. Math. Phys. 43 (2002) 4180.

relax17.J. Rasmussen and M.A. Walton, Nucl. Phys. B620 (2002) 537, J. Phys. A35 6939.

relax18.L. Bégin, A.N. Kirillov, P. Mathieu and M. Walton, Lett. Math. Phys. 28 (1993) 257; L. Bégin, P. Mathieu and M.A. Walton, Mod. Phys. Lett. A7 (1992) 3255.

relax19. A.D. Berenstein and A.V. Zelevinsky, J. Geom. Phys. 5 (1989) 453.

relax20.J. Rasmussen and M.A. Walton, Nucl. Phys. B616 (2001) 517.


format: text

text:
# New Mass Estimators For Tracer Populations

## 1 Introduction

Simple estimators based on the virial theorem have long been used to ascertain the masses of galaxy groups from radial velocities and projected positions of the members (e.g. Zwicky 1933). Nowadays, they have been largely superceded by the projected mass estimator, which is based on averaging (projected distance)$`\times `$ (radial velocity)$`{}_{}{}^{2}/G`$ over the sample (Bahcall & Tremaine 1981; Heisler, Tremaine & Bahcall 1985). In the form in which it is usually encountered, a key assumption underlying the estimator is that the member galaxies track the mass of the group. The problem of estimating the masses of elliptical galaxies and the haloes of spiral galaxies is different. Here, the datasets available are the radial velocities and projected positions of tracer populations, such as dwarf galaxy satellites, globular clusters, distant halo stars and planetary nebulae or PNe (see e.g., Wilkinson et al. 2002 for a recent review). These do not follow the underlying mass distribution which is dominated by the dark matter. For nearby galaxies, the advent of wide-field imaging and efficient planetary nebulae spectrographs (e.g., Méndez et al. 2001; Halliday et al. 2002) means that the quality and quantity of such datasets are destined to improve dramatically in the next few years.

The purpose of this paper is to present a new and simple mass estimator for galaxy haloes tailored for tracer populations and to apply them to new datasets for the Andromeda (M31) galaxy. It is the generalisation of the projected mass estimator to the commonest case of all – namely that when the number density of the tracer population is different from the overall mass density.

## 2 Simple Mass Estimators

On dimensional grounds, any mass estimator derived from projected data on a set of $`N`$ tracer objects involves weighted means of $`v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}R_i/G`$, where $`v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ is the line of sight velocity (relative to the mean or systemic velocity) and $`R_i`$ the projected position of the $`i`$th object relative to the center of the galaxy. The projected mass estimator is

$$M=\frac{C_{\mathrm{proj}}}{GN}\underset{i}{}v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}R_i.$$
(1)
This was introduced by Bahcall & Tremaine (1981) for test particles orbiting point masses (such as stars around a black hole or distant companion galaxies orbiting a central massive galaxy). The constant $`C_{\mathrm{proj}}=16/\pi `$ for test particles with an isotropic velocity distribution orbiting a point mass, whereas $`C_{\mathrm{proj}}=32/\pi `$ for test particles moving on radial orbits. Subsequently, Heisler et al. (1985) extended the projected mass estimator to the case in which the galaxy members are believed to track the total mass, such as galaxy groups. The constant $`C_{\mathrm{proj}}=32/\pi `$ for particles with an isotropic velocity distribution, whereas $`C_{\mathrm{proj}}=64/\pi `$ for particles moving on radial orbits.

We wish to generalise the mass estimator (1) to the case when the objects are drawn from a tracer population (such as globular clusters or PNe) between radii $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$. Let us assume that the tracer population is spherically symmetric and has a number density which falls off like a power-law

$$\rho (r)=\rho _0\left(\frac{a}{r}\right)^\gamma ,r_{\mathrm{in}}<r<r_{\mathrm{out}},$$
(2)
within the region of interest. The underlying gravity field is assumed to be scale-free

$`\psi (r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{v_0^2}{\alpha }\left(\frac{a}{r}\right)^\alpha \hfill & \text{if }\alpha 0,\hfill \\ & \\ v_0^2\mathrm{log}r\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
When $`\alpha =1`$, this corresponds to test particles orbiting a point-mass; when $`\alpha =0`$, the satellites are moving in a large-scale mass distribution with a flat rotation curve; when $`\alpha =\gamma 2`$, the satellites follow the total self-gravitating mass (the case studied by Heisler et al. 1985). Properties of such tracer populations in scale-free spherical potentials have been deduced by Evans, Häfner & de Zeeuw (1997).

Suppose our tracers are distributed over a range of projected radii $`R_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$ (corresponding to the three-dimensional radii $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$). What mass distribution do they probe? By Newton’s theorem, there is no knowledge whatsoever on the mass distribution outside $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$. Accordingly, the best we can do is to estimate the total mass within the radius of the most distant satellite, namely

$$M=\frac{v_0^2a^\alpha }{G}r_{\mathrm{out}}^{1\alpha },$$
(7)
from the dataset of positions and velocities. Let ($`r,\theta ,\varphi `$) be standard spherical polars with the $`z`$ axis defining the line of sight, so that the projected position $`R`$ is $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Denoting the phase space distribution function of the tracer population by $`f`$, then the average value of $`v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R`$ in the survey is

$$v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R=\frac{1}{M_\mathrm{t}}fv_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R𝑑𝐯𝑑𝐫=\frac{4\pi }{M_\mathrm{t}}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}𝑑r_0^{\pi /2}𝑑\theta \rho \sigma _{\mathrm{los}}^2r^3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$
(8)
Here, we have computed the average over the ensemble between the radii $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$ probed by our data. In this formula, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ is the line of sight velocity dispersion, while $`M_\mathrm{t}`$ is the mass in the tracer population, which is given by

$$M_\mathrm{t}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4\pi a^\gamma \rho _0}{3\gamma }\left[r_{\mathrm{out}}^{3\gamma }r_{\mathrm{in}}^{3\gamma }\right]\hfill & \text{if }\gamma 3,\hfill \\ & \\ 4\pi a^3\rho _0\mathrm{log}(r_{\mathrm{out}}/r_{\mathrm{in}})\hfill & \text{if }\gamma =3.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
### 2.1 Isotropic Populations

For the moment, let us assume that the velocity distribution of the tracers is isotropic so that the radial velocity dispersion $`\sigma _r`$ is the same as the tangential $`\sigma _t`$. In this case, Evans et al. (1997) solve the Jeans equations and derive the result

$$\rho \sigma _{\mathrm{los}}^2=\rho \sigma _r^2=\frac{\rho _0v_0^2}{\alpha +\gamma }\left(\frac{a}{r}\right)^{\alpha +\gamma }.$$
(10)
For example, if the potential is isothermal ($`\alpha =0`$) with a flat rotation curve of amplitude $`v_0`$ and the density of the population falls off like $`r^\gamma `$, then the velocity dispersion is just $`v_0/\sqrt{\gamma }`$ – which is a well-known result from the last century (e.g., Smart 1938). Now, substituting (9) and (10) into (8), we obtain:

$$v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R=\frac{\pi ^2\rho _0v_0^2}{M_\mathrm{t}(\alpha +\gamma )}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}𝑑rr^3\left(\frac{a}{r}\right)^{\alpha +\gamma }=\frac{GM\pi }{4(\alpha +\gamma )}\frac{3\gamma }{4\alpha \gamma }\frac{1(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}})^{4\alpha \gamma }}{1(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}})^{3\gamma }}.$$
(11)
In other words, suppose we gather positions and velocities for a population of globular clusters or PNe with a three-dimensional number density falling like $`r^\gamma `$ between an inner radius $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and an outer radius $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$. The mass enclosed within the outermost datapoint is given by the simple formula

$$M=\frac{C}{GN}\underset{i}{}v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}R_i,$$
(12)
with

$$C=\frac{4(\alpha +\gamma )}{\pi }\frac{4\alpha \gamma }{3\gamma }\frac{1(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}})^{3\gamma }}{1(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}})^{4\alpha \gamma }}.$$
(13)
We refer to this as the tracer mass estimator. At first sight, it seems that the constant $`C`$ in eq (13) is singular when the tracer population density falls off like $`r^3`$ (that is, $`\gamma =3`$) or when $`\alpha +\gamma =4`$ (for example, if the tracer population density falls off like $`r^4`$ in an isothermal ($`\alpha =0`$) potential). However, a careful application of L’Hôpital’s rule shows that the constants are well-defined. They are listed in Table 1 for convenience.

How do we set the parameters occurring in eq (13)? It is always reasonable to assume that $`r_{\mathrm{in}}R_{\mathrm{in}}`$, where $`R_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the projected radius of the innermost datapoint. If the dataset is derived from a wide-angle survey, in which the population is traced out to large radii, then it is also reasonable to assume that $`r_{\mathrm{out}}R_{\mathrm{out}}`$, the projected radius of the outermost datapoint. But, this assumption is not appropriate for a dataset restricted to the inner parts only, because this will usually contain objects at larger three-dimensional radii projected into the sample. The parameter $`\gamma `$ can be calculated from the surface density of the tracer population between $`R_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$. However, $`\alpha `$ (and also possibly $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$) need to be set using astrophysical considerations. We are envisaging applications to the outer parts of galaxies probed by globular clusters and PNe, and so it is reasonable to set $`\alpha 0`$ as the potential is probably close to isothermal. For example, Wilkinson & Evans (1999) studied the Milky Way galaxy and found that a near-isothermal potential is valid out to $`170`$ kpc.

Comparison of the result (12-13) with previous work is instructive. For example, when $`\alpha =1`$, the potential is Keplerian and we find that

$$M=\frac{4(1+\gamma )}{\pi GN}\underset{i}{}v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}R_i.$$
(14)
When $`\alpha =\gamma 2`$, the tracer population follows the underlying dark matter density and we find that

$$M=\frac{16(\gamma 1)}{\pi GN}\frac{1}{\left[1+(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}})^{3\gamma }\right]}\underset{i}{}v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}R_i.$$
(15)
These are not quite the same as the results given by Bahcall & Tremaine (1981) and Heisler et al. (1985). These investigators assumed that the sample was gathered from the center of the galaxy or cluster to infinity. In a number of integration by parts, boundary terms could therefore be legitimately dropped under the assumption $`r^3\rho \sigma _r^20`$ as $`r0`$ and as $`r\mathrm{}`$. In our calculation, we have always performed the averaging over a finite range of radii and the contribution from the boundaries does not generally vanish. This is the origin of the difference. Even when we formally take the limit $`r_{\mathrm{in}}0`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{out}}\mathrm{}`$, the boundary terms still do not vanish as the density distribution (2) of the tracer population is cusped. Of course, such a limit is purely formal, as our estimator is derived under the assumption that the power-law density distribution holds over a certain régime only.

### 2.2 Anisotropic Populations

Now let us extend the calculation to deal with populations with anisotropic velocity distributions, although still retaining the assumption of spherical symmetry for the density distribution. Binney’s (1981) anisotropy parameter $`\beta =1\sigma _t^2/\sigma _r^2`$ is often used to measure the relative importance of the radial $`\sigma _r`$ and tangential $`\sigma _t`$ velocity dispersions. When $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, this is the circular orbit model and when $`\beta =1`$, this is the radial orbit model. For models in which the anisotropy $`\beta `$ does not vary with radius, the line of sight velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ is related to the radial velocity dispersion by

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}^2=\sigma _r^2(1\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta ).$$
(16)
Substituting into (8), we find

$$v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R=\frac{\pi ^2(43\beta )}{4M_\mathrm{t}}_{r_{\mathrm{in}}}^{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\rho \sigma _r^2r^3𝑑r.$$
(17)
The radial velocity dispersion $`\sigma _r`$ of the tracer population is (Evans et al. 1997)

$$\rho \sigma _r^2=\frac{\rho _0v_0^2}{\alpha +\gamma 2\beta }\left(\frac{a}{r}\right)^{\alpha +\gamma }.$$
(18)
From this, we deduce

$$M=\frac{C}{GN}\underset{i}{}v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}R_i,$$
(19)
with

$$C=\frac{16(\alpha +\gamma 2\beta )}{\pi (43\beta )}\frac{4\alpha \gamma }{3\gamma }\frac{1(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}})^{3\gamma }}{1(r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}})^{4\alpha \gamma }}$$
(20)
This is the extension of the result to populations with constant anisotropy. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary (e.g., a highly flattened system supported by an anisotropic velocity dispersion), we advocate assuming isotropy. The value of eq (19) is that it enables us to calculate the error in making such an approximation. For example, suppose we consider tracer populations with a number density falling like $`r^4`$ in an isothermal potential. The anisotropy of stellar populations is not usually more extreme than $`2:1`$. Therefore, eq (19) tells us that mistakenly assuming isotropy leads to mass underestimates (overestimates) in the case of radial (tangential) anisotropy of $`30\%`$.

### 2.3 Monte Carlo Simulations

We test the performance of the mass estimator with Monte Carlo realisations of exact solutions of the collisionless Boltzmann equation. The phase space distribution functions corresponding to power-law density profiles in power-law potentials are given in Evans et al. (1997). To generate Monte Carlo realisations, the speed is picked from the distributions

$`f(v)\{\begin{array}{cc}v^{22\beta }\left|\psi (r)\frac{1}{2}v^2\right|^{[2\gamma 3\alpha 2\beta (2\alpha )]/(2\alpha )}\hfill & \text{if }\alpha 0,\hfill \\ & \\ v^{22\beta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{v^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
For $`\alpha >0`$, the maximum velocity at any position is $`\sqrt{2\psi (r)}`$; for $`\alpha 0`$, the velocities can become arbitrarily large. Following Binney & Tremaine (1987), let us introduce spherical polar coordinates in velocity space ($`v,\xi ,\eta )`$, so that the velocities resolved in spherical polar coordinates with respect to the center are then

$$v_r=v\mathrm{cos}\eta ,v_\theta =v\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{cos}\xi ,v_\varphi =v\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{sin}\xi .$$
(25)
If $`\xi `$ is generated uniformly in $`[0,2\pi ]`$, while $`\eta `$ is picked in $`[0,\pi ]`$ from the distribution

$$F(\eta )|\mathrm{sin}\eta |^{1+2\beta }$$
(26)
then the velocities are generated with the correct anisotropy. Finally, a random projection direction is chosen and the line of sight velocity $`v_{\mathrm{los}}`$ and projected position $`R`$ calculated. This gives us synthetic datasets of anisotropic spherical tracer populations in spherical haloes with which to test the performance of our mass estimators.

Figure 1 shows the medians and quartiles for the mass estimates of 10000 samples constructed from Monte Carlo realisations. We test the tracer mass estimator for both isotropic (eq. 12) and anisotropic (eq. 19) populations, as well as the projected and virial mass estimators in the forms

$$M_{\mathrm{proj}}=\frac{32}{\pi GN}\underset{i}{}v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}R_i,M_{\mathrm{virial}}=\frac{3\pi N}{2G}\frac{\underset{i}{}v_{\mathrm{los}}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}}{_i1/R_i}.$$
(27)
For each of the mass estimators, four models are shown in each panel. In the upper two panels, the tracer population has a number density falling like $`r^4`$ and is generated between $`R_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{out}}=10R_{\mathrm{in}}`$, while the rotation curve is flat ($`\alpha =0`$), The models vary in the anisotropy of the velocity distribution (either $`\sigma _t:\sigma _r=1:1`$ or $`\sigma _t:\sigma _r=2:1`$ or $`\sigma _t:\sigma _r=1:2`$). In upper panel, the number of objects is $`N=10`$, which is typical for a sample of satellite galaxies. In the middle panel, the number of objects is $`N=100`$, which is realistic for a sample of globular clusters with radial velocities. Finally, in the lower panel, the rotation curve is falling in a “half-way Keplerian” manner ($`\alpha =1/2`$) and the tracer population is falling like $`r^3`$. The sample size is again $`N=10`$. The tracer mass estimator outperforms the projected and virial mass estimators in every case. This is as it should be, since the tracer mass estimator has been devised for the precise purpose of mass estimation from tracer populations, while the other two estimators have been devised with other applications in mind. It is interesting to ask how often the estimates are too low or too high by $`50\%`$. This information is recorded in Table 2 for some of the simulations. The projected and virial mass estimators yield systematic underestimates if they are mistakenly applied to tracer populations. Further, the situation is not improved by increasing the size of the tracer population – the estimators merely converge to an underestimated mass.

Finally, we test the tracer mass estimator against synthetic datasets drawn from a self-consistent Plummer model with a core radius $`b`$. This is a important thing to do as the tracer estimator has been derived for, and tested against, the scale-free case. The Plummer model is only approximately scale-free well outside the core region ($`rb`$). The potential, density and distribution of speeds are

$$\rho \frac{1}{(r^2+b^2)^{5/2}},\psi \frac{1}{(r^2+b^2)^{1/2}},f(v)v^2(\psi (r)\frac{1}{2}v^2)^{7/2}.$$
(28)
Figure 2 shows how the estimators fare for sample sizes $`N=10`$ and $`N=100`$ using datasets gathered in the outer parts ($`R_{\mathrm{in}}=10b,R_{\mathrm{out}}=100b`$) and including some core contamination ($`R_{\mathrm{in}}=b,R_{\mathrm{out}}=100b`$). For a self-consistent population, the projected mass estimator performs well, as it should do. Nonetheless, the tracer mass estimator (with $`\gamma `$ = 5, $`\alpha `$ =1 and $`\beta `$ = 0) gives slightly better results. The reason why the tracer mass estimator still out-performs the projected mass estimator is that the former includes a correction for the limited radial coverage of the sample, whereas the latter does not.

## 3 Application: the Andromeda Galaxy

It is important to know the mass of the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) for a number of reasons. First, the density profiles of dark matter haloes are an important constraint on cosmological theories of galaxy formation (e.g., Sellwood 2001). The haloes of nearby galaxies are particularly important as they can be studied in much greater detail. Second, the current generation of pixel lensing experiments towards M31 (e.g., Aurière et al. 2001, Paulin-Henriksson et al. 2002) requires an accurate estimate of the total mass so as to constrain the fraction in compact objects capable of producing microlensing events. We shall consider two datasets which probe Andromeda’s dark halo, namely the globular clusters and the dwarf spheroidal satellite galaxies.

### 3.1 Globular Clusters

Perrett et al. (2002) give the positions, velocities and metallicities for over 200 globular clusters in M31 out to a projected distance $`30`$ kpc. The data were obtained using fiber optic spectroscopy on the William Herschel Telescope and the typical errors on the radial velocities are $`\pm 12`$ km s<sup>-1</sup>. When combined with earlier data from Huchra, Brodie & Kent (1991), this gives a grand total of $`300`$ globular clusters. From the bimodality of the metallicity distribution, Perrett et al. show that the M31 globular clusters fall into metal-poor and metal-rich categories with different kinematics. As judged from the double Gaussian fit to the metallicity distribution, there are 177 globular clusters with a probability of belonging to the halo of greater than $`90\%`$. The cumulative number distribution of the halo globular clusters is shown in Figure 3. Only beyond 30 arcmin does the projected number density of the halo globulars fall off like a power-law, namely $`R^3`$. Accordingly, we work with the 89 halo globular clusters with projected radii greater than 30 arcmin. The mean rotation amplitude of this sub-sample is $`v_\varphi 110`$ km s<sup>-1</sup>. Adopting a distance of 770 kpc, the globular clusters lie in projection between 6.8 kpc and 33 kpc. However, the globular cluster population in M31 certainly extends out to $`100`$ kpc (e.g., Hodge 1992). Using Monte Carlo simulations to build samples of 88 globular clusters with $`6.8\mathrm{kpc}<R<33\mathrm{kpc}`$, we find that typically $`20\%`$ of the sample have $`r>33\mathrm{kpc}`$ with the outermost datapoints typically at $`r100`$ kpc. Accordingly, in the formula for the tracer mass estimator, we set $`\alpha =0`$ (isothermal-like galaxy), $`\gamma 4`$, $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=6.8`$ kpc and $`r_{\mathrm{out}}100`$ kpc.

The Jeans equation for a population with constant anisotropy $`\beta `$ about a mean velocity $`v_\varphi `$ is (e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1987, section 4.2)

$$\frac{GM(r)}{r}=v_\varphi ^2\sigma _r^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{log}\rho \sigma _r^2}{\mathrm{log}r}+2\beta \right]$$
(29)
The first term on the right-hand side describes the contribution of rotation to $`M(r)`$, the second term the contribution of pressure. With obvious notation, we write

$$\frac{GM_{\mathrm{rot}}}{r}=v_\varphi ^2,\frac{GM_{\mathrm{press}}}{r}=\sigma _r^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{log}\rho \sigma _r^2}{\mathrm{log}r}+2\beta \right]$$
(30)
We compute $`M_{\mathrm{rot}}3\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ directly from the mean rotation amplitude of the sample. We use the tracer mass estimator, applied to the observational data with the mean rotation velocity subtracted from the line of sight velocity, to compute $`M_{\mathrm{press}}9\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ assuming isotropy. Hence, the total mass within $`100`$ kpc of the center of M31 is $`1.2\times 10^{12}M_{}`$. Note the tracer mass estimator applies to a pressure-supported tracer population and therefore any net rotation of the system must be subtracted before the velocities are used to estimate $`M_{\mathrm{press}}`$.

How does the result from the tracer mass estimator compare with earlier work? Evans & Wilkinson (2000) give the results of more sophisticated modelling. Here, the phase space distribution function of the globular cluster and the satellite galaxy population is built and then convolved with the errors to find the probability of the dataset given the model parameters. This is inverted using Bayesian likelihood techniques to give the probability of the enclosed mass given the positions and velocities of the halo globular clusters. Using the combined globular cluster and satellite galaxy sample, they reckoned that the most likely total mass of M31 is $`12_6^{+18}\times 10^{11}M_{}`$. An independent constraint on the mass of M31 within 30 kpc is given by the HI rotation curve. This was measured to distances of $`30`$ kpc along the major axis by Newton & Emerson (1977). Their estimate of the asymptotic circular speed is 230 km s<sup>-1</sup>. Assuming the circular velocity curve maintains this amplitude out to 100 kpc, then the mass within 100 kpc is $`1.2\times 10^{12}M_{}`$. We conclude that the results are all consistent and support a picture in which M31’s dark halo extends out in an isothermal-like manner to at least 100 kpc.

### 3.2 Satellite Galaxies

There are 15 probable companion galaxies to M31. Their galactic coordinates, projected position from the center of M31 and line of velocity are listed in Table 3. The observed radial velocities contain contributions from the Galactic rotation and from the relative velocity between the Galaxy and M31. Assuming that the transverse velocity of M31 with respect to the Galaxy is zero, we remove these contributions and list the corrected velocities in the frame of M31 in Table 3.

The number density of M31’s satellite galaxies falls like $`r^{3.5}`$ (see e.g., Evans & Wilkinson 2000). Notice that the projected positions of many of the objects lies well beyond the régime in which the M31 halo is expected to be isothermal. Rather, the underlying gravitational potential is probably dominated by the monopole component at such huge distances. This suggests that it is appropriate to apply the tracer mass estimate with $`\alpha 1`$ and $`\gamma 3.5`$ to the satellite galaxy dataset. This gives the mass of M31 as $`1.1\times 10^{12}M_{}`$. This is in good agreement with the more sophisticated modelling in Evans et al. (2000), who claimed that the total mass is $`710\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ from the same dataset. In fact, it is in excellent accord with still earlier work by Bahcall & Tremaine (1981), who also found a mass of $`1.0\times 10^{12}M_{}`$ from just five companions (M32, M33, NGC 147, NGC 185 and NGC 205). Despite the seeming agreement, the uncertainty in the mass is at least a factor of 3. For example, if instead we choose $`\alpha 0.5`$ (suitable for a halo with a rotation curve slowly falling like $`r^{0.25}`$), then the mass of M31 as deduced from the tracer estimator more than triples to $`3.8\times 10^{12}M_{}`$.

An assumption underlying the tracer mass estimator (as well as the projected and virial estimators) is that of a steady state equilibrium. This is reasonable enough for globular cluster and PNe datasets, but probably not for satellite galaxies. The dSph and dIrr companions of M31 may well be falling in for the first time, in which case the assumption of a steady state is probably not a valid description of the dynamics. It would be valuable to calibrate the importance of the effects of disequilibrium against high resolution N-body simulations of the Local Group.

## 4 Conclusions

The main accomplishment of this paper is the introduction of the tracer mass estimator. This is a new and simple way of estimating the enclosed mass from the radial velocities and projected positions of a set of objects. It is tailored for the case of tracer populations such as globular clusters and halo stars whose number density falls off like a power-law with distance (at least within the range covered by the survey). The estimator works by averaging the quantity (constant) $`\times `$ (projected distance)$`\times `$ (radial velocity)$`{}_{}{}^{2}/G`$ over the sample. The value of the constant is straightforward to calculate. It depends on the radial fall-off of the tracers, the inner and outer radii marking the range of the sample, the velocity anisotropy of the population and the underlying gravitational potential. In the absence of further information, we recommend assuming isotropy and isothermality for estimating galaxy masses, at least in the case of globular cluster and planetary nebulae (PNe) datasets. The inner and outer radii can usually be inferred from the sample itself, sometimes using additional astrophysical evidence.

We have applied the tracer mass estimator to the globular cluster and satellite galaxy datasets of the Andromeda galaxy (M31). The estimates suggest a picture in which M31’s dark halo is isothermal out to at least $`100`$ kpc and has a mass of $`1.2\times 10^{12}M_{}`$. These estimates are in good agreement with the results of more sophisticated modelling. The advantage of the tracer mass estimator is that it is so much quicker to apply and requires much less effort. It should be used in preference to the projected mass estimator for populations in the outer parts of galaxies. One of the fundamental assumptions of the projected mass estimator (at least in the form which it is usually encountered) is that the population shadows the overall mass density. This assumption breaks down for populations in the outer parts of galaxies. We envisage the tracer mass estimator as being particularly useful for early-type galaxies for which there is no gas rotation curve and so mass estimates almost always derive from dynamical modelling of tracer populations.

NWE thanks the Royal Society and MIW thanks PPARC for financial support. We are grateful to the (anonymous) referee for providing a helpful report.