format: text

text:
# The Large Scale Distribution of Neutral Hydrogen in the Fornax Region

## 1 INTRODUCTION — THE FORNAX CLUSTER

The Fornax Cluster is amongst the closest and most well studied clusters in the southern sky, providing an interesting nearby field for the study of large scale structure (LSS), galaxy populations, dynamics and evolution in the cluster environment. Although the cluster is not as rich as other well-studied clusters, its core galaxy density is relatively high (Ferguson 1989a).

The central galaxy of the Fornax Cluster is the giant elliptical NGC 1399 with a radial velocity of $``$1425 km s-1 . Its position, R.A. 3h38m29$`\stackrel{s}{.}`$3, Dec. $``$35°27′01″ (J2000), is generally adopted as the approximate centre of the cluster. Also particularly well-studied are the barred spiral NGC 1365 and the strong radio continuum source NGC 1316 (Fornax A). Although the Cepheid distances to three Fornax spirals have been determined (NGC 1365 at 18.6 $`\pm `$ 0.6 Mpc , NGC 1326A at 18.7 $`\pm `$ 2.0 Mpc and NGC 1425 at 22.2 $`\pm `$ 2.7 Mpc ) (Madore et al. 1999, Prosser et al. 1999 and Mould et al. 2000, respectively), an accurate cluster distance is still somewhat uncertain, particularly in the light of the substructure analysis of Drinkwater et al. (2001a). In this paper, we adopt a value close to the mean of the three Cepheid estimates, 20 Mpc, as the cluster distance.

Recessional velocities of Fornax Cluster galaxies range from about 700 to 2200 km s-1 (Drinkwater et al. 2001b). No galaxies have been detected, either optically or in Hi, in front of the cluster and few in the void behind it, in the region 2200–4500 km s-1 . Galaxies beyond about $`cz=3000`$ km s-1 would not be classified as likely cluster members.

Covering an area of nearly 40 deg2, Ferguson’s optical Fornax Cluster Catalogue (FCC) (Ferguson 1989b) identified 340 likely cluster members, only 85 of which had published redshifts. Subsequent surveys have reassigned some members from likely membership to background status and vice versa and have also determined some previously unknown redshifts (e.g. Drinkwater & Gregg 1998, Drinkwater et al. 2001b, Schröder, Drinkwater & Richter 2001).

Drinkwater et al. (2001b) have recently measured the redshifts of more than $`500`$ bright galaxies ($`16.5<B_J<18`$) in a 6$`\times `$6 deg2  field centred on Fornax and using the FLAIR-II spectrograph on the UK Schmidt Telescope. A deeper unbiased Fornax Cluster Spectroscopic Survey (FCSS) is targetting all objects ($`14000`$) within the magnitude limits 16.5 $`B_J`$ 19.7 in four $`\pi `$ deg2 fields (total area $``$12 deg2), utilising the 2 degree Field (2dF) spectrograph of the Anglo-Australian Telescope (Drinkwater et al. 2000).

Several pointed neutral hydrogen surveys of Fornax galaxies have been reported (e.g. Schröder et al. 2001, Bureau, Mould & Staveley-Smith 1996). The first blind Hi survey of Fornax was conducted by Barnes et al. (1997) and covered about 8°$`\times `$8° of the central cluster region. We report here on a larger, deeper, blind survey of the region, with detection rates about three times greater.

Utilising the 13-beam receiver on the Parkes 64 m radio telescope, the Hi Parkes All Sky Survey (HIPASS) covered the entire southern sky south of $`\delta =2`$° for $`\lambda 21`$cm neutral hydrogen (Staveley-Smith et al. 1996). Observations were completed in March 2000 and this ambitious project has enormous scientific potential, providing a wealth of new Hi data, unbiased by optical selection criteria or effects. For this paper, we sampled about 3 per cent of the HIPASS dataset (13 of 388 cubes) to examine the distribution, number density and Hi content of galaxies over a 25$`\times `$25 deg2  field centred on the Fornax cluster but extending well beyond it. Our results contribute new information pertaining to galaxy evolution and dynamics and the large scale structure (LSS) of the local Universe in the Fornax region.

The fields covered by several surveys of the Fornax cluster are illustrated in Fig. 1. Also shown are the positions of the 13 HIPASS cubes used to compile our mosaic.

Further details and parameters of HIPASS are outlined in Section 2. Galaxies were detected and confirmed in the mosaic by the methods described in Section 3. The properties of the galaxies are examined in Section 4 and the results of this study are summarised in Section 5.

## 2 DATA SAMPLE

The characteristics of the Parkes multibeam system used for HIPASS are described by Staveley-Smith et al. (1996). Barnes et al. (2001) have comprehensively detailed the survey observing parameters, data collection, calibration and imaging techniques. For the survey, the telescope scanned in declination strips of 8°, each 1.7° wide. The scanning procedure was optimized to ensure approximately uniform sky coverage at full sensitivity whilst still allowing online data processing to be automated and statistically robust. The mean beamwidth is 14.3 arcmin full width at half-maximum (FWHM) and the total integration time is 460 s beam-1. After median gridding, data were processed into cubes measuring 8$`\times `$8 deg2  on the sky, with overlap of up to $``$1°. Pixel size is 4 arcminutes. The survey has a bandwidth of 64 MHz, detecting Hi emission in the range $`1280<cz<12700`$ km s-1 over 1024 planes at a separation of 13.2 km s-1. The velocity resolution after smoothing is 18 km s-1.

The final HIPASS data have an rms noise level of around 13.3 mJy and thus a 3$`\sigma `$ detection limit of $``$40 mJy beam-1. The gridded HIPASS beam has a FWHM of 15.5 arcmin and an image pixel size of 4 arcmin. Most sources in our mosaic survey are essentially unresolved and a final positional accuracy of 3–4′ is expected, depending on the flux (Barnes 1998). HIPASS detects Hi masses to a 3$`\sigma `$ lower limit of $``$$`10^6`$$`d^2`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$111for an Hi linewidth of 100 km s-1, where $`d`$ is the distance to the source in Mpc and $`H_0=75`$ km s-1 Mpc -1, corresponding to $``$4$`\times 10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ at the distance of Fornax.

For this Fornax region survey, 13 HIPASS data cubes were mosaicked together before analysis and trimmed to create a single, large, $``$25$`\times `$25 deg2  datacube. Mosaicking the cubes improves the effective rms noise levels at the positions of the HIPASS cube edges and creates a single dataset with relatively smooth coverage across the entire field.

The projected sky area covered by the mosaic is represented in Fig. 1. An image of the data, Fig. 2, shows galaxies in peak flux as bright bands, the length of each being indicative of the velocity width of the detections. In this velocity versus RA map, the cluster galaxies appear to be embedded in a long sheet of galaxies at similar velocities which crosses the mosaic region. The void behind the cluster is clearly seen. The detection at approximately 2900 km s-1, 3h08m, is at a declination of $``$23° and is not near the cluster.

## 3 Hi  GALAXY DETECTIONS

### 3.1 Some HIPASS characteristics

Our survey is limited by two particular selection effects. First we find a clear lower cutoff in peak flux (at $``$30 mJy), reflecting the galaxy search technique. Secondly, there is a cutoff in velocity width (at $``$50 km s-1 ) due to the spectral resolution of the survey.

Sources with extended continuum emission can produce standing wave patterns. After bandpass removal a ripple remains in the spectrum, making these sources difficult to parametrize. For example and in particular, we were unable to characterize NGC 1316 (the strong radio source Fornax A) in our data. Spectra of sources within a few arcminutes of the continuum source are also affected by the ripple. In the vicinity of bright continuum sources, the online bandpass removal process distorts the spectral baseline at both the low and high frequency ends, making the detection of nearby Hi sources more difficult. The post-processing application of a cleaning algorithm to each cube has improved the bandpass removal and the detection rate close to continuum sources (Barnes et al. 2001).

### 3.2 Automated galaxy finder

After masking the edges of the mosaic, an automated galaxy finding algorithm, multifind, developed by Kilborn (2001), was used to search for candidate detections.

The galaxy finder searches the data in 3 dimensions, (RA, Dec. and radial velocity), using miriad routines (Sault, Teuben & Wright 1995) to perform the calculations. In concentrating our search on the Fornax region, the finder was set to search the mosaic in the range 300–3700 km s-1 to a lower peak flux limit of $`3\sigma `$, corresponding on average to about 40 mJy. In multifind, each pixel is searched in velocity space, plane by plane. Any detections above the preset signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) cutoff and in two or more consecutive velocity planes are retained as possible detections. The search was repeated after each of two rounds of Hanning smoothing in the velocity planes — this type of binning can reduce the rms noise of the baseline, effectively increasing the S/N, and has the potential to detect extra sources with low S/N profiles. The finder fits a Gaussian to each candidate detection to estimate the central position (although HIPASS sources are not necessarily Gaussian) and uses mbspect in miriad to determine spectral parameters.

A final candiate list of over 800 Hi detections was generated, with estimates of RA, Dec., velocity, velocity width, peak flux and the smoothing level at which the detection was first made.

### 3.3 Confirmed detections

The preliminary detection list was first culled by removing the unlikely detections at 2630 $`\pm `$ 20 km s-1 which are known to result from telescope correlator interference (see Fig. 2). To reduce positional redundancies, candidates listed within 2 pixels of each other were grouped together. This left a list of more than 400 to be checked individually. Each candidate detection was visually inspected and parameterized using miriad  software packages. An outline of the steps follows:

1. A moment map of flux integrated over the velocity planes in which the candidate was detected was made.
2. A Gaussian was fitted to the moment map and the central positon calculated.
3. A spectrum of Hi emission at this position was generated and a Guassian-smoothed baseline fitted. Spectral parameters were calculated from unsmoothed spectra: heliocentric recessional velocity (at the midpoint of the 50 and 20 per cent velocity widths), velocity widths (at the 50 and 20 per cent peak flux levels), peak flux and total integrated flux. For the majority of sources, measurements were based on the miriad task mbspect using the “point” setting. For extended sources (those so identified in Table 1), the input parameter “sum” was used.

After grouping duplicates, rejecting those unlikely detections which could not be successfully parameterized and those with spectra corrupted by continuum ripple (notably Fornax A and nearby sources), 110 Hi detections were confirmed to a maximum velocity cut-off limit of 3700 km s-1 . The positions and measured parameters of the detections are listed in Table 1. (Notes on the table can be found following section 5.) The spectra are plotted in the Appendix.

The positions of the Hi detections relative to the position of the cluster centre are shown in Fig. 3. Plots of the velocity versus RA and Dec. are shown in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively. There are no detections in front of the cluster and relatively few beyond 2500 km s-1 . These plots show clear evidence of void regions. The distribution of galaxies is discussed further in Section 4.2.

### 3.4 Optical Counterparts of Hi Detections

#### 3.4.1 Optical Identifications

The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database222This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Data used in this paper were current in 2001 December. (NED) and the Digitized Sky Survey333The Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), provided by the Space Telescope Science Institute is based on photographic data from the UK Schmidt Telescope. (DSS) were searched for likely optical counterparts within a maximum 15 arcmin radius. Although positional matches were expected to be within $``$3–4 arcmin (Barnes 1998), we searched to larger radii looking for any galaxies which may be associated with the Hi detection.

The majority of our detections could be matched to a single optically catalogued counterpart with a published coincident velocity. For 14 objects, a close positional match was found with a single optical galaxy which had no previously published velocity. In at least $``$20 per cent of cases, more than one optical candidate was visible in the DSS images, although in about half of these one of the optical galaxies had a known velocity consistent with the Hi object being identified. For four galaxies, the published velocity (‘$`V_{\mathrm{NED}}`$’, column 13, Table 1) is significantly different from our results (columns 4 and 5). A remark in column 16 (‘V diff’) identifies these detections.

Where the optical match to an Hi detection remains uncertain or unknown, it has been marked ‘C’ (for ‘confused’) in column 16 of Table 1. Where a possible optical identification of confused sources is known, it is also noted in column 16. One of our detections, J0317-24, is previously uncatalogued. The optical counterpart of our Hi detection J0317$``$37 is FCCB0035, a galaxy listed as ‘background’ in the Fornax Cluster Catalog . However, we measure a heliocentric velocity of 981 km s-1, indicating that it is more probably a cluster member.

All of these confused or uncertain detections will require follow-up observations at higher resolution to confirm their natures and identities.

A histogram of the projected distance from each detection to its most likely optical counterpart is shown in Fig. 6. The majority of matches are within the expected positional accuracy of 3–4 arcmin, with $``$86 per cent being matched within 3 arcmin and $``$94 per cent matching within 4 arcmin. Our confirmed detections and their likely matches to previously catalogued galaxies are detailed in Table 1.

#### 3.4.2 Morphological types

Examination of the optical morphologies of our Hi detections, as published in NED and as determined from DSS images, revealed that all of our detections were late-type galaxies (or of uncertain morphology). This correlation of morphological type, Hi content and proximity to the core of a cluster is discussed further in Section 4.

### 3.5 Deriving Hi  Masses and mass-to-light ratios

The Hi mass of each detection was calculated using the standard formula (Giovanelli & Haynes 1988), assuming detections to be unresolved in the Parkes telescope beam,

$$M_{HI}=2.356\times 10^5d^2S_{int}$$
(1)
where $`M_{HI}`$ is Hi mass in units of $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, $`d`$ is distance in Mpc and Sint is total integrated flux in Jy km s-1, measured from the unsmoothed profiles.

In deriving the Hi masses, detections were assumed to be either part of the cluster or in the field. Detections within 3.5° of the cluster centre were all assumed to be at the nominal cluster distance of 20 Mpc. For galaxies more than 3.5° from the cluster centre (i.e. assumed to be field galaxies), the distance was estimated from the Hubble flow. The velocity of each field galaxy was measured from the unsmoothed Hi profile at the mid-point of the 20 per cent peak flux level. A Local Group correction was applied, using the IAU convention,

$$V_{LG}=V+300\mathrm{sin}\text{l}\mathrm{cos}\text{b}$$
(2)
where $`V_{LG}`$ is the corrected velocity in km s-1, $`V`$ is the heliocentric velocity in km s-1, l is Galactic longitude and b is Galactic latitude.

Distances to field galaxies were then estimated from the Hubble equation,

$$d=V_{LG}/H_0$$
(3)
where $`d`$ is distance in Mpc. For these calculations, a ‘Fornax-consistent’ Hubble constant was calibrated such that at the position of the cluster centre, the central cluster galaxy (NGC 1399, l = 236.72°, b = $``$53.63°, $`V_{\mathrm{hel}}`$ = 1425 km s-1, $`V_{LG}`$ = 1276 km s-1) has a distance of 20 Mpc in the Hubble equation. The value thus derived and used here is $`H_0=64`$ km s-1 Mpc-1.

NED was searched for apparent blue magnitudes of optical counterparts so that, where possible, $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ values could be estimated for the Hi detections. When available, the apparent blue magnitudes $`m_B`$, $`B_T`$ or $`b_j`$ were recorded and used in calculations of luminosity. The value used and the magnitude type for each detection are indicated in columns 10 and 11 of Table 1.

## 4 DISCUSSION

### 4.1 Projected number densities of detections

Greyscale surface number density plots of optical galaxies and positions of Hi detections in the same redshift range are illustrated in Fig. 7. The optical galaxies selected for this comparison include only those in NED with published velocities in the range 500–3700 km s-1. The ellipses refer to optical substructure regions identified by Drinkwater et. al. (2001a), the centre of the optical cluster being at the centre of the larger ellipse. The optical subcluster identified by the smaller ellipse is not distinguished in Hi. The Hi emission appears to be relatively more extended than the optical cluster region and more structure is suggested by the apparent Hi overdensities in regions $``$10° to the north-west (NW) and south-east (SE) of the cluster. The SE Hi concentration, in particular, has a similar Hi content to the Fornax cluster without the optical galaxy overdensity.

The surface number densities of Hi detections over the mosaic region are shown in Fig. 8. Our results suggest that the cluster is detectable as an approximately three-fold overdensity relative to the field beyond $``$4° from the cluster’s optical centre. Within 4° ($``$1.4 Mpc), the number density of Hi detections is 0.46 $`\pm `$ 0.04 deg-2 compared with 0.16 $`\pm `$ 0.03 deg-2 in the surrounding field (4° – 10° from the centre). Although the number density of optical galaxies is seen to decline rapidly beyond the nominal cluster boundary, the Hi density remains elevated out to radii comparable with the cluster turnaround radius of 2.4 Mpc ($``$7°) (Drinkwater et al. 2001a). At these radial distances, galaxies are possibly infalling towards the cluster for the first time and have presumably not yet been stripped of their gas (see Bekki, Couch & Shioya 2002).

Very few Hi galaxies are found near the core of the cluster ($`<`$1°), and so a statistically significant galaxy density cannot be calculated for this region. In contrast, for galaxies listed in NED with velocities in the range 300–3700 km s-1, number densities are $``$45-fold greater in the core than at 3–4° distant.

HIPASS is biased towards the detection of Hi-rich objects. As is evident in Figure 3, the Fornax cluster of galaxies at the centre of the mosaic field is not clearly distinguished in this survey. Of 65 Hi detections within a 10° projected radius of the cluster centre, less than 30 per cent are within the nominal optical cluster region (projected radius $`3.5`$°) — an overdensity of $`<`$2$`\frac{1}{2}`$-fold compared to the number expected for an even distribution. Where the morphology is known, our Hi detections are only late-type, a finding that is tightly correlated with the very low Hi detection rate close to the cluster core and with the well-established density-morphology relation (Dressler 1980).

Our results clearly indicate that, unlike optical searches, large region Hi surveys such as HIPASS will not preferentially detect the core region of galaxy clusters, although a modest overdensity of Hi–rich/late-type galaxies may be seen in the cluster infall regions beyond the core.

### 4.2 Velocity Measurements and Large Scale Structure

Velocity histograms for $``$200 optical galaxies listed by NED with published redshifts in the Fornax mosaic area and for 110 Hi detections in our mosaic are plotted in Fig. 9. Galaxies within 3.5° of the cluster centre are compared with those field galaxies further than 3.5° from NGC 1399. The cluster is well defined in velocity, with no objects in front of the cluster and none catalogued between 2200 and 2800 km s-1 in the void behind the cluster. This histogram shows that the large-scale velocity distribution is similar to the cluster velocity distribution. Thus, the large-scale structure (LSS) is confined to a narrow plane almost perpendicular to the line of sight.

The mean heliocentric velocity of the cluster Hi galaxies is 1516 $`\pm `$ 95 km s-1 , in agreement with the optical results of Drinkwater et al. (2001a). The velocity dispersion ($`\sigma _V`$) of these cluster galaxies is 425 $`\pm `$ 71 km s-1 — considerably higher than for the giant cluster galaxies of Drinkwater’s optical sample ($`\sigma _V=308\pm 30`$ km s-1) and thus indicative of an infalling population.

In Fig. 3, the positions of the Hi detections relative to the Fornax centre are shown. Large-scale structure is also evident in Fig. 2, where the galaxies appear to be in a long sheet-like arrangement in which the velocity widths of the galaxies are comparable to the velocity dispersion of the whole sheet.

Our results indicate that there is a measurable velocity gradient, from SE to NW, across the formation. A vector at a sky angle of $``$75° shows the direction of maximum velocity bias across the region (see Fig. 3). The cumulative distribution function of the velocity of Hi detections is shown in Fig. 10, comparing the regions A, B and C. The three regions are cut relative to the velocity vector as shown in Fig 3. Region B extends 3.5° along the vector line and includes all cluster members detected, as well as some non-members outside the 3.5° cluster radius.

After Local Group (LG) correction, the mean velocity of galaxies is 936 $`\pm `$ 63 km s-1 in region A, 1266 $`\pm `$ 68 km s-1 in region B and 1459 $`\pm `$ 62 km s-1 in region C. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) statistic indicates that the mean LG-corrected velocities of galaxies in regions A and C differ by 523 $`\pm `$ 125 km s-1 , significant at the 99.99 per cent confidence level. Comparing the mean peak flux in the two regions, we find it to be lower in region C than in A by up to $``$55 per cent , significant at the 95 per cent confidence level. The mean total flux of the two regions is not significantly different. From these comparisons we conclude that a significant gradient in galaxy velocity is measureable across the field.

This gradient closely follows the velocity gradient of optical galaxies evident in Plate 8 of the Nearby Galaxies Atlas, showing the Southern Supercluster in the region of Fornax (Tully & Fisher, 1987).

The radial velocity of the central cD galaxy of the Fornax cluster, NGC 1399, is 1425 km s-1. We have measured the recessional velocity of the three galaxies for which Cepheid distances have been determined in the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale (Kennicutt, Freedman & Mould 1995). Madore et al. (1999) determined the distance to NGC 1365 to be 18.6 $`\pm `$ 0.6 Mpc. We measure a recessional velocity of 1638 km s-1 , consistent with the suggestion of Drinkwater et al. (2000) that the galaxy is in front of NGC 1399 and is falling towards the cluster centre. Prosser et al. (1999) estimated the distance to NGC 1326A to be 18.7 $`\pm `$ 2.0 Mpc. The galaxy is part of the subcluster identified by Drinkwater et al. (2001a) and identified by the small ellipse in Fig 7. Our measured velocity of 1836 km s-1 supports their conclusion that the subcluster is in front of the main cluster and falling inwards. The Cepheid distance to NGC 1425 was calculated to be 22.2 $`\pm `$ 2.7 Mpc (Mould et al. 2000). The large-scale structure we have detected suggests that NGC 1425 may be at a greater distance than the Fornax cluster proper. From its velocity of 1512 km s-1 and location 5.6° north of the cluster, we would expect it to be about 1.5 Mpc more distant than the cluster centre.

### 4.3 Hi masses and mass-to-light ratios

The Hi masses of detections are plotted in Fig. 11 with the highest detection rate being in the 108.5–109.0$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ bin, i.e., close to the survey detection limit. For our whole sample, estimated Hi mass-to-blue-light ratios ($`L_B`$ uncorrected for inclination) range from 0.1 to $``$11, with a mean of 1.7, although for a small number of detections the uncertainty in optical identification requires further clarification. The range of Hi mass and $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ values as a function of distance from the centre of Fornax are plotted in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. The values appear relatively independent of distance to the cluster centre. However, these two plots have ignored possible projection biases. For example, our highest Hi mass cluster member is the bright spiral NGC 1365 (J0333-36), circled in Fig. 12. There is evidence that this galaxy is in front of the cluster and falling towards it (Drinkwater et al. 2001a) and therefore its Hi mass may be lower than our estimate and its actual distance from the cluster centre greater than the projected distance measured here. This figure indicates that almost 80 per cent of our detections have Hi masses below $`2\times 10^9`$ $`M_{}`$ and that most of the higher mass galaxies are outside the cluster region.

The distribution of $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ values plotted as a function of projected distance to the cluster centre is indicated in Fig. 13. The circled detection, FCC 302, has a low redshift ($`cz=803`$ km s-1), a high $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ value ($``$5.2) and may be behind the cluster and infalling.

The only Hi detection seen in projection within the core region is FCC 235 (NGC 1427A), indicated by the triangle in Figs. 12 and 13. Its irregular morphology, particularly high redshift ($`cz=2024`$ km s-1) and $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ value of $``$1.3 support the arguments of Hilker et al. (1997), Chanamé, Infante & Reisenegger (2000) and Drinkwater, Gregg & Colless (2001a) that the galaxy is in front of the cluster centre and infalling. If these data points are ignored, our results are suggestive of reduced $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ values and Hi depletion within 4° of the cluster centre. We measure a cluster mean $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ value of 1.2 $`\pm `$ 0.3 and a mean of 1.7 $`\pm `$ 0.2 for galaxies more than 4° from the centre, the difference being significant at the $``$90 per cent level. We note here that standard measures of Hi deficiency do not include non-detections and interpretation of such results remains thereby inherently uncertain.

The deeper, targeted Hi observations of Schröder did, however, detect significantly lower $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ in Fornax cluster galaxies (0.68 $`\pm `$ 0.15) compared to a selected field sample (1.15 $`\pm `$ 0.10) (Schröder et al. 2001). This is probably explained in part by their more sensitive observations and larger sample of cluster galaxies. In addition, Schröder et al. also found that the cluster galaxies show significant Hi depletion as measured by the Solanes parameter (Solanes, Giovanelli & Haynes 1996). Although Hi depletion measurements were beyond the scope of our observations, our Hi measurements are consistent with Schröder’s results for the 23 common galaxies observed.

In Fig. 14, the distribution of $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ and $`M_{HI}`$ values is plotted. Of detections with $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ $`>1`$, $``$80 per cent are fairly low $`M_{HI}`$ galaxies with $`M_{HI}`$ $`<2\times 10^9`$ $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. These galaxies are also all of low luminosity. Although corrections for inclination have not been made here, we conclude that most of the high $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ detections are small or dwarf galaxies. Again, projection effects have not been considered in this plot.

## 5 Conclusions

We have mosaicked an area of $``$620 deg2 around the Fornax cluster of galaxies using standard HIPASS cubes. An intensive search of this cube has resulted in a catalogue of 110 galaxies. Of these, 14 galaxies have newly determined redshifts, 4 have velocity measurements significantly different to values published for the likely optical counterpart and for about 10 per cent the optical identification is currently uncertain. This Hi catalogue can be used in studies of the large-scale structure around the Fornax cluster, the morphological evolution of galaxies and the morphology-density relation in the cluster and field environments.

Our main results are:

1. A strong indication that cluster centres which are readily apparent in the counts of optical galaxies are only detected as Hi overdensities of a few times the density of Hi-detected galaxies in the field.
2. The region of overdensity of Hi galaxies extends for several degrees ($``$1.7 Mpc) around the cluster, including the cluster infall region.
3. The large-scale Hi structure around the Fornax cluster is confined to a plane with similar velocity width to velocity dispersion we measure for the cluster itself (425 $`\pm `$ 71 km s-1). This plane is almost perpendicular to the line-of-sight but we measure a significant difference of $``$500 km s-1 in the redshifts of galaxies in the NW region compared to the SE region. Further analysis of the LSS will enable peculiar velocities to be decoupled from the general cosmological expansion.

Published optical magnitudes have been used to estimate $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ ratios. From this we can conclude that:

1. There is no unambiguous signal of Hi depletion in the small number of Hi-detected galaxies near the cluster core.
2. Only a small fraction of galaxies are detected in Hi near the cluster core. Morphologically, the Hi -detected galaxies are all late-type and these are less likely to be found in regions of high galactic density.
3. The galaxies with higher $`M_{HI}/L_B`$ are all dwarf-type galaxies.

Further work intended in these studies includes the resolution of ‘confused’ sources by deeper Hi imaging at the ATCA (Australia Telescope Compact Array).

Many questions about galaxy evolutionary processes in and around clusters remain unanswered. Our studies indicate that the core of the Fornax cluster is deficient in Hi-rich galaxies, a finding which is tightly correlated with the morphologies of galaxies in the core. However, the evolution of galaxies in the cluster environment is currently poorly understood and future work will be aimed at further elucidation of these processes.

NOTES FOR TABLE 1.

Explanatory notes for the columns in Table 1 are given in this subsection. (All values are from unsmoothed spectra.)

Col. (1) HIPASS name (Jhhmm-dd). Suffixes a, b, etc. are used to name uniquely HIPASS detections when required.
Cols. (2) and (3) Hi detection center position in R.A. and dec. (J2000).
Cols. (4) and (5) Hi Heliocentric systemic radial velocity in km s-1 (optical convention) at the midpoint of the 50 and 20 per cent widths ($`V_{50}`$ and $`V_{20}`$) respectively, measured from unsmoothed spectra.
Cols. (6) and (7) The 50 and 20 per cent Hi velocity widths in km s-1 ($`W_{50}`$ and $`W_{20}`$).
Col. (8) Hi peak flux in Jy.
Col. (9) Total integrated Hi flux density in Jy km s-1 .
Col. (10) Apparent blue magnitude (from NED, measurement type shown in Col. (11)).
Col. (11) Type of magnitude measurement in Col. (10).
Col. (12) Hi mass-to-blue light ratio ($`M_{HI}/L_B`$ ).
Col. (13) Optical galaxy velocity (km s-1) recorded in NED.
Col. (14) Projected separation in arcminutes (d′) of the positions of the Hi detection and the likely corresponding optical galaxy.
Col. (15) Name(s) of the likely matching optical galaxy.
Col. (16) Remarks — including the names(s) of possible optical galaxy match(es) where the match is uncertain. These detections are labelled ‘C’ (‘confused’). Derived values shown in the table proper refer to the galaxy named in Col. (14). For detections labelled ‘V diff’, the Hi velocity differs significantly from the published optical value(s). The comment ‘new V’ indicates that a velocity measurement has not previously been published.

## 6 Acknowledgements

M.W. gratefully acknowledges the support of the University of Melbourne in the provision of a Melbourne Research Scholarship. We are most appreciative of the anonymous referee’s helpful comments which have resulted in valuable improvements to this work.

## Appendix A Hi spectra

The Hi spectra of all detections are plotted in the Appendix. The profiles show heliocentric radial velocity (optical convention) in km s-1 versus flux in Jy. Spectra shown here have been Hanning-smoothed and a Gaussian-smoothed baseline fitted over the velocity range shown. Several spectra have been masked before flux measurements were made — the detection being measured is indicated with an arrow and the regions masked are enclosed in dotted lines (see *Notes* below). Dashed lines on the spectra show the velocity range within which $`V_{50}`$ and $`V_{20}`$ were determined, with the pairs of dots on the spectra delineating the velocity widths, $`W_{50}`$ and $`W_{20}`$, at 50 and 20 per cent of the peak flux. Flux and velocity width measurements were made on unsmoothed spectra and so may vary slightly from values suggested by the smoothed spectra.

## Appendix B Notes on Selected Spectra

J0308-23 The Hi emission at $``$2880 km s-1 is from IC1892. The extra emission suggested at a slightly higher velocity but below the 3$`\sigma `$ limits, is possibly from MCG-04-08-029 with a NED velocity of 3016 km s-1.

J0322-37 Nearby emission at $``$1200–1350 km s-1 has been masked before fitting the baseline to this spectrum.

J0323-36 The central (arrowed) emission in this spectrum is from NGC1326. Emissions from the nearby interacting galaxies J0325-36a (NGC1326A, 1836 km s-1) and J0325-36b (NGC1326B, 1006 km s-1) are also seen in this spectrum but have been masked out in measurements.

J0325-36a Emission from J0325-36b (NGC1326B) is also seen in this spectrum.

J0325-36b Emission from J0325-36a (NGC1326A) is also seen in this spectrum.

J0335-32 This detection is at the lowest peak flux of the observations described in this work. We have listed it as ‘confused’ since the spectrum shows considerable baseline ripple, the positional discrepancy with the optical coordinates is greater (4.8 arcmin) than for most confirmed detections and our velocity measurement differs significantly from published optical values (see, for example, de Vaucouleurs et al., 1991).

J0341-22 Considerable ripple can be seen in this spectrum and if the fitted baseline shown is subtracted, the profile more obviously has the typical double-horned shape of an inclined spiral galaxy (NGC1415). The velocity and velocity width measurements are in close agreement with the values published by Andreani, Casoli & Gerin (1995).

J0359-45 The main emission in this spectrum is from the irregular galaxy known as the Horologium Dwarf. Also seen at a slightly higher velocity is emission from the nearby edge on spiral ESO249-G035 which has a published (NED) velocity of 1031 km s-1 but is below the flux cutoff levels of this survey.


text:
# What future does the universe have?

(27 March 2001
Universidad San Francisco de Quito
PO Box 17-12-841, Quito, Ecuador
bruce1@fnal.gov)

## Abstract

We discuss the future evolution of the universe in the light of recent observations. The apparent luminosity vs redshift of supernovae favor an accelerating universe. However an Einstein-de Sitter critical universe should not be ruled out yet.
universe: evolution

Let us try to understand the future of the universe in the light of recent observations. Consider this beautiful equation:

$$\left[\frac{da}{H_0dt}\right]^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_m\frac{1}{a}+\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2.$$
(1)
It describes the evolution of a homogeneous and isotropic universe according to General Relativity if the density of non-relativistic matter dominates radiation (and other sources of pressure). The first three terms can be obtained from Newtonian physics and are proportional to the kinetic energy, potential energy and total energy respectively. The last term is due to the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of General Relativity. The expansion parameter $`a(t)`$ is normalized to $`a(t_0)=1`$ today. The Hubble constant is

$$H_0\left[\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{dt}\right]_{t_0}100h_0\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1=\frac{h_0}{9.778\mathrm{Gyr}}$$
(2)
with $`h_0=(0.71\pm 0.07)\times _{0.95}^{1.15}`$. Note that (1) at the present time is

$$1=\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(3)
so the evolution of the universe on large scales is determined by just two independent parameters, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the present density of non-relativistic matter (barionic and dark) in units of the critical density $`\rho _c3H_0^2/8\pi G`$.

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_k\frac{kc^2}{H_0^2a_0^2}$$
(4)
where $`k=+1`$, $`1`$ or $`0`$. If $`k=+1`$, space has the geometry of the 3-dimensional surface of a sphere of radius $`a_0\times a(t)`$ in 4 dimensions. If $`k=1`$, space has negative curvature. If $`k=0`$ then space is flat. Finally

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3H_0^2}.$$
(5)
We consider the four universes listed in Table 1: $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(1,0)`$ is the Einstein-de Sitter critical universe with flat space that expands for ever with a velocity approaching zero; $`(1.5,0)`$ is overdense and has a space of finite volume that expands to a maximum and then collapses into a Big Crunch; $`(0.3,0)`$ is underdense so matter can not halt the expansion; and $`(0.3,0.7)`$ has flat space and in the future will expand exponentially for ever due to the cosmological constant.

The purpose of this note is to estimate the likelihood that each of these universes corresponds to ours, and to understand in a simple way the issues involved. To obtain this estimate we compare observations with predictions using the “chi-square” function:

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i}{}\frac{(\mathrm{observation}_i\mathrm{theory}_i)^2}{\mathrm{error}_i^2}.$$
(6)
This function is written for the case when the observations are independent so that a judicious choice of observations is needed. In the end we shall see that the main source of uncertainty of this analysis is the estimate of the systematic errors. The contributions to the $`\chi ^2`$ are listed in Table 1.

Let us begin with observations on galaxies. We have developed a simple model of the hierarchical formation of galaxies. The simulations were done with $`h_0=0.6`$. After adjusting three parameters (the amplitude $`A`$ and slope $`n`$ of the power spectrum of primordial density fluctuations, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$) this model is in quantitative agreement with the following observations: the Tully-Fisher, Faber-Jackson and Samurai relations, the Schechter distribution (two parameters), the galaxy-galaxy correlation (two parameters), the fluctuation in galaxy counts, the fluctuation in the cosmic background radiation, and the peculiar velocities of galaxies. To compare the model with observations we have obtained a $`\chi ^2`$ with 7 terms. For each $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ we have minimized the $`\chi ^2`$ by varying 2 parameters: $`A`$ and $`n`$. Therefore for each $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ we are left with 5 degrees of freedom. The corresponding $`\chi ^2`$’s for the four universes are $`3.2`$, $`3.7`$, $`7.6`$ and $`9.2`$, and the spectral indices $`n`$ are $`1.0`$, $`0.9`$, $`1.2`$ and $`1.2`$, respectively. We note that observations on galaxies favor a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ (the Einstein-de Sitter universe) and $`n1`$ (scale invariant spectrum) which is quite remarkable! In fact, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we obtain agreement with observations provided $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m>0.25`$ and $`1.10.3\mathrm{\Omega }_m<n<1.40.2\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ with $`95\%`$ confidence (assuming the model is correct and the simulation volume $`(92\mathrm{M}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})^3`$ is sufficiently large). So all four universes considered in Table 1 are compatible with these observations on galaxies. However, if we restrict the slope $`n`$ to $`1`$ as suggested by the Boomerang and Maxima observations discussed below, then the $`\chi ^2`$’s for $`6`$ degrees of freedom are as shown in Table 1 column G. Note that the two low density universes are disfavored by observations on galaxies if we set $`n=1`$: the velocities of circular orbits of $`L^{}`$ galaxies are too low, the fluctuations in galaxy counts are too low (unless $`n`$ is tilted to $`1.25`$), and the peculiar velocities of galaxies are too low (unless $`n`$ is tilted to $`1.3`$).

Let us turn to the Boomerang and Maxima balloon-borne experiments. By observing the first acoustic peak of the fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation, the Boomerang collaboration obtains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`95\%`$ confidence in the range from $`(0.881.12)`$ to $`(0.971.35)`$ depending on the assumed priors and parametrizations. We translate this into $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.08\pm 0.16`$ (all errors in this article are one standard deviation or $`68\%`$ confidence level unless otherwise stated). The Boomerang collaboration also mentions that “with reasonable priors we find” $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.07\pm 0.06`$. These errors are statistical. We would like to add systematic errors, but these are hard to come by in cosmology. A full analysis is given in . The Maxima experiment obtains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.0_{0.30}^{0.15}`$ at $`95\%`$ confidence. To be somewhat conservative we finally take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.0\pm 0.1\pm 0.1`$ where the first error is statistical and the last term is a rather arbitrary estimate of the systematic errors. The corresponding contributions to $`\chi ^2`$ are listed in Table 1 column B. Note that the remarkable Boomerang and Maxima observations already rule out the two non-flat universes listed in Table 1. Let us mention that the Boomerang experiment obtains a slope of the power spectrum of primordial density perturbations $`n=1.0\pm 0.1`$ which is consistent with scale invariance. Maxima obtains $`n=1.08\pm 0.1`$.

Let us consider the age of the universe as inferred from the evolution of globular clusters. The estimates range from $`18`$Gyr to $`11`$Gyr with additional $`\pm 10\%`$ errors of various origins. Thus current estimates are $`14\pm 2`$Gyr, “with a possible systematic error of similar size”. A recent study obtains $`11.5\pm 1.3`$Gyr. We take $`14\pm 2\pm 2`$ where the first error is statistical and the second is a rather arbitrary estimate of the systematic error. In Table 1 we show the calculated ages (for the central value of $`H_0`$) and their contributions to the $`\chi ^2`$.

Now we consider measurements of the density of the universe. A compilation of methods and results can be found in . The “luminosity $`\times M/L`$” methods yield $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in the range $`0.1`$ to $`0.4`$. These measurement do not include extended dark matter halos between galaxy clusters. In our model of galaxy formation the galaxies and clusters of galaxies have halos with density run $`r^2`$ that extend, a grosso modo, out to the halo of the “next” galaxy or cluster of galaxies (once the peculiar motion is removed). This is possible at all times, in spite of the expansion of the universe, because of the ongoing hierarchical formation and merging of galaxies. For example, if clusters of galaxies have radius $`R`$, and the halos of dark matter with density run $`\rho r^2`$ extend out to $`r3R`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ measured by the “luminosity $`\times M/L`$” method is low by a factor $`3`$. Such extended halos are expected. Is there any evidence to rule them out? For these reasons I believe that the quoted measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are really lower bounds. The “baryon fraction in galaxy cluster” method obtains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in the range from $`0.15`$ to $`0.35`$ but also does not include the halos of dark matter between clusters. The “large-scale velocity flow” methods yield results in the range $`0.1`$ to $`1`$. In particular the study by Idit Zehavi and A. Dekel obtains $`0.4<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<1.1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ or $`0.2<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.9`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ at $`99\%`$ confidence. The lower bound assumes $`h_0=0.75`$ and $`n=1.1`$, while the upper bound assumes $`h_0=0.55`$ and $`n=0.9`$. From the evolution of the number density of x-ray clusters it is inferred that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.74`$ while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.3`$ is rejected with $`95\%`$ confidence. For these reasons, and because the $`\chi ^2`$ corresponding to galaxies already includes peculiar velocities, galaxy clustering, and velocities of circular orbits which are used to measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, we take a conservative $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3_{0.2}^{+0.3}`$. The corresponding contributions to the $`\chi ^2`$ are presented in Table 1.

Last, but not least, we consider the Hubble diagram of relative luminosity (magnitude) vs red-shift of supernovae of type 1a. This is a very interesting measurement. The results obtained by the “Berkeley Supernova Cosmology Project” have been confirmed by the “High-z Supernova Search Team”. At high redshift the supernovae are fainter than expected (from the extrapolation of low redshift supernovae) yielding $`0.75\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.25\pm 0.16(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.09(\mathrm{identified}\mathrm{syst}.)\pm 0.47(\mathrm{evolution})`$ in the range of interest. The corresponding contributions to the $`\chi ^2`$ are listed in Table 1 column S. For a flat universe this measurement translates to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.28_{0.08}^{+0.09}(\mathrm{stat}.)_{0.04}^{+0.05}(\mathrm{identified}\mathrm{syst}.)\pm 0.27(\mathrm{evolution})`$. The systematic error is dominated by evolution. The errors labeled “evolution” above correspond to an error in magnitude of $`\pm 0.2`$ for high redshift supernovae. The preliminary estimate of this error in  is $`\pm 0.2`$ mag. The corresponding estimate in  is $`\pm 0.17`$ mag. In comparison note that the correction for extinction is of order $`1`$ mag with and error $`\pm 0.15`$ mag. The challenge is to reduce the error due to evolution, and the jury is still out. Are the high-redshift supernovae $`10\%`$ fainter than expected because of “gray” dust, or evolution of supernovae, or evolution of the host galaxy, or gravitational lensing, or selection effects, or increased extinction in the host galaxy at high redshift, or is it really due to a cosmological constant? Or more mundane challenges that seem to be under control (but who knows?): how does the luminosity calibration or zero change with redshift?; how does noise subtraction or the subtraction of the luminosity of the host galaxy depend on luminosity or redshift? Radio and optical gravitational lensing observations set the limit $`1.78<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.27`$ at $`95\%`$ confidence. This limit corresponds to $`0.39<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<0.64`$ assuming a flat universe which is already cutting well into the allowed region of the supernovae observations. Note that the size of the estimated systematic error due to supernovae evolution can completely change the conclusions of this study! If the error is half the estimate given above, then the Einstein-de Sitter universe is ruled out.

The probabilities that observations are consistent with the model universes is shown in column CL of Table 1. These probabilities are proportional to the likelihood that the models are correct given the observations (if in advance we have no good reason to prefer one model over the other). We note that the two non-flat universes are excluded by several observations. The preferred universe has $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.3,0.7)`$. Note that only one of the observations (almost) rules out the Einstein-de Sitter universe, and in cosmology it is best to keep an open mind.

To understand the accelerating universe $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.3,0.7)`$ let us compare it with the Einstein-de Sitter universe $`(1,0)`$. This latter universe has a present age $`t_0=2/3H_0=9.2`$Gyr; the expansion factor is $`a=\left[3H_0t/2\right]^{2/3}`$; the present distance to the horizon is $`d_H(t_0)=2c/H_0=3ct_0`$; and the co-moving distance to the horizon $`d_H(t)/a(t)`$ will continue increasing as $`t^{1/3}`$ so that new galaxies will always be entering the horizon. The universe with a cosmological constant, $`(0.3,0.7)`$, has a present age $`t_0=0.97/H_0=13.3`$Gyr; the expansion factor will grow exponentially in the future as $`a\mathrm{exp}\left[\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}H_0t\right]`$; the present distance to the horizon is $`d_H(t_0)=3.4c/H_0=3.3ct_0`$; and the co-moving distance to the horizon $`d_H(t)/a(t)`$ will approach $`4.5c/H_0`$ so that after a few $`1/H_0`$ no new galaxies will enter the horizon. In addition, the galaxies that are within the horizon will become exponentially redshifted and dimmer: their relative luminosity will decrease as $`\mathrm{exp}\left[3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}H_0t\right]`$ so that after a few $`1/H_0`$ only the galaxies of the local group, which are gravitationally bound, will remain visible.

Finally let us calculate the time it will take to exhaust the fuel of the universe, i.e. mainly hydrogen (and also the elements from helium to manganese). We assume that hydrogen is burned at the rate we see today. The luminosity density of the universe is $`L_B=(2.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^8h_0L_{sun}Mpc^3`$ with $`L_{sun}3.85\times 10^{26}`$W. The energy released per proton is $`8.8`$MeV. The density of hydrogen in the universe is $`\rho _H=0.76\rho _B0.76\times 0.019\rho _{c0}/h_0^2`$. From this data we obtain a time to exhaustion of hydrogen at the present rate of consumption of $`4000`$Gyr, or about $`300`$ times the present age of the universe.

In summary, we have considered four universes. From Table 1 we note that one of them is preferred by observations: the low density universe with a cosmological constant. The conclusion is tentative pending a full study of possible evolutionary effects of supernovae and a positive detection of the cosmological constant by an independent method. The Einstein-de Sitter universe can not be ruled out yet. If the cosmological constant is not zero the question is: why are terms with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in Equation 1 of comparable magnitude today, when one dominated by many orders of magnitude in the past, and the other will dominate in the future? This is the “Why now?” problem. Another question: why is the cosmological constant so small compared to predictions, yet (apparently) not zero?

Let us assume that the universe is indeed $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.3,0.7)`$. In this case we live in a universe that is spatially flat and so has infinite volume; distances between far away galaxies will expand exponentially for ever; galaxies will cease to enter the horizon; the ones within the horizon will dim exponentially fast until only the local group remains visible; the galaxies of the local group, which are gravitationally bound, will merge into a single one; small perturbations $`\delta (\rho \rho )/\rho `$ of the density of the universe will cease to grow and the hierarchical formation of galaxies will come to a halt; hydrogen fuel will become exhausted, stars will die leaving cinders (white dwarfs which will cool and stop shining, neutron stars and black holes), and darkness and cold will prevail for ever. No conscience will be there to know.


text:
# 1 Perturbative corrections

## 1 Perturbative corrections

Considering pure short-distance (perturbative) effects, we denote

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{pert}}(bc)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_b^5(\mu )}{192\pi ^3}}\left|V_{cb}\right|^2(1+A_{\mathrm{ew}})\{z_0(r)+\overline{a}_1(r;\mu )\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\pi }+\overline{a}_2(r;\mu )\left(\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\pi }\right)^2`$ (1)
$`\text{ }+\overline{a}_3(r;\mu )\left(\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\pi }\right)^3+\mathrm{}\},`$
where $`z_0(r)`$ is the tree-level phase space factor and $`r=m_c^2(\mu )/m_b^2(\mu )`$:

$$z_0(r)=18r+8r^3r^412r^2\mathrm{ln}r.$$
(2)
In what follows $`\alpha _s`$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ strong coupling normalized at $`m_b`$, unless indicated explicitly.

The electroweak corrections $`A_{\mathrm{ew}}`$ describe the ultraviolet renormalization of the semileptonic Fermi interaction and, being the QED-counterpart of the familiar factors $`c_\pm `$ in nonleptonic Lagrangian, has a well-known logarithm of $`M_Z/m_b`$ due to virtual photon exchanges. It depends only on the fermion charges and is the same as in $`\beta `$-decays of neutron or hyperons :

$$1+A_{\mathrm{ew}}\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_Z}{m_b}\right)^2.$$
(3)
The $`\mu `$-dependence of the perturbative factors $`\overline{a}_1(r;\mu )`$ and $`\overline{a}_2(r;\mu )`$ through the second order in $`\alpha _s`$ is given by

$`\overline{a}_1(r;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }\overline{a}_1^{(0)}(r)+\left[5\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+3p_1\right]z_0(r)+\left[2(\sqrt{r}r)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+(1r)p_1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z_0(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}}`$ (4)
$`\overline{a}_2(r;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }\overline{a}_2^{(0)}(r)+\left[5\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+3p_1\right]a_1^{(0)}(r)+\left[2(\sqrt{r}r)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+(1r)p_1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}a_1^{(0)}(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}}`$ (5)
$`\text{ }+\left[5\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+3p_2+10\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+4p_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1p_1\right]z_0(r)`$
$`\text{ }+[2(\sqrt{r}r)\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+(1r)p_2+(1+6\sqrt{r}7r)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}r)p_1^2+`$
$`\text{ }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}}+3+4\sqrt{r}8r)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1p_1\text{}]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}z_0(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[2(\sqrt{r}r)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+(1r)p_1]^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2z_0(r)}{\mathrm{d}r^2}},`$
where $`\overline{a}_k^{(0)}(r)\overline{a}_k(r;0)`$ are the coefficients perturbatively computed at $`\mu =0`$, i.e. for the pole quark masses and the pole-type definition of the kinetic and higher-order operators. The $`bu`$ case corresponding to $`r=0`$ amounts to using $`z_0=1`$, $`a_1=\frac{2}{3}\left(\pi ^2\frac{25}{4}\right)`$ while discarding all terms with derivatives.

Four parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}`$ and $`p_{1,2}`$ entering above denote the coefficients in the perturbative expansion of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mu )/m_b`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^2(\mu )/m_b^2`$ to first and second order in $`\alpha _s(M)/\pi `$, respectively. In the the kinetic mass scheme they are

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}C_F{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\right)C_A\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{12}}\right)\right],`$ (6)
$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }C_F{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_b^2}},p_2=p_1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{6}}\right)C_A\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{12}}\right)\right].`$ (7)
Here

$$C_F=\frac{4}{3},C_A=N_c=3,\beta _0=\frac{11}{3}C_A\frac{2}{3}n_f=9.$$

The general structure of Eqs. (4) and (5) holds in higher orders in $`\alpha _s`$, but the explicit coefficients change and the terms proliferate. This does not happen for the BLM corrections 111Perturbative subseries including the coefficients of the form $`a_n=\left(\frac{\beta _0}{2}\right)^{n1}\stackrel{~}{a}_n`$, where the coefficients are viewed as polynomials in $`n_f`$. to any order, for which the translation between different $`\mu `$ takes basically the same form as for the first-order coefficient $`a_1(r;\mu )`$. The only dependence on the order $`k`$ in the BLM expansion is the constant accompanying the power of the renorm-group $`\mathrm{log}`$s $`\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_b}{2\mu }+\frac{8}{3}\right)^{k1}`$, $`\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_b}{2\mu }+\frac{13}{6}\right)^{k1}`$ in Eqs. (6), (7) (details can be found in Ref. ). For the third order BLM, in particular, they were given in :

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{\text{BLM}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\left(\frac{\beta _0}{2}\right)^2\left[\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{2\mu }+\frac{8}{3}\right)^2+\frac{67}{36}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\right],p_3^{\text{BLM}}=p_1\left(\frac{\beta _0}{2}\right)^2\left[\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{M}{2\mu }+\frac{13}{6}\right)^2+\frac{10}{9}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\right].$$
(8)
Although the expressions for even higher orders in BLM is straightforward, in practice it is simpler to evaluate the BLM corrections in the widths directly in the running mass scheme. The general formalism is described in , and using an additional technical trick given in Appendix simplifies necessary integrations.

## 2 Numerical estimates

For the second-order non-BLM coefficient we have

$$\overline{a}_2(r;\mu )\overline{a}_2^{(0)}(r)|\text{}\text{non-BLM}\delta _2^{(0)}(r;\mu ),\delta _2^{(0)}(0.25^2;1/4.6)1.35$$
(9)
The simple interpolating expression accounting for the mass dependence of $`\overline{a}_1^{(0)}`$,

$`\delta _2^{(0)}(r;\mu )`$ $``$ $`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{9.9\mu }{m_b}}z_0(r)[14.5(\sqrt{r}0.25)+13(\sqrt{r}0.25)^2+0.7({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4.6}})`$ (10)
$`\text{ }12(\sqrt{r}0.25)({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4.6}})+71(\sqrt{r}0.25)^2({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4.6}})]`$
is accurate enough in the relevant domain of quark masses and factorization scale $`\mu `$.222Recent analysis by DELPHI  yielded $`m_b(1\text{GeV})4.6\text{GeV}`$ and $`r0.06`$.

Using the evaluation $`\overline{a}_2^{(0)}0.9`$ of the second-order non-BLM coefficients by Czarnecki and Melnikov  we obtain

$$\overline{a}_2^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{BLM}}(0.25^2;1\text{GeV})0.65z_0(0.25^2)$$
(11)
The second-order BLM coefficient has been addressed in the literature more than once; here the shift between $`\mu =0`$ and $`\mu =1\text{GeV}`$ constitutes about $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.78}\beta _0`$ for $`r0.25^2`$, and

$$\overline{a}_2^{\mathrm{BLM}}(r;\mu )0.69\beta _0z_0(r)\text{ at }r=0.25^2\text{ and }\frac{\mu }{m_b}=\frac{1}{4.6}$$
(12)
All BLM coefficients can be readily computed numerically along the lines of Ref.  using Eq. (A.8) given below in Appendix. The required expression for the first-order perturbative correction with non-zero gluon mass is given in Ref. . This yields

$$\overline{a}_3^{\mathrm{BLM}}(0.25^2;\mu )0.52\beta _0^2z_0(r),\overline{a}_4^{\mathrm{BLM}}(0.25^2;\mu )0.27\beta _0^3z_0(r)\text{ at }\frac{\mu }{m_b}=\frac{1}{4.6}$$
(13)
BLM-wise, it is not difficult to perform the all-order resummation of the perturbative corrections in terms of the running masses. The result reads

$`A^{\mathrm{BLM}}(r;\mu )`$ $``$ $`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_0(r)}}\{z_0(r)+\overline{a}_1(r;\mu )\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\pi }+\overline{a}_2^{\mathrm{BLM}}(r;\mu )\left(\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\pi }\right)^2`$ (14)
$`\text{ }+\overline{a}_3^{\mathrm{BLM}}(r;\mu )\left(\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)}{\pi }\right)^3+\mathrm{}\}0.880;`$
it is independent of the scale for $`\alpha _s`$ one starts with.

The distribution of the gluon virtualities $`Q`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}(bc)`$ is illustrated in Fig. 1 in the case of pole masses ($`\mu =0`$) and for $`\mu =1\text{GeV}`$, $`\mu =1.5\text{GeV}`$ and $`\mu =2\text{GeV}`$. The effect of removing the infrared domain is self-manifest. Moreover, it is evident that a too significant part of the perturbative corrections with pole masses comes from gluon momenta below $`500\text{MeV}`$, which would then cast legitimate doubts on the numerical results.

The growing component of the BLM series becomes sign-alternating starting the third or fourth order, this is a result of the infrared-free form of the width in the OPE-motivated approach. Consequently, the second-order approximation already turns out quite accurate, and the final number is practically reproduced by including the third-order term. It is also worth noting that using instead of $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\text{MS}}}(m_b)`$ a better physically justified expansion parameter , for example the $`V`$-scheme $`\alpha _s^{(V)}(m_b)`$ or the ‘dipole radiation’ $`\alpha _s^{(\omega )}(m_b)`$ yields a nearly precise perturbative factor already to the first order:

$$A^{(V)}(r;\mu )(10.1050.018+0.017\mathrm{}).$$
(15)
The case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{pert}}(bu)`$ is technically simpler. Here the full second-order corrections are known analytically , $`a_2^{(0)}(0)5.54`$, we have $`\delta _2^{(0)}6.9`$ and, therefore

$$\overline{a}_1(0;1\text{GeV})0.29,\overline{a}_2^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{BLM}}(0;1\text{GeV})1.35,\overline{a}_2^{\mathrm{BLM}}(0;1\text{GeV})0.44\beta _0;$$
(16)
third- and fourth-order BLM corrections amount to

$$\overline{a}_3^{\mathrm{BLM}}(0;1\text{GeV})1.23\beta _0^2,\overline{a}_4^{\mathrm{BLM}}(0;1\text{GeV})2.2\beta _0^3.$$
(17)
A meaningful BLM summation for $`bu`$ would require, however incorporating the four-fermion operator  $`\overline{b}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u\overline{u}\gamma _\nu (1\gamma _5)b(\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta _{\mu 0}\delta _{\nu 0})`$ as well – it is strongly enhanced and has significant negative anomalous dimension. Accounting for this operator affects already the tree phase space coefficient at order $`\mu ^3/m_b^3`$.

## 3 $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{)}`$

In the complete OPE prediction for the semileptonic width, there remains a minor arbitrariness in incorporating the power corrections from the chromomagnetic and Darwin terms until their coefficients are computed with the $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ accuracy.333The coefficient for the kinetic operator equals to the one in the parton term, while for the $`LS`$ operator it is a combination of the latter and the coefficient for the chromomagnetic operator, see Ref. . There are reasons to think that the factorized form has some advantages:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}(B)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0A^{\mathrm{pert}}[z_0(r)\left(1\frac{\mu _\pi ^2\mu _G^2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3+\rho _{LS}^3}{m_b}}{2m_b^2}\right)2(1r)^4\frac{\mu _G^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3+\rho _{LS}^3}{m_b}}{m_b^2}+D(r)\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3}{m_b^3}+\mathrm{}],$$
(18)
where $`D(r)`$ can be obtained from Ref. :

$$D(r)=8\mathrm{ln}r+\frac{34}{3}\frac{32}{3}r8r^2+\frac{32}{3}r^3\frac{10}{3}r^418.3z_0$$
(19)
The kinetic and chromomagnetic expectation values here are finite-$`m_Q`$ matrix elements in actual $`B`$ mesons. (As argued in Ref. , their shift compared to the limit $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$ is strongly suppressed.)

To give the numerical prediction, we evaluate this at the canonical values $`m_b(1\text{GeV})=4.6\text{GeV}`$, $`\mu _\pi ^2(1\text{GeV})=0.4\text{GeV}^2`$, $`\mu _G^2(1\text{GeV})=0.35\text{GeV}^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3(1\text{GeV})=0.12\text{GeV}^3`$ and $`\rho _{LS}^3(1\text{GeV})=0.15\text{GeV}^3`$ using $`r=0.25^2`$ and $`\alpha _s(m_b)=0.22`$:

$$|V_{cb}|V_{cb}^{(0)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Br}_{\mathrm{sl}}\left(B\right)}{0.105}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{1.55\mathrm{ps}}{\tau _B}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(14.8\left[\mathrm{Br}\left(BX_u\mathrm{}\nu \right)0.0018\right]\right),\text{ }V_{cb}^{(0)}0.0421.$$
(20)
The above evaluation uses the full second-order perturbative corrections with BLM resummation Eq. (14), where the added non-BLM term is computed at $`\alpha _s=0.25`$. The resulting value of $`V_{cb}^{(0)}`$ acquires extra factors $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.993}`$, $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.002}`$ or $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.004}`$ if one discards $`𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ and higher terms, including only the third-order BLM correction, or both third and fourth orders, respectively. The dependence on the heavy quark parameters is as follows :

$`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }V_{cb}^{\left(0\right)}\times [1+0.4(\alpha _s\left(m_b\right)0.22)]\times `$ (21)
$`\text{ }[10.65(m_b\left(1\text{GeV}\right)4.6\text{GeV})+0.40(m_c\left(1\text{GeV}\right)1.15\text{GeV})`$
$`\text{ }+0.01\left(\mu _\pi ^20.4\text{GeV}^2\right)+0.10\left(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3\right)`$
$`\text{ }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.05}(\mu _G^20.35\text{GeV}^2)0.01(\rho _{LS}^3+0.15\text{GeV}^3)].`$
It should be noted that the Darwin expectation value $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3`$ appearing above is not a true matrix element normalized at $`1\text{GeV}`$, but is rather understood as the one extrapolated to $`\mu =0`$: to two loops $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3\rho _D^3(1\text{GeV})0.1\text{GeV}^3`$; the perturbative coefficients have been determined correspondingly. Modifying equations for using $`\rho _D^3(1\text{GeV})`$ proper is straightforward. This does not change the value of $`|V_{cb}|`$ by any appreciable amount. The only drawback of the adopted simplified option is that the apparent extracted value of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3`$ is strongly correlated with the approximation applied.

To summarize, the perturbative corrections to the total semileptonic widths of beauty particles are modest and allow precision theoretical control when viewed as the Wilson coefficient of the leading heavy quark operator in the OPE. This assumes using well-defined low-scale running masses; these masses can be accurately extracted from experiment. As was pointed out long ago , the actual short-distance perturbative corrections to semileptonic widths are only about 10 percent, and can be accurately evaluated already at the one-loop level adopting a physically motivated perturbative coupling.

Acknowledgments: I am grateful to M. Battaglia, D. Benson, I. Bigi, P. Gambino, T. Mannel and P. Roudeau for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF under grant number PHY-0087419.

Appendix

Here a brief description of technicalities involved is given following Ref. . Computing the BLM corrections is most straightforward in the generalized dispersive approach  employing the dispersion relation for the dressed gluon propagator:

$$\frac{\alpha _s(k^2)}{k^2}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }c\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}\right)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\frac{d\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\alpha _s(\lambda ^2)}{k^2+\lambda ^2}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }c\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}\right).$$
(A.1)
The form of the integrand suggests considering for a generic observable $`A`$ the one-loop diagram with a non-zero gluon mass $`\lambda `$

$$A(\lambda ^2)=1+\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }A_1(\lambda ^2)$$
(A.2)
and integrating it over $`\lambda ^2`$ with the weight $`\rho (\lambda ^2)\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{Im}\alpha _s(\lambda ^2)\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}`$:

$$A^{\mathrm{BLM}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}A_1(\lambda ^2)\rho (\lambda ^2).$$
(A.3)
A simple trick appears useful. Expressing

$$A_1(\lambda ^2)=A_1(0)\frac{M^2}{M^2+\lambda ^2}\left(A_1(0)\frac{M^2}{M^2+\lambda ^2}A_1(\lambda ^2)\right)$$

with an arbitrary $`M`$, the integral of the first term yields identically $`A_1(0)\frac{\alpha _s(M^2)}{\pi }`$ and, therefore

$$A^{\mathrm{BLM}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+A_1(0)\frac{\alpha _s(M^2)}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}\rho (\lambda ^2)\left(A_1(0)\frac{M^2}{M^2+\lambda ^2}A_1(\lambda ^2)\right).$$
(A.4)
The standard BLM expansion amounts to using literal one-loop $`\alpha _s(k^2)`$:

$$\alpha _s(k^2)=\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{1+\frac{\beta _0\alpha _s(Q^2)}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{k^2}{Q^2}}.$$
(A.5)
As had been shown in , in this setting the dispersive approach reproduces the literal BLM series.

Taking $`M^2=e^{\frac{5}{3}}m_Q^2`$ we obtain expansion directly in terms of $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\text{MS}}}(m_Q)`$:

$`A^{\mathrm{BLM}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }1+A_1(0){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_Q)}{\pi }}`$ (A.6)
$`\text{ }+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\beta _0}{4}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)^2}{\left(1+\frac{\beta _0\alpha _s}{4\pi }(t\frac{5}{3})\right)^2+\left(\frac{\beta _0}{4}\alpha _s\right)^2}}\left(A_1(0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{t\frac{5}{3}}}}A_1(e^tm_Q^2)\right)`$
$`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\beta _0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_Q^2}{m_Q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^2}}A_1(0)A_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^2)\right],`$
where $`\alpha _s\alpha _s^{\overline{\text{MS}}}(m_Q)`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^2=m_Q^2e^{\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _s(m_Q)}+\frac{5}{3}}.$$
(A.7)
This form is convenient for numerical integration. It also allows the straightforward expansion in $`\alpha _s(m_Q)`$:

$`A^{\mathrm{BLM}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }1+A_1(0){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_Q)}{\pi }}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\frac{4}{\beta _0}\left(\frac{\beta _0\alpha _s(m_Q)}{4\pi }\right)^{n+2}\times `$ (A.8)
$`\text{ }{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\frac{n}{2}}{}}}(\pi ^2)^kC_{_{n+1}}^{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_Q^2}{\lambda ^2}+\frac{5}{3}\right]^{n2k}\left(A_1(0)\frac{m_Q^2}{m_Q^2+e^{\text{-5/3}}\lambda ^2}A_1(\lambda ^2)\right)}.`$
Since the infrared part is removed from the one-loop diagram for the total width, the corresponding $`A_1(\lambda ^2)`$ is a real analytic function in the vicinity of zero, and no ambiguity in Eq. (A.6) is encountered. Nevertheless, as follows from the generating integral (A.6) the series (A.8) is only asymptotic.

Computing BLM corrections with the running masses $`m_Q(\mu )`$ requires expressions for the order-$`\alpha _s`$ terms in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\text{pert}}(\mu )`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^{2\text{pert}}(\mu )`$. They are given by integrating the SV spectral density (Eqs. (16), (19) of Ref. ) with the proper power of energy:

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\text{pert}}(\mu ;\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{16\alpha _s}{9\pi }}\vartheta (\mu ^2\lambda ^2)\left[(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{4\mu ^2})\sqrt{\mu ^2\lambda ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{8}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\lambda \mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{\mu ^2\lambda ^2}}}\right],`$
$`\mu _\pi ^{2\text{pert}}(\mu ;\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\vartheta (\mu ^2\lambda ^2){\displaystyle \frac{(\mu ^2\lambda ^2)^{3/2}}{\mu }}.`$ (A.9)
As discussed in Refs. , the quantity $`\lambda ^2\frac{\mathrm{d}A_1(\lambda ^2)}{\lambda ^2}`$ can be qualitatively viewed as describing the contribution of gluons with virtuality $`\lambda ^2`$ in the one-loop process. This convention has been adopted in Fig. 1.


text:
# Integration of nonlinear Partial Differential Equations by using matrix algebraic systems

## 1 Introduction

Analysis of nonlinear Partial Differential Equations (PDE) is severe problem in mathematical physics. Many different methods have been developed for analytical investigation of nonlinear PDE during last decades: Inverse Scattering Problem , Sato theory , Hirota bilinear method , Penlevé method , $`\overline{}`$-problem , with some generalizations , quasi-classical version of the $`\overline{}`$-problem . A wide class of PDE (so-called completely integrable systems) has been studied better then others. Nevertheless, there are many methods which work in nonintegrable case as well: .

We represent the method for construction of the families of particular solutions to some classes of multidimensional nonlinear PDE. This method is based on general properties of linear algebraic matrix equations. Essentially we develop some ideas represented in the ref. and recently in the ref. .

General algorithm is discussed in the Sec. 2. We consider systems, admitting solutions depending on arbitrary functions of either single or several variables. Sec. 3 represents some examples among which are Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation (KP) and Devi-Stewartson equation (DS). Conclusions are given in the Sec.5.

## 2 General results

The algorithm represented in this section is based on the fundamental properties of linear matrix algebraic equation, which is written in the following form:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }U=\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\psi _{ij}\}`$ is $`N\times N`$ matrix, $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are $`N\times M`$ matrices. Let us recall these properties.

1. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is nondegenerate matrix, i.e.

$`det\mathrm{\Psi }0,`$ (2)
then equation (1) has unique solution which can be written in the following form:

$`U=\mathrm{\Psi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (3)
Only nondegenerate matrices $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ will be considered hereafter.
2. (consequence of the previous property) If $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ and condition (2) is held, then the equation (1) has only the trivial solution

$`U0.`$ (4)
3. (superposition principle) Consider the set of $`K`$ matrix equations with the same matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }U_i=\mathrm{\Phi }_i,i=1,\mathrm{},K.`$ (5)
Then for any set of scalars $`b_k`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},K`$), function $`\stackrel{~}{U}=_{k=1}^Kb_kU_k`$ is solution of the following matrix equation

$`\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{U}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}}b_k\mathrm{\Phi }_k.`$ (6)
4. (consequence of properties 2 and 3) If columns $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ are linearly dependent, i.e there are scalars $`a_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},K`$, such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}}a_k\mathrm{\Phi }_k=0,`$ (7)
then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}}a_kU_k=0.`$ (8)

Note that analogous properties of linear integral equation have been used in the classical dressing method based on the $`\overline{}`$-problem .

We will use two sets of variables, which will be introduced in the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$: $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_Q)`$ , $`t=(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{})`$, where $`Q=\text{dim}(x)`$. The next statement follows from the above properties of the linear equations.

If there is transformation $`T`$, which maps the nonhomogeneous equation (1) into the homogeneous

$`\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{U}(U)=0,`$ (9)
then

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(U)=0,`$ (10)
or

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }U\stackrel{𝑇}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}=\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{U}(U)\stackrel{~}{U}(U)0`$ (11)
If $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ depends on $`U`$ and its derivatives, then equation (10) represents the matrix PDE for $`U`$.

We will see that transformation $`T`$ is not unique. One has the manifold of transformations $`𝕋`$

$`T_j𝕋:\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }U\stackrel{T_j}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}=\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{U}_j(U)\stackrel{~}{U}_j(U)0`$ (12)
which is uniquely defined by the equations introducing variables $`x`$ and $`t`$ in the matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Namely,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{x_k}=\mathrm{\Psi }B_k+\mathrm{\Phi }C_k,k=1,\mathrm{},Q`$ (13)
$`(B_k`$ and $`C_k`$ are $`N\times N`$ and $`M\times N`$ matrices respectively) and

$`M_\alpha ^n\mathrm{\Psi }=0,M_\alpha ^n\mathrm{\Phi }=0,M_\alpha ^n=_{t_\alpha }+^\alpha ,{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}\alpha _k=n,`$ (14)
where $`n`$ is order of differential operator. We use $`Q`$-dimensional vector subscript $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _Q)`$ and notation $`^\alpha =_{j=1}^Q_{x_j}^{\alpha _j}`$. Systems (13) and (14) should be compatible, which leads to relations among matrices $`B_j`$ and $`C_j`$ (see the next subsection).

Each operator $`M_\alpha ^n`$ defines transformation $`T_\alpha 𝕋`$. In fact, let us apply $`M_\alpha ^n`$ to both sides of the eq. (1) and use eqs. (14):

$`0=M_\alpha ^n\mathrm{\Phi }=(_{t_\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi })U+\mathrm{\Psi }_{t_\alpha }U+^\alpha (\mathrm{\Psi }U)=(_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi })U+\mathrm{\Psi }_{t_\alpha }U+`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j_1=0}{\overset{\alpha _1}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{j_Q=0}{\overset{\alpha _Q}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}C_{\alpha _k}^{j_k}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}_{x_n}^{j_n}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}_{x_m}^{\alpha _mj_m}U\right),`$
$`C_n^k={\displaystyle \frac{n!}{k!(nk)!}}`$ are binomial coefficients. Due to the eqs.(1) and (13) , one has the following expression for $`_{x_j}\mathrm{\Psi }`$:

$`_{x_j}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }V_{e^j},V_{e^j}=B_j+UC_j,e^j=(\underset{j1}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}},1,\underset{Qj}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}}).`$ (16)
Analogously we can write

$`^\beta \mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }V_\beta ,`$ (17)
where $`V_\beta `$ can be found recursively. In fact, one has

$`^\beta \mathrm{\Psi }=_{x_j}_{(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j1,\mathrm{},\beta _Q)}\mathrm{\Psi }=_{x_j}(\mathrm{\Psi }V_{(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j1,\mathrm{},\beta _Q)})=`$ (18)
$`(_{x_j}\mathrm{\Psi })V_{(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j1,\mathrm{},\beta _Q)}+\mathrm{\Psi }(_{x_j}V_{(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j1,\mathrm{},\beta _Q)})=`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(V_{e^j}V_{(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j1,\mathrm{},\beta _Q)}+_{x_j}V_{(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j1,\mathrm{},\beta _Q)}\right)`$
i.e.

$`V_\beta =V_{e^j}V_{(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j1,\mathrm{},\beta _Q)}+_{x_j}V_{(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _j1,\mathrm{},\beta _Q)},`$ (19)
$`V_0=V_{(\underset{Q}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}})}=I_{N,N}.`$
Owing to the eq.(17) we can replace factor $`\left(_{n=1}^Q_{x_n}^{j_n}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)`$ in (15) with $`\mathrm{\Psi }V_{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_Q)}`$, which results in

$`0=(_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi })U+\mathrm{\Psi }_{t_\alpha }U+`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \underset{j_1=1}{\overset{\alpha _1}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{j_Q=1}{\overset{\alpha _Q}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}C_{\alpha _k}^{j_k}\right)V_{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_Q)}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}_{x_m}^{\alpha _mj_m}U=\mathrm{\Psi }\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{U}_\alpha =_{t_\alpha }U+{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,\mathrm{}j_Q}{}^{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}C_{\alpha _k}^{j_k}\right)V_{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_Q)}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}_{x_m}^{\alpha _mj_m}U,`$ (21)
where $`{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,\mathrm{},j_Q}{}^{}}`$ means the sum over all values $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_Q`$ such that $`(_{m=1}^Qj_m)<n`$ The associated system of nonlinear PDE has the form (see (10))

$`_{t_\alpha }U+{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,\mathrm{}j_Q}{}^{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}C_{\alpha _k}^{j_k}\right)V_{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_Q)}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}_{x_m}^{\alpha _mj_m}U=0`$ (22)
### 2.1 Compatibility of the system (13) and (14)

Studying the compatibility condition for the system (13) we concentrate on two particular cases

1. compatibility condition produces the additional differential equation for the function $`U`$ and $`Q1`$ differential equations for the function $`\phi `$. In this case $`\varphi `$ (and $`U`$) involve $`N`$ arbitrary scalar functions of single variable.
2. compatibility condition produces only the differential equation for the function $`U`$. In this case $`\varphi `$ (and $`U`$) involve $`N\times M`$ arbitrary scalar functions of $`Q`$ variables.

Intermediate case (i.e. $`\phi `$ and $`U`$ depend on arbitrary functions of $`P`$ ($`1<P<Q`$) variables) is also possible, but it is not regarded in this paper.

#### 2.1.1 Matrix $`U`$ depends on $`N`$ arbitrary scalar functions of single variable

We start the analysis with splitting the eq. (13) into two equations by using the following structure of the matrices:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\phi & \chi \end{array}\right],B_j=\left[\begin{array}{cc}b_j& B_{1j}\\ & \\ 0_{NM,M}& B_{2j}\end{array}\right],`$ (26)
$`C_j=\left[\begin{array}{cc}C_{0j}& C_{1j}\end{array}\right],C_{01}=I_M,j=1,\mathrm{},Q`$ (28)
where $`\phi `$ is $`N\times M`$, $`\chi `$ is $`N\times (NM)`$; $`b_j`$, $`C_{0j}`$ are $`M\times M`$, $`B_{1j}`$ and $`C_{1j}`$ are $`M\times (NM)`$; $`B_{2j}`$ are $`(NM)\times (NM)`$ matrices for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},Q`$; hereafter $`0_{A,B}`$ with arbitrary $`A`$ and $`B`$ is $`A\times B`$ matrix of zeros; $`I_M`$ is $`M\times M`$ identity matrix. Having matrices with given structure one can split the system (13) as follows:

$`\phi _{x_j}=\phi b_j+\mathrm{\Phi }C_{0j},`$ (29)
$`\chi _{x_j}=\chi B_{2j}+\phi B_{1j}+\mathrm{\Phi }C_{1j}`$ (30)
The eq.(29) with $`j=1`$ defines $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in terms of $`\phi `$ (remember, that $`C_{01}=I_M`$):

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi _{x_1}\phi b_1,`$ (31)
Substituting this expression into the eq.(29) with $`j>1`$ one gets the overdetermined system of equations for $`\phi `$ :

$`\phi _{x_j}=\phi _{x_1}C_{0j}+\phi (b_jb_1C_{0j}),j>1.`$ (32)
Compatibility of this system with different $`j`$ leads to the following relations among matrices:

$`[C_{0k},C_{0j}]=0,`$ (33)
$`[b_j,C_{0k}][b_k,C_{0j}]+C_{0k}b_1C_{0j}C_{0j}b_1C_{0k}=0,`$
$`[b_jb_1C_{0j},b_kb_1C_{0k}]=0.`$
From another point of view, eqs. (1), (13) and (29) lead to the additional differential equation for $`U`$:

$`E_M[b_i,b_j]+UC_{0i}b_j+U_{x_i}C_{0j}+B_iUC_{0j}+UC_iUC_{0j}=`$ (34)
$`UC_{0j}b_i+U_{x_j}C_{0i}+B_jUC_{0i}+UC_jUC_{0i},`$
where $`E_M`$ is matrix,composed of first $`M`$ column of the $`N`$-dimensional identity matrix $`I_N`$. So, eq. (29) describes one more transformation $`T^{\text{comp}}𝕋`$.

The system (30) is overdetermined system defining $`\chi `$ in terms of $`\phi `$. Its compatibility condition leads to the following relations

$`A_3\chi +A_2\phi _{x_1x_1}+A_1\phi _{x_1}+A_0\phi =0,`$ (35)
$`A_3=[B_{2i},B_{2j}]0`$
$`A_2=C_{0i}C_{1j}C_{0j}C_{1i}0,`$
$`A_n=A_n(C_{0i},C_{0j},C_{1i},C_{1j},B_j)0,n=0,1.`$
We don’t represent expressions for $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$, because they are too complicated. But in the particular case, when $`b_j=0_{M,M}`$ and $`C_{1j}=0_{M,NM}`$ the above system has simpler form

$`[B_{2i},B_{2j}]=0`$ (36)
$`C_{0i}C_{1j}C_{0j}C_{1i}=0,`$
$`C_{1i}B_{2j}+C_{0i}B_{1j}C_{1j}B_{2j}C_{0j}B_{1i}=0`$
$`B_{1i}B_{2j}B_{1j}B_{2i}=0.`$
To satisfy both systems (13) and (14) $`\phi `$ should be written in the form:

$`\phi ={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}c(k_1)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}k_ix_i+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\omega _\alpha t_\alpha \right]𝑑k_1,`$ (37)
where $`c(k_1)`$ ($`N\times M`$ matrix function of argument) and $`k_j`$ satisfy the dispersion relation associated with eq.(32), $`\omega _\alpha `$ satisfy the dispersion relation for eq.(14). One can see that the above expression for $`\phi `$ (and $`U`$ due to the eq. (3)) involves $`N`$ arbitrary functions of single variable. Nonlinear equations generated by the operators $`M_\alpha ^n`$ have the form (22)

#### 2.1.2 Matrix $`U`$ depending on $`N\times M`$ arbitrary scalar functions of $`Q`$ variables

In this section we consider matrix equation (1) in the form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }U,\mathrm{\Phi }=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Phi }_1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\Phi }_P\end{array}\right],U=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}U_1& \mathrm{}& U_P\end{array}\right],\text{or}`$ (40)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_k=\mathrm{\Psi }U_k,k=1,\mathrm{},P,`$ (41)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ and $`U_j`$ are $`N\times M`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`N\times N`$ matrices. Let matrix $`C_k`$ be of the form:

$`C_k=\left[\begin{array}{c}0_{M(k1),N}\\ \stackrel{~}{C}_k\\ 0_{NMk,N}\end{array}\right],`$ (45)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_k`$ is $`M\times N`$ matrix. So that eq.(13) can be written as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{x_k}=\mathrm{\Psi }B_k+\mathrm{\Phi }_k\stackrel{~}{C}_k,k=1,\mathrm{},Q,`$ (46)
variables $`t_n`$ are introduced by the same eq.(14). Assume the following structure of matrices:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\phi & \chi \end{array}\right],\stackrel{~}{C}_k=\left[\begin{array}{cc}I_M& C_{1k}\end{array}\right],B_k=\left[\begin{array}{cc}b_k& B_{1k}\\ & \\ 0_{M,NM}& B_{2k}\end{array}\right],`$ (51)
where $`b_k`$, are $`M\times M`$ matrices, $`C_{1k}`$ and $`B_{1k}`$ are $`M\times (NM)`$ matrices, $`B_{2k}`$ are $`(NM)\times (NM)`$ matrices for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},Q`$. Now we can split the eq.(46) into the following pair of equations

$`\phi _{x_k}=\phi b_k+\mathrm{\Phi }_k,`$ (52)
$`\chi _{x_k}=\chi B_{2k}+\phi B_{1k}+\mathrm{\Phi }_kC_{1k}.`$ (53)
Equation (52) defines function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ in terms of $`\phi `$. At the same time, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ can be eliminated from the eq.(52) due to the eq.(41), so that eq.(52) represents overdetermined system for $`\phi `$ with compatibility condition (compare with eq.(34))

$`E_M[b_i,b_j]+U_{x_i}^j+U^ib_j+B_iU^j+U^i\stackrel{~}{C}_iU^j=`$ (54)
$`U_{x_j}^i+U^jb_i+B_jU^i+U^j\stackrel{~}{C}_jU^i,`$
So, additional transformation $`T^{\text{comp}}𝕋`$ is based on the system (52).

Compatibility of the system (53) gives relations among matrices $`B_j`$ and $`C_j`$: for all $`j`$ and $`k`$

$`C_{1j}C_{1k}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (55)
$`[B_{2j},B_{2k}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`B_{1j}b_jC_{1j}+C_{1j}B_{2j}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Expression for $`\phi `$ satisfying both systems (13) and (14) is following:

$`\phi ={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}c(k_1,\mathrm{},k_Q)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}k_ix_i+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\omega _\alpha t_\alpha \right]𝑑k_1\mathrm{}𝑑k_Q,`$ (56)
where $`c`$ is $`N\times M`$ arbitrary matrix function of arguments; $`\omega _\alpha `$ satisfy the dispersion relations for (14). Due to the formula (3) and (56), $`U`$ depends on $`N\times M`$ arbitrary functions of $`Q`$ variables. Nonlinear equations generated by the operators $`M_\alpha ^n`$ keep the form (22)

## 3 Examples

We consider two hierarchies of PDE, admitting solutions depending on $`N`$ functions of single variables (see subsection 2.1.1). Inside of them are classical KP and DS hierarchies. It is important to note that $`N`$ can be arbitrary integer for later, which is not true in general.

### 3.1 KP hierarchy

Let $`M=1`$, $`Q=1`$, $`M^n=_{t_n}+_x^n`$, $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$. Operators $`M^n`$ generate the following hierarchy (see eq.(22)):

$`U_{t_n}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}C_n^iV_{ni}_x^iU=0,`$ (57)
$`V_0=I_N,;V_1=B+UC,V_n=V_1V_{n1}+_xV_{n1},`$
where $`BB_1`$ and $`CC_1`$. In this case one has only one eq.(13) and no compatibility condition for it, i.e. matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ are arbitrary matrices having structure (26) and (28). If

$`B=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ & & & & \\ 0& 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right],C=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right],U=\left[\begin{array}{c}u_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ u_N\end{array}\right],`$ (66)
$`N`$ is arbitrary, then system (57) represent KP hierarchy , . KP can be written for the function $`uu_{1}^{}{}_{x}{}^{}`$ using eq.(57) with $`n=2,3`$:

$`u_t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}u_{xxx}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}_x^1u_{yy}+3uu_x=0`$ (67)
### 3.2 DS hierarchy

Let $`M=2`$, $`Q=2`$, $`x_1=x`$, $`x_2=y`$. Consider operators $`M^n=_{t_n}+_x^n`$. This operators generate the same hierarchy (57) with appropriate dimensions for matrix $`U`$,

$`V_1=B_1+UC_1,`$ (68)
and additional nonlinear equation (34):

$`U_xC_{02}+B_1UC_{02}+UC_1UC_{02}=U_yC_{01}+B_2UC_{01}+UC_2UC_{01}`$ (69)
with relations among matrices $`B_j`$ and $`C_j`$ given by (33) and (35) (or (36)). DS hierarchy corresponds to the following choice of matrices $`B_j`$ and $`C_j`$:

$`B_1=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right],B_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right],`$ (79)
$`C_1=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right],C_2=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right],U=\left[\begin{array}{cc}u_1& v_1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ u_N& v_n\end{array}\right],`$ (87)
$`N`$ is arbitrary. It is simply to check that conditions (33,36) are satisfied. Let us consider the eq.(57) with $`n=2`$ together with eq.(69). The following change of variables

$`u_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(rq+2w_x),u_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(r+q+2w_y),`$ (88)
$`v_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(rq+2w_y),v_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(r+q+2w_x).`$
transforms them into

$`r_{t_2}r_{xy}2rw_{xy}=0,q_{t_2}+q_{xy}+2qw_{xy}=0,w_{xx}w_{yy}=qr,`$ (89)
which results in DS after reduction $`r=\psi `$, $`q=\overline{\psi }`$, $`t_2=it`$, where $`i^2=1`$, bar means complex conjugated value

## 4 Conclusions

The suggested version of the dressing method is one more form of representation of the systems of nonlinear PDE, which admit an infinite number of commuting flows, generated by the operators $`M_\alpha ^n`$. Among them are classical completely integrable systems of equations. The feature of these system is that their solutions admit any number of arbitrary scalar functions of single variable ($`N`$ is arbitrary for them). One can see that there is another type of systems, which admit an infinite number of commuting flows, while $`N`$ is given. We don’t know interesting examples for this case. We also have not found the systems, whose solutions would admit any number of arbitrary scalar functions of several variables: for all nontrivial examples this number has to be fixed. These aspects will be studied later.

The work is supported by RFBR grants 01-01-00929 and 00-15-96007.