text:
# Atomic Calculations and Spectral Models of X-ray Absorption and Emission Features From Astrophysical Photoionized Plasmas

## 1 Introduction

With the launch of the X-ray satellites Chandra (Weisskopf et al. 2002) and XMM-Newton (Jansen et al. 2001; den Herder et al. 2001), high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy of diverse astrophysical objects has now become routine. X-rays, due to their origin in extreme astrophysical environments as well as their significant penetrating ability, can potentially provide a wealth of information about these sources. Their penetration power, in particular, implies that X-ray emitting plasmas are often optically thin. In such cases, complicated radiative transfer is negligible, allowing for particularly simple astrophysical models.

There are two main types of X-ray line-emitting plasmas: (1) Hot plasmas, which are mechanically heated through collisions and therefore have temperatures comparable to the observed line energies, and which produce X-ray line emission predominantly through radiative decay following electron impact excitation (hereafter, “collision-driven”), and (2) Photoionized plasmas, which are irradiated by a powerful external source and have subsequently lower temperatures consistent with photon heating (including both photoelectric and Compton heating), and which produce X-ray line emission through recombination/radiative cascade following photoionization, and radiative decay following photoexcitation (hereafter, “radiation-driven”111“Radiation-driven” often refers to the force due to radiation pressure, but throughout this paper, this term is used only to refer to the ultimate power source for driving atomic transitions, subsuming both photoionization and photoexcitation. or “photoionized”). Hot plasmas are produced in the coronae of stars (including the Sun), in shock-heated environments (such as supernovae, cataclysmic variables, and stellar winds of early-type stars), and in the intracluster media of clusters of galaxies. Photoionized plasmas have recently been unambiguously confirmed in X-ray binaries (Liedahl & Paerels 1996, Cottam et al. 2001), AGN outflows (Sako et al. 2000, Kinkhabwala et al. 2002), cataclysmic variables (Mukai et al. 2003), and even in the stellar wind of the WR+O binary $`\gamma `$ Velorum (Dumm et al. 2002). Hybrid plasmas, in which both collision-driven and radiation-driven processes are important, can also exist. So far, hybrid X-ray-line-emitting plasmas have not yet been unambiguously detected in any astrophysical source, but they are expected to play an important role in accretion disks, for example, which are strongly irradiated (implying radiation-driven processes are important) but also have high densities (implying collision-driven processes are important as well). Finally, we note that the mechanisms driving X-ray emission (either collision-driven or radiation-driven) in the two vastly different regimes of gamma-ray-burst (GRB) afterglows and the intergalactic medium (IGM) are still largely unknown. GRB afterglows may harbor hot plasmas produced through shocks and/or photoionized plasmas located in the ejecta or surrounding interstellar medium and powered by radiation from the burst and afterglow radiation. Similarly, the IGM may harbor hot plasmas from shocks due to structure formation and/or photoionized plasmas powered by radiation from active galactic nuclei (AGN) or starbursts.

Calculations of X-ray line emission from hot, collision-driven plasmas have been discussed in great detail by several authors, including Raymond & Smith (1977), Mewe, Gronenschild, & van den Ooord (1985), Mewe, Lemen, & van den Oord (1986), Kaastra (1992), Liedahl, Osterheld, & Goldstein (1995), and Smith et al. (2001). Discussions of line formation in X-ray photoionized plasmas have also been presented by several authors, including Tarter, Tucker, & Salpeter (1969), Halpern & Grindlay (1980), Krolik, McKee, & Tarter (1981), Kallman & McCray (1982), Netzer (1993), Kallman et al. (1996), and Liedahl (1999); however, spectral predictions made in these works have not yet been compared in detail with real astrophysical X-ray spectra. In contrast, the assumptions and calculations we describe here for photoionized plasmas were made and tested in the process of analyzing high-resolution X-ray spectra from various astrophysical sources.

Below, we present atomic structure and transition calculations using the publicly-available atomic code FAC (Gu 2002; Gu 2003) for all ionic transitions relevant for the X-ray regime. Atomic data values for some especially important transitions (in particular, more accurate wavelengths) and for some photoelectric edges are taken from other atomic databases, as will be described below. Using these data, we have fully characterized all significant line and edge absorption from the full range of included ions. We have also fully characterized the X-ray spectral emission features for radiative recombination forming the important H-like and He-like ions, as well as both radiative and dielectronic recombination forming L-shell ions.

In order to attempt to explain real astrophysical spectra from photoionized plasmas, we have created a simple model of a cone of ions irradiated by a source located at its tip. Photoionization in the cone is balanced by recombination/radiative cascade and photoexcitation is balanced by radiative decay. This model has been incorporated into XSPEC (Arnaud 1996) as the additive model PHOTOION222Available at http://xmm.astro.columbia.edu/research.html. For convenience, we have also created the abbreviated additive model PHSI for a single ion, and the multiplicative models MPABS (multi-ion absorption) and SIABS (single-ion absorption) for pure absorption studies.

Our calculations invoke the following basic assumptions: (1) All ions are in their ground states. X-ray transitions are generally much faster than the relevant rates for radiation-driven and collision-driven processes, making this typically a safe assumption. (2) Collisional excitation and collisional ionization are negligible. Due to the low temperatures and densities of photoionized plasmas, these processes are typically insignificant for driving X-ray transitions. (3) We assume the entire medium is in a global steady state. (Note that we do not require the more restrictive assumption of local steady state conditions everywhere in the medium.) Furthermore, for the medium as a whole, we assume the total ionization rate equals the total recombination rate between all neighboring charge states. (4) All relative ion ratios are constant throughout the medium. Or, more approximately, all ion ratios are constant over regions with size comparable to the continuum optical-depth length scale (defined as the length over which the continuum is reduced by a few or more percent). For a mildly-absorbed medium, this length scale is equal to the entire medium, and this assumption is trivially valid. Interestingly, recent observations of the prototypical Seyfert 2 galaxy, NGC 1068, show that an inherent, relatively scale-free density distribution (over a few orders of magnitude) at each radius is more important than the radial distribution in setting the range in ionization parameter (Brinkman et al. 2002; Ogle et al. 2003), suggesting that even in moderately or highly absorbed media this approximation may still be valid. (5) The irradiated medium can be modeled as a relatively narrow isotropic cone with the source of radiation located at its tip. This cone is completely specified by its opening angle, ionic column densities, representative ionic recombination temperatures, and a simple velocity structure, characterized by a global radial velocity shift and gaussian width, and a global transverse (perpendicular to the cone) velocity shift and gaussian width. (6) The emitting plasmas are optically thin to their own emission. Because X-ray radiative cross-sections are generally weaker than longer wavelength cross-sections (e.g., in the UV or optical), a given medium remains optically thin to X-rays out to significantly higher column densities. Furthermore, in the context of our assumption of a narrow cone geometry, even with large radial ionic column densities and corresponding radial optical depth, the transverse optical depth is smaller than the radial optical depth by roughly the length-to-width ratio of the cone. Observationally, optical thinness has been demonstrated for the line emitting regions of NGC 1068 using a simple line conversion diagnostic (see Kinkhabwala et al. 2002 and §6.2 below).

Our paper is organized as follows. Starting from the most general ionic rate equations in §2, we describe how the above assumptions are employed to simplify these equations for generic astrophysical plasmas in §3 and then for purely radiation-driven plasmas in §4. Here, we also describe our calculations of important diagnostics for H- and He-like ion emission, as well as the specifics of all of our atomic calculations with FAC. In order to explain real astrophysical spectra, we present our model of a cone of ions irradiated by a point source located at its tip in §5, obtaining the final expression for the rate equations, which serve as the basis for PHOTOION. In §6, we provide examples of the capabilities of PHOTOION. Finally, in §7, we discuss our results.

## 2 Reaction Kinetics

Presented below is a completely general analysis of the ionic rate equations for astrophysical plasmas (including all possible collision-driven and radiation-driven processes). This analysis is undertaken for two reasons. First, we are unaware of any similarly general analysis in the literature and hope to motivate studies along similar lines. And, second, this analysis most clearly brings out all the assumptions that are made in the formulation of our final rate equations for a radiation-driven medium.

An extremely general form for the rate equation pertaining to population/depletion of ions $`n_{Z,z,i}`$ of element $`Z`$ (atomic number) with $`z`$ electrons in atomic level $`i`$ and immersed in a generic gas or plasma is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{Z,z,i}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z1,j}n_\mathrm{e}^kC_{zk,j}^{z,i}+{\displaystyle \underset{1kz}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{zk,j}\left[\{nC\}_Q\right]_{zk,j}^{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{1kz}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z,i}\left[R+D+n_\mathrm{e}C+\{nC\}_Q\right]_{z,i}^{zk,j}`$ (1)
$`n_{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C+\{nC\}_Q+A\right]_{z,i}^{z,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z,j}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C+\{nC\}_Q+A\right]_{z,j}^{z,i}`$
$`n_{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_\mathrm{e}^kC_{z,i}^{z+k,j}n_{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[\{nC\}_Q\right]_{z,i}^{z+k,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z+k,j}\left[R+D+n_\mathrm{e}C+\{nC\}_Q\right]_{z+k,j}^{z,i}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{q,q^{}}{}}n_q\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C+\{nC\}_Q\right]_q^{q^{}+z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{q,q^{}}{}}n_{z,i}\left[\{nC\}_q\right]_{q+z,i}^q^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{q,q^{}}{}}n_qW_q^{q^{}+z,i}.`$
Because only one element at a time is concerned, we have dropped the atomic number $`Z`$ in the ion density subscripts on the RHS of the equation for conciseness, i.e., $`n_{z,j}n_{Z,z,j}`$. The full time derivative on the LHS can be written as the usual convective derivative: $`dn/dt=n/t+𝐯n`$, which allows for the possibility of bulk motion (e.g., due to AGN outflow or stellar wind). Equation 1 includes all radiation-driven and collision-driven processes, i.e., all plausibly significant interactions with photons, electrons, ions, molecules, and dust grains and all possible excited-state decays. It therefore provides a good starting point for examination of most astrophysical plasmas, excluding only plasmas where coherent quantum effects are important, such as extremely-high-density plasmas (e.g., neutron star atmospheres) or coherent emission from masers or lasers (discussed further in the next paragraph). The notation is as follows: $`A`$ (radiative decay rate), $`C`$ (“collision-driven” coefficients), $`R`$ (“radiation-driven” coefficients), $`D`$ (autoionization rate), $`W`$ (grain/molecule spontaneous disintegration rate), and parentheses (implying notation refers to all $`A`$, $`C`$, $`R`$, $`D`$, and $`W`$ terms contained within), with the initial level as subscript and the final level as superscript for a particular transition between members of the ionic series (a la Einstein 1917). For example, $`C_{z,i}^{z^{},j}`$ implies a transition from a $`z`$-like ion (e.g., $`z=2`$ for a He-like ion) in level $`i`$ to a $`z^{}`$-like ion in level $`j`$. $`\{nC\}_Q`$ refers to the set of products of all collision-driven rate coefficients times their corresponding population densities $`n`$ for interactions with ions, molecules, and dust grains (not including electrons). The right hand side, term-by-term, corresponds to $`(k+1)`$-body recombination $`(zk,j)(z,i)`$ (usually only two-body recombination is important, though three-body recombination – i.e., two electrons and one ion – is significant at high densities), charge transfer $`(zk,j)(z,i)`$, ionization $`(z,i)(zk,j)`$, excitation/deexcitation/spontaneous decay $`(z,i)(z,j)`$, excitation/deexcitation/spontaneous decay $`(z,j)(z,i)`$, $`(k+1)`$-body recombination $`(z,i)(z+k,j)`$, charge transfer $`(z,i)(z+k,j)`$, ionization $`(z+k,j)(z,i)`$, molecule/grain destruction $`qq^{}+(z,i)`$, molecule creation/grain adsorption $`q+(z,i)q^{}`$, and molecule/grain spontaneous disintegration $`qq^{}+(z,i)`$. A similar rate equation to Eq. 1 but for molecules or grains is straightforward to write down as well. In light of the simplistic approach and corresponding assumptions adopted in this paper, we do not investigate the coupling of Eq. 1 with any force laws, electrodynamic equations, or thermodynamic relations.

The particular process of photoexcitation requires further elaboration. For photon-atom interactions near an atomic resonance (bound-bound), there are two possible regimes. One is the “classical” damped-oscillator regime (Wigner & Weisskopf 1930; Weisskopf 1931), in which it is possible to separately consider the quantum processes of absorption (photoexcitation) and reemission driven by spontaneous decay. This entire process can be thought of as “inelastic scattering.” We have implicitly assumed this regime in our presentation of the ionic rate equations. The alternate regime is resonance scattering, in which these two processes cannot be separated out, and which always produces an outgoing photon with energy equal to the incident photon in the center-of-momentum frame (“elastic scattering”). To determine which is the valid regime requires consideration of the interaction timescale with the incident radiation field and the relative strength of the transition. Incident monochromatic light (formally infinite interaction time) yields energy-preserving resonance scattering for any transition strength. However, the continuous spectrum (short interaction time) or even absorbed power-law spectrum typical of photoionizing radiation and the predominance of absorption by relatively strong transitions appears to validate the “classical” regime (e.g., Sakurai 1967). Observationally, the difference between the “classical” and resonance-scattering regimes is significant only in the details of the emission line profiles and in the expected degradation of higher-transition-energy photons to lower-transition-energy photons in the “classical” regime.

### 2.1 Collision-driven Processes

The $`C`$ coefficients refer to all collision-driven processes, i.e., all processes driven by collisions of the particle of interest (usually an ion) with a secondary particle (usually a free electron). Collisional excitation/ionization/deexcitation and the processes of recombination, charge transfer, and molecule/grain creation/destruction can be compactly expressed as:

$$C_A^B=\left[\sigma ^C\right]_A^B(E)v(E)f(E)𝑑E,$$
(2)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$, for example, could be $`(z,i)`$ and $`(z^{},j)`$. The integral is over the center-of-momentum energy, $`E`$, of the two particles. In the integrand, $`\left[\sigma ^C\right]_A^B(E)`$ is the collisional cross section for the transition $`AB`$ of the particle under consideration (e.g., an ion) with the interacting particle (e.g., an electron), $`v(E)`$ is the relative velocity of the two interacting particles, and, finally, $`f(E)`$ is the normalized energy distribution. For isothermal electrons interacting with heavier, slower ions at the same temperature, $`E`$ is the electron kinetic energy, $`v(E)v_\mathrm{e}(E)=\sqrt{2E/m_\mathrm{e}}`$ is the relative velocity, and $`f(E)`$ is the electron energy distribution. Taking the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution $`f(E;T)`$ specified by temperature $`T`$ for the electron distribution makes the final coefficient, $`C_A^B(T)`$, temperature dependent.

### 2.2 Radiation-driven Processes

The $`R`$ coefficients refer to all radiation-driven processes, i.e., all processes driven by the local radiation field. These coefficients depend solely on the spectrum of the local radiation field and the given interaction cross section. Photoexcitation, photoionization, and stimulated emission and molecule/grain photodestruction can be expressed as:

$$R_A^B(F(E,\stackrel{}{r}))=\left[\sigma ^R\right]_A^B(E,\stackrel{}{r})F(E,\stackrel{}{r})𝑑E,$$
(3)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ again could simply be $`(z,i)`$ and $`(z^{},j)`$. The photon flux spectrum at position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is $`F(E,\stackrel{}{r})`$ (e.g., with in units of photons cm-2 s-1 keV-1; throughout this paper all luminosities and fluxes will be expressed in photon units, not the usual energy units). The photon flux spectrum may include radiation from a source external to the emission region as well as any other sources of radiation produced in the photoionized plasma itself. The total radiative cross section for transition $`AB`$ is given by $`\left[\sigma ^R\right]_A^B(E,\stackrel{}{r})`$, which is already convolved with the local velocity distribution function at $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ of the particle population under consideration. Most of the calculational complexity of generic plasmas is reflected in $`F(E,\stackrel{}{r})`$, which, through radiative transfer, is coupled to the density and velocity distributions (thermal or non-thermal) of all interacting particles. However, for the special case of optically thin plasmas, radiative transfer is negligible, simplifying calculations enormously (as is demonstrated below).

## 3 Further Simplifications for Typical Astrophysical Plasmas

We now make two assumptions valid for many typical astrophysical plasmas: (1) The only important collisional interactions involve an ion with a single free electron, and (2) Radiation-driven and collision-driven ionizations remove only one electron (this does not include subsequent electron ejection through autoionization, which is retained in the $`D`$ coefficients). This gives for the ground-state equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{z,g}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z1,j}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z1,j}^{z,g}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z,g}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C\right]_{z,g}^{z1,j}n_{z,g}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C\right]_{z,g}^{z,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{j>g}{}}n_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,g}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z+1,j}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C\right]_{z+1,j}^{z,g}+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z+k,j}D_{z+k,j}^{z,g}n_{z,g}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z,g}^{z+1,j}`$ (4)
and for the excited levels ($`i>g`$):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn_{z,i}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z1,j}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z1,j}^{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{1k<z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z,i}D_{z,i}^{zk,j}n_{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}n_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,i}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z,j}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C\right]_{z,j}^{z,i}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z,j}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C\right]_{z,j}^{z,i}n_{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C\right]_{z,i}^{z,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z+1,j}\left[R+n_\mathrm{e}C\right]_{z+1,j}^{z,i}+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z+k,j}D_{z+k,j}^{z,i}.`$ (5)
To predict the emergent spectrum, we must integrate Eqs. 4 and 5 over the entire emission region volume. For this purpose, we assume a global steady state, implying that all volume integrals $`\frac{dn}{dt}𝑑V`$ are identically zero (i.e., we balance ionic population/depletion and ionic inflow/outflow for the entire volume under consideration). A global steady state is assumed rather than a local steady state, because, for example, even in a steady outflow, the local rates of photoionization and recombination may not necessarily balance, with photoionizations occuring nearer to the source and recombinations occuring at larger distances. Even the assumption of a global steady state breaks down, of course, for highly-variable sources. However, under the global-steady-state assumption, integration of Eq. 4 over volume yields (with $`Nn𝑑V`$):

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j>g}{}}N_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,g}+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{z+k,j}D_{z+k,j}^{z,g}={\displaystyle }(n_{z1,g}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z1,g}^{z,g}+n_{z,g}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[R+n_\mathrm{e}C]_{z,g}^{z1,j}+n_{z,g}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[R+n_\mathrm{e}C]_{z,g}^{z,j}`$
$`n_{z+1,g}[R+n_\mathrm{e}C]_{z+1,g}^{z,g}+n_{z,g}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z,g}^{z+1,j}n_{z,g}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[R+n_\mathrm{e}C]_{z,g}^{z,j})dV`$ (6)
and integration of Eq. 5 over volume yields

$`N_{z,i}({\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}A_{z,i}^{z,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{1k<z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}D_{z,i}^{zk,j}){\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}N_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{z+k,j}D_{z+k,j}^{z,i}={\displaystyle }({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z1,j}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z1,j}^{z,i}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z,j}[R+n_\mathrm{e}C]_{z,j}^{z,i}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z,j}[R+n_\mathrm{e}C]_{z,j}^{z,i}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}n_{z+1,j}[R+n_\mathrm{e}C]_{z+1,j}^{z,i}n_{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[R+n_\mathrm{e}C]_{z,i}^{z,j})dV.`$ (7)
These equations are perfectly general for realistic collision- and/or radiation-driven plasmas. But they are still sufficiently complicated (due to coupling of these equations to each other and to other such equations) to bar direct integration.

## 4 Radiation-Driven Emission

In this section we show how further assumptions can be employed to decouple Eqs. 6 and 7 from each other and from all other such equations, leaving a simple analytic solution for derivation of the spectrum. But first we review the atomic processes relevant for radiation-driven plasmas.

### 4.1 Relevant Atomic Processes

For radiation-driven plasmas, there are only a few processes which contribute significantly. These are summarized in Fig. 1 and explained below.

The most important collision-driven process is recombination, including both radiative and dielectronic recombination. We presently discuss only radiative recombination. Using the principle of detailed balance embodied in the Milne relation (Milne 1924), the radiative recombination cross section for electrons at temperature $`T`$ can be related to the photoionization cross section:

$$\sigma _{z1,g}^{z,i}(E_\mathrm{e})=\frac{g_{z,i}}{g_{z1,g}}\frac{(E_{\mathrm{th}}+E_\mathrm{e})^2}{m_\mathrm{e}c^2E_\mathrm{e}}\sigma _{z,i}^{z1,g}(E_{\mathrm{th}}+E_\mathrm{e}),$$
(8)
where $`E_\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron kinetic energy, $`E_{\mathrm{th}}`$ is the threshold photonionizing photon energy, $`E=E_{\mathrm{th}}+E_\mathrm{e}`$ is the photon energy, and the $`g`$ are the ionic level degeneracies. Combining Eq. 8 with Eq. 2 allows for calculation of the radiative recombination coefficients.

The two most important radiation-driven processes are photoexcitation and photoionization. For the photoexcitation cross section, convolution of a line profile with the velocity distribution simply yields the Voigt profile (Voigt 1912):

$$\sigma _{z,i}^{z,j}(E)=\frac{\pi e^2}{m_\mathrm{e}c}f_{ji}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _D}H(x,y)$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _D=\sqrt{2}\frac{\sigma _v^{\mathrm{rad}}}{c}\frac{E_{ji}}{h}`$ and $`H(x,y)`$ is the Voigt function with $`x=\frac{A}{4\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _D}`$ (where $`A`$ denotes the sum of all radiative and autoionizing decay rates from level $`i`$) and $`y=\frac{EE_{ji}}{h\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _D}`$. The Voigt profile is used for both absorption and reemission line profiles (though with the possibility of different velocity distributions due to differing bulk motion distributions). The photoionization cross section $`\sigma _{z,i}^{z1,g}(E)`$ is calculated explicitly by FAC. We convolve the photoionization cross section with the same $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{rad}}`$ used above for the photoexcitation cross section. The total cross section for photoionization and photoexcitation is taken to be a sum of the individual cross sections. For photoexcitation, this simply means that we consider each transition (oscillator) decoupled from all other transitions (oscillators): A more accurate treatment would use the full Kramers-Heisenberg-like cross section with appropriate radiation damping (e.g., Sakurai 1967), but this level of accuracy is rarely, if ever, needed for astrophysical sources. The continuous and discrete line cross sections can therefore be taken one by one in Eq. 3 to calculate all of the necessary photoionization/photoexcitation coefficients. Finally, we note that photoexcitation and photoionization (as well as dielectronic recombination) can sometimes place electrons in levels capable of autoionization, as is illustrated in Fig. 1.

### 4.2 Radiation-driven Rate Equations

Returning to the ionic rate equations given in Eqs. 6 and 7, we now make two modifications. First, introducing a powerful simplification, we assume that all ionic excited levels are short-lived compared to the relevant radiation-driven and collision-driven excitation/ionization timescales. Second, in line with purely radiation-driven plasmas, we assume that all collisional excitations and ionizations are negligible. We therefore obtain the following for Eq. 6:

$`{\displaystyle \left(n_{z,g}\underset{j}{}R_{z,g}^{z1,j}n_{z1,g}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z1,g}^{z,g}\right)𝑑V}={\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{z+k,j}D_{z+k,j}^{z,g}+{\displaystyle \left(n_{z+1,g}R_{z+1,g}^{z,g}n_{z,g}\underset{j}{}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z,g}^{z+1,j}\right)𝑑V}`$ (10)
and for Eq. 7:

$`N_{z,i}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}A_{z,i}^{z,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{1k<z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}D_{z,i}^{zk,j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}N_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{z+k,j}D_{z+k,j}^{z,i}={\displaystyle \left(n_{z1,g}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z1,g}^{z,i}+n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z,i}+n_{z+1,g}R_{z+1,g}^{z,i}\right)𝑑V}.`$ (11)
These equations have a few interesting properties, which we now briefly mention. In Eq. 10, the LHS contains only those transitions which connect charge state $`z`$ to charge states with fewer electrons, and the RHS contains only those transitions which connect charge state $`z`$ to charge states with more electrons. In Eq. 11, all integrated expressions (involving only total ion numbers $`N`$) have been suggestively placed on the LHS with integral expressions placed on the RHS. The $`A,R`$, and $`C`$ coefficients in Eqs. 10 and 11 couple the same or nearest-neighbor charge states. The exception to this rule comes from the $`D`$ terms (representing autoionization), which, through multiple electron ejection, can connect more distant charge states.

Though most X-ray transitions occur very rapidly, allowing for our neglect of all excited-level populations, some rare long-lived levels do exist. The most important example is the especially long-lived $`2^3S_1`$ level in He-like ions (see §4.4 for more details). The inclusion of collision- or radiation-driven transitions out of these long-lived levels in this formalism requires a much more sophisticated approach starting from Eq. 7.

### 4.3 Radiation-Driven Emission from H-Like and He-Like Ions

We now apply Eqs. 10 and 11 to the extremely important and relatively simple cases of H-like and He-like ions. Under the assumptions taken so far, autoionization is unimportant in He-like ions and onto H-like ions for the low temperatures characteristic of photoionized plasmas (and, of course, autoionization is trivially non-existent in H-like ions). We note that autoionizations, however, may be significant for driving ionizations onto He-like ions. With these considerations in mind, we can now simplify the rate equations for all charge states of interest (bare, H-like, and He-like).

The absence of autoionization implies the only routes between bare, H-like, and He-like involve nearest neighbors (bare$``$H-like and H-like$``$He-like). Explicitly, for bare$``$H-like, taking $`z=0`$ in Eq. 10 yields:

$`{\displaystyle n_{1,g}R_{1,g}^0𝑑V}={\displaystyle n_0\underset{j}{}n_\mathrm{e}C_0^{1,j}dV}.`$ (12)
With a little more effort, a similar equation can also be derived for H-like$``$He-like transitions, which together with Eq. 12, can both be compactly expressed as follows (with $`z=1`$ for bare$``$H-like and $`z=2`$ for H-like$``$He-like):

$`{\displaystyle n_{z,g}\underset{j}{}R_{z,g}^{z1,j}dV}={\displaystyle n_{z1,g}n_\mathrm{e}C_{\mathrm{total}}𝑑V}`$ (13)
where $`C_{\mathrm{total}}_jC_{z1,g}^{z,j}`$.

Now turning to Eq. 11, for H-like ions ($`z=1`$ electron), we obtain the following:

$`N_{1,i}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A_{1,i}^{1,j}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{1,j}A_{1,j}^{1,i}={\displaystyle \left(n_0n_\mathrm{e}C_0^{1,i}+n_{1,g}R_{1,g}^{1,i}\right)𝑑V}.`$ (14)
Similarly, for He-like ions ($`z=2`$ electrons) we obtain

$`N_{2,i}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}N_{2,j}A_{2,j}^{2,i}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_{2+k,j}D_{2+k,j}^{2,i}={\displaystyle \left(n_{1,g}n_\mathrm{e}C_{1,g}^{2,i}+n_{2,g}R_{2,g}^{2,i}\right)𝑑V}.`$ (15)
In both cases, we omit the irrelevant final term in Eq. 11. The last term on the right-hand side of Eq. 15 gives the contribution to the particular He-like excited level $`i`$ from autoionization of excited lower-ionization-state ions. Autoionizations ending on He-like excited levels are rare compared with those ending on the ground state (due to the significantly higher energy change for $`nl1s`$ compared to $`nl\mathrm{n}^{}\mathrm{l}^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{n}^{}>1`$). For this reason, we will henceforth neglect this contribution. Due to the symmetry of the H-like and He-like rate equations, we can now express Eq. 11 as:

$`N_{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}A_{z,i}^{z,j}{\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}N_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,i}={\displaystyle \left(n_{z1,g}n_\mathrm{e}C_{z1,g}^{z,i}+n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z,i}\right)𝑑V},`$ (16)
with (with $`z=1`$ for H-like and $`z=2`$ for He-like). Assuming that the temperature range is small enough that the branching ratios for recombination onto level $`i`$, $`C_{z1,g}^{z,i}/C_{\mathrm{total}}`$, are roughly temperature-independent, we can use Eq. 13 to reexpress Eq. 16 as:

$`N_{z,i}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}N_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,i}={\displaystyle \frac{C_{z1,g}^{z,i}}{C_{\mathrm{total}}}}{\displaystyle n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z1,g}𝑑V}+{\displaystyle n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z,i}𝑑V}.`$ (17)
Note that the RHS is purely dependent on the total photoexcitation/photoionization rates out of the ground state. For a given model of $`n_{z,g}`$ and all $`R`$, the RHS of Eq. 17 predicts the individual $`N_i`$ (which are direct observables in the optically-thin limit). Also, since the source terms appear linearly on the right-hand side for photoionization (first term) with corresponding inverse process of radiative recombination/radiative cascade (“REC”), and photoexcitation (second term) with corresponding inverse process of radiative decay (“DEC”) in Eq. 17, we can solve separately for each, obtaining $`N_i=N_i^{\mathrm{REC}}+N_i^{\mathrm{DEC}}`$.

### 4.4 Radiative Recombination in H-like and He-like Ions

H-like and He-like ions dominate the reemission spectra of photoionized plasmas. Line emission in these species is also particularly simple. We therefore now discuss their important emission spectra in detail.

The recombination spectrum expected for a total ionic recombination rate onto an ion with $`z1`$ electrons (expressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z`$), is determined by the following equations:

$$N_{z,i}\underset{j}{}A_{z,i}^{z,j}\underset{j}{}N_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z\frac{C_{z1,g}^{z,i}}{C_{\mathrm{total}}}$$
(18)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z=n_{z1,g}n_\mathrm{e}C_{\mathrm{total}}𝑑VC_{\mathrm{total}}\mathrm{EM}_{z1},$$
(19)
where $`N_{z,j}`$ denotes the number of ions $`z`$ in level $`j`$, $`A_{z,j}^{z,g}`$ is the radiative decay rate for ion $`z`$ and transition $`jg`$ ($`g`$ denotes the ground state), $`C_{z1,g}^{z,i}`$ is the recombination coefficient describing recombination of a free electron onto ground-state ion $`z1`$ creating ion $`z`$ with electron configuration $`i`$, and $`C_{\mathrm{total}}_iC_{z1,g}^{z,i}`$. For simplicity, we assume that recombinations occur at a single representative temperature (hence the $``$ in Eq. 19). The emission measure EMz-1 in Eq. 19 is simply defined as $`\mathrm{EM}_{z1}n_{z1,g}n_\mathrm{e}𝑑V`$. These equations are valid for both H-like and He-like ions (see Appendix). The set of equations represented by Eq. 18 provide a complete, soluble system of equations for all levels $`i>g`$. We note that the total population of ground-state ions is unobservable from the plasma line emission spectrum alone; the best that can be done is to determine the emission measure $`\mathrm{EM}_{z1}`$.

Since we are interested in predicting line fluxes and ratios, we introduce the line luminosity (photons s-1):

$`L_{ji}=N_jA_{z,j}^{z,i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^zl_{ji},`$ (20)
where $`l_{ji}=N_jA_{z,j}^{z,i}/\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z`$ is the dimensionless line luminosity coefficient. Similarly, the recombination luminosity onto level $`i`$ is

$`L_{fi}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z{\displaystyle \frac{C_{z1,g}^{z,i}}{C_{\mathrm{total}}}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^zl_{fi},`$ (21)
where $`l_{fi}=C_{z1,g}^{z,i}/C_{\mathrm{total}}`$ is the recombination luminosity coefficient (The subscript $`f`$ stands for the initial state with a “free” electron).

In Figs. 2 and 3, we plot the line coefficients for the principal lines of H-like and He-like ions, respectively. Also shown in Figs. 4 and 5 are the corresponding $`C_{\mathrm{total}}`$ as a function of temperature. Together, these plots allow for the determination of the total recombination rates as well as ionic emission measures for a given photoionized plasma spectrum. In addition, we provide the standard He-like triplet ratios $`R=f/i`$ and $`G=(i+f)/r`$ (Gabriel & Jordan 1969) for pure radiative recombination as a function of temperature in Fig. 6. We stress that since the He-like curves do not include the additional contributions from dielectronic recombination and collisional excitation present at the high temperature end, direct comparison with data for these high temperatures should be avoided. Explanation of exactly how these calculations were carried out is provided below in §4.6.

We again stress the neglect of the well-observed process of forbidden-to-intercombination line conversion in the He-like triplets through excitation of the long-lived 2 3S1 level up to the 2 3P multiplet (Gabriel & Jordan 1969). Though we do not take this into account here (and it is not included in PHOTOION), it is simple enough to determine the effects on the He-like triplet ratio $`R=f/i`$ of electron collisional excitation which is dependent on $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ (e.g., Porquet & Dubau 2000) and/or of UV photoexcitation which is dependent only on $`F(E_0)`$ (e.g., Kahn et al. 2001).

### 4.5 Radiation-Driven Emission from Other Ions

Li-like and lower-ionization-state ions are in general more complicated for a number of reasons. Excitations and ionizations can now lead to excited levels capable of autoionization of single and, importantly, multiple electrons. This implies that the strict equivalence between the single-electron removal rate (either through photoionization or single-electron autoioinization following photoexcitation) and the recombination rate between neighboring charge states are no longer necessarily equal. However, autoionizations removing more than one electron are typically negligible compared to photoionizations and single-electron autoionization (though this statement deserves further investigation). Therefore, this equivalence is likely still a very good approximation, and can be expressed as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z={\displaystyle n_{z1,g}n_\mathrm{e}C_{\mathrm{total}}𝑑V}={\displaystyle n_{z,g}\left(\underset{j}{}R_{z,g}^{z1,j}+\underset{j}{}R_{z,g}^{z,j}f_{z,j}^D\right)𝑑V},`$ (22)
where $`C_{\mathrm{total}}`$ is the total recombination rate coefficient (now for both radiative and dielectronic recombination) and $`f_{z,j}^D`$ denotes the fraction of decays from $`z,j`$ that lead to electron removal via autoionization (hence the $`D`$ superscript).

We now focus on Eq. 11, which describes the line emission. As a further approximation, we drop the last term on the RHS of Eq. 11, which gives all autoionizations from lower charge states landing on the excited level $`z,i`$. This allows us to consider transitions only within the same ion. As for Eq. 17, we assume that the temperature range is small enough so that $`C_{z1,g}^{z,i}/C_{\mathrm{total}}`$ is independent of temperature. Then, from Eqs. 11 and 22, we obtain:

$`N_{z,i}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}A_{z,i}^{z,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{1k<z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}D_{z,i}^{zk,j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}N_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,i}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{z1,g}^{z,i}}{C_{\mathrm{total}}}}{\displaystyle n_{z,g}\left(\underset{j}{}R_{z,g}^{z1,j}+\underset{j}{}R_{z,g}^{z,j}f_{z,j}^D\right)𝑑V}`$
$`+{\displaystyle n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z,i}𝑑V}+{\displaystyle n_{z+1,g}R_{z+1,g}^{z,i}𝑑V}.`$ (23)
The linearity of Eq. 23 allows us to separate out the respective contributions to all $`N_{z,i}`$ from photoionization/autoionization (eventually producing recombinations, both radiative and dielectronic) and the fraction of photoexcitations that produce radiative decays: $`N_{z,i}=N_{z,i}^{\mathrm{REC}}+N_{z,i}^{\mathrm{DEC}}`$. For photoionization/autoionization which produce eventual recombinations, we have:

$`N_{z,i}^{\mathrm{REC}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}N_{z,j}^{\mathrm{REC}}A_{z,j}^{z,i}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{z1,g}^{z,i}}{C_{\mathrm{total}}}}{\displaystyle n_{z,g}\left(\underset{j}{}R_{z,g}^{z1,j}+\underset{j}{}R_{z,g}^{z,j}f_{z,j}^D\right)𝑑V}.`$ (24)
We have neglected the $`_{1k<z}_jD_{z,i}^{zk,j}`$ terms, which for the low temperatures typical of photoionized plasmas do not usually contribute significantly to the recombination spectra. These terms are retained, however, in Eq. 25, where they are essential for excitations and ionizations resulting in levels capable of autoionization. The system of equations represented by Eq. 24 can be thought of as the exact solution of the line spectrum for a given recombination rate onto each level $`i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^zC_{z1,g}^{z,i}/C_{\mathrm{total}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z`$ is the total recombination rate. Similarly, for photoexcitation, we obtain

$`N_{z,i}^{\mathrm{DEC}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}A_{z,i}^{z,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{1k<z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}D_{z,i}^{zk,j}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j>i}{}}N_{z,j}^{\mathrm{DEC}}A_{z,j}^{z,i}{\displaystyle n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z,i}𝑑V}+{\displaystyle n_{z+1,g}R_{z+1,g}^{z,i}𝑑V}.`$ (25)
Here, for the first time on the LHS, we must integrate over both $`n_{z,g}`$ and $`n_{z+1,g}`$, the latter represent all photoionizations that leave the ion in an excited level (for photoionization of H- and He-like ions, this is always the ground state). As a further simplification to Eq. 25, we can discard the last term on the LHS, which describes feeding of $`z,i`$ by all higher excitation levels:

$`N_{z,i}^{\mathrm{DEC}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j<i}{}}A_{z,i}^{z,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{1k<z}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}D_{z,i}^{zk,j}\right){\displaystyle n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z,i}𝑑V}+{\displaystyle n_{z+1,g}R_{z+1,g}^{z,i}𝑑V}.`$ (26)
This directly gives the fluorescence yield for each excited level without having to perform a matrix inversion.

### 4.6 Atomic Data Calculation and Implementation

In the foregoing, we have delineated how a series of approximations can reduce solution of the spectrum of each ion to a seemingly simple matrix inversion. We now discuss how these matrix inversions are currently implemented in PHOTOION.

Throughout, we use atomic data generated by the atomic code FAC (Gu 2002; Gu 2003). For recombination calculations onto all relevant ions (for which recombination produces X-ray features), we explicitly calculate all levels up to principal quantum number $`n25`$ and all E1, E2, M1, and M2 transitions $`n^{}l^{}nl`$ with $`n,n^{}25`$. Explicit calculation of all levels for $`n=45`$ allows for interpolation for levels $`n=26`$–44. Using the H-like approximation for the recombination cross-sections, we sum all recombinations onto levels $`n>45`$ and then spread this contribution over $`n=45`$. Solution of the relevant matrices (such as in Eqs. 17 and 18) can now be obtained using only levels with $`n45`$. We also include all important two-photon decays for both H-like and He-like (Drake 1986); such decays are not calculated by FAC. Similar calculations were carried out to determine the contribution from radiative and dielectronic recombination forming L-shell ions for all ions of interest in the X-ray regime. Due to the large number of excited levels for L-shell ions, inversions of the relevant matrix (represented by Eq. 24) required further approximations described in Gu (2002) and Gu (2003).

Photoexcitation to all $`n25`$ levels ($`n100`$ for H- and He-like ions) is calculated directly from the atomic code results for the oscillator strengths $`f_{ji}`$ and radiative decay rates $`A_{ji}`$ using the standard Voigt profile for line absorption/emission discussed in §4.1. (Caveat: Since we do not presently calculate photoexcitation to higher $`n`$ levels — ideally out to $`n\mathrm{}`$ — there is an artificial discontinuity at the photoelectric edges.) For radiative decay following valence-shell photoexcitation, solving the matrix for all excited levels is unnecessary since the dominant decay is the direct decay back to the ground state. Currently, to simplify and speed up the code, we therefore assume that every photoexcitation always produces a transition back to the ground state (even for photoexcitations to levels capable of autoionization, see below). This approximation is reliable for all important valence-shell transitions at the few percent level for reemission in an optically thin medium. For the same reason, we also only use the radiative decay rate to the ground for parameter $`x`$ in the Voigt function (Eq. 9). Velocity widths in many X-ray absorbers have recently been observed to be significantly larger than the expected thermal width, which itself is much larger than the natural line width, making this a safe approximation.

To increase the accuracy for especially important transitions (currently only in the H- and He-like ions), we verified and, if necessary, modified important photoelectric cross sections, oscillator strengths, and especially wavelengths with previously-published calculations and experimental results from Verner et al. (1996); Verner, Verner, & Ferland (1996); and NIST 333http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/main\_asd.

Also, not yet included is the calculation of all possible autoionization rates following photoexcitation or photoionization to determine total resulting line fluorescence. Currently, all photoexcitations are assumed to decay directly back to the ground state, leading to a sometimes gross overprediction of fluorescence for some excited levels with especially high autoionization rates. Oppositely, fluorescence resulting from photoionization is currently absent in the code. Prospects for inclusion of these rates are discussed in §7.

## 5 Irradiated Cone Model

In order to integrate the expressions on the right-hand sides of Eqs. 17 and 23, we must first introduce our model. The simplest version consists of an isotropic cone irradiated by a nuclear source with photon luminosity spectrum $`L(E)=AE^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (e.g., in units photons s-1 keV-1). We characterize the cone by a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, radial column density $`G`$, and radial gaussian velocity distribution $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{rad}}`$ (which broadens all radiative cross-sections) for the ground state of each particular ion (Fig. 7). We first consider the more general non-isotropic case: $`L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })`$, $`G(\stackrel{}{\theta })`$, and $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{rad}}(\stackrel{}{\theta })`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\theta }(\theta ,\varphi )`$.

Employing the above assumptions, we obtain for the $`R`$ coefficients pertaining to a particular ion $`n_{z,i}`$ (with $`z^{}=z`$ for photoexcitation and $`z^{}=z1`$ for photoionization):

$$R_{z,i}^{z^{},j}(F(E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta }))=\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{z,i}^{z^{},j}(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })\left(\frac{L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}{4\pi r^2}e^{\tau (E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta })}\right)𝑑E,$$
(27)
where $`\tau (E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta })=_0^r_{\{Z,z\}}n_{Z,z,g}(r^{},\stackrel{}{\theta })\sigma _{Z,z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })dr^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{Z,z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })`$ denotes the total radiative cross section for all radiation-driven transitions from the ground state of a particular element $`A`$ with $`z`$ electrons, with all cross sections already implicitly convolved with a possibly angular-dependent velocity distribution along the cone, $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{rad}}(\stackrel{}{\theta })`$. $`L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })`$ is the intrinsic nuclear luminosity (again with possible angular dependence). The exponential takes into account absorption along the cone due to the ground-state number densities $`n_{z,g}`$.

We now integrate the $`R`$ coefficients times the appropriate ionic density over volume to get the total photoexcitation (or photoionization) rate in the plasma:

$$n_{z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })R_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(F(E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta }))𝑑V=𝑑E\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }𝑑rn_{z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })e^{\tau (E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta })}.$$
(28)
There are two different assumptions which can be made at this point to simplify this integral. The first assumption is that only the particular ion of interest contributes to the opacity. This is fairly robust if column densities of all other ions are low enough that only discrete line absorption is present in the spectrum, since the opacity due to lines alone is usually negligible. Under this assumption, the opacity $`\tau `$ is only dependent on the particular ion of interest; therefore, $`d\tau d\tau (E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta })=n_{z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })\sigma _z^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })dr`$, and we can rewrite Eq. 28 as:

$$n_{z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })R_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(F(E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta }))𝑑V=𝑑E\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }_0^\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })e^\tau ^{}.$$
(29)
Upon integration over $`\tau ^{}`$, this simplifies to:

$`{\displaystyle n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z^{},j}𝑑V}={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }G_z(\stackrel{}{\theta })𝑑E\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })\frac{1e^{\tau (E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}}{\tau (E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}},`$ (30)
where $`G_z`$ is the ground-state column density for ions (with $`z`$ electrons) of the particular element under consideration.

Alternatively, a second possible assumption could be that relative ionic abundances are independent of radius. Starting once again from Eq. 28, we now simply multiply and divide by the sum in large parentheses in the following expression:

$$n_{z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })R_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(F(E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta }))𝑑V=𝑑E\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }𝑑r\frac{n_{z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}{_{\{Z^{},z\}}n_{Z^{},z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })\sigma _{Z^{},z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}\left(\underset{\{Z^{},z\}}{}n_{Z^{},z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })\sigma _{Z^{},z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })\right)L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })e^{\tau (E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta })}.$$
(31)
Recall that $`d\tau (E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta })=_{\{Z,z\}}n_{Z,z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })\sigma _{Z,z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })dr`$. Therefore, the sum in large parentheses in Eq. 31 times $`dr`$ is just $`d\tau `$. Therefore, by our central assumption that all relative ionic abundances are independent of $`r`$, the fractional term in Eq. 31 is also independent of $`r`$ and can be replaced by a fraction involving only the total integrated ionic column densities $`G_{Z,z}`$:

$$n_{z,g}(r,\stackrel{}{\theta })R_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(F(E,r,\stackrel{}{\theta }))𝑑V=\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }𝑑E\frac{G_z(\stackrel{}{\theta })\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}{_{\{Z,z\}}G_{Z,z}(\stackrel{}{\theta })\sigma _{Z,z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })_0^\tau e^\tau ^{}𝑑\tau ^{}.$$
(32)
Upon integration over $`\tau `$, we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z^{},j}𝑑V}={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }G_z(\stackrel{}{\theta })𝑑E\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })L(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })\frac{1e^{\tau (E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}}{\tau (E,\stackrel{}{\theta })}},`$ (33)
which, interestingly, is identical to Eq. 30.

For the simplest model of an isotropic cone of material with solid angle extent $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ characterized by angle-independent radial column density $`G`$, radial gaussian velocity distribution $`\sigma _v`$, and nuclear photon luminosity spectrum $`L(E)`$, the identical expressions derived above (Eqs. 30 and 33) reduce to:

$$n_{z,g}R_{z,g}^{z^{},j}𝑑V=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }G_z𝑑E\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{z,g}^{z^{},j}(E)L(E)\frac{1e^{\tau (E)}}{\tau (E)}.$$
(34)
This equation serves as the basis of PHOTOION.

## 6 Spectra for Various Absorption and Reemission Geometries Calculated with PHOTOION

The XSPEC model PHOTOION allows the calculation of spectra arising from different absorption and reemission geometries. Below, we provide examples of some simple geometries possible with PHOTOION.

### 6.1 Absorption

An example of a spectrum due to pure absorption is given in Fig. 8a. The imprinting of absorption features on the intrinsic continuum is determined by $`e^{\tau (E)}`$ with

$`\tau (E)\tau (E,\stackrel{}{\theta })={\displaystyle _0^r}{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}n_{Z,z,g}(r^{},\stackrel{}{\theta })\sigma _{Z,z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })dr^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^r}n_{Z,z,g}(r^{},\stackrel{}{\theta })\sigma _{Z,z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })𝑑r^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}G_{Z,z}\sigma _{Z,z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta }).`$ (35)
Here, $`\sigma _{Z,z}^R(E,\stackrel{}{\theta })`$ denotes the total radiative cross section (in the line-of-sight direction $`\stackrel{}{\theta }`$) for all radiation-driven transitions from the ground state of each ion, with all cross-sections implicitly convolved with the velocity distribution characterized by width $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{rad}}`$. This model can also be calculated using the related multiplicative XSPEC model MPABS (multi-phase absorber), which allows for pure absorption studies through the independent variation of each ionic column density. These models should be useful in particular for understanding the complex, multi-phase absorption observed in a number of Seyfert 1 galaxy spectra (e.g., Kaastra et al. 2000, Sako et al. 2001, Behar, Sako, & Kahn 2001).

### 6.2 Reemission

Observations transverse to the cone yield line spectra resulting from reemission in the cone. We concentrate on the dominant reemission from H- and He-like ions for simplicity (the contributions due to lower-charge-state ions is straightforward to include). The final spectrum of transitions to the ground state of all relevant K-shell ions is then simply the sum of all ionic contributions:

$$\mathrm{Reemission}(E)=\underset{j,i}{}N_{z,j}A_{z,j}^{z,i}l_{ji}(E)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z\frac{C_{z1,g}^{z,g}}{C_{\mathrm{total}}}r(E),$$
(36)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{z1}^z`$ is the total recombination rate calculated from Eq. 13 and $`l_{ji}(E)`$ is the appropriate Voigt line profile (normalized to 1) using velocity distribution $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{trans}}`$ and $`r(E)`$ is the ground-state recombination profile (normalized to 1) convolved with $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{trans}}`$. In general, $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{trans}}`$ may not necessarily be equal to $`\sigma _v^{\mathrm{rad}}`$. Explicitly, and without velocity convolution, the recombination profile is simply:

$$r(E)f(EE_{\mathrm{th}};kT_\mathrm{e})\frac{E^2}{\sqrt{EE_{\mathrm{th}}}}\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}(E),$$
(37)
where $`f(EE_{\mathrm{th}};kT_\mathrm{e})`$ is the Maxwellian distribution, evaluated at $`EE_{\mathrm{th}}`$ and specified by temperature $`kT_\mathrm{e}`$, and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}(E)`$ is the photoionization cross section, with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}(E)=0`$ for $`E<E_{\mathrm{th}}`$. The contribution from radiative and dielectronic recombination forming lower-ionization-state ions is also straightforward to include. Examples of reemission spectra for differing amounts of obscuration towards the intrinsic continuum are shown in Fig. 9).

If the emission regions are moderately optically thick to their emission, then the reemitted spectra will be modified. Higher-order transitions ($`n1`$ with $`n>2`$) will be degraded through multiple scattering to lower-order transitions (at sufficiently high optical depths, all higher order lines are converted to $`n=21`$ transitions). This reprocessing can provide an estimate of the overall optical thickness of the medium. In Fig. 13 of Kinkhabwala et al. (2002), the diagnostic value of this effect in H-like and He-like line series is illustrated. The lines shown in that plot give the column density and velocity width in (assuming a roughly spherical medium) corresponding to 10% conversion of the Ly$`\beta `$ photons to Ly$`\alpha `$ and, similarly, 10% conversion of He$`\beta `$ to He$`\alpha `$ transitions for C through Mg (degradation percentage can be scaled arbitrarily in these plots).

### 6.3 Absorption Plus Reemission

Even if the ionization cone is viewed in absorption, there is some amount of the reprocessed emission which will be reemitted in the observer’s direction (see Fig. 7). The total spectrum can be written as $`\mathrm{Spectrum}(E)=L(E)\mathrm{e}^{\tau (E)}+\mathrm{Reemission}(E)`$, where $`\mathrm{Reemission}(E)=\mathrm{Decay}(E)+\mathrm{Recombination}(E)`$, with $`\mathrm{Decay}(E)`$ giving the total contribution from radiative decay following photoexcitation and $`\mathrm{Recombination}(E)`$ giving the total contribution of both radiative and dielectronic recombination. Both $`\mathrm{Decay}(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{Reemission}(E)`$ implicitly contain the details of absorption in the cone, as shown below.

In order to account for absorption of the reemitted spectrum in the cone we must make some further assumptions. First, we assume that the cone is sufficiently narrow so that the absorption factor pertaining to any region of the cone is just dependent on radius. We define two such absorption factors: $`\tau _o(E,r)=_{r_o}^r_{\{Z,z\}}n_{Z,z,g}(r)\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}(E)`$, representing absorption from the inner radius $`r_o`$ of the cone to $`r`$, and $`\tau _f(E,r)=_r^{r_f}_{\{Z,z\}}n_{Z,z,g}(r)\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}(E)`$, representing absorption from $`r`$ to the outer radius of the cone $`r_f`$. Clearly, the total opacity is just $`\tau (E)=\tau _o(E,r)+\tau _f(E,r)`$ for any value of $`r`$.

First, we derive a general expression for $`\mathrm{Decay}(E)`$. For simplicity, we assume that photoexcitation corresponds to coherent resonant scattering (in contrast to statements made in §2). The relevant spectrum expressed as a simple integral over the cone can then be written as:

$`\mathrm{Decay}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}{\displaystyle F(E,r)n_{Z,z,g}(r)\underset{j}{}\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}^{Z,z,j}(E)\mathrm{e}^{\tau _f(r)}r^2drd\mathrm{\Omega }}=`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{L(E)\mathrm{e}^{\tau _0(r,E)}}{4\pi r^2}n_{Z,z,g}(r)\underset{j}{}\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}^{Z,z,j}(E)\mathrm{e}^{\tau _f(r,E)}r^2drd\mathrm{\Omega }}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}L(E)\mathrm{e}^{\tau (E)}{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}^{Z,z,j}(E){\displaystyle n_{Z,z,g}(r)𝑑r}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}L(E)\mathrm{e}^{\tau (E)}{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}G_{Z,z}\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}^{Z,z,j}(E).`$
Accounting for absorption of the reemission contribution from recombination is more difficult due to the need to integrate over each photoelectric edge to determine the photoionization (and, therefore, recombination) rate. Here, we define $`R_{Z,z}(E)`$ to be the spectrum (properly normalized) of recombination (radiative and dielectronic) forming ion $`Z,z`$. Total recombinations are balanced with photoionizations (resulting either from direct photoionization or indirect ionization via autoionization following photoexcitation; though only the contribution from the former is shown below for simplicity). This yields:

$`\mathrm{Recombination}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}R_{Z,z}(E){\displaystyle \left(F(E^{},r)n_{Z,z,g}(r)\underset{j}{}\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}^{Z,z1,j}(E^{})dE^{}\right)\mathrm{e}^{\tau _f(r)}r^2𝑑r𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}=`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}R_{Z,z}(E){\displaystyle \left(L(E^{})\mathrm{e}^{\tau _0(r,E^{})}\underset{j}{}\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}^{Z,z1,j}(E^{})dE^{}\right)\mathrm{e}^{\tau _f(r)}n_{Z,z,g}(r)𝑑r}.`$
Here, the integral over energy in parentheses is still a function of $`r`$ through $`\tau _o(r,E)`$, requiring a costly double integral. In order to speed up this calculation, we would like to split this double integral into two sequential integrations over $`E`$ and then $`r`$. This requires approximating the opacity term within the energy integral as some average opacity independent of radius, $`\mathrm{e}^{\tau _o(r,E)}\mathrm{Opacity}(E)`$. Employing once again the assumption that all ionic ratios are constant throughout the cone, we obtain:

$`\mathrm{Recombination}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}R_{Z,z}(E)\left({\displaystyle }L(E^{})\mathrm{Opacity}(E^{}){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}^{Z,z1,j}(E^{})dE^{}\right)\times `$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{e}^{\tau _f(r,E)}\frac{n_{Z,z,g}(r)}{_{\{Z^{},z\}}n_{Z^{},z,g}(r)\sigma _{Z^{},z}^R(E)}\underset{\{Z^{},z\}}{}n_{Z^{},z,g}(r)\sigma _{Z^{},z}^R(E)dr}`$ (41)
Recalling that $`d\tau _f(r,E)=_{\{Z^{},z\}}n_{Z^{},z,g}(r)\sigma _{Z^{},z}^R(E)dr`$, we can integrate this expression (e.g., see Eqs. 3133), obtaining:

$`\mathrm{Recombination}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\{Z,z\}}{}}G_{Z,z}R_{Z,z}(E){\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\tau (E)}}{\tau (E)}}{\displaystyle L(E^{})\mathrm{Opacity}(E^{})\underset{j}{}\left[\sigma ^R\right]_{Z,z,g}^{Z,z1,j}(E^{})dE^{}}.`$ (42)
Useful lower and upper limits to the recombination contribution are obtained by taking $`\mathrm{Opacity}(E)=\mathrm{e}^{\tau (E)}`$ and $`\mathrm{Opacity}(E)=1`$, respectively. Spectra resulting from assumption of either limit can be calculated with PHOTOION (see Fig. 8).

## 7 Discussion

The models presented in this paper have already received experimental verification through X-ray spectra of multiple accretion-powered astrophysical sources. In particular, application of our model to the remarkable XMM-Newton spectrum of the brightest, prototypical Seyfert 2 galaxy, NGC 1068 (Kinkhabwala et al. 2002), provided the first quantitative test of a photoionization code (e.g., the gratifying confirmation of the ratio of intercombination line to RRC in O VII). In addition, the self-consistent inclusion of photoexcitation and resulting radiative decay allowed for discrimination between emission mechanisms in the spectrum of NGC 1068, providing a robust upper limit to any additional contribution from hot plasmas. Observations of NGC 1068 also provided the motivation for the seemingly ad hoc assumption taken in §5 that all ionic ratios are constant throughout the cone (Brinkman et al. 2002; Ogle et al. 2003), as was explained in §1. We expect that PHOTOION (and associated codes PHSI, MPABS, and SIABS) will continue to be of use in the description of astrophysical photoionized plasmas existing in a variety of sources, including AGN, X-ray binaries, cataclysmic variables, stellar winds of early-type stars, GRB afterglows, and the IGM.

Lastly, as mentioned in §4.6, radiative and autoionizing decay rates (as well as the resulting fluorescence intensities) for levels capable of autoionization have not yet been properly included. Especially important are the Fe K-shell transitions in Fe M-shell and L-shell ions. The number of atomic levels involved in these calculations is large, but not prohibitive. These represent the final atomic calculations necessary to “complete” PHOTOION, at least in terms of the assumptions taken in this paper. These rates should eventually be included in a future version of the code.

AK acknowledges useful discussions with D.W. Savin. The Columbia University team is supported by NASA. AK acknowledges additional support from an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship and NASA GSRP fellowship. EB was supported by the Yigal-Alon Fellowship and by the GIF Foundation under grant #2028-1093.7/2001. MS and MFG were partially supported by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship Award Numbers PF01-20016 and PF01-10014, respectively, issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-39073.


format: text

text:
# 0 Introduction

## 0 Introduction

The study of bounded holomorphically homogeneous domains in complex space goes back to É. Cartan \[C\] who determined all bounded symmetric domains in $`\mathrm{}^n`$ as well as all bounded homogeneous domains in $`\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}^3`$. A fundamental theorem due to Vinberg, Gindikin, and Pyatetskii-Shapiro states that every bounded homogeneous domain is biholomorphically equivalent to a Siegel domain of the second kind (see \[P-S\]). Although this result does not immediately imply a complete classification of bounded homogeneous domains, it reduces the classification problem to that for domains of a very special form. Siegel domains are unbounded by definition (although they possess bounded realisations) and it is therefore natural to consider not necessarily bounded homogeneous domains. However, the classification problem in the unbounded case is extremely hard and is far from complete, despite the existence of a substantial theory of homogeneous manifolds and spaces (see, e.g., \[A\]). Therefore, any new examples of homogeneous domains that possess no bounded realisations are of interest. In this paper we give such examples.

One way to attempt to produce examples of this sort is to consider tube domains, that is domains of the form $`D_\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }+i\mathrm{}^n`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a domain in $`\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{}^n`$. Such domains are clearly unbounded. Further, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is affinely homogeneous, then $`D_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is homogeneous as a domain in $`\mathrm{}^n`$ since every affine mapping of $`\mathrm{}^n`$ can be lifted to an affine mapping of $`\mathrm{}^n`$ and since $`D_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is invariant under imaginary translations. To construct $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one can start with an affinely homogeneous hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}^n`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to be a domain on one side of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Such a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has a chance of being affinely homogeneous. More precisely, we might hope that the orbits of the affine symmetry group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be, in addition to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ itself, the domains to either side of it. Of course, in this case, the symmetry group must have dimension at least $`n`$ and so its action on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must have isotropy. Examples of affinely homogeneous hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}^n`$ can be taken for instance from the explicit classifications of affinely homogeneous curves in $`\mathrm{}^2`$ (see, e.g., \[NS2\]), surfaces in $`\mathrm{}^3`$ \[DKR\], \[EE1\], or equiaffinely homogeneous hypersurfaces in $`\mathrm{}^3`$ \[NS1\] and $`\mathrm{}^4`$ \[EE2\]. A classification of affine homogeneous hypersurfaces with isotropy may be found in \[EE3\]. Of course, one must independently verify that the domain $`D_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ so constructed is not biholomorphically equivalent to any bounded domain and is indeed homogeneous.

The paper is organised as follows. We construct our examples in Section 1. They are domains in $`\mathrm{}^4`$ arising from domains on each side of certain affinely homogeneous hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \mathrm{}^4`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a real parameter. We verify that the domains in question are indeed homogeneous and are not biholomorphically equivalent to any bounded domain. Further, for a homogeneous domain it is always desirable to know the full group of holomorphic automorphisms, and in Section 2 we determine the automorphism groups of the domains from Section 1. In order to do this, we write the domains in a non-tubular form and study the automorphism group of the boundary which is a real-analytic everywhere Levi non-degenerate non-umbilic hypersurface. In connection with this we recall (see e.g., \[R\]) that a bounded homogeneous domain with smooth boundary is biholomorphically equivalent to the unit ball. In the unbounded case there are many more domains with smooth boundary, and the examples that we construct in Section 1 are not equivalent to any “ball-like”domains that we discuss further in the paper.

Sometimes a non-trivially looking tube domain in $`\mathrm{}^n`$, whose boundary is a tube hypersurface over a homogeneous hypersurface in $`\mathrm{}^n`$, turns out to be holomorphically equivalent to a simple well-known domain. For example the domains lying on either side of the quadric

$$\text{Re}z_n=z^{},z^{},$$
(0.1)
where $`z^{},z^{}`$ is a Hermitian form in the space of the first $`n1`$ variables $`z^{}:=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})`$ are well-known to be homogeneous. Every such domain possesses a tubular realisation over an affinely homogeneous domain in $`\mathrm{}^n`$. Moreover, the convex side of the positive definite quadric admits a bounded realisation as the the unit ball. For $`\alpha =1/12`$ the domains that we construct in Section 1 are, in fact, of this type. In Section 3 we discuss more examples of tube domains that are holomorphically equivalent to domains lying on one side of hypersurfaces (0.1) and announce a theorem that states that the number of such domains is quite substantial. Therefore, when considering homogeneous tube domains, one should carefully rule out domains arising in this manner from quadrics (0.1). This is often a non-trivial task. As an example, we mention a letter by D’Atri (reproduced in the preface to \[G\]) where he apparently found a new homogeneous domain, as one side of the tube over the Cayley hypersurface (3.1). In fact, as shown in Section 3, the domain that D’Atri considered is equivalent to a domain on one side of the quadric (0.1). In Section 3 more examples of this kind are given.

Before proceeding we would like to acknowledge that this work started while the second author was visiting the University of Adelaide.

## 1 The Examples

In accordance with the general scheme outlined above we consider a one-parameter family of affinely homogeneous hypersurfaces in $`\mathrm{}^4`$ that occurs in the classifications in \[EE2\] and \[EE3\]:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha :=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mathrm{}^4:x_4=x_1x_2+x_3^2+x_1^2x_3+\alpha x_1^4\},\alpha \mathrm{}.$$
(1.1)
We are interested in the domains on each side of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>:=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mathrm{}^4:x_4>x_1x_2+x_3^2+x_1^2x_3+\alpha x_1^4\},\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^<:=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)\mathrm{}^4:x_4<x_1x_2+x_3^2+x_1^2x_3+\alpha x_1^4\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

One can verify that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^<`$ are invariant under the following four subgroups of affine transformations of $`\mathrm{}^4`$:

$$\varphi _q:\begin{array}{c}x_1qx_1,\hfill \\ x_2q^3x_2,\hfill \\ x_3q^2x_3,\hfill \\ x_4q^4x_4,\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`q\mathrm{}^{}`$,

$$\psi _r:\begin{array}{c}x_1x_1+r,\hfill \\ x_24\alpha (4\alpha 1)r^2x_1+x_2+2(4\alpha 1)rx_3\frac{4}{3}\alpha (4\alpha 1)r^3,\hfill \\ x_34\alpha rx_1+x_32\alpha r^2,\hfill \\ x_4\frac{4}{3}\alpha (4\alpha 1)r^3x_1+rx_2+(4\alpha 1)r^2x_3+x_4\frac{1}{3}\alpha (4\alpha 1)r^4,\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`r\mathrm{}`$,

$$\mu _s:\begin{array}{c}x_1x_1,\hfill \\ x_2x_2+s,\hfill \\ x_3x_3,\hfill \\ x_4sx_1+x_4,\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`s\mathrm{}`$,

$$\nu _t:\begin{array}{c}x_1x_1,\hfill \\ x_2tx_1+x_2,\hfill \\ x_3x_3+t,\hfill \\ x_42tx_3+x_4+t^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`t\mathrm{}`$.

We will now show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>`$ is affinely homogeneous. Take the point $`(0,0,0,1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>`$ and apply the mapping $`F_{q,s,t,r}:=\varphi _q\mu _s\nu _t\psi _r`$ to it. The result is the point

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(qr,\hfill & q^3(\frac{4}{3}\alpha (4\alpha 1)r^3tr+s),\hfill & q^2(2\alpha r^2+t),\hfill \\ & & q^4(1\frac{1}{3}\alpha (4\alpha 1)r^44\alpha tr^2+t^2+sr)).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`(x_1^0,x_2^0,x_3^0,x_4^0)`$ be any other point in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>`$. Then setting

$$\begin{array}{c}q=\left(x_4^0x_1^0x_2^0(x_3^0)^2(x_1^0)^2x_3^0\alpha (x_1^0)^4\right)^{\frac{1}{4}},\hfill \\ \\ r=\frac{x_1^0}{q},\hfill \\ \\ s=\frac{1}{q^3}\left(x_2^0+\frac{4}{3}\alpha (4\alpha 1)(x_1^0)^3+x_1^0x_3^0+2\alpha (x_1^0)^3\right),\hfill \\ \\ t=\frac{1}{q^2}\left(x_3^0+2\alpha (x_1^0)^2\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain an affine automorphism $`F_{q,s,t,r}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>`$ that maps $`(0,0,0,1)`$ into $`(x_1^0,x_2^0,x_3^0,x_4^0)`$. This proves that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>`$ is affinely homogeneous. A similar argument shows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^<`$ is affinely homogeneous as well.

We will now consider the corresponding tube domains $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>},D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^<}\mathrm{}^4`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^<`$ are affinely homogeneous, $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^<}`$ are holomorphically homogeneous. We may write these domains in a different form. Suppose firstly that $`\alpha 1/12`$. Then the mapping

$$\begin{array}{c}z_1\left|\frac{3}{2}\left(\alpha \frac{1}{12}\right)\right|^{\frac{1}{4}}z_1,\hfill \\ \\ z_2\frac{z_2+z_1z_3+\alpha z_1^3}{\left|\frac{3}{2}\left(\alpha \frac{1}{12}\right)\right|^{\frac{1}{4}}},\hfill \\ \\ z_3\sqrt{2}\left(z_3+\frac{z_1^2}{4}\right),\hfill \\ \\ z_44z_42z_1z_22z_3^2z_1^2z_3\frac{\alpha }{2}z_1^4\hfill \end{array}$$

transforms $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^>}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ^<}`$ into

$$D_+^>:=\{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\mathrm{}^4:\text{Re}z_4>z_1\overline{z_2}+z_2\overline{z_1}+|z_3|^2+|z_1|^4\}$$
(1.2)
and

$$D_+^<:=\{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\mathrm{}^4:\text{Re}z_4<z_1\overline{z_2}+z_2\overline{z_1}+|z_3|^2+|z_1|^4\}$$
(1.3)
respectively, if $`\alpha >1/12`$, and into

$$D_{}^>:=\{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\mathrm{}^4:\text{Re}z_4>z_1\overline{z_2}+z_2\overline{z_1}+|z_3|^2|z_1|^4\}$$
(1.4)
and

$$D_{}^<:=\{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\mathrm{}^4:\text{Re}z_4<z_1\overline{z_2}+z_2\overline{z_1}+|z_3|^2|z_1|^4\}$$
(1.5)
respectively, if $`\alpha <1/12`$. If, however, $`\alpha =1/12`$, then the mapping

$$\begin{array}{c}z_1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(z_1+z_2+z_1z_3+\frac{1}{12}z_1^3\right),\hfill \\ \\ z_2\sqrt{2}\left(z_3+\frac{z_1^2}{4}\right),\hfill \\ \\ z_3\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(z_1z_2z_1z_3\frac{1}{12}z_1^3\right),\hfill \\ \\ z_44z_42z_1z_22z_3^2z_1^2z_3\frac{1}{24}z_1^4\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.6)
transforms $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{1/12}^>}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{1/12}^<}`$ into

$$D_0^>:=\{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\mathrm{}^4:\text{Re}z_4>|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2|z_3|^2\}$$
(1.7)
and

$$D_0^<:=\{(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)\mathrm{}^4:\text{Re}z_4<|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2|z_3|^2\}$$
(1.8)
respectively.

We discuss the domains $`D_0^>`$ and $`D_0^<`$ in greater generality in Section 3 and for the moment concentrate on the domains $`D_\pm ^>`$, $`D_\pm ^<`$. We note that none of these domains is biholomorphically equivalent to a bounded domain. In fact, all these domains are not Kobayashi-hyperbolic (we remark here that it is shown in \[N\] that any connected homogeneous Kobayashi-hyperbolic manifold is biholomorphically equivalent to a bounded domain in complex space). Indeed, domains $`D_+^>`$, $`D_{}^>`$ contain the affine complex line $`\{z_1=0,z_3=0,z_4=1\}`$ and the domains $`D_+^<`$, $`D_{}^<`$ the affine complex line $`\{z_1=0,z_3=0,z_4=1\}`$. Hence, we have proved the following

###### THEOREM 1.1

The domains $`D_\pm ^>,D_\pm ^<\mathrm{}^4`$ defined by (1.2)–(1.5) are holomorphically homogeneous and not biholomorphically equivalent to any bounded domain.

## 2 The Automorphism Groups of $`D_\pm ^>`$ and $`D_\pm ^<`$

In this section we determine the groups $`\text{Aut}(D_\pm ^>)`$ and $`\text{Aut}(D_\pm ^<)`$ of holomorphic automorphisms of $`D_\pm ^>`$ and $`D_\pm ^<`$ respectively. Let $`P_\pm `$ be the following subgroup of holomorphic transformations of $`\mathrm{}^4`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}z_1\hfill & \hfill & qe^{i\varphi }z_1+\rho ,\hfill \\ & & \\ z_2\hfill & \hfill & (2|\rho |^2qe^{i\varphi }+q^2b)z_1+q^3e^{i\varphi }z_2+qdz_32\overline{\rho }q^2e^{2i\varphi }z_1^2+\sigma ,\hfill \\ & & \\ z_3\hfill & \hfill & \overline{d}e^{i(\varphi +\psi )}z_1+q^2e^{i\psi }z_3+\tau ,\hfill \\ & & \\ z_4\hfill & \hfill & (2\overline{\sigma }qe^{i\varphi }+2\overline{\rho }q^2b2\overline{\tau }\overline{d}e^{i(\varphi +\psi )})z_1+2\overline{\rho }q^3e^{i\varphi }z_2+\hfill \\ & & \\ & & (2\overline{\rho }qd+2\overline{\tau }q^2e^{ı\psi })z_3+q^4z_42\overline{\rho }^2q^2e^{2i\varphi }z_1^2+\rho \overline{\sigma }+\sigma \overline{\rho }+\hfill \\ & & \\ & & |\tau ^2|\pm |\rho ^4|+iu,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1)
where $`q>0`$, $`\varphi ,\psi ,u\mathrm{}`$, $`\rho ,\sigma ,\tau ,b,d\mathrm{}`$, $`\text{Re}(e^{i\varphi }\overline{b})0`$ and

$$|d|^2=2q^3\text{Re}(e^{i\varphi }\overline{b}).$$
(2.2)
It can be checked directly that $`P_\pm `$ preserves $`D_\pm ^>`$ and $`D_\pm ^<`$, so $`P_\pm \text{Aut}(D_\pm ^>)`$ and $`P_\pm \text{Aut}(D_\pm ^<)`$.

Below we prove the following theorem.

###### THEOREM 2.1

$`\text{Aut}(D_\pm ^>)=\text{Aut}(D_\pm ^<)=P_\pm `$.

To prove Theorem 2.1 we deal with the automorphism group of $`M_\pm :=D_\pm ^>=D_\pm ^<`$. Denote by $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$ the group of CR-automorphisms of $`M_\pm `$ equipped with the topology of uniform convergence of the derivatives of all orders of the component functions on compact subsets of $`M_\pm `$. The Levi form of $`M_\pm `$ at every point is non-degenerate, and therefore $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$ is a Lie group in this topology \[T\]. We need the following theorem that implies Theorem 2.1.

###### THEOREM 2.2

$`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )=P_\pm `$.

We first show how Theorem 2.1 follows from Theorem 2.2. Since the Levi form of $`M_\pm `$ at every point has eigenvalues of opposite signs, every element $`f`$ of $`\text{Aut}(D_\pm ^>)`$ or $`\text{Aut}(D_\pm ^<)`$ extends past $`M_\pm `$ to a biholomorphic map between neighbourhoods of $`\overline{D_\pm ^>}`$ and $`\overline{D_\pm ^<}`$ respectively thus giving rise to an element $`g\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$. Clearly, $`f`$ is uniquely determined by $`g`$. Since $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )=P_\pm `$ by Theorem 2.2, we obtain $`\text{Aut}(D_\pm ^>)=\text{Aut}(D_\pm ^<)=P_\pm `$ as required.

Proof of Theorem 2.2: First we note that $`P_\pm `$ considered as a subgroup of $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$ is closed and is therefore a Lie subgroup of $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$. Clearly, the topology induced on $`P_\pm `$ by $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$ coincides with that induced on $`P_\pm `$ by its parameters as in formula (2.1), and hence the dimension of $`P_\pm `$ as a subgroup of $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$ is equal to 13. Therefore $`\text{dim}\text{Aut}(M_\pm )13`$.

We will now show that $`\text{dim}\text{Aut}(M_\pm )13`$. Since $`M_\pm `$ is homogeneous, it is sufficient to prove that $`\text{dim}I_0(M_\pm )6`$, where $`I_0(M_\pm )\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$ is the isotropy subgroup of the point $`0M_\pm `$. More generally, we prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.3

Let $`S\mathrm{}^4`$ be a real-analytic hypersurface passing through the origin and assume that the Levi form of $`S`$ is everywhere non-degenerate and has signature (2,1). Suppose further that $`S`$ is non-umbilic at 0. Let $`I_0(S)`$ denote the Lie group of all CR-automorphisms of $`S`$ preserving 0. Then $`\text{dim}I_0(S)6`$.

Proof of Proposition 2.3: We will use the Chern-Moser normal form \[CM\] for $`S`$. Namely, we will say that $`S`$ in coordinates $`z=(z_1,z_2,z_3),w=u+iv`$ near $`0`$ is written in the Chern-Moser normal form if $`S`$ near $`0`$ is given by an equation

$$u=z,z+\underset{k,\overline{l}2}{}F_{k\overline{l}}(z,\overline{z},v),$$
(2.3)
where $`z,z`$ is a non-degenerate Hermitian form of signature $`(2,1)`$ and$`F_{k\overline{l}}(z,\overline{z},v)`$ are polynomials of degree $`k`$ in $`z`$ and $`\overline{l}`$ in $`\overline{z}`$ whose coefficients are analytic functions of $`v`$ such that the following conditions hold

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{tr}F_{2\overline{2}}0,\hfill \\ \text{tr}^2F_{2\overline{3}}0,\hfill \\ \text{tr}^3F_{3\overline{3}}0,\hfill \end{array}$$

with the operator tr defined as follows. Let $`z,z=_{\alpha ,\beta =1}^4h^{\alpha \beta }z_\alpha \overline{z_\beta }`$ and let $`(g_{\alpha \beta })`$ be the matrix inverse to $`(h^{\alpha \beta })`$. Then we have

$$\text{tr}:=\underset{\alpha ,\beta =1}{\overset{4}{}}g_{\alpha \beta }\frac{^2}{z_\alpha \overline{z_\beta }}.$$

Let $`J_0(S)`$ denote the group of all local CR-automorphisms of $`S`$ defined near the origin and preserving it. It follows from \[E\] that near $`0`$ one can choose holomorphic coordinates in which $`S`$ is given in the Chern-Moser normal form and every element of $`J_0(S)`$ is written as

$$\begin{array}{c}z\lambda Uz,\hfill \\ w\lambda ^2w,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
where $`U`$ is a matrix such that $`Uz,Uz=z,z`$ and $`\lambda >0`$. Without loss of generality we assume that $`z,z=|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2|z_3|^2`$ and hence the matrix $`U`$ satisfies

$$U^tH\overline{U}=H,$$
(2.5)
where

$$H:=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right).$$

The group $`G`$ of all matrices given by condition (2.5) is isomorphic to the usual group $`U(2,1)`$ of pseudo-unitary matrices $`V`$ satisfying

$$VHV^{}=H$$

by means of the mapping

$$V=(U^t)^1.$$

It follows from \[B\], \[L\] that, for every element of $`J_0(S)`$, $`\lambda `$ is uniquely determined by the corresponding matrix $`U`$ by means of an algebraic relation. This implies that the subgroup $`G_0G`$ of matrices $`U`$ arising from automorphisms in $`J_0(S)`$ is a closed subgroup of $`G`$. In addition, the mapping $`U\lambda `$ is a Lie group homomorphism from $`G_0`$ into $`\mathrm{}^{}`$.

We will now plug an automorphism of the form (2.4) into equation (2.3). We obtain:

$$\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}\underset{k,\overline{l}2}{}F_{k\overline{l}}(\lambda Uz,\overline{\lambda Uz},\lambda ^2v)=\underset{k,\overline{l}2}{}F_{k\overline{l}}(z,\overline{z},v).$$
(2.6)
Since $`S`$ is not umbilic at 0, $`F_{2\overline{2}}(z,\overline{z},0)0`$. Extracting from (2.6) terms independent of $`v`$ of degree 2 in each of $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ we obtain:

$$F_{2\overline{2}}(Uz,\overline{Uz},0)=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}F_{2\overline{2}}(z,\overline{z},0).$$
(2.7)
Hence a necessary condition for a matrix $`UG`$ to belong to $`G_0`$ is the preservation of the term $`F_{2\overline{2}}(z,\overline{z},0)`$ up to a scalar multiple as in (2.7). We will show that condition (2.7) implies that $`\text{dim}G_06`$.

Suppose first that $`\text{dim}G_0=9`$, i.e., $`G_0=G`$. Since there does not exist a non-trivial homomorphism from $`G`$ into $`\mathrm{}^{}`$, we have $`\lambda =1`$ for all $`U`$. Then (2.7) gives that $`F_{2\overline{2}}(z,\overline{z},0)`$ is a function of $`z,z`$, i.e. $`F_{2\overline{2}}(z,\overline{z},0)=cz,z^2`$, for some $`c\mathrm{}^{}`$. This is impossible since then $`\text{tr}F_{2\overline{2}}(z,\overline{z},v)=8cz,z0`$.

To deal with the cases $`\text{dim}G_0=7,8`$ we need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.4

| (i) | The only closed subgroup of $`U(2,1)`$ is codimension 1 is $`SU(2,1)`$. |
| --- | --- |
| (ii) | There does not exist a closed subgroup of $`U(2,1)`$ of codimension 2. |

Proof of Lemma 2.4: It suffices to prove this on the level of Lie algebras, which we shall denote by $`u(2,1)`$ and $`su(2,1)`$, respectively. Certainly, $`su(2,1)`$, has codimension 1 in $`u(2,1)`$ and any other subalgebra of codimension 1 or 2 would intersect $`su(2,1)`$ in a subalgebra of codimension 1 or 2. Therefore, it suffices to show that $`su(2,1)`$ has no subalgebras of codimension 1 or 2, equivalently of dimension 7 or 6. To do this, we shall show that the complex Lie algebra $`sl(3,\mathrm{})`$ has no complex subalgebras of dimension 7 and classify those of dimension 6. The result concerning $`su(2,1)`$ will follow if we can show that these 6-dimensional complex subalgebras have no real form in $`su(2,1)`$.

Recall that the Killing form

$$X,Y=\mathrm{trace}(XY),\text{for }X,Ysl(3,\mathrm{}),$$

is a non-degenerate symmetric form. Therefore, if $`ssl(3,\mathrm{})`$ is a subalgebra, the linear subspace $`s^{}`$ with respect to the Killing form, will have dimension equal to the codimension of $`s`$. Furthermore, invariance of the Killing form with respect to the adjoint representation implies that, if $`Ps^{}`$, then the linear mapping

$$[P,]:ssl(3,\mathrm{})$$
(2.8)
has range contained in $`s^{}`$. Now, if $`dims^{}2`$, then the dimension of the kernel of $`[P,]`$ must be at least 4 and this will prove to be very restrictive. In particular, since $`sP^{}`$, we conclude that

$$[P,]:P^{}sl(3,\mathrm{})\text{has kernel of dimension }4.$$
(2.9)
Notice that this constraint depends only on the element $`Psl(3,\mathrm{})`$ and so we may test it for any particular $`P`$. Furthermore, we may assume without loss of generality that $`P`$ is in Jordan canonical form in which case a simple computation shows that there is only one $`P`$ satisfying (2.9), namely

$$P=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

This immediately rules out subalgebras of codimension 1 since $`P^{}`$ is not a subalgebra.

The constraint on mapping (2.8) now pins down $`s`$ as two possibilities, namely matrices of the form either

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ 0& & \\ 0& & \end{array}\right)\text{or}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ 0& & 0\\ & & \end{array}\right).$$

Both of these are, indeed, subalgebras and have geometric interpretations. The first is the stabiliser up to scale of the first standard basis vector in the defining representation. If it were the complexification of a subalgebra

$$s_0su(2,1)sl(3,\mathrm{})$$

then $`s_0`$ would stabilise up to scale some vector $`v\mathrm{}`$. Up to conjugation and scale, there are only three possibilities for $`v`$ according to $`v,v>0`$, $`v,v<0`$, or $`v,v=0`$. Taking $`v`$ in some convenient normal form it is easy to check that the corresponding stabiliser has dimension only $`4`$, $`4`$, or $`5`$ respectively. The second possibility for $`ssl(3,\mathrm{})`$ is similarly eliminated thanks to a geometric interpretation in the dual representation.

The lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.5

This proof of Lemma 2.4 extends to higher dimensions, where it yields the subalgebras of $`sl(n,\mathrm{})`$ of maximal dimension. They are parabolic and their real forms may be determined following the Satake classification. More generally, the maximal subalgebras of the complex classical Lie algebras were determined by Dynkin \[D\]. The real case was considered by Komrakov \[K\] and, in principle, the lemma follows from his classification. However, no proofs are given in \[K\]. One may construct another proof by considering how potential subalgebras of $`su(2,1)`$ intersect $`u(2)`$, whereupon Lemma 2.1 of \[IK\], dealing with large compact subgroups of $`GL(n,\mathrm{})`$, may be used to eliminate the various possibilities. Finally, it was pointed out to us by Vladimir Ezhov that a careful investigation of the proof of his linearisation result in \[E\], shows that, for a hypersurface of the form

$$\text{Re}z_4=z_1\overline{z_2}+z_2\overline{z_1}+|z_3|^2\pm |z_1|^4$$

as we have, any local CR-automorphism near the origin is already linear. By this means one can avoid Lemma 2.4 if one so chooses.

We now finish the proof of Proposition 2.3. Suppose that $`\text{dim}G_0=8`$. Then by Lemma 2.4, $`G_0`$ is the subgroup of $`G`$ given by the condition $`\text{det}U=1`$. In this case we again get that $`F_{2\overline{2}}(z,\overline{z},0)`$ is a function of $`z,z`$ and obtain a contradiction as before. Further, Lemma 2.4 gives that $`\text{dim}G_07`$, and hence $`\text{dim}G_06`$.

Finally, since the mapping $`fU`$ is an injective Lie group homomorphism from $`I_0(S)`$ into $`G_0`$, we obtain that $`\text{dim}I_0(S)6`$, and the proposition is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.6

Instead of the non-umbilicity of $`S`$ at 0 it is sufficient to assume in Proposition 2.3 that at least one of $`F_{2\overline{2}}`$, $`F_{2\overline{3}}`$ and $`F_{3\overline{3}}`$ is not identically zero.

We will now continue with the proof of Theorem 2.2. Proposition 2.3 gives that $`\text{dim}\text{Aut}(M_\pm )13`$ and hence in fact $`\text{dim}\text{Aut}(M_\pm )=13`$. Since $`P_\pm `$ is connected in $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$, it coincides with the connected component of the identity of $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$. To finish the proof of Theorem 2.2 we need the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.7

The group $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$ is connected.

Proof of Proposition 2.7: Since $`M_\pm `$ is homogeneous and connected, it is sufficient to prove that $`I_0(M_\pm )`$ is connected. As in the proof of Proposition 2.3, let $`J_0(M_\pm )`$ denote the group of all local CR-automorphisms of $`M_\pm `$ defined near the origin and preserving it. Let $`fJ_0(M_\pm )`$. Since $`f`$ extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of the origin, we can write $`f`$ in the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}z^{}=f_1(z,w),\hfill \\ w^{}=f_2(z,w),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`f_1,f_2`$ are holomorphic in a neighbourhood of the origin in $`\mathrm{}^4`$. Let

$$U_f:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{f_2/w(0)}}\frac{f_1}{z}(0),$$

(note that $`f_2/w(0)`$ is necessarily positive). Clearly, $`U_f`$ is a matrix satisfying

$$U_fz,U_fz=z,z,$$
(2.10)
where $`z,z:=z_1\overline{z_2}+z_2\overline{z_1}+|z_3|^2`$. It follows from \[B\], \[L\] that $`f`$ is uniquely determined by the corresponding $`U_f`$ and that the collection of all matrices $`U_f`$ arising in this way from elements of $`J_0(M_\pm )`$ form a closed subgroup $`G_0`$ in the group $`G`$ of all matrices satisfying (2.10) (of course, $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`U(2,1)`$).

Since $`M_\pm `$ is non-umbilic at 0, it follows from the proof of Proposition 2.3 that $`\text{dim}G_06`$. Let $`G_0^{}`$ be the subgroup of $`G_0`$ that consists of matrices $`U_f`$ for $`fI_0(M_\pm )`$. We will prove the connectedness of $`I_0(M_\pm )`$ by showing that $`G_0^{}`$ is connected. It follows from (2.1) that $`G_0^{}`$ contains matrices of the following form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{q}e^{i\varphi }& 0& 0\\ b& qe^{i\varphi }& \frac{d}{q}\\ \frac{\overline{d}}{q^2}e^{i(\varphi +\psi )}& 0& e^{i\psi }\end{array}\right),$$
(2.11)
where $`q>0`$, $`\varphi ,\psi \mathrm{}`$, $`b,d\mathrm{}`$, $`\text{Re}(e^{i\varphi }\overline{b})0`$ and condition (2.2) holds. The group $`G_0^{\prime \prime }`$ of matrices (2.11) is a closed connected subgroup of $`G`$ of dimension 6. Hence $`G_0^{\prime \prime }`$ is the connected component of the identity of $`G_0^{}`$.

We now need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.8

There does not exist a disconnected (not necessarily closed) subgroup of $`G`$ whose connected component of the identity coincides with $`G_0^{\prime \prime }`$.

Proof of Lemma 2.8: Let $`HG`$ be a group whose connected component of the identity is $`G_0^{\prime \prime }`$. Then any other connected component of $`H`$ is of the form $`gG_0^{\prime \prime }`$ for some $`gG`$, so we have $`H=_\alpha g_\alpha G_0^{\prime \prime }`$. For every pair of indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ there exists an index $`\gamma `$ such that

$$g_\alpha G_0^{\prime \prime }g_\beta G_0^{\prime \prime }=g_\gamma G_0^{\prime \prime },$$

or

$$g_\alpha G_0^{\prime \prime }g_\beta =g_\gamma G_0^{\prime \prime }.$$

Choosing $`g_\alpha G_0^{\prime \prime }=G_0^{\prime \prime }`$ we obtain

$$G_0^{\prime \prime }g_\beta =g_\gamma G_0^{\prime \prime }.$$
(2.12)
We now apply both sides of (2.12) to the vector $`v:=(0,1,0)`$. For every $`gG_0^{\prime \prime }`$ we have $`gv=\lambda (g)v`$ with $`\lambda (g)\mathrm{}^{}`$, and therefore for every $`gG_0^{\prime \prime }`$ we obtain

$$g(g_\beta v)=\lambda (g)(g_\gamma v),$$

or, denoting $`w_1:=g_\alpha v`$ and $`w_2:=g_\gamma v`$,

$$gw_1=\lambda (g)w_2,$$

i.e., the whole group $`G_0^{\prime \prime }`$ maps the vector $`w_1`$ into the complex line generated by $`w_2`$. It is then easy to see that such a vector $`w_1`$ has to be proportional to $`v`$.

Hence we obtain that $`g_\beta `$ preserves $`v`$ up to a multiple. This implies that $`g_\beta `$ has the form (2.11), i.e., $`g_\beta G_0^{\prime \prime }`$ for all $`\beta `$, and $`H=G_0^{\prime \prime }`$.

The lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now finish the proof of Proposition 2.7. Indeed, Lemma 2.8 implies that $`G_0^{}=G_0^{\prime \prime }`$ is connected. Since the mapping $`fU_f`$ is an injective Lie group homomorphism from $`I_0(M_\pm )`$ onto $`G_0^{}`$ and since the image of the connected component of the identity of $`I_0(M_\pm )`$ under this mapping is $`G_0^{}`$, we obtain that $`I_0(M_\pm )`$ is connected. $`\mathrm{}`$

Further, since $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )`$ is connected by Proposition 2.7, we obtain that $`\text{Aut}(M_\pm )=P_\pm `$, and Theorem 2.2 is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Domains with Boundary Equivalent to the Quadric

We will now turn to domains $`D_0^>`$ and $`D_0^<`$ defined in (1.7) and (1.8). In fact, they belong to the following well-known class of domains in $`\mathrm{}^n`$. Let $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n,z_{n+1})`$ be coordinates in $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$, and $`x_j=\text{Re}z_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$. Set $`z:=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ and $`x:=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$. Consider a non-degenerate Hermitian form $`H_{p,n}(z,\overline{z})`$ on $`\mathrm{}^n`$, where $`p`$ is the number of positive eigenvalues of $`H_{p,n}`$ and suppose that $`n2p`$. Without loss of generality we assume that $`H_{p,n}`$ is given in the diagonal form

$$H_{p,n}(z,\overline{z})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}|z_j|^2\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{n}{}}|z_j|^2.$$

We now set

$$\begin{array}{c}D_{H_{p,n}}^>:=\{(z,z_{n+1})\mathrm{}^{n+1}:x_{n+1}>H_{p,n}(z,\overline{z})\},\hfill \\ D_{H_{p,n}}^<:=\{(z,z_{n+1})\mathrm{}^{n+1}:x_{n+1}<H_{p,n}(z,\overline{z})\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to check that the mappings

$$\begin{array}{c}zaz+b,\hfill \\ z_{n+1}2aH_{p,n}(z,\overline{b})+a^2z_{n+1}+H_{p,n}(b,\overline{b})+ic,\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`a\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`b\mathrm{}^n`$, $`c\mathrm{}`$, act transitively on each of $`D_{H_{p,n}}^>`$ and $`D_{H_{p,n}}^<`$ so these domains are homogeneous. The domain $`D_{H_{p,n}}^<`$ is never Kobayashi-hyperbolic as it contains the complex line $`\{z_2=\mathrm{}=z_n=0,z_{n+1}=1\}`$. The domain $`D_{H_{p,n}}^>`$ is not Kobayashi hyperbolic for $`p<n`$ as it contains the complex line $`\{z_1=\mathrm{}=z_{n1}=0,z_{n+1}=1\}`$. The domain $`D_{H_{n,n}}^>`$ is biholomorphically equivalent to the unit ball.

Thus the domains $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{1/12}^>}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{1/12}^<}`$ serve as a warning that sometimes non-trivially looking homogeneous tube domains can in fact be biholomorphically equivalent to a well-known domain (in our example $`D_0^>`$ and $`D_0^<`$).

It is interesting to remark that $`D_{H_{p,n}}^>`$ and $`D_{H_{p,n}}^<`$ can always be realised as tube domains. The mapping

$$\begin{array}{c}z\sqrt{2}z,\hfill \\ z_{n+1}z_{n+1}+H_{p,n}(z,z)\hfill \end{array}$$

transforms $`D_{H_{p,n}}^>`$ and $`D_{H_{p,n}}^<`$ into the tube domains

$$\{(z,z_{n+1})\mathrm{}^{n+1}:x_{n+1}>H_{p,n}(x,x)\}$$

and

$$\{(z,z_{n+1})\mathrm{}^{n+1}:x_{n+1}<H_{p,n}(x,x)\}$$

respectively. The bases of these domains are affinely homogeneous in $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$. In \[DY\], \[I1\], \[IM\] all tube hypersurfaces locally equivalent to the quadric

$$Q_{H_{p,n}}:=\{(z,z_{n+1})\mathrm{}^{n+1}:x_{n+1}=H_{p,n}(z,z)\}$$

were determined for $`np2`$. Among such hypersurfaces those given by polynomial graphs are always globally equivalent to $`Q_{H_{p,n}}`$, and their bases are affinely homogeneous in $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$. Moreover, the domains on each side of such a polynomial graph are affinely homogeneous.

For $`p=n`$ the only polynomial tube hypersurface (up to affine equivalence) is

$$\{(z,z_{n+1})\mathrm{}^{n+1}:x_{n+1}=H_{n,n}(x,x)\}.$$

As $`np`$ grows, higher order polynomial hypersurfaces appear. The tube over the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1/12}`$ defined in (1.1) is an example for $`n=3,p=2`$, and mapping (1.6) establishes equivalence between this tube and $`Q_{H_{2,3}}`$ (see also \[IM\]). Another non-trivial example occurs for $`n=2,p=1`$. Consider the hypersurface in $`\mathrm{}^3`$ given by the equation:

$$x_3=x_1x_2+x_1^3.$$
(3.1)
It is called the Cayley surface (see \[NS2\] for a discussion of its properties). The Cayley surface is affinely homogeneous, and the domains on each side of it are affinely homogeneous as well. The tube over the Cayley surface appears in the classification in \[IM\], where its equivalence to $`Q_{H_{1,2}}`$ was explicitly established. Namely, the mapping

$$\begin{array}{c}z_1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(z_1+z_2+\frac{3}{2}z_1^2\right),\hfill \\ \\ z_2\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(z_1z_2\frac{3}{2}z_1^2\right),\hfill \\ \\ z_34z_32z_1z_2z_1^3\hfill \end{array}$$

transforms the tube over the Cayley surface into

$$\{(z_1,z_2,z_3)\mathrm{}^3:\text{Re}z_3=|z_1|^2|z_2|^2\}.$$

For $`np=2`$ very complicated polynomial hypersurfaces equivalent to $`Q_{H_{p,n}}`$ occur. For example, if $`n=7,p=5`$ we have the following one-parameter family of pairwise affinely non-equivalent hypersurfaces \[I1\]:

$$\begin{array}{c}x_8=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4x_5+x_6x_7+\hfill \\ 2\sqrt{2(1+\sigma )}x_1x_4x_6+2\sqrt{3\sigma }x_2x_6^2+\frac{1+\sigma }{\sqrt{3\sigma }}x_2x_4^2+\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{\sigma ^2+34\sigma 1}{3\sigma }}x_3x_4^2+(x_4^2+x_6^2)(x_4^2+\sigma x_6^2),\sigma [1,17+12\sqrt{2}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Every such a hypersurface and the domains on each side of it are affinely homogeneous, and it is possible to write explicitly a polynomial biholomorphism that maps the tubes over these hypersurfaces onto $`Q_{H_{5,7}}`$. In general, the following holds.

###### THEOREM 3.1

For every $`pn`$ and every $`2s2(np)+2`$ there exists a polynomial $`P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ of degree $`s`$ such that:

(i) the graph of $`P`$ is an affinely homogeneous hypersurface in $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$;

(ii) the tube hypersurface over the graph of $`P`$ is equivalent to $`Q_{H_{p,n}}`$ by means of a polynomial mapping.

Moreover, if $`n7`$ and $`np2`$, then for some $`2s_02(np)+2`$ there exists a family $`\{P_\sigma \}`$ of polynomials of degree $`s_0`$ depending on a continuous parameter, that possess properties (i) and (ii), such that the graphs of $`P_\sigma `$ are pairwise affinely non-equivalent.

We do not prove Theorem 3.1 here; it follows from the techniques developed in \[I2\]. Theorem 3.1 shows that one has to exercise caution when constructing homogeneous domains from tubes over affinely homogeneous hypersurfaces in real space since a substantial number of such domains are either $`D_{H_{p,n}}^>`$, or $`D_{H_{p,n}}^<`$ in disguise.

Department of Pure Mathematics
University of Adelaide
South Australia 5005
AUSTRALIA
E-mail: meastwoo@maths.adelaide.edu.au
Department of Mathematics
The Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200
AUSTRALIA
E-mail: alexander.isaev@maths.anu.edu.au