# THE REVIVAL OF GALACTIC COSMIC RAY NUCLEOSYNTHESIS?

## 1 Introduction

Galactic cosmic rays (GCR) have long been known to be a significant source of lithium, beryllium, and boron nucleosynthesis (Reeves, Fowler, & Hoyle rfh (1970); Meneguzzi, Audouze, & Reeves mar (1971)). These elements are produced via spallation and fusion reactions between cosmic ray nuclei and those in the interstellar medium (ISM). Indeed, until the 1990’s it was thought that LiBeB are predominantly synthesized in this way (except for <sup>7</sup>Li and perhaps <sup>11</sup>B). Estimates of the accumulation of LiBeB over the age of galaxy, using the observed, present-day GCR flux and ISM abundances (e.g., Walker, Mathews, & Viola wmv (1985)), can reproduce roughly the right solar system values for the absolute abundances and the isotopic ratios of <sup>6</sup>Li, <sup>9</sup>Be, and <sup>10</sup>B. Some question remained about <sup>7</sup>Li and <sup>11</sup>B, which seemed to require additional nucleosynthesis sources, but the agreement was seen as a confirmation of the basic GCR nucleosynthesis process as the source of LiBeB.

Our picture of LiBeB production was partially confirmed and partially challenged in the past decade, when data became available on LiBeB evolution in prior epochs. Specifically, observations revealed the pattern of elemental abundances of LiBeB versus Fe in both disk and halo (Population I and II) stars. While elemental Li is dominated at low metallicity by the “Spite plateau” arising from the primordial component, Be and B show no such plateau, but rather scale with metallicity. Thus, Be and B have no significant primordial component as was to be expected from standard models of big bang nucleosynthesis (Thomas et al. tsof (1993), Delbourgo-Salvador & Vangioni-Flam dsvf (1994)), and have a Galactic production site, in accordance with the basic “galactogenetic” hypothesis of Reeves, Fowler, & Hoyle (rfh (1970)).

However, the same stellar data that showed Be and B to have a Galactic origin also threw into question the “standard” LiBeB nucleosynthesis scenario of GCR spallation on ISM nuclei. The observed Be- and B-Fe relations show logarithmic slopes (for brevity, “slopes”) much closer to 1 than to 2. However, in standard GCR nucleosynthesis, Be and B are “secondary” since the production rate of Be and B depends on the abundance of the “primary” target nuclei C, N, and O in the ISM. Thus, in this scenario, Be and B have slope 2 versus, say, oxygen.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 The GCR production of Li is more complicated, since primary production of <sup>6</sup>Li and <sup>7</sup>Li via $`\alpha +\alpha \mathrm{Li}`$ occurs in addition to CNO spallation (e.g., Steigman & Walker sw (1992)).  Therefore, if O and Fe abundances are proportional to one another in Pop II stars, the Be and B data are in conflict with standard GCR nucleosynthesis. The data have thus been interpreted as requiring both primary Be and primary B. In particular, when one normalizes to the solar abundances, the difference between the primary and secondary production is largest at low metallicities and hence early epochs. Thus the Be and B data in halo (Pop II) stars apparently suggest a need for other nucleosynthesis sites in the early Galaxy for these element isotopes.

Of the primary mechanisms suggested, most involve accelerated particle interactions, but one—the “neutrino process”—is a stellar mechanism (Woosley et al. w1 (1990); Olive et al. opsv (1994), Woosley & Weaver ww (1995)). The $`\nu `$-process occurs as the onion-skin layers of a supernova are traversed by the intense neutrino flux. Inelastic neutrino collisions with nuclei in the carbon and helium shells can lead to the production of <sup>11</sup>B and <sup>7</sup>Li. This mechanism is a “primary” one, in that a “seed” abundance is not needed in the supernova’s progenitor for the $`\nu `$-process to occur. Since most current stellar abundance data measures only the elemental abundance of B, the $`\nu `$-process alone could explain the B-Fe trend, though adjustments are needed to fit the solar <sup>11</sup>B/<sup>10</sup>B (Olive, Prantzos, Scully, & Vangioni-Flam opsv (1994), Vangioni-Flam, Cassé, Fields, & Olive vcfo (1996)).

Even if the $`\nu `$-process is responsible for the Pop II trends in B, the $`\nu `$-process makes no Be. Thus, the observed trend of Be versus Fe, with slope near 1, apparently demands an additional primary source of Be which dominated in the early Galaxy. One proposed mechanism invokes a flux of accelerated particles that are localized to star forming regions (Cassé, Lehoucq, & Vangioni-Flam clv (1995); Ramaty, Kozlovsky, & Lingenfelter rkl (1995)). These particles would be energetic (i.e., above the thresholds for LiBeB spallation production), but non-relativistic, and dominated by C and O nuclei. This mechanism is in part motived by $`\gamma `$-ray observations of $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}_{}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}_{}^{}`$ lines in Orion, which are only explained as the result of such a population of energetic particles. Another mechanism posits the direct acceleration of supernova ejecta (Duncan, Lambert, & Lemke dll (1992); Ramaty, Kozlovsky, Lingenfelter, & Reeves rklr (1997)). In this scenario, the C and O component is assumed to dominate the composition, but the energetic particles are now at relativistic energies.

Thus we see that the apparently primary nature of the B-Fe and Be-Fe trends has driven the need for new LiBeB production in the early Galaxy. Given the far-reaching implications of such new production, it is worthwhile to scrutinize the empirical basis of the primary behavior. Here we wish to re-examine critically whether the B-Fe and Be-Fe slopes necessarily imply primary origins for B and Be. In fact, a better and more direct indicator of the nucleosynthetic origin of Be and B is oxygen. This is well known, but it has been thought that O/Fe is constant in Pop II, so that Fe can act as a surrogate for O. However, we will discuss recent data which suggests that O/Fe may not be constant. Using recent Pop II oxygen data for halo stars, we find that the Be-O and B-O slopes at present suffer from systematic effects, the result of which is that the slopes may lie in the range 1.3 – 1.8. Interestingly, this range of uncertainty lies between the values of 1 and 2 arising for primary and secondary origins, respectively. Thus it is unclear on the basis of these data alone whether primary or secondary production occurred in the early Galaxy.

In the face of this uncertainty, we reconsider in this paper the standard GCR nucleosynthesis scenario, in which <sup>6</sup>Li and <sup>7</sup>Li are effectively primary in Pop II (due to $`\alpha +\alpha `$ reactions; Montmerle mont (1977); Steigman & Walker sw (1992)), and <sup>9</sup>Be and <sup>10</sup>B are secondary. Of course, since the observed meteoritic <sup>11</sup>B/<sup>10</sup>B isotopic ratio cannot be fit by standard (relativistic) GCR processes, one must add something to this scenario to fit even the solar abundances. We will adopt the point of view that the $`\nu `$-process does occur, and must contribute to <sup>11</sup>B (and probably <sup>7</sup>Li as well). Indeed, we know supernovae are intense neutrino sources, and so spallative production must occur at some level. Of course, the solar isotopic data on <sup>7</sup>Li and <sup>11</sup>B demand that some additional process, other than conventional GCR spallation, produces at least these isotopes. If we take the $`\nu `$-process yields seriously, then this contributes a primary component to Pop II <sup>11</sup>B (and thus elemental B), which in turn demands that Be and B slopes differ, and thus that B/Be rises toward low metallicities (Olive et al. opsv (1994), Fields, Olive & Schramm fos95 (1995)). Given the $`\nu `$-process, there would not be a strong requirement for other (primary) sources of B. Thus, the only evidence driving the need for additional primary sources of LiBeB is the Be data.

In what follows we will review the BeB data with respect to both Fe and O. We find that the data is particular vulnerable to systematic effects which depend on the stellar atmospheric parameters such as surface temperature and gravity. Due to these uncertainties, it is unfortunately not possible with the present data to determine unambiguously the primary versus secondary nature of Be. We then ask, if Be indeed has an origin in standard GCRs throughout the history of the Galaxy, what are the implications for LiBeB and cosmic ray evolution if this is true? We find that simple chemical evolution models can obtain good fits to Be and B vs O and Fe. Acceptable BeB vs OFe evolution can arise not only in simple closed box scenarios, but also in open box models which allow for Galactic outflows (Scully et al. sean (1997)). We find that although the effect of Galactic winds is to flatten the Be evolution, the effect is not significant enough to change the slope by one unit. Finally, we point out further empirical tests which can determine whether a new and separate cosmic ray component is required to operate in the early Galaxy. 

## 2 Data

### 2.1 LiBeB

In order to model and test existing models of the synthesis and evolution of the LiBeB isotopes, it is essential to have reliable abundance data. To derive abundances from the observed line strengths, one must adopt a model stellar atmosphere models. In practice, reported abundances use different assumptions in the model atmospheres for all stars; e.g., whether one imposes local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) or not (NLTE). In addition, somewhat different parameters are adopted for the same star, e.g., surface gravity, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, or $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$. To meaningfully derive and compare trends for different elements across metallicities, it is thus crucial to systematize the stellar atmosphere models that underly the abundances. In what follows, where multiple measurements exist for a given star, we will combine them systematically at a common set of stellar parameters to determine the abundances of Be/H, B/H and O/H as was done in Vangioni-Flam et al. (vroc (1998), hereafter VROC). Unfortunately, the choice for these parameters is not unique and their choice can have a significant effect on the evolutionary trends for Be and B as we show below.

Having a dominant primordial component at low metallicities, <sup>7</sup>Li differs from the other element isotopes we are considering. For our purposes here, Galactic LiBeB production is constrained by <sup>7</sup>Li only in that models must respect the Spite plateau in metallicity. In most cases, this is not a problem. There is of course an observed rise in the <sup>7</sup>Li abundance at \[Fe/H\] $`>`$ -1, but we will not address the issue of late <sup>7</sup>Li production here. We will assume a Spite plateau value of Li/H $`=1.6\times 10^{10}`$ (Molaro, Primas, & Bonifacio mpb (1995), Bonifacio & Molaro bm (1997)).

We will also not go into detail concerning <sup>6</sup>Li here (the question of <sup>6</sup>Li will be treated in Vangioni-Flam, Cassé, Olive & Fields vcof (1998)). We do note here however, that the $`\alpha \alpha `$ fusion process which produces <sup>6</sup>Li in addition to spallative processes (see e.g. Steigman & Walker sw (1992)), is effectively a primary process. If Be was in fact a secondary element as in the standard model of GCR nucleosynthesis, the <sup>6</sup>Li/<sup>9</sup>Be ratio would change with metallicity as appears to be the case when one compares this ratio in halo stars (see e.g. recent observations of <sup>6</sup>Li by Smith, Lambert, & Nissen sln2 (1998), Cayrel et al. cay (1998)) to the solar value.

The logarithmic abundances of Be and B scale with those of heavy elements. There is no evidence as yet of a primordial component, which from the standard model of big bang nucleosynthesis is expected to be unobservably small (Thomas et al. tsof (1993), Delbourgo-Salvador & Vangioni-Flam dsvf (1994)) given current observational capabilities. The Be and B data can be fit versus $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$ using logarithmic abundances so that,

$$[\mathrm{Be}]=\omega _{\mathrm{BeFe}}[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+const$$
(1)   
We will focus on the logarithmic slope $`\omega _{\mathrm{BeFe}}`$; the same procedure, applied to boron, gives $`\omega _{\mathrm{BFe}}`$. \[Be\] is defined as $`\mathrm{log}`$(Be/H) + 12.

To determine the slopes $`\omega _{\mathrm{BeFe}}`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{BFe}}`$, one needs to choose a consistent set of stellar parameters. One choice advocated by Molaro, Primas, & Bonifacio (mpb (1995)) to obtain reliable <sup>7</sup>Li abundances, is to use surface temperatures as given by Fuhrmann, Axer, & Gehren (fag (1993)) based on Balmer lines. This approach was used in VROC for obtaining the Be-Fe and B-Fe correlation. The specific BeB data used for these fits was discussed in VROC and we refer the reader there for more details. Here we have also adjusted the surface gravity and iron abundances to match those given by Axer, Fuhrmann, & Gehren (afg (1994)). These results for the Be-Fe and B-Fe slopes for \[Fe/H\] $`<`$ -1, appear in Table 1 and are very similar to those obtained in VROC. However, this choice of stellar parameters based on Balmer line observations is not unique. An alternative is to use data based on the Infra-Red Flux Method (IRFM) of Alonso, Arribas, & Martinez-Roger (1996a ; 1996b ). This was used by Bonifacio & Molaro (bm (1997)) for <sup>7</sup>Li as well and gave very consistent results (with Balmer line method) for the <sup>7</sup>Li abundance in the Spite plateau. The IRFM of Alonso, Arribas, & Martinez-Roger (1996b ) was used by Israelian, Garcia Lopez, & Rebolo (iglr (1998)) to obtain oxygen abundances in halo stars, and we have also adopted these parameters to adjust the Be and B abundances so that we again are utilizing a consistent parameter set. The results for the Be and B slopes based on the IRFM are also shown in Table 1.

As one can see, the Be and B show a clear departure from the quadratic (slope = 2) dependence on \[Fe/H\] commonly expected in standard GCR nucleosynthesis for both the Balmer line and IRFM parameter choices. In fact these results are entirely consistent with one another. In the case of B/H, there are two points at low metallicity which stand out due to an NLTE correction that has been applied. If we use only the LTE abundance data for B/H (though we have no reason to suspect a problem with the NLTE corrections that have been applied) the slope becomes $`\omega _{\mathrm{BFe}}=0.93\pm 0.13`$ and is not qualitatively different than the NLTE case. We will discuss the Be-O and B-O trends below.

As in the case of <sup>6</sup>Li, the isotopic ratio <sup>11</sup>B/<sup>10</sup>B in Pop II stars is determined via isotopic splitting, in this case at $`2090\mathrm{\AA }`$. Also similar to <sup>6</sup>Li, this is a difficult observation. Rebull et al. (rdjtf (1998)) made a first attempt at measuring this in HD 76932, which has $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=1`$, and $`[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]=0.62\pm 0.23`$ (Israelian, Garcia Lopez, & Rebolo iglr (1998)) and found a possible blended line. If the 2090 Å feature is unblended and entirely due to B, then $`\text{11}\text{B}/\text{10}\text{B}410`$. If an (unknown) blend is present, then the ratio could be as low as $`\text{11}\text{B}/\text{10}\text{B}1`$. Further work is needed to address the issue of blending.

As we will discuss below, the solar abundances of <sup>6</sup>LiBeB are sufficient to fix all of the parameters of LiBeB production, and thus these abundances are key inputs. For the solar Li, Be, O, and Fe abundances, we will adopt the values of Anders & Grevesse (ag (1989)). For the elemental B, we note the uncertainty in the solar value, and will note the impact of using the meteoritic value $`\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{H}=(6.06\pm 0.79)\times 10^{10}`$ of Zhai & Shaw (zs (1994)) (recommended by Grevesse, Noels, & Sauval gns (1996)), or the photospheric value $`\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{H}=(4.0\pm 2.8)\times 10^{10}`$. For the boron isotopes, we use the Chaussidon & Robert (cr (1995)) value $`\text{11}\text{B}/\text{10}\text{B}=4.05\pm 0.16`$.

### 2.2 Oxygen Data and Trend Versus Iron

Oxygen provides a more direct measure of the LiBeB nucleosynthetic origin than does Fe, since O (along with C and N) is the nucleus that is fragmented to make LiBeB. In practice, however, O is not as common a metallicity standard as Fe since O is harder to measure. Indeed, there has been debate over which O lines are the best indicators of the true oxygen abundance, since use of different lines have led to systematically different O/H abundances. Abundances determinations have used several indicators: (1) the allowed O I triplet at 7774 Å; (2) the forbidden \[O I\] line at 6300 Å; and (3) molecular OH lines at 3085 Å. The third method was suggested by Bessell, Hughes & Cottrell (bhc (1984)) and recently high resolution UV spectra were obtained for many of the stars with Be and B observations (Nissen et al. ngeg (1994), Israelian, García-López, & Rebolo iglr (1998)). These new data suggest a significant nonzero \[O/Fe\] trend (versus $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$) in Pop II stars. We should point out that there are systematic uncertainties in the \[O/Fe\] ratio and the magnitude of these are difficult to estimate. A comparison of the different methods to measure O/H and the results of different measurements was made by Israelian, García-López, & Rebolo (iglr (1998)). Hereafter, we will adopt the O abundances derived from the OH lines, and examine the implications of the results.

The O/Fe trends versus Fe in Pop I is well-known to show a decrease in O/Fe from $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=1`$ to $`[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]=0`$. However, for Pop II, the data has been less clear. O/Fe has often been assumed to be constant at low metallicity, and the data was uncertain enough to allow this possibility. However, the data of Israelian, García-López, & Rebolo (iglr (1998)) strongly suggests that O/Fe is not constant, but rather increases towards low metallicity. Specifically, Israelian et al. find that for Pop II metallicities $`3[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1`$ (or $`1.8\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5`$),

$$[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}]=\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+const$$
(2)   
with $`\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=0.31\pm 0.11`$, based on 17 stars. Thus we have

$`[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}]+[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$ (3)   
$`=`$ $`(1+\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}})[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$ (4)   
The new evidence that $`\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}0`$ would mean, via eq. (4), that the common assumption that $`\mathrm{O}\mathrm{Fe}`$ would be incorrect for Pop II.

The \[O/Fe\] data relevant to the Be and B data considered here is taken from the OH data of Nissen et al. (ngeg (1994)) and Israelian, García-López, & Rebolo (iglr (1998)) and is plotted in Figure 1. A fit to \[O/Fe\] versus \[Fe/H\] yields a very steep slope of

$$\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=0.46\pm 0.15(\mathrm{Balmer})$$
(5)   
based on data from 20 stars. This slope differs from zero at the $`3\sigma `$ level. On the other hand, using the IRFM for the same stars, we have

$$\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=0.22\pm 0.15(\mathrm{IRFM})$$
(6)   
which differs from zero only in a statistically mild way. These bracket and are consistent statistically with the slope of $`0.31\pm 0.11`$ quoted in Israelian, García-López, & Rebolo (iglr (1998)). The slopes in Eqs. (5) and (6) include the data of Nissen et al. (ngeg (1994)) and in the Balmer line case we have applied a systematic shift in the stellar parameters used in order to that they match those chosen for the Be and B data, where we used a uniform set of stellar data. In this way when we compare Be/H versus O/H, the data for all abundances are based on the the same stellar parameters. The predominant effect in the difference for the oxygen abundances is the choice of surface temperature. The data for both the Blamer line method and IRFM are shown in Figure 1.

If $`\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}`$ differs from 0, then the usual assumption that in Pop II, $`\mathrm{O}\mathrm{Fe}`$ not longer holds. In turn, the usual argument no longer necessarily holds that the Be- and B-Fe slopes near $`1`$ implies a primary origin for Be and B. That is, although the slopes against Fe/H do seem consistent, and lean to the primary interpretation, such a conclusion would be fallacious unless we had conclusive evidence that the O/Fe-Fe slope were in fact 0. Until this is established, we will need a better understanding of the element abundances of the light elements as well as O before we can answer the question regarding the primary/secondary nature of Be and B. In what follows, we outline how a nonzero O/Fe-Fe slope changes the usual analysis of Be and B origin.

## 3 Be and B Trends Versus Oxygen and Implications for Be and B Origin

Once the validity of $`\mathrm{O}\mathrm{Fe}`$ for Pop II stars has been called into question, the Be and B versus Fe slope no longer remains a direct indicator of the nucleosynthetic origin of LiBeB. Thus it becomes important to determine the Be and B slopes versus O. Two ways to determine the slopes $`\omega _{\mathrm{BeO}}`$ and $`\omega _{\mathrm{BO}}`$ are as follows. (1) Examine the Be and B trends versus O in stars where these are measured as discussed in the previous section. The obvious advantage of this approach is that it directly addresses the issue at hand. The disadvantage, however, is that presently the needed data exist for fewer Pop II stars than have Be or B and Fe measured. Thus the slopes determined by this method have larger errors due to the smaller sample size. (2) To reduce these errors, one can take a different approach, which supplements the measured Be and B versus Fe slopes with the measured O-Fe trend to arrive at Be and B versus O. We will take both approaches and compare their results.

The simplest approach conceptually is to determine directly the Be and B versus O trends for Pop II. As one can see in Table 1, the slopes of Be and B versus O/H are far from certain. For both, the range for the slopes is roughly 1.3 – 1.8, placing them between what is expected if they are primary or secondary elements. These results intriguingly call into question the presupposition that the slopes should show a value near 1, which would indicate a primary origin. If anything, the slopes versus oxygen may even favor a secondary origin. However, this analysis alone cannot definitively discriminate between the two hypotheses of BeB origin, as the data are still quite uncertain (and not nearly as numerous as the BeB set versus iron). Indeed, it is the systematic difference in the results when the two sets of stellar parameters are chosen that implies that at this time based on this data, it is not possible to determine the primary/secondary nature of beryllium and boron. Still, one can at the least say that the BeB data versus oxygen certainly offers no overwhelming support for a primary origin.

In the face of these uncertainties, an alternative to using Be, B versus O directly is to use the better determined BeB trends versus Fe, along with the O-Fe data, to infer Be and B versus O for Pop II. While this approach is less direct, it has the obvious advantage of the increased size of both the O and the BeB data sets. Another advantage to this method is that one can directly compare the Be and B slopes versus Fe, and the differences are independent of the O-Fe trend (as long as there is some trend). Consider an element $`𝒜=\text{9}\text{Be}`$, <sup>10</sup>B, or <sup>11</sup>B. If $`𝒜`$ has some fixed log slope $`\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{O}}`$ versus O,

$$[𝒜]=\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{O}}[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]+const$$
(7)   
and if we use eq. (4) to relate $`[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]`$ to $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$ in Pop II stars, we have

$$[𝒜]=\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{O}}(1+\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}})[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]$$
(8)   
and so

$$\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{Fe}}=\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{O}}(1+\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}})$$
(9)   
The upshot of eq. (9) is that the iron slope $`\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{Fe}}`$ does not directly reveal the nucleosynthesis origin of $`𝒜`$, but depends on both the true indicator $`\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{O}}`$ and the $`\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}`$ slope.

For example, consider the case in which $`𝒜`$ is primary versus O and the O/Fe-Fe slope is not zero, but takes the Israelian, García-López, & Rebolo (iglr (1998)) value $`\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=.31\pm 0.11`$, which lies between the values of Eqs. (5) and (6). Then $`\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{O}}1`$ by assumption, and by eq. (9) the iron slope is $`\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{Fe}}=1+\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=0.69\pm 0.11`$. This “primary” slope is entirely consistent with the observed $`\omega _{\mathrm{BFe}}`$ vales for both the Balmer line and the IRFM data sets, and thus suggests that B truly has a “primary” origin versus oxygen (contrary to the weak indications by the B-O slope of a secondary origin).

On the other hand, in the case where $`𝒜`$ is secondary versus O, then $`\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{O}}2`$, which gives an iron slope $`\omega _{𝒜,\mathrm{Fe}}=2(1+\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}})=1.38\pm 0.22`$. This predicted “secondary” slope is considerably less than 2. Furthermore, this predicted slope agrees with the observed $`\omega _{\mathrm{BeFe}}`$ within the total error budget. That is, for both the Balmer line and the IRFM a sets, an inferred secondary Be-Fe slope is within $`1\sigma `$ of the observed Be-Fe value, while and inferred primary slope differs from the observed $`\omega _{\mathrm{BeFe}}`$ by $`>3\sigma `$. On this basis, one could argue that of the eight slopes listed for Be and B in Table 1, only one shows a departure from the expected behavior. If we had assumed that Be was secondary while B was primary (with respect to O/H), then apart from the IRFM Be-O slope the others are consistent (the B-O slope also shows a departure from expectations, but the uncertainty is very large in this case).

Also note that if $`𝒜`$ is secondary in O and another element $``$ is primary in O, then the difference in the slopes gives the slope of the $`/𝒜`$ ratio, and is inferred to be

$$\omega _{/𝒜,\mathrm{Fe}}=\omega _{\mathrm{Fe}}\omega _{𝒜\mathrm{Fe}}=1\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=0.69\pm 0.11$$
(10)   
thus, primary and secondary oxygen slopes (which differ by 1 unit) lead to an iron slope difference $`<1`$. In other words, if B is primary in Pop II, and Be secondary, then one expects B/Be to vary with Fe, but not as strongly as the naïve slope difference of 1. Interestingly, the Table 1 data is ambiguous regarding whether the Be and B slopes differ, depending on the metal tracer used. For both data sets, the Be and B slopes versus Fe are different at the $`3.5\sigma `$ level for the Balmer set, and the $`2.9\sigma `$ level for the IRMF set. On the other hand, the (more uncertain) Be and B slopes versus O are entirely consistent with each other for both sets, despite the large difference in the O slope values between the Balmer and IRFM sets. Thus, the Be and B data versus Fe seem to require a variation in B/Be, while the more uncertain data versus O allows for some variation but does not at all demand it. These results are to be compared with the B/Be slope as obtained directly from individual stars. In fact, such direct determinations are few–only 6 Pop II data points are available, thus making direct B/Be slope determinations very uncertain. Indeed, as seen in Table 1, the direct data on B/Be are ambiguous on whether the slope is nonzero; the Balmer line set allows this, while the IRFM set disfavors a strong evolution. As we will see below using specific models, the difference in B/Be between these two sets is enough to allow for standard GCR nucleosynthesis in the Balmer case, but to disfavor it in the IRFM case. This again points to the significance of the current uncertainties, and the need for more and better data.

To summarize, we see that the (better measured) slopes versus Fe strongly hint at different origins for Be and B, while the slopes versus O are ambiguous due to their uncertainties. In particular, the BeB-Fe slopes in conjunction with a nonzero O/Fe-Fe slope suggests that B is primary in O, while Be appears to be secondary. Emboldened by this suggestion with the data, we now turn to specific models to examine this scenario of LiBeB origin.

## 4 Galactic Chemical Evolution and Cosmic Ray Nucleosynthesis

### 4.1 Chemical Evolution Models

We model Galactic chemical evolution following the standard formalism described well elsewhere (e.g., Tinsley tins (1980)). Thus we will briefly note the basic equations in order to establish conventions.

For the one-zone models we will consider, the total mass varies as

$$\frac{d}{dt}M_{\mathrm{tot}}=\vartheta $$
(11)   
where we have allowed for an “open box” with a gas outflow rate $`\vartheta `$. We will also consider the simple “closed box” case in which $`\vartheta =0`$. The gas mass changes via

$$\frac{d}{dt}M_{\mathrm{gas}}=\psi +E\vartheta $$
(12)   
where $`\psi `$ is the star formation rate. The total mass ejection rate from dying stars is $`E=𝑑mm_{\mathrm{ej}}\xi (m)\psi [t\tau (m)]`$ depends on the star formation rate as well as the initial mass function $`\xi `$ and the lifetime $`\tau `$ of stars of mass $`m`$. A nuclear species $`\mathrm{}`$ has a gas mass fraction $`X_{\mathrm{}}=M_{\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{}}/M_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ which evolves according to

$$M_{\mathrm{gas}}\frac{d}{dt}X_{\mathrm{}}=E_{\mathrm{}}X_{\mathrm{}}E(X_{\mathrm{}}X_{\mathrm{}}^\vartheta )\vartheta +Q_{\mathrm{}}$$
(13)   
Here $`E_{\mathrm{}}=𝑑mm_{\mathrm{ej},\mathrm{}}\xi (m)\psi [t\tau (m)]`$ where $`m_{\mathrm{ej},\mathrm{}}`$ is the mass ejected from stars in the form of $`\mathrm{}`$. For the case of LiBeB, $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the mass production rate from cosmic rays (derived below, eq. (23)). Note that because LiBeB are very fragile, they are destroyed by $`(p,\alpha )`$ reactions in all of the convective zones of stars; thus, the bulk of stellar ejecta are LiBeB free, and so we take $`E_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ for these elements. The exception to this occurs for <sup>11</sup>B and <sup>7</sup>Li production by the neutrino process, for which we have $`E_{\mathrm{}}=E_{\mathrm{SN},\mathrm{}}=E_{\nu ,\mathrm{}}`$.

Following, e.g., Scully et al. (sean (1997)), we consider gas outflows having two components. One type is a bulk outflow in which ISM material is heated by multiple supernovae, and driven out of the Galaxy by an evaporative wind. In the simplest model (Hartwick hart (1974)), the outflow strength is taken to be proportional to the supernova rate and thus the star formation rate: $`\vartheta =ϵ_{\mathrm{ISM}}\psi `$. The bulk outflow composition is usually assumed to be the same as that of the ISM, i.e., $`X_{\mathrm{}}^\vartheta =X_{\mathrm{}}`$. The other type of outflow we consider is motivated by a picture in which supernova blast waves preferentially expel supernova products from the Galaxy (Vader vader (1986)). In this “enriched” outflow scenario, the flow strength is taken to be a fraction of the total supernova ejecta only: $`\vartheta =ϵ_{\mathrm{SN}}E_{\mathrm{SN}}`$. Furthermore, the composition is exactly that of the supernova ejecta: $`X_{\mathrm{}}^\vartheta =X_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{ej},\mathrm{SN}}=E_{\mathrm{SN},\mathrm{}}/E_{\mathrm{SN}}`$. While the ejection efficiency could in principle be different for type Ia and type II supernovae, for simplicity we will assume the factor is same for both. Note that since $`\nu `$-process yields are of SN origin, these are included in the enriched winds.

Since we are interested in iron evolution in general, and O/Fe in particular, it is essential to include Type Ia supernovae, which contribute significantly to the Fe abundance. To do this we follow the prescription of Matteucci & Greggio mg (1986); these authors take Type Ia origin to be accretion onto a white dwarf from a companion. Thus, the Type Ia rate is computed via integrals over the total mass $`M`$ as well as the mass fraction $`\mu `$ of the companion:

$$R_{\mathrm{Ia}}=f_{\mathrm{Ia}}𝑑M\xi (M)𝑑\mu g(\mu )\psi \left[t\tau (m_2)\right]$$
(14)   
where $`m_2=\mu M`$ is the mass of the secondary, and we follow Matteucci & Greggio in taking the distribution $`g(\mu )\mu ^2`$. For both prescriptions, the nucleosynthesis yields are then modified by adding a term $`E_i^{\mathrm{Ia}}=M_i^{\mathrm{Ia}}R_{\mathrm{Ia}}`$, where the yields $`M_i^{\mathrm{Ia}}`$ are tabulated by Thielemann, Nomoto, & Yokoi (tny (1986)).

### 4.2 LiBeB Nucleosynthesis Models

The formalism for cosmic ray nucleosynthesis is discussed in detail in Fields, Olive, & Schramm (fos94 (1994)). To summarize, the production rate $`\lambda _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of LiBeB species $`\mathrm{}`$ per target atom of species $`i`$ via the process $`i+j\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}`$ is

$$\lambda _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}=𝑑E\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _jS_{\mathrm{}}$$
(15)   
where $`\varphi _j`$ is the flux of energetic nuclei of species $`j`$, $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the cross section for $`i+j\mathrm{}`$. The dimensionless factor $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ measures the probability of stopping the LiBeB daughter against escape from the Galaxy: $`S_{\mathrm{}}1`$ for the processes $`p,\alpha +\mathrm{CNO}\mathrm{LiBeB}`$, but $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is noticeably less than unity for the “reverse” kinematics (fast CNO on interstellar H and He).

We will implement standard GCR nucleosynthesis as follows. We assume that the cosmic ray flux (in species $`j`$) is separable in energy and time, with $`\varphi _j(E,t)=\phi _j(E)\mathrm{\Phi }_j(t)`$. As described in Fields, Olive, & Schramm (fos94 (1994)), the energy spectrum is propagated (for each species $`j`$ from a source spectrum $`q(E)(E+m_\mathrm{p})^{2.7}`$, consistent with current data. Since we are modeling standard GCR nucleosynthesis, the only low-energy ($`<100`$ MeV) cosmic rays are those which arise from a smooth extrapolation of the high energy flux. For simplicity, we use a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{esc}}=11\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The spectra are normalized via $`𝑑E\phi _j(E)=1`$, and the energy dependence is essentially the same for all species of interest over the energy ranges of interest. Finally, we define a time independent, spectrum-averaged cross section $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}=𝑑E\phi (E)\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$; using this, the production rate becomes $`\lambda _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_j(t)\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

We further separate the time dependent part of the flux to isolate the composition and the flux strength. Namely, we write $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(t)=y_j^{\mathrm{CR}}(t)\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$, where $`y_j^{\mathrm{CR}}(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_j/\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is the cosmic ray composition and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ (without subscript) is the total integrated proton flux. For standard GCR nucleosynthesis, we assume that the cosmic rays arise as supernova shocks accelerate the ambient ISM. Thus, we assume that (1) the cosmic ray composition is the same as that of the ISM, i.e., $`y_j^{\mathrm{CR}}(t)=y_j^{\mathrm{ISM}}(t)=X_j/A_jX_\mathrm{H}(t)`$. We also assume that (2) the cosmic ray flux is proportional to the Type II supernova rate: $`\mathrm{\Phi }R_{\mathrm{II}}`$. To a good approximation, $`R_{\mathrm{II}}\psi `$, so that we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\psi (t)/\psi _0`$, where subscript 0 denotes the present Galactic average value.

To summarize, we have

$`\lambda _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t){\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}y_j^{\mathrm{CR}}(t)\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$ (16)   
$``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi (t)\hfill & \text{Pop II }\text{6}\text{Li}\text{,}\text{7}\text{Li}\hfill \\ X_{\mathrm{CNO}}(t)\psi (t)\hfill & \text{Pop II Be,}\text{10}\text{B}\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)   
The heavy element target abundances $`X_{\mathrm{CNO}}`$ lead to the secondary nature of Be and <sup>10</sup>B, while the lack of this factor due to $`\alpha +\alpha `$ gives a primary nature to GCR <sup>6</sup>Li and <sup>7</sup>Li (as discussed in more detail below).

To include GCR nucleosynthesis in chemical evolution, we must relate the local production rate per atom, $`\lambda _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$, to the Galactic mass production rate, $`Q_{\mathrm{}}`$. The production rate of the number of nuclei of species $`\mathrm{}`$ per unit volume is

$$j_{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{d}{dt}n_{\mathrm{}}\right)_{\mathrm{CR}}=\underset{ij}{}\lambda _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}n_i$$
(20)   
or in terms of mass density,

$`q_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\mathrm{}}j_{\mathrm{}}`$ (21)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{}}}{m_i}}\rho _i`$   
$`=`$ $`\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}\mathrm{\Phi }(t){\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{}}}{m_i}}X_iy_j^{\mathrm{CR}}\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$   
The sum has a strongly time varying factor in the target abundances $`X_i`$. If we put $`z_iX_i/X_\mathrm{O}`$, we can define an effective cross section $`\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}=_{ij}(m_{\mathrm{}}/m_i)z_iy_j^{\mathrm{CR}}\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{}}`$ which varies slowly with time due to the variations in C:N:O. We can then write

$$q_{\mathrm{}}=\rho _{\mathrm{gas}}\mathrm{\Phi }X_\mathrm{O}\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}$$
(22)   
Integrating over a homogeneous volume $`V`$, we thus have a LiBeB mass production rate

$$Q_{\mathrm{}}=\left(\frac{d}{dt}M_{\mathrm{}}\right)_{\mathrm{CR}}=M_{\mathrm{gas}}\mathrm{\Phi }X_\mathrm{O}\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}$$
(23)   
## 5 Results

### 5.1 Analytic Results

As usual, one cannot solve the full chemical evolution equations analytically, but one can obtain illustrative analytic results by adopting the instantaneous recycling approximation (IRA). In fact, within the IRA, one can solve for LiBeB evolution (Pagel pagel (1997), pagel94 (1994); Ryan et al. rnbd (1992)) over the full range of metallicity, but the solution is complicated and can obscure basic simple result. Instead, we will focus on the limiting cases of metallicity, where “metallicity” $`Z=X_\mathrm{O}`$ here is understood to be the mass fraction of O and not Fe. At low metallicities, the destruction term is much smaller than production term, $`X_{\mathrm{}}\psi \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{}}\psi ZM_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}Z_0\tau _{\mathrm{SF},0}`$ is the cosmic ray production (without astration) over the star formation timescale $`\tau _{\mathrm{SF},0}=M_{\mathrm{gas},0}/\psi _0`$ with present ISM metallicity $`Z_0`$. When $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$ small, i.e., at low metallicity, we have $`\dot{X}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mathrm{}}\psi ZM_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ and

$$\frac{dX_{\mathrm{}}}{dZ}ZM_{\mathrm{gas}}$$
(24)   
which holds generally, with no use of the IRA. The $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ factor in eq. (24) leads to a deviation from the simple quadratic relation, as emphasized by Yoshii, Mathews, & Kajino (ymk (1995)).

To proceed, we use the closed box IRA result $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}e^{Z/𝒴_\mathrm{O}}`$, where $`𝒴_\mathrm{O}`$ is the yield of $`Z`$ (see, e.g., Tinsley tins (1980)). With this, we can solve:

$`X_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`1(1+Z/𝒴_\mathrm{O})e^{Z/𝒴_\mathrm{O}}`$ (25)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{𝒴_\mathrm{O}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{𝒴_\mathrm{O}}}\right)^3+\mathrm{}`$ (26)   
We see that LiBeB is indeed quadratic at lowest metallicities, but a deviation from the quadratic quickly grows as metallicity increases.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 In fact, the flattening of the slope at higher metallicities occurs regardless of whether the isotope $`\mathrm{}`$ is primary or secondary. This supports our decision to focus on the slope at low metallicity, where the deviation due to the $`M_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ factor is minimized.  To first order in the deviation, the log slope is $`\omega _\mathrm{}\mathrm{O}=22Z/3𝒴_\mathrm{O}`$ for secondary production (and $`\omega _\mathrm{}\mathrm{O}=1Z/2𝒴_\mathrm{O}`$ for primary production). Thus, the BeB slope versus O is slightly smaller than the naïvely expected value. The size of the departure depends on the value of the yield, which itself depends on the IMF as well as the inclusion of any winds. For a closed box as we have assumed for illustration, $`𝒴_\mathrm{O}0.01X_{\mathrm{O},}`$, so the log slope is reduced to 1.93 at mass fraction $`Z=0.1𝒴_\mathrm{O}`$. For an open box, the yield is effectively smaller, and so the slope is flatter at a fixed metallicity $`Z`$. This is in part the motivation for considering outflow in this context.

The other limit of the LiBeB evolution occurs at higher metallicities, where a steady state is reached: $`dX_{\mathrm{}}/dt=0`$. The steady state abundance is easily obtained as

$`X_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{ss}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{E}}\right)ZM_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ (27)   
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{IRA}}{=}`$ $`Ze^{Z/𝒴_\mathrm{O}}`$ (28)   
where the first expression holds generally (with $`E`$ the gas ejection function of eq. 12), and the latter expression holding in the IRA (in which $`\psi /E`$ is constant). Both expressions are valid where $`Z>𝒴_\mathrm{O}`$; in this regime $`X_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{ss}}`$ decreases, since the scarcity of target nuclei in the dwindling gas reservoir more than offsets the rising gas metallicity. The lesson of the analytical results, therefore, is that a BeB production has a log slope that only approaches the naïve values a the lowest metallicities, and then flattens and finally turns over, with LiBeB actually declining at late times. Moreover, this flattening is generic and occurs regardless of whether the production is primary or secondary.

While the analytic, IRA solutions provide valuable intuition, the assumptions therein are not obeyed for several elements which are central to our study, and which arise from low-mass, long-lived stars. These elements include not only Fe, but also the C and N that comprise spallation targets. We thus turn to more realistic results from numerical models.

### 5.2 Numerical Results

We have implemented the full chemical evolution equations (eqs. 1113), without the use of the IRA, and solve them numerically. The basic model ingredients are described in Fields & Olive (fo (1998)); most notably, the stellar nucleosynthesis yields are metallicity-dependent, and use the tabulations of van den Hoek & Groenewegen (vdhg (1997)) for $`18M_{}`$ stars, and Woosley & Weaver (ww (1995)) for $`1140M_{}`$ stars (including their neutrino process yields).

#### 5.2.1 The O/Fe Ratio

As discussed in §§2.2-3, any chemical evolution model constructed to fit the BeB slopes versus Fe and O must also reproduce the nonzero O/Fe slope in Pop II. In modeling O/Fe, the yields of both elements of course play central roles, but O production is simpler–Type II supernovae are the only important source–and the O yields of different groups are in good agreement (Woosley & Weaver ww (1995); Thielemann et al. tnh (1996)). In contrast, the production of Fe is more complicated, since Type Ia and Type II supernovae both make important contributions. Furthermore, there are significant model dependences in how to include the Type Ia yields in chemical evolution, and there are significant uncertainties in the Type II Fe yield. Consequently, we will first explore how the predicted O/Fe slopes depend on the uncertainties in Fe production.

To illustrate the basic effect of Type Ia SNe on iron evolution, we have run models in which we varied the SNIa “amplitude” $`f_{\mathrm{Ia}}`$ given in Eq. (14). Here we follow the Matteucci & Greggio (mg (1986)) SNIa prescription of eq. (14), for a closed box model, with an IMF $`\xi m^{2.35}`$. The resulting plot of O/Fe appears in Figure 1. Note that the curves for different $`f_{\mathrm{Ia}}`$ are all the same until some minimum metallicity, $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2`$, where they begin to diverge. The slopes below $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2`$ are entirely due to Type II SNe, as these stars produce all of the O and Fe at early epochs until the most massive companions ($`8M_{}`$) of SNIa progenitors can evolve off the main sequence. The $`f_{\mathrm{Ia}}=0`$ curve corresponds to Type II yields only; we see that here that \[O/Fe\] is flat at high metallicity, contrary to the data, and does not go to zero (i.e., solar) at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0`$. We see that the inclusion of the Ia’s leads to a smooth transition from the Pop I flatness of the SN II–only curve to an unbroken descent from the low-metallicity slope.

For our purposes, Figure 1 implies that the O/Fe slope below $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2`$ is entirely a consequence of the SNII yields. This means that modification of the SNIa scheme can only influence the $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2`$ regime, while the lowest metallicity region can only reflect SNII and their inclusion in the chemical evolution model. Specifically, the problem is that the predicted O/Fe slope is too shallow (i.e., less negative) than the data show. This slope reflects the change in the mean SN II yields as a larger range of Type II progenitor masses is sampled over time. Thus, the steepness of the observed slope suggests that the O/Fe ratio was higher in Type II ejecta at high masses.

One possible solution to this discrepancy lies in the yields themselves; as noted above, the O yields are the more secure, so we focus on the Type II yields of Fe. To illustrate the effect of varying the Type II yields, we have explored one alternative that has some physical justification. Namely, we have run models with a mass of ejected iron which is constant for all the progenitor masses; this is motivated by the view that the physics of the supernova core is roughly independent of the progenitor mass. Specifically, we adopt the observed value from SN 1987A, $`m_{\mathrm{ej},\mathrm{Fe}}=0.07M_{}`$. Indeed, we find that this gives a somewhat better fit to the O/Fe data, with slope $`\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=0.20`$, as compared to $`\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=0.18`$ for the Woosley & Weaver (ww (1995)) yields of Fe (though the two are not very different, since the full yields indeed do not vary strongly with progenitor mass).

Another model feature which affects the calculated O/Fe slope is the IMF. Different IMF slopes $`x`$ (with IMF $`\xi m^x`$) change the contribution of higher-mass to lower-mass SNII progenitors, as well as the SNIa/SNII ratio. In particular, the smaller $`x`$ favors more high-mass SNII, as well as more SNII per SNIa; both of these effects go in the direction of increasing O/Fe, particularly at low metallicity. In fact, we find that a smaller $`x`$ does increase O/Fe over all metallicities (to give a much better fit to the solar point), but the Pop II slope is in fact slightly shallower: we get $`\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}}=0.20`$ for $`x=2.35`$ versus -0.24 for $`x=2.7`$. In addition to the IMF slope and the SN yields other model features, such as a sequential or bimodal IMF, or outflow, cant significantly change the predicted O/Fe behavior. Indeed, we find that a sequential model, as in Scully et al. (sean (1997)) can give an improved O/Fe fit; the results for a bimodal model lie between those for the sequential and time-independent IMFs. Consequently, we are left with a situation in which reasonable choices of supernova yields and IMF slopes can qualitatively reproduce the basic observed O/Fe-Fe trend–namely a steady decline from a high value at low metallicity. However, the available yields and IMFs do not reproduce the steep decline of O/Fe in quantitative detail. 

In summary, we find that although chemical evolution models can naturally get a varying O/Fe ratio in Pop II, with the yields we use, we generally can not reproduce the O/Fe-Fe slopes we see in the Balmer data set. Of course, the theoretical BeB slopes versus O are unaffected by O/Fe difficulties (so long as the O yields are indeed accurate). However, given that the BeB-O data suffers from greater uncertainties than the data versus Fe, it is clearly worthwhile (and conventional) to also show the evolution versus Fe. To do this, we must circumvent our inability to quantitatively fit O/Fe-Fe in our ab initio calculation. In order to obtain more realistic BeB slopes versus Fe, we will not compute Fe from SN yields, but instead use the observed O/Fe-Fe slope in conjunction with the O evolution as computed from the more reliable yields. Thus we will put $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]/(1+\omega _{\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{Fe}})`$. In this way, we still rely on our code to compute the evolution histories we believe are simple (i.e., those of <sup>6</sup>LiBeB and O), but for the more complicated case of Fe, we will use the observed trend versus the (simpler) O abundance rather than our model results. Thus, while we do not solve the (possible) problem of Pop II evolution of O/Fe, we can still get a feel for the problem at hand, namely how the LiBeB evolution would look in a model with O/Fe in agreement with the data.

#### 5.2.2 Be and B Slopes and Nucleosynthetic Origin

We have included GCR and $`\nu `$-process nucleosynthesis in our chemical evolution models, and now examine Be and B evolution in the GCR nucleosynthesis scenario. As noted in the previous section, in the case of Fe we will use the computed O evolution, and the observed O/Fe slope, to derive the Fe evolution. This means the BeB slopes versus O are genuine outputs of our code, while the slopes versus Fe are not “independent” outputs, but are related to the O slopes via eq. (9).<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 However, in practice, the O and Fe metallicity ranges of the fits cover epochs that are not identical, which means that the Fe slopes are not precisely what would follow from eq. (9). 

There is a question of normalization in the absolute abundances of LiBeB. While this should in principle be fixed by the present cosmic ray total flux (and thus present LiBeB production rate), we acknowledge uncertainties in this quantity by normalizing the final abundances of GCR-only isotopes (<sup>6</sup>Li, <sup>9</sup>Be, and <sup>10</sup>B) to have a solar abundance at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0`$,<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4 Specifically, we find the scaling factor for each of these isotopes separately, and use the average of the three.  we also adjust the GCR yields of <sup>7</sup>Li and <sup>11</sup>B by the same factor. This scaling amounts to a determination of the (poorly determined) Galactic average of the present cosmic ray flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (e.g., Vangioni-Flam et al. vcfo (1996)). Finally, we adjust the $`\nu `$-process yields by scaling so that <sup>11</sup>B/<sup>10</sup>B at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0`$ is equal to the observed ratio, $`4.05\pm 0.16`$ (Chaussidon & Robert cr (1995)). This adjustment reflects model uncertainties in the $`\nu `$-process yields, (Olive et al. opsv (1994); Vangioni-Flam et al. vcfo (1996), vroc (1998)), constraining the temperature of the $`\nu `$ flux. In all cases, <sup>7</sup>Li has an additional primordial component of $`\text{7}\text{Li}/\mathrm{H}=1.6\times 10^{10}`$ (Molaro, Primas, & Bonifacio mpb (1995); Bonifacio & Molaro bm (1997)).

Notice that these normalizations exhaust the freedom to adjust the LiBeB evolution. Given the “neoclassical” evolution scheme we have adopted–standard GCR plus $`\nu `$-process nucleosynthesis–the basic trends are essentially fixed, and the only model-dependence lies in the uncertainties due to the chemical evolution model itself. Thus we will examine the effect of different chemical evolution scenarios (closed box versus outflow) and input parameters (IMF).

For each chemical evolution model, we compute Be and B slopes numerically, in the same manner as the data fits of Table 1. Namely, for the O and Fe slopes, we use the set of model points having $`2.5[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]0.5`$ and $`3[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1`$, respectively. For these sets of points, we calculate BeB versus O and Fe slopes by a least-squares fit. We find in practice that the Be and B log-log curves in these regimes are generally well-fit by a line, so the slopes are a good description of the data. Note that the LiBeB scaling, described in the previous paragraph, does not affect the Be slopes. However, scaling does affect the B slopes when we include both the (primary) $`\nu `$-process and the (secondary) GCR nucleosynthesis, since the latter dominates at high metallicities, and the scaling affects the epoch at which the transition occurs.

As a benchmark case we consider a closed box model. As we will see below, the quality of the fit to the depends on the adopted IMF slope $`x`$, where we put $`\xi m^x`$. We find that for a closed box, the best fit has an IMF $`\xi m^{2.65}`$, which is a good approximation to high-mass end of the local disk IMF. The slopes appear in Table 2, and the evolution curves appear in Figures 2, 3, and 4a along with the Balmer data. From the table, we see that the Be-O slope is 1.98, very close to (but less than) two, as expected for a purely secondary product. The B-O slope is near (but larger than) one, indicating that in the range of the fit, the primary component of $`\nu `$-process <sup>11</sup>B dominates, but the secondary component has some contribution as well. As the figures show, the models provide a good fit to the data for the both the abundances and the ratios.<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5 Aside from the Li behavior at high metallicity, where the model underproduces <sup>7</sup>Li. The $`\nu `$-process yields in our scheme are unable to fit the solar <sup>7</sup>Li; this need not be a problem as other sources of Pop II <sup>7</sup>Li have been proposed (e.g., AGB stars).  Consequently, this example from a full chemical evolution model supports the conclusion of our phenomenological analysis (§3): it is possible that <sup>6</sup>LiBeB evolution can be explained solely by a combination of standard GCR nucleosynthesis and the $`\nu `$-process.

Having established the benchmark case, we turn to open box models. We will explore the effect adding an enriched wind to models with a bulk wind. Here we use a shallower IMF, $`\xi m^{2.35}`$, which has the needed effect of increasing the stellar yields to compensate for the metals lost in the wind. The results are not strongly sensitive to the strength of the bulk wind, with the best fits coming from values around $`ϵ_{\mathrm{ISM}}=0.33`$ (with $`ϵ_{\mathrm{ISM}}`$ much lower, the bulk wind has no effect; much higher, and models lose too many metals and gas). In contrast, the models are much more sensitive to the strength of the enriched wind, as seen in Table 2, and in Figures 4b, 5, and 6. The most important point is that the open box models do not change the LiBeB evolution dramatically; the basic trends are very similar. Still, we do see in Table 2 as expected, $`\omega _{\mathrm{BeO}}`$ is slightly but systematically lowered due to the earlier (in $`[\mathrm{O}/\mathrm{H}]`$) onset of gas depletion. More importantly, we see that as $`ϵ_{\mathrm{SN}}`$ increases, the BeB curves turn over at lower metallicity; this arises due to the lowered effective oxygen yield $`𝒴_\mathrm{O}^{eff}=(1ϵ_{\mathrm{SN}})𝒴_\mathrm{O}`$, which causes the gas mass (and target reservoir) to drop faster versus O (see eq. 27). The lower turnover improves the fit, since the curves are forced to go through the solar point, and a shallowly positive or even negative slope at this point effectively raises the curve at the Pop II metallicities. Finally, we note that the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{SN}}=0`$ case, in comparison to the closed box case, gives a sense of the effect of a change in the IMF. Here again, the key is the yield, which is lower in the closed box case (steeper IMF), leading to the same improvement in fit seen via lowering the effective yield.

In terms of the overall fit of the outflow model curves to the Balmer data, we see that the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{SN}}=0.7`$ model does particularly well. In the Balmer case, the Be slope of about 2 is reduced, and the B slope is increased which in fact better matches the data. The reduction in the Be is slope is not however enough to match the IRFM data. Again, this model serves as an example of <sup>6</sup>LiBeB evolution explained by a GCR + $`\nu `$-process scenario. Furthermore, it is encouraging that one can find a solution within a wind model as well as a closed box. Comparing the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{SN}}=0.7`$ and the closed box model, we see that the two are quite similar, but the wind model in fact gives a slower evolution in B/Be, and thus a somewhat better fit to the few Pop II B/Be points.

The outflow models of Figures 4b, 5, and 6. are plotted along with the IRFM data in Figures 7, 8, and 4c. As anticipated in §3, here the fit to B-O is not very good. This comes about due to the primary, $`\nu `$-process component of <sup>11</sup>B which makes too much boron at early times. This excess boron appearly mostly starkly in B/Be. Indeed, as suggested by the B/Be slopes of Table 1, the IRFM data shows no evidence for a change in the B/Be slope. The difference between the fits in Figures 4b and 4c points to the seriousness of the systematic errors in the data, and the inability of the data to discriminate at present between different schemes for <sup>6</sup>LiBeB origin and evolution. By the same token, the difference between Figures 4b and 4c also highlights a golden opportunity for observers: if the data can be improved, it will be become possible to distinguish between the different evolutionary hypotheses, and to rule in or out whole classes of light element models.

Interestingly, we find that some chemical evolution models which have been invoked to solve the G-dwarf problem are not compatible with a good solution to the O-Fe or BeB-O trends. In particular, neither sequential nor bimodal outflow help to get the large O-Fe demanded by data, though these models were constructed to give good fits to the G-dwarf distribution (Scully et al. sean (1997)). In the case of sequential models, the first burst of star formation builds up floor of metals which then act as targets for the renewed burst of star formation. The BeB curves thus have early- and late-time solutions which are unchanged, but in the transition region BeB grows rapidly, introducing a “jump” in the BeB versus metal curves. This behavior leads to a bad fit, since it effectively lowers the Pop II trend relative to that of Pop I. A similar but weaker effect arises in a bimodal model. We believe that this behavior is characteristic of any model which has in effect a prompt initial enrichment to solve the G-dwarf problem.

Finally, we note the changed role of Be production energetics in our scenario. The energy production per Be atom is a powerful diagnostic for models (Ramaty, Kozlovsky, Lingenfelter, & Reeves rklr (1997)), as it links the Be production to the needed energy budget. However, this diagnostic is not as useful if the O/Fe slope is not equal to 0. If Be is secondary versus O/H, its production in this case depends on the ISM abundances and so the “energy per atom” scaling is metallicity dependent: clearly, the energy that a Pop II supernova invests in cosmic rays leads to a lower payoff in BeB than the same cosmic ray blast from a Pop I supernova, due to the decrease in number of CNO targets. The energetics argument requires the near constancy of Be/Fe. By changing O/Fe, one could have a Be/H evolution which is secondary with respect to O/H, but as we have shown, has a slope close to unity with respect to Fe/H. Even if Be/Fe is roughly constant, it does not necessary follow that there is constant energy budget per Be atom. Indeed, the possibility that O/Fe is not constant has implications beyond our present study, since this means that at least one of O or Fe is not a simple surrogate for “number of supernovae,” and that one must be careful in assigning a single “metallicity” for a given epoch. 

To summarize, our numerical results support conclusions suggested by the more approximate analytic treatment, in showing that Be could well have its nucleosynthetic origin in the traditional, “secondary,” process of GCR spallation in the interstellar medium. The situation for B is less clear, largely due to the paucity of B data, but the B-O slope also seems to indicate that B may have a similar origin in the GCR nucleosynthesis process, though the differences in the B and Be slopes versus Fe suggest that B might also have a significant primary component, presumably the $`\nu `$-process. Fortunately, the scenario we propose here is testable is several ways, as we now discuss.

## 6 Discussion and Conclusions

We have scrutinized the issue of primary versus secondary Be and B, examining both the trends in the data itself, and in models for LiBeB nucleosynthesis. Phenomenological, analytical, and numerical analyses all suggest that <sup>6</sup>Li, Be, <sup>10</sup>B, and part of <sup>11</sup>B may have their origin in the traditional GCR nucleosynthesis process. The key impetus for this re-evaluation is in new O data in Pop II stars, which suggests that O/Fe is not constant with $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$. This implies immediately that Be and B slopes versus Fe are not direct indicators of nature of the LiBeB origin, since O and not Fe should be a direct tracer of this origin. At present, the data are too uncertain to require this scenario, but it is intriguing to find that this traditional mechanism might be allowed.

Using recent Pop II data on O/Fe-Fe, we have analyzed the observed BeB-OFe trends. We find that systematic errors leave the O data too uncertain to allow strong conclusions regarding the origin of LiBeB. Specifically, using one (consistent) set of stellar atmospheric parameters, we find that Be-O shows a strong hint of a secondary origin, but using another set of atmospheric parameters, Be-O appears to have a strong primary component. Despite these uncertainties, it is of note that the (better measured) BeB-Fe trends show a significant sign of a changing B/Be ratio, and with the recent O/Fe-Fe data can be consistent with a secondary Be-O relation.

These phenomenological findings are supported by detailed numerical calculation of LiBeB galactic chemical evolution. We are able to construct both closed box and outflow models in which <sup>6</sup>LiBeB arise from a combination of standard GCR nucleosynthesis and the $`\nu `$-process and can fit the observed trends (within the systematic errors in the O data and O/Fe-Fe).

We emphasize that just as the present Pop II data are too uncertain to decisively test our scenario, they also cannot unambiguously test alternative scenarios which posit primary origin for Pop II BeB (e.g., Duncan, Lambert, & Lemke dll (1992); Cassé, Lehoucq, & Vangioni-Flam clv (1995); Ramaty, Kozlovsky, Lingenfelter, & Reeves rklr (1997)). However, these two basic scenarios differ sharply in their predictions, and so are exceedingly amenable to observational tests. We note that elemental and isotopic ratios have very different histories in the two scenarios, and thus can provide clear signatures. Specifically, in the scenario we propose <sup>6,7</sup>Li and <sup>11</sup>B are all primary but Be and <sup>10</sup>B are secondary. Consequently, key new or improved observations include (in rough order of priority):

1. Accurate determinations of B/Be within the same stars, as a function of metallicity. The difference in the observed Be-Fe and B-Fe slopes suggests that this ratio should indeed change. If the evolution of ratio could be well-determined, it would give the most direct indication (or refutation) of different primary and secondary origins for Be and B.
2. Determination of a consistent set of stellar paramters. One of our main results is that the primary/secondary nature of BeB is undetermined because of the large systematic uncertainties that arise from the choice of stellar parameters such as effective temperature, surface gravity and metallicity. In particular, if we are to understand the evolution of these elements with respect to O/H or Fe/H, we need to have reliable abundance determinations for O/H and Fe/H. These are not currently available in the literature.
3. Measurement of <sup>6</sup>Li/<sup>9</sup>Be. If Be is secondary, then Pop II <sup>6</sup>Li/<sup>9</sup>Be should be much higher than solar since Pop II Li is primary; e.g., in our best models, $`\text{6}\text{Li}/\text{9}\text{Be}305(\text{6}\text{Li}/\text{9}\text{Be})_{}`$ at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=2`$. However, if Be also has primary component that dominates in Pop II, then <sup>6</sup>Li/<sup>9</sup>Be should be constant in Pop II, with a change in Pop I as the normal GCR component becomes important. Thus, even a rough determination of <sup>6</sup>Li/<sup>9</sup>Be should constrain the Be origin.
4. Determination of <sup>11</sup>B/<sup>10</sup>B for Pop II stars. If the $`\nu `$-process dominates the B production at early times, this ratio would provide a strong signature (e.g., in our best models, $`\text{11}\text{B}/\text{10}\text{B}10`$ at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=2`$). Furthermore, the predicted ratio varies so strongly in primary versus secondary models for <sup>10</sup>B that even rough determinations of this ratio would be worthwhile. To date, there has only been one attempt at measurement, we encourage future attempts to improve the limit.

In deriving trends from any of these or other observations, we again stress the importance of using consistent atmospheres. Since the effect of different model atmosphere inputs can be large, to compare trends it is essential to use stellar atmosphere models which are consistent within and across stars.

We conclude by reiterating a main theme of this paper, that the basic nature of BeB nucleosynthesis and evolution hangs on Pop II observations of O in halo stars and a determination of whether O/Fe is constant or changing in Pop II. Indeed, the (consistently derived) correlation of O with Fe, Be, and B is key to any understanding of light element production in the early Galaxy. We strongly urge improved observations of O and more systematic and consistent study of Pop II abundances to shed light on this issue.

We are very grateful to Elisabeth Vangioni-Flam and Michel Cassé for helpful discussions and for comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank Evan Skillman for helpful conversations. BDF acknowledges instructive conversations on boron isotopes with Luisa Rebull. This work was supported in part by DoE grant DE-FG02-94ER-40823 at the University of Minnesota.     

FIGURE CAPTIONS

1. O/Fe versus $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]`$, plotted for different values of the SNIa parameter $`f_{\mathrm{Ia}}`$. The convergence of the curves at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2`$ demonstarates that this regime is dominated by SNII yields. Models are closed box, and have an IMF $`m^{2.35}`$. Oxygen abundances are derived from molecular OH lines, and reflect atmospheric parameters which have been, on a star-by-star basis, standardized for the LiBeB and O abundances. (a) Data using Balmer line method, (b) same using IRFM.
2. Results for closed box model with IMF $`\xi m^{2.65}`$; (a) Be versus O and (b) B versus O. Pop II abundance data derived using the Balmer set of atmosphere parameters (see text).
3. As in Fig. 2 (a) Li and <sup>6</sup>Li, (b) Be, and (c) B versus Fe. Note that we have not included any of the proposed Pop I sources of <sup>7</sup>Li (other than the $`\nu `$-process); thus we are unable to fit the Li behavior at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0`$. Elemental data are described in the text; <sup>6</sup>Li points combine Smith, Lambert, & Nissen (sln (1993)), (sln2 (1998)); Hobbs & Thorburn (ht (1997)); and Cayrel et al. (cay (1998)). <sup>6</sup>Li errors reflect uncertainties in the <sup>6</sup>Li/<sup>7</sup>Li ratio only.
4. B/Be versus Fe, with Pop II abundance data derived using the Balmer set of atmosphere parameters (see text). (a) closed box model, (b) outflow model, (c) outflow model shown with IRFM data.
5. Results for models with an enriched wind, and bulk outflow having $`ϵ_{\mathrm{ISM}}=0.33`$. (a) Be versus O and (b) B versus O. Pop II abundance data derived using the Balmer set of atmosphere parameters (see text).
6. As in Fig. 5 (a) Li and <sup>6</sup>Li, (b) Be, and (c) B versus Fe.
7. Results for models with an enriched wind, and bulk outflow having $`ϵ_{\mathrm{ISM}}=0.33`$. (a) Be versus O and (b) B versus O. Pop II abundance data derived using the IRFM set of atmosphere parameters (see text).
8. As in Fig. 7 (a) Li and <sup>6</sup>Li, (b) Be, and (c) B versus Fe.