text:
# Measurement of 𝐽/𝜓 production in continuum 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ annihilations near √𝑠=10.6GeV

BABAR-PUB-01/12

SLAC-PUB-8854

hep-ex/0106044

The BABAR Collaboration

## Abstract

The production of $`J/\psi `$ mesons in continuum $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations has been studied with the BABAR detector at energies near the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance. The mesons are distinguished from $`J/\psi `$ production in $`B`$ decays through their center-of-mass momentum and energy. We measure the cross section $`e^+e^{}J/\psi X`$ to be $`2.52\pm 0.21\pm 0.21`$$`\mathrm{pb}`$. We set a 90% CL upper limit on the branching fraction for direct $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)J/\psi X`$ decays at $`4.7\times 10^4`$.

preprint: BABAR-PUB-01/12preprint: SLAC-PUB-8854preprint: hep-ex/0106044

The development of non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) represents a significant advance in the theory of the production of heavy quarkonium ($`q\overline{q}`$) states ref:bodwin . In particular, it provides an explanation ref:psi2sbrat  for the cross section for $`\psi (2S)`$ production observed by CDF ref:abe , which is a factor of 30 larger than expected from previous models. The enhancement is attributed to the production of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair in a color octet state, which then evolves into the charmonium ($`c\overline{c}`$) meson along with other light hadrons. A similar contribution is expected in NRQCD for $`J/\psi `$ production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation ref:yuan ; ref:schuler , but is absent in the color singlet model ref:cho .

Significant continuum $`J/\psi `$ production—as distinct from production in $`B`$ decay at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance—has not been observed previously in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation below the $`Z`$ resonance. It therefore represents a good test of NRQCD. In particular, matrix elements extracted from different $`J/\psi `$ production processes should be consistent ref:leibovich . In addition, momentum, polarization and particularly the angular distributions of the $`J/\psi `$ distinguish between theoretical approaches ref:braaten . Despite NRQCD’s successes, it is not clear that it correctly explains ref:polbraaten  the CDF measurements of $`J/\psi `$ polarization ref:affolder , or measurements of $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction at HERA ref:hera ; ref:cacciari .

The study reported here uses 20.7$`\text{ fb}^1`$ of data collected at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance (10.58$`\mathrm{GeV}`$) and 2.59$`\text{ fb}^1`$ collected at 10.54$`\mathrm{GeV}`$, below the threshold for $`B\overline{B}`$ creation. The luminosity-weighted center-of-mass (CM) energy is 10.57$`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The data were collected with the BABAR detector ref:babarnim  located at the PEP-II collider at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. PEP-II collides 9$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ electrons with 3.1$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ positrons to create a center of mass moving along the $`z`$ axis with a Lorentz boost of $`\beta \gamma =0.56`$.

The momenta and trajectories of charged particles are reconstructed with two detector systems located in a 1.5-T solenoidal magnetic field: a five-layer, double-sided silicon vertex tracker (SVT) and a 40-layer drift chamber (DCH). The fiducial volume covers the polar angular region $`0.41<\theta <2.54`$ rad, 86% of the solid angle in the CM frame.

The energies of electrons and photons are measured in a CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC) in the fiducial volume $`0.41<\theta <2.41`$ rad, 84% of the solid angle in the CM frame. The instrumented flux return (IFR) is used to detect muons. The DIRC, a unique Cherenkov radiation detection device, distinguishes charged particles of different masses.

$`J/\psi `$ mesons are reconstructed via decays to electron or muon pairs. The leptons must form high-quality tracks with $`0.41<\theta <2.41`$ rad: they must have $`p_t>0.1`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and momentum below 10$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, have at least 12 hits in the DCH, and approach within 10$`\mathrm{cm}`$ of the beam spot in $`z`$ and within 1.5$`\mathrm{cm}`$ of the beam line. The beam spot rms size is approximately 0.9$`\mathrm{cm}`$ in $`z`$, 120$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ horizontally and 5.6$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ vertically.

One electron candidate must have an energy deposit in the EMC of at least 75% of its momentum. The other must have between 89% and 120%, and must also have an energy deposition in the DCH and a signal in the DIRC consistent with expectations for an electron. Both must satisfy criteria on the shape of the EMC deposit. If possible, photons radiated by electrons traversing material prior to the DCH are combined with the track.

Muon candidates must deposit less than 0.5$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the EMC (2.3 times the minimum-ionizing peak), penetrate at least two interaction lengths $`\lambda `$ of material, and have a pattern of hits consistent with the trajectory of a muon. We require that the material traversed by one candidate be within 1 $`\lambda `$ of that expected for a muon; for the other candidate, this is relaxed to 2 $`\lambda `$.

The mass of the $`J/\psi `$ candidate is calculated after constraining the two lepton candidates to a common origin.

To reject interactions with residual gas in the beam pipe or with the beam pipe wall, we construct an event vertex using all tracks in the fiducial volume and require it to be located within 6$`\mathrm{cm}`$ of the beam spot in $`z`$ and within 0.5$`\mathrm{cm}`$ of the beam line. To suppress a substantial background from radiative Bhabha ($`e^+e^{}\gamma `$) events in which the photon converts to an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair, five tracks are required in events with a $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ candidate.

At this point, the data includes $`J/\psi `$ mesons both from our signal—continuum-produced $`J/\psi `$ mesons and $`J/\psi `$ mesons from the decay of continuum-produced $`\psi (2S)`$ and $`\chi _{cJ}`$ mesons—and from other known sources. We apply additional selection criteria to suppress these other sources based on their kinematic properties.

The most copious background, $`BJ/\psi X`$, is eliminated by requiring the $`J/\psi `$ momentum in the CM frame ($`p^{}`$) to be greater than 2$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, above the kinematic limit for $`B`$ decays. This requirement is dropped for data recorded below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance.

Other background sources include initial-state radiation (ISR) production of $`J/\psi `$ mesons, $`e^+e^{}\gamma J/\psi `$, or of the $`\psi (2S)`$, with $`\psi (2S)J/\psi X`$. ISR production of lower-mass $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonances is negligible. Two photon production of the $`\chi _{c2}`$ can produce $`J/\psi `$ mesons via $`\chi _{c2}\gamma J/\psi `$. Because the out-going electron and positron are rarely reconstructed, this process, like the ISR $`J/\psi `$ production, contains only two tracks. We therefore require three high-quality tracks with $`0.41<\theta <2.54`$ rad.

The remaining background is primarily ISR $`\psi (2S)`$ decays to $`J/\psi `$ $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, plus some ISR $`J/\psi `$ events in which the ISR photon converts. To suppress these, we require the visible energy $`E`$ to be greater than 5$`\mathrm{GeV}`$, and the ratio of the second to the zeroth Fox-Wolfram moment ref:fox , $`R_2`$, to be less than 0.5. Both are calculated from tracks and neutral clusters in the fiducial volume. Figure 1, which displays the visible energy and $`R_2`$ distributions for our signal and for simulated ISR background, motivates these criteria.

The ISR distributions in Fig. 1 are obtained from a full detector simulation. All selection criteria are applied, other than the one on the quantity being plotted. ISR kinematics ensures $`E<5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ when the photon is outside the fiducial volume unless it interacts in material and deposits additional energy in the detector. The rate of such interactions is not accurately simulated and so is obtained by a comparison to data for $`E<5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}`$. Approximately 3.5% of the $`J/\psi `$ meson events that satisfy all criteria are from this background; an additional $`1.6`$% are ISR events with the photon in the fiducial volume. Systematic errors on the remaining backgrounds are estimated from a comparison between simulation and data for $`E<5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and for events in which the ISR photon is reconstructed.

$`J/\psi `$ production as a function of $`E`$ is obtained in data by fitting the dilepton mass distribution in 1-GeV wide energy intervals after applying all other selection criteria. The fit uses a polynomial function for the background distribution. The $`J/\psi `$ mass function is obtained from a complete simulation of $`BJ/\psi X`$ events, convolved with a Gaussian distribution to match the resolution of 12$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ observed in data in a sample of approximately 14,000 $`BJ/\psi X`$ events. The signal distribution in $`E`$ is obtained by subtracting the ISR backgrounds from the data distribution.

A similar process is used for $`R_2`$. Figures 1(c) and (d) show there is little signal above $`R_2`$ of 0.5. In this respect, the continuum $`J/\psi `$ events are more similar to $`B\overline{B}`$ events, in which the energy is distributed spherically, than $`c\overline{c}`$ events, which tend to be jet-like.

The mass distributions of the selected $`J/\psi `$ candidates show clear signals for both $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states, both on and below resonance (Fig. 2).

To determine the production cross section, we perform mass fits in 15 $`p^{}`$ \- $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ bins, where $`\theta ^{}`$ is the polar angle of the candidate in the CM frame. This allows us to correct for the variation of efficiency with $`p^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$. The cross section is given by:

$$\sigma _{e^+e^{}J/\psi X}=\underset{i,j}{}\frac{\left(N_{ij}B_{ij}\right)}{ϵ_{ij}^Rϵ^E_{J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}_i},$$
(1)
where the sum is over three $`p^{}`$ ($`i`$) and five $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ ($`j`$) bins. $`N_{ij}`$ is the number of $`J/\psi `$ mesons in the bin, where electrons and muons are analyzed separately, but off and on-resonance data are combined. The sum of the yields from the 15 fits agrees to within 1% with the yields in Fig. 2. $`B_{ij}`$ is the ISR background, $`_{J/\psi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}`$ is the $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ branching fraction ref:pdg2000 , and $`_i`$ is the integrated luminosity—sum of on plus off-resonance for $`p^{}>2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, off-resonance only for $`p^{}<2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$.

The reconstruction efficiency $`ϵ_{ij}^R`$ (acceptance, track quality and lepton identification) is calculated in each bin with simulated unpolarized $`J/\psi `$ mesons uniformly distributed in $`p^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$. The efficiency decreases with increasing $`p^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ due to acceptance. The average $`ϵ_{ij}^R`$ is 0.63 for $`J/\psi e^+e^{}`$ and 0.48 for $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, where the difference is due to lepton identification.

Particle identification efficiency is verified in data by comparing the number of $`J/\psi `$ mesons in $`B`$ decays in which one or both leptons satisfy the requirements. The efficiency of the track-quality selection is studied by comparing tracks found in the SVT and DCH.

The components of $`ϵ^E`$, the event selection efficiency, are determined as follows. We estimate the efficiency of the requirements on the number of high-quality tracks, primary vertex location, and total energy to be the average of simulated $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`B\overline{B}`$ events, and the uncertainty to be one-half the difference. We use $`B\overline{B}`$ events for $`R_2`$.

The efficiency of the five track requirement applied to $`e^+e^{}`$ candidates is 0.67, obtained by comparing the net $`J/\psi `$ yield, in both $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states, in events passing and failing the requirement. Overall, $`ϵ^E=0.59`$ for $`e^+e^{}`$ and 0.89 for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$.

The calculations of the $`J/\psi X`$ cross section from the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states are consistent: the ratio $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{})/\sigma (e^+e^{})`$ is $`0.93\pm 0.11`$ for $`p^{}>2`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. The two values are combined, accounting for common systematic errors, to obtain

$$\sigma _{e^+e^{}J/\psi X}=2.52\pm 0.21\pm 0.21\text{ pb,}$$
(2)
where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. With existing values for matrix elements, color singlet cross section estimates range from 0.45 to 0.81$`\mathrm{pb}`$ ref:yuan ; ref:schuler ; ref:cho , while NRQCD cross sections, including a color octet component, range from 1.1 to 1.6$`\mathrm{pb}`$ ref:yuan ; ref:schuler .

The dominant component of the 8.3% systematic error is a 7.2% uncertainty on $`ϵ^E`$ common to both the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ cases and a 4.9% uncertainty due to the five track requirement. Other contributions include 2.4% due to track quality cuts; 1.5% from the luminosity; 1.8% (electrons) or 1.4% (muons) from particle identification; and 1.2% from the ISR background.

The statistical error is dominated by the uncertainty on the contribution below $`p^{}`$ of 2$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. Restricting the measurement to $`p^{}>2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ gives $`\sigma _{e^+e^{}J/\psi X}=1.87\pm 0.10\pm 0.15`$$`\mathrm{pb}`$.

In determining the cross sections, we assume that there are no $`J/\psi `$ mesons from direct $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays. We quantify this statement using the $`p^{}>2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ component. We scale the off-resonance event yield to the on-resonance luminosity and subtract it from the on-resonance yield. The excess, attributable to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays, is consistent with zero: $`120\pm 179`$ $`e^+e^{}`$ events and $`176\pm 138`$ $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, in a sample of $`\left(22.7\pm 0.4\right)\times 10^6`$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decays. Using the average reconstruction efficiency for $`p^{}>2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ (0.62 for $`e^+e^{}`$ and 0.45 for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$), we obtain $`_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)J/\psi X}=\left(1.5\pm 2.2\pm 0.1\right)\times 10^4`$. A Bayesian 90% confidence level upper limit with a uniform prior above zero is:

$$_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)J/\psi X}<4.7\times 10^4\text{ (90\% CL),}$$
(3)
for $`J/\psi `$ with $`p^{}>2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. This result disagrees with a previous publication ref:alexander . In NRQCD, the expected partial width is similar to that for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ ref:schuler ; ref:cheung , implying a branching fraction of a few $`\times 10^6`$. Note that a true branching fraction of $`10^4`$ would correspond to an effective cross section of 0.10 $`\mathrm{pb}`$.

Production and decay properties of the $`J/\psi `$ have also been studied. The $`p^{}`$ distribution is obtained by dividing the sample into 500$`\mathrm{MeV}/c`$ wide intervals, fitting the resulting mass distribution, subtracting predicted ISR backgrounds, correcting for the reconstruction efficiency, and normalizing for different luminosities (Fig. 3).

The distribution of the signal in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ has been extracted and fit with $`1+A\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{}`$. Both NRQCD and color singlet calculations predict a flat distribution ($`A0`$) at low $`p^{}`$. At high momentum, NRQCD predicts $`0.6<A<1.0`$ while the color singlet model predicts $`A0.8`$ ref:braaten . We measure the distribution separately for low and high momentum mesons, selecting $`p^{}=3.5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ as the boundary. We proceed as for the $`p^{}`$ distribution, with mass fits performed in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ intervals of width 0.4. The distributions are then normalized to unit area (Fig. 4a). We find $`A=0.05\pm 0.22`$ for $`p^{}<3.5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and $`A=1.5\pm 0.6`$ for $`p^{}>3.5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, clearly favoring NRQCD.

Finally, we obtain the helicity angle $`\theta _H`$ distribution for the two $`p^{}`$ ranges by fitting mass distributions in intervals of width 0.4 in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _H`$ (Fig. 4b). The helicity is the angle, measured in the rest frame of the $`J/\psi `$, between the positively charged lepton daughter and the direction of the $`J/\psi `$ measured in the CM frame. Fitting the function $`3\left(1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _H\right)/2\left(\alpha +3\right)`$, we obtain a $`J/\psi `$ polarization $`\alpha =0.46\pm 0.21`$ for $`p^{}<3.5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ and $`\alpha =0.80\pm 0.09`$ for $`p^{}>3.5`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$. $`\alpha =0`$ indicates an unpolarized distribution, $`\alpha =1`$ transversely polarized, and $`\alpha =1`$ longitudinally polarized.

In summary, we measure the cross section $`\sigma _{e^+e^{}J/\psi X}=2.52\pm 0.21\pm 0.21`$$`\mathrm{pb}`$. Restricting to $`p^{}>2`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$, we find $`1.87\pm 0.10\pm 0.15`$$`\mathrm{pb}`$. The total cross section and the angular distribution favor the NRQCD calculation over the color singlet model. We set a 90% CL upper limit on the branching fraction $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)J/\psi X`$ of $`4.7\times 10^4`$.

We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided by our PEP-II colleagues, and for the substantial dedicated effort from the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality. This work is supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC (Canada), IHEP (China), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France), BMBF and DFG (Germany), INFN (Italy), NFR (Norway), MIST (Russia), and PPARC (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A. P. Sloan Foundation, Research Corporation, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Off-equilibrium dynamics in the energy landscape of a simple model glass

## Abstract

The aging dynamics of a simple model glass is numerically investigated observing how it takes place in the potential energy landscape $`V`$. Partitioning the landscape in basins of minima of $`|V|^2`$, we are able to elucidate some interesting topological properties of the aging process. The main result is the characterization of the long time behavior as a jump dynamics between basins of attraction of minima. Moreover we extract some information about the landscape itself, determining quantitatively few parameters describing it, such as the mean energy barrier value and the mean square distance between adjacent minima.

1 Università di L’Aquila and INFM, I-67100, L’Aquila, Italy.

2 Università di Trento and INFM, I-38050, Povo, Trento, Italy.

3 Università di Roma La Sapienza and INFM, I-00185, Roma, Italy.

The specific way a glass or a supercooled liquid explores its potential energy landscape at different temperatures and in different dynamical regimes is of great importance to understand many properties of these systems (Stillinger, 1995; Debenedetti and Stillinger, 2001). Only recently the investigation of the multidimensional Potential Energy Surface (PES) as a function of particle coordinates has become computational achievable, and many numerical works have been devoted to study the PES of model liquids and glasses. The relationship between the topological properties of the landscape and the way the system moves in it, constitutes a very promising viewpoint to better understand the thermodynamics and dynamics of supercooled liquids and glassy systems (Kurchan and Laloux, 1996).

Only few studies have investigated the aging dynamics from the energy landscape point of view (Angelani et al. 2001; Kob et al. 2000; Mossa et al. 2001). The study of the off-equilibrium dynamics in glassy systems, and in particular in spin glasses, has allowed to obtain important information on the phase-space properties of the systems itself and to formulate off-equilibrium relations generalizing the usual equilibrium ones \- generalized fluctuation-dissipation relation (Cugliandolo, and Kurchan 1993; Bouchaud et al. 1997) - with the introduction of an effective temperature (Cugliandolo et al. 1997). The investigation of the off-equilibrium properties seems to indicate the correctness of the conjecture stating the similarity of structural glasses with some spin glass model \- spin glasses with one step replica symmetry breaking (Kirkpatrick and Thirumalai, 1987; Kirkpatrick and Wolynes, 1987; Franz and Parisi, 1997). Recently the numerical investigation of aging in structural glasses has allowed us to bridge these two different disordered systems (Parisi 1997; Barrat and Kob 1999; Di Leonardo et al. 2000; Sciortino and Tartaglia 2001;). Here we report a detailed analysis of the aging in the energy landscape for a simple model glass, a monatomic Lennard-Jones system modified in such a way as to avoid crystallization.

The way the off-equilibrium dynamics takes place in the potential energy landscape $`V`$ (viewed as a function of the $`3N`$ coordinates of the $`N`$ particles) is investigated by mapping the true dynamics in the configuration space on to the “slow” points of $`V`$, i.e. the points in which $`|V|^2`$ is minimum and the forces are reduced by several orders of magnitude (we call them saddles hereafter, even if, besids true saddles, they include also inflection points - Doye and Wales 2001; Angelani et al., in preparation). The basins of attraction of these points constitute a partition of the configuration space. This partition of the landscape is an extension of the partition in basins of minima proposed by Stillinger and Weber (1982, 1984) many years ago, including in our case not only the minima but also the saddles of any order. The new partition has been very useful to elucidate many interesting features of supercooled simple liquids, the main result being the identification of the mode-coupling temperature $`T_{MCT}`$ (Götze, 1999) as the temperature at which the system has a crossover between a dynamics between basins of saddles for $`T>T_{MCT}`$ to a dynamics between basins of minima for $`T<T_{MCT}`$ (Angelani et al. 2000; Broderix et al. 2000; Scala et al. 2001). We use this new partition in the analysis of the off-equilibrium dynamics of a monatomic Lennard-Jones system with $`N=256`$ particles. The particles interact via the usual $`612`$ Lennard-Jones potential modified in such a way as to avoid the crystalization occuring in standard LJ: $`V=V_{LJ}+\delta V`$, where $`\delta V`$ is a small many-body term that inhibits cristalization (it depends on the static structure factor, see Di Leonardo et al. (2000) for details). The relevant quantitites are determined during the time evolution of the system after a sudden crunch (density jump at fixed temperature) from liquid to glassy phase (from $`\rho _0=0.95`$ to $`\rho _1=1.24`$ at fixed $`T_0=0.5`$, where the glass transition temperature is $`T_g1.4`$ at the final density $`\rho _1`$ \- all the quantities are expressed in standard Lennard-Jones unit). The evolution of the system is generated up to time $`t=310^4`$ by means of standard isothermal MD with time step $`\tau =0.01`$. The measured quantities have been averaged over $`80`$ samples. For each MD trajectory we have quenched a set of logarithmically equally spaced configurations to the corresponding minima and saddles following the steepest descent path respectively on the potential energy surface $`V`$ in the former case and on the auxiliary potential $`W=\frac{1}{2}|V|^2`$ (Weber and Stillinger 1985) in the latter. In this way, during the time evolution, we are able to follow the behavior of the sampled relevant points of the landscape: saddles and minima (besides the usual instantaneous configurations).

In order to elucidate how the system explores the landscape during the off-equilibrium dynamics, we have first focused on the energy values. We have measured the potential energies as a function of time (times are measured from crunch) along the dynamical trajectory: the energy of the instantaneous configurations, the energy of the saddles and the energy of the minima. The data are reported in Fig. 1 in a logarithmic scale. It is evident that the instantaneous and saddle energies have a rather sharp transition at time $`t_c20`$. The meaning of this crossover will be clear soon, analyzing more carefully another topological quantity related to the landscape, the order of sampled saddles. We only notice here that for times less than $`t_c`$ the instantaneous energy follows the energy of saddles, and the energy of minima remains nearly constant in this region (we note this flat time-region corresponds to the constant energy region observed at high temperature in the analysis of minima in equilibrated liquids), while for times below $`t_c`$ all the energies (instantaneous, saddles and minima) have a similar almost logarithmic behavior, indicating that here the time evolution is driven by the inherent dynamics between minima: $`e(t)\gamma \mathrm{log}_{10}(t)`$, with $`\gamma 0.025`$.

Another remarkable point that can be observed in Fig. 1 is the similarity between the energy of the saddles and the difference between the instantaneous energy and the constant term $`\frac{3}{2}T_0`$. This seems to indicate that the non-diffusive degrees of freedom give an harmonic contribution over the energy of saddles, slowly approaching their equilibrium value.

A better understanding of the processes that are taking place is obtained analyzing the number of negative directions in the landscape near the sampled saddles. We define the saddle order $`n_s`$ as the number of negative curvatures at the saddle point, i.e. the fraction of negative eigenvalues of the Hessian of $`V`$. The time evolution of $`n_s`$ during aging (Fig. 2) allows us to clarify the meaning of the crossover time $`t_c`$: it marks the time at which the system begins to visit extensively the minima, and the mean order $`n_s`$ falls below the value $`n_s=1`$.

In the analysis of equilibrium properties of supercooled liquids, the quantity $`n_s`$ vs. temperature allowed us to give a topological interpretation of the mode-coupling temperature as the temperature at which a transition takes place, from a dynamics between saddles to a dynamics between minima (Angelani et al. 2000). In a similar way, in the present study of the out-of-equilibrium properties of a simple glass, the same quantity $`n_s`$, now plotted vs. time $`t`$, allows us to interpret the time $`t_c`$ as marking the transition between the same two regimes: at short times, below $`t_c`$, the system moves inside basins of attraction of saddles with mean order $`n_s(t)>1`$ decreasing in time, while at longer times, $`t>t_c`$, the system starts to visit basins of minima traveling among them through low order saddles. The fact that the mean order $`n_s`$ doesn’t vanish for times $`t>t_c`$, explains the observed energy difference between the energy of saddles and that of minima.

Analyzing how the system explore its potential energy landscape during the aging dynamics we can try to infer some topological characteristic of the landscape. Matching the information about the order and energy of saddles and the energy of minima, we are able to evidence the possible existence of a typical energy barrier in the landscape. As reported in a previous work investigating the equilibrium supercooled dynamics (Angelani et al. 2000), also in the aging regime we discover a very simple topology of the landscape: saddles of order $`n_s`$ lie above the underlying minimum by an energy elevation proportional to $`n_s`$:

$$e_s(n_s)e_m=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{N}n_s.$$
(1)
In Fig. 3 the left hand side of Eq. $`1`$ is reported as a function of saddle order $`n_s`$. The open circles are the data obtained from previous figures, in which the minima are defined by a steepest descent path from the instantaneous configuration. However, using a different definition of underlying minima below a saddle (by quenching the saddle instead of instantaneous configuration - see the text below) one observes a very similar behaviour (full diamonds in Fig. 3). This finding supports the picture of a very simple landscape with only a single energy barrier parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ which represents the energy gap between a saddle of order $`n_s`$ and a saddle of order $`n_s+1`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E10.$$
(2)
Similar results were found in the supercooled equilibrium case, where a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E3.6`$ was obtained for a less dense system $`\rho =1`$ (in our case $`\rho =1.24`$).

Another interesting topological information about the landscape is the valuation of the mean distance $`d^2`$ between adjacent minima. In order to obtain this information we have determined, for each saddle point sampled during the dynamics, two underlying minima (here the term underlying means minima reached by a steepest descent path from a saddle configuration, weakly perturbed in order to escape from the instable point), $`\{𝐫_i^{(1)}\}`$ and $`\{𝐫_i^{(2)}\}`$, reached by quenching the saddle. In this case the above definition of minima, as those reached by saddles, seems to be the more appropiate, due to the fact that the minima sampled during the dynamics starting from instantaneous configurations could be not directly related to the sampled saddles. Instead a direct quench from saddles assures the close relation in configuration space between the two points (we note that in the valuation of energies the two method lead to the same results, indicating that the energies are less sensitive to landscape details). The quantity $`d^2`$ defined as

$$d^2=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}|𝐫_i^{(1)}𝐫_i^{(2)}|^2,$$
(3)
is reported in Fig. 4 as a function of the saddle order $`n_s`$. It is evident a linear relation (line in Fig. 4) between the two quantities, suggesting that the descent path from a saddle of order $`n_s`$ towards the underlying minima can be interpreted as a random walk among saddles: at each step the order of the saddle decreases by 1 and the mean square distance increases by a constant value $`d_0^2`$ (this characteristic, together with the single barrier energy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, is incorporated in the simple trigonometric model as defined by Madam and Keyes (1993)). The value obtained for the typical square distance between minima is:

$$d_0^20.02.$$
(4)
We note that this finding and the previous one concerning the mean barrier value (see Eq. $`2`$), although obtained in the specific aging regime, are supposed to be properties of the landscape itself, independent on the different way the system explores it. Indeed the same characteristics were obtained by Angelani et al. (2000) who analysed the equilibrium dynamics in the supercooled regime (a quantitative match between the obtained values is not feasible, as the densities of the systems are different in the two cases).

In conclusion, the topological investigation of the energy landscape of a simple model glass during the aging dynamics has allowed us to clarify many interesting properties, shortly resumed here after:

* after a fast short time behavior, characterized by a dynamics between saddles, the system starts to explore minima decreasing logarithmically its energy (this latter is the interesting slow aging dynamics);
* the instantaneous energies lie above the saddle energies by the harmonic term $`\frac{3}{2}T`$, indicating that the fast harmonic degrees of freedom equilibrate over the slow diffusive coordinates (related to the negative directions of the sampled saddles);
* the topology of the landscape seems to be highly regular, with only a single energy barrier parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }E10`$ and a single square distance between adjacent minima $`d_0^20.02`$.

REFERENCES

Angelani L., Di Leonardo R., Ruocco G., Scala A. , and Sciortino F., 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5356.

Angelani L., Di Leonardo R., Ruocco G., Scala A. , and Sciortino F., in preparation.

Angelani L., Di Leonardo R., Ruocco G., and Parisi G., 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 055502.

Barrat J.L., and W. Kob, 1999, Europhys. Lett. 46, 637.

Bouchaud J.P., Cugliandolo L.F., Kurchan J., and Mezard M., 1997, Out of equilibrium dynamics in spin glasses and the other glassy systems,  in Spin Glasses and Random Fields,  (World Scientific, Singapore).

Broderix K., Batthacharya K.K., Cavagna A., Zippelius A., and Giardina I., 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5360.

Cugliandolo L.F., and Kurchan J., 1993, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 173.

Cugliandolo L.F., Kurchan J., and Peliti K. 1997, Phys. Rev. E 55, 3898.

Debenedetti P.G., and Stillinger F.H., 2001, Nature, 410, 259.

Di Leonardo R., Angelani L., Parisi G., and Ruocco G., 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 6054.

Doye J.P.K and Wales D.J., cond-mat/0108310.

Franz S., and Parisi G., 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2486.

Götze W., 1999, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 11, A1.

Kirkpatrick T.R., and Thirumalai D., 1987, Phys. Rev. B 36, 5388.

Kirkpatrick T.R., and Wolynes P.G., 1987, Phys. Rev. B 35, 3072.

Kob W., Sciortino F., and Tartaglia P., 2000, Europhys. Lett. 49, 590.

Kurchan J., and Laloux L., 1996, J. Phys. A 29, 1929.

Madam B., and Keyes T., 1993, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 3342.

Mossa S. et al., 2001, Phil. Mag. B. 82, in press.

Parisi G., 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3660.

Scala A. et al., 2001, Phil. Mag. B. 82, in press.

Sciortino F.,and Tartaglia P., 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 107.

Stillinger F.H., 1995, Science 267, 1935.

Stillinger F.H., and Weber T.A., 1982, Phys. Rev. A 25, 978.

Stillinger F.H., and Weber T.A., 1984, Science 225, 983.

Weber T.A., and Stillinger F.H., 1985, Phys. Rev. B 31, 1954.


text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0106184

Matrix Model for De Sitter

Miao Li

Institute of Theoretical Physics

Academia Sinica

Beijing 100080

and

Department of Physics

National Taiwan University

Taipei 106, Taiwan

mli@phys.ntu.edu.tw

Based on a heuristic boost argument, we propose that the 4 dimensional de Sitter space can be described by a spherical Chern-Simons matrix model near the cosmological horizon, or models generalizing this simple choice. The dimension of the Hilbert space is naturally finite. We also make some comments on possible realization of holography in this approach, and on possible relation to the conformal field theory approach.

June 2001

1. Introduction

The problem of formulating a sensible theory of quantum gravity on de Sitter space has attracted increasingly more attention \[1--4\]. Some earlier attempts include . The cause of these interests seems twofold. For one thing, string theorists have gained much control in the past few years over string theory when there is enough supersymmetry, the spacetime background in this case is either Minkowski or anti-de Sitter, and there is a proposed nonperturbative formulation in each case, namely Matrix Theory or Maldacena’s CFT description. As soon as supersymmetry is completely broken, we have not yet succeeded in finding a Minkowski background, and most likely, as proposed in , we will end up with a background with a positive cosmological constant. Several theoretical difficulties inherent to such a background have been discussed in \[1,,2,,3\]. Among these, the problem of formulating observables is particularly challenging. On the other hand, several observational results \[7,,8\] point to the possibility that we are living in an accelerating universe with considerable amount of dark energy, This has induced disquieting concerns in the string community that such reality might contradict our current understanding of string theory .

One encounters two seemingly insurmountable difficulties in trying to embed de Sitter space in string theory. First, how to generate a vanishingly small cosmological constant? . Second, even if this can be done, how to describe physics in a de Sitter background? These two problems are likely to be deeply intertwined. In this note we shall follow the philosophy that we may still construct a sensible theory given a de Sitter background, temporarily forgetting the hard problem of generating a small cosmological constant.

One of the first things coming to sight when one tries to formulate a theory in the de Sitter background is that the vacuum structure of de Sitter ought to be more complicated than that of either Minkowski or anti-de Sitter, since the entropy of the background as seen by a co-moving observer is nonvanishing ($`>10^{120}`$). There is a tiny Hawking temperature. However, one can not attribute the huge amount of entropy to thermal fluctuations at the scale of the Hawking temperature, since on general grounds of thermodynamics the entropy of this kind is of order 1 only. Also, the thermal fluctuation of this kind in principle is not observable at all, since the wave length is the size of the horizon $`RH^1`$, while a co-moving observer has to be well-localized. In fact, even the entropy due to baryonic matter is much smaller than the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.

We are thus forced to propose that the entropy, or the large Hilbert space, is mainly composed of unusual degrees of freedom which we shall call wee-degrees. Their dynamics must be essentially different from ordinary particles of massless or massive, yet they are coupled to ordinary matter. For having a consistent theory, it is better to postulate that ordinary matter is collective excitations of wee-degrees. This requirement is supported by the validity of the so-called D-bound , which states that the entropy of any matter system within the cosmological horizon plus the Bekenstein Hawking entropy should be no larger than the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy after the matter system disappears from the horizon. In terms of our picture, this is just $`S_{matter}+S_{wee}`$ increases during the course when the matter system falls out the horizon and is bounded by $`S_{wee}`$, the entropy of the resulting empty de Sitter space inside the final horizon. A stronger bound, the holographic bound, also implies that the wee-degrees of freedom should account for the whole entropy enclosed in the cosmological horizon.

There are at least two criteria for an acceptable candidate theory of wee-degrees: 1. the theory must account for the large entropy; 2. when a normal matter degree is coupled to the wee-degrees, the effective equation of motion reproduced must be identical to one in de Sitter space. We will take a step toward meeting the first criterion. In the next section we will present a boost argument borrowed from the construction of matrix theory , we argue that a matrix model of first order in time derivatives is a reasonable candidate. We then proceed in sect.3 to propose a simplest possible matrix model, the Chern-Simons matrix model on the stretched horizon, to describe the de Sitter space in 4 dimensions. De Sitter boost properties and a conformal light-cone frame are discussed in sect.5. In sect.6 we argue that the light-cone coordinate is the best choice of time in the matrix model, and it is related to dilation generator on the infinite past Euclidean surface. We conclude this paper in sect.7 with some discussions.

2. Intuitive Considerations

Suppose we study a system immersed in an environment of constant energy density $`\rho `$ in a volume $`V`$, and this environment is Lorentz invariant. When the system is at static, the total momentum $`P=0`$, the total energy is $`M+\rho V`$. Boost the system, there will a net momentum $`P`$ coming only from the system, the environment does not contribute. Now there are two possible on-shell conditions, depending on which view-point we are going to take. The first is that the system is completely decoupled from the environment, so the energy of the system and the momentum satisfy

$$E^2=P^2+m^2.$$

We do not get anything interesting from this relation. Another possibility is to assume that the system in fact is kind of collective excitation of the environment, so the total energy and total momentum satisfy a single on-shell condition

$$(E+\rho V)^2=(M+\rho V)^2+P^2.$$

If the energy in the environment is much greater than $`M`$ and $`P`$, we obtain, approximately

$$E=M+\frac{P^2}{2(PV+M)}+O(P^4),$$

in this way, the system behaves as a massive system with a large mass $`\rho V+M\rho V`$. This intuition is quite right, since this implies that it is extremely hard to excite the environment whose prototype is the non-dynamic vacuum energy, or the cosmological constant.

To imitate matrix theory, we go to the limit in which the longitudinal momentum $`P`$ is either at the same scale of $`\rho V`$ or even much greater than $`\rho V`$. Denote $`P_{eff}^2=(\rho V)^2+P^2`$, then

$$E+\rho VP_{eff}=\frac{M^2}{2P_{eff}}+\frac{\rho VM}{P_{eff}}.$$

Since $`M\rho V`$, the second term dominates the first term on the R.H.S. of the above equation. If one names $`E+\rho VP_{eff}=P_{}`$, it is analogous to the light-cone energy.

If something similar to the situation in matrix theory holds, then one may identify the first term with a Hamiltonian similar to that in matrix theory, that is

$$\frac{M^2}{2P_{eff}}\mathrm{tr}\frac{1}{2R}(_tX^i)^2+V(X),$$

where $`X^i`$ are matrices corresponding to the transverse coordinates, $`R`$ is some IR cut-off in the longitudinal direction, which may be identified with the horizon size. Let us push this analogue a little further, then the second term, the more important one, is to be identified with

$$\frac{\rho VM}{P_{eff}}=(\frac{\sqrt{2}\rho V}{\sqrt{P_{eff}}})(\frac{M}{\sqrt{2P_{eff}}})\frac{\sqrt{2}\rho V}{\sqrt{P_{eff}}}(\mathrm{tr}\frac{1}{2R}(_tX^i)^2+V(X))^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

The square root in the last equality is not an analytic function, so itself does not make sense as a candidate for the dominant term in the Hamiltonian. We however take the square root as suggesting that the Hamiltonian should be of first order in derivatives of $`X^i`$. In the supersymmetric matrix theory, the Hamiltonian is the square of a super charge. This super charge can not be used as a candidate for our Hamiltonian, since in the first place there is no supersymmetry in a de Sitter space, and secondly the super charge is fermionic so it can not serve as a Hamiltonian.

In any case, we are tempted by the possibility that in a certain frame, the Hamiltonian of wee-degrees is that of matrices and is at most of the first order in time derivatives of these matrices. Suppose the action principle is applicable here, then the Hamiltonian should be independent of the time derivatives at all, since the action is at most of the first order in the time derivatives. This statement is not modified when we work in the de Sitter space with judiciously chosen coordinates, as we shall see in the next sections.

For now let us simply postulate that in a certain frame the wee-degrees are described by matrices with an action first order in time derivatives. The general form is

$$S=𝑑t\mathrm{tr}\left(P^i(X)_tX^iV(X)\right).$$

The canonical conjugate of $`X^i`$ is the transpose of $`P^i(X)`$, a function of $`X`$ only. The Hamiltonian is equal to $`\mathrm{tr}V(X)`$. Assume for Hermitian matrices, the Hamiltonian assumes its lowest value for mutually commuting matrices, as in matrix theory. Thus in the ground state only the diagonal entries of $`X^i`$ are physical degrees of freedom.

De Sitter space is invariant under boost, thus it is not possible to assign a longitudinal momentum to a diagonal degree of freedom, since unlike in matrix theory in Minkowski space, we are trying to describe an empty de Sitter space and possible excitations within. Thus the rank of matrices $`X^i`$ is not to be interpreted as the total longitudinal momentum or a certain charge.

We shall argue later that $`X^i`$ should be treated either as the transverse coordinates in the steady-state metric of de Sitter, or the spherical coordinates in the static metric. In either case there are two coordinates, and the eigenvalues are subject roughly to the condition

$$(X_a^1)^2+(X_a^2)^2R^2,$$

where $`X_a^i`$ is the $`a`$-th eigenvalue, and $`R`$ is the horizon radius. Let the corresponding eigenvalue of $`P^i`$ be $`P_a^i`$, it is not independent of $`X_a^i`$ in general. So the phase space of the $`a`$-th eigenvalues of $`(X^i)`$ is two dimensional. To have a compatible Poisson structure, we require

$$\frac{P_a^1}{X_a^2}=\frac{P_a^2}{X_a^1},$$

so the Poisson bracket between $`X_a^1`$ and $`X_a^2`$ is

$$\{X_a^1,X_a^2\}=(\frac{P_a^1}{X_a^2})^1.$$

The dimension of the Hilbert space of the $`a`$-th single eigenvalues is, on the semiclassical level

$$\text{dim}H_a=\frac{1}{2\pi }|\frac{P_a^1}{X_a^2}|𝑑X_a^1𝑑X_a^2.$$

This integral is finite for the integration range of $`X_a^i`$ is finite.

The simplest choice of $`P^i`$ is $`l^2ϵ^{ij}X^j`$, where $`l`$ is a length scale. This is just the case when the kinetic term in the action is Chern-Simons like. To avoid double counting of the phase space, the kinetic term is actually $`\frac{1}{2}𝑑t\mathrm{tr}P^i\dot{X^i}`$. The dimension of the Hilbert space of the $`a`$-th eigenvalues in this case is

$$\text{dim}H_a=h=\frac{R^2}{2\pi l^2}.$$

To compute the dimension of the whole Hilbert space, we now need to assign certain statistics to the eigen-values. Let $`N`$ is the rank of matrices $`X^i`$. If all eigen-values are distinguishable, the whole Hilbert space of the lowest energy is

$$H=(H_a)^N.$$

If, due to gauge symmetry, the eigenvalues are treated as bosons, then the whole Hilbert space is

$$H=\text{Sym}(H_a)^N,$$

where we need to symmetrize the tensor product. In the first case, the dimension of the total Hilbert space is

$$\text{dim}H=(\text{dim}H_a)^N=\mathrm{exp}\left(N\mathrm{ln}\frac{R^2}{(2\pi l)^2}\right).$$

To equal the exponent to the Bekenstein Hawking entropy, we must have

$$NS\frac{R^2}{l_p^2},$$

where we have ignored the factor $`\mathrm{ln}[R^2/(2\pi l)^2]`$, since it is not a large number. Even for $`l=l_p`$, in reality this factor is about $`120\mathrm{ln}10`$. We conclude that in the “infinite statistics” case, the rank of the matrices must be the order of the entropy 1 We caution here that sometimes in the literature this statistics is called Boltzmann statistics, this however is a misnomer, since the traditional Boltzmann statistics treats particles as identical, but assumes that the particle number is much smaller than the the number of single particle states, so it is the high temperature limit of both Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi-Dirac statistics..

If eigenvalues obey Bose-Einstein statistics, the dimension of the total Hilbert space is

$$\text{dim}H=\frac{(N+h1)!}{N!(h1)!}.$$

We shall always assume both $`N`$ and $`h`$ be large numbers. Using the Sterling formula,

$$S=\mathrm{ln}\text{dim}H=N\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{h}{N})+h\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{N}{h}).$$

If $`Nh`$, then the second term is about $`N`$, so the first term dominates, this requires that $`SN`$. If $`Nh`$, the second term dominates, and $`Sh`$. In either case, the entropy is at the same order of the smaller number of $`(N,h)`$. To us, the most likely case is $`NhS`$. For the Chern-Simons model, we demand $`ll_p`$, and $`NR^2/l_p^2`$. We shall argue in later sections that this is a reasonable choice.

To conclude, we see that within in the framework of the first order action, it is possible to account for the cosmological entropy whether or not the eigen-values are treated as bosons. In both cases, the rank $`N`$ must be not too smaller than the entropy. It is nonetheless important that the dimension of the Hilbert space of the single eigenvalue is finite, otherwise the dimension of the total Hilbert is infinite.

3. The Spherical Matrix Chern-Simons Model

De Sitter space of $`D`$ dimensions can be regarded as a hyper surface in a $`D+1`$ dimensional Minkowski space with the constraint

$$X_0^2+X_i^2=R^2.$$

The De Sitter metric is the induced metric. There are three well-known coordinate systems. The global coordinates are

$$X_0=R\mathrm{sinh}\tau ,X_i=R\mathrm{cosh}\tau x_i,$$

where $`x_i`$ form a $`D`$ dimensional unit vector thus parameterize the unit sphere $`S^{D1}`$. The metric is written as

$$ds^2=R^2\left(d\tau ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D1}^2\right).$$

Another set of coordinates is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t& =R\mathrm{ln}\frac{X_0+X_D}{R},\hfill \\ \hfill x_i& =\frac{RX_i}{X_0+X_D},i<D,\hfill \end{array}$$

the definition of $`t`$ demands $`X_0+X_D>0`$ thus these coordinates cover only half of the de Sitter space. The metric in terms of them is the one for the steady-state universe

$$ds^2=dt^2+e^{\frac{2t}{R}}dx_i^2.$$

We shall discuss some properties of Killing vectors of this metric in sect.5.

Finally, the coordinates we will mostly use in this section are the ones for the static metric

$$t=\frac{R}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{X_0^2}{(X_0+X_D)^2},x_i=X_i,i<D.$$

The metric reads

$$ds^2=(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})dt^2+(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}^2.$$

In the following we will focus on the 4 dimensional de Sitter space, though the geometric discussions apply equally to other de Sitter spaces. An observer sitting at $`r=0`$ is a geodesic observer, this corresponds to an observer in the steady-state universe at $`x_i=0`$. It takes an infinite amount of time for a light signal originating from $`r=0`$ to reach the horizon $`r=R`$, in the static coordinates. In the steady-state universe, the light reaches horizon in finite time, this time is the same as recorded by the observer at the origin, so there seems to be a contradiction. However, it takes infinite amount of time for this light to return to the origin, so the observer sees that the light never gets to the horizon in finite time of his clock. The meaning of the horizon therefore is invariant.

As in many works on black holes , we will here advocate a stretched horizon picture. This picture is perceived by the observer at the origin, and again this picture is invariant with respect to changing coordinate system. It is however convenient to work with the static coordinates. In a normal approach, the stretched horizon is supposed to be located a proper Planck distance away from the real horizon. Let $`r_0`$ be the location of the stretched horizon, its proper distance to $`r=R`$ is

$$d=_{r_0}^R𝑑r(1\frac{r^2}{R^2})^{1/2}=R\mathrm{sin}^1\sqrt{1\frac{r_0^2}{R^2}}R\sqrt{1\frac{r_0^2}{R^2}}.$$

If $`dl_p`$, then the red-shift factor

$$\sqrt{1\frac{r_0^2}{R^2}}$$

is about $`l_p/R`$. For a macroscopic de Sitter, this is a tiny number.

Now for a stationary observer near the horizon, all outgoing matter will get a huge boost, and the boost factor is given by $`\mathrm{exp}(t/R)`$. This can be obtained by going to the tortoise radial coordinate

$$r^{}=\frac{R}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+r/R}{1r/R},$$

with a metric

$$ds^2=\frac{4e^{2r^{}/R}}{(e^{2r^{}/R}+1)^2}(dt^2+dr^2)+\mathrm{}.$$

The trajectory of a particle is roughly $`t=r^{}`$, so the red-shift factor is $`\mathrm{exp}(r^{}/R)=\mathrm{exp}(t/R)`$, a particle of energy $`ϵ_0`$ at the origin now has an energy $`\mathrm{exp}(t/R)ϵ_0`$. If we do not introduce a cut-off on $`t`$, we eventually put the particle in the infinite momentum frame. Thus, our intuitive consideration in the previous section applies, and we end up with, if correct, a system described by a first order action. Notice that the fictitious observers hovering on the horizon can communicate with the observer at the origin, so for them there is a single theory.

In the stretched horizon picture , the boost is finite, and the boost factor is $`R/l_p`$. A wave length $`1/R`$ is boosted to a wave length $`1/l_p`$, a Planckian particle. It is therefore natural to suppose that the relevant length scale in the Chern-Simons type action is set by $`l_p`$, as we already did in the last section. In this case, our intuitive boost argument is to be taken merely as an argument, since the boost can not be made infinite. Locally, we now have a flat Chern-Simons matrix model, globally, the Chern-Simons model is defined on a sphere of radius $`R`$.

It is tricky to write down a matrix model with matrices assuming values on a 2 sphere. We by-pass this problem by using a specific coordinate system covering the sphere. Choose the sterographic projection coordinates $`y^i`$ on the unit sphere with a metric

$$ds^2=\frac{4(dy^i)^2}{(1+y^2)^2},$$

with the symplectic form

$$\frac{4dy^1dy^2}{(1+y^2)^2}.$$

Integrating over the sphere we obtain the area of unit sphere $`4\pi `$. For a pair of given eigen-values, we expect the Chern-Simons to yield a coupling

$$n𝑑tf(y^2)ϵ^{ij}y^i\dot{y}^j,$$

where $`nR^2/l_p^2`$, the factor $`R^2`$ sets in since we are working with a sphere of radius $`R`$, and the factor $`l_p`$, as we just argued, is due to the fact that we are talking about Planckian particles. The action (3.1) corresponds a symplectic form

$$n(2y^2f^{}+2f)dy^1dy^2.$$

Apart from the coefficient $`n`$, we expect the above to agree with (3.1), so $`f`$ is solved to be

$$f(y^2)=\frac{2}{y^2(1+y^2)}.$$

Semi-classically, the quantization of the Chern-Simons coupling (3.1) results in a Hilbert space of dimension

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }n\frac{4d^2y}{(1+y^2)^2}=2n,$$

so $`n`$ is either an integer or half integer at the semi-classical level. The actual value of $`n`$ is a little more complicated as we shall see shortly.

We need now to promote $`y^i`$ to Hermitian matrices $`Y^i`$, and to postulate a Chern Simons matrix action

$$S=𝑑t\left(2n\mathrm{tr}\frac{1}{Y^2(1+Y^2)}ϵ^{ij}Y^i\dot{Y}^jV(Y)\right).$$

As usual in matrix models defined on a curved space, there is an ordering ambiguity in the above action. We postpone discussing this issue to a later occasion. The potential term $`V(Y)`$ can not be specified by our limited knowledge of the microscopic theory. It is supposed to be rotationally invariant, and assume minimum when the two matrices $`Y^i`$ commute. One can also contemplate the possibility of adding more matrices such as some fermionic matrices to the above action, to get a realistic model. We will not discuss this possibility in this paper.

It remains to discuss the exact quantization procedure and construct the Hilbert space for single eigen-values. To do so, it is convenient to switch to a more physical coordinate system. One choice is the Cartesian coordinates for the sphere $`x^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, $`(x^i)^2=R^2`$. The relation to the sterographic projection coordinates is

$$x^i=\frac{2R}{1+y^2}y^i,i=1,2.$$

The corresponding symplectic form

$$\frac{n}{R\sqrt{R^2x^2}}dx^1dx^2,$$

where $`x^2=(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2`$. The Chern-Simons coupling is

$$\frac{n}{R}𝑑t\frac{\sqrt{R^2x^2}}{x^2}ϵ^{ij}x^i\dot{x}^j.$$

This is the action of a unit charged particle moving in a monopole background with a magnetic charge $`n`$. The above action can be generalized to a nonrelativistic charged particle moving in the full 3 dimensional space

$$S=\frac{m}{2}\dot{x}^2𝑑t+A_i\dot{x}^i𝑑t,$$

where the second term is to be identified with (3.1). It is well-known that the angular momentum of the system is corrected by a magnetic term

$$M^i=ϵ^{ijk}(mx^j\dot{x}^kmx^k\dot{x}^j)\frac{nx^i}{r}.$$

Upon quantizing the action (3.1), one gets nontrivial commutators among $`\dot{x}^i`$, while the commutators among $`x^i`$ vanish. For instance

$$[m\dot{x}^i,m\dot{x}^j]=iϵ^{ijk}B_k,$$

where $`B`$ is the magnetic field generated by the monopole. One can check that the angular momentum components satisfy the usual $`su(2)`$ algebra

$$[M^i,M^j]=iϵ^{ijk}M^k.$$

Now taking the limit $`m0`$, the first kinetic term in (3.1) drops out, thus the canonical momentum is not independent of $`x^i`$. The first term in (3.1) also drops out, the net angular momentum has a contribution solely from the magnetic field. In this limit, the quantization can be carried out by Dirac brackets. We shall not do this, we shall just put the system on a sphere of radius $`R`$ and quantize the action (3.1). With the symplectic form (3.1), we find

$$[x^1,x^2]=i\frac{R\sqrt{R^2x^2}}{n}.$$

It is straightforward to check that, to the first order, the commutation relations (3.1) still hold, with

$$M^i=\frac{nx^i}{R}.$$

In fact, to make the quantization procedure rigorous, we simply assume the above relations. Thus $`x^i`$ up to a constant form a $`su(2)`$ algebra. The Hilbert space is specified by picking an irreducible representation of spin $`J`$. Since the Casimir is

$$\underset{i}{}(M^i)^2=J(J+1)$$

we have

$$\underset{i}{}(x^i)^2=\frac{J(J+1)}{n^2}R^2.$$

Now $`x^i`$ represent a fuzzy sphere. If we demand the radius of this fuzzy sphere to be exactly $`R`$, then

$$n^2=J(J+1).$$

The dimension of the Hilbert space is $`2J+1`$. In the large $`J`$ limit, $`nJ`$, so the dimension of the Hilbert space is approximately $`2n`$, a result agreeing with the previous semi-classical analysis. The horizon as a fuzzy sphere was discussed previously in .

It should be noted that we are not entitled to assume the radius of the fuzzy sphere to be $`R`$, this is because we are talking about the stretched horizon whose radius is not yet determined. This question is equivalent to determining $`n`$, and further microscopic knowledge is required in order to do so.

It is clear that what we have from the simple Chern-Simons model is giant gravitons. The cause of this phenomenon in our opinion is the vacuum energy whose nature is still mysterious, while giant gravitons in the AdS/CFT correspondence arise due to the R-R flux background . Consequently, the mechanism to obtain the fuzzy sphere is different from the one in that case .

As we shall see in sect.5 and sect.6, it is even better to define Chern-Simons matrix model using a light-cone time. Moreover, the sterographic coordinates will have a direct physical meaning. In this language, it is possible to relate our approach to the approach in .

We have not gauged our matrix model. It is possible to introduce a gauge matrix $`A_0`$, and turn the time derivative in the Chern-Simons action (3.1) into a covariant derivative. This model becomes closer to the planar matrix model of . Of course there is important difference: We have postulated that the potential $`V(Y)`$ is so chosen to force matrices $`Y^i`$ become commuting for lowest energy.

According to discussions in the next section, it appears necessary to introduce fermionic matrices and perhaps other bosonic matrices. Once fermionic matrices are present, it is possible to introduce supersymmetry. SUSY is likely broken for most of the ground states, since in these states, the eigenvalues of $`Y^i`$ are not homogeneously distributed. It is therefore very interesting to determine the SUSY breaking scale dynamically. We will come back to this important issue in future.

4. The Membrane Paradigm and Holography

The matrix model proposed in the last section can be regarded as a concrete realization of the stretched horizon. As in the membrane paradigm , we should be able to assign various physical properties to the stretched membrane. For instance, consider that there is an electromagnetic field in the bulk enclosed by the horizon, the bulk electrodynamics should be completely specified by the electromagnetic properties of the stretched horizon, the conductivity of the horizon thus Ohm’s law is a simple example.

More precisely, the boundary conditions for the electric field and the magnetic field on the stretched horizon are determined by the charge density and the current density on the stretched horizon, for instance

$$E_{}=4\pi \sigma ,B_{}=4\pi (j\times n),$$

where $`\sigma `$ is the charge density on the sphere, and $`j`$ is the current density, $`n`$ is the unit vector normal to the sphere.

It should be possible to define charge and current density in the Chern-Simons matrix model if one assigns specific electro-magnetic properties to the excitations in the model. One possibility is to identify our model with some version of quantum Hall system in which all these quantities are clearly defined. In fact recently some planar matrix models are proposed to describe the real quantum Hall system . One even can go a step further to incorporate the standard model fields in the bulk, by adding more matrices to the model to construct corresponding sources for these fields. However, it seems premature to construct even the charge density for the time being, since this is possible only when more details of the matrix model are given.

It is also important to understand how holography is realized in de Sitter space. Following the philosophy of AdS/CFT correspondence, one need to spell out a dictionary between operators in the matrix models and bulk modes. It seems straightforward to do this once more details are known about the matrix model. For example, to operators of the type

$$\mathrm{tr}Y^{i_1}\mathrm{}Y^{i_n},$$

one may associate spherical harmonic modes of a scalar field in the bulk. Apparently, in reality there are many fields in the bulk, we need to introduce more matrices in the matrix model in order to account for all of them along this line.

Whether it is really possible to generalize the AdS/CFT correspondence to the present context remains to be seen. An apparent objection to this naive generalization is that unlike there is no scaling argument available. One potential argument replacing the scaling argument is the infinite boost close to the horizon. Response of a given bulk mode under the boost may be translated to a certain property of the operator in the matrix model. We shall see in sect.6 that matrix model can be built in another set of coordinates, the conformal light-cone coordinates, one may find out scaling argument in that context, for instance, the evolution with the light-cone time is related to dilation on the infinite past Euclidean space. Thus, the scaling dimension can be identified with the eigen-value of the matrix Hamiltonian $`H(Y)=V(Y)`$:

$$[H(Y),𝒪]=h𝒪,$$

now the Hamiltonian is taken to be the one evolving everything along the light-cone time, for more details, see sect.6.

5. Some Observations on Boost Transformations

Given the success of matrix theory in Minkowski space, one wonders whether it is possible to go to an infinite momentum frame in de Sitter space and to imitate matrix theory to get a smaller symmetry and write down a matrix model. Although the observations here are somewhat interesting, we are led to negative results.

We will be working with the steady-state metric

$$ds^2=dt^2+e^{\frac{2t}{R}}dx_i^2.$$

The apparent Killing vectors are those corresponding to translations in spatial directions and a shift in time together with rescaling of spatial coordinates

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_i& =_i,\hfill \\ \hfill H& =_t\frac{x^i}{R}_i.\hfill \end{array}$$

The conserved quantity associated with $`H`$ is the AD energy . For a massive particle of the action

$$S=m𝑑t\left(1e^{2t/R}(\dot{x}^i)^2\right)^{1/2},$$

the AD energy is given by

$$E=m\left(1e^{2t/R}(\dot{x}^i)^2\right)^{1/2}[1+\frac{x^i\dot{x}^i}{R}e^{2t/R}]=(m^2+e^{2t/R}p^2)^{1/2}+\frac{x^i}{R}p^i.$$

If restricted inside the horizon

$$e^{t/R}|x|R$$

the energy (5.1) is always positive.

Although it is possible to use the energy (5.1) to generate a flow, it is easy to see that the usual Hamilton-Jacobi equations are not valid, so one can not use (5.1) as a Hamiltonian in the usual sense. Moreover, $`H`$ does not commute with $`P_i`$.

The remaining Killing vectors are rotations in space and boost transformations. To construct a boost in a direction, say $`z=x^{D1}`$, we go the the light-cone frame in which

$$ds^2=\frac{4R^2}{(x^++x^{})^2}\left(dx^+dx^{}+dx_{}^2\right),$$

where the light-cone coordinates are

$$x^\pm =Re^{t/R}\pm z,$$

and the remaining coordinates $`x_{}`$ are transverse directions. The metric (5.1) is conformal to the Minkowski metric, and the horizon for an observer at $`x^i=0`$ is given by

$$x^+x^{}x_{}^2=0.$$

The inside of the horizon is specified by the conditions $`x^+<0`$, $`x^{}<0`$ together with $`x^+x^{}x_{}^2>0`$.

The boost transformation generalizing the flat space boost $`x^\pm \mathrm{exp}(\pm \beta )x^\pm `$ is rather involved, since the transformation acts on the transverse direction too. For $`dS_2`$, it is relatively easy to find out the boost transformation which is

$$x^\pm =\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\beta }{2}y^\pm \pm \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2}R}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\beta }{2}\pm \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2}y^\pm /R}.$$

For small $`\beta `$, the above transformation reduces to the one in the flat space, where for small $`t`$, $`x^\pm `$ goes over to $`t\pm zR`$. For large $`\beta `$, the nonlinear effect becomes important, and both $`x^\pm `$ goes over to constants $`\pm R`$. This is easy to understand for $`x^{}`$, since $`tz`$ shrinks to zero for large $`\beta `$, so $`x^{}`$ tends to $`R`$. This limit is unfamiliar for $`x^+`$, since in the flat case one expects $`x^+`$ blow up instead of going over to a constant. The strange limit of the large boosts tells us that it is impossible to go to an infinite momentum frame and meanwhile to restrict everything within the horizon, because $`x^+R`$ and is no longer negative.

For higher dimensional de Sitter space, the boost transformation is much more involved:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x^\pm & =\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\beta }{2}y^\pm \pm \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2}R\pm \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2}(fR)^1y_{}^2}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\beta }{2}\pm \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2}y^\pm /R},\hfill \\ \hfill x_{}& =f^1y_{},\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$f=(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\beta }{2}+\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2}y^+/R)(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\beta }{2}y^{}/R)+\frac{1}{2R^2}(\mathrm{cosh}\beta 1)y_{}^2.$$

Although the analysis is complicated, the conclusion drawn in the previous paragraph still holds, namely it is impossible to go to the infinite momentum frame again.

Although our results are rather undesired, we can still ask whether there are corresponding longitudinal momenta which are conserved and scale under a boost just as in a flat space. The answer to this question is positive. Take $`dS_2`$ as an example. The Killing vector associated to boosting in the $`z`$ direction can be obtained from (5.1) by expanding in $`\beta `$ to the first order,

$$K=\frac{R}{2}[1(\frac{x^+}{R})^2]_+\frac{R}{2}[1(\frac{x^{}}{2})^2]_{}.$$

The algebra formed by this vector with the two Killing vector in (5.1) is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [E,P]& =\frac{1}{R}P,[P,K]=E,\hfill \\ \hfill [E,K]& =P\frac{1}{R}K.\hfill \end{array}$$

This is of course the de Sitter algebra $`so(2,1)=sl(2,R)`$. Now the conventional longitudinal momenta $`P^\pm =E\pm P`$ are no longer eigenstates of $`K`$, rather, the following modified longitudinal momenta are

$$P^\pm =E\pm P\frac{1}{R}K,$$

it is rather interesting to see that these conserved quantities involve the boost generator $`K`$. Under a finite boost of rapidity $`\beta `$, we have

$$P^\pm e^{\pm \beta }P^\pm .$$

One might wonder whether one can use the above boost property to simplify the kinetics of a particle. Again the answer is negative, since the on-shell condition in terms of $`P^\pm `$ is complicated, this is because, in terms of the conserved momentum $`P`$ and energy $`E`$, the boost generator is not a simple function and involves coordinates directly.

Although the usual infinite momentum frame is impossible, it is still possible to implement the idea of the stretched horizon in the coordinate system (5.1). Take $`x^+`$ as the time variable. For fixed $`x^+`$, the horizon is located at

$$x^{}=\frac{x_{}^2}{x^+}.$$

The metric on the horizon is

$$ds_{hor}^2=\frac{4R^2(x^+)^2}{((x^+)^2+x_{}^2)^2}dx_{}^2.$$

This is the metric on a sphere of radius $`R`$, since the dependence on $`x^+`$ in the metric can be rescaled away. Now the coordinates $`x_{}`$ provide a physical way to realize the sterographic projection coordinates we introduced in sect.3 purely for convenience. Thus it may be more natural to study the Chern-Simons matrix model in which $`x^+`$ is taken as time, and the matrices assume values in the transverse space. It is even possible to make our intuitive argument for the Chern-Simons matrix model more concrete and appealing in the light-cone coordinates. We shall argue in the next section that it is better to take $`\mathrm{ln}x^+`$ as time in a theory on the horizon.

6. Relation to Strominger’s Approach

Strominger very recently proposed a dS/CFT correspondence . In his approach, there is Euclidean CFT living on the past sphere at $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ in the global coordinates (3.1). The microscopic details of the CFT can not be specified except its central charge. The CFT is nonunitary, there are complex conformal weights.

In case of $`dS_3`$, the CFT is two dimensional. It is suggested that states in the Hilbert space are given in the radial quantization. Interestingly, it is shown in  that one can identify the AD Killing vector $`H`$ in (5.1) with the radial generator $`L_0+\overline{L}_0`$. Thus, in order to establish any connection between a horizon theory such as the spherical Chern-Simons matrix model in sect.3 with the Euclidean conformal theory at the infinite past, it is important to identify this Killing vector in the theory on the horizon.

The AD Killing vector, up to a constant, can be written in the light-cone coordinates as

$$H=(x^+_++x^{}_{}+x^i_i),$$

where we omitted the subscript $``$ for the transverse coordinates. Now we ask, taking $`x^+`$ as our time variable, how the AD Killing vector acts on a function on the horizon. Substitute the constraint (5.1) into the function $`f(x^+,x^{},x^i)`$, we obtain a function

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(x^+,x^i)=f(x^+,\frac{x^2}{x^+},x^i).$$

We find that the operators acting on the function $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ are related to operators acting on $`f`$ in the following way

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x^+_+& x^+(_++\frac{x^2}{(x^+)^2}_{}),\hfill \\ \hfill x^i_i& x^i(_i\frac{2x^i}{x^+}_{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Using these relations we see that when acting function $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, the AD Killing vector reduces to

$$H=(x^+_++x^i_i).$$

This reduction is to be expected, since the Killing vector in (6.1) is the dilation operator for all coordinates including $`x^{}`$. Now the constraint (5.1) respects the dilation, so when restricted to the horizon, the dilation operator should be (6.1).

This AD Killing vector on the horizon can be further simplified by noticing that the metric restricted on the horizon depends on $`x^+`$, as in (5.1). Performing the rescaling $`x^ix^ix^+`$, the metric becomes

$$ds_{hor}^2=\frac{4R^2}{(1+x^2)^2}dx^2.$$

Namely, $`x^i`$ are just the sterographic coordinates $`y^i`$ introduced in sect.3. By a similar argument as the above, we find that now in terms of $`x^+`$ and the sterographic coordinates $`x^i`$, the AD Killing vector is simply

$$H=x^+_+.$$

Now it is clear that, given the fact that $`H`$ should be a conserved quantity, we should take $`\mathrm{ln}(x^+)`$ as the time for a theory on the horizon. We use $`x^+`$ in the logarithmic since inside the horizon $`x^+<0`$. The light-cone time $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}(x^+)`$ increases with $`x^+`$ and tends to $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`x^+0`$, its range is $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$.

So it is natural to build up the matrix Chern-Simons model introduced in sect.3 directly on the horizon in the light-cone coordinates. The matrices $`Y^i`$ just correspond to the transverse coordinates discussed in the previous section and the present section. Furthermore, the matrix Hamiltonian is identified with the AD Killing vector on the horizon, thus should be identified with the radial generator in the Euclidean conformal theory of Strominger.

Just as Strominger, here we can not say much about microscopic details of the Hamiltonian in the Chern-Simons matrix model, which is simply given by the matrix potential $`V(Y)`$ in (3.1). Although it is just a function of matrices $`Y^i`$, its dynamic content is nontrivial since entries of matrices $`Y^i`$ are noncommutative.

7. Discussions

Quantum gravity on de Sitter spaces is not expected to be found in any time soon, not only because there are conceptual challenges, but also because if the fate of our universe is such a space, there are many realistic questions to answer, such as supersymmetry breaking and fitting the standard model parameters. Nonetheless these universes provide an excellent place to test our ideas about string/M theory and will help in the long term search for fundamental principles and underlying degrees of freedom.

We present one possible holographic theory for 4 dimensional de Sitter space. According to our experience with matrix theory, the matrix model is highly dimension-dependent, so we do not attempt to say anything about de Sitter spaces in other dimensions. In our opinion, even if our model will ultimately be proven to be on a wrong track, it is useful for stimulating other ideas. Further, as we tried in sect.6, it will be useful to compare our attempt to other attempts now available or to appear in future.

It is interesting to compare the matrix model of the de Sitter space with the matrix description of Schwarzschild black holes in a flat space . Both descriptions are a version of the stretched horizon picture. Nevertheless there are fundamental differences. The first obvious distinction is that the de Sitter matrix model describes the interior physics viewed by an observer inside the horizon, while the matrix black hole describes the black hole as seen by an outside observer, presumably encoding information about the whole black hole including its interior, although one is not supposed to talk about the causally disconnected interior for the outside observer. Secondly, the de Sitter matrix model is the whole theory of the de Sitter space, that is, its Hilbert space seen by one observer is the whole Hilbert space of the de Sitter space, according to the cosmological complementarity principle. The matrix black hole only describes a subset of excited states within matrix theory, and itself can not be viewed as a complete, unitary theory. In fact the black hole states are only metastable. The most conspicuous difference is that the de Sitter space matrix model should not only describe the pure de Sitter space, but also other states which are asymptotically de Sitter. Thus, it should also describe a state where there are a cosmic horizon and a black hole horizon, although at present it is not clear how to construct such a state in the matrix model.

The cosmological initial conditions can in principle be discussed in our matrix model. When nonabelian matrices are sufficiently excited, the dynamics does not necessarily describe physics only near the cosmological horizon, since there is no clear geometric picture of horizon in this situation.

A difficult question is how to realize cosmological complementarity principle, namely how to relate the Hilbert for one observer to the one for another observer. Perhaps a bulk formulation is needed to order to establish a bridge. It is not a far-off speculation that the bulk theory is a theory realizing spacetime noncommutativity and holography along the line of .

One may speculate a lot more about things related to our approach, but it is safe to leave many interesting issues for the future.

Acknowledgments. This work was supported by a grant of NSC, and by a “Hundred People Project” grant of Academia Sinica and an outstanding young investigator award of NSF of China. I thank Y. H. Gao, P. M. Ho and Y. S. Wu for helpful discussions.

References

relax T. Banks, “Cosmological Breaking of Supersymmetry?”, hep-th/0007146; T.Banks and W. Fischler, “M-theory observables for cosmological space-times”, hep-th/0102077. relax E. Witten, Talk at Strings’ 2001, Tata Institute, Mumbai, India; “Quantum gravity in De Sitter space”, hep-th/0106109. relax V. Balasubramanian, P. Horava and D. Minic, “Deconstructing de Sitter”, JHEP 0105 (2001) 043; hep-th/0103171. relax A. Strominger, “The dS/CFT correspondence”, hep-th/0106113. relax J. Maldacena and A. Strominger, “Statistical entropy of de Sitter space”, JHEP 9802 (1998) 014, gr-qc/9801096; S. Hawking, J. Maldacena and A. Strominger, “DeSitter entropy, quantum entanglement and AdS/CFT”, JHEP 0105 (2001) 001, hep-th/0002145; M. Banados, T. Brotz and M. E. Ortiz, “Quantum three-dimensional de Sitter space”, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 046002, hep-th/9807216; W. T. Kim, “Entropy of $`2+1`$ dimensional de Sitter space in terms of brick wall method”, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 047503, hep-th/9810169; F. L. Lin and Y. S. Wu, “Near horizon Virasoro symmetry and the entropy of de Sitter space in any dimension”, Phys. Lett. B 453 (1999) 222, hep-th/9901147. relax A. Volovich, “Discreteness in de Sitter space and quantization of Kahler manifolds”, hep-th/0101176. relax S. Perlmutter et al., APJ. 483 (1997); A. G. Riess et al., Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009; P. M. Garnavich et al., APJ. 509 (1998) 74; S. Perlmutter et al., APJ. 517 (1999) 565. relax P. de Bernardis et al., Nature 404 (2000) 955; S. Hanany et al., APJ. 545 (2000) L1. relax S. Hellerman, N. Kaloper and L. Susskind “String Theory and Quintessence”, hep-th/0104180; W. Fischler, A. Kashani-Poor, R. McNees and S. Paban, “The Acceleration of the Universe, a Challenge for String Theory”, hep-th/0104181. relax For a review, E. Witten, “The Cosmological Constant From The Viewpoint Of String Theory”, hep-ph/0002297. relax R. Bousso, “Positive vacuum energy and the N-bound”, hep-th/0010252; “Bekenstein bounds in de Sitter and flat space”, hep-th/0012052. relax T. Banks, W. Fischler, S.H. Shenker, L. Susskind, “M Theory As A Matrix Model: A Conjecture”, Phys.Rev. D55 (1997) 5112, hep-th/9610043. relax see for example, L. Susskind, “Strings, Black Holes and Lorentz Contraction”, Phys.Rev. D49 (1994) 6606, hep-th/9308139. relax “Black holes: The membrane paradigm, edited by K. S. Thorne, R. H. Price and D. A. Macdonald, (Yale University Press, London, 1986). relax J. McGreevy, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Invasion of the Giant Gravitons from Anti-de Sitter Space”, JHEP 0006 (2000) 008, hep-th/0003075. relax P. M. Ho and M. Li, “Fuzzy Spheres in AdS/CFT Correspondence and Holography from Noncommutativity”, Nucl.Phys. B596 (2001) 259, hep-th/0005268. relax L. Susskind, “The Quantum Hall Fluid and Non-Commutative Chern Simons Theory”, hep-th/0101029; A. P. Polychronakos, “Quantum Hall states as matrix Chern-Simons theory”, JHEP 0104 (2001) 011, hep-th/0103013; S. Hellerman, M. Van Raamsdonk, “Quantum Hall Physics = Noncommutative Field Theory”, hep-th/0103179. relax L. F. Abbott and S. Deser, “Stability of gravity with a cosmological constant”, Nucl. Phys. B 195 (1982). relax G. T. Horowitz, E. J. Martinec, “Comments on Black Holes in Matrix Theory”, Phys.Rev. D57 (1998) 4935, hep-th/9710217; T.Banks, W.Fischler, I.R.Klebanov and L.Susskind, “Schwarzschild Black Holes in Matrix Theory II”, JHEP 9801 (1998) 008, hep-th/9711005; M. Li, “ Matrix Schwarzschild Black Holes in Large N limit”, JHEP 9801 (1998) 009, hep-th/9710226; M. Li and E. Martinec, “Probing Matrix Black Holes”, hep-th/9801070. relax M. Li, “Dimensional Reduction via Noncommutative Spacetime: Bootstrap and Holography”, hep-th/0103107.


text:
# Calculating exclusion limits for Weakly Interacting Massive Particle direct detection experiments without background subtraction

## I Introduction

The non-Keplerian rotation curves of spiral galaxies imply that, provided that Newtonian gravity is correct, they are surrounded by halos of dark matter . The nature of the dark matter is unknown , with possible candidates including MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs), such as brown dwarves, Jupiters or black holes, and elementary particles, known as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). Currently the best motivated WIMP candidate is the neutralino, the lightest supersymmetric particle .

Neutralinos, and WIMPs generically, can potentially be directly detected via their elastic scattering off target nuclei. Over the past five years the DAMA collaboration has found an annual modulation in the signal in their $`\mathrm{NaI}`$ detector, consistent with nuclear recoils caused by WIMPs with mass $`m_\chi 54`$ GeV. Their claim has been met with some scepticism , due to the difficulties involved in extracting the small ($``$ a few per-cent) annual modulation signal from the backgrounds present, along with various technical concerns. It is therefore crucial to verify this result using other detectors and techniques.

Currently the most stringent spin-independent WIMP exclusion limits come from the CDMS experiment’s 10.6 kgd exposure at Stanford . They use the measured nuclear recoils in $`\mathrm{Si}`$ detectors (which are more sensitive to neutrons than to WIMPs), along with the multiple scattering events in their $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ detectors, to subtract the neutron background from their $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ single scatter events. They find, using a sophisticated likelihood analysis along with Monte-Carlo simulations (see Ref.  for details), that the $`\mathrm{Ge}`$ nuclear recoil events observed are most likely due to neutrons rather than WIMPs. The CDMS experiment will be moving to the Soudan mine, where the lower backgrounds should, in the long term, allow the improvement of the constraints on the WIMP cross-section by several orders of magnitude .

Competitive constraints are also coming from $`{}_{}{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}`$ detectors originally designed to search for neutrinoless double beta decay, such as the Heidelberg-Moscow  and IGEX  experiments. The Heidelberg-Moscow experiment operates five $`{}_{}{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}`$ detectors with total active mass of 10.96 kg, and to date have analysed data taken over 0.249 years, from one detector with an active mass of 2.758kg and 86% enrichment in $`{}_{}{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}`$, giving a total exposure of 250.836 kgd. The IGEX collaboration have to date analysed data taken over 30 days by one of their enriched detectors with an active mass of 2.0 kg, giving a total exposure of 60.0 kgd. In this paper we examine the method used to calculate exclusion limits from these experiments. We outline the calculation of upper confidence limits on the number of events per bin, and formulate criteria which produce true overall $`90\%`$ confidence exclusion limits on the WIMP scattering cross-section. We then compare the exclusion limits on the cross-section calculated using these criteria with those calculated using the standard analysis employed by the Heidelberg-Moscow and IGEX collaborations.

## II Confidence limit calculation

In experiments without background subtraction, such as Heidelberg-Moscow (HM)  and IGEX , no constraints on the WIMP parameters can be derived from the shape of the observed energy spectrum. However any set of WIMP parameters (mass and cross-section) which would produce more events than are observed, at some confidence level, can be excluded at that confidence level. The probability of finding an observed number of events $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ given an expected number of events $`\lambda `$ is given by the Poisson distribution:

$$P(N_{\mathrm{obs}}|\lambda )=\frac{e^\lambda \lambda ^{N_{\mathrm{obs}}}}{N_{\mathrm{obs}}!},$$
(1)
where the ‘$`|`$’ denotes ‘given’. Note that whilst $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is, by definition, an integer, $`\lambda `$ can take any positive value. Using Bayes theorem

$`P(\lambda |N_{\mathrm{obs}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(N_{\mathrm{obs}}|\lambda )P(\lambda )}{P(N_{\mathrm{obs}})}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(N_{\mathrm{obs}}|\lambda )P(\lambda )}{_0^{\mathrm{}}P(N_{\mathrm{obs}}|\lambda )P(\lambda )d\lambda }},`$ (3)
where $`P(\lambda )`$ is the prior probability distribution for $`\lambda `$. Following the Particle Data Group we take $`P(\lambda )`$ to be uniform in $`\lambda `$ ***See Ref.  and references therein for a contrary view however. and the above expression then simplifies to

$$P(\lambda |N_{\mathrm{obs}})=P(N_{\mathrm{obs}}|\lambda ).$$
(4)
It then follows that the probability that $`\lambda `$ is greater than some value $`\lambda _\mathrm{p}`$ is

$`P(\lambda >\lambda _\mathrm{p}|N_{\mathrm{obs}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\lambda _p}^{\mathrm{}}}P(\lambda |N_{\mathrm{obs}})d\lambda `$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\lambda _\mathrm{p}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda \lambda ^{N_{\mathrm{obs}}}}{N_{\mathrm{obs}}!}}d\lambda .`$ (6)
Using the relation

$$_u^{\mathrm{}}x^ne^{\mu x}=e^{u\mu }\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{n!}{k!}\frac{u^k}{\mu ^{nk+1}},$$
(7)
we find that

$`P(\lambda >\lambda _\mathrm{p}|N_{\mathrm{obs}})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\lambda _\mathrm{p}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{obs}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _\mathrm{p})^n}{n!}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`P(NN_{\mathrm{obs}}|\lambda _\mathrm{p}).`$ (9)
The HM and IGEX collaboration bin their data in bins of width 1 keV (42 bins from 9 keV to 51 keV for HM and 45 bins from 4 keV to 49 keV for IGEX). In their analysis , the $`90\%`$ confidence exclusion limit on the cross-section, $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}`$, is calculated by finding for each $`m_\chi `$ the value of $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}`$ for which the theoretical event rate in one of the bins just exceeds the $`90\%`$ bin confidence limit on the event rate in that bin. The Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration employ a slight variation of this technique, re-binning the data in overlapping 5keV bins (i.e. 9-14 keV, 10-15 keV etc.), claiming that otherwise the limits obtained are too conservative .

By definition a 90$`\%`$ upper confidence limit means that there is a $`10\%`$ probability that a theoretical number of events greater than the $`90\%`$ confidence limit produced the observed number of events, for any given bin. We will now consider an ensemble of $`N_\mathrm{t}`$ bins. The probability distibution of the number of bins for which the theoretical number of events exceeds the 90$`\%`$ bin confidence limit, $`N_\mathrm{e}`$, is given by

$`P(N_\mathrm{e}>0)`$ $`=`$ $`1P(N_\mathrm{e}=0)=1(0.9)^{N_\mathrm{t}}`$ (10)
$`>`$ $`0.1\mathrm{if}N_\mathrm{t}>1.`$ (11)
Therefore the exclusion limits found using the standard analysis actually correspond to a lower degree of confidence than 90$`\%`$ and are hence erroneously tight. The larger the total number of bins the larger the discrepancy will be. For an ensemble of bins the probability that the observed number of events in $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ of the bins was produced by a theoretical number of events greater than the 100p$`\%`$ bin upper confidence limit is given by the binomial distribution:

$$P(N_\mathrm{e})=C_{N_\mathrm{e}}^{N_\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{p}^{N_\mathrm{e}}\left(1\mathrm{p}\right)^{N_\mathrm{t}N_\mathrm{e}},$$
(12)
where

$$C_{N_\mathrm{e}}^{N_\mathrm{t}}=\frac{N_\mathrm{t}!}{N_\mathrm{e}!(N_\mathrm{t}N_\mathrm{e})!},$$
(13)
provided that each bin is independent Whilst the values of $`\lambda `$ predicted for each bin by an underlying theoretical model are not independent of each other, the number of events observed in each bin is an independent Poisson process, governed by the underlying value of $`\lambda `$ for that bin. (this is not the case for the HM experiment’s overlapping 5keV bins).

We will now use the probability distribution of the number of bins $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ exceeding their $`100\mathrm{p}\%`$ bin confidence limit (eq. (12)) to formulate criteria which produce true $`90\%`$ minimum confidence exclusion limits. Firstly, for any given total number of bins, we can find the confidence level $`\mathrm{cl}`$ for which the probability that none of the bins exceed their $`100\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}\%`$ bin confidence is $`90\%`$:

$$C_0^{N_\mathrm{t}}(1\mathrm{cl})^{N_\mathrm{t}}=0.1.$$
(14)
We can also calculate the 90$`\%`$ minimum upper confidence limit on the number of bins which exceed their 90$`\%`$ bin confidence limit. We define $`N_{90}`$ as the smallest integer which satisfies:

$$\underset{N_\mathrm{e}=N_{90}}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{tot}}}{}}\left[C_{N_\mathrm{e}}^{N_\mathrm{t}}0.1^{N_\mathrm{e}}\left(0.9\right)^{(N_\mathrm{t}N_\mathrm{e})}\right]<0.1.$$
(15)
Any set of WIMP parameters which produces $`N_\mathrm{e}N_{90}`$ is excluded at at least 90$`\%`$ confidence. For $`N_\mathrm{t}=42`$ or $`45`$, $`N_{90}=8`$ and $`P(N_\mathrm{e}<N_{90})=0.946(0.924)`$ for $`N_\mathrm{t}=42(45)`$. Since $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ can only take on integer values this criteria does not produce exact 90$`\%`$ exclusion limits, but the amount by which the confidence limits are stronger than $`90\%`$ is known, and fixed for fixed $`N_\mathrm{t}`$.

A simple minded way to avoid the problem of calculating 90$`\%`$ overall confidence limits would be to discard all but one of the energy bins; $`N_\mathrm{t}=1`$ then and the 90$`\%`$ bin confidence limit gives an overall 90$`\%`$ confidence limit. The obvious choice for which energy bin to use is the lowest, threshold, energy bin, since $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}`$ decreases exponentially with increasing $`E_\mathrm{R}`$ for the standard Maxwellian halo model. It is likely that this wasteful method will produce weaker exclusion limits than can be found using the entire data set though.

## III Exclusion limits

We will now calculate the exclusion limits resulting from the HM and IGEX data, assuming a standard Maxwellian halo, using a variety of criteria: the HM collaboration’s overlapping 5keV bins technique (criteria A-HM only), no bins exceeding their 90$`\%`$ bin confidence limit (criteria B), no bins exceeding their $`100\mathrm{c}\mathrm{l}\%`$ bin confidence limit (criteria C), less than $`N_{90}=8`$ bins exceeding their 90$`\%`$ bin confidence limit (criteria D) and from the lowest energy bin not exceeding its 90$`\%`$ bin confidence limit (criteria E). The bin confidence limit $`\mathrm{cl}`$ for criteria C has been calculated from the binomial distribution to give 90$`\%`$ overall (as opposed to individual bin) exclusion limits; for the $`N_\mathrm{t}=42`$ bins of the HM experiment $`\mathrm{cl}=0.9975`$ whilst for the $`N_\mathrm{t}=45`$ bins of the IGEX experiment $`\mathrm{cl}=0.9977`$. In Section II we found that Criteria D produces 94.6$`\%`$ confidence exclusion limits for the HM experiment and 92.4$`\%`$ confidence exclusion limits for the IGEX experiment. Note that $`\lambda _\mathrm{p}/N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, for any fixed $`\mathrm{p}`$, decreases with increasing $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$; the smaller the number of counts observed the greater the uncertainty in the underlying see e.g. Refs. . theoretical number of counts. For details of the calculation of the theoretical event rate The resulting exclusion limits are plotted in Fig. 1, and in Tables I and II we list the energy bins from which the exclusion limits on $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}`$ arise, as a function of $`m_\chi `$, for each criteria.

The constraints from criteria A and B are similar and are tighter than those found using either of the criteria (C and D) calculated from the binomial distribution to give 90$`\%`$ overall confidence limits, by roughly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\mathrm{log}_{10}(\zeta \sigma )\right]0.2`$. As shown above (Eq. (10)) the requirement that no bin exceeds its 90$`\%`$ bin confidence limit (i.e. criteria B) actually produces exclusion limits at 1.2$`\%`$ ($`0.9\%`$) confidence for $`N_\mathrm{t}=42(45)`$ bins. Criteria D produces significantly weaker constraints than C for $`m_\chi 80`$ GeV, and we will discuss the reason for this below. For $`m_\chi 80`$ GeV the exclusion limit from criteria D is slightly weaker than that from criteria C since criteria D produces stronger than $`90\%`$ confidence exclusion limits ($`94.6\%`$ for HM and $`92.4\%`$ for IGEX). For the HM data criteria E produces exclusion limits which are identical to those from Criteria B for small $`m_\chi `$, where the lowest energy bin is the most constraining, for large $`m_\chi `$ it produces the weakest exclusion limit since the more constraining higher energy bins have been discarded. For the IGEX data it turns out that the lowest energy bin is never the most constraining, and even for small $`m_\chi `$ criteria E produces weaker limits than Criteria B.

For both data sets the number of events per bin initially decreases fairly sharply with increasing energy ($`E_\mathrm{V}18(11)`$ keV for HM (IGEX)). For larger energies the number of events per bin varies between 2-17 (0-10) for HM (IGEX). For the standard Maxwellian halo $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}`$ decreases exponentially with increasing $`E_\mathrm{R}`$. The decrease is steepest for small $`m_\chi `$, with $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}(E_\mathrm{R}0)`$ being largest for small $`m_\chi `$. For small $`m_\chi `$ the theoretical energy spectrum falls off more rapidly than the observed energy spectrum and the exclusion limit comes from the lowest energy bins, where the observed number of events is largest. The larger the observed number of events the smaller the difference between $`\lambda _{90}`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{cl}}`$, and hence the difference in the exclusion limits produced by criteria B and C is smallest for small $`m_\chi `$. For a rapidly decreasing theoretical energy spectrum $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}`$ has to be so large for eight bins to exceed their bin confidence limit that the theoretical event rate in the lowest bin is far greater than $`\lambda _{\mathrm{cl}}`$, and criteria D produces misleadingly weak exclusion limits.

If the WIMP velocity distribution is not close to Maxwellian, then the form of $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}`$ will deviate from exponential and the error in the exclusion limits produced by the standard analysis technique could be more significant. As an example we will study the exclusion limits for Sikivie’s late infall model , where the CDM distribution at the Earth’s location consists of a number of velocity flows plus a smooth isothermal background distribution. The resulting WIMP differential event rate $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}`$ has a series of steps and falls off more rapidly than that produced by a pure Maxwellian halo . Whilst it is unlikely that such velocity flows are present in the Milky Way , the real velocity distribution produced by the hierarchical formation of the galactic halo is likely to deviate significantly from a smooth Maxwellian distribution, resulting in a $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}`$ which varies significantly from the exponential decline produced by the standard Maxwellian halo. The parameters of the late infall model can be found in Ref. , the total local halo density is $`\rho _\chi =0.57\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ which corresponds to $`\zeta =1.9`$. In Fig. 2 we plot the exclusion limits found from the HM data for this model, using the criteria defined above. In table III we list the bins from which the limit on $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}`$ arises for each criteria, as a function of $`m_\chi `$.

For $`m_\chi 50`$ GeV the difference in the exclusion limits produced by the different criteria is relatively small. As $`m_\chi `$ is increased the step-like drops in $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}`$ caused by the velocity flows move to higher $`E_\mathrm{R}`$ , producing a sudden change in the predicted number of events for some of the bins, changing the bin from which the constraint on $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}`$ originates and, for criteria B and C, producing a kink in the exclusion limit curve. Criteria B produces limits which are tighter than those from Criteria C by roughly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\mathrm{log}_{10}(\zeta \sigma )\right]0.2`$, with the difference decreasing with decreasing $`m_\chi `$, once more. For criteria C the cusps in the exclusion limit are shifted to slightly higher $`m_\chi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\chi 5`$ GeV for $`m_\chi 80`$ GeV, since $`\lambda _{\mathrm{cl}}/\lambda _{90}`$ increases with decreasing $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. Once more criteria D produces weaker exclusion limits then criteria C for $`m_\chi 80`$ GeV, although for this halo model the difference between criteria C and D at large $`m_\chi `$, is larger than for the standard halo model. The cusps in the exclusion limits are smoothed out to some extent by criteria A and D since for these criteria the limits arise from a range of energies (a 5keV bins for A and 7 1keV bins for D), rather than a single 1keV bin.

## IV Conclusions

We have shown that the standard analysis technique for calculating exclusion limits from WIMP direct detection experiments without background subtraction produces exclusion limits that are actually at a lower degree of confidence than the stated $`90\%`$, and are hence erroneously tight, if there is more than one energy bin.

We have examined criteria which produce true $`90\%`$ minimum confidence exclusion limits for an ensemble of bins. The first (criteria C above) involves calculating the individual bin confidence limit for which the overall probability that no bin exceeds this confidence limit is $`90\%`$. For the 42 bins of the HM experiment this individual bin limit is $`99.75\%`$ whilst for the 45 bins of the IGEX experiment it is $`99.77\%`$. The second (D above) involves calculating the minimum 90$`\%`$ upper confidence limit on the number of bins which exceed their individual bin $`90\%`$ confidence limit, for 42 or 45 bins this limit is 8. Finally the third (E above) involves using only the lowest, threshold, energy bin.

We then compared the exclusion limits produced by these criteria with those produce by the standard analysis technique, for both the HM and IGEX experiments for a standard Maxwellian halo, and for the HM experiment for Sikivie’s late infall model. We found that the standard technique produces limits which are erroneously tighter by roughly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left[\mathrm{log}_{10}(\zeta \sigma )\right]0.2.`$ for $`m_\chi 80`$ GeV. The difference would be larger for experiments with larger numbers of bins and/or less events in the most constraining bins. Criteria D produces exclusion limits which are misleadingly weak for small $`m_\chi `$ and does not produce exactly 90$`\%`$ exclusion limits, since the number of bins is an integer. Criteria E is wasteful and produces substantially weaker exclusion limits than could be found using the entire data set. We therefore recommend that criteria C should be used to produce overall 90$`\%`$ confidence limits.

For halo models with a significant Maxwellian component $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}`$ decreases roughly exponentially with increasing $`E_\mathrm{R}`$, with the decrease being steepest for small $`m_\chi `$. In this case, for both the HM and IGEX data, for small $`m_\chi `$ the lowest energy bins, which have the highest numbers of observed events, are most constraining, whilst for larger $`m_\chi `$ the higher energy bins are the most constraining. Care therefore needs to be taken to produce overall $`90\%`$ confidence limits. Using upper confidence limits on the number of events per bin to produce exclusion limits for experiments without background subtraction appears to be more involved than previously realised, and more sophisticated analysis techniques need to be developed. Since the Milky Way halo may well be poorly approximated by a standard Maxwellian halo, the analysis technique employed should not pre-suppose an exponentially declining form for $`\mathrm{d}R/\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{R}`$. In fact it would be useful, if possible, to formulate an analysis technique which decouples the WIMP cross-section from the assumed WIMP speed distribution.

## Acknowledgements

A.M.G. was supported by PPARC and acknowledges use of the Starlink computer system at Queen Mary, University of London.

Whilst completing this work a preprint appeared by the CRESST collaboration , in which they mention algorithms which they have developed to extract exclusion limits from their experiment.