text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Nuclear properties in the excitation interval up to the neutron binding energy $`B_n`$ undergoes radical change: the simplest low-lying levels transform into the Bohr’s compound states. The only possibility to study this process in details is provided by the experimental investigation of the two-step $`\gamma `$-cascades proceeding between the neutron resonance and group of low-lying levels. Experimental data on the density and probability of population of the states observed in this process are compared with the theoretical notions. The comparison allows one to reveal the main peculiarities of change in properties of nuclear matter as excitation energy increases. The main details of the analysis of this experiment are described, for example, in \[1-3\].

## 2 Experiment

Two-step $`\gamma `$-cascades following thermal neutron capture in $`{}_{}{}^{190}Os`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{192}Os`$ were studied by $`\gamma `$-$`\gamma `$ coincidence measurements undertaken at the $`LWR15`$ reactor in Řež. The measurements were performed using the spectrometer  consisting of two $`HPGe`$-detectors with the efficiency 20% and 30%. The target consisting of 1200 mg of $`{}_{}{}^{192}Os`$ and 176 mg of $`{}_{}{}^{190}Os`$ was used. As the thermal neutron capture cross section  equals 13.1 b for $`{}_{}{}^{190}Os`$ and 3.12 b for $`{}_{}{}^{192}Os`$, then this target provided 38% of captures in $`{}_{}{}^{190}Os`$ and 62% in $`{}_{}{}^{192}Os`$.

Unlike other known methods for the study of the process of thermal neutron capture, the sum coincidence method allows one to obtain reliable enough information not only for a monoisotopic target but also for the case of few isotopes with comparable probabilities of neutron capture in them. In the last case, the quality of the experimental data is somewhat worse due to:

(a) increase in the Compton background under the full energy peak in the sum coincidence spectrum caused by a higher-energy cascade belonging to another isotope;

(b) possible overlapping of peaks in the sum coincidence spectrum.
However, a sufficiently high efficiency of detectors and fine energy resolution ($`FWHM5`$ keV for peaks at $`E_c=56`$ MeV in the sum coincidence spectrum) allowed us to obtain the results of acceptable quality in this case, as well.

The main part of the sum coincidence spectrum measured in the experiment is shown in Fig. 1. A relatively large background under the peaks in the region of the neutron binding energy, $`B_n`$, is caused by a parasitic neutron capture in $`3`$ mg of $`Cl`$ contained in the target and surrounding constructions. This component of the background and Compton background at the lower cascade energy $`E_c=E_1+E_2`$ determine amplitude and shape of the “noise” line in the intensity distributions of cascades with $`E_c=const`$. In all there were obtained and analysed 11 such spectra of cascades in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$. Each two-step cascade in such spectrum is presented by a pair of peaks with equal areas and widths . The probability of observing a low-intensity cascade is determined only by the amplitude of the “noise” line. The registration threshold, $`L_c`$, for individual cascades was determined from an analysis of spectra $`E_c=const`$ corresponding to background intervals in the sum coincidence spectrum. It was established that $`L_c`$ linearly increases from 1.5 to 6.0 events per $`10^4`$ decays as the cascade energy changes from 5.6 to 4.5 MeV, respectively.

The data obtained allow one clearly demonstrate spectroscopic possibilities of the method. For this aim all 11 intensity distributions of cascades observed were summed. The part of this summed spectrum for the interval of the quantum energy $`E_\gamma `$ from 3.0 to 4.6 MeV is presented in Fig. 2 in function of the energy $`E_{ex}=B_nE_\gamma `$ ($`E_{ex}`$ equals excitation energy of the cascade intermediate level when $`E_\gamma `$ is the energy of the cascade primary transition $`E_1`$). Summation leads to accumulation of the primary transition intensities in common peak and intensities of the secondary transitions – in different peaks. Due to low intensity cascades with the secondary transition energy $`E_2>`$ MeV are not observed in a given interval of the excitation energy as the peaks, they form continuous distribution. Therefore, every peak in Fig. 2 with the high probability corresponds to one of the levels of $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$. So, one can see from Fig. 2 that the experimental data allow confident determination of the level energies in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ up to $`0.5B_n`$ as minimum even without the use of the most modern spectrometers.

## 3 Spectroscopic information

The method to construct a decay scheme using obvious thesis about the constancy of the energy $`E_1=B_nE_m`$ of the primary transition in the cascades with the different total energy $`E_1+E_2=const`$ was described for the first time in . The method uses multi-dimensional distribution in the framework of the maximum likelihood method in order to select probable $`\gamma `$-transitions with equal energy in different spectra. The algorithm gives reliable results  even at the mean error in determination of $`E_1`$ up to $`1.5`$ keV and number of cascades resolved in spectrum as the pairs of peaks of about $`10^3`$. Corresponding results for $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ are given in Table 1.

Analysis of the experimental data requires transformation of the peak areas of the resolved cascades into absolute values (in % per decay). However, the direct solution of this problem using, for example, the areas of peaks in the sum coincident spectrum is impossible because of the uncontrollable conditions of the experiment. First of all, this is due to difficulties of determining the number of captures in the target and the absolute efficiency of registration of the cascade in the geometry of the experiment. This problem can be solved by the normalization of relative intensities to the absolute values $`A_{\gamma \gamma }`$ calculated for most intense cascades by the relation

$$A_{\gamma \gamma }=i_1\times B_r,$$
(1)
where the absolute intensities $`i_1`$ of primary transitions are taken from other works, and the branching ratios $`B_r`$ are determined in a standard way from the codes of coincidences accumulated in this experiment. $`A_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is the ratio between the intensity of a given cascade and total intensity of all cascades with $`E_1+E_2=const`$. The use of a maximum large ensemble of reference cascades in the normalization allows one to minimize both statistical and systematical errors of the procedure and practically reduce them to existing errors of $`i_1`$.

Unfortunately, there are no reliable data on the absolute intensities of primary transitions for osmium isotopes under consideration. Therefore, we were forced to use the data  on relative intensities of $`\gamma `$-transitions following thermal neutron capture in $`{}_{}{}^{190}Os`$. For their normalization, we measured the spectrum of $`\gamma `$-rays after thermal neutron capture in the target of natural $`Os`$ and determined ratios between the peak areas corresponding to $`\gamma `$-transitions with energies 7234, 7793($`{}_{}{}^{190}Os`$), 7835($`{}_{}{}^{188}Os`$), and 5147 keV ($`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$). The absolute intensity of 5147 keV transition belonging to $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ was determined to be equal $`I_1=14.4(14)\%`$ per decay using absolute intensities  of three other transitions and data  on isotopic abundance and thermal neutron capture cross sections. This allowed us to reduce relative intensities of primary transitions in $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$  into the absolute values and determine  intensities of the two-step cascades in this nucleus. The coefficient of normalization of relative intensities of the primary transitions in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ to absolute values was determined using the ratio of areas of the peaks corresponding to cascades to the ground and three low-lying levels of $`{}_{}{}^{191,193}Os`$ as well as the averaged over corresponding spectra efficiency of registration of the cascades. It was determined to be equal to 0.01077 for the relative intensities of the primary transitions from .

The total absolute intensities $`I_{\gamma \gamma }=i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ of cascades with a fixed sum energy (including those unresolved experimentally) are given in Table 2. The data correspond to the energy detection threshold set at 520 keV which was used to reject annihilation quanta. Nevertheless, the data are suitable for testing the validity of level density and radiative strength function models in the excitation energy range almost up to $`B_n`$ as it is shown in Table 2.

### 3.1 Background cascades

Every spectrum – intensity distribution of cascades with a given sum energy contains the following components: (i) desired cascade both in form of pairs of resolved peaks and their superposition – continuous distribution of low amplitude (cascade energy is completely deposited in detectors); (ii) “noise” line resulted from registration of the part of the energy of quanta of cascades with higher energy.

On the average, the contribution of the latter in the spectrum practically equals zero but in some local sections of the spectrum the distortions can be rather considerable. It should be noted that the main distortion is due to the cases of partial absorption of the energy of one cascade transition in detector and complete absorption of the energy of another transition. Subtraction of this Compton background results in appearance of characteristic symmetrical structures of variable sign in spectrum of cascades with less sum energy. As it was shown in  these structures manifest themselves when the full energy peaks of high-energy cascades contain more than 1000 events. The use of the numerical algorithm for improvement of energy resolution  strengthens this effect. The shape of such structure is determined by the intensity of corresponding individual cascade with higher energy, choice of concrete windows “effect+background” and “background” (Fig. 1) and is due to inevitable discrepancy in positions of these intervals. Of course, similar effect exists and in the standard analysis of $`\gamma \gamma `$ coincidences but there it is well “masked”.

Precise enough and complete correction of corresponding distortions in the spectra, from which the data of Fig. 2 were obtained, can be calculated. This requires the data on the probability of simultaneous registration of quanta $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ in the full energy peaks for all possible most intense cascades with the higher energy (included cascades in other isotopes and elements situated in neutron beam). This procedure is absolutely necessary if $`HPGe`$ detectors with the efficiency more than 25-30% are used in the experiment.

### 3.2 The contribution of $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$

The contribution of $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ appears, in particular, in the sum coincidence spectrum as overlapping of full energy peaks related with cascade transitions in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$. As can be seen from Table 3, such overlapping affects 4 cascade intensity distributions measured in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$. It should be noted that this effect was taken into consideration only for final levels of cascades with $`J_f5/2`$ because, according to all previous experiments, the intensity of cascades which include even though one quadrupole transition is considerably less than that of cascades with two dipole transitions.

The overlapping of peaks corresponding to different isotopes brings in the necessity to remove well separated, intense cascades belonging to the $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ isotope from Table 1 and correct the data in Table 2 for its contribution. The correction has sense only if the cascades of $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ determine the major part of the area of a given doublet in the sum coincidence spectrum. As a result, the experimentally resolved cascades of $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ are removed from all 4 spectra.

The removed cascades are attributed to $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ if within the limits of three standard errors of determination of the intermediate level or $`\gamma `$-transition energy:

(a) intermediate levels with a corresponding energy are not observed in other 7 spectra of $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$; but

(b) the $`\gamma `$-transition with a close energy is observed in cascade primary transitions of $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$.

Of course, this procedure does not guarantee an absolute confidence of results. It is, however, more suitable for determination of the level energies than for the determination of decay modes of excited states. A number of cascade transitions observed with a relatively large mean error of determination of their energies ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.36`$ keV) does not allow one to suggest a more reliable method to exclude cascades belonging to $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$. Moreover, presently available  information on thermal neutron radiative capture spectra of $`{}_{}{}^{190,192}Os`$ is considerably poorer than the data obtained in the reported experiment and cannot be used to solve the problem under consideration.

Correction of the total cascade intensities (Table 2) for the contribution of $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ can be done in a simpler way. An analysis shows that the low-lying levels of $`{}_{}{}^{191,193}Os`$ with equal $`J_f^\pi `$ and the same structure are populated by two-step cascades with approximately equal probabilities. It should be noted that approximate equality of intensities is observed also for the cascades terminating at the levels with different spins $`J=1/2`$ or $`3/2`$ but equal parity. Therefore, the ratio between the contributions of two isotopes in the case of such $`J_f^\pi `$ was taken equal to the ratio between the number of neutron captures in $`{}_{}{}^{190}Os`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{192}Os`$. Besides, the intensity of cascades terminating at the $`J_f^\pi =5/2^{}`$ level of $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ was assumed to be two times less than the cascade intensity to the $`J=1/2,3/2`$ final levels of $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ under conditions of equality of numbers of neutron captures in both nuclei.

The results of the procedure are taken into account in the data listed in Table 2. Certainly, it is an approximate solution of the problem. Unresolved doublets represent an insignificant part of the total cascade intensity, however. Hence, one may expect negligible influence of the corresponding error on physical results.

The maximum number of primary transitions belonging to $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ (but entered in Table 1) can be estimated from frequency distribution of the difference between the energies of the primary transitions in corresponding spectroscopic data. Such frequency distribution for the 1 keV energy bins in $`{}_{}{}^{191,193}Os`$ is shown in Fig. 3. The enhanced (as compared with neighboring intervals) frequency of observation of the primary transitions with close energy can testify to admixture of the cascades of $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ in Table 1. Mistaken isotopic identification is observed, probably, for 39(16) transitions from more than 500 primary transitions measured in two isotopes. (Small but statistically significant deviation of the data given in Fig. 3 from zero can be related to error in energy calibration for different $`Os`$ isotopes). There is rather clear demonstration of reliability of the spectroscopic data obtained in our experiment.

### 3.3 Comparison with a known decay scheme

Investigation of cascade $`\gamma `$-decay of heavy compound nuclei is a sensitive tool for obtaining spectroscopic information and reliable establishing of a decay scheme up to the excitation energy of 3-4 MeV. The observation confidence of nuclear excited states is mainly determined by the intensity of populating cascades and depends weakly on the excitation energy. For these reasons, the decay scheme of $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ above $`1`$ MeV established in our experiment seems to be more precise and reliable than obtained earlier.

All observed by us levels of $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ with $`J<5/2`$ are listed in Table 1. The known decay scheme of this nucleus includes only the part of possible levels from those listed in Table 1. This is due to its construction mainly on the basis of spectra of the primary $`\gamma `$-transitions following thermal neutron radiative capture. These spectra, however, were measured at real detection threshold $`L_c5\times 10^3`$ events per decay. In our experiment there are observed the states of $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ populated by the cascades with the sum intensity exceeding $`24\times 10^4`$ events per decay. The energy of intermediate levels for the majority of these cascades was determined according to  reliably enough, too. In the case of low intensity cascades, quanta ordering was determined  only for part of them. Some of the cascades were observed only in one of 11 distributions and one cannot exclude that, possibly, some of the cascades listed in Table 1 can have the low energy primary and high energy secondary transitions.

## 4 Estimation of possible number of excited states below detection threshold

At zero detection threshold $`L_c=0`$ decay scheme would include the main part of excited states of the studied nucleus up to the excitation energy where the mean spacing between the levels is comparable with the widths of peaks (Fig. 2).

Of course, this is impossible. However, the most probable number of levels populated and by the cascades with $`<I_{\gamma \gamma }>L_c`$ can be estimated if it is taken into account that:

(a) intensity of cascades is the random value with the corresponding average and dispersion;

(b) usually $`L_c`$ is noticeably less than the mean intensity $`<I_{\gamma \gamma }>`$ of cascades summed over their final levels (for a given $`E_i`$).

Corresponding method of analysis is described in . Its main idea is that one can select such values of three parameters – the set of the mean intensities of cascades with $`E1`$ or $`M1`$ primary transitions (in reality - sum of intensities for each intermediate level), the total number of intermediate levels for a given interval of the excitation energy, and $`L_c`$ – which provide the best reproduction of the cumulative sum of intensities for $`<I_{\gamma \gamma }>>L_c`$. These parameters of approximation are extrapolated over all region of possible values of cascade intensities on the ground of the condition (b).

Experimental cumulative distribution of $`<I_{\gamma \gamma }>`$ for some energy intervals of their intermediate levels are compared with the results of the best approximation in Fig. 4. If fluctuations of partial widths of the primary transitions relative to their mean value are described by the Porter-Thomas distribution  than the best values of the obtained parameters allow the conclusion that:

1. Table 1 contains more than 99% of the total intensity of cascades populating the levels with $`E_i<3`$ MeV and $`E_f890`$ keV.

2. The function approximating experimental cumulative sums in the studied nucleus is identical in two possible variants:

(a) or the intensities of cascades with the $`E1`$ and $`M1`$ primary transitions and number of their intermediate levels practically are equal;

(b) or the mean intensity of these cascades differs from that of cascades with other type of the transitions by a factor of $``$ 100 and more and their number equals the sum of the probable number of the intermediate levels according to the variant (a).

3. At the excitation energy above $`2`$ MeV the analysis  gives considerably less number of levels than that predicted by the back-shifted Fermi-gas model with the parameters taken from .

Available information on the level density is compared in Fig. 5.

It should be noted that a decrease in the model level density used in calculation always leads to an increase in the intensity of the cascades proceeding between the compound state and any low-lying level. The use of the models of the radiative strength functions with the stronger energy dependence also leads to increase in cascade intensity. As it is seen from the Table 2, the calculated cascade intensity is considerably less than the experimental values. This result confirms the conclusions of the analysis  that the density of the levels excited in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ is considerably less than that predicted by the models which do not take into account the influence on nucleon pairing at $`E_{ex}>23`$ MeV or underestimate it . It should be noted also that $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ is the first nucleus where the calculated cascade intensities are stronger affected by choice the model of the radiative strength functions than by choice of the level density model. But on the whole, theoretical notions of the level density and radiative strength functions for $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ are to be developed completely in the same direction as that earlier obtained  for other nuclei.

## 5 Probable dominant component of the wave functions of the intermediate levels of most intense cascades

According to the modern theoretical notions, the wave function structure of any excited states is determined by co-existence and interaction between the fermion (quasiparticles) and boson (phonons) excitations. With the excitation energy a nucleus transits from practically mono-component excitations of the mentioned types to the mixed (quasiparticles $``$ phonons) states with rather different  degree of their fragmentation. This process should be investigated in details but there is no adequate experimental methods to study the structure of the wave functions above the excitation energy of 1-3 MeV.

Nevertheless, some information on the probable dominant components of wave functions of heavy deformed nuclei can be obtained. The authors of  suggested to search for the regularity in the excitation spectra of the intermediate levels of most intense cascades by means of auto-correlation analysis of the smoothed distributions of the sum cascade intensities from Table 1. Intensities were smoothed by means of the Gaussian function: $`F(E)=_EI_{\gamma \gamma }\times exp(0.5(\mathrm{\Delta }E/\sigma )^2)`$. The distribution of this type smoothed with the parameter $`\sigma =25`$ keV is given in Fig. 6 and the values of the auto-correlation function

$$A(T)=\underset{E}{}F(E)\times F(E+T)\times F(E+2T).$$
(2)
for different selection thresholds of intense cascades are shown in Fig. 7. As it was shown in  such analysis cannot give unique value of the equidistant period $`T`$ even for the simulated spectra (for example, for 25 “bands” consisting from 4 levels with slightly distorted equidistant period) and provide estimation of the confidence level of the observed effect. In principle, both problems can be solved in the experiments on the study of the two-step cascades in different resonances of the same nucleus. But some grounds to state that the regularity really exists can be obtained from a comparison of the most probable equidistant periods in different nuclei. The set of the probable equidistant periods obtained so far (Fig. 8) allows an assumption that the $`T`$ value is approximately proportional to the number of boson pairs of the unfilled nuclear shells. This allows one to consider the effect at the level of working hypothesis.

The regularity in the excitation spectra testifies to the harmonic nuclear vibrations. Thus, one can assume that the structure of the intermediate levels of the studied cascades contains considerable components of the rather weakly fragmented states like multi-quasiparticle excitations $``$ phonon or several phonons. This provides logical explanation of serious decrease in the observed level density as compared with the predictions of the non-interacting Fermi-gas model: nuclear excitation energy concentrates on phonos but quasiparticles up to the $`2`$ MeV are populate weakly or very weakly due to insufficiency of energy for breaking of paired nucleons.

## 6 Influence of structure of final level on cascade intensity

The structure of some levels of $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ is known: the ground state and level $`E_f`$=72 keV are the members of the rotational band $`[Nn_z\mathrm{\Lambda }]=[512]`$, levels $`E_f`$=41, 102, and, probably, 295 keV belong to the band $`[510]`$. It is seen from the Table 2 that the ratio between the experimental and calculated cascades intensities amounts on the average to 1.9 and 2.7 in the first and second cases, respectively. This discrepancy, as that observed earlier in other even-odd compound nuclei, may be related  with the influence of the structure of the cascade final level on mean probability of the cascade.

## 7 Conclusion

Information on two-step $`\gamma `$-cascades for a number of nuclei from the mass range $`114A200`$ (see, for example, ) from thermal neutron capture experiments forms a basis for study of the characteristics of the $`\gamma `$-decay process.

The results indicate necessity to modify model notions of the properties of the excited states of the heavy nuclei. The obtained information demonstrates that more correct description of the process under study requires more detailed accounting for co-existence and interaction of superfluid and normal phases of nuclear matter by the nuclear models. Achievement of complete correspondence between the observed and calculated parameters of nuclear reactions, for instance, neutron-induced reaction is impossible. This concerns, partially, the total radiative widths of neutron resonances and $`\gamma `$-spectrum .

This work was supported by GACR under contract No. 202/97/K038 and by RFBR Grant No. 99-02-17863.

Table 1.
A list of absolute intensities (per $`10^2`$ decays), $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$, of measured two-step cascades and energies, $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, of the cascade transitions, $`E_i`$ is the energy of the intermediate levels.

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5277.00 | 306.90(10) | 306.90 | 0.326(16) |
|  |  | 265.42 | 2.209(52) |
|  |  | 204.17 | 0.374(13) |
| 5033.00 | 550.90(20) | 448.17 | 0.032(4) |
| 5010.70 | 573.20(20) | 266.12 | 0.055(12) |
| 4996.30 | 587.60(10) | 353.74 | 0.041(6) |
| 4908.70 | 675.20(10) | 633.72 | 0.017(4) |
|  |  | 572.47 | 0.013(4) |
| 4795.40 | 788.50(10) | 788.50 | 0.025(5) |
| 4694.50 | 889.40(10) | 889.40 | 1.031(19) |
|  |  | 847.92 | 0.087(9) |
|  |  | 816.50 | 0.165(8) |
|  |  | 786.67 | 0.821(27) |
|  |  | 655.54 | 0.183(16) |
|  |  | 582.32 | 0.207(45) |
| 4617.00 | 966.90(18) | 671.22 | 0.014(4) |
|  |  | 567.88 | 0.011(3) |
| 4530.20 | 1053.70(20) | 1053.70 | 0.312(8) |
|  |  | 1012.22 | 0.688(15) |
|  |  | 980.80 | 0.065(5) |
|  |  | 950.97 | 5.791(49) |
|  |  | 746.62 | 0.500(38) |
| 4499.40 | 1084.50(45) | 1043.02 | 0.033(4) |
|  |  | 788.82 | 0.070(9) |
| 4413.20 | 1170.70(40) | 1170.70 | 0.097(8) |
|  |  | 1129.22 | 0.806(24) |
|  |  | 1097.80 | 0.171(10) |
|  |  | 1067.97 | 0.226(10) |
|  |  | 936.84 | 0.176(16) |
|  |  | 875.02 | 0.161(12) |
|  |  | 863.62 | 0.034(11) |
|  |  | 714.93 | 0.030(6) |
|  |  | 461.50 | 0.083(7) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4405.60 | 1178.30(20) | 1178.30 | 0.717(19) |
|  |  | 1136.82 | 0.029(6) |
|  |  | 1105.40 | 0.107(8) |
|  |  | 1075.57 | 0.342(11) |
|  |  | 871.22 | 0.097(15) |
|  |  | 779.28 | 0.020(7) |
|  |  | 722.53 | 0.131(9) |
| 4398.50 | 1185.40(20) | 1082.67 | 0.023(6) |
| 4378.70 | 1205.20(50) | 1163.72 | 0.076(9) |
|  |  | 1102.47 | 0.097(6) |
| 4366.40 | 1217.50(26) | 1217.50 | 0.176(9) |
|  |  | 1176.02 | 0.593(21) |
|  |  | 1144.60 | 0.090(8) |
|  |  | 1114.77 | 0.433(13) |
|  |  | 921.82 | 0.024(7) |
|  |  | 910.42 | 0.066(12) |
|  |  | 818.48 | 0.094(10) |
|  |  | 761.73 | 0.072(6) |
| 4358.20 | 1225.70(41) | 1184.22 | 0.026(6) |
|  |  | 1152.80 | 0.020(6) |
|  |  | 769.93 | 0.448(16) |
| 4339.30 | 1244.60(39) | 1203.12 | 0.015(6) |
|  |  | 788.83 | 0.062(6) |
| 4316.60 | 1267.30(27) | 1164.57 | 0.093(10) |
| 4301.00 | 1282.90(20) | 1282.90 | 0.170(9) |
|  |  | 1241.42 | 0.100(6) |
|  |  | 1210.00 | 0.036(4) |
|  |  | 1180.17 | 0.068(8) |
|  |  | 987.22 | 0.032(7) |
|  |  | 883.88 | 0.119(14) |
|  |  | 573.70 | 0.031(6) |
| 4295.30 | 1288.60(10) | 1288.60 | 0.630(18) |
|  |  | 1247.12 | 0.127(6) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1215.70 | 0.014(4) |
|  |  | 1185.87 | 0.040(8) |
|  |  | 992.92 | 0.064(7) |
|  |  | 889.58 | 0.081(11) |
|  |  | 579.40 | 0.063(6) |
|  |  | 399.12 | 0.115(12) |
| 4250.40 | 1333.50(30) | 1333.50 | 0.060(5) |
|  |  | 1292.02 | 0.083(6) |
|  |  | 1260.60 | 0.017(4) |
|  |  | 1230.77 | 0.448(17) |
|  |  | 1099.64 | 0.112(14) |
|  |  | 1037.82 | 0.021(7) |
|  |  | 934.48 | 0.026(9) |
|  |  | 877.73 | 0.029(12) |
| 4224.30 | 1359.60(30) | 1359.60 | 0.045(5) |
|  |  | 1318.12 | 0.059(5) |
|  |  | 1286.70 | 0.035(4) |
|  |  | 1256.87 | 0.108(10) |
|  |  | 1125.74 | 0.851(37) |
|  |  | 1063.92 | 0.047(5) |
|  |  | 1052.52 | 0.065(6) |
|  |  | 960.58 | 0.144(15) |
|  |  | 903.83 | 0.095(14) |
| 4200.30 | 1383.60(30) | 1076.52 | 0.029(6) |
| 4197.90 | 1386.00(80) | 1386.00 | 0.754(18) |
|  |  | 1344.52 | 0.140(9) |
|  |  | 1313.10 | 0.029(5) |
|  |  | 1283.27 | 0.019(4) |
|  |  | 1090.32 | 0.027(5) |
|  |  | 1078.92 | 0.096(7) |
| 4185.70 | 1398.20(36) | 1398.20 | 0.069(8) |
|  |  | 1325.30 | 0.032(5) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4183.90 | 1400.00(30) | 1400.00 | 0.034(6) |
|  |  | 1358.52 | 0.017(6) |
|  |  | 1297.27 | 0.199(8) |
|  |  | 1092.92 | 0.043(6) |
| 4165.90 | 1418.00(26) | 1418.00 | 0.066(6) |
|  |  | 1376.52 | 0.016(5) |
|  |  | 1345.10 | 0.045(5) |
|  |  | 1122.32 | 0.022(5) |
| 4149.90 | 1434.00(70) | 1434.00 | 0.014(5) |
| 4137.40 | 1446.50(57) | 1373.60 | 0.112(6) |
| 4086.50 | 1497.40(45) | 1497.40 | 0.018(5) |
| 4079.80 | 1504.10(41) | 1504.10 | 0.024(5) |
|  |  | 1401.37 | 0.025(6) |
|  |  | 1270.24 | 0.070(6) |
|  |  | 1048.33 | 0.038(9) |
| 4068.30 | 1515.60(100) | 1515.60 | 0.021(5) |
|  |  | 1474.12 | 0.051(6) |
|  |  | 1412.87 | 0.085(8) |
|  |  | 1219.92 | 0.054(8) |
|  |  | 1208.52 | 0.200(11) |
|  |  | 1116.58 | 0.083(11) |
|  |  | 1059.83 | 0.060(10) |
| 4060.40 | 1523.50(40) | 1523.50 | 0.069(6) |
|  |  | 1482.02 | 0.067(6) |
|  |  | 1420.77 | 0.207(11) |
|  |  | 1216.42 | 0.207(11) |
| 4053.60 | 1530.30(29) | 1488.82 | 0.248(10) |
|  |  | 1427.57 | 0.327(13) |
|  |  | 1234.62 | 0.037(8) |
|  |  | 1223.22 | 0.062(6) |
|  |  | 1131.28 | 0.035(11) |
| 4028.10 | 1555.80(20) | 1514.32 | 0.060(6) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1248.72 | 0.035(6) |
| 3993.00 | 1590.90(80) | 1590.90 | 0.222(11) |
|  |  | 1549.42 | 0.040(5) |
|  |  | 1518.00 | 0.049(5) |
|  |  | 1488.17 | 0.087(8) |
|  |  | 1295.22 | 0.046(6) |
|  |  | 1283.82 | 0.139(12) |
| 3980.70 | 1603.20(32) | 1603.20 | 0.046(6) |
|  |  | 1561.72 | 0.671(17) |
|  |  | 1530.30 | 0.023(5) |
|  |  | 1500.47 | 0.610(17) |
|  |  | 1369.34 | 0.029(6) |
|  |  | 1307.52 | 0.178(10) |
|  |  | 1296.12 | 0.272(16) |
|  |  | 1204.18 | 0.212(16) |
|  |  | 1147.43 | 0.155(14) |
| 3923.60 | 1660.30(30) | 1618.82 | 0.017(5) |
| 3903.60 | 1680.30(42) | 1373.22 | 0.024(8) |
| 3900.60 | 1683.30(17) | 1683.30 | 0.091(9) |
|  |  | 1641.82 | 0.350(12) |
|  |  | 1610.40 | 0.021(5) |
|  |  | 1580.57 | 0.445(15) |
|  |  | 1449.44 | 0.250(12) |
|  |  | 1387.62 | 0.138(9) |
|  |  | 1376.22 | 0.072(9) |
|  |  | 974.10 | 0.042(6) |
| 3861.40 | 1722.50(30) | 1722.50 | 0.019(5) |
|  |  | 1619.77 | 0.017(6) |
|  |  | 1426.82 | 0.018(6) |
| 3852.30 | 1731.60(33) | 842.12 | 0.058(9) |
| 3846.30 | 1737.60(60) | 1634.87 | 0.025(6) |
| 3839.00 | 1744.90(90) | 1672.00 | 0.016(5) |
|  |  | 1289.13 | 0.016(5) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3829.70 | 1754.20(110) | 1754.20 | 0.016(5) |
|  |  | 1520.34 | 0.016(4) |
| 3823.50 | 1760.40(20) | 1657.67 | 0.047(8) |
|  |  | 1526.54 | 0.014(4) |
| 3818.80 | 1765.10(85) | 1723.62 | 0.074(6) |
|  |  | 1692.20 | 0.027(5) |
|  |  | 1662.37 | 0.108(8) |
|  |  | 1531.24 | 0.102(6) |
|  |  | 1458.02 | 0.117(8) |
|  |  | 1366.08 | 0.056(5) |
|  |  | 1309.33 | 0.048(5) |
|  |  | 1055.90 | 0.025(6) |
| 3800.10 | 1783.80(90) | 1783.80 | 0.065(6) |
|  |  | 1742.32 | 0.112(7) |
|  |  | 1710.90 | 0.033(5) |
|  |  | 1549.94 | 0.129(7) |
|  |  | 1488.12 | 0.025(5) |
|  |  | 1476.72 | 0.035(6) |
|  |  | 1384.78 | 0.035(5) |
|  |  | 1328.03 | 0.030(5) |
| 3788.10 | 1795.80(43) | 1693.07 | 0.021(6) |
|  |  | 1561.94 | 0.019(4) |
| 3785.00 | 1798.90(50) | 1565.04 | 0.030(4) |
| 3781.90 | 1802.00(75) | 1760.52 | 0.022(5) |
| 3778.80 | 1805.10(34) | 1805.10 | 0.026(5) |
| 3757.20 | 1826.70(90) | 1826.70 | 0.018(5) |
|  |  | 1753.80 | 0.014(5) |
| 3752.80 | 1831.10(28) | 1831.10 | 0.029(5) |
|  |  | 1789.62 | 0.037(5) |
|  |  | 1758.20 | 0.032(5) |
|  |  | 1597.24 | 0.037(4) |
|  |  | 1535.42 | 0.027(5) |
|  |  | 1524.02 | 0.018(6) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1432.08 | 0.020(4) |
|  |  | 1375.33 | 0.022(5) |
| 3745.60 | 1838.30(20) | 1765.40 | 0.021(5) |
|  |  | 1735.57 | 0.025(6) |
|  |  | 1604.44 | 0.073(5) |
|  |  | 1531.22 | 0.399(15) |
|  |  | 1129.10 | 0.051(9) |
| 3736.80 | 1847.10(52) | 1847.10 | 0.026(6) |
|  |  | 1805.62 | 0.065(6) |
|  |  | 1774.20 | 0.024(5) |
|  |  | 1744.37 | 0.080(8) |
|  |  | 1551.42 | 0.019(5) |
|  |  | 1540.02 | 0.028(6) |
|  |  | 1448.08 | 0.073(5) |
|  |  | 1137.90 | 0.047(9) |
| 3730.30 | 1853.60(92) | 1619.74 | 0.016(4) |
| 3721.20 | 1862.70(80) | 1759.97 | 0.029(6) |
| 3709.30 | 1874.60(45) | 1874.60 | 0.031(10) |
| 3695.00 | 1888.90(84) | 1816.00 | 0.029(5) |
|  |  | 1786.17 | 0.032(8) |
|  |  | 1489.88 | 0.024(5) |
|  |  | 1179.70 | 0.037(9) |
| 3691.30 | 1892.60(27) | 1892.60 | 0.025(10) |
|  |  | 1851.12 | 0.040(5) |
|  |  | 1819.70 | 0.040(5) |
|  |  | 1436.83 | 0.021(6) |
| 3675.30 | 1908.60(35) | 1867.12 | 0.015(5) |
|  |  | 1509.58 | 0.032(6) |
|  |  | 1452.83 | 0.025(6) |
| 3668.60 | 1915.30(43) | 1915.30 | 0.029(10) |
|  |  | 1873.82 | 0.411(12) |
|  |  | 1812.57 | 0.030(6) |
|  |  | 1681.44 | 0.294(10) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1608.22 | 0.416(16) |
|  |  | 1516.28 | 0.019(6) |
|  |  | 1459.53 | 0.022(6) |
| 3662.70 | 1921.20(30) | 1848.30 | 0.013(5) |
|  |  | 1818.47 | 0.030(6) |
| 3651.80 | 1932.10(60) | 1890.62 | 0.028(5) |
|  |  | 1859.20 | 0.089(5) |
| 3648.80 | 1935.10(16) | 1935.10 | 0.023(10) |
|  |  | 1832.37 | 0.082(6) |
|  |  | 1536.08 | 0.023(5) |
| 3645.30 | 1938.60(44) | 1938.60 | 0.321(24) |
|  |  | 1897.12 | 0.048(5) |
| 3634.90 | 1949.00(42) | 1641.92 | 0.018(6) |
| 3629.10 | 1954.80(20) | 1852.07 | 0.355(11) |
|  |  | 1720.94 | 0.022(4) |
|  |  | 1647.72 | 0.016(6) |
|  |  | 1499.03 | 0.017(5) |
| 3606.50 | 1977.40(90) | 1935.92 | 0.037(5) |
|  |  | 1743.54 | 0.030(4) |
|  |  | 1670.32 | 0.107(8) |
|  |  | 1578.38 | 0.021(5) |
|  |  | 1087.92 | 0.054(10) |
| 3600.50 | 1983.40(22) | 1983.40 | 0.160(16) |
|  |  | 1910.50 | 0.067(5) |
|  |  | 1880.67 | 0.070(6) |
|  |  | 1749.54 | 0.015(4) |
|  |  | 1687.72 | 0.020(6) |
| 3594.10 | 1989.80(60) | 1755.94 | 0.020(4) |
| 3581.80 | 2002.10(28) | 1960.62 | 0.210(11) |
|  |  | 1929.20 | 0.087(6) |
|  |  | 1768.24 | 0.048(5) |
|  |  | 1706.42 | 0.039(6) |
|  |  | 1695.02 | 0.040(6) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1603.08 | 0.025(6) |
| 3570.30 | 2013.60(37) | 1972.12 | 0.123(9) |
|  |  | 1910.87 | 0.032(6) |
|  |  | 1779.74 | 0.015(4) |
|  |  | 1706.52 | 0.051(6) |
|  |  | 1557.83 | 0.017(6) |
|  |  | 1124.12 | 0.094(10) |
| 3563.10 | 2020.80(80) | 1786.94 | 0.022(4) |
|  |  | 1713.72 | 0.021(6) |
| 3559.60 | 2024.30(55) | 1982.82 | 0.027(6) |
| 3546.50 | 2037.40(80) | 1803.54 | 0.030(5) |
|  |  | 1741.72 | 0.022(6) |
|  |  | 1730.32 | 0.018(5) |
|  |  | 1581.63 | 0.030(6) |
| 3544.00 | 2039.90(70) | 2039.90 | 0.043(5) |
|  |  | 1732.82 | 0.021(5) |
| 3535.80 | 2048.10(30) | 2048.10 | 0.141(8) |
|  |  | 1945.37 | 0.049(8) |
|  |  | 1814.24 | 0.049(6) |
|  |  | 1741.02 | 0.040(5) |
| 3533.10 | 2050.80(80) | 1816.94 | 0.023(5) |
|  |  | 1755.12 | 0.046(6) |
|  |  | 1651.78 | 0.046(5) |
| 3530.40 | 2053.50(85) | 1950.77 | 0.080(10) |
| 3524.20 | 2059.70(20) | 2018.22 | 0.018(6) |
| 3519.80 | 2064.10(16) | 2064.10 | 0.039(5) |
|  |  | 2022.62 | 0.051(7) |
|  |  | 1991.20 | 0.076(6) |
|  |  | 1961.37 | 0.097(10) |
|  |  | 1757.02 | 0.053(5) |
|  |  | 1665.08 | 0.059(6) |
|  |  | 1608.33 | 0.049(6) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1354.90 | 0.019(7) |
| 3516.30 | 2067.60(8) | 2067.60 | 0.030(5) |
|  |  | 1833.74 | 0.082(6) |
|  |  | 1760.52 | 0.043(5) |
|  |  | 1178.12 | 0.052(8) |
| 3505.60 | 2078.30(50) | 2078.30 | 0.039(5) |
|  |  | 2036.82 | 0.295(12) |
|  |  | 2005.40 | 0.031(5) |
|  |  | 1844.44 | 0.052(5) |
|  |  | 1782.62 | 0.020(6) |
|  |  | 1771.22 | 0.115(7) |
|  |  | 1679.28 | 0.027(5) |
|  |  | 1622.53 | 0.043(6) |
|  |  | 1369.10 | 0.026(7) |
|  |  | 1188.82 | 0.032(8) |
| 3502.80 | 2081.10(46) | 2008.20 | 0.054(5) |
|  |  | 1978.37 | 0.042(8) |
|  |  | 1785.42 | 0.027(6) |
|  |  | 1774.02 | 0.035(5) |
|  |  | 1682.08 | 0.052(6) |
|  |  | 1625.33 | 0.025(6) |
| 3491.00 | 2092.90(20) | 2092.90 | 0.020(5) |
|  |  | 2020.00 | 0.022(5) |
|  |  | 1990.17 | 0.038(8) |
|  |  | 1859.04 | 0.032(5) |
|  |  | 1797.22 | 0.038(6) |
|  |  | 1693.88 | 0.111(7) |
|  |  | 1203.42 | 0.028(8) |
| 3485.90 | 2098.00(48) | 2098.00 | 0.024(5) |
|  |  | 2056.52 | 0.021(6) |
|  |  | 1995.27 | 0.021(8) |
|  |  | 1864.14 | 0.045(5) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1802.32 | 0.023(6) |
|  |  | 1790.92 | 0.020(5) |
|  |  | 1388.80 | 0.047(7) |
|  |  | 1208.52 | 0.045(8) |
| 3480.50 | 2103.40(40) | 2061.92 | 0.018(6) |
|  |  | 1807.72 | 0.018(6) |
| 3475.80 | 2108.10(80) | 1874.24 | 0.022(6) |
| 3472.20 | 2111.70(70) | 2111.70 | 0.024(5) |
|  |  | 1222.22 | 0.034(8) |
| 3468.00 | 2115.90(50) | 2074.42 | 0.032(6) |
| 3459.80 | 2124.10(32) | 2021.37 | 0.046(8) |
|  |  | 1890.24 | 0.022(4) |
| 3457.50 | 2126.40(32) | 2084.92 | 0.032(6) |
|  |  | 1819.32 | 0.032(5) |
| 3450.90 | 2133.00(67) | 2133.00 | 0.030(5) |
|  |  | 2030.27 | 0.017(6) |
|  |  | 1899.14 | 0.054(7) |
|  |  | 1837.32 | 0.037(5) |
|  |  | 1733.98 | 0.037(5) |
|  |  | 1677.23 | 0.054(6) |
|  |  | 1243.52 | 0.168(9) |
| 3449.70 | 2134.20(40) | 2134.20 | 0.021(5) |
|  |  | 1900.34 | 0.048(6) |
|  |  | 1827.12 | 0.086(6) |
| 3440.40 | 2143.50(42) | 2040.77 | 0.015(6) |
| 3433.30 | 2150.60(52) | 2109.12 | 0.018(7) |
|  |  | 1854.92 | 0.023(5) |
| 3430.10 | 2153.80(60) | 2051.07 | 0.061(8) |
|  |  | 1858.12 | 0.039(5) |
| 3426.80 | 2157.10(10) | 2157.10 | 0.030(5) |
|  |  | 1850.02 | 0.028(5) |
| 3420.20 | 2163.70(50) | 2090.80 | 0.042(5) |
|  |  | 1929.84 | 0.026(4) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1707.93 | 0.021(6) |
| 3415.20 | 2168.70(40) | 2168.70 | 0.111(8) |
|  |  | 2127.22 | 0.187(11) |
|  |  | 2065.97 | 0.017(6) |
|  |  | 1873.02 | 0.023(5) |
|  |  | 1861.62 | 0.026(5) |
|  |  | 1769.68 | 0.049(5) |
| 3405.80 | 2178.10(10) | 1288.62 | 0.042(11) |
| 3402.60 | 2181.30(80) | 2139.82 | 0.056(7) |
|  |  | 2108.40 | 0.019(5) |
| 3398.50 | 2185.40(50) | 2143.92 | 0.017(6) |
|  |  | 2082.67 | 0.146(10) |
|  |  | 1878.32 | 0.023(11) |
|  |  | 1295.92 | 0.048(11) |
| 3391.50 | 2192.40(22) | 2150.92 | 0.063(7) |
|  |  | 2089.67 | 0.078(8) |
|  |  | 1483.20 | 0.029(8) |
| 3388.90 | 2195.00(31) | 2092.27 | 0.046(8) |
|  |  | 1887.92 | 0.216(19) |
|  |  | 1795.98 | 0.016(5) |
|  |  | 1305.52 | 0.082(11) |
| 3378.80 | 2205.10(35) | 2102.37 | 0.040(6) |
|  |  | 1806.08 | 0.018(5) |
| 3365.30 | 2218.60(25) | 2218.60 | 0.030(5) |
|  |  | 1984.74 | 0.073(6) |
|  |  | 1922.92 | 0.033(5) |
|  |  | 1819.58 | 0.014(5) |
| 3361.90 | 2222.00(26) | 2222.00 | 0.014(5) |
|  |  | 1988.14 | 0.024(5) |
| 3358.80 | 2225.10(30) | 2183.62 | 0.251(12) |
|  |  | 1929.42 | 0.026(5) |
| 3353.30 | 2230.60(28) | 2230.60 | 0.023(5) |
|  |  | 2127.87 | 0.042(6) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3349.30 | 2234.60(70) | 2234.60 | 0.021(5) |
| 3344.00 | 2239.90(50) | 2198.42 | 0.021(6) |
| 3337.60 | 2246.30(70) | 2204.82 | 0.029(6) |
| 3334.80 | 2249.10(20) | 2176.20 | 0.152(9) |
|  |  | 2146.37 | 0.067(8) |
|  |  | 1942.02 | 0.380(25) |
|  |  | 1850.08 | 0.088(7) |
|  |  | 1359.62 | 0.058(11) |
| 3334.70 | 2249.20(95) | 1540.00 | 0.061(12) |
| 3333.00 | 2250.90(70) | 2250.90 | 0.602(26) |
|  |  | 2209.42 | 0.028(6) |
| 3328.00 | 2255.90(20) | 2153.17 | 0.021(6) |
|  |  | 1948.82 | 0.031(11) |
| 3325.50 | 2258.40(40) | 2258.40 | 0.024(9) |
|  |  | 1859.38 | 0.022(5) |
| 3305.20 | 2278.70(20) | 2205.80 | 0.028(5) |
|  |  | 2175.97 | 0.021(6) |
|  |  | 1983.02 | 0.020(6) |
| 3298.50 | 2285.40(40) | 2182.67 | 0.055(6) |
| 3293.40 | 2290.50(30) | 2290.50 | 0.020(8) |
|  |  | 2249.02 | 0.033(5) |
| 3289.60 | 2294.30(31) | 2294.30 | 0.021(8) |
| 3286.60 | 2297.30(60) | 2255.82 | 0.032(5) |
|  |  | 2224.40 | 0.033(5) |
|  |  | 2194.57 | 0.017(6) |
| 3273.90 | 2310.00(15) | 2310.00 | 0.052(14) |
|  |  | 2268.52 | 0.045(5) |
|  |  | 2076.14 | 0.035(16) |
| 3268.00 | 2315.90(78) | 2315.90 | 0.026(9) |
|  |  | 2274.42 | 0.056(5) |
|  |  | 2020.22 | 0.022(6) |
|  |  | 2008.82 | 0.020(8) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 1860.13 | 0.064(8) |
| 3263.40 | 2320.50(27) | 2320.50 | 0.107(13) |
|  |  | 2217.77 | 0.076(6) |
|  |  | 2086.64 | 0.078(7) |
|  |  | 2024.82 | 0.020(6) |
| 3257.80 | 2326.10(90) | 2326.10 | 0.066(10) |
|  |  | 2284.62 | 0.048(5) |
|  |  | 2223.37 | 0.291(11) |
|  |  | 2030.42 | 0.027(6) |
| 3251.30 | 2332.60(29) | 2291.12 | 0.016(5) |
|  |  | 2229.87 | 0.017(6) |
| 3243.80 | 2340.10(42) | 2298.62 | 0.026(5) |
| 3241.00 | 2342.90(80) | 2301.42 | 0.029(5) |
|  |  | 2240.17 | 0.055(6) |
| 3235.90 | 2348.00(24) | 2348.00 | 0.032(5) |
|  |  | 2306.52 | 0.110(6) |
|  |  | 2245.27 | 0.055(6) |
|  |  | 2114.14 | 0.029(6) |
| 3233.50 | 2350.40(40) | 2043.32 | 0.019(8) |
| 3223.00 | 2360.90(75) | 2127.04 | 0.021(6) |
| 3219.70 | 2364.20(37) | 2364.20 | 0.024(5) |
|  |  | 2261.47 | 0.025(6) |
| 3215.90 | 2368.00(29) | 2326.52 | 0.052(6) |
|  |  | 2265.27 | 0.093(8) |
|  |  | 2134.14 | 0.172(11) |
|  |  | 2060.92 | 0.019(8) |
|  |  | 1478.52 | 0.064(8) |
| 3210.80 | 2373.10(34) | 2373.10 | 0.016(5) |
| 3202.90 | 2381.00(27) | 2381.00 | 0.043(5) |
|  |  | 2308.10 | 0.019(5) |
|  |  | 2073.92 | 0.020(8) |
|  |  | 1491.52 | 0.033(8) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3194.80 | 2389.10(43) | 2389.10 | 0.153(10) |
|  |  | 2347.62 | 0.026(6) |
|  |  | 2286.37 | 0.055(6) |
|  |  | 2155.24 | 0.020(5) |
|  |  | 2093.42 | 0.023(6) |
|  |  | 1990.08 | 0.022(9) |
|  |  | 1933.33 | 0.028(10) |
|  |  | 1499.62 | 0.065(8) |
| 3187.60 | 2396.30(31) | 2396.30 | 0.046(5) |
| 3176.90 | 2407.00(47) | 2407.00 | 0.024(5) |
|  |  | 2365.52 | 0.072(6) |
|  |  | 2304.27 | 0.080(8) |
|  |  | 2111.32 | 0.041(7) |
|  |  | 2007.98 | 0.031(9) |
| 3169.90 | 2414.00(85) | 2372.52 | 0.021(6) |
| 3162.90 | 2421.00(27) | 2379.52 | 0.070(7) |
|  |  | 2021.98 | 0.017(5) |
|  |  | 1531.52 | 0.042(9) |
| 3157.10 | 2426.80(40) | 2426.80 | 0.055(6) |
|  |  | 2324.07 | 0.036(6) |
|  |  | 2192.94 | 0.017(5) |
| 3152.60 | 2431.30(80) | 2431.30 | 0.047(6) |
|  |  | 2328.57 | 0.093(10) |
| 3151.10 | 2432.80(40) | 2432.80 | 0.019(5) |
|  |  | 2391.32 | 0.155(9) |
|  |  | 2330.07 | 0.019(8) |
|  |  | 2125.72 | 0.037(9) |
|  |  | 2033.78 | 0.019(5) |
| 3146.20 | 2437.70(40) | 2396.22 | 0.017(6) |
| 3141.40 | 2442.50(52) | 2442.50 | 0.032(5) |
| 3136.90 | 2447.00(100) | 2405.52 | 0.051(6) |
|  |  | 2151.32 | 0.019(6) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3133.80 | 2450.10(55) | 2377.20 | 0.015(5) |
|  |  | 2347.37 | 0.019(6) |
| 3125.40 | 2458.50(20) | 2355.77 | 0.027(6) |
|  |  | 2151.42 | 0.017(6) |
| 3122.20 | 2461.70(50) | 2461.70 | 0.027(5) |
|  |  | 2227.84 | 0.110(7) |
|  |  | 2154.62 | 0.031(6) |
| 3116.20 | 2467.70(50) | 2426.22 | 0.052(6) |
|  |  | 2364.97 | 0.021(6) |
|  |  | 2233.84 | 0.022(5) |
|  |  | 2160.62 | 0.019(6) |
|  |  | 2068.68 | 0.020(5) |
|  |  | 2011.93 | 0.025(10) |
| 3113.50 | 2470.40(29) | 2470.40 | 0.025(8) |
|  |  | 2163.32 | 0.025(6) |
| 3099.60 | 2484.30(20) | 2442.82 | 0.057(6) |
|  |  | 2381.57 | 0.023(6) |
|  |  | 2250.44 | 0.035(5) |
| 3097.20 | 2486.70(65) | 2179.62 | 0.016(6) |
| 3094.30 | 2489.60(25) | 2489.60 | 0.044(6) |
|  |  | 2386.87 | 0.021(8) |
|  |  | 2182.52 | 0.024(6) |
|  |  | 2090.58 | 0.033(5) |
| 3088.90 | 2495.00(70) | 2422.10 | 0.070(5) |
|  |  | 2261.14 | 0.015(5) |
|  |  | 2187.92 | 0.024(5) |
|  |  | 2039.23 | 0.063(7) |
| 3084.20 | 2499.70(24) | 2499.70 | 0.027(6) |
|  |  | 2458.22 | 0.077(15) |
|  |  | 2426.80 | 0.027(5) |
|  |  | 2396.97 | 0.021(8) |
|  |  | 2265.84 | 0.025(5) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 2204.02 | 0.051(6) |
| 3080.40 | 2503.50(32) | 2503.50 | 0.019(6) |
| 3077.60 | 2506.30(100) | 2433.40 | 0.045(5) |
| 3075.60 | 2508.30(25) | 2508.30 | 0.083(8) |
|  |  | 2466.82 | 0.034(7) |
|  |  | 2405.57 | 0.027(8) |
|  |  | 2274.44 | 0.073(6) |
|  |  | 2201.22 | 0.022(5) |
|  |  | 2109.28 | 0.020(5) |
|  |  | 2052.53 | 0.044(6) |
| 3072.10 | 2511.80(70) | 2511.80 | 0.031(6) |
|  |  | 2438.90 | 0.040(5) |
|  |  | 2409.07 | 0.070(10) |
|  |  | 2204.72 | 0.023(6) |
|  |  | 2112.78 | 0.086(6) |
|  |  | 2056.03 | 0.028(6) |
| 3069.80 | 2514.10(6) | 2514.10 | 0.026(6) |
|  |  | 2472.62 | 0.023(7) |
|  |  | 2280.24 | 0.039(5) |
|  |  | 2218.42 | 0.020(6) |
|  |  | 2207.02 | 0.027(6) |
| 3064.70 | 2519.20(50) | 2519.20 | 0.032(6) |
|  |  | 2477.72 | 0.032(7) |
|  |  | 2446.30 | 0.018(5) |
|  |  | 2416.47 | 0.034(8) |
|  |  | 2063.43 | 0.035(6) |
| 3055.50 | 2528.40(50) | 2528.40 | 0.015(6) |
|  |  | 2455.50 | 0.030(5) |
|  |  | 2425.67 | 0.019(8) |
|  |  | 2072.63 | 0.026(6) |
| 3053.00 | 2530.90(40) | 2223.82 | 0.021(6) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3050.20 | 2533.70(70) | 2533.70 | 0.105(9) |
|  |  | 2299.84 | 0.058(5) |
| 3042.10 | 2541.80(40) | 2541.80 | 0.015(6) |
|  |  | 2468.90 | 0.022(6) |
|  |  | 2439.07 | 0.076(10) |
|  |  | 2307.94 | 0.052(5) |
|  |  | 2234.72 | 0.051(6) |
|  |  | 2086.03 | 0.051(6) |
| 3035.70 | 2548.20(60) | 2445.47 | 0.044(8) |
|  |  | 2314.34 | 0.093(6) |
|  |  | 2252.52 | 0.029(7) |
| 3032.60 | 2551.30(90) | 2551.30 | 0.144(10) |
| 3029.30 | 2554.60(80) | 2554.60 | 0.016(6) |
|  |  | 2247.52 | 0.019(6) |
| 3025.80 | 2558.10(44) | 2516.62 | 0.081(7) |
|  |  | 2251.02 | 0.022(6) |
| 3023.50 | 2560.40(30) | 2487.50 | 0.030(5) |
|  |  | 2457.67 | 0.030(8) |
|  |  | 2326.54 | 0.035(5) |
|  |  | 2253.32 | 0.040(6) |
| 3016.80 | 2567.10(15) | 2567.10 | 0.070(9) |
|  |  | 2525.62 | 0.040(6) |
|  |  | 2494.20 | 0.057(6) |
|  |  | 2260.02 | 0.042(6) |
|  |  | 2168.08 | 0.034(6) |
|  |  | 2111.33 | 0.047(6) |
| 3005.90 | 2578.00(50) | 2344.14 | 0.027(9) |
| 3003.80 | 2580.10(34) | 2538.62 | 0.032(6) |
|  |  | 2507.20 | 0.045(5) |
|  |  | 2477.37 | 0.158(10) |
|  |  | 2346.24 | 0.052(9) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 2284.42 | 0.024(6) |
|  |  | 2124.33 | 0.037(6) |
| 2998.90 | 2585.00(85) | 2585.00 | 0.018(6) |
|  |  | 2543.52 | 0.030(6) |
| 2986.50 | 2597.40(30) | 2597.40 | 0.067(9) |
|  |  | 2363.54 | 0.019(5) |
| 2981.10 | 2602.80(80) | 2602.80 | 0.021(6) |
|  |  | 2561.32 | 0.029(7) |
|  |  | 2529.90 | 0.043(5) |
|  |  | 2203.78 | 0.028(6) |
|  |  | 2147.03 | 0.022(6) |
| 2977.00 | 2606.90(32) | 2504.17 | 0.023(6) |
| 2972.60 | 2611.30(25) | 2611.30 | 0.020(6) |
|  |  | 2569.82 | 0.233(13) |
|  |  | 2508.57 | 0.049(6) |
|  |  | 2315.62 | 0.048(6) |
|  |  | 1902.10 | 0.030(8) |
| 2969.20 | 2614.70(14) | 2380.84 | 0.028(5) |
| 2954.60 | 2629.30(24) | 2526.57 | 0.044(6) |
|  |  | 2322.22 | 0.015(6) |
| 2951.60 | 2632.30(10) | 2632.30 | 0.049(8) |
|  |  | 2590.82 | 0.041(7) |
|  |  | 2529.57 | 0.030(6) |
| 2946.10 | 2637.80(30) | 2637.80 | 0.018(6) |
|  |  | 2596.32 | 0.039(6) |
|  |  | 2535.07 | 0.015(6) |
| 2927.30 | 2656.60(42) | 2656.60 | 0.043(6) |
|  |  | 2615.12 | 0.057(7) |
|  |  | 2553.87 | 0.040(8) |
| 2922.10 | 2661.80(35) | 2354.72 | 0.020(6) |
| 2912.50 | 2671.40(30) | 2671.40 | 0.125(11) |
|  |  | 2629.92 | 0.077(7) |
|  |  | 2598.50 | 0.040(6) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 2568.67 | 0.057(11) |
|  |  | 2437.54 | 0.035(6) |
|  |  | 2364.32 | 0.060(6) |
| 2904.30 | 2679.60(50) | 2679.60 | 0.030(8) |
|  |  | 2638.12 | 0.035(6) |
|  |  | 2445.74 | 0.022(6) |
|  |  | 2280.58 | 0.072(6) |
| 2896.80 | 2687.10(14) | 2645.62 | 0.032(6) |
|  |  | 2614.20 | 0.026(6) |
| 2893.70 | 2690.20(35) | 2648.72 | 0.028(6) |
|  |  | 2456.34 | 0.033(7) |
| 2890.00 | 2693.90(52) | 2621.00 | 0.026(6) |
|  |  | 2591.17 | 0.019(6) |
| 2886.90 | 2697.00(50) | 2594.27 | 0.047(8) |
|  |  | 2463.14 | 0.030(7) |
|  |  | 2401.32 | 0.051(8) |
|  |  | 2389.92 | 0.019(6) |
| 2884.40 | 2699.50(70) | 2699.50 | 0.076(8) |
|  |  | 2658.02 | 0.041(7) |
|  |  | 2626.60 | 0.024(6) |
|  |  | 2596.77 | 0.101(10) |
|  |  | 2465.64 | 0.024(7) |
|  |  | 2300.48 | 0.026(5) |
| 2880.20 | 2703.70(75) | 2662.22 | 0.046(7) |
|  |  | 2600.97 | 0.032(8) |
|  |  | 2469.84 | 0.076(9) |
|  |  | 2396.62 | 0.045(6) |
|  |  | 2304.68 | 0.016(5) |
| 2875.00 | 2708.90(65) | 2475.04 | 0.066(8) |
|  |  | 2413.22 | 0.022(7) |
| 2869.10 | 2714.80(14) | 2480.94 | 0.022(6) |
|  |  | 2407.72 | 0.032(6) |
| 2867.00 | 2716.90(42) | 2409.82 | 0.029(6) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2863.70 | 2720.20(60) | 2720.20 | 0.025(6) |
|  |  | 2678.72 | 0.057(12) |
|  |  | 2647.30 | 0.026(6) |
|  |  | 2486.34 | 0.026(6) |
|  |  | 2413.12 | 0.028(6) |
|  |  | 2321.18 | 0.021(5) |
|  |  | 2264.43 | 0.024(7) |
| 2860.30 | 2723.60(36) | 2650.70 | 0.023(6) |
|  |  | 2489.74 | 0.048(6) |
| 2855.70 | 2728.20(52) | 2686.72 | 0.057(7) |
|  |  | 2625.47 | 0.029(6) |
| 2851.80 | 2732.10(42) | 2732.10 | 0.062(11) |
| 2849.60 | 2734.30(18) | 2734.30 | 0.062(10) |
|  |  | 2500.44 | 0.027(6) |
| 2845.50 | 2738.40(40) | 2696.92 | 0.018(10) |
|  |  | 2635.67 | 0.021(8) |
|  |  | 2504.54 | 0.021(6) |
| 2842.00 | 2741.90(20) | 2741.90 | 0.056(6) |
|  |  | 2639.17 | 0.030(8) |
|  |  | 2508.04 | 0.020(6) |
|  |  | 2434.82 | 0.021(6) |
| 2837.20 | 2746.70(12) | 2643.97 | 0.053(8) |
| 2834.10 | 2749.80(22) | 2749.80 | 0.025(6) |
|  |  | 2676.90 | 0.056(6) |
|  |  | 2647.07 | 0.038(8) |
| 2831.00 | 2752.90(36) | 2519.04 | 0.016(6) |
|  |  | 2445.82 | 0.027(6) |
| 2825.70 | 2758.20(29) | 2524.34 | 0.044(6) |
| 2822.20 | 2761.70(85) | 2761.70 | 0.030(6) |
| 2819.00 | 2764.90(30) | 2457.82 | 0.026(6) |
| 2810.00 | 2773.90(30) | 2773.90 | 0.040(6) |
|  |  | 2732.42 | 0.018(6) |
|  |  | 2671.17 | 0.070(8) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 2540.04 | 0.022(6) |
|  |  | 2466.82 | 0.033(6) |
| 2804.50 | 2779.40(30) | 2545.54 | 0.018(6) |
| 2801.80 | 2782.10(38) | 2782.10 | 0.025(6) |
|  |  | 2740.62 | 0.023(6) |
|  |  | 2709.20 | 0.032(6) |
|  |  | 2679.37 | 0.030(6) |
|  |  | 2548.24 | 0.029(9) |
|  |  | 2475.02 | 0.023(6) |
|  |  | 2326.33 | 0.026(7) |
| 2799.80 | 2784.10(44) | 2550.24 | 0.027(9) |
|  |  | 2477.02 | 0.041(6) |
| 2791.90 | 2792.00(23) | 2750.52 | 0.015(6) |
|  |  | 2496.32 | 0.024(7) |
|  |  | 2484.92 | 0.049(6) |
| 2786.00 | 2797.90(45) | 2797.90 | 0.037(6) |
|  |  | 2695.17 | 0.087(8) |
|  |  | 2564.04 | 0.022(6) |
|  |  | 2490.82 | 0.039(6) |
| 2778.40 | 2805.50(85) | 2805.50 | 0.027(6) |
|  |  | 2764.02 | 0.082(7) |
|  |  | 2702.77 | 0.072(6) |
|  |  | 2349.73 | 0.032(6) |
| 2772.30 | 2811.60(60) | 2738.70 | 0.024(6) |
|  |  | 2504.52 | 0.029(6) |
| 2761.10 | 2822.80(19) | 2113.60 | 0.030(7) |
| 2753.60 | 2830.30(45) | 2727.57 | 0.036(6) |
|  |  | 2596.44 | 0.097(7) |
| 2749.60 | 2834.30(60) | 2731.57 | 0.042(6) |
| 2727.60 | 2856.30(50) | 2856.30 | 0.138(9) |
|  |  | 2753.57 | 0.036(6) |
|  |  | 2549.22 | 0.032(6) |
| 2720.10 | 2863.80(17) | 2822.32 | 0.041(6) |

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 2761.07 | 0.055(6) |
|  |  | 2408.03 | 0.082(7) |
|  |  | 2154.60 | 0.045(7) |
| 2713.90 | 2870.00(22) | 2870.00 | 0.071(8) |
|  |  | 2828.52 | 0.099(9) |
|  |  | 2767.27 | 0.190(10) |
| 2708.10 | 2875.80(40) | 2875.80 | 0.045(6) |
|  |  | 2773.07 | 0.019(6) |
|  |  | 2641.94 | 0.020(6) |
| 2703.90 | 2880.00(44) | 2807.10 | 0.027(6) |
|  |  | 2646.14 | 0.025(6) |
| 2696.90 | 2887.00(61) | 2814.10 | 0.127(9) |
|  |  | 2579.92 | 0.019(6) |
|  |  | 2487.98 | 0.028(6) |
| 2679.80 | 2904.10(47) | 2597.02 | 0.034(6) |
| 2674.90 | 2909.00(92) | 2909.00 | 0.026(8) |
|  |  | 2867.52 | 0.153(12) |
|  |  | 2806.27 | 0.116(8) |
|  |  | 2675.14 | 0.069(6) |

Table 1 (continued)

| $`E_1`$,keV | $`E_i`$, keV | $`E_2`$, keV | $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | 2601.92 | 0.030(7) |
|  |  | 2509.98 | 0.028(5) |
| 2670.60 | 2913.30(40) | 2871.82 | 0.037(7) |
|  |  | 2606.22 | 0.043(7) |
| 2665.90 | 2918.00(31) | 2918.00 | 0.021(6) |
|  |  | 2610.92 | 0.021(6) |
| 2611.50 | 2972.40(28) | 2930.92 | 0.121(10) |
|  |  | 2516.63 | 0.047(6) |
| 2604.00 | 2979.90(29) | 2938.42 | 0.060(7) |
|  |  | 2877.17 | 0.034(8) |
| 2597.00 | 2986.90(90) | 2914.00 | 0.025(6) |
| 2582.20 | 3001.70(30) | 3001.70 | 0.024(6) |
|  |  | 2898.97 | 0.025(6) |
| 2577.30 | 3006.60(15) | 3006.60 | 0.070(8) |
|  |  | 2965.12 | 0.026(7) |
|  |  | 2903.87 | 0.076(8) |
|  |  | 2772.74 | 0.016(6) |
| 2573.50 | 3010.40(100) | 3010.40 | 0.035(8) |
|  |  | 2937.50 | 0.042(5) |

1. The lower estimation of $`i_{\gamma \gamma }`$ for cascades with $`E_1<520`$ keV or $`E_2<520`$ keV.

2. Only statistical uncertainty of determination of energy and intensity.

Table 2. The sum energies (keV) of cascades $`E_c`$, the calculated $`I_{\gamma \gamma }^{cal}`$ and experimental $`I_{\gamma \gamma }^{exp}`$ intensities (% per decay) of the two-step cascades in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$.

| $`E_c`$ | $`I_{\gamma \gamma }^{exp}`$ | $`I_{\gamma \gamma }^{cal}`$  | $`I_{\gamma \gamma }^{cal}`$  | $`I_{\gamma \gamma }^{cal}`$  | $`I_{\gamma \gamma }^{cal}`$  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5583.90 | 12.5(2) | 6.2 | 6.5 | 4.7 | 5.3 |
| 5542.42 | 12.2(2) | 5.6 | 5.7 | 4.4 | 4.7 |
| 5511.00 | 4.5(1) | 2.9 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 2.5 |
| 5481.17 | 19.0(1) | 5.1 | 5.3 | 4.0 | 4.4 |
| 5350.04 | 7.2 (2) | 4.1 | 4.4 | 3.2 | 3.7 |
| 5288.22 | 3.9(2) | 2.0 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
| 5276.82 | 8.1(4) | 3.6 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 3.4 |
| 5184.88 | 4.0(2) | 1.6 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| 5128.13 | 3.8(2) | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.5 |
| 4874.70 | 1.5(1) | 0.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 1.0 |
| 4694.42 | 3.4(2) | 1.1 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
| total | 81(1) | 34.6 | 37.7 | 27.2 | 31.4 |

Table 3. The energy (keV) $`E_c`$ of the experimentally unresolved cascades, the energy (keV) $`E_f`$ of the corresponding them final levels with the probable values of $`J^\pi `$ for $`{}_{}{}^{191,193}Os`$.

| $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ | | | $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`E_c`$ | $`E_f`$ | $`J^\pi `$ | $`E_c`$ | $`E_f`$ | $`J^\pi `$ |
| 5485.9 | 273 | 5/2- | 5481.2 | 103 | 3/2- |
| 5287.0 | 472 | 5/2- | 5288.2 | 296 | 5/2- |
| 5184.5 | 574 | 1/2- 3/2- | 5184.9 | 399 | 5/2- |
| 5127.9 | 631 | 5/2- | 5128.1 | 456 | 5/2- |

References

| $`[1]`$ | S. T. Boneva, E. V. Vasilieva, Yu. P. Popov, A. M. Sukhovoj and V. A. Khitrov, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 22(2) (1991) 232; |
| --- | --- |
| $`[2]`$ | S.T. Boneva et al., Part. Nucl. 22(6), 698 (1991) 698; |
| $`[3]`$ | E. P. Grigoriev, V. A. Khitrov, A. M. Sukhovoj and E. V. Vasilieva Fizika B (Zagreb) 9(4) (2000) 147; |
| $`[4]`$ | J. Honzátko et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A376, 434 (1996) |
| $`[5]`$ | F.D. Corte, A. Simonits, in Proceedings of International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, Mito, 1988, edited by S. Igarasi (Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, 1988), 583; |
| $`[6]`$ | A.M. Sukhovoj, V.A. Khitrov, Sov. J. Prib. Tekhn. Eksp. 5, (1984) 27; |
| $`[7]`$ | Yu.P. Popov, A. M. Sukhovoj, V. A. Khitrov and Yu. S. Yazvitsky, Izv. AN SSSR, Ser. Fiz. 48, (1984) 891; |
| $`[8]`$ | S.T.Boneva, E.N.Vasilieva and A.M.Sukhovoj, Izv. RAN., ser. fiz., 51(11) (1989) 2023 |
| $`[9]`$ | E. Browne, Nuclear Data Sheets, 1989, V.56, (1989) 709; |
| $`[10]`$ | P. Fettweis and J.C. Dehaes, Z. Phys. 314, (1983) 159; |
| $`[11]`$ | R.F. Casten et al., Nucl. Phys. A316, (1979) 61; |
| $`[12]`$ | Mughabghab S.F., Neutron Cross Sections. Part B., NY: Academic Press 1984 |
| $`[13]`$ | V.A. Bondarenko, V.A.Khitrov, A.M.Sukhovoj, J.Honzatko and I.Tomandl, JINR preprint E3-99-343, Dubna, 1999; |
| $`[14]`$ | D.Benson, Jr., P.Kleinheinz, R.K.Sheline and E.B.Shera Z.Phys. A285, (1978) 405 |
| $`[15]`$ | http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/wallet/tnc/capgam.shtml |
| $`[16]`$ | A.M. Sukhovoj and V.A. Khitrov, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 62(1), (1999) 19; |
| $`[17]`$ | C.F. Porter and R.G. Thomas, Phys. Rev. 1956. 104, (1956) 483; |
| $`[18]`$ | W. Dilg, W. Schantl, H. Vonach and M. Uhl, Nucl. Phys A217 (1973) 269; |
| $`[19]`$ | A.V. Ignatyuk, Proc. of IAEA Consultants Meeting on the use of Nuclear Theory and Neutron Nuclear Data Evaluation (Trieste, 1975) IAEA-190, Vol. 1, (1976) 211; |
| $`[20]`$ | P. Axel, Phys. Rev. 126, (1962) 683; |
| $`[21]`$ | S.G. Kadmenskij, V.P. Markushev and W.I. Furman, Yad. Fiz. 37, (1983) 165; |
| $`[22]`$ | E. V. Vasilieva, Sukhovoj A.M. and Khitrov V.A., Phys. of Atomic Nuclei, 64(2) (2001) 153; |
| $`[23]`$ | L.A.Malov and V.G.Soloviev, Yad. Fiz., 26(4) (1977) 729; |
| $`[24]`$ | A.M. Sukhovoj and V.A. Khitrov, Izv. RAN, Ser. Fiz. 61(11) (1997) 2068; |
| $`[25]`$ | E. V. Vasilieva et al., Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Science, Physics 57 (1993) 1582; |
| $`[26]`$ | S.T. Boneva et al., Phys. of Atomic Nuclei, 62(5) (1999) 832; |

Figure captions
Fig. 1. The part of the sum coincidence spectrum for $`{}_{}{}^{191,193}Os`$. The peaks are labelled with the energy (in keV) of final cascade levels. The mass of the corresponding isotope is given in brackets.

Fig. 2. The part of the intensity distribution of the two-step cascades summed over 11 cascade final levels in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$.

Fig. 3. Frequency distribution of differences of the primary transition energies $`E_1`$ of the cascades in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{191}Os`$ . Horizontal lines represent the average value and mean-square deviation from it.

Fig. 4. The cumulative cascade intensities in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ for four excitation energy intervals 1.50-1.75, 2.00-2.25, 2.50-2.75, and 2.75-3.00 MeV versus intensity (histograms). Approximation and extrapolation of cumulative intensities to values corresponding to $`I_{\gamma \gamma }=0`$ are illustrated by solid lines.

Fig. 5. The number of the observed intermediate levels of cascades in $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ (Table 1) for the excitation energy interval of 100 keV (circles). Curves 1 and 2 represent the predictions of the models  and , respectively. The histogram is the estimation  of the level density from the shape of the distribution of cumulative sums of cascade intensities.

Fig. 6. The dependence of the “smoothed” intensities of resolved cascades listed in Table 1 on the excitation energy. Possible “bands” of practically harmonic excitations of the nucleus are marked. The parameter $`\sigma =25`$ keV was used.

Fig. 7. The values of the functional $`A(T)`$ for three registration thresholds of most intense cascades. The value of the registration threshold (% per decay) is given in the figure.

Fig. 8. The value of the equidistant period $`T`$ for $`{}_{}{}^{193}Os`$ (asterisk), even-odd (triangles) and odd-odd (circles) nuclei as a function of the number of boson pairs, $`N_b`$ in unfilled shells. The line represents possible dependence (drawn by eye).


format: text

text:
# A simple analytical description for the cross-tie domain wall structure.

## Abstract

A closed form analytical expression for the magnetization vector distribution within the cross-tie domain wall in an isotropic ferromagnetic thin film is given. The expression minimizes the exchange energy functional exactly, and the magnetostatic energy by means of an adjustable parameter (wall width). The equilibrium value of the wall width and the film thickness corresponding to the transition between the Néel and the cross-tie walls are calculated. The results are compared with the recent experiments and are in good qualitative agreement.

The structure of magnetic domain walls (transition regions separating magnetic domains) was in a focus of extensive research in 1930s – 60s and during the time a lot of useful results on the static structures of various wall types as well as their dynamic properties were obtained. Many of the results on the theory of the domain walls can be found in books Hubert\_book\_walls ; Aharoni\_book . In particular, there are analytical expressions for the distribution of the magnetization vector inside of the one-dimensional Bloch and Néel domain walls, which are the starting point for calculating their static and dynamic properties.

The cross-tie domain wall was also observed in a number of experiments a that time (see Ref. M61,  and references therein) and also with modern high resolution techniques PCTZH93 ; SMZ96 ; LWBW96 , and are usual in thin and ultra-thin magnetic films important for modern applicationsG01 . However, there is no PCTZH93  (also see p. 163 in Ref. Aharoni\_book, ) closed form analytical expression for the cross-tie wall structure. This is, probably, due to the fact that magnetization distribution even in straight cross-tie domain wall is two-dimensional (unlike one-dimensional ones of Bloch and Néel walls). It means, the structure of such a wall is defined by a system of non-linear integral (due to the long-range dipolar interactions) partial differential equations, and there is no way to reduce this system to a single equation (as it was done for the Néel wallRS71 ).

Consider a thin film having the thickness $`h`$ made of soft (isotropic) magnetic material, in the Cartesian coordinate system $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$ chosen in such a way that $`0Z`$ axis is perpendicular to the film plane. The parameters of the material entering the calculation are the exchange constant $`C`$, and the saturation magnetization constant $`M_S`$. If the film is thin enough, so that $`h`$ is of the order of a few exchange lengths $`L_E=\sqrt{C/M_S^2}`$, the dependence of the magnetization distribution on $`Z`$ can be neglected and the task becomes essentially two-dimensional. If we also neglect the dipolar interaction for a while, the magnetization distribution $`\stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{r})=M_S\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`|\stackrel{}{m}|=1`$, $`\stackrel{}{r}=\{X,Y\}`$ is defined by the minimum of the exchange energy functional:

$$e^{\mathrm{e}x}=\frac{C}{2}h\underset{i=x,y,z}{}(\stackrel{}{}m_i)^2\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{r}=Ch\frac{4}{(1+w\overline{w})^2}\left(\frac{w}{z}\frac{\overline{w}}{\overline{z}}+\frac{w}{\overline{z}}\frac{\overline{w}}{z}\right)\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{r},$$
(1)
where the integration runs over all $`XY`$ plane. The last expression is given using the parametrization of the magnetization vector field by a complex function $`w(z,\overline{z})`$ of a complex variable $`z=X+ıY`$, $`ı=\sqrt{1}`$, line over a variable means complex conjugation, so that $`m_x+ım_y=2w/(1+w\overline{w})`$ and $`m_z=(1w\overline{w})/(1+w\overline{w})`$, $`/z=(/Xı/X)/2`$, $`/\overline{z}=(/X+ı/Y)/2`$. It is easy to see that the energy functional (1) is scale-invariant, and the exchange energy of the magnetization distribution $`\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{}{r}/c)`$ or $`w(z/c,\overline{z}/c)`$, where $`c`$ is real constant, is independent on $`c`$. If we include the dipolar interaction back into the picture this scale-invariance breaks. The dipolar interaction will be considered in this paper to determine the scale of the magnetization distribution obtained by minimizing (1).

The system of Euler equations for the function $`w(z,\overline{z})`$ giving extremum to the functional (1) is

$$\frac{}{z}\left(\frac{w}{\overline{z}}\right)=\frac{2\overline{w}}{1+w\overline{w}}\frac{w}{z}\frac{w}{\overline{z}}.$$
(2)
It is easy to see that any analytic (in a sense that the Cauchy-Riemann conditions $`w/\overline{z}=0`$ are satisfied) function of a complex variable satisfies the equation (2). The partial solution of this class was first written as a rational polynomial in $`z`$ by Belavin and Polyakov BP75  and can be thought as a superposition of vortices. There are other solutions whose applications to the magnetism of small cylindrical particles are given elsewhereM01\_solitons .

Consider the function

$$w_{CT}(z)=i\mathrm{tan}(z/c),$$
(3)
while the Cauchy-Riemann conditions are satisfied for this function, and, therefore, it minimizes the functional (1) exactly, it is not a Belavin-Polyakov (BP) soliton because it can not be represented as a rational polynomial in $`z`$ and, consequently, has infinite energy when integrated over the whole space (while the energy of BP solitons is always finite). Even though the total exchange energy of the magnetization distribution $`w_{CT}`$ is infinite, it is extremal, because $`w_{CT}`$ satisfies (2). Also, the corresponding $`\stackrel{}{m}=\{m_x,m_y,m_z\}=\{\mathrm{tanh}(2Y/c),\mathrm{sin}(2X/c)/\mathrm{cosh}(2Y/c),\mathrm{cos}(2X/c)/\mathrm{cosh}(2Y/c)\}`$ (compareLandau\_Lifshitz\_wall ) plotted in Fig. 1 has the topology of the magnetization distribution in the cross-tie domain wall PCTZH93 .

The exchange energy per unit of the wall area is finite

$$\gamma ^{\mathrm{ex}}=\frac{e^{\mathrm{ex}}}{c\pi h}=\frac{M_S^2L_E^2}{c\pi }_{c\pi /2}^{c\pi /2}dX_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dY\frac{4}{c^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(2Y/c)}=M_S^2h\lambda ^2\frac{4\pi }{\zeta },$$
(4)
where dimensionless variables $`\lambda =L_E/h`$ and $`\zeta =c\pi /h`$ were introduced. This energy term (4) forces the wall to expand infinitely as it has the smallest value $`0`$ only for $`c,\zeta \mathrm{}`$.

The evaluation of the magnetostatic energy is straightforward, but a little bit voluminous, it was done by calculating the density of magnetic charges (having both volume and surface contributions), solving the Poisson equation for the scalar magnetic potential in the Fourier representation and performing the convolution of the density of charges and the potential to obtain the energy. The final result can be represented as

$`\gamma ^{\mathrm{dip}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_S^2hf(\zeta ),`$ (5)
$`f(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}du{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dv{\displaystyle \frac{(u^2+v^2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi v/\zeta )}{v^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(\pi u/2)(1+u^2+v^2)}}.`$ (6)
One of integrals in $`f(\zeta )`$ can be taken analytically, the other is rapidly converging and easy to take numerically. The representation (6) was chosen for its compactness. It is also possible to build a simple analytical approximation for $`f(\zeta )`$

$`f(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`C_1\zeta +C_2(1e^{2\pi /\zeta })\zeta ^2`$ (7)
$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}du{\displaystyle \frac{\pi u}{(1+u^2)(1+\mathrm{cosh}\pi u)}}=0.17753\mathrm{}`$ (8)
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}du{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(1+u^2)^{3/2}\mathrm{cosh}^2(\pi u/2)}}=0.12119\mathrm{},`$ (9)
which is asymptotically correct for $`\zeta 1`$ and produces the worst case error at $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ around $`5\%`$.

The total energy per unit wall area $`\gamma =\gamma ^{\mathrm{ex}}+\gamma ^{\mathrm{dip}}`$ was minimized numerically with respect to the parameter $`\zeta `$, and the result is shown in Fig. 2 in comparison to the energy per unit area of the Néel and Bloch domain walls calculated according to the model of Dietze and Thomas DT61 . As it could be expected for films thicker than a certain value $`h2.3L_E`$ the cross-tie domain wall takes over the Néel one as the lowest energy configuration. Another interesting fact is that in the shown region of film thicknesses (where roughly the assumption of uniformity of the magnetization distribution along the thickness, $`\stackrel{}{M}/Z=0`$, can be expected to hold) the energy of the cross-tie domain wall is lower than the energy of Bloch wall. This suggests that the transition from the cross-tie wall to the Bloch one takes place at larger thicknesses, where $`\stackrel{}{M}/Z=0`$ can not be safely assumed anymore.

As it is visible from Fig. 2 the approximate expression for magnetostatic function (7) after the energy minimization produces results almost indistinguishable from the exact ones and having only a slight deviations for extremely small film thicknesses. Thus, the expression (7) is safe to use instead of (6) for most practical estimations of the cross-tie wall magnetostatic energy.

The qualitative validity of the presented model is supported by the good fit of the image signal (roughly proportional to the magnetization vector component parallel to the wall plane) presented in Fig. 10 of Ref. PCTZH93,  to the empirically chosen $`\mathrm{tanh}(Y/\delta _w)`$ function. In fact, $`m_x(X,Y)=\mathrm{tanh}(2Y/c)`$ exactly for the solution (3). Thus, the cross-tie wall width, as defined in Ref. PCTZH93, , is $`\delta _w=c/2`$. The permalloy film in that experiment had roughly $`h/L_E=60nm/18.2nm3`$. Reading from Fig. 2 we get the theoretical width of the cross-tie wall $`\delta _w=4.8L_E/(2\pi )14nm`$, which is of the order of the measured valuePCTZH93  of $`42\pm 10nm`$. It is expected that better quantitative correspondence can be obtained for thinner films and also by including the anisotropy energy (which is small for permalloy) into the minimization.

The presented simple model for the magnetization distribution in the cross-tie domain wall can be a starting point for analytical estimations of its static and dynamic properties, especially for short wavelength excitations on the cross-tie wall background, where the fact that (3) minimizes the exchange energy functional exactly can lead to significant simplifications. It can be also useful for interpretation of MFM images, and for supplying initial conditions for numerical finite-element micromagnetic simulations.

This work was supported in part by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under projects 202/99/P052 and 101/99/1662. I would like to thank Vladimir Kamberský and Vitaly Zablotskii for reading the manuscript and many valuable discussions.


text:
# Anisotropic Lattices and Dynamical Fermions This work was conducted on the QCDSP machines at Columbia University and RIKEN-BNL Research Center. TM and LL are supported by DOE.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Anisotropic lattices have been used extensively for $`T=0`$ calculations. Finite temperature calculations using anisotropic lattices exploit the natural asymmetry of finite temperature field theory to reduce lattice spacing errors associated with the transfer matrix at less cost than is required for the full continuum limit.

With a sufficiently small value for the temporal lattice spacing, $`a_t`$, we can vary the temperature in small discrete steps by varying the number of time slices, $`N_t`$. In this study we sweep through the transition by studying different $`N_t`$’s (8–64). Varying the temperature at fixed temporal and spatial lattice spacing separates temperature and lattice spacing effects, allowing a study of the temperature dependence with all other parameters fixed.

The coefficients needed to relate lattice observables to the physical energy and pressure are determined as a by-product of the zero temperature studies needed to choose the bare parameters. Once determined, these “Karsch” coefficients can be used for all temperatures since they depend only on the intrinsic lattice parameters and not on $`N_t`$. This allows a straight-forward determination of the temperature dependence of the energy and pressure, again at fixed lattice spacing. With two or more slightly different values for $`a_t`$, a high-resolution sampling of temperatures can be investigated.

As the temporal lattice spacing, $`a_t`$, approaches the continuum limit $`(a_t0)`$, the part of the flavor symmetry, which is violated by terms of $`𝒪(a_t^2)`$, is expected to be restored. In this study we are examining our data for evidence of improvement of the flavor symmetry, when $`a_t`$ becomes sufficiently small.

## 2 THE ANISOTROPIC STAGGERED ACTION

We are simulating full QCD with two dynamical flavors of staggered fermions on an anisotropic lattice. Our calculations are based on the QCD action $`S^\xi =S_G^\xi +S_F^\xi `$, where the gauge action is:

$`S_G^\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _o}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{x,s>s^{}}{}}P_{ss^{}}(x)+\xi _o^2{\displaystyle \underset{x,s}{}}P_{st}(x)\right],`$
and the fermion action is:

$`S_F^\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\overline{\psi }(x)\left[m_f+\nu _t\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_t^{\mathrm{Staggered}}\right]\psi (x)`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\overline{\psi }(x)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\begin{array}{c}/\hfill \\ D\hfill \end{array}_s^{\mathrm{Staggered}}\right]\psi (x).`$
In our simulations we attempt to examine the QCD phase transition for volumes ($`16^3\times 4`$), quark masses ($`m_\pi /m_\rho 0.3`$) and a spatial lattice spacing ($`a_s0.3`$ fm) similar to those used in $`N_t=4`$, 2-flavor thermodynamic studies on isotropic lattices. Thus, we adjust the bare bare anisotropy ($`\xi _0`$) and the renormalization of the speed of light ($`\nu _t`$) to yield the required $`a_s`$ and $`m_\pi /m_\rho `$ but work with a much smaller temporal lattice spacing choosen so the critical value of $`N_t`$ is approximately 16.

## 3 SIMULATIONS

We have used the zero temperature runs 1-6 for scale-setting and determination of the anisotropy. For all the zero-temperature runs the renormalized anisotropy $`\xi _r`$ is calculated both from the $`\rho `$ masses in the spatial and temporal directions and from matching the static potentials. Figure 1 shows that both methods provide values for $`\xi _r`$ which are reasonably close.

The idea behind run 7 through 11 is that we keep the spatial lattice spacing, $`a_s`$, and all other run parameters constant and change only the number of lattice points, $`N_t`$, in the temporal direction.

Our simulations implement the R-algorithm with step–size $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.005`$ for all jobs from Table 1. Figure 2 shows that our choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is consistent with the requirements for small finite step–size error on the physical quantities.

## 4 THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT

The velocity of light on a lattice can be defined through the meson dispersion relation:

$`E_{t,phys}^2(p_s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{t,lat}^2(0)}{a_t^2}}+c_{ts}^2(p_s)P_{s,lat}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_s^2}}`$
We tune $`\nu _t`$, so that $`c_{ts}(p_s)1`$. The velocity of light is calculated for the $`\pi `$ propagating in the temporal direction and having non–zero momentum for three values of $`\nu _t`$: 1.0, 0.8 and 1.2, where the first is a dynamical parameter and the last two are valence parameters. From Figure 3 we see that the choice of $`\nu _t=1.0`$ gives velocity of light closest to 1.0.

## 5 IMPROVEMENT OF THE FLAVOR SYMMETRY

Table 2 shows the meson masses for run 3 ($`a_s=0.231(7)`$ fm, $`a_t=0.072(4)`$ fm) and run 4 ($`a_s=0.243(3)`$ fm, $`a_t=0.057(2)`$ fm).

We choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi =(m_{\pi _2}m_\pi )/m_\rho `$, where $`\pi _2`$ is the second local staggered pion, as a quantitative measure of the flavor symmetry breaking in the spatial (S) and temporal (T) directions. The data shows that in the temporal direction for both runs $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi `$ is smaller than its value in the spatial direction, which means that we are seeing improvement of the flavor symmetry as $`a_t`$ becomes finer. Especially for run 4, the $`\pi `$ and $`\pi _2`$ look virtually degenerate.

## 6 THE PHASE TRANSITION

The thermodynamics runs 7–11 have volume $`16^3\times N_t`$, where $`N_t=`$ 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24. The bare parameters are kept constant for all runs 6–11. Figure 4 shows the sweep through the phase transition as we gradually change the temperature by varying only $`N_t`$. We fit our data to a hyperbolic tangent form and determine $`T_c160`$ MeV from the inflection point.

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

We have studied the finite temperature QCD phase transition using staggered fermions on an anisotropic lattice with anisotropy of $`4`$. This allows us to explore the temperature dependence of the transition with all other parameters fixed. The results are roughly consistent with earlier, isotropic studies, showing a value of the critical temperature of approximately 160 MeV. While this approach naturally reduces finite lattice spacing errors associated with $`a_t`$, we plan to include improvements to the spatial parts of the staggered fermion action so that the $`𝒪(a_s^2)`$ errors are reduced as well.


text:
# Properties of a New Class of Lattice Dirac Operators

## 1 Introduction

We have recently witnessed a remarkable progress in the treatment of lattice fermions. A basic algebraic relation which lattice Dirac operators should satisfy was clearly stated by Ginsparg and Wilson, and an explicit solution to the algebra was given. This solution exhibits quite interesting chiral properties, including locality properties. In the mean time, a new class of lattice Dirac operators $`D`$ have been proposed on the basis of the algebraic relation

$`\gamma _5D+D\gamma _5=2aD(a\gamma _5D)^{2k}\gamma _5D`$ (1.1)
where $`k`$ stands for a non-negative integer, and $`k=0`$ corresponds to the ordinary Ginsparg-Wilson relation. In the following sections we discuss the properties of the operators satisfying this general Ginsparg-Wilson relation.

## 2 A new class of lattice Dirac operators

We first define

$`H_{(2k+1)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _5\left(1+D_W^{(2k+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_W^{(2k+1)}D_W^{(2k+1)}}}}\right)`$
where

$`D_W^{(2k+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ C\hfill \end{array})^{2k+1}+(B)^{2k+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{a}}\right)^{2k+1}`$ (2.5)
where $`C_\mu `$ is the covariant difference operator and $`B`$ is the covariant Wilson term. The solution $`D`$ of the general Ginsparg-Wilson relation(1.1) is then given by

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\gamma _5\left(H_{(2k+1)}\right)^{1/(2k+1)}`$ (2.7)
where $`k=0`$ corresponds to the overlap Dirac operator. When the parameter $`m_0`$ is chosen as $`0<m_0<2r`$ in these operators, the free propagators have a single massless pole and are free from species doublers. We next see that the case of $`k1`$ is better than $`k=0`$ on the scaling property for $`a0`$. For the operators(2.7), in the near continuum configurations we see the behaviours as follows,

$`D`$ $``$ $`i\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}+a^{2k+1}(\gamma _5i\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array})^{2k+2}`$ (2.12)
where $`\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}=\gamma _\mu (_\mu +igA_\mu )`$. The first terms in these expressions stand for the leading terms in chiral symmetric terms, and the second terms stand for the leading terms in chiral symmetry breaking terms. This shows that one can improve the chiral symmetry for larger $`k`$. As another manifestation of this property, the spectrum of the operators with $`k1`$ is closer to that of the continuum operator in the sense that the small eigenvalues of $`D`$ accumulate along the imaginary axis (which is a result of taking a $`2k+1`$-th root), compared to the overlap Dirac operator for which the eigenvalues of $`D`$ draw a perfect circle in the complex eigenvalue plane.

## 3 Index theorem

We first examine the lattice chiral symmetry. The fermion action which has the generalized operators(2.7) is invariant under the global transformation:

$`\psi `$ $``$ $`\psi ^{}=\psi +iϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi ,`$
$`\overline{\psi }`$ $``$ $`\overline{\psi }^{}=\overline{\psi }+iϵ\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\gamma _5,`$ (3.13)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=\gamma _5(a\gamma _5D)^{2k+1}`$. But the fermion measure produces the Jacobian factor:

$`𝒟\overline{\psi }^{}𝒟\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`J𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi ,`$
$`J`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left(2iϵTr\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\right).`$ (3.14)
In this expression $`Tr\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ is regarded as the chiral anomaly on the lattice. We next analyze the index relation for the generalized Dirac operators. We consider the eigenvalues $`\lambda _n`$ and the eigenmodes $`\varphi _n`$ of the hermitian operator $`\gamma _5D`$. The zero modes are defined by

$`(\gamma _5D)\varphi _0=0.`$ (3.15)
Using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(\gamma _5D)+(\gamma _5D)\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=0`$ from the general algebra, we obtain

$`(\gamma _5D)(\gamma _5\varphi _0)=0.`$ (3.16)
Therefore we can assign the chiralities for zero modes:

$`\gamma _5\varphi _0^{(\pm )}=\pm \varphi _0^{(\pm )}`$ (3.17)
The other modes ($`\lambda _n0`$) are defined by

$`(\gamma _5D)\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _n\varphi _n,`$
$`(\gamma _5D)\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _n\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\varphi _n,`$ (3.18)
And then we obtain $`(\varphi _n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\varphi _n)=0`$ for $`\lambda _n0`$. From the above analysis $`Tr\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ is written as follows ($`n=0`$ stands for $`\lambda _n=0`$),

$`Tr\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\varphi _n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\varphi _n)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}(\varphi _n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\varphi _n)+{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}(\varphi _n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\varphi _n)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}(\varphi _n,\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\varphi _n)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}(\varphi _n,(\gamma _5(\gamma _5aD)^{2k+1})\varphi _n)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}(\varphi _n,\gamma _5\varphi _n)`$
$`=`$ $`n_+n_{}=index`$
This is the index theorem on the lattice. Next we evaluate $`Tr\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ for $`a0`$. The local version of the trace is

$`tr\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(x)=tr[\gamma _5(\gamma _5aD)^{2k+1}]`$
$`=tr{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _5[D_W^{(2k+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(D_W^{(2k+1)})^{}D_W^{(2k+1)}}}}]`$
In this expression $`D_W^{(2k+1)}`$ includes the lattice spacing $`a`$. Then we expand the above expression in $`a`$ and take $`a0`$. After the straightforward calculations, we obtain

$`tr\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(x)=I_{2k+1}(r,m_0)g^2trϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }.`$
We can show that $`I_{2k+1}(r,m_0)`$ is independent of $`k,r`$ and $`m_0`$ and that $`I_{2k+1}(r,m_0)=1/32\pi ^2`$. Therefore we recover the index theorem in the continuum theory:

$`n_+n_{}={\displaystyle d^4x\frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}trϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }}.`$
in the naive continuum limit for any operator in (2.7).

## 4 Locality property

In this section we discuss the locality property . We first see the locality of the free operator. The generalized Dirac operators in the free fermion case are written as

$`H(p)=\gamma _5\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^{\frac{k+1}{2k+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{F_k}}}\right)^{\frac{k+1}{2k+1}}`$
$`\times \left\{\left(\sqrt{F_k}+\stackrel{~}{M}_k\right)^{\frac{k+1}{2k+1}}\left(\sqrt{F_k}\stackrel{~}{M}_k\right)^{\frac{k}{2k+1}}\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ s\hfill \end{array}\right\},`$ (4.21)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{M}_k=\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(1c_\mu )\right]^{2k+1}1`$
$`F_k=(s^2)^{2k+1}+\stackrel{~}{M}_k^2`$
$`c_\mu =\mathrm{cos}ap_\mu ,\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ s\hfill \end{array}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\gamma _\mu \mathrm{sin}ap_\mu ,`$ (4.25)
$`s^2={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(\mathrm{sin}ap_\mu )^2.`$
Here $`H=a\gamma _5D`$ and we set $`r=1`$ and $`m_0=1`$. Now we want to know if $`H`$ is exponentially local. For this purpose we note the next statement: If $`H(p)`$ is differentiable for infinite times with respect to $`p`$, $`H(x,y)`$ is exponentially local. Considering the one-dimensional case for simplify, this proof goes as follows,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^l}}H(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^l}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xe^{ipx}H(x)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x(ix)^lH(x)e^{ipx}}<\mathrm{}`$
This last inequality for any $`l`$ implies

$`H(x)<Ce^{\theta x},\theta >0.`$
Now all we need to do is to know if $`H(p)`$ is infinite times differentiable. From the expression of $`H(p)`$(4), the infinite times differentiablity means that the following terms,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{F_k}}}\right)^{\frac{(k+1)}{(2k+1)}},\left(\sqrt{F_k}+\stackrel{~}{M}_k\right)^{\frac{(k+1)}{(2k+1)}},`$
$`\left(\sqrt{F_k}\stackrel{~}{M}_k\right)^{\frac{k}{(2k+1)}},`$ (4.26)
are infinite times differentiable. Noting that there is a mass gap in $`F_k`$, we can prove this. Therefore the free operator $`H`$ is local. We also presented a crude estimate of the localization length, examining the singularity of the Dirac operators. This suggests that the operators with gauge fields are local for sufficiently weak background gauge fields. On the other hand, it is difficult to see the locality of the interacting operator $`H`$ directly. But it may be true that if $`H_{(2k+1)}=H^{(2k+1)}`$ is local, $`H`$ is also local. In the one-dimensional integral, one has

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑yexp[|xy|/L]exp[|yz|/L]`$
$`=(L+|xz|)exp[|xz|/L].`$ (4.27)
This shows that a multiplication of two operators, which decay exponentially, produces an operator which decays with the same exponential factor up to a polynomial prefactor. A generalization of this relation suggests that a suitable $`(2k+1)`$-th root of an exponentially decaying operator gives rise to an operator with an identical localization length for any finite $`k`$. This holds in the case of the free fermion operator. Therefore we examined the locality of interacting $`H_{(2k+1)}`$, as a direct extension of the analysis in the overlap Dirac operator. For $`H_{(2k+1)}`$(2) we showed that $`D_W^{(2k+1)}D_W^{(2k+1)}>0`$ for all finite $`k`$ when $`1U_{\mu \nu }`$ is very small. This means $`H_{(2k+1)}`$ is exponentially local. As for the localization domain for $`k=1`$, for example, we see

$`1U_{\mu \nu }<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\times 10^5}}D_W^{(3)}D_W^{(3)}>0`$
Since this analysis gives a conservative estimate, we expect that the actual locality domain of gauge field strength could be much larger. But the operators spreads over more lattice points for larger $`k`$.

## 5 Summary

We discussed the properties of the Dirac operators satisfying the algebraically generalized Ginsparg-Wilson relation. Our analysis indicates an infinite number of lattice Dirac operators which have good properties. For the future work it is important to see the locality of interacting operator more precisely.