text:
# Voids in Galaxy Redshift Surveys

## 1 Introduction

Our knowledge of the distribution of luminous matter in the Universe has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Both angular catalogues and redshift surveys now contain many thousands of galaxies and have allowed us to study their clustering properties in great detail. However, one feature of redshift surveys has been somewhat overlooked. A cursory glance at the distribution of galaxies in redshift surveys or angular catalogues reveals that there are vast parts of any survey that seem to be avoided by galaxies. These are termed voids. They are a major feature in the large scale distribution of galaxies in all wide angle, densely sampled redshift surveys.

Until recently, voids have not been studied in great detail. This was mostly due to limitations on the sizes of the surveys. The $``$ 30 $`h^1`$Mpc 111we adopt the convention that $`H_{}=100h`$km s-1 Mpc-1 diameter of voids is a significant fraction of the depth of many redshift surveys of the local universe   . A search for voids has so far been made on the Southern Sky Redshift Survey , the IRAS 1.2 Jy Survey  and the Las Campanas Survey . Approximately twelve voids have been detected in these nearby surveys.

Observed voids contain few galaxies regardless of the detection criteria. However, cold dark matter models predict that there should be matter, and hence maybe galaxies, within voids (see Benson et al. and Somerville et al. in this volume for a discussion of the substructure problem). Yet, studies of different types of galaxies show that they all seem to trace the same structures. Either we are missing a population of galaxies that reside in the voids or there is a problem with the models producing too much mass on small scales .

A first step in quantifying the properties of voids and void galaxies is to compile a catalogue of detected voids from as many redshift surveys as possible. Here we adapt the method of EP97 in order to search for voids in the PSCz Survey  and the Updated Zwicky Catalog . We describe the surveys in Sections 2, the algorithm in Section 3 and present our results in Section 4.

## 2 The Surveys

The PSCz Survey  is a redshift survey of galaxies that is based on the catalogue of detections with the Infra-Red Astronomical Satellite. It covers the whole sky apart from areas with incomplete IRAS data and high optical extinction, such as the plane of the Galaxy. The PSCz survey covers 84% of the sky and contains a total of 15,411 galaxies, with a median redshift of 0.028 ($`82.2h^1`$Mpc).

The Updated Zwicky Catalog (UZC)  includes results of the Center for Astrophysics Redshift Survey   and contains a total of 18,633 galaxies with redshifts. The survey covers two main survey regions; $`\alpha >20^h,\alpha <4^h`$ and $`8^h>\alpha <17^h`$ both with $`2.5^{}<\delta <50^{}`$. The volume limited sample which contains the most galaxies extends to $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$=0.025 ($`73.6h^1`$Mpc) and contains 3518 galaxies.

We consider different samples from the two surveys to check the robustness of results, in particular, we check what effect the wall/field criteria has on the detection of voids and how much the volume of voids is underestimated by insisting that voids lie completely within the survey geometry. We also compare the two surveys to see if the same voids are detected and if the properties of voids in overlap regions are similar even though one survey is IR selected, the other optical.

## 3 The Void Finding Algorithm

Here we give a brief overview of the steps involved in our void finding algorithm. Each of the steps are discussed in detail in the subsequent sections. The void finding algorithm we adopt is very similar to the method used by El-Ad & Piran (Void Finder) . The main features of the algorithm are:

* it is based on the point distribution of galaxies;
* allows for so called ‘field galaxies’ - voids may not be completely empty;
* voids have to be larger than a minimum threshold

### 3.1 Wall and Field Galaxies

The first stage in identifying voids is to determine which galaxies are classified as field galaxies and which are wall galaxies. Here we follow the method of EP97. First we calculate the mean distance, d, to the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ galaxy and the standard deviation on this value, $`\sigma `$. We then specify a length ln such that any galaxy that does not have $`n`$ neighbours within a sphere of radius ln is classified as a field galaxy. The value of ln we adopt is given by ln = d \+ 1.5$`\sigma `$ and we set $`n`$=3. For our main samples, the values of d and l3 that we obtain for the PSCz survey are 3.42$`h^1`$Mpc and 7.19$`h^1`$Mpc respectively while for the UZC we obtain 3.46$`h^1`$ and 6.52$`h^1`$Mpc. A choice of n=3 means that $``$ 10% of galaxies are classified as field galaxies for both surveys. We compare with the results for a sample where we do not make the wall/field split to see what effect the choice of $`n`$ makes since the fraction of field galaxies depends critically on this choice. We count the number of field galaxies that lie in the voids to calculate the density of voids.

### 3.2 Finding the Voids

#### 3.2.1 Identifying Holes

The way we detect the voids is similar to the void finder algorithm of EP97. First we place the wall galaxies onto a three dimensional grid. The fineness of the grid defines the minimum size void that can be detected. If each grid cell has length lcell, then all voids with radius r = $`\sqrt{3}`$lcell will be found.

Each empty cell (we will refer to these as holes) is considered a possible void. Our method finds the maximal sphere than can be drawn in the hole, starting from the first empty cell. We place a sphere at the centre of the cell and grow its radius until we find a galaxy that is just on the edge of it. We then find the vector that connects this galaxy with the centre of the hole and move the centre of the spherical hole along this direction, away from the first galaxy, growing the radius to keep the first galaxy on its surface, until a second galaxy is also on the surface. We next find the vector that bisects the line joining the two galaxies and move the hole in this direction until a third galaxy is found, as before. The final step is to grow the hole out of the plane formed by the first three galaxies. At this stage we keep track of all the holes with radii larger than the value of the search radius used to classify field and wall galaxies, $`l_3`$.

#### 3.2.2 Determining a Void

Finding the holes is a robust process. Deciding which holes form unique voids requires more care. Our definition of a void is slightly different from that of EP97. First we sort the holes by radius, the largest first. The largest hole found is automatically a void. We test the second hole. If it overlaps the first by more than F% in volume, then we say it is a member of the first void rather than a new void. If not then it forms a separate void. We then check the third hole. If it does not overlap a previous void by F%, it is a distinct void. If it overlaps only one previously detected void by F%, it becomes a member of that void. If it overlaps more than one previous void by F%, it is rejected as it is linking together two larger voids. We continue like this for all holes with radii larger than 10$`h^1`$Mpc.

We have investigated how much holes should overlap and yet be considered separate voids. In Figure 1a we show the number of voids we find for the PSCz (dashed line) and the UZC (solid line) as a function of the overlap fraction for which the hole is still considered a separate void. The number of voids converges to within a factor of two if the overlap fraction is $`<`$30%. We fix the fraction to be 10%. Therefore, if a sphere with radii larger than 10$`h^1`$Mpc overlaps a larger void by more than 10% of its volume, we merge the sphere into the void. If the overlap fraction is less than 10% of the smaller voids volume, we deem the sphere to be a distinct void. Visually, using our criteria of 10% overlap, voids appear to be distinct regions of the survey.

We set a threshold of 10$`h^1`$Mpc for the minimum size of voids, this value being chosen for two reasons. It is larger than the search radius for defining field galaxies, $`l_3`$. This helps ensure that we don’t identify gaps in the walls as voids. It is also the value at which the significance of detecting voids in the both the PSCz and UZC drops below 80%, as discussed later.

#### 3.2.3 Enhancing the Volume

We next enhance the volume of the void. We consider the holes that have radii less than the threshold of 10$`h^1`$Mpc but greater than the radius for the wall/field galaxy criteria (in the case where we do not make the wall/field galaxy cut we use the value we would have used to make the cut as the minimum sphere radius). Any of these holes that overlap the maximal void sphere by 50% of the smaller holes volume are also considered members of the void. If the hole overlaps with more than one void by 50% then it is not added to either of the voids as this would link two voids together that we wish to keep seperate. If the hole is isolated it cannot be classified as a seperate void as it is smaller than the threshold we use for void classification. We have varied the overlap fraction and we find that the volume of voids are robust to within $``$50% if the minimum overlap fraction varies from 0.3-0.8.

We are likely to underestimate the volumes of voids as we only consider holes that have radius greater than the search radius, $`l_3`$. If voids are highly elliptical then we will not detect the volume at the ‘corners’ of the ellipse. We test this by generating data containing mock voids of known elliptical shape. We generate ellipsoids with volume 15,000$`h^3`$Mpc3 that have axis ratios 1:1:X (i.e. if X is 1 then the void is spherical with radius 15.3$`h^1`$Mpc). We then run the simulated data through our void finding algorithm and compare the volume obtained with the known volume of the void. The results are shown in Figure 1b. If voids are spherical in shape then we recover 100% of its volume. The more elongated it becomes, the less of the volume we detect. This becomes significant if one of the axes is elongated by more than a factor of 2.5 than the others.

### 3.3 Significance of the Voids

Again we use the method of EPC97 to asses the significance of voids. The confidence level with which we detect a void is given by $`p=1N_{\mathrm{Poisson}}/N_{\mathrm{Survey}}`$ where $`N_{\mathrm{Poisson}}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{Survey}}`$ are the number of voids found in the Poisson realisations and the survey sample under consideration. The closer $`p`$ is to 1, the less likely a void could occur in a random distribution.

## 4 Results

Voids in the main PSCz and UZC sample are shown in Figure 2. In both cases, the points represent the wall galaxies and the shadings represent areas that are covered by voids and the open squares show the void centres.

We find 35 voids in the PSCz survey and 20 in the UZC with r$`>10h^1`$Mpc. We construct mock PSCz and UZC samples and find that we detect an average of 7.2 voids with r$`>10h^1`$Mpc in Poisson realisations of the PSCz sample and 3.9 voids with r$`>10h^1`$Mpc in Poisson realisations of the UZC. This implies that the voids in both the PSCz and UZC are significant at the 80% confidence level.

The range of sizes of the voids between the two surveys is comparable. The largest maximal sphere in the PSCZ survey has radius 17.8$`h^1`$Mpc, whereas in the UZC survey the largest hole has radius 14.7$`h^1`$Mpc. The average void in the PSCz survey has a volume of 15200$`h^3`$Mpc3 whereas the average void in the UZC survey has a slightly smaller volume of 12800$`h^3`$Mpc3. Using our criteria for identifying voids, the total volume fraction occupied by voids in the PSCz and UZC surveys is 30% and 40% respectively.

In the case where we differentiate between wall and field galaxies, we find that voids have a typical overdensity of $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ = -0.94 in the case of the PSCz survey and -0.98 in the case of the CfA survey. These values are very low, even with 10% of galaxies classified as field galaxies, probably because the field galaxies lie close to the structures traced by the wall galaxies and are therefore not detected within the void volume. If we do not apply the field/wall criteria, we find 90% of the same voids. We miss one or two of the voids if we don’t define some galaxies as field galaxies because the few field galaxies in the low density environments restrict the size of the maximal sphere.

We compare the volumes of the voids found in our main sample with voids found in samples that extend 20$`h^1`$Mpc in depth beyond the depth of our main samples. This test shows that we underestimate the volume of voids by a larger factor the further out the void is found but the volumes are found to agree within a factor of $`2`$ for most of the voids.

Full details of the method and detected voids are given in Hoyle & Vogeley.

## 5 Conclusions

We have demonstrated that our technique gives robust results in the sense that different samples from the same survey yield the same voids and we detect the same voids in different redshift surveys. As an extension to the work of EP97 and EPC97 we have quantified the effect of our void definition on the number of voids detected within a survey and we have provided estimates of how accurately we are able to recover the volume of voids. Using criteria that detect voids with typical underdensity $`\delta \rho /\rho <0.9`$, we find that up to 40% of the volume in the surveys under consideration is found in void regions. This is consistent with the findings of EPC97 and shows that voids are indeed a large part of the Universe.

The next generation of surveys, the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey  and, in particular, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey  will aid our understanding of voids. Both of these surveys cover a larger area than the UZC, although not quite as large an area as the IR surveys. The SDSS will cover a quarter of the sky in one contiguous area which will be especially useful for void detection. Both the 2dFGRS and the SDSS will reach fainter magnitude limits than previous surveys, approximately 4 magnitudes deeper than the UZC. This will allow us to construct volume limited samples with more galaxies, which extend to greater depths. Also, the SDSS bright red galaxy sample will be approximately volume limited out to $`z_{\mathrm{max}}0.5`$ which increases the depth by more than an order of magnitude, although due to the sparsity of galaxies in the BRG sample the voids will not be detected with as high a confidence as they will in the main galaxy sample of the SDSS.

We acknowledge the support of NSF grant AST-0072101 and a grant from the John Templeton Foundation


format: text

text:
# A Generatingfunctionology Approach to a Problem of Wilf

## 1 Introduction

Let $`n`$ be a positive integer. A composition of $`n`$ with $`p`$ parts is a solution of the equation $`n=\kappa _1+\kappa _2+\mathrm{}+\kappa _p`$ in positive integers $`\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\mathrm{},\kappa _p`$. We shall write $`\kappa =(\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\mathrm{},\kappa _p)`$ to symbolize the composition. For example, there are 16 compositions of 5, namely

$`(5)`$ $`(4,1)`$ $`(1,4)`$ $`(3,2)`$
$`(2,3)`$ $`(3,1,1)`$ $`(1,3,1)`$ $`(1,1,3)`$
$`(2,2,1)`$ $`(2,1,2)`$ $`(1,2,2)`$ $`(2,1,1,1)`$
$`(1,2,1,1)`$ $`(1,1,2,1)`$ $`(1,1,1,2)`$ $`(1,1,1,1,1).`$
The terms $`\kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _p`$ are called the parts of the composition. The multiplicity of a part size is the number of parts with that size. For example, in the composition $`(1,1,1,2)`$ the multiplicity of 1 is 3 and the multiplicity of 2 is 1. A partition of $`n`$ with $`p`$ parts is a solution of $`n=\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _p`$ with $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _p`$. In  Corteel, Pittel, Savage, and Wilf proved that for every fixed $`m1`$, the probability that a randomly chosen part size in a random partition of $`n`$ approaches $`1/(m(m+1))`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Wilf then posed the corresponding problem for compositions: determine asymptotically (as $`n\mathrm{}`$) the probability that a randomly chosen part size in a randomly chosen composition of $`n`$ has multiplicity $`m`$. One solution of this problem has been given by two of the authors . In this note, we address the same question using generating functions and singularity analysis.

It is well known that there are $`2^{n1}`$ compositions of $`n`$. One way to arrive at this result uses generating functions. The generating function for compositions with $`p`$ parts is

$$(z+z^2+z^3+\mathrm{})^p=\left(\frac{z}{1z}\right)^p,$$

and summing over $`p`$ we have the generating function for all compositions:

$$G(z)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{z}{1z}\right)^p=\frac{z}{12z}.$$

The coefficient of $`z^n`$ in the expansion of $`G(z)`$, denoted by $`[z^n]G(z)`$, is the number of compositions of $`n`$, and clearly $`[z^n]G(z)=2^{n1}`$. From an analytic point of view, the fact that the number of compositions of $`n`$ is asymptotically (as well as exactly) $`2^{n1}`$ is associated with the fact that the generating function is a rational function for which the pole nearest the origin (the only pole in this case) is simple and located at $`z=\frac{1}{2}`$. Our solution of Wilf’s problem uses the same principle.

We shall use the following notation. The probability of the event $`A`$ is denoted by $`(A)`$, and the expected value of a random variable $`X`$ is denoted by $`𝔼(X)`$. The natural logarithm and base 2 logarithm are denoted by $`\mathrm{log}n`$ and $`\mathrm{log}_2n`$, respectively.

To state the problem more precisely, suppose that a composition $`\kappa `$ is selected uniformly at random from the set of all $`2^{n1}`$ compositions of $`n`$. Then out of the set of part sizes in $`\kappa `$, a part size $`k`$ is chosen uniformly at random. Let $`A_n^{(m)}`$ denote the event in which $`k`$ has multiplicity $`m`$. For example, inspection of the 16 partitions of 5 shown above yields

$$(A_5^{(1)})=\frac{5}{8},(A_5^{(2)})=\frac{3}{16},(A_5^{(3)})=\frac{1}{8},(A_5^{(5)})=\frac{1}{16},$$

and otherwise $`(A_5^{(m)})=0`$. The object is to determine $`(A_n^{(m)})`$ asymptotically as $`n\mathrm{}`$. We shall find that $`(A_n^{(m)})`$ tends to 0 at the rate $`1/\mathrm{log}n`$. It then turns out that $`\mathrm{log}n(A_n^{(m)})`$ does not have a limit, but oscillates about the value $`1/m`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

## 2 Results

The answer to Wilf’s question is given in the following theorem, first proved in .

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`A_n^{(m)}`$ be the event in which a randomly selected part size in a randomly selected composition of $`n`$ has multiplicity $`m`$. Then

$$\mathrm{log}n(A_n^{(m)})=(1+o(1))\left(\frac{1}{m}+F(\{\mathrm{log}_2n\})\right),n\mathrm{},$$

where $`\{a\}=aa`$ is the fractional part of $`a`$ and

$$F(x)=\frac{2}{m!}\text{Re}\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2\pi ipx}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+i\frac{2\pi p}{\mathrm{log}2}\right),$$

with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denoting the gamma function.

Using well-known facts about the gamma function ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+z)=z\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1z)=\pi /\mathrm{sin}(\pi z)`$), we obtain

$$F(x)=\frac{2}{m!}\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{p\alpha }{\mathrm{sinh}(p\alpha )}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi px\varphi _p),$$

where $`\alpha =2\pi ^2/\mathrm{log}2`$ and $`\varphi _p`$ is the argument of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi p/\mathrm{log}2)`$. This series converges quite rapidly, and its sum may be approximated by the first term. But even the first term is quite small since $`2(\alpha /\mathrm{sinh}\alpha )^{1/2}10^5`$. Thus for large $`n`$ one finds that $`\mathrm{log}n(A_n^{(m)})`$ is quite close to $`1/m`$, but there is a residual dependence on $`\{\mathrm{log}_2n\}`$. In the treatment given here using generating functions and singularity analysis, the proof of Theorem 1 will reduce to a well-known calculation after we have established the appropriate sequence of lemmas.

Let $`\kappa `$ be a composition of $`n`$. Then $`𝒟(\kappa )`$ will denote the set of distinct part sizes in $`\kappa `$, and $`_m(\kappa )`$ will denote the set of part sizes of $`\kappa `$ that have multiplicity $`m`$.

###### Lemma 1.

For a random composition of $`n`$,

$$(k_m(\kappa ))=\frac{1}{2^{n1}}[z^n]\frac{z^{km}(1z)^{m+1}}{(12z+z^k(1z))^{m+1}}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`G_k(z,w)`$ be the two-variable generating function in which $`[z^nw^m]G_k(z,w)`$ is the number of compositions of $`n`$ in which $`k`$ has multiplicity $`m`$. To construct such a generating function, we first note that the contribution made by compositions with $`p`$ (not necessarily distinct) parts is

$$(z+z^2+\mathrm{}+wz^k+z^{k+1}+\mathrm{})^p=\left(\frac{z}{1z}+(w1)z^k\right)^p.$$

Thus

$`G_k(z,w)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{1z}}+(w1)z^k\right)^p`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{z+(w1)z^k(1z)}{12z(w1)z^k(1z)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1z}{12z(w1)z^k(1z)}}1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1z}{12z+z^k(1z)wz^k(1z)}}1.`$
Since there are $`2^{n1}`$ compositions of $`n`$, we then have

$`(k_m(\kappa ))`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{n1}}}[z^nw^m]{\displaystyle \frac{1z}{12z+z^k(1z)wz^k(1z)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{n1}}}[z^n]{\displaystyle \frac{z^{km}(1z)^{m+1}}{(12z+z^k(1z))^{m+1}}},`$
as claimed. ∎

###### Lemma 2.

The polynomial $`12z+z^k(1z)`$ has precisely one zero $`z=\rho `$ satisfying $`|z|1`$. This zero is given by

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2^{k+2}}+O\left(\frac{k}{2^{2k}}\right),k\mathrm{}.$$

For all $`k1`$,

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{2^k}\right)<\frac{1}{(2\rho )^n}<\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{2^{k+2}}\right).$$

###### Proof.

For the first part, simply observe that if $`z=e^{i\theta }`$ then $`|12z|^2=54\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`|1z|^2=22\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, so $`|12z|>|1z|`$ for all $`z`$ with $`|z|=1`$. Apply Rouché’s theorem. To get the approximate location of $`\rho `$, write $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}+ϵ`$ and substitute into $`12\rho +\rho ^k(1\rho )=0`$. This yields

$$ϵ=\frac{1}{2^{k+2}}+\frac{k1}{2^{k+1}}ϵ+\frac{k(k3)}{2^k}ϵ^2+\mathrm{},$$

and thus the stated result by iteration. Next we prove

$$\frac{1}{22^{(k+1)}}<\rho <\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2^{k+1}}.$$

A simple calculation shows that $`Q(x)=12x+x^k(1x)`$ decreases on $`(0,1)`$. Set $`a=1/(22^{(k+1)})`$ and $`b=\frac{1}{2}+2^{(k+1)}`$. Then we find that $`Q(a)>0`$ and $`Q(b)<0`$, so $`a<\rho <b`$. Then since $`(1+x)^n<\mathrm{exp}(nx)`$ for $`x>1`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{(2\rho )^n}<\left(1\frac{1}{2^{k+2}}\right)^n<\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{2^{k+2}}\right)\text{and}\frac{1}{(2\rho )^n}>\frac{1}{(1+2^k)^n}>\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{2^k}\right).$$

We shall show that the number of distinct part sizes $`|𝒟(\kappa )|`$ of a random composition of $`n`$ satisfies $`|𝒟|\mathrm{log}_2n`$ with probability $`1o(1)`$. The underlying probabilistic considerations are given in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`X=I_j`$ where $`(I_j)`$ are indicator random variables. Suppose that $`(I_k)=p_{k,n}=p_k`$. If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are chosen so that both $`_{ja}(1p_j)`$ and $`_{j>b}p_j`$ are $`o(1)`$, then

$$(aXb)1o(1).$$

###### Proof.

For all $`ab`$ we have

$$(aXb)=1(\{X<a\}\{X>b\})1(X<a)(X>b).$$

Now, denoting for simplicity a set and its indicator by the same symbol,

$$(X>b)\left(\underset{j>b}{}I_j\right)\underset{j>b}{}(I_j)=\underset{j>b}{}p_j,$$

and

$$(X<a)\left(\underset{ja}{}I_j^c\right)\underset{ja}{}(1(I_j))=\underset{ja}{}(1p_j).$$

Hence, if $`a`$ and $`b`$ are chosen so that both $`_{ja}(1p_j)`$ and $`_{j>b}p_j`$ are $`o(1)`$ we get

$$(aXb)1o(1).$$

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`\kappa `$ be a random composition of $`n`$. As $`n\mathrm{}`$ the number of distinct part sizes $`|𝒟(\kappa )|`$ satisfies $`|𝒟(\kappa )|\mathrm{log}_2n`$ with probability $`1o(1)`$.

###### Proof.

As a special case of Lemma 1, the probability that $`k`$ has multiplicity 0 in the random composition $`\kappa `$ is

$$(k_0(\kappa ))=\frac{1}{2^{n1}}[z^n]\frac{1z}{12z+z^k(1z)},n1.$$

Hence

$$(k𝒟(\kappa ))=1\frac{1}{2^{n1}}[z^n]\frac{1z}{12z+z^k(1z)}.$$

From Lemma 2, the rational function $`(1z)/(12z+z^k(1z))`$ is analytic for $`|z|1`$ except for a simple pole at $`z=\rho \frac{1}{2}`$. The residue is $`(1\rho )/(2+(k+1)\rho ^kk\rho ^k)`$. By standard arguments \[6, §5.2\],

$$[z^n]\frac{1z}{12z+z^k(1z)}=\left(\frac{1\rho }{2+(k+1)\rho ^kk\rho ^{k1}}\right)\frac{1}{\rho ^{n+1}}+O(1).$$

By Lemma 2,

$$\frac{1\rho }{2+(k+1)\rho ^kk\rho ^{k1}}=\frac{1}{4}\left(1+O\left(\frac{k}{2^k}\right)\right).$$

Hence we have

$$\frac{1}{2^{n1}}[z^n]\frac{1z}{12z+z^k(1z)}=\frac{1}{(2\rho )^{n+1}}\left(1+O\left(\frac{k}{2^k}\right)\right).$$

Using the general bound from Lemma 2

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{2^k}\right)<\frac{1}{(2\rho )^n}<\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{2^{k+2}}\right),$$

we see that

$`(k𝒟(\kappa ))`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\rho )^{n+1}}}\left(1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2^k}}\right)\right)`$
$`1\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2^k}}\right\}\left(1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2^k}}\right)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2^k}}+\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2^k}}\right\}O\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2^k}}\right),`$
so that letting $`b=\mathrm{log}_2n+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$ we get

$$\underset{k>b}{}(k𝒟(\kappa ))=O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}n}\right).$$

Similarly,

$$(k𝒟(\kappa ))1\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{n+1}{2^{k+1}}\right\}\left(1+O\left(\frac{k}{2^k}\right)\right),$$

that is

$$1(k𝒟(\kappa ))\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{n+1}{2^{k+1}}\right\}\left(1+O\left(\frac{k}{2^k}\right)\right).$$

Consequently, for any positive $`a`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1ka}{}}\left(1(k𝒟(\kappa ))\right)`$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{1ka}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2^{k+1}}}\right\}`$
$`=C{\displaystyle \underset{0r<a}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{2^r{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2^{a+1}}}\right\}`$
$`C{\displaystyle \underset{r0}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{(r+1){\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2^{a+1}}}\right\}`$
$`=C{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{(n+1)/2^{a+2}\right\}}{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{(n+1)/2^{a+2}\right\}}},`$
and thus

$$\underset{1ka}{}\left(1(k𝒟(\kappa ))\right)=O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}n}\right),$$

provided $`a\mathrm{log}_2n\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$. Hence, by Lemma 3 applied to $`I_k=\{k𝒟(\kappa )\}`$, $`|D(\kappa )|\mathrm{log}_2n`$ with probability $`1o(1)`$. ∎

Given a random composition $`\kappa `$, the probability that a randomly selected part thereof has multiplicity $`m`$ is $`|_m(\kappa )|/|𝒟(\kappa )|`$. Lemma 4 greatly simplifies the basic problem. Since so doing amounts to the neglect of a set of compositions with total probability measure $`o(1)`$, we may assume that as $`n\mathrm{}`$ the randomly selected composition $`\kappa `$ satisfies $`|𝒟(\kappa )|\mathrm{log}_2n`$. Thus $`(A_n^{(m)})𝔼(|_m|)/\mathrm{log}_2n`$.

Now we wish to study the asymptotic behavior of $`(k_m(\kappa ))`$, with the aim of estimating

$$𝔼(|_m|)=\underset{k}{}(k_m(\kappa )).$$

###### Lemma 5.

The expected value of $`|_m|`$ is given by

$$𝔼(|_m|)=(1+o(1))\frac{n^m}{m!}\underset{k}{}2^{km}\mathrm{exp}(n/2^k).$$

###### Proof.

As we found in Lemma 1, the relevant generating function is

$$G(z)=\frac{1}{2^{n1}}\frac{P(z)}{Q^{m+1}(z)},\text{where}P(z)=z^{km}(1z)^{m+1},Q(z)=12z+z^k(1z).$$

Recall that $`Q`$ has a simple zero at $`z=\rho \frac{1}{2}`$ and no other zeros in $`\{z:|z|1\}`$. In a deleted neighborhood of $`\rho `$, we have the Laurent expansion

$$\frac{P(z)}{Q^{m+1}(z)}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{m+1}{}}\frac{c_r}{(z\rho )^r}+\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_s(z\rho )^s.$$

The asymptotic behavior of $`[z^n]P(z)/Q^{m+1}(z)`$ is governed by the principal part, more specifically by the $`r=m+1`$ term. In view of

$$[z^n](1z)^\alpha =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+\alpha 1}{n}\right),$$

a simple calculation gives

$$(k_m(\kappa ))=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+m}{m}\right)\frac{2P(\rho )}{(\rho Q^{}(\rho ))^{m+1}}\frac{1}{(2\rho )^n}\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right).$$

Set

$$q(n)=\frac{\mathrm{log}n\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n\mathrm{log}(4(m+1))}{\mathrm{log}2},$$

and note that if $`k<q(n)`$ then $`2^k<n/(4(m+1)\mathrm{log}n)`$, so

$$\frac{n^m}{(2\rho )^n}<n^m\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{42^k}\right)<n^m\mathrm{exp}((m+1)\mathrm{log}n)=\frac{1}{n}.$$

Hence we have

$$\underset{kq(n)}{}(k_m(\kappa ))=O\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\right),n\mathrm{}.$$

In view of the fact just noted, in estimating $`_k(k_m)`$, we can limit ourselves to cases where $`k>q(n)`$. In that case

$$\frac{1}{(2\rho )^n}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{2^{k+1}}\right)\left(1+O\left(\frac{(\mathrm{log}n)^3}{n^2}\right)\right),n\mathrm{}.$$

Now

$$P(\rho )=2^{km}2^{(m+1)}\left(1+O\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\right)\right)\text{and}\rho Q^{}(\rho )=1+O\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\right),$$

so

$$(k_m(\kappa ))=\left(1+O\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{n}\right)\right)\frac{n^m}{m!}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(k+1)m}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{n}{2^{k+1}}\right).$$

It is now evident that the contribution to the sum $`_k(k_m(\kappa ))`$ from those terms with $`k>\mathrm{log}_2n+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$ is $`o(1)`$, so there are $`O(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n)`$ terms in the sum that make a nontrivial contribution. Thus the bound on the error for an individual term suffices to give the correct asymptotic result for the sum. Replacing $`k+1`$ by $`k`$ in the sum, we have the stated result. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

The computational problem that remains is the asymptotic evaluation of

$$\frac{n^m}{m!}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^{km}\mathrm{exp}(n/2^k).$$

Problems of this kind occur frequently in probability theory and the analysis of algorithms, and now there are different methods available for their study, and these methods are described in several excellent references \[2, chapter 7\]. We sketch an approach due to N. G. de Bruijn, which is described in \[4, pp. 131–134\] and elsewhere. A special case ($`m=1`$) of the above sum is treated in . The starting point is Mellin’s formula

$$\mathrm{exp}(w)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\sigma i\mathrm{}}^{\sigma +i\mathrm{}}w^z\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)𝑑z,w,\sigma >0.$$

Substituting this representation (with $`\sigma =m\frac{1}{2}`$) for $`\mathrm{exp}(n/2^k)`$ and using uniform convergence, one obtains

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^{km}\mathrm{exp}(n/2^k)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\sigma i\mathrm{}}^{\sigma +i\mathrm{}}\frac{n^z\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}{2^{mz}1}𝑑z.$$

Then by the residue theorem,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n^m}{m!}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}2^{km}\mathrm{exp}(n/2^k)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!\mathrm{log}2}}\left\{(m1)!+2\text{Re}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{2\pi ip\mathrm{log}_2n}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(m+i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi p}{\mathrm{log}2}}\right)\right\}(1+o(1)).`$
The stated result for $`\mathrm{log}n(A_n^{(m)})`$ follows. ∎


text:
# The polarised gluon density Δ𝐺(𝑥) from di-jet events at high energy 𝑒𝑝-colliders

## Introduction

The origin of the spin in the proton is still a subject of debate. The last generation of deep inelastic scattering (DIS) experiments has confirmed that the quarks account for only $`30\%`$ of the proton spin. Next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD fits of the $`g_1`$ structure function and semi-inclusive data suggest that the contribution of the gluon to the spin could be large . A first attempt of a direct measurement of the polarised gluon distribution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$, using leading charged particles  is not in conflict with this suggestion. In general, it has been concluded that major progress in our understanding of the spin structure can be made with clear and unambiguous direct measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$.

Polarized $`ep`$-colliders are particularly suited for this task. It has been demonstrated by the present unpolarized studies at HERA that the large centre of mass system (CMS) energy allows for several processes to be studied which show a clear sensitivity to the gluon distribution in the proton. Consequently one could expect that a powerful method to access $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ is the measurement of di-jet rate asymmetries at high energy colliders of polarised electrons and protons. In LO two diagrams can lead to di-jet events (Fig. 1): the photon-gluon fusion (PGF) and the QCD-Compton process. The PGF is directly sensitive to the gluon density, while the QCD-Compton process is sensitive to the quark densities and constitutes the background.

Several feasibility studies on extracting the polarised gluon density $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ from di-jet events at HERA in LO have been performed during the last years and are summarized in . These studies established the di-jet process as a prime candidate to access the polarised gluon directly. Extracting $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ at HERA in NLO has been studied as well . The studies have been extended to eRHIC and THERA. In this paper we summarize the main results of these studies. In Section 1 we recall the results for HERA. Section 2 describes a first look at the potential of a combination of HERA and a possible future linear collider at DESY. In Section 3 we show in a somewhat greater detail what could be achieved at BNL, if a new accelerator for polarised electrons would be build, and its electrons would collide with the polarised protons from RHIC.

## 1 HERA as an $`\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{p}`$-collider

At HERA 820 (920) GeV protons collide with 27.5 GeV electrons, providing a center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}300(320)`$ GeV. Studies of upgrading HERA to a fully polarised $`ep`$-collider are discussed in . The potential of an extraction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ in LO, assuming that both beams are $`70\%`$ polarised, is shown in Figure 2. The different assumptions for the particle density functions are the Gehrmann-Stirling (GS) sets A and C , and the instanton-gluon distribution .

For this study the Monte Carlo event generator PEPSI 6.5  was used, which allowed to include hadronisation and detector effects. Higher order effects were partly taken into account by unpolarised parton showers. The cuts chosen for this analysis are: $`5<Q^2<100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$, $`0.3<y<0.85`$, and two jets with a $`p_t>5`$ GeV are required in the pseudo-rapidity region of $`|\eta _{jet}|<2.8`$. Furthermore a cut on the invariant mass of the two jets, $`s_{ij}>100`$ GeV, is applied. Fig. 2 demonstrates that the polarised gluon is measurable in the $`x`$-range (of the gluon) of $`0.002<x<0.2`$. Note that this measurement allows the determination of the shape of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$. Furthermore it reaches $`x`$-values lower than any other measurement planned in future so far, and (for a GS-A type of gluon) will measure about 75% of the first moment $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)dx`$. The errors on the individual points on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)/G(x)`$ are in the range of 0.007 to 0.1. The total error on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)/G(x)`$ in the complete range is 0.02.

These studies have been extended to NLO , using the MEPJET  and DISENT  programs. MEPJET is used since it includes the polarised jet cross sections in NLO; DISENT is used to relate the $`x_{jets}`$ reconstructed from the measured jet pair to the true $`x_g`$ of the gluon. To improve the correlation between these quantities, the cuts were increased: two jets with $`p_t>7`$ GeV and $`s_{ij}>200`$ GeV are required. Generally the asymmetries are found to be smaller than in the LO case and $`x_g`$-values get shifted towards larger $`x`$. The results are shown in Fig 3. The region of measurability now becomes $`0.005<x<0.5`$, the measurement will be less precise than in LO, but still has a very significant discrimination power, even already for a luminosity of 200 pb-1.

## 2 THERA: combining HERA and TESLA

THERA is a proposal to collide a 250 to 800 GeV electron beam, delivered by a linear collider such as TESLA, on the 920 GeV proton beam of HERA . A di-jet study has been made in LO with MEPJET to check the reach of THERA . The result is shown in Fig. 4 for jet selection cuts as for (LO) HERA, and for the optimistic case of having a 800 GeV electron beam on 820 GeV protons. The plot is shown for a polarisation of the beams of 100%. At the lowest $`x`$-values the asymmetries get very small, i.e. of order of 10-3, and become unmeasurable even with a statistics of 1 fb-1. But with a statistics in that ball-park, one can hope to measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ about one order of magnitude lower in $`x`$ of the gluon compared to HERA: the reach at THERA is $`0.0005<x<0.1`$.

## 3 eRHIC: adding electrons to RHIC

Recently, it has been suggested to add an electron ring or electron LINAC to the RHIC rings . The latter are presently being commissioned to provide a polarised proton beam of 250 GeV. The polarised electron beam energy would be around 10 GeV, leading to a total CMS energy of 100 GeV for this facility, baptised eRHIC, or EIC (Electron Ion Collider). The reachable luminosity is expected to be very high for this collider, of the order of 4 fb-1/year.

A LO MEPJET study was made for eRHIC. The jet selection cuts have been optimized for reaching largest sensitivity: two jets with a $`p_t>3`$ GeV are required in the pseudo-rapidity region of $`3.5<\eta _{jet}<4`$ and $`s_{ij}>100`$ GeV is required. The region in $`\eta `$ used is larger than for HERA and THERA, and will be a challenge for the detector design. With HERA-like cuts some of the precision is lost, but the measurement is still very significant.

Fig.5 shows the asymmetries as function of $`x_g`$ for both HERA and eRHIC, and the expected error bars for 1 fb-1, calculated with 100% polarisation.

Fig.6 shows the statistical precision reachable for data samples with different luminosity, calculated with MEPJET, and assuming $`70\%`$ polarisation for both beams. The figure also shows the sensitivity to the gluon distribution. Clearly a good separation power between different models for $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ is preserved. The polarised gluon can be measured in the region $`0.02<x<0.3`$. For larger values the asymmetries to the QCD compton background are dominating and its use will depend on how well one can control this contribution.

In Table 1 we present the $`x`$-values of possible measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ and the corresponding sensitivities for two different values of the $`p_t`$ cut of the jets. Hadronisation and detector effects are taken into account as correction factors determined by comparing MEPJET and PEPSI results, as studied for HERA. These corrections inflate the errors by 40-60%. Lowering the jet $`p_t`$ is in particular important for reaching higher sensitivities in the low-$`x`$ region.

Finally we present a table with the sensitivities for HERA and for eRHIC of measurable points with statistical errors, after taking into account effects of NLO, hadronisation and detector smearing. All effects are computed as correction factors to the LO MEPJET results, determined from the detailed HERA studies with PEPSI and NLO MEPJET/DISENT. The result of the $`x`$-values of the possible data points and their error is given in Table 2. For eRHIC the values correspond to the $`p_t`$-jets cut: $`p_t>5`$ GeV. These numbers can be used e.g. in general QCD fits to $`g_1`$ data, by using the di-jet cross sections as a constraint on the gluon, as done e.g. in  for a LO study for a polarised HERA.

## 4 Summary

In summary di-jet measurements at a future polarised $`ep`$-collider will give important information on the shape and magnitude of the polarised gluon distribution of the proton. For all three $`ep`$-collider versions studied, these measurements are found to be feasible. The global result is shown in Fig. 7, for HERA and eRHIC and compared to results from other planned or possible future polarised experiments: $`pp`$-scattering at RHIC  (STAR, $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, $`=320\mathrm{pb}^1`$), $`\mu p`$-scattering in COMPASS , and $`pp`$-scattering in HERA-N , i.e. using the polarised protons of HERA on a polarised fixed target. All measurements are shown at LO. Clearly eRHIC can produce the (statistically) most precise measurements, and HERA covers the range to lowest possible $`x`$-values which can only be beaten by THERA, if it would be able to deliver sufficient luminosity.

In all di-jet measurements at $`ep`$-colliders appear to be a decisive tool to analyse and settle the question on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$.


text:
# Status of the Milagro Gamma Ray Observatory

## I Introduction

The observation of high-energy gamma ray sources has helped us to gain a better understanding of the energetic acceleration processes in the Universe. The known gamma ray sources include supernova remnants, active galactic nuclei (AGN), and gamma ray bursts (GRB). In addition, more exotic sources like topological defects, evaporating primordial black holes, and dark matter particle annihilation and decay could be sources of high-energy gamma ray emission. Several reviews of the techniques, science, and recent results in high-energy gamma-ray astronomy have been published Hoffman ; Ong ; Weekes .

The Milagro detector is a new type of instrument designed to search for continuous and episodic sources of VHE gamma ray sources. Milagro is the first detector sensitive to cosmic gamma rays below 1 TeV with the all-sky, high duty-factor capabilities of an extended air shower (EAS) array. Our prototype detector, Milagrito, has produced results on the outburst of the AGN Mrk501 and given suggestive evidence for TeV emission associated with a GRB grito ; mrk501 ; grb97 . We describe here the Milagro detector and its performance, as well as the current status of operations. This paper was presented at the 2001 ICRC sullivan . For details on the various physics topics addressed by Milagro see other talks in those proceedings Benbow ; Fleysher ; Ryan ; Samuelson ; Sinnis ; Smith ; Stephens ; Yodh .

### I.1 Scientific Goals of Milagro

Milagro performs high-duty-factor, all-sky observations in the VHE region. We are using the Milagro detector to:

* Survey the Northern sky for steady and episodic sources.
* Search for emission from GRBs in the energy range 100 GeV to 20 TeV.
* Detect VHE emission from the Crab and study its energy spectrum with a new, independent technique.
* Continuously monitor the entire sky for flaring sources such as Markarian 421 and Markarian 501.
* Search for emission from the galactic plane.
* Detect the shadow of the moon with high significance and use it to calibrate the energy response of the detector and to perform a search for TeV cosmic antiprotons.
* Detect the shadow of the sun with high significance and use it to continuously monitor the strength of the transverse component of the solar magnetic field.
* Search for evaporating primordial black holes.
* Search for $`>`$5 GeV particles from the Sun with unprecedented sensitivity.
* Measure the primary proton spectrum with single hadrons
* Measure the composition of the cosmic rays above 50 TeV in conjunction with WACT
* Search for WIMPS annihilating in the vicinity of the Sun.

## II The Milagro Detector

Milagro uses photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) deployed under water to detect the Cherenkov radiation produced in the water by relativistic charged shower particles. Because water is inexpensive and the Cherenkov cone spreads out the light, one is able to construct a large instrument that can detect nearly every charged shower particle falling within its area. Furthermore, the plentiful photons convert to electron-positron pairs (or to electrons via Compton scattering). These electrons, in turn, produce Cherenkov radiation that can be detected. Consequently, Milagro has an unprecedented low energy threshold for an EAS-array.

As in a conventional EAS-array, the direction of the primary gamma ray is reconstructed in Milagro by measuring the relative arrival time of the shower front across the detector.

The Milagro detector is located at an altitude of 8,600 feet (750 $`g/cm^2`$ ) at the Fenton Hill site in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico (Figure 1). The core of the detector is a 6-million gallon pond measuring 60m x 80m x 8m (depth), which is used as a large area water Cherenkov detector. When completed the pond will be surrounded by 170 individual water Cherenkov detectors, called “outriggers”, over a 200m x 200m area.

The Milagro pond is covered by a light-tight barrier and instrumented with an array of 450 photomultiplier tubes deployed under 1.5-m of water to detect air-shower particles reaching the ground. These PMTs measure the arrival time and density of the air-shower particles. In addition, 273 PMTs are located at the bottom of the pond under 6m of water and are used to distinguish photon-induced showers from hadron-induced showers. The top array of PMTs is called the shower layer and the bottom array is the muon layer (Figure 2). On the bottom of the pond is a 2.8m x 2.8m grid of sand-filled PVC pipe to which The PMTs in both layers are secured by a Kevlar string, as shown in Figure 2. Milagro uses 20-cm-diameter Hamamatsu 10-stage R5912SEL PMTs. Custom-made front-end electronics boards provide timing and charge information for each PMT channel. The front-end boards also provide triggering information.

An event display for a typical air shower event in the Milagro pond is shown in Figure 3. The line above the pond indicates the best fit direction of the shower front using the relative arrival times of the shower layer PMTs.

A measure for the angular resolution of the Milagro detector is the DELEO/2 distribution of Figure 4. DELEO/2 is one half the space angle difference between the fits using the odd and even tubes in the array and is approximately the angular uncertainty (excluding certain systematics). The final resolution of the detector will be degraded by uncertainties in the shower’s core position coupled with the shower-front’s small curvature. The angular resolution is dependent on the number of PMTs that are in the fit; the resulting average angular resolution for all reconstructed events is $`0.75^{}`$.

Figure 5 shows the effective area of the detector versus gamma ray energy for the current trigger (blue) and planned trigger discussed below (black). The Milagro detector becomes sensitive to gamma-ray induced showers of an energy of $``$200 GeV. For a gamma-ray energy spectrum of $`E^{2.4}`$ the median energy for all triggers, events reconstructed within a $`2.1^{}`$ bin , and events that pass the gamma-hadron cut are 6 TeV, 3 TeV, and 4.7 TeV respectively.

## III Current Operations and Results

The construction of the Milagro pond was completed in early 1999, and operations began in mid 1999. After a three month shut down in the fall, the detector has operated nearly continuously since November 1999. Since Jan. 2000 the detector has operated at a trigger rate of 1,500-2,000 Hz, depending on experimental and meteorological conditions (Figure 6). All events are reconstructed in real time at the site. The entire data set of reconstructed events is copied over the network to our archival data storage disk array and stored in a highly compressed format. It takes approximately 1.3 Terabytes of disk to store one year of all-sky data. In addition to the all-sky data set, there are “source” files that contain the full data for selected sources and the sun and moon. These files are recorded on DLT tape.

In Milagro, a gamma-ray signal from a source appears as an excess of events from the source direction, compared with the background from hadronic cosmic-ray showers. An important feature of the Milagro detector is its ability to reduce this hadronic background by using the muon layer in the pond. This gamma-hadron separation is described in detail elsewhere in these proceedings (Sinnis, 2001). Figure 7 shows the Crab signal accumulated versus time, and figure 8 shows the significance of the event excess in the vicinity of the Crab during the period June 8, 1999 to April 24, 2001. At the source position, an excess of 4443 events is observed, corresponding to a significance of 4.8$`\sigma `$.

We have also observed gamma-ray emission from Mrk421, which has recently been observed to be active in both the X-ray, by the All-Sky Monitor(ASM), and at TeV energies by HEGRA and Whipple. During the period June 14, 2001 - April 24, 2001 we find an event excess corresponding to 4.0$`\sigma `$ (Benbow, 2001). We have also observed the shadow of the moon (Samuelson, 2001), and performed a search for GRB (Smith, 2001).

## IV Future Improvements

Since the construction of the Milagro pond was completed the detector has become operational and successfully observed VHE gamma-ray sources. However, there are two significant improvements that are now being implemented at Milagro, which will significantly improve its sensitivity. The first improvement is to finish the construction of the detector by deploying $``$170 individual water tanks as Cherenkov detectors, called “outriggers”, surrounding the pond. The second is the implementation of smart triggering processors that will significantly lower the energy threshold.

### IV.1 Outrigger Water Tank Array

Approximately 70% of the showers that trigger the Milagro detector have cores that do not fall directly on the pond. It is vital to be able to determine the shower core position to substantially improve the performance of Milagro with respect to angular resolution, gamma-hadron separation and energy determination of each event. Without knowing the actual position of the core it is difficult to tell a low energy shower hitting the pond from a larger energy shower with a core far away. Additionally, because the shower front is curved, not knowing the core position can give a systematic pointing error ($`1^{}`$) degrading the angular resolution and therefore sensitivity. Finally, our ability to perform gamma-hadron separation using the muon layer will be enhanced by an increased knowledge of the true core position.

In order to identify the core position we are deploying $``$170 individual cylindrical water tanks, 0.91 m in height by 2.4 m in diameter, made of polyethelene and lined with Tyvek. The tanks are instrumented with a single PMT facing down from the top, which enable them to act as individual water Cherenkov detectors to measure the particles in the EAS with high efficiency. These tanks will surround the pond in an area approximately 200m x 200m with the layout shown in Figure 9. In addition to improving our energy resolution, studies show that the outrigger array will increase our sensitivity to gamma-ray sources by at least a factor of two.

### IV.2 Lowering The Energy Threshold

The Milagro detector is capable of high reconstruction efficiency and good angular resolution for gamma-ray showers down to $``$10 PMTs. Currently, the low energy reach is limited by the trigger system, which is a simple multiplicity of PMTs in the shower layer. The DAQ system’s readout capability is about 2kHz, and using a simple multiplicity trigger this rate is reached at $``$55 PMTs. This 55 PMT trigger threshold is well above the detector’s intrinsic capability to detect and reconstruct gamma rays down to $``$10 PMTs. Below the threshold of 55 PMTs the trigger rate becomes rapidly dominated by non-shower events such as single muons, and the total rate is higher then our ability to read out. In order to reject these non-shower events, we are developing custom trigger processors using the time signature of the PMTs hit and muon layer information to reduce our threshold. We are currently implementing these custom processors, and hope to update our progress at the conference.

A lower energy threshold will significantly increase our sensitivity to gamma-ray sources, and in particular to sources of cosmological origin, such as GRBs, where the higher energy gamma-rays have sizable attenuation due to the interaction with the intergalactic infra-red light Hays .

## V Conclusion

Milagro is the first EAS detector with an all-sky, high duty-factor capability, to be sensitive to gamma rays in the TeV energy range. The Milagro pond, which is the core of the detector, has been operational continuously since Jan. 2000 and has observed two TeV gamma-ray sources. Planned improvements will further increase our sensitivity, and put us in a unique position to monitor the sky for episodic emission of VHE gamma ray sources.

This work is supported by the US National Science Foundation, and also by the DoE, the LDRD program at LANL, and the IGPP.


text:
# Measurement of the Masses and Widths of the Σ_𝑐⁺⁺ and Σ_𝑐⁰ Charmed Baryons

## Abstract

Using data recorded by the CLEO II and CLEO II.V detector configurations at CESR, we report new measurements of the masses of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ charmed baryons, and the first measurements of their intrinsic widths. We find $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=167.4\pm 0.1\pm 0.2\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})=2.3\pm 0.2\pm 0.3\mathrm{MeV}`$, and $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0)M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=167.2\pm 0.1\pm 0.2\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0)=2.5\pm 0.2\pm 0.3\mathrm{MeV}`$, where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

preprint:   CLNS 01/1759 CLEO 01-19

M. Artuso,1 C. Boulahouache,1 K. Bukin,1 E. Dambasuren,1 R. Mountain,1 T. Skwarnicki,1 S. Stone,1 J.C. Wang,1 A. H. Mahmood,2 S. E. Csorna,3 I. Danko,3 Z. Xu,3 G. Bonvicini,4 D. Cinabro,4 M. Dubrovin,4 S. McGee,4 A. Bornheim,5 E. Lipeles,5 S. P. Pappas,5 A. Shapiro,5 W. M. Sun,5 A. J. Weinstein,5 G. Masek,6 H. P. Paar,6 R. Mahapatra,7 R. J. Morrison,7 H. N. Nelson,7 R. A. Briere,8 G. P. Chen,8 T. Ferguson,8 G. Tatishvili,8 H. Vogel,8 N. E. Adam,9 J. P. Alexander,9 C. Bebek,9 K. Berkelman,9 F. Blanc,9 V. Boisvert,9 D. G. Cassel,9 P. S. Drell,9 J. E. Duboscq,9 K. M. Ecklund,9 R. Ehrlich,9 R. S. Galik,9 L. Gibbons,9 B. Gittelman,9 S. W. Gray,9 D. L. Hartill,9 B. K. Heltsley,9 L. Hsu,9 C. D. Jones,9 J. Kandaswamy,9 D. L. Kreinick,9 A. Magerkurth,9 H. Mahlke-Krüger,9 T. O. Meyer,9 N. B. Mistry,9 E. Nordberg,9 M. Palmer,9 J. R. Patterson,9 D. Peterson,9 J. Pivarski,9 D. Riley,9 A. J. Sadoff,9 H. Schwarthoff,9 M. R .Shepherd,9 J. G. Thayer,9 D. Urner,9 B. Valant-Spaight,9 G. Viehhauser,9 A. Warburton,9 M. Weinberger,9 S. B. Athar,10 P. Avery,10 C. Prescott,10 H. Stoeck,10 J. Yelton,10 J. Zheng,10 G. Brandenburg,11 A. Ershov,11 D. Y.-J. Kim,11 R. Wilson,11 K. Benslama,12 B. I. Eisenstein,12 J. Ernst,12 G. D. Gollin,12 R. M. Hans,12 I. Karliner,12 N. Lowrey,12 M. A. Marsh,12 C. Plager,12 C. Sedlack,12 M. Selen,12 J. J. Thaler,12 J. Williams,12 K. W. Edwards,13 R. Ammar,14 D. Besson,14 X. Zhao,14 S. Anderson,15 V. V. Frolov,15 Y. Kubota,15 S. J. Lee,15 S. Z. Li,15 R. Poling,15 A. Smith,15 C. J. Stepaniak,15 J. Urheim,15 S. Ahmed,16 M. S. Alam,16 L. Jian,16 M. Saleem,16 F. Wappler,16 E. Eckhart,17 K. K. Gan,17 C. Gwon,17 T. Hart,17 K. Honscheid,17 D. Hufnagel,17 H. Kagan,17 R. Kass,17 T. K. Pedlar,17 J. B. Thayer,17 E. von Toerne,17 M. M. Zoeller,17 S. J. Richichi,18 H. Severini,18 P. Skubic,18 S.A. Dytman,19 S. Nam,19 V. Savinov,19 S. Chen,20 J. W. Hinson,20 J. Lee,20 D. H. Miller,20 V. Pavlunin,20 E. I. Shibata,20 I. P. J. Shipsey,20 D. Cronin-Hennessy,21 A.L. Lyon,21 C. S. Park,21 W. Park,21 E. H. Thorndike,21 T. E. Coan,22 Y. S. Gao,22 F. Liu,22 Y. Maravin,22 I. Narsky,22 R. Stroynowski,22 and J. Ye22

1Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244

2University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, Texas 78539

3Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235

4Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202

5California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125

6University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

7University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

8Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

9Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

10University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

11Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

12University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801

13Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada

14University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

15University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

16State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12222

17Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

18University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

19University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

20Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

21University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

22Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275

In recent years there have been great advances in charmed baryon spectroscopy. However, the spin and parity of none of the states has been directly measured, and we rely upon the pattern of masses of the detected particles, together with their decay properties, to identify the different states. The existence of the $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ states, which can be considered as a spin-1 light diquark in combination with a charmed quark, is now well established. In 1996, CLEO published measurements of the masses and widths of the analogous $`J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+`$ states, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$. In the Heavy Quark Symmetry picture of heavy hadrons, the decays of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ states are closely analogous, and differ in rate only by calculable phase space and numerical factors. Previous studies of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ baryons have not had sufficient detector resolution to measure their intrinsic widths. In this Letter, using a large sample of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ candidates found using the CLEO detector, we are now able to measure the shape of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ baryons using the mass differences $`M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^\pm )M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$, and extract values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})`$.

The data presented here were taken by the CLEO II and CLEO II.V detectors operating at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring. The sample used in this analysis corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 13.7 fb-1 taken on the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance and in the continuum at energies just below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$. Of this data, 4.7 fb-1 was taken with the CLEO II detector, which is described in detail elsewhere. We detect charged tracks with a cylindrical drift chamber system inside a solenoidal magnet, and we detect photons using an electromagnetic calorimeter consisting of 7800 cesium iodide crystals. The remainder of the data were taken with the CLEO II.V detector which is an incremental upgrade of CLEO II, and incorporates a high resolution silicon vertex detector inside the CLEO II drift chamber system.

In order to obtain large statistics, we reconstructed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ baryons using 15 different decay modes***Charge conjugate modes are implicit throughout.. Measurements of the relative branching fractions into these modes have previously been presented by the CLEO collaboration, and the general procedures for finding those decay modes can be found in these references. For this search and data set, the exact analysis used has been optimized for high efficiency and low background. Briefly, particle identification of $`p,K^{}`$, and $`\pi ^+`$ candidates was performed using specific ionization measurements in the drift chamber, and when present, time-of-flight measurements. Hyperons and $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays were found by detecting their decay points separated from the main event vertex. Photons were detected using the CsI electromagnetic calorimeter.

We reduce the combinatorial background, which is highest for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ candidates with low momentum, by applying a cut on $`x_p`$, where $`x_p=p/p_{max}`$, $`p`$ is the momentum of the charmed baryon, $`p_{max}=\sqrt{E_{beam}^2M^2},`$ $`M`$ is the mass of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ candidate, and $`E_{beam}`$ is the beam energy. Using a cut of $`x_p>0.5`$ (charmed baryons produced from decays of $`B`$ mesons are kinematically limited to $`x_p<0.4`$), we fit each of the invariant mass distributions for these modes to a sum of a Gaussian signal and a low-order polynomial background. Combinations within $`1.6`$ standard deviations of the observed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ mass peak are taken as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ candidates, where the resolution of each decay mode is taken from a Monte Carlo simulation (for the two data sets separately), and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ candidates were kinematically constrained to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ peak mass. In this $`x_p`$ region, we find a total $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ yield of $`58,300\pm 380`$, and a signal to background ratio of approximately $`1:1.2`$. This sample of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ decays is the same as used in our analysis of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+`$. The $`x_p`$ cut described above was used only to obtain these measures of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ sample, and was released before continuing with the analysis as we prefer to apply an $`x_p`$ cut only on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^\pm `$ combinations.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ candidates were then combined with each remaining charged $`\pi `$ track in the event and the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^\pm )M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ was calculated. To optimize the resolution in this quantity, we calculated an event-by-event vertex point with those well measured tracks in the event which were consistent with coming from the beamspot, and then refit the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ and $`\pi ^\pm `$ trajectories to come from this point. The main effect of this procedure was to improve the polar angle resolution of the $`\pi ^\pm `$, and thus improve the mass-difference resolution. Those combinations that were inconsistent with coming from this point were rejected. We placed an $`x_p>0.5`$ cut on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^\pm `$ combination.

Both of the mass-difference spectra (Fig. 1), show a clear peak of about 2000 events around 167 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ due to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^\pm `$ decays. These distributions were each then fit to the sum of a polynomial background with a threshold suppression and a p-wave Breit-Wigner function convoluted with a double-Gaussian detector resolution function. We use a formalism of the Breit-Wigner signal function with a mass-dependent width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(\frac{P}{P_0})^3`$, where $`P`$ is the $`\pi `$ momentum in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ rest frame, and $`P_0`$ is the $`\pi `$ momentum calculated at the pole mass; we have tried relativistic and non-relativistic formalisms of the function and found negligible differences in our results.

The parameters of the two Gaussians in the resolution function were $`\sigma _1=0.461`$ MeV, $`\sigma _2=1.35`$ MeV, and $`area_2/area_1=0.31`$. These parameters were found from a Monte Carlo simulation using a GEANT-based program for the detector response. The generated Monte Carlo data used the CLEO II and CLEO II.V configurations in the same proportions as the real data, and assumed a zero-width $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$. The two Gaussians do not represent the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ resolution of each of the two different configurations, neither of which has a resolution which is well described by a single Gaussian function. The solid lines in Figure 1 show the best fits to the data distributions; the extracted values using these fits are $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=167.4\pm 0.1\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})=2.3\pm 0.2\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0)M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=167.2\pm 0.1\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0)=2.5\pm 0.2\mathrm{MeV}`$. The dashed lines show the best fits achievable using only the resolution function to describe the shape of the signal peaks, and no intrinsic width. The $`\chi ^2`$ of these latter fits are clearly unacceptable.

We have investigated many potential sources of systematic uncertainty in our measurement of the widths of these particles. We have analyzed our two data sets independently, using two different double-Gaussian resolution functions, and find statistically consistent results. The Monte Carlo studies indicate that the largest part of the detector resolution is from the determination of the trajectory of the $`\pi ^\pm `$ trajectory rather than the measurement of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ daughters; thus, as expected, the analysis produces consistent results for different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ decay modes. We assign a 15% uncertainty in the width of the resolution function, which translates into a 0.15 MeV uncertainty in the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c)`$. This is a conservative estimate of the width uncertainty and is based upon the width measurements of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(2625)`$ which has similar kinematics to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$. In order to obtain a width of zero in the data, we would have to use a resolution function three times wider than that derived from Monte Carlo studies. We have also fit the mass-difference distributions to resolution functions varying from a single Gaussian to the sum of five Gaussians. The extracted $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ widths from the data vary by 0.15 MeV when changing from single to double-Gaussian resolution functions, but are stable with the addition of further functions. We therefore assign 0.15 MeV as our uncertainty due to our imperfect knowledge of the shape of this resolution function.

The polynomial background shape we use is a good fit to the data, but we realize that this background may include non-phase space contributions arising from feed-down from other decays of excited charmed baryons, some of which are as yet undiscovered. For example, some of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ yield is due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}^+(2593)\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\pi `$ decays, and these may have a distorted $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ shape due to the limited phase space available. However, if we place a veto on decays we observe to be from this source, our result changes by less than 0.15 MeV. We have also investigated a veto of those $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^\pm `$ combinations that are consistent with being due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(2630)`$ decays, with a similar null result. We have performed a large number of fits to the data with different background parameterizations, as well as different requirements on, for instance, the $`x_p`$ of the combinations and the momentum of the $`\pi ^\pm `$, and note only small variations in the extracted width of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$. From all these studies, we estimate the systematic uncertainty to be $`\pm 0.2`$ MeV from uncertainties of the effect of feed-down from other particles, and a total systematic uncertainty of $`\pm 0.3`$ MeV from all sources.

The measurements of the mass difference, $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c)M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$, are stable to changes in the background shape and the signal resolution function. A change from using a Gaussian signal function (as previous analyses have done), to a Breit-Wigner function, produces a shift of only 0.02 MeV in the extracted pole mass. Overall, including all systematic uncertainties in the fitting procedure, feed-down effects from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c1}(2593)`$ and momentum measurements, we estimate a total systematic uncertainty of $`\pm 0.2`$ MeV on the measured mass differences. Much of this systematic uncertainty cancels in the comparison of the two mass differences, giving an isospin mass splitting of $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0)=0.2\pm 0.1\pm 0.1`$ MeV. This result is consistent both with the recent measurement by FOCUS, as well as earlier results that all indicate a small isospin splitting between these states. Theoretical models predict values of this mass splitting that vary from -3 to +3 MeV.

Using scaling laws and measures of the non-charmed $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ widths, Rosner has predicted a value for the widths of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ of $`1.3\mathrm{MeV}`$, and Huang et al.  have predicted widths of around $`2.4\mathrm{MeV}`$. Tawfiq and collaborators  use strange-baryon data and a Light-Front Quark Model to predict $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ widths of $`1.6\mathrm{MeV}`$, whereas Ivanov et al., use a Relativistic Three-Quark Model to predict $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ widths of around $`2.7\mathrm{MeV}`$. Pirjol and Yan have directly scaled from the measured $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{}`$ widths as input, and derived $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ widths of 2.0 MeV. Our results are consistent with these predictions, all of which use the Heavy Quark Symmetry model of baryon structure and decays.

In conclusion, we present new measurements of the masses of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ charmed baryons relative to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ mass. We measure $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=167.4\pm 0.1\pm 0.2\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`M(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0)M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=167.2\pm 0.1\pm 0.2\mathrm{MeV}`$. These measurements of the masses of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0`$ are the most statistically precise available and are consistent with the world average values. They supercede the previous CLEO II numbers which used a subset of the present data set. We make the first measurements of the intrinsic widths of these particles, and find $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^{++})=2.3\pm 0.2\pm 0.3\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0)=2.5\pm 0.2\pm 0.3\mathrm{MeV}`$. These widths are consistent with theoretical expectations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. M. Selen thanks the PFF program of the NSF and the Research Corporation, and A.H. Mahmood thanks the Texas Advanced Research Program. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# Peltier ac calorimeter

## I INTRODUCTION

At the turn of the 20th century studies of heat capacity of solids at low temperatures played an important role in revealing the quantum character of Nature. nature  This example vividly illustrates the power of heat capacity measurements in physics. As a matter of fact measurements of heat capacity reveal so great a deal of information about matter that calorimetry has become an indispensable tool for modern day research in chemistry, physics, materials science, and biology. Unfortunately, however, calorimetry is a relatively insensitive method, and it is particularly difficult to obtain an accurate absolute value of heat capacity of samples with minute masses. Since new materials with interesting physical properties are usually not synthesized in quantity, it is of extreme necessity for the advance of materials science or condensed matter physics to secure a convenient means to measure absolute heat capacity of sub-milligram samples.

On another front, the generalization of calorimetry into the dynamic regime has attracted wide attention in recent years. lahnwitz  Although measurement of a thermodynamic quantity is the usual notion that is tied to calorimetry, it is possible to go beyond this traditional understanding and generalize heat capacity as a dynamic quantity. The concept of dynamic heat capacity appears natural if one recalls that static thermodynamic quantities are time-averaged (or ensemble-averaged). In other words, they are static not because they do not change in time, but because they change too rapidly on the experimental time scale. Then, suppose that a system contains a dynamic process relaxing with a characteristic time which lies within our experimental time window, this will result in a time-dependent (or frequency-dependent) heat capacity depending on the time scale of measurements. Conversely, measurements of dynamic heat capacity of condensed matter would provide insights which may not be available to other dynamic probes. Thus, the development of a convenient dynamic calorimeter for solid samples appears to be of great necessity.

In this paper, we describe a new type of the ac calorimeter, termed Peltier ac calorimeter (PAC), which fills both needs described above; PAC is not only a microcalorimeter capable of measuring heat capacity of sub-milligram samples but also a dynamic calorimeter with wide dynamic range. For the heat capacity measurements of a minute sample adiabatic calorimetry nernst  does not appear to be suitable due to the so-called addenda problem; in other words, calorimetry requires indispensable addenda (heater and sensor) to be put on a sample and the mass of the addenda may even be greater than that of the sample in the case of minute samples. Although one may expect the same kind of problem in ac calorimetry, sullivan  we have devised a way of avoiding the addenda problem in a new ac calorimeter by utilizing the Peltier effect of extremely thin thermocouple wires. It is also obvious that an ac calorimeter has a potential of being a dynamic one.

## II Principle of the Peltier ac calorimeter

Suppose that a voltage difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ and/or a temperature difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ exist across a metallic wire, the electric current $`I`$ and the heat current $`P`$ through the wire can be expressed as callen

$$I=(\mathrm{\Delta }V+S\mathrm{\Delta }T)/R$$
(1)
$$P=\mathrm{\Pi }IK\mathrm{\Delta }T,$$
(2)
where $`R`$ is the resistance, $`S`$ the thermoelectric power, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ the Peltier coefficient, and $`K`$ the thermal conductance. The thermoelectric power and the Peltier coefficient are related by $`\mathrm{\Pi }=TS`$. Now if an electric current is run through a thermocouple, consisting of two distinct metal wires, under an isothermal condition, then the junction acts as either a heat sink or a heat source depending on the current direction. The heat current $`P`$ caused by this Peltier effect is directly proportional to $`I`$. If an ac electric current at an angular frequency $`\omega `$, $`I(t)=I_0\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$, is applied to a thermocouple under an isothermal condition, an ac power oscillation at the same frequency will be induced at the junction by the Peltier effect. The amplitude $`P_0`$ of the ac power is equal to $`P_0=T\mathrm{\Delta }SI_0`$; $`P_0`$ can be accurately determined, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ is well tabulated for thermocouples and the ac current can be measured with high precision. Thus it is evident that the Peltier effect of a thermocouple junction can be utilized as a power source for ac calorimetry.

Various ac calorimetric techniques with non-contact energy sources such as chopped light or light emitting diode were developed previously. hatta ; cal\_LED  However, it should be pointed out that these power sources can only supply heat and cannot act as a heat sink. As a consequence of this, the average temperature of a sample is always above that of the heat bath in these traditional ac calorimetric methods. (This so-called dc shift is equal to the average dc power divided by the thermal conductance between the sample and the bath.) In addition, it is not easy in traditional ac calorimetry to determine an absolute value of heat capacity due to inaccuracy in the determination of input power and heat leak. On the other hand, the PAC which utilizes the Peltier effect as an ac power source is free from these difficulties: first, it is capable of both heating and cooling. This means that there is no dc shift in temperature, and lack of the dc shift in turn has an important implication on the working frequency range of the ac calorimeter. (See below.) Second, the power generated at a thermocouple junction can be measured with high accuracy. Third, the mass of the thermocouple junction attached to the sample is entirely negligible in most situations. All these factors make the PAC superior to previous methods in that the experimental setup is simple, it directly yields absolute values of heat capacity of sub-milligram samples, and it may be used as a dynamic calorimeter.

## III Implementation of the principle

The implementation of the principle described in the previous section is rather straightforward; the schematic diagram and the photograph of the Peltier ac calorimeter we constructed is shown in Fig. 1. We made thermocouple junctions by spot-welding with chromel and constantan wires of 25 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ (or 12 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$) in diameter. A couple of thermocouple junctions (TC1) were connected via copper wires to a function generator supplying an ac electric current, which was measured by a digital ammeter with 1 nA sensitivity. Using a very small amount of GE 7031 varnish for electrical insulation and good thermal contacts, one of the junctions was attached to one side of a sample (typically of linear size less than 1 mm) and the other to a copper block (heat bath). The heat bath was then attached to a closed-cycle He refrigerator and its temperature was controlled within $`\pm `$ 2 mK stability in the range of 15–420 K. A digital voltmeter was used to read the voltage difference across another thermocouple junction (TC2) attached to the other side of the sample. From the voltage readings, we could measure the sample temperature with the sensitivity of 1.67 mK at 15 K and 0.14 mK at 420 K.

Since the mass of the thermocouple junctions and the varnish is completely negligible compared to the sample mass even for sub-milligram samples, the amplitude of the temperature oscillation $`\delta T_\omega `$ at the imposed frequency (measured by TC2) can be written as hatta

$$\delta T_\omega =\frac{P_0}{\omega C_p}\left(1+\frac{1}{\omega ^2\tau _{ext}^2}+\omega ^2\tau _{int}^2+\frac{2K_b}{3K_s}\right)^{1/2},$$
(3)
where $`C_p`$ is the sample heat capacity, $`\tau _{ext}`$ the external or sample-to-bath relaxation time, $`\tau _{int}`$ the internal diffusion time in the sample, $`K_b`$ the thermal conductance of the link between the sample and the bath, and $`K_s`$ the thermal conductance of the sample. Since only the thin thermocouple wires of diameter 12 or 25 $`\mu `$m provide paths for heat conduction from the sample to the heat bath, $`K_b`$ is extremely small and negligible compared to $`K_s`$. And the third term in the parenthesis of Eq. (3) can be neglected. Thus, if one can select the frequency range of $`1/\tau _{ext}\omega 1/\tau _{int}`$, heat capacity may be directly obtained from $`C_p=P_0/\omega \delta T_\omega `$.

In addition to providing a means for measuring the absolute value of heat capacity of minute solid samples, the PAC possesses a distinct ability to function as a dynamic calorimeter. This capability of the PAC stems from the fact that $`K_b`$ is extremely small as noted above (Heat conduction paths are provided by microns thick thermocouple wires only.) and thus $`\tau _{ext}`$ is exceedingly large. Large $`\tau _{ext}`$ then allows a wide frequency range where the relationship $`C_p=P_0/\omega \delta T_\omega `$ holds. This situation is contrasted to that of traditional ac calorimeters where one is required to have a reasonable size of $`K_b`$, because otherwise the dc shift of the sample due to a dc power would become prohibitively large. (Remember that the dc shift is given by the dc power divided by $`K_b`$.) This size requirement of $`K_b`$ then places a limit to the working frequency range of the ac calorimeter by decreasing $`\tau _{ext}`$. Note that the origin of this limitation of the traditional ac calorimeter goes to the fact that the energy source is only capable of heating, but not cooling. On the other hand, the energy source of the PAC is able to both heat and cool, the average temperature of the sample is the same as the bath temperature, and the PAC can afford to have exceedingly small $`K_b`$ and long $`\tau _{ext}`$.

## IV PERFORMANCE of the Peltier ac calorimeter

The performance of the PAC was tested with small pieces of synthetic sapphire ($`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_2\mathrm{O}_3`$), the standard material designated by NIST. cp\_ref  We first examined the induced temperature oscillation in TC2, in response to an oscillating electric current in TC1, at 30 K, 150 K, and 320 K with a test sample of mass 0.54 mg and dimension 1$`\times `$0.5$`\times `$0.3 mm3. The frequency and amplitude of the electric current were 0.25 Hz and 0.4 mA, respectively. From Fig. 2(a) and (b), it is seen that nice temperature oscillations at the applied frequency are obtained at 150 K and 320 K. However, Fig. 2(c) reveals that a significant amount of the second harmonic appears at 30 K. It is readily clear that this second harmonic originates from Joule heating in the thermocouple wires. To precisely determine $`\delta T_\omega `$ which will yield heat capacity, the raw data were fitted to a sinusoidal function containing the fundamental and second harmonic terms. Fig. 2(d) shows the power amplitude at the fundamental and second harmonics as a function of temperature. The power amplitude at the fundamental were converted from the measured $`I_0`$ using the table for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$table  The Joule heating part was obtained from the fitting procedure. Above 50 K, the Joule heating effect is completely negligible; however, there appears an increasing amount of the second harmonic as temperature decreases below 50 K. This is probably caused by the reduction in thermal resistance of the thermocouple wires at low temperatures, and thus part of the heat generated along the wires flows back toward the sample. However, the existence of the second harmonic does not cause too much problem in the heat capacity measurements, since the governing equation for the present problem is linear and therefore one needs only to measure the signal at the fundamental frequency. Nevertheless, it is desirable to reduce the Joule heating as much as possible to attain the sensitivity.

The dynamic characteristics of the PAC was then checked by measuring the frequency dependence of $`\delta T_\omega `$ for the test sample (0.54 mg) at a fixed amplitude of the applied current. Fig. 3 is the plot of the results obtained at three temperatures. It is seen from the figure that $`\delta T_\omega `$ is proportional to $`f^1`$ in the whole measured frequency range at high temperatures (150 K and 320 K), and the figure clearly illustrates that the PAC is indeed a dynamic calorimeter. The data obtained at 30 K, however, shows a large deviation from the $`f^1`$ behavior at frequencies below 0.13 Hz. This is caused by the fact that the smallness of $`K_b`$ is compensated by a rapid decrease in heat capacity at low temperatures, and the external relaxation time $`\tau _{ext}`$ becomes short enough to be comparable to the oscillation period at 0.13 Hz. This compensation effect is unavoidable and the dynamic capability of the PAC is of limited use below roughly liquid nitrogen temperature. It may be also noted that the deviation from the $`f^1`$ behavior is also expected at high frequencies, since our power source is an extremely local one and the internal diffusion time will interfere above a certain frequency. This high cutoff should be size-dependent, and present no problem for small samples.

In order to ascertain the capability of the PAC as a microcalorimeter, we carried out the heat capacity measurements for two test samples of $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_2\mathrm{O}_3`$ with mass 0.54 mg and 2.25 mg. The measuring frequency was set at 0.25 Hz and the measured temperature range was from 15 K to 420 K. It is stressed that background subtraction, required in most calorimetric methods, is not necessary for the PAC. Fig. 4 (a) is the plot of the heat capacity data for two sapphire samples. The two sets of data coincide very well and display excellent reproducibility of the PAC. Also plotted in the figure is the reference data ($`C_p^{ref}`$) of the same material. cp\_ref  The agreement is again excellent in the whole temperature range from 15 K to 420 K. In order to estimate the accuracy and precision of the PAC, we plotted the residual heat capacity values, i.e., ($`C_pC_p^{ref}`$) in Fig. 4(b). From the figure, we estimate the absolute accuracy for heat capacity of a sub-milligram sample to be $`\pm 3`$% for the temperature range of 30–150 K and $`\pm 1`$% for 150–420K. At temperatures below 30 K, the absolute accuracy worsens due to very small values of heat capacity of $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_2\mathrm{O}_3`$ and becomes even more than 10%. However, the precision is better than 0.5% in the whole temperature range of 15–420 K.

## V FUTURE OUTLOOK

Having demonstrated the capability of the PAC as a microcaloriemter and dynamic calorimeter, we briefly outline the possible extensions of the PAC, which are currently under development. First of all, it should be noted that the PAC would function as a microcalorimeter even at Helium temperatures if cryogenic thermocouple wires of Au-Fe or Cu-Fe are used. This replacement of thermocouples would have an additional effect of suppressing unwanted Joule heating. A more novel extension of the PAC would be the Peltier thermal microscope, which would enable to measure local thermophysical properties of matter at submicron length scales. Here it is proposed that the tip for a atomic force microscope is replaced by a thermocouple tip. An important feature of our proposal is that the thermocouple tip here is not just a temperature sensor, but it plays dual roles of a heater and sensor. For this purpose, we have shown that a single junction can indeed be used as both a heat source and sensor simultaneously. jung  The successful development of the Peltier thermal microscope would be an exciting and important event for this so-called nano-age when the submicron local thermophysical properties are in great demand.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the electron Spin Science Center and the BK21 program at POSTECH.


text:
# Anisotropic strains, metal-insulator transition, and magnetoresistance of La0.7Ca0.3MnO3 films

## Abstract

Thin films of perovskite manganite La0.7Ca0.3MnO3 were grown epitaxially on various substrates by either the pulsed laser deposition method or laser molecular beam epitaxy. The substrates change both the volume and symmetry of the unit cell of the films. It is revealed that the symmetry as well as the volume of the unit cell have strong influence on the metal-insulator transition temperature and the size of magnetoresistance.

journal: SCES’2001: Version 1thanks: Work at POSTECH was supported by the SRC program of KOSEF and the BK21 program of MOE.

The perovskite compound La1-xCaxMnO3 with $`x0.3`$ (LCMO) shows a simultaneous appearance of metallic conduction and ferromagnetism below a certain ordering temperature . It has attracted renewed attention due to its anomalously large magnetoresistance (MR) . Considering numerous potential applications of large MR materials in thin film form, it would be of value to carefully examine their properties as a function of lattice strain .

Here we briefly describe our systematic investigations on the strain effects on $`T_\mathrm{p}`$, the temperature at which a maximum resistance at zero field occurs, and MR of LCMO. By exploiting the fact that the lattice parameters of films can be varied by depositing films on various substrates, we were able to vary the lattice symmetry and constants of LCMO. Two methods of film preparation were used, pulsed laser deposition (PLD) and laser molecular beam epitaxy (LMBE). PLD and LMBE are similar in that high power pulsed laser is used as an energy source. However, there exist crucial differences in growth rate and growth mode; in PLD the typical growth rate is approximately 3 $`\mathrm{\AA }/\mathrm{s}`$ and films grow in the 3 dimensional island mode, while the growth rate of LMBE is about 0.1 $`\mathrm{\AA }/\mathrm{s}`$ and films grow in the layer-by-layer mode. The layer-by-layer mode for LMBE is ascertained by in-situ monitoring with reflective high energy electron diffraction; the details of the LMBE method will be described elsewhere .

A set of LCMO films with thickness 1000 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ were grown by PLD on SrTiO3(100), MgO(100), and LaAlO3(100) substrates (designated as the PLD films), and another set of thin films with thickness 400 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ were deposited by LMBE on SrTiO3(100), NdGaO3(100), and LaAlO3(100) substrates (LMBE films). We first turn our attention to the results of four probe resistance measurements. In Fig. 1(a) plotted is the resistance $`R`$ of the the PLD films at $`B`$ = 0 and 1 T versus $`T`$; Fig. 1(b) is the plot of the resistance of the LBME films. It is striking that $`T_\mathrm{p}`$, the maximum resistance temperature, varies enormously even within the set of the films prepared by the same method. This indicates that the strains in the films on various substrates vary and thus cause a variation in $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ despite the fact that the processing conditions are exactly the same within a given set of films. High resolution 4-circle x-ray diffraction was carried out at room temperature to determine the strains, and the in-plane and surface-normal lattice parameters of the LCMO films are designated as $`a`$ and $`c`$, respectively. It should be noted here that the lattice parameters of ultra-thin films such as those under discussion may vary as a function of distance from the substrate , and if this is the case, then the lattice parameters measured may be regarded as the averaged ones.

For the PLD films, it is found that the film on SrTiO3 possesses the largest unit cell volume ($`V_\mathrm{c}`$) and the one on LaAlO3 does the smallest. In addition, the lattice symmetry of the films changes from negative tetragonal (the SrTiO3 case, $`a`$=3.921 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`c`$=3.845 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$) to nearly cubic (the MgO case, $`a`$=3.885 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`c`$=3.891 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$) and to positive or elongated tetragonal one (the LaAlO3 case, $`a`$=3.842 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`c`$=3.878 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$) as unit cell volume decreases. To expose the correlation between the lattice structure and $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ and MR of LCMO, we plot $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ and the maximum MR values against unit cell volume. Fig. 2(a) clearly illustrates that the samples with cubic symmetry (open symbols) show lower values of maximum MR than the noncubic ones (filled symbols) do. Fig. 2(b) shows that $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ also varies nonmonotonically. This distinctive $`T_p`$ behavior may be interpreted as a superposition of two differing tendencies: one tendency is related to the volume effect favoring the monotonic increase of $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ as the volume of unit cell is reduced. The other tendency is due to the symmetry effect, in accord with the MR behavior, favoring the maximum $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ for cubic samples.

It is noted that the volume effect resembles that of a bulk under a hydrostatic pressure where the reduction in unit cell volume gives rise to a monotonic $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ rise and an associated decrease of maximum MR . However, the symmetry effect cannot be probed with isotropic hydrostatic pressure. To further shed light on the symmetry effect, we examined the LMBE films, i.e., the films grown in the layer-by-layer mode on SrTiO3, NdGaO3, and LaAlO3 substrates. From the x-ray diffraction measurements, it was found that the unit cell volume variation in the LMBE films is within 0.8$`\%`$, about four times less than that of the PLD films. X-ray diffraction also showed that the lattice symmetry of the films again changes from negative tetragonal (the SrTiO3 case, $`a`$=3.893 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`c`$=3.827 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$) to nearly cubic (the NdGaO3 case, $`a`$=3.865 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`c`$=3.874 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$) and to positive tetragonal one (the LaAlO3 case, $`a`$=3.838 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$, $`c`$=3.903 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$). Fig. 3 is the plot of $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ against the teragonality. The figure clearly reveals the symmetry effect; a deviation from the cubic symmetry leads to a reduction in the transition temperature. It is of value to point out that the negative tetragonality is more effective in reducing $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ than the positive one. This, we believe, is related to the Mn d-orbital ordering induced by the imposed strains, and will be the topic of future publications.