text:
# Galactic Synchrotron Foreground and the CMB Polarization Measurements

## 1 Introduction

Next year will be a decade since the first detection of the CMBR anisotropy , . Afterwards the CMBR anisotropy observed a wide angular range including the intermediate angular scales. The first and second Doppler peaks and its angular spectrum were observed , , . It allows to determine the spectrum of primordial cosmological perturbations, proves the inflation theory and allows to extend our knowledge to the very early Universe. At the same time new problems arose requesting new approaches. The most natural way to solve them is the measurement of the CMBR polarization.

The polarization of the CMBR was generated during the recombination epoch of our Universe at $`z1000`$. M.Rees recognized first that polarization promized new tool of cosmological investigation. Afterwards it was considered by many authors (see, for instance , , ).

The polarization of the CMBR indeed can provide very important information about the early Universe either proving or disproving gravitational waves background originated in the very early stages of our Universe. Moreover it can resolve the degeneracy of fundamental cosmological parameters: density of matter, density of dark energy etc. At the same time the observation of the CMBR polarization is a very difficult aim because it is expected to be at least 10 times less the CMBR anisotropy and it is mimicked by the inhomogeneous foreground polarization.

This contribution will be devoted to the discussion of both the inhomogeneous foreground polarization and the CMBR polarization generated by density cosmological perturbations. The problem of separation of these component is discussed too.

The microwave foreground radiation of our Galaxy consists of three main components:

* the synchrotron radiation (strong polarized component),
* the free-free radiation (polarization is assumed to be negligible),
* dust radiation (the situation is uncertain, but presumably it is negligible ).

As far as the second component is unpolarized and the polarization of dust emission is uncertain, these preliminary considerations is devoted the contribution of galactic synchrotron to the CMBR Stokes parameters, comparising the Stokes parameters of inhomogeneous synchrotoron radiation with the Stokes parameters generated by cosmological density perturbations.

## 2 Synchrotron Radiation and its Polarization

The angular distribution of the synchrotron radioemission polarized component is very inhomogeneous (see, for instance, ). It can affect our ability to observe the polarization of the CMBR.

This section discusses main principles of the synchrotron radiation, resulting from the circular motion of an electron around magnetic lines (see, for instance , , ).

The galactic synchrotron radiation in fact is produced by relativistic electrons which move into interstellar magnetic field. As far as they are relativistic, their energy is much higher than the rest energy of electron $`E>>mc^2`$.

The charged particles in magnetic field move along a helical path centered on magnetic line. The frequency of the circular motion is determined by the magnetic field $`H`$ value. In case of relativistic particle the frequency is determined by the ratio of magnetic field over the energy of a particle:

$$\omega _H=\frac{eH}{mc}\frac{mc^2}{E}$$

This is the frequency of circular motion of an electron, but the frequency of the radioemission is much higher. The maximum in the spectrum of one emitting electron corresponds to the frequency

$$\omega _m=\frac{eH_p}{mc}(\frac{E}{mc^2})^2$$
(1)
Here $`H_p`$ is the component of the magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of the velocity vector. The additional multiplication factor $`\frac{E}{mc^2}`$ is a consequence of the Doppler shift. Therefore, the maximal frequency is much higher than the circulating frequency of the electron.

The galactic magnetic field determines both the intensity and the frequency of the radiation. Distribution of magnetic field is random and inhomogeneous in our Galaxy. Therefore, both the intensity and the frequency of the synchrotron radiation follow the angular structure of distribution of the magnetic field . The polarization of the synchrotron radiation results to be anisotropic both in intensity and angular distribution.

First of all I would like to discuss the synchrotron radiation of an electron and its Stokes parameters. One can plot perpendicular axes in an observer’s plan perpendicular to the direction of the propagation of an electromagnetic wave. I designate them as $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. The intensity of any harmonic vibration of electromagnetic field can be projected into these vectors. The intensity along $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ will be designated as $`I_l`$ and along $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ will be designated as $`I_r`$. The component describing the correlation of intensity between $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ will be designated as $`I_u`$. The Stokes parameters are: $`I=I_l+I_r`$ , $`Q=I_lI_r`$, and $`U=I_u`$. One additional Stokes parameter $`V`$ defines the cicular polarization. The parameters $`I_l`$, $`I_r`$, and $`I_u`$ are used in the theory of polarization of the CMBR ($`V=0`$). The Stokes parameters, $`I_l`$ and $`I_r`$ are used also in the theory of synchrotron radiation, but instead of $`I_u`$ the angle $`\chi `$ is more convenient in the synchrotron theory and it defined as

$$\mathrm{tan}2\chi =\frac{U}{Q}$$

in the interval $`0<\chi <\pi `$. It is angle between the vector $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and the main axis of the polarization ellipse.

The Stokes parameters of the synchrotron radiation of a particle can be written as a function of the amplitude of magnetic field, of the angle between the magnetic field direction and the line of sight, and of the dimensionless frequency of the radiation $`\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}`$. $`\nu _c=1.5\nu _m`$ is determined by (1) consequently depends of the magnetic field too .

The electron moving around magnetic lines produces all Stokes parameters: $`I`$ (intensity), $`Q`$ and $`U`$ (describing the linear polarization) , and $`V`$ (describing the circular polarization). However, relativistic electron produce mainly linear polarization. More exactly the degree of circular polarization over linear polarization is of the order of

$$o(\frac{mc^2}{E}).$$

The projection of magnetic vectors on the observer’s plan defines the polarization ellipse, being the minor axis of the ellipse along the projection. The angle between the vector $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and the major axis of the polarization ellipse on the observer’s plan is $`\chi `$. The distribution of the angle $`\chi `$ is random inside interval $`0<\chi <\pi `$ and it is independent on the direction of observation.

The observed synchrotron radioemission is produced by an ensemble of relativistic electrons and as far as Stokes parameters are additive the contribution of separate particles are summed. Although the intensity of the radiation produced by an ensemble of particles having distribution $`N(E,\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{k})`$ can be found in many books devoted to the subject, their Stokes parameters $`Q`$ and $`U`$ less usual and they can be rewritten as:

$$Q=w_0𝑑E𝑑lN(E,l,\theta ,\phi ,\stackrel{}{k})H(l,\theta ,\phi )\mathrm{sin}\mu (\theta ,\phi )\mathrm{cos}2\chi \frac{\nu }{\nu _c}K_{2/3}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}\right)$$
(2)
$$U=w_0𝑑E𝑑lN(E,l,\theta ,\phi ,\stackrel{}{k})H(l,\theta ,\phi )\mathrm{sin}\mu (\theta ,\phi )\mathrm{sin}2\chi \frac{\nu }{\nu _c}K_{2/3}\left(\frac{\nu }{\nu _c}\right)$$
(3)
Here $`w_0=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^2}{mc^2}`$ is a constant, $`H(\stackrel{}{r})=H(l,\theta ,\phi )`$ is spatial distribution of the magnetic field, $`\mu `$ is angle between the line of sight and the magnetic vector ($`H_p=H\mathrm{sin}\mu `$), $`K_{2/3}`$ is modified Bessel function and $`\nu _c`$ was defined above.

The equation (2) differs from equation (3) because the term $`\mathrm{cos}2\chi `$ is substituted by $`\mathrm{sin}2\chi `$. This angle is random over the sky.

Under reasonable assumptions one can get the Stokes parameters as functions of frequency, magnetic field and angle $`\chi `$:

$$Q=c_1\left(H(l,\theta ,\phi )\mathrm{sin}\mu (\theta ,\phi )\right)^{\gamma +1}\nu ^\gamma \mathrm{cos}2\chi $$

$$U=c_1\left(H(l,\theta ,\phi )\mathrm{sin}\mu (\theta ,\phi )\right)^{\gamma +1}\nu ^\gamma \mathrm{sin}2\chi $$

Here $`\gamma `$ and $`c_1`$ are constants related with the energy law of relativistic particles distribution etc.

What is very important for our considerations is that both $`Q`$ and $`U`$ are assosiated to the synchrotron radiation of our Galaxy and they can be rewritten as a function $`F(\theta ,\phi )`$ of the magnetic field, distribution of relativistic particles etc, which depends on the sky coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$. The only difference is that $`Q=F\mathrm{cos}2\chi `$ and $`U=F\mathrm{sin}2\chi `$, so that

$$<Q^2>=<U^2>$$

Here the average is taken over realisation.

## 3 The CMB and its Stokes Parameters

The polarizarion tensor of the CMBR can be obtained as a solution of the Boltzman equations, which describes the transfer of radiation in nonstationary plasma and in presence of variable and inhomogeneous gravitational field , , , . The linear polarization of the CMBR is produced mainly at the recombination epoch by Thomson scattering on free electrons in primordial cosmological plasma.

The gravitational field in the Universe can be separated into background gravitational field, that is the homogeneous and isotropic FRW metric, and inhomogeneous and variable waves of three types: density perturbations, vector fluctuations, and gravitational waves. In a homogeneous and isotropic expanding Universe only one parameter of the CMBR is changed: the temperature, which decreases adiabatically. This expansion does not produces neither anisotropy nor polarization. Therefore the intensity $`I=I_l+I_r`$ decreases adiabatically during the expansion, being this valid both for $`I_l`$ and $`I_r`$ separately. As a consequence $`Q=0`$ and $`U=I_u=0`$.

On the contrary, the inhomogeneous and variable perturbations of the gravitational field produce both anisotropy and polarization of the CMBR. In this case one can introduce small variations of $`I_l`$, $`I_r`$ and $`I_u`$ ($`\delta _l`$, $`\delta _r`$, $`\delta _u`$) describing both anisotropy and polarization of the CMBR.

Here the contribution of only density waves into polarization will be considered.

The equations and details of its solution can be found in , ,  and in reference therein.

One can introduce auxiliary functions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _l+\delta _r=(\mu ^2\frac{1}{3})\alpha ,\\ \delta _l\delta _r=(1\mu ^2)\beta ,\\ \delta _u=0,\end{array}$$

in case of density perturbations taken as single plain wave the Boltzman equations can be re-written in terms of these parameters:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d\alpha }{d\eta }=F\frac{9}{10}\sigma _Tn_ea(\eta )\alpha \frac{6}{10}\sigma _Tn_ea(\eta )\beta \\ \frac{d\beta }{d\eta }=\frac{1}{10}\sigma _Tn_ea(\eta )\alpha \frac{4}{10}\sigma _Tn_ea(\eta )\beta \end{array}$$

Here $`F`$ is the gravitational force which drives both anisotropy and polarization, $`\sigma _T`$ is the Thomson cross-section, $`n_e`$ is the density of free electrons, $`a(\eta )`$ is the scale factor and $`\mu `$ is the angle between the wave vector of the perturbation and the line of sight.

The solution of these equations, which produce only the Stokes parameter $`Q`$, is:

$$Q=\frac{1}{7}(1\mu ^2)F(\eta )\left(e^\tau e^{\frac{3}{10}\tau }\right)𝑑\eta $$

where $`\tau (\eta )`$ is the variable optical depth. In this case the Stokes parameter $`U`$ equal to zero.

The distribution of $`Q`$ over the sky can be obtained by adding the contribution from all plain waves.

## 4 Mathematical Properties of Stokes Parameters

The Stokes parameters of the CMBR are rank 2 tensor on the sphere. The rotationally invariant values are $`I`$ (intensity of radiation), $`Q+iU`$ and $`QiU`$. The intensity $`I`$ is decomposed into usual (scalar) spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi )`$.

$$I=\underset{l,m}{}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi )$$

Moreover, the two values $`Q\pm iU`$ can be decomposed into $`\pm 2`$ spin harmonics , ,  $`Y_{lm}^{\pm 2}(\theta ,\phi )`$:

$$Q\pm iU=\underset{l,m}{}a_{lm}^{\pm 2}Y_{lm}^{\pm 2}(\theta ,\phi )$$

That form a complete orthonormal system (see, for instance, , , , ). They can re-written in term of generalized Jacobi polynomials , :

$$Y_{lm}^2(\theta ,\phi )=N_{lm}^2P_{lm}^2(\theta )e^{im\phi }$$

$$Y_{lm}^2(\theta ,\phi )=N_{lm}^2P_{lm}^2(\theta )e^{im\phi }$$

That, as a function of $`\phi `$, are similar to scalar spherical harmonics. The difference of tensor harmonics lies in $`P`$, which can be expressed in terms of Jacobi polynomials:

$$P_{lm}^s(x)=(1x)^{\frac{\left(m+s\right)}{2}}(1+x)^{\frac{\left(sm\right)}{2}}P_{lm}^{(m+s,sm)}(x)$$
(4)
Alternatively, the equivalent polynomials derived in  can be used.

In equation (4) $`s=\pm 2`$ and the normalization factor is:

$$N_{lm}^s=\frac{1}{2^s}\sqrt{\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }}\sqrt{\frac{(ls)!(l+s)!}{(lm)!(l+m)!}}$$

The harmonics amplitudes $`a_{lm}^{\pm 2}`$ correspond to the Fourier spectrum of angular decomposition of rotationally invariant combinations of Stokes parameters.

According to  one can introduce the $`E`$ (electric) and $`B`$ (magnetic) modes of these harmonics

$$a_{lm}^E=\frac{1}{2}\left(a_{lm}^{+2}+a_{lm}^2\right)$$

$$a_{lm}^B=\frac{i}{2}\left(a_{lm}^{+2}a_{lm}^2\right)$$

That have different parity. In order to clarify this mathematical statement let us consider the following situation.

Two observers define the main axes in different way: while the $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ axes are directed in the same direction, the $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ axes have different directions. Let both observers measure the Stokes parameters: the $`Q`$ parameters look similar to both observers, while $`U`$ parameters have different sign.

It means that by transforming the cordinate system $`Oxyz`$ into the new coordinate system $`\stackrel{~}{O}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}\stackrel{~}{z}`$ the vectors $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ are transformed according to:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{l}}=\stackrel{}{l}\\ \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{r}}=\stackrel{}{r}\end{array}$$

Similarly, the E and B modes are transformed as vectors $`\stackrel{}{l}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{a}^E=a^E\\ \stackrel{~}{a}^B=a^B\end{array}$$

It is necessary to mention that $`a^E`$ and $`a^B`$ are not correlated.

The density perturbations generate polarization in such a way that $`Q0`$ and $`U=0`$. This is equivalent to electric mode excitation and vanishing of magnetic modes in the CMBR polarization :

$$a_d^E0a_d^B=0$$
(5)
Since the synchrotron radiation produces both $`Q`$ and $`U`$, both electric and magnetic modes exist:

$$a_s^E0,a_s^B0$$

because the synchrotron radiation is connected with the axial vector. The electric and the magnetic components of the synchrotron emission obey to the equation:

$$<(a_s^E)^2>=<(a_s^B)^2>$$
(6)
## 5 Separation of Synchrotron Radiation and the CMB Radiation

Therefore, to separate the synchrotron polarization from the CMBR polarization generated by density perturbations one has to separate the polarized components obeying

$$a^E0a^B=0$$

$`E`$ and $`B`$ modes of synchrotron foreground do not correlate each other and they do not correlate with polarization of the CMBR.

To estimate the contribution of $`E`$ modes generated by density perturbations one can choose the estimator:

$$D=<(a^E)^2><(a^B)^2>$$

Let us consider this estimator more detailed: the $`a^E`$ component is the sum of two components, $`a^E=a_s^E+a_d^E`$, and the indexes $`s`$ and $`d`$ represent the synchrotron component and the CMBR component, respectively. The same equation is valid for the $`B`$ component: $`a^B=a_s^B+a_d^B`$. The mean square of the electric component is: $`<(a^E)^2>=<(a_s^E)^2>+<(a_d^E)^2>+2<a_s^Ea_d^E>`$. Since density fluctuations and synchrotron fluctuations do not correlate the last term vanishes and the equation can be written as $`<(a^E)^2>=<(a_s^E)^2>+<(a_d^E)^2>`$. The same equation is valid for $`B`$ components. As far as the squares of both $`E`$ and $`B`$ component of the synchrotron radiation canceled out (6) and the $`B`$ component of density fluctuations is equal to zero, the estimator $`D`$ is equal only to the square of the $`E`$ mode of density fluctuations:

$$D=<(a_d^E)^2>$$

Thus the $`D`$ estimator can be used to separate the polarization of galactic synchrotron emission from the polarization of the CMBR generated by density perturbation.

## Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to Drs. S.Cortiglioni and E.Vinjakin for many helpfull discussions and suggestions. Also, he would like to acknowledge the Te.S.R.E. CNR for hospitality during the last stage of preparation of this paper.


format: text

text:
# Error analysis of the photometric redshift tecnique

## 1 Introduction

One of the most basic operations that need to be performed in Cosmology is the measurement of the redshift of any given object. As is well known, such an operation can be more or less readily fulfilled depending on several factors like the brightness of the object, the available instrumentation, and the analysis technique. Given that advancement in science is always driven by work at the very edge of feasibility, it is not surprising that cosmologists often find themselves trying to measure redshifts from objects that are too faint for even the most advanced spectrographs.

This dearth of photons forces astronomers to try and identify spectral features in noisy spectra. More often than is usually believed this causes mistakes that are not easily noticed. This is because spectroscopic redshift errors are often due to human biases (as when the observer makes a choice to identify a possible emission/absorption line amongst comparable noise peaks; or to assign line identifications based on his/her previous experience or personal preference), and also because often the spectroscopic information is not made available for general scrutiny. The particular case of the Hubble Deep Field \[Williams et al. 1996\], without doubt the most deeply observed patch of the sky, is palmary: not less than five papers have been published with spectroscopic redshifts of multiple, different HDF objects that have later been retracted as ‘erroneous’; see Fernández-Soto et al. (2001, FS01 from here on) for a complete analysis. The effect of those errors in subsequent papers that made use of the wrong spectroscopic lists is difficult to ascertain. It is not straightforward to find a solution to this problem within the usual techniques, because of the sources of bias listed above.

The use of photometric techniques to measure redshifts was suggested as early as 1962 by Baum \[Baum 1962\], and other authors (Koo 1981, Butchins 1981, Loh & Spillar 1986) pioneered similar ideas to overcome the difficulties associated to spectroscopy of very faint sources. Photometric redshift techniques boomed in the mid 1990s with the arrival of the Hubble Deep Fields–extremely deep images in which exquisite photometry could be performed on thousands of galaxies, over 90 per cent of which were too faint for any spectrograph available at the time, nowadays, or in the near future. Several groups have perfected different approaches (for example Lanzetta, Yahil, & Fernández-Soto 1996; Gwyn & Hartwick 1996; Sawicki, Lin, & Yee 1997; Wang, Bahcall, & Turner 1998; Fernández-Soto, Lanzetta, & Yahil 1999–hereafter FLY99, Furusawa et al. 2000; Benítez 2000; Yahata et al. 2000–hereafter Y00; Fontana et al. 2000; Massarotti et al. 2001) and nowadays it can be said that photometric redshift techniques are an integral part of the standard cosmological toolbox.

Most cosmologists will concur with the opinion that the photometric techniques are useful because they expand the volume of ‘distance-luminosity’ space where redshifts can be measured–even if the values so measured are somehow ‘less precise’ than the spectroscopic ones, a payback most are willing to accept. We find this very concept (the ‘lack of precision’) very difficult to evaluate. It is uncomfortable for any scientist to talk about the accuracy of a measurement whenever a confidence interval has not been assigned to it, and as has been exposed above, that is precisely the problem with spectroscopy of faint sources.

In a previous paper (FS01) we showed that our particular technique is able to measure redshifts of faint objects with a reliability which is comparable (if not superior) to that of the traditional spectroscopic method. We present in this work a simple method that allows for the calculation of accurate confidence intervals around photometric redshift measurements. The use of these confidence intervals should solve the problem of the so-called ‘catastrophic errors’, when the photometric technique gives results that are very different from the spectroscopic ones. We intend to show that in those apparently discordant cases, either the values are in fact consistent (when the photometric value is actually compatible with the spectroscopic one within an acceptable probability level) or the problem is serious enough to call for a revision of both values–when they are incompatible to a large degree of confidence.

We further suggest that the photometric redshifts together with their associated probability functions, can and must be used in the calculation of any quantity which is derived from the redshifts, in order to perform an adequate error assessment of the results.

The structure of this paper is as follows: in Section 2 we present the catalogues of photometric/spectroscopic redshifts over which our technique is tested. Section 3 contains the description and measurement of the sources of error (photometric and systematic) present in the photometric redshift determination. We present and apply the technique to estimate errors in Section 4, and discuss the results in Section 5. Our conclusions are resumed in Section 6

## 2 Photometric and spectroscopic data

We will use the catalogue presented by FS01 (which in turn is based on the spectroscopic catalogue by Cohen et al. 2000, C00 hereafter), as a basis to calibrate the errors in our photometric measurements. The photometric data used in the analysis include space images (Hubble Space Telescope optical observations through the filters F300W, F450W, F606W and F814W), and ground-based observations taken at Kitt Peak in the $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K`$ bands. A few changes have been done, as follows:

1. Three of the spectroscopic redshifts that were discussed as possibly wrong by FS01 on the basis of the photometric information have been retracted by Cohen (2001, C01 hereafter)–we use the new values.
2. Another object under discussion has been remeasured by Dawson et al. (2001, D01 hereafter). It is HDF36414\_1143, $`z_{\mathrm{sp}}=1.524`$, and has been found to be in better agreement with our value ($`z_{\mathrm{ph}}=1.32`$) than with that listed in C00 ($`z=0.548`$). We adopt the new spectroscopic value.
3. The rest of discrepant objects presented in FS01 are used with the same considerations there presented. In particular, objects marked as ‘uncertain’ are not used in the calculations that follow. We note though that Massarotti et al. (2001), also based on photometric considerations, disagree with us in two of the objects.
4. One new object (HDF36453\_1143, $`R=24.00`$, $`z_{\mathrm{sp}}=0.485`$) was added by C01 to the spectroscopic sample. It corresponds to object #81 in our catalogue, with $`z_{\mathrm{ph}}=0.64`$. Another object added in C01 (HDF36377\_1235) does not lie in the area studied by us.
5. An extra ten new objects from D01 are included in the sample. They are listed in Table 1, together with HDF36414\_1143 (discussed above).

The total list of photometric/spectroscopic redshift pairs is now composed of 153 values.

## 3 Sources of error in the photometric redshift technique

### 3.1 The two sources of error

As was presented in previous papers (Lanzetta, Fernández-Soto & Yahil 1998–hereafter LFY98, FLY99, Y00, FS01), the sources of error in the photometric redshift measurements are twofold. There is an obvious uncertainty in the redshift which is associated to the uncertainty in the photometric measurements, and this is taken into account in our calculation of the redshift likelihood function:

$$L(z,T)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{f_iAF_i(z,T)}{\sigma _i}\right]^2\right\}$$
(1)
where the product extends to the number of observed filters, $`A`$ is a normalization constant, $`f_i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are the flux and associated error of the source measured in the $`i`$-th band, and $`F_i(z,T)`$ are the model fluxes for a galaxy of type $`T`$ at redshift $`z`$ in the $`i`$-th band.

In principle the likelihood function determined this way should allow us to calculate confidence limits in the parameters of interest (in our case the errors associated to $`z`$). But this only applies to the cases in which the fitted model represents a good fit to the data. This is not the case of our technique. The reason for this is that the discrete number of templates used to produce the model fluxes (six in our case) cannot be realistically expected to reproduce the spectral energy distributions of all galaxies. This fact will be particularly notorious for bright galaxies, where the high-quality photometry will amplify any difference between the model and the observations, hence producing two effects:

1. A very bad (in $`\chi 2`$ terms) fit, even for a perfectly well-determined photometric redshift, whenever the source is bright, and
2. An extra dispersion in the values of $`z_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, that we will refer to as cosmic variance, SED variance, or systematic dispersion.

The effect of cosmic variance dominates the error budget for all bright sources (when the photometric error is small enough to allow the ‘imperfections’ of the model SED to be noticed), whereas it is negligible for faint sources.

We try in this section to overcome the problem posed by the first item above by means of measuring the effect of the cosmic (systematic) variance and putting it into the error calculation to determine real confidence intervals around each photometric redshift.

### 3.2 Estimates of the photometric error

We have described in previous works the effect of photometric errors. For a more complete analysis the reader is referred to LFY98, FLY99, or Y00. As a resume, we estimate the effects of the photometric error on $`z_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ by producing fake catalogues of galaxies with given input redshifts ($`z_{\mathrm{in}}`$) and apparent magnitudes. We assume all of them have the exact SEDs we use in our technique, hence elliminating the error due to SED variance. After creating the catalogues and adding to each flux an amount of noise given by the apparent magnitude, we calculate a photometric redshift ($`z_{\mathrm{out}}`$) for each galaxy. Repeating this calculation a large number of times for each redshift and apparent magnitude interval, we observe that the effects of photometric inaccuracies begin to affect the value of the redshift measurement at $`AB(8140)26`$. This effect is by definition reflected in the redshift likelihood function, which shows a very narrow peak (width $`\mathrm{\Delta }z<0.05`$) for bright objects and increasingly wider peaks (and possibly multiple maxima) for the fainter ones.

### 3.3 Estimates of the systematic error

Whereas in order to estimate the effect of the photometric uncertainties all we had to do was to eliminate the cosmic variance by simulating spectra in complete agreement with the model SEDs, now we need to eliminate the photometric uncertainty in order to estimate the systematic error–the effect of the cosmic variance.

The path we follow to achieve this is the creation of a large catalogue of bright objects for which reliable measurements of the redshift are available. They being bright, we can assume the effect of photometric uncertainty will be negligible, and the dispersion of the $`z_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ values around the ‘real’ ones will allow us to estimate the effect of the systematic error.

As was described in Section 2, we will use a catalogue containing 153 sources with reliable spectroscopic redshifts and photometric redshifts measured by us. Figure 1 shows the plot of $`z_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ versus $`z_{\mathrm{real}}`$222We use the subindex ‘real’ in this sample to indicate that this is not the original spectroscopic list but the one that has been reanalysed as described above.

The plot shows that two galaxies show apparent contradiction between the photometric and spectroscopic values. They are objects #687 and #1035 in FLY99, for which $`z_{\mathrm{sp}}=`$2.931 (C00) and 0.425 (D01) respectively, compared to $`z_{\mathrm{ph}}=`$0.26 and 2.26. We will not use them in the calculations described below but will return to them in the next Section. Apart from those two exceptions, the general agreement is good. We will now try to model the dispersion of the values using a simple function.

The model we choose to parameterise the systematic error is a normal distribution with zero mean (we have already proved that the method has no biases, see FS01) and variable sigma $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Sigma }(1+z)`$. This is a very simple model, whose mathematical form is driven by the fact (proved in FLY99, see Figure 7 therein) that the value of $`\sigma _z/(1+z)`$ is approximately constant over the whole redshift range studied. We would like to remark, though, that this model is certainly too simplistic–it does not take into account that at high redshift ($`z>3`$) the accuracy of the photometric redshift is expected to improve due to the increased strength of the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ break, the decreased variance in the intergalactic Hi absorption, and the reduction of the rest-frame widths of the observed filters. We feel, however, that the amount of data available at those redshifts is not enough to warrant an adequate modelization of all those effects at this stage.

We estimate the value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ using a maximum likelihood method:

$$L(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{151}{}}P_i(z_{\mathrm{real}}^{(i)};\mathrm{\Sigma })$$
(2)
where $`P_i(z_{\mathrm{real}}^{(i)};\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the probability of the $`i`$-th object being at redshift $`z_{\mathrm{real}}^{(i)}`$ given the value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This probability is calculated by convolving our redshift likelihood function (which includes the photometric error) with a gaussian of variable sigma $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Sigma }(1+z)`$ (which will account for the systematic error) and normalising to unit area.

The result of this likelihood calculation (see Figure 2) is that we determine the value of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be $`0.065\pm 0.003`$. In the following we will use $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.065`$, which agrees perfectly with values quoted previously (but that were calculated only as a measurement of the dispersion of the photometric measurements).

## 4 Calculation of confidence limits

We do now have the tools in hand to perform a careful systematic analysis of the errors associated to our photometric redshift measurements. For each single object we have obtained a redshift likelihood function which accounts for all the photometric uncertainties, and now we also have an estimate of the systematic uncertainties introduced by the use of a small number of SEDs–which we assume are independent of the photometric quality (i.e., independent of the apparent magnitude of the object).

How do we combine these two things? We choose to obtain the probability function $`P_i(z)`$ for the $`i`$-th object as the convolution of its redshift likelihood function $`L_i(z)`$ (normalised to unit area) with the gaussian of variable sigma described above:

$$P_i(z)=_{z^{}=0}^{z^{}=\mathrm{}}𝑑z^{}L_i(z^{})G\left[z|z^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }(1+z^{})\right]$$
(3)
where $`G`$ is a gaussian distribution of median $`z^{}`$ and $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Sigma }(1+z^{})`$, truncated at $`z<0`$ and normalised to unit area. As an example of the calculation of this probability, we show in Figure 3 the likelihood and probability functions for the two objects that show apparently discordant values of the photometric and spectroscopic redshifts.

Once the probabilities $`P(z)`$ are obtained, it is trivial to define confidence intervals for the value of $`z_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. We choose to do it by defining the confidence interval at probability $`p`$ as the region $`𝒵`$ in redshift space such that (i) $`P(z)>lz𝒵`$ and (ii) $`_𝒵P(z)𝑑z=p`$, with $`l`$ being the value of $`P(z)`$ at the limits of the region $`𝒵`$. Observe that the region $`𝒵`$ (i.e., the confidence interval) need not be connected, as will generally happen in those cases where $`P(z)`$ shows multiple peaks.

This slightly abstruse definition, in practice, comes down to finding the points where a horizontal line cuts $`P(z)`$ such that the area inside the curve at the cut points is equal to the value of $`p`$. For convenience we define the $`1\sigma `$ region to be that for which $`p=0.6826`$, $`2\sigma `$ at $`p=0.9544`$, and $`3\sigma `$ at $`p=0.9974`$. In Figure 4 we show this process in detail for object HDF36478\_1256.

## 5 Discussion

We can now calculate confidence intervals for all objects in our catalogue, in particular for the 153 objects which have secure spectroscopic redshifts. Figure 5 is an attempt to show all 153 points together with their confidence limits. This is made difficult by the crowding of objects.

### 5.1 The catastrophic errors

The term “catastrophic error” has been widely used in the photometric redshift bibliography to identify those cases where the photometric and spectroscopic measurements of the redshift differ in an amount much larger than the expected systematic dispersion (usually at a level greater than three or four times the average photometric redshift dispersion). It has been usually assumed that these cases highlight objects for which the photometric technique fails, possibly due to the lack of sufficiently detailed spectral models to reproduce the intrinsic source spectrum. However, our experience proves (see FS01) that in a large majority of these situations, the spectroscopic value was the one that needed revision.

Nevertheless we know that the redshift probability functions, as described above, can in some cases be multimodal. In such cases, even if our technique is working properly, it may yield results for the best-fit redshift that are distant from the exact value. These events would be considered “catastrophic errors” using the traditional meaning of the term (and also in a purely scientific sense, because they are product of a bifurcation in parameter space). We prefer not to call them “catastrophic”, given that the results–once the error bar is considered–are in fact not in error, and that they can be perfectly individuated using the techniques described in this paper.

Let us study the two particular cases that appeared in Figure 3 as objects with apparently discordant redshifts. It can be seen that in the case of object HDF36478\_1256 the photometric and spectroscopic redshifts are in fact compatible to within a $`2\sigma `$ confidence level. This case was already discussed in FS01, and the conclusion is that it cannot be considered an error (even less a catastrophic error) as the real value is perfectly within the confidence limits of our measurement.

The case of HDF36498\_1419 is different. Our redshift probability curve is absolutely incompatible with the redshift claimed in D01. The authors have kindly supplied us with the spectrum, which shows an obvious emission line at $`\lambda =5311`$ Å. The identification of this line with \[Oiii\] $`\lambda 3727`$ is not evident because of the lack of, amongst others, H$`\beta `$ and \[Oiii\]$`\lambda \lambda `$4959,5007 in the covered wavelength range–the authors consider this redshift determination only ‘tentative’. It is true however that other identifications that would put the redshift in agreement with the photometric measurement (Ciii\] $`\lambda 1909`$ or Civ $`\lambda \lambda `$1548,1551) are also problematic because of the absence of other important lines in the observed range.

We have checked our photometry and do not see any particular problem with the object–it is isolated, and it does not look likely that light from nearby objects could either fool our photometry or produce spurious emission lines. It is not clear what is causing the divergence.

### 5.2 A check of the confidence intervals

In order to check that the confidence intervals we are calculating are consistent, we perform the following test: for each object, we observe whether the spectroscopic (‘real’) redshift is consistent with our value to within a $`1\sigma `$, $`2\sigma `$, $`3\sigma `$ or none of them. Given the uncertainty about HDF36498\_1419 discussed in the previous paragraph, we do not include it in this calculation. The results are listed in Table 2, together with a comparison with the expectations for a pure normal distribution.

It must be noticed that the object which is further than $`3\sigma `$ is actually only marginally so: the spectroscopic redshift is $`z_{\mathrm{sp}}=0.483`$, with the three sigma interval around $`z_{\mathrm{ph}}=0.230`$ being \[0.000–0.473\]. In any case, the presence of a $`>3\sigma `$ deviation in a sample of 151 members is, as indicated in the table, not particularly remarkable.

The results in Table 2 are indicative of the accuracy of our error estimates. We think that this proves that the method here described is a consistent and efficient way to estimate the errors associated to the photometric redshift measurements, and that this method should be used in order to obtain error estimates of any quantity which is measured based on catalogues of photometric redshifts.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a complete analysis of the sources of error present in the photometric redshift determination technique. After showing in a previous paper (FS01) that photometric redshifts are at least as reliable as traditional spectroscopic redshifts when it comes to the measurement of faint galaxies, we show in this paper that the photometric redshifts have an additional advantage: the error in the measurement can be completely characterised by means of a redshift probability function.

We have described how this probability function can be obtained for each individual object, making use of the redshift likelihood function (which accounts for the photometric uncertainties) and of the error component that is added as a systematic effect by our technique. We have modelled this component as a gaussian with variable variance, $`\sigma _z=\mathrm{\Sigma }(1+z)`$, and measured the parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.065`$ from a large sample of reliable redshifts.

By convolving both error components we obtain a redshift probability function for each object, that easily allows for the determination of confidence intervals associated to the value of the photometric redshift.

We have checked that the confidence limits thus calculated are consistent, and suggest that any quantity to be measured from photometric redshift catalogues in the future should make use of similar techniques, in order to account for the errors inherent to the process of redshift determination.

## 7 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our referee, Mark Lacy, for his insightful comments that have improved the clarity of the paper. AFS gratefully acknowledges the support of the European Commission through a Marie Curie Fellowship.


text:
# Chaos and rectification of electromagnetic wave in a lateral semiconductor superlattice

## Abstract

We find the conditions for a rectification of electromagnetic wave in a lateral semiconductor superlattice with a high mobility of electrons. The rectification is assisted by a transition to a dissipative chaos at a very high mobility. We show that mechanism responsible for the rectification is a creation of warm electrons in the superlattice miniband caused by an interplay of the effects of nonlinearity and finite band width.

The research of nonlinear transport properties of the strongly coupled semiconductor superlattices (SLs) under the action of constant and alternating fields is the subject of traditional interest associated with the great potential of numerous applications in microwave and terahertz technologies rev-ssl . In recent years the primary goal has been investigations of novel strongly nonlinear phenomena at the miniband transport in SLs, such as dissipative chaos diss-chaos  and excitation of Bloch oscillations under the action of a pure ac electric field sb-first ; sb-other . The last effect can be considered as a new mechanism of the rectification of THz radiation; the generated dc voltage is either integer sb-first  or fractionally quantized sb-other .

The recent experimental progress in the observation of the influence of intensive THz electromagnetic radiation on voltage-current characteristics of SLs exp-thz  has stimulated advances in the theory diss-chaos ; sb-first ; sb-other . Observations of strongly nonlinear properties of the miniband transport in SLs subjected to an intensive electromagnetic field require a relatively high level of the carrier density together with the high carrier mobility diss-chaos ; sb-first ; sb-other . However, due to the experimental conditions associated with bulk SLs it is difficult to meet simultaneously these two requirements, because of a relatively low electron mobility and a formation of high field domains inside heavy doped SLs.

These limitations can be overcome in the lateral semiconductor superlattices (LSSLs) sakaki , and especially in those LSSLs which are fabricated using the cleaved edge overgrowth (CEO) technique exp-samples . In these LSSL devices a two-dimensional electron gas resides in an atomically precise one-dimensional superlattice potential. CEO LSSLs are most suitable for an observation of Bloch oscillations: they have high electron mobility and can deliver high currents without formation of high field and low field domains exp-samples . In these respects the LSSLs are promising objects for investigations of various strongly nonlinear phenomena.

In this Letter, we describe a novel mechanism of rectification of electromagnetic radiation in a superlattice that is different from the mechanism of AC-induced Bloch oscillations sb-first  and that always results in a generation of an unquantized bias. We consider an interaction of a plane electromagnetic wave with 2D electrons in a single miniband of LSSL, and incorporate the feedback effects of electron motion on the incident field. These feedback effects are responsible for the nonlinearity of the problem. We show that for some field strengths and frequencies, the interplay of effects of the nonlinearity and the finite miniband width causes a weak asymmetry of a distribution function of electrons in the momentum space with respect to the center of Brillouin zone. This deformation of nonequilibrium distribution function creates a direct current that is the reason of an appearance of bias in the wave transmitted through the LSSL. In mathematical description, this effect corresponds to the symmetry-breaking bifurcation in nonlinear dynamical systems sb-def . We also show that the interaction of the electromagnetic radiation with miniband electrons of the very high mobility can result in a dissipative chaos instead of a rectification.

Consider a plane electromagnetic wave $`E_{in}=E_0\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }tkz)`$, which is polarized along the superlattice axis, being incident normally to the surface of LSSL located at $`z=0`$. The LSSL sits on a semi-insulating background with an average dielectric constant $`ϵ_0`$. We assume that both the superlattice thickness in the $`z`$-direction and the superlattice length along its axis are much less than the characteristic scale of the electromagnetic wave in the medium, $`2\pi /k`$. To study the electron transport through a single miniband, a spatially homogeneous LSSL with the period $`a`$ and the miniband width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we use the tight-binding energy-quasimomentum dispersion relation $`\epsilon (k_{el})=(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)\left[1\mathrm{cos}(k_{el}a)\right]`$ ($`k_{el}`$ is the electron wave vector along the superlattice axis). The dynamics of miniband electrons is described by the following nonlinear balance equations dodin98

$`\dot{v}`$ $`=`$ $`Uw\gamma v,`$ (1a)
$`\dot{w}`$ $`=`$ $`Uv\gamma (ww_{eq}),`$ (1b)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`U_{in}(t)\kappa v,`$ (1c)
where $`U_{in}(t)=(2ea/\mathrm{}(1+ϵ_0^{1/2}))E_{in}(t,z=0)`$ and $`U(t)=(ea/\mathrm{})E_{out}(t,z=0)`$ ($`E_{in}(t,z)`$ and $`E_{out}(t,z)`$ are the fields of the incident wave and the wave transmitted by LSSL, respectively). The relaxation processes for miniband electrons are characterized by a scattering constant $`\gamma `$. The electron variables $`v=m_0\overline{V}a/\mathrm{}`$, $`w=(\overline{\epsilon }\mathrm{\Delta }/2)(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^1`$ and $`w_{eq}`$ are the scaled electron velocity, the scaled electron energy, and the equilibrium value of the scaled electron energy, respectively, and $`m_0=(2\mathrm{}^2)/(\mathrm{\Delta }a^2)`$ is the effective mass at the bottom of the miniband. The lower (upper) edge of the miniband corresponds to $`w=1`$ ($`w=+1`$), and the value of $`w_{eq}`$ $`(w_{eq}<0)`$ is a function of lattice temperature. The scaled variables $`v(t)`$ and $`w(t)`$ are proportional to the variables $`\overline{V}(t)`$ and $`\overline{\epsilon }(t)`$, which are the electron velocity and the energy averaged over the time-dependent distribution function satisfying the Boltzmann equation.

The first two Eqs. of set (1) are well-known superlattice balance equations ignatov76 ; their solution for a given field $`U(t)`$ is exactly the same as the solution of the time-dependent Boltzmann equation for a tight-binding lattice. Eq. (1a) describes the acceleration of electrons under the action of the electric field $`U(t)`$ and their slowing down caused by an effective friction due to the scattering, while the second Eq. (1b) describes the balance of electron’s energy gain under the action of the electric field and the energy loss due to scattering. These equations are valid if the standard conditions of semiclassical approach, $`eE_0a<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{}\omega <\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$, $`eE_0a<\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ is the width of minigap) rev-ssl , are satisfied.

The Eq. (1c) is derived by modeling the LSSL as an equivalent current screen of infinitesimal thickness with the use of the Maxwell equations and appropriate boundary conditions dodin98 ; rupasov . Such approach is valid if superlattice thickness is much less than the wavelength $`2\pi /k`$ dodin98 ; this condition is easily satisfied for typical LSSL irradiated by submillimeter or millimeter electromagnetic waves. This Eq. (1c) describes the back influence of the electron current in LSSL on the dynamics of miniband electrons making the whole set of Eqs. (1) nonlinear. The degree of nonlinearity is controlled by the value of parameter $`\kappa =(4\pi e^2N_s)/m_0c(1+ϵ_0^{1/2})`$, where $`c`$ is the speed of light and $`N_s`$ is the areal electron density.

The dynamics of electrons in LSSL as well as the time-dependence of the transmitted and reflected waves is determined by an interplay of the relaxation ($`\gamma `$) and the nonlinearity ($`\kappa N_s`$). Therefore, it is convenient to introduce a single parameter, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\gamma /\kappa \right)^{1/2}`$, controlling the relative contribution of these two basic processes. For this we introduce the scaled time $`\tau =\omega _0t`$, $`\omega _0=\left(\kappa \gamma \right)^{1/2}`$, scaled fields $`u=U/\omega _0`$, $`u_{in}=U_{in}/\omega _0`$, and rewrite Eqs. (1) as

$`\dot{v}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(u_{in}(\tau )\mathrm{\Gamma }^1v\right)w\mathrm{\Gamma }v,`$
$`\dot{w}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(u_{in}(\tau )\mathrm{\Gamma }^1v\right)v\mathrm{\Gamma }(ww_{eq}),`$ (2)
where the overdot means the differentiation with respect to the value $`\tau `$, $`u_{in}(\tau )=u_0\mathrm{cos}\omega \tau `$ with $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega _0`$ and $`u_0=(2eaE_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0(1+ϵ_0^{1/2})`$. The wave transmitted by LSSL is $`u(\tau )=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1v+u_0\mathrm{cos}\omega \tau `$.

We have performed a systematic numerical search for stationary solutions ($`t\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$) of Eqs. (2) which have a nonzero dc component of the outgoing wave, $`u0`$ (the averaging is made over a period of the ingoing wave $`T=2\pi /\omega `$). We also detect the chaotic attractors characterized by a positive value of the maximal Lyapunov exponent diss-chaos . In contrast, the Lyapunov exponent is always zero for the limit cycles. The locations of chaotic attractors and symmetry-broken periodic attractors with $`|u|10^4`$ in the $`\omega u_0`$-plane for different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are shown in Figs. 1-3. The structure of the $`\omega u_0`$-plot shown in Fig. 1 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ is quite typical for the behavior of our system at weak damping. It consists of the stripes for solutions supporting rectification and some area of chaotic solutions located at the lower values of $`u_0`$. For a weak damping and a low frequency, “symmetry-broken stripes” are located near the lines of zero order Bessel function roots defined as $`J_0\left(u_0/\omega \right)=0`$ (Fig. 1, only about 30 roots are shown). With an increase of damping ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.2`$, Fig.2), the region for an existence of chaotic attractors in the $`\omega u_0`$-plane shrinks, while the regions of nonchaotic attractors with $`u0`$ occupy a few wide stripes (cf. Figs.1 and 2). Finally, with a further increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, chaos completely disappears and attractors with $`u0`$ are located in a single compact region in the $`\omega u_0`$-plane (Fig.3). For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cr}0.4`$ we didn’t observe the effect of rectification anymore. The generated dc voltage is unquantized (Fig.4). This is in contrast to the case of rectification making use of the mechanism of ac-induced Bloch oscillations, where the ratio $`u/\omega `$ can be either an integer or a fractional number for a weak damping sb-first ; sb-other . The efficiency of transformation of ac field to dc field, $`u/u_0`$, is rather low; in conditions of Fig.3 it is less than four percents overall.

Physical mechanism responsible for the rectification of electromagnetic wave in LSSL will be our focus in the remainder of this paper. There are three main distinct physical factors which can contribute to the generation of unquantized dc voltage in our problem: finite band width, nonlinearity, and dissipation. In order to distinguish an influence of these factors, we consider the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ in the Eqs. (2) and get

$$\dot{\theta }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\mathrm{sin}\theta =u_0\mathrm{cos}\omega \tau ,$$
(3)
where $`v=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, $`w=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`u=\dot{\theta }`$. Eq. (3) describes a time evolution of electrons within the first Brillouin zone ($`|\theta |<\pi `$) for a negligible scattering but with an account of nonlinearity. Unbiased AC field can not create rotational states with $`\dot{\theta }0`$ in the overdamped pendulum, therefore the AC-induced Bloch oscillations sb-first  can not exist here. However, the ac field can excite symmetry-broken swinging states with $`\theta _0\theta 0`$ sb-def . In a small vicinity of the symmetry-breaking bifurcation, a stationary solution of Eq. (3) can be presented in the form miles  $`\theta =\theta _0+\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau +\mu )`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\mu `$ are constants dependent on the parameters of LSSL. Substituting this expression in Eq. (3) and equating zero harmonics, we have

$$J_0(\alpha )\mathrm{sin}\theta _0=0.$$
(4)
Eq. (4) shows that either $`\theta _0=0`$ (a symmetric solution) or $`\theta _00`$, but $`\alpha `$ should satisfy $`J_0(\alpha )=0`$ (a boundary of symmetry-breaking, cf. ref. miles ). Analogously, equating first harmonics, we can find the dependence of amplitude $`\alpha `$ on $`u_0`$ and $`\omega `$ for a symmetric solution, as well as the dependence $`\theta _0`$ on $`u_0`$ and $`\omega `$ at the boundary of symmetry-breaking kna-unbubl . This analysis shows that the behavior of symmetric and symmetry-broken solutions is quite different: For a symmetric solution $`\alpha `$ increases with increase of $`u_0`$, while for an asymmetric regime $`\theta _0`$ increases but $`\alpha `$ stays constant.

Therefore, we should distinguish two regimes of the wave transmission through a LSSL. In the first regime, the interaction of ac field with an electron gas can led only to a difference between the amplitudes of incident, $`u_0`$, and transmitted, $`u_{max}=\omega \alpha `$, waves due to a nonlinear dependence of $`\alpha `$ on $`u_0`$ (cf. dodin98 ). The value of $`\theta _0`$ is zero indicating that the distribution function of electrons in $`k_{el}`$-space is symmetric in respect to the center of Brillouin zone. With an increase of $`u_0`$ this regime continues until $`\alpha `$ reaches the value corresponding to one of the Bessel roots. In this second regime of a strong interaction between electrons and radiation, a variation of amplitude of the incident wave practically doesn’t result in a change of amplitude of the transmitted wave: $`u_{max}\alpha `$=const independently on $`u_0`$, at least near the boundary of such regime. Instead, the energy of absorbed radiation goes to an effective heating of electron gas and a creation of “warm electrons”. The distribution function of these “warm electrons” is slightly asymmetric in respect to the center of Brillouin zone ($`\theta _00`$). In the presence of scattering the asymmetry of distribution function results in a directed current and in an appearance of dc component of the outgoing wave.

Consider the physics of a rectification of the wave with a low frequency, $`\omega 1`$, and a large amplitude, $`u_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, in more detail. In this case our analysis shows kna-unbubl  that $`\alpha u_0/\omega `$ and therefore the condition for symmetry-breaking bifurcation in Eq. (3) becomes $`J_0\left(u_0/\omega \right)=0`$ (we also have checked it solving Eq. (3) numerically). On other hand, this condition is in a reasonable agreement with the results of numerical simulations of rectification at small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ employing balance equations (2) (see Fig.1 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$). Further, we find that the large amplitude of ac field is almost unchanged after passing trough LSSL, $`u_{max}=\omega \alpha \omega \left(u_0/\omega \right)=u_0`$. The absolute value of generated dc bias is very small: $`|u|10^4`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ (however, such values are still quite distinguishable numerically from artificial dc effects arising due to round off errors that result in $`|u|10^8`$). The expression $`J_0\left(u_0/\omega \right)=0`$ determines the condition for dynamic localization of miniband electrons driven by a given ac field localization . Both quantum mechanical hone  and semiclassical romanov-ftt01  considerations of the dynamic localization show that a forward motion of an electron is transformed to its local oscillations. These localized electrons strongly interact with radiation. The localization of every electron under the action of a strong ac field is a coherent control effect localization . However, different oscillating electrons have different and random phases in the presence of scattering; interaction of many electrons with the radiation results in an effective electron’s heating romanov-ftt01 . It was shown recently cannon  that the overheating may lead to the symmetry-breaking instability resulting in dc. The development of this instability and its next stabilization is a rather complicated process which is associated with a nonlinear feedback action of electrons on the incident field (the terms $`+\mathrm{\Gamma }^1vw`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1v^2`$ in Eqs. (2)). Importantly, the nonlinear effects can not be ignored anymore in the conditions of localization even for a low electron density $`N_s`$. Thus, when a dissipation is weak and the self-consistent field inside LSSL is only slightly different from the incident ac field, just an interplay of the effects of dynamic localization and nonlinearity provides a conversion of radiation into a very small dc bias.

For available LSSLs fabricated with the use of CEO technique, $`a=15`$ nm, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=12`$ meV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g=85`$ meV, $`ϵ_0=13`$ (GaAs), $`N_s=6\times 10^{11}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> and $`\gamma ^1=10`$ ps at temperature $`0.3`$ K exp-samples , we estimate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.6>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cr}0.4`$. Because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_s\tau \mathrm{\Delta }a^2)^{1/2}`$, a further increase of the electron’s density, the mobility, as well as an increase of the miniband width should result in a possibility to observe the predicted effects of rectification and chaos. In physical units, the desirable field strength $`u_0^{(sb)}2.75`$ and the frequency $`\omega 0.35`$ (cf. Fig. 3) correspond to $`E_0^{(sb)}825`$ V/cm and $`\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi 9`$ GHz, that can be easily reached within the range for existing Gunn diodes. At the same time, the conditions of applicability of the semiclassical superlattice equations are well satisfied for such values of parameters (in particular, $`eaE_0/\mathrm{\Delta }u_0(\mathrm{}\omega _0/\mathrm{\Delta })10^21`$).

In conclusion, we should notice that likely similar effects of a resonant photovoltaic response of 2D electron gas in semiconductor heterojunctions to microwave and far-infrared radiations have been observed in the experiments photovolt-exp1 ; photovolt-exp2 ; photovolt-exp3 . These photovoltaic effects were attributed in Refs. photovolt-exp1 ; photovolt-exp2 ; photovolt-exp3  to a “resonant heating” of intraband electrons confined by the different methods, such as an excitation of the discrete 2D plasmons photovolt-exp1 , an application of the quantized magnetic field photovolt-exp2  or a creation of the field-effect confined quantum dots photovolt-exp3 . In contrast, we consider the localization of electrons in the superlattice miniband induced by the ac electric field itself (dynamic localization). Possible realizations of the symmetry-breaking bifurcations in the particular experimental situations photovolt-exp1 ; photovolt-exp2 ; photovolt-exp3  must be further investigated.

This research was supported by Academy of Finland, Royal Society, Humboldt Foundation and RFBR.


text:
# Anticipating the dynamics of chaotic maps

(26 October 2001)

## Abstract

We study the regime of anticipated synchronization in unidirectionally coupled chaotic maps such that the slave map has its own output reinjected after a certain delay. For a class of simple maps, we give analytic conditions for the stability of the synchronized solution, and present results of numerical simulations of coupled 1D Bernoulli-like maps and 2D Baker maps, that agree well with the analytic predictions.

, ,

The synchronization of chaotic systems is a subject that has attracted a lot of attention in the past years. Since the pioneering works  several different regimes of synchronization have been found: complete synchronization, phase synchronization , lag synchronization , generalized synchronization , synchronization by common noise force , among others.

Anticipated synchronization is a recently discovered synchronization regime that occurs in unidirectionally coupled systems . In this regime counterintuitive phenomena occur, since the slave system anticipates the chaotic evolution of the master system, despite the fact that chaotic behavior implies long-term unpredictability.

In the case of coupled time-delayed differential equations the anticipation time is related to the difference between the intrinsic delay time of the systems and the delay time of the coupling . In coupled ordinary differential equations (as the Lorenz and Rossler systems) the anticipation time must be small to have a stable synchronization manifold . However, by using a chain of slave systems, anticipation times that are multiples of the coupling delay time and that exceed characteristic time scales of the chaotic dynamics can be obtained . Many additional numerical  and experimental  studies of anticipated synchronization have been performed.

Recently, analytic conditions for the synchronization of coupled maps with delays were given by Masoller and Zanette . In the maps considered in  the chaotic behavior is induced by the delay term in the map (in other words, without delay the master map is not chaotic). In Ref.  the master map ($`x_n`$) and the slave map ($`y_n`$) are of the form

$$x_{n+1}=bx_n+f(x_{nN}),$$
(1)
$$y_{n+1}=by_n+(1\eta )f(y_{nN})+\eta f(x_{nM}).$$
(2)
with $`|b|<1`$ and $`f`$ a nonlinear function. The synchronized solution is given by $`y_n=x_{nM+N}`$. By studying the evolution of a small perturbation of the solution it was shown that the synchronization is stable for $`\eta =1`$. The existence of a threshold value of the coupling, $`\eta _c<1`$, above which the synchronized solution is stable, was also shown.

When the chaotic behavior of the master map is not induced by a delay, to the best of our knowledge no analytical conditions for anticipation have been reported. In this letter we study a system composed by a chaotic map (master) unidirectionally coupled to a second chaotic map (slave) which has its own signal reinjected after a certain delay. We consider a master map, $`x_n`$, and a slave map, $`y_n`$ of the form

$$x_{n+1}=f(x_n),$$
(3)
$$y_{n+1}=f(y_n)+\gamma (x_{nN}y_{nM}),$$
(4)
where $`f`$ is a nonlinear function. We show that the delayed auto-injection in the slave map leads to anticipation in the synchronization, and present analytic conditions for the stability of anticipated synchronization. An analytical treatment is possible because we consider simple chaotic maps. We exemplify the results with numerical simulations of coupled 1D Bernoulli-like maps and 2D Baker maps.

The synchronization manifold of (3), (4) is given by

$$y_n=x_{nN+M},$$
(5)
and thus the slave variable is lagged by $`NM`$ steps behind the value of the master variable (if $`NM<0`$, the slave map anticipates the dynamics of the master map). To study the stability of the synchronized solution we consider a perturbation of the form

$$y_n=x_{nN+M}+\delta _n.$$
(6)
In the linear regime, the perturbation obeys the following map

$$\delta _{n+1}=f^{}(x_{nN+M})\delta _n\gamma \delta _{nM},$$
(7)
where $`f^{}=df/dx`$. Making the change of variables $`\delta _n=(z_n)^n`$ gives

$$(z_{n+1})^{n+1}=f^{}(x_{nN+M})(z_n)^n\gamma (z_{nM})^{nM}.$$
(8)
Notice that the value of $`N`$ is irrelevant in the long-term behavior, thus the stability of the synchronized solution is the same in the anticipated and in the retarded regimes (similar results were found in ). Therefore, and without loss of generality, in the following we consider $`N=0`$.

A sufficient condition for the stability of the synchronized solution will be that, for $`n>n_0`$, where $`n_0`$ is some number of transient steps, all the solutions $`z_n^i`$ of (8) (where $`i`$ labels the different solutions) satisfy $`|z_n^i|<1`$. When $`f^{}`$ depends on $`x_n`$, an analytical treatment of the stability of the synchronized solution is in general not possible. However, there are particular cases in which the study of Eq. (8) gives insight into the parameter region where synchronization is stable. As a first example we consider the 1D Bernoulli-like map

$$f(x_n)=ax_n\mathrm{mod}1.$$
(9)
The map is chaotic for $`a>1`$. $`f^{}=a`$, and thus the solutions of (7) are linear combinations of functions of the form $`\delta _n=z^n`$, with constant $`z`$. Thus (8) reads

$$z^{M+1}=az^M\gamma .$$
(10)
Stability of the synchronized solution is obtained if all the solutions of (9) satisfy $`|z|<1`$.

For $`M=1`$ the roots of Eq. (10) are the solutions of a simple quadratic equation, so that it is simple to check that they have $`|z|<1`$ when $`\gamma (a1,1)`$. For arbitrary $`M`$ a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the stability of the synchronized solution is $`\gamma [a1,a+1]`$. To show that, first note that for $`\gamma =0`$, Eq. (10) has one root at $`z=a>1`$, and the other $`M`$ roots are at $`z=0`$. A simple analysis of perturbations shows that a small $`\gamma `$ breaks the degeneracy of the roots at the origin, which then move radially outwards in the complex plane, whereas (if $`\gamma >0`$) the root that was located at $`z=a`$ diminishes its value, moving towards the unit circle. Thus, stability of the synchronized solution will be obtained by increasing $`\gamma `$ if this last root enters into the unit circle in the complex plane before some of the other $`M`$ roots leave it. Finally, for $`\gamma `$ large enough, all the roots are outside the unit circle. Eq. (10) can be rewritten as

$$z^M=\frac{\gamma }{za}.$$
(11)
Thus, the value of $`|z|^M`$ is bounded between

$$\frac{\gamma }{a+|z|}|z|^M\frac{\gamma }{a|z|}.$$
(12)
At the limits of the stability region, some root $`z`$ would satisfy $`|z|=1`$, so that

$$\frac{\gamma }{a+1}1\frac{\gamma }{a1}.$$
(13)
which leads to $`a1\gamma a+1`$. Therefore, only within this interval a root might cross the unit circle, leading to stability changes of the synchronized solution. In consequence the range of $`\gamma `$ leading to stable synchronization is inside $`\gamma [a1,a+1]`$. Further insight can be gained from the study of the roots at the boundaries of this interval. First we consider the case $`\gamma =a1`$. For this value of the coupling Eq. (10) becomes

$$z^{n+1}=az^na+1.$$
(14)
Clearly, $`z=1`$ is a solution for all $`a`$ and $`M`$. A small perturbation of the value of $`\gamma `$, $`\gamma =a1+\delta \gamma `$ leads to a modification of the value of $`z`$, $`z=1+\delta z`$. To first order, $`\delta z`$ and $`\delta \gamma `$ are related by

$$\delta z=\frac{\delta \gamma }{1M(a1)}.$$
(15)
The denominator is positive if $`M<1/(a1)`$ and negative otherwise. Thus, if $`M<1/(a1)`$, by increasing $`\gamma `$, ($`\delta \gamma >0`$), $`\delta z<0`$ and a real root enters into the unit circle. Since this value of $`\gamma `$ is the smallest one for which crossing the unit circle becomes possible, all the roots satisfy now $`|z|<1`$ and thus the synchronized solution becomes stable. On the other hand, if $`M>1/(a1)`$, by increasing $`\gamma `$, $`\delta z>0`$, and a real root leaves the unit circle. In this case the synchronized solution becomes more unstable, in the sense that the rate of escape given by the largest $`|z|`$ increases by increasing $`\gamma `$. Thus, $`M<1/(a1)`$ gives a limit of the number of steps $`M`$ for which the synchronized solution can become stable. There is a relation between $`M`$ and the degree of chaos, associated to the Lyapunov exponent $`\mathrm{log}a`$, of the master map: the largest the value of $`a`$, the lower the stable anticipation times. If $`a>2`$, stable anticipated synchronization becomes impossible.

Next, we consider the other boundary of the synchronization region, $`\gamma =a+1`$. In this case Eq. (10) becomes

$$z^{n+1}=az^na1.$$
(16)
If $`M`$ is even, $`z=1`$ is a solution. Considering a perturbation of the form $`\gamma =a+1+\delta \gamma `$, in the same way as before it can be shown that $`z=1+\delta z`$ with $`\delta z=\delta \gamma /[1+M(a+1)]`$. Since the denominator is always positive, if $`\gamma `$ grows, $`z`$ decreases, so that the root close to $`z=1`$ leaves the unit circle. Thus, we simply confirm that a necessary condition for the stability of the synchronized solution is $`\gamma <a+1`$.

Next we show results of numerical simulations that confirm these analytic arguments. Figure 1 shows simulations of Bernoulli-like maps, in which the slave anticipates the master in five steps. During the first 5000 steps the maps evolve independently. Then we set the value of the coupling to $`\gamma =0.15`$ and after a very short transient the anticipation of the slave to the master is evident. Figure 2 shows, for the same value of the parameters $`a`$ and $`M`$, and increasing coupling $`\gamma `$, how the roots of Eq. (10) move in the complex plane. For low coupling Eq. (10) has one real root $`z_1a>1`$, one real root $`z_2<1`$, and four complex conjugate roots with modulus less than 1 \[Fig. 2 (a)\]. As the coupling increases, $`z_1`$ decreases while the other roots increase their modulus, approaching the unit circle. For $`\gamma 0.1=a1`$ all roots of Eq. (8) have modulus less than 1 \[Fig. 2 (b,c)\] and the synchronized solution is stable (Fig. 2(c) corresponds to Fig. 1). For even larger coupling, pairs of complex-conjugate roots cross the unit circle \[Fig. 2 (d)\], and synchronization is unstable again.

For values of the coupling such that all roots of Eq. (10) are inside the unit circle, the distance between the two trajectories decreases exponentially, $`|x_{n+M}y_n||x_My_0|\mathrm{exp}(n/\tau )`$, with the transient time to synchronization given by the inverse of the logarithm of the modulus of the largest root, $`\tau =1/\mathrm{ln}|z_1|`$. Fig. 3 shows the transient evolution of $`|x_{n+M}y_n|`$, for the parameters of Fig. 1. We observe a damped oscillatory behavior. While the damping time is $`\tau `$, the frequency is associated to the phase of $`z_1`$.

As a second example we consider the 2D Baker’s map that transform the unit square into two non overlapping rectangles: The master map, ($`x_n^m,y_n^m`$), and the slave map, ($`x_n^s,y_n^s`$), are

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{n+1}^m=f_x(x_n^m,y_n^m)\hfill & \\ y_{n+1}^m=f_y(x_n^m,y_n^m)\hfill & \end{array}$$
(17)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{n+1}^s=f_x(x_n^s,y_n^s)+\gamma (x_n^mx_{nM}^s)\hfill & \\ y_{n+1}^s=f_y(x_n^s,y_n^s)+\gamma (y_n^my_{nM}^s).\hfill & \end{array}$$
(18)
where

$$f_x=\{\begin{array}{cc}ax_n\hfill & \text{if }x_n<1/a\text{,}\hfill \\ a(x_n1/a)\hfill & \text{if }x_n1/a\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
$$f_y=\{\begin{array}{cc}by_n\hfill & \text{if }x_n<1/a\text{,}\hfill \\ by_n+(1b)\hfill & \text{if }x_n1/a\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
$`a>1`$ and $`b<1`$ are the expansion and contraction rates, respectively. It is easy to see that for the stability of the synchronized solution we obtain a pair of equations of the same form as Eq. (10), where now $`a`$ is equal to the expansion and to the contraction rate, respectively. Both equations must have roots with modulus less than 1, for the synchronized solution to be stable. In Fig. 4 we present results of numerical simulations that show anticipated synchronization by one step. The coupling is set on at $`n=30`$, and after a transient the map solution approaches the anticipated synchronization state. We find synchronized solutions for parameter values such that the equations analogous to (10) have roots with modulus less than 1. The duration of the transient, again, is related to the modulus of the largest root.

In summary, we have studied the regime of anticipated synchronization in unidirectionally coupled chaotic maps. In a general case is not possible to give analytic conditions for the parameter region where anticipated synchronization occurs, but we have presented two class of maps, 1D Bernoulli-like maps and 2D Baker maps, in which an analytic treatment of the stability of the synchronized solution is possible. The results of numerical simulations are in good agreement with the analytic predictions.

C. Masoller was supported by Proyecto de Desarrollo de Ciencias Básicas (PEDECIBA), Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica (CSIC), Uruguay, and Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain. E. Hernández-García and C. Mirasso acknowledge support from MCyT (Spain), project CONOCE BMF2000-1108.


text:
# Heavy Quarks and QCD Matter

## 1 Foreword

This conference celebrates the contributions made by Helmut Satz to the theory of super–dense matter. Helmut was among the very first who started to think about the subject at the time of its infancy. His work on QCD matter over the years brought the field of statistical QCD to maturity. His strong support was vital in establishing experimental heavy ion programs at CERN and BNL. All of this has been already described at the conference by people who have a first–hand knowledge of the history of the field (in which the previous Bielefeld 1980 meeting was a major milestone). What I would like to add to these accounts is Helmut’s influence on young physicists: he is, and has always been, an inspiration for people entering the field. Many of us, like myself, were brought into the field and encouraged by him. Working with Helmut is both enriching and enjoyable. I wish new generations of physicists will discover this for themselves.

## 2 Statistical QCD: from small $`x`$ to high $`T`$

### 2.1 Quantum statistics at small $`x`$

Small $`x`$ physics is not usually considered to belong to the realm of statistical QCD. Nevertheless, especially at this conference, it is worthwhile to emphasize that the concepts of statistical approach provide a very useful perspective in small $`x`$ physics as well.

Let us begin by noting that a parton fluctuation with a given Bjorken $`x`$ and transverse momentum $`k_{}`$ inside a hadron with a momentum $`P`$ has, in the Lab frame, a lifetime given by the uncertainty relation:

$$t\frac{xP}{k_{}^2}.$$
(1)
This shows that the partons at larger $`x`$, and smaller $`k_{}`$, live much longer than partons at small $`x`$ and large $`k_{}`$.

Let us denote by $`\phi =\{\psi ,\overline{\psi },A\}`$ the set of parton fields with $`x<x_0`$ (with $`x_0`$ setting some arbitrary boundary between “fast” and “slow” fields), and by $`\varphi `$ the set of the same fields, but with $`x>x_0`$. Suppose that we want to compute an expectation value of some observable $`𝒪`$. In doing so, we have to take account of the fact that partons at larger $`x>x_0`$ are effectively “frozen”; this is done by employing the form familiar from the treatment of statistical systems with random, frozen impurities:

$$𝒪=D\varphi \rho (\varphi )\frac{D\phi 𝒪(\phi ,\varphi )\mathrm{exp}(iS(\phi ,\varphi )/\mathrm{})}{D\phi \mathrm{exp}(iS(\phi ,\varphi )/\mathrm{})},$$
(2)
where $`S`$ is the action, $`\rho (\varphi )`$ describes the distribution of large $`x`$ partons, and we have explicitly written down the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$. The meaning of (2) is simple – the “frozen” fields $`\varphi `$ are not a dynamical part of the system of the “fast” fields $`\phi `$; rather, they act as impurities, or sources. This formulation is the basis for McLerran–Venugopalan model of hadron structure at small $`x`$; since glasses are among the physical systems with large relaxation time, one may also call such system a “color glass condensate” (see  and references therein). Renormalization group equations with respect to the changing scale $`x_0`$ allow then to reconstruct QCD evolution: partons radiated by sources at larger $`x`$ themselves become sources for radiation at even smaller $`x`$.

At sufficiently small $`x`$ and/or large atomic number of the nucleus, the density of partons will become very large and the system will thus cease to be dilute. What will it look like? What kind of dynamics will govern its properties? To address these questions, let us first note that for a system with large number of gluons the action is large, $`S\mathrm{}`$. Such systems are appropriately described by using the semi–classical approximation. To go further, we need to establish the dependence of the action on the coupling constant. To do this, let us re-scale the gluon fields in the QCD Lagrangian as follows: $`A_\mu ^a\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a=gA_\mu ^a`$. In terms of new fields, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a=gG_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^a_\nu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a+f^{abc}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^b\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^c`$, and the dependence of the action on the coupling constant is given by

$$S\frac{1}{g^2}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^ad^4x.$$
(3)
Let us now consider a classical configuration of gluon fields; by definition, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a`$ in such a configuration does not depend on the coupling, and the action is large, $`S\mathrm{}`$. The number of quanta in such a configuration is then

$$N_g\frac{S}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\alpha _s}\rho _4V_4,$$
(4)
where we re-wrote (3) as a product of four–dimensional action density $`\rho _4`$ and the four–dimensional volume $`V_4`$.

The effects of non–linear interactions among the gluons become important when $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^2`$ (this condition can be made explicitly gauge invariant if we derive it from the expansion of a correlation function of gauge-invariant gluon operators, e.g., $`\stackrel{~}{G}^2`$). In momentum space, this equality corresponds to

$$Q_s^2\stackrel{~}{A}^2(\stackrel{~}{G}^2)^{1/2}=\sqrt{\rho _4};$$
(5)
$`Q_s`$ is the typical value of the gluon momentum below which the interactions become essentially non–linear.

Consider now a nucleus $`A`$ boosted to a high momentum. By uncertainty principle, the gluons with transverse momentum $`Q_s`$ are extended in the longitudinal and proper time directions by $`1/Q_s`$; since the transverse area is $`\pi R_A^2`$, the four–volume is $`V_4\pi R_A^2/Q_s^2`$. The resulting four–density from (4) is then

$$\rho _4\alpha _s\frac{N_g}{V_4}\alpha _s\frac{N_gQ_s^2}{\pi R_A^2}Q_s^4,$$
(6)
where at the last stage we have used the non–linearity condition (5), $`\rho _4Q_s^4`$.

Identifying the number of gluons in the infinite momentum frame with the gluon structure function $`N_gxG(x,Q_s^2)`$, we arrive at the condition

$$Q_s^2\alpha _s\frac{xG_A(x,Q_s^2)}{\pi R_A^2},$$
(7)
originally derived in  as the criterion for “parton saturation” (for a discussion of saturation in terms of the partons in the final state, see ). This simple derivation  illustrates that the physics in the high–density regime can potentially be understood in terms of classical gluon fields.

### 2.2 Classical QCD and particle production in heavy ion collisions

The energy dependence of saturation scale $`Q_s`$ is determined by the $`x`$ dependence of the gluon structure function (see (7)). In spite of significant uncertainties in determination of the gluon structure functions, the following observation  is very important: the HERA data exhibit scaling when plotted as a function of variable

$$\tau =\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\left(\frac{x}{x_0}\right)^\lambda ,$$
(8)
where $`\lambda 0.25÷0.3`$. In saturation scenario, this scaling translates in the following $`x`$ dependence of dimensionful scale $`Q_s`$:

$$Q_s^2(x)=Q_0^2(x_0/x)^\lambda .$$
(9)
Since the rapidity $`y`$ and Bjorken variable are related by $`\mathrm{ln}1/x=y`$, (9) leads to the dependence of the saturation scale $`Q_s^2`$ on rapidity:

$$Q_s^2(s;\pm y)=Q_s^2(s;y=0)\mathrm{exp}(\pm \lambda y).$$
(10)
Let us now evaluate the rapidity and centrality dependences of hadron production in heavy ion collisions basing on this picture . We need to evaluate the leading tree diagram describing emission of gluons on the classical level, see Fig. 1.

To do this, we introduce the unintegrated gluon distribution $`\phi _A(x,k_t^2)`$ which describes the probability to find a gluon with a given $`x`$ and transverse momentum $`k_t`$ inside the nucleus $`A`$. As follows from this definition, the unintegrated distribution is related to the gluon structure function by

$$xG_A(x,p_t^2)=^{p_t^2}𝑑k_t^2\phi _A(x,k_t^2);$$
(11)
when $`p_t^2>Q_s^2`$, the unintegrated distribution corresponding to the bremsstrahlung radiation spectrum is

$$\phi _A(x,k_t^2)\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\frac{1}{k_t^2}.$$
(12)
In the saturation region, the unintegrated gluon distribution has only logarithmic dependence on the transverse momentum:

$$\phi _A(x,k_t^2)\frac{S_A}{\alpha _s};k_t^2Q_s^2,$$
(13)
where $`S_A`$ is the nuclear overlap area, determined by the atomic numbers of the colliding nuclei and by centrality of the collision.

The differential cross section of gluon production in a $`AA`$ collision can now be written down as

$$E\frac{d\sigma }{d^3p}=\frac{4\pi N_c}{N_c^21}\frac{1}{p_t^2}𝑑k_t^2\alpha _s\phi _A(x_1,k_t^2)\phi _A(x_2,(pk)_t^2),$$
(14)
where $`x_{1,2}=(p_t/\sqrt{s})\mathrm{exp}(\pm \eta )`$, with $`\eta `$ the (pseudo)rapidity of the produced gluon; the running coupling $`\alpha _s`$ has to be evaluated at the scale $`Q^2=max\{k_t^2,(pk)_t^2\}`$. The rapidity density is then evaluated from (14) according to

$$\frac{dN}{dy}=\frac{1}{\sigma _{AA}}d^2p_t\left(E\frac{d\sigma }{d^3p}\right),$$
(15)
where $`\sigma _{AA}`$ is the inelastic cross section of nucleus–nucleus interaction.

Evaluation of Eqs.(14) and (15) leads to the following simple analytical formula , which exhibits the scaling properties of hadron multiplicity in nucleus–nucleus collisions:

$$\frac{dN}{dy}=cN_{part}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\frac{\lambda }{2}}e^{\lambda |y|}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q_s^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2}\right)\lambda |y|\right]\left[1+\lambda |y|\left(1\frac{Q_s}{\sqrt{s}}e^{(1+\lambda /2)|y|}\right)^4\right],$$
(16)
with $`Q_s^2(s)=Q_s^2(s_0)(s/s_0)^{\lambda /2}`$. This formula expresses the predictions of high density QCD for the energy, centrality, rapidity, and atomic number dependences of hadron multiplicities in nuclear collisions in terms of a single scaling function. Once the energy–independent constant $`c1`$ and $`Q_s^2(s_0)`$ are determined at some energy $`s_0`$, Eq. (16) contains no free parameters.

The results for the $`AuAu`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV based on Eq.(16) are presented in Figs 3 and 3. One can see that the agreement with the data is quite good. If it persists at higher energies, one may conclude that parton saturation indeed adequately describes the initial conditions created in relativistic heavy ion collisions. Since saturation provides good conditions for parton thermalization , we may expect that the final goal of producing the equilibrated QCD matter in the laboratory may be within reach. We thus have to look for the probes which can be used for its diagnostics. One, by now famous, probe of QCD matter is the heavy quarkonium . Another probe is provided by high $`p_t`$ jets (see ). I am now going to discuss a recent proposal, involving heavy quarks at high $`p_t`$ .

## 3 Heavy quark energy loss in QCD matter

Let us begin by recalling the basic features of gluon radiation caused by propagation of a fast parton (quark) through QCD medium. As was pointed out in , the accompanying radiation is determined by multiple rescattering of the radiated gluon in the medium. The gluon, during its formation time given again by (1)

$$t_{form}\frac{\omega }{k_{}^2},$$
(17)
accumulates a typical transverse momentum

$$k_{}^2\mu ^2\frac{t_{form}}{\lambda },$$
(18)
with $`\lambda `$ the mean free path and $`\mu ^2`$ the characteristic momentum transfer squared in a single scattering. This is the random walk pattern with an average number of scatterings given by the ratio $`t_{form}/\lambda `$.

Combining (18) and (17) we obtain

$$N_{coh}=\frac{t_{form}}{\lambda }=\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{\mu ^2\lambda }}$$
(19)
describing the number of scattering centers which participate, coherently, in the emission of the gluon with a given energy $`\omega `$. For sufficiently large gluon energies, $`\omega >\mu ^2\lambda `$, when the coherent length exceeds the mean free path, $`N_{coh}>1`$. In this situation the standard Bethe-Heitler energy spectrum per unit length describing independent emission of gluons at each center gets suppressed:

$$\frac{dW}{d\omega dz}=\left(\frac{dW}{d\omega dz}\right)^{\text{BH}}\frac{1}{N_{coh}}=\frac{\alpha _\text{s}C_R}{\pi \omega \lambda }\sqrt{\frac{\mu ^2\lambda }{\omega }}=\frac{\alpha _\text{s}C_R}{\pi \omega }\sqrt{\frac{\widehat{q}}{\omega }}.$$
(20)
Here $`C_R`$ is the “color charge” of the parton projectile ($`C_R=C_F=\frac{N_c^21}{2N_c}=4/3`$ for the quark case we are interested in).

In (20) we have substituted the characteristic ratio $`\mu ^2/\lambda `$ by the so-called gluon transport coefficient

$$\widehat{q}\rho \frac{d\sigma }{dq^2}q^2𝑑q^2,$$
(21)
which is proportional to the density $`\rho `$ of the scattering centers in the medium and describes the typical momentum transfer in the gluon scattering off these centers.

The transport coefficient for cold nuclear matter was expressed in  as

$$\widehat{q}\frac{4\pi ^2\alpha _sN_c}{N_c^21}\rho [xG(x,Q^2)],$$
(22)
with $`\rho 0.16\mathrm{fm}^3`$ the average nuclear density and $`[xG(x)]`$ the gluon density in a nucleon. Taking $`\alpha _s0.5`$ and $`[xG(x)]1`$ (at $`x<0.1`$), yields

$$\widehat{q}_{\text{cold}}0.01\mathrm{GeV}^38\rho .$$
(23)
This estimate is an agreement with the result of the analysis of the gluon $`p_{}`$ broadening from the experimental data on $`J/\psi `$ transverse momentum distributions , which in the present notation yielded

$$\widehat{q}=(9.4\pm 0.7)\rho .$$
(24)
An estimate  for a hot medium based on perturbative treatment of gluon scattering in quark–gluon plasma with $`T250`$ MeV resulted in the value of the gluon transport coefficient of about factor twenty larger than (23):

$$\widehat{q}_{\text{hot}}0.2\mathrm{GeV}^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}20}\widehat{\mathrm{q}}_{\text{cold}}.$$
(25)
Multiplying (20) by the length $`L`$ of the medium traversed,111For the sake of simplicity we assume here that the medium is static and uniform. we arrive at the following expression for the inclusive energy distribution of gluons radiated by a quark:

$$\frac{dW}{d\omega }\frac{\alpha _\text{s}C_F}{\pi \omega }\sqrt{\frac{\omega _1}{\omega }},\omega <\omega _1\widehat{q}L^2.$$
(26)
The fact that the medium induced radiation vanishes for $`\omega >\omega _1`$ has a simple physical explanation, as according to (19) the formation time of such gluons starts to exceed the length of the medium:

$$t_{form}=\lambda \sqrt{\frac{\omega }{\mu ^2\lambda }}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{\widehat{q}}}=L\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{\omega _1}}>L.$$

Another important feature of medium induced radiation is the relation between the transverse momentum and the energy of the emitted gluon. Indeed, from (17) and (18) (see also (21)) we derive

$$k_{}^2\sqrt{\widehat{q}\omega }.$$
(27)
This means that the angular distribution of gluons with a given energy $`\omega `$ is concentrated at a characteristic energy- (and medium-) dependent emission angle

$$\theta \frac{k_{}}{\omega }\left(\frac{\widehat{q}}{\omega ^3}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(28)
Gluon bremsstrahlung off a heavy quark differs from the case of a massless parton (produced in a process with the same hardness scale) in one respect: gluon radiation is suppressed at angles smaller than the ratio of the quark mass $`M`$ to its energy $`E`$. Indeed, the distribution of soft gluons radiated by a heavy quark is given by

$$dP=\frac{\alpha _\text{s}C_F}{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{k_{}^2dk_{}^2}{(k_{}^2+\omega ^2\theta _0^2)^2},\theta _0\frac{M}{E},$$
(29)
where the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ should be evaluated at the scale determined by the denominator of (29). Equating, in the small-angle approximation, $`k_{}`$ with $`\omega \theta `$ we conclude that the formula (29) differs from the standard bremsstrahlung spectrum

$$dP_0\frac{\alpha _\text{s}C_F}{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{dk_{}^2}{k_{}^2}=\frac{\alpha _\text{s}C_F}{\pi }\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\frac{d\theta ^2}{\theta ^2}$$
(30)
by the factor

$$dP_{\text{HQ}}=dP_0\left(1+\frac{\theta _0^2}{\theta ^2}\right)^2$$
(31)
This effect is known as the “dead cone” phenomenon. Suppression of small-angle radiation has a number of interesting implications, such as perturbative calculability of (and non-perturbative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/M`$ corrections to) heavy quark fragmentation functions , multiplicity and energy spectra of light particles accompanying hard production of a heavy quark .

In the present context we should compare the angular distribution of gluons induced by the quark propagation in the medium with the size of the dead cone. To this end, for the sake of a semi-quantitative estimate, we substitute the characteristic angle (28) into the dead cone suppression factor (31) and combine it with the radiation spectrum (20) to arrive at

$$I(\omega )=\omega \frac{dW}{d\omega }=\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\omega _1}{\omega }}\frac{1}{(1+(\mathrm{}\omega )^{3/2})^2},$$
(32)
where

$$\mathrm{}\widehat{q}^{1/3}\left(\frac{M}{E}\right)^{4/3}.$$
(33)
To see whether the finite quark mass essentially affects the medium induced gluon yield, we need to estimate the product $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ for the maximal gluon energy $`\omega \omega _1`$ to which the original distribution (20) extends:

$$\mathrm{}\omega _1=\widehat{q}^{1/3}\left(\frac{M}{E}\right)^{4/3}\widehat{q}L^2=\left(\frac{E_{\text{HQ}}}{E}\right)^{4/3},E_{\text{HQ}}M\sqrt{\widehat{q}L^3}.$$
(34)
This shows that the quark mass becomes irrelevant when the quark energy exceeds the characteristic value $`E_{\text{HQ}}`$ which depends on the size of the medium and on its “scattering power” embodied into the value of the transport coefficient.

Which regime is realized in the experiments on heavy quark production in nuclear collisions? Taking $`M=1.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ for charm quarks and using the values (23) and (25) we estimate

$`E_{\text{HQ}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\widehat{q}_{\text{cold}}}L^{3/2}M20\mathrm{Ge}\mathrm{V}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{5\mathrm{fm}}}\right)^{3/2},`$ (35)
$`E_{\text{HQ}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\widehat{q}_{\text{hot}}}L^{3/2}M92\mathrm{Ge}\mathrm{V}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{5\mathrm{fm}}}\right)^{3/2},`$ (36)
for the cold and hot matter, respectively. We observe that for the transverse momentum (energy) distributions of heavy mesons the inequality $`EE_{\text{HQ}}`$ always holds in practice, especially for the hot medium. We thus conclude that the pattern of medium induced gluon radiation appears to be qualitatively different for heavy and light quarks in the kinematical region of practical interest.

The issue of in-medium quenching of inclusive particle spectra was recently addressed in . The $`p_{}`$ spectrum is given by the convolution of the transverse momentum distribution in an elementary hadron–hadron collision, evaluated at a shifted value $`p_{}+ϵ`$, with the distribution $`D(ϵ)`$ in the energy $`ϵ`$ lost by the quark to the medium-induced gluon radiation:

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{med}}{dp_{}^2}=𝑑ϵD(ϵ)\frac{d\sigma ^{vac}}{dp_{}^2}(p_{}+ϵ)\frac{d\sigma ^{vac}}{dp_{}^2}(p_{})Q(p_{}),$$
(37)
with $`Q(p_{})`$ the medium dependent quenching factor. The two facts, namely that in the essential region $`ϵp_{}`$ and that the vacuum cross section is a steeply falling function, allow one to simplify the calculation of the quenching factor $`Q`$ by adopting the exponential approximation for the $`ϵ`$-integral in (37):

$$Q(p_{})𝑑ϵD(ϵ)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{ϵ}{p_{}}\right\},\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}p_{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{d\sigma ^{vac}}{dp_{}^2}(p_{})\right].$$
(38)
This integral results in the Mellin moment of the quark distribution,

$$Q(p_{})=\stackrel{~}{D}(\nu )=\mathrm{exp}\left[\nu _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega N(\omega )e^{\nu \omega }\right],\nu =\frac{}{p_{}},$$
(39)
where $`N(\omega )`$ is the integrated gluon multiplicity defined according to (see  for details)

$$N(\omega )_\omega ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega ^{}\frac{dW(\omega ^{})}{d\omega ^{}}.$$
(40)
The use of (39) furnishes our final result:

$$Q_H(p_{})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\alpha _sC_F}{\sqrt{\pi }}L\sqrt{\widehat{q}\frac{_H}{p_{}}}+\frac{16\alpha _sC_F}{9\sqrt{3}}L\left(\frac{\widehat{q}M^2}{M^2+p_{}^2}\right)^{1/3}\right].$$
(41)
The first term in the exponent in (41) represents the quenching of the transverse momentum spectrum which is universal for the light and heavy quarks, (modulo the difference of the $``$ parameters determined by the $`p_{}`$ distributions in the vacuum). The second term is specific for heavy quarks. It has a positive sign, which means that the suppression of the heavy hadron $`p_{}`$ distributions is always smaller than that for the light hadrons. This is a straightforward consequence of the fact that the heavy quark mass suppresses gluon radiation. At very high transverse momenta, both terms vanish – this is in accord with the QCD factorization theorem, stating that the effects of the medium should disappear as $`p_{}\mathrm{}`$. How fast this regime is approached depends, however, on the properties of the medium encoded in the value of the transport coefficient $`\widehat{q}`$ and in the medium size $`L`$.

Constructing the ratio of the quenching functions, we estimate the heavy-to-light enhancement factor as

$$\frac{Q_H(p_{})}{Q_L(p_{})}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{16\alpha _sC_F}{9\sqrt{3}}L\left(\frac{\widehat{q}M^2}{M^2+p_{}^2}\right)^{1/3}\right].$$
(42)
Basing on (42) we find  that hot QCD matter leads to a strong, factor of $`2÷3`$, medium–dependent enhancement of the heavy quark yields with respect to the yield of light quarks at moderately large $`p_t>M`$. Experimentally, this effect should manifest itself as an enhancement of the heavy–to–light ratios such as $`D/\pi `$. It will also be of interest to study the $`B/D`$ ratio.

I wish to thank Helmut Satz for inspiring my interest in the topics discussed in this talk. I am grateful to my collaborators Yuri Dokshitzer, Eugene Levin and Marzia Nardi, with whom the results presented above were obtained. I am indebted to Rolf Baier, Jean-Paul Blaizot, Kari Eskola, Miklos Gyulassy, Keijo Kajantie, Larry McLerran, Al Mueller, Berndt Müller, Vesa Ruuskanen, Xin-Nian Wang, and Raju Venugopalan for very useful discussions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.