text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Negative parity bands with angular momenta $`I^\pi =1^{}`$, 3-, 5-, 7-, …, merging with the ground state bands (characterized by $`I^\pi =0^+`$, 2+, 4+, 6+, …) into forming a single band with the level sequence $`I^\pi =0^+`$, 1-, 2+, 3-, 4+, 5-, …have been known to exist in the light actinides , and in particular in the Rn, Ra, and Th isotopes with neutron number $`N=130`$-138 , as well as in the rare earth region, and in particular in the Ba–Sm isotopes  for a long time. These bands have been interpreted as corresponding to reflection asymmetric shapes, i.e. as indicating the existence of permanent octupole deformation  of the corresponding nuclei, although alternative interpretations of these bands in terms of alpha clustering have been given .

An interesting quantity characterizing the structure of bands with level sequence $`I^\pi =0^+`$, 1-, 2+, 3-, …is the relative displacement of the odd levels with respect to the positions predicted for them by a fitting of the even levels. This quantity, usually called odd–even staggering or $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ staggering, should vanish if the even levels and the odd levels form a single band.

Traditionally it has been thought that the odd–even staggering in octupole deformed bands starts from a relatively high value at low $`I`$ and then gradually decreases down to zero, thus indicating the gradual formation of a band with a reflection asymmetric shape . However, using recent data in the actinide region , it has been found that in the light actinides the odd–even staggering exhibits a “beating” behavior . In other words, the quantity measuring the odd–even staggering does not stay near a vanishing value after reaching zero for the first time, but continues to raise and fall (in absolute value) with increasing $`I`$, producing a figure resembling a sequence of beats.

At this point the following questions are raised:

1) Is there a “beating” behavior of the odd–even staggering in octupole bands of the rare earth region, similar to the one seen in the light actinides?

2) If there is such a behavior, what are the systematics exhibited by these “beats”?

3) Is the “beating” behavior a real effect or is it an artifact of the mathematical method used?

Furthermore, it has been recently argued  that in the actinides a second region of octupole deformation exists around the nuclei 238Pu and 240Pu, i.e. around $`N=144`$, 146. It is therefore of interest to study the systematics of odd–even staggering up to and around this region, since the following questions are raised:

1) Is there any systematic dependence of the odd–even staggering on the neutron number $`N`$ within each chain of isotopes?

2) Is there any correlation between the amplitude of the odd–even staggering and the angular momentum value at which the vanishing of the staggering occurs?

In section 2 of the present work the formalism will be briefly described and it will be subsequently applied to a few examples in the actinide region in section 3. In section 4 the consistency of several staggering formulae among themselves, as well as with the traditional formalism will be considered. The systematics of odd–even staggering in the actinide region will be examined in section 5, while section 6 will contain examples of “beats” in the rare earth region. The systematics of the odd–even staggering in the rare earth region will be considered in section 7, while section 8 will contain the conclusions drawn from the present results and plans for future work.

## 2 Formalism

The odd–even staggering (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ staggering) can be measured by the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)=\frac{1}{16}(6E_{1,\gamma }(I)4E_{1,\gamma }(I1)4E_{1,\gamma }(I+1)+E_{1,\gamma }(I2)+E_{1,\gamma }(I+2)),$$
(1)
where the transition energies

$$E_{1,\gamma }(I)=E(I+1)E(I).$$
(2)
are determined directly from experiment. This expression is analogous to the one used recently for the study of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=2`$ staggering  in nuclear superdeformed bands. One of the main properties of eq. (1) is that it vanishes for

$$E(I)=E_0+AI(I+1)+B[I(I+1)]^2,$$
(3)
since it is a (normalized) discrete approximation of the fourth derivative of the function $`E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ , i.e., essentially the fifth derivative of the function $`E(I)`$. Therefore eq. (1) is a sensitive probe of deviations from rotational behavior.

## 3 Examples of “beats” in the actinide region

A couple of examples of staggering plots (for the nuclei 220Ra and 224Ra) are shown in fig. 1 for illustrative purposes. More examples of staggering plots for several Rn, Ra, and Th isotopes can be found in ref. . The following comments are in place:

a) The term “staggering” is justified by the fact that the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ exhibits values of alternating sign over extended regions of the angular momentum $`I`$.

b) Odd–even staggering starts from relatively high values and is then decreasing with increasing angular momentum $`I`$. After reaching a vanishing value, staggering starts raising and then dropping again, giving an overall picture of “beats”, which has been discussed in ref. .

c) When the staggering reaches a vanishing value, a phase change occurs. In other words, while within the first “beat” positive values of staggering occur at even $`I`$ and negative values of staggering occur at odd $`I`$, indicating that in this region of $`I`$ values the odd levels are raised in relation to the corresponding even levels, within the second “beat” the opposite picture holds, i.e. positive values of staggering occur at odd $`I`$ and negative values of staggering occur at even $`I`$, indicating that in this region the odd levels are depressed in relation to the corresponding even levels. This phase change has been explained by the simple model of section V of ref. . It should be noticed that this phase change bears great similarity to the phase change occuring with signature inversion  in odd–odd nuclei.

d) Because of the phase change mentioned in c), when staggering reaches zero, two consecutive staggering points with the same sign (both positive or both negative) occur. In what follows we are going to use the angular momenta of these two consecutive points in order to indicate the region at which vanishing staggering occurs, labelling them by $`I_{van}`$.

e) In fig. 1 the amplitude of the second “beat” appears to be smaller than the amplitude of the first “beat”. Similarly, the amplitude of the third “beat” appears to be smaller than the amplitude of the second “beat”. These observations are in rough agreement with the expectations  in the early days of octupole deformed bands, that the staggering should decrease down to zero with increasing $`I`$ and then stay at a vanishing value, since a single band with octupole deformation is then formed. The bands shown in fig. 1, as well as several additional bands exhibited in ref. , indicate that staggering does not stay at a vanishing value after reaching zero for the first time, but the additional “beats” have smaller and smaller amplitudes, in qualitative agreement with the early expectations.

## 4 Alternative formulae

At this point one might wonder to which extent the characteristics of the odd–even staggering seen in the previous section, as well as in ref. , depend on the selection of the specific formula given in eq. (1). Indeed, many other choices are possible.

Instead of the normalized discrete approximation of the fourth derivative of the function $`E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$, used in eq. (1), one can use the normalized discrete approximation of the second derivative of the same function, calculated using the values of the function at three points

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{23,\gamma }(I)=\frac{1}{4}(2E_{1,\gamma }(I)E_{1,\gamma }(I1)E_{1,\gamma }(I+1)),$$
(4)
or the normalized discrete approximation of the second derivative of the function $`E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$, calculated using the values of the function at five points

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{25,\gamma }(I)=\frac{1}{64}(30E_{1,\gamma }(I)16E_{1,\gamma }(I1)16E_{1,\gamma }(I+1)+E_{1,\gamma }(I2)+E_{1,\gamma }(I+2)).$$
(5)
The formulae given above use the transition energies defined in eq. (2). It is possible, however, to use in such formulae directly the energy levels $`E(I)`$. Before doing so, it is instructive to write eqs. (1), (4) and (5) in terms of the energy levels $`E(I)`$, by substituting eq. (2) into them. The results are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1\gamma }(I)=\frac{1}{16}[E(I+3)5E(I+2)+10E(I+1)10E(I)+5E(I1)E(I2)],$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{23,\gamma }(I)=\frac{1}{4}[E(I+2)+3E(I+1)3E(I)+E(I1)],$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{25,\gamma }(I)=\frac{1}{64}[E(I+3)17E(I+2)+46E(I+1)46E(I)+17E(I1)E(I2)].$$
(8)
We proceed now to use in the derivative formulae the energy levels $`E(I)`$ in the place of the transition energies $`E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$. In this case the normalized discrete approximation of the fourth derivative of the function $`E(I)`$, calculated using the values of the function at five points  will be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{45,E}(I)=\frac{1}{8}(6E(I)4E(I1)4E(I+1)+E(I2)+E(I+2)),$$
(9)
which is the analog of eq. (1) in the case in which we use directly the energy levels $`E(I)`$ and not the transition energies $`E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$. The difference in the normalization factor (by a factor of 2) is justified by comparison to eq. (6), which contains the same quantity as eq. (1), but expressed in terms of the energy levels $`E(I)`$. The choice made here is that in both cases the numerator contains a number of terms which is twice the number appearing in the denominator. This choice guarantees that the accumulation of errors of the quantities given in eqs. (6) and (9) will be handled on equal footing.

In a similar manner one can use the normalized discrete approximation of the second derivative of the function $`E(I)`$, calculated using the values of the function at three points

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{23,E}(I)=\frac{1}{2}(2E(I)E(I1)E(I+1)),$$
(10)
which is similar to eq. (4), the normalization being fixed by comparison to eq. (7), or the normalized discrete approximation of the second derivative of the function $`E(I)`$, calculated using the values of the function at five points

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{25,E}(I)=\frac{1}{32}(30E(I)16E(I1)16E(I+1)+E(I2)+E(I+2)),$$
(11)
which is an analog of eq. (5), the normalization being fixed by comparison to eq. (8).

The notation used above is of the type $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ij}`$, where by $`i`$ we denote the order of the derivative, while by $`j`$ we denote the number of values of the function used for the calculation of the derivative each time. According to this notation the quantity of eq. (1) could have been denoted as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{45,\gamma }(I)`$, but we opted for keeping for it the previously  used notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$.

It should be noticed at this point that eq. (10) is equivalent to the expression

$$\delta E(I)=E(I)\frac{1}{2}[E(I1)+E(I+1)],$$
(12)
which has been used in staggering studies in the past in octupole bands  and gamma bands , as well as in bands of odd–odd nuclei in connection with the effect of signature inversion .

In addition it can be noticed that eq. (7) is equivalent (up to a factor of 2) to the expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_S(I)=[E(I+1)E(I)]\frac{E(I+2)E(I+1)+E(I)E(I1)}{2}$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}[E(I+2)+3E(I+1)3E(I1)+E(I2)],$$
(13)
which has also been used in bands of odd–odd nuclei in relation with the effect of signature inversion . The similarity of the phase change occuring in the present case, when a “beat” is completed and the next one is starting, to the phase change occuring at signature inversion in odd–odd nuclei has been already mentioned in comment c) of sec. 3.

Since the early days of octupole deformation, the expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{NO}(I)=E(I)\frac{(I+1)E(I1)+IE(I+1)}{2I+1}$$
(14)
has been widely used. This expression does not correspond to any derivative, but it has the property to vanish for

$$E(I)=E_0+AI(I+1),$$
(15)
giving in this way a measure of deviations from pure rotational behavior.

From the theoretical point of view the main differences of the formulae given above can be described by considering the energy expression

$$E(I)=E_0+A^{}I+AI(I+1)+B[I(I+1)]^2.$$
(16)
The following comments can be made:

1) The expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ “kills” all terms of eq. (16), i.e. it vanishes if eq. (16) is substituted in it, while the expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{45,E}(I)`$ gives a constant coming from the last term of eq. (16). This is expected, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{45,E}(I)`$ corresponds to the fourth derivative of the energies $`E(I)`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ corresponds to the fourth derivative of the transition energies of eq. (2), i.e. essentially to the fifth derivative of $`E(I)`$, as seen in eq. (6).

2) The expressions $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{23,E}(I)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{25,E}(I)`$ give a constant coming from the third term when the first three terms of eq. (16) are substituted in them, since they correspond to the second derivative of $`E(I)`$. The expressions $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{23,\gamma }(I)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{25,\gamma }(I)`$ completely “kill” the first three terms of eq. (16), since they correspond to the second derivative of the transition energies of eq. (2), i.e. essentially to the third derivative of $`E(I)`$, as seen in eqs. (7) and (8).

3) The expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{NO}(I)`$ “kills” the first and the third terms of eq. (16), but not the second one (which is of vibrational character), as one can check by simple substitution. The main difference between $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{NO}(I)`$ and the other quantities is that $`E_{NO}(I)`$ does not correspond to any derivative.

In order to demonstrate the similarities and differences between these formulae, we give in table 1 detailed results from their application in the set of data of 220Ra, a nucleus in which the third “beat” is reached. The following observations can be made:

1) $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{23,\gamma }(I)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{25,\gamma }(I)`$ give results which are almost identical, a fact expected, since both of these quantities represent the second derivative of the transition energies, calculated using the values of the function at a different number of points in each case. The results given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ are also very similar to the ones just mentioned, indicating that the fourth derivative gives almost the same results as the second derivative.

2) $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{23,E}(I)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{25,E}(I)`$ give almost identical results, which in addition are very similar to the results given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{45,E}(I)`$, indicating once more that the selection of the order of the derivative (second or fourth), as well as of the number of the values of the function used at each step of the calculation of the derivative (three or five) is not important.

3) In table 1 the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ is accompanied by the relevant errors, calculated from the errors of the experimental data . It is clear that the errors are small in comparison to the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$. The errors for the rest of the quantities in table 1 are of similar magnitude and therefore are not reported.

4) The overall sign difference between the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{23,\gamma }(I)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{25,\gamma }(I)`$ and the rest is due to the choice made in writing eq. (2), which is used in them. Using $`E_{1,\gamma }(I)=E(I)E(I+1)`$ instead of eq. (2), one would have obtained for these quantities the same results with opposite signs.

In order to check further the similarities and differences between the various results, we have plotted in fig. 2a a representative of case 1) ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$), in which the transition energies are used, a representative of case 2) ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{45,E}(I)`$), in which the energy levels are used, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{NO}(I)`$, which does not correspond to any derivative. The following comments can be made:

1) All curves have exactly the same shape. Errors are not shown, since they are smaller than the size of the symbols used for indicating the points, as seen in table 1. The sign difference has been explained in comment 4) above.

2) In all cases the curves cross the zero axis at the same angular momentum values. This can also be seen in table 1, since the crossing of the zero corresponds, as explained above, to a phase change, i.e. to two consecutive values with the same sign.

3) The traditional formula of eq. (14)  produces a staggering pattern very similar to the more recent formula of eq. (1) . In early work  the plots had been including the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{NO}(I)`$ at odd $`I`$ only, thus producing a curve going down to zero with increasing $`I`$, instead of the first “beat”. In some cases, in which more experimental data was available, the curve was continued with negative values for a few more odd values of $`I`$, corresponding to the beginning of the second “beat” in the current presentation. In other words, the first three “‘beats” seen in fig. 2a in the current presentation correspond in the case of the traditional description (using the formula of eq. (14) and plotting only the values at odd $`I`$) to a curve decreasing from positive values to negative values and then raising to positive values again.

4) The previous point clarifies that staggering is not an artifact constructed through the use of derivatives, but it is corresponding to a physical situation: Within the first and the third “beat” the negative parity band is lying higher than the position corresponding to an interpolation of the levels of the positive parity band, while within the second “beat” the negative parity band is lying lower than the position corresponding to the interpolation of the levels of the positive parity band. What the derivatives do, is to isolate and demonstrate this effect in a clear way. It is remarkable that eq. (14), which is not a derivative, performs this task equally well.

In fig. 2b the same quantities are plotted in the case of 224Ra, leading to the same conclusions. Similar results have been obtained for the rest of the nuclei used in ref. , as well as for the nuclei used in the rest of the present work.

From the above results the following conclusions can be drawn:

a) The staggering pattern does not depend on the selection of the derivative (second or fourth), or on the number of values of the function used each time for the calculation of the derivative (three or five).

b) The staggering pattern does not depend on the use of the energy levels or of the transition energies in the relevant formulae.

c) The staggering pattern is reconciled with the traditional description (using eq. (14) and plotting values only at odd $`I`$). It is related to the relative position of the levels of the negative parity band with respect to the positions they should have had according to an interpolation of the levels of the positive parity band.

d) The physical question remaining is why in the beginning (within the first “beat”, at low $`I`$) the negative parity band lies higher than where it should have been, later (within the second “beat”) it lies lower than where it should have been, while at even higher angular momentum $`I`$ (within the third “beat”) it lies again higher than where it should have been.

## 5 Systematics of odd–even staggering in the actinide region

In table 2 the first two values of the quantity of eq. (1), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(4)`$, are reported for series of Rn, Ra, Th, U, and Pu isotopes, along with the pairs of angular momentum values at which the first vanishing of the odd–even staggering occurs, as explained in comment d) of section 3. The bands used in the table are free from backbendings/upbendings . The following observations can be made:

a) The Rn and Ra series of isotopes clearly show that minimum staggering occurs at $`N=134`$, the Th series of isotopes also being consistent with this observation.

b) The U series of isotopes clearly demonstrates that maximum staggering occurs at $`N=142`$, the Th and Pu series of isotopes being consistent with this finding.

c) The Pu series of isotopes clearly exhibit minimum staggering at $`N=146`$, the U series of isotopes being consistent with this finding.

We conclude that low staggering (i.e. strong octupole correlations) is observed around $`N=134`$ (the well known area of octupole deformation in the light actinides ) and around $`N=146`$ (the recently suggested region of octupole deformation in heavier actinides ), while relatively high staggering (weak octupole correlations) is observed around $`N=142`$. These findings are consistent with the suggestions of ref. , which have been based on systematics of the energies of the lowest $`1^{}`$ states, as well as on systematics of the hindrance factors for alpha decay.

The data in table 2 suggest in addition that the lower the initial staggering (i.e. the staggering at $`I=3`$, 4), the lower the angular momentum value at which the staggering vanishes. However, this conclusion is based only on some of the Rn, Ra, and Th isotopes, for which the vanishing of the staggering has been reached experimentally, while in the Pu and U isotopes, as well as in several of the heavier Th isotopes, the vanishing of the staggering has not been reached experimentally yet.

The suggestion that the lower the initial staggering, the lower the angular momentum value at which the staggering vanishes, is also supported by fig. 3, in which the odd–even staggering for the Th and U series of isotopes, calculated from eq. (1), is shown. It is clear that the curves enveloping the staggering pattern of each nucleus (not drawn in the figures for reasons of clarity) do not cross each other, suggesting in this way that the nucleus possessing the lowest initial staggering will reach vanishing staggering first (i.e. at lower angular momentum), while the nucleus possessing the highest initial staggering will reach vanishing staggering last (i.e. at higher angular momentum), provided that no backbending  will appear meanwhile. A similar conclusion can be drawn for the Pu series of isotopes from fig. 2 of Ref. , where eq. (14) has been used in the traditional way.

In table 3 the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ values for five of the nuclei shown in fig. 3 are given as examples, together with their uncertainties, calculated from the experimental errors accompanying the data on the energy levels. It is clear that in all cases the uncertainties are small, i.e. smaller than the size of the symbols used in fig. 3.

The following comments are here in place:

a) In table 2 it is clear that the nuclei for which the first vanishing of the staggering has been reached experimentally, and therefore the relevant $`I_{van}`$ values are reported in the table, are vibrational (with $`R_4=E(4)/E(2)`$ ratios in the range $`2R_42.4`$), transitional (characterized by $`2.4R_43`$), or rotational ($`3R_410/3`$) but with $`R_4`$ up to roughly 3.14 . In contrast, the Ra, Th, U, and Pu isotopes for which long bands are known, but the first vanishing of the staggering has not been reached yet, are all rotational, with $`R_4>3.2`$. It seems therefore that the decrease of the staggering with increasing $`I`$ is in general slower in good rotators.

b) As a result of a), the good rotators shown in fig. 3 give the impression that their staggering is in rough agreement with the predictions of the su(3) (rotational) limit of several algebraic models, as the spf-Interacting Boson Model , the spdf-Interacting Boson Model , the Vector Boson Model , the Nuclear Vibron Model , the details of which have been described in ref.  and need not be repeated here. All these models in their su(3) limits predict staggering of constant amplitude, the predictions being parameter independent, thus providing quite strict tests for the validity of these models. Fig. 3 shows that the above mentioned algebraic models pass this parameter independent test quite successfully.

As far as the “beat” patterns are concerned, it should be mentioned that quite satisfactory results can be obtained within the recently suggested  extension to negative parity states of the Coherent State Model . Theoretical predictions for the octupole bands of 218-222Rn and 218-226Ra have been given in refs , by fitting the relevant Hamiltonian, which possesses 7 free parameters, to the experimental data. Plugging the theoretical predictions of refs  into eq. (1) one can easily see that in all of the just mentioned Rn and Ra isotopes the first vanishing of the staggering is reproduced correctly. Furthermore the second vanishing of the staggering is reproduced correctly in 224Ra, while in 220Ra and 226Ra it is not reproduced by the specific fits given in refs . However it is interesting to examine if this can be achieved with different parameter sets.

## 6 Examples of “beats” in the rare earth region

After discussing in some detail the actinide region, we now turn our attention to the rare earth region. Staggering plots for 4 nuclei for which staggering reaches a vanishing value and goes on beyond it are shown in fig. 4. The following comments apply:

a) The staggering patterns seen here resemble the ones seen in sec. 3, but they are shorter. In 150Sm (fig. 4(c)) the second “beat” is almost complete, in 144Ba (fig. 4(a)) about half of the second “beat” is seen, while in 146Ba (fig. 4(b)) and 154Dy (fig. 4(d)) only the beginning of the second “beat” is observed.

b) The best “beat” patterns are seen in the $`N=88`$ isotones (144Ba, 150Sm, 154Dy), which are known to be among the best examples of nuclei showing octupole deformation in the rare earth region .

In table 4 the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ values for 150Sm are given as an example, together with their uncertainties, as calculated from the experimental errors accompanying the data on the energy levels. It is clear that the uncertainties are smaller than the size of the symbols used in fig. 4

## 7 Systematics of odd–even staggering in the rare earth region

We proceed to a study of the systematics of odd–even staggering in the rare earth region, similar to the one given in sec. 5 for the actinides.

In fig. 5 several Sm, Gd, Dy, and Er isotopes, for which the first vanishing of the staggering is not reached within the angular momentum region observed, are shown. In all cases it is clear that the curves enveloping the staggering patterns of the various isotopes (not shown in the figure for reasons of clarity) do not cross each other. In other words, the higher the initial staggering (at low $`I`$), the higher the angular momentum value at which the first vanishing of the staggering will occur (provided that no backbending  will occur meanwhile). This is in agreement with what we have seen in sec. 5 for the actinides.

In table 4, which is an analog of table 3, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ values for five of the nuclei shown in fig. 5 are given as examples, together with their uncertainties, as calculated from the experimental errors accompanying the data on the energy levels. It is clear that in all cases the uncertainties are smaller than the size of the symbols used in fig. 5.

In table 5, which is an analog of table 2, the first two values of the quantity of eq. (1), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(4)`$, are reported for several Ba, Ce, Nd, Sm, Gd, Dy, and Er isotopes (including all the isotopes appearing in figs 4 and 5), along with the pairs of angular momentum values at which the first vanishing of the odd–even staggering occurs, as explained in comment d) of sec. 3. The bands used in table 5 (as well as in figs 4 and 5) are free from backbendings , at least within the angular momentum regions used. The following observations can be made:

a) The Nd, Sm, and Gd series of isotopes show that minimum staggering occurs at $`N=86`$, the Dy series of isotopes also showing in the same direction.

b) The Ba, Nd, and Sm series of isotopes show that the lower the initial staggering (i.e. the staggering at $`I=3`$, 4), the lower the angular momentum value at which the staggering vanishes. This observation is consistent with the suggestions of fig. 5, which are based on Sm, Gd, Dy, and Er isotopes.

c) The nuclei for which the first vanishing of the staggering is reached (and therefore the relevant $`I_{van}`$ values are reported in table 5) are either vibrational (characterized by $`R_4=E(4)/E(2)`$ ratios in the range $`2R(4)2.4`$) or transitional (having $`2.4R(4)3`$), while most of the nuclei shown in fig. 5, for which the first vanishing of the staggering is not reached up to quite high $`I`$, are purely rotational, having $`3R(4)10/3`$ (with the notable exception of 152Gd).

d) Furthermore, the rotational nuclei included in fig. 5 show a slow decrease of the amplitude of the staggering with increasing $`I`$, being therefore quite in agreement with several algebraic models , which in their su(3) (rotational) limits predict staggering of constant amplitude. The predictions of these models (spf-Interacting Boson Model , spdf-Interacting Boson Model , Vector Boson Model , Nuclear Vibron Model ) have been described in detail in ref.  and need not be repeated here. It is worth mentioning, however, that these predictions of the just mentioned models are parameter independent, thus providing a quite strict test of the validity of the models, which they pass quite successfully.

e) The observations discussed in comments b), c), and d) are similar to the ones made in the actinide region (see sec. 5).

It will be interesting to examine if the recently proposed  extension to negative parity states of the Coherent State Model , which has been quite successful in describing the “beat” patterns in the actinide region, as already mentioned in sec. 5, can also reproduce the “beat” patterns in the rare earth region.

## 8 Conclusion

In this paper the odd–even staggering in the octupole bands of several even-even actinides and rare earths and the appearance of “beat” patterns have been considered. The main conclusions are listed here.

a) “Beat” patterns, similar to the ones reported in ref.  for the light actinides, are seen in both the actinide and the rare earth regions.

b) The odd–even staggering and the “beat” patterns do not depend on the choice of the formula used for isolating and demonstrating the effect. Several different formulae, corresponding to discrete approximations of derivatives of the transition energies, or of the energy levels themselves, give results which are perfectly consistent among themselves.

c) The recently used formalism, which makes use of discrete approximations of derivatives, gives results perfectly consistent with the ones provided by the traditional formula of Nazarewicz and Olanders .

d) In both the actinide and the rare earth regions it is seen that the higher the initial staggering (i.e. the staggering at low angular momentum $`I`$), the higher the angular momentum value at which the staggering will reach a vanishing value.

e) In both regions it is also seen that in vibrational and transitional nuclei the first vanishing of the staggering occurs soon, while in rotational nuclei the first vanishing of the staggering is not reached up to much higher angular momentum $`I`$, giving the impression of staggering with slowly decreasing amplitude, in rough agreement with several algebraic models predicting staggering of constant amplitude in their su(3) (rotational) limits.

f) In both regions it is also seen that the amplitude of the second “beat” appears to be smaller than the amplitude of the first “beat”. In the actinides it is further observed that subsequent “beats” have even smaller amplitudes. These observations are in rough agreement with the early expectations that after the formation of a single band with octupole deformation is reached as $`I`$ is increasing, the staggering from there on should remain at or near a vanishing value.

g) In the actinide region, in which several Rn, Ra, Th, U, and Pu isotopes have been considered, it has been found that within each series of isotopes the odd–even staggering exhibits minima around $`N=134`$ and $`N=146`$, while a local maximum appears at $`N=142`$, in agreement with the recent suggestion  of a secondary maximum of octupole deformation around $`N=142`$.

h) In the rare earth region, minimum staggering occurs in the $`N=86`$, 88 isotones, which show the best octupole bands and also the best “beat” patterns in this region.

The simple model of ref.  explains the main features of staggering, except the decrease of the maximum amplitude of subsequent “beats” with increasing $`I`$, which remains an open problem, along with a microscopic interpretation of the “beat” patterns in both the rare earth and the actinide regions.

Acknowledgements

One of the authors (NF) acknowledges support by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract Nos. W-7405-ENG-36 (LANL). Another author (PPR) acknowledges support by the Bulgarian Ministry of Science and Education under Contract No. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-547. Another author (NM) has been supported by the Bulgarian National Fund for Scientific Research under Contract No. MU-F-02/98.

Figure captions

* $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ (in keV), calculated from eq. (1), for octupole bands of a) 220Ra  and b) 224Ra . The experimental error in all cases is smaller than the symbol used for the points and therefore is not shown. (See table 1 for a list of the errors in the case of 220Ra.)
* Odd–even staggering quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{1,\gamma }(I)`$ (from eq. (1), in keV), $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{45,E}(I)`$ (from eq. (9), in keV), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{NO}(I)`$ (from eq. (14), in keV) for octupole bands of a) 220Ra , b) 224Ra .
* Same as fig. 1, but for a) 226Th , 228Th , 230Th , 232Th , 234Th , b) 230U , 232U , 234U , 236U , 238U .
* Same as fig. 1, but for octupole bands of a) 144Ba , b) 146Ba , c) 150Sm , and d) 154Dy .
* Same as fig. 1, but for a) 152Sm , 154Sm , b) 152Gd , 154Gd , 156Gd , 160Gd , c) 156Dy , 162Dy , d) 162Er , 164Er .


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of meteoritic dust grains with origin outside the solar system has opened the possibility to study presolar material in the laboratory, with all the advantages in details and accuracy such analysis allow for. Identification of the (possible) stellar origin of the meteoritic grains, offer us a unique opportunity to add important new constrains on models of stellar evolution (detailed elemental and isotopic abundances) and stellar atmospheric structure (elemental and mineralogical composition of the grains). There are several indications that a fraction, possible the bulk, of the presolar meteoritic grains has its origin in carbon stars.

For the moment the amount of detailed information (like isotopic ratios of tiny noble gas impurities) about the meteoritic grains is overwhelming (see e.g. Zinner 1995), whereas much of the fundamental data necessary in order to apply the meteoritic results to stellar modelling is entirely missing. For example, the necessary rate coefficients for formation of the most abundant presolar meteoritic grains (diamond dust) are lacking, and stellar wind models therefore do not predict diamond formation, but instead such models predict amorphous carbon (which has not been identified in meteorites) as the most abundant grain type in carbon-rich environments.

A combined self-consistent description of the full atmospheric region of a red giant star does not exist yet, but is slowly becoming within reach. The meteoritic data combined with more fundamental laboratory data can be an important ingredient in constructing such a model for the first time. Successful construction of self-consistent models, followed by possibly verifications of the formation place(s) of the most abundant stellar grains that contributed to the formation of the meteorites (and hence also the planets) would provide us fundamental new knowledge about the sources of material for the solar system and the chemical evolution of the Galaxy.

The most common types of meteorites are fragments of larger proto-planetary bodies, which melted and chemically differentiated after their formation. Carbonaceous chondrites, on the other hand, are meteorites which have never been part of a larger body. They consist of spherical glass-like chondrules embedded in a fine-grained matrix. The matrix has had a gentle thermal history and is believed to be the (relatively unprocessed) original dust from which the planets formed. Therefore, the larger the amount of matrix is in the chondrite, relative to the chondrule material, the more of the original solar nebula material is present, and the more primitive the chondrite is said to be.

When this matrix material was heated in the laboratory, it was realized already in the early 1960’ies (see Lewis & Anders 1983 for a review) that at certain temperatures the matrix released noble gases with an isotopic composition markedly different from everything else in the solar system. It was therefore concluded that the matrix contains one or more types of grains, formed before the solar system, in which non-solar composition noble gases are trapped. After years of trials with different chemical purifications of the matrix material, and subsequent stepwise heating and isotopic noble gas measurements, the first presolar grains were finally isolated by Lewis et al. in 1987, and identified as tiny diamonds.

Diamonds account for more than 99% of the identified presolar meteoritic material, with an abundance that can exceed 0.1% (1000 ppm) of the matrix (Huss & Lewis 1994b), corresponding to more than 3% of the total amount of carbon in the meteorite. The second and third most abundant types are SiC (6 ppm) and graphite (less than 1 ppm). They are all chemically quite resistant, which makes it possible to isolate them by dissolving the meteorite in acids. Further, a few of the SiC and graphite grains has been shown to contain tiny sub-grains of titanium and refractory carbides (Bernatowicz et al. 1991, 1992, 1994). Three isotopically anomalous, non-carbon-bearing grains have also been found. They are corundum (Al2O3), spinel (MgAl2O4), and silicon nitride (Si3N4) (Russel et al. 1995, Nittler et al. 1994, 1995). In the following sections we will discuss diamonds, SiC and graphite in some detail.

## 2 Diamonds

The individual diamond grains are very small, with a median diameter of less than 20 Å (Fraundorf et al. 1989). Since the diamond lattice distance is about 2 Å, a typical presolar diamond contains of the order $`(\frac{20}{2})^3`$ = 1000 carbon atoms, with 6$`\times 10^2`$ $``$ 50% of these belonging to the surface. Since surface atoms have one unpaired bond, they will (in a hydrogen-rich atmosphere) resemble hydrogenated amorphous carbon (a-C:H). Only the $``$50% “interior” atoms will sit in an actual diamond crystal structure. The presolar diamonds are therefore often called amorphous diamonds.

It is not obvious to which degree the extracted diamonds resemble the original diamond dust at its place of origin. Many alternations could have occurred in interstellar space, in the solar nebula, as well as during the chemical extraction process in the laboratory. However, the first step in an observational identification of their astronomical source of origin might be modelling of their synthetic spectrum. For this purpose we have measured the monochromatic absorption coefficient, described which of the features can be expected to be intrinsic to the diamonds (and which might be artifacts from the chemical processing in the laboratory), and computed synthetic carbon star spectra with the diamonds included (Andersen et al. 1996). The features which are most likely to be intrinsic are listed in Table 1 and compared with the results obtained by other groups.

Like for the other grains, the strongest argument that the diamonds are formed outside the solar system is the peculiar, non-solar isotopic composition of their noble gas inclusions (and other trace element inclusions). There are several reasons why we believe the bulk of the diamonds form in carbon stars, one of the most important ones being their 12C/13C ratio of $``$ 90. This ratio is identical to what is observed in carbon stars with large excess of carbon (i.e., with C/O $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 1.5, and strongly mass losing), and it is not found in any other abundant astronomical objects. In contrast to this, SiC (the second most abundant presolar grain) has 12C/13C $``$ 40, which is typical (Lambert et al. 1986) for carbon stars with only small excess of carbon (i.e., with C/O $``$ 1). Hydrostatic marcs photospheric models indicate that SiC grains will dominate the grain formation for C/O $``$ 1 (where 12C/13C is as found in the meteoritic SiC grains), whereas pure carbon grains will dominate for the high C/O ratios (where 12C/13C is as in the meteoritic diamonds). This was the primary basis for our theory (Jørgensen 1988) that diamonds come from evolved carbon stars and SiC from less evolved carbon stars (actually, at the time the paper was written it was a prediction that SiC should exist in meteorites). The (radiative pressure driven) mass loss increases rapidly with increasing C/O (= increasing 12C/13C) of the stars. If diamonds and SiC are formed in carbon stars, it is therefore a natural consequence of this theory that the meteorites contain much more diamonds than SiC. A more quantitative simulation is still missing because at present it isn’t possible to include diamond formation in the model atmospheres (due to lack of basic input data).

A number of impurities have been identified in the presolar diamonds, including the noble gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe), Ba and Sr (which are slightly enriched in r-process isotopes; Lewis et al. 1991), H with 1H/2D = 5193 (Virag et al. 1989; (1H/2D)terrestial = 6667) and N with 14N/15N = 406 (Russel et al. 1991; (14N/15N)terrestial = 272). The most important of these, Xe, was actually known from stepwise heating techniques before the grains themselves were identified as diamonds. The Xe in the diamonds has a significant overabundance (compared to the solar isotopic ratios) of the very heavy isotopes (Xe-H $``$ isotopes 134Xe and 136Xe) as well as the very light isotopes (Xe-L $``$ 124Xe, 126Xe). This composition is often called Xe-HL to indicate that there is an excess of both heavy (H) and light (L) isotopes. There are no astronomical objects known (neither from observations nor from standard theories) which have both solar 12C/13C ratio and Xe-HL. An explanation therefore needs to involve either a non-standard model, not yet observationally verified, or an assumption of the diamonds being a mixture of populations from several different sources.

Heavy and light Xe isotopes are produced in supernovae (SN), and Clayton (1989) therefore proposed that the meteoritic diamond grains were formed in a supernova that also produced the Xe-HL measured in the diamonds. Since the progenitor star of a supernova in the standard theories has an oxygen-rich atmosphere (i.e., cannot produce carbon-rich grains) and a pure 12C interior shell (i.e., can only produce grains with 13C/12C $``$ 0), a non-standard theory was necessary. In the extension of the model, Clayton et al. (1995) proposed a non-standard SN where mixing from a 13C-rich shell occurs in the right amount to give 12C/13C $``$ 90. A non-standard r-process was assumed too, in order to avoid the production of 129I which decays to 129Xe and which therefore would cause a very large excess of 129Xe, not observed in the meteorites. For a recent review of the standard r-, and s- neutron capture processes, see Käppeler et al. (1989). Furthermore, regular r-process cannot in itself produce the very large excess of 136Xe characteristic for the Xe-HL measured in the presolar diamonds. Ott (1996), however, proposed that the standard r-process is active, but that a separation of xenon from iodine and tellurium precursors takes place in the SN on a time scale of few hours after termination of the neutron burst in the SN. Since 136Xe is formed minutes after the neutron burst, and the other r-process Xe isotopes are formed hours (134Xe), days (131Xe) or even years (129Xe) later, a sufficiently early separation would allow almost infinite amounts of 136Xe relative to the other Xe isotopes which are produced. If a separation in the SN gas takes place two hours after the neutron burst, the meteoritic 136Xe/134Xe ratio is established in the gas, and with a small amount of later mixing, the observed meteoritic Xe-H can be obtained.

Detailed supernova models supporting these isotopic arguments are missing (as are simulations justifying, for example, the amount of 13C mixing or why only Xe from the separated gas is implanted in the grains when they form years after the neutron burst, etc), but the success of fitting modified SN scenarii to the observed Xe-H makes it likely that part of the diamond grains originates in a supernova. However, there are several reasons why the bulk of the diamonds are unlikely to have formed in supernova: (1) The hydro-dynamical time scale of supernova is short compared to the time scale for carbon grain formation (Sedlmayr 1994). (2) The mass loss is much stronger in carbon stars with high C/O ratio (where pure carbon grains will form) than in carbon stars with lower C/O ratio. If the SiC is formed in carbon stars (see next section), there will therefore have been expelled much more diamond dust from carbon stars (or other pure carbon grains, which are, however, not seen) into interstellar space than SiC. (3) Carbon stars were very abundant in the Galaxy prior to the solar system formation (due to their metallicity dependence). The resemblance of the carbon star 12C/13C to the solar 12C/13C is naturally explained if carbon stars were the source of the solar carbon (incl. carbon grains), whereas standard SN not will produce this 12C/13C ratio.

The typical amount of Xe gas inclusion in the diamonds is $``$ 10-6 cm3 per gram of diamond. This corresponds to of the order of one 132Xe atom and one 129Xe atom per 107 diamonds, a bit less of the isotopes 131Xe, 134Xe, and 136Xe, a tenth this amount of isotopes 128Xe and 130Xe, and only traces of 124Xe and 126Xe. A large number of diamonds is therefore necessary in order to perform an isotopic analysis (in practice $``$ 1010, Huss & Lewis 1994a), and attempts to separate the diamonds in groups of different origin have so far not been successful (Huss & Lewis 1994b). If we assume that the trapping efficiency for Xe in the possible population of diamonds which originated in supernovae is sufficiently large compared to the trapping efficiency in the carbon star diamonds (maybe because of the higher turbulent gas velocities in SN, higher densities, etc), then the Xe-H can be explained from being connected with a small fraction of diamonds of pure 12C (which originated in SN), without altering the necessary bulk 12C/13C ratio of the carbon star diamonds. We therefore propose that the bulk of the presolar meteoritic diamonds originates in evolved carbon stars (as in our original theory) and are mixed with a smaller population (from SNii) which has a relatively high Xe content and is rich in the heavy isotopes. The content of light isotopes of Xe is very small (less than 1 atom per 109 diamonds), and can be explained as coming from SNi (Lambert 1992) in binary systems where the low mass component is an evolved carbon star as in our original theory (Jørgensen 1988), or as a by-process of the Xe production in SNii (Ott 1996).

## 3 Silicon Carbide

SiC is much less abundant (6 ppm) than diamonds (1000 ppm), but some of the SiC grains are large enough that isotopic ratios of the Si and C (and the abundant impurities N, Mg-Al, Ti, Ca, He, Ne) can be measured in individual grains (Hoppe et al. 1994, Lewis et al. 1994, Anders & Zinner 1993 and references therein). The understanding of their stellar origin is therefore much better than in the case of the diamonds.

The SiC grain sizes have a large variety from less than 0.05 to 20 $`\mu `$m in equivalent spherical diameter, with about 95% (by mass) of the grains being between 0.3 and 3 $`\mu `$m (Amari et al. 1994). Ion micro-probe measurements can be performed on individual grains larger than 1 $`\mu `$m, and the results have made it possible to identify multiple stellar sources as their origin. The detailed match to the elemental and isotopic conditions in the He burning shell of AGB stars (Gallino et al. 1990) has made it generally believed that the bulk of the SiC originated in carbon stars.

To be able to distinguish between various stellar origins Hoppe et al. (1994) have divided the coarse (2.1–5.9 $`\mu `$m) SiC grains into five subgroups.

1. The “mainstream” grains have 20 $`<`$ 12C/13C $`<`$ 120 and
200 $`<`$ 14N/15N $`<`$ 10 000.
2. Grains A have 12C/13C $`<`$ 3.5.
3. Grains B have 3.5 $`<`$ 12C/13C $`<`$ 10.
4. Grains X have isotopically heavy N (13 $`<`$ 14N/15N $`<`$ 180).
5. Grains Y have isotopically light C (150 $`<`$ 12C/13C $`<`$ 260).

The mainstream, type A, and type B grains have comparable patterns of Si isotopes, distinctly different from type X grains and from type Y grains. The mainstream grains constitute $``$94% of all coarse-grained SiC, whereas grains from the groups A, B, X and Y account for only 2%, 2.5%, 1% and 1% respectively. Based on this grouping, Amari et al. (1995a) find that grains X could originate from a supernova (SNii), and Lodders & Fegley (1995) find that grains A and B can be at least qualitatively understood if they originate from J-type carbon stars or carbon stars that have not experienced much dredge-up of He-shell material.

It is seen that the isotopic variations among the grains are very large. 12C/13C varies by a factor more than 350, 14N/15N varies by 300 times (and 30Si/28Si by a factor of 3). Variations in noble gases associated with SiC are large as well (Ott 1993). The two noble gas components, s-process Xe and Neon-E (i.e., essentially pure 22Ne), show opposite correlations with grain size, s-process Xe being most abundant in fine-grained SiC and Ne-E in coarse-grained SiC (Lewis et al. 1994). Other elements which show s-process indications include s-process Kr, Ba, Sr, Ca, Ti, Nd and Sm.

The proportions of 80,86Kr vary with release temperature of the gas. This variation reflects branching of the s-process at the radioactive progenitors, 79Se and 85Kr (Ott et al. 1988). These branchings depend sensitively on neutron density and temperatures in the s-process region, and the 80,86Kr can therefore provide clues about in which stars the SiC formed, or if the stellar type is already known it can put constraints on the detailed modelling of these stars.

## 4 Graphite

The presolar graphite isolated from meteorites lies at the graphitic end of the continuum between kerogen, amorphous carbon, and graphite. It is not very abundant (less than 1 ppm), and it is much more complicated to extract than SiC and micro-diamonds (Amari et al. 1994). Presolar graphite occurs solely in the form of spherules, $`0.88\mu `$m in diameter, while graphite grains of other sizes and shapes have normal composition and are believed to have been formed in the solar nebula (Zinner et al. 1990). The presolar graphite has a very broad 12C/13C distribution, with 12C/13C ratios ranging from 7 to 4500, whereas the 14N/15N ratios range from 193 to 680 (Zinner et al. 1995).

The noble gases show systematic trends with sample density, suggesting more than one kind of graphite. Some have almost mono-isotopic 22Ne. Others contain neon with a somewhat higher 20Ne/22Ne ratio and are accompanied by s-process Kr, 4He and other noble gases (Amari et al. 1995b).

The carbon and nitrogen isotopic ratios found in the grains indicate that they come from stellar sources dominated by H-burning rather than from sources dominated by He-burning (Amari et al. 1993). H-burning in the CNO cycle produces isotopically heavy carbon (13C) and light nitrogen (14N), in qualitative agreement with the measurements (Zinner et al. 1989; Hoppe et al. 1994). Systematic measurements of isotopic ratios of several other elements were recently done by Hoppe et al. (1995).


text:
# Research and Development towards a Detector for a High Energy Electron-Positron Linear Collider

## I Introduction

Over the decade of the 1990’s, the five LEP and SLC detectors made numerous precise measurements of Standard Model couplings and parameters. Because of this, and the relative cleanliness of $`e^+e^{}`$ beam collisions, there is a tendency to think that designing and building a detector for a high-energy (TeV range) $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider (LC) should be relatively straightforward, requiring an R&D program of a scale much smaller than that of its hadron-collider counterparts. There are a number of reasons to question this point of view.

Although it has been shown that the LC does have unique discovery potential relative to the LHC, the physics case for the LC is predicated largely on its ability to complement discoveries made at hadron colliders with comprehensive and precise measurements. Over the last few years, it has become increasingly clear that the full exploitation of the potential of the LC to do these exacting studies places demands on the design of a LC detector which can not be met with existing experimental approaches.

For example, the determination of the light Higgs branching fractions, in particular into $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs, benefits from a tracking system with substantially better vertexing (for flavor identification) and momentum resolution (for recoil mass-peak cleanliness) than that of existing detectors. The desire to reconstruct $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons via their hadronic decays places stringent demands on the performance of the calorimeter system, suggesting innovative approaches allowing energy-flow reconstruction, with the requirement of a large volume of minutely segmented calorimetry, and a correspondingly large number of channels. No longer a purely $`s`$-channel machine, the LC community will also need to think very hard about robust instrumentation for the far forward region (200 mrad and below). Finally, the possibility of a fully open trigger, in which all beam crossings are read out, provides an interesting challenge for electronics and software efforts, while allowing a number of interesting physics capabilities. In all of these cases, the full capabilities of the LC can not be exploited with existing technology.

Underlying all of these potential technological pursuits lies a common question: that of whether or not the effort and expense engendered by each individual development project is justified by the potential physics gain. This set of questions can only be answered via a vigorous program of realistic simulation study. It seems imperative that existing simulation efforts be substantially enhanced, with the thought in mind that the simulation results should inform and focus the hardware R&D program.

## II The Nominal Linear Collider Detectors

There are currently four cylindrical-geometry detector scenarios under consideration for the TeV-scale Linear Collider (a fifth, so-called ‘Precise’ detector under consideration for a moderate-energy IP will not be discussed here)tdrs . All four detector schemes incorporate a precise pixel-based stand-alone inner tracker to accurately reconstruct charged track impact parameters. Precise momentum and angular resolution is provided by a large-volume central tracker, implemented either as a drift chamber (‘DC’; the Asian, or ‘JLC’ design), a time-projection chamber (‘TPC’; the TESLA and North American ‘L’ designs), or a larger area solid-state tracker (‘SST’; North American ‘SD’ design). The radius of the first sensitive layer varies from 1.2 cm (L, SD) to 2.4 cm (JLC), while the full tracking systems are immersed in axial magnetic fields of between 2 (JLC low-field option) and 5 (SD) Tesla.

Proposed electromagnetic calorimeter solutions include either a highly-pixellated silicon-tungsten sandwich design (TESLA and SD), or a lead-scintillator sandwich design (JLC, L). The TESLA collaboration is also considering a Shashlik option. Proposals for hadronic calorimetry include lead-scintillator (JLC, L, SD), and iron-scintillator (TESLA). TESLA has also recently introduced the notion of ‘digital’ hadronic calorimetry, for which showers initiated in the iron absorber material would be read out in terms of a simple yes/no response from highly segmented ($``$ 1 cm2) gas chambers.

Forward tracking systems with coverage down to approximately 100 mrad are envisioned for the TESLA, L, and SD detectors, with silicon-strip disks being the most likely technology. Forward tagging calorimetry down to 30 mrad or less is envisioned in all cases, with possible implementations including silicon-diamond and an innovative solid-state ‘3-D Pixel’ design.

Figure 1 shows a schematic of the North American L detector, typical of the proposed designs.

## III Tracking

The motivation to improve the precision of charged-particle tracking for Linear Collider detectors has been driven by several factors. To begin with, the need to do flavor – and particularly charm – separation has driven a push towards more precise impact parameter reconstruction and vertexing. For example, the prospect of a light Higgs motivates an interest in the absolute $`Hc\overline{c}`$ branching fraction, while the effective luminosity of the study of symmetry breaking via strong coupling between longitudinal $`W`$ boson states can be enhanced by a factor of two or more via the use of a clean tag of charm in the $`W`$ decay jet. In both of these cases, the impact parameter performance of existing vertex detectors would not be adequate to extract the full physics capabilities of the Linear Collider.

In addition, in order to identify the Higgs signal, and constrain the Higgs width, the reconstruction of the missing-mass spectrum from the critical channel $`e^+e^{}ZH`$; $`Z\mu ^+\mu ^{}(e^+e^{})`$ should not degrade the $`0.2\%`$ width expected from the beam energy spread. In addition, the dilepton mass resolution should be small compared to the natural width of the $`Z`$, even at the large $`Z`$ kinetic energies that will be associated with this ‘Higgstrahlung’ process at the highest achievable machine energies. This requires that the overall momentum of individual tracks be reconstructed with an accuracy approaching $`\delta p/p^21\times 10^5`$, representing an improvement of over an order of magnitude relative to existing $`e^+e^{}`$ detectors. While a large portion of the improvement is expected to come from increasing the strength of the magnetic field, achieving this degree of accuracy will also require a large radial lever arm, good single-hit resolution, and careful attention to alignment and calibration systematics.

### III.1 Precision Vertexing

The SLD VXD3 VXD3  vertex detector has set the current standard for precision tracking at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, and the common VXD design for the TESLA, L, and SD detector scenarios are essentially an outgrowth of that successful design. The Linear Collider VXD design, shown in Figure 2, is a pixel based stand-alone tracking system with five layer coverage to $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |=0.87`$ and single-layer coverage out to $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |=0.98`$. It is expected to achieve an $`r\varphi `$ impact parameter resolution at high momentum of better than 3 $`\mu `$m, with a multiple scattering term of less than 10 $`\mu `$m at $`p_{}/\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}\theta }=1`$ GeV/c. Both of these are substantially better than those achieved with the SLD VXD3, as can be seen in Figure 3.

The baseline VXD design is instrumented with $`20\times 20`$ $`\mu `$m2 CCD pixels, demanding approximately $`7\times 10^8`$ pixels, only about a factor of two greater than that of the existing VXD3 detector of the SLD. However, due to the need to maintain signal efficiency over the large number of transfers from the struck pixel to the readout pad, CCD’s are relatively sensitive to radiation damage. For expected neutron fluences of order $`10^9`$ cm-1, the charge-transfer efficiency becomes significantly compromised by the development of traps. It has been shown ccdrad  that filling these traps, for example with carriers released in response to a flash of light, largely restores the charge-transfer efficiency for a period approaching one second. While an encouraging proof of principle, this notion needs to be engineered into a working solution.

The greater luminosity of the TeV-scale Linear Collider will require an increase in readout rate from 5 to 50 MHz, in order to maintain the CCD occupancy low enough that it will not compromise the physics at a 120 Hz JLC/NLC. For TESLA, however, integrating over the several thousand crossings of the 800 $`\mu `$s-long TESLA bunch train will lead to prohibitive occupancy in the CCD’s, even with 50 MHz readout. Thus, the design is underway for a CCD sensor which will allow parallel readout of the individual detector columns (‘column-parallel’ readout), allowing the detector to be read out many times during the 800 $`\mu `$s spill.

The VXD baseline design calls for a ladder thickness of 0.12% $`X_0`$ or thinner – a substantial reduction from the 0.4% $`X_0`$ achieved for the SLD VXD3. Achieving this goal will require the ladders to be supported from the ends only; substantial work is getting underway to explore the design and stability of appropriate support systems. In addition, it may be possible to improve upon the 3 $`\mu `$m single-hit resolution that has already been achieved with 20 $`\mu `$m CCD pixels. Again, the motivation for these various R&D paths needs to be provided via the simulation of physics channels which may depend upon them. Finally, while a substantial and formal R&D task force already exists (the UK Linear Collider Flavour Identification Collaboration), the amount of work to be done towards a final design is substantial, and is by no means saturated by this group.

An interesting alternative to CCD pixels, particularly if the radiation damage or readout issues turn out to be insurmountable, is that of monolithic CMOS pixel detectorsCMOS . Rather than having the local electronic circuitry bump-bonded to the pixel sensors, as for conventional fast pixel detectors, the first-stage readout is deposited directly onto the sensor wafer, allowing for a much thinner structure than that of standard active pixel arrays. In addition, the monolithic approach seems fairly promising in terms of achieving the small ($`20`$ $`\mu `$m2) pixel dimension required to avoid problems with cluster merging at the TeV-scale Linear Collider. The active pixel group at IReS Strasbourg is developing a monolithic sensor for which a local array of three transistors will amplify and drive signals from $`20\times 20\mu `$m2 pixels, which can be read out individually via shift-register controlled column and row selectors. Test beam results with early prototypes suggest high hit efficiency ($`99\%`$) and good resolution ($`1\mu `$m). Issues being addressed with current development work include the development of large-scale (detector-sized) arrays, system and integration issues, and radiation hardness.

### III.2 Central Tracking

Proposals for LC central tracking systems fall into two main categories: gaseous and solid-state. Proposals for gaseous tracking systems include a large-volume TPC (TESLA and North-American L), and a mini-jet-cell drift chamber with a longitudinal extent of greater than 4 meters (JLC). The North-American SD design calls for a large-area solid state tracker, implemented either with silicon strip or silicon drift technology. A substantial R&D effort is called for in order to develop and optimize each of these systems for the LC detector.

The Japanese drift chamber development program has been driven primarily by the chamber length, as well as the large magnetic field needed to achieve a resolution of $`\delta (1/p_{})`$ of $`10^4`$. They have addressed issues associated with electrostatic and gravitational wire sag, stereo wire geometry, wire tension loss, and the large Lorentz angle. Understanding the sensitivity to LC backgrounds, including neutrons, is a critical issue that still needs to be addressed.

A sizable collaboration, mostly European but also including several North American institutions, is exploring the use of a large-volume TPC at the LC. The TPC enjoys several nominal advantages over a conventional drift chamber, including true three-dimensional track measurements to help disentangle dense jets, as well as a high degree of pixellation to reduce sensitivity to LC backgrounds. The goal of $`\delta (1/p_{})5\times 10^5`$ places substantial demands on the spatial resolution of the endplate readout, as well as its ion feedback suppression capability. In addition, alignment tolerances must be maintained to several microns – substantially better than that of existing TPC’s – requiring the exploration of calibration and environmental control techniques.

A large effort is currently focussed on the development of micro-pattern gas detector technology (GEM and MicroMEGAS), which would provide an alternative to the standard MWPC readout systems. Studies suggest that optimized readout pad structure will admit appreciable improvements in both the single-hit and two-track resolution relative to those of the MWPC readout. In addition, the natural ion feedback suppression of micro-pattern detectors may allow the elimination of the gating grid, and the corresponding need to run the TPC in a triggered mode.

A number of other R&D issues are being explored for the TPC option. The gas mixture is being studied in order to optimize tradeoffs between resolution versus ion clearing, and quenching versus neutron background susceptibility. The emphasis on LC physics in the forward region is somewhat new for $`e^+e^{}`$ detectors, and thought must be given to minimizing the thickness in the endplate region. Finally, the high degree of spatial and temporal pixellation desired for the TPC readout provides a challenge to the development of fast multichannel electronics.

Both silicon-strip and silicon-drift are now mature tracking technologies, an example of a system composed of the latter being the STAR collaboration’s silicon vertex detectorSTAR , for use in studying charged tracks from heavy ion collisions at RHIC. The baseline design of the North American SD detector calls for five cylindrical layers of solid-state tracking with radii between 20 and 125 cm, and a polar angle coverage of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |`$ 0.8. Either option (strip or drift) seems applicable to such a design, although again a substantial R&D program would be required in order to optimize the design of either.

A nominal advantage of solid state over gaseous tracking arises in the context of background immunity, due to the fact that the energy deposition of low-energy gamma conversions is very localized in the dense silicon. In the case of silicon drift, the detector is intrinsically three-dimensional (due to the drift of the liberated conduction electrons in the $`z`$ direction), leading to further reduction of background sensitivity via the correspondingly fine pixellation.

Two mutually exclusive approaches have been proposed for the design of the SD silicon strip detector. With the development of short shaping-time readout, it may be possible to time-stamp silicon strip hits with a resolution of as little as 5 nsec, leading to a corresponding increase in the ability to select against LC backgrounds. On the other hand, long shaping-time readout offers the possibility of long, thin detector ladders which can be read out without introducing electronics into the detector fiducial volume, leading to superior $`p_t`$ resolution even at low momentum. In addition, the large (125 cm) radial lever arm and high (5T) field of the SD detector yield, assuming an $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ resolution of 7 $`\mu `$m, a resolution in $`\delta p_t/p_t^2`$ approaching $`2\times 10^5`$. A comparison between the North American L, SD, and P detectors (the latter not discussed here) of the momentum resolution vs. momentum, at $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$, is shown in Figure 4.

A number of other hardware issues more or less common to both solid state detector options need to be addressed. If the low LC collision duty cycle can be taken advantage of by the readout electronics, it should be possible to manage local power consumption with passive cooling. The development of a frequency-scanned interferometric alignment system for the ATLAS inner detectorATLAS  suggests that the maintenance of such tolerances are within reach of current technology. The effects of the large magnetic field on the drift of electrons and holes must be understood and controlled. Finally, comprehensive radiation damage studies need to be conducted, in order to ensure that the proposed solid state detectors (particularly for the case of silicon drift) can withstand LC backgrounds.

### III.3 Forward Tracking

Much of the interesting physics at a high energy LC is not produced via the $`s`$ channel, and as such tends to be boosted into the far forward or backward regions of the detector. Thus, substantially more emphasis needs to be given to these regions of the detector than was for the case of the $`Z^0`$-pole $`e^+e^{}`$ detectors. The forward tracking system needs to maintain good momentum resolution for the accurate measurement of the slepton spectrum endpoint, and fractional resolution of the dip angle approaching one part in $`10^4`$, in order to appropriately constrain the differential luminosity spectrum via the asymmetry in radiative bhabha events.

The North American designs have preserved momentum resolution of better than $`\delta p_t/p_t^2=7\times 10^4`$ out to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0.99`$ with a system of silicon-strip $`r`$-$`z`$ disks. The TESLA design improves this to $`2\times 10^4`$ with an additional fine-grained forward tracking chamber (FCH) just beyond the TPC endplate. Little effort has been put into the design of forward tracking systems other than the optimization of the overall detector geometry that can be done with closed-form track parameter error calculations. The detailed design and integration of a precision forward tracking system that can withstand the low-angle LC backgrounds remains a wide-open and critical R&D issue in the development of the LC detector.

### III.4 Tracking Simulation Issues

Substantial thought has been put into the proposal of approaches that minimize tracking resolution parameters, with the goal of producing a LC detector design that can exploit the intrinsic precision available from high energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions. While some simulation work has been done to explore the extent to which tracker parameters, such as point resolution, radial lever arm, and material burden, need to be pushed in order to exploit LC physics, much work still remains to be done. Eventually, choices between detector technology, or of whether or not to pay for an incremental improvement in a given technology, will need to be based on a concrete assessment of the physics advantage to be gained.

Studies underway to understand the impact of vertexing parameters such as point resolution, layer thickness, and inner radius on the measurement of the Higgs branching fraction and strong $`WW`$ scattering parameters need to be brought to fruition. Detailed studies of the dependence of the selectron mass measurements on the forward tracking resolution need to be undertaken. Physics channels need to be simulated which will establish targets for the polar angle resolution necessary to perform the differential luminosity spectrum. Targets for transverse momentum resolution, both a low and high momentum, need to be established in order to inform R&D programs directed at lessening the material burden and improving the accuracy of the sagitta measurement.

Thought should also be given to the advantage of having dE/dX information, which would be of higher quality for a gaseous tracker. While $`10`$ layers of silicon (vertexer plus SD central tracker) do provide a reasonably accurate energy loss measurement, the density effect limits the differentiation between particle species in the relativistic rise region. Thus, for relativistic electrons which do not reach the calorimeter, dE/dX information from a gaseous tracker may well be the only to provide separation from pions. The extent to which the consideration of dE/dX resolution is relevant to the design of the LC detector is an issue that needs to be addressed by the simulation effort.

While the aforementioned issues are probably best addressed with a fast simulation, a number of more detailed questions can only be addressed with a full-scale detector simulation and realistic reconstruction. Concerns that the limited number of widely spaced hits from a solid state tracker might compromise the ability to distinguish closely spaced tracks in collimated jets, or to detect the decay kinks of long-lived exotic states, need to be addressed with this more realistic simulation. Another interesting question that can be addressed with the full simulation is the need for a central tracker with intrinsically three-dimensional tracking, such as that provided by a TPC or silicon drift detectors, in view of the ultra-fine vertex detector pixellation. No study has been done as of yet regarding the relative track-separation resolutions of the various proposed solutions. The value of temporal pixellation, in regards to background suppression, needs to be explored, as does the value of an intermediate silicon tracker in the gaseous detector options. Finally, the entire issue of the interplay between the tracker and calorimeter, in terms of backsplash into the outermost layers, as well as optimizing the energy flow measurement (to be discussed below), remains to be explored with the full simulation.

## IV Calorimetry

Precise, hermetic, full-coverage calorimetry is thought to be a must for a LC detector. The ability to make precise jet energy measurements for hadronic final-state reconstruction, to have a discriminating tool for electron-pion separation, and to perform measurements of neutral particle trajectories with a precision approaching that of a crude tracking system, seem to be desirable goals for the LC detector calorimeter design. Accumulated wisdom suggests that the way to accomplish this is with ‘energy-flow’ calorimetry.

The idea behind calorimetric energy-flow measurement is encapsulated in Table 1. All components of hadronic jets are well-measured except a relatively small fraction of stable neutral hadrons (mostly $`K_L`$ and neutrons). If the calorimetric energy deposits from charged hadrons can be removed from the jet, and replaced with the amply precise tracking measurement, overall jet energy resolution can approach that of the main remaining calorimetric component, which is electromagnetic and thus relatively well-measured. Clearly, achieving this goal places stringent requirements on the track-cluster association capabilities of the combined calorimeter and tracking system.

Toy MC studiesrayfrey  performed with a JETSET sample of $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ events indicate that, in the ideal situation that every charged hadron contributes to the jet measurement only through its tracking information, a jet energy resolution of $`18\%/\sqrt{E}`$ is achieved. On the other hand, with perfect $`e/h`$ compensation, and using the calorimeter only, the resulting jet energy resolution is $`64\%/\sqrt{E}`$.

Although this ideal jet energy resolution will be difficult to achieve in practice, even a resolution of $`30\%/\sqrt{E}`$ will provide a significant advantage for the isolation of physics signals. An example of this – the separation of $`e^+e^{}ZZ\nu \overline{\nu }`$ from $`e^+e^{}WW\nu \overline{\nu }`$ – is shown in Figure 5. For a resolution of $`60\%/\sqrt{E}`$, the dijet mass signal region mixes the two channels together, while for $`30\%/\sqrt{E}`$, the separation of these two channels is distinct.

Generic requirements for energy-flow calorimetry include a large product of magnetic field and inner radius squared ($`BR^2`$) to provide a large separation between charged tracks. In order to keep the calorimeter showers well contained and separated from neighboring showers, it is necessary to achieve a minimal Moliere radius, and to have the fine readout segmentation needed to take advantage of the resulting small shower spread. Frequent longitudinal sampling will allow the sharpest discrimination between electromagnetic and hadronic depositions, as well as the most precise reconstruction of the trajectory of incident charged particles (for the purpose of track/cluster matching). Finally, the tracker needs to be well integrated, so that material in the outer reaches of the tracker does not degrade the cluster-matching capabilities. The choice of technology to achieve these goals is currently focussing on a silicon/tungsten sandwich, with a readout pixellation of order 1 cm2 to complement the Moliere radius of tungsten.

The greatest progress towards establishing the feasibility of energy-flow calorimetry in high-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions has been made by the TESLA collaboration. Among other things, this work has led to a novel approach to hadronic calorimetry. With a resolution of typically $`40\%/\sqrt{E}`$, the hadronic resolution tends to dominate the accuracy of the jet energy resolution. TESLA has proposed very fine pixellation (again 1 cm2), for an iron/gas sandwich hadronic calorimeter that is read out digitally (yes/no for each cell), as an alternative to their previous $`5\times 5`$ cm2 iron/scintillator baseline, which would be read out in an analog mode. The idea behind this so-called ‘digital’ hadronic calorimeter is to continue from the EM calorimeter, to an extent that is economically feasible, the ability to distinguish electromagnetic sub-clusters in the hadronic shower. Incidentally, this technology would also allow muon identification below 5 GeV/c, for which muons do not have enough range to traverse the calorimeter and enter the muon chambers.

Development is underway for the more conventional HCAL approach, for which the calorimeter is instrumented with $`5\times 5`$ cm2 scintillator tiles read out via wavelength shifting fibers. The fibers are bundled to form calorimeter cells, and read out with photodiodes. The group in currently in the process of doing lab tests on several industrial alternatives for the various hardware components of the calorimeter, including the scintillator tiles, wavelength-shifting fibers, optical wrappings, and optical readout fibers. They are also exploring the optimal way to couple the scintillation light into the wavelength-shifting fibers, and transporting the light to and coupling the light into the photodiodes. The photodiode is also under development, with a 32-channel Avalanche Photodiode pixel array developed at DESY and MPI-Munich currently under study. It is expected that this process will continue through summer 2002, and will result in the construction of a 27 layer prototype ‘Minical’ for test beam studies.

A decision between these two HCAL alternatives is expected soon – perhaps as early as November, 2001 – and preliminary simulation studies have been favorable to the ‘digital calorimeter’ approach. Simulations of isolated pions entering the digital calorimeter have indicated hadronic energy resolution of $`29\%/\sqrt{E}`$, maintaining over a wide range of incident energies.

TESLA has conducted a number of interesting simulation studies on the trade-offs between cost and performance in the EM calorimeter. The EM design proposal call for 40 silicon-tungsten layers in about 25 $`X_0`$. The group has found very little degradation associated with a dead-wafer fraction as high as 5%; the ability to operate with this many bad silicon wafers would relax production tolerances in a way that may save as much as a factor of two in production costs. Reducing the number of layers from 40 to 20 would yield the expected degradation of $`\sqrt{2}`$ (from 10%/$`\sqrt{E}`$ to 14%/$`\sqrt{E}`$) for individual electromagnetic particles. However, much of the interesting physics that would be done with calorimetric information would rely on jet rather than individual particle reconstruction, for which the fractional degradation would be much less.

In the context of jet reconstruction, simulations of the processes $`e^+e^{}Z^0q\overline{q}`$ at $`E_{cm}=91`$ GeV, and $`e^+e^{}\gamma Z^0\gamma q\overline{q}`$ at $`E_{cm}=500`$ GeV, have been conducted. A full-scale simulation of these processes is very involved, requiring the development and optimization of realistic track/cluster matching and energy flow algorithms. In this case, a less sophisticated approach was used, in which individual particles were reconstructed with ideal resolutions, but a parameterization of a realistic subtraction/substitution package was used to replace hadronic clusters with their tracking informationvasily .

For a hadronic calorimeter resolution of $`30\%/\sqrt{E}`$, these simulations indicated an overall jet-energy resolution of $`26\%/\sqrt{E}`$, a value thought to be quite interesting given the result of Figure 5. While these simulations may be somewhat ideal, it also may be that the track/cluster matching algorithm is not completely optimal. Thus, it’s difficult to say whether these results are optimistic or pessimistic. A similar study for the iron/scintillator solution found a jet-energy resolution of $`46\%/\sqrt{E}`$, although with the use of a substantially less developed track/cluster matching algorithm. Nonetheless, the simulation studies do suggest the possibility of substantially improved performance with the digital calorimeter approach. Much work – both in shoring up the simulation studies as well as presenting a design for a gaseous cell that can be read out with a pixellation of 1 cm2 – must be completed before the choice of this approach can be confidently made.

One important issue that has been raised by the TESLA group’s simulation work is a potential problem with background in the track/cluster association in the forward sections of the electromagnetic calorimeter. The source of spurious clusters seems to arise from the albedo associated with charged hadron interacting in the mask, which lies just inside the endcap calorimeter, and is used to absorbs backsplash from the exiting disrupted beam as it re-enters the machine aperture. More work needs to go into these simulation studies in order to understand how to keep these backgrounds from compromising the energy-flow capabilities of the forward calorimetry.

An alternative being considered by the TESLA collaboration, which would be particularly attractive if the advantages provided by energy-flow calorimetry are not thought to be central to the LC physics case, is a Shashlik electromagnetic calorimeter. The Shashlik design incorporates a lead/scintillator sandwich, with the scintillator read out by a wavelength-shifting fiber. Transverse pixellation of as little as 3 cm2 can be achieved, while a degree of longitudinal segmentation can be accomplished via the use of scintillator materials with different decay times. The Shashlik option offers the potential for a favorable ratio of performance to cost, although its ability to provide clean track/cluster association and trajectory information is limited relative to that of the proposed silicon/tungsten design.

The Asian study group is proposing a conventional lead/scintillator sandwich whose thicknesses in the hadronic portion are optimized for e/$`\pi `$ compensation. The scintillating tiles will be read out via wavelength-shifting fibers.

The electromagnetic calorimeter is divided into three sections of 4 $`X_0`$ (preshower), 9 $`X_0`$, and 14 $`X_0`$, respectively, and with a tile dimension of $`6\times 6`$ cm2. The electromagnetic calorimeter design also incorporates a 1 cm scintillator strip array a shower-max, with 1 cm2 silicon pads being maintained as an option should studies show it to be warranted. The hadronic calorimeter consists of four sections of about 1.5 $`\lambda _0`$ each, for a total of 6.5 $`\lambda _0`$. The transverse segmentation in the hadronic calorimeter is $`18\times 18`$ cm2.

The Asian group would like to achieve a two-jet resolution better than the Z-boson and W-boson widths, to avoid having the reconstruction of these states limited by detector resolution. A fast MC simulation, including the use of track-cluster association, suggests a resolution on W-boson dijets of 2.9 GeV, somewhat worse than the 2.1 GeV natural width of the W. This simulation, however, did not include the potentially advantageous use of the shower-max information.

The Asian group has conducted beam tests of their tile/fiber prototype both at KEK and FNAL. For electrons, they have found $`\sigma _E/E=(240.8)\%`$, while for pions they measure $`\sigma _E/E=(470.9)\%`$. They observed better than 1% linearity for the entire explored range between 2 and 150 GeV. Some signal loss was experienced for electrons entering near tower boundaries, which will be an avenue of further development work.

The Asian group’s continued development work is focussing on a number of areas. The group is pursuing affordable means for producing reliable scintillator strips for the shower-max detector. They are also looking into a number of potential ideas for reading out the strips, including high-performance multi-channel photon detectors, or even avalanche photodiodes to read the strips out directly, without the use of wavelength-shifting light guides. They are also beginning an effort to develop a full simulation which would allow them to realistically address the study of jet-energy resolution, given the performance on individual particles observed with the test beam.

The worldwide LC calorimetry effort could benefit greatly from additional simulation and prototyping effort. While studies such as that of Figure 5 suggest that energy-flow calorimetry can be a very powerful tool indeed, they fall short of informing us of the overall programatic advantage of implementing energy-flow capabilities in the LC detector. It would be beneficial to have a number of realistic studies of the physics reach in various essential channels as a function of calorimeter technology. In addition, should energy-flow calorimetry be thought desirable, full-scale simulation of the entire measurement system, including the interplay between the tracking system (reconstruction parameters and material burden) and calorimetry, will be necessary in order to build confidence in specific designs. Finally, prototyping of the more promising avenues should begin, so that well-founded estimates of cost and performance parameters can be developed.

## V Triggering and Electronics

More than its energy reach, the complementarity of the LC program to that of the LHC makes the LC program interesting and worthwhile. One important aspect of this complementarity is the openess of LC detector trigger. A consideration of the event size and data rate suggest that computing and I/O technology may enable a fully open trigger, for which all relevant detector information is written out for every beam crossing. In some scenarios, such as certain gauge-mediated SUSY and universal extra dimension models which produce signatures containing soft charged tracks and undetectable long-lived heavy particles, this capability could prove essential.

In addition to pushing the frontiers of computing technology, the development of a fully open trigger would require substantial electronics R&D, and perhaps even detector physics R&D, in order to achieve the necessary degree of zero-suppression. Other aspects of proposed LC detector options, such as a finely pixellated TPC endplate, optimized silicon detector readout, and the readout for a highly pixellated energy-flow calorimeter, will also require substantial electronics development work.

## VI Other Systems

There are a number of other systems, potentially of critical importance to the LC detector and its physics program, whose development will also require substantial R&D and design work.

Far-forward calorimetry, from the limit of the endcap coverage down to within 20 mrad or so of the beam axis, is important for tagging and vetoing forward-scattered beam particles, in order to remove backgrounds to selectron studies and signals with large missing energy, and to detect radiative electrons in studies of two-photon physics. In light of the intense backgrounds associated with the proximity of the beam, these detectors will have to be very robust against radiation damage, and have a high degree of spatial and temporal segmentation. Conventional silicon/tungsten calorimeters may suffice for this region, although their application in the case of the JLC/NLC (for which the inter-train repetition rate is 1.4 nsec) may require the development of fast readout. If backgrounds are particularly high, particularly if detectors are to be mounted below 25 mrad, it may be advantageous to replace the silicon pad detectors with active pixel sensors. The TESLA collaboration, which is considering calorimetry as close as 6 mrad from the beam axis, is also exploring the possibility of using diamond instead of silicon. Finally, the Asian studies have included work on an innovative ‘3D Pixel’ detector3D , being developed at Stanford and the University of Hawaii, which would detect electron-positron pairs from the beam-beam interaction to within 10 mrad of the beam axis. This system would act as a beam profile monitor, with sensitivity to various beam geometry parameters.

The value of dedicated particle identification, somewhere in the region inside the calorimeter, has not been fully explored. None of the baseline designs includes such a device, but the case for its omission remains to be clearly made. In fact, slow, heavy particles are a fairly common signature of theories which extend the Standard Model, suggesting that a time-of-flight system may be worthy of consideration.

The identification of a technology for the muon system has yet to be explored in a comprehensive way. Finally, the task of building large solenoidal magnets with fields of up to 5T will certainly be challenging, and require substantial development effort.

## VII Summary

The complementarity of the LC program to that of the LHC relies on a number of general factors: the definitive studies enabled by precision tracking and vertexing and the a-priori knowledge of the cms frame and energy, the accurate reconstruction of hadronic final states, and the openness of the LC trigger. All of these would benefit from systems which perform substantially better than their existing counterparts at LEP and the SLC, motivating a vigorous program of research and development. This program needs to include the development and exploitation of sophisticated simulation tools, in order that the hardware development effort be sufficiently informed. This research and development program – both simulation studies and hardware development – should become an important focus for the worldwide particle physics community as the prospects for building a high-energy Linear Collider improve.