text:
# Semi-classical Characters and Optical Model Description of Heavy Ion Scattering, Direct Reactions, and Fusion at Near-barrier Energies

## I Introduction

Collisions between heavy ions at near-Coulomb-barrier energies are very much governed by the Coulomb potential involved, and thus the general features of the elastic scattering and direct reaction (DR) data can be understood based on the idea that the colliding ions primarily move along a classical Coulomb trajectory . These features are seen most dramatically in plots of the ratios of the elastic differential cross section ($`d\sigma _E/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$) or the inclusive (sum of all different) DR one ($`d\sigma _D/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$) to the Rutherford differential cross section ($`d\sigma _c/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$), i.e.,

$$P_i\frac{d\sigma _i}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}/\frac{d\sigma _c}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}(=\frac{d\sigma _i}{d\sigma _c}),(i=E\text{or}D),$$
(1)
as a function of the distance of closest approach $`D`$ (or the reduced distance $`d`$ that is related to the scattering angle $`\theta `$ through

$$D=d(A_1^{1/3}+A_2^{1/3})=\frac{1}{2}D_0\left(1+\frac{1}{\text{sin}(\theta /2)}\right)\text{with}D_0=\frac{Z_1Z_2e^2}{E_{cm}}.$$
(2)
Here $`D_0`$ is the distance of closest approach in a head-on collision ($`s`$ wave). Further, ($`A_1,Z_1`$) and ($`A_2,Z_2`$) are the mass and charge of the projectile and target ions, respectively, and $`E_{cm}`$ ($`E_{lab}`$) is the incident energy in the center of mass (laboratory) system. $`P_E`$ and $`P_D`$ thus defined may be called the elastic and DR probabilities, respectively. The impact parameter $`b`$ and orbital angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$, specifying the trajectory, are related to $`\theta `$ and $`D`$ by

$$b=\frac{\mathrm{}}{k}=\frac{D_0}{2}\text{cot}\frac{\theta }{2}=\sqrt{D(DD_0)},$$
(3)
where $`k`$ is the wave number.

As an illustration, we show in Fig. 1 such plots of $`P_E`$ and $`P_D`$ for the 16O+208Pb system  at five different incident energies of $`E_{lab}`$=80, 84, 90, 96, and 102 MeV for $`P_E`$ and at a single energy of $`E_{lab}`$=90 MeV for $`P_D`$, where the data are available. As seen, the values of $`P_E`$ at different energies line up to form a very narrow band and take a value very close to unity for, say, $`d>1.65`$ fm ($`d_I`$, interaction distance). When $`d`$ becomes smaller than $`d_I`$, $`P_E`$ falls off very rapidly, approximately exponentially.

The observed behaviour of $`P_E`$ may easily be explained based on the physical picture that the projectile ion moves primarily along a Coulomb trajectory. For the case $`d>d_I`$, the trajectory is far away from the target and the projectile is scattered at the Coulomb scattering angle $`\theta `$ without being influenced at all by the nuclear force. The resultant scattering cross section is thus equal to the Rutherford cross section, and $`P_E`$ becomes unity. When $`d`$ becomes smaller than $`d_I`$, however, the incident ion gets under the influence of the strong nuclear interaction, and absorption takes place, reducing the $`P_E`$-value below unity.

In accordance with the observed behaviour of $`P_E`$, $`P_D`$ starts to have a significant value at $`dd_I`$. It reaches its maximum value ($`P_D0.24`$) at $`d1.58`$ fm, where $`P_E`$ becomes approximately 0.7. In the region of $`d=1.581.65`$ fm, the sum $`P_E+P_D`$ thus stays close to unity. This indicates that in that region, the main cause of absorption in the elastic channel is DR processes. When $`d`$ becomes still smaller, the sum $`P_E+P_D`$ falls off rapidly from unity, showing that absorption due to more complicated processes eventually leading to fusion takes place. It is remarkable that the sum $`P_E+P_D`$ becomes extremely small, say, $`10^3`$ and thus essentially zero, at around $`d=d_c=1.30`$ fm, which is the distance for the $`s`$-wave Coulomb-barrier top. This means that the incident flux is almost completely absorbed when it reaches that distance. It is worth noting that the same picture holds irrespective of the incident energy, so long as it is not far away from the Coulomb-barrier energy.

Theoretically, we have a very well established optical model for evaluating $`P_E`$. This is not the case for $`P_D`$. There are a variety of theoretical methods that has been proposed for calculating contributions from inelastic scattering and transfer reaction processes to $`P_D`$ by means of either semi-classical or classical approximations . It is, however, still a formidable task to carry out calculations including all possible processes to obtain a theoretical value of $`P_D`$. The aim of the present work is to propose a simple approach to calculate $`P_D`$ within the framework of an optical model that introduces two types of the imaginary potentials; one for DR, the other fusion . We propose to evaluate $`P_D`$ from the partial absorptive DR cross sections generated from the optical model calculation. The underlying assumption is that even after the reaction (removal from the elastic channel) the projectile ion still moves along the Coulomb trajectory, being eventually emitted at the Coulomb scattering angle. Under the assumption, we may use the classical relation Eq. (1.3) to convert the partial wave cross section to $`P_D`$.

The same prescription may also apply to the partial fusion cross sections. This enables us to evaluate the hypothetical fusion probability $`P_F`$ just as we calculate $`P_D`$. The conventional wisdom assumes  that

$$P_E+P_D+P_F1,$$
(4)
which expresses a simple physical idea that what is absorbed in the elastic channel at $`r=D`$ goes into either DR or fusion channels. Since there is no such measured $`P_F`$-value available, it has been impossible to test the above relation experimentally. However, it is possible to examine the relation by using the theoretical $`P_F`$. In the present work, theoretical expressions for $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$ are derived in Sec. II, where we also perform numerical calculations of $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$ along with $`P_E`$ and examine the validity of the relation Eq. (1.4). The feasibility of evaluating $`P_D`$ enables us to analyze the angular distribution of the inclusive DR cross section. This facilitates the determination of the DR part of the optical potential with less ambiguity. We shall demonstrate this also in Sec. II. In Sec. III, we repeat the simultaneous $`\chi ^2`$-analyses that we made several years ago  for the data on the 16O+208Pb system shown in Fig. 1. The reanalyses are needed since the fusion data have been revised  after Ref.  was published. Sec. IV will then be devoted to our conclusions.

## II Optical Model Calculations of $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$

### A Derivation of Theoretical Expressions for $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$

In this subsection, we try to derive theoretical expressions for $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$ within the framework of the optical model. We follow the approach proposed some time ago to calculate the total DR and fusion cross sections within the optical model by using imaginary, surface type DR and volume type fusion, potentials, $`W_D(r)`$ and $`W_F(r)`$, respectively . The total DR and fusion cross sections are then calculated as

$$\sigma _i=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}v}<\chi \text{(+)}|W_i(r)|\chi \text{(+)}>(i=D\text{or}F),$$
(5)
where $`\chi ^{(+)}`$ is the usual distorted wave function that satisfies the Schrödinger equation with the full optical model potential $`U(r)`$. $`\sigma _D`$ and $`\sigma _F`$ are thus calculated within the same framework as the differential elastic scattering cross section, $`d\sigma _E/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, is calculated. Such a unified description enables us to describe all different types of reactions on the same footing.

The basic ingredients for obtaining theoretical expressions for $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$ are the partial wave cross sections, $`\sigma _{i;\mathrm{}}`$ ($`i=D\text{or}F`$), which are obtained by simply expanding the cross sections, Eq. (2.1), into the partial wave components; $`\sigma _i=_{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{i;\mathrm{}}`$. $`\sigma _{i;\mathrm{}}`$ can explicitly be given as

$$\sigma _{i;\mathrm{}}=\frac{\pi }{k^2}(2\mathrm{}+1)T_{i;\mathrm{}}(i=D\text{or}F),$$
(6)
where

$$T_{i;\mathrm{}}=\frac{4}{\mathrm{}v}_0^{\mathrm{}}|\chi _{\mathrm{}}(r)|^2W_i(r)𝑑r.$$
(7)
In the above equation, $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}(r)`$ is the partial distorted wave function and $`v`$ is the relative velocity.

Eq. (2.2) with Eq. (2.3) is still a quantum mechanical expression, where $`\mathrm{}`$ takes only integer values. In what follows, we introduce a few semi-classical approximations customarily used . The first is to treat $`\mathrm{}`$ as a continuous variable and to assume that

$$\frac{d\sigma _i(\mathrm{})}{d\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{i;\mathrm{}}.$$
(8)
We then use the classical relation Eq. (1.3) that relates $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\theta `$. It is then straightforward to get

$$\frac{d\sigma _i(\mathrm{})}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{1}{2\pi \text{sin}\theta }\frac{d\mathrm{}}{d\theta }\frac{d\sigma _i(\mathrm{})}{d\mathrm{}}=\frac{kD_0}{16\pi }\frac{1}{\text{cos}(\theta /2)\text{sin}^3(\theta /2)}\sigma _{i;\mathrm{}}.$$
(9)
Inserting further Eq.(2.2) into Eq.(2.5), and dividing the resultant expression by the Rutherford cross section $`\sigma _c`$, one finally obtains

$$P_i=\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{kD_0}\text{tan}(\theta /2)T_{i;\mathrm{}}T_{i;\mathrm{}}$$
(10)
In obtaining the last expression, use is made of the approximation that $`2\mathrm{}+12\mathrm{}`$.

In order that $`P_i`$ can be a probability, it should satisfy

$$P_i1.$$
(11)
This requirement is indeed satisfied; in fact we have

$$P_D+P_F=T_{D;\mathrm{}}+T_{F;\mathrm{}}T_{\mathrm{}}=1|S_{\mathrm{}}|^2,$$
(12)
where $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the transmission factor and $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the partial wave $`S`$-matrix. Since both $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$ are positive quantities, it is clear from the above relation that $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$ should be less than unity. (Note that there is no reason that $`P_E`$ should be smaller than unity. Quantum effects such as interference and diffraction may cause the value to be greater than unity.) Now, for very small $`\mathrm{}`$-values, we expect that $`P_D0`$, hence

$$P_F1|S_{\mathrm{}}|^21\text{for small}\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
The last relation follows from the fact that for such a strong absorptive case as in heavy ion collisions, $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ becomes essentially zero for small $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`P_E+P_D0`$ for small $`\mathrm{}`$, $`P_E+P_D+P_F1`$ as expected earlier in Eq. (1.4). In the next subsection, we further study this point numerically.

In passing, we remark that the procedure we have proposed can also be used to reduce the quantum mechanical Rutherford cross section to the classical one. As is well known, this reduction has been given by using a set of semi-classical approximations . The quantum mechanical Rutherford cross section has the well known form,

$$\frac{d\sigma _c}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\left|\frac{1}{2ik}\underset{\mathrm{}}{}(2\mathrm{}+1)(e^{2i\eta _{\mathrm{}}}1)P_{\mathrm{}}(\theta )\right|^2,$$
(14)
where $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the Coulomb phase shift and $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the Legendre function. One of the approximations introduced in the reduction process is to ignore the term $`\frac{1}{2ik}_{\mathrm{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)P_{\mathrm{}}(\theta )`$. This term gives rise to a divergent contribution at extremely forward angles and we ignore it as is usually done (see Refs. ). We then integrate Eq. (2.10) over angles to obtain the total elastic cross section expressed as a sum of the partial cross sections, which is in turn converted to an integral over $`\mathrm{}`$. The resultant total elastic scattering cross section takes a very simple form, namely

$$\sigma _c=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}\sigma _{c;\mathrm{}}=\frac{d\sigma _c}{d\mathrm{}}𝑑\mathrm{}\text{with}\frac{d\sigma _c}{d\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{c;\mathrm{}}=\frac{\pi }{k^2}(2\mathrm{}+1)\frac{\pi }{k^2}(2\mathrm{}).$$
(15)
By inserting the last expression in Eq. (2.11) into Eq. (2.5), we obtain the Rutherford differential cross section.

It appears that the procedure used for reducing the quantum mechanical Rutherford cross section to the classical one involves a contradictory element; we first integrate the differential cross section over angle, but then recover it from the partial wave cross sections we obtained as a result of the angle integration. However, the procedure can be justified: The quantum mechanical cross section Eq. (2.10) is given as a coherent sum over $`\mathrm{}`$. As has been demonstrated in a number of semi-classical treatments of Eq. (2.10) , the dominant contribution to the differential cross section for a given scattering angle $`\theta `$ comes from the partial waves around $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_\theta `$, where $`\mathrm{}_\theta `$ is related to $`\theta `$ by Eq. (1.3). The contribution becomes $`\delta `$-function-like in the classical limit of $`\mathrm{}0`$. In the present procedure, we carry out an integration over $`\theta `$ first, but from what has been discussed above, it is seen that the contribution from the angle $`\theta `$ is stored into the partial wave cross section of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_\theta `$. It is thus justifiable to recover the differential cross section at an angle $`\theta `$ from the partial wave cross section for $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_\theta `$. This procedure is most justified when the scattering is closest to classical.

### B Numerical Examples

Calculations of $`P_E`$, $`P_D`$, and $`P_F`$ are performed for the 16O+208Pb system with incident energy $`E_{lab}`$=90 MeV, using the optical model potential as fixed in our previous study . We present the results in Fig. 2, where the solid, (thick and thin) dotted, and (thick and thin) dashed curves are the calculated values of $`P_E`$, $`P_D`$ and $`P_F`$, respectively. The experimental data for $`P_E`$ and $`P_D`$ are also plotted by the solid and open circles, respectively. As seen, the calculated $`P_E`$ reproduces the experimental $`P_E`$ very well. This is not the case, however, for $`P_D`$; the calculated $`P_D`$ is shifted to the smaller $`d`$-region by about 0.05 fm as compared with the experimental data, particularly in the region of $`d1.6`$ fm. Thus, the comparison of the calculated $`P_D`$ with the data provides an additional test of the parameters used in Ref. . In fact, this shift means the radius parameter $`r_D=1.50`$ fm used in Ref.  is too small to describe the data. We thus repeated the calculation with a larger radius parameter of $`r_D=1.55`$ fm. The calculated $`P_D`$ thus obtained is plotted by the thin dotted curve shown in Fig. 2. The fit to the data is improved. It is worth noting that the recalculated $`P_D`$ shifts toward the larger $`d`$-region by 0.05 fm, the same amount as the increase of the radius parameter $`r_D`$. This shows that the experimental $`P_D`$ provides a very sensitive test of the $`r_D`$-value. Based on the result obtained above, we use the value $`r_D`$=1.55 fm in the $`\chi ^2`$-analysis discussed in the next section.

In the calculation of $`P_F`$ shown in Fig. 2, use is made of $`r_F`$=1.40 fm. Thus the $`P_F`$ curve lies in much smaller $`d`$-region than the $`P_D`$. We also observe that the slope of $`P_F`$ is much steeper than that of $`P_D`$. This reflects the fact that the diffuseness parameter used for $`W_F(r;E)`$ ($`a_F`$=0.25 fm) is smaller than that of $`W_D(r;E)`$ ($`a_D=0.45`$ fm). To show the effects of the $`a_F`$-value, we present by the thin dashed curve another $`P_F`$ calculated with $`a_F`$=0.45 fm. It is seen that the slope of $`P_F`$ at large distances is almost the same as that of $`P_D`$ with $`a_D=0.45`$ fm.

Let us now turn to the sum $`P_E+P_D+P_F`$ shown by the dash-dotted curve. As expected, it stays very close to unity, confirming that the relation Eq. (1.4) is fairly well satisfied, within the accuracy of, say, 20 %. The sum shows some oscillations around unity, which may be ascribed to quantum interference effects. The oscillation is also visible in the experimental $`P_E`$ values. Accumulation of more accurate data may enable us to test this explanation in a more detailed manner.

Presented in Fig. 3 are the $`P_E`$-values calculated for the incident energies considered in Fig. 1. Use is made of the optical potential determined from the $`\chi ^2`$-analysis discussed in the next section. Since we use such a potential as determined from the $`\chi ^2`$-fit, the calculated $`P_E`$ fit the data given in Fig. 1 very well and thus they forms a band very much similar to that seen in Fig. 1.

## III $`\chi ^2`$-Analyses

We have repeated simultaneous $`\chi ^2`$-analyses as in Ref.  for the elastic scattering, DR, and fusion data for the 16O+208Pb system. This is motivated for two reasons: The first is that the fusion data have been revised , after Ref.  was published. The second is that we are now able to test the calculations against the data for $`P_D`$. As described in the previous section, the value of the radius parameter $`r_D`$=1.50 fm used in Ref.  is too small to explain the data. A better $`r_D`$-value is $`r_D=`$1.55 fm. Other parameters must be fixed with this more appropriate value of $`r_D`$. As in Ref. , we utilize a dispersive type optical potential

$$U=U_C(r)[V_0(r)+V(r;E)+iW(r;E)],$$
(16)
where $`U_C(r)`$ is the Coulomb potential and $`V_0(r)`$ is the energy independent Hartree-Fock part of the potential, while $`V(r;E)+iW(r;E)`$ is the polarization part of the potential  that originates from couplings to reaction channels. They are assumed to have volume-type fusion and surface-derivative-type DR parts. Explicitly, $`V_0(r)`$, $`V(r;E)`$ and $`W(r;E)`$ are given, respectively, by

$$V_0(r)=V_0f(X_0),$$
(17)
$$V(r;E)=V_F(r;E)+V_D(r;E)=V_F(E)f(X_F)+4V_D(E)a_D\frac{df(X_D)}{dR_D},$$
(18)
$$W(r;E)=W_F(r;E)+W_D(r;E)=W_F(E)f(X_F)+4W_D(E)a_D\frac{df(X_D)}{dR_D},$$
(19)
where $`f(X_i)=[1+\text{exp}(X_i)]^1`$ with $`X_i=(rR_i)/a_i`$ $`(i=0,D\text{or}F)`$ is the usual Woods-Saxon function. Use is made of the values used in Ref.  for the parameters of the bare potential $`V_0(r)`$, and the geometrical parameters of $`V(r;E)`$ and $`W(r;E)`$ (except $`r_D`$ as discussed above); $`V_0`$=60.4 MeV, $`r_0`$=1.176 fm, $`a_0`$=0.658 fm, $`r_F`$=1.40 fm, $`a_F`$=0.25 fm, $`r_D`$=1.55 fm, and $`a_D`$=0.45 fm. Once the geometrical parameters are fixed, the dispersion relation is reduced to a relation for the strength parameters $`V_i(E)`$ and $`W_i(E)`$ ($`i=D`$ and $`F`$). The relation now reads

$$V_i(E)=V_i(E_s)+\frac{EE_s}{\pi }P_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E^{}\frac{W_i(E^{})}{(E^{}E_s)(E^{}E)},$$
(20)
where $`P`$ stands for the principal value and $`V_i(E_s)`$ is the potential value at a reference energy point $`E=E_s`$.

As was done in Ref. , we approximate the $`E`$-dependence of $`W_i(E)`$ just above the threshold energy $`E_{0;i}`$ (defined as $`W_i(E_{0;i})=0`$) by a linear function of $`E`$. (See the forthcoming Eqs. (3.7) and (3.8).) We then identify this threshold energy as that determined from the linear representation of the quantity $`S_i(E)`$ introduced by Stelson et al.  as

$$S_i\sqrt{E\sigma _i(E)}(EE_{0;i})(i=D\text{or}F).$$
(21)
The threshold energies $`E_{0;i}`$ thus defined are essentially the threshold energies of the DR ($`i=D`$) and fusion ($`i=F`$) cross sections, and it is plausible to identify the two threshold energies to be the same. The authors of Ref.  considered the quantity $`S_i`$ only for the $`i=F`$ case, but we extend it to DR. Originally, two threshold phenomena in the imaginary part of the optical potential and the fusion cross section data were found independently, but it was noticed later  that the two are very close to one another. Once we have separated the imaginary potential into the DR and fusion parts, it is physically plausible to require that the two thresholds should be the same. In Fig. 4, we present the $`S_i`$-values for $`i=D`$ and $`F`$. There we find that $`E_{0;D}=`$73.0 MeV and $`E_{0;F}`$=76.0 MeV, which will be used later as the threshold energies of $`W_D(E)`$ and $`W_F(E)`$, respectively.

In an attempt to determine the polarization potential, simultaneous $`\chi ^2`$-analyses were performed, treating all four strength parameters, $`V_D`$, $`V_F`$, $`W_D`$ and $`W_F`$ as the adjustable parameters. We took into account all the data  available for incident energies between $`E_{lab}`$=80 MeV and 104 MeV. We included the total DR and fusion cross sections in the analyses.

The values of the parameters thus extracted are presented in Fig. 5 for $`V_D`$ and $`W_D`$ and in Fig. 6 for $`V_F`$ and $`W_F`$. Let us consider first the results for $`V_D`$ and $`W_D`$. A considerable fluctuation is seen in the values of $`V_D`$, but $`W_D`$ changes smoothly as a function of $`E`$. The fact that $`W_D`$ could be fixed as a smooth function of $`E`$ indicates that these values are reliable. There is a reason that $`W_D`$ can be determined rather unambiguously and becomes a smooth function of $`E`$. It is because $`W_D`$ is the dominant absorptive term in the peripheral region. Therefore, the elastic scattering cross section is quite sensitive to the value of $`W_D`$. This is not the case for $`V_D`$; at the strong absorption radius, where the elastic scattering cross section is sensitive to the real potential, $`V_D`$ is generally much smaller than the bare potential $`V_0(r)`$, resulting in difficulty in determining $`V_D`$ unambiguously. The fluctuation seen in Fig. 5(a) may be understood to arise from this difficulty.

The $`W_D`$-values determined from the $`\chi ^2`$-analyses can be well represented by the following function of $`E`$ (in units of MeV):

$$W_D(E)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for }E\text{73.0}\hfill & \\ 0.015(E73.0)\hfill & \text{for 73.0}<E\text{92.5}\hfill & \\ 0.2925\hfill & \text{for }E>\text{ 92.5}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(22)
where $`E_{0;D}`$=73.0 MeV is used as extracted in Fig. 4. The solid line shown in Fig. 5(b) is $`W_D`$ given by Eq. (3.7). The line fits the empirical values quite well.

Since a reliable value of $`W_D`$ is now available, one can calculate $`V_D`$ by using the dispersion relation Eq. (3.5). In doing this, we need to know one more parameter, i.e., the value of $`V_D`$ at $`E=E_s`$. We may fix this $`V_D(E_s)`$ by fitting the average of the resultant $`V_D`$ to that of the empirically determined $`V_D`$. The solid curve shown in Fig. 5(a) shows the $`V_D`$-values thus calculated. The $`V_D(E_s)`$-value used is $`V_D(E_s)`$=0.4 MeV at $`E_s`$=92.5 MeV.

As seen in Fig. 6, $`V_F`$ and $`W_F`$ are both determined as fairly smooth functions of $`E`$. The $`W_F`$-values may be represented (in units of MeV) as

$$W_F(E)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for }E\text{76.0}\hfill & \\ 0.32(E76.0)\hfill & \text{for 76.0}<E\text{86.0}\hfill & \\ 3.2\hfill & \text{for }E>\text{ 86.0 }.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(23)
Again we took the threshold energy of $`E_{0;F}`$=76.0 MeV determined from $`S_F`$. The solid line shown in Fig. 6(b) represents $`W_F`$ in Eq. (3.8). We then calculated the $`V_F(E)`$ by using the dispersion relation Eq. (3.5) with $`W_F`$ given by Eq. (3.8). The reference potential $`V_F(E_s)`$ involved was chosen as $`V_F(E_s)`$=3.50 MeV at $`E_s`$=86.0 MeV. As shown by the solid curve in Fig. 6(a), the predicted $`V_F`$-values again agree reasonably well with the empirically determined values.

We take as our final potential parameters $`W_D`$ and $`W_F`$ given, respectively, by Eqs. (3.7) and (3.8), and also $`V_D`$ and $`V_F`$ generated from the dispersion relation Eq. (3.5). The potential with such parameters then fully satisfies the dispersion relation. Using such an optical potential, we calculated the final theoretical $`P_E`$, $`\sigma _D`$, and $`\sigma _F`$ and presented them in Figs. 7 and 8 in comparison with the experimental data. As seen, all experimental $`P_E`$, $`\sigma _D`$ and $`\sigma _F`$ are well reproduced by the calculations.

We now wish to give some remarks on the polarization potential we obtained. First, there is a remarkable difference in the the energy dependences between the DR and fusion potentials. A very rapid change is seen only in the fusion part of the potential. The slope of $`W_F(E)`$ given by Eq. (3.8) in the threshold region is 0.32, while that in $`W_D(E)`$ given by Eq. (3.7) is only 0.015. As a result, we see a significant energy variation of about 2 MeV in $`V_F(E)`$ in the interval of $``$ 10 MeV, but the change in $`V_D`$ is only 0.1 MeV in the energy range of $``$ 20 MeV. We may thus conclude that the threshold anomaly exists in the fusion part of the potential, but not in the DR part.

## IV Concluding Remarks

We have presented a simple method to calculate the DR and fusion probabilities within the optical model by introducing two types of imaginary potentials, DR and fusion. These probabilities are calculated by using the partial DR and fusion cross sections generated from the corresponding imaginary potentials with the help of the classical relation between the orbital angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ and the scattering angle $`\theta `$. The probabilities thus calculated were shown to satisfy the condition that the value should be equal to or less than unity.

Based on the expressions derived, numerical calculations of these probability were performed. We found that the sum of the DR, fusion and elastic probabilities stays close to unity. We also analyzed the angular distribution data of the inclusive DR cross section, demonstrating that the data provide useful information for determining the radius parameters of the DR potential. It was observed that a very rapid energy variation (threshold anomaly) was in the fusion part of the potential, but it is hardly seen in the DR part, particularly in the real part of the potential.

A simultaneous $`\chi ^2`$-analysis of elastic scattering, DR and fusion cross sections for the 16O+208Pb system at near-barrier energies were performed for determining the polarization part of the optical potential that satisfies the dispersion relation over all space. The potential thus determined is found to reproduce the data well.

The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to Prof. W. R. Coker for his kind reading of the manuscript and comments. One of the authors (BTK) acknowledges the support by Korea Research Foundation (KRF-2000-DP0085).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1. The experimental elastic probabilities, $`P_E`$, as a function of the reduced distance D for the 16O+208Pb system at $`E_{lab}=`$ 80, 84, 90, 96, and 102 MeV. The measured DR probabilities, $`P_D`$, are also plotted at $`E_{lab}=`$ 90 MeV. The data are taken from Refs. 3 and 4.

Fig. 2. The optical model predictions of elastic, DR, and fusion probabilities as a function of the reduced distance D for the 16O+208Pb system at $`E_{lab}=`$ 90 MeV are shown in comparison with the experimental ones. The theoretical total probabilities are also shown. The thick dotted curve denotes $`P_D`$ calculated with the dispersive optical potential determined in Ref. 7. The thin dotted curve represents $`P_D`$ calculated with the same potential but with modified $`r_D`$ (=1.55 fm). The thick (thin) dashed curve denotes $`P_F`$ calculated with $`a_F=0.25`$ fm ($`a_F=0.45`$ fm).

Fig. 3. The results of calculations for elastic probabilities, $`P_E`$, as a function of the reduced distance D for the 16O+208Pb system at $`E_{lab}=`$ 80, 84, 90, 96, and 102 MeV, using the final fully dispersive optical potential.

Fig. 4. The Stelson plot of $`S_i=\sqrt{E_{cm}\sigma _i}`$ for direct reaction ($`i=D`$, solid circles) and fusion ($`i=F`$, open circles) cross sections. The straight lines are drawn to show the extraction of the threshold energies. Thin lines connecting the circles are only to guide the eyes.

Fig. 5. The strength parameters $`V_D(E)`$ and $`W_D(E)`$ for the direct reaction potential as functions of $`E`$. The open and solid circles are the values extracted from the $`\chi ^2`$-analyses. The solid lines denote $`W_D(E)`$ and $`V_D(E)`$ calculated, respectively, from Eq. (3.7) and from Eq. (3.5) together with Eq. (3.7). The thin lines connecting the circles are only to guide the eyes.

Fig. 6. The strength parameters $`V_F(E)`$ and $`W_F(E)`$ for the fusion potential as functions of $`E`$. The open and solid circles are the values extracted from the $`\chi ^2`$-analyses. The solid lines denote $`W_F(E)`$ and $`V_F(E)`$ calculated, respectively, with Eq. (3.8) and Eq. (3.5). The thin lines are to guide the eyes.

Fig. 7. The ratios of the elastic scattering cross sections to Rutherford cross sections calculated with our final optical potential for the 16O+208Pb system are shown in comparison with the experimental data. The data are taken from Refs. 3 and 4.

Fig. 8. The direct reaction and fusion cross sections calculated with our final optical potential for the 16O+208Pb system are shown in comparison with the experimental data. The direct reaction data are taken from Refs. 3 and 4, while the fusion ones from Ref. 8.


format: text

text:
# Fermion pair production at LEP2 and interpretations

## Abstract

Preliminary results on $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$, $`f=e,\mu ,\tau ,q`$, including all LEP2 data are discussed. Good agreement is found with the Standard Model up to the highest energies. Limits on possible new physics are extracted.

To appear in the Proceedings of the New Trends in High-Energy Physics
Yalta, Ukraine, September 22 - 29, 2001.

Fermion pair production processes have been measured by the four LEP experiments up to $`\sqrt{s}207`$ GeV . Above the $`Z`$ peak $`\gamma `$ radiation is very important, leading in particular to a high rate for the $`Z`$ radiative return. Events can be classified according to the effective center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$, which is measured in different ways. A typical inclusive selection requires $`\sqrt{s^{}/s}0.1`$, while events with only a low amount of radiation (exclusive) are defined by $`\sqrt{s^{}/s}0.85`$. Exclusive events are obviously more relevant to look for new physics. The signal definition is complicated by initial-final state interference. Two theoretical definitions have been considered for $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ in the combinations of LEP data:

1. $`s`$-channel propagator mass, with interference between initial and final state radiation subtracted (used by L3 and OPAL);
2. bare invariant mass of the dilepton pairs, or $`s`$-channel propagator mass for hadronic final states, with interference included (close to ALEPH and DELPHI definitions).

For $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs $`\sqrt{s^{}}`$ is not natural, as $`t`$-channel exchange diagram dominates: in this case non-radiative events are selected by a cut on the acollinearity angle of the final state electrons, typically $`\theta _{acol}10^o`$. Another delicate point is the contribution from 4-fermion processes which enter the pair selection, which has to be defined by a cut on the invariant mass of the extra pairs.

Theoretical uncertainties have been assessed during the LEP2 MC Workshop  and are presently well below the experimental errors for $`q\overline{q}`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ pairs. They amount respectively to $`0.26\%`$ for $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`0.4\%`$ for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ or $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ cross sections. On the opposite side, the theoretical uncertainties on Bhabha cross sections are still large, $`2\%`$ in the barrel region and $`0.5\%`$ in the endcap regions: a sizeable reduction (factor $`4`$-$`10`$) is desired to exploit the experimental precision.

Preliminary combinations of LEP data exist for the exclusive $`q\overline{q}`$ cross sections and for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ cross sections and forward-backward asymmetries over the whole energy range ($`130`$-$`207`$ GeV) , as shown in figure 1. Standard Model (SM) expectations are obtained with ZFITTER . Correlations within/between experiments have been taken into account in the combinations. The combined errors are dominated by statistics and uncorrelated systematics. Moreover differential cross sections $`d\sigma /dcos\theta `$ have been combined for $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ pairs for $`183\sqrt{s}207`$ GeV. Available heavy flavour measurements of $`R_b`$, $`A_{FB}^b`$, $`R_c`$, $`A_{FB}^c`$ have been combined at all LEP2 energies . Bhabha measurements have not been combined yet, though each experiment has a complete set of measurements, see for example  or the references in . All the LEP averages are in good agreement with the SM predictions, as each experiment’s results. Therefore such data have been used to set indirect limits on a number of new physics scenarios.

An alternative test of the Standard Model is possible in the $`S`$-matrix approach . In this framework the only assumptions are the existence of a heavy neutral boson ($`Z`$) in addition to the $`\gamma `$ and validity of QED for photon exchange and radiation. In particular $`\gamma `$/$`Z`$ interference is left free, while it is usually constrained by the SM itself in fits of the $`Z^0`$ lineshape. LEP1 data have low sensitivity to $`\gamma `$ exchange and $`\gamma `$-$`Z`$ interference. An $`S`$-matrix fit restricted to LEP1 data shows a strong correlation between the fitted mass $`m_Z`$ and the parameter $`j_{had}^{tot}`$ related to $`\gamma `$-$`Z`$ interference in the hadronic cross section. In a L3 analysis  such correlation brings about an additional $`\pm 9.8`$ MeV uncertainty to $`m_Z`$. LEP2 data strongly constrain $`\gamma `$-$`Z`$ interference terms. L3  fitted jointly all LEP1+LEP2 cross section and asymmetry measurements, either assuming lepton universality or not. The result is $`m_Z=91188.4\pm 3.6`$ MeV ($`m_Z=91188.8\pm 3.6`$ MeV without lepton universality), in agreement with the SM lineshape fit. Here the correlation is reduced and contributes an error of $`\pm 1.8`$ MeV, already included in the quoted result. The fitted value of $`j_{had}^{tot}`$ is $`0.30\pm 0.10`$, in agreement with the SM prediction of $`0.21`$. Similar results have been obtained by OPAL .

A convenient way to describe any deviation from the SM in $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}`$ is the framework of four-fermion contact interactions , which is appropriate if the scale of new physics $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is much greater than $`\sqrt{s}`$. LEP averages of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ cross sections and asymmetries have been used for such indirect search. They give at present the best lower limits on the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`eell`$ contact interactions, in the range of $`8.5`$ to $`26.2`$ TeV depending on the specific model ($`95\%`$ C.L. limits assuming conventionally a strong coupling $`g^2=4\pi `$. In detail the limits for each model and both signs of interference between the hypothetic new interaction and the SM are shown in Fig. 2 (left plot). Furthermore LEP combinations of heavy flavour measurements have been used to set lower limits on $`eebb`$ and $`eecc`$ contact interactions. Depending on the model they are in the range of $`2.2`$-$`14.6`$ TeV for $`eebb`$ and $`1.4`$-$`7.4`$ TeV for $`eecc`$ .

Limits on the masses of new heavy particles have been extracted also within specific extensions of the SM. This is actually appropriate when the mass of the new particle is of the same order of magnitude as the center of mass energy. New particles coupling to leptons and quarks could be leptoquarks  or squarks in supersymmetric theories with R-parity violation. Beyond the kinematic limit for direct production, they could be observed through a change of the total cross section and asymmetry in the process $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ via a $`t`$-channel exchange diagram . The best LEP limits come presently from ALEPH . They have been extracted separately for leptoquarks/squarks of each of the three families, profiting of $`b`$-tagging and jet-charge techniques. It is assumed only one new particle contributing at a time, with coupling only to left or right-handed leptons. In particular the mass limit for $`S_0(L)`$ coupling to first or second generation quarks (equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$) is about $`600`$ GeV, for $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{1/2}(L)`$ coupling to third generation quarks (equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{t}}`$) is about $`140`$ GeV ($`95\%`$ C.L. limits assuming electromagnetic strenght for the coupling $`g^2=4\pi \alpha `$). They are complementary to limits obtained from HERA, Tevatron, and low energy data (atomic parity violation, rare decays).

Supersymmetric theories with R-parity violation have terms in the Lagrangian of the form $`\lambda _{ijk}L_iL_j\overline{E_k}`$, being L a lepton doublet superfield and E a lepton singlet superfield. The parameter $`\lambda `$ is a Yukawa coupling and $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k=1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$ are generation indices. For dilepton final states, both $`s`$ and $`t`$-channel exchange of R-parity violating sneutrino can occur . The strongest limits are obtained when $`s`$-channel resonant production of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$ is possible. This could be detected, depending on the non vanishing couplings, in the $`e^+e^{}`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ or $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay channels. Dilepton differential cross sections have been used by ALEPH to set upper limits on the couplings as a function of the sneutrino mass. $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$ / $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$ masses of a few hundreds GeV/c2 are probed and excluded for relatively small couplings . Much weaker limits can be extracted for $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$.

Additional heavy neutral bosons are predicted by many GUT models . LEP data at the $`Z^0`$ peak energy are sensitive to the mixing angle $`\theta _{ZZ^{}}`$ of the $`Z^0`$ with a possible heavier $`Z^{}`$, while LEP2 data are sensitive to its mass $`m_Z^{}`$. Fits using all hadronic and leptonic cross sections and leptonic forward-backward asymmetries are consistent with no extra $`Z^{}`$. DELPHI results  are shown in Fig. 2 (right plot). The upper limits on the mixing angle $`|\theta _{ZZ^{}}|`$ are about $`2`$ mrads. Assuming $`\theta _{ZZ^{}}=0`$ the combined LEP data have been fitted to determine $`95\%`$ C.L. lower limits on the $`Z^{}`$ mass. The resulting limits are $`678/463/436`$ GeV respectively for $`E(6)`$ $`\chi /\psi /\eta `$ model, $`800`$ GeV for $`LR`$ model and $`1890`$ GeV for $`SSM`$ .

Recently an idea has been proposed that Quantum Gravity scale could be as low as $`1`$ TeV if gravitons propagate in large compactified extra dimensions, while other particles are confined to the ordinary 3+1-dimensional world . Gravity would be modified at distances of the order of the size of the extra dimensions. This would solve the hierarchy problem, that is the striking difference between the electroweak scale ($`10^3`$ GeV) and the Planck scale ($`10^{19}`$ GeV). Existing gravity measurements stop at about $`1`$ mm, leaving room for new physics below this scale. New effects could be within the reach of present and future colliders. Virtual graviton exchange would modify the fermion pair cross sections through interference terms proportional to $`\lambda /M_s^4`$, where $`\lambda `$ is a parameter of $`𝒪(1)`$ depending on the details of the theory and $`M_s`$ is a mass scale related to the Planck scale in the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional space . Pure graviton exchange would lead to terms of order $`\lambda ^2/M_s^8`$. Bhabha scattering has the maximum sensitivity to low scale gravity effects, due to interference with the dominant $`t`$-channel photon exchange. ALEPH , L3  and OPAL  have analyzed all LEP2 Bhabha data and obtained lower limits on $`M_s`$ at about $`1`$ TeV. Such limits are derived by setting $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ to account for positive or negative interference, with $`M_s`$ defined according to , and are shown in Table 1.

In the near future each experiment is expected to finalize its data analyses while the LEP working group should find a final agreement on exactly how to do the combinations (definitions, method, common uncertainties) and which results to combine. In particular Bhabha measurements are still in the waiting-list. They are the most sensitive ones for many indirect searches, but in this case theoretical uncertainties could be a serious limitation for the final results.

Acknowledgment
I wish to thank all the organizers for the interesting conference and the nice week we spent together.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

With the Rich Imaging Cherenkov Chamber (RICH) DELPHI possesses a unique and very important hadron identification tool. The two informations from the liquid and gas radiators can be combined with the dE/dx information measured in the Time Projection Chamber (TPC)  to achieve separation of hadron species at different momenta (fig. 1).

In different momentum ranges the single detectors (TPC, RICH) can distinguish the hadrons in different ways and quality. The description of the particle identification algorithms for the Rich detectors based on RIBMEAN. On first sight, there is no problem if the bands of the single hadrons can be well separated. An obvious problem is how to deal with momentum ranges where one detector cannot separate between different particle hypotheses and another detector is in the so-called veto mode i.e. when one expects no signal for a track in the detector. This happens e.g. in the range $`5\text{GeV}<p<10\text{GeV}`$ for kaons and protons. This is handled in HADSIGN and RIBMEAN in different ways . Veto signals are especially hard to establish in the case of background due to large particle density (in case of RIBMEAN see ). Especially the background photon handling is done differently in HADSIGN and RIBMEAN. We later show that even in the case where two bands are clearly separated a problem appears in at least RIBMEAN. We do not have intermediate information to check HADSIGN at the SDST level. From the above considerations it is clear that the construction of simple tags is strongly momentum dependent and not a trivial task.

As one can see in figure 1, below 0.7 GeV no RICH information is available. In addition, 21% of the tracks have less then 30 TPC wire hits, so that in these cases no particle identification is possible with the TPC as the only detector. As in the case of higher momentum particles, i.e. above 0.7 GeV, an independent measurement would contribute a large boost to the efficiency of hadron tagging. This is supplied by the Vertex Detector, usually used for spatial measurements only, but the signal in the silicon tracker also gives signal height information proportional to the deposited energy lost by the passing particle. The signals from the different hypothesis can be seen in figure 2.

In this note we present the MACRIB111MACRIB=“Michael And Company’s Rich Identification Backage”. The local Karlsruhe dialect cannot distinguish between P and B. package which combines the benefits of both RICH algorithms and dE/dx information for the high momentum region. For the low momentum region the combined dE/dx information of both the TPC and the VD are used. The combination is done using a neural network, which has a much better performance than any of it’s input variables alone.

## 2 Comparison of HADSIGN and RIBMEAN

RIBMEAN provides a tag between -1 and 3 according to the probability for a given particle calculated within the routine. -1 means that no information is available, 0 stands for sure background and 1,2,3 for the loose, standard and tight kaon tags. In addition to RIBMEAN, HADSIGN introduces a very tight kaon tag with code 4 and a very loose tag with code 0.5. For the case of no information and no identification both algorithms give -1 and 0 respectively. In the ideal case both approaches should give the same or at least similar tags for a particle. A comparison of the tags shows that they are hardly correlated (see fig 3). There are situations where RIBMEAN works more efficiently and vice versa. A possible reason for this discrepancy is the different approach for the ring finding algorithm in the RICH detectors. RIBMEAN divides the plane around a track intersection point into rings with different radii according to each particle hypothesis ($`e,\mu ,\pi ,K`$ and $`p`$). The photoelectrons are weighted within the rings. Different weights are given depending on the background environment, e.g. on the (non-)ambiguity and the geometrical position in the ring. The cluster with the largest sum of weights is selected. For isolated tracks this algorithm gives a very reliable result. For high density tracks the rings overlap and not all ambiguities can be solved. In these cases the performance of this method drops.

In contrast, HADSIGN treats background by including it in the model. It sums up the photo-electrons as a function of the distance from the intersection point, regardless of its origin. Next a maximum likelihood technique is applied to the obtained distribution. According to the result of the fit HADSIGN assigns a probability to the different hypotheses. In this way, the performance of HADSIGN is relatively independent of background.

## 3 A neural network approach

This observation was the motivation for optimally combining both algorithms using a simple feed forward network with backpropagation. A schematic example of the topology of this kind of network is given in figure 4. Three sets of neural networks have been constructed for kaon and proton identification:

* $`p>0.7`$ GeV with full RICH information,
* $`p>0.7`$ GeV with no liquid RICH information,
* $`p0.7`$ GeV TPC dE/dx combined with dE/dx measurements of the vertex detector.

The distinction between the cases with and without liquid information is necessary for the Monte Carlo Data agreement was not satisfactory. The reason originates from the fact that there are periods in the data where the RICH is only partly functional. For the case of no liquid RICH information present, a new network is required due to the relatively large number of input nodes requiring liquid information and to the lack of non-liquid radiator information in the 1994 Monte Carlo simulation for the training. For the training of events with only gas information a MC sample from 1993 has been used.

### 3.1 Input variables for the nets with liquid RICH information

The networks have four layers, 16 input nodes, one bias node, 19 nodes in the hidden layer and one output node. Several variables of the RICH and the TPC are used as input variables, as detailed below. Many of the variables have been optimised for the use as a neural network input. For the training we used 800,000 kaons and approximately the same number of non-kaons from the 94C2 $`Z^0q\overline{q}`$ Monte Carlo datasets. We use the following variables as input for the kaon net:

1. the RIBMEAN RICH kaon tag. The order of codes 0 and -1 has been interchanged in order to make the kaon probability a monotonically rising function of the tag.
2. the HADSIGN RICH kaon tag. The order of codes 0 and -1 has been interchanged in order to make the kaon probability a monotonically rising function of the tag.
3. the dE/dx kaon tag from HADSIGN. The order of codes 0 and -1 has been interchanged in order to make the kaon probability a monotonically rising function of the tag.
4. the logarithm of the ratio of the gas RICH probabilities of the kaon hypothesis to the pion hypothesis for kaon separation from pions with gas RICH. If no gas measurement is available, the value is set to 0.
5. the logarithm of the ratio of the liquid RICH probabilities of the kaon hypothesis to the pion hypothesis for kaon separation from pions with liquid RICH. If no liquid measurement is available, the value is set to 0.
6. the electron neural net output from ELEPHANT, to suppress electrons faking kaons.
7. the combined HADSIGN proton tag, to suppress protons faking kaons. The order of codes 0 and -1 has been interchanged in order to make the proton probability a monotonically rising function of the tag.
8. the logarithm of the ratio of the dE/dx probabilities of the kaon hypothesis to the pion hypothesis for kaon separation from pions with dE/dx. If no dE/dx measurement is available, the value is set to 0.
9. the logarithm of the likelihood ratio for the number of photons in the liquid RICH for the kaon and pion hypotheses. This is computed in the following way: The number of reconstructed photons in the liquid radiator is subtracted from the expected number of photons for the pion hypothesis as a function of the expectation and the particle hypothesis, in 7 expectation bins from 5 to 20 photons. In each of the bins the normalised Monte Carlo distribution is fitted to a double Gaussian. The variation of the 6 fit parameters in the 7 expectation bins is then parametrised, such that the probability density is available as a continuous function of expectation and particle hypothesis. The input variable is the logarithm of the ratio of these functions for kaon and pion hypotheses.
10. the logarithm of the likelihood ratio for the number of photons in the liquid RICH for the kaon and proton hypotheses to suppress proton contamination.
11. the logarithm of the likelihood ratio for the number of photons in the gas RICH for the kaon and pion hypotheses in the kaon gas band region.
12. the logarithm of the likelihood ratio for kaon and pion hypotheses in the kaon gas veto region. This is computed in the following way: In the momentum region where one expects to see a ring for pions, but not for kaons, we distinguish the following cases:

* no photon is observed (i.e. a good veto): as a function of the expected number of photons for the pion hypothesis, and separately for tracks including the Outer Detector (signalling a more reliable track interpolation in the RICH) the ratio of real kaons to all tracks as expected is parametrised.
    * one photon is observed (i.e. a slightly worse veto): this one photon could be real or background, thus the separation is worse in this case. The same procedure as above is performed.
    * more than one photon is observed, and an angle measurement performed (i.e. a bad or no veto): Even in this case one can distinguish how often such an assignment is wrong. Both the angle and the number of photon measurements should be compatible with the pion hypothesis.

Outside the interesting momentum region the variable is set to 0.5.
13. the information if the OD was used in the track reconstruction.
14. the muon tag for the kaon separation from muons.
15. the momentum of the particle
16. the logarithm of the likelihood ratio for the Čerenkov angle measurement in the gas RICH for the kaon and pion hypotheses in the kaon gas band region.
17. the logarithm of the likelihood ratio for the Čerenkov angle measurement in the liquid RICH for the kaon and pion hypotheses in the kaon liquid band region below 4 GeV. Outside this region the variable is set to 0.5, outside the usual region on the background side.
18. the probability of the dE/dx pull of the kaon hypothesis.

In order to reduce the number of input variables, two pairs of RICH measurements were put together to form one without losing information, since the momentum regions of the pairs do not interfere. These are the likelihood ratios for the number of photons in the liquid and gas radiators and the likelihood ratios for the Cerenkov angle measurement for the liquid and gas.

For the proton network an analogous set of input variables were used and for the training $``$250,000 protons were used mixed with the same amount of background. Additionally a pion veto region is introduced for the liquid radiator in the momentum region between $`0.7\text{GeV}<p<1.2\text{GeV}`$. The information is treated in a similar way as is done for the kaons in the gas veto region.

### 3.2 Net input variables without liquid RICH information

The kaon network has three layers, 16 input nodes, one bias node, 17 nodes in the hidden layer and one output node. RICH gas and TPC variables are used as input variables. For the training we used the 93D2 $`q\overline{q}`$ simulation with a sample of 130,000 kaons and approximately the same number of non-kaons. We use the following variables as input for the kaon net (for the detailed description of the variables see section before):

1. the RIBMEAN RICH kaon tag.
2. the HADSIGN RICH kaon tag.
3. the HADSIGN combined proton tag
4. the dE/dx kaon tag from HADSIGN.
5. $`\mathrm{log}(\frac{P_K}{P_\pi })`$ from the TPC dE/dx measurement
6. Prob(Kaon Pull) from the TPC.
7. Prob(Pion Pull) from the TPC.
8. $`\mathrm{log}(\frac{P_K}{P_\pi })`$ from the gas RICH
9. $`\mathrm{log}\text{-likelihood}\left(\frac{N\gamma _K}{N\gamma _\pi }\right)`$ in the kaon gas band region.
10. $`\mathrm{log}\text{-likelihood}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_K}{\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi }\right)`$ in the kaon gas band region.
11. for $`0\text{or}1\gamma :\frac{K}{all}(N\gamma _{\pi ,expected})`$ or
for $`2\gamma :\text{Prob}(\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ,N\gamma _\pi )`$ with 2 degrees of freedom in the kaon gas veto region.
12. the logarithm of the ratio of the dE/dx probabilities of the kaon hypothesis to the pion hypothesis for kaon separation from pions with the vertex detector.
13. the logarithm of the ratio of the dE/dx probabilities of the proton hypothesis to the pion hypothesis for heavy particle separation from pions with the vertex detector.
14. the electron neural network output
15. the muon tag
16. the OD flag
17. the momentum of the particle

To partially compensate the loss of the liquid radiator information in the momentum region of $`0.7\text{Gev}<p<2.5\text{Gev}`$, the vertex detector measurement was introduced into the net. The separation performance of the VD dE/dx in this region is not as good as of the liquid RICH but it helps to solve some ambiguities. For the proton network $``$50,000 protons were used mixed with the same amount of background and all kaon inputs were changed to proton variables. The proton net has 15 input nodes and one bias node, 17 nodes in the hidden layer and 1 output node.

### 3.3 The low momentum neural net

The kaon network has three layers, 9 input nodes, one bias node, 9 nodes in the hidden layer and one output node. For the input variables a composition of TPC and VD information has been used. For the training we used the 94C2 $`q\overline{q}`$ simulation with a sample of $``$5,000 kaons and approximately the same number of non-kaons. We use the following variables as input for the kaon net:

1. $`\mathrm{log}(\frac{P_K}{P_\pi })`$ from the TPC dE/dx measurement. If no TPC information is available the input is set to 0.
2. $`\mathrm{log}(\frac{P_K}{P_p})`$ from the TPC dE/dx measurement. The probabilities for the kaon and proton hypothesis are taken from the RPRODE routine. If no TPC information is available the input is set to 0.
3. the kaon probability from the TPC dE/dx given by the RPRODE routine.
4. The probability of the kaon pull from the TPC. If no TPC information is available the input is set to 0.
5. the logarithm of the ratio of the dE/dx probabilities of the kaon to the pion hypothesis for kaon separation from pions with the vertex detector. For this purpose the dE/dx information for the different hypotheses have been fitted over the whole momentum region covered by the vertex detector. For a given measurement and hypothesis the distance of the dE/dx signal from the fitted function is divided by the error on the measurement to obtain the deviation from this hypothesis in standard deviations.
6. the logarithm of the ratio of the dE/dx probabilities of the kaon to the proton hypothesis for kaon separation from protons with the vertex detector.
7. the probability of the kaon VD dE/dx hypothesis.
8. the number of TPC wires hit by the particle
9. the momentum of the particle

For the proton net the same net topology was used as for the kaons. For the training $``$2,000 protons were used mixed with the same amount of background. The kaon inputs of the vertex detector were changed to proton variables.

## 4 Performance

### 4.1 Kaon net

For the separation of background and signal the target of the net outputs were set to -1 and 1 respectively. The output of the net with full RICH information can be seen on the left side of figure 7. A clear separation between kaons and background can be observed. Compared with the combined HADSIGN kaon tag, the combined RIBMEAN kaon tag and RIBMEAN heavy tag one can see that the kaon net of MACRIB has a far better efficiency at the same purity (right side of fig. 7).

As one would expect, the performance of the network without liquid RICH information can not be as good as with the working liquid radiator. The missing information results in a class of particles that lie in the momentum range that is not covered by any detector. These get a net output that lies somewhere between -1 and 1. The bump in the middle of the plot at the left side of figure 8 comes from this class. The comparison with the HADSIGN and RIBMEAN tags shows again a significant improvement. The fact that one can cut on a continuous variable instead of taking discrete tags makes it in addition a more flexible tool.

The output of the kaon net below 0.7 GeV is displayed at the left side of figure 9. Since in the TPC the kaon band is well separated from the pion band (see figure 1) a very pure signal to background ratio can be achieved by only considering TPC variables. However, for cases where no TPC measurement is available, HADSIGN and RIBMEAN can provide no tag. This happens, when less then 30 wires are hit or if the kaon pull is larger then two sigmas. By combining the TPC measurement with the information coming from the vertex detector, a very good kaon identification can be achieved even for these particles. This further information is one of the reasons for the large gain in efficiency at same purity compared to the HADSIGN and RIBMEAN tags shown at the right side of figure 9.

Since purity and efficiency depend on momentum the efficiency purity plots in the figures 7,8 and 9 only show the averaged purity and the averaged efficiency in hadronic Z decays. Figure 10 shows the performance of MACRIB over the whole momentum spectrum. The three levels of the combined RIBMEAN kaon tag are compared to different cuts on the kaon net output represented by different colours. The colour codes are the same in both plots for the efficiency and purity. Note that especially the efficiency hole of the RIBMEAN tags below 8 GeV is filled up by MACRIB.

### 4.2 Proton net

The output of the net with liquid RICH information for protons and background can be seen in 11 together with the comparison of the purity over efficiency plot of the MACRIB routine with that of the combined tags of RIBMEAN and HADSIGN. At high purity a large gain in efficiency is achieved.

As for the kaons, the performance of the net goes down if no liquid RICH information is available. Though, the proton net deals better with the loss of this information than the kaon net. This lies in the fact that the VD dE/dx bands of protons and pions are still separated in the momentum region usually covered by the liquid radiator. The bump, representing the class of particles with no detector information or with ambiguous information, in the middle of the performance plot at the left side of figure 12 can be found here too, but at a lower level than for the kaon net. The efficiency purity plot shows the possibility of going to very pure proton samples. This option was not available with the RIBMEAN and HADSIGN tags, as can be seen at the right side of figure 12.

For particles with momenta below 0.7 GeV the net output is shown in figure 13 (left). The proton and pion bands are separated by many sigmas in both the TPC and vertex detectors. This makes a very pure and efficient identification possible. The comparison between MACRIB, RIBMEAN and HADSIGN can be seen at the right side of the same figure. The particles having no RIBMEAN or HADSIGN tags contribute to the efficiency gain in MACRIB, by utilising the independent dE/dx measurement provided by the VD.

The momentum dependence of the efficiency and purity can be seen in figure 14 together with the loose, standard and tight tags of the RIBMEAN routine.

### 4.3 Simulation-Data Agreement

For the test of the Simulation-Data agreement of the network output we used an independent Monte Carlo sample, which has not been used in the training of the nets. For the case of fully working RICH detectors the comparison between real data and Monte Carlo is shown in figures 15. The distributions have been normalised and the simulated sample divided by the real data. The agreement is reasonable over most of the network output range. At the far ends of the plot a surplus of the MC can be observed. This is due to the more ideal conditions of the simulation, so that the net can assign an output value closer to the edges.

## 5 MACRIB - How to get the net output

We have written a simple stand-alone-routine MACRIB returning the kaon- and the proton-net outputs for a given track with the PA-pointer LPA. This routine is included in the BSAURUS package, since it uses the network routines of BSAURUS. The user has to include the BSAURUS library by including BSAURUS into the argument list of dellib in the link step of the job in order to have access to the routine.
Before calling MACRIB for a track one first has to call once per event:

* CALL RICHID
* CALL RIDECR
* CALL GETMINE(MYTYPE)
where MYTYPE=1 means LPA/tanagra, MYTYPE=2 means VECSUB

After that MACRIB can be called with the input argument LPA:

CALL MACRIB(LPA,XKAONNET,XPROTONNET)

BSAURUS users can access the net outputs via the BSAURUS commons

BSPAR(IBP\_MACK,IPART) BSPAR(IBP\_MACP,IPART)

on the track basis. The output variables are the kaon net output XKAONNET and the proton net output XPROTONNET. They are real variables with values between -1. and 1. XKAONNET/XPROTONNET $``$ -1. means identification as not a kaon/proton whereas XKAONNET/XPROTONNET $``$ 1. means identified as kaon/proton. Tracks that fail to pass the cuts in MACRIB get the value -2.

## 6 Sample plots

The kaon network was tested on real data to observe the gain in efficiency in physically relevant decays. The gain in efficiency is always dependent on the momentum region of the decay products, as the networks are momentum dependent too, in their performance.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ mesons were reconstructed by identifying both kaons in the decay $`\mathrm{\Phi }K^+K^{}`$. Using a cut of 0.8 in MACRIB’s kaon network output for both tracks, about 56 % more $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s are selected than with the combined RIBMEAN tight heavy tag at the same background level. The purity at this cut is about 60% for the signal obtained by the RIBMEAN tagging routine and approximately 70% in the distribution achieved by MACRIB (figure 16 Left). The efficiency gain at the same purity is thus much higher ($`2`$).

In the decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi `$ the output of HADSIGN has been compared to that of MACRIB. At the same background level a large gain can be observed, in this case too (figure 16 Right). For the distribution no cuts were applied at all, beside the proton tagging. This explains the relatively large background level. At the same purity the tagging efficiency of MACRIB is four times as large as that of HADSIGN.

In the decay $`D_s\varphi \pi `$ (figure 17) RIBMEAN provides a comparable output to that of MACRIB, since a very pure $`\varphi `$ enrichment is possible without any kaon tagging. The decay of the $`D_s`$ meson into $`K^{}K`$ is shown in figure 18. It compares the output of MACRIB and RIBMEAN at same purities for data taken in the years 1994-1995 and 1992-1993. The efficiency gain is about 30% and 100% respectively.

## 7 Acknowledgements

Compared to the first version presented in the October 1998 DELPHI analysis week, the net was still much improved, also due to implementation of feedback obtained from RICH experts, especially Claire Bourdarios and Emile Schyns, during that week. Many thanks to them.

We want to thank Jong Yi for providing the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`D^{}`$ plots and Oleg Kuznets for providing the $`D_s`$ plots.