text:
# Non-circular rotating beams and CMB experiments

## 1 Introduction

Many experiments are being designed for the observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies. From the maps of a given experiment operating with a non-circular (asymmetric) rotating beam, a certain angular power spectrum ($`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ quantities) can be extracted. Different rotations can lead to distinct $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients and, the question is: How different are these coefficients? In other words, how relevant is the effect of the rotation strategy on the resulting angular power spectrum?

In a previous paper (Arnau & Sáez 2000), it was shown that, in the absence of rotation and when the level of instrumental noise is low enough, the effect of a non-circular beam can be subtracted –namely, the beam can be deconvolved– using the Fourier transform. This subtraction can be performed in such a way that the resulting spectrum, after deconvolution, is very similar to the true one. That is possible if the number of pixels inside the beam, $`N_{\text{in}}`$, is not too great. Indeed, $`N_{\text{in}}`$ cannot be much greater than 10; however, if the beam rotates, the deconvolution is not possible. Nobody has described either the importance of beam rotation or a method to eliminate its effects. The main goal of this paper is the estimation of the effects due to rotation. In Arnau & Sáez 2000 (and also in Sáez, Holtmann & Smoot, 1996, and Sáez& Arnau, 1997). a sort of modified angular power spectrum was used. Here, we extract the standard $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ quantities from a certain number of squared patches of the sky. Recently, Wu et al. (2001) have proposed a method for data analysis in the case of asymmetric beams. This method is based on an optimal circular beam associated to the asymmetric one. The effects of beam rotation are not studied at all by these authors.

Although our methods apply to CMB anisotropy experiments in general, we will pay particular attention to PLANCK mission (scheduled by ESA for 2007). As it was emphasized in Burigana et al. (1998), beam responses are typically nonsymmetric for detectors de-centred from the telescope focus. Taking into account that CMB anisotropy experiments require observations at different frequencies, various detectors are necessary, which must be distributed as close as possible from the focus; for instance, in the PLANCK mission, around one hundred of detector (bolometers and radiometers) must be distributed in the focal plane. If the focal plane rotates (rotation of the telescope around the spin axis), the beams do. The effect of this rotation deserves attention. Furthermore, there are various identical detectors for each frequency, which are located at different positions in the focal plane and, consequently, the deformations of these beams would be different (identical) if they are located at different (the same) distances from the optical focus; nevertheless, even for identical deformations, the orientations of the resulting asymmetric beams would be different. The motion of the line of sight through the sky also produces a beam asymmetry. The effective beam diameter $`\theta _{_{\text{FWHM}}}`$ appears to be enhanced in the direction of this motion (see Hanany, Jaffe & Scannapieco 1998). This small effect is due to the beam displacement during the measurement process. It is not taken into account in this paper.

Beam rotation depends on the particular experiment under consideration. Given a pixelisation, the beam centre points towards a given pixel a certain number of times, $`N_\text{p}`$, and, then, the temperature assigned to this pixel is an average of the temperatures corresponding to each of the $`N_\text{p}`$ measurements. The fact that measurements from various beam orientations are averaged could be important.

In the case of PLANCK mission, a rough estimate of number $`N_\text{p}`$ is given in Sáez & Arnau (2000). Here, it is worthwhile to improve a little on that estimate. The satellite has been designed in such a way that: (i) it will cover the full sky in seven months, with a coverage which can be considered as uniform in most part of the sky, (ii) its line of sight will move around a big circle on the sky completing a turn each minute and, (iii) it will move around the same circle for two hours (120 turns). On account of these facts, if the pixel size is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the angle subtended by the motion of the line of sight between two successive measurements is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =\zeta \theta _{_{\text{FWHM}}}`$, where $`\theta _{_{\text{FWHM}}}`$ is the beam diameter, then, the average number of measurements per pixel (in a seven months observing period) is $`N_\text{p}=42\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\zeta \theta _{_{\text{FWHM}}}`$, where all the angles are given in arc-minutes (see Sáez & Arnau, 2000, for comparison) and, furthermore, the average number of measurements per pixel performed while the line of sight turns 120 times around a given circle is $`N_{\text{pc}}=120\mathrm{\Delta }/\zeta \theta _{_{\text{FWHM}}}`$. From these formulae, it follows that the average number of circles passing by a pixel –during seven months– is $`N_\text{c}=N_\text{p}/N_{\text{pc}}\mathrm{\Delta }/3`$, this result is consistent with the fact that, for a given observational strategy, the number $`N_\text{c}`$ is expected to be dependent only on the pixelisation. Of course, it is independent on beam asymmetry. The number of measurements corresponding to different orientations could be important for the effect we are looking for, which is produced by the rotation of asymmetric beams. The larger the pixel size, the better the situation (the greater $`N_\text{c}`$).

Since the detectors are rigidly attached to the focal plane, any beam has almost the same orientation each time it crosses a given pixel during its motion (120 turns) along a given circle; however, this orientation changes from circle to circle. From the above comments and estimates, it follows that the average number of measurements per pixel corresponding to different beam orientations is $`N_\text{c}`$. If the full sky is covered two times and, the second coverage is not identical to the first one, this average number would be $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/3`$. For $`5^{}<\mathrm{\Delta }<10^{}`$, this number ranges from 3.3 to 6.6. Nevertheless, there are various detectors in the focal plane for each frequency and, by assuming that all the beams have the same shape but different orientations, the above $`N_\text{c}`$ number can be multiplied by the number of beams.

## 2 Beam

Our asymmetric beam is assumed to be of the form:

$$W(\theta ,\varphi )=W__\text{N}e^{\left[\frac{(\theta \theta ^{})^2}{2\sigma _\theta ^2}\frac{(\varphi \varphi ^{})^2}{2\sigma _\varphi ^2}\right]}$$
(1)
as in Burigana et al. (1998). It is hereafter called an elliptical beam. Estimations of the effects due to asymmetry require the definition of an associated circularly symmetric beam for comparisons. Here the associated beam is defined as follows: given a circle of radius $`R=(\theta ^2+\varphi ^2)^{1/2}`$, the weight $`W(R)`$ corresponding to the circular beam is the average value of the weights $`W(\theta ,\varphi )`$ assigned by the elliptical beam to the points of the circle; namely,

$$W(R)=W(\theta ,\varphi )__\text{C}.$$
(2)
There are arguments suggesting that the circular beam given by Eq. (2) is very appropriate. Let us discuss this point in some detail. Suppose an uniform temperature field $`T(\theta ,\varphi )=constant`$. Place the centre of the elliptical beam at point P with arbitrary orientation and, then, consider various circles centred at P with radius $`R_i`$. The averages inside each of these circles performed with the asymmetrical beam and with the associated circular one are identical (except for errors produced by discretisation in Eqs. (1) and (2)). These averages coincide whatever the radius $`R_i`$ and the orientation of the asymmetric beam may be. With any other circular beam, there would be deviations between the measurements of both beams, which would depend on the spatial scale (on $`R_i`$), that feature does not seem to be appropriate because scale dependent differences would appear as an artifact. It could be argued that we are considering a very special uniform field which is very different from the true CMB maps; nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the cosmological signal has fluctuations at different scales, this signal is expected to be an homogeneous and isotropic statistical field and, consequently, the above associated beams seem to be appropriate in order to avoid artifacts after measurements and averages; namely, from a statistical point of view. The differences between the angular power spectra after averaging with the two associated beams are not artifacts due to a bad association, but small differences produced by other numerical or physical reasons. For example, as a result of pixelisation (a type of discretisation) beams (1) and (2) deviate. It is worthwhile to notice that the associated circular beam can be easily obtained –using Eq. (2)– whatever the asymmetric beam may be and, also, that this association does not depend on the features of the maps to be smoothed by the beam (which are not known a priori). In the case of the beam defined by Eq. (1), the associated circular beam appears to have the following form:

$`W(R)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2W__\text{N}}{\pi }}e^{R^2\sigma _\varphi ^2/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}e^{[R^2(\sigma _\theta ^2\sigma _\varphi ^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\xi ]/2}𝑑\xi ,`$ (3)
which is used below in numerical estimates.

The total signal –measured in a certain frequency– also involves components which are not statistically homogeneous and isotropic; for instance, dust and synchrotron radiations from our galaxy; nevertheless, we cannot use two different circular associated beams, but only one, and the fact that we are particularly interested in the CMB signal strongly suggests the use of beam (2).

## 3 Map making algorithm and power spectrum estimator

We are concerned with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ model, which is a standard inflationary (flat) one with cold dark matter, having $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{b}=0.05`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{d}=0.25`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, and $`h=0.65`$, where quantities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{b}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{d}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stand for the density parameters corresponding to baryons, dark matter, and vacuum energy densities, respectively, and quantity h is the reduced Hubble constant. In this model, the CMB temperature is a Gaussian homogeneous and isotropic statistical two dimensional field. In such a case, a certain method proposed by Bond & Efstathiou (1987) can be used to make the $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ maps used in this paper. This method is based on the following formula:

$$\frac{\delta T}{T}=\underset{s_1,s_2=N}{\overset{N}{}}D(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)e^{i(\theta \mathrm{}_1+\varphi \mathrm{}_2)},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}_1=2\pi s_1/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{}_2=2\pi s_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stands for the angular size of the square to be mapped. This equation defines a Fourier transform from the position space ($`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$) to the momentum space ($`\mathrm{}_1`$, $`\mathrm{}_2`$). The Gaussian quantities $`D(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)`$ have zero mean, and their variance is proportional to $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}_1^2+\mathrm{}_2^2)^{1/2}`$. Since $`\delta T/T`$ is real, the relation $`D(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)=D^{}(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)`$ must be satisfied. From given $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients, the above $`D(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)`$ quantities can be easily calculated and, then, according to Eq. (4), a Fourier transform leads to the map. Sáez, Holtmann & Smoot (1996) used this map making algorithm to get very good simulations of $`20^{}\times 20^{}`$ squared regions.

In the case of small squared maps, the above map making method suggests a power spectrum estimator. Given one of these maps $`\delta T/T(\theta ,\varphi )`$, an inverse Fourier transform leads to quantities $`D(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)`$ and, then, the average $`|D(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)|^2`$ can be calculated on the circumference $`\mathrm{}^2=\mathrm{}_1^2+\mathrm{}_2^2`$. Some interpolations are necessary to get the $`D(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)`$ values at the points located on the circumference. The resulting average is proportional to $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the radius of the circumference.

Another map making algorithm and a different power spectrum estimator have been also used for comparisons. A few comments about these methods, which play an auxiliary role in this paper, are worthwhile.

The effect of partial coverage –without considering pixelisation– was studied by Scott, Srednicki & White (1994). In an experiment covering a fraction, $`f_{\text{sky}}`$, of the sky, these authors showed that the sample variance is just the cosmic one enhanced by the factor $`f_{\text{sky}}^1`$. The meaning of the cosmic variance was discussed in detail by L. Nox (1995). From these papers it follows that, in an experiment with partial coverage, the deviations of the estimated angular power spectrum $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\text{est}}`$ with respect to the average $`C_{\mathrm{}}=C_{\mathrm{}}^{\text{est}}`$ obey the relation $`(C_{\mathrm{}}^{\text{est}}C_{\mathrm{}})(C_{\mathrm{}^{}}^{\text{est}}C_{\mathrm{}^{}})=[2/(2\mathrm{}+1)f_{\text{sky}}]C_{\mathrm{}}^2\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}`$ and, consequently, the relative errors of the resulting $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ quantities are:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}}{C_{\mathrm{}}}=\left[\frac{2}{(2\mathrm{}+1)f_{\text{sky}}}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(5)
In Fig. 1, two angular power spectra are displayed. One of them (dotted line) has been directly calculated using the HEALPIX (Hierarchical Equal Area isoLatitude Pizelisation) package. First, a full sky simulation has been made using the code SYNFAST with the following inputs: (1) the $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ model under consideration, and (2) a pixel size $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3.435`$ ($`N_{\text{side}}`$=1024) and, then, the resulting map has been analyzed using the code ANAFAST, which gives the angular power spectrum. We have excluded an equatorial band in the analysis and, consequently, the resulting spectrum corresponds to two polar regions covering a part of the sky with $`f_{\text{sky}}0.39`$. Since ANAFAST gives the quantities $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\text{est}}`$ defined above, the dotted line shows high frequency oscillations (sample variance). We can now use some appropriate numerical method to estimate the quantities $`C_{\mathrm{}}=C_{\mathrm{}}^{\text{est}}`$. A simple method suffices for us, we have taken $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{\text{est}}=\frac{1}{21}_{i=\mathrm{}10}^{\mathrm{}+10}C_i^{\text{est}}`$. The resulting smooth spectrum is that of the solid line. The high frequency oscillations due to partial coverage have been partially subtracted from the spectrum displayed in the dotted line; thus, the solid line shows a spectrum which only involves a residual part of the effect due to partial coverage. This residual effect should be also proportional to $`f_{\text{sky}}^1`$.

The power spectrum estimator based on the Fourier transform directly approaches quantities $`C_{\mathrm{}}=C_{\mathrm{}}^{\text{est}}`$; namely, the spectrum given by this estimator does not involve high frequency oscillations, but only a residual effect of partial coverage proportional to $`f_{\text{sky}}^1`$ (see below). This spectrum is comparable to that of the solid line of Fig. 1. Hereafter, only this type of spectra are considered and, consequently, we are concerned with the Residual Effect of Partial Coverage (REPC). Using these spectra, results obtained from squared patches can be compared with results corresponding to the HEALPIX package.

## 4 Results

We first consider simulated maps containing only the CMB signal. The CMB angular power spectrum is used to built up $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ maps which have either 256 or 128 nodes per edge. For 256 (128) nodes, the pixel size is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4.7^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=9.4^{}`$) and, in the PLANCK case, the average number of measurements per pixel corresponding to distinct orientations of a given beam is $`N_\text{c}=3.13`$ ($`N_\text{c}=6.26`$). Hereafter, the elliptical beam is –implicitly– assumed to be an asymmetric one of the form (1) with $`\sigma _\theta =6^{}`$ and $`\sigma _\varphi =10^{}`$, excepting a few cases where other beams are explicitly defined. Moreover, any set of $`n`$ $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ simulated maps is called a $`n`$-simulation.

### 4.1 Pixelisation and partial coverage

First of all, the superposition of the REPC and the pixelisation effect is estimated in the absence of any beam. The REPC depends on the coverage and the pixelisation effect depends on the pixel size $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Pixelisation is a mathematical discretisation and, consequently, any discretised mathematical formula used in our numerical procedures may induce an effect, which could appear as a deviation of the resulting angular power spectrum with respect to the true one. Discretised mathematical formulae can be involved in the method to extract the spectrum from the maps and even in the simulation procedure. That makes no possible the definition of a pixelisation effect depending only on the pixelisation itself; in each case (signal plus mathematical methods of simulation and analysis), the effect of discretisation (pixelisation) must be estimated. We do that below (for squared patches) and the resulting effect appears to be very systematic, namely, it appears to be almost the same in any simulation. The same occurs when the HEALPIX package is used. Of course, the spectra obtained from our simulations include both the REPC and the pixelisation effect. In Fig. 2, all the spectra are obtained from fifty $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ maps (50-simulation) having 256 nodes per edge, namely from a partial sky coverage with $`f_{\text{sky}}0.39`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4.7^{}`$. The effect of pixelisation becomes dramatic for $`\mathrm{}>\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the pixel size and, consequently, the spectra are only showed for $`\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_{\text{max}}=\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }=2550`$. Each spectrum is displayed in two panels (left and right) to make visible some details. In the top panel of Fig. 2, the solid line corresponds to the spectra obtained from a 50-simulation, the dotted line shows the true $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients used in the simulations and, finally, the dashed and dotted-dashed lines correspond to $`C_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by Eq. (5). The effect produced by pixelisation is expected to be dominant for large $`\mathrm{}`$-values and this effect appears always mixed with the REPC. For $`\mathrm{}>1600`$ (see top right panel), the solid line is well outside the region limited by $`C_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}`$, which suggests that the effect due to pixelisation is clearly dominant. For $`1600>\mathrm{}>100`$, there is a mixing of the two effects under consideration (which are disentangled below). Finally, the largest values of the REPC should be found for $`100<\mathrm{}<300`$ (see top and middle left panels).

In the middle panel of Fig. 2, the dotted line shows the true $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients, whereas each of the other two lines corresponds to the spectrum obtained from a different 50-simulation (these two spectra are denoted $`C_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ in this Section). It is noticeable that the deviations of these two lines with respect to the dotted line (true spectrum) are very similar. This fact indicates that –for our signal and numerical procedures–, the addition of the REPC and the pixelisation effect has a dominant systematic part. The average deviations are the quantities $`D_{\mathrm{}}=C_{\mathrm{}}(C_{\mathrm{}}^1+C_{\mathrm{}}^2)/2`$, and the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{}}=C_{\mathrm{}}^1D_{\mathrm{}}`$ (hereafter named the corrected spectrum) are given in the bottom panels of Fig. 2 (solid line), where we can verify that quantities $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{}}`$ are very similar to the true $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients (dotted line) all along the interval (100, $`l_{\text{max}}`$). The dashed and doted-dashed lines of this panel have the same meaning that those of the top panel.

In order to give quantitative estimates, some relative deviations $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ are calculated for appropriate pairs of spectra. These deviations are presented in Fig. 3. The top panel of this Figure shows the deviations of the spectra $`C_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ of Fig. 2 with respect to the true $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ coefficients. In both cases, quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ are similar, which suggests a systematic effect (deviation with respect to the true spectrum). Furthermore, the maxima and minima of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ seems to be associate to the minima and maxima in $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. Finally, the bottom panel of Fig. 3 shows the relative deviations between $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$, which are hereafter called residual deviations. The largest residual deviations are now of a few percent for any $`\mathrm{}`$, and the peaks of this curve do not correspond to maxima and minima in the angular power spectrum. The systematic deviations have been ruled out, and the residual deviations depend on the pair of simulations under consideration.

In order to separate the pixelisation effect and the REPC, the above study has been repeated in two cases: (i) the previous pixelisation is maintained, whereas a 500-simulation is used; hence, the new coverage is ten times larger than the previous one. For the sake of briefness, no Figures are presented. We only describe our main conclusions: (1) The systematic deviations has kept almost unaltered and, (2) after subtracting these deviations, the residual ones range in the interval (-0.07,0.07); namely, they are a factor $`10^{1/2}`$ smaller than those of the bottom panel of Fig. 3. These facts suggest that the systematic effect is due to pixelisation, not to partial coverage, whereas after subtraction, the resulting effect is due to partial coverage (it is the REPC proportional to $`f_{\text{sky}}^{1/2}`$). In the case (ii) a 50-simulation is used (the initial coverage), and a new pixelisation with 128 nodes per edge is assumed. In such a case, the spectrum can be only obtained for $`\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_{\text{max}}=\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }=1275`$ and, for these $`\mathrm{}`$ values we observe that: (a) a systematic effect appears again, (b) the maxima and minima of $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ are again associated

to the minima and maxima in $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively, and (c) after subtraction of the systematic deviations, the residual deviations are very similar to those of the bottom panel of Fig. 3, as it should occur if such deviations are due to the unaltered partial coverage.

From the above considerations it follows that –after estimating and eliminating systematic effects due to pixelisation– the spectrum extracted from fifty $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ maps is very accurate for $`100<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_{\text{max}}`$.

The above study about the REPC and the pixelisation effect has been repeated using the HEALPIX package (see Sect. 3). Two polar regions have been considered in each simulation ($`f_{\text{sky}}0.39`$). The pixel size is $`\mathrm{\Delta }3.435`$; hence, we work with the same total sky coverage as in the case of squared patches, but with a different $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ value compatible with HEALPIX. Results from two independent simulations are presented in Fig. 4. In the top panel, the solid and dashed lines show the spectra obtained from these two simulations. These lines are almost indistinguishable and, consequently, they deviate almost the same with respect to the dotted line (true spectrum). The relative deviations (residual deviations) defined above are given in the middle (bottom) panel. Residual deviations are similar to those obtained using patches, which is not surprising because the same sky coverage ($`f_{\text{sky}}0.39`$) has been assumed in both cases. Using simulations with 20 polar regions (sky coverage enhanced by a factor ten), we have verified that the residual deviations reduce by a factor $`10^{1/2}`$. We have also used two polar regions with ($`f_{\text{sky}}0.39`$) and a greater pixel size $`\mathrm{\Delta }=6.87`$ to get comparable residual deviations. In short, using HEALPIX and polar regions (where the pixel shapes are more irregular), the same qualitative results as in the case of squared patches have been obtained: (1) the pixelisation effect appears to be very systematic, (2) the residual deviations correspond to the REPC and, (3) the pixelisation effect and the REPC (residual deviations) can be easily disentangled. In next Sections, only methods based on squared patches are used.

### 4.2 Asymmetric non-rotating beam

The effect due to beam asymmetry is first estimated in the absence of rotation. Maps are smoothed with both the elliptical beam (which is oriented in the same way everywhere) and its circular associated one (see Sect. 2). These beams lead to different averages at each node and, consequently, they produce different alterations of the true angular power spectrum. Results are presented in Fig. 5, whose top (middle) panel corresponds to maps with 256 (128) nodes per edge. In these panels, the spectra are only shown in the $`\mathrm{}`$ interval where the differences among them are more relevant: $`\mathrm{}>1000`$ ($`\mathrm{}>360`$) for 256 nodes (128 nodes). The solid line gives the spectrum after smoothing with the spherical associated beam (which is denoted $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ in this Section). The dotted and dashed lines give the spectra obtained from two independent 50-simulations after smoothing with the nonrotating asymmetric beam (these spectra are denoted $`C_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ along this Section). These two lines are very similar and, consequently, they deviate almost the same with respect to the solid line. This means that the effect due to asymmetry (without rotation) is a very systematic one. The relative deviations between $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ and between $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ measure the effect of beam asymmetry without rotation. These deviations are displayed in the bottom panel of Fig. 5, where curves I and II (III and IV) correspond to the $`C_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ spectra displayed in the top (middle) panel. For the $`256\times 256`$ pixelisation (top panel), the deviations are smaller than $`8`$ % all along the interval (100, $`\mathrm{}_{\text{max}}`$), whereas for the $`128\times 128`$ pixelisation (middle panel), these deviations are greater than $`8`$ % for $`\mathrm{}>700`$, reaching values close to $`20`$ % near $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_{\text{max}}`$. There is a dependence on the pixelisation in the sense that, the smaller the pixel size the smaller the relative deviations (in the part of the spectrum common to both pixelisations). Curves I and II are very similar, and the same occurs with curves III and IV, which means that the effect under consideration is actually systematic. If the systematic effect is subtracted as in Sect. 4.1; namely, if the quantities $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$, the corrected spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{}}`$, and the residual deviations are calculated, these last deviations are very similar to those showed in the bottom panel of Fig. 3, (associated to the REPC in Sect. 4.1); they are oscillations having amplitudes of a few per cent. Indeed, when 500-simulations are considered, the amplitude of the residual deviations appear divided by $`10^{1/2}`$ as it is expected in the case of any deviation due to partial coverage (see Eq. (5)). Finally, the deviations between $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ (or $`C_{\mathrm{}}^2`$) decrease as the assumed level of beam asymmetry does.

In Fig. 6, these deviations are shown for the $`256\times 256`$ pixelisation and different elliptical beams. All these beams have $`\sigma _\varphi =10^{}`$, whereas $`\sigma _\theta `$ takes on the values $`6^{}`$, $`7^{}`$, $`8^{}`$, and $`9^{}`$. The decreasing has been also tested for the $`128\times 128`$ pixelisation but no Figure is presented by the sake of briefness.

### 4.3 Asymmetric rotating beam

Various types of rotation strategies –of the asymmetric beam– are now introduced with the essential aim of estimating the rotation effects on the resulting angular power spectra. Of course, these effects are deviations with respect to the spectrum obtained –for the same asymmetric beam– in the absence of rotation ($`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ quantities in this Section). Two kinds of rotation strategies are considered: in the first one, the beam orientation in each pixel is that corresponding to a beam that does not rotate around its centre, but it describes a big circle on the sky with and aperture angle of $`85^{}`$. This first case mimics PLANCK observational strategy and it is hereafter named Systematic Rotation (SR); in the second strategy, the angle defining the beam orientation in each pixel is assumed to be a random uniformly distributed variable; hereafter, Random Rotation (RR). In each case, the rotating beam smoothes fifty $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ regions of the sky which are distributed without overlapping and with random orientations. In this Section, $`C_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ stand for two spectra obtained from independent 50-simulations after a smoothing based on one of the above rotation strategies (in each case, this strategy must be explicitly chosen).

Each of the fifty $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ regions is smoothed only one time with the asymmetric rotating beam. That is a good procedure for experiments where the beam orientation varies from pixel to pixel (according to SR and RR strategies), but measurements are always performed with the same orientation in each pixel. Results are displayed in Fig. 7, where left (right) panel corresponds to SR (RR) strategy. Left and right panels have the same structure, which is identical to that of Fig. 5; hence, on account of the definitions of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`C_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ given in this Section, the meaning of each line (and mark type) is known and we can begin with the necessary discussion. Top panels ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=4.7^{}`$) show very different behaviours for $`\mathrm{}>1600`$; while the RR produces an important deviation of the dotted and dashed lines (two independent simulations) with respect to the solid one (no rotation) for $`\mathrm{}>1600`$, the SR does not produces such a deviation. The deviations are described by quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$, which are displayed in curves I and II (bottom panel). Although these curves correspond to two independent 50-simulations, they are very similar, which means that the effect under consideration is very systematic; in fact, the residual deviations (after subtraction of the systematic effect) are of a few percent as in Sect. 4.1 (see the bottom panel of Fig. 3).

Middle panels show that, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=9.4^{}`$), SR and RR produce similar effects in all the interval (100, $`\mathrm{}_{\text{max}}`$), where $`\mathrm{}_{\text{max}}=1275`$. For these $`\mathrm{}`$ values, top panels also show similar effects for SR and RR. Relative errors are given in curves III and IV of the bottom panels. The effect is again a systematic one and the residual deviations has the same characteristics as in the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4.7^{}`$ (top panels), which is easily understood taken into account that top and middle panels correspond to the same partial coverage.

Finally, a pair of numerical experiments whose results are not displayed in Figures: (i) we have increased the coverage using 500-simulations and the main effect is that the new spectra are very similar to those of Fig. 7, but they have much smaller high frequency oscillations (all the curves are much more smooth), which is associated to the decreasing of the residual deviations (the same behaviour have been already found in Sects. 4.1 and 4.2), and (ii) in the second experiment, each of the fifty $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ regions have been smoothed $`N_\text{c}`$ times. Now, the orientation varies from pixel to pixel in each smoothing (according to SR and RR strategies) and, furthermore, the orientation changes inside a given pixel from smoothing to smoothing. Thus, we account for the fact that, in the framework of some experiments (PLANCK mission), each pixel is observed $`N_\text{c}`$ times with different orientations. For the SR strategy (which is similar to that of PLANCK), the minimum $`N_\text{c}`$ value is taken to be equal to the entire part of the number $`N_\text{c}`$ estimated in Sect. 1; hence, we take $`N_\text{c}=3`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4.7^{}`$ and $`N_\text{c}=6`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=9.4^{}`$; we also take the values $`N_\text{c}=30`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4.7^{}`$) and $`N_\text{c}=60`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=9.4^{}`$) in order to consider the existence of multiple detectors in current or future experiments. In the case of the RR strategy, we take the same $`N_\text{c}`$-values. Even for the greatest $`N_\text{c}`$ values, no appreciable differences are observed with respect to the case $`N_\text{c}=1`$. The same residual deviations and high frequency oscillations appear in all the cases; this result is not surprising taking into account that: (1) the partial coverage is that of a 50-simulation whatever the $`N_\text{c}`$ value may be and, consequently, the residual deviations do not decrease as we smooth the same 50-simulation various times and, (2) the effect produced by beam rotation is a systematic one which is obtained very accurately from the first smoothing of the 50-simulation. This means that, if a second smoothing is performed, the resulting spectrum must be very similar to the first one, and the average spectrum should be also almost identical to that of each smoothing (with no cancellation of the contribution due to the REPC); this means that, if the coverage is large (very systematic deviations), the $`N_\text{c}`$ value is irrelevant.

### 4.4 Including galactic foregrounds

In previous Sections, the effects produced by beam asymmetry and rotation have been described in detail for 50-simulations of the CMB signal. These effects appear to be rather small and very systematic. Is that due to the homogeneous and isotropic statistical character of the CMB temperature distribution?

What happens with other types of distributions? The CMB is contaminated by galactic and extragalactic foregrounds which are not homogeneous and isotropic statistical fields and, consequently, the following question arises: what can we say about asymmetry and rotation effects in the presence of the most important galactic foregrounds? Are these effects very different from those estimated in previous Sections?

The galaxy produces an unique temperature distribution on the sky at a given frequency, which must be known (from observations) before possible subtraction. We are interested in a frequency channel involving small galactic contamination. The chosen frequency is 100 GHz. We have used synchrotron and dust maps of the full sky, which were taken from ESA (the maps and their technical description are freely available at astro.estec.esa.nl). These maps were designed by G. Giardino and P. Fosalba and they have HEALPIX structure and a pixel size $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1.7^{}`$. Using these maps and an appropriate smoothing, we have built up one hundred and fifty $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ maps with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4.7^{}`$ and the same number of maps with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=9.4^{}`$.

50-Simulations of the CMB signal are obtained as in previous Sections, and groups of fifty $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ maps with the galactic foregrounds are appropriately selected (see below); then, each of the $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ CMB maps is superimposed to one of the $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ foreground maps to get a 50f-simulation (which includes the CMB signal plus synchrotron and dust from the Milky Way). Then, the study of previous sections is performed on the resulting 50f-simulation.

In order to get $`18^{}\times 18^{}`$ maps with the foregrounds, a cube is inscribed in the celestial sphere in such a way that the centres of the faces are distributed as follows: (i) centres 1 and 2 point towards the centre of the Milky Way and its opposite direction, centres 3 and 4 point toward two opposite directions which are contained in the galactic plane and are orthogonal to the direction joining centres 1 and 2 and, (iii) centres 5 and 6 point towards the two galactic poles. Each of the six faces is divided in 25 regions, in such a way that after projection on the sphere, our 150 maps are almost squared and have similar areas and a small overlapping. The 25 maps corresponding to the face with centre at $`i`$ are hereafter named the 25-group $`G_i`$.

The first 50f-simulation is built up using the 25-groups $`G_5`$ and $`G_6`$ localized around the galactic poles. The solid line in the top panel of Fig. 8 gives the spectrum corresponding to this 50f-simulation, which can be compared with the two spectra showed in the pointed and dashed lines, which correspond to two independent 50-simulations without galactic foregrounds. No beam has been considered at all. The small differences among these curves appear as a result of the REPC, and the galactic contribution contained in the continuous line is hidden by this dominant effect.

The second (third) 50f-simulation includes the 25-groups $`G1`$ and $`G2`$ ($`G3`$ and $`G4`$); hence, the second (third) 50f-simulation includes the Milky Way centre (a part of the galactic disk). The effect of the galactic foregrounds is not negligible. That can be seen in the middle (second 50f-simulation) and bottom (third 50f-simulation) panels of Fig. 8, where the spectra containing the galactic foregrounds (solid line) are very different from the spectra corresponding to 50-simulations of pure CMB (dotted and dashed lines). No beam has been used.

The same asymmetric beam and rotational strategies as in previous sections have been used to smooth each 50f-simulation. Results are presented in Fig. 9. Left (right) panels corresponds to the second (third) 50f-simulation. In all the panels, the solid (dotted) line shows results from $`256\times 256`$ ($`128\times 128`$) simulations. All the panels give relative deviations between two spectra, which are obtained after smoothing with: (i) the non rotating beam and the circular associated one in the top panels, (ii) the non rotating beam and the rotating one with SR strategy in the middle panel and, (iii) the non rotating beam and the rotating one with RR strategy in the bottom panels. The top panel measures the effect of beam asymmetry without rotation, this panel should be compared with the bottom panel of Fig. 5, which shows the same effect in the absence of galactic foregrounds. The middle (bottom) panel gives the effect due to SR (RR) strategy and, consequently, this panel must be compared with the left (right) bottom panel of Fig. 7. The comparisons show some appreciable differences produced by the presence of significant galactic foregrounds (see Fig. 8). In Fig. 9, the high frequency oscillations are most important that in the Figures used for comparison; particularly, for large $`\mathrm{}`$ values. That could be due to the presence of oscillations in the angular power spectrum of the galactic foregrounds (see Fig. 8 for the same $`\mathrm{}`$ values). For small and intermediate $`\mathrm{}`$ values, the foreground contributions to the angular power spectrum are significant (see Fig. 8) and, consequently, there are also appreciable differences between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ deviations displayed in Fig. 9 and those of the Figures used for comparison (without foregrounds). In spite of the fact that the assumed foregrounds are not homogeneous and isotropic statistical fields, the mentioned differences are not very large. They are more important in the case of the left panels, in which, directions pointing close to the Milky Way centre have been considered. For the first 50f-simulation (galactic poles) the $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_{\mathrm{}}/C_{\mathrm{}}`$ deviations are not presented in Figures because no appreciable differences appear in this case with respect to 50-simulations without foregrounds.

## 5 Discussion

In the absence of beam, the pixelisation effect and the REPC have been disentangled to conclude that pixelisation produces very systematic deviations with respect to the true angular power spectrum. This conclusion has been obtained using two very different methods for simulations and data analysis (see Sect. 3)

We have studied the deviations in the angular power spectrum produced by the rotation of an asymmetric beam. Two rotation strategies have been considered. One of them (SR) is similar to that of future experiments as PLANCK. The second strategy (RR) is very different from SR, and it has been introduced for comparisons. Maps with and without the dust and synchrotron radiations from the Milky Way (at $`100GHz`$) have been considered. In Sect. 4, the rotation effects corresponding to different cases have been described and compared, now let us present some general comments.

If radiation from the galaxy is not considered, the most important conclusion is that rotation effects are very systematic for any rotation strategy and $`f_{\text{sky}}=0.39`$. They are so systematic that we can subtract the deviations appeared in a 50-simulation, from the spectrum of another one, to recover very well the spectrum corresponding to the nonrotating beam (except for small deviations which seem to be essentially due to the REPC). Furthermore, the resulting effects depend on the rotation strategy, in particular, for large $`\mathrm{}`$ values and, consequently, they must be estimated –using simulations– in each particular case.

Radiation from the galaxy –which can be seen as a non homogeneous an non isotropic statistical field– contributes significantly to the observable signal, except in the case of the polar galactic regions (G5–G6). In the G1–G2 and G3–G4 cases, the effect of beam rotation is significantly, but not dramatically, different from that obtained in the absence of foregrounds.

After the deviations in the angular power spectrum due to beam asymmetry and rotation have been estimated and characterized (the main goal of this paper) and, after proving that beam effects are very systematic, some practical applications can be easily outlined.

Take the CMB power spectrum corresponding to a certain theoretical model of structure formation in a given universe, take also a model for the foregrounds, a pixelisation, the asymmetric beam for a given frequency, and the rotation strategy of an experiment with a large enough coverage (i.e. PLANCK), and then, use a simulation –as the 50-simulations of this paper or similar– to find the spectrum $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{^{\text{CMB}}}`$ after smoothing with the asymmetric rotating beam. Repeat the simulation a large enough number of times and verify that the resulting $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{^{\text{CMB}}}`$ spectra are similar in all cases (systematic character). Finally, use the deviations among the resulting spectra to assign an error bar to $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{^{\text{CMB}}}`$. Use these data –obtained from simulations– to answer the following question: Is the theoretical model under consideration compatible with the observational data from the experiment? In order to find the answer, the observational data could be analyzed as follows: (i) Eliminate a part of the instrumental noise using an appropriate method (wavelets, Fourier transform, and so on), (ii) Separate components (CMB, synchrotron from our galaxy, and so on) taking into account the frequency dependences, but keeping beam smoothings unaltered (usually, the beams are eliminated at this stage under simplifying assumptions and without considering rotation), (iii) use the map of the CMB component –which has already been separated from foregrounds– to extract the experimental spectra, $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{^{\text{CMB}}}(exp)`$, and finally (iv) compare $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{^{\text{CMB}}}`$ with $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{^{\text{CMB}}}(exp)`$ and study if these spectra can be identified taking into account the error bars. If they can, the theoretical model is compatible with observations. Note that –at the last step of the process– we compare a simulated spectrum with an observational one, and note also that both spectra are obtained from maps which have been smoothed with the same rotating asymmetric beam; hence, the proposed method for data analysis includes beam rotation, treating it (after verification) as the source of a very systematic effect. Of course, this method has been only outlined, and much more work would be necessary before implementation.

###### Acknowledgements.

Part of this work was supported by the Spanish MCyT (project AYA2000-2045). Some calculations were carried out on a SGI Origin 2000s at the Centro de Informática de la Universidad de Valencia. We wish to thank an anonymous referee for constructive comments.


format: text

text:
# Heterogeneous aging in spin glasses

\[

## Abstract

We introduce a set of theoretical ideas that form the basis for an analytical framework capable of describing nonequilibrium dynamics in glassy systems. We test the resulting scenario by comparing its predictions with numerical simulations of short-range spin glasses. Local fluctuations and responses are shown to be connected by a generalized local out-of-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation. Scaling relationships are uncovered for the slow evolution of heterogeneities at all time scales.

\]

Very slow equilibration and sluggish dynamics are characteristics shared by disordered spin systems and by other glassy systems such as structural and polymeric glasses. The origin of this dynamic arrest near and below the glass transition is currently poorly understood. Studies of the time evolution of many quantities, such as the remanent magnetization, the dielectric constant, or the incoherent correlation function, have shown that below the glass transition the system falls out of equilibrium . This is evidenced by the presence of aging, i.e. the dependence of physical properties on the time since the quench into the glassy state, and also by the breakdown of the equilibrium relations dictated by the fluctuation dissipation theorem (fdt.

Most analytical progress in understanding non-equilibrium glassy dynamics has been achieved in mean-field fully connected spin models , while numerical simulations have addressed both structural glasses  and short-range spin glass models . Until recently, however, experimental, numerical, and analytical studies have mainly focused on global quantities, such as global correlations and responses, which do not directly probe local relaxation mechanisms. Local regions that behave differently from the bulk, or dynamic heterogeneities, could be crucial to understand the full temporal evolution, and have received considerable experimental  and numerical  attention lately. However, no clear theoretical picture has yet emerged to describe the local nonequilibrium dynamics of the glassy phase.

Here we introduce such a theoretical framework, and test its predictions via numerical simulations of a short-range spin glass model. We show that local correlations and responses are linked, and we find scaling properties for the heterogeneities that connect the evolution of the system at different times. This universality may provide a general basis for a realistic physical understanding of glassy dynamics in a wide range of systems.

The framework that we propose is motivated by an analogy  between aging dynamics and the well-known statics of Heisenberg magnets. For concreteness, we test its predictions against Monte Carlo simulations on the prototypical spin glass model, the three dimensional Edwards-Anderson (3DEA) model, $`H=_{ij}J_{ij}s_is_j`$, where $`s_i=\pm 1`$ and the nearest-neighbor couplings are $`J_{ij}=\pm 1`$ with equal probability. We argue that two dynamical local quantities, the coarse-grained local correlation $`C_r(t,t_w)\frac{1}{V}_{iV_r}\overline{s}_i(t)\overline{s}_i(t_w)`$ and integrated response $`\chi _r(t,t_w)\frac{1}{N_f}_{k=1}^{N_f}\frac{1}{V}_{iV_r}\frac{\overline{s}_i(t)|_{h^{(k)}}\overline{s}_i(t)}{h_i^{(k)}}`$ are essential to understand the mechanisms controlling the dynamics of glassy systems. The spins are represented by $`s_i`$ in the absence of an applied field and by $`s_i|_{h^{(k)}}`$ in the presence of one. $`\overline{s}_i(t)\frac{1}{\tau }_{t^{}=t\tau }^{t^{}=t1}s_i(t^{})`$ is the result of coarse-graining the spin over a small time-window \[typically, $`\tau =1000`$ Monte Carlo steps (MCs)\]. $`V_r`$ is a cubic box with volume $`V`$ centered at the point $`r`$. By taking $`V`$ to be the volume of the whole system, the bulk or global correlation $`C(t,t_w)`$ and response $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ are recovered. Two generic times after preparation are represented by $`t_w`$ and $`t`$, with $`t_wt`$. When the system is not in equilibrium, time dependences do not reduce to a dependence on the time difference $`tt_w`$. We measure a staggered local integrated linear response by applying a bimodal random field on each site $`h_i^{(k)}=\pm h`$ during the time interval $`[t_w,t]`$. Linear response holds for the values of $`h`$ that we use. The index $`k=1,\mathrm{},N_f`$ labels different realizations of the perturbing field. We use random initial conditions. The thermal histories, i.e. the sequences of spins and random numbers used in the MC test, are the same with and without a perturbing field.

In a disordered spin model, the coarse-grained local magnetization typically vanishes, but the local correlation is non-trivial. Averaged over disorder and the thermal history, this correlator defines the Edwards-Anderson parameter $`q_{\mathrm{ea}}`$ when $`t_w\mathrm{}`$, and $`tt_w\mathrm{}`$ subsequently. Can we detect the growth of local order  by analyzing the evolution of the local correlator, as one easily can for a system undergoing ferromagnetic domain growth? In Fig. 1 we show the local correlation for fixed $`t_w`$ and $`t`$ on a 2D cut of the 3DEA model. Regions with large values of $`C_r`$ are intertwined with regions with a small value of $`C_r`$ as shown by the contour levels. This behavior persists for all $`t_w`$ and $`t`$ that we can reach with the simulation and a more sophisticated analysis is necessary to identify a growing order in this system.

It is clear from Fig. 1 that different sites have distinct dynamics. Analysis of the local correlation for fixed $`t_w`$ as a function of $`t`$ shows that in general the relaxation is non-exponential – this is often ascribed to the presence of heterogeneous dynamics. How can one characterize the heterogeneous dynamics and determine its origin? We argue that relevant quantities are the probability distribution (pdf) of the local correlation, $`\rho (C_r(t,t_w))`$, the pdf of the local integrated response, $`\rho (\chi _r(t,t_w))`$, and the joint pdf $`\rho (C_r(t,t_w),\chi _r(t,t_w))`$ and we start by discussing the latter.

The fdt relates the correlation of spontaneous fluctuations to the integrated linear response of a chosen observable (e.g. $`C_r(t,t_w)`$ and $`\chi _r(t,t_w)`$ averaged over thermal histories) at equilibrium. Glassy systems modify the fdt in a particular way first obtained analytically for mean-field models , later verified numerically in a number of realistic models , and more recently tested experimentally . A parametric plot of the bulk integrated response, $`\chi (t,t_w)`$, against the bulk correlation, $`C(t,t_w)`$, for fixed and long waiting-time $`t_w`$ and using $`t`$ as a parameter, approaches a non-trivial limit, $`\chi (C)`$, represented by the crosses in Fig. 2(b). The curve has a straight section, for which $`tt_wt_w`$ and the correlation decays from $`1`$ to $`q_{\mathrm{ea}}`$ with a slope $`1/T`$ as found with the equilibrium fdt. Beyond this point, as $`t`$ increases towards infinity, the curve separates from the fdt line. Now, consider each lattice site for fixed times $`t_w`$ and $`t`$. If we plot points for the pairs $`(C_r(t,t_w),\chi _r(t,t_w))`$, where will they lie?

When $`t_w\mathrm{}`$ and $`tt_wt_w`$, all local correlators satisfy the fdt strictly once averaged over thermal histories, since the magnitude of local deviations from the fdt has an upper bound . We have checked that $`C_r(t,t_w)`$ and $`\chi _r(t,t_w)`$ obey the fdt for an individual thermal history apart from small fluctuations \[see Fig. 2(b)\].

For the regime of widely separated times we propose an analysis similar in spirit to the one that applies to the low energy excitations of the Heisenberg model. There, the free energy for the coarse grained magnetization $`\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is $`F=d^dr[(\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{}{r}))^2+V(|\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{}{r})|)]`$. A spontaneous symmetry breaking signals the transition into the ordered phase $`\stackrel{}{m}=\stackrel{}{m}_00`$, in which the order parameter has both a uniform length (the radius of the bottom of the effective potential $`V(|\stackrel{}{m}|)`$), and a uniform direction. $`F`$ is invariant under uniform rotations $`\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{}{r})\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{}{r})`$. The lowest energy excitations (spin waves) are obtained from the ground state by leaving the length of the vector invariant and applying a slowly varying rotation to it: $`\stackrel{}{m}(\stackrel{}{r})=(\stackrel{}{r})\stackrel{}{m}_0`$. These are massless transverse fluctuations (Goldstone modes). In contrast, longitudinal fluctuations, which change the magnitude of the magnetization vector, are massive and energetically costly.

Let us now apply the same kind of analysis to the dynamics of the spin glass. Here, the relevant fluctuating quantities are the coarse grained local correlations $`C_r`$ and their associated local integrated responses $`\chi _r`$. In Ref.  we derived an effective action for these functions that becomes invariant under a global time-reparametrization $`th(t)`$ in the aging regime. This symmetry leaves the bulk relation, $`\chi (C)`$, invariant. A uniform reparametrization is analogous to a global rotation in the Heisenberg magnet, and the curve $`\chi (C)`$ is analogous to the surface where $`V(|\stackrel{}{m}|)`$ is minimized. Hence, we expect that for fixed long times $`t_w`$ and $`t`$ in the aging regime, the local fluctuations in $`C_r`$ and $`\chi _r`$ should be given by smooth spatial variations in the time reparametrization, $`h_r(t)`$, i.e. $`C_r(t,t_w)=C_{\mathrm{sp}}(h_r(t),h_r(t_w))C(h_r(t),h_r(t_w))`$ where $`C_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ is the global correlation at the saddle-point level that in the numerical studies we approximate by the actual global correlation $`C`$, and similarly for $`\chi _r`$. These transverse fluctuations are soft Goldstone modes. Longitudinal fluctuations, which move away from the $`\chi (C)`$ curve, are massive and penalized. This implies the first testable prediction of our theoretical framework: the pairs $`(C_r,\chi _r)`$ should follow the curve $`\chi (C)`$ for the bulk integrated response against the bulk correlation.

In Fig. 2, we test this prediction by plotting the distribution of pairs $`(C_r,\chi _r)`$. We find, as expected, that for long times the dispersion in the longitudinal direction (i.e. away from the bulk $`\chi (C)`$ curve) is much weaker than in the transverse direction (i.e. along the bulk $`\chi (C)`$ curve). In the coarse grained aging limit we expect the former to disappear while the latter should remain. (This limit corresponds to the way actual measurements are performed: the thermodynamic limit is taken first to eliminate finite size effects and undesired equilibration; then the large $`t_w`$ limit is taken to reach the asymptotic regime; finally, the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$ serves to eliminate fluctuations through the coarse graining process; in the figure we used a large volume $`V=13^3`$ to approach the latter limit though we found a similar qualitative behavior for smaller $`V`$.) Figure 2(a) displays the joint pdf $`\rho (C_r,\chi _r)`$ for a pair of times $`(t_w,t)`$ that are far away from each other. Figure 2(b) shows the projection of a set of contour levels for $`t_w`$ fixed and six values of $`t`$. Even though the data for each contour corresponds to a single pair of times $`(t_w,t)`$, the fluctuations span a range of values that, for the bulk quantities, would require a whole family of pairs $`(t_w,t)`$. This reveals that the aging process is non-uniform across a finite-range model.

We now turn our attention to a more detailed examination of the time dependences in the local dynamics. A good $`t/t_w`$ scaling that breaks down only for very large values of the subsequent time $`tt_w`$ has been obtained for the bulk thermoremanent magnetization experimentally  and for the bulk correlation numerically  once the stationary ($`tt_wt_w`$) part of the relaxation is subtracted, as suggested by the solution to mean-field models . For systems that display this particular dependence on $`t/t_w`$ for the bulk correlator, a second prediction can be extracted from our theoretical framework: the distribution $`\rho (C_r(t,t_w))`$ should only depend on the ratio $`t/t_w`$. Even further, if the bulk correlator has a simple power law form $`C_{\mathrm{sp}}(t,t_w)q_{\mathrm{ea}}(t/t_w)^\rho `$, an approximate treatment of fluctuations leads to a rescaling and collapse of $`\rho (C_r(t,t_w))`$ even for pairs of times with different ratios $`t/t_w`$.

Since we are dealing with ratios of times, it is convenient to define $`h_r(t)=e^{\phi _r(t)}`$, so that $`C_r(t,t_w)=C_{\mathrm{sp}}(h_r(t)/h_r(t_w))=C_{\mathrm{sp}}(e^{\phi _r(t)\phi _r(t_w)})`$. Therefore the statistics of local correlations are determined from the statistical distribution of distances between two “surfaces”, $`\phi _r(t)\phi _r(t_w)`$. In this form, a dynamic theory of short-range spin glasses is not different from a theory of fluctuating geometries or elasticity. We propose a simple reparametrization invariant effective action for $`\phi _r(t)=\mathrm{ln}t+\delta \phi _r(t)`$, expanding around $`\delta \phi _r(t)=0`$, with no zeroth or first order term in $`\delta \phi _r(t)`$. We assure that the effective action is reparametrization invariant by taking one time derivative for each time variable. Thus

$$S=\frac{q_{\mathrm{ea}}\rho }{2}d^dr_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t^{}\dot{\phi }_r(t)\dot{\phi }_r(t^{})e^{\rho |\phi _r(t)\phi _r(t^{})|}.$$

where the last factor penalizes fast time variations of $`\phi _r`$ and the $``$ ensure that spatial variations are smooth. Expanding to lowest order in $`\delta \phi _r(t)`$ yields $`\phi _r(t)\phi _r(t_w)=\mathrm{ln}(t/t_w)+\delta \phi _r(t)\delta \phi _r(t_w)\mathrm{ln}(t/t_w)+(a+b\mathrm{ln}(t/t_w))^\alpha X_r(t,t_w),`$ where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are determined by the magnitude of the fluctuations, and $`X_r(t,t_w)`$ is a random variable drawn from a time-independent pdf that governs the fluctuations of the surfaces. In our approximation, which describes uncorrelated drift between two surfaces (i.e. a random walk), $`\alpha =1/2`$.

Figure 3 displays $`\rho (C_r(t,t_w))`$ for several choices of the ratio $`t/t_w`$. Interestingly enough, all the curves have a noticeable peak at a value of $`C_r`$ that is independent of $`t`$ and $`t_w`$, with a height that decreases significantly with increasing ratio $`t/t_w`$. The form derived above for $`\phi _r(t)\phi _r(t_w)`$ explains the approximate collapse of $`\rho (C_r(t,t_w))`$ for a fixed ratio $`t/t_w`$, as shown in Fig. 3 for a small value of $`V`$. (Due to mixing with the stationary part, the $`t/t_w`$ scaling worsens when $`V`$ increases.) Barely noticeable in Fig. 3 is a slow drift of the curves for increasing values of $`t_w`$ at fixed ratio $`t/t_w`$ such that the height of the peak decreases while the area below the tail at lower values of $`C_r`$ increases. This trend leads to the “sub-aging” scaling observed for bulk quantities .

Furthermore, the above expression for $`\phi _r(t)\phi _r(t_w)`$ implies that the pdfs for all of the $`28`$ pairs of times $`(t,t_w)`$ should collapse by rescaling with two parameters: $`\mathrm{ln}C_{typ}`$ and $`s`$, corresponding respectively to the nonrandom part in $`\phi _r(t)\phi _r(t_w)`$ and to the width of the random part (see Fig. 4). The scaling curve itself gives the pdf for $`X_r(t,t_w)`$. The rather good collapse of the curves should be improved by further knowledge of $`C_{\mathrm{sp}}`$.

A local separation of time-scales leads to a reparametrization invariant action  with a soft mode that controls the aging dynamics. Our framework, based on the analogy with Heisenberg magnets, predicts the existence of a local relationship between $`C_r`$ and $`\chi _r`$, expressed by $`\rho (C_r(t,t_w),\chi _r(t,t_w))`$ being sharply concentrated along the global $`\chi (C)`$ in the $`(C,\chi )`$ plane. Under additional assumptions, we obtained the scaling behavior of $`\rho (C_r(t,t_w))`$ for all $`(t,t_w)`$. Our simulations both confirm these predictions and uncover striking regularities in the geometry of local fluctuations . These results open the way to a systematic study of local dynamic fluctuations in glassy systems and they suggest a number of exciting avenues for future research. On the theoretical side, this framework could be applied to a large variety of glassy models, including those without explicit disorder. More interesting still are the experimental tests suggested by this work. For instance, the local correlations of colloidal glasses are accessible experimentally with the confocal microscopy technique . Similarly, cantilever measurements of noise spectra  allow probing of local fluctuations in the glassy phase of polymer melts. These are just two examples: any experiment that measures local fluctuations in glassy systems is a potential candidate for testing our ideas.

We thank D. Huse and J. Kurchan for useful discussions. Supported in part by the NSF (grant DMR-98-76208) and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Supercomputing time was allocated by the Boston University SCF.


text:
# Mass formula for 𝑇=0 and 𝑇=1 ground states of 𝑁=𝑍 nuclei.

## I Introduction

The investigation of the behavior of nuclei under extreme conditions has become an important tool to reveal new facets of nuclear matter. In particular, nuclei at the frontiers of the valley of stability constitute nowadays the most active research area of nuclear structure physics. With the advent of new radioactive beam facilities it is now possible to produce exotic nuclei that may have occurred naturally in the interior of exploding supernovas . In short, extremely proton- and neutron-rich nuclei are now within experimental reach. Of specific interest to the present paper are the considerable experimental efforts to study nuclei with roughly the same number of neutrons and protons, $`NZ`$.

On the theoretical side, the challenge is to investigate whether models, developed for—and using the phenomenology of—stable nuclei, can still be applied in these new, as yet uncharted regions and, if not, to propose new approaches to do so based on the data available up to now. One of the main open questions is the validity of the nuclear shell model with its traditional magic numbers and of the usual treatment of the residual interaction among the valence nucleons .

The nuclear mass is a property of quintessential importance as it directly determines the stability of a nucleus. There are several theoretical approaches that reproduce the systematics of masses of nuclei and it is worthwhile to mention here two of them. The Extended Thomas-Fermi plus Strutinsky Integral  (ETFSI) is a high-speed approximation to the Hartree-Fock (HF) method with pairing correlations taken into account through BCS theory. In earlier versions a Wigner term was not included and this has been claimed to be the reason for the systematic calculated underbinding by about 2 MeV for even-even $`N=Z`$ nuclei . This effect persists for $`N=Z`$ odd-odd systems and for $`N=Z\pm 1`$ odd-mass nuclei but with less prominence. The mass formula based on the Finite Range Droplet Model (FRDM)  starts from a sophisticated liquid drop mass formula to which microscopic corrections due to shell effects are added. Both approaches have comparable numbers of parameters (about 15) and make reliable predictions with impressive success. In the FRDM and also in a recent ETFSI calculation  a Wigner (correction) term is included that specifically deals with the peculiar behavior of binding energies of $`NZ`$ nuclei and has a cusp-like behavior for $`N=Z`$. This treatment is effective for known masses but, as the correction is entirely ad hoc, it has the drawback that an extrapolation to unknown nuclei can be dangerous. It is therefore of interest to develop models based on simple physical principles that can account for the behavior of nuclear masses at the $`NZ`$ line.

Many models have been used over the past years to investigate the structure of heavier $`NZ`$. We mention in particular recent applications of the Hartee-Fock-Bogolyubov (HFB) method that includes proton-neutron pairing correlations . This approach is tailor-made for the treatment of $`NZ`$ nuclei but has the drawback of the lack of particle-number projection. Shell-model calculations  are generally extremely successful in reproducing spectroscopic nuclear data but require large configuration space diagonalizations. In addition, no reliable theoretical procedure exists for deriving the monopole part of the residual interaction which hinders a comparison with measured nuclear binding energies. An algebraic approach , which has affinities with the one presented here, utilizes the concept of dynamical supersymmetry for the calculation of the binding energies in the $`sd`$ shell but does not go beyond it.

In this paper, the Interacting Boson Model (IBM)  in its isospin invariant version is applied to proton-rich $`NZ`$ nuclei. The goal is to obtain reliable estimates of binding energies of $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ ground states in self-conjugate ($`N=Z`$) nuclei based on the concept of dynamical symmetry. The mass formula proposed is relatively simple and contains terms with an intuitively understandable significance. A particular ingredient is its treatment of the competition between isoscalar and isovector pairing.

## II An IBM-4 mass formula

The Interacting Boson Model in its original version (IBM-1)  successfully describes collective aspects of nuclei through the use of $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons which are thought to approximate pairs of valence nucleons coupled to angular momentum 0 and 2. No distinction is made between neutron and proton bosons. Whenever the difference between the neutron and proton fluids is thought to play a role, one is forced to use more elaborate versions of the IBM. The neutron-proton interacting boson model, or IBM-2, was introduced mainly to provide a microscopic foundation to the model . It uses as building blocks $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons constructed from neutron-neutron (nn) and proton-proton (pp) pairs solely. In the third and fourth versions of IBM, IBM-3 and IBM-4, the isospin quantum number is introduced in a natural way. In IBM-3 the entire isospin triplet $`T=1`$ is included, leading to nn, np, and pp pairs with $`T_z=+1,0,1`$ . The IBM-4 considers both $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ pairs; the $`T=1`$ bosons are assigned an intrinsic spin $`S=0`$ while $`T=0`$ bosons carry an intrinsic spin $`S=1`$ . A justification of this choice is that the two-particle isospin-spin combinations $`(TS)=(10)`$ and $`(TS)=(01)`$ are lowest in energy and that they give rise to an SU(4) algebra which is the boson equivalent of Wigner’s supermultiplet algebra .

The mass region $`28NZ50`$ has a very rich structural behavior, presenting many aspects of nuclear motion. It is an ideal testing ground for various models since a proper description of the data relies on the interplay between $`T=0`$ as well as $`T=1`$ pairing and deformation-driving interactions. In addition, it is a region of intense experimental studies but with few experimental data available up to now.

Very recently, the IBM-4 was applied to the spectroscopy of exotic $`NZ`$ nuclei in the $`pf_{5/2}g_{9/2}`$ shell . In this approach the IBM-4 Hamiltonian is derived from a realistic shell-model Hamiltonian through a mapping carried out for $`A=58`$ and 60 nuclei. The boson energies and the boson-boson interactions are thus derived microscopically and no parameter enters the calculation (since the shell-model interaction is considered as an input). This microscopically derived Hamiltonian gives good results in 62Ga (when compared to the shell model) and predicts the energy spectra of heavier $`N=Z`$ nuclei (such 66As and 70Br). The approach is reasonably successful in obtaining a spectroscopy of low-spin states in $`NZ`$ nuclei. It makes use, however, of a complicated Hamiltonian and, moreover, calculations beyond 70Br seem difficult.

Prompted by these considerations, in particular the need for reliable binding energy predictions at the $`N=Z`$ line and the existence of a microscopically derived IBM-4 Hamiltonian, we propose here a simple mass formula in the context of IBM-4. In previous work  one of us introduced an algebraic Hamiltonian (which can be regarded as the $`s`$-boson channel of the general IBM-4 Hamiltonian of Ref. ) with the specific aim to study the competition between the isovector and isoscalar pairing modes in self-conjugate nuclei. The $`s`$ bosons do give rise only to the symmetric representation of $`\mathrm{U}_L(6)`$ but this approximation can be justified in even-even and odd-odd $`N=Z`$ nuclei (the only ones considered here) where this is indeed the favored U(6) representation .

These previous studies  suggest that the relevant terms in a simple IBM-4 mass formula must be taken from two different symmetry classifications:

$`\mathrm{U}(36)\left(\mathrm{U}_L(6)\mathrm{}\mathrm{SO}_L(3)\right)`$ (1)
$`\left(\mathrm{U}_{TS}(6)\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{SU}_{TS}(4)\\ \mathrm{U}_T(3)\mathrm{U}_S(3)\end{array}\right\}\mathrm{SO}_T(3)\mathrm{SO}_S(3)\right).`$ (4)
Due to the overall symmetry of the boson state under U(36), the $`\mathrm{U}_L(6)`$ and $`\mathrm{U}_{TS}(6)`$ representations have identical labels $`[N_1,\mathrm{},N_6]`$.

The terms chosen from (4) for the calculation of binding energies of $`N=Z`$ nuclei are the following. First, the linear and quadratic Casimir operators of $`\mathrm{U}_L(6)`$ are included. The total number of bosons, $`N`$, labels the symmetric representations of $`\mathrm{U}_L(6)`$ and, as a result, these Casimir operators take account of the bulk properties of the nucleus and lead to a smooth variation of the mass with particle number. The next two terms to be included are the quadratic Casimir operator of $`\mathrm{SU}_{TS}(4)`$ and the linear Casimir operator of $`\mathrm{U}_S(3)`$. In the $`L=0`$ channel considered here, these include the effects of $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ pairing interaction; $`\mathrm{SU}_{TS}(4)`$ implies equal $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ strengths while $`\mathrm{U}_S(3)`$ breaks this degeneracy by removing all non-scalar $`\mathrm{U}_S(3)`$ states from the low-energy spectrum. In Ref.  the quadratic Casimir operator of $`\mathrm{SU}_S(3)`$ was considered; here the linear Casimir operator of $`\mathrm{U}_S(3)`$ is preferred because it is shown since to be connected with the spin-orbit term in the mean field which breaks the isoscalar-isovector degeneracy in favor of isovector states . The final term considered is the quadratic Casimir operator of $`\mathrm{SO}_T(3)`$, $`T(T+1)`$, which is known to represent the nuclear symmetry and Wigner energies. In summary, the following Hamiltonian is taken:

$$\widehat{H}=E_0+\alpha \widehat{C}_1[\mathrm{U}_L(6)]+\beta \widehat{C}_2[\mathrm{U}_L(6)]+\gamma \widehat{C}_2[\mathrm{SU}_{TS}(4)]+\xi \widehat{C}_1[\mathrm{U}_S(3)]+\eta \widehat{C}_2[\mathrm{SO}_T(3)],$$
(5)
where $`E_0`$ is the energy of the doubly magic core, specific for a given mass region. Note the omission from (5) of operators associated with $`\mathrm{U}_{TS}(6)`$, $`\mathrm{U}_T(3)`$, and $`\mathrm{SO}_S(3)`$; these are not needed because their effect is equivalent to the corresponding operators of $`\mathrm{U}_L(6)`$, $`\mathrm{U}_S(3)`$, and $`\mathrm{SO}_T(3)`$.

All operators in (5) mutually commute, except for $`\widehat{C}_2[\mathrm{SU}_{TS}(4)]`$ and $`\widehat{C}_1[\mathrm{U}_S(3)]`$ and hence the solution of $`\widehat{H}`$ involves a numerical diagonalisation which is most conveniently done in the second basis in (4), labeled as $`|[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S`$. The matrix elements of $`\widehat{C}_2[\mathrm{SU}_{TS}(4)]`$ can be calculated analytically ,

$`V_{\lambda _T\lambda _S\lambda _T^{}\lambda _S^{}}^{NTS}`$ $``$ $`[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S|\widehat{C}_2[\mathrm{SU}_{ST}(4)]|[N](\lambda _T^{})T(\lambda _S^{})S,`$ (6)
$`V_{\lambda _T\lambda _S\lambda _T\lambda _S}^{NTS}`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda _T\lambda _S+3N+T(T+1)+S(S+1),`$ (7)
$`V_{\lambda _T\lambda _S\lambda _T2\lambda _S+2}^{NTS}`$ $`=`$ $`[(\lambda _TT)(\lambda _T+T+1)(\lambda _SS+2)(\lambda _S+S+3)]^{1/2},`$ (8)
$`V_{\lambda _T\lambda _S\lambda _T+2\lambda _S2}^{NTS}`$ $`=`$ $`[(\lambda _TT+2)(\lambda _T+T+3)(\lambda _SS)(\lambda _S+S+1)]^{1/2},`$ (9)
while the other operators are diagonal with eigenvalues given by

$`[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S|\widehat{C}_1[\mathrm{U}_L(6)]|[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S`$ $`=`$ $`N,`$ (10)
$`[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S|\widehat{C}_2[\mathrm{U}_L(6)]|[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S`$ $`=`$ $`N(N+5),`$ (11)
$`[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S|\widehat{C}_1[\mathrm{U}_S(3)]|[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _S,`$ (12)
$`[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S|\widehat{C}_2[\mathrm{SO}_T(3)]|[N](\lambda _T)T(\lambda _S)S`$ $`=`$ $`T(T+1).`$ (13)
## III Results

We first apply the mass formula to $`N=Z`$ nuclei in the $`sd`$ shell, from 16O to 40Ca, where the experimental masses are well known . The five parameters of the Hamiltonian (5) are adjusted to the binding energies of the lowest states with $`T=0`$ and those with $`T=1`$ of all even-even and odd-odd self-conjugate $`sd`$-shell nuclei. There are thus two data points per nucleus, which is crucial for a reliable determination of the parameters $`\gamma `$, $`\xi `$, and $`\eta `$. Binding energies are corrected for Coulomb effects according to the prescription given in . A drawback of the present formula is the occurrence of a discontinuity at mid-shell which is related to a change of core (from 16O to 40Ca). To avoid these mid-shells effects, two different fits are performed for each half of the shell, a first one for nuclei from 18F up to 28Si ($`N=6`$ bosons) and a second one (with 40Ca as a core) for nuclei from 38K down to 30P. In Table I the two parameter sets are given in the lines labeled ‘16O to 28Si’ and ‘30P to 40Ca’. The major difference between the two sets is the sign change in $`\alpha `$ which is required since in the first half $`N`$ counts the pairs of nucleons added to 16O while in the second half it counts the pairs subtracted from 40Ca. One also notes that $`\alpha `$ has a larger absolute value in first half than in the second: this must be so since, in the $`sd`$ shell, the binding energy per nucleon increases as the size of the nucleus grows. Furthermore, the parameters $`\gamma `$, $`\xi `$, and $`\eta `$ decrease (in absolute value), as a result of the average interaction strength which decreases with mass. Nevertheless, one notes that this decrease is stronger for $`\gamma `$ than it is for $`\xi `$, that is, the ratio $`|\xi /\gamma |`$ is larger in the second half of the $`sd`$ shell than it is in the first. Again, this is understandable intuitively because one expects the Wigner SU(4) symmetry to be increasingly broken by the spin-orbit term \[$`\mathrm{U}_S(3)`$\]. The resulting binding energies for each half of the shell are shown in Tables II and III, respectively. Also the isospin of each state is indicated as well as the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ between the calculated and measured binding energies. In Fig. 1 the differences in energy between the $`T=1`$ and $`T=0`$ states are compared with the observed ones and also with the semi-empirical formula for this quantity given in Ref. . The root-mean-squared (rms) deviation is 0.876 MeV in the first half of the $`sd`$ shell and 0.245 MeV in the second half. Since reasonable results are obtained with parameters that can be qualitatively understood from simple arguments, an extension towards the 28–50 shell can be considered.

We begin with a discussion of the first half of the 28–50 shell, for nuclei ranging from 58Cu to 78Y. The ground state of all these self-conjugate nuclei is a $`0^+`$, with either $`T=0`$ in even-even or $`T=1`$ in odd-odd nuclei, with the exception of 58Cu which has a $`(J^\pi ,T)=(1^+,0)`$ ground state. Up to 64Ge the masses are well known and can be taken from the compilation of Audi and Wapstra . Of the heavier $`N=Z`$ nuclei, also the masses of 72Kr and 74Rb are listed by Audi and Wapstra. The masses of 66As and 68Se are available from a recent measurement  and that of 76Sr from Ref. . The latter experiment also gives a mass for 68Se but since it is far off the systematics of Audi and Wapstra, the result from  is used. The mass of 70Br is not known experimentally but as it in the middle of a region of nuclei with measured masses close to the extrapolations of Audi and Wapstra, we have adopted their extrapolated value for 70Br. The mass of 78Y is not known and not included in the fit. The binding energies of the lowest $`T=1`$ states in even-even $`N=Z`$ nuclei are derived from those of the isobaric analogues (also taken from Ref. ) after an appropriate Coulomb correction. The evolution of the splitting between $`(J^\pi ,T)=(0^+,1)`$ and $`(J^\pi ,T)=(1^+,0)`$ states in odd-odd nuclei is of particular interest as regards the question of $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ pairing and is currently the object of several experimental studies. The $`(0^+,1)`$ state in 58Cu lies 0.202 MeV above the $`(1^+,0)`$ ground state . This order is reversed in 62Ga where the $`(1^+,0)`$ state is 0.571 MeV above the $`(0^+,1)`$ ground state . The $`E(0^+,1)E(1^+,0)`$ splitting then continues to rise to 0.837 MeV in 66As . A very recent experiment on 70Br  has not observed a $`(1^+,0)`$ level; the lowest observed $`T=0`$ level (with $`J^\pi =3^+`$) is at an excitation energy of 1.337 MeV. Similarly, the lowest $`T=0`$ state in 74Rb measured by Rudolph et al.  at an excitation energy of 1.006 MeV has $`J=3`$ and the energy of the $`1^+`$ state is unknown. With these data as input, the parameters in (5) can be adjusted through a fit procedure that minimizes the rms deviation in the binding energies of two states per nucleus (if known). The resulting parameters are shown in the line labeled ‘56Ni to 78Y’ of Table I and lead to an rms deviation of 0.396 MeV. In Fig. 2 the differences in energy between the $`T=1`$ and $`T=0`$ states are compared to the observed ones. One notes the good agreement that is obtained which gives confidence in the energy splittings of 0.847, 1.037, and 1.214 MeV predicted in 70Br, 74Rb, and 78Y, respectively. As already mentioned, the energy difference $`E(0^+,1)E(1^+,0)`$ is not known experimentally in these isotopes. In the former two, 70Br and 74Rb, the energy difference with the lowest (known) $`T=0`$ state is shown in Fig. 2. To emphasize the point that these energy splittings result from a calculation of total binding energies, the odd-odd results are represented in a different way in Fig. 3. Note that this plot implies a comparison of absolute binding energies: for representation purposes the meausured binding energy of the ground state of a particular nucleus is drawn at zero and the other levels of that nucleus are given relative to that ground-state energy.

For the second-half of the 28–50 shell the situation is more complicated since there are no data available. The core is 100Sn with a ground-state mass measured in Ref. . Since so little is known experimentally, we use the extrapolations from Audi and Wapstra  for the masses of even-even and odd-odd nuclei, complemented with the results for 78Y from the fit to the first half of the 28–50 shell. The resulting parameters are shown in the line labeled ‘78Y to 100Sn’ of Table I. The predictions for the splitting between $`T=1`$ and $`T=0`$ states for the entire 28–50 shell are shown in Fig. 4. One notes a satisfactory agreement with the data, when available. The use of extrapolated data, however, should weaken the confidence in the predictions for the $`E(0^+,1)E(1^+,0)`$ splitting in odd-odd nuclei.

## IV Conclusions

A simple mass formula based on IBM-4 has been proposed to estimate the binding energies of the lowest $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ states of self-conjugate nuclei. It has linear and quadratic terms in the boson number that account for the smooth variation of mass with particle number, supplemented with three contributions that have a clear physical meaning: an SU(4), a spin-orbit and a $`\widehat{T}^2`$ term. It can be considered as a local mass formula that gives predictions of a specific interest to current experiments at the $`N=Z`$ line. As an application we considered nuclei from 56Ni to 78Y where predictions could be made for some of the heavier isotopes currently under study. Also the second half of the 28–50 shell was considered although there predictions are more questionable due to the lack of reliable data.

The advantage with respect to previous IBM-4 work  is that the Hamiltonian used is much simpler and that only the $`L=0`$ channel is considered. The numerical diagonalization then becomes trivial and the calculations can be performed, without much effort, for arbitrary numbers of bosons. This is much harder to achieve with the full version of IBM-4. On the down side it should be noted that this approach is restricted to $`N=Z`$ odd-odd nuclei since other odd-odd nuclei have a dominant U(6) representation which is non-symmetric and which cannot be constructed from $`s`$ bosons only. Also, deformation effects which are present with $`s`$ and $`d`$ bosons and which can be included through orbital operators \[associated with algebras represented by dots in (4)\], are outside the scope of the simple approach presented here.

## Acknowledgments

One of us (EBN) would like to thank FAPESP for financial support and also the people from GANIL for the hospitality shown during his stay where part of this work was carried out.