text:
# Non-perturbative response: chaos versus disorder

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 The two energy scales in Quantum chaos

The name “Quantum Mechanics” is associated with the idea that the energy is quantized. For generic (chaotic) system the mean level spacing is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}^d`$, where $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system. However, one should recognize that there is a second energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b\mathrm{}`$ which is introduced by Quantum Mechanics. This $`\mathrm{}`$ energy scale is related to the chaos implied decay of the classical correlations. It is known in the literature as the “non-universal” energy scale , or as the “bandwidth” . The dimensionless bandwidth is defined as $`b=\mathrm{\Delta }_b/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For reasonably small $`\mathrm{}`$ one has $`b1`$.

This observation, of having two energy scales, has motivated the study of Wigner model  within the framework of random matrix theory (RMT). This model, which is defined in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$, is totally artificial: it does not possess any classical limit. Still note that it can be re-interpreted as a model for the motion of a particle in a quasi one-dimensional disordered lattice .

The main focus of Quantum chaos studies (so far) was on issues of spectral statistics . In that context it turns out that the sub-$`\mathrm{}`$ statistical features of the energy spectrum are “universal”, and obey the predictions of random matrix theory. Non universal (system specific) features are reflected only in the large scale properties of the spectrum (analyzing energy intervals $`>\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$).

### 1.2 Regimes in the theory of driven systems

In recent years we have made some progress in understanding the theory of driven quantized chaotic systems . Driven systems are described by Hamiltonian $`(Q,P,x(t))`$, where $`x(t)`$ is a time dependent parameter. Such systems are of interest in mesoscopic physics (quantum dots), as well as in nuclear, atomic and molecular physics. The time dependent parameter $`x(t)`$ may have the significance of external electric field or magnetic flux or gate voltage. Linear driving $`x(t)=Vt`$ is characterized by one parameter ($`V`$), while more generally a periodic driving $`x(t)=Af(t)`$ is characterized by both amplitude ($`A`$) and frequency ($`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). Due to the time dependence of $`x(t)`$, the energy of the system is not a constant of motion. Rather the system makes “transitions” between energy levels, and therefore absorbs energy.

The main object of our studies is the energy spreading kernel $`P_t(n|m)`$. Regarded as a function of the level index $`n`$, it gives the energy distribution after time $`t`$, where $`m`$ is the initial level. Having two quantal energy scales ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$) implies the existence of different quantum-mechanical (QM) $`V`$ regimes , or more generally $`(A,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ regimes , in the theory of $`P_t(n|m)`$. Most familiar is the QM adiabatic regime (very very small $`V`$), whose existence is associated with having finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Outside of the adiabatic regime we are used to the idea that there is a perturbative regime, where the Fermi golden rule applies, leading to a Markovian picture of the dynamics, with well defined transition rates between levels. Less familiar  is the QM non-perturbative regime ($`V`$ is quantum mechanically large, but still classically small) whose existence is associated with the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$. As implied by the terminology, in the QM non-perturbative regime perturbation theory (to any order) is not a valid tool for the analysis of the energy spreading. Consequently the Fermi golden rule picture of the dynamics does not apply there.

### 1.3 Linear response theory

Of special importance (see discussion below) is the theory for the variance $`\delta E(t)^2=_nP_t(n|m)(E_nE_m)^2`$ of the energy spreading. Having $`\delta E(t)A`$ means linear response. If $`\delta E(t)/A`$ depends on $`A`$ we call it “non-linear response”. In this paragraph we explain that linear response theory (LRT) is based on the “LRT formula”

$`\delta E(t)^2=A^2\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\stackrel{~}{F}_t(\omega )\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ (1)
Two spectral functions are involved: One is the power spectrum $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ of the fluctuations, and the other $`\stackrel{~}{F}_t(\omega )`$ is the spectral content of the driving. See Eq.(4) and Eq.(5) for exact definitions. A special case of Eq.(1) is the sudden limit ($`V=\mathrm{}`$) for which $`f(t)`$ is a step function, hence $`F_t(\omega )=1`$, and accordingly

$`\delta E=\sqrt{C(0)}\times A\text{[“sudden” case]}`$ (2)
Another special case is the response for persistent (either linear or periodic) driving. In such case the long time limit of $`F_t(\omega )`$ is linear in time \[e.g. for linear driving ($`f(t)=t`$) we get $`F_t(\omega )=t\times 2\pi \delta (\omega )`$\]. This implies diffusive behavior:

$`\delta E(t)=\sqrt{2D_Et}\text{[“Kubo” case]}`$ (3)
In the latter case the expression for $`D_EA^2`$ is known as Kubo (or Kubo-Greenwood) formula, leading to a fluctuation-dissipation relation .

The LRT formula Eq.(1) has a simple classical derivation. From now on it goes without saying that we assume that the classical conditions on $`(A,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for the validity of Eq.(1) are satisfied (no $`\mathrm{}`$ involved in such conditions). The question is what happens to the validity of LRT once we “quantize” the system. Can we trust Eq.(1) for any $`(A,\mathrm{\Omega })`$? Or maybe we can trust it only in a restricted regime? In previous publications, we were able to argue the following:
The LRT formula can be trusted in the perturbative regime, with the exclusion of the adiabatic regime.    In the sudden limit the LRT formula can be trusted also in the non-perturbative regime.    In general the LRT formula cannot be trusted in the non-perturbative regime.    The LRT formula can be trusted deep in the non-perturbative regime, provided the system has a classical limit.    For a system that does not have a classical limit (Wigner model) we were able to demonstrate  that LRT fails in the non-perturbative regime. Namely, for Wigner model the response $`\delta E(t)/A`$ becomes $`A`$ dependent for large $`A`$, meaning that the response is non-linear. Hence the statement in item (C) above has been established. We had argued that the observed non-linear response is the result of a quantal non-perturbative effect. Do we have a similar type of non-linear response in case of quantized chaotic systems? The statement in item (D) above seems to suggest that the observation of such non-linearity is not likely. Still, we argue below that this does not exclude the possibility of observing a “weak” non-linearity.

## 2 Perturbation theory and linear response

The immediate (naive) tendency is to regard LRT as the outcome of first order perturbation theory (FOPT). In fact the regimes of validity of FOPT and of LRT do not coincide. On the one hand we have the adiabatic regime where FOPT is valid as a leading order description, but not for response calculation (see further details below). On the other hand, the validity of Eq.(1) goes well beyond FOPT. This leads to the (correct) identification  of what we call the “perturbative regime”. The border of this regime \[in $`(A,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ space\] is determined by the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not involved. Outside of the perturbative regime we cannot trust the LRT formula. However, as we further explain below, the fact that Eq.(1) is not valid in the non-perturbative regime, does not imply that it fails there.

We stress again that one should distinguish between “non-perturbative response” and “non-linear response”. These are not synonyms. As we explain in the next paragraph, the adiabatic regime is “perturbative” but “non-linear”, while the semiclassical limit is “non-perturbative” but “linear”.

In the adiabatic regime, FOPT implies zero probability to make a transitions to other levels. Therefore, to the extend that we can trust the adiabatic approximation, all the probability remains concentrated in the initial level. Thus, in the adiabatic regime, Eq.(1) is not a valid formula: It is essential to use higher orders of perturbation theory, and possibly non-perturbative corrections (Landau-Zener ), in order to calculate the response. Still, FOPT provides a meaningful leading order description of the dynamics (i.e. having no transitions), and therefore we do not regard the adiabatic non-linear regime as “non-perturbative”.

In the non-perturbative regime the evolution of $`P_t(n|m)`$ cannot be extracted from perturbation theory: not in leading order, neither in any order. Still it does not necessarily imply a non-linear response. On the contrary: the semiclassical limit is contained in the (deep) non-perturbative regime. There, the LRT formula Eq.(1) is in fact valid. But its validity is not a consequence of perturbation theory, but rather the consequence of quantal-classical correspondence.

## 3 The quest for non perturbative response

As stated above, an effect of non-linear response due to the quantum mechanical non-perturbative nature of the dynamics, has been demonstrated so far only for Wigner model . There, its existence is related to the disordered RMT nature of the model (see discussion below). Semiclassical correspondence considerations seem to exclude the manifestation of this disorder-related non-linearity in case of quantized chaotic systems. In this Letter we explain that this does not exclude the possibility of having a “weak” version of this effect. We also report the results of an intense numerical effort aimed in finding a “weak” non-linearity in the case of a simple low-dimensional quantized chaotic systems. To our surprise, an unexpected degree of semiclassical correspondence is observed.

It is appropriate here to clarify the notions of “weak” and “strong” effects. In the literature regarding the dynamics in disordered lattices one distinguishes between “weak” and “strong” localization effects. The former term implies that while the leading behavior is classical (diffusion), there are “on top” quantum mechanical corrections (enhanced return probability). In contrast to that the term “strong” implies that the classical description fails even as a leading order description. In the literature regarding quantum chaos we have the effect of “scarring”, which should be regarded as “weak” effect. ”Strong” quantum mechanical effects (e.g. dynamical localization in 1D kicked systems ) are non-generic: The leading order behavior of generic quantized chaotic systems is typically classical. In the present context of driven systems, we use the terms “weak” and “strong” in the same sense: The adjective “weak” is associated with the (conjectured) non-linear response of quantized driven chaotic systems, while the adjective “strong” is associated with the (established) non-linear response in the corresponding RMT (Wigner) model.

## 4 The numerical findings

How do we detect non-linear response? The most straightforward way is to fix the pulse shape $`f(t)`$ and to plot $`\delta E/A`$ versus $`A`$. A deviation from constant value means ”non-linear” response. The simulations below are done for a quantized chaotic system. Due to obvious numerical limitations we will consider the response to one-pulse driving, rather than to persistent (periodic) driving. The central question is whether the observed non-linear effect is of semiclassical origin, or of novel quantum mechanical origin. We deal with this issue below.

In our numerical simulations (Fig.1) we have considered a particle in a two dimensional ($`d=2`$) anharmonic well. This model (with deformation parameter $`x=\text{const}`$) is defined in . In the energy region of interest ($`E3`$), the classical motion inside the two dimensional well (2DW) is chaotic, with characteristic correlation time $`\tau _{cl}1`$. For the following presentation it is enough to say that the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian is represented by a matrix $`=𝐄+x(t)𝐁`$, where $`𝐄`$ is a diagonal matrix with mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }4.3\times \mathrm{}^d`$, and $`𝐁`$ is a banded matrix. The bandwidth (in energy units) is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b=2\pi \mathrm{}/\tau _{cl}`$. The bandprofile (see Fig.2 of ) is described by a spectral function which is defined as follows:

$`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{n(m)}{}}\left|𝐁_{nm}\right|^22\pi \delta \left(\omega {\displaystyle \frac{E_nE_m}{\mathrm{}}}\right)`$ (4)
with implicit average over the reference state $`m`$. The bandprofile, as defined above, can be determined from the the classical dynamics. This means that $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )\stackrel{~}{C}^{cl}(\omega )`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{cl}(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of a classical correlation function $`C^{cl}(\tau )`$. The $`\mathrm{}`$ dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ is relatively weak.

The driving pulse in our numerical simulations has a rectangular shape. This means $`f(0)=f(T)=0`$ and $`f(0<t<T)=A`$, where $`T=0.375`$. The spectral content of the driving is defined as:

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_t(\omega )=\left|{\displaystyle _0^t}\dot{f}(t^{})\text{e}^{i\omega t^{}}𝑑t^{}\right|^2`$ (5)
The spectral content of the driving after a rectangular pulse is $`F_t(\omega )=|1\text{e}^{i\omega T}|^2`$. We have also made simulations (not presented) with a driving scheme that involves a positive pulse $`+A`$ followed by a negative pulse $`A`$, with the intention of considering eventually a persistent (multi cycle) periodic driving. However, we have realized that all the relevant physics is observed already in the single pulse case. Note that the regime diagram for either linear or (as in the following simulations) rectangular driving pulse, is greatly simplified, because the driving is characterized by only one parameter ($`V`$ in the former case, $`A`$ in the latter case).

Let us look carefully at the results of the 2DW simulations (Fig.1). For small $`A`$ we see as expected “linear response” meaning $`\delta E/A=\text{const}`$, as implied by Eq.(1). Note that the “constant” has a weak $`\mathrm{}`$ dependence (a $`10\%`$ effect). This is due to the above mentioned weak dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ on $`\mathrm{}`$. So this quantum-mechanical effect is quite trivial, and has a simple explanation within LRT. Now let us look what happens for large $`A`$. We clearly see a $`2\%`$ deviation from linear response. In what follows we discuss the reason for this non-linear effect.

For sake of comparison we also perform simulations with an effective RMT model that corresponds to the 2DW model Hamiltonian. The effective RMT model is obtained by randomizing the signs of the off-diagonal elements of the $`𝐁`$ matrix. The effective RMT Hamiltonian has the same bandprofile $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ as the original (2DW) Hamiltonian. Therefore, as far as LRT Eq.(1) is concerned, the response should be the same. Still we see that at the same $`A`$ regime, as in the case of the 2DW simulations, we have deviation from linear response. However, this non-linear deviation is much much stronger.

Looking at the curves of Fig.1, it is very tempting to regard the observed non-linear $`2\%`$ effect in the 2DW simulations as a “weak” version of the “strong” effect which is observed in the corresponding RMT simulations. However, the careful analysis below indicates that apparently this is not the case.

## 5 Discussion and analaysis

In analyzing the validity of the LRT formula, it is instructive to consider first the sudden limit Eq.(1). This limit has been studied in . The spreading profile $`P(n|m)`$, after the sudden change in $`x`$, depends on the amplitude $`A`$ of the perturbation. \[We omit the time index $`t`$, which is of no relevance in this limit\]. The perturbative regime is $`A<A_{\text{prt}}`$, where $`A_{\text{prt}}=2\pi \mathrm{}/(\tau _{cl}\sqrt{C(0)})`$. For the 2DW simulations $`A_{\text{prt}}=5.3\times \mathrm{}`$. In the perturbative regime $`P(n|m)`$ has a core-tail structure (the generalization of Wigner Lorentzian), and the variance $`\delta E^2`$ is determined by the first order tail component of the energy distribution. For $`A>A_{\text{prt}}`$ the spreading profile $`P(n|m)`$ becomes non-perturbative. This means that the perturbative tail (if survives) is no longer the predominant feature. Thus the variance is determined by the non-perturbative component (the “core”) of the energy distribution. The remarkable fact is that the crossover from the perturbative $`A`$ regime to the non-perturbative $`A`$ regime is not reflected in the variance (see Fig.5 of ). The agreement with Eq.(2) is perfect. Taking into account the “dramatic” differences in the appearance of $`P(n|m)`$, this looks quite surprising. In fact (see Sec.12 of ) there is a simple proof  that Eq.(2) remains exact beyond any order of perturbation theory, which means that it is exact even in the non-perturbative regime where perturbation theory is not applicable.

We turn back to our simulations, where we have a rectangular pulse (rather than step function). Here the sudden limit does not apply, and the dynamics within the time interval $`0<t<T`$ should be taken into account. If we take an eigenstate of $`𝐄`$ and propagate it using $`𝐄+A𝐁`$, then we get in the classical case ballistic spreading followed by saturation. \[”Eigenstate” in the classical case means microcanonical distribution\]. This is true for any $`A`$. Quantum mechanically we observe in the 2DW model simulations a similar ballistic behavior , whereas in the corresponding RMT model there is an intermediate stage of diffusion . This diffusion is of non-perturbative nature, and it is related to the “disorder” which is artificially introduced via the sign-randomization procedure. The strong non-linear response effect  is a consequence of this diffusion.

Coming back to the 2DW model, we realize that there is no “disorder” build into the model, and therefore no diffusion. Still, looking at Fig.1, it is tempting to interpret the observed $`2\%`$ non-linear deviation as a “weak” version of the strong non-linear effect. Moreover, regarded as such, it vanishes, as expected, in the deep non-perturbative regime, which had been argued on the basis of semiclassical correspondence considerations.

In order to properly determine whether the dips in Fig.1 are the result of the QM non-perturbative nature of the dynamics, we have rescaled the vertical axis, and plotted the response once (Fig.2a) versus $`A`$, and once (Fig.2b) versus $`A/\mathrm{}`$. On the basis of the scaling we see that the strong non-linear response in the RMT case is indeed the result of the quantal ($`\mathrm{}`$-dependent) non-perturbative effect. In contrary to that the $`\mathrm{}`$-independent scaling in the 2DW case, indicates that the non-linear deviation there is of “semiclassical” rather than “quantal non-perturbative” nature.

## 6 Conclusion

Theoretical arguments cannot exclude the existence of a “weak” non-linearity in the response of a driven quantized chaotic system, which is due to a quantum mechanical non-perturbative effect. But our careful numerics, regarding a simple low-dimensional system, demonstrates an unexpected degree of semiclassical correspondence. Our findings should be regarded as the outcome of an ongoing quest, which has not ended, that is aimed in finding novel quantum mechanical deviations from linear response theory.

This work was supported by a grant from the GIF, the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development, and by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02).

FIG.1: The response $`\delta E/A`$ as a result of a rectangular pulse ($`T=0.375`$). Deviation from $`\delta E/A=\text{const}`$ implies non-linear response. All the data are averaged over a number of different initial conditions. The simulations are done with the 2DW Hamiltonian (circles), and also with the associated RMT model (stars). See text for explanations.

FIG.2: Scaled versions of Fig.1. The vertical scaling is aimed in removing the weak $`\mathrm{}`$ dependence of the bandprofile. In (b) the horizontal scaling is aimed in checking whether the deviation from linear response is in fact a quantal non-perturbative effect.


format: text

text:
# On universality of the coupling of neutrinos to 𝑍

## Abstract

We employ an effective Lagrangian approach and use LEP data to place severe bounds on universality violations of the couplings of $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, and $`\nu _\tau `$ to the $`Z`$ boson. Our results justify the assumption of universality in these couplings that is usually made, as for example in the analysis of solar neutrinos detected at SNO.

preprint: UAB-FT-528

In the analysis of the observations on solar neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) sno  one makes the assumption that neutrinos interact with nucleons and electrons according to the predictions of the electroweak Standard Model (SM). Of course, this assumption ought to be confirmed by experiment. Although many of the basic neutrino properties predicted by the SM and used in the SNO analysis have been tested in accelerator experiments, as we will argue this is not exactly true for all of them.

A crucial assumption in the SNO analysis involves the coupling of neutrinos to the neutral current. At SNO, neutral current interactions induce the process $`\nu _i+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{n}+\nu _i`$, where $`i`$ can be $`e,\mu ,\tau `$, and $`\nu _i+e^{}\nu _i+e^{}`$ with $`i=\mu ,\tau `$, and they also participate in the elastic scattering $`\nu _e+e^{}\nu _e+e^{}`$. To deduce the actual fluxes of neutrinos reaching the Earth it is assumed that $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, and $`\nu _\tau `$ couple with the same strenght to $`Z`$, i.e., that universality in the coupling of neutrinos to the $`Z`$ boson holds. We will concentrate in the observational evidence for this hypothesis.

Let us first make a very rough estimation of the precision level of SNO. Take for example the total flux measured with the neutral current reaction at SNO sno ,

$$\varphi _{\text{NC}}=5.09_{0.61}^{+0.63}\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1$$
(1)
where we have added their statistical and systematic errors in quadrature. The result has a relative error of about 12%, and gives us an idea of the SNO precision. These are their very first results and, of course, with more statistics and refinements, the relative error is going to decrease in the near future.

To set the stage for our discussion, let us write the Lagrangian that in the SM describes the interaction of matter with the $`Z`$ boson,

$$_{\text{NC}}=\frac{g}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _w}J_\alpha ^{\text{NC}}Z^\alpha $$
(2)
with $`g`$ the $`SU(2)`$ coupling and $`\theta _w`$ the weak mixing angle. The neutral current $`J^{\text{NC}}`$ in the SM is given by

$$J_\alpha ^{\text{NC}}(\text{SM})=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}[1+r_i]\overline{\nu }_i\gamma _\alpha \nu _i+\mathrm{}$$
(3)
where the dots refer to other particles and the sum is over $`i=e,\mu ,\tau `$. ($`\nu _i`$ is in fact $`\nu _{Li}`$; to simplify the notation we omit the left-handed $`L`$ subscript). In (3), $`r_e`$, $`r_\mu `$, $`r_\tau `$ are the usual radiative corrections arising in the SM. At this radiative level, there are universality violations coming from vertex corrections, but they are small. For instance, we have

$$r_\tau r_e\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }\mathrm{log}m_\tau ^2/m_e^20.009$$
(4)
and even smaller for $`r_\tau r_\mu `$ and $`r_\mu r_e`$ (see for example Ref.radiative ). Certainly, this amount of universality violation is not a concern for the SNO analysis. In our analysis we can also ignore it, since we will end up with upper bounds on universality violations that are larger that (4).

In order to check the universality hypothesis in the neutrino coupling to $`Z`$, we write the modified neutral current as

$$J_\alpha ^{\text{NC}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i]\overline{\nu }_i\gamma _\alpha \nu _i+\mathrm{}$$
(5)
The parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau `$ are possible deviations coming from physics beyond the SM. We will constrain these parameters using experiment.

Data from LEP constitutes a very precise test for the SM. The couplings of neutrinos to $`Z`$ are constrained by the invisible $`Z`$ width, or equivalently, in the determination of the number of neutrinos $`N_\nu `$. A combined fit to all LEP data gives

$$N_\nu =2.994\pm 0.012$$
(6)
that we take from the 2001 update of the PDG pdg . Each $`\nu _i`$ contributes

$$(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^21+2\mathrm{\Delta }_i$$
(7)
to $`N_\nu `$. Thus, the result (6) leads to the relation

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_e+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.009}$$
(8)
To be conservative, we have taken the maximal deviation from $`N_\nu =3`$ in (6) to put the bound (8). Also, here and in the following we work at first order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$.

If there is new physics that alter the $`Z\nu \nu `$ coupling but respect universality, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau `$, then (8) implies that each individual $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ must be very small. However, if universality is violated then me may have cancellations in the sum (8) and, actually, there is no strict bound on individual $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Such possible cancellations cannot be banned from first principles. The purpose of the present note is to constrain the breaking of universality in $`Z\nu \nu `$ interactions.

The direct way to test universality in the neutrino coupling to the $`Z`$ boson is through the analysis of the scattering $`\nu _i+e^{}\nu _i+e^{}`$. Available data on $`\nu _\mu +e^{}\nu _\mu +e^{}`$, together with LEP results, allow to place the limit vilain

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu |0.037$$
(9)
However, the $`\nu _e\nu _eZ`$ coupling is known at a much worse level. We have the experimental limit on universality violation dorenbosch

$$0.13\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_e0.20$$
(10)
and of course no limits involving $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau `$. At the view of the SNO precision, this limit (and absence of limit for the $`\tau `$ neutrino) is too loose to be useful.

We will now show that we can improve the limits on universality working with effective Lagrangians. The key point is the following. Deviations from the SM can be treated by using effective Lagrangians. The general idea of the effective Lagrangian approach is that theories beyond the SM, emerging at some characteristic energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, have effects at low energies $`EG_F^{1/2}`$, and these effects can be taken into account by considering a Lagrangian that extends the SM Lagrangian, $`_{\mathrm{SM}}`$:

$$=_{\mathrm{SM}}+_{\mathrm{eff}}.$$
(11)
The effective Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ contains operators of increasing dimension that are built with the SM fields including the scalar sector, and is organized as an expansion in powers of $`(1/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

The success of the electroweak SM at the level of quantum corrections can be considered as a check of the gauge symmetry properties of the model. To preserve the consistency of the low energy theory, with a Lagrangian given by (11), we will assume that $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is $`SU(2)U(1)`$ gauge invariant. Some of the problems that originate when dealing with non-gauge invariant interactions have been discussed in rujula . The gauge-invariant operators that dominate at low energies have dimension six and have been listed in buchmuller .

There are two classes of dimension-six operators that may originate violations of universality in the neutrino sector of the neutral current:

$`𝒜_i`$ $`=`$ $`i[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝒟_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }][\overline{L}_i\gamma ^\alpha L_i]`$ (12)
$`_i`$ $`=`$ $`i[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(𝒟_\alpha \stackrel{}{\tau }+\stackrel{}{\tau }𝒟_\alpha )\mathrm{\Phi }][\overline{L}_i\gamma ^\alpha \stackrel{}{\tau }L_i]`$ (13)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the Higgs field and $`L_i`$ is the lepton isodoublet

$$L_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}l_i\\ \nu _i\end{array}\right)_L$$
(14)
where now $`l_i`$ are the charged leptons, and the subscript $`L`$ is for left-handed. The operators contain the covariant derivative,

$$𝒟_\alpha =_\alpha +ig\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }}{2}\stackrel{}{W}_\alpha +ig^{}\frac{Y}{2}B_\alpha $$
(15)
with the gauge bosons $`\stackrel{}{W},B`$, the gauge couplings $`g,g^{}`$, and the Pauli matrices $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ and the hypercharge $`Y`$.

The effective Lagrangian relevant for our purposes can now be written as

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{\alpha _i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2}𝒜_i+\frac{\beta _i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}}_i\right)$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{}`$ are high-energy scales and $`\alpha _i`$, $`\beta _i`$ are unknown strenght coefficients accompanying the operators. Below the scale of spontaneous symmetry breaking the effective Lagrangian (16) induces contributions of the type shown in (5). Substituting

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
with $`v^2=1/(\sqrt{2}G_F)(246\mathrm{GeV})^2`$, in (16), we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=a_i+b_i$$
(18)
corresponding to the contributions of the two operators,

$`a_i`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _i{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^2}}`$ (19)
$`b_i`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _i{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{2}}}`$ (20)
It is clear that unless the combinations $`a_i+b_i`$, for $`i=e,\mu ,\tau `$ are equal, we will have universality violations in the coupling of neutrinos to the Z boson.

The operators in the effective Lagrangian (16) have other effects at low energy. They contribute to the couplings of the $`Z`$ boson to the charged leptons $`l_i`$. Indeed we find,

$`J_\alpha ^{\text{NC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w{\displaystyle \frac{a_i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{2}}\right]\overline{l}_{iL}\gamma _\alpha l_{iL}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\overline{l}_{iR}\gamma _\alpha l_{iR}+\mathrm{}`$ (22)
where the dots indicate other particles than charged leptons. We see that the couplings to right-handed charged leptons $`l_{iR}`$ are not modified.

Also, the charged current coupling to the charged $`W`$ gets a contribution,

$`_{\text{CC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}J_\alpha ^{\text{CC}}W^{+\alpha }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (23)
$`J_\alpha ^{\text{CC}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[1+b_i]\overline{\nu }_i\gamma _\alpha l_{iL}+\mathrm{}`$ (24)
where again the dots stand for the part involving other SM fields. In the charged current sector there are also violations of universality coming from radiative corrections in the SM framework, but numerically they have at most the value shown in (4) and we will neglect them.

Our purpose is to constrain universality violations in the couplings $`\nu \nu Z`$. We can reach our objective by considering the constraints on the non-standard contributions to the coupling of $`Z`$ to charged leptons (22) and on the similar contributions in the charged current sector (24). The experimental information we need is taken from the 2001 PDG update that uses LEP data pdg .

For example, in our scheme we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(W\tau \nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )}1+2(b_\tau b_e)$$
(25)
where we work at first order in $`b_i`$ and neglect lepton masses in front of the $`W`$ mass. The experimental ratio

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(W\tau \nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(We\nu )}=1.002\pm 0.029$$
(26)
leads to the bound

$$2|b_\tau b_e|0.031$$
(27)
where again we conservatively use the maximal deviation from 1 in (26). We also consider

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\tau ^+\tau ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Ze^+e^{})}1+\frac{12s_w^2}{8s_w^44s_w^2+1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(a_\tau +b_\tau a_eb_e)$$
(28)
($`s_w=\mathrm{sin}\theta _w`$) and use pdg

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\tau ^+\tau ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Ze^+e^{})}=1.0020\pm 0.0030$$
(29)
which leads to

$$|a_\tau +b_\tau a_eb_e|0.0019$$
(30)
The inequality

$`|\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_e|`$ $`=`$ $`|a_\tau +b_\tau +a_eb_e|`$ (31)
$``$ $`|a_\tau +b_\tau a_eb_e|+2|b_\tau b_e|`$ (32)
allows, from (27) and (30), to get

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_e|0.033$$
(33)
This is our main result concernig the limit on universality violation for $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. We can do a totally parallel exercise for $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$, with the result

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_e|0.040$$
(34)
We finally would like to mention that another assumption of SNO is the absence of neutrino flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC). Such exotic interaction would be a contribution to $`J^{NC}`$ of the form

$$\delta J_\alpha ^{NC}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{e\mu }\overline{\nu }_e\gamma _\alpha \nu _\mu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(35)
and similar for $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$. The contributions of these FCNC parameters to $`N_\nu `$ have no interference, like the universality violations, see (7). It follows that now cancellations are no longer possible. We can assume non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e\mu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e\tau }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \tau }`$ and employ the experimental limit on $`N_\nu `$ (6) to infer

$$\left((\mathrm{\Delta }_{e\mu })^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }_{e\tau })^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \tau })^2\right)^{1/2}0.095$$
(36)
In conclusion, we have placed severe constraints to universality violations of the couplings of neutrinos to $`Z`$. We have introduced the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ in the neutral current expression (5) and showed which operators in an effective Lagrangian approach may lead to universality breaking. We have constrained the effects of this Lagrangian in the sector involving charged leptons, and these constrains have been used to reach our numerical results (33) and (34). We have shown that universality holds at the level of 4% in the current that couples to $`Z`$. Our results can be interesting in all the analysis making the assumption of $`\nu \nu Z`$ universality, like in the solar neutrino experiment at SNO.

###### Acknowledgements.

Work partially supported by the CICYT Research Project AEN99-0766, by the EU network on Supersymmetry and the Early Universe (HPRN-CT-2000-00152), and by the Departament d’Universitats, Recerca i Societat de la Informació, Project 2001SGR00188.


text:
# Limits on Extra Dimensions and New Particle Production in the Exclusive Photon and Missing Energy Signature in 𝑝𝑝̄ Collisions at √𝑠= 1.8 TeV

Now at \]University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

Now at \]University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

## Abstract

The exclusive $`\gamma `$$`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ signal has a small standard model cross-section and is thus a good channel in which to look for signs of new physics. This signature is predicted by models with a superlight gravitino or with large extra spatial dimensions. We search for such signals at the CDF detector at the Tevatron, using 87 pb-1 of data at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV, and extract 95% C.L. limits on these processes. A limit of 221 GeV is set on the scale $`|F|^{1/2}`$ in supersymmetry models. For 4, 6, and 8 extra dimensions, limits on the fundamental mass scale $`M_D`$ of 549, 581, and 602 GeV, respectively, are found. We also specify a ‘pseudo-model-independent’ method of comparing the results to theoretical predictions.

preprint: CDF/PUB/EXOTIC/CDFR/5765preprint: EFI 01-53preprint: Version 1.3

Many extensions to the standard model predict the existence of minimally-interacting particles, such as the gravitino in supersymmetric models and Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes of the graviton in models with large compact spatial dimensions Arkani-Hamed et al. (1998). Such particles cannot be directly observed in a detector, but their production can be inferred from a transverse momentum imbalance (or “missing transverse energy,” $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ etd ) among the visible particles in a high-energy collision. Photons can be emitted in such hard-scattering processes due to the presence of charged quarks in the $`p\overline{p}`$ initial state; many models also predict the production of photons from the decay of final-state particles Amb . A search for the $`\gamma \overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ signature thus explores a wide range of models and complements searches in the single jet$`+\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ channel Affolder et al. (2000). Here we present the results of a search in the exclusive $`\gamma `$$`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ signature, i.e. where only a photon and invisible particles are produced.

The data used for this analysis were collected with the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) during Run 1b of the Tevatron, with an integrated luminosity of 87 $`\pm `$ 4 pb-1 of $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV. The CDF detector has been described in detail elsewhere Abe et al. (1988); subsystems most important to this search are summarized here. A system of time projection chambers around the beampipe allows the determination of the event vertex position. Surrounding these chambers is the central tracking chamber (CTC), a cylindrical drift chamber inside a 1.4 T superconducting solenoid, which is fully efficient for track reconstruction in the pseudorapidity region $`|\eta |<1.0`$ cdf . The central electromagnetic calorimeter (CEM) covers the region $`|\eta |<1.1`$. Strip chambers (the CES system) are embedded in the CEM at the depth of shower maximum to allow the measurement of the 2-dimensional transverse profile of electromagnetic showers. The central hadronic calorimeter covers the range $`|\eta |<1.3`$ and is instrumented with time-to-digital converters which associate times to shower signals. The calorimeter modules are arranged in “towers,” with hadronic modules behind the electromagnetic modules, in a projective geometry pointing at the center of the detector. High energy electromagnetic showers frequently leak from the electromagnetic modules into the hadronic modules behind them; when sufficient leakage occurs timing can be associated with the electromagnetic shower. Outside the calorimeters, drift chambers provide muon identification in the region $`|\eta |<1.0`$.

To select events with high-pT photons during data-taking, we use the CDF 3-level trigger system Amidei et al. (1994). Level 1 requires a central calorimeter tower with $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^{EM}>8`$ GeV cdf . The Level 2 system forms clusters of towers and then requires the event to pass an OR of several triggers, including: a) a very loose trigger requiring only an electromagnetic cluster Abe et al. (1994) with $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^{EM}>`$ 50 GeV and b) a trigger requiring $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ $`>`$ 35 GeV. Level 3 requires that the photon candidate satisfy ET $`>`$ 50 GeV and have a CES cluster within the fiducial region Affolder et al. (2001a).

The offline photon candidate identification (“Photon ID”) criteria Affolder et al. (1999, 2001b, 2001a) are a) an electromagnetic cluster in the CEM with $`|\eta ^\gamma |<`$ 1 eta , a ratio $`\mathrm{E}^{HAD}/\mathrm{E}^{EM}`$ less than $`0.055+0.00045\times \mathrm{E}^{SUM}`$, a centroid within the fiducial region of the CES, and shower evolution measured by the CES consistent with expectation; b) no second energetic object in the same CES wire chamber as the cluster; c) at most one CTC track, and none with pT $`>`$ 1 GeV uni , pointing at the cluster; d) within a radius of 0.4 in $`\eta `$-$`\varphi `$ space around the cluster centroid, ET (summed over towers excluding those in the photon cluster) $`<`$ 2 GeV and a sum of track pT $`<`$ 5 GeV; e) $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^\gamma >`$ 55 GeV cor ; and f) an event vertex within 60 cm of the center of the detector along the beamline.

The selection on missing transverse energy is $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ $`>`$ 45 GeV. This threshold is lower than the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ threshold to keep this requirement fully efficient for signal processes, taking into consideration the $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ resolution and the intrinsic parton pT in the $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ initial states.

Backgrounds to the $`\gamma `$$`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ signal include: a) $`q\overline{q}Z\gamma \nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$; b) cosmic ray muons that undergo bremsstrahlung in the CEM but for which no track is found; c) $`We\nu `$ with the electron misidentified as a photon; d) $`W\gamma `$ production where the charged lepton in a leptonic $`W`$ decay is lost; e) prompt $`\gamma \gamma `$ production where a photon is lost; and f) dijet and photon + jet production.

To reject cosmic ray muons, we require a timing signal in the hadronic calorimeter which is in-time with the collision within a window 55 ns wide for at least one tower in the cluster, and no evidence of a muon in the central muon systems within $`30^{}`$ in $`\varphi `$ of the photon. The efficiency of requiring that timing information be present rises with $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ from 78% at 55 GeV to over 98% above 100 GeV. The efficiency of these two cuts is measured with a sample of isolated electrons.

To remove the $`W\gamma `$ background as well as events in which mismeasurement of jet energy produces fake $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$, we require no jets Abe et al. (1994) with ET $`>`$ 15 GeV, no jets with ET $`>`$ 8 GeV within 0.5 radians in $`\varphi `$ of the photon, and no tracks in the event with $`\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{T}>`$ 5 GeV.

Trigger and background considerations drive the choice of the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ threshold. The Level 3 trigger becomes fully efficient ($`>`$ 99%) at 55 GeV. In addition, below 45 GeV the background from $`We\nu `$ with a misidentified electron is very large; as the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ threshold is increased beyond the kinematic limit for electrons from $`W`$ decay at rest, the $`W`$ must recoil against another object, and the event is then rejected by the jet and track vetoes.

For an exclusive photon and invisible particle process, the overall efficiency for all cuts is found to vary from 0.45 at ET = 55 GeV to 0.56 for ET $`>`$ 100 GeV, with a $`\pm `$10% uncertainty. The cumulative effect of each cut is shown in Fig. 1. The number of events surviving the photon ID, $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$, cosmic ray rejection, and jet and track cuts are 15,046, 1,475, 94, and 11, respectively. The $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ and $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ in the 11 events in the final sample are shown in Fig. 2.

To estimate the number of cosmic ray events in the signal sample, we use the events which have a timing signal outside the in-time window but which pass all other cuts. We then extrapolate into the signal region, assuming a flat distribution in time.

The Monte Carlo simulations of both signal processes and the $`Z\gamma `$, $`W\gamma `$ and prompt $`\gamma \gamma `$ backgrounds use the Pythia event generator Sjöstrand et al. (2001) with the CTEQ5L parton distribution functions (PDFs) Lai et al. (1997), followed by a parametrized simulation of the CDF detector. The simulations are then corrected for deficiencies in the detector model and the $`\pm `$10% efficiency uncertainty applied. We turn off initial state radiation (ISR) to obtain leading-order (LO) cross-sections and efficiencies. For the background processes, the resulting cross-sections are corrected by the ratio of the LO cross-section to the next-to-leading-order “zero-jet” cross-section, obtained from theoretical calculations and Monte Carlo estimates. This allows the correct estimation of the acceptance $`\times `$ efficiency $`\times `$ cross-section for the exclusive process. We obtain correction factors of 0.95 $`\pm `$ 0.3 for $`Z\gamma `$ Baur et al. (1998), 0.9 $`\pm `$ 0.2 for $`W\gamma `$ Baur et al. (1993), and 1.0 $`\pm `$ 0.3 for prompt $`\gamma \gamma `$ Bailey et al. (1992); the systematic uncertainties considered are $`Q^2`$ choice and acceptance variations due to modeling of ISR in the Monte Carlo simulations. These uncertainties are added in quadrature with the efficiency uncertainty.

The background from $`We\nu `$ arises either from hard bremsstrahlung by the electron before it enters the tracking chamber or inefficiency in the track reconstruction. As a radiated photon tends to be collinear with the electron, the ET of the identified electromagnetic object will, in either case, be close to the initial energy of the electron. Let $`𝒫`$ be the ratio between the number of electrons faking photons and the number of electrons passing standard electron identification cuts Affolder et al. (2001a) in the region $`|\eta ^e|<1`$; we estimate $`𝒫`$ by assuming that “$`e\gamma `$” events with invariant masses within 10 GeV of the $`Z^0`$ mass are actually $`Z^0ee`$ events. We obtain $`𝒫`$ $`=`$ (0.8 $`\pm `$ 0.1)%. The background estimate is $`𝒫`$ times the number of $`We\nu `$ events that have $`|\eta ^e|<1`$, $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}^e>`$ 55 GeV, $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ $`>`$ 45 GeV, and pass the jet and track vetoes (discounting the electron track).

We have investigated QCD backgrounds which involve the mismeasurement of jet energy leading to apparent $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ or misidentification of a jet as a photon. The most likely contributors to fakes are events with one high-energy object and many low-energy jets. With the $`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$, jet, and track requirements, these events are rare. To estimate these backgrounds one must use data; however all control samples have small statistics and estimates range from 0.1 to 2 events. We take the conservative approach of not including this background source in the total background used in the limit calculations. This can only make the limits less stringent omi .

We study two hypothetical signal processes in detail. One is predicted by a supersymmetric model and the other by a model with large compact extra dimensions.

The first process ($`q\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{G}\gamma `$) is described in Brignole et al. (1998). It presumes that the gravitino $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the lightest supersymmetric particle, with the other superpartners too heavy to produce on-mass-shell at the Tevatron. Since the gravitino coupling is very small, being able to produce other supersymmetric particles increases the cross-section; we therefore set an absolute lower limit on the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$ or, equivalently, the supersymmetry breaking scale $`|F|^{1/2}`$ (the two are related by $`|F|=\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}M_P`$, with $`M_P`$ being the Planck mass). The cross-section for this process scales as $`1/|F|^4`$; the kinematic distributions are independent of $`|F|`$.

The second process ($`q\overline{q}\gamma G_{KK}`$) is described in Giudice et al. (1999): $`n`$ extra spatial dimensions are assumed to be compactified with radius $`R`$. The fundamental mass scale $`M_D`$ and $`R`$ are related to Newton’s constant and the number of extra dimensions by $`G_N^1=8\pi R^nM_D^{2+n}`$ con . The standard model fields propagate only on a 3+1 dimensional subspace, while gravitons propagate in the whole space. The graviton modes which propagate in the extra dimensions appear to four-dimensional observers as massive states of the graviton. A large value of $`R`$ results in a large phase space for graviton production, canceling the weakness of the coupling to standard model fields. For a given $`n`$, the cross-section scales as $`1/M_D^{n+2}`$ eff ; for fixed $`n`$, the kinematic distributions are independent of $`M_D`$.

The two signal processes are simulated with modified versions of Pythia. The $`q\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{G}\gamma `$ process is simulated with $`|F|^{1/2}=100`$ GeV, and the $`q\overline{q}\gamma G_{KK}`$ process is simulated with $`M_D`$ = 1 TeV for $`n=`$ 4, 6, and 8 extra dimensions.

We consider three sources of theoretical systematic uncertainty in the cross-section and acceptance predictions: uncertainty in the choice of $`Q^2`$ scale, the choice of parton distribution function, and the modeling of ISR. We obtain uncertainty estimates by varying $`Q^2`$ by a factor of 4 both up and down, by using the GRV98 LO PDFs Glück et al. (1998) instead of the CTEQ5L PDFs, and by turning the modeling of ISR on and off. The uncertainty due to ISR includes order-$`\alpha _s`$ effects and acceptance changes due to the jet and track vetoes. For $`q\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{G}\gamma `$, the dominant uncertainty is the $`Q^2`$ choice ($`{}_{18}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+26}`$%), followed by ISR ($`\pm `$14%) and PDF choice ($`\pm `$10%). For $`q\overline{q}\gamma G_{KK}`$, the dominant uncertainty comes from ISR ($`\pm `$34%), followed by $`Q^2`$ choice ($`{}_{16}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+18}`$%) and PDF choice ($`\pm `$8%). The overall uncertainty in the $`q\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{G}\gamma `$ acceptance $`\times `$ efficiency $`\times `$ cross-section, which includes the $`\pm `$10% efficiency uncertainty, is $`{}_{27}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+33}`$%. For $`q\overline{q}\gamma G_{KK}`$, the corresponding figure is $`{}_{40}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+41}`$%.

The method we use to set limits is outlined in Conway (January 17-18, 2000). We find the following limits at 95% C.L.: for the supersymmetric model, $`|F|^{1/2}221`$ GeV (equivalently, $`m_{3/2}1.17\times 10^5`$ eV); for large extra dimensions, $`M_D`$ 549, 581, and 602 GeV for $`n=`$ 4, 6, and 8 extra dimensions (equivalently, $`R`$ 24 nm, 55 fm, and 2.6 fm, respectively) lim . The previous best limit published for $`|F|^{1/2}`$ is 217 GeV, from a CDF jet+$`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ search Affolder et al. (2000); the previous best published $`M_D`$ limits set from direct production of gravitons are 0.68 TeV, 0.51 TeV, and 411 GeV for $`n=`$ 4, 6, and 8 extra dimensions, the first two set by DELPHI Abreu et al. (2000) and the third by L3 Acciarri et al. (1999).

The results of this analysis can be presented in a ‘pseudo-model-independent’ manner. In both the above models, the uncertainties in the predicted numbers of signal events have been dominated by theoretical factors. It can be useful to derive a limit which considers only the uncertainties in the detector simulation of the processes and so can easily be compared across models Affolder et al. (2001b) (keeping in mind that such a limit is not a substitute for the rigorous extraction of a limit noting theoretical uncertainties). To obtain this limit, we compute a 95% C.L. upper limit on the number of events from new physics that would be detected, using only the $`\pm `$10% uncertainty in efficiency as the uncertainty in the acceptance $`\times `$ efficiency $`\times `$ cross-section for the new process. This limit is 9.8 events, which for this integrated luminosity corresponds to a cross-section of 112 fb.

The plots in Fig. 3 allow a comparison of models to the acceptance $`\times `$ efficiency $`\times `$ cross-section limit. These curves are obtained by studying the acceptance and efficiency curves for simulated events and correcting for deficiencies in the detector simulation. These plots are valid for both the $`\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{G}\gamma `$ and $`\gamma G_{KK}`$ processes studied above, and for any process producing an exclusive photon and invisible particle signature. One can estimate the acceptance $`\times `$ efficiency $`\times `$ cross-section for such a process by convolving the theoretical photon $`\eta `$ and ET spectra with the acceptance and efficiency curves.

In conclusion, we have performed a search for new physics in the exclusive $`\gamma `$$`\overline{)}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ channel. We have found no departure from the expected Standard Model cross-section and have set limits on two specific models of new physics, one a supersymmetric model in which the photon is produced in association with two gravitinos, the second a model with large extra dimensions in which the photon is produced in association with a KK mode of the graviton. We have also presented the limit in a ‘pseudo-model-independent’ manner.

We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. We would also like to thank J. Lykken, K. Matchev, and D. Rainwater for their help. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korea Research Foundation and the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KoSEF); and the Comision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Spain.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It’s well known that in most cases Huffman encoding is not the optimal encoding of a stream of characters of an alphabet associatd with a probabilistic model . Although a Huffman encoded sequence of data can look like “random”, most likely it is not a real noise- like the one can get from `/dev/random` in some UNIX(-like) systems. In the present article we give a “proof of concept” implementation of a statistical model capable of detecting the deviation of the data being encoded from the notion of “real noise”.

## 2 The Model

We break the input data into consequtive blocks $`B_1,B_2,B_3,\mathrm{}`$ of size $`N`$ bits each. Each block $`B_i`$ is being encoded in the following way:

1. Count the number of 1’s $`k_i`$ in $`B_i`$.
2. Let $`c_1=k_i`$, $`c_0=Nk_i`$. The probability to encounter a 0 in the block is $`c_0/N`$, and for 1 is $`c_1/N`$
3. Encode a bit of the block with the calculated probabilities. Depending on its value we decrease either $`c_0`$ or $`c_1`$.
4. Proceed with all the bits of the block. Note: obviously the last bit won’t need to be encoded, because we know its value with probability 1. Anyway, a decently implemented arithmetic encoder should not encode anything when given probability 1.

The sequence $`k_i`$ is also a data stream, which needs to be encoded for obvious reasons. The most reasonable scheme for its encoding is 0-order adaptive statistical model + arithmetic encoding. For “real noise” $`k_i`$ is supposed to have a binomial distribution:

$$P(k)=\frac{N!}{2^Nk!(Nk)!},$$
(1)
and “slightly compressible data” (“not-so-real noise”) could be expected to have some deviation from this distribution. We make a plausible conjecture that data whose $`k_i`$ is deviating from (1), is compressible. An example of such deviation is shown in the figure.

## 3 Source Code

We provide the C++ source code for the implementation of the algorithm described above. The remaining source modules- implementation of arithmetic encoding, front end, error handling etc., necessary to compile a working program, are not included, but easy to implement .

```
#include "bitclasses.h"
/*#undef TRACE_*/

long filelen(FILE*f)
{
  long len,pos;
  pos=ftell(f);
  fseek(f,0L,SEEK_END);
  len=ftell(f);
  fseek(f,pos,SEEK_SET);
  return len;
}

static long double facto(int k){
  long double res;
  res=1;
  while(k>1)res*=k--;
  return res;
}
class chistomodel{
public:
  int n;
  int *tab;
  float pro(int k)
  {
  return facto(n)/(facto(k)*facto(n-k)*2.0);
  }
  ~chistomodel(){
  if(tab)
    delete tab;
  }
  chistomodel(){tab=NULL;}
  chistomodel(int n)
  {tab=NULL;init(n);}
  void init(int n){
  }
};

#if 1
#define B_SIZE 32
#else
#define B_SIZE 32
#endif
#define BITSINBLOCK (B_SIZE*8)
class ccmodel{
public:
  int tab[BITSINBLOCK+2];
  unsigned short scale(){return tab[BITSINBLOCK+1];}
  ccmodel(){init();}
  void init()
  {
  int i;
  for(i=0;i<=BITSINBLOCK+1;i++)
    tab[i]=i;
  }
  void update(int c)
  {
  int i;
  if(tab[BITSINBLOCK+1]>=MAXSCALE)
    rescale();
  for(i=c+1;i<=BITSINBLOCK+1;i++)
    tab[i]++;
  }
  void rescale()
  {
  unsigned weights[BITSINBLOCK+1];
  int i;
  for(i=0;i<BITSINBLOCK+1;i++)
    {
    weights[i]=(tab[i+1]-tab[i])>>1;
    if(!weights[i])
      weights[i]=1;
    }
  for(i=0;i<BITSINBLOCK+1;i++)
    tab[i+1]=tab[i]+weights[i];
  }
  void chartosymb(int c,csymbol*s)
  {
  s->low_count=tab[c];
  s->high_count=tab[c+1];
  s->scale=tab[BITSINBLOCK+1];
  }
  int counttochar(short int count,csymbol*s)
  {
  int l,h,m;
  l=0;
  h=BITSINBLOCK+1;
  while(h-l>1)
    {
    m=(h+l)>>1;
    if(tab[m]<=count)
      l=m;
    else
      h=m;
    }
  s->low_count=tab[l];
  s->high_count=tab[l+1];
  s->scale=tab[BITSINBLOCK+1];
  return l;
  }
};
extern int bittable[];
unsigned char block[B_SIZE];
int br;
ccmodel countmodel;
void decode_block(carithmeticdecoder&ari)
{
  int s,count;
  int bit1cnt,bit0cnt;
  unsigned mask;
  csymbol symb;
  count=ari.get_current_count(countmodel.scale());
  bit1cnt=countmodel.counttochar(count,&symb);
  ari.remove_symbol_from_stream(symb.low_count,
                symb.high_count,
                symb.scale);
  bit0cnt=br*8-bit1cnt;
  countmodel.update(bit1cnt);
  for(s=0;s<br;s++)
  {
    block[s]=0;
    for(mask=0x80;mask;mask>>=1)
    {
      count=ari.get_current_count(bit0cnt+bit1cnt);
      if(count<bit0cnt)
      {
        ari.remove_symbol_from_stream(0,
                      bit0cnt,
                      bit0cnt+bit1cnt);
        bit0cnt--;
      }
      else
      {
        block[s]|=mask;
        ari.remove_symbol_from_stream(bit0cnt,
                      bit0cnt+bit1cnt,
                      bit0cnt+bit1cnt);
        bit1cnt--;
      }
    }
  }
}
void encode_block(carithmeticencoder&ari)
{
  int i;
  int bit1cnt=0,bit0cnt;
  int mask;
  csymbol symb;
  for(i=0;i<br;i++)
  bit1cnt+=bittable[block[i]];
  bit0cnt=br*8-bit1cnt;
#if 1
#if 1
  fprintf(stdout,"%d\n",bit1cnt);
#else
  fputc(bit1cnt,stdout);
#endif
#endif
#if 0
  if(bit1cnt>255)
  fprintf(stderr,"$%d\n",bit1cnt);
#endif
  countmodel.chartosymb(bit1cnt,&symb);
  ari.encode_symbol(symb.low_count,
          symb.high_count,
          symb.scale);
  countmodel.update(bit1cnt);
  for(i=0;i<br;i++)
  {
    for(mask=0x80;mask;mask>>=1)
    if(block[i]&mask)
      {
      symb.low_count=bit0cnt;
      symb.high_count=bit0cnt+bit1cnt;
      symb.scale=bit0cnt+bit1cnt;
      ari.encode_symbol(symb.low_count,
                symb.high_count,
                symb.scale);
      bit1cnt--;
      }
    else
      {
      symb.low_count=0;
      symb.high_count=bit0cnt;
      symb.scale=bit0cnt+bit1cnt;
      ari.encode_symbol(symb.low_count,
                symb.high_count,
                symb.scale);
      bit0cnt--;
      }
  }
}
void do_compress()
{
  long length,l;
  coutbitstream outstr;
  carithmeticencoder ari;
  l=length=filelen(infile);
  fwrite(&length,sizeof(length),1,outfile);
  outstr.init(outfile);
  ari.init(&outstr);
  while(1)
  {
    br=fread(block,1,B_SIZE,infile);
    l-=br;
    encode_block(ari);
    if((br<B_SIZE)||(l<1))
    break;
  }
  ari.flush();
  outstr.flush();
}
void do_decompress()
{
  long length,l;
  cinbitstream instr;
  carithmeticdecoder ari;
  csymbol symb;
  fread(&length,sizeof(length),1,infile);
  l=length;
  instr.init(infile);
  ari.init(&instr);
  while(l>0)
  {
    br=l<B_SIZE?l:B_SIZE;
    l-=br;
    decode_block(ari);
    fwrite(block,1,br,outfile);
  }
}

int bittable[]={
0,1,1,2,1,2,2,3,1,2,2,3,2,3,3,4,1,2,2,3,2,3,3,4,2,3,3,4,3,4,4,5,1,2,2,3,2,3,3,
4,2,3,3,4,3,4,4,5,2,3,3,4,3,4,4,5,3,4,4,5,4,5,5,6,1,2,2,3,2,3,3,4,2,3,3,4,3,4,
4,5,2,3,3,4,3,4,4,5,3,4,4,5,4,5,5,6,2,3,3,4,3,4,4,5,3,4,4,5,4,5,5,6,3,4,4,5,4,
5,5,6,4,5,5,6,5,6,6,7,1,2,2,3,2,3,3,4,2,3,3,4,3,4,4,5,2,3,3,4,3,4,4,5,3,4,4,5,
4,5,5,6,2,3,3,4,3,4,4,5,3,4,4,5,4,5,5,6,3,4,4,5,4,5,5,6,4,5,5,6,5,6,6,7,2,3,3,
4,3,4,4,5,3,4,4,5,4,5,5,6,3,4,4,5,4,5,5,6,4,5,5,6,5,6,6,7,3,4,4,5,4,5,5,6,4,5,
5,6,5,6,6,7,4,5,5,6,5,6,6,7,5,6,6,7,6,7,7,8
};

```


text:
# Clustering in the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey

## 1 Introduction

The 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ) aims to compile a homogeneous catalogue of $`25000`$ QSOs using the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) 2-degree Field facility (2dF) . This catalogue will constitute a factor of $`>50`$ increase in numbers to a equivalent flux limit over previous data sets . The main science goal of the 2QZ is to use QSOs as a probe of large-scale structure in the Universe over a range of scales from 1 to $`1000h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, out to $`z3`$. These measurements have the potential to help determine the fundamental cosmological parameters governing the Universe. The 2QZ will also significantly advance our understanding of the AGN/QSO phenomenon, by allowing us to carry out statistical studies of large numbers of QSO spectra, and also discovering rare and extreme types of AGN, for example broad-absorption-line QSOs or post-starburst QSOs . As well as QSOs, there are a large number of other interesting sources being discovered including compact narrow-emission-line galaxies, white dwarfs and cataclysmic variables.

In this paper we will concentrate on the statistical measurements of QSO clustering. The basic properties of the 2QZ are outlined in Section 2. We then discuss various measurements of large-scale structure including the correlation function (Section 3) and redshift-space distortions (Section 4).

## 2 The 2dF QSO Redshift Survey

The 2QZ currently (September 2001) contains 20573 QSOs below a redshift of $`z3`$. Observations will be completed in January 2002, by which time close to 25000 QSOs will have been observed. A large fraction of the data is already publicly available; the 2QZ “10k catalogue”  contains spectra of 11000 QSOs, and almost 10000 other sources. The spectra and catalogue are available electronically at http://www.2dfquasar.org. The analysis below mostly concerns this 10k catalogue.

QSO candidates were selected as being point sources and bluer than the stellar locus, based on broad band $`ub_\mathrm{J}r`$ magnitudes from Automatic Plate Measuring (APM) facility measurements of UK Schmidt Telescope (UKST) photographic plates. The magnitude limits are $`18.25<b_\mathrm{J}20.85`$. The survey comprises 30 UKST fields, arranged in two $`75^{}\times 5^{}`$ declination strips centred in the South Galactic Cap (SGC) at $`\delta =30^{}`$ and the North Galactic Cap (NGC) at $`\delta =0^{}`$ with RA ranges $`\alpha =21^h40`$ to $`3^h15`$ and $`\alpha =9^h50`$ to $`14^h50`$ respectively. The completed survey will cover approximately 740 deg2 .

Spectroscopic observations have been carried out using the 2dF instrument at the AAT in conjunction with the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) , as the 2QZ and 2dFGRS areas cover the same regions of sky. Spectroscopic data are reduced using the 2dF pipeline reduction system . The identification of QSO spectra and redshift estimation was carried out using the AUTOZ code written specifically for this project. This program compares template spectra of QSOs, stars and galaxies to the observed spectra. Identifications are then confirmed by eye for all spectra. The mean spectroscopic completeness for the sample is 89 per cent.

The spatial and redshift distribution of QSOs is shown in Fig 1. At redshifts $`z>2`$ the decline in QSO numbers is due to the increased reddening of QSO colours by absorption in the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest. QSOs in this region are therefore missed by our colour selection. At low redshifts we will miss objects in which the host galaxy contributes significantly to the flux, due to both the extended nature of the sources and their redder colours. An estimate of the survey incompleteness due to the colour selection is given by Boyle et al. (2000) .

## 3 The QSO correlation function

We have measured the redshift space correlation function, $`\xi _\mathrm{Q}(s)`$, of 2QZ QSOs, both averaged over the entire sample, and sub-divided into redshift or magnitude intervals. $`\xi _\mathrm{Q}(s)`$ has been estimated assuming two representative cosmological models; the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ Einstein-de Sitter model (EdS) and a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\lambda _0=0.7`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). We use the minimum variance  correlation function estimator, and details of our method can be found in Croom et al. (2001) .

In Fig. 2a shows the QSO correlation function for EdS and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ universes averaged over $`0.3<z2.9`$, based on the QSOs in the 10k catalogue. The amplitude and shape of $`\xi _\mathrm{Q}(s)`$ is comparable to that of local galaxies (Fig. 2b). Fitting a standard power law of the form $`\xi _\mathrm{Q}(s)=(s/s_0)^\gamma `$ we find that $`s_0=3.99_{0.34}^{+0.28}h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and $`\gamma =1.55_{0.09}^{+0.10}`$ for an EdS cosmology. The effect of a significant cosmological constant is to increase the separation of QSOs, so that in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model the best fit is $`s_0=5.69_{0.50}^{+0.42}h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and $`\gamma =1.56_{0.09}^{+0.10}`$. Both these best fit lines are shown in Fig 2a.

We then sub-divide the 2QZ into five redshift intervals containing approximately equal number of QSOs. The correlation function is measured in each redshift interval separately, and a power law is fit to the result (assuming the same slope as found from the full sample). The resulting clustering scale lengths are shown in Fig. 2c. The clustering of QSOs is constant as a function of redshift over the entire range probed by the 2QZ (EdS). In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ case there is a marginal increase of clustering with increasing redshift, but a constant value cannot be ruled out. Making comparisions to the clustering of high redshift Ly-break galaxies , at $`z3`$, we see that these also have a similar clustering strength to that of the 2QZ QSOs. The solid lines in Fig. 2c denote the linear theory evolution of clustering. The data disagrees with the linear theory prediction, implying that QSOs must have a redshift dependent bias factor, $`b_\mathrm{Q}(z)`$. We derive an empirical fit to the bias of the QSOs assuming $`b(z)=1+(b(0)1)G(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\lambda _0,z)^\beta `$ where $`G(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\lambda _0,z)`$ is the linear growth factor (dot-dashed lines in Fig. 2c). The best fit values are $`b(0)=1.45_{0.16}^{+0.21}`$ and $`\beta =1.68_{0.40}^{+0.44}`$ (EdS) and $`b(0)=1.28_{0.11}^{+0.16}`$ and $`\beta =1.89_{0.46}^{+0.49}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). A more detailed analysis is carried out by Croom et al. (2001) .

We lastly sub-divide our sample into 3 apparent magnitude slices with equal number of QSOs in each. The measured values of $`s_0`$ as a function of mean apparent magnitude are shown in Fig. 2d. There is no significant difference between the different magnitude slices, although the brightest QSOs do have marginally stronger clustering. We note that sub-dividing on the basis of apparent magnitude is approximately equvalent to selection relative to $`M^{}`$ due to the extreme luminosity evolution of QSOs over the redshift range of our sample .

## 4 Cosmological parameters from redshift-space distortions

By comparing clustering along and across the line of sight, and modelling the effects of peculiar velocities (both linear and non-linear) it is possible to detect the geometric distortions present if the wrong cosmological model is assumed when determining the clustering . At high redshift, the geometric distortion is particularly sensitive to the cosmological constant $`\lambda _0`$. In practice, a model which also takes into account linear infall is fit to provide a constraint in the $`\lambda _0`$ vs. $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.6}/b`$ plane.

The QSO power spectrum from the 2QZ 10k sample, measured along and across the line of sight, $`P(k_{},k_{})`$, is shown in Fig. 3. Unfortunately the current 2QZ data only provides a joint constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=1\lambda _0`$ and $`\beta `$ (shading in Fig. 3b). Infact there is also some dependence on the value of the small scale non-linear pair-wise velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}`$. Because we are looking at $`P(k_{},k_{})`$ on large scales this is not a major issue, but the effects of varying the assumed velocity dispersion is shown in Fig. 3b.

However, we can obtain a useful constraint on the cosmological world model by combining the above approach with our knowledge of the linear growth of clustering. By using the value of $`\beta `$ and the two-point correlation function for nearby galaxies derived from the 2dfGRS  we can determine the clustering of matter at $`z=0`$ and for a given cosmology we can then derive the clustering of mass as a function of $`z`$. Comparison to the amplitude of QSO clustering then gives the mean value of the QSO bias and hence $`\beta `$. This approach gives a differing relation between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\beta `$ (dotted and dot-dashed lines in Fig. 3b), and thus breaks the degeneracy. The current best fit derived from this method is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.23_{0.13}^{+0.44}`$ and $`\beta =0.39_{0.17}^{+0.18}`$. Ths analysis is discussed further in Outram et al., (2001) .

With the completion of the 2QZ at the end of 2001, analysis of the complete data set will produce further constraints on cosmological world models. This will include different types of analysis than those discussed here, including the gravitational lensing properties of the 2QZ QSOs. It is hoped that the 2QZ will become a major resource for the astronomical community, particularly when the final data becomes public at the end of 2002.

Acknowledgements.  We warmly thank all the present and former staff of the Anglo-Australian Observatory for their work in building and operating the 2dF facility. The 2QZ is based on observations made with the Anglo-Australian Telescope and the UK Schmidt Telescope. NSL is supported by a PPARC Studentship. We also thank Marie and Laurence for organising a very enjoyable and interesting meeting.


text:
# References

Electron self-energy and effective mass in a single heterostructure
Xiu-Kun Hua100footnotetext:  electronic mail: huaxk@pub.sz.jsinfo.net, Yin-Zhong Wu,1,2, and Zhen-Ya Li3,1 1Department of Physics, Suzhou University, Suzhou, 215006, China
2Department of physics, Changshu College, Changshu, 215500, China
3CCAST(World Laboratory), P. O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the electron self-energy and effective mass in a single heterostructure using Green-function method. Numerical calculations of the electron self-energy and effective mass for $`GaAs/AlAs`$ heterostructure are performed. The results show that the self energy (effective mass) of electron, which incorporate the energy of electron coupling to interface-optical phonons and half three-dimension LO phonons, monotonically increase(decrease) from that of interface polaron to that of 3D bulk polaron with the increase of the distance between the position of the electron and interface.
Key words: Semiconductors, Electron-phonon interactions

1. Introduction
The heterostructure and superlattice of insulators and semiconductors have many potential electronic and optical properties, which continue to receive much attention for both theoretical research and their application on electronic and optical devices. The polaron effects of electron-interface-optical-phonon interaction result in some changes to the electron self-energy and the effective mass which are very different from those in 3D system, and have been investigated extensively. In the past years, many works on the properties of interface polaron were studied using the perturbation- theory method \[3-5\], the Lee-Low-Pines(LLP) variational method \[6-8\] and the Feynman path integral approach \[9-11\]. Hai , for example, investigated the polaron energy and effective mass in a quantum well by applying the perturbation-theory method, Li and Gu  investigated intermediate-coupling polaron in a polar-crystal slab by using LLP variational method. A few works, which include the study of many- body effects in the normal-state polaron system  and the investigation of exact ground state properties of polaron in the limit of large dimensions , have been done using the powerful Green-function method. Recently Charrour presented a systematic study of the ground state binding energy of hydrogenic impurity in cylindrical quantum dot  and the effect of electron-phonon interaction on an electron bound to an impurity in a spherical quantum dot is studied by Melinikov etc .
In the past, many works have been contributed to investigate the properties of interface polaron. However, rather insufficient attentions have been paid to the properties of polaron as a function of the distance between the position of the electron and interface. In this paper, we apply the Green-function method to study the effect of electron-phonon interactions on the self-energy and the effective mass of an electron in a single heterostructure. We put Hamiltonian into the second quantization representation only on the area paralleling to interface. Our numerical results of the self-energy and effective mass using $`GaAs/AlAs`$ heterostructure as an example show that the electron self-energy and effective mass in single heterostructure are strongly related to the distance of electron to interface. We find that the total electron self-energy, which incorporate the contribution of electron coupling to interface-optical phonons and half 3D bulk LO phonons to electron self-energy, monotonically increase from that of interface polaron to that of 3D polaron with the increase of distance of electron to interface. We also find that the total effective mass, which incorporate the contribution of electron interacting with interface-optical phonons and half 3D bulk LO phonons to the effective mass, monotonically decrease from that of interface polaron to that of 3D polaron with increase of distance of electron to interface.
2. Hamiltonian and calculation
A single heterostructure is taken into account. The space for $`z>0`$ is occupied by $`GaAs`$ (crystal 1) and for $`z<0`$ by AlAs (crystal 2). Considering only the motion of an electron with mass m, the Hamiltonian for the coupling of an electron to bulk and interface optical phonons in a single heterostructure can be given by

$$H=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(z)+\underset{q}{}\mathrm{}\omega _{Ln}a_{}^{}{}_{q}{}^{}a_q+\underset{q_{//}}{}\mathrm{}\omega _\pm a_{}^{}{}_{q_{//}}{}^{}a_{q_{//}}+H_{eBO}+H_{eIO},$$
$`(1)`$
where p is the momentum operator of the electron, m is the band mass of electron, V(z) is the confining potential in the z direction, $`a_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(a_q)`$ is the creation (annihilation) operator of a bulk LO phonon with wave vector q and energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _{Ln}`$, $`a_{q}^{}{}_{//}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(a_{q}^{}{}_{//}{}^{})`$ is the creation (annihilation) operator of an interface-optical (IO) phonon with wave vector $`q_{//}`$ and energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _\pm `$. $`H_{eBO}`$ is the electron-LO-phonon interaction Hamiltonian in half 3D bulk crystal, $`H_{eIO}`$ is the electron-IO-phonon interaction Hamiltonian. We regard the band mass to be homogeneous one.
The polarizing electron cloud of the interface ions induces an image potential which is

$$V(z)=\frac{e^2(ϵ_\mathrm{}1ϵ_\mathrm{}2)}{4zϵ_\mathrm{}n(ϵ_\mathrm{}1+ϵ_\mathrm{}2)},$$
$`(2)`$
where $`ϵ_\mathrm{}1`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{}2`$ are the optical dielectric constants of crystal 1 and 2, respectively. n=1 and 2 denote crystal 1 and 2. For a single heterostructure, the electron-LO-phonon interaction Hamiltonian of an electron with half 3D bulk and interface optical phonons was given by Mori and Ando :

$$H_{eBO}=\underset{q_z>0}{}\underset{q_{//}}{}e^{iq_{//}r_{//}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ln}(q_{//},q_z,z)[a_{q_{//}j}+a_{}^{}{}_{q_{//}j}{}^{}]$$
$`(3)`$
and

$$H_{eIO}=\underset{q_{//}}{}e^{iq_{//}r_{//}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IO}^\pm (q_{//},z)[a_{q_{//}}+a_{}^{}{}_{q_{//}}{}^{}],$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ln}(q_{//},q_z,z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IO}^\pm (q_{//},z)`$ are the coupling functions that describe the coupling strengths of a single electron with the half 3D bulk optical-phonon modes in crystal 1 and 2 and with the interface optical phonon modes at the position z, respectively. The expression of the coupling function in half 3D bulk crystal was given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ln}(q_{//},q_z,z)=\left[\frac{\omega _{Ln}e^2}{2V}\right]^{1/2}\left[\frac{1}{ϵ_\mathrm{}n}\frac{1}{ϵ_{0n}}\right]^{1/2}\frac{1}{[q_{//}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+q_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]^{1/2}}\theta _n(z)2sin(q_zz),$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\omega _{Ln}`$ denote the frequency of LO phonons in polar crystal n(n=1 and 2), V denotes the volume of polar crystal and

$$\theta _n(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if electron is in crystal n}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{other}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IO}^\pm (q_{//},z)`$ was given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IO}^\pm (q_{//},z)=\left[\frac{\omega _\pm e^2}{2S}\right]^{1/2}\left[\frac{1}{\beta _1^1(\omega _\pm )+\beta _2^1(\omega _\pm )}\right]^{1/2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2q_{//}}}e^{q_{//}|z|},$$
$`(6)`$
where

$$\beta _n(\omega _\pm )=\left(\frac{1}{ϵ_\mathrm{}n}\frac{1}{ϵ_{0n}}\right)\frac{\omega _{Ln}^2}{\omega _\pm ^2}\left[\frac{\omega _\pm ^2\omega _{Tn}^2}{\omega _{Ln}^2\omega _{Tn}^2}\right]^2,n=1,2$$
$`(7)`$
and $`\omega _\pm `$ is decided by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}ϵ_n(\omega )=ϵ_\mathrm{}n\frac{\omega ^2\omega _{Ln}^2}{\omega ^2\omega _{Tn}^2}\hfill \\ ϵ_1(\omega )+ϵ_2(\omega )=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(8)`$
In order to represent the Hamiltonian in the second quantization representation, we expand the electron wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$(r) ($`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$(r)) in a basis set $`\varphi _k`$(r) ($`\varphi _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$(r)) with the well known method

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=\underset{k_{//}}{}c_{k_{//}}\varphi _{k_{//}}(r),$$
$`(9a)`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(r)=\underset{k_{//}}{}c_{k_{//}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{k_{//}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(r),$$
$`(9b)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\varphi _{k_{//}}(r)\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2\pi }e^{ik_{//}.r_{//}},\hfill \\ \varphi _{k_{//}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(r)\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2\pi }e^{ik_{//}.r_{//}},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(10)`$
where $`k_{//}`$ is the wave vector of electron in the x-y plane, $`r_{//}=(x,y)`$. Putting Eqs.(9)-(10) into Eqs.(1) and (3)-(4), we obtain the second quantizating effective Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{k_{//}}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_{//}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m}c_{}^{}{}_{k_{//}}{}^{}c_{k_{//}}+\frac{p_z^2}{2m}+V(z)+\underset{q}{}\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}a_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_q$$

$$+\underset{q_{//}}{}\mathrm{}\omega _\pm a_{q_{//}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}a_{q_{//}}+H_{eBO}+H_{eIO},$$
$`(11)`$
where

$$H_{eBO}=\underset{k_{//},q_{//}}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ln}(q_{//},q_z,z)c_{}^{}{}_{k_{//}+q_{//}}{}^{}c_{k_{//}}[a_{}^{}{}_{q_{//}}{}^{}+a_{q_{//}}],$$
$`(12)`$
$$H_{eIO}=\underset{k_{//},q_{//}}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IO}^\pm (q_{//},z)c_{}^{}{}_{k_{//}+q_{//}}{}^{}c_{k_{//}}[a_{}^{}{}_{q_{//}}{}^{}+a_{q_{//}}].$$
$`(13)`$
In the following we shall derive the self-energy and effective mass of an electron by using the standard Matsubara Green function method. For the weak-electron-phonon-coupling system, it is a good approximation that we only take the first term in the perturbation series for the self-energy. The contribution of electron interacting with bulk optical phonons to the electron self-energy is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Ln}(𝐤_{//},ik_n)=\underset{q_z>0}{}\underset{q_{//}}{}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ln}(q_{//},q_z,z)\right]^2(𝐪_{//},q_j)\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{iq_n}{}𝒢^{(0)}(k_{//}+q_{//},ik_n+iq_n)𝒟^{(0)}(q_{//},iq_n)$$

$$=\underset{q_z>0}{}\underset{q_{//}}{}\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\omega _{Ln}e^2}{SL_z}\left[\frac{1}{ϵ_\mathrm{}n}\frac{1}{ϵ_\mathrm{}n}\right]\frac{\theta _n(z)sin^2(q_zz)}{q_{//}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+q_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$

$$\times \left(\frac{n_p+n_F}{ik_n+\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}\epsilon _{k_{//}+q_{//}}}+\frac{n_p+1n_F}{ik_n\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}\epsilon _{k_{//}+q_{//}}}\right)$$
$`(14)`$
with

$$n_p=\frac{1}{e^{\beta \mathrm{}\omega _{LO}}1},n_F=\frac{1}{e^{\beta \epsilon _{k_{//}+q_{//}}}+1},$$

where $`n_p`$ and $`n_F`$ are the phonon and fermion occupation factor, $`𝒢^{(0)}(k_{//},ik_n)`$ and $`𝒟^{(0)}(q_{//},iq_n)`$ are the Green function of free electron and phonon, respectively. Set $`ik_n=E+i\delta `$ so that the real part of the retarded self-energy of electron interacting with longitudinal optical(LO) phonons is

$$Re[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Ln}^{}{}_{}{}^{ret}(k_{//},E)]=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{Ln}e^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{ϵ_\mathrm{}n}\frac{1}{ϵ_\mathrm{}n}\right)\underset{q_z>0}{}\frac{1}{L_z}\underset{0}{}^{2\pi }\underset{0}{}^{q_m}\frac{\theta _n(z)sin^2(q_zz)d^2q_{//}}{q_{//}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+q_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$

$$\times \left(\frac{n_p+n_F}{E+\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}\epsilon _{k_{//}+q_{//}}}+\frac{n_p+1n_F}{E\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}\epsilon _{k_{//}+q_{//}}}\right).$$

At zero temperature, $`n_p=0`$. The fermion occupation factors $`n_F`$ are all zero, if there is only one particle in a band. After setting $`k_{//}=0`$, one can obtain

$$Re[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Ln}^{}{}_{}{}^{ret}(0,E)]=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _{Ln}e^2}{8\pi }\left(\frac{1}{ϵ_\mathrm{}n}\frac{1}{ϵ_\mathrm{}n}\right)$$

$$\underset{0}{}^{q_m}\frac{\theta _n(z)(1cos(2q_zz))dq_z}{2(\mathrm{}\omega _\pm EE_{q_z})}ln\frac{(\mathrm{}\omega _\pm +x_mE)E_{q_z}}{(\mathrm{}\omega _\pm E)(x_m+E_{q_z})},$$
$`(15)`$
where

$$E_{q_z}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2q_{z}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m}.$$
$`(16)`$
Considering the boundary of the first Brillouin zone, the upper integral limit in above equations can be written as

$$q_m=\frac{\sqrt{3}\pi }{a},x_m=\frac{\mathrm{}^2q_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m}=\frac{3\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2ma^2}.$$
$`(17)`$
The self-energy of an electron interacting with interface optical phonon is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{IO}(𝐤_{//},ik_n)=\underset{q_{//}}{}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IO}^n(q_{//},z)\right]^2(𝐪_{//},q_j)\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{iq_n}{}𝒢^{(0)}(k_{//}+q_{//},ik_n+iq_n)𝒟^{(0)}(q_{//},iq_n).$$

When $`k_{//}=0`$, we get the real part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{IO}(𝐤_{//},ik_n)`$ in the zero-temperature case

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IO}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}(0,E)=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _\pm e^2}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\beta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\omega _\pm )+\beta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\omega _\pm )}\underset{0}{}^{q_m}\frac{e^{2q_{//}z}dq_{//}}{E\mathrm{}\omega _\pm \epsilon _{q_{//}}},$$
$`(18)`$
where

$$\epsilon _{q_{//}}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2q_{//}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m_1}.$$
$`(19)`$
The approximation result of effective mass can be got using

$$\frac{m}{m^{}}=\underset{k_{//}0}{lim}\frac{1+\frac{}{\epsilon _{k_{//}}}Re[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ret}(k_{//},E)]}{1\frac{}{E}Re[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ret}(k_{//},E)]}$$
$`(20)`$
and

$$Re[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ret}(k_{//},E)]=Re[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{BO}^{}{}_{}{}^{ret}(k_{//},E)]+Re[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IO}^{}{}_{}{}^{ret}(k_{//},E)]$$
$`(21)`$
3. Results and discussions
In this paper, we select the $`GaAs/AlAs`$ heterostructure as an example to study the polaron effect. The characteristic parameter concerned for $`GaAs/AlAs`$ heterostructure are taken as:

Table 1: Material parameters of GaAs and AlAs

| materials | lattice constant(Å) | $`ϵ_0`$ | $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$ | $`m_b/m_e`$ | $`\mathrm{}\omega _{LO}(meV)`$ | $`\mathrm{}\omega _{TO}(meV)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GaAs | 5.654 | 13.18 | 10.89 | 0.0656 | 36.25 | 33.29 |
| AlAs | 5.654 | 10.06 | 8.16 | 0.147 | 50.09 | 44.88 |

in above table, $`m_e`$ is the mass of a free electron.
In Figure 1 and 2, we take the electron self-energy and effective mass in a single heterostructure as a function of distance of electron to interface, respectively. Here the parameters E and $`k_{//}`$ are set to 0. Figure 1 shows that the contribution of electron interacting with the half 3D bulk LO-phonon to the electron self-energy makes the electron self-energy monotonically decrease starting from zero to that in bulk 3D GaAs(AlAs) as the distance of electron to interface increases. Figure 1 also show that the contribution of electron interacting with interface-optical(IO)-phonon to the electron self-energy makes the electron self-energy monotonically increase starting from that(about -9.68meV) in $`GaAs/AlAs`$ interface to approaching to zero as the distance of electron to interface increases. If we incorporate the contribution of electron interacting with the IO- and half 3D bulk LO-phonon to the electron self-energy, we find that the electron self-energy monotonically increases starting from that(about -9.68meV) in $`GaAs/AlAs`$ interface to that in 3D bulk GaAs(AlAs) as the distance of electron to interface increases.
Figure 2 shows that the contribution of electron interacting with the half 3D bulk LO-phonon to the effective mass makes the effective mass monotonically increase starting from zero to that in 3D bulk GaAs(AlAs) as the distance of electron to interface increases. Figure 2 also show that the contribution of electron interacting with interface-optical(IO)-phonon to the effective mass makes the effective mass monotonically decrease starting from that($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^{}/m_1`$ is equal to about 0.04) in $`GaAs/AlAs`$ interface to approaching to zero with the increase of distance of electron to interface. If we incorporate the contribution of electron interacting with the IO- and half 3D bulk LO-phonon to the effective mass, we find that the effective mass monotonically decreases starting from that($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^{}/m_1`$ is equal to about 0.04) in $`GaAs/AlAs`$ interface to that in 3D bulk GaAs(AlAs) crystal with the increase of the distance between the position of the electron and interface . When the distance of an electron to interface is equal to 30 times of lattice constant, the correction to effective mass is about 25 percent larger than that in 3D bulk material.
4. Summary
We have studied the self-energy and effective mass of electron in a single heterostructure using the Green’s function method. In the theory, we expand the wave function in terms of a basis set which is only on the plane paralleling to interface so as to put Hamiltonian into the second quantization representation only on plane paralleling to interface. Numerical calculations using $`GaAs/AlAs`$ heterostructure as an example is performed. The results show that the total self-energy, which incorporate the contribution of electron interacting with interface-optical phonons and bulk LO phonons to electron self-energy, monotonically increase starting from that in $`GaAsAl/As`$ interface to that in 3D bulk $`GaAs(AlAs)`$ as the distance of electron to interface increase. The results also show that the band mass, which incorporate the contribution of electron interacting with interface-optical phonons and 3D bulk LO phonons to the band mass, monotonically decrease starting from that in $`GaAs/AlAs`$ heterostructure to that in 3D bulk $`GaAs(AlAs)`$ as the distance of electron to interface increase. One point the authors want to make clear is that in the present paper we aims at studying the polaron effect on the electron mass and self-energy. The potential in the z direction consist of V(z) and the electron-phonon interaction induced parts $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{BO}(k_{//},E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IO}(k_{//},E)`$ . The z-direction electron wave function is rather a complicated problem, which needs further investigation . One can also see that the one phonon process electron self-energy include the recoil part of the electron ,which is the advantage of Green function method upon the second perturbation theory (for instance compared with Ref ).
Acknowledgment
The present work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grant No.10174049.

Figures Captions

Figure 1. The self-energy of the polaron in $`GaAs/AlAs`$ heterostructure as a function of distance between the position of the electron and the interface for $`E`$ and $`k_{//}=0`$.
Figure 2. The effective mass of the polaron in $`GaAs/AlAs`$ heterostructure as a function of distance between the position of the electron and the interface for $`E`$ and $`k_{//}=0`$. $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the electron band masses in the GaAs and AlAs bulk materials, respectively.