text:
# The final measurement of ϵ'/ϵ by NA48

## 1 INTRODUCTION

### 1.1 CP violation in the neutral kaon system

CP violation has been discovered in the neutral kaon system in 1964 . The main component of the effect  occurs in the mixing between $`K_0`$ and $`\overline{K_0}`$. The physical states $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ deviate from pure CP = $`\pm `$ 1 eigenstates, with the mixing described by the parameter $`ϵ`$. Direct CP violation can occur in kaon decays to two pions through the interference of amplitudes with different isospins . This is described by the parameter $`ϵ^{}`$. The quantity which can be measured experimentally is the double ratio R of the decay widths:

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{})}}`$
$``$ $`16\times Re(ϵ^{}/ϵ)`$
In the Standard Model, CP violation arises from the irreducible complex phase in the CKM matrix . Direct CP violation is predicted by the Standard Model, with typical computations for Re($`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$) ranging from $``$ -10 to 30 $`\times `$10-4 .

From the data taken in 1997-98-99, NA48 published  a result (15.3$`\pm `$2.6)$`\times `$10-4. KTeV  published a result based on the data taken in 1996-1997 (20.7$`\pm `$2.8)$`\times `$10-4. These recent results showed the existence of direct CP violation in the neutral kaon system.

We report here on the measurement of Re($`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$) performed using the 2001 data sample, recorded in somewhat different experimental conditions by the NA48 experiment.

After the 1999 data-taking period, the drift chambers of the experiment were damaged by the implosion of the beam tube. The data taking in 2001 took place with rebuilt drift chambers. Thanks to the possibility of a better SPS duty cycle, the data could be taken at a 30% lower beam intensity, allowing the insensitivity of the result to intensity-related effects to be checked, and the statistics for the final $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ measurement by NA48 to be completed. The statistics accumulated during the 2001 data-taking period is roughly half of the total statistics accumulated in the 1998 and 99 periods. The details of the analysis of this data set can be found in .

### 1.2 NA48 Method

The measurement of $`R`$ proceeds by counting the number of events in each of the four decay modes. The experiment is designed to exploit cancellations of systematic effects contributing symmetrically to different components of the R. Data are collected simultaneously in the four decay modes, cancelling the absolute fluxes and minimising the sensitivity of the measurement to accidental activity and variations of the detection efficiency. The $`K_L`$ and $`K_S`$ decays are provided by two nearly collinear beams. To minimise the difference in acceptance due to the large difference in average decay lengths, only $`K_L`$ decays occurring in the region also populated by $`K_S`$ are used. The $`K_L`$ events are furthermore weighted as a function of the proper lifetime in order to equalise the decay vertex distribution of $`K_L`$ and $`K_S`$ events. With this procedure, the acceptance correction cancels at first order in R, thus minimising the systematic uncertainty from Monte Carlo modelling of the experiment.

## 2 BEAMS AND DETECTOR

### 2.1 Beams

The neutral beams are derived from 400 GeV/$`c`$ protons extracted from the CERN SPS. Because of the different mean decay lengths of $`K_L`$ and $`K_S`$, two different production targets are used, located 126 m and 6 m upstream of the beginning of the decay region. For each SPS pulse (5.2 s every 16.8 s), $``$2.4$`\times `$1012 protons hit the $`K_L`$ production target. Three stages of collimation are used to define the $`K_L`$ beam, at a production angle of 2.4 mrad. Part of the non-interacting protons impinge on a bent silicon mono-crystal. A small fraction undergoes channelling and produces a proton beam of $``$5$`\times `$107 protons per pulse transported to the $`K_S`$ production target, where a second neutral beam is derived, at a production angle of 4.2 mrad. The $`K_S`$ beam enters the fiducial decay region 6.8 cm above the $`K_L`$ beam. The beams converge with an angle of 0.6 mrad and the axes of the two beams cross at the position of the electromagnetic calorimeter. To distinguish $`K_L`$ and $`K_S`$ decays, the protons directed to the $`K_S`$ target are detected by an array of scintillation counters which comprise the tagging detector. The time of each proton is recorded and is compared with the time of the decay as measured in the main detector. The presence (absence) of a proton in coincidence with the event defines the event as $`K_S`$ ($`K_L`$). The $`K_S`$ beam traverses an anti-counter (AKS), formed by a set of scintillation counters following a 3 mm thick iridium crystal. This detector provides an accurate definition of the beginning of the decay region where it is located by vetoing $`K_S`$ decays occurring upstream.

### 2.2 Main detector

Charged pion decays are measured by a magnetic spectrometer comprised of four drift chambers and a dipole magnet giving a momentum kick of 265 MeV/$`c`$. The momentum resolution is $`\sigma _p/p`$ = $`0.48\%0.009\%\times p`$ ($`p`$ in GeV/$`c`$). Two plastic scintillator hodoscope planes are located after the spectrometer. They are used to determine the event time of the charged events for the tagging procedure.

A quasi-homogeneous liquid krypton electromagnetic calorimeter with a projective tower readout is used to measure the photons from $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ events. The 13212 readout cells have each a cross-section of $``$ 2$`\times `$2 cm2. The energy resolution is $`\sigma (E)/E`$ = $`0.032/\sqrt{E}0.09/E0.0042`$, where $`E`$ is in GeV. The spatial resolution is better than 1 mm above 25 GeV. This detector is also used to measure the time of the photons for the tagging procedure.

Located after the electromagnetic calorimeter are a iron-scintillator hadron calorimeter, followed by a muon counter consisting of three planes of scintillators sandwiched between 80 cm thick iron walls.

### 2.3 Trigger

The electromagnetic calorimeter is used to trigger on $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ events. At the trigger level, the calorimeter data are reduced to $`x`$ and $`y`$ projections which are used to reconstruct the total energy as well as to estimate the decay position of the event. The efficiency of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ trigger is $`(99.901\pm 0.015)\%`$ and is $`K_S`$-$`K_L`$ symmetric. A two level trigger is used for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays. At first level, the hodoscope is placed in coincidence with a total energy condition defined using both calorimeters. The second level trigger uses information from the drift chambers to perform a fast event reconstruction. The efficiency of the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ trigger is $`(98.697\pm 0.017)\%`$. This is higher by $`0.9\%`$ than for the 1998-99 data thanks mostly to the lower beam intensity. The efficiency is measured separately for $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ and the double ratio is corrected for the small difference.

## 3 EVENT RECONSTRUCTION AND SELECTION

$`K\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays are selected using only data from the LKr calorimeter. The details of the reconstruction and of the cuts applied can be found in  and . From the measured energies and impact point positions on the calorimeter of the four showers, the decay vertex position along the beam axis is computed assuming that their invariant mass is the kaon mass. The invariant mass of the two photons pairs are then computed (the resolution is better than 1 MeV/$`c^2`$) and compared to the nominal $`\pi ^0`$ mass, constructing a $`\chi ^2`$ variable. To reject the residual background from $`K_L3\pi ^0`$ events, a cut on $`\chi ^2`$ is applied. This residual background fraction is $`(5.6\pm 2.0)\times 10^4`$ in the $`K_L`$ sample, while the $`K_S`$ sample is background free. The background from $`K_S`$ decays produced by scattering of beam particles in the collimators in the $`K_L`$ beam is $`(8.8\pm 2.0)\times 10^4`$.

$`K\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays are reconstructed from tracks in the spectrometer. In the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode, both the longitudinal and the transverse decay vertex position can be reconstructed, allowing a clean identification of $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ decays. A cut is applied on the ratio of the two track momenta to remove asymmetric decays in which one of the tracks could be close to the beam tube where the Monte Carlo modelling is more critical. To reject background from semileptonic $`K_L`$ decays, events with tracks consistent with being either an electron (from the E/p ratio of the energy deposited in the LKr calorimeter over the track momenta) or a muon (using hits in the muon counters) are rejected. Kinematical cuts are also applied on the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass (the resolution is typically 2.5 MeV/$`c^2`$) and on the reconstructed transverse momentum. The residual background in the $`K_L`$ sample is $`(14.2\pm 3.0)\times 10^4`$, while it is negligible in the $`K_S`$ sample.

The fiducial ranges in kaon energy $`E_K`$ and in proper time $`\tau `$ used to count events are chosen to be $`70<E_K<170`$ GeV and $`0<\tau <3.5\tau _S`$, where $`\tau =0`$ is defined at the position of the AKS counter and $`\tau _S`$ is the $`K_S`$ mean lifetime. For $`K_L`$ events, the decay time cut is applied on reconstructed $`\tau `$, while for $`K_S`$ events the cut at $`\tau =0`$ is applied using the AKS to veto decays occurring upstream. The determinations of the kaon energy, the decay vertex and the proper time in the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ mode rely on measurements of the photon energies and positions with the calorimeter. The uniformity of the calorimeter response is optimised using $`K_{e3}`$ decays and checked using $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\eta `$ decays produced during special (“$`\eta `$”) runs in which a $`\pi ^{}`$ beam strikes two thin targets located near the beginning and the end of the fiducial decay region. The absolute energy scale is adjusted, with a 0.03% accuracy, using $`K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ decays, such that the reconstructed AKS position matches the true value. It is also checked using data from the $`\eta `$ runs (the $`\eta `$ mass is taken from ). Taking all uncertainties into account (including non-linearities in the energy response), the total systematic uncertainty on R from the reconstruction of $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ events is found to be $`\pm 5.3\times 10^4`$ . The uncertainty on R from the reconstruction of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events is $`\pm 2.8\times 10^4`$.

A decay is labelled $`K_S`$ is a coincidence is found within a $`\pm `$ 2 ns interval between its event time and a proton time measured with the tagger. Figure 1 shows the time distribution for $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ decays to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ which have been identified by their vertex positions. From this, the misidentification probabilities in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mode can be deduced: $`\alpha _{SL}=(1.12\pm 0.03)\times 10^4`$ for the $`K_S`$ tagging inefficiency and $`\alpha _{LS}=(8.115\pm 0.010)\%`$ for the $`K_L`$ mistagging as $`K_S`$ due to an accidental coincidence between the event and a proton. As the same tagging procedure is used for $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events, R is only sensitive to differences in misidentification probabilities between the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ modes. Several methods have been developed to derive these differences directly from the data . The results are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{SL}=(0\pm 0.5)\times 10^4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{LS}=(3.4\pm 1.4)\times 10^4`$ corresponding respectively to an uncertainty on R of $`\pm 3.0\times 10^4`$ and a correction of $`(6.9\pm 2.8)\times 10^4`$. The origin of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{LS}`$ is related to a higher loss of $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ events from accidental activity in the beam and can be predicted using a technique of overlaying “random” events (taken proportionally to the beam intensity) with $`\pi \pi `$ decays to estimate these losses. The agreement between the observed and the predicted $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _{LS}`$ values is illustrated in Figure 2.

## 4 ACCIDENTAL EFFECTS

The 2001 data were taken at lower beam intensity to reduce the uncertainties related to accidental effects. The overlap of extra particles related to kaon decays in the high intensity $`K_L`$ beam with a good event may result in the loss of the event. The effect on R is minimised by the simultaneous data collection in the four channels. The possible residual effect on R can be separated into two components:

1) A difference between the beam intensities seen by $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ events: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \times \mathrm{\Delta }I/I`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is the difference between the event losses in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ modes and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/I`$ the difference between the $`K_L`$ beam intensity seen by $`K_L`$ and $`K_S`$ events. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is minimised by applying to all events the recorded dead time conditions. The largest one is an “overflow” condition in the drift chamber readout, which rejects 11% of the $`\pi \pi `$ events (this is significantly smaller than the 20% loss in the 1998-99 sample thanks to the lower beam instantaneous intensity and a lower noise in the drift chambers). $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is estimated mainly from the overlay technique and is found to be $`(1.0\pm 0.5)\%`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/I`$ is measured from the rate of out-of-time LKr clusters and tracks in good $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ decays. This is illustrated in Figure 3. Beam monitors, which have been improved for the 2001 data-taking period, are also used as cross-check. The result is $`\mathrm{\Delta }I/I=(0\pm 1)\%`$. The uncertainty on R from this effect is thus $`\pm 1.1\times 10^4`$. This is significantly better than for the 1998-99 sample, thanks to the lower intensity and to better beam intensity monitors.

2) A difference in illumination between $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$ decays coupled to a variation of the event loss with the impact points of the $`K^0`$ decay products. This effect is also computed from the overlay samples. No effect is found and the uncertainty on R is $`\pm 3.0\times 10^4`$, from the statistics of the overlay samples.

## 5 RESULT AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 1 shows the summary of the corrections and systematic uncertainties on R for 2001 data. The residual acceptance correction is related to the small angle between the $`K_L`$ and $`K_S`$ beams and is computed using a large statistics Monte Carlo sample. As it is mostly given by the beam geometry, it does not rely on a detailed simulation of the detector. As expected from the design of the experiment, all corrections are small. Some systematic uncertainties are directly given by the statistics of the control samples used to study them. From the 2001 sample (comprising $`1.55\times 10^6`$ $`K_L\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ events, $`2.16\times 10^6`$ $`K_S\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`7.14\times 10^6`$ $`K_L\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`9.61\times 10^6`$ $`K_S\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$), the result R = $`0.99181\pm 0.00147\pm 0.00110`$ is obtained (where the first error is statistical and the second systematic). The corresponding value of Re($`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$) is Re($`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$) = $`(13.7\pm 2.5\pm 1.8)\times 10^4`$. The agreement between this new and the earlier results is particularly significant since they were obtained from data taken at different average beam intensities. Taking into account the correlated systematic uncertainty of $`\pm 1.4\times 10^4`$, the final combined result from the NA48 experiment is Re($`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$) = $`(14.7\pm 2.2)\times 10^4`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Mn-Mn pair interaction of two non-magnetic manganese atoms in free electron matrix, simulating aluminium (and silicon) host. 2Γ=2.7 eV, 𝐸_𝑑=11.37 eV and 𝐸_𝐹=11.7 eV.

8th International Conference on Quasicrystals, Bangalor sept. 2002

submitted to Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids

Indirect Mn-Mn pair interaction induces pseudogap in Al(Si)-Mn approximants

Guy Trambly de Laissardièrea 111, Duc Nguyen-Manhb, Didier Mayouc

a) Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Modélisation, CNRS-Université de Cergy-Pontoise (UMR 8089), Neuville, 95031 Cergy-Pontoise, France.
b) Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Oxford, Parks Road, OX1 3PH, United Kindom.
c) Laboratoire d’Etudes des Propriétés Electronique des Solides (CNRS), 38042 Grenoble Cédex 9, France.

2002/9/6

The effect on the electronic structure of an indirect Mn-Mn interaction mediated by the valence states and the sp-d hybridisation is presented. In Al(rich)-Mn phases related to quasicrystals ($`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$, o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$, $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$), this indirect interaction creates a Hume-Rothery pseudogap in the density of states together with a minimisation of the band energy. It is shown that the Mn-Mn interaction up to the distance around 10-20 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ plays an essential role in stabilizing related quasicrystal structures.

Keywords: Quasicrystal; Approximant; Hume-Rothery stabilization; Pseudogap; Transition-metal.

11footnotetext:  Correspondence to: Dr. G. Trambly de Laissardière: Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Modélisation, Université de Cergy-Pontoise, Neuville III-1, 5 Mail Gay-Lussac, 95031 Cergy-Pontoise, France.
Tel: 33 1 34 25 69 65
Fax: 33 1 34 25 70 04
guy.trambly@ptm.u-cergy.fr

1. Introduction

Al(rich)-Mn and Al(rich)-Si-Mn systems, contain many crystalline approximants of quasicrystals. These phases are good examples to analyse the effect of the position of transition metal (TM) atoms in stabilizing complex structure related to quasiperiodicity. The origin of the stabilization of quasicrystals is still unclear in spite of many experimental and theoretical study. For Al-based quasicrystals, a Hume-Rothery mechanism  have been shown to play a significant role (see for instance  and Refs. within). In these phases, the average number of electron per atom (ratio $`e/a`$) is an important parameter. Indeed, the occurrence of phases related to quasicrystals is explained by the fact that they are electron compounds with similar $`e/a`$ ratio in spite of different constituents and different atomic concentrations . A band energy minimisation occurs when the Fermi sphere touches a pseudo-Brillouin zone, constructed by Bragg vectors $`𝐊_p`$ corresponding to intense peaks in the experimental diffraction pattern. The Hume-Rothery condition for alloying is then $`2k_FK_p`$. Assuming a free electron valence band, the Fermi momentum, $`k_F`$, is calculated from $`e/a`$.

In sp Hume-Rothery alloys, valence electrons (sp electrons) are nearly free. Their density of states (DOS) is well described by the Jones theory . The Fermi-sphere / pseudo-Brillouin zone interaction creates a depletion in the DOS, called pseudogap, near the Fermi energy $`E_F`$. Such a pseudogap has been found experimentally and from first-principles calculations in many sp quasicrystals and approximants . It has also been found in many icosahedral approximants containing TM elements  whereas there are contradictory results about decagonal phases (Ref.  and Refs. within). But, the treatment of Al(rich)-TM is more complicated as d states of TM are not nearly-free states. In the case of crystals and icosahedral quasicrystals it has been shown  that sp-d hybridisation increases a pseudogap. In some particular cases a pseudogap may also be induced by the sp-d hybridisation .

The Hume-Rothery stabilization can also be viewed as a consequence of oscillating pair interactions between atoms (Refs.  and Refs. in there). In this direction Zou and Carlsson have shown that an indirect Mn-Mn interaction, mediated by sp states of Al, is strong enough to favours Mn-Mn distances close to 4.7 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ in Al(rich)-Mn quasicrystals and approximants. Here, it is shown that an indirect Mn-Mn interaction up to 10-20 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ induces pseudogap at $`E_F`$ in the approximants: cubic $`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$ , orthorhombic o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$ , and cubic $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$ . The importance of Mn-Mn interaction up to large distances shows the complexity of the stabilizing process. Obviously “frustration” mechanism should occur that may favour for complex atomic structures. As $`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$, o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$ and $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$ are related to quasicrystals, this study suggests that a Hume-Rothery stabilization, expressed in terms of Mn-Mn interaction, is intrinsically linked to the emergence of quasiperiodic structures in Al(Si)-Mn systems.

2. Effective Bragg potential for Al(rich)-Mn alloys

For sp Hume-Rothery alloys, the valence states (sp states) are nearly-free states scattered by a weak potential (Bragg potential, $`V_B`$). In this section, we show briefly that in sp-d Hume-Rothery alloys, sp electrons feel an “effective Bragg potential”  that takes into account the strong effect TM atoms via the sp-d hybridisation.

Following a classical approximation  for Al(Si)-Mn alloys, a simplified model is considered where sp states are nearly-free and d states are localized on Mn sites $`i`$. The effective hamiltonian for the sp states is written:

$`H_{eff(sp)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}}+V_{B,eff}`$ (1)
where $`V_{B,eff}`$ is an effective Bragg potential that takes into account the scattering of sp states by the strong potential ot Mn atoms. $`V_{B,eff}`$ depends thus on the positions $`𝐫_i`$ of Mn atoms. Assuming that all Mn atoms are equivalent and that two Mn atoms are not first-neighbour, one obtains :

$`V_{B,eff}(𝐫)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐊}{}}V_{B,eff}(𝐊)e^{i𝐊.𝐫},`$ (2)
$`V_{B,eff}(𝐊)=V_B(𝐊)+{\displaystyle \frac{|t_𝐊|^2}{EE_d}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e^{i𝐊.𝐫_i},`$ (3)
where the vectors $`𝐊`$ belong to the reciprocal lattice, $`t_𝐊`$ is a average matrix element that couples sp states $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤𝐊`$ via the sp-d hybridisation, and $`E_d`$ is the energy of d states. The term $`V_B(𝐊)`$ is a weak potential independent with the energy $`E`$. It corresponds to the Bragg potential for sp Hume-Rothery compounds.

The last term in equation (3), is due to the d resonance of the wave function by the potential of Mn atoms. It is strong in an energy range $`E_d\mathrm{\Gamma }EE_d+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the width of the d resonance. This term is essential as it does represent the diffraction of the sp electrons by a network of d orbitals, i.e. the factor $`\left(_ie^{i𝐊.𝐫_i}\right)`$ corresponding to the structure factor of the TM atoms sub-lattice. As the d band of Mn is almost half filled, $`E_FE_d`$, this factor is important for energy close to $`E_F`$. Note that the Bragg planes associated with the second term of equation (3) correspond to Bragg planes determined by diffraction.

This analysis shows that both sp-d hybridisation and diffraction of sp states by the sub-lattice of Mn atoms are essential to understand the electronic structure of Al(Si)-Mn alloys . The strong effect of sp-d hybridisation on the pseudogap is then understood in the framework of Hume-Rothery mechanism.

3. Two Mn in the Al(Si) matrix

As a Hume-Rothery stabilization is a consequence of oscillation of the charge density of the valence electrons with energy close to $`E_F`$, a most stable atomic structure is obtained when distances between atoms are multiples of the wavelength of electrons with energy close to $`E_F`$. Since the scattering of valence sp states by the Mn sub-lattice is strong, the Friedel oscillations of charge of sp electrons around Mn must have a strong effect on a stabilization. Therefore a Hume-Rothery mechanism in Al(rich)-Mn compounds might be analysed in term of a Mn-Mn pair interaction resulting from a strong sp-d hybridisation. Zou and Carlsson  have calculated this interaction from an Anderson model hamiltonian with two impurities, using a Green’s function method. It is found that a specific Mn-Mn distance of 4.7 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ favours for a stabilization of Al-Mn approximants . As 4.7 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ is larger than first neighbour distances, this shows the existence of an indirect medium range Mn-Mn interaction. The indirect interaction is mediated by sp-d hybridisation where sp states are mainly Al states.

We calculated the indirect Mn-Mn pair interaction $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Mn\text{-}Mn}`$ from the transfer matrix $`T`$ of two Mn atoms in the free electrons matrix by using the Lloyd formula  (Fig. 1). According to classical approximation for metal, a phenomenological short range repulsive term should be add. But this term is not important in the present study as we analyse only the medium range order, i.e. distances larger than first-neighbour distances (see Fig. 1). Parameters of the calculation are: the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ fixed by the Al matrix ($`E_F=11.7`$ eV), the width of the d resonance $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which increases as the sp-d hybridisation increases ($`2\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.7`$ eV), and the energy $`E_d`$ of the d resonance which depends on the nature of the transition metal atom ($`E_d=11.37`$ eV corresponding to $``$ 5.8 d electrons per Mn atom). A small variation of these parameters does not modify qualitatively the results presented in the following. In this paper only non-magnetic Mn are considered as most of Mn are non-magnetic in quasicrystals and approximants . In particular $`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$, o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$ and $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$ are non magnetic . Because of the sharp Fermi surface of Al, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{TM\text{-}TM}`$ oscillated (Friedel oscillations of the charge density). It asymptotic form at large TM-TM distance ($`r`$) is of the form:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{TM\text{-}TM}(r){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(2k_Fr\delta )}{r^3}}.`$ (4)
The phase shift $`\delta `$ depends on the nature of the TM atom and varies from $`2\pi `$ to $`0`$ as the d band fills. Magnitude of the medium range interaction is larger for Mn-Mn than for other transition metal (Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu), because the number of d electrons close to $`E_F`$ is the largest for Mn, and the most delocalized electrons are electrons with Fermi energy. The effect analysed here is then more important for Al-rich alloys containing Mn element than for alloys containing other TM elements.

The total DOS of two Mn atoms in the free electrons matrix is:

$`n(E,r)=n_{sp}^0(E)+\mathrm{\Delta }n_{2Mn}(E,r),`$ (5)
where $`n_{sp}^0`$ is the free electron DOS and $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{2Mn}`$, the variation of the total DOS due to two Mn atoms. $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{2Mn}`$ depends on the Mn-Mn distance $`r`$. When $`r`$ is very large (almost infinity), each Mn are similar to Mn impurity thus: $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{2Mn}=2\mathrm{\Delta }n_{1Mn}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{1Mn}`$ is the well known Lorentzian of the virtual-bound states. But small deviation from the Lorentzian occurs for finite $`r`$. On Fig. 2, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{2Mn}(E)`$ is drawn for different values of $`r`$. $`r=3.8`$$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`r=5.8`$$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ correspond to positive values of Mn-Mn interaction (Fig. 1). These distances are thus unstable and the corresponding DOSs at $`E_F`$ increase with respect to Lorentzian value. On the other hand, $`r=4.8`$$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`r=6.7`$$`\mathrm{\AA }`$ are more stable (minima of interaction), and the corresponding DOSs at $`E_F`$ are lower than the Lorentzian value.

4. Effect of Mn sub-lattice on electronic structure of approximants

4.1. Density of states

In this section, the effect of indirect Mn-Mn interaction on the DOS of approximants is analysed. We focus on the case of cubic $`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$, orthorhombic o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$ and cubi $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$. In each of these phases, Mn sites are similar and Mn atoms are not first-neighbour. In metallic alloys, the main aspects of the DOS are consequences of short range and medium range atomic order. The effect of the medium range order on the pseudogap at Fermi energy is estimated from a simple model that takes only into account the Mn-Mn pair effects with Mn-Mn distances larger than first-neighbour distances. An important question is to determine the distance up to which an indirect Mn-Mn interaction is essential.

Assuming a Hume-Rothery mechanism for the stabilization, the electronic energy is a sum of pair interaction. As interaction magnitudes are larger for Mn-Mn than for Al-Mn and Al-Al , $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Mn\text{-}Mn}`$ has a major effect on the electronic energy and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Al\text{-}Al}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Al\text{-}Mn}`$ are neglected. Triplet effects, quadruplet effects (…), that might be important for a transition metal concentration larger than 25% , are neglected. In this model, the total DOS, $`n_R(E)`$, is calculated as the sum of the variation of the DOS due to each Mn-Mn pair:

$`n_R(E)=n_{sp}^0(E)+\mathrm{\Delta }n_R(E),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }n_R(E)=x\mathrm{\Delta }n_{1Mn}(E)`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r_{ij}<R}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }n_{2Mn}(E,r_{ij})2\mathrm{\Delta }n_{1Mn}(E)\right),`$
where $`i`$, $`j`$ are index of Mn atom, $`r_{ij}`$ is $`\mathrm{Mn}_\mathrm{i}`$-$`\mathrm{Mn}_\mathrm{j}`$ distance, and $`x`$, the number of Mn atoms. $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{2Mn}`$ is defined by equation (5). $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{1Mn}`$ is the variation of the DOS due to one Mn impurity in the free electron matrix: virtual-bound state (V.B.S.). $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{1Mn}`$ is a Lorentzian centred at energy $`E_d`$ with a width at half maximum equal to $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`n_R`$ is the total DOS computed by taking into account all Mn-Mn interaction up to Mn-Mn distance equal to $`R`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_R`$ is the part of $`n_R`$ due to Mn atoms.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }n_R(E)`$ of $`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$, o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$ and $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$ are shown in Fig. 3 for different values of distance $`R`$. First Mn-Mn distance is 6.47 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ in $`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$, 4.47 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ in o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$ and 4.61 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ in $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$, but a well pronounced pseudogap appeared only when the Mn-Mn interactions up to 10-20 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ are taken into account.

Negative value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_R(E)`$ induces reduction of the total DOS with respect to the free electron value $`n_{sp}^0`$. For o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$, the minimum of the pseudogap corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_R0`$. The total DOS at the minimum of the pseudogap is thus similar to pure Al DOS, in agreement with first-principles calculation . But for $`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$ and $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$, as $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_R<0`$, a reduction of the total DOS with respect to free electron case is due to Mn-Mn medium range interaction. First-principles studies  have already shown a reduction. The present work enlightens a particular effect of Mn atoms in these ab initio results.

4.2. Energy

The “structural energy”, $``$, of the Mn sub-lattice in Al host is defined as the energy needed to built the Mn sub-lattice in the metallic host that simulates Al (and Si) host from isolated Mn atoms in the same metallic host. $``$ per unit cell is:

$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j(jj)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{Mn\text{-}Mn}(r_{ij})e^{\frac{r_{ij}}{L}},`$ (8)
$`L`$ is the mean-free path of electrons due to scattering by static disorder or phonons . $`L`$ depends on the structural quality and temperature and can be estimated to be larger than 10 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$. $`(L)`$ for $`\mathrm{Al}_{12}\mathrm{Mn}`$, o-$`\mathrm{Al}_6\mathrm{Mn}`$ and $`\alpha `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_2\mathrm{Si}`$ are shown on Fig. 4. $``$ are always negative with magnitude strong enough to give a significant contribution to the band energy. This result is in good agreement with effect of Mn-Mn interactions on the pseudogap as shown previously. According to a Hume-Rothery mechanism, one expects that a pseudogap is well pronounced for a large value of $`||`$.

5. Conclusion

A simple model is presented that allows to enlighten effects of Mn atoms on the electronic structure in Al(rich)-Mn phases related to quasicrystals. It is shown that an indirect Mn-Mn interaction up to distances 10-20 $`\mathrm{\AA }`$ is essential in stabilizing, as it creates a Hume-Rothery pseudogap close to $`E_F`$. The band energy is then minimised.

The effect of an indirect Mn-Mn interactions has been also study in previous works . Recently , it explained the origin of a large vacancies in the hexagonal $`\beta `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_9\mathrm{Mn}_3\mathrm{Si}`$ and $`\phi `$-$`\mathrm{Al}_{10}\mathrm{Mn}_3`$ phases, whereas similar site are occupied by Mn in $`\mu \mathrm{Al}_{4.12}\mathrm{Mn}`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{Al}_4\mathrm{Mn}`$, and by Co in $`\mathrm{Al}_5\mathrm{Co}_2`$. On the other hand, medium range indirect Mn-Mn interaction is also determinant for the existence or not of magnetic moments in Al-Mn quasicrystals and approximants .

As Al(rich)-Mn phase structure are related to those of quasicrystals, it suggests that a Hume-Rothery stabilization, governs by this Mn-Mn interaction, is intrinsically linked to the emergence of quasiperiodicity.


text:
# A study of large field configurations in MC simulations

## Abstract

We discuss a new approach of scalar field theory where the small field contributions are treated perturbatively and the large field configurations (which are responsible for the asymptotic behavior of the perturbative series) are neglected. In two Borel summable $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ problems improved perturbative series can be obtained by this procedure. The modified series converge towards values exponentially close to the exact ones. For $`\lambda `$ larger than some critical value, the method outperforms Padé’s approximants and Borel summations. The method can also be used for series which are not Borel summable such as the double-well potential series and provide a perturbative approach of the instanton contribution. Semi-classical methods can be used to calculate the modified Feynman rules, estimate the error and optimize the field cutoff. We discuss Monte Carlo simulations in one and two dimensions which support the hypothesis of dilution of large field configurations used in these semi-classical calculations. We show that Monte Carlo methods can be used to calculate the modified perturbative series.

In a recent publication , we have shown with three nontrivial $`\varphi ^4`$ problems that cutting off the integration range of $`\varphi `$ at each site modifies the large order behavior of these series. The modified series converge toward values which are exponentially close to the exact ones. The examples were the anharmonic oscillator and the Landau-Ginzburg hierarchical model which are Borel summable, but also the double-well which is not Borel summable, and in this case, the method incorporates instanton effects. More generally, we are interested in developing approximate treatments where the small field configurations are treated perturbatively and the large field configurations semi-classically.

All the examples discussed above can be solved accurately with numerical methods . In the following, we discuss the possibility of using the Monte Carlo method to perform such calculations. We consider scalar models with one components at each site. We define the norm of a configuration $`C`$ as $`|C|=Max_x\{|\varphi _x|\}`$. The norm distributions of MC configurations for $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ models in 1 and 2 dimensions are shown in Fig. 1. One sees that the distributions have rapidly falling tails and that the number of large norm configurations is exponentially suppressed. One would thus expect that the error on correlation functions caused by cutting-off the configurations with $`|C|>\varphi _{max}`$ has the generic form

$$\mathrm{Error}\varphi _{max}^{A_1}\mathrm{e}^{A_3\varphi _{max}^{A_2}}.$$
(1)
In addition, the sites with large fields are clustered, and the configuration has a typical shape in these regions as shown in Fig. 2. This suggests that the large field configurations contribute dilutely to the functional integral. This is just what is needed for a semi-classical calculation.

The similarity of the (Borel summable) results found in Ref.  suggests that in general the corrections due to the field cutoffs can be expressed as simple one-dimensional integrals. The correction to the zeroth order of the ground state of the anharmonic oscillator (in other words, the correction to the ground state of the harmonic oscillator) has the semi-empirical form .

$$\delta E_0^{(0)}4\pi ^{1/2}\varphi _{max}^2_{\varphi _{max}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\varphi \mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^2}.$$

Fig. 3 shows that this is a good approximation which becomes better as $`\varphi _{max}`$ increases.

When $`\varphi _{max}`$ is large, the semi-empirical formula has the asymptotic form

$$\delta E_0^{(0)}2\pi ^{1/2}\varphi _{max}\mathrm{e}^{\varphi _{max}^2}$$

This correction has the same functional dependence as the semi-classical splitting for the first two levels of the double-well :

$$\delta E_0^{(0)}\left(\frac{S_0}{2\pi }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{S_o}$$

provided that we take $`S_0=\varphi _{max}^2`$, the classical action from the classical configuration $`\varphi _{max}\mathrm{e}^{|\tau \tau _0|}`$. This confirms the validity of the dilute gas approximation. Calculations of higher order perturbative coefficients and in higher dimensions are in progress.

It is possible to use the MC method to calculate the coefficients of the modified perturbative series. This will be particularly useful to check the validity of semi-classical methods in higher dimensions. In the case of the anharmonic oscillator $`H=p^2/2+\varphi ^2/2+\lambda \varphi ^4`$, the first order coefficient is

$$<\underset{x}{}\varphi _x^4>_{\mathrm{Gaussian}}/\underset{x}{}=3/4.$$
(2)
We have calculated the modified averages corresponding to various field cuts. The results are shown in Fig. 4 and are in good agreement with the accurate numerical results. Note that these coefficients have a sizable lattice spacing dependence which can taken care with various methods which will be discussed elsewhere.

At a fixed value of $`\varphi _{max}`$, the error due to the field cut decreases when the coupling increases. At a fixed order in the modified perturbative series corresponding to the same fixed $`\varphi _{max}`$, the error due to the omission of the higher orders decreases when the coupling decreases. Consequently, at fixed $`\varphi _{max}`$, there is a value of the coupling where the the accuracy is optimal. This value is approximately where the two error curves meet. Conversely, at fixed coupling, one can find an optimal value of $`\varphi _{max}`$. This value can be related to the optimal values of variational parameters used in Refs. . In these calculations, an intermediate mass term is introduced. The effect of this term is at the same time to reduce the contributions of the large fields and to reduce the argument of the exponential which is expanded. Simple power law relations appear  in the strong and weak coupling limits for the problem of the one dimensional integral .

The coupling dependence of the optimal $`\varphi _{max}`$ is a question which needs to be understood if we want to apply similar methods to gauge theories. In Wilson’s formulation, at fixed lattice spacing, a field cut inversely proportional to the gauge coupling is imposed when one uses the compact group integration. Consequently, the possibility for scalar models of having an optimal $`\varphi _{max}`$ varying like the inverse square root of the quartic coupling in some regime would be quite interesting. We have started investigating the possibility of introducing field cuts in gauge theories by using the public OSU quenched configurations . These configurations are in the Landau gauge, and the distributions of values of a fixed matrix element have similarities with the scalar case.

Finally, we would like to mention that, in the large-$`N`$ limit, the critical potentials of the $`O(N)`$ models in 3-dimensions have a finite radius of convergence when expanded in the $`O(N)`$ invariant quantity $`\varphi ^2`$ . This is due to two conjugated branch cuts in the complex $`\varphi ^2`$ plane. It is tempting to consider the model with a field cut which corresponds to this radius of convergence. However, this procedure generates sizable errors compared to the reliable procedure which consists in defining the critical potential using Padé approximants.


text:
# Superconductivity interpreted as 𝑘⃗-space magnetism

## I Introduction

In previous paperses ; josn  a new mechanism of Cooper pair formation was proposed that operates in narrow partly filled “superconducting” energy bands ($`\sigma `$ bands) of special symmetry. Except for their name, these $`\sigma `$ bands have no resemblances or analogies with graphite-like $`\sigma `$ bands. The new mechanism can be derived within a nonadiabatic extension of the Heisenberg model of magnetism,hei  the “nonadiabatic Heisenberg model” (NHM) described in detail in Ref. enhm, . The NHM emphasizes in a new way the atomiclike character of the electrons in narrow bands as described by Mottmott  and Hubbardhubbard : the electrons occupy the localized states as long as possible and perform their band motion by hopping from one atom to another. Within the NHM these localized states are represented by (spin-dependent) Wannier functions which form an exactly unitary transformation of the Bloch functions of the considered energy bands.

The new mechanism of Cooper pair formation resembles the familiar mechanism presented within the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theorybcs  because the formation of Cooper pairs is still mediated by bosons. In contrast to the BCS mechanism, however, these bosons carry the crystal spin $`1\mathrm{}`$ and must be sufficiently stable to transport it through the crystal. Further, the formation of Cooper pairs is not the result of an attractive electron-electron interaction but is constrained in a new way by quantum mechanical constraining forces operating in $`\sigma `$ bands.

These constraining forces have been illustrated in Ref. josi,  in terms of “spring-mounted” Cooper pairs. In the present paper we interpret the superconducting state within a narrow $`\sigma `$ band as “$`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space magnetism”. This new form of magnetism complies with the conservation law of spin angular momentum only if the electrons form Cooper pairs. Within this picture, the essential features of the new mechanism of Cooper pair formation as given in the preceding paragraph can be clearly understood.

A set of energy bands of a metal is called $`\sigma `$-band complex if the Bloch functions belonging to this set can be unitarily transformed into spin-dependent Wannier functions (spin-dependent Wfs) which are best localized, symmetry adapted to the paramagnetic group of this metal and situated at the atoms.enhm  A $`\sigma `$-band complex contains just as many bands as there are atoms in the unit cell. However, only those atoms must be considered which are responsible for the superconducting state.

For simplicity, in this paper we assume the $`\sigma `$-band complex to consist of a single band. The spin-dependent Wfs of such a single $`\sigma `$ band are shortly defined in Section II and, more detailed, in Refs. josn,  or josm, . Within the NHM, the peculiar properties of the spin-dependent Wfs lead to a special operator $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ of Coulomb interaction shortly described in Section III. The interaction $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ is proposed to be responsible for superconductivity.es ; josn

In Section IV $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ is approximated by a purely electronic operator $`H_{Cb}^{st}`$, and in Section V $`H_{Cb}^{st}`$ is interpreted as a magnetic interaction that produces a spin structure in the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ space. Within this spin structure, however, electronic scattering processes violate the conservation of spin angular momentum. As shown in the following Section VI, the spin structure is stable if the electrons form Cooper pairs coupled via crystal-spin-1 bosons.

## II Spin-dependent Wannier functions

Consider a metal with one atom in the unit cell and assume that this metal possesses a narrow, half-filled $`\sigma `$ band in its calculated band structure.

The Bloch functions $`\phi _\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ of this band can be unitarily transformed into spin-dependent Wfs

$$w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{\overset{BZ}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{T}}\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)$$
(1)
with the functions

$$\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\underset{s=\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{+\frac{1}{2}}{}}f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})u_s(t)\phi _\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r})$$
(2)
being “spin-dependent Bloch functions” with spin directions depending on the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. The two-dimensional matrix

$$𝒇(\stackrel{}{k})=[f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})]$$
(3)
is, for each $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, unitary and

$$u_s(t)=\delta _{st}$$
(4)
stands for Pauli’s spin function with the spin quantum number $`s=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and the spin coordinate $`t=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$.

The quantum number $`m=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ of the crystal spin distinguishes between the two Wannier functions belonging to the same position $`\stackrel{}{T}`$. If in Eq. (2) we have

$$f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})=\delta _{sm},$$
(5)
the two functions $`\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ with $`m=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ are usual Bloch functions with the spins lying in $`+z`$ and $`z`$ direction, respectively. Otherwise, these functions still are usual Bloch functions with antiparallel spins that lie, however, in a direction $`z^{}`$ different from the $`z`$ direction.

In a $`\sigma `$ band the matrix $`𝒇(\stackrel{}{k})`$ in Eq. (3) can be chosen in such a way that

(1) the spin-dependent Bloch functions $`\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ vary smoothly through the whole $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ space, and

(2) the $`w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)`$ are adapted to the symmetry of the considered metal.

In particular, by application of the operator $`K`$ of time inversion we obtain

$$Kw_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)=\pm w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)$$
(6)
(where the plus is defined to belong to $`m=+\frac{1}{2}`$ and the minus to $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$). The smoothness of the spin-dependent Bloch functions $`\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ guarantees that the spin-dependent Wfs are optimally localizable.

It is essential that in a $`\sigma `$ band the matrix $`𝒇(\stackrel{}{k})`$ is not independent of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ if the Wfs comply with the above conditions (1) and (2).josn

## III Spin-boson interaction

The nonadiabatic Coulomb interaction

$$H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }=\underset{\stackrel{}{T},m}{}\stackrel{}{T}_1^{\prime \prime },l_1;\stackrel{}{T}_2^{\prime \prime },l_2;\stackrel{}{T}_1,m_1,n;\stackrel{}{T}_2,m_2,n|H_{Cb}|\stackrel{}{T}_1^{},m_1^{},n;\stackrel{}{T}_2^{},m_2^{},nb_{\stackrel{}{T}_1^{\prime \prime }l_1}^{}b_{\stackrel{}{T}_2^{\prime \prime }l_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1m_1}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_2m_2}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_2^{}m_2^{}}^nc_{\stackrel{}{T}_1^{}m_1^{}}^n+\text{H.c.}$$
(7)
in a narrow half-filled $`\sigma `$ band depends also on boson operators $`b_{\stackrel{}{T}l}^{}`$ and $`b_{\stackrel{}{T}l}`$ in order that it conserves the total crystal spin,

$$[H_{Cb}^{n\sigma },M(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha G_0,$$
(8)
see Ref. josn, . The symmetry operators $`M(\alpha )`$ of the crystal spin are defined for the electrons in Ref. enhm,  and for the bosons in Ref. es, , and $`G_0`$ denotes the point group. The fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^n`$ and $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^n`$ create and annihilate electrons with crystal spin $`m`$ in the nonadiabatic localized states $`|\stackrel{}{T},m,n`$ and the boson operators $`b_{\stackrel{}{T}l}^{}`$ and $`b_{\stackrel{}{T}l}`$ create and annihilate localized bosons $`|\stackrel{}{T},l`$ (with the crystal spin $`l=1,0,+1`$) which are sufficiently stable to transport crystal spin angular momenta through the crystal.

The nonadiabatic states $`|\stackrel{}{T},m,n`$ are represented by nonadiabatic localized functions of the form $`\stackrel{}{r},t,\stackrel{}{q}|\stackrel{}{T},m,n`$, where the new coordinate $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ stands for that part of the motion of the center of mass of the localized state $`|\stackrel{}{T},m,n`$ which nonadiabatically follows the motion of the electron occupying this state.enhm  We may imagine that $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ denotes the acceleration of the center of mass.

## IV Static approximation within the nonadiabatic Heisenberg model

Assume the atomic cores in the considered crystal to be rigid and absolutely immovable. On this fixed atomic array we approximate the operator $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ by the operator

$`H_{Cb}^{st}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{T},m}{}}\stackrel{}{T}_1,m_1;\stackrel{}{T}_2,m_2|H_{Cb}|\stackrel{}{T}_1^{},m_1^{};\stackrel{}{T}_2^{},m_2^{}`$ (9)
$`\times c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1m_1}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_2m_2}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_2^{}m_2^{}}c_{\stackrel{}{T}_1^{}m_1^{}}`$
not depending on boson operators and, nevertheless, conserving the crystal spin,

$$[H_{Cb}^{st},M(\alpha )]=0\text{ for }\alpha G_0.$$
(10)
The fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}^{}`$ and $`c_{\stackrel{}{T}m}`$ create and annihilate electrons in localized states $`|\stackrel{}{T},m`$ which no longer depend on $`n`$ and, hence, are represented by the spin-dependent Wfs $`w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)`$.

$`H_{Cb}^{st}`$ commutes with the space group operators because the $`w_m(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{T},t)`$ are adapted to the symmetry of the considered metal.josn  In particular, from Eq. (6) it follows that $`H_{Cb}^{st}`$ commutes with the operator $`K`$ of time inversion,

$$[H_{Cb}^{st},K]=0.$$
(11)
As a consequence of Eq. (10), $`H_{Cb}^{st}`$ does not conserve the electron spin $`s`$, see the following Section V. Therefore, this “static approximation” within the NHM differs from the familiar adiabatic approximation. It is the natural approximation that ignores the motion of the atomic cores when we start from the NHM.

## V The static ground state within a narrow $`\sigma `$ band

Let $`^{st}`$ be the electron system of a narrow, half-filled $`\sigma `$ band represented by the static operator

$$H^{st}=H_{HF}+H_{Cb}^{st}$$
(12)
(where $`H_{HF}`$ stands for the Hartree-Fock operator). In $`^{st}`$ the crystal spin $`m`$ of the spin-dependent Bloch functions $`\varphi _{\stackrel{}{k}m}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ given in Eq. (2) is a conserved quantity. Consequently, at any scattering process of two Bloch electrons in $`^{st}`$ the spin directions of the scattered electrons are (slightly) changed. This leads to a ground state $`|G^{st}`$ in which the Bloch states $`|\stackrel{}{k}m`$ have $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-dependent spin directions as determined by the two-dimensional unitary matrix $`𝒇(\stackrel{}{k})`$ in Eq. (3). (It should be noted that the crystal spin $`m`$ and the spin $`s`$ without the addition “crystal” are different. The former denotes the crystal spin of the nonadiabatic localized states and the bosons, and the latter the spin of the naked electrons.)

The matrix $`𝒇(\stackrel{}{k})`$ varies smoothly as a function of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. It determines the symmetry and (sensitively) the localization of the spin-dependent Wfs. Both their symmetry and their localization have an important physical meaning within the NHM: The Wfs must be adapted to the symmetry of the considered metal in order that the nonadiabatic Hamiltonian commutes with the operators of the space group. Further, the Wfs must be optimally localized in order that the Coulomb energy in the $`\sigma `$ band is as low as possible. Strictly speaking, the Wfs are “optimally” localized if the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in Eq. (2.20) of Ref. enhm,  is maximum, see the detailed description of the NHM in Ref. enhm, .

Hence, the directions $`z^{}`$ of the electron spins are fixed in $`|G^{st}`$ by the condition that the Coulomb energy is minimum. Therefore, we interpret the interaction $`H_{Cb}^{st}`$ as “magnetic” spin-spin interaction that produces Bloch states with $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-dependent spin directions $`z^{}`$. However, the state $`|G^{st}`$ differs to some aspects from a magnetic state in the local space: First, $`|G^{st}`$ is invariant under time inversion,

$$K|G^{st}=|G^{st},$$
(13)
since $`H^{st}`$ commutes with $`K`$. (Any magnetic order in the local space is not invariant under time inversion. Within the NHM, such a state exists only if the nonadiabatic Hamiltonian $`H^n`$ does not commute with $`K`$, too.ef ) Second, the spins are not ordered in the sense that the spins of the Bloch states have only one direction, say $`+z^{}`$ direction, but the spins may either lie in $`+z^{}`$ or in $`z^{}`$ direction with only the $`z^{}`$ direction being fixed. Therefore, this new magnetic interaction generating the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-dependent $`z^{}`$ direction of the spins cannot be calculated by exchange integrals and, hence, should not be called “exchange interaction”. Thirdly, the pure magnetic state $`|G^{st}`$ is not realized in nature, see the following Section VI.

## VI Cooper pair formation in a narrow $`\sigma `$ band

Starting from the magnetic state $`|G^{st}`$ we may understand in a straightforward way the formation of Cooper pairs within the NHM.

At any scattering process in the electron system $`^{st}`$ the total electron spin of the scattered electrons is not conserved. Hence, the electrons must interchange spin angular momenta with the lattice of the atomic cores. Such a mechanism produces deformed and accelerated atomic cores and cannot be understood within the static approximation. Rather it is described by the nonadiabatic Coulomb interaction $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$ representing a system in which at any electronic scattering process two crystal-spin-1 bosons are excited or absorbed.

We may assume that at zero temperature the crystal-spin-1 bosons are only virtually excited. That means that each boson pair is reabsorbed immediately after its generation. Hence, whenever a boson pair is excited during a certain scattering process

$$\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2$$
(14)
of two electrons, this boson pair must be reabsorbed immediately after its generation during a second scattering process

$$\stackrel{}{k}_3^{},\stackrel{}{k}_4^{}\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4$$
(15)
of two other electrons.

Such a state can be studied within $`^{st}`$. Here we must look for scattering processes

$$\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},\stackrel{}{k}_3^{},\stackrel{}{k}_4^{}\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4$$
(16)
conserving the total electron spin. Only in this case, the boson pair created during the first process (14) is reabsorbed during the second process (15).

At first sight, such scattering processes seem not to exist in $`^{st}`$ because the matrix $`𝒇(\stackrel{}{k})`$ cannot be chosen independent of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in a $`\sigma `$ band. However, from Eq. (6) the equation

$$f_{sm}(\stackrel{}{k})=\pm f_{s,m}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})$$
(17)
may be derivedjosn  showing that the spins in the Bloch state $`|\stackrel{}{k}m`$ and in its time-inverted state $`|\stackrel{}{k}m`$ lie exactly opposite.

Thus,josn  in $`^{st}`$ we can construct (symmetrized) Cooper pairs

$$\beta _\stackrel{}{k}^{}=c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}^{}.$$
(18)
with (exactly) zero total spin, where the fermion operators $`c_{\stackrel{}{k}s}^{}`$ create Bloch electrons with spin $`s=,`$. Consequently, scattering processes of the form

$$\stackrel{}{k}^{},\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{k}$$
(19)
conserve the total spin angular momentum within $`^{st}`$.

We now may construct the nonadiabatic state in a narrow half-filled $`\sigma `$ band in which any boson pair is reabsorbed immediately after its creation.

Assume all the $`N`$ electrons (with $`N`$ being even) in $`^{st}`$ to form Cooper pairs. Consequently, the total electron spin in $`^{st}`$ is exactly zero. Two of these Cooper pairs we denote by

$$(\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},\stackrel{}{k}_1^{})\text{ and }(\stackrel{}{k}_2^{},\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}).$$
(20)
Assume further the two Bloch electrons with wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}_1^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}`$ to be scattered into the states $`\stackrel{}{k}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_2`$,

$$\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2.$$
(21)
After this process the total spin angular momentum in $`^{st}`$ is no longer zero since the two Cooper pairs (20) are destroyed. Hence, a boson pair was emitted during this scattering process. It may be reabsorbed during a subsequent scattering process if then the total spin in $`^{st}`$ again is zero, that means, if then all the electrons in $`^{st}`$ again form Cooper pairs. Thus, at zero temperature, the process

$$\stackrel{}{k}_1^{},\stackrel{}{k}_2^{}\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2$$

follows immediately upon the first process (21).

## VII Conclusions

The picture of superconductivity as $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-space magnetism presented in this paper shows clearly the peculiar feature of the Cooper pair formation within the NHM: Within the NHM any attractive electron-electron interaction is unimportant for the formation of Cooper pairs. The bosons (belonging to the interaction $`H_{Cb}^{n\sigma }`$) need not effect an attractive interaction between the electrons, but only produce constraining forces that constrain the electrons to form Cooper pairs.

As in Ref. josi, , the Cooper pairs generated by these constraining forces in a narrow $`\sigma `$ band can be illustrated in terms of “spring-mounted” Cooper pairs, cf. Fig. 3 in Ref. josi, : Let $`𝒫^0`$ be the subspace of the Hilbert space spanned by the $`N`$-electron states in the $`\sigma `$ band in which all the electrons form Cooper pairs, and assume all the electrons to be in $`𝒫^0`$. Whenever two electrons are scattered out of $`𝒫^0`$, a boson pair is excited which can only be reabsorbed when the electrons are scattered in such a way that again they lie in $`𝒫^0`$. Hence, the bosons behave like “springs” that push the electrons back into $`𝒫^0`$.

The bosons that stabilize the Cooper pairs are, in any material, the energetically lowest boson excitations of the crystal possessing the crystal spin $`1\mathrm{}`$ and being sufficiently stable to transport it through the crystal. These “crystal-spin-1” bosons are localized excitations $`|\stackrel{}{T},l`$ of well-defined symmetryes  which move as Bloch waves through the crystal. Most likely, these $`|\stackrel{}{T},l`$ are coupled phonon-plasmon modes which in the isotropic lattices of the standard superconductors have dominant phonon character.ehtc  However, in the one- or two-dimensional sublattices of the high-$`T_c`$ materials, phonons are not able to carry crystal-spin angular momenta.ehtc  Here, the $`|\stackrel{}{T},l`$ are energetically higher lying crystal-spin-1 excitations of dominant plasmon character leading within the BCS theory to higher transition temperatures.

I suppose that only quantum mechanical constraining forces as described in this paper are able to produce stable Cooper pairs. This supposition is corroborated by both theoretical argumentsjosn  and calculated band structures. I have already identified $`\sigma `$ bands in the band structures of a great number of superconductors, while I could not find $`\sigma `$ bands in the band structures of metals not becoming superconducting.es ; es2  In particular, on the basis of this new mechanism a theoretical interpretation of the Matthias rule was possible in the framework of the BCS theory.josm

For an examination of calculated band structures in terms of magneticef  or superconducting bands the symmetry notations of the Bloch functions in the symmetry points of the Brillouin zone must be known. Unfortunately, these symmetry notations are omitted in nearly all the published band-structure calculations of the new superconductors.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Ernst Helmut Brandt for critical comments on the manuscript.


text:
# The Master Catalogue of stars towards the Magellanic CloudsThis work has been supported by astrovirtel, a project funded by the European Commission under FP5 Contract No. HPRI-CT-1999-00081.

## 1 Introduction

The Magellanic Clouds (MCs) are among the best suitable places to study the stellar evolution outside the Milky Way, because of their proximity and their various stellar populations. Near–infrared surveys provide useful data for this kind of study because of their insensitivity to interstellar reddening. The Magellanic Clouds have been recently fully observed by two major infrared surveys: the DEep Near–Infrared Survey of the Southern Sky – DENIS (Epchtein et al. 1997) and the Two Micron All Sky Survey – 2MASS (Skrutskie et al. 1997). A Near–Infrared Point Source Catalogue towards the Magellanic Clouds, based on DENIS data, has been published (Cioni et al. 2000a; DCMC). The part of this catalogue devoted to the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) covers an area of $`19.87\times 16`$ square degrees centered on ($`5^\mathrm{h}27^\mathrm{m}20^\mathrm{s}`$$`69^{}00\mathrm{}00\mathrm{}`$). To compile this catalogue, the objects were required to be detected in at least two of the three DENIS bands $`I(\mathrm{Gunn}i,0.79\mu \mathrm{m})`$, $`J(1.22\mu \mathrm{m})`$, $`K_\text{s}(2.15\mu \mathrm{m})`$. The 2MASS project observed the whole Magellanic Clouds in three photometric bands: $`J(1.23\mu \mathrm{m})`$, $`H(1.63\mu \mathrm{m})`$ and $`K_\mathrm{s}(2.15\mu \text{m})`$. For this work we used only the data available from the 2nd Incremental Release PSC111http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/, which do not cover two rectangular regions crossing the bar of the Large Magellanic Cloud and some cross–like gaps around bright stars. ($`4^\mathrm{h}00^\mathrm{m}00^\mathrm{s}`$ $`<`$ R.A. $`<`$ $`7^\mathrm{h}00^\mathrm{m}00^\mathrm{s}`$; $`78^{}01\mathrm{}37\mathrm{}`$ $`<`$ Dec. $`<`$ $`60^{}48\mathrm{}00\mathrm{}`$),

The number of sources from both surveys are recorded in Table 1. Because of different sensitivity limits, DENIS sources detected only in the $`I`$ and $`J`$ bands are often detected in $`H`$ and $`K_\text{s}`$ by 2MASS. 2MASS observations are more than one magnitude deeper than DENIS in the $`K_\text{s}`$ channel (due to a better thermalization), while they are roughly equivalent in the $`J`$ channel (Fig. 1). Thus it appeared very interesting to cross–match the two catalogues to complete the spectral range of the DCMC $`IJ`$–sources with the $`H`$ and $`K_\text{s}`$ bands coming from 2MASS, though observations are not simultaneous.

More generally, cross–matching catalogues is highly relevant for completing the spectral or spatial coverage when there are missing or unpublished data. It is also a powerful tool to cross–validate the catalogues and search for discrepancies.

Cross–matching infrared (IR) with optical catalogues, such as DCMC/2MASS with the Guide Star Catalog II (GSC2.2), helps on producing new colour–magnitude and colour–colour diagrams, thus offering multispectral views of the LMC. In the cross–matching procedure we also included the proper motions from the USNO CCD Astrograph Catalogue (UCAC1), in order to discriminate MC members from foreground stars. The resulting MC2 catalogue provides an unprecedented basis for the study of stellar populations in the Magellanic Clouds and for further cross–identifications with catalogues at other wavelengths.

Section 2 gives an overview of each survey towards the LMC. Section 3 deals with the strategy developed to cross–match the infrared DENIS and 2MASS catalogues. Following in Sect. 4 is a comparison of the DENIS and 2MASS photometric systems. In Sect. 5 we add the optical GSC2.2 and UCAC1 catalogue to the cross–matching procedure. In Sect. 6 we present a few multispectral views of the stellar populations of the Clouds, based on the MC2 data.

## 2 Data Overview

The present work is based on public data from 2MASS, as described in Sect. 1, and on DCMC data obtained from a local copy of the catalogue that includes the missing strips of the first release (the second release is currently under process). The GSC2.2 and the UCAC1 catalogues are now also publicly available. For each catalogue, a density map is produced (see Fig. 2). The higher concentration of sources in the upper left part of each plot is in the direction of the Galactic center.

Inhomogeneities in the magnitude limit of some DENIS strips are visible on the DCMC map. White areas in the 2MASS map denote missing data due to observations not yet released. The circular gap on the upper right corner corresponds to the semi–regular pulsating star HD 29712, which is also the second brightest star in the sky in $`K_\text{s}`$ (after Betelgeuse) with a magnitude lower than -4.

The GSC2.2222http://www-gsss.stsci.edu/gsc/gsc2/GSC2home.htm catalogue provides, in the direction of the LMC, ($`3^\mathrm{h}59^\mathrm{m}30^\mathrm{s}`$ $`<`$ R.A. $`<`$ $`7^\mathrm{h}04^\mathrm{m}30^\mathrm{s}`$; $`78^{}00\mathrm{}00\mathrm{}`$ $`<`$ Dec. $`<`$ $`61^{}00\mathrm{}00\mathrm{}`$), the $`F_{\text{gsc2}}`$, $`J_{\text{gsc2}}`$, and $`V_{\text{gsc2}}`$ photographic bands for 6,032,541 entries. The $`V_{\text{gsc2}}`$ magnitudes are from short exposure $`V`$ plates used to deal with dense regions of the sky. The photographic magnitudes given in the GSC2.2 are in the natural systems of the photographic plates (emulsion/filter: IIIaF+OG590, IIIaJ+GG395, IIaD+W12). The photometric calibration is based on a Chebyshev polynomial fit to sequence stars from the Second Guide Star Photometric Catalogue (Bucciarelli et al. 2001) and the Tycho Catalog for the bright end. However the three magnitudes are not always present together. The $`J_{\text{gsc2}}`$ band is missing for the innermost parts of the LMC, but is replaced by the $`V_{\text{gsc2}}`$ band. Thus, when using the $`V_{\text{gsc2}}`$ band in the following colour–magnitude or colour–colour diagrams of this paper, one should keep in mind that we are dealing with the central parts of the LMC only. The unusual patterns on the GSC2.2 density map match the HTM (Hierarchical Triangular Mesh) partitioning of the data, which is a recursive spatial indexing scheme dividing the unit sphere into spherical triangles. This is probably due to difficulties in producing the final catalogue for the most crowded regions.

The UCAC1 catalogue333http://ad.usno.navy.mil/ad/ucac/ (Zacharias et al. 2000) contains, in the direction of the LMC, 267,103 entries ($`3^\mathrm{h}59^\mathrm{m}30^\mathrm{s}`$ $`<`$ R.A. $`<`$ $`7^\mathrm{h}04^\mathrm{m}28^\mathrm{s}`$; $`78^{}00\mathrm{}00\mathrm{}`$ $`<`$ Dec. $`<`$ $`61^{}00\mathrm{}00\mathrm{}`$). This is the preliminary version of an astrometric catalogue, which aims at increasing the number of optical sources with high positional accuracy. Proper motions are available, combining the UCAC1 with the USNO-A2.0 (Monet et al. 1998) positions for faint stars, and with older catalogues for bright stars. One magnitude, intermediate between Johnson $`V`$ and $`R`$, is provided (579-642 nm). White regions on the UCAC1 density map denote missing digitalization frames in the center of the bar, due to difficulties in extracting sources in overcrowded regions of the sky.

The catalogues used to build the MC2 present the following differences: the observational strategy that influences the homogeneity of the final data, the passbands, the characterized stellar populations and the number of sources. These factors have a strong impact on the results of our cross–matching.

## 3 First step: cross–matching DENIS and 2MASS

### 3.1 Cross–matching strategy

Before running the cross–matching programs, we organized the original data, splitting most of the catalogues into smaller pieces. The DENIS observational strategy had been to divide the sky in strips of $`30^{}`$ in Declination (Dec.) and $`12^{}`$ in Right Ascension (R.A.). To define subsamples, we split the DCMC catalogue by strip number because:

* our cross–matching algorithm is well adapted to data files with small extension in RA;
* the cross–matching criterion depends on the strip number as explained below.

There are 119 strip–files covering the LMC. For each strip–file, we extracted from the 2MASS catalogue all the point sources belonging to the same region of the sky. Matches between both catalogues are found by specifying a position search box of a few arcseconds, and comparing the coordinates of entries in both catalogues. The cross–matching program is executed for each strip, starting, each time, with two input files, one from DCMC and one from 2MASS. Both files have been previously sorted by declination, in order to optimize the cross–comparison procedures. Details about the procedure are as follows: for each record of the first file (say, DCMC) we search for all possible cross–matches in the second file (here 2MASS). Among the possible cross–matches, we only keep the one with the smallest difference in position as the most probable counterpart. The actual limits imposed to the positional difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ depend upon the relative astrometry of the strip (see below).

#### 3.1.1 Finding discrepancies in the original catalogues

Cross–matching by position works very well in most cases because the astrometry of DCMC and 2MASS is accurate enough (better than one arcsecond). 2MASS positions were reconstructed from the ACT reference catalogue (Urban et al., 1998), using the Tycho astrometry. The astrometric reference for DCMC positions is the USNO-A2.0 catalogue (Monet et al. 1998). The astrometric solution is global for a strip, minimizing possible inaccuracies of the USNO-A2.0 catalogue in the most crowded regions.

Consequently the match distance is smaller than $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ for the great majority of the stars. There is in principle no risk of confusion at such a small scale. While this is true in general, in practice the cross–matching exercise has proven to be a powerful tool to detect subsets of data which deviate from the perfect situation, and primarily areas suffering from problems in the astrometric or photometric calibration.

In some cases, field distortions in the DCMC affect the quality of the astrometry. To detect and quantify them, we proceeded strip by strip. We kept only well confirmed DCMC sources: $`10.5I16.5`$ and flags in the $`I`$ band equal to zero. We ran a cross–matching program based only on distances, with a searching box that goes up to 30′′. Between all the possible associations found, we kept only the association with $`|J_{\text{DCMC}}J_{\text{2MASS}}|0.5`$. The selection is done on magnitude because in case of field distortions, small distances are not reliable enough a criterion.

The relative shifts in R.A. and Dec. are a function of the pixel coordinates of the camera. We found 11 strips affected by field distortions at a level larger than $`2^{\prime \prime }`$. We also searched for systematic shifts $`\delta J`$ and $`\delta K_\text{s}`$ between DCMC and 2MASS magnitudes. Mean shifts have been computed for each strip. The diagrams corresponding to the positional and magnitude shifts are all available, strip by strip, on the MC2 web site444http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/MC2/.

Such astrometric and magnitude shifts depend on the particular strip and had to be taken into account in the DENIS versus 2MASS cross–matching. Strategies for coping with them have been implemented, to allow a proper strip by strip cross–matching of both catalogues. We took advantage of the $`J`$ and $`K_\text{s}`$ common magnitudes of the two surveys. A potential cross–matched source is thus validated not only on a positional criterion, but also on magnitude criteria.

#### 3.1.2  Defining a positional searching box

Shifts in R.A. ($`\delta \alpha `$) and Dec. ($`\delta \delta `$) being mainly a function of the pixel coordinates, they do vary inside one image, but are nearly the same for all the images of the strip. So it is better to use the statistics of the whole strip instead of one single image. Thus we can define a specific position search box for the strip. The size of the box will take into account the shifts in R.A. and Dec. found for this strip number. The default size of the searching box when there are no shifts is $`3^{\prime \prime }`$. So we have now an enlarged and asymmetric searching box:

$$\frac{\delta \alpha _{\text{min}}^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{cos}\delta }<\alpha _{\text{DCMC}}\alpha _{\text{2MASS}}<\frac{\delta \alpha _{\text{max}}^{\prime \prime }+3^{\prime \prime }}{\mathrm{cos}\delta }$$

$$\delta \delta _{\text{min}}^{\prime \prime }3^{\prime \prime }<\delta _{\text{DCMC}}\delta _{\text{2MASS}}<\delta \delta _{\text{max}}^{\prime \prime }+3^{\prime \prime },$$

where $`\delta \alpha _{\text{min}}`$, $`\delta \alpha _{\text{max}}`$, $`\delta \delta _{\text{min}}`$, $`\delta \delta _{\text{max}}`$ are the minimum and maximum shifts in R.A. and Dec. (arcseconds). Note that the searching box has a complex shape, since $`\delta \alpha _{\text{min}}\delta \alpha _{\text{max}}`$ and $`\delta \delta _{\text{min}}\delta \delta _{\text{max}}`$. This box is used to optimise the probability to find the correct cross–matching, even in distorted images.

#### 3.1.3 Selection on magnitudes

Between all the possible associations found in Sect. 3.1.2, we must keep the best one. We have seen that keeping the association with the smallest distance is no more a reliable criterion because of field distortions. So we have to check the compatibility in magnitude for each association, after applying on the strip data the associated mean magnitude shifts $`<\delta J>`$ and $`<\delta K_\text{s}>`$ computed in Sect. 3.1.1 above.

* If $`K_\text{s}`$ is not detected in the catalogues, the selection is done on $`J`$. The following relation has to be true to keep the association:

$`|\delta J<\delta J>|w\times \sqrt{\sigma _{J_{\text{DCMC}}}^2+\sigma _{J_{\text{2MASS}}}^2},`$
where $`w=2`$ is a weight, and $`\sigma _{J_{\text{DCMC}}}`$ and $`\sigma _{J_{\text{2MASS}}}`$ are the relative photometric uncertainties as quoted in both catalogues. Relative uncertainties are in general very small for bright stars, less than 0.01 mag. However, uncertainties on the absolute calibration are much larger: about 0.1 mag for the DCMC. If we apply abruptly the above criterion, we will lose many cross–identifications for the stars with small relative uncertainties. We thus need to refine the selection criterion and consider two cases:

$$\text{if}w\times \sqrt{\sigma _{J_{\text{DCMC}}}^2+\sigma _{J_{\text{2MASS}}}^2}\mathrm{\Delta }J\text{then}$$

$$|\delta J<\delta J>|\mathrm{\Delta }J$$

$$\text{else if}w\times \sqrt{\sigma _{J_{\text{DCMC}}}^2+\sigma _{J_{\text{2MASS}}}^2}>\mathrm{\Delta }J$$

$$\text{then}|\delta J<\delta J>|w\times \sqrt{\sigma _{J_{\text{DCMC}}}^2+\sigma _{J_{\text{2MASS}}}^2}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0.45`$ is the estimated full-width at half-maximum of the $`\delta \text{J}`$ distribution.
* If $`J`$ is not detected in the catalogues, the selection is done on $`K_\text{s}`$ as above but this time we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }K_\text{s}=0.60`$.
* If $`J`$ and $`K_\text{s}`$ are detected in both catalogues, the selection is done on $`J`$ and then on $`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$.
* If neither $`J`$ nor $`K_\text{s}`$ are detected in the catalogues, the association is lost.

Applying these criteria, if there are still more than one possible association for one DCMC source, then we keep the association with the smallest $`\delta J`$ or $`\delta K_\text{s}`$.

More details about this cross–matching step, as well as the cross–matching criteria used can be found in Delmotte et al. (2001). Nearly 80% of the LMC strips have a match rate better than 90%. The strips with a match rate smaller than 80% correspond to the gaps in the 2MASS data. We checked the distance distribution of the matches, by wether they were done in $`J`$, or $`K_\text{s}`$ or both. There seems to be no relation between the magnitude criterion applied and the distance of the cross–matched source. Figure 3 shows the results of the cross–matching between DCMC and 2MASS, whatever the magnitude criterion was. The mean positional offset between matches is $`0.52^{\prime \prime }`$ and the modal offset is $`0.25^{\prime \prime }`$. Figure 4 displays the histograms of the shifts between DCMC and 2MASS in R.A. and Dec. (in arcseconds) for the 119 strips covering the LMC. To check the results, we also compared the distribution of the close matches ($`2^{\prime \prime }`$) and far matches ($`4^{\prime \prime }`$) in both the ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$, $`K_\text{s}`$) colour–magnitude diagram and (R.A., Dec.) plane. Far matches do not show any strange physical behavior and are, as expected, distributed along lines associated with the borders of the strips suffering from field distortions, and also in the center of the Cloud where the density is higher.

## 4 Comparing DENIS and 2MASS photometric systems

We considered the mean linear relation between DCMC and 2MASS magnitudes, restricting to the range  in $`J`$ and  in $`K_\text{s}`$, avoiding the saturated bright stars as well as the faintest ones.

We find a systematic shift of the absolute calibration between the two catalogues. For each strip, we calculated the median of $`\delta J`$ and $`\delta K_\text{s}`$. Figure 5 shows the histograms of the shifts found for the 119 LMC strips.

The derived mean relations between the two systems are as follow:

$$J_{\mathrm{DCMC}}=J_{2\mathrm{M}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}}(0.11\pm 0.06)$$

$$K_{\mathrm{sDCMC}}=K_{\mathrm{s2MASS}}(0.14\pm 0.05)$$

These relations have been computed in the case of the DCMC catalogue and may not be valid for the whole DENIS survey. This is quite different from the relations proposed by Carpenter (2001), based on a limited preliminary sample of a few DENIS sources. Groenewegen (2000) did the comparison for a few hundred Cepheids towards the Clouds and found no significant difference between 2MASS and DENIS $`J`$, but found a 0.2 magnitude shift for the $`K_\mathrm{s}`$ band data. This larger shift compared to the one we find is probably due to the use of only variable stars (i.e. Cepheids).

## 5 Second step: adding GSC2.2 and UCAC1

The GSC2.2 has also been divided in strips, to be cross–matched with 2MASS. These strips are no more related to the DENIS strips, but to strips with much smaller extension ($`6^{}`$) in order to optimize the time needed to cross–match the catalogues. We chose a searching box of $`10^{\prime \prime }`$. It was not possible to compare the GSC2.2 and 2MASS magnitudes in the same way as for the DCMC vs 2MASS cross–matching (as in Sect. 3.1.3.) because there is no common magnitude between the two surveys. As a consequence, we kept only the associations to the nearest neighbour and then we cut the resulting distribution at a distance of $`4^{\prime \prime }`$ (Fig. 6). The mean positional offset between matches is $`0.45^{\prime \prime }`$ and the modal offset is $`0.25^{\prime \prime }`$.

At this stage, both the DCMC and the GSC2.2 are cross–matched with the 2MASS catalogue. Thus the link between the DCMC and the GSC2.2 can be done using the 2MASS common point sources. Common entries in DCMC/2MASS and GSC2.2/2MASS have been merged. We have now six resulting files:

* sources present in DCMC, 2MASS and GSC2.2
* sources present in DCMC and 2MASS only
* sources present in GSC2.2 and 2MASS only
* sources in 2MASS only
* sources in the DCMC only
* sources in the GSC2.2 only

We run another cross–matching process on the last two files to find sources which are present in both DCMC and GSC2.2. For small positional differences the associations are likely true whereas at larger distances they are generally random associations, see the distribution of the sources as a function of the distance from the nearest neighbour (Fig. 7). The mean positional offset between matches is $`0.61^{\prime \prime }`$ and the modal offset is $`0.35^{\prime \prime }`$.

However, because about 1% of the DCMC sources suffer from astrometric problems, we cannot exclude that there are some true associations for sources at larger distances. Unfortunately there is no magnitude in common between the DCMC and the GSC2.2 catalogue and we cannot adopt the same strategy as in Sect. 3.1.3. We decided to keep only the associations with distances smaller than $`2^{\prime \prime }`$, to avoid polluting the MC2 with too many false associations. On the other hand, we are losing a few associations, located in the poorly calibrated regions of the DCMC (see the strip like features on the left plot of Fig. 8). A comparison of the slopes of the histograms in Fig. 6 and 7 does not seem to indicate any excess of false matches for distances between 2″ and 4″. Sources belonging to both DCMC and GSC2.2, but not 2MASS, are shown on the middle plot of Fig. 8. They correspond mainly to sources falling in the yet empty gaps of the 2MASS data. The 2MASS scanning strategy covered the sky with tiles 6 degrees long in Dec. and $`8.5^{}`$ wide in R.A. These patterns remain visible on the right plot of Fig. 8, showing the spatial distribution of the MC2 sources belonging to the 2MASS catalogue only, thus denoting different sensitivity limits.

Table 2 summarizes the results obtained so far during the process to build up the MC2, which contains more than 6 million sources for the LMC. The optical/IR database contains 1,968,360 sources: IR from 2MASS (629,212), DCMC (177,414), or both (1,161,734). Among the remaining sources, 4 million of them are only detected in the GSC2.2. It is of great astronomical interest to get as many wavelengths as possible for each star, but this should not lead to disregard sources detected only with one survey and not with the other ones. Keeping non–associations in the MC2 helps keeping track of the internal discrepancies and different sensitivity limits of each catalogue.

The procedure to add the UCAC1 is quite different. We cross–matched the UCAC1, without splitting it in strips, with the MC2 at its present stage. This is possible because the UCAC1 is a small catalogue and our program is fast enough to process it in one run. Another advantage is that the UCAC1 is automatically cross–matched with the DCMC–only sources and the GSC2.2–only sources.

Figure 9 shows the same as Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 for UCAC1 and MC2 sources. We decided to keep all these associations, even the ones for sources at distances larger than $`1^{\prime \prime }`$, because these sources also display a larger proper motion compared to the average source in the catalogue (Fig. 10). This might as well be the cause of the large distance derived during the association process. The mean positional offset between matches is $`0.17^{\prime \prime }`$ and the modal offset is $`0.15^{\prime \prime }`$. About 42 UCAC1 sources do not have a MC2 counterpart, which means that 99.9% of the UCAC1 catalogue is linked to the MC2 and 4.2% of the MC2 has a UCAC1 counterpart.

## 6 Results: Multispectral views of the LMC

This paper mainly deals with the techniques that went into the construction of the MC2. It shows how essential a tool the cross–matching of large surveys is, to derive results on their internal accuracy. The broad range of magnitudes covered by the MC2, as well as the large number of sources involved, allow a multi–wavelength and statistical study of the stellar populations of the Clouds. We present a few results concerning their location in several colour–magnitude and colour–colour diagrams, in order to demonstrate the usefulness of such an optical/infrared catalogue and its relevance in the framework of the Virtual Observatory. Note that observations of cross–matched sources were not simultaneously performed so those following diagrams should be considered as indicative because the colours might not represent correctly variable sources.

### 6.1 The ($`K_\text{s}`$, $`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$) colour–magnitude diagram

Figure 11a shows the ($`K_\text{s}`$, $`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram for all the 2MASS point sources. The total number of sources, nearly two millions, was so large that we chose to plot them as isodensity curves, so as to emphasize different loci of stars. The same technique has been adopted for most of the following diagrams. Unfortunately, this process tends to hide regions with low density of stars. Sources in regions with density lower than the value of the lowest contour level have been plotted as single dots.

The 2MASS colour–magnitude diagram (CMD) has been described in details by Nikolaev & Weinberg (2000), and it will be taken as a reference for the further discussion on the stellar populations obtained from the MC2. Figure 11b is a similar CMD, but for all the DCMC point sources. Figure 11c shows the CMD of the point sources that do have a counterpart in all three catalogues: DCMC, 2MASS and GSC2.2. Figure 11d shows the CMD of all the point sources detected in both DCMC and 2MASS, but not GSC2.2. For Fig. 11c and Fig. 11d the $`J`$ and $`K_\text{s}`$ magnitudes are from 2MASS, including DCMC sources detected only in $`I`$ and $`J`$.

All the 2MASS sources that do not have any counterpart have been plotted on the CMD of Fig 11e. This feature is a mix of Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) and Red Giant Branch (RGB) stars. The position of the AGB bump, located at the bottom of the AGB phase (see Gallart (1998) and references therein), was found by Nikolaev & Weinberg (2000) in the deep 2MASS observations at $`K_\text{s}=15.8`$ and ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`=0.7`$. The AGB bump stellar population has been well identified by Alcock et al. (2000) thanks to their 9 million LMC stars resulting from the MACHO project. Note that Beaulieu & Sackett (1998) call them the Supraclump. The sensitivity limit is too low here to detect it, as for the red clump, which is located more than one magnitude below the AGB bump ($`K_\text{s}17`$ and ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`0.65`$, Nikolaev & Weinberg 2000).

Figure 11f refers to sources detected in both 2MASS and UCAC1. It shows mainly a concentration of stars around ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`=0.5`$ and $`K_\text{s}=14`$, which falls into region D of Nikolaev & Weinberg (2000). Note that Nikolaev & Weinberg (2000) associate the blue half part of region D with G–M dwarfs of the Galaxy. Ruphy et al. (1997) investigated the separation in ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$) between dwarfs and giants, with the help of early DENIS data, in the direction of the anticenter. They find that roughly for ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`0.6`$ there could not be any giants. However, K and M dwarfs may be present for redder colours, together with the giants. RGB stars at the tip of the RGB and AGB stars both O–rich and C–rich can be distinguished at ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`1.0`$ (Cioni et al. 2000c).

### 6.2 The ($`J`$$`H`$, $`H`$$`K_\text{s}`$) colour–colour diagram

The ($`J`$$`H`$, $`H`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram may be used to discriminate between dwarf and giant stars, at least to find the bifurcation between M dwarfs and M giants (Bessel & Brett 1988). Dwarfs are on the bluest peak, whereas giants are on the reddest one. This diagram contains only point sources with photometric errors on $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`K_\text{s}`$ smaller than 0.06 magnitude. The ($`J`$$`H`$, $`H`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram is also suitable to isolate reddened stars. Nikolaev & Weinberg (2000) provide such a diagram and label the areas of unusual objects such as Wolf–Rayet stars, protostars, AGB C–rich stars and Be stars. Frogel et al. (1990) surveyed several Magellanic Cloud clusters and overplotted on their resulting ($`J`$$`H`$, $`H`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram the mean relations for globular cluster and field giants. The distribution of their cluster M giants is spread between these two lines, which they relate to a metallicity effect. This could provide an explanation to the slight shift between the giant peak on Fig. 12 and the giant track from Wainscoat et al. (1992) overplotted on it. Finlator et al. (2000) cross–matched 2MASS with SDSS, thus selecting stars on their optical colours and then tracing them in infrared diagrams. They found out that the dwarf peak in the ($`J`$$`H`$, $`H`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram is associated with stars earlier than G5, whereas the giant peak is associated with stars later than K5. This is a typical example illustrating the usefulness of the combination of optical with infrared colours, in order to separate stars according to their spectral type.

### 6.3 IR/optical colour–colour diagrams

Combining IR with optical wavelength, as shown on Fig. 13, enables us to discriminate between dwarf and giant stars.

The two peaks show the combined effect of the fact that the contribution of the Galactic foreground stars are most likely due to the bluest dwarfs than to the reddest ones, and that the limiting magnitude of the surveys excludes most LMC dwarfs. Otherwise, if all the populations of stars were present, the two peaks would be merged. The separation between these two main clusters of stars is much better than in the ($`J`$$`H`$, $`H`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram. Note that we plotted only sources with photometric errors on $`I`$, $`J`$ and $`K_\text{s}`$ smaller than 0.06 magnitude. Two vertical sequences appear at ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`=0.9`$ (dwarfs) and ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`=1.25`$ (giants). We identify the bluest vertical sequence with late M dwarfs, as suggested by the tracks superimposed on the ($`I`$$`J`$, $`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$) and ($`V`$$`J`$, $`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagrams. Note that the colour/colour giant track of both Wainscoat et al. (1992) and Bessel & Brett (1988) do not exactly match the MC2 data. The shift is roughly 0.1 magnitude in ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$), which could be a photometric calibration problem. However it does not affect the track for the dwarfs which are mostly galactic foreground stars. As a consequence, since it affects only the track for the giants, it might be due to metallicity or extinction effect. The search for late M, L and T dwarfs has been successful since the beginning of near–infrared sky surveys. But as pointed out by Leggett et al. (2002), infrared photometry alone does not allow to clearly discriminate between the different spectral types. It is much easier to identify them on the basis of their optical/infrared colour index (see also Kirkpatrick et al. 1999), because they are so faint in the optical, and comparatively much brighter in the IR. These stars should disentangle themselves from the usual stars, and Reid et al. (2001) provide the location of some of these stars in the ($`I`$$`J`$, $`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$) CMD (and also ($`J`$$`H`$, $`H`$$`K_\text{s}`$)). Smart et al. (2001) have stressed out the value of the GSC2 in the search for ultracool stars.

Some other well defined features (such as the M giant O–rich star and the C–star sequences) appear on each panel of Fig. 13, especially on the ($`V`$$`J`$, $`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram, where the spectral range between the optical and infrared magnitudes is much broader.

### 6.4 The ($`I`$, $`V`$$`K_\text{s}`$) colour–magnitude diagram

We computed several CMDs using a combination of three different wavelengths, both IR and optical, out of the different catalogues. The best features are obtained with the $`V_{gsc2}`$, $`I`$, and $`K_\text{s}`$ bands (Fig. 14).

The red supergiants (SGs) are located in the tight upward sequence at $`I14`$ and ($`V`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`3`$, while the blue SGs have ($`V`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`1`$. This is consistent with the evolutionary tracks from Girardi et al. (2000). We looked at the distribution of the stars with ($`V`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`1`$ in various diagrams. The results are summarized on Fig 15. They belong to the central parts of the LMC, and their spatial distribution is clumpy (Fig 15d), quite similar to what Martin et al. (1976) had found with their merging of several catalogues containing SG stars. These sources are linked to the supergiant shells of the LMC (Meaburn 1980), which are probably produced by the effect of stellar winds and/or supernovae. These stars should help us constraining the recent star formation history of the LMC (Grebel & Brandner 1998, Dolphin & Hunter 1998). Some of them fall into region A of Nikolaev & Weinberg (2000) (Fig 15a): blue SGs, O dwarfs. Since they are very blue stars, their ($`V`$$`K_\text{s}`$) colour distinguish them from the bulk of stars on the ($`I`$, $`V`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram (Fig 14a,b). They match the overdensity of stars at ($`I`$$`J`$)$`=0.25`$ and ($`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$)$`=0`$ and extend towards redder colours (Fig 15b). They are also recognizable on the ($`J`$$`H`$, $`H`$$`K_\text{s}`$) diagram at (0,0), at the bottom of the sequence of dwarfs (Fig 15c). These young stars are much more easy to trace in the IR/optical colour–colour diagrams and CMDs than in the ($`K_\text{s}`$, $`J`$$`K_\text{s}`$) CMD.

## 7 Conclusion

The Master Catalogue of stars towards the Magellanic Clouds (MC2) is now available on the web at CDS555http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/MC2/. It is a compilation of cross–identified surveys, from optical to IR. The MC2 roughly covers the following area: $`4^h`$ to $`7^h`$ in Right Ascension, and $`61^{}`$ to $`78^{}`$ in Declination, with slight variations according to the catalogue considered.

We are currently working on the cross–identification of analogous catalogues in the direction of the Small Magellanic Cloud and we plan to add catalogues and tables at other wavelengths: ROSAT, IRAS,and many more specific catalogues, as well the variability informations coming either from MACHO, EROS, OGLE to the second version of the catalogue.

A typical query of the MC2 returns several lines of data. An example is given in Table 3. Each line of data contains the name of the source for all the original catalogues, followed by the magnitudes and the proper motion when the UCAC1 is present. For each catalogue, the distance of the cross–identification is given, except for 2MASS which is taken as reference. The distance associated to a DCMC source is the distance to the 2MASS counterpart. The distance associated to a GSC2.2 source is the distance to the 2MASS counterpart, or the DCMC counterpart when there is no 2MASS counterpart. The distance associated to a UCAC1 source is the distance to the MC2 counterpart (2MASS, DCMC or GSC2.2, depending on the detection bands). At the beginning of each line, R.A. and Dec. are given. The choice of the coordinates has been as follows: when possible, we kept the 2MASS coordinates as the reference, otherwise we took the GSC2.2, then the UCAC1 and finally the DCMC ones.

We decided to keep the distances of the cross–identifications in the MC2 to give the user the opportunity to judge the reliability of each cross–identification. We have also shown that for some DCMC point sources, this distance was not reliable. But since links for each source allow to access the complete data from the original catalogues through the VizieR search engine (Ochsenbein et al. 2000), it is always possible to retrieve the strip number of the DCMC source and then go to the MC2 web site to find the shifts associated to this strip. Those links are also very valuable in order to retrieve observational data such as image or scan number, flags or whatever parameter the user would like to know from the original catalogues.

This reference catalogue is made available as a support for a number of studies concerning, e.g. the stellar populations in the Magellanic Clouds, the structure of the Clouds, or certain classes of objects (Cepheids, AGB stars, etc.). Recent articles, such as those by Zaritsky et al. (2002), Van der Marel (2001), Nikolaev & Weinberg (2001) and Cioni et al. (2000b) have demonstrated the power of optical and near–infrared surveys to improve our understanding on these neighbouring galaxies.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank an anonymous referee for very constructive suggestions which helped to improve the present paper. We would like to thank François Ochsenbein for his help with the catalogues. This research has made use of the SIMBAD astronomical database, the VizieR catalogue service, and the ALADIN interactive sky atlas, all operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. This work has been partly supported by the astrovirtel Project which is run by the ESO/ST-ECF Archive and funded by the European Commission under contract HPRI-CT-1999-00081. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation, and from DENIS, which is the result of a joint effort involving human and financial contributions of several Institutes mostly located in Europe. It has been supported financially mainly by the French Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers, CNRS, and French Education Ministry, the European Southern Observatory, the State of en-Württemberg, and the European Commission under a network of the Human Capital and Mobility program. The Guide Star Catalogue-II is a joint project of the Space Telescope Science Institute and the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino. Space Telescope Science Institute is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract NAS5-26555. The participation of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino is supported by the Italian Council for Research in Astronomy. Additional support is provided by European Southern Observatory, Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility, the International GEMINI project and the European Space Agency Astrophysics Division.