text:
# Optical response of two-dimensional electron fluids beyond the Kohn regime: strong non-parabolic confinement and intense laser light

## Abstract

We investigate the linear and non-linear optical response of two-dimensional (2D) interacting electron fluids confined by a strong non-parabolic potential. We show that such fluids may exhibit higher-harmonic spectra under realistic experimental conditions. Higher harmonics arise as the electrons explore anharmonicities of the confinement potential (electron-electron interactions reduce this non-linear effect). This opens the possibility of controlling the optical functionality of such systems by engineering the confinement potential. Our results were obtained within time-dependent density-functional theory, employing the adiabatic local-density approximation. A classical hydrodynamical model is in good agreement with the quantum-mechanical results.

Confined, two-dimensional (2D) electronic quantum systems have been subject to intense theoretical and experimental investigations during the last two decades Ando et al. (1982). Emerging from quantum-well structures or charge layers in modulation doped semiconductor interfaces, they are nowadays routinely tailored into quantum dots Kouwenhoven et al. (2001); Alhassid (2001) or strips Egeler et al. (1990). Possible applications range from single-electron transistors to coherent, tunable light sources for far-infrared (FIR) spectroscopy Vosseburger et al. (1996), a method which has proven a powerful tool for probing slow vibrational modes in molecular and condensed matter systems. In the light of this application and in order to design future 2D THz devices, a detailed understanding of linear – and non-linear – excitation mechanisms in confined 2D electronic quantum systems is necessary.

In finite 2D systems (such as, e.g., quantum dots or quantum strips), the linear optical response depends on the shape of the confinement potential $`v_0`$. Recent experimental results concern parabolic or near-parabolic confinement potentials Kouwenhoven et al. (2001) for which the so-called harmonic-potential theorem (HPT) states that an external dipole excitation can only couple to a rigid-shift mode (Kohn mode Kohn (1961)) at frequency $`\sqrt{K/m^{}}`$ independently of the excitation strength Dobson (1994) ($`m^{}`$ is the effective electron mass and $`K`$ the curvature of $`v_0`$). In its original formulation, the HPT is a quantum-mechanical theoremYip (1991); Dobson (1994); it was shownSchaich et al. (1996) to hold in classical mechanics also.

In realistic, finite 2D quantum structures, the confinement potential $`v_0`$ is often strongly modulated (e.g. by inhomogeneous charge distributions) exhibiting a pronounced anharmonicity Lier and Gerhardts (1993). Nevertheless, in many experiments, the Kohn mode dominates the responseDemel et al. (1990). This is because for weak external fields, and for low electron densities, anharmonic regions of the confinement potential are hardly explored. Experimentally it is possible to overcome the HPT limitations in at least two ways: either by increasing the density $`\overline{n}`$ of conduction electrons or by increasing the intensity of the laser light. This makes it possible to experimentally investigate the hydrodynamics of the interacting electron fluid, which is expected to reveal much more information about the electron dynamics than the rigid-shift response in the Kohn regime.

However, in order to adequately describe the case of strong fields, the non-linear response of the conduction electrons must be considered. While the non-linear response of atoms L’Huiller et al. (1992); Chu and Chu (2001), molecules Calvayarac et al. (1995); van Gisbergen et al. (1997), nanotubes Stanciu et al. (2002); Alon et al. (2000), and 3D quantum dots Bonadeo et al. (2000); Jönsson and Wendin (1992) has been thoroughly investigated, little is known about the non-linear response of finite, interacting 2D electronic systems to intense laser fields. Is it possible to observe higher-harmonic (HH) generation, either due to anharmonicities in the confinement potential, or as a consequence of nonlinearities in the hydrodynamics of the conduction electrons? Do existing THz sources (such as free-electron lasers) provide sufficient intensity to observe HH generation in such systems?

Alternatively, one may consider weak fields (linear regime), but high conduction-electron densities. However, most theoretical studies of the linear response either consider the case of low densities of conduction electrons where the confinement potential can be assumed to be parabolic Brey et al. (1990), or the other extreme, “classical” confinement by infinitely high potential barriers Schaich and McDonald (1992). How the nature of the optical response changes in realistic systems as the density of conduction electrons is increased (so that they explore more and more of the anharmonic parts of the confinement potential $`v_0`$) is not known. How does the Kohn mode compete with other modes of excitation when the HPT is no longer valid?

Last but not least, to which extent can a classical model Fetter (1986) of the (non-)linear response be adequate in a regime beyond the HPT? Such a model would have to account for the hydrodynamics of the electron fluid. In the present article we address the above questions within a classical hydrodynamic model, and within a quantum-mechanical approach, time-dependent density-functional theory Gross et al. (1990) (TDDFT).

Model. Our model is described in Fig. 1. We assume that the confinement potential $`v_0`$ is supplied by a 2D rigid positive jellium charge. If neutralised with charge carriers this model corresponds to a 2D metallic strip Santer and Mehlig (2000). It can be regarded as a model of modulation-doped semiconductor heterostructures embedded in a dielectric medium where a layer of dopant charges corresponds to the positive background. How these, in combination with vertical gate voltages, can modify the overall confinement potential is discussed in Ref. Lier and Gerhardts, 1993.

In the following we show results for two cases, wide and narrow confinement in the $`x`$-direction ($`a=100a_\mathrm{B}^{}`$ and $`10a_\mathrm{B}^{}`$, respectively); corresponding to very shallow confinement in the case of $`a=100a_\mathrm{B}^{}`$, and very strong confinement for $`a=10a_\mathrm{B}^{}`$. In GaAs, the widths correspond to roughly $`1`$$`\mu `$m and $`100`$nm, respectively. The filling fraction $`\eta `$ is a parameter ($`0\eta 1`$). For a given value of $`\eta `$, the electron charge per unit length (in the $`y`$-direction) is taken to be the same in both cases. The system is subjected to an electric field $`𝐄(t)=E_x(t)\widehat{𝐞}_x`$ pointing in the $`x`$-direction, $`\widehat{𝐞}_x`$.

Methods. Due to translational symmetry in the $`y`$-direction, the problem reduces to a one-dimensional self-consistent one, of determining the dynamics of the electronic density profile $`n(x,t)`$ in the potential

$`v([n];x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`xE_x(t)+v_{\mathrm{xc}}([n];x,t)`$
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle dx^{}[n(x^{},t)n_0(x^{})]\mathrm{log}|xx^{}|}.`$
Our quantum-mechanical solution 111Within the TDDFT, the dynamics is determined by the time-dependent Kohn-Sham equations Gross et al. (1990). They were solved numerically using a split-operator technique Calvayrac et al. (2000), a 6th-order finite-difference approximation of the kinetic energy operator and a 13th-order Taylor expansion of the propagator.  to this problem relies on the TDDFT Gross et al. (1990); the exchange-correlation potential $`v_{\mathrm{xc}}([n];x,t)`$ was treated in the adiabatic local-density approximation (ALDA) Yabana and Bertsch (1996). The quantum-mechanical wave-packet dynamics was started from the ground state of the unperturbed system (with $`E_x=0`$), i. e., the solution of the static Kohn-Sham equations Kohn and Sham (1965).

We have compared our TDDFT results with a classical approach: the classical hydrodynamics of the electron fluid (neglecting $`v_{\mathrm{xc}}`$) was solved in a co-moving Lagrange frame Moseler and Landman (2000), represented by a layer of infinitely thin rods of width $`\mathrm{d}x`$ with initial positions $`x`$, infinitesimal charges $`n(x,0)\mathrm{d}x`$ (per unit-length), and velocities $`u(x,t)`$, evolving according to Newton’s law $`_tu(x,t)=_xv([n];x,t)`$ The classical wave-packet dynamics was started from the stationary solution $`n(x)`$ of $`_xv([n];x,0)=0`$. It was found by relaxing an initial Gaussian density profile with additional, suitably chosen Stokes damping. Since the static screening length of a 2D electron gas is considerably larger than the inter-particle distance, this classical hydrodynamical approach is expected to work well. It neglects exchange, correlation, and shell effects.

*Ground-state properties.* Classical and quantum-mechanical ground-state density profiles are shown in Fig. 2. For the wide system, the agreement between classical and quantum-mechanical profiles is satisfactory for most values of $`\eta `$, except for large $`\eta `$ (where the quantum-mechanical profile exhibits Friedel oscillations), and for small values of $`\eta `$ (where the quantum-mechanical profile is Gaussian while the classical one is elliptic). In the narrow system, the discrepancies are larger. For large $`\eta `$, electron spill-out dominates the quantum-mechanical profile.

*Linear response.* The linear response is obtained by applying a low-intensity white-light pulse $`E_x(t)=E_0\delta (t)`$. A value of $`E_0=0.001[\text{ a.u.}]`$ was verified to be sufficiently small to remain within the regime of linear response, for the parameters considered here. We have calculated the dipolar strength function $`S(\omega )=(2\omega /E_0\pi )\text{Im}d(\omega )`$. Here $`d(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of the dipole moment.

In Figs. 3(a) and (b) our results for $`S(\omega )`$ are shown. For low conduction-electron densities ($`\eta =0.1`$), nearly all dipolar strength is in the Kohn mode for both the wide and the narrow system, as expected. The classical and quantum-mechanical strength functions are almost indistinguishable \[insets of Figs. 3(a) and (b)\]. As the filling fraction is increased, higher plasmon modes develop in the case of the wide system \[Fig. 3(a)\]. Classical and quantum-mechanical results agree fairly well, except for large values of $`\omega `$ where the classical plasmon dispersion is found to underestimate the quantum-mechanical result. The results for the narrow system at $`\eta =1`$ are very different \[Fig. 3(b)\]: here we observe strong Landau fragmentation Brack (1993) of the main peak; all higher-order plasmon modes disappear. The classical approximation is inadequate in this regime.

What is the spatial profile of the modes observed in Figs. 3(a) and (b)? The Kohn mode (small $`\eta `$) is a rigid-shift mode. As $`\eta `$ approaches unity in the wide system, it evolves into the first plasmon mode, a combination of a rigid-shift and a hydrodynamic mode (the higher modes are expected to be hydrodynamic modes for all values of $`\eta `$). These two modes of oscillation correspond to Goldhaber-Teller and Steinwedel-Jensen modes in atomic nuclei Myers (1977). Figs. 3(c-e) show snapshots of quantum-mechanical density profiles for three values of $`\eta `$ in the wide system. By virtue of selection rules, $`n(x,t)n(x)`$ is antisymmetric w.r.t. reflection at $`x=0`$. For small $`\eta `$, the rigid-shift mode dominates and $`n(x,t)n(x)x`$ near the origin (note that the rigid-shift profile has the time-dependence $`n(x,t)=n(xx_{\mathrm{cm}}(t),0)`$ where $`x_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ is the center-of-mass of the profile). As $`\eta `$ increases, hydrodynamic modes emerge. They correspond, approximately, to standing waves (reflected at $`\pm a/2`$) with wave vectors $`q=\pi \nu /a`$ with $`\nu =0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and frequencies $`\omega _\mathrm{p}^2(q)=2\pi n_0/(\epsilon m^{})q`$ ($`\epsilon `$ is the dielectric constant). Here $`\omega _\mathrm{p}^2(q)`$ is the plasmon dispersion for a spatially extended 2D electron fluid, the confinement is modeled by assuming that the wave-length corresponding to $`q`$ is given by the width $`a`$. Fig. 3(f) shows how the position of the first ($`\nu =1`$) plasmon resonance evolves as a function of $`\eta `$. For small $`\eta `$, the Kohn limit is reached, as expected. As $`\eta `$ is increased, the position evolves, albeit not quite to the value $`\omega _\mathrm{p}^2\left(q=2\pi /a\right)=2\pi ^2n_0/(a\epsilon m^{})`$. This is due to the fact that at $`\eta =1`$, the profile of the density oscillations is not quite sinusoidal (see also Ref. Schaich and McDonald, 1992): sinusoidal modes do not diagonalise the problem, their interaction gives rise to a frequency shift.

*Non-linear response.* The system was subjected to an intense monochromatic light wave of amplitude $`E_0`$ and frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{L}`$ (switched on slowly, on the time scale of a few cycles). The laser intensities were chosen so as to avoid ionisation of the system, not exceeding $`10^6`$W/cm2 (well within the range of standard free-electron lasers).

Fig. 4(a) shows classical and quantum-mechanical results for the dipolar power spectrum $`|d(\omega )|^2`$ (see Ref. Calvayrac et al., 2000) in the narrow system. We observe excellent agreement between classical and quantum-mechanical results. Further, we observe HH at odd multiples of $`\omega _\mathrm{L}`$. These HH are due to the electrons exploring the anharmonic potential $`v_0`$ (c.f. scattering of electrons off the Coulomb potential in ionised atoms). The parameters ($`\eta =0.1`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{L}=0.05[\text{ a.u.}]`$) were chosen to allow for large excursions of $`n(x,t)`$ into the anharmonic regions of $`v_0`$.

Our observations show that confined, interacting 2D electron fluids do exhibit HH spectra, albeit not as prominently as in single-electron systems such as atoms in strong laser fields L’Huiller et al. (1992). We surmise that the hydrodynamic modes arising from the nonlinearities in the fluid dynamics dampen the center-of-mass motion and its acceleration, reducing the intensity of HH. We have verified that a substantial center-of-mass acceleration is observed when the non-linear electron-electron interactions are switched off during the laser pulse, resulting in HH of considerably larger strength \[Fig. 4(a)\]. This implies that independent-electron models of 2D interacting electron fluids are likely to overestimate the strength of the non-linear response. Note that our quantum-mechanical results are not sensitive to the presence/absence of the exchange-correlation potential, indicating that $`v_{\mathrm{xc}}`$ has little influence on HH generation.

Following the strong external driving, the density profile $`n(x,t)`$ moves with the frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{L}`$, but not rigidly: in the narrow system, the width of the profile changes periodically (breathing mode), as shown in Figs. 4(b) and (c). This mode dampens the rigid-shift motion of the electron fluid (c.f. Ref. Puente et al., 2001 for a similar effect in a circular, anharmonic quantum dot).

In the wide system (at $`\eta =0.5`$), electron-electron interactions give rise to small-amplitude oscillations added to the otherwise rigidly moving density profile \[Fig. 4(d)\]. The time-dependence of the center-of-mass motion is found to be in good agreement with the classical model. In the small-amplitude oscillations, by contrast, a phase shift is observed222The phase shift is found to increase to $`\pi `$ as $`t`$ increases.. Finally we emphasise that the selection rules of the linear case no longer hold \[Fig. 4(d)\].

Conclusions. We have analysed the linear and non-linear response of confined 2D, interacting electron fluids to laser light. Our results may be summarised as follows: First, non-parabolically confined interacting 2D electron fluids may exhibit HH spectra under realistic experimental conditions. HH are due to the electron fluid exploring anharmonicities in the confinement potential. It is found that electron-electron interactions dampen this effect. Second, with the exception of small systems at high electron densities (where single-particle excitations interact with the collective modes giving rise to considerable Landau fragmentation of the plasmons), a non-linear classical hydrodynamical model provides a very good approximation to the linear and non-linear response obtained within the TDDFT; exchange-correlation effects have a negligible influence. It would be of interest to ascertain to which extent the non-linear response of geometrically more complex systems such as nanotubes, quantum rings, clusters, or C60 can be modelled by the classical approach used here.


format: text

text:
# Development of a Hybrid Photo-Diode and its Front-End Electronics for the BTEV Experiment

## 1 INTRODUCTION & MOTIVATION

The most problematic decision in the design of any RICH Detector is the choice of the photon detector technology. The context of the present photon detector R&D effort is the design of the RICH Detector for the BTEV Experiment , in which there is need to efficiently image visible Cherenkov photons from a C4F10 gas radiator over a large area.

For BTEV, we require that the RICH photon detector have high single-photon detection efficiency, high responsivity in the visible spectrum (280–600 nm), large area coverage (for a 6.2 m2 detector plane), small dead area (for large overall efficiency), modestly high resolution ($`\sigma _{\text{pix}}0.5\text{mrad}5\text{mm}`$), fast time response (for the Tevatron bunch crossing of 132 nsec or 7.6 MHz), withstand our radiation environment and fringe magnetic field, and have long life and high reliability (over an experiment life of $``$10 years).

After consideration of extant technologies for high-efficiency, large-area photon detection (MA-PMTs, FP-PMTs, etc.), we decided that Hybrid Photon Detectors (HPDs, also Hybrid Photo-Diodes) had the potential to meet our requirements, and we have pursued a solution based on this technology. Hence, a HPD development project was begun, jointly between Syracuse University and DEP (Netherlands) to produce the detector; and in parallel, a readout electronics development project was begun, jointly with IDEAS (Norway), to produce the front-end electronics.

There are several important antecedents to our HPD work, most notably the LHCb RICH HPD development , the CMS HCAL HPD effort , the LAA Project , and for readout, the CLEO-III RICH va\_rich ASIC development .

## 2 HYBRID PHOTON DETECTORS

### 2.1 Basic Design and Operation

The basic design of the HPD is a vacuum tube device—a “hybrid” device, i.e., the marriage of a single-stage Gen-I image intensifier and a Silicon diode.

In this design, a S20 multialkali photocathode is deposited on a spherical Quartz window. Incident photons convert at the photocathode and enter an acceleration stage, with cross-focused electron optics, requiring applied voltages up to $``$20 KV. The electrostatics transports photoelectrons onto a Silicon diode sensor, consisting of $`N`$ channels of parallel Si PIN diodes (pixels). The reverse bias is positive, so holes are collected in a few nsec. There is a 4:1 reduction in diameter from window to diode.

### 2.2 Expected Performance

The expected performance of the HPD is promising: it is designed to have sensitivity to single photoelectrons, a large active area ($`>`$80%), fast response time, highly linear response (with $`\mathrm{gain}U_\mathrm{K}`$), good uniformity ($`<`$10% variation), and low crosstalk ($`<`$2% between pixels).

The HPD comes with its own set of “issues”, as does any photon detector. It requires a very high applied voltage (VHV, 20 KV level) to each of three electrodes, which will be challenging to distribute over a large area array. However it has only a very low current draw on the power supply ($`<`$few nA). It has a small signal, typically 5000 e-, demanding very low noise electronics for good SNR. As an electron-drift device, it is sensitive to fringe magnetic fields, needing significant external shielding. It is subject to radiation damage, as the Si-diode is not rad-hard (however for BTEV, this is not a problem). It ages as the photocathode degrades due to ion feedback (again not a problem for BTEV, with low integrated intensities). Finally, there is the potential for a “ghost” image caused by incident photons reflecting from internal surfaces, and converting at the photocathode from the interior of the HPD. The intensity of this image needs to be determined.

### 2.3 HPD Development for BTEV

The starting point for HPD development for the BTEV RICH is the 61-channel commercial tube PP0380V (developed by LHCb and DEP ). The goal is to increase pixel resolution to meet our spatial requirements without “breaking the vacuum”, i.e., to increase the number of pixels on the Si-diode, while retaining the same electrostatics and the capability of using external readout electronics.

The result of this development is the new 163-channel HPD: PP0380AT. A new diode was designed and manufactured, with 163 hexagonal pixels (‘hexels’) having 1.4 mm pitch flat-to-flat in a close-packed arrangement, surrounded by a guard ring. This was mated with the existing vacuum body. Pins on the new diode carrier take signals out, so external electronics can be used. This modular design was consciously chosen to provide easier testing, easier replacement, and easier development of the entire system.

Two new 163-channel HPDs have been delivered, and are under test at Syracuse. The quantum efficiency at 320 nm is 22% and 25%, respectively. The leakage current is under 20 nA total for all pixels. These first tests were made with the analog readout chip va\_rich, used in the CLEO-III RICH . The development of our new fast digital readout chip va\_btev is discussed below.

## 3 HPD First Results

### 3.1 Low Light Level Detection

Using a test-bench setup consisting of a pulsed LED, 20 KV high voltage system, analog va\_rich readout, and CAMAC-based data acquisition, we have obtained the pulse-height spectrum shown in Fig. 1. The spectrum shown is both pedestal and common-mode subtracted. One can clearly see peaks corresponding to 0pe, 1pe, 2pe, etc. Other channels are similar; all channels are responsive. The fit is made to multiple Gaussians, including the backscattered electron background for which it yields an average of 0.182. This should be compared to an expected value of 0.173 at 20 KeV . The width of the peaks is dominated by electronic noise and time jitter in the LED. Nevertheless single photoelectrons are clearly detected.

### 3.2 Gain and Linearity

The position of the single-photoelectron peak above pedestal in electrons is the gain (in units of e-/pe). Fig. 2 shows a scan of gain $`g`$ vs applied cathode voltage $`U_\mathrm{K}`$, for all channels. The theoretical gain curve,

$$g=\left(U_\mathrm{K}U_{\mathrm{thr}}\right)/W_{\mathrm{Si}},$$
(1)
is overlaid. Here $`U_{\mathrm{thr}}2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ is the barrier potential, and $`W_{\mathrm{Si}}=3.6\text{eV/e}\text{-}\text{h pair}`$. We obtain a gain of $``$5000 at 20 KV, as expected. Additionally, we see linearity of gain across the VHV scan, as expected. The gain uniformity at 20 KV is 10% RMS, for all pixels.

### 3.3 Signal-to-Noise

A well-separated single-photoelectron peak is necessary for good single-photon detection, particularly in the case of binary readout. One may define the significance of separation of the single-photoelectron peak from pedestal as a measure of signal-to-noise, viz.,

$$N_\sigma =\left(\mu _{1\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}}\mu _{0\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}}\right)/\sigma _{0\mathrm{p}\mathrm{e}},$$
(2)
with the mean and RMS of the Gaussian fits denoted conventionally. A scan across applied high voltage yields a signal-to-noise $`N_\sigma >6`$ for $`U_\mathrm{K}>19\mathrm{KV}`$. This value is just below our design expectation of 7, even though it is obtained using the slower analog electronics of our test setup.

### 3.4 Magnetic Field Effects

Preliminary measurements of magnetic field effects on HPD performance were made by placing the HPD in a pair of Helmholtz coils, having better than 5% field uniformity in the central region. The point spread function (PSF) was generated by a LED through a pinhole in a baffle at the face of the HPD. The pinhole was moved to various locations and the position of the PSF spot was reconstructed by a centroid method. One expects that the photoelectron trajectories are distorted by the applied field, so the centroid movement across the pixel array can be traced as a function of applied field and shielding.

For the unshielded case, the centroid moves as expected when either transverse or longitudinal applied fields are varied. There is a step in the radial displacement of the centroid from its initial position as it crosses a pixel boundary under the influence of increasing field. Hence, the applied field required to displace the PSF a single pixel is determined from this as $``$9 G, for transverse field at half radius. This number is larger than one would naively expect, due to the Kovar body of the HPD providing some shielding capacity at low fields. This is consistent with our simulations of the HPD, and is confirmed by making a hysteresis loop in the displacement.

For the shielded case, the HPD is surrounded by a tube of CO-NETIC AA foil, arranged in four layers of 0.25 mm each, with the HPD recessed 5 cm inside the tube. Again, both transverse and longitudinal applied fields are varied. A typical result for the displacement is shown in Fig. 3, in which the step between pixels may be clearly seen. The location of the image represents an average response to the longitudinal field. The high voltage in this measurement was limited to 13 KV, see below. Hence, on the average, the applied field required to displace the PSF a single pixel is $``$60 G (T) and $``$30 G (L).

For BTEV, we expect to reduce the dipole fringe field to 30 G maximum modulus in the region of the HPDs. We would like to stay below the intrinsic resolution of the device (0.4 mm) up to this limit, in order not to have to depend too much on software corrections. The present limits are $``$18 G (T) and $``$8 G (L), on average. Additional studies are being carried out.

## 4 HPD Operational Experience

Our overall operational experience with the HPD, given the “issues” mentioned above, is promising. There are small turn-on effects, but the device stabilizes as the electronics thermalizes. The humidity must be low in the detector volume for stable operation. The biggest concerns are related to the VHV distribution.

There is a strong effect on the readout noise level (both total and common-mode subtracted) introduced by ripple in the high voltage power distribution. We investigated this by making a scan of the power supply rejection ratio in frequency and amplitude. The profile matches that of the va\_rich itself, indicating a strong coupling to the readout inputs. The noise response of the system degrades significantly above 10 mV pp ripple, and at frequencies above 2 kHz. However, the noise is reduced to an acceptable level by simple RC filtering local to the HPD, using appropriate VHV components.

In operation with a magnetic shield in close proximity there will be corona discharges unless the bare HPD electrode and the shield are properly insulated. This is challenging in a close-packed array, where radial space is at a premium. We have made a series of tests of insulating schemes to determine which is best for stable operation. We have modified the HPD design with an insulation scheme being fabricated which we believe will make the problem manageable.

## 5 Front-End Electronics Development

The development of the readout electronics for the BTEV RICH HPD was undertaken with the goal of producing an ASIC and a hybrid board for low-noise, fast readout with minimum pile-up at Tevatron rates. The starting point for development was the Viking front-end VA\_32/75 (amplifier) and TA32C (discriminator).

### 5.1 The va\_btev Chip

The va\_btev ASIC itself has 64 channels of parallel analog input with 64 parallel digital current outputs. It has low noise, with an ENC specification of 500 e- at $`C_{\mathrm{in}}=10\mathrm{pF}`$, and a readout design goal of SNR = 7:1. The peaking time of 75 nsec matches the Tevatron rate of 132 nsec. The fall time (200 nsec) extends the signal beyond the next crossing for a given hit channel, however there is little loss of efficiency due to low occupancy. The ASIC has a global threshold setting for the chip, as well as fine tuning of individual channel thresholds with a 4-bit DAC. It has a calibration input connected to an input multiplexer.

The design for an single channel is as follows. The input pad is DC-coupled to a charge-sensitive preamplifier, followed by an optional gain stage, and a shaper. This analog section is ac-coupled to a comparator that implements the global and fine thresholds. The output is fed to a monostable multivibrator which produces a current level output for each channel. It also feeds into a Fast-OR output.

### 5.2 The VA\_BTEV Hybrid Board

The VA\_BTEV hybrid PCB is comprised of three va\_btev ASICs, followed by parallel level-adapters, an FPGA for programmable interfacing, and local power regulation. The readout is binary. One hybrid will service a single HPD.

The first development iteration has been completed, with two prototypes tested. These boards are fully rigid, while the next iteration will feature a flex-circuit neck between the ASICs and the other components in order to negotiate mechanical constraints. Additionally, this design isolates the analog and digital sections of the board for best noise performance. The second generation also includes redesigned power regulation and other improvements. Prototypes have been fabricated and are undergoing testing.

## 6 Front-End Electronics Testing

Tests of the VA\_BTEV hybrid prototype have been performed, using a test-bench setup designed for full characterization and data acquisition. A threshold scan was performed by injecting a variable impulse charge through a 1.0 pF capacitor, giving a resultant curve as shown in Fig. 4. The global threshold is set at a nominal value of 3100 e- for the entire chip, and the 4-bit fine threshold is adjusted to zero and its extremes, giving the three curves shown. All curves reach full efficiency for charge collection at the HPD signal level of 5000 e-. These curves were fit, yielding 350 e- noise (erf sigma) for this channel. For all channels in this first development iteration, the noise ranges from $``$275–1000 e-, yielding SNR $``$ 18–5, respectively.

The noise as measured is lower for positive injected charge. This is fortunate for the HPD in which holes are collected, so this effect works in our favor. Inclusion of the gain stage lowers the noise but tends to produce a loss of efficiency at higher level signals. To fully understand this, we are making more timing studies.

Integration tests of the hybrid prototypes with the HPD are in progress.

## 7 Summary and Future

We are engaged in a development program to produce a 163-channel HPD and its associated electronics for the BTEV experiment. We have confirmed the basic properties of this HPD, which works as expected. We need to continue with operational and system tests. We have developed the fast front-end va\_btev ASIC and hybrid board. The first prototypes have been tested successfully, and establish a proof-of-principle of the design. Noise, timing, and integration studies are underway. A beam test of 15 fully-instrumented HPDs is scheduled for Spring 2003 at FNAL.


text:
# Formation of terrestrial planets in close binary systems: the case of 𝛼 Centauri A

## 1 Introduction

Planetary formation in close binary systems is still an open problem. Accretion disks have already been observed around each individual component (Rodriguez et al., 1998) strongly supporting the idea that at least the initial stage of planetary formation can occur. However, it is still uncertain whether the dust can coalesce into planetesimals and, in particular, whether the process of planetesimal accretion can continue till the completion of a planet. Marzari & Scholl (2000) showed that relative velocities between small planetesimals are low in spite of the strong gravitational perturbations due to the companion star. The combined effects of gas drag and secular perturbations induce a sharp periastron alignment of the planetesimal orbits and, as a consequence, low relative speeds at impact that favor accumulation rather then fragmentation. However, the gravitational perturbations from the companion star may still halt the planetary formation process in the last stage when planetary embryos collide together to form a planet. In this paper we numerically model this final scenario where large embryos collide and, eventually, form larger bodies that can be termed planets.

We have concentrated on the Alpha Centauri system, the prototype of close binary systems with the more massive star very similar to our Sun. It is also the same system studied by Marzari & Scholl (2000). Planetary embryos are likely to form within 2.5 AU of the star since beyond the companion perturbations are too strong and planetesimal collisions may lead preferentially to fragmentation rather then accretion (Marzari & Scholl, 2000). Moreover, orbits farther than 2.7 AU become unstable according to Holman & Wiegert (1999). We model the accumulation of Lunar–size embryos into terrestrial planets to estimate the time-scale of formation and the dynamical and physical properties of the final planets. Different initial conditions are considered to have a statistical description of the possible final systems.

## 2 The numerical model

We have performed 26 N-body simulations where we have numerically integrated the orbits of planetary embryos and of the companion star for 108 years with the Mercury package described in Chambers (1999). Mercury is a hybrid integrator, made of a conventional Burlish-Stoer integrator and a symplectic integrator. The symplectic integrator is preferred since it exhibits no long-term accumulation of energy error, and is fast. A timestep of 2 days was adopted since the inner body is at 0.4 AU from the star.

We performed some tests to verify the reliability of the symplectic algorithm in the presence of a massive perturber as Alpha Centauri B. Massless particles have been integrated for 10 Myr with semimajor axes of 2.0, 2.25, and 2.5, and eccentricity of 0, 0.2, 0.5 and 0.7 with both the symplectic and the Radau (Everarth, 1985) integrators. The region between 2.0 and 2.5 AU is the outermost zone initially populated by protoplanets in our simulations and the most critical since the perturbations of the companion star are stronger. The outcome of the two algorithms were in good agreement and significative differences were found only for highly eccentric orbits ($`e=0.5,0.7`$) at 2.5 AU: the bodies escape on hyperbolic orbits in both the simulations, but at different times depending on the integrator used. However, this discrepancy is not due to a bad approximation in the symplectic algorithm but to the chaotic behaviour of eccentric bodies close to the 2.5 AU location. To confirm this supposition, we integrated with Radau two clones of the particles started at 2.5 AU and with eccentricity of 0.5 and 0.7, respectively. The two clones were obtained by changing the 9th digit of the semimajor axis of the original test particles. We found again a significant change (in one case of an order of magnitude) in the escaping time even if the same integrator was used (Radau). As a further test we verified that the relative energy change in our simulations was of the order of $`10^8`$. The Hamiltonian decomposition at the base of the symplectic algorithm is then still effective, at least within 2.5 AU from the star. Additional tests have also been performed in the inner region of the protoplanet disk. The numerical simulations with the two integrators showed no discrepancy, even for large values of eccentricity, for a semimajor axis $`a=0.5`$ AU, the inner value used in our starting conditions. The choice of a short timestep (2 days) for the symplectic algorithm was critical in this respect.

Collisions between embryos are assumed to be completely inelastic; fragmentation or cratering are not considered. This is a good approximation since the gravitational binding energy for large bodies overcomes the kinetic energy of the fragments also at high velocity impacts. A single body is left after a collision and its orbit is determined by the conservation of linear momentum.

The integrations were simultaneously performed in a local CONDOR pool (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor) made of about 200 Pentium class computers with an average speed of 200 Mflops. A single simulation needed about 2 months of real time.

## 3 Initial conditions

$`\alpha `$ Centauri is a triple system with two of the stars forming a close binary (HD 128620 and HD 128621) and a third (GJ 551) orbiting this pair at a much greater distance. The physical properties of the stars in the system are summarized in Table 1.

In our model, we ignore the distant third star, $`\alpha `$ Cen C (Proxima), as it might not be bound to the central binary system (Anosova et al., 1994). Moreover, its perturbations on the embryo orbits would be small. The star $`\alpha `$ Cen B moves on a fixed elliptical orbit around the primary component A, with a semi-major axis of 23.4 AU and an eccentricity of 0.52 (Soderhjelm, 1999). The protoplanets move around component A, and they are set on the orbital plane of the binary system with a low inclination with respect to it. This assumption is based on the work of Hale (1994). He shows that if the separation between the components of a binary system is around 30-40 AU or less, the components of observed binary systems are coplanar with respect to their mutual orbit and their equator.

To compute the initial distribution of embryos around the primary star, we have adopted a surface density of solid material $`\sigma `$ equal to 8 g cm-2 at 1 AU, the same value adopted by Chambers (2001) and intermediate between that used by Kokubo & Ida (1996) and that adopted by Chambers & Wheterill (1997) for the solar nebula. Since we cover a large range in semimajor axis of the initial embryos, we assume that the surface density decreases as $`r^{3/2}`$ (Weidenschilling et al., 1997). Of course these are tentative assumptions, since no data are available. Observations of circumstellar disks in the binary system L1551 by Rodriguez et al. (1998) seem to suggest high density values: for a disk extending only for about 10 AU they derive masses of the order of 3 times the minimum mass of the solar nebula. However, in this case the evolutive state of the accretion disk and whether material is still falling onto the star is not known .

In the simulations we used different values for the embryo’s initial mass ranging from 0.75 ML ($`0.01\mathrm{M}_{}`$) to 5.00 ML ($`0.06\mathrm{M}_{}`$). The total mass in the embryos was about 75% of that expected in a disk with $`\sigma =`$8 g cm-2 since a consistent fraction possibly still resides in small planetesimals. Depending on the initial borders of the disk of planetary embryos, their total mass ranged from 1.47 to 2.61 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The maximum outer edge considered for the disk was 2.79, AU in agreement with the limit for orbital stability of Holman & Wiegert (1999), while the inner border was set to 0.4 AU. The protoplanets radii, are calculated assuming a density of 3 g cm-3 typical for planetary embryos in the terrestrial planet region (Chambers & Wheterill, 1997). The initial eccentricities are randomly selected in the range $`0e0.04`$, the inclinations in the range $`0^{}i0.6^{}`$. The remaining orbital elements are chosen randomly between $`0^{}`$ and $`360^{}`$. The initial separation between the planetary embryos, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is measured in mutual Hill radii, defined by the equation:

$$R_H=\left(\frac{m_i+m_{i+1}}{3M_{\alpha \mathrm{CenA}}}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{a_i+a_{i+1}}{2}\right)$$
(1)
where $`i`$ refers to the $`i`$-th body, specifically to the mass and to the orbital semimajor axis, $`M_{\alpha \mathrm{CenA}}`$ is the mass of $`\alpha `$ Cen A. We varied the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from $``$3 to 9 in the different simulations to test how this parameter influences the outcome.

The initial parameters are collected in Table 2.

## 4 Typical evolution of a population of planetary embryos into planets

Here we present the evolution of a typical simulation of planetary formation in $`\alpha `$ Centauri taken from our set of 24 numerical cases. The initial parameters are given in Table 2 (simulation number 2, hereinafter SIM2). In Fig. 1 we show the time evolution of the semimajor axis versus eccentricity for all the bodies at different evolutionary times.

Already after 105 years the orbits of planetary embryos are dynamically excited with eccentricities up to 0.1. At subsequent times the eccentricities grow even further for the combination of the companion star perturbations and mutual encounters and collisions. After 1 $`\times 10^8`$ years three planetary bodies are left: the two largest planets have a mass similar to the mass of Venus while the third one has two times the mass of Mars. The final orbital parameters are given in Table 3.

In Fig. 2 we illustrate the time evolution of the semimajor axes of each body in the simulation.

After a brief chaotic evolution when all the bodies undergo repeated mutual close encounters, the number of bodies begins to decrease with time because of mutual collisions and consequent accumulation into larger bodies. Some of the initial embryos also impact on each of the two stars or are ejected out of the system. After 5$`\times 10^7`$ years most of the bodies have accreted into larger ones and only a few bodies are involved in the evolution of the system in the subsequent 5$`\times 10^7`$ years. The three surviving planets at the end of the simulation are in non–crossing orbits and form an apparently stable system.

The SIM2 is peculiar for its final dynamical configuration: the outer planet and the intermediate one are locked in a 2:1 mean motion resonance. This confirms that resonant configurations may be a common outcome of the planetary formation process. Even two observed exoplanetary systems have their planets possibly locked in a 2:1 resonance, i.e. GJ876 (Marcy et al., 2001) and HD82943 (Goździewski & Maciejewski, 2001).

In Fig. 3 we show the critical argument $`\sigma =2\lambda _2\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1`$ of the 2:1 resonance over a period of 1$`\times 10^4`$ years, where $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ are the mean longitudes of the inner and outer planets respectively and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1`$ is the longitude of periapse of the inner planet.

The resonant state between the two planets is however unstable and after 2.3 $`\times 10^8`$ years the outer planet begins to evolve chaotically, its eccentricity grows, and it is ejected out of the system leaving only the two major planets in orbit around $`\alpha `$ Cen A.

## 5 Statistics for all the simulations

In this section we combine the outcome of all the 24 simulations to produce statistical predictions on the planetary formation process in $`\alpha `$ Centauri. In Fig. 4 we plot the final mass of the planets that formed in all the simulations as a function of their semimajor axis.

The horizontal bars define the perihelion and aphelion distance for each body. The mass values range from 0.2 to $``$ 1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and some of them have their orbits within the habitable zone for $`\alpha `$ Cen A that, in the plot, is limited by two vertical bars. The maximum semimajor axis is $``$ 1.6 AU and bodies closer to this outer limit have larger values of eccentricity due to the gravitational perturbations of the companion star. The eccentricity vs. mass distribution shown in Fig. 5 confirms that some planets, in particular the inner ones, end up in almost circular orbits.

Our Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 may be compared with Fig. 11 and 12 of Chambers (2001) that illustrate similar results concerning the accretion of terrestrial planets in the solar system in presence of both Jupiter and Saturn as perturbing planets. Since we used in our simulations the same value of $`\sigma `$ and similar values for the initial mass and spacing of the embryos have been used, the comparison gives an insight on the expected differences between the planetary formation process in the two systems. A similar triangular pattern is observed in the distribution of the final planetary mass vs. semimajor axis (our Fig. 4 and Fig. 11 of Chambers (2001)) but more massive planets may form in the inner solar system, up to 1.5 $`M_{}`$, compared to $`\alpha `$ Cen where the maximum mass value is 1 $`M_{}`$. In the simulations of Chambers (2001) low mass terrestrial planets may accumulate also beyond 1.5 AU, up to 2 AU while for $`\alpha `$ Cen we do not get planets beyond 1.6 AU. In both systems the eccentricities are on average lower than 0.15 but we find a higher percentage of low eccentricity orbits in particular for the inner planets. Moreover, in our Fig. 5 there is a more clear trend towards higher values of eccentricity for less massive bodies.

A possible planetary system around $`\alpha `$ Cen A would then be very similar to the inner solar system with two or three terrestrial planets with size ranging from a Mars–like planet to an Earth–like planet. This is a somewhat surprising result taking into account the strong perturbations of the companion star.

The distribution of the final inclinations is shown in Fig. 6 as a function of the final mass of the planets.

High inclinations, of the order of some degrees, may be achieved in particular by the smaller bodies. For the larger planets the inclination is comparable to that of the terrestrial planets in our Solar System.

To gain more insight on the evolution of planetary embryos into planets, we have plotted in Fig. 7 the mass growth as a function of time of all the planets shown in Fig. 4.

For each body the mass value is normalized to the final value. The majority of the virtual planets gain most of their mass within $`4.0\times 10^7`$ years while in the subsequent years only about 10 % of the final mass is accreted. We can then set to $`4.0\times 10^7`$ years the time-scale within which most of the accretion occurs.

In Fig. 8 we show the final values of the obliquity of the planets.

The distribution is random with a peak around 80. Only a small fraction has an obliquity close to 0 that represents the state of our Solar System with most of the planets having the spin axes perpendicular to the orbital plane. Similar results on the obliquity were also obtained by Chambers (2001). One possible explanation is that in our simulations we have not considered the effects of fragmentation and hence the possibility of formation of satellites that might reduce the obliquity (as in the case of Earth and Moon).

At the end of each integration we have checked whether the final planets are in some kind of mean motion resonance. In 6 simulations out of 24, two of the final planets were close within 1% in semimajor axis to a low order mean motion resonance (2:1 or 3:2). In one case, that described in Section 4 and termed SIM2, the two planets were in resonance as tested by the libration of the critical argument. This suggests that resonant configurations in planetary systems may not be rare. To give statistical robustness to this statement we should however estimate the width of the main resonances (possibly as a function of the eccentricity) and compare it with the semimajor axis range available for stable orbital configurations of the planets. We could then state that 6 cases out of 24 is a statistical significant result and not just a random outcome. Such an investigation is however out of the scope of this paper.

## 6 Ingestion of planetary material by the parent stars

During the process of planetary formation some embryos, because of the strong perturbations of the binary companion, impact on the primary or on the secondary star. In all our simulations we compute the fraction of the initial mass that ends up in either of the stars. In Fig. 9 we show the amount of mass plunging into $`\alpha `$ Cen A and B, respectively.

On average, about 2% of an Earth mass is engulfed by either of the stars, so the metallicity of the stars should not have been significantly altered in this final stage of the planetary accretion process. At least 0.5 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, according to Murray et al. (2001), are needed to alter noticeably the metallicity of a main–sequence star. However, we started our simulations with a protoplanetary disk whose density was equal to that expected in the primordial solar nebula. More massive initial disks would lead to significantly higher amount of mass falling onto the two stars, possibly affecting the composition of the convective envelope. From Fig. 7 we also notice that there may be an asymmetry between the amount of material plunging onto the two stars and, as a consequence, there might be a difference in the metallicity of a close binary system if planetary accretion occurred only around one of the components.

We have to point out that the previous results on the mass infall of material on the stars must be taken as indicative in a statistical sense. Numerical integrations of highly eccentric protoplanetary trajectories may be not very accurate when the bodies are far from the primary body. When a protoplanet in a high eccentric orbit travels around the aphelion and then closer to the companion star, the orbital integration may accumulate a significant integration error. However, being the orbits easily chaotic, the outcomes of our integration in this case may be taken as predictive only in terms of probability of impact onto the two stars among the escaping bodies.

## 7 Conclusions

Planetary formation seems to be possible in the Alpha Centauri system and, in general, in close binary systems. Marzari & Scholl (2000) showed that planetesimals can accrete into planetary embryos; in this paper we demonstrate that planetary embryos can grow into planets in about 50 Myr. These terrestrial–size planets form within the region of planetary stability found by Wiegert & Holman (1997) and are possibly stable over the age of the system.

Assuming that the initial mass in the protoplanetary disk around the main component of the $`\alpha `$ Cen system was comparable to that of the minimum solar nebula, planets with the size of Mars and Venus are typically formed with low orbital eccentricity. Some of them lay within the habitable zone of the star and, possibly, could harbor life.

During the accumulation process, some of the planetary embryos are engulfed by the stars in different amounts. However, only if the protoplanetary disk was very massive, at least five times more than the minimum mass solar nebula, we might observe a difference in the metallicity of the star related to the ingestion process.

Orbital resonances may occur between the planets. In a significant fraction of our numerical simulations we found an orbital period close to a low order commensurability ratio. In one case we also found a real 2:1 resonance between two planets, with the critical argument librating around 0. This system was stable over 200 Myr after which the outer planet entered a chaotic state and was ejected out of the system.


text:
# Magnus Force on Quantum Hall Skyrmions and Vortices

## Abstract

We have discussed here the Magnus force acting on the vortices and skyrmions in the quantum Hall systems. We have found that it is generated by the chirality of the system which is associated with the Berry phase and is same for both the cases.

In recent times, the topological excitations near the filling factor $`\nu =1`$ in quantum Hall effect have drawn much attention 1 ; 2 ; 3 . There are two kinds of topological excitations in single layer quantum Hall systems. When the system is fully polarized the relevant charged quasiparticles are topological vortices. At $`\nu =\frac{1}{2n+1}`$ the charge and spin of such a vortex is $`\frac{e}{2n+1}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2(2n+1)}`$ respectively. In a remarkable paper Sondhi et. al. 1  have argued that for a weak Zeeman coupling the lowest energy charged quasiparticle is a topological soliton or skyrmion. The charge is still $`\frac{e}{2n+1}`$ but the total spin can be substantially larger. This large spin with moderate charge explains the observed depolarization when the filling factor slightly deviates from $`\nu =\frac{1}{2n+1}`$. Indeed, the difference between a vortex and a skyrmion is that, a vortex is fully polarized while inside the skyrmion core there is some number of electrons with reversed spins. It may be noted that there is an interplay of two factors, namely the Zeeman and the Coulomb energy. Vortex solutions exists for any value of the Zeeman coupling and is well known from the studies on the vortices in the Ginzburg-Landau model of the fully polarized quantum Hall effect 4 . For weak Zeeman coupling the relevant quasiparticles are the skyrmions. In this letter, we have studied the Magnus force acting on these skyrmions and vortices from their topological properties when it is studied in terms of $`3+1`$ dimensional nonlinear sigma model and found that they are the same.

To investigate the dynamics of vortices and skyrmions we begin with the Landau-Ginzburg theory of the Hall effect introduced by Zhang, Hansson and Kivelson 5  and modified by Lee and Kane 6  to incorporate the effect of the spin. For spin $`1/2`$ particles if we set $`\mathrm{}=e=c=1`$, the Lagrangian can be written as

$`L=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma [_0i(a_0+A_0)]\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{}}}|[_ii(a_i+A_i)]\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma |^2`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma \rho _0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\theta }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha }a_\mu _\nu a_\alpha `$
Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$ is a two-component Bose field with effective mass $`m^{}`$ and short-range repulsive interaction $`\lambda `$, which couples to the external and statistical gauge fields $`A_i`$ and $`a_i(i=0,1,2)`$. Here $`\rho _0`$ is the uniform density $`|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2`$ at filling factor $`\nu =\frac{1}{2n+1}`$. In order to separate the charge and spin degree of freedom, we explicitly separate the magnitude and $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ phases of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma :\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma \sqrt{\rho }\varphi z_\sigma `$ with $`\overline{\varphi }\varphi =\overline{z_\sigma }z_\sigma =1`$. By direct substitution and keeping the leading-order gradient terms we obtain

$`L=`$ $`\rho [\overline{\varphi }_0\varphi +\overline{z_\sigma }_0z_\sigma i(a_0+A_0)]{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2m^{}}}|\overline{\varphi }_i\varphi +\overline{z}_\sigma _iz_\sigma i(a_i+A_i)|^2`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2m^{}}}[|_iz_\sigma |^2+(\overline{z}_\sigma _iz_\sigma )^2]{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(\rho \rho _0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\theta }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha }a_\mu _\nu a_\alpha `$
We now note that we have the identity

$$\frac{\rho }{2m^{}}[|_iz_\sigma |^2+(\overline{z}_\sigma _iz_\sigma )^2]=\frac{\rho }{8m^{}}(𝐧)^2$$
(3)
where $`𝐧=(_1𝐧,_2𝐧)`$ with $`𝐧=\overline{z}_\sigma \sigma _{\alpha \beta }z_\sigma `$, $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ being Pauli matrices. We now introduce Hubbard-Stratonovich fields $`𝐉`$ to decouple the second term of eqn.(2) to obtain

$`L=`$ $`i\rho [\overline{\varphi }_0\varphi +\overline{z}_\sigma _0z_\sigma i(a_0+A_0)]+i[\overline{\varphi }_i\varphi +\overline{z}_\sigma _iz_\sigma i(a_i+A_i)]J_i+{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{2\rho }}|𝐉|^2`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{8m^{}}}(𝐧)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(J_0\rho _0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\theta }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha }a_\mu _\nu a_\alpha `$
where $`𝐉`$ is the three vector $`\rho =(J_0,J_1,J_2)`$. After integrating out the longitudinal fluctuations in $`\varphi `$, we have the conserved current relation $`_\mu J_\mu =0`$, which can be satisfied by taking $`J_\mu `$ as the curl of a three dimensional vector field. We can now set $`J_\mu ^{[0]}=(\rho _0,0,0)`$ equal to $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu 𝒜_\lambda ^{[0]}`$ and

$$J_\mu J_\mu ^{[0]}=ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu 𝒜_\lambda $$
(5)
Now, following Stone 7 , we integrate out the Chern-Simons field $`a_\mu `$ and using the relation $`2\theta \rho _0=eB_z`$, we can write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L\hfill & =& 2\pi [𝒥_\mu ^V(𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})+𝒥_\mu ^S(𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})]\theta |𝐉|^\mu 𝒜_\mu \hfill \\ & & +\frac{m^{}}{2\rho }𝐉^2\frac{\rho }{8m^{}}(𝐧)^2\frac{\lambda }{2}(J_0J_0^{[0]})^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where

$`𝒥_\mu ^V=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \overline{\varphi }_\lambda \varphi `$ (7)
$`𝒥_\mu ^S=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu \overline{z}_\sigma _\lambda z_\sigma `$ (8)
are the skyrmion and vortex three currents, respectively. It is observed that the skyrmion current can be written in the familiar form

$$𝒥_\mu ^S=\frac{1}{4\pi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }𝐧.(_\nu 𝐧\times _\lambda 𝐧)$$
(9)
Now setting $`\rho =\rho _0`$ in the kinetic energy term and adjusting the units of length and time such that $`c=\sqrt{\lambda \rho _0/m^{}}`$, the velocity of density wave in the absence of the magnetic field becomes unity and defining the field strength tensor $`_{\mu \nu }=_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu `$, we can write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L\hfill & =& 2\pi [𝒥_\mu ^S(𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})+𝒥_\mu ^V(𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})]\frac{1}{2}\theta ϵ_{\mu \nu \sigma }𝒜_\mu _{\nu \sigma }\hfill \\ & & \frac{\lambda }{4}_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{8\lambda }(𝐧)^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
It is observed that here $`𝒜_\mu `$ is a topologically massive gauge field and $`𝒜_\mu ^{[0]}`$ just represents the background field.

To study the Magnus force on these vortices and skyrmions, we now take resort to the spherical geometry. In a recent paper 8 , we have studied quantum Hall skyrmions in terms of the $`3+1`$ dimensional nonlinear sigma model where we have taken a system of $`2D`$ electron gas residing on the surface of a $`3D`$ sphere with a monopole at the centre. We note that taking the spin variable $`𝐳=U𝐳_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ where $`𝐳_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`USU(2)`$, we may write the nonlinear sigma model Lagrangian in terms of $`U`$. The $`3+1`$ dimensional generalization of the skyrmion current can now be defined as

$$𝒥_\mu ^S=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }Tr[(U^1_\nu U)(U^1_\lambda U)(U^1_\sigma U)]$$
(11)
where it is associated with an $`O(4)`$ nonlinear sigma model with $`U`$ defined as

$$U=\pi _0+i\stackrel{}{\pi }.\stackrel{}{\sigma },USU(2)$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are Pauli matrices and $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ are chiral boson fields, satisfying the constraint

$$\pi _0^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }^2=1$$
(13)
The $`3+1`$ dimensional generalization of the vortex current can be written as

$$𝒥_\mu ^V=ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }_\nu \varphi _\lambda \varphi _\sigma \varphi $$
(14)
In a pure gauge, we can take a gauge field $`B_\mu `$ such that

$$B_\mu =_\mu \varphi $$
(15)
Now noting that vortex -antivortex pair can be taken as an $`SU(2)`$ doublet, we may consider $`B_\mu `$ as an $`SU(2)`$ gauge field and write

$$B_\mu =\stackrel{~}{U}^1_\mu \stackrel{~}{U},\stackrel{~}{U}SU(2)$$
(16)
In view of this, we can write the vortex current taking into account proper normalization

$$𝒥_\mu ^V=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }Tr[(\stackrel{~}{U}^1_\nu \stackrel{~}{U})(\stackrel{~}{U}^1_\lambda \stackrel{~}{U})(\stackrel{~}{U}^1_\sigma \stackrel{~}{U})]$$
(17)
Thus comparing eqn.(11) and eqn.(17) we note that the skyrmion current and vortex current can be written in a similar form which is also shown by Duan et. al. 15 .

In $`3+1`$ dimensions we can generalize the Lagrangian (10) with non-Abelian gauge field $`𝒜_\mu [𝒜_\mu ^{[0]}]SU(2)`$ and the $`\theta `$-term in the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L\hfill & =& 2\pi [𝒥_\mu ^S(𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})+𝒥_\mu ^V(𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})]\frac{M^2}{16}Tr(_\mu U^{}_\nu U)\hfill \\ & & \frac{\theta }{16\pi ^2}Tr{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}Tr_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Here $`\theta =g/c^2`$ with $`g=\nu e^2/h`$ as Hall conductivity and $`{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is a Hodge dual given by

$${}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }_{\lambda \sigma }$$
(19)
The third term in eqn(18) is the $`\theta `$-term which is the $`3+1`$ dimensional relative to the $`2+1`$ dimensional Chern-Simons term. It is noted that the $`\theta `$-term is related to chiral anomaly and Berry phase 10 . Indeed, it is a four divergence and we can write

$$\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}Tr{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu $$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ is the Chern-Simons characteristic class given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }Tr(𝒜_\nu _{\lambda \sigma }+\frac{2}{3}𝒜_\nu 𝒜_\lambda 𝒜_\sigma )$$
(21)
When a fermionic chiral current interacts with a gauge field, we may define

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu ^5=J_\mu ^5+2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu $$
(22)
where $`J_\mu ^5`$ is the axial vector current so that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we have $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{J}_\mu ^5=0`$ whereas $`_\mu J_\mu ^50`$. Indeed, we have the chiral anomaly given by

$$_\mu J_\mu ^5=2_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}Tr{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}_{\mu \nu }$$
(23)
The Pontryagin index is given by

$`q=`$ $`2\mu `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle Tr{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}_{\mu \nu }d^4x}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\mu J_\mu ^5d^4x}`$ (24)
Here $`\mu `$ represents a magnetic charge. The Berry phase $`e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_B}`$ is associated with the chiral anomaly 9 ; 10  through the relation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_B=2\pi \mu $$
(25)
In Euclidian space-time if we demand $`_{\mu \nu }=0`$, then the gauge potential tends to a pure gauge in the limiting case towards the boundary i.e. we can take

$$𝒜_\mu =U^1_\mu U,USU(2)$$
(26)
This gives

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }Tr[(U^1_\nu U)(U^1_\lambda U)(U^1_\sigma U)]$$
(27)
Comparing this with eqn(11) we note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ can be related to the skyrmion current. It is noted that on the boundary $`S^3`$ where $`_{\mu \nu }=0`$, we have $`_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =0`$ as is evident from eqn.(23). However, inside the volume $`V^4`$ where $`_{\mu \nu }0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ is associated with Berry phase as follows from eqn.(24). On the boundary $`S^3`$ of a volume $`V^4`$, the term $`_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }`$ in the Lagrangian (18) gives rise to the skyrme term $`[_\mu UU^1,_\nu UU^1]^2`$ in this limiting case. This ensures the stability of the skyrmion so that it does not shrink to zero size. Here also $`𝒜_\mu `$ appears as a topologically massive gauge field as it has been shown elsewhere that when a gauge field interacts with a chiral current it acquires mass topologically through chiral anomaly 11 .

If we take the compactified $`3`$-sphere we have the winding number associated with the homotopy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_3(S^3)=Z`$

$$q=2\mu =\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}_{S^3}𝑑S_\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }Tr[(U^1_\nu U)(U^1_\lambda U)(U^1_\sigma U)]$$
(28)
This effectively represents the geometric phase associated with the $`\theta `$-term in the nonlinear sigma model action.

The configuration of a skyrmion is such that spins wrap an unit sphere with a Dirac flux quanta within it and the resultant spin arising out of spin reversals will give rise to a specific chirality. When a skyrmion of charge $`\alpha `$ $`(\alpha =\frac{e}{2n+1})`$ moves around a closed path, the Berry phase is given by $`2\pi \alpha N`$ where $`N`$ is the number of skyrmions enclosed by the path as is evident from eqn.(25). The Magnus force 13  is now given by

$$F=2\pi \alpha N\widehat{c}\times 𝐕$$
(29)
where $`\widehat{c}`$ represents the axis of resultant chirality and $`𝐕`$ is the velocity of the skyrmion with respect to the quantum Hall fluid.

When the Zeeman energy is large, i.e. the vortices are the dominant excitations in the system, these vortices will also experience a similar Magnus force. Since the two currents are of similar form, the vortex current can also be associated with the chiral anomaly giving rise to the Berry phase. We know that topologically a vortex is equivalent to a magnetic flux, so when a vortex moves in a closed path, the Berry phase is given by $`2\pi \alpha N`$ where $`\alpha =\frac{e}{2n+1}`$ is the charge of the vortex and $`N`$ is the number of vortices enclosed by the loop. The Magnus force is given by the vector product of the vorticity and the velocity relative to the quantum Hall fluid.

$$F=\pm 2\pi \alpha N\widehat{z}\times 𝐕_{vortex}$$
(30)
where $`\pm `$ corresponds to a vortex parallel (antiparallel) to the $`z`$-direction and $`𝐕_{vortex}`$ is the vortex velocity. Thus a comparison between eqn.(29) and eqn.(30) suggests that the Magnus force experienced by a vortex and a skyrmion in a quantum Hall fluid is the same. This is consistent with the result obtained by Dziarmaga 12 .

This analysis supports the Ao-Thouless theory 13  of Magnus force which associates the Magnus force with the Berry phase. In this scenario, the skyrmion current as well as the vortex current effectively represents a chiral current which is associated with the chiral anomaly when it interacts with a topologically massive gauge field. The Magnus force is generated by the background field associated with the chirality of the system. Finally, we may mention that in a recent paper 14  we have analyzed the Magnus force acting on vortices in high temperature superconductivity and is also found to be generated by the background field associated with the chirality of the system. We observe here that if we study the Magnus force from the topological properties of the excitations concerned the Magnus force acting on vortices and skyrmions in quantum Hall fluid as well as on vortices in high Tc superconductivity is of similar origin.


text:
# Subleading corrections to the |𝑉_{𝑢𝑏}| determination from exclusive 𝐵 decays

## Abstract

It has been proposed to determine the CKM matrix element $`|V_{ub}|`$ in a model-independent way from a combination of rare and semileptonic $`B`$ and $`D`$ decays near the zero recoil point. An essential ingredient in such a determination is a heavy quark symmetry relation connecting the form-factors appearing in $`BK^{}e^+e^{}`$ to semileptonic form factors relevant for $`B\rho e\nu `$. We estimate the leading corrections to this symmetry relation, of order $`\alpha _s(m_b)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b`$, pointing out that they can be as large as 20%, depending on the value of the matrix element of a dimension-4 operator. Dimensional analysis estimates of this matrix element give a corresponding uncertainty in $`|V_{ub}|`$ of the order of a few percent.

preprint:   UCSD/PTH 02-20 hep-ph/0209211

The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`V_{ub}`$ is an important ingredient of the flavor structure of the Standard Model. Its magnitude determines one of the sides of the unitarity triangle. Although at present it is one of most poorly known CKM parameters, several promising methods have been proposed to extract it from experimental data (see vub  for a recent review).

We focus in this paper on a particular model-independent method for determining $`|V_{ub}|`$ from exclusive rare and semileptonic $`B`$ decays proposed in SaYa ; LiWi ; LSW . There are two basic ingredients going into such a determination:

1. Heavy quark symmetry relations between heavy-light form factors IW ; BuDo  connect the rate for $`\overline{B}K^{}e^+e^{}`$ at the zero recoil point $`q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$ to the rate for $`\overline{B}\rho e\nu `$, up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b`$ and $`SU(3)`$ breaking corrections.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\rho e\nu )/\text{d}q^2}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}K^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})/\text{d}q^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{|V_{ub}|^2}{|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2}{\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C_9|^2+|C_{10}|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|f^{B\rho }(y)|^2}{|f^{BK^{}}(y)|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }(y)}}`$ (1)
In this relation the ratio of decay rates is taken at a common value of the parameter $`y`$ defined by $`vp_V=m_Vy`$. The correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)`$ parametrizes the contribution of the magnetic penguin operator $`Q_7`$ near $`y=1`$.
2. The SU(3) breaking corrections introduced in step 1 can be eliminated with the help of semileptonic decay $`D(\rho ,K^{})e\nu `$ data, by using an approximate equality to unity of the double ratio Grin

$`R(y){\displaystyle \frac{|f^{B\rho }(y)/f^{BK^{}}(y)|}{|f^{D\rho }(y)/f^{DK^{}}(y)|}}=1+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi }}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_b}})\right).`$ (2)

First evidence for the mode $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ has been recently reported by the BaBar collaboration, and an upper limit was given by BELLE Babar ; Belle

$`(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1.68_{0.58}^{+0.68}\pm 0.28)\times 10^6\text{(BaBar)}`$
$`<`$ $`14\times 10^7\text{ (90\% CL)}\text{ (BELLE)}.`$
This suggests that a determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ using these decays might become feasible in a not too distant future.

There are several sources of theoretical uncertainties connected with such an approach. The dominant theoretical uncertainty is connected with long-distance contributions coming from four-quark operators in the weak Hamiltonian $`Q_1=(\overline{s}_\alpha \gamma _\mu P_Lb_\beta )(\overline{c}_\beta \gamma ^\mu P_Lc_\alpha )`$, $`Q_2=(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb)(\overline{c}\gamma _\mu P_Lc)`$ Heff . Their effect can be absorbed into a redefinition of the Wilson coefficient $`C_9`$ Heff  but this modification is generally process-dependent. It can be computed reliably in perturbation theory as long as the $`e^{}e^+`$ invariant mass is sufficiently low. Such computations have been performed for inclusive $`BX_se^+e^{}`$ Heff ; BuMu  and exclusive $`BK^{}e^+e^{}`$ decays BeFeSe ; pQCD . At small recoil, as considered in this Letter, this method is not applicable and one has to resort instead to a phenomenological parameterization of these effects in terms of sums over $`J/\psi `$ resonances VMD . While this is not a controlled approximation, the validity of such an expansion can be tested by measuring other observables such as $`q^2`$ spectra and/or angular asymmetries LSW ; pQCD .

A better understood source of uncertainty is introduced in step 2 as corrections to the double ratio $`R(y)`$. From power counting, such corrections are of order $`\frac{m_s}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_c}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_b}\right)7\%`$. A more precise estimate has been performed in LSW  using the chiral perturbation theory for vector mesons chpthv . The corresponding deviation of the ratio $`R(1)`$ from unity was found to be small, under 1%.

Finally, another source of corrections is introduced in the first step of the method. As shown in SaYa , the contribution of the electromagnetic penguin operator $`Q_7`$ to the $`BK^{}e^+e^{}`$ decay rate (parameterized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)`$) can be computed in a model-independent way at the zero recoil point $`y=1`$ using heavy quark symmetry. The corrections to this prediction are of order $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_b)`$ and were thus thought to be negligible.

Recently, the structure of the leading corrections to the heavy quark symmetry relations for heavy-light decays IW ; BuDo  has been studied in GrPi . They come from dimension 4 operators in the matching of the weak current onto heavy quark effective theory (HQET) operators, and from hard gluon effects appearing as Wilson coefficients in the HQET. We are therefore now in a position to study the leading corrections in step 1 of the $`|V_{ub}|`$ determination. We find that there are calculable corrections to the heavy quark symmetry relations of the order of 10%, plus an additional correction which depends on an unknown form factor of a dimension-4 operator. Estimates of this form factor from dimensional analysis result in an uncertainty on $`|V_{ub}|`$ of the order of 3%.

The amplitude for $`\overline{B}K^{}e^+e^{}`$ receives in general contributions from all operators in the weak radiative $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ effective Hamiltonian Heff . The result can be expressed in terms of the matrix elements of the three operators

$`Q_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2m_b}{16\pi ^2}}(\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }P_Rb)F^{\mu \nu }`$ (4)
$`Q_9`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}}(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb)(\overline{e}\gamma ^\mu e)`$ (5)
$`Q_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}}(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb)(\overline{e}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5e),`$ (6)
where the effects of the remaining operators $`Q_{16}`$ are understood to be absorbed into redefinitions of the Wilson coefficients $`C_{7,9,10}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

The amplitude for the decays considered here requires the knowledge of the form-factors of the vector, axial and tensor currents $`\overline{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }b`$. We define them as MaWi ; IW  (with the convention $`\epsilon ^{0123}=1`$)

$`V(p^{},ϵ)|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b|\overline{B}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`ig(q^2)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }ϵ_\nu ^{}(p+p^{})_\lambda (pp^{})_\sigma `$ (7)
$`V(p^{},ϵ)|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b|\overline{B}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`f(q^2)ϵ_\mu ^{}+a_+(q^2)(ϵ^{}p)(p+p^{})_\mu `$
$`+a_{}(q^2)(ϵ^{}p)(pp^{})_\mu .`$
and

$`V(p^{},ϵ)|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b|\overline{B}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`g_+(q^2)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }ϵ_\lambda ^{}(p+p^{})_\sigma +g_{}(q^2)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }ϵ_\lambda ^{}(pp^{})_\sigma `$
$`+`$ $`h(q^2)\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }(p+p^{})_\lambda (pp^{})_\sigma (ϵ^{}p).`$
The differential decay rate for $`\overline{B}K^{}e^+e^{}`$ can be written as a sum of contributions corresponding to well-defined helicities $`\lambda `$ of the vector meson

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}q^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}K^{}e^+e^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =\pm 1,0}{}}\left\{|H_\lambda ^{(V)}|^2+|H_\lambda ^{(A)}|^2\right\}.`$ (10)
The two helicity amplitudes $`H_\lambda ^{(V,A)}`$ correspond to the vector and axial coupling to the leptons, respectively. Expressed in terms of the form factors defined in (7)–(Subleading corrections to the $`|V_{ub}|`$ determination from exclusive $`B`$ decays), they are given explicitly by

$`H_{\pm 1}^{(V)}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_7{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}\left(g_+(q^2)[\pm 2m_B|\stackrel{}{q}|+m_B^2m_V^2]+g_{}(q^2)q^2\right)`$
$`+`$ $`C_9[\pm 2m_Bg(q^2)|\stackrel{}{q}|+f(q^2)]`$
$`H_0^{(V)}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_7{\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{2m_V}}\left(g_+(q^2)(m_B^2+3m_V^2q^2)+g_{}(q^2)(m_B^2m_V^2q^2)+4h(q^2)m_B^2\stackrel{}{q}^2\right)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`C_9{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_V\sqrt{q^2}}}\left(f(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_B^2m_V^2q^2)+2m_B^2\stackrel{}{q}^2a_+(q^2)\right)`$
and

$`H_{\pm 1}^{(A)}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}(\pm 2m_Bg(q^2)|\stackrel{}{q}|+f(q^2))`$ (13)
$`H_0^{(A)}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{10}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_V\sqrt{q^2}}}\left(f(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_B^2m_V^2q^2)+2m_B^2\stackrel{}{q}^2a_+(q^2)\right)`$ (14)
At the zero recoil point $`y=1`$ (corresponding to maximal $`q^2`$, $`q_{\mathrm{max}}^2=(m_Bm_V)^2`$), the form of the helicity amplitudes simplifies drastically and can be written only in terms of one axial form factor $`f(y=1)`$ as

$`H_{\pm 1}^{(V)}(y=1)`$ $`=`$ $`H_0^{(V)}(y=1)=C_9f(1)(1+\delta (1))`$ (15)
$`H_{\pm 1}^{(A)}(y=1)`$ $`=`$ $`H_0^{(A)}(y=1)=C_{10}f(1)`$ (16)
where we defined

$`\delta (y){\displaystyle \frac{2m_b}{m_Bm_V}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_7}{C_9}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y)}{f(y)}}`$ (17)
with

$`(y)g_+(y)(m_B+m_V)+g_{}(y)(m_Bm_V).`$ (18)
Inserting the expressions for the helicity amplitudes at the end-point (15), (16) into the rate for $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, gives the following result for the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)`$ appearing in (1) SaYa ; LiWi

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C_9|^2+|C_{10}|^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4m_b}{m_Bm_V}}\text{Re }(C_7C_9^{}){\displaystyle \frac{(y)}{f(y)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_b^2}{(m_Bm_V)^2}}|C_7|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{(y)}{f(y)}}\right)^2\right\}.`$ (19)
The form-factor ratio $`(1)/f(1)`$ is predicted from heavy quark symmetry to be 1 at leading order in the heavy quark limit IW ; SaYa . The purpose of this Letter is to estimate the leading corrections to this result, and study their effect on the $`|V_{ub}|`$ determination.

Using the results of GrPi  one finds the following prediction from heavy quark symmetry

$`(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\kappa _5+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}m_V}{m_B}}\right)f(y)+2m_Bm_V\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _1}}\right)g(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_B}}𝒟_1(y)`$
$`+`$ $`2m_Bm_V\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+m_V}{m_B}}\right)(y1)g(y)+2m_V(y1)𝒟(y)+\mathrm{},`$
where the ellipses denote contributions suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_b^2`$ relative to the leading term.

The subleading form factors $`𝒟(y)`$ and $`𝒟_1(y)`$ appearing in (Subleading corrections to the $`|V_{ub}|`$ determination from exclusive $`B`$ decays) are defined by matrix elements of the dimension-4 currents

$`V(p^{},\epsilon )|\overline{q}iD_\mu h_v|\overline{B}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟(y)i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon _\nu ^{}p_\lambda p_\sigma ^{}`$ (21)
$`V(p^{},\epsilon )|\overline{q}iD_\mu \gamma _5h_v|\overline{B}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_1\epsilon _\mu ^{}+𝒟_+(\epsilon ^{}p)(p_\mu +p_\mu ^{})+𝒟_{}(\epsilon ^{}p)(p_\mu p_\mu ^{}).`$ (22)
The equation of motion for the heavy quark field $`ivDh_v=0`$ implies a relation among the form factors of the $`\overline{q}iD_\mu \gamma _5h_v`$ current, such that only two of them are independent.

The coefficients $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _5`$ contain hard gluon corrections. The first coefficient $`\kappa _1=c_0(m_b)/c_0^{}(m_b)`$ is defined as the ratio of two Wilson coefficients appearing in the matching for $`J_\mu =\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b`$ and $`J_\mu ^{}=\overline{q}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }v^\nu b`$

$`J_\mu ^{()}=c_0^{()}(\mu )\overline{q}\gamma _\mu h_v+c_1^{()}(\mu )\overline{q}v_\mu h_v+O(1/m_b).`$ (23)
The values of the Wilson coefficients can be extracted from the next-to-leading computation of BrGr  and their explicit values can be found in GrPi . For our estimate we only require their expressions to one-loop order, which give $`\kappa _1=1+O(\alpha _s^2(m_b))`$.

The coefficient $`\kappa _5`$ is defined analogously in terms of the Wilson coefficients appearing in the matching of the currents $`J_{5\mu }=\overline{q}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }v^\nu \gamma _5b`$ and $`J_{5\mu }^{}=(g_{\mu \nu }v_\mu v_\nu )\overline{q}\gamma ^\nu \gamma _5b`$

$`J_{5\mu }^{()}=\stackrel{~}{c}_0^{()}(\mu )\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5h_v+\stackrel{~}{c}_1^{()}(\mu )\overline{q}v_\mu \gamma _5h_v+O(1/m_b).`$ (24)
The explicit results for the Wilson coefficients depend on the $`\gamma _5`$ definition and are given by BrGr

$`\stackrel{~}{c}_0(m_b)=\stackrel{~}{c}_1(m_b)=1{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _s(m_b)}{3\pi }}+O(\alpha _s^2)\text{(NDR,HV)}`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}_0^{}(m_b)=\stackrel{~}{c}_1^{}(m_b)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1+O(\alpha _s^2)& \text{(HV)}\\ 1\frac{4\alpha _s(m_b)}{3\pi }+O(\alpha _s^2)& \text{(NDR)}\end{array}`$ (28)
This gives for the coefficient $`\kappa _5`$

$`\kappa _5={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{c}_0(m_b)}{\stackrel{~}{c}_0^{}(m_b)}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1+O(\alpha _s^2)& \text{(NDR)}\\ 1\frac{4\alpha _s(m_b)}{3\pi }+O(\alpha _s^2)& \text{(HV)}\end{array}`$ (31)
For completeness we give also the corrected HQET symmetry relations used in deriving (Subleading corrections to the $`|V_{ub}|`$ determination from exclusive $`B`$ decays) GrPi

$`\kappa _1(g_+g_{})+2m_Bg=2(m_Vy\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})g(y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_B}}f(y)2𝒟(y)+𝒪(m_b^{3/2})`$ (32)
$`g_++g_{}2m_Vyg\kappa _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_B}}f=`$ (33)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{m_V}{m_B}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}ym_V)g(y)+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_B^2}}f+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_B^2}}(m_Vm_By𝒟(y)+𝒟_1(y))+𝒪(m_b^{5/2})`$
From (Subleading corrections to the $`|V_{ub}|`$ determination from exclusive $`B`$ decays) one finds for the ratio of form factors appearing in $`\delta (1)`$ at the zero recoil point $`y=1`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)}{f(1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _5+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}m_V}{m_B}}+2m_Bm_V\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{g(1)}{f(1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m_B}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟_1(1)}{f(1)}}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}10.1+\frac{2}{m_B}\frac{𝒟_1(1)}{f(1)}& \text{(NDR)}\\ 10.090.1+\frac{2}{m_B}\frac{𝒟_1(1)}{f(1)}& \text{(HV)}\end{array}`$ (37)
This is the main result of this Letter. We turn now to a discussion of the numerical impact of these corrections.

In the NDR scheme, the radiative corrections from $`\kappa _{1,5}`$ start at two-loop order and thus are negligibly small (the numerical value for $`\kappa _5^{(HV)}`$ uses $`\alpha _s(m_b)=0.22`$). The subleading $`1/m_b`$ correction from the second term is a negative $`10\%`$ contribution, and is kinematically enhanced by the large ratio $`(m_K^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})/m_B0.10`$, where we took $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=350`$ MeV. The last term depends on the subleading form factor $`𝒟_1(1)`$, which has not been calculated yet. From dimensional analysis its contribution is expected to be of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_b0.10`$. Therefore, if this term turns out to be negative, the overall correction to the ratio (34) in the NDR scheme could be as large as $`20\%`$.

We give in Table I the values of the coefficient $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ corresponding to a generic range for the form factor ratio (34), using two sets of Wilson coefficients $`C_{7,9,10}(m_b)`$. The first set corresponds to the next-to-leading log (NLL) approximation $`C_7^{LL}=0.314`$, $`C_9^{NLL}=4.154`$, $`C_{10}^{NLL}=4.261`$. These values correspond to the NDR scheme, and were obtained at $`\mu =4.6`$ GeV, with $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=4.4`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^{(n_f=5)}=220`$ MeV following BeFeSe . The perturbative correction from $`\kappa _5`$ multiplies $`C_7`$, thus at this order consistency requires that $`\kappa _5`$ not be included. The one-loop matrix elements of $`Q_{16}`$ are included by absorbing them into a scheme-independent effective Wilson coefficient $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ defined as in Heff ; BuMu . At the zero recoil point this is given by $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(1)=C_9(m_b)\stackrel{~}{\eta }(1)+0.208+i0.363`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(1)=10.61\alpha _s(m_b)/\pi =0.95`$, where we used $`m_c=1.4`$ GeV. The corresponding numerical results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ are shown in the first line of Table I.

A second set of Wilson coefficients corresponds to the NNLL approximation and takes $`C_7^{NLL}=0.308`$, $`C_9^{NNLL}=4.214`$, $`C_{10}^{NNLL}=4.312`$ BeFeSe ; NNLL . These partial results corresponding to the NDR scheme do not contain the (as yet unknown) three-loop mixing into $`Q_9`$. The associated uncertainty in $`C_9^{NNLL}`$ was estimated in BeFeSe  and found to be $`\pm 0.1`$. Also, the complete results for the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ matrix elements of the $`Q_{16}`$ operators are not available, although they were recently computed in NLO  in an expansion in powers of $`q^2/m_b^2,m_c^2/m_b^2`$. These approximate results are not applicable in the zero recoil region considered here.

At NNL order the radiative correction from $`\kappa _5`$ has to be included as well, which raises the issue of $`\gamma _5`$ scheme independence of the result. This has been demonstrated explicitly at NLL order in BuMu . In analogy with this result, one expects that the scheme dependence in $`\kappa _5`$ will be cancelled by that in the matrix elements of the four-quark operators $`_{i=1}^6C_i^{NLL}Q_i^{NLL}`$ and by that in $`C_7`$. In the numerical evaluation one should use for consistency the NDR scheme for all quantities involved.

The uncertainty in the value of $`|V_{ub}|`$ extracted from (1) coming from $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ is dominated by that in $`𝒟_1(1)`$. For $`|2𝒟_1(1)/(m_bf(1))|0.1`$ one finds from Table I a 3% effect in $`|V_{ub}|^2`$. A precise computation of $`𝒟_1(1)`$ could help eliminate this source of uncertainty.

In the quark model the ratio of form factors $`𝒟_1(1)/f(1)`$ appearing in (34) is always positive. Keeping only a $`S`$-wave component for the vector meson wave function, one finds in the static limit for the $`b`$ quark

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟_1(1)}{f(1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6m_q}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _V^{}\stackrel{}{p}^2\varphi _B}{\varphi _V^{}\varphi _B}},`$ (38)
with $`m_q`$ the mass of the light quark produced in the weak decay $`bq`$. The expectation values can be computed explicitly in the ISGW model ISGW  with the result

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟_1(1)}{f(1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_q}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _B^2\beta _X^2}{\beta _B^2+\beta _X^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.093\text{ GeV}(B\rho )`$
$`=`$ $`0.062\text{ GeV}(BK^{}).`$
We used here the parameters of the ISGW model $`\beta _B=0.41`$ GeV, $`m_u=m_d=0.33`$ GeV, $`m_s=0.55`$ GeV, $`\beta _\rho =0.31`$ GeV, $`\beta _K^{}=0.34`$ GeV. This amounts to a small positive contribution of 2-3% from the last term in (34).

$`\begin{array}{cccccc}(1)/f(1)& \hfill 0.8& \hfill 0.9& \hfill 1.0& \hfill 1.1& \hfill 1.2\\ & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{NLL}(1)& \hfill 0.123& \hfill 0.137& \hfill 0.151& \hfill 0.164& \hfill 0.178\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{NNLL}(1)& \hfill 0.119& \hfill 0.133& \hfill 0.147& \hfill 0.160& \hfill 0.173\end{array}`$ (43)
> Table 1. The values of the correction factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ appearing in the formula (1) for a few values of the ratio (34) and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=370`$ MeV. Two sets of Wilson coefficients are used, corresponding to the NLL and NNLL approximations, as explained in text.

The correction to the ratio of form factors (34) can be also extracted from the QCD sum rule calculation of Ref. BaBr . This gives $`(1)/f(1)=1.17`$ for $`B\rho `$ and 1.18 for $`BK^{}`$. A similar QCD sum rule calculation in ABHH  quotes the range $`(1)/f(1)=1.15_{0.07}^{+0.13}`$ for $`BK^{}`$. This amounts to a large positive subleading contribution of $`30\%`$ from the last term in (34). The large discrepancy in $`𝒟_1`$ with the dimensional analysis estimate and the quark model result is rather puzzling. It is not clear if this anomalously large subleading correction is an artifact of the sum rule computation or of the interpolation formulas in BaBr ; ABHH . A precise determination of this formfactor is clearly important.

In conclusion, we studied in this Letter the effect of subleading corrections to a heavy quark symmetry relation relevant for the determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from exclusive rare and semileptonic $`B`$ decays. The structure of the corrections to this symmetry relation is analyzed using the heavy quark expansion. We point out a possible large effect, depending on the value of an unknown matrix element of a dimension-4 operator. Lattice computations could eventually help to eliminate this source of uncertainty in exclusive determinations of $`|V_{ub}|`$.

We thank Iain Stewart for comments on the manuscript. D. P. is grateful to Andrey Grozin for discussions about the results of Ref. BrGr . This work has been supported by the DOE under Grant No. DOE-FG03-97ER40546.


text:
# The 𝜈_𝑒→𝜈_𝜏 channel as a tool to solve ambiguities11footnote 1Talk presented by Davide Meloni.

## The problem…

In  it has been noticed that the probability $`P_{\alpha \beta }(\overline{\theta }_{13},\overline{\delta })`$ obtained for neutrinos at a fixed energy and baseline with input parameter ($`\overline{\theta }_{13},\overline{\delta }`$), can be reproduced varying accordingly the values of $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`\delta `$. Considering at the same time the equiprobability curve for antineutrinos at the same energy and with the same input parameters, the two equiprobability curves have two intersections: the input pair ($`\overline{\theta }_{13},\overline{\delta }`$) and a second, energy dependent, point ($`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{13},\stackrel{~}{\delta }`$), the ”clone”. This second intersection introduces an ambiguity in the measurement of the physical values of $`\theta _{13}`$ and $`\delta `$ (the so-called ($`\theta _{13},\delta `$) ambiguity). In this case a fitting procedure to reconstruct the physical parameters will identify two low $`\chi ^2`$ regions: one close to the input value and the other in the restricted area in which the other intersections are present (a ”clone” region).

## …and its solution

Different proposals have been suggested to solve this ambiguity (see  for possible solutions to the problem using the combination of different baselines or detectors with improved energy resolution). We notice  that muons proceeding from $`\tau `$ decay when $`\tau `$’s are produced via a $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ transition (the ”silver channel”) show a different $`(\theta _{13},\delta )`$ correlation from those coming from $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ (the ”golden channel”). This can be seen by looking at the equal-number-of-events (ENE) curves, computed solving $`N^i(\theta _{13},\delta )=N^i(\overline{\theta }_{13},\overline{\delta })`$ , where $`N^i`$ is the number of ”wrong-sign” muons produced in the detector in the i-th energy bin (see Fig.1 and  for details).

The different ($`\theta _{13},\delta `$) correlation between two channels comes from the different structure of the transition probabilities, which have an opposite sign in front of the CP-violating term. In principle, this different behaviour of the ENE curves should reduce or eliminate the impact of the clone solutions when fitting simultaneously the two sets of data to reconstruct the physical parameters. To take full advantage from the “silver” channel, we should use a detector able to distinguish muons originated from $`\tau `$ decay from the “golden” muons. For this reason we consider an OPERA-like detector with a mass of 2 Kton and spectrometers capable of muon charge identification (see the OPERA proposal for details, ) located at $`L=732`$ Km down the neutrino source.

The improvement in the reconstruction of the physical parameters can be seen comparing the plots in Fig.2. On the left we consider two realistic iron detector (including efficiencies and background as quoted in ) located at two different baselines $`L=732`$ Km and $`L=3000`$ Km (the optimal distance for the measurement of leptonic CP violation). The best fit point, obtained following the strategy presented in , is close to the input parameter ($`\overline{\theta }_{13}=1^{}`$ and $`\overline{\delta }=90^{}`$) but a clone region is present and the determination of the physical parameters is affected by ambiguity. On the right plot, we show the results of the fit obtained combining at the same time both the “golden” and the “silver” channels at the ideal near emulsion detector and the “golden” channel at the magnetized iron detector located at $`L=3000`$ Km. The clone region completely disappears and the input parameters can be determined with an error of tens of degrees on $`\delta `$ and tenths of degrees on $`\theta _{13}`$.

Considering a realistic estimate of the reconstruction efficiency and of the main backgrounds both for “golden” and “silver” muon events at the emulsion detector , the clone regions for $`\theta _{13}1^{}`$ do appear and our results are comparable to those obtained with a combination of two realistic magnetized iron detectors located at $`L=732`$ Km and $`L=3000`$ Km. However, at the time the Neutrino Factory will be operational, several improvement of the lead-emulsion detector could be done. In particular, we observed that a moderate scaling in the detector mass from 2 to 4 Kton completely eliminates the clone regions for any value of $`\theta _{13}1^{}`$. On the other hand, a moderate increase in the main background rejection does not seem to improve in a significant way the previous results.