text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The exclusive production of proton-antiproton ($`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$) pairs in the collision of two quasi-real photons can be used to test predictions of QCD. At LEP the photons are emitted by the beam electrons111In this paper positrons are also referred to as electrons. and the $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ pairs are produced in the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \gamma \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$.

The application of QCD to exclusive photon-photon reactions is based on the work of Brodsky and Lepage . According to their formalism the process is factorized into a non-perturbative part, which is the hadronic wave function of the final state, and a perturbative part. Calculations based on this ansatz  use a specific model of the proton’s three-quark wave function by Chernyak and Zhitnitsky . This calculation yields cross-sections about one order of magnitude smaller than the existing experimental results , for $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ centre-of-mass energies $`W`$ greater than $`2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$.

To model non-perturbative effects, the introduction of quark-diquark systems has been proposed . Within this model, baryons are viewed as a combination of a quark and a diquark rather than a three-quark system. The composite nature of the diquark is taken into account by form factors.

Recent studies  have extended the systematic investigation of hard exclusive reactions within the quark-diquark model to photon-photon processes . In these studies the cross-sections have been calculated down to $`W`$ values of $`2.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ below which the quark-diquark model is no longer expected to be valid. Most of the experimental data, however, have been taken at such low energies.

The calculations of the integrated cross-section for the process $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ in the angular range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|<0.6`$ (where $`\theta ^{}`$ is the angle between the proton’s momentum and the electron beam direction in the $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ centre-of-mass system) and for $`W>2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ are in good agreement with experimental results , whereas the pure quark model predicts much smaller cross-sections .

In this paper, we present a measurement of the cross-section for the exclusive process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ in the range $`2.15<W<3.95\mathrm{GeV}`$, using data taken with the OPAL detector at $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{ee}}}=183\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`189\mathrm{GeV}`$ at LEP. The integrated luminosities for the two energies are $`62.8\mathrm{pb}^1`$ and $`186.2\mathrm{pb}^1`$.

## 2 The OPAL detector

The OPAL detector and trigger system are described in detail elsewhere . We briefly describe only those features particularly relevant to this analysis. The tracking system for charged particles is inside a solenoid that provides a uniform axial magnetic field of $`0.435\mathrm{T}`$. The system consists of a silicon micro-vertex detector, a high-resolution vertex drift chamber, a large-volume jet chamber and surrounding $`z`$-chambers. The micro-vertex detector surrounds the beam pipe covering the angular range of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.9`$ and provides tracking information in the $`r`$-$`\varphi `$ and $`z`$ directions222In the OPAL right-handed coordinate system the $`z`$-axis points along the $`\mathrm{e}^{}`$ beam direction, and the $`x`$-axis points towards the centre of the LEP ring. The polar angle $`\theta `$ is defined with respect to the $`z`$-axis, and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ with respect to the $`x`$-axis.. The jet chamber records the momentum and energy loss of charged particles over $`98\%`$ of the solid angle. In the range of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.73`$, up to $`159`$ points are measured along each track. The energy loss, $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$, of a charged particle in the chamber gas is measured from the integrated charges of each hit at both ends of each signal wire with a resolution of about $`3.5\%`$ for isolated tracks with the maximum of 159 points. The $`z`$-chambers are used to improve the track measurement in the $`z`$ direction.

The barrel time-of-flight (TOF) scintillation counters are located immediately outside the solenoid at a mean radius of $`2.36\mathrm{m}`$, covering the polar angle range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.82`$. The outer parts of the detector, in the barrel and endcaps, consist of lead-glass electromagnetic calorimetry (ECAL) followed by an instrumented iron yoke for hadron calorimetry and four layers of external muon chambers. Forward electromagnetic calorimeters complete the acceptance for electromagnetically interacting particles down to polar angles of about $`24\mathrm{mrad}`$.

The trigger signatures required for this analysis are based on a combination of time-of-flight and track trigger information.

## 3 Kinematics

The production of proton-antiproton pairs in photon-photon interactions proceeds via the process

$$\mathrm{e}^+(p_1)+\mathrm{e}^{}(p_2)\mathrm{e}^+(p_1^{})+\mathrm{e}^{}(p_2^{})+\gamma (q_1)+\gamma (q_2)\mathrm{e}^+(p_1^{})+\mathrm{e}^{}(p_2^{})+\mathrm{p}(q_1^{})+\overline{\mathrm{p}}(q_2^{})$$
(1)
where $`q_i,p_i`$ denote the four-momenta ($`i=1,2`$). Each of the two incoming electrons emits a photon and the final state produced by the two colliding photons consists of one proton (p) and one antiproton ($`\overline{\text{p}}`$). The four-momentum squared of the two photons is ($`i=1,2`$)

$$q_i^2=Q_i^2=(p_ip_i^{})^2.$$
(2)
Since the electrons are scattered at small angles and they remain undetected, the four-momenta squared of each of the two photons are small, i.e. the photons are quasi-real. In this case the transverse333 In this paper transverse momenta are always defined with respect to the $`z`$ axis. component of the momentum sum of the proton and the antiproton in the laboratory system is expected to be small whereas the longitudinal component of the momentum sum can be large. The photon-photon centre-of-mass system is generally boosted along the beam axis. The larger the boost, the closer the produced (anti) protons are to the beam direction. This feature, combined with the typically low mass of the final state $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$, and the low efficiency for tracking at small angles, leads to significant acceptance losses for these types of events.

## 4 Monte Carlo generators

The $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ events are simulated with the PC Monte Carlo generator which has been developed to study exclusive photon-photon processes . The PC Monte Carlo generator has been expanded for use in this analysis to simulate the kinematics of exclusive baryon-antibaryon final states, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^+`$. A total of $`\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ Monte Carlo events have been generated as a control sample for the event selection described in the next section. Similarly, for the trigger and detection efficiency determination, a total of $`\mathrm{360\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ Monte Carlo events have been generated in the range of $`2.15<W<3.95\mathrm{GeV}`$. The background coming from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is generated with the PC Monte Carlo program, as is the feed-down background from proton-antiproton pairs coming from the reaction $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ where the pions are not detected ($`\mathrm{200\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ events).

The leptonic photon-photon background processes $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ are simulated with the Vermaseren generator . The KORALZ generator  is used to simulate the background processes $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. The $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ background process is simulated with the BHWIDE  generator. Table 1 lists all the generated background Monte Carlo samples.

Monte Carlo events are generated at $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{ee}}}=189\mathrm{GeV}`$ only, since the change in acceptance between $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{ee}}}=183`$ and $`189`$ GeV is small compared to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement. They have been processed through a full simulation of the OPAL detector  and have been analysed using the same reconstruction algorithms that are used for the data.

## 5 Event selection

The $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ events are selected by the following set of cuts:

1. The sum of the energies measured in the barrel and endcap sections of the electromagnetic calorimeter must be less than half the beam energy.
2. Exactly two oppositely charged tracks are required with each track having at least 20 hits in the central jet chamber to ensure a reliable determination of the specific energy loss $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$. The point of closest approach to the interaction point must be less than 1 cm in the $`r\varphi `$ plane and less than 50 cm in the $`z`$ direction.
3. For each track the polar angle must be in the range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.75`$ and the transverse momentum $`p_{}`$ must be larger than $`0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$. These cuts ensure a high trigger efficiency and good particle identification.
4. The invariant mass $`W`$ of the $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ final state must be in the range $`2.15<W<3.95`$ GeV. The invariant mass is determined from the measured momenta of the two tracks using the proton mass.
5. The events are boosted into the rest system of the measured $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ final state. The scattering angle of the tracks in this system has to satisfy $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|<0.6`$.
6. All events must fulfil the trigger conditions defined in Section 6.
7. The large background from other exclusive processes, mainly the production of e+e-, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pairs, is reduced by particle identification using the specific energy loss $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ in the jet chamber and the energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter. The $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ probabilities of the tracks must be consistent with the p and $`\overline{\text{p}}`$ hypothesis.

* Events where the ratio $`E/p`$ for each track lies in the range $`0.4<E/p<1.8`$ 444$`E`$ here is the energy of the ECAL cluster associated with the track with momentum $`p`$. are regarded as possible $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ candidates. These events are rejected if the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ probabilities of the two tracks are consistent with the electron hypothesis.
    * Events where the ratio $`E/p`$ for each track is less than $`0.8`$, as expected for a minimum ionizing particle, are regarded as possible background from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ events. This background is reduced by rejecting events where the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ probability for both tracks is consistent with the muon hypothesis. This cut is also effective in reducing the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ background.
    * The $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ probability for the proton hypothesis has to be greater than $`0.1\%`$ for each track and it has to be larger than the probabilities for the pion and kaon hypotheses. The product of the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ probabilities for both tracks to be (anti) protons has to be larger than the product of the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ probabilities for both tracks to be electrons.
8. Cosmic ray background is eliminated by applying a muon veto .
9. Exclusive two-particle final states are selected by requiring the transverse component of the momentum sum squared of the two tracks, $`|\stackrel{}{p}_{}|^2`$, to be smaller than $`0.04\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. By restricting the maximum value of $`Q_i^2`$, this cut also ensures that the interacting photons are quasi-real. Therefore no further cut rejecting events with scattered electrons in the detector needs to be applied. Fig. 1 shows the $`|\stackrel{}{p}_{}|^2`$ distribution obtained after applying all cuts except the cut on $`|\stackrel{}{p}_{}|^2`$.

After all cuts $`163`$ data events are selected, 35 events at $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{ee}}}=183`$ GeV and 128 events at $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{ee}}}=189`$ GeV. The distribution of measured $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ values versus the particle momentum for the selected data events is shown in Fig. 2a. Background from events containing particles other than (anti-)protons is negligible due to the good rejection power of the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ cuts. Since no event remains after applying the event selection to the background Monte Carlo samples, the $`95\%`$ confidence level upper limits for the number of background events expected to contribute to the selected data sample are given in Table 1.

Since the $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ final state is fully reconstructed, the experimental resolution for $`W`$ (determined with Monte Carlo simulation) is better than $`1\%`$. The experimental resolution for $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ is about $`0.014`$. Fig. 2b shows the $`W`$ distribution for data and Monte Carlo signal events after the final selection. The Monte Carlo distributions agree well with the data.

## 6 Trigger and detection efficiencies

The $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ events contain only two tracks with momenta in the range 0.4 GeV to 2 GeV. Special triggers are required to select such low multiplicity events with only low momentum particles and the efficiencies of these triggers must be well known. The $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ events are mainly triggered by a combination of triggers using hits in the time-of-flight counters and tracks. The track trigger takes data on the $`z`$ coordinate of hits from the vertex drift chamber, and from three groups of 12 wires in the jet chamber. The selected events must satisfy at least one of the following trigger conditions:

* Two tracks in the barrel region from the track-trigger (TT). This corresponds to an angular acceptance of approximately $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.75`$.
* A coincidence of at least one barrel track from the track trigger and a $`\theta \varphi `$ coincidence of a track from the track trigger with hits from the time-of-flight detector (TOF). The barrel track and the track forming the $`\theta \varphi `$ coincidence are not necessarily identical. The angular acceptance of the track trigger is approximately $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.75`$, whereas the acceptance of the $`\theta \varphi `$ coincidence is $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.82`$.

Condition A is highly efficient for events within its geometrical acceptance but it triggers on two tracks. Condition B is used to trigger on a single track and to measure the trigger efficiency in combination with condition A.

It was checked that the trigger efficiency does not depend on $`\varphi `$. Under this condition and assuming the efficiency of each trigger component for each track to be independent, the combined event trigger can be written as:

$$\epsilon _{\mathrm{TRIG}}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}}^2+2\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}\mathrm{TOF}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}}(1\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}}).$$
(3)
Here $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}}`$ is the efficiency for one track to be triggered by the track trigger and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}\mathrm{TOF}}`$ is the efficiency for one track to be triggered by the TT-TOF coincidence. The first term in (3) gives the efficiency for both tracks to be triggered by the track trigger (condition A) and the second term gives the efficiency for the events not triggered by condition A to be triggered by condition B for either of the two tracks.

Data events are used to calculate the trigger efficiency. The trigger efficiency is determined by considering events in which one track detected in one half of the $`r\varphi `$ plane (e.g. $`0<\varphi <180`$ degrees) satisfies the required track trigger and time-of-flight $`\theta \varphi `$ matching hit while the other track in the other half plane (e.g. $`180<\varphi <360`$ degrees) is used to measure the efficiency of the track and time-of-flight triggers.

The efficiencies measured from the $`163`$ selected events are $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}}=(93.7\pm 1.7)\%`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}\mathrm{TOF}}=(58.5\pm 2.3)\%`$, where the uncertainties are statistical only. This yields an overall event trigger efficiency of $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TRIG}}=(94.7\pm 1.5)\%`$, determined from data only.

To study the efficiency with a large event sample, events from photon-photon processes with two tracks in the final state such as $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ are used together with the $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ events to determine the track trigger efficiency as a function of $`p_{}`$. This efficiency exceeds $`90\%`$ for $`p_{}>0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the observed dependence of the track trigger efficiency on $`p_{}`$ is found to be consistent between electrons and muons.

In a second step, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ Monte Carlo events in the range $`2.15<W<3.95\mathrm{GeV}`$ are used to obtain the trigger efficiencies as a function of $`W`$, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TRIG}}(W)`$. The Monte Carlo events are reweighted here according to the trigger efficiency which has been determined as a function of the transverse momentum $`p_{}`$ using (3). These reweighted Monte Carlo events have been used only to determine the trigger efficiency as function of $`W`$. Finally the values obtained for $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TRIG}}(W)`$ are normalized to give the overall trigger efficiency $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TRIG}}=94.7\%`$ above the threshold $`p_{}>0.4`$ GeV as already determined from data only. The region $`W<2.15\mathrm{GeV}`$ is excluded from the analysis because the trigger efficiency drops rapidly below $`70\%`$.

The detection efficiency is determined by comparing the number of Monte Carlo events passing all cuts with the total number of Monte Carlo events generated within a polar angle $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{GEN}}^{}|<0.6`$ in the $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ centre-of-mass system:

$$\epsilon _{\mathrm{DET}}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}W(|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|)}{\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}W(|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{GEN}}^{}|)},$$
(4)
where $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ refers to the reconstructed polar angle in the $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ centre-of-mass system. The detection efficiency is about $`2\%`$ at high $`W`$ and about $`4\%`$ at low $`W`$. To be able to compare the measured cross-section with any given model in bins of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ and $`W`$, the detection efficiency has been determined from the signal Monte Carlo in bins of $`W`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$.

## 7 Cross-section measurements

The differential cross-section for the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})}{\mathrm{d}W\mathrm{d}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|}=\frac{N_{\mathrm{ev}}(W,|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|)}{_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{TRIG}}\epsilon _{\mathrm{DET}}(W,|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|)\mathrm{\Delta }W\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|}$$
(5)
where $`N_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ is the number of events selected in each $`(W,|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|)`$ bin, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TRIG}}`$ is the trigger efficiency, $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{DET}}`$ is the detection efficiency, $`_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}`$ is the measured integrated luminosity, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ are the bin widths in $`W`$ and in $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$.

The total cross-section $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})`$ for a given value of $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{ee}}}`$ is obtained from the differential cross-section $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{d}W`$ using the luminosity function $`\mathrm{d}_{\gamma \gamma }/\mathrm{d}W`$ :

$$\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})=\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})}{\mathrm{d}W}/\frac{\mathrm{d}_{\gamma \gamma }}{\mathrm{d}W}.$$
(6)
The luminosity function $`\mathrm{d}_{\gamma \gamma }/\mathrm{d}W`$ is calculated by the Galuga program . The resulting differential cross-sections for the process $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ in bins of $`W`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ are then summed over $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ to obtain the total cross-section as a function of $`W`$ for $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|<0.6`$.

## 8 Systematic uncertainties

The following sources of systematic uncertainties have been taken into account (Table 5):

The accuracy of the photon-photon luminosity function used in (6) has been estimated by taking into account different models such as the $`\rho `$-pole model , the Equivalent Photon Approximation (EPA) , the Generalized Vector Dominance Model (GVMD) , the luminosity functions given in , and in . Each of the resulting numbers has then been compared with the VDM form-factor model  which is used for the final result. We take the largest deviation resulting from these comparisons as the uncertainty in the luminosity functions which is about $`\pm 5\%`$.

The trigger efficiency model of (3) has been tested by making a comparison between the measured relative frequencies of the four different sub-combinations, ($`N_{\mathrm{TT}},N_{\mathrm{TT}\mathrm{TOF}}`$) = (1,1), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2), which can trigger the events, and the predicted values, by using fitted efficiencies for TT and TT-TOF (Section 6). Here $`N_{\mathrm{TT}}`$ denotes the number of tracks triggered by the TT and $`N_{\mathrm{TT}\mathrm{TOF}}`$ the number of tracks triggered by the TT-TOF trigger. Table 2 gives the measured and predicted fractions for events with $`W>2.15\mathrm{GeV}`$. The fit of the two efficiencies $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{TT}\mathrm{TOF}}`$ yields a $`\chi ^2`$ of $`9.6`$ over $`2`$ degrees of freedom. Although the fit is poor the overall efficiency result is consistent with the other determination. An additional systematic uncertainty of $`5.0\%`$ is therefore assigned to the trigger efficiency. This value is obtained by increasing the uncertainties to obtain a normalized $`\chi ^2`$ of one.

The statistical uncertainty on the detection efficiency due to the number of simulated Monte Carlo events varies from $`4.5\%`$ at low $`W`$ to $`6\%`$ at high $`W`$.

The systematic uncertainties due to the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ cuts are determined by recalculating the Monte Carlo detection efficiency after varying the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ values:

* The measured values are shifted by $`\pm 1\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the theoretical uncertainty of the measurement.
* The measured values are smeared with a Gaussian distribution of width $`0.1\sigma `$, which is the typical systematic uncertainty of each individual $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ measurement, as found for pions from $`\mathrm{K}^0`$ decays .

The modified $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ values are transformed into weights and the new detection efficiency is calculated by applying the event selection on the modified Monte Carlo events. The systematic uncertainty assigned to each $`(W,|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|)`$ bin is the quadratic sum of the full deviation of the detection efficiency with smearing and the average absolute deviation value of the $`\pm 1\sigma `$ shifted values with respect to the original values.

The systematic uncertainties due to the variation of the $`\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x`$ cuts are larger at high values of $`W`$. They vary between $`0.1\%`$ for $`W<2.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ and up to $`5\%`$ for $`W>2.6\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Residual background can come from non-exclusive production of $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ pairs in processes like $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}\pi \pi `$ if the pions are not detected. The $`|\stackrel{}{p}_{}|^2`$ cut eliminates most of this background. The data events are almost coplanar, i.e. no data event has an acoplanarity of more than $`0.262`$ rad. To estimate the contribution of this background, the shape of the acoplanarity distribution for $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ pairs in Monte Carlo $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ events has been fitted to the data. This yields an upper limit of 10 events for this background contribution. An additional systematic uncertainty of $`6\%`$ is therefore taken into account.

Additional uncertainties due to the measured integrated $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ luminosity, the track reconstruction efficiency and the momentum resolution for the protons are negligible. The total systematic uncertainty is obtained by adding all systematic uncertainties in quadrature.

## 9 Results and Discussion

The measured cross-sections in bins of $`W`$ are given in Table 3. The average $`W`$ in each bin has been determined by applying the procedure described in . The measured cross-sections $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})`$ for $`2.15<W<3.95\mathrm{GeV}`$ and for $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|<0.6`$ are compared with the results obtained by ARGUS , CLEO  and VENUS  in Fig. 3a and to the results obtained by TASSO , JADE  and TPC/$`2\gamma `$  in Fig. 3b. The quark-diquark model predictions  are also shown. Reasonable agreement is found between this measurement and the results obtained by other experiments for $`W>2.3\mathrm{GeV}`$. At lower $`W`$ our measurements agree with the measurements by JADE  and ARGUS , but lie below the results obtained by CLEO , and VENUS . The cross-section measurements reported here extend towards higher values of $`W`$ than previous results.

Fig. 3a-b show the measured $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ cross-section as a function of $`W`$ together with some predictions based on the quark-diquark model . There is good agreement between our results and the older quark-diquark model predictions . The most recent calculations  lie above the data, but within the estimated theoretical uncertainties the predictions are in agreement with the measurement.

An important consequence of the pure quark hard scattering picture is the power law which follows from the dimensional counting rules . The dimensional counting rules state that an exclusive cross-section at fixed angle has an energy dependence connected with the number of hadronic constituents participating in the process under investigation. We expect that for asymptotically large $`W`$ and fixed $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})}{\mathrm{d}t}W^{2(2n)}$$
(7)
where $`n=8`$ is the number of elementary fields and $`t=W^2/2(1|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|)`$. The introduction of diquarks modifies the power law by decreasing $`n`$ to $`n=6`$. This power law is compared to the data in Fig. 3c with $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})W^{2(n3)}`$ using three values of the exponent $`n`$: fixed values $`n=8`$, $`n=6`$, and the fitted value $`n=7.5\pm 0.8`$ obtained by taking into account statistical uncertainties only. More data covering a wider range of $`W`$ would be required to determine the exponent $`n`$ more precisely.

The measured differential cross-sections $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{d}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ in different $`W`$ ranges and for $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|<0.6`$ are given in Table 4 and in Fig. 4. The differential cross-section in the range $`2.15<W<2.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ lies below the results reported by VENUS  and CLEO  (Fig. 4a). Since the CLEO measurements are given for the lower $`W`$ range $`2.0<W<2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, we rescale their results by a factor 0.635 which is the ratio of the two CLEO total cross-section measurements integrated over the $`W`$ ranges $`2.0<W<2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`2.15<W<2.55\mathrm{GeV}`$. This leads to a better agreement between the two measurements but the OPAL results are still consistently lower. The shapes of the $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ dependence of all measurements are consistent apart from the highest $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ bin, where the OPAL measurement is significantly lower than the measurements of the other two experiments.

In Fig. 4b-c the differential cross-sections $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{d}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ in the $`W`$ ranges $`2.35<W<2.85\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`2.55<W<2.95\mathrm{GeV}`$ are compared to the measurements by TASSO, VENUS and CLEO in similar $`W`$ ranges. The measurements are consistent within the uncertainties.

The comparison of the differential cross-section as a function of $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ for $`2.55<W<2.95\mathrm{GeV}`$ with the calculation of  at $`W=2.8\mathrm{GeV}`$ for different distribution amplitudes (DA) is shown in Fig. 5a. The pure quark model  and the quark-diquark model predictions lie below the data, but the shapes of the curves are consistent with those of the data.

In Fig. 5b the differential cross-section $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{d}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ is shown versus $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ for $`2.15<W<2.55\mathrm{GeV}`$. The cross-section decreases at large $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$; the shape of the angular distribution is different from that at higher $`W`$ values. This indicates that for low $`W`$ the perturbative calculations of  are not valid.

Another important consequence of the hard scattering picture is the hadron helicity conservation rule. For each exclusive reaction like $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ the sum of the two initial helicities equals the sum of the two final ones . According to the simplification used in , only scalar diquarks are considered, and the (anti) proton carries the helicity of the single (anti) quark. Neglecting quark masses, quark and antiquark and hence proton and antiproton have to be in opposite helicity states. If the (anti) proton is considered as a point-like particle, simple QED rules determine the angular dependence of the unpolarized $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ differential cross-section :

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})}{\mathrm{d}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|}\frac{(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{})}{(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{})}.$$
(8)
This expression is compared to the data in two $`W`$ ranges, $`2.55<W<2.95\mathrm{GeV}`$ (Fig. 5a) and $`2.15<W<2.55\mathrm{GeV}`$ (Fig. 5b). The normalisation in each case is determined by the best fit to the data. In the higher $`W`$ range, the prediction (8) is in agreement with the data within the experimental uncertainties. In the lower $`W`$ range this simple model does not describe the data. At low $`W`$ soft processes such as meson exchange are expected to introduce other partial waves, so that the approximations leading to (8) become invalid .

## 10 Conclusions

The cross-section for the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ has been measured in the $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ centre-of-mass energy range of $`2.15<W<3.95\mathrm{GeV}`$ using data taken with the OPAL detector at $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{ee}}}=183`$ and $`189\mathrm{GeV}`$. The measurement extends to slightly larger values of $`W`$ than in previous measurements.

The total cross-section $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})`$ as a function of $`W`$ is obtained from the differential cross-section $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{d}W`$ using a luminosity function. For the high $`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ centre-of-mass energies, $`W>2.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, the measured cross-section is in good agreement with other experimental results . At lower $`W`$ the OPAL measurements lie below the results obtained by CLEO , and VENUS , but agree with the JADE  and ARGUS  measurements. The cross-section as a function of $`W`$ is in agreement with the quark-diquark model predictions of .

The power law fit yields an exponent $`n=7.5\pm 0.8`$ where the uncertainty is statistical only. Within this uncertainty, the measurement is not able to distinguish between predictions for the proton to interact as a state of three quasi-free quarks or as a quark-diquark system. These predictions are based on dimensional counting rules .

The shape of the differential cross-section $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{d}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ agrees with the results of previous experiments in comparable $`W`$ ranges, apart from in the highest $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ bin measured in the range $`2.15<W<2.55`$ GeV. In this low $`W`$ region contributions from soft processes such as meson exchange are expected to complicate the picture by introducing extra partial waves, and the shape of the measured differential cross-section $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{d}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ does not agree with the simple model that leads to the helicity conservation rule. In the high $`W`$ region, $`2.55<W<2.95\mathrm{GeV}`$, the experimental and theoretical differential cross-sections $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (\gamma \gamma \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}})/\mathrm{d}|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}|`$ agree, indicating that the data are consistent with the helicity conservation rule.

## Acknowledgements

We want to thank Mauro Anselmino, Wolfgang Schweiger, Carola F. Berger, Maria Novella Kienzle-Focacci and Sven Menke for important and fruitful discussions. We particularly wish to thank the SL Division for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator at all energies and for their close cooperation with our experimental group. In addition to the support staff at our own institutions we are pleased to acknowledge the
Department of Energy, USA,
National Science Foundation, USA,
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada,
Israel Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,
Benoziyo Center for High Energy Physics,
Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and a grant under the MEXT International Science Research Program,
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),
German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF),
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany,
National Research Council of Canada,
Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research, OTKA T-029328, and T-038240,
Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders, F.W.O.-Vlaanderen, Belgium.


format: text

text:
# Size driven phase transitions in pinned vortex systems

## Abstract

We model a tridimensional vortex system in a sample with square superficial pinning in the top surface and obtain the ground state structures as a function of the sample thickness. Using a simple Frenkel-Kontorova like model and no adjustable parameters, we reproduce the experimental vortex configurations seen in the bottom surface and their range of stability. We find three phases with two transitions between them, including a continuous one from square to distorted hexagonal structure and a discontinuous one from distorted hexagonal to hexagonal structure.

In recent years the phase diagram of vortices in high temperature superconductors has been the subject of intense experimental and theoretical studies.crabtree  In Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 crystals the vortex liquid transforms, upon cooling, for low enough magnetic fields into a Bragg Glass through a first-order phase transition. The Bragg Glass has hexagonal quasi-long range order and is collectively pinned.Giamarchi  The presence of uncorrelated pinning potentials,Blatter  as well as periodic pinning potentials,Hoffmann ; Laguna  leads to the appearance of a rich variety of phases and transitions between them. The static and dynamic properties of vortex systems with periodic pinning arrays have been extensively studied experimentallyBaert ; Harada  and, for two-dimensional systems, numerically.Laguna ; Reichhardt ; Reichhardt2 ; Marconi

Superficial pinning centers with different spacial distributions can be artificially created,Fasano  and the magnetic decoration technique allows the study of the vortex solid topology on the sample surface with a single-vortex resolution.Essmann ; Fasano2  In recent experiments, the structure of the vortex system in the presence of a superficial pinning potential has been studied in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 single crystals.Fasano\_sq  On the sample top surface, a square array of Fe dots is created by means of electron-beam lithography. These dots act as pinning centers for the vortices and are strong enough to determine their positions at the top surface in the ground state. Performing magnetic decorations on the opposite surface of the sample, with the magnetic field perpendicular to it, different vortex structures as a function of the sample thickness are observed. For a vortex density equal to the pinning centers density and thick enough samples the natural hexagonal structure is observed. This implies that the vortices deform themselves along the z-axis to connect the square and hexagonal lattices. For thin samples a square vortex array is found, while for intermediate sample thickness, a polycrystal with grains of distorted hexagonal and square structure is obtained.

Despite the theoretical work done on the behavior of vortices in periodic potentials, to our knowledge, the case of the three-dimensional vortex system with two-dimensional pinning has not been addressed. Note that a direct continuous transition between square and triangular lattices, as described for example by Landau theory, cannot occur by symmetry arguments. Therefore, there are no obvious expectations on the evolution of the vortex structure with thickness.

In this work we present a model for a three-dimensional vortex system in interaction with a two-dimensional pinning array at one surface of the sample and study the vortex configurations as a function of the sample thickness $`L_z`$. We consider the case of square superficial pinning at the first matching field (equal number of vortices and pinning centers) and study the strong pinning case of Ref., where the vortices in the ground state are pinned at one end. There are two competing energies, the length energy and the vortex-vortex interaction energy. On one hand, the minimum length energy is obtained for parallel straight vortices of length $`L_z`$. Since the vortices are fixed at one end to the square lattice of the top surface, this energy is minimized when the vortex structure is square at the bottom. On the other hand, the vortex-vortex interaction favors a triangular structure.

For vortices tilted at small angles the vortex-vortex interaction potential can be approximated by:Koshelev ; Blatter ; Buzdin

$$V[𝐮_i(z),𝐮_j(z)]=\frac{L_z}{2}\left\{V_s\left[u_{ij}(0)\right]+V_s\left[u_{ij}(L_z)\right]\right\}.$$
(1)
Here $`u_{ij}(z)=|𝐮_i(z)𝐮_j(z)|`$, where $`𝐮_i(z)=(x_i(z),y_i(z))`$ is the planar coordinate of the ith vortex and

$$V_s\left(u\right)=2ϵ_0\left[\mathrm{log}\left|u\right|+u^2\frac{u^4}{4}\frac{3}{4}\right].$$
(2)
This expression has a cut-off at $`u_c=2.5\lambda `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the penetration depth; $`u`$ is in units of $`u_c`$ and $`ϵ_0=\left(\varphi _0/4\pi \lambda \right)^2`$. We checked that using the computationally more costly modified Bessel function (exact for parallel rigid vortices) instead of (2) gives very similar results.

We write the length energy of the vortex $`i`$ as a function of the relative displacement of the vortex ends $`\delta u_i=\left|𝐮_i(L_z)𝐮_i(0)\right|`$ (see Fig. 1). Since the $`\delta u_i/L_z`$ are very small, we can make a Taylor series expansion. The zero-th order term, $`e_l^0=L_zϵ_0\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$, is the energy of a straight vortex, where $`\kappa `$ is the Ginzburg-Landau parameter. The next non zero contribution to the length energy is $`\frac{1}{2}ϵ_0\left(\delta u_i/L_z\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$. Since the results are not critically dependent on higher order terms, in this work we used the following expression:

$$e_l\left(\delta u_i\right)=ϵ_0\mathrm{ln}\kappa \sqrt{\delta u_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+L_z^2},$$
(3)
that corresponds to the length energy of a vortex tilted an angle $`\mathrm{arctan}\left(\delta u_i/L_z\right)`$. We model the effect of the surface pinning keeping the vortex top coordinates $`𝐮_i(0)`$ fixed to a square lattice of lattice parameter $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The total energy of the vortex system is the sum of the interaction energy over all the vortex pairs, and the length energy over all the vortices. We shift this energy adding a constant term, $`\frac{1}{2}(E_{\mathrm{}}+E_{\mathrm{}})Ne_l^0`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{}}=L_z_{ij}V_s\left[u_{ij}(0)\right]`$ are the interaction energies for a triangular and square array of straight parallel vortices respectively, and $`N`$ is the total number of vortices:

$$E_{tot}=\frac{L_z}{2}\underset{ij}{}V_s\left[u_{ij}(L_z)\right]\frac{E_{\mathrm{}}}{2}+\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\left[e_l\left(\delta u_i\right)e_l^0\right].$$
(4)
This is a Frenkel-Kontorova like model in which the first two terms correspond to the interaction between adsorbed atoms (strain energy) and the last term models the effect of the periodic substrate (elastic energy). Similar modelsChaikin  have been used to study phase transitions of overlayers on surfaces.Hamilton  The results of this paper can be applied to these systems, where the decrease in the elastic energy –given by the substrate potential intensity– can be related to an increase in the number of overlayers.Hamilton1

We generated vortex structures changing slightly the primitive lattice vectors of the triangular lattice in such a way that the vortex lattice is commensurate with both pinning potential and sample size. To obtain the ground state configurations, we performed a simulated annealing down to zero-temperature using a hybrid algorithm. At each time step, we update the vortex positions using Langevin dynamics.Laguna2002  To improve the convergence we allow vortex reconnections by means of a Metropolis algorithm.Binder  Every five time-steps, two neighboring vortices ($`i`$ and $`j`$) can swap their free ends $`𝐮_i(L_z)`$ and $`𝐮_j(L_z)`$, with a probability that depends on the energy difference between configurations.

For all the ground state configurations we checked that the main assumption of our model remains valid, i.e. that $`\delta u_i/L_z1`$. Moreover, for finite and small enough temperatures this is also the case. The highest temperature that can be studied with this model grows with decreasing $`L_z`$ and reaches its maximum at $`L_z=0`$. The number of vortices $`N`$ is in the range $`[1024,2548]`$ and we use periodic boundary conditions in $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. Here we present results for a magnetic field of $`37`$ Gauss ($`a_{\mathrm{}}=0.74\mu m`$) and $`\kappa =100`$. Since the disorder freezes the vortex structure at temperatures $`TT_m`$,Laguna2002  we have used the penetration length at the melting temperature $`\lambda (T=T_m)=0.8\mu m`$ rather than $`\lambda (T=0)`$, to compare with the experimental results.

Hereafter we focus on the geometric structure of the free ends of the vortices $`𝐮_i(L_z)`$, that can be observed experimentally by means of the magnetic decoration technique.Fasano\_sq

A free square vortex lattice is unstable under the displacement of a vortex line along the (10) or (01) lattice directions. Moreover, for a given displacement $`\delta u`$, the system decreases further its energy moving neighboring lines of vortices in opposite directions. In an analogous way, when the vortices are held fixed at one end on a square lattice by means of a strong superficial pinning, they can decrease their interaction energy tilting themselves. In this case, there is also an increase in the length of the vortices with an associated increase in the length energy. If the length energy increase rate, as a function of the tilting angle, is greater than the interaction energy decrease rate, the square lattice with all the vortices straight is stable. This is the case for small samples where the length energy dominates over the interaction energy.

In Fig. 2(a) we plot the ground state energies as a function of the sample thickness. For $`L_zL_{c1}1.4\mu m`$ the elastic energy is zero and the vortices are straight in a square lattice. For $`L_z>L_{c1}`$ the system can decrease its total energy tilting the vortices. This is associated to an increase of the elastic energy and to a decrease of the strain energy. The ground state geometry changes at $`L_{c1}`$ from square to distorted hexagonal. The distorted hexagonal structure is obtained tilting lines of vortices as shown in the insets of Fig. 2(b). This structure is fourfold degenerate (the other three structures can be obtained by $`n\pi /2`$ rotations with $`n`$ integer) and can be described with a single parameter $`\delta u_{eq}=\delta u_i`$ (in this structure the $`\delta u_i`$ values are the same for all vortices). For $`L_z<L_{c1}`$ the total energy as a function of the vortex displacement $`\delta u`$ has a single minimum at $`\delta u=0`$, as shown in the inset of Fig. 2(a). For $`L_z>L_{c1}`$ the $`\delta u=0`$ state becomes unstable, $`\delta u_{eq}`$ increases monotonously from zero and the strain energy decreases. If we keep this geometry fixed and let $`L_z\mathrm{}`$, the vortex displacements $`\delta u_{eq}`$ reach their maximum value $`a_{\mathrm{}}/3`$. For vortex displacements along the $`\widehat{y}`$ direction, we obtain an hexagonal structure compressed in the $`\widehat{x}`$ direction by a factor $`a_{\mathrm{}}/a_{\mathrm{}}`$ and expanded in the $`\widehat{y}`$ direction by the inverse factor. Here $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the lattice parameter of the triangular structure and satisfies $`a_{\mathrm{}}^2=2a_{\mathrm{}}^2/\sqrt{3}`$.

The square and distorted hexagonal structures are shown in Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 3(b) respectively. For the distorted hexagonal structure we show one of the four possible configurations. For $`L_z`$ large enough the distorted hexagonal structure becomes metastable. In fact, the minimum energy configuration for $`L_z>L_{c2}`$ corresponds to a rotated hexagonal structure, slightly distorted to fit the pinning geometry (inset of Fig. 3(c)), that for simplicity we will call hexagonal. This structure can be generated with the lattice vectors $`\stackrel{}{a}_1=\alpha _1a_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{a}_2=(\alpha _1/2)a_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{x}+(\sqrt{3}\alpha _2/2)a_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{y}`$, where $`\alpha _1=3^{5/4}/40.99`$ and $`\alpha _2=1/\alpha _1`$, and it is commensurate with the square lattice when it is rotated $`45`$ degrees. The large $`L_z`$ regime was also studied using a model with more internal degrees of freedom per vortex, in which the sample is divided in equal thickness layers along the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction. Each vortex is composed of segments with an interaction in each layer given by (2) and length energy relative to adjacent layers given by (3). In the range of studied $`L_z`$ values we find no significant difference between both methods. As can be seen in Fig. 3(c), where we plot the segment projections, the vortices deviate along the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis only slightly from a straight line joining their ends at the sample surfaces.

It is interesting to analyze how the symmetry breaking occurs to reach the structure of Fig. 3(b) from high temperatures. This problem is related to the problem of melting in two dimensions over a square substrate that has been studied both theoretically and experimentally.Nelson1 ; Hamilton1 ; Muller1996  In these systems, the substrate acts as an Ising perturbation for the orientational order of the overlayer, and for smooth substrates an Ising-like phase transition is expected as a function of temperature.Nelson1  For our vortex system with sample thicknesses $`L_zL_{c1}`$ (a “strong substrate” situation) we observe a related behavior at finite temperatures. We find a temperature regime in which several grains with different structures are observed: distorted hexagonal in its four possible orientations and square. As the temperature decreases, the grains merge into a single crystal of distorted hexagonal structure (Fig. 3(b)). However, if the vortex system is quenched, it gets trapped in a local energy minimum with a mixture of structures, as shown in Fig. 3(d). In the experiments of Ref.  the random pinning present in the samples produces an effective slowing down in the dynamicsLaguna2002  and prevents the vortex system from reaching the ground state. For the range of $`L_z`$ where we find a distorted hexagonal structure, the experimental final states are a mixture of distorted hexagonal, square and hexagonal structures. In this regime there are several degenerate structures and the energy of a grain boundary between them vanishes at $`L_z=L_{c1}`$. As a consequence, for finite disorder, a polycrystalline structure is expected with its grains decreasing in size as we approach $`L_{c1}`$ from above.

At the transition from distorted hexagonal to hexagonal, there is a discontinuity in the elastic and strain energies and in the first derivative of the total energy, as can be observed for $`L_z=L_{c2}`$ in Fig. 4. In this case, there is no continuous way to go from one structure to another through minimum energy configurations.

As $`L_z`$ is further increased we expect, in analogy with 1D systems, a series of transitions between states with decreasing strain energies or eventually a commensurate-incommensurate transition. However, the strain energy difference between hexagonal lattices of different commensurations and rotation angles is very small and we expect the orientation and deformations to be determined by the random pinning, instead of the superficial pinning geometry.

We showed, for the first matching field, that the system can be mapped to a 2D Frenkel-Kontorova model from the known vortex-vortex interactions and experimental parameters. With this simple model, we have reproduced the experimental results for the vortex structure as a function of the sample thickness. We predict two solid-solid phase transitions at $`L_z=L_{c1}`$ and $`L_z=L_{c2}`$. The first one, from square to distorted hexagonal, is continuous and can be described by a single parameter $`\delta u`$. The second one is first order and corresponds to the transformation from distorted hexagonal to hexagonal. To check our results we also analyzed a model with more internal degrees of freedom per vortex. This last model is appropriate to study, in the large $`L_z`$ case, how is the square to triangle transition along the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction, a problem that will be addressed elsewhere.

The possibility of tunning the different parameters in the vortex systems allows the study of Frenkel-Kontorova models in the presence of disorder in a controllable way. This systems present a rich variety of phases and transitions between them.

We thank F. de la Cruz, E. Jagla, Y. Fasano, M. De Seta, M. Menghini, A.A. Aligia, D. Domínguez, A.B. Kolton, and C.A. Balseiro for useful discussions, and CONICET for financial support.


text:
# Four–loop logarithms in 3d gauge + Higgs theory Presented at Lattice 2002 by Y. Schröder.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Strongly interacting quantum field theories, such as QCD, require extensive numerical simulations, to obtain a non-perturbative understanding from first principles. Some regions in parameter space might however be amenable to analytic methods, which can then be used to obtain a clearer physical picture as well as an independent check on the Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Furthermore, since in practice there are upper limits on computing power, one might combine numerical and analytic methods, to supplement each other and provide for a sufficient tool in cases where either method alone would fail.

As a concrete example of this interplay, let us study the free energy density $`f`$ (which, in the thermodynamic limit, equals the negative pressure $`p`$) of QCD, at finite temperature $`T`$ and vanishing baryon chemical potential,

$`e^{f(T)\frac{V}{T}}={\displaystyle 𝒟\left[A\overline{\psi }\psi \right]e^{_0^{1/T}𝑑\tau {\scriptscriptstyle d^3x_E\left[A\overline{\psi }\psi \right]}}},`$
where $`_E`$ is the standard QCD Lagrangian. The free energy can be expected to be a good candidate to witness the change of the properties of QCD matter around a critical temperature $`T_c200`$ MeV. While the low-temperature phase is governed by bound states, such as mesons, the high-temperature phase should, due to asymptotic freedom, look more like a gas of free quarks and gluons.

A direct lattice measurement of $`f`$ can be and has been performed, see e.g. . The results show the pressure rising sharply around $`T_c`$, to level off at a few times $`T_c`$. At higher temperatures, the direct numerical approach gets increasingly harder, since ensuring clean continuum as well as thermodynamic limits one is facing a multiscale problem, $`a\frac{1}{T}\frac{1}{T_c}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}}1\text{ fm}Na`$, where $`a`$ and $`N`$ are the lattice spacing and the number of lattice sites, respectively.

On the other hand, the temperature being the only scale in the problem, perturbative methods are guaranteed to work well at high $`T`$, due to asymptotic freedom. In fact, at vanishing coupling one reaches the ideal-gas limit,

$`p_{\mathrm{ideal}}\left(T\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2T^4}{45}}\left(N_c^21+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}N_cN_f\right),`$ (1)
where $`N_c`$ and $`N_f`$ denote the number of colours and flavours, respectively. With decreasing temperature, the value of the effective coupling constant $`g(T)`$ however increases, rendering a perturbative series  meaningless below some point.

## 2 METHOD

Progress can be made by exploiting the scale hierarchy $`\pi T>gT>g^2T`$ at high temperatures, enabling one to use the powerful analytic method of effectice theories, allowing to reduce numerical simulations needed for the QCD pressure to a much less demanding three-dimensional (3d) bosonic theory . The partition function factorizes, and hence the free energy decomposes into $`f_{\mathrm{QCD}}=f_{\mathrm{hard}}+f_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ . The effective theory for the soft, $`𝒪(gT)`$ modes turns out to be dimensionally reduced,

$`e^{Vf_{\mathrm{soft}}}={\displaystyle 𝒟[A_iA_0]e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^3x_{\text{3d}}[A_iA_0]}}},`$ (2)
where $`_{\text{3d}}`$ is a 3d SU(3) + adjoint Higgs theory,

$`_{\text{3d}}=\frac{1}{4}F_{ij}^2+\frac{1}{2}[D_i,A_0]^2+\frac{1}{2}m_3^2A_0^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda _3A_0^4.`$ (3)
Its coefficients ($`g_3^2`$,$`m_3^2`$,$`\lambda _3`$) are functions of $`T`$ via perturbative matching , e.g.,

$`y\frac{m_3^2}{g_3^4}\frac{11}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{8.086T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\text{MS}}}}.`$ (4)
Let us note that for simplicity, this relation refers to the case of pure 4d SU(3), while the inclusion of fermions, as well as (small) chemical potentials, is also possible.

For a more detailed account of the setup, we refer to . In the following we wish to highlight the specific role of logarithmic terms in $`f_{\text{soft}}`$.

## 3 3d LATTICE MEASUREMENTS

Related to the fact that $`_{\text{3d}}`$ defines a confining theory, it turns out that $`f_{\text{soft}}`$ is perturbatively computable only up to 3-loop level, while all higher loop orders contribute at the next level . The parametric form of $`f_{\text{soft}}`$ can however still be written down for large $`y`$,

$`f_{\text{soft}}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\text{soft,pert}}(y)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^6}{(4\pi )^4}}\left(c_1\mathrm{ln}y+c_2+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^{1/2}}})\right).`$
The coefficient $`c_1`$ here can now be accessed with lattice methods. Indeed, $`_yf_{\text{soft}}`$ is related to a gauge-invariant condensate,

$`_yf_{\text{soft}}(y)=g_3^4\mathrm{Tr}A_0^2.`$ (6)
If we also subtract the known perturbative part, we see that

$`\mathrm{Tr}(A_0/g_3)^2\mathrm{Tr}(A_0/g_3)^2_{\text{pert}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^4}}\left(c_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^{3/2}}})\right).`$ (7)
An additional issue which has to be addressed is the renormalisation of the condensate. However, due to the super-renormalisability of $`_{\text{3d}}`$, this problem can be taken care of, with a perturbative 2-loop computation . Denoting

$`\beta _\mathrm{G}={\displaystyle \frac{6}{ag_3^2}},`$ (8)
the result is, schematically, that a lattice measurement can be converted to a continuum regularisation (such as $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$) through a relation

$`\mathrm{Tr}A_0^2_{\overline{\text{MS}}}\underset{\beta _\mathrm{G}\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}A_0^2_L+\beta _\mathrm{G}+\mathrm{ln}\beta _\mathrm{G}+1\right\}.`$ (9)
In Figs. 1, 2 we show measurements of the condensate with various finite $`\beta _\mathrm{G}`$, as well as continuum extrapolations. The (very preliminary) final result, after the subtraction of the 3-loop perturbative part, is shown in Fig. 3.

We find that the data can indeed be well described by the functional form in Eq. (7), with what appears to be a definite coefficient $`c_1`$. This clearly calls for an analytic evaluation of $`c_1`$.

Previously , we have discussed how the non-perturbative measurement of $`\mathrm{Tr}A_0^2`$ allows to estimate $`f_{\text{soft}}(y)`$, and correspondingly $`f_{\text{QCD}}(T)`$, down to temperatures of a few times $`T_c`$. Once $`c_1`$ is reliably extracted, it will be interesting to see how well these results can be reproduced by keeping in the expression only this single logarithm.

Concluding, we have discussed a method that in principle allows to determine the free energy of full QCD from the known analytic limit at high $`T`$, down to a few times $`T_c`$. A small set of perturbative constants remains to be determined, but these can already be partly constrained with numerical 3d MC data.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was partly supported by the TMR network Finite Temperature Phase Transitions in Particle Physics, EU contract no. FMRX-CT97-0122, by the RTN network Supersymmetry and the Early Universe, EU contract no. HPRN-CT-2000-00152, by the Academy of Finland, contract no. 77744, and by the DOE, under Cooperative Agreement no. DF-FC02-94ER40818.


text:
# Leptogenesis and Low energy CP violation, a link

## References


text:
# An Overview of SLAC Experiment E158: Precision Measurement of 𝑠𝑖𝑛²(𝜃_𝑤) away from the Z pole

## 1 Motivation

SLAC experiment E158 is an $`e^{}e^{}`$ fix target experiment. A beam of longitudinally polarized (polarization $`>80\%`$) $`e^{}`$ of 45GeV(or 48.3GeV) collides with a 1.5 meter long target of liquid $`H_2`$ (unpolarized). The produced interactions are mainly ($`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}`$) Moller scattering, ($`e^{}Ne^{}N`$) elastic scattering and ($`e^{}Ne^{}X`$) inelastic scattering. The experiment goal is to measure the asymmetry in the cross section of the Moller scattering

$$A_{LR}=\frac{\sigma _R\sigma _L}{\sigma _R+\sigma _L}$$
(1)
with a precision of $`10^8`$. In equation 1 $`\sigma _R(\sigma _L)`$ is the cross section for incident right(left) helicity electrons. In the Standard Model $`A_{LR}`$ is due to the interference between weak and electromagnetic Feynman diagrams. At the tree, level for E158 kinematics (at a $`Q^2`$ of 0.003$`(GeV/c)^2`$), $`A_{LR}`$ is about 3.2 $`10^{}7`$. Radiative corrections reduce it to about 1.8 $`10^{}7`$. From $`A_{LR}`$ one can extract $`sin^2\theta _w`$. E158 goal is $`\delta (sin^2\theta _w)0.0007`$, this gives unique sensitivity to new physics at the TeV level ( compositeness, GUTs, extra dimensions, lepton flavor violation).

## 2 Experimental Challenges

The degree of precision desired requires: 1)large statistics (the goal is for 600 million pairs of pulses on target, each pulse of about 5 $`10^11e`$, from which 1/10000 is detected). 2)An electron beam polarized source photocathode capable of produce high polarization with high electron intensity. 3)High beam stability, intensity jitter $`<1\%`$, spotsize jitter $`<10\%`$, position jitter $`<10\%`$. 4) small beam helicity correlated asymmetries and differences in beam intensity ($`A_I<210^7`$), beam position and angle ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_x<10nm`$), beam energy ($`A_E<210^8`$). 5)precise electron beam monitoring devices, toroid resolution $`<30`$ parts per million (ppm), beam position monitor resolution $`<1\mu m`$ per pulse, energy resolution $`<`$50 ppm per pulse. 6)stable liquid $`H_2`$, density fluctuations $`<10^4`$ 7)A high flux-integrating calorimeter detector with resolution $`<`$100 ppm per pulse, with nonlinearity $`<1\%`$ and able to perform well after high radiation damage. 8)Compatible with PEPII operation (BaBar collaboration experiment). 9)Theoretical predictions of eP elastic and inelastic asymmetries which are important backgrounds to our measurement.

## 3 Results from 2002 run

E158 had its first physics run in 2002, 6 weeks May-June. Approximately 250 million pulses were logged. We are performing a blind analysis (Moller asymmetry value randomly offset) which we expect to complete by the end of September 2002. We obtain a $`\sigma _{A_{LR}}=.024`$ ppm (stat). In table 1 we give electron beam delivery and monitoring performance and in table 2 the electron beam asymmetries and their contributions to the Moller asymmetry.

## 4 Future

E158 will run 6 weeks October-November 2002 and probably 6 weeks at the end of 2003, hopefully completing the experiment.


text:
# Methane Opacities in T Dwarf Atmospheres

## 1. Methane Dwarfs

The transition between spectral classes L and T, as $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ drops below $``$ 1300 K, is characterised by a reduction of the effects of dust absorption and the appearance of CH4 absorption bands in the infrared, showing up in the coolest brown dwarfs which have only recently been discovered in substantial numbers in the field. These features appearing in the K and, from spectral type T0, in the H band and growing in strength with decreasing temperature, are one of the basic characteristics defined in the classification schemes of Geballe et al. (2002) and Burgasser et al. (2002) for the T spectral class. As one of the dominant opacity sources in these objects besides H2O and CIA H2, the CH4 molecular bands are also of great importance for the correct modelling of ultracool substellar atmospheres and for evolutionary calculations of old brown dwarfs.

## 2. Line Opacity Predictions

A major problem in model atmosphere calculations for substellar objects is the paucity of molecular opacity data for the temperature regime of brown dwarfs. Available line lists from spectroscopic databases for Earth and planetary atmospheres, based on both experimental data and theoretical predictions, are compiled for much lower temperatures and thus often lack transitions from lower states at higher energies.

Theoretical approaches to model the energy levels and transition probabilities of CH4 are challenged by the complexity of the vibrational systems (polyads) of the molecule, due to resonances of the four vibrational modes. This leads to eight vibrational bands with 24 subbands already in the third system (Octad) and 14 bands/60 subbands in the fourth (Tetradecad).

The Spherical Top Data System (STDS) (Wenger & Champion 1998) based on the tetrahedral formalism allows simulations of the line systems up to the Tetradecad. Subsequent analyses of experimental data over the past decade have significantly improved the input parameters for the predictions of the polyads up to the Octad (Hilico et al. 2001). We have used the 2001 version of the STDS software to calculate line opacity predictions for all available systems, extrapolating up to upper-state rotational levels of $`J=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}40}`$.

## 3. Model Spectra

Atmosphere models using the new opacity data have been computed with PHOENIX version 12, with other opacity sources included as prescribed in the AMES-cond grid (Allard et al. 2001). The dust opacities are treated in the limit of complete settling, thus describing the complete removal of all grains from the photosphere. We have tested the models on the recent observations of Geballe et al. (2002) and present here comparisons with the spectrum of the T 4.5 brown dwarf SDSS 0207+00, taken at $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$Å resolution with NIRCAM/Keck II.

The original AMES-Cond models show a clear lack of opacity in these regions, particularly on the blue sides of the bands. Comparison of the K-band spectra with a preliminary model including levels up to $`J20`$ illustrate the improvement achieved by the additional levels in the Octad system, but only the line list including at least levels up to $`J30`$ gives a good fit over the full band shape.

The H band features are more difficult to reproduce with the STDS predictions, since this wavelength region is dominated by transitions to the Tetradecad and higher vibrational levels. The current STDS version only includes parameters for the Tetradecad extrapolated from the analysis of lower polyad systems, which resulted in a lack of opacity at many wavelengths. Newer calculations using preliminary results from the analysis of the Tetradecad system (V. Boudon 2002, priv. comm.) show considerable improvement over the earlier versions, although individual line strengths are still not very well reproduced.

All models still tend to overestimate the absorption in the regions of strongest opacity, for both CH4 and H2O bands. This is probably due to errors in the atmospheric temperature structure of the current models describing only the limiting case of full dust condensation. This problem will be addressed by a self-consistent model for gravitational settling of grains (Allard et al., in prep.).

## 4. Hot Bands

Inclusion of hot bands, transitions originating from higher polyads, was limited by the upper polyads STDS can handle. Thus for the K-band only an extrapolation for the Tetradecad-Dyad was available, while in the H-band region no hot bands could be computed at all. Although the upper polyads are sparsely populated at T dwarf temperatures, due to the steeply increasing degeneracy their cumulative strength can still contribute a significant background opacity which might only be treated in a statistical approach (Borysow et al., these proceedings). These limitations in the hot band models result in an uncertainy in the total absorption strength that is comparable in effect to an uncertainty in $`T_{\mathrm{𝖾𝖿𝖿}}`$ of $``$100 K or 0.5 dex in log $`g`$ and metallicity.

## 5. Conclusions

STDS-created line lists produce opacity data that significantly improve on the HITRAN and GEISA databases and allow a much more detailed analysis of the IR spectra and comparison with observationally derived spectral indices for brown dwarfs. With respect to the contribution of higher polyads several uncertainties remain that could affect the quantitative determination of atmospheric parameters based on molecular absorption features. A realistic description of the atmospheric structure will also require a more sophisticated treatment of dust formation which is currently under way.

### 5.1. Acknowledgements

This work is supported by NFS grant N-Stars RR185-258, and based in part on calculations performed at the NERSC IBM SP with support from the DoE. We thank V. Boudon and J.-P. Champion for helpful information and S. Leggett and A. Burgasser for access to their observational data.

## References

Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R. et al. 2001, ApJ 556, 357

Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Brown, M. E. et al. 2002, ApJ 564, 421

Geballe, T. R., Knapp, G. R. and Leggett, S. K. et al. 2002, ApJ 564, 466

Hilico, J.-C., Robert, O., Loëte, M. et al. 2001, JMolSp 208, 1

Wenger, C. & Champion, J. P. 1998, JQSRT 59, 471


text:
# Small-angle scattering in a marginal Fermi-liquid

## Abstract

We study the magnetotransport properties of a model of small-angle scattering in a marginal Fermi liquid. Such a model has been proposed by Varma and Abrahams \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4652 (2001)\] to account for the anomalous temperature dependence of in–plane magnetotransport properties of the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. We study the resistivity, Hall angle and magnetoresistance using both analytical and numerical techniques. We find that small-angle scattering only generates a new temperature dependence for the Hall angle near particle-hole symmetric Fermi surfaces where the conventional Hall term vanishes. The magnetoresistance always shows Kohler’s rule behavior.

The unusual magnetotransport properties in the normal state of the superconducting cuprates pose a major challenge to existing models of metallic behavior. Experiments on near optimally-doped materials have shown a linear-$`T`$ dependence of the resistivity, $`\rho `$, indicative of a marginal Fermi-liquid scattering rate Varma et al. (1989). However, the scattering rate of the Hall component of an electric current exhibits an entirely different temperature dependence from that of the resistivity Chien et al. (1991). Moreover, Kohler’s rule for the magnetoresistance is also violated Harris et al. (1995); Malinowski et al. .

An influential hypothesis was proposed by Anderson Anderson (1991) to explain these results. He argued that two independent scattering rates are present in the cuprates which govern the resistivity and Hall-current scattering respectively by appearing multiplicatively in the Hall conductivity. This “two-lifetime” scenario has often been used to interpret experimental data. Within this picture, for example, the deviations of Kohler’s rule in the magnetoresistance are accounted for by a “modified Kohler’s rule” whereby the lifetime controlling the Hall angle is the one that also governs the magnetoresistance Harris et al. (1995). There have been many attempts to give a more microscopic explanation of the “two-lifetime” phenomenology, either by invoking a Fermi-liquid picture with anisotropic scattering effects (for example, hot or cold spots on the Fermi surfaceStojković and Pines (1996); Ioffe and Millis (1998) or skew scatteringKotliar et al. (1996)), or going beyond a Fermi-liquid description Coleman et al. (1996); Lee and Lee (1997) inspired by Anderson’s original motivation.

More recently Varma and Abrahams (VA) Varma and Abrahams (2001, ) have proposed that there is only a single temperature dependent scattering rate in the cuprates but this rate appears in magnetotransport responses in an unconventional fashion. In particular, the Hall angle is given by the square of the marginal scattering lifetime. This idea has received experimental support from very recent infrared optical Hall angle studiesGrayson et al. (2002). The optical data fits best to a square Lorentzian in exactly the manner that Varma and Abrahams would predict.

Given this experimental support for VA’s hypothesis, we re-examine the microscopic basis they used to derive their form for the Hall conductivity. They considered how transport in a marginal Fermi-liquid is affected by small-angle impurity scattering anisotropically distributed around the Fermi surface. They make an expansion in the small scattering angle and argue that in the Hall conductivity the first term in the expansion dominates the conventional (zeroth order) term. In the longitudinal conductivity the conventional term always dominates.

In this paper, we address a number of key questions raised by their work, for when a perturbative correction dominates the zeroth order term it is usually an indication that the expansion is breaking down. Thus, we must establish first: under what conditions does the first correction dominates the zeroth order term? Secondly, we must check whether the expansion remains controlled under such conditions. Finally we consider the magnetoresistance since, as we will show, it is necessary for higher order terms to dominate the expansion in the magnetoconductance if the deviations from Kohler’s rule seen in experiment are to be accounted for within this model. Our approach combines an analytic expansion in the small-angle scattering parameter together with an extensive numerical investigation including anisotropy in the Fermi velocity and the small angle of scattering.

Our main findings are as follows. We find that for both the longitudinal conductivity and the Hall conductivity the corrections due to small-angle scattering are generically small compared to the leading term hlubina (2001). However by tuning the Fermi surface close to particle-hole symmetry (zero average curvature) the conventional term can of course be tuned to zero. So under these conditions the Hall conductance is dominated by the leading correction in a controlled fashion leading to the form suggested originally by Varma and Abrahams. It is here that we emphasize the importance of the magnetoresistance as a key test for any microscopic theory (see for example Ref. Sandeman and Schofield, 2001). We calculate the magnetoresistance directly and find that no new temperature dependence generated even at particle-hole symmetry.

We begin by describing our model. Varma and Abrahams’ suggestion of anisotropic small-angle scattering processes in a marginal Fermi-liquid was inspired by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) measurements which indicate that the scattering rate of electrons has the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau _M^1+\tau _i^1\mathrm{cos}^22\theta ,$$
(1)
where there is an isotropic temperature dependent contribution, $`\tau _M^1A+BT`$ (the marginal Fermi-liquid inverse lifetime) and also an anisotropic temperature-independent contribution (proportional to $`\tau _i^1`$). The idea of Ref. Varma and Abrahams, 2001 is that $`\tau _i^1`$ is an outcome of small-angle scattering processes (possibly from out-of-plane impurities).

Here, we introduce (but do not restrict ourselves to) an explicit form of the scattering rate which satisfies these criteria:

$$\tau ^1(\theta ,\theta ^{})=\tau _M^1+\tau _i^1|\mathrm{cos}2\theta ||\mathrm{cos}2\theta ^{}|e^{\frac{(\theta \theta ^{})^2}{2\theta _c^2}}/\theta _c,$$
(2)
where $`\theta ,\theta ^{}`$ measure distance round the Fermi surface. 111The moduli are unimportant as the narrow Gaussian only allows contributions where $`|\theta \theta ^{}|\theta _c`$.

The linearized Boltzmann transport equationKotliar et al. (1996); Varma and Abrahams (2001) is

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{𝐤^{}}{}\left[\left(1/\tau (𝐤)+\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}𝐯_𝐤\times 𝐁_𝐤\right)\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}C(𝐤,𝐤^{})\right]g(𝐤^{})\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{𝐤^{}}{}A(𝐤,𝐤^{})g(𝐤^{})=e𝐄𝐯_𝐤\delta (ϵ_𝐤ϵ_F),\end{array}$$
(3)
where the scattering rate $`1/\tau (𝐤)=_𝐤^{}C(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$ and $`C(𝐤,𝐤^{})=2\pi \delta (ϵ_𝐤ϵ_𝐤^{})\tau ^1(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$. One must solve for $`g(𝐤)`$, the deviation from the equilibrium distribution.

Our numerical calculations involve constructing the matrix $`A`$ of Eq. 3, for an arbitrary, discretized Fermi surface and the scattering rate in Eq. 2; sums are weighted appropriately by the density of states per unit length along the surface, and $`g(𝐤)`$ thus obtained directly.

For our analytic calculations (following VA), the Boltzmann equation is solved by expanding to first order in $`\theta _c^2`$, in addition to the Zener–Jones expansion. The derivatives caused by integrating with a sharply peaked function turn the scattering time into an operator, labeled by VA as $`\widehat{\tau }`$. Noting that the integral of $`\tau ^1(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ over $`\theta ^{}`$ must yield the ARPES inverse lifetime (Eq. 1), the transport equation (3) is reduced to a relationship which must be solved for $`\widehat{\tau }(\theta )`$.

We illustrate the form of our results with an explicit example, within which coefficients can be calculated analytically. For a circular Fermi surface, the equation for $`\widehat{\tau }(\theta )`$ is:

$$\widehat{\tau }v=\tau _Mv+\frac{\theta _c^2\tau _M}{\tau _i}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\theta }\left[\mathrm{cos}^22\theta \frac{\mathrm{d}(\widehat{\tau }v)}{\mathrm{d}\theta }\right].$$
(4)
Noting that derivatives of $`\widehat{\tau }v`$ only enter at the next order in $`\theta _c^2`$ means we can write $`(\widehat{\tau }v)^{}\tau _Mv^{}`$ etc. and so

$$\widehat{\tau }(\theta )=\tau _M+\frac{\theta _c^2\tau _M^2}{\tau _i}\left(\mathrm{cos}^22\theta \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}\theta ^2}2\mathrm{sin}4\theta \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\theta }\right).$$
(5)
This is equivalent to Eq. 16 of Ref. Varma and Abrahams, 2001, except the dependence on the original scattering times and $`\theta _c`$ is shown. Conductivities are obtained from expressions such as

$$\sigma ^{xy}=\frac{ne^2}{\pi m}\frac{eB}{m}d\theta v^x\widehat{\tau }\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\theta }\widehat{\tau }v^y,$$
(6)
and we find

$`\sigma ^{xx}`$ $``$ $`\tau _M`$ $`\left(C_{xx}^0C_{xx}^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _c^2\tau _M}{\tau _i}}+O(\theta _c^4)\right),`$ (7)
$`\sigma ^{xy}`$ $``$ $`\omega _c\tau _M^2`$ $`\left(C_{xy}^0C_{xy}^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _c^2\tau _M}{\tau _i}}+O(\theta _c^4)\right),`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{xx}`$ $``$ $`\omega _c^2\tau _M^3`$ $`\left(C_{\mathrm{\Delta }xx}^0C_{\mathrm{\Delta }xx}^1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _c^2\tau _M}{\tau _i}}+O(\theta _c^4)\right).`$ (9)
This shows the apparent 222However, this apparent new temperature dependence can be misleading: for example in the case of small-angle impurity scattering which is isotropic around the Fermi surface these terms can be summed to all orders in $`\theta _c`$ to give a temperature independent addition to the resistivity (i.e. Matthiessen’s rule). Since we will be looking for a large correction at leading order in the analytic work described here this effect will not be important. In the numerical work described later, we effectively do work to all orders in $`\theta _c`$ so take this effect into account. appearance of new $`T`$-dependences at each order in $`\theta _c^2`$. The essence of VA’s argument rests on the value of the numerical coefficients $`C`$. To account for the measured resistivity, $`C_{xx}^1/C_{xx}^0`$ must be generally small: small-angle scattering does not dramatically affect the marginal Fermi-liquid scattering rate so $`\rho _{xx}=\sigma _{xx}\tau _M^1T`$. However, for the Hall conductivity VA argue that $`C_{xy}^1/C_{xy}^0`$ is large so that the first correction dominates the zeroth order term. This would have a dramatic effect on the inverse Hall angle, since $`\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }_H=\sigma ^{xx}/\sigma ^{xy}\tau _M^2T^2`$, thus generating an apparently new temperature dependent scattering rate.

For the circular Fermi surface we can calculate these coefficients and find

$$C_{xx,xy,\mathrm{\Delta }xx}^0=1;C_{xx}^1=1,C_{xy}^1=2,C_{\mathrm{\Delta }xx}^1=3.$$
(10)
When substituted into the expression for the inverse Hall angle above we see that for this case, to order $`\theta _c^2`$, the inverse Hall angle and the resistivity have an identical temperature dependence and there is no new effect from small-angle scattering.

Clearly then, for small-angle scattering to have any effect, further anisotropy must be included Varma and Abrahams . Also we have assumed that $`\theta _c^2`$ is a reasonable expansion parameter but, if the leading correction is to ever dominate the zeroth order term, this must be questionable. To address both these issues we now adopt a numerical approach which makes no assumptions on the size of $`\theta _c`$ and can handle arbitrary Fermi surfaces and other anisotropies.

We have solved the model of Eq. 2 and 3 numerically without recourse to an expansion, so any new temperature dependence in the Hall angle can be seen directly. We studied a wide variety of Fermi surfaces and, in particular, the ARPES best-fit parameterization Norman et al. (1995). We also allowed the small scattering angle itself to vary around the Fermi surface \[for example as $`\theta _c0.1(1+\mathrm{cos}^22\theta )`$\]. The results of this study were that we were unable to find any significant new temperature dependence appearing in the Hall angle with the exception of the particle-hole symmetric Fermi surface discussed below.

To make quantitative comparison with the analytic work on the circular Fermi surface above we used the numerics to extract the numerical coefficients of the expansion of Eqs 7,8,9. We found that for the Fermi surface of Ref. Norman et al., 1995 the ratios $`C_{xx}^1/C_{xx}^0`$ and $`C_{xy}^1/C_{xy}^0`$ never varied from the circular Fermi surface values of 1 and 2 respectively by more than 50%. These values were typical for a range of similar cuprate-like Fermi surface parameterizations. Our conclusion is that $`C_{xy}^1/C_{xy}^0`$ is not, in general, large enough to generate a new temperature dependence in the Hall angle.

The one exception to our findings is for Fermi surfaces very close to particle-hole symmetry when the Hall conductivity changes sign; at this point by definition the conventional term $`C_{xy}^0`$ vanishes. This corresponds to a “net curvature” of zero, and an example is shown in Fig 1. The new term $`C_{xy}^1`$ does not vanish here, and will dominate the Hall effect. Hence the small-angle scattering model can reproduce the experimental temperature dependences (see Fig. 2), but only for specially tuned Fermi surfaces.

However there are significant differences between this model close to particle-hole symmetry and what is observed in the cuprates. As one moves from underdoped to overdoped, the coefficient of $`T^2`$ is observed to change, but there is only a slight variation in the exponent Carrington et al. (1992); Ando and Murayama (1999). Within the small-angle scattering model, adjusting the Fermi level through a similar range causes significant violations to the power law. Moreover, it can only provide a return toward the intrinsic linear-$`T`$ behavior (with a sign change in the Hall angle on one side), in contrast with the continuous small increase in exponent observed experimentally. Also, the size of $`1/\omega _c\tau `$ decreases by an order of magnitude in the model, unlike the cuprates where the value of the Hall angle at a given temperature does not vary so strongly as a function of doping.

Here we are assuming a naïve ‘rigid band’ picture of the doping dependence of the Fermi surface geometry. There may be correlation effects that ‘pin’ this Fermi surface to particle-hole symmetry,Wang and Ong (2001) so this sensitivity alone does not preclude the model. Hence we consider the magnetoresistance.

Recall that the magnetoresistance is a combination of the magnetoconductance and the Hall angle:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{xx}}{\rho ^{xx}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{xx}}{\sigma ^{xx}}\left(\frac{\sigma ^{xy}}{\sigma ^{xx}}\right)^2.$$
(11)
To account for experimental measurements we must have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{xx}/\rho ^{xx}\mathrm{\Theta }_H^2(\sigma ^{xy}/\sigma ^{xx})^2`$. The change in the conductivity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{xx}`$ due to the Lorentz force is always negative, and the orbital magnetoresistance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho `$ is always positive; thus $`(\sigma ^{xy}/\sigma ^{xx})^2<|\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{xx}/\sigma ^{xx}|`$ and the Hall angle *in itself* cannot be enough to explain magnetoresistance measurements, but will be a *negative* correction to the first term.

OngOng (1991) related the magnetoresistance to the variance of the Hall angle around the Fermi surface, and hence it might be argued (as VA do) that the temperature dependence of the magnetoresistance follows from that of the Hall angle. However, notwithstanding the arguments of the previous paragraph, Ong’s proof relies upon a Stokes integral of mean free path, which apparently cannot be constructed in the situation where we have both a operator $`\widehat{\tau }`$ and a non-constant Fermi speed.

Thus, we emphasize that it is essential to calculate the magnetoresistance directly, via the magnetoconductance (e.g. Eq. 9). To generate a $`T^4`$ temperature dependence it is required that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho \tau _M^4`$ (since $`\tau _M`$ is our only $`T`$-dependent parameter). Whilst the contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho `$ from the Hall angle, $`(\sigma ^{xy}/\sigma ^{xx})^2`$, will produce this at $`O(\theta _c^4)`$ for the tuned Fermi surface, it cannot dominate the magnetoresistance (as we have just argued), and so the only possibility for matching the experiments comes from an additional $`O(\theta _c^4)`$ term in the magnetoconductance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^{xx}`$ (Eq. 9): $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta }xx}^2\theta _c^4\tau _M^2/\tau _i^2`$. This term would have to dominate. However, $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta }xx}^2`$ is not large enough, and the Fermi surface cannot be further fine tuned to make the leading order terms at $`O(\theta _c^0,\theta _c^2)`$ disappear: $`C_{\mathrm{\Delta }xx}^0`$ is positive definite and, unlike the corresponding term $`C_{xy}^0`$ for the Hall angle, can never vanish.

This argument is verified by extensive numerical study, in which we are unable to find a magnetoresistance with much different from a $`T^2`$ law, whether or not the Fermi surface is particle-hole symmetric. We illustrate our findings with a representative plot (Fig. 3), which shows that Kohler’s rule is well obeyed, in contradiction with the experimental measurements.

In conclusion, Varma and Abraham’s suggestion that the inverse Hall angle is measuring the square of a relaxation rate provides an important new perspective on the unusual magneto-transport properties of the cuprates. Their prediction of the form of the optical Hall angle is powerful evidence in favor of their suggestion. In this paper we have sought to analyze whether a model of small-angle scattering in a marginal Fermi-liquid can account for the form of Hall angle that Varma and Abrahams suggest. We have studied such a model both analytically and numerically, including various anisotropies, and have also gone beyond the Hall conductivity to consider magnetoresistance.

We find that in general small-angle scattering does not discriminate significantly differently between resistivity and inverse Hall angle except very close to particle-hole symmetry. At this point however the magnetoresistance continues to be dominated by the scattering rate seen in the resistivity. This conventional Kohler behavior of the magnetoresistance is found in this model independent of proximity to particle-hole symmetry and in contrast to the cuprates which show strong deviations from Kohler’s rule. Thus we conclude that small-angle scattering in a marginal Fermi-liquid is not the origin of the unusual magnetotransport in the cuprates. This problem remains a tantalizing key to deciphering the unconventional normal state properties of the cuprates.

We thank H. D. Drew, M. Grayson, C. Hooley and V. Yakovenko for helpful discussions. We gratefully acknowledge correspondence with E. Abrahams and C. M. Varma at whose suggestion we considered the role of $`\theta _c`$ anisotropy and Matthiessen’s rule physics within this model. This work was supported by the Royal Society and the Leverhulme Trust (AJS) and EPSRC (ECC).