text:
# A reggeized model for 𝜼 and 𝜼' photoproduction

## I Introduction

Photoproduction of $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ on the nucleon, $`\gamma N\eta N,\eta ^{}N`$, provides an alternative tool to study nucleon resonances ($`N^{}`$) besides $`\pi N`$ scattering and pion photoproduction. Both the $`\eta N`$ and $`\eta ^{}N`$ states couple to nucleon resonances with isospin $`I=1/2`$ only. Therefore, these processes are cleaner and more selective to distinguish certain resonances than other processes, e.g., pion photoproduction. This provides the opportunity to access less explored nucleon resonances, especially some higher mass $`N^{}`$ about which only little information is as yet available.

During the last decade, the $`\eta `$ photoproduction has been actively studied both theoretically and experimentally. The status was reviewed in our recent study Chiang:2001as . On the other hand, the data on $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction are still very limited. In 1968, the ABBHHM collaboration unknown:1968ke  observed 11 events in a bubble chamber using an untagged photon beam. With tagged photons an experiment at DESY in 1976 Struczinski:1976ik  found approximately 7 $`\eta ^{}`$ candidates with a streamer chamber setup. In 1998 the SAPHIR collaboration at Bonn Plotzke:1998ua  explored the energy region from 0.9 to 2.6 GeV with tagged photons and obtained angular distributions in 7 energy bins. Unlike $`\eta `$ photoproduction with an almost constant differential cross section in the threshold region, the $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction exhibits a sizeable $`P`$-wave contribution from threshold to the maximum energy. In an isobar analysis the data could be well described by two resonances, $`S_{11}`$ and $`P_{11}`$, at energies of $`W=1897`$ and $`1986`$ MeV, respectively Plotzke:1998ua .

Among the theoretical studies on $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction, Zhang et al. Zhang:1995uh  used a field theoretical Lagrangian model and explained the pre-1998 data of total cross sections well. Their calculations included Born terms, vector meson exchange and resonance excitation, and strongly emphasized the $`D_{13}(2080)`$ excitation as the main production mechanism. Also Li Li:1997  could give a good description of the total cross section data within a constituent quark model by generating nucleon resonances in the $`s`$-channel. The dominant contribution was found from off-shell $`S_{11}(1535)`$ excitation. In a similar calculation in 2001, Zhao Zhao:2001kk  could also well describe the SAPHIR data by introducing further $`P_{13}`$ and $`F_{15}`$ resonances. In both quark model approaches, $`t`$-channel vector meson exchange was not included. In an equally good description of the data, Borasoy Borasoy:2000qv  applied U(3) baryon chiral perturbation theory with Born terms, vector mesons and off-shell contributions from $`P_{11}(1440)`$ and $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonances.

A very interesting subject in $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction is the meson coupling to the nucleon which determines the Born term contribution. Already in the SU(3) limit the coupling strength $`g_{\eta NN}^2/4\pi =0.81.9`$ is much smaller than for pions ($`g_{\pi NN}^2/4\pi =14.3`$), but in an analysis of the angular distributions of eta photoproduction an even smaller value of $`g_{\eta NN}^2/4\pi =0.4\pm 0.2`$ was determined Tiator:1994et . Such a small value was later explained within a chiral Lagrangian approach Kirchbach:1996kw ; Neumeier:2000fb , and in a very recent fit within a chiral constituent quark model a value of only $`0.04`$ has been obtained Saghai:2001yd . For the $`\eta ^{}`$ coupling to the nucleon the situation is even less clear. Zhang et al. Zhang:1995uh  applied a quark-model mixing relation with a singlet to octet mixing angle of $`\theta =20^o`$ and obtained the relation $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}0.7g_{\eta NN}`$. From forward nucleon-nucleon scattering using dispersion relations, Grein et al. Grein:1980nw  estimated that both $`g_{\eta NN}^2/4\pi `$ and $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}^2/4\pi `$ are smaller than $`1`$, and in an analysis of the strangeness content of the proton Hatsuda Hatsuda:1990bi  obtained values for the coupling constant in the range $`3g_{\eta ^{}NN}+2`$ or $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}^2/4\pi 0.7`$.

Previously, we used an isobar model ($`\eta `$-MAID) Chiang:2001as  to study the $`\eta `$ photo- and electroproduction on the nucleon, which described the experimental data quite well. Since both $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ have the same quantum numbers, we expected that an extension of the $`\eta `$-MAID formalism to the $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction should be straightforward. However, this was not found to be the case. The reason for this problem turned out to be the much higher threshold for $`\eta ^{}`$ compared to $`\eta `$ production ($`W`$ = 1896 MeV vs. $`W`$ = 1486 MeV). The approach used in the $`\eta `$-MAID model, which is intended for the resonance region at about $`W2`$ GeV, therefore has to be modified as the energy increases. The main modifications refer to the treatment of the $`t`$-channel contributions. The vector meson (e.g., $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$) exchanges in the $`t`$-channel are usually included in studies of meson photoproduction, and calculated by using Feynman (pole-like) propagators. As the energies increase, $`t`$-channel form factors are usually needed to regulate the $`t`$-channel contributions. However, at very high energies ($`W2`$ GeV) the use of meson poles in the $`t`$-channel is found to fail.

On the other hand, it is well known that the Regge theory is successful in describing various reactions at high energy and low momentum transfer. In Ref. Guidal:1997hy , the Regge trajectories in the $`t`$-channel have been applied to pion and kaon photoproduction at high energies with success. Therefore, in this study we adapt a similar treatment for the $`t`$-channel vector meson exchanges and apply it to $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction.

In Section 2, we describe the model ingredients, and focus on the Regge trajectory exchanges in the $`t`$-channel. Our results and a comparison with both $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction data are given in Section 3, followed by a summary and conclusions.

## II Model

Previously, we have used an isobar model ($`\eta `$-MAID) Chiang:2001as  to study the $`\eta `$ photo- and electroproduction on the nucleon. This model contains Born terms, $`t`$-channel vector meson exchanges, and nucleon resonances. Although this model describes the current experimental data in the resonance region ($`W2`$ GeV) quite well, it cannot easily be extended to higher energies because of the vector meson poles used in the $`t`$-channel exchanges. To improve this situation, we adopt Regge trajectories to describe these $`t`$-channel exchanges. In the next sections, we first briefly introduce the resonance contributions and Born terms used in both models (details can be found in Ref. Chiang:2001as ); then we focus on the vector meson exchanges in the $`t`$-channel.

### II.1 Resonance contributions

For the resonance contributions of both the $`\eta `$-MAID and the reggeized model, the relevant multipoles $`_\mathrm{}\pm `$ ($`=E_\mathrm{}\pm ,M_\mathrm{}\pm `$) are assumed to have a Breit-Wigner energy dependence of the form

$$_\mathrm{}\pm (W)=\stackrel{~}{}_\mathrm{}\pm f_{\gamma N}(W)\frac{M_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}(W)}{M_R^2W^2iM_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}(W)}f_{\eta N}(W)C_{\eta N},$$
(1)
where $`f_{\eta N}(W)`$ is the usual Breit-Wigner factor describing the $`\eta N`$ decay of the $`N^{}`$ resonance with total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta N}`$ and spin $`J`$,

$$f_{\eta N}(W)=\zeta _{\eta N}\left[\frac{1}{(2J+1)\pi }\frac{|𝒌|}{|𝒒|}\frac{M_N}{M_R}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta N}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}^2}\right]^{1/2},$$
(2)
with $`|𝒌|`$ and $`|𝒒|`$ the photon and $`\eta `$ meson momenta in the c.m. system, and $`\zeta _{\eta N}=\pm 1`$ a relative sign between the $`N^{}\eta N`$ and $`N^{}\pi N`$ couplings.

The energy dependence of the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta N}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta N}(W)=\beta _{\eta N}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\left(\frac{|𝒒|}{|𝒒_R|}\right)^{2\mathrm{}+1}\left(\frac{X^2+𝒒_R^2}{X^2+𝒒^2}\right)^{\mathrm{}}\frac{M_R}{W},$$
(3)
where $`X`$ is a damping parameter for all resonances, assumed to be $`500`$ MeV in the $`\eta `$-MAID and $`450`$ MeV in the reggeized model; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ and $`q_R`$ are the total width and the $`\eta `$ c.m. momentum at the resonance peak ($`W=W_R`$), respectively, and $`\beta _{\eta N}`$ is the $`\eta N`$ decay branching ratio. The total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ in Eqs. (1) and (2) is the sum of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta N}`$, the single-pion decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N}`$, and the rest, for which we assume dominance of the two-pion decay channels,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}(W)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta N}(W)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N}(W)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi N}(W).$$
(4)
The widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi N}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi N}`$ are parameterized similarly as for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta N}`$. More details about the parameterization of Eq. (1) can be found in Ref. Chiang:2001as .

In our previous study Chiang:2001as , we did not require the form factor $`f_{\gamma N}(W)`$ for the $`\gamma NN`$ vertex in the Breit-Wigner form Eq. (1). However, we now found that it is necessary to include $`f_{\gamma N}(W)`$ to describe the data at $`W>2`$ GeV. Therefore, we assume the form

$$f_{\gamma N}(W)=\left(\frac{|𝒌|}{|𝒌_R|}\right)^2\left(\frac{X^2+𝒌_R^2}{X^2+𝒌^2}\right)^2$$
(5)
in Eq. (1) for all $`N^{}`$. For $`S_{11}`$(1535) resonance, the factor $`f_{\gamma N}(W)`$ decreases its contribution at high energies, but affects very little near the $`S_{11}`$(1535) resonance region. For other resonances, the differences caused by this factor are negligible.

### II.2 Born terms

The nonresonant background contains the usual Born terms and vector meson exchange contributions. It is obtained by evaluating the Feynman diagrams derived from an effective Lagrangian. In the $`\eta `$-MAID model, the Born terms are constructed in the standard way, and the details can be found in Ref. Chiang:2001as . In the reggeized model, however, we do not include the Born terms. The reason is that the correct treatment for the $`u`$-channel nucleon exchange, together with the reggeized $`t`$-channel vector meson exchanges, requires to also introduce the nucleon Regge trajectories. Because of the lack of high energy data at backward angles, it is currently difficult to determine this $`u`$-channel contribution. Since the coupling constants $`g_{\eta NN}`$ and $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$ are small, the difference caused by the absence of the Born terms is negligible at low energies. Their effects become important only when the energies increase (see Fig. 5 and the discussion in Sec. III).

### II.3 Vector meson exchanges in the $`𝒕`$-channel

The Feynman diagram corresponding to $`t`$-channel vector meson ($`V=\rho ,\omega `$) exchanges in $`\eta `$ photoproduction is shown in Fig. 1. The electromagnetic coupling constants $`\lambda _{V\eta \gamma }`$ and $`\lambda _{V\eta ^{}\gamma }`$ can be determined from the radiative decay widths,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V\eta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (m_V^2m_\eta ^2)^3}{24m_V^3m_\eta ^2}}\lambda _{V\eta \gamma }^2,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}V\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (m_\eta ^{}^2m_V^2)^3}{24m_V^2m_\eta ^{}^3}}\lambda _{V\eta ^{}\gamma }^2,`$ (7)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine-structure constant. In Table 1, we list the values of $`\lambda _{V\eta \gamma }`$ and $`\lambda _{V\eta ^{}\gamma }`$ as obtained from the widths of Ref. PDG:2000 : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \eta \gamma }=36\mathrm{keV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega \eta \gamma }=5.5\mathrm{keV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}\rho \gamma }=89\mathrm{keV}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta ^{}\omega \gamma }=9.1\mathrm{keV}`$.

For the hadronic $`VNN`$ vertex, a dipole form factor is included in the $`\eta `$-MAID. We choose the same form as in Ref. Chiang:2001as : $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^2m_V^2)^2/(\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^2+𝒒_V^2)^2`$, with cut-offs $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =1.0`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =1.3`$ GeV from our fit. However, this hadronic form factor is not required in the reggeized model. Various values of the hadronic couplings $`g_{VNN}`$ and $`\kappa _{VNN}`$ can be found in the literature. Unlike the $`\eta `$-MAID where the values of the $`g_{VNN}`$ and $`\kappa _{VNN}`$ couplings are treated as fitting parameters, the reggeized model contains these hadronic couplings as derived by a fit to high energy data, which will be discussed later in this section.

The adoption of Regge trajectories for vector meson ($`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$) exchanges allows us to describe the high energy behavior. More details about applying Regge trajectories for meson photoproduction can be found in Ref. Guidal:1997hy , which deals with pion and kaon photoproduction at high energies.

The idea behind the replacement of the pole-like Feynman propagator by a Regge propagator, is to economically take into account the exchange of high-spin particles in the $`t`$\- (or $`u`$-) channels which cannot be neglected any more as one moves to higher energies.

The Regge trajectories are of the form $`\alpha (t)=\alpha _0+\alpha ^{}t`$, where $`t`$ is the Mandelstam variable, and shown in Fig. 2 for $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ trajectories. The numerical values of $`\alpha _0`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are taken from Ref. Guidal:1997hy , and given in Table 1.

$`\rho (1^{})`$ exchange:

$$\frac{1}{tm_\rho ^2}𝒫_{\mathrm{Regge}}^\rho =\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _\rho (t)1}\frac{\pi \alpha _\rho ^{}}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha _\rho (t))}\frac{𝒮_\rho +e^{i\pi \alpha _\rho (t)}}{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _\rho (t))}.$$
(8)
$`\omega (1^{})`$ exchange:

$$\frac{1}{tm_\omega ^2}𝒫_{\mathrm{Regge}}^\omega =\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _\omega (t)1}\frac{\pi \alpha _\omega ^{}}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha _\omega (t))}\frac{𝒮_\omega +e^{i\pi \alpha _\omega (t)}}{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _\omega (t))}.$$
(9)
The parameter $`s_0`$ is a mass scale taken as $`s_0=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, and $`𝒮=\pm 1`$ is the signature of the trajectory. The gamma function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha (t))`$ suppresses poles of the propagator in the unphysical region. As is well known from Regge theory Collins:1977jy , trajectories can be either non-degenerate or degenerate. A degenerate trajectory is obtained by adding or subtracting the two non-degenerate trajectories (corresponding in our case with $`1^{}`$, $`3^{}`$, $`5^{}`$, … and $`2^+`$, $`4^+`$, $`6^+`$, … states respectively on the $`\rho `$ or $`\omega `$ trajectories) with the two opposite signatures. This leads to trajectories with either a rotating ($`e^{i\pi \alpha (t)}`$) or a constant (1) phase. In line with the finding of Ref. Guidal:1997hy  for the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ trajectories, we use the rotating phase in the following. We further note that the Regge propagator reduces to the Feynman propagator $`1/(tm^2)`$ if one approaches the first pole on a trajectory (i.e., $`tm^2`$).

Differential cross section data for $`\gamma p\eta p`$ at high-$`s`$ ($`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}=`$ 4 and 6 GeV) and low-$`t`$ (forward angles) were measured at DESY Braunschweig:1970jb , as shown in Fig. 3. The data can be well described by the $`t`$-channel Regge trajectory exchanges . Fitting these data, we determine the values of the hadronic couplings $`g_{VNN}`$ and $`\kappa _{VNN}`$, as given in Table 1. These values are then fixed and used for our calculation of both $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction.

## III Results and discussion

### III.1 $`𝜼`$ photoproduction results

In this section, we present the $`\eta `$ photoproduction results from the reggeized model as well as the $`\eta `$-MAID model. The differences between the $`\eta `$-MAID results presented here and in Ref. Chiang:2001as  are that the former include the recent CLAS photoproduction data Dugger:2002  in the fit. In the reggeized model, we replace the $`t`$-channel $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ exchanges used in $`\eta `$-MAID by the Regge trajectories while keeping the $`N^{}`$ contributions. Both models are fitted to current photoproduction data of cross sections from TAPS Krusche:1995nv , GRAAL Renard:2000iv , and CLAS Dugger:2002  as well as polarized beam asymmetry from GRAAL Ajaka:1998zi . Note that we did not include the polarized target asymmetry measured at ELSA (Bonn) Bock:1998rk  in our fit for the reason discussed in Refs. Chiang:2001as ; Tiator:1999gr .

We show our result for the total cross sections in Fig. 4. Both models agree with the data quite well. Note that the GRAAL and CLAS total cross section data shown in Fig. 4 are given by integrating the respective differential cross sections. Since these measurements have certain limits on angular coverage, extrapolation to unmeasured regions is inevitable in order to estimate the total cross sections. Therefore, the obtained total cross sections depend on the extrapolation procedure. This explains that the bump seen in the GRAAL data near $`W`$=1.7 GeV ($`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ 1.1 GeV) does not appear in the CLAS data. Both data sets agree on the differential cross sections, but because of the different extrapolations used, they deviate from each other for the total cross sections.

The results for the differential cross sections are given in Fig. 5. The overall agreement of the $`\eta `$-MAID results with the data is very good. The reggeized model also agrees well with the data except for an underestimate at backward angles for $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}>`$ 1.4 GeV, which probably indicates the influence of the missing $`u`$-channel. However, only the reggeized model can be successfully extended to high energies, as is shown in Fig. 3 for $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}=`$ 4 and 6 GeV. We note that the sharp decrease at forward angles for energies above 1 GeV is mainly due to the $`t`$-channel $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ exchanges.

The results for the photon beam asymmetry are shown and compared with the GRAAL data Ajaka:1998zi  in Fig. 6. We also include the preliminary data from GRAAL Kuznetsov:nc  for $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ between 1.1 GeV and 1.5 GeV in our analysis, but those data are not shown here. Both models agree with the data reasonably well. Particularly in the reggeized model, the forward-backward asymmetry at higher energies is naturally produced by the $`t`$-channel Regge trajectory exchanges. The large positive value of the photon asymmetry at high energies and forward angles indicates the dominance of the Regge exchanges in this region. Indeed at high $`s`$ and $`ts`$, natural parity exchange (as in the case of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ Regge exchanges) leads to a photon asymmetry which approaches +1.

In Table 2 we present the nucleon parameters extracted from our fit using the reggeized model. Among the nucleon resonances included in this study, we found that only the contributions from the $`S_{11}(1535)`$, $`S_{11}(1650)`$, and $`D_{13}(1520)`$ can be identified unambiguously by this reaction. The contributions from the other resonances are entangled near $`W=1700`$ MeV, and we find it difficult if not impossible to distinguish their individual contributions from the current $`\eta `$ photoproduction data. Comparing with our previous $`\eta `$-MAID results Chiang:2001as , we find several resonances (e.g., $`D_{15}(1675)`$ and $`F_{15}(1680)`$) with much smaller $`\beta _{\eta N}`$ in the reggeized model, implying that these resonance contributions become spurious and redundant once the $`t`$-channel exchanges have been reggeized. Furthermore, the respective parameters should be cautiously interpreted, because several of them (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$, $`\beta _{\eta N}`$, and $`A_{1/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/2}`$) are highly correlated. Therefore, these studies of eta physics have to be combined with investigations of other channels or multichannel analyses to give reliable and convincing information about these resonances.

In conclusion, we find that both the $`\eta `$-MAID and the reggeized model give an overall good description of the current data up to $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 2 GeV. ($`\chi ^2/N_{\mathrm{dof}}=2.0`$ for the $`\eta `$-MAID and $`3.9`$ for the reggeized fit.) The reggeized model shows some discrepancies at backward angles because the $`u`$-channel is not included, but it is able to describe data at energies as high as $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}=`$ 6 GeV, which are beyond the validity of the $`\eta `$-MAID model. It is not completely clear at which energy the Regge trajectories are necessary to describe the $`t`$-channel. In our present study of $`\eta `$ photoproduction, we find that reggeization is not required for energies up to $`W2`$ GeV. However, the situation is different for $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction. For this reaction, we now show that the Regge trajectories are required even at energies already near the $`\eta ^{}`$ production threshold.

### III.2 $`𝜼^{\mathbf{}}`$ photoproduction results

The experimental data basis for $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction is still rather limited. Besides the total cross section data from AHHBBM unknown:1968ke  and AHHM Struczinski:1976ik  measured decades ago, the only modern data were obtained at SAPHIR (Bonn) Plotzke:1998ua . However, this status will be largely improved by new data from CLAS, GRAAL, and CB-ELSA expected to come soon.

The vector meson couplings used in the $`t`$-channel exchanges are well determined: the photon couplings $`\lambda _{(\rho ,\omega )\eta ^{}\gamma }`$ can be obtained from the electromagnetic decay widths of $`\eta ^{}\rho \gamma `$ and $`\eta ^{}\omega \gamma `$ in Eq. (7), and for the strong couplings $`g_{(\rho ,\omega )NN}`$ and $`\kappa _{(\rho ,\omega )NN}`$ the same values as in $`\eta `$ photoproduction are used. Furthermore, we find that the Born terms yield only small contributions because of the small $`g_{\eta ^{}NN}`$ coupling suggested by various studies Zhang:1995uh ; Grein:1980nw ; Hatsuda:1990bi . The current data are not able to determine such a small contribution, and thus we do not include the Born terms as in the case of $`\eta `$ photoproduction. Therefore, the background contributions are completely fixed, and only resonance parameters are varied to fit the data.

In the total cross section of $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ (Fig. 7), we observe a sharp rise at threshold and a quick fall-off with energy. This behavior, also seen in $`\eta `$ photoproduction, should be due to a strong $`S`$-wave contribution, most likely a dominant $`S_{11}`$ nucleon resonance. Therefore, we start with only one $`S_{11}`$ nucleon resonance and $`t`$-channel Regge trajectory exchanges to describe the $`\gamma p\eta ^{}p`$ reaction.

The SAPHIR Plotzke:1998ua  data contain the total and differential cross sections from near the threshold ($`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 1.45 GeV) up to $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 2.44 GeV. The results of our reggeized model for the total cross section are shown in Fig. 7, and found to agree well with the SAPHIR data, along with earlier data from AHHM Struczinski:1976ik  and ABBHHM unknown:1968ke .

We also attempt to describe the $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction by using the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles in the $`t`$-channel exchanges just as we did in the $`\eta `$-MAID model. It is shown in Fig. 8 that the contributions from $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ pole exchanges without any hadronic form factors increase drastically above threshold. This can be partly improved by including hadronic form factors as shown in Fig. 8. The functional form of these hadronic form factors is taken the same as in the $`\eta `$-MAID, with cut-offs $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =1.1`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =1.5`$ GeV from our fit. Although it is possible to obtain acceptable result for the total cross sections, this pole description fails to reproduce differential cross section data, which is discussed next.

In Fig. 9, we compare the results for the differential cross sections with the SAPHIR data Plotzke:1998ua  using Regge trajectories and $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles in the $`t`$-channel exchanges. We also give a prediction at $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 4 GeV showing a pronounced forward peak, which is typical for $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ Regge trajectories (and poles) at the higher energies. We observe that the SAPHIR data show a linear forward rise in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ at $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 1.59 and 1.69 GeV. Surprisingly, this $`P`$-wave behavior can be almost reproduced by our reggeized model, which includes only one $`S_{11}`$ resonance and $`t`$-channel exchanges, without introducing a $`P`$-wave resonance. The individual contributions from the $`S_{11}`$ resonance and $`t`$-channel exchanges are also shown in Fig. 9, and both contributions have a nearly uniform angular distribution in the differential cross sections at these energies. Therefore, this linear behavior in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is caused by a strong interference between the $`S_{11}`$ resonance and $`t`$-channel Regge trajectory exchanges. This can be more easily understood if we expand the differential cross sections into a power series of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$,

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{|𝒒|}{|𝒌|}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{cos}^{\mathrm{}}\theta .$$
(10)
where $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponds to the $`\mathrm{cos}^{\mathrm{}}\theta `$ term, and the angle-independent coefficients $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be expressed in terms of multipoles. If we keep the $`S`$\- and $`P`$-wave multipoles only and neglect higher partial waves, then $`a_1`$ is given as

$$a_1=2\mathrm{Re}\left[E_{0+}^{}(3E_{1+}+M_{1+}M_1)\right].$$
(11)
Therefore, the linear behavior in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ for differential cross sections is basically the interference between the $`S`$\- and $`P`$-wave multipoles.

However, this behavior is not reproduced by the model using the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles in the $`t`$-channel, as this pole description gives almost flat differential cross section and fails to describe the data (see Fig. 9). The reason can be explained in Fig. 10, where we plot the $`d\sigma _0`$ and $`d\sigma _1`$ terms (defined in Eq. (10)) at $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}=1.59`$ GeV using (a) Regge trajectories and (b) $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles in the $`t`$-channel exchanges for comparison. It is clearly shown that these two models generate very different $`d\sigma _1`$ terms, resulting in very distinct differential cross sections. The pole description generates much smaller $`S`$\- and $`P`$-wave interference because the amplitudes from the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles are real, and contain fewer higher partial waves. On the contrary, Regge trajectories generate complex amplitudes with more important contributions from higher partial waves. As the $`S_{11}`$ resonance yields dominantly an imaginary contribution to the $`E_{0+}`$ multipole around threshold, as can be seen from Fig. 14, the $`S`$-$`P`$ wave interference of Eq. (11) is enhanced due to the imaginary part of the $`P`$-wave Regge multipoles.

Therefore, our study shows that using Regge trajectories provides much better description for the $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction than using the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles. On the other hand, for the $`\eta `$ photoproduction in the resonance region a pole description as used in the $`\eta `$-MAID model gives a satisfactory description. The pole description may be improved by introducing additional form factors depending on $`s`$. However, the inclusion of an $`s`$-dependent form factor in a $`t`$-channel exchange term would violate gauge invariance, and even so it would still eventually fail at the higher energies.

Although our model including only the $`S_{11}`$ resonance and $`t`$-channel exchanges fits the data in terms of the overall $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi ^2/N_{\mathrm{dof}}=0.64`$), the fit to the SAPHIR differential cross section data at $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}`$ = 1.59 and 1.69 GeV can be improved by including an additional $`P`$-wave nucleon resonance. We find that both a $`P_{11}`$ and a $`P_{13}`$ resonance equally well improve the fit, as shown in Fig. 11. However, even a very precise cross section measurement cannot distinguish between a $`P_{11}`$ or $`P_{13}`$ resonance contribution without polarization measurements. In Fig. 12, we therefore give the predictions for the single spin observables ($`T`$, $`P`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and the beam-target double spin observables ($`E`$, $`F`$, $`G`$, $`H`$). We find that the recoil polarization ($`P`$) is the most sensitive single spin observable to $`P_{11}`$ or $`P_{13}`$ admixtures, and that the double spin observables $`H`$ shows equal sensitivity.

In Table 3, we list the $`N^{}`$ masses extracted from the single $`S_{11}`$ fit, and the fits with an additional $`P_{11}`$ or $`P_{13}`$ resonance. Although none of these resonances is well established, they are predicted by the constituent quark model and have been found in various analyses at $`W=1.92.1`$ GeV. In fact the PDG lists $`S_{11}(2090)`$, $`P_{11}(2100)`$, and $`P_{13}(1900)`$ as one- or two-star resonances Hagiwara:2002pw .

In our model discussed so far, we include the reggeized $`t`$-channel exchanges as well as $`s`$-channel resonances. Phenomenologically, hadronic scattering amplitudes were found Dolen68  to exhibit the property of duality, meaning that the amplitude can be obtained as a sum over $`s`$-channel resonances or as a sum over ($`t`$-channel) Regge pole exchanges. In particular, it has been shown quantitatively (e.g for forward $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0n`$ scattering) that these amplitudes satisfy finite energy sum rules, so that in the integral sense the sum over all $`s`$-channel resonances yields the same result as the sum over $`t`$-channel Regge poles, which is known as global duality. An addition of $`s`$-channel resonances and $`t`$-channel (Regge) exchanges therefore leads to some double counting. A pioneering model to implement this property of resonance-reggeon duality for hadronic scattering amplitudes was proposed by Veneziano Veneziano68  and lead to many subsequent works. Such dual resonance models Frampton86  were studied in quite some details and applied in a variety of processes, in particular to meson-meson scattering amplitudes. For meson-baryon scattering or meson photoproduction, models based on the Veneziano model are usually too restrictive to give a realistic description of the scattering in the resonance region (as they imply strict relations between the coupling constants appearing in $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel processes). For an interesting dual amplitude model applied to $`\pi N`$ scattering, which contains Regge asymptotic behavior for forward and backward angles and which shows resonance features at low energy, we refer to Ref. Alcock75 .

Without claiming that we solve the double counting problem and implement the property of duality, we study here as a first step a prescription to demonstrate the order of magnitude of double counting. In Fig. 13, we show the results when we completely remove the $`S`$-wave from the $`t`$-channel Regge trajectory exchanges at all energies. It appears that after refitting to the data, we essentially obtain the same results. Of course, the extracted resonance parameters are affected by this procedure.

Since several parameters (e.g., $`A_{1/2}^p`$, $`\beta _{\eta N}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$) associated with these resonances are highly correlated among each other and cannot be well determined individually from current information, it is not appropriate to discuss the resonance parameters directly. Instead, we use the quantity

$$\xi =\sqrt{\frac{m_Nk_R}{M_Rq_R}\frac{\beta _{\eta ^{}N}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}}}A_{1/2}^p,$$
(12)
which is not sensitive to uncertainties for individual parameters and thus less model dependent. Using the parameter $`\xi `$, we find that its values before and after the refitting due to removing the $`S`$-wave are 0.069 $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ and 0.082 $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$. Therefore, the increase of about 20% in $`\xi `$ indicates the maximum degree of the double counting.

The $`E_{0+}`$ multipoles predicted from our model are given in Fig. 14. We note that Regge exchanges yield a finite imaginary part of $`E_{0+}`$, while the pole exchanges in the $`t`$-channel always give real contributions. In Fig. 15 we also show the multipoles for the $`t`$-channel Regge exchanges for $`l5`$.

## IV Summary and conclusions

In this paper, we present a new study for $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction using a reggeized model. This model contains resonance contributions along with reggeized vector meson exchanges in the $`t`$-channel, and yields a good description for these reactions in and beyond the resonance region.

We apply the reggeized model to $`\eta `$ photoproduction and compare our results with the $`\eta `$-MAID model, where $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles are used instead. We find that both models allow us to achieve reasonably good fits of the current data from Mainz, GRAAL, and CLAS. Therefore, it is probably still appropriate to describe the $`t`$-channel in terms of the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ poles in the resonance regions ($`W2`$ GeV). However, only the reggeized model can be successfully applied to describe the high energy data of the DESY experiment at $`E_\gamma ^{\mathrm{lab}}=`$ 4 and 6 GeV.

In the case of $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction, we find that its production threshold is too high to allow an acceptable description with vector meson poles in the $`t`$-channel. Unlike the case of $`\eta `$ photoproduction, the use of Regge trajectories is able to improve the description. Including only an $`S_{11}`$ resonance and the reggeized $`t`$-channel, we are able to describe the current data. We find that most of the $`P`$-wave contributions are generated by the interference of a $`S_{11}`$ resonance and $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ reggeized exchanges. In this study, we extract an $`S_{11}`$ resonance with a mass in the range of 1932-1959 MeV, the exact value depending on whether or not an additional $`P`$-wave $`N^{}`$ is introduced. Though this procedure gives some evidence for such an $`S_{11}`$ resonance, it does certainly not establish a resonance by itself. The PDG Hagiwara:2002pw  lists the $`S_{11}(2090)`$ as a one-star resonance, and quotes previous results from Refs. Manley:1992yb ; Cutkosky:1979fy ; Hohler:1979yr  where the mass varies from 1880 to 2180 MeV. Recent analysis of pion-nucleon scattering and pion photoproduction Chen:2002mn  also indicates the existence of such a resonance. Furthermore, various quark models (e.g., Ref. Giannini:2002vp ) have predicted an $`S_{11}`$ resonance in this energy region. Therefore, the $`\eta ^{}`$ photoproduction provides a good channel to study this less explored resonance and possibly other higher-mass resonances as well.

Occasionally, a tendency of backward peaked $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ differential cross sections was reported. Though this behavior has not been fully confirmed, it is likely due to the $`u`$-channel nucleon exchange and should be studied in future work by also introducing the nucleon Regge trajectories in the $`u`$-channel.

The new forthcoming data for $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ photo- and electroproduction will yield novel and interesting information on the nucleon resonance region. However, the analysis of these data in terms of nucleon resonances in the $`s`$-channel will require a consistent description of the observables over a large energy range and an improved treatment of the $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel backgrounds by means of reggeized trajectories. The present work can serve as a first step in this direction.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank the members of the GRAAL and CLAS collaborations for helpful discussions and for kindly sharing their data before publication. W.-T. C. is grateful to the Universität Mainz for the hospitality extended to him during his visits. This work was supported in parts by the National Science Council of ROC under grant No. NSC90-2112-M002-032, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443), and a joint project NSC/DFG TAI-113/10/0.


format: text

text:
# References

I am going to give a brief introduction to the subject of CFT on surfaces with boundaries and crosscaps, which is the CFT description of perturbative open string theory. Let me start with a small historical remark. During many years open string theory has been much less popular than closed string theory and there were reasons for it. On the one hand, it was believed that open strings had nothing to do with the real world since they could not provide realistic models for particle Physics, in contrast to the case of the heterotic strings. On the other hand, open strings are much more difficult to deal technically than closed strings. For these reasons it is understandable that, from the ‘rise’ of String Theory in 1985 until 1995, the bulk of string theoretists concentrated on closed strings, mainly heterotic strings, while only very few paid attention to open strings  . This situation changed drastically when Polchinski discovered D-branes in 1995 . The reason is that, apart from the genuine interest on these new objects to which the open strings attach, it was also shown that the open strings are dual to closed strings, in particular to the heterotic strings, and finally it appeared that all known string theories are related to each other (as a matter of fact, as everybody knows by now, it seems that they are different limits of one and the same theory in 11 dimensions, known as M-theory). This was the end of the ‘discrimination’ against open string theory which at present is a very active field. However, the CFT treatment of open strings is been worked out by very few groups and this is the reason I decided to give an introductory talk in this conference.

In what follows I will describe the basic ingredients necessary for the study of CFT’s on surfaces with boundaries and crosscaps. Let us first review the 2-dimensional surfaces involved in the perturbative expansion of string theories at one-loop, that is the worldsheets swept by the strings when moving in space-time. In string theory at one-loop one finds four different types of topologically inequivalent worldsheets: the torus, the Klein bottle, the annulus, and the Möbius strip. Depending on the type of string theory, some of these surfaces may or may not appear. For closed oriented strings only the torus appear whereas for closed unoriented strings one has also the Klein bottle. For open oriented strings one finds the annulus plus the torus corresponding to the closed sector of the theory and, finally, for open unoriented strings the four types of worldsheets appear. The ‘direct channel’ surfaces (with the proper time making a loop) contain the information about the complete spectrum of the CFT defined on them; that is, the amplitudes of these surfaces represent the partition functions of the theory that give the number of states level by level. But one can also look at these surfaces from the ‘transverse channel’ point of view, that is exchanging the space and time coordinates of the worldsheet. The torus does not change, but the annulus, the Möbius strip and the Klein bottle look quite different. The annulus is converted into a cylinder between two boundaries, that shows the propagation of closed strings between the two boundaries, the Möbius strip is converted into a cylinder between a boundary and a crosscap (the Möbius strip has only one boundary), and the Klein bottle turns into a cylinder between two crosscaps (a crosscap is a boundary with the opposite sides identified).

Now let us consider any 2-dimensional surface with boundaries and crosscaps. Let us call the closed string chiral algebra as $`G_LG_R`$, with generators $`W_n`$ and $`\widehat{W}_n`$. At a boundary or crosscap only the diagonal combination survives because these ‘defects’ interchange left and right-movers. As a result, the boundary states $`|B`$ and the crosscap states $`|C`$ must satisfy the conditions

$$[W_n(1)^{h_w}w\widehat{W}_n]|B=0,[W_n(1)^{h_w+n}w\widehat{W}_n]|C=0,$$
(1)
where $`h_w`$ is the conformal weight of the generator $`W_n`$ and if $`w1`$ this is called a symmetry breaking boundary condition . There is a formal solution to these conditions, given by the so-called Ishibashi states

$$|i_B=\underset{l}{}|i,l_LU_B|i,l_R,|i_C=\underset{l}{}|i,l_LU_C|i,l_R,$$
(2)
where $`i`$ denotes the ground state, $`l`$ the level, and $`U_B`$ and $`U_C`$ are anti-unitary operators. The physical boundary states and crosscap states are linear combinations of the Ishibashi states

$$|B_a=\underset{i}{}B_{ai}|i_B,|C=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i|i_C$$
(3)
where $`B_{ai}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ are called boundary and crosscap coefficients, respectively. The label $`a`$ indicates that a CFT can have different sets of boundaries, whereas it can have only one type of crosscap.

The boundary and crosscap coefficients are very important quantities in open string theory since they contain information about the spectrum of the string states as well as information about the D-branes and orientifold planes (O-planes for short). These coefficients are constrained by sewing constraints, which are rather difficult to solve, and also by integrality and positivity conditions that are very restrictive but much easier to solve than the sewing constraints. The origin of the integrality and positivity conditions is the fact that the partition functions, which give the state multiplicities, are given by the one-loop amplitudes and, in the transverse channel, these amplitudes depend explicitely on the boundary and crosscap coefficients. For example, from the annulus, where open strings are running in the direct channel, one gets the integrand

$$N^aN^bA_{ab}^i\chi ^i(\tau /2)$$
(4)
where $`N^a,N^b`$ are the Chan-Paton factors at the ends of the strings, $`\chi ^i`$ is the character of the representation $`i`$, and $`A_{ab}^i`$ can be obtained from the transverse channel, having the expression

$$A_{ab}^i=\underset{j}{}S_j^iB_{ja}B_{jb},$$
(5)
where $`S`$ is the modular matrix, $`S:\tau 1/\tau `$. Now from the direct channel one gets that

$$A_{ab}^i𝐙0.$$
(6)
In the same manner, from the Möbius strip and the Klein bottle one obtains the conditions

$$1/2(A_{aa}^i+M_a^i)𝐙0,1/2(Z_{ii}+K^i)𝐙0,$$
(7)
with

$$M_a^i=\underset{j}{}P_j^iB_{ja}\mathrm{\Gamma }_j𝐙,K^i=\underset{j}{}S_j^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_j𝐙,$$
(8)
where the P matrix is defined as  $`P=\sqrt{T}ST^2S\sqrt{T}`$, $`T`$ being the modular matrix, $`T:\tau \tau +1`$, and $`Z_{ii}`$ comes from the torus partition function. (Let us remind that the torus partition function can be expressed as $`_{ij}\chi _i(\tau )Z_{ij}\chi _j(\tau )`$).

Another important consistency condition is the tadpole cancellation. It happens that an open unoriented string with arbitrary Chan-Paton factors is in general inconsistent due to infrared divergences in one-loop amplitudes. This is very easy to see in the transverse channel where, by factorization, the ‘cylinder’ decomposes as the product of the propagator times the tadpoles corresponding to the extremes (boundary tadpoles and/or crosscap tadpoles). Therefore the tadpoles must cancel, what implies that the Chan-Paton factors must be adjusted to some specific values. But the Chan-Paton factors reflect the gauge group of the theory and therefore the tadpole cancellation fixes the possible allowed gauge groups.

Now let us see some examples of solutions for the boundary and crosscap coefficients. For any CFT such that the modular invariant is the charge conjugation, that is $`Z_{ij}=C_{ij}`$, Cardy found the boundary coefficients

$$B_{ai}=\frac{S_{ai}}{\sqrt{S_{0i}}}$$
(9)
and the ‘Rome group’ (Sagnotti and collaborators) found the crosscap coefficients

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\frac{P_{0i}}{\sqrt{S_{0i}}}$$
(10)
These results have been generalized first of all by allowing more general simple current generated Klein bottles, and secondly to arbitrary simple current modular invariants, as classified in refs.  and . This generalization was pioneered by the Rome group, who worked out the first examples for SU(2) , and was completed in a series of papers by Fuchs and Schweigert  and by a group from Amsterdam (Huiszoon, Schellekens and Sousa) . The final result can be summarized very concisely in a single formula for the boundary and crosscap coefficients . The simplest example, which corresponds to a non-standard Klein bottle choice specified by a simple current $`k`$, reads

$$B_{ai}^k=\frac{S_{ai}}{\sqrt{S_{ki}}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^k=\frac{P_{ki}}{\sqrt{S_{ki}}},$$
(11)
where the index $`k`$ refers to the Klein bottle simple current.

To finish let me say a few words about the meaning of boundaries and crosscaps in space-time. The boundaries are glued to D-branes as it is easy to see intuitively in the open string picture where the ends of the strings are attached to the D-brane. Crosscaps, however, are very difficult to visualize since, first of all, they are not even localized. This means that while one can ‘see’ a boundary, even touch it with the fingers on an annulus or a Möbius strip, one cannot do the same with a crosscap. In space-time crosscaps are related to orientifold configurations in such a way that a single crosscap can correspond to a sum of orientifolds, not to just one. (Orientifolds are static hyperplanes where left and right-movers are identified, they are like mirrors for charge conjugation of D-branes).

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to A. Sagnotti and A.N. Schellekens for getting me started on the subject of CFT with boundaries and crosscaps.


text:
# Electrometry on charge traps with a single–electron transistor

## I Introduction

Single–electron charging effects are among the most celebrated phenomena of mesoscopic physics. The technological trend in continuous down-scaling of feature size in solid state electronics advances into a field where mesoscopic and quantum phenomena start to play a dominant role. The potential advantages of nanostructured electronics are e.g. increased speed, reduced power dissipation or the implementation of quantum logic operations. However, new attractive phenomena are often accompanied by less desirable effects. One of the most serious problems of mesoscopic electronic devices (and an extension of their high sensitivity) is fluctuating background charge. In spite of increased efforts in fabrication technology to produce high purity components, imperfections in solid state devices leading to interface or bulk trap states are responsible for inevitable background charge fluctuations. The significance of this problem is well known e.g. by the MOSFET community, flicker.r  but it is at least as crucial for potentially useful nanodevice applications.

The metallic single–electron transistor (SET) setrev.r ; first.r  is one of the simplest and most extensively studied architectures manifesting Coulomb blockade. Due to its extreme charge sensitivity and the ability to transfer individual electrons, SETs have been proposed for a variety of applications or as building blocks of future electronics. It is known, however, that device sensitivity at dc operation is limited by low frequency input noise due to dynamic charge fluctuations in the vicinity of the SET, in metallic setnoise.r ; tunneltrap.r  as well as in semiconductor dotnoise.r ; trapimaging.r  devices. A possible solution to this problem is provided e.g. by the radio frequency SET rfset.r  operating well above the $`1/f`$ noise spectrum, or by appropriate device fabrication aiming for optimal shielding of the SET island against external charge perturbations. stacked.r

At least as serious as the dynamic noise is the static offset charge problem, which sets the device in an initial random state due to the random configuration of the quasi-static charge background. Fluctuators with large time constants but strong electrostatic influence on the device characteristics may shift the operation point such that repeated tuning of the biasing condition is required. This unpleasant though not unusual scenario severely reduces the reliability of SETs for broader applications. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that photon assisted tunneling (PAT) due to background charge fluctuations as extrapolated from $`1/f`$ noise spectra may be the accuracy limiting process in high precision experiments. patnoise.r

From a different perspective, charging effects in ultra small electronic devices may serve as the base mechanism of memory devices. yano.r  Due to technological limitations, operation of lithographically prepared single–electron devices is restricted to very low temperatures. However, the small size of charge traps (on the order of 1 nm) due to intrinsic impurities potentially allows manipulation of single charges at room temperature. If the random nature of impurities can be controlled or at least their behavior selectively discriminated, the discrete charging of traps can provide the essential process in high-density nonvolatile memory devices.

Therefore, due to the crucial role of background charge fluctuations for mesoscopic devices (as well as for microelectronics in general), a profound understanding of charge trapping processes is most desirable. We have performed extensive experimental studies on charge fluctuations in the vicinity of a modified multiple gate SET (originally an electron pump, see section II.1). We are able to identify the location and electronic configuration of individual metastable trap states. Our method proves the feasibility of and provides a tool for characterizing the charge background and for optimizing the operation point with a working device with respect to noise performance, i.e. the mesoscopic sample under investigation and the detector for charge fluctuations are the same.

## II Experiment

Measurements on experimental sensing of environmental charges are the main focus of this paper. Because the results certainly depend on the device topology and the substrate and lithographic quality, a detailed description of the device fabrication as given in the following part is believed to be essential. The experimental setup and the measurement procedure, which allow a virtually continuous resolution of charge fluctuations as a function of gate potentials, follow in the second part of this section. The third part presents the results.

### II.1 Device fabrication

The investigation of a multigate SET transistor was intended to be a preparation step towards the study of an electron pump: a device for pumping of single electrons in a controllable way, which in the simplest version consists of three ultra small tunnel junctions with two gates. pump.r  The correlated transfer of electrons is realized in the pump with the help of an external rf-drive applied to the gates with appropriate relative phase shifts. Since the electrostatic interactions are generally long-range, it is important for proper pumping to be able to minimize the inevitable cross-influence of the gates. In order to experimentally study different gate configurations we used the multigate SET sharing the same layout with the pump, with the exception that one side tunnel junction in the pump was intentionally shorted, see Fig. 1.

The structure of type Al/AlO$`_\text{x}`$/Al was fabricated by the two angle evaporation technique twoangle.r  on a thermally oxidized (300 nm deep) wafer of monocrystal Si. The trilayer mask PMMA/Ge/PMMA-MAA (Copolymer), 100 nm, 30 nm and 300 nm thick respectively (top to bottom), was exposed in the e-beam pattern generator Philips EBPG 4, both in the part of the fine structure and in the part of the contact leads and pads. After development of the PMMA in the mixture of MIBK/IPA, 1:2, for 1 min, the pattern was transferred to the layer of Ge by means of reactive-sputter etching (CF$`_\text{4}`$, 1 Pa, rf-power density 0.2 W/cm2, 75 s), and then through the layer of the Copolymer (O$`_\text{2}`$, 0.8 Pa, 0.1 W/cm2, 3 min) down to the substrate oxide with sufficient over-etch time, which was necessary to compensate for the process non-uniformities. The undercut space necessary for oblique deposition was formed by isotropic etching of Copolymer at high oxygen pressure (30 Pa, 0.1 W/cm2, 20 min). At this stage the surface oxide of the substrate was exposed to the oxygen plasma, which we believe might have helped in restoring the oxide quality after the previous sputter-etch step. The metal structure was deposited by the e-beam evaporator in one vacuum run and was formed by two conform layers of Al (25 nm and 35 nm thick) evaporated at 0.3 nm/s at the angles of $`+14^{}`$ and $`14^{}`$, respectively. The base pressure in the evaporation chamber was below $`10^5`$ Pa. The junctions (80 nm $`\times `$ 80 nm in size) were formed as the overlapped tips of the Al microstrips belonging to different layers. The dielectric barrier was formed by room temperature oxidation of the first Al layer (10 min at pure oxygen of 1 mbar) before the deposition of the second layer. After evaporation the sample was immersed in acetone for mask lift-off.

The only unknown or uncontrollable process influencing the physical properties of the samples is the long-term oxidation when stocking them. In spite of the high-quality fabrication and proven long-term stability of the devices, very slow oxide formation at the interfaces inevitably continues, which may, eventually together with ion diffusion, subsequently introduce shallow defects.

### II.2 Experimental setup and measurement procedure

Measurements were performed in a dilution cryostat with a base temperature of 5 mK, whereas the effective electron temperature of our system was found teff.r  to be 45 mK. The lines running from the room temperature electronics to the cold SET devices were filtered against microwave propagation with 2 m Thermocoax cables thermocoax.r  each, and the sample holder was thoroughly enclosed to be electromagnetically tight. A magnetic field of typically 1 T was applied to suppress superconductivity of the Aluminum devices.

The bias and readout electronics is schematically drawn in Fig. 2. It consists of a symmetrically voltage driven SET, where the current $`I_{\text{SET}}`$ through the transistor is sensed by the transimpedance amplifier IC1 (with feedback resistor $`R_1R_{\text{SET}}`$, where $`R_{\text{SET}}`$ is the asymptotic SET device series resistance). The input impedance of IC1 is required to be very high, then the current through the SET is given by

$$I_{\text{SET}}=\frac{2U_{\text{out}}+U_{\text{SD}}}{2R_1},$$
(1)
where $`U_{\text{SD}}`$ is the source-drain voltage.

The measurements discussed here were performed with a feedback circuitry holding the SET island at constant potential (or charge) irrespective of external potential variations. This was achieved by biasing the device at a Coulomb blockade peak at high gain $`\eta =\text{d}U_{\text{out}}/\text{d}U_\text{G}`$ (see lower part in Fig. 2), integrating $`U_{\text{out}}`$ (right hand part of circuit with IC2 in Fig. 2) and feeding the signal back to G$`_{\text{fdbk}}`$, the feedback gate. When $`U_{\text{out}}`$ changes by $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{out}}`$ for whatever reason, the feedback circuit reacts with a voltage $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{fdbk}}=\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{out}}/\eta `$ in order to adjust $`U_{\text{out}}`$ to $`U_{\text{ref}}`$ (the minus sign stems from the inverting integrator circuit). In general, the requirement for the island to stay on constant potential is

$$q_i=U_iC_i=constant,$$
(2)
where $`q_i`$ is the charge influenced on the island by the $`i`$-th gate with capacitance $`C_i`$ being at the potential $`U_i`$. Therefore, upon a variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_i`$ the island charge is modulated (i.e. the gate modulation curve is shifted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_i/C_i`$) and the feedback circuit response, still without background charges, is a voltage

$$\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{fdbk}}=\mathrm{\Delta }U_i\frac{C_i}{C_{\text{fdbk}}}$$
(3)
to the feedback gate with capacitance $`C_{\text{fdbk}}`$. If the device is an isolated system where the only non-zero potentials are supplied by the gates, the feedback voltage is always linear to the gate voltages, see Eq. (3), and can be subtracted in the data analysis of gate sweep measurements. However, if extra background charges in the vicinity of the SET are taken into account, they modify the island potential such that

$$\delta Q_{\text{island}}=\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{fdbk}}C_{\text{fdbk}}$$
(4)
is the corresponding charge shift which is compensated by G$`_{\text{fdbk}}`$.

The dynamics of our electronics are limited to low frequencies. The main constraint on the response is given by the $`RC`$ time of the SET resistance ($`R_{\text{SET}}=10^5\mathrm{}10^6\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and the cable capacitance ($`500`$ pF), constituting roughly a 10 kHz low-pass. The integration time $`R_2C_2`$ was typically set much slower, i.e. on the order of 100 ms, to prevent the system from oscillations. The quasi dc measurements were performed by scanning one or more gates point by point, recording the signal $`U_{\text{fdbk}}`$ (or $`U_{\text{out}}`$) for typically 1 s and performing statistics and Fourier transform. The gate voltage step size could be set arbitrarily small, while the resolution was limited by thermal or vibrational noise of the signal lines ($`10^8`$ V rms).

The readout electronics for this experiment was optimized for stability rather than sensitivity or band width in order to minimize external disturbances on the SET and its environment.

### II.3 Results

SET devices of type A and B (see Fig. 1) were systematically investigated by taking $`IV`$ characteristics and noise figures as a function of the four gates. The individual gate capacitances, which are listed in Table 1, were consistently determined by measurement of Coulomb blockade peak spacings $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_\text{G}=e/C_\text{G}`$ as well as from the feedback method using Eq. (3).

By means of the feedback circuitry the signal $`U_{\text{fdbk}}`$ was measured as a function of the voltages varied at one or more gates. We define the “background charge offset signal”

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{fdbk}}+\mathrm{\Delta }U_i\frac{C_i}{C_{\text{fdbk}}}\right)C_{\text{fdbk}},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_i`$ is the step size of the gate sweep. $`Q_{\text{rms}}`$ will then be denoting the rms noise on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}`$ signal. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}`$ is zero when the SET electrometer is linearly modified by the gate potentials only, and shows peaks for discontinuous variations of background charges. By scanning one single gate up and down, we found non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}`$ events which reproducibly appear at the same gate voltage $`U_i`$ while showing hysteresis of different magnitude. The observations are consistent with former measurements on background charge fluctuations. cbosc.r  However, in Ref. cbosc.r,  only a discrete resolution of the gate dependence was possible via analysis of the Coulomb blockade peak positions, whereas here we are able to scan an arbitrary and continuous gate range.

#### II.3.1 Sweeping of two gates

If two gates are swept simultaneously (plus a third gate always acting as feedback), the local potential around the multigate SET is differently modified due to the device geometry. The second gate shifts the potential threshold of a charge trap depending on its position. A measurement with two simultaneous gates swept is shown in Fig. 3. The circles and dots correspond to events from up and down sweeps of gate G2, respectively, where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}|`$ is above the instrumental and background noise. After each G2 sweep, $`U_{\text{G1}}`$ is incremented. The events fall on different straight lines with different slopes. Depending on the linear combination of the gate voltages involved, patterns different from Fig. 3 were obtained, i.e. including positive slopes, displaying more or less scatter, showing merging event lines or sudden breaks. Measurements with all possible gate permutations on the same device were performed.

Under constant cryogenic conditions, the experimental results were highly reproducible, even after weeks. Although the noise spectrum level of our devices ($`10^4\mathrm{}10^3e/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}`$ at 10 Hz) is comparable to literature values for standard SETs, setnoise.r  we mostly observe a remarkably high long-term stability of our samples at stable conditions, i.e. no drift and hardly any spontaneous jumps in $`IV`$ characteristics. We attribute this high stability in first line to the very slow cooling of the devices (about one day with very little exchange gas), which allows the traps to equilibrate in their lowest states. However, it is empirically established that the characteristics of background fluctuations change drastically upon thermal cycling.

#### II.3.2 Signal height

Signal height $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}`$ and rms noise $`Q_{\text{rms}}`$ from one measurement are shown in Fig. 4, taking the same data as in Fig. 3. A clear semi-circle correlation between noise and signal is observed. The lines are fits of

$$(|\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}|\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }Q_0|}{2})^2+Q_{\text{rms}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Q_0}{2})^2$$
(6)
to the data points, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_0`$ is the full signal height due to one individual trap transition. This correlation is a consequence of the measurement system: $`Q_{\text{rms}}`$, which is the rms value of the signal taken typically for 1 s, averages quadratically over possible two-level fluctuations. Assuming that the signal fluctuates during the measurement between zero and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_0`$ where it spends the total times $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, respectively, and the transitions are negligibly fast, the average and the rms values of this signal would be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}=\frac{t_2\mathrm{\Delta }Q_0}{t_1+t_2},$$

$$Q_{\text{rms}}=\sqrt{\frac{t_1\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}^2+t_2(\mathrm{\Delta }Q_0\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}})^2}{t_1+t_2}}.$$
(7)
It is easily shown that the relations (7) correspond to Eq. (6). One interesting information from Fig. 4 is the correspondence between the events falling on a semi-circle and those building a straight line in Fig. 3, which is represented by the labels (a)-(d). This allows to identify and correlate switching events from individual traps by both the gate dependence and the signal height.

One might expect that the data in Fig. 4 yield detailed information on capture and escape rates of the traps involved. However, we have found no correlation between $`Q_{\text{rms}}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}`$) and the position relative to the events on the lines in Fig. 3. This is due to metastability of the states where time constants are exponentially large, as discussed in section III.

#### II.3.3 Gate polarization and noise

The noise figures of SETs are in general determined by input charge noise and the level is proportional to the SET gain. starmark.r  However, in our case where the operation point (i.e. gain, island charge) is kept constant, eliminating the dominant noise dependence, we observe the noise level from background charge fluctuations to clearly depend on the polarization of the surrounding by variation of the gate potentials, as shown in Fig. 5.

The large fluctuations (black dots) in the upper part of Fig. 5 naturally correspond to the events drawn in the lower part where $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_{\text{offset}}\text{d}U_{\text{G1}}`$ experiences a step response at the transition point and $`Q_{\text{rms}}`$ averages over the two level states. In addition, a significant abrupt change in noise is observed at $`U_{\text{G3}}=73`$ mV and in the range $`190\text{ mV}<U_{\text{G1}}<170\text{ mV}`$. Also gradual variations of the noise level as a function of gate potential are measurable. While the onset of higher noise at $`U_{\text{G3}}=73`$ mV is observed as a unique event with increasing $`U_{\text{G3}}`$, the features around $`U_{\text{G1}}180`$ mV show an interesting combination of noise figure and trap metastability: with increasing $`U_{\text{G1}}`$ the trap alters its charge configuration such that the charge noise seen by the SET is reduced. By reversing the G1 sweep direction, the noise level is again minimal right before the trap switches back, whereas the gate voltage threshold of that transition is lower.

The transition at $`U_{\text{G3}}=73`$ mV in the upper plot of Fig. 5 does not show switching events in the lower plot. This is, besides an apparent insensitivity of that trap to $`U_{\text{G1}}`$, an artefact of the measurement procedure: $`U_{\text{G3}}`$ is incremented at the end of an $`U_{\text{G1}}`$ sweep, therefore transitions dominated by $`U_{\text{G3}}`$ occur only at the turning points, i.e. the $`U_{\text{G1}}`$ extrema, and are not drawn in the plots.

#### II.3.4 Superconductivity and magnetic field

While most of the measurements have been performed with the SET in the normal state, we have also carried out test experiments in the superconducting state to investigate reproducibility. In none of the cases have we found any difference in feedback response between normal and superconducting devices. Nor did we find any indication of magnetic field dependence (for normal state SET with $`B>0.5`$ T).

#### II.3.5 No bias voltage dependence

A further important observation is the independence of the experimental results from the biasing conditions, i.e. the source-drain voltage, neither on magnitude nor on polarity. This has been reported already in Ref. cbosc.r, . The electric field within a thin tunnel junction changes drastically upon small variation of the source-drain voltage, which should yield a clearly observable effect in case of trap polarization inside the junction. In contrast, the surrounding is hardly influenced for comparable voltages ranging within the Coulomb gap (on the order of 1 mV).

#### II.3.6 Spread of Coulomb blockade peak spacings

Finally, it’s worth noticing an interesting experimental fact we additionally discovered during measurements: when accurately determining the Coulomb blockade peak positions and calculating the nearest neighbor peak spacings $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_G`$ (which are theoretically expected to be exactly $`e/C_G`$), we observed an increased statistical variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_G`$ for measurements with gates at larger distance, i.e lower $`C_G`$. This is at first sight counter intuitive, because voltage noise $`U_n`$ (from readout electronics or noise on the cables) at the gates with lower $`C_G`$ should have much less effect on the SET island than nearby gates, since the image charge influenced on the island is proportional to $`U_nC_G`$. A possible interpretation of the results is related to the trap density of states between island and gate. The larger the number of charge fluctuators polarizable by the gate variations, the larger the statistical fluctuations sensed by the SET island. The measurements can be considered as a statistical probe of the charged environment in contrast to the experiments with discrete charge switching events. And because a larger voltage variation at more distant gates is required to modulate the SET island charge by one electron, more traps in those gate regions experience a transition, which is reflected by increased statistical (not amplitude) fluctuations.

Although the phenomenon is clearly, consistently and reproducibly observed, it is unfortunately a very small effect (a few percent) which doesn’t permit quantitative analysis yet. More experiments with specifically designed structures may improve resolution and allow e.g. determination of a trap density of states.

## III Discussion

The invariability of our results upon different biasing conditions (source-drain voltage, superconducting device) mentioned right above strongly suggests that the switching processes observed can not reside within the tunnel junctions themselves. Apart from a few exceptions in literature tunneltrap.r  where the results were interpreted in terms of trap fluctuations within the tunnel junction, it is generally believed that the dominant low frequency noise source is due to fluctuators located within the substrate or the oxide surrounding the SET device. setnoise.r

Taking this into account, the simplest model to describe the process responsible for the observed charge switching events is a bistable trap, tlfrev.r  located somewhere close to the SET island, where a charge can hop (or rather tunnel) between two adjacent sites back and forth. olaf.r  This picture is equivalent to a reversible dipole. Phenomenologically the polarity of the charge is in our case of no importance and isn’t distinguishable either. Therefore the charge carrier involved is always taken to be an electron for simplicity. The trap configuration can change by variation of potentials (i.e. gate voltages), by thermal activation or due to PAT. The results from our experiments are clearly dominated by the potential landscape intentionally modified by the four gates, although other effects may play a role at much smaller energy scales.

For illustration imagine an electron trapped in a local impurity state. An electric field, which is in our case determined by linear superposition of the potentials of the four gates and the source-island-drain structure, can force that electron to switch to a nearby metastable trap site. If the electron e.g. shifts closer to the SET island, the latter experiences a charge reduction, which is compensated by a signal from the feedback circuit according to Eq. (5). This explains geometrically the signal height and polarity of individual fluctuators as presented in section II.3.2.

The striking reproducibility of switching events as a function of the gate voltages allows detailed analysis of the traps involved. The data shown in Figs. 3 and 4 nicely illustrate the distinct nature of individual traps. From the lines fitted to the data in Fig. 3 it was derived that the events of (a) and (b) have exactly the same slopes $`\text{d}U_{\text{G1}}/\text{d}U_{\text{G2}}`$, and they also show the same signal height spectrum in Fig. 4. They are only distinguished by their transition voltage threshold, which depends on gate sweep direction with a specific hysteresis of $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\text{G2}}=93.2`$ mV in this case. According to the trapping process (charging–discharging) we like to refer to the events represented by circles and dots as flips and flops, respectively. In contrast to the events (a) and (b), the transition thresholds of flips and flops on line (c) are indistinguishable, i.e. displaying a vanishing hysteresis. Yet another behavior is observed for the events on (d) which scatter very strongly. They also show both signal polarities (but of same magnitude), irrespective of gate sweep direction (see Fig. 4). This specific trap is unstable within an unusually broad gate voltage window. This is probably caused by interactions with other traps in close vicinity, rather than by pure thermal activation or PAT which we can exclude due to the large excitation energies required.

In addition to the feasibility of assigning the experimental data as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 to individual traps, we can also make an identification by relating the flip and flop thresholds of the same trap from an experiment as presented in Fig. 6.

The measurement in Fig. 6, where the gate voltage range is increased with each consecutive sweep, clearly shows that a trap can only switch off (flop) if it has also been switched on (flip) before, or vice versa. This is consistent with and suggestive of the single charging nature of the traps observed here.

Although some events in Fig. 6 are detected at the same threshold, i.e. the flops of (b) and (c) or the (a) flips and the (d) flops, we can again easily identify them due to clear distinction in the noise vs. signal height diagram (like in Fig. 4, but not shown in this case).

The behavior of the traps in general seems to be only very weakly influenced by other fluctuators. This is concluded from the straight lines found in measurements like in Figs. 3 or 6. The transition threshold is usually not altered irrespective of the polarization strength of the environment (Fig. 6), i.e. there is no difference whether a small or a large gate potential was applied, the trap switching occurs at the same gate voltages. A rarely clear exception is seen in the events (f) in Fig. 6, which show slight shifts at the onsets of traps (a) and (e), i.e. for $`N_\text{s}=60`$ and 26, respectively. This suggests a rather small distance of these particular traps among each other allowing electrostatic interaction. In general, however, according to simple electrostatics, charges (or traps) in very close vicinity to metallic electrodes are strongly screened. sitraps.r  The suppressed interaction leads to the observation of individual unperturbed charge trapping events.

From the characteristics of individual traps, i.e. their transition thresholds as a function of polarization of their environment, we can not only distinguish but also localize the fluctuators. Variation of two gates electrostatically determines the equipotential line where the trap switching occurs. The relation of the gate potentials is extracted from the slope $`\text{d}U_{\text{G}i}/\text{d}U_{\text{G}j}`$ of an individual trap as taken e.g. from Fig. 3. Addition of more gates (as are actually present in our experiments with the feedback gate and such with static potential) simply modifies the linear combination of electric potentials involved, allowing to verify the results from experiment and calculations. The exact position (and size) of the trap relative to the SET island is then determined by the signal height and polarity. An estimate for charge variations on the island on the order of $`0.1e`$ shows that the observable traps (with a typical extension of $`2`$ nm) must reside in the very close vicinity of the island. cbosc.r

We have performed numerical electrostatics calculation (equipotential lines) on the device, based on a quasi-threedimensional finite element method (real twodimensional finite element calculations in the substrate plane with iterative corrections in the third dimension). An example of a potential calculation for the trap events (a) and (b) of Fig. 3 is shown in Fig. 7. Gates G3, G4 and source-island-drain are at zero potential while gates G1 and G2 are at relative potentials defined by the slope $`\text{d}U_{\text{G1}}/\text{d}U_{\text{G2}}`$ of (a,b). This yields an equipotential line for zero variation labelled (a),(b). The white dot (on the lower right edge of the island, also labelled (a),(b)) finally represents the location of that particular trap. Calculated equipotential lines are also drawn for trap events (c) and (d), respectively. The trap location (d) is ambiguous and drawn on both island sides due to not well defined signal polarity (see Fig. 4). 111Note that the equipotential lines seem to cross the island, which of course is not possible with a metallic island in two dimensions. However, keep in mind that Fig. 7 shows a three dimensional projection on the 2D plane (or a cut of equipotential surfaces). The lines are effectively neither touching nor crossing the metal. The trap positions are determined where the lines approach the island at a distance of $`2`$ nm.

This intriguing feature to determine the position of individual traps while studying their specific behavior opens up a new method to study the substrate, surface, interface or oxide quality which are of increasing importance in nanostructure devices. Of course, the method is limited by the ability to observe distinct finite slopes in $`\text{d}U_{\text{G}i}/\text{d}U_{\text{G}j}`$. The majority of the data in Fig. 5 is therefore not useful for trap position determination. The data simply reflects a negligible influence of gate G3 on the measured traps due to screening by other gates in our structure not specifically intended for such experiments. The problem can easily be resolved by optimized and more sophisticated lithographic design (e.g. star-like arrangement of gates to minimize electrostatic screening between traps and SET island).

On the other hand we wish to emphasize the possibility to optimize the operation point of a real device like an electron pump or a turnstile by noise analysis as shown in section II.3.3. Stable operation of SET devices with respect to background charge fluctuations is one of the biggest issues in their implementation into useful circuits. With an appropriate device structure and the method described here we can find the working point of optimum signal to noise ratio or maximize device stability, as required for low noise applications.

The task of hysteresis as observed in our experiments is rather delicate and not fully understood. In general, hysteresis or metastability may be due to asymmetric tunnel barriers, polarization of the proximal environment (including other traps) or multiple tunneling processes. multijunction.r  We are not able to decide on the dominant microscopic origin of the hysteresis measured in our case. However, our observation of increased fluctuations close to a transition point indicates that there are different energy scales and more than one single mechanism involved. The time constants of the generation-recombination processes srh.r  are unfortunately, due to hysteresis, either astronomically large, or at scales which are not accessible with our experimental setup (readout electronics bandwidth $`<10`$ kHz). The spectrum of hysteresis values (energy difference between flip and flop) was found to be flat up to several 100 mV (i.e. covering the entire gate sweep range). This prevents us to extract quantitative data on the metastability of the traps which apparently have an average energy spread much larger than is accessibly with our method. This is also related to the fact that we do not observe periodic multiple charging of the same trap. Probably the trap size and the equivalent capacity are so small that the charging energy can be far above 1 eV.

Nevertheless, we can make a very rough estimate of the trap density assuming that all the observed fluctuators reside on the island surface (i.e. traps in the oxide covering the island). The island surface facing the gate (i.e. perpendicular to the electric field) has an area of $`60\times 1000`$ nm. We measure an extrapolated average of 20 traps per volt of gate variation. That yields an interface (or surface) trap density of 330 eV$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mu `$m-2 or roughly $`3\times 10^{10}\text{eV}^1\text{cm}^2`$. We believe this is quite a reasonable number and it is well consistent with literature values flicker.r  (although they are given for Si, the order of magnitude should be applicable).

As a final remark, we wish to comment on one possible origin of the charge traps responsible for the switching events. Empirically we have observed significantly less fluctuators in a ‘fresh’ device at the very first cool-down compared to measurements after thermal cycling. This may suggest that the imperfections are (also) a consequence of mechanical stress. The effect of electrical stress on noise characteristics has been reported in Ref. cobdenstress.r, .

## IV Conclusion

We have presented a new experimental method and measurement results on electrometric performance of a modified single–electron device. The technique allowed to study charge traps individually, exploring the very fluctuators which are responsible for noise and instabilities, severely degrading the operation of mesoscopic electronic devices. In particular, the charge background was investigated by scanning different gates simultaneously and recording abrupt changes of the SET island polarization. The experimental results were highly reproducible and therefore allowed extensive systematic studies. We were able to distinguish switching processes due to individual charge traps. The knowledge of trap transition threshold and signal height allowed to geometrically determine the trap position, which was typically not more than a few nanometers away from the island surface. The tangential accuracy of the analysis was estimated to be about 10 nm. This provides an alternative method to e.g. scanning imaging experiments trapimaging.r  for local investigation of trapping processes.

The noise level of the SET device was found to depend on the environment polarization due to gate potential variations. The reproducible experiments offer a method to determine the noise characteristics of the SET and to adjust the operation point for maximum signal to noise or best device stability. It is particularly advantageous that the testing of the charge background is performed with the same working device, i.e. optimization detector and subsequent application device are the same.

The fluctuators observed in the experiments are exclusively located in the close vicinity of the SET island, i.e. in the oxide covering the island or in the substrate. In the former case we have roughly estimated a trap density of $`3\times 10^{10}\text{eV}^1\text{cm}^2`$, which compares very well with literature values.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Klaus Ensslin, Alexander B. Zorin, Blaise Jeanneret, Beat Jeckelmann and Felix Meli for valuable discussions and support.


text:
# Boundedness results for periodic points on algebraic varieties

## 1. Fintely generated fields

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`X`$ be a proper variety over a field $`K`$ which is finitely generated over the prime field and let $`f:XX`$ be a morphism.
(i)If char$`(K)=0`$ then the set of periods of all f-periodic points in $`X(K)`$ is finite.
(ii)If char$`(K)=p0`$ then the prime to $`p`$ parts of the set of periods is finite i.e. there exists $`n>0`$ such that all the $`f^n`$-periodic points in $`X(K)`$ have periods which are powers of $`p`$.

Many special cases of this result have been known for a long time, the first such being the theorem of Northcott \[5, Theorem 3\], proving the finiteness of the number of periodic points in certain cases. We refer the reader to  for a more detailed list of references.

###### Remark.

We do not know whether the periods can really be unbounded if $`char(K)>0`$.

The theorem is obvious if $`K`$ is a finite field and we will reduce the general case to this one by a specialization argument. A little thought shows that the following proposition suffices to prove the theorem.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`R`$ be a discrete valuation ring with quotient field $`K`$ and residue field $`k`$. Let $`𝒳`$ be a proper scheme of finite type over $`Spec(R)`$ and $`f:𝒳𝒳`$ an R-morphism. Assume that the conclusions of the theorem hold for $`f`$ restricted to the special fibre, and that for each $`n>0`$ there are only finitely many roots of unity contained in all extensions of $`k`$ of degree $`n`$. Then the same holds for $`f`$ restricted to the generic fibre, except possibly in the case $`char(K)=0`$ and $`char(k)=p>0`$, when the result holds modulo powers of $`p`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`p=1`$ if $`char(k)=0`$ . The hypotheses imply that by replacing $`f`$ with a suitable power we may assume that all the $`f`$-periodic points in $`𝒳(k)`$ have period a power of $`p`$. Let $`P`$ be a $`f`$-periodic point in $`𝒳(K)`$. By replacing $`f`$ by $`f^{p^n}`$, for some $`n`$ which may depend on $`P`$, we may assume that the specialization of $`P`$ in $`𝒳(k)`$ (which exists since $`𝒳`$ is proper) is a fixed point of $`f`$ restricted to the special fibre. Let $`𝒵`$ be the Zariski closure (with reduced scheme structure) of the $`f`$-orbit of $`P`$. $`𝒵`$ is finite over $`Spec(R)`$ with a unique closed point, hence is equal to $`Spec(A)`$ where $`A`$ is a finite, local $`R`$-algebra (with rank equal to the period of $`P`$) which, since $`A`$ is reduced, is torsion free as an $`R`$-module.

The key observation of the proof is that $`f`$ restricted to $`𝒵`$ induces an *automorphism* of finite order of $`A`$ (which we also denote by $`f`$): Since $`f`$ preserves the orbit of $`P`$ and $`𝒵`$ is reduced, it follows that $`f`$ induces a map from $`𝒵`$ to itself, hence an endomorphism of $`A`$. $`f^n`$ is the identity on the orbit of $`P`$ for some $`n>0`$, hence $`f^n`$ is the identity on $`A_RK`$. Since $`A`$ is torsion free, it follows that $`f^n`$ is the identity on $`A`$ as well.

Let $`m`$ be the maximal ideal of $`A`$. Since $`𝒵`$ is a closed subscheme of $`𝒳`$, it follows that the dimension of $`m/m^2`$ is bounded independently of $`P`$. By the hypothesis on roots of unity, we may replace $`f`$ by some power, independently of $`P`$, so that the endomorphism of $`m/m^2`$ induced by $`f`$ is the identity. Thus, $`f`$ is a unipotent map with respect to the (exhaustive) filtration of $`A`$ induced by powers of $`m`$. This implies that the order of $`f`$, hence the period of $`P`$, is a power of $`p`$. ∎

###### Remarks.

(1) For any explicitly given example, the proof furnishes an effective method for computing a bound for the periods. (2) In the non-proper case one can prove the following result by the methods of this paper: Let $`S`$ be a flat, separated, integral scheme of finite type over $`𝐙`$, let $`𝒳`$ be a separated scheme of finite type over $`S`$ and let $`f:𝒳𝒳`$ be an $`S`$-morphism. If one defines the notion of $`f`$-periodic points and periods for elements of $`𝒳(S)`$ in the obvious way, then the set of periods is again bounded. (3) One may also ask whether Theorem 1 itself holds without the assumption of properness, for example when $`X`$ is arbitrary but $`f`$ is finite. The results of Flynn-Poonen-Schaefer  may be viewed as some positive evidence, however, aside from this we do not have many other examples (however see Theorem 3). If true, this would imply the uniform boundedness of torsion of abelian varieties and other similar conjectures.

In general the set of periodic points is of course not finite. However, one can often use some geometric arguments to deduce finiteness of the number of periodic points from Theorem 1 as in the following:

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`X`$ be a proper variety over a finitely generated field $`K`$ of characteristic zero and $`f:XX`$ a morphism. Suppose that there does not exist any positive dimensional subvariety $`Y`$ of $`X`$ such that $`f`$ induces an automorphism of finite order of $`Y`$. Then the number of $`f`$-periodic points in $`X(K)`$ is finite.

###### Proof.

Theorem 1 implies that $`f`$ induces an automorphism of finite order on the closure of the set of $`f`$-periodic points in $`X(K)`$. ∎

The following gives a useful method for checking the hypothesis of the previous lemma.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`X`$ be a projective variety over a field $`K`$ and $`f:XX`$ a morphism. Suppose there exists a line bundle $`L`$ on $`X`$ such that $`f^{}(L)L^1`$ is ample. Then there is no positive dimensional subvariety $`Y`$ of $`X`$ such that $`f`$ induces an automorphism of finite order of $`Y`$.

###### Proof.

By replacing $`X`$ by $`f^n(X)`$ for some large $`n`$, we may assume that $`f`$ is a finite morphism. Suppose there exists a $`Y`$ as above and assume that $`f^m|Y`$ is the identity of $`Y`$. Then

$$f^m(L)L^1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m1}{}}f_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}(f^{}(L)L^1)$$

By assumption $`f^{}(L)L^1`$ is ample so $`f^m(L)L^1`$, being a tensor product of ample bundles, is also ample. But $`f^m(L)L^1|_Y`$ is trivial, so it follows that $`Y`$ must be $`0`$-dimensional. ∎

In case $`L`$ is also ample, finiteness can also be proved using heights, see for example . One advantage of our method is that it applies also when $`f`$ is an automorphism, in which case an ample $`L`$ as above can never exist. Using this, one can extend the finiteness results of Silverman  to apply to all automorphisms $`f`$ of projective algebraic varieties $`X`$ for which $`1`$ is not an eigenvalue of $`f^{}`$ on $`NS(X)_𝐐`$.

## 2. p-adic fields

Proposition 1 shows that one also has boundedness of periods for $`p`$-adic fields, upto powers of $`p`$, as long as the variety and the morphism extend to the ring of integers. We now show that in fact we can bound the extra powers of $`p`$.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`𝒪`$ be the ring of integers in $`K`$, a finite extension of $`𝐐_p`$, and let $`𝒳`$ be a proper scheme of finite type over $`Spec(𝒪)`$. Then there exist a constant $`M>0`$ such that for any $`𝒪`$-morphism $`f:𝒳𝒳`$, the periods of the $`f`$-periodic points of $`𝒳(K)`$ are all less than $`M`$.

If $`X`$ is any variety over a finite field $`k`$ then it is clear that a statement analogous to the theorem holds for $`X(k)`$: since this is a finite set the periods are bounded above by $`|X(k)|`$, and hence are bounded independently of the morphism. To bound the powers of $`p`$ that occur, one sees from the proof of Proposition 1 that it is enough to prove the following:

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`𝒪`$ be the ring of integers in $`K`$, a discrete valuation ring of characteristic zero with residue field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$. Let $`(A,m)`$ be a local sub-$`𝒪`$-algebra of $`𝒪^{p^n}`$ of rank $`p^n`$ which is preserved by the automorphism $`\sigma `$ given by cyclic permutation of the coordinates. Furthermore, assume that $`\sigma `$ acts trivially on $`m/m^2`$. Then $`n<r=\nu (p)`$ if $`p>2`$ and $`nr`$ if $`p=2`$, where $`\nu `$ is the normalized valuation on $`K`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`nr`$ if $`p>2`$ and $`n>r`$ if $`p=2`$. Since $`\sigma `$ acts trivially on $`m/m^2`$, it follows that $`\sigma ^{p^t}`$ acts trivially on $`m/m^{t+2}`$ for all $`t0`$. Thus, by replacing $`A`$ by a quotient algebra corresponding to the Zariski closure in $`Spec(A)`$ of the $`\sigma ^{p^{n1}}`$ orbit of any $`𝒪`$ valued point, we obtain a local rank $`p`$ subalgebra of $`𝒪^p`$ which is stable under (the new) $`\sigma `$ and such that $`\sigma `$ acts trivially on $`m/m^{r+1}`$ ($`m/m^{r+2}`$ if $`p=2`$).

For $`a`$ in $`A`$ we denote by $`\nu (a)`$ the *minimum* of the valuations of the coordinates. Let

$$U(m)=\{am|\nu (a_i)\nu (a_j)\text{ for some }i,j\}$$

and let

$$P(m)=\{aU(m)|\nu (a)\nu (b)\text{ for all }bU(m)\}.$$

Suppose $`\nu (a)=1`$ for $`aP(m)`$. Since $`P(m)U(m)`$, it follows that $`\nu (\sigma ^s(a)a)=1`$ for some $`s`$, which in turn implies that $`\sigma ^s(a)am^2`$. This is a contradiction, hence $`\nu (a)>1`$ for all $`aP(m)`$. Also, one easily sees that any element of $`m`$ can be written as $`a=x+b`$ with $`x\pi 𝒪`$ and $`bU(m)\{0\}`$, where $`\pi `$ in $`𝒪`$ is a uniformizing parameter.

Now let $`aP(m)`$ and consider $`\sigma (a)a`$. Letting $`t=r+1`$ if $`p>2`$ and $`t=r+2`$ if $`p=2`$, we see that

$$\sigma (a)a=\underset{i}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}(x_{i,j}+b_{i,j}),$$

with $`x_{i,j}\pi 𝒪`$ and $`b_{i,j}U(m)\{0\}`$. Expanding the products and using the fact that $`\nu (b_{i,j})>1`$, we see that

$$\sigma (a)a=x+\underset{k}{}z_kd_k\text{ mod }\pi ^{\nu (a)+t},$$

with $`x,z_k\pi ^{t1}𝒪`$ and $`d_kP(m)`$. Further, using the fact that $`a`$ is in $`U(m)`$, one sees that $`\nu (x)=\nu (\sigma (a)a)=\nu (a)`$. Thus, we get

(1)
$$0=\sigma ^p(a)a=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}\sigma ^i(\sigma (a)a)=px+\underset{k}{}z_k(\underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}\sigma ^i(d_k))\text{ mod }\pi ^{\nu (a)+t}.$$

Now the $`d_k`$’s are also in $`P(m)`$, so we have

$$\sigma (d_k)d_k=w_k\text{ mod }\pi ^{\nu (a)+t1},$$

with $`w_k`$ in $`\pi ^t𝒪`$. This implies that

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{p1}{}}\sigma ^i(d_k)=pd_k+\frac{(p1)p}{2}w_k\text{ mod }\pi ^{\nu (a)+t1}.$$

Substituting this in equation (1) (using that the $`z_k`$’s are in $`\pi 𝒪`$) we get

$$px+\underset{k}{}z_k(pd_k+\frac{(p1)p}{2}w_k)=0\text{ mod }\pi ^{\nu (a)+t}.$$

We have $`\nu (x)=\nu (a)=\nu (d_k)=\nu (w_k)`$, $`\nu (z_k)t1`$ and $`\nu (p)=r`$. By the choice of $`t`$ it follows that the only term in the above equation with valuation less than or equal to $`\nu (a)+r`$ is $`px`$. This is a contradiction since $`t>r`$. ∎

###### Remark.

The assumption of properness is used only to guarantee the existence of specializations. If we consider an arbitrary separated scheme $`𝒳`$ of finite type over $`Spec(𝒪)`$, then we obtain boundedness of the periods for the set of periodic points in $`𝒳(𝒪)`$.

Theorem 2 can be extended to the case of some birational maps; this can be used to extend to the $`p`$-adic case some of the results of S. Marcello  on automorphisms of affine spaces. For $`X`$ a variety over a field $`K`$ and $`f:XX`$ a rational map, we will say that $`PX(K)`$ is *f-periodic* if $`f`$ is defined at $`P,f(P),f^2(P),\mathrm{}`$ and $`f^n(P)=P`$ for some $`n>0`$.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`𝒪`$ be the ring of integers in $`K`$, a finite extension of $`𝐐_p`$, and let $`𝒳`$ be a proper integral scheme of finite type over $`Spec(𝒪)`$. Then there exist a constant $`M>0`$ such that for any birational map $`f:𝒳𝒳`$ with $`Z(f^n)Z(f^n)=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`n>0`$ the periods of the $`f`$-periodic points of $`𝒳(K)`$ are all less than $`M`$. Here for any $`m𝐙`$, $`Z(f^m)`$ denotes the exceptional locus of $`f^m`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is essentially the same as that of Theorem 2: Let $`𝒵`$ be the Zariski closure (with the reduced induced structure) of the orbit of a periodic point in $`P𝒳(K)`$. We cannot conclude as before that $`f`$ induces an automorphism of $`𝒵`$, but the assumptions imply that if $`𝒵_1`$ is a connected component of $`𝒵`$, then for all $`n`$ such that $`f^n(𝒵_1(K))𝒵_1(K)\mathrm{}`$, $`f^n`$ does induce an automorphism of $`𝒵_1`$. Since the residue field of $`𝒪`$ is finite, the number of connected components of $`𝒵`$ is bounded independently of $`f`$ and $`P`$. This allows us to apply Proposition 2 and the method of Proposition 1 to conclude the proof. ∎

###### Remark.

In the published version of this paper it was remarked that one could use the boundedness of periods for actions of algebraic groups to prove boundedness of periods for all automorphisms of affine space. However this was based on a misreading by the author of the results of Shafarevich  so that remark is not valid.

It is not difficult to construct examples of self-maps of varieties over any $`p`$-adic field $`K`$ for which the periods are not bounded, however in all such examples known to the author the set of $`\overline{K}`$-valued periodic points with a given period $`n`$ is infinite for some $`n`$. This suggests the following:

###### Question 1.

Let $`f:XX`$ be a self-map of an algebraic variety over a $`p`$-adic field $`K`$ and suppose that the set of $`\overline{K}`$-valued periodic points of period $`n`$ is finite for all integers $`n`$. Then is it true that the set of $`K`$-valued periodic points is finite?

A weaker question which seems likely to have a positive answer is:

###### Question 2.

Let $`f:XX`$ be a self-map of an algebraic variety over a number field $`K`$ and suppose that the set of $`\overline{K}`$-valued periodic points of period $`n`$ is finite for all integers $`n`$. Then is it true that the set of $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$-valued periodic points is finite for all but finitely many places $`\mathrm{}`$ of $`K`$?

*Acknowledgements.* I would like to thank Bjorn Poonen and Ramesh Sreekantan for some interesting conversations and helpful correspondence.