text:
# 4He decay of excited states in 14C

## I Introduction

The study of clustering within nuclei has received renewed interest in the light of the potential impact that the underlying cluster structure has on valence particles, particularly in neutron-rich nuclei. The nucleus 8Be has a pronounced $`\alpha `$-$`\alpha `$ cluster structure, as evidenced by the deformed rotational band built on the ground state and the large $`\alpha `$-particle decay width Buc77 ; Hiu72 . Thus, the wave-functions of neutrons introduced into this system are markedly affected by the two-centre nature of the underlying potential. This situation is reminiscent of the atomic binding of covalent molecules where electrons move in multi-centre orbits characterised by the locations of the nuclei. For example, in the binding of O2 the valence electrons reside in orbits with $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$-character, since such orbits result from the linear combination of $`p`$-type orbits which the atomic electrons occupy. Similarly, valence neutrons in the neutron-rich Be isotopes could occupy $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$-type orbits given that when separated the neutrons would reside in orbits in the helium nuclei with $`p`$-type characteristics.

Indeed, these ideas have been developed considerably in the case of the Be isotopes and there appears to be reasonably good evidence for states with both the $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ characteristics in 9Be and 10Be von96 ; von97 ; von97a . There is also tentative evidence for the extension of these ideas to 11Be von96 ; von97 ; von97a  and 12Be Fre99 ; Fre01 . Somewhat remarkably these characteristics are also found in the calculations using the Antisymmetrised Molecular Dynamics (AMD) framework, a model which in principle contains no explicit cluster, or molecular, content Dot97 ; Kan99 ; Kan02 .

An extension to such ideas is the formation of three-centre molecules, principally formed from three $`\alpha `$-particles, i.e. 12C. However, the building block for such linear molecules, the 3$`\alpha `$ chain state remains to be experimentally observed. There has been a long association between the 7.65 MeV (0+) state and the chain configuration. However, it is now generally accepted, due to the lack of experimental evidence for a rotational 2+ state, that this state is probably linked with a triangular arrangement of the three clusters Fed96 . The next possible candidate for the chain is the 10.3 MeV state. However, this resonance is broad and lies in a region where the spectroscopy of 12C is extremely complex. Hence, there is no convincing evidence for the existence of the 3$`\alpha `$-chain. Indeed, molecular orbit model (MO) calculations, which reproduce well the properties of 10Be Ita00 , have found that the 3$`\alpha `$ state is unstable against the bending mode Ita01 . The same calculations Ita01 ; Ita02  suggest that the introduction of valence neutrons may stabilize the chain structure.

The present paper presents an experimental study of the 7Li(9Be,14C$`^{10}`$Be+$`\alpha `$)2H reaction, in which the $`\alpha `$-decays of 14C excited states both to the 10Be ground state and excited states are observed. These 10Be states have previously been characterised in terms of their molecular structure von96 ; von97 ; von97a .

## II Experimental Details

The measurements were performed at the Australian National University’s 14UD tandem accelerator facility. A 70 MeV 9Be beam, of intensity 3 enA, was incident on a 100 $`\mu `$g cm-2 Li2O3 foil. The integrated beam exposure was 0.45 mC.

Reaction products formed in reactions of the 9Be beam with the target were detected in an array of four charged particle telescopes. These telescopes contained three elements which allowed the detection of a wide range of particle types, from protons to $`Z`$=4 to 5 nuclei. The first elements were thin, 70$`\mu `$m, 5$`\times `$5 cm2 silicon detectors segmented into four smaller squares (quadrants). The second elements were position-sensitive strip detectors with the same active area as the quadrant detectors, but divided into 16 position-sensitive strips. These strips were arranged so that the position axis gave maximum resolution in the measurement of scattering angles. Finally, 2.5 cm thick CsI detectors were used to stop highly penetrating light particles. These detector telescopes provided charge and mass resolution up to Be, allowing the final states of interest to be unambiguously identified. The position and energy resolution of the telescopes was $``$1 mm and 300 keV, respectively. Calibration of the detectors was performed using elastic scattering measurements of 9Be from 197Au and 12C targets. The four telescopes were arranged in a cross-like arrangement, separated by azimuthal angles of 90 degrees. Two opposing detectors were located with their centres at 17.3 and 17.8 degrees (detectors 1 and 2) from the beam axis and with the strip detector 130 mm from the target, whilst the remaining pair were at the slightly larger angles of 28.6 and 29.7 degrees (detectors 3 and 4), 136 mm from the target.

## III Results

The resolution of 4He and 10Be locii in the spectra of the particle identification telescopes, and the measurement of the energies and angles of these detected particles permitted the kinematics of the 7Li(9Be,10Be$`\alpha `$)2H reaction (Q=-1.91 MeV) to be fully reconstructed. Figure 1 shows the total energy spectrum ($`E_{tot}=E_{Be}+E_\alpha +E_d`$) for the two smaller angle detectors (1 and 2) for one of the two possible coincidence combinations. There are three clear peaks in this spectrum. The two highest energy peaks are separated by 3.4 MeV and the third by a further 2.6 MeV. These would thus correspond to all of the bound states in 10Be. The highest energy peak ($`E_{tot}`$ = 68.1 MeV) corresponds to the production of 10Be in the ground state, the next lower ($`E_{tot}`$ = 64.7 MeV) is the 3.4 MeV, 2+ excitation, and the lowest energy peak ($`E_{tot}`$ $``$ 62 MeV) in this total energy spectrum corresponds to the population of the 5.958 MeV (2+), 5.960 MeV (1-), 6.179 MeV (0+) and 6.263 MeV(2-) states, which are unresolved in the present spectrum given the energy separation is only $``$300 keV. The energy resolution in the total energy spectrum is $``$2.0 MeV, i.e. worse than the intrinsic energy resolution of the telescopes. This inferior resolution is due to the very light mass of the recoil particle, since a relative small uncertainty in the measured momenta of the reaction products translates into a large uncertainty in the energy of the unobserved deuteron. Nevertheless, the resolution is sufficient to resolve the 10Be spectrum into three components; the ground state, the 2+ state and the group of states at $``$6 MeV. The spectrum also shows a broad bump at higher total energies, which has been identified as arising from 9Be+$`\alpha `$ coincidences from the 7Li(9Be,9Be$`\alpha `$)3H reaction leaking through the A=10 mass selection windows. This association has been confirmed by the analysis of this latter reaction using the appropriate particle masses. There is also a broad bump at lower energies which partially extends under the peaks. This contribution is from more complex final states (see later). Reactions from the oxygen and the inevitable carbon components in the targets have very negative Q-values ($`<`$-19 MeV) and are thus not represented in the present spectrum.

Given the measurement of the momenta of the two fragments, potentially from the decay of 14C, it is possible to reconstruct the excitation energy spectrum of this resonant particle. However, given that there are three particles in the final state it is possible that they can be produced via the decay of either 6Li into d+$`\alpha `$ or 12B into 10Be+d. Both of these possibilities were reconstructed and it is clear that there is no, or very little, contribution from either of these decay processes. Figure 2a shows the reconstructed 14C excitation energy spectrum for $`\alpha `$-decays to the 10Be ground state, for coincidences between the detectors 1 and 2. The spectrum shows a series of excited states between 14 and 22 MeV. The spectrum for detectors 3 and 4 covers the excitation energy range 18 to 32 MeV, and shows little evidence for states beyond 19.8 MeV, indicating that the decay strength is located at the lower excitation energies. The energies of the peaks are listed in Table 1. It is possible that some of the peaks in these spectra correspond to multiple states, however with the present excitation energy resolution ($``$300 keV) and statistics it is not possible to be sure if the non-gaussian peak shapes are due to multiple states or statistical fluctuations.

Figure 2b corresponds to $`\alpha `$-decays to the 10Be$`(2^+)`$ state as measured by the small angle detector pair. Again, the spectrum for the large angle detectors covers a higher excitation energy region 20 to 34 MeV and shows no evidence of additional structures beyond those observed in Figure 2b. Once again, a series of excited states are observed several of which coincide with those that were observed to decay to the 10Be ground state. Finally, the $`\alpha `$-decay spectrum for decays to the peak at $``$6 MeV in Figure 1 is shown in Figure 2c. There is an absolute uncertainty in the excitation energy scale of 300 keV in this instance given that it is not known which of the four 10Be excited states are observed, indeed a combination may be involved. Thus, an excitation energy of 6 MeV has been assumed for 10Be in this instance.

Many of the states observed in the present study have possible counterparts in the present energy level compilation for this nucleus Ajz91 , as indicated in Table 1. For example, the states at 14.7, 15.5 and 16.4 MeV have all been observed in a study of the 9Be(6Li,p)14C reaction Ajz73 . This reaction is very similar to the present one and is almost certainly compound in nature, with the evaporation of a proton leading to the formation of 14C. In the present case, there is also evidence for a compound population mechanism as when reconstruction of the 14C excitation energy spectrum is performed for the background bump at low total energies in Figure 1, excited states in 14C may be observed. This may be explained if the reaction proceeds via the 16N compound nucleus with the sequential emission of a proton and neutron to form excited states in 14C which then subsequently $`\alpha `$-decay. Unfortunately, since it is not possible to identify the excitation energy of the 10Be for this process it is not possible to determine the excitation energy of the 14C states populated via the n and p sequential emission process. An analysis of the angular distributions and angular correlations for the states observed in Figure 2 using the techniques given in Fre96  was performed, but these were found to be essentially featureless, a consequence of the number of reaction amplitudes contributing to the reaction process due to the presence of non zero spin particles in the entrance and exit channels. Thus it is not possible to infer the spins of these states using this reaction. The present measurements do however provide the first observation of $`\alpha `$-decaying states in this nucleus.

An interesting feature of the data is that the 14C states which decay to the ground state and the 10Be first 2+ state appear to be the same, with the 18.5 and 19.8 MeV states appearing in both spectra. On the other hand, decays to the 6 MeV states in 10Be appear not to coincide despite there being an overlap in the excitation energy spectra of Figures 2b and 2c. There, would thus appear to be a preference for the decay of the lower excitation energy states in 14C to either the 10Be ground or first excited state, whilst the higher lying states (22.4 and 24.0 MeV) decay to the excited states at 6 MeV. In the absence of spin measurements, it is possible that the decay systematics reflect changing angular momentum barriers corresponding to decays to states of differing spins. However, the decay systematics do appear to be more complex than can be described by such a picture. As stated above, the decays to the 10Be ground state and 2+ (3.4 MeV) state appear to be similar and thus are largely unaffected by the change in the decay barrier. The decays to the 2+,1-,0+,2- quartet at $``$6MeV, which would sample similar differences in the angular momenta barriers, highlights different states. This property, as for example is the case of excited states in 20Ne Hin83 ; Bro84  and 24Mg Led84 , may rather be a reflection of changing structural overlap of the states in 14C with those in 10Be. This difference may perhaps be understood in terms of the structural content of the various 10Be states. In a shell model description the 10Be ground state and first excited state correspond to the occupation of the $`p_{3/2}`$ orbit for the two valence neutrons. On the other hand, the 6 MeV states require the excitation of one or more of the neutrons to the $`sd`$ shell von96 ; von97 ; von97a . In the MO Ita00  and AMD Kan99  calculations that have been applied to 10Be the ground and the first $`2^+`$ state correspond to neutrons in $`\pi `$ like orbits, whereas the 6 MeV states require either two $`\sigma `$ neutrons ($`0_2^+`$) or combinations of $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi `$ like neutrons (1-, 2-). Thus, it is possible that the lower energy 14C excited states (14.7 to 21.4 MeV) are based upon neutrons in $`\pi `$-type molecular configurations, whereas the higher energy states (22.4 and 24.0 MeV) contain some $`\sigma `$-orbit parentage. However, it should be noted that there are some states which decay to the 2+ state that are not strongly observed in decays to the ground state (e.g. 21.4 MeV), and vice versa (20.6 MeV). This would indicate that other effects may play a role in these decay processes, for example angular momentum barriers and decay phase space. Whether these states correspond to single molecular type configurations related by rotational excitations is unclear, and require measurements of the spins of the states. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that these states are related to molecular chains in 14C.

## IV Summary

Measurements of the 7Li(9Be,4He10Be)2H reaction at $`E_{beam}`$=70 MeV provide evidence for a series of 14C excited states between 14 and 25 MeV. These studies were able to resolve decays to the various particle bound states in 10Be. The analysis indicates that decays to the 10Be ground state and the first $`2^+`$ state occur from the same states in 14C, whilst a distinct set of states decay to the excited states at $``$6 MeV. Given the proposed molecular content of the states in 10Be it is speculated that those in 14C may also contain molecular characteristics. More definitive evidence will be provided by future measurements capable of determining the spins of these excited states.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of ANU personnel in running the accelerator. This work was carried out under a formal agreement between the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Australian National University. PJL, BJG and KLJ would like to acknowledge the EPSRC for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Noise in an insect outbreak model

## I Introduction

Recently, Nonlinear dynamical systems with random noise have been paid much attention both theoretically and experimentally. Phenomena such as noise-induced transitions, stochastic resonance, resonant activation, noise-induced spatial patterns are a few examples of extensive investigations . In most of these areas the noise affects the dynamics through system variables, i.e., the noise is multiplicative in nature . The focal theme of these types investigation is the steady state properties of systems in which the fluctuations, generally applied from outside, are considered, independent of the system’s characteristic dissipation. On the level of a Langevin-type description of a dynamical system, the presence of noise can change the dynamics of the system . Noise processes have found applications in a broad range of studies, such as the steady state properties of a single mode laser , bistable kinetics , directed motion in spatially symmetric periodic potentials , stochastic resonance in linear systems , and steady state entropy production . In this paper we study an insect outbreak model in the presence of the correlated noise, and show how noise can dynamically affect the ecosystem.

## II An Insect Outbreak Model: Spruce Budworm

A practical model which exhibits two positive linearly steady state populations is that for the spruce budworm, which can, with ferocous efficiency, defoliate the balsam fir. They are major problem in Canada , Ludwing  (1978) considered the budworm population dynamics to be governed by the equation

$$\frac{dN}{dt}=r_BN(1\frac{N}{k_B})P(N).$$
(1)
Here $`r_B`$ is the linear birth rate of the budworm and $`K_B`$ is carrying capacity which is related to the density of the foliage available on trees. The $`P(N)`$ term represents predation, generated by birds. We take the form for $`P(N)`$ suggested by Ludwing (1978), namely $`BN^2/(A^2+N^2)`$, where $`A`$ is a positive constant and $`B`$ represents the predation rate of the birds. The dynamics of $`N(t)`$ is then governed by

$$\frac{dN}{dt}=r_BN(1\frac{N}{k_B})\frac{BN^2}{A^2+N^2}.$$
(2)
Before analysing the model we will express it in nondimensional terms. Here we introduce nondimensional quantities by

$$x=\frac{N}{A},r=Ar_B,q=\frac{K_B}{A},\tau =\frac{t}{A},\beta =B.$$
(3)
Upon on substitution (2) becomes

$$\frac{dx}{d\tau }=rx(1\frac{x}{q})\frac{\beta x^2}{1+x^2}.$$
(4)
Now, if some environmental external disturbances make both the birth rate and the predation rate fluctuate, it is likely to affect $`r`$ and $`\beta `$ in the form of multiplicative noises that are connected through a correlation parameter $`\lambda `$. As a result we have

$$\frac{dx}{d\tau }=rx(1\frac{x}{q})\frac{\beta x^2}{1+x^2}+x(1\frac{x}{q})\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\frac{x^2}{1+x^2}\xi (t).$$
(5)
Where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ and $`\xi (t)`$are Gaussian white noises with the following properties:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\xi (t)=0,$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)=2D\delta (ts),$$
(7)
$$\xi (t)\xi (s)=2\sigma \delta (ts),$$
(8)
$$\xi (t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\xi (s)=2\lambda \sqrt{D\sigma }\delta (ts).$$
(9)
Where $`D`$ and $`\sigma `$ are the strength of noise $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ and $`\xi (t)`$, respectively, and $`\lambda `$ denotes the degree of correlation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)`$ and $`\xi (t)`$ with $`0\lambda 1`$.
We can derive the corresponding Fokker-planck equation for evolution of Steady Probability Distribution (SPDF) based on Eq. (5)-Eq.(9). The equation is as follows

$$\frac{P(x,t)}{t}=\frac{A(x)P(x,t)}{x}+\frac{^2B(x)P(x,t)}{x^2},$$
(10)
where

$$A(x)=h(x)+Dg_1(x)g_1^{^{}}(x)+\lambda \sqrt{D\sigma }g_1(x)g_2^{^{}}(x)+\lambda \sqrt{D\sigma }g_1^{^{}}(x)g_2(x)+\sigma g_2(x)g_2^{^{}}(x),$$
(11)
$$B(x)=Dg_1^2(x)+2\lambda \sqrt{D\sigma }g_1(x)g_2(x)+\sigma g_2^2(x).$$
(12)
Here $`h(x)=rx(1\frac{x}{q})\frac{\beta x^2}{1+x^2}`$, $`g_1(x)=x(1x/q)`$, $`g_2(x)=\frac{x^2}{1+x^2}`$. The steady probability distribution of the Fokker-Planck equation is given by

$$P_{st}(x)=\frac{N_0}{B(x)}\mathrm{exp}[^x\frac{A(x^{^{}})}{B(x^{^{}})}𝑑x^{^{}}].$$
(13)
Where $`N_0`$ is the normalization constant.

## III The fluctuation of birth rate in the model

If we only consider the fluctuation of birth rate on the model, namely $`\sigma =0`$ and $`\lambda =0`$, we can get

$$A(x)=rx(1\frac{x}{q})\frac{\beta x^2}{1+x^2}+Dx(1\frac{x}{q})(1\frac{2x}{q}),$$
(14)
$$B(x)=D[x(1\frac{x}{q})]^2.$$
(15)
From Eq. (13), using the forms of $`A(x)`$ and $`B(x)`$, we get the following integral forms of the SPDF .

$$P_{st}(x)=\frac{N_0}{|g_1(x)|}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{f(x)}{D}].$$
(16)
Here

$$g_1(x)=x(1\frac{x}{q}),$$
(17)
$$f(x)=r\mathrm{ln}|\frac{x}{xq}|+\frac{\beta q^2}{1+q^2}(\mathrm{arctan}x+\frac{1}{xq})+\frac{2\beta q^3}{(1+q^2)^2}(\mathrm{ln}|\frac{xq}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}|q\mathrm{arctan}x).$$
(18)
The extrema of the SPDF are calculated using the condition $`A(x)B^{^{}}(x)=0`$

$$r(1\frac{x}{q})\frac{\beta }{1+x^2}D(1\frac{x}{q})(1\frac{2x}{q})=0.$$
(19)
As for the parameters of the above equations we adopt $`r=1.0,q=10.0,\beta =2.0`$, The results are represented in Fig.1-Fig.2

In Fig.1, for zero noise strength, the curve at $`r=1.0`$ gives only one $`x`$ value, but as the value of $`D`$ increases, the curve changes. The curve shows three $`x`$ values at $`r=1.0`$. From the figure we can see that the noise strength can change the state of the system.

In Fig.2 we show the effect of the noise strength $`D`$ on the SPDF. For a small value of $`D`$, the SPDF shows a single peak region, which changes for larger values of $`D`$ (see Fig.2). As the value of $`D`$ increases, the peak for the larger values of $`x`$ decreases. At the same time, for small values of $`x`$, a new peak appears. It can be said that the noise causes the system become from two states to one state, namely noise can induce a phase transition. On the other hand, since $`x`$, $`D`$ give the relative budworm population and the fluctuation of the budworm’s birth rate, respectively, we can see from the figure the effect the fluctuation of the birth rate makes on the growth of budworms, they can even make the budworms go into extinction.

## IV The fluctuations of the predation rate in the model

On the other hand, if only the fluctuation of predation rate is investigated, namely $`D=0`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ we can get the stationary probability distribution function similar to Eq.(14)

$$P_{st}(x)=\frac{N_0}{|g_2(x)|}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{f(x)}{\sigma }],$$
(20)
Where

$$g_2(x)=\frac{x^2}{1+x^2},$$
(21)
$$f(x)=\frac{r}{3q}x^3+\frac{r}{2}x^2(\beta +\frac{2r}{q})x+2r\mathrm{ln}x+(\beta +\frac{r}{q})x^1\frac{r}{2}x^2.$$
(22)
In order to discuss the effect of the fluctuation of the predation rate on the system we adopt $`r=1.0,q=10.0,\beta =2.26`$, the results are shown in Fig.3.

Fig. 3 shows the effect of the noise strength $`\sigma `$ on the SPDF. For a small value of $`\sigma `$, the SPDF shows the typical bistable region (see Fig.3) which vanishes for large values of $`\sigma `$. As the value of $`\sigma `$ increases the peak at the small $`x`$ value decreases drastically, while for a large $`\sigma `$ value the curve has a single peak at the large $`x`$ value . Since $`x`$ denotes the budworm relative population, it is clear from Fig.3 that, with an increase in the fluctuations of the predation rate, the budworm recover from going into extinction.

## V Effect of noise correlation in the system

Since the two type of fluctuations have the common origin, (environmental external disturbance), we will consider the effect of the correlation between the birth rate fluctuation and the predation rate fluctuation. Based on Eq. (10)-Eq. (13) the stationary probabilities distribution function is represented by Fig. 4 with $`r=1.0`$, $`\beta =2.0`$, $`D=0.3`$, $`\sigma =0.3`$.

Fig. 4 gives the effect of noise correlation parameter $`\lambda `$ on SPDF. For a small $`\lambda `$ value the SPDF shows a typical bistable region which will vanish for the large value of $`\lambda `$. As the correlation parameter increases the height of the peak on the small $`x`$ value decreases, while the height of the peak on the large $`x`$ value increases, namely probabilities flow from the small $`x`$ value to the large $`x`$ value. Since $`x`$ denotes the budworm relative population, it is clear from Fig. 4 that the correlation of the noises is a advantageous factor for the growth of the budworm.

## VI Summary

In this paper, we studied the steady state properties of an insect outbreak model in the presence of the correlated noise. Birth rate fluctuation, predation rate fluctuation and the correlation of the noises are investigated. Birth rate fluctuation work against the growth of the budworm population, while both fluctuation of the predation rate and the correlation of the noises can prevent the budworm population from going into extinction. On the other hand, noise can dynamically affect the ecosystem. The noise from the birth rate fluctuation can make the system change from a single steady state to a bistable state, while noise from the predation rate fluctuation induces the system change from a bistable state to a single steady state. Thus in the insect outbreak model, noise from the fluctuation of the parameters can induce a phase transition. This viewpoint is completely novel in the traditional viewpoint it is the stochastic force that disturbs the phase transition.

Acknowledgements
The project supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. of 10275099) and GuangDong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. of 021707 and 001182).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Higgs mechanism  plays a central role in the unification of the electromagnetic and weak interactions by providing mass to the $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}`$ intermediate vector bosons without violating local gauge invariance. Within the Standard Model , the Higgs mechanism is invoked to break the electroweak symmetry; it implies the existence of a single neutral scalar particle, the Higgs boson. The mass of this particle is not specified, but indirect experimental limits are obtained from precision measurements of the electroweak parameters which depend logarithmically on the Higgs boson mass through radiative corrections. Currently these measurements predict that the Standard Model Higgs boson mass is $`m_\mathrm{H}=81_{33}^{+52}`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and constrain its value to less than 193 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ at the 95% confidence level .

The data collected by the four LEP collaborations prior to the year 2000 gave no direct indication of the production of the Standard Model Higgs boson  and allowed a lower bound of 107.9 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ to be set, at the 95% confidence level, on the mass. During the last year of the LEP programme (the year 2000), substantial data samples were collected at centre-of-mass energies exceeding 206 GeV, extending the search sensitivity to Higgs boson masses of about 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ through the Higgsstrahlung process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$ HZ. In their initial analyses of the full data sets, ALEPH  observed an excess of events consistent with the production of a Standard Model Higgs boson with a mass of 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$; L3  and OPAL , while being consistent with the background hypothesis, slightly favoured the signal plus background hypothesis in this mass region; DELPHI  reported a slight deficit with respect to the background expectation. The final results from the four collaborations have now been published . These are based on final calibrations of the detectors and LEP beam energies and, in some cases, on revised analysis procedures. In this paper we present the results from a LEP-wide combination based on these new publications. The data span the range of centre-of-mass energies ($`\sqrt{s}`$ ) from 189 GeV to 209 GeV. The integrated luminosities of the data samples are given in Table 1 for the full range of energies used and for the subset with energies larger than 206 GeV.

We also present upper bounds on the HZZ coupling for non-standard models with various assumptions concerning the decay of the Higgs boson. In order to cover the low-mass domain, the data collected during the LEP1 phase at the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ resonance are combined with LEP2 data.

## 2 Analysis and combination procedure

At LEP, the Standard Model Higgs boson is expected to be produced mainly in association with the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ boson through the Higgsstrahlung process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}`$$`\mathrm{Z}`$ . Small additional contributions are expected at the end of the kinematic range of the Higgsstrahlung process from $`\mathrm{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}`$ boson fusion, which produce a Higgs boson and a pair of neutrinos or electrons, respectively, in the final state . The signal processes are simulated using the HZHA generator , which includes the fusion processes and their interference with the HZ final states. For Higgs boson masses which are relevant at LEP, the Standard Model Higgs boson is expected to decay mainly into $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ quark pairs (the branching ratio is 74% for a mass of 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$) while decays to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, WW, gg ($``$ 7% each), and $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ ($``$ 4%) constitute the rest of the decay width. The final-state topologies are determined by the decay properties of the Higgs boson and by those of the associated $`\mathrm{Z}`$ boson. The searches at LEP encompass the four-jet final state ($`\mathrm{H}`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$)(Z$``$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$), the missing energy final state ($`\mathrm{H}`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$)(Z$``$$`\nu \overline{\nu }`$), the leptonic final state ($`\mathrm{H}`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$)(Z$``$$`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$) where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an electron or a muon, and the tau lepton final states ($`\mathrm{H}`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$)(Z$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$) and ($`\mathrm{H}`$$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$)(Z$``$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$).

A preselection is applied by each experiment to reduce some of the main backgrounds, in particular from two-photon processes and from the radiative return to the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ boson, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{Z}`$$`\gamma (\gamma )`$. The remaining background, mainly from fermion pairs and $`\mathrm{WW}`$ or ZZ production, possibly with photon or gluon radiation, is further reduced either with the help of more selective cuts or by applying multivariate techniques such as likelihood analyses and neural networks. The identification of b-quarks in the decay of the Higgs boson plays an important role in the discrimination between signal and background, as does the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate mass. The detailed implementation of these analyses by the different experiments is described in Refs.  and in earlier references quoted therein.

The input from the four experiments which is used in the combination procedure is provided channel by channel. The word “channel” designates any subset of the data where a Higgs boson search has been carried out. These subsets may correspond to specific final-state topologies, to data sets collected at different centre-of-mass energies or to the subsets of data collected by different experiments. In most channels the input is binned in two variables: the reconstructed Higgs boson mass $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$, and a variable $`𝒢`$ which combines many event features such as b-tagging variables, likelihood functions or neural network outputs, which allow discrimination on a statistical basis between the Higgs boson signal and the background processes.

For each given channel and bin in the ($`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$, $`𝒢`$) plane, the experiments provide the number of selected data events, the number of expected background events, and the number of expected signal events for a set of hypothetical Higgs boson masses. The expected signal and background estimates make use of detailed Monte Carlo simulations carried out by each of the four experiments. These take into account all known experimental features such as the centre-of-mass energies and integrated luminosities of the data samples, cross-sections and decay branching ratios for the signal and background processes, selection efficiencies and experimental resolutions with possible non-Gaussian contributions. Systematic errors with their correlations are also evaluated. Since the simulations are done at fixed centre-of-mass energies and Higgs boson masses, interpolations are applied (see, for example, ) to obtain the rates and distributions for arbitrary energies and masses. In order to avoid problems which arise in some bins due to low Monte Carlo statistics, smoothing procedures are applied (see, for example, ) which combine the available information with the information in the neighbouring bins.

## 3 Hypothesis testing

The observed data configuration in the ($`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}},𝒢`$) plane is subjected to a likelihood ratio test of two hypothetical scenarios. In the background scenario it is assumed that the data receive contributions from the background processes only, while in the signal plus background scenario the contributions from a Standard Model Higgs boson of test mass $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ are assumed in addition. The expressions for the corresponding binned likelihoods $`_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$ are given in the Appendix.

In a search experiment, the likelihood ratio

$$Q=_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}/_\mathrm{b}$$
(1)
makes efficient use of the information contained in the event configuration. For convenience, the logarithmic form $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ is used as the test statistic since this quantity is approximately equal to the difference in $`\chi ^2`$ when the data configuration is compared to the background hypothesis and to the signal plus background hypothesis (it becomes exactly equal in the limit of high statistics). Furthermore, $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ can be written as a sum of contributions from the individual observed events (see Eq. (4) in the Appendix).

Figure 1 shows the test statistic $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ as a function of the test mass for the LEP-wide combination. The expected curves are obtained by replacing the observed data configuration by a large number of simulated event configurations for the two hypotheses. For the background hypothesis the 68% and 95% probability bands are also shown. There is a broad minimum in the observed $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ starting at about 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The negative values in this mass range indicate that the hypothesis including a Standard Model Higgs boson of such a mass is more favoured than the background hypothesis, albeit at low significance. Note also that the median expectation for the signal plus background hypothesis crosses the observed curve in this mass range. The fact that the observed curve slightly deviates from the background expectation over the whole mass range of the figure can also be explained by local upward fluctuations of the background and by long-range effects due to the experimental resolution.

In Figure 2 the likelihood test is applied to subsets of the LEP data from individual experiments and final-state topologies. A signal-like deviation beyond the 95% confidence level is only observed in the ALEPH data. For a given test mass, the distance between the background expectation and the signal plus background expectation, compared to their spreads, is a measure of the discriminating power of the corresponding data set. These figures thus illustrate the relative power of the subsets and the rapid decrease in discriminating power as the test mass approaches the kinematic limit of the HZ signal process. One should note that no individual LEP experiment has the statistical power to distinguish between the two hypotheses for a test mass larger than about 114 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ at the level of two standard deviations (see the intersections of the signal plus background curve with the lower edge of the light-shaded 95% confidence level bands). Regarding the final-state topologies, the combined LEP data in the four-jet channel have about the same discriminating power as all the other final states together. The comparison of Figures 1 and 2 illustrates the gain in sensitivity when the data of the four experiments are combined in all channels.

### 3.1 Contributions from single candidates

The contribution to the test statistic $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ from an individual candidate event can be evaluated using the binned likelihood functions that appear in the Appendix. We refer to this contribution as the event weight which, in simplified notation, can be written as $`\mathrm{ln}(1+s/b)`$, where $`s`$ and $`b`$ refer to the signal and background estimates in the bins of $`(m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}},𝒢)`$ where the events are reconstructed. The candidates which have the highest weight for a test mass of 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, chosen throughout this paper for the purpose of illustration, are listed in Table 2.

For these events, the evolution of $`\mathrm{ln}(1+s/b)`$ with test mass is shown in Figure 3. Typically, the weight is largest for $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ close to the reconstructed mass but there is also a sizeable weight over a large domain of test masses due to the experimental resolution, as mentioned before. For a test mass of 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the events listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3 contribute with about 40% to the total weight in the likelihood ratio. The distributions of event weights, shown in Figure 4 for two test masses, are in agreement with the expectation for the background hypothesis.

### 3.2 The reconstructed Higgs boson mass

The reconstructed Higgs boson mass $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is one of the crucial variables which contribute to the discrimination between the signal and the background and thus to the test statistic $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$. In Figure 5 the distributions for this important discriminating variable are shown at two levels of signal purity222These distributions do not enter directly into the hypothesis testing but have been produced to illustrate the level of agreement between the data and the Monte Carlo simulation.. There is a clear peak in the background prediction in the vicinity of $`m_\mathrm{Z}`$ due to the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$ ZZ background process which is reproduced by the data.

## 4 Results of the hypothesis testing

The expected distributions of the test statistic $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ from the combined LEP analysis are shown in Figure 6 for three test masses. These distributions, which can be thought of as “slices” of Figure 1 at the corresponding test masses, are probability density functions (PDF) for the background and the signal plus background hypotheses and include both the effects of random statistical variations in the numbers of events and the systematic uncertainties affecting the expected rates. Systematic uncertainties are incorporated by varying within the errors the signal and background estimates in each channel and evaluating for each variation the probabilities for the data configuration to occur. Correlations are addressed by choosing independent random fluctuations for each source of uncertainty and applying the changes coherently in those channels where they apply. The uncorrelated errors are dominated by the limited statistics of the simulated background event samples. Errors which are correlated between the experiments arise mainly from using the same Monte Carlo generators and cross-section calculations, for example for the signal processes. The three parts of Figure 6 demonstrate a significant discriminating power of the combined LEP data for $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=110 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, a moderate one for $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and the rapid decrease of the discriminating power towards the end of the investigated range, $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=120 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$.

The vertical line in each part of Figures 6 indicates the observed value of $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ for the corresponding test mass. Integrating the PDF for the background hypothesis from $`+\mathrm{}`$ to the observed value, one obtains the background confidence $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ which expresses the compatibility of the observation with the background hypothesis (also known as p-value, see Ref. ). For a large number of simulated measurements with no signal and given the background hypothesis, $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ is the probability to obtain a configuration of events which is less background-like (or more signal plus background-like) than the one observed. Similarly, integrating the PDF for the signal plus background hypothesis from the observed value of the test statistic to $`\mathrm{}`$, one obtains the confidence (p-value) $`\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$ which quantifies the compatibility with the signal plus background hypothesis.

Figure 7 shows the background confidence $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ for test masses in the range from 80 to 120 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. In the region $`m_\mathrm{H}`$$``$98 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ the value of about 0.02 translates into 2.3 standard deviations (see the Appendix for the conversion). Note that the number of signal events which would produce such a deviation from the background expectation is about an order of magnitude smaller than the number expected in the Standard Model for a Higgs boson of this mass. In the region of $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ above 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ the approximate value of 0.09 translates into 1.7 standard deviations from the background hypothesis. This deviation, although of low significance, is compatible with a Standard Model Higgs boson in this mass range while being also in agreement with the background hypothesis. Note that the value of $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ would change in this region from about 0.09 to about 0.08 if the systematic errors were ignored.

The dash-dotted line in Figure 7 shows the position of the minimum of the median expected $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ for the signal plus background hypothesis, when the signal mass given on the abscissa is tested. This line is an indication for the limiting sensitivity of the combined LEP data for detecting a Higgs boson signal. For example, in the case of a Higgs boson of mass 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, a minimum of about 0.008 would be expected.

Figure 8 shows $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ as a function of the test mass for subsets of the LEP data. The confidences $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$, for a test mass of 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, are listed in Table 3 for all LEP data combined and for various sub-samples.

## 5 Bounds for the Higgs boson mass and coupling

The ratio $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}/\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ as a function of the test mass, shown in Figure 9, is used to derive a lower bound on the Standard Model Higgs boson mass (see the Appendix). The lowest test mass giving $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}=0.05`$ is taken as the lower bound on the mass at the 95% confidence level.

The expected and observed lower bounds are listed in Table 4. The expected limits provide an indication of the relative sensitivities of the data subsets. The observed, combined, 95% confidence level lower bound on the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boson obtained at LEP is 114.4 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, while the median expected limit is 115.3 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The difference reflects the slight excess of the data with respect to the background expectation at high masses. The observed and the expected limits would shift upwards by about 50 MeV/$`c^2`$ if the systematic errors were ignored.

The combined LEP data are also used to set 95% confidence level upper bounds on the HZZ coupling in non-standard models. In the ratio $`\xi ^2=(g_{\mathrm{HZZ}}/g_{\mathrm{HZZ}}^{\mathrm{SM}})^2`$ the variable $`g_{\mathrm{HZZ}}`$ designates the non-standard HZZ coupling and $`g_{\mathrm{HZZ}}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ the same coupling in the Standard Model. In deriving the limits on $`\xi ^2`$, which cover a broad range of masses, the LEP1 data collected at the Z resonance  have been combined with LEP2 data taken at energies between 161 and 209 GeV. In part (a) of Figure 10 the Higgs boson is assumed to decay into fermions and bosons according to the Standard Model while the cross-sections for the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$ HZ and the fusion processes WW$``$ H and ZZ$``$ H are scaled with $`g_{\mathrm{HZZ}}^2`$. For masses below 12 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, not shown in the figure, the limits quoted in  apply. In parts (b) and (c) it is assumed that the Higgs boson decays exclusively into $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ or $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ pairs. In the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ case and for masses below 30 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the limit shown is provided by the search of Ref. .

## 6 Summary

Combining the final results from the four LEP experiments, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, a lower bound of 114.4 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is set on the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boson at the 95% confidence level. At the beginning of the LEP programme no solid limit existed for the mass of this particle .

At a mass of 115 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, where ALEPH reported an excess compatible with the production of the Standard Model Higgs boson, the confidence $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ of the combined LEP data expressing the level of consistency with the background hypothesis is 0.09, while the confidence $`\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$ measuring the consistency with the signal plus background hypothesis is 0.15.

The LEP1 and LEP2 data have been used in conjunction to set upper bounds on the HZZ coupling for a wide range of Higgs boson masses and for various assumptions concerning the Higgs boson decay properties.

The searches for the Standard Model Higgs boson carried out by the four LEP experiments extended the sensitive range well beyond that anticipated at the beginning of the LEP programme . This is due to the higher energy achieved and to more sophisticated detectors and analysis techniques.

Acknowledgements

We congratulate our colleagues from the CERN Accelerator Divisions for the successful running of the LEP collider, particularly in the year 2000 at the highest energies. We would also like to express our thanks to the engineers and technicians in all our institutions for their contributions to the excellent performance of the four LEP detectors. The LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches acknowledges the fruitful cooperation between the collaborations in developing the combination procedures and applying them to the LEP data.

Appendix: Statistical method

The test statistic adopted in the combination of LEP data  is $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ where $`Q`$ is the ratio of the likelihood function for the signal plus background hypothesis to the likelihood function for the background hypothesis,

$$Q(m_\mathrm{H})=\frac{_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}}{_\mathrm{b}}.$$
(2)
The binned likelihood functions are defined by

$$(\eta )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[(\eta s_k(m_\mathrm{H})+b_k)](\eta s_k(m_\mathrm{H})+b_k)^{n_k}}{n_k!}\times \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_k}{}}\frac{\eta s_k(m_\mathrm{H})S_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk};m_\mathrm{H})+b_kB_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk})}{\eta s_k(m_\mathrm{H})+b_k},$$
(3)
where $`\eta =1`$ in the case of $`_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\eta =0`$ in the case of $`_\mathrm{b}`$. The index $`k`$ runs over all independent contributions to the combined result: from different event topology selections, data taken at different centre-of-mass energies and data collected in different experiments. The symbol $`N`$ stands for the number of such contributions (“channels”); $`n_k`$ is the number of observed candidates in channel $`k`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}_{jk}`$ designates the position $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ of candidate $`j`$ of channel $`k`$ in the plane defined by the discriminating variables $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ and $`𝒢`$ (see Section 2). The quantities $`s_k(m_\mathrm{H})`$ and $`b_k`$ are the integrated signal and background rates in channel $`k`$. The functions $`S_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk};m_\mathrm{H})`$ and $`B_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk})`$ are the probability density functions (PDFs) of the discriminating variables for the signal and background. These PDFs are evaluated in bins of $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ and $`𝒢`$ for a set of values for $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ with some interpolation and smoothing procedures applied . The test statistic can be written

$$2\mathrm{ln}Q(m_\mathrm{H})=2\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[s_k(m_\mathrm{H})\underset{j=1}{\overset{n_k}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{s_k(m_\mathrm{H})S_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk};m_\mathrm{H})}{b_kB_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk})}\right)\right],$$
(4)
thus becoming a sum of contributions (weights) from the individual observed events.The above notation assumes that the background-related quantities $`b_k`$ and $`B_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk})`$ do not depend on $`m_\mathrm{H}`$. If the selection criteria in any one channel are explicitly $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ dependent (the searches of L3 and OPAL in the four-jet channel have this property), $`b_k`$ and $`B_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk})`$ have to be replaced by $`b_k(m_\mathrm{H})`$ and $`B_k(\stackrel{}{x}_{jk};m_\mathrm{H})`$.

The presence of a signal can be inferred from the behaviour of the confidence $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ for the background hypothesis (also called p-value, see Ref. ), which is obtained, for a given test mass, by integrating the corresponding PDF from $`\mathrm{}`$ to the observed value of the test statistic. The PDFs are obtained from detailed simulations of experiments, given the background hypothesis. If the background hypothesis is correct, $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ is uniformly distributed between zero and one; the median of the distribution would thus be 0.5. In the presence of a significant signal $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ would be very small for the corresponding test mass.

To express a given value of $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ in terms of standard deviations ($`\sigma `$), we adopt a convention (see Table 31.1 of Ref. ) where $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}=2.7\times 10^3`$ ($`5.7\times 10^7`$) would indicate a $`3\sigma `$ ($`5\sigma `$) excess beyond the background expectation. The vertical scales on the right-hand side in Figures 7 and 8 correspond to this convention.

The frequentist exclusion limit is usually computed from the confidence $`\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$ for the signal plus background hypothesis which, for a given test mass, is obtained by integrating the corresponding PDF from the observed value of the test statistic to $`+\mathrm{}`$. The signal plus background hypothesis is considered excluded at the 95% confidence level if an observation is made such that $`\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$ is lower than 0.05. However, this procedure may lead to the undesired possibility that a large downward fluctuation of the background would allow hypotheses to be excluded for which the experiment has no sensitivity due to the small expected signal rate. This problem is avoided by introducing the ratio $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}`$ = $`\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$/$`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$. Since $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ is a positive number less than one, $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}`$ will always be greater than $`\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$ and the limit obtained will therefore be conservative. We adopt this quantity for setting exclusion limits and consider a hypothesis to be excluded at the 95% confidence level if the corresponding value of $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}`$ is less than 0.05.


text:
# Disorder effects at low temperatures in La0.7-xYxCa0.3MnO3 manganites

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant PRONEX/FINEP/CNPq No. 41.96.0907.00, by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), and by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ).


text:
# The optical potential of 6He in the eikonal approximation

## I Introduction

A measurement of elastic scatterings of a projectile nucleus by a target nucleus provides unique information on the nuclear density distribution as well as the optical potential between them. The measurements of the angular distribution of purely elastic scattering for unstable nuclei are, however, very few so far because the separation of elastic and inelastic scatterings is in general difficult. Very recently the elastic scattering of 6He on 12C has been measured at 38.3 MeV/nucleon up to about 20 in the center-of-mass (c.m.) frame , which covers considerably wider angles than the previous measurement at 41.6 MeV/nucleon . The new data will give us better opportunity to study the interaction potential between 6He and 12C.

The nucleus 6He has attracted much experimental and theoretical interest as a two-neutron halo nucleus: It breaks to 4He+$`n`$+$`n`$ by the small energy input of 0.975 MeV. It is Borromean as the three-body system of 4He+$`n`$+$`n`$. At the present stage of experimental precision, the $`\alpha `$+$`n`$+$`n`$ model appears to be entirely satisfactory . More sophisticated approach may be called for in some cases. For example, the breaking up of the $`\alpha `$-cluster is necessary to deeply understand the binding mechanism of 6He .

The weak binding of a halo nucleus implies that it can easily decay to its constituents. Its ground state, lying close to the decay threshold, has a strong coupling to continuum states or resonances during the interaction with a target. This requires a special treatment of the coupling effect on the interaction potential for the halo projectile.

A folding potential derived from an appropriate effective nuclear force, combined with a phenomenological imaginary term, has been successful for describing the elastic scattering of various systems . A substantial reduction of the real strength of the folding potential has, however, been found necessary for weakly bound projectiles like 6,7Li and 9Be . This effect is explained by coupled-channel calculations in which projectile excitations are explicitly taken into account. The excitation of a weakly bound projectile into the continuum states has an important influence on the elastic scattering, and in the optical model this has to be mocked up by a substantial reduction of the depth of the real potential term. The difference from the folding potential is called a dynamic polarization potential.

Since a halo nucleus is an extreme case of a weakly bound projectile, a similar effect is expected for halo-nucleus projectiles, thus the applicability of the folding model to halo nuclei is questionable. In fact, the double-folding model using a realistic density-dependent nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction, combined with the imaginary part taken in the conventional Woods-Saxon form, fails to reproduce the measured 6He+12C elastic differential cross sections over the whole angular range .

The inclusion of continuum states is performed by a continuum-discretized coupled-channel method, in which the continuum states of the projectile are approximated by a set of discrete states and each of them couples with the relative motion between the projectile and the target. For the two-neutron halo nucleus 6He the continuum states are three-body states, so in the continuum-discretized coupled-channel approach to the 6He+12C scattering one must solve a four-body Schrödinger equation, which, even if possible, will become very computer-time consuming. It is certainly impossible at present if one wants to consider the effect of, e.g., the distortion of the $`\alpha `$-core.

A way out to overcome this difficulty is to use the eikonal approximation for composite-particle scattering , which is known as the Glauber theory  when all the constituents of the colliding nuclei are treated on an equal footing. We will show that a full Glauber calculation does not necessarily reproduce the new elastic scattering data but an effective phase calculated from a nucleon-target (NT) optical potential instead improves the description of the scattering. The utility of the approach has been tested even at low energies around 100 MeV/nucleon . With the use of the eikonal approximation it is straightforward to obtain the dynamic polarization potential. The purpose of this paper is to show that the new 6He+12C data can substantially be understood in the eikonal approximation without introducing any ad hoc assumptions and in addition to study the energy dependence of the optical potential of the 6He+12C system. We stress the characteristic points and the strength of the present approach: Firstly, a nucleon-12C optical potential is used as a basic input of our calculation. Secondly, 6He is described with a realistic (6-nucleon) wave function which is obtained by variational Monte Carlo (VMC) calculation . By this the calculation of Ref.  is further extended to directly use the wave function itself of 6He ( but not just the density). Thirdly, the scattering amplitude is calculated with the help of a Monte Carlo integration to all orders in the eikonal approximation.

In sect. II the scattering amplitude for composite-particle scatterings is briefly introduced in the eikonal approximation. In sect. III an effective phase-shift function is defined by considering a target nucleus as a scatterer. The 6He+12C elastic scattering at 40 MeV/nucleon is analyzed and the optical potential including the breakup of 6He is derived using the phase-shift function. In sect. IV the energy dependence of the dynamic polarization potential is studied. A summary is given in sect. V.

## II Eikonal approximation for composite-particle scattering

For a scattering problem of composite particles, the exact calculation of the scattering amplitude is extremely difficult. Appropriate approximations are indispensable. When the incident energy is high or the incident wave number $`K`$ is large enough, the relative motion between the projectile and the target oscillates rapidly and its deviation from a plane wave is expected to be small. This leads to the eikonal approximation. The applicability of the eikonal approximation may be tested by a comparison to a fully quantum-mechanical calculation for a simple potential scattering problem. For this aim we take a single-folding potential for elastic scatterings of 6He on 12C at 40 MeV/nucleon. (The detail of this potential will be explained later.) It is found that the elastic differential cross section calculated in the eikonal approximation is by at most 15% larger than the exact one up to 30 excepting around the cross section minimum. The discrepancy grows to about five times at 60. Thus the eikonal approximation works reasonably well for angles smaller than 30 at this energy. See also Ref.  for the study of the accuracy of the eikonal calculations.

A further approximation called an adiabatic approximation is needed to derive a simple, tractable expression for the scattering amplitude. In this approximation the excitation energies of the colliding nuclei are neglected. Under these approximations the scattering amplitude is given by

$$f_{\alpha \beta }(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{iK}{2\pi }𝑑𝒃\mathrm{e}^{i𝒒𝒃}\psi _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{P})}\psi _\beta ^{(\mathrm{T})}|1\mathrm{e}^{i_{i\mathrm{P}}_{j\mathrm{T}}\chi _{\mathrm{NN}}(𝒃+𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})}𝒔_j^{(\mathrm{T})})}|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}\psi _0^{(\mathrm{T})},$$
(1)
where $`𝒒`$ is the momentum transferred from the target to the projectile, $`𝒃`$ a two-dimensional impact-parameter vector perpendicular to the $`z`$-direction, and e.g., $`𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})}`$ is the projection onto the $`xy`$-plane of the nucleon position vector relative to the projectile’s c.m., $`𝒓_i^{(\mathrm{P})}𝑹_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}^{(\mathrm{P})}`$. The wave function $`\psi _\alpha ^{(\mathrm{P})}`$ denotes the projectile’s intrinsic state specified by a quantum number $`\alpha `$ with its c.m. part being dropped. ($`\alpha =0`$ stands for the ground state.) Similarly the target state is denoted $`\psi _\beta ^{(\mathrm{T})}`$. Thus $`f_{00}`$ stands for the elastic scattering amplitude. See, for example, Refs.  for more details.

The phase-shift function $`\chi _{\mathrm{NN}}`$ in Eq. (1) is a basic ingredient for the scattering amplitude. It describes the NN scattering and is related to the NN potential $`V_{\mathrm{NN}}`$ by

$$\chi _{\mathrm{NN}}(𝒃)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}v}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑zV_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝒃+z\widehat{𝒛}),$$
(2)
where $`v`$ is the asymptotic velocity of the relative motion between the projectile and the target and $`\widehat{𝒛}`$ is a unit vector in the $`z`$-direction. The NN potential contains complicated spin-isospin dependence, so $`\chi _{\mathrm{NN}}`$ in general becomes an operator acting in that space. The use of such an operator in Eq. (1) is extremely involved, and here it is treated as just a function by ignoring the spin-isospin dependence as is usually done. However, we distinguish protons and neutrons when necessary. The NN profile function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝒃)`$ is introduced and often parametrized in the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝒃)`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{e}^{i\chi _{\mathrm{NN}}(𝒃)}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1i\alpha }{2\pi }}\omega \sigma _{\mathrm{NN}}\mathrm{e}^{\omega 𝒃^2}.`$ (4)
Here $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NN}}`$ is the total NN cross section and the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ are determined so as to fit the NN elastic differential cross section as well as the NN reaction cross section at relevant energy.

To get the elastic scattering amplitude $`f_{00}`$ we need to calculate the phase-shift function $`\chi (𝒃)`$:

$$\mathrm{e}^{i\chi (𝒃)}=\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}\psi _0^{(\mathrm{T})}|\underset{i\mathrm{P}}{}\underset{j\mathrm{T}}{}\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NN}}(𝒃+𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})}𝒔_j^{(\mathrm{T})})\right]|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}\psi _0^{(\mathrm{T})}.$$
(5)
The above matrix element contains a multi-dimensional integration, which is obviously not easy to perform in general. Recently it has been demonstrated  that the phase-shift function can be evaluated by Monte Carlo method without approximation. The effectiveness of the method has been illustrated by several examples and will be used in this study as well.

First we ask how well the Glauber model reproduces the elastic scattering data on 6He+12C. The wave function used for 6He is the variational Monte Carlo (VMC) wave function . The VMC method starts with the construction of a variational trial function of specified angular momentum, parity and isospin, using products of two- and three-body correlation operators acting on a fully antisymmetrized set of one-body basis states. This wave function is obtained by minimizing the energy of the nuclear Hamiltonian which includes realistic two- (Argonne $`v_{18}`$ ) and three-body (Illinois IL2 ) interactions. The root mean square (r.m.s.) radii with the VMC wave function are 2.56, 1.96 and 2.81 fm for nucleon, proton and neutron, respectively. The 12C nucleus is not yet accessible in a realistic calculation and for the 12C a three-$`\alpha `$ microscopic cluster-model wave function is used: It gives the r.m.s. radius of 2.36 fm. In this model the intrinsic wave function of the $`\alpha `$-particles is a single shell-model Slater determinant and the relative motion between the clusters is expressed in terms of linear combinations of Gaussians. The combination coefficients are determined variationally by solving the 12-nucleon Schrödinger equation with an effective (Minnesota ) two-nucleon interaction. Values of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NN}}`$ and $`\alpha `$ defining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NN}}`$ are taken from literatures and the range parameter $`\omega `$ is determined by

$$\frac{1}{\omega }=\frac{1+\alpha ^2}{8\pi }\sigma _{\mathrm{NN}},$$
(6)
which comes out from the condition that the NN total cross section be equal to the NN total elastic cross section. Results of calculation are shown in Fig. 1: Dotted line is obtained by using $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NN}}=13.5`$ fm2 and $`\alpha =0.9`$ , while in dashed line different profile functions are used for np and pp (also nn) pairs, i.e., $`\sigma _{\mathrm{np}}=21.8`$ fm2, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{np}}=0.493`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pp}}=7`$ fm2, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{pp}}=1.328`$ . Both calculations give similar cross sections up to 14 and show some difference around the third and fourth minima. An interesting point is that the Glauber model reproduces the data only up to 7 and beyond this angle gives much smaller cross sections than the measurement. Apparently this discrepancy indicates that at 40 MeV/nucleon multiple scatterings occurring in the composite-particle scattering are not quite well represented by the NN scattering determined in free space but receives some modifications by medium effects.

Though it does not reproduce the data well except for small angles, the Glauber model can include breakup effects of the projectile and the target. Before going to the next section, we attempt to assess the importance of the breakup effect of 6He in the elastic scattering. For this purpose we show in Fig. 1 the differential cross sections (solid line) calculated fully quantum-mechanically with the single-folding potential $`U_\mathrm{f}(R)`$

$$U_\mathrm{f}(R)=𝑑𝒓\rho ^{(\mathrm{P})}(𝒓)V_{\mathrm{NT}}(𝑹+𝒓)$$
(7)
with the projectile density

$$\rho ^{(\mathrm{P})}(𝒓)=\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}|\underset{i\mathrm{P}}{}\delta (𝒓_i^{(\mathrm{P})}𝑹_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}^{(\mathrm{P})}𝒓)|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})},$$
(8)
where $`𝑹`$ is the distance vector between the projectile and the target and $`V_{\mathrm{NT}}`$ is an NT optical potential. This single-folding model gives both real and imaginary potentials automatically. The folding model is found to overestimate the measured cross sections beyond 6, which is in contrast to the full Glauber-model calculation. It also cannot reproduce simultaneously the first deep minimum and the third maximum as noted in Ref. , where the double-folding model is used to generate the 6He-12C potential and the imaginary part was adjusted to fit the data. The overestimation of the single-folding model is due to neglecting the breakup effect of 6He. This will be discussed later in more detail.

## III Effective eikonal phase

In the previous section we have observed that the Glauber model with the NN profile function does not necessarily reproduce the data. Since the NN profile function is chosen to be consistent with the data of the elementary NN scattering in free space, this suggests that an appropriate effective interaction has to be employed in the calculation. Instead of using such an effective interaction like $`G`$-matrix, we proposed a simple, practical approach  to composite-particle scatterings by considering the target just a scatterer and taking an NT scattering as an elementary vehicle.

In this formalism various effects such as the Fermi motion and the Pauli-blocking, etc., would be included to some extent through the NT amplitude determined from an NT optical potential. The effective optical phase-shift function is thus given by

$`\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{~}{\chi }(𝒃)}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}|\mathrm{e}^{i_{i\mathrm{P}}\chi _{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃+𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})})}|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}|{\displaystyle \underset{i\mathrm{P}}{}}\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃+𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})})\right]|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})},`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NT}}=1\mathrm{e}^{i\chi _{\mathrm{NT}}}`$ is related to $`V_{\mathrm{NT}}`$ through

$$\chi _{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}v}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zV_{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃+z\widehat{𝒛}).$$
(11)
The examples of calculation shown in Ref.  were obtained by approximating Eq. (10) by

$$\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\mathrm{OLA}}(𝒃)}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{𝑑𝒓\rho ^{(\mathrm{P})}(𝒓)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃+𝒔)\right\},$$
(12)
where $`𝒔`$ is the projection of $`𝒓`$ onto the $`xy`$-plane. In the present study we will not use this approximation but perform a virtually exact phase-shift calculation by a Monte Carlo method in which $`|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}|^2`$ serves as a weight function for sampling configuration points.

It should be noted that the phase-shift function corresponding to the single-folding potential appears as the first term of a cumulant expansion of Eq. (10). To see this we note that the phase-shift function $`\chi _\mathrm{f}(𝒃)`$ corresponding to $`U_\mathrm{f}(R)`$ is given by

$`\chi _\mathrm{f}(𝒃)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}v}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zU_\mathrm{f}(𝒃+z\widehat{𝒛})`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓\rho ^{(\mathrm{P})}(𝒓)\chi _{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃+𝒔)}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}|{\displaystyle \underset{i\mathrm{P}}{}}\chi _{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃+𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})})|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}.`$ (15)
By substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (10), we obtain the following expression

$$\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{~}{\chi }(𝒃)}=\mathrm{e}^{i\chi _\mathrm{f}(𝒃)}\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}|\mathrm{e}^{i\delta \chi }|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}$$
(16)
with

$$\delta \chi =\underset{i\mathrm{P}}{}\chi _{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃+𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})})\chi _\mathrm{f}(𝒃),$$
(17)
which will be exploited when we discuss the dynamic polarization potential in sect. IV.

We first consider 4He+12C elastic scattering at 40 MeV/nucleon. The study of this system will give us information on the 6He+12C elastic scattering. The 4He+12C phase-shift function $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is calculated by using the VMC wave function for 4He and three different p-12C optical potentials taken from Refs. . The spin-orbit component of the optical potential is ignored in the calculation. All of the optical potentials reproduce reasonably well the p+12C elastic scattering data  up to about 50, but show some deviation from the experimental data beyond that angle. The p+12C and 6He+12C reaction cross sections calculated by these potentials are listed in Table I. All the potentials have a similar real part except that Fannon et al. potential (the set of $`V_0=`$47.2 MeV) is shorter-ranged and has deeper central strength than the others. For the imaginary part Fannon et al. potential is deeper than the others near the surface. A comparison with experiment  for 4He+12C scattering is shown in Fig. 2. The potential of Ref.  (solid line) reproduces the data quite well up to 15 and slightly underestimates the cross sections at larger angles, while the other potentials (dashed and dash-dotted lines) overestimate the cross section at the minimum around 10. To see the sensitivity of the cross section to wave functions, we repeated the calculation by using the single harmonic-oscillator shell-model wave function for 4He with its c.m. part being dropped. The oscillator parameter was set to reproduce the same r.m.s. radius as that of the VMC wave function (1.46 fm). The deviation from the VMC case was very small at this energy. As shown in Ref. , different predictions of simple model and realistic wave functions can be seen in cross sections corresponding to much higher momentum transfer.

One of the advantages of the present approach is that we rigorously took account of the c.m. problem, thus using the intrinsic coordinate $`𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})}`$ measured from the c.m. of the projectile. Several authors discussed the effect of the c.m. correlation when one calculates the Glauber amplitude . Dotted line in Fig. 2 indicates the cross section calculated with the same shell-model wave function but replacing $`𝒔_i^{(\mathrm{P})}`$ with the projection of $`𝒓_i^{(\mathrm{P})}`$ itself onto the $`xy`$-plane. Ignoring the c.m. correlation is found to cause a significant error for such a light nucleus as 4He.

The 6He+12C phase-shift function $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is calculated by using the VMC wave function for 6He. The cross sections calculated with the three p-12C optical potentials are displayed in Fig. 3. Rapaport potential (solid line) and Becchetti and Greenlees potential (dashed line) appear to give a fair agreement with the experimental data though at angles less than 10 Fannon et al. potential (dotted line) better fits the data. The difference in the cross sections is mainly due to that of the imaginary part of the p-12C potential. Though all the potentials give similar results of both the elastic differential cross section and the reaction cross section for p+12C, the 6He+12C cross sections are different beyond the second minimum. Solid lines in Figs. 1 and 3 employ the same p-12C optical potential . The difference is that the former is the folding-model calculation, while the latter is the eikonal calculation. The overestimation of the cross sections observed in the folding-model calculation is certainly improved by the eikonal calculation.

The local, energy-dependent, optical potential for the projectile-target scattering can be constructed from the phase-shift function by

$$U(R)=\frac{\mathrm{}v}{\pi }\frac{1}{R}\frac{d}{dR}_R^{\mathrm{}}𝑑bb\frac{\stackrel{~}{\chi }(b)}{\sqrt{b^2R^2}}.$$
(18)
Once the potential $`U(R)`$ is constructed, we can solve a standard radial Schrödinger equation with $`U(R)`$ to obtain the exact partial-wave phase shift $`\delta _l`$. Provided the eikonal approximation is valid, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }(b)2\delta _l,bK=l+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(19)
Figure 4 shows the elastic differential cross sections calculated with $`\delta _l`$. The differential cross sections in Figs. 3 and 4 are thus calculated with the same optical potential $`U(R)`$. The difference is that the eikonal approximation is used in Fig. 3, whereas a partial-wave expansion for the scattering amplitude is used in Fig. 4. As was mentioned in the beginning of sect. II, the eikonal approximation is found to slightly overestimate the differential cross section compared to the exact value.

The difference between $`U(R)`$ and the single-folding potential $`U_\mathrm{f}(R)`$ is nothing but the dynamic polarization potential in the eikonal approximation:

$$U_{\mathrm{DPP}}(R)=U(R)U_\mathrm{f}(R).$$
(20)
If the 6He wave function is factorized as a three-body wave function $`\psi _{\mathrm{FB}}`$ consisting of the $`\alpha `$-core and two-neutron parts, the effective phase-shift function of Eq. (10) may be approximated as follows:

$$\mathrm{e}^{i\chi _{\mathrm{FB}}(𝒃)}=\psi _{\mathrm{FB}}|\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CT}}(𝒃+𝒔_\mathrm{C})\right]\underset{i=1,2}{}\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{NT}}(𝒃+𝒔_i)\right]|\psi _{\mathrm{FB}},$$
(21)
where $`𝒔_\mathrm{C}`$ is the projection onto the $`xy`$-plane of the core-c.m. position vector measured from the c.m. and the core-target profile function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{CT}}(𝒃)`$ is calculated from an $`\alpha `$-12C optical potential. This approximation is sometimes called a few-body Glauber model. It is to be noted that even though the $`\alpha `$+$`n`$+$`n`$ model for 6He is satisfactory the factorization of the 6-nucleon wave function of 6He cannot in general be performed rigorously. Figure 5 displays the differential cross section calculated with a three-body wave function where two-neutron halo wave function is generated from $`0p_{1/2}`$ orbit . The $`\alpha `$-12C optical potential is taken from Ref. . The cross section calculated by the few-body Glauber model is as good as that of the eikonal calculation using the 6-nucleon wave function (compare to Fig. 3). However, it is found that the different p-12C optical potentials lead to only a small difference in the cross section in the case of the few-body Glauber model, which is in contrast to the 6-nucleon calculation. This is probably because the $`\alpha `$-12C interaction dominates the whole phase-shift responsible for the scattering process. It seems that the approach based on the 6-nucleon eikonal calculation is more natural than the few-body approach particularly when we discuss the energy dependence of the optical potential for 6He.

## IV Dynamic polarization potential of 6He

From Eq. (16) we have the following relation

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(𝒃)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _\mathrm{f}(𝒃)i\mathrm{ln}\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}|\mathrm{e}^{i\delta \chi }|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\chi _\mathrm{f}(𝒃)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\delta \chi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(\delta \chi )^3{\displaystyle \frac{i}{24}}(\delta \chi )^4+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\delta \chi )^2^2+\mathrm{}`$ (23)
Here e.g., $`(\delta \chi )^2=\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}|(\delta \chi )^2|\psi _0^{(\mathrm{P})}`$ and use is made of the property $`\delta \chi =0`$. Substituting this cumulant expansion to Eq. (18) we have the corresponding decomposition of the optical potential, and the first term in the expansion is nothing but the folding potential $`U_\mathrm{f}`$. Thus the dynamic polarization potential is contributed by those potentials that correspond to the terms $`(\delta \chi )^n(n=2,3,\mathrm{})`$ arising from the breakup of the projectile.

One can predict the sign of the dynamic polarization potential under certain conditions . Assuming that the $`V_{\mathrm{NT}}`$ has the form $`V_{\mathrm{NT}}(R)(V_0+iW_0)f(R)`$, the sign of the term $`(\delta \chi )^2`$ is determined by $`(V_0+iW_0)^2`$. If the dynamic polarization potential is contributed dominantly by the term $`\frac{i}{2}(\delta \chi )^2`$, its sign follows $`i(V_0+iW_0)^2`$, so the real and imaginary parts of the dynamic polarization potential have the same sign as $`V_0W_0`$ and $`W_0^2V_0^2`$, respectively.

We compare in Fig. 6 the 6He+12C single-folding potential (dashed line) with the optical potential calculated from the eikonal approximation (solid line). The breakup process produces a repulsive surface effect on the real part of the optical potential and increases a strength of the imaginary part reflecting the loss of the flux due to the elastic breakup process. Dash-dotted and dotted lines in the figure denote the optical potential and the single-folding potential for 4He+12C scattering calculated at the same energy of 40 MeV/nucleon. The breakup effect does not practically change the real part of the potential but moderately increases the strength of the imaginary part for the 4He+12C case. The effect becomes very significant for the 6He+12C case. In particular the imaginary part of the 6He-12C optical potential becomes much longer-ranged and almost twice stronger than that of the 4He-12C optical potential.

Next we study the energy dependence of the breakup effect. Figure 7 shows calculated 6He+12C elastic differential cross sections at different energies from 70 MeV/nucleon to 800 MeV/nucleon. We used the p-12C global optical potential . The energy dependence of this potential is as follows: The real part at the center alters as $`32.3,11.7,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16.2}`$ MeV, for $`70,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}200},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}800}`$ MeV/nucleon, respectively, while the imaginary part as $`0.9,12.0,87.2`$ MeV. Solid line in Fig. 7 denotes the eikonal calculation, while dashed line the folding-model calculation. Figure 8 compares the real and imaginary parts of the 6He-12C optical potential $`U(R)`$ determined from the phase-shift function with those of the single-folding potential $`U_\mathrm{f}(R)`$. The real part of the folding potential becomes shallower as the energy increases and turns out to be repulsive at 800 MeV/nucleon, whereas the imaginary part of the folding potential becomes deeper with the energy increasing. At 70 MeV/nucleon both of the real and imaginary parts of the p-12C global optical potential is negative and $`V_0^2>W_0^2`$, so the first term of the dynamic polarization potential has positive real and negative imaginary parts, respectively. This explains why the optical potential is less attractive and more absorptive than the single-folding potential at this energy. At 800 MeV/nucleon the global potential has positive real and negative imaginary parts with $`W_0^2>V_0^2`$, so the first term of the dynamic polarization potential has a negative sign for the real part and a positive sign for the imaginary part, which also explains the change of the optical potential from the single-folding potential at this energy. The magnitude of the dynamic polarization potential at 800 MeV/nucleon is quite big: Quite large, negative imaginary potential of the folding potential is dramatically reduced to $`49.3`$ MeV at the center.

## V Summary

With the Monte Carlo integration we evaluated the scattering amplitude of the Glauber model without any ad hoc approximation. The advantage of this approach is that one can use accurate, sophisticated wave functions of colliding nuclei.

We studied the elastic scattering of 6He+12C at 40 MeV/nucleon in order to see the breakup effect of a weakly bound halo nucleus 6He. Comparing to the new 6He+12C data which cover larger angles than the previous data, we found that the complete Galuber amplitude with use of a realistic VMC wave function for 6He reproduced experiment only at small angles but beyond the first minimum gave too small differential cross sections. Calculating the phase-shift function with a nucleon-12C optical potential, we were able to reproduce the experimental data reasonably well. In this calculation the breakup effect of 6He was taken into account in the eikonal approximation.

Through the calculated phase-shift function we constructed the 6He-12C optical potential which contains the dynamic polarization potential due to the breakup effect of 6He. This optical potential has a longer range and a deeper depth than that of the 4He-12C optical potential. The difference between the two potentials appears more strongly in the imaginary part. We studied the elastic scattering of 6He+12C at different energies and discussed the energy dependence of the dynamic polarization potential from 40 to 800 MeV/nucleon. The effect of the breakup is so strong that e.g., the imaginary part of the dynamic polarization potential renders the central depth of the folding potential ($`314.1`$ MeV) considerably shallow ($`49.3`$ MeV).

The approach presented here has the strength that it makes it possible to directly relate cross sections to relevant wave functions. We thus hope that the new radioactive beam facilities will produce experimental data covering larger angles.

## VI Acknowledgements

The authors thank K. Varga, V. Lapoux, B. C. Clark, N. Orr and J. Y. Hostachy for useful communications. One of the authors (B. A-I.) is supported by a JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for Foreign Researchers (No. P03023). This work was in part supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 14540249) of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (Japan).


text:
# Torus knots and Dunwoody manifolds

## 1 Introduction

Many interesting examples of cyclic branched coverings of knots in $`𝐒^3`$ admitting cyclic presentations for the fundamental groups have recently been found (see ). In order to investigate these relations, M. J. Dunwoody introduced in  a class of 3-manifolds, depending on six integer parameters, with cyclically presented fundamental groups. It has been shown in  that all these manifolds turn out to be strongly-cyclic branched coverings of $`(1,1)`$-knots in lens spaces (possibly $`𝐒^3`$). Moreover, the explicit Dunwoody representation for all cyclic branched coverings of 2-bridge knots has been obtained.

In this paper we give a similar result for a wide class of torus knots, which are, together with 2-bridge knots, the most important examples of $`(1,1)`$-knots in $`𝐒^3`$. The Dunwoody parameters are obtained for all cyclic branched coverings of torus knots of type $`(p,mp\pm 1)`$, with $`p>1`$ and $`m>0`$, thus including all torus knots with bridge number $`4`$. These manifolds have been considered, from a different point of view, in  and .

We refer to  for details on knot theory and cyclic branched coverings of knots and to  for details on cyclic presentation of groups.

## 2 (1,1)-knots and Dunwoody manifolds

A knot $`K`$ in a 3-manifold $`N^3`$ is called a $`(1,1)`$-knot if there exists a Heegaard splitting of genus one

$$(N^3,K)=(T,A)_\phi (T^{},A^{}),$$

where $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ are solid tori, $`AT`$ and $`A^{}T^{}`$ are properly embedded trivial arcs, and $`\phi :(T^{},A^{})(T,A)`$ is an attaching homeomorphism (see Figure 1). Obviously, $`N^3`$ turns out to be a lens space $`L(p,q)`$ (including $`𝐒^3=L(1,0)`$).

It is well known that the family of $`(1,1)`$-knots contains all torus knots and all two-bridge knots in $`𝐒^3`$. Several topological properties of $`(1,1)`$-knots have recently been investigated (see references in ).

An algebraic representation of $`(1,1)`$-knots has been developed in  and , where it is shown that there is a natural surjective map

$$\psi PMCG_2(T)K_\psi 𝒦_{1,1}$$

from the pure mapping class group of the twice punctured torus $`PMCG_2(T)`$ to the class $`𝒦_{1,1}`$ of all $`(1,1)`$-knots.

The fundamental group of the exterior of a $`(1,1)`$-knot $`K_\psi `$ can be explicitly obtained using its representation $`\psi `$. Let $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma T`$ be the loops depicted in Figure 2. They represent a set of free generators for $`\pi _1(TA,)`$, while $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ freely generate $`\pi _1(TA,)`$. A straightforward application of Seifert-Van Kampen theorem gives:

###### Lemma 1

 The fundamental group of the exterior of a $`(1,1)`$-knot $`K_\psi L(p,q)`$ admits the presentation

$$\pi _1(L(p,q)K_\psi ,)=\alpha ,\gamma |r(\alpha ,\gamma ),$$

where $`r(\alpha ,\gamma )`$ is the homotopy class of $`i(\psi (\beta ))`$, being $`i:(T,A)(T,A)`$ the inclusion map.

As a consequence, all $`(1,1)`$-knots in $`𝐒^3`$ are prime , and can therefore be classified, up to mirror image, by their fundamental groups (see \[9, p. 76\]). Many results concerning the connections between cyclically presented groups and strongly-cyclic branched coverings of $`(1,1)`$-knots (see definition in ) have been obtained. It has been proved in  that every $`n`$-fold strongly-cyclic branched covering of a $`(1,1)`$-knot admits a Heegaard diagram of genus $`n`$ which encodes a cyclic presentation for the fundamental group. This result has been improved in , where a constructive algorithm which explicitly gives the cyclic presentations is obtained.

The family of Dunwoody manifolds has been introduced in  by a class of trivalent regular planar graphs (called Dunwoody diagrams) with cyclic symmetry, depending on six integers $`a,b,c,n,r,s`$, such that $`n>0`$, $`a,b,c0`$ and $`a+b+c>0`$. For certain values of the parameters, called admissible, the Dunwoody diagrams $`D(a,b,c,n,r,s)`$ turn out to be Heegaard diagrams, so defining a wide class of closed, orientable 3-manifolds $`M(a,b,c,n,r,s)`$ with cyclically presented fundamental groups.

More precisely, an admissible Dunwoody diagram $`D(a,b,c,n,r,s)`$ is an open Heegaard diagram of genus $`n`$ (see Figure 3), which contains $`n`$ upper cycles $`C_1^{},\mathrm{},C_n^{}`$, and $`n`$ lower cycles $`C_1^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{},C_n^{\prime \prime }`$, each having $`d=2a+b+c`$ vertices. For every $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, the cycle $`C_i^{}`$ (resp. $`C_i^{\prime \prime }`$) is connected to the cycle $`C_{i+1}^{}`$ (resp. $`C_{i+1}^{\prime \prime }`$) by $`a`$ parallel arcs, to the cycle $`C_i^{\prime \prime }`$ by $`c`$ parallel arcs and to the cycle $`C_{i+1}^{\prime \prime }`$ by $`b`$ parallel arcs. We denote by $``$ the set of all these arcs. The cycle $`C_i^{}`$ is glued to the cycle $`C_{is}^{\prime \prime }`$ (subscripts mod $`n`$) so that equally labelled vertices are identified together. Observe that the parameters $`r`$ and $`s`$ can be considered mod $`d`$ and $`n`$ respectively. Since the identification rule and the diagram are invariant with respect to a cyclic action of order $`n`$, the Dunwoody manifolds admit a cyclic symmetry of order $`n`$. Obviously, the Dunwoody manifold $`M(a,b,c,1,r,0)`$ is homeomorphic to a lens space (possibly $`𝐒^3`$), since it admits a Heegaard splitting of genus one.

A characterization of all Dunwoody manifolds as strongly-cyclic branched coverings of $`(1,1)`$-knots is given by the following:

###### Proposition 2

 The Dunwoody manifold $`M(a,b,c,n,r,s)`$ is the $`n`$-fold strongly-cyclic covering of the lens space $`M(a,b,c,1,r,0)`$ (possibly $`𝐒^3`$), branched over a $`(1,1)`$-knot $`K(a,b,c,r)`$ only depending on the integers $`a,b,c,r`$.

The converse of this result is also true, as proved in . So the class of the Dunwoody manifolds coincides with the class of the strongly-cyclic branched coverings of $`(1,1)`$-knots.

The $`(1,1)`$-knots $`K(a,b,c,r)`$ occurring in Proposition 2 admit a natural $`(1,1)`$-decomposition $`(T,A)_\phi (T^{},A^{})`$ depicted in Figure 4, where the arcs of $``$ constitute the curve $`\phi (\beta ^{})=\psi (\beta )`$, $`\psi `$ being the element of $`PMCG_2(T)`$ correspondent to $`\phi `$. The fundamental group of the exterior of $`K(a,b,c,r)`$ can be directly read in the Dunwoody diagram of $`D(a,b,c,1,r,0)`$. The relation $`r(\alpha ,\gamma )`$ of the presentation of Lemma 1 is obtained by walking along the arcs of $``$, following a fixed orientation: associate to each arc a word in $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ representing its homotopy class in the fundamental group of $`TA`$ (see Figure 5), where a properly embedded disk with boundary $`C`$ is considered squeezed to the base point $``$ .

## 3 Main results

An interesting problem is to find the Dunwoody parameters of the cyclic branched coverings of important classes of $`(1,1)`$-knots, in particular when the knot lies in $`𝐒^3`$. This type of result has been obtained in \[6, Theorem 8\] for all 2-bridge knots.

Now we obtain a similar result for the torus knots $`𝐭(p,mp\pm 1)`$, with $`m>0`$ and $`p>1`$.

###### Proposition 3

1. $`K(1,p2,2mp2mp+1,p)`$ is the torus knot $`𝐭(p,mp+1)`$, for all $`m>0`$ and $`p>1`$;
2. $`K(1,p2,2mp2mp1,3p+4)`$ is the torus knot $`𝐭(p,mp1)`$, for all $`m>1`$ and $`p>1`$.

Proof. 1. Let $`K=K(1,p2,2mp2mp+1,p)`$. Figure 6 depicts the Dunwoody diagram $`D=D(1,p2,2mp2mp+1,1,p,0)`$. The number of vertices of each cycle is $`d=2m(p1)+1`$. Starting from the vertex of $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ with label $`d`$, we pass along all the arcs of $``$ with the described orientation, obtaining the word $`w=\alpha ^{m(p1)}\alpha \gamma ^1\alpha ^1(\alpha ^{(m1)}\gamma ^1\alpha ^1)^{p2}\alpha ^{(m1)}\gamma ^1`$. Therefore, since the conditions of \[6, Corollary 4\] are satisfied, $`D`$ is admissible. Moreover, the fundamental group of $`M(1,p2,2mp2mp+1,1,p,0)`$ is $`\alpha ,\gamma w,\gamma `$, which is trivial. So $`M(1,p2,(p1)(2m1),1,p,0)𝐒^3`$. Moreover, $`\pi _1(𝐒^3K)=\alpha ,\gamma w`$. Since $`w=\alpha ^{m(p1)+1}(\gamma ^1\alpha ^m)^{p1}\gamma ^1=\alpha ^m\alpha ^{mp+1}(\gamma ^1\alpha ^m)^p\alpha ^m`$, we have $`\pi _1(𝐒^3K)\alpha ,\gamma w^{}`$, with $`w^{}=\alpha ^{mp+1}(\gamma ^1\alpha ^m)^p`$. Obviously this group is isomorphic to the group $`x,yx^{mp+1}y^p`$, which is the group of the torus knot $`𝐭(p,mp+1)`$. As a consequence $`K`$ is precisely $`𝐭(p,mp+1)`$.

2. The proof is analogous to the previous one. Let $`K=K(1,p2,2mp2mp1,3p+4)`$. Figure 7 depicts the Dunwoody diagram $`D=D(1,p2,2mp2mp1,1,3p+4,0)`$. The number of vertices of each cycle is $`d=2m(p1)1`$ (note that the labelling is considered mod $`d`$). Starting from the vertex of $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ with label $`d`$, we pass along all the arcs of $``$, obtaining the word $`w=\alpha ^{m1}(\alpha ^m)^{p3}\alpha ^{m1}\alpha \gamma ^1\alpha ^1\alpha ^{(m1)}(\gamma ^1\alpha ^1\alpha ^{(m1)})^{p2}\gamma ^1`$. So $`D`$ is admissible. Moreover, $`M(1,p2,2mp2mp1,1,3p+4,0)`$ is homeomorphic to $`𝐒^3`$, since its fundamental group is trivial. Since $`w=\alpha ^{m(p1)1}(\gamma ^1\alpha ^m)^{p1}\gamma ^1=\alpha ^{mp1}(\alpha ^m\gamma ^1)^p`$, the group $`\pi _1(𝐒^3K)\alpha ,\gamma w`$ is isomorphic to the group $`x,yx^{mp1}y^p`$. Therefore, $`K`$ is the torus knot $`𝐭(p,mp1)`$.

###### Corollary 4

1. For all $`m>0`$ and $`p>1`$, the $`n`$-fold cyclic branched covering of the torus knot $`𝐭(p,mp+1)`$ is the Dunwoody manifold $`M(1,p2,2mp2mp+1,n,p,p)`$;
2. for all $`m>1`$ and $`p>1`$, the $`n`$-fold cyclic branched covering of the torus knot $`𝐭(p,mp1)`$ is the Dunwoody manifold $`M(1,p2,2mp2mp1,n,3p+4,p)`$.

Proof. From Proposition 2, we only need to find the sixth parameter $`s`$ of the 6-tuples. The relation $`q_\sigma +sp_\sigma 0`$ mod $`n`$ must be satisfied for all $`n`$, where $`p_\sigma `$ is the number of arcs of $``$ oriented from $`C^{}`$ to $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ minus the number of the ones oriented from the $`C^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`C^{}`$ and $`q_\sigma `$ is the number of arcs of $``$ oriented from the right to the left minus the number of the ones oriented from the left to the right in the Dunwoody diagram (see \[6, p. 385\]). In other words, $`p_\sigma `$ is the total exponent of $`\alpha `$ in $`w`$ and $`q_\sigma `$ is the total exponent of $`\gamma `$ in $`w`$. In the first case $`q_\sigma =p`$ and $`p_\sigma =1`$; therefore $`s=p`$. In the second case $`q_\sigma =p`$ and $`p_\sigma =1`$; therefore $`s=p`$.

An extension of the previous results to the whole class of torus knots by using the same proof technique seems to be very complicated, although some partial results have been obtained. A possible alternative method could be to work by induction on the number of steps of the Euclidean division algorithm needed to obtain the greatest common division of the parameters of the torus knot. Following this approach, the results of this article could represent the first inductive step.

Acknowledgements. Work partially developed during a visit by the third named author to the Department of Mathematics of Atatürk University, Erzurum (Turkey), supported by TOKTEN/UNISTAR funds, and performed under the auspices of the G.N.S.A.G.A. of I.N.d.A.M. (Italy) and the University of Bologna funds for selected research topics.

HÜSEYIN AYDIN, Atatürk University, Faculty of Art and Sciences, Department of Mathematics, Erzurum, Turkey. E-mail: aydinh@atauni.edu.tr

INCI GÜLTEKYN, Atatürk University, Faculty of Art and Sciences, Department of Mathematics, Erzurum, Turkey. E-mail: inciakarg@yahoo.com

MICHELE MULAZZANI, Department of Mathematics and C.I.R.A.M., University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. E-mail: mulazza@dm.unibo.it