text:
# Zero-bias conductance peak splitting due to multiband effect in tunneling spectroscopy

## I Introduction

An unambiguous determination of pairing symmetry in unconventional superconductors is crucial to understand the pairing mechanism of superconductivity. Strong evidences suggesting $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing symmetry in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates have been provided using several phase-sensitive probes SR95 ; Harlin ; Tsuei  including tunneling spectroscopy via Andreev surface bound states (ABS’s). Buch ; Hu ; TK95 ; FRS97  The tunneling spectroscopy via ABS’s enables us to detect the sign change in the pair potential as well as its nodal structure. TK95 ; KT00 ; Lofwander  This state, which originates from the interference effect in the effective pair potential of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave symmetry through reflection at a surface or an interface, have significant influences on several charge transport properties c1 ; c2 ; c3 . The existence of ABS’s, which manifests itself as a distinct conductance peak at zero-bias in the tunneling spectrum (zero-bias conductance peak, referred to as ZBCP), has been actually observed not only in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates exp1  but also in ruthenates Laube ; Mao1 , heavy fermion systems Walti , and more recently $`\mathrm{MgCNi}_3`$. Mao2  In this context, it is of great interest to investigate whether the ZBCP due to the ABS’s can be observed in organic superconductors IYS  such as $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$ and $`\text{(TMTSF)}_2X`$ organic .

The tunneling spectroscopy via ABS’s can be used to determine the pairing symmetry if one can prepare well-treated surfaces with arbitrary orientations in the superconducting plane. For high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, which has a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ pair potential, it is theoretically shown that the ZBCP should be observed most prominently for (110) surfaces or interfaces. Moreover, it has been clarified that the ZBCP may be observed due to atomic-scale roughness even in the (100) surfaces. FRS97 ; Tanu1 ; Tanu2 ; Samo  In fact, Iguchi et al. Iguchi  have measured the ZBCP for Ag/YBCO ramp-edge junctions with various orientations, where the injection direction varies continuously from (100) to (110) interfaces. The height of the ZBCP has shown to vary according as the misorientation angle from $`a`$-axis within the plane.

As regards organic superconductors such as $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$, the pairing symmetry of the pair potentials still remains to be a controversial problem. It has indeed become an issue of great interest whether $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$ has a $`d`$-wave pair potential similar to high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. There is now a body of accumulating experimental evidences suggesting that $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$ have anisotropy in the pair potential. Mayaffre ; Soto ; Kanoda96 ; Nakazawa ; Carrington ; Pinteric  Earlier theories support $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing, Schma ; KKKM ; KA99  while a recent thermal conductivity measurement suggests $`d_{xy}`$-wave pairing. Izawa3  Concerning this issue, two of the present authors have theoretically shown that a $`d_{xy}`$-like pairing may slightly dominate over $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ pairing when the dimerization of the BEDT-TTF molecules is not so strong. Kuro02  According to previous studies, Hu ; TK95 ; FRS97  if the pairing symmetry of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$ is $`d`$-wave, ABS is expected to be created at surfaces for arbitrary injection orientations. However, a scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiment for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$ by Arai et al.Arai  showed the absence of ZBCP for arbitrary injection angle from the $`c`$-axis in the $`bc`$-plane, which is in contrast with the case of the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. The presence/absence of the ZBCP of $`d`$-wave superconductors is sensitive to several factors: (i) roughness effect of surfaces or interfaces, (ii) random impurity scattering effect near the interfaces, (iii) the shape of the Fermi surface, and (iv) the degradation of surfaces. The disappearance of the ZBCP in $`d`$-wave superconductors due to reason (i) has been studied previouslyTanu1 ; Tanu2 . Depending on the shape of the Fermi surface and the geometry of the surface, the atomic-size wave nature of the zero energy ABS’s (ZES), $`i.e.`$, the oscillatory behavior of the wave function of ZES induces an interference effect which locally destroys the ZBCP. In fact, it is by no means easy to make well-oriented cleavage surfaces in organic materials, so this point may be important. As regards point (ii), Asano $`et`$ $`al.`$ asano  have shown, both from analytical and numerical calculation beyond quasiclassical approximations random , that impurity scattering near the interface in the high-$`T_C`$ cuprates can induce a splitting or a disappearance of the ZBCP.

As for point (iii), we have recently studied the disappearance of ZBCP due to the warping of quasi-1D Fermi surface as in $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2X`$. Tanu3  The results indicate that the ABS’s are sensitive to the shape of the Fermi surface. However, most of the theoretical studies on tunneling spectroscopy via ABS’s up to date have been performed for single band systems. It has not been clarified how the multiplicity of the Fermi surface influences the ZBCP.

Motivated by this point, here we investigate the surface density of states in systems having multiple Fermi surfaces, where we focus on two organic superconductors as case studies, namely, $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 and (TMTSF)2ClO4. The Fermi surface of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, which has been determined by Shubnikov-de Haas experiment, Oshima  consists of two portions separated by small gaps. The Fermi surface of (TMTSF)2ClO4 is also separated by a small gap, which is due to anion ordering. In this paper, we extend our previous studies Tanu3  on anisotropic triangular lattice by taking into account these multiplicity of the Fermi surface.

The organization of the paper is as follows. The formulation of calculating the tunneling spectrum on anisotropic triangular lattice is presented in Sec. II. In Sec. III, results of the numerical calculations are discussed in detail. Finally, we summarize the paper in Sec. IV.

## II Formulation

In the present study, we start from an extended Hubbard model given by

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊,𝒋,\sigma }{}}t_{𝒊𝒋}c_{𝒊,\sigma }^{}c_{𝒋,\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{V}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊,𝒋,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}c_{𝒊,\sigma }^{}c_{𝒋,\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{𝒋,\sigma ^{}}c_{𝒊,\sigma },`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊,\sigma }{}}(\epsilon _𝒊\mu )c_{𝒊,\sigma }^{}c_{𝒊,\sigma },`$ (1)
where $`c_{𝒊,\sigma }^{}`$ creates a hole with spin $`\sigma =,`$ at site $`𝒊=(i_x,i_y)`$. As a model for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, each site corresponds to BEDT-TTF molecule dimmers. We consider five kinds of hopping integrals, $`t_x(=t)`$, $`t_x^{}`$, $`t_y`$, $`t_y^{}`$, and $`t^{}`$ in the $`xy`$ plane on the anisotropic triangular lattice as shown in Fig. 1(a). In order to reproduce the shape of Fermi surface for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 and $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$, we adopt the values of (i) $`t^{}=0.8t`$, $`t_y^{}=t_x`$, $`t_x^{}=t_y`$, Oshima  and (ii) $`t_y=0.1t`$, $`t_x^{}=t_x`$, $`t_y^{}=t_y`$, Ducasse ; Grant ; Yamaji  respectively. Two subchains in the $`x`$ direction alternatively have the site energy $`\epsilon _𝒊=+E_g,E_g,+E_g,\mathrm{}`$ in the $`y`$ direction. Shimahara ; Yoshino  The chemical potential $`\mu `$ is determined such that the band in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 \[$`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$\] is half-filled \[quarter-filled\]. The effective attraction $`V`$ is assumed to act on a pair of electrons.

By solving the mean-field equation for a unit cell with $`N_\mathrm{L}(=500)`$ sites in the $`x`$ direction and two sites in the $`y`$ direction, we obtain the eigenenergy $`E_\nu `$. In terms of the eigenenergy $`E_\nu `$ and the wave functions $`u_𝒊^\nu `$, $`v_𝒊^\nu `$, the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation for the (100) surface in the $`xy`$ plane is given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒋}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_{𝒊𝒋}& F_{𝒊𝒋}\\ F_{𝒊𝒋}^{}& H_{𝒊𝒋}^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_𝒋^\nu \\ v_𝒋^\nu \end{array}\right)=E_\nu \left(\begin{array}{c}u_𝒊^\nu \\ v_𝒊^\nu \end{array}\right),`$ (8)
with

$`H_{ij}(k_y)=`$ $`t_x\eta _+\delta _{j_x,i_x+1}t_x^{}\eta _{}\delta _{j_x,i_x+1}`$
$`t_ye^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,2}}\eta _+\delta _{j_y,i_y+1}`$
$`t_y^{}e^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,2}}\eta _{}\delta _{j_y,i_y+1}`$
$`t^{}e^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,2}}\delta _{j_x,i_x+1}\delta _{j_y,i_y+1}`$
$`t_x\eta _{}\delta _{j_x,i_x1}t_x^{}\eta _+\delta _{j_x,i_x1}`$
$`t_ye^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,1}}\eta _{}\delta _{j_y,i_y1}`$
$`t_y^{}e^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,1}}\eta _+\delta _{j_y,i_y1}`$
$`t^{}e^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,1}}\delta _{j_x,i_x1}\delta _{j_y,i_y1}`$
$`+\left\{(1)^{i_y+1}E_g\mu \right\}\delta _{i_x,j_x}\delta _{i_y,j_y},`$ (9)
where we define $`\eta _+=\frac{1}{2}\{1+(1)^{i_x+i_y}\}`$ and $`\eta _{}=\frac{1}{2}\{1(1)^{i_x+i_y}\}`$.

As for plausible pairing symmetries in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, we consider $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave pairing given by,

$`F_{ij}(k_y)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }_x\eta _+\delta _{j_x,i_x+1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_x^{}\eta _{}\delta _{j_x,i_x+1}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_ye^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,2}}\eta _+\delta _{j_y,i_y+1}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_y^{}e^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,2}}\eta _{}\delta _{j_y,i_y+1}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_x\eta _{}\delta _{j_x,i_x1}\mathrm{\Delta }_x^{}\eta _+\delta _{j_x,i_x1}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_ye^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,1}}\eta _{}\delta _{j_y,i_y1}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_y^{}e^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,1}}\eta _+\delta _{j_y,i_y1}`$ (10)
and $`d_{xy}`$-like pairing given by

$`F_{ij}(k_y)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }_x\eta _+\delta _{j_x,i_x+1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_x^{}\eta _{}\delta _{j_x,i_x+1}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_ye^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,2}}\eta _+\delta _{j_y,i_y+1}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_y^{}e^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,2}}\eta _{}\delta _{j_y,i_y+1}`$
$`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_pe^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,2}}\delta _{j_x,i_x+1}\delta _{j_y,i_y+1}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_x\eta _{}\delta _{j_x,i_x1}+\mathrm{\Delta }_x^{}\eta _+\delta _{j_x,i_x1}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_ye^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,1}}\eta _{}\delta _{j_y,i_y1}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_y^{}e^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,1}}\eta _+\delta _{j_y,i_y1}`$
$`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_pe^{2\mathrm{i}k_y\delta _{i_y,1}}\delta _{j_x,i_x1}\delta _{j_y,i_y1},`$ (11)
with $`\alpha =0.8t`$ in accord with Ref. Kuro02, . The pairing in real space is shown in Fig. 1(b). Here, we select $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=\mathrm{\Delta }_y^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_p=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is a bulk value.

The upper and lower panels of Fig. 2 show the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ and $`d_{xy}`$-like pair potentials in momentum space along with the Fermi surfaces. For $`t_x^{}=t_x`$, the Fermi surface is continuously connected. In the actual $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, however, BEDT-TTF dimmers are further dimerized so that $`t_x^{}t_x`$, which leads to a splitting of the Fermi surface at around $`(k_c,k_b)=(\pm \pi ,\pm \pi /2)`$.

In $`\text{(TMTSF)}_2\text{ClO}_4`$, the orientational order of the anions $`\text{ClO}_4`$ doubles the unit cell, leading again to a splitting of the Fermi surface. Pouget83  Although the pairing symmetry for $`\text{(TMTSF)}_2X`$ remains to be undetermined, here we assume singlet $`d`$-wave pairing as an example in which the multiband effect is prominent. In this case $`d`$-wave is a pairing separated by two lattice spacings given by

$`F_{ij}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2x}\delta _{j_x,i_x+2}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{2x}\delta _{j_x,i_x2}.`$ (12)
The anion potential $`E_g`$ is estimated from experimental measurement of angle dependent magnetoresistance. Yoshino

In order to compare our theory with STM experiments, we assume that the STM tip is metallic with a constant density of states, and that tunneling occurs only to the site nearest to the tip. This has been shown to be valid through the study of tunneling conductance of unconventional superconductors TK95 . The tunneling conductance spectrum is then given at low temperatures by the normalized surface density of states TK95 ,

$`\rho (E)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \rho _\mathrm{S}(\omega )\mathrm{sech}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega +E}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}\right)}{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \rho _\mathrm{N}(\omega )\mathrm{sech}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega 2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}\right)}},`$ (13)
$`\rho _\mathrm{S}(\omega )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k_b,\nu }{}}\left[|u_1^\nu |^2\delta (\omega E_\nu )+|v_1^\nu |^2\delta (\omega +E_\nu )\right].`$ (14)
Here $`\rho _\mathrm{S}(\omega )`$ denotes the surface density of states for the superconducting state while $`\rho _\mathrm{N}(\omega )`$ the bulk density of states in the normal state.

## III Results of in-plane tunneling spectrum

In this section, we present the calculation results. First, let us focus on the model for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$. We examine the case of the tunneling spectrum at (100) surface on the $`xy`$ plane as shown in Fig. 1. As seen in Fig. 4, in the case of $`t_x^{}=t_x`$, where the Fermi surface is elliptical but continuous, there exists a distinct peak at zero energy, which resembles those obtained in previous theories assuming round shape Fermi surface. The ZEP arises because incident and reflected (including oblique incidence) quasiparticles normal to the surface feel opposite signs of the pair potential, which results in a formation of the ABS. If we turn on the multiband effect by letting $`t_x^{}t_x`$, the ZEP is found to split into two. This is reminiscent of the ZEP splitting originating from broken time reversal symmetry states.FRS97 ; matsumoto2 ; Tanu5 ; K95

We have further studied the $`t_x^{}/t_x`$ dependence of the ZEP splitting. In Fig. 5, the width of the ZEP splitting $`\delta `$ is plotted as functions of $`t_x^{}/t_x`$ for $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ and $`d_{xy}`$-like pairings. $`\delta `$ for the $`d_{xy}`$-like pair potential is almost proportional to $`t_x^{}/t_x`$, and larger than that for $`d_{x^2y^2}`$. In the regime of $`t_x^{}/t_x>0.9`$, in particular, we see no splitting for the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ pairing. Since $`t_x^{}/t_x`$ is estimated to be $`0.9`$, Komatsu  we may be able to distinguish between $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ and $`d_{xy}`$-like pairings through the presence/absence of ZEP splitting.

We have also performed similar calculation by letting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ deviate from unity, which should be the case when $`t_x`$ deviates from $`t_x`$. The results are plotted in Fig. 6 for various $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ with $`t_x^{}/t_x`$ fixed at $`0.9`$. In this case, we observe an overall shift of the splitted ZEP, while the magnitude of the splitting remains unchanged.

Let us now move on to the model for $`\text{(TMTSF)}_2\text{ClO}_4`$. In this model, as the Fermi surface becomes asymmetric with respect to $`k_xk_x`$ transformation, some injected and reflected quasiparticles feel different signs and the ZEP appears in the tunneling spectrum Tanu3 . When $`E_g`$ is turned on, a minigap opens at $`k_y=\pm \pi /4`$. This effect again leads to ZEP splitting, of which the magnitude increases as $`E_g`$ is increased. \[Fig. 7\]

Although it is by no means easy to pinpoint the origin of the ZEP splitting analytically, it can be qualitatively explained as follows. For single band models, the ZEP appears due to the sign change of the pair potential felt by quasiparticles at the interface. In multiband systems, injected and reflected quasiparticles have different band indices, so that an additional phase factor is expected to appear due to interband scattering. This additional phase factor induces the ZEP splitting as in the case of pair potentials with broken time reversal symmetry.

## IV Conclusions

To summarize, we have investigated the multiband effect on tunneling spectroscopy. As case studies, we have focused on models for $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 and $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$. We find that the multiplicity of the Fermi surface can lead to a splitting of the ZEP. As regards $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2, since $`t_x^{}/t_x`$ is estimated to be $`0.9`$, Komatsu  we can distinguish between $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ and $`d_{xy}`$-like pairings through the presence/absence of ZEP splitting.

As mentioned in the Introduction, however, a scanning tunneling measurement Arai  actually find no ZBCP in the tunneling spectrum of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2. Since many experiments suggest the existence of nodes in the pair potential in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)$`{}_{2}{}^{}X`$, we believe that the absence of ZBCP is not because the pairing symmetry is a simple $`s`$-wave, but because of the roughness of the surface or the random scattering effect by impurities near the interfacerandom , namely, point (i) or (ii) mentioned in the Introduction. As regards the roughness of the surface, we believe it is necessary to study tunneling spectroscopy of $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 in the presence of atomic scale roughness as done by Tanuma $`et`$ $`al.`$ on a lattice model.Tanu1 ; Tanu2  As for the issue of random scattering effect by impurities, Asano $`et`$ $`al.`$ asano  have shown, both from analytical and numerical calculation beyond quasiclassical approximations, that impurity scattering near the interface in the high-$`T_C`$ cuprates can induce a splitting or a disappearance of the ZBCP. From this viewpoint, it would also be interesting to study the impurity scattering effect in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2.

In order to clearly determine the pairing symmetry, other complementary probes should also be used. Recently, we have shown that magnetotunneling spectroscopy is a promising method to identify the detailed paring symmetry of the unconventional superconductors Tanu3 ; Tanu4 ; magnet . It would also be interesting to apply this probe to $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2.

It is well known that ABS’s have serious influence on the Josephson current. There are many works on Josephson effect in unconventional superconductors both from theoretical and experimental view point Josephson . It is also a future problem to study Josephson effect in $`\kappa `$-(BEDT-TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 and $`(\mathrm{TMTSF})_2\mathrm{ClO}_4`$.

## Acknowledgments

The computations have been performed at the Supercomputer Center of Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University.


format: text

text:
# 1 Abstract

## 1 Abstract

The new Theorem on location of maximum of probability density functions of dimensionless second difference of the three adjacent energy levels for $`N`$-dimensional Gaussian orthogonal ensemble GOE($`N`$), $`N`$-dimensional Gaussian unitary ensemble GUE($`N`$), $`N`$-dimensional Gaussian symplectic ensemble GSE($`N`$), and Poisson ensemble PE, is formulated: The probability density functions of the dimensionless second difference of the three adjacent energy levels take on maximum at the origin for the following ensembles: GOE($`N`$), GUE($`N`$), GSE($`N`$), and PE, where $`N3`$. The notions of level homogenization with level clustering and level homogenization with level repulsion are introduced.

## 2 Summary

Division of many complex $`N`$-level quantum systems exhibiting universal behaviour depending only on symmetry of Hamiltonian matrix of the system:

* Gaussian orthogonal ensemble GOE($`N`$)
* Gaussian unitary ensemble GUE($`N`$)
* Gaussian symplectic ensemble GSE($`N`$).

The Gaussian ensembles are used in study of quantum systems whose classical-limit analogs are chaotic. The Poisson ensemble PE (Poisson random-sequence spectrum) is composed of uncorrelated and randomly distributed energy levels and it describes quantum systems whose classical-limit analogs are integrable. The standard statistical measure is Wigner’s distribution of the $`i`$th nearest neighbour spacing:

$$s_i=\mathrm{\Delta }^1E_i=E_{i+1}E_i,\text{ i=1,…,N-1}.$$
(1)
For ith second difference (the i-th second differential quotient) of the three adjacent energy levels:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2E_i=\mathrm{\Delta }^1E_{i+1}\mathrm{\Delta }^1E_i=`$ (2)
$`=E_i+E_{i+2}2E_{i+1},\text{ i=1,…,N-2},`$
we calculated distributions for GOE(3), GUE(3), GSE(3), and PE Refs .

We formulate the following

> Theorem: The probability density functions of the dimensionless second difference of the three adjacent energy levels take on maximum at the origin for the following ensembles: GOE($`N`$), GUE($`N`$), GSE($`N`$), and PE, where $`N3`$.

We present the idea of proof. For Gaussian ensembles it can be shown that second difference distributions are symmetrical functions for $`N3`$. Hence, the first derivatives of the distributions at the origin vanish. For Poisson ensemble the second difference distribution is Laplace one for $`N3`$. Therefore, the distribution takes on maximum at zero.

The inferences are the following:

* The quantum systems show tendency towards the homogeneity of levels (equal distance between adjacent levels). We call it homogeneization of energy levels.
* There are two generic homogeneizations: the first is typical for Gaussian ensembles, the second one for Poisson ensemble. For the former ensembles we define level homogenization with level repulsion as follows. Energy levels are so distributed that the situation that both the spacings and second difference vanish:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2E_i=s_i=s_{i+1}=0,$$
(3)
is the most probable one. For the latter ensemble level homogenization with level clustering is described below. Now it is the most probable that only the second difference is equal to zero but the two nearest neighbour spacings are nonzero:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2E_i=0,s_i=s_{i+1},s_i0.$$
(4)
* The assumption of non-zero value by the second difference is less probable than the assumption of zero value. Equivalently, the inequality of the two nearest neighbour spacings is less probable than their equality.
* The predictions of the Theorem are corroborated by numerical and experimental data Refs .

The theorem could be extended to other ensembles, e.g. circular ones, and it is a direction of future development.

We present on Fig. 1 the second difference probability densities for Gaussian and Poisson ensembles. On Figs 2, 3 we depict comparison between second difference probability densities and exparimental nuclear data of $`{}_{}{}^{181}Ta`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{167}Er`$ belonging to chaotic systems. We plot these comparison for random sequence spectrum on Fig. 4. Finally, we show it for simulation of GOE(2000) on Fig. 5.

## 3 Figure captions

1. The probability density function of the dimensionless second difference for Poisson ensemble (P: medium dashed line), for GOE(3) (O: solid line), for GUE(3) (U: medium dashed line), and for GSE(3) (S: short dashed line). The value of $`x`$ is the ratio of second difference to the mean spacing for GOE(3), GUE(3), GSE(3), and Poisson ensemble, respectively.
2. The probability density function of the second difference for GOE(3) (solid line), for Poisson ensmble (dashed line), and for $`{}_{}{}^{181}Ta`$ (histogram).
3. The probability density function of the second difference $`f_Z^{GOE(3)}`$ for GOE(3) (thin dashed line), for Poisson ensemble $`f_Z^I`$ (dashed line), and for $`{}_{}{}^{167}Er`$ (histogram).
4. The probability density function of the second difference $`f_Z^{GOE(3)}`$ for GOE(3) (thin dashed line), for Poisson ensemble $`f_Z^I`$ (dashed line), and for random-sequence spectrum (histogram).
5. The probability density function of the dimensionless second difference for the GOE(3) (solid line), for the integrable system (dashed line), and for GOE(2000) (histogram).


text:
# 1 Predicted effects of the mirror world.

Drobyshevski et al have been searching for slow-moving ($`v30\text{ km/s}`$) dark matter objects and have obtained some interesting positive results. While they have interpreted their results in terms of Planckian mass objects with electric charge $`10e`$ (daemon hypothesis), we will suggest an alternative interpretation in this note.

Their idea is very novel and straightforward. Dark matter could consist of massive particles with interactions strong enough to be captured by our solar system (or perhaps be a component of the gas cloud from which our solar system was formed). In this case such particles would have a velocity (relative to the Earth) of order $`30`$ km/s. If its interactions are weak enough and/or the dark matter particles are heavy enough then such particles will not be stopped in the Earth’s atmosphere and can enter the Earth’s surface with a velocity of order $`30`$ km/s. If such particles interact electromagnetically, then they may appear as a sort of cosmic ray, yet potentially distinguishable from ordinary cosmic rays because of their low velocity. Thus, one needs to design a suitable detector capable of searching for such slow-moving dark matter objects.

The detector devised by Drobyshevski et al is very simple. It consists of a tinned iron box containing two transparent polystyrene plates arranged horizontally one above the other separated by a distance of 7 cm. Each plate is coated on the downside with a layer of scintillator, ZnS (Ag) powder, with photomultiplier tubes at each end (i.e. the top and bottom). See Ref.  for more details. The passage of a charged particle through each of these plates or the tin walls can potentially be detected by the photomultiplier tubes. The time difference between the pulses from the top and bottom photomultiplier tubes ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$) will allow a determination of the velocity of the particle through their detector. A positive (negative) $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ corresponds to the upper photomultiplier tubes being triggered before (after) the lower photomulitplier tubes. Background from cosmic rays and other conceivable backgrounds should occur equally for positive and negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ bins (Drobyshevski et al use bins of duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=20\mu s`$). This can be exploited by defining an up-down asymmetry, $`R_n`$, ($`n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$) defined by

$`R_n={\displaystyle \frac{N(20n\mu s<\mathrm{\Delta }t<20(n1)\mu s)}{N(20(n1)\mu s<\mathrm{\Delta }t<20n\mu s)}}`$ (1)
Clearly in the absence of exotic slow moving particles one expects $`R_n`$ to equal 1 (for each value of $`n`$). Any statistically significant deviation from unity would be an interesting signal for such new particles, with velocity of order $`L/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (where $`L`$ is the size of their tin box). According to Ref., there is a statistically significant anomaly occurring for $`R_2`$ (see figure 2 of Ref.):

$`R_2=0.3\pm 0.15`$ (2)
However, the total number of events was statistically small, roughly 70 events (in the $`20\mu s<|\mathrm{\Delta }t|<40\mu s`$ bins) during a 700 hour exposure, and is as yet unconfirmed by any other experiment. Some interesting hints for a seasonal variation were also claimed.

Taken at face value these results represent intriguing evidence for a flux of slow moving ($`vL/\mathrm{\Delta }t1015\text{ km/s}`$) long lived massive particles, with fairly large penetrating ability and which interact sufficiently to produce an observable burst of photons. One possible, more specific interpretation of the experimental results is in terms of very heavy plankian mass objects with charge $`10e`$. Another possibility is that this experiment has observed the impacts of mirror dust particles, i.e. mirror micrometeorites, as we will shortly explain.

Mirror matter is predicted to exist if nature exhibits an exact unbroken mirror symmetry (for reviews and more complete set of references, see Ref.). For each type of the ordinary particle (electron, quark, photon etc) there is a mirror partner (mirror electron, mirror quark, mirror photon etc), of the same mass. The two sets of particles form parallel sectors each with gauge symmetry $`G`$ (where $`G=SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$ in the simplest case) so that the full gauge group is $`GG`$. The unbroken mirror symmetry maps $`xx`$ as well as ordinary particles into mirror particles. Exact unbroken time reversal symmetry also exists, with standard CPT identified as the product of exact T and exact P.

Ordinary and mirror particles can interact with each other by gravity and via the photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing interaction222Given the constraints of gauge invariance, renomalizability and mirror symmetry it turns out that the only allowed non-gravitational interactions connecting the ordinary particles with the mirror particles are via photon-mirror photons kinetic mixing, $`=\frac{ϵ}{2}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$, where $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ ($`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$) is the field strength tensor for electromagnetism (mirror electromagnetism) and via a Higgs-mirror Higgs quartic interaction, $`=\lambda \varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}`$. If neutrinos have mass, then ordinary - mirror neutrino oscillations may also occur., the effect of which is to give mirror charged particles a small effective ordinary electric charge $`ϵe`$. Interestingly, the existence of photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing allows mirror matter to explain a number of puzzling observations, including the pioneer spacecraft anomaly, anomalous meteorite events and the unexpectedly low number of small craters on the asteroid 433 Eros. It turns out that these explanations and other constraints suggest that $`ϵ`$ is in the range

$`10^9|ϵ|10^6.`$ (3)
In table 1 we have summarized the observational effects of the mirror world for $`ϵ`$ in this range.

The properties of mirror matter space-bodies (SB) impacting on the Earth’s atmosphere has been studied in some detail in Ref.. Things depend (mainly) on the following parameters: the velocity of the SB ($`v`$), the direction of its trajectory ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$), the SB diameter ($`D_{\text{SB}}`$), and the value of the fundamental parameter $`ϵ`$. (Of course, while the parameters $`v,\mathrm{cos}\theta ,D_{\text{SB}}`$, can all have different values, depending on each event, $`ϵ`$ can only have one value which is fixed in nature, like the fine structure constant).

While previous work focussed on the impacts of fairly large objects ($`1`$ meter) which can potentially explain various anomalous impact events (such as the Jordan event, tunguska event etc), the possible effects of small dust particle impacts on Earth was not specifically explored. In fact, the number of small mirror dust particles could potentially be quite large as collisions of large ($`1`$ meter) mirror space bodies with themselves and ordinary bodies will generate them within our solar system. Thus, such small particles are potentially important because the number of such impacts on Earth should be much greater than the impacts of larger bodies. Furthermore, small dust particles can potentially retain their cosmic velocity impacting on the Earth’s surface with velocity of $`11\text{ km/s}v70\text{ km/s}`$. 333The minimum impact velocity, 11 km/s, is equivalent to the escape velocity for a particle on Earth, while the upper limit of about 70 km/s assumes that the particle is bound within the solar system..

The condition that small mirror dust particles pass through the atmosphere without losing their velocity is that (from Eq.22 of Ref.)444 Unfortunately Ref. (and Ref.) contains an error in the Rutherford cross section formula used ($`ϵ^2e^4ϵ^2\alpha ^2`$). This means that the $`ϵ`$ ranges in Ref. should increase by roughly one order of magnitude.

$`|ϵ|2\times 10^7\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}\theta }(v_i/30\text{ km/s})^2`$ (4)
where $`v_i`$ is the initial velocity relative to the Earth. Thus, since $`v_i70\text{ km/s}`$ (for solar system objects), it follows that such cosmic velocity impacts can begin to occur for $`|ϵ|10^6`$.

At low velocities ($`v70\text{ km/s}`$) the energy loss is dominated by Rutherford scattering. An important secondary process is bremsstrahlung, where a real photon is emitted when the ordinary nucleus (of electric charge $`Ze`$ and mass $`M_A`$) scatters off a mirror nucleus (of effective ordinary electric charge $`ϵZ^{}e`$ and mass $`M_A^{}`$). The kinetic energy of a mirror iron nucleus (taking the case of a mirror iron dust particle for definiteness) moving at a velocity $`v`$ is:

$`E_{\text{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_{\text{Fe}}v^2`$ (5)
$``$ $`260\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{30\text{ km/s}}}\right)^2eV`$
Clearly, there is sufficient energy to produce optical and UV photons via the bremsstrahlung process.

In the case where 555 Note that even in the case where $`M_AM_A^{}`$, the cross section will be of the same order of magnitude. $`M_AM_A^{}`$, and for photon energies ($`k`$) much less than $`E_{\text{kin}}`$, the cross section is given by 666 Unless stated otherwise, we use natural units, $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{\text{brem}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{\text{elastic}}{\displaystyle \frac{2Z^2\alpha }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}v^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _s}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{\text{max}}}{k_{\text{min}}}}`$ (6)
where the elastic cross section is given by:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{\text{elastic}}={\displaystyle \frac{4M_A^2ϵ^2\alpha ^2Z^2Z^2}{(4M_A^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta _s}{2}+\frac{1}{r_0^2})^2}}`$ (7)
where $`r_010^9`$ cm is the radius at which the screening effects of the atomic electrons becomes effective. The total bremsstrahlung cross section can easily be evaluated by integrating Eq.(6)777 Note that the cross section, above, is valid assuming that the particles are point particles. For our application, we have the scattering of nuclei (of size $`R_N`$). In general we need to add in a Form factor, but this effect is only important when the momentum transfer is greater than $`1/R_N10`$ MeV. Given that we are concerned with solar system dust particles, with relatively low velocity, $`v70`$ km/s, the momentum transfer is always low enough so that we can treat the atomic nuclei as point particles.,

$`\sigma _{\text{brem}}={\displaystyle \frac{16ϵ^2\alpha ^3Z^4Z^2}{3M_A^2v^2}}\mathrm{ln}(r_0M_Av)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{\text{max}}}{k_{\text{min}}}}`$ (8)
Taking $`k_{\text{min}}`$ 1 eV and $`k_{\text{max}}50`$ eV, we find:

$`\sigma _{\text{brem}}3\times 10^{32}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{10^7}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{26}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z^{}}{26}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{50M_P}{M_A}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{10\text{ km/s}}{v}}\right)^2\text{ cm}^2`$ (9)
For the passage of a mirror iron nucleus through ordinary matter of atomic number density, $`n10^{23}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$, the mirror iron nucleus would have to travel an average distance of $`L=1/(n\sigma )10^9`$ cm before a bremsstrahlung process, producing a photon in the energy range 1 eV $`kk_{\text{max}}50`$ eV, occurs. However, a mirror dust particle contains, e.g. $`10^{14}`$ such mirror nuclei, so that $`10^5`$ photons (or more for larger dust particles) can be produced when such a dust particle passes through 1 cm of ordinary matter.

The importance of this is that these photons can be detected in a photo-multiplier tube, and could thereby explain the interesting experimental results of Drobyshevski et al. In this interpretation, the excess of down-going events occurs because of the passage of a mirror matter dust particle impacting with velocity $`v10\text{ km/s}`$. The dust particle produces optical and UV photons via the bremsstrahlung process upon passing through the detector. Hard elastic scattering in the scintillator, may also produce an observable signal (depending on their threshold, efficiency etc) 888 The seasonal dependence of the flux, if real, might be due to the Earth passing through a mirror matter dust stream, in much the same way that the Earth passes through ordinary meteor streams. For example, twice each year, in May and October we pass through the meteor stream from Halley’s comet. Perhaps there is a mirror meteor dust stream which we pass through in August and February?.

The flux estimated by Drobyshevski et al is $`f10^5\text{ m}^2\text{s}^1`$. This implies a solar system number density of order $`n=f/v10^{15}\text{ cm}^3`$ or one mirror dust particle per cubic kilometer of the solar system, which seems plausible. Such a tiny density of solar system mirror dust particles may have been generated by random collisions of larger mirror space bodies. Drobyshevski et al found an excess in the 10-15 km/s velocity region. This is close to the minimum value expected, which might indicate a flux of particles moving in roughly circular orbits, near Earth’s orbit. However the bremsstrahlung cross section favours low velocities, since, from Eq.(9), $`\sigma _{\text{brem}}1/v^2`$. This feature, together with the relatively low statistics collected so far, suggests that the distribution of mirror dust particles might extend to higher velocites, potentially up to the maximum ($`v70`$ km/s) for solar system particles.

The specific explanation presented here can be distinguished from the daemon hypothesis in a number of ways. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to use an up-down symmetric detector. The reason is that daemons are so heavy and compact that they can penetrate the entire diameter of the Earth without losing a significant proportion of their energy. This means that the up-going daemon flux should be the same as the down-going daemon flux. \[In contrast, the mirror dust particles stop in the Earth after a distance of $`L10(10^7/ϵ)^2(v_i/30\text{ km/s})^4`$ meters $`10`$ meters for $`ϵ10^7`$\]. Note that even though an up-down asymmetry was obtained in the experiment, the detector was not up-down symmetric, which could allow the daemon hypothesis to potentially explain the results. Further experimental work, with an up-down symmetric detector should help distinguish the daemon hypothesis from the mirror matter one.

The bremsstrahlung process, although important because it generates easily detectable eV photons, is not the only way of detecting mirror matter dust particles. Most of the kinetic energy of the dust particle is dissipated not via the bremsstrahlung process but via Rutherford scattering. Let us now estimate the rate at which the kinetic energy of a mirror dust particle is dissipated into heat and vibration energy via Rutherford scattering. The rate of energy loss is simply the product of the collision rate, the (forward) momentum lost per collision and the total number of atoms in the mirror dust particle ($`𝒩`$), which is easily evaluated to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{\text{elastic}}}{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒩\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_A^{}}{M_A}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\rho v^2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta _s}{2}d\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi 𝒩Z^2Z^2\rho ϵ^2\alpha ^2}{M_A^{}M_Av^2}}\mathrm{ln}(M_Avr_0)`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{10^{15}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{10^7}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{30\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}}{v}}\right)^2300\mathrm{TeV}/\mathrm{cm}`$
where $`v`$ (assumed to be $`1`$ km/s in the above calculation) is the velocity of the dust particle and $`\rho `$ is the mass density of ordinary matter medium which the dust particle is moving through.

Eq.(10) can be compared with the energy loss due to the bremsstrahlung process,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{\text{brem}}}{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩n\sigma _{\text{brem}}k_\gamma `$ (11)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{10^{15}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{10^7}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{30\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}}{v}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_\gamma }{10eV}}\right)\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{cm}`$
where $`k_\gamma `$ is the mean energy of the bremsstrahlung photons emitted (of order 10 eV). In fact, if one looks at the ratio, $`(dE_{\text{brem}}/dx)/(dE_{\text{elastic}}/dx)`$, then the dependence on $`ϵ,𝒩,v`$ cancels, leaving

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{\text{brem}}/dx}{dE_{\text{elastic}}/dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4Z^2\alpha M_A^{}}{3\pi M_A^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{\text{max}}}{k_{\text{min}}}}k_\gamma `$ (12)
$``$ $`10^9`$
The heat and vibration energy generated in ordinary matter due to the passage of mirror matter dust particles can potentially be observed in sensitive cryogenic detectors, such as the NAUTILUS gravitational wave detector. NAUTILUS consists of an aluminum 2300 Kg bar cooled to 0.1 Kelvin. In addition, there is a cosmic ray detector system. Although designed to search for gravitational waves, NAUTILUS seems to be capable of detecting mirror matter - type dark matter via detection of the energy deposited in the bar via the elastic collisions $`(dE/dx)_{\text{elastic}}`$, and potentially sensitive to $`(dE/dx)_{\text{brem}}`$ in the cosmic ray detector. Interestingly, this collaboration has found anomalously large energy depositing events in the bar which feature a paradoxically low electromagnetic component in the cosmic ray detector. It seems to be possible that these anomalous events are associated with the passage of a mirror dust particle, but it may also be due to some unexpected property of aluminum. Nevertheless it is interesting that the dark matter interpretation of the St. Petersburg and NAUTILUS experiments yield flux estimates which are roughly comparable:

$`f_{\text{drob}}`$ $``$ $`10^5\text{ m}^2\text{s}^1`$
$`f_{\text{Nautilus}}`$ $``$ $`2\times 10^6\text{ m}^2\text{s}^1`$ (13)
The difference might be due to the detection thresholds being different for the two experiments.

In conclusion, we have shown that mirror matter dust particles impacting with the Earth might appear as a sort of ‘anomalous cosmic ray’. The anomalous features include a) it is slow-moving ($`30`$ km/s) and b) the energy loss is dominated by elastic collisions. Interestingly, there is evidence for particles with these anomalous features coming from two existing experiments. Further work and further experimental observations should clarify this interesting situation.

Acknowlegements: The authors would like to thank E. Drobyshevksi, for helpful correspondence regarding his experiment and Z. Silagadze for his comments on the paper.


text:
# Bug propagation and debugging in asymmetric software structures

## Abstract

We address the issue of how software components are affected by the failure of one of them, and the inverse problem of locating the faulty component. Because of the functional form of the incoming link distribution of software dependence network, software is fragile with respect to the failure of a random single component. Locating a faulty component is easy if the failure only affects its nearest neighbors, while it is hard if it propagates further.

Large scale research on small-world networks began a few years ago after the introduction by Watts and Strogatz of their famous model SW . During the last few years, many real-life networks turned out to be of small-world nature with a scale-free link distribution review . The digital world seems particularly rich in this type of network at all scales: wires in computers wires , software function calls Myers , source-file dependencies Moura , software modules Sole ; Potanin ; Classes ; Myers ; Sole2 , Internet physical network Capocci , and links between web pages Barabasi . Are notably missing the networks between software packages, which will be measured in the first part of this paper.

Whereas previous work looked for reasonable explanations of why software networks are scale-free Myers ; Sole2 , we address here bug propagation and debugging in scale-free networks, a major issue that has been neglected so far. We shall argue that software scale-free networks provide a natural explanation of software fragility.

Scale-free networks in software were recently investigated in a game and in the Java API (application programming interface) Sole . The nodes were respectively the modules of the game (sound, graphics, etc) and the objects of the standard Java API. In both cases, scale-free networks were discovered. As noted in subsequent work Myers ; Potanin ; Classes , Ref. Sole  did not take into account the directed nature of these networks, which are asymmetric. All these work focus on microscopic software components, such as functions and objects. Here we study the dependence between program packages in a Linux distribution, an important structure which has not been investigated yet, completing the hierarchy of scale-free networks found in the digital world. We then discuss the fragility of software with respect to the failure of a single component and the difficulty of debugging. As large networks are required for this study, we shall also use function call networks of open-source projects.

Let us first study software components: a computer uses a collection of software components that are linked through a network of dependence. For instance a program that displays some text needs fonts that can be provided by another component. In Linux distributions, pieces of software are often provided as packages. As the name indicates, a package is a collection of software components. The rpm command can be used to extract the network of package dependences. More precisely, rpm -q - -whatrequires myprogram lists all the packages that needs myprogram, making it easy to build the package adjacency matrix. One of us wrote a program called rpmgraph that produces a diagram of this network rpmgraph . We studied an installation of RedHat 8.0 that contained 1460 packages. The cumulative density $`P_{}(q)=P(q^{}q)`$ of the number of incoming links $`q`$ per package, is plotted in Fig. 1; we normalize $`P_{}(q)`$ so that $`P_{}(1)=1`$, which amounts to leave out of $`P_{}(q)`$ the nodes that are not needed by any other node. The distribution $`P_{}(q)`$ has not enough points to be fitted accurately with a power-law. The cumulative distribution of outgoing links, $`P_{}(k)`$ for $`k>0`$, is also plotted in Fig. 1. The asymmetry between the outgoing and incoming link distributions appears clearly.

The rpm command can give partial access to a more detailed network: using the option \- -requires instead of \- -whatrequires lists which components inside packages are needed by a given package. In other words, a package is made up of a number of sub-packages, each of them needing sub-packages of other packages. As the rpm command can only be applied to a package, the sub-package dependency network cannot be extracted, and we are left with the distribution of the number of incoming links, and a coarse grained distribution of outgoing links. This provides however a much more convincing evidence for the power-law nature of the incoming link distribution: a fit over the whole dataset gives $`P_{}(q)q^{\alpha +1}`$ with $`\alpha 2.0`$.

Fig. 2 shows that the numbers of incoming and outgoing links of a given software package are generally correlated, a property also seen in links between functions in source code Myers . Simply put, this shows that some packages such as libraries provide a functionality to other programs. As we shall see below, this is one of the causes of software fragility.

In order to study bug propagation, we need better, more precise data. Therefore we will make use of function call networks: In the latter, functions are the nodes, and function calls are the links: in the following example written in C,

```
int f(int x){
  return 2*g(x);
}

```

f calls g, hence links to g. Large open-source programs are ideal candidates for investigation. Refs Myers ; Sole2  considered the largest connected component. We are interested here in whole networks, as we focus on bug dynamics and debugging. We studied Linux kernel 2.4.18, Mozilla Internet browser 1.3a, mySQL database 4.0.2, and Apache web server 2.0.32. Extracting the function call network from a source code written in C was done using simple scripts. We excluded C-keywords from the graph. Fig. 3 reports that $`P_{}(q)`$ is also a power-law. It is noticeable that these data seem to suffer from finite size effects similar to those seen for the package dependences, the more data points, the closer to $`2`$ the exponent. We emphasize here that $`\alpha =2`$ is the value that marks the border where the average number of times a piece of software is used diverges when the size of the network goes to infinity. This is possible in software because being reused does not cost anything to a piece of software. Therefore, the average number of programs that use a given piece of software is free to diverge with the size of the network. The regularity of the incoming link distribution exponent suggests some sort of universality: the source code and program networks, that is, the micro- and mesoscopic levels respectively, have roughly the same incoming link exponent. The latter is also very close to exponents measured in macroscopic networks of links between web pages and web sites, that is, of the phenomenology resulting from the actual use of computers and programs. At all levels, being linked is free for the nodes.

On the other hand, Fig 4 shows the outgoing distribution, which may have power-law parts, but it is impossible to assert it from our data, because we have less than a decade of straight line. Previous work fitted these distribution with a power-law $`P_{}(k)k^{\beta +1}`$ in the part that correspond to $`k10`$ here and found exponents $`\beta 2.4`$. If this is the case, there are strong cutoffs, much stronger than for the incoming link distribution. On the other hand, it seems as reasonable to fit the part $`10<k<100`$ with a power law, in which case a much larger exponent (more than 4) is found. However, we only conclude from this graph that the asymmetry between incoming and outgoing link distribution is considerable, which is enough for our purpose.

There are indeed special reasons for this asymmetry being more pronounced in software than in other structures. As pointed out by Ref. Myers , the asymmetry itself is due to software reuse: some pieces of software are designed to provide functionalities that other programs can use. In addition, writing a program, hence linking to previously written piece of software, is costly. As the number of dependences of a program is related to its complexity, the average number of outgoing links cannot diverge. Remarkably, the asymmetry of distributions is less pronounced for instance in links between web pages. We argue that linking to a web page can be almost free, in contrast to the amount of work needed to write software pieces, which needs a logical structure, hence the large asymmetry found here.

This leads us to bug propagation. Software is well known to be fragile. As we shall argue in the following, this is due in part to its structure. Assume that all the nodes but one, drawn at random, are perfectly working. What is the consequence of this imperfection? Software failures actually propagate on the dependence graph: if a node (function or software package) is faulty, the nodes calling it are likely to work less than optimally; by extension the nodes calling a node that calls the faulty node will probably be affected, etc. This also raise the question of how hard is it to locate the faulty node?

Interestingly, the failure can also propagate from a microscopic software structure to a macroscopic one. For instance, a function trying to access a memory address outside the allocated memory space can crash the whole program to which it belongs. If it does, the problem now lies at the level of software packages. If the operating system has no memory protection, this causes a system crash. Then, if other computers depend on the system that went down, they will also be affected.

In this paper, we shall focus on a simpler problem by making simplifying assumptions on the influence of a single bug. As many bugs are not nearly as dangerous as illegal memory access, but (annoying) imperfections, or faults, their influence is not as dramatic. Therefore, we assume that the influence of a faulty node is only determined by the dependence network to which it belongs. A node is either working (contains no bug), faulty (contains a bug), or affected by a bug.111This is somehow akin to virus propagation epidemy  where a node is either susceptible, infectious or resistant.

First we consider the simple optimistic case where only the nearest neighbors are affected by a faulty node. The asymmetry of the structure implies that the bug propagates to a typically large number of nodes. On the other hand, once an incorrect behavior is detected, locating the faulty node is easy. Therefore, in the most optimistic case, software is fragile, but fixing it is relatively easy once an anomaly is detected.

This view is however too simplistic: as shown by the illegal memory example, bugs do propagate further than their next neighbors. Let us be pessimistic, and assume that they propagate as far as possible: if a node is faulty, all the nodes that point to it directly or indirectly are equally affected. In contrast to virus propagation, bug influence is instantaneous. We are now left with the study of the properties of influence basins. Of particular interest is the influence basin size distribution $`P(b)`$ which can be computed by iterating the graph matrix $`G`$ graphs . The dependence of $`i`$ on $`j`$ is denoted by $`G_{i,j}=1`$, ($`G_{i,j}=0`$ otherwise). Element $`(G^n)_{i,j}`$ contains the number of paths of length $`n`$ between $`i`$ and $`j`$, hence, in order to compute the basin size distribution, one needs to compute the $`B=_{k=0}^NG^k`$ where $`N`$ is the number of nodes. If $`i`$ belongs to the influence basin of $`j`$, $`B_{i,j}>0`$. The size of failure propagation basin of node $`j`$ is then simply given by $`b_j=_i\text{sign}(B_{i,j})`$. Figure 5 shows an inverse Zipf plot of measured basin sizes: such a plot consists in ranking the basins according to their sizes and plotting the rank $`r`$ versus $`b`$ Zipf . This is equivalent to integrating: if $`P(b)b^\gamma `$, $`rb^{\gamma +1}`$.222Usual Zipf plots display $`b`$ versus the rank $`r`$, which is less intuitive, as the apparent slope is $`1/(\gamma 1)`$. The exponents of the power-laws seem to be either $`2`$ (Mozilla) or $`5/2`$ (Linux); the exponent of Apache is unclear. A $`2`$ exponent was also obtained for the basins of Internet physical network basinInternet .

One can also define a debugging basin: suppose that a piece of software $`i`$ is affected by the failure of another program, but is not buggy itself; what is the maximum number of pieces of software $`w_i=_jB_{i,j}`$ that are to be inspected in order to locate the faulty node? Given the asymmetry of incoming and outgoing link distribution, one would naively expect that $`P(b)`$ and $`P(w)`$ differ notably. This is clearly not the case: the debugging basin distributions seem to follow closely their associated bug influence basins distributions, and share roughly the same exponents (see Fig 5), although $`P(w)`$ is not as smooth as $`P(b)`$, making it difficult to fit it.

This similarity is also seen in the package dependence network (fig 6) where $`P(b)`$ and $`P(w)`$ have power-law parts both with same exponent $`3/2`$; note that our dataset is too small to allow being definitive. In addition, the bug influence basis distribution as a early cut-off.

It is tempting to relate the similarity between the exponents of the two basin distributions to branching processes, which describe random tree growth. Starting from a root node (generation 0), at time $`t`$ each node $`i`$ of generation $`t1`$ branches into a random number $`r_i(t)`$ of new nodes. The average number of new nodes $`r`$ in the subtree is called the branching ratio. Of particular interest to us is the following property: if $`r=1`$, the subtree (i.e. basin) size probability distribution of a randomly drawn node $`P(b)b^{3/2}`$. If $`r>1`$ and $`r^2<\mathrm{}`$, $`P(b)b^2`$ Paolo ; if the branching variance $`r^2`$ is infinite, any exponent can be obtained PaoloPrivate . These results do not apply directly to software structures, as the latter are not perfect trees. But what branching processes suggest is that the exponent of basin distributions is controlled by the branching ratio and variance. The branching ratio is nothing else than the average number of outgoing links $`k`$ or incoming links $`q`$ in the context of software structures, and both are equal. If the outgoing link distribution is a power-law and has an exponent small than $`3`$, both branching variances are infinite. At first, this provides an intuitive although incomplete explanation of why the basin distribution exponents are the same. Although the analogy is not perfect, it may be that there is also some sort of universality with respect to basin distributions in these networks, since the exponent found seem to be multiples of $`1/2`$. This is an interesting open challenge. The question is whether larger exponents, hence more robust and easier-to-debug software, can be obtained at all. If the answer is negative, the fragility software and the difficulty of debugging are doomed not to be bounded in the worst case.

A still simple but more realistic model of bug propagation consists in assuming that a node linking to a faulty or affected node is itself affected with probability $`p`$. The rationale is the following: assume that node $`i`$ calls node $`j`$. In the context of software packages, $`p`$ takes into account the fact that $`j`$, the faulty/affected node contains sub-packages (see above) which are typically not all defective/affected. Similarly, the sub-packages of $`i`$ do not all link to a faulty sub-package of $`j`$. For instance, if there are $`n`$ sub-packages in both $`i`$ and $`j`$, and if there are $`f`$ faulty sub-packages in $`j`$, and if every sub-package of $`i`$ has $`l`$ links that point each to a randomly chosen sub-package of $`j`$, using elementary combinatorics, one finds for $`nf>l`$,

$$p=1\left[\frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nf}{l}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)}\right]^n=1\left[\frac{(nf)!(nl)!}{(nfl)!n!}\right]^n$$
(1)
where $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nf}{l}\right)/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)`$ is the probability that all the $`l`$ links point to a working function. Assuming that $`p`$ is constant for all the links in the network, one is left with a bond percolation problem for directed graphs. It is known that if the exponent of the link distribution is smaller than $`3`$ epidemy , with probability 1 a finite fraction of the network belongs to a percolation cluster, which means that the influence of single bug is likely to be as large as if $`p=1`$ for any value of $`p`$. Therefore, the picture drawn in the previous paragraph and figs 5 and 6 still applies. On the other hand, the short-tailed nature of the outgoing link distribution implies that the basin of debugging depends on the value of $`p`$: there is a critical value $`p_c`$ of $`p`$ such that for $`p_c<p`$, debugging is easy, while debugging is hard if $`p>p_c`$.

Finally, another cause for software fragility comes from the peculiar role played by libraries. As shown in fig 2, software packages that are meant to be reused are accordingly more often linked to. When a program is installed or upgraded, it often happens that it needs an updated version of some library. The dilemma, known as “DLL hell” in Windows operating systems, is the following: if one does not install the new version of the library, the new program is likely not to work properly. If one updates the library, all the programs that link to its old version are susceptible to be broken. This provides a natural mechanism for progressive worsening of operating system instability. There are two solutions: either one implements a way of using several version of libraries at the same time, or one systematically upgrades all the programs using the library in question. Assuming that new versions of programs are available, the first possibility applies mostly to commercial programs, because the cost associated with upgrading expensive software may be very high; the second solution is the way for instance Linux distributions work, but leads sometimes to upgrading a very large number of programs, which is frowned up by the users. At any rate, one should not underestimate the importance of this problem: not only the distribution of incoming links implies that the average number of affected programs diverges with the system size, but even worse, as shown by fig 2, libraries are characterized by an even larger number of incoming links.

In conclusion, we argued that the fragility of software can be in part attributed to its very structure, which unfortunately seems to arise naturally from optimization considerations.

D. C. thanks Paolo De Los Rios, Andrea Capocci and Ginestra Bianconi for useful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the present paper, we continue our study the structure of hadronic spectra, started in Refs. , from the view point of existence the extra dimensions in the spirit of Kaluza-Klein approach. Here we shall concern the spectra of charmed and charmed-strange mesons. The physics of charmed and charmed-strange mesons is really charmed and charmed-strange one. On the one hand the fundamental QCD Lagrangian predicted the charmed and charmed-strange states containing $`c`$ and $`s`$ quarks, while on the other hand there are serious problems to describe that sort of experimentally observed states in the framework of known QCD-inspired potential models with the quark and gluon degrees of freedom. The best currently performed lattice computations in QCD  can not help us to understand the exact nature of the recently observed new states in the spectrum of charmed-strange mesons too. However, we show below that all charmed and charmed-strange mesons, including the recently observed new states, are excellently incorporated in the systematics provided by Kaluza-Klein approach.

## 2 Charmed mesons

As it was established in previous paper , the charmed $`D^0`$(1864)-meson may occupy $`M_{19}^{2K}(18601864)`$-Storey in Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations in two-kaon system and $`M_{21}^{2K}(20032006)`$-Storey in the same tower is acceptable for the $`D^0`$(2006)-meson. However, $`D^0`$(2006)-meson has been observed as a resonance in $`D^0\pi ^0`$–system. That is why, first of all, let us build the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for $`D\pi `$–system by the formula

$$M_n^{D\pi }=\sqrt{m_D^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}),$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the fundamental scale characterizing the size of extra dimensions calculated early from the analysis of nucleon-nucleon dynamics at low energies

$$\frac{1}{R}=41.481\text{MeV}\text{or}R=24.1\text{GeV}^1=\mathrm{4.75\hspace{0.17em}10}^{13}\text{cm}.$$
(2)
The Kaluza-Klein tower such built is shown in Table 1 where the comparison with experimentally observed mass spectrum of $`D^{}`$-mesons is also presented.

Throughout we have used Review of Particle Physics  where the experimental data on mass spectrum of the resonance states have been extracted from. In particular, we have used $`m_{D^0}=1864.1\pm 1.0`$ Mev and $`m_{D^\pm }=1869.4\pm 0.5`$ Mev for the masses of $`D`$-mesons calculating the Kaluza-Klein tower for $`D\pi `$-system. In Table 2 – Table 3 we collected some known experimental information. The Tables 1–3 show a remarkable correspondence of the calculated KK excitations for $`D\pi `$ system with the experimentally measured masses of the $`D^{}`$-mesons. In fact, there are many empty cells in Table 1 where we have not found the corresponding experimental data.

At the next step we built the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for the $`D^{}\pi `$-system by the formula

$$M_n^{D^{}\pi }=\sqrt{m_D^{}^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}),$$
(3)
and this is shown in Table 4 where the comparison with experimentally observed mass spectrum is also presented. Some known experimental information in that case is collected in separate tables: Table 5 – Table 6. We have used $`m_{D^0}=2006.71\pm 0.5`$ Mev and $`m_{D^\pm }=2010.0\pm 0.5`$ Mev for the masses of $`D^{}`$-mesons calculating the Kaluza-Klein tower for $`D^{}\pi `$-system. Again we see from Tables 4–6 that there is a remarkable correspondence of the calculated KK excitations for $`D^{}\pi `$-system with the experimentally measured masses of the resonance states. Here, there are many empty cells in Table 4 as well, where we have not found the corresponding experimental data. However, it should be noted that the decay modes $`D_1^0(2420)D^+(2010)\pi ^{}`$ and $`D_1^+(2420)D^0(2007)\pi ^+`$ have been seen but the decay modes $`D_1^0(2420)D^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`D_1^+(2420)D^0\pi ^+`$ have not been observed . Table 1 and Table 4, as it were, confirm that observation.

## 3 Charmed-strange mesons

Now, we go to the charmed-strange mesons. In the first, we calculate the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for the $`K^0K^\pm `$-system by the formula

$$M_n^{K^0K^\pm }=\sqrt{m_{K^0}^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_{K^\pm }^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}),$$
(4)
which is shown in Table 7. We see that $`D_s^\pm (1969)`$-meson lives in $`M_{10}^{K^0K^\pm }`$-Storey of that Kaluza-Klein tower. We have used $`m_{K^0}=896.1\pm 0.27`$ Mev and $`m_{K^\pm }=891.66\pm 0.26`$ Mev for the masses of $`K^{}(892)`$-mesons calculating the Kaluza-Klein tower. It should be emphasized that $`M_9^{K^0K^\pm }`$-Storey in this Kaluza-Klein tower is quite acceptable for the $`f_2(0^+2^{++})(1950)`$-meson (LASS 91). In Table 8 we presented some known experimental information concerning $`D_s^\pm `$-meson.

We farther present the results calculating the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for the $`DK`$-system by the formula

$$M_n^{DK}=\sqrt{m_D^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_K^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}).$$
(5)
These results are shown in Table 9. We have used $`m_{D^0}=1864.1\pm 1.0`$ Mev and $`m_{D^\pm }=1869.4\pm 0.5`$ Mev for the masses of $`D`$-mesons calculating the Kaluza-Klein tower. Table 10 concerns the experimental data of resonance states in $`DK`$-system extracted from . Recently CLEO Collaboration reported the observation of a narrow resonance $`D_{sJ}^+(2463)`$ in $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$-system . From Table 9 we see that $`M_7^{DK}(24592468)`$-Storey is acceptable for the resonance in $`D^+K^0`$-system with a similar mass.

We have also calculated the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for the $`D^{}K`$-system by the formula

$$M_n^{D^{}K}=\sqrt{m_D^{}^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_K^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}).$$
(6)
This is shown in Table 11. Here, we have used $`m_{D^0}=2006.7\pm 0.5`$ Mev and $`m_{D^\pm }=2010.0\pm 0.5`$ Mev for the masses of $`D^{}`$-mesons calculating the Kaluza-Klein tower. As it is seen, the $`D_{s1}^\pm (2536)`$-meson is excellently incorporated in Table 11. We have also found that $`D_{sJ}^\pm (2573)`$-meson may occupy the $`M_6^{D^{}K}`$-Storey even though the decay $`D_{sJ}^+(2573)D^{0(+)}(2007)K^{+(0)}`$ has not been seen so far. Table 12 contains the experimental data in respect of $`D_{s1}^\pm (2536)`$-meson.

In Table 13 we present the results calculating the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for the $`D_s^\pm (1969)\pi `$-system by the formula

$$M_n^{D_s^\pm \pi }=\sqrt{m_{D_s^\pm }^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}),$$
(7)
where it follows that the $`D_{sJ}^\pm (2112)`$ lives in the first Storey of this Kaluza-Klein tower from. The seventh Storey of this Kaluza-Klein tower is acceptable for the recently discovered in  and confirmed in  $`D_{sJ}(2317)`$-meson as well.

At the same time we have calculated Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for the $`D_s^\pm (2112)\pi `$-system by the formula

$$M_n^{D_{sJ}\pi }=\sqrt{m_{D_s^\pm }^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}),$$
(8)
and found that the recently discovered narrow resonance of mass 2.46 GeV decaying to $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$  lives in the seventh Storey of this Kaluza-Klein tower: see Table 14.

At last, we present in Table 15 the results calculating the Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for the $`K^{}(892)K`$-system by the formula

$$M_n^{K^{}K}=\sqrt{m_K^{}^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}}+\sqrt{m_K^2+\frac{n^2}{R^2}},(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}).$$
(9)
Here we have found that the recently discovered in  and confirmed in  $`D_{sJ}(2317)`$-meson  may excellently be incorporated in $`M_{22}^{K^{}K}(23152317)`$-Storey of that Kaluza-Klein tower. Moreover, the first Storey in this tower is acceptable for the $`h_1(\mathrm{?}^{}1^+)(1380)`$-meson with experimentally measured mass $`1386\pm 19`$ MeV ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=91\pm 30`$) MeV(AVERAGE PDG), and $`M_4^{K^{}K}(1432)`$-Storey is very acceptable for the $`f_1(0^+1^{++})(1420)`$-meson with experimentally measured mass $`1433.4\pm 0.8`$ MeV ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=58.8\pm 3.3`$) MeV(SPEC 99) as well, $`M_6^{K^{}K}(1482)`$-Storey is a good place for the $`\eta (0^+0^+)(1440)`$-meson with experimentally measured mass $`1475\pm 5`$ MeV ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=81\pm 11`$) MeV(AVERAGE PDG), the $`f_1(0^+1^{++})(1510)`$-meson with experimentally measured mass $`1512\pm 4`$ MeV ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=35\pm 15`$) MeV(MPS 88) may all rights to occupy $`M_7^{K^{}K}(1514)`$-Storey, and finally $`M_{10}^{K^{}K}(1632)`$-Storey is very acceptable for the $`\eta _2(0^+2^+)(1645)`$-meson with experimentally measured mass $`1632\pm 14`$ MeV ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=180_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}22}}`$) MeV(AVERAGE PDG) too.

## 4 Summary

We calculated the Kaluza-Klein towers of KK excitations for the different experimentally observed charmed and charmed-strange hadronic systems and found that all known charmed and charmed-strange mesons, including the recently observed new states, are excellently incorporated in the systematics provided by Kaluza-Klein picture. This is a very non-trivial fact, even though there are many empty cells in Tables 1,4,7,9,11, 13,14,15 where we have no the corresponding experimental information.

Of course, it would be very desirable to state new experiments to search new states, and we believe that the Tables presented here may serve as a guide for the physicists–experimenters.

Table 1: Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations for $`D\pi `$-system and experimental data.

| n | $`M_n^{D^0\pi ^0}`$MeV | $`M_n^{D^0\pi ^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_n^{D^\pm \pi ^0}`$MeV | $`M_n^{D^\pm \pi ^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_{exp}^{D\pi }`$ MeV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2005.77 | 2010.17 | 2011.07 | 2015.46 | $`D^{0,\pm }\left(\frac{1}{2}1^{}\right)`$ |
| 2 | 2024.38 | 2028.31 | 2029.67 | 2033.61 |  |
| 3 | 2051.84 | 2055.24 | 2057.13 | 2060.53 |  |
| 4 | 2085.36 | 2088.29 | 2090.64 | 2093.57 |  |
| 5 | 2123.06 | 2125.60 | 2128.33 | 2130.86 |  |
| 6 | 2163.77 | 2165.99 | 2169.03 | 2171.25 |  |
| 7 | 2206.79 | 2208.75 | 2212.02 | 2213.99 |  |
| 8 | 2251.66 | 2253.41 | 2256.88 | 2258.63 |  |
| 9 | 2298.10 | 2299.68 | 2303.30 | 2304.88 |  |
| 10 | 2345.92 | 2347.36 | 2351.09 | 2352.53 |  |
| 11 | 2394.97 | 2396.30 | 2400.12 | 2401.44 |  |
| 12 | 2445.17 | 2446.39 | 2450.29 | 2451.51 | $`D_2^{0,\pm }\left(\frac{1}{2}2^+\right)`$ |
| 13 | 2496.42 | 2497.56 | 2501.52 | 2502.65 |  |
| 14 | 2548.68 | 2549.74 | 2553.74 | 2554.80 |  |
| 15 | 2601.89 | 2602.88 | 2606.92 | 2607.91 |  |
| 16 | 2656.01 | 2656.94 | 2661.01 | 2661.94 |  |
| 17 | 2711.01 | 2711.89 | 2715.97 | 2716.84 |  |
| 18 | 2766.84 | 2767.67 | 2771.76 | 2772.59 |  |
| 19 | 2823.49 | 2824.27 | 2828.37 | 2829.16 |  |
| 20 | 2880.91 | 2881.66 | 2885.76 | 2886.50 |  |
| 21 | 2939.10 | 2939.81 | 2943.90 | 2944.61 |  |
| 22 | 2998.01 | 2998.69 | 3002.77 | 3003.46 |  |
| 23 | 3057.64 | 3058.29 | 3062.35 | 3063.01 |  |
| 24 | 3117.95 | 3118.57 | 3122.62 | 3123.25 |  |
| 25 | 3178.92 | 3179.52 | 3183.55 | 3184.16 |  |
| 26 | 3240.54 | 3241.12 | 3245.13 | 3245.71 |  |
| 27 | 3302.78 | 3303.34 | 3307.33 | 3307.89 |  |
| 28 | 3365.63 | 3366.17 | 3370.13 | 3370.67 |  |
| 29 | 3429.06 | 3429.58 | 3433.51 | 3434.03 |  |
| 30 | 3493.05 | 3493.55 | 3497.46 | 3497.96 |  |

Table 2: $`M_1^{D\pi }(20062015)`$–Storey.

| $`R(IJ^P)`$ | $`M_R`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ MeV | Reaction | Collab. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`D^0(\frac{1}{2}1^{})`$ | 2006.7 $`\pm `$ 0.5 | $`<2.1`$ | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |
| $`D^\pm (\frac{1}{2}1^{})`$ | 2010.0 $`\pm `$ 0.5 | $`<0.131`$ | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |

Table 3: $`M_{12}^{D\pi }(24452452)`$–Storey.

| $`R(IJ^P)`$ | $`M_R`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ MeV | Reaction | Collab. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`D_2^0(\frac{1}{2}2^+)`$ | 2453$`\pm `$3$`\pm `$2 | 25$`\pm `$10$`\pm `$5 | $`\gamma BeD^+\pi ^{}X`$ | E687 94 |
|  | 2458.9 $`\pm `$ 2.0 | 23 $`\pm `$ 5 | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |
| $`D_2^\pm (\frac{1}{2}2^+)`$ | 2453$`\pm `$3$`\pm `$2 | 23$`\pm `$9$`\pm `$5 | $`\gamma BeD^0\pi ^+X`$ | E687 94 |
|  | 2459 $`\pm `$ 4 | $`25_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}}`$ | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |

Table 4: Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations in $`D^{}\pi `$-system and experimental data.

| n | $`M_n^{D^0\pi ^0}`$MeV | $`M_n^{D^0\pi ^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_n^{D^\pm \pi ^0}`$MeV | $`M_n^{D^\pm \pi ^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_{exp}^{D^{}\pi }`$ MeV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2148.34 | 2152.73 | 2151.63 | 2156.03 |  |
| 2 | 2166.85 | 2170.78 | 2170.15 | 2174.08 |  |
| 3 | 2194.14 | 2197.55 | 2197.44 | 2200.84 |  |
| 4 | 2227.44 | 2230.37 | 2230.73 | 2233.66 |  |
| 5 | 2264.85 | 2267.38 | 2268.13 | 2270.67 |  |
| 6 | 2305.21 | 2307.43 | 2308.48 | 2310.70 |  |
| 7 | 2347.81 | 2349.77 | 2351.07 | 2353.04 |  |
| 8 | 2392.20 | 2393.96 | 2395.46 | 2397.22 |  |
| 9 | 2438.11 | 2439.70 | 2441.36 | 2442.94 | $`D_1\left(2420\right)`$ |
| 10 | 2485.35 | 2486.79 | 2488.58 | 2490.02 |  |
| 11 | 2533.76 | 2535.09 | 2536.98 | 2538.30 |  |
| 12 | 2583.27 | 2584.49 | 2586.47 | 2587.69 |  |
| 13 | 2633.79 | 2634.92 | 2636.97 | 2638.11 | $`D^\pm \left(2640\right)`$ |
| 14 | 2685.26 | 2686.32 | 2688.43 | 2689.49 |  |
| 15 | 2737.64 | 2738.63 | 2740.79 | 2741.78 |  |
| 16 | 2790.89 | 2791.82 | 2794.03 | 2794.96 |  |
| 17 | 2844.98 | 2845.86 | 2848.10 | 2848.97 |  |
| 18 | 2899.87 | 2900.70 | 2902.97 | 2903.80 |  |
| 19 | 2955.54 | 2956.33 | 2958.62 | 2959.40 |  |
| 20 | 3011.97 | 3012.72 | 3015.02 | 3015.77 |  |
| 21 | 3069.12 | 3069.83 | 3072.15 | 3072.86 |  |
| 22 | 3126.98 | 3127.66 | 3129.98 | 3130.67 |  |
| 23 | 3185.53 | 3186.18 | 3188.51 | 3189.16 |  |
| 24 | 3244.74 | 3245.37 | 3247.70 | 3248.32 |  |
| 25 | 3304.60 | 3305.20 | 3307.53 | 3308.14 |  |
| 26 | 3365.09 | 3365.67 | 3367.10 | 3368.58 |  |
| 27 | 3426.19 | 3426.75 | 3429.07 | 3429.63 |  |
| 28 | 3487.88 | 3488.42 | 3490.74 | 3491.28 |  |
| 29 | 3550.15 | 3550.67 | 3552.98 | 3553.50 |  |
| 30 | 3612.98 | 3613.48 | 3615.78 | 3616.29 |  |

Table 5: $`M_9^{D^{}\pi }(24382443)`$–Storey.

| $`R(IJ^P)`$ | $`M_R`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ MeV | Reaction | Collab. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`D_1^0(\frac{1}{2}1^+)`$ | 2428$`\pm `$3$`\pm `$2 | $`23_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}}`$ | $`e^+e^{}D^+\pi ^{}X`$ | CLEO 90 |
|  | 2428$`\pm `$8$`\pm `$5 | $`58\pm 14\pm 10`$ | $`\gamma ND^+\pi ^{}X`$ | TPS 89 |
|  | 2422.2 $`\pm `$ 1.8 | $`18.9_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.5}}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.6}}`$ | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |
| $`D_1^\pm (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{?}^\mathrm{?})`$ | $`2425\pm 2\pm 2`$ | $`26_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}}\pm 4`$ | $`e^+e^{}D^0\pi ^+X`$ | CLE2 94 |
|  | $`2443\pm 7\pm 5`$ | $`41\pm 19\pm 8`$ | $`\gamma ND^0\pi ^+X`$ | TPS 89 |
|  | 2427 $`\pm `$ 5 | $`28\pm 8`$ | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |

Table 6: $`M_{13}^{D^{}\pi }(26342638)`$–Storey.

| $`R(IJ^P)`$ | $`M_R`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ MeV | Reaction | Collab. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`D^\pm (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{?}^\mathrm{?})`$ | $`2637\pm 2\pm 6`$ | $`<`$ 15 | $`e^+e^{}D^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}X`$ | DLPH 98 |

Table 7: Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations in $`K^0K^\pm `$-system and $`D_s^\pm `$-meson.

| n | $`M_n^{K^0K^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_{exp}^{K^0K^\pm }`$ MeV |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1789.68 |  |
| 2 | 1795.44 |  |
| 3 | 1805.00 |  |
| 4 | 1818.30 |  |
| 5 | 1835.25 |  |
| 6 | 1855.77 |  |
| 7 | 1879.72 |  |
| 8 | 1906.98 |  |
| 9 | 1937.42 | $`f_2\left(0^+2^{++}\right)`$ |
| 10 | 1970.88 | $`D_s^\pm \left(00^{}\right)`$ |
| 11 | 2007.21 |  |
| 12 | 2046.27 |  |
| 13 | 2087.89 |  |
| 14 | 2131.93 |  |
| 15 | 2178.24 |  |
| 16 | 2226.67 |  |
| 17 | 2277.12 |  |
| 18 | 2329.40 |  |
| 19 | 2383.44 |  |
| 20 | 2439.10 |  |
| 21 | 2496.28 |  |
| 22 | 2554.87 |  |
| 23 | 2614.78 |  |
| 24 | 2675.92 |  |
| 25 | 2738.22 |  |
| 26 | 2801.58 |  |
| 27 | 2865.94 |  |
| 28 | 2931.24 |  |
| 29 | 2997.42 |  |
| 30 | 3064.41 |  |

Table 8: $`M_{10}^{K^0K^\pm }(1971)`$–Storey.

| $`R(IJ^P)`$ | $`M_R`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ MeV | Reaction | Collab. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`D_s^\pm (00^{})`$ | $`1970\pm 5\pm 5`$ |  | $`e^+e^{}`$ | CLEO 83 |
|  | $`1969.0\pm 1.4`$ |  | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |

Table 9: Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations in $`DK`$-system and experimental data.

| n | $`M_n^{D^\pm K^0}`$ MeV | $`M_n^{D^0K^\pm }`$ MeV | $`M_{exp}^{DK}`$ MeV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2369.26 | 2359.98 |  |
| 2 | 2375.78 | 2366.54 |  |
| 3 | 2386.53 | 2377.37 |  |
| 4 | 2401.35 | 2392.28 |  |
| 5 | 2420.03 | 2411.08 |  |
| 6 | 2442.33 | 2433.51 |  |
| 7 | 2468.00 | 2459.32 | $`D_{sJ}`$(2463)? |
| 8 | 2496.79 | 2488.25 |  |
| 9 | 2528.45 | 2520.06 |  |
| 10 | 2562.75 | 2554.51 | $`D_{sJ}^\pm `$(2573) |
| 11 | 2599.47 | 2591.38 |  |
| 12 | 2638.42 | 2630.48 |  |
| 13 | 2679.43 | 2671.64 |  |
| 14 | 2722.34 | 2714.68 |  |
| 15 | 2767.00 | 2759.48 |  |
| 16 | 2813.29 | 2805.90 |  |
| 17 | 2861.09 | 2853.84 |  |
| 18 | 2910.32 | 2903.19 |  |
| 19 | 2960.87 | 2953.86 |  |
| 20 | 3012.67 | 3005.78 |  |
| 21 | 3065.64 | 3058.86 |  |
| 22 | 3119.73 | 3113.06 |  |
| 23 | 3174.85 | 3168.29 |  |
| 24 | 3230.98 | 3224.52 |  |
| 25 | 3288.04 | 3281.69 |  |
| 26 | 3346.00 | 3339.75 |  |
| 27 | 3404.82 | 3398.65 |  |
| 28 | 3464.44 | 3458.37 |  |
| 29 | 3524.84 | 3518.87 |  |
| 30 | 3585.99 | 3580.10 |  |

Table 10: $`M_{10}^{DK}(25552563)`$–Storey.

| $`R(IJ^P)`$ | $`M_R`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ MeV | Reaction | Collab. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`D_{sJ}^\pm (0\mathrm{?}^\mathrm{?})`$ | 2573.5 $`\pm `$ 1.7 | $`15_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}^{+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}}`$ | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |

Table 11: Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations in $`D^{}K`$-system and experimental data.

| n | $`M_n^{D^\pm K^0}`$MeV | $`M_n^{D^0K^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_{exp}^{D^{}K}`$ MeV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2509.83 | 2502.55 |  |
| 2 | 2516.25 | 2509.01 |  |
| 3 | 2526.84 | 2519.67 |  |
| 4 | 2541.44 | 2534.36 | $`D_{s1}^\pm `$(2536) |
| 5 | 2559.83 | 2552.87 |  |
| 6 | 2581.79 | 2574.94 | $`D_{sJ}^\pm `$(2573)? |
| 7 | 2607.05 | 2600.34 |  |
| 8 | 2635.38 | 2628.80 |  |
| 9 | 2666.51 | 2660.08 |  |
| 10 | 2700.24 | 2693.94 |  |
| 11 | 2736.33 | 2730.17 |  |
| 12 | 2774.61 | 2768.58 |  |
| 13 | 2814.89 | 2809.00 |  |
| 14 | 2857.02 | 2851.26 |  |
| 15 | 2900.87 | 2895.23 |  |
| 16 | 2946.31 | 2940.78 |  |
| 17 | 2993.22 | 2987.81 |  |
| 18 | 3041.52 | 3036.22 |  |
| 19 | 3091.12 | 3085.92 |  |
| 20 | 3141.93 | 3136.83 |  |
| 21 | 3193.89 | 3188.89 |  |
| 22 | 3246.94 | 3242.02 |  |
| 23 | 3301.01 | 3296.18 |  |
| 24 | 3356.05 | 3351.31 |  |
| 25 | 3412.02 | 3407.36 |  |
| 26 | 3468.87 | 3464.29 |  |
| 27 | 3526.56 | 3522.06 |  |
| 28 | 3585.05 | 3580.63 |  |
| 29 | 3644.31 | 3639.96 |  |
| 30 | 3704.31 | 3700.03 |  |

Table 12: $`M_4^{D^{}K}(25342541)`$–Storey.

| $`R(IJ^P)`$ | $`M_R`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ MeV | Reaction | Collab. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`D_{s1}^\pm (01^+)`$ | $`2536.6\pm 0.7\pm 0.4`$ | $`<`$ 5.44 | $`e^+e^{}D^+K^0X`$ | CLEO 90 |
|  | $`2535.2\pm 0.5\pm 1.5`$ | $`<`$ 3.9 | $`e^+e^{}D^0K^+X`$ | ARG 92 |
|  | $`2534.8\pm 0.6\pm 0.6`$ | $`<`$ 2.3 | $`e^+e^{}D^+K^0X`$ | CLE2 93 |
|  | $`2535.3\pm 0.2\pm 0.5`$ | $`<`$ 2.3 | $`e^+e^{}D^0K^+X`$ | CLE2 93 |
|  | $`2535\pm 0.6\pm 1`$ | $`<`$ 3.2 | $`\gamma BeD^{0,+}K^{+,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}X`$ | E687 94 |
|  | $`2535.35\pm 0.34`$ | $`<`$ 2.3 | AVERAGE | PDG 00 |

Table 13: Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations in $`D_s^\pm \pi `$-system and experimental data.

| n | $`M_n^{D_s^\pm \pi ^0}`$MeV | $`M_n^{D_s^\pm \pi ^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_{exp}^{D_s^\pm \pi }`$ MeV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2110.64 | 2115.04 | $`D_s^\pm `$(2112) |
| 2 | 2129.18 | 2133.11 |  |
| 3 | 2156.52 | 2159.92 |  |
| 4 | 2189.87 | 2192.80 |  |
| 5 | 2227.35 | 2229.89 |  |
| 6 | 2267.80 | 2270.02 |  |
| 7 | 2310.50 | 2312.47 | $`D_{sJ}`$(2317) |
| 8 | 2355.02 | 2356.77 |  |
| 9 | 2401.06 | 2402.65 |  |
| 10 | 2448.44 | 2449.88 |  |
| 11 | 2497.02 | 2498.34 |  |
| 12 | 2546.70 | 2547.92 |  |
| 13 | 2597.40 | 2598.53 |  |
| 14 | 2649.07 | 2650.13 |  |
| 15 | 2701.66 | 2702.65 |  |
| 16 | 2755.14 | 2756.07 |  |
| 17 | 2809.45 | 2810.33 |  |
| 18 | 2864.58 | 2865.41 |  |
| 19 | 2920.50 | 2921.29 |  |
| 20 | 2977.17 | 2977.92 |  |
| 21 | 3034.59 | 3035.30 |  |
| 22 | 3092.72 | 3093.40 |  |
| 23 | 3151.54 | 3152.19 |  |
| 24 | 3211.03 | 3211.66 |  |
| 25 | 3271.18 | 3271.78 |  |
| 26 | 3331.95 | 3332.53 |  |
| 27 | 3393.34 | 3393.90 |  |
| 28 | 3455.33 | 3455.87 |  |
| 29 | 3517.90 | 3518.42 |  |
| 30 | 3581.02 | 3581.53 |  |

Table 14: Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations in $`D_s^\pm \pi `$-system and $`D_{sJ}^+`$(2463)-meson.

| n | $`M_n^{D_s^\pm \pi ^0}`$MeV | $`M_n^{D_s^\pm \pi ^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_{exp}^{D_s^\pm \pi }`$ MeV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2254.01 | 2258.41 |  |
| 2 | 2272.46 | 2276.39 |  |
| 3 | 2299.65 | 2303.05 |  |
| 4 | 2332.80 | 2335.73 |  |
| 5 | 2370.02 | 2372.55 |  |
| 6 | 2410.14 | 2412.36 |  |
| 7 | 2452.47 | 2454.43 | $`D_{sJ}^+`$(2463) |
| 8 | 2496.56 | 2498.31 |  |
| 9 | 2542.12 | 2543.70 |  |
| 10 | 2588.96 | 2590.41 |  |
| 11 | 2636.96 | 2638.28 |  |
| 12 | 2686.01 | 2687.23 |  |
| 13 | 2736.04 | 2737.17 |  |
| 14 | 2786.99 | 2788.05 |  |
| 15 | 2838.82 | 2839.81 |  |
| 16 | 2891.50 | 2892.43 |  |
| 17 | 2944.98 | 2945.86 |  |
| 18 | 2999.24 | 3000.07 |  |
| 19 | 3054.26 | 3055.05 |  |
| 20 | 3110.01 | 3110.76 |  |
| 21 | 3166.46 | 3167.18 |  |
| 22 | 3223.61 | 3224.30 |  |
| 23 | 3281.43 | 3282.08 |  |
| 24 | 3339.90 | 3340.53 |  |
| 25 | 3399.00 | 3399.61 |  |
| 26 | 3458.72 | 3459.30 |  |
| 27 | 3519.04 | 3519.60 |  |
| 28 | 3579.95 | 3580.49 |  |
| 29 | 3641.42 | 3641.94 |  |
| 30 | 3703.44 | 3703.94 |  |

Table 15: Kaluza-Klein tower of KK excitations in $`K^{}K`$-system and $`D_{sJ}`$(2317)-meson.

| n | $`M_n^{K^\pm K^0}`$MeV | $`M_n^{K^0K^\pm }`$MeV | $`M_{exp}^{K^{}K}`$ MeV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1392.02 | 1392.48 | $`h_1\left(\mathrm{?}1^+\right)`$ |
| 2 | 1400.05 | 1400.53 |  |
| 3 | 1413.30 | 1413.82 |  |
| 4 | 1431.57 | 1432.15 | $`f_1\left(0^+1^{++}\right)`$ |
| 5 | 1454.63 | 1455.27 |  |
| 6 | 1482.18 | 1482.89 | $`\eta \left(0^+0^+\right)`$ |
| 7 | 1513.94 | 1514.71 | $`f_1\left(0^+1^{++}\right)`$ |
| 8 | 1549.58 | 1550.42 |  |
| 9 | 1588.80 | 1589.70 |  |
| 10 | 1631.30 | 1632.27 | $`\eta _2\left(0^+2^+\right)`$ |
| 11 | 1676.82 | 1677.83 |  |
| 12 | 1725.08 | 1726.14 |  |
| 13 | 1775.85 | 1776.95 |  |
| 14 | 1828.91 | 1830.04 |  |
| 15 | 1884.06 | 1885.22 |  |
| 16 | 1941.12 | 1942.29 |  |
| 17 | 1999.92 | 2001.11 |  |
| 18 | 2060.32 | 2061.51 |  |
| 19 | 2122.17 | 2123.38 |  |
| 20 | 2185.37 | 2186.57 |  |
| 21 | 2249.79 | 2251.00 |  |
| 22 | 2315.35 | 2316.55 | $`D_{sJ}`$(2317) |
| 23 | 2381.94 | 2383.14 |  |
| 24 | 2449.49 | 2450.68 |  |
| 25 | 2517.92 | 2519.10 |  |
| 26 | 2587.17 | 2588.34 |  |
| 27 | 2657.17 | 2658.33 |  |
| 28 | 2727.87 | 2729.01 |  |
| 29 | 2799.22 | 2800.35 |  |
| 30 | 2871.17 | 2872.28 |  |