text:
# Two-photon exchange and elastic electron-proton scattering

## Abstract

Two-photon exchange contributions to elastic electron-proton scattering cross sections are evaluated in a simple hadronic model including the finite size of the proton. The corrections are found to be small in magnitude, but with a strong angular dependence at fixed $`Q^2`$. This is significant for the Rosenbluth technique for determining the ratio of the electric and magnetic form factors of the proton at high $`Q^2`$, and partly reconciles the apparent discrepancy with the results of the polarization transfer technique.

The electromagnetic structure of the proton is reflected in the Sachs electric ($`G_E(Q^2)`$) and magnetic ($`G_M(Q^2)`$) form factors. The ratio $`R=\mu _pG_E/G_M`$, where $`\mu _p`$ is the proton magnetic moment, has been determined using two experimental techniques. The Rosenbluth, or longitudinal-transverse (LT), separation extracts $`R^2`$ from the angular-dependence of the elastic electron-proton scattering cross section at fixed momentum transfer $`Q^2`$. The results are consistent with $`R1`$ for $`Q^2<6`$ GeV2 Arr03 ; Wal94 . However, recent polarization transfer experiments at Jefferson Lab Jon00  measure $`R`$ from the ratio of the transverse to longitudinal polarizations of the recoiling proton, yielding the markedly different result $`R10.135(Q^20.24)`$ over the same range in $`Q^2`$ Arr03 , which exhibits nonscaling behavior. In this letter we examine whether this discrepancy can be explained by a reanalysis of the radiative corrections, in particular as they affect the LT separation analysis.

Consider the elastic $`ep`$ scattering process $`e(p_1)+p(p_2)e(p_3)+p(p_4)`$. The Born amplitude for one photon exchange is given by

$$_0=i\frac{e^2}{q^2}\overline{u}(p_3)\gamma _\mu u(p_1)\overline{u}(p_4)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (q)u(p_2),$$
(1)
where the proton current operator is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (q)=F_1(q^2)\gamma ^\mu +i\frac{F_2(q^2)}{2M}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu ,$$
(2)
$`q=p_4p_2=p_1p_3`$ is the four-momentum transferred to the proton ($`Q^2q^2>0`$), $`M`$ is the proton mass, and $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are linear combinations of the Sachs form factors $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ (see Eqs. (18)–(19)).

The resulting cross section depends on two kinematic variables, conventionally taken to be $`Q^2`$ (or $`\tau Q^2/4M^2`$) and either the scattering angle $`\theta `$ or the virtual photon polarization $`ϵ=\left(1+2(1+\tau )\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2)\right)^1`$. It can be put in the form

$$d\sigma _0=A\left(\tau G_M^2(Q^2)+ϵG_E^2(Q^2)\right),$$
(3)
where $`A`$ depends on kinematic variables. This expression is modified by radiative corrections, expressed in the form $`d\sigma =d\sigma _0(1+\delta )`$. Usually $`\delta `$ is estimated by taking the one-loop virtual corrections of order $`\alpha `$ as well as the inelastic bremsstrahlung cross section for real photon emission.

The LT separation technique extracts the ratio $`(G_E/G_M)^2`$ from the $`ϵ`$-dependence of the cross section at fixed $`Q^2`$. With increasing $`Q^2`$ the cross section is dominated by $`G_M`$, while the relative contribution of the $`G_E`$ term is diminished. Hence understanding the $`ϵ`$-dependence in the radiative correction $`\delta `$ becomes increasingly important at high $`Q^2`$. By contrast, the polarization transfer technique involves a ratio of cross sections, and is not expected to show the same sensitivity to the $`ϵ`$-dependence of $`\delta `$ Afa01 .

The amplitude $`_1`$ for the one-loop virtual corrections can be written as the sum of a “factorizable” term, proportional to the Born amplitude $`_0`$, plus a remainder:

$$_1=f(Q^2,ϵ)_0+\overline{}_1.$$
(4)
Hence to first order in $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e^2/4\pi `$)

$$\delta =2f(Q^2,ϵ)+2\frac{\mathrm{Re}\{_0^{}\overline{}_1\}}{|_0|^2}.$$
(5)
The factorizable terms dominate, and include the electron vertex correction, vacuum polarization, and the infrared (IR) divergent parts of the proton vertex and two-photon exchange corrections. These terms are all essentially independent of hadronic structure. The hadronic model-dependent terms from the finite proton vertex and two-photon exchange corrections are expressed in $`\overline{}_1`$. These terms are small, and are generally ignored MT69 . The finite proton vertex correction was analyzed recently by Maximon and Tjon MT00 , who found $`\delta <0.5\%`$ for $`Q^2<6`$ GeV2. It does not show a significant $`ϵ`$-dependence, and so we drop it here.

The factorizable terms can be classified further. Each of the functions $`f(Q^2,ϵ)`$ for the electron vertex, vacuum polarization, and proton vertex terms depend only on $`Q^2`$, and therefore have no relevance for the LT separation aside from an overall normalization factor. Hence of the factorizable terms, only the IR divergent two-photon exchange contributes to the $`ϵ`$-dependence of the virtual photon corrections.

For the inelastic bremsstrahlung cross section, the amplitude for real photon emission can also be written in the form of Eq. (4). In the soft photon approximation the amplitude is completely factorizable. A significant $`ϵ`$-dependence arises due to the frame-dependence of the angular distribution of the emitted photon. These corrections, together with external bremsstrahlung, contain the main $`ϵ`$-dependence of the radiative corrections, and are accounted for in the experimental analyses Wal94 .

In principle the two-photon exchange contribution to $`_1`$, denoted $`^{\gamma \gamma }`$, includes all possible hadronic intermediate states (Fig. 1). Here we consider only the elastic contribution to the full response function, and assume that the proton propagates as a Dirac particle. We also assume that the off-shell current operator is given by (2), and use phenomenological form factors at the $`\gamma p`$ vertices. Clearly this creates a tautology, as the radiative corrections are also used to determine the experimental form factors. However, because $`\delta `$ is a ratio, the model-dependence cancels somewhat, provided we use the same phenomenological form factors for both $`_0`$ and $`^{\gamma \gamma }`$ in Eq. (5).

The sum of the two-photon exchange box and crossed box diagrams has the form

$`^{\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`e^4{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left[\frac{N_a(k)}{D_a(k)}+\frac{N_b(k)}{D_b(k)}\right]},`$ (6)
where the numerators are the matrix elements

$`N_a(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_3)\gamma _\mu (\text{ /}p_1\text{ /}k)\gamma _\nu u(p_1)`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{u}(p_4)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (qk)(\text{ /}p_2+\text{ /}k+M)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu (k)u(p_2),`$
$`N_b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_3)\gamma _\nu (\text{ /}p_3+\text{ /}k)\gamma _\mu u(p_1)`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{u}(p_4)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (qk)(\text{ /}p_2+\text{ /}k+M)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu (k)u(p_2),`$
and the denominators are the products of the scalar propagators,

$`D_a(k)`$ $`=`$ $`[k^2\lambda ^2][(kq)^2\lambda ^2]`$ (9)
$`\times [(p_1k)^2m^2][(p_2+k)^2M^2],`$
$`D_b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`D_a(k)|_{p_1kp_3+k}.`$ (10)
An infinitesimal photon mass $`\lambda `$ has been introduced in the photon propagator to regulate the IR divergences, and the electron mass $`m`$ is ignored in the numerator.

The implementation of Eq. (6) is the main result of this letter. However, we also want to compare with previous work, so a partial analysis of the leading terms in (6) is warranted.

To proceed, we can separate out the IR divergent parts from the finite ones. There are two poles in the integrand of (6) where the photons are soft: one at $`k=0`$, and another at $`k=q`$. For the box diagram, the matrix element can be written as the sum of a contribution at the pole $`k=0`$ plus a remainder, $`N_a(k)=N_a(0)+\overline{N}_a(k)`$. Explicitly, we have

$$N_a(0)=4p_1p_2q^2i_0/e^2.$$
(11)
The matrix element at the pole $`k=q`$ is the same, so $`N_a(q)=N_a(0)`$ (this also follows from symmetry arguments). This suggests that the dominant contribution to the box amplitude can be approximated as

$$_a^{\gamma \gamma }e^4N_a(0)\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{D_a(k)}_a^{\mathrm{IR}}.$$
(12)
There are two assumptions implicit in this approximation. The first is that the integral involving $`\overline{N}_a(k)`$ is small, and contains no ultraviolet (UV) divergences from the $`F_2`$ part of the current operator (2). Without hadronic form factors, Eq. (2) does in fact lead to UV divergences. We demonstrate below how to get around this difficulty by rewriting $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ in terms of the Sachs form factors $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$. The second assumption is that the hadronic form factors have no significant effect on the loop integral, and can be factored out. In essence, this assumes that the hadronic current operators occurring in Eq. (6) can be replaced by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (0)=\gamma ^\mu `$ for the vertex involving the soft photon, and by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (q)`$ for the other vertex.

With these caveats in mind, the IR divergent box amplitude from the pole terms can now be written as MT00

$`_a^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}p_1p_2q^2_0{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{1}{D_a(k)}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2p_1p_2}{mM}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right)_0.`$
The four-point function arising from the loop integral has been evaluated analytically in the limit $`\lambda ^2Q^2`$ following ’t Hooft and Veltman HV79 .

A similar analysis of the crossed box amplitude shows that

$$N_b(0)=4p_3p_2q^2i_0/e^2,$$
(14)
and hence

$$_b^{\mathrm{IR}}=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2p_3p_2}{mM}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)_0.$$
(15)
In the lab frame ($`p_1p_2=E_1M`$ and $`p_3p_2=E_3M`$), the total IR divergent two-photon exchange contribution to the cross section is readily seen to be

$$\delta _{\mathrm{IR}}=2\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{E_1}{E_3}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\lambda ^2}\right),$$
(16)
a result given by Maximon and Tjon MT00 . The logarithmic terms in $`m`$ cancel in the sum, while the logarithmic IR singularity in $`\lambda `$ is exactly cancelled by a corresponding term in the bremsstrahlung cross section involving the interference between real photon emission from the electron and from the proton.

By contrast, in the standard treatment of Mo and Tsai (MT) MT69  the loop integral in (13) is approximated by setting the photon propagator not at a pole equal to $`1/q^2`$. This results in a 3-point function $`K(p_1,p_2)`$ which, unfortunately, has no simple analytic form in the limit $`\lambda ^2Q^2`$. After a further approximation $`K(p_1,p_2)K(p_1,p_2)`$, the total IR divergent result is given as MT69

$$\delta _{\mathrm{IR}}(\mathrm{MT})=2\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\left(K(p_1,p_2)K(p_3,p_2)\right),$$
(17)
where $`K(p_i,p_j)=p_ip_j_0^1𝑑y\mathrm{ln}(p_y^2/\lambda ^2)/p_y^2`$ and $`p_y=p_iy+p_j(1y)`$.

Because $`\delta _{\mathrm{IR}}(\mathrm{MT})`$ is the result generally used in existing experimental analyses Arr03 ; Wal94 , it is useful to compare the $`ϵ`$-dependence with that of $`\delta _{\mathrm{IR}}`$. The difference $`\delta _{\mathrm{IR}}\delta _{\mathrm{IR}}(\mathrm{MT})`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$, and is shown in Fig. 2 as a function of $`ϵ`$ for $`Q^2=3`$ GeV2 and $`Q^2=6`$ GeV2. The different treatments of the IR divergent terms already have significance for the LT separation, resulting in roughly a 1% change in the cross section over the range of $`ϵ`$. This effect alone gives a reduction of order 3% and 7% in the ratio $`R`$ for $`Q^2=3`$ GeV2 and $`Q^2=6`$ GeV2, respectively.

We return now to the implementation of the full expression of Eq. (6). The full expression includes both finite and IR divergent terms (there is no need to treat them separately), and form factors at the $`\gamma p`$ vertices. To avoid sensitivity to the UV divergences in the loop integrals arising from the $`F_2`$ part of the current operator (2), we rewrite $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ in terms of the Sachs form factors

$`F_1(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_E(q^2)+\tau G_M(q^2)}{1+\tau }},`$ (18)
$`F_2(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_M(q^2)G_E(q^2)}{1+\tau }}.`$ (19)
$`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ are taken to have the common form factor dependence $`G_E(q^2)=G_M(q^2)/\mu _pG(q^2)`$, with $`G(q^2)`$ a simple monopole $`G(q^2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/(q^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$. We leave a fuller exploration of the hadronic model-dependence to a future paper. Effectively the $`F_2`$ part of the current then behaves like a dipole, and the loop integrals are UV finite for any choice of cutoff mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We have taken $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.84`$ GeV, consistent with the size of the nucleon, for which the results show a plateau of stability. The sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is mild because the form factor dependence enters as a ratio in $`\delta `$.

The loop integrals in Eq. (6) can be evaluated analytically in terms of four-point Passarino-Veltman functions PV79 , and trace techniques used to implement the sum over Dirac spinors implicit in Eq. (5). This is a formidable task that is facilitated by the use of established algebraic manipulation routines. We used two independent packages (FeynCalc feyncalc  and FormCalc formcalc ), which gave identical numerical results. The Passarino-Veltman functions were evaluated numerically using the FF program ff .

The model-independent IR divergent result of Eq. (16) is an appropriate benchmark with which to compare the full result $`\delta _{\mathrm{full}}`$. Because the IR behavior is the same, the difference $`\delta _{\mathrm{full}}\delta _{\mathrm{IR}}`$ is finite (i.e. independent of $`\lambda `$). The results are shown in Fig. 3. A significant $`ϵ`$-dependence is observed, which increases slightly with $`Q^2`$. The additional correction is largest at backward angles ($`ϵ0`$), and essentially vanishes at forward angles ($`ϵ1`$).

To consider the effect on the ratio $`R`$ determined in the LT separation, we make a simplified analysis that assumes the modified cross section is still approximately linear in $`ϵ`$. The results shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are combined, giving $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta _{\mathrm{full}}\delta _{\mathrm{IR}}(\mathrm{MT})`$. For each value of $`Q^2`$ in the range 1-6 GeV2 we fit the correction $`(1+\mathrm{\Delta })`$ to a linear function of $`ϵ`$ of the form $`a(1+bϵ)`$. The parameter $`b`$ so determined behaves roughly like $`b0.014\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/0.65)`$, with $`Q^2`$ in GeV2. For the LT separation, the corrected Eq. (3) becomes

$$d\sigma =(aA)\tau G_M^2(Q^2)\left(1+(B\stackrel{~}{R}^2+b)ϵ\right),$$
(20)
where $`B=1/(\mu _p^2\tau )`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is the corrected ratio $`R`$. Since $`a1`$, we have essentially $`\stackrel{~}{R}^2=R^2b/B`$.

The shift in $`R`$ is shown in Fig. 4, together with the polarization transfer data. The effect of the additional terms is significant. Although some dependence on nucleon structure is expected, these calculations show that the two-photon corrections have the proper sign and magnitude to resolve a large part of the discrepancy between the two experimental techniques. Clearly there is room for additional contributions from inelastic nucleon excitation (e.g. the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$). These have been examined previously in Refs. DR57  in various approximations. Greenhut DR57  used a fit to proton Compton scattering to calculate the resonant contribution to two-photon exchange, and found some degree of cancellation with the nonresonant terms at high energies. Further study of the inelastic region is required, including also the imaginary part of the response function Afa02 .

Direct experimental evidence for the contribution of the real part of two-photon exchange can be obtained by comparing $`e^+p`$ and $`e^{}p`$ cross sections. ($`_0`$ changes sign under $`e^{}e^+`$, whereas $`^{\gamma \gamma }`$ does not.) Hence we expect to see an enhancement of the ratio $`\sigma (e^+p)/\sigma (e^{}p)`$ due to two-photon exchange (after the appropriate IR divergences are cancelled due to bremsstrahlung). There are experimental constraints from data taken at SLAC Mar68  for $`E_1=4`$ GeV and $`E_1=10`$ GeV, which are consistent with our results. However, the SLAC data are from forward scattering angles, with $`ϵ>0.72`$, where we find the two-photon exchange contribution is $`1\%`$. A more definitive test of the two-photon exchange mechanism could be obtained at backward angles, where an enhancement of order a few percent is predicted.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank A. Afanasev, J. Arrington, S. Brodsky, K. de Jager, and R. Segel for helpful discussions. PGB also thanks the theory group and Hall C at Jefferson Lab for support during a sabbatical leave, where this project was undertaken. This work was supported in part by NSERC (Canada), DOE grant DE-FG02-93ER-40762, and DOE contract DE-AC05-84ER-40150 under which SURA operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.


format: text

text:
# BOA: Framework for Automated Builds

## I Introduction

The Compact Muon Solenoid, CMS, detector on the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, is one of the largest international scientific collaborations. It unites almost 2 thousand scientists and engineers from 159 institutes in 36 countries of Europe, Asia, the Americas and Australasia.

CMS has a massive software development going on. Over 300 public software releases were produced during last 15 months status . This is a result of work of many developers world-wide. CMS has a well-developed software infrastructure based on the Software Configuration, Release and Management tool SCRAM scram , which has being adopted by the LHC Computing Grid project LCG at CERN at the end of last year.

CMS SCRAM-managed Object Oriented projects currently include CMSToolBox, COBRA, FAMOS, Geometry, IGUANA, ORCA, and OSCAR. Projects release schedules and frequencies are flexible. Every project establishes release procedures, that are most convenient for the developers. Due to cross-dependencies between projects and a big number of required external products and tools, considerable efforts are consumed to provide the consistency of the configuration requirements. The resulting system has a big number of configuration parameters, which may differ from site to site. Maintenance and support of the CMS software installations and domain specific configuration information becomes more and more challenging task.

Goal of this project is to facilitate the software maintenance and help to improve software quality in the areas of software development, release management, software distribution and installation processes with the aids of automated builds.

The proposed Build and Output Analyzer framework BOA is intended to systematize available tools and components of the existing CMS software infrastructure and make them all to work together in a highly automated fashion.

## II Case Study

CMS applies ongoing efforts in developing and customizing available automated tools and infrastructure for the software management.

Whereas manual operations are still inevitable, most of repeatedly performed actions could be automated. Software build procedures are substantially automated with the aids of SCRAM native build system. A centralized system of CVS repositories provides source code versions management and distribution. Software release events are automatically monitored by the ProjectWatch status  system. WarningFilter filter  tool allows to process software builds output and to publish statistics on the Web. Finally, software validation tool Oval oval  has been developed for the detection of unexpected changes in the software behavior and control over its physics performances.

Cross dependencies between projects are handled through the SCRAM configuration mechanisms. Each project has a list of required tools, the number varying from a few to several dozens of tools. Tool configuration files are stored in a common repository. CMS configuration releases provide consistent sets of tool versions for integration of the dependent projects. CMS software is supported for multiple computing platforms, including a range of versions of the operating system, and alternative compilers. Platform specific parameters contribute to overall configuration picture.

Participating Regional Centers often do not have all required external products and versions available. Users or local librarians need to install and maintain a big number of supporting software packages and tools along with the proper CMS software projects. At the same time they have to comply with the local administrative policies. Our experience shows, that site-specific configuration management involves most tedious, and error-prone manual operations. The software infrastructure and requirements are constantly evolving. The CMS baseline configuration tool SCRAM currently undergoes active development in order to provide improvements and extensions for the growing users base.

Note, that complex project dependencies, a big number of configurable parameters and frequent changes are intrinsic characteristics of the software process in any large HEP collaboration.

## III BOA Solutions

The solutions discussed in this paper are mainly focused on the automation of the management of the CMS software domain configuration and workflow. This includes distribution and installation of the external products and tools, configuration and build of the CMS software projects, analysis and validation tests of the build results.

BOA model is based on the invariants, common to any complex software system. It uses the concepts of DOMAIN, PLATFORM, PROJECT, VERSION, INSTALLATION, and a range of related ACTIONS.

This top-to-bottom approach allows to abstract the system structure from its functionality, and the functionality of the system from the particular implementation.

BOA framework accumulates and systematizes the knowledge base for various operations, required for the software installation, successful software builds, and tests. In particular, the system keeps track of the current Domain configuration and the status of all builds. It provides standard interfaces to the underlying components and tools. In addition it allows to reuse common utilities, and the information available in the Domain.

## IV Architecture and Components

BOA design exploits the Object Oriented approach, main conceptual components being presented by following classes:

* DOMAIN is on the top of BOA structure. It contains site dependent information and keeps a list of software Projects and Platforms. Domain takes care of installation and availability of the required tools, such as SCRAM, Pacmanpacman .
* PROJECT carries information about a particular software product. BOA currently supports two types of projects: “scramified” and “pacmanized”. The former specifies SCRAM managed projects installed via scram native bootstrap mechanisms and then built from sources. The latter specifies products distributed via Pacman caches. Pacman provides a convenient way for installation of the required external tools. Project contains list of available versions, and other project specific information, such as CVS repository or Pacman cache.
* VERSION is responsible for the configuration requirements and installation specific information and algorithms. Versions keep track of the current status of the installations.

Entire domain information is stored persistently in the database. Framework can manipulate several domains at the same time. It can also work with different database instances.

## V Features and Implementation Status

One can work interactively in BOA environment, or run a predefined scenario without manual intervention.

For the execution part BOA provides the Session class, which allows flexible control of the workflow. This is different from the widely used approach of generating scripts for the subsequent execution. The instance of the Session class opens a new OS shell process, where commands, defined in the framework, are consecutively executed.

The output and exit status of the commands are intercepted and can be analyzed. Depending on the results, program can choose the next step and execute it in the same environment. The requirement of unbroken environment is essential for most of software builds and test procedures, for instance the runtime environment needs to be set prior the execution. Session keeps log of all actions.

It is appropriate mention here, that the above approach is not applicable to the commands, that expect direct user’s input. This special case should be handled differently. In general tools used in autonomous mode should be able to accept input as arguments.

BOA interface is written it Python, and it is constantly evolving. Development includes a series of functioning prototypes, providing desired features and functionality bit by bit. Every micro-release passes a test suite. Unit tests are provided as well. New commands are documented through the built-in help feature.

## VI Conclusions

Described approach allows to address efficiently a wide complex of tasks of the software librarian. At the same time proposed system does not dictate any specific implementation, and successfully adopts tools chosen by the Collaboration.

BOA framework implementation offers a convenient solution for individuals responsible for configuring, upgrading, and supporting CMS software domain.


text:
# Leibniz, Information, Math and Physics

## 1. What is algorithmic information theory?

The starting point for my own work on AIT forty years ago was the insight that a scientific theory is a computer program that calculates the observations, and that the smaller the program is, the better the theory. If there is no theory, that is to say, no program substantially smaller than the data itself, considering them both to be finite binary strings, then the observations are algorithmically random, theory-less, unstructured, incomprehensible and irreducible.

theory = program $``$ Computer $``$ output = experimental data

So this led me to a theory of randomness based on program-size complexity , whose main application turned out to be not in science, but in mathematics, more specifically, in meta-mathematics, where it yields powerful new information-theoretic versions of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem . (I’ll discuss this in Section 3.)

And from this new information-theoretic point of view, math and physics do not seem too different. In both cases understanding is compression, and is measured by the extent to which empirical data and mathematical theorems are respectively compressed into concise physical laws or mathematical axioms, both of which are embodied in computer software .

And why should one use reasoning at all in mathematics?! Why not proceed entirely empirically, more or less as physicists do? Well, the advantange of proving things is that assuming a few bits of axioms is less risky than assuming many empirically-suggested mathematical assertions. (The disadvantage, of course, is the length of the proofs and the risk of faulty proofs.) Each bit in an irreducible axiom of a mathematical theory is a freely-chosen independent assumption, with an *a priori* probability of half of being the right choice, so one wants to reduce the number of such independent choices to a minimum in creating a new theory.

So this point of view would seem to suggest that while math and physics are admittedly different, perhaps they are not as different as most people usually believe. Perhaps we should feel free to pursue not only rigorous, formal modern proofs, but also the swash-buckling experimental math that Euler enjoyed so much. And in fact theoretical computer scientists have to some extent already done this, since their $`𝐏\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$ hypothesis is probably currently the best candidate for canonization as a new axiom. And, as is suggested in , another possible candidate is the Riemann hypothesis.

But before discussing this in more detail, I’d like to tell how I discovered that in 1686 Leibniz anticipated some of the basic ideas of AIT.

## 2. How Leibniz almost invented algorithmic information theory

One day last year, while preparing my first philosophy paper , for a philosophy congress in Bonn, I was reading a little book on philosophy by Hermann Weyl that was published in 1932, and I was amazed to find the following, which captures the essential idea of my definition of algorithmic randomness:

> “The assertion that nature is governed by strict laws is devoid of all content if we do not add the statement that it is governed by mathematically simple laws… That the notion of law becomes empty when an arbitrary complication is permitted was already pointed out by Leibniz in his Metaphysical Treatise \[Discourse on Metaphysics\]. Thus simplicity becomes a working principle in the natural sciences.
>
> —Weyl \[8, pp. 40–42\]. See a similar discussion on pp. 190–191 of Weyl , Section 23A, “Causality and Law”.

In fact, I actually read Weyl  as a teenager, before inventing AIT at age 15, but the matter is not stated so sharply there. And a few years ago I stumbled on the above-quoted text in Weyl , but hadn’t had the time to pursue it until stimulated to do so by an invitation from the German Philosophy Association to talk at their 2002 annual congress, that happened to be on limits and how to transcend them.

So I got a hold of Leibniz’s *Discourse on Metaphysics* to see what he actually said. Here it is:

> “As for the simplicity of the ways of God, this holds properly with respect to his means, as opposed to the variety, richness, and abundance, which holds with respect to his ends or effects.”
>
> “…not only does nothing completely irregular occur in the world, but we would not even be able to imagine such a thing. Thus, let us assume, for example, that someone jots down a number of points at random on a piece of paper, as do those who practice the ridiculous art of geomancy.111\[A way to foretell the future; a form of divination.\] I maintain that it is possible to find a geometric line whose \[m\]otion is constant and uniform, following a certain rule, such that this line passes through all the points in the same order in which the hand jotted them down.”
>
> “But, when a rule is extremely complex, what is in conformity with it passes for irregular. Thus, one can say, in whatever manner God might have created the world, it would always have been regular and in accordance with a certain general order. But God has chosen the most perfect world, that is, the one which is at the same time the simplest in hypotheses and the richest in phenomena, as might be a line in geometry whose construction is easy and whose properties and effects are extremely remarkable and widespread.”
>
> —Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 1686, Sections 5–6, as translated by Ariew and Garber \[10, pp. 38–39\].

ideas = input $``$ Mind of God $``$ output = the universe

And after finishing my paper  for the Bonn philosophy congress, I learned that Leibniz’s original *Discourse on Metaphysics* was in French, which I know, and fortunately not in Latin, which I don’t know, and that it was readily available from France:

> “Pour ce qui est de la simplicité des voyes de Dieu, elle a lieu proprement à l’égard des moyens, comme au contraire la varieté, richesse ou abondance y a lieu à l’égard des fins ou effects.”
>
> “…non seulement rien n’arrive dans le monde, qui soit absolument irregulier, mais on ne sçauroit mêmes rien feindre de tel. Car supposons par exemple que quelcun fasse quantité de points sur le papier à tout hazard, comme font ceux qui exercent l’art ridicule de la Geomance, je dis qu’il est possible de trouver une ligne geometrique dont la \[m\]otion soit constante et uniforme suivant une certaine regle, en sorte que cette ligne passe par tous ces points, et dans le même ordre que la main les avoit marqués.”
>
> “Mais quand une regle est fort composée, ce qui luy est conforme, passe pour irrégulier. Ainsi on peut dire que de quelque maniere que Dieu auroit créé le monde, il auroit tousjours esté regulier et dans un certain ordre general. Mais Dieu a choisi celuy qui est le plus parfait, c’est à dire celuy qui est en même temps le plus simple en hypotheses et le plus riche en phenomenes, comme pourroit estre une ligne de Geometrie dont la construction seroit aisée et les proprietés et effects seroient fort admirables et d’une grande étendue.”
>
> —Leibniz, *Discours de métaphysique,* V–VI \[11, pp. 40–41\].

(Here “dont la motion” is my correction. The Gallimard text  states “dont la notion,” an obvious misprint, which I’ve also corrected in the English translation by Ariew and Garber.)

So, in summary, Leibniz observes that for any finite set of points there is a mathematical formula that produces a curve that goes through them all, and it can be parametrized so that it passes through the points in the order that they were given and with a constant speed. So this cannot give us a definition of what it means for a set of points to obey a law. But if the formula is very simple, and the data is very complex, then that’s a *real law*!

Recall that Leibniz was at the beginning of the modern era, in which ancient metaphysics was colliding with modern empirical science. And he was a great mathematician as well as a philosopher. So here he is able to take a stab at clarifying what it means to say that Nature is lawful and what are the conditions for empirical science to be possible.

AIT puts more meat on Leibniz’s proposal, it makes his ideas more precise by giving a precise definition of complexity.

And AIT goes beyond Leibniz by using program-size complexity to clarify what it means for a sequence of observations to be lawless, one which has no theory, and by applying this to studying the limits of formal axiomatic reasoning, i.e., what can be achieved by mindlessly and mechanically grinding away deducing all possible consequences of a fixed set of axioms. (I’ll say more about metamathematical applications of AIT in Section 3 below.)

axioms = program $``$ Computer $``$ output = theorems

By the way, the articles by philosophy professors that I’ve seen that discuss the above text by Leibniz criticize what they see as the confused and ambiguous nature of his remarks. On the contrary, I admire his prescience and the manner in which he has unerringly identified the central issue, the key idea. He even built a mechanical calculator and with his speculations regarding a *Characteristica Universalis* (“Adamic” language of creation) envisioned something that Martin Davis  has argued was a direct intellectual ancestor of the universal Turing machine, which is precisely the device that is needed in order for AIT to be able to quantify Leibniz’s original insight!

Davis quotes some interesting remarks by Leibniz about the practical utility of his calculating machine. Here is part of the Davis Leibniz quote:

> “And now that we may give final praise to the machine we may say that it will be desirable to all who are engaged in computations which, it is well known, are the managers of financial affairs, the administrators of others’ estates, merchants, surveyors, geographers, navigators, astronomers… For it is unworthy of excellent men to lose hours like slaves in the labor of calculations which could safely be relegated to anyone else if the machine were used.”

This reminds me of a transcript of a lecture that von Neumann gave at the inauguration of the NORC (Naval Ordnance Computer) that I read many years ago. It attempted to convince people that computers were of value. It was a hard sell! The obvious practical and scientific utility of calculators and computers, though it was evident to Leibniz, Babbage and von Neumann, was far from evident to most people. Even von Neumann’s colleagues at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study completely failed to understand this (see Casti ).

And I am almost forgetting something important that I read in E. T. Bell  as a child, which is that Leibniz invented base-two binary notation for integers. Bell reports that this was a result of Leibniz’s interest in Chinese culture; no doubt he got it from the *I Ching*. So in a sense, all of information theory derives from Leibniz, for he was the first to emphasize the creative combinatorial potential of the 0 and 1 bit, and how everything can be built up from this one elemental choice, from these two elemental possibilities. So, perhaps not entirely seriously, I should propose changing the name of the unit of information from the *bit* to the *leibniz*!

## 3. The halting probability $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and information-theoretic incompleteness

Enough philosophy, let’s do some mathematics! The first step is to pick a universal binary computer $`U`$ with the property that for any other binary computer $`C`$ there is a binary prefix $`\pi _C`$ such that

$$U(\pi _Cp)=C(p).$$

Here $`p`$ is a binary program for $`C`$ and the prefix $`\pi _C`$ tells $`U`$ how to *simulate* $`C`$ and does not depend on $`p`$. In the $`U`$ that I’ve picked, $`\pi _C`$ consists of a description of $`C`$ written in the high-level non-numerical functional programming language LISP, which is much like a computerized version of set theory, except that all sets are finite.

Next we define the *algorithmic information content* (program-size complexity) of a LISP symbolic expression (S-expression) $`X`$ to be the size in bits $`|p|`$ of the smallest binary program $`p`$ that makes our chosen $`U`$ compute $`X`$:

$$H(X)\underset{U(p)=X}{\mathrm{min}}|p|.$$

Similarly, the information content or complexity of a formal axiomatic theory with the infinite set of theorems $`T`$ is defined to be the size in bits of the smallest program that makes $`U`$ generate the infinite set of theorems $`T`$, which is a set of S-expressions.

$$H(T)\underset{U(p)=T}{\mathrm{min}}|p|.$$

Think of this as the minimum number of bits required to tell $`U`$ how to run through all possible proofs and systematically generate all the consequences of the fixed set of axioms. $`H(T)`$ is the size in bits of the most concise axioms for $`T`$.

Next we define the celebrated halting probability $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{U(p)\mathrm{halts}}{}2^{|p|}.$$

A small technical detail: To get this sum to converge it is necessary that programs for $`U`$ be “self-delimiting.” I.e., no extension of a valid program is a valid program, the set of valid programs has to be a prefix-free set of bit strings.

So $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is now a specific, well-defined real number between zero and one, and let’s consider its binary expansion, i.e., its base-two representation. Discarding the initial decimal (or binary) point, that’s an infinite binary sequence $`b_1b_2b_3\mathrm{}`$ To eliminate any ambiguity in case $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ should happen to be a dyadic rational (which it actually isn’t), let’s agree to change 1000… to 0111… here if necessary.

Right away we get into trouble. From the fact that knowing the first $`N`$ bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Nb_1b_2b_3\mathrm{}b_N$$

would enable us to answer the halting problem for every program $`p`$ for $`U`$ with $`|p|N`$, it is easy to see that the bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are *computationally irreducible*:

$$H(\mathrm{\Omega }_N)Nc.$$

And from this it follows using a straight-forward program-size argument (see ) that the bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are also *logically irreducible.*

What does this mean? Well, consider a formal axiomatic theory with theorems $`T`$, an infinite set of S-expressions. If we assume that a theorem of the form “The $`k`$th bit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is 0/1” is in $`T`$ only if it’s true, then $`T`$ cannot enable us to determine more than $`H(T)+c^{}`$ bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

So the bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are irreducible mathematical facts, they are mathematical facts that contradict Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason by being true for no reason. They must, to use Kantian terminology, be apprehended as things in themselves. They cannot be deduced as consequences of any axioms or principles that are simpler than they are.

(By the way, this also implies that the bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are statistically random, e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is absolutely Borel normal in every base. I.e., all blocks of digits of the same size have equal limiting relative frequency, regardless of the radix chosen for representing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.)

Furthermore, in my 1987 Cambridge University Press monograph  I celebrate the fact that the bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be encoded via a diophantine equation. There I exhibit an exponential diophantine equation $`L(k,𝐱)=R(k,𝐱)`$ with parameter $`k`$ and about twenty-thousand unknowns $`𝐱`$ that has infinitely many solutions iff the $`k`$th bit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a 1. And recently Ord and Kieu  have shown that this can also be accomplished using the even/odd parity of the number of solutions, rather than its finite/infinite cardinality. So $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s irreducibility also infects elementary number theory!

These rather brutal incompleteness results show how badly mistaken Hilbert was to assume that a fixed formal axiomatic theory could encompass all of mathematics. And if you have to extend the foundations of mathematics by constantly adding new axioms, new concepts and fundamental principles, then mathematics becomes much more tentative and begins to look much more like an empirical science. At least I think so, and you can even find quotes by Gödel that I think point in the same direction.

These ideas are of course controversial; see for example a highly critical review of two of my books in the *AMS Notices* . I discuss the hostile reaction of the logic community to my ideas in more detail in an interview with performance artist Marina Abramovic . Here, however, I prefer to tell why I think that the world is actually moving rather quickly in my direction. In fact, I believe that my ideas are now part of an unstoppable tidal wave of change spreading across the sciences!

## 4. The digital philosophy paradigm shift

As I have argued in the second half of my 2002 paper in the *EATCS Bulletin* , what we are witnessing now is a dramatic convergence of mathematics with theoretical computer science and with theoretical physics. The participants in this paradigm shift believe that *information* and *computation* are fundamental concepts in all three of these domains, and that what physical systems actually do is computation, i.e., information processing. In other words, as is asked on the cover of a recent issue of *La Recherche* with an article  about this, “Is God a Computer?”

But that is not quite right. Rather, we should ask, “Is God a Programmer?” The intellectual legacy of the West, and in this connection let me recall Pythagoras, Plato, Galileo and James Jeans, states that “Everything is number; God is a mathematician.” We are now beginning to believe something slightly different, a refinement of the original Pythagorean credo: “Everything is software; God is a computer programmer.” Or perhaps I should say: “All is algorithm!” Just as DNA programs living beings, God programs the universe.

In the digital philosophy movement I would definitely include: the extremely active field of quantum information and quantum computation , Wolfram’s work  on *A New Kind of Science*, Fredkin’s work on reversible cellular automata and his website at http://digitalphilosophy.org (the pregnant phrase “digital philosophy” is due to Fredkin), the Bekenstein-t’Hooft “holographic principle” , and AIT. Ideas from theoretical physics and theoretical computer science are definitely leaking across the traditional boundaries between these two fields. And this holds for AIT too, because its two central concepts are versions of *randomness* and of *entropy*, which are ideas that I took with me from physics and into mathematical logic.

Wolfram’s work is particularly relevant to our discussion of the nature of mathematics, because he believes that most simple systems are either trivial or equivalent to a universal computer, and therefore that mathematical questions are either trivial or can never be solved, except, so to speak, for a set of measure zero. This he calls his *principle of computational equivalence,* and it leads him to take the incompleteness phenomenon much more seriously than most mathematicians do. In line with his thesis, his book presents a great deal of computational evidence, but not many proofs.

Another important issue studied in Wolfram’s book  is the question of whether, to use Leibnizian terminology, mathematics is necessary or is contingent. I.e., would intelligent creatures on another planet necessarily discover the same concepts that we have, or might they develop a perfectly viable mathematics that we would have a great deal of trouble in recognizing as such? Wolfram gives a number of examples that suggest that the latter is in fact the case.

I should also mention some recent books on the quasi-empirical view of mathematics  and on experimental mathematics , as well as Douglas Robertson’s two volumes  on information as a key historical and cultural parameter and motor of social change, and John Maynard Smith’s related books on biology .

Maynard Smith and Szathmáry  measure biological evolutionary progress in terms of abrupt improvements in the way information is represented and transmitted inside living organisms. Robertson sees social evolution as driven by the same motor. According to Robertson , spoken language defines the human, writing creates civilization, the printing press provoked the Renaissance, and the Internet is weaving a new World-Wide Web. These are abrupt improvements in the way human society is able to store and transmit information. And they result in abrupt increases in cultural complexity, in abrupt increases in social *intelligence,* as it were.

(And for the latest results on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, see Calude .)

## 5. Digital philosophy is Leibnizian; Leibniz’s legacy

None of us who made this paradigm shift happen were students of Leibniz, but he anticipated us all. As I hinted in a letter to *La Recherche,* in a sense all of Wolfram’s thousand-page book is the development of *one sentence* in Leibniz:

> Dieu a choisi celuy qui est… le plus simple en hypotheses et le plus riche en phenomenes
> \[God has chosen that which is the most simple in hypotheses and the most rich in phenomena\]

This presages Wolfram’s basic insight that simple programs can have very complicated-looking output.

And all of *my* work may be regarded as the development of another sentence in Leibniz:

> Mais quand une regle est fort composée, ce qui luy est conforme, passe pour irrégulier
> \[But when a rule is extremely complex, that which conforms to it passes for random\]

Here I see the germ of my definition of algorithmic randomness and irreducibility.

Newtonian physics is now receding into the dark, distant intellectual past. It’s not just that it has been superseded by quantum physics. No, it’s much deeper than that. In our new interest in complex systems, the concepts of energy and matter take second place to the concepts of information and computation. And the continuum mathematics of Newtonian physics now takes second place to the combinatorial mathematics of complex systems.

As E. T. Bell stated so forcefully , Newton made one big contribution to math, involving the continuum, but Leibniz made *two*: his work on the continuum and his work on discrete combinatorics (which Leibniz named). Newton obliterated Leibniz and stole from him both his royal patron and the credit for the calculus. Newton was buried with full honors at Westminster Abbey, while a forgotten Leibniz was accompanied to his grave by only his secretary. But, as E. T. Bell stated a half a century ago , with every passing year, the shadow cast by Leibniz gets larger and larger.

How right Bell was! The digital philosophy paradigm is a direct intellectual descendent of Leibniz, it is part of the Leibnizian legacy. The human race has finally caught up with this part of Leibniz’s thinking. Are there, Wolfram and I wonder, more treasures there that we have not yet been able to decipher and appreciate?

## 6. Acknowledgment; Coda on the continuum and the Kabbalah

The author wishes to thank Françoise Chaitin-Chatelin for sharing with him her understanding and appreciation of Leibniz, during innumerable lengthy conversations. In her opinion, however, this essay does Leibniz an injustice by completely ignoring his deep interest in the “labyrinth of the continuum,” which is her specialty.

Let me address her concern. According to Leibniz, the integers are human, the discrete is at the level of Man. But the continuum transcends Man and brings us closer to God. Indeed, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is transcendent, and may be regarded as the concentrated essence of mathematical creativity. In a note on the Kabbalah, which regards Man as perfectable and evolving towards God, Leibniz \[33, pp. 112–115\] observes that with time we shall know all interesting theorems with proofs of up to any given fixed size, and this can be used to measure human progress.

If the axioms and rules of inference are fixed, then this kind of progress can be achieved mechanically by brute force, which is not very interesting. The interesting case is allowing new axioms and concepts. So I would propose instead that human progress—purely intellectual, not moral progress—be measured by the number of bits of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that we have been able to determine up to any given time.

Let me end with Leibniz’s remarks about the effects of this kind of progress \[33, pp. 115\]:

> If this happens, it must follow that those minds which are not yet sufficiently capable will become more capable so that they can comprehend and invent such great theorems, which are necessary to understand nature more deeply and to reduce physical truths to mathematics, for example, to understand the mechanical functioning of animals, to forsee certain future contingencies with a certain degree of accuracy, and to do certain wonderful things in nature, which are now beyond our capacity…
>
> Every mind has a horizon in respect to its present intellectual capacity but not in respect to its future intellectual capacity.

## References222Many of the author’s publications are available at his website at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin

* G. J. Chaitin, *Exploring Randomness,* Springer-Verlag, 2001.
* G. J. Chaitin, *The Unknowable,* Springer-Verlag, 1999.
* G. J. Chaitin, *The Limits of Mathematics,* Springer-Verlag, 1998.
* G. J. Chaitin, *Conversations with a Mathematician,* Springer-Verlag, 2002.
* G. J. Chaitin, “On the intelligibility of the universe and the notions of simplicity, complexity and irreducibility,” German Philosophy Association, in press.
* M. du Sautoy, *The Music of the Primes,* HarperCollins, 2003.
* G. J. Chaitin, *From Philosophy to Program Size,* Tallinn Cybernetics Institute, in press.
* H. Weyl, *The Open World,* Yale University Press, 1932, Ox Bow Press, 1989.
* H. Weyl, *Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science,* Princeton University Press, 1949.
* G. W. Leibniz, *Philosophical Essays,* Hackett, 1989.
* Leibniz, *Discours de métaphysique,* Gallimard, 1995.
* M. Davis, *The Universal Computer: The Road from Leibniz to Turing,* Norton, 2000.
* J. L. Casti, *The One True Platonic Heaven,* Joseph Henry Press, 2003.
* E. T. Bell, *Mathematics, Queen and Servant of Science,* Tempus, 1951.
* G. J. Chaitin, *Algorithmic Information Theory,* Cambridge University Press, 1987.
* T. Ord and T. D. Kieu, “On the existence of a new family of diophantine equations for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,” http://arxiv.org/abs/math.NT/0301274.
* P. Raatikainen, Book review, *AMS Notices* 48, Oct. 2001, pp. 992–996.
* H.-U. Obrist, *HuO Interviews 1,* Charta, in press.
* G. J. Chaitin, “Meta-mathematics and the foundations of mathematics,” *EATCS Bulletin* 77, June 2002, pp. 167–179.
* O. Postel-Vinay, “L’Univers est-il un calculateur?” \[Is the universe a calculator?\], *La Recherche* 360, Jan. 2003, pp. 33–44.
* M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, *Quantum Computation and Quantum Information,* Cambridge University Press, 2000.
* S. Wolfram, *A New Kind of Science,* Wolfram Media, 2002.
* L. Smolin, *Three Roads to Quantum Gravity,* Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2000.
* T. Tymoczko, *New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics,* Princeton University Press, 1998.
* J. Borwein and D. Bailey, *Mathematics by Experiment,* A. K. Peters, in press.
* J. Borwein and D. Bailey, *Experimentation in Mathematics*, A. K. Peters, in press.
* D. S. Robertson, *The New Renaissance,* Oxford University Press, 1998.
* D. S. Robertson, *Phase Change,* Oxford University Press, 2003.
* J. Maynard Smith and E. Szathmáry, *The Major Transitions in Evolution,* Oxford University Press, 1995.
* J. Maynard Smith and E. Szathmáry, *The Origins of Life,* Oxford University Press, 1999.
* C. S. Calude, *Information and Randomness,* Springer-Verlag, 2002.
* E. T. Bell, *Men of Mathematics,* Simon and Schuster, 1937.
* A. P. Coudert, *Leibniz and the Kabbalah,* Kluwer Academic, 1995.


text:
# Doping dependence of the gap anisotropy in La2-xCexCuO4 studied by millimeter-wave spectroscopy

Submitted to PRB: December 26, 2002

## Abstract

We measure the penetration depth of optimally doped and underdoped La2-xCexCuO4 in the millimeter frequency domain (4 \- 7 cm-1) and for temperatures 2 K $`T`$ 300 K. The penetration depth as function of temperature reveals significant changes on electron doping. It shows quadratic temperature dependence in underdoped samples, but increases almost exponentially at optimal doping. Significant changes in the gap anisotropy (or even in the gap symmetry) may account for this transition.

Being one of the keystones for theories of high-temperature superconductivity, the symmetry and the actual shape of the gap function in high-$`T_c`$’s is one of most attractive issues for experimental studies. At present the $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry in the hole doped materials seems to be well established.annett1 ; tsuei1  But so far there is no common consensus on the electron-doped cuprates. It was initially suggested that these materials reveal an $`s`$-wave symmetry,wu ; anlage ; alff ; kashiwaya  however, later measurements supported strongly a $`d`$-wave scenario.tsuei2 ; kokales ; prozorov ; armitage ; sato

A number of recent reports indicate possible transition in the gap symmetry with doping both in hole deutscher ; yeh ; sharoni  and electron skinta ; biswas  doped cuprates. Tunnelling data by Dagan and Deutscher, deutscher  and by Sharoni et al. sharoni  suggest a possible transition from pure $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ to $`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ or $`d_{x^2y^2}+is`$ symmetry while changing from the under- to the overdoped regime in YBa2Cu3O7-δ, as well as in Y1-xCaxBa2Cu3O7-δ. This transition could be due to surface effects, but possibly reflects a bulk property, namely the existence of a quantum critical point in these materials.laughlin ; vojta ; khveshchenko  The paper by Yeh et al.yeh  reports on changing of the paring symmetry from predominately $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ in the under- and optimally doped YBa2Cu3O7-δ single crystals to $`d_{x^2y^2}+s`$ in the overdoped Y1-xCaxBa2Cu3O7-δ thin films. That is, there is no apparent breaking of the time-reversal symmetry.

The point contact spectroscopy data on electron doped Pr2-xCexCuO4 by Biswas et al. biswas  also indicate different pairing symmetries in samples with different doping: $`d`$-wave in the underdoped and $`s`$-wave in the overdoped case. The radio-frequency inductance measurements by Skinta et al. skinta  show a tiny, but measurable difference in the low temperature ($`<`$ 3 K) behavior of the penetration depth between underdoped, optimally doped, and overdoped samples of Pr2-xCexCuO4 and La2-xCexCuO4, indicating $`d`$-wave symmetry in the underdoped, and $`s`$-wave symmetry in the optimally doped and overdoped regimes.

Overall the majority of these studies is quite consistent: the underdoped samples tend to demonstrate pure $`d`$-wave symmetry, while the overdoped samples rather reveal $`d+id_{xy}`$, $`d+is`$ or $`s`$-wave-like behavior. Optimal doping stays at the border of these two possibilities, falling more into the pure $`d`$-wave limit in the hole-doped compounds, yeh  and into the conventional $`s`$-wave-like behavior in the electron-doped ones. skinta

Here we present measurements of the superconducting penetration depth $`\lambda `$ of optimally doped and underdoped electron superconductors La2-xCexCuO4 by a quasi-optical method at millimeter wavelengths. kozlov  We show that the temperature dependence of $`\lambda `$ sensitively depends on the doping concentration.

High quality La2-xCexCuO4 films with $`x=0.106`$ (optimally doped) and $`x=0.081`$ (underdoped), have been deposited by molecular-beam epitaxy naito1 ; naito2  on transparent (001)-oriented SrLaAlO4 substrates. The substrates were plane-parallel plates, approximately $`10\times 10`$ mm in size with thickness of 0.335 mm for underdoped and of 0.472 mm for optimally doped films. The film thickness was 140 nm. The films had sharp resistive and inductive transitions at $`T_c=30`$ K (optimally doped sample) and 25 K (underdoped sample) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c<1`$ K.

The requirements to prepare high-quality La2-xCexCuO4 films are stringent cation stoichiometry adjustment and careful removal of the apical oxygen without phase decomposition. With regard to the latter issue, we kept films at 600 C for 10 min in the oxygen pressure less than 10-8 Torr just after the film growth. By this reduction recipe, the superconducting properties were optimized. No phase decomposition was detected in the reflection high-energy electron diffraction (RHEED) measurements. Although it is generally very difficult to evaluate the exact oxygen content in films, our in-situ Cu $`2p`$ x-ray photoemission spectra on the film surfaces indicate that the Cu ions are mostly coordinated by four O ions in a square planar configuration (no apical oxygen). Similar studies are reported for Nd2-xCexCuO4 films in Ref. yamamoto, .

The temperature dependence of dc resistivity of both films, as measured by the standard four probe method with evaporated Ag electrodes, is shown in Fig. 1. The overall shape of the $`\rho (T)`$ curves is quadratic rather than linear. The underdoped sample reveals a slight upturn in $`\rho (T)`$ at low temperatures ($`70`$ K). This is an indication of localization effects, and is quite typical for this compound in the underdoped regime. naito2

The measurements have been performed with a quasi-optical coherent source (backward-wave oscillator) spectrometer, kozlov  working in the millimeter to submillimeter wavelength domain. The Mach-Zehnder interferometer arrangement allows measuring both, the intensity and the phase shift of the wave transmitted through the La2-xCexCuO4 films on the substrates. Using the Fresnel optical formulas for the complex transmission coefficient of the substrate-film system, both components of the in-plane dynamic conductivity ($`\sigma _1+i\sigma _2`$) of the films have been directly calculated from these measurements. The penetration depth has been determined as $`\lambda =c/(4\pi \omega \sigma _2)^{1/2}`$, where $`c`$ is the light velocity and $`\omega `$ the angular frequency of the incident radiation. The optical parameters of the bare substrate have been measured in a separate experiment. At 5 cm-1 the absorptive index of the substrate, $`k_{sub}`$, is below 0.01 at any temperature. The refractive index, $`n_{sub}`$, is equal to $`4.06\pm 0.01`$ at room temperature and $`4.03\pm 0.01`$ for $`T0`$ K.

The as-measured transmission and phase shift data are shown in Fig. 2. Since the SrLaAlO4 substrates have very low losses in the millimeter-to-submillimeter frequency range, the transmission level of the substrate-film ”sandwich” is determined predominantly by the film properties. In the normally-conducting state (above $`T_c`$) the transmission is mainly controlled by the real part of the complex conductivity, while in the superconducting state both components of the complex conductivity contribute to the transmission, the imaginary part dominating at the lowest temperatures. The overall difference in the transmission levels between the two samples studied is due to difference of carrier concentrations in optimally doped and underdoped La2-xCexCuO4.

The main contribution to the absolute values of the phase shift comes from the substrate. The major term of the phase shift is proportional to the substrate thickness multiplied by its refractive index $`n_{sub}`$ and by the frequency of probing radiation. Since the thickness of the substrates were different, the phase level for the sample with optimally doped film is higher than for the sample with the underdoped film. The film contribution to the phase shift comes from both, the real and the imaginary part of the complex conductivity. Below $`T_c`$ due to the Meissner effect, $`\sigma _2`$ increases significantly and diverges at $`\omega 0`$, that leads to the negative contribution to the phase shift.

Let us recall that while processing the penetration depth data we used the complete Fresnel formulas, which automatically involve all contributions from the film complex conductivity to the transmission and phase shift, and take multiple reflections within the substrate into account.

Fig. 3 shows the penetration depth of the optimally doped and the underdoped La2-xCexCuO4 samples measured at 5 cm-1. For better comparison with model calculations, the penetration depth data are plotted as $`\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T)`$ versus $`T/T_c`$, where $`\lambda (0)`$ is the zero-temperature limit of the penetration depth. A substantially different behavior of $`\lambda (T)`$ for samples with different doping is clearly seen at all temperatures below $`T_c`$. In the underdoped regime the experimental curve can be well fitted by a $`[1(T/T_c)^2]`$ behavior, typical for high-temperature superconductors.t2  The results for the optimally doped sample look quite different, now a BCS-like t4  $`[1(T/T_c)^4]`$ dependence (fully gapped superconductor) fits the experimental data. We note that the high-temperature ($`T>0.9T_c`$) tails in $`\lambda ^2(0)/\lambda ^2(T)`$ are due to influence of the normally conducting electrons: $`\sigma _2`$ is not exactly zero above $`T_c`$ at high frequencies.

The low-temperature variation of $`\lambda `$ is shown in Fig. 4 as function of $`T^2`$. Measurements at two additional frequencies (4 and 6.7 cm-1) are also presented in this figure. In this representation the data of the underdoped sample follow rather well a straight line, while the data for the optimally doped sample demonstrate a much more gradual (although not really exponential) temperature dependence. No measurable frequency dependence of our findings is detected.

The absolute values of the penetration depth at the lowest temperatures are found to be equal to 0.22 $`\pm `$ 0.02 $`\mu `$m in the optimally doped, and 0.38 $`\pm `$ 0.03 $`\mu `$m in the underdoped samples. Both values are in good agreement with data by Skinta et al. skinta  Minor differences can be explained by slightly different doping levels of the samples marked as ”underdoped” and ”optimally doped” in Ref. skinta,  and in the present study.

The quadratic temperature dependence of the penetration depth in the underdoped sample provides strong experimental evidence of nodes in the gap function annett  and, likely, the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave paring symmetry. The results in the optimally doped sample indicate a more isotropic gap function: $`d+is`$ or $`s`$-wave symmetry annett  seem to be good candidates for the gap symmetry in optimally doped La2-xCexCuO4.

Since penetration depth measurements are not phase sensitive, it is impossible to decide from these measurements alone, whether a transition of the gap symmetry exists or not. However, our results provide experimental evidence that the superconducting gap in the underdoped regime is significantly more anisotropic than in the optimally doped regime. As an alternative to a transition between two superconducting states characterized by different gap symmetries, one can imagine a gradual change in the gap anisotropy with $`d+is`$, or even with just anisotropic $`s`$-wave, symmetry.

It is important to note that the influence of the quasiparticle scattering on the high-frequency (millimeter-wave) penetration depth data has to be clarified before making final conclusions on gap symmetry or gap anisotropy transition. Strictly speaking, only the zero-frequency penetration depth is associated with the superconducting condensate, while the penetration depth at a finite frequency is partly influenced by the normal-conducting carriers.

A way to correctly and model-independently exclude the normal-conducting contribution to the high-frequency $`\lambda `$ has been recently proposed by Dordevic et al. dordevic  It requires measurements of the complex conductivity over a wide frequency range. Such measurements have been undertaken by us at $`T=5`$ K using the backward-wave-oscillator technique for frequencies from 4 to 40 cm-1, and the standard infrared reflectivity measurements (40 - 4000 cm-1) with a Fourier-transform spectrometer. pimenov

Applying the analysis given in Ref. dordevic, , we have found the corrected zero-temperature values of the penetration depth: 0.23 $`\mu `$m for the optimally doped and 0.4 $`\mu `$m for the underdoped samples. The minor difference between the as-measured and the corrected penetration depth data is due to very low residual losses in the investigated films. The details of the recalculation procedure together with the determination of the scattering rate in La2-xCexCuO4 will be given elsewhere. pronin

In conclusion, we observed significant changes in the temperature dependence of the millimeter-wave penetration depth in optimally doped and underdoped La2-xCexCuO4. $`\lambda (T)`$ behaves quadratic in the underdoped, but is close to exponential in the optimally doped regime. Change in the gap anisotropy (or symmetry) is a plausible explanation for these dramatic differences.

We would like to thank L. Alff, J.F. Annett, D.N. Basov, G. Duetscher, R. Gross, R. Hackl, and D. van der Marel for useful discussions. The work was supported by BMBF via contract 13N6917/0 \- EKM.


text:
# The evolution of the galaxy luminosity function in the rest frame blue band up to 𝑧=3.5¹

## 1 Introduction

The evolution of the luminosity distribution of field galaxies and its correlation with colors constitutes the baseline for studying the link between the stellar processes occurring in galaxies and the dynamical properties of their host dark matter (DM) haloes which are thought to be described by the hierarchical clustering theories. To this aim, observations should i) sample a wide range of rest-frame wavelengths from the UV down to the optical and NIR bands to derive the contribution of the different stellar populations to the total mass and star formation rate; ii) be extended to faint magnitudes, since feedback effects – regulating the amount of gas which can actually cool and form stars – are effective in depleting the gas content of galaxies in the shallow potential wells, and hence appreciably affect the faint end of the LF; iii) be performed in the same rest-frame band to avoid the mixing (the degeneracy) between redshift and wavelength dependent effects, possibly reducing the effect of dust extinction. Fulfilling the above requirements up to high redshifts with a homogeneous sample is not an easy task. At present, the available results are scattered in different bands, depending on $`z`$, and have different extensions at faint luminosities.

At $`z0`$, recent results in the B band from redshift surveys (Zucca et al. 1997, Folkes et al. 1999, Blanton et al. 2001) have shown that the local population of field galaxies has a LF with a fainter characteristic magnitude and a faint slope steeper than previously found. At intermediate redshifts ($`z0.75`$), spectroscopic surveys (CFRS Lilly et al 1995; Autofib, Ellis et al. 1996; CNOC2, Lin et al. 1999) found a steepening of the faint end LF with increasing $`z`$ in the total LF, mainly due to the contribution by later type galaxies. To investigate the faint end shape and evolution of the LF at higher $`z`$, the statistics must be extended well beyond the limit of spectroscopic surveys. The photometric redshift technique, (Connolly et al. 1997, Giallongo et al. 1998, Fernandez-Soto, Lanzetta, & Yahil 1999, Fontana et al. 2000), allowed to otain a first estimate of the rest-frame B LF at $`0<z<1.25`$ (Poli et al. 2001) using a composite deep multicolor sample in the Hubble Deep Fields (HDF) North and South down to $`I_{AB}=27.2`$. The lack of deep NIR images prevented us to follow the evolutionary behaviour of the LF in the same rest frame B band to $`z>2`$.

In this paper, we present the results from deep ISAAC/VLT IR data in the HDF-S, which are providing a complete sample of galaxies down to $`K_{AB}=25`$, thus giving us the first chance to assess the evolution of the galaxy LF in the same rest frame $`4400`$ Å B-band from redshift $`z=0`$ to $`z=3.5`$. Throughout this paper we adopt an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`H_0=70`$ km $`s^1`$ Mpc-1 cosmology.

## 2 The data sample

The dataset we have analyzed consists of a composite sample of galaxies covering, with similar depth, a range spanning from the UV down to the optical/NIR wavelengths (see Tab. 1). A first photometric catalog has been extracted from the HDF-S dataset where HST-WFPC2 optical images (Casertano et al. 2000) have been combined with deep ESO/VLT NIR images in a $`4.22`$ $`arcmin^2`$ sky area (these data are in common with the FIRES survey, Labbé et al. 2003). The infrared images reach formal 5 sigma limits in an aperture of $`1.2^{\prime \prime }`$ at $`J_{AB}=25.3`$, $`H_{AB}=24`$, and $`K_{AB}=25`$. The procedures adopted to extract the final multicolor catalog have been optimized to obtain accurate color photometry for reliable photometric redshifts, as described in Vanzella et al (2001). The full catalog will be presented in a future paper. From this catalog we have selected 245 $`I_{AB}27.2`$ sources to build the LF in the $`0.4<z<1`$ range, and 113 $`K_{AB}25`$ sources to sample the LF in the same rest frame wavelength but at higher redshifts, $`1.3<z<3.5`$. To improve the statistics at the faint end of the LF we added 259 $`I_{AB}27.2`$ at $`z1`$ and 18 $`K_{AB}23.5`$ galaxies at $`1.3<z<3.5`$ from the HDF-N catalog of Fontana et al. (2000). To improve the statistics also at the bright end of the LF, we added a sample of galaxies selected in two fields centered around the QSO 0055-269 and in the Chandra Deep Field South (Giacconi et al. 2001) for a total of $`68`$ $`arcmin^2`$, that were used to select the targets for the so called K20 ($`K_{AB}21.9`$) spectroscopic survey (Cimatti et al. 2002).

Simulations show that the K20 sample and HDFs are complete (to more than 95%) down to $`I_{AB}=24.5,25`$ and $`I_{AB}=27.2`$, respectively. Following the procedure presented in Poli et al. (1999), we separately estimate total and color magnitudes with two different recipes. To obtain the total fluxes of the objects in the chosen reference band, SExtractor Kron magnitudes (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) have been adopted for bright sources. For faint sources we estimated aperture magnitudes with aperture corrections computed estimating the flux losses outside the adopted aperture with respect to the Kron magnitudes for relatively bright sources. The reliability of the correction adopted has been tested by means of simulations as performed in Poli et al. (2001). No appreciable systematic losses of the total flux for the faintest sources were found a part from the well known losses by 5-10% typical of the Kron magnitudes. To cope with the inhomogeneous quality of the different images, we produced a set of seeing–corrected color magnitudes that have been then scaled to total magnitudes in all the bands (Vanzella et al. 2001). This ensures that colors - used to estimate the redshifts - are measured in the same physical region at any wavelength, independently of the seeing FWHM present in each image.

The final sample includes 1541 $`I`$–selected and $`138`$ $`K`$ -selected galaxies (see Tab. 1). Of these, $`337`$ and $`23`$, respectively, have spectroscopic $`z`$, taken from existing spectroscopic surveys (Cohen et al for the HDF-N; Vanzella et al. 2002 for the HDF-S; Cimatti et al. 2002 for the K20 sample). For all the other galaxies, reliable photometric redshifts have been derived with a homogeneous technique, described in Fontana et al 2000 (for the HDF-S sample) and in Cimatti et al 2002 (for the K20 survey). The model adopts several galaxy ages and exponentially declining star formation histories, and includes Lyman absorption from the intergalactic medium and dust absorption with different amounts up to $`E(BV)=1`$, using both SMC and Calzetti extinction curves. In all the samples, the relative accuracy is $`(z_{spe}z_{phot})/(1+z_{spe})0.05`$.

## 3 Bulding the observed LF

Our combined sample allows to probe the behavior of the $`4400`$ Å rest frame LF in a continuous way from $`z0.4`$ up to $`z3.5`$. For galaxies at $`z<1`$ we used our $`I`$band selected sample. Indeed, in the redshift interval $`0.7<z<1`$ the 4400 Å rest frame wavelength is within the I band, and the LF includes all the galaxies with $`m[4400(1+z)]=I_{AB}I_{AB}(lim)`$ where $`I_{AB}(lim)`$ is 24.5, 25 and 27.2 for the shallow and deep samples, respectively. In the lower redshift interval $`0.4<z<0.7`$ the wavelength corresponding to 4400(1+z) lies shortward of the I band but still we adopt the same threshold in $`m[4400(1+z)]`$. This implies that some galaxies from the original $`I_{AB}`$ limited samples are excluded from the LF since they have a red spectrum and consequently $`m[4400(1+z)]`$ are fainter than our adopted threshold. We have in this way extracted a complete subsample of galaxies having a continuum magnitude threshold at 4400 Å in each redshift interval, independently of their color (assuming galaxies in this redshift interval to have $`(RI)_{AB}0`$). The same procedure has been adopted at higher $`z`$ using the $`K`$band selected sample. In the $`1.3<z<3.5`$ interval, the 4400 Å rest frame wavelength is within or shortward of the K band, and the LF includes all the galaxies with $`m[4400(1+z)]=K_{AB}K_{AB}(lim)`$. Finally, the rest frame absolute AB magnitude $`M_B(AB)`$ has been derived from the theoretical best fit spectral energy distribution for each galaxy. The same fit provides the photometric redshift for each galaxy. In this way the K-correction has been derived for each galaxy from the interpolation between the observed magnitudes using the best fit spectrum. Uncertainties in this interpolation produce on average small ($`10\%`$) errors in the rest-frame luminosities (Ellis 1997; Pozzetti et al. 2003). The rest frame luminosity is derived without any correction for dust absorption.

To estimate the observed LF we have applied to our composite sample an extended version of the $`1/V_{max}`$ algorithm. Our combination of data from separate fields, with different magnitude limits, has been treated computing, for every single object, a set of effective volumes, $`V_{max}(j)`$, for each $`j`$-th field under analysis. For a given redshift interval $`(z_1,z_2)`$, these volumes are enclosed between $`z_1`$ and $`z_{up}(j)`$, the latter being defined as the minimum between $`z_2`$ and the maximum redshift at which the object could have been observed within the magnitude limit of the $`j`$ -th field.

The Poisson error in each LF magnitude bin was computed adopting the recipe by Gehrels (1986) valid also for small numbers. To compute the uncertainties in the LF due to the photometric $`z`$ estimates, we assumed the typical r.m.s. found comparing photometric and spectroscopic $`z`$ (where available) in the HDF-N and K20 samples. The adopted values range from $`\sigma _z0.08`$ at $`z1`$ to $`\sigma _z0.16`$ at $`z3`$ (Fontana et al. 2000, Cimatti et al. 2002). We have generated from the original $`z`$ photometric catalogs of I-selected or K-selected galaxies, a set of 50 catalogs of random photometric $`z`$ using the above r.m.s. uncertainties to compute a set of 50 LFs. The derived fluctuations in each magnitude bin resulted smaller than Poissonian errors and have been added in quadrature. Due to the limited area of each survey, density fluctuations among the fields could be larger than Poissonian errors. For this reason both such uncertainties have been computed in each magnitude bin of the LF at $`z<1`$. At $`z>1`$ the LF has been derived from the deep K selected HDF-S sample and thus only Poissonian errors have been computed.

A complementary way to study the evolution of the galaxy population is to apply a maximum likelihood analysis assuming a Schechter parametric form $`\varphi `$ for the LF (Sandage, Tammann & Yahil 1979). In the case of our composite survey, that is based on $`j`$ magnitude-limited fields, the maximum likelihood $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ writes (Marshall et al. 1983)

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\varphi (M_i)dzdM}{_j\omega (j)_{z_1}^{z_2}\frac{dV}{dz}𝑑z_{\mathrm{}}^{M_{lim}^j(z)}\varphi (M)𝑑M}$$
(1)
$`\omega (j)`$ beeing the field area in steradians and $`N`$ the total number of objects considered in the composite sample. $`M_{lim}^j(z)`$ is the absolute magnitude value corresponding, at the given redshift $`z`$, to the magnitude limit of the $`j`$-th survey. The value of $`\varphi ^{}`$ is then obtained simply imposing on the best fit LF a normalization such that the total number of galaxies of the combined sample is reproduced.

## 4 The evolution of the LF in the rest frame 4400 Å band

The resulting LFs in different redshift intervals are shown in figure 1, where in each panel the local (i.e. $`z0.1`$) observed blue LFs from the Sloan (Blanton et al. 2001) and 2DF (Norberg et al. 2002) surveys have been shown for comparison. First of all we note that the LFs derived from the present $`I`$-selected composite sample up to $`z=1`$ show little density evolution at the faint end respect to the local values and the density remains approximately constant for $`M_B(AB)16`$. A small underdensity is apparent at $`0.7<z<1`$ and $`M_B(AB)19`$ but this appears of the same order of the differences between the two local LFs. At the bright end a brightening increasing with redshift is apparent with respect to the local LF. Indeed, as shown in Table 2, assuming a Schechter shape for the LF, the characteristic luminosity $`M_B^{}`$ increases from $`21.3`$ to $`21.9`$ in the range $`z=0.41`$.

It is interesting to compare our LF at $`z1`$ with that derived from the COMBO-17 survey (Wolf et al. 2003) based on photometric redshifts derived from a shallower sample ($`R<24`$), but from a larger area of 1 deg2. They derive for the overall sample characteristic luminosities $`M_B^{}(AB)=21,21.9,22.2`$ (for $`H_0=70`$ km $`s^1`$ Mpc-1) and slopes $`\alpha =1.1,1.6,2`$ at redshifts $`z=0.5,0.7,0.9`$ respectively. Formally the slopes derived by the COMBO-17 survey are not statistically consistent with those obtained by our samples at similar $`z`$. However, given the significantly different limiting magnitudes of the two samples, it is difficult to compare with each other the two sets of slopes. In any case, both samples suggest a steepening of the LF coupled with an increase of $`M_B^{}`$ from $`z0`$ up to $`z1`$.

At $`z23`$ our LF still shows a brightening with respect to the local value which appears to be due to enhanced star formation activity for the brightest galaxies. This can be derived from figure 2 where we plot the correlation existing between the observed rest frame blue and the de-reddened UV 1400 Å luminosities derived from the spectral models fitting the NIR/optical colors of each $`K`$ selected galaxy. The median reddening for the galaxies in Fig. 2 is $`E(BV)0.1,0.2`$ for an SMC or Calzetti extinction curves, respectively, in agreement with Shapley et al. (2001). We have also checked the robustness of such a result using the correlation (Meurer et al. 1999) between the rest-frame UV shape (derived from the observed optical colors) and the UV extinction, a procedure less dependent on the estimated age of the stellar population.

Thus, the correlation shown in Fig. 2 implies that brighter blue galaxies have on average greater star formation activity. We note in this respect that 67%, 83%, 67% of the brightest galaxies with $`M_B(AB)<22`$ and $`z<1`$, $`1.3<z<2.5`$ and $`2.5<z<3.5`$ have spectroscopic redshifts. Thus the amount of brightening is measured with good accuracy despite the small number of sources involved at the bright end. We also note that some galaxies in figure 2 contributing to the LF are clearly red with a small UV emission (see also Franx et al. 2003). It is difficult to argue about their nature (old or dust reddened) without spectroscopic information (see Franx et al. 2003). However these red galaxies have in general $`M_B>22`$ and so they have magnitudes of the order of $`M^{}`$ or fainter and do not affect the brightest end of the blue LF. They represent about 9% of the sample shown in figure 2.

At the faint end of the LF, the Schechter slope $`\alpha `$ is not well constrained at these redshifts. The derived slope at $`z=1.32.5`$ is $`\alpha =1.8`$ and the related characteristic luminosity is $`M_B^{}22.4`$, but the uncertainties are large. Fixing the slope to the lower redshift value $`\alpha =1.4`$ we derive a characteristic luminosity $`M_B^{}21.9`$. Keeping the slope fixed a further brightening by about 0.4 magnitude ($`M_B^{}22.3`$) is apparent in the redshift interval $`z=2.53.5`$ (see Table 1). Similar results concerning the evolution of the blue LF and derived luminosity density have been obtained in the HDF-N NICMOS field by Dickinson et al (2001, 2003). Our results are also consistent with the rest-frame V band LF derived at $`z3`$ by Shapley et al. (2001).

The above results are compared with the semi-analytic model by Menci et al. (2002) describing the galactic merging histories in the framework of hierarchical models. The cooling, star formation and Supernovae (SNe) feedback of the galactic baryons in a way similar to other semi-analytic models (Kauffmann et al. 1993; Somerville & Primack 1999; Cole et al. 2000). Stars are allowed to form from the cooled gas with rate $`\dot{m}_{}=(m_c/t_{dyn})(v/200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)^\alpha _{}`$ where $`t_{dyn}`$ is the disk dynamical time. A mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_h=\beta m_{}`$ is returned from the cool to the hot gas phase due to the energy feedback by type II SNe associated to $`m_{}`$. The feedback efficiency is taken to be $`\beta =(v/v_h)^{\alpha _h}`$. The values adopted for the parameters are the same of Cole et al. (2000) and allow similar fits to the local B-band galaxy LF and the Tully-Fisher relation, as illustrated by Menci et al. (2002). However, our model also includes a physical prescription for the binary aggregations among satellite galaxies in common hosting haloes, which provides a somewhat flatter luminosity function at all $`z`$. In comparing the observed LF with that predicted by our CDM model we did not correct the observed rest frame luminosities for dust absorption but we have included the reddening effects in the model. The dust absorption has been assumed to be proportional to the disk surface density and metallicity as detailed in Menci et al. (2002). We adopted an SMC extinction curve; using a Milky Way or Calzetti extinction curves does not affect appreciably the resulting B band luminosities.

The comparison shows two main features: a) At the faint end of the LF the excess of predicted galaxies persists at all redshifts (see also Poli et al. 2001, Cimatti et al. 2002b). This implies that some feedback could be effective in suppressing the star formation activity. However, since further increments of the SNe feedback would result in a local Tully-Fisher relation too faint when compared with the data, sources of feedback other than SNe should be investigated. An example is represented by the feedback provided by the diffuse ionizing UV background produced by QSOs. b) At the bright end ($`M_B(AB)<20`$), the theoretical LFs show little evolution up to $`z=3.5`$, resulting from the balance between the decrease with z of the number of massive objects and the increase of their star formation and hence of their blue luminosity. On the contrary, the observed LFs show an increasing brightening with redshift. Even if at $`z<1`$ the predicted LFs are still consistent with this brightening, at $`z>1`$ they fail to reproduce the observed number of bright galaxies. This discrepancy would then enlighten the lack in hierarchical models of sufficiently high star formation activity at $`z=24`$, beyond the quiescent mode driven by the progressive refueling of the cold gas reservoir during galaxy merging and by the gradual cooling of the available hot gas. An additional burst mode triggered by galaxy interactions in common DM halos (e.g. Somerville & Primack 1999; Poli et al. 2001) could contribute to solve the problem. Indeed, the rate of interactions peaks in the above redshift interval (Menci et al. 2002).

Table 1.

The composite sample

field maglim arcmin2 Filters N    HDFS $`I<27.2`$ 4.22 UBVIJHK 245  HDFS $`K<25`$ 4.22 UBVIJHK 113  HDFN $`I<27.2`$ 3.92 UBVIJHK 259  HDFN $`K<23.5`$ 3.92 UBVIJHK 18  Chandra $`I<25`$ 35.6 UBVRIZJK 619  Chandra $`K<21.9`$ 24.6 UBVRIZJK 6  Q0055-269 $`I<24.5`$ 31.9 UBVIJHK 418  Q0055-269 $`K<21.9`$ 19.8 UBGVRRWIZJK 1

Table 2.

Parameters of the Schechter function fits

z range $`\alpha `$ $`M^{}`$ $`\varphi _{}`$ N    0.4-0.7 $`1.33\pm 0.04`$ $`21.33\pm 0.17`$ 0.004 787  0.7-1 $`1.44\pm 0.04`$ $`21.88\pm 0.19`$ 0.002 754  1.3-2.5 $`1.80\pm 0.20`$ $`22.37\pm 0.39`$ 0.0007 96  1.3-2.5 $`1.44`$ $`21.87\pm 0.14`$ 0.0017 96  2.5-3.5 $`1.44`$ $`22.30\pm 0.31`$ 0.0015 42