text:
# A quantum computer using a trapped-ion spin molecule and microwave radiation

## Abstract

We propose a new design for a quantum information processor where qubits are encoded into Hyperfine states of ions held in a linear array of individually tailored linear microtraps and sitting in a spatially varying magnetic field. The magnetic field gradient introduces spatially dependent qubit transition frequencies and a type of spin-spin interaction between qubits. Single and multi-qubit manipulation is achieved via resonant microwave pulses as in liquid-NMR quantum computation while the qubit readout and reset is achieved through trapped-ion fluorescence shelving techniques. By adjusting the microtrap configurations we can tailor, in hardware, the qubit resonance frequencies and coupling strengths. We show the system possesses a side-band transition structure which does not scale with the size of the processor allowing scalable frequency discrimination between qubits. By using large magnetic field gradients, one can reset individual qubits in the ion chain via frequency selective optical pulses to implement quantum error correction thus avoiding the need for many tightly focused laser beams.

A quantum computer requires well-characterized quantum bits (qubits), sufficient control to perform a universal set of quantum gates, long decoherence times compared to gate times and a means of performing qubit readout DiVincenzo . To be of practical use, any design must scale to hundreds of qubits without enormous technical overhead. Current ion trap and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), implementations are capable of satisfying most of these criteria to varying degrees. Liquid-state NMR quantum computing has demonstrated very precise control in the manipulation of qubits with microwave and radio frequency pulses and the execution of a number of quantum algorithms. The main drawback of Liquid-NMR quantum computing is the extreme difficulty, due to tiny spin polarization and weak measurements, in scaling up to a large number of qubits. Ion trap quantum computing has recently shown progress in implementing a quantum algorithm blatt\_deutsch , and a controlled interaction between two qubits blatt\_zollergate . Here the initialization and readout of qubits is particularly good. However, there are barriers to be overcome such as decoherence due to ion heating, very precise laser focussing and stability problems of operating at optical frequencies. These difficulties may hinder the ability to scale optically-addressed ion-trap technologies to hundreds of ions although a number of potentially scalable designs involving moving and stationary optically manipulated trapped ions have been proposed Jonathan . In this article we describe a new design for a potentially highly scalable quantum information processor which combines the trapped-ion and NMR technologies in a manner that retains the advantages of both.

We assume that two Hyperfine levels in each ion serve as the qubit. As demonstrated by Wunderlich et. al. Mintert ; Wunderlich ; Balzer , one can induce a coupling between the qubits through the application of a magnetic field gradient along a string of ions. This, together with the Coloumb force, couples the qubits together in a way analogous to the spin-spin coupling observed between nuclear spins in a molecule. Obviously then, similar techniques to those used in NMR, and the related field of electron spin resonance (ESR), can be utilised to realize two and multi-qubit quantum gates. The work presented by Wunderlich et. al., though possessing obvious benefits for the precise manipulation of quantum information, however displays a number of serious obstacles with respect to scalability. In that design we will find that the spin-spin coupling varies in strength throughout the ion chain thus leading to varying quantum gate durations between qubits depending on their location in the ion chain. This, itself poses a serious difficulty in that a scalable device will require device-wide parallel quantum information processing and quantum error correction and this will need careful synchronisation of logical operations throughout the device. More problematic is the existence in the Wunderlich design of an upper limit to the number of qubits which can be cleanly frequency differentiated for a given size of magnetic field gradient. Finally, the technical difficulty and potential added source of decoherence introduced by the focusing of individual laser beams on each ion in the chain for *individual* qubit initialization, readout and reset may also be problematic for scalability Balzer . Here we show that by considering a design where the ions are stored in a linear array of individually tailored linear microtraps Eliptical , we can surmount all of the above mentioned difficulties and achieve significant gains in scalability. In particular we find that the resulting system is, as before, analogous to an $`N`$ atom molecule with spin-spin couplings, but now these couplings can be tailored very precisely, and quite robustly, through altering the individual microtrap parameters. The new design is also exactly analogous to a true ion crystal where each ion is harmonically bound to a periodic spatial lattice. The resulting qubit resonance frequencies together with the vibrational side-transitions form a band structure (as in condensed matter systems), where a band’s extent now only depends on the inter-ion spacing and end trap strength and does not grow with the number of ions in the chain. Finally, as previously shown by Wunderlich Wunderlich , the magnetic field gradient allows the qubits to be individually frequency-addressed in the microwave via Zeeman splitting of the Hyperfine structure. We further show that for large magnetic field gradients one can engineer for frequency-addressed optical resetting of an individual Hyperfine qubit via Zeeman splitting of the optical transitions. This capability allows for scalable quantum error correction and relaxes the need for focusing of individual laser beams on each ion through the use of frequency multiplexed laser sources. Previous difficulties predicted in liquid NMR quantum information processing related to the saturation of the available RF-bandwidth with a moderate number of frequency differentiated qubits is no longer an issue here as the qubit manipulation in the MW, (or readout in the optical), has available radiation sources which are tunable over many MHz (GHz). Further, our design uses the highly developed and relatively widespread technology of microwave pulse synthesis to precisely manipulate the qubits. This avoids the need to develop and maintain ultra-stable narrow-band laser systems as used in in blatt\_deutsch ; blatt\_zollergate , although high frequency optical systems will still be required for the qubit initialization, reset and readout processes. Our model differs fundamentally from other quantum computer designs based on trapped ions. In CZ95 , a two-qubit gate is realised through the exchange of a phonon through collective vibrational motion of the ions while in CZ405 , the ions are also stored in an array of microtraps and qubit gates are realised through a state-dependent displacement of the motional wave-packet of the ions. In the scheme of Wunderlich and in our scheme, the spin-spin coupling is achieved via virtual excitation of the ion’s motion and thus gate operations should be more robust against decoherence arising from the motion of the ions as in the schemes presented in Molmer ; Milburn ; CirZolRip .

We first explain qualitatively how the model operates and follow this with a quantitative analysis. We consider $`N`$ ions, with each ion occupying a separate harmonic oscillator potential well, arranged in a linear array. We assume we can independently fix (1), the strength of the each potential well and, (2) the separation between each well. Each ion stores a qubit in two Hyperfine states and taken together constitutes a quantum register. The initialization of the qubits is performed as usual via fluorescence shelving and repumping Sasura02 . A magnetic field gradient is applied along the ion string and results in frequency differentiated qubits in the string due to the Zeeman shifting of each ion’s Hyperfine levels. Single-qubit operations on a given ion are performed by illuminating the ion string with a pulse of microwave radiation of the appropriate frequency. The spin-spin coupling between the ions is achieved through a combination of the Coloumb force and the qubit dependent Zeeman energy which is spatially modulated by the magnetic field gradient Wunderlich . The resulting spin-spin coupling is thus “on” all the time and gates are achieved via a combination of single-qubit operations and free evolution as in liquid-NMR quantum computation. Thus one can use the considerable knowledge of NMR refocusing and averaging techniques Beth , to tailor the system Hamiltonian and perform quantum information processing. However, quantum computing using liquid state NMR and an ion spin-molecule sitting in a single trapping potential as proposed by Wunderlich, differ in that the latter allows one to control (although in a very rough manner), in hardware, the inter-qubit coupling strengths. For the latter the resulting inter-qubit couplings vary in strength throughout the ion-chain no matter how one alters the single trap parameters (see Fig. 1). This lack of homogeneity represents a significant barrier for the scalability of Wunderlich . In addition, using a single linear trap to contain the ion string yields limits on the number of ions in the string that can be cleanly frequency differentiated for a given size of magnetic field gradient. By introducing linear microtraps and individually tailoring their strengths and locations we can surmount both of the above problems to yield a design with high scalability. We can precisely engineer the inter-qubit couplings to be homogenous throughout the chain while maintaining uniform separation between the ions and consequently, well differentiated qubit resonant frequencies irrespective of the size of the device. Having an homogeneous system enormously boosts the scalability of device as the alternative would imply that all gate operations (pulse sequences), would be highly dependent on the location of the ions in the chain which are involved in the gate. In addition by varying the ion-separation and microtrap strengths we also have some control over the relative sizes of non-nearest-neighbour to nearest-neighbour spin-spin coupling strengths. In Wunderlich , and in our model, the ions in the string are spatially separated on length scales varying from $`210\mu `$m, and although the individual focusing of lasers on each ion is possible, such a readout scheme may yield too much decoherence due to laser pointing fluctuations, amplitude noise etc. Also in Wunderlich , one can readout the entire qubit register at once at the completion of a quantum algorithm. However to execute quantum error correction, intermediate measurements are usually desired. However, as shown in nielsen , quantum error correction only requires the capability of supplying fresh ancilla qubits, or in the present case, the resetting of any individual qubit to a preset quantum state. We show that in the case of large constant magnetic field gradients, the resulting spatial dependence of the energies of both the qubit Hyperfine levels and the optically-excited “readout” level allows one to achieved optical frequency differentiated reset through optical pumping or through engineered decoherence processes, with little disturbance of neighboring qubits. This yields another boost for the scalability of the resulting design.

We now look at the model more quantitatively. Consider $`N`$ ions each of mass $`m`$ confined in $`N`$ individual harmonic potential wells. The $`i^{th}`$ linear trap has frequency $`\omega _i`$ and is located at position $`k_i`$ along the $`x`$-axis. A spatially varying magnetic field, $`\stackrel{}{B}(B_0+bx)\widehat{z}`$, is applied across the line of ions. The resulting Hamiltonian, to second order in the ion’s vibrational motion, is given by Wunderlich ,

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _n(x_{0,n})\sigma _{z,n}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{}\nu _na_n^{}a_n\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\underset{n<m}{}J_{nm}\sigma _{z,n}\sigma _{z,m}.$$
(1)
The first term represents the electronic Hamiltonian of the qubits, now with separated qubit resonances $`\omega _n(x_{0,n})`$, and where $`x_{0,n}`$ is the equilibrium location of the $`n`$’th ion in the string sitting in the trapping potential. The second term describes the collective quantized vibrational motion of the ions. Even though the ions are now in individual linear traps, this term describes the quadratic interactions between the ions and is essentially identical to the case of a single harmonic trap. The last term expresses the pairwise coupling between qubits analogous to the well-known spin-spin coupling in molecules used for NMR quantum computing. In Wunderlich , it is then proposed that this last term can be used to implement quantum gates.

One can show that the spin-spin coupling between ions $`n`$ and $`m`$ can be expressed in the relatively simple form:

$`J_{nm}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi m}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _j^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _n}{x_n}}|_{x_{0,n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _m}{x_m}}|_{x_{0,m}}D_{nj}D_{mj}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{x}}|_n{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{x}}|_m(A^1)_{nm},`$ (3)
where $`\frac{\omega }{x}|_k`$ is the gradient of the qubit transition resonant frequency for ion $`k`$, at equilibrium location $`x_{0,k}`$; $`A`$ is the Hessian of the potential in which the ions sit; $`D`$ is the unitary transformation matrix that diagonalises $`A`$ and $`m\nu _j^2`$ are the eigenvalues of $`A`$.

In the high-field or Paschen-Bach limit, ($`B_01`$T), the frequency gradients are independent of $`x`$ and thus $`n`$, and so $`JA^1`$. To achieve uniform off-diagonal values for $`JA^1`$, i.e. $`J_{ij}J_{|ij|}`$, we now tailor the values of the Hessian $`A`$. Firstly the off-diagonal elements of $`A`$ are functions only of the inter-ion spatial separations. We can fix the positions of the individual microtraps, $`k_i`$, to achieve a uniform ion separation, $`h`$, thus enormously simplifying the structure of $`A`$. The diagonal elements of $`A`$ are functions of both the inter-ion separation, $`h`$, and the individual trap strengths. Letting $`g_im\omega _i^2`$, be a measure of the $`i`$’th trap strength, $`ϵ_1=(e^2/4\pi ϵ_0h)/(\frac{1}{2}g_1h^2)`$ CZ405 , and assuming only nearest neighbor coupling, one can analytically show that for uniform off-diagonal $`J`$’s one must have

$$g_1=g_N,g_i=\frac{g_1}{1+ϵ_1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}<i<N,$$
(4)
with all interior traps being weaker in strength than the end traps. Resorting to numerics to include non-nearest neighbor terms in the Hessian, one can determine the interior microtrap strengths for any given length of ion string with a uniform spatial ion separation. As one might expect both $`k_i`$ and $`g_i`$ are symmetrically valued about the mid-point of the ion chain. As an example, for Yb+ ions, where the qubit is encoded in the Hyperfine states $`|0|6S_{\frac{1}{2}},M_I=\frac{1}{2},M_J=\frac{1}{2},|1|6S_{\frac{1}{2}},M_I=\frac{1}{2}M_J=\frac{1}{2}`$, of each ion we can obtain the microtrap strengths in Fig. 2. Once suitable values for $`g_i`$ are obtained, the resulting microtrap positions $`k_i`$, which yield the specified uniform ion separation, can be separately computed numerically. As expected, the microtrap separation decreases slightly towards the edges of the ion string to compensate for the larger outwards Coloumb forces experienced by ions in these regions. From Fig. 1, the resulting improvement in the uniformity of the $`J`$-couplings throughout the ion string is quite striking. In addition however, we have also succeeded in significantly reducing the non-nearest neighbor $`J`$-couplings, thus reducing these potential sources of error in the performance of nearest neighbor quantum gates. Further, by varying both the inter-ion separation $`h`$, and end-trap strength $`g_1`$, we can control the degree of suppression of non-nearest neighbor couplings. Thus, through tailoring the microtrap configuration we can achieve uniform off-diagonal coupling strengths throughout the ion-string. Other types of $`J`$-couplings may also be tailored for.

Of course it is important to estimate the degree of intolerance of the design due to misalignments in the trap strengths and positions. In numerical simulations, fluctuations of the ion positions have minimal effect on the uniformity of the $`J`$-couplings. Given 10 ions in a trap, with $`\nu _1=1`$MHz, $`b=1000`$T/m and $`h=`$10$`\mu `$m, setting $`x_{0,n}=x_{0,n}^U+\delta x_n`$, where $`x_{0,n}^U`$ are the microtrap locations giving a uniform $`J`$-coupling, and $`\delta x_n`$ randomly distributed deviations within a range $`\pm 0.1\mu \mathrm{m}`$, the nearest-neighbour $`J`$-couplings vary by approximately 1% on average. Considering the spatial extent of the lowest axial vibrational mode of each ion is $``$2nm, the $`J`$-couplings maintain their uniformity when heating occurs. For variations of the individual linear microtrap strengths, $`\nu _i=\nu _i^U+\delta \nu _i`$, with $`\delta \nu _i`$ randomly distributed deviations within a range $`\pm 10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$ ($`\pm 1\%`$ of $`\nu _1`$), results in 1% variations of the nearest-neighbour $`J`$couplings. Further, one can employ so-called robust pulse sequences to overcome small inhomogeneities in the coupling strengths throughout the chain jones .

We now take some time to outline the complete scalability of the qubit frequency discrimination within our design. As noted in Wunderlich ; Balzer , the vibrational energy of the highest collective motional mode of $`N`$ ions in a single harmonic trap subject to a magnetic gradient of size $`B/x=b`$, increases linearly with $`N`$, i.e. $`\nu _{max}\nu ^{}N`$. For clean frequency discrimination between two neighboring qubit resonant frequencies, $`\omega _i`$ and $`\omega _{i+1}`$, one requires, $`|\omega _{i+1}\omega _i|B/x>2\nu _{max}2\nu ^{}N`$. Thus for a given magnetic field gradient $`b`$, there is a maximum number of ions, $`N^{}`$, which can be cleanly discriminated. In our model, however, the vibrational frequencies of the collective motion of $`N`$ ions, held in microtraps tailored for uniform spatial separation and qubit coupling strengths $`J`$, asymptotes to a given value $`\nu _{max}(N,h,g_1)\nu _{max}(h,g_1)`$, for large $`N`$. Empirically, defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu (N,h,g_1)\nu _{max}(h,g_1)\nu _{max}(N,h,g_1)`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu (N,h,g_1)\mathrm{\Delta }\nu (N_j,h,g_1)\times (N/N_j)^{1.78}`$. Empirically, we also can find the scaling of this convergence with ion separation $`h`$, to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu (N,\stackrel{~}{h},g_1)\mathrm{\Delta }\nu (N,h,g_1)\times (\stackrel{~}{h}/h)^3`$.

It is necessary finally, to discuss in more detail how it is proposed that the qubits can be individually manipulated, read out and reset. First, we will talk about manipulation. Since we are proposing to using two Hyperfine levels for the qubit, long wavelength radiation is involved and so we will have to manipulate the qubits via frequency selection rather than by attempting to focus laser light on the ions individually. As an example, we again identify the $`|S_{\frac{1}{2}},M_I=\frac{1}{2},M_J=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`|S_{\frac{1}{2}},M_I=\frac{1}{2},M_J=\frac{1}{2}`$, states of 171Yb+ as the qubit $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. The Zeeman splitting of the Hyperfine levels lies in the Paschen-Back region when $`\frac{g_J\mu _BB(z)}{E_{HFS}}>1`$, where $`E_{HFS}`$ is the Hyperfine splitting constant, $`g_J`$ the g-factor and $`B(z)`$ the strength of the magnetic field. For Yb+, this gives $`B>1`$T. If we are in this region then the difference between the manipulation frequencies of neighbouring qubits is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{manipulate}=\frac{g_J\mu _Bb\delta z}{h}`$, where $`b=\frac{B(z)}{z}`$ and $`\delta z`$ is the separation between the ions. Choosing a field gradient of $`1000`$ T/m and a typical ion separation distance of $`10\mu `$m we can realise a neighbouring qubit frequency difference of $`280`$MHz, irrespective of the length of the ion-string. This separation is easily differentiated by current ESR Microwave pulse spectrometers.

The final readout of the state of the qubits can be performed, as usual, by spatially resolved resonance fluorescence. However, scalability will require the capability to perform quantum error correction. This capability will require individual ion readout and/or reset. However, as the spatial separation between ions is $`\mu `$m, readout/reset of individual ions through individual laser focusing may be difficult. Instead, one can use frequency addressing of the optical transitions to achieve individual ion readout/reset. For $`B>1T`$, both readout levels, $`|6S_{\frac{1}{2}},M_I=\frac{1}{2},M_J=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`|6P_{\frac{1}{2}},M_I=\frac{1}{2},M_J=\frac{1}{2}`$, are in the Paschen-Back region and the resulting frequency separation between the optical transitions of neighbouring qubits is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{readout}=\frac{4}{3}\frac{\mu _Bb\delta z}{h}`$. This gives an optical frequency difference of $`187`$MHz for the above situation which is far in excess of the excited state lifetime $`10`$MHz, and thus cleanly discriminated between neighboring ions. Quantum error correction typically involves the measurement of an individual qubit state but to use fluorescence detection in a manner which leaves the spectator qubits undisturbed requires the additional correction of considerable AC Stark shifts suffered by neighboring ions during the illumination and acquisition of $`10^4`$ fluorescent photons from the target ion. Techniques to perform this correction have been demonstrated Haffner , but such invasive detection may not be necessary as only the capability to perform a qubit specific reset, are required for quantum error correction nielsen . Resetting the Hyperfine qubit to a known quantum state should only require the scattering of far fewer fluorescent photons (# of photons $`M=10^010^1`$), via optical pumping and the resulting phase acquired by a neighboring ion off-resonant by $`L19`$, radiative linewidths, will be $`\varphi M/L1/5`$ radians. The correction of such phases are well within the capabilities of the techniques demonstrated in Haffner . Alternatively, a technique to reset an individual Hyperfine qubit by simultaneously resonantly irradiating the qubit and optical transitions with strong MW and extremely weak optical radiation at 369nm (with a laser power of nW), has previously been demonstrated in Balzer2002 . This process of engineered decoherence, may also be used as a qubit reset.

Recent applications of narrowband ultraviolet laser diodes diode lasers to Ytterbium trapping might be adapted for the frequency selective optical addressing UVLD . By using electro-optic modulators and external cavity tuning elements, tuning ranges of several GHz are currently possible at these wavelengths. Through illumination of the entire ion chain by a frequency multiplexed laser source one can achieve individual qubit readout and reset in a highly scalable manner. Achieving in-trap magnetic field gradients of $`1000`$T/m over several micron can be achieved through methods similar to those presented in gradients . Also, engineering linear ion traps on the micron scale is possible as described in microtraps . However, by decreasing $`h`$, we increase the qubit coupling strengths while decreasing the frequency separation between the qubit manipulation and readout frequencies. As a final example, in Table 1, we have computed the parameters for ten Yb+ ions, with $`B_0=1`$T, $`b=1000`$T/m, $`\nu _1=1`$MHz, and $`h=10\mu `$m, held in individually tailored microtraps for uniform separation and $`J`$couplings. Here the uniform nearest neighbour coupling strength, $`J_{i,i+1}850`$Hz. The tabulated parameters are within current microwave source capabilities and clearly indicate scalable frequency discrimination for the manipulation, readout and reset of neighboring qubits.

In conclusion, we have presented here a new design for a trapped-ion spin-molecule quantum information processor which we feel should be highly scalable. Our design surmounts the difficulties in scalability faced by the scheme of Wunderlich et.al. By storing the ions in individually tailored linear microtraps we can engineer homogenous coupling strengths throughout the chain while simultaneously achieving a constant frequency separation between neighboring qubits, irrespective of the length of the ion chain. This enormously simplifies the microwave pulse sequences required to manipulate the quantum information in the ion chain. At the same time we have removed the limit on ion numbers which can now be cleanly frequency discriminated in a fully scalable manner. Finally, we can utilise the spatial dependence of the energy level structure of the optical transitions to achieve qubit frequency selective reset and initialisation, tasks which are essential for the ultimate fault tolerant operation of a scalable device.

Acknowledgement
D. McHugh kindly acknowledges support from Enterprise-Ireland Basic Research Grant SC/1999/080.


format: text

text:
# Can quantum theory explain dark matter?

## 1. Introduction

Nesvizhevsky et al.(2002) have experimentally demonstrated the quantized nature of gravity and thus applying Schrödinger’s equation to gravity should be valid in regions $`r>>`$ Schwartzschild radius $`r_s`$. There is nothing in quantum theory that forbids the existence of a ‘macroscopic eigenstructure’ formed from a plethora of the gravitational eigenstate solutions, populated with traditional particles, around a large central potential such as a massive primordial black hole (MPBH) $`10^{35}`$ kg, as predicted by Ashfordi, N., McDonald, P. & Spergel, D. N. (2003), the structure size limited only by the energy of the highest quantum eigenstate $`E_n`$ approaching a suitably defined minimum binding energy. It is proposed that such structures might explain the nature and origin of dark matter, and form the ‘wimp-like’ skeletal basis of galaxies and clusters. Note that many experiments demonstrate a variety of macroscopic quantum effects (see for example Friedman et al. 2000) and superluminally connected quantum systems, macroscopically entangled over many kilometers (Zbinden et al. 2000).

## 2. Eigenstate Radiative Lifetime, Stability, Particle and Photon Interactions, Energy and Size, Density Profile

Relatively pure, high $`n,\mathrm{}`$ eigenstate solutions (large $`n`$ Laguerre polynomials with ($`\mathrm{}_{min}(np_{max})\mathrm{}n1`$ and $`n10^{34}`$) have all the properties required for dark matter (Ernest 2001). $`p_{max}10`$ gives a sufficient number of eigenstates to accommodate the mass of dark matter in a galactic halo. Analysis shows:

(1) Radiative lifetime $`\tau `$ ($`=(3\epsilon _0\pi \mathrm{}c^3)/(\omega ^3p_{if}^2)`$ where $`p_{if}`$ dipole matrix element $`i|e\text{r}|f`$) can be $`>10^6t_0`$ ($`t_0`$ age of the universe) when $`\mathrm{}n`$, resulting in long term structural stability, and inability to further gravitationally collapse.

(2) Low interaction rates with both particles and photons, which arises from the overlap integrals being negligible unless the state energy differences are virtually zero. This occurs because high $`n,\mathrm{}`$ states are closely spaced and, unlike their atomic counterparts, are sharply truncated and exhibit highly symmetric oscillations capable of causing effective cancellation whenever $`(\mathrm{},n)_{final}`$ differs sufficiently from $`(\mathrm{},n)_{initial}`$. For example, bound inelastic Compton scattering, the relevant inelastic scattering process here, is negligible through the overlap integral $`f|\text{e}^{ı(\text{k}_i\text{k}_f)\text{r}}|i`$ (Jung 2000), unless $`\text{k}_i\text{k}_f`$. Similar overlap integral arguments apply for stimulated transitions and most interactions between traditional ‘visible’ particles and those in relatively pure high $`n,\mathrm{}`$ eigenstates. Note also that the $`p_{max}<10`$ eigenstate fraction is negligible in ‘localized’ particles.

(3) If high $`n`$ states with $`\mathrm{}_{min}\mathrm{}n1`$ and their z-projection sublevels are all filled, $`1/r^2`$ radial density profiles result, leading to flat rotation curves at outer galactic radii. Formation scenarios incorporating universal expansion and particle dynamics also suggest the possibility of shallower profiles at low r.

(4) A central potential mass $`10^{42}`$ kg gives an eigenstate radius $`r_n`$ ($`b_0n^2`$, $`b_0`$ Bohr radius equivalent) $`10^{22}`$ m, coincident with $`E_n`$ approaching a suitably defined approximate minimum binding energy.

## 3. Discussion and Formation Scenario

Eigenstructures formed around MPBHs through a process of ‘gravitational recombination’, the fraction of matter ending up in relatively pure eigenstates depending on rate of universal cooling versus rate of expansion, and the rate at which matter could be retained in the concurrently forming gravitational wells. It appears that the MPBH mass is critical in determining the filling rate and hence final mass achievable before the recombination rate peters out due to expansion. Rough estimates suggest eigenstructure masses of $`>10^{42}`$ kg are achievable with MPBH masses of $`7\times 10^{35}`$ kg. Galaxies formed later via standard gravitational collapse of the residual matter. Rough estimates suggest recombination ceased with 90 s and BBN ratios would not have been effected. In any case, the expected deviations from accepted BBN ratios in the high density asymmetry regions caused by MPBH potentials and formation process would be ‘buried’ in the eigenstructure and ‘invisible’ to modern BBN ratio measurements.

## References

Nesvizhevsky, V. V. et al. 2002, Nature, 415, 297

Ashfordi, N., McDonald, P. & Spergel, D. N. 2003 arXiv:astro-ph/0302035 v1

Friedman, J. R. et al. 2000, Nature, 406, 43

Zbinden, H. et al. 2000, arXiv:quant-ph/0002031 v3

Ernest, A. D. 2001, arXiv:astro-ph/0108319 v1

Jung, Young-Dae 2000, J. Plasma Physics, 64, 89


text:
# Competition between Diffusion and Fragmentation: An Important Evolutionary Process of Nature

## Abstract

We investigate systems of nature where the common physical processes diffusion and fragmentation compete. We derive a rate equation for the size distribution of fragments. The equation leads to a third order differential equation which we solve exactly in terms of Bessel functions. The stationary state is a universal Bessel distribution described by one parameter, which fits perfectly experimental data from two very different system of nature, namely the distribution of ice crystal sizes from the Greenland ice sheet and the length distribution of $`\alpha `$-helices in proteins.

A diffusion process is one of the most important and common physical phenomena of nature. Coherent structures, like crystals and structural elements of bio-molecules may shrink or grow gradually and randomly in a way that resembles a diffusive motion of their boundaries. On the one hand, inhomogeneities in a particular structure may disappear or be resolved into neighboring structures due to diffusion. On the other hand, diffusion typically tends to make the largest of the coherent structures larger. In contrast to this gradual modification of individual fragments, one might in addition encounter a completely different and abrupt physical phenomena, namely that of fragmentation. Fragmentation occurs in for example growing ice crystals, when the diffusively growing crystal is subjected to stresses that can cause a piece to break off, thus leading to two individual crystals, each of them continuing the competitive process between diffusion and fragmentation.

We believe that such interplay between gradual diffusion and rare but drastic fragmentation is a very common phenomenon in nature. In this letter we derive a general rate equation for the dynamical evolution of the density of fragments of a given size. The rate equation consists of a local diffusion term and non-local fragmentation terms. Differentiating once we obtain a third order differential equation in the size distribution of fragments. We solve the equation exactly by means of an eigenvalue expansion in terms of Bessel functions. The different eigenvalues correspond to different decay times such that in the infinite time limit we obtain the stationary distribution, corresponding to zero eigenvalue. This distribution is characterized by one parameter (the ratio between the diffusion and the fragmentation constants) and constitutes a universal stationary distribution for these competing processes. We apply experimental data from two very different physical processes, the size distribution of ice crystals in the Greenland ice sheet is  and the length distribution of $`\alpha `$-helices in proteins of low homology. In both cases we find that the universal distribution fits the experimental data perfectly. In addition, for the ice crystals, we are able to map out the entire dynamics of ice crystals 2000 years back in time is .

In order to clarify the description, we consider a one-dimensional simplification of the process in which the sizes of for instance ice-crystal grains are projected onto the coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$. The mechanism we propose then is described in terms of the density $`N(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})`$ of “objects” (e.g. ice crystals or $`\alpha `$-helices in proteins) of a given length $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ at a given time $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$. At a given time it is possible to increase or decrease $`N(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})`$ by diffusion characterized by the diffusion constant $`D`$. Also, $`N(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})`$ can be altered by fragmentation of the “objects” characterized by a fragmentation constant $`f`$, defined as the average number of break-ups in a time interval $`d\stackrel{~}{t}`$ over a length $`L`$. Thus, the number of fragments is given by $`fLd\stackrel{~}{t}`$. The constants $`D`$ and $`f`$ can depend on temperature and on quantities which are characteristics of the “objects”. The resulting equation is

$$\frac{N(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})}{\stackrel{~}{t}}=D\frac{^2N(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})}{\stackrel{~}{x}^2}f\stackrel{~}{x}N(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})+2f_{\stackrel{~}{x}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{x}^{}N(\stackrel{~}{x}^{},\stackrel{~}{t}).$$
(1)
Note that by this equation, the total “mass” of the fragments $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{x}N(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{t})𝑑\stackrel{~}{x}`$ is conserved at any time in the evolution. The first term on the right hand side represents diffusion, the second term gives the fragmentation of objects with length $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, and the last term is the contribution from fragmentation of objects larger than $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$. The factor of two in the last term follows formally from the condition of mass conservation, and results from the fact that there are two distinct ways to cut an object of length $`\stackrel{~}{x}+\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$ into segments of length $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$. Similar approach has been applied in flyvbjerg  for the stochastic dynamics of microtubules flyvnote .

We introduce the dimensionless variables $`x=\stackrel{~}{x}/\stackrel{~}{x}_0`$ and $`t=\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t}_0`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_0=(Df^2)^{1/3}\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{x}_0=(D/f)^{1/3}.$$
(2)
This amounts to considering eq. (1) with $`D=f=1`$, which we shall do in the following. We now differentiate eq. (1) with respect to $`x`$ and obtain

$$_t_xN(x,t)=_x^3N(x,t)3N(x,t)x_xN(x,t).$$
(3)
This equation can be solved by separation, using the boundary condition that $`N(x,t)0`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$. The result can be expressed in terms of the Airy function

$$A(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{cos}\left(kx+\frac{k^3}{3}\right),$$
(4)
which in turn can be expressed in terms of Bessel functions watson ,

$`A(x)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{x}{3}}}K_{\frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2x^{3/2}}{3}}\right)\mathrm{for}x>0`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\sqrt{|x|}\left[J_{\frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2|x|^{3/2}}{3}}\right)+J_{\frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2|x|^{3/2}}{3}}\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{for}x<0.`$ (5)
The solution of (3) is then

$$N(x,t)=\underset{n}{}C_ne^{\lambda _nt}B(x+\lambda _n),B(x)=_x^2A(x),$$
(6)
where the sum may be an integral in case the eigenvalues $`\lambda _n`$ are in a continuous range. The function $`B(x)`$ is thus related to the Airy function by the second eq. (6). One further has

$$B(x)=xA(x).$$
(7)
This follows from the second eq. (6) by performing two differentiations of the expressions (5) and by use of standard Bessel function recursion relations. For a discussion of the Airy function we refer to watson .

We now impose the boundary condition that there should be no objects of size $`x=0`$,

$$N(0,t)=0.$$
(8)
To implement the requirement (8) on the solution (6) we thus need that the eigenvalues $`\lambda _n`$ are the zeros of $`B(x)`$. From eq. (7) we see that $`x=0`$ is a zero. For $`x>0`$ there are no zeros, whereas for $`x<0`$ there exist an infinite number of zeros given as the solution of the equation

$$J_{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{2|\lambda _n|^{3/2}}{3}\right)+J_{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{2|\lambda _n|^{3/2}}{3}\right)=0.$$
(9)
These zeros can easily be found numerically. The first few are given approximately by $`\lambda _0=0,\lambda _1=2.338,\lambda _2=4.088,\lambda _3=5.521,\lambda _4=6.787,\lambda _5=7.945,\lambda _6=9.023.`$

In order to find the the constants $`C_n`$ in the solution (6) we notice that the basic equation (3) is of third order, and hence does not lead to orthogonal functions. Instead we notice that from (7) the Airy function satisfies the second order differential equation,

$$_x^2A(x)=xA(x),$$
(10)
for which standard methods are applicable: We define the auxiliary function

$$M(x,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_ne^{\lambda _nt}A(x+\lambda _n),$$
(11)
and we can then easily show from the second order differential equation (10) that the functions $`A(x+\lambda _n)`$ are orthogonal, and hence $`C_n`$ can be obtained in terms of an integral over the initial function $`M(x,0)`$ times $`A(x+\lambda _n)`$. Since, however, we also have

$$_x^2M(x,t)=N(x,t)$$
(12)
from (6), the initial function $`M(x,0)`$ can be expressed in terms of the corresponding initial function $`N(x,0)`$, giving the result

$`C_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_n}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xA(x+\lambda _n)`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^{}(xx^{})N(x^{},0)C_0A(x)\right],`$
where

$`I_n={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xA(x+\lambda _n)^2=A^{}(\lambda _n)^2,`$
$`\mathrm{and}C_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A(0)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xxN(x,0).`$ (14)
This then allows us to write down the solution $`N(x,t)`$ for any given initial function $`N(x,0)`$. A characteristic feature of this solution is that the mean value $`x`$ saturates for large times. Using the solution one finds

$$x=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}xN(x,t)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}N(x,t)}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{}\frac{3^{2/3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(4/3)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/3)},$$
(15)
which means that $`\stackrel{~}{x}2.096(D/f)^{1/3}`$. We also find that the dispersion saturates, $`x^2x^20.6074x^2`$, in marked contrast to pure diffusion, where the dispersion increases without bound. The time development of $`N(x,t)`$ is governed by the Boltzmann-like factors $`\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _nt)`$. In Fig. 1 we have shown by an example that these factors can give rise to additional secondary bumps, which ultimately disappear for larger times. It would be interesting to find actual examples where these structures are observed experimentally.

We now describe two widely different application of the suggested interplay between gradual diffusion and sudden fragmentation. The examples are selected from the constraint imposed not so much by the generic nature of the two processes, but also by the requirement that random merging of structures should be insignificant. Further, the two examples are taken from cases where it is reasonable to assume that fragmentation occurs uniformly on the size axis $`x`$, as implicitly assumed in the basic eq. (1) of the process. The two experimental data sets behind our studies are respectively the length distribution of $`\alpha `$-helices in proteins, and the size distribution of ice crystals in ice sheets. In the former case we will be able to extract the ratio $`\frac{D}{f}`$ by performing a least squares fit of the stationary state solution and in the latter case we do an exponential fit of $`x(t)`$ using the two leading terms in the solution, $`\frac{x_{\mathrm{}}}{1+\left(\frac{x_{\mathrm{}}}{x_0}1\right)e^{(tt_0)/\tau }}`$. We then extract both $`D`$ and $`f`$ from (2) and (15) and by noting that the characteristic time $`\tau `$ is related to the fragmentation by the second largest eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$, we obtain $`\tau =1/(\lambda _1f)`$ is .

The length distribution of $`\alpha `$-helices alpha  is taken from a database of 299 high resolution structures with low homology extracted from the PDB (Protein Data Bank) alpha . Secondary structure have been calculated on the basis of backbone hydrogen bonding DSSP  and in total 2101 helices are used alpha . Helices of lengths between 5 and 31 amino acids have been counted resulting in the distribution shown as circles in Fig. 2. Clearly, the distribution exhibits a maximum around a length of 7 amino acids followed by a long tail. The data do not fit well any simple statistical distribution and a polynomial fit requires at least a fourth order expression to become acceptable alpha . We consider this distribution as the result of an ’infinitely’ long evolutionary process where diffusive growth competes with intermittent fragmentation. The stationary solution to eq. (1) is defined by one free parameter (the ratio $`D/f`$) and it nicely reproduces the overall rise and decline of the observed helix frequency with length foot . There are several points to make in this connection: 1) Considering ensembles of $`\alpha `$-helices, one effectively randomizes the particular evolutionary advantages of growing or shrinking any particular $`\alpha `$-helix in any particular protein. Thus whereas a particular change may have a purpose, then the overall process is probably well represented by random domain adjustments and occasional fragmentation. 2) Though $`D`$ and $`f`$ have essentially the same molecular origin, simple energy arguments suggest that a point mutation in the middle of the helix to a residue not forming hydrogen bonds has a statistical weight of $`1/400`$ relative to the weight of growing/shrinking the helix doig . This corresponds to the ratio $`(D/f)^{1/3}7.4`$ in reasonable agreement with our result. 3) That in principle other processes also acts to limit the maximum length of $`\alpha `$-helices, as f.ex. the total size of proteins limits the maximal length of their sub elements. This maximum length will only influence the distribution of the very long $`\alpha `$-helices. Overall we see the resulting distribution of $`\alpha `$-helices as an ensemble average, revealing a process that leaves a statistical stationary distribution of structural elements in much the same way as binding energies between amino acids tend to influence the frequencies of neighboring relations between them in an ensemble of proteins Miyazawa .

For the ice crystal distribution, we apply data from the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NorthGRIP) which provides paleoclimatic information back to at least 115 kyr before present (B.P.) DDJ . Each year, precipitation on the ice sheet covers it with a new layer of snow, which gradually transforms into ice crystals as the layer sinks into the ice sheet. The size distribution of ice crystals has been measured at selected depths in the upper 880 m of the NorthGRIP ice core AS1 , which cover a time span of 5300 years SJJ . Fig. 3 shows size distributions of ice crystals at selected depths down to 550 m. The crystal size $`x`$ is defined as the vertical extent of a crystal comment . Applying instead the horizontal extent of the crystal yields the same distribution curve thus supporting our assumption of using the linear size in our formalism.

Each distribution exhibits a pronounced peak, indicating a typical crystal size at each depth, followed by a decaying tail of relatively large crystals. The mean size becomes larger with depth and thus time until it saturates TT96 ; LJ98 . The distributions gradually change with time toward a universal curve, indicating a common underlying physical process in the formation of crystals. We have identified this process as an interplay between the fragmentation of the crystals and the diffusion of their grain boundaries and is thus described by our general framework.

In this Letter we have presented a general evolutionary scenario for the dynamics of objects subjected to a competition between diffusion and fragmentation. The process results in an evolution equation of the density $`N(x,t)`$ of objects of linear size $`x`$. In the stationary limit, this equation predicts a “universal” distribution curve $`N(x)`$ determined only by the ratio $`\frac{D}{f}`$. This curve can be described exactly in terms of Bessel function leading to a power law uprise for small $`x`$ followed by a tail of a stretched exponential form for large $`x`$ ($`exp(x^{\frac{3}{2}})`$). We speculate that this general competing principle might be the relevant mechanism in many other systems of nature and may result in distribution functions of a similar type.

We are grateful to Mogens Levinsen and Anders Svensson for discussions.


text:
# Ricci Curvature Rigidity for Weakly Asymptotically Hyperbolic Manifolds

## 1 Introduction

Rigidity questions for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds have been studied by many authors under various assumptions. In , Min-Oo proved a scalar curvature rigidity theorem for manifolds which are spin and are asymptotic to the hyperbolic space in a strong sense. In , Andersson and Dahl improved the scalar curvature rigidity for asymptotically locally hyperbolic spin manifolds. They also established the rigidity for conformally compact Einstein manifolds with spin structure. More recent related works are in ,  and . It is interesting to ask whether the spin structure is necessary to assure the rigidity. In , Listing was able to obtain a non-spin rigidity at the expense of replacing scalar curvature bound by sectional curvature bound. Very recently, in , Qing established the rigidity for conformally compact Einstein manifolds of dimension less than $`7`$ without assuming spin structure. The proof in  uses conformal compactifications by positive eigenfunctions and the classic positive mass theorem proved by Schoen and Yau  for asymptotically flat manifolds. Based on ideas in  combined with a quasi-local mass characterization of Euclidean balls in , in this paper we prove a Ricci curvature rigidity theorem for weakly asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds.

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ be a weakly asymptotically hyperbolic manifold of order $`C^{3,\alpha }`$. Assume that $`(X,g)`$ has the standard round sphere $`(S^n,[h_0])`$ as its conformal infinity and satisfies $`Ric(g)ng`$. Let $`r`$ be the special defining function such that

$$g=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(r)}\{dr^2+g_r\}$$
(1)
in a neighborhood of $`X`$ and $`g_0=h_0`$ . Then, if $`2n6`$ and

$$Tr_{g_r}(\frac{d}{dr}g_r)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,\beta }^s(X)$$
(2)
for some $`s>1`$, $`(X,g)`$ is isometric to the hyperbolic space $`^{n+1}`$.

We remark that Theorem 1.1 may be compared with the corresponding result in the asymptotically flat case established by Bartnik in . The paper is organized as follows. In Section $`2`$, we introduce notations and definitions. In Section $`3`$, we recall some analytic and geometric preliminaries. In Section $`4`$, we perform the conformal compactification and prove Theorem 1.1. We conclude the paper by comparing our result to scalar curvature rigidity for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds in , , ,  and .

## 2 Weakly Asymptotically Hyperbolic Manifolds

In this section we define our terms and introduce the function spaces that we will be working with. Throughout this paper, smooth will always mean $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$.

A smooth Riemannian metric $`g`$ in the interior $`X^{n+1}`$ of a smooth compact manifold $`\overline{X}`$ with boundary is said to be conformally compact of order $`C^{m,\alpha }`$ if $`\overline{g}=\rho ^2g`$ extends as a $`C^{m,\alpha }`$ metric on $`\overline{X}`$, where $`\rho `$ is a smooth defining function for $`M^n=X`$ in $`\overline{X}`$ in the sense that $`\rho >0`$ in $`X`$ and $`\rho =0`$, $`d\rho 0`$ on $`M`$. The metric $`\overline{g}`$ restricted to $`TM`$ induces a metric $`\widehat{g}`$ on $`M`$ which rescales upon change in defining function. Therefore a conformally compact $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ defines a conformal structure on $`M`$. We call $`(M,[\widehat{g}])`$ the conformal infinity of $`(X,g)`$. When $`m+\alpha 2`$, a straightforward computation as in  shows that the sectional curvatures of $`g`$ approaches $`|d\rho |_{\overline{g}}^2`$ at $`M`$. Accordingly, we have the following definition for weakly asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds.

###### Definition 2.1

For a complete manifold $`(X^{n+1},g)`$, we say the metric $`g`$ is weakly asymptotically hyperbolic of order $`C^{m,\alpha }`$ if $`g`$ is conformally compact of order $`C^{m,\alpha }`$, $`m+\alpha 2`$ and $`|d\rho |_{\overline{g}}^2=1`$ along $`M`$.

To illustrate the difference between weakly asymptotically hyperbolic and asymptotically hyperbolic we recall, for instance, the following definition from .

###### Definition 2.2

A weakly asymptotically hyperbolic manifold $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ is called asymptotically hyperbolic if it satisfies:

(1) The conformal infinity is the round sphere one $`(S^n,[h_0])`$.

(2) For a geodesic defining function $`r`$, we may write, in a collar neighborhood of the infinity,

$$g=\rho ^2(dr^2+g_r)$$

where $`\rho =\mathrm{sinh}r`$,

$$g_r=h_0+\frac{r^{n+1}}{n+1}h+O(x^{n+2})$$

and $`h`$ is a symmetric 2-tensor on $`S^n`$.

A function $`u`$ which is $`m`$-times continuously differentiable on $`X`$ is said to be in the weighted H$`\ddot{o}`$lder space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,\alpha }^s(X)`$ if $`u_{m,\alpha }^s<\mathrm{}`$ for $`sR,m0`$ and $`\alpha (0,1)`$, where the norm $`u_{m,\alpha }^s`$ is defined as follows. First, in the special case in which $`X`$ is a smoothly bounded open subset of $`^{n+1}`$, we define

$$u_{m,0}^s=\underset{l=0}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{|\gamma |=l}{}d^{s+l}^\gamma u_L^{\mathrm{}}$$

and

$$u_{m,\alpha }^s=u_{m,0}^s+\underset{|\gamma |=m}{}\underset{x,y}{sup}\left[\mathrm{min}(d_x^{s+m+\alpha },d_y^{s+m+\alpha })\frac{|^\gamma u(x)^\gamma u(y)|}{|xy|^\alpha }\right],$$

where $`d_x`$ is the Euclidean distance from $`x`$ to $`X`$. In the more general cases of a manifold with boundary, the same norms are defined using a covering by coordinate charts and a subordinate partition of unity in the usual way. We recommend  and  for succinct discussions of properties of the spaces $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m,\alpha }^s(X)`$.

## 3 Analytic and Geometric Preliminaries

We first recall the following lemma from, for instance,  .

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`(X,g)`$ be a weakly asymptotically hyperbolic manifold of order $`C^{3,\alpha }`$. Then any representative $`\widehat{g}`$ in the conformal infinity of $`g`$ determines a unique defining function $`sC^{2,\alpha }(\overline{X})`$ such that $`s^2g|_{TM}=\widehat{g}`$, $`s^2g`$ has a $`C^{2,\alpha }`$ extension to $`\overline{X}`$ and $`|ds|_{s^2g}^21`$ on a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`M`$ in $`\overline{X}`$. Hence, $`s`$ determines an identification of $`U`$ with $`M\times [0,ϵ)`$ such that

$$g=\frac{1}{s^2}(ds^2+g_s)$$
(3)
for a $`1`$-parameter family $`\{g_s\}`$ of metrics on $`M`$ with $`g_0=\widehat{g}`$.

By a change of variable

$$s=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(r)1}{\mathrm{sinh}(r)},$$
(4)
we may rewrite (3) as

$$g=\rho ^2(dr^2+g_r),$$
(5)
where $`\rho =\mathrm{sinh}(r)`$. One may compare (5) with the fact that

$$g_b=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(r)}\{dr^2+h_0\}$$

gives the standard hyperbolic metric on $`S^n\times ^+`$ where $`h_0`$ is the standard metric on $`S^n`$. The fact that $`s`$ is $`C^{2,\alpha }`$ guarantees that the family of metrics $`\{g_r\}`$ is at least $`C^1`$ with respect to $`r`$. In the special case in which $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ is Einstein and conformally compact of sufficiently high order, Andersson and Dahl  showed that the family of metrics $`\{g_r\}`$ in (5) have the properties

$$g_r=h_0+\rho ^nh,Tr_{h_0}h=O(\rho ^n),\rho =\mathrm{sinh}(r).$$
(6)
Thus, the decay assumption (2) is automatically satisfied by any conformally compact Einstein manifold with the round sphere as its conformal infinity. Next we recall an analytic result of the operator $`\mathrm{}_g+(n+1)`$ between suitable weighted H$`\ddot{o}`$lder spaces (see Proposition $`3.3`$ in ).

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ be weakly asymptotically hyperbolic of order $`C^{m,\alpha }`$. Let $`0<\beta <1`$ and $`k+1+\beta m+\alpha `$. Then

$$\mathrm{}+(n+1):\mathrm{\Lambda }_{k+2,\beta }^s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{k,\beta }^s$$

is an isomorphism whenever $`1<s<n+1`$.

In the final step of the proof in , the positive mass theorem is used on the doubling of a partially compactified manifold along its totally geodesic boundary. Here we observe that it would be much simpler if we appeal to the following quasi-local mass type result proved in  (see also ).

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{n+1}`$ be a smooth compact manifold with boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`g`$ be a metric on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ which is smooth in the interior $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`C^2`$ up to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`g`$ has nonnegative scalar curvature in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g|_{T\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ is isometric to $`(S^n,h_0)`$ and the mean curvature of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to the outward pointing unit normal identically equals the constant $`n`$, then $`g`$ has vanishing scalar curvature in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ provided the dimension satisfies $`2n6`$.

###### Remark 3.1

It is desirable to further conclude that $`g`$ is actually flat on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is indeed the case when $`n=2`$ . However, no proof in higher dimension is known so far except the case when $`(\mathrm{\Omega },g)`$ is assumed to be spin .

We conclude this section by recalling a nice functional characterization of the Hyperbolic space $`^{n+1}`$ proved in .

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ be a complete Riemannian manifold. Assume that there exits a positive smooth function $`u`$ on $`X`$ such that

$$Hess_g(u)=ug.$$

Then $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ is isometric to $`(^{n+1},g_{})`$.

## 4 Proof of the main Theorem

Let $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ satisfy the assumptions in Theorem 1.1 and let $`U`$ be a neighborhood of $`M`$ in $`\overline{X}`$ where (1) holds. We introduce a background hyperbolic metric

$$g_b=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}\{dr^2+h_0\}$$
(7)
on $`U`$. Clearly $`(U,g_b)`$ can be identified with the complement of some compact set in the Hyperbolic space $`(^{n+1},g_{})`$ realized as the hypersurface

$$\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1},t)||x|^2t^2=1,t>0\}^{n+1,1}$$

by letting $`\mathrm{sinh}r=\rho =\frac{1}{|x|}`$. The restriction of $`t`$ to $`^{n+1}`$ is an eigenfunction of $`(^{n+1},g_{})`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{}t=(n+1)t.$$

Moreover, as observed in , by a change of variables,

$$t=\frac{1+|y|^2}{1|y|^2}$$

and $`(^{n+1},g_{})=(B^{n+1},(\frac{2}{1|y|^2})^2|dy|^2)`$, which tells us $`(t+1)^2g_{}`$ compactifies $`^{n+1}`$ to be the standard Euclidean ball $`\overline{B}^{n+1}^{n+1}`$ with totally umbilical boundary $`S^n`$. This leads us to transplant $`t`$ to the domain $`U`$ and then look for a positive eigenfunction $`u`$ on $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ which behaves like $`t`$ near $`M`$. To simplify notations, we use $`vO_k(\rho ^s)`$ to standard for $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }_{k,\beta }^s(X)`$ for $`k0`$ and a fixed $`0<\beta <1`$.

###### Lemma 4.1

There exists a smooth function $`u>0`$ on $`(X,g)`$ such that

$$\mathrm{}_gu+(n+1)u=0$$
(8)
and

$$u=t+O_2(\rho ^{\stackrel{~}{s}})$$
(9)
for some $`1<\stackrel{~}{s}<n+1`$.

Proof: The fact $`rC^2(U)`$ and $`t=\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\rho ^2}}`$ implies $`tC^2(U)`$. We calculate

$`\mathrm{}_gt`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{n+1}}{\sqrt{detg_r}}}_r(\rho ^{1n}\sqrt{detg_r}_rt)`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`(n+1)t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr_{g_r}g_r^{},`$
where “$``$” denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$. By the decay assumption (2), we may choose $`1<\stackrel{~}{s}<\mathrm{min}(s,n+1)`$ such that $`Tr_{g_r}g_r^{}=O_0(\rho ^{\stackrel{~}{s}}).`$ Hence, by Lemma 3.2, we know there exists a function $`w=O_2(\rho ^{\stackrel{~}{s}})`$ such that

$$\mathrm{}_gw+(n+1)w=\mathrm{}_gt+(n+1)t.$$
(11)
Let $`u=tw`$. Then $`u>0`$ by the maximum principle and the smoothness of $`u`$ follows directly from the local elliptic regularity theory. $`\mathrm{}`$

We refer readers to ,  and  for more results on eigenfunctions for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. In our next lemma we set the stage to apply the work from  by using the eigenfunctions to compacitify the weakly asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds.

###### Lemma 4.2

The metric $`g_u=\frac{1}{(1+u)^2}g`$ extends to a $`C^2`$ metric on $`\overline{X}`$ such that $`g_u`$ has nonnegative scalar curvature in $`X`$, $`(M,g_u|_{TM})`$ is isometric to $`(S^n,h_0)`$ and the mean curvature of $`M`$ in $`(\overline{X},g_u)`$ identically equals the constant $`n`$.

Proof: First we calculate the scalar curvature of $`g_u`$,

$`R(g_u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4n}{1n}}(u+1)^{\frac{n+3}{2}}[\mathrm{}_g{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{4n}}R(g)](u+1)^{\frac{1n}{2}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`n(n+1)|du|_g^2+2n(n+1)u(u+1)+R(g)(u+1)^2.`$
Since $`Ric(g)ng`$, we have $`R(g)n(n+1)`$ so (12) implies

$`R(g_u)`$ $``$ $`n(n+1)|du|_g^2+2n(n+1)u(u+1)n(n+1)(u+1)^2`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`n(n+1)(u^2|du|_g^21).`$
As in , we then appeal to the Bochner formula for eigenfunctions, which is observed in .

$`\mathrm{}_g(|du|_g^2u^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2n|du|_g^2+2Ric(_gu,_gu)+2|Hess_gu|_g^22(n+1)u^2`$ (14)
$``$ $`2|Hess_gu|_g^22(n+1)u^2,`$
where the last step holds again since $`Ric(g)ng`$. Therefore, we have

$$\mathrm{}_g(u^2|du|_g^21)2|Hess_guug|_g^2.$$
(15)
Hence, in order to prove the scalar curvature $`R(g_u)0`$, we only need to apply a maximum principle to $`u^2|du|^21`$ and verify that it goes to zero towards the boundary. A straightforward calculation reveals that

$`u^2|du|_g^2`$ $`=`$ $`t^22tw+w^2\rho ^2(_rt)^2\rho ^22_rt_rw`$ (16)
$`\rho ^2(_rw)^2g^{\delta \lambda }_\delta w_\lambda w`$
$`=`$ $`1+O_2(\rho ^{\stackrel{~}{s}1})+O_2(\rho ^{2\stackrel{~}{s}})+O_1(\rho ^{\stackrel{~}{s}1})`$
$`+O_1(\rho ^{2\stackrel{~}{s}})+O_1(\rho ^{2\stackrel{~}{s}}),`$
where we have used the fact $`t^2\rho ^2(_rt)^2=1`$. It follows from $`\stackrel{~}{s}>1`$ that

$$u^2|du|_g^210,as\rho 0.$$
(17)
Thus, we have

$$u^2|du|_g^210onX,$$
(18)
which implies $`R(g_u)0`$ on $`X`$ by (13).

Next we consider the expansion of $`g_u`$ near $`M`$,

$$g_u=\frac{1}{[(u+1)\rho ]^2}\{dr^2+g_r\},$$
(19)
where

$$(u+1)\rho =\mathrm{cosh}r+\mathrm{sinh}rw\mathrm{sinh}r.$$
(20)
Since $`w=O_2(\rho ^{\stackrel{~}{s}}),\stackrel{~}{s}>1`$ and $`\rho ^2g=dr^2+g_r`$ is $`C^2`$ on $`\overline{X}`$, we see that $`g_u`$ readily extends to a $`C^2`$ metric on $`\overline{X}`$. Furthermore, we have the boundary values

$$(u+1)\rho |_{r=0}=1and\frac{d}{dr}[(u+1)\rho ]|_{r=0}=1,$$
(21)
which, combined with the facts $`g_0=h_0`$ and $`Tr_{g_0}g_0^{}=0`$, show that $`(M,g_u|TM)`$ is isometric to $`(S^n,h_0)`$ and $`M`$ has constant mean curvature $`n`$ in $`(\overline{X},g_u)`$.

Now it follows from Proposition 3.1 that $`R(g_u)0`$ on $`X`$. (13), (18) and (15) then imply that

$$|Hess_guug|=0.$$
(22)
Therefore $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ is the hyperbolic space $`^{n+1}`$ by Lemma 3.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.1

We may reformulate the decay assumption (2) in terms of the metric expansion (3). By substituting $`s=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(r)1}{\mathrm{sinh}(r)}`$ back we see that (2) is equivalent to

$$(1\frac{s^2}{4})Tr_{g_s}(\frac{d}{ds}g_s)+ns\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,\beta }^\delta (X)$$
(23)
for some $`\delta >1`$.

To conclude we would like to make some remarks. The main theorem in this paper improves the rigidity theorem in . Here we no longer assume that the conformally compact manifolds are Einstein and we assume much weaker asymptotics at the infinity. In other words, we only assume the Einstein equations are satisfied at the infinity to a very low order, which is often true since the energy-momentum tensor usually vanishes to certain order for isolated systems. Also, we believe it is interesting to compare our result to the scalar curvature rigidity for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds in , , , . For example, in , Wang defines a conformally compact manifold $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ to be asymptotically hyperbolic if it satisfies:

1. $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ is weakly asymptotically hyperbolic with the conformal infinity being the standard sphere $`(S^n,h_0)`$.
2. Let $`r`$ be the special defining function so that we can write

$$g=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(r)}\{dr^2+g_r\}$$
(24)
in a neighborhood of $`X`$. Then

$$g_r=h_0+\frac{r^{n+1}}{n+1}h+O(r^{n+2}),$$
(25)
where $`h`$ is a symmetric $`2`$-tensor on $`S^n`$. Moreover the asymptotic expansion can be differentiated twice.

Working with this definition, see also ,  and , Wang was able to prove that if $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ is asymptotically hyperbolic, $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ is spin and the scalar curvature $`Rn(n+1)`$, then

$$_{S^n}(Tr_{h_0}h)𝑑\mu _{h_0}\left|_{S^n}(Tr_{h_0}h)x𝑑\mu _{h_0}\right|.$$

Moreover equality holds if and only if $`(X,g)`$ is isometric to the hyperbolic space $`^{n+1}`$. Since our decay assumption in Theorem 1.1 is much weaker than (25), we immediately have the following corollary,

###### Corollary 4.1

Let $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ be an asymptotically hyperbolic manifold in the sense of . If $`2n6`$ and $`Ricng`$, then $`(X^{n+1},g)`$ is isometric to the hyperbolic space $`^{n+1}`$.


text:
# Decaying particles and the reionization history of the Universe

## Acknowledgments

E.P. is supported by NASA grant NAG5-11489. She wishes to thank Bruce Draine for several helpful discussions, the Aspen Center for Physics and the University of Cagliari (Italy) for hospitality during the preparation of this work.


text:
# New Analysis Strategy to Search for New Particles at LHC

## 1 Introduction

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland will open a new frontier in particle physics due to its higher collision energy and luminosity compared to the existing accelerators. The general-purpose ATLAS and CMS experiments at LHC will employ precision tracking, calorimetry and muon measurements over a large solid angle to accurately identify and measure electrons, muons, photons, jets and missing energy etc. The guiding principle in designing the ATLAS and CMS detectors has been to maximize the discovery potential for new physics such as the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson, supersymmetric (SUSY) and other beyond the SM new particles over a very large mass range around the TeV scale, while keep the capability of high-accuracy measurements of the known heavy quarks and gauge bosons.

With the start of the ATLAS and CMS data taking around 2007, it will be almost certain that we will observe some “anomaly” from SM predictions with the first ATLAS and CMS data. The first question we need to answer is: is the observed “anomaly” a true sign of new physics or simply due to statistical fluctuations?

In this paper we first review the current analysis strategy in searching for new particles at LHC and its vulnerability to statistical fluctuations. We then discuss an alternative new analysis strategy in order to avoid this vulnerability. We use maximum likelihood method as an example and discuss the new challenges in using maximum likelihood method as such a new analysis strategy to search for new particles at LHC.

The reliability and uncertainties in SM predictions for specific new particle searches due to physics, Monte Carlo modeling and simulation or detector performance are not in the scope of this paper.

## 2 Current Analysis Strategy in Searching for New Particles at LHC

The LHC experiments have been developing an extensive physics program to search for all the possible new particles accessible at LHC. The current analysis strategy to determine the expected sensitivity for searching a new particle with specific mass and production/decay mode can in general be briefly described as follows:

* Choose a specific production and decay mode of a certain new particle with a specific mass (i.e. Signal). Consider all the other possible processes (Background) that can contribute to the same or similar final state of the Signal process after the corresponding trigger requirements.
* Use Monte Carlo simulation to generate events of both the Signal and Background processes with realistic detector responses, as well as sufficient statistics according to the corresponding luminosity, cross-sections and branching fractions etc.
* Study all the possible experimental observables that can provide some discrimination power between the Signal and Background processes. Apply cuts on these observables to suppress Background events while keep Signal events as efficient as possible, in order to be able to observe a peak or excess of Signal events over Background events in the expected region of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable.
* The final event selection criteria is determined by optimizing the number of Signal events ($`S`$) in the expected region of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable over the square root of the total number of Background events ($`\sqrt{B}`$) in the the same region. The expected significance or sensitivity of the search for this new particle with this specific mass and production/decay mode is given by $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ from these simulation study.

In order to obtain more discrimination power from the same experimental observables, more sophisticated technics (Artificial Neural Net (NN) or Likelihood) using these discriminative observables, instead of applying simple cuts on them, are often used to achieve better $`S/\sqrt{B}`$.

## 3 Where is the Problem?

The above analysis strategy is to search for statistically significant peak or excess of events in the expected region of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable. The expected significance of the search is given by $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ from simulation study described above. However, there exist some problems in this approach.

Because we do not know the mass of any of the new particles accessible at LHC, the real new physics signal from future ATLAS and CMS data can show up as a peak or excess of events anywhere in the entire range of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable. Therefore, our current analysis strategy is to search for any statistically significant peak or excess of events in the entire range of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable accessible at LHC. Image that we do observe some peak or excess of events from the first ATLAS and CMS data. In order to rule out, beyond reasonable doubt, the possibility that the observed peak or excess of events is from statistical fluctuations, we need to rule out the statistical fluctuation probability that such peak or excess of events can show up anywhere in the entire range of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable we are searching. Apparently, the statistical fluctuation probability in this case is much higher than that of a peak or excess of events showing up exactly where we expect it for a new particle with specific mass as described in the previous section.

Divide up the search region into many smaller regions and search separately does not help. While the statistical fluctuation probability of observing a peak or excess of events is lower in a smaller range of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable, it also increases as we search through multiple such smaller ranges.

Therefore, the true significance of our observing a peak or excess of events in the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable from the incoming ATLAS and CMS data will be much lower than the expected significance determined by $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ described in the previous section, even if we observe from data exactly the same peak or excess of events we are expecting from the simulation study. Our current analysis strategy to search for new particles is vulnerable to statistical fluctuations and will result in overestimation of the significance of our experimental observation from the future ATLAS and CMS data.

## 4 Alternative New Analysis Strategy in Searching for New Particles at LHC

The additional statistical fluctuation probability described above, which comes from the fact that we do not know the mass of the new particles we are searching, is not considered in the current analysis strategy to search for new particles at LHC. If this additional statistical fluctuation probability is taken into account, our current analysis strategy will result in reduced significance or sensitivity to new physics. In order to make full use of the discovery potential of the incoming ATLAS and CMS data, we need to think about new analysis strategy to search for new particles at LHC. In the following, we explore an alternative new strategy in order to avoid the above described vulnerability to statistical fluctuations while make full use of the discovery potential of the incoming ATLAS and CMS data.

The vulnerability to statistical fluctuations of our current analysis strategy comes from the fact that we search for statistically significant peak or excess of events over a wide range of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable. We need to change this in order to avoid this vulnerability. In the mean time, the new analysis strategy needs to be as efficient and sensitive as possible to the new physics we are searching.

Instead of searching for statistically significant peak or excess of events over a wide range of the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable, an alternative new analysis strategy is to scan all the possible physics hypotheses allowed in the data sample and use all the information of the data to determine which physics hypotheses is favored by the data. Once the favored physics hypotheses is found, their significances can be determined from how far away statistically they are from any other possible physics hypotheses. We use maximum likelihood method as an example and discuss the new challenges in using maximum likelihood method as such an alternative new analysis strategy to search for new particles at LHC.

## 5 Maximum Likelihood Method as an Alternative New Strategy in Searching for New Particles at LHC

Maximum likelihood method has been widely used in many high energy physics (HEP) experiments. The unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the data sample includes all possible physics hypotheses (Signal and Background processes). The likelihood of an event in the data sample is parameterized by the sum of probabilities for all relevant Signal and Background hypotheses, with relative weights to be determined by maximizing the likelihood function. The probability of a particular hypothesis is calculated as a product of the probability density functions (PDFs) for each of the input experimental (discriminative) observable. Some simple examples of using unbinned maximum likelihood method in HEP data analyses can be found in . Because no very tight cut on the discriminative observable is absolutely crucial, maximum likelihood method is known for being able to identify a handful of Signal events from huge Background events, as long as the Signal and the Background processes can be separated reasonably well by using all the experimental discriminative observables. i.e. it has the characteristic of being sensitive and efficient for Signal while insensitive to Background.

While maximum likelihood method has been widely used in HEP experiments, there are new challenges in using maximum likelihood method as an alternative new strategy in searching for new particles at LHC.

First, the scan of the physics hypotheses needs to cover all possible physics hypotheses allowed in the data sample. This means the Signal or Background processes, in many cases both, in the maximum likelihood fit can vary. For example, the SM Higgs and SUSY particles’ masses are unknown. In many SUSY particle searches, the most serious background processes for the search come from the other possible SUSY particles. Therefore the possible new particles’ masses need to be parameters of the maximum likelihood fit.

Second, the correlations among all the discriminative observables in the maximum likelihood fit need to be taken into account properly. To maximize our sensitivity to search for new particles, we need to take full advantage of all the useful experimental observables that can provide us with some discrimination power between the Signal and Background processes. Correlations often exist among these observables and they need to be taken into account correctly for the maximum likelihood method to give us reliable results.

Therefore, using unbinned maximum likelihood method as an alternative new strategy to search for new particle at LHC is to scan all the allowed parameter(s) space and perform unbinned maximum likelihood fit for each set of the allowed parameter(s) of all possible physics hypotheses in the data sample. The procedure can be briefly described as follows:

* Choose a specific production and decay mode of a certain new particle (i.e. Signal). Notice the mass of the new particle is not specified yet. Consider all the other possible processes (Background) that can contribute to the same or similar final state of the Signal process after the corresponding trigger requirements. Again, the Background processes may also vary.
* Use Monte Carlo simulation to generate events of both the Signal and Background processes with realistic detector responses, as well as sufficient statistics according to the corresponding luminosity, cross-sections and branching fractions etc. Large simulation samples are needed for each set of the allowed parameter(s) (i.e. new particle’ mass) for all the possible physics hypotheses.
* Study all the possible experimental observables that can provide discrimination power between the Signal and Background processes. Apply cuts and define the boundaries of these observables to keep Signal efficiency relatively high while try to limit the Background processes as much as possible. The cuts and boundaries on these observables determine the data sample, together with all the possible physics hypotheses and their allowed parameter(s) of the physics hypotheses for the data sample.
* Construct maximum likelihood fit including all hypotheses of the physics (Signal and Background) processes contributing to the data sample. The likelihood of an event is parameterized by the sum of probabilities for all relevant Signal and Background hypotheses, with relative weights to be determined by maximizing the likelihood function. The probability of a particular hypothesis is calculated as a product of the PDFs for each of the input experimental observables. Notice the PDFs may depend on some parameters (i.e. the mass of the new particles for Signal and Background) and there can be correlations among the various PDFs.
* Scan all the allowed parameter(s) space and perform unbinned maximum likelihood fit for each set of the parameter(s) of all possible physics hypotheses in the data sample to find the physics hypotheses and their parameter(s) that give best fit to the data.
* The significances of the favored physics hypotheses and their parameter(s) are determined from how far away statistically they are from all the other possible physics hypotheses and parameter(s).

## 6 Comments on Using Maximum Likelihood Method to Search for New Particles at LHC

The advantage of this alternative new strategy described above is the high efficiency and sensitivity to Signal process. However, they come with a price.

We need large Monte Carlo samples of Signal and Background processes for each set of the allowed parameter(s) in order to obtain the PDF shapes of all the physics hypotheses with all allowed parameter(s). The PDF shapes will also depend on these parameter(s) and there are in general correlations among these observables described by the PDFs.

To determine the cuts and the boundaries of the experimental (discriminative) observables also require lots of work. In the messy hadron collider environment, we want to keep the Signal process as efficient as possible while try to limit the Background processes, the possible physics hypotheses and their parameter(s) as much as possible. We may face technical difficulties in some searches where the allowed physics hypotheses and parameters become just too large to handle. To simplify the possible physics hypotheses and allowed parameter(s) and to be conservative, we can even choose the cuts and boundaries on the discriminative observables to be very close to the event selection of the current cut analysis. The signal efficiency would be similar to the current cut analysis, but we get rid of the additional statistical fluctuation probability problem.

To scan over the allowed parameter(s) space, handle all the correlations among all the PDFs and perform unbinned maximum likelihood fit for each set of the parameter(s) will certainly be very CPU intensive.

Needless to say that extensive tests using all possible independent Monte Carlo Signal, Background and combined samples will be essential to fully understand the fit efficiencies for Signal and Background processes, crossfeed among various processes, the interpretation of the physics hypotheses and their parameter(s) which gives best fit to the test samples. Extensive study is necessary to determine the sensitivity of each search. The optimization of the sensitivity includes the varying of the cuts and boundaries on the experimental (discriminative) observables and repeat these studies to find which set of cuts and boundaries on the experimental observables can result in the best sensitivity for the specific search.

Extreme care needs to be taken when apply this maximum likelihood approach to real data, as no simulation can be a perfect representation of the real data. An important cross-check of the result is the projection to each discriminate observable and check how well the expected physics hypotheses fit the data. Through we do not base our discovery or significance of our observed signal on a statistically significant peak or excess of events, the projection plot with a consistent peak or excess of events in the invariant mass or similar kinematic observable is the best verification that we do observe a significant new signal . Unless we can demonstrate that the quality of the fit and projections of the data on all experimental observables are all reasonable and they clearly indicate the existence of a new particle which is significantly incompatible with all the other possible physics hypotheses, we can not claim a discovery of a new particle.

The experimental observables, their parameterizations and the correlations among various PDFs are all different for each search. The number of unknown parameters and their allowed ranges will also vary for each search. Despite all these differences, the analysis structure, framework and procedures are the same for these searches using this new strategy. Therefore, the development of the common analysis structure, packages and tools for generic searches using this new analysis approach will be extremely useful.

## 7 Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank the members of the SMU HEP group for their encouragements and useful discussions. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant number DE-FG03-95ER40908 and the supplemental grant to the author during his research leave of Fall 2003 semester.