text:
# THE MAJORANA 76Ge DOUBLE-BETA DECAY PROJECT

## 1 Introduction

Neutrino oscillation experiments have produced “smoking guns” for non-zero neutrino mass in the solar neutrino deficit, in the excess of $`p(\overline{\nu }_e,e^+)n`$ reactions in the LSND experiment, and from the zenith-angle dependence of the electron-to-muon event ratio in the Super-Kamiokande (SK) data (see also ). The results of reactor neutrino experiments constrain the disappearance of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ well enough to imply that the SK data are dominated by $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau (\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ oscillations, with only a minimal oscillation to electron-type neutrinos, since they show $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s do not oscillate as readily as required by the SK data for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations to have a significant role.

While the interpretation of the SK data in terms of neutrino oscillations is widely accepted, there were questions concerning the interpretation of the LSND data as evidence of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations. Some doubt existed that the standard solar model was accurate enough to support the conclusion that there was really a deficit of solar neutrinos. When the results of all solar neutrino experiments are considered, there is no scenario in which these data are compatible with the standard solar model unless the flux of $`\nu _e`$ from the sun oscillates partially into other $`\nu `$-flavors to which the experiments are not sensitive.

On 17 July 2001, however, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) collaboration settled this issue. They published results from the direct measurement of the rate of the reaction $`d(\nu _e,e^{})pp`$ from solar neutrinos. The neutrino flux implied by these data was compared with that from neutral-current neutrino-electron elastic scattering data from SK. It was concluded that there is an active, non-electron-flavor neutrino component in the solar neutrino flux, and that the total flux of active neutrinos from the 8B branch is in close agreement with the standard solar model of Bahcall and his co-workers. The standard solar model is thereby confirmed, and the case for neutrino oscillations is now compelling.

A remaining question is that of the LSND indication of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations. All attempts to incorporate these results in the same analysis with the solar neutrino and atmospheric neutrino experiments fail in any scenario involving only three neutrino flavors.

Accepting that now both solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments give clear evidence for neutrino oscillations, there are only two conclusions to be drawn from the LSND data. Either the excess events from the reaction $`p(\overline{\nu }_e,e^+)n`$ in the LSND is due to phenomena other than $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillation, or that there must exist a fourth generation of neutrinos “sterile” with respect to “normal” weak interactions. To insist on accepting one or the other of these options at the present time is to accept an unsubstantiated theoretical prejudice. This issue is still very much an open one. The MiniBooNE experiment will settle this issue; however, it will be a search for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ ,not $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ as in LSND.

While an unambiguous interpretation of all of the neutrino oscillation experiments is not yet possible, it is abundantly clear that neutrinos exhibit properties not included in the standard model, namely mass and flavor mixing. Accordingly, sensitive searches for neutrinoless double-beta decay (0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay) are more important than ever. Experiments with kilogram quantities of germanium, isotopically enriched in 76Ge, have thus far proven to be the most sensitive, specifically the Heidelberg-Moscow and IGEX experiments. The lower limits in half-life sensitivities are: $`1.9\times 10^{25}`$ y and $`1.6\times 10^{25}`$ y. A new generation of experiments will be required to make significant improvements in sensitivity, as discussed later.

Petcov and Smirnov showed that both MSW and vacuum oscillation solutions of the solar neutrino problem can be compatible with 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay driven by an effective Majorana electron-neutrino mass in the range 0.1 to 1.0 eV. The interpretation of all the neutrino oscillation data together, as discussed later, implies a range that could be between 5 and 10 times lower. The exploration of such a range will require next-generation experiments. Some that are being proposed are: CAMEO, CUORE, EXO, GENIUS, Majorana, and MOON.

## 2 Neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay

Neutrinoless double-beta decay is a process by which two neutrons in a nucleus beta decay by exchanging a virtual Majorana neutrino, each emitting an electron. This violates lepton number conservation $`(\mathrm{\Delta }l=2)`$. There are many reviews on the subject.

The decay rate for the process involving the exchange of a Majorana neutrino can be written as follows:

$$\lambda _{\beta \beta }^{0\nu }=G^{0\nu }(E_0,Z)m_\nu ^2|M_f^{0\nu }(g_A/g_V)M_{GT}^{0\nu }|^2.$$
(1)
In equation 1, $`G^{0\nu }`$ is the two-body phase-space factor including coupling constants, $`M_f^{0\nu }`$ and $`M_{GT}^{0\nu }`$ are the Fermi and Gamow-Teller nuclear matrix elements respectively, and $`g_A`$ and $`g_V`$ are the axial-vector and vector relative weak coupling constants, respectively. The quantity $`\mathrm{m}_\nu `$ is the effective Majorana neutrino mass given by:

$$m_\nu |\underset{k=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\lambda _k^{cp}(U_{lk}^L)^2m_k|,$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _k^{CP}`$ is the $`CP`$ eigenvalue associated with the $`k^{th}`$ neutrino mass eigenstate ($`\pm 1`$ for $`CP`$ conservation), $`U_{lk}^L`$ is the $`(l,k)`$ matrix element of the transformation between flavor eigenstates $`|\nu _l`$ and mass eigenstates $`|\nu _k`$ for left handed neutrinos,

$$|\nu _l=U_{lk}^L|\nu _k,$$
(3)
and $`m_k`$ is the mass of the $`k^{th}`$ neutrino mass eigenstate.

The effective Majorana neutrino mass, $`\mathrm{m}_\nu `$, is directly derivable from the measured half-life of the decay as follows:

$$m_\nu =m_e(F_NT_{1/2}^{0\nu })^{1/2}eV,$$
(4)
where $`F_NG^{0\nu }|M_f^{0\nu }(g_A/g_V)M_{GT}^{0\nu }|^2`$, and $`m_e`$ is the electron mass. This quantity derives from nuclear structure calculations and is model dependent.

The most sensitive experiments thus far utilize germanium detectors isotopically enriched in 76Ge from 7.78% abundance to $``$86%. Germanium detector experiments were started with natural abundance detectors by Fiorini, et al., in Milan, evolving over the years to the first experiments with small isotopically enriched detectors, and finally to the two present multi-kilogram isotopically-enriched 76Ge experiments: Heidelberg-Moscow and IGEX. Reference  has about four times the exposure as reference  with limits of similar magnitude. This strongly implies that experiments with on the order of 100 moles of 76Ge have reached the point of diminishing returns.

Where should the field of double-beta decay go from here? Suppose the observed neutrino oscillations of atmospheric neutrinos and solar neutrinos are considered. What probable range of $`\mathrm{m}_\nu `$ is implied? Would it be large enough to allow the direct observation of 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay? If so, what technique would be the best for a possible discovery experiment?

## 3 Theoretical Motivation and Probable Neutrino Scenarios

The SK data imply maximal mixing of $`\nu _\mu `$ with $`\nu _\tau `$ with $`\delta m_{23}^23\times 10^3`$ eV2. The solar neutrino data from SK and from SNO also imply that the small mixing angle solution to the solar neutrino problem is disfavored, so that $`\delta m^2`$ (solar) $`(10^510^4)`$ eV2. Based on these interpretations, one probable scenario for the neutrino mixing matrix has the following approximate form:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right)$$
(5)
The neutrino masses can be arranged in two hierarchical patterns in which $`\delta m_{31}^2\delta m_{32}^2`$ $`3\times 10^3`$ eV2, and $`\delta m_{21}^2(10^510^4)`$ eV2. With available data, it is not possible to determine which hierarchy, $`m_3>m_1(m_2)`$, or $`m_1(m_2)>m_3`$, is the correct one, nor is the absolute value of any of the mass eigenstates known.

The consideration of reactor neutrino and atmospheric neutrino data together strongly implies that the atmospheric neutrino oscillations are very dominantly $`\nu _\mu `$ $`\nu _\tau (\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\tau )`$, which implies, as seen from equation 5, that $`\nu _e`$ is very dominantly a mixture of $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$. In this case there will be one relative $`CP`$ phase, $`ϵ`$, and equation 2 reduces to the approximate form:

$$\mathrm{m}_\nu =\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{m}_1+ϵ\mathrm{m}_2),$$
(6)
where the large mixing angle solution of the solar neutrino problem implies

$$(m_2^2m_1^2)=(10^510^4)\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(7)
Assuming that $`ϵ+1`$, and that neutrinos are Majorana particles, then it is very probable that 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay is driven by an effective electron neutrino mass between 0.01 eV and the present bound from 76Ge experiments. Consider the relation

$$T_{1/2}^{0\nu }=\frac{(\mathrm{ln}2)Nt}{c},$$
(8)
where $`N`$ is the number of parent nuclei, $`t`$ is the counting time, and $`c`$ is the maximum number of counts that can be attributed to 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay. To improve the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{m}_\nu `$ by a factor of $`10^2`$ from the present $``$1 eV to 0.01 eV, one must increase the quantity $`Nt/c`$ by a factor of $`10^4`$. The quantity $`N`$ can feasibly be increased by a factor of $`10^2`$ over present experiments, implying $`t/c`$ must also be improved by a similar amount. Since the present counting times are probably about a factor of 5 less than a practical counting time, the background should be reduced by at least a factor of 20 below present levels. A further reduction is probably feasible and should be pursued.

## 4 The Majorana 76Ge 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-Decay Experiment

The Majorana experiment is proposed for a US deep underground laboratory, and requires very little R&D. It stands on the technical shoulders of the IGEX experiment and other previous successful double-beta decay and low-background experiments. Furthermore, new segmented Ge detector technology has recently become commercially available, while Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)/University of South Carolina (USC) researchers have developed new pulse-shape discrimination techniques.

The IGEX experiment terminated with 117 mole-years of data with an average background of 0.06 c/keV/kg/y in the later data sets. The resulting half life is $`1.6\times 10^{25}`$ y and its implied bounds on $`\mathrm{m}_\nu `$ are shown in Table 1.

The Majorana experiment represents a great increase in Ge mass over IGEX with new segmented Ge detectors and the newest electronic systems for pulse-shape discrimination. It is conceived to be 500 kg of Ge detectors, fabricated from Ge isotopically enriched to 86% in 76Ge. The typical detector size will be approximately 2.4 kg, requiring about 200 detectors. Below is presented the projected sensitivity for such an array, shown in an artist’s conception in Figure 1.

The array will have a fiducial mass of 500 kg, containing $`N=3.43\times 10^{27}`$ atoms of 76Ge; a counting time of 10 years, and an energy resolution of 3.0 keV FWHM. The starting background assumed is that achieved by IGEX, prior to pulse-shape discrimination, which was $`b_0=0.2`$ counts/keV/kg/y at the 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay energy of 2039 keV. This background was achieved at 4000 mwe and was completely accounted for as the decay of cosmogenic isotopes in the germanium. The decay of 68Ge (270.8-day half-life) and 60Co (5.7-year half-life) over the 10-year counting period, combined with estimates of reduced above-ground cosmogenic activation and additional decay during detector construction, reduces this background by an overall factor of about twenty, compared to the IGEX background mentioned. This reduces the expected background rate to 0.01 c/keV/kg/y.

The optimum energy window for a simple Poisson analysis is $`2.8\sigma `$ of the Gaussian peak (83.8%), or 3.57 keV. The total number of background counts in this window around 2039 keV over a 10-year period would then be

$$b\mathrm{\Delta }EMt=(0.01\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{keV}/\mathrm{kg}/\mathrm{y})(3.57\mathrm{keV})(5000\mathrm{kg}\times \mathrm{y})=178$$
(9)
prior to data cuts.

Above-ground experiments by the PNNL/USC collaborators demonstrate that new pulse-shape discrimination methods have an acceptance fraction for internal cosmogenic backgrounds of no more than 0.265. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate detector segmentation will allow an additional cut with an acceptance fraction for internal cosmogenic backgrounds of no more than 0.138. An example of the effect of segmentation on internal cosmogenic background in the 2 MeV region-of-interest is shown in Figure 2. Applying both of these orthogonal cuts is expected to reduce the background to 6.5 remaining events. If the background in the region is featureless in energy, a simple Poisson analysis yields a limit of 6 events as the number of 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay events consistent with the background (90% CL).

The two cuts discussed do not have 100% efficiency for accepting 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay events. The pulse-shape discrimination has a measured single-site-event acceptance fraction of 0.802. The detector-segmentation cut has a calculated single-site-event acceptance fraction of 0.907. The total counting efficiency is then 0.727. Accordingly the sensitivity is projected as:

$$T_{1/2}^{o\nu }(sens)\frac{(0.727)(.693)(3.43\times 10^{27})\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}}{6}4.2\times 10^{27}\mathrm{y}.$$
(10)
This analysis does not account for the fact that the close-packed granularity of $``$200 crystals will allow further cuts against multiply-scattered background events. The background computed above is therefore conservative. The resulting upper bounds on $`\mathrm{m}_\nu `$ are shown in Table 1 and, discarding an unfavored QRPA form factor, range from 0.02 eV to 0.07 eV.

## 5 Recent Progress in Ge Detector Technology

Majorana is not simply a volume expansion of IGEX. It must have superior background rejection. Because it has been conclusively shown that the limiting background in at least some previous experiments has been cosmogenic activation of the germanium itself, it is necessary to mitigate those background sources. Cosmogenic activity fortunately has certain factors which discriminate it from the signal of interest. For example, while 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay would deposit 2 MeV between two electrons in a small, perhaps 1 mm3 volume, internal 60Co decay deposits about 318 keV (endpoint) in beta energy near the decaying atom, while simultaneous 1173 keV and 1332 keV gammas can deposit energy elsewhere in the crystal, most probably both in more than one location, for a total energy capable of reaching the 2039 keV region-of-interest. A similar situation exists for internal 68Ge decay. Thus deposition-location multiplicity distinguishes double-beta decay from the important long lived cosmogenics in germanium. Isotopes such as 56Co, 57Co, 58Co, and 68Ge are produced at a rate of roughly 1 atom per day per kilogram on the earth s surface. Only 60Co and 68Ge have both the energy and half-life to be of concern.

To pursue the multiplicity parameter, two approaches are possible. First, the detector current pulse shape carries with it the record of energy deposition along the electric field lines in the crystal; crudely speaking, the radial dimension of cylindrical detectors. This information may be exploited through pulse-shape discrimination. Second, the electrical contacts of the detector may be divided to produce independent regions of charge collection.

By segmenting the inner contact into two (axial) parts and the outer contact into 6 (azimuthal) parts, as shown in Figure 3, multiplicity data can be obtained. The

Monte-Carlo simulation data set shown in Figure 2 is based on this configuration and shows that internal highly-multiple backgrounds like 60Co can be strongly suppressed at 2038 keV. The internal 60Co modeled in the figure is produced by cosmic-ray neutrons during the preparation of the detector, accumulating after the last crystal-growth step. Its elimination by segmentation and pulse shape discrimination is crucial. Beyond this simple segmentation cut, it may be possible to use the signals derived from segments seeing no net charge, adjacent to a segment seeing net charge, to locate a single-site deposition in the axial and azimuthal coordinates of the crystal or to distinguish a single-site deposition from a multiple one. This possible technique is not currently included in sensitivity calculations. Intrinsic n-type Ge detectors with segmented electrical contacts are now available commercially. After Monte Carlo studies and discussions with detector manufacturers, the general configuration shown in Figure 3 is believed to be optimal for balancing background reduction, cost and production efficiency.

The development of the pulse-shape discrimination technique used in the sensitivity calculation arose from earlier work comparing experimental pulses with completely simulated ones. After repeated trials with fully simulated pulses, this early method was set aside due to the unpredictable effect of preamplifier noise levels and the unacceptable sensitivity of the resulting cuts to the detector and charge-collection model. For example, the parameters needed to correctly simulate pulses include the space-charge density remaining after crystal depletion. This is most often poorly known and represents essentially a set of free parameters for the simulation. The operating voltage of the crystal, which may require variation during the crystal lifetime, is also critically important to the fidelity of simulated pulse formation. Thus, any system built upon the accuracy of predicted or modeled pulse-shapes was found less than optimum for cutting efficacy and fragile with respect to long-term maintenance.

A much-superior pulse-shape discrimination method was constructed using a set of parameters calculated from each pulse. The parameters for a single pulse are compared to a distribution collected from a calibration source of interest. Those which conform to a large degree are kept; those which do not are discarded. The acceptance ratio is adjusted during pulse post-processing to optimize cut efficacy. The strength of this approach is that no set of simulated pulses need be maintained; no space charges need be known. It is only required that calibration data be obtained before and after any voltage change, a procedure which is required in any case to periodically check detector gain. To summarize, new techniques depend entirely on experimental calibration and do not utilize pulse-shape libraries. The ability of these techniques to be easily calibrated for individual detectors makes them practical for large detector arrays.

This development was in large part due to a shift in thinking about digitization, earlier digitization had been done with an 8-bit digitizer sampling as frequently as 500 MHz. Theory held that by oversampling, the energy resolution afforded by analog acquisition could be achieved, which is well-matched to 14-bits. However, measurement of actual preamplifier bandwidth showed that there is no more than 25 MHz of information in the signal. Thus, emerging hardware for 40-MHz 12-bit acquisition, such as the Digital Gamma Finder (DGF) produced by X-Ray Instrumentation Associates (XIA), allows both a high-resolution energy value and a high-fidelity waveform to be acquired in a single, lower cost, and highly stable electronics chain. After acquiring a detector preamplifier pulse, all subsequent operations on the signal are performed digitally. The particular unit used in pulse-shape discrimination development is the 4-channel DFG-4C, developed and manufactured by XIA.

The DGF-4C has 4 independent, 40 MHz, 12-bit analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). The ADCs are followed by First-in, First-out (FIFO) buffers capable of storing 1024 ADC values for a single event. In parallel with each FIFO is a programmable digital filter and trigger logic. The digital filter and trigger logic for each channel is combined into a single Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). Analog input data are continuously digitized and processed at 40 MHz.

Experimental example pulses are shown in Figure 4.

An example single-site event from the 1592 keV double-escape peak of the 208Tl 2615 keV line is shown as the top signal. The bottom signal is an example multi-site pulse from the full-energy peak of the 212Bi line at 1620 keV.

The DGF-4C is a smart filter of incoming pulses. If, for example, a signal has a pulse-width incompatible with the usual collection time of 200-1000 ns, or is oscillatory (like microphonic noise), the trigger filter can be programmed to reject it. This feature can be used to allow the very low energy thresholds required in Dark Matter searches as well as eliminating a broad spectrum of very-low-rate artificial pulses from high voltage leaks and electromagnetic interference that can appear in the energy region of 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay.

Calibration for single-site event pulses is trivially accomplished by collecting pulses from thorium ore; the 2614.47-keV gamma ray from 208Tl produces a largely single-site double-escape peak at 1592.47 keV. The PSD discriminator is then calibrated to the properties of the double-escape peak A slightly improved double-escape peak can be made from the 26Al gamma ray of 2938.22-keV. The double-escape appears at 1916.22 keV, only about 120 keV away from the expected region of interest for 0$`\nu `$ $`\beta \beta `$-decay. The obvious and direct use of pulse-shape discrimination and segmentation is the rejection of cosmogenic pulses in the germanium itself. However, the approach should be also effective on gamma rays from the shielding and structural materials.

The effects as background of neutrons of both high energy (cosmic muon generated) and low energy (fission and ($`\alpha `$,n) from rock) are under consideration as well. The segmentation and granularity of the detectors will provide some protection from this lower-order background. These neutrons could also produce other unwanted activities. For instance, 3H and 14C can be produced in nitrogen from high and low energy neutrons, respectively. Fortunately, Majorana detectors will not be surrounded by nitrogen at high density.

In conclusion, the Majorana project has been designed in a compact, modular way such that it can be built and operated with high confidence in the approach and the technology. The initial years of construction will allow alternate cooling methods to be employed if they have an advantage and should they be shown to overcome long-term concerns due to surface contamination, muon-induced ions, and diffusion. The technology supporting Majorana signal-processing-based background rejection is ready and shows promise of future improvements. The technology of radiopure copper production has improved steadily since the last IGEX system, in which copper support materials played no measurable radiological role. Finally, those who enrich germanium have also expressed their enthusiasm and support for the project. Thus, the Majorana project is poised ready to begin operations toward determining the effective Majorana mass of the electron neutrino.


format: text

text:
# Galaxy morphology in the rich cluster Abell 2390

## 1 Introduction

The well-known rich cluster Abell 2390 at z=0.23 was studied as part of the CNOC1 cosmology program (Carlberg et al 1996). A detailed discussion of its spectroscopic properties from the CNOC1 database was published by Abraham et al (1996). From spectra of some 250 cluster galaxies, Abraham et al showed that infall into the cluster truncates star-formation, although there are some ‘near-field’ galaxies that have young populations, and may not yet be affected by the cluster environment.

The morphological structure of cluster galaxies is of interest in further understanding the effects of cluster infall and assimilation of galaxies. It is presumed that the high fraction of red central galaxies with old stellar populations are formed by tidal events that occur within the cluster, and giving them a bulge-dominated morphology. However, the CNOC1 imaging data were not used for a systematic morphological study until now.

In this paper, we have made use of a variety of additional imaging data of the cluster. We have performed a morphological modelling analysis of the cluster galaxies, and also of a field galaxy sample from the same databases. In our discussion we discuss the connection between morphology, cluster location, and spectra, and look for differences of properties in a similar sample of field galaxies.

The data used are from four databases. 1) the original CFHT MOS images from the CNOC1 database. These cover all the galaxies which have spectra, so are complete. However, the image quality and sampling are not optimal. 2) CFHT OSIS images have better sampling and image quality, from better observing conditions and with a tip-tilt imaging system. However, these images were part of a narrow-band imaging program and were not deeply exposed in the continuum band. 3) Images with the CFHT AO system in visible wavelengths produced still better sampled images with FWHM in the range 0.3 to 0.4”. 4) Finally, we used HST WFPC2 images from our own and archival databases. These have FWHM about 0.2-0.3”.

Table 1 summarizes the data and compares their coverage of the cluster. While the MOS data have the worst resolution, they offer the most extensive coverage of the cluster and have the highest signal level per pixel. Thus, in what follows, we have used the MOS data for most of the discussion, but have used the other datasets as checks on the morphology results. The analysis does create a PSF that may vary across the image fields, and uses them to calibrate the images, so that image resolution is not the overriding consideration for the images. While the OSIS data have superior resolution and sampling, their coverage of the cluster is less complete and the signal levels are much lower, so that they are not as useful. The PUEO and WFPC2 data are good quality checks on a limited subsample of galaxies.

## 2 Measurements

The galaxy images were classified using the software described by Schade et al (1996). Saintonge et al (2001) describe the analysis in detail for new data on some CNOC clusters, which is exactly the process followed for this discussion, including definitions of all quantities. Thus, we note only that the program was run on all data in Table 1. In the case of A2390, the model fits were all checked manually, rather than by an automatic checking process that was developed later for the larger datasets, based on the A2390 experience. In this process, a uniform numerical criterion for model fit was applied in determining which models fits to include in the discussion.

While this eliminates poorly-defined models for faint or flawed images, it raises the question of whether a significant population of galaxies is rejected from our discussion. However, including lower quality model fits appears to increase noise in our plots rather than introducing clear systematic changes. More importantly, we applied the same criteria to the cluster and field galaxies, so the comparison between the two groups should not be affected.

In deciding to use the MOS data only for our discussion, we did a comparison of the results for the galaxies in common to the datasets. The correspondence was good between all pairs of measurements for galaxies whose data quality flags were good in both. The overall comparison of the principal measure (bulge/total light, or B/T) shows a mean difference of 0.02 over the range 0 to 1, with $`\sigma `$ of 0.37, for all galaxies covered by more than one database. We have used the MOS data results restricted to only the good quality galaxy measurements. This amounts to 161 cluster galaxies, (of a total of 209 with spectroscopic measures) spread over a wide range of cluster positions (see Figure 1).

The process of fitting parametric models to these galaxies includes, as the first step, ‘symmetrizing’ the image to be fit. The galaxy image is rotated by 180o and subtracted from itself. The residuals are then clipped to leave only those portions of the residuals that are positive and that deviate by more than 2$`\sigma `$ from symmetry. These high-significance residuals are then subtracted from the original image leaving a ‘symmetric’ image. This symmetric image is then fit by the models.

This process is very effective at removing the effects of companions and asymmetric features on the model-fitting process. It does not alter the possibility of separately classifying galaxy images as symmetric or asymmetric, and does not make classifications of interaction probability less effective. In fact, the asymmetric parts of the image were used in deriving the interaction index, described below.

A central question is whether many of the interacting galaxies have been removed from the sample because we are presenting only ‘good’ fits. While there may be a few such galaxies that have been rejected, the symmetrizing process makes it less likely that we have rejected very many moderately (or less) interacting galaxies. We stress again that the comparison between field and cluster is done with the same criteria for inclusion.

We combined two field-galaxy samples for comparison: galaxies from the A2390 images with redshifts (mostly in the range 0.16 to .35, so comparable with the cluster redshift of 0.23); and field galaxies in the redshift range 0.19 to 0.27 using MOS images from other CNOC clusters. These datasets contained 97 and 111 galaxies, respectively. Almost all the cluster and field galaxies in our morphological database have spectra from the CNOC1 program, and we have thus combined the morphological and spectroscopic measurements from Abraham et al (1996) in some of the discussions that follow.

We examined the best (MOS and OSIS) galaxy images (and their asymmetries as isolated by rotation) and classified their ‘interaction level’, based on the distinctness of tidal tails, connecting luminosity, warped disks, off-centre nuclei, and other asymmetries, with reference to a grid of models of galaxy interactions computed with a tree code. This classification was done independently by two of us for a subset of galaxies to standardize the criteria, and the results are given for the full set on a 5-point scale. A similar classification was described in more detail by Hutchings and Neff (1991).

Finally, we made a measure of the local galaxy density by counting the distance to the 10th-nearest neighbour galaxies on the sky. The density value used was proportional to the log of the inverse square of this radius. This enabled us to investigate the effects of local galaxy density independently of clustocentric radius (although without correction for non-member galaxies).

Tables 2 and 3 show the values used in this paper for cluster and field galaxies. In the sections below we present and discuss the more significant correlations among the morphology, spectroscopic, photometric, and positional measures of the cluster and field galaxies. Where sizes and luminosities are shown, we have used H0=50 and q0=0.5.

## 3 Cluster galaxy morphologies

Abraham et al (1996) discussed the spectroscopic and photometric properties of the cluster in considerable detail. The diagrams in the present paper illustrate the morphological parameters of the cluster galaxies, as they relate to the spectroscopic and photometric data, and to their position in the cluster. The principal properties we discuss are the bulge to disk flux ratio, and some aspects of their sizes and luminosities.

Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution of the cluster galaxies in the sample. We have in general divided the galaxies into 3 types: ‘bulge’, which has modelled bulge/total light (B/T) of 0.8 or larger; ‘disk’ which has B/T less than 0.4, and ‘S0’, which has B/T between 0.4 and 0.8. The intermediate classification probably contains all S0 type galaxies, but will also include others such as Sa with a bright bulge. The sample extends to large distances from the centre, along the principal axis of extension of the cluster. The top panel shows the MOS results which we have used, as discussed above. The lower panel shows the distribution of the galaxies in the other datasets analysed. The OSIS data have gaps at intermediate radii, and are much noisier, while the PUEO and HST data cover only the central region.

Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of B/T with normalised radius within the cluster. (The normalised radius is defined as the radius within the cluster as a fraction of R200, the radius at which the cluster density is 200 times the critical density.) It also shows the same for the field sample, plotted with redshift mainly as a way to spread the points out (but does also show that we have no strong redshift-dependent effects). The field galaxies bracket the cluster redshift of 0.23 in any case.

The gap in the B/T distribution is caused by an explicit bias. In those cases where a single component model (e.g. pure disk or pure bulge) is indistinguishable statistically from a two-component model (bulge plus disk) then we adopt the single component model. In the region B/T $`>`$ 0.8 (roughly) the bulge clearly dominates the luminosity profile and it is frequently difficult to detect a disk even if one is present (as determined from simulations). Furthermore, the measured parameters of the bulge are affected very little by the choice of pure bulge or bulge-plus-disk model. In these cases too, we choose the single-component model.

The size of the gap in the B/T diagram depends on signal-to-noise ratio. If the obserations all had very high S/N then there would be no gap because it would be possible to detect even very weak disks in the presence of dominant bulges.

In Figure 2, there are clearly separate populations of bulge galaxies that are not a continuation of the trends seen in the pure disk through increasing bulge up to B/T 0.8. This bulge population is more marked in the cluster, as expected, but galaxies are found at all projected radii within the cluster. There are more disk-dominated galaxies in the field, also as expected.

In Figure 3 we show the distributions of intrinsic colour with disk surface brightness for the two samples, which differ significantly. The dotted lines mark the mean values from the field sample, which are fairly evenly spread about these values. The greater spread to bluer colours reflect the redshift range, which limits the observed red colour of the galaxies. The cluster galaxy distribution is mainly skewed by the cluster red sequence, but also shows a paucity of low surface brightness disks among the blue galaxies.

In Figure 4 we compare the disk scale-lengths. These are related to the absolute magnitude, with brighter galaxies having bigger disks. The dotted line is the linear fit to the log-log plot for field galaxies. The cluster galaxies distribution differs from this as illustrated by the dashed curve, which is a second order fit to the points: the disks are generally smaller (as well as brighter as seen in Figure 3), but there is a tail of larger disks that are the brightest ones in Figure 3.

Figure 5 shows the distribution of galaxy types plotted with local galaxy density. This is strongly correlated with radius within the cluster, as shown by the radius values in the plot: the density is highest in the cluster centre and falls with radius in the inner cluster. Beyond that there is a region where radius and density appear largely unrelated. The outer cluster shows a clear monotonic decline in density. Figure 5 has bins that separate these three regions, with the central region divided into two bins of equal numbers of member galaxies. The plot shows what is generally expected: the central regions strongly dominated by bulge galaxies, and a rising disk fraction with radius. The ‘S0’ population remains near to 20% at all radii.

Figure 6 compares some key spectroscopic measures with the B/T ratio. These are the stellar population indicators used by Abraham et al (1996). We have included all galaxies with good morphology measures but they are not filtered by spectroscopic data quality, since these are not readily available for the assembled field sample. The D4000 data are, however, separated for the brightest galaxies, which will have better spectroscopic data as well. There are some differences, as follows.

The \[O II\] emission, a signature of hot star formation, is somewhat suppressed compared with the field galaxies, but has a wider range. The differences are larger for lower B/T values. H$`\delta `$ absorption, a post-starburst measure, is stronger for the cluster galaxies, again more noticeably for the lower B/T values. D4000, a measure of old stellar populations, is larger for the cluster galaxies, and more so for the intermediate B/T values. All these are consistent with the idea proposed by Abraham et al (1996) for this cluster, and Morris et al (1998) for another CNOC cluster, namely that infall into the cluster truncates star-formation.

Figure 7 plots the spectroscopic indices with our estimates of interaction strength for cluster and field galaxies. This plot shows the overall differences discussed for Figure 6, and also illustrates connections to disturbed galaxy morphology. The distributions in Figure 7 show significant difference beteeen cluster and field galaxies in all comparisions The numbers on the right show the differences in percent of each sample in each interactions subset: the cluster galaxies appear to be more interacting than the field sample, again as expected.

In the spectroscopic measures in Figure 7, \[O II\] emission is stronger in the field sample, but both samples show decreased emission for stronger interactions. This suggests that interactions inhibit star-formation in all environments that are covered. H$`\delta `$ absorption is also stronger in field galaxies, increasing with tidal interaction. The cluster galaxies show a small trend the other way — less H$`\delta `$ in highly interacting systems. The D4000 index decreases with interaction in both samples, but there is a strong difference between field and cluster galaxies.

## 4 Discussion

We find that the morphology measurements of A2390 cluster galaxies generally support the expectations of the spectroscopic analysis by Abraham et al (1996). The red central galaxies are bulge-dominated systems, as expected from their old stellar populations. Such galaxies are strongly concentrated in the cluster core. Disk systems on the other hand are increasingly dominant in outer parts of the cluster. The S0 (and other bulgy disks) are found at all radii, but seem to be associated with regions of subclumps within the cluster. This is consistent with their being stripped disk galaxies as a result of recent infall into the cluster. 50% of the field galaxies are disk-dominated (B/T=0), while the cluster galaxies are dominated by the bulge-only (B/T=1) population. The distribution of intermediate B/T values is similar for the two samples, but they may refer to different morphologies (S0 and Sa, say) which we cannot distinguish.

The cluster disks are mostly fainter and smaller than the field galaxy disks, which is presumably also a result of tidal or stripping effects of infall. The few bright large disks are found in galaxies spread across the cluster, with no particular other properties.

The spectroscopic properties (Figures 6 and 7) indicate that the disk-dominated systems have post-starburst stellar populations, compared with the field sample, while the bulge-dominated galaxies are very similar in cluster and field. This too supports the conclusion that infall into the cluster truncates star-formation. The interaction statistics add some more information to this: interactions are more common among the cluster galaxies, as expected, but in both field and cluster samples, the \[O II\] is increasingly suppressed with increased interaction visibility. Thus, this truncation of star-formation appears to happen in non-cluster environments too (although significantly more marked in the cluster).

If we regard the interaction visibility as an indicator of the age of a tidal event, the H$`\delta `$ data suggest a sequence of post-starburst populations, again with the effects more marked in the cluster sample.

Abraham et al (1996) noted a few near-field galaxies that appear to be in the early stages of infall. These are blue and have young stellar populations. Our morphology measures for these galaxies show them to be disk-dominated, but with other properties that are varied but typical of the distribution of cluster galaxies. We have thus simply included them as cluster galaxies in our diagrams.

We are grateful to M. Balogh for making the OSIS images available to us while still proprietary.

References

Abraham R.G. et al, 1996, ApJ, 462, 96

Carlberg R.G. et al, 1996, ApJ, 462, 32

Hutchings J.B., and Neff S.G., 1991, AJ, 101, 434

Morris S.L. et al, 1998 ApJ, 507, 84

Saintonge A., Schade D., Yee H.K.C., Carlberg R., Ellingson E., 2001 (in preparation)

Schade D., Lilly S.J., LeFevre O., Hammer F., Crampton D., 1996, ApJ, 464, 79

Captions to Figures

1. Spatial distribution of A2390 cluster galaxies in this paper. The Declination scale is exaggerated for clarity. Upper panel shows the MOS sample, which was used in all other diagrams, separated into the 3 principal morphology groups. The lower panel shows the other imaging samples. These are less extensive but were used for independent checks on the morphology results.

2. Bulge to disk ratios for cluster and field galaxies for A2390. Model errors in B/T are typically $`\pm `$0.08 or less.

3. Disk surface brightness and intrinsic-colour distributions for A2390 cluster and field galaxies. The dotted lines are the mean values for the field sample. Note the comparative lack of low surface brightness disks in the blue cluster galaxies. Model error bars typically 0.2 magnitudes, or about twice the size of the dots.

4. Disk scale-length changes with galaxy luminosity for A2390 and field galaxies. The dotted line is the linear fit to the field distribution, and the dashed line is the parabola fit to the cluster sample. Scale length error bars are typically 15%, about 0.1 in the log scale plotted.

5. The fraction of cluster galaxies by morphology type for 4 bins of local galaxy density. The galaxy density is strongly correlated with radius within the cluster, as indicated by the Rnorm values. The middle two bins are where there is significant degeneracy between radius and local density, as result of galaxy substructure, and have equal numbers of galaxies.

6. Spectroscopic quantities (from Abraham et al 1996) as a function of bulge to disk ratio for A2390 cluster and field galaxies.

7. Spectroscopic quantites for A2390 cluster and field galaxies as function of 5-point interaction scale. The circles show the mean values for each group, and the percentages in the right panel refer to the full numbers of the cluster and field samples.


text:
# Flux flow of Abrikosov-Josephson vortices along grain boundaries in high-temperature superconductors

\[ cond-mat/0201251, Phys. Rev. Lett. (accepted)

## Abstract

We show that low-angle grain boundaries (GB) in high-temperature superconductors exhibit intermediate Abrikosov vortices with Josephson cores, whose length $`l`$ along GB is smaller that the London penetration depth, but larger than the coherence length. We found an exact solution for a periodic vortex structure moving along GB in a magnetic field $`H`$ and calculated the flux flow resistivity $`R_F(H)`$, and the nonlinear voltage-current characteristics. The predicted $`R_F(H)`$ dependence describes well our experimental data on $`7^{}`$ unirradiated and irradiated $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ bicrystals, from which the core size $`l(T)`$, and the intrinsic depairing density $`J_b(T)`$ on nanoscales of few GB dislocations were measured for the first time. The observed temperature dependence of $`J_b(T)=J_{b0}(1T/T_c)^2`$ indicates a significant order parameter suppression in current channels between GB dislocation cores.

\]

Mechanisms of current transport through grain boundaries (GB) in high-temperature superconductors (HTS) have attracted much attention, because a GB is a convenient tool to probe the pairing symmetry of HTS by varying the misorientation angle $`\vartheta `$ between the neighboring crystallites sym ; gb . As $`\vartheta `$ increases, the spacing between the GB dislocations decreases, becoming comparable to the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$ at the angle $`\vartheta _046^{}`$. The exponential decrease of the GB critical current density $`J_b=J_0\mathrm{exp}(\vartheta /\vartheta _0)`$ gb , makes GBs one of the principal factors limiting critical currents of HTS dcl . Atomic structure of GBs revealed by high-resolution electron microscopy have been used to determine local underdoped states of GB, defect-induced suppression of superconducting properties at the nanoscale and controlled increase of $`J_b`$ by overdoping of GBgb ; dop . Much progress has been made in understanding the microscopic factors controlling $`J_b(\vartheta )`$ at zero magnetic field, but the behavior of vortices on GBs is known to much lesser extent.

The extreme sensitivity of $`J_b(\vartheta )`$ to the misorientation angle makes GB a unique tool to trace the fundamental transition between Abrikosov (A) and Josephson (J) vorticesag  in a magnetic field $`H`$ above the lower critical field $`H_{c1}`$. For $`\vartheta \vartheta _0`$, vortices on a GB are A vortices with normal cores pinned by GB dislocations diaz . For $`\vartheta >\vartheta _0`$, the maximum vortex current density circulating across the GB is limited to its intrinsic $`J_b(\vartheta )`$, much smaller then the bulk depairing current density $`J_d`$. Because vortex currents must cross the GB which can only sustain $`J_bJ_d`$, the normal core of an A vortex turns into a J core, whose length $`l\xi J_d/J_b`$ along the GB is greater then $`\xi `$, but smaller then the London penetration depth $`\lambda `$, if $`J_b>J_d/\kappa `$, where $`\kappa =\lambda /\xi 10^2`$ ag . As $`\vartheta `$ increases, the core length $`l(\vartheta )\xi J_d/J_b(\vartheta )`$ increases, so the GB vortices evolve from A vortices for $`\vartheta \vartheta _0`$ to mixed Abrikosov vortices with Josephson cores (AJ vortices) at $`J_d/\kappa <J_b(\vartheta )<J_d`$. The AJ vortices turn into J vortices at higher angles, $`\vartheta >\vartheta _J\vartheta _0\mathrm{ln}(\kappa J_0/J_d)`$, for which $`l(\vartheta )`$ exceeds $`\lambda `$. For $`\vartheta _0=5^{}`$, $`\kappa =100`$, and $`J_0=J_d`$, the AJ vortices determine the in-field behavior of GBs in the crucial region $`0<\vartheta <\vartheta _J23^{}`$ of the exponential drop of $`J_b(\vartheta )`$ (in a film of thickness $`d\lambda `$, the AJ region $`\vartheta <\vartheta _J\vartheta _0\mathrm{ln}(\lambda ^2/d\xi )`$ broadens even further).

The AJ structures have two length scales: the core size $`l>\xi `$ and the intervortex spacing $`a=(\varphi _0/B)^{1/2}`$. The larger core of AJ vortices leads to their weaker pinning along a GB, which thus becomes a channel for motion of AJ vortices between pinned A vortices in the grains ag ; gc  (Fig. 1). The percolative motion of AJ vortices along GBs gives rise to a linear region in the $`VI`$ characteristic of HTS polycrystalsdiaz ; ornl ; cad ; natlab ; evetts . However no present experimental techniques can probe the cores of GB vortices, because the lack of the normal core makes AJ vortices ”invisible” under STM, while neither the Lorentz microscopy nor magneto-optics have sufficient spatial resolution to distinguish A and AJ vortices. In this Letter we report a combined theoretical and experimental analysis which enabled us to prove the existence of AJ vortices in $`7^{}`$ $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ bicrystals and extract the core size $`l(T)`$, and the intrinsic depairing current density $`J_b`$ at the GB from transport measurements. The value $`J_b`$ of a GB turns out to be much higher than its global critical current density $`J_{gb}`$, which is limited by self-field and pinning effects gc ; natlab ; evetts ; gray ; m . The field region in which only a single AJ vortex chain moves along GB while the bulk A vortices remain pinned, can be considerably expanded by irradiation, as shown below.

For $`HH_{c1}`$, both $`l=\xi J_d/J_b`$, and $`a=(\varphi _0/B)^{1/2}`$ are smaller than $`\lambda `$, thus the AJ vortices on low-angle GBs are described by a nonlocal equation for the phase difference $`\theta (x,t)`$ in the overdamped limit ag ; gc :

$`\tau \dot{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{}(u)du}{ux}}\mathrm{sin}\theta +\beta ,`$ (1)
$`l`$ $`=`$ $`c\varphi _0/16\pi ^2\lambda ^2J_b,\tau =\varphi _0/2\pi cRJ_b,`$ (2)
where the overdot and the prime denote differentiation with respect to the time $`t`$ and the coordinate $`x`$ along GB, $`R`$ is the quasiparticle resistance of GB per unit area, $`\varphi _0`$ is the flux quantum, $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`\beta =J/J_b`$, and $`J(x)`$ is the current density through GB induced by A vortices. Here $`\beta =\beta _0+\delta \beta (x)`$ is a sum of the constant transport current $`\beta _0`$ and an oscillating component $`\delta \beta (x)`$ due to the discreteness of the A vortex lattice. The term $`\delta \beta (x)`$ gives rise to a critical current $`J_{gb}`$ of the GB due to pinning of AJ vortices by A vortices in the grains gc ; temp . Eqs. (1) and (2) are independent of the pairing symmetry (which only affects $`J_b`$) and are valid for both bulk samples and thin films in a perpendicular field.

We consider a rapidly moving AJ structure in the flux flow state, $`\beta \beta _c`$, for which the pinning term $`\delta \beta (x)1`$ can be neglectedtemp . In this case Eq. (1) has the following exact solution that describes a stable periodic vortex structure moving with a constant velocity $`v`$:

$`\theta =\pi +\gamma +2\mathrm{tan}^1[M\mathrm{tan}k(xvt)/2],`$ (3)
$`s^2=[\sqrt{(1\beta _0^2+h)^2+4\beta _0^2h}1h+\beta _0^2]/2h`$ (4)
Here $`s=v/v_0`$, $`v_0=l/\tau `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma =s`$, $`h=(kl)^2`$, $`M=[1+1/h(1+s^2)]^{1/2}+[h(1+s^2)]^{1/2}`$, $`k=2\pi /a`$, and $`a`$ is the period of the AJ structure. For $`a/l\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (3) describes a moving chain of single AJ vortices ag . Generally, $`a(H)`$ is different from the period of the A lattice, but for $`HH_{c1}`$, the spacing $`a=(\varphi _0/H)^{1/2}`$ is fixed by the flux quantization condition. Eq. (3) corresponds to the following field distribution $`H(x,y)`$ produced by AJ vortices in the region $`|y|<\lambda `$:

$$H=\frac{\varphi _0}{2\pi \lambda ^2}\text{Re}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{sin}[xvt+i(|y|+y_0)]\frac{k}{2},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{sinh}ky_0=\sqrt{h(1+s^2)}`$. Eq. (5) satisfies the Maxwell equation $`^2H=0`$ with the boundary condition $`H^{}=(4\pi /c)[J_b\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{}v\theta ^{}/2eRJ]`$ on GB, where $`\theta (xvt)`$ is given by Eq. (3). Fig. 1 shows the current streamlines calculated from Eq. (5). For $`y>0`$, these streamlines coincide with those of a chain of moving fictitious A vortices displaced by $`y=y_0`$ away from GB.

The mean voltage V on a GB is determined by the Faraday law, $`V=\varphi _0v/ca`$, which yields

$$V=V_0\left[\sqrt{(1\beta _0^2+h)^2+4\beta _0^2h}1h+\beta _0^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(6)
where $`V_0=RJ_b/\sqrt{2}`$. The $`VJ`$ curve shown in Fig. 2 is similar to that obtained by molecular dynamic simulations of incommensurate vortex channels kes . In our case the nonlinearity of $`V(J)`$ is due to the AJ core expansion as $`J`$ increasesag . For $`JJ_b`$, the V-J curve is linear, $`V=R_FJ`$, where $`R_F=R\sqrt{h/(1+h)}`$ is the flux flow resistivity due to the viscous motion of AJ vortices. If $`HH_{c1}`$, then $`h=(2\pi l/a)^2=H/H_0`$, and

$$R_F=\frac{R\sqrt{H}}{\sqrt{H+H_0}},H_0=\frac{\varphi _0}{(2\pi l)^2}$$
(7)
At $`HH_0`$, Eq. (7) describes $`R_F(H)`$ for AJ vortices, whose cores do not overlap. In this case $`R_F(H)`$ is reminiscent of the 1D Bardeen-Stephen formula, $`R_{BS}R\sqrt{H/H_{c2}}`$, except that in Eq. (7) the core structure is taken into account exactly. For $`H>H_0(J_b/J_d)^2H_{c2}H_{c2}`$, the AJ cores overlap, and Eq. (7) describes a crossover to a field-independent quasiparticle resistance of GB. This regime has no analogs for A vortices, whose normal cores overlap only at $`H_{c2}`$. The simplicity of Eq. (7) enabled us to extract intrinsic GB properties from the measurements of $`R_F(H)`$.

We observed the AJ vortex behavior on $`7^{}`$ $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$, bicrystals with a sharp resistive transition $`\mathrm{\Delta }T<0.4K`$ at $`T_c=91`$K. Thin films of thickness 250 nm were grown on -oriented $`SrTiO_3`$ bicrystals by pulsed laser deposition at 210 mTorr oxygen pressure and $`810^{}`$C, and then annealed in oxygen at 830 Torr and $`520^{}`$C for 30 min. One $`7^{}`$ bicrystal was irradiated with 1GeV Pb ions at a fluence corresponding to 1T. Bridges 25 $`\mu m`$ wide were patterned by Ar ion beam etching on a cooled sample mount to produce a four-point measurement geometry, as described in Ref. cad . The voltage probes were 100$`\mu `$m apart, on either sides of the GB. $`VI`$ curves were measured in a gas-flow cryostat in fields $`0<H<10`$ T. Both samples are in the transition region of $`\vartheta `$ between strongly coupled bicrystals that behave in a manner similar to the single-crystal grains, and weakly coupled bicrystals that demonstrate the Josephson effectm . The intragrain $`J_c`$ values at 77 K were $`0.1MA/cm^2`$ and $`0.27MA/cm^2`$ for the unirradiated and irradiated samples, respectively.

Fig. 3 shows V-I characteristics for the unirradiated sample at 77K and different magnetic fields. The V-I curves exhibit linear flux flow portions in a wide range of $`I`$ above the depinning critical current $`I_{gb}(H)`$ which decreases with H m . In this work we focus on the flux flow region $`II_{gb}`$, where the dynamic resistance $`R_F(H)=dV/dI`$ increases as $`\sqrt{H}`$ at low H, but levels off at higher H. We found that Eq. (7) describes the observed $`R_F(H)`$ very well, thus the vortex cores on this GB overlap at $`HH_0`$, well below $`H_{c2}`$. Because the GB can sustain a finite supercurrent $`I_{gb}`$ even for $`H>H_0`$, the GB vortices lack normal cores. The good fit in Fig. 3 enabled us to extract $`R=4.05m\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`H_0=0.14TH_{c2}`$ by plotting $`1/R_F^2(H)`$ versus $`1/H`$, as shown in Fig. 2. Using Eq. (7), we obtain that $`l=(\varphi _0/H_0)^{1/2}/2\pi =190\AA `$ at 77K, thus vortices on this $`7^{}`$ GB are indeed AJ vortices with phase cores much greater than $`\xi (T)=\xi _0/\sqrt{1T/T_c}40\AA `$ but smaller than $`\lambda =\lambda _0/\sqrt{1T/T_c}4000\AA `$ for $`\xi _015\AA `$, $`\lambda _01500\AA `$, and $`T_c=91`$K.

$`R_F(H)`$ data for the irradiated bicrystal at different $`T`$ are shown in Fig. 4. The good agreement between Eq. (7) and the observed $`R_F(H)`$ enabled us to extract the temperature dependences of $`H_0`$ and $`R`$ shown in Fig. 5. While $`R(T)`$ varies only weakly, the field $`H_0(T)`$ exhibits a parabolic dependence, $`H_0(T)=H_0(0)(1T/T_c)^2`$ with $`H_0(0)42`$T. As follows from Eq. (7), the fact that $`H_0(T)(T_cT)^2`$ implies $`l(T)(T_cT)^1`$, which, in turn, indicates the SNS behavior of $`J_b(T)(T_cT)^2`$, if $`\lambda (T)(T_cT)^{1/2}`$ in Eq. (2). From the data in Fig. 5, we can also obtain the absolute value of the intrinsic depairing current density $`J_b`$ averaged over the Josephson core length $`l`$. To do so, we write Eq. (7) in the form $`J_b=(3J_d/4)\sqrt{6\pi H_0/H_{c2}}`$, which express $`J_b`$ in terms of the measured parameters $`H_0`$, $`H_{c2}=\varphi _0/2\pi \xi ^2`$, and $`J_d=c\varphi _0/12\sqrt{3}\pi ^2\lambda ^2\xi `$. For $`H_{c2}(T)=H_{c2}^{}(T_cT)`$, this yields $`J_b(3J_d/4)[6\pi H_0(0)/T_cH_{c2}^{}]^{1/2}(1T/T_c)^{1/2}`$, whence $`J_b(85K)0.3J_d(85K)`$ for $`H_0(0)=42T`$, and $`H_{c2}^{}=2T/K`$. Likewise we get $`J_b(77K)0.23J_d(77K)`$ for the unirradiated sample, $`(H_0(77K)=0.14T)`$. Therefore, our data indicate a significant suppression of the order parameter, even on the low-angle $`7^{}`$ GB, in agreement with the model of Ref. mod .

For the observed $`H_0(T)`$, the AJ core length $`l(T)=(\varphi _0/H_0(T))^{1/2}/2\pi 11(1T/T_c)^1[\AA ]`$, exceeds the bulk coherence length $`\xi (T)=\xi _0/\sqrt{1T/T_c}`$ at $`T_cTT_c`$, but remains smaller than $`\lambda (T)`$, except very close to $`T_c`$. For instance, we obtain $`l(80K)91\AA `$, while $`\xi (80K)43\AA `$, and $`\lambda (80K)=4300\AA `$. The length $`l(T)`$ also exceeds the GB dislocation spacing $`32\AA `$, thus the moving AJ cores probe GB properties averaged over few current channels between dislocations. The core length $`l(\vartheta )\xi J_d/J_b(\vartheta )`$ increases as $`\vartheta `$ increases, becoming larger than $`\lambda `$, if $`\vartheta >\vartheta _0\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$, in which case AJ vortices turn into J vortices. Since the ratio $`J_b/J_d`$ decreases as $`T`$ increases, higher-angle GBs can exhibit AJ vortices at low T and J vortices at $`TT_c`$, while lower angle GBs have A vortices at low T and AJ vortices at $`TT_c`$.

The depinning current density $`J_{gb}`$ seen in Fig. 3 is due to interactions of AJ vortices with microstructural inhomogeneities along GB and pinned A vortices in the grainsag . Another essential mechanism occurs if the periods of AJ and A vortices do not coincide, resulting in misfit dislocations in the AJ chainkes . These vortex dislocations can strongly limit $`J_{gb}`$ because their intrinsic pinning by the A vortex lattice is exponentially weakkes . For $`HH_{c1}`$, when the AJ and A periods are close, the pinning of a few misfit dislocations in the AJ chain may be thus dominated by macroscopic $`T_c`$ and $`J_b(x)`$ variations along GB caused by facet structures, strain fields, local nonstoichiometry, etc. cai . In this Letter we focus on the flux flow state $`JJ_{gb}`$, where pinning weakly affects $`R_F`$. In this case measurements of $`R_F(H)`$ reveal the essential physics of GB vortices whose moving AJ cores probe intrinsic properties of GBs at the nanoscale, regardless of particular pinning mechanisms which are essential at $`JJ_{gb}`$. Because the observed $`VJ`$ curves are nearly linear above $`J_{gb}(77K,1T)10^410^5A/cm^2J_b(0.20.3)J_d110MA/cm^2`$, the pinning region $`JJ_{gb}`$ is much smaller than the scale of Fig. 2. Thus, the nonlinearitry of $`V(J)`$ due to the AJ core expansion does not affect $`R_F`$ measured at $`J<3J_{gb}`$ so Eq. (7) can be used to fit the data. A similar approach was used to measure the flux flow resistivity of pinned A vortices driven by strong current pulses well above $`J_c`$kunchur .

The case when only a single AJ vortex row moves along the GB, while the intragrain A vortices remain pinned corresponds to low fields, $`H<H_1`$. For $`H>H_1`$, the AJ vortices drag neighboring A vortices in the flux flow channel along GB gc . The field $`H_1`$ can be estimated from the condition that the pinning force $`f=\varphi _0\mathrm{\Delta }H/2a(H)`$ of AJ vortices due to their magnetic interaction with A vortices equals the bulk pinning force $`\varphi _0J_c/c`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=\varphi _0e^{2\pi u/a}/\pi \lambda ^2`$ is the amplitude of the oscillating part of the local field $`H(x)B+\mathrm{\Delta }H\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x/a)`$ produced by A vortices along GB, and $`u`$ is the spacing of the first A vortex row from GBtemp . Therefore,

$$H_14\varphi _0J_c^2(H_1)/c^2\mathrm{\Delta }H^2$$
(8)
Transitions from a single to a multiple row vortex motion cad ; evetts  result in a sharp upturn of the $`R_F(B,77K)`$ curve at $`H_14T`$ in Fig. 4. Here $`H_1`$ for our unirradiated sample ($`J_c=0.1MA/cm^2`$) is 7.3 times smaller than $`H_1`$ for the irradiated one ($`J_c=0.27MA/cm^2`$). For $`\lambda (77K)4000\AA `$, and $`H_1=4T`$, Eq. (8) yields $`u=\mathrm{ln}(c^2H_1\varphi _0/4\pi ^2\lambda ^4J_c^2)/4\pi =0.92a`$.

In conclusion, vortices on low-angle grain boundaries in HTS are mixed Abrikosov-Josephson vortices. Exact solutions for a moving AJ vortex structure, the nonlinear $`VJ`$ characteristic and the flux flow resistivity $`R_F(B)`$ were obtained. From the measurements of $`R_F(B)`$ on a $`7^{}`$ YBCO bicrystal, we extracted the length of the AJ core and the intrinsic depairing current density $`J_b`$ on GB. The analysis proposed in this work can be used for systematic studies of the effect of overdoping dop  on the local suppression of the order parameter and current transport through nanoscale channels between GB dislocations.

This work was supported by the NSF MRSEC (DMR 9214707), AFOSR MURI (F49620-01-1-0464), and by Italian INFM-PRA JT3D.


text:
# Recombination in Semiconductors: Appearance of Non-equilibrium Carriers due to Injection or Redistribution in the Sample

## Abstract

It is shown that the traditional approach for consideration of recombination under condition of steady-state current in the absence of external carrier generation is internally contradictory. Sometimes the approach leads to obviously incorrect results. Such situations are demonstrated and a new method for consideration of recombination is proposed.

In the present paper we would like to consider some internal inconsistencies in the conventional description when we have carrier recombination under condition of steady-state current. Practically all text-booksNewm ; Shokley ; Bonch ; KS ; Zi  present technique to solve the given problem based on the solution of a set of continuity equations:

$$\mathrm{div}𝐣_n=eR_n,\mathrm{div}𝐣_p=eR_p$$

where $`n`$ and $`p`$ are the electron and hole concentration, $`𝐣_{n,p}`$ are the current of electrons and holes, $`R_{n,p}`$ are the electron and hole recombination rate respectively. Here we consider the absencens of external generation of carriers (by light, etc.). Thus the nonequilibrium carriers are a result of injection or accumulation of carriers near potential barriers at interfaces. For small concentration of non-equilibrium carriers $`\delta nnn_0n_0`$, $`\delta ppp_0p_0`$ (where $`n_0`$, $`p_0`$ are concentration of electrons and holes without the current) the recombination rates are widely assumed to be of the following form:

$$R_n=\frac{\delta n}{\tau _n},R_p=\frac{\delta p}{\tau _p},$$
(1)
where $`\tau _n`$, $`\tau _p`$ are life times of electrons and holes respectively.

Obviously, by virtue of charge preservation law an extra condition

$$R_n=R_p$$
(2)
should hold. Although it is not mentioned in the literature that Eq. (2) makes the system overdetermined. Some authorsBonch  use the latter expression as an equation to find the carrier concentration or to reduce by one the number of unknowns in the problem. However, such approach seems to be incorrect because the Eq. (2) is not a new condition for the concentration of non-equilibrium carriers, rather it is the criterion for correctness of the recombination description, and should fulfill identically at any concentration of non-equilibrium carriers. Probably due to this reason other approach frequently is used,Newm ; Shokley ; Bonch ; KS ; Peka ; Zi ; Lamp  assuming

$$R_nR_p=\frac{\delta p}{\tau _p},$$
(3)
where $`\delta p`$ means the non-equilibrium concentration of minority carriers. Just this approach is classical and is used widely both in text-books, and in papers devoted to kinetic phenomena in semiconductors.

This description possesses a serious inconsistency. It becomes especially obvious if we consider injection of majority carriers. From physical reasons it is evident: injected non-equilibrium majority carriers should recombine. While from a formal point of view, as far as non-equilibrium minority carriers do not occur ($`\delta p=0`$) the recombination rates are also equal to zero $`R_n=R_p=0`$. Below we consider more cases, when the conventional description of a recombination is unacceptable.

Elimination of the given inconsistency is not complicated and can be based on the well known formulas presented in the above mentioned text-books. It is easy to get the following expressions for recombination processesBonch  by a sequential statistical consideration of transitions between valence and conduction bands and between the bands and impurity levels (if they are present):

$$R_n=R_p=\alpha (npn_i^2)$$
(4)
for interband recombination and

$$R_n=R_p=\frac{npn_i^2}{\tau _n^0(p+p_1)+\tau _p^0(n+n_1)}$$
(5)
for recombination through an impurity level according to the Shockley-Read model.Srm

Here $`\alpha `$ is the recombination factor, $`n_i`$ is the carrier concentration of the intrinsic semiconductor, $`\tau _{n,p}^0`$, $`n_1`$, and $`p_1`$ are characteristics of the impurity level.

We should emphasize once again that the equality $`R_n=R_p`$ is inherent in correct model and holds identically, not causing overdetermination of the system.

Linearizing these expressions for the case of weak deviation from the condition of thermodynamic equilibrium (the changes of carrier concentrations due to current are small on comparison with their equilibrium values), we have for both cases:

$$R_n=R_p=\frac{\delta n}{\tau _n}+\frac{\delta p}{\tau _p},\text{with }\frac{\tau _n}{\tau _p}=\frac{n_0}{p_0}.$$
(6)
Just these expressions, being used in Eqs. (1), eliminate all mentioned above inconsistencies.

Also let us pay attention to another aspects of the problem. As it is easy to notice from Eqs. (6), in bipolar semiconductors generally it is impossible to introduce correctly a life time of carriers concept. An exception is the case of quasineutralityQN  when $`\delta n=\delta p`$ and the introduction of unified life time of carriers $`\tau ^1\tau _n^1+\tau _p^1`$ becomes possible. In the absence of quasineutrality it is plausible to speak about life time of carriers and to use the conventional approach Eq. (3) only if $`(\delta n/\delta p)(\tau _n/\tau _p)=(n_0/p_0)`$ (here, as it was mentioned above, $`n`$ means concentration of majority carriers). Naturally, the fulfilment of this condition is not a priori obvious.

Let us notice that another baseless idea is widespread, namely presence of only interband recombination is sufficient condition for the equality $`\delta n=\delta p`$ to be fulfilled.Newm ; Bonch ; KS  But there is no proof for this conclusion, and moreover, a case of injection obviously contradicts it.

Thus, in general case for static current either it is impossible to introduce correctly the concept of life time or life times are the same for both electrons and holes.

For the sake of justice we should notice, that as a rule in the literature either injection phenomenaLamp  (when linearized equations are not valid due to high concentration of non-equilibrium carriers) or just the quasineutrality approach are considered. From our point of view, it is just the only explanation why so internally contradictory method to describe kinetic phenomena with the presence of recombination is widely used in many text-books and monographies.

Similar problem arises for description of a surface recombination. Correct expression for it should be obtained from consideration of transitions between the bands and impurity levels both inside the semiconductor, and between bands of different semiconductors (or between bands of the semiconductor and metal in case of a metal-semiconductor contact). The correct expression for the surface recombination rate should ensure identical equality of electron and hole recombination rates at any concentration of non-equilibrium carriers at the contact (as in case of volume recombination). It is obvious that in general case the expression of the following form meets the requirement:

$$S=s_n\delta n+s_p\delta p,$$
(7)
where coefficients $`s_{n,p}`$ should be obtained from microscopic consideration of corresponding transitions.

Some authors use that formula at initial stage of calculations, then giving it up and proceeding to the traditional (but incorrect!) expression $`S_n=s_n\delta n`$, $`S_p=s_p\delta p`$. Rather characteristic consideration is presented in Ref. Peka, , where quasilevels of electrons and holes are assumed to coincide. That, in its turn, implicitly presumes infinite surface (or volume) recombination rate.

The situation becomes more complicated, if there is an inhomogeneous temperature distribution (temperature field) in the semiconductor. It is problematic to choose a concentration which can be considered as a level of reference of non-equilibrium concentration (for example, which one should be taken as the reference: $`n_0(T_0)`$, $`n_0[T(x)]`$, $`n_0[\overline{T}(x)]`$, etc). A way out from this position can be found by successive consideration of process of establishment of “equilibrium” (or in constancy of electrochemical potential in the sample) in the circuit.Gur  Evidently, this method is acceptable only if the temperature field is given. Other, universal and more simple, from our point of view, way to solve this problem is to return to statistical consideration of transitions of carriers between bands and impurity levels in the presence of temperature field. In this case the value of concentration in thermodynamic equilibrium (in the absence of the temperature gradient) or the values corresponding to the mean temperature of the sample can be accepted as the reference level of concentration (i.e. $`n_0`$ and $`p_0`$). This method works as well in the case, when the temperature field should be determined self-consistently.

Thus for interband recombination we come back to expressions (4), where the values $`\alpha `$ and $`n_i`$ are functions of temperature ($`\alpha =\alpha [T(x)]`$, $`n_i=n_i[T(x)]`$). For small deviation from the equilibrium state (after linearization) we receive the following expressions for volume recombination rate in the temperature field:

$$R_n=R_p=\frac{\delta n}{\tau _n}+\frac{\delta p}{\tau _p}+\gamma \delta T,$$
(8)
where $`\gamma (1/2\tau )(n_i/T)`$; $`\delta TTT_0`$; $`T_0`$ is the equilibrium temperature (above-mentioned reference level of temperature). Let us note that in the approximation of small nonequilibrium carrier concentrations ($`\delta nn_0`$, $`\delta pp_0`$) thermal dependence of the recombination factor $`\alpha `$ does not manifest itself.

Thus, the presence of a temperature gradient results in appearance of an additional term in expressions for recombination rates. This term takes into account the change of the rate of thermal generation (which, as it is well known, is proportional to squared concentration of intrinsic semiconductor at given temperature). As far as we know, anywhere but Ref. Gur, , this contribution has not been taken into account in consideration of thermoelectric phenomena.

Finally, if there is no unified temperature of carriers and phonons (for example, hot electrons situationBonch ), it is easy to prove by a similar way that one more term appears in the expressions for recombination rates.It proportional to the heating of carriers:PRB99

$$R_n=R_p=\frac{\delta n}{\tau _n}+\frac{\delta p}{\tau _p}+\gamma (T(x)T_0)+\beta (T_eT_0),$$
(9)
where $`T_e`$ is the temperature of hot electrons, $`T(x)`$ is assumed to be the lattice temperature. The coefficient $`\beta `$ depends on concentration of carriers, the lattice temperature and capture factor of carriers by the impurity level (or corresponding value for interband recombination).

Let us note that a coordinate dependence of electron temperature $`T_e=T_e(x)`$, that is a general case, does not affect the term $`\gamma (T(x)T_0)`$ from Eq. (9), which is the same as in Eq. (8). This is due to the fact that this term describes thermal generation of carriers, which can not be influenced by population of the conduction band (i.e. by electron temperature) just because of huge concentration of free states in the conduction band.

Thus, we would like to pay attention of researchers to the fact, that holding a firm place approach to the description of a recombination in steady-state mode is internally contradictory and in many cases, especially common to modern problems, its hasty application can lead to incorrect results. We would like to mention, as an example, thin-film devices, where it is easy to disturb the quasineutrality and to generate essential gradients of temperature and energy nonequilibrium of carriers due to carriers heating by an applied field.

This work has been partially supported by CONACyT—México.


text:
# ℎ→𝜇⁺𝜇⁻ via gluon fusion at the LHC

## Abstract

We study the observability of the $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay in the Standard Model and the MSSM at the LHC. The observation of the $`h\mu \mu `$ coupling is important to determine whether the Higgs particle that generates mass for the weak bosons is also responsible for mass generation of the second generation of fermions. We find that the signal via the gluon fusion channel is comparable to that from the weak-boson fusion. By combining these two channels, observing $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is feasible at the LHC with a delivered luminosity of $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at $`3\sigma `$ statistical significance for 110 GeV $`<m_h<140`$ GeV in the Standard Model. This corresponds to a $`h\mu \mu `$ coupling determination at about $`15\%`$ accuracy assuming $`ht\overline{t},hb\overline{b}`$ couplings SM-like. The observation becomes more promising in the MSSM for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >8`$ and $`M_A<130`$.

preprint: MAD-PH/01-1253preprint: hep-ph/0201023
I. Introduction

The Higgs mechanism is widely believed to be responsible for the electroweak gauge symmetry breaking and possibly for the fermion mass generation. Searching for Higgs bosons have thus become high priority in future collider experiments, and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that is under construction at CERN has the promise to discover the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson or the counterparts in theories with a Supersymmetric extension LHC . After the initial discovery, it would be more important and more challenging to understand the properties of the Higgs bosons, in particular their couplings to the SM particles. Precisely because of the role of the Higgs bosons in the mass generation mechanism, they couple to the SM particles proportional to their masses. Such characteristics of Higgs bosons should be thoroughly tested at collider experiments.

At the LHC, the SM Higgs ($`h`$) couplings to $`WW,ZZ,t\overline{t},\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$, as well as the loop-induced couplings to $`gg,\gamma \gamma `$ can all be directly probed by combining several production and decay channels LHC ; dieter . At an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, this list can be extended to include $`b\overline{b},c\overline{c}`$ nlc . The next channel anticipated would be $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, which would be the first observation for a Higgs boson to decay to second-generation fermions. It is in fact very important to explore this channel. First, it is necessary to confirm the proportionality of $`m_\mu `$ for the Higgs coupling $`h\mu \mu `$ as predicted by the SM. Secondly, this channel may be sensitive to new physics such as non-universality between $`I_3=\frac{1}{2}`$ fermions in certain classes of SUSY models or induced by radiative corrections. Last but not least, the concept of a muon collider Higgs factory relies on the $`h\mu \mu `$ coupling mc . Due to the rather small branching fraction for $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, it will be very challenging to observe this channel in collider experiments. An early study of this channel at the LHC based on the weak-boson fusion, $`WW,ZZh\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, was carried out til . There would be about $`12\sigma `$ statistical effect obtained at the LHC for an integrated luminosity of $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$. At a future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider with $`\sqrt{s}800`$ GeV and an integrated luminosity of 1000 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$, it may be possible to reach a $`15\%`$ measurement for the $`h\mu \mu `$ coupling eehmumu .

We note that the leading Higgs production at the LHC is via the gluon fusion, yielding the process

$$ggh\mu ^+\mu ^{}.$$
(1)
Because of the large Higgs production rate at the LHC and the very clean experimental signature of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, we are thus motivated to explore this channel and wish to improve the observability of $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. It is important to note that the cross section for the process of Eq. (1) is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hgg)\times BR(h\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$. The partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hgg)`$ is dominated by the top-quark loop in the SM, and will receive contributions from new particles beyond the SM that are colored and couple to $`h`$ significantly. The branching fraction $`BR(h\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ may also deviate from the SM prediction, especially if the new physics contribution breaks the universality between the muon and the $`b`$-quark. We thus expect that the process of Eq. (1) would be sensitive to new physics beyond the SM. As a concrete example, we also include discussions in the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) in our analysis.

II. Signal and Background Studies

We study the signal process of Eq. (1) at the LHC with the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV. We first note that in the SM, the rate of $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channel becomes vanishingly small once the $`hWW^{},ZZ^{}`$ channels are open. We thus concentrate on the mass range

$$110\mathrm{GeV}<m_h<140\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(2)
This is also the mass window favored by supersymmetric extensions of the SM.

Because of the very clean final state of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, we will consider the inclusive channel. We use CTEQ4M structure functions cteq4m . We calculate the signal cross section by normalizing the rate with respect to the output of the packages HIGLU higlu  for the SM and HDECAY hdec  for MSSM. The NLO $`K`$-factor for the Higgs production via gluon fusion is about 2.5 at the LHC energy, larger than that previously reported (around 1.5) higlu  due to increased accuracy in gluon parton density functions at low $`x`$. The Higgs production is treated in the narrow width approximation, which is fully justifiable because the physical Higgs width is much less than the experimental detector resolution. The irreducible SM background comes from the Drell-Yan production

$$q\overline{q}Z^{},\gamma ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}.$$
(3)
We have normalized the background cross section with respect to that with QCD corrections dy . We stress that we will know this DY background quite well from the direct measurement at the LHC experiments.

We simulate the experimental detector coverage by imposing the kinematical cuts on both muons

$$p_T>20\mathrm{GeV},\eta <2.5.$$
(4)
The detector smears the muon momentum approximately to a Gaussian form of a width $`\sigma =1.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ LHC ; til . To optimize the statistical significance, we find that the maximum $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ occurs when this invariant mass window is $`\pm 1.4\sigma `$ around the peak. We thus take the invariant mass as

$$m_h2.24\mathrm{GeV}<m(\mu ^+\mu ^{})<m_h+2.24\mathrm{GeV},$$
(5)
which captures 84% of the signal. An identification efficiency of $`90\%`$ for each muon is also included in our analysis.

We first give the signal and background cross sections in Table I after the cuts and the efficiency factor as discussed above for the Higgs mass range of interest in Eq. (2). For comparison, results for weak-boson fusion are also listed, as taken from Ref. til . Although the signal rate is larger for gluon fusion than that for weak-boson fusion by more than a factor of 40, the background here is substantially larger as well. However, we emphasize that the Drell-Yan background will be precisely measured at the LHC experiments. The systematic effects due to theoretical uncertainties will be minimal. The signal we are looking for is a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ mass peak at an approximately known location on a very well-measured, nearly flat background. In contrast, the weak-boson fusion process yields a signal-to-background ratio of better than $`10\%`$. The further challenge is to understand systematic errors better.

Table II summarizes our SM results combining both ATLAS and CMS detectors. We first give the delivered luminosity needed to reach a 3$`\sigma `$ observation of the signal, which corresponds to the cross section determination to about $`33\%`$ accuracy, as estimated by $`\sqrt{S+B}/S`$. If we assume that the couplings of $`ht\overline{t}`$ and $`hb\overline{b}`$ are known to be SM-like, then the above accuracy of $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ branching fraction determination translates to the $`h\mu \mu `$ coupling determination to about $`17\%`$. We see that combining both signal channels and with two detectors, the typical luminosity needed is about 250 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ to reach this level of accuracy. With 300 fb<sup>-1</sup> delivered to each detector, one can reach a 3.5$`\sigma `$ observation statistically as shown in the last three columns in Table II. This corresponds to $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ branching fraction determination to about $`29\%`$ accuracy, or the $`h\mu \mu `$ coupling determination to 14$`\%`$, assuming $`ht\overline{t},hb\overline{b}`$ couplings SM-like. With extended running or luminosity upgrades, a $`5\sigma `$ observation may be a reasonable expectation. Overall, we see that our results for gluon fusion is quite comparable to the earlier study from weak-boson fusion, and that combining these two channels can significantly improve the observability of $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ at the LHC experiments.

Many theories beyond the SM can lead to significant enhancement for the channel $`ggh\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and thus the signal observation may be easier. As a model-independent generic argument, we study the cross section enhancement factor ($`\kappa `$) over the gluon fusion channel in the SM. The curves in Fig. 1 show the enhancement factor $`\kappa `$ needed to reach a $`3\sigma `$ (solid) and $`5\sigma `$ (dashed) signal via the gluon fusion channel alone versus the Higgs mass $`m_h`$, with both detectors and for a delivered luminosity of $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$. We note that for a low Higgs mass $`m_h<110`$ GeV, the signal observation is difficult primarily because of the overwhelmingly large DY background from the tail of the $`Z`$-pole. On the other hand, for $`m_h>140`$ GeV, the signal observation becomes increasingly difficult due to the fact that the $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channel dies away after the opening of $`hW^{}W,Z^{}Z`$ channels. For the mass range of our current interest $`110\mathrm{GeV}<m_h<140\mathrm{GeV}`$, an enhancement factor of $`\kappa 1.22`$ is needed for a $`3\sigma `$ signal observation and $`\kappa 2.13.3`$ for a $`5\sigma `$ signal observation, for a delivered luminosity of $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$. To present this in another way, given the $`\kappa `$ factor, the luminosity required to observe this channel at an $`S`$ significance level is simply given by:

$$=S^2\frac{\sigma _B}{\kappa ^2\sigma _S^2}$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _B`$ and $`\sigma _S`$ are the background and SM signal cross sections, respectively, presented in Table I. As a concrete example, we will study the enhancement factor in MSSM next.

III. Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

In MSSM there are two Higgs doublets, resulting in 5 physical Higgs states. The relevant parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values, and $`M_A`$, the mass of the CP-odd Higgs state. The $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ mode via gluon fusion may be significantly enhanced in MSSM. First of all, there are SUSY particles such as stops and sbottoms to contribute in the loop. However, there are also subtle cancellations among the diagrams abd . Secondly, for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`b`$ quark and sbottom contributions can be significant. Thirdly , there may be direct contribution from $`A,H\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ LHC ; vb .

We consider the maximal stop quark mixing scenario maxstop , defined by the stop mixing parameter $`X_tA_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta =\sqrt{6}M_{SUSY}`$, where $`A_t`$ is the soft SUSY breaking top Yukawa coupling, $`\mu `$ is the dimensionful Higgs mixing parameter, and $`M_{SUSY}`$ is the mass of the squarks (where all squarks are assumed to be degenerate in mass). The maximal stop mixing scenario gives us larger $`m_h`$ to be consistent with the current LEP2 Higgs mass bound mabound . This also happens to lead to a large production cross section of $`ggh`$ in the low $`M_A`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit. For our simulations in the MSSM we have chosen the parameters $`M_{SUSY}=1`$ TeV, $`\mu =300\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`A_U=A_L=A_D=1.5`$ TeV. The $`h\mu \mu `$ coupling is insensitive to these parameters.

In Fig. 2, we present the enhancement factor $`\kappa `$ for $`ggh\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in MSSM. We see that for low $`M_A`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the enhancement can be substantial, as large as a factor of 20$`30`$ at the edge of the $`M_A`$ exclusion of 91 GeV mabound . This does not include the possible contribution from $`H,A`$ decay yet. As anticipated, in the heavy limit $`M_A>2M_Z`$, we recover the Standard Model result ($`\kappa =1`$). Based on comparison to the SM case as discussed for Fig. 1, we conclude that the $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channel in MSSM can be observed at the $`3\sigma `$ level or better for $`M_A<130`$ GeV and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >8`$ with $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ luminosity delivered.

IV. Conclusions

We have studied the Higgs decay to $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ via gluon fusion process at the LHC in the SM and MSSM. We found that this channel is quite comparable and complementary to the channel from the weak-boson fusion. By including both the gluon fusion channel and the weak-boson fusion channel, and by including the ATLAS and CMS detector, the LHC with 300 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ can observe the $`h\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ to a statistical significance of $`3\sigma `$ over a Higgs mass range of 110 GeV$`<m_h<`$140 GeV. This corresponds to the $`h\mu \mu `$ coupling determination about $`14\%17\%`$ accuracy if assuming $`ht\overline{t},hb\overline{b}`$ couplings SM-like. If nature has chosen large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as is preferred in a large class of SUSY models and as favored by present experimental limits, and in addition $`M_A<130`$ GeV, we might easily observe this channel at the LHC and determine the branching fraction to an accurate level.

Acknowledgments: We thank Uli Baur, Tilman Plehn, Dave Rainwater and Dieter Zeppenfeld for discussions. This work was supported in part by a DOE grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.