text:
# High energy extension of the FLUKA atmospheric neutrino flux

## 1 Introduction

The main motivation of FLUKA calculation of atmospheric neutrino flux is the attempt to minimize as much as possible the theoretical uncertainties connected to the shower and hadronic interaction models. The high accuracy of the algorithms adopted in FLUKA and the wide set of experimental data used to benchmark its hadronic and electro-magnetic interaction models have already allowed the use of this simulation models in many applications where the maximum available precision is requested. FLUKA has been successfully used also in cosmic ray physics. For this reason it is also going to be adopted as an option in the CORSIKA code, at least for interactions below 80 GeV. Our results concerning the atmospheric neutrino flux calculations have been presented in and references therein . There, the other important factors contributing to the systematic uncertainties which are not connected to the FLUKA code, are the atmosphere description, the accuracy of the geomagnetic model, and, as the most important contribute, the knowledge of the primary flux.

The practical problems arising from our approach is that the demand of computer power for very high energy showers may be very large. This is the reason why so far we have presented calculation results only up to about 100 GeV (useful for the analysis of contained events) due to insufficient statistics at higher energy. The low energy sector was also considered less affected by the uncertainty in the primary flux thanks to the high accuracy data from AMS and BESS. This statistical limitation in energy has however prevented the use of FLUKA results for a complete analysis of atmospheric neutrinos, including through–going muons produced by neutrinos with mean energies 50–100 GeV. It has been already shown how this requires the knowledge of neutrino flux up to at least 104 GeV. In the high energy sector the existing available calculations are those coming mostly from faster approaches, like those of Bartol and HKKM. Also the new recent HKKM calculation (HKKM2001) stops in practice at about 1 TeV and makes use of extrapolations and/or simplifications.

In order to overcome this limitations, we have performed an extensive simulation run so to extend the FLUKA calculation of atmospheric neutrino fluxes up to 104 GeV. This has been done in such a way to consider different possible primary spectra. Results are presented in this paper.

## 2 The Calculation Model

We have used the same calculation set-up reported in , where also some details about the physical model are reported. Here the different strategy is to generate neutrinos avoiding the sampling from a unique primary all-nucleon spectrum and instead prepare parallel simulation runs for many different small energy intervals, summing together the results with a proper weighting scheme so to reproduce any desired input spectrum. In this way we could obtain a statistical uncertainty almost independent on energy. We started from few tens of GeV of primary energy and in order to achieve reliable results at a maximum neutrino energy of 104 GeV, we have pushed the maximum nucleon energy up to 106 GeV. The relatively high energy allowed some simplification, avoiding the question of solar modulation and geomagnetic cutoff. Furthermore, the angular distribution for non oscillated flux has been recorded in 10 bins in a single hemisphere.

## 3 Results and Discussion

We have chosen two different primary all-nucleon spectra to present and compare the calculation results. The first one is the 2001 Bartol fit of ref.  taking into account the most recent direct measurements, and that was used as reference in our last work. The second one is the previous Bartol fit to all-nucleon flux of ref. , which was already used by us for the first (before 2001) FLUKA calculations. The updated flux tables, obtained using the 2001 Bartol fit, are available from our web site . Numerical values of the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ flux above 20 GeV are reported in Tables 1 and 2. In Tables3 and 4 we instead report the neutrino flux obtained using the old Bartol fit to primary flux of ref..

In Fig.1 we show the angle integrated flux for muon $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ for the two primary spectra. It is evident that in the high energy sector the choice between the two different options for the primary all-nucleon spectrum has a large impact.

In order to give a quantitative figure of this statement in Fig.2 we also show, as a function of neutrino energy, the ratio of the flux calculated using the old Bartol fit with respect to the one obtained with the 2001 fit (solid line) for $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$. In the same plots we also show the ratio of the Bartol and HKKM2001 flux with respect to FLUKA with the 2001 primary fit.

The difference introduced by using the two primary spectra evidently results from a different weight given to the high energy primary measurements. The highest energy point in the recent high precision experimental measurements from AMS and BESS is at 100 GeV. Higher energy points in the TeV region (essentially from JACEE and RUNJOB) have much larger error bars. There are indeed suspicions that the multi–TeV proton component could be underestimated in the 2001 fit. Assuming to consider the 100 GeV point as a pivot from which a simple power law spectrum ($`E^\gamma `$) is used to extrapolate to the high energy region, we obtain the results shown in Fig.3, by varying the spectral index $`\gamma `$ from 2.6 to 3.0. We also show the flux ratios.

## 4 Conclusions

The FLUKA atmospheric neutrino spectrum calculation has been extended up to 104 GeV, so that it can be used for the analysis of upward going muon experiments. Above 1 TeV, the uncertainty in the primary flux seems to be the most important contribution: it may exceed 20%. In principle this has no impact on the essential feature of experimental analysis, namely the deformation of the angular distribution of upward going muons as induced by oscillations. However, also the absolute normalization has some importance, at least to achieve a better internal consistency. As a first guess, considering the event rate of upward–going muons observed by MACRO and Super–Kamiokande, the results that we obtain using the 2001 Bartol fit seems to exhibit a too low normalization (of the order of 15$`÷`$20 %, if we include oscillations), although this has to be confirmed by detailed analysis performed by the experimental collaborations. Within the statistical uncertainty of the 2001 primary fit, our results are very close to those of the HKKM2001 calculation. A less steep primary spectrum at high energy, as that of ref. , would probably provide a better absolute normalization.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Bartol group (T.K. Gaisser et al.) for providing us with the fits to primary spectrum and to M. Honda for the HKKM flux tables and related information.


format: text

text:
# 1 Phase segregation strength 𝜏 at the dynamic transition between the liquid and glass state as function of the coupling constant 𝜆, obtained by using 2nd-order perturbation theory, the self consistent screening approximation(SCSA) of Refs., and the dynamical mean field theory (DMFT) of Ref., . The diamonds indicate the parameters of the Monte Carlo calculations by Geissler and Reichman where only liquid like behavior was found. The SCSA and DMFT calculations are consistent with the Monte Carlo results whereas the 2nd-order calculation (similar to the mode coupling theory of Ref., ) strongly overestimates glassiness.

Comment on ”The nature of slow dynamics in a minimal model of frustration limited domains” by P. L. Geissler and D. R. Reichman: In a recent paper Geissler and ReichmanGeissler  investigated a model with the Hamiltonian

$$H=𝑑𝐫\left[\frac{1}{2}\varphi \left(\tau +k_0^2\left(^2+k_0^2\right)^2\right)\varphi +\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi ^4\right]$$
(1)
with scalar field $`\varphi \left(𝐫\right)`$ in three dimensions using Monte Carlo simulations.fn1  The parameters of the model are the typical wave number, $`k_0`$, for modulations of $`\varphi `$, the ”segregation strength”, $`\tau `$, between positive and negative $`\varphi `$, and the interaction strength, $`\lambda `$. Many years ago by BrazovskiiBrazovskii  argued that this model may undergo a fluctuation induced first order transition into a lamellar state.

We recently argued that systems described by Eq.1 may also undergo a self-generated glass transition, i.e. can become non-ergodic without the presence of quenched disorderWu02 . This result was based on our earlier workSW ; WSW01  which demonstrated such glassiness in a related model discussed in the context of frustration limited domain formation by Kivelson et al.Kivelson . The qualitative features of that theory were confirmed in mode-coupling calculations and Monte Carlo simulations of the corresponding lattice model by Grousson et al.Grousson1 ; Grousson2 . The theory is based on a replica formalism and two key assumptions were made in Refs.Wu02, ; SW, ; WSW01, : i) Glassiness can be studied within the mean-field replica formalism with one step replica symmetry breaking which was shown to be marginally stable. ii) The self-consistent screening approximation (SCSA), including de Gennes narrowing, for the summation of the perturbation series in $`\lambda `$ can be used. Recently we have been able to avoid this second assumption and found a complete solution of the mean field replica equations by generalizing the dynamic mean field approach (DMFT) of correlated electron modelsdmft2  to the case of glassy systems.dmftglass  Given that our theory still relies on the applicability of the mean-field replica formalism, computer simulations like those of Refs.Grousson1, ; Geissler,  remain crucial for a final judgment on the existence of self generated glassiness in uniformly frustrated systems of this type.

Geissler and Reichman performed Monte-Carlo(MC) calculations and compared the results with two analytical approaches, one, a Hartree theory and the other, a mode coupling theory performed self-consistently up to second order in $`\lambda `$. For $`\lambda =1`$, $`k_0=0.5`$ and $`\tau `$ between $`0.14`$ and $`0`$, good agreement between the MC and Hartree approaches was obtained, whereas the primitive mode-coupling theory yields glassy dynamics already for $`\tau 0.1`$, which was not seen in the Monte Carlo simulations. Thus, the Monte Carlo simulations could not confirm the glassy dynamics found in mode coupling calculations, but rather gave only fast, ”liquid-like” relaxations. Geissler and Reichman concluded that Eq.1 likely does not exhibit glassy dynamics.

In Fig.1 we compare our results for the dynamic transition between the liquid and glass state obtained within the replica formalism and solved by using three different techniques: a self consistent second order theory (similar to the mode coupling theory of Ref.Geissler, ), the SCSA used in Refs.Wu02, ; SW, ; WSW01,  and the complete solution of the replica mean field problem (DMFT) of Ref.dmftglass, . In the second order calculation we determined the liquid state correlation function within Hartree theory, which seems to be closest to the procedure of Ref.Geissler, , who used Monte Carlo results for the liquid structure facture and find that it is similar to the one obtained within the Hartree approach. The diamonds are the results of Geissler and Reichman (Figs.5 and 6 of Ref.Geissler, ) where MC simulations give liquid like behavior. It is obvious from this plot that the results by Geissler and Reichman indeed demonstrate that a second order mode coupling theory gives a poor approximation for the location of the glass transition. However, their results cannot be used to rule out the glass transition we proposed. Within the complete solution of the replica mean field theory this transition should occur only for $`\tau `$-values smaller than $`0.2`$. In fact Fig. 2 of Geissler and Reichman is not inconsistent with a very slow relaxation rate for $`\tau 0.2`$. Clearly, just as for any phase transition, even the best solution of the mean field approach might yield a phase boundary which is different from what the essentially exact Monte Carlo simulation finds. The key aspect of our theory was that even a simple mean field theory leads to a proliferation of metastable states and to an entropy crisis. Thus, self generated randomness emerges according to the random first order transition scenario.KTW89a

That the parameters studied in Ref.Geissler,  are outside the region relevant for glassiness is consistent with their findings that no indication for the first order Brazovskii transition was detected either. We argued in Ref.Wu02,  that the glass transition occurs due to the same type of fluctuations and for similar parameters to the fluctuation induced first order transition proposed by BrazovskiiBrazovskii . The absence of the glass transition could therefore most convincingly be demonstrated by showing the impossibility of achieving cooling rates that exceed nucleation rates.

In summary, the recent Monte Carlo calculations by Geissler and ReichmanGeissler  are not conclusive in ruling out the self-generated glass transition proposed in Ref.SW, . Nevertheless, if performed for parameters relevant for glassy behavior Monte Carlo calculations like theirs would be very useful in judging whether Eq.1 can be considered as a minimal model for glassiness or whether additional ingredients are needed. In addition they offer a powerful tool to study glassy dynamics beyond the limitations of replica mean field theory.

This work has been supported by Research Corporation and Ames Laboratory, operated for the U. S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-82 (J. S. and S.W.) and NSF (P. G. W.), Grant No. ChE-9530680.

Jörg Schmalian, Sangwook Wu

Department of Physics and Astronomy and

Ames Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

Peter G. Wolynes,

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,

University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093


text:
# Diffractive production of dijets by double Pomeron exchange processes

## I Introduction

Since the seminal proposal by Ingelman and Schlein ingelman , the study of hard diffractive processes has become one of the most active and challenging fields in high energy physics. Diffractive dijet production, in particular, has been the object of extensive experimental and theoretical analyses via several processes and in quite different kinematical domains (see, for instance, Ref. jung  for a recent summary overview).

In a recent paper spe , we presented an analysis of diffrative hadroproduction of dijets and W’s via single Pomeron exchange (SPE). In the present paper, we apply basically the same picture to analyze dijet measurements performed by the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) Collaboration dpe\_cdf , but this time via double Pomeron exchange (DPE) processes. Such processes, produced through quasi-elastic $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions, are characterized by large rapidity gaps in the fragmentation regions of both hemispheres and an isolated central hadronic system within which dijet events are found. A phenomenological view inspired by Regge theory allows one to conceive these processes as pure Pomeron-Pomeron interactions (Fig. 1).

DPE phenomenology has been the focus of intense theoretical investigation not only for its intrinsic interest in quite different scenarios varios1 , but also because DPE processes are considered to be one of the main mechanisms leading to Higgs boson production and new physics signals within a very clean experimental environment varios2 . These aspects and the availability of experimental data dpe\_cdf  make evident the importance of further phenomenological studies on central diffractive dijet production via DPE aiming at describing these and more rare events possible to occur by the same reaction channel.

We show here a description of diffractive dijet production via DPE by using a modified version of the Ingelman-Schlein (IS) model ingelman  in which the Pomeron structure function is evolved according to the Dokhshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) evolution formalism dglap . The results obtained via IS model are corrected in order to consider the effect of rapidity gap suppression. This is done according to the scheme developed by Goulianos in Refs. dino ; dino2 .

## II SPE and DPE Cross Sections

We start by recalling the expressions used to calculate dijet production via SPE, which are detailed elsewhere mara . From these expressions, the cross section for dijet production via DPE are readly obtained.

Let us initially consider hadrons $`A`$ and $`B`$ colliding and giving rise to ordinary, nondiffractive (ND) dijet production. In this case, the cross section in terms of the dijet rapidities ($`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$) and transversal energy $`E_T`$ is given by:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\eta }}\right)_{jj}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{partons}}{}}{\displaystyle _{E_{T\mathrm{min}}}^{E_{T\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑E_T^2{\displaystyle _{\eta _{\mathrm{min}}^{}}^{\eta _{\mathrm{max}}^{}}}𝑑\eta ^{}`$ (1)
$`\times x_af_{a/A}(x_a,\mu ^2)x_bf_{b/B}(x_b,\mu ^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}}\right)_{jj}`$
where

$$x_a=\frac{E_T}{\sqrt{s}}(e^\eta +e^\eta ^{}),x_b=\frac{E_T}{\sqrt{s}}(e^\eta +e^\eta ^{}),$$
(2)
with

$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T}{\sqrt{s}E_Te^\eta }}\eta ^{}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}E_Te^\eta }{E_T}}`$ (3)
and

$`E_{T\mathrm{max}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{e^\eta +e^\eta }},`$ (4)
being that $`E_{T\mathrm{min}}`$ and the $`\eta `$ range are determined by the experimental cuts.

Equations (1)-(4) summarize the leading-order QCD procedure to obtain the nondiffractive dijet cross section (next-to-leading-order contributions are not essential for the present purposes; see Ref. mara ). In order to obtain the corresponding expression for SPE processes according to the IS approach, we assume that one of the hadrons, say hadron $`A`$, emits a Pomeron whose partons interact with partons of the hadron $`B`$. Thus the parton distribution $`x_af_A(x_a,\mu ^2)`$ in Eq. (1) is replaced by the convolution between a putative distribution of partons in the Pomeron, $`\beta f_{𝙸𝙿}(\beta ,\mu ^2)`$, and the “emission rate” of Pomerons by $`A`$, $`g_{𝐈𝐏}(\xi ,t)`$. This last quantity, $`g_{𝙸𝙿}(\xi ,t)`$, is the so-called Pomeron flux factor whose explicit formulation in terms of Regge theory is given below. By using this procedure and defining $`g(\xi )_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑tg_{𝙸𝙿}(\xi ,t)`$, one obtains mara

$`x_af_A(x_a,\mu ^2)={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi g(\xi )\frac{x_a}{\xi }f_{𝐈𝐏}(\frac{x_a}{\xi },\mu ^2)}.`$ (5)
By inserting the above structure function into Eq. (1), the cross section for diffractive hadroproduction of dijets via single Pomeron exchange can be expressed as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{SPE}}{d\eta }}\right)_{jj}={\displaystyle \underset{a,b,c,d}{}}{\displaystyle _{E_{T_{min}}}^{E_{T_{max}}}}𝑑E_T^2{\displaystyle _{\eta _{min}^{}}^{\eta _{max}^{}}}𝑑\eta ^{}{\displaystyle _{\xi _{min}}^{\xi _{max}}}𝑑\xi g(\xi )\beta _af_{a/𝙸𝙿}(\beta _a,\mu ^2)x_bf_{b/\overline{p}}(x_b,\mu ^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{abcd}}{d\widehat{t}}}\right)_{jj},`$ (6)
where $`\beta _a=x_a/\xi `$, with $`x_a`$ and $`x_b`$ given by Eq. (2), and $`\xi _{min}`$ and $`\xi _{max}`$ established by experimental cuts.

The process we are interested in, however, is a particular form of diffractive production in which both $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ emit Pomerons giving rise to dijet production in the central region, accompanied by rapidity gaps in both hemispheres (Fig. 1).

In terms of the IS model, the reaction that effectively occurs is $`𝐈\mathrm{𝐏𝐈}𝐏\mathrm{𝐣𝐞𝐭}\mathrm{𝐣𝐞𝐭}`$ and so the respective cross section must involve two convolution products of flux factor and structure function. From Eq. (6), the differential cross section in terms of variables appropriate for the present analysis becomes

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{DPE}}{d\eta _{_{boost}}}}\right)_{jj}={\displaystyle \underset{a,b,c,d}{}}{\displaystyle 2𝑑\eta ^{}𝑑E_T^2\beta _af_{𝐈𝐏}(\beta _a,\mu ^2)g_N(\xi _p)𝑑\xi _p\beta _bf_{𝐈𝐏}(\beta _b,\mu ^2)g_N(\xi _{\overline{p}})𝑑\xi _{\overline{p}}\left(\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{abcd}}{d\widehat{t}}\right)_{jj}},`$ (7)
where the new rapidity variables are $`\eta _{_{\mathrm{boost}}}=(\eta +\eta ^{})/2`$, $`\eta ^{}=(\eta \eta ^{})/2`$, and $`\beta _{a(b)}=x_{a(b)}/\xi _{p(\overline{p})}`$, with $`\xi _{p(\overline{p})}`$ giving the momentum fraction carried by the Pomeron emitted by the proton (antiproton) vertex. In the flux factors $`g_N(\xi _{p,\overline{p}})`$, the index $`N`$ indicates that the normalization procedure described below has been applied.

An important element of the IS approach is the Pomeron flux factor, which enters the calculations via Eq. (5). It was originally proposed to be taken from the invariant cross section of (soft) diffractive dissociation processes as it is given by the triple Pomeron model ingelman . Here we apply for $`g_{𝐈𝐏}(\xi ,t)`$, the Donnachie-Landshoff parametrization donna  that, before integration over $`t`$, reads

$$g_{𝙸𝙿}(\xi ,t)=\frac{9\beta _0^2}{4\pi ^2}F_1^2(t)\xi ^{12\alpha _{𝐈𝐏}(t)},$$
(8)
where $`F_1(t)`$ is the Dirac form factor,

$$F_1(t)=\frac{(4m^22.79t)}{(4m^2t)}\frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{0.71})^2}.$$
(9)
Our choice for the Pomeron trajectory in Eq. (8) has been $`\alpha _{𝐈𝐏}(t)=1.2+0.25t`$, which is compatible with both Fermilab Tevatron and DESY ep collider HERA data.

Since the flux factor above violates unitarity, we have employed the (re)normalization procedure proposed by Goulianos dino ,

$`g_N(\xi )={\displaystyle \frac{g(\xi )}{_{\xi _{min}}^{\xi _{max}}g(\xi )𝑑\xi }},`$ (10)
which has been recast in terms of rapidity gap survival probability in Ref. dino2 .

The final element to compose the model, the Pomeron structure function, was chosen to be a three-flavor quark singlet at the initial scale, $`\mu _0^2=2GeV^2`$, with the gluon component being generated by DGLAP evolution. The parametrization used for the valence quark distribuition bas been

$`\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }(\beta ,Q_0^2)=`$ $`[A_1\mathrm{exp}(A_2\beta ^2)+B_1(1\beta )^{B_2}]\beta ^{0.001}`$ (11)
$`+C_1\mathrm{exp}[C_2(1\beta )^2](1\beta )^{0.001},`$
which includes different contributions of soft, hard, and superhard profiles according to the chosen parameters. The results presented below were obtained with the following parameters: $`A_1`$ = 4.75 and $`A_2`$ = 228.4 for the soft part, $`B_1`$ = 1.14 and $`B_2`$ = 0.55 for the hard one, and finally $`C_1`$ = 2.87 and $`C_2`$ = 100 for the superhard term. DGLAP evolution of the Pomeron parton densities has been processed by using the program QCDNUM qcdnum .

This parametrization has been successfully employed in a recent study spe  aiming at describing diffractive dijet and W production via SPE (see discussion below). Besides the Pomeron structure function described above, some calculations for non-diffractive and SPE processes presented below require ordinary parton densities. Those were taken from Ref. gluck .

## III Results and Discussion

The magnitudes of the different components of the Pomeron structure function (soft, hard, and superhard) given above have been established such that not only would the integrated cross sections of several processes approximately match the experimental data, but also the shape of differential cross sections would resemble those obtained by the experiments. The former aspect has already been shown in Ref. spe , the latter is presented in this section for both SPE and DPE processes in Figs. 2 and 3.

Figure 2 shows dijet differential cross sections for SPE processes calculated with a version of Eq. (6) in which $`d\sigma /d\eta `$ is transformed into $`d\sigma /d\xi `$. These results have been obtained with the kinematical constraints corresponding to those of the D0 experiment dzero  in which both central ($`|\eta |<1.0`$) and forward ($`|\eta |>1.6`$) jets have been measured for the center-of-mass energies 630 and 1800 GeV. The different components of the Pomeron structure function mentioned above have been established such that the $`d\sigma /d\xi `$ cross sections shown here would reproduce the main features presented by the corresponding experimental $`\xi `$ distributions (see Fig. 4 of Ref. dzero  for comparison). We refer the reader to spe  for results in terms of integrated cross sections.

The normalized dijet rapidity distributions presented in Fig. 3, corresponding to ND, SPE, and DPE processes, were constructed assuming that antiprotons are coming from the right-hand side (RHS) while protons from the left-hand side (LHS). For the ND case, we have a symmetrical distribution peaked at the central region with no gaps, as it is supposed to be. For SPE processes, antiprotons are quasielastically scattered, keeping around 90% or more of their momenta. Slow partons from the Pomeron (emitted by $`\overline{p}`$) interact with on average much faster partons from the protons, giving rise to a dijet distribution shifted to the RHS hemisphere and leaving a rapidity gap on the LHS hemisphere, where the antiproton is detected. For DPE processes, we have rapidity gaps in both sides, as expected. In this case, the central distribution is slightly shifted to the left because we have applied cuts corresponding to the experiment dpe\_cdf , $`0.035<\xi _{\overline{p}}<0.095`$ and $`0.01<\xi _p<0.03`$, and consequently the distribution is boosted towards the antiproton fragmentation region.

Although these theoretical distributions are not appropriate for direct comparison with the available experimental information, we notice that they bear great resemblance with the CDF data (see Fig. 3(b) of Ref. dpe\_cdf ).

Finally, in Table I, we show that our prediction for the DPE cross section, obtained by integrating Eq. (7) within the experimental limits, is below but close to the upper limit established in Ref. dpe\_cdf .

In summary, we have presented here a variation of the Ingelman-Schlein model which allows one to obtain a reasonable description of the available experimental information on diffractive dijet production via double Pomeron processes. Taken as a whole, the results presented above and those shown in Ref. spe  lend a considerable support to the picture presented here in spite of the existing theoretical objections collins .

## IV Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Brazilian governmental agencies CNPq and FAPESP for their financial support.

## V Figure Captions

Fig. 1 - Schematic view of hadrons A and B interacting via double Pomeron exchange and giving rise to dijets in the central region.

Fig. 2 - Dijet differential cross sections for single Pomeron processes corresponding to the constraints of the D0 experiment dzero . Forward jets correspond to $`|\eta |>1.6`$ and central jets to $`|\eta |<1.0`$. The corresponding center-of-mass energy is specified in each figure.

Fig. 3 - Theoretical predictions of dijet rapidity distributions for non-diffractive (ND), single Pomeron exchange (SPE), and double Pomeron exchange (DPE) processes (see text for details).


text:
# Quantum Limits of Stochastic Cooling of a Bosonic Gas

## Abstract

The quantum limits of stochastic cooling of trapped atoms are studied. The energy subtraction due to the applied feedback is shown to contain an additional noise term due to atom-number fluctuations in the feedback region. This novel effect is shown to dominate the cooling efficiency near the condensation point. Furthermore, we show first results that indicate that Bose–Einstein condensation could be reached via stochastic cooling.

Ultracold atomic gases are generated by laser cooling laser-cooling , evaporative cooling evap-cooling  or sympathetic cooling symp-cooling . These techniques have been successful in preparing Bose–Einstein condensed bec  and Fermi degenerate fermi  atomic gases. These states of matter have proven important in both the fundamental physics of weakly interacting many-body systems mott  and in applications atom-laser ; bec-micro . Nonetheless, these cooling methods have some limitations. For example, laser cooling requires closed-cycle transitions, evaporative cooling leads to a loss of a significant fraction of the atoms, and sympathetic cooling requires careful selection of buffer species with sufficiently large scattering cross sections.

A much more general strategy that avoids these limitations is stochastic cooling stochastic-cooling . It is a Maxwell-demon strategy that uses information obtained from measurement to coherently reduce the energy of part of the system. Stochastic cooling is based on the repeated application of a feedback loop. The cooling is obtained by the combination of measurement and controlled Hamiltonian interaction during the feedback operation. The interaction provides an energy exchange with an external field and the preceeding measurement ensures the irreversibility of this exchange. In this way the feedback mechanism may be thought of as acting as a dissipative reservoir. Classically cooling occurs due to the extraction of information on the phase-space localization of particles, and its subsequent use to reposition the particles, leading to a phase-space compression stochastic-cooling .

In high-energy physics it has been employed for cooling the transverse degree of freedom of a particle beam stochastic-cooling . A measurement of the transverse momentum of a fraction of the particles is made. A control field sets the momentum to zero, which together with a subsequent remixing of the particles leads to phase-space compression and cooling of the transverse motion. Recently, stochastic cooling was proposed for trapped atoms and it was shown that both momentum measurement and shift could be realized by optical fields stochastic-raizen . The required remixing of atoms is provided here by the oscillation in the trap. Moreover, interactions between atoms, such as collisions, may provide a further enhancement of this remixing. Classical calculations for a 1D atomic gas showed a pronounced cooling effect stochastic-raizen , so that stochastic cooling may perhaps be an alternative to standard cooling methods.

However, to best of our knowledge, it is not yet known to what temperatures such a method eventually will cool the atoms and whether, for example, Bose–Einstein condensation can be reached. Technical heating effects, that are inherent in the proposed optical implementation, have been discussed stochastic-raizen . However, the fundamental limits of such a cooling method, due to the discreteness of atoms and their quantum correlations, seem to be unexplored. A reason for the lack of knowledge of these limits may be that many-atom correlations play a central role. The atoms cannot be treated as individual entities, which would considerably simplify a theoretical description, but require a quantum many-atom description wal-feedback .

Measurement in quantum mechanics always leads to a back-action in the conjugate variable, and one might expect that this will saturate the cooling at ultralow temperatures. It will be shown in this Letter that a further fundamental heating mechanism arises from the quantum fluctuations of the number of atoms in the feedback region. To reach ultralow temperatures, this heating has to be circumvented, which will be shown to be possible by the choice of the feedback region. We treat stochastic cooling in a fully quantum-field theoretical way and show initial results that indicate the possibility of reaching Bose–Einstein condensation.

The feedback loop of stochastic cooling consists of a measurement of the total momentum $`\widehat{P}_w`$ of the atoms in the feedback region and a subsequent interaction in the same spatial region that compensates for the observed value $`P`$, i.e., shifts the total momentum to zero. The spatial region where atoms are subject to the feedback is defined by the beam of a laser field that implements the measurement and subsequent shift, cf. Ref. stochastic-raizen . For simplicity we consider the case where the laser beam is aligned along the $`z`$ axis and the beam waist $`w`$ shall be a step-like function in the $`xy`$-plane, cf. Fig. 1.

Note that in $`z`$-direction no spatial restriction is assumed.

The measurement and subsequent shift shall occur without time delay and on timescales much smaller than the intrinsic timescale of the system $`1/\omega _0`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the trap frequency of the 3D isotropic, harmonic potential. Then the entire feedback loop approximately acts instantaneously in time. Furthermore, we take into account the resolution $`\sigma `$ of the measurement of momentum $`\widehat{P}_w`$, that is determined by external optical fields implementing the measurement.

The feedback acts on the many-atom density operator $`\widehat{\varrho }`$ as

$$\widehat{\varrho }_+=𝑑P\widehat{U}(P)\widehat{M}(P\widehat{P}_w)\widehat{\varrho }_{}\widehat{M}^{}(P\widehat{P}_w)\widehat{U}^{}(P),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{\varrho }_{}`$ are the many-atom density operators before ($``$) and after ($`+`$) the feedback. The measurement is described by the positive operator-valued measure $`\widehat{M}`$, where $`|M(P)|^2`$ is a Gaussian of width $`\sigma `$. The unitary operator $`\widehat{U}(P)=\mathrm{exp}[iP\widehat{Q}_w]`$ implements the subsequent shift of the measured momentum $`P`$ to zero remark . The final density operator is found by averaging over all possible measurement outcomes.

Using the bosonic atom-field operator $`\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫)`$ with commutator $`[\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫),\widehat{\varphi }^{}(𝐫^{})]=\delta ^{(3)}(𝐫𝐫^{})`$, the measured total momentum $`\widehat{P}_w`$ and the center-of-mass $`\widehat{Q}_w`$ of atoms in the feedback region are

$`\widehat{P}_w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _w}𝑑A{\displaystyle 𝑑z\widehat{\varphi }^{}(𝐫)(i_z)\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫)},`$ (2)
$`\widehat{Q}_w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{e}}}{\displaystyle _w}𝑑A{\displaystyle 𝑑z\widehat{\varphi }^{}(𝐫)z\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫)},`$ (3)
where $`dA`$ is integrated over the beam waist $`w`$. Their commutator is $`[\widehat{Q}_w,\widehat{P}_w]=i\widehat{N}_w/N_\mathrm{e}`$, where the operator of the number of atoms in the feedback region is

$$\widehat{N}_w=_w𝑑A𝑑z\widehat{\varphi }^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫).$$
(4)
Note that in Eq. (3) the estimated number of atoms $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ is used and not the proper operator $`\widehat{N}_w`$: Since, roughly speaking, in the Schrödinger picture $`\widehat{U}(P)=_i\mathrm{exp}(iP/N_\mathrm{e}\widehat{q}_i)`$, where $`\widehat{q}_i`$ is the coordinate of the $`i`$th atom, each atom is shifted by $`P/N_\mathrm{e}`$. That is, since the true atom number is unknown — it is not measured — an estimate for the atom number, $`N_\mathrm{e}`$, has to be employed for properly shifting each atom’s momentum.

For cooling we are interested in the average energy that is subtracted by the feedback from the set of non-interacting atoms,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\widehat{H}_+\widehat{H}_{},$$
(5)
Here $`\widehat{H}`$ is the Hamiltonian of the atoms in the harmonic trap potential and $`\mathrm{}_\pm =\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\varrho }_\pm \mathrm{})`$. After a detailed calculation, using the results of Ref. wal-feedback , we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ consists of both cooling and heating terms.

Firstly, consider an expansion of the kinetic energy of the center of mass of the atoms in the feedback region, around the estimated atom number $`N_\mathrm{e}`$:

$$\widehat{P}_w^2/(2m\widehat{N}_w)=\widehat{P}_w^2/(2mN_\mathrm{e})(1\delta \widehat{N}_w/N_\mathrm{e}+\mathrm{}),$$
(6)
where $`\delta \widehat{N}_w=\widehat{N}_wN_\mathrm{e}`$. Following Ref. wal-feedback  we find that only the zeroth- and first-order terms of this expansion appear in the energy change $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$: the expectation values of higher-order corrections exactly cancel each other. The leading term represents the cooling of the system by feedback. For this term, the energy removed is $`\widehat{P}_w^2_{}/(2mN_\mathrm{e})`$. With $`m`$ being the atomic mass, $`N_\mathrm{e}m`$ is the estimated total mass of the atoms in the feedback region, and $`\widehat{P}_w`$ is their total momentum. Thus this is the negative (estimated) kinetic energy of the center-of-mass of the atoms in the feedback region. According to (2), this term contains atom-atom correlations of the form $`\widehat{\varphi }^{}(𝐫_1)\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫_2)\widehat{\varphi }^{}(𝐫_3)\widehat{\varphi }(𝐫_4)`$ — a clear indication that in the quantum regime stochastic cooling cannot be described as a single-atom problem.

The first-order correction in Eq. (6) is found to give rise to a heating contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ of the form $`\delta \widehat{N}_w\widehat{P}_w^2_{}/(2mN_\mathrm{e}^2)`$. From Eq. (6) it can be seen, that this heating is due to non-optimal shifts of total momentum produced by atom-number fluctuations around the estimated value $`N_\mathrm{e}`$. Another way to see this is to consider a many-atom quantum state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ after a perfect measurement ($`\sigma =0`$) of $`\widehat{P}_w`$ with outcome $`P`$. It shall also be an eigenstate of $`\widehat{N}_w`$ with $`N`$ atoms in the feedback region, i.e., $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=|P,N`$. After the momentum shift the state becomes $`\widehat{U}(P)|P,N=|P(1N/N_\mathrm{e}),N`$. That is, the momentum will be shifted to zero only if $`N_\mathrm{e}=N`$. Given that the system in general is in a state of imprecise atom number, choosing $`N_\mathrm{e}=\widehat{N}_w`$ will only produce the correct momentum shift on average. Therefore, atom-number fluctuations in the feedback region are transferred into momentum fluctuations, that lead to the observed residual kinetic energy. This poses a fundamental limit to the perfect operation of the feedback loop and thus to stochastic cooling 111Additional well-resolved measurements of $`\widehat{N}_w`$ in each feedback could avoid this, if done without additional heating..

Moreover, since a measurement is involved in the control loop, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ contains also measurement-induced heating terms: Since the total momentum is measured with resolution $`\sigma `$, this fluctuations of the total momentum leads to a residual kinetic energy of the center of mass of the atoms in the feedback region. Together with the correction factor $`\widehat{N}_w_{}/N_\mathrm{e}`$ that accounts for the difference between estimated and average atom number, the resulting heating term is $`\sigma ^2/(2mN_\mathrm{e})\times \widehat{N}_w_{}/N_\mathrm{e}`$. Clearly a measurement of total momentum with resolution $`\sigma `$ induces back-action noise $`\sigma ^1`$ into the center of mass of the measured atoms. This noise leads to an increase in potential energy (i.e. heating) of the center of mass in the harmonic trap, which is found to be $`mN_\mathrm{e}\omega _0^2/(8\sigma ^2)\times \widehat{N}_w_{}/N_\mathrm{e}`$. Given these contributions, the total change of energy due to a single feedback operation is then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=(\frac{\sigma ^2}{2mN_\mathrm{e}}+\frac{mN_\mathrm{e}\omega _0^2}{8\sigma ^2})\frac{\widehat{N}_w_{}}{N_\mathrm{e}}+\frac{\delta \widehat{N}_w\widehat{P}_w^2_{}}{2mN_\mathrm{e}^2}\frac{\widehat{P}_w^2_{}}{2mN_\mathrm{e}}.$$
(7)
To achieve optimal cooling $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ should be as negative as possible which is achieved by minimizing the heating terms. The optimal measurement resolution, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{opt}}=\mathrm{\Delta }p_0\sqrt{N_\mathrm{e}}`$, minimizes the measurement-induced heating \[first term in Eq. (7)\] to $`\frac{1}{3}E_0\widehat{N}_w_{}/N_\mathrm{e}`$, where $`E_0`$ is the ground-state energy of a single atom remark . Choosing this value, the squared measurement resolution per atom equals the squared ground-state momentum uncertainty of a single atom, $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_0`$. Since the number of atoms in the feedback region changes with temperature, the estimate $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ should have a temperature dependence. Thus $`\sigma _{\mathrm{opt}}`$ should be adapted during the cooling process, if possible, to provide maximum cooling. For further optimisation the size and location of the feedback region in the $`xy`$-plane (cf. Fig. 1) is of major importance. Here we consider only particular cases; a more detailed study of the optimization will be presented elsewhere. In particular, we focus on temperatures near the condensation point, to demonstrate that in principle Bose–Einstein condensation can be reached with stochastic cooling.

We have calculated the expectation values in Eq. (7) using the grand-canonical ensemble for a system at temperature $`T`$ and with average total number of atoms $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. In this way we obtain the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ on the temperature for fixed $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, as shown in Fig. 2 for $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}=10^6`$ atoms.

If the feedback region is centered with respect to the trap potential, it has substantial overlap with the condensate wavefunction. In this case (solid curve), when the temperature is gradually decreased, there is a sudden change from cooling to heating at the condensation temperature $`T_0`$. This effect is due to dramatic atom-number fluctuations of the condensate fraction at temperatures close to the phase transition 222See S. Grossmann and M. Holthaus, Phys. Rev. E 54, 3495 (1996); M. Wilkens and C. Weiss, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 1801 (1997). . These fluctuations lead to a substantial heating due to the second term in Eq. (7).

This problem can be avoided by choosing a feedback region that has no spatial overlap with the nascent condensate and is thus not affected by its large atom-number fluctuations. In this case the energy removed per step gradually diminishes below $`T_0`$, though cooling still takes place (dashed curve). On the other hand, the energy subtraction per step at $`TT_0`$ is slightly smaller than for a centered feedback region. An advantageous strategy is therefore to gradually move the feedback region out of the trap center when approaching the condensation temperature.

Our present results lead us to the conclusion that neither quantum measurement effects nor the lack of knowledge of the precise number of atoms in the feedback region in principle prevent Bose–Einstein condensation by stochastic cooling. However, we have said nothing about the speed at which condensation may be reached. A conclusive answer on this issue requires that the cooling rate be dynamically calculated using the method described in Ref. wal-feedback . For now we proceed with an equilibrium approach that represents a worst-case scenario: Starting at temperature $`T_i`$ we calculate the energy subtraction $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(T_i)`$, and thus a new average energy. From this energy a new temperature $`T_{i+1}`$ is obtained by assuming the equilibration of the system during the free evolution after the feedback. That is, we assume that due to collisions the atoms exchange energy and re-establish a new equilibrium state. Iterating this calculation many times we obtain the dependence of temperature on the number of feedback operations, as depicted in Fig. 3.

Starting with a temperature of $`7.6\mu `$K, condensation is reached after about $`10^7`$ feedback operations. Again a feedback region outside the trap center is advantageous when reaching $`T_0`$ (dashed curve).

In a realistic experiment stochastic cooling is performed without waiting for re-equilibration between feedback operations 333Remixing of atoms happens on the faster timescale $`1/\omega _0`$.. Then non-vanishing coherent amplitudes of the momentum $`\widehat{P}_w`$ will appear depending on the oscillation phase, i.e., the (randomly chosen) time of the subsequent feedback operation. Since $`\widehat{P}_w^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{P}_w)^2+\widehat{P}_w^2`$, the feedback then not only reduces momentum fluctuations $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{P}_w)^2`$, as for a thermal state, but also subtracts the energy due to the non-equilibrium coherent amplitudes $`\widehat{P}_w^2`$ \[cf. Eq. (7)\]. The latter leads to additional energy subtractions as compared to our equilibrium approach. One can thus expect a much faster cooling process, so that our results (cf. Fig. 3) represent the upper limit of the required number of feedback operations.

Our calculations have shown that increasing the size of the feedback region further increases the cooling efficiency. Unfortunately, for enlarged feedback regions an increased number of trap levels is required, which presently runs into limitations of our numerics. For finding optimal strategies and parameter ranges of stochastic cooling we intend to implement in the near future a dynamical calculation wal-feedback . Then the dependence of the cooling rate on size and location of the feedback region can be studied in full detail.

It is worth noting, that the considered feedback regions could be easily realized in experiment by application of optical fields stochastic-raizen . The ground-state position variance of sodium atoms is approximately $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_0=0.6\mu \mathrm{m}`$ for a trap of frequency $`\nu =500`$Hz. Beam waists of externally applied laser fields, that implement measurement and shift, can be chosen in a wide range limited only by optical wavelengths, which are much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_0`$. Thus sizes of the feedback region much smaller and much larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_0`$ could be realized.

Note also, that the geometry used here is different from that in Ref. stochastic-raizen . Raizen et al. considered a one-dimensional model where the feedback region was restricted in that same direction. They concluded that finer spatial resolution of the feedback region leads to increasing cooling efficiencies. In our 3D geometry that scenario would correspond to a restriction of the feedback region also in $`z`$ direction, say to a size $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. Then the measurement can resolve momenta only within a resolution that is enlarged by $`1/(2\mathrm{\Delta }z)`$. This however, may decrease the amount of subtracted energy. The latter effect is absent in the classical calculation as performed in Ref. stochastic-raizen . For now we cannot confirm the predicted increase of cooling efficiency with increased spatial resolution in $`z`$ direction, since such a scenario would lead to non-trivial modifications in Eq. (7).

In conclusion by using a quantum-field theoretical approach we have derived the energy change of feedback operations of stochastic cooling of trapped bosonic atoms. Besides the heating due to the quantum measurement and the sought subtraction of kinetic energy, we have shown that stochastic cooling is strongly governed by a noise term that is due to atom-number fluctuations in the feedback region. This effect becomes dominant at the condensation point where atom-number fluctuations are large. This detrimental heating effect can be ameliorated by the choice of the feedback region. It has been further shown that condensation temperatures can in principle be reached. Our results are based on an equilibrium approach and higher cooling efficiencies are expected for a non-equilibrium dynamics as realizable in experiment. Future investigations with fully dynamically solutions will provide further insight into stochastic cooling with respect to optimization of cooling rates.

This research was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst.


text:
# Cooper pair cotunneling in single charge transistors with dissipative electromagnetic environment

, amplifiers BOT , etc. Since the Josephson supercurrent itself is of an elastic nature, tunneling of Cooper pairs in such circuits is dramatically influenced by the Coulomb interaction and dissipation.

The tunneling in the two-junction system (single Cooper pair transistor) with a dissipative environment was recently theoretically studied by Wilhelm et al. Wilhelm  and experimentally investigated by Kycia et al. Kycia  and Lu et al. Lu  who used the advantage of locally tunable dissipation associated with the conductance of 2DEG beneath the transistor structure. These papers were focused on the regime of sequential tunneling of Cooper pairs (STCP) dominating when the electric potential of the transistor island was tuned ”in resonance” (see parameter diagram in Fig. 3 of Ref. Wilhelm ). Although a quantum regime of simultaneous pair tunneling across both junctions, i.e. cotunneling of Cooper pairs (CTCP), was roughly evaluated in Ref. Wilhelm , it had not been, to our knowledge, studied experimentally.

Under the term ”cotunneling” we understand discrete tunneling of $`single`$ Cooper pairs across a whole transistor cotunn . Although numerous experiments show that Cooper pair transistors without deliberately attached resistors exhibit either a gate-dependent switching current at ramp-current bias or a current peak at low voltage bias (see, e.g., Ref.Amar ), these data indicate to a through supercurrent. Due to unavoidable dissipation leading to fluctuations of the overall Josephson phase $`\varphi `$, the observable value of the supercurrent is non-zero at finite transport voltage. Phase $`\varphi `$ is still a good variable, while the number of transferred Cooper pairs is meaningless, so the term ”single” is not applicable to this regime.

When an appreciable impedance is introduced into the network, i.e. $`\mathrm{Re}Z=RR_Q=h/4e^26.45`$k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, quantum fluctuations of phase $`\varphi `$ increase dramatically, and this leads to incoherent tunneling of individual pairs across the transistor, i.e. CTCP. In this paper we investigate the CTCP effect in Al transistors with thin-film Cr local resistors of different values $`R`$ inserted into the bias leads. We observe the gate and bias voltage dependencies of CTCP current and demonstrate that a significant suppression of CTCP at small bias voltage can be achieved by a further increase in the resistance $`R`$.

The Cooper pair transistors were fabricated using the angle evaporation technique for three metal shadows (Cr/Al-1(oxidized)/Al-2) evaporated at different angles through the same mask. Details of the fabrication process can be found elsewhere Napoli . We put on the same chip a number of nominally identical symmetrical transistors (with tunnel junctions of type Al/AlOx/Al with dimensions 40 nm $`\times `$ 80 nm) differing only in the lengths of the Cr microstrips (each 0.1 $`\mu `$m - wide and 7 nm - thick), ranging from 0.32 $`\mu `$m to 3 $`\mu `$m. The specific film resistivity was from 5.5–7 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ per $`\mu `$m of length yielding values of resistance $`R`$ in the range of 2–20 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The measurements were performed in the dilution refrigerator at the base temperature of about 20 mK. The sample was mounted in a copper shielding box. All bias and gate lines were supplied with microwave filters, made of Thermocoax® cable located in the coldest part of the setup. The electric diagram of the sample bias is shown in the upper inset on Fig. 1. The normal-state tunnel resistance of the transistors, $`R_{\mathrm{tr}}=R_1+R_2`$, where $`R_{1,2}`$ are tunnel resistances of individual junctions, was remarkably uniform and ranged from 40 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to 44 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The superconducting gap and the corresponding values of the Ambegaokar-Baratoff critical current of the junctions (assuming symmetry of the transistors) were estimated to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Al}}200\mu `$eV and $`I_c^016`$ nA, respectively. These data yield a characteristic Josephson energy of junctions $`E_{J1,J2}=E_J\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\pi }I_c^0`$ 30 $`\mu `$eV, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{h}{2e}`$ is the flux quantum. From the normal-state $`IV`$ curves we evaluated a characteristic charging energy of the transistor island $`E_ce^2/2C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ 150–160 $`\mu `$eV, where $`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }=C_1+C_2+C_g530`$ aF (typical value) is the total capacitance of the island and $`C_{1,2}=C260`$ aF and $`C_g9`$ aF $`C`$ are the capacitances of junctions and gate, respectively. Due to the small $`C_g`$, the gate-induced charge is fixed, $`Q_0=C_gV_g+Q_{00}`$, where $`Q_{00}`$ is the background charge. The reasonably small ratio of characteristic energies in our samples, $`\lambda _0=E_J/E_c0.2`$, allowed us both clear observation and transparent interpretation of the CTCP effect ($`\lambda _0^4`$). Moreover, linearity and small resistor lengths let us consider them as lumped elements (pure resistors) and neglect in our model their distributed self-capacitance ($``$ 60 aF/$`\mu `$m).

$`IV`$ characteristics of superconducting single charge transistors are generally featured by several contributions to the net current. These contributions result from the tunneling of Cooper pairs, single quasiparticles and combining tunneling of both pairs and quasiparticles. At small transport voltage and temperature ($`eV,k_BT2E_c,2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Al}}`$), the tunneling of quasiparticles cannot make a notable contribution to the net current because of the exponentially large subgap resistance. In this limit, the Cooper pair (Josephson) current component is dominant. Still, the rare events of quasiparticle tunneling (poisoning of the island) at $`|Q_0|e/2`$ were possible and they resulted in 1e-periodic gate dependence of the $`IV`$ curves (see bottom inset in Fig. 1). Therefore, slow ramping of the gate voltage (when measuring gate-modulation curves) provided cyclic variations of the polarization charge on the island $`Q_0`$ in the range from $`e/2`$ to $`e/2`$. Within this range of $`Q_0`$, change of the island charge by 2e would require an energy $`\delta E_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ ranging between $`2E_c`$ (at $`Q_0=\pm e/2`$) and $`4E_c`$ (at $`Q_0=0`$). Therefore, the process of Cooper pair transfer with ”landing” on the island, i.e. the STCP, was exponentially suppressed, $`\mathrm{exp}(\delta E_{\mathrm{ch}}/k_BT)`$, so only the CTCP contributed to the net current.

Figure 1 shows the $`IV`$ curves of three samples with resistance $`R`$ of nominally zero value (the actual impedance in this case is of the order of the vacuum impedance $`Z_0377\mathrm{\Omega }`$, although its frequency dependence is unknown), 3 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and 5 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. One can see a remarkable change from the peak (cf. Fig. 1 in Ref. Amar ) to step-like and then to an almost linear shape of the $`IV`$ curve that can be interpreted as a growth of fluctuations of the total Josephson phase leading to a depression of the supercurrent feature.

A similar behavior of a single junction was described by Averin et al. AvNazOd  in terms of incoherent tunneling of pairs yielding current $`I=2e[\mathrm{\Gamma }(2eV)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2eV)]`$ and a tunneling rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)=\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{}}E_J^2P(E),$$
(1)
where the function $`P(E)`$ with $`E=2eV`$ describes the probability of energy dissipation in the environment network. The experimental observation of this regime was reported by Kuzmin et al. Kuzmin .

In the case of a transistor, one may consider $`E_J`$ in Eq. (1) as an effective Josephson coupling dependent on the gate voltage $`V_g`$. To support this idea, we observed the shapes of the $`IV`$ curves similar to those given by the $`P`$-theory for single junctions with ohmic environment AvNazOd ; IngGrab . Moreover, the observed shapes were immutable to $`V_g`$ whose variation led only to scaling of the current.

To model the behavior of our $`IV`$ curves, we present the Josephson coupling term of the transistor Hamiltonian, $`H_J=E_{J1}\mathrm{cos}\phi _1E_{J2}\mathrm{cos}\phi _2`$, in the form

$$H_J(\varphi ,\phi )=E_J^{\mathrm{tr}}(\varphi )\mathrm{cos}\left[\phi +\gamma (\varphi )\right],$$
(2)
where $`E_J^{\mathrm{tr}}=\left(E_{J1}^2+E_{J2}^2+2E_{J1}E_{J2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi \right)^{1/2}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma =\left[\left(E_{J1}E_{J2}\right)/\left(E_{J1}+E_{J2}\right)\right]\mathrm{tan}(\varphi /2)`$ and $`\varphi =\phi _1+\phi _2`$ ($`\phi _i`$ is the phase drop across the $`i`$-th junction). The difference phase $`\phi =\frac{1}{2}(\phi _1\phi _2)`$ is a variable conjugate to the island charge $`Q=2ei\frac{}{\phi }`$. $`Q`$ enters the charging energy term $`H_{\mathrm{ch}}(Q)=E_c[(Q+Q_0)/e]^2`$. For a given value of operator $`\varphi `$, the transistor Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{tr}}=H_{\mathrm{ch}}(Q)+H_J(\varphi ,\phi )`$ is similar to that of a single junction. Taking the fact into account that the commutator $`[\varphi ,H_{\mathrm{tr}}]=0`$, we can diagonalize $`H_{\mathrm{tr}}(\varphi ,\phi ,Q)=H_{\mathrm{tr}}(\varphi ,q,n)`$ in the basis of the Bloch states $`|q,n`$, where $`q`$ is the quasicharge and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ the band index LiZo . Assuming that only the ground state, $`n=0`$, is occupied (i.e., the effects of thermal, photon-assisted and Zener breakthrough excitations of higher bands are negligibly small) and noting that variable $`q`$ is decoupled from environmental degrees of freedom due to small $`C_g`$ and fixed by $`V_g`$, we present the transistor Hamiltonian as

$$H_{\mathrm{tr}}=E_0[\lambda (\varphi ),Q_0].$$
(3)
Here $`E_0`$ is the ground state energy of an equivalent single junction with variable ratio $`\lambda =E_J^{\mathrm{tr}}(\varphi )/E_c2\lambda _0`$ and $`q=Q_0`$. $`E_0`$ is $`2\pi `$-periodic function of $`\varphi `$ and $`2e`$-periodic function of charge $`Q_0`$ and its shape depends on the relation between $`E_{J1,J2}`$ and $`E_c`$.

Due to the periodic dependence on $`\varphi `$, the Hamiltonian Eq. (3) can be expanded into a Fourier series

$$H_{\mathrm{tr}}(\varphi ,Q_0)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_J^{(k)}(Q_0)\mathrm{cos}(k\varphi ).$$
(4)
For $`Q_0emod(2e)`$ or/and at notable asymmetry of the transistor, $`E_{J1}E_{J2}`$, the terms with $`k=0`$ and 1 are dominating in Eq. (4). This is in accordance with almost sinusoidal supercurrent-phase relation Zorin-IEEE  with effective critical current $`I_c^{\mathrm{tr}}(Q_0)=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}E_J^{(1)}(Q_0)`$ modulated by gate (see corresponding plots for different values of $`\lambda _0`$ in Fig. 2a of Ref.Zorin-prl1 ). In particular, in the symmetric transistor with $`\lambda _01`$, $`I_c^{\mathrm{tr}}`$ can be found explicitly from Eqs. (4)-(5) of Ref. Zorin-prl1  using the wave functions given by Eq. (A11) of Ref. LiZo , i.e.,

$$I_c^{\mathrm{tr}}(Q_0)=\frac{\lambda _0}{4}\left[1\left(Q_0/e\right)^2\right]^1I_c^0.$$
(5)
In the degenerate case of $`Q_0=emod(2e)`$ and $`E_{J1}=E_{J2}=E_JE_c`$, the ground state energy Eq. (3) is $`E_0E_J|\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}|+`$const, while the maximum critical current is $`I_c^{\mathrm{tr}}(e)0.5I_{c1,c2}`$. The Fourier coefficients in Eq.(4) are equal to

$$E_J^{(k)}(e)=\frac{4}{\pi }\frac{(1)^{k1}}{(2k)^21}E_J,k1,$$
(6)
so the amplitudes of the principal (first harmonic) term $`E_J^{(1)}(e)0.42E_J`$ and the ratio $`|E_J^{(2)}(e)/E_J^{(1)}(e)|=0.2.`$

The expansion Eq. (4) presents the transistor Hamiltonian as a weighted sum of operators $`e^{\pm ik\varphi }`$, each describing tunneling of a cluster of $`k`$ Cooper pairs through the transistor in the positive (negative) direction. This presentation enables particular rates for tunneling of $`k`$ pairs, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(E)`$, to be found and the total current to be calculated via the corresponding sum.

Due to finite impedance $`R`$, the phase $`\varphi `$ couples to the environmental degrees of freedom via an operator of phase on the resistor $`\varphi _R`$: $`\varphi =\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}Vt\varphi _R`$. Phase $`\varphi _R`$ is related to the infinite set of bath variables. The effect of this coupling can be treated by means of function $`P`$ determined by the charge of the tunneling particle (cluster of particles), temperature and the real part of total impedance $`Z`$ as seen by the tunneling charge Devoret .

In our case, the real part of the impedance is equal to

$$ReZ(\omega )=R\mathrm{/}\left[1+\left(\omega RC_{\mathrm{tr}}\right)^2\right],$$
(7)
where the transistor capacitance $`C_{\mathrm{tr}}=\frac{C_1C_2}{C_1+C_2}\frac{C}{2}`$ (corresponding to the characteristic charging energy of $`4E_c`$) and the tunneling charge is equal to $`2ke`$. The rates, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(E)=\frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{}}[E_J^{(k)}]^2P(E)`$, and the total cotunneling current,

$$I_{\mathrm{cot}}=2e\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k[\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(2keV)\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(2keV)],$$
(8)
are found perturbatively, assuming $`0.5E_J/4E_c=\lambda _0/81`$. If $`Q_0`$ not close to $`e`$, the term with $`k=1`$ is essential, and the cotunneling current is given by the formula similar to that derived by Ingold et al. IngGrab  for tunneling across a single junction at $`2eV\mathrm{}/RC`$,

$`I_{\mathrm{cot}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0[I_c^{\mathrm{tr}}(Q_0)]^2}{4E_c}}e^{2\gamma \rho }\rho ^{2\rho }\left({\displaystyle \frac{2E_c}{\pi ^2k_BT}}\right)^{12\rho }`$ (9)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\rho j\left(eV/\pi k_BT\right)\right]\right|^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\rho )}}\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{eV}{k_BT}}\right),`$
where $`\rho =R/R_Q`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Gamma function and $`\gamma 0.577`$ Euler’s constant. The perturbation theory result, Eqs. (8)-(9), is valid if $`I_{\mathrm{cot}}\rho I_c^{\mathrm{tr}}`$. The latter condition means that the cotunneling events are rare and incoherent and this is nicely obeyed in our experiment.

Expression (9) pretty well gives the transport and gate voltage dependencies as well as the magnitude of the measured current (see calculated curves in Fig. 1). The values of the fitting parameters $`R`$ and $`E_J`$ are in good agreement with their estimated values (10% and 13% deviation, respectively), while the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the resistor was found to be 90 mK (cf. bath temperature of 20 mK). This value matches with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=7080`$ mK found in the same setup in measurements of the three-junction Al-Cr single electron pump with local resistors Pump  and can be ascribed mostly to a noise effect.

We achieved the CTCP regime in the range of the gate charge $`|Q_0|\frac{e}{2}`$. The gate modulation depth of cotunneling current was found to be $`dI_{\mathrm{cot}}(\frac{e}{2})/I_{\mathrm{cot}}(0)2`$, that is in agreement with the value given by Eq. (5), i.e. $`d=[I_c^{\mathrm{tr}}(\frac{e}{2})/I_c^{\mathrm{tr}}(0)]^2=\frac{16}{9}1.78`$ factor2 . Approaching the points $`Q_0=\pm e`$ one could expect an increase in the cotunneling current by a factor of $`(2/\lambda _0)^210^2`$, but in these points STCP dominates because effective dissipation for tunneling across either junction is notably smaller than that for CTCP, $`\rho \rho /4`$ Wilhelm . As a manifestation of such behavior in our samples, we observed a current increase by more than two orders of magnitude when we applied a fast ($``$1 MHz) gate voltage sweep of amplitude $`>e/C_g`$. Such sweep allowed quasiparticle poisoning of the island to be avoided for short time intervals when passing the regions $`Q_0\pm e`$.

Finally, an issue of particular interest is the suppression of CTCP at larger dissipation, i.e. at $`R>R_Q`$ OBS-Zor . The increase in $`R`$ should lead to a blockade behavior of the $`IV`$ curves at small $`V`$ and development of a broad current peak moving to $`V=\frac{4e}{C}`$. The latter feature can hardly be clear observed in experiment because at such a large voltage other current components (quasiparticle and combined pair-quasiparticle tunneling) are significant Kuzmin . On the other hand, for small voltages between $`k_BT/2e`$ and $`e/C`$, cotunneling still dominates and for its estimation one can apply the zero temperature expansion of function $`P`$ Devoret  and will get

$$I_{\mathrm{cot}}=I_0\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)^{2\rho 1},\mathrm{where}I_0=\frac{\pi \rho e^{2\gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }_0(I_c^{\mathrm{tr}})^2}{32\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\rho )E_c}$$
(10)
and $`V_0=\frac{2e}{\pi \rho C}`$. Thus, the CTCP current obeys the power law, i.e. it is efficiently suppressed at large $`\rho `$. This effect was demonstrated and the results are presented in Fig. 2. Although the experimental voltage range was rather limited, the data are in good agreement with the dependence Eq. (10) for parameter values close to those estimated from measurements.

In conclusion, the obtained results on measurements of CTCP are also of practical importance, e.g., for improving the performance characteristics of the Cooper pair pumps. In the latter devices, CTCP may significantly degrade the accuracy of charge pumping Geerligs . In contrast to the normal junction case, an increase in the number $`N`$ of junctions in the superconducting pump array seems to be not suitable for suppressing unwanted CTCP Pekola . On the other hand, the use of local resistors Pump ; CP-Rpump  ensures such suppression and, therefore, is promising for the construction of an accurate Cooper pair pump with a reasonable number ($`N=35`$) of junctions in the array.

This work was partially supported by the EU through the COUNT and SQUBIT-2 projects.


text:
# Weak Localization in an Ultradense 2D Electron Gas in 𝛿-doped Silicon

(May 16, 2003)

## Abstract

An ultradense 2D electron system can be realized by adsorbing PH3 precursor molecules onto an atomically clean Si surface, followed by epitaxial Si overgrowth. By controlling the PH3 coverage the carrier density of such system can easily reach $``$1014 cm-2, exceeding that typically found in GaAs/AlGaAs structures by more than two-three orders of magnitude. We report on a first systematic characterization of such novel system by means of standard magnetotransport. The main findings include logarithmic temperature dependence of zero-field conductivity and logarithmic negative magnetoresistance. We analyzed the results in terms of scaling theory of localization in two dimensions.

Physics of 2D electron systems (2DES) have been traditionally explored using the cleanest systems available to date, most exclusively GaAs/AlGaAs-based heterostructures and quantum wells.rev  While the mobility of GaAs/AlGaAs systems can be very high, in excess of $`10^7`$ cm2/Vs, the carrier density is typically limited to the $`10^{11}`$ cm-2 range. During the last decade, 2D systems of much greater density have been fabricated in Si, e.g. by overgrowing boron ($`p`$-type)weir  or antimony ($`n`$-type)citrin  adlayers at low temperatures ($`T450`$ K). Recently, we have reported on a fabrication of an ultradense Si-based 2DES in which the electrons are donated by a layer of phosphorous atoms.tcapl  The ability of e-beam patterned Si hydride surfaces to selectively adsorb the PH3 makes this particular system especially promising for fabrication of atom-scale electronic structures in single-crystal Si.ts  In the fabrication process, a room temperature adsorption of PH3 precursor molecules onto an atomically flat Si surface was employed to deposit the $`\delta `$-layer, followed by low-temperature overgrowth. Since the carriers remain confined to a dopant plane by electrical fields, strong short-range scattering significantly limits the mobility (typically, $`\mu 10^2`$ cm2/Vs). On the other hand, this is a rather unusual system, as the carrier density, $`n`$, can easily reach $`10^{14}`$ cm-2 exceeding those typically found in GaAs-based systems by two orders of magnitude.

In this paper we report on a first systematic electrical characterization of an ultradense 2DES residing on a $`\delta `$-layer of P in single-crystal Si. Employing conventional magnetotransport methods, we have performed conductivity measurements in a variety of experimental conditions, at temperatures, $`T`$, from 0.3 to 100 K, and in magnetic fields of up to 5 T. The temperature dependence of the zero-field conductivity showed a drastic reduction between 30 and 20 K in all samples followed by logarithmic behavior at lower $`T`$. In addition, negative magnetoresistance was observed in magnetic fields up to 5 T which exhibited the characteristic logarithmic dependence as well. While observed logarithmic regimes strongly suggest weak localization in such systems, there are some signatures of the importance of the correlation effects. In particular, the enhancement of the normalized coefficient $`p`$ in the $`\mathrm{ln}`$($`T`$/K) correction may point out onto electron-electron interaction effects, which were previously thought to be unimportant.

Fig. 1 depicts the confinement potential due to ionized $`\delta `$-layer and the electron wavefunctions in the lowest two subbands. Parameters of our samples are presented in Table 1. The dimensionless parameter, $`r_s=[a_B^{}\sqrt{\pi n}]^1`$, is the ratio of the Coulomb interaction energy to the Fermi energy, where $`a_B^{}=ϵ\mathrm{}^2/m^{}e^2`$ is the effective Bohr radius. An effective mass $`m^{}=0.26m_0`$ and a dielectric constant $`ϵ=11.9`$ are used. The smallness of $`r_s`$ ($`<1`$) indicates that our 2DES is in the ultradense regime.

By studying the correlation between the PH3 coverage and the carrier density, obtained from Hall measurements, we have earlier concludedtcapl  that samples became insulating when average inter-particle spacing approaches the Bohr radius in Si ($`r_\mathrm{B}25`$ Å), suggesting small redistribution of P atoms during Si overgrowth. Sample C presented here has the lowest PH3 coverage we have achieved to ensure the conduction at low $`T`$. On the other hand, we have also noticedtcapl  that raising the PH3 coverage above 30% may result in density reduction due to formation of defects causing incomplete donor activation. This situation is realized in sample B, where only about 50% of donors are electrically active.

To make electrical connections to the ultradense 2DES we evaporated four AuSb pads along the perimeter of a square ($``$3 mm by 3 mm) sample and then annealed at 200 C for ten minutes. Resistance as a function of temperature and magnetic field was measured in a 3He/14T superconducting magnet system using a conventional four-terminal van der Pauw technique(most appropriate for our sample geometry) and low-frequency (7-13 Hz) lock-in detection.

In Fig. 2(a) we present zero-field resistance, $`R_{xx}`$, for samples A, B, and C, as a function of temperature. For comparison we also include the data from the Si substrate shown by dotted line. As expected, the substrate becomes insulating at low $`T`$, which confirms that carriers in other samples are from the phosphorous $`\delta `$-layer embedded into the Si crystal. On the other hand, resistance of the samples (A, B, and C) show a tendency to saturate, after steep increase between 30 and 20 K, and remains finite down to low temperatures. We also note that while samples have different parameters, the resistance traces cross in one point, $`T^{}27`$ K. In Fig. 2(b) we present the conductivity, $`\sigma _{xx}=1/\rho _{xx}`$ ($`\rho _{xx}=\pi R_{xx}`$/ln2), for samples A, B, and C, converted from the resistance data shown in Fig. 2(a). Plotted on a semi-log scale, data from all the samples under study show roughly linear dependence at $`T<20`$ K. Such logarithmic behavior has been routinely observed in thin metal filmscu ; pt  and was explained in terms of scaling theory of localization in two dimensions.lr  We emphasize that the logarithmic $`T`$-dependence, that is observed in our samples below 20 K, is exclusive for 2D, further confirming two-dimentionality of our system. As was pointed out by Thouless,th  inelastic scattering processes give rise to random fluctuations in the time evolution of an electronic state therefore suppressing quantum interference necessary for localization. In this picture, assuming that elastic scattering dominates, e.g. $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{in}}`$, the electron diffuses a distance, called dephasing length, $`L_{\mathrm{th}}=\sqrt{D\tau _{\mathrm{in}}}`$, where $`D`$ is the diffusion constant. Inelastic scattering time typically increases at low temperatures as $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}T^p`$), an therefore the dephasing length becomes $`T`$-dependent, $`L_{\mathrm{th}}T^{p/2}`$. As scale-dependent localization effects are limited to this lengthscale, the temperature dependence of the 2D conductivity is expected to be logarithmic:lr

$$\sigma (T)=\sigma _0+\frac{pe^2}{\pi h}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _0=ne^2\tau /m^{}`$ is Drude conductivity ($`n`$ and $`m^{}`$ are carrier density and effective mass respectively) and $`p1`$. In addition to that, there is also exist a correction due to electron-electron correlation effects which is also logarithmic with $`T`$ in 2D lr . Since to the lowest order the corrections are additive, the parameter $`p`$ will be modified if electron-electron interactions are present.

Due to extremely high density of our system, one would normally expect non-interacting behavior, i.e. $`p1`$. However, fitting our data with Eqn. 1 (cf. dotted lines in Fig. 2(b)) results in $`p34`$ for all samples (i.e., 3.1, 4.1, and 3.0 for A, B, and C, respectively). The fact that $`p`$ for sample B is greater than in other samples may be related to the considerably higher donor coverage and/or incomplete donor activation. Previous studies on Cucu  and Ptpt  thin films, as well as on ultradense 2D hole system,weir  all reported $`p1`$. To distinguish between the weak localization and electron-electron correlation effects, one typically has to perform magnetotransport studies, as the localization is also expected to produce characteristic negative magnetoresistance.

In a magnetic field a new length scale appears, namely the size of the first Landau orbit, or magnetic length, $`\lambda =\sqrt{\mathrm{}/eB}`$, which decreases with magnetic field. Once its size becomes comparable to the dephasing length, $`L_{\mathrm{Th}}`$ the localization is suppressed and the corresponding correction to the conductivity is described by:alt

$$\delta \sigma (B)=\frac{e^2}{\pi h}\left[\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{x}\right)+\mathrm{ln}x\right]$$
(2)
where $`\psi `$ denotes the digamma function and $`x=(2L_{\mathrm{Th}}/\lambda )^2B`$. In the low field limit ($`x1`$) it reduces to a parabolic function, but in the opposite case ($`x1`$) digamma function becomes a constant ($`\psi (1/x+1/2)\psi (1/2)=\gamma 2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}21.96`$) and we arrive at the logarithmic dependence:

$$\delta \sigma (B)=\frac{e^2}{\pi h}\mathrm{ln}(B)+\mathrm{const}$$
(3)
It is important to note, that the localization theory in 2D predicts a universal slope value for magnetoconductivity which is a combination of fundamental constants.

While all our samples showed similar magnetic field dependence, here we concentrate on the data acquired using sample A, which has the highest mobility, $`\mu =38`$ cm2/Vs ($`\tau `$ 5.6 fs). In Fig. 3(a) we present longitudinal resistance, $`R_{xx}`$, as a function of magnetic field taken at $`T=0.4`$ K, and immediately observe sharp negative magnetoresistance peak, mainly confined to $`|B|<1`$ T. To compare our observations with the theory, we convert the data to magnetoconductivity defined as $`\delta \sigma (B)=\sigma _{xx}(B)\sigma _{xx}(0)`$, where $`\sigma _{xx}(B)=\rho _{xx}(B)/(\rho _{xx}^2(B)+\rho _{xy}^2(B))1/\rho _{xx}(B)`$. In Fig. 3(b) we plot the $`\delta \sigma (B)`$ in a semi-log scale and observe clean logarithmic dependence in the higher field range, i.e. at $`B`$ 0.1 T. Moreover, the slope value is in excellent agreement with the theory as indicated by the dotted line representing the universal slope of $`e^2/\pi h`$. While the slope is universal, the intercept with $`B=0`$ axis is system-dependent as it bears the information about the localization properties. Fitting our data with Eqn. 2 (not shown) we estimate the value for the dephasing length $`L_{\mathrm{Th}}0.13`$ $`\mu `$m, which translates into the inelastic scattering time, $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}6.2`$ ps in our sample; as expected, $`\tau _{\mathrm{in}}\tau 5`$ fs.

In summary, we have investigated the electrical properties of the novel, ultradense 2DES realized by P $`\delta `$-doping in single-crystal Si. In particular, temperature and magnetic field dependence of the conductivity were measured down to 3He temperatures and magnetic fields up to 5 T. $`B`$\- and $`T`$-induced corrections to the conductivity showed characteristic logarithmic dependence, pertinent to a 2D system with weak localization effects. Unexpected enhancement of the normalized coefficient $`p`$ in the correction may point onto importance of the electron-electron interaction effects.

We thank Y. C. Chang for helpful discussions on the electronic structure of this system. This work is supported by NSF-DMR9875129 (TCS), ARDA/ARO DAAD 19-00-1-0407, and DARPA-QuIST DAAD 19-01-1-0324.