text:
# Evidence for the positive-strangeness pentaquark 𝚯⁺ in photoproduction with the SAPHIR detector at ELSA

## 1 Introduction

The quark model has been extremely successful in accounting for the observed meson and baryon states and their quantum numbers. Ground–state baryons are grouped into an octet 8 and a decuplet 10 with total angular momentum $`\mathrm{J}^\mathrm{P}=1/2^+`$ and $`3/2^+`$, respectively. The successful prediction of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and of its mass  and its subsequent experimental discovery  was a cornerstone in establishing SU(3) symmetry. The pattern of excited baryons was understood in terms of three quarks obeying the Pauli principle (see, e.g.  and refs. therein). The discovery of the J/$`\psi `$  and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$  families gave final support to the quark model. The development of QCD as renormalizable field theory  and the observation of the partonic structure of nucleons in deep inelastic scattering  seemed to pave the way for an eventual understanding of the structure of hadronic matter.

A completely different approach to understand the nucleon was proposed by Skyrme. He suggested that the low-energy behaviour of nucleons can be viewed as spherically symmetric soliton solution of the pion field. In this view, the baryonic nature of the nucleon is not due to quarks carrying baryon quantum number $`B=1/3`$. Instead, the baryon number is interpreted as topological quantum number of the pion field .

A fascinating consequence of this view is the prediction of an anti–decuplet $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$. It contains a state with exotic quantum numbers, with strangeness $`S=+1`$ and $`\mathrm{J}^\mathrm{P}=1/2^+`$ . Walliser estimated the mass of this exotic state to be at about 1700 MeV . Diakonov et al. assigned the $`\mathrm{N}(1710)\mathrm{P}_{11}`$ to the non-strange member of the anti–decuplet thus fixing the mass of the exotic $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ to 1530 MeV , a value consistent with the prediction of Weigel one year later . Due to its intrinsic strangeness and low mass, the only allowed strong–interaction decay modes of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ are $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{pK}^0`$. Its width is predicted to be narrow. In quark models, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ has a minimal quark content $`\mathrm{uudd}\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$ and is called pentaquark. In the soliton model, it is the lowest–mass state beyond the conventional octet and decuplet baryons. A recent survey can be found in .

These predictions stimulated an active search for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. At SPring-8(LEPS), a $`4.6\sigma `$ $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ peak was reported in the reaction $`\gamma ^{12}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{K}^{}\mathrm{X}`$ . Cuts were applied to select quasi–free processes on the neutron. After correction for the Fermi momentum, the mass was determined to $`(1540\pm 10)`$ MeV. The observed width was compatible with the instrumental resolution. An upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<25`$ MeV was derived. The DIANA collaboration at ITEP  reported a $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0\mathrm{p}`$ enhancement produced in low-energy $`\mathrm{K}^+`$ Xe collisions, with $`\mathrm{M}=(1539\pm 2),\mathrm{\Gamma }<9`$ MeV and a statistical significance of $`4.4\sigma `$.

At Jlab, a significant $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ peak was observed with the CLAS detector in the exclusive reaction $`\mathrm{d}(\gamma ,\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{K}^{}\mathrm{p})\mathrm{n}`$. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is photoproduced off the neutron and subsequently decays into $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$. Only in case of $`\mathrm{K}^{}\mathrm{p}`$ rescattering, the proton received sufficient momentum to be detected; the neutron was identified by the missing mass . The peak in the $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ mass distribution had a statistical significance of $`5.3\pm 0.5\sigma `$; it was found at a mass of $`(1542\pm 5)`$ MeV, its width was compatible with the resolution (FWHM = 21 MeV). The authors did not see a peak in the $`\mathrm{pK}^+`$ mass distribution. Since the CLAS acceptance for $`\mathrm{pK}^+`$ is not the same as that for $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$, they cautiously suggested the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ should have isospin zero. A preliminary study of the $`\mathrm{n}\pi ^+\mathrm{K}^{}\mathrm{K}^+`$ final state produced by photoproduction off protons by the CLAS collaboration  suggests a $`4.3\sigma `$ peak in the $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ invariant mass distribution recoiling (in the centre–of–mass system) against a $`\mathrm{K}^{}`$.

In this letter we present evidence for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ in photoproduction of the $`\mathrm{nK}^+\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ final state off protons. A diagram which may contribute is shown in Fig. 1.

## 2 Experimental method

The reaction

$$\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{nK}_\mathrm{s}^0\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{with}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{decay}\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}$$
(1)
was measured with the SAPHIR detector  at ELSA. SAPHIR is a magnetic spectrometer covering a solid angle of approximately $`0.6\times 4\pi `$ and the full polar range $`0<\vartheta <\pi `$. The ELSA electron beam produced photons via bremsstrahlung in a copper foil radiator. The energies of the scattered electrons were determined in the tagging system for photon energies from 31 % to 94 % of the incident electron energy which was 2.8 GeV for the data presented in this letter. The photon beam passed through a liquid hydrogen target (3 cm in diameter and 8 cm in length). Non–interacting photons were detected in a photon counter. The coincidences of tagger and photon counter determined the photon flux.

The target was located in the centre of a central drift chamber with 14 cylindrical layers. Charged particles leaving the target were bent in the field of a C-shaped magnet allowing for a measurement of momentum and sign of charge. The momentum resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p`$ for 300 MeV/c particles in the central drift chamber was approximately 2.5 %. In forward direction a planar drift chamber improved the momentum resolution to about $`1`$ %. The central drift chamber was surrounded by a scintillator wall to measure the time of flight (ToF). The minimum momentum to detect tracks of charged pions and protons was 50 and 150 MeV/c, respectively, with a track detection threshold depending on the position of the production vertex in the target. The data presented here were taken in 1997 and 1998 with a trigger requiring at least two charged particles. About $`1.3310^8`$ events were recorded. The data were used to determine cross sections for photoproduction of strange mesons and baryons ,,, and of $`\omega `$ , $`\eta ^{}`$ , and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$  mesons.

## 3 Evidence for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$

We observe the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ in the reaction

$$\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Theta }^+\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0;\mathrm{\Theta }^+\mathrm{nK}^+;\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}$$
(2)
The neutron is identified in a kinematical fit using one constraint; the neutron momentum is reconstructed from energy and momentum conservation. Fig. 2a shows the $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ invariant mass distribution after cuts explained below. A clear signal is observed at $`1540`$ MeV above a smooth background. The fit ascribes $`63\pm 13`$ events ($`4.8\sigma `$) to the peak. By counting the four bins around the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ centre we get 55 events above background and 56 below, corresponding to a statistical significance of $`5.2\sigma `$.

To determine mass and width we simulated reaction (2) by Monte Carlo, generating a narrow $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. The resulting $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ mass distribution (after event reconstruction) is used as resolution ($`\mathrm{FWHM}=23`$ MeV) function which is folded with a Breit–Wigner distribution to fit the data. We find

$$\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}=1540\pm 4\pm 2\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}<25\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{at}90\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.$$
(3)
The errors quoted are the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The statistical error includes variation of the results when fit range or background function are changed. The systematic error is estimated from the comparison of SAPHIR and PDG masses for known stable particles.

A series of cuts has been applied to arrive at Fig. 2a. Events are subjected to kinematical fits to the hypotheses $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{K}^+`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$. The confidence level for the former hypothesis is required to exceed 1%, while the latter hypothesis should have a probability of less than 1%. To further clean the data, we rejected events which passed one of the following hypotheses (\*): $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{pK}^+\mathrm{K}^{}`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{pe}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\pi ^{}\mathrm{K}^+`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\mathrm{K}^+`$.

We require identification of two pions and of one $`\mathrm{K}^+`$ by time–of–flight. A cut in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass from 480 to 518 MeV has been applied which enhances the fraction of $`\mathrm{nK}^+\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ events. We observe that the $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ from $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ production is preferentially produced in forward direction. A $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0}>0.5`$ cut reduces the signal strength by a factor of 2 only while the background is reduced to 1/5. $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0}`$ denotes the center–of–mass angle between the $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ and the photon beam direction. In the $`\mathrm{n}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass distribution (Fig. 2b), the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ is clearly seen with $`530\pm 90`$ events. The $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}>0.5`$ cut considerably reduces the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ signal.

The size of the $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ peak in Fig. 2a does not depend on the kinematical fits and is not generated by them. The signal can also be seen without the kinematical anti–cuts (\*) and without the cut in $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0}`$, yet above a larger background. All kinematical fits reduce the background but do not lead to noticeable losses in the signal strength; the $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0}`$ cut reduces the signal by about a factor 2.

Fig. 3a presents the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass distribution after applying a mass cut in the $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ invariant mass from 1.515 to 1.559 MeV. A clear $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ signal is observed. We now verify that the peaks in Fig. 2a and 3a are correlated. Fig. 3b shows the side–bin subtracted $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ mass distribution. The $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ is defined by the 480 to 516 MeV mass interval, the two side bins, counted with half weight, extend from 417 to 453 and from 543 to 579 MeV, respectively. In the subtracted spectrum (Fig. 3b) the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is seen above a rather small background. The background resembles the distribution expected from the reflection of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)\mathrm{K}^+`$; its content agrees with the number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ events in the lower curve of Fig. 2b. We conclude that the $`\mathrm{nK}^+\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ final state is reached dominantly via the intermediate states $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)\mathrm{K}^+`$. Note that fig. 3b was not used to determine the signal strength.

From the number of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ events observed in the full angular range, the mean cross section for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ production in the photon energy range from threshold (1.74 GeV) to 2.6 GeV is estimated to about $`200`$ nb, apparently rising with energy. It may be compared to those for other reactions with strange particles in the final state like $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ which are of the order of 800 – 1200 nb at $`\mathrm{E}_\gamma =2`$ GeV.

## 4 The isospin of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$

If the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is a member of the anti–decuplet, it has quantum numbers $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(1540)\mathrm{P}_{01}`$. In particular it is predicted to be an isoscalar. A conventional explanation would interpret the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ as NK bound state. Isospins 0 and 1 are both possible; isospin 1 would lead to three charge states $`\mathrm{\Theta }^0,\mathrm{\Theta }^+,\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$. Capstick, Page and Roberts  point out that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ could be a member of an isospin quintet with charges from -1 to +3 where the $`Q=+3`$ state has a $`(\mathrm{uuuu}\overline{\mathrm{s}})`$ quark–model configuration. An isotensor resonance could be produced with an isospin conserving amplitude as depicted in Fig. 4 (left). Decays of an isotensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ into $`\mathrm{pK}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{pK}^+`$ are isospin violating; hence an isotensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is expected to be narrow .

The photoproduction of the $`\mathrm{pK}^+\mathrm{K}^{}`$ final state has been studied recently by us , with the focus on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ production. We use these data to search for the doubly charged $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ in the reaction chain

$$\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}\mathrm{K}^{};\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}\mathrm{pK}^+.$$
(4)
In analogy to the $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ above, we have applied a cut $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _\mathrm{K}^{}>0.5`$ to select forward $`\mathrm{K}^{}`$. Fig. 4 (right) shows the resulting $`\mathrm{pK}^+`$ invariant mass spectrum. The data are consistent with a small structure at 1540 MeV. The fit assigns $`75\pm 35`$ events to it.

The number of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ events we expect depends on the isospin: Clebsch–Gordan coefficients favour $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ over $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ by a factor 3 (for I=2) or 4 (for I=1) while the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ does not exist in case of I=0. Experimentally, the final state $`\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{K}^{}`$ offers an additional factor 3 since 1/2 of all $`\mathrm{K}^0`$ are produced as $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{L}^0`$ and escape undetected, and the $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ is observed only with a fraction $`2/3`$. In case the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is an isovector or isotensor we should observe 9 or 12 times more $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ events, respectively. Also, the SAPHIR acceptance is considerably larger for the fully constrained $`\mathrm{pK}^+\mathrm{K}^{}`$ events. We thus expect a peak with more than 5000 $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ in Fig. 4 (right), far above the observed level. We conclude that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is isoscalar.

## 5 Summary and conclusions

We have studied photoproduction of the $`\mathrm{nK}^+\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ final state. In the $`\mathrm{nK}^+`$ invariant mass distribution we observe a $`4.8\sigma `$ peak at a mass of $`\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}=1540\pm 4\pm 2`$ MeV. The peak is strikingly narrow: we quote an upper limit (at 90% c.l.) of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^+}<25`$ MeV. Mass and width are compatible with results obtained elsewhere. Here, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is observed for the first time in the reaction $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{nK}^+\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{s}^0`$. The cross section for $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Theta }^+\overline{\mathrm{K}}^0`$ in the photon energy range from 1.7 to 2.6 GeV is of similar size as the cross section for $`\varphi `$ photoproduction and smaller by a factor 4 than for other final states with open strangeness like $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{K}^+`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{K}^+`$, or $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)\mathrm{K}^+`$.

The $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ has strangeness $`S=+1`$ and cannot be a three-quark baryon. In the quark picture, it is a pentaquark $`(\mathrm{uudd}\overline{\mathrm{s}})`$. In the related reaction $`\gamma \mathrm{p}\mathrm{pK}^+\mathrm{K}^{}`$, we have searched for a doubly charged isospin partner of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. From the absence of a signal at the expected strength we deduce that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is an isoscalar.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the technical staff of the ELSA machine group for their invaluable contributions to the experiment. We gratefully acknowledge the support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in the framework of the Schwerpunktprogramm ”Investigations of the hadronic structure of nucleons and nuclei with electromagnetic probes” (SPP 1034 KL 980/2-3).


format: text

text:
# Observational evidence for a correlation between peak-luminosities and beaming in GRBs

## 1 Introduction

New clues are emerging that long GRB are associated with supernovae (Galama et al., 1998; Bloom et al., 1999; Kulkarni et al., 2000; Reichart, 2001). This is illustrated most recently by optical emissions lines in the late-time light-curve of the HETE-II burst GRB 030329 (Stanek et al., 2003), which are remarkably similar to those observed in GRB980425/SN1998bw (Galama et al., 1998). A GRB-supernova assocation provides important support for the collapsar model of GRBs, representing a violent death of evolved massive stars (Woosley, 1993; Paccynski, 1998). The short lifespan of tens of Myrs of massive stars implies that GRBs take place in star-forming regions (Paccynski, 1998; Fruchter et al., 1999), and hence more broadly points towards an association to molecular clouds. The event rate of GRBs per unit cosmological volume is hereby expected to be correlated to the cosmic star-formation rate (e.g., Blain & Natarajan (2000); Berger et al. (2003); Choudhury & Srianand (2002)). Because observations by past and current experiments (see Table I) are flux-limited, the observed GRB-event rate is strongly biased towards events at lower redshifts.

In this letter, we calculate the ratio $`1/f_r`$ of unseen-to-observed GRBs. Our analysis is based on the bias in the observed GRB-event rate towards low redshift events in a flux-limited sample of 33 GRBs with individually measured redshifts. We propose to use a linear relationship for the correlation between the true-but-unseen GRB event rate and the cosmic SFR, to derive from this bias a best-fit log-normal GRB peak-luminosity function. While it is an open question to what the degree cosmological evolution of metallicity affects the SFR independently of the GRB event rate (see, e.g., Heger et al. (2002)), linear relationship between the two will serve as a leading-order approximation.

In §2, we discuss the cosmological model. §3 tabulates the current sample of 33 GRBs with individually measured redshifts. In §4, we present the best fit of the data for a log-normal distribution function, estimate the fraction of unseen-to-observed GRBs, and compare our results with the beaming factor $`1/f_b=500`$ of Frail et al.(2001), based on a sample of GRBs with achromatic breaks in their light-curves. We summarize our results and draw our main conclusions in §5.

## 2 The cosmological model

We model the intrinsic GRB-event rate in a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated cold dark matter cosmology with closure energy densities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ = 0.70 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ = 0.30. These values are suggested by BOOMERANG and MAXIMA (de Bernardis et al., 2000; Hanany et al., 2000) on the power spectra of the CMB and distant Type Ia SNe (Perlmutter et al., 1999; Schmidt et al., 1998). The Hubble parameter Ho is taken to be $`73\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ (Freedman et al., 2001).

Porciani & Madau (2001) provide three models of the cosmic SFR up to redshifts $`z5`$, reflecting some uncertainties in SFR estimates. No significant changes have been noticed in application of these three models, and we present only results derived from the second model, SFR2. We have

$$R_c(z)=R_{SF2}(z)\frac{E(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,z)}{(1+z)^{3/2}}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3$$
(1)
by transformation of the $`R_{SF2}`$ in a matter-dominated unverse ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$),

$$R_{SF2}(z)=\frac{0.15e^{3.4z}}{(22+e^{3.4z})}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3,$$
(2)
where $`E(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,z)=[(1+z)^2(1+z\mathrm{\Omega }_m)z(2+z)\mathrm{\Omega }_v]^{1/2}`$.

For a GRB-event rate locked to the SFR, the true event rate between $`z`$ and $`z+dz`$, as observed in the observer’s frame of reference, satisfies

$$dR_{GRB}(z)=\lambda _{GRB}\frac{R_c(z)}{1+z}\frac{dV}{dz}dz$$
(3)
where $`\lambda _{GRB}`$ is the formation mass fraction of the source progenitors. Here, the division by $`1+z`$ accounts for time-dilatation by cosmic expansion. The element of comoving volume is

$$dV=\frac{4\pi r^2c}{H_0E(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,z)}dz,r(z)=_0^z\frac{c}{H_0E(\mathrm{\Omega }_i,z^{})}𝑑z^{}$$
(4)
The GRB redshift probability density can be written as (Coward et al., 2002) $`p(z)=dR_{GRB}/dz\left(_0^5𝑑R_{GRB}/𝑑z𝑑z\right)^1.`$ Assuming that the mass fraction of GRBs progenitors is redshift independent, the scaling factor $`\lambda _{GRB}`$ is the only free parameter of our model. For the flux-limited experiments listed in Table I we define a probability-density function of detection as a function of redshift as $`p_{detect}(z)=dR_{detect}/dz\left(_0^5𝑑R_{detect}/𝑑z𝑑z\right)^1,`$ where the dependence on the luminosity has been integrated out in the detected event rate (Bromm & Loeb, 2002)

$$dR_{detect}=dR_{GRB}(z)_{L_{lim}(z)}p(L)𝑑L$$
(5)
Here, $`p(L)`$ refers to the intrinsic GRBs luminosity function in the BATSE energy range $`50300`$ keV.

The luminosity threshold as a function of redshift is given by $`L_{lim}(z)=4\pi d_L^2(z)S_{lim}`$, where $`d_L`$ is the luminosity distance to a source at redshift $`z`$ and where $`S_{lim}`$ denotes the sensitivity threshold of the instrument. Following (Bromm & Loeb, 2002), we take a flux-density threshold of BASTE of 0.2 $`\mathrm{photon}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$.

## 3 A redshift sample of 33 GRBs

As of the time of this writing, we have 33 GRBs with individually measured redshifts (Table I). They collectively represent a variety of past and current experiments. Due to a flux threshold in each of the instruments used, the observed GRB redshift distribution is strongly biased towards low redshifts. This introduces a quantitative selection effect, relative to the redshift distribution predicted by the SFR model (Fig. 1) – the true distribution of GRB-redshifts representing what would be observed in the ideal case of a zero-flux threshold in the instruments. In view of the various instruments involved, the dependency of the observed GRB redhift-distribution function on the flux-limit is simulated in Fig. 2.

## 4 A fit to a log-normal distribution function

We shall assume that the GRB-luminosity function is redshift independent, i.e., without cosmological evolution of the nature of its progenitors. We take a log-normal probability density for the luminosity shape-function, with mean $`\mu `$ and width $`\sigma `$ given by

$$p(L)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{1/2}\sigma L}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(\mathrm{ln}L\mu )^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right),$$
(6)
where $`L`$ is normalized with respect to 1cm-2s-1. The optimized parameters of our model are

$`(\mu ,\sigma )=(124,3)\pm (2,0.4).`$ (7)
This notation means that the estimated parameters can be either (122,3.4), (123,3.2), (125,2.8), or (126,2.6), but not (122,2.6) for instance. Our results are compatible to the expectations of Sethi et Bhargavi (2001) who derive a log-normal luminosity function with $`\mu =129`$ and $`\sigma =2`$ from a different flux-limited sample. They mentioned that because of selection effects, the inferred average luminosity over-estimates the true mean luminosity by a factor of 2 or 3, and the variance is within 40-50% of the true variance. The observed and predicted redshift distribution, based on the SFR, are shown in Fig. 1 in case of optimal parameters (7). The results indicate a good fit to the data, suggesting that selection effects are adequaly modeled. The fraction of detectable GRBs as a function of redshift

$$F(z)=\frac{dR_{detect}}{dR_{GRB}(z)}=_{L_{lim}(z)}p(L)𝑑l.$$
(8)
shows a the steep decrease as the luminosity threshold increases, making high-redshift GRBs less likely to be detected.

A satisfactory test for our model is provided by comparing the predicted flux distribution of GRBs above the sensitivity threshold with the peak flux distribution of a sample of 67 GRBs observed with IPN (Fig. 3). The fluxes derived from our luminosity function in 50-300 keV have been extrapolated to the IPN range of 25-100 keV, assuming an $`\mathrm{E}^2`$ energy spectrum and using the formula given in Appendix B of Sethi et Bhargavi (2001). The conversion factor from $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ to $`\mathrm{photon}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ has been taken to be $`0.87\times 10^7`$, and the sensitivity threshold equal to 5 $`\mathrm{photon}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Hurley, private communication).

A quantitative result provided by our model is the ratio $`1/f_r`$ of the true GRB-event rate (what would be seen in case of a zero-flux limit in the detector) and the observed GRB-event rate. For the optimal parameters (7), we have

$`1/f_r=450.`$ (9)
The factor $`1/f_r`$ is between 200-1200 in the error box of (7).

## 5 A correlation between $`1/f_r`$ and $`1/f_b`$

Our estimate of the true-to-observed GRB-event rate $`1/f_r`$ is strikingly similar to the GRB-beaming factor $`1/f_b`$ of about 500 derived by Frail et al. (2001). Our analysis is independent of the mechanism providing a broad distribution in GRB luminosities. Without further input, our results may reflect (a) isotropic sources with greatly varying energy output, (b) beamed sources with standard energy output and varying opening angles, or (c) anisotropic but geometrically standard sources (Rossi et al., 2002; Zhang & Meszaros, 2002).

We find that the GRB peak-luminosities and beaming are correlated. To see this, we simply note that the case of no correlation between peak-luminosities and beaming give rise to an unseen-but-true GRB event rate which is $`1/f_r\times 1/f_b2.5\times 10^5`$ times the observed rate. The true GRB-event rate hereby approaches that of Type II supernovae – we discard this possibility. A correlation between peak-luminosities and beaming is naturally expected sources (b) and (c) with standard energy output – the picture that bears out of Frail et al. (2001). This introduces a correlation $`L1/f_b`$ between peak-luminosity and beaming factor in (b) and, for a flux-limited sample, also in (c). For a flux-limited sample, both (b) and (c) give rise to an anticorrelation between inferred beaming and distance such that to leading-order $`\theta _jz`$const. Fig. 4 shows that this anticorrelation holds in the sample of Frail et al. (2001). For a related discussion on estimating the GRB beaming factor from flux limited surveys, see Levinson et al. (2002).

## 6 Conclusions

A table of 33 GRBs with individually determined redshifts allows an estimate of the GRB-luminosity function, based on constant of proportionality between the GRB event rate and the cosmic star-formation rate. We have tested our fit by reproducing the distribution of peak luminosities in the IPN sample of 67 GRBs.

A flux-limited sample introduces a ratio $`1/f_r`$ of unseen GRBs, whose emissions fall below the detector threshold, to observed GRBs. A best fit analysis of the luminosity function gives $`1/f_r450`$. This number is both large and close to the GRB beaming factor of 500. The possibility that $`1/f_r`$ and $`1/f_b`$ are uncorrelated gives rise to prohibitively large true GRB event rates, and is discarded. The results support a relation $`L1/f_b`$ between the peak-luminosity and the beaming factor in the context of conical or anisotropic GRB-emissions with standard GRB-energies. This points towards an anticorrelation between distance and half-opening angle, which is approximately supported by the sample of Frail et al. (2001).

The results presented here and those of Frail et al. (2001) indicate a true GRB event rate of 1 per year within $`D=100`$Mpc. GRB980425/SN1998bw ($`z=0.0085`$) is consistent with this true event rate. For anisotropic but geometrically standard sources, GRB980425 is hereby not anomalous, but consistent with the trend shown in Fig. 4.

The authors greatfully acknowledge input from Kevin Hurley. MVP thanks R. Mochkovitch for discussions on GRB980425. This research is supported by the LIGO Observatories, constructed by Caltech and MIT with funding from NSF under cooperative agreement PHY 9210038. The LIGO Laboratory operates under cooperative agreement PHY-0107417. This paper has been assigned LIGO document number LIGO-P030022-00-D.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Shown are three redshift distributions: the observed sample derived from Table 1 (white), the true sample assuming the GRB event rate is locked to the star-formation rate (hachured), and the sample of detectable GRBs predicted by our model according to a log-normal peak-luminosity distribution function (grey). The continuous line represents the cosmic star formation rate according to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$dominated cold dark matter universe.
Figure 2. Shown is a simulation of the redshift distribution of the observed GRBs as a function of flux-limit, corresponding to various instruments including the upcoming SWIFT mission. The results are derived assuming the GRB event rate to be locked to the star-formation rate, using the best fit log-normal peak-luminosity distribution function used in Fig. 2. HETE-II tresholds are 0.21 (SXC), 0.07 (WXM) and 0.3 (FREGATE) in units of cm-2s-1.
Figure 3. Shown is a comparison between the flux distributions derived from our model (in grey) and from a sample of 67 GRBs observed with IPN (in wite). The fit serves as a test for our model assumptions, namely a log-normal GRB-luminosity function and a GRB event rate locked to the star-formation rate.
Figure 4. Shown is a plot of the opening angle $`\theta _j`$ of GRB-emissions versus redshift $`z`$ in the sample of Frail et al. (2001), as derived from achromatic breaks in the GRB light curves. These results indicate an anticorrelation between $`\theta _j`$ and $`z`$. For standard GRB-energies, this introduces a peak-luminosity function of GRBs which is correlated with the beaming factor $`1/f_b`$. This allows the beaming factor to be determined also in terms of the ratio of the unseen-but-true GRB event rate to the observed GRB event rate, using the current flux-limited sample of 33 GRBs with individually measured redshifts.


text:
# Thermodynamic stability conditions for nonadditive composable entropies

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the conventional thermodynamic stability condition (TSC) Callen  is the concavity of the Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) entropy $`S^{\mathrm{BG}}`$ with respect to internal energy $`U`$, i.e.,

$$\frac{^2S^{\mathrm{BG}}}{U^2}<0,$$
(1)
which is also equivalent to the positivity of heat capacity $`CU/T`$, since the temperature $`T`$ is defined by

$$\frac{1}{T}\frac{S^{\mathrm{BG}}}{U},$$
(2)
and

$$\frac{1}{C}=\left\{\frac{T}{(1/T)}\right\}\left\{\frac{(1/T)}{U}\right\}=T^2\frac{^2S^{\mathrm{BG}}}{U^2}.$$
(3)
The conventional thermodynamic stability arguments are based on both the extremum principle and additivity of the BG entropy. Nowadays nonadditive entropies have been extensively considered in the literature since the generalized formalism based on Tsallis’ nonadditive entropy Tsallis88 ; NEXT2001  has been successfully applied to a variety of complex systems. The Tsallis entropy is a generalization of the BG entropy by one real parameter of $`q`$,

$$S_q\frac{_ip_i^q1}{1q},$$
(4)
where $`p_i`$ stands for a probability of $`i`$-th state. For the sake of simplicity, we set the Boltzmann constant to unity throughout this paper. $`S_q`$ reduces to the BG entropy in the limit of $`q1`$.

During the early stages of the development of Tsallis’ thermostatistics, Ramshaw Ramshaw95  pointed out that the concavity of Tsallis’ entropy with respect to the standard expectation energy $`U_1_ip_iE_i`$ is not sufficient to guarantee the thermodynamic stability for all values of $`q`$ because $`S_q`$ is nonadditive. He derived the TSC of the nonadditive $`S_q`$ from the TSC of the additive Rényi entropy Renyi

$$S_q^\mathrm{R}\frac{\mathrm{ln}_ip_i^q}{1q},$$
(5)
by utilizing the nonlinear functional relation between both entropies

$$S_q^\mathrm{R}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}[1+(1q)S_q]}{1q}.$$
(6)
The present author Wada02  further studied the TSC of $`S_q`$ by directly utilizing the nonadditivity Eq. (9) of $`S_q`$, and shown that the resultant TSC is equivalent to the positivity of the standard heat capacity $`C`$.

In this paper we discuss the TSCs of nonadditive composable entropies, and show that the TSC of such a nonadditive entropy is not equivalent to the concavity of the entropy with respect to internal energy. In the next section, after the explanation of the concept of composability, we briefly review the standard TSC of an additive entropy. We then discuss the TSCs of two different kinds of nonadditive composable entropies. The subsection 2.1 deals with the TSC of the Tsallis $`q`$-entropy, and in the subsection 2.2 we consider the TSC of the $`\kappa `$-generalized Boltzmann entropy. It is shown that the TSCs of the both nonadditive entropies are equivalent to the positivity of the standard heat capacity. The final section is devoted to the conclusions.

## 2 Thermodynamic stability conditions of composable entropies

The concept of composability Hotta99  is important and quite useful when we consider a thermodynamic system which consists of independent subsystems. Suppose a total system consists of two independent subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$. If the total entropy of any sort $`𝒮(A,B)`$ is a bivariate and symmetric function $`f`$ of the subsystem entropies $`𝒮(A)`$ and $`𝒮(B)`$, i.e.,

$$𝒮(A,B)=f(𝒮(A),𝒮(B))=f(𝒮(B),𝒮(A)),$$
(7)
we say $`𝒮`$ is composable. This means that the total entropy $`𝒮(A,B)`$ can be built of just the two macroscopic quantities, $`𝒮(A)`$ and $`𝒮(B)`$. Hence we can further discuss the thermodynamic properties of any composable system without knowing its underlying microscopic dynamics. For example, the zeroth law of thermodynamics Abe01 ; Martinez01 ; Abe01-Heat ; Wang03  for Tsallis’ entropy has been discussed by assuming the composability. It is well known that the BG entropy is composable and additive,

$$S^{\mathrm{BG}}(A,B)=S^{\mathrm{BG}}(A)+S^{\mathrm{BG}}(B).$$
(8)
Tsallis’ entropy is also composable but it’s nonadditive, i.e., so-called pseudo-additive Tsallis88 ; NEXT2001

$$S_q(A,B)=S_q(A)+S_q(B)+(1q)S_q(A)S_q(B).$$
(9)
Let us now review the TSC of any additive entropy $`S(U)`$. We denote the maximum entropy of a thermodynamic system with an internal energy $`U`$ by $`S(U)`$. For the sake of simplicity, the internal energy is assumed to be additive, i.e., $`U(A,B)=U(A)+U(B)`$, in this paper. It is however worth noting that Wang Wang03  has discussed the zeroth and first laws of thermodynamics by utilizing nonadditive energy expectation value within the framework of nonextensive statistical mechanics.

The essence of conventional thermodynamic stability Callen  lies in the entropy maximum principle and additivity of $`S(U)`$. It is known that the relation between the concavity of $`S(U)`$ and the standard TSC is straightforward as follows. If one transfer an amount of energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$ from one of two identical subsystems to the other subsystem, the total entropy changes from its initial value of $`S(U,U)=2S(U)`$ to $`S(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U,U\mathrm{\Delta }U)=S(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U)+S(U\mathrm{\Delta }U)`$. The entropy maximum principle demands that the resultant value of the entropy is not larger than the initial one, i.e.,

$$2S(U)S(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U)+S(U\mathrm{\Delta }U),$$
(10)
which is the TSC of the additive entropy $`S(U)`$. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }U0`$, Eq. (10) reduces to the concavity of $`S(U)`$ with respect to $`U`$,

$$\frac{^2S(U)}{U^2}0.$$
(11)
Thus the TSC and the concavity of $`S(U)`$ with respect to $`U`$ are equivalent each other when $`S(U)`$ is additive. However this is not the case for a nonadditive entropy as we will see in the subsequent subsections.

### 2.1 Tsallis’ entropy

Let us now turn focus on the TSC of Tsallis’ entropy Wada02 . Taking account of the pseudo-additivity Eq. (9), the TSC of $`S_q`$ can be written by

$`2S_q(U)`$ $`+`$ $`(1q)\left[S_q(U)\right]^2`$ (12)
$``$ $`S_q(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U)+S_q(U\mathrm{\Delta }U)+(1q)S_q(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U)S_q(U\mathrm{\Delta }U).`$
The physical meaning of this inequality is same as that of the conventional TSC Eq. (10). If we transfer a small amount of energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$ from one of two identical subsystems to the other subsystem, then the total entropy changes from its initial value $`S_q(U,U)`$ of the left-hand-side to the resultant value $`S_q(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U,U\mathrm{\Delta }U)`$ of the right-hand-side in Eq. (12). The principle of the maximum Tsallis entropy demands that the resultant entropy should not be larger than the initial one. The remarkable difference between Eq. (12) and Eq. (10) is the presence of the nonlinear term proportional to $`1q`$, which originally arises from the pseudo-additivity of Eq. (9).

In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }U0`$, Eq. (12) reduces to the differential form

$$\frac{^2S_q(U)}{U^2}+(1q)\left\{S_q(U)\frac{^2S_q(U)}{U^2}\left(\frac{S_q(U)}{U}\right)^2\right\}0.$$
(13)
Now we introduce the $`q`$-generalized temperature $`T_q`$ defined by

$$\frac{1}{T_q}\frac{S_q}{U},$$
(14)
and the $`q`$-generalized heat capacity $`C_q`$ defined by

$$\frac{1}{C_q}\frac{T_q}{U}=T_q^2\frac{^2S_q}{U^2}.$$
(15)
Then Eq. (13) becomes

$$\frac{1+(1q)S_q}{C_q}+(1q)0.$$
(16)
We thus see that only the positivity of $`C_q`$, or equivalently the concavity of $`S_q(U)`$, is not sufficient to satisfy the TSC of the nonadditive Tsallis entropy. When $`q1`$, however, the positivity of $`C_q`$ guarantees to satisfy Eq. (16) since $`1+(1q)S_q=_ip_i^q`$ is always positive.

Next we shall consider the relation between the TSC and the positivity of the standard heat capacity. By maximizing the total Tsallis entropy $`\delta S_q(A,B)=0`$ under the constraint of the total energy conservation $`\delta U(A,B)=0`$, we obtain the equilibrium condition for a composite system described by Tsallis’ entropy,

$$T_q(A)\{1+(1q)S_q(A)\}=T_q(B)\{1+(1q)S_q(B)\},$$
(17)
which should be equal to the intensive temperature $`T`$ of the total system Abe01 , i.e.,

$$T=\{1+(1q)S_q\}T_q.$$
(18)
By differentiating the both sides of Eq.(18) with respect to $`U`$, we obtain the relation between the standard heat capacity $`CU/T`$ and the $`q`$-generalized heat capacity $`C_q`$ as

$$\frac{1}{C}=\frac{1+(1q)S_q}{C_q}+1q.$$
(19)
The TSC condition of Eq. (16) is thus equivalent to the positivity of the conventional heat capacity,

$$C0.$$
(20)
### 2.2 The $`\kappa `$-generalized Boltzmann entropy

Next we turn focus on another nonadditive composable entropy. Kaniadakis Giorgio01 ; Giorgio-Antonio02  has introduced another type of one parameter deformations of the exponential and logarithmic functions

$`\mathrm{exp}_{\{\kappa \}}(x)\left[\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2x^2}+\kappa x\right]^{1/\kappa },`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{ln}_{\{\kappa \}}(x){\displaystyle \frac{x^\kappa x^\kappa }{2\kappa }},`$ (22)
where $`\kappa `$ is a real parameter with $`1<\kappa <1`$. In the limit of $`\kappa 0`$, the $`\mathrm{exp}_{\{\kappa \}}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}_{\{\kappa \}}(x)`$ reduce to the standard exponential and logarithmic functions, respectively. The $`\kappa `$-deformed exponential and logarithmic functions have the following properties

$`\mathrm{exp}_{\{\kappa \}}(x)\mathrm{exp}_{\{\kappa \}}(y)=\mathrm{exp}_{\{\kappa \}}(x\stackrel{\kappa }{}y),`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{ln}_{\{\kappa \}}(xy)=\mathrm{ln}_{\{\kappa \}}(x)\stackrel{\kappa }{}\mathrm{ln}_{\{\kappa \}}(y),`$ (24)
where $`\kappa `$-sum is defined by

$$x\stackrel{\kappa }{}yx\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2y^2}+y\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2x^2}.$$
(25)
Kaniadakis has defined the $`\kappa `$-deformed entropy as

$$S_\kappa ^\mathrm{K}\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{ln}_{\{\kappa \}}p_i,$$
(26)
to construct a generalized statistical mechanics in the context of special relativity Giorgio02 . $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{K}`$ reduces to the Shannon-BG entropy in the limit of $`\kappa 0`$. The $`\kappa `$-additivity defined by Eq. (25) is the additivity of relativistic momenta as shown in Ref. Giorgio02 .

We shall here consider the TSC of the $`\kappa `$-generalized Boltzmann entropy defined by

$$S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)\mathrm{ln}_{\{\kappa \}}W(U),$$
(27)
where $`W`$ is the number of microcanonical configurations of a thermodynamic system. $`S_0^\mathrm{B}(U)=\mathrm{ln}W(U)`$ is the standard Boltzmann entropy. Note that this $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$ is different from the Kaniadakis $`\kappa `$-entropy $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{K}`$, which is an entropy à la Gibbs, whereas the $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$ is one à la Boltzmann. The reason of using $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$, instead of $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{K}`$, is that it has the composability (the $`\kappa `$-additivity),

$$S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(A,B)=S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(A)\stackrel{\kappa }{}S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(B).$$
(28)
By utilizing this composition rule we readily write down the expression of the TSC of $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$,

$`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U,U)`$ $``$ $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U,U\mathrm{\Delta }U),`$
$`2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)]^2}`$ $``$ $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U)\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U\mathrm{\Delta }U)]^2}`$ (29)
$`+S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U\mathrm{\Delta }U)\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U+\mathrm{\Delta }U)]^2}.`$
After some algebra, in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }U0`$, Eq. (29) becomes

$$\frac{1+2\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)]^2}{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)]^2}\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)]^2}\left\{\frac{^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)}{U^2}\left(\frac{S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)}{U}\right)^2\frac{\kappa ^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)}{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)]^2}\right\}0.$$
(30)
Since the terms in front of the brace is always positive, the differential form of the TSC of $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$ becomes

$$\frac{^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}}{U^2}\left(\frac{S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}}{U}\right)^2\frac{\kappa ^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}}{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}]^2}0.$$
(31)
Furthermore since $`W(U)`$ is much larger than unity for almost every energy $`U`$ in conventional thermodynamics situations, $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)=\mathrm{ln}_{\{\kappa \}}W(U)`$ is positive for such an energy. Thus the concavity of $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)`$ guarantees to satisfy the TSC of Eq. (31) unlike the case of the TSC of Tsallis’ entropy. Interestingly the concavity $`^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)/^2U<0`$ is the sufficient, but not necessary, condition in order to satisfy the TSC of $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$. For example, it is possible to satisfy Eq. (31) even if $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$ is convex (or $`C_{\{\kappa \}}`$ is negative).

Next we turn to the relation between the TSC and the standard heat capacity. We introduce the $`\kappa `$-generalized temperature $`T_{\{\kappa \}}`$ defined by

$$\frac{1}{T_{\{\kappa \}}}\frac{S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)}{U}.$$
(32)
Following the similar arguments of the equilibrium condition (or thermodynamic zeroth law) for Tsallis’ entropy in the previous subsection, we obtain the relation between $`T_{\{\kappa \}}`$ and the corresponding intensive temperature $`T=T_{\{0\}}`$ as

$$T=T_{\{\kappa \}}\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}(U)]^2}$$
(33)
Alternatively we can obtain this relation from the definition Eq. (32) of $`T_{\{\kappa \}}`$,

$$\frac{1}{T_{\{\kappa \}}}=\frac{}{U}\left(\frac{W^\kappa W^\kappa }{2\kappa }\right)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}W}{U}\right)\left(\frac{W^\kappa +W^\kappa }{2\kappa }\right)=\frac{1}{T_{\{0\}}}\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}]^2}.$$
(34)
By differentiating the both sides of Eq.(33) with respect to $`U`$, we obtain the relation between the standard heat capacity $`C`$ and the $`\kappa `$-generalized heat capacity $`C_{\{\kappa \}}U/T_{\{\kappa \}}`$ as follows.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}]^2}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C_{\{\kappa \}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}}{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}]^2}}\right\}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`T_{\{\kappa \}}^2\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}]^2}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}}{U^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}}{U}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}}{1+\kappa ^2[S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}]^2}}\right\},`$
where we used Eq. (32) and the relation $`1/C_{\{\kappa \}}=T_{\{\kappa \}}^2^2S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}/U^2`$. By comparing Eq (35) with Eq. (31), we finally find that the TSC of $`S_\kappa ^\mathrm{B}`$ is also equivalent to the positivity of standard heat capacity $`C0`$.

## 3 Conclusions

We have discussed the thermodynamic stability conditions (TSC) of the two nonadditive composable entropies, which are the Tsallis and $`\kappa `$-generalized Boltzmann entropies. Unlike the TSC of an additive entropy, the concavity of a nonadditive composable entropy is not necessarily equivalent to the corresponding TSC in general. It is shown that in addition to the TSC of Tsallis’ entropy, the TSC of the $`\kappa `$-generalized Boltzmann entropy is also equivalent to the positivity of the standard heat capacity. It is interesting to further study whether it is common feature to composable entropy.

Nonadditive entropy can provide a basic ingredient in order to describe non-separable or correlated systems whose thermodynamic behaviors are complex and anomalous. It is worth noting that the we have derived the TSCs with resort to the composability of the nonadditive entropies. However composability of systems restricts our consideration to separable systems, which are divisible into independent subsystems. For non-composable entropies we have not yet known the expression of the corresponding TSCs.

## Acknowledgments

The author greatly thanks Prof. M. Sugiyama for giving the opportunity to reconsider the thermodynamic stability of the nonextensive entropies. He also thanks G. Kaniadakis and S. Abe for valuable discussions.


text:
# Induced Ge Spin Polarization at the Fe/Ge Interface

## Abstract

We report direct experimental evidence showing induced magnetic moments on Ge at the interface in an Fe/Ge system. Details of the x-ray magnetic circular dichroism and resonant magnetic scattering at the Ge L edge demonstrate the presence of spin-polarized s states at the Fermi level, as well as d character moments at higher energy, which are both oriented antiparallel to the moment of the Fe layer. Use of the sum rules enables extraction of the L/S ratio, which is zero for the s part and $`0.5`$ for the d component. These results are consistent with layer-resolved electronic structure calculations, which estimate the s and d components of the Ge moment are anti-parallel to the Fe 3d moment and have a magnitude of $`0.01\mu _B`$.

Transport of spins across the ferromagnet/semiconductor interface and their manipulation poses many fundamental questions but has wide implications for spin-based electronicsWolf et al. (2001). A key area is understanding how spin polarized electrons or holes are injected from a magnetic material into a semiconductorFiederling et al. (1999); Ohno et al. (1999). Semiconductor-based systems are intriguing since the electron’s spin can maintain coherence in a semiconductor while being transported over length scales that are orders of magnitude larger than those achievable in a metalKikkawa and Awschalom (1999). The Fe/GaAs system initially demonstrated low efficiency of spin injection,Zhu et al. (2001) which was understood to result from the large conductivity mismatch between the metal and semiconductorSchmidt et al. (2000). Recent results though have demonstrated high spin injection efficiencies by tunneling through the Schottky barrier formed at the metal/semiconductor interfaceHanbicki et al. (2002). However, to fully understand these systems requires a detailed understanding of the electronic and magnetic structure at this boundary, which will impact the ability for electron or holes to be transported into the semiconductor.

Interest in Fe/semiconductor systems (e.g.,Fe/Ge, Fe/GaAs,…) has been driven by the close lattice match between the two materials enabling growth of single-crystal structures. Early work demonstrated the ability to grow expitaxial thin filmsPrinz (1990), but significant intermixing at the interface was observed as welldel Guidice et al. (1987); Chambers et al. (1986). Further studies demonstrated that at the thin film limit the Fe layer possessed an in-plane uniaxial anisotropyKneedler et al. (1997); Ma and Norton (1997); Xu et al. (1999), which has been connected to thickness dependent interface strainThomas et al. (2003). Evidence of significant 3d charge transfer at the Fe/GaAs interface has been observed and was connected to bonding between Fe and AsFreeland et al. (2001a). With respect to the interface induced moment, electronic structure calculations have predicted an induced moment and modified density of states at the boundaryPickett and Papaconstantopoulos (1986); Cabria et al. (2001); Erwin et al. (2002). To date though there has been no direct evidence for these induced interface moments.

In this Letter we present direct evidence of spin-polarized Ge at the interface with a magnetic transition metal. X-ray magnetic circular dichroism at the Ge L edge in an Fe/Ge multilayer provided unambiguous evidence for induced spin on Ge. Comparison with single crystal results enable the identification of the spin polarization into a s moment close to the Fermi level and a d component at higher energy. The data is consistent with an antiparallel induced moment on Ge with indications of a nonzero orbital moment for the d component. Layer-resolved electronic structure calculations show the induced moment is localized around the interface with the s and d moments $`0.01\mu _B`$ that are anti-parallel to the Fe 3d moment.

Element-selective magnetic measurements were made using x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD)Chen et al. (1995), which arises from the coupling of the magnetic orientation to the x-ray polarization. These experiments were performed at sector 4 of the Advanced Photon SourceFreeland et al. (2001b). Beamline 4-ID-C provides high-resolution polarized x-rays in the intermediate x-ray range of 500 - 3000 eV. The x-rays are generated by a novel circularly polarized undulator that provides left- and right-circular polarization switchable at demand at a polarization $`>`$ 96$`\%`$. The samples were studied by measurement of total fluorescence yield (TFY) using a microchannel plate detector. Fluorescence yield was used both because of its bulk sensitivity, as well as the ability to measure in an applied magnetic field. The measurement involves changing the magnetization direction at each energy point of the absorption curve to measure the absorption with photon helicity and magnetization parallel ($`I^+`$) and antiparallel ($`I^{}`$). The sum ($`I^+`$-$`I^{}`$) provides chemical information while the XMCD ($`I^+`$-$`I^{}`$) is magnetic in origin. Since the XMCD signal is very small, it was confirmed that the XMCD changed sign upon reversal of the photon helicity. In addition, x-ray resonant magnetic scattering (XRMS) was utilized to determine the spatial location of the induced spinKao et al. (1990); Freeland et al. (1999).

To maximize the interface contribution to the absorption signal, a multilayer sample was used. The Fe/Ge multilayers were prepared by sputtering at room temperature with a nominal structure of Si(100)/Ge(100 Å)/\[Fe(22 Å)/Ge(22 Å)\]20/Ge(100 Å) as confirmed by x-ray reflectivity and TEM. It should be noted here that Ge grown on Fe results in an amorphous structureMajkrzak et al. (1985). With the Ge unit cell being 5.66 Å, each monolayer (ML) will correspond to $``$2 Å of Ge from which it can be estimated that the interface comprises about 10$`\%`$ of the sample. A recent study though claims that this system cannot be considered simply as Fe/Ge. A large percentage of intermixing leading to coexisting Fe and FexGe1-x regionsSchleberger et al. (1999). From the details of this study we can estimate that the alloy component would comprise at most 25$`\%`$ of the sample.

Measurement of the polarization-dependent absorption at the Ge L edge (see Figure 1) provides direct access to the electronic and magnetic order of Ge. Due to the dipole selection rules for x-ray absorption, this excitation details the d and s contributions to the spin polarized density of unoccupied states. Presence of a nonzero XMCD provides direct evidence of the spin-polarized Ge, but more detailed analysis of the data requires an understanding of the electronic character of the unoccupied states contributing to the XMCD. As will be shown below, the XMCD can be considered as consisting of 3 fundamental components: a negative peak close to the Fermi level ascribed to spin-polarized s states, higher lying spin-polarized d states, and an extended component that may be attributed to magnetic extended absorption fine structureSchütz et al. (1987). To assign the XMCD to particular electronic states first consider the results for bulk Ge, which will provide an initial framework.

Calculations for amorphous Ge (a-Ge) show the density of unoccupied states are nearly the same as crystalline (c-Ge) with only small modificationsRodrigues and Weisz (1987). The peaks in the c-Ge case result from both from the s and d density of unoccupied states as well as multiple scattering from the highly ordered crystalCastrucci et al. (1999). The edge for the c-Ge case was described by an initial peak due to s states followed by a double-peak feature due to d states. Results for the a-Ge system could be reproduced by the same density of states simply by varying the degree of coherent multiple scattering to simulate the disordered amorphous stateCastrucci et al. (1999). A comparison of our results with the crystalline case is shown in Fig. 2 and agrees well with previous results. Using this result enables an inital assignment based on the bulk electronic structure. The first XMCD peak in Fig. 2 lies in the pre-edge region close to the Fermi level, which may have important potential impact on spin-dependent transport. Bulk electronic structure in this region is predominately s character. The second XMCD peak coincides with the doublet assigned to d states. This provides an initial assignment as shown in Fig. 2, which is consistent with the analysis of the experimental data and the layer resolved density of state calculations, both of which are discussed below.

With an assignment of features, the dipole selection rules enable the determination of orientation between the Fe and Ge moments. The XMCD selection rules for p $``$ d vs. p $``$ sO’Brien and Tonner (1994); Dhesi et al. (1999) allow s and d contributions to the spin moment, $`<S_z>`$, to be written as:

$$<S_z>=<S_z^d>2<S_z^s>\frac{P_s}{P_d}+\frac{7}{2}<T_z>$$
(1)
where $`\frac{P_s}{P_d}`$ is the probability ratio for s vs. d excitation and $`<T_z>`$ is the magnetic dipole term. In accord with recent results, it can be assumed that $`\frac{P_s}{P_d}1`$Dhesi et al. (1999) and $`<T_z>0`$ Stöhr and König (1995). The important point is that the selection rules result in a minus sign between the d vs s XMCD for the same magnetic moment direction. Since the initial L3 XMCD is negative for Fe (not shown), this is direct evidence of the antiparallel orientation of the Ge s moment and the 3d transition metal moment. The d component has a positive signal indicating that the d component of the induced Ge moment is antiparallel to that of Fe as well. These results are in agreement with the electronic structure calculations presented below.

Sum rule analysis provides more detailed insight into the magnetic structure, but there are difficulties in the application to the case of Ge. Without a continuum excitation background subtraction and knowledge of the number of 4s and d holes in the conduction band, extraction of the spin and orbital moments is not possible. This is further complicated by the issue that not all of the electrons in the conduction band are spin polarized. As well there is charge transfer at the interface, which will mix the 3d electrons from Fe with the 4d electrons from Ge. However, the ratio, $`R_m=\mathrm{\Delta }A_{L_3}/\mathrm{\Delta }A_{L_2}`$ , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }A_L`$ is the area of the respective XMCD peak, can provide the ratio of spin to orbital moment. Due to the small signal to noise in the spectrum, the peaks were fit with Gaussians, and the fit data were used for the energy integration (see Fig.1). With small signal to noise, the result can be lead astray by noise contributions. Since the purpose is to determine general trends in the spin-orbit ratio, the fit works very well and allows the two contributions to be separated assuming no overlap of the relative features.

From the area of the separate components, we can determine the orbit to spin ratio defined as:

$$L_z/S_z\frac{4}{3}\frac{R_m+1}{R_m2}.$$
(2)
In this case we have not included factors for the different character of the states. The results are shown in Table 1. The numbers for $`L_z/S_z`$ provide additional confirmation of the character assignment. The s component results in an $`L_z0`$, and the second peak in the XMCD results in a nonzero $`L_z`$ consistent with a d component. It is worth noting that the orbital moment is a significant fraction of the total moment and perhaps plays a role in the uniaxial part of the anisotropy for Fe/Ge(100)Ma and Norton (1997).

To interpret these results theoretically, we turn to density-functional theory calculations. Two sets of calculations were performed to elucidate different aspects of induced Ge moments in Fe: (1) several specific Fe/Ge interface models representing varying degrees of Fe-Ge intermixing and (2) fixed-spin-moment calculations for bulk Ge, for the purpose of estimating the ratio between induced p-moments (which are the largest) to s and d moments (which are measured by the L edge XMCD). The calculations were performed within the generalized-gradient approximation, using projector-augmented-wave potentials Kresse and Hafner (1993); Kresse and Fürthmuller (1996). The plane-wave cutoff and k-point sampling were sufficient to converge all quantities to the precision given.

To study Fe/Ge interfaces, we used three models introduced previously for Fe/GaAs interfacesErwin et al. (2002). All are 1x1 interfaces between crystalline Ge and Fe, with the interface boundary either atomically abrupt or slightly intermixed (with 0.5 and 1.0 monolayers of Ge in the Fe host). The isolated interfaces were modeled by supercells containing seven layers each of Ge and Fe, with atomic coordinates completely relaxed within two layers of the interface. The induced Ge moments for the abrupt interface are shown in Fig. 3; the results for the other two models are qualitatively similar. The interfacial Ge layer has a moment of 0.06 $`\mu _B`$ antiparallel to the Fe magnetization. Although small, this is roughly half the value obtained for isolated Ge and thus appears reasonable. Ge atoms one layer away from the interface are less polarized (in the Fe direction), and further layers are essentially nonmagnetic. The Ge moments near the interface are predominantly p-like.

However, the L-edge XMCD is only sensitive to the s and d components of the total Ge moment. For the calculations described above, these contributions were only $`10\%`$ of the already small total Ge moment and hence are numerically difficult to resolve. To determine these ratios more systematically, we performed fixed-spin-moment calculations for crystalline Ge, varying the total moment, M, from zero to 1.5$`\mu _B`$. For each value of M, we computed thes, p, and d contributions within an atomic sphere. The ratios Ms/Mp and Md/Mp are remarkably independent of the total moment. They do, however, depend strongly on the sphere radius used: for touching spheres Ms/Mp=0.3 and Md/Mp=0.1, while for volume-filling spheres Ms/Mp=0.1 and Md/Mp=0.3. Most importantly, the s\- and d-moments are always parallel to the p-moment. These results are completely consistent with the results obtained above for the Fe/Ge interface. Hence, from these calculations, we conclude that the induced s\- and d-moments on Ge atoms near the Fe/Ge interface are $``$ 0.01 $`\mu _B`$, and are antiparallel to the Fe magnetization direction. However, since the XMCD averages over all layers, this measurement alone does not determine that the moment is localized at the Fe/Ge interface.

Indications of the localization of the Ge magnetic moment at the interface are provided by measurements of the x-ray resonant magnetic scattering (XRMS). Since XRMS probes changes in the chemical and magnetic density profile, it is very sensitive to the interface between two distinct elements. Figure 4 shows the average, as well as helicity-dependent signal arising from the Ge moment. Since XRMS examines the density profile, it is most sensitive to smooth interfaces with a distinct change in the chemical profile. For the case of the Fe-Ge alloy, the interface will not be well defined and should not result in a strong signal. The results here show a strong magnetic component that is of the same magnitude as the absorption result. This is a good indication of the moment localized near the Fe/Ge interface. Questions remain though concerning the presence of intermixed regions and how such a region would contribute to the magnetic signal.

To confirm our result and rule out the possibility of this magnetic phase being ascribed to an alloy , an amphorous Ge thin film was prepared in situ on a clean polycrystalline Fe surface. As mentioned above, a previous study of Fe/Ge/Fe structures provided evidence for the formation of an Fe-Ge alloy phaseSchleberger et al. (1999). The results of this paper concluded that the alloy formation occurred during the Fe on Ge growth, not for the Ge grown on Fe. Using a UHV surface science chamber, a sample with the following structure was prepared: Si/polycrystalline Fe(50 Å)/amorphous Ge(16 Å). X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) showed the sample was free from contamination and there was minimal intermixing of Fe and Ge. The measured XMCD spectra of the single Ge layer and the Fe/Ge multilayer are identical (see Fig. 5), which proves that the moment is formed at the Fe/Ge interface and not due to an FexGe1-x phase. Future work will focus on these single-layer structures to extract more a more detailed understanding of the interface electronic and magnetic structure.

Use of the Advanced Photon Source was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, under Contract No. W-31-109-Eng-38. Computations were performed at the DoD Major Shared Resource Centers at ASC. This work was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research.


text:
# 1 Top row: typical normalization charm signals. The signal region is shaded. Bottom row: invariant mass plots of 𝐷⁺ candidate decays to 𝐾⁻𝜇⁺𝜇⁺, 𝐾⁻𝑒⁺𝑒⁺, and 𝐾⁻𝜇⁺𝑒⁺, showing reflections mostly from misidentified 𝐷⁺→𝐾⁻𝜋⁺𝜋⁺ decays. These modes are used to set mis-ID rate rather than upper limits The solid curves are normalized Monte Carlo fits. The dashed lines show the signal window.

Search for Rare Charm Meson Decays at FNAL E791

D. J. Summers

Department of Physics and Astronomy

University of Mississippi-Oxford, University, MS 38677, USA

e-mail: summers@relativity.phy.olemiss.edu

(representing the Fermilab E791 Collaboration)

Abstract

We report the results of a blind search for flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC), lepton-flavor violating, and lepton-number violating decays of $`D^+`$, $`D_s^+`$, and $`D^0`$ mesons (and their antiparticles) into 2–, 3–, and 4–body states including a lepton pair. Such decays may involve Flavor-Changing Neutral Currents, Leptoquarks, Horizontal Gauge Bosons, or Majorana Neutrinos. No evidence for any of these decays is found. Therefore, we present 90% confidence level branching-fraction upper limits, typically at the $`10^4`$ level. A total of 51 decay channels have been examined; 26 have not been previously reported and 18 are significant improvements over previous results.

Introduction

The E791 Collaboration has reported limits on rare and forbidden dilepton decays of charmed $`D`$ mesons . Such measurements probe the SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) Standard Model of electroweak interactions in search of new mediators and couplings  beyond the $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$ discovered at CERN in 1983 . Here we summarize the results of two related analyses. First  we examined the $`\pi \mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ and $`K\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ decay modes of $`D^+`$ and $`D_s^+`$ and the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decay modes of $`D^0`$. Then we extended the methodology to 27 dilepton decay modes of the $`D^0`$ meson  containing either resonant $`V\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays, where $`V`$ is a $`\rho ^0`$, $`\overline{K}^0`$, or $`\varphi `$, and non-resonant $`h_1h_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ decays, where $`h_i`$ is either a $`\pi `$ or a $`K`$. The leptons were either muons or electrons. Charge-conjugate modes are implied throughout this paper. The modes are lepton flavor-violating (e.g., $`D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+e^{}`$), or lepton number-violating (e.g., $`D_s^+\pi ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$), or flavor-changing neutral current decays (e.g., $`D^0\overline{K}^0e^+e^{}`$). $`WW`$ box diagrams can mimic FCNC decays, but only at the $`10^{10}`$ to $`10^9`$ level . Long range effects through resonant modes (e.g., $`D^0\overline{K}^0\rho ^0,\rho ^0e^+e^{}`$) can occur at the $`10^6`$ level . Neither Lorentz nor gauge invariance  require lepton number conservation. A leptoquark  in an exchange diagram (e.g., $`D^0\mu ^+e^{}`$) or a Horizontal Gauge Boson  in a spectator diagram (e.g., $`D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+e^{}`$) might mediate a change both in quark and lepton generation simultaneously. A Majorana Neutrino might lead to same sign dilepton decays . Numerous experiments have studied rare decays of charge -1/3 strange quarks. Charge 2/3 charm quarks are interesting because they might couple differently .

The data come from measurements made with the E791 spectrometer  at Fermilab’s Tagged Photon Lab. The spectrometer has been upgraded for a series of charm experiments including E516 , E691 , E769 , and E791. E791 events were produced by a 500 GeV/$`c`$ $`\pi ^{}`$ beam interacting in a fixed target consisting of five thin disks, one platinum and four diamond. The discs were well separated to allow charmed hadrons to decay in air spaces where other interactions would be minimal. In addition to searching for rare decays, E791 has searched for $`D^0\overline{D}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ mixing , CP violation , and the pentaquark . We have observed doubly cabibbo suppressed decays , discovered that the $`D_s^+`$ has a longer lifetime than the $`D^0`$ , tagged quarks as being $`c`$ or $`\overline{c}`$ using $`D`$-$`\pi `$ production correlations , and measured the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+`$ mass splitting . Leading effects (e.g. more forward $`\pi ^+(u\overline{d})D^+(c\overline{d})`$ than $`\pi ^+(u\overline{d})D^{}(\overline{c}d)`$) have been observed in $`D^+`$  and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$  production and not in $`D_s^+`$ production . The total forward and differential cross section for $`D^0`$ production has been measured . The differential cross section for $`D^+`$ hadroproduction has been measured . The decays $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+`$ , $`D^0K^{}K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ , $`D^0K^{}K^{}K^+\pi ^+`$ , $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ , and $`D_s^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$  have been studied. Evidence for the scalar meson $`\sigma `$(500) in $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays has been observed . In non-charm physics, E791 has measured $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ hyperon production asymmetries  and has used di-jet events to observe the pion valence quark distribution  and color transparency .

E791 recorded a total of $`2\times 10^{10}`$ events with a loose transverse energy requirement and data acquisition system writing at 10 MB/s to a great wall of 42 8mm Exabyte tape drives . The resulting 50 Terabyte data set was totally unprecedented. It was nevertheless reconstructed at parallel computing farms built for this purpose at the University of Mississippi, Kansas State University, Fermilab, and CBPF–Rio de Janeiro  and yielded an unprecedented 200 000 fully reconstructed charmed hadron decays. Track and vertex information came from “hits” in 23 silicon microstrip planes and 45 wire chamber planes. This information and the bending provided by two dipole magnets were used for momentum analysis of charged particles. Kaon identification was carried out by two multi-cell Čerenkov counters  that provided $`\pi /K`$ separation in the momentum range $`660`$ GeV/$`c`$. We required that the momentum-dependent light yield in the Čerenkov counters be consistent for kaon-candidate tracks, except for those in $`D^0\varphi \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decays with $`\varphi K^+K^{}`$, where the narrow mass window for the $`\varphi `$ decay provided sufficient kaon identification (ID).

Electron ID was based on transverse shower shape plus matching wire chamber tracks to shower positions and energies in an electromagnetic calorimeter . The electron ID efficiency varied from 62$`\%`$ below 9 GeV/$`c`$ to 45$`\%`$ above 20 GeV/$`c`$. The probability to misidentify a pion as an electron was $`0.8\%`$, independent of pion momentum.

Muon ID employs two planes of scintillation counters . The first plane (5.5 m $`\times `$ 3.0 m) of 15 counters measured the horizontal position while the second plane (3.0 m $`\times `$ 2.2 m) of 16 counters measured the vertical position. There were about 15 interaction lengths of shielding upstream of the counters to filter out hadrons. Data from $`D^+\overline{K}^0\mu ^+\nu __\mu `$ decays  were used to choose selection criteria for muon candidates. Timing information from the smaller set of muon scintillation counters was used to improve the horizontal position resolution. Counter efficiencies, measured using muons originating from the primary target, were found to be $`(99\pm 1)\%`$ for the smaller counters and $`(69\pm 3)\%`$ for the larger counters. The probability of misidentifying a pion as a muon decreased with increasing momentum, from about 6$`\%`$ at 8 GeV/$`c`$ to $`1.3\%`$ above 20 GeV/$`c`$.

Events with evidence of well-separated production (primary) and decay (secondary) vertices were selected to separate charm candidates from background. Secondary vertices were required to be separated from the primary vertex by greater than $`20\sigma __L`$ for $`D^+`$ decays and greater than $`12\sigma __L`$ for $`D^0`$ and $`D_s^+`$ decays, where $`\sigma __L`$ is the calculated resolution of the measured longitudinal separation. Also, the secondary vertex had to be separated from the closest material in the target foils by greater than $`5\sigma __L^{}`$, where $`\sigma __L^{}`$ is the uncertainty in this separation. The vector sum of the momenta from secondary vertex tracks was required to pass within $`40\mu `$m of the primary vertex in the plane perpendicular to the beam. The net momentum of the charm candidate transverse to the line connecting the production and decay vertices had to be less than 300 MeV/$`c`$ for $`D^0`$ candidates, less than 250 MeV/$`c`$ for $`D_s^+`$ candidates, and less than 200 MeV/$`c`$ for $`D^+`$ candidates. Finally, decay track candidates were required to pass approximately 10 times closer to the secondary vertex than to the primary vertex. These selection criteria and kaon identification requirements were the same for both the search mode and for its normalization signal (discussed below).

To determine our selection criteria, we used a blind analysis technique. Before the selection criteria were finalized, all events having masses within a window $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_S`$ around the mass of the $`D^0`$ were “masked” so that the presence or absence of any potential signal candidates would not bias our choice of selection criteria. All criteria were then chosen by studying events generated by a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation program  and background events, outside the signal windows, from real data. The criteria were chosen to maximize the ratio $`N_{MC}/\sqrt{N_B}`$, where $`N_{MC}`$ and $`N_B`$ are the numbers of MC and background events, respectively, after all selection criteria were applied. The data within the signal windows were unmasked only after this optimization. We used asymmetric windows for the decay modes containing electrons to allow for the bremsstrahlung low-energy tail.

The upper limit for each branching fraction $`B_X`$ was calculated using the following formula:

$$B_X=\frac{N_X}{N_{\mathrm{Norm}}}\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{Norm}}}{\epsilon _X}\times B_{\mathrm{Norm}};\mathrm{where}\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{Norm}}}{\epsilon _X}=\frac{f_{\mathrm{Norm}}^{\mathrm{MC}}}{f_X^{\mathrm{MC}}}.$$
(1)
$`N_X`$ is the 90$`\%`$ confidence level (CL) upper limit on the number of decays for the rare or forbidden decay mode $`X`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{Norm}}`$ is the normalization mode branching fraction obtained from the Particle Data Group . $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{Norm}}`$ and $`\epsilon _X`$ are the detection efficiencies while $`f_{\mathrm{Norm}}^{\mathrm{MC}}`$ and $`f_X^{\mathrm{MC}}`$ are the fractions of Monte Carlo events that were reconstructed and passed the final selection criteria, for the normalization and decay modes, respectively.

The 90$`\%`$ CL upper limits $`N_X`$ are calculated using the method of Feldman and Cousins  to account for background, and then corrected for systematic errors by the method of Cousins and Highland . In these methods, the numbers of signal events are determined by simple counting, not by a fit. Upper limits are determined using the number of candidate events observed and expected number of background events within the signal region.

Systematic errors include: statistical errors from the fit to the normalization sample $`N_{\mathrm{Norm}}`$; statistical errors on the numbers of Monte Carlo events for both $`N_{\mathrm{Norm}}^{\mathrm{MC}}`$ and $`N_X^{\mathrm{MC}}`$; uncertainties in the calculation of mis-ID background; and uncertainties in the relative efficiency for each mode, including lepton and kaon tagging. These tagging efficiency uncertainties include: 1) the muon counter efficiencies from both Monte Carlo simulation and hardware performance; 2) kaon Čerenkov ID efficiency due to differences in kinematics and modeling between data and Monte Carlo simulated events; and 3) the fraction of signal events (based on simulations) that would remain outside the signal window due to bremsstrahlung tails. The large systematic errors for the $`D_s^+`$ modes are due to the uncertainty in the branching fraction for the $`D_s^+`$ normalization mode. The sums, taken in quadrature, of these systematic errors are listed in Table 2 and Table 4.

The $`D^+h\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, $`D_s^+h\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, and $`D^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ Analysis

We normalized the sensitivity of our search to the topologically similar Cabibbo-favored decays shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. For the $`D^+`$ decays we used $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$; for $`D_s^+`$ decays we used $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$; and for $`D^0`$ decays we used $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ events. The efficiencies for the normalization modes varied from about $`0.5\%`$ to $`2\%`$.

The widths of our normalization modes were 10.5 MeV/$`c^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ for $`D^+`$, 9.5 MeV/$`c^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ for $`D_s^+`$, and 12 MeV/$`c^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ for $`D^0`$. The signal windows used are:

Background that is not removed by cuts include decays in which hadrons (from real, fully-hadronic decay vertices) are misidentified as leptons. In the case where kaons are misidentified as leptons, candidates have effective masses which lie outside the signal windows. Most of these originate from Cabibbo-favored modes $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$, $`D_s^+K^{}K^+\pi ^+`$, and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$. These Cabibbo-favored reflections were explicitly removed prior to cut optimization. There remain two sources of background in our data: hadronic decays with pions misidentified as leptons ($`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}`$) and “combinatoric” background ($`N_{\mathrm{Cmb}}`$) arising primarily from false vertices and partially reconstructed charm decays. After cuts were applied and the signal windows opened, the number of events within the window is $`N_{\mathrm{Obs}}=N_{\mathrm{Sig}}+N_{\mathrm{MisID}}+N_{\mathrm{Cmb}}`$.

The background $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}`$ arises mainly from singly-Cabibbo-suppressed (SCS) modes. These misidentified leptons can come from hadronic shower punchthrough, decays-in-flight, and random overlaps of tracks. We do not attempt to establish a limit for $`D^+K^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+`$ modes, as they have relatively large feedthrough signals from copious Cabibbo-favored $`K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ decays. Instead, we use the observed signals in $`K^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+`$ channels to measure three dilepton mis-ID rates under the assumption that the observed signals (shown in Figs. 1d–f) arise entirely from lepton mis-ID. The curve shapes are from Monte Carlo. The following mis-ID rates were obtained: $`r_{\mu \mu }=(7.3\pm 2.0)\times 10^4`$, $`r_{\mu e}=(2.9\pm 1.3)\times 10^4`$, and $`r_{ee}=(3.4\pm 1.4)\times 10^4`$. Using these rates we estimate the numbers of misidentified candidates, $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}^h\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ (for $`D^+`$ and $`D_s^+`$) and $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$ (for $`D^0`$), in the signal windows as follows: $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}^h\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=r_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}N_{\mathrm{SCS}}^{h\pi \pi }`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}=r_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}N_{\mathrm{SCS}}^{\pi \pi }`$, where $`N_{\mathrm{SCS}}^{h\pi \pi }`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{SCS}}^{\pi \pi }`$ are the numbers of SCS hadronic decay candidates within the signal windows. For modes in which two possible pion combinations can contribute, e.g., $`D^+h^+\mu ^\pm \mu ^{}`$, we double the rate.

To estimate the combinatoric background $`N_{\mathrm{Cmb}}`$ within a signal window $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_S`$, we count events having masses within an adjacent background mass window $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$, and scale this number ($`N_{\mathrm{\Delta }M_B}`$) by the relative sizes of these windows: $`N_{\mathrm{Cmb}}=(\mathrm{\Delta }M_S/\mathrm{\Delta }M_B)N_{\mathrm{\Delta }M_B}`$. To be conservative in calculating our 90$`\%`$ confidence level upper limits, we take combinatoric backgrounds to be zero when no events are located above the mass windows.

In Table 2 we present the numbers of combinatoric background, mis-ID background, and observed events for all 24 modes. The efficiencies for the search modes varied from about $`0.1\%`$ to $`2\%`$. Data are shown in Figure 2 and limits are compared with previous results in Figure 5.

The $`D^0V\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`D^0hh\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ Analysis

There were a few minor differences between this analysis and our previous analysis as discussed above. First, we examined resonant modes, where the mass ranges used were: $`\left|m_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}m_{\rho ^0}\right|<150`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, $`\left|m_{K^{}\pi ^+}m_{\overline{K}^0}\right|<55`$ MeV/$`c^2`$, and $`\left|m_{K^+K^{}}m_\varphi \right|<10`$ MeV/$`c^2`$. We normalized the sensitivity of each search to similar hadronic 3-body (resonant) or 4-body (non-resonant) decays. One exception is the case of $`D^0\rho ^0\mathrm{}^\pm \mathrm{}^{}`$ where we normalize to nonresonant $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ because no published branching fraction exists for $`D^0\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Table 3 lists the normalization mode used for each signal mode and the fitted numbers of normalization data events ($`N_{\mathrm{Norm}}`$). The efficiencies for the normalization modes varied from $`0.2\%`$ to $`1\%`$, and the efficiencies for the search modes varied from $`0.05\%`$ to $`0.34\%`$. The signal windows are: $`1.83<M(D^0)<1.90`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ for $`\mu \mu `$ and $`1.76<M(D^0)<1.90`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ for $`ee`$ and $`\mu e`$ modes.

Background sources that are not removed by the selection criteria discussed earlier include decays in which hadrons (from real, fully-hadronic decay vertices) are misidentified as leptons. These misidentified leptons can come from hadronic showers reaching muon counters, decays-in-flight, and random overlaps of tracks from otherwise separate decays (“accidental” sources). In the case where kaons are misidentified as pions or leptons, candidate masses shift below signal windows. However, we remove these events to prevent them from influencing our background estimate, which is partially obtained from the mass sidebands (see discussion of $`N_{\mathrm{Cmb}}`$ below). To remove these events prior to the selection-criteria optimization, we reconstruct all candidates as each of the non-resonant normalization modes and test whether the masses are consistent with $`m_{D^0}`$. If so, we remove the events, but only if the number of kaons in the final state differs from that of the search mode. We do not remove events having the same number of kaons, as the loss in acceptance for true signal events would be excessive.

There remain two sources of background: hadronic decays where pions are misidentified as leptons ($`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}`$) and “combinatoric” background ($`N_{\mathrm{Cmb}}`$) arising primarily from false vertices and partially reconstructed charm decays. The background $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}`$ arises from the normalization modes. To estimate the rate for misidentifying $`\pi \pi `$ as $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, for all but the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ modes, we assume all $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ candidates observed (after subtracting combinatoric background estimated from mass sidebands) result from misidentification of $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ decays and count the number of $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays passing the final selection criteria. We then divide by twice the number of $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ normalization events with $`K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ mass within $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_S`$ boundaries (twice because there are two possible $`\pi ^+`$ misidentifications).

Table 4 shows numbers of combinatoric background, misidentification background, and observed events for all 27 modes. Data are shown in Figure 3 and compared with previous results in Figure 5.

From this procedure, the following misidentification rates were obtained: $`r_{\mu \mu }=(3.4\pm 2.4)\times 10^4`$, $`r_{\mu e}=(4.2\pm 1.4)\times 10^4`$, and $`r_{ee}=(9.0\pm 6.2)\times 10^5`$. For modes in which two possible pion combinations can contribute, e.g., $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^\pm \mu ^{}`$, we use twice the above rate; and for $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, where there are 4 possible combinations, we use 4 times this rate in calculating $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. Using these rates, we estimate the numbers of misidentified candidates, $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}^V\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}^{hh\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}`$, in the signal windows as follows:

$$N_{\mathrm{MisID}}^{hh\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}=r_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}\times N_{\mathrm{Norm}}^{hh\pi \pi }\mathrm{and}N_{\mathrm{MisID}}^V\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=r_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}\times N_{\mathrm{Norm}}^{V\pi \pi },$$
(2)
where $`N_{\mathrm{Norm}}^{hh\pi \pi }`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{Norm}}^{V\pi \pi }`$ are the numbers of normalization hadronic decay candidates in the signal windows.

To calculate the upper limits for the $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ modes, we set $`N_{\mathrm{MisID}}`$ to zero as we do not have an independent estimate of the misidentification rates. This results in conservative upper limits. If we had used the misidentification rates from our previous, 3-body decay study , then our limits for the three $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ modes would be lower by about a factor of two.

To estimate the combinatoric background $`N_{\mathrm{Cmb}}`$ within a signal window $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_S`$, we count events having masses within an adjacent background mass window $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_B`$, and scale this number ($`N_{\mathrm{\Delta }M_B}`$) by the relative sizes of these windows: $`N_{\mathrm{Cmb}}=(\mathrm{\Delta }M_S/\mathrm{\Delta }M_B)\times N_{\mathrm{\Delta }M_B}`$. To be conservative in calculating our 90$`\%`$ confidence level upper limits, we take combinatoric backgrounds to be zero when no events are located above the mass windows.

Conclusion

We used a blind analysis of data from Fermilab experiment E791 to obtain upper limits on the dilepton branching fractions for 51 flavor-changing neutral current, lepton-number violating, and lepton-family violating decays of $`D^+`$, $`D_s^+`$, and $`D^0`$ mesons. No evidence for any of these 2, 3 and 4-body decays was found. Therefore, we presented upper limits on the branching fractions at the 90$`\%`$ confidence level. Eighteen limits represented significant improvements over previously published results. Twenty-six of the remaining modes had no previously reported limits. Work is currently underway at the Fermilab FOCUS  experiment and others to further improve the limits presented here or to observe signals.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Eric Aitala , Jeff Appel , Steve Bracker , Lucien Cremaldi , Ai Nguyen, Milind Purohit , David Sanders , Alan Schwartz , Jean Slaughter , Noel Stanton , Nick Witchey , and all the members of the Fermilab E791 collaboration. Also many thanks to the staffs of Fermilab and participating institutions. This research was supported by the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CONACyT (Mexico), the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Energy. The Universities Research Association operates Fermilab for the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# 1 A specialty fiber and a transmission fiber are in scaled mirror symmetry about the point of OPC. The shaded fiber segments are located at -𝑧 and 𝑅𝑧 respectively, 0≤𝑧≤𝐿/𝑅, with the parameters 𝑞⁽²⁾(-𝑧), 𝛼'(-𝑧), 𝛾'(-𝑧), 𝑔'(-𝑧) proportional to 𝛽⁽²⁾(𝑅𝑧), 𝛼(𝑅𝑧), 𝛾(𝑅𝑧), 𝑔(𝑅𝑧) as in (-).

On the Capacity of Nonlinear Fiber Channels

Haiqing Wei and David V. Plant

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3A-2A6

hwei1@po-box.mcgill.ca

## Abstract

The nonlinearity of a transmission fiber may be compensated by a specialty fiber and an optical phase conjugator. Such combination may be used to pre-distort signals before each fiber span so to linearize an entire transmission line.

© 2024 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (060.2330) Fiber optics communications; (190.4370) Nonlinear optics, fibers

A fiber-optic transmission line is a nonlinear channel due to the material nonlinear effects. Fiber nonlinearity has become one of the major limiting factors in modern optical transmission systems . Distributed Raman amplification and various return-to-zero (RZ) modulation formats may be employed to reduce the nonlinear impairments, but merely to a limited extent. It is known that the nonlinearity of one fiber line may be compensated by that of another with the help of optical phase conjugation (OPC). However, all previous proposals and demonstrations  work partially in fighting the fiber nonlinearity. They either are specialized to only one aspect of the nonlinear effects, or fail to work in the presence of dispersion slope or higher order dispersion effects. Still open to date is an important question: does fiber nonlinearity really impose a fundamental limit to the channel capacity? This paper introduces the notion of scaled nonlinearity, which together with the application of OPC, provides a negative answer to the above question.

Consider an optical fiber stretching from $`z=L`$ to $`z=0`$, along which the optical birefringence is either vanishingly weak to avoid the effect of polarization mode dispersion (PMD), or sufficiently strong to render the fiber polarization maintaining. A set of optical signals are wavelength-division multiplexed (WDM) and injected into the fiber. For simplicity, it is assumed that all the signals are co-linearly polarized, and coupled into one polarization eigen state when the fiber is polarization maintaining. The signals may be represented by a sum of scalars $`E(𝐫,t)=F(x,y)_nA_n(z,t)\mathrm{exp}\left[i^z\beta (\zeta ,\omega _n)𝑑\zeta i\omega _nt\right]`$, where $`F(x,y)`$ is the transverse modal function, $`n𝐙`$, $`\omega _n=\omega _0+n\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`A_n`$ are the center frequency and the signal envelope of the $`n`$th WDM channel respectively, $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ is the channel spacing, $`\beta (z,\omega )`$ is the function of propagation constant vs. optical frequency $`\omega `$ at the position $`z`$ in the fiber. Define $`\beta ^{(k)}(z,\omega )\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{^k}{\omega ^k}\beta (z,\omega )`$, $`k>0`$. The dynamics of signal propagation may be described by a group of coupled partial differential equations ,

$$\frac{A_n}{z}i\beta _{1n}(z,i\frac{}{t})A_n+\frac{\alpha _n(z)}{2}A_n=i\gamma (z)\underset{k}{}\underset{l}{}A_kA_lA_{k+ln}^{}\mathrm{exp}[i\theta _{kln}(z)]+\underset{m}{}g_{mn}(z)|A_m|^2A_n,$$
(1)
$`n𝐙`$, $`Lz0`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the Kerr nonlinear coefficient, $`\alpha _n`$ is the attenuation coefficient around $`\omega _n`$, $`g_{mn}`$ is the Raman coupling coefficient from the $`m`$th to the $`n`$th channels, $`\theta _{kln}(z)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}^z[\beta (\zeta ,\omega _k)+\beta (\zeta ,\omega _l)\beta (\zeta ,\omega _{k+ln})\beta (\zeta ,\omega _n)]𝑑\zeta `$ denotes the phase mismatch among the mixing waves, and $`\beta _{1n}`$ is a functional operator defined as $`\beta _{1n}(z,i\frac{}{t})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_{k=1}^+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{k!}\beta ^{(k)}(z,\omega _n)\left(i\frac{}{t}\right)^k`$. Using the frame transformation $`(z,t)(z,t+^z\beta ^{(1)}(\zeta ,\omega _0)𝑑\zeta )`$, (1) may be rewritten as,

$$\frac{A_n}{z}i\beta _{2n}(z,i\frac{}{t})A_n+\frac{\alpha _n(z)}{2}A_n=i\gamma (z)\underset{k}{}\underset{l}{}A_kA_lA_{k+ln}^{}\mathrm{exp}[i\theta _{kln}(z)]+\underset{m}{}g_{mn}(z)|A_m|^2A_n,$$
(2)
$`n𝐙`$, $`Lz0`$, with $`\beta _{2n}(z,i\frac{}{t})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\beta _{1n}(z,i\frac{}{t})\beta ^{(1)}(z,\omega _0)\left(i\frac{}{t}\right)`$. This set of equations completely determine the propagation dynamics of the optical signals. In case the signals are not co-linearly polarized, the mathematical description should be slightly modified to deal with the complication. However, the same physics remains to govern the nonlinear signal propagation in optical fibers, still valid are the method of nonlinearity compensation described below and the conclusion about the capacity of nonlinear channels.

When the signals become intense, the nonlinear interaction as evidenced in (2) can badly distort them and make the carried information difficult to retrieve. Unlike the case of linear channels , simply raising the signal power may not necessarily increase the capacity of a nonlinear channel. Nevertheless, the nonlinear interaction among the signals is deterministic in nature that can be undone in principle. The question is how to implement a physical device which undoes the distortion. Suppose there is a specialty fiber stretching from $`z=0`$ to $`z=L/R`$, $`R>0`$ being a constant, in which $`q(z,\omega )`$ is the optical propagation constant. Let a set of WDM signals $`E^{}(𝐫,t)=F^{}(x,y)_nA_n^{}(z,t)\mathrm{exp}\left[i^zq(\zeta ,\omega _n^{})𝑑\zeta i\omega _n^{}t\right]`$ propagate in the specialty fiber, where $`n𝐙`$, $`\omega _n^{}=\omega _0^{}+n\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\omega _0^{}`$ may differ from $`\omega _0`$. As in the previous mathematical treatment, define a functional operator $`q_{2n}(z,i\frac{}{t})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_{k=1}^+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{k!}q^{(k)}(z,\omega _n^{})\left(i\frac{}{t}\right)^kq^{(1)}(z,\omega _0^{})\left(i\frac{}{t}\right)`$, with $`q^{(k)}(z,\omega )\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{^k}{\omega ^k}q(z,\omega )`$, and let $`\alpha _n^{}`$, $`\gamma ^{}`$, $`\theta _{kln}^{}`$, $`g_{mn}^{}`$ denote the linear and nonlinear parameters associated with the specialty fiber and the new set of WDM signals, then the propagation dynamics is governed by a similar group of equations,

$$\frac{A_n^{}}{z}iq_{2n}(z,i\frac{}{t})A_n^{}+\frac{\alpha _n^{}(z)}{2}A_n^{}=i\gamma ^{}(z)\underset{k}{}\underset{l}{}A_k^{}A_l^{}A_{k+ln}^{}\mathrm{exp}[i\theta _{kln}^{}(z)]+\underset{m}{}g_{mn}^{}(z)|A_m^{}|^2A_n^{},$$
(3)
$`n𝐙`$, $`0zL/R`$. If the parameters are set according to the following rules of scaling,

$`q^{(2)}(z,\omega _0^{}+\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`R\beta ^{(2)}(Rz,\omega _0\omega ),\omega 𝐑,`$ (4)
$`\alpha _n^{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`R\alpha _n(Rz),n𝐙,`$ (5)
$`\gamma ^{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`R\gamma (Rz)|C|^2,`$ (6)
$`g_{mn}^{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`Rg_{m,n}(Rz)|C|^2,m,n𝐙,`$ (7)
$`z[0,L/R]`$, $`C0`$ being a constant, then equations (3) are reduced from (2) by taking the complex conjugate, making a substitution $`zRz`$, and replacing $`A_n^{}(Rz,t)`$ by $`A_n^{}(z,t)/C`$. Mathematically, it says that $`A_n^{}(z,t)=CA_n^{}(Rz,t)`$, $`n𝐙`$, solve (3), which govern the nonlinear propagation in the specialty fiber. Interpreted physically, if OPC is applied after the transmission but before the specialty fibers to convert the signals $`A_n(0,t)`$, $`n𝐙`$, into $`A_n^{}(0,t)=CA_n^{}(0,t)`$, $`n𝐙`$, then the specialty fiber will propagate the optical signals in a reversed manner with respect to the transmission fiber. At the end, the specialty fiber outputs signals $`A_n^{}(L/R,t)=CA_n^{}(L,t)`$, $`n𝐙`$, which are replicas of the initial signals before entering the transmission fiber up to complex conjugation. The fibers and optical signals on the two sides are said to be mirror symmetric about the OPC, although in a scaled sense. Note that the specialty fiber would amplify light in correspondence to the attenuation in the transmission fiber and vice versa.

So OPC and a specialty fiber with parameters designed according to (4-7) could perfectly compensate the nonlinearity of a transmission fiber, if not for the ever-existing noise, especially that incurred when the signal amplitude is low, destroying the mirror symmetry. A better designed link would start with a specialty fiber that boosts the power of the optical signals, followed by OPC, then a fiber for transmission in which the signal power decreases, as shown in Fig.1. In the fiber locations not too far from the OPC, the signal power is relatively high to minimize the effect of the optical noise, which usually originates from amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) and quantum photon statistics. However at the two ends of the link, the effect of the optical noise could become substantial. A simple but fairly accurate model may assume that optical noise is incurred exclusively at the two extreme ends of the link, dispersive and nonlinear signal propagation is the only effect of the inner part of the link. In this model, the nonlinearity of a segment of transmission fiber with $`z_1zz_2`$ is fully compensated by the portion of the specialty fiber with $`z_2/Rzz_1/R`$, $`z_1,z_2[0,L]`$. In particular, the entire link from $`z=L/R`$ to $`z=L`$ is equivalent to a linear channel impaired by additive noise at the two ends. If $`W`$ is the total optical bandwidth of the input WDM channels, then the OPC should have a bandwidth wider than $`W`$ to cover the extra frequency components generated through wave mixing in the specialty fiber. With nonzero dispersion fibers, however, the extra bandwidth due to wave mixing may hardly exceed $`100`$ GHz, which is often negligible in comparison to the total bandwidth $`W`$ of several, even tens of THz. Thus the linearized link may be assumed to have the same bandwidth limit $`W`$ throughout, applicable to which is Shannon’s formula for channel capacity , $`C=W\mathrm{log}_2(1+S/N)`$. Obviously, many of such linearized links may be cascaded to reach a longer transmission distance, and the entire transmission line is still linear end-to-end in spite of the nonlinearity existing locally in the fibers.

Using a commercial software, computer simulation has been carried out to test the proposed method of nonlinearity compensation. As in Fig.1, the simulated link consists of a specialty fiber, an OPC, and a transmission fiber that is of the negative nonzero dispersion-shifted type, $`200`$ km long, with loss coefficient $`\alpha =0.2`$ dB/km, dispersion $`D=8`$ ps/nm/km, dispersion slope $`S=0.08`$ ps/nm2/km, effective mode area $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}=50`$ $`\mu `$m2, Kerr and Raman coefficients that are typical of silica glass. The specialty fiber is a dispersion compensating fiber of the same material, but with parameters $`(\alpha ^{},D^{},S^{})=20\times (\alpha ,D,S)`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=12.5`$ $`\mu `$m2. The nonlinearity of the specialty fiber can be switched on and off. ASE noise is added at the two ends of the link. The input consists of four WDM channels at $`100`$ GHz spacing, all RZ modulated at $`10`$ Gb/s with $`33\%`$ duty. The power of all optical pulses is peaked at $`100`$ mW when entering the transmission fiber. Fig.2 shows the received signals without and with nonlinearity in the specialty fiber respectively. Showing no nonlinear degradation, only the effect of ASE noise, the graph on the right side demonstrates clearly the compensation of optical nonlinearity.