text:
# Dynamics of a large spin with weak dissipation

## 1 Introduction

The influence of a dissipative environment on the behavior of a two-state system is often studied within the spin-boson model . This model applies to many systems from various fields of physics such as a magnetic flux in a SQUID, electrons tunneling in chemical systems or double quantum dots, and two-level systems in glasses . Naturally, there are other systems which are described by a spin greater than one half. Nuclear spins constitute one example. The elements gallium and arsenic used in the majority of modern solid state experiments have a nuclear spin of 3/2. The nuclear relaxation process measured in NMR experiments  is determined by the interaction with a dissipative environment, for instance a two-dimensional electron gas . Recent experiments have also been performed on molecular magnets. These are small clusters of a few atoms embedded into a crystal, which can be described as large spins, the most prominent examples of which (Mn12 and Fe8) are believed to have a total spin of 10 .

Large spins also describe dissipation-induced collective effects of an ensemble of identical two-level systems. The coupling to the common dissipative environment introduces an indirect interaction between the otherwise independent systems. A pseudo-spin – formally the sum of all spin one halfs – gives information about the degree of polarization of the ensemble.

In this work, we employ a master equation for the description of the large spin derived within the Born-Markov approximation. The validity of the latter seems to be sometimes controversial in the literature, and our aim is to demonstrate that a careful derivation in the exact eigenstate basis of the coherent system indeed yields reliable results down to zero temperature for all parameter values, as long as the dissipative coupling (parameter $`\alpha `$) is small.

## 2 Model Hamiltonian

We take the examples of section 1 as a motivation to study the generalization of the spin-boson model to larger spins, referred to as the *large-spin model* in the following. The Hamiltonian is given by

$$H=\epsilon J_z+2T_cJ_x+J_z\underset{q}{}\gamma _q(a_q^{}+a_q)+\underset{q}{}\omega _qa_q^{}a_q.$$
(1)
The $`J_i`$ are components of a spin vector $`𝑱`$ of arbitrary size $`J`$. For $`J=1/2`$, the model reduces to the spin-boson system. The bias is given by $`\epsilon `$ and $`T_c`$ accounts for tunneling between adjacent eigenstates of $`J_z`$. The dissipative environment is modeled by a bath of harmonic oscillators with creation operators $`a_q^{}`$ for a boson in mode $`q`$ and interaction strength $`\gamma _q`$ to the spin. The collective character of the model is due to the spin algebra which leads to non-constant tunnel rates for transitions between the different states of the system.

The generalization of the spin-boson model to a dissipative multistate system has been studied by several authors . There, a particle tunnels between different sites with a constant tunnel rate, equivalent to a tight-binding model. Another possible generalization of the spin-boson model arises if also excited states in a double-well potential are considered . All these systems do not show any collective behavior by definition.

The Hamiltonian (1) also differs from the above cited generalizations of the spin-boson model with respect to the interaction term. No counter term in the form of $`J_z^2`$ is included in equation (1). Such a term does not occur if e. g. collective effects of an ensemble of two-level systems are described by the large spin. However, it is interesting to note in this context that a quadratic term, $`J_z^2`$, can appear in the opposite limit, the strong-coupling regime, of the large-spin model. This is the case if a polaron transformation is applied to the Hamiltonian (1). That term has considerable consequences on the dynamics of the large spin .

The Hamiltonian of a large spin with dissipation is closely related to the *Dicke-model*, described by the Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{Dicke}}=\omega _\mathrm{D}J_z+J_x\underset{q}{}\gamma _q(a_q^{}+a_q)+\underset{q}{}\omega _qa_q^{}a_q.$$
(2)
The Dicke Hamiltonian is frequently applied in the field of quantum optics, where it describes an ensemble of independent two-state atoms interacting via the common radiation field. This model exhibits the effect of *superradiance* as pointed out by Dicke in the original work in 1954, Ref. . The decay of an ensemble of initially excited atoms is not exponential anymore, as one would expect from independent atoms. Instead, the time of the decay decreases inversely with the number of atoms and the maximum intensity of the emitted radiation increases with the square of the number of atoms. The Dicke model does not include direct, electrostatic tunnel coupling terms. The coupling to the environment is offdiagonal in contrast to the spin-boson model where the coupling is diagonal, i.e. to the $`z`$-component of the spin. For zero bias, $`\epsilon =0`$, the large-spin Hamiltonian reduces to the Dicke model, though in a rotated frame of reference. Thus, the $`x`$-component of the large-spin model shows superradiant behavior in an unbiased system. We will find that a similar statement applies for the $`z`$-component of the large spin in a biased system.

## 3 Master Equation in Born-Markov Approximation

We consider the regime of weak interactions between the large spin and the dissipative environment. The Born-Markov approximation is employed to derive a master equation for the density matrix of the spin. This method is perturbative in the system-reservoir coupling. In second order, the master equation for the density matrix $`\rho (t)`$ of the spin reads

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}(t)=_0^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{Res}}\left\{[\stackrel{~}{V}(t),[\stackrel{~}{V}(t^{}),\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)R_0]]\right\}.$$
(3)
The interaction part of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), is denoted by $`V`$, the equilibrium density matrix of the environment by $`R_0`$, and the tilde indicates the interaction picture. The advantage of a master equation in this form is that only operators refering to the spin system enter. The degrees of freedom of the reservoir are already traced out with the understanding that backaction effects on the bosonic bath can be neglected.

In (3), it is assumed that the spin is brought into contact with the environment at time $`t=0`$. Hence, the initial density matrix of the system factorizes in a spin and a reservoir part. For finite times, $`t>0`$, correlations between the subsystems evolve. These correlations are neglected on the right hand side of equation (3) in the second order Born approximation as they lead to effects of third or higher order in the coupling. Moreover, the Markov approximation assumes that the kernel of the integration in Eq. (3) given by terms like $`\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{Res}}\{\stackrel{~}{V}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}(t^{})R_0\}`$ decays on a timescale much shorter than the typical timescale of the spin density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(t)`$. This is reasonable for weakly interacting systems since the dynamics of the spin in the interaction picture is solely caused by the coupling to the environment. Non-Markovian effects in the Born approximation for $`J=1/2`$ have been discussed recently by Loss and DiVincenzo .

Inserting $`\stackrel{~}{V}(t)`$ in the master equation (3) and transforming back into Schrödinger picture yields the final form of the master equation for a large spin,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{\rho }(t)=& i[\rho (t),\epsilon J_z+2T_cJ_x]\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}(\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }+4T_c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)[J_z,J_z\rho (t)]\hfill \\ & \frac{2T_c\epsilon }{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_c)[J_z,J_x\rho (t)]+\frac{2T_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s[J_z,J_y\rho (t)]\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}(\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}+4T_c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_c^{})[J_z,\rho (t)J_z]\hfill \\ & +\frac{2T_c\epsilon }{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_c^{})[J_z,\rho (t)J_x]\frac{2T_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^{}[J_z,\rho (t)J_y].\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Here, the influence of the environment is expressed by the rates

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_c& =\frac{\pi }{2}\rho (\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right)\frac{i}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \rho (\omega )\left(\frac{1}{\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }}+\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_s& =\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \rho (\omega )\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\beta \omega }{2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\omega +\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{1}{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}\right)i\frac{\pi }{2}\rho (\mathrm{\Delta }),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_c(\mathrm{\Delta }0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{4T_c^2+\epsilon ^2}`$ is the level spacing of the unperturbed large spin. In the following, we focus on the case of an ohmic dissipation when the spectral function $`\rho (\omega )`$ is linear with an exponential cutoff, $`\rho (\omega )=2\alpha \omega \mathrm{exp}(\omega /\omega _c)`$. Then, analytic expressions can be obtained for the rates except for the real part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ which remains to be calculated numerically at finite temperatures.

## 4 Relation to the Spin-Boson Model

For the smallest possible value of the spin, $`J=1/2`$, the large-spin Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), reduces to the spin-boson model. This enables us to compare the Born-Markov approximation with results for the spin-boson model in the literature. In particular, we employ the approximate solutions of the latter as given by Weiss .

It is a priori clear that the Born-Markov approximation being perturbative in the spin-environment coupling should only be applied in the regime of small couplings. Within the Born-Markov approximation, the spin is described by the master equation (4). A peculiarity occurs for spin one half: In that case, a closed set of equations for the expectation values of the spin components follows from the master equation, comparable to Bloch equations,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{J_x}& =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\left(\epsilon ^2\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\}+4T_c^2\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}\right)J_x\epsilon J_y\hfill \\ & +\frac{2T_c\epsilon }{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\left(\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\}\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}\right)J_z+\frac{T_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{Im}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\},\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{J_y}& =\epsilon J_x\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\left(\epsilon ^2\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\}+4T_c^2\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}\right)J_y\hfill \\ & \left(2T_c+\frac{2T_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\}\right)J_z+\frac{T_c\epsilon }{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\left(\mathrm{Im}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\}\mathrm{Im}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{J_z}& =2T_cJ_y.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
A similar set of Bloch equations was recently published by Hartmann et al. . It is, however, not possible to apply these equations to larger spins without additional approximations. This was already remarked in the original works by Bloch . The difficulty arises because products of spin operators cannot be replaced by a single spin operator for spins larger than one half. The corresponding equations do not form a closed set anymore. Hence, we can only transform the master equation into Bloch equations for spin one half. For larger spins we will have to come back to the master equation (4).

The equilibrium values of the spin components follow from the Bloch equations (6). It is readily seen that $`J_y_{\mathrm{}}`$ vanishes. The other two components become

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_z_{\mathrm{}}& =\frac{\epsilon \mathrm{Re}\{\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }+4T_c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}\mathrm{Im}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}+\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }^3\mathrm{Im}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Re}\{\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }+4T_c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\})2\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}},\hfill \\ \hfill J_x_{\mathrm{}}& =\frac{T_c\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{Im}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\})+\epsilon ^2T_c\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}\mathrm{Im}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{Re}\{\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }+4T_c^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\})\epsilon ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_c\}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
In the limit of zero coupling, $`\alpha 0`$, we retrieve with Eq. (5) the thermodynamic expressions

$$J_z_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\epsilon }{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right),J_x_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{T_c}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right).$$
(8)
The dynamics of the spin components follows from the numerical integration of the Bloch equations (6).

For a weak ohmic dissipation and $`J=1/2`$, Weiss gives an approximate solution for the dynamics of the spin . Two temperature regimes have to be distinguished: At intermediate temperatures, the solution is obtained by the noninteracting-blip approximation (NIBA). At low temperatures, however, the NIBA breaks down and the solution is derived by taking into account interblip correlations. In the NIBA regime, the solution is given by equations (21.132) and (21.134) in Ref. . The solution for low temperatures follows as equation (21.172) and (21.173) in the same reference. Minor differences in the notation have to be remarked: The bias $`\epsilon `$, the cutoff $`\omega _c`$, and the temperature $`k_BT`$ are identically defined in this article and in Ref. . The coupling strength $`\alpha `$ corresponds to $`K`$ in Ref. . The tunnel rate typically referred to as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the spin-boson literature is expressed in our notation by $`2T_c`$ (here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is defined as the level spacing of the unperturbed spin). Due to a different sign of the tunnel term in the spin-boson Hamiltonian and the Hamiltonian for the large spin, Eq. (1), we have $`\sigma _z=2J_z`$ and $`\sigma _x=2J_x`$.

Figures 1a and 1b show the time evolution of $`J_z`$ and $`J_x`$ for weak ohmic dissipation, $`\alpha =0.05`$, at a finite temperature $`k_BT=2T_c`$. The dynamics of $`J_y`$ follows as the time derivative of $`J_z`$, as can be seen from the Heisenberg equation of motion. For that temperature, the noninteracting-blip approximation applies and its solution is in excellent agreement with the solution of the Bloch equations (6). Deviations between the two methods become visible for a larger coupling strength, $`\alpha =0.2`$, as shown in the inset of the same figure. However, this is not surprising as the Bloch equations are perturbative in the coupling strength $`\alpha `$ and thus limited to small couplings $`\alpha `$. Figure 1c and 1d show the dynamics of an unbiased spin at zero temperature. In that regime, the NIBA is not valid anymore and the solution of the Bloch equations is compared to Eqs. (21.172) and (21.173) of Ref. . Again, both solutions are in good agreement. For smaller couplings, e. g. $`\alpha =0.025`$, the different solutions for $`J_z`$ cannot be distinguished anymore (not shown). The equilibrium value $`J_x_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the Bloch equations appears too large as compared to the low temperature solution of the spin-boson model. However, both equilibrium values approach the thermodynamic result, Eq. (8), in the limit of zero coupling and hence coincide in that limit.

We conclude that the Born-Markov approximation correctly describes the dynamics of the spin-boson model for weak ohmic dissipation at all temperatures. This is corroborated by recent results for the driven two-state system . As we see no reason why the Born-Markov approximation should break down for larger spins, we expect that the master equation (4) gives a reliable description of a large spin with weak dissipation.

## 5 Dicke Effect

It was pointed out in the introduction that the large-spin Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), with zero bias can be mapped on the Dicke model, Eq. (2), by rotation around the (spin) $`y`$-axis,

$$H_{\mathrm{Dicke}}=e^{i\pi /2J_y}He^{i\pi /2J_y}.$$
(9)
The effect of superradiance characteristic for the Dicke model is therefore visible in the $`x`$-component of the large spin. This becomes apparent if the initial values are chosen such that $`J_x_0=J`$. Then, the effect results in an accelerated decay of $`J_x`$ with increasing spin size $`J`$. Typically, the main interest lies in the $`z`$-component of the spin and this is chosen maximum as initial value. Consequently, the question arises if that component also decays in a superradiant fashion. This is indeed the case as will be shown in the following. We choose a large bias, $`\epsilon =10T_c`$, to ensure the decay of $`J_z`$. The dynamics for different spin sizes $`J`$ follows from the numerical solution of the master equation (4). The decay of the normalized $`z`$-component $`J_z/J`$ is plotted in figure 2 for the spin sizes $`J=1/2`$, 2, 5, and 10. It is clearly visible that the time in which the spin decays decreases with increasing spin size, similar to the Dicke superradiance.

Naturally, the exact dynamics of the large spin differs from the Dicke model as the Hamiltonians are not identical. In contrast to the Dicke model, the coupling to the environment is diagonal and a tunnel term exists in the unperturbed Hamiltonian. Yet, despite these differences, the basic results are the same. The reason is that superradiance is driven by the spin algebra on which both models rely. This becomes obvious by considering the state dependent transition matrix elements  which are maximal for the state $`|J,M=0`$, corresponding to $`J_z=0`$. From the point of view of the spin-boson model it appears that the spin shows collective effects, namely a superradiance like behavior, once it is generalized to spins larger than one half.

## 6 Quantum Beats

We shall return once again to the symmetric system, $`\epsilon =0`$. For a spin one half, the Bloch equations (6) predict an exponential decay for $`J_x`$ and a damped oscillation for $`J_z`$. Already for the next higher spin, $`J=1`$, new features appear in the dynamics of the spin. Figure 3 shows the time evolution of the expectation values of $`J_z`$ and $`J_x`$ for different interaction strengths. A clear beat pattern is visible on top of the damped oscillations of $`J_z`$. With increasing interaction with the environment, the beat pattern dissolves to a seemingly chaotic behavior. The decay of $`J_x`$ is superposed with oscillations. These new features have different origins. The beat pattern of $`J_z`$ is caused by the nonresonant bosons of the environment. The oscillations of $`J_x`$, on the other hand, are due to two-boson processes. The latter is best understood in a rotated frame, i. e. in the Dicke model. There, operator combinations $`J_+J_+`$ and $`J_{}J_{}`$ appear in the master equation. In standard approaches to superradiance , these are often disregarded by invoking a *secular approximation*. One can show, however, that these terms lead to an additional oscillation the frequency of which is approximately given by $`4T_c`$, that is twice the level spacing of the unbiased spin. We numerically find that the amplitude of these oscillations is increased by the nonresonant bosons.

The beat pattern in the dynamics of $`J_z`$ is solely caused by nonresonant bosons. They lead to different corrections to the eigenenergies of the spin, lifting the equidistance of the spectrum. We consider a spin one with zero bias at zero temperature, the same parameters as used in Fig. 3. The three eigenstates of the unperturbed spin labeled in the following by $`|+`$, $`|0`$, and $`|`$ have the eigenenergies $`2T_c`$, 0, and $`2T_c`$, respectively. The expectation value of $`J_z`$ becomes $`J_z=\mathrm{cos}(2T_ct)`$. The nonresonant bosons of the environment lead to corrections to these eigenenergies. In second order perturbation theory, we find

$$E_{|\pm }^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \rho (\omega )\frac{1}{\omega 2T_c},E_{|0}^{(2)}=E_{|+}^{(2)}+E_|^{(2)}.$$
(10)
As a consequence, the three states are not equidistant anymore. The resonant bosons, $`\omega _q=2T_c`$, are neglected in this calculation. They lead to an imaginary part in the energies resulting in damping, which is not our concern at this stage. The next step is to determine the effect of the corrections on the dynamics of $`J_z`$. Neglecting the corrections to the eigenstates themselves yields

$$J_z_t=\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _bt)$$
(11)
with $`\omega _0`$ and $`\omega _b`$ defined as

$$\omega _0=2T_c+\frac{1}{2}\left(E_{|+}^{(2)}E_|^{(2)}\right),\omega _b=\frac{1}{2}E_{|0}^{(2)}.$$
(12)
As a result, the oscillation frequency $`\omega _0`$ is slightly changed with respect to the unperturbed case and we find indeed a beat pattern with frequency $`\omega _b`$. For an ohmic dissipation, the beat frequency becomes

$$\omega _b=\alpha \omega _c+\alpha T_c\left[e^{2T_c/\omega _c}\mathrm{Ei}\left(\frac{2T_c}{\omega _c}\right)e^{2T_c/\omega _c}\mathrm{Ei}\left(\frac{2T_c}{\omega _c}\right)\right],$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{Ei}(x)`$ denotes the exponential integral. The term in the brackets is of the order of $`T_c/\omega _c`$. Hence, for $`\omega _cT_c`$, the beat frequency is given in good approximation by $`\omega _b=\alpha \omega _c`$. For weak interactions, the resulting dynamics is in excellent agreement with the numerical solution of the master equation. Naturally, equation (11) does not include damping since dissipative effects of the resonant bosons are not considered in the derivation. The occurrence of a beat pattern is not restricted to the parameters chosen in this example. Similar patterns are equally found for larger spins, $`J>1`$, and finite temperatures. The pattern dissolves at high temperatures or high spins. Even for a finite bias, $`\epsilon >0`$, such patterns can be observed.

## 7 Conclusion

The collective character of the model becomes visible for larger spins where we found a superradiance-like decay of the $`z`$-component of the spin, the time scale of which decreases with increasing spin size. The beat pattern in the dynamics of $`J_z`$ for intermediate spins is caused by the nonresonant bosons of the environment. We conjecture that the beat pattern is a characteristic property of an intermediate spin with weak dissipation.

In our study of a large spin coupled to a dissipative environment, the theoretical description applied to real spins as well as to dissipation-induced collective effects in pseudo-spin systems such as ensembles or arrays of two-level systems. We derived a master equation for arbitrary spin $`J`$ within the Born-Markov approximation. When comparing our results for $`J=1/2`$ and ohmic dissipation to standard spin-boson NIBA (and beyond) calculations , we found good agreement at all temperatures and arbitrary parameter values, as long as the dissipative coupling is weak. We conclude that the master equation in Born-Markov approximation is a reliable method to describe the physics in the weak coupling limit.


format: text

text:
# Landau-Zener transitions in a multilevel system. An exact result.

## Abstract

We study the S-matrix for the transitions at an avoided crossing of several energy levels, which is a multilevel generalization of the Landau-Zener problem. We demonstrate that, by extending the Schrödinger evolution to complex time, one can obtain an exact answer for some of the transition amplitudes. Similar to the Landau-Zener case, our result covers both the adiabatic regime (slow evolution.) and the diabatic regime (fast evolution). The form of the exact transition amplitude coincides with that obtained in a sequential pairwise level crossing approximation, in accord with the conjecture of Brundobler and Elser .

Landau-Zener (LZ) transitions  between two energy states at an avoided level crossing is one of the few exactly solvable problems of time-dependent quantum evolution. The LZ theory has found many applications, and is used to describe a variety of physical systems, ranging from atomic and molecular physics , to mesoscopic physics .

However, since most of the problems of interest involve more than two energy levels, with transitions between several levels happening simultaneously, it is desirable to extend the LZ theory to multilevel problems. A number of interesting generalizations of the LZ problem have been proposed, in which several energy levels cross at the same time. In some cases, including the so-called bow-tie model , the high spin model , one can construct an analytic solution. The solutions  rely on a special form of the coupling Hamiltonian or on its symmetry, which preserves the integrability of the problem. One of the most efficient methods proposed to treat the generalized LZ problems is the contour integration approach .

Much less is known about the general multilevel LZ problem, defined by a time-dependent Hamiltonian of the form

$$(t)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\widehat{\nu }t$$
(1)
were $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`\widehat{\nu }`$ are hermitian matrices $`n\times n`$ of a general form. In this problem, one is interested in the evolution

$$i\frac{\psi }{t}=(t)\psi $$
(2)
from large negative to large positive times. Since $`\widehat{\nu }t`$ is the leading term in the Hamiltonian at large $`t`$, it is natural to analyze the evolution in terms of an S-matrix in the basis of states that diagonalize $`\widehat{\nu }`$.

One can construct an approximate solution in the ‘weak coupling’ limit, when the off-diagonal elements of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ are weak compared to the diagonal ones, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}||\mathrm{\Delta }_{ii}|`$, ($`ij`$). Since in this case the anticrossing gaps of the adiabatic levels (which sometimes are also called ‘frozen levels’) are much smaller than the level separation, the weak coupling regime can be analyzed in a sequential two-level LZ approximation , similar to the energy diffusion problem in mesoscopic systems .

Brundobler and Elser have noticed  that the formula for certain diagonal elements of the S-matrix obtained in such an approximation remains numerically very accurate even at strong coupling, when this approximation supposedly breaks down. This surprising observation, based on a computer simulation of the problem (2),(1), has led Brundobler and Elser to a conjecture that the sequential LZ approximation can in some cases give an exact result.

Below we show that this conjecture is indeed correct. We shall use the method of continuing the Schrödinger evolution (2) to complex time, and matching the $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$ asymptotics of the evolving state $`\psi (t)`$. Our method gives exact results only for some of the transition amplitudes, corresponding to the transitions $`|1_{t=\mathrm{}}|1_{t=+\mathrm{}}`$, $`|n_{t=\mathrm{}}|n_{t=+\mathrm{}}`$.

It is convenient to analyze the problem in the basis of states that diagonalize $`\widehat{\nu }`$:

$$\widehat{\nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\nu _1& & & \\ & \nu _2& & \\ & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & \nu _n\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
This basis is not the basis of adiabatic states, however, for $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$ those states coincide with the adiabatic states, up to permutation. It is also convenient to order the eigenvalues $`\nu _i`$ so that

$$\nu _1<\nu _2<\mathrm{}<\nu _n.$$
(4)
For simplicity, we assume that the eigenvalues are non-degenerate: $`\nu _i\nu _j`$ for $`ij`$.

To produce a full solution of the Landau–Zener problem completely, one would have to find the transition amplitudes between all different states, or, in other words, to find the scattering matrix $`S`$, relating the initial state of the system at $`t=\mathrm{}`$ and the final state at $`t=+\mathrm{}`$:

$$\psi (t=+\mathrm{})=\widehat{S}\psi (t=\mathrm{}).$$
(5)
The Landau-Zener theory provides an analytic solution of this problem for $`n=2`$. Presently, it is not known whether a generalization of this solution exists for $`n>2`$.

Here, I will pursue a less ambitious goal. I will show how one can obtain the two transition amplitudes $`S_{11}`$ and $`S_{nn}`$. In our ‘$`\nu `$-ordered’ basis notation, this corresponds to the transitions between the lowest and the highest adiabatic energy state: $`S_{11}=S_{A1An}`$, and $`S_{nn}=S_{AnA1}`$, where $`Ai`$ are adiabatic states ordered by their energies (see Fig. 1).

To compute these transition probabilities, I consider the $`n`$-component state vector $`\psi (t)`$ at large times $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$. At these times, the Hamiltonian is almost diagonal, and the transitions between different adiabatic states are negligible. Therefore, the state $`i`$’th component $`\psi _i(t)`$ evolves as

$`\psi _i(t\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`a_ie^{i\varphi _i(t)},`$ (6)
$`\psi _i(t+\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`b_ie^{i\varphi _i(t)}.`$ (7)
Let us consider the phase $`\varphi _i(t)=\mathrm{arg}\psi _i(t)`$. In the zero-order approximation, when one completely neglects the off-diagonal part $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, the phase is entirely due to $`\nu _i`$:

$$\varphi _i^{(0)}(t)=\frac{\nu _it^2}{2}.$$
(8)
To find the phase $`\varphi _i`$ more accurately, one notes that in the adiabatic approximation this phase is actually given by an integral of a ‘frozen eigenvalue’ of $`\epsilon _i(t)`$ the Hamiltonian (1):

$$\varphi _i(t)=\stackrel{t}{}\epsilon _i(t^{})𝑑t^{}.$$
(9)
At large $`t`$, $`\nu t\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the eigenvalue $`\epsilon _i(t)`$ can be found from perturbation theory in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. To the second order in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, it is given by

$$\epsilon _i^{(2)}(t)=\nu _it+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ii}+\underset{ji}{}\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|^2}{(\nu _i\nu _j)t}.$$
(10)
Therefore, at large $`t`$, the phase $`\varphi _i(t)`$ can expressed as

$$\varphi _i(t)=\frac{\nu _it^2}{2}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ii}t+\alpha _i\mathrm{ln}t+O(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^3),$$
(11)
where

$$\alpha _i=\underset{ji}{}\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}|^2}{\nu _i\nu _j}.$$
(12)
The key observation underlying our approach is that the terms retained in the expansion (11) are the only terms that grow indefinitely at $`t\mathrm{}`$. The higher-order terms in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, written symbolically as $`O(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^3)`$, remain finite at large $`t`$.

The asymptotic form of $`\psi _i(t)`$, defined by the expressions (6), (11) and (12), allows one to compute the transition amplitudes $`S_{11}`$ and $`S_{nn}`$ as follows . Let us consider the solution (6) for arbitrary complex times $`t`$, allowing the phase variable $`\varphi _i(t)`$ to be complex. Suppose that initially the system is in $`k`$’th state, so that $`a_i=0`$ for all $`ik`$, and $`a_k=1`$. At $`t+\mathrm{}`$, the system is, in general, described by all $`b_i0`$. One can try to continue the solution at $`t+\mathrm{}`$ to $`t\mathrm{}`$ along one of the two large half-circles, $`t=Re^{i\theta }`$:
(a) in the upper half-plane, $`\theta [0,\pi ]`$, and
(b) in the lower half-plane, $`\theta [0,\pi ]`$.
The contour radius $`R`$ is assumed to be very large.

When the state $`\psi (t)`$ is continued analytically along such a contour, its different components will behave differently: some of them increasing, while others decreasing as a function of $`|t|`$. Indeed, the leading term in $`\varphi _i(t)`$ gives for the $`i`$’th component

$$\psi _i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\nu _iR^2}{2}\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\frac{i\nu _iR^2}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta \right).$$
(13)
In matching the asymptotic expansions only the most rapidly increasing terms the wave function must be retained. (For a discussion of this issue in depth, see .) For the contour (a) the leading term is given by the $`i=n`$ component, while for (b) it is the $`i=1`$ component. Because of that, only $`n`$’th and $`1`$’st components of the state $`\psi (t\mathrm{})`$ can be determined in this way. Without loss of generality, I will consider the $`i=1`$ case, i.e., perform continuation along the contour (b).

The wave function after continuing along the contour can be found by changing the argument of $`t`$ as

$$tte^{i\pi }$$
(14)
in Eq. (11). The first and the second term contribute only to the phase of $`\psi _i(t)`$, while the third term changes its modulus:

$$\psi _1^{(b)}(t\mathrm{})=b_1e^{\pi \alpha _1}e^{i\frac{1}{2}\nu _1t^2i\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}ti\alpha _1\mathrm{ln}t}.$$
(15)
On the other hand, we assume that this state evolved from the state which initially had only one nonzero component, $`|\psi _i(t)|=1`$, $`\psi _{ji}=0`$. The time dependence of this component, $`\psi _i(t)e^{i\varphi _i(t)}`$, with unit modulus and the phase given Eq. (11), yields

$$\psi _1(t\mathrm{})=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\nu _1t^2i\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}ti\alpha _1\mathrm{ln}t\right).$$
(16)
Comparing these two expressions, we obtain

$$b_1=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi \alpha _1\right),$$
(17)
which gives the transition amplitude of the form

$$S_{11}=b_1=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha _1)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi \underset{j1}{}\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_{i1}|^2}{\nu _j\nu _1}\right).$$
(18)
Similarly, for the $`i=n`$ component, after going through analytical continuation over the contour (a), we obtain

$$S_{nn}=\mathrm{exp}(\pi \alpha _n)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi \underset{jn}{}\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_{in}|^2}{\nu _n\nu _j}\right).$$
(19)
The resulting expressions for the transition amplitude, Eqs. (18),(19), bear similarity with the Landau-Zener formula and, in fact, coincide with it in the $`n=2`$ case. Just like in the LZ problem, the dependence on the coupling matrix $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and on the ’rapidity’ $`\widehat{\nu }`$ is such that $`S0`$ in the adiabatic limit of slow evolution (small $`\widehat{\nu }`$), and $`S1`$ when the evolution is fast (large $`\widehat{\nu }`$).

Eqs. (18) and (19) coincide with the transition amplitude found by Brundobler and Elser  in the sequential pairwise LZ level crossing approximation, and thus prove their conjecture.

The existence of an analytic result for two transition amplitudes may indicate that the entire $`S`$-matrix could be obtained analytically. It does not seem, however, that a trivial generalization of the above approach will be sufficient for that. We were not able to perform analytic continuation keeping track of the subleading terms, which probably indicates that this is not an optimal method of treating such a problem.

It is of course not unconceivable, in principle, that only two transition amplitudes out of total $`n^2`$ can be obtained in a closed form, while others cannot. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there are no other examples known where only a subset of the $`S`$-matrix is calculable, and thus such a possibility does not seem likely. The author hopes that this paper will stimulate further work towards a more complete understanding of multilevel Landau-Zener transitions.


text:
# HETE-2 Localization and Observations of the Short, Hard Gamma-Ray Burst GRB020531

## 1. Introduction

Gamma-ray bursts appear to fall into two classes: short ($``$ 0.2 sec), harder bursts, which comprise 20-25% of all bursts; and long ($``$ 20 sec), softer bursts, which comprise 75-80% of the total (Kouveliotou et al. 1993, Lamb, Graziani & Smith 1993). The spectra of the two classes of bursts differ: the spectra of the bursts become softer as the bursts become longer. To date little is known about the distance to or the nature of the short GRBs, despite extensive efforts.

## 2. Results

HETE-2  (Atteia et al. 2001, Kawai et al. 2001, Ricker et al. 2001) has detected and localized a short, hard GRB. Figure 1 (left panel) shows the final rectangular HETE-2 WXM error box and the final diamond-shaped IPN error box for this burst, GRB 020531. This demonstrates that the detection and localization of short, hard GRBs in the hard x-ray energy band is possible, and has important implications for Swift and for other future GRB missions.

Figure 2 shows the time history of GRB 020531 in the $`85300`$ keV energy band. The time history of GRB020531 at high energies ($`>30`$ keV) consists of a short, intense spike followed by a much less intense secondary peak. Its time history is thus similar to that seen in many short, hard bursts. The time history of GRB020531 at low energies ($`<25`$ keV) consists of two peaks of similar duration ($``$ 0.80 sec) and intensity, the first of which corresponds in time to the short, intense spike seen at high energies. Figure 1 (right panel) shows that the durations $`t_{50}`$ and $`t_{90}`$ increase with decreasing energy as $`E^{0.16}`$ and $`E^{0.22}`$, respectively.

The spectrum of the short, intense spike is well described by a single power-law spectrum with index $`\alpha =1.16\pm 0.05`$ from 6–400 keV. Such a steep spectrum is quite unusual, but not unprecedented for short, hard GRBs (Paciesas et al. 2001). The steepness of the spectrum of GRB020531 may explain in part the fact that the WXM on HETE-2 was able to detect and localize this particular short, hard burst, whereas the Wide-Field Cameras on BeppoSAX were ultimately unsuccessful in detecting or localizing any short, hard GRBs, despite great efforts.

The spectrum of the secondary peak, which is comparable in duration and in intensity in the 2–25 keV energy band to the primary peak, is also well described by a single power-law spectrum, but the spectrum is softer than the spectrum of the primary peak at the 90% confidence level.

The prompt localization of the burst by HETE-2 and the anti-Sun pointing of the HETE-2  instruments, coupled with the later precise localization of the burst by the IPN, allowed rapid follow-up of the GRB. Figure 3 shows that these observations have placed much more severe upper limits on any optical afterglow of a short, hard GRB than ever before. These constraints do not rule out the existence of optical afterglows of short, hard GRBs that are similar to the optical afterglows of long GRBs. However, Chandra follow-up observations at $`5`$ days found $`L_X(\mathrm{short})/L_X(\mathrm{long})<0.010.03`$ (Butler et al. 2002).

## 3. Conclusions

The properties of GRB020531 as measured by HETE-2  have different characteristics at different energies: more complex time structure at lower energies, increasing duration with decreasing energy, a power-law spectrum over the 2-400 keV energy range but spectral softening with time). These properties of GRB020531 as measured by HETE-2 are similar to those of long bursts, and when taken together with the previously known properties of short, hard GRBs (similar brightness distributions, $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ values, angular distributions) suggest that short, hard GRBs are closely related to long GRBs. Chandra follow-up observations at $`5`$ days found $`L_X(\mathrm{short})/L_X(\mathrm{long})<0.010.03`$ (Butler et al. 2002).

## References

Atteia, J-L, et al. 2002, In-flight Performance and First Results from the FREGATE Instrument on HETE-2, in WH2001

Boer, M. Klotz, A., Atteia, J.-L., Pollas, C. & Pinna, H. 2002, GCN Circular 1408

Butler, N. et al. 2002, GCN Circular 1415

Kawai, N., et al. 2002, In-Orbit Performance of the WXM Instrument on HETE-2, in WH2001

Kouveliotou et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, L101

Lamb, D. Q. et al. 2002, GCN Circular 1403

Lamb, D. Q., Graziani, C. & Smith, L.A. 1993, ApJ, 413, L11

Miceli, A., Lamb, D. Q., Zucker, D., Covey, K., Dembicky, J. & Hastings, N. C. 2002, GCN Circular 1416

Paciesas, W. S. et al. 2001, in Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era

Park, H. S., Williams, G. G., Lindsay, K. 2002, GCN Circular 1404

Ricker, G.R., et al. 2002, High Energy Transient Explorer (HETE-2): Mission and Science Overview, in WH2001

West, D. 2002, GCN Circular 1406


text:
# Fundamental physics and Lorentz violation

## 1 Introduction

On the one hand, the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics is extremely successful phenomenologically. On the other hand, this conference is called What Comes Beyond the Standard Model because it is generally believed that the SM is really the low-energy limit of a more fundamental theory incorporating quantum gravity. Experimental research in this field faces various challenges. They include the expected Planck suppression of quantum-gravity signatures and the absence of a realistic underlying framework.

A promising approach for progress in quantum-gravity phenomenology is the identification of relations that satisfy three principal criteria: they must hold exactly in known physics, they are expected to be violated in candidate fundamental theories, and they must be testable with ultra-high precision. Spacetime symmetries satisfy all of these requirements. Lorentz and CPT invariance are key features of currently accepted fundamental physics laws, and they are amenable to Planck-sensitivity tests. Moreover, Lorentz and CPT breakdown has been suggested in a variety of approaches to fundamental physics. We mention low-energy emergent Lorentz symmetry , strings , spacetime foam , nontrivial spacetime topology , loop quantum gravity , noncommutative geometry , and varying couplings . The latter of these mechanism will be discussed in more detail in this talk.

At presently attainable energies, Lorentz and CPT violating effects are described by a general extension of the SM. The idea is to include into the SM Lagrangian Lorentz and CPT breaking operators of unrestricted dimensionality only constrained by coordinate independence . This Standard-Model Extension (SME) has provided the basis for many investigations placing bounds on Lorentz and CPT violation. For the best constraints in the matter and photon sectors, see Ref.  and Refs. , respectively. Note that certain Planck-suppressed SME operators for Lorentz and CPT breaking provide alternative explanations for the baryon asymmetry in our universe  and the observed neutrino oscillations .

## 2 Lorentz violation through varying couplings

Early speculations in the subject of varying couplings go back to Dirac’s numerology . Subsequent theoretical investigations have shown that time-dependent couplings arise naturally in many candidate fundamental theories . Recent observational claims of a varying fine-structure parameter $`\alpha `$  have led to a renewed interest in the subject .

Varying couplings are associated with spacetime-symmetry violations. For instance, invariance under temporal and/or spatial translations is in general lost. Since translations are closely interwoven with the other spacetime transformations in the Poincaré group, one anticipates that Lorentz symmetry might be affected as well. This is best illustrated by an example. Consider the Lagrangian $``$ of a complex scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and suppose a spacetime-dependent parameter $`\xi (x)`$ is coupled to the kinetic term: $`\xi _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. An integration by parts yields $`\mathrm{\Phi }(_\mu \xi )^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. If, for instance, $`\xi `$ varies smoothly on cosmological scales, $`(_\mu \xi )=k_\mu `$ is essentially constant locally. The Lagrangian then contains a nondynamical fixed 4-vector $`k_\mu `$ selecting a preferred direction in the local inertial frame violating Lorentz symmetry.

The above example can be generalized to other situations. For instance, non-scalar fields can play a role, and Lorentz violation can arise through coefficients like $`k_\mu `$ in the equations of motion or in subsidiary conditions. Note that the Lorentz breaking is independent of the chosen reference frame: if $`k_\mu 0`$ in a particular set of local inertial coordinates, $`k_\mu `$ is nontrivial in any coordinate system. In the next section, we show that varying couplings can arise through scalar fields acquiring expectations values in a cosmological context. Note, however, that the above argument for Lorentz violation is independent of the mechanism driving the variation of the coupling.

## 3 Four-dimensional supergravity cosmology

Consider a Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{sg}}`$ with two real scalars $`A`$ and $`B`$ and a vector $`F^{\mu \nu }`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4_{\mathrm{sg}}}{\sqrt{g}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu A^\mu A+_\mu B^\mu B}{B^2}}2RMF_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }NF_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu },`$
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(A^2+B^2+1)}{(1+A^2+B^2)^24A^2}},N={\displaystyle \frac{A(A^2+B^21)}{(1+A^2+B^2)^24A^2}},`$ (3.1)
where $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ represents the graviton and $`g=det(g_{\mu \nu })`$, as usual. We have denoted the Ricci scalar by $`R`$, the dual tensor is $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }/2`$, and the gravitational coupling has been set to one. Then, the Lagrangian (3.1) fits into the framework of the pure $`N=4`$ supergravity in four spacetime dimensions.

To investigate Lagrangian (3.1) in a cosmological context, we assume a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe and model galaxies and other fermionic matter by including the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ of dust, as usual.111The dust can be accommodated into the supergravity framework, which also contains fermions uncoupled from the scalars. In such a situation, the equations of motion can be integrated analytically  yielding a nontrivial dependence of $`A`$ and $`B`$ (and thus $`M`$ and $`N`$) on the comoving time $`t`$. Comparison with the usual electrodynamics Lagrangian in the presence of a $`\theta `$ angle shows $`\alpha 1/4\pi M(t)`$ and $`\theta 4\pi ^2N(t)`$, so that the fine-structure parameter and the $`\theta `$ angle acquire related time dependences in our supergravity cosmology.

If mass-type terms $`_m=\sqrt{g}(m_AA^2+m_BB^2)/2`$ for the scalars are included into Lagrangian (3.1), our simple model can match the observed late-time acceleration of the cosmological expansion . Note also that the scalars themselves obey Lorentz-violating dispersion relations .

## Acknowledgments

I wish to thank C. Froggatt, N. Mankoč-Borštnik, and H.B. Nielsen for organizing a stimulating meeting. This work was supported in part by the the Centro Multidisciplinar de Astrofísica (CENTRA), the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), and an ESF conference grant.


text:
# Evidence for a narrow |𝐒|=𝟏 baryon state at a mass of 1528 MeV in quasi-real photoproduction

The HERMES Collaboration

## Abstract

Evidence for a narrow baryon state is found in quasi-real photoproduction on a deuterium target through the decay channel $`pK_S^0p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. A peak is observed in the $`pK_S^0`$ invariant mass spectrum at $`1528\pm 2.6\text{(stat)}\pm 2.1\text{(syst)}`$ MeV. Depending on the background model, the naïve statistical significance of the peak is 4–6 standard deviations and its width may be somewhat larger than the experimental resolution of $`\sigma =4.3`$–6.2 MeV. This state may be interpreted as the predicted $`S`$=$`+1`$ exotic $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(uudd\overline{s})`$ pentaquark baryon. No signal for an hypothetical $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ baryon was observed in the $`pK^+`$ invariant mass distribution. The absence of such a signal indicates that an isotensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is excluded and an isovector $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is unlikely.

Glueball and nonstandard multi-quark/gluon states, Photon and charged-lepton interactions with hadrons, Baryon production, Baryons

One of the central mysteries of hadronic physics has been the failure to observe baryon states beyond those whose quantum numbers can be explained in terms of three quark configurations. Exotic hadrons with manifestly more complex quark structures, in particular exotics consisting of five quarks, were proposed on the basis of quark and bag models Jaff76  in the early days of QCD. The hope has been that the discovery of such objects would provide new insights into the dynamics of quark interactions in the strong coupling regime. Although it was hypothesized Lip87  that pentaquark systems involving heavy quarks, e.g. $`uud\overline{c}s`$, offered the most promising prospects for isolating such exotics, experimental searches carried out at FNAL Moi96  found no evidence for such states.

From quite a different point of view, it was noted Man84 ; Che85  that the Skyrme model predicts new exotic states belonging to higher SU(3) representations. Using this model, Praszalowicz Pra03  provided the first estimate of the mass of the lightest exotic state, $`M`$$``$1530 MeV. Subsequently, an exotic baryon of spin 1/2, isospin 0, and strangeness $`S`$=$`+1`$ was discussed as a feature of the Chiral Quark Soliton model Che85 . In this approach Wal92 ; Dia97  the baryons are rotational states of the soliton nucleon in spin and isospin space, and the lightest exotic baryon lies at the apex of an anti-decuplet with spin 1/2, which corresponds to the third rotational excitation in a three flavor system. Treating the known N(1710) resonance as a member of the anti-decuplet, Diakanov, Petrov, and Polyakov Dia97  derived a mass of 1530 MeV and a width of less than 15 MeV for this exotic baryon, since named the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. It corresponds to a $`uudd\overline{s}`$ configuration, and decays through the channels $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+pK^0`$ or $`nK^+`$. However, measurements of $`K^+`$ scattering on proton and deuteron targets showed no evidence Arn03  for strange baryon resonances, and appear to limit the width to remarkably small values of order an MeV. Presumably, the difficulty of experiments with kaon beams so close to threshold severely limited the sensitivity to such narrow excitations. In a recent review of this subject GBQ99 , an experimental search by means of electro-production was suggested.

Experimental evidence for an exotic baryon first came recently SPring8  from the observation of a narrow resonance at $`1540\pm 10\text{(syst)}`$ MeV in the $`K^{}`$ missing mass spectrum for the $`\gamma nK^+K^{}n`$ reaction on 12C. The decay mode corresponds to a $`S`$=$`+1`$ resonance and signals an exotic pentaquark state with quark content ($`uudd\overline{s}`$). Confirmation came quickly from a series of experiments, with the observation of sharp peaks DIANA ; JLab ; SAPHIR ; Asr03 ; JLabp  in the $`nK^+`$ and $`pK_S^0`$ invariant mass spectra near 1540 MeV, in each case with a width limited by the experimental resolution. The failure to observe a corresponding $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ peak in the $`pK^+`$ invariant mass spectrum in some of these experiments SAPHIR ; JLab  was taken to suggest that the state is an isospin singlet.

Alternative theoretical explanations have been proposed recently to explain this new exotic state. In one model, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is described as an isotensor pentaquark Cap03 , so that the narrow width results from the isospin-violating strong decay. A search for the decay of the isospin partners such as the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}(uuud\overline{s})`$ can provide a strong test of this idea. In a second interpretation, Karliner and Lipkin have developed a cluster model using a diquark-triquark configuration KarLip , in which the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is also a positive-parity isosinglet member of an antidecuplet. Thirdly, using a model based on the strong color-spin correlation force, Jaffe and Wilczek JW03  propose that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ consists of two highly correlated $`ud`$ pairs coupled to an $`\overline{s}`$. In their picture the positive-parity isosinglet $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ lies at the apex of an nearly-ideally mixed SU(3)f $`\mathrm{𝟖}_𝐟\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_𝐟}`$ multiplet. The narrowness of the 1530 MeV state is attributed to the relatively weak coupling of the kaon-nucleon continuum to the pentaquark $`[ud]^2\overline{s}`$ configuration.

The baryon states at the bottom two vertices of the anti-decuplet must also be manifestly exotic. Strong evidence in support of the baryon decuplet comes from the reported observation of an exotic $`S`$=$`2`$, $`Q`$=$`2`$ baryon resonance in proton-proton collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=17.2`$ GeV at the CERN SPS Alt03 . A narrow peak at a mass of about $`1862`$ MeV in the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^{}`$ invariant mass spectrum is proposed as a candidate for the predicted exotic $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\frac{3}{2}}^{}`$ baryon with $`S`$=$`2`$, $`I`$=$`\frac{3}{2}`$ and a quark content of ($`dsds\overline{u}`$). At the same mass, a peak is observed that is a candidate for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\frac{3}{2}}^0`$ member of this isospin quartet. The corresponding anti-baryon spectra show enhancements at the same invariant mass. This observed mass of $`1862`$ MeV falls between the predictions of Refs. Dia97  and JW03 , although closer to the latter. Also, the positive parity for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ predicted by these models contrasts with the negative parity suggested by the first lattice results Sas03 ; Csi03 . The general theoretical situation is still quite unsettled.

This Letter presents the results of a search for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ in quasi-real photoproduction on deuterium. In addition to corroborating some features of the state measured previously, the data reported here provide more restrictive information related to its mass and isospin. The data were obtained by the HERMES experiment with the 27.6 GeV positron beam of the HERA storage ring at DESY. Stored beam currents ranged from 9 to 45 mA. An integrated luminosity of 250 pb-1 was collected on a longitudinally polarized deuterium gas target. The yields were summed over two spin orientations.

The HERMES spectrometer SPE  consists of two identical halves located above and below the positron beam pipe, and has an angular acceptance of $`\pm 170`$ mrad horizontally, and $`\pm `$(40 – 140) mrad vertically. The trigger was formed by either a coincidence between scintillating hodoscopes, a preshower detector and a lead-glass calorimeter, or a coincidence between three scintillating hodoscopes and two tracking planes, requiring that at least one charged track appears in each of the detector halves of the spectrometer.

The analysis searched for inclusive photoproduction of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ followed by the decay $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+pK_S^0p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. Events selected contained at least three tracks: two oppositely charged pions in coincidence with one proton. Identification of charged pions and protons was accomplished with a Ring-Imaging Čerenkov (RICH) detector RICH  which provides separation of pions, kaons and protons over most of the kinematic acceptance of the spectrometer. The RICH identification efficiencies and cross contaminations had been determined in a limited kinematic domain using known particle species from identified resonance decays. However, because the RICH performance is sensitive to event topology, it was essential to determine these efficiencies and contaminations for pions and protons under conditions as close as possible to those of the present measurement. This was accomplished by means of a Monte Carlo simulation based on the Pythia6 generator discussed below. Events with the relevant topology were used to determine these parameters as a function of particle momentum. The data from the simulation indicated that cross contaminations would be negligible if protons were restricted to a momentum range of 4–9 GeV/c and pions to a range of 1–15 GeV/c, the kinematic restrictions subsequently used in the analysis.

The event selection included constraints on the event topology to maximize the yield of the $`K_S^0`$ peak in the $`M_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ spectrum while minimizing its background. However, no constraints were optimized to increase the significance of the signal visible in the final $`M_{p\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ spectrum, as such optimization would have produced a spectrum to which standard statistical tests do not apply. Based on the intrinsic tracking resolution, the required event topology included a minimum distance of approach between the two pion tracks less than 1 cm (the midpoint of which is defined as the $`K_S^0`$ decay vertex), a minimum distance of approach between the proton and reconstructed $`K_S^0`$ tracks less than 6 mm (the midpoint of which is defined as the production vertex), a radial distance of the production vertex from the positron beam axis less than 4 mm, a $`z`$ coordinate of the production vertex within the $`\pm 20`$ cm long target cell of $`18`$ cm$`<z<+18`$cm along the beam direction, and a $`K_S^0`$ decay length (separation of production and $`K_S^0`$ decay vertices) greater than 7 cm. To suppress contamination from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1116)`$ hyperon, events were rejected where the invariant mass $`M_{p\pi ^{}}`$ fell within $`2\sigma `$ of the nominal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mass, where $`\sigma =2.6`$ MeV is the apparent width of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ peak observed in this experiment.

The resulting invariant $`M_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ spectrum is shown in Fig. 1. The position of the $`K_S^0`$ peak is within 1 MeV of the expected value of $`497.7\pm 0.03`$ MeV PDG . To search for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, events were selected with a $`M_{\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ invariant mass within $`\pm 2\sigma `$ about the centroid of the $`K_S^0`$ peak. The resulting spectrum of the invariant mass of the $`p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ system is displayed in Fig. 2. A narrow peak is observed. There is no known positively charged strangeness-containing baryon in this mass region (other than the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$) that could account for the observed peak. Also, the $`M_{p\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ spectrum corresponding to the sideband background adjacent to the $`K_S^0`$ peak in Fig. 1 was found to be featureless.

The non-resonant contribution to the spectrum was estimated by means of a simulation using a version of the Pythia6 code PYTHIA6  tuned for HERMES kinematics ourPYTHIA6 . This event generator contains no resonances in the mass range of Fig. 2a that decay in the $`pK_S^0`$ channel. The resulting simulated spectrum is shown in Fig. 2a as the gray hatched histogram. The statistical precision of the present study is limited by the rare topology of the events selected. Trigger inefficiencies were not included in the simulation, but are believed to be small. The simulated spectrum falls below the data at high invariant mass where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ resonances are known to exist PDG . Therefore, if Pythia6 is assumed to be capable of describing the shape of the non-resonant contribution, it can be concluded that there is substantial resonant strength distributed over the high-mass portion of the spectrum. At the position of the observed peak in the data, no corresponding structure appears in the simulated spectrum.

In order to determine the centroid, width and significance of the peak observed in Fig. 2, three different models for the background were explored. For the first model, the Pythia6 simulation is taken to represent the non-resonant background, and the remaining strength in the spectrum is attributed to a combination of known broad resonances and a new structure near 1.53 GeV. For the second model, it is assumed that the non-resonant background involves a large enough typical multiplicity that the 4-momenta of the $`K_S^0`$ and proton are largely uncorrelated. In this case, this background can be simulated by combining from different events a kaon and proton that satisfy the same kinematical requirements as the tracks taken from single events in the main analysis. Since resonances are typically visible only as rare correlations between their decay particles, their contributions will be relatively suppressed in this method. Fig. 2a shows that this procedure yields a shape that is very similar to that from the Pythia6 simulation, within the available statistics. By fitting a polynomial to the mixed-event background normalized to the Pythia6 simulation, and then fitting this polynomial together with the amplitudes of peaks for six known $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ resonances in the mass range shown in Fig. 2 (dotted curves), plus all parameters of a narrow Gaussian (dashed curve) for the peak of interest, a good description of the entire spectrum is obtained. This procedure is intended to demonstrate that the background is consistent with known information. The included $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ resonances were assigned fixed values of $`M=1480`$ MeV with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=55`$ MeV (PDG status = \*), $`M=1560`$ MeV with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=47`$ MeV (\**), $`M=1580`$ MeV with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=13`$ MeV (\**), $`M=1620`$ and 1660 MeV with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=100`$ MeV (\***), and $`M=1670`$ MeV with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=60`$ MeV (\****) PDG . Each intrinsic Breit-Wigner width was taken as the midpoint of the range of listed measurements, and was then augmented by an instrumental resolution of FWHM$`=14.3`$ MeV added in quadrature. Since the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(1580)`$ has a width smaller than the instrumental resolution, it was taken to be Gaussian with $`\sigma =8.9`$ MeV. The numerical results of the fit are given in row a) of Table 1. In addition, row a’) shows the result of applying the same method to a mass spectrum based on an expression that is expected to provide an instrumental resolution improved by about 30%:

$`M_{pK_S^0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $``$ $`\left(\sqrt{M_p^2+𝐩_p^2}+\sqrt{M_{K_S^0}^2+𝐩_{K_S^0}^2}\right)^2`$ (1)
$`(𝐩_p+𝐩_{K_S^0})^2,`$
where $`M_{K_S^0}`$ is taken from the PDG PDG . The third approach is based on the hypothesis that all of the background strength in the observed spectrum (apart from the narrow peak) can be described by a slowly varying function that extends under the feature of interest. Hence, the spectrum was fit with a Gaussian plus a polynomial. The appropriate degree of the polynomial used in the fit was determined by comparing results using orthonormal Chebyshev polynomials of various degrees. The curve shown in Fig. 2b results from a fit with a third-order polynomial, and rows b) and b’) of Table 1 gives the numerical values from so fitting the two spectra corresponding to rows a) and a’).

More specifically, Table 1 compares the results from the two fits for the centroid of the peak of interest, its width and the statistical significance according to two different prescriptions discussed below. The resulting values for the centroid are found to be consistent, while the width and significance depend on the method chosen to describe the remaining strength of the spectrum. Table 1 also lists for both fits the number of events given by the fitted function for the peak of interest ($`N_s^{2\sigma }`$) as well as for the background ($`N_b^{2\sigma }`$), in the invariant mass interval corresponding to $`\pm 2\sigma `$. The full area $`N_s`$ of the Gaussian fitted to the peak of interest is also given with its uncertainty from the fit. This area itself, together with the width, were chosen to be explicit fit parameters to avoid the effect on the uncertainty in the area of correlations between the amplitude and the width or background parameters. All of these results are from unbinned maximum likelihood fits RooFit  to the original event distributions, as it was found that the results of fitting the histograms shown in Fig. 2 can be sensitive to the choice of bin size or starting offset.

Several alternative expressions for the significance of the peak observed in Fig. 2 were considered. The first expression is the naïve estimator $`N_s^{2\sigma }/\sqrt{N_b^{2\sigma }}`$ used in Refs. SPring8 ; DIANA ; JLab ; SAPHIR ; Asr03 ; JLabp . The corresponding result is listed in Table 1. Because this statistic neglects the uncertainty in the background fit, it overestimates the significance of the peak Ead71 . A second estimator that was used in the analysis presented in Ref. Alt03 , $`N_s^{2\sigma }/\sqrt{N_s^{2\sigma }+N_b^{2\sigma }}`$, gives a somewhat lower value, but may still underestimate the background uncertainty. A third estimate of the significance is given by $`N_s/\delta N_s`$, where $`N_s`$ is now the full area of the peak from the fit and $`\delta N_s`$ is its fully correlated uncertainty. This ratio measures how far the peak is away from zero in units of its own standard deviation. All correlated uncertainties from the fit, including those of the background parameters, are accounted for in $`\delta N_s`$. The results obtained with this expression are also given in Table 1.

The systematic uncertainty of the mass of the state observed in Fig. 2 is estimated to be $`\pm 2.1`$ MeV by adding in quadrature a contribution of $`1`$ MeV to account for the effect of using different spectrum analysis methods (cf. Table 1) plus a contribution of 1.9 MeV from the precision with which the spectrometer can reproduce known particle masses (cf. Table 2). The 1.9 MeV contribution to the systematic uncertainty accounts for both the discrepancies from the PDG PDG  mass values and the statistical precision of their fits. As an example, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ mass peak fitted with a Gaussian with free width convoluted with a Breit-Wigner form with its width fixed at the PDG value PDG  is shown in the $`M_{pK^{}}`$ spectrum of Fig. 3. The event selection for the spectra in this figure is the same as for the $`pK_S^0`$ analysis, except the reconstructed $`K_S^0`$ track is replaced by that of the observed charged kaon, which is required to have a minimum momentum of 3 GeV.

The mass values reported to date for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ state by other experiments are compared to the present results in Fig. 4, and listed in Table 3 . The systematic uncertainties of the DIANA and ITEP measurements were taken to be $`\pm 3`$ MeV in the absence of explicit values quoted in the corresponding papers DIANA ; Asr03 . By fitting the data with a constant, a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ value of $`12.41/6`$ is found, corresponding to a confidence level of 0.053 as defined in the PDG PDG . The weighted average PDG  of the masses observed in all experiments is $`1536.2\pm 2.6`$ MeV, which is represented by the shaded band in Fig. 4. In evaluating this average mass value, the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties of all measurements are taken into account. The uncertainty of the average was scaled by the usual factor of square root of the reduced $`\chi ^2`$.

Since no realistic model for the photoproduction of exotic baryons at this experiment’s energy is presently available, a “toy Monte Carlo” was produced to study the constraints imposed on the decay products by only kinematics and acceptance. It generates parent particles with specified mass and width, at vertices distributed according to the HERMES target gas profile. The generated events were then passed to a full simulation of the spectrometer that included the performance of the RICH. The unknown kinematic distribution of the parent in transverse momentum $`P_t`$ was taken to be Gaussian with a width of $`\sigma =0.4`$GeV, which is typical of intrinsic transverse momentum of partons or transverse momentum induced by the fragmentation process, and also corresponds to the root-mean-square value of the transverse momentum distribution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1116)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hyperons that are observed at HERMES. The simulated acceptance was found to be fairly insensitive to this parameter. The longitudinal momentum $`P_z`$ was assigned a monotonically falling distribution similar to what has been observed for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons at HERMES. The acceptance for the $`pK^\pm `$ final state is insensitive to this choice, but this is not the case for the $`p\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ final state, where drastically different assumptions can result in a factor of two change in the acceptance. The full width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ was chosen to be 2 MeV, according to the limit recently derived from a review of $`KN`$ phase shift analyses Arn03 . The effect of such an intrinsic width is small compared to that of the spectrometer resolution, which was found in this simulation to be $`\sigma =6.2`$ MeV in $`M_{p\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$, or 4.3 MeV in $`M_{pK_S^0}^{}`$ of Eq. 1. These values are assigned a systematic uncertainty of $`\pm 1`$ MeV, based on the level of agreement between observed and simulated widths of four known particles, as shown in Table 2.

The width of the peak of interest in Fig. 2, given in Table 1, is somewhat larger than the instrumental resolution derived from the simulation. An attempt was made to repeat the fits of Table 1 using for the peak of interest a Breit-Wigner form convoluted with a Gaussian whose width was fixed at the simulated resolution.111The software tool RooVoigtian was used, for unbinned fitting. The resulting mass values are consistent with those given in Table 1, and the resulting values for the intrinsic width are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=12\pm 9`$(stat)$`\pm 3`$(syst) MeV in case a) of Table 1, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=20\pm 8`$(stat)$`\pm 3`$(syst) MeV in case a’), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=8\pm 8`$(stat)$`\pm 3`$(syst) MeV in case b), and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=13\pm 9`$(stat)$`\pm 3`$(syst) MeV in case b’). The systematic uncertainties here correspond only to the $`\delta \sigma =\pm 1`$ MeV uncertainty in the instrumental resolution, which was discussed above.

In view of the speculation that the observed resonance is isotensor Cap03 , the possibility that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ partner is present in the $`M_{pK^+}`$ spectrum was explored. Although Fig. 3 shows a clear peak for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ in the $`M_{pK^{}}`$ invariant mass spectrum, there is no peak structure observed in the $`M_{pK^+}`$ invariant mass distribution. From a fit (curve in Fig. 3) of the $`M_{pK^+}`$ distribution using a free polynomial plus a Gaussian with the fixed location ($`\pm 5`$ MeV) from the fit in Fig. 2b and a fixed width corresponding to the simulated peak width of $`\sigma =4.5`$ MeV in this decay channel, the Gaussian area for a hypothetical $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ peak is found to be $`40\pm 30`$ events. This result is robust against varying the order of the polynomial background. It corresponds to an upper limit of zero counts at the 91% confidence level.

The failure to observe a $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ suggests that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is likely to be isoscalar. However, in the situation more probable at lower beam energy that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is produced only via the exclusive reaction $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Theta }+K`$ without any other hadrons in the final state, the following limitations would apply to deductions about its isospin. Under the assumption of isospin symmetry, selection rules limit the transition amplitude for forming a tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to a single reduced matrix element for an isovector transition. In this case, production of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ are expected to have comparable strength, and the failure to observe the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ rules out the $`I=2`$ assignment. Production of an isovector $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ would arise from a sum of three reduced amplitudes with unknown magnitudes and phases. With only model-dependent values for these amplitudes, no precise statement can be made about the relative yields of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. However, because a nearly complete cancellation is improbable, the failure to observe the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ indicates that an isovector $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is unlikely.

Estimates of the spectrometer acceptance times efficiency from the toy Monte Carlo simulation can be used to estimate some cross sections. Using the assumptions about the initial kinematic distribution described above and assuming that the decay angle distribution is flat, these acceptances were estimated to be 1.5% for both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)pK^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}pK^+`$, and 0.05% for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+pK_S^0`$. Taking the branching fraction of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ to $`pK_S^0`$ to be $`(1/2)(1/2)`$ (to account for competition with both the $`nK^+`$ channel and $`K_L^0`$), the cross section for its photoproduction is found to range from about 100 to 220 nb $`\pm 25\%\text{(stat)}`$, depending on the model for the background and the functional form fitted to the peak. The cross section for photoproduction of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ is found to be $`62\pm 11\text{(stat)}`$ nb. Hence the ratio of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ cross section to that for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ is found to lie between 1.6 and 3.5. All of these estimates are subject to an additional factor of two uncertainty, to account for the assumptions about the kinematic distribution of the parents used in the simulation as explained above, and neglected trigger inefficiencies.

In conclusion, evidence has been obtained in quasi-real photoproduction on a deuterium target for a narrow baryon state in the $`pK_S^0`$ invariant mass spectrum at $`1528\pm 2.6\text{(stat)}\pm 2.1\text{(syst)}`$ MeV. Depending on the background model, the width of the observed peak may be larger than the experimental resolution of $`\sigma =`$4.3–6.2 MeV. Fitting the peak with a convolution of a Breit-Wigner shape with a Gaussian representing the simulated instrumental resolution yields an extracted intrinsic width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=17\pm 9`$(stat)$`\pm 3`$(syst) MeV (the average of the results from cases a’ and b’ of Table 1). The significance of the observed state expressed as $`N_s^{2\sigma }/\sqrt{N_b^{2\sigma }}`$ ranges from $`4.2`$$`\sigma `$ to $`6.3`$$`\sigma `$, and expressed as $`N_s/\delta N_s`$ ranges from $`3.4`$$`\sigma `$ to $`4.3`$$`\sigma `$, again depending on the model for the background. This observation provides further evidence for the existence of a narrow baryon state with $`|S|=1`$ and a mass in the region where such a feature was observed by earlier experiments. Formally, the difference between the value for the mass derived here and that from the other experiments reduces the confidence level of the combined fit to all mass data from 0.57 to 0.053, a value still typical for well-established particles PDG . There is no identified $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ state with $`S`$=$`1`$ in the invariant mass region between 1500 and 1550 MeV. Therefore, the state observed here may be interpreted as the predicted exotic $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ pentaquark $`S`$=$`+1`$ baryon. The absence of a corresponding signal in the $`pK^+`$ invariant mass spectrum indicates that the observed $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is not isotensor and is probably an isosinglet.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Markus Diehl, T.-S.H. Lee, Kim Maltman, Maxim Polyakov and Craig Roberts for stimulating discussions. We gratefully acknowledge the DESY management for its support and the staff at DESY and the collaborating institutions for their significant effort. This work was supported by the FWO-Flanders, Belgium; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Natural Science Foundation of China; the INTAS and ESOP network contributions from the European Community; the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG); the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD); the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN); Monbusho International Scientific Research Program, JSPS, and Toray Science Foundation of Japan; the Dutch Foundation for Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM); the U. K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council; and the U. S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.


text:
# Astrophysical S-factor of ¹⁴N(p,𝛾)¹⁵O

thanks: Supported in part by INFN, BMBF(05CL1PC1), GSI(BO-ROL), OTKA(T034259 and T042733), TARI HPRI-CT-2001-00149 and SSTC PAI(P5/07)

## Abstract

We report on a new measurement of the $`{}_{}{}^{14}\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{15}\mathrm{O}`$ capture cross section at $`E_p=140`$ to 400 keV using the 400 kV LUNA accelerator facility at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (LNGS). The uncertainties have been reduced with respect to previous measurements and their analysis. We have analyzed the data using the R-matrix method and we find that the ground state transition accounts for about 15% of the total S-factor. The main contribution to the S-factor is given by the transition to the 6.79 MeV state. We find a total $`S(0)=1.7\pm 0.2`$ keV b, in agreement with recent extrapolations. The result has important consequences for the solar neutrino spectrum as well as for the age of globular clusters.

The capture reaction $`{}_{}{}^{14}\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{15}\mathrm{O}`$ ($`Q=7297`$ keV) is the slowest process in the hydrogen burning CNO cycle C.Rolfs and W.S.Rodney (1988) and thus of high astrophysical interest. This reaction plays a role of setting the energy production and neutrino spectrum of the sun J.N.Bahcall and M.H.Pinsonneault (1992) as well as the age determination of globular clusters P.A.Bergbusch and B.A.Vandenberg (1992). Below 2 MeV, several 15O states contribute to the $`{}_{}{}^{14}\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{15}\mathrm{O}`$ cross section (fig. 1): a $`J^\pi =3/2^+`$ subthreshold state at $`E_R=507`$ keV ($`E_x=6.79`$ MeV), and 3 resonant states: $`J^\pi =1/2^+`$ at $`E_R=259`$ keV, and 3/2+ at $`E_R=987`$ keV and $`E_R=2187`$ keV. The reaction was previously studied over a wide range of energies, i.e. $`E_{cm}=E=240`$ to 3300 keV (U.Schröder et al. (1987) and references therein). The non resonant capture to excited states in 15O led the authors of ref. U.Schröder et al. (1987) to an extrapolated astrophysical S-factor at zero energy of $`S_{es}(0)=1.65`$ keV b. The data for the capture into the 15O ground state were analyzed using the Breit-Wigner formalism and indicated an important influence of a subthreshold state at $`E_R=507`$ keV, leading to $`S_{gs}(0)=1.55\pm 0.34`$ keV b with a deduced gamma width of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =6.3`$ eV, thus $`S_{tot}(0)=3.20\pm 0.54`$ keV b.

A reanalysis C.Angulo and P.Descouvemont (2001) of the capture data to the ground state U.Schröder et al. (1987) using an R-matrix approach indicated a negligible contribution of the subthreshold state to the total S(0)-factor, mainly due to a significantly smaller $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ of this state. This indication was supported by a lifetime measurement of the $`E_R=507`$ keV subthreshold state via the Doppler-shift method P.F.Bertone et al. (2001) leading to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =0.41_{0.13}^{+0.34}`$ eV, and a measurement via the Coulomb excitation method K.Yamada et al. (2004) resulted in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =0.95_{0.95}^{+0.60}`$ eV. In view of the uncertainties in $`S_{gs}(0)`$ and thus $`S_{tot}(0)`$, a new measurement of the capture process into the 15O ground state was highly desirable, extending possibly the low energy limit below that of previous work i.e., below $`E=240`$ keV. We report on the results of such measurements using the 400 kV underground accelerator facility LUNA at Gran Sasso, Italy.

The 400 kV LUNA facility and the setup have been described elsewhere A.Formicola et al. (2003). Briefly, the accelerator provided a proton current on target of up to 500 $`\mu `$A. The absolute energy is known with an accuracy of 0.3 keV and the energy spread and the long-term energy stability were observed to be 100 eV and 5 eV/h, respectively. Near the target, the beam passed a liquid-nitrogen cooled shroud (to minimize carbon-buildup on target) and an electrically insulated collimator with a negative voltage of 300 V (to suppress the effects of secondary electrons). The water-cooled target was oriented with its normal at 55 to the beam direction. The target consisted of a TiN layer (with a typical thickness of 80 keV) reactively sputtered on a 0.2 mm thick Ta backing. The target quality was checked frequently at the $`E_R=259`$ keV resonance: no significant deterioration was observed after a bombarding time of several days. Typically, a new TiN target was used after a running time of 1 week. The stoichiometry of the TiN layer was verified via Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry using a 2.0 MeV 4He+ beam, resulting in $`Ti/N=1/(1.08\pm 0.05)`$.

To deduce cross section values in the non-resonant energy region, one can use either thin targets (say, a few keV) or thick targets (say, a few 10 keV). Due to sputtering effects at low energies thin targets deteriorate significantly in a short time changing correspondingly the observed $`\gamma `$-ray yields. In the case of thick targets, the sputtering effect on the observed yields is negligible, as long as the thickness stays large enough, which was verified experimentally (see above). For the chosen thick targets, we made an analysis of the line shape of the primary $`\gamma `$-rays as described below to deduce a capture cross section.

For the measurement of excitation functions the capture $`\gamma `$-rays were observed with one Ge detector (126% efficiency) placed at 55 in close geometry to the target ($`d=1.53`$ cm was the distance between the target and the front face of the detector). In one experiment the distance was increased up to 20.5 cm for the determination of the detector efficiency and summing effects. In another experiment, Ge detectors were placed at 0 (126 %), 90 (120 %), and 125 (108 %), relative to the beam axis ($`d=7`$ cm) for the measurement of Doppler shifts, excitation energies, and angular distributions. Sample spectra are shown in fig. 2 where the influence of different background sources can be observed: (a) beam induced background, which is mainly due to proton capture on 11B, 18O, and 23Na while at $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{p}=140`$ keV (b) the remaning beam induced background from 11B contaminations is equal to the cosmic background.

In a similar way as described in A.Formicola et al. (2003), the line shape of the $`\gamma _0`$-capture transition in $`{}_{}{}^{14}\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{15}\mathrm{O}`$ may be used for various purposes. Fig. 3 shows the $`\gamma _0`$-ray line shape observed at $`\theta _\gamma =55^{}`$ and $`E=243`$ keV, i.e. at the low-energy tail of the $`E_R=259`$ keV resonance; the dispersion in the spectrum was 1 keV/channel. The line shape can be interpreted as the sum of the resonant and non resonant contributions; when convoluted with the detector resolution, the solid curve through the data points is obtained. In this way, the drop in the $`\gamma _0`$-ray yield towards lower energies reflects directly the drop of the cross section. For the calculated line shape the dependence on energy of the $`\gamma _0`$-efficiency and of the stopping power of protons in TiN J.F.Ziegler and Biersack (2003) was included. The high-energy edge of the peak contains the information on the incident beam energy, hence possible C-build up on target could be corrected for; this correction was never larger than 2 keV. The method to extract the cross section from the $`\gamma _0`$-ray line shape requires further investigation of the following points: (i) energy, width, branching ratios, and strength of the $`E_R=259`$ keV resonance, (ii) energy calibration and efficiency of the Ge detector, (iii) summing effects in close geometry, (iv) Doppler shift, and (v) effects of angular distributions. In the same way the transition to the 6.79 MeV state was analysed. Below $`E=170`$ keV the information of the data from the secondary transition was used in the analysis. For this energy region a constant $`S_{6.79}`$ was assumed over the target thickness. A detailed description of all these points is given elsewhere H.Costantini (2003); A.Formicola (2004), where a complete analysis of the data to all final states will be presented.

The resonance energy could in principle be determined from the $`\gamma _0`$-energy after correction for Doppler shift and recoil. One requirement is the precise energy calibration of the Ge detector. We have used the information obtained from the experiment with the 3 Ge detectors ($`\theta _\gamma =0^{}`$, 90, and 125). From P.F.Bertone et al. (2001) it is known, that the $`E_x=5181`$ keV state in 15O shows an attenuated Doppler shift and the 6172 and 6791 keV states have lifetimes resulting in nearly full Doppler shifts. Using the known energy of the resonance from the accelerator calibration together with $`Q=7296.8\pm 0.5`$ keV G.Audi et al. (2003) and calibration points from radioactive sources we have performed a combined $`\chi ^2`$ fit of the data obtained at the three angles. It was necessary to vary also the excitation energies of the first three excited states. In addition, we varied the attenuation coefficients for the Doppler shifts. The Doppler shift data for the $`E_x=6791`$ keV state are shown in Fig. 4 and all results are summarized in Table 1. We confirm the results of P.F.Bertone et al. (2001) for the first excited state in 15O but could not extract a lifetime for the 6791 keV state due to a nearly full Doppler shift. For all the subsequent work we calibrated the $`\gamma `$-ray spectra using the new excitation energies given in Table 1.

The detector efficiency was determined using calibrated radioactive sources and the cascade condition for the transitions to the first three excited states at the $`E_R=259`$ keV resonance, as for all of them no other decay than that to the ground state was observed. This procedure was performed with the Ge detector placed at 1.53, 5.5, 10.5, and 20.5 cm distances from the target in order to determine the summing-in contribution to the ground state transition and the summing-out for the transitions to the excited states. It turned out, that the summing-in yield was about 3.5 times higher than the actual ground state intensity at the 1.53 cm position. This 1.53 cm position was used for the entire cross section measurements. The efficiency curve was also calculated using the GEANT routine Gea  and found to be in excellent agreement with observation H.Costantini (2003). Branching and strength values of the $`E_R=259`$ keV resonance were determined with low beam current to avoid dead time effects and at far distance (20.5 cm) to minimize summing effects from cascade transitions. The branching results are given in Table 1; they are in good agreement with previous work D.F.Hebbard and G.M.Bailey (1963), except for the ground state transition. Our strength value of $`\omega \gamma =13.5\pm 0.4`$ (statistical) $`\pm 0.8`$(systematical) meV, which was determined absolutely, is also in good agreement with previous work U.Schröder et al. (1987); F.Ajzenberg-Selove (1991), $`\omega \gamma =14\pm 1`$ meV. The fitted total width of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.99\pm 0.03`$ keV is consistent with previous work (U.Schröder et al. (1987): $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.2\pm 0.2`$ keV).

All transitions show isotropy at the $`E_R=259`$ keV, $`J^\pi =1/2^+`$ resonance and no forward-backward asymmetry H.Costantini (2003) outside the resonance. Consequently, an angle-integrated $`\gamma _0`$-ray yield may be derived directly from the yield collected by the Ge detector at $`\theta _\gamma =55^{}`$. Finally, the summing due to the large solid angle of the detector and the cascade coincident events in the transition to the ground state was corrected for by studying all other capture transitions. The absolute scale of the cross section deduced from the $`\gamma `$-ray line shape was obtained by normalizing to the thick target yield in the 259 keV resonance C.Rolfs and W.S.Rodney (1988) whose strength $`\omega \gamma `$ was determined absolutely (see above).

The capture data from LUNA and previous work U.Schröder et al. (1987) for the transition to the 6.79 MeV state are shown in figure 5: there is an excellent agreement between both data sets in the region of overlap. As shown from previous work U.Schröder et al. (1987); C.Angulo and P.Descouvemont (2001), the S-factor has an external non-resonant contribution and a contribution from the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{R}=259`$ keV resonance, where the latter contribution was derived from $`\omega \gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ values of the present work. The R-matrix fit C.Angulo and P.Descouvemont (2001); A.N.Lane and R.G.Thomas (1958) included both contributions. The resulting ANC value of $`C=5.0\pm 0.1`$ fm-1/2 agrees with indirect determinations (A.M.Mukhamedzhanov et al. (2003): $`C=5.2\pm 0.7`$ fm-1/2; P.F.Bertone et al. (2002): $`C=4.6\pm 0.5`$ fm-1/2) and leads to the fitted curve shown in figure 5. For large values of the R-matrix radius $`a`$ the fit deviates from the data for energies above $`\mathrm{E}=1`$ MeV (see Fig. 5). We have adopted the results for $`a=5.5`$ fm leading to the extrapolated value $`\mathrm{S}_{6.79}=1.35\pm 0.05`$ (statistical) $`\pm 0.08`$ (systematical) keV b. This value is about 20 % lower than the R-matrix fit C.Angulo and P.Descouvemont (2001) of the data from U.Schröder et al. (1987) alone.

The data from LUNA and previous work U.Schröder et al. (1987) for the ground state capture are shown in figure 6. We have corrected the previous data for summing effects, which are at most 10 % above $`\mathrm{E}=500`$ keV, except near the destructive interference structure of the $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{R}=987`$ keV resonance. The data were fitted including the 3/2+ subthreshold state, the 1/2+, 259 keV, the 3/2+, 987 keV and the 3/2+, 2187 keV resonances as well as a background pole located at 6 MeV. For the subthreshold state, we used the reduced width $`\gamma ^2`$ obtained from the fit of the data for the 6.79 MeV transition. The fit parameters were the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ of the subthreshold state, the 987 keV and 2187 keV resonances, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ of the background pole. For the external contribution we used the ANC of A.M.Mukhamedzhanov et al. (2003) as a starting value. The results are shown in Fig. 6 for $`a=5`$ fm and $`C_{gs}=5.8`$ fm-1/2 (dotted line), $`a=5.5`$ fm and $`C_{gs}=7.3`$ fm-1/2 (solide line), and $`a=6.5`$ fm and $`C_{gs}=8.8`$ fm-1/2 (dashed line). The corresponding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ values for the subthreshold state and extrapolated S-factor values are listed in Table 2. It can be noted that our deduced value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =0.8\pm 0.4`$ eV is in good agreement with the value from a life time measurement by P.F.Bertone et al. (2001) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =0.41_{0.13}^{+0.34}`$ eV as well as with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =0.95_{0.95}^{+0.60}`$ eV, the value from coulomb excitation work K.Yamada et al. (2004). All $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ values from Table 2 are consistent within uncertainties with our observation of a nearly full Doppler shift for the transition of the 6.79 MeV state (see Fig. 4). The best $`\chi ^2`$ for the fit to the ground state transition is obtained for $`a=6`$ fm ($`\chi ^2=1.27`$), however the differences are small (for $`a=5`$ fm, $`\chi ^2=1.35`$; contributions to $`\chi ^2`$ near the narrow resonances have been omitted in the $`\chi ^2`$ values given above). The best overall agreement with all available data U.Schröder et al. (1987); P.F.Bertone et al. (2001); K.Yamada et al. (2004); P.F.Bertone et al. (2002); A.M.Mukhamedzhanov et al. (2003) is obtained for $`a=5.5`$ fm, where our fitted ground state ANC is $`C=7.3`$ fm-1/2, that can be compared with the result of A.M.Mukhamedzhanov et al. (2003) which gives $`C=7.3\pm 0.4`$ fm-1/2, after conversion to the coupling scheme used in the present work. For the total S-factor a contribution from the transition to the 6.17 MeV state of $`S_{6.17}(0)=0.06`$ keV b from C.Angulo and P.Descouvemont (2001) has been added to obtain an average ($`a=5`$ to 6 fm) of $`S_{tot}(0)=1.7\pm 0.1`$ (statistical) $`\pm 0.2`$(systematical) keV b, which can be compared with $`1.77\pm 0.20`$ keV b C.Angulo and P.Descouvemont (2001) and $`1.70\pm 0.22`$ keV b A.M.Mukhamedzhanov et al. (2003) from previous analyses.

In summary, the present work improves the experimental information concerning the ground state transition in $`{}_{}{}^{14}\mathrm{N}(\mathrm{p},\gamma )^{15}\mathrm{O}`$. The previous data U.Schröder et al. (1987) corrected by summing effects discussed above are now in good agreement with the present work. The large ambiguity for the extrapolation of the ground state transition has been reduced. In the energy region between $`E=170`$ to 300 keV the S(E)-factor is dominated by the 259 keV resonance. Only at energies of about 100 keV and below the contributions of the subthreshold resonance and non-resonant mechanisms should become clearly observable. Using large volume Ge detectors it is impossible to obtain additional information on Sgs(E) at lower energies (than current work) with acceptable uncertainty due to the sizable summing correction. An improved information on Stot(E) can be achieved possibly using a 4$`\pi `$-summing crystal to observe the total S(E)-factor. Such an experiment is presently underway at the LUNA facility.

After submission of the present work several relevant publications appeared:

(i) The authors of S.O.Nelson et al. (2003) reanalyzed the data of U.Schröder et al. (1987) based on conclusions from their analyzing power data. This led to a different extrapolation for the transition to the 6.79 MeV state (about 10 to 20 % lower than the analysis of C.Angulo and P.Descouvemont (2001) and 11 % higher than present work) and for the transition to the 6.17 MeV state (about a factor 3 higher than C.Angulo and P.Descouvemont (2001)). However, the primary aim of the present letter was to clarify the strength of the ground state transition.

(ii) The analysis in G.Imbriani et al. (2004); S.Deg’Innocenti et al. (2003); J.N.Bahcall and M.H.Pinsonneault (2004) were partly based on the results of the present work and led to the conclusion that the solar neutrino flux from CNO cycle is reduced by a factor 2 and the age of the globular clusters is increased by about 1 billion years.