text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Understanding the dynamics of a quantum electron gas is an important issue for a variety of physical systems, such as ordinary metals, semiconductors, and even astrophysical systems under extreme conditions (e.g. white dwarfs). Although some level of understanding can be achieved by considering independent electrons, a more accurate description requires the use of self-consistent models, where electron-electron interactions are taken into account. As the treatment of the full $`N`$-body problem is clearly out of reach, mean-field models are usually adopted, of which the Hartree and Hartree-Fock models are standard examples . In the Hartree approximation, each electron is described by a one-particle wave function (obeying Schrödinger’s equation), and the electrostatic force acting on it results from Poisson’s equation. (Fock’s correction accounts for the parity of the $`N`$-particle wave function for an ensemble of Fermions, but this correction will not be considered in this paper).

The Hartree model can be written in a more compact, but strictly equivalent, form by making use of Wigner functions. The Wigner representation  is a useful tool to express quantum mechanics in a phase space formalism (for reviews see ). In this representation, a quantum state (either pure or mixed) is described by a Wigner function (i.e. a function of the phase space variables), and the Wigner equation provides an evolution equation which is similar to the Vlasov equation, well-known from classical plasma physics. We note that, although the Wigner distribution satisfies most of the standard properties of probability distributions, it cannot be regarded as such, since it may take negative values. The resulting self-consistent model is called the Wigner-Poisson (WP) system, and has been extensively used in the study of quantum transport -.

Despite its considerable interest, the WP formulation presents some intrinsic drawbacks : (a) it is a nonlocal, integro-differential system; and (b) its numerical treatment requires the discretisation of the whole phase space. Moreover, as is often the case with kinetic models, the WP system gives more information than one is really interested in. For these reasons, it would be useful to obtain an accurate reduced model which, though not providing the same detailed information as the kinetic WP system, is still able to reproduce the main features of the physical system under consideration.

After discussing the general validity of the WP model, we will derive an effective Schrödinger-Poisson (SP) system, which, in an appropriate limit, reproduces the results of the kinetic WP formulation. A similar result was recently obtained in the mathematical literature , although its physical implications have not been fully analysed. In this effective SP model, the Schrödinger equation is nonlinear, as it includes an effective potential depending on the modulus of the wavefunction. The exact form of this effective potential depends on the specific physical system being studied. In order to obtain the effective SP system, we will first derive a system of reduced ‘fluid’ equations by taking moments of the WP system. It will be shown that the pressure term appearing in the fluid equations can be decomposed into a classical and a quantum part. With some reasonable hyphoteses on the pressure term, the fluid system can be closed. Finally, the effective SP system will be applied to several physical problems, including linear wave propagation, nonlinear stationary solutions, and the two-stream instability.

## 2 Coupling parameter for a quantum plasma

A classical plasma can be said to be collisionless (‘ideal’) when long-range self-consistent interactions (described by the Poisson equation) dominate over short-range two-particle interactions (collisions). This happens when the potential energy of two electrons separated by an average interparticle distance is small compared to the average kinetic energy. The potential energy is estimated as $`E_{pot}=e^2n_0^{1/3}/\epsilon _0`$, while the average kinetic energy is simply given by the temperature $`T`$ (measured in energy units). Here $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`\epsilon _0`$ the dielectric constant in vacuum, and $`n_0`$ the equilibrium particle density. One defines therefore a classical coupling parameter

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=\frac{E_{pot}}{E_{kin}}=\frac{e^2n_0^{1/3}}{\epsilon _0T},$$
(1)
such that the collisionless approximation is valid when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C1`$. The classical coupling parameter can be written in a different way, by introducing the plasma frequency, the thermal velocity and the Debye length

$$\omega _p=\left(\frac{n_0e^2}{m\epsilon _0}\right)^{1/2},v_T=\left(\frac{T}{m}\right)^{1/2},\lambda _D=\frac{v_T}{\omega _p},$$
(2)
which are typical inverse time, velocity and length scales for a collisionless plasma. With these definitions, the coupling parameter can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_C^{3/2}=\frac{1}{n_0\lambda _D^3},$$
(3)
which is the inverse of the number of electrons contained in a Debye volume. When the condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C1`$ is satisfied, two-body correlations (collisions) can be neglected, and the $`N`$-particle Liouville equation can be reduced, via a BBGKY hierarchy, to the one-particle Vlasov equation. The Vlasov-Poisson system is therefore the standard model to describe classical electrostatic plasmas in the collisionless approximation.

Similarly, it is possible to define a quantum coupling parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q`$. Let us consider the case of a completely degenerate electron gas. Now the average kinetic energy is given by the Fermi temperature $`T_F\mathrm{}^2n_0^{2/3}/m`$ (we neglect irrelevant dimensionless constants), so that the quantum coupling parameter becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q=\frac{E_{pot}}{T_F}=\frac{e^2m}{\mathrm{}^2\epsilon _0n_0^{1/3}}.$$
(4)
Notice that, according to Eq. (4), a quantum electron gas is more ideal at higher densities. Using the Fermi velocity $`v_F=\sqrt{T_F/m}`$, one can define a typical length scale for the quantum plasma

$$\lambda _F=\frac{v_F}{\omega _p}.$$
(5)
The quantum coupling parameter can thus be expressed as the inverse of the number of electrons contained in a Fermi volume :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q^{3/2}=\frac{1}{n_0\lambda _F^3}.$$
(6)
Finally, another expression for the coupling parameter is the following

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q^{1/2}=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _p}{T_F},$$
(7)
which is valid for any number of dimensions.

The quantum electron gas is collisionless when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q1`$. In this case, the quantum $`N`$-body problem can be reduced to a one-particle Wigner equation. The Wigner-Poisson system is therefore capable of describing a quantum electrostatic plasma in the collisionless approximation.

The previous results were derived in the limiting cases $`TT_F`$ (classical) and $`TT_F`$ (quantum degenerate). For intermediate temperatures, simple expressions for the coupling parameters are not available, but one must expect a smooth transition between the two regimes.

For electrons in metal, we have typically

$$n_010^{29}\mathrm{m}^3,v_F10^6\mathrm{ms}^1,\omega _p10^{16}\mathrm{s}^1,\lambda _F10^{10}\mathrm{m}.$$
(8)
These values yield a quantum coupling parameter of order unity. Allowing for the dimensionless constants we have neglected and the different properties of metals, we realise that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q`$ can be both smaller and larger than unity for typical metallic electrons.

The above values seem to indicate that, as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q1`$, electron-electron (e-e) collisions cannot be neglected for metals. If that was the case, one should abandon one-particle models such as the Wigner or Hartree equations, and resort to the full $`N`$-body problem. This is hardly a feasible task. Fortunately, however, the exclusion principle comes to rescue by reducing the collision rate quite dramatically in most cases of interest . This occurs when the electron distribution is close to the Fermi-Dirac equilibrium at relatively low temperatures. The fundamental point is that, when all lower levels are occupied, the exclusion principle forbids a vast number of transitions that would otherwise be possible. In particular, at strictly zero temperature, all electrons have energies below $`T_F`$, and no transition is possible, simply because there are no available states for the electrons to occupy. At moderate temperatures, only electrons wihin a shell of thickness $`T`$ about the Fermi surface can undergo collisions. The e-e collision rate (inverse of the lifetime $`\tau _{ee}`$) for such electrons is proportional to $`T/\mathrm{}`$ (this is a form of the uncertainty principle, energy $`\times `$ time = const.). The average collision rate is obtained by multiplying the previous expression by the fraction of electrons present in the shell of thickness $`T`$ about the Fermi surface, which is $`T/T_F`$. One obtains

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{ee}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\frac{T^2}{T_F}.$$
(9)
At room temperature, $`\tau _{ee}10^{10}s`$, which is much larger than the typical collisionless time scale $`\tau _p=\omega _p^110^{16}s`$. Therefore, for times smaller than $`\tau _{ee}`$ the effect of e-e collisions can be safely neglected. In addition, it turns out that the typical relaxation time scale is $`\tau _r10^{14}s`$, which is again significantly larger than $`\tau _p`$. In summary, the ordering

$$\tau _p\tau _r\tau _{ee},$$
(10)
implies that a collisionless (Wigner) model is appropriate for relatively short time scales.

## 3 Derivation of the fluid model

In one spatial dimension, the Wigner-Poisson system  reads as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`v{\displaystyle \frac{f}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{iem}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d\lambda dv^{}e^{im(vv^{})\lambda }\times `$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\varphi \left(x+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2}}\right)\varphi \left(x{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2}}\right)\right]f(x,v^{},t)=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi }{x^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\epsilon _0}}\left({\displaystyle f𝑑v}n_0\right),`$ (12)
where $`f(x,v,t)`$ is the Wigner distribution function, $`\varphi (x,t)`$ the electrostatic potential, $`e`$ and $`m`$ the electron charge and mass, $`\epsilon _0`$ the vacuum dieletric constant and $`n_0`$ a background ionic charge. Notice that the one-particle Wigner function used here actually represents an $`N`$-particle system. Indeed, the above Wigner-Poisson system can be derived from the full $`N`$-body problem via a BBGKY hierarchy, neglecting two-body correlations and only keeping the mean Coulomb field . Further, it is easy to see that, in the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$, one recovers the familiar Vlasov-Poisson system for classical collisionless plasmas. For simplicity of notation, only one-dimensional problems will be treated in the rest of this paper, but the results can be readily extended to higher dimensions.

In order to derive a fluid model, we take moments of Eq. (11) by integrating over velocity space. Introducing the standard definitions of density, mean velocity and pressure

$$n(x,t)=f𝑑v,u(x,t)=\frac{1}{n}fv𝑑v,P(x,t)=m\left(fv^2𝑑vnu^2\right),$$
(13)
it is obtained

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(nu)}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}+u{\displaystyle \frac{u}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{mn}}{\displaystyle \frac{P}{x}}.`$ (15)
We immediately notice that Eqs. (14)-(15) do not differ from the ordinary evolution equations for a classical fluid. This may seem surprising, but in the following it will appear that the quantum nature of this system is in fact hidden in the pressure term.

The pressure term may be decomposed into a classical and a quantum part. This can be shown as follows. The Wigner distribution for a quantum mixture of states $`\psi _\alpha (x,t)`$, each characterized by an occupation probability $`p_\alpha `$, is written as

$$f(x,v,t)=\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\underset{\alpha }{}p_\alpha 𝑑\lambda \psi _\alpha ^{}(x+\frac{\lambda }{2},t)\psi _\alpha (x\frac{\lambda }{2},t)e^{imv\lambda /\mathrm{}},$$
(16)
where the sum extends over all possible states. The numbers $`p_\alpha `$, representing probabilities, satisfy the relations $`p_\alpha 0`$, $`_\alpha p_\alpha =1`$. Using the the previous expression, one can compute the pressure. After some algebra, one obtains

$$P=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}\underset{\alpha }{}p_\alpha \left(2\left|\frac{\psi _\alpha }{x}\right|^2\psi _\alpha ^{}\frac{^2\psi _\alpha }{x^2}\psi _\alpha \frac{^2\psi _\alpha ^{}}{x^2}\right)$$

$$+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4mn}\left[\underset{\alpha }{}p_\alpha \left(\psi _\alpha ^{}\frac{\psi _\alpha }{x}\psi _\alpha \frac{\psi _\alpha ^{}}{x}\right)\right]^2.$$
(17)
If we represent each state as

$$\psi _\alpha (x,t)=A_\alpha (x,t)\mathrm{exp}(iS_\alpha (x,t)/\mathrm{}),$$
(18)
where $`A_\alpha `$ (amplitude) and $`S_\alpha `$ (phase) are real functions, we obtain $`P=P^C+P^Q`$, where the classical $`P^C`$ and quantum $`P^Q`$ parts of the pressure are

$`P^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2mn}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}p_\alpha p_\beta A_\alpha ^2A_\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_\alpha }{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_\beta }{x}}\right)^2,`$ (19)
$`P^Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}p_\alpha \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_\alpha }{x}}\right)^2A_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{^2A_\alpha }{x^2}}\right].`$ (20)
Notice that $`P^Q`$ only depends on the amplitudes $`A_\alpha `$, and that for a pure state only $`P^Q`$ survives. It can be easily shown that $`P^C`$ represents the standard pressure, resulting from the dispersion of velocities. To prove this, one has to remember that the phases $`S_\alpha `$ are related to the mean velocity $`u_\alpha `$ of each wavefunction through the relation $`mu_\alpha =S_\alpha /x`$ \[the $`u_\alpha `$’s should not be mistaken with the global mean velocity $`u`$ defined in Eq. (13)\]. Thus, by expanding Eq. (19), one obtains after some algebra

$$P^C=mn\left[\frac{_\alpha p_\alpha A_\alpha ^2u_\alpha ^2}{n}\left(\frac{_\alpha p_\alpha A_\alpha ^2u_\alpha }{n}\right)^2\right].$$
(21)
With an appropriate definition of averages, we can rewrite the above equation as: $`P^C=mn(u_\alpha ^2u_\alpha ^2)`$, which is the standard expression for the pressure. The contribution $`P^Q`$, on the other hand, is a purely quantum pressure, with no classical counterpart.

In order to close the fluid system, some equation of state, relating $`P^C`$ and $`P^Q`$ to the density $`n`$, must be used. In this paper, we consider a statistical mixture where all the amplitudes are equal (but not constant), $`A_\alpha (x)=A(x)`$. This gives, using Eqs. (13) and (16), $`n=A^2`$. With the help of Eq. (20), the quantum pressure becomes

$$P^Q=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\left[\left(\frac{}{x}\sqrt{n}\right)^2\sqrt{n}\frac{^2}{x^2}\sqrt{n}\right].$$
(22)
For the classical part of the pressure, we make the standard assumption that it is some function of the density, $`P^C=P^C(n)`$. With these hypotheses, the force equation $`(\text{15})`$ can be written as

$$\frac{u}{t}+u\frac{u}{x}=\frac{e}{m}\frac{\varphi }{x}\frac{1}{mn}\frac{P^C}{x}\frac{1}{mn}\frac{P^Q}{x}.$$
(23)
Defining the effective potential

$$W(n)=^n\frac{dn^{}}{n^{}}\frac{dP^C(n^{})}{dn^{}},$$
(24)
and using the identity

$$\frac{1}{mn}\frac{P^Q}{x}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^2}\frac{}{x}\left(\frac{^2(\sqrt{n})/x^2}{\sqrt{n}}\right),$$
(25)
the force equation $`(\text{23})`$ reduces to

$$\frac{u}{t}+u\frac{u}{x}=\frac{e}{m}\frac{\varphi }{x}\frac{1}{m}\frac{W}{x}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^2}\frac{}{x}\left(\frac{^2(\sqrt{n})/x^2}{\sqrt{n}}\right).$$
(26)
Now comes the crucial point : it is possible to combine Eqs. (14) and (26) into an effective Schrödinger equation. Indeed, let us define the effective wavefunction

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{n(x,t)}\mathrm{exp}(iS(x,t)/\mathrm{}),$$
(27)
with $`S(x,t)`$ defined according to $`mu(x,t)=S(x,t)/x`$. We obtain that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ satisfies the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x^2}e\varphi \mathrm{\Psi }+W\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(28)
This is a nonlinear Schrödinger equation, as the effective potential $`W`$ depends on the wavefunction through Eq. (24), where $`n=|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$. Separating Eq. (28) into its real and imaginary parts, we indeed find the continuity (14) and force (26) equations. Finally, the complete effective SP system is composed of Eq. (28) and the Poisson equation

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{x^2}=\frac{e}{\epsilon _0}\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2n_0\right).$$
(29)
To summarize what we have achieved so far, we notice that, in general, the dynamics of a statistical mixture must be treated with the full Wigner-Poisson system, or, equivalently, with a set of Schrödinger equations, coupled by Poisson’s equation (Hartree’s model). In the present section, we have shown that one can reduce the problem of quantum transport to a single nonlinear Schrödinger equation plus Poisson’s equation. Also, notice that the nature of the interaction (electrostatic in our case) is not of essential importance. The main result is that we can reduce the (phase space) Wigner equation to a (real space) nonlinear Schrödinger equation.

The two hypotheses used for this reduction are : (a) all states composing the mixture have the same amplitude \[which leads to Eq. (22) for the quantum pressure\]; and (b) the equation of state for the classical pressure is $`P^C=P^C(n)`$. Hypothesis (b) is the standard fluid closure, and needs no further comment. Hypothesis (a) means that all electrons are distributed in space according to the same probability distribution $`n(x)=A^2(x)`$. What distinguishes the electrons from one another is their phase $`S_\alpha `$, and therefore their velocity $`u_\alpha `$. This approximation can be viewed as a first step beyond the standard homogeneous equilibrium of a Fermion gas, for which each state is represented by a plane wave

$$\psi _\alpha (x,t)=A\mathrm{exp}(imu_\alpha x/\mathrm{}),$$

with the amplitude $`A`$ and the velocity $`u_\alpha `$ spatially constant. In our approximation, both the amplitude and the velocity can be spatially modulated, although we still restrict ourselves to the case where the amplitude is the same for all states. This appears to be a reasonable closure assumption for systems that are not too far from the Fermi-Dirac equilibrium.

## 4 Applications

As a relevant example of the above theory, we consider a zero-temperature one-dimensional electron gas, with Fermi velocity $`v_F`$ and equilibrium density $`n_0`$. In this case, the classical pressure is

$$P^C=\frac{mv_F^2}{3n_0^2}n^3.$$
(30)
(Notice that the term ‘classical’ is somewhat inappropriate here, as $`P^C`$ will contain Planck’s constant through the Fermi velocity). We also note that the Fermi velocity in one spatial dimension

$$v_F=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\mathrm{}n_0}{m}$$
(31)
is proportional to $`n_0`$, whereas in three dimensions $`v_Fn_0^{1/3}`$.

Using Eq. (30), the effective potential defined in Eq. (24) turns out to be

$$W=\frac{mv_F^2}{2n_0^2}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4.$$
(32)
Notice that the effective potential is repulsive, and tends to flatten the electron density. This is quite natural, as $`W`$ derives from the pressure $`P^C`$, which in turn is a manifestation of the dispersion of velocities in a Fermion gas. When the gas is at equilibrium, $`Wn`$ const., and this term has no effect.

We also point out that a similar nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4`$-dependent potential has recently been derived in the study of low-dimensional Bose condensates . We stress, however, that such a Boson-Fermion duality only applies to one-dimensional systems. For a $`D`$-dimensional Fermion system, the classical part of the pressure has the form $`P^Cn^{(D+2)/D}`$, so that the effective potential becomes $`Wn^{2/D}`$ .

### 4.1 Linear wave propagation

As a first application, let us study wave propagation for the effective SP system (28)-(29) with $`W`$ given by Eq. (32). Linearizing around the homogeneous equilibrium $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{n_0}`$, $`e\varphi =mv_F^2/2`$, we obtain the following dispersion relation (for waves with frequency $`\omega `$ and wave number $`k`$)

$$\omega ^2=\omega _p^2+k^2v_F^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^4}{4m^2}.$$
(33)
For $`v_F=0`$, we recover the dispersion relation of the standard SP system . Equation (33) can be written in dimensionless units by using Eqs. (5) and (7), which are valid both in one and three spatial dimensions

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _p^2}=1+k^2\lambda _F^2+\frac{k^4\lambda _F^4}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q.$$
(34)
Note that quantum mechanical effects (dispersion of the wave packet) are first order in the coupling parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q`$, whereas quantum statistical effects (Fermi-Dirac distribution) appear at leading order.

We want to compare this dispersion relation to the one obtained from the complete WP system (11)-(12), which, in the most general case, reads as

$$1\frac{\omega _p^2}{n_0}\frac{f_0(v)dv}{(\omega kv)^2\mathrm{}^2k^4/4m^2}=0.$$
(35)
In our case, $`f_0(v)`$ is given by the Fermi-Dirac distribution for a zero-temperature one-dimensional electron gas at equilibrium, i.e. $`f_0(v)=n_0/2v_F`$ if $`|v|<v_F`$ and $`f_0(v)=0`$ if $`|v|>v_F`$. Substituting into Eq. (35), one obtains (without any further approximation)

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _p^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega _p^2}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega _p^2}\right)+k^2\lambda _F^2+\frac{k^4\lambda _F^4}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q,$$
(36)
where

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\omega _p^2}=\frac{\mathrm{}k^3v_F}{m\omega _p^2}=k^3\lambda _F^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q^{1/2}.$$
(37)
Now we expand the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (36) in the long wavelength (fluid) limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _p`$. Using the expansion $`x\mathrm{coth}(x)=1+x^2/3x^4/45+\mathrm{}`$, one obtains

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{\omega _p^2}=1+k^2\lambda _F^2+\left(\frac{k^4\lambda _F^4}{4}+\frac{k^6\lambda _F^6}{3}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q\frac{1}{45}k^{12}\lambda _F^{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(38)
This is a double expansion in powers of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q`$ and $`k\lambda _F`$. The collisionless regime is in principle characterized by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q1`$, although, as was seen in Sec. 2, electron-electron interactions can be neglected even when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q1`$, as is the case for metals. On the other hand, the fluid regime is characterized by small wave numbers ($`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _p`$). Indeed, keeping terms to fourth order in $`k\lambda _F`$, Eq. (38) reduces to the dispersion relation for the effective SP system, Eq. (34). This is a further indication that the effective SP system is a good approximation to the complete WP system for long wavelengths.

We also note that for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q0`$, the dispersion relation reduces to

$$\omega ^2=\omega _p^2+k^2v_F^2.$$
(39)
This is exactly the dispersion relation obtained from the classical Vlasov-Poisson system with a zero-temperature Fermi-Dirac equilibrium. In other words, when the quantum coupling parameter is vanishingly small, a classical dynamical equation can be used, as the only quantum effects come from the Fermi-Dirac statistics. This situation may apply to extremely dense astrophysical systems such as white dwarfs.

### 4.2 Stationary solutions

As a second illustration, we use the present formalism to describe the stationary states of the electron gas . This result is more easily obtained by using the fluid version of our model. In the time-independent case, the continuity equation (14) and the force equation (26) possess the following first integrals

$$J=A^2u,E=\frac{mu^2}{2}e\varphi +W\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2mA}\frac{d^2A}{dx^2},$$
(40)
where $`A=\sqrt{n}`$. The first integrals in Eq. (40) corresponds to current ($`J`$) and energy ($`E`$) conservation. We can always choose $`E=0`$ by a shift in the electrostatic potential. In this way, we can reduce the description of the stationary states to a set of second-order nonlinear ordinary differential equations for the amplitude $`A`$ and the electrostatic potential $`\varphi `$. For a zero-temperature one-dimensional electron gas, the effective potential $`W`$ is given by Eq. (32); thus from Eqs. (40), (29) we get

$`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2A}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`m\left({\displaystyle \frac{mJ^2}{A^3}}2eA\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{mv_F^2}{n_0^2}}A^5\right),`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi }{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\epsilon _0}}(A^2n_0).`$ (42)
Notice that, if the amplitude $`A(x)`$ is a slowly varying function of $`x`$, the second derivative on the left hand-side of Eq. (41) can be neglected. With this assumption, Eq. (41) reduces to an algebraic equation, which can be solved for $`A`$, and the result plugged into Eq. (42). This becomes a nonlinear differential equation for the electrostatic potential, which is nothing but the Thomas-Fermi approximation to our model.

It can be easily verified that the $`J=0`$ case cannot sustain small-amplitude, periodic solutions. Hence, we assume $`J=n_0u_0`$ with $`u_00`$ and introduce the following rescaling

$`\widehat{x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _px}{u_0}},\widehat{A}={\displaystyle \frac{A}{\sqrt{n_0}}},\widehat{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{e\varphi }{mu_0^2}}`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _p}{mu_0^2}},V_F={\displaystyle \frac{v_F}{u_0}}.`$ (43)
We obtain, in the transformed variables (omitting the circumflex for simplicity of notation),

$`H^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2A}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\varphi A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^3}}+V_F^2A^5,`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi }{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`A^21,`$ (45)
a system that only depends on the rescaled parameters $`H`$ and $`V_F`$. Note that the quantum coupling parameter can be written as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q=H/V_F^2`$.

It is interesting to perform a linear stability analysis in order to see in what conditions the system supports small amplitude spatially periodic solutions. Writing

$$A=1+A^{}\mathrm{exp}(ikx),\varphi =(1+V_F^2)/2+\varphi ^{}\mathrm{exp}(ikx),$$
(46)
and retaining in Eqs. (44)–(45) only terms up to first order in the primed variables, we obtain the relation

$$H^2k^44(1V_F^2)k^2+4=0.$$
(47)
This second degree equation has solutions

$$k^2=\frac{2(1V_F^2)\pm 2\sqrt{(1V_F^2)^2H^2}}{H^2}.$$
(48)
Clearly, spatially oscillating solutions only exist when $`k^2`$ is real and positive, which yields the condition

$$V_F^2<1H,$$
(49)
or equivalently

$$mu_0^2>mv_F^2+\mathrm{}\omega _p.$$
(50)
This expression sets a lower bound on the speed $`u_0`$, below which no oscillating stationary solution can exist.

### 4.3 Two-stream instability

A classical plasma composed of two counterstreaming electronic populations with velocities $`\pm u_0`$ can give rise, for certain wave numbers, to an instability. In a previous paper , we have shown that quantum effects modify the dispersion relation, and give rise to a new instability branch. These results were obtained by neglecting the effects of quantum statistics, and are therefore valid in the limit $`v_Fu_0`$. Here, we perform the same calculations for finite values of $`v_F`$.

We consider two electronic populations, which are both distributed according to a zero-temperature Fermi-Dirac equilibrium, but with average velocities $`\pm u_0`$. The motionless ions provide a neutralizing background. The dispersion relation for such a two-stream plasma can be found in the following way. For a single stream propagating at velocity $`\pm u_0`$, our fluid model yields the following dielectric constant (thus valid for long wavelengths)

$$ϵ_\pm (k,\omega )=1\frac{\omega _p^2}{(\omega ku_0)^2k^2v_F^2\mathrm{}^2k^4/4m^2}.$$
(51)
Setting $`ϵ_\pm (k,\omega )=0`$ leads to the dispersion relation found previously, Eq. (33), with the appropriate Doppler shift. The dielectric constant for the two-stream case is found by averaging the contributions from each stream $`ϵ(k,\omega )=(ϵ_++ϵ_{})/2`$. Using the normalization of Eqs. (4.2), we obtain

$$ϵ(k,\omega )=1\frac{1/2}{(\omega +k)^2k^2V_F^2H^2k^4/4}\frac{1/2}{(\omega k)^2k^2V_F^2H^2k^4/4}.$$
(52)
Setting $`ϵ(k,\omega )=0`$, we obtain the dispersion relation for the two-stream plasma

$$\omega ^4\left(1+2k^2(1+V_F^2)+\frac{H^2k^4}{2}\right)\omega ^2$$

$$k^2\left(1V_F^2\frac{H^2k^2}{4}\right)\left(1(1V_F^2)k^2+\frac{H^2k^4}{4}\right)=0.$$
(53)
Notice that for $`V_F=0`$ we recover the dispersion relation obtained in . Solving for $`\omega ^2`$, one obtains

$$\omega ^2=\frac{1}{2}+k^2\left(1+v_F^2+\frac{H^2k^2}{4}\right)\pm \frac{1}{2}\left[1+8k^2\left(1+2k^2V_F^2+\frac{H^2k^4}{2}\right)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(54)
The solution for $`\omega ^2`$ has two branches, one of which is always positive and gives stable oscillations. The other solution is negative ($`\omega ^2<0`$) provided that

$$[H^2k^24(1V_F^2)][H^2k^44(1V_F^2)k^2+4]<0.$$
(55)
We immediately notice that, if $`V_F1`$, Eq. (55) is never verified, and therefore there is no instability. This is a quite natural result. Indeed, mathematically, the instability is due to the fact that the two-stream velocity distribution has a ‘hole’ around $`v=0`$. When $`V_F1`$, the hole is filled up, and no instability can occur. To put it differently, there can be instability only when the equilibrium distribution is a non-monotonic function of the energy, which ceases to be true when $`V_F1`$.

When $`V_F<1`$, Eq. (55) bifurcates for $`H=1V_F^2`$. If $`H1V_F^2`$, the second factor is always positive, and instability occurs for $`H^2k^2<4(1V_F^2)`$. If $`H<1V_F^2`$, there is instability if either

$$0<H^2k^2<2(1V_F^2)2\sqrt{(1V_F^2)^2H^2},$$
(56)
or

$$2(1V_F^2)+2\sqrt{(1V_F^2)^2H^2}<H^2k^2<4(1V_F^2).$$
(57)
This yields the stability diagram plotted on Fig. 1, which is similar to the one obtained in the limiting case $`V_F=0`$. The presence of a finite Fermi velocity has the effect of reducing the region of instability. Numerical simulations yield similar reult to those observed in the $`V_F=0`$ case, which are reported in .

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper, we have first established the conditions of validity of the Wigner-Poisson system. Subsequently, by taking moments of the Wigner equation, we have derived an effective Schrödinger-Poisson system that captures the essential features of a quantum electron gas. In the long wavelength limit, this model correctly reproduces the results of the linear analysis of the Wigner-Poisson system. The advantages of the effective SP model are manifold: it is local in space (compared to the nonlocal WP system); it is cast into the ordinary space, rather than the phase space; and it has a straightforward interpretation in terms of fluid quantities. Furthermore, it is easily amenable to numerical studies, given the abundance of accurate numerical techniques for the Schrödinger equation (in comparison, numerical methods for the Wigner equation  are much scarcer and more cumbersome to implement). The crucial points in the derivation of the model are : (a) the decomposition of the pressure into a classical and a quantum contribution, and (b) the restriction to an appropriate class of statistical mixtures (composed of states with same amplitude, but different phases). We believe that this class is wide enough to describe a significant range of relevant physical systems.

For the case of a completely degenerate electron gas, the effective SP model can be put in a particularly simple form, in which the Schrödinger equation exhibits a $`\mathrm{\Psi }^4`$ nonlinearity. This model has been applied to the study of linear wave propagation, nonlinear stationary solutions and the two-stream instability. The simplicity of the resulting system of equations makes it a useful tool for the study of quantum transport in solid state plasmas.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Pierre Bertrand for his valuable comments and suggestions. One of us (F. H.) thanks the Laboratoire de Physique des Milieux Ionisés for hospitality while this work was carried out and the Brazilian agency Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnólogico (CNPq) for financial support.

Figure Captions

Figure 1 : Stability diagram for the two-stream plasma, with $`V_F=0.7`$ (solid lines) and $`V_F=0`$ (dashed lines). The curves correspond to Eqs. (56)-(57). For both cases, the region of the plane containing the $`H^2`$ axis is unstable.


format: text

text:
# Thermal and ground-state entanglement in Heisenberg 𝑋𝑋 qubit rings

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thanks for the helpful discussions with Paolo Zanardi, Irene D’Amico, Hongchen Fu, Prof. Allan I. Solomon, Prof. Joachim Stolze, Prof. Guenter Mahler, and Prof. Vladimir Korepin. This work has been supported by the European Community through grant IST-1999-10596 (Q-ACTA).


text:
# High Level Tracker Triggers for CMS

## 1 Introduction

The collision rate at LHC  is foreseen to be 40MHz. To handle such rates a powerful DAQ system and also fast and efficient trigger algorithms are needed. The CMS Collaboration  has chosen a trigger scheme based on two components: a hardware Level 1 Trigger and a software Level 2 Trigger. As any collider detector, CMS is composed of tracker, calorimeter and muon systems. At Level 1 the information from the muon and calorimeter systems is used. At Level 2, called Higher Level Trigger (HLT) in CMS, also the tracker contributes to the event selection.

The CMS tracker system  is based on two technologies: 1) silicon pixel detectors, which are closest to the beam, provide 3-D hits used for vertexing, and 2) silicon strip detectors placed at larger radii are used for pattern recognition and track reconstruction. The amount of information coming from the pixel detector is about 10% of the full tracker, hence it is reasonable to use it at the beginning of the HLT algorithms. In this article we present track reconstruction algorithms based on 3 innermost tracker hits. At low LHC luminosity ($`10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$), when only two pixel layers are foreseen, the third hit is taken from the lowest radius strip detector layer. At high luminosity ($`10^{34}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$) the algorithm is based purely on the pixel detector.

## 2 Detector layout

The results shown here were obtained with a full GEANT based simulation of the CMS detector using the CMSIM  and ORCA  software packages. The CMS inner tracker layout used in the simulation will be briefly mentioned below, more details can be found in Ref.. The pixel detector consists of three barrel layers located at mean radii 4.3 cm, 7.2 cm and 11.0 cm. The 52 cm long pixel barrel is supplemented by two endcap disks on each side. With this configuration the pixel detector provides 3 hit coverage up to rapidity $`|\eta |2.1`$. For low luminosity only two barrel layers will be installed giving 2 pixel hits up to $`|\eta |2.1`$. The $`1^{st}`$ silicon strip barrel layer used in our reconstruction algorithm is 89.2cm long and is located at a mean radius of 23.5cm

## 3 The triggering scheme

The goal of the CMS trigger system is to reduce the event rate from $`40\mathrm{M}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$ down to $`100\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$ that will be stored for off-line analysis. The DAQ architecture is designed in such a way that it should sustain maximum output rate of Level 1 trigger of $`100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$ and provide HLT acceptance of about $`10^3`$. As mentioned in the Introduction the Level 1 trigger decision is based on the muon and calorimeter systems, at HLT the tracker information will be added. Even if the full detector information is accessible at HTL, fast algorithms which select event topologies of interest and use partial information should be applied first.

## 4 Track and vertex reconstruction

Two algorithms based on the track reconstruction from the 3 innermost tracker layers will be discussed below, both start from the two innermost pixel layers. For the $`3^{rd}`$ hit the first strip layer is used in one algorithm, the second algorithm uses the third pixel layer.

### 4.1 Track reconstruction using the pixel detector

The pixel track finding algorithm has been explained in Ref., here only the most important details will be given. It’s three essential steps are shown in Fig. 1. Pixel hit pairs from the first two layers (barrel+barrel or barrel+endcap) are matched in $`r\varphi `$ and $`zr`$ to establish track candidates. The cuts are optimized for a minimum track transverse momentum ($`p_t`$) of $`1GeV/c`$ and permit a maximum impact parameter in $`r\varphi `$ of $`1mm`$. In the $`zr`$ plane the hit pairs have to point to a region in $`z`$ within $`3\sigma (+/15cm)`$ of the LHC luminous region.

Valid pixel pairs are matched with a $`3^{rd}`$ pixel hit forming a track candidate. Using these tracks a list of primary vertices (PV) is formed at z values where at least 3 tracks cross the z axis. Tracks which do not point to any PV candidate are erased. Due to the detector overlaps in the $`r\varphi `$ direction for some Monte Carlo tracks more than one track candidate is found. Track pairs which share pixel hits and are closer than $`10mrad`$ from each other are identified. A cleaning procedure then erases one of the tracks in each pair.

The track finding efficiency is illustrated in Fig. 2 where the efficiency (the ratio of reconstructed to Monte Carlo tracks) is shown as a function of the track $`p_t`$ and rapidity. Only reconstructed tracks which have all 3 hits correctly assigned are counted and the fraction is normalized to all Monte Carlo tracks which are within the full acceptance of the pixel detector. The plotted efficiency is for high luminosity LHC events in the presence of minimum bias pile-up interactions (on the average 20). However, the comparison is done for the signal tracks only, that is tracks originating from the minimum-bias events are ignored. In the upper part of Fig. 2 the reconstruction efficiency and the ghost rate is shown as a function of $`p_t`$. The lower part shows that the efficiency (for tracks with $`p_t1GeV/c`$) is flat within the rapidity coverage of the pixel detector. The solid curve shows the absolute efficiency and the dashed curve the algorithmic efficiency (normalized to the number of tracks with 3 pixel hits). For all event types considered in our HTL studies the absolute track finding efficiency for tracks above $`1GeV/c`$ is about 90%. The algorithmic efficiency is between 93% and 95% and the fraction of ghost tracks is typical between 5% and 8%.

Obviously the track parameters, fitted with 3 points only, are much inferior to the full tracker resolution. The reconstructed track’s direction is good, the resolution in the $`\varphi `$ direction being $`8mrad`$ and in the $`\theta `$ direction $`11mrad`$. The $`p_t`$ measurement however, is poor, mainly because of the small radius of the last hit (11 cm). For $`2GeV/c`$ tracks this resolution is about 7%, but for $`10GeV/c`$ it reaches 20% (see Ref. for more details). The curvature of the tracks is sufficient to distinguish the track sign with 100% efficiency up to $`p_t`$ of $`30÷40GeV/c`$.

The primary vertex candidates found during the track finding stage are reanalyzed. Only PVs with at least 3 valid tracks are kept and the position of each vertex is estimated as the mean value of the z impact parameters of all tracks assigned to it. In addition to the main “signal” PV, on the average $`6÷8`$ more PVs per event are found at high luminosity. The “signal” PV is usually found with a high accuracy of better than 50 $`\mu `$m. This is shown in Fig. 3 where the difference in the z position of the reconstructed vertex and the Monte Carlo vertex is plotted. The efficiency of this algorithm is high, for the HLT event samples the “signal” PV is always found with an efficiency of better than 95%.

### 4.2 Reconstruction using the pixel detector and one strip layer

This algorithm is similar to the one discussed in section 4.1. Since the algorithm is developed to trigger on exclusive B meson decays, selection criteria listed below are optimized for such decays. Below we describe it in more detail.

1. Any pair of hits from two separate pixel layers are connected with a straight line in the transverse plane. We utilize the fact that the tracks we want to reconstruct are relatively stiff ($`p_\mathrm{T}0.9\mathrm{GeV}/c`$) and the lever arm is small ($`7\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}`$). Then the impact parameter (IP, the distance from the line to the primary interaction point in the transverse plane) is calculated. If it is less than $`2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}`$, the two hits create a track candidate.
2. Extrapolating the straight line that connects two selected hits to the third (strip) layer in the $`rz`$ plane, the expected position ($`z_{\mathrm{exp}}`$) of a third hit is calculated. If there is a reconstructed hit with its coordinate $`z_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ close to $`z_{\mathrm{exp}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=|z_{\mathrm{exp}}z_{\mathrm{rec}}|1.5\mathrm{mm}`$, it is taken as the third hit of the track candidate. The momentum and the charge of the track is determined.

In Fig. 4 we show the $`\mathrm{IP}`$ and $`dz`$ distributions for decay (1) to illustrate the above cuts. If the transverse momentum of the reconstructed track is greater then $`0.9\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ it is accepted for further analysis.

## 5 B-physics triggers

The Level 1 B physics trigger in CMS is mainly based on the muon system (the single muon trigger rate is assumed to be 10kHz). At the Level 2 information from the muon and calorimetric systems will be reanalyzed with fine granularity and more sophisticated algorithms. However, soft products of B decays usually do not manifest themselves in the calorimeters and more precise calculation of the trigger muon momentum can suppress the rate by only a factor of 2. Thus, one needs to apply further selection algorithms which are specific to B decays, e.g. reconstruction of B decay products (tracks) and calculation of invariant masses of intermediate resonances if any.

The idea of using only 3 innermost hits at HLT to select the exclusive B decay modes is based on the observation that the momentum resolution provided by these 3 hits is only a few times worse than that obtained with the full tracker. Fig. 5 shows the transverse momentum resolution in percentage versus the number of continues hits used for track reconstruction. Two distributions represent results for tracks of 1 and 10$`\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}`$.

One can see that for tracks with $`p_\mathrm{T}1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/c`$ the transverse momentum resolution obtained with 3 hits is about 1.5%, 2 times worse than with the full tracker.

The decay mode (and its charge conjugate)

$$B_s^0D_s^{}+\pi ^+\varphi +\pi ^{}+\pi ^+K^++K^{}+\pi ^{}+\pi ^+$$
(1)
has been chosen as a benchmark. Only the $`D_s`$ decay chain is triggered at this stage which allows us to select also the following decay modes of the B meson:

$$B_s^0D_s^{}+X$$
(2)
where $`X`$ = $`a_1^+`$, $`K^+`$, $`D_s^+`$ and $`\mu ^++X`$.

Applying the reconstruction algorithm discussed in Section 4.2 we obtain the momentum and the charge for each reconstructed track. To trigger the decay modes (1,2) we reconstruct all tracks with $`p_t0.9GeV/c`$ and then find all $`\varphi `$ and $`D_s`$ candidates by trying different track combinations. An event is selected if two conditions are fulfilled. Firstly, that there are two oppositely charged tracks close to each other ($`\mathrm{\Delta }R0.3`$), and their invariant mass (assuming they are kaons) is compatible with the $`\varphi `$ mass, $`|M_{KK}M_\varphi |15\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/c^2`$. Secondly, there is a third track in the cone $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=1.0`$ around the reconstructed $`\varphi `$ candidate and the invariant mass of this $`\varphi `$ candidate and the third track (assuming it is a pion) agrees with the $`D_s`$ mass, $`|M_{\varphi \pi }M_{D_s}|70\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/c^2`$. Mass cuts have been defined based on expected mass resolutions shown in Fig. 6 for the decay mode (1): $`\sigma (M_\varphi )5\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/c^2`$ and $`\sigma (M_{D_s})25\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/c^2`$.

The proposed algorithm reduces the single muon trigger rate by factor of 30 while providing a signal efficiency of about 75%. The fraction of ghost tracks is relatively small (about 10%). Further reduction of trigger rate will be based on more strict cuts using the full CMS tracker capability to reconstruct exclusive B decays.

## 6 Tau trigger

The “pixel” $`\tau `$ trigger proposed here is an example of a tracker HLT application which uses only the pixel data. As signal events we used SUSY Higgs bosons decaying into two $`\tau `$ leptons with two $`\tau `$ hadronic jet(s) in the final state. The main background for such events are QCD 2-jet events in the $`p_t`$ range 50-230 GeV/c.

More details about the algorithm and the event samples used in the simulation can be found in Ref..
The HLT pixel algorithm is based on track isolation criteria and is schematically shown in Fig 7. The $`\tau `$-jet direction is defined by the calorimeter trigger. All track candidates in the matching cone $`R_m`$ around the jet direction and above the $`p_t^m`$ cut are considered in the search for signal tracks, that is tracks which originate from the hadronic $`\tau `$ decay. The track with the highest $`p_t`$ is declared the “leading” track ($`tr_1`$ in Fig. 7). Any other track which is in the narrow cone $`R_s`$ around $`tr_1`$ is also assumed to come from the $`\tau `$ decay. A larger area $`R_i`$ is now searched for tracks above the $`p_t^i`$ cut. If no tracks are found in the $`R_i`$ cone, except the ones which are already in the $`R_s`$ cone, the isolation criteria is fulfilled and the jet is labeled as a $`\tau `$-jet. The narrow signal cone $`R_s`$ around the “leading” track $`tr_1`$ is needed in order to trigger on 3 prong $`\tau `$ decays in addition to 1 prong. Typical values of the cuts used above are : $`R_s`$=0.05, $`R_m`$=0.10, $`R_i`$=0.35, $`p_t^s=3GeV/`$c and $`p_t^i=1GeV/c`$.

The algorithm works very well at low luminosity. At high luminosity, however, it’s efficiency becomes small (about 50%) due to the large number of tracks originating from the pile-up interactions. The efficiency is improved by using the PVs information. The vertex of the leading track is assumed to be the “signal” PV (this assumption is correct for 99% of events). Once the “signal” PV is defined only those tracks which were assigned to it are considered in the isolation criteria. This approach increases the efficiency of our algorithm at high luminosity to the same value as at low luminosity.

The variation of the QCD 2-jet background and the Higgs signal efficiency with the change of the isolation cone size is shown in Fig. 8 for Higgs mass of $`200GeV/c^2`$ (full squares) and $`500GeV/c^2`$ (full circles) and for two signal cone sizes $`R_s`$=0.05 and 0.10. The points from left to right correspond to the following values of $`R_i`$ = 0.50, 0.40, 0.35, 0.30 and 0.20. One can see that a rejection factor of 5 (for the 0.10 signal cone) can be reached with an efficiency $``$ 75%. A higher background rejection of 10 (for the 0.05 signal cone) can be achieved but at a price of the efficiency being dependent on the Higgs mass.

## 7 Conclusions

Fast HLT algorithms for B physics decays and $`\tau `$-jets have been developed based on the CMS pixel detector and the innermost strip layer. The key feature of these algorithms is track reconstruction based on 3 hits only. Track parameters are calculated based on a simple helix approach. It is demonstrated that one can obtain high track reconstruction efficiency ($``$ 90%), very accurate primary vertex position in the $`z`$ dimension ($`50\mu m`$) and a good momentum resolution (1%$`÷`$4%) for tracks with $`p_t=1÷10GeV/c`$. High reduction of background rates (about 30 for B physics channels and 5 for Higgs) with a good signal efficiency of 75% are achieved.

The $`\tau `$ trigger algorithm has been developed together with A. Nikitenko. We would like to thank the organizers of the Vertex2001 conference for the pleasant and fruitful meeting in Brunnen.