format: text

text:
# Measuring the Spin of Invisible Massive Graviton Excitations at Future Linear Colliders

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Theory Background

The Standard Model (SM) of Particle Physics, which has so far stood the test of numerous precision measurements, is nevertheless not considered to be the ultimate theory. One of the reasons is a serious shortcoming of the SM, namely that the mass of the Higgs boson diverges quadratically as we evolve the energy scale of the theory towards the electroweak scale from the Planck scale. This is the so-called Hierarchy Problem.

We expect that the SM as an effective theory is valid up to $`𝒪`$(1 TeV), and any signs of New Physics, if they should exist, will arise at that energy scale. Supersymmetry is a well-motivated theory which solves the Hierarchy Problem, but another possibility has been proposed  recently. According to this theory, the SM particles are confined in a 3-brane, and only gravity propagates in the compactified extra dimensions. The weakness of gravity is explained by the fact that it propagates in the extra dimensions, and the overlap of the wavefunctions between the graviton and the SM particles is small. The fundamental scale of the theory is not $`M_{pl}2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV, but $`M_D=𝒪`$(1 TeV). Here:

$`M_{pl}^2V_nM_D^{n+2},`$ (1)
where $`n`$ is the number of extra dimensions and $`V_n`$ is the volume of the extra dimensions. Thus the weak scale and the fundamental scale $`M_D`$ are very close, and so the Hierarchy Problem is ‘resolved’. It may be argued that this ‘resolution’ only translates one problem, namely the hierarchy between the electroweak scale and the fundamental scale, into another, namely the size of the extra dimensions. Let us nevertheless adopt this model as an effective theory applicable at low energies, leading to concrete predictions which should be studied.

Since the graviton propagates in the compactified extra dimensions, there are many massive Kaluza-Klein excitations. Such excitations couple to the SM particles, and we can expect to observe at future colliders massive graviton excitations, which we call massive gravitons hereafter for simplicity.

Some bounds are available already from current collider experiments. D0  and L3  have made searches both in the direct production channel where the produced graviton is undetected and is identified through the missing 4-momenta, and in the indirect channel where virtual graviton contributions give rise to ‘contact term’ type effective interactions. The direct limit on $`M_D`$ can be set only in the former of these two search modes, and the current limit from L3  is $`M_D`$ 1 TeV for two extra dimensions.

When the number of extra dimensions is low, especially when $`n=2`$, Astrophysics sets a stringent bound on the fundamental scale $`M_D`$. Graviton emission into extra dimensions from a hot supernova core is considered in Ref. , and the phenomenology of SN1987A places a strong constraint on this energy loss mechanism, allowing us to derive a bound on the fundamental scale $`M_D`$. When $`n=2`$, the allowed lower bound on the fundamental scale $`M_D`$ is $`M_D`$ 50 TeV. Furthermore, the graviton decay contribution to the cosmic diffuse gamma ray radiation sets the bound $`M_D110`$ TeV for the case $`n=2`$ . The bound becomes much less stringent if we raise the number of extra dimensions $`n`$. The constraint from SN1987A becomes $`M_D4`$ TeV for $`n=3`$, and $`M_D1`$ TeV for $`n=4`$. There is theoretical uncertainty associated with these numbers, and so the TeV fundamental scale is not ruled out. In any case it is meaningful to derive alternative limits and so we do not limit ourselves to parameter regions not excluded by Astrophysics.

General studies of graviton measurement have been made in . Search strategies for future $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders , the LHC , the $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders , and $`e\gamma `$ colliders  have also been studied. Recently, there has been increased attention on the higher energy blackhole and ‘trans-Planckian’ physics which may be observed at LHC . We do not consider these effects as the energy scale is lower in our analysis, and hence the leading extra dimensional effects, in the form of Kaluza-Klein excitations of the graviton, are expected to be perturbatively calculable.

### 1.2 Motivation

We note that the above studies have concentrated mainly on the discovery of the extra dimensional phenomenology. In this regard, although the difference between the signal and the SM background has certainly been considered and exploited in the above studies , no systematic study has been available so far, for the case of these ‘invisible’ gravitons, to claim the discovery of spin-2 massive excitations.

Let us discuss this point further. For the case of massive spin-2 *resonances*, the spin-2 nature is probed by measuring the decay angle $`\theta `$. The presence of terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ then provides evidence for the spin-2 nature of the excitation.

This same measurement can be made with the angular distribution resulting from virtual graviton exchange. One may measure processes such as $`e^{}e^+\gamma \gamma `$ and the presence of terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ can be confirmed in principle. This, however, is not conclusive evidence of spin-2 gravitons, as all that one is measuring here is the nature of the ‘contact-term’ type interactions, $`T_{\mathrm{SM}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }T_{\mathrm{SM}}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$, which arise from integrating out virtual graviton contributions.

In order to claim the discovery of spin-2 massive excitations it is necessary, therefore, to produce them directly, and measure distributions associated with them. This is the topic of our present exposition.

As each of the massive graviton modes has a coupling suppressed by $`M_{pl}`$, it escapes detection and the events are characterized by missing 4-momenta. At hadron colliders, only the missing transverse momentum is measurable, and so the extraction of the spin is, even if this is possible at all, expected to be highly model dependent. Let us therefore concentrate on the case of lepton collisions, more specifically the $`e^{}e^+`$ future linear colliders.

At first sight, it may appear that the measurement of polarizations participating in the interaction is sufficient. This is unfortunately not so. For $`e^{}e^+`$ annihilation the polarization structure is exactly the same for both spin-1 and spin-2 objects. For $`\gamma \gamma `$ annihilation the anticorrelation of the photon helicities is an interesting property of the direct production of spin-2 objects, but it is not possible to trigger such an event as no measurable particle is produced. Even in $`e\gamma `$ collisions it is not possible to utilize only the polarizations to determine the spin of the excitation.

This leads us to the consideration of the process $`e^{}e^+G\gamma `$ as the only way to measure the ‘spin’ of the graviton excitation.

There are two variables which we can measure. These are the energy and the polar angle of the photon. The energy of the photon measures the mass of the excitation. A study is available in  which compares the distribution of graviton events against that of the supersymmetric $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma `$. Our approach is more systematic and rigourous.

Our starting point is the realization that the collinear divergence, which dominates the $`G\gamma `$ cross section, is only logarithmic. At the amplitude squared level, the divergence scales as $`1/p_T^2`$ where $`p_T`$, or $`E_T`$ which is the quantity that is actually measured, is the photon transverse momentum. Thus it is possible to regularize the collinear divergence of any $`\gamma +`$missing events by multiplying the distribution by $`p_T^2`$ or $`E_T^2`$.

The resulting distribution, which we may call the $`E_T^2`$ moment distribution, shows a remarkable behaviour. In short, spin-$`S`$ excitations have moment distributions which contain terms up to $`\mathrm{cos}^{2S}\theta `$, or equivalently $`\mathrm{cos}(2S\theta )`$. Hence by Fourier analysis, in principle, we can extract the nature of the excitation.

The SM background process which is at the leading order in the electroweak coupling constant, $`e^{}e^+Z^0\gamma \nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$, only contains terms up to $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$. Furthermore, we can reduce this background by cuts around the corresponding photon energy.

The case of the subleading order background process, $`e^{}e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e\gamma `$, which occurs both via virtual $`W^\pm `$ exchange and via the off-shell $`Z^0`$, is less straightforward. We also calculate this background. The $`W^\pm `$ induced contribution can contain terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}4\theta `$ and higher. Hence this background must be subtracted from the measured distribution.

As the analysis relies on measuring only one visible object, it is necessary to carefully consider the systematics which can affect the measurement. In addition to the calorimeter resolution and the angular coverage, there are further obstacles from initial state radiation (ISR), composed of bremsstrahlung and beamstrahlung.

We concentrate on analysing the systematics in this paper, and leave the statistical analysis and the error estimation, as well as a more detailed account of the hard/multiple photon emission effect, as topics for future studies. In this regard, we should note that the analysis presented in this paper is realistic, but the numbers are not conclusive.

We finally note that the work presented in this paper provides a general framework for analysing events composed of $`\gamma +`$missing 4-momenta, which can be used to search for any New Physics, not only those associated with extra spacial dimensions. As an example we discuss the case of the supersymmetric $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma `$ process.

This paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we discuss our approach and explain the procedures adopted to make realistic simulation. In Sect. 3 we present the results of our calculation. The conclusions are stated at the end in Sect. 4.

## 2 Method and Discussions

### 2.1 Fourier Analysis

Let us first define the kinematic variables $`\theta `$ and $`x_\gamma `$. $`\theta `$ is the angle between the photon and the momentum direction of the incoming electron. There is no forward–backward asymmetry and so our results are unchanged if we measure the angle from the positron direction. The energy fraction is defined by:

$$x_\gamma =\frac{2E_\gamma }{\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{nominal}}}}.$$
(2)
In the following, $`ss_{\mathrm{nominal}}`$ denotes the nominal centre-of-mass energy squared. The effective centre-of-mass energy squared is written as $`\widehat{s}`$. The doubly differential distribution, $`d^2\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma `$, has both soft and collinear divergences, and therefore we expect that there is little visible distinction between the signal distribution and the background distribution. For the sake of clarification, for the two-body case, disregarding the effect of ISR, we have:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }=\frac{x_\gamma }{32\pi s}\overline{||^2},$$
(3)
where $`\overline{||^2}`$ is the corresponding matrix element squared summed over final state helicities and averaged over initial state helicities, and for the three-body case we have:

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }=\frac{x_\gamma }{512\pi ^3}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{4\pi }\overline{||^2}.$$
(4)
The integration in the three-body case is the integration over the solid angle of the invisible ‘decay’ in the rest frame of the ‘decaying’ system.

As stated in the introduction, this divergence is only logarithmic, and so we can eliminate this divergence by multiplying the distribution by the transverse energy squared, $`E_T^2`$, of the photon, viz:

$$\frac{d^2<\sigma E_T^2>}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }=\frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }.$$
(5)
We note that an alternative definition, which differs from the above definition by factor $`E_\gamma `$, may be more useful in experimental analyses:

$$\frac{d^2<\sigma E_T>}{d\theta dx_\gamma }=\frac{E_Td^2\sigma }{d\theta dx_\gamma }.$$
(6)
We take the first definition as we consider it theoretically more elegant.

This $`E_T^2`$ moment distribution has the empirical property, which we have verified analytically for several cases and we attempt to justify in the next Subsection, that only angular dependencies up to $`\mathrm{cos}^{2S}\theta `$ are present for the production of invisible spin-$`S`$ objects. Assuming this property, and noting that $`\mathrm{cos}^\alpha \theta `$ can be expressed in terms of a sum of terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\beta \theta `$, $`\beta \alpha `$, we can apply the Fourier expansion to this moment distribution.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`a_0(x_\gamma )+a_1(x_\gamma )\mathrm{cos}2\theta +a_2(x_\gamma )\mathrm{cos}4\theta \mathrm{}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{S}{}}}a_m(x_\gamma )\mathrm{cos}2m\theta .`$
The coefficients $`a_m`$ are obtained, at least in principle, as:

$`a_0(x_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}d(2\theta ),`$ (8)
$`a_m(x_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}\mathrm{cos}2m\theta d(2\theta )(m=1,2,3,\mathrm{}).`$ (9)
Hence the measurement of the maximum $`m`$ for which $`a_m`$ is nonvanishing gives a measure of the ‘spin’ of the produced object. We note that the $`a_m`$’s are dimensionless quantities, which we measure in units of fb GeV2. Fourier analysis, as presented here, is not the only way to extract these coefficients, but it is the most theoretically elegant. It can also be considered, at the very least, as a way of parameterizing the two dimensional distribution of $`x_\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

In the presence of ISR, when evaluating the Fourier coefficients, we need to be more careful as to which frame $`x_\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ are measured in. To be consistent, these should be evaluated in the lab frame throughout. However, it is more convenient to carry out the calculation in the centre-of-mass frame using the Monte-Carlo approach. In this case, one must be careful to include the correct Jacobian factors.

We have tabulated the leading order theoretical values for these coefficients in Tabs. 1 and 2. The coefficients are obtained by multiplying the functions in Tab. 2 by the prefactors in Tab. 1 and $`\mathrm{}^2=0.389\times 10^{12}`$ fb GeV2. Further discussions are given in the Subsections to follow.

### 2.2 Spin and Angular Distribution

The naive technical reason for the correlation between the spin $`S`$ and the number of coefficients $`m_{\mathrm{max}}`$ of the Fourier expansion is as follows.

A spin $`S`$ boson is a rank $`S`$ tensor with $`S`$ indices. Each of these indices, when contracted with the electron current or a momentum operator, gives a contribution to the amplitude which is proportional to up to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Hence we get $`\mathrm{cos}^{2S}\theta `$ at the amplitude squared level.

Perhaps a more physical restatement is that the plane wave due to the produced spin-$`S`$, or rank $`S`$ tensorial, object intersects the electron current $`S`$ times at angle $`\theta `$.

There is a loophole in this argument concerning the case of the $`s`$-channel photon mediated contributions. In this case the intermediate photon, which is a vector, carries the angular information and so the distribution is proportional to up to $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ already before multiplying by $`E_T^2`$. Hence the moment distribution $`(E_T^2d^2\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma )`$ contains terms up to $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$, regardless of the spin of the produced object.

This is a limitation of our method, but there are only few cases where this becomes problematic. If the $`s`$-channel graph is solely responsible for the production, the collinear singularity is absent after background subtraction, and so it becomes immediately clear that there is no $`t`$-channel contribution. The ambiguity concerning the ‘spin’ of the produced object arises only in cases where the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel terms co-exist, and only for spin lower than 2, i.e., spin-0 or spin-1.

Out of these two cases, the spin-1 case is genuinely problematic and the signal is not distinguishable from a spin-2 signal. However, we note that a photon–photon–vector vertex lacks theoretical motivation.

If the produced object is spin-0, the $`s`$-channel term is distinguishable from the $`t`$-channel term by beam polarization. Hence this case is still not serious.

Having explained this, it is instructive to now look more closely at spin-2 production, as this case involves both the $`s`$-channel, $`t`$-channel and contact terms.

Out of these, the $`s`$-channel term is separately gauge invariant with respect to the photon, and so is the sum of the $`t`$-channel and contact terms. We need to consider whether the $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ behaviour originates in the latter of these contributions. Indeed, in the Feynman gauge, raising the tensor rank of the field only amounts to further contractions with the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and so by dimension counting, and by forward–backward symmetry, we see that the contribution in the spin-2 case only goes up to $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$.

On the other hand, the longitudinal contributions from terms that are proportional to $`p_\mu p_\nu `$ do have the right dimensions for a $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ behaviour, but we generally expect that such contributions, coming from Goldstone modes, behave like objects with lower spin.

Explicit evaluation shows that such contributions do lead to $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ behaviour. However, this behaviour comes from an unphysical source, namely the non-conservation of the energy–momentum tensor. The inclusion of the $`s`$-channel graph is necessary. This cancels the unphysical $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ behaviour and leads to the final distribution which is physical and contains terms up to $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$.

It is possible to restate the preceding discussion in terms of the individual helicity components. However, in our opinion, this type of analysis only provides another viewpoint and does not enrich our insight into the nature of the problem at hand. Although it is clear that we have not provided a rigourous justification, to some extent, we believe that this is a price that we have to pay for retaining generality.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the presence of a tensorial interaction is not sufficient to guarantee a $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta `$ behaviour. Indeed, we have verified this for the case of an anomalous coupling vector boson $`V`$, whose coupling to the electron is proportional to $`(1/\mathrm{\Lambda })\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$. We have:

$$\overline{||^2}(e^{}e^+V\gamma )=\left(\frac{e}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\left[4\left(sm_V^2\right)+\frac{m_V^2}{ut}\left(s^2+m_V^4\right)\right],$$
(10)
and so this interaction only gives rise to a $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ behaviour of the $`E_T^2`$ moment distribution.

What of the spin-3 and higher spin objects? Without explicit example it is difficult to say, but we expect the above argument to hold, such that the $`\mathrm{cos}^6\theta `$ term can originate solely from an unphysical origin.

The case where the produced object is a composite system is discussed next.

### 2.3 Background and SUSY Signal

The leading Standard Model background comes from $`\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$, which includes the contribution $`Z^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$, as well as the $`t`$-channel $`W^\pm `$–exchange leading to the final state $`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e\gamma `$. The Feynman diagrams are as shown in Fig. 1.

From the preceding discussions, and as is easily verified by explicit calculation, the $`Z^0`$ mediated contribution to the moment distribution is proportional to up to $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ only. It is not so obvious that this is still the case for the $`W^\pm `$ mediated contribution and the interference between the two contributions.

The analytical expression for this process, which includes both the $`Z^0`$ and $`W^\pm `$ contributions, is given in Eqns. (2)–(5) of Ref. . There is an error in equation (3) available therein, and one should correct this error. The $`s^{}`$ in the overall factor should only multiply the first two terms inside the square brackets. The expression without this correction is dimensionally inconsistent. We have performed four more independent calculations, out of which two are analytic and the other two use HELAS , and verified that the numbers are consistent with each other.

To motivate the discussion, let us first consider the $`W^\pm `$ mediated background in the limit of large $`W^\pm `$ mass. In this case the $`W^\pm `$ fusion graph (1) of Fig. 1 vanishes and we have only graphs (2) and (3), both of which can be written in terms of an effective contact interaction between two charged currents.

However, by Fierz transformation, this contact interaction between two charged currents is equivalent to the contact interaction between two neutral currents, and so the amplitude has identical form to the $`Z^0`$ mediated background . Hence the distribution is only proportional to up to $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$.

Furthermore, also by Fierz transformation, the SUSY signal $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\gamma `$, or more generally $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma `$, has the same structure in the limit of large selectron mass. We thus obtain the expressions listed in Tabs. 1, 2.

It is found  that at LEP energies, although the above consideration of the heavy $`W^\pm `$ limit is clearly inappropriate, the shapes of angular distributions corresponding to the $`Z^\pm `$ and $`W^\pm `$ mediated contributions are fairly similar. There is no guarantee that this will still hold at future LC energies, and explicit evaluation indeed shows that there is nonvanishing $`\mathrm{cos}4\theta `$ and higher contributions.

Even so, what becomes clear is the following. Let us consider the general case of the production of a photon and two invisible objects. If the particle exchanged in the $`t`$ channel is heavy, as is the case for the SUSY $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma `$ production mediated by $`t`$-channel selectron exchange, the interaction is approximated by a contact interaction and then the distribution can only show a $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ behaviour. On the other hand, if the exchanged particle is light, as is the case for the $`W^\pm `$ contribution to the SM background at LC energies, the interaction is expected to be well understood and so the contribution can be subtracted, either from the bare distribution or from the Fourier coefficients. This provides partial justification for our procedure.

We also note that the $`W^\pm `$ mediated background involves left-handed electrons and right-handed positrons, and therefore it can be reduced by means of beam polarization.

### 2.4 Experimental Limitations

The experimental limitations which we take into account are the calorimeter resolution, angular coverage and beamstrahlung. The angular resolution is not expected to be a serious constraint. Beamstrahlung is treated using CIRCE  as discussed in the next Subsection.

For the EM calorimeter resolution, the EM track energy resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is expected to be :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15\%}{\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}}}1\%(\mathrm{JLC})`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{20\%}{\sqrt{E(\mathrm{GeV})}}}0.6\%(\mathrm{TESLA}).`$ (12)
This smears the photon energy distribution. As an example, for a 100 GeV photon, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ at JLC is 1.8 GeV, wheres at TESLA $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2.1`$ GeV. For photon energies lower than about 250 GeV, the energy resolution is always better at JLC. As a pessimistic estimate, although this choice does not affect our results in any visible way, let us adopt the TESLA numbers in our analysis.

Next, let us consider the coverage of the EM calorimeter. Typical numbers for this coverage  are in the range 50 mrad–200 mrad. In this study, let us adopt $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.995`$, which corresponds to an angular cut-off of $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}=100`$ mrad .

The derivation of the Fourier coefficients is completely successful only when the range of integration is propotional to the cyclic bound. The angular coverage is expected to become a problem if the Fourier component under consideration changes phase near this unmeasured region. For a Fourier component proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(2n\theta )`$, the first change of phase occurs at $`\theta =\pi /4n`$. If we wish to measure $`n3`$, we need a coverage down to $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}<\pi /12=260`$ mrad.

Explicit evaluation shows that the vanishing of the term $`a_3\mathrm{cos}(6\theta )`$ is indeed contaminated with the above coverage, $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{min}}=0.995`$. In order to evade this problem, as a simple remedy, we perform the extrapolation, that is, the approximation that the values in the non-coverage regions have constant values equal to the end-points. This is illustrated in Fig. 2.

The coefficient functions in Eqn. (8) and (9) are then redefined by

$`a_0(x_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\{{\displaystyle _{2\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}^{2[\pi \theta _{\mathrm{min}}]}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}d(2\theta )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}|_{\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}d(2\theta )+{\displaystyle _{2[\pi \theta _{\mathrm{min}}]}^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}|_{\theta =\pi \theta _{\mathrm{min}}}d(2\theta )\},`$
$`a_m(x_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\{{\displaystyle _{2\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}^{2[\pi \theta _{\mathrm{min}}]}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}\mathrm{cos}(2m\theta )d(2\theta )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}|_{\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{cos}(2m\theta )d(2\theta )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{2[\pi \theta _{\mathrm{min}}]}^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T^2d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dx_\gamma }}|_{\theta =\pi \theta _{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{cos}(2m\theta )d(2\theta )\}(m=1,2,3,\mathrm{}).`$
We have found that this remedy is sufficient to overcome the problem at hand. We note that in the presence of ISR, the angles quoted above are measured in the laboratory frame rather than the centre-of-mass frame. This makes the imposition of the above cut-and-extrapolation procedure more difficult, and we adopt an approximate, ‘wrong’, solution which is to impose the angular cut and extrapolation in the centre-of-mass frame. Of course the evaluation of the integral is otherwise performed in the laboratory frame, as required.

For the centre-of-mass energy we mainly take $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV. We also consider the $`\sqrt{s}`$ dependence by varying this to 1 TeV. We omit the discussion of statistics in this paper, but the luminosity may be considered to be in the region 100–500 fb-1 per year .

### 2.5 Initial State Radiation

The non-singular part of the higher order perturbative contributions is expected to mainly affect the normalization and not the shape of the distributions. However, the logarithmically enhanced bremsstrahlung corrections must be considered for realistic simulation. There is another source of ISR, that is, beamstrahlung. We consider both effects.

Beamstrahlung is the radiation of photon caused by the interaction between the incoming electron and positron bunches. This smears both the centre-of-mass energy and the momentum along the beam axis. We use CIRCE  in order to estimate this effect.

Bremsstrahlung is the radiation caused by the interaction between the electron and the positron participating in the annihilation event. We estimate this effect by using the integrated expression of . This does not take into account the effect of large angle emission into the detector, nor does it take into account the emission of more than one photon from each incoming particle, but is expected to model the dominant effect well.

As an illustration, the typical energy carried by a bremsstrahlung photon is

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}d(E,x)(Ex)𝑑x,`$ (15)
where, from the expression of ,

$`d(E,x){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{EM}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{m_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{0.063}{x}}(E250\mathrm{GeV}).`$ (16)
Hence Eqn. (15) yields 16 GeV for a 250 GeV beam. This energy taken away by the photon affects both the centre-of-mass energy and the frame. This change of frame implies a Lorentz boost to the final state photon and so the angular distribution is also affected, as well as the energy distribution.

The subdominant ‘hard bremsstrahlung’, where photons enter into the detectable region, is not treated in this paper, but we expect that a minimum $`E_T`$ cut is necessary to reduce such effect. Such a cut would also be effective in reducing the background coming from low $`E_T`$ Bhabha and forward photon events. This would be equivalent to assigning an energy dependent cut for the minimum polar angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$, and we expect that this can be dealt with by the extrapolation procedure adopted for calorimeter coverage in the preceding Subsection. As an example, for a 50 GeV photon, requiring $`E_T>10`$ GeV corresponds to $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}=201`$ mrad. Further study is desirable to quantify this effect.

As an illustrative example, we consider a configuration in which a photon is produced at $`x_{\gamma \mathrm{CM}}=1,\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{CM}}=0`$. The Lorentz boost is easily shown to be given in terms of the electron and positron momentum fractions $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ by:

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{lab}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_1+x_2}},`$ (17)
$`x_{\gamma \mathrm{lab}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1+x_2}{2}}.`$ (18)
The effective centre-of-mass energy is given by $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}=\sqrt{sx_1x_2}`$. One can immediately verify that the transverse energy is unaffected by this boost and is given by $`E_T=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}/2`$. We can now plot these functions for a given centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ and beamstrahlung spectrum. Taking $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and the TESLA beamstrahlung spectrum, we obtain the results shown in Fig. 3.

From these figures, we can obtain a rough estimate of the effect of ISR. $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, or equivalently $`\theta `$, is smeared typically by about 0.01 (radians). Although this smearing is small enough for us to expect that ISR will not change the angular distribution so much as to produce non-vanishing higher Fourier components, there is a relatively long tail to the distribution which may yield non-negligible effect.

For small smearing, $`x_1,x_21`$, the polar angle dependence of the angular smearing can be shown to go as:

$$\delta \theta _{\mathrm{lab}}\frac{x_1x_2}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(19)
As expected, the angular smearing is the largest when $`\theta =\pi /2`$.

The energy fraction is smeared by about 0.01, which is comparable to the calorimeter resolution. This is again accompanied by a long tail. As the cross section is proportional to $`(\sqrt{s})^n`$, we expect that this suppression in the effective centre-of-mass energy may lead to a significant suppression of the cross section.

## 3 Results

In this Section, we follow our analysis numerically. The parameters related to the graviton emission, the fundamental scale and the number of extra dimensions, are taken to be $`M_D=1`$ TeV and $`n=2`$ for now.

In Fig. 4, the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ dependence for the process $`e^+e^{}G\gamma `$ at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV is shown, together with the corresponding plot for on-shell $`Z^0`$ production. A cut on the energy fraction of the photon is taken as $`x_\gamma >0.05`$. In the plot for on-shell $`Z^0`$ production, we also show the distribution for the production of a hypothetical scalar $`Z^0`$. The normalization is arbitrary in this case. For this set of parameters, we see that the total rates are quite similar.

From Fig. 4, we see that at first sight, there is no clear distinction between the distributions due to the production of objects of different spin. We therefore look mainly at the $`E_T^2`$ moment distribution, as explained in the preceding Sections.

We then apply the Fourier expansion to this moment distribution, as expressed in Eqns. (8) and (9). As mentioned before, this is not the only method to extract the Fourier coefficients, and it may turn out that a $`\chi ^2`$ based fit is more practical. We take this approach because it is the most theoretically elegant, and also because it provides a convenient way of parameterizing the two dimensional distribution of $`x_\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

Fig. 5 shows the Fourier coefficients for graviton events, before applying any corrections, as functions of the energy fraction $`x_\gamma `$. We see that only the first three coefficient functions are non-zero, as expected.

When we truncate the distribution to account for the finite coverage of the calorimeter as stated in Sect. 2.4, $`a_m`$ for large $`m`$ acquires an artefactual contribution and becomes non-zero. However, we recover the original distribution by the extrapolation procedure proposed above. The situation is illustrated in Fig. 6.

As the corrected distribution shown in Fig. 6 looks almost identical to the original distribution shown in Fig. 5, we conclude that the procedure is sufficient for our purpose.

Let us now take into account the effects of bremsstrahlung and beamstrahlung and, perhaps less importantly, the calorimeter energy resolution. For the beamstrahlung and calorimeter energy resolution, although the choice is arbitrary and leads to little difference in the result, let us adopt the TESLA parameters.

The effect of the ISR is explained and illustrated in Sect. 2.5. Applying the same ISR spectrum to the signal, we obtain the results shown in Fig. 7. We see that the coefficients have dropped significantly, and there is further suppression as $`x_\gamma 1`$. This is as expected. The coefficient $`a_3`$ remains zero even with the inclusion of ISR.

Let us now turn our attention to the SM continuum background. The distribution is shown in Fig. 8. Again, the rate is quite similar to the signal for this set of extra dimensional parameters. The dominant part of the background distribution for $`x_\gamma <0.8`$ is due to the $`W^\pm `$ mediated contribution. The rise of the cross section near $`x_\gamma =1`$ is due to the $`Z^0`$. The coefficients $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ do not have a peak for this reason. However, there is the interference term between the $`Z^0`$ and $`W^\pm `$ mediated contributions, and this interference term gives rise to the observed behaviour near $`x_\gamma =0.95`$. With the inclusion of ISR, the $`Z^0`$ peak broadens. At the same time, the angular smearing due to the ISR gives rise to additional contributions to $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ at the $`Z^0`$ peak, which lead to the interesting behaviour observed near that region.

From these figures, it is clear that the proper simulation of the ISR is essential to understanding both the signal and the background.

As noted in Sect. 2.3, $`a_2`$ and higher coefficients are in general non-zero for $`\sqrt{s}`$ sufficiently higher than $`M_W`$. The explicit evaluation, as shown in Fig. 8, confirms this. Although these coefficients are non-zero, we note, again, that the shape of the background is sufficiently well understood that the distribution can be subtracted away, either from the bare distribution or the Fourier coefficients.

Finally, let us turn our attention to the centre-of-mass energy, $`\sqrt{s}`$, dependence of the distributions, and the dependence of the signal distribution on the number of extra dimensions $`n`$.

In order to understand the centre-of-mass energy dependence, we calculated the signal and background Fourier coefficients, which have so far been calculated for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, for $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV, including all corrections. The result is shown in Fig. 9.

We see that there is a significant change in the shape of the background distribution when the centre-of-mass energy is raised. The signal distribution does not change much, but if there is any difference, it is expected to be due to the increased beamstrahlung. The total rate is increased for the signal and reduced for the background. For the case of the background, although the cross section is reduced, the size of the $`E_T^2`$ moment distribution is increased because of the centre-of-mass energy dependence of the total effective $`e^{}e^+`$ charged current cross section which, in the limit of large energy, becomes flat.

In order to understand the dependence on the number of extra dimensions $`n`$, we calculated the signal Fourier coefficients for $`n=4`$ and $`n=7`$, at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, again including all corrections. The result is shown in Fig. 10.

We see that as $`n`$ becomes larger, the Fourier coefficients are more suppressed towards larger $`x_\gamma `$ because of the factor $`(1x_\gamma )^{n/21}`$. The higher Fourier coefficients, which rise with $`x_\gamma `$ as powers of $`x_\gamma `$, become suppressed, and the $`E_T^2`$ moment distribution becomes more flat. In this limit, it becomes impossible to determine the spin from the angular distribution only, and one would have to resort to the $`\chi ^2`$ fitting, for example, of the leading Fourier coefficient $`a_0`$ as a function of $`x_\gamma `$ in order to discriminate the extra dimensional hypothesis from other hypotheses. This method would also be useful when there is not sufficient statistics to utilize the angular distribution.

It may be argued that the presence of a quartic polynomial in the coefficient $`a_0`$, as shown in Tab. 2 indicates the spin-2 nature. This is less rigourous, and there would remain the possibility that the shape is due to the distribution of gravitons. We also note that the size of the quartic term is not large.

To some extent the difference in the shape of the Fourier coefficients can be exploited to ‘measure’ the number of extra dimensions, or more precisely the distribution of the Kaluza-Klein modes. One can alternatively measure the $`\sqrt{s}`$ dependence of these coefficients, proportional to $`\sqrt{s}^{n+2}`$ for $`n`$ extra dimensions, to yield the same information.

Having outlined the application of our procedure thus, one may like to question the statistical efficacy of our observables. Although a formal discussion would require a more detailed study, it is a simple matter to have a rough estimation of the statistics. If we assume a relatively low integrated luminosity $`=100`$ fb-1, and look, for instance, at the numbers at 500 GeV shown in Fig. 7, and take $`0.8<x_\gamma <0.9`$, say, a quick estimation of the numbers show that the significance defined as ‘$`S/\sqrt{B}`$$`=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }x_\gamma a_2^2/(E_T^2a_0)}2`$ so that 95% confidence level can be attained even with low luminosity for this set of $`n`$ and $`M_D`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have proposed a way of measuring the ‘spin’ of invisible objects, including gravitons, produced at future LC.

Our method is to measure the Fourier coefficients $`a_m(x_\gamma )`$ ($`m=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$) of the $`E_T^2`$ moment distributions. The presence of terms up to $`a_S`$ and the absence of the higher coefficients indicates the spin-$`S`$ nature of the invisible object.

We have provided a theoretical justification for this observation, and have carried out a simulation based on this principle. Our simulation includes the consideration of beamstrahlung, bremsstrahlung, calorimeter coverage, calorimeter resolution and the background, and we believe that the simulation is realistic. The ISR, composed of beamstrahlung and bremsstrahlung, has a particularly marked effect on both the signal and the background. Our study is nevertheless incomplete, as the statistical study and the error estimation have not been performed. When doing so, it is desirable that further attention is paid to the effect of the hard/multiple bremsstrahlung contribution which must be dealt with more carefully.

This method as stated is useful when the number of extra dimensions $`n`$ is 2. If we believe in the astrophysical constraint, this case may be ruled out. For greater $`n`$, the direct application of this procedure is not suitable because the higher Fourier coefficients become small. Even in that case, the method provides a parameterization of the cross section which separates the angular and energy dependence. The resulting $`x_\gamma `$ dependent coefficient $`a_0`$, for example, can be subjected to $`\chi ^2`$ analysis in order to test the extra dimensional hypothesis.

We also note that the shape of the Fourier coefficient functions will provide a measure of the ‘number’ of extra dimensions. More generally, the measurement of spin aside, what our method provides is a framework by which we may parameterize single photon events at future LC.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Francesca Borzumati, Keisuke Fujii, Kazuo Fujikawa, Sachio Komamiya, Jae-Sik Lee, Yasuhiro Okada, Masahiro Yamaguchi and Tsutomu Yanagida for helpful comments and discussions. In particular, we owe a great deal to the insight provided by Keisuke Fujii for the more experimental aspects.


text:
# Universal flow diagram for the magnetoconductance in disordered GaAs layers

## Abstract

The temperature driven flow lines of the diagonal and Hall magnetoconductance data $`(G_{xx},G_{xy})`$ are studied in heavily Si-doped, disordered GaAs layers with different thicknesses. The flow lines are quantitatively well described by a recent universal scaling theory developed for the case of duality symmetry. The separatrix $`G_{xy}=1`$ (in units $`e^2/h`$) separates an insulating state from a spin-degenerate quantum Hall effect (QHE) state. The merging into the insulator or the QHE state at low temperatures happens along a semicircle separatrix $`G_{xx}^2+(G_{xy}1)^2=1`$ which is divided by an unstable fixed point at $`(G_{xx},G_{xy})=(1,1)`$.

In spite of considerable efforts in theoretical and experimental research on the Quantum Hall Effect (QHE) for many years, the complete description of its evolution for decreasing temperature is still unsatisfactory at the moment. About 20 years ago a flow-diagram  for the coupled evolution of the diagonal ($`G_{xx}`$) and Hall ($`G_{xy}`$) conductivities was sketched for increasing sample size $`L`$ (or, equivalently, increasing phase breaking length $`L_\varphi `$ for finite decreasing temperatures) on the basis of a two-parameter scaling approach to the QHE . With increasing system size ($`L\mathrm{}`$) $`G_{xx}`$ tends to zero ($`G_{xx}0`$) while $`G_{xy}`$ becomes quantized ($`G_{xy}i`$, $`i`$ is an integer, $`G_{xx}`$ and $`G_{xy}`$ are in units $`e^2/h`$). The points $`(G_{xx}(L),G_{xy}(L))`$ flow on lines merging into the QHE plateau states characterized by one of the fixed points $`(0,i)`$. In addition there are unstable fixed points in between these plateaus at $`(G_{xx}^c,G_{xy}^c=i+1/2)`$ where the flow lines terminate, meaning that points with $`G_{xy}=i+1/2`$ maintain their Hall conductance for all $`L`$. Numerical calculations for a system of noninteracting electrons at high magnetic fields in the lowest Landau level give $`G_{xx}^c1/2`$ in the presence of different random potentials . For sufficiently low temperatures the $`(G_{xx},G_{xy})`$ data flow on a separatrix in the flow diagram which for a smooth disorder potential has been derived to be a semicircle of the form

$$G_{xx}^2+\left[G_{xy}(i+1/2)\right]^2=1/4,$$
(1)
with $`G_{xx}^c=1/2`$ and $`G_{xy}^c=i+1/2`$.

Recently it has been shown  that the semicircle law follows solely from the consistency of the law of corresponding states, which was already used to deduce the complete set of fractional and integer quantum Hall states from the integer $`i=1`$ state . Moreover, exact flow lines for the integer and fractional QHE were derived  from duality and particle-hole symmetries , which underlie the law of corresponding states. Their shape does not depend on details of the 2D system. The separatrix are the above given semicircles and the vertical lines $`G_{xy}=i+1/2`$.

In the presented work we explore the temperature driven flow diagram of $`G_{xx}(T)`$ versus $`G_{xy}(T)`$ for disordered heavily Si-doped GaAs layers with different thicknesses from 40 to 27 nm in a large temperature range from 4.2 K down to 40 mK. At low temperatures these samples are situated in the transition region between a QHE state and an insulating state. For the temperature evolution a quantitative agreement is found with the universal theory  for the flow lines of the $`(G_{xx},G_{xy})`$ data points.

The temperature evolution of the flow diagram was already studied in many experiments , but showed inconsistencies with respect to theory. As an example, values reported for $`G_{xx}^c`$ in the literature range from 0.02 up to 0.8 (for the transition $`ii+1`$), and even different values for different $`i`$ on the same sample have been observed. The semicircle relation was observed in the dependence $`G_{xx}(G_{xy})`$ with $`G_{xx}`$ and $`G_{xy}`$ driven by magnetic field in a SiGe-Ge-SiGe quantum well at rather high temperatures of 0.3-3 K. The position of the unstable fixed point however was essentially different from $`(1/2,1/2)`$ . Although $`G_{xx}^c1/2`$ and $`G_{xy}^ci+1/2`$ were observed at the transition from the insulator to the quantum Hall state ($`i=0`$) in $`\delta `$-doped GaAs  and between two QHE plateaus with $`G_{xy}=1`$ and $`2`$ ($`i=1`$) in a Si-Ge hole system , in most experiments these values differ significantly from $`1/2`$ and $`i+1/2`$, respectively.

There are several reasons leading to a difference between theoretical and experimentally observed critical values of $`G_{xx}^c`$ and $`G_{xy}^c`$, like macroscopic inhomogeneities of the sample, enhanced current densities near the edges of even homogeneous samples (this explains probably the low values $`G_{xx}^c0.02`$ observed in high mobility GaAs heterostructures) and spin effects.

The theory introduced in Ref.  has been developed for spinless (or totally spin polarized) electrons. Therefore, the most favorable candidate for an experimental study of the flow diagram under integer QHE conditions is a disordered system with a small $`g`$-factor such that the spin-splitting $`g\mu _BB`$ ($`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton) is small with respect to the disorder broadening and will only show up in the flow diagram at rather low temperatures . As we have shown in previous investigations on similar samples, electron-electron interaction cannot be neglected in the systems which are subject of the present work . For $`G_{xx}>1`$ interaction mainly leads to temperature dependent flow of the $`(G_{xx}(T),G_{xy}(T))`$ data  and a dependence of the localization length on interaction . For $`k_BT\mu _BgB`$ ($`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant) only interaction of electrons with the same spin leads to a renormalization of the conductance . Therefore, under these conditions and in the absence of spin-flip scattering, electrons with different spin can be considered as two independent, totally spin polarized electron systems. For such a situation, one should substitute $`G_{ij}`$ by $`G_{ij}/2`$ in the above given expressions for the conductances leading to a semicircle relation of the form

$$G_{xx}^2+(G_{xy}(2i+1))^2=1$$
(2)
with the vertical separatrix $`G_{xy}=2i+1`$.

The disordered GaAs samples were prepared by molecular-beam epitaxy. On a GaAs (100) substrate were successively grown an undoped GaAs layer (0.1 $`\mu `$m), a periodic structure of 30 $`\times `$ GaAs/AlGaAs(10/10 nm), an undoped GaAs layer (0.5$`\mu `$m), the heavily Si-doped GaAs of a nominal thickness of $`d=27,30,34`$ and $`40`$ nm and a Si-donor concentration of $`1.5\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3, followed by an cap layer of 0.5 $`\mu `$m undoped GaAs. The number given for a sample corresponds to the thickness of its doped layer. Hall bar geometries of width 0.2 mm and length 2.8 mm were etched out of the wafers. A phase sensitive ac-technique was used for the magnetotransport measurements down to 40 mK with the applied magnetic field up to 12 T perpendicular to the layers. For samples 27 and 30 the absolute values of the Hall resistance $`R_{xy}`$ were about $`10\%`$ different for two opposite directions of the magnetic field. The average has been taken as $`R_{xy}`$. The electron densities per square as derived from the slope of the Hall resistance $`R_{xy}`$ in weak magnetic fields ($`0.53`$ T) at $`T=4.2`$ K are $`N_s=3.7,4,5.5`$ and $`6.2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 for samples 27, 30, 34 and 40, respectively. The ”bare” high temperature mobilities $`\mu _0`$ are about $`1300,1400,1900`$ and $`2300`$ cm2/Vs. Because of the rather large quantum corrections to the conductivity, even in zero magnetic field at 4.2 K, we used the approximate relation $`\mu _0=R_{xy}/BR_{xx}`$ in the intersection point of the $`R_{xx}(B)`$ curves for different temperatures. Previous experimental studies of the flow diagram have been performed on much purer samples with at least an order of magnitude higher mobility.

Samples $`34`$ and $`40`$ reveal a wide QHE plateau from $`6`$ up to $`11`$ T with the value $`R_{xy}=h/2e^2`$ (i.e. $`i=2`$ for a spin degenerate lowest Landau-level occupation) accompanied by an exponentially small value of $`R_{xx}`$ at low temperatures $`T0.3`$ K. The magnetoresistance data of sample 40 are presented in Ref..

In Fig.1 the magnetotransport data of the diagonal ($`R_{xx}`$, per square) and Hall ($`R_{xy}`$) resistance (both given in units of $`h/e^2`$), and of the diagonal ($`G_{xx}`$) and Hall ($`G_{xy}`$) conductance have been plotted for sample 30. At $`T=4.2`$ K, $`R_{xx}`$ depends on magnetic field rather weakly and has only a weak minimum at $`B=6`$ T, and $`R_{xy}`$ increases linearly up to 5 T with a slightly smaller slope at higher fields. Such a behaviour is typical for bulk samples in the extreme quantum limit. At the lowest temperatures, the layer is insulating ($`R100`$) in zero magnetic field. At low magnetic fields up to 0.5 T, the diagonal resistance $`R_{xx}`$ drops abruptly and continues to decreases more slowly between 0.5 and 4 T. For fields between 5 and 7 T, a minimum is observed with a QHE plateau in the Hall resistance with $`R_{xy}=1/2`$. The same QHE structure around 6 T can be observed in the plotted conductance data. In the minimum of $`G_{xx}`$ near $`B=6`$ T the Hall conductance $`G_{xy}`$ increases from a value higher than 1 (at 4.2 K) towards 2 at the lowest temperatures. The curves $`G_{xy}(B)`$ for different temperature cross at one point with $`G_{xy}=1`$ at $`B_c=4.9`$ T. The diagonal conductivity tends towards 1 for decreasing temperature at this critical field. In this critical point the derivative $`dG_{xy}/dB`$ shows a power law dependence $`T^\mu `$ with $`\mu =0.48\pm 0.05`$. For curves at $`T>0.2`$ K there is a second crossing point at $`B=7`$ T with $`G_{xy}1`$. The second peak in $`G_{xx}(B)`$ has an amplitude smaller than $`e^2/h`$ and is broader than the first one. We believe that this second peak structure is a manifestation of spin-splitting.

In Fig.2 the magnetotransport data have been plotted for sample 27. At $`T=4.2`$ K these data are similar to the data for sample 30. However, sample 27 shows insulating behavior ($`R_{xx}`$ increases with decreasing temperature) at all magnetic fields with a rather deep and narrow minimum in the field dependence $`R_{xx}(B)`$ at low temperatures. Note, that at the lowest temperature we can measure $`R_{xy}`$ only near the minimum of $`R_{xx}`$ since outside this region $`R_{xy}R_{xx}`$. Within our accuracy the sample reveals a Hall-insulator state ($`R_{xy}=0.5`$, ) in this region. $`G_{xx}`$ and $`G_{xy}`$ have peaks at $`B6`$ T.

The QHE in sample 30 is much less pronounced than in samples 34 and 40 due to the fact that the maximum of the high temperature Hall conductance $`G_{xy}^0(B)`$ has a value of $`1.2`$ close to $`1`$ (see Fig.1). For $`G_{xy}^01`$ the localization length diverges, and the system is in the dissipative, non-quantized state. For samples 34 and 40 with a maximum of $`G_{xy}^0(B)`$ close to 2, quantization at $`G_{xy}=2`$ develops already at higher temperatures. Although insulating for all fields, sample 27 shows a minimum in $`R_{xx}`$ and a maximum in $`G_{xx}`$ due to the proximity of $`G_{xy}^0(B)`$ to $`1`$ on the insulator side, giving a large localization length at its maximum.

In Fig.3 the temperature evolution of the points ($`G_{xx}(T),G_{xy}(T))`$ has been plotted for the different samples at different magnetic fields taken from 4.2 down to temperatures between 0.04 and 0.1 K except for the flow lines of sample 34 in weak magnetic fields ($`1.42.4`$ T) which start only at 1.1 K. The data points at the lowest temperatures approach and, subsequently, follow the semicircle dependence given in Eq.(2). Their final low-temperature limiting value depends on the initial high temperature Hall conductance $`G_{xy}^0`$ with respect to $`G_{xy}=1`$. Data points starting on the semicircle follow this semicircle. The points starting for high temperatures at $`G_{xy}=1`$ terminate at the lowest temperatures very close to $`(G_{xx}^c,G_{xy}^c)=(1,1)`$. The presented data on disordered GaAs layers follow the trends expected from universal scaling arguments.

In the following we will give a quantitative estimate for the temperature dependent evolution of the flow lines at constant magnetic field. The dotted flow lines in Fig.3 are plotted as a result of a numerical solution of the equation $`\mathrm{arg}(f)=\alpha `$ for various $`\alpha `$, where

$$f=\vartheta _3\vartheta _4/\vartheta _2,$$
(3)
with the Jacobi $`\vartheta `$ functions

$`\vartheta _2(q)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^{\left(n+1/2\right)^2}\text{ , }\vartheta _3(q)={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^{n^2}\text{ ,}`$ (4)
$`\vartheta _4(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^nq^{n^2},`$ (5)
for $`q=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi (G_{xy}+iG_{xx})/2\right]`$ . The value $`\alpha `$ corresponds to the Hall conductance $`G_{xy}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for large $`G_{xx}`$ where the flow lines are vertical, with $`\alpha =\pi (1G_{xy}^{\mathrm{}})`$ (for the flow lines above the semicircle Eq.(2)). The theoretical flow-lines are in very good agreement with the experimental data and are universally determined by the limiting $`G_{xy}^{\mathrm{}}`$ values.

The rate of flow is determined by the temperature dependence of $`G_{xx}(T)`$ via the parameter $`ss_0=\mathrm{ln}(f/f_0)`$ where $`f_0=f(s_0)`$. For flow along the semicircle from the critical point at ($`1,1`$), where $`f_0=1/4`$, we have $`s=\mathrm{ln}(4f)`$. In this case

$`G_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}(w)K(w)}{K(w)^2+K^{}(w)^2}}\text{ }G_{xy}=2{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}(w)^2}{K(w)^2+K^{}(w)^2}}`$ (6)
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\pm \sqrt{1\mathrm{exp}(s)}}{2}}}`$ (7)
where $`K(w)`$ is the complete elliptic function of the second kind, with $`K^{}(w)K(\sqrt{1w^2})`$. The temperature dependence of $`G_{xx}`$ and $`G_{xy}`$ along the semicircle for samples 27, 30 and 40 can be fitted by Eq.(7) and $`s=c/T^p`$ (with $`T`$ in K) with $`p=1.16,0.94,1.1\pm 0.1`$ and $`c=0.83,0.58,3.5`$, correspondingly. For sample 30 the value of $`p`$ is two times larger than the value of $`\mu =0.48\pm 0.05`$ extracted from the temperature dependence of $`dG_{xy}/dT`$, in accordance with the proposed dependence $`s\left(\mathrm{\Delta }B/T^\mu \right)^2`$  ($`\mu `$ is the critical exponent and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=BB_c`$). As shown in Fig. 1 the data for $`G_{xx}(B)`$ and $`G_{xy}(B)`$ of sample 30 at the lowest temperature are well described by Eq.(7) and $`s=22\left(\mathrm{\Delta }B\right)^2`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ in T) around the critical point $`B_c=4.9`$ T.

For large values of $`G_{xx}`$ its temperature dependence is mostly due to electron-electron interaction and the parameter $`s`$ can be written as $`s=(\lambda /\pi )\mathrm{ln}L_T`$, where $`L_T`$ is the coherence length for interaction and the constant of interaction $`\lambda `$ is a material parameter which depends on magnetic field ($`\lambda <1`$). Note that compared to the two-parameter scaling theory $`L_\varphi `$ is replaced by$`L_T`$. The interaction effects accelerate the motion along the lines.

In summary, the flow-diagram of ($`G_{xx}(T),G_{xy}(T)`$) data for strongly disordered GaAs layers is well described by the universal expressions following from duality and particle-hole symmetries. Electron-electron interaction leads to an accelerated flow rate but does not change the shape of the flow lines.

This work is supported by RFBR and INTAS. We would like to thank B. Lemke for her help in the preparation of the samples.


text:
# Detection of HD in emission towards Sagittarius~B2 Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) with the participation of ISAS and NASA.

## 1 Introduction

The abundance of deuterium in the interstellar medium is a fundamental question in astronomy. Deuterium was only produced in significant amounts in the big bang and is destroyed via processing in stellar interiors. Observations of the D/H ratio in the ISM provide lower limits to the primordial deuterium abundance.

The Galactic Centre is the region of our galaxy with the largest star formation rate and contains the most highly processed material. Recent models of galactic chemical evolution (e.g. Matteucci et al. matteucci (1999)) predict that the abundance of deuterium should be drastically reduced in the Galactic Centre due to the large stellar processing rates. However, recent observations of the deuterated molecules DCO+ and DCN by Jacq et al. (jacq (1999)) and Lubowich et al. (lubowich (2000)) towards Galactic Centre molecular clouds show that deuterium is clearly present and not as depleted as the models suggest. The final determination of the exact amount of deuterium from these observations depends both on the line modelling and on the deuteration process for HCO+ and HCN. Deuterium in these molecules is expected to be enhanced over the actual D/H ratio by fractionation effects which increase for lower temperatures.

For this reason, a very good way to measure the deuterium abundance is by observing the HD ground state rotational transition at 112 $`\mu `$m. Observation of this line measures the HD column density and comparison with the relevant H2 column density leads to a straightforward determination of the D/H ratio.

We report on observations of the 112 $`\mu `$m HD line towards Sagittarius~B2 (Sgr~B2), a giant molecular cloud complex located $``$100 pc from the Galactic Centre. The complex consists of several clusters of compact H ii regions and dense molecular cores surrounded by a diffuse envelope. Its far-infrared spectrum is dominated by continuum emission from dust in the central clusters, with a colour temperature of about 35 K and a blackbody peak near 90 $`\mu `$m (eg. see the recent review by Ceccarelli et al. ceccarelli (2002)).

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

Sgr B2 was observed as part of a wide spectral survey using the ISO Long Wavelength Spectrometer (LWS) Fabry-Pérot (FP) mode (Clegg et al. clegg (1996)). The whole LWS spectral range, from 47 to 196 $`\mu `$m, was covered using 36 separate observations with a spectral resolution of 30–40 km s-1. In each observation both the LWS FP and grating were scanned to cover a wide range in wavelength. The first description of the survey and its results on ammonia lines are reported in Ceccarelli et al. (ceccarelli (2002)).

The LWS beam had an effective diameter of 78$`\mathrm{}`$ at 112 $`\mu `$m (Gry et al. gry (2002)). The beam was centred at coordinates $`\alpha =17^\mathrm{h}47^\mathrm{m}21.75^\mathrm{s}`$, $`\delta =28\mathrm{°}23\mathrm{}14.1\mathrm{}`$ (J2000). This gave the beam centre an offset of 21.5$`\mathrm{}`$ from the main far-infrared peak, which occurs near the radio and mm source, Sgr~B2 (M) (Goldsmith et al. goldsmithb (1992)). This pointing was used to exclude the source Sgr~B2 (N) from the beam.

During each observation the LWS FP and grating settings were optimised for the detector whose band pass filter included the wavelength range of interest. This was designated as the ‘prime’ detector. However, all ten LWS detectors recorded data simultaneously in their own spectral ranges. The other nine detectors are known as ‘non-prime’ and often recorded useful data that can complement the prime data.

The region around the HD $`J=10`$ rotational transition at a rest wavelength of 112.0725 $`\mu `$m (Evenson et al. evenson (1988)) was covered in two separate observations using the LWS long wavelength FP (FPL) and detector LW2. The first was a prime observation made on 1997 April 5 (ISO revolution 506) and the second was a non-prime observation made on 1997 April 8 (ISO revolution 509). The non-prime observation had limited wavelength coverage, starting at 112.064 $`\mu `$m (velocity of $`23`$ km s-1). The sampling interval used in both observations was a quarter of a spectral resolution element with each data point repeated three times. The resolution element, determined by interpolating between measurements made on the ground and in orbit, was found to be $``$33 km s-1.

Each observation was processed to the Standard Processed Data (SPD) level using the LWS pipeline version 8. This produced data still in engineering units (FP gap voltage and detector photocurrent). Further calibration was carried out interactively using routines from the LWS Interactive Analysis (LIA) package (Gry et al. gry (2002)). The standard LIA tool for processing FP data, ‘FP\_PROC’, was modified using improved algorithms and calibration files in order to calibrate the data in flux (these appeared as part of LIA version 10). Due to a large straylight contribution (caused by the strength of the source), the dark signal was determined by an algorithm that examined instances during on-source observations when the grating and FP were aligned to cut out transmission in the main beam. The final dark value is $``$3% of the continuum photocurrent and so is not a significant source of error in the calibrated flux. The relative grating response in FP mode was recovered from the non-prime observations in the dataset and a correction was applied for contamination from adjacent FP spectral orders (for more details of these corrections, see Polehampton et al. polehampton (2001); Gry et al. gry (2002). Further information will appear in Baluteau et al. in preparation).

The two observations were carefully checked for glitches and transient affected scans and these were removed using the ISO Spectral Analysis Package (ISAP). The observations were matched in wavelength by correcting each one to the local standard of rest. The final wavelength alignment was determined by examining the position of the H2O 113.540 $`\mu `$m line which occurred in both observations. The remaining uncertainty is 0.004 $`\mu `$m (or 11 km s-1) which corresponds to the error in absolute wavelength calibration (Gry et al. gry (2002)). A small scaling factor (10%) was applied to the flux in the non-prime observation to bring the continuum level into agreement with the prime observation. The two observations were then co-added.

The largest errors in the flux at 112 $`\mu `$m were due to the extended nature of the source and its offset from the LWS optical axis. These can cause a large scale fracturing and bending of the spectrum on each detector (Lloyd lloyd (2001)). A correction to account for these effects was not applied. To give an idea of the error on the flux value, the data were compared with a medium resolution LWS grating mode observation of Sgr~B2 taken with the same pointing. After correction for saturation in the long wavelength detectors, this shows a flux level at 112 $`\mu `$m that is $``$30% smaller than the FP mode flux level and this reflects the magnitude of the error in absolute flux. Other calibration effects in FP mode for which the errors can be quantified contribute a systematic error of $`<`$5%.

The region around the HD $`J=21`$ rotational transition at a rest wavelength of 56.230 $`\mu `$m (Ulivi et al. ulivi (1991)) was also observed as part of the spectral survey. This line was covered in three non-prime observations using FPL with detector SW2. These observations were processed and co-added in a similar way to the 112 $`\mu `$m observations. The systematic error in absolute flux is dominated by uncertainty in the dark signal which makes up a large fraction (40%) of the continuum photocurrent. The dark could not be determined in the same way as at 112 $`\mu `$m and so an estimate was made by comparison with FP prime observations and the medium resolution LWS grating mode observation. The final error in flux is estimated to be not more than 30%.

## 3 Results

Figure 1 shows the 112 $`\mu `$m data binned at half a spectral resolution element. Statistical error bars are shown for each bin and these are much smaller than the overall systematic error in the flux (30%). The signal to noise clearly increases at velocities above $`+25`$ km s-1 due to the combined effect of overlap between FP mini-scans and the co-addition of non-prime data. A probable emission line detection occurs near the expected velocity of Sgr~B2 (M) (+60–65 km s-1; eg. Mehringer et al. mehringer (1993)). In order to determine if this feature was real, individual mini-scans were examined from both observations as edge effects on FP scans can sometimes cause spurious features in the final spectrum. However, emission was present on all of the overlapping mini-scans before co-addition, showing that it is not due to scan edges. The co-added spectrum was checked for the high frequency fringing that is sometimes seen in LWS FP data (see Gry et al. gry (2002)). The standard LIA routine, ‘Defringe’, was used to determine the level of fringing, which could not account for the detected feature (this routine solves for the period, phase and amplitude of a sine wave fitted to the data). The fringing was not removed as it only affected the height of the detection by 5%. The detection cannot be due leakage from adjacent FP spectral orders (see Gry et al. gry (2002)) as there are no strong emission lines present in the nearby continuum. The 112 $`\mu `$m line has previously been detected by the LWS both in emission towards warm PDR regions in the Orion Bar (Wright et al. wright (1999)) and in absorption towards the massive molecular cloud W49N (Caux et al. caux (2002)).

The line width of the absorption component due to Sgr~B2 in the 6 cm transition of H2CO has been observed to be $``$12 km s-1 (Mehringer et al. mehringerb (1995)), which is unresolved by the LWS. Convolution of a Gaussian profile of this width and the LWS resolution element at 112 $`\mu `$m gives an expected line width $``$37 km s-1. Figure 1 shows the best fit of this convolved profile to the data. The effect of changing the position of the bin grid over the data was investigated and this did not change the fit parameters significantly. The best fit line is centred at a velocity of 51 km s-1 (consistent with Sgr~B2 within the LWS FP wavelength calibration accuracy), with a line flux of $`(3.3\pm 1.4)\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (the error is 1$`\sigma `$ statistical uncertainty in the fit). Systematic uncertainty contributes a further error of $``$30%.

The HD $`J=21`$ transition at 56 $`\mu `$m was not detected in the co-added spectrum. An upper limit for emission in this line shows that the line flux must be less than 1.7$`\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2.

## 4 D/H Ratio

Several studies on the dust and gas content of the diffuse cloud overlying Sgr~B2 (M) have been carried out. The structure of the regions around the source have recently been summarised by Ceccarelli et al. (ceccarelli (2002)). Emission from HD could occur in two regions of the Sgr~B2 complex which appear extended in the LWS beam. These are the warm (40–100 K) envelope, with $`n`$(H2)$`2\times 10^5`$ cm-3, and the hot ($``$700 K) layer seen in NH3 absorption with $`n`$(H2)$`10^4`$ cm-3.

At densities of $``$104 cm-3, the deviation from LTE of the HD $`J=1`$ and $`J=2`$ level populations is very small (e.g. Bertoldi et al. bertoldi (1999)). This means that the total HD column density can be derived from the line emission, $`I_\lambda `$, the source extent, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{source}}`$, and the gas temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}`$,

$$N(\mathrm{HD})=\frac{4\pi I_\lambda }{h\nu _{1,0}A_{1,0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{source}}}\frac{Q(T_{\mathrm{gas}})}{g_1\mathrm{exp}(E_1/kT_{\mathrm{gas}})}$$
(1)
where $`E_1/k=128`$ K, $`A_{1,0}`$ is the Einstein coefficient for spontaneous emission, equal to $`5.12\times 10^8`$ s-1 (Abgrall, Roueff & Viala abgrall (1982)), $`g_1`$=3 and $`Q(T_{\mathrm{gas}})`$ is the partition function at the gas temperature. The angular size of the 100 $`\mu `$m continuum emission from the extended envelope is approximately $`55\mathrm{}\times 120\mathrm{}`$ (Goldsmith et al. goldsmithb (1992)), the centre of which was offset from the LWS optical axis by 21.5$`\mathrm{}`$. The solid angle covered is $`7\times 10^8`$ sr.

The observed flux at 112 $`\mu `$m can be used with the detection limit for the 56 $`\mu `$m line to constrain the temperature in the emitting region, assuming LTE. Comparing the population in the $`J=1`$ level with the upper limit for the population in the $`J=2`$ level leads to a temperature in the emitting region of $`T_{\mathrm{gas}}<80`$ K (taking account of errors). This excludes the possibility that the observed HD emission comes from the hot layer (it is unlikely that the hot region has a density much lower than 104 cm-3, in which case the $`J=2`$ level would be subthermally populated).

Assuming, therefore, that the HD emission occurs in the warm envelope (with parameters from above, $`n(\mathrm{H}_2)2\times 10^5`$ cm-3 and $`T`$=40–80 K) gives a HD column density ranging from $`1.8\times 10^{18}`$ cm-2 (for $`T`$=80 K) to $`6.0\times 10^{18}`$ cm-2 ($`T`$=40 K). Taking account of 1$`\sigma `$ statistical and 30% systematic error in the 112 $`\mu `$m line flux gives $`N(\mathrm{HD})=(0.7`$$`11)\times 10^{18}`$ cm-2.

Estimates of the molecular gas towards Sgr~B2 have been obtained from studying absorption by trace molecules such as H13CO+ and H13CN by Link et al. (link (1981)). From these observations they derived $`N`$(H2) between 4 and 5 $`\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2. This estimate is consistent with studies of the dust extinction towards the central sources (Harvey et al. harvey (1977); Erickson et al. erickson (1977); Gatley et al. gatley (1978); Thronson & Harper thronson (1986); Lis et al. lisa (1991)) giving $`N(\mathrm{H}_2)=(0.5`$$`2)\times 10^{24}`$ cm-2 and observations of the whole Sgr~B2 complex in sub-mm dust continuum (Goldsmith et al. goldsmitha (1987); Lis et al. lisb (1993); Gordon et al. gordon (1993); Kuan et al. kuan (1996)).

Adopting an H2 column density of (0.5–2)$`\times 10^{24}`$ cm-2 gives a deuterium abundance of (0.2–11)$`\times 10^6`$, corresponding to temperatures in the emitting region of 80–40 K. These values may still be an underestimate, due to the possibility of self-absorption of HD within the Sgr~B2 complex. Evaluating an accurate correction for self absorption would require a detailed knowledge of the various components in the Sgr~B2 complex and is beyond the scope of this paper. However, approximate calculations show that absorption is unlikely to change the result by more than 50%.

## 5 Conclusions

We report a probable emission line detection of the HD $`J=10`$ transition at 112 $`\mu `$m towards Sgr~B2. An upper limit for the $`J=21`$ transition at 56 $`\mu `$m is used to show that the emission must originate in the warm part of the Sgr~B2 envelope, at a temperature lower than approximately 80 K. This leads to a deuterium abundance in the Sgr~B2 complex of (0.2–11)$`\times 10^6`$. This range is constrained by the temperature (80–40 K) and H2 column density ((0.5–2)$`\times 10^{24}`$ cm-2) in the emitting region. The error in D/H at a particular temperature and $`N(\mathrm{H}_2)`$ within this range is approximately a factor of two.

The D/H ratio derived from DCO+ and DCN observations of Sgr~B2 by Jacq et al. (jacq (1999)) was calculated to be in the range (0.35–10)$`\times 10^6`$, with a firm lower limit of 10-7. Our values agree with this range and are consistent with the deuterium abundance of (1.7$`\pm `$0.3)$`\times `$10-6, found in the Sgr~A 50 km s-1 cloud by Lubowich et al. (lubowich (2000)).

The chemical evolution of the Galactic Bulge has been studied by Matteucci et al. (matteucci (1999)). They predict that the present time D/H ratio in the bulge should be about three orders of magnitude smaller than in the Galactic Disk due to the shorter timescales for astration processes there. Our values show that D/H in Sgr~B2 is possibly smaller than the average value found in the local interstellar cloud ((1.5$`\pm `$0.10)$`\times `$10-5; Linsky linsky (1998)) but cannot be as low as Matteucci et al. (matteucci (1999)) predict. This may indicate that the deuterium content of the bulge has been enriched by infall of primordial material or that there could be a problem with the model. Prantzos (prantzos (1996)) has calculated models that include infall and shows that the predicted D/H gradient is very sensitive to the assumed infall history.

The HD ground state rotational line provides a very reliable way to measure the deuterium abundance as $`N`$(HD) directly traces the deuterium column density. The remaining errors in the deuterium abundance are mostly due to uncertainties in the determination of the H2 column density and temperature in the emitting region. Our probable detection of the 112 $`\mu `$m line indicates that with the higher sensitivity of SOFIA and maybe Herschel, many more observations of HD rotational lines will be possible. An improvement to the deuterium abundance derived from the HD line will also require an improvement in the determination of the H2 column density. This could be carried out either by direct observation of the H2 transitions in the near-infrared or by improving modelling of molecular abundances.

###### Acknowledgements.

The ISO Spectral Analysis Package (ISAP) is a joint development by the LWS and SWS Instrument Teams and Data Centres. Contributing institutes are CESR, IAS, IPAC, MPE, RAL and SRON.