text:
# Spin-current modulation and square-wave transmission through periodically stubbed electron waveguides

## I INTRODUCTION

Spintronics-based quantum computation systems are expected to be one of the important successors of the microelectronic-based conventional computation systems in the future. The essential processes of realizing spin computation, spin injection into devices, and spin-related transport in semiconductors have attracted enthusiastic attention in the past few years. To avoid the practical difficulty of integrating devices, some electrical methods, instead of conventional ones applying an external magnetic field or employing circularly polarized light, are required to induce spin-polarized carriers in semiconductor devices. One simple idea is to use the ferromagnet-semiconductor interface to produce spin-polarized electrons, but this method must face the mismatch of physical parameters between these two quite different materials . The employment of diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMS), which can match well with other extensively used semiconductors like AlGaAs, have provoked a lot of interest in DMS . Recently, based on the Rashba spin-orbit interaction, an intrinsic effect in inversely asymmetric or asymmetrically confined nanostructures of non-magnetic semiconductors (NMS), several designs have been proposed to spin-polarize electronic currents in nanostructures . This progress in spintronics offers the possibility of doing the spin injection in conventional materials and is bringing more and more focus on how to control and utilize the Rashba effect in these well-known materials and well-controlled structures. The possibility of establishing a spin transistor, based on the Rashba interaction, has also been considered, but further investigation is required to obtain devices of good behavior.

Spin degeneracy of carriers in semiconductors is a result of inversion symmetry, in space and time, of the considered system. By introducing a spatial inverse asymmetry, one can realize spin splitting for carriers of finite momentum, without applying any external magnetic field. This so-called Rashba spin-orbit interaction  has been confirmed experimentally in different semiconductor structures . In semiconductor heterostructures, this spatial inverse asymmetry can be easily obtained by either built-in and external electric fields or by the position-dependent band edges. It is found that in many cases, especially in narrow gap semiconductor structures, the corresponding spin-orbit interaction is a linear function of the electronic momentum $`𝐤`$ expressed as the Rashba term $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }(𝐤\times 𝐄)`$ in the electron Hamiltonian, where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ is the Pauli spin matrix and $`𝐄`$ the local electric field. Thus, a local electric field works on the electronic spin like a local magnetic field perpendicular to the directions of the electric field and of the electron momentum. The averaged Rashba parameter is proportional to the average electric field weighted by the electron probability and can be well controlled by a top (back) gate over (below) the device. Recently, Nitta et al.  studied the dependence of the spin-orbit interaction on the surface electric field in an inverted InGaAs/InAlAs heterostructure and Grundler  showed that the penetration of the electron wave function into the barrier layer can greatly enhance the spin-orbit interaction in InAs quantum wells because in this case the electrons suffer a stronger effective electric field due to the band-edge difference. The Rashba effect began to be considered as one of the powerful tools in making spintronic devices after the pioneer proposal of the spin-polarized field effect transistor by Datta and Das . Mireles and Kirczenow  studied in detail the ballistic spin-polarized transport and the Rashba spin precession in a semiconductor waveguide using a tight-binding model but used somewhat large values for the strength of the Rashba parameter. Based on the fact that the spin orientation of electrons in nanostructures depends on the direction of their momentum, Kiselev and Kim proposed a T-shaped spin filter while Governale et al. announced recently the possibility of making a more effective spin filter with tunnel-coupled electron waveguides. Spin injection into non-magnetic semiconductors with the help of magnetic metals  or diluted magnetic semiconductors  has also been intensively studied. However, it is not yet known how to effectively control the spin-polarized flux in those ballistic transport devices and waveguides, though ballistic electronic transport, disregarding spin polarization, has been studied in detail in the past several years . In a previous paper , we showed briefly how spin-polarized transport can be produced and controlled in stubbed waveguides when only spin-up or spin-down electrons are injected and only one mode is propagating in the waveguide.

In the present paper we study in detail the possibility of a spin transistor which can control the flux strength (transmission rate) and spin orientation using periodically stubbed semiconductor waveguides in which the Rashba effect is present. In addition, we consider the case when two modes are allowed to propagate in the waveguide as well as that of ”defects” in a periodic array of stubbed waveguides. We further consider the case of injected electrons polarized partially up and partially down and new stub shapes as well as the influence of finite temperatures on the conductance. The results obtained are mentioned in the abstract and are detailed as follows. In Sec. II we present the formalism and in Sec. III the numerical results for one (III.A) and two propagating modes (III.B) with spin-up injection. Results for finite superlattices with defects are considered in Sec. III.C and the injection of electrons with their spins polarized in an arbitrary direction in Sec. III.D. Conclusions follow in Sec. IV.

## II FORMALISM

For a typical two-dimensional (2D) electronic system in the $`xy`$ plane in narrow gap semiconductor nanostructures such as InGaAs/InAlAs quantum wells, the one-electron Hamiltonian including the lowest order of spin-orbit interaction can be expressed as

$`H^{2D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^2}{2m^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \stackrel{}{p})_z={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}}\stackrel{}{}^2+i\alpha (\sigma _y{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\sigma _x{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}})`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\stackrel{}{}^2& \alpha ^{}\\ \alpha ^+& \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\stackrel{}{}^2\end{array}\right],`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{}{}^2=^2/x^2+^2/y^2`$, and $`^\pm =/x\pm i/y`$. The parameter $`\alpha `$ measures the strength of the spin-orbit coupling and is proportional to the interface electric field; $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z)`$ denotes the spin Pauli matrices, and $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the momentum operator. In the presence of $`\alpha `$ we assume that the new wave function has the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(k_x,k_y)=e^{ik_xx+ik_yy}\underset{\sigma }{}C^\sigma |\sigma =e^{ik_xx+ik_yy}\left(\begin{array}{c}C^+\\ C^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
with $`|\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (spin up) or $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ (spin down). The solutions of the equation $`H^{2D}\mathrm{\Psi }(k_x,k_y)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(k_x,k_y)`$ are readily obtained as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm (k_x,k_y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \frac{\pm k_yik_x}{k}\end{array}\right);`$the corresponding eigenvalues are

$$E^\pm (k_x,k_y)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}k^2\pm \alpha k,$$
(6)
where $`k=\sqrt{k_y^2+k_x^2\text{.}}`$ The electrons are now spin polarized and oriented perpendicular to the electronic momentum in the 2D plane.

If the electron gas is confined along the $`x`$ direction by a potential $`V(x)`$, such as the one in the stubbed waveguide shown in Fig. 1(a), we have a quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D) electronic system. The Hamiltonian becomes

$$H^{\text{Q1D}}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\stackrel{}{}^2+V(x)& \alpha ^{}\\ \alpha ^+& \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\stackrel{}{}^2+V(x)\end{array}\right].$$
(7)
Denoting by $`\varphi _n(x)`$ the solutions of the equation $`\left[(\mathrm{}^2/2m^{})^2/x^2+V(x)\right]\varphi _n(x)=E_n\varphi _n(x)`$, we can express the Q1D eigenstates in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{k_y}(x,y)=e^{ik_yy}\underset{n,\sigma }{}\varphi _n(x)C_{n,\sigma }|\sigma =e^{ik_yy}\underset{n}{}\varphi _n(x)\left(\begin{array}{c}C_n^+\\ C_n^{}\end{array}\right);$$
(8)
in each of the regions I, II, or III we have $`\varphi _n(x)=\mathrm{sin}(n\pi (x+w/2)/w)`$, where $`w`$ is the width of the region along $`x`$. Then the equation $`H^{\text{Q1D}}\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi }`$ takes the form

$$\underset{n}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}[E_n+\mathrm{}^2k_y^2/2m^{}E]\varphi _nC_n^++\alpha k_x\varphi _nC_n^{}+\alpha \varphi _n^{}C_n^{}\\ \alpha k_y\varphi _nC_n^+\alpha \varphi _n^{}C_n^++[E_n+\mathrm{}^2k_y^2/2m^{}E]\varphi _nC_n^{}\end{array}\right)=0,$$
(9)
where $`\varphi _n^{}=d\varphi /dx`$.

Mutiplying both sides with $`\varphi _m(x)`$ and integrating over $`x`$ leads to ($`𝑑x\varphi _m(x)\varphi _n(x)=\delta _{mn}`$)

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}[E_m+\mathrm{}^2k_y^2/2m^{}E]C_m^++\alpha k_xC_m^{}+_n𝑑x\alpha \varphi _m\varphi _n^{}C_n^{}\\ \alpha k_xC_m^+_n𝑑x\alpha \varphi _m\varphi _n^{}C_n^++[E_m+\mathrm{}^2k_y^2/2m^{}E]C_m^{}\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(10)
According to degenerate perturbation theory, if the inequality

$`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\left(H_{so}\right)_{nm}}{E_mE_n}}\right|=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha 𝑑x\varphi _m\varphi _n^{}}{E_mE_n}}\right|1`$holds, we can neglect the subband mixing term $`𝑑x\varphi _m\varphi _n^{}`$. Then Eq. (10) becomes

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}E_m+(\mathrm{}^2/2m^{})k_y^2E& \alpha k_y\\ \alpha k_y& E_m+(\mathrm{}^2/2m^{})k_y^2E\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}C_m^+\\ C_m^{}\end{array}\right)=0$$
(11)
and its eigenvalues are

$$E^\pm (k_y)=E_m+(\mathrm{}^2/2m^{})k_y^2\pm \alpha k_y.$$
(12)
The eigenvectors corresponding to $`E^+,E^{}`$ satisfy $`C_m^+=\pm C_m^{}`$. Accordingly, the spin eigenfunctions are taken as $`|\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \pm 1\end{array}\right)`$. The dispersion relation $`E^\pm (k_y)`$ versus $`k_y`$ resulting from Eq. (12) is shown in Fig. 1(b). Note that the minimum of subbands are shifted from $`k_y=0`$ by the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2=m^{}\alpha /\mathrm{}^2`$. In each subband, electrons of the same energy $`E`$ have four different momentum values $`k_y`$, i.e., the positive or negative $`k_y^+`$ and $`k_y^{}`$ values pertaining to the branches $`E^+(k_y)`$ and $`E^{}(k_y)`$. In fact, electrons belonging to different branches have opposite spin orientation in the $`x`$ direction. The difference in wave vectors $`k_y^+`$ and $`k_y^{}`$, resulting from $`E^+=E^{}=E`$, reads

$$k_y^{}k_y^+=2m^{}\alpha /\mathrm{}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(13)
Now let us consider the transmission process when an electron of energy $`E`$ is incident from the left to a stubbed waveguide as illustrated in Fig. 1(a). The electron wavefunction is decomposed into the plus $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ and minus $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ branches and the procedure outlined above applies to each of the three regions labelled I, II, and III in Fig. 1(a). In each region we have $`\varphi _n(x)=\mathrm{sin}(n\pi (x+w/2)/w)`$, where $`w`$ is the width of the region along $`x`$. Including spin and referring to Fig. 1(b) we can write the eigenfunction of energy $`E`$ in region I as

$`\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\{a_{1m}^+e^{i\beta _my}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+a_{1m}^{}e^{i(\beta _m+\mathrm{\Delta })y}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ (23)
$`+b_{1m}^+e^{i(\beta _m+\mathrm{\Delta })y}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+b_{1m}^{}e^{i\beta _my}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{sin}(c_m(x+c/2))`$ (24)
and in region III as

$`\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\{a_{2n}^+e^{i\alpha _n(yb)}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+a_{2n}^{}e^{i(\alpha _n+\mathrm{\Delta })(yb)}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`b_{2n}^+e^{i(\alpha _n+\mathrm{\Delta })(yb)}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+b_{2n}^{}e^{i\alpha _n(yb)}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\}`$ (34)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{sin}(a_n(x+a/2));`$ (35)
here $`c_m=m\pi /c`$, $`\beta _m=(2m^{}Ec_m^2)^{1/2}`$, $`a_n=n\pi /a`$, and $`\alpha _n=(2m^{}Ea_n^2)^{1/2}`$ where $`m,n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ denote the order of the transverse modes. The symbols $`a_{1m}^\sigma `$, $`b_{1m}^\sigma `$, $`a_{2n}^\sigma `$, $`b_{2n}^\sigma `$ ($`\sigma =\pm `$) represent the coefficients of different electronic modes existing in the device. Similar to the procedure of matching electronic wavefunction when spin is disregarded , in region II we use two auxiliary sets of solutions to the wave equation, one of which matches the wire on the left and the other on the right, with each vanishing elsewhere on the boundary: $`\varphi _s=_k(\chi _k^L+\chi _k^R)`$. The appropriate boundary conditions are

$`\chi _k^R(y`$ $`=`$ $`0,x)=0;`$ (36)
$`\chi _k^R(y`$ $`=`$ $`b,x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& x<a/2;\\ \mathrm{sin}[a_k(x+a/2)]\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{2k}^++a_{2k}^{}+b_{2k}^++b_{2k}^{}\\ a_{2k}^++a_{2k}^{}b_{2k}^+b_{2k}^{}\end{array}\right),& a/2<x<a/2;\\ 0,& x>a/2;\end{array}`$ (42)
$$\chi _k^L(y=0,x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& x<c/2;\\ \mathrm{sin}[c_k(x+c/2)]\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{1k}^++a_{1k}^{}+b_{1k}^++b_{1k}^{}\\ a_{1k}^++a_{1k}^{}b_{1k}^+b_{1k}^{}\end{array}\right),& c/2<x<c/2;\\ 0,& x>c/2;\end{array}$$
(43)
and $`\chi _k^L(y=b,x)=0`$. $`\chi _k^R`$ can be expanded as

$`\chi _k^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\{u_n^Re^{i\gamma _ny}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+v_n^Re^{i(\gamma _n+\mathrm{\Delta })y}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ (48)
$``$ $`u_n^Re^{i(\gamma _n+\mathrm{\Delta })y}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)v_n^Re^{i\gamma _ny}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\}`$ (53)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{sin}(h_n(x+h/2d)).`$ (54)
Multiplying Eq. (42) by $`\mathrm{sin}(h_m(x+h/2d))`$, integrating over $`x`$ ($`a/2xa/2`$) and using Eq. (54), we obtain

$$u_m^R=2(a_{2k}^++b_{2k}^+)I_{km}^R/K_m^+,v_m^R=2(a_{2k}^{}+b_{2k}^{})I_{km}^R/K_m^{}$$
(55)
where

$$I_{km}^R=_{a/2}^{a/2}dx\mathrm{sin}[a_k(x+a/2)]\mathrm{sin}(h_m(x+h/2d),K_m^\pm =h[e^{\pm i\gamma _mb}e^{i(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })b}],$$
(56)
and $`\gamma _m=(2m^{}Eh_m^2)^{1/2}`$. Similarly, $`\chi _k^L`$ can be expanded as

$`\chi _k^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\{u_n^Le^{i\gamma _n(yb)}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)+v_n^Le^{i(\gamma _n+\mathrm{\Delta })(yb)}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ (61)
$``$ $`u_n^Le^{i(\gamma _n+\mathrm{\Delta })(yb)}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)v_n^Le^{i\gamma _n(yb)}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\}`$ (66)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{sin}(h_n(x+h/2d))`$ (67)
where

$$u_m^L=2(a_{1k}^++b_{1k}^+)I_{km}^L/K_m^{},v_m^L=2(a_{1k}^{}+b_{1k}^{})I_{km}^L/K_m^+$$
(68)
and

$$I_{km}^L=_{c/2}^{c/2}𝑑x\mathrm{sin}[c_k(x+c/2)]\mathrm{sin}[h_m(x+h/2d)]$$
(69)
Requiring the continuity of the derivative of the wavefunction at the interfaces, $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ must satisfy the following equation:

$$\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\widehat{B}+\widehat{\beta }& \widehat{B}\widehat{\beta }^{}& 0& 0\\ \widehat{F}& \widehat{F}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \widehat{D}\widehat{\beta }& \widehat{D}+\widehat{\beta }^{}\\ 0& 0& \widehat{H}& \widehat{H}\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_1^+\\ \widehat{b}_1^+\\ \widehat{a}_1^{}\\ \widehat{b}_1^{}\end{array}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\widehat{A}& \widehat{A}& 0& 0\\ \widehat{E}\widehat{\alpha }& \widehat{E}+\widehat{\alpha }^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \widehat{C}& \widehat{C}\\ 0& 0& \widehat{G}+\widehat{\alpha }& \widehat{G}\widehat{\alpha }^{}\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_2^+\\ \widehat{b}_2^+\\ \widehat{a}_2^{}\\ \widehat{b}_2^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(70)
The elements of sub-matrices $`\widehat{A}`$, $`\widehat{B}`$, $`\widehat{C}`$, $`\widehat{D}`$, $`\widehat{E}`$, $`\widehat{F}`$, $`\widehat{G}`$, $`\widehat{H}`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }`$, $`\widehat{\beta }`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }^{}`$, $`\widehat{\beta }^{}`$ have values

$`A_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}4(2\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })I_{lm}^LI_{km}^R/(cK_m^+),`$ (71)
$`B_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}4[\gamma _me^{i\gamma _mb}+(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })e^{i(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })b}]I_{lm}^LI_{km}^L/(cK_m^{}),`$ (72)
$`C_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}4(2\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })I_{lm}^LI_{km}^R/(cK_m^{}),`$ (73)
$`D_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}4[\gamma _me^{i\gamma _mb}+(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })e^{i(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })b}]I_{lm}^LI_{km}^L/(cK_m^+),`$ (74)
$`E_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}4[\gamma _me^{i\gamma _mb}+(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })e^{i(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })b}]I_{lm}^RI_{km}^R/(aK_m^+),`$ (75)
$`F_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}4(2\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })I_{lm}^RI_{km}^L/(aK_m^{}),`$ (76)
$`G_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}4[\gamma _me^{i\gamma _mb}+(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })e^{i(\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })b}]I_{lm}^RI_{km}^R/(aK_m^{}),`$ (77)
$`H_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}4(2\gamma _m+\mathrm{\Delta })I_{lm}^RI_{km}^L/(aK_m^+),`$ (78)
where $`\beta _{lk}=\beta _k\delta _{lk}`$, $`\alpha _{lk}=\alpha _k\delta _{lk}`$, $`\beta _{lk}^{}=(\beta _k+\mathrm{\Delta })\delta _{lk}`$, and $`\alpha _{lk}^{}=(\alpha _k+\mathrm{\Delta })\delta _{lk}`$.

Together with the matrix $`\widehat{P}`$ corresponding to a waveguide segment of length $`l`$ rather than to a stub,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_1^+\\ \widehat{b}_1^+\\ \widehat{a}_1^{}\\ \widehat{b}_1^{}\end{array}\right)=\widehat{P}\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_2^+\\ \widehat{b}_2^+\\ \widehat{a}_2^{}\\ \widehat{b}_2^{}\end{array}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}e^{i\alpha _ml}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i(\alpha _m+\mathrm{\Delta })l}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i(\alpha _m+\mathrm{\Delta })l}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^{i\alpha _ml}\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_2^+\\ \widehat{b}_2^+\\ \widehat{a}_2^{}\\ \widehat{b}_2^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(79)
we can connect the incident waves (to the left of region I) with the outgoing ones (to the right of region III) via a transfer matrix $`\widehat{M}`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_{in}^+\\ \widehat{b}_{in}^+\\ \widehat{a}_{in}^{}\\ \widehat{b}_{in}^{}\end{array}\right)=\widehat{M}\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{a}_{out}^+\\ \widehat{b}_{out}^+\\ \widehat{a}_{out}^{}\\ \widehat{b}_{out}^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(80)
Here $`\widehat{M}`$ is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix with sub-matrices $`\widehat{M}_{mn}`$ as its elements. If we assume that a spin-coherent electron beam of single energy is injected into the device from the left and it is detected at its right end by an analyzer, there is no backward propagating wave at the output and $`\widehat{b}_{out}^+=\widehat{b}_{out}^{}=0`$. The coefficients of spin-up and spin-down electrons are $`\widehat{a}_{in}^++\widehat{a}_{in}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{in}^+\widehat{a}_{in}^{}`$ for the input wave and $`\widehat{a}_{out}^++\widehat{a}_{out}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{out}^+\widehat{a}_{out}^{}`$ for the output wave, respectively, if we neglect the injection mismatch of electronic momentum between different electron branches. Then the spin-dependent transmission rate can be calculated similar to the procedure used when the spins are disregarded.

In the design of a spin transistor first proposed by Datta and Das, we can introduce the above stubbed waveguide together with the Rashba effect into the device to control and flip the spin current. To see this effect clearly, we connect a spin polarizer (analyzer) to the left (right) of the structure and inject spin-up polarized electrons into it and detect the polarization of the outgoing electrons. The electron beam is equally decomposed into the plus branch $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ and the minus branch $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ if the momentum difference between two branches can be neglected when considering the wavefunction match of input and output. Since the electrons belong to different branches will get different phases when propagating along the device, the output spin orientation of the electrons, which is a result of the composition of electronic wavefunction of the two branches when leaving from the waveguide, can be different from the initial one. In our case, the spin-up transmission rate $`T^+`$ and spin-down transmission rate $`T^{}`$ read

$$T^\pm =\underset{mn}{}T_{mn}^\pm =\underset{mn}{}\frac{\alpha _n\left|a_{out,mn}^+\pm a_{out,mn}^{}\right|^2}{2\beta _m(\left|a_{in,m}^+\right|^2+\left|a_{in,m}^{}\right|^2)},$$
(81)
where $`a_{out,mn}`$ denotes the $`m`$th mode iuput contribution to the $`n`$th mode output $`a_{out,n}`$ and the sums over $`m,n`$ is over all possible propagating modes (number $`N_m`$) in the waveguide. For spin-up electrons injected into a simple waveguide of length $`l`$, we can assume $`a_{in,m}^+=a_{in,m}^{}=1/2`$ and the output coefficients can be calculated using Eq. (79): $`a_{out,mn}^+=e^{i\alpha _ml}\delta _{mn}`$ and $`a_{out,mn}^{}=e^{i(\alpha _m+\mathrm{\Delta })l}\delta _{mn}`$. Since $`\alpha _n=\beta _n`$ for a simple waveguide, we have $`T^\pm =N_m\left|1\pm e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }l}\right|^2`$. The probability of detecting a spin-down $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ electron will be $`T^{}=N_m\mathrm{sin}^2(\delta \theta /2)`$  and that for a spin-up $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ electron $`T^+=N_m\mathrm{cos}^2(\delta \theta /2)`$, where $`\delta \theta =\mathrm{\Delta }l`$ is the phase difference between the two spin propagation modes $`|+`$ and $`|`$ in the structure after traveling a distance $`l`$. In stubbed waveguides, it will be shown that the percentage of transmitted spin-up and spin-down electrons follows that same rule as in a stubless waveguide when the Rashba effect is weak. The advantage of stubbed waveguides is that using side gates to control the length $`h`$ of the stubs and the distance $`d`$ of their centers from that of the waveguide, we can control the transmission rate. At the same time we can adjust the back gate bias to change the Rashba parameter and then the outgoing spin orientation.

Once $`T^\pm `$ is known, the conductance $`G^\pm G(E,0)`$ at zero temperature is given by the Landauer-Büttiker formula, $`G^\pm =(2e^2/h)T^\pm `$. For finite temperatures the conductance $`G(E,T)`$ is given by

$$G(E,T)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}G(ϵ,T=0)\left(\frac{df}{dϵ}\right)𝑑ϵ,$$
(82)
where $`f(ϵE)`$ is the Fermi function.

In real devices the shape of the stubs can be different than a rectangular one and one question we need to answer is the influence of the shape of the stubs on the transmission output. It is known from electronic stub tuners that stubs of different shape, e.g., Lorentzian or triangular stubs, do not change the qualitative behavior of the transmission. To quantitatively study the transmission rate of electronic current through a waveguide with arbitrarily shaped stub, we can break the stubs into a series of rectangular segments with the same width $`b_i`$ and different heights. Each segment is described by a transfer matrix $`M_i`$. The complete shape is well described by the product $`M^T=_iM_i`$ if the segment width is much smaller than the electronic wavelength. The entire procedure described above for a single stub is then repeated each segment as many times as required by the particular shape.

## III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the numerical calculations we consider a stubbed $`In_{0.53}Ga_{0.47}As/InAlAs`$ waveguide. The effective electron mass is $`m^{}=0.042m_0`$ and a typical average spin-orbit constant $`\alpha =1.6\times 10^{11}`$eVm is assumed throughout the paper unless otherwise specified. To verify the validity of the perturbation theory we evaluated the bound states of one unit, of stub length $`h=2000`$Å and width $`b=150`$Å connected to a waveguide of width $`a=250`$Å and segment length $`l=100`$Å to the left and right of the stub. We find that the ratio of the intersubband mixing energy over the difference between the lowest two bound states is less than $`10\%`$. We also calculated the energy bands of a superlattice of such stub units with a waveguide segment of length $`l=200`$Å between two consecutive stubs. The separation of the two spin bands is less than $`15\%`$ of the band energy.

### A One mode allowed in the waveguide

#### 1 Rectangular stubs

To view the parameter dependence of the spin transmission through a stubbed waveguide, we inject spin-up polarized electrons into a waveguide of width $`a=250`$Å with a symmetric double stub of width $`b=150`$Å and measure the output flux rate of spin-up and spin-down electrons. Considering only the first mode and for a waveguide segment of length $`l=450`$Å, we plot in Fig. 2 the spin-up electron transmission as a function of the stub length, reduced by the width of the waveguide $`(ha)`$, and of the electron energy $`E`$. Only electrons with energy higher that the first subband in the waveguide $`E_1=\pi ^2/(2m^{}a^2)=14.3`$meV can pass through the device and the output percentage of spin-up and spin-down electron depends only on the total length of the device. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2m^{}\alpha /\mathrm{}^2=0.1764\times 10^8`$m<sup>-1</sup> so the maximum of the spin-up electron transmission rate is $`\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Delta }(b+l)=76.4\%`$ and the maximum of the spin-down electron transmission rate $`23.6\%`$. The stub begins to play a role in adjusting the transmission rate when electrons have an energy higher than the first subband in the stub $`E_1^s=\pi ^2/(2m^{}b^2)=57.2`$meV. If the electronic energy has a value between the first and second transverse subbands, i.e., if the relation $`E_1^s<E<E_2^s=2\pi ^2/(m^{}b^2)`$ holds, only one transverse mode enters the stub and a simple transmission pattern appears with transmission gaps along the curves $`h=n\lambda +h_0`$, where $`h_0`$ is the position of the first gap and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Notice that the period $`\lambda `$ is different from the $`x`$-direction wavelength of the first subband wavefunction in the stub $`\lambda _1=2\pi b/\sqrt{2m^{}Eb^2\pi ^2}`$ and depends on the parameters $`a`$ and $`l`$. When the width $`b`$ of the stub becomes wider, more modes can exist in the stub and the transmission pattern becomes complicated, see Sec. IIIc.

We can also change the asymmetry parameter $`d`$, the distance along $`x`$ between the midpoint of the waveguide and that of the height $`h`$ shown in Fig. 1(a), to shift the stub along the $`x`$ direction so the structure becomes asymmetric. In Fig. 3 we show by a wired surface the transmission rate for electrons of fixed energy $`E=48`$meV as function of $`d`$ and $`h`$ for a five-stub device with parameters $`a=c=250`$Å, $`b=150`$Å and $`l=207.5`$Å. The parameter $`l`$ is chosen to satisfy $`\mathrm{cos}^2[5\mathrm{\Delta }(b+l)]=0`$ so that spin-up electrons are totally blocked, ( $`T^+=0`$), and only spin-down electrons come out. The transmission is a periodic function of $`d`$ and $`h`$ and the gaps appear in the triangle-shaped regions. The centers of these triangles are located at the points in the $`hd`$ plane that satisfy $`h=n\lambda /2+h_0`$ and $`2d+h=n\lambda +h_0`$ for integer $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. In this figure we find $`\lambda =558`$ Å, $`h_0=694`$Å and $`\lambda _1=660.5`$Å. One of the interesting facts found in Fig. 3 is that a square type transmission curve with a wide gap can be obtained by changing $`d`$ for a fixed value of $`h`$.

To clearly show when and how these square-shaped transmission curves appear, some cross sections of Fig. 3 are shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4(a) the spin-down transmission rate is shown as a function of $`h`$ for the symmetric case ($`d=0`$). Gaps appear with period $`\lambda `$ and the first gap begins at $`h=h_0=694`$Å and has a width $`\delta h=40`$Å. If we cut the surface along $`h`$ at $`d=69.75`$Å $`=\lambda /8`$, we obtain Fig. 4(b). Here we see a periodic structure similar to that in (a) but with half the period $`\lambda /2`$ and half the gap width $`\delta h=20`$Å. If we fix the value of the stub length $`h`$ in one of the gaps in Fig. 4(a) and cut the surface of Fig. 3 along $`d`$, we obtain the curve shown in (c), where $`h=1289.5`$Å $`h_0+\lambda `$. The transmission has a period $`\lambda /2`$ along $`d`$ with gaps as wide as $`\delta d=91`$Å. The same periodic transmission versus $`d`$ curves is shown (d) when we make the same cut as above but fix $`h=1568.5`$Å $`h_0+3\lambda /2`$ so the gaps appear at $`d=\lambda /4`$ rather than at $`d=0`$. We see that in (c) and (d) we can completely flip or block the input electronic spin flux and the transmission has an almost square-wave dependence on the adjustable parameter $`d`$ with the gap/band ratio as big as 0.5.

#### 2 Stubs of general shape

To study the influence of the stub shape on the transmission output we proceed as outlined at the end of Sec. II. As an example we consider devices with double stubs of Gaussian shape. As a function of $`x`$ the $`y`$ coordinate of the boundary of each stub is taken as $`y=(ha)/2\pm d](e^{8x^2/b^2}e^2)/(1e^2)`$. In Fig. 5(a) we show the transmission of a structure of two symmetric double stubs as a function of the total length $`h`$ of the stubs. Only spin-up electrons are injected. The thin and thick solid curves show, respectively, the spin-up and spin-down transmission for Gaussian-shaped stubs and parameters $`a=250`$Å, $`b=375`$Å, $`l=275`$Å; the thin and thick dotted curves are for rectangular with parameters $`a=250`$Å, $`b=290`$Å, $`L=360`$Å. We see that the transmission through the waveguide with Guassian-shaped stubs is similar to that with narrower rectangular stubs for the same total length ($`b+L`$). Such a similarity was noticed earlier between rectangular and triangular stubs . If we fix the total length of the stubs of both waveguides $`h=825`$Å and shift the stubs, we obtain Fig. (5 b)) for the transmission as a function of the shift $`d`$.

### B Two modes allowed in the waveguide

When the electron energy is high enough, two or more transverse modes can propagate in the waveguide. In Fig. 6(a), we plot the transmission as a function of the electronic energy $`E`$ through a device with one waveguide segment of width $`a=250`$Å and length $`l=250`$Å and one stub of width $`b=125`$Å and length $`h=1250`$Å. Here the total device length is adjusted so that both spin-up (solid line) and spin-down (dotted line) electrons can be observed at the right end. When the electron energy is lower than $`E_2=57.2`$meV, only one propagating mode exists and the transmission is almost flat; the total transmission ($`T^++T^{}`$) approaches unity because in this energy region the stub is too narrow to give significant contribution. With the increase of the electron energy, two modes can exist in the structure. In some cases, two modes compete and a deep minimum exists with the transmission dropping from 2 to a value much lower than 1 as shown in Fig. 6(a). If a wider stub is used here, more modes can exist in the stub and the curve has many more oscillations.

In Fig. 6(b) we inject electrons of energy $`100`$meV into a device of four equal units, each of which has one asymmetric stub with $`b=125`$Å and $`d=30`$Å connected to one waveguide segment of width $`a=250`$Å and length $`l=300`$. The transmission rate is shown as a function of the length $`h`$ of the stubs. In this figure the spin-orbit parameter is adjusted to $`\alpha =1.8\times 10^{11}`$eVm so that almost all electrons are spin-flipped after passing the device. As in Fig. 4 we observe a series of gaps, narrower than the corresponding ones of Fig. 4, but now with two modes present and electrons of either spin completely blocked. Notice that the transmission rate is still a periodic function of the stub length $`h`$ despite the presence of two modes.

### C Introducing defects

Using a series of periodically arranged stub units, we can make a spintronic crystal (superlattice) with a transmission similar to that shown in Fig. 3, where five units are used. In this kind of crystals, we can expect to obtain devices of better behavior than that of only one unit. If we add some impurities into the crystal, we can change the properties of this crystal and observe a different transmission rate. The solid line in Fig. 7 shows the first mode spin-up transmission rate versus electron energy through a pure finite crystal of seven equal units with symmetric stubs and parameters $`a=250`$ Å, $`b=250`$Å, $`l=125`$Å, and $`h=2250`$Å. The transmission shows gaps near $`E=10`$meV, $`40`$meV and $`60`$meV. When we substitute the middle (fourth) unit by a defect, that is, a unit which has stub length $`h_d=4500`$Åand otherwise the same parameters, we find that the defect introduces resonant peaks in the gaps at $`E=40`$ meV and $`E=46`$ meV and $`E=55`$ meV. The spin-down transmission rate has the same structure but different scale. A similar behavior was reported for photonic tuners in Ref.

### D Injection of spin-up and spin-down electrons

Up to now we considered electronic conductance or transmission through stubbed waveguides when only spin-up electrons are injected at zero temperature ($`G(E,T=0)`$). In this subsection we discuss what happens if arbitrarily spin-polarized electrons are injected into a stubbed waveguide at finite temperature. In the $`\sigma _z`$ spin representation the spin-orientation is denoted by the coefficients $`C^+`$ and $`C^{}`$. For instance, $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \pm 1\end{array}\right)`$ describes a spin oriented along the $`x`$-direction whereas $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \pm i\end{array}\right)`$ describes a spin oriented along the $`y`$-direction. In Fig. 8(a) and (b) we show the spin-up (dotted line) and spin-down (solid line) conductance for a structure composed of eight stub units with $`a=150`$Å, $`b=80`$Å, $`l=69`$Å and Fermi energy $`E_F=133`$meV. The spin orientation of the incident electrons is as follows: we let $`C^+=0.7`$ and $`C^{}=0.3`$; since the state must be normalized ($`|C^+|^2+|C^{}|^2=1`$), this corresponds to $`84.5\%`$ spin-up and $`15.5\%`$ spin-down incident electrons.

As a function of the stub length $`h`$ the conductances $`G^+`$ and $`G^{}`$, at $`T=`$0 and 8K, are shown in Fig. 8(a); the solid and dotted curves are for $`G^+`$ and the thin and thick solid lines for $`G^{}`$. As a function of the shift $`d`$ $`G^+`$ and $`G^{}`$ are shown in Fig. 8(b) at $`T=`$0, 4.2, and 8K. The solid, dashed, and dotted curves are for $`G^+`$ and the thin, medium, and thick solid lines for $`G^{}`$. Here we have $`15.5\%`$ of the output electrons having spin up and $`84.5\%`$ of them spin down. The conductance $`G^{}`$ shows a behavior similar to that of the transmission in Fig. 4(a) and (d). As can be seen, finite temperatures smoothen the curves obtained at zero temperature similar to the case of spinless electrons . As the ratio $`E_F/k_BT`$ increases the curves are smoothened or rounded off more strongly.

## IV Concluding remarks

Employing the transfer-matrix method we combined the spin precession in a waveguide, due to the spin-orbit coupling, with the basic physics of a stub tuner, and applied it to the ballistic spin transmission through periodically stubbed waveguides. We found that the spin polarization can be well controlled by adjusting the total length of the device for a wide range of the electronic energy. In particular, we showed that, given spin-polarized electrons injected into a stub structure, we can select the spin of the outgoing electrons to be the same as or opposite to that of the injected electrons. We demonstrated this for stubs of rectangular or Gaussian shape but also for triangular stubs . In general these results hold for stubs of any shape. The latter does not affect the qualitative behavior of the transmission but only its period when several stubs are combined.

More important, we saw clearly that, as a function of the stub height $`h`$ and the asymmetry parameter $`d`$, we can have a nearly binary square-wave transmission  (spin-valve effect) for either spin orientation, with wide gaps for stubs of different shapes and a well-controlled range of the stub parameters. In this respect asymmetric stubs give the best results. Their asymmetry, i. e., $`h`$ and $`d`$, can be controlled by lateral gates ; in principle, such gates should allow for a more detailed control of the overall stub shape. A further modulation can be achieved if we combine several groups of stubs with different values of the spin-orbit coupling strength. These findings should facilitate the experimental realization of the spin transistor.

A qualitative understanding of all these results is as follows. The spins precess in a single waveguide  due to the spin-orbit coupling. On the other hand, in a stub tuner waves reflected from the walls of the stub, where the wave function vanishes, may interfere constructively or destructively with those propagating in the main waveguide and result, respectively, in an increase or decrease of the transmission . Refining this idea, it was shown in Refs. - that using double stubs the transmission of spinless electrons could be blocked completely using asymmetric stubs. Combining several stubs would result in a nearly square-wave transmission output, especially as a function of the asymmetry parameter $`d`$. The transmission shown, e.g. in Figs. 2-4 is simply the result of this behavior when combined with the spin precession due to the spin-orbit coupling since the length of the device was chosen such that spin flip would occur in the stubless waveguide.

The most clear results or simplest transmission patterns are obtained when only one mode is allowed to propagate in the main waveguide. If more modes can propagate in the main waveguide, generally the transmission pattern becomes more complex or even irregular. However, as we demonstrated, we can have a simple periodic transmission pattern even when two modes are allowed. This occurs when the stub width is short enough that only one mode enters in the stub region.

Further, we showed that the above results hold when the injected spins are polarized in an arbitrary direction, partially ’up’ and partially ’down’. We also showed that introducing ’defects’ in a finite superlattice leads to a further modulation of the spin current since the ’defects’ produce new transmission resonances or antiresonances. One could use such ’defects’ to achieve a specific control of the transmission.

Finally, we have seen that the effect of finite temperatures is to smoothen the zero-temperature conductance as in the case of spinless electrons . The degree of smoothness depends mainly on the ratio $`E_F/k_BT`$.

## V Acknowledgement

The work of X. F. W. and P. V. was supported by the Canadian NSERC Grant No. OGP0121756 and that of F. M. P. by the Flemish Science Foundation, the Belgian Interuniversity Attraction Poles (IUAP), the Inter-university Microelectronics Center (IMEC) and the Concerted action programme (GOA).


format: text

text:
# A Dynamical Scaling Law for Jet Tomography

## Abstract

Medium modifications of parton fragmentation provide a novel tomographic tool for the study of the hot and dense matter created in ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions. Their quantitative analysis, however, is complicated by the strong dynamical expansion of the collision region. Here, we establish for the multiple scattering induced gluon radiation spectrum a scaling law which relates medium effects in a collision of arbitrary dynamical expansion to that in an equivalent static scenario. Based on this scaling, we calculate for typical kinematical values of the RHIC and LHC heavy ion programs medium-modified parton fragmentation functions for heavy ion collisions with realistic dynamical expansion.

For the study of the shortlived state of hot and dense matter produced in nucleus-nucleus collisions, novel tools become available at collider energies. In particular, the abundant production of high-$`p_{}`$ partons in hard processes dominates the high-$`p_{}`$ tails of hadronic particle spectra. These partons propagate through the medium while fragmenting into hadrons. Basic properties of the hot and dense matter such as the average in-medium pathlength of hard partons and the transverse colour field strength (energy density) they experience are thus reflected in the medium-dependence of parton fragmentation.

Motivated by this idea Gyulassy:1993hr , several groups Baier:1996sk ; Zakharov:1997uu ; Wiedemann:2000za ; Gyulassy:2000er  calculated in recent years gluon radiation spectra due to medium-induced multiple scattering contributions in order to understand the medium-dependence of hadronic cross sections. The aim of this letter is to extend previous studies Baier:1998yf ; Gyulassy:2000gk  to the full gluon radiation spectrum in a strongly expanding medium of small finite size, to calculate for the first time the medium-dependent fragmentation functions resulting from many soft interactions of the hard parton with the medium, and to explore observable consequences for collider experiments at RHIC and LHC.

Hadronic cross sections for high $`p_{}`$ particle production are calculated by convoluting the parton distributions of the incoming projectiles with the product $`d\sigma ^h(z,Q^2)`$ of a perturbatively calculable partonic cross section $`\sigma ^q`$ and the fragmentation function $`D_{h/q}(x,Q^2)`$ of the produced parton, $`d\sigma ^h(z,Q^2)=\left(\frac{d\sigma ^q}{dy}\right)dyD_{h/q}(x,Q^2)dx`$. Here, $`x=E_h/E_q`$, $`y=E_q/Q`$ and $`z=E_h/Q`$ denote fractions between the virtuality of the hard process $`Q`$, and the energies of the produced parton and resulting hadron. If the produced parton looses with probability $`P(ϵ)`$ an additional fraction $`ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E_q}`$ of its energy due to medium-induced radiation, then the hadronic cross section is given in terms of the medium-modified fragmentation function Wang:1996yh ; Gyulassy:2001nm

$`D_{h/q}^{(\mathrm{med})}(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑ϵP(ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1ϵ}}D_{h/q}({\displaystyle \frac{x}{1ϵ}},Q^2).`$ (1)
The probability that a hard parton looses $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ of its initial energy due to the independent emission of an arbitrary number of $`n`$ gluons is determined by the medium-induced gluon energy spectrum $`\frac{dI}{d\omega }`$Baier:2001yt

$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega _i\frac{dI(\omega _i)}{d\omega }}\right]`$ (2)
$`\times \delta \left(\mathrm{\Delta }E{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\omega _i\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \frac{dI}{d\omega }}\right].`$
We evaluate the quenching weight (2) via its Mellin transform (see Baier:2001yt  for details), starting from the medium-induced BDMPS-Z gluon radiation spectrum Wiedemann:2000za ; Wiedemann:2000tf ,

$`\omega {\displaystyle \frac{dI}{d\omega }}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{(2\pi )^2\omega ^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y_l{\displaystyle _{y_l}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\overline{y}_l{\displaystyle d^2𝐮d^2𝐤e^{i𝐤_{}𝐮}}`$
$`\times e^{\frac{1}{2}_{\overline{y}_l}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi n(\xi )\sigma (𝐮)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐲}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐮}}𝒦(𝐲=0,y_l;𝐮,\overline{y}_l|\omega ),`$ (3)
where

$`𝒦={\displaystyle 𝒟𝐫\mathrm{exp}\left[i_{y_l}^{\overline{y}_l}𝑑\xi \frac{\omega }{2}\left(\dot{𝐫}^2\frac{n(\xi )\sigma \left(𝐫\right)}{i\omega }\right)\right]}.`$ (4)
Medium properties enter $`dI/d\omega `$ via the product of the medium density $`n(\xi )`$ of scattering centers times the relative strength of the single elastic scattering cross section $`|a_0(𝐪_{})|^2`$ measured by the dipole cross section $`\sigma (𝐫)=2C_A\frac{d𝐪_{}}{(2\pi )^2}|a_0(𝐪_{})|^2\left(1e^{i𝐪_{}𝐫}\right)`$. We consider the effect of arbitrarily many soft momentum transfers to the parton, when the path integral in (3) can be evaluated in the saddle point approximation Zakharov:1997uu ; Wiedemann:2000za , $`\sigma (𝐫)C𝐫^2`$. This is complementary to studies which consider one additional medium-induced gluon exchange via twist-4 matrix elements Guo:2000nz ; Qiu:2001hj , or up to $`N3`$ medium-induced momentum transfers in an opacity expansion Wiedemann:2000za ; Gyulassy:2000er  of (3).

For the case of a nuclear medium without dynamical evolution, $`n(\xi )=n_0`$, the radiation spectrum (3) depends on the partonic in-medium pathlength $`L`$ and the transport coefficient $`n_0C`$. The latter measures the squared average momentum picked up by the partonic projectile per unit pathlength Wiedemann:2000tf . Phenomenological estimates Baier:1996sk ; Wiedemann:2000tf ; Arleo  range typically between $`n_0C=(50\mathrm{MeV})^2/\mathrm{fm}`$ for normal nuclear matter and $`n_0C=(500\mathrm{MeV})^2/\mathrm{fm}`$ for a hot quark-gluon plasma. Writing all energies in units of the characteristic gluon frequency $`\omega _c=2n_0CL^2`$, the probability $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }E/\omega _c)`$ depends on only one further, dimensionless parameter combination

$$R=n_0CL^3.$$
(5)
We refer to $`R`$ as “density parameter” since it characterizes the initially produced gluon rapidity density (see eq. (11) below).

Fig. 1 shows the quenching weights $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }E/\omega _c)`$ calculated for a static nuclear medium and varying density parameters $`R`$. In comparison to earlier studies Baier:2001yt , we observe as a novel feature the occurence of a discrete contribution $`p_0`$ in

$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }E/\omega _c)`$ $`=`$ $`p_0\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }E/\omega _c)+p(\mathrm{\Delta }E/\omega _c).`$ (6)
This is a consequence of considering a medium of realistic small size and opacity, where the projectile escapes the collision region with finite probability $`p_0`$ without further interaction. With increasing density parameter $`R`$, the probability $`p_0`$ of no interaction tends to zero, and the width of $`p(\mathrm{\Delta }E/\omega _c)`$ broadens since a larger energy fraction $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is lost. In Baier:2001yt , an analytical approximation for $`P(ϵ)`$ is given solely for illustrative purposes. It is based on the small-$`\omega `$ approximation $`\frac{dI}{d\omega }\alpha _s\sqrt{\frac{\omega _c}{\omega }}`$ of an expression valid for large in-medium pathlengths only. We find that it captures well the shape of $`P`$ for large systems where $`p_01`$. However it shows an unphysical large-$`ϵ`$ tail with infinite first moment $`𝑑ϵϵP(ϵ)`$. As seen from eq. (10) discussed below, the accuracy of our study profits significantly from a better numerical control of this large $`ϵ`$ region.

The strong longitudinal and - to a lesser extent - transverse expansion of a heavy ion collision implies a decreasing density of scattering centers $`n(\xi )`$,

$$n(\xi )C=n_dC\left(\frac{\xi _0}{\xi }\right)^\alpha .$$
(7)
Here, $`\alpha =0`$ characterizes a static medium and $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to a one-dimensional, boost-invariant longitudinal expansion consistent e.g. with hydrodynamical simulations. The maximal value $`n_d`$ is reached around the formation time $`\xi _0`$ of the medium which can be set by the inverse of the saturation scale $`p_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ EKRT , resulting in $``$ 0.2 fm/c at RHIC and $``$ 0.1 fm/c at LHC. Since the difference between $`\xi _0`$ and the production time of the hard parton is irrelevant for the evaluation of the radiation spectrum (3), we replace the latter in (3) by $`\xi _0`$.

We evaluate the gluon radiation spectrum for dynamically expanding collision regions over a wide range of expansion parameters $`\alpha [0:1.5]`$ by combining the analytic solution Baier:1998yf  of the path-integral (4) for a time-dependent harmonic oscillator with the treatment of finite size effects Wiedemann:2000tf . We observe a simple scaling law which relates the gluon radiation spectrum (3) of a dynamically expanding collision region to an equivalent static scenario. The linearly weighed line integral

$$\overline{nC}=\frac{2}{L^2}_{\xi _0}^{\xi _0+L}𝑑\xi \left(\xi \xi _0\right)n(\xi )C$$
(8)
defines the transport coefficient of the equivalent static scenario. Fig. 2 illustrates the accuracy of this scaling law for expansion parameters $`\alpha =0`$, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and different values of the density parameter $`R=\overline{nC}L^3`$. The accuracy improved with increasing density parameter $`R`$. On the level of the quenching weight (2), it was better than 10 $`\%`$ in the physically relevant parameter range, except for very thin media ($`R<100`$) where energy loss effects are negligible ($`<2\%`$). In a subsequent publication SW02b , we shall extend this scaling law to the $`𝐤_{}`$-differential radiation spectrum, and we shall document a CPU-inexpensive numerical routine which allows to implement the quenching weight (2) for arbitrary values of $`\alpha `$, $`n_dC`$ and $`L`$ in event generator studies of hadronic spectra.

The linear weight in (8) implies that scattering centers which are further separated from the partonic production point $`\xi _0`$ are more effective in generating gluon radiation. For a dynamical expansion following Bjorken scaling \[$`\alpha =1`$ in eq. (7)\], all timescales contribute equally to $`\overline{nC}`$. This indicates that observables related to medium-induced gluon radiation give access to the quark-gluon plasma lifetime.

Since the radiation spectrum $`\frac{dI}{d\omega }`$ depends on the expansion parameter $`\alpha `$, the length $`L`$ and the transport coefficient only through $`\overline{nC}`$, dynamical scaling holds automatically for the average parton energy loss

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E𝑑EEP(E)=𝑑\omega \omega \frac{dI}{d\omega }.$$
(9)
This is seen already from the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ derived for dynamically expanding scenarios by Baier et al. Baier:1998yf  in the dipole approximation and by Gyulassy et al. Gyulassy:2000gk  for $`N=1`$ scattering center. Moreover, Gyulassy et al. Gyulassy:2000gk  conjectured that higher order opacity terms ($`N=2,3`$) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ show the same dependence on $`\overline{nC}`$. The results presented here go beyond establishing this conjecture and confirming the result of Ref. Baier:1998yf . Our novel finding is that dynamical scaling holds beyond the $`\omega `$-integrated average energy loss (9) to good numerical accuracy for the $`\omega `$-differential gluon radiation spectrum. This is important since a reliable calculation of the medium-dependence of hadronic spectra requires Baier:2001yt  knowledge of the quenching weight (2) beyond the first moment (9) \[i.e., requires knowledge about $`\frac{dI}{d\omega }`$\]. Moreover, the scaling law established here is relevant for the angular gluon radiation pattern SW02b , since the radiation spectrum emitted outside the opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can be calculated in the present approach essentially by replacing $`R=n_0CL^3\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }n_0CL^3`$.

We calculate the medium dependence of parton fragmentation functions $`D_{h/q}(x,Q^2)`$ from (1) using the quenching weights (2) and the LO BKK Binnewies:1994ju  parametrization of $`D_{h/q}(x,Q^2)`$. Typical results for the pion fragmentation function of up quarks are shown in Fig. 3. For the present study, we identify the virtuality $`Q`$ of $`D_{h/q}(x,Q^2)`$ with the (transverse) initial energy $`E_q`$ of the parton. This is justified since $`E_q`$ and $`Q`$ are of the same order, and $`D_{h/q}(x,Q^2)`$ has a weak logarithmic $`Q`$-dependence while medium-induced effects change as a function of $`ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{Q}O(\frac{1}{Q})`$.

As seen in Fig. 3, the fragmentation function decreases for increasing values of the transport coefficient $`\overline{nC}`$, since the probability of a parton of initial energy $`E_q`$ to fragment into a hadron of large energy $`xE_q`$ decreases with increasing parton energy loss. The relative size of this medium modification changes roughly like $`ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{Q}O(\frac{1}{Q})`$. We note that the calculation based on (1) is not reliable for small fractions $`x`$ ($`x<0.1`$ say), since it implies for $`D_{h/q}^{(\mathrm{med})}(x,Q^2)`$ a normalization

$$_0^1𝑑xxD_{h/q}^{(\mathrm{med})}(x)_0^1𝑑xxD_{h/q}(x)𝑑ϵ(1ϵ)P(ϵ),$$
(10)
which is a factor $`𝑑ϵϵP(ϵ)`$ too small. The origin of this error is that the hadronized remnants of the medium-induced soft radiation are neglected in the definition of (1). Due to the softness of these remnants, however, the true medium modified fragmentation function is underestimated by equation (1) for small $`x`$ only. We expect eq. (1) to be valid for the calculation of $`D_{h/q}^{(\mathrm{med})}(x,Q^2)`$ for $`x>0.1`$.

To illustrate the effect of medium-modified fragmentation functions on hadronic cross sections, we plot in Fig. 3 the fragmentation function multiplied by $`x^6`$. This exploits that hadronic cross sections weigh the fragmentation function $`D_{h/q}^{(\mathrm{med})}(x,Q^2)`$ by the initial hard partonic cross sections $`d\sigma ^q/dp_{}^21/p_{}^{n(\sqrt{s})}`$ and thus effectively test $`x^{n(\sqrt{s})}D_{h/q}^{(\mathrm{med})}(x,Q^2)`$. We choose $`n=6`$ for illustrative purposes. For interpretation, the position of the maximum $`x_{\mathrm{max}}`$ of $`x^6D_{h/q}^{(\mathrm{med})}(x,Q^2)`$ corresponds to the most likely energy fraction $`x_{\mathrm{max}}E_q`$ of the leading hadron. The medium-induced relative reduction of $`x^6D_{h/q}^{(\mathrm{med})}(x,Q^2)`$ around its maximum translates into a corresponding relative suppression of this contribution to the high-$`p_{}`$ hadronic spectrum at $`p_{}x_{\mathrm{max}}E_q`$. For $`Q=10`$ GeV, e.g., the leading hadron has most likely $`p_{}`$ 5 - 8 GeV, and a reduction of this contribution to the pion spectrum by a factor $`2`$ corresponds e.g. to $`L=7`$ fm and $`\overline{nC}=`$ 1 - 5 fm-3, see Fig. 3.

The transport coefficient can be related to the initial gluon rapidity density Baier:1996sk ; Gyulassy:2000gk . Uncertainties in this procedure remain to be discussed. For the purpose of comparing our parameter values directly to results in the recent literature Gyulassy:2000gk , we use for a Bjorken scaling scenario

$$R=\overline{nC}L^3=\frac{L^2}{R_A^2}\frac{dN^g}{dy},\text{for}\alpha =1,$$
(11)
where $`R_A`$ denotes the nuclear radius. The curves in Fig. 3 thus correspond to $`\overline{nC}`$ 1, 5 and 10 fm-3, respectively.

A quantitative study of hadronic cross sections and a careful discussion of theoretical uncertainties is clearly needed for a detailed comparison of the above results to measured hadronic spectra. It is nevertheless interesting to contrast Fig. 3 with the transverse $`\pi ^0`$-spectrum measured at RHIC David:2001gk . Taking the above-mentioned values at face value, the soft multiple scattering approach to parton fragmentation functions relates a medium-induced suppression factor $`2`$ at $`p_{}5`$ GeV to an initial gluon rapidity density which seems comparable with the value 500-1000 extracted in Ref. Gyulassy:2000gk . Thus, while the multiple soft BDMS scattering approach without finite size treatment was criticised Gyulassy:2000gk  for overestimating the effects of parton energy loss below $`p_{}10`$ GeV by up to an order of magnitude, the present findings and those obtained by a lowest order opacity expansion seem comparable. Differences pointed out Gyulassy:2000gk  earlier do not allow to prefer the $`N=1`$ opacity expansion over the multiple soft scattering approach but just indicate that finite size effects have to be treated in both approaches with the same scrutiny.

Equation (11) suggests that the average transport coefficient $`\overline{nC}`$ changes from RHIC to LHC proportional to the observed particle multiplicity. Assuming a factor $`5`$ increase consistent with recent studies EKRT , Fig. 3 suggests the existence of a sweet spot at LHC energies in the $`p_{}`$-range around 50 GeV, where theoretical uncertainties are much better controlled than at $`p_{}10`$ GeV while suppression factors are still sufficiently large (of order 2) to be experimentally accessible. Attaching more precise numbers to this discussion lies beyond the exploratory calculation presented here. It does not only require a quantitative understanding of hadronic spectra in ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions based on the knowledge of the underlying partonic cross sections and the nuclear parton distribution functions. It also requires medium-modified fragmentation functions for a realistic distribution of in-medium pathlengths $`L`$ and initial densities. This in turn requires modeling of the spatio-temporal evolution of the hot and dense medium. The scaling law established here simplifies the inclusion of these dynamical effects in quantitative studies. It can be extended to the study of the medium-dependence of angular radiation patterns SW02b .

We thank F. Arleo, K. Eskola, A. Kovner, K. Redlich and V. Ruuskanen for helpful discussions. C.A.S. is supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship no. HPMF-CT-2000-01025 of the European Community TMR program.


text:
# Faint star counts in the near-infrared

## 1 Introduction

The projected sky density of faint stars and galaxies in the near infrared (NIR) at high Galactic latitudes is of interest for guiding telescopes and NIR cameras. In the case of large telescopes it is important to choose the field of view to assure high probability of finding a guide star, while minimising the size and cost of the guiding system. As these instruments can guide on stars down to K$``$18 or fainter, it is necessary to know the densities at those and fainter magnitudes, since at present we have no NIR catalogues that go this deep.

The lowest density of stars occurs at the Galactic poles, where they are predominantly M-type stars at these magnitudes. Thus, for guide signal purposes we need NIR star counts and catalogues to allow for for best guiding, regardless of the wavelengths of observation. The all-sky 2MASS survey is limited to about K=16; while the HST guide star catalogue goes to fainter V magnitudes, the NIR flux of these stars is not well known, since V-K for M stars is in the range of 5 magnitudes, and changes steeply with spectral type.

In this paper we report on star counts from deep K-band images from the CFHT IR camera, and also review other models and estimates down to K$``$20.

## 2 Data

We have two deep fields from the CFHTIR camera, taken with K band filter. The total area covered is about 107 sq arcmin of sky. The fields are at Galactic coordinates l=177o, b=-50o, and l=97o and b=60o. The fields were observed as follow-up observations of objects detected at 850$`\mu `$m in two fields of the Canada-UK Deep Submillimeter Survey to identify near-IR counterparts of very luminous, high-redshift, dusty galaxies.

The data were taken over four nights in January of 2001. The b=-50o field is a mosaic of four contiguous individual pointings of integration times from 2.7 to 3.3 hours. The b=60o field is a mosaic of 3 overlapping pointings of varying depth. Two pointings were observed for 1 hour and one pointing for 4 hours. The weather was generally worse in the latter and the image was therefore not as deep as the integration time would suggest. The final mosaic images have FWHM close to 0.9”, and have fairly uniform depth of exposure.

The observations were processed using basic NIR techniques. After first removing the bias signal, sky flats were created from the program data. For each program image, the (dithered) images which bracketed it in time were combined to form a sky flat. This sky flat was normalized and used to correct its corresponding image. The remaining sky signal (a DC offset and low order structure at a few percent) was then removed from all the images using the IRAF task BACKGROUND, and the individual images calibrated and combined to form the final image. The HST/NICMOS faint standards were used for calibration.

Object detection and photometering was done with DAOPHOT (Stetson 1987) and ALLSTAR (Stetson and Harris 1988). Point-spread functions were derived from well-exposed stars in the images, and least-squares fits of these model PSFs were carried out to obtain relative brightnesses of the detected objects. The SHARP and CHI indices provided by ALLSTAR were used to identify obvious galaxies and image defects. The conversion from instrumental Data Numbers in the image to stellar magnitude used a photometric zero point for the entire mosaic of images based on the data processing and observing details.

We obtained 2MASS K-band data for an overlapping region of sky in one of the CFHT fields (2MASS did not cover the other). The photometric zero point was checked by the 2MASS magnitudes for 10 bright stars, and found to be consistent to within 0.1 magnitudes. The magnitude/sharpness plots are shown in Figure 1. The exercise also allowed an interesting comparison of the same piece of sky with CFHT and 2MASS (see Figure 2).

From the two mosaic fields, we have magnitudes for some 2000 objects down to K$``$20.5 (see Figure 1). The image quality is not exceptional for CFHT but allows useful star-galaxy separation. For the cameras and telescopes in development at present, we are interested in guiding only down to about K=18. At this magnitude, we have very good completeness and star-galaxy separation (checked by inspection).

Completeness goes to much fainter than this, although the asymmetrical distribution of sharpness index among the fainter objects strongly suggests we are seeing a population of compact galaxies that overlap the star distribution fainter than about K=18. The limits of the star distribution are sketched in, symmetrically about zero sharpness index value. The negative sharpness points below the limits are noisy pixels. The boundary was established at faint magnitudes from the distribution of magnitude errors with magnitude for the negative sharpness index values, because of the extra population in the positive sharpness distribution. This was verified by inspection of the images of objects near the boundary. The boundary was also checked for positive sharpness objects by inspection. We also note that the boundary values we have derived are very typical of ALLSTAR results from many other investigations.

To obtain a star count free of compact galaxy contamination, the final values used were thus from images with negative sharpness index for magnitudes fainter than 17.5, using the defect/star boundary established, and doubled to account for the real star distribution into positive sharpness values. Table 1 shows the difference, and gives an indication of the compact galaxy counts, which are also of interest.

We stress that for the stars down to magnitude K$``$18 - the range of interest for guiding - we have very well established star/galaxy/blemish separation. The investigation of fainter objects would benefit greatly from images in different colours and with better seeing.

The plot of star counts needs correction for Galactic latitude (and longitude) to the pole. The factor is derived for the fields from Spagna Fig 11 and a similar plot generated from the Bahcall-Soneira and Besançon models (see below). A correction value of 0.75 was used for both CFHT fields, as an average of these models. The range of all the individual values was about 5%.

The total number of guide stars to our approximate guide signal limits is about 60-100, so there are some small number uncertainties. The two CFHT fields separately give very similar star counts, and Figure 3 combines them. Overall, the star counts to K=18 have error bars of 10%. Figure 1 shows the CFHT counts where the values for K$`>`$17 are free of the probable compact galaxy counts (sharpness $`>`$ 0 for K$`>`$17.5). It still appears possible that the galaxy models underpredict faint stars. As the CFHT counts go fainter than shown in the figure, the numbers are given in the Table.

Figure 4 shows the location in one CFHT field of stars bright enough to guide on in the most conservative case (K=17), together with the baseline FGS field. This was fudged to some extent: to simulate a Galactic pole field, the magnitude limit used is brighter by the amount that Fig 1 suggests to reduce the star counts by the factor 0.75 - i.e. from 17 to about 16.3. This probably still overestimates the guide star counts but the figure gives a good typical example of a high latitude field and its useable guide stars.

## 3 Galaxy models

In Figure 3 we also show star counts from other models. We discuss each in the subsections below.

### 3.1 Spagna report

This report was written to address the NGST guide star availability, and goes into great detail. It is available in full at the website http://www.ngst.nasa.gov/public/unconfigured/doc-0422/rev-03/NGST-GS-report5.pdf. In Figure 3 we show the K-band star counts that are given for the Galactic poles in Table 9 of the report. The model presented is based on that of Mendez and van Altena (1996) and checked by counts from 2MASS and some smaller fields such as the HDF.

The variations with Galactic latitude are shown in Figure 11 of the report, and with longitude in Table 12. These values (and those from Ratnatunga and Bahcall 1985) were used to correct our CFHT field counts to the Galactic pole.

### 3.2 Bahcall-Soneira model

Ratnatunga and Bahcall (ApJ Suppl 59, 63, 1985) give star counts in V magnitudes, in 3 B-V colour bins, for many positions in the sky, from the Bahcall-Soneira model. The B-V bins (divided at B-V = 0.8 and 1.3) correspond to stars of spectral type K0 and earlier, K0 - K8, and K8 and later. Assuming mean spectral types in these bins of F0, K4, and M3, we derive V-K colours of 4.7, 2.5, and 1.4 (Allen 2000). We can thus convert the star counts with V magnitude from Ratnatunga and Bahcall to K-band magnitudes. These are shown in Figure 3. The unknown distribution of spectral type, particularly among faint M stars, makes these model numbers less reliable than the others shown.

These colour conversions show that all spectral types give about the same FGS signal at the same K-band magnitude, which is consistent with the weighted spetral response for the FGS detectors in the 0.7 to 2.5 micron wavelength range. The J-band magnitudes are also similar for the same reason. Thus, counting stars in the J, H, or K bands is a reasonable way to estimate guide star availability, whereas visible magnitudes have a strong dependence on spectral type. For this reason, catalogues in wave bands below 1 micron are not useful for NIR guide star selection.

The plot in Fig 3 shows the sum of all stars with K-band magnitudes for a few values, using the above corrections. While this model does give important detail on the colour distribution of stars, the conversion to K-band involves some assumptions, as noted above.

### 3.3 The Besançon model of population synthesis

The numbers presented in Figure 3 have been computed from a revised version of the Besançon model of population synthesis. Previous versions and the main principles were described in Bienaymé et al. (1987a, 1987b) and Haywood et al. (1997). Updates of the thick disk and spheroid parameters are given in Robin et al. (2000) and Reylé & Robin (2001). The principles are briefly recalled below.

Model principles. The model is based on a semi-empirical approach, where physical constraints and current knowledge of the formation and evolution scenario of the Galaxy are used as a first approximation for the population synthesis. The model involves 4 populations (disk, thick disk, halo and bulge), each with specific treatment.

A standard evolution model is used to produce the populations, based on a set of usual parameters : an initial mass function (IMF), a star formation rate (SFR), a set of evolutionary tracks and a metallicity distribution. A set of IMF slopes and SFRs have been tentatively assumed and tested against star counts. The evolutionary model fixes the distribution of stars in the space of intrinsic parameters : effective temperature, gravity, absolute magnitude, mass and age. These parameters are converted into colours in various systems through stellar atmosphere models corrected to fit empirical data (Lejeune et al 1997, 1998).

The disk scale heights have been computed self-consistently from Poisson and Boltzmann equations, using the potential computed from the Hipparcos constraints on the local dynamical mass from Crézé et al (1998). So the disk scale heights are not free parameters, contrary to most galactic models, and are a function of age.

The thick disk and spheroid populations. In the population synthesis process, the thick disk and spheroid populations are modeled as originating from a single epoch of star formation. Bergbusch & Vandenberg (1992) oxygen enhanced evolutionary tracks are used, with mean metallicities of -0.7 and -1.7 dex, and ages of 11 Gyr and 14 Gyr, respectively. Their density laws and IMF have been determined by model-fitting to remote star counts from large data sets in the visible and near-infrared (Robin et al. 2000, Reylé et al, 2001).

### 3.4 2MASS survey data

The 2MASS survey is not as deep as we need but does cover large amounts of sky, and is useful as a check of the brighter star counts. Jean-Francois Le Borgne of the CFHT group sent numbers based on the entire 2MASS database for Galactic latitudes greater than 80o. We obtained a smaller 2MASS dataset (800 sq arcmin) and performed the measurements using the same DAOPHOT software as for the CFHT data (see the plot in the lower panel of Figure 1).

With the same star-galaxy separation software in DAOPHOT, our counts agree with the 2MASS point source catalogue (as also noted by Spagna). The 2MASS-based counts from Le Borgne appear to include all sources in the images without star/flaw separation (as we verify from the raw 2MASS images) and we regard them as too high. The star-separated 2MASS counts are shown in Fig 3 as a single set of symbols, and it is clear that they do not go faint enough to be useful, but agree with the other values as far as they go.

## 4 Discussion

Overall, there is good agreement in Fig 3 on the star counts in the range where the interest lies for guiding. Current performance modelling for the NGST fine guidance camera suggests using stars down to the range of K=17.0 to K=17.8. The Spagna and Robin models agree very closely in the range of interest in this context. They diverge at fainter magnitudes, but neither approaches the numbers indicated by the CFHT data.

Colour information on the stars present at these faint magnitudes is needed to determine which population is not well reproduced by the models. Star counts being dominated by M dwarfs, it is probable that the discrepancy comes from the assumed IMF at low masses for old populations.

The NGST Fine Guidance System has a nominal field of view of 8.4 sqare arcminutes. The star count estimates error on the worst number (K=17) gives a count in this FGS field between 3 and 4. 3 stars are the average count required for 95% probability of finding one, and this is the lowest number in all the above estimates. The plot allows estimates of the field size required once the limiting guide signal is known, and converted to NIR band magnitude for the telescope and detector system being used. As a guide to this, we have developed a website that allows signal estimates for a variety of parameters. This is at http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/$``$gwyn/ngst/phot.html.

We will need to consider whether a new Galactic pole survey should be undertaken to provide a catalogue of guide stars suitable for NGST. The survey clearly needs to be done in the H or K band, since the V-K corrections for M stars (the most common ones at K=18) are in the range of 5 magnitudes, and change rapidly with spectral type among such stars.

## 5 Acknowledgements

This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.

We thank Jerry Kriss for useful discussion on some of this work, Mark Brodwin for participating in the CFHT observations, and Jean-Luc Beuzit for communicating some of the earlier model results.

References

Allen’s astrophysical quantities, editor Arthur Cox, Springer-Varlag, 2000

Bergbusch, P. A. & VandenBerg, D. A., 1992, ApJS, 81, 163

Bienaymé, O., Robin, A. C., Crézé, M., 1987a, A&A, 180, 94

Bienaymé, O., Robin, A. C., Crézé, M., 1987b, A&A, 186, 359

Crézé, M., Chereul, E., Bienaymé, O., Pichon, C., 1998, A&A, 329, 920

Haywood, M., Robin, A. C., Crézé, M., 1997, A&A, 320, 440

Lejeune T., Cusinier F., Buser R., 1997, A&AS, 125, 229

Lejeune T., Cusinier F., Buser R., 1998, A&AS, 130, 65

Mendez R. A., and van Altena W. F., 1996, AJ, 112, 655

Ratnatunga K. and Bahcall J.A., 1985, ApJS, 59, 63

Reylé, C. & Robin, A. C. 2001, A&A, 373, 886

Robin, A. C., Reylé, C., Crézé, M., 2000, A&A, 359, 103

Stetson, P. B., 1987, PASP, 99, 191

Stetson, P. B., and Harris, W. E., 1988, AJ, 96, 909

Captions to figures

1. Upper: Image sharpness criterion with K band magnitude for CFHT photometry. The dashed lines outline the locus of star/galaxy/noise separation. To the limit of guide star magnitude (17.8), the sample is very complete and the star/galaxy separation fully verified by inspection. Lower: the same for the 2MASS Galactic pole images.

2. Part of the CFHT field and the same area with 2MASS, both in K-band. The field size shown is close to the nominal NGST FGS field in area, although it is a little more elongated. The faintest stars easily visible in the CFHT field are K$``$20, and in the 2MASS field K$``$15.

3. Plot of total star counts at the Galactic pole per nominal 8.4 sq arcmin FGS field, to K-band limiting magnitudes shown, for the various models and the CFHT photometry. The nominal NEA goal of 3mas is met with the current assumptions about the NGST telescope, and the current understanding of the two detectors, with the magnitude limits shown. 95% probability of a single GS availability require an average of 3 stars per field.

4. One of the CFHT fields outlined, with the positions of K$`<`$16.3 stars (equivalent to K=17 counts at the Galactic pole star densities). The FGS nominal field of view is shown for comparison.