format: text

text:
# Anisotropic pseudo-potential for polarized dilute quantum gases

## I Introduction and problem setup

The concept of pseudo-potential, i.e. full interparticle interaction being replaced by some less complicated “effective” potential, plays an important role in many subfields of physics Demkov and Ostrovsky (1988). In particular, properties of traditional Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) may be well understood just in terms of a delta-function potential, with its strength determined by a single parameter – scattering length Dalfovo et al. (1999); Leggett (2001) which characterizes low-energy scattering between two particles. A rigorous derivation of pseudo-potential for spherically-symmetric interactions has been carried out by Huang and Yang (1957). Here I extend their derivation to anisotropic interactions. I also evaluate a matrix element of the derived anisotropic pseudo-potential in the basis of plane waves; this matrix element may be useful in studies of many-body properties of quantum degenerate gasses.

Unusual collective properties of bosons and fermions with anisotropic interactions have generated a considerable interest over the last few years, see e.g. Refs. Yi and You (2000, 2002); Giovanazzi et al. (2002a); Santos et al. (2000); Góral et al. (2000); Góral and Santos (2002); Góral et al. (2002); Giovanazzi et al. (2002b); Góral et al. (2001); Baranov et al. (2002). Below I enumerate several systems where the results of my analysis may be applicable. First, Yi and You (2000) considered an application of strong electric field to an atomic condensate. The electric field induces atomic electric dipoles and thus anisotropic dipole-dipole interactions between the atoms. Another novel systems where the anisotropic interactions dominate at large separations are heteronuclear moleculesSantos et al. (2000). Here an application of electric field is required to freeze the rotations of the molecules and to align the intrinsic molecular dipole moments with the field. Magnetic dipole-dipole interactions are present even for well-studied alkali-metal atoms. These interactions may be amplified for more complex atoms like europium and chromium Kim et al. (1997); Weinstein et al. (1998); Bell et al. (1999) with larger magnetic momenta of the ground atomic state. The influence of such magnetic dipolar interactions on the condensate properties was discussed in Ref. Góral et al. (2000). New systems where the anisotropy of interactions may be also of interest are metastable $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ alkaline-earth atoms placed in external magnetic field. Here the long-range forces are dominated by interactions of atomic quadrupoles Derevianko et al. . It should be noted that the application of external magnetic or electric field is important in all these examples - the field fixes quantization axis and a condensate may be described in terms of a single order parameter.

In all the enumerated examples the collision process may be formalized using Fig. 1. Here we show a pair of identical particles interacting in the presence of external uniform field. The $`z`$-axis is chosen along the direction of the field and angle $`\theta `$ determines orientation of collision (interatomic) axis $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ with respect to the field. At large separations $`r`$ the particles are polarized along the direction of the field. In the most general case, as a result of a collision, a change in polarization may occur (e.g. dipole moment of a molecule could end up pointing in the direction opposite to the field). We will disregard these non-adiabatic collisions. Then the interaction between the particles may be described by a unique potential $`V(r,\theta )`$. Without loss of generality, this axially-symmetric potential may be expanded into Legendre polynomials $`P_L(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$

$`V(r,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{sph}}\left(r\right)+V_{\mathrm{anis}}(r,\theta ),`$ (1)
$`V_{\mathrm{anis}}(r,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L=2,4,..}{}}V_L(r)P_L\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right).`$ (2)
Here $`V_{\mathrm{sph}}\left(r\right)`$ and $`V_{\mathrm{anis}}(r,\theta )`$ are spherically-symmetric ($`L=0`$) and non-spherical contributions respectively. Although all even $`L`$ contribute, at sufficiently large $`r`$ the anisotropic contribution may be dominated by a single $`L`$ term. In particular, we will focus on two practically interesting cases - dipolar ($`L=2`$)

$$V_{\mathrm{anis}}(r,\theta )V_{\mathrm{DD}}=\frac{C_3}{r^3}P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),r\mathrm{},$$
(3)
and quadrupolar ($`L=4`$)

$$V_{\mathrm{anis}}(r,\theta )V_{\mathrm{QQ}}=\frac{C_5}{r^5}P_4\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),r\mathrm{}$$
(4)
interactions. In the above equations constants $`C_{L+1}`$ parameterize strengths of interactions and are proportional to the squares of respective multipole moments (e.g. molecular dipole moment).

Realistic interaction potentials $`V(𝐫)`$ are singular at small interparticle separations and this singularity leads to well-known problems Fetter and Walecka (1971) in formulating perturbative expansion for many-body properties. In particular, matrix element of the interaction in basis of free-particle is divergent. To remedy this problem, the full interaction potential $`V`$ is usually replaced by a pseudopotential $`\widehat{𝒱}`$. A rigorous derivation of pseudo-potential for spherically-symmetric interactions has been carried out by Huang and Yang (1957). Here I extend their method to anisotropic interactions.

Previously, for anisotropic dipolar interactions, Yi and You (2000) proposed the following pseudopotential

$$\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{DD}}^{\mathrm{YY}}=g\delta (𝐫)+\frac{C_3}{r^3}P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right).$$
(5)
Here the first term is related to spherically-symmetric part of the full potential (2) and the second contribution is simply the long-range dipolar interaction (3). This pseudopotential has been employed in a large number of studies of properties of BECs with dipolar interactions, see, e.g. Yi and You (2000, 2002); Giovanazzi et al. (2002a); Santos et al. (2000); Góral et al. (2000); Góral and Santos (2002); Góral et al. (2002); Giovanazzi et al. (2002b). Although straightforward to work with in applications, the pseudo-potential (5) has certain shortcomings. For example, it is not valid in the vicinity of resonances. Pseudo-potential derived here resolves these shortcomings.

The goal of this work is to consistently develop a pseudo-potential method for non-spherical interaction potentials. It will be required that two-body wavefunctions obtained with the pseudo-potential $`\widehat{𝒱}`$ and full original potential $`V`$ to be equal at large interparticle separations. The derivation of this pseudo-potential is carried out in Section II. Certain properties of the derived pseudopotential are discussed in Section III and we specialize the discussion to dipolar and quadrupolar interactions in Section IV. Matrix element of the pseudo-potential in free-particle basis is evaluated in Section V. Finally, Appendix contains a derivation of certain low-energy limits of K-matrix in the Born approximation.

## II  Anisotropic pseudo-potential

We consider a solution of the Schrödinger equation for a relative motion of two particles interacting through a potential $`V(𝐫)`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left(^2+k^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)=V\left(𝐫\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right),$$
(6)
where $`\mu `$ is reduced mass of the pair and $`𝐤`$ is the relative linear momentum. We assume that at sufficiently large separations $`r>r_c,`$ $`r^2V\left(𝐫\right)0`$ for any direction $`\widehat{r}`$. We also assume that the particles are contained in some large volume with characteristic size much larger than the extent of the potential $`r_c`$. Some arbitrary boundary conditions may be imposed on the surface of the enclosing volume. At $`rr_c`$ the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)`$ may be expanded in free-particle solutions

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐫\right)=\underset{lm}{}\left(\alpha _{lm}j_l\left(kr\right)\beta _{lm}n_l\left(kr\right)\right)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi ),$$
(7)
where $`j_l\left(kr\right)`$ and $`n_l\left(kr\right)`$ are spherical Bessel and Neumann functions respectively and $`\alpha _{lm}`$ and $`\beta _{lm}`$ are integration constants.

Following Ref. Huang and Yang (1957) the pseudo-potential is determined by acting with $`\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\left(^2+k^2\right)`$ on the asymptotic form (7)

$`\widehat{𝒱}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐫\right)=`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}\beta _{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{\left(2l1\right)!!(l+1)}{k^{l+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left(r\right)}{r^{l+2}}}.`$
Thus the original potential $`V(𝐫)`$ is replaced by a sum over “lumped” multipole sources placed at $`𝐫=0`$. To complete the construction of the pseudo-potential, we need to determine coefficients $`\beta _{lm}`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)`$. First we relate the integration constants $`\alpha _{lm}`$ and $`\beta _{lm}`$ by requiring the complete solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be regular at $`r=0`$

$$\beta _{lm}=\underset{l^{}m^{}}{}𝒦_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\alpha _{l^{}m^{}}.$$
(9)
Here $`𝒦_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}`$ are the elements of the reactance (or K–) matrix used to parameterize multi-channel scattering Mott and Massey (1965). It is worth noting that the entire dependence of the pseudopotential on the original potential will be encapsulated in matrix elements of the K-matrix.

Let us review some properties of the K-matrix. First it is related to more familiar scattering matrix $`S`$ via $`S=(1+i𝒦)(1i𝒦)^1`$ and further to transmission or T-matrix through $`S=1iT`$. For low-energy collisions $`𝒦\frac{1}{2}T`$. K-matrix is real and symmetric

$$𝒦_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\left(k\right)=𝒦_{l^{}m^{}}^{lm}\left(k\right).$$
(10)
For identical bosons (fermions) only even (odd) partial waves need to be considered. The K-matrix is diagonal in $`l`$ and $`m`$ for spherically-symmetric potentials

$$\left[𝒦_{\mathrm{sph}}\right]_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}=\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}\mathrm{tan}\delta _l,$$
(11)
where $`\delta _l`$ is the phase shift for partial wave $`l`$. Compared to spherically-symmetric case, anisotropic potentials additionally couple different partial waves. For example, dipolar interactions, Eq. (3), couple $`s`$ and $`d`$ waves so that $`\left[𝒦_{\mathrm{DD}}\right]_{00}^{20}0`$ and quadrupolar interactions (4) couple $`s`$ and $`g`$ waves. The scalar part $`V^{\mathrm{sph}}\left(r\right)`$ of the potential (2) assures non-vanishing$`𝒦_{00}^{00}`$. In practice, K-matrix for non-spherical interactions may be found from a solution of coupled radial equations Geltman (1997). In particular, it may be shown that for potentials parameterized by Eq. (2), $`𝒦_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}`$, i.e. the K-matrix is diagonal with respect to magnetic quantum numbers. In Appendix, I derive some elements of K-matrix in the Born approximation for dipolar and quadrupolar interaction.

At this point we related the integration constants $`\alpha _{lm}`$ and $`\beta _{lm}`$ via elements of K-matrix, Eq. (9). Further, in the low-energy limit $`kr_\mathrm{c}1`$, the integration constants $`\alpha _{lm}`$ may be expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐫\right)`$ Huang and Yang (1957)

$$\alpha _{lm}=\frac{1}{2^ll!}\frac{1}{k^l}\left[\left(\frac{d}{dr}\right)^{2l+1}\left(r^{l+1}Y_{lm}^{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}\left(𝐫\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right]_{r=0}.$$
(12)
Finally, combining equations (8)–(12) we arrive at a generalization of pseudo-potential $`\widehat{𝒱}`$ for anisotropic interactions

$`\widehat{𝒱}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{lml^{}m^{}}{}}\xi _{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\left(k\right)\left(\widehat{v}_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)\right),`$ (13)
where

$`\widehat{v}_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(2l\right)!\left(l+1\right)}{2^{l+l^{}}l^{}!l!}}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left(r\right)}{r^{l+2}}}\times `$ (14)
$`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\right)^{2l^{}+1}\left(r^{l^{}+1}{\displaystyle Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\mathrm{\Omega })𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)\right]_{r=0},`$
$`\xi _{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\left(k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}}{k^{l+l^{}+1}}},`$ (15)
and $`M=2\mu `$ is a mass of the collision partner.

## III Some properties of pseudopotential

The derived anisotropic pseudopotential (13) is one of the main results of this work. The spherically-symmetric pseudo-potential of Huang and Yang (1957) is subsumed in this equation. Indeed, for spherically-symmetric interactions the K-matrix is diagonal in $`l,l^{}`$ and $`m,m^{}`$ and is expressed in terms of conventional phase shifts, Eq. (11). Upon substitution of Eq. (11) into pseudopotential (13) we recover as a limiting case the result of Ref. Huang and Yang (1957). As the pseudo-potential of Huang and Yang (1957) the anisotropic pseudopotential is non-Hermitian and velocity dependent.

The pseudo-potential (13) may be separated into spherically-symmetric $`\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{sph}}`$ and anisotropic $`\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{anis}}`$ parts

$$\widehat{𝒱}=\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{sph}}+\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{anis}},$$
(16)
where

$$\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{sph}}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}\underset{lm}{}\xi _{lm}^{lm}\left(k\right)\widehat{v}_{lm}^{lm}$$
(17)
and

$$\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{anis}}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}\underset{(lm)>(l^{}m^{})}{}\xi _{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\left(k\right)\left(\widehat{v}_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}+\widehat{v}_{l^{}m^{}}^{lm}\right).$$
(18)
In simplifying the anisotropic part we used symmetry property (10) of K-matrix.

Let us focus first on the spherically-symmetric part of the pseudopotential and in the following section we will consider anisotropic part of the pseudopotential for dipolar and quadrupolar interactions. We expect that as in traditional BECs of dilute atomic gasses with spherically-symmetric interactions, the effect of $`\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{sph}}`$ on collective properties will be determined mainly by s-wave contribution, i.e. $`l=0,m=0`$ term in Eq. (17)

$$\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{sph}}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}\frac{𝒦_{00}^{00}}{k}\widehat{v}_{00}^{00}.$$

It may be shown that for realistic potentials the following low-energy limit is finite

$$a_{ss}=\underset{k0}{lim}\frac{𝒦_{00}^{00}\left(k\right)}{k};$$
(19)
this quantity is a generalized scattering length. With this definition, the truncated pseudopotential reduces to

$$\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{sph}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)4\pi \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}a_{ss}\delta \left(𝐫\right)\frac{}{r}\left(r\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)\right)\text{,}$$

where we used $`\delta \left(𝐫\right)=\delta \left(r\right)/\left(4\pi r^2\right)`$ consistent with Ref. Huang and Yang (1957). Finally, for sufficiently slowly-varying wavefunction, $`|d\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }/d\mathrm{log}r|1`$, we recover conventional contact pseudo-potential

$$\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{sph}}4\pi \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}a_{ss}\delta \left(𝐫\right).$$
(20)
widely employed in studies of BECs.

Having discussed spherically-symmetric part of the pseudo-potential, in the following section we consider anisotropic part of pseudopotential (18) for dipolar and quadrupolar interactions.

## IV Dipolar and Quadrupolar interactions

At this point we derived anisotropic pseudo-potential, Eq.(8). We separated the pseudopotential into spherically-symmetric and anisotropic contributions. We found that the spherically-symmetric contribution reduces to familiar contact term (20), widely employed in studies of Bose condensates; the only modification being an introduction of generalized scattering length (19). In this section we focus on the anisotropic contribution and illustrate some of its properties for dipolar and quadrupolar interactions of identical bosons. These interactions were defined in the introductory Section as potentials that at large separations $`r`$ are dominated by

$$V_{\mathrm{anis}}^{\mathrm{DD}}(r,\theta )\frac{C_3}{r^3}P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),$$
(21)
for dipolar interactions and

$$V_{\mathrm{anis}}^{\mathrm{QQ}}(r,\theta )\frac{C_5}{r^5}P_4\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)$$
(22)
for quadrupolar interactions.

Anisotropic interactions mix different partial waves $`(lm)`$ and $`(l^{}m^{})`$ via off-diagonal elements of K-matrix. From examining Eq. (33) in Appendix, one may determine that angular selection rules lead to coupling of $`s`$ and $`d`$ waves for dipolar interactions and $`s`$ and $`g`$ waves for quadrupolar interactions. In the following we assume that the dominant anisotropic effect on condensate properties arises due to these particular couplings. Therefore,

$`\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{anis}}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦_{00}^{20}}{k^3}}\left(\widehat{v}_{00}^{20}+\widehat{v}_{20}^{00}\right),`$
$`\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{anis}}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦_{00}^{40}}{k^5}}\left(\widehat{v}_{00}^{40}+\widehat{v}_{40}^{00}\right).`$
For dipolar interactions it may be shown (Refs. Marinescu and You (1998); Deb and You (2001) and Appendix of this paper) that the following low-energy limit is finite

$$a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}=\underset{k0}{lim}\frac{𝒦_{00}^{20}\left(k\right)}{k}.$$
(23)
We will call this quantity off-diagonal scattering length. Similarly, for quadrupolar interactions we may introduce off-diagonal scattering volume

$$a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}=\underset{k0}{lim}\frac{𝒦_{00}^{40}\left(k\right)}{k^3}.$$
(24)
In the Appendix we employ Born approximation and find

$`a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\sqrt{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mathrm{}^2}}C_3,`$
$`a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7!}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mathrm{}^2}}C_5.`$
It is worth noting that the above results are valid only away from resonances. In a general case one has to find off-diagonal scattering length or volume by solving corresponding scattering problem.

Finally the total truncated pseudopotential is given by

$$\widehat{𝒱}4\pi \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}a_{ss}\delta \left(𝐫\right)+\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{anis}}^{\mathrm{DD},\mathrm{QQ}},$$
(25)
with

$`\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{anis}}^{\mathrm{DD}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}}{k^2}}\sqrt{5}\times `$ (26)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\delta \left(𝐫\right)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\right)^5r^3{\displaystyle }P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }\right]+`$
$`9{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left(r\right)}{r^4}}P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)\right)\right]_{r0}\}`$
for dipolar interactions and

$`\widehat{𝒱}_{\mathrm{anis}}^{\mathrm{QQ}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}}{k^2}}\times `$ (27)
$`\{\delta \left(𝐫\right)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\right)^9r^5{\displaystyle }P_4\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }\right]+`$
$`5(8!){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \left(r\right)}{r^6}}P_4\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)\right)\right]_{r0}\}`$
for quadrupolar interactions. Quantities $`\delta (r)/r^n`$ may be recognized as $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ derivatives of the Dirac delta-function.

The constructed pseudo-potential depends on the relative momentum $`k`$, i.e. the potential is velocity dependent. In practice, the velocity-dependence is most easily treated in momentum representation and in the next section we evaluate matrix element of the derived pseudo-potential in the basis of plane waves.

## V Matrix element of anisotropic pseudo-potential in free-particle basis

While considering effects of two-particle interactions on properties of a quantum many-body system, one may require a matrix element of the derived pseudo-potential in free-particle (plane-wave) basis. We define this matrix element as

$`\overline{V}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_1^{},𝐤_2^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}e^{i𝐤_1𝐫}e^{i𝐤_2𝐫^{}}\widehat{𝒱}\left(𝐫𝐫^{}\right)e^{i𝐤_1^{}𝐫}e^{i𝐤_2^{}𝐫^{}}}.`$
The pseudo-potential $`\widehat{𝒱}`$, Eq. (13), depends on the momentum of relative motion of the interacting pair $`𝐤=\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐩}^{}\right)`$, where $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}^{}`$ are momenta conjugated to $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫^{}`$ respectively. To separate center of mass and relative motions, we change the variables to $`𝐑=\left(𝐫+𝐫^{}\right)/2`$ and $`𝐫_{12}=𝐫𝐫^{}`$. With such a substitution

$`\overline{V}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_1^{},𝐤_2^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}}\delta _{𝐤_1^{}+𝐤_2^{},𝐤_1+𝐤_2}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}})\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ll^{}mm^{}}{}}\xi _{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\left(k^{}\right){\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_{12}\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝐤𝐫_{12}\right]\widehat{v}_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝐤^{}𝐫_{12}\right]}.`$
Here we introduced two relative momenta

$$𝐤=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐤_1𝐤_2\right)\mathrm{and}𝐤^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐤_1^{}𝐤_2^{}\right).$$
(29)
The delta function $`\delta _{𝐤_1^{}+𝐤_2^{},𝐤_1+𝐤_2}`$ ensures conservation of the total linear momentum. Further we use partial-wave expansion

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝐤^{}𝐫_{12}\right]=4\pi \underset{l_1m_1}{}i^{l_1}j_{l_1}\left(k^{}r_{12}\right)Y_{l_1m_1}^{}\left(\widehat{k}^{}\right)Y_{l_1m_1}\left(\widehat{r}_{12}\right)$$

and arrive at

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_{12}\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝐤𝐫_{12}\right]\widehat{v}_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\left(𝐫_{12}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝐤^{}𝐫_{12}\right]}=`$
$`(4\pi )^2i^{l^{}l}{\displaystyle \frac{l+1}{2l+1}}\left(k^{}\right)^l^{}k^lY_{l^{}m^{}}^{}\left(\widehat{k}^{}\right)Y_{lm}\left(\widehat{k}\right).`$
Finally, the matrix element of the anisotropic pseudo-potential may be expressed in terms of relative momenta as

$`\overline{V}(𝐤_1,𝐤_2,𝐤_1^{},𝐤_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{𝐤_1^{}+𝐤_2^{},𝐤_1+𝐤_2}\times `$
$`\overline{v}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝐤_1𝐤_2\right),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝐤_1^{}𝐤_2^{}\right)),`$
with

$`\overline{v}(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ll^{}mm^{}}{}}i^{l^{}l}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\left(k^{}\right)}{k^{}}}\times `$ (30)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{k^{}}}\right)^l{\displaystyle \frac{2l+2}{2l+1}}Y_{l^{}m^{}}^{}\left(\widehat{k}^{}\right)Y_{lm}\left(\widehat{k}\right).`$
Let us once again specialize the discussion to dipolar and quadrupolar interactions. As in Section IV we assume that the dominant anisotropic effect arises due to couplings of $`s`$ and $`d`$ partial waves for dipolar interactions and due to mixing of $`s`$ and $`g`$ waves for quadrupolar interactions. The corresponding truncated matrix element (30) may be represented as

$$\overline{v}(𝐤,𝐤^{})\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{M}\left\{a_{ss}+(𝐤,𝐤^{})\right\}$$
(31)
with $``$ replaced by

$`^{\mathrm{DD}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})=a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}\left\{\sqrt{5}P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta _k^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{5}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{k^{}}}\right)^2P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta _k\right)\right\}`$
for dipolar interactions and by

$`^{\mathrm{QQ}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})=a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}\left\{3(k^{})^2P_4(\mathrm{cos}\theta _k^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}k^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{k^{}}}\right)^2P_4\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta _k\right)\right\}`$
for quadrupolar interactions. In these expressions $`a_{ss}`$ is a generalized scattering length (19) and $`a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$ and $`a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ are off-diagonal scattering length and volume defined by Eq. (23) and Eq. (24) respectively.

## VI Conclusion

I rigorously derived anisotropic pseudopotential arising in the context of adiabatic collisions of two particles polarized by external field. Such low-energy pseudopotential may be useful in describing collective properties of dilute quantum gases, such as molecules polarized by an external electric field or metastable $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ atoms polarized by magnetic field. The pseudopotential is given by Eq.(13). It is naturally expressed in terms of reactance (K–) matrix. The potential is non-Hermitian and velocity-dependent. It worth noting that in the derivation I did not require the validity of the Born approximation as in Ref. Yi and You (2000). Rather I followed method of Huang and Yang (1957) and at large separations demanded the equality of solutions of two-body Schrödinger equation with a full original potential and with a pseudo-potential. Thus, compared to Eq. (5) by Yi and You (2000), the derived two-body pseudopotential is expected to be also valid in a vicinity of scattering resonances.

I argued that in most applications the pseudopotential may be represented as a sum of traditional spherically-symmetric contact term and anisotropic part, Eq. (25). The former contribution may be parameterized by a generalized scattering length (19). We specialized discussion of the anisotropic part of pseudopotential to dipolar and quadrupolar interactions and found that it can be characterized by off-diagonal scattering length $`a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$, Eq. (23), for dipolar interactions and off-diagonal scattering volume $`a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$, Eq. (24), for quadrupolar interactions. Although in a particular application these parameters should be determined from a solution of multi-channel scattering problem, I have derived $`a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$ and $`a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ in the Born approximations. Keeping in mind many-body applications, I have also derived two-body matrix-element in the plane-wave basis, Eq. (30). Thus in this work I have rigorously derived anisotropic pseudo-potential for polarized dilute quantum gases and investigated its properties.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank Eite Tiesinga for stimulating discussions and Li You and Su Yi for comments on manuscript. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.

## Appendix A Off-diagonal scattering length $`a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$ and scattering volume $`a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ in the Born approximation

Here we obtain expressions for reactance (K–) matrix in the Born approximation. Using the derived K-matrix we estimate off-diagonal scattering length $`a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$ and scattering volume $`a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ for dipolar (DD) and quadrupolar (QQ) interactions.

The full solution of the Schrödinger equation (6) may be represented as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐫\right)=\underset{lm}{}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )\frac{u_{lm}\left(r\right)}{kr}.$$
(32)
It can be shown that the radial functions $`u_{lm}\left(r\right)`$ satisfy the following system of coupled differential equations

$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{l\left(l+1\right)}{r^2}}+k^2\right\}u_{lm}\left(r\right)=`$ (33)
$`2\mu {\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}}{}}lm|V|l^{}m^{}u_{l^{}m^{}}\left(r\right),`$
with

$$lm|V|l^{}m^{}\left(r\right)=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }Y_{lm}^{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)V\left(𝐫\right)Y_{l^{}m^{}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right).$$
(34)
It is convenient to introduce regular and irregular solutions of homogeneous radial equations

$`F_l\left(kr\right)`$ $`=`$ $`krj_l\left(kr\right),`$
$`G_l\left(kr\right)`$ $`=`$ $`krn_l\left(kr\right)`$
and corresponding standing-wave Green’s function

$$g_l(r,r^{})=\frac{1}{k}\{\begin{array}{cc}G_l\left(kr^{}\right)F_l\left(kr\right),& r<r^{}\\ G_l\left(kr\right)F_l\left(kr^{}\right),& r>r^{}\end{array}.$$

Using these definitions, solutions to the system of inhomogenous equations (33) regular at $`r=0`$ may be represented as

$$u_{lm}\left(r\right)=\alpha _{lm}F_l\left(kr\right)+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r^{}g_l(r,r^{})\left[2\mu \underset{l^{}m^{}}{}lm|V|l^{}m^{}u_{l^{}m^{}}\left(r^{}\right)\right],$$
(35)
where constants $`\alpha _{lm}`$ are chosen to satisfy some boundary conditions. In the spirit of Born approximation we may find solution of integral equations (35) iteratively starting from

$$u_{lm}\left(r\right)\alpha _{lm}F_l\left(kr\right).$$

In the lowest order in $`V`$ at large $`r`$ one obtains

$$u_{lm}\left(r\right)\alpha _{lm}F_l\left(kr\right)+G_l\left(kr\right)\alpha _{lm}\underset{l^{}m^{}}{}\left[\frac{2\mu }{k}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r^{}F_l\left(kr^{}\right)lm|V|l^{}m^{}F_l\left(kr^{}\right)\right].$$

By comparing with Eq. (7) and Eq. (9), we arrive at expression for elements of K-matrix in the Born approximation

$$𝒦_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}\frac{2\mu k}{\mathrm{}^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}r^2j_l\left(kr\right)j_l^{}\left(kr\right)lm|V|l^{}m^{}𝑑r.$$
(36)
The Born approximation generally does not hold for low-energy atomic collisions, since realistic interactions are singular at small $`r`$. However, for dipolar interactions You and co-workers Marinescu and You (1998); Deb and You (2001) found numerically that away from resonances Born approximation works well for off-diagonal matrix elements. Keeping this observation in mind, below we derive off-diagonal scattering length and volume introduced in the main body of the paper. These parameters were defined as low-energy limits

$`a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{k0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{[𝒦^{\mathrm{DD}}]_{00}^{20}\left(k\right)}{k}},`$
$`a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{k0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{[𝒦^{\mathrm{QQ}}]_{00}^{40}\left(k\right)}{k^3}}`$
for dipolar (DD) and quadrupolar (QQ) interactions. In Section I the DD and QQ interactions were parameterized as

$`V_{\mathrm{DD}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_3}{r^3}}P_2\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right),`$
$`V_{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_5}{r^5}}P_4\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \right).`$
Using these definitions and Eq. (36), we arrive at

$`a_{sd}^{\mathrm{DD}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\sqrt{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}}C_3,`$ (37)
$`a_{sg}^{\mathrm{QQ}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1260}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}}C_5.`$ (38)
It is worth emphasizing that these results were derived in the Born approximation. In general case, to obtain parameters entering anisotropic pseudo-potential (13) one has to numerically solve the system of equations (33), especially in the vicinity of resonances.


text:
# Beam Test of Silicon Strip Sensors for the ZEUS Micro Vertex Detector

## 1 Introduction

The HERA $`ep`$ collider luminosity upgrade  performed during the years 2000-2001 aims to increase the instantaneous luminosity from 1.5 to $`610^{31}`$ cm-2 s-1, providing thus a higher sensitivity to low cross section physics. The ZEUS experiment  has been equipped with a new silicon Micro Vertex Detector (MVD) which is going to improve the global precision of the existing tracking system, allowing to identify events with secondary vertices coming from the decay of long-lived states such as hadrons with charm or bottom and $`\tau `$ leptons. Moreover, the detector acceptance will be enhanced in the forward region, along the proton beam direction, improving for example the detection of very high $`Q^2`$ scattered electrons and the reconstruction of the interaction vertex in high $`x`$ charged current events111 $`Q^2`$ is the exchanged photon invariant mass; $`x`$ is the fraction of the proton momentum carried by the struck quark..

According to the design specifications , the MVD is composed of a barrel (BMVD) and forward (FMVD) part, requiring a good matching with the existing detectors. The MVD had to fit inside a cylinder of 324 mm diameter defined by the inner wall of the Central Tracking Detector (CTD). The readout electronics, based on the HELIX chip (version 3.0)  is mounted inside the active area, close to the silicon diodes. The silicon sensors are single sided, AC coupled, strip detectors with capacitive charge division; the readout pitch is $`120\mu `$m and the strip pitch is $`20\mu `$m. A sketch of the silicon sensor can be seen in figure 1. The BMVD (FMVD-1,FMVD-2) sensors have a rectangular (trapezoidal) geometry with 6.4 cm x 6.4 cm (base=6.4 cm $`\times `$ height=7.35 cm and 6.4 cm $`\times `$4.85 cm, respectively) dimensions. In the FMVD, the sides of the trapezoid are tilted by 180/14 with respect to the bases and the strips are parallel to one of the tilted sides of the trapezoid, having thus different lengths across the sensor. The biasing of the strips is implemented using poly-silicon resistors ($``$ 1.5-2.5 M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) connected to the sensor ground line (called in the following biasing ring), located alternatively on both ends of the strips. The first and last strips close the biasing ring, being directly connected to it. Three p+ guard rings, designed to adjust the potential towards the detector edges, surround the sensitive area. An additional n+ doped implant beyond the last guard ring allows to bias the backplane with a contact from the top. Detailed descriptions of the MVD design and mechanical structure can be found in . The detailed design of the silicon sensors and results on the electrical measurements are described elsewhere .

The testbeam program for the MVD had several goals:

* to study the general performance of sensors with minimum ionising particles (i.e. noise level, pedestal stability, hit efficiency, charge division);
* to test prototype versions of frontend electronics (i.e. readout chips and hybrids) ;
* to test the sensors at different bias voltages;
* to measure the position resolution for different angles of incidence in order to optimise reconstruction algorithms;
* to study the effect of irradiation.

The data have been compared with the results of a Monte Carlo program for the silicon sensor simulation in order to gain input for the vertex detector simulation. The detector performances have been studied using three non-irradiated and two additional irradiated sensors . A barrel sensor was irradiated using photons from a 60Co source: the detector was left floating and irradiated up to an integrated dose of 2.0 kGy. A second sensor was irradiated with reactor neutrons having a fluency $`\varphi _e=10^{13}`$ 1 MeVequiv. n/cm2. No substantial effects due to radiation damage on the detector performances have been observed. All results presented in the following sections refer to non-irradiated sensors and to the sensor irradiated floating with 2 kGy of 60Co photons.

After a brief description of the testbeam setup in section 2, the treatment of the data and the general performance of the detectors are summarised in section 3. The detector simulation is described in section 4. Section 5 is devoted to studies which use perpendicular tracks. It also describes the extraction of the intrinsic position resolution. The position resolution as a function of the angle of incidence is studied in detail in sections 6 and 7. The paper ends with a summary of the results.

## 2 Test beam setup

The measurements were performed at the DESY-II testbeam, a parasitic electron beam obtained after two conversions: a $`10\mu `$m thick carbon-fiber target in the machine intercepts the beam and produces bremsstrahlung photons which are converted into electron-positron pairs in a 0.1 X0 thick copper target. A bending magnet together with a momentum defining collimator slit delivers the beam into the experimental hall. Depending on the primary use of DESY-II the maximal momentum varies between 4.3 and 7.5 GeV/c. Most measurements were done at 3 and 6 GeV/c resulting in a trigger rate of $``$ 10 Hz and $``$ 2 Hz, respectively.

A silicon reference telescope has been assembled to allow a precise determination of the particle impact point on the detector to be studied. Both, the telescope modules and the module holding the MVD detector are mounted on a common optical bench. The detector to be studied is mounted between the telescope modules on linear and rotational positioners which allow to investigate the performance in different areas of the detector and for different angles of incidence. The rotations can be around the strip axis ($`\theta `$ angle) or around the axis perpendicular to the strip in the detector plane ($`\varphi `$ angle) (see figure 2).

A trigger was generated by coincidence of the signals from scintillator fingers located at both end sides of the optical bench. A drawing of the testbeam setup is shown in figure 3.

The data acquisition system is based on an embedded Sun workstation in a VME-crate which controls the initialisation of the readout modules, the readout chips, the pattern generators, the GPIB-interface for the positioners and the data taking. The system is run under LabView .

### 2.1 Beam telescope

The beam telescope consists of 3 modules which define the track in two coordinates along the telescope. The modules are a version of a CERN development described in . They consist of two $`300\mu `$m thick single-sided silicon detectors of $`32\times 32`$ mm2 size with a strip pitch of $`25\mu `$m and a readout pitch of $`50\mu `$m; the strip direction of the detectors are perpendicular to each other.

All detectors have a very good S/N (i.e. signal over noise ratio for minimum ionising particles)222The term noise (N) refers to the single strip noise., $`80<S/N<130`$, and a low fraction of dead channels and noisy strips ($`<0.1\%`$). The extrapolation to infinite momentum results in an intrinsic resolution of $`2.8\pm 0.1\mu `$m (in section 5 the analysis method applied to determine the intrinsic resolution of a silicon detector is discussed).

The MVD detector is aligned with respect to the closest reference detectors (1 and 2). The achieved precision of the alignment procedure  is $`<`$ 1 $`\mu `$m.

### 2.2 MVD detector readout

The MVD detectors were operated in the test beam using prototype versions of the HELIX readout chip (version 2.2), developed for the Hera-B experiment . The HELIX chip provides 128 analog channels with a charge sensitive pre-amplifier and shaper, forming a semi-Gaussian pulse with a peaking time of $``$ 50-70 ns. The signals are sampled in an analog pipeline capable of storing 128 events with 8 extra channels for trigger derandomisation. The chip can be operated up to 40 MHz clock-rate. In the ZEUS experiment it will be used at 10 MHz write and read speed. In order to simplify the readout system in the testbeam, it was decided to synchronise the chip clock to the synchrotron revolution frequency of about 1.05 MHz; with this setting particles traversing the detectors were in a fixed phase relation to the chip clock. Tests performed using a frequency multiplier of 10 (which are not discussed in the present paper) showed no difference in the detector performances.

### 2.3 MVD detector assembly

In the testbeam, a protection circuit, including a protection resistance of 0.5 M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, was introduced between the backplane contact and the power supply. In the following, the voltage applied between the biasing ring and the backplane is referred to as Vbias. The detectors were biased at full depletion, unless otherwise stated. The Barrel and Forward MVD detectors are connected to the front-end electronics using a Upilex  “fan-out” foil with conductive lines. The Upilex circuits are made of an Upilex S substrate, a 50 $`\mu `$m thick polyimide film. A conductive layer of 5 $`\mu `$m electro-plated copper is deposited on top and separated from the substrate by means of a 150 nm thick nickel adhesion layer. A 1.5 $`\mu `$m gold layer is deposited over the conductive strips and the pads used for bonding. The Upilex circuits for the Barrel and Forward modules are produced at CERN . The strip pitch is $`120\mu `$m on the detector side and is reduced to $`100\mu `$m on the hybrid, where the Upilex strips are connected to a pitch adapter which further reduces the readout pitch to $`41.4\mu `$m of the HELIX input bond pads. The front-end electronic is mounted on a multi-layer Hybrid structure ($`40\times 70\mathrm{cm}^2`$) supporting 4 HELIX chips which are needed to read-out the 512 strips of a BMVD detector; for the FMVD detector only 480 readout channels are required.

## 3 Data analysis and general performance

The digitised ADC output coming from the MVD detector and the telescope detectors is stored in files during the data taking. The channel noise and pedestal levels are measured using special random trigger runs of 100-200 events taken without beam. In order to reduce the data volume, for the telescope data, zero suppression is performed directly in the CAEN V550 ADC, using a threshold level of 3 times the channel noise. No selection is applied to the raw data for the MVD detector.

During the offline analysis, the common mode noise (CMN) and the pedestal levels are subtracted from the data . The pedestal, determined once per day, has shown negligible variation over time. The variation of the pedestals within one readout chip, from the first to the last readout channel, has been found to be of the order of the cluster pulse height. The strip noise was stable and showed uniform behaviour; its variation within regions read by the same chip are much smaller than those observed between chips ($``$ 20%). No dependence of the noise on the strip length (varying between 6 mm and 73.3 mm) was observed . The common mode noise is Gaussian distributed with a rms comparable to the single strip noise level.

A cluster seed is identified by looking for the highest signal strip in the detector. All neighbouring strips with a signal larger than a certain threshold level T (usually T = 3$`\times \sigma _{\mathrm{chip}}`$, where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{chip}}`$ is the average chip noise) are added to form a cluster. The cluster pulse height and size are then defined as the sum of the signals from all the strips and the total number of strips belonging to the cluster, respectively.

For the determination of the S/N using perpendicular tracks, only the strip with the highest signal and its neighbouring strip (left or right) with the higher pulse height are selected and the sum of their pulses defines in this case the total cluster signal. Figure 4 shows the resulting cluster pulse height distribution: the data are fitted by a Landau function. A S/N between 20 and 24 has been obtained for different detectors and readout chips.

An asymmetric cross talk has been observed in the HELIX readout chip: measurements with an external test pulse have shown that when pulsing a channel, a fraction of the input charge is found on the previous (next) channel for even (odd) channels . Using testbeam data, the asymmetric cross talk has been determined to be around 5% for all chips . The cause of this effect is presumably due to an asymmetry in the chip pipeline design. All testbeam data are corrected for asymmetric cross talk.

### 3.1 Gain calibration

The whole detector was illuminated in order to study the uniformity in gain of the channels in terms of the relative calibration constants, cal(i):

$$\mathrm{cal}(\mathrm{i})=\frac{<\mathrm{\Sigma }>_{\mathrm{channels}}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{i})}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{i})=\overline{\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{max}1}}^{\mathrm{hit}}(\mathrm{i})+\overline{\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{max}}}^{\mathrm{hit}}(\mathrm{i})+\overline{\mathrm{S}_{\mathrm{max}+1}}^{\mathrm{hit}}(\mathrm{i})$$
(1)
where i is the channel number; $`<>_{\mathrm{channels}}`$ is an average over channels ; $`\overline{S}^{\mathrm{hit}}`$ averages over hits; $`S_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the charge of the strip with the maximum charge of the event and $`S_{\mathrm{max}\pm 1}`$ is the charge of the strip with position $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{maximum}\pm 1`$. The gain for all channels of a BMVD and a FMVD-1 detector are shown in figure 5. The mean gain value and the rms of each chip are given in table 1. The first and the last strip (which have only one neighbour) as well as all the broken strips and their direct neighbour strips are excluded and their calibration constants are set to zero in the calibration procedure. The differences of the strip gains for one chip are smaller than 2% and comparable with the statistical uncertainty on the gain calibration ($``$ 1%); the calibration constants differ from chip to chip by up to 20 %.

A possible dependence of the gain on the strip length has been investigated since it could introduce left-right asymmetries affecting the position reconstruction algorithms. The rms of the calibration constants for strips within a chip of a FMVD-1 detector (table 1, right) are comparable to the statistical uncertainty (2-3 %). The mean of the calibration constants and the S/N within a chip follow the same pattern: regions 3 and 4 (long and constant length strips) have smaller signal than region 1 and 2 (short and variable length strips). No correlation between the calibration constants and the strip number (and therefore the strip length) is observed. Since the relative gain is constant for a readout chip, no calibration has been applied in the analyses presented in this paper333The scintillator fingers used for triggering define a surface of 9 mm $`\times `$9 mm which is well within the detector area readout by a single HELIX chip..

### 3.2 Hit efficiency

The hit efficiency is defined as

$$ϵ=\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}(\mathrm{Hit})/\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}^{\mathrm{triggered}}$$
(2)
where “Hit” is equivalent to the presence of 1 strip with signal larger than $`n`$ times the noise ($`n`$=5,3) in a region of 2.4 mm centred on the position predicted by the telescope. The particle impact position was reconstructed using two reference detectors; in order to avoid contamination from double tracks, only events with a single cluster in all planes of the two telescope modules were accepted.

Using a sample of $`10^5`$ events the 90% confidence limits on $`ϵ`$ is $`99.96\%>ϵ_5>99.95\%(99.997\%)`$ for a signal in the MVD detector larger than 5 (3) times the noise.

### 3.3 Detector performance as a function of the bias voltage

The dependence of the detector performance as a function of $`V_{bias}`$ has been investigated. Figure 6(a) shows the most probable value of the energy loss distribution444The most probable value of the energy loss distribution is defined as the peak value from a fit by a Landau function. and the hit efficiency as a function of the bias voltage. For values of $`V_{bias}`$ above the depletion voltage ($`V_{dep}85V`$) a plateau is reached. The signal collection degrades with decreasing $`V_{bias}`$, whereas the hit efficiency remains constant at $`V_{bias}`$ well below the depletion voltage. Only for $`V_{bias}\stackrel{<}{_{}}40`$ V $`ϵ`$ starts to decline. The noise level remains constant ($`6`$ ADC counts) for values of $`V_{bias}>5`$V.

The charge division of the detector and the position resolution (see sections 3.4 and 5, respectively, for detailed explanations) were also studied as a function of $`V_{bias}`$. Figure 6(b) shows the position resolution as a function of $`V_{bias}`$: a stable behaviour above $``$ 40 V can be observed. The charge division of the detector has also found to be unvaried above $``$ 40 V . It is remarkable that with $`9V`$ of effective voltage in the detector, with only $`30\%`$ of the bulk depleted, a resolution of 25 $`\mu m`$ is achieved. As a conclusion, the performance of the detector seems to be rather stable well below depletion voltage.

### 3.4 Charge division

The charge division of the MVD sensors with five intermediate strips was studied using tracks perpendicular to the detector plane.

The charge collected at the strips close to the particle incident position is shown in figure 7. The two readout strips closest to the particle incident position and the next neighbours are labeled strips l (left), r (right), nl (next left) and nr (next right). The most probable value of the charge (obtained by fitting the distribution to a Landau curve) collected by strip l alone and by the sum of strips la nd r (l+r) are plotted in bins of the interstrip impact position predicted by the telescope. The normalization factor of all distributions, denoted S$`{}_{\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{r}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$, is determined as the sum of the signals detected on strip l and r when a particle crosses the detector exactly underneath a readout strip.

When a particle crosses the detector between two readout strips (l and r) the charge collected on the intermediate strips induces charges on the readout ones producing a dependence on the distance to the impact position with large deviations from linearity near the readout strips. Due to capacitative couplings between the strip implants, the fraction of charge collected by strip r is not negligible ($`10\%`$ S$`{}_{\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{r}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$) even for the case of particles crossing the detector exactly underneath the readout strip l (positions x=0 in figure 7) and vice versa. The charge collected by the next left neighbour of the readout strip l, nl, and the sum (nl+nr) of the signal collected by the two neighbours to the closest readout strips l (nl) and r (nr) is also shown in figure 7. The measurement demonstrates that a simple model considering only capacitances to neighbouring strip implants resulting in charge collected only at the two neighbour strips is not satisfactory. Moreover, the sum of the two signals collected by strip l and r is not completely flat as a function of the interstrip position, showing a dip (-19 % S$`{}_{\mathrm{l}+\mathrm{r}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$) when the particles cross the detector in the central region between the two readout strips. This is mainly due to charge losses to the backplane. Taking into account the charge sharing to the next-to-closest readout strips, the effective charge loss to the backplane is of the order of $``$ 16 % .

## 4 Simulation of the MVD detector response

Diffusion, ionisation fluctuations, noise and charge division were included in the simulation program which is described in , and is based on . Charge is generated inside the detector along the particle’s path implementing ionisation fluctuations tuned to other measurements with silicon detectors . The charge drifts to the detector surface under the effect of the electric field; it is then assumed to be collected by the closest strip implant .

Once the charges are collected on the strip implants they have to be transferred to the readout strips. The capacitive network is more complicated than the simple sketch in figure 1, since also capacitances to next to strip implants even further apart are taken into account . Charge transfer coefficients have been determined from testbeam measurements. They give the fraction of charge on a strip implant which is transferred to the surrounding readout strips. To measure these coefficients only tracks crossing the detector within 5 $`\mu `$m underneath strip implants were used. The strip implants are numbered from $`\mathrm{\#}1`$ to $`\mathrm{\#}7`$, starting from the left readout strip from the impact position. The charge collected (i.e. the most probable value of the energy loss distribution) on the four surrounding readout strips, denoted as next left (nl), left (l), right (r) and next right (nr), is measured for tracks in positions $`\mathrm{\#}1`$ to $`\mathrm{\#}7`$. High statistics data samples have been used in order to achieve an accuracy better than 1%. The collected charge reaches a maximum for positions $`\mathrm{\#}1`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}7`$; all coefficients are normalized to this value. The detector response is assumed to be symmetric. In the simulation all charges collected on a strip implant are transferred to the four surrounding readout strips using these measured coefficients (fractions smaller than 0.4$`\%`$ were neglected).

For every readout channel an additional signal according to Gaussian distributed noise was simulated. The width of the Gaussian was chosen in order to obtain the same S/N as measured in the testbeam data.

Comparison between the results of the simulation program with the data measurements is presented in section 7.2.

## 5 Position reconstruction for perpendicular tracks

### 5.1 The eta algorithm.

A standard method to reconstruct the impact position, proven to work at small incidence angle, is the so called $`\eta `$ algorithm ,  . It consists of a non-linear interpolation between the two neighbouring strips of the cluster which have collected the highest signals (indicated in the following as Sright and Sleft, respectively). For each event, the quantity $`\eta `$:

$$\eta =\frac{S_{\mathrm{right}}}{S_{\mathrm{right}}+S_{\mathrm{left}}}$$
(3)
is calculated.

Figure 8 shows the $`dN/d\eta `$ distribution for the MVD detector obtained from the testbeam data: in the region close to the readout strips there are very few entries, and clear peaks can be seen elsewhere. In case of a fully linear behaviour, the $`\eta `$ distribution would be completely flat and the dashed bands (where the peaks are observed) would represent the position of the intermediate strips. The fact that the $`dN/d\eta `$ is not uniform, although the beam profile is uniform over the detector area, indicates that the capacitive charge division mechanism is not fully linear in the hit position between readout strips. To correct for this non-linearities a probability density function (an example is shown in figure 13) is determined from the data:

$$f(\eta _0)=\frac{1}{N}_0^{\eta _0}\frac{dN}{d\eta }𝑑\eta $$
(4)
where N is the total number of entries in the $`dN/d\eta `$ distribution and $`\eta _0`$ is the $`\eta `$ value for the considered event. The corrected impact position is then given by:

$$y_{\mathrm{rec}}=\mathrm{p}f(\eta _0)+y_{\mathrm{left}}$$
(5)
where p is the readout pitch of 120 $`\mu `$m and $`y_{\mathrm{left}}`$ denotes the position of the left strip.

### 5.2 Intrinsic resolution

The intrinsic resolution is defined as the spatial precision of the MVD detector

The measured position resolution $`\sigma _{\mathrm{res}}`$, defined as the width of the residual distribution obtained from a fit to a Gaussian function, includes several contributions:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{res}}=\sqrt{(\sigma _{\mathrm{MVD}}^{\mathrm{intr}})^2+k(\sigma _{\mathrm{tele}}^{\mathrm{intr}})^2+\underset{i}{}k_i\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{ms}}^2}$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{MVD}}^{\mathrm{intr}}`$ is the intrinsic resolution of the MVD detector, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tele}}^{\mathrm{intr}}`$ is the intrinsic resolution of the telescope sensors, (k, ki) are geometrical factors  related to the relative distances between the telescope modules, the MVD detector and also including the thickness of the aluminium window foils, and $`_ik_i\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{ms}}`$ is the extrapolation error due to the multiple Coulomb scattering along the particle direction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\mathrm{ms}}^2p_{\mathrm{beam}}^2`$ .

To extract the intrinsic position resolution of the MVD detector ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{MVD}}^{\mathrm{intr}}`$), the contributions of the second (see subsection 2.1) and third term in equation 6 have been evaluated. The effect of the multiple Coulomb scattering at low beam energy (2-6 GeV) cannot be neglected; the intrinsic resolution has been extracted by fitting the residual distribution measured at several beam energies (shown in figure 9) to the formula in equation 6. Since the production of $`\delta `$-rays can spoil the position resolution, (see subsection 7.4), a selection cut to reject the events in the tail of the energy loss distribution has been applied in the previous calculation:

$$S_{\mathrm{cluster}}1.7S_{\mathrm{peak}}$$

where $`S_{\mathrm{cluster}}`$ is the total cluster charge and $`S_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ is the most probable energy deposition. The intrinsic position resolution obtained for the MVD detector at $`\theta =0^{}`$ incidence angle is:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{MVD}}^{\mathrm{intr}}=7.2\pm 0.2\mu \mathrm{m}$$

Different strip lengths do not affect significantly neither the resolution nor the charge division mechanism .

### 5.3 Resolution vs interstrip hit position

Figure 10(a) shows the position resolution as a function of the interstrip hit position. The presence of an alternate systematic pattern when moving from a p+ implant to the next one is noticeable. However, the variations observed are in general very small ($`\stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ 1$`\mu `$m). In the region close to the readout strips, the position resolution becomes slightly worse. This effect is a consequence of the use of only two readout strips for the position reconstruction: when a particle traverses the silicon sensor very close to a readout strip, a high signal is induced on that readout strip and only relatively small signals on the neighbouring ones. Therefore the $`\eta `$ algorithm becomes more sensitive to noise fluctuations. Figure 10(b) shows the mean value of the Gaussian fit to the residual distribution (corresponding to a systematic shift from the origin) as a function of the interstrip hit position. Close to the readout strips the systematic shift in the position reconstruction is larger ($``$ 1.5-2 $`\mu `$m) than in the central area between readout strips ($`\stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ 1 $`\mu `$m).

## 6 Position reconstruction for small angle of incidence tracks

### 6.1 The 3-strips algorithm

The use of only two readout strips to extract position information may not be the most appropriate choice for the MVD detectors, since the symmetric charge sharing to the next-to-closest readout strips is not negligible. Figure 11 shows the cluster size distribution at four different incidence angles (0, 10, 20, 30). At $`\theta =`$ 0, already $``$ 28% of all cluster consists of more than two strips and this percentage becomes much larger ($`\stackrel{>}{_{}}`$ 45%) for $`\theta \stackrel{>}{_{}}`$20.

An alternative position reconstruction algorithm, which makes use of three strips, has been therefore developed. From each cluster, the strip with the highest signal, k, and its closest neighbours (k-1,k+1) are selected and the following quantities are calculated:

$$\mathrm{p}_{\mathrm{left}}=\frac{S_kk+S_{k1}(k1)}{S_k+S_{k1}}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{p}_{\mathrm{right}}=\frac{S_kk+S_{k+1}(k+1)}{S_k+S_{k+1}}$$
(7)
The uncorrected reconstructed position prec (in analogy to the linear $`\eta `$ interpolation) is then defined as:

$$\mathrm{p}_{\mathrm{rec}}=\frac{\mathrm{p}_{\mathrm{left}}w^n+\mathrm{p}_{\mathrm{right}}}{1+w^n}\mathrm{where}w=S_{k1}/S_{k+1};n=2.$$
(8)
$`n=2`$ is found to work better than $`n=1`$ because in the former case noise is suppressed by giving less weigh to the strip with the lowest charge. The corresponding interstrip position $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{p}=\mathrm{mod}(\mathrm{p}_{\mathrm{rec}},1.)$$

Figure 12 shows the dN/d$`\eta `$ and dN/d$`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ distributions for small incidence angles (0, 10, 20, 30). By means of the 3-strips algorithm a more uniform distribution can be obtained. In analogy with the $`\eta `$ algorithm a probability density function can be defined and the corrected impact position is given by:

$$y_{\mathrm{rec}}=\mathrm{p}f(\stackrel{~}{p}_0)+\mathrm{p}p_{\mathrm{left}}$$
(9)
where p is the readout pitch and $`p_{\mathrm{left}}`$ denotes the position reconstructed using the left and the central strips. Figure 13 shows the comparison between $`f(\stackrel{~}{p})`$ and $`f(\eta )`$ for $`\theta =0^{}`$.

The position resolutions obtained using the $`\eta `$ algorithm and the 3-strips algorithm for the four different incidence angles (0, 10, 20, 30) are shown in figure 14.

The resolution at 0 calculated with the 3-strips algorithm is slightly worse than the one obtained with the $`\eta `$ algorithm. Nevertheless the non-linearity correction for the 3-strips algorithm is much smaller than the one needed for the $`\eta `$ algorithm up to 30, as shown in the right plot of figure 14. Thus the 3-strips algorithm is much less sensitive to possible variations in the probability density function due to non-uniformities of the MVD detectors. A simple centre of gravity algorithm has been discarded since its use results in a significantly worse position resolution for particle crossing the detector in the central region between two readout strips and in addition it introduces sizeable systematic shifts in the position reconstruction.

### 6.2 Performance as a function of the $`\varphi `$ angle

In the barrel section of the MVD the angle $`\varphi `$ can be as large as 70. However the size of the optical bench in the testbeam setup limited the measurement to a maximum angle $`\varphi `$ of 30. In the forward section of the MVD the $`\varphi `$ range is bigger than the $`\theta `$ range due to the orientation and position of the FMVD strips with respect to the interaction point555This is true if the curvature induced by the magnetic field is not taken into account. For low momenta particles the angle $`\theta `$ can be also large.. Although the maximum angle $`\varphi `$ in the FMVD is only $``$30, this is correlated with physical quantities of interest such as the pseudorapidity of the track; any systematic effect could be thus relevant for high momentum tracks as the one of the scattered electron at high $`Q^2`$. In the data analysis for the FMVD sensors, the width of the residual distribution was $``$2-3 $`\mu `$m larger than in the standard setup (used for BMVD sensors) because of the different geometrical constraints (i.e. the telescope modules had to be moved away from the MVD sensor). The expected increase of the signal with the path length inside the detector ($`cos(\varphi )^1`$) was observed .

Figure 15(a) shows the position resolution as a function of the angle $`\varphi `$ for several beam energies. A rather flat behaviour is observed in the relevant range for the FMVD. In figure 15(b) the squared position resolution as a function of $`1/E^2`$ is shown for two different angles (0 and 30). The contribution of multiple scattering shows up as a linear behaviour and the intrinsic resolution corresponds to the intercept at the origin (i.e. for infinite momentum particles) as it was discussed in subsection 5.2. The data at $`\varphi =30^{}`$ (squares) seem to have a larger slope and a smaller intercept compared with the results for $`\varphi =0^{}`$ (dots). The larger slope can be attributed to the increase in the material of a factor $`cos(30^{})^11.15`$. In addition, the larger S/N obtained at larger $`\varphi `$ angles can produce a better intrinsic resolution (as indicated by the smaller intercept). Systematic effects have been evaluated to be smaller than 4%, dominating over the statistical accuracy of $``$1.4%.

## 7 Position resolution for large angle of incidence tracks

At large incidence angles ($`\theta >30^{}`$) the charge is spread over several strips and the total cluster signal becomes larger as the particle’s path length increases:

$$S(\theta )\frac{S(\theta =0^{})}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }$$
(10)
Since the central strips have on average the same signal, the information on the impact position is essentially contained only in the positions and signals of the cluster edge strips. Therefore reconstruction algorithms such as the $`\eta `$ one are inadequate to calculate the particle impact point on the detector.

Figure 16 shows the cluster size distributions for large angles of incidence (40, 50, 60, 70). Figure 17(a) shows the energy loss distribution for various incidence angles ($`0^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}30}^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}50}^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}60}^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}70}^{}`$), whereas the most probable value for the energy deposition as a function of the incidence angle is shown in figure 17(b). In this case the energy deposition is defined by summing up the signals measured on $`\pm `$ 5 strips around the predicted position:

$$S_{\mathrm{tot}}=\underset{i=5}{\overset{+5}{}}S_i$$

The result of a fit to the function:

$$f(\theta ,P_1,P_2)=\frac{P_1}{\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{P_2}}$$
(11)
is also presented. The value $`P_2=1.09\pm 0.05`$ is in agreement with the expectation in equation 10 (i.e. $`P_2=1.0`$).

### 7.1 The head-tail algorithm

A standard position reconstruction algorithm, proven to work at large incidence angle, is the so called ‘head-tail’ algorithm . All the strips with:

$$S_{\mathrm{strip}}>3\sigma _{\mathrm{chip}}$$

where $`S_{\mathrm{strip}}`$ is the strip signal and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{chip}}`$ is the average chip noise, are considered. The first (head) and the last (tail) strips belonging to a cluster are selected and the impact position is defined as:

$$y_{\mathrm{rec}}=\frac{y_{\mathrm{head}}+y_{\mathrm{tail}}}{2}+\mathrm{ht}_{\mathrm{corr}}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{ht}_{\mathrm{corr}}=\frac{S_{\mathrm{tail}}S_{\mathrm{head}}}{2<S>_{\mathrm{strips}}}p$$
(12)
where $`y_{\mathrm{head}}`$ ($`y_{\mathrm{tail}}`$) is the position of the head (tail) strip, $`S_{\mathrm{head}}`$ ($`S_{\mathrm{tail}}`$) is the corresponding signal, p is the strip pitch and $`<S>`$ is the average strip signal over the cluster.

The difference ($`S_{\mathrm{tail}}S_{\mathrm{head}}`$) in the correction factor $`\mathrm{ht}_{\mathrm{corr}}`$ is used to shift the average position $`(y_{\mathrm{head}}+y_{\mathrm{tail}})/2`$ towards the tail ($`S_{\mathrm{tail}}S_{\mathrm{head}}>0`$) or head ($`S_{\mathrm{tail}}S_{\mathrm{head}}<0`$) strip of the cluster, taking into account the rough proportionality of the energy loss to the particle path in the detector.

### 7.2 Comparison with the simulation

Figure 18 shows the position resolution calculated with the $`\eta `$ and head-tail algorithms as a function of the angle of incidence $`\theta `$. At angles $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ 30 the $`\eta `$ algorithm gives a much better resolution than the head-tail algorithm. However for angles $`\stackrel{>}{_{}}`$ 30-40, the latter proves to work much better. The results using two different MVD barrel detectors are presented and compared with the results obtained using the simulation program. The simulation is able to describe the data over the whole angular region and for both reconstruction algorithms. The S/N and charge transfer coefficients of det. $`\mathrm{\#}1`$ were used in the simulation, which explains the slightly better agreement with this detector. Since $`\delta `$-rays (see next section) are not taken into account the simulated intrinsic resolution is found to be better than the one obtained from testbeam data, especially for the $`\eta `$ algorithm at small incident angles. The probability that the two highest strips in the cluster, i.e. those used by the $`\eta `$ algorithm, are affected by a $`\delta `$-ray which departs from the initial trajectory is smaller at larger angles because the energy is deposited along more strips.

### 7.3 Optimisation of the reconstruction algorithm

Reconstruction algorithms such as the $`\eta `$, 3-strips or the head-tail ones are based on the knowledge of the incidence angle $`\theta `$ of the particle, used to select the most effective algorithm to be applied. Switching between different reconstruction algorithms clearly implies complications in the track reconstruction procedure. Ideally an optimal algorithm should calculate impact positions with a single calculation procedure, using as little additional external information as possible to minimise systematic effects.

A first simple attempt for a more general algorithm can be based only on the rough knowledge of the angle $`\theta `$ of the incident particle at which the switch between two different algorithms is required ($`\theta _{\mathrm{cut}}`$ algorithm):

* if $`\theta \stackrel{<}{_{}}\theta _{\mathrm{cut}}`$ (with $`\theta _{\mathrm{cut}}`$ 30-40) the uncorrected 3-strips algorithm is used
* if $`\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{cut}}`$ the head-tail algorithm is used.

Since the non-linearity correction is not applied, a slightly worse position resolution at small angles is obtained. Figure 19(a) shows the position resolution obtained with this algorithm as function of the incidence angle $`\theta `$ for two different detectors.

A more general algorithm based on the use of the cluster size, Nstrips and a cluster shape parameter, Rout, is presented in this paper. The ‘cluster cut’ algorithm uses two different calculations as detailed in the following:

* if N$`{}_{\mathrm{strips}}{}^{}<`$Ncut and R$`{}_{\mathrm{out}}{}^{}<`$Rcut, where $`\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{out}}=(S_{k2}+S_{k+2})/S_k`$, the 3-strips algorithm is used.
* if N$`{}_{\mathrm{strips}}{}^{}>`$ Ncut or R$`{}_{\mathrm{out}}{}^{}`$Rcut the head-tail algorithm is employed.

To a good approximation the cluster size is directly correlated to the angle of incidence, i.e. small clusters (N$`{}_{\mathrm{strips}}{}^{}`$ 2-3) are most likely originated by tracks crossing the detector at small angles of incidence whereas large clusters (N$`{}_{\mathrm{strips}}{}^{}>6`$) are due to particles crossing the detector at large angles of incidence. For intermediate cluster sizes, a matching ambiguity remains. However, the cluster shape also depends on the angle of incidence: for larger angles, the track path length is relatively large and thus also the outer strips of smaller clusters have a sizable signal (compared to the highest signal in the cluster). By making use of this additional information, the ambiguity can be reduced. The values Rcut=0.3 and Nstrips=5 (same results are obtained for Nstrips=6) have been used in this analysis. The cut value for Rcut has been chosen by comparing the distribution for different incidence angles (see figure 20).

Figure 19(b) shows the comparison between the position resolution obtained with the ’cluster cut’ algorithm and the position resolution obtained with the $`\eta `$ and the head-tail algorithms. The position resolution achieved with the uncorrected ‘cluster-cut’ algorithm is only slightly worse than the one calculated with the best standard reconstruction method for each angle (i.e. $`\eta `$ and ‘head-tail’). Since the ‘cluster-cut’ algorithm does not need any angular information, it could be a valuable choice for a first position reconstruction in a general track reconstruction procedure.

### 7.4 Impact of $`\delta `$-rays on the position resolution

The production of $`\delta `$-rays (i.e. knock-on electrons), responsible for the tail in the energy loss distribution, influences the detector resolution, as it affects the deposited charge distribution in the silicon bulk. The $`\delta `$-ray trajectory results in deposition of charge off the incident particle’s path and therefore displaces the charge centre of gravity. The position resolution for larger pulse height becomes significantly worse as can be seen in Figure 21, where the width of the residual distribution as a function of the cluster pulse height for incident angles between $`0^{}`$ and $`70^{}`$ is shown. The hit position is reconstructed using the $`\eta `$-algorithm up to angles of incidence of $`30^{}`$, whereas for larger incident angles the head-tail algorithm is used.

Although the resolution is worse, events with large signal cluster cannot be excluded in the tracking reconstruction for the MVD, because the loss in reconstruction efficiency would be too high. However, it is possible to assign different weights to the reconstructed hits when performing the track fit.

## 8 Summary of the results

The testbeam setup at DESY has been used to characterise the performance of BMVD and FMVD detectors plus the prototype readout electronics (HELIX chips). The main results from the testbeam measurements presented in this paper can be summarised as follows:

* a signal over noise ratio S/N $`20`$-$`24`$ has been achieved, the noise level is uniformly distributed over the strips;
* the detector efficiency $`ϵ`$ is very high ($`>99.95\%`$);
* the calibration shows that gain variations of a single HELIX readout chip are of the order of 2% and do not influence the position reconstruction algorithm even in the case of detectors with strips of different lengths (FMVD);
* the charge division has been studied in detail. The expected charge sharing between strip implants has been confirmed;
* the charge transfer between strip implants and readout strips has been parameterised and implemented in a detector simulation program which gives a good description of the data;
* the intrinsic position resolution at normal angle of incidence $`\sigma _{\mathrm{MVD}}^{\mathrm{intr}}=7.2\pm 0.2\mu \mathrm{m}`$ is highly satisfactory if compared to the value $`p/\sqrt{12}35\mu `$m which represents the limit for a digital system with a readout pitch p = 120 $`\mu `$m;
* the position resolution is not strongly dependent on the angle $`\varphi `$ in the range of interest for the FMVD;
* the position resolution at large angle of incidence $`\theta `$ is still very satisfactory ($`\stackrel{<}{_{}}40\mu `$m up to $`\theta =70^{}`$);
* a position reconstruction algorithm which uses the rough knowledge of the angle of incidence $`\theta `$ to choose the most effective reconstruction procedure has been developed. For small incidence angles a 3-strips algorithm is applied whereas for large incidence angles the head-tail algorithm is used;
* a general position reconstruction algorithm, not using prior knowledge of the angle of incidence, has proven to work well up to $`\theta =70^{}`$ and could therefore be a valuable choice for a first position reconstruction in the track reconstruction procedure;
* the production of $`\delta `$-rays causes a deterioration of the position resolution. Since events with very large cluster signal cannot be excluded from the MVD data, the hit positions used for a track fit should be weighted according to their pulse height.


text:
# Echo spectroscopy and Atom Optics Billiards

## 1 Introduction

The subject of decoherence of a quantum system has witnessed a renewed interest in the last years. In addition to being central to our understanding of the transition from quantum to classical physics, it is of outmost importance in the blooming field of Quantum Information, where decoherence or dephasing represent loss of information.

A quantum superposition state ”collapses” due to the dissipative interaction with the environment (e.g. in the case of trapped atoms, the coupling to the electro-magnetic vacuum leads to spontaneous scattering of photons). This interaction is irreversible in nature. On the other hand, the macroscopic (ensemble averaged) response of a quantum system prepared in a superposition state decays due to the dephasing resulting from local variations in the evolution of the system (e.g. inhomogeneous broadening). By stimulating an effective ”time reversal”, revivals of coherence in dephased systems (at least partial ones) have been reported for spin echoes  and photon echoes , and more recently for a motional wave packet echo using ultra cold atoms in a one-dimensional optical lattice .

In this paper we discuss the technique of ”echo spectroscopy” on ultra cold atoms trapped in an optical dipole trap, which utilizes a micro wave (MW) analog to the photon echo . We show that this technique can be used to study the quantum dynamics of trapped atoms, even when many states are thermally populated. We show that the stability of eigenstates under perturbations of the Hamiltonian plays an important role for the echo signal. Numerical calculations of this quantity for an atom-optics Bunimovich stadium are presented. Next, by overcoming the inhomogeneous shift, which is the main limiting factor for the coherence time in dipole traps , echo spectroscopy opens the way for using dipole trapped atoms in quantum information and possibly for high precision spectroscopy. Finally, our analysis leads to a proposal of a dephasing free dipole trap.

## 2 Principles of Echo Spectroscopy

One of the most widely used MW spectroscopy techniques is the so called Ramsey method . It works on two level atoms after the following principle: The atoms are prepared in one of their two states (denoted $`|1`$). Next, a short MW-pulse close to resonance transfers the atoms into a coherent superposition state of the two levels (This pulse is usually called a $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulse), which is left to evolve for a certain time, without MW-irradiation. Due to the detuning between the atomic resonance frequency and the MW-frequency, the time evolution will cause an atomic phase to develop in the rotating frame of the MW field. A second $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse maps this phase onto populations of the two levels, which can be detected. If the MW-frequency is scanned, this phase difference is scanned, and sinusoidal oscillations in the populations, known as Ramsey fringes, are seen. When Ramsey spectroscopy is performed on an ensemble of inhomogeneously broadened two level atoms, each atom will acquire a slightly different phase in the dark period, causing the macroscopic fringe contrast to decay when increasing the time between the $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulses. Thus the Ramsey fringe contrast is a measure of the dehpasing of the system.

The dephasing can be reversed by stimulating a coherence echo. This is done by adding a population inverting pulse (a $`\pi `$-pulse) between the two $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulses. If the $`\pi `$-pulse is added exactly in the middle between the two $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulses each part of the superposition state generated by the first $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse will have spent an equal amount of time in both levels at the time of the second $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse, and will therefore be exactly in phase with each other. This means that a coherence echo have appeared at the time of the second $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse even for a system that have dephased completely before the $`\pi `$-pulse. When measuring the populations the coherence echo is therefore observed by seeing that all the atoms have returned to the initial state after the $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-$`\pi `$-$`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse sequence. If the time ($`\tau _1`$) between the first $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and the $`\pi `$-pulse is kept constant, and the time between the $`\pi `$ and the second $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$-pulse ($`\tau _2`$) is swept, the coherence echo is seen as a decrease in the population of $`|2`$ for $`\tau _2=\tau _1`$ (see Fig. 1). The population $`P_2`$ for $`\tau _2=\tau _1`$ is referred in what follows as the ”echo signal”, where $`P_2=0`$ indicates full revival of coherence and $`P_2=\frac{1}{2}`$ indicates complete dephasing.

Experimental data shown in this paper is taken using two hyperfine levels of the ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{85}Rb`$ atoms trapped in a dipole trap. These two levels ($`|5S_{1/2},F=2,m_F=0`$, denoted $`|1`$, and $`|5S_{1/2},F=3,m_F=0`$, denoted $`|2`$) are separated by the energy difference $`E_{HF}=\mathrm{}\omega _{HF}`$ where $`\omega _{HF}=2\pi \times 3.036`$ GHz is the hyperfine splitting. For spectroscopy of trapped atoms we must consider the entire Hamiltonian including both the internal and the external degrees of freedom of the atom. Since the dipole potential is inversely proportional to the trap laser detuning $`\delta `$  there is a slightly different potential for atoms in different hyperfine states111For these two hyperfine levels the matrix elements for the dipole interaction are identical, hence the relative difference between the two optical potentials is $`\left(V_1V_2\right)/V_2\frac{\omega _{HF}}{\delta }10^3`$ for our experimental parameters. and the Hamiltonian of our trapped two level atom can be written as:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_1|11\left|+H_2\right|22|`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+V_1\left(𝐱\right)\right)|11\left|+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+V_2\left(𝐱\right)+E_{HF}\right)\right|22|,`$
where $`p`$ is the atomic center of mass momentum and $`V_1`$ \[$`V_2`$\] the external potential for an atom in state $`|1`$ \[$`|2`$\], much smaller than $`E_{HF}`$. The atoms are initially prepared in their internal ground state $`|1`$. Their total wave function can be written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=|1`$ $`\psi `$, where $`\psi `$ represents the motional (external degree of freedom) part of their wave function. If a MW field close to resonance with $`\omega _{HF}`$ is applied, transitions between the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian corresponding to different internal states, can be driven. The small size of optical traps (typically on the order of $`100`$ $`\mu m`$ or less) as compared to the MW wavelength ($``$10 cm), ensures that the momentum of the MW photon can be neglected (Lamb-Dicke regime ). Even though the internal states of the atoms are described as a two-level system Eq.1 describes a multi-level system in two energy manifolds. When the MW-field is added to the Hamiltonian in Eq.1 and the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is formulated it is seen that the transition matrix elements between eigenstates of Eq. 1 are given by $`C_{nn^{}}=n^{}n\times M_{12}`$ where $`M_{12}`$ is the free space matrix element for the internal state transition, and $`n^{}n`$ is the overlap between the initial motional eigenstate of $`H_1`$ and an eigenstate of $`H_2`$. Therefore, when a strong and short MW pulse is applied, the motional part of the initial wave function is simply projected into $`V_2\left(𝐱\right)`$. If $`V_1\left(𝐱\right)=V_2\left(𝐱\right)`$ then clearly $`n^{}n=\delta _{nn^{}}`$. For a small enough potential difference (perturbation) $`\delta V=V_2\left(𝐱\right)V_1\left(𝐱\right)`$ the approximation $`nn^{}\delta _{nn^{}}`$ is valid. In the general case, a projected eigenstate of $`H_1`$ will not be an eigenstate of $`H_2`$, and therefore will evolve in the new potential, causing the overlap $`\left|n\left(t=0\right)n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|`$ to decay ($`|n\left(t=\tau \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\tau \right)`$ $`|n`$).

If Ramsey spectroscopy is performed on atoms initially prepared in an eigenstate of $`V_1`$ characterized by the quantum number $`n`$, then the probability to be in the internal state $`|2`$ after the $`\pi /2`$-$`\pi /2`$ pulse sequence can be shown to be:

$$P_2=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+n\left|e^{i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\omega _{MW}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)\tau }\right|n\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_n\tau \right)\right),$$
(2)
where $`\omega _{MW}`$ is the MW-frequency, $`\tau `$ is the time between the pulses, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is a generalized, state-dependent, detuning (it reduces to the detuning when only two levels are coupled by the MW-field), defined so $`n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\omega _{MW}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)\tau \right)\right|n`$ is real and positive. Scanning $`\omega _{MW}`$ for a fixed $`\tau `$ yields the usual Ramsey fringes with a contrast given by $`n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\omega _{MW}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)\tau \right)\right|n=\left|n\left(t=0\right)n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|`$. Since $`n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\omega _{MW}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\right)\tau \right)\right|n=\left|n\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_1}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau \right)\right|n\right|`$ this contrast serves as a measure of the stability of the quantum evolution under a small perturbation in the Hamiltonian .

In our experiments atoms are not initially in a single motional eigenstate, but a thermal ensemble of atoms incoherently populates many eigenstates. The total population in $`|2`$ is then given by an average of $`P_2`$ over the initial thermal ensemble. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ depends on the initial state, and due to this spread in detuning the fringe contrast of the ensemble-averaged $`P_2`$ decays rapidly even when $`\left|n\left(t=0\right)n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|1`$ for all populated states (note the analogy to the inhomogeneous broadening of two level atoms). Hence, the decay of the fringe contrast in Ramsey spectroscopy of thermal trapped atoms does not teach us anything about the dynamics in the trap ($`\left|n\left(t=0\right)n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|`$) but simply measures the spread in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$. This spread also limits the interrogation time for high precision spectroscopy.

Equation 1 indicates that if a special trap can be constructed so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is independent of $`n`$, then the fast decay of the Ramsey fringes will be suppressed. An example of such a dephasing-free trap is an inverted pyramid of exponentially decaying evanescent waves, in which gravity provides the vertical confinement. This trap have the special feature that $`V_2\left(𝐱\right)`$ is exactly equal to $`V_1\left(𝐱\right)`$ shifted along the vertical axis. Therefore all eigenenergies are shifted the same amount and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is indeed a fixed number. This makes such a trap an excellent candidate for high precision spectroscopy. Note, that in order to use traps for this kind of measurements, the suppression of the relative spread in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$, should be accompanied by a reduction in their average value, e.g. by increasing the trap’s detuning. Since the proposed trap is a ”dark optical trap”, where atoms are trapped by repulsive light forces mainly in the dark , hence minimizing the amount of interaction with the trap’s light, then in addition to being dephasing-free it has also a low photon scattering rate (which will now be the limiting factor for the coherence time) and a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$.

Apart from using special geometries a possible solution to the above mentioned dephasing is to reverse it using ”echo spectroscopy” by adding a MW $`\pi `$-pulse between the two $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ pulses. $`P_2`$ for atoms initially populating a single eigenstate then becomes:

$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1Re\left(n\left|e^{i\left(\frac{H_1}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau }e^{i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau }e^{i\left(\frac{H_1}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau }e^{i\left(\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\right)\tau }\right|n\right)\right]`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1Re\left(e^{i\frac{E_n^1}{\mathrm{}}\tau }\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\right)\right]`$
where $`\left\{\phi _n\right\}`$ is a new basis defined by $`|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{H_2}{\mathrm{}}\tau \right)`$ $`|n`$, and $`|\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{H_1}{\mathrm{}}\tau \right)`$ $`|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)`$. $`P_2`$ no longer depends on $`\omega _{MW}`$ and $`E_{HF}`$ and therefore not on any $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ but only on the dynamics222$`Re\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{E_n^1}{\mathrm{}}\tau \right)\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\right)\left|\phi _n\left(t=0\right)\phi _n\left(t=\tau \right)\right|`$ is often a good approximation , but the limitations of it is not yet known to the authors.. Ensemble averaging over a thermal ensemble therefore does not remove the fingerprints of the dynamics.

We performed echo spectroscopy on $`10^5`$ $`{}_{}{}^{85}Rb`$ atoms laser cooled to $`20`$ $`\mu K`$ and then trapped in a $`30`$ $`\mu K`$ deep Gaussian optical trap with waist size of $`50`$ $`\mu m`$. The procedure is detailed in . The echo signal $`P_2`$ was measured as a function of time between pulses for different wavelengths of the trap laser, thereby changing the perturbation strength $`\delta V`$, while keeping the trap depth constant by adjusting the power of the trap beam. For a small perturbation a good echo ($`P_2<<1/2`$) is seen independent of the time between pulses (see Fig. 2). For larger perturbation damped oscillations to a level smaller than 1/2 are seen. An even larger perturbation causes a complete decay of the echo coherence ($`P_2=1/2`$) followed by partial revivals, which are clear signatures of the dynamics. Two revivals (of different amplitude) are seen when the time between MW pulses is close to $`\frac{1}{2}T_{osc}`$ and $`T_{osc}`$, respectively, where $`T_{osc}=3.5`$ ms is the measured radial oscillation frequency of the trap (the longitudinal oscillation frequency is $`1`$ $`s`$, hence the longitudinal motion is essentially fixed for the duration of our experiment). The revival at $`\frac{1}{2}T_{osc}`$ corresponds to wavepacket oscillations excited by the symmetric change of the trap strength, and the stronger revival at $`T_{osc}`$ corresponds also to the vertical sloshing of wavepackets induced by the vertical shift of the gravito-optical potential for $`|2`$ compared to $`|1`$ (in our experiments this vertical shift is of the order of a few $`nm`$, as compared to a trap cloud size of $`50`$ $`\mu m`$!). The lack of complete revival at $`T_{osc}`$ is mainly due to anharmonicity of the Gaussian trap, but also small amount of decoherence due to spontaneous scattering of photons and noise may contribute.

The sensitivity of our technique to map the quantum dynamics of a system is revealed here, since we see the dynamics due to a perturbation (kick), that is about three orders of magnitude smaller than $`k_BT`$.

## 3 Eigenstate Stability and Atom Optic Billiards

In Fig. 2 it is seen that for sufficient large detuning the long time asymptotic behavior of the echo signal from thermal atoms is smaller than 1/2, and eventually becoming $`0`$. This can be understood from Eq. 3: If $`\delta V`$ is small there will be, for each initial motional eigenstate $`|n`$ of $`H_1`$ a large matrix element for going into the equivalent motional eigenstate of $`H_2`$, since $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are almost identical. If the time between pulses is large enough so the dynamics has dephased completely between them, then the contributions from other states will average to zero. Hence, the long time ensemble average of $`P_2`$ is simply given by $`\overline{P_2}=\frac{1}{2}[1\overline{|n^{}=n|n|^4}]`$, where $`|n`$ and $`|n^{}=n`$ are corresponding eigenstates of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ respectively. In  a paraxial numerical calculation of $`\overline{P_2}`$, averaged over the $`4\times 10^6`$ thermally-populated states of the trap yielded good quantitative agreement with measured long time echo signal.

Because of the importance of the eigenstate stability to the revival of coherence (good echo signal) and dynamics in the trap, we now calculate $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ for perturbations, that we assume approximate our inherent perturbation, i.e. the difference in dipole potential for the two hyperfine states, for different traps. Note, that since a large $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ also implies a large survival probability as defined in , it also plays an important role in quantum dynamical studies.

Atom optic billiards are good candidates for trapping atoms for high precision spectroscopy, since the interaction with the trap light is small because atoms are confined mainly in the dark . They have been used to study dynamics in the past, and have experimentally been demonstrated to display the features of ideal billiards, . For our calculations we therefore approximate the atom optics billiard with an ideal hard-wall billiard, and use the powerful technique of Vergini and Saraceno to numerically calculate highly excited eigenstates and eigenenergies . For an unperturbed Bunimovich stadium  (two semicircles of radius $`r=1`$ connected by two straight lines of length $`l=2`$, for units defined such that $`\mathrm{}=2m=1`$) a plot of the probability density of a highly excited state is shown in Fig. 3. The size of its wave vector is $`k_0100`$ ($`^2\psi =`$ -$`k_0^2\psi `$) hence the wavefunction have on the order of few thousand antinodes.

Systems respond very different to different types of perturbations . Perturbations of $`V_1\left(𝐱\right)`$ that can be described as a change of coordinate system such as rotation, translation (of importance to the inverted pyramid discussed above) and dilation will give exceptional high $`|n^{}=n|n|`$. Intuitively this is clear since an eigenstate of $`H_1`$ under these three perturbations is also an eigenstate of $`H_2`$ rotated, translated or dilated respectively. Therefore, to cause a significant drop in $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ the perturbation has to move the billiard wall distances on the order of typical distances between nodes in the eigenstate wave function, corresponding to $`\delta k1`$ in case of dilation (see Fig. 4). On the other hand perturbations that changes the symmetry of the billiard can cause much faster changes in $`|n^{}=n|n|`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 where it is seen that dilating a Bunimovich stadium causes $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ to drop much slower than changing the lengths of the straight sections (this perturbation we call ”stretching”). We are interested in the perturbation induced in an atom-optics billiard by changing the strength of the optical potential. This is best approximated by moving the billiard’s wall a fixed distance perpendicular to itself. This perturbation, that we name ”the physical perturbation”, can be viewed as a dilation followed by a negative stretch, and it shows features between those of dilation and stretch (Fig. 4).

In Fig 4 $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ for a rectangle is also shown in order to illustrate that the criteria stating that the dilation should move the wall of the billiard a distance of the order of the distance between nodes is valid not only for chaotic shapes but also for regular ones. For dilation in 1D systems this criteria is equivalent to the necessary criteria for substantial mixing from perturbation theory, namely that the perturbation energy should be comparable to the level separation. That this criteria also holds for dilating an integrable shape in 2D (where it corresponds to a perturbation energy of $`100`$ times the level spacing in our case) is also obvious since it is equivalent to two 1D systems. But its fulfilment for a chaotic system where variables cannot be separated is less obvious unless the above arguments are considered.

Figure 5 shows $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ as a function of perturbation strength for different eigenstates with $`k_0100`$. It is seen that $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ is highly state dependent in case of stretching, but is not in case of dilation. Following the explanation given above, it is clear that states with almost the same $`k_0`$ have almost the same $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ for a given perturbation strength in case of dilation. The sudden drop in $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ in case of stretching is often associated with avoided crossings of energy levels, after which the two states involved still hold the major part of the probability. This is clearly seen from Fig. 6, where matrix elements to the ten closest states of same parity are shown for stretching333Stretching is an even parity perturbation and selection rules therefore insures coupling only to states with the same parity. In Fig. 6b $`k`$ as a function of stretching factor is shown for the same ten states. As seen, the avoided crossing of the two neighboring states (drawn in bold lines) occurs for the same stretch factor as the one causing strong mixing between them (Fig. 6)). In Fig. 7 $`k`$ as a function of the dilation factor is presented, showing straight lines as expected. Matrix elements to close by states are 0 for dilation, in strong contrast to stretching shown in Fig. 6a .

## 4 Conclusions

We have analyzed echo spectroscopy of trapped ultra-cold atoms. Using this technique, we can combine the high precision of MW-spectroscopy with the high degree of control over experimental parameters provided by laser cooling and trapping techniques, to perform quantum dynamical studies even when many states are thermally populated. Based on this analysis we proposed a gravito-optical trap in which atoms in superposition states does not suffer from dephasing due to inhomogeneous Stark shifts.

We analyzed numerically the stability of eigenstates for several perturbations, and verified that the rapid drop in $`|n^{}=n|n|`$ seen for symmetry breaking perturbations is linked to avoided crossings of energy levels. The symmetry of the effective perturbations, caused by MW transitions in our experimental atom optics billiards was shown to depend on their shape. For example, rectangle or a circular billiard the physical perturbation corresponds approximately to pure dilation, thus enhancing the applicability of echo spectroscopy for these shapes, as compared to the Bunimovich stadium billiard discussed above.

Finally, the suppression of dephasing achieved with echo spectroscopy yields a dramatic increase in the coherence time for trapped atoms, that may find important applications for precision spectroscopy and quantum information processing.

Acknowledgements

This work was in part supported by Minerva Foundation, the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and Foundation Antorchas. M. F. A. Acknowledges help from Dansk-Israelsk Studiefond til Minde om Josef og Regine Nachemsohn.