text:
# On the possibility of measuring the gluon distribution in proton with “𝛾+𝑗𝑒𝑡” events at LHC

## 1 Introduction.

The modeling of the production processes of many new particles (Higgs boson, SUSY particles) in the forthcoming LHC experiments as well as future physical analysis of corresponding measurement are heavily based on the knowledge of gluon distribution in a proton $`f_g^p(x,Q^2)`$ Higgs  111For example, the production of Standard Model Higgs boson is mainly caused by gluon-gluon fusion $`ggH`$ over the entire mass range Higgs .. For this reason the study of the possibility of the measuring gluon density directly in the LHC experiments (especially in the kinematic region of small $`x`$ and high $`Q^2`$) is of a big interest.

One of the promising channels for this measurement is an inclusive prompt photon production Au\_Aa

$`pp\gamma ^{dir}+X.`$ (1)
The region of photon transverse momentum $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }`$, reached by UA1 UA1 , UA2 UA2 , CDF CDF1  and D0 D0\_1  experiments, extends up to $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }60GeV/c`$ and, according to recent results D0\_2 , up to $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }105GeV/c`$. These data together with the later ones (see references in Au0 Fr1 ) and E706 E706 , UA6 UA6  results give, in principle, an opportunity for tuning the form of gluon distribution (see Au2 ; Vo1 ; Mar ; CTEQ ). The rates and an estimation for cross sections of inclusive photon production at LHC are given in Au\_Aa  (see also AFF ).

Here we consider the process of a direct photon production in association with an opposite-side jet Cont ; Au2  (for experimental results see ISR ; UA2\_g ; CDF2 )

$`pp\gamma ^{dir}+jet+X.`$ (2)
In QCD leading order the processes (1) and (2) are caused by two subprocesses 222A contribution of another possible NLO channel $`ggg\gamma `$ was found to be still negligible even at LHC energies.: the “Compton-like” scattering

$`qgq+\gamma `$ (3)
and the “annihilation” subprocess

$`q\overline{q}g+\gamma .`$ (4)
The first one gives a dominant contribution to the cross sections of (1) and (2) Au0 ; Cont ; Au2  and serves as “signal” subprocess due to its direct connection with the gluon distribution.

The study of “$`\gamma +jet`$” process (2) is a more preferable as compared with the inclusive direct photon production process (1) from the viewpoint of extraction of information on the gluon distribution $`f_g^p(x,Q^2)`$ 333A detailed study of “$`\gamma +jet`$” events and different aspects of their application can be found in CMSthick ; BALD00 .. First of all, it is explained by a higher value of a purity of the process (2), for which the signal-to-background ($`S/B`$) ratios are several times higher than $`S/B`$ ratios to process (1) P5 ; PartIII . Secondly, while the cross section for the process (1) is given as an integral over the parton distribution functions (PDF) of a proton $`f_a^p(x,Q^2)`$, the cross section of the process (2) is expressed directly (at $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }30/GeV/c`$ 444i.e. in the region where “$`k_T`$ smearing effects” should not be important (for example, see Hu2 ).) through these PDFs:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\eta _1d\eta _2d(P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma })^2}}={\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}x_af_a^p(x_a,Q^2)x_bf_b^p(x_b,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\widehat{t}}}(ab\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}),`$ (5)
where $`a,b=q,\overline{q},g`$; $`1,2=q,\overline{q},g,\gamma `$. The incident parton momentum fractions $`x_a,x_b`$ may be reconstructed from the final state photon and jet pseudorapidities $`\eta _1=\eta ^\gamma `$, $`\eta _2=\eta ^{jet}`$ and $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }`$ according to formula 555see, for instance, Owe ; Cont .

$`x_{a,b}=P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }/\sqrt{s}(exp(\pm \eta _1)+exp(\pm \eta _2)).`$ (6)
Thus, formula (5) with the knowledge of the experimentally determined triple cross section in the intervals of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^{jet}`$ and $`(P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma })^2`$ and with account of results of independent measurements of $`q,\overline{q}`$ distributions MD1  allows the gluon distribution $`f_g^p(x,Q^2)`$ to be determined after essential reduction of a background contribution.

The $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }`$ distributions of the number of signal events remained after application of strict selection criteria, proposed in P5 ; P1 , were presented earlier in BALD00 ; DIS03 ; GLU ; DMS  666Analogous estimations for the Tevatron were done in D0\_Note ; BALD02 .. Those selection criteria allow to reduce considerably the background to “$`\gamma ^{dir}+jet`$” process (2) and select the events with a suppressed initial state radiation. Here we present the detailed study of background fraction in different $`x`$\- and $`Q^2`$\- intervals and show that “gluonic” subprocess (3) gives a noticeable contribution DIS03 .

This paper is organized as follows. The main background sources are discussed in section 2. In section 3 we list the selection criteria used to enhance the content of the signal events (3) in the selected data sample. In section 4 the numbers of the events suitable for an extraction of the gluon distribution function $`f_g^p(x,Q^2)`$ are estimated. The contribution of events of other types in different $`x`$\- and $`Q^2`$\- intervals are also shown in this section. A possibility of the further background events suppression by an account of the discrimination efficiencies between a single photon and $`\pi ^0,\eta ,\omega `$ and $`K_s^0`$ mesons as well as between quark and gluon jets is also demonstrated.

## 2 Background sources.

The background to the events based on the process (2) is mainly caused by:

— the events with high $`P_t`$ photons produced in the neutral decay channels of $`\pi ^0,\eta ,\omega `$ and $`K_s^0`$ mesons 777As it was shown in GMO  the charged decay channels of those mesons can be strongly suppressed even without a tracker information..

— the events with the photons radiated from a quark (i.e. bremsstrahlung photons) in the next-to-leading order QCD subprocesses of the $`qgqg`$, $`qqqq`$ and $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ scattering P5 ; PartIII .

The background events of the first type will be called below as the “$`\gamma mes`$” events while the events of the second type as the “$`\gamma brem`$” ones. A more detailed information about fundamental QCD subprocesses from which originate “$`\gamma mes`$” and “$`\gamma brem`$” events is presented in section 3.

The background may be also caused by “$`e^\pm `$ events” which contain one jet and $`e^\pm `$ as a direct photon candidate. The value of the fraction of these events in the total background was estimated in P5 ; PartIII  (see also sections 3, 4).

The background containing the “$`\gamma mes`$” events can be significantly suppressed by the event selection criteria, pointed in P5 ; PartIII ; P1 . It may be achieved, first of all, due to very strict photon isolation criteria because a parent meson ($`\pi ^0,\eta ,\omega `$ or $`K_s^0`$) is usually surrounded by other particles. Additional rejection factors were obtained from a full GEANT simulation of the physical processes in the CMS detector CMS\_EC  where for the Barrel region ($`|\eta |<1.4`$) we used an information from the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) cells only 888A preshower detector is not foreseen currently in the Barrel region of the CMS detector CMS\_EC . BS\_MES  while for the Endcap region ($`1.4<|\eta |<2.5`$) the results of the analysis of hits in the preshower detector BarnPS  were applied.

An especial attention should be paid to the events containing the bremsstrahlung photons. They are also noticeably rejected by the selection cuts but still constitute a significant part of the total background P5 ; PartIII .

The simulation, performed with a help of the Monte Carlo event generator PYTHIA PYT , has shown that in the selected “$`\gamma +jet`$” event samples the most part of “$`\gamma brem`$” events contain a gluon jet (see section 4). For this part of events, as well as for a part of “$`\gamma mes`$” events with a gluon jet, one can take into consideration the quark/gluon separation efficiencies found earlier in BS\_QG  999see also GL\_TR ; NN\_IJ .. The number of remained background events also must be well estimated in order to separate their contribution from one of the “$`\gamma ^{dir}+jet`$” events (2).

## 3 Definition of selection cuts .

101010In this section we follow mostly the selection criteria from P5 ; P1 .

1. Only the events with one jet and one “$`\gamma ^{dir}`$-candidate” (in what follows we shall denote it also as $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ and call the “photon” for brevity) with

$$P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{jet}30GeV/c\mathrm{and}P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}40GeV/c.$$
(7)
are considered here. In the simulation the signal (most energetic $`\gamma `$ or $`e^\pm `$ together with surrounding particles) is considered as a candidate for a direct photon if it fits into one CMS calorimeter tower having the size of $`0.087\times 0.087`$ in the $`\eta \varphi `$ space CMS\_EC .

For all applications a jet is defined according to the PYTHIA jetfinding algorithm LUCELL PYT . In the $`\eta \varphi `$ space the jet cone of radius $`R`$ counted from the jet initiator cell is taken to be $`R=((\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2)^{1/2}=0.7`$.

2. To suppress the contribution of background processes, i.e. to select mostly the events with the “isolated” photons and to discard the events that fake a direct photon signal, we restrict:

a) the value of the scalar sum of $`P_t`$ of hadrons and other particles surrounding a photon within a cone of $`R_{isol}^\gamma =((\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2)^{1/2}=0.7`$ (“absolute isolation cut”)

$$\underset{iR_{isol}}{}P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{isol}P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{isol};$$
(8)
b) the value of a fraction (“fractional isolation cut”)

$$\underset{iR_{isol}}{}P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}/P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}ϵ^\gamma ϵ_{CUT}^\gamma .$$
(9)
3. Only the events having no tracks 111111i.e. charged particles as we use the PYTHIA level of simulation. with $`P_t>1GeV/c`$ contained inside the cone of $`R=0.4`$ around a $`\gamma ^{dir}`$-candidate are accepted.

4. To suppress the background events with photons resulting from $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, $`\omega `$ and $`K_S^0`$ meson decays, we require the absence of a high $`P_t`$ hadron in the tower containing the $`\gamma ^{dir}`$-candidate:

$$P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{hadr}7GeV/c.$$
(10)
At the PYTHIA level of simulation this cut may effectively takes into account the imposing of an upper cut on the energy deposited in the cells of hadronic calorimeter (HCAL) that are behind the ECAL signal cells fired by the photon. In real experimental conditions one can require for a fraction of the photon energy, deposited in ECAL to be greater than some threshold 121212e.g. to be greater than $`0.95`$ (as it was used at D0 D0\_2 ).

5. We select the events with the vector $`\stackrel{}{P_t}^{jet}`$ being “back-to-back” to the vector $`\stackrel{}{P_t}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ (in the plane transverse to the beam line) within the azimuthal angle interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ defined by the equation:

$$\varphi _{(\gamma ,jet)}=180^{}\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi .$$
(11)
The angle $`\varphi _{(\gamma ,jet)}`$ between $`\stackrel{}{P_t}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P_t}^{jet}`$ vectors is calculated from the expression $`\stackrel{}{P_t}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}\stackrel{}{P_t}^{jet}=P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{jet}cos(\varphi _{(\gamma ,jet)})`$ with $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}=|\stackrel{}{P_t}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}|`$ and $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{jet}=|\stackrel{}{P_t}^{jet}|`$. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ may be chosen from the interval $`5^{}÷15^{}`$ for various energies.

6. We also choose only the events that do not have any other, except one jet, minijet (or cluster) high $`P_t`$ activity with the $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{clust}`$ higher than some threshold $`P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{clust}`$ value. Thus, we select events with

$$P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{clust}P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{clust},$$
(12)
where clusters are found by the same jetfinder LUCELL used to determine the main jet in the event. The most effective restrictions are $`P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{clust}=5÷15GeV/c`$. Their choice will be caused mostly by the gained statistics and $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ value (for higher $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ a weaker $`P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{clust}`$ can be used).

7. The events containing $`e^\pm `$ as a photon candidate are mainly caused by the subprocesses $`qgq^{}+W^\pm `$ and $`q\overline{q^{}}g+W^\pm `$ with the subsequent decay $`W^\pm e^\pm \nu `$. To reduce a contribution from these events P5 ; PartIII  we shall select only events having a small value of missing transverse momentum $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{miss}`$. So, we also use the following cut:

$`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{miss}P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{miss}.`$ (13)
Finally, in what follows we shall set the values of the cut parameters (besides those pointed above explicitly) as specified below:

$`P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{isol}=2GeV/c,ϵ_{CUT}^\gamma =5\%,\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 15^{},`$
$`P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{clust}=10GeV/c,P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{miss}=10GeV/c.`$ (14)
## 4 Determining the numbers of events and reducing the background.

To estimate a background to the signal events we have done a simulation using the Monte Carlo event generator PYTHIA with a mixture of all existing in PYTHIA QCD and SM subprocesses with large cross sections 131313They have ISUB=11–20, 28–31, 53, 68 according to the process numbers in PYTHIA PYT ., including subprocesses (3) and (4) 141414with ISUB=14 and 29 in notations of PYTHIA PYT ..

The total cross section of the background subprocesses exceeds the cross section of the subprocesses (3) and (4) by more than three orders of magnitude. The GRV 94L parameterization of the parton distribution functions is used as a default one.

Five generations (each of about 60–90 million events) with different values of minimal transverse momentum of a hard subprocess 151515CKIN(3) parameter in PYTHIA. $`\widehat{p}_{}^{min}`$ were done: $`\widehat{p}_{}^{min}`$ = 40, 70, 100, 140 and 200 $`GeV/c`$. The cross sections of the abovementioned subprocesses define the rates of corresponding physical events and, thus, appear here as weight factors. The selection criteria of section 3 were applied then to the generated events.

The total numbers of these events, i.e. events originated from subprocesses (3) and (4) as well as “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events, are presented (being divided by the factor of $`10^3`$) in Table 2 for each $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ interval ($`Q^2(P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma })^2`$) for the integrated luminosity 161616This value is intended to be accumulated during one year of LHC running at luminosity $`L=10^{33}cm^2s^1`$. $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. The momentum fractions $`x_a`$ and $`x_b`$ of the initial state partons were calculated via the photon and jet parameters according to formula (6) Owe ; Cont . The right-hand columns of this table shows, for a convenience, the correspondence of $`Q^2`$ interval to the $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }`$ interval.

One can see from Table 2 that at $`40<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }<50GeV/c`$ the total number of events is about 10 million and it drops to 24 200 at $`200<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }<283GeV/c`$, i.e. with five-fold increase of $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ the spectrum drops about 400 times.

The contribution from the background “$`e^\pm `$ events” was not included in Table 2. The number of these type events was estimated in P5 ; PartIII  171717It was found that after application of the selection criteria from section 3 and taking a track finding efficiency to be equal to $`85\%`$ (being averaged over all pseudorapidity range) CMS\_TRA  a contribution of the $`e^\pm `$ events (having the isolated $`e^\pm `$ with $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}>40GeV/c`$) to the total background reduces to less than $`1\%`$ at $`40P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}70GeV/c`$ and to about $`5\%`$ at $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}100GeV/c`$. and found to be very small as compared with other background types. Thus, in what follows we shall concentrate on more sizable background.

Now let us look at the contributions of different event types in various $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ intervals. The events selected after passing the criteria of section 3 were classified in accordance with the origin of the produced $`\gamma ^{dir}`$-candidates. So, we consider separately those that contain the direct photons (produced in subprocesses (3) and (4)) and those that have $`\gamma ^{dir}`$-candidates appearing due to the radiation from quarks (“$`\gamma brem`$” events) or from the $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, $`\omega `$ and $`K_s^0`$ meson decays (“$`\gamma mes`$” events). All these contributions are presented in Tables 1A–4A of Appendix in a form of number of events divided by the factor of $`10^3`$. The numbers of the events based on the Compton (3) and annihilation (4) subprocesses are shown in Tables 1A and 2A while the numbers of the “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events can be found in Tables 3A and 4A, respectively 181818See also P5 ; PartIII  for a more detailed information about background composition.. These numbers were obtained after passing the selection criteria of section 3. The fractions of each event type, calculated for a given interval of $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$, are presented in Fig. 1a ($`100\%`$ is taken for all types of events).

We see that the main part of the background is due to “$`\gamma brem`$” events and the combined contribution of “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events into the total number of events varies from about $`23\%`$ at $`40<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<50GeV/c`$ to about $`6\%`$ at $`100<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<140GeV/c`$ and drops to $`4\%`$ at $`200<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<283GeV/c`$.

We would like to stress that the essential point of our analysis is the study of the background contributions after application of the cuts for selecting the “$`\gamma +jet`$” events with a limited cluster/minijet activity and a clean $`\gamma jet`$ topology 191919See P5 ; PartIII  where the dynamics of application of the selection criteria is demonstrated.. Only in this case a contribution of “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events can be decreased noticeably 202020It was shown in P5 ; PartIII  that, for instance, at $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }>100GeV/c`$, the application of “photonic” cuts, usually used to select inclusive photon “$`\gamma +X`$” events, gives $`S/B=1.9`$ only, while a further account of “hadronic” and topological cuts for selection of “$`\gamma +jet`$” events leads to $`S/B=17.6`$, i.e to the increase of $`S/B`$ by about one order of magnitude (here $`S`$ is a total contribution from the events based on the subprocesses (3) and (4) and $`B`$ is a contribution from the sum of “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events). The application of other cuts that limit a $`P_t`$ activity out of the “$`\gamma +jet`$” system may lead to the following $`2030\%`$ increase of the $`S/B`$ ratio P5 ; PartIII ..

The selection criteria of section 3 are not final and are moderate enough. The results of their application may change if we shall vary some cuts. So, for example, a stronger limitation of cluster activity (12) by $`P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{clust}=5GeV/c`$ would lead to a further substantial decreasing of the numbers of “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events P5 ; PartIII .

The contribution of “$`\gamma mes`$” events can be also reduced by the account of the difference between a single photon and the $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, $`\omega `$ and $`K_s^0`$ meson signals produced in the detector.

To take into account the discrimination efficiencies between a single photon and the photons produced via multiphoton decays of $`\pi ^0,\eta `$, $`\omega `$ and $`K_s^0`$ mesons ($`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$), the results of papers BS\_MES  and BarnPS  were used. The efficiencies found in BS\_MES  were obtained by the analysis of the ECAL crystal cells only in the Barrel region ($`|\eta |<1.4`$) while the efficiencies in BarnPS  are found from the analysis of hits in the preshower detector in the Endcap region ($`1.4<|\eta |<2.5`$). The results of BS\_MES  and BarnPS  are briefly the following: the rejection efficiency of the neutral pion is about $`4967\%`$ (depending on an energy) in the Barrel region and it ranges as $`4571\%`$ for the Endcap region. The single photon selection efficiencies ($`ϵ_{sel}^\gamma `$) were set to $`70\%`$ and $`91\%`$ in the first and second cases respectively 212121With the same $`ϵ_{sel}^\gamma =70\%`$ one can also reject about $`9095\%`$ of “$`\eta `$meson events” and $`5592\%`$ of “$`K_s^0`$meson events” BS\_MES  in the Barrel region. For the Endcap the respective rejection efficiencies were taken here equal to those obtained for $`\pi ^0`$ meson. At the same time it is worth to note that the main contribution to the “$`\gamma mes`$” background comes from the “$`\pi ^0`$-events” ($`6265\%`$ in the interval $`40<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<140GeV/c`$) P5 ; PartIII . .

The results of applications of the described above $`\gamma /`$meson separation efficiencies to the “$`\gamma mes`$” events themselves are placed in Table 8A (compare with Table 4A) and in Tables 5A–7A of Appendix for other event types. Thus, we see that for the “$`\gamma mes`$” events the reduction factor of about $`23`$ for $`40<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<100GeV/c`$ can be obtained with a loss of $`1619\%`$ of events of other types with a single photon in the final state. The total numbers of all events left after account of the $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ separation efficiencies are presented in Table 2.

The physical models implemented in PYTHIA allows to get an idea about a possible origination of the “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events. Tables 4 and 4 show the relative contributions of four main (having the largest cross sections) fundamental QCD subprocesses $`qgqg`$, $`qqqq`$, $`ggq\overline{q}`$ and $`gggg`$ into a production of the “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events selected with the criteria 1–7 of section 3 for three $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ intervals 222222The sum over contributions from the four considered QCD subprocesses in some lines of Tables 4 and 4 is less than 100$`\%`$. The remained percentages correspond to other subprocesses (like $`q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ or $`qgq^{}W^\pm `$). The errors in those tables are statistical and caused by the number of entries for various background types after application of the criteria 1–7 of section 3.. One can see from these tables that most of “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events (from $`70`$ to $`80\%`$) still originate from “gluonic” $`qgqg`$, $`ggq\overline{q}`$ and $`gggg`$ subprocesses with dominant contribution from the first subprocess.

The analysis of the PYTHIA simulation output also shows that practically in all of selected “$`\gamma brem`$” events the “bremsstrahlung photons” are produced in the final state of the fundamental subprocess. They are radiated from the outgoing quarks in the case of the first three subprocesses or can appear as the result of string breaking in the case of $`gggg`$ scattering. The last mechanism, naturally, gives a small contribution into the “$`\gamma brem`$” events production. In the first case the selected (see section 3) photon carries away almost all energy of a quark in the final state. The events of this kind have mostly a gluon jet ($`70.6\%`$ of events for $`40<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<71GeV/c`$ interval and $`58.7\%`$ of events for $`141<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<283GeV/c`$) with the photon radiated in back-to-back direction to the jet in $`\varphi `$ plane. In the second case ($`gggg`$ based events) a remained jet is practically always of the gluon type.

As for “$`\gamma mes`$” events, it is naturally to expect that in the events based on the $`qgqg`$ scattering after suppression of the cluster activity by the cut $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{clust}<10GeV/c`$ (see (12)) a remained jet can originate with an equal probability from a quark as well as from a gluon (50$`\%`$ by 50$`\%`$) while in the events based on the $`qqqq`$, $`ggq\overline{q}`$ ($`gggg`$) subprocesses the jet is always of the quark (gluon) type.

Thus, one can conclude that about $`73\%`$ ($`40\%`$), $`70\%`$ ($`36\%`$) and $`59\%`$ ($`33\%`$) of the “$`\gamma brem`$” (“$`\gamma mes`$”) events have a gluon jet in the selected one-jet events in $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ intervals $`40÷71`$, $`71÷141`$ and $`141÷283GeV/c`$, respectively.

For the following suppression of the contributions from “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events having a gluon jet in the final state one can apply the quark/gluon separation efficiencies ($`ϵ^{q/g}`$) obtained earlier in BS\_QG . The results of BS\_QG  shows that with account of the quark jet selection efficiency of about $`6567\%`$ it is possible to reject $`7381\%`$ of gluons jets 232323This efficiency slightly depends on the jet transverse momentum $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{jet}`$ and pseudorapidity $`\eta ^{jet}`$ BS\_QG . for $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{jet}`$ varying from $`40`$ to $`200GeV/c`$.

The numbers of different types of events after an account of the both $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ separation efficiencies are presented in Tables 9A–12A of Appendix while their fractions (in $`\%`$) are shown in Fig. 1c.

By comparing Tables 7A and 11A one can see that the numbers of “$`\gamma brem`$” events 242424that are, in fact, irreducible by using only photon information after application of the strong isolation cuts (8) and (9). are reduced in $`2.53`$ times at the cost of $`35\%`$ loss of the events based on subprocess (3) and their fraction in the total number of events becomes about $`8\%`$ at $`40<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<50GeV/c`$ and about $`2\%`$ at $`140<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<200GeV/c`$. The total contributions of the “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events in the same $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ intervals compose $`13.2\%`$ and $`2.8\%`$, respectively.

We see also that the account of $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ separation efficiency reduces a contribution of the events originated from annihilation subprocess (4) to the total number of events (especially at higher $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }`$) to the size of about $`35\%`$ over all considered $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }`$ range (see Fig. 1 and Tables 1A–8A).

The final numbers of all “$`\gamma +jet`$” events for the luminosity $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$ at different $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ intervals after an account of the both separation efficiencies are given in Table 5. We see that after passing all selection cuts and application of the $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ efficiencies one can get about 5 million events at the $`40<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<50GeV/c`$ interval, about 200 000 at $`100<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<141GeV/c`$ and about 11 000 at the last considered interval $`200<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<283GeV/c`$. The total expected statistics on the “$`\gamma +jet`$” events, left after account of the $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ efficiencies, is about $`910^6`$ events. The final contributions of different subprocesses in various $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ intervals are presented in Tables 9A–12A.

## 5 Conclusion.

The results presented above show that during one year of the LHC running at low luminosity ($`L=10^{33}cm^2s^1`$) one can collect after application of the proposed selection criteria the clean sample of “$`\gamma ^{dir}+jet`$” events with a sufficient statistics to determine a gluon density in a proton in new kinematic region of $`210^4x1`$ and $`1.610^3Q^2210^5(GeV/c)^2`$. At the same time the combined contribution of “$`\gamma brem`$” events and “$`\gamma mes`$” events is estimated to be about $`23\%`$ at $`40<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<50GeV/c`$ and it drops to $`4\%`$ at $`200<P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}<283GeV/c`$ (see Tables 1A–4A and Fig. 1a).

The given estimations on contributions of the “$`\gamma brem`$” and “$`\gamma mes`$” events are not final yet. For instance, a stronger limitation $`P_{t}^{}{}_{CUT}{}^{clust}=5GeV/c`$ (see (12)) would lead to a following substantial (about $`30\%`$) reduction of their contribution P5 ; PartIII .

With an additional account of discrimination efficiencies between single photons and $`\pi ^0,\eta ,K_s^0`$ mesons as well as those between quark and gluon jets BS\_MES ; BarnPS ; BS\_QG  one can increase noticeably the purity of the selected samples of the “$`\gamma ^{dir}+jet`$” events (see Tables 9A–12A of Appendix and Fig. 1). A possibility to obtain better background rejection factors will depend on the chosen values of single photon and quark jet selection efficiencies 252525Let us remind that the single photon selection efficiencies equal to $`70\%`$ and $`91\%`$ for the Barrel and Endcap regions and quark jet selection efficiencies equal to about $`65\%`$ were chosen here for the given estimations. which are in their turn will be caused by a gained statistics of the “$`\gamma +jet`$” events.

It is also worth mentioning that a full simulation 262626We mean a full simulation of the detector response with the following digitization and reconstruction of signals from physical objects. of the signal and background processes is rather difficult due to a very small selection efficiency for the background events ($`0.010.05\%`$ depending on an energy) P5 ; PartIII  what, in its turn, requires huge computational resources to collect the background events statistics sufficient for the analysis.

Fig. 2 shows in the widely used $`(x,Q^2)`$ kinematic plot (see also Sti ) what area can be covered for studying the process $`qg\gamma +q`$. From this figure (and Tables 1, 2, 5) it becomes clear that even at low LHC luminosity it would be possible to study the gluon distribution with a good statistics of “$`\gamma +jet`$” events in the region of small $`x`$ at values of $`Q^2`$ that are about 2 orders of magnitude higher than those reached at HERA now. It is worth emphasizing that an extension of experimentally reachable region at LHC to the region of lower values of $`Q^2`$, overlapping with the area covered by HERA, would be also of a big interest.

Acknowledgments
We are greatly thankful to D. Denegri who stimulated us to study the physics of “$`\gamma +jet`$” processes, permanent support and fruitful suggestions. It is a pleasure for us to express our recognition for helpful discussions to P. Aurenche, M. Dittmar, M. Fontannaz, J.Ph. Guillet, M.L. Mangano, E. Pilon, H. Rohringer, S. Tapprogge, H. Weerts and J. Womersley.

List of figures
1. The contributions of various events types to the total number of events as a function of $`P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}`$ presented for three cases: (a) No separation efficiency is taken into account, (b) $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account and (c) $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
2. LHC $`(x,Q^2)`$ kinematic region for $`pp\gamma +jet`$ process.

List of tables
1. Numbers of all events in different $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals for $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$.
2. Numbers of all events in different $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals for $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
3. Relative contribution (in per cents) of different QCD subprocesses into the “$`\gamma brem`$” events production.
4. Relative contribution (in per cents) of different QCD subprocesses into the “$`\gamma mes`$” events production.
5. Numbers of all events in different $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals for $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
Appendix
1A. Numbers of “$`qgq+\gamma `$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$.
2A. Numbers of “$`q\overline{q}\gamma +g`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$.
3A. Numbers of “$`\gamma brem`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$.
4A. Numbers of “$`\gamma mes`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$.
5A. Numbers of “$`qgq+\gamma `$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
6A. Numbers of “$`q\overline{q}\gamma +g`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
7A. Numbers of “$`\gamma brem`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
8A. Numbers of “$`\gamma mes`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
9A. Numbers of “$`qgq+\gamma `$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
10A. Numbers of “$`q\overline{q}\gamma +g`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
11A. Numbers of “$`\gamma brem`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.
12A. Numbers of “$`\gamma mes`$” events in $`Q^2`$ and $`x`$ intervals at $`L_{int}=10fb^1`$. $`ϵ^{\gamma /mes}`$ and $`ϵ^{q/g}`$ separation efficiencies are taken into account.


format: text

text:
# Effect of exchange interaction on superparamagnetic relaxation

## I Introduction

Due to their high coercivity, single-domain nanoparticles exhibit long-range stability of the magnetization and thereby that of the information stored in recording media. The storage density may be increased by using very small particles, but then surface effects become dominant and affect the magnetization relaxation. Therefore, one of our aims is to include surface effects in the calculation of the relaxation time of the particle magnetization. However, this requires a microscopic approach to account for the local environment inside the particle, and thus include microscopic interactions such as spin-spin exchange, in addition to anisotropy and applied field. Unfortunately, this leads to a rather difficult task owing to the large number of degrees of freedom which hinders any attempt to analyze the energyscape. For this reason, inter alia, calculations of the reversal time of the magnetization of fine single-domain ferromagnetic particles, initiated by Néel Neel , and set firmly in the context of the theory of stochastic processes by Brown Brown , have invariably ignored all kind of interactions and included only the internal anisotropy of the particle, the random field due to thermal fluctuations, and the Zeeman term.

In 1968 Langer Langer  came up with a general approach to the calculation of the reaction rate of a system with $`N`$ degrees of freedom, which is a powerful method of attack on the problem of interaction. Within this approach the problem of calculating the relaxation time for a multi-dimensional process is reduced to solving a steady-state Fokker-Planck equation (SSFPE) in the immediate neighborhood of the saddle point that the system crosses as it goes from a metastable state to another state of greater stability. The idea is that a steady-state situation can be set up by continuously replenishing the metastable state at a rate equal to the rate at which it is leaking across the activation energy barrier. A brief review of the main steps and application to the problem at hand are given after Eq. (8), see also Braun  for uniform and non-uniform magnetization, and CoffeyGaraninMcCarthy  for comparison with Kramers’ theory. However, Langer’s approach is only valid in the limit of intermediate-to-high damping (IHD) because of the inherent assumption that the potential energy in the vicinity of the saddle point may be approximated by its second-order Taylor expansion. The result for small damping fails because the region of deviation from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution set up in the well extends far beyond the narrow region at the top of the barrier.

The problem associated with the generalization of Brown’s theory to include interactions is rather difficult and can in general be solved only numerically. But before attacking this problem, one needs to understand the effect of exchange interaction on the relaxation time of the minimal system, i.e., for a pair of atomic spins coupled via exchange interaction, including of course the usual magneto-crystalline anisotropy and Zeeman terms. Besides, in the case of exchange interaction, this is the unique non-trivial step towards the above-mentioned generalization, where analytical expressions can be obtained for the relaxation time. It is the purpose of this work to solve this problem within Langer’s approach and to compare with the Néel-Brown result for the one-spin problem. As a byproduct, we will show that Langer’s quadratic approximation at the saddle point fails when the exchange coupling assumes a “critical value” even in the IHD limit. In this case, finiteness of the relaxation rate requires a higher-order expansion of the energy near the saddle point. The generalization to a multi-spin particle will be briefly discussed at the end.

We finally mention that the effect of dipolar interactions on the relaxation time has been considered by a few authors. In Refs. assembly  approximate analytical expressions were obtained for the relaxation time in various situations of assemblies of magnetic moments. In Ref. ChantrellLyberatos  a pair of coupled dipoles was dealt with using the (numerical) Langevin approach.

## II Statement of the problem and analysis of the energyscape

We consider a system of two exchange-coupled spins with the Hamiltonian

$`={\displaystyle \frac{j}{2}}\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{S}_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\stackrel{}{S}_1\stackrel{}{e}_1)^2+(\stackrel{}{S}_2\stackrel{}{e}_2)^2\right]\stackrel{}{h}(\stackrel{}{S}_1+\stackrel{}{S}_2),`$
$`jJ/K,hH/2K`$ (1)
where $`J>0`$ is the exchange coupling, $`K>0`$ the anisotropy constant, $`H`$ the applied magnetic field, and $`h`$ the reduced field, i.e., $`0h<1`$. $`\stackrel{}{e}_i`$ are uniaxial anisotropy unit vectors. Here we restrict ourselves to the case $`\stackrel{}{h}\stackrel{}{e}_i,i=1,2`$. Owing to the symmetry of this system with respect to rotations around the easy axis, the number of variables reduces to three, $`\theta _1,\theta _2,\phi \phi _1\phi _2`$.

Now we apply Langer’s approach to the energy (1) and study the relaxation rate as a function of the exchange coupling $`j`$. We first analyze the energyscape in Fig. 1.

The absolute minimum of the energy (1) corresponds to the ferromagnetic order along the easy axis,

$$(0,0,\phi );e_{ss}^{(0)}=\frac{j}{2}2h1,$$
(2)
where henceforth $`e^{(0)}`$ denotes the energy of the state. One metastable state corresponds to a ferromagnetic order opposite to the field

$$(\pi ,\pi ;\phi );e_{m_1}^{(0)}=\frac{j}{2}+2h1.$$
(3)
There is also the metastable state of anti-ferromagnetic order,

$$(0,\pi ;\phi )\text{or}(\pi ,0;\phi );e_{m_2}^{(0)}=\frac{j}{2}1.$$
(4)
As to saddle points, we find that their number and loci crucially depend on the exchange coupling constant $`j`$. More precisely, for $`j>j_c1h^2`$, there is a single saddle point given by

$$(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _2=h;\phi );e_s^{(0)}=\frac{j}{2}+h^2,$$
(5)
whereas for $`j<j_c`$ there are two saddle points given by

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1,2}^\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(ha^\epsilon \pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^\epsilon }\right)X_\pm ^\epsilon ;\phi ,`$ (6)
where $`\epsilon =\pm `$ and $`a^\epsilon =\epsilon \sqrt{1j},b^\epsilon =\epsilon \sqrt{1+(j/2)^2/(1j)},\mathrm{\Delta }^\epsilon =(h+a^\epsilon )^2+2j4b^\epsilon h,`$ with energy,

$$e_\epsilon ^{(0)}=\frac{j}{2}\sqrt{(1+b^\epsilon h\frac{j}{2})^2(a^\epsilon +h)^2}\frac{j}{2}(1+b^\epsilon h\frac{j}{2})+\frac{1}{2}(h^2(a^\epsilon )^2+2b^\epsilon h).$$
(7)
At $`j=j_c`$ the saddle point (6) with $`\epsilon =+`$ merges with the saddle point (5), while that with $`\epsilon =`$ merges with the metastable state (4), see Fig. 1 central panel.

Starting with both spins aligned in the metastable state (3) with $`\theta _{1,2}=\pi `$, if $`j<j_c`$ one of the two spins crosses the saddle point (6)($`\epsilon =+`$) into the state (4) by reversing its direction. Then the second spin follows through the second saddle point (6)($`\epsilon =`$), of lower energy due to the exchange coupling (see Fig. 2 (left)), ending up in the stable state (2). In Fig. 1 (left) the path is indicated by a pair of curved arrows. There are actually two such paths corresponding to the two-fold symmetry of the problem owing to the full identity of the two spins. Note that when the first spin starts to switch and arrives at $`\theta _1\pi /2`$, the second spin has $`\theta _2\pi `$ (hence the curved arrows in Fig. 1), which suggests that in the switching process of the first spin, the position of the second spin undergoes some fluctuations creating a small transverse field, and when $`\theta _1=0`$ the second spin goes back to the position $`\theta _2=\pi `$ before it proceeds to switch in turn. The successive switching of the two spins through the corresponding saddle points is a sequential two-step process 111Similarly, it was found in Ref. ChantrellLyberatos  that the reversal of the two dipoles considered is a two-stage process with an intermediary metastable antiparallel state., so the relaxation rates for $`j<j_c`$ add up inverse-wise. In the case $`j>j_c`$ the two spins cross the unique saddle point (5) to go from the metastable state (3) into the stable one (2) in a single step, see Fig. 1 (right) where the path is indicated by a single straight arrow. There is the symmetry $`\pm \theta ^{(s)}`$, which leads to a factor of 2 in the relaxation rate. Therefore, if we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}`$ the respective relaxation rates, the relaxation rate of the two-spin system is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^{}/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^{}),\hfill & \text{if }jj_c\hfill \\ 2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c},\hfill & \text{if }jj_c.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
In Langer’s approach the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$s are obtained from the SSFPE linearized around each saddle point, using the fluctuating variables $`\eta _i=(t_i,p_i)`$ where $`t_i\theta _i\theta _i^s,p_i\phi _i\phi _i^s,i=1,2`$, or more adequately the “canonical” variables $`\psi _n=(\xi _\pm ,\zeta _\pm )`$ with $`\xi _\pm =(t_1\pm t_2)/\sqrt{2},\zeta _\pm =(p_1\pm p_2)/\sqrt{2}`$, in which the energy Hessian is diagonal. The deterministic dynamics of the system is governed by the Landau-Lifshitz equations, which upon linearization near the saddle point, read

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}_tt_i=_{p_i}_2\alpha _{t_i}_2\hfill & \\ _tp_i=\alpha _{p_i}_2+_{t_i}_2,i=1,2\hfill & \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`_2`$ is the quadratic approximation of the energy (1) near the saddle point and $`\alpha `$ is the damping parameter. In matrix form Eqs. (9) become $`_t\eta _i=_jM_{ij}_{\eta _j}_2`$, where $`M`$ is the dynamic matrix containing the precessional and dissipative parts. Rather than investigating the stochastic trajectories $`\eta _i(t)`$ that arise by adding a noise term in Eqs. (9), Langer concentrates on the distribution function $`\rho (\{\eta \},t)`$ as the probability that the system is found in the configuration $`\{\eta \}`$ at time $`t`$. The time evolution of $`\rho `$ is governed by the Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) $`_t\rho +_i_{\eta _i}J_i=0`$, which is a continuity equation with the probability current $`J_i`$ given, near the saddle point, by $`J_i=_jM_{ij}\left(_{\eta _j}_2+(1/k_BT)_{\eta _j}\right)\rho .`$ In order to calculate the nucleation rate, one must solve the FPE. A particular solution is obtained at equilibrium and is given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution $`\rho _{eq}=\mathrm{exp}(\beta \left\{\eta \right\})/Z_0`$, which corresponds to zero current, $`J_i=0`$. However, what is really needed is a finite probability current flowing across the saddle point. In fact, instead of solving the time-dependent FPE, Langer solves the SSFPE $`_t\rho =0`$ near the saddle point. The steady-state situation may be realized by imposing the boundary conditions: $`\rho \rho _{eq}`$ near the metastable state and $`\rho 0`$ beyond the saddle point. Then, the problem of calculating the escape rate reduces to the calculation of the total current by integrating the probability current $`J_i`$ over a surface through the saddle point. This led Langer to his famous expression for the relaxation rate which is valid in the IHD limit.

However, since the escape rate is simply given by the ratio of the total current through the saddle point to the number of particles in the metastable state, Langer’s result for the escape rate can in fact be achieved by only computing the energy-Hessian eigenvalues near the saddle points and metastable states, from which one then infers the partition function $`\stackrel{~}{Z_s}`$ of the system restricted to the region around the saddle point where the energy-Hessian negative eigenvalue is (formally)222See Ref. Langer  for a rigorous derivation taken with absolute value, and the partition function $`Z_m`$ of the region around the metastable state. When computing these partition functions, one has to identify and take care of each Goldstone mode, that is a massless mode or zero-energy fluctuation associated with a continuous unbroken global symmetry. Finally, one computes the unique 333Indeed, if the saddle point is to describe the nucleating fluctuation, there must be exactly one direction of motion away from the saddle point in which the solution of the equations of motion of the modes $`\psi _n`$ is unstable Langer . negative eigenvalue $`\kappa `$ of the SSFPE corresponding to the unstable mode at the saddle point as the negative eigenvalue of the dynamic matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{mn}=\lambda _n(DMD^T)_{mn}`$, where the $`\lambda _n`$’s are the eigenvalues of the Hessian at the saddle point and $`D`$ is the transformation matrix from $`\eta _i`$ to $`\psi _n`$.

Consequently, Langer’s final expression for the escape rate is rewritten in the following somewhat more practical form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\left|\kappa \right|}{2\pi }\frac{\stackrel{~}{Z_s}}{Z_m},$$
(10)
where $`\left|\kappa \right|`$ is the attempt frequency which contains the damping parameter $`\alpha `$.

## III Relaxation rate of the two-spin system

Now, we give the different relaxation rates for $`j>j_c,j<j_c`$, and $`jj_c`$.

Relaxation rate for $`j>j_c`$: The quadratic expansion of the energy (1) at the saddle point (5) reads,

$$H_s^{(2)}=e_s^{(0)}\frac{j_c}{2}\xi _+^2+\frac{jj_c}{2}\xi _{}^2+\frac{jj_c}{2}\zeta _{}^2,$$
(11)
with zero eigenvalue for the $`\zeta _+`$ mode, that is the Goldstone mode associated with the rotation around the easy axis. $`e_s^{(0)}`$ is given in Eq. (5). The negative eigenvalue of the SSFPE, corresponding to the unstable mode, is $`\kappa =\alpha j_c`$.

The partition function at the saddle point $`Z_s=𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2e^{\beta H_s},`$ where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _id\theta _id\phi _i,i=1,2`$ is calculated by changing to the variables $`\xi _\pm ,\zeta _\pm `$, setting $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _i\sqrt{j_c}`$ (see Eq. (5)) in the integration measure, and finally computing the Gaussian integrals. Hence,

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_s=2\pi \left(\frac{2\pi }{\beta }\right)^{3/2}\frac{1}{j\sqrt{1j_c/j}}e^{\beta e_s^{(0)}},$$
(12)
where we have formally replaced the negative eigenvalue $`(j_c)`$ by its absolute value. The partition function $`Z_m`$ at the metastable state (3) is computed by expanding the energy up to $`2^{\text{nd}}`$ order, leading to

$$Z_m=e^{\beta e_{m1}^{(0)}}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\beta }\right)^2\frac{1}{(1h)(j+1h)}.$$
(13)
Using Eq. (10) and inserting the symmetry factor of $`2`$, the relaxation rate for $`j>j_c`$ reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j>j_c}=2\alpha \sqrt{\frac{\beta }{2\pi }}(1h^2)(1h)\frac{1+(1h)/j}{\sqrt{1j_c/j}}\times e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }e^{(0)}},\mathrm{\Delta }e^{(0)}=(1h)^2.$$
(14)
For $`j\mathrm{}`$ (14) tends to the Néel-Brown result,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j>j_c}2\alpha \sqrt{\frac{\beta }{2\pi }}(1h^2)(1h)e^{\beta (1h)^2},$$
(15)
for the relaxation rate of one rigid pair of spins with a barrier height twice that of one spin. Note, however, that this convergence is very slow so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j>j_c}`$ remains above the Néel-Brown result and only merges with the latter for $`j10`$.

Relaxation rate for $`j<j_c`$: Here we are faced with a semi-analytical case since the attempt frequencies $`|\kappa ^\epsilon |`$ (for $`\epsilon =\pm `$) cannot be obtained in a closed form and are thus computed numerically. On the other hand, following the same procedure as for $`j>j_c`$ we obtain the relaxation rate for $`\epsilon =\pm `$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j<j_c}^\epsilon =\sqrt{\frac{\beta }{\pi }}|\kappa ^\epsilon |\sqrt{\frac{P^\epsilon }{j}}\frac{N^\epsilon }{\sqrt{R_+^\epsilon R_{}^\epsilon +jQ^\epsilon (R_+^\epsilon +R_{}^\epsilon )}}e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }e_\epsilon ^{(0)}},$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }e_\epsilon ^{(0)}`$ is the barrier height given by the energy (7) measured with respect to (3) or (4) for $`\epsilon =+,`$ respectively, and (see Eq. (6) et seq. for notation) $`P^\epsilon =\sqrt{(1+b^\epsilon hj/2)^2(a^\epsilon +h)^2},Q^\epsilon =b^\epsilon hj/2+P^\epsilon ,R_\pm ^\epsilon =1+X_\pm ^\epsilon (2X_\pm ^\epsilon +h),N^+=(1h)(j+1h),N^{}=j_cj.`$ The limit of the relaxation rate (16) when $`j0`$ is just the Néel-Brown result for one spin. Indeed, the product of the last two factors in the prefactor tend to $`(1h)/\sqrt{2}`$, the attempt frequencies tend to $`\alpha j_c=\alpha (1h^2)`$, and the energy barriers $`\mathrm{\Delta }e_\epsilon ^{(0)}(1h)^2/2`$.

Note that in the present regime of $`j<j_c`$ the large value of anisotropy has not changed the temperature dependence of the individual relaxation rates, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j<j_c}^\epsilon `$, with $`\epsilon =\pm `$. This is due to the fact that $`1/\sqrt{T}`$ appears in the prefactor each time there is a continuously degenerate class of saddle points Braun , which is indeed the case for $`j>j_c`$ and $`j<j_c`$ with $`\epsilon =+`$ and $`\epsilon =`$. However, anisotropy do affect the temperature dependence of the relaxation rate of the two-spin system, since for $`j<j_c`$ there are two saddle points bringing each a factor $`1/\sqrt{T}`$, see the first line in Eq. (8).

The case of $`jj_c`$: When $`j`$ approaches $`j_c`$ either from above or from below, more Hessian eigenvalues (in addition to $`\lambda _{\zeta ^+}`$) vanish, rendering the saddle point rather flat and thus leading to a divergent relaxation rate. Indeed, for $`jj_c`$ the relaxation rate (14) diverges, which clearly shows that Langer’s approach which uses a quadratic approximation for the energy at the saddle point, e.g., Eq. (11), fails in this case. The remedy is to push the energy expansion to the $`6^{th}`$order in the variable $`\xi _{}`$ (since $`\lambda _\xi _{}=jj_c0`$ as $`jj_c`$), i.e.,

$$\delta e_s=e_se_s^{(0)}\frac{\lambda _\xi _{}}{2}\xi _{}^2+\frac{c}{4}\xi _{}^4+\frac{d}{6}\xi _{}^6,$$
(17)
where $`c=(1j7h^2/4)/3<0,d=(j1+31h^2/16)/30>0`$. Then, the contribution $`\sqrt{2\pi /\beta \lambda _\xi _{}}`$ of the mode $`\xi _{}`$ to the relaxation rate (14) must be replaced by$`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi _{}e^{\beta \delta e}`$, upon which the divergence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j>j_c}`$ is cut off (see Fig. 2 (right)).

Similarly, when $`j`$ approaches $`j_c`$ from below, for $`\epsilon =`$ the eigenvalue $`\lambda _\xi ^{}`$ vanishes at $`j=j_c`$, upon which the saddle point (6) ($`\epsilon =`$) merges with the state (4) and thereby the partition functions $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_s`$ and $`Z_m`$ tend to infinity. However, as $`Z_m1/(j_cj)`$ increases much faster than $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_s`$, and $`|\kappa ^{}|0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j<j_c}^{}`$ tends to zero as $`jj_c`$. On the other hand, for $`\epsilon =+`$, both $`\lambda _\xi ^{}`$ and $`\lambda _\zeta ^{}`$ vanish leading to a divergent relaxation rate, since now $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_s`$ diverges but $`Z_m`$ in Eq. (13) remains finite for the metastable state (3) is well defined. Indeed, as $`jj_c`$, the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j<j_c}^+`$ goes over to the result in Eq. (14) upon making the change $`jj_c`$, and taking account of the symmetry factor. In this case, the divergence at the point $`j=j_c`$ cannot be cut off by expanding the energy beyond the $`2^{\text{nd}}`$ order and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j<j_c}^+`$ is simply cut off at the point where it joins $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j>j_c}`$ taking account of Eq. (17).

## IV Discussion and conclusion

In Fig. 2 (right) we plot ($`ln`$ of) the relaxation rate of the two-spin system as defined in Eq. (8), under the condition of IHD, in which Langer’s approach is valid, that the reduced barrier height $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }e^{(0)}1`$ and $`\alpha \beta \mathrm{\Delta }e^{(0)}>1`$ DG . We also plot separately both relaxation rates for $`jj_c`$. We see that the relaxation rate of the two-spin system contains two unconnected branches corresponding to the two regimes, $`j<j_c`$ and $`j>j_c`$, the bridging of which would require a more sophisticated approach. Fig. 2 (right) also shows that as $`j`$ increases, but $`jj_c`$, the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^+`$ decreases because the switching of the first spin is hindered by the (ferromagnetic) exchange coupling. While $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^{}`$ is an increasing function of $`j`$ with a faster rate, since now the exchange coupling works in favor of the switching of the second spin. This is also illustrated by the evolution of the energy barrier height in Fig. 2 (left). As $`j`$ approaches $`j_c`$ from below, the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^+`$ tends to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}`$ because the respective saddle points merge at $`j=j_c`$. Whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jj_c}^{}`$ goes to zero since the corresponding saddle point merges with the antiferromagnetic state that is no longer accessible to the system. For $`jj_c`$, as $`j`$ increases the minimum (2), the metastable state (3) and the saddle point (5) merge together, which means that the system is found in an “energy groove” along the direction $`\theta _1=\theta _2`$ because the eigenvalue $`\lambda _\xi _{}`$ corresponding to the mode $`\theta _1\theta _2`$ becomes very large, and thus the escape rate decreases and eventually reaches the Néel-Brown value at large $`j`$.

The present study has helped us understand the effect of exchange coupling on the relaxation rate of the two-spin system, and will be very useful for the generalization to multiple-spin small particles at least for small deviations from collinearity, where it has been shown DGHK  that the surface contribution to the macroscopic energy has a simple cubic anisotropy. However, this generalization can only be performed using numerical techniques. This is now attempted by the help of the ridge method IonovaCarter  for probing the energyscape and locating the saddle points, and by the (Onsager-Machlup) path integrals Berkov  for determining the most probable paths connecting a metastable state to a more stable state.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is greatly indebted to D.A. Garanin for instructive suggestions. He also thanks W.T. Coffey and D.J. McCarthy for helpful discussions at an early stage of this work.