1: \input epsf
2:
3: \def\salto{\vskip 12pt}
4: \documentclass[10pt]{article}
5:
6: \title{Pulse Shape Discrimination in the IGEX Experiment}
7:
8:
9:
10:
11: \begin{document} % End of preamble and beginning of text.
12:
13: \maketitle
14:
15: \begin{center}
16: %List of authors
17: D. Gonz\'{a}lez$^{a}$, J. Morales$^{a}$\footnote{Corresponding
18: author: jmorales@posta.unizar.es}, S. Cebri\'{a}n$^{a}$, E.
19: Garc\'{\i}a$^{a}$, I.G. Irastorza$^{a}$\footnote{Present address:
20: CERN, EP Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}, \\A.
21: Morales$^{a}$, A. Ortiz de Sol\'{o}rzano$^{a}$, J.
22: Puimed\'{o}n$^{a}$, M.L. Sarsa$^{a}$, J.A. Villar$^{a}$ \\ C.E.
23: Aalseth$^{b}$\footnote{Present address: Pacific Northwest National
24: Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352, USA}, F.T. Avignone III$^{b}$
25: \\ R.L. Brodzinski$^{c}$, W.K. Hensley$^{c}$, H.S. Miley$^{c}$, J.H. Reeves$^{c}$ \\
26: %\footnote{Corresponding author:
27: %amorales@posta.unizar.es},
28: I.V. Kirpichnikov$^{d}$, A.A. Klimenko$^{e}$ \\ S.B.
29: Osetrov$^{e}$,
30: %%S. Scopel$^{a}$,
31: A.A. Smolnikov$^{e}$, , A.A. Vasenko$^{e}$, S.I. Vasiliev$^{e}$\\
32: V.S. Pogosov$^{f}$, A.G. Tamanyan$^{f}$
33: \end{center}
34:
35: \begin{center}
36: \begin{em}
37: $^{a}$Laboratory of Nuclear and High Energy Physics, University of
38: Zaragoza, \\ 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
39: \\
40: $^{b}$University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208
41: USA
42: \\
43: $^{c}$Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington
44: 99352 USA
45: \\
46: $^{d}$Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 117 259
47: Moscow, Russia
48: \\
49: $^{e}$Institute for Nuclear Research, Baksan Neutrino
50: Observatory,\\ 361 609 Neutrino, Russia
51: \\
52: $^{f}$Yerevan Physical Institute, 375 036 Yerevan, Armenia \\
53: \end{em}
54: \end{center}
55:
56: \begin{abstract}
57: The IGEX experiment has been operating enriched germanium
58: detectors in the Canfranc Underground Laboratory (Spain) in a
59: search for the neutrinoless double decay of $^{76}$Ge. The
60: implementation of Pulse Shape Discrimination techniques to reduce
61: the radioactive background is described in detail. This analysis
62: has been applied to a fraction of the IGEX data, leading to a
63: rejection of $\sim$60 \% of their background, in the region of
64: interest (from 2 to 2.5 MeV), down to $\sim 0.09$ c/(keV kg y).
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: \section{Introduction}
68:
69: The nuclear Double Beta Decay (DBD) is an unique laboratory to
70: investigate the nature and properties of the neutrino
71: \cite{reviews,morales}. The neutrinoless decay mode, if it exists,
72: would provide an unambiguous evidence of the Majorana nature of
73: the neutrino, its non-zero mass, and the non-conservation of
74: lepton number. After the definitive confirmation that neutrinos
75: have indeed non-zero mass, as the solar and atmospheric neutrino
76: oscillation results imply \cite{toshito,ahmad}, the neutrinoless
77: Double Beta Decay (DBD) has become a most relevant subject of
78: research because it is a process able to provide, in a relatively
79: short time, the neutrino mass scale and its hierarchy pattern. The
80: current best sensitivity limits of the effective Majorana electron
81: neutrino mass -derived from the neutrinoless half-life lower
82: bound- stands around $\langle m_{\nu} \rangle \leq 300-1300$ meV
83: \cite{igex,klapdor} (the dispersion range is due to the
84: uncertainties in the evaluation of the nuclear matrix elements),
85: whereas most of the neutrino mass models indicate that the mass
86: region where the Majorana nature of the neutrino would be resolved
87: lies two orders of magnitude below ($\sim$ a few meV).
88: %Which would require substatial improvements in
89: %the relevant experimental parameters? Number of 2$\beta$ emitter
90: %nuclei,
91: To achieve the sensitivity required for such new objectives, it
92: will require a large number of double beta emitter nuclei, a very
93: low background and a sharp energy resolution in the Q-value
94: region, and/or methods to disentangle signal from noise.
95:
96: A typical example of this type of search is IGEX. The
97: International Germanium EXperiment (IGEX) has been running in the
98: Canfranc Underground Laboratory at a depth of 2450 m.w.e. in a
99: search for the neutrinoless Double Beta Decay.
100: %A long-term stability has
101: %been proven for gain and energy resolution.
102: Details and results of the experiment can be found in ref.
103: \cite{igex}.
104: %uses unique cryostat
105: %technology, ultralow background material, archaeological lead
106: %shielding and a pulse shape analysis method described in the
107: %following. IGEX
108: Three Germanium detectors (RG1, RG2 and RG3), of $\sim$2 kg each,
109: enriched to 86\% in $^{76}$Ge were used.
110:
111:
112: %The Pulse Shape Discrimination (PSD) is a technique to reject
113: %radioactive background. The number of points in which an
114: %interaction occurs (and where the energy is released) is reflected
115: %to some extent in the shape of the electric pulse delivered by the
116: %detector; in particular, in the number of lobes the pulse has.
117: %Events in which all the energy is deposited in only one point (the
118: %so-called Single-Site Events, SSE) may be due to a photoelectric
119: %absortion, a single Compton interaction, a pair creation with
120: %double escape as well as to Double Beta Decays, since the emitted
121: %electrons slow down almost immediately in the surrounding medium.
122: %On the other hand, Multi-Site Events (MSE) could be produced by
123: %different processes: multi-Compton scattering, Compton $+$
124: %photoelectric interaction, or other typical processes originated
125: %by the radioactive background. As a first conclusion, a
126: %neutrinoless DBD event should be SSE, while radioactive background
127: %gives mainly MSE.
128:
129: This paper presents the development and application of one
130: technique used to reduce part of the radioactive background by
131: discriminating it from the expected signal by comparison of the
132: shape of the pulses (PSD) of both types of events. As an example,
133: the method has been applied to the data recorded by two Ge
134: detectors of the IGEX Collaboration, which has produced one of the
135: two best current sensitivity limits for the Majorana neutrino mass
136: parameter \cite{igex,klapdor}.
137:
138: The rationale for PSD is quite simple: in large intrinsic Ge
139: detectors, the charge carriers take 300~-~500 ns to reach their
140: respective electrodes. These drift times are long enough for the
141: current pulses to be recorded at a sufficient sampling rate. The
142: current pulse contributions from electrons and holes are
143: displacement currents, and therefore dependent on their
144: instantaneous velocities and locations. Accordingly, events
145: occurring at a single site ($\beta\beta$-decay events for example)
146: have associated current pulse characteristics which reflect the
147: position in the crystal where the event occurred. More
148: importantly, these single-site events (SSE) frequently have pulse
149: shapes that differ significantly from those due to the background
150: events that produce electron-hole pairs at several sites by
151: multi-Compton-scattering process, for example (the so-called
152: Multi-Site Events (MSE)). Consequently, pulse-shape analysis can
153: be used to distinguish between these two types of energy
154: depositions:
155: %DBD events will deposit energy at a single site in a
156: %detector while background events will deposit energy at several
157: %sites (in particular in energy regions where Compton processes are
158: %important).
159: DBD events belong to the SSE class of events and will deposit
160: energy at a single site in the detector while most of the
161: background events belong to the MSE class of events and will
162: deposit energy at several sites.
163:
164:
165: The IGEX detectors have modified preamplifier electronics to route
166: and record the current pulses at a very early stage of
167: preamplification, thus producing unique high-bandwidth pulse shape
168: signals. Furthermore, to develop PSD techniques it would be highly
169: desirable to obtain an earlier signal, even before it passes
170: through the few unavoidable electronic components at the first
171: stage of the detector preamplifier, resembling as much as possible
172: the displacement current of the detector. This allows the
173: development of algorithms that do not depend strongly on the
174: preamplifier electronics in use. To this end, the transfer
175: function of the preamplifier and associated front-end stage has
176: been measured for each detector. This allows the reconstruction of
177: the displacement current and an easy comparison to computed pulse
178: shapes.
179:
180: %Our models of the structure of the current pulse
181: %reveal that single-site events will exhibit only one or two
182: %features, or ``lobes'', in more than 97\% of the cases. Multiple
183: %site events will most often exhibit more than two lobes.
184:
185: %One PSD technique is to reject pulses having more than two
186: %significant lobes or peaks. To detect lobes, a ``Mexican-hat''
187: %filter of the proper width is applied to the pulse. This robust
188: %method is nearly model-independent. Some multiple-site events may
189: %show only one or two lobes and will not be rejected by this
190: %technique. Use of this PSD method results in the rejection of
191: %60\%--80\% of the IGEX background in the energy interval
192: %2.0--2.5~MeV, down to less than $\sim0.07$c/keV.kg.y.
193:
194: %powerful tool
195:
196: The paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{ecp}, the
197: properties of the digitized experimental pulses are shown and the
198: work performed to understand and reproduce their shapes is
199: presented. In Section \ref{methods}, the PSD method is described.
200: Finally, Section \ref{results} displays the results of this
201: analysis for the IGEX data.
202:
203:
204: %The implementation of PSD techniques in the IGEX experiment is
205: %reviewed in this paper. In section \ref{ecp}, the properties of
206: %the digitized experimental pulses are shown and the work performed
207: %to understand and reproduce their shapes is presented. In section
208: %\ref{methods}, different methods to apply PSD are described.
209: %Finally, section \ref{results} contains the results of this
210: %analysis for the IGEX data.
211:
212: \section{Experimental and calculated pulses}
213: \label{ecp}
214:
215: The data acquisition system of the IGEX experiment is based on
216: standard NIM electronics, each Ge detector having an independent
217: electronic chain. Preamplifiers were modified for pulse shape
218: analysis and each preamplifier fast-pulse output is routed to a
219: LeCroy 9362 digital oscilloscope (800 MHz analog bandwith). The
220: digitized pulse signal covers a total time of 1 $\mu$s using 500
221: points; it is worth noting that the time resolution, of about 100
222: ns (as inferred from the width of the peaked features or the fall
223: time), limits the ability to resolve nearby features in the pulse
224: such as lobes or discontinuities characteristic of a multiple-site
225: interaction signal. Figure \ref{properties} shows the main
226: features of the digitized pulses. These output pulses are taken at
227: the very first stage of the amplification chain, but even so,
228: there is an unavoidable instrumental distortion due to the
229: preamplifier. This has been studied to determine its transfer
230: function $h(t)$. To take into account this distortion in the pulse
231: shape analysis, either the calculated pulse $i(t)$ is folded with
232: the transfer function,
233: \begin{equation}
234: o(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}i(\tau)h(\tau-t)d\tau
235: \end{equation}
236: or the experimental signal unfolded. The latter allows the
237: recovery of some information lost because of the instrumental
238: distortion \cite{br88}.
239: %m\'{a}s sobre deconvoluci\'{o}n, en espacio de frecuencias, corte...
240: The transfer function of the preamplifiers, $h(t)$, depicted in
241: figure \ref{transfer}, has been directly measured as the response
242: of the preamplifier for a narrow $\delta$-like signal. Studies
243: were also made following several methods including analog
244: simulation of the preamplifier circuits and the analysis of the
245: shapes of selected populations of experimental pulses. It was
246: observed that the shape of the rise and the fall of the folded
247: pulses is the same that the shape of the transfer function for
248: those events in which the energy is released in some particular
249: regions of the crystal; in particular, the left side of the
250: transfer function can be deduced by studying pulses of events in
251: the inner and lower part of the crystal, while the right side is
252: derived from those produced in the outer and upper region.
253: Measurements and estimates for the transfer function are found to
254: be in quite good agreement.
255:
256: The pulse shapes of the output signals can be reproduced numerically.
257: An energy deposition in a Ge crystal produces a proportional
258: number of electron-hole pairs, which move towards the electrodes.
259: The induced current $i$, and consequently the electric pulse taken
260: from the detector, is the sum of the contributions due to each
261: type of charge carriers:
262: \begin{equation}
263: i(t)=i_{\mathrm{e}}(t)+i_{\mathrm{h}}(t)
264: \end{equation}
265: The current is calculated as \cite{ra88}:
266: \begin{equation}
267: i_{\mathrm{e(h)}}=-q_{\mathrm{e(h)}}\overrightarrow{E}_{\mathrm{w}}\overrightarrow{v_{\mathrm{e(h)}}}(\overrightarrow{E})
268: \end{equation}
269: %explicar el origen de esta expresion?
270: \noindent where $\overrightarrow{E}_{\mathrm{w}}$ is the so-called
271: weighting field\footnote{The weighting field is the field that
272: would appear in the crystal if a unity voltage was applied to the
273: sensor electrode (assuming no impurity in the crystal)}. In
274: principle, the drift velocity $v$ of charge carriers is
275: proportional to the electric field $E$: $v(r)=\mu E(r)$, where
276: $\mu$ is the mobility in the material medium. However, at high
277: values of the electric field, a saturation velocity is reached.
278: The dependence of the velocity on the electric field has been
279: obtained empirically \cite{cm75}:
280: %gr\'{a}fico de velocidades?
281: \begin{equation}
282: v(E)=\frac{\mu
283: E}{(1+(\frac{E}{E_{\mathrm{sat}}})^{\beta})^{1/\beta}} \label{ve}
284: \end{equation}
285:
286: The values commonly used for the parameters involved in expression
287: \ref{ve} (the mobility $\mu$, the numerical parameter $\beta$ and
288: the electric flield for saturation $E_{\mathrm{sat}}$) are
289: summarized in table \ref{parve} \cite{rb82}.
290:
291: \begin{table}[htb]
292: \centering \caption {Values commonly considered for the parameters
293: involved in the empirical dependence of the velocity of the charge
294: carriers on the electric field.} \label{parve} \vskip 0.5 cm
295: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
296:
297: & electrons & holes \\ \hline
298: $E_{\mathrm{sat}}$(V/cm) & 275 & 210.5 \\ \hline
299:
300: $\mu$ (cm$^{2}$/Vs) & 36000 & 42000 \\ \hline
301:
302: $\beta$ & 1.32 & 1.36 \\ \hline
303:
304: \end{tabular}
305: \end{table}
306:
307: The solution for the electric field
308: ($\overrightarrow{E}(\overrightarrow{r})=\overrightarrow{\nabla}\phi(\overrightarrow{r})$)
309: in the crystal is derived from the Poisson equation, applied for
310: the depleted and non-depleted regions:
311:
312: \begin{equation}
313: \nabla^{2}\phi(\overrightarrow{r})=-\frac{\rho(\overrightarrow{r})}{\epsilon},
314: \, \mathrm{depleted}
315: \end{equation}
316: \begin{equation}
317: \nabla^{2}\phi(\overrightarrow{r})=0, \, \mathrm{non-depleted}
318: \end{equation}
319: \begin{equation}
320: \phi(\overrightarrow{r}_{{\mathrm
321: int}})-\phi(\overrightarrow{r}_{{\mathrm ext}})=V_{0}
322: \label{bound}
323: \end{equation}
324:
325: The electric field depends on the geometry of the crystal (true coaxial or closed-end), the
326: supplied voltage $V_{0}$ and on the residual space charge density
327: $\rho$. The parameters $r_{\mathrm{int}}$ and $r_{\mathrm{ext}}$
328: correspond to the locations of the internal and external
329: electrodes of the detector. A solution (depicted in figure
330: \ref{efield}) has been obtained for the cases of depleted and
331: non-fully depleted, closed-end crystals of the IGEX experiment by
332: using an iterative method of calculation. For a non-fully depleted
333: detector, the boundary between the depleted and non-depleted
334: regions in the crystal is unknown a priori. An invalid solution is
335: obtained when using the boundary condition of eq. (\ref{bound}),
336: because a region with a field having inverse direction appears
337: (which means that this region is not depleted). Therefore, the
338: boundary condition is changed by using the deduced limit for the
339: depleted region instead of $r_{\mathrm{int}}$; then, a new
340: solution is found for the electric field and, consequently, a new
341: limit for the non-depleted region is obtained. This procedure is
342: repeated until the solution does not change significantly between
343: two successive iterations.
344:
345: Once the electric field is known, the pulse shapes can be
346: calculated. Some examples for SSE are shown in figure
347: \ref{pulses}. Different radial positions have been considered in
348: each plot for several vertical coordinates; the effect of the
349: instrumental distortion is shown on the right plots. To reproduce
350: MSE pulses, the shapes due to each individual interaction should
351: be properly added weighted by the fractional amount of energy
352: released in the crystal, obtained by Monte Carlo simulation.
353:
354: \section{PSD Method}
355: \label{methods}
356:
357: % Three different PSD methods to reject background have been taken into consideration.
358: %The first one is based on the time of rise and fall of the pulses.
359: %Figure \ref{risefall} presents the distribution of these times for
360: %calculated SSE and for background events, in RG2 and RG3
361: %detectors. By comparing these distributions, the criterion to
362: %reject a pulse from the SSE set can be fixed: an event will be
363: %eliminated if both the fall and rise times are greater than 100
364: %ns.
365:
366: The PSD method we have used consists in counting the number of lobes of the
367: pulses and rejecting those events having more than two significant
368: lobes or peaks. A SSE pulse is expected to have at most two lobes,
369: one due to electrons and the other due to holes. Experimental
370: pulses are first unfolded using the transfer function of the
371: preamplifier. Then, to detect lobes a "mexican-hat" filter $F$ of
372: the proper width $\sigma$ is applied to the pulse. In fact, this
373: filter is the second derivative of a gaussian:
374: \begin{equation}
375: F(t)=\frac{\sigma^{2}-t^{2}}{\sigma^{4}}\times\exp(-\frac{t^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}})
376: \end{equation}
377: and the filtered signal has a null mean value where there is no
378: lobe in the original signal and a peak where a lobe is present.
379: %anchura ???? (FWHM=60 ns) discusi\'{o}n en notas de David .
380: Therefore, it is straightforward to reject all the events having
381: more than two lobes.
382: %This robust method is nearly
383: %model-independent, it does not rely directly on PS calculations.
384: %It is conservative, since some mse may show only 1 or 2 lobes and
385: %therefore will not be rejected.
386: Figure \ref{lobes} shows the results of applying this method to
387: four different pulses.
388:
389: %This robust method is nearly model-independent. Its effectiveness
390: %has been evaluated on calculated SSE. A test population was
391: %generated and the method was applied to pulses folded or unfolded,
392: %following the same procedure used with the experimental pulses.
393: %The plot in figure \ref{howitworks} shows the fraction of
394: %misidentified SSE (i.e., events that appear to have 3 or more
395: %lobes) for the 3 different detectors, as a function of the
396: %threshold for analyzing the curvature of filtered pulses at lobe
397: %positions. This curvature is (as well as the width of the filter)
398: %a free parameter of the method; a threshold value has to be fixed
399: %to accept or not possible lobes. This plot has allowed to fix a
400: %safe value for this curvature, such that the error in the
401: %filtering is less than 3\%. This means that, according to our
402: %models of the structure of the current pulse, SSE will exhibit
403: %only one or two features, or ``lobes'', in more than 97\% of the
404: %cases.
405: %%explicar m\'{a}s los problemas de los unfolded, frecuencia..
406: %On the other hand, MSE will most often exhibit more than two
407: %lobes. Those cases which may show only one or two lobes (because
408: %the separation -in the radial coordinate- between the interaction
409: %points is not enough to make them distinguishable or because of
410: %extremely unbalanced fractions of energy deposited in each point)
411: %will not be rejected by this technique.
412:
413:
414: This robust method is nearly model-independent. Its effectiveness
415: has been evaluated on calculated SSE. A test population of 2000
416: SSE pulses was generated for each detector. The locations were
417: randomly chosen, uniformly distributed in the volume of the
418: crystals. Each calculated pulse was folded with the proper
419: preamplifier transfer function, then scaled to unit height, and a
420: variable amount of gaussian noise was added, to reproduce
421: experimental pulses of different energies and noise levels.
422: Finally, the number of lobes of each pulse was obtained by
423: applying "mexican-hat" filters derived from gaussians of different
424: widths. After the analysis, the fraction of pulses with three o
425: more lobes was retained. This is an estimation of the expected
426: number of misidentified SSE pulses with this technique. The
427: results are shown in figure \ref{howitworks}. When applied to a
428: mixed set of SSE and MSE pulses, to obtain the best discrimination
429: results, a narrow filter should be preferred over a broad filter,
430: but it would produce a large fraction of misidentifications.
431: Conversely, a safer, broader filter would not find as many lobes
432: as a narrower filter, and its discrimination power would be
433: smaller. As a compromise, we choose the filter with a
434: characteristic width of 60 ns, thus keeping the misidentification
435: error for the calculated SSE pulses under 5\% for all pulses in
436: the whole noise range considered. Notice that those MSE in which
437: the separation of the interactions in the (r,z) plane is too small
438: or the amounts of energy deposited at each point are extremely
439: unbalanced will not be rejected by this technique.
440:
441: %The PSD could be a powerful tool to reject background, but the
442: %efficiency of a clear identification of MSE is limited by several
443: %factors:
444:
445: % The third PSD method is based on the comparison of the
446: %digitized experimental pulses with a collection of well-known SSE
447: %pulses, either obtained experimentally \cite{hellmig} or
448: %numerically. The difference between the experimental pulse and the
449: %closest template can be so quantified, either by comparing areas
450: %or amplitudes; then, the events differing from the template more
451: %than a fixed cut value are rejected.
452: %Figure \ref{comparison} shows the comparison between experimental
453: %pulses and calculated SSE already folded, i.e., distorted. As
454: %already said, the comparison may be done also between unfolded
455: %experimental pulses and calculated not-degraded SSE. In principle,
456: %more information is available in this second way, but a frequency
457: %cut must be fixed in the process of unfolding the experimental
458: %pulse. Although a good knowledge of the pulse shapes has been
459: %achieved, this method has not been finally used in the following
460: %chosen application to the IGEX recorded spectra, because of its
461: %dependence on the model of pulse reconstruction.
462:
463: This method of counting the number of lobes of the pulses has been
464: applied also to a $^{22}$Na calibration spectrum and to a set of
465: data taken following a large intrusion of radon in the shielding.
466: Fig. \ref{na} illustrates the reduction in the case of $^{22}$Na
467: spectrum for detector RG2 and Fig. \ref{radon} the case of radon
468: for detector RG3. A comparison of the results of the method for
469: the cases of background, $^{22}$Na calibration and radon is shown
470: in Fig. \ref{percentage}.
471:
472: \section{Results}
473: \label{results}
474:
475: The background reduction technique described above has been
476: applied to the IGEX data whose pulse shape was recorded (those
477: events whose pulse shape was not available are conservatively
478: considered SSE).
479: %Figure \ref{psdrf} shows the spectra before and after application
480: %of the PSD technique of the rise-fall time, to the data of
481: %detectors RG2 and RG3.
482: Table \ref{psd} summarizes the results (exposure, background
483: levels in the region of interest from 2 to 2.5 MeV before and
484: after the PSD, rejection factor) for each detector. Figure
485: \ref{psdlobes} shows the spectra before and after application of
486: the PSD technique to the data of detectors RG2 and RG3.
487: %In much the same way, figure
488: %\ref{psdlobes} presents the results after applying the technique
489: %of PSD of counting the number of lobes.
490: This method results in an efficient rejection %(66.89\% vs 44.98\%)
491: leading to a background level (in the best case) of 0.10 c/(keV kg
492: y) in detector RG2, as can be seen in Table \ref{psd}. This value
493: can be considered as the background limit achieved with the
494: present PSD technique. The overall final background level of the
495: set of detectors RG2 and RG3 together turns out to be of 0.10
496: c/(keV kg y), in the region of interest.
497:
498: \begin{table}[htb]
499: \centering \caption {Results of applying the PSD (exposure,
500: background levels b in the 2-2.5 MeV region before and after the
501: discrimination and rejection factors).% using two different methods
502: %based on the rise and fall times (RF) and the counting of the
503: %number of lobes (L).
504: } \label{psd} \vskip 0.5 cm
505: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|} \hline
506:
507: %& exposure & b before & b after & rejection
508: % & b after & rejection
509: %\\
510: %
511: %& & & (RF) & factor & (L) & factor \\
512: %
513: %& kg y & c/(keV kg y) & c/(keV kg y) & (RF) \% & c/(keV kg y) &
514: %(L) \%
515: %\\ \hline
516: %
517: %RG2 & 2.74 & 0.27 & 0.18 & 32.42 & 0.11 & 60.44 \\ \hline
518: %
519: %RG3 & 1.90 & 0.26 & 0.09 & 63.79 & 0.06 & 76.54 \\ \hline
520: %
521: %total & 4.64 & 0.26 & 0.14 & 44.98 & 0.09 & 66.89 \\ \hline
522:
523:
524: & exposure & b before & b after & rejection
525: \\
526:
527: & & & & factor \\
528:
529: & kg y & c/(keV kg y) & c/(keV kg y) & (\%)
530: \\ \hline
531:
532: RG2 & 2.75 & 0.27 & 0.10 & 62.19 \\ \hline
533:
534: RG3 & 1.90 & 0.26 & 0.11 & 57.61 \\ \hline
535:
536: total & 4.65 & 0.26 & 0.10 & 60.36 \\ \hline
537:
538: \end{tabular}
539: \end{table}
540:
541:
542: The PSD analysis has been applied to only 52.51
543: mole y out of the total 116.75 mole y (8.87 kg y) accumulated in
544: the IGEX experiment. In Table \ref{igexdata} the IGEX data
545: correponding to 8.87 kg.y in $^{76}$Ge in the region between 2020
546: and 2060 keV, in 2-keV bins, are given, with and without
547: application of PSD (see also ref. \cite{morales}). The obtained
548: half-life lower bounds are $T_{1/2}^{0\nu }\geq 1.13\times 10^{25}
549: y$ for the complete data set and of $T_{1/2}^{0\nu }\geq
550: 1.57\times 10^{25} y$ for the complete data set with application
551: of PSD to 52.51 mole y. Accordingly, the upper limits on the
552: neutrino mass parameter are 0.38--1.55~eV for the first data set
553: and 0.33--1.31~eV for the second data set \cite{igex}. The
554: uncertainties originate from the spread in the values of the
555: calculated nuclear matrix elements.
556: % Despite this fact, the use of PSD allows to
557: %improve the derived limits at a 90 \% C.L. for the neutrinoless
558: %half-life (from 1.13 to 1.57$\times 10^{25}$ y) and also for the
559: %effective neutrino mass .
560: %tabla de masas????
561:
562: \begin{table}[ht]
563: \centering \caption{IGEX Data bins for 8.87 kg.y in $^{76}$Ge}
564: \label{igexdata} %\footnotesize
565: %\vskip 0.5 cm
566: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
567: \hline E(low) keV & SSE data set & Complete data set\\\hline
568: 2020 & 2.9 & 3.9 \\
569:
570: 2022 & 9.1 & 10.1 \\
571:
572: 2024 & 2.4 & 4.4\\
573:
574: 2026 & 2.0 & 6.0 \\
575:
576: 2028 & 5.6 & 7.6 \\
577:
578: 2030 & 6.5 & 7.5 \\
579:
580: 2032 & 3.3 & 5.3\\
581:
582: 2034 & 0.6 & 1.6 \\
583:
584: 2036 & 1.0 & 4.0 \\
585:
586: 2038 & 2.0 & 3.0 \\
587:
588: 2040 & 0.5 & 2.5 \\
589:
590: 2042 & 3.5 & 5.5 \\
591:
592: 2044 & 4.0 & 7.0 \\
593:
594: 2046 & 2.7 & 2.7 \\
595:
596: 2048 & 5.3 & 7.3 \\
597:
598: 2050 & 3.4 & 5.4 \\
599:
600: 2052 & 4.6 & 7.6 \\
601:
602: 2054 & 5.0 & 7.0 \\
603:
604: 2056 & 0.6 & 1.6 \\
605:
606: 2058 & 0.1 & 0.1 \\
607: 2060 & 3.3 & 6.3 \\ \hline
608:
609: Expected counts&13.0&20.3\\
610:
611: Observed counts&4.1&11.1\\
612:
613: Upper limit A &3.1 &4.3 \\ (90\%CL) &&\\\hline
614:
615: ln2.Nt/A&$1.57\times10^{25}$y&$1.13\times10^{25}$y\\
616: \hline
617: %%\normalsize
618: \end{tabular}
619: \end{table}
620:
621:
622: \section{Conclusions}
623:
624: A Pulse Shape Discrimination technique to reject the radioactive
625: background in the region in which the double beta decay signal is
626: expected has been developed and applied to the data collected in
627: the IGEX experiment, searching for the neutrinoless double beta
628: decay of $^{76}$Ge. A satisfactory understanding of the pulse
629: shapes has been achieved. The method described in this paper is
630: based on the counting of the number of lobes of the pulses, using
631: a proper filter. It has provided a rejection of $\sim$ 60 \% of
632: the events in the region of interest, accepting the criterion that
633: those events having more than two lobes cannot be due to a double
634: beta decay. Accordingly, the improved background levels provided
635: by the PSD technique have allowed the improvement of the limits
636: for the half-life of $^{76}$Ge and consequently, the effective
637: electron neutrino mass bound.
638:
639:
640: %indicar algo sobre la limitaci\'{o}n intr\'{\i}nseca del m\'{e}todo estimada??
641:
642:
643:
644: \section{Acknowledgments} The Canfranc Underground La\-bo\-ra\-to\-ry
645: is operated by the University of Zaragoza under contract No.
646: FPA2001-2437. This research was partially founded by the Spanish
647: Ministry of Science and Technology (MCYT), the US National Science
648: Foundation and the US Department of Energy. The isotopically
649: enriched $^{76}$Ge was supplied by the Institute for Nuclear
650: Research (INR), Moscow, and the Institute for Theoretical and
651: Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow.
652:
653: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
654: \bibitem{reviews}
655: S. R. Elliot and P. Vogel, submitted to Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part.
656: Sci. 52, [arXiv:hep-ph/0202264]. O. Cremonesi, Review Talk at
657: NEUTRINO 2002, Munich, to appear in Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.).
658:
659: \bibitem{morales} A. Morales and J. Morales, Review Talk at the XXXth
660: International Winter Meeting on Fundamental Physics, Jaca, Huesca
661: (Spain), 2002, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 114 (2003) 141,
662: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211332].
663:
664: \bibitem{toshito}
665: T. Toshito {\it et al.}, [the SuperKamiokande Collaboration],
666: [arXiv:hep-ex/0105023]; Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
667: 82 (1999) 2644.
668:
669: \bibitem{ahmad}
670: Q. R. Ahmad {\it et al.}, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009]; Phys. Rev.
671: Lett. 89 (2002) 011302.
672:
673: \bibitem{igex}
674: C. E. Aalseth {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 2108. D.
675: Gonz\'{a}lez et al, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 87 (2000) 278. C. E.
676: Aalseth et al, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 092007.
677:
678: \bibitem{klapdor}
679: H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
680: Suppl.) 100 (2001) 309.
681:
682: \bibitem{br88}
683: {\it The Fast Fourier Transform and its Applications}, E. Oran
684: Brigham. Edited by Prentice-Hall Inc., 1988. ISBN 0-13-307505-2
685:
686: \bibitem{ra88}
687: %Low-noise techniques n detectors. Veljko Radeka.
688: V. Radeka. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 38 (1988) 217-277.
689:
690: \bibitem{cm75}
691: C. Canali, G. Majni, R. Mindes, G. Ottaviani. IEEE Trans. On Elec.
692: Devices. (1975) 1045. G. Ottaviani, C. Canali and A. Alberigi
693: Quaranta. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-22 (1975) 192.
694:
695: \bibitem{rb82}
696: %Pulse shape and risetime distribution calculations for HPGe
697: %coaxial detectors.
698: T. W. Raudorf, M. O. Bedwell, T. J. Paulus.
699: IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. NS-29 (1982) 764.
700:
701: %\bibitem{hellmig}
702: %J. Hellmig and H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus. Nucl. Instr. and Meth.
703: %A 455 (2000) 638.
704:
705: \end{thebibliography}
706:
707: \newpage
708: \begin{figure}[tb]
709: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
710: \fboxsep=1cm
711: \fbox{
712: \epsfxsize=12cm%estaba 15
713: \epsfbox{properties.eps}}}
714: \begin{center}
715: {\caption {Main features of the digitized experimental pulses.}
716: \label{properties}}
717: \end{center}
718: \end{figure}
719:
720: \begin{figure}[tb]
721: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
722: \fboxsep=0cm
723: \fbox{
724: \epsfxsize=15cm
725: \epsfbox{transfer.eps}}}
726: \begin{center}
727: {\caption {Transfer functions of the preamplifiers for detectors
728: RG2 (on the left) and RG3 (on the right).} \label{transfer}}
729: \end{center}
730: \end{figure}
731:
732: \begin{figure}[tb]
733: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
734: \fboxsep=1cm
735: \fbox{
736: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaban 0, 15 cm
737: \epsfbox{efield.eps}}}
738: \begin{center}
739: {\caption {Electric field for detectors RG1, RG2 and RG3. The
740: operation voltage and the number of iterations necessary to derive
741: the field (see text) are shown for each detector.} \label{efield}}
742: \end{center}
743: \end{figure}
744:
745: \begin{figure}[tb]
746: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
747: \fboxsep=0cm
748: \fbox{
749: \epsfxsize=10cm %estaba 14, luego 12
750: \epsfbox{pulses.eps}}}
751: \begin{center}
752: {\caption {Calculated pulse shapes for SSE in detector RG2.
753: Different radial positions have been considered in each plot for
754: several vertical coordinates h (H is the height of the crystal).
755: On the right, the instrumental distortion has been taken into
756: account.} \label{pulses}}
757: \end{center}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: %\begin{figure}[tb]
761: %\centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
762: % \fboxsep=0cm
763: % \fbox{
764: %\epsfxsize=15cm
765: % \epsfbox{risefall.eps}}}
766: %\begin{center}
767: %{\caption {Fall vs rise time (both expressed in ns) for calculated
768: %SSE (top) and background events (bottom). Results are shown for
769: %detectors RG2 (on the left) and RG3 (on the right).}
770: %\label{risefall}}
771: %\end{center}
772: %\end{figure}
773:
774: \begin{figure}[tb]
775: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
776: \fboxsep=0cm
777: \fbox{
778: \epsfxsize=15cm
779: \epsfbox{lobes.eps}}}
780: \begin{center}
781: {\caption {Examples of the effect of applying the "mexican-hat"
782: filter to detect significant lobes in the digitized pulses.
783: %Thick lines correspond to unfolded digitized pulses and thin lines show
784: %filtered pulses.
785: Events on the left are accepted (having two lobes) while those on
786: the right are rejected (having three lobes).} \label{lobes}}
787: \end{center}
788: \end{figure}
789:
790: \begin{figure}[tb]
791: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
792: \fboxsep=0cm
793: \fbox{
794: \epsfxsize=15cm
795: \epsfbox{howitworks.eps}}}
796: \begin{center}
797: {\caption {%Fraction of misidentified calculated SSE as a function
798: %of the threshold for analyzing the filter curvature at lobe
799: %positions (see text).
800: Fraction of misidentified calculated SSE pulses as a function of
801: the characteristic widht of the analyzing filter and the amount of
802: noise added to the pulse (see text).} \label{howitworks}}
803: \end{center}
804: \end{figure}
805:
806: %\begin{figure}[tb]
807: %\centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
808: % \fboxsep=0cm
809: % \fbox{
810: %\epsfxsize=15cm
811: % \epsfbox{comparison.eps}}}
812: %\begin{center}
813: %{\caption {Examples of the comparison between folded calculated
814: %SSE and experimental pulses. Events on the left are rejected while
815: %those on the right are accepted.} \label{comparison}}
816: %\end{center}
817: %\end{figure}
818:
819: %\begin{figure}[tb]
820: %\centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
821: % \fboxsep=0cm
822: % \fbox{
823: %\epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
824: % \epsfbox{psdrf.eps}}}
825: %\begin{center}
826: %{\caption {Background spectra before and after the PSD based on
827: %the rise and fall times for detectors RG2 (top) and RG3 (bottom).}
828: %\label{psdrf}}
829: %\end{center}
830: %\end{figure}
831:
832: \begin{figure}[tb]
833: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
834: \fboxsep=0cm
835: \fbox{
836: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
837: \epsfbox{na.eps}}}
838: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
839: \fboxsep=0cm
840: \fbox{
841: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
842: \epsfbox{na2.eps}}}
843: \begin{center}
844: {\caption {Energy spectra before and after the PSD based on the
845: counting of the number of lobes for a $^{22}$Na calibration and
846: for detector RG2. A zoom of the plot at the top is shown at the
847: bottom.} \label{na}}
848: \end{center}
849: \end{figure}
850:
851: \begin{figure}[tb]
852: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
853: \fboxsep=0cm
854: \fbox{
855: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
856: \epsfbox{radon.eps}}}
857: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
858: \fboxsep=0cm
859: \fbox{
860: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
861: \epsfbox{radon2.eps}}}
862: \begin{center}
863: {\caption {Energy spectra before and after the PSD based on the
864: counting of the number of lobes for radon data and for detector
865: RG3. A zoom of the plot at the top is shown at the bottom.}
866: \label{radon}}
867: \end{center}
868: \end{figure}
869:
870: \begin{figure}[tb]
871: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
872: \fboxsep=0cm
873: \fbox{
874: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
875: \epsfbox{percentage.eps}}}
876: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
877: \fboxsep=0cm
878: \fbox{
879: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
880: \epsfbox{percentage2.eps}}}
881: \begin{center}
882: {\caption {Comparison of the percentage of SSE events identified
883: for a $^{22}$Na calibration, radon data and background, for both
884: detectors RG2 (top) and RG3 (bottom).} \label{percentage}}
885: \end{center}
886: \end{figure}
887:
888:
889: \begin{figure}[tb]
890: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
891: \fboxsep=0cm
892: \fbox{
893: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
894: \epsfbox{psdlobes1.eps}}}
895: \centerline{ \fboxrule=0cm
896: \fboxsep=0cm
897: \fbox{
898: \epsfxsize=12cm %estaba 15, luego 13
899: \epsfbox{psdlobes2.eps}}}
900: \begin{center}
901: {\caption {Background spectra before and after the PSD based on
902: the counting of the number of lobes for detectors RG2 (top) and
903: RG3 (bottom).} \label{psdlobes}}
904: \end{center}
905: \end{figure}
906:
907: \end{document}
908: