**The Pattern of Quark Masses and Maximal
$CP$–Violation**

HARALD FRITZSCH$^{+}$
*Ludwig–Maximilians–Universit"at, Sektion Physik,
Theresienstrasse 37, D–80333 M"unchen*
*Max–Planck–Institut für Physik, Werner–Heisenberg–Institut,
Föhringer Ring 6, D-80805 München*

**Abstract**

A simple breaking of the subnuclear democracy of the quarks leads to a mixing between the second and the third family, in agrement with observation. Introducing the mixing between the first and the second family, one finds an interesting pattern of maximal $CP$–violation as well as a complete determination of the elements of the CKM matrix and of the unitarity triangle.

*Invited talk given at the 1994 Int. Workshop on B physics,
Nagoya, Japan (October 1994)*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

$^+$ Supported in part by DFG-contract 412/22–1, EEC–contract SC1–CT91–0729 and EEC–contract CHRX–CT94–0579 (DG 12 COMA)
In the standard electroweak model both the masses of the quarks as well as the weak mixing angles enter as free parameters. Any further insight into the yet unknown dynamics of mass generation would imply a step beyond the physics of the electroweak standard model. At present it seems far too early to attempt an actual solution of the dynamics of mass generation, and one is invited to follow a strategy similar to the one which led eventually to the solution of the strong interaction dynamics by QCD, by looking for specific patterns and symmetries as well as specific symmetry violations.

The mass spectra of the quarks are dominated essentially by the masses of the members of the third family, i. e. by $t$ and $b$. Thus a clear hierarchical pattern exists. Furthermore the masses of the first family are small compared to those of the second one. Moreover, the CKM–mixing matrix exhibits a hierarchical pattern – the transitions between the second and third family as well as between the first and the third family are small compared to those between the first and the second family.

About 15 years ago, it was emphasized$^{1)}$ that the observed hierarchies signify that nature seems to be close to the so–called "rank–one" limit, in which all mixing angles vanish and both the u– and d–type mass matrices are proportional to the rank-one matrix $$M_0 = {\rm const.} \cdot \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) \, .$$ Whether the dynamics of the mass generation allows that this limit can be achieved in a consistent way remains an unsolved issue, depending on the dynamical details of mass generation. Encouraged by the observed hierarchical pattern of the masses and the mixing parameters, we shall assume that this is the case. In itself it is a non-trivial constraint and can be derived from imposing a chiral symmetry, as emphasized in ref. (2). This symmetry ensures that an electroweak doublet which is massless remains unmixed and is coupled to the $W$–boson with full strength.

As soon as the mass is introduced, at least for one member of the doublet, the symmetry is violated and mixing phenomena are expected to show up. That way a chiral evolution of the CKM matrix can be constructed.$^{2)}$ At the first stage only the $t$ and $b$ quark masses are introduced, due to their non-vanishing coupling to the scalar "Higgs" field. The CKM–matrix is unity in this limit. At the next stage the second generation acquires a mass. Since the $(u, d)$–doublet is still massless, only the second and the third generations mix, and the CKM–matrix is given by a real $2 \times 2$ rotation matrix in the $(c, \, s) - (t, \, b)$ subsystem, describing e. g. the mixing between $s$ and $b$. Only at the next step, at which the $u$ and $d$ masses are introduced, does the full CKM–matrix appear, described in general by three angles and one phase, and only at this step $CP$–violation can appear. Thus it is the generation of mass for the first family which is responsible for the violation of $CP$–symmetry.

It has been emphasized some time ago$^{3, \, 4)}$ that the rank-one mass matrix (see eq. (1)) can be expressed in terms of a "democratic mass matrix": $$M_0 = c \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & 1 \end{array} \right) \, ,$$ which exhibits an $S(3)_L \, \, \times \, \, S(3)_R$ symmetry. Writing down the mass eigenstates in terms of the eigenstates of the "democratic" symmetry, one finds e.g. for the $u$–quark channel: $$\begin{aligned}
u^0 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (u_1 - u_2) \nonumber\\
c^0 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} (u_1 + u_2 - 2u_3)\\
t^0 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} (u_1 + u_2 + u_3) \nonumber .
\end{aligned}$$ Here $u_1, \ldots$ are the symmetry eigenstates. Note that $u^0$ and $c^0$ are massless in the limit considered here, and any linear combination of the first two state vectors given in eq. (3) would fulfill the same purpose, i. e. the decomposition is not unique, only the wave function of the coherent state $t^0$ is uniquely defined. This ambiguity will disappear as soon as the symmetry is violated.

The wave functions given in eq. (3) are reminiscent of the wave functions of the neutral pseudoscalar mesons in QCD in the $SU(3)_L \, \, \times
\, \,
SU(3)_R$ limit: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^0_0 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\bar uu - \bar dd)\\
\eta_0 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(\bar uu + \bar dd - 2\bar ss)
\nonumber\\
\eta '_0 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\bar uu + \bar dd + \bar ss) .
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ (Here the lower index denotes that we are considering the chiral limit). Also the mass spectrum of these mesons is identical to the mass spectrum of the quarks in the "democratic" limit: two mesons $(\pi
^0_0 \, ,
\eta _0)$ are massless and act as Nambu–Goldstone bosons, while the third coherent state $\eta '_0$ is not massless due to the QCD anomaly.

In the chiral limit the (mass)$^2$–matrix of the neutral pseudoscalar mesons is also a "democratic" mass matrix when written in terms of the $(\bar
qq)$– eigenstates $(\bar uu), \, (\bar dd)$ and $(\bar ss) \, ^{5)}$: $$M^2(ps) = \lambda \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & 1\\ 1 & 1 & 1 \end{array} \right),$$ where the strength parameter $\lambda$ is given by $\lambda = M^{2}(\eta '_{0}) \, / \, 3$. The mass matrix (5) describes the result of the QCD–anomaly which causes strong transitions between the quark eigenstates (due to gluonic annihilation effects enhanced by topological effects). Likewise one may argue that analogous transitions are the reason for the lepton–quark mass hierarchy. Here we shall not speculate about a detailed mechanism of this type, but merely study the effect of symmetry breaking.

In the case of the pseudoscalar mesons the breaking of the symmetry down to $SU(2)_L \, \, \times \, \, SU(2)_R$ is provided by a direct mass term $m_s \bar
 ss$ for the s–quark. This implies a modification of the (3,3) matrix element in eq. (5), where $\lambda$ is replaced by $\lambda + M^2(\bar ss)$ where $M^2(\bar ss)$ is given by $2M^2_K$, which is proportional to $< \bar ss >_0$, the expectation value of $\bar ss$ in the QCD vacuum. This direct mass term causes the violation of the symmetry and generates at the same time a mixing between $\eta _0$ and $\eta '_{0}$, a mass for the $\eta _{0}$, and a mass shift for the $\eta '_{0}$.

It would be interesting to see whether an analogue of the simplest violation of this kind of symmetry violation of the "democratic" symmetry which describes successfully the mass and mixing pattern of the $\eta - \eta '$–system is also able to describe the observed mixing and mass pattern of the second and third family of leptons and quarks. This was discussed recently$^{6)}$. Let us replace the (3,3) matrix element in eq. (2) by $1 + \varepsilon _i$; (i = u (u–quarks), d (d–quarks) respectively. The small real parameters $\varepsilon _i$ describe the departure from democratic symmetry and lead

1.  to a generation of mass for the second family and

2.  to a flavour mixing between the third and the second family. Since $\varepsilon$ is directly related (see below) to a fermion mass and the latter is not restricted to be positive, $\varepsilon$ can be positive or negative. (Note that a negative Fermi–Dirac mass can always be turned into a positive one by a suitable $\gamma
    _5$–transformation of the spin $\frac{1}{2}$ field). Since the original mass term is represented by a symmetric matrix, we take $\varepsilon$ to be real.

In ref. \[4\] a general breaking of the flavor democracy was discussed in term of two parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The ansatz discussed here, in analogy to the case of the pseudoscalar mesons which represents the simplest breaking of the flavor democracy, corresponds to the special case $\alpha = 0$. Note that the case $\beta = \alpha + \alpha^*$ discussed in ref. \[4\] leads to the mass matrix given in ref. \[1\].

It is instructive to rewrite the mass matrix in the hierarchical basis, where one obtains in the case of the down–type quarks:
$$M = c_l \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & + \frac{2}{3}{\varepsilon _u} & - \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}
\varepsilon_u\\
0 & - \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \varepsilon _u & 3 + \frac{1}{3}\varepsilon _u
 \end{array}
\right) \, .$$ In lowest order of $\varepsilon$ one finds the mass eigenvalues $m_s = \frac{2}{9} \varepsilon _d \cdot m_b \, , m_b = m_{b^0} \, ,
\Theta _{s, b} = | \sqrt{2} \cdot \varepsilon _d / 9|$.

The exact mass eigenvalues and the mixing angle are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
m_1 / c_d & = & \frac{3 + \varepsilon _d}{2} - \frac{3}{2} \sqrt{1 -
\frac{2}{9} \varepsilon _d + \frac{1}{9} \varepsilon _d ^2} \nonumber\\
m_2 / c_d & = & \frac{3 + \varepsilon _d}{2} + \frac{3}{2} \sqrt{1 -
\frac{2}{9}
\varepsilon _d + \frac{1}{9} \varepsilon _d^2}\\
\sin \Theta _{(s,b)} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( 1 - \frac{1 -
 \frac{1}{9}\varepsilon _d}
{(1 - \frac{2}{9} \varepsilon _d + \frac{1}{9} \varepsilon
 ^2_d)^{1/2}}\right)^{1/2} \nonumber \, .
\end{aligned}$$ The ratio $m_s / m_b$ is allowed to vary in the range $0.022 \ldots 0.044$ (see ref. (7)). According to eq. (7) one finds $\varepsilon _d$ to vary from $\varepsilon _d = 0.11$ to $0.21$. The associated $s - b$ mixing angle varies from $\Theta (s, b) = 1.0^{\circ }$ $(\sin \Theta = 0.018)$ and $\Theta (s, b) = 1.95^{\circ }$ $(\sin \Theta = 0.034)$. As an illustrative example we use the values $m_b(1GeV)
 = 5200 MeV$, $m_s(1GeV) = 220 MeV$. One obtains $\varepsilon _d = 0.20$ and $\sin \Theta(s, b) = 0.032$.

To determine the amount of mixing in the $(c, t)$–channel, a knowledge of the ratio $m_c / m_t$ is required. As an illustrative example we take $m_c(1GeV) = 1.35 GeV$, $m_t(1GeV) = 260 GeV$ (i. e. $m_t(m_t) \approx
160GeV)$, which gives $m_c / m_t \cong 0.005$. In this case one finds $\varepsilon
_u =
 0.023$ and $\Theta(c,t) = 0.21^{\circ }$ $(\sin \Theta (c, t) = 0.004$) .

The actual weak mixing between the third and the second quark family is combined effect of the two family mixings described above. The symmetry breaking given by the $\varepsilon$–parameter can be interpreted, as done in eq. (7), as a direct mass term for the $u_3, d_3$ fermion. However, a direct fermion mass term need not be positive, since its sign can always be changed by a suitable $\gamma _5$–transformation. What counts for our analysis is the relative sign of the $m_s$–mass term in comparison to the $m_c$–term, discussed previously. Thus two possibilities must be considered:

1.  Both the $m_s$– and the $m_c$–term have the same relative sign with respect to each other, i. e. both $\varepsilon _d$ and $\varepsilon _u$ are positive, and the mixing angle between the second and third family is given by the difference $\Theta (sb) - \Theta (ct)$. This possibility seems to be ruled out by experiment, since it would lead to $V_{cb} < 0.03$.

2.  The relative signs of the breaking terms $\varepsilon _d$ and $\varepsilon _u$ are different, and the mixing angle between the $(s,b)$ and $(c,t)$ systems is given by the sum $\Theta(sb) + \Theta(ct)$. Thus we obtain $V_{cb} \cong \sin (\Theta(sb)
    + \Theta(ct))$.

According to the range of values for $m_s$ discussed above, one finds $V_{cb} \cong 0.022 ... 0.038$. For example, for $m_s(1GeV) = 220MeV$,   $m_c (1GeV) = 1.35 GeV$, $m_t(1GeV)
= 260GeV$ one finds $V_{cb} \cong 0.036$.

The experiments give $V_{cb} = 0.032 \dots 0.048^{8)}$. We conclude from the analysis given above that our ansatz for the symmetry breaking reproduces the lower part of the experimental range. According to a recent analysis the experimental data are reproduced best for $V_{cb} = 0.038 \pm 0.003^{9)}$, i. e. it seems that $V_{cb}$ is lower than previously thought, consistent with our expectation. Nevertheless we obtain consistency with experiment only if the ratio $m_s / m_b$ is relatively large implying $m_s(1GeV) \ge
180MeV$. Note that recent estimates of $m_s$ (1GeV) give values in the range 180 $\ldots$ 200 MeV$^{10)}$.

It is remarkable that the simplest ansatz for the breaking of the "democratic symmetry", one which nature follows in the case of the pseudoscalar mesons, is able to reproduce the experimental data on the mixing between the second and third family. We interpret this as a hint that the eigenstates of the symmetry, not the mass eigenstates, play a special rôle in the physics of flavour, a rôle which needs to be investigated further.

The next step is to introduce the mass of the $d$ quark, but keeping $m_{u}$ massless. We regard this sequence of steps as useful due to the fact that the mass ratios $m_{u}/m_{c}$ and $m_{u}/m_{t}$ are about one order of magnitude smaller than the ratios $m_{d}/m_{s}$ and $m_{d}/m_{b}$ respectively. It is well-known that the observed magnitude of the mixing between the first and the second family can be reproduced well by a specific texture of the mass matrix \[11, 12\]. We shall incorporate this here and take the following ansatz for the mass matrix of the down-type quarks:
$$M_{\rm d} \; = \; \left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0  & D_{\rm d}  & 0 \\
D^{*}_{\rm d}  & C_{\rm d}  & B_{\rm d} \\
0  & B_{\rm d}  & A_{\rm d}
\end{array}
\right ) \; .
%               (5)$$ Here $A_d = c_d (3 + \frac{1}{3} \varepsilon_d), B_d = - \sqrt{2}/3 \cdot
\varepsilon_d \cdot c_d, C_d = \frac{2}{3} \cdot \varepsilon_d \cdot c_d$. At this stage the mass matrix of the up-type quarks remains in the form (6). The CKM matrix elements $V_{us}$, $V_{cd}$ and the ratios $V_{ub}/V_{cb}$, $V_{td}/V_{ts}$ can be calculated in this limit. One finds in lowest order: $$V_{us} \; \approx \; \sqrt{\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}} \; , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;
V_{cd} \; \approx \; \sqrt{\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}} \; , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}} \; \approx \; 0 \; , \;\;\;\;\;\; \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}
\; \approx
\; \sqrt{\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}} \; .
%               (6)$$ An interesting implication of the ansatz (8) is the vanishing of $CP$ violation. Although the mass matrix (5) contains a complex parameter $D_d$, its phase can be rotated away due to the fact that $m_{u}$ is still massless, and a phase rotation of the $u$-field does not lead to any observable consequences. The vanishing of $CP$ violation can be seen as follows. Considering two hermitian mass matrices $M_{\rm u}$ and $M_{\rm d}$ in general, one may define a commutator like $$\left [ M_{\rm u}, M_{\rm d} \right ] \; = \; i{\cal C} \;
%               (7)$$ and prove that its determinant ${\rm Det}~{\cal C}$ is a rephasing invariant measure of $CP$ violation \[13\]. It can easily be checked that Det C vanishes. The vanishing of $CP$ violation in our approach in the limit $m_{u}\rightarrow 0$ is an interesting phenomenon, since it is the same limit in which the "strong" $CP$ violation induced by instanton effects of QCD is absent \[14\]. Whether this link between "strong" and "weak" $CP$ violation could offer a solution of the "strong" $CP$ problem remains an open issue at the moment. Nevertheless it is an interesting feature of our approach that $CP$ violation and the mass of the $u$ quark are intrinsically linked to each other. Since the phase of $D$ can be rotated away, it will be disregarded, and $D$ is taken to be real.

The final step is to introduce the mass of the $u$ quark. The mass matrix $M_{\rm u}$ takes the form: $$M_{\rm u} \; = \; \left (
\begin{array}{ccc}
0  & D_{\rm u}  & 0 \\
D^{*}_{\rm u}  & C_{\rm u}  & B_{\rm u} \\
0  & B_{\rm u}  & A_{\rm u}
\end{array}
\right ) \; .
%               (9)$$ (Here $A_u$ etc. are defined analogously as in e.g. (8)). Once the mixing term $D_{\rm u}=|D_{\rm u}|e^{i\sigma}$ for the $u$-quark is introduced, $CP$ violation appears. For the determinant of the commutator (6) we find: $${\rm Det}~{\cal C} \; \cong \; T \sin \sigma ,
%               (10)$$ $$\begin{array}{lll}
T & = & 2 |D_{\rm u}D_{\rm d}| \left [ (A_{\rm u}B_{\rm d}-B_{\rm u}A_{\rm
d})^{2}
-|D_{\rm u}|^{2}B_{\rm d}^{2}-B_{\rm u}^{2}|D_{\rm d}|^{2} \right . \\
&  &    \left . -(A_{\rm u}B_{\rm d}-B_{\rm u}A_{\rm d})(C_{\rm u}B_{\rm
d}-B_{\rm u}C_{\rm d})\right ] \; .\\
\end{array}
%               (11)$$ The phase $\sigma$ determines the strength of $CP$ violation. The diagonalization of the mass matrices $M_{\rm d}$ and $M_{\rm u}$ leads to theigenvalues $m_{i}$ ($i=u,d,...$). Note that $m_{u}$ and $m_{d}$ appear to be negative. By a suitable $\gamma_{5}$-transformation of the quark fields one can arrange them to be positive. Collecting the lowest order terms in the CKM matrix, one obtains: $$V_{us} \; \approx \; \sqrt{\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}}
-\sqrt{\frac{m_{u}}{m_{c}}}e^{i\sigma} \; , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;
V_{cd} \; \approx \; \sqrt{\frac{m_{u}}{m_{c}}}
-\sqrt{\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}}e^{i\sigma} \;
%               (12)$$ and $$\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}} \; \approx \; - \sqrt{\frac{m_{u}}{m_{c}}} \; ,
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}} \; \approx \; -
\sqrt{\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}} \; .
%               (13)$$

The relations for $V_{us}$ and $V_{cd}$ were obtained previously \[12\]. However then it was not noted that the relative phase between the two ratios might be relevant for $CP$ violation. A related discussion can be found in ref. \[15\].

According to eq. (12) the strength of $CP$ violation depends on the phase $\sigma$. If we keep the modulus of the parameter $D_{\rm u}$ constant, but vary the phase from zero to $90^{0}$, the strength of $CP$ violation varies from zero to a maximal value given by eq. (12), which is obtained for $\sigma = 90^{\circ}$. We conclude that $CP$ violation is maximal for $\sigma =90^{0}$. In this case the element $D_{\rm u}$ would be purely imaginary, if we set the phase of the matrix element $D_{\rm d}$ to be zero. As discussed above, this can always be arranged.

In our approach the $CP$-violating phase also enters in the expressions for $V_{us}$ and $V_{cd}$ (Cabibbo angle). As discussed already in ref. \[12\], the Cabibbo angle is fixed by the difference of $\sqrt{m_{d}/m_{s}}$ and $\sqrt{m_{u}/m_{c}}$ $\times$ phase factor. The second term contributes a small correction (of order 0.06) to the leading term, which according to the mass ratios given in ref. \[8\] is allowed to vary between 0.20 and 0.24. For our subsequent discussion we shall use $0.218\leq |V_{us}|\leq 0.224$ \[8\]. If the phase parameter multiplying $\sqrt{m_{u}/m_{c}}$ were zero or $\pm
180^{0}$ (i.e. either the difference or sum of the two real terms would enter), the observed magnitude of the Cabibbo angle could not be reproduced. Thus a phase is needed, and we find within our approach purely on phenomenological grounds that $CP$ violation must be present if we request consistency between observation and our result (14).

An excellent description of the magnitude of $V_{us}$ is obtained for a phase angle of $90^{0}$. In this case one finds: $$|V_{us}|^{2} \; \approx \; \left (1-\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}\right )
\left (\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}+\frac{m_{u}}{m_{c}}\right ) \; ,
%               (15)$$ where approximations are made for $V_{us}$ to a better degree of accuracy than that in eq. (14). Using $|V_{us}|$ = 0.218...0.224 and $m_{u}/m_{c}$ = 0.0028...0.0048 we obtain $m_{d}/m_{s}$ $\approx$ 0.045...0.05. This corresponds to $m_{s}/m_{d}$ $\approx$ 20...22, which is entirely consistent with the determination of $m_{s}/m_{d}$, based on chiral perturbation theory \[7\]: $m_{s}/m_{d}$ = 17...25. This example shows that the phase angle must be in the vicinity of $90^{0}$. Fixing $m_{u}/m_{c}$ to its central value and varying $m_{d}/m_{s}$ throughout the allowed range, we find $\sigma \approx 66^{0}...110^{0}$.

The case $\sigma=90^{0}$, favoured by our analysis, deserves a special attention. It implies that in the sequence of steps discussed above the term $D_{\rm u}$ generating the mass of the $u$-quark is purely imaginary, and hence $CP$ violation is maximal. It is of high interest to observe that nature seems to prefer this case. A purely imaginary term $D_{\rm u}$ implies that the algebraic structure of the quark mass matrix is particularly simple. Its consequences need to be investigated further and might lead the way to an underlying internal symmetry responsible for the pattern of masses.

Finally we explore the consequences of our approach to the unitarity triangle, i.e., the triangle formed by the CKM matrix elements $V^{*}_{ub}$, $V_{td}$ and $s_{12}V_{cb}$ ($s_{12}=\sin\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{12}$: Cabibbo angle) in the complex plane (we shall use the definitions of the angles $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ as given in ref. \[8\]). For $\sigma=90^{0}$ we obtain:
$$\alpha \approx 90^{\circ }, \qquad \beta \approx {\rm arctan}
\sqrt{\frac{m_u}{m_c}
\cdot \frac{m_s}{m_d}} \, , \qquad \gamma \approx 90^{\circ } - \beta \, .$$ Thus the unitarity triangle is a rectangular triangle. We note that the unitarity triangle and the triangle format in the complex phase by $V_{us}$, $\sqrt{m_d / m_s}$ and $\sqrt{m_u / m_c}$ are similar rectangular triangles, related by a scale transformation. Using as input $m_{u}/m_{c}$ = 0.0028...0.0048 and $m_{s}/m_{d}$ = 20...22 as discussed above, we find $\beta$ $\approx$ $13^{0}...18^{0}$, $\gamma$ $\approx$ $72^{0}...76^{0}$, and $\sin 2\beta$ $\approx$ $\sin 2\gamma$ $\approx$ 0.45...0.59. These values are consistent with the experimental constraints \[16\].

We have shown that a simple pattern for the generation of masses for the first family of leptons and quarks leads to an interesting and predictive pattern for the violation of $CP$ symmetry. The observed magnitude of the Cabibbo angle requires $CP$ violation to be maximal or at least near to its maximal strength. The ratio $V_{ub}/V_{cb}$ as well as $V_{td}/V_{ts}$ are given by $\sqrt{m_{u}/m_{c}}$ and $\sqrt{m_{d}/m_{s}}$ respectively. In the case of maximal $CP$ violation the unitarity triangle is rectangular ($\alpha=90^{0}$), the angle $\beta$ can vary in the range $13^{0}...18^{0}$ ($\sin 2\beta=\sin 2\gamma$ $\approx$ 0.45...0.59). It remains to be seen whether the future experiments, e.g. the measurements of the $CP$ asymmetry in $B^{0}_{d}$ vs $\bar{B}^{0}_{d}\rightarrow J/\psi K_{S}$, confirm these values.

**Acknowledgements**

$~$ I like to thank A. Ali, C. Jarlskog, T. D. Lee, H. Lehmann, R. Peccei and R. R$\rm\ddot{u}$ckl for useful discussions. Furthermore I should like to express my gratitude to Prof. A. Sanda and his crew for the efforts to organize this interesting and successful meeting in Nagoya.


abstract: Fragments of deep-ocean tidal records up to 3 days long belong to the same functional sub-space, regardless of the record's origin. The tidal sub-space basis can be derived via Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis of a tidal record of a single buoy. Decomposition of a tsunami buoy record in a functional space of tidal EOFs presents an efficient tool for a short-term tidal forecast, as well as for an accurate tidal removal needed for early tsunami detection and quantification (Tolkova, E. 2009. Principal Component Analysis of Tsunami Buoy Record: Tide Prediction and Removal. Dyn. Atmos. Oceans, 46 (1-4): 62-82.) EOF analysis of a time series, however, assumes that the time series represents a stationary (in the weak sense) process. In the present work, a modification of one-dimensional EOF formalism not restricted to stationary processes is introduced. With this modification, the EOF-based de-tiding/forecasting technique can be interpreted in terms of a signal passage through a filter bank, which is unique for the sub-space spanned by the EOFs. This interpretation helps to identify a harmonic content of a continuous process whose fragments are decomposed by given EOFs. In particular, seven EOFs and a constant function are proved to decompose 1-day-long tidal fragments at any location. Filtering by projection into a reduced sub-space of the above EOFs is capable of separating a tsunami wave from a tidal component within a few millimeter accuracy from the first minutes of the tsunami appearance on a tsunami buoy record, and is reliable in the presence of data gaps. EOFs with $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}3-day duration (a reciprocal of either tidal band width) allow short-term (24.75 hour in advance) tidal predictions using the inherent structure of a tidal signal. The predictions do not require any a priori knowledge of tidal processes at a particular location, except for recent 49.5 hour long recordings at the location.
author: Elena Tolkova
title: EOF analysis of a time series with application to tsunami detection

University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195, USA
*firstname.lastname@example.com*

**Keywords**: Time series analysis; Empirical Orthogonal Functions; Filtering; Detiding; Tide prediction; Tsunami

# Introduction

The tsunami forecast system being developed at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory relies on a network of DART (Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) buoys to obtain real-time measurements of tsunami wave height . The accuracy of detecting tsunami waves at DART buoys largely determines the accuracy of any forecast of the future tsunami evolution.

A tsunami wave in the open ocean is often less than a few centimeters in amplitude. DART stations are able to resolve tsunamis with amplitudes as small as 1 cm . However, the tsunami signal is masked by the much more powerful tidal component, with typical amplitudes of 1 m or more. Therefore, for high-quality tsunami measurements, the low-frequency component of a DART record due to both tidal and non-tidal processes has to be removed with a precision of a few millimeters.

There are two old, good techniques for removing a tidal component of a record: either predict tide or extract it using a digital filter.

For predictions, the tidal motion is considered as a deterministic process governed by astronomical forcing. Known expansions of the tide-generating potential into harmonic constituents include tens to hundreds of terms at pre-determined frequencies, but with unknown phases and amplitudes (harmonic constants) that are site-specific , . The harmonic constants have to be determined for each and every individual buoy and are the most accurate when derived by means of a harmonic analysis of a particular buoy's record for one or more years . This technique allows to predict tide with a few cm (2 or higher) RMS error , , . Otherwise, numerical tidal models can provide an accuracy of 3 to 9 cm. The common practice for obtaining those numbers, however, is to compare with data which were "low-pass filtered to remove the lower frequency ocean signal, and to retain only the diurnal and higher frequency part" . Ocean signal, or long wave noise, is caused by sea level variations mainly due to fluctuations in atmospheric pressure. Kulikov et al (1983) estimate the typical amplitude of the natural long wave noise in the open ocean to be 1.5-2 cm, which adds to the residuals of tidal predictions.

Thus the tidal predictions alone do not provide the desired accuracy for tsunami detection and quantification. Moreover, DART buoys are re-deployed every two years and not necessarily into the same location, so there might not be enough data to obtain the best (data-derived) set of harmonic constituents for half of a buoy's life.

Since tidal motion occurs on a scale of several hours, while a tsunami signal varies on a scale of several minutes, digital filtering is an efficient tool to separate the two processes , . It is also commonly applied to residuals of de-tiding based on the approximation with harmonic constituents, to suppress the remaining low-frequency oscillations . Limitations of filtering from a perspective of tsunami forecast are discussed in . A digital filter has difficulty detecting a tsunami at the beginning of the event when the ongoing tsunami signal on the end of a buoy's record is less than one full wave (a peak and a trough). In an event situation, this means waiting for the data to accumulate 30 min or longer after a tsunami wave reaches a buoy before the filtering can be relied on for tsunami detection. Needless to say, from the point of view of real-time tsunami forecasting, the first appearance of a tsunami wave peak on a DART record is when the precise measurement of the tsunami characteristics is essential. Gaps in the data (see Fig. for a record of the 01/03/2009 tsunami at DART 52403) present another difficulty for digital fitering. In particular, a few-hour data gap is very likely to happen in a DART recording prior to a tsunami, as a buoy construction feature .

In , it was suggested to perform de-tiding and short-term tidal prediction using a set of basis functions derived from an ensemble of fragments of tidal records using principal component analysis (PCA), also known as Empirical Orthogonal Functions (EOFs) analysis. It was noticed that a tidal fragment of a certain length, recorded anytime and anywhere in the deep ocean, can be decomposed with a few basic functions, once obtained from a single tidal record. These functions explain not only tidal but at least some variance due to low-frequency ocean processes. The new technique was able to provide short-term tidal predictions using only a few day long tidal record at the location, and could accurately detect a tsunami signal located on the very edge of the record.

A number of questions, however, remained unanswered, with the major of them being: to what extent the functional sub-space for one buoy's tidal fragments is shared by tidal fragments recorded at other buoys? Tidal motion is well explained in terms of harmonic analysis, whereas EOFs are not trivial to interpret in a frequency domain: "As far as frequency localization is concerned..., PCA provides no clear information" . Consequently, all the quantitative estimates about the method accuracy, whether with regard to de-tiding or forecasting, were done solely by experimenting with a number of records, since the underlying physics of the tidal EOF method was not understood.

In this work, operations on tidal records in EOF space are interpreted in terms of conventional filtering (i.e., convolution with a sliding window). This interpretation helped to identify a harmonic content of a continuos process whose fragments belong to a reduced sub-space, given the sub-space basis vectors. The EOF basis sets developed in this work are proved to be universal, that is, be common for the majority of the DARTs. The EOF formalism was also modified compared to . New examples of the method applications are presented, such as de-tiding a tidal record with gaps, and forecasting a tidal record a certain time (up to 24 hours) ahead by convolution with a specific sliding window 49.5 hours wide.

# EOFs of a temporal process: general approach

Classical EOF formalism applies to a multidimensional process/dataset $\zeta({\bf x},t)$, ${\bf x}$ being a vector of space variables and $t$ being time. EOFs of the process are found as eigenvectors of the dataset covariance matrix $$C_{space}(i,j)= \langle \zeta({\bf x_i},t) \cdot \zeta({\bf x_j},t) \rangle_t
\label{CC}$$ averaged over time. The eigenvectors are normalized and arranged in the order of decreasing corresponding eigenvalues (real and non-negative). EOFs of a space-time physical process represent mutually orthogonal space modes where the data variance is concentrated, with the first mode being responsible for the largest part of the variance, the second for the largest part of the remaining variance, and so on. Remaining eigenvectors, associated with zero or negligible eigenvalues, will not be referred to as EOFs. Thus a complex process is reduced to several empirical space patterns (EOFs) evolving in time. EOF analysis is commonly used to investigate multi-dimensional (space-time) processes , , . The EOF domain coincides with the space domain of the process.

Less common in physical applications, 1D EOF formalism was adapted for filtering and predicting time series of climatological variables. The author is presently aware of two approaches to EOF-based time series analysis discussed in detail in and in , with more application examples in , , .

In , EOFs of a temporal process $\zeta(k)$ are derived from a covariance $$C_{time}^1(i,j)= \langle \zeta(k+i) \cdot \zeta(k+j) \rangle_k,
\label{C1}$$ and in , from a covariance $$C_{time}^2(i,j)= \langle \zeta(k) \cdot \zeta(k+|i-j|) \rangle_k
\label{C2}$$ where indexes $i,j$ vary from 1 to an arbitrary maximal lag $M$. The maximal lag determines an EOF domain in time, while the time domain of the process is infinite. An important difference with EOF formalism for space-time processes is that interpretation of time-domain EOF analysis relies on the assumption of a process being stationary . The stationarity requirement is even more crucial for the prediction algorithm developed in , which otherwise can not be implemented. Therefore, unlike the multidimensional case, a covariance matrix () needs to be diagonal-constant (while a covariance () already is, regardless of the stationarity of an actual process).

Real-world processes, however, which time-domain EOFs are intended to represent, are often quasi-periodical but not stationary, with longer period (such as seasonal or annual) modulation imposed over shorter period (such as daily) modulation. The presence of periods longer than a length of data (such as a tidal nodal cycle) would appear as non-stationarity, even if the process were stationary on a larger time scale. Non-periodical trends can also be present. "Non-stationarity" can also arise due to the statistical error of computing covariance from limited data. To overcome the impediment of non-stationarity, Vautard at al. (1992) derived an algorithm for removing trends and ultra-low frequencies in a record, to be performed prior to EOF analysis. A modification of time-domain EOF formalism was introduced for a particular case of cyclostationary processes , .

This work (which continues with some modification and generalization of a technique introduced there) describes a different modification of 1D EOF technique. EOF formalism is applied to $M$-reading long fragments of tidal records rather than to a continous time series. The fragments are viewed as independent realizations of a random vector in $M$-dimensional space. Prior to computing the ensemble covariance, a number of EOFs can be pre-assigned by removing from each fragment a projection onto a sub-space $S$ spanned by the pre-selected vectors ${\bf s_k}$. For example, the sub-space $S$ can be spanned by a single vector ${\bf s_1}=(1, \dots, 1)^T/ \sqrt{M}$ (the constant vector). Then subtracting the $S$-projection would result in centering each fragment on its average, which removes from the ensemble the original time series variability at a time scale larger than $M$. A vector ${\bf s_2}$, $s_2(i) \sim i-(M+1)/2$, can be used to remove trends prior to EOF analysis. Removing the $S$-projection from the data results in leading eigenvectors orthogonal to vectors ${\bf s_k}$, which are then included with an EOF basis to encompass original data fragments.

In this work, only fragment average is removed. Thus a covariance matrix for an ensemble of $N$ tidal fragments is computed as $$C_{i,j}=\sum_{k=1}^N {(\zeta(q_k+i-1)-a_k)(\zeta(q_k+j-1)-a_k)},
\label{cov}$$ where $q_k$ is a node number where the $k$-th fragment starts, $a_k$ is a mean in the $k$-th fragment, $i,j=1, \dots, M$. The summation is done over $q_k$. It is possible for $q_k$ to take a value of every index in a record, but not necessary. $q_k$ is taken at random within the length of the record, skipping fragments with missing/corrupted data.

EOFs are derived as eigenvectors of ${\tilde{C}}_{i,j}=C_{i,j}+C_{M+1-i,M+1-j}$, that is, of a covariance component symmetrical with respect to its central element. ${\tilde{C}}$ is also a covariance of a joint ensemble of the de-meaned $N$ fragments $\hat{\zeta}(q_k+i)$ and their mid-point mirrors $\hat{\zeta}(q_k+(M+1-i))$. So, instead of being expected to be diagonal-constant, a covariance matrix from which to derive EOFs is made symmetrical about its center $${\tilde{C}}_{M+1-i,M+1-j}={\tilde{C}}_{i,j} \ .
\label{C_sym}$$ It can be noted, that every diagonal-constant matrix is also symmetrical with respect to its center, but a center-symmetrical matrix () is not necessarily diagonally constant. Due to the symmetry (), an eigenvector basis of $\tilde{C}$ is composed of even (that is, symmetrical with respect to a mid-point) and odd (anti-symmetrical with respect to a mid-point) vectors only.

A number $n$ of EOFs sufficient to represent the original ensemble variance spans a n-dimensional sub-space in M-dimensional space referred to as a tidal sub-space. Due to the symmetry imposed on the EOFs, for every tidal fragment enclosed in the tidal sub-space, the sub-space also contains the fragment's time-mirror. The physical interpretation of the present modification of an EOF formalism is given in section .

# EOFs of tidal fragments

Tidal energy is concentrated in the long-period, diurnal, and semidiurnal frequency bands centered around 0, 1, and 2 cycles per day (c/d). A three cycles per day component (ter-diurnal principal lunar tide $M_3$) may be present with a fairly small (few mm) amplitude, so it is often neglected. Tidal components with four and more cycles per day are generated in shallow water due to nonlinearity, but are not expected in a deep ocean, where the tide is "remarkably linear" . The basic lunar tide $M_2$ (12.4206 h period) is the dominant tidal constituent, located in the semidiurnal band. The diurnal band is generally dominated by $K_1$ (23.9345 h period). The effective width for the diurnal band is from 0.8 to 1.1 c/d, for semidiurnal from 1.75 to 2.05 c/d; thus either bandwidth is 0.3 c/d . Therefore, a tidal motion has two inherent time scales: one day is the apparent tidal quasi-period, and 3.3 days is the shortest length of a tidal record to resolve any individual constituent within either of the two major bands.

One-dimensional EOF formalism does not specify an EOF length, that is, the maximal lag in () or (), or a fragment length $M$. Vautard et al. (1992) suggested to select an eigenvector length $M$ (in units of time) so that $$1/\nu_0 \le M \le 1/2\delta \nu \ ,
\label{M}$$ where $\nu_0$ is a peak frequency in the signal spectrum, and $2\delta \nu$ is the peak width. Under this choice, EOF analysis generally isolates the corresponding oscillation, that is, a pair of oscillatory modes at $\nu_0$ frequency is expected among EOFs . Our choice of $M$ also follows the limitation $M \le 1/2\delta \nu$, that is 3.3 days, but for another reason. Since tides at different locations differ only in the fine structure of the tidal bands, one can expect the EOF sub-space to be common for all DART buoys (though their covariance matrices do look different) for as long as the fine structure of the tidal bands is not resolved. The commonality among different DART functional sub-spaces for 1-day and 3-day long fragments was noticed in . It was suggested that the tidal sub-space basis can be derived from any DART record, if the record is long enough and represented by a sufficient number of fragments.

The EOF basis for 1-lunar-day-long tidal fragments is used for de-tiding, and a 3-lunar-day basis is used for predictions. A lunar day (24 h 50.4 min) is defined as in , as a period of time between two consecutive passages of the Moon over the same meridian, or twice the $M_2$ constituent period. Records of primary interest for this work are DART records. In the absence of a tsunami, a DART transmits bottom pressure data at 15-min intervals. A lunar day, therefore, is best approached by 99 sampling intervals.

The first eight tidal EOFs (to be preceded by the constant vector) for 1-lunar-day-long tidal fragments, computed for an ensemble of 250 fragments taken from a year of 2007 record of DART 46412, are shown in Fig. . Since diurnal and semidiurnal oscillations are mutually orthogonal and () is met for both, two pairs (and no more) of oscillatory modes are present.

The above EOFs are universal in the sense that they can decompose a tidal fragment recorded anytime at any DART with the same efficiency ("signal processing" side of which is explained in section ). Figure shows RMS errors per reading of approximation of tidal fragments using different EOF sub-sets, and in different DART records. The DARTs were selected from every instrumented world ocean: 21416 (Pacific, Far East), 46409 (Alaska), 46404 (Pacific, North USA West Coast), 46412 (South USA West Coast), 51407 (Pacific, Hawaii), 32412 (Pacific, Southwest of Lima, Peru), 54401 (Pacific, Northeast of New Zealand), 44401 (mid-Atlantic), 23401 (Indian Ocean). The DART locations on a map can be found at NOAA's National Data Buoy Center public website (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/dart.shtml). For each DART, the approximation errors were averaged over 70-100 tidal fragments with no missing data, randomly selected from a buoy's January-May 2008 record. For each DART, the approximations were performed using only the first four, five, six, or seven tidal EOFs, and a constant function. A set of $n$ EOFs and a constant function will be referred to as n+1 set. The tidal range within each buoy record was, from largest to lowest, 3.9 m for 46409; 3.5 m for 46404; 2.4 m for 46412; 1.6 m for 21416; 1.5 m for 54401; 1.0 to 1.1 m for 23401, 44401 and 51407; and 0.8 m for 32412.

An approximation with the 4+1 EOF set yielded residuals varying from 6 to 27.5 mm in RMS value (second left bar in each group in Fig. ). The residuals are roughly proportional to the tidal amplitude (except 54401, whose residual is level with residuals of buoys with lower tidal range). An approximation with the 7+1 EOF set (rightmost bar in each group in Fig. ) yields all the residuals about 3 mm and nearly the same for all the buoys, regardless of a tidal range. A DART buoy measurement sensitivity is 1 mm .

For comparison with the EOF-based approximation, the leftmost bar in each group shows an average error of fitting the tidal fragments with a constant function, sine and cosine functions at $K_1$ primary tide frequency, and sine and cosine functions at $M_2$ primary tide frequency. Since the constituents within each band can not be resolved with a 1-day window, fitting a 1-day fragment with a single constituent extracts most of its band variance (even if the constituent were not dominating in the band). For the same reason, the residual is nearly orthogonal to any harmonic constituent in the band, so fitting the residual with another primary tide would not extract significant remaining variance. The residuals are generally higher than the residuals of fitting with the same number of EOFs, that is, with a 4+1 set. Fitting with primary tides was applied to isolate tidal variance in the 2004 Sumatra tsunami records from 200 tide stations around the world , , .

The analysis of sub-spaces spanned by the same number of EOFs originated with different buoys showed that for the majority of the buoys, each of the first four EOFs is buoy-specific, but altogether the first four span the same sub-space, which is roughly the sub-space of diurnal and semi-diurnal oscillations. Each of the 5th, 6th, and 7th EOF is practically the same among different buoys, so a sub-space of the first 7 EOFs of any buoy is still common for most of the DARTs. The 8th EOF is again buoy-specific and expands an EOF sub-space into higher frequencies. Thus different DART tidal sub-spaces intersect along 7 dimensions given by the first 7 EOFs of any buoy, though mixed-tide Alaskan and U.S. West Coast DARTs with strong tidal signals seem to be the best source for tidal EOFs.

# Sub-space projection as a filter bank

The ability of EOFs to provide a compact representation of a signal can be used for extracting the signal component of a record by back and forth projection onto a reduced space spanned by the signal's EOF modes. Given a fragment of a DART record ${\bf y}$, its tidal component ${\bf z}$ is extracted by the projection onto the tidal sub-space as $${\bf z}=ff \cdot ff^T \cdot {\bf y} ,
\label{eof_filter}$$ where ${\bf y}$ and ${\bf z}$ are M-dimensional column vectors, $ff$ is a $M \times n$ matrix with the tidal EOFs ${\bf  f}_1, \dots, {\bf f}_n$ for its columns. Thus $M \times M$ matrix $$A=ff \cdot ff^T
\label{mtrxA}$$ describes an EOF filter , . Optimally, the filter is transparent for a tidal component of a M-reading long DART record and non-transparent for a non-tidal component, such as tsunami.

Tidal EOF sets originated with different buoys are nearly a rotation of each other in the tidal sub-space. Substituting a sub-set $ff$ for a sub-set $ff \cdot R$ rotated within the sub-space, $R$ being a $n \times n$ unitary transformation matrix ($R^T=R^{-1}$) does not change matrix A. Therefore, A is proper to the sub-space, while the sub-space basis vectors are determined up to an arbitrary unitary transformation. As is apparent from (), the sub-set basis vectors are all eigenvectors of A associated with eigenvalues equal to one, with the remaining $M-n$ eigenvalues of A being zero. Thus matrix A defines the sub-space.

According to (), the $i$-th element of EOF filter output ${\bf z}$ is a weighted average of the filter input ${\bf y}$, with the weights given by the $i$-th row of $A$. Thus, every reading at the output () can be interpreted as a result of a convolution of a time series with a M-reading long window, where different windows are used for different output moments, so that all the $M$ points of the output could be computed with the same M-reading long input. If, however, the input data are not limited to M readings, but continue as far as necessary into the past and future, then any single row/column of symmetrical matrix A can be used as a window function for conventional filtering via convolution with a sliding window. In particular, the last row/column of A could be a sliding window for a one-sided filter (output at every moment is computed with readings taken on or before this moment). Apparently, an EOF filter is transparent for a fragment of a process, if the process spectrum falls within a passband of each row-filter in $A$.

An interpretation of matrix A as an ensemble of sliding windows also leads to an expectation of A having a central symmetry with respect to the matrix center: $$A(i,j)=A(M+1-i,M+1-j)
\label{A_symm}$$ For example, the central row of A is used to compute a tidal component of a DART record on moment $t$ with the same moment reading, $(M-1)/2$ readings before and $(M-1)/2$ readings after the moment $t$. This is a reason to expect this particular window function to be symmetrical. Likewise, window functions to compute a $j$-th tidal reading from the beginning and the end of a M-reading fragment are expected to be mirrors of each other.

In terms of the sub-space basis vectors, $f_k(i)$ being the $i$-th element of the $k$-th vector, () can be re-written as: $$\sum_{k=1}^n  {f_k(i) \cdot f_k(j)}=\sum_{k=1}^n  {f_k(M+1-i) \cdot f_k(M+1-j)}.
\label{ff_symm}$$ The last equation would be satisfied with either odd or even (with respect to the central element) vectors ${\bf f}_k$, so the symmetry imposed on the covariance and consequently on an EOF set follows from the physical meaning of A.

The interpretation of an EOF sub-space projection in terms of a filter bank helps to identify a harmonic content of a continuous process whose fragments belong to the EOF sub-space, given the sub-space basis vectors. Specifically, the sub-space would encompass fragments of a process whose spectrum is located within a pass band of every row-filter in an associated matrix A.

Figure shows pulse responses of the filters contained in the central (50th) row, 90th row, and the last (99th) row of the $99 \times 99$ matrix A computed with the 7+1 set of DART 46412 EOFs, and the amplitudes and phases of the filters' frequency responses. The three filters (and the rest of the 99) are low-pass filters which maintain high transparency and introduce no phase distortions within tidal bands.

Therefore the above 7+1 EOF set would extract a tidal component from any 99-reading long record at any DART, as long as the tidal energy at this DART is concentrated in the three tidal bands (0, 1, and 2 c/d), that is, for all the buoys in the areas with linear astronomical tide. It also extracts low-frequency ocean noise in a band from 0 to 2 c/d. Thus the residuals of EOF de-tiding do not display trends typical for the residuals of tidal predictions.

The same approach explains the relative ability of different-size EOF sub-sets to isolate tidal variance together with long wave noise within the tidal range (illustrated in Fig. ). Figure shows amplitude responses of a central row filter and 90-th row filter for the 4+1 set and the 7+1 set of the EOFs of 46412. Note that only even EOFs contribute to the central row. The 4+1 EOF set roughly picks up the variance in the long-period, diurnal and semidiurnal bands, and so does any DART 4+1 EOF set (though the individual modes differ among DARTs). Adding the next three modes flattens the associated filter frequency response inside the bands without expanding the filter passbands significantly beyond the tidal bands. Thus the next three modes explain the remaining variance (not decomposed by the 4+1 set).

## Effect of symmetrization

An example below highlights an effect the symmetrization of a covariance has on a tidal EOF set. Two EOF sets were computed for 130 1-day fragments randomly selected from the buoy's 09/2007-03/2008 record using a "true" covariance () and a center-symmetrical covariance $\tilde{C}$. The record has significant large-scale modulation and/or trends and contains noticeable amounts of missing data (see Figure ).

Figure shows pulse and frequency responses of the filters in the 50th and 90th columns of matrix $A$ for each of the two 7+1 EOF sets. EOFs obtained with the "true" covariance are less efficient in isolating the tidal variance: the corresponding filters have passbands wider than the tidal frequency range (transparent even at 3 c/d) and ripples on the near-edge-row filter characteristics at the low frequencies (under 2 c/d). Symmetrization reduced the passbands, but could not improve the responses of near-edge filters inside the tidal bands. Overall, filters of 44401 derived from a center-symmetrical covariance are more alike those of 46412, with the central row filters becoming practically identical.

## Passage of a wide-band signal through an EOF filter

In the next experiment suggested by the reviewers of this paper, the spectral contribution of the EOF filtering to the residual records is estimated directly. A set of 13 diurnal and semidiurnal constituents, including all the major ones (M2, S2, N2, K2, K1, O1, P1, Q1) was used to model a tidal fragment with 1 min interval, which is a sampling of a DART record in an event mode. White Gaussian noise with a standard deviation $\sigma=5$ cm was added to each value in the fragment. The white noise at 1-min sampling rate occupies the entire frequency band from 0 to 30 cycles/hour. Then the fragment was EOF-filtered with the 7+1 EOF set spline-interpolated from 15 min to 1 min sampling rate. The objective was to observe the spectral effects of the EOF detiding in wide frequency range, by comparing the spectra of the original signal (a particular realization of the white noise) and the detided signal (a residual of the EOF filtering).

Fig. , top pane shows a tidal fragment with added noise and its tidal component extracted by the EOF filter. Since the EOF filter extracts low frequency energy in a range from 0 to about 1/10 cycles per hour, which is 1/300 part of the entire signal band uniformly (on average) occupied by a white noise, the filter therefore captures 1/300 part of the noise energy. Thus a detiding error of about $\sigma/\sqrt{300} =2.9$ mm (RMS) per reading should be expected. An actual RMS error of the tidal estimate in the above experiment was 2.8 mm.

Fig. , bottom panes show the amplitude spectra of the original signal (a realization of the white noise) and of the difference between the original and the detided signals. The spectral amplitude is normalized by its standard deviation, that is, $\sigma \sqrt{M}$, where $M=1471$ is a number of data points in a tidal fragment sampled at 1 min interval. The spectral amplitude of the difference coincides with the amplitude of the original throughout the tidal bands and then monotonically decreases to 0.001 of the standard deviation of the original amplitude. Thus the residual of the EOF detiding does not contain any visible tidal energy, whereas at any frequency higher than 2 cycles per hour, the spectral amplitude of the residual does not differ from the original amplitude by more than 1% .

# Detiding records with missing data

So far, a tidal fragment has been considered an uninterrupted 24.75 h long recording. However, real data do have gaps. In particular, a few hour (less than 6 hour) data gap is very likely to happen in a DART recording prior to a tsunami, as a buoy construction feature , . In still conditions, a DART buoy transmits a series of 15-min data once every 6 hours. When a tsunami is detected or a buoy is triggered by an operator, the buoy switches to (nearly) real-time reporting of 1-min data. However, the 15-min data collected since the last transmission would be temporarily missing in the record until the standard reporting mode resumed.

For most filtering methods, a signal in the immediate vicinity of a current point contributes to a current output with greater weight . Therefore, a gap in the data presents a serious difficulty in filtering the record. On the contrary, the EOF filter output at each point is computed with the entire input and can tolerate an absence of part of the data and eventually fill in data gaps (EOF filter interpretation as a bank of running windows does not apply anymore).

In the presence of missing data, EOF coefficients ${\bf a}$ of a tidal fragment ${\bf y}$ can be found by minimizing the least-square error of fitting the existing data with EOFs: $$F({\bf a})=\sum_{m=1}^M \alpha_m \left( {y(m)-\sum_{k=1}^n{a_k f_k(m)}} \right)^2 = \min
\label{aminim}$$ where the $m$-th weight $\alpha_m$ equals 1 if the $m$-th element in ${\bf y}$ is present, and 0 otherwise. The similar approach was used in for interpolating missing data in ocean profiles and in to fill in gaps on images of a certain class, given a pre-computed EOF basis. Equation () yields a set of linear equations with respect to ${\bf a}$: $$gg^T \cdot gg \cdot {\bf a}=gg^T \cdot {\bf y}
\label{aequ}$$ where $gg$ is a $M \times n$ matrix with elements ${g_i}(m)=\alpha_m f_i(m)$ in the $i$-th column. The system () has a unique solution as long as the symmetrical $n \times n$ matrix $B=gg^T \cdot gg$ is not poorly conditioned. Then the EOF filter output is given by $${\bf z}= ff \cdot B^{-1} \cdot gg^T \cdot {\bf y}$$ and yields a tidal component for the entire fragment.

Figure shows an example of de-tiding of an actual tsunami record with data gaps. The tsunami was recorded on 01/03/2009 at DART 52403. The record is a mixture of data sampled with 15-min (black dots) and 1-min (black solid line) intervals. Some of the data preceding the triggering might not be available at the time of the actual event.

The next example illustrates the EOF de-tiding "during an event". Figure shows a record of the Peruvian tsunami of August 2008 at DART 32401. The record contains data with 15-min (standard mode) and 1-min (event mode) sampling rates. One-min data prior to the earthquake (at $t=0$) were actually transmitted within an hour after the buoy entered an event mode . To extract a tidal component, the record was re-sampled to a 1-min rate and low-pass filtered using a 1-day wide cosine-Lanczos filter with 3.5 c/d cut-off. The difference between 1-min original data and the filter output, shown in the bottom pane in Fig. , is considered the reference tsunami signal. To imitate an ongoing event lasting time $\tau$, a 4-hour section of the data preceding the "event detection" (supposedly at the peak of the seismic signal) was taken out, and the entire record was cut at time $\tau$ mark (60 min, 90 min, and 130 min after the quake, or about 10 min, 40 min, and 70 min after the tsunami arrived at the buoy). Figure , top pane, shows a 1-lunar day long section of the record ending 60 min after the quake, processed with a 7+1 EOF filter. The processing yields a tidal component in the section and recovers the missing tidal data. After subtracting the tidal component, the tsunami signal is extracted. The bottom panes of the figure show a tsunami component of a record ending 60 min, 90 min, and 130 min after the quake, extracted via EOF de-tiding, against the reference tsunami signal. Very good agreement with the reference and no edge effects are observed.

# Predicting filter

Both diurnal and semidiurnal tidal bands have an effective bandwidth of 0.3 cycles per day. This suggests that an envelop of either oscillation (at 1 c/d and at 2 c/d) has a correlation interval of 3.3 days (3.2 lunar days). Originally, this was a reason why Munk and Cartwright (1966) chose to sample a tidal admittance function (a pulse response to the gravitational forcing) with a 1.7-day interval, rounded to 2 days. This also suggests an opportunity of short-term tidal predictions utilizing an inherent signal structure.

The predictions are performed in a space of 3-lunar-day long tidal fragments. An EOF basis of 3-day long functions was developed following the same procedure, as with 1-day tidal fragments. The tidal sub-space in $M=3 \cdot 99=297$ dimensional space, common for all the buoys, was found to include $n=10$ dimensions (9 EOFs with zero mean (shown in Fig. ) and a constant function). For this 9+1 basis set, a RMS error of approximation of 3-day long tidal fragments in the same records of 8 DARTs as in Fig. , averaged among 30-60 fragments within the same record, varied from 0.6 cm to 1.2 cm.

Figure shows pulse and frequency responses of the filters contained in the 99th and 149th (the central) row/column of a tidal analysis matrix A () associated with the basis of 3-day long EOFs. The filters are transparent and introduce no phase distortions around the center of each tidal band and damp the signal components outside the three tidal bands, which explains the universality of the basis. However, the filter does not maintain a unit amplitude throughout each band, so it can not extract as much of the tidal variance as the 1-day EOF filter does. Consequently, the signal component orthogonal to the sub-space of the $n$ 3-day long EOFs will be referred to as an EOF residual rather than a non-tidal component.

Short-term tidal predictions can be viewed as filling in a data gap located past the last known reading. The prediction algorithm uses the latest record ${\bf y}_N$ of $N<M$ readings to predict $M-N$ future readings, with the first $N$ readings being used to estimate the EOF coefficients of the entire fragment of $M$ readings according to (), ${\bf y}$ being replaced with ${\bf y}_N$ and $gg$ being an $N \times n$ matrix with the first $N$ elements in vectors ${\bf f}_i$ for its columns. Let ${\bf b}$ denote a set of $n$ EOF coefficients of the entire fragment of $N$ recorded and $M-N$ future readings. Then $${\bf y}_N=gg \cdot {\bf b} + {\bf \eta}_N ,
\label{bequ}$$ where ${\bf \eta}_N$ is the recorded part of an EOF residual in the fragment. If the residual were zero, then ${\bf a}= {\bf b}$, and the prediction was perfect. In a real situation, however, the EOF coefficients are found with an error $${\delta {\bf a}}=B^{-1} \cdot gg^T \cdot  {\bf {\eta}}_N ,
\label{deltaa}$$ For $N \ge 198$ matrix $B$ is well-conditioned. Thus, a 198 reading (49.5 hour) long record at any DART buoy can forecast the following 99 readings (the next lunar day record) at the same DART, simply by left-multiplying the record by a $(M-N) \times N$ matrix $P$ universal for all DARTs: $$P= ee \cdot B^{-1} \cdot gg^T ,
\label{Pmatrix}$$ where $ee$ is a $(M-N) \times n$ matrix with the last $M-N$ elements in vectors ${\bf f}_i$ for its columns.

The underlying physics of the forecast can be revealed by following the same approach as described in section with respect to detiding. Matrix $P$ can be viewed as a bank of $M-N$ sliding windows of $N$ readings each. The $k$-th filter in the bank predicts a value to be recorded $k$ readings later than the last reading in the input.

In general, a filter to predict a tide should meet the following criteria:

-   the filter's amplitude characteristics is equal to 1 and the phase characteristics is equal to 0 within tidal bands; and

-   the filter's pulse response is zero until some time $\tau>0$.

The first of the two conditions implies that if the signal at the filter input is a pure tide, then the signal at the output is the true tide as well. The second one ensures that the output is shifted by $\tau$ into the future with respect to the most recent input. Thus the output predicts a value to occur time $\tau$ later.
Figure , left pane shows a pulse response of a predicting filter in the 80th row of matrix $P$. The pulse is a finite function different from zero during 49.5 hours, the first non-zero reading occurring at the 20-hour marker. Thus 49.5 hours (198 readings) of recent tidal recording are used to predict a value to be recorded 20 hours (80 readings) later (Fig. , right pane). The amplitude and the phase of the filter frequency response are shown in Fig . The conditions for a predicting filter (1 for a filter amplitude and 0 for its phase), though not maintained band-wide, are met with the best accuracy exactly for the six major constituents $K_1, O_1, P_1$ and $M_2, S_2, K_2$. The forecast error should be attributed to an amplification of the other constituents within the tidal bands, first of all $Q_1$ and $N_2$, and to a non-tidal component (long wave noise especially), should it occur in a record. Noise amplification in tidal bands is not a shortcoming, but a necessary feature of a predicting filter. It ensures progressing degradation of predictions made recursively. Otherwise, a single 49.5 h long recording would define a tidal record indefinitely, which would be a violation of physical laws.

Figure shows input and output of the above filter for a several day long record, and the difference of the two (prediction error). The input tide was a part of the 2006 record of DART 46403 with a mixed tide. The RMS prediction error per reading during a month long prediction was 3.0 cm (2.8 cm, if the predictions were done in 99 reading fragments obtained with the entire $P$), or less than 1% of a tidal range ($>3$ m) at this DART. Figure shows input and output for a several day long record, and the prediction error in a part of the 2007 record of DART 21413, which is dominated by the diurnal constituents. The RMS prediction error per reading during a month long prediction was 1.8 cm (1.7 cm, if the predictions were obtained with the entire matrix), or about 2% of a tidal range (90 cm) at this DART.

Amplitude spectra of the month-long prediction error for the two buoys are shown in Fig. . The major source of the prediction error is the long wave ocean noise in the range from 0 to 1 c/d, where the filter amplification is most significant. Also prominent in the error spectra are the constituents $Q_1$ and $N_2$ amplified by the filter as well.

Overall the predictions are at least as accurate as a harmonic-constituent-based forecast provides, with more EOF forecast examples and the accuracy comparisons in .

# Conclusions

As discussed in this work, fragments of deep-ocean tidal records up to 3 day long share the same functional sub-space, regardless of the record's origin. The tidal sub-space basis can be derived via EOF analysis of a tidal record of a single buoy. EOF analysis of a time series, however, assumes that the time series represents a stationary (in the weak sense) process. In this work, a modification of one-dimensional EOF formalism is introduced that is not restricted to stationary processes. With this modification, the EOF-based de-tiding/forecasting technique is interpreted in terms of a signal passage through a filter bank, which is unique for the sub-space spanned by the EOFs. This interpretation helps to identify a harmonic content of a continuous process whose fragments are decomposed by given EOFs. In particular, 7 EOFs and a constant function are proved to decompose 1-day-long tidal fragments at any location. Filtering by projection into a reduced sub-space of the above EOFs is capable of isolating a tsunami wave within a few mm accuracy from the first minutes of the tsunami's appearance on a tsunami buoy record, and is reliable in the presence of data gaps. EOFs with $\sim 3$ day duration (a reciprocal of either tidal band width) allow short-term (24.75 hours in advance) tidal predictions using an inherent structure of a tidal signal. The predictions do not require any a priori knowledge of tidal processes at a particular location, except for recent 49.5 hour long recording at the location.

# Acknowledgments

This study and publication are funded by NOAA and by the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) under NOAA Cooperative Agreement No. NA17RJ1232, Contribution 1606 (JISAO) and 3267 (PMEL). All the DART records used in this work have been obtained from NOAA's National Data Buoy Center public website <http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/dart.shtml>. I thank my colleagues in the NOAA Center for Tsunami Research for their decision to implement an EOF filter as one of the de-tiding methods in the Short-term Inundation Forecasting for Tsunamis (SIFT) system. Sincere thanks are due to Ryan L. Whitney for proofreading the manuscript.


abstract: The PICASSO project is using superheated droplets of C$_4$F$_{10}$ for the direct detection of Dark Matter candidates in the *spin-dependent* (SD) sector. The total setup includes 32 detectors installed in the SNOLAB underground laboratory in Sudbury (Ontario, Canada). With a concentrated effort in detector purification and with new discrimination tools now available for analysis, Picasso published competitive results in June 2009 and became the leading experiment in the SD sector of direct dark matter searches. The present level of sensitivity is at 0.16 pb on protons at 90% C.L. (M$_W$= 24GeV/c$^2$) following an analysis of two detectors only. The rest of the detectors are now in the process of being analyzed and the experimental search continues in order to further improve the limits or hopefully discover a signal of dark matter. The status of the experiment and the ongoing analysis will be presented.
address: Department of Particle Physics; University of Montreal
author: Marie-Cécile Piro (on behalf of the PICASSO collaboration)
title: Status of the PICASSO experiment for spin-dependent Dark Matter searches

# Introduction

The astronomical and cosmological observations strongly suggest the presence of Dark Matter and show that only 1% of the matter of the Universe is luminous and 23% of all the matter should be of a new exotic kind : Cold Dark Matter (CDM). The preferred candidate for particle physicists is the neutralino, the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). It is a very Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) and is a natural candidate in the Minimal SuperSymmetric Model (MSSM) . PICASSO (Project In CAnada to Search for Supersymmetric Objects) is one of the many worldwide efforts to hunt for dark matter through the direct detection of neutralinos via their SD interactions with $^{19}$F nuclei . The goal of the PICASSO project at SNOLAB is to exploit the favorable properties of $^{19}$F by using the superheated droplet detection technique, which is based on the operation principle of the classic bubble chamber .

# Detector principle and Response

A PICASSO detector is a 4.5L cylindrical acrylic module, closed on top by a stainless steel lid sealed with polyurethane O-rings. Thirty-two of these modules are presently installed at SNOLAB. The active detector material consists of droplets of C$_4$F$_{10}$, a liquid which is at ambient temperature and pressure in a metastable, superheated state. The total mass of C$_4$F$_{10}$ amounts to 85g per detector module. When an ionizing particle deposits enough energy in a droplet, it creates a heat spike that induces a phase transition, changing the droplet into a vapor bubble. This phase transition is accompanied by an acoustic signal which is recorded by nine piezoelectric-electric transducers. Calibrations with mono energetic neutron beams allow us to know precisely the energy thresholds of the detector as a function of pressure and temperature . This is important in order to predict the response curve for WIMPs, since neutron induced nuclear recoils are similar to those of WIMPs. The calibration runs are done at the Tandem accelerator facility at University of Montreal. The use of the light target nucleus $^{19}$F, together with a low detection threshold of 2 keV for recoil nuclei, makes PICASSO particularly sensitive to low-mass WIMPS. This is important as few experiments are sensitive below 15 GeVc$^{-2}$ and it is precisely in this mass range where recent interpretations of the DAMA/LIBRA annual modulations in terms of SD interactions remain partially unchecked . The detector response to different types of particles as a function of temperature is shown in Fig..

The different detector responses as a function of temperature allow us to discriminate a possible neutralino signal from backgrounds when we expose the detectors in the mine for counting. The operating temperature in each sub-unit can be varied independently from 20$^{\circ}$C to 55$^{\circ}$C and the temperature is regulated with a precision of $\pm$ 0.1$^{\circ}$C. In this range of temperatures, the detectors are mainly sensitive to alpha-particles and neutrons. In order to reduce these two kinds of background, the PICASSO detectors are carefully purified and the set-up is installed at 2 km underground at SNOLAB.

# Detector fabrication and purification

Each PICASSO detector contains an emulsion of superheated droplets dispersed in a polymerized gel. The C$_4$F$_{10}$ droplets are dispersed in a gel of polyacrylamide forming a smooth interface. Auxiliary chemicals are added to control and improve the polymerization process. The emulsion of the droplets is created by a magnetic stirrer which is controlled such as to obtain a droplet size distribution centered around 200 $\mu$m in diameter. To create a homogeneous and uniform distribution of the droplets in the detector, a solution of cesium chloride salt (CsCl) is added to the matrix in order to equalize the densities of the C$_4$F$_{10}$ droplets and the gel solution at a value of 1.6g/cm$^3$. Since C$_4$F$_{10}$ has a boiling point of -1.7$^{\circ}$C, the fabrication process for the suspension takes place at -20$^{\circ}$C. In order to reduce the alpha-particle induced background, the detector material has to be purified. Purification is performed using Hydrous Zirconium Oxide (HZrO), a precipitate that attracts actinides like U, Th. The entire fabrication process is done in a class 10000 clean room.

# Analysis and discrimination tools

A search by PICASSO for signatures in the recorded transducer signals showed that the intensity and frequency content of the acoustic signals contains information about the nature of the primary event . From this information, variables can be constructed, which allow an event by event discrimination between particle and non-particle induced backgrounds. The first variable is named *pVar* and is based on the signal energy; it depends on the temperature and allows us to discriminate neutron induced recoils from backgrounds. The second variable is the frequency variable called *fVar* and is based on the power spectrum of the fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the signal. These two parameters allow to separate particle-events due to WIMPS, alphas and neutrons, from the non-particle-induced events, like fractures and mechanical noises. Combining these two discrimination tools, we can determine a window to localize the nuclear recoil events expected for the interaction of neutralino induced events with the active liquid (Fig.).

# Experimental set-up and recent results obtained

The experimental set-up is installed 2070 meters underground at SNOLAB at the Creighton mine in Sudbury. At this depth, the neutron flux coming from the ambient cosmic muon flux is largely reduced, with an expected count rate at the level of 10$^{-5}$ counts h$^{-1}$ g$^{-1}$, which is two orders of magnitude below the count rate of the detectors which are the subject of this analysis. The set-up is now completed with all 32 detectors installed yielding a total active mass of 2.6 kg of C$_4$F$_{10}$. The new discrimination tools have been applied first to a set of two detectors (71 and 72) with a total target mass of $^{19}$F target mass of 65.06 $\pm$ 3.2 g and 69.0 $\pm$ 3.5 g, respectively. For WIMP masses around 24 GeV/c$^2$ and a total exposure of 13.75 $\pm$ 0.48 kgd, PICASSO obtained new limits on the SD cross section on $^{19}$F of $\sigma_F$ = 13.9 pb (90% C.L.) which can be converted into cross section limits on protons and neutrons of $\sigma_p$ = 0.16 pb and $\sigma_n$ = 2.60 pb respectively at 90% C.L. (Fig.). The analysis is presently being extended to the remaining 30 detectors and we expect that a very competitive limit will be obtained when the detectors have been fully characterized and the analysis has been completed.

# Next phase of the experiment and conclusion

PICASSO recently developed a new generation of detectors using a new kind of gel without cesium chloride which is presently the main source of alpha-contamination. In this case, viscous glycerin and polyethylene glycol allow to suspend the C$_4$F$_{10}$ droplets without density matching. Many improvements have been brought to the various fabrication steps, in order to obtain the lowest possible alpha-background. The preliminary results are very encouraging and may lead to a background reduction of at least a factor 10. Presently, half of the set-up has been replaced by these new detectors and the full installation is expected to be completed before the end of the year. The analysis of the new generation of detectors is now in progress and studies of a complete discrimination between the particle induced recoils and the alpha-particles will allow PICASSO to improve substantially the level of its sensitivity in the spin-dependant sector.

# References