author: H.-G. Ludwig ; E. Caffau ; M. Steffen ; P. Bonifacio ; L. Sbordone ;
date: Received ...; Accepted ...
subtitle:
title: Accuracy of spectroscopy-based radioactive dating of stars

Combined spectroscopic abundance analyses of stable and radioactive elements can be applied for deriving stellar ages. The achievable precision depends on factors related to spectroscopy, nucleosynthesis, and chemical evolution. We quantify the uncertainties arising from the spectroscopic analysis, and compare these to the other error sources. We derive formulae for the age uncertainties arising from the spectroscopic abundance analysis, and apply them to spectroscopic and nucleosynthetic data compiled from the literature for the Sun and metal-poor stars. We obtained ready-to-use analytic formulae of the age uncertainty for the cases of stable+unstable and unstable+unstable chronometer pairs, and discuss the optimal relation between to-be-measured age and mean lifetime of a radioactive species. Application to the literature data indicates that, for a single star, the achievable spectroscopic accuracy is limited to about $\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}20 % for the foreseeable future. At present, theoretical uncertainties in nucleosynthesis and chemical evolution models form the precision bottleneck. For stellar clusters, isochrone fitting provides a higher accuracy than radioactive dating, but radioactive dating becomes competitive when applied to many cluster members simultaneously, reducing the statistical errors by a factor $\sqrt{N}$. Spectroscopy-based radioactive stellar dating would benefit from improvements in the theoretical understanding of nucleosynthesis and chemical evolution. Its application to clusters can provide strong constraints for nucleosynthetic models.

# Introduction

The determination of absolute ages for stars is of paramount importance in astrophysics since ages allow the timescales on which stellar populations and their chemical composition evolve to be established. The presence of long-lived unstable elements in stellar atmospheres offers a way to date stars by investigating their radioactive decay spectroscopically. In its simplest form, one determines the photospheric abundance of a pair of elements, of which one is unstable. By means of theoretical modeling of the nucleosynthetic production channels for the two elements, the original abundance of the unstable nucleus can be estimated from the abundance of the stable one. This allows the time-span over which the unstable element decayed to be determined.

The idea emerged early after the discovery of the rapid neutron capture process (short $r$-process) as the source of production of radionuclides such as thorium and uranium . Since then it has been applied in a number of cases but, typically, as a "side product" of analyses of the more general n-capture enrichment patterns. To our knowledge, the only effort in recent years to exploit radioactive dating to systematically derive the age of a significant sample of stars has been the one by .

One interest in such dating techniques lies in its applicability to field stars for which no distance information, hence no accurate information on surface gravity or absolute luminosity, is available, so that they cannot be placed with confidence on theoretical isochrones in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HRD). For cluster stellar populations, on the other hand, HRD fitting usually provides rather precise absolute ages . However, for stellar clusters (especially globular clusters), radioactive dating could produce an age estimate of comparable or even higher precision if applied to a large enough sample of stars, and would as such be very valuable as a test of the theoretical stellar isochrones.

Although potentially effective, spectroscopy-based radioactive dating is difficult to apply. The most easily measured long-lived radioactive element, thorium, is only accessible (with the exception of strongly $r$-process enriched stars) through a single, weak line in the optical spectrum of stars, in which high accuracy is needed in the measurement to provide a reliable age. Besides lying on the red wing of a Fe-Ni blend, this unique line is itself also blended by weaker lines of vanadium and cobalt. The relative strength of the various components for the Sun are discussed in where the line-list of was applied. Although rather easily measured, the most frequently used reference element, europium, is believed to constitute a less-than-optimal reference. In fact, its nucleosynthetic ties with Th are rather weak, and the production ratio is sensitive to the originating supernova characteristics .

Besides the astrophysical problem that the $r$-process site has not been unambiguously identified, it is unclear how universal the resulting abundance pattern of the $r$-process nucleosynthesis actually is. In view of the complex nuclear reactions shaping the $r$-process it is not obvious that the outcome is the same for a potentially wide range of the physical conditions governing the formation site(s) . To minimize the influence of poorly constrained physical conditions at the formation site it is desirable to use a reference element with an atomic mass as similar as possible to thorium. This should reduce the uncertainties in the formation properties to the uncertainties related to the properties of the involved nuclei as such, and environmental factors should cancel out. As pointed out before by various authors the Th/U pair is in this sense optimal, however, again difficult to apply since uranium is difficult to detect spectroscopically. Recently, suggested the element hafnium as suitable reference element for thorium-based radioactive dating. Hafnium is closer in mass to thorium than europium, but more importantly, Kratz and collaborators showed by detailed modeling that the production ratio Th/Hf is not strongly varying over a wide range of neutron fluxes during the $r$-process. Since hafnium is a spectroscopically accessible element this makes it an interesting candidate as reference element.

Observationally, the forthcoming introduction of Extremely Large Telescopes (ELTs) is likely to make radioactive dating of stars a much more exploitable technique, since the high signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio required is one of the main difficulties associated with such studies. In this perspective, a precise assessment of the uncertainties associated with such technique is currently lacking, and attempted here. We derive the formulae for the precision to which spectroscopy can provide age estimates. They are subsequently applied to abundance analyses of stars compiled from the literature. This paper is a "spin-off" of our work on the thorium and hafnium abundance in the Sun, and the Th/Hf chronometer pair often serves as an example in the following sections.

# Formulae related to radioactive dating

## Age uncertainties

Any sample of radioactive nuclei decays according to the exponential law: $$n_X(t)=n_{X0} \exp\left({ -t/\tau}\right)
\label{e:decayn}$$ where $n_{X0}$ is the number of nuclei at $t$$=$$0$, and $n_X$ the number of remaining nuclei at time $t$; $\tau$ is the *mean lifetime*. Explicitly, $t$ is given by $$t=\tau\ln{n_{X0}\over n_X} \, .
\label{e:tdec}$$ Knowing the initial and present number of nuclei, one can obtain the time interval that has elapsed since $t$$=$$0$. In practice, to use the decay processes to determine an age, one measures the number of nuclei of the unstable species ($n_X$) relative to the number of nuclei of a stable element which is related to $n_{X0}$. This is, e.g., the case for the Th/Hf pair. Let us call $n_R$ the number of nuclei of the stable reference species related to $n_{X0}$. Let us further assume that the two nuclei have a common nucleosynthetic origin and that the relation between the initial number of nuclei $n_{X0}$ and $n_R$ is given by $$n_{X0} = \beta n_R
\label{e:beta}$$ where $\beta$ is the production ratio between the respective numbers of nuclei. The production ratio may be predicted by theoretical considerations . From Eq.  and Eq.  one can write $$t=\tau\ln{\beta n_R\over n_X} \, .
\label{e:tdec1}$$

All astrophysically relevant unstable elements are trace species. Let us therefore suppose that the lines corresponding to the transitions we are interested in, are weak. In this case, the relation between equivalent width ($W$ hereafter) and abundance ($n$) is linear: $$W=C\,n \hspace{5mm} \mathrm{or} \hspace{5mm} \log W = \log C + \log n,
\label{e:WC}$$ $C$ being a constant defined by the line transition under consideration (dependent on oscillator strength and excitation potential) and the thermal structure of the stellar atmosphere under investigation.

Many lines – including the resonance line – are blended with other species, and in practice the abundance is obtained by fitting a synthetic profile. In this case the equivalent width is obtained theoretically from the best-fitting profile and the underlying abundances. The error on the equivalent width may then be obtained by propagating the error in Eq. . One may also try to derive an equivalent width for the blended line by *subtracting* the theoretical equivalent width of the blending components from the total W of the blend. However, in general, this ignores saturation effects, and thus the "corrected" W differs from the true one. As an example we may consider the resonance line in the Sun. Let us consider the theoretical computation of based on a 3D $\mathrm{CO}^5\mathrm{BOLD}$ model: the W of the blend ++, for an assumed abundance A(Th)=0.09 is 0.74 pm, the W of just the + blend is 0.31 pm, while W(Th) = 0.46 pm. In spite of the fact that all the lines involved are very weak, it is clear that the "corrected" W (0.43 pm) differs from W(Th), due to saturation effects. Thus one should always use the equivalent width of the line, rather than the "corrected" W, although in many cases the difference is so small that it may be safely ignored. Alternatively, one may work with Eq.  and use the obtained abundances directly. In this case one has to establish uncertainties by Monte-Carlo simulations.

Substituting Eqs.  and into Eq.  we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
t &=& \tau\ln \left(\beta\,\frac{W_R}{W_X}\,\frac{C_X}{C_R}\right) \nonumber \\
  &=& \tau \left\{\ln \beta + \ln {W_R} - \ln {W_X} +
  \ln \left(\frac{C_X}{C_R}\right) \right\} \, .
\label{e:tdec2}
\end{aligned}$$ The achievable precision in $t$ is hence limited by the uncertainty in the knowledge of $\beta$, errors in the measurement of $W_X$ and $W_R$, as well as by systematic errors in modeling the stellar atmosphere and line transitions, i.e. errors of the constants $C_X$ and $C_R$.

From the standard formula for the propagation of uncorrelated errors we get for the variance of $t$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma(t)}=\tau \left\{\left({\sigma(\beta)\over \beta}\right)^2 +
                        \left({\sigma(W_R)\over W_R}\right)^2 \right. &+&
                        \left({\sigma(W_X)\over W_X}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
&+& \left. \left({\sigma(C_X/C_R)\over C_X/C_R}\right)^2\right\}^{1/2}.
\label{e:sigt}
\end{aligned}$$ This equation is valid under the presumption that the errors of $\beta$, $W_X$, $W_R$, and $(C_X/C_R)$ are uncorrelated. The errors of $C_X$ and $C_R$ themselves may often be more or less correlated. In fact, Th and Hf abundances are derived from singly ionized species which constitute the dominant ionization stage in the late-type stars of interest here. Moreover, the diagnostic lines of Th and Hf emerge from low lying energy levels which makes the Boltzmann factor and consequently the temperature sensitivity of the level populations modest. The similar atomic properties of Th and Hf lead to similar formation regions in the photosphere. Hence, all systematic errors due to uncertainties in gravity, effective temperature and even the details of the thermal structure of the employed model atmosphere should largely cancel out. Hf is the heaviest element prior to Th whose observable spectroscopic signatures are this favorable. What is left is the systematic error related to the $gf$-values.

Taking the Sun and the Th/Hf pair as an example, we have ${\sigma(W_R) / W_R}
\approx 0.03/0.3 = 0.1$ (see $\lambda$ 409.3 nm in Table 3 in ), and ${\sigma(W_X) / W_X} \approx 0.03/0.4 = 0.075$ (see Table 4 in ). Since $^{232}$Th has a mean lifetime of $\tau$$=$$20.3$ Gyr, we obtain from Eq.  under the most optimistic conditions, assuming $\sigma(\beta)=0$ and $\sigma(C_X/C_R)=0$, an error in the age determination of the order of ${\sigma(t)}$$\approx$$2.5$ Gyr.

Even this rather limited precision is probably beyond the present state-of-the-art in stellar spectroscopy. However it is not implausible to reach a precision of the order of 2 Gyr in the future. The uncertainties due to the S/N in the spectrum may be considerably reduced by the next generation of ELTs, and uncertainties in the blending lines can be reduced through laboratory measurements and/or theoretical calculations. The precision currently attainable on the dating of Globular Clusters, using Main Sequence fitting, is a factor of two better (about 1 Gyr), however it may not be applied to field stars. For field stars which are evolved off the Main Sequence, if the distance is known, an age can be derived through comparison with theoretical isochrones. However, distances are difficult to measure and a small error in the distance propagates to a great error in age. In principle, radioactive dating has the potential to provide ages of individual field stars, even if their distances are not precisely known.

Unfortunately, in the literature equivalent widths and their uncertainties are usually not given so that a direct application of the previous formulae is not possible. In Sect.  we will see that they are nevertheless useful to derive a statement of the optimal decay time of a species for measuring a particular time interval. For now, we proceed by listing the previous relations in terms of the logarithmic abundances $A(X)=\log
\epsilon_X \equiv \log n_X/n_H + 12$. Equation  for the age becomes $$t=\tau\ln\!10 \left\{\log\beta + A(R) - A(X)\right\} ,
\label{e:tdec1a}$$ with the corresponding uncertainty $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma (t)}&=&\tau\ln\!10 \left\{\rule{0mm}{1em} \sigma^2\!\left[\log\beta\right]+
\sigma^2\!\left[A(X)\right]+\sigma^2\!\left[A(R)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
\mbox{} &-& \left.2\,\sigma\!\left[A(X)\right]\,\sigma\!\left[A(R)\right]\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cor}\left[A(X),A(R)\right]}\rule{0mm}{1em}\right\}^{1/2}\,.
\label{e:sigtsiga}
\end{aligned}$$ $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Cor}\left[.,.\right]}$ denotes the linear correlation coefficient. In deriving Eq. , it was assumed that $\beta$ is uncorrelated with A(X) and A(R). Relation  is consistent with Eq.  as long as the statistical bias due to the change from linear to logarithmic quantities is small, i.e. that for any involved quantity $q$ $${\sigma(q)\over q} \approx \sigma(\ln\,q) = \ln\!10\,\,\sigma(\log\,q) .$$ Equation  now explicitly contains the correlation among the measurements of the abundances of the two involved species. If abundance errors are positively correlated – as discussed previously and the Th/Hf pair serving as example – this can lead to a substantial reduction of the overall error with respect to the uncorrelated case. However, care has to be exercised when applying the formulae to literature data (as we intend to do). Quoted abundance errors are often purely statistical, uncorrelated uncertainties while correlated uncertainties related to atmospheric models are specified separately by providing sensitivities against changes of the stellar parameters.

## Optimal decay times

We now discuss how the achievable precision depends on the time interval $t$ we want to measure and the decay time of the radioactive species, $\tau$. From Eq.  or () it might appear that a radioactive species with short mean lifetime $\tau$ provides the highest precision on $t$. However, this reasoning ignores the fact that a rapid decay ($\tau\ll t$) makes it more difficult to measure $W_X$ precisely. To make this connection manifest we eliminate $W_X$ and rewrite Eq.  as $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma(t)\over t}&=&{\tau\over t}\left\{\left({\sigma(W_R)\over W_R}\right)^2
\left(1 + \left({C_R\over \beta\,C_X}\right)^2\,\exp ({2t/\tau})\right) \right.
\nonumber \\
&+& \left. \left({\sigma(\beta)\over \beta}\right)^2 +
 \left({\sigma(C_X/C_R)\over C_X/C_R}\right)^2\right\}^{1/2}\, ,
\label{e:sigt2}
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relations $${W_R\over W_X} = {C_R\over \beta C_X}\,\exp ({t/\tau})
\label{e:WxWn}$$ and $$\sigma(W_R) = \sigma(W_X)\, .
\label{e:cayrel}$$ Eq.  is obtained by combining Eqs. , , and , while Eq.  is a consequence of Cayrel's formula which, for a spectrum that is photon noise dominated, states that the uncertainty of the W measurement $\sigma(W)$ depends on the FWHM of the line, the pixel size, and the S/N of the spectrum. For spectra of moderate resolution (R$\le 80000$), the FWHM is essentially the same for all lines since they are not fully resolved and the FWHM is simply set by the spectrograph's resolution. This is also true for higher resolution spectra if the atoms under consideration do not have a very large difference in mass, and therefore thermal broadening, or if the dominant broadening is non-thermal. In the case of the Th/Hf pair, the mass difference is not large, and in late-type stars the macro-turbulent plus rotational broadening is often of the same order of magnitude or greater than the thermal broadening. We may therefore assume that $\sigma(W)$ is the same for any line in a given spectrum. Assuming again $\sigma(\beta)$$=$$0$, and $\sigma(C_X/C_R)$$=$$0$, and noting that $\sigma(W_R)/W_R$ is time independent, the relative error of $t$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma(t)\over t} &=& {\sigma(W_R)\over W_R}\,{\tau\over t}\,
\left(1+\left({C_R\over\beta C_X}\right)^2\exp
\left({2t/\tau}\right)\right)^{1/2} \nonumber \\
&\equiv&  {\sigma(W_R)\over W_R}\, F\left({t\over\tau};p\right)\,\,\,
\mathrm{with}\,\,\,p\equiv{C_R\over\beta C_X}\, .
\label{e:Faux}
\end{aligned}$$ For brevity, we introduced an auxiliary function $F$ of argument ${t\over\tau}$ and parameter $p$ in Eq. . The smaller $F\left({t\over\tau}\right)$ at given $p$, the higher the precision of the age determination. The best (relative) accuracy is obtained for the time where the function $F$ shows a minimum. As shown in Fig. , the function has a minimum near $t\approx
\tau$. Left of the minimum ($t < \tau$), $F$ decreases slowly with time, while it increases more steeply beyond the minimum ($t > \tau$). We can conclude that an optimal relative precision for radioactive dating is obtained when one measures a time comparable to the mean lifetime of the unstable element – a perhaps intuitively expected result, put on a quantitative footing here. Of course, our analysis is idealized by assuming a single, isolated line for both the stable and decaying species. In practice, often several lines are considered and line strengths are measured via spectral synthesis in order to account for line blending. However, we think that the overall picture in this more complex situation does not change qualitatively.

We finally consider radioactive dating when measuring two lines from two transitions of two unstable elements which we call $X$ and $Y$. There are two decay laws to be considered for the two elements: $$n_X=n_{X0} \exp\left({-t/\tau_X}\right)~~~~{\rm and}~~~~
n_Y=n_{Y0} \exp\left({-t/\tau_Y}\right).$$ We suppose that $\tau_X < \tau_Y$, and that the two elements are, at least partially, formed in the same nucleosynthetic process, so that the abundances of nuclei of the two elements at the initial instant of time are related by $n_{X0} = \beta n_{Y0}$. In this way, we obtain $$n_X=\beta n_Y\exp{\left(-t/\tau\right)}\, ,$$ once $\tau$ is defined as $${1\over \tau}={1\over \tau_X} - {1\over \tau_Y}\, .
\label{e:taueff}$$ We then find the same result for $\sigma(t)/t$ as obtained above in Eq. , except that $\tau$ now depends on the mean lifetimes of the two elements considered according to Eq. , and the reference element $R$ is identified with the longer lived species $Y$ at its present abundance.

In practice, the only two radioactive nuclei which have been used to date stars are $^{232}$Th and $^{238}$U with mean lifetimes of 20.3 Gyr and 6.5 Gyr, respectively. From Eq.  the effective $\tau$ for the Th/U pair amounts to 9.6 Gyr. From Fig.  it is clear that the Th/U pair as well as U/R pairs (R for any stable $r$-process element) are well suited for measuring great ages around 12 Gyr, with Th/R being competitive depending on the actual value of the $p$ parameter. Towards ages of a few Gyr the sensitivity of U/R pairs is about 2 to 3 times higher than the one of Th/R pairs, again depending on $p$. We repeat that only the decay times enter the considerations here; it is usually more difficult to measure U than Th abundances so that the advantage of the shorter life time of U is offset. Finally, we ask whether there are other suitable naturally occurring radioactive elements with lifetimes even more favorable for measuring ages in the range of a few Gyr. The answer is 'no': the lifetimes are either much too short or much too long – besides further complications like exceedingly low abundances of the respective isotopes or the availability of suitable spectral lines.

# Ages of metal-poor stars

As an application of the formulae we derived for the errors on age, we consider metal-poor stars for which the thorium abundance has been measured. For all these stars the abundance of at least one other $r$-process element is available (see Table ). Using various production ratios $\beta$ available in the literature (see Table ), we computed the ages of these stars using Eq.  and their uncertainties with Eq. . Correlations were neglected; correlations due to uncertainties in stellar parameters are usually not included in the error budget, and correlations emerging from the data reduction (e.g. background reduction) not specified by the authors. Our results are summarized in Table . For star HE 1523-0901 the abundances of the single elements were not available, but in abundance ratios are reported, and measurement errors on the individual abundances which is sufficient for our purposes. By using different production ratios we intended to separate the systematic uncertainties related to nucleosynthesis and chemical evolution from the spectroscopic uncertainties as such. Since the production ratios are treated separately here their related uncertainty in the evaluation of $\sigma(t)$ with Eq.  is set to zero, $\sigma^2[\log\beta]=0$.

<table>
<caption>continued.</caption>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><p>X/Y</p></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Object</td>
<td colspan="4" style="text-align: center;">Age<span class="math inline"><sup>a</sup></span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span class="math inline">$\sigma_{\rm Age}$</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td colspan="4" style="text-align: center;">[Gyr]</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">[Gyr]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><p>X/Y</p></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Object</td>
<td colspan="4" style="text-align: center;">Age<span class="math inline"><sup>a</sup></span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><span class="math inline">$\sigma_{\rm Age}$</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td colspan="4" style="text-align: center;">[Gyr]</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">[Gyr]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><p>Th/Eu</p></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 115444</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">11.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">10.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">12.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 115444</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">30.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">24.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052<span class="math inline"><sup>b</sup></span></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.8</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">13.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">15.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">17.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">27.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">19.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.8</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">18.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">15.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">13.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">15.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">17.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">24.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">18.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">25.8</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">19.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">25.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">12.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">12.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">11.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">13.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">15.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">4.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">24.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">26.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">20.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 22892-052</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">19.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">13.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">19.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">BD +17 3248</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">8.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">10.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">BD +17 3248</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">27.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">22.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">BD +17 3248</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">20.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">19.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 221170</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">11.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">10.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">12.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">4.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 221170</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">21.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">2.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 221170</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">27.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">22.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 221170</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">20.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">19.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 31082-001</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">0.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">-1.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">0.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">2.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">2.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 31082-001</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">15.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">8.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 31082-001</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">17.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">12.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 31082-001</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">-0.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">U/Th</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">CS 31082-001</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">16.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">13.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HE 1523-0901</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">11.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">9.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">11.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">13.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HE 1523-0901</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">16.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">10.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HE 1523-0901</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">18.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">12.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">17.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">U/Th</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HE 1523-0901</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">15.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">2.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M51 K341</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">11.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">9.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">12.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">13.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M51 K462</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">12.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">16.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M51 K583</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">4.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">8.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L1411</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">32.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L1411</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">32.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L1501</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">25.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L1514</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">37.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L2406</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">32.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L2617</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">23.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L3209</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">30.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L3413</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">23.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L4511</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">27.8</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M4 L4611</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">37.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M5 IV-81</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">18.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M5 IV-82</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">18.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 108577</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.8</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.2</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">8.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">10.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 115444</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">9.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">8.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">10.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">11.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">HD 186478</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">16.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">15.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">17.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">18.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">4.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">BD +82856</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.8</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">8.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">9.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">M92 VII-18</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">6.8</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">7.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">9.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Sun</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">1.7</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">3.9</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">2.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Sun</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">22.3</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">2.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Sun</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">14.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">8.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Sun</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">10.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">4.0</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">9.6</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;">4.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

$^\mathrm{a}$ Ages and age uncertainties are obtained from formulae  and using the abundances listed in Table . The four "Age" columns give ages based on production rations $\beta$ of , , , and (in that order) according to Table . The Solar ages are calculated applying $r$-process fractions as given in Table .
$^\mathrm{b}$ Three independent measurements were obtained for this star which is the reason why certain chronometer pair/object combinations are listed multiple times.

We like to point out that we applied the spectroscopy-related uncertainties of the abundances as given by the authors. There is no general consensus about the appropriate way to estimate the error on abundances, and the approach varies from author to author. For those elements which have several measurable lines the error can be estimated by looking at the RMS line-to-line abundance scatter. One further might divide this error by $\sqrt{N}$ where ${N}$ is the number of lines, provided the errors on each line are independent. However, this assumption is often questionable, since in most cases the lines are measured from the same spectrum. Any error which affects the whole spectrum (e.g. an error in the background subtraction) will affect all the lines in the same (or at least in a similar) way. We thus argue that it is more realistic and conservative not to invoke this factor $1/\sqrt{N}$.

The ages of the individual metal-poor stars in Table  show a great spread when considering different $r$-production ratios, $\beta$, and chronometer pairs. Also the age uncertainties stemming from the spectroscopically determined abundances, $\sigma_{\rm Age}$, are substantial. We note that our spectroscopy-related uncertainties are commonly greater than the estimates given by the authors themselves. Figures  and  provide a graphical representation of the situation for the stars CS 22892-052 and CS 31082-001, respectively. We picked these objects since spectroscopic measurements for a greater number of chronometer pairs exist. CS 31082-001 is of particular interest since it is strongly $r$-process element enhanced allowing the measurement of the Th abundance exceptionally from several lines making it more reliable. For CS 22892-052 we left out the age estimates with the highest uncertainties, stemming from Th/Os and Th/Ir, since they were later improved substantially. Both figures illustrate that the dispersion due to different production ratios is often greater than the dispersion due to abundance uncertainties. This is even the case if one restricts the comparison to production ratios originating from the same author. As already pointed out in the original paper on the abundance analysis of CS 31082-001 by the age derived from the Th/Eu pair is obviously unrealistic despite rather accurate abundance measurements. The same holds to lesser extend for the Th/Ir pair. This points to shortcomings in our understanding of the $r$-process production ratios and/or the chemical history of the star. For CS 22892-052 all the reference elements except Eu lead to exceedingly great ages. One might speculate that the Th/Hf age might be enlarged by an $s$-process contribution to the Hf abundance: although the star has a very low metalicity, it is also carbon enhanced, so that one cannot rule out the possibility that it may have a (so far undetected) companion which went through the AGB phase, polluting the photosphere of the primary. However, even this hypothesis cannot be invoked to explain the great Th/Os and Th/Ir ages. Os and Ir are in fact supposed to show only minor $s$-process contributions . Again, we must conclude that large systematic uncertainties still exist in the theoretical calculations of production ratios $\beta$.

At this point one may ask what accuracy has been reached in spectroscopically measured abundance ratios necessary for radioactive dating – in particular for metal-poor stars –, and what are the perspectives for improving these accuracies in the future. Both questions are not easy to answer. Uncertainties given by individual authors are often on the optimistic side. We think that a comparison among different authors provides a more robust measure of the actually present – as opposed to published – uncertainties. Such a comparison might still be biased towards too small error bars since different authors often draw from the same sources for oscillator strengths, or may use the same observational material. Hence, the analyses are not independent. performed such a comparison of the abundances which they obtained for the metal-poor $r$-process enriched halo giant CS 31082–001 with studies of and . We repeat this comparison here for the obtained *abundance ratios*. In the comparison Honda–Sneden the list of common elements is La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Er, Tm, Yb, in Hill–Sneden La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Er, Tm, Hf. Abundance ratios among these elements can be taken as a rather good model for the Th/Hf pair since their lines emerge from the first, dominant ionization stage, and from levels of low excitation potential – similar to the situation for the Th/Hf pair. Taking the abundance ratios from the individual studies ensures that correlation effects reducing the errors on abundance ratios are fully taken into account. For the rare earth elements often many lines are available for the determination of their abundance. This luxury is not afforded by Th or Hf so that we still have a likely bias towards too high accuracy when taking the rare earths as example.

From the lists of elements in common we formed all possible abundance ratios (except for an element with itself), and calculated the difference of the logarithmic ratios between the various studies. For the pair Hill–Sneden we find a dispersion among the differences of the logarithmic ratios of 0.14 dex, for Honda–Sneden 0.12 dex. In the case of Hill–Sneden, in particular the discrepant Hf abundances have to be noted. In the case of Honda–Sneden, a substantial part of the dispersion is driven by the elements Tm and Tb; leaving them out reduces the dispersion to 0.05 dex; however, this is not suggested by, e.g., excessive errors on their abundance as stated by the authors. We emphasize that at least in part the various groups use the same oscillator strengths. From this exercise we conclude that attributing an uncertainty of about 0.1 dex to the Th/Hf abundance ratio is perhaps conservative but not grossly over-estimating the actual value.

How to improve the accuracy? report a line-to-line scatter of typically 0.07 dex in a given star when determining abundances of a rare earth element and applying the high-quality oscillator strength of . A sub-optimal choice of the model atmosphere introduces some scatter, but certainly errors in the oscillator strength are an important contributor. Since two abundances are involved in the determination of a ratio, an uncertainty of about 0.1 dex would result when an individual abundance is given to 0.07 dex accuracy. It is often argued that by averaging over abundances of $N$ individual lines one improves the obtained accuracy by a factor $\sqrt{N}$. However, this would only be the case if the scatter among the oscillator strength is of random nature which is far from obvious. So, even more accurate oscillator strengths of the involved line transitions are desirable. This also relates to lines of blending species which one has to deal with. At this point an appropriate theoretical description of the line formation process also comes into play which should account for departures from local thermodynamic equilibrium and gas-dynamical effects. All this is alleviated by having high signal-to-noise and high resolution spectra at hand which ELTs will be able to provide. One often has to work with spectra where a line profile is sampled with only very few points. Better sampling usually permits more accurate measurements. We are convinced that we are not stuck at the present level of accuracy to which abundance ratios used in radioactive dating can be determined but not insignificant effort is necessary to make substantial progress.

# The Solar age

As another application of the dating formulae we tried to deduce the solar age. We start by taking the Th/Hf pair as an example since we worked recently ourselves on this chronometer pair having all relevant spectroscopic information at hand. In the case of the 401.9 nm / 409.3 nm line pair, our favorite spectral synthesis code gives ${C_R / C_X}=0.13$. For the Sun one has to consider two complications which are less severe for metal-poor stars:

1.  the Th and Hf observed in the solar system are not the result of a single $r$-process event, but rather of the superposition of many events;

2.  while Th is produced only through the $r$-process, Hf is in part produced by the $s$-process.

To take into account the first point one should use an appropriate model of Galactic chemical evolution . We ignore this aspect and assume a single $r$-process event, to see if at least a reasonable estimate of the solar age can be derived. The second point instead can easily be taken into account by using the solar $r$-process fraction of Hf nuclei. This has been estimated by to be 56.6 % of the total Hf nuclei. For the production ratio we assume $\beta=0.862$, from Table 2 of . The curve $F\left({t\over\tau};p=0.26\right)$ related to this case is depicted as a dashed line in Fig. . For ages 5 and 12 Gyr (i.e. for times corresponding to the age of the Sun and to the age of Galactic Globular Clusters, respectively), we find ${\sigma(t)/t} = 4.3
\times {\sigma(W_R)/W_R}$ and $1.9 \times {\sigma(W_R)/W_R}$, respectively. We give these numbers mainly for illustrating the application of the formulae involving the equivalent widths. In the solar case they are not strictly applicable since when deriving Eq.  we assumed that uncertainties in the observed spectra are related to the photon noise. This is certainly not the case for Solar spectra. The uncertainties are related to the systematics, in particular blending of the thorium line.

Turning now to spectroscopically measured abundances, Table  lists the obtained ages and their uncertainties, again for different chronometer pairs and assumptions about production ratios and $r$-process fractions (see Tables , , ). The Th/Hf age, 22.3 Gyr, comes out to be greater than the age of the universe, 13.73 Gyr, as estimated from the fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background . By using the A(Hf)=0.88 value suggested by , only 0.01 dex higher than the abundance we use, the age comes out even a bit greater by 0.5 Gyr. Even if the solar abundance of Hf and Th were produced in a number of distinct supernova events at different times, the resulting *mean* age as computed from Eq.  cannot be greater than the time elapsed since the earliest supernova event, which cannot have occurred earlier than 13.73 Gyr ago. We have ignored the destruction of Th by photons in stellar interiors. According to the matter cycled through stars may have a reduction of 10–20% in Th. However, even when increasing the Solar Th abundance by 20%, one still derives an age of 18.2 Gyr from Eq. . We have to conclude that either the assumed value of $\beta$, or the $r$-process fraction of Hf is incorrect. Among the other chronometer pairs Th/Eu provides the closest match to the actual Solar age, while in general – like for Th/Hf – there it the tendency to grossly overestimate the age. The photospheric solar abundance of europium provided by is exactly the same we are using. Obviously, the complex chemical history of the Sun together with uncertainties in the production ratios make it very difficult to obtain a reliable Solar age by radioactive dating.

In this context it is perhaps interesting to note that find that the solar photospheric Hf abundance is deviating from the meteoritic value in contrast to all its preceeding (in atomic number) rare earth elements. Similar, the solar $r$-process abundance pattern corresponds to the one of $r$-process enriched iron-poor halo stars except for Hf which appears relatively depleted in the Sun. Of course, a higher $r$-process abundance of Hf in the Sun would even lead to a greater solar age aggravating the problem in the radioactive dating.

# Conclusions and remarks

The accuracy of radioactive cosmo-chronometry is not going to be extremely high on a single star. A realistic estimate of what future instrumentation will be able to achieve does likely not allow one to hope for a better than 2 Gyr precision, taking into account *observational* uncertainties only, leaving aside the systematics associated to production rates and chemical enrichment models. Although high-mass n-capture elements are currently believed to be produced in a fairly well understood manner by the so-called "main" $r$-process , the quantitative determination of the production ratios $\beta$ between the stable and the unstable elements still bear significant uncertainties.

Since in photon noise dominated spectra the measurement error on the equivalent width decreases linearly with the observational S/N ratio, the attainable dating precision increases roughly linearly with the S/N ratio. This constitutes a major practical challenge to the application of the method, since many of the involved lines are in the blue part of the optical spectrum (e.g. for Th, U, and Hf), and the natural target of the analysis are cool stars.

If possible, the decaying element should be chosen such that its mean lifetime $\tau$ is similar to the age one wants to measure. This applies also to the "effective" $\tau$ of a chronometric pair constituted by two decaying species. From this perspective, the pairs U/Th, Th/stable, and U/stable are well suited to measure ages of old objects around 10 Gyr of age. No other naturally occurring isotope has a mean lifetime providing a similarly close match.

Potentially important systematic spectroscopy-related effects that we feel deserve further study to fully exploit the potentials of radioactive dating are effects related to departures from thermodynamic equilibrium and gas-dynamics on the line formation of the chronometric species. For instance, the application of a 3D radiation-hydrodynamical model atmosphere by led to a downward revision of the photospheric Solar Th abundance by 0.1 dex. This corresponds to a decrease of Th ages by 4.7 Gyr.

Globular clusters provide fairly large samples of metal-poor, bright, coeval and chemically homogeneous stars. Simultaneous measurement of abundances in these stars allows us to reduce the observational, statistical uncertainties. This could permit to derive $r$-process production ratios empirically by calibration against the known "photometric" age. To our knowledge, this has never been attempted so far.

# Tables of elemental abundances, production ratios, and solar $r$-process fractions

The following tables list the abundances, production ratios, and solar system $r$-process fractions that we compiled from the literature for the purpose of radioactive dating. In Table , exclusively spectroscopically determined (as opposed to meteoritic) abundances are given for the Sun. In Table  of production ratios, the values for refer to the ones listed as "Fe-Seed fit2" in Table 2 of their paper. Kratz and collaborators report three different estimates of the various production ratios.

```latex
\begin{table*}
\caption{$r$-process elemental abundances in metal-poor stars and the Sun for
  radioactive dating.\label{starabbo}}
{\scriptsize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllllllll}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
 Object & Reference & [Fe/H] & A(Eu) & A(Hf) & A(Os) & A(Ir) & A(Th) & A(U)\\ % & Age$_{\rm Th~Eu}$ & Age$_{\rm Th~Hf}$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
HD 115444  &  \citet{cowan99} & --2.7 & $-1.5$  &  &  &   & $-2.1$  &    \\
HD 115444  &  \citet{westin00} & --2.9 &  $-1.63\pm 0.07$ &   & $-0.55\pm 0.11$ &  & $-2.23\pm 0.11$ & $<-2.6$\\
%(4800K/1.7/-2.7)
%
CS 22892-052 & \citet{cowan99} & --3.1 & $-0.9$ &  &  &   & $-1.6$ &   \\
CS 22892-052 & \citet{sneden00a}$^\mathrm{a}$
 & --3.1 & $-0.89\pm 0.12$ & $-0.90\pm 0.14$ & $-0.10\pm 0.38$ &  & $-1.55\pm 0.08$ & \\
CS 22892-052 & \citet{sneden00a} & --3.1 & $-0.93\pm 0.09$ &   & $-0.05\pm 0.10$ & $+0.00\pm 0.26$ &  $-1.60\pm 0.07$ & \\
CS 22892-052 & \citet{sneden03}  & --3.1 & $-0.95\pm 0.03$ & $-0.98\pm 0.10$ & $+0.02\pm 0.13$ & $-0.10\pm 0.10$ & $-1.57\pm 0.10$ & $<-2.3$\\
%(5800K/1.3/-3.0)
%
BD +17 3248 & \citet{cowan02} & --2.0 & $-0.67\pm 0.05$ &  & $+0.45\pm 0.10$ & $+0.30\pm 0.13$& $-1.18\pm 0.10$ & $-2.0:\pm 0.30$\\
%(5250K/2.3/-2.00)
%
HD 221170 & \citet{ivans06} & --2.18 & $-0.86\pm 0.07$ & $-0.94\pm 0.04$ & $+0.16\pm 0.10$ & $+0.02\pm 0.13$ & $-1.46\pm 0.05$ &  \\
%(4500K/1.0/-2.1)
%
%CS 31082-001 & \citet{hill02} & --2.90 & $-0.63\pm 0.11$ & $-0.59\pm 0.17$ & $+0.43\pm 0.17$ & $+0.20\pm 0.11$ & $-0.98\pm 0.05$ & $-1.92\pm 0.11$\\
CS 31082-001 & \citet{hill02} & --2.90 & $-0.63\pm 0.04$ & $-0.59\pm 0.17$ & $+0.43\pm 0.12$ & $+0.20\pm 0.09$ & $-0.98\pm 0.02$ & $-1.92\pm 0.11$\\
%
%Sun           Sneden(2000)ApJ,536:L85     0.0   +0.51       0.12       0.9
%
M51 K341 & \citet{sneden00b} & --2.32 & $-0.88\pm 0.09$ &    &    &   & $-1.47\pm 0.10$ & \\ % &   & 10.3 & 11.5\\
M51 K462 & \citet{sneden00b} & --2.25 & $-0.61\pm 0.09$ &    &    &   & $-1.26\pm 0.10$ & \\ % &   & 13.1 & 14.3\\
M51 K583 & \citet{sneden00b} & --2.34 & $-1.22\pm 0.09$ &    &    &   & $-1.7:\pm 0.10$ & \\ % &   &      &\\
%
%Yong2008
M4  L1411 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.23$ & & $+0.08$ & & & $-0.68$ & \\
M4  L1501 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.29$ & & $-0.02$ & & & $-0.63$ & \\
M4  L1514 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.22$ & & $+0.03$ & & & $-0.83$ & \\
M4  L2406 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.30$ & & $-0.12$ & & & $-0.88$ & \\
M4  L2617 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.20$ & & $+0.08$ & & & $-0.48$ & \\
M4  L3209 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.25$ & & $+0.03$ & & & $-0.68$ & \\
M4  L3413 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.23$ & & $-0.02$ & & & $-0.58$ & \\
M4  L4511 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.22$ & & $+0.03$ & & & $-0.63$ & \\
M4  L4611 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.09$ & & $+0.18$ & & & $-0.68$ & \\
M5  IV-81 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.28$ & & $-0.12$ & & & $-0.58$ & \\
M5  IV-82 & \citet{yong08}  & $-1.33$ & & $-0.22$ & & & $-0.68$ & \\
%
%Johonson2001
HD 108577 & \citet{johnson01}  & $-2.38$  &  $ -1.48\pm 0.02$ & & & &  $-1.99\pm 0.07$ & \\
HD 115444 & \citet{johnson01}  & $-3.15$  &  $ -1.81\pm 0.03$ & & & &  $-2.36\pm 0.07$ & \\
HD 186478 & \citet{johnson01}  & $-2.61$  &  $ -1.56\pm 0.06$ & & & &  $-2.26\pm 0.07$ & \\
BD +82856 & \citet{johnson01}  & $-2.12$  &  $ -1.16\pm 0.06$ & & & &  $-1.66\pm 0.10$ & \\
M92VII-18 & \citet{johnson01}  & $-2.29$  &  $ -1.48\pm 0.09$ & & & &  $-1.97\pm 0.07$ & \\
%
%Sun
%
%Sun  & \citet{lodders03}     & +0.0 & & & & & & $-0.49\pm 0.03$\\
Sun  & \citet{grevesse98}    & +0.0 & & & $+1.45\pm 0.10$ & $+1.35\pm 0.10$\\
Sun  & \citet{mucciarelli}   & +0.0 & $+0.52\pm 0.03$ \\
Sun  & \citet{caffau08hfth}  & +0.0 & & $+0.87\pm 0.04$ & & & $+0.08\pm 0.03$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
$^\mathrm{a}$\,Sneden et al. analysed two
different spectra for CS~22892-052 providing two independent
measurements. For this reason the object/reference combination is listed twice.
}
\end{table*}
```

<table>
<caption><span class="math inline"><em>r</em></span>-process production ratios.</caption>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><p>Reference</p></td>
<td colspan="5" style="text-align: center;">Production ratio <span class="math inline"><em>β</em></span></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Eu</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Th/Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">U/Th</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><p><span class="citation" data-cites="kratz07"></span></p></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.453</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.862</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.093</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.089</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.638</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="citation" data-cites="sneden03"></span></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.420</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="citation" data-cites="schatz02"></span></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.468</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.071</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.066</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="citation" data-cites="cowan02"></span></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.507</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.087</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<caption>Solar <span class="math inline"><em>r</em></span>-process fractions <span class="math inline"><em>f</em><sub>r</sub></span> for various elements X.</caption>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><p>X</p></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="math inline"><em>f</em><sub>r</sub></span></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">Reference</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"><p>Eu</p></td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.942</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="citation" data-cites="arlandini99"></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Hf</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.566</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="citation" data-cites="lawler07"></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Os</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.92</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="citation" data-cites="simmerer04"></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Ir</td>
<td style="text-align: left;">0.99</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span class="citation" data-cites="simmerer04"></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


abstract: We present a theoretical analysis of the electron spin decoherence in single Nitrogen-Vacancy defects in ultra-pure diamond. The electron spin decoherence is due to the interactions with Carbon-13 nuclear spins in the diamond lattice. Our approach takes advantage of the low concentration (1.1%) of Carbon-13 and their random distribution in the diamond lattice by an algorithmic aggregation of spins into small, strongly interacting groups. By making use of this *disjoint cluster* approach, we demonstrate a possibility of non-trival dynamics of the electron spin that can not be described by a single time constant. This dependance is caused by a strong coupling between the electron and few nuclei and results, in particular, in a substantial echo signal even at microsecond time scales. Our results are in good agreement with recent experimental observations.
author: J. R. Maze; J. M. Taylor; M. D. Lukin
date: 2024-10-01
title: Electron spin decoherence of single Nitrogen-Vacancy defects in diamond

# Introduction

Isolated spins in solid-state systems are currently being explored as candidates for good quantum bits, with applications to quantum computation , quantum communication and magnetic sensing. The Nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center in diamond is one such isolated spin system. It can be prepared and detected using optical fields, and microwave radiation can be used to rotate the spin . Recent experiments have conclusively demonstrated that in ultra pure-diamond the electron spin coherence lifetime is limited by its hyperfine interactions with the natural 1.1% abundance Carbon-13 in the diamond crystal . Thus, developing a detailed understanding of the decoherence properties of such an isolated spin in a dilute spin bath is a challenging problem of immediate practical interest. This combined system of electron spin coupled to many nuclear spins has a rich and complex dynamics associated with many-body effects.

The decay of electronic spin coherence due to interactions with surrounding nuclei has been a subject of a number of theoretical studies . Various mean-field and many-body approaches have been used to address this problem . In this paper, we investigate a variation of the cluster expansion, developed in Ref. . Our approach takes advantage of the natural grouping statistics for randomly located, dilute impurities, which leads to the formation of small, disjoint clusters of spins which interact strongly within themselves and with the central spin, but not with other such clusters. This suggests a natural hierarchy of interaction scales of the system, and allows for a well-defined approximation that can be seen as an extension of ideas developed in the study of tensor networks . We develop an algorithm for finding clusters given a set of locations and interactions, and find that for dilute systems convergence as a function of the cluster size (number of spins in a given cluster) is very rapid. We then apply this technique to the particular problem of the decay of spin-echo for a single NV center, and find good qualitative and quantitative agreement with experiments. In particular, we demonstrate a possibility of non-trival dynamics of the electron spin that can not be described by a single time constant. This dependance is caused by a strong coupling between the electron and few nuclei and results in a substantial spin-echo signal even at microseconds time scale.

# Methods

In this section, we introduce the properties of the electron spins in a NV center and the nuclear spins in its environment. Then, we address the many body problem involved in the evaluation of spin-echo signals.

## Spin hamiltonian

The negatively charged NV center (\[N-V\]$^-$) has trigonal $C_{3v}$ symmetry and $^3A_2$ ground state with total electronic spin $S=1$. Spin-spin interaction leads to a zero-field splitting, $\Delta = 2.87$ GHz, between the $m_s=0$ and $m_s=\pm1$ manifolds, where the quantization axis is along the NV-axis. This spin triplet interacts via hyperfine interaction with a spin bath composed of the adjacent Nitrogen-14 and the naturally occuring 1.1% Carbon-13 which is randomly distributed in the diamond lattice.

In the presence of an external magnetic field, the dynamics is governed by the following hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ham}%
H & = & \Delta S_z^2 - \gamma_eB_zS_z -
\sum_n\gamma_N\mathbf{B}\cdot \mathbf{g}_n(|S_z|) \cdot \mathbf{I}_n \nonumber\\
& &
+\sum_{n}S_z\mathbf{A}_n\cdot\mathbf{I}_n + \sum_n \delta \mathbf{A}_n(|S_z|) \cdot \mathbf{I}_n \nonumber\\
& &+ \sum_{n>m}\mathbf{I}_n\cdot\mathbf{C}_{nm}(|S_z|)\cdot\mathbf{I}_m.
\end{aligned}$$ The relatively large zero-field splitting $\Delta$ (first term in Eq. ()) does not allow the electron spin to flip and thus we can make the so called secular approximation, removing all terms which allow direct electronic spin flips. Non-secular terms have been included up to second order in perturbation theory, leading to the $|S_z|$ dependence of other terms in the Hamiltonian. The second and third terms are, respectively, the Zeeman interactions for the electron and the nuclei, the fourth term is the hyperfine interaction between the electron and each nucleus, the fifth term is an effective crystal-field splitting felt by the nuclear spins, and the last term is the dipolar interaction among nuclei. The specific terms for this hamiltonian are discussed in the Appendix.

For the NV center case, the nuclear $g$-tensor, $\mathbf{g}_n$, can be anisotropic and vary dramatically from nucleus to nucleus. This leads to a non-trivial dynamics between the electron and an individual nucleus (electron-nuclear dynamics), and motivates a new approach for the case of a dilute bath of spins described below. In addition, the interaction between nuclei is enhanced by the presence of the electron of the NV center. The resulting effective interaction strength can exceed several times the bare dipolar interaction between nuclei.

## Disjoint cluster method

The large zero-field splitting $\Delta$ sets the quantization axis (called NV-axis) and allows us to neglect electron spin flips due to interactions with nuclei. Therefore, we can reduce the Hilbert space of the system by projecting hamiltonian () onto each of the electron spin states. We can write the projected hamiltonian, $P_{m_s}HP_{m_s}$ (where $P_{m_s} = |{m_s}\rangle\langle{m_s}|$), as $$\label{eq:hms}%
H_{m_s} = \sum_n\mathbf{\Omega}_n^{({m_s})}\cdot\mathbf{I}_n +
\sum_{nm}\mathbf{I}_n\cdot\mathbf{C}_{nm}^{({m_s})}\cdot\mathbf{I}_m+\Delta|m_s|-\gamma_eB_zm_s,$$ where $m_s$ denotes the electron spin state, $\mathbf{\Omega}_n$ is the effective Larmor vector for nucleus $n$ and $\mathbf{C}_{nm}$ is the effective coupling between nuclei $n$ and $m$. In equation (), we include the zero-field splitting and the Zeeman interaction. These terms provide just static fields whose effect is canceled by spin echo. In this way, we can write the evolution of the bath as $U_{m_s}(\tau) = T\left\{\exp\left(\int_{0}^{\tau} H_{m_s}\left(t'\right)dt'\right)\right\}$. An exact expression for $U_{m_s}$ can be found by ignoring the intra-bath interactions ($\mathbf{C}_{nm}=0$). However, for an interacting bath (with arbitrary $\mathbf{C}_{nm}$), solving $U_{m_s}$ for a large number of nuclei $N$ is a formidable task since it requires describing dynamics within a $2^N$ dimensional Hilbert space. Therefore, some degree of approximation is needed.

The spin bath considered here is composed of randomly distributed spins, and not all pair interactions among nuclei are equally important. Specifically, interactions decay with a characteristic law $1/R_{mn}^3$, where $R_{nm}$ is the distance between nuclei $n$ and $m$. As a result, we can break the big problem into smaller ones by grouping those nuclei that strongly interact with each other into disjoint sets. Our procedure is illustrated in figure . We denote the $k$-th group of nuclei as $\mathcal{C}_g^k$, where the subindex $g$ indicates that each group has no more than $g$ nuclei. Interactions inside each group (intra-group interactions) are expected to be much larger than interactions among groups (inter-group interactions). Our approximation method will rely upon neglecting the latter.

Formally, we start by separating intra-group interactions and inter-group interactions. We define the operator $H_B = \sum_k H(\mathcal{C}_g^k)$ which contains all electron-nuclear interactions (first term in Eq. ()) plus all interactions between bath spins within the same group $\mathcal{C}_g^k$. Similarly, operator $H_A = H(\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g) (=H-H_B)$ contains all interactions between bath spins in different groups. As a first approximation, we can neglect the inter-group interactions but keep the intra-group interactions. The approximation can be understood by means of the Trotter expansion $$\label{eq:trotter}%
\exp\left(H_At+H_Bt\right) = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\left(\exp\left(H_At/n\right)\exp\left(H_Bt/n\right)\right)^n.\nonumber$$ Since $H_B$ contains groups of terms that are disconnected from each other, $[H(\mathcal{C}_g^k),H(\mathcal{C}_g^{k^{\prime}})]=0$ and we can write the evolution operator as $$\label{eq:utrotter}%
{U_g\left(\tau\right) = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\left(U\left(\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g,\frac{\tau}{n}\right)\prod_kU\left(\mathcal{C}_g^k,\frac{\tau}{n}\right)\right)^n,}$$ where $U(\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g,\frac{\tau}{n})$ is the evolution operator due to hamiltonian $H(\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g)$ and so on.

To the zeroth order we neglect all terms in $H_A$ since $H(\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g)$ contains interactions among nuclei that interact weakly. Thus, we set $U(\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g,\frac{\tau}{n})$ to the identity and simplify Eq. () to $$U_g\left(\tau\right) \approx \prod_kU\left(\mathcal{C}_g^k,\tau\right).$$ This approximation requires independent calculation of propagators for each group $g$, which corresponds to $N/g$ independent calculations of $2^g \times 2^g$ matrices, exponentially less difficult than the original problem of direct calculation of the $2^N \times 2^N$ dimensional matrix. We remark that including the effect of $U(\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g,\frac{\tau}{n})$ in the Trotterization can be done by using a tree tensor network ansatz wave function  where the number of complex coefficients to describe the wave function is $O(N^{log(N)})$ instead of $2^N$.

# Electron spin-echo

Electron spin-echo removes static magnetic shifts caused by a spin bath, allowing to measure the dynamical changes of the bath. Assuming that an initial state, $|{\varphi}\rangle = (|{0}\rangle+ |{1}\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, is prepared, the probability of recovering the same state after a time $2\tau$ is $$\label{eq:p} p = \mathrm{Tr}(P_{\varphi}U_T(\tau)\rho U_T^{\dag}(\tau)) ,$$ where $P_{\varphi} = |{\varphi}\rangle\langle{\varphi}|$ is the projector operator to the initial state, $\rho=|{\varphi}\rangle\langle{\varphi}|\otimes\rho_n$ is the density matrix of the total system, $\rho_n$ is the density matrix of the spin bath, $U_T\left(\tau\right) = U\left(\tau\right)R_{\pi}U\left(\tau\right)$ is the total evolution of the system where $U$ is the evolution operator under hamiltonian () and $R_\pi$ is a $\pi$-pulse acting on the subspace $m_s=\{0,1\}$ of the electron spin manifold. Probability () can also be written as $p= (1+S\left(\tau\right))/2$, where $$\label{eq:ps}%
S\left(\tau\right) = \mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho_n
U_0^{\dag}\left(\tau\right)U_1^{\dag}\left(\tau\right)U_0\left(\tau\right)U_1\left(\tau\right)\right)$$ is known as the pseudo spin and $|S(\tau)|=0$ is the long-time (completely decohered) signal. In the high temperature limit, the density matrix of the nuclei can be approximated by $\rho_n\approx\mathbbm{1}^{\otimes N}/2^N$ where $N$ is the number of nuclei. The generalization of this relation for different sublevels of the triplet state is straighforward, $S\left(\tau\right) = \mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho_n U_\alpha^{\dag}\left(\tau\right)U_\beta^{\dag}\left(\tau\right)U_\alpha\left(\tau\right)U_\beta\left(\tau\right)\right)$, where $\alpha=1$ and $\beta=-1$, for example. In what follows, we analyze the effect of an interacting bath on Eqn. ().

## Non-interacting bath

To understand the effect of an interacting bath we will first analyze the non-interacting case, which displays the phenomenon of electron spin-echo envelope modulation due to electron spin-nuclear spin entanglement. This is completely neglecting interactions among nuclei, $\mathbf{C}_{nm}=0$. In this regime, the evolution operator is factored out for each nucleus and the pseudo-spin is the product of all single pseudo-spin relations. In the high temperature limit, $\rho_n=\mathbbm{1}/2$, we obtain the exact expression $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eq:nips10}
S_T\left(\tau\right) &=& \prod_n S_n\left(\tau\right)= \prod_n
\left(1-2\left|\hat{\Omega}_{n}^{(0)}\times\hat{\Omega}_{n}^{(1)}\right|^2 \right. \nonumber \\
&&\times\left.\sin^2\frac{\Omega_{n}^{(0)}\tau}{2}\sin^2\frac{\Omega_{n}^{(1)}\tau}{2}\right).
\end{aligned}$$

When the electron spin is in its $m_s=0$ state and the external magnetic field points parallel to the NV-axis, the Larmor frequency $\Omega_{n}^{(0)}$ is set by the external magnetic field, and the nuclei precess with the same frequency $\Omega^{(0)}$. The total pseudo spin is $1$ at times $\Omega^{(0)}\tau = 2m\pi$ with $m$ integer. When the electron is in its $m_s=1$ state, the Larmor vector $\mathbf{\Omega}_{n}^{(1)}$ has a contact and dipolar contribution from the hyperfine interaction $\mathbf{A}_n$ that may point in different directions depending on the position of the nucleus. As a consequence, when interactions from all nuclei are considered, these electron-nuclear dynamics makes the total pseudo-spin relation collapse and revive. However, it does not show any decay of the revival peaks.

We point out that when the transverse (perpendicular to the NV-axis) magnetic field is non-zero, nuclei near the center experience an enhancement in their g-factors leading to a position-dependent Larmor frequency $\Omega_n^{(0)}$ (see the Appendix). This will result in an effective decay of the signal since the electron state will not be refocused at the same time for all nuclei.

## Interacting bath: an example

When the intra-bath interactions are considered, the spin-echo signal can show decay in addition to the electron-nuclear dynamics. As an illustrative and simple example, consider a pair of nuclei with their Larmor vectors pointing in the same direction regardless the electron spin state (in this case there is no electron-nuclear dynamics and the non-interacting pseudo-spin relation for two nuclei is $S_{nm} = S_nS_m=1$ (see Eq. )). When the interaction between nuclei is included, the pseudo-spin relation can be worked out exactly, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ips10}%
S_{nm}\left(\tau\right) &=& 1-\left[\frac{ \Delta \Omega_{nm}^{0}c_{nm}^{1}-
\Delta \Omega_{nm}^{1}c_{nm}^{0}}{2}\right]^2\nonumber\\
&& \times
\frac{\sin^2\left(\omega_{nm}^0\tau\right)\sin^2\left(\omega_{nm}^1\tau\right)}
{\left(\omega_{nm}^0\right)^2\left(\omega_{nm}^1\right)^2},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\left(\omega_{nm}^{m_s}\right)^2 = \left(\Delta \Omega_{nm}^{m_s}/2\right)^2
+ \left(c_{nm}^{m_s}\right)^2$, $\Delta \Omega_{nm}^{m_s} = \Omega_{n}^{m_s}
- \Omega_{m}^{m_s}$ and $c_{nm}^{m_s}$ is the strength of the dipolar interaction $c_{nm}^{m_s}(\hat{I}_{n+}\hat{I}_{m-}+\hat{I}_{n-}\hat{I}_{m+}-4\hat{I}_{nz}\hat{I}_{mz})$ between nuclei $n$ and $m$. The two frequencies involved in (), $\omega_{nm}^{0}$ and $\omega_{nm}^{1}$, are not necessarily the same for different pairs of nuclei. They depend on the relative position between nuclei and the relative position of each nucleus to the NV center. Therefore, when all pair interactions are included the pseudo-spin relation decays. In the following section we present an approach to incorporates not only this two body interaction but also $n$-body interactions with $n\le6$.

# the disjoint cluster approach

The many-body problem can be readily simplified by following the approximation described in section . When the interactions that connects different groups are neglected, the evolution operator is factored out in groups and the spin-echo relation becomes simply $$\label{eq:psg}%
S_g\left(\tau\right) \approx \prod_k S\left(\mathcal{C}_g^k,\tau\right),$$ where $S\left(\mathcal{C}_g^k,\tau\right)$ is the pseudo-spin relation, Eqn. (), for group $\mathcal{C}_g^k$. $S_g\left(\tau\right)$ can be calculated numerically and exactly for small $g$ ($\lesssim10$). Therefore, electron-nuclear and intra-bath hamiltonians can be simultaneously considered.

In the following section, we present our algorithm for sorting strongly interacting nuclei in a random distributed spin bath into well defined groupings. We take the electron spin-echo signal, with the initial state $|{\phi}\rangle = (|{0}\rangle + |{1}\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ as a figure of merit. We examine the convergence of our disjoint cluster approach as a function of the maximum group size $g$ and consider the statistics of spin-echo for a variety of physical parameters such as Carbon-13 abundance and magnetic field magnitude and orientation.

## Grouping algorithm

One of the criteria to aggregate groups of spins is to consider the strength of the intra-bath interaction. This parameter can be summarized in one variable $\mathbb{C}\left(i,j\right)$ which is a scalar function of the interaction $\mathbf{C}^{ij}$ between nuclei $i$ and $j$. The aggregation algorithm used for this criterion is as follow. Consider an array $\mathbb{A}$ containing the criterion for all pairs ordered from high to low values in $\mathbb{C}$ and let $\left\{i,j\right\}_n$ be the $n$-th nuclear pair in array $\mathbb{A}$. The array $\mathbb{A}$ is scanned completely and one of the following cases applies for each pair $\left\{i,j\right\}_n$

-   **if nuclei $i$ & $j$ belong to different groups:** join both groups if $\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbb{G}(i)\right)+\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbb{G}\left(j\right)\right)\leq
    g$.

-   **if nucleus $i$ belong to group $\mathbb{G}(i)$ and nucleus $j$ does not belong to any group:** add $j$ to group $\mathbb{G}(i)$ if $\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbb{G}(i)\right)<g$. If not, make a new group with $j$.

-   **if nucleus $j$ belong to group $\mathbb{G}(j)$ and nucleus $i$ does not belong to any group:** add $i$ to group $\mathbb{G}(j)$ if $\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbb{G}(j)\right)<g$. If not, make a new group with $i$.

-   **if nuclei $i$ & $j$ do not belong to any group:** make a new group with $i$ & $j$,

where $\mathcal{N}\left(\mathbb{G}\right)$ is the number of nuclei in group $\mathbb{G}$ and $g$ is the maximum number of nuclei per group. In what follows, we use the criterion $\mathbb{C}\left(i,j\right) =
(C_{xx}^{ij})^2+(C_{yy}^{ij})^2+(C_{zz}^{ij})^2$ (i.e. the interaction between nuclei $i$ and $j$) to estimate the electron spin-echo in NV centers.

## Numerical methods and example cases

Figure shows $S_{g}\left(\tau\right)$ for $g=6$ (Eq. ()) for 750 random and distributed Carbon-13 in a diamond lattice in a magnetic field of 50 Gauss oriented along the NV-axis. The algorithm was implemented using MATLAB and the Hamiltonian for each group was diagonalized exactly followed by the calculation of the corresponding unitary matrices for 6000 points from 0 to 1 ms. Each simulation of $S_{g}\left(\tau\right)$ takes approximately 10 min.

The method also shows good convergence. When the maximum size of subgroups $g$ is increased, more interactions among nuclei are considered and the approximation gets better. As a figure of merit, we plot the integrated squared difference between consecutive spin-echo relations, $S_g$ and $S_{g-1}$, $$\label{eq:dg}
\langle{\delta S_g^2}\rangle  = \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T \left[S_g\left(t\right) -
S_{g-1}\left(t\right)\right]^2dt.$$ Figure a shows $\frac{1}{2}\log{\langle{\delta S_g^2}\rangle}$ up to $g=6$. Each time the maximum size $g$ of subgroups $\mathcal{C}_g^k$ is increased, the spin echo relations, $S_g$'s, get closer.

In addition, following Ref. , we introduce the following indicator of all interactions not included in groups $\mathcal{C}_g^k$, and therefore in $S_g$, $$\label{eq:ind}%
I_g\left(\tau\right) = \prod_{\left\{n,m\right\}\epsilon\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g}S_{nm}\left(\tau\right).$$ The product in Eq. () runs over all neglected pair interactions contained in $\tilde{\mathcal{C}}_g$ and $S_{nm}$ is calculated according to Eq. (). $I_g\left(\tau\right)$, which obeys $0\leq I_g\left(\tau\right)\leq 1$, is an indicator of convergence for our approach. When $I_g\left(\tau\right)$ is close to unity, good convergence is achieved. Figure b shows $I_g\left(\tau\right)$ for several aggregations (different $g$'s). As expected, when the maximum subgroup size $g$ is increased, the contribution from all neglected interactions is small. By the time the neglected interactions become important, the pseudo-spin $S_g\left(\tau\right)$ has already decayed (see figure ).

# Results and Discussion

The results shown in figure clearly indicates that the electron spin echo signal cannot be modeled by just one time scale. This result can be understood by noting that few strongly interacting nuclei can coherently modulate the usual exponential decay. This is in good quantitative agreement with recent experimental results.

The random distribution of the spin bath and the relative high coupling between two nearest neighbor nuclei ($\sim2$ kHz) may cause a few nuclei to contribute significantly to the decay of the spin-echo signal. Nuclei that makes small contributions to the decoherence of the electron contribute as $1-a\tau^4\approx\exp(-a\tau^4)$ as it can be seen from Eq. (). This behavior starts to deviate from $\exp(-a\tau^4)$ as the interaction between nuclei increases. Figure a shows a very unusual decay at which few nuclei modulate coherently (Fig. b, black curve) the irreversible contribution from the rest of the bath (Fig. b, red curve). Therefore, individual NV centers can show a rich variety of spin-echo signals with multiple time scales. The coherent modulation of the spin-echo diffusion due to strong interacting nuclei suggests that we can think about a system composed of the electron and these few strong interacting nuclei and an environment composed of the rest of the spin-bath.

Each NV center experiences a different random configuration and concentration of Carbon-13. This causes a large distribution of decoherence times $T_2$ when many centers are probed. In order to estimate the decoherence time $T_2$ we fit the envelope of $S_g\left(\tau\right)$ to $\exp\left(-(2\tau/T_2)^3\right)$. When the fit is not accurate we define $T_2$ as the longest time for which $S_g\geq1/e$. Figure a shows the histogram of $T_2$ for 1000 different random distribution of Carbon-13 in the diamond lattices for an external magnetic field of 50 Gauss parallel to the NV-axis.

For non-zero transverse magnetic fields, the electron-nuclear interaction, Eq. (), makes an important contribution due to the enhancement in the nuclear g-factor and interaction between nuclei (see Eq. ()). In this case, nuclei will have different Larmor frequencies $\Omega^0_{n}$ depending on the relative distance between them and the center. Each nuclei will refocus at different times, decreasing the maxima of the revivals, i.e., decay of the signal. This is illustrated in figure a for a magnetic field at an angle of $\theta=6^\circ$ from the NV-axis.

As expected, the decoherence time decreases as the impurity concentration increases. This is shown in figure b where $T_2$ goes as $1/n$. To understand this it is possible to make an analysis using a small $\tau$ expansion; while this is not always correct, it provides a simple explanation of the underlying behavior. From Eq. (), the decoherence time scales as the geometric mean of the bath dynamics and the bath-spin interaction, i.e., $T_2\sim\left(\bar{C}A_c\right)^{-1/2}$, where $\bar{C}$ is the averaged nuclear-nuclear dipolar interaction and $A_c$ is some characteristic value for the electron-nuclear interaction. Since both interactions decay as $r^{-3}$ and the average distance between bodies scales with the concentration as $n^{-1/3}$, both interactions scale linearly in $n$. Therefore, the decoherence time $T_2$ decreases approximately as $1/n$.

As the angle between the magnetic field and the NV-axis, $\theta$, is increased, the electron-nuclear dynamics dominates and the spin-echo signal shows small revivals and fits poorly to a single exponential decay. Thus, to describe the coherence time at these angles, we have plot the average value of the signal, normalized by the average signal at $\theta=0^{\circ}$:[^1] $$T_2(B,\theta) \equiv T_2(B,\theta=0) \frac{\int_0^\infty |S_{B,\theta}(t)| dt}{\int_0^\infty
  |S_{B,\theta=0}(t)| dt}\ .$$ Figure a shows how the coherence of the signal varies with the strength and orientation of the magnetic field. This map is averaged over 6 different spin baths, since the random localization of Carbon-13 nuclei in the lattice makes the coherent time to vary from NV-center to NV-center as it can be seen in figure b for a fixed magnetic field.

When the magnetic field along the NV-axis increases, the contribution from the electron-nuclear interactions decreases (see figure c). This happens because the quantization axis for the nuclei points almost in the direction of the external magnetic field producing a small oscillating field. This can be easily seen in the non-interacting case, Eq. (), where the second term vanishes if $\mathbf{\Omega}^{(0)}_n \parallel \mathbf{\Omega}^{(1)}_n$. Similarly, when electron spin-echo is performed using the sub manifold $m_s=\{+1,-1\}$, the signal does not revive since each nuclei refocus the electron at different times. This occurs because the Larmor frequencies in this case, $\Omega^{\pm1}_n$, are position dependent and differ for each nuclei.

We also point out that the approximation introduced in section is valid as long as the impurity concentration of Carbon-13 is not too high, so the neglected interactions that connect different groups do not play an important role. This allows us to treat the bath as isolated groups. The approximation also relies on the relatively large interaction between the central spin (electron) and the bath, $\mathbf{A}_n$, when compared to the intra-bath interaction, $\mathbf{C}_{nm}$. The reason for this is that as the central spin gets disconnected from the bath (reducing $\mathbf{A}_n$), the decay occurs at later times $\tau$ and interactions of the order of $\tau^{-1}$ start to play a role. To illustrate this, consider the size of each subgroup scaling as $\left(g/n\right)^{1/3}$ where $g$ is the size of the subgroup. Then, the interaction between nearest neighbor groups scales as $nC_{nn}/g$ where $C_{nn}$ is the nearest neighbor nuclear interaction. The time at which this interaction is important goes as $t\sim g/nC_{nn}=g/\bar{C}$. If we require this time to be larger than the decoherence time ($t\gg T_2$), we find that the two types of interactions should satisfy $g\left(A_c/\bar{C}\right)^{1/2}\gg1$ (for the present study this value is around 150). Therefore, when the interaction between the addressed spin and the bath is of the order of the intra-bath interactions, the approximation breaks down. This would be the case of the spin-echo signal for a nuclear spin proximal to the NV center in which more sophisticated methods should be applied such as tree tensor networks.

# Conclusions

We have presented a method to evaluate the decoherence of a single spin in the presence of an interacting randomly-distributed bath. It properly incorporates the strong electron-nuclear dynamics present in NV centers and explains how it affects the decoherence. We also incorporates the dynamic beyond the secular approximation by including an enhanced nuclear g-factor that depend on the orientation of the external magnetic field relative to the NV-axis and by including an electron mediated nuclei interaction. Our results show that the spin echo signal for NV centers can present multiple time scales where the exponential decay produced by many small nuclei contributions can be coherently modulated by few strongly interacting nuclei. The coherence times in ultra-pure diamond can be further improved by making isotopically pure diamond with low concentration in Carbon-13. This method may be used in other systems as long as the intra-bath interaction is smaller than the interaction between the central spin and the bath. These results have important implications, e.g., in magnetometry where long coherence times are important. For example, echo signals persisting for up to milliseconds can be used for nanoscale sensing of weak magnetic fields, as it was demonstrated recently.

# Interactions for NV centers

Electron spin resonance shows that the nuclear spin-electron spin interaction is $150$ MHz for the three nearest neighbor Carbon-13's and around 2 MHz for the Nitrogen. Away from this deep defect, the interaction is dipolar-like, $$\mathbf{S} \cdot \mathbf{A}_n \cdot \mathbf{I}_n \equiv 5.6\left(\frac{a_{nn}}{R_n}\right)^3\left(3(\hat{S}\cdot
  \vec{n})(\hat{I}_n\cdot \vec{n}) - \hat{S}\cdot \hat{I}_n\right) {\rm
  MHz}$$ where $a_{nn} = 1.54{\AA}$ is the nearest neighbor distance for diamond, $R_n$ is the distance between the $n$-th Carbon-13 and the defect, and $\vec{n}$ is the unit vector that connects the electron and the nucleus. Carbon-13's interact via dipolar interaction, $$\mathbf{I}_n \cdot \mathbf{C}_{nm} \cdot \mathbf{I}_m \equiv 2.1\left(\frac{a_{nn}}{R_{nm}}\right)^3\left(3(\hat{I}_n\cdot
  \vec{n})(\hat{I}_m\cdot \vec{n}) - \hat{I}_n\cdot \hat{I}_m\right) {\rm
  kHz,}$$ where $R_{nm}$ is the distance between the $n$-th and $m$-th Carbon-13.

Recent experiments have been performed at fields of $1-100$ Gauss with Zeeman energies of $\sim$MHz and $\sim$kHz for the electron and Carbon-13 nuclear spins, respectively. At these fields, it is convenient to make the so-called secular approximation thanks to the large splitting $\Delta$. However, transverse directions (perpendicular to the NV-axis) of the external magnetic field and hyperfine fields from Carbon-13 must be taken into account as a perturbation to get an accurate description of the system, as it has been shown by experiments. Including this, we can write the hamiltonian in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sham}%
H & \approx & \Delta S_z^2 - \gamma_eB_zS_z +
\sum_{nj}S_zA_{zj}^nI_j^n +\sum_n
\delta\mathbf{A}_n^{\mathrm{T}}\cdot\mathbf{I}_n \nonumber\\
&&-\gamma_N\sum_n\textbf{B}^{\mathrm{T}}\cdot\mathbf{g}^{\mathrm{eff}}_n\cdot\textbf{I}_n
+\sum_{n>m}\mathbf{I}_n^{\mathrm{T}}\cdot\mathbf{C}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{nm}\cdot\mathbf{I}_m
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{g}^{\mathrm{eff}}_n  =  1 + \delta
\mathbf{g}_n\left(m_s\right)$ is the effective g-tensor, $\mathbf{C}^{\mathrm{eff}}_{nm}  =  \mathbf{C}_{nm} +
\delta\mathbf{C}_{nm}\left(m_s\right)$ is the effective coupling between Carbon-13's and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ccc}%
\delta \mathbf{g}_n\left(m_s\right) & = & -
\frac{\left(2-3|m_s|\right)\gamma_e}{\Delta\gamma_N}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
                                         A_{xx}^n & A_{xy}^n & A_{xz}^n \\
                                         A_{yx}^n & A_{yy}^n & A_{yz}^n\\
                                         0 & 0 & 0
                                       \end{array}
\right)\nonumber\\
\delta \mathbf{C}_{nm}\left(m_s\right) & = & -
\frac{\left(\Delta\gamma_N/\gamma_e\right)^2}{\Delta\left(2-3|m_s|\right)}
\delta{\mathbf{g}_n^{T}}\cdot\delta{\mathbf{g}_m} \\
\delta\mathbf{A}_n^{\mathrm{T}}\left(m_s\right) & = &
\frac{\left(2-3|m_s|\right)}{2\Delta}\sum_{ij}\epsilon_{ijk}A_{xi}^nA_{yj}^n.
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ For nuclei close to the center, $\delta g$ can reach values between $0-15$, $\delta C$ can be several times the bare dipole-dipole interaction. The term $\delta A$ is a small contribution that can be neglected in most of the cases due to the large value of the zero-field splitting $\Delta$.

[^1]: We choose this approach as the signal has sufficiently non-trivial electron-nuclear dynamics for $\theta \neq 0$ that fitting an envelope decay function, as is done for $\theta=0$, leads to large errors.