last years showed much progress in the experimental determination of the @xmath0-factors of hydrogen - like ions @xcite .
measurements , accurate up to a few parts in @xmath1 @xcite , were performed by studying a single ion confined in a penning trap .
these experiments provided the stringent tests of bound - state quantum electrodynamics ( qed ) theory and yielded the best determination of the electron mass @xcite .    in order to match the experimental accuracy ,
many sophisticated calculations were performed during the past years , in particular those of the one - loop self - energy @xcite , the one - loop vacuum - polarization @xcite , the nuclear recoil @xcite , and the two - loop qed effects @xcite .
these calculations made it possible to determine the electron mass from the experimental values of the bound - electron @xmath0 factor @xcite .
the theoretical accuracy of the bound - electron @xmath0 factor in hydrogen - like ions is presently at the @xmath2 level @xcite for light elements up to carbon but deteriorates quickly for heavier elements because of the unknown higher - order two - loop qed effects scaling with the nuclear charge number @xmath3 as @xmath4 .
the experimental investigations of the @xmath0-factors of hydrogen - like ions were so far performed for ions with spinless nuclei . however , when applied to the ions with a non - zero nuclear spin , such investigations can be useful as a new method for the determination of the magnetic dipole moments of the nuclei .
this method has important advantages over the more traditional approaches , such as nuclear magnetic resonance ( nmr ) , atomic beam magnetic resonance , collinear laser spectroscopy , and optical pumping ( op ) .
these advantages are that ( i ) the simplicity of the system under investigation ( a hydrogen - like ion ) allows for an _ ab initio _ theoretical description with a reliable estimation of uncalculated effects and ( ii ) the influence of the nuclear - structure effects ( which are the main limiting factors for theory ) is relatively weak .
this is in contrast to the existing methods , in which the experimental data should be corrected for several physical effects , which are difficult to calculate . among such effects is the diamagnetic shielding of the external magnetic field by the electrons in the atom .
the nmr results should be also corrected for the paramagnetic chemical shift caused by the chemical environment @xcite and the op data are sensitive to the hyperfine mixing of the energy levels @xcite .
significant ( and generally unknown ) uncertainties of calculations of these effects often lead to ambiguities in the published values of nuclear magnetic moments @xcite .
the goal of the present investigation is to perform an _ ab initio _ calculation of the @xmath0-factor of a hydrogen - like ion with a non - zero nuclear spin .
it can be demonstrated that the nuclear - spin dependent part of the atomic @xmath0-factor can be parameterized in terms of the nuclear magnetic shielding constant @xmath5 , which describes the effective reduction of the coupling of the nuclear magnetic moment @xmath6 to an external magnetic field @xmath7 caused by the shell electron(s ) , @xmath8    the relativistic theory of the @xmath0-factor of a hydrogen - like ion with a non - zero nuclear spin ( and , thus , the theory of the nuclear magnetic shielding ) was examined in detail in ref .
@xcite . in the present work ,
we go beyond the relativistic description of the nuclear magnetic shielding and calculate the dominant corrections to it , namely , the self - energy , the vacuum - polarization , and the nuclear magnetization distribution corrections . as a result
, we bring the theory to the point where the uncertainty due to nuclear - structure effects impedes further progress .
the main challenge of the present work is the calculation of the self - energy correction . to the best of our knowledge , the only previous attempt to address it was made in ref .
@xcite . in that work ,
the self - energy contribution to the shielding constant was estimated by the leading logarithm of its @xmath9 expansion ( where @xmath10 is the fine - structure constant ) . in our work
, we calculate the self - energy correction rigorously to all orders in the binding nuclear strength parameter @xmath9 and , independently , perform an analytical calculation to the leading order in the expansion in this parameter ( including both the logarithm and constant terms ) .
first results of this work were reported in ref .
@xcite .
the rest of the paper is organized as follows . in sec .
[ sec:1 ] we summarize the relativistic theory of the @xmath0-factor of an ion with a non - zero nuclear spin and the theory of the nuclear magnetic shielding .
our calculation of the self - energy and vacuum - polarization corrections to all orders in @xmath9 is described in sec .
[ sec:2 ] . in sec .
[ sec : zaexp ] we report the calculation of the qed correction to the nuclear magnetic shielding to the leading order in the @xmath9 expansion .
[ sec:3 ] deals with the other effects , namely , the nuclear magnetization distribution , the nuclear recoil , and the quadrupole interaction . numerical results and discussion are given in sec .
[ sec:4 ] .
the paper ends with conclusion in sec .
[ sec:5 ] .    the relativistic units ( @xmath11 = @xmath12 ) and the charge units @xmath13 are used throughout this paper .
we consider a hydrogen - like ion with a non - zero spin nucleus placed in a weak homogenous magnetic field @xmath7 directed along the @xmath14 axis . assuming that the energy shift due to the interaction with the @xmath7 field ( the zeeman shift ) is much smaller than the hyperfine - structure splitting ( hfs )
, the energy shift can be expressed in terms of the @xmath0 factor of the atomic system @xmath15 , @xmath16 where @xmath17 , @xmath18 is the bohr magneton , @xmath19 and @xmath11 are the elementary charge and the electron mass , respectively , and @xmath20 is the @xmath14 projection of the total angular momentum of the system @xmath21 . to the leading order ,
the energy shift is given by @xmath22|fm_f{\rangle}\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath23 is the wave function of the ion , @xmath24 and @xmath25 are the angular momentum quantum numbers of the electron and nucleus , respectively ; @xmath6 is the operator of the magnetic moment of the nucleus .
the matrix element ( [ eq2 ] ) can easily be evaluated , yielding the well - known leading - order relativistic result @xcite , @xmath26 where @xmath27 is the dirac bound - electron @xmath0 factor @xcite , @xmath28 is the nuclear @xmath0 factor , @xmath29 is the nuclear magnetic moment , @xmath30 is the nuclear magneton , @xmath31 is the proton mass , and @xmath32 and @xmath33 are the angular - momentum recoupling coefficients , @xmath34/2\,,\\ { \langle}\vec{i}\cdot\vec{f } { \rangle}&= & [ f(f+1)+i(i+1)-j(j+1)]/2\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    generalizing the leading - order result to include the higher - order correction , we write the atomic @xmath0 factor @xmath15 as @xmath35 in the above equation , the bound - electron @xmath0 factor @xmath36 incorporates all corrections that do not depend on the nuclear spin , whereas the nuclear shielding constant @xmath5 parameterizes the nuclear - spin dependent corrections .
the bound - electron @xmath0 factor @xmath37 has been extensively studied during the last years , both theoretically @xcite and experimentally @xcite .
the goal of the present work is the _ ab initio _ theoretical description of the nuclear shielding parameter @xmath5 .
it can be seen from eq .
( [ eq4a ] ) that the nuclear - spin dependent contribution to the atomic @xmath0 factor @xmath15 is suppressed by the electron - to - proton mass ratio and thus is by about three orders of magnitude smaller than the nuclear - spin independent part proportional to @xmath37 .
it is , however , possible to form a combination of the atomic @xmath0 factors which is free of the nuclear - spin independent contributions .
so , for ions with the nuclear spin @xmath38 , we introduce the sum of the atomic @xmath0 factors @xmath39 that is directly proportional to the nuclear magnetic moment , @xmath40 this combination of the @xmath0 factors is particularly convenient for the determination of the nuclear magnetic dipole moments from experiment . indeed , if both the @xmath41 and @xmath42 @xmath0-factors are measured and @xmath5 is known from theory , eq .
( [ eq4b ] ) determines the nuclear magnetic moment @xmath43 . for the ions with a nuclear spin @xmath44 , eq .
( [ eq4b ] ) is not applicable and the nuclear magnetic moment should be determined from eq .
( [ eq4a ] ) .
contributions to the nuclear magnetic shielding are described by feynman diagrams with two external interactions , one with the external magnetic field ( the zeeman interaction ) , @xmath45 and another , with the magnetic dipole field of the nucleus ( the hfs interaction ) @xmath46 the leading - order contribution to the magnetic shielding comes from the following energy shift @xmath47 where the summation runs over the whole dirac spectrum with the reference state excluded . as follows from eqs .
( [ eq1 ] ) and ( [ eq4a ] ) , contributions to the shielding constant @xmath48 are obtained from the corresponding energy shifts @xmath49 by @xmath50    for the electronic states with @xmath51 , all nuclear quantum numbers in eq .
( [ eq5 ] ) can be factorized out .
the expression for the shielding constant is then obtained from that formula by using the following substitutions @xmath52 where the zero subscript refers to the zero spherical component of the vector .
here and in what follows , @xmath53 denotes the dirac state with the relativistic angular quantum number @xmath54 and the fixed momentum projection @xmath55 .
so , for @xmath51 , the leading contribution to the magnetic shielding is given by a simple expression @xmath56 performing the angular integrations with help of eq .
( [ app : eq3 ] ) , one gets for the @xmath57 reference state @xmath58 where @xmath59 are the radial integrals of the form @xmath60\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath61 and @xmath62 are the upper and lower radial components of the dirac wave function , respectively , and the angular prefactors @xmath63 are given by @xmath64 , @xmath65 .    for the point nuclear model , the sum over the dirac spectrum in the above expression can be evaluated analytically @xcite , see also more recent studies @xcite , @xmath66 where @xmath67 .
for the extended nucleus , the calculation is easily performed numerically @xcite .
the self - energy correction in the presence of the external magnetic field and the magnetic dipole field of the nucleus is graphically represented by six topologically non - equivalent feynman diagrams shown in fig .
[ fig:1 ] .
general expressions for these diagrams are conveniently obtained by using the two - time green s function method @xcite .
the resulting formulas are summarized below .
the irreducible contributions of diagrams on figs .
[ fig:1](a)-(c ) can be represented in terms of the one - loop self - energy operator @xmath68 .
this part will be termed as the perturbed - orbital contribution .
the corresponding energy shift is @xmath69 where we used the short - hand notations for the reduced green s function , @xmath70 and its derivative @xmath71 the ( unrenormalized ) self - energy operator @xmath72 is defined by its matrix elements as follows @xmath73 where @xmath74 is the operator of the electron - electron interaction , @xmath75 , @xmath76 is the photon propagator , @xmath77 are the dirac matrices , and @xmath78 , where @xmath79 is a small imaginary addition that defines the positions of the poles of the electron propagators with respect to the integration contour .
the summation over @xmath80 runs over the complete dirac spectrum .
renormalization of the one - loop self - energy operator is well described in the literature , see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite . in this work ,
the renormalized part of the self - energy operator is defined as @xmath81 where @xmath82 is the mass counterterm , @xmath83 is the dirac @xmath83 matrix , @xmath84 is the one - loop renormalization constant , @xmath85 is the binding coulomb potential of the nucleus , and the renormalization is to be performed in momentum space with a covariant regularization of ultraviolet ( uv ) divergencies .
details on the renormalization procedure and explicit formulas for @xmath86 can be found in refs .
@xcite .      the irreducible contribution of the diagram shown in fig .
[ fig:1](d ) , together with the corresponding derivative term , is referred to as the _ hfs - vertex _ contribution .
it is given by @xmath87 where @xmath88 is the renormalized part of the 3-point vertex representing the interaction with the hfs field and @xmath89 is the derivative of the renormalized self - energy operator over the energy argument , @xmath90 .
the unrenormalized 3-point hfs vertex operator is defined by its matrix elements as @xmath91 the renormalized part of the operator is obtained as @xmath92 where @xmath93 is the one - loop renormalization constant and the renormalization is to be performed in momentum space with a covariant regularization of uv divergencies , see ref .
@xcite for details .
the irreducible contribution of the diagram shown in fig .
[ fig:1](e ) , together with the corresponding derivative term , is referred to as the _ zeeman - vertex _ contribution .
it is given by @xmath94 where the 3-point zeeman vertex is defined analogously to the hfs one .
the contribution of the diagram shown on fig .
[ fig:1](f ) , together with the corresponding derivative terms , will be termed as the _
double - vertex _ contribution .
it is defined by @xmath95 where @xmath96 denotes the 4-point vertex representing the interaction with both the zeeman and hfs interactions , @xmath97 @xmath98 denotes the second derivative of the self - energy operator over the energy argument , @xmath99 , @xmath100 denotes the derivative of the vertex operator over the energy argument , and @xmath101 denotes the intermediate electron states with the energy @xmath102 . the last term in eq .
( [ dvr ] ) is added artifically , in order to make the whole expression for @xmath103 infrared ( ir ) finite .
the same term will be subtracted from the derivative contribution defined below , see eq .
( [ der ] ) .
we note that all terms in eq .
( [ dvr ] ) are uv finite , so that there is no need for any uv regularization .
there are , however , ir divergences , which appear when the energy of the intermediate electron states in the electron propagators coincides with the energy of the reference state .
the divergences cancel out in the sum of individual terms in eq .
( [ dvr ] ) .
finally , the remaining contribution will be termed as the _ derivative _ term .
it is given by @xmath104   \nonumber \\ & & \times { \langle}v_{\rm zee } \,\frac1{({\varepsilon}_a - h)^{{\prime}}}\ , v_{\rm hfs}{\rangle}\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the second term in the brackets is added artifically , in order to compensate the ir reference - state divergence present in the first term , making the total expression for @xmath105 ir finite .
note that this term is exactly the same as the one added to eq .
( [ dvr ] ) but has the opposite sign .    finally , the total self - energy correction is given by the sum of the contributions discussed above , @xmath106 which are given by eqs .
( [ po1 ] ) , ( [ vrhfs ] ) , ( [ vrzee ] ) , ( [ dvr ] ) , and ( [ der ] ) , respectively .
the general formulas reported so far represent contributions to the energy shift .
we now have to separate out the nuclear degrees of freedom and convert the corrections to the energy into corrections to the shielding constant . in most cases ,
this is achieved simply by using the substitutions ( [ eqsubst ] ) .
the double - vertex contribution , however , requires an explicit angular - momentum algebra calculation for the separation of the nuclear variables .
we will see that most of the corrections to the shielding constant can be regarded as generalizations of the corrections already discussed in the literature .
so , our present calculation will be largely based on the previous investigations of the self - energy correction to the lamb shift @xcite , to the hyperfine structure @xcite , and to the @xmath0 factor @xcite .
the double - vertex correction of the kind similar to that in the present work appeared in the evaluation of the self - energy correction to the parity - nonconserving transitions in refs .  @xcite . however , in this work we develop a different scheme for the evaluation of the double - vertex contribution based on the analytical representation of the dirac - coulomb green function .
the matrix elements of the self - energy operator are diagonal in the relativistic angular momentum quantum number @xmath107 and the momentum projection @xmath43 . because of this
, the angular reduction of the perturbed - orbital contribution is achieved by the same set of substitutions ( [ eqsubst ] ) as for the leading - order magnetic shielding . the resulting contribution to the shielding constant
is conveniently represented as @xmath108 where the first - order perturbations of the reference - state wave function are given by @xmath109 and @xmath110 and @xmath111 is the standard second - order perturbation @xcite of the reference - state wave function induced by _ both _ interactions , @xmath112 and @xmath113 .
note that only the diagonal in @xmath107 part of the perturbed wave functions contributes to @xmath114 .
the calculation of the non - diagonal matrix elements of the self - energy operator is performed by a straightforward generalization of the method developed in ref .
@xcite for the first - order self - energy correction to the lamb shift .
the hfs - vertex correction to the energy shift ( [ vrhfs ] ) for the reference state with @xmath115 can be converted to the correction to the magnetic shielding by the substitution ( [ eqsubst ] ) .
the result is @xmath116 where the covariant regularization of the ultraviolet ( uv ) divergences is implicitly assumed .
the right - hand - side of eq .
( [ eqhfs ] ) differs from the vertex and reducible parts of the self - energy correction to the hyperfine structure only by the perturbed wave function @xmath117 in place of one of the reference - state wave functions @xmath118 .
the main complication brought by this difference is that the perturbed wave function contains components with different values of the relativistic angular quantum number @xmath107 .
so , for the reference state with @xmath119 , the perturbed wave function has components with @xmath120 and @xmath121 , both of which contribute to the first term in eq .
( [ eqhfs ] ) , denoted in the following as @xmath122 .
the second ( reducible ) term contains only the @xmath123 component of the perturbed wave function and its calculation is done exactly as described in ref .
below , we present the generalization of formulas derived in ref .
@xcite needed for the evaluation of @xmath122 .    as explained in ref .
@xcite , the covariant separation of the uv divergences is conveniently performed by dividing the vertex contribution into the zero- and many - potential parts , according to the number of interactions with the binding coulomb field in the electron propagator , @xmath124 the zero - potential part is calculated in momentum space with the dimensional regularization of the uv divergences .
the fourier transform of the @xmath112 is done by @xmath125 where @xmath126 is the transferred momentum .
the contribution of the zero - potential hfs vertex part to the shielding constant is @xmath127_0}{{\vec{q}}^2}\ ,         \psi_{\delta a_{\nicefrac12}}({\vec{p}}_2)\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath128 and @xmath129 are 4-vectors with the fixed time component @xmath130 , @xmath131 , @xmath132 and @xmath133 are the reference - state and the perturbed wave functions , respectively , @xmath134 is the dirac conjugation , and @xmath135 is the renormalized one - loop vertex operator @xcite . for evaluating the integrals over the angular variables , it is convenient to use the following representation of the vertex operator sandwiched between the dirac wave functions @xmath136 \,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath137 , @xmath138 are the spin - angular dirac spinors @xcite , and the scalar functions @xmath139 are given by eqs .
( a7)(a12 ) of ref .
integration over the angular variables yields ( cf .
( 30 ) of ref .
@xcite )    @xmath140   + { \cal r}_2 \ , [ p_{1r}k_1(-\kappa_a,\kappa_{\delta a})-p_{2r}k_1^{\prime}(-\kappa_a,\kappa_{\delta a } ) ] \nonumber \\ &          + p_{1r}p_{2r}({\cal r}_3+{\cal r}_4)\ , k_2(\kappa_a,\kappa_{\delta a})\ ,          + p_{1r}p_{2r}({\cal r}_5+{\cal r}_6)\ , k_2(-\kappa_a,-\kappa_{\delta            a } ) \bigr\}\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath141 , @xmath142 , @xmath143 is the relativistic angular quantum number of the perturbed wave function , @xmath144 , @xmath145 , @xmath146 , and the basic angular integrals @xmath147 are defined and evaluated in appendix  [ app : angular ] .    the many - potential vertex contribution is free from uv divergences and thus can be calculated in coordinate space .
the result after the integration over the angular variables is @xmath148 where @xmath149 is the radial integral of the hfs type given by eq .
( [ eqrad ] ) , @xmath150 is the angular coefficient , @xmath151 @xmath152 is the reduced matrix element of the normalized spherical harmonics given by eq .
( c10 ) of ref .
@xcite , @xmath153 is the relativistic generalization of the slater radial integral given by eqs .
( c1)(c9 ) of ref .
@xcite , and the subtraction in the last line of eq .
( [ eq00 ] ) means that the contribution of the free propagators ( already accounted for by the zero - potential term ) needs to be subtracted .
the zeeman - vertex correction to the energy shift ( [ vrzee ] ) for the reference state with @xmath115 can be converted to the correction to the magnetic shielding by the substitution ( [ eqsubst ] ) .
the result has the form analogous to that for the hfs - vertex contribution , @xmath154 where the covariant regularization of the uv divergences is implicitly assumed .
the above expression looks very similar to eq .
( [ eqhfs ] ) and can be evaluated almost in the same way , except for the zero - potential vertex contribution .
the expression for the zero - potential zeeman vertex contribution is different from the hfs case because the momentum representation of the interaction with a constant magnetic field involves a @xmath155-function .
the diagonal matrix element of the zeeman vertex operator was evaluated previously in ref .
@xcite ; here we present the generalization of the formulas required for the non - diagonal case .
the fourier transform of the interaction with the external magnetic field is given by @xmath156 the contribution of the zero - potential vertex to the shielding constant is @xmath157_0 \psi_{\delta a_{\nicefrac12}}({\vec{p}^{\prime}})\ , , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the gradient @xmath158 acts on the @xmath155-function only .
this expression is transformed by integrating by parts and carrying out the integration with the @xmath155-function analytically .
the result after the angular integration consists of two parts ( cf .
( 27 ) and ( 36 ) of ref .
@xcite ) , @xmath159 where @xmath160\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath161 \nonumber \\ &   + \frac1p\ , b_1(\rho)\ , \bigl [ g_af_{\delta a } a_3(\kappa_a,-\kappa_{\delta a } )    + f_ag_{\delta a } a_3(-\kappa_a,\kappa_{\delta a})\bigr ] \nonumber \\ &   + b_2(\rho)\ , \bigl [ \tilde{g}_ag_{\delta a } a_4(\kappa_a,\kappa_{\delta a } )    + \tilde{f}_af_{\delta a } a_4(-\kappa_a,-\kappa_{\delta a})\bigr ] \nonumber \\ &   + b_3(\rho)\ , \bigl [ g_ag_{\delta a } a_4(\kappa_a,\kappa_{\delta a } )    - f_af_{\delta a } a_4(-\kappa_a,-\kappa_{\delta a})\bigr]\biggr\}\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath162 , @xmath163 , @xmath164 , @xmath165 , @xmath166 and @xmath167 , the scalar functions @xmath168 , @xmath169 are given by eqs .  ( 24 ) , ( 30)-(32 ) of ref .
@xcite and @xmath170 are the basic angular integrals defined and evaluated in appendix  [ app : angular ] .
note that the expression for @xmath171 is non - symmetric with respect to @xmath172 and @xmath173 , but the result does not change when the two wave functions are interchanged .
the double - vertex correction is defined by eq .
( [ dvr ] ) .
all parts of it are uv finite and thus can be evaluated in coordinate space .
we denote the individual terms in the right - hand - side of eq .
( [ dvr ] ) by @xmath174 and consider each of them separately , @xmath175 the first term is @xmath176 after separating the nuclear variables and integrating over the angles , the contribution to the magnetic shielding is ( for @xmath177 ) @xmath178 where @xmath179 note that the expression for @xmath180 is ir divergent when any two or all three of the intermediate states have the same energy as the reference state : @xmath181 , @xmath182 , @xmath183 , @xmath184 .
the ir divergence cancels when all parts of eq .
( [ dvr ] ) are added together .
the contribution of the second term to the shielding is @xmath185 where @xmath186 is the normalization integral , @xmath187 the expression for @xmath188 is ir divergent when @xmath184 .
the third term is given by @xmath189 \,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath190    the fourth term @xmath191 is obtained from @xmath192 by an obvious substitution @xmath193 .
the fifth term is given by @xmath194    finally , the total double - vertex contribution is given by the sum of the five terms discussed above , @xmath195 despite the fact that the individual terms @xmath196 are ir divergent , the sum of them is finite and can be evaluated without any explicit regularization , provided that ( i ) the integration over the frequency of the virtual photon in the self - energy loop @xmath197 is performed after all five terms are added together and ( ii ) the contour of the @xmath197 integration is suitably chosen .
one can show that if the @xmath197 integration is performed along the contour consisting of the low - energy and high - energy parts , as e.g. , in refs .
@xcite , the integrand becomes regular at @xmath198 and , therefore , can be directly evaluated numerically .
the numerical evaluation of the double - vertex correction @xmath199 was the most time consuming part of our calculation , due to a large number of the partial waves involved and a four - dimensional radial integration in eq .
( [ delta1 ] ) .
the radial integration was carried out with help of the numerical approach developed in our calculation of the two - loop self - energy and described in detail in ref .  @xcite . because of numerical cancellations between the five terms in eq .
( [ sum ] ) , especially in the region of small values of @xmath197 , we took care to treat all five terms exactly in the same way .
in particular , the normalization integrals @xmath186 in eqs .
( [ delta2 ] ) and ( [ delta3 ] ) were evaluated numerically , in order to be consistent with the evaluation of eq .
( [ delta1 ] ) , whereas the corresponding contributions could have been evaluated more easily by taking the derivative of the dirac - coulomb green function .
vacuum polarization corrections to the magnetic shielding calculated in the present work are shown in fig .
[ fig:2 ] .
the diagrams in fig .
[ fig:2](a)-(c ) come from the insertion of the uehling potential into the electron line of the leading - order magnetic shielding , whereas the diagram in fig .
[ fig:2](d ) respresents the uehling potential insertion into the hfs interaction .
we note that the diagram with the vacuum polarization insertion into the zeeman interaction vanishes in the uehling - potential approximation .
in our treatment , we neglect contributions with additional coulomb interactions in the vacuum - polarization loop ( which correspond to the wichmann - kroll part of the one - loop vacuum polarization ) and the additional diagram of the wichmann - kroll type with both hfs and zeeman interactions attached to the vacuum - polarization loop .
we expect that the part accounted for in the present work yields the dominant contribution to the vacuum polarization correction .    the contribution of the diagrams in fig .
[ fig:2 ]  ( a)-(c ) is an analogue of the perturbed - orbital self - energy contribution and is given by a similar expression , @xmath200 where @xmath201 is the uehling potential , @xmath202\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath203 and the nuclear - charge density @xmath204 is normalized by the condition @xmath205 .
we note that this contribution can also be calculated by incorporating the uehling potential into the dirac equation and re - evaluating the leading - order magnetic shielding , in this way accounting for the uehling potential to all orders .
we performed calculations in both ways , which ensured that the perturbations of the reference - state wave function @xmath206 and @xmath207 are computed correctly .    the contribution of the diagram in fig .
[ fig:2](d ) to the magnetic shielding can be expressed as @xmath208 where @xmath209 is the hfs interaction modified by the vacuum - polarization insertion .
in the previous section , we calculated the qed corrections to the magnetic shielding without any expansion in the nuclear binding strength parameter @xmath9 .
now we turn to the evaluation of this corrections within the expansion in this parameter .
we will derive the complete expression for the leading term of the @xmath9 expansion , which enters in the relative order @xmath210 .
the results obtained in this section will be applicable for light hydrogen - like ions , where no all - order calculations were possible because of large numerical cancellation .
they will also provide an important cross - check with the all - order calculations described in the previous section .    for the derivation , it is convenient to use the formalism of the non - relativistic quantum electrodynamics ( nrqed ) . in this approach ,
all qed effects are calculated by an expansion in powers of @xmath10 and @xmath9 and represented as expectation values of various effective operators on the nonrelativistic reference - state wave function .
let us start with the effective hamiltonian @xmath211 , which includes leading one - loop radiative corrections : @xmath212 where @xmath213 denotes anticommutator , @xmath214 .
the qed effects in the above hamiltonian are parameterized in terms of the constants @xmath107 , @xmath215 , and @xmath216 , which are interpreted as the electron magnetic moment anomaly , the charge radius and the magnetic polarizability , respectively , @xmath217 where @xmath218 is the photon momentum cutoff . in the non - qed limit ,
all qed constants vanish , @xmath219 , and the effective hamiltonian @xmath211 turns into the schrdinger - pauli hamiltonian .
the qed constants @xmath220 and @xmath216 depend explicitly on the the photon momentum cutoff parameter @xmath218 .
this dependence cancels out with contributions coming from the emission and absorption of virtual photons with the energy smaller than @xmath218 . the complete expression for any physical quantity ,
e.g. , the lamb shift and the shielding constant , does not depend on the artificial photon cutoff parameter .
the above formula for @xmath221 is obtained from the well known expressions for the one - loop radiative corrections to electromagnetic formfactors @xmath222 and @xmath223 @xcite . the formula for @xmath216 has not appeared in the literature previously .
we have derived it by a method similar to that used in ref .
@xcite for the electric polarizability , denoted by @xmath224 in that work .
we will start with rederiving the known nonrelativistic expression for the shielding constant within our approach .
it comes from the @xmath225 term in the electron kinetic energy in eq .
( [ t02 ] ) .
the electromagnetic potential @xmath226 is the sum of the external magnetic potential @xmath227 , @xmath228 and the potential induced by the nuclear magnetic moment , @xmath229 the corresponding energy shift is @xmath230 where matrix elements are calculated with the nonrelativistic wave function .
the shielding constant @xmath5 is obtained from the energy shift @xmath49 by @xmath231 .
for the ground @xmath232 hydrogenic state , the nonrelativistic results is @xmath233    before considering the qed effects to the shielding constant , it is convenient to first recalculate the leading qed correction to the energy levels .
the total contribution is split into two parts induced by the virtual photons of low ( @xmath234 ) and high ( @xmath235 ) energy , @xmath236 the high - energy part is the expectation value of the @xmath237 term in the effective hamiltonian in eq .
( [ t02 ] ) @xmath238 where @xmath239 and @xmath240 .
the vacuum polarization can be incorporated in the above expression by adding @xmath241 to @xmath221 in eq .
( [ t03 ] ) .
the low - energy part @xmath242 is induced by the emission and the absorption of the virtual photons of low @xmath243 energy , @xmath244 -\ln\biggl[\frac{2\,(h - e)}{m\,(z\,\alpha)^2}\biggr]\biggr\ } \frac{\vec p}{m}\biggr\rangle\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] the terms containing @xmath245 cancel out in the sum of the low- and high - energy parts , as expected .
the total leading - order lamb shift contribution is @xmath246\,\delta_{l0 } \nonumber \\ & & + \biggl(\frac{10}{9}-\frac{4}{15}\biggr)\,\delta_{l0 } -\frac{4}{3}\,\ln k_0(n , l)\biggr\}\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath247 is the bethe logarithm , @xmath248 \vec p\,\bigr\rangle\,.\ ] ]    we now turn to the calculation of the qed correction to the magnetic shielding , which is performed similarly to that for the lamb shift .
the total contribution is split into the low and the high - energy parts : @xmath249 where @xmath250 and @xmath251    the high - energy part can be conveniently rewritten in the form @xmath252    in the low - energy part , we separate out @xmath245 and then perform an expansion in the magnetic fields , @xmath253 using the identity @xmath254\biggr]\biggr\rangle \nonumber \\ & = \biggl\langle4\,\pi\,z\,\alpha\,\delta^3(r ) + \frac{e}{2\,m^3}\bigl\{\vec \pi\,,\,\vec\nabla\times\vec b\bigr\ } + \frac{2\,e^2}{m^3}\,b^2 \biggr\rangle\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] we transform @xmath255 to the form @xmath256 \nonumber \\ & & \biggl[\,2\,\biggl\langle \frac{\alpha}{3\,r}\,\frac{1}{(e - h ) ' } \,4\,\pi\,z\,\alpha\,\delta^3(r)\biggr\rangle\,\vec\mu\cdot\vec b\\\nonumber & & -4\,\pi\,\alpha\,\bigl\langle\vec a_e\cdot\vec\nabla\times\vec b_i\bigr\rangle + 16\,\pi\,\alpha\,\bigl\langle\vec b\cdot\vec b_i\bigr\rangle\biggr]\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the artificial parameter @xmath245 cancels out in the sum @xmath257 separately for each type of the matrix elements , @xmath258\ , \vec\mu\cdot\vec b\ , \biggl\langle 4\,\pi\,\delta^3(r)\,\frac{1}{e - h)'}\,\frac{1}{r}\biggr\rangle \nonumber \\ & -\frac{4}{3}\,\alpha^2\,\biggl [ \ln(z\,\alpha)^{-2}+\frac{31}{48}-\frac{1}{5}\biggr]\ , \bigl\langle\vec a_e\cdot\vec\nabla\times\vec b_i\bigr\rangle \nonumber \\ & + \frac{16}{3}\,\alpha^2\ , \biggl[\ln(z\,\alpha)^{-2}-\frac{13}{24}\biggr]\,\bigl\langle\vec b\cdot\vec b_i\bigr\rangle.\end{aligned}\ ] ] using the following results for the matrix elements with @xmath259 states @xmath260 we obtain @xmath261\,\vec\mu\cdot\vec b\,.\ ] ]    the calculation of the remaining low - energy contribution @xmath262 is slightly more complicated .
we first return to the integral form of @xmath242 , derive an expression for @xmath262 , and then drop all terms with @xmath245 , as they are already accounted for by @xmath255 .
the integral form of @xmath242 is @xmath263 it can be rewritten , using the identity @xmath264 $ ] , in the form @xmath265 all terms with positive powers of @xmath218 are discarded , since one assumes that the limit @xmath266 is taken after the expansion in @xmath10 is done .
we shall now expand the integrand in eq .
( [ t34 ] ) in the magnetic fields .
the hamiltonian @xmath235 is @xmath267 where @xmath268 . the first term with @xmath269 in eq . ( [ t35 ]
) can be absorbed into @xmath270 .
so , the correction due to this term is @xmath271-\ln k_0\biggr\ } \\ & = & \frac{16\,\alpha^2}{9\,\pi}\,\frac{(z\,\alpha)^3}{n^3}\,\vec\mu\cdot\vec b\ , \biggl\{\ln k_0 + \frac{1}{2}-\ln\biggl[\frac{2\,\epsilon}{m\,(z\,\alpha)^2}\biggr]\biggr\}\ , .
\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the correction due to the two last terms in eq .
( [ t35 ] ) is    @xmath272    integrating by parts and using the results and the notation of @xmath273 from ref .
@xcite @xmath274-\ln k_3\biggr\}\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] we obtain @xmath275-\ln k_3-\frac{1}{3}\biggr\}\,.\ ] ] the sum of these two contributions @xmath276 , after dropping the @xmath245 terms , is @xmath277 finally , the total correction to energy is @xmath278 expressing the energy shift in terms of the shielding constant ( @xmath279 ) , we obtain the complete result for the leading qed correction to the nuclear magnetic shielding in hydrogen - like ions , valid for the @xmath259 states , @xmath280 + 2\,\ln k_0(n)-3\,\ln k_3(n)-\frac{421}{96}+\frac{3}{5}\biggr\}\ , .
\label{eq : za}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the term of @xmath281 in the brackets is the contribution of the vacuum polarization .
the numerical results for the bethe logarithm @xmath282 and the @xmath283 bethe - logarithm - type correction @xmath273 @xcite for the @xmath284 state are @xmath285 we note that the numerical value of the constant term in eq .
( [ eq : za ] ) , @xmath286 , is comparable in magnitude but of the opposite sign to the logarithmic term at @xmath287 , @xmath288 .
this entails a significant numerical cancellation between these two terms for hydrogen and light hydrogen - like ions . as a result ,
the total qed correction turns out to be much smaller in magnitude than could be anticipated from the leading logarithm alone .
we now turn to the effect induced by the spatial distribution of the nuclear magnetic moment , also known as the bohr - weisskopf ( bw ) correction .
our treatment of the bw effect is based on the effective single - particle ( sp ) model of the nuclear magnetic moment . within this model , the magnetic moment
is assumed to be induced by the odd nucleon ( proton , when @xmath3 and @xmath289 are odd and neutron , when @xmath3 is even and @xmath289 is odd ) with an effective @xmath0-factor , which is adjusted to yield the experimental value of the nuclear magnetic moment .
the treatment of the magnetization distribution effect on hfs within the sp model was originally developed in refs .
@xcite and later in ref .
our present treatment closely follows the procedure described in refs .
@xcite .
the wave function of the odd nucleon is assumed to satisfy the schrdinger equation with the central potential of woods - saxon form and the spin - orbital term included ( see , e.g. , ref .
@xcite ) @xmath290 where @xmath291 @xmath292^{-1}\,,\ ] ] and @xmath85 is the coulomb part of the interaction ( absent for neutron ) , with the uniform distribution of the charge ( @xmath293 ) over the nuclear sphere .
the parameters @xmath294 , @xmath295 , @xmath296 , and @xmath172 were taken from refs .
@xcite .
the nuclear magnetic moment can be evaluated within the sp model to yield @xcite @xmath297 g_l\ , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & \\          \ \mbox{for } \   \
i = l+\frac12\ , , & \\
\displaystyle         -\frac{i}{2(i+1)}\ , g_s+ \left[\frac{i(2i+3)}{2(i+1 ) }          -\frac{2i+1}{4(i+1)}{\langle}\phi_{so}r^2{\rangle}\right ] & \ g_l\,,\ \\         \ \mbox{for } \   \
i = l-\frac12\ , , & \\       \end{aligned } \right.\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath25 and @xmath234 are the total and the orbital angular momentum of the nucleus , respectively , @xmath298 is the @xmath0 factor associated with the orbital motion of the nucleon ( @xmath298 = 1 for proton and @xmath299 for neutron ) and @xmath300 is the effective nucleon @xmath0 factor , determined by the condition that eq .
( [ 5eq11 ] ) yields the experimental value of the magnetic moment .
it was demonstrated in ref .
@xcite that , within the sp model , the bw effect can be accounted for by adding a multiplicative magnetization - distribution function @xmath301 to the standard point - dipole hfs interaction .
the distribution function is given by @xcite    @xmath302    \nonumber \\ & &    + \frac{\mu_n}{\mu } \int_r^{\infty}dr{^{\prime}}\ , { r{^{\prime}}}^2 |u(r{^{\prime}})|^2\,\frac{{r}^3}{{r{^{\prime}}}^3}\ ,           \left [ -\frac{2i-1}{8(i+1)}\ , g_s+ \left(i-\frac12+\frac{2i+1}{4(i+1)}\,r^2\phi_{so}(r )         \right ) g_l \right]\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    for @xmath303 and @xmath304    \nonumber \\ & &    + \frac{\mu_n}{\mu } \int_r^{\infty}dr{^{\prime}}\ , { r{^{\prime}}}^2 |u(r{^{\prime}})|^2\,\frac{{r}^3}{{r{^{\prime}}}^3}\ ,           \left [ \frac{2i+3}{8(i+1)}\ , g_s+ \left(\frac{i(2i+3)}{2(i+1)}-\frac{2i+1}{4(i+1)}\,r^2\phi_{so}(r )         \right ) g_l \right]\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    for @xmath305 . in the above formulas ,
@xmath306 is the wave function of the odd nucleon .
it can easily be seen that @xmath307 outside the nucleus .
the recoil correction to the magnetic shielding was obtained in ref .
@xcite in the nonrelativistic approximation , @xmath308 where @xmath309 is the nuclear mass and @xmath310    the electric - quadrupole correction to the magnetic shielding is @xmath311 where @xmath312 is the quadrupole moment of the nucleus and @xmath313 is the quadrupole correction to the @xmath0 factor calculated in ref .
@xcite , @xmath314 }   { 135\,\gamma ( 1+\gamma)^2\left[15 - 16({{z\alpha}})^2\right ] }   \nonumber \\ &   = \alpha\,({{z\alpha}})^3 \,\left[\frac{11}{135}+ \frac{43}{405}({{z\alpha}})^2+\ldots\right]\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]
numerical results for the self - energy correction to the nuclear magnetic shielding can be conveniently parameterized in terms of the dimensionless function @xmath315 defined as @xmath316 our numerical all - order ( in @xmath9 ) results for the self - energy correction to the magnetic shielding are summarized in table  [ tab : se ] .
we note significant numerical cancellation between the individual contributions , which is particularly strong for low values of @xmath3 .
the fact that the resulting sum is a smooth function of @xmath3 and demonstrates the expected @xmath3 scaling serves as a consistency check of our calculations . besides of numerical cancellation
, the additional complication arising in the low-@xmath3 region is that the convergence of the partial - wave expansions becomes slower when @xmath3 decreases . because of these two complications
, the accuracy of our results worsens for smaller values of @xmath3 and no all - order results were obtained for @xmath317 .    the all - order numerical results can be compared with the @xmath9-expansion results obtained in sec .  [
sec : zaexp ] . as follows from eq .
( [ eq : za ] ) , the @xmath9 expansion of the function @xmath318 for the @xmath284 state reads @xmath319\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath320 denotes the higher - order terms . in fig .  [
fig : se ] , the numerical all - order results for the function @xmath318 are plotted together with the contribution of the leading logarithmic term in eq .
( [ seza ] ) ( dashed line , red ) and the contribution of both terms in eq .
( [ seza ] ) ( dashed - dot line , blue ) .
we observe that the leading logarithm alone gives a large contribution that disagrees strongly with the all - order results .
however , when the constant term is added , the total @xmath9-expansion contribution shrinks significantly and even changes its sign for @xmath321 . only after the constant term is accounted for , we observe reasonable agreement between the all - order and @xmath9 expansion results .     ]     ]     and 5 .
[ fig : total ] ]    the vacuum - polarization correction to the nuclear magnetic shielding is parameterized as @xmath322 our numerical results for the vacuum - polarization correction are presented in table  [ tab : vp ] .
the calculation was performed for the extended nucleus and the uehling potential was included to all orders .
note that our present treatment is not complete , as the wichmann - kroll part of the correction is still missing .
we estimate the uncertainty due to omitted terms to be within 30% of the calculated contribution .
the @xmath9 expansion of the function @xmath323 reads @xmath324 where the kronecker symbol @xmath325 indicates that the correction vanishes for the reference states with @xmath326 .
comparison of the all - order numerical results with the leading term of the @xmath9 expansion is given in fig .
[ fig : vp ] .
it is remarkable that the all - order results grow fast when @xmath3 is increased and eventually become more than an order of magnitude larger than the leading - order result . in the high-@xmath3 region , the self - energy and vacuum - polarization corrections are ( as usual ) of the opposite sign , the self energy being about twice larger than the vacuum polarization . in the low-@xmath3 region
, however , the self - energy correction changes its sign and the total qed contribution becomes positive for very light ions .
the summary of our calculations of the nuclear magnetic shielding constant @xmath5 for several hydrogen - like ions is given in table  [ tab : total ] .
the first line of the table presents results for the leading - order nuclear shielding , including the finite nuclear size effect .
the leading - order contribution was calculated using the fermi model for the nuclear charge distribution and the point - dipole approximation for the interaction with the nuclear magnetic moment .
the nuclear charge radii were taken from ref .
the results are in good agreement with those reported in ref .
the qed correction presented in the second line of table  [ tab : total ] is the sum of the all - order results for the self energy and the vacuum polarization .
its error comes from the numerical uncertainty of the self - energy part and the estimate of uncalculated vacuum - polarization diagrams .
since there were no all - order calculations performed for oxygen , we used an extrapolation of our all - order results ( taking into account the derived values of the @xmath9 expansion coefficients ) .
the bohr - weisskopf correction , presented in the third line of table  [ tab : total ] , was calculated by reevaluating the leading - order contribution with the point - dipole hfs interaction modified by the extended - distribution function @xmath301 given by eqs .
( [ 5eq12 ] ) and ( [ 5eq13 ] ) . because the effective single - particle model of the nuclear magnetic moment is ( of course ) a rather crude approximation
, we estimate the uncertainty of the bohr - weisskopf correction to be 30% , which is consistent with previous estimates of the uncertainty of this effect @xcite .
this uncertainty includes also the error due to the nuclear polarization effect , which is not considered in the present work .
the quadrupole and the recoil corrections , given in the fourth and fifth lines of table  [ tab : total ] , respectively , were evaluated according to eqs .
( [ eqq ] ) and ( [ eqrec ] ) .
the error of the quadrupole correction comes from the nuclear quadrupole moments . the magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole moments of nuclei were taken from refs .
@xcite .    the @xmath3 dependence of individual contributions to the magnetic shielding constant @xmath5 is shown in fig .
[ fig : total ] .
the leading - order contribution is separated into three parts , the point - nucleus nonrelativistic part ( solid line , black ) , the point - nucleus relativistic part ( dashed line , green ) , and the finite nuclear size correction ( dashed - dotted line , blue ) .
we observe that the finite nuclear size correction , as well as the other effects calculated in this work , become increasingly important in the region of large nuclear charges .
the only exception is the nuclear recoil correction .
it practically does not depend on the nuclear charge number @xmath3 , since the linear @xmath3 scaling in eq .
( [ eqrec ] ) is compensated by the increase of the nuclear mass @xmath309 with @xmath3 . as a consequence ,
the recoil effect is completely negligible for high- and medium-@xmath3 ions , but turns into one of the dominant corrections for @xmath317 .    for most ions ,
the uncertainty of the theoretical prediction is roughly 30% of the bohr - weisskopf effect ; it can be immediately estimated from fig .
[ fig : total ] . for very light ions
, however , there is an additional uncertainty due to the unknown relativistic recoil effect .
its contribution can be estimated by multiplying the nonrelativistic recoil correction plotted on fig .
[ fig : total ] by the factor of @xmath327 .
we observe that for very light ions , the relativistic recoil is the dominant source of error in theoretical predictions .
in this work we have performed an _ ab initio _ calculation of the nuclear magnetic shielding in hydrogen - like ions with inclusion of relativistic , nuclear , and qed effects .
the uncertainty of our theoretical predictions for the nuclear magnetic shielding constant defines [ according to eq .
( [ eq4b ] ) ] the precision to which the nuclear magnetic dipole moments can be determined from experiments on the @xmath0-factors of hydrogen - like ions .
it can be concluded from table  [ tab : total ] and fig .
[ fig : total ] that the present theory permits determination of nuclear magnetic moments with fractional accuracy ranging from @xmath328 in the case of @xmath329o@xmath330 to @xmath331 for @xmath332bi@xmath333 .    for most hydrogen - like ions ,
the dominant source of error in the theoretical predictions is the bohr - weisskopf effect .
since this effect can not be accurately calculated at present , we conclude that the theory of the nuclear magnetic shielding has reached the point where the uncertainty due to nuclear - structure effects impedes further progress . for very light ions ,
however , the dominant theoretical error comes from the unknown relativistic recoil effect , whose calculation might be a subject of future work .
stimulating discussions with k.  blaum and g.  werth are gratefully acknowledged .
v.  a.  y.  and z.  h.  were supported by the alliance program of the helmholtz association ( ha216/emmi ) .
k.p .  acknowledges support by nist precision measurement grant pmg 60nanb7d6153 .
c ...... @xmath3 & & & & & & +   + 10 & -9.x584 & 6.x095 & 9.x180 & -49.x722 & 43.x523 & -0.x508(100 ) + 14 & -4.x741 & 1.x711 & 4.x321 & -21.x048 & 19.x047 & -0.x710(15 ) + 16 & -3.x571 & 0.x705 & 3.x140 & -14.x718 & 13.x655 & -0.x789(9 ) + 20 & -2.x217 & -0.x405 & 1.x761 & -7.x848 & 7.x782 & -0.x927(4 ) + 26 & -1.x277 & -1.x115 & 0.x772 & -3.x473 & 3.x983 & -1.x110(2 ) + 32 & -0.x858 & -1.x407 & 0.x292 & -1.x644 & 2.x333 & -1.x283(1 ) + 40 & -0.x624 & -1.x580 & -0.x043 & -0.x586 & 1.x315 & -1.x519(1 ) + 45 & -0.x575 & -1.x643 & -0.x171 & -0.x267 & 0.x975 & -1.x681 + 54 & -0.x595 & -1.x744 & -0.x335 & 0.x023 & 0.x622 & -2.x029 + 60 & -0.x672 & -1.x825 & -0.x423 & 0.x112 & 0.x487 & -2.x321 + 70 & -0.x929 & -2.x028 & -0.x571 & 0.x175 & 0.x355 & -2.x999 + 82 & -1.x612 & -2.x508 & -0.x812 & 0.x191 & 0.x284 & -4.x457(2 ) + 83 & -1.x701 & -2.x569 & -0.x839 & 0.x192 & 0.x281 & -4.x636(1 ) + 92 & -3.x011 & -3.x400 & -1.x174 & 0.x198 & 0.x280 & -7.x107(2 ) +    cccc @xmath3 & & & +   + 10 & 0.118 & 0.110 & 0.228 + 14 & 0.135 & 0.121 & 0.256 + 16 & 0.144 & 0.126 & 0.271 + 20 & 0.164 & 0.137 & 0.302 + 26 & 0.200 & 0.155 & 0.355 + 32 & 0.242 & 0.175 & 0.417 + 40 & 0.314 & 0.206 & 0.520 + 45 & 0.369 & 0.228 & 0.597 + 54 & 0.500 & 0.275 & 0.775 + 60 & 0.618 & 0.315 & 0.933 + 70 & 0.891 & 0.398 & 1.289 + 82 & 1.449 & 0.546 & 1.996 + 83 & 1.512 & 0.562 & 2.074 + 92 & 2.227 & 0.727 & 2.954
l ..... & & & & & +   + leading & 143.3x127 & 375.9x60 & 657.x93 & 1461.x6 & 4112x + qed & -0.0x026(2 ) & -0.1x03(15 ) & -0.x59(8 ) & -4.x1(0.8 ) & -30x(7 ) + bohr - weisskopf & -0.0x013(4 ) & -0.0x61(18 ) & -0.x54(16 ) & -8.x2(2.5 ) & -42x(13 ) + quadrupole & -0.0x007(1 ) & -0.0x18 & -0.x42 & 6.x9(0.1 ) & 7x + recoil & -0.0x120 & -0.0x15 & -0.x02 & 0.x0 & 0x + total & 143.2x960(5 ) & 375.7x63(24 ) & 656.x36(18 ) & 1456.x3(2.6 ) & 4046x(15 ) +
throughout this work , we repeatedly used the following result for the matrix element of the hfs and zeeman interaction @xmath334 where @xmath335 , @xmath336 is the clebsch - gordan coefficient , and @xmath337 the radial integral @xmath59 is defined by eq .
( [ eqrad ] ) and the angular coefficient @xmath152 is the reduced matrix element of the normalized spherical harmonics , see , e.g. , eq .  ( c10 ) of ref .  @xcite .
an important particular case is @xmath338 and @xmath339 , in which case the above formulas reduce to @xmath340      @xmath342_0\ ,        \chi_{\kappa_b { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_2 ) = \int_{-1}^1 d\xi\,f(\xi)\ ,          k_1(\kappa_a,\kappa_b)\ , , \\
\frac{3i}{4\pi } \int d{\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_1\ , d{\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_2\ , & \
f(\xi)\ ,       \chi^{\dag}_{\kappa_a { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_1)\ , [ { \hat{{\vec{p}}}}_2\times { \vec{\sigma}}]_0\ ,        \chi_{\kappa_b { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_2 ) = \int_{-1}^1 d\xi\,f(\xi)\ ,          k_1^{\prime}(\kappa_a,\kappa_b)\ , , \\ \frac{3i}{4\pi } \int d{\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_1\ , d{\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_2\ , & \
f(\xi)\ ,       \chi^{\dag}_{\kappa_a { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_1)\ , [ { \hat{{\vec{p}}}}_1\times { \hat{{\vec{p}}}}_2]_0\ ,        \chi_{\kappa_b { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}}_2 ) = \int_{-1}^1 d\xi\,f(\xi)\ ,          k_2(\kappa_a,\kappa_b)\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath343 is an arbitrary function and @xmath344 .
the integrals over all angles except for @xmath345 in the above equations are evaluated analytically , as described in appendix of ref .
the results relevant for this work are @xmath346 k_1^{\prime}(-1,1 ) = -1 , & k_1^{\prime}(1,-1 ) = \xi , & k_1^{\prime}(-1,-2 ) = -\frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle \sqrt{2 } } , &      k_1^{\prime}(1,2 ) = \frac{\displaystyle \xi}{\displaystyle \sqrt{2 } } , \\[2pt ] k_2(-1,-1 ) = 0 , & k_2(1,1 ) = \frac{\displaystyle -1+\xi^2}{\displaystyle 2 } , & k_2(-1,2 ) = 0 , & k_2(1,-2 ) = \frac{\displaystyle -1+\xi^2}{\displaystyle 2\sqrt{2}}.          \end{array}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the basic angular integrals @xmath347 needed for the evaluation of the zeeman vertex contribution are given by @xmath348_0\ , \chi_{\kappa_b { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}})\ , , \\
a_3(\kappa_a,\kappa_b ) & \ = \int d{\hat{{\vec{p}}}}\ , \chi^{\dagger}_{\kappa_a { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}})\ ,   i\,[{\vec{\sigma}}\times \vec{\nabla}_{\omega}]_0\ , \chi_{\kappa_b { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}})\ , , \\
a_4(\kappa_a,\kappa_b ) & \ = \int d{\hat{{\vec{p}}}}\ ,
\chi^{\dagger}_{\kappa_a { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}})\ ,   i\,[{\hat{{\vec{p}}}}\times \vec{\nabla}_{\omega}]_0\ , \chi_{\kappa_b { \nicefrac12}}({\hat{{\vec{p}}}})\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] these integrals are evaluated by using the standard racah algebra .
the results relevant for this work are @xmath349 a_2(-1,1 ) = 2/3 , & a_2(1,-1)=-2/3 ,   & a_2(-1,-2 ) = \sqrt{2}/3 , & a_2(1,2)=-\sqrt{2}/3 , \\[2pt ] a_3(-1,1 ) = 4/3 , & a_3(1,-1 ) = 0 ,   & a_3(-1,-2 ) = 2\sqrt{2}/3 , & a_3(1,2)=-\sqrt{2},\\[2pt ] a_4(-1,-1 ) = 0 , & a_4(1,1 ) = -2/3 , & a_4(-1,2 ) = 0 , & a_4(1,-2 ) = -\sqrt{2}/3 .
\end{array}\end{aligned}\ ] ]


in high energy gamma - ray astrophysics observations , it is vital to reduce the background effectively in order to achieve a high sensitivity , for the source intensity is quite low .
most of the background events are generated via an interaction between cosmic - rays and the instrument , and an accurate cosmic - ray flux model and computer simulation are necessary to develop the background rejection algorithm and evaluate the remaining background level .
the model needs to cover the entire solid angle ( @xmath6 ) and the sensitive energy range of the instrument . while there are many measurements on cosmic - rays reported in literature , they are fragmentary and need to be compiled , reviewed and validated .
the large area telescope ( lat ) is the high - energy gamma - ray detector onboard the gamma - ray large area space telescope ( glast ) satellite to be launched to low - earth orbit ( altitude of @xmath7 ) in 2007 @xcite .
it consists of 16 towers in a 4 x 4 array .
each tower has a set of high - z foil and si strip pair conversion trackers ( tkr ) and a csi(tl ) hodoscopic calorimeter ( cal ) .
the towers are surrounded on the top and sides by a set of plastic scintillator anticoincidence detectors ( acd ) . because the lat will have a large active volume ( @xmath8 ) , the data acquisition trigger , based on signals in three consecutive x - y pair layers of the tkr , is expected to be about 10  khz , whereas the gamma - ray signal from a strong extraterrestrial source ( e.g. , crab pulsar ) is only about one per minute . in order to achieve the required sensitivity
, we have to develop a `` cosmic - ray proof '' instrument by an optimized on - line / off - line event filtering scheme .
all possible background types need to be studied in detail by beam tests and computer simulations .    to validate the basic design of lat in a space - like environment , and collect particle incidences to be used as a background event database for lat ,
a balloon flight engineering model ( bfem ) , representing one of 16 towers that compose the lat , was built and launched on august 4 , 2001 @xcite .
the instrument operated successfully and took data for about two hours during the ascent and three hours during the level flight .
a geant4-based @xcite simulator of bfem was constructed for this balloon experiment .
we also have developed a cosmic - ray background flux model based on existing measurements and theoretical predictions , and validated the model by comparing with the data of bfem .
the model covers the entire solid angle ( @xmath9 ) , a wide energy range between 10  mev to 100  gev and abundant components ( proton , alpha , @xmath10 , @xmath11 and gamma ray ) . in this paper , we present the model functions as `` a working model of cosmic - ray background fluxes '' for high energy astrophysical missions .
although the models are intended to be used primarily for glast bfem , they are expressed in analytic functions in which modulations due to solar activity and earth geomagnetism are parameterized , and they are easy to be applied to other balloon and satellite experiments . the models in low - earth orbit are being used to simulate the glast lat in the orbital environment and to develop background rejection algorithms .
the glast lat bfem was a reconfigured version of the beam test engineering model ( btem ) that represents one of 16 towers of the lat and consists of acd , tkr and cal .
the bfem differed from btem in that 6 silicon tracker layers were removed and the data acquisition system was reconfigured .
the btem was tested with @xmath2 , @xmath3 and gamma beams at the stanford linear accelerator center ( slac ) , and the results were published ( @xcite ) .
the bfem acd consisted of 13 segmented plastic anticoincidence scintillators to help identify the background events due to charged particles . among them ,
4 tiles were placed above the tkr and 8 on the side .
in addition , one big tile was placed above 4 top tiles to cover gaps between tiles .
the tkr consisted of 13 x - y layers of si strip detectors ( ssds ) of @xmath12 thickness to measure particle tracks and 11 lead foils to convert gamma - rays .
the area of ssds was @xmath13 for each layer , but the top 5 x - y pairs had smaller area .
among 11 lead foils , the top 8 were 3.6% radiation length thick , the following three were 28% radiation length thick , and the last two x - y layers had no lead converter .
the instrument trigger was provided by hits in three x - y pairs in - a - row ( six - fold coincidence ) .
the cal consisted of 80 csi crystals hodoscopically laid out ( eight layers of 10 logs in x or y directions ) and measured energy deposit and shower profile .
a set of four plastic scintillators called external gamma - ray target ( xgt ) was mounted above the instrument to tag cosmic - ray interactions in the scintillators and constrain the gamma - ray origin .
the four detector components , readout electronics and support structures were mounted in a pressure vessel ( pv ) because not all of the electronics and data recorders were designed to be operated in vacuum .
we developed a monte - carlo simulation program of the bfem with a geant4 toolkit .
the geometry of the bfem implemented in the simulator is shown in figure  1 : support structures and the pressure vessel as well as detectors were implemented .
standard electromagnetic processes , hadronic interactions and decay processes were simulated .
cutoff length ( range threshold of secondary particles to be generated ) was set at @xmath14 in tkr and 1  mm for other regions .
we utilized geant4 ver 5.1 with patch 01 .
cosmic - rays in or near the earth atmosphere consist of the primary and the secondary components .
the primary cosmic - rays are generated in and propagate through extraterrestrial space .
the main component is known to be protons .
when primary particles penetrate into the air and interact with molecules , they produce relatively low - energy particles , i.e. , secondary cosmic - rays .
the first step in building a working model of cosmic - ray fluxes is to represent the existing measurements and theoretical predictions by analytic functions .
below we describe the model functions particle by particle .
data are very scarce or absent for large zenith angle and low energy , and expected uncertainties are also mentioned .
primary particles that reach the top of the atmosphere are believed to come predominantly from outside the solar system .
their spectra are known to be affected by the solar activity and earth geomagnetic field .
the spectra of the primaries in interstellar space can be modeled by a power - law in rigidity ( or momentum ) as @xmath15 where @xmath16 and @xmath17 are the kinetic energy and rigidity of the particle , respectively .
these particles are decelerated by solar wind as they enter the solar system and hence their flux shows anti correlation with the solar activity . to model this solar modulation
, we adopted the formula given by @xcite : the modulation is expressed by an effective shift of energy as @xmath18 where @xmath19 is the magnitude of electron charge , @xmath20 the atomic number of particle , @xmath21 the particle mass and @xmath22 the speed of light .
a parameter @xmath23 is introduced to represent the solar modulation which varies from @xmath24 for solar activity minimum to @xmath25 for solar activity maximum . since the glast balloon experiment took place in 2001 august , we fixed @xmath23 at 1100  mv , a typical value for solar activity maximum .
the second and much bigger modulation is introduced as the low energy cutoff due to the earth geomagnetism .
we modeled this effect based on the ams measurements @xcite in which the proton flux was measured over a wide geomagnetic latitude range .
we defined the reduction factor as @xmath26 here , @xmath27 is the cutoff rigidity calculated by assuming the earth magnetic field to be of dipole shape , as @xmath28 where @xmath29 is the altitude , @xmath30 the earth radius and @xmath31 the geomagnetic latitude @xcite . for the glast balloon experiment they were @xmath32  km , @xmath33  rad , and @xmath34 .
we also referred to @xmath2 measurements by ams @xcite and found that electrons are less affected by earth geomagnetism .
although the geomagnetic cutoff is expected to be the same regardless of the particle type , we gave priority to the experimental data and used @xmath35 instead of equation  ( 3 ) for @xmath2/@xmath3 .
the reduction factor of equations  ( 3 ) and ( 5 ) reproduces the cutoff seen in ams data in @xmath36 , but gives lower flux in high geomagnetic latitude region .
the primary spectrum is then expressed as @xmath37 where @xmath38 and 6.0 for proton / alpha and @xmath2/@xmath3 , respectively .
this model function can be used for the entire solar cycle and entire low - earth orbit by adjusting @xmath23 and @xmath27 .
we assume the angular distribution is uniform for @xmath39 and to be 0 for @xmath40 , where @xmath41 is the zenith angle from vertical .
the cutoff angle @xmath42 is introduced to represent the earth horizon and is @xmath43 at low - earth orbit ( @xmath44 ) .
the primary flux at balloon altitude is attenuated by air and the effect is described in the following sections particle by particle .
note that the east - west effect is not taken into account for simplicity : we aim to construct models which provide the correct flux integrated over the azimuth angle .
recent measurements by bess @xcite and ams @xcite provided us with an accurate spectrum of primary protons .
these data were taken in similar parts of the solar cycle ( june / july , 1998 ) , and we expect that the solar modulation parameters are similar between them .
bess measured the proton flux at an altitude of 37  km near the geomagnetic north pole and evaluated the spectrum at the top of the atmosphere , which was not much affected by the geomagnetic cutoff .
ams measured the flux at various positions on earth in energies below and above the geomagnetic cutoff at an altitude close to low - earth orbit ( 380  km ) .
above the geomagnetic cutoff the two measurements agree up to about 50 gev and differ less than 10% between 50 and 100 gev @xcite .
their data can be modeled well by equation  ( 2 ) with @xmath45 , @xmath46 and @xmath47 .
other experiments @xcite can also be represented by the model if the solar modulation parameter @xmath23 is adjusted to an appropriate solar cycle ( see figure  2 ) .
the flux at a balloon altitude suffers a small attenuation due to interactions with air .
the nuclear interaction length in air is @xmath48 , and the probability for vertically - downward protons to reach the altitude of glast bfem ( atmospheric depth was @xmath49 ) is 95.8% . for protons of oblique direction , we calculated the atmospheric depth in line - of - sight by assuming the trajectory to be straight .
then the effective atmospheric depth scales as @xmath50 down to @xmath51 and is @xmath52 for the horizontal direction , by assuming the scale height of the air above the altitude of the payload ( at @xmath53 ) to be 7.6  km , a typical value in the u.s .
standard atmosphere .
below the horizon the flux is assumed to be 0 .
our primary proton spectral model function ( equation  6 with 4% air attenuation ) with adjustment for the geomagnetic cutoff is shown in figure  3 with ams data taken at similar geomagnetic latitude region .    in energy ranges below the geomagnetic cutoff , there are secondary particles produced in the earth s atmosphere by interactions of primaries .
the secondary proton spectra at satellite altitude was measured by ams in a wide geomagnetic latitude region , showing strong dependence on the geomagnetic cutoff .
we represent their data , region by region , by a broken power - law or cutoff power - law model .
the formula of the broken power - law is , @xmath54 and that of the cutoff power - law model is @xmath55 below 100  mev , we found no data and assume a power - law spectrum with index of -1 : @xmath56 below a few @xmath57 10  mev , there is no probability for protons to trigger bfem / lat , hence the spectral model below 100  mev ( equation  9 ) does not affect the data very much .
we tabulated the model parameters to describe the ams data in table  1 . in low geomagnetic latitude regions ( @xmath58 )
the downward and upward spectra are identical , indicating that protons are confined locally by the geomagnetic field .
the particle direction is expected to be randomized , and we adopt a uniform angular distribution . for @xmath59 ,
we assume a uniform zenith angle dependence in the upper and lower hemispheres , for we lack experimental data about angular dependence .
flux in the horizontal direction is uncertain , and we leave it discontinuous .
analysis of the bfem data ( @xmath60 ) showed that horizontal particles ( @xmath61 ) have little chance to trigger the bfem .
the 3-in - a - row trigger is improbable for the narrow geometry of this single tower .
the secondary proton spectrum at balloon altitude is not necessarily the same as that in low - earth orbit , for the larmor radius of a typical secondary proton is much smaller than the satellite altitude : for example , the radius of a 1  gev proton is 100  km for average earth magnetic field of 0.3  gauss .
hence we must refer to existing balloon measurements .
the spectra measured at @xmath62  gv at atmospheric depth similar to our experiment ( @xmath63 ) are collected in figure  3 @xcite .
although the flux differs from experiment to experiment , vertically - downward flux at @xmath64 is much higher than that measured by ams ( at 380  km ) : they could be represented as @xmath65 in 10  mev4  gev . above the geomagnetic cutoff ,
we assume that the secondary proton flux follows a power - law function of @xmath66 , i.e. , that of the primary .
note that the downward flux is known to be proportional to the atmospheric depth @xcite , and balloon data in figure  3 were already scaled to @xmath49 . on the other hand ,
upward flux does not depend on the atmospheric depth very much ( e.g. , verma 1967 ) and we modeled the data with the following formulas .
they are @xmath67 for energy above 100  mev and @xmath68 for energy below 100  mev .
as can be seen from figure  3 , secondary fluxes measured by balloon experiments are mutually inconsistent within a factor of 2 .
hence our model inherits this much uncertainty .
the angular distribution of the secondary cosmic - ray flux has been measured in several balloon and rocket experiments . while substantial build - up of the flux near the earth horizon has been reported in several experiments @xcite ,
its functional form is not well determined . for small zenith angles ,
the secondary proton downward flux is expected to be proportional to the atmospheric depth in line - of - sight , and we multiply the flux by @xmath50 .
the flux is expected to be saturated near the horizon and we use a constant factor of 2 for @xmath69 . for upward flux
, we assume the same angular dependence as a function of nadir angle instead of zenith angle . again
the flux disconnects at horizon due to uncertainty .
we adopted the ams and bess data to model the alpha particle spectrum .
the two experiments are consistent with each other to @xmath7010  % @xcite , giving @xmath71 , @xmath72 and @xmath45 for equation  2
. other experiments @xcite can also be represented well by adjusting the solar modulation parameter @xmath23 ( figure  4 ) .
we did not take the secondary component into account , for the flux is more than three orders of magnitude lower than the primary , as shown by @xcite .
for the glast balloon experiment , we used equation  3 with @xmath73 and @xmath74 .
the zenith angle dependence and the attenuation by air are assumed to be the same as that of proton primaries .
the fluxes of cosmic - ray electrons and positrons are modeled in 3 components : the primary , the secondary downward and the secondary upward fluxes .    unlike proton and alpha primaries ,
no single experiment has measured cosmic primary electron and positron fluxes over a wide energy range .
we referred to a compilation of measurements by webber @xcite and used the power - law fit given there , i.e. , @xmath75 a recent review of measurements by @xcite gave a consistent spectrum above 10  gev .
the positively charged fraction , interpreted as @xmath76 , has been measured by several experiments . among them
, @xcite obtained the fraction to be a constant , @xmath77 , between 5  gev and 50  gev .
we adopted their results and modeled the interstellar electron spectrum to be equation  1 with @xmath78 and @xmath79 .
the spectrum of the primary positrons takes the same form except for the normalization factor . like proton and alpha primaries ,
the angular distribution is assumed to be uniform and independent of zenith angle @xmath41 for @xmath80 and zero for @xmath81 , where @xmath82 corresponds to particle going toward the nadir .
the solar and geomagnetic modulation parameters for the glast balloon experiment are @xmath83 and @xmath74 .
to model the @xmath2/@xmath3 primary flux for our experiment , we also need to take into account the energy loss due to the ionization and bremsstrahlung in the atmosphere .
for vertically downward particles it is calculated to be @xmath84 , where @xmath85 is the radiation length of air . this energy loss gives the same spectral shape but smaller normalization by a factor of 1.42 .
we calculated the atmospheric depth in the line - of - sight as a function of zenith angle in the same way as that for proton and alpha primaries , and took the energy loss into account .
secondary cosmic ray electrons and positrons are generated in two parts , a downward - moving component and an upward - moving one . to model them at a satellite altitude
, we referred to the ams data and represented them with a power - law model : @xmath86 or a broken power - law model ( equation  7 ) , or a power - law model with a hump : @xmath87 below 100  mev we found no data and use the power - law model with a spectral index of -1 , i.e. , equation  9 .
again there is no probability for @xmath88 to cause trigger below 10  mev .
the model functions are tabulated in table  2 : in near geomagnetic equator , @xmath3 flux is much higher than that of @xmath2 .
we use the same flux models for downward and upward component , since ams did not detect significant difference between them . as for proton secondaries ,
a uniform angular distribution is assumed in upper and lower hemispheres .
most of the existing balloon measurements of secondary electron flux at around @xmath89 @xcite were rather old and inconsistent with each other , as shown in figure  5 .
however , they consistently show much higher and flatter spectra than that of ams .
we therefore referred to balloon measurements and adopted a higher and flatter spectral model for the glast balloon experiment .
the vertically downward spectrum is @xmath90 for 100  mev4  gev and @xmath91 in energy 10100  mev .
the flux above the geomagnetic cutoff is expected to follow the functional form of proton primaries ( @xmath92 ) .
upward flux has been measured by @xcite in 1.02.4  gev and is similar to that of downward , and we used the same spectral model for both downward and upward for simplicity .
we did not find data at large zenith angle , and assume the same angular distribution as that for proton secondaries .
although ams @xcite observed an overabundance of positrons relative to electrons in the low geomagnetic latitude region , fluxes of these two particles are almost identical in the region of @xmath59 , as shown in table  2 .
a recent balloon measurement by @xcite also showed that the positron fraction is nearly 50% at @xmath89 .
we therefore used the same spectral shape and flux for positron secondaries . note that the data points of balloon experiments referenced , where only the flux of @xmath93 is given , have been divided by 2 to convert to the @xmath2 flux in figure  5 .
as for particles at balloon altitudes , the gamma - ray flux consists of primary and secondary components .
the primary component is of extraterrestrial origin and the intensity is attenuated by air at balloon altitude .
secondaries are produced by the interaction between cosmic - ray particles and the atmospheric molecules , and the intensity of the downward component depends on the residual atmospheric depth .
we modeled the extragalactic diffuse gamma - rays measured by several gamma - ray satellites , as compiled by @xcite . above 1
mev , the spectrum can be expressed by a power - law function of @xmath94 the zenith - angle dependence is the same as those of proton / alpha/@xmath10 primaries . for energies where glast bfem has sensitivity for gamma rays ( @xmath95 ) , the primary flux is lower than that of secondary downward gamma by more than an order of magnitude .
we therefore do not take into account the gamma primary component in the following analysis of bfem data (   5 ) .
secondary gamma - rays are produced either by interactions of cosmic - ray hadrons or bremsstrahlung of @xmath10 with nuclei in the atmosphere .
the spectrum has been measured by several satellite and balloon experiments @xcite . for residual atmosphere
less than @xmath96 , the vertically - downward gamma - ray flux is known to be proportional to the atmospheric depth , whereas the upward flux remains almost constant @xcite .
observations at palestine of the vertically downward spectrum at the atmospheric depth of @xmath97 are compiled in @xcite and @xcite , showing consistent results .
we multiplied their data by @xmath98 to scale them to the residual atmosphere of @xmath63 , the value for the glast balloon experiment , and modeled the spectrum as follows : for 1 - 1000 mev , it is @xmath99 where @xmath100 . for 1100  gev ,
the spectrum is @xmath101 the composite spectrum is shown with reference data in figure  6 .
note that we do not expect this component in satellite orbit .    for the vertically - upward component ,
only a few data are available @xcite as collected in figure  7 .
we found data taken at palestine , texas ( @xmath102 ) down to a few mev , whereas we found none below a few mev : so we substituted with data by @xcite at @xmath103 .
the flux depends on cut - off rigidity , as discussed in @xcite : they measured the flux of vertically - upward gammas above 80  mev , for which glast lat / bfem has high sensitivity , in @xmath27 of 417.5  gev , and showed that the flux anticorrelates the cutoff rigidity as @xmath104 .
@xcite confirmed the dependence by comparing the gamma - ray intensity above 35  mev at equator and at @xmath105 .
we adopted their results and scaled the flux at @xmath103 by a factor of @xmath106 to take the dependence into account .
the composite spectrum for vertically upward flux seems to be represented well by two power - law functions : for 120  mev , it is @xmath107 and for 201000  mev , @xmath108 above 1 gev we could not find data and adopted the same spectral index as that of downward gamma rays ( @xmath109 ) . then , the spectrum in 11000  gev is expressed as @xmath110 the spectral model with reference data points is given in figure  7 . as can be seen from the figure ,
observations are very scarce and give inconsistent results with each other .
we regard that the uncertainty is a factor of 3 .
angular dependence of the secondary gamma - ray flux has been measured by some authors @xcite and is known to depend strongly on zenith angle .
we constructed the model function referring to @xcite , where they measured the flux in 1.510 mev region at @xmath111 .
we multiplied their data between @xmath112 ( i.e. , downward component ) by 3.8/2.5 to correct the atmospheric depth , and expressed the relative flux as @xmath113 here , @xmath41 in model functions is given in radians .
true angular dependence of the flux and spectral shape could be correlated with each other . for simplicity
, we assumed that the functions above represents the zenith - angle dependence at 3  mev and the spectral shape is independent of zenith angle except for the difference between downward and upward .
our model function and referenced data are given in figure  8 with a typical measurement error , indicating that the uncertainty is large , up to a factor of 2 .
due to its short lifetime , we can neglect any primary muon component .
the spectrum of atmospheric muons is reported by @xcite , where they measured the flux of downward @xmath11 in 0.1 - 10 gev band . at float altitude ( residual atmospheric depth is @xmath114 ) , the @xmath4 spectrum can be expressed as @xmath115 for 300  mev20  gev , and as @xmath116 for 10300  mev .
we could not find data for the upward spectrum and assumed the same function for simplicity .
data of @xcite were obtained at geomagnetic polar region , whereas glast balloon experiment was conducted at @xmath62  gv .
they also measured muon spectra at @xmath62  gv in energy above 2 gev @xcite and obtained a consistent spectrum .
a recent measurement by @xcite at @xmath105 also gave a consistent spectrum for energies above 0.5  gev .
we therefore used the model functions above ( equation  25 and 26 ) for the glast balloon experiment .
the ratio of @xmath5 to @xmath4 , defined as @xmath117 , is found to be 1.6 in the data of @xcite : so we modeled the @xmath5 spectrum with the same spectral shape but 1.6 times higher normalization . as shown by @xcite and @xcite ,
the downward @xmath11 flux is proportional to the atmospheric depth .
we therefore assumed the same angular dependence as that of proton secondaries .
our model functions and reference data are given in figure  9 .
note that we do not expect muons in satellite orbit : even for 10  gev muons the life time is @xmath118 in the laboratory frame and they can travel only 50  km .
after the integration and test at stanford linear accelerator center and goddard space flight center , the instrument was shipped to the national scientific balloon facility ( nsbf ) in palestine , texas . on august 4 , 2001 , the bfem was successfully launched .
the balloon carried the instrument to an altitude of 38  km in about two hours , and achieved about three hours of level flight until the balloon reached the limit of telemetry from the nsbf .
the atmospheric depth at the float altitude was about @xmath119 .
due to a small leak of the pressure vessel , the internal pressure went down to 0.14 atmosphere and we failed to record all the data to hard disk .
however , a sample of triggered data was continuously obtained via telemetry with about 12  hz out of a total trigger rate of 500  hz .
more than @xmath120 events were recorded during the level flight and showed that all detectors and daq system kept working in a space - like high - counting environment .
the data obtained allow us to study the cosmic - ray background environment .
more details of the preparation and the flight of the bfem were described in @xcite . in the next section
, we compare the simulation prediction with the observed data .
after the flight we found two issues to be taken into account in data analysis . first , three layers out of 26 , i.e. , 7th layer , 15th layer and 16th layer , were found not to participate in the trigger , although hits in these layers were recorded normally when the trigger condition was satisfied .
we took this effect into account in the geant4 simulation .
fortunately , three or more consecutive pairs of x and y layer ( which is the minimum to cause a trigger ) worked in the lower part of the tkr ( 1st to 6th layer ) , in the middle part of the tkr ( 9th to 14th layer ) , and in the upper part of the tkr ( 17th to 26th layer ) , and the loss of trigger efficiency due to this failure was only @xmath70 30% .
the second issue was related to the event sampling in telemetry .
the sampling unintentionally had a bias toward events with smaller size ( primarily number of hits in the tkr ) in some data packets . to select unbiased events we required that the packet contain exactly 10 events ; a detailed study showed such packets to have an unbiased sample within 10% .
this selection reduces the number of events , but we still have 36k events to be used for data analysis .    in order to validate the cosmic - ray flux model and the monte - carlo simulator described in   2 and   3 , we compared the simulation prediction with the data .
the observed trigger rate was about 500  hz during the level flight and is in good agreement with the simulation prediction .
for further study , we divided events into two classes , `` charged events '' and `` neutral events . ''
a charged event is one in which any one of 13 acd tiles shows energy deposition above 0.38  mev ( corresponds to 0.2 of the mean energy deposited in an acd scintillator by a minimum ionizing particle , a mip ) .
the rates of charged and neutral events observed were 439  hz and 58  hz , respectively , and they are reproduced by the simulation within 5% .
the contribution of each particle type to the trigger is summarized in table  3 , implying that about 70% of neutral events are from atmospheric gamma - rays .
we also compared the count rate of each tkr layer and summarized the results in figure  10 .
there , 26 tkr layers are numbered from 0 to 25 in which the layer with number 0 is the closest to cal .
we see jumps in rate between layers 15 and 16 , and layers 17 and 18 in charged events .
these jumps correspond to the difference of area covered by ssds described in   2 ( area of 3/5 are covered by si in layers 1825 , 4/5 are covered in layers 16 and 17 , and fully covered in layers 015 ) . in neutral events we can see three big rate changes above layers 5 , 7 and 9 , corresponding to the thick lead converter .
the simulation reproduces not only the trigger rate but also these structures very well , validating our instrument simulator and background flux model .
the differences between the observations and model are all less than 10% , with the largest difference seen in lower layers ( layers 05 ) , where the model overpredicts the rates . in this region with no converter layers , the uncertainties of the low - energy electron , positron and gamma - ray models may affect the results . the difference could also be because of the uncertainty of passive materials under the acd implemented in the simulation .
we also applied the event reconstruction program that recognizes the pattern to find the tracks in tkr @xcite on both real data and simulation data .
the distribution of the number of reconstructed tracks is given in figure  11 , where the number is two for single track events ( one in x - layer and the other in y - layer ) and is four for double track events .
the distribution is well reproduced by simulation for both charged and neutral events .
we also selected the single track events out of the charged events and compared the goodness - of - fit ( @xmath121 ) which evaluates the straightness of the track between data and simulation , as shown in figure  12 .
the value of @xmath121 depends on a particle energy and we set it constant ( 30  mev ) to obtain a consistent value regardless of whether the particle hits the cal or not .
the two peaks in the figure correspond to tracks with a curved trajectory ( @xmath122 ) and those with a straight one ( @xmath123 ) .
the former consists of electrons , positrons , and gamma rays , whereas the latter is composed of protons , alphas and high energy muons .
the small difference of the lower peak position between data and simulation could be due to the misalignment of ssds . except for this
, the data are well reproduced by simulation , providing another evidence that the model flux of each particle type is correct .
finally we examined the zenith angle distribution of cosmic - ray particles .
we first selected single track events with a straight track by requiring @xmath121 to be less than 0.1 , and compared the zenith angle distribution between data and simulation prediction , as shown in figure  13 . in the reconstruction
, particles are assumed to go downward , therefore @xmath124 ranges from 1.0 ( vertically downward ) to 0.0 ( horizontal ) .
our flux model reproduces the data , not only for the vertical direction but also for large zenith angle down to @xmath125 , within 10% .
we also applied event selection criteria and studied the gamma - ray zenith - angle distribution .
the cuts we used here are not optimized for background reduction , for the number of events is limited .
instead , we implemented a set of loose cuts to filter out charged particles and save a sufficient number of gammas . to select downward gammas , we required events with no hit in the acd , double tracks in the tkr , and gaps between two tracks increasing as they go downward ( downward - opening v - shape trajectory ) . for upward gammas , we did not require that the event be neutral , since the generated electron / positron pair is expected to hit the acd .
instead , we required that the two bottommost tkr layers did not detect a hit and the tkr showed double tracks with upward - opening v - shape trajectory .
we also set cal energy threshold at 6  mev , half of the energy deposition by mip crossing one csi log , to eliminate events with interaction in cal .
the results are shown in figure  14 in which the bisector of two tracks are assumed to be the direction of gamma .
data are well reproduced by simulation down to @xmath126 for downward and up to @xmath127 for upward , validating the spectral and angular distribution models for gammas .
the background flux model used to compare with the bfem data involves many parameters , some of which are poorly defined . in the course of this investigation
, we tried a number of alternate assumptions in cases where no well - defined observations were available . the extent to which such alternatives affected the agreement with the data
provides an indication of how sensitive the model is to such parameters .
below we list some of these possibilities and describe their influence on the comparison .
@xmath128 fluxes of secondary proton , electron , and positron were at one time derived directly from the ams measurements .
models based on balloon measurements increased the trigger rate by about 15% and improved the agreement of charged events .
@xmath128 the model function of the secondary upward - moving gamma - ray flux were at one time simpler : in 1  mev to 1  gev , it was expressed by a single power - law function of index of -1.7 , with 1.6 times higher normalization at 1  mev .
the new model increased the neutral event rate by about 15% and improved the match between bfem data and simulation prediction .
@xmath128 we once expressed the angular dependence of the secondary charged particles by @xmath129 , an empirical model given in old rocket measurements @xcite .
the new model did not alter the trigger rate nor the angular distribution shown by figure  13 very much .
we adopted our model to take into account the fact that proton and muon secondary fluxes are proportional to the atmospheric depth , although the bfem data alone could not determine which model is better .
@xmath128 as described in   3 ,
fluxes of secondary @xmath88 and upward gamma are poorly known , although these particles contributes to the trigger significantly .
detailed study showed that the main component of secondary @xmath88 which causes the trigger is of energy of about 100  mev and that of upward gamma is of energy of 10100  mev , where the particle fluxes are uncertain by a factor of 23 .
however , if we change the @xmath88 flux by 50% , the trigger rate of charged event is changed by @xmath130 and disagrees with data .
similar disagreement will arise in neutral event rate by adjusting the flux of upward gamma .    with a substantial number of parameters in this model
, we can not be certain that all of them are simultaneously optimized .
what we have found is that specific variations in model parameters tend to affect only one aspect of the comparison between the model and the bfem observations .
the fact that we have obtained reasonable agreement with this range of observables - total rate , rate per layer , charged component , neutral component , straight tracks , curved tracks , and angular distribution - suggests that the model is a good approximation to reality .
we have constructed the glast bfem instrument simulator with a geant4 toolkit (   2 ) and the background flux models of abundant components ( proton , alpha , electron , positron , gamma ray and @xmath131 ) based on previous measurements and theoretical predictions (   3 ) .
the simulation successfully reproduces the observed data within 10% , indicating that the flux model is a good representation of the cosmic - ray background at balloon altitude at palestine , texas .
models for the entire low - earth orbit are also given in   3 , where the effect of cutoff rigidity and solar modulation potential are parameterized .
they are being used for the simulation of glast lat in orbit and the study of the background rejection .
the authors would like to thank assistance given by m. sjgren , k. hirano and h. mizushima in various phases of this work .
they are also grateful to a. tylka , r. battiston , y. komori , a. yamamoto and t. yoshida for helpful discussions about the cosmic - ray background flux .
they would also like to thank e. do couto e silva , h. tajima , t. kotani , r. c. hartman , l. rochester , t. burnett , r. dubois , j. wallace and glast bfem team and glast lat collaboration for their support and discussions .
they also would like to thank the staff of national scientific balloon facility for their excellent support of launch , flight and recovery .
abe , k. , et al .
2003 , physics letter b , 564 , 8 agostinelli , s. , et al . , 2003 ,
nuclear instruments and methods a , 506 , 250 alcaraz , j. , et al .
2000a , physics letter b , 472 , 215 alcaraz , j. , et al .
2000b , physics letter b , 484 , 10 alcaraz , j. , et al .
2000c , physics letter b , 490 , 27 alcaraz , j. , et al . 2000d , physics letter b , 494 , 193 barwick , s. w. , et al .
1998 , journal of geophysical research , 103 , 4817    boezio , m. , et al .
1999a , apj , 518 , 457 boezio , m. , et al . 1999b , physical review letters , 82 , 4757 boezio , m. , et al .
2000 , physical review d , 62 , 032007 boezio , m. , et al .
2003 , physical review d , 67 , 072003 burnett , t. h. , et al .
2002 , ieee transactions on nuclear science , 49 , 1904    couto e silva , e. do , et al .
2001 , nuclear instruments and methods a , 474 , 19 daniel , r. r. , & stephens , s. a. 1974 , rev .
space phys .
12 , 233 duvernois m. a. , et al .
, 2001 , proceeding of 27th international cosmic ray conference , 3 , 61    gehrels , n. , & michelson , p. 1999
, astroparticle physics , 11 , 277 gleeson , l. j. , & axford , w. i. 1968 , apj , 154 , 1011 golden , r. l. , et al .
1994 , apj , 436 , 769 imhof , w. l. , nakano , g. h. , & reagan , j. b. 1976 , journal of geophysical research , 81 , 2835 israel , m. h. 1969 , journal of geophysical research , 74 , 4701    kuryan , y. a. , mazets , y. p. , proskura , m. p. , & sokolov , i. a. 1979 , geomagnetism and aeronomy , 19 , 6 longair , m. s. 1992 , high energy astrophysics , vol . 1 ( 2nd edition ; cambridge : cambridge university press ) menn , w. , et al . , 2000 ,
apj 533 , 281 moskalenko , i. v. , & strong , a. w. 1998 , apj , 493 , 694    pennypacker , c. r. , smoot , g. f. , buffington , a. , muller , r. a. , & smith , l. t. 1973 , journal of geophysical research , 78 , 1515 ryan , j. m. , jennings , m. c. , radwin , m. d. , zych , a. d. , & white , r. s. 1979 , journal of geophysical research , 84 , 5279    sanuki , t. , et al . , 2000 , apj , 545 , 1135 seo , e. s. , ormes , j. f. , streitmatter , r. e. , stochaj , s. j. , jones , w. v. , stephens , s. a. , & bowen , t. 1991 , apj , 378 , 763 shnfelder , v. , graser , u. , & daugherty , j. 1977 , apj , 217 , 306 shnfelder , v. , graml , f. , & penningsfeld , f. -p .
1980 , apj , 240 , 350 singer , s. f. 1950 , physical review letters , 77 , 729 sreekumar , p. , et al . , 1998 ,
apj , 494 , 523      thompson , d. j. , et al . , 2002 ,
ieee transactions on nuclear science , 49 , 1898 van allen , j. a. , & gangnes , a. v. 1950a , physical review , 78 , 50 van allen , j. a. , & gangnes , a. v. 1950b , physical review , 79 , 51    verma , s. d. 1967 , journal of geophysical research , 72 , 915 webber , w. r. 1983 , in composition and origin of cosmic rays , ed . m. m. shapiro , ( dordrecht : d. reidel publishing co. ) , 83 zombeck m. v. 1990 , handbook of space astronomy and astrophysics ( 2nd edition ; cambridge : cambridge university press )    cccc region & direction & model & parameters + @xmath132 & down / upward & cutoff pl & 0.136/0.123/0.155/0.51 + @xmath133 & down / upward & broken pl & 0.1/0.87/600/2.53 + @xmath134 & down / upward & broken pl & 0.1/1.09/600/2.40 + @xmath135 & down / upward & broken pl & 0.1/1.19/600/2.54 + @xmath136 & down / upward & broken pl & 0.1/1.18/400/2.31 + @xmath137 & downward & broken pl & 0.13/1.1/300/2.25 + & upward & & 0.13/1.1/300/2.95 + @xmath138 & downward & broken pl & 0.2/1.5/400/1.85 + & upward & & 0.2/1.5/400/4.16 + @xmath139 & downward & cutoff pl & 0.23/0.017/1.83/0.177 + & upward & broken pl & 0.23/1.53/400/4.68 + @xmath140 & downward & cutoff pl & 0.44/0.037/1.98/0.21 + & upward & broken pl & 0.44/2.25/400/3.09 +    cccc region & @xmath141 ratio & model & parameters for @xmath2 spectrum + @xmath142 & 3.33 & broken pl & 0.3/2.2/3/4.0 + @xmath143 & 1.66 & pl & 0.3/2.7 + @xmath144 & 1.0 & pl+hump & 0.3/3.3/@xmath145/1.5/2.3 + @xmath139 & 1.0 & pl+hump & 0.3/3.5/@xmath146/2.0/1.6 + @xmath140 & 1.0 & pl & 0.3/2.5 +    lllllllll particle type & proton & alpha & @xmath2/@xmath3 & @xmath147 2ndary & @xmath147 2ndary & @xmath11 & total & data + & & & & downward & upward & & & + charged events & 216 & 19 & 110 & 12 & 42 & 39 & 438 & 439 + neutral events & 4.8 & 0.1 & 12.3 & 16.8 & 26.8 & 0.5 & 61.3 & 58.2 +