Study and validation of a new "3D Calorimetry" of hot nuclei with the HIPSE event generator

Abstract: In nuclear thermodynamics, the determination of the excitation energy of hot nuclei is a fundamental experimental problem. Instrumental physicists have been trying to solve this problem for several years by building the most exhaustive 4Pi detector arrays and perfecting their calorimetry techniques. In a recent paper, a proposal for a new calorimetry, called "3D calorimetry", was made. It tries to optimize the separation between the particles and fragments emitted by the Quasi-Projectile and the other possible contributions. This can be achieved by determining the experimental probability for a given nucleus of a nuclear reaction to be emitted by the Quasi-Projectile. It has been developed for the INDRA data. In the present work, we wanted to dissect and validate this new method of characterization of a hot Quasi-Projectile. So we tried to understand and control it completely to determine these limits. Using the HIPSE event generator and a software simulating the functioning of INDRA, we were able to achieve this goal and provide a quantitative estimation of the quality of the QP characterization.

\section{\label{sec:level1}First-level heading:\protect\\ The line
break was forced \lowercase{via} \textbackslash\textbackslash}

This sample document demonstrates proper use of REV\TeX~4 (and
\LaTeXe) in mansucripts prepared for submission to APS
journals. Further information can be found in the REV\TeX~4
documentation included in the distribution or available at
\url{http://publish.aps.org/revtex4/}.

When commands are referred to in this example file, they are always
shown with their required arguments, using normal \TeX{} format. In
this format, \verb+#1+, \verb+#2+, etc. stand for required
author-supplied arguments to commands. For example, in
\verb+\section{#1}+ the \verb+#1+ stands for the title text of the
author's section heading, and in \verb+\title{#1}+ the \verb+#1+
stands for the title text of the paper.

Line breaks in section headings at all levels can be introduced using
\textbackslash\textbackslash. A blank input line tells \TeX\ that the
paragraph has ended. Note that top-level section headings are
automatically uppercased. If a specific letter or word should appear in
lowercase instead, you must escape it using \verb+\lowercase{#1}+ as
in the word ``via'' above.

\subsection{\label{sec:level2}Second-level heading: Formatting}

This file may be formatted in both the \texttt{preprint} and
\texttt{twocolumn} styles. \texttt{twocolumn} format may be used to
mimic final journal output. Either format may be used for submission
purposes; however, for peer review and production, APS will format the
article using the \texttt{preprint} class option. Hence, it is
essential that authors check that their manuscripts format acceptably
under \texttt{preprint}. Manuscripts submitted to APS that do not
format correctly under the \texttt{preprint} option may be delayed in
both the editorial and production processes.

The \texttt{widetext} environment will make the text the width of the
full page, as on page~\pageref{eq:wideeq}. (Note the use the
\verb+\pageref{#1}+ to get the page number right automatically.) The
width-changing commands only take effect in \texttt{twocolumn}
formatting. It has no effect if \texttt{preprint} formatting is chosen
instead.

\subsubsection{\label{sec:level3}Third-level heading: References and Footnotes}
Reference citations in text use the commands \verb+\cite{#1}+ or
\verb+\onlinecite{#1}+. \verb+#1+ may contain letters and numbers.
The reference itself is specified by a \verb+\bibitem{#1}+ command
with the same argument as the \verb+\cite{#1}+ command.
\verb+\bibitem{#1}+ commands may be crafted by hand or, preferably,
generated by using Bib\TeX. REV\TeX~4 includes Bib\TeX\ style files
\verb+apsrev.bst+ and \verb+apsrmp.bst+ appropriate for
\textit{Physical Review} and \textit{Reviews of Modern Physics},
respectively. REV\TeX~4 will automatically choose the style
appropriate for the journal specified in the document class
options. This sample file demonstrates the basic use of Bib\TeX\
through the use of \verb+\bibliography+ command which references the
\verb+assamp.bib+ file. Running Bib\TeX\ (typically \texttt{bibtex
apssamp}) after the first pass of \LaTeX\ produces the file
\verb+apssamp.bbl+ which contains the automatically formatted
\verb+\bibitem+ commands (including extra markup information via
\verb+\bibinfo+ commands). If not using Bib\TeX, the
\verb+thebibiliography+ environment should be used instead.

To cite bibliography entries, use the \verb+\cite{#1}+ command. Most
journal styles will display the corresponding number(s) in square
brackets: \cite{feyn54,witten2001}. To avoid the square brackets, use
\verb+\onlinecite{#1}+: Refs.~\onlinecite{feyn54} and
\onlinecite{witten2001}. REV\TeX\ ``collapses'' lists of
consecutive reference numbers where possible. We now cite everyone
together \cite{feyn54,witten2001,epr}, and once again
(Refs.~\onlinecite{epr,feyn54,witten2001}). Note that the references
were also sorted into the correct numerical order as well.

When the \verb+prb+ class option is used, the \verb+\cite{#1}+ command
displays the reference's number as a superscript rather than using
square brackets. Note that the location of the \verb+\cite{#1}+
command should be adjusted for the reference style: the superscript
references in \verb+prb+ style must appear after punctuation;
otherwise the reference must appear before any punctuation. This
sample was written for the regular (non-\texttt{prb}) citation style.
The command \verb+\onlinecite{#1}+ in the \texttt{prb} style also
displays the reference on the baseline.

Footnotes are produced using the \verb+\footnote{#1}+ command. Most
APS journal styles put footnotes into the bibliography. REV\TeX~4 does
this as well, but instead of interleaving the footnotes with the
references, they are listed at the end of the references\footnote{This
may be improved in future versions of REV\TeX.}. Because the correct
numbering of the footnotes must occur after the numbering of the
references, an extra pass of \LaTeX\ is required in order to get the
numbering correct.

\section{Math and Equations}
Inline math may be typeset using the \verb+$+ delimiters. Bold math
symbols may be achieved using the \verb+bm+ package and the
\verb+\bm{#1}+ command it supplies. For instance, a bold $\alpha$ can
be typeset as \verb+$\bm{\alpha}$+ giving $\bm{\alpha}$. Fraktur and
Blackboard (or open face or double struck) characters should be
typeset using the \verb+\mathfrak{#1}+ and \verb+\mathbb{#1}+ commands
respectively. Both are supplied by the \texttt{amssymb} package. For
example, \verb+$\mathbb{R}$+ gives $\mathbb{R}$ and
\verb+$\mathfrak{G}$+ gives $\mathfrak{G}$

In \LaTeX\ there are many different ways to display equations, and a
few preferred ways are noted below. Displayed math will center by
default. Use the class option \verb+fleqn+ to flush equations left.

Below we have numbered single-line equations; this is the most common
type of equation in \textit{Physical Review}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_+(p)\alt{\bf [}2|{\bf p}|(|{\bf p}|+p_z){\bf ]}^{-1/2}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
|{\bf p}|+p_z\\
px+ip_y
\end{array}\right)\;,
\\
\left\{%
 \openone234567890abc123\alpha\beta\gamma\delta1234556\alpha\beta
 \frac{1\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}%
\right\}%
\label{eq:one}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note the open one in Eq.~(\ref{eq:one}).

Not all numbered equations will fit within a narrow column this
way. The equation number will move down automatically if it cannot fit
on the same line with a one-line equation:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
 ab12345678abc123456abcdef\alpha\beta\gamma\delta1234556\alpha\beta
 \frac{1\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}%
\right\}.
\end{equation}

When the \verb+\label{#1}+ command is used [cf. input for
Eq.~(\ref{eq:one})], the equation can be referred to in text without
knowing the equation number that \TeX\ will assign to it. Just
use \verb+\ref{#1}+, where \verb+#1+ is the same name that used in
the \verb+\label{#1}+ command.

Unnumbered single-line equations can be typeset
using the \verb+\[+, \verb+\]+ format:
\[g^+g^+ \rightarrow g^+g^+g^+g^+ \dots ~,~~q^+q^+\rightarrow
q^+g^+g^+ \dots ~. \]

\subsection{Multiline equations}

Multiline equations are obtained by using the \verb+eqnarray+
environment.  Use the \verb+\nonumber+ command at the end of each line
to avoid assigning a number:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}=&&ig_Z^2(4E_1E_2)^{1/2}(l_i^2)^{-1}
\delta_{\sigma_1,-\sigma_2}
(g_{\sigma_2}^e)^2\chi_{-\sigma_2}(p_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times
[\epsilon_jl_i\epsilon_i]_{\sigma_1}\chi_{\sigma_1}(p_1),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum \vert M^{\text{viol}}_g \vert ^2&=&g^{2n-4}_S(Q^2)~N^{n-2}
        (N^2-1)\nonumber \\
 & &\times \left( \sum_{i<j}\right)
  \sum_{\text{perm}}
 \frac{1}{S_{12}}
 \frac{1}{S_{12}}
 \sum_\tau c^f_\tau~.
\end{eqnarray}
\textbf{Note:} Do not use \verb+\label{#1}+ on a line of a multiline
equation if \verb+\nonumber+ is also used on that line. Incorrect
cross-referencing will result. Notice the use \verb+\text{#1}+ for
using a Roman font within a math environment.

To set a multiline equation without \emph{any} equation
numbers, use the \verb+\begin{eqnarray*}+,
\verb+\end{eqnarray*}+ format:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum \vert M^{\text{viol}}_g \vert ^2&=&g^{2n-4}_S(Q^2)~N^{n-2}
        (N^2-1)\\
 & &\times \left( \sum_{i<j}\right)
 \left(
  \sum_{\text{perm}}\frac{1}{S_{12}S_{23}S_{n1}}
 \right)
 \frac{1}{S_{12}}~.
\end{eqnarray*}
To obtain numbers not normally produced by the automatic numbering,
use the \verb+\tag{#1}+ command, where \verb+#1+ is the desired
equation number. For example, to get an equation number of
(\ref{eq:mynum}),
\begin{equation}
g^+g^+ \rightarrow g^+g^+g^+g^+ \dots ~,~~q^+q^+\rightarrow
q^+g^+g^+ \dots ~. \tag{2.6$'$}\label{eq:mynum}
\end{equation}

A few notes on \verb=\tag{#1}=. \verb+\tag{#1}+ requires
\texttt{amsmath}. The \verb+\tag{#1}+ must come before the
\verb+\label{#1}+, if any. The numbering set with \verb+\tag{#1}+ is
\textit{transparent} to the automatic numbering in REV\TeX{};
therefore, the number must be known ahead of time, and it must be
manually adjusted if other equations are added. \verb+\tag{#1}+ works
with both single-line and multiline equations. \verb+\tag{#1}+ should
only be used in exceptional case - do not use it to number all
equations in a paper.

Enclosing single-line and multiline equations in
\verb+\begin{subequations}+ and \verb+\end{subequations}+ will produce
a set of equations that are ``numbered'' with letters, as shown in
Eqs.~(\ref{subeq:1}) and (\ref{subeq:2}) below:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:whole}
\begin{equation}
\left\{
 abc123456abcdef\alpha\beta\gamma\delta1234556\alpha\beta
 \frac{1\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}
\right\},\label{subeq:1}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}=&&ig_Z^2(4E_1E_2)^{1/2}(l_i^2)^{-1}
(g_{\sigma_2}^e)^2\chi_{-\sigma_2}(p_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times
[\epsilon_i]_{\sigma_1}\chi_{\sigma_1}(p_1).\label{subeq:2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Putting a \verb+\label{#1}+ command right after the
\verb+\begin{subequations}+, allows one to
reference all the equations in a subequations environment. For
example, the equations in the preceding subequations environment were
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:whole}).

\subsubsection{Wide equations}
The equation that follows is set in a wide format, i.e., it spans
across the full page. The wide format is reserved for long equations
that cannot be easily broken into four lines or less:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}^{(\text{d})}=
 g_{\sigma_2}^e
 \left(
   \frac{[\Gamma^Z(3,21)]_{\sigma_1}}{Q_{12}^2-M_W^2}
  +\frac{[\Gamma^Z(13,2)]_{\sigma_1}}{Q_{13}^2-M_W^2}
 \right)
 + x_WQ_e
 \left(
   \frac{[\Gamma^\gamma(3,21)]_{\sigma_1}}{Q_{12}^2-M_W^2}
  +\frac{[\Gamma^\gamma(13,2)]_{\sigma_1}}{Q_{13}^2-M_W^2}
 \right)\;. \label{eq:wideeq}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
This is typed to show the output is in wide format.
(Since there is no input line between \verb+\equation+ and
this paragraph, there is no paragraph indent for this paragraph.)
\section{Cross-referencing}
REV\TeX{} will automatically number sections, equations, figure
captions, and tables. In order to reference them in text, use the
\verb+\label{#1}+ and \verb+\ref{#1}+ commands. To reference a
particular page, use the \verb+\pageref{#1}+ command.

The \verb+\label{#1}+ should appear in a section heading, within an
equation, or in a table or figure caption. The \verb+\ref{#1}+ command
is used in the text where the citation is to be displayed.  Some
examples: Section~\ref{sec:level1} on page~\pageref{sec:level1},
Table~\ref{tab:table1}, and Fig.~\ref{fig:epsart}.

\section{Figures and Tables}
Figures and tables are typically ``floats'' which means that their
final position is determined by \LaTeX\ while the document is being
typeset. \LaTeX\ isn't always successful in placing floats
optimally.

Figures may be inserted by using either the \texttt{graphics} or
\texttt{graphix} packages. These packages both define the
\verb+\includegraphics{#1}+ command, but they differ in how optional
arguments for specifying the orientation, scaling, and translation of the
figure. Fig.~\ref{fig:epsart} shows a figure that is small enough to
fit in a single column. It is embedded using the \texttt{figure}
environment which provides both the caption and the imports the figure
file.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig_1
\caption{\label{fig:epsart} A figure caption. The figure captions are
automatically numbered.}
\end{figure}

Fig.~\ref{fig:wide} is a figure that is too wide for a single column,
so instead the \texttt{figure*} environment has been used.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{fig_2
\caption{\label{fig:wide}Use the figure* environment to get a wide
figure that spans the page in \texttt{twocolumn} formatting.}
\end{figure*}

The heart of any table is the \texttt{tabular} environment which gives
the rows of the tables. Each row consists of column entries separated
by \verb+&+'s and terminates with \textbackslash\textbackslash. The
required argument for the \texttt{tabular} environment
specifies how data are displayed in the columns. For instance, entries
may be centered, left-justified, right-justified, aligned on a decimal
point. Extra column-spacing may be be specified as well, although
REV\TeX~4 sets this spacing so that the columns fill the width of the
table. Horizontal rules are typeset using the \verb+\hline+
command. The doubled (or Scotch) rules that appear at the top and
bottom of a table can be achieved enclosing the \texttt{tabular}
environment within a \texttt{ruledtabular} environment. Rows whose
columns span multiple columns can be typeset using the
\verb+\multicolumn{#1}{#2}{#3}+ command (for example, see the first
row of Table~\ref{tab:table3}).

Tables~\ref{tab:table1}-\ref{tab:table4} show various effects. Tables
that fit in a narrow column are contained in a \texttt{table}
environment. Table~\ref{tab:table3} is a wide table set with the
\texttt{table*} environment. Long tables may need to break across
pages. The most straightforward way to accomplish this is to specify
the \verb+[H]+ float placement on the \texttt{table} or
\texttt{table*} environment. However, the standard \LaTeXe\ package
\texttt{longtable} will give more control over how tables break and
will allow headers and footers to be specified for each page of the
table. A simple example of the use of \texttt{longtable} can be found
in the file \texttt{summary.tex} that is included with the REV\TeX~4
distribution.

There are two methods for setting footnotes within a table (these
footnotes will be displayed directly below the table rather than at
the bottom of the page or in the bibliography). The easiest
and preferred method is just to use the \verb+\footnote{#1}+
command. This will automatically enumerate the footnotes with
lowercase roman letters. However, it is sometimes necessary to have
multiple entries in the table share the same footnote. In this case,
there is no choice but to manually create the footnotes using
\verb+\footnotemark[#1]+ and \verb+\footnotetext[#1]{#2}+.
\texttt{\#1} is a numeric value. Each time the same value for
\texttt{\#1} is used, the same mark is produced in the table. The
\verb+\footnotetext[#1]{#2}+ commands are placed after the \texttt{tabular}
environment. Examine the \LaTeX\ source and output for
Tables~\ref{tab:table1} and \ref{tab:table2} for examples.

\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table1}This is a narrow table which fits into a
narrow column when using \texttt{twocolumn} formatting. Note that
REV\TeX~4 adjusts the intercolumn spacing so that the table fills the
entire width of the column. Table captions are numbered
automatically. This table illustrates left-aligned, centered, and
right-aligned columns.  }
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcr}
Left\footnote{Note a.}&Centered\footnote{Note b.}&Right\\
\hline
1 & 2 & 3\\
10 & 20 & 30\\
100 & 200 & 300\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table2}A table with more columns still fits
properly in a column. Note that several entries share the same
footnote. Inspect the \LaTeX\ input for this table to see
exactly how it is done.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
 &$r_c$ (\AA)&$r_0$ (\AA)&$\kappa r_0$&
 &$r_c$ (\AA) &$r_0$ (\AA)&$\kappa r_0$\\
\hline
Cu& 0.800 & 14.10 & 2.550 &Sn\footnotemark[1]
& 0.680 & 1.870 & 3.700 \\
Ag& 0.990 & 15.90 & 2.710 &Pb\footnotemark[2]
& 0.450 & 1.930 & 3.760 \\
Au& 1.150 & 15.90 & 2.710 &Ca\footnotemark[3]
& 0.750 & 2.170 & 3.560 \\
Mg& 0.490 & 17.60 & 3.200 &Sr\footnotemark[4]
& 0.900 & 2.370 & 3.720 \\
Zn& 0.300 & 15.20 & 2.970 &Li\footnotemark[2]
& 0.380 & 1.730 & 2.830 \\
Cd& 0.530 & 17.10 & 3.160 &Na\footnotemark[5]
& 0.760 & 2.110 & 3.120 \\
Hg& 0.550 & 17.80 & 3.220 &K\footnotemark[5]
&  1.120 & 2.620 & 3.480 \\
Al& 0.230 & 15.80 & 3.240 &Rb\footnotemark[3]
& 1.330 & 2.800 & 3.590 \\
Ga& 0.310 & 16.70 & 3.330 &Cs\footnotemark[4]
& 1.420 & 3.030 & 3.740 \\
In& 0.460 & 18.40 & 3.500 &Ba\footnotemark[5]
& 0.960 & 2.460 & 3.780 \\
Tl& 0.480 & 18.90 & 3.550 & & & & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\footnotetext[1]{Here's the first, from Ref.~\onlinecite{feyn54}.}
\footnotetext[2]{Here's the second.}
\footnotetext[3]{Here's the third.}
\footnotetext[4]{Here's the fourth.}
\footnotetext[5]{And etc.}
\end{table}

\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:table3}This is a wide table that spans the page
width in \texttt{twocolumn} mode. It is formatted using the
\texttt{table*} environment. It also demonstates the use of
\textbackslash\texttt{multicolumn} in rows with entries that span
more than one column.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
 &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$D_{4h}^1$}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$D_{4h}^5$}\\
 Ion&1st alternative&2nd alternative&lst alternative
&2nd alternative\\ \hline
 K&$(2e)+(2f)$&$(4i)$ &$(2c)+(2d)$&$(4f)$ \\
 Mn&$(2g)$\footnote{The $z$ parameter of these positions is $z\sim\frac{1}{4}$.}
 &$(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)$&$(4e)$&$(2a)+(2b)$\\
 Cl&$(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)$&$(2g)$\footnotemark[1]
 &$(4e)^{\text{a}}$\\
 He&$(8r)^{\text{a}}$&$(4j)^{\text{a}}$&$(4g)^{\text{a}}$\\
 Ag& &$(4k)^{\text{a}}$& &$(4h)^{\text{a}}$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}

\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table4}Numbers in columns Three--Five have been
aligned by using the ``d'' column specifier (requires the
\texttt{dcolumn} package). Non-numeric entries (those entries without
a ``.'') in a ``d'' column are aligned on the decimal point. Use the
``D'' specifier for more complex layouts. }
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccddd}
One&Two&\mbox{Three}&\mbox{Four}&\mbox{Five}\\
\hline
one&two&\mbox{three}&\mbox{four}&\mbox{five}\\
He&2& 2.77234 & 45672. & 0.69 \\
C\footnote{Some tables require footnotes.}
  &C\footnote{Some tables need more than one footnote.}
  & 12537.64 & 37.66345 & 86.37 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}

\textit{Physical Review} style requires that the initial citation of
figures or tables be in numerical order in text, so don't cite
Fig.~\ref{fig:wide} until Fig.~\ref{fig:epsart} has been cited.

\begin{acknowledgments}
We wish to acknowledge the support of the author community in using
REV\TeX{}, offering suggestions and encouragement, testing new versions,
\dots.
\end{acknowledgments}

\section{\label{sec1}INTRODUCTION}
Heavy-ion collisions in the Fermi energy domain allow the formation of very hot nuclei. So we want to study the evolution of these hot nuclei, as the deposited energy increases. We should be able to observe a ``phase transition'' of these drops of nuclear matter. But we must keep in mind that the collision processes in this energy range are very complex. In this energy region of 10 - 100 A.MeV, there is a competition between the effects of the nucleus mean field and the nucleon-nucleon interaction \cite{Lehaut1, Lopez1}. This leads  to an evolution of reaction mechanisms \cite{Fuchs1}, which gradually develop from complete (incomplete) fusion  or deeply inelastic collisions with a statistical emission towards binary collisions \cite{Steck1, Lott1, Baldwin1, Bougault1} accompagnied by particle emissions at different equilibration degrees,  neck emission \cite{Stuttge1, Toke1, Lukasik1, Bocage1, DiToro1} and pre-equilibrium  \cite{ Germain1, TLefort1}. It is in this context that the nuclear physicists by means of calorimetry \cite{Viola2}, must try to isolate the hot nuclei formed during these processes and to characterize them in the best possible way.  ``3D calorimetry'' is presented in detail in two references \cite{Vient1, Vient2}. The basic idea is that, in a restricted area of the velocity space in the QP frame, we can completely define the spatio-energetic characteristics of the evaporated nuclei by the QP. By comparison with the other areas of the velocity space, the probability for a nucleus produced in the collision to be evaporated by the QP can be determined. Then, event by event,  these probabilities are used to reconstruct the QP, \textit{i.e.} to determine its mass, charge, velocity in the center of mass (c.m.) frame and excitation energy. This calorimetry was applied to the data of Xe+Sn reactions acquired with the INDRA detector array \cite{Pouthas1} at different incident energies. The presented work is devoted to the study and validation of this new experimental calorimetry using the HIPSE event generator \cite{Lacroix1}. In addition, a software simulating as realistically as possible all the detection phases by INDRA \cite{Copinet1, Cussol1} will be used. All the events supplied by HIPSE can be filtered by it.
 In the first section, the event generator used is qualified by a quantitative comparison with the data obtained by the INDRA collaboration for the system of interest. We want verify that it is realistic and correct enough to be used for calorimetry validation. In the following section, we apply the new calorimetry to experimental data  and filtered events provided by HIPSE. By means of a systematic comparison between both, we will quantitatively verify  the quality of the characterization of the hot QP. In the last section, we conclude about this work.

\section{The qualification of the HIPSE event generator\label{sec2}}
The event generator, HIPSE (Heavy Ion Phase Space Exploration), is described in detail in the reference \cite{Lacroix1}.

HIPSE, compared to commonly used generators, is capable of reproducing most of the processes occurring in heavy-ion collisions at intermediate energies. This is indeed a fundamental contribution. It can manage the pre-equilibrium phase, the physics of the participating zone and the phase of de-excitation of the formed hot nuclei, taking into account all the spatio-temporal correlations due to the Coulomb interaction. It thus allows us to go further in the study of the experimental calorimetry.

It is important for our study to check that the event generator is able to  correctly take into account the static and dynamic characteristics of collisions studied. This has already been done in part in the reference \cite{Lacroix1}. In this article, it is clear that HIPSE, for the system Xe + Sn, is capable of correctly reproducing the charge distributions, the correlations between the charge and the parallel velocity of nuclei produced, the mean kinetic energy according to the charge or to the angle of emission in the center of mass. It allows to find at 50 A.MeV the distribution of the flow angle for complete events, for which 80\% of the initial charge and linear momentum have been detected,  as well as the densities of particles per unit of velocity along the beam, for different types of particles, giving a spatial-energetic correlations close to those of the experimental ones. This is fundamental for the analysis we want to perform with the data supplied by this generator.
It is also important to note that the requirements used in HIPSE to describe the formation of the clusters at mid-rapidity or the pre-equilibrium are also applied in the nIPSE nucleon-nucleus collision model \cite{Lacroix2}. It is also capable of reproducing very well the physical characteristics of the particles produced during such a collision, as shown by \cite{Lacroix2}.
To pass all generated events through the INDRA multi-detector, the software simulating the entire operation of this apparatus and described in the reference \cite{Copinet1}, is always used.
The generated events, detected by this virtual detector, will be called filtered events.
\subsection{General characteristics of the collisions\label{ssec2.1}}
 First, we will see how the selections of the events used to perform calorimetry of nuclei, can be used equally for data and  HIPSE. With the help of HIPSE, we also want to estimate the cross sections of detected events and the impact parameters actually studied.
In order to verify the quality of the reaction detection \cite{Steck2, Vient1}, the figure \ref{fig1} shows, for filtered events, the two-dimensional graphs giving the total detected charge normalized to the initial total charge as a function of the detected pseudo-momentum normalized to the total initial pseudo-momentum, on the left for all the events actually detected by INDRA and on the right for the ``studied events'', \textit{i.e.} complete events at the front of the center of mass.
\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.3cm,height=8.81cm]{./fig1.eps}}
\caption{Two-dimensional graphs giving the total detected charge normalized to the initial total charge as a function of the detected pseudo-momentum normalized to the total initial pseudo-momentum (the z scale is logarithmic). This is made for the data and for the generator HIPSE, in two cases: with all the events seen by INDRA and with the events said ``complete'' at the front of the center of mass.\label{fig1}}
\end{figure}
 For the latter, it is the total pseudo-momentum of particles and fragments, located at the front of the c.m., which is normalized  to the initial pseudo-momentum of the projectile. We note a very good qualitative agreement between simulation and data.
Figure \ref{fig2} shows the distributions of the impact parameter given by HIPSE for various event selections in collisions Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV. We generated 3 million events with impact parameters between 0 and 11 fermis closed for this study. INDRA detected only 85 \% of these events, \textit{i.e.} about 70 \%  of the total geometrical cross section. Very peripheral collisions are almost invisible for this incident energy. Our criterion of completeness at the front of the center of mass has further reduced our events, as only about 1/3 of the HIPSE events are selected.

\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.8cm,height=12.39cm]{./fig2.eps}}
\caption {Distributions of impact parameters generated by HIPSE for different criteria of  event completeness. \textbf{a)} For all the generated events, for events with at least one detected particle and for studied events, \textit{i.e.} a completeness at the front of the c.m.. \textbf{b)} For all generated events, for studied events, for events with different total completeness.\label{fig2}}
\end{figure}
It is important to note that this loss is present over the full range of impact parameters as shown again in figures \ref{fig2}-a and \ref{fig4}-a. Various indicative criteria for completeness are presented in figure \ref{fig2}-b. We immediately see that when we ask for completeness not only in the forward hemisphere of the center of mass but in the whole velocity space, the proportion of the events that satisfy the selection decreases sharply because of the very high detection threshold for emissions from the \textbf{Q}uasi-\textbf{T}arget (\textbf{QT}). Finally, only 16\%, 6.5\% and 1.4\% of total geometrical cross section are retained for completeness requirements of 70\%, 80\% and 90\% respectively. These criteria eliminate all the events with an impact parameter greater than 8 fm. The  80\% completeness criterion has been widely used by the INDRA collaboration. A study, performed by N.Marie and al. in reference \cite{Marie2} on the data Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV, showed that such a selection represents 12.5 \% of the events effectively seen by INDRA. If we do an equivalent calculation with HIPSE, we find a close but not identical result of 9.3 \%.

Experimentally we do not have direct access to the impact parameter. But, it can be deduced from an experimental observable strongly correlated with it, see for example the references  \cite{Peter1,Marie2,Cavata1, Bowman1, Phair1}. In particular, N.Marie et al \cite{Marie2} used the transverse kinetic energy of the LCPs assuming a maximum impact parameter of 12.2 fm.
\begin{figure}[htpb]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height=8.45cm]{./fig3.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)}  Two-dimensional graph of the normalized transverse kinetic energy of the particles of $Z\leq2$ as a function of the impact parameter, provided by HIPSE for  Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV, for all the events seen by INDRA. The blue triangles correspond to the average correlation between normalized $E _{tr12}$  and $B$ determined by N.Marie et al in the reference \cite{Marie2}. The pink open circles correspond to the result of the appliying experimental technique used in \cite{Marie2} to the data provided by HIPSE. The full black circles, correspond to the average correlation calculated from the two-dimensional graph. \textbf{b)} For HIPSE only, as a) part, for complete events in the forward hemisphere of the center of mass seen by INDRA. The full black circles correspond to the average correlation calculated from the two-dimensional graph. \label{fig3}}
\end{figure}
 Figure \ref{fig3} shows the correlation of this transverse kinetic energy $E_{tr12}$, normalized to the available energy perpendicular to the direction of the beam in the center of mass, as a function of the impact parameter $B$, for the system $^{129}$Xe + $^{nat}$Sn at 50 A.MeV, as supplied by HIPSE.  We also drew the mean correlation between these two variables (full black  circles). The correlation is shown for all events detected by INDRA in figure \ref{fig3}-a and for those selected by the specific completeness, defined above, at the front of the center of mass in figure \ref{fig3}-b. In figure \ref{fig3}-a, we can see the mean values of this correlation: the blue triangles represent the result of the calculation applied to the data, performed in \cite{Marie2}  and the pink open circles represent the mean values extracted from HIPSE data with the same method. As can be seen, the agreement between the mean correlation (full black circles) and the calculated average (pink open circles) for HIPSE data is good especially between 2 and 8 fermis.
\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.8cm,height=12.39cm]{./fig4.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)} Average detection efficiency as a function of the impact parameter for differient completeness criteria obtained from HIPSE filtering for the system Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV. \textbf{a)} Comparison of the average detection efficiency as a function of the normalized $E_{tr12}$ between HIPSE and data.\label{fig4}}
\end{figure}
 This method is based on the assumption that the efficiency of detecting an event is independent from the impact parameter. Figure \ref{fig4}-a shows that this hypothesis is not true beyond 8.5 fermis closed. In figure \ref{fig3}, it is important to note that the average correlation for the studied events, in HIPSE, is the same that for all the events detected by INDRA. Completeness does not interfere the existing correlation.
On the other hand, figure \ref{fig3} shows a systematic discrepancy between data and HIPSE, even if the evolution of the curve is very similar. To understand this difference, we can refer to  figure \ref{fig5}, where the normalized transverse kinetic energy distributions of LCPs are shown for experimental and simulated events. The number of events studied (blue graph) shows a large difference between data and HIPSE. For data, there is an strong contribution for very low values of normalized $E_{tr12}$, \textit{i.e.} for very peripheral collisions, which is not the case in the simulation. This seems to indicate, for HIPSE, that the Quasi-Projectiles, for these very peripheral collisions, are not correctly detected. In addition, we note that HIPSE gives  maximum values of  transverse kinetic energy slightly higher than the data.

\begin{figure}[htpb]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height=8.65cm]{./fig5.eps}}
\caption{Comparison of the distributions of normalized $E_{tr12}$ for HIPSE and data for all the detected events and ``studied events''.\label{fig5}}
\end{figure}
 The figure \ref{fig4} confirms this finding. In the latter at the top, the efficiency of event detection, supplied by HIPSE, is presented according to the impact parameter for different completeness criteria. At the bottom, in figure \ref{fig4}-b, there are the experimental rates of detection of the ``studied collisions'', \textit{i.e.} complete events in the forward hemisphere of the c.m., as a function of the normalized $E_{tr12}$ for the data and HIPSE. They were obtained by the ratio of the two curves of the figure \ref{fig5}.
It is immediately noticeable that for HIPSE, the detection efficiency as a function of the normalized $E_{tr12}$ obtained for the ``studied events''  is very similar to that obtained as a function of the impact parameter $B$ for these same events, knowing that $E_{tr12}$ increases when the impact parameter $B$ decreases (both curves in blue dotted line). This means that the  efficiency of data experimental detection is better for central collisions, whereas it is less effective for peripheral collisions than for HIPSE (with the exception of the very peripheral collisions).

We also want to study whether HIPSE can correctly reproduce the different reaction mechanisms (\textbf{Statistical} events or events with \textbf{Neck} emission), which have already been shown and discussed in the references \cite{Vient2, Colin1, Normand1}, according to the deduced impact parameter and for collisions Xe + Sn at different incident energies.  To determine the type of reaction mechanism, the same criterion as in reference \cite{Vient2} is used. We observe the presence (or not) of the second heaviest fragment of the forward part of the center of mass, in the forward hemisphere of the QP frame (see figure \ref{fig6}). In this case, it is a \textbf{Statistical} event, corresponding to a statistical emission by the hot nucleus. Otherwise, it is a \textbf{Neck} emission. But we must bear in mind that statistical emission is isotropic. Therefore, we selected only half of the statistical contribution. The other one is necessarily emitted backwards and must therefore be removed from our selection of \textbf{Neck} emission, to obtain a selection corresponding to a ``\textbf{pure Neck} emission''. This is done specifically and only in figure \ref{fig6}.

At the same time, we studied another aspect: the asymmetry between the two heaviest fragments in the forward part of the center of mass. This is used to obtain the signal of bimodality associated with a liquid-gas phase transition in nuclei \cite{Pichon1, Bonnet2, Bruno1}.  We should sign with this variable a possible transition between evaporation and multifragmentation when the Quasi-Projectile is de-excited.
\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=9.6cm,height=8.2cm]{./fig6.eps}}
\caption{Proportions of the various types of reaction mechanisms according to the ``experimental impact parameter'' (violence of the collision defined by $E_{tr12}$ normalized) for collisions Xe + Sn at 25, 32, 39, 50, 80 A.MeV.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig6} shows the relative proportions of these different mechanisms according to an ``experimental'' impact parameter.  The discrepancy between the data and the HIPSE events can be seen: in particular HIPSE does not produce as much as \textbf{Neck} emissions as experimental data. This could due to an high clusterization rate. The discrepancy appears to be particularly large for peripheral collisions. There is a slight improvement with the centrality of the collision for all the incident energies. It therefore seems necessary to improve the nuclear potential used. In this version of HIPSE, the influence of angular momentum for the clusterization in term of $\ell_{crit}$ has not been optimized.  The discordance is most evident at 80 A.MeV. The participant-spectator aspect becomes too important.

\subsection{Study of the heaviest fragments at the front of the center of mass\label{ssec2.2}}
Even if the proportions of events do not seem to be well reproduced, we will see that there is nevertheless a good match of physics for all different selections of events. We will first focus  on  studying  the static and dynamic physical characteristics of the two heaviest fragments located at the front of the center of mass. We chose to study these physical quantities according to the violence of the collision using the transverse kinetic energy of LCPs. We have divided its experimental distribution into ten numbered bins of same cross section, allowing for a selection of events according to the bin number associated with the event.
\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.6cm,height=14.76cm]{./fig7.eps}}
\caption{Comparisons of mean charge and the mean parallel velocities of the two heaviest fragments at the front of the center of mas, between HIPSE and the data for various selections of collision violence. This study is made for two types of mechanism during collisions Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{fig7} shows, on one hand, the average evolution of the charge of these two fragments according to the bin number of the normalized $E_{tr12}$, and on the other hand, their average parallel velocities in the laboratory frame normalized to the initial projectile velocity, always according to the bin number of the normalized $E_{tr12}$. These two charges are important indicators on the process of de-excitation of the hot nuclei \cite{Borderie1, Frankland1, Pichon1}. The heaviest fragment velocities supply an indication on the fraction of the initial incident energy, dissipated during the reaction. We focus on \textbf{Statistical} collisions with a high asymmetry and collisions with a \textbf{Neck} and a small asymmetry.  In both cases, the agreement between the data and HIPSE is excellent for the reproduction of the average charge of both fragments.

 A more global comparison, not presented here, realized for all the reaction mechanisms and for the incident energies 25, 32, 39, 50 and 80 A.MeV, shows a relative discrepancy lower than 10 \% for the heaviest fragment and of the order of 15 \% for the second fragment. The agreement is slightly less good at 80 A.MeV, where, at maximum, differences are of 15 \% and 20 \%. The event generator very reasonably reproduces the dispersion of the data around these mean values as we can see it in figure \ref{fig8}. For all the incident energies, the relative difference between the data and HIPSE concerning the dispersion, is lower, most of the time, than 20 \% for the maximum charge and between 20 \% and 25 \% for the second heaviest according to the asymmetry.

\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,height=14.5cm]{./fig8.eps}}
\caption{Comparisons of the standard deviations of the distributions of charge of the two heaviest fragments in the front of the center of mass, obtained for HIPSE and the data for various selections of violence of collision. The first column corresponds to the $Z_{max} $ and the second to the $Z_{max2}$. This study is made for both mechanisms and the three studied asymmetries during collisions Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV.}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}

In figure \ref{fig7}, we also see that the experimental parallel mean velocity of the biggest fragment deviates from that simulated gradually as the collision becomes more violent. This effect is systematic for all the incident energies and reaction mechanisms. As part of our global comparison, it gives rise to a relative difference of 5\% to 15 \% depending on the violence of the collision for the highest asymmetry for all the mechanisms. There are few \% to 10 \%  remaining for the other asymmetries in the case of a \textbf {Neck} emission and less than 5 \% in the case of \textbf{Statistical} events. For the parallel velocity of second heaviest, the trend is about the same for \textbf {Statistical} events. For \textbf{Neck} events, there seems to be a small dependency on incident energy for small and medium asymmetries. For 50 and 80 A.MeV, the difference is less or about 5 \%. For other incident energies, it can reach 15 \% for medium asymmetry and 10 \% for small asymmetry.

Although HIPSE has shown limitations in reproducing the correct proportions for the various mechanisms, the reasonable agreement, often greater than 10 \%, concerning the physical characteristics of two heaviest fragments at the front of the center of mass and the study of the overall characterictics of the events made in reference \cite{Lacroix1}, encourage us to continue basing our study on this simulation thereafter. We will then see that the physical characteristics of the QP reconstructed by the 3D calorimetry, for data and HIPSE, are very close. In addition, the quality of reproduction of the energetic and angular characteristics of certain LCPs in the QP frame provided by HIPSE \cite{Vient1, Vient2}, validates this choice even more.

\section{The study of the ``3D calorimetry''\label{sec3}}
\subsection{Characterization of hot nuclei\label{ssec3.1}}
We first chose to study only the system Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV. Figure \ref{fig9}-a shows the evolution of QP excitation energy and the figure \ref{fig9}-b, the evolution of its charge as a function of the normalized $E_{tr12}$. To deduce these physical quantities, the 3D calorimetry was applied to the real data and HIPSE events filtered by INDRA. To verify the results obtained with 3D calorimetry, we performed a \textbf{perfect calorimetry} authorized by HIPSE that allows us to identify the particle origin in order to select only those emitted by the excited QP.  This is why we applied this \textbf{perfect calorimetry} only with the ions actually detected by INDRA. Since, whatever experimental calorimetry used, it is impossible to do a better calorimetry, we will take this \textbf{perfect calorimetry} as our reference.
We added also the initial mean values of the physical quantities characterizing the QPs generated by HIPSE, which we wish to reproduce.  All these results are presented for the different  selections considered above.
\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,height=15.5cm]{./fig9.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)} Mean correlations between the QP excitation energy and the normalized $E_{tr12}$ found for data using 3D calorimetry and HIPSE using 3D calorimetry, perfect calorimetry and using true initial values.
 \textbf{b)} Mean correlations between the QP charge and the normalized $E_{tr12}$ found for the data by applying 3D calorimetry (full black circles) and for HIPSE by applying 3D calorimetry (full red squares), perfect calorimetry and using the true initial values supplied by the generator. This study is for the two types of mechanism and three asymmetries for Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV.}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure}

The study of excitation energy clearly shows that we are not able to find the initial excitation energy of the QP, whatever the reaction mechanism and the system asymmetry, even with perfect calorimetry. The effect of the experimental device  therefore seems problematic. The difference between the initial  and reconstructed values tends to decrease with asymmetry. The reaction mechanism  does not seem to play an obvious role. The values obtained with HIPSE seem to be  at 50 A.MeV always slightly higher than those obtained with data.

A more quantitative study of the QP excitation energy is therefore presented in figure \ref{fig10}; on one hand, the relative difference observed between the data and HIPSE, for this physical quantity, when the 3D calorimetry is applied, and on the other hand, the relative error on the measurement, by comparing it with the true initial value, when it is made on the events generated by HIPSE (the calculations of these quantities are explained in the appendix \ref{annexea}). This complementary study is made for all the types of reaction mechanism and asymmetry, at 25, 32, 39, 50 and 80 A.MeV.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=16.44cm]{./fig10.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)} Study of the relative differences in \% between the data and HIPSE obtained applying 3D calorimetry to measure the QP excitation energy, for all the studied selections. \textbf{b)} Study of the relative errors in \% on the measurement of the QP excitation energy when 3D calorimetry is applied to HIPSE, for all the studied selections. These studies are made for 25, 32, 39, 50 and 80 A.MeV.}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
It is for the highest asymmetry that the difference  between data and HIPSE is most important, especially for the highest incident energies. Most of time it  remains below 20 \% except for the most violent collisions, where it begins to increase sharply to 40 \% and more depending on the incident energy. When asymmetry decreases, the agreement becomes much better, the difference becomes less than 10 \% and even close to 5 \% for the three lowest incident energies. There is a particular difference for very peripheral collisions linked partially to the poor detection of these collisions in the case of HIPSE but more particularly because of the ``right-left effect'', shown and discussed in the references \cite{Steck2, Vient1, Vient2, Vient3}. It is here more important in HIPSE than in the data because of the kinematics of the model. This tends to increase the apparent energy of the particles in the reconstructed frame.
If we now look at the figure \ref{fig10}-b, we find quantitatively that we are not able to determine the total excitation energy of the QP. With HIPSE, the relative error appears to be independent of the reaction mechanism. On the other hand, it evolves with asymmetry. We underestimate overall by 50 \%, 25 \% and 15 \% when asymmetry decreases. For incident energies, 25 A.MeV and 80 A.MeV, the trends are even a little less good. This may be due to the INDRA filter being too strict for these incident energies, because it is  ``a little less adapted'' to the characteristics of the data supplied by HIPSE, which are more forward focused than the data.

This complementary study therefore confirms, for all the incident energies, that the 3D calorimetry gives same trends whatever the reaction mechanism. The agreement between HIPSE and the data and the quality of the measure of the excitation energy depends mainly on the asymmetry.

The study of the charge reconstruction in the figure \ref{fig9}-b is also very interesting. Here again, regardless of the calorimetry used, perfect or 3D, we are not able to determine the initial mean charge of the QP. Perfect calorimetry seems to work a little better than for the excitation energy. The efficiency of detection always plays a major role.
It is also necessary to note the very good agreement between the data and the simulation, when 3D calorimetry is applied.

Figure \ref{fig11} confirms this quantitatively. The relative differences between data and HIPSE are independent of the reaction mechanism. They vary little with asymmetry. Overall, with the exception of the incident energy 80 A.MeV, the difference is less than 10 \% and even 5 \% for semi-peripheral and central collisions whatever the incident energy. As a result, we note that as the reaction violence increases, more and more reaction products coming from QP emission are lost due to detector acceptance. The efficiency of detection decreases with the multiplicity, until saturation.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=16.44cm]{./fig11.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)}  Study of the relative differences in \% between the data and HIPSE obtained applying 3D calorimetry to measure the QP charge, for all the studied selections. \textbf{b)} Study of the relative errors in \% on the measurement of the QP charge when 3D Calorimetry is applied to HIPSE, for all the studied selections. These studies are made for 25, 32, 39, 50 and 80 A.MeV.}
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig11}-b shows that the relative error of charge measurement is only null for the most peripheral collisions then it increases progressively up to about 25 \%. For peripheral collisions, the measurement error changes slightly with the incident energy. Then it becomes more important for 80 A.MeV  when centrality increases, then it reaches  30-40 \%.  Figure \ref{fig12}-b displays the QP mass for the usual selections. All the remarks concerning the QP charge also apply here to the QP mass, since it has been reconstructed from the initial isotopic ratio of the projectile.
\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,height=14.5cm]{./fig12.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)} Mean correlations between the QP excitation energy per nucleon and the normalized $E_ {t12}$ found for the data applying 3D calorimetry and for HIPSE applying the 3D calorimetry,  perfect calorimetry and using true initial values.
\textbf{b)} Mean correlations between the QP mass and the normalized $E_ {t12}$ found for the data  applying 3D calorimetry (full black circles) and for HIPSE applying 3D calorimetry (full red squares), perfect calorimetry (full blue triangles) and using true initial values (full green triangles) supplied by the generator. This study is made for the two types of mechanism, three asymmetries during collisions Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV.}
\label{fig12}
\end{figure}

In figure \ref{fig12}-a, for medium and small asymmetries, the agreement between data and HIPSE, concerning the measurements of the excitation energy per nucleon, appears quite remarkable considering the observations made previously on mass and excitation energy. It seems that, thanks to compensatory effects, the measurement of this last physical quantity seems better, especially for small asymmetries. In this case, 3D calorimetry applied to the data and HIPSE gives results similar to perfect calorimetry. They are all compatible with the initial value except for very peripheral and central collisions. The quantitative study, presented in figure \ref{fig13}, confirms this fact. There is a reasonable quality of measurement of excitation energy per nucleon for small asymmetries except for very peripheral and central collisions. For high asymmetries,  there is a systematic difference between data and HIPSE for both calorimetries. The excitation energy per nucleon is systematically greater in HIPSE than in the data by nearly 10 \% to 20 \% for almost all incident energies, whatever the studied mechanism. This difference is greatly reduced with asymmetry; since for medium asymmetry, it becomes less than 10 \%. The data become moreover a little higher than HIPSE for the statistical collisions, contrary to those with Neck. For small asymmetries, there are few differences between statistical collisions and collisions with Neck, the data give values larger than HIPSE of 10 \% to 0 \% depending on incident energy and  centrality of the collision. On the other hand, we find again the very poor agreement already observed for very peripheral collisions corresponding to the first three zones of selection according to violence.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=16.44cm]{./fig13.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)}  Study of the relative differences in \% between the data and HIPSE obtained applying 3D calorimetry to measure the $E^{\ast}/A$ of the QP, for all the studied selections. \textbf{b)} Study of the relative errors in \% on the measurement of the $E^{\ast}/A$ of the QP when 3D calorimetry is applied to HIPSE, for all the studied selections. These studies are made for 25, 32, 39, 50 and 80 A.MeV.}
\label{fig13}
\end{figure}
Moreover the error on the measure of $E^{\ast}/A$ follows slightly the same trends. The apparent quality of measurement depends on asymmetry, not on the mechanism of reaction.
For high asymmetries, the excitation energy per nucleon is underestimated of 50 \% for the peripheral collisions. Then, the measure improves with the centrality of the reaction to reach between -10 \% and 0 \%. This trend is the same one for 32, 39 and 50 A.MeV.
For medium asymmetries, the mean relative errors evolve from -20 \% to 10 \%, while for small asymmetries, it is from -10 \% to 15 \%. The measure for 25 A.MeV is systematically less good of 10 \% approximately. For incident energy 80 A.MeV, the trend appears also a little different, the error on the measure tends rather towards 0 \%.
\begin{figure}[htbp]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.7cm,height=14.5cm]{./fig14.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)} Mean correlations between the standard deviation on $E^{\ast}/A$ of the QP and the normalized  $E_{tr12}$ found for the data applying 3D calorimetry  and for HIPSE applying  3D calorimetry, perfect calorimetry and using true initial values. This study is made for both types of mechanism, three asymmetries during collisions Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV.
\textbf{b)} Mean correlations between the standard deviation on the QP mass and normalized $E_{tr12}$ found for the data applying 3D calorimetry and for HIPSE  applying 3D calorimetry, perfect calorimetry and using true initial values.}
\label{fig14}
\end{figure}

From this analysis, we can therefore draw a certain number of conclusions :

 HIPSE very reasonably reflects the physics of collisions with small or medium asymmetries.

3D Calorimetry gives results almost independent of the selected reaction mechanism.

The measurement of the excitation energy per nucleon should be taken with caution (see figure \ref{fig13}). We have an accuracy of measurement on this physical quantity which varies according to the asymmetry, the centrality and also to a lesser degree according to the studied system.

There is clearly a crucial influence of the detection device, which acts contradictorily according to the measured physical quantities. The charge and the mass are underestimated due to the efficiency of detection, which seems normal. The measured excitation energy per nucleon can be higher than the original excitation energy per nucleon of the QP, which seems contradictory compared  to the loss of a certain proportion of the particles evaporated by the QP.

This implies an overestimation of the mean energy contribution of certain particles assigned by our method to the QP, which is also observable in the case of perfect calorimetry.

It also seems important to verify to what extent the calorimetry used increases the width of the distributions of excitation energy per nucleon. Excitation energy per nucleon is a fundamental quantity in nuclear thermodynamics and is often used to sort events and define event classes. We therefore present in figure \ref{fig14}-a for the system Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV, the standard deviations observed for the various estimations of $E^{\ast}/A$ of the QP and, in the figure \ref{fig14}-b, we added the standard deviations on the mass of the rebuilt QP. Concerning excitation energy per nucleon, the experimental fluctuations, obtained by 3D calorimetry with HIPSE, appear much larger than the initial fluctuations. They seem to increase with  asymmetry without depending on the reaction mechanism, up to about twice as large for small asymmetries. They also do not follow the evolution of true initial fluctuations as a function of normalized transverse kinetic energy. There is a saturation of experimental measurements where the true initial values increase more clearly. The results obtained with the data or HIPSE by applying 3D calorimetry are very close. These are only compatible with a perfect calorimetry for small asymmetries. the perfect calorimetry gives the largest fluctuations, again, because of the influence of detection, and especially the quality of the measurement of particle kinetic energy in the frame of the QP.

 In figure \ref{fig14}-b, fluctuations on the measurement of  QP mass give rise to different trends. For peripheral collisions, the experimental fluctuations, obtained by applying 3D calorimetry, are larger than the true fluctuations. Then, from a normalized transverse energy ranging between 0.15 and 0.17, the latter increase and become larger than the experimental fluctuations, which saturate. Only perfect calorimetry is capable of following the evolution of the true fluctuations by being while always being a little more important, for peripheral and semi-peripheral collisions. Again, the reaction mechanism does not seem to play a role. Experimental fluctuations are similar for data and HIPSE for high asymmetries. They vary for other asymmetries, mainly for peripheral collisions. The data give slightly wider distributions.

\begin{figure}[H]\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8.86cm,height=16.cm]{fig15.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)} Mean correlations between the QP parallel velocity in the frame of the laboratory normalized to the velocity of the projectile and $E_{tr12} $ normalized, found for the data  applying 3D calorimetry and for HIPSE applying 3D calorimetry, perfect calorimetry and using true initial values. This study is made for the two types of mechanism, three asymmetries for collisions Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV.
\textbf{b)} Mean correlations between the QP perpendicular velocity in the frame of the laboratory normalized to the velocity of the projectile and $E_{tr12} $ normalized, found for the data applying 3D calorimetry and for HIPSE applying 3D calorimetry, perfect calorimetry and using the true initial values.}
\label{fig15}
\end{figure}
The significant result in this figure is the impossibility for our calorimetry  to determine the apparent widening of the QP mass distribution for central collisions. When we do a study similar at 25 A.MeV, this trend is even more obvious. It seems to decrease as the incident energy increases. It should also be noted that it is more present and more important when asymmetry is important.

 This result seems to show that our 3D calorimetry, based on probabilities defined from limited samples of evaporated particles, can only find the average behavior of the measured quantities and  not the fluctuations. An other calorimetry can not do that either  \cite{Vient3}.

\subsection{Study of the hot nucleus velocity\label{ssec3.2}}

We already discussed in the previous sections the fundamental importance of the reference frame to characterize the energetic contribution of evaporation. We will now see to what extent it is possible to return to the kinematics of the QP formed during the reaction, by using our experimental 3D calorimetry. We continue to focus our attention again on the system Xe + Sn at 50 A.MeV. We present in figure \ref{fig15} the parallel and perpendicular components of different velocities, normalized to the velocity of the projectile in the laboratory. We are interested in the QP velocities rebuilt by 3D calorimetry, applied to data and to HIPSE. We also have two references: the initial QP velocity at the moment of the ``freeze-out'' in HIPSE and the velocity rebuild by perfect calorimetry, obtained with HIPSE.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=16.44cm]{./fig16.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)}  Study of the relative differences in \% between the data and HIPSE obtained applying 3D calorimetry to measure the QP parallel velocity, for all the studied selections. \textbf{b)}  Study of the relative errors in \% on the measurement of the QP parallel velocity when 3D calorimetry is applied to HIPSE, for all the studied selections. These studies are made for 25, 32, 39, 50 and 80 A.MeV.}
\label{fig16}
\end{figure}

The study of the parallel component shows that there is clearly, for all mechanisms and asymmetries, an obvious difference between the initial velocity at the ``freeze-out'' and the different reconstructed velocities. In fact, the opposite would have been abnormal. Indeed, it is necessary to take into account the Coulomb influence of the different partners of the collision during the de-excitation of the QP, which will be accelerated over time by the other participants. This influence is of course greater or lesser depending on the  centrality of the collision, as can be seen in figure \ref{fig15}. Figure \ref{fig16}-b, which gives the relative measurement error on this quantity with HIPSE,  completely confirms this fact for the relative comparison of the measured value and the initial value. The error is independent of the selected mechanism. It is lower for the highest incident energies and decreases with asymmetry, thus with the charge of the heaviest fragment.
 In experiments,  we will never have the opportunity to correct this effect, since we do not have the temporal sequence of emission of the different particles.
 Figure \ref{fig16}, which  also shows the difference between HIPSE and the data for the parallel component of the reconstructed QP, indicates that the relative variation is not important. It is in the order of 10 \% or less for peripheral collisions and tends towards 0 to -5 \% for central collisions. It depends very few on the reaction mechanism and varies little with incident energy except for 80 A.MeV, which is always a special case and better.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=16.44cm]{./fig17.eps}}
\caption{\textbf{a)} Study of the relative differences in \% between the data and HIPSE obtained applying 3D calorimetry to measure the QP polar angle in the laboratory frame, for all the studied selections. \textbf{b)}  Study of the relative errors in \% on the measurement of the QP polar angle in the laboratory frame when 3D calorimetry is applied to HIPSE, for all the studied selections. These studies are made for 25, 32, 39, 50 and 80 A.MeV.}
\label{fig17}
\end{figure}
It is also important to note the remarkable agreement between 3D calorimetry and perfect calorimetry with respect to the reconstructed parallel component of the QP.

The data seem a little less compatible with HIPSE. It shows the small differences of kinematics already observed through transverse kinetic energy distributions and the difficulty of  quantitatively reproducing the mechanisms of reaction.

Figure \ref{fig15}-b allows an equivalent analysis of  the component of the reconstructed velocity, perpendicular to the initial beam direction. We find an even greater difference between the initial  and reconstructed values  for all calorimetries. In this case, the Coulomb repulsion must also have an influence. The agreement between 3D calorimetry and perfect calorimetry is apparently less good than for the other component. There is also a larger difference between HIPSE and the data when 3D calorimetry is applied, mainly for the most violent collisions.

The dynamics of the collision must be partially responsible, as shown in figure \ref{fig17}, where the quality of the measurement of the QP polar angle in the laboratory frame is displayed. First, we observe a clear apparent difference in kinematics between HIPSE and the data whatever the mechanism or asymmetries. We also note a significant relative error on the experimental determination of this angle, between 50 \% and 150 \% in all situations. The Coulomb repulsion between the collision partners must play some role in this trend.

Figure \ref{fig17}-a shows the relative difference between the data and HIPSE, on the mean angle $\theta_{lab}$, the angle between the reconstructed velocity and the initial beam direction  in the laboratory frame. It can be noted that a correct match between HIPSE and the data seems to exist only for peripheral collisions at 50 and 80 A.MeV. It is for these that the role of the re-aggregation is minimal in HIPSE.
The correct treatment of the interaction between the nuclei at small angles must reflect the shape of the edges of the nuclei and must be treated by quantum mechanics.
It is interesting to note that in peripheral collisions, the angular distributions of the QP for 25, 32 and 39 A.MeV  are more focused forward for HIPSE than for the data.

In figure \ref{fig17}-b, we present the error on the measurement of this angle in the HIPSE model, always for the same incident energies. It can be seen that the quality of the measurement depends little on the mechanism and asymmetry, but much more on the incident energy. Whatever the latter, the measure seems bad. The relative error fluctuates between 50 and 150 \%.
This average angle is very sensitive to the experimental device used. The angular resolution limited by INDRA implies a distortion of the angular distribution of particles detected in the frame of the laboratory. We are indeed obliged ``to randomize'' the direction of the velocity of each detected particle over the entire solid angle under which the detection module is seen from the target. This is not done by taking into account the real spatial distribution of particles, because it is not known. Another reason, which could explain this result, is the influence of the beam hole. This prevents the detection of particles at small angles, favoring a larger average angle of the reconstructed QP. Small imperfections which may exist in the software filter can also contribute to the differences between reality and simulation. Finally, we must remember that these angles have mainly a small value, therefore even a small absolute error gives a large relative error.
\section{CONCLUSIONS\label{sec4}}
In a previous article \cite{Vient2}, a new calorimetry of the Quasi-Projectile, aiming to be optimal, was proposed. It tries to take into account in the best possible way the different contributions that can exist in a heavy-ion collision at Fermi energies. This calorimetry is based on the experimental determination of an evaporation probability from the physical characteristics of the particles in a restricted velocity space domain.

HIPSE  is an event generator trying to integrate all phenomena that can occur at Fermi energies. It is convenient and fast. It seemed interesting to use this generator to study and validate this new calorimetry called ``3D calorimetry''. The application of this experimental calorimetry to the real data and to events generated by HIPSE allowed us to have a some ``control'' of measurements by  constantly comparing them.

The first important  result of this study was the demonstration of the enormous influence of the experimental device, but not as one might expect. The need for the most complete event detection for correct calorimetry generates an extremely spurious effect for some collisions, especially those with a heavy forward-focused evaporation residue, so often with a high asymmetry between the two heaviest fragments at the front of the center of mass.
In fact, the completeness criteria require selecting events with a very particular topology in the velocity space. In fact, in these events, to be detected, the QP residue must necessarily avoid passing through the beam hole made to let the beam pass. The linear momentum conservation requires a LCP contribution sufficiently energetic to permit that. It is the effect, known as ``right-left effect'', already observed \cite{Steck2, Vient1, Vient2, Vient3}, which is largely responsible for the apparent degradation of the experimental QP characterization. In the QP frame, it contributes to an overestimation of the average energy contribution of some particle allocated by calorimetry to the QP. This overestimation is also observed in the case of perfect calorimetry. The non-evaporative contribution, the experimental measurement of the kinetic energy of each particle by INDRA and the determination of the emitter velocity are others sources of errors for 3D calorimetry. These last causes must also be responsible for errors observed for a perfect calorimetry.

The second important result is that the 3D calorimetry is equivalent to perfect calorimetry when the influence of the ``right-left effect'' is minimal.

The correction of this effect is complex because it is intimately linked to the collision dynamics, therefore depends on the impact parameter, the incident energy and the studied system. HIPSE reasonably reproduces  the data for small and medium asymmetries, less for high asymmetries. This is also explained partly by this effect, the collision dynamics is not perfectly reproduced, mainly for peripheral collisions.

The fact that the reconstructed velocity obtained by the 3D calorimetry and  the perfect calorimetry are close, whatever the mechanism and the asymmetry, with the except of the last two selections of violence, makes us think that the angular resolution of the detector also plays  a fundamental role in these difficulties of measurement of the excitation energy. We must also bear in mind that, for HIPSE, we compare the kinematics at the ``freeze-out'' moment and a reconstructed kinematics at the end of the cooling. The Coulomb repulsion must also disrupt these measures.

We have not studied the role that the estimation of the neutral contribution can have on the determination of excitation energy. It has yet to be accomplished. It should also be noted that this 3D calorimetry, like other calorimetry, does not allow an accurate estimation of the width of distributions of the physical quantities characteristic of the QP. This disturbs us to make correct  unmixed microcanonical selections of the events.

For good calorimetry, it is necessary to clearly improve the geometric efficiency, especially  at the front,  granularity, angular resolution and mass resolution of the experimental device. It is a very difficult challenge knowing the experimental qualities of INDRA.

We have also demonstrated that validation of the new experimental calorimetry, using an event generator and a filter of the experimental set-up, is mandatory. This should also allow to define the parameters of correction for the real data if we want to improve our 3D calorimetry to take into account the defects of the experimental device. But the quality of this correction depends on the realism of these two elements.


Why Does Undoped FeSe Become A High Tc Superconductor Under Pressure?

Abstract: Unlike the parent phases of the iron-arsenide high Tc superconductors, undoped FeSe is not magnetically ordered and exhibits superconductivity with Tc~9K. Equally surprising is the fact that applied pressure dramatically enhances the modest Tc to ~37K. We investigate the electronic properties of FeSe using 77Se NMR to search for the key to the superconducting mechanism. We demonstrate that the electronic properties of FeSe are very similar to those of electron-doped FeAs superconductors, and that antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations are strongly enhanced near Tc. Furthermore, applied pressure enhances spin fluctuations. Our findings suggest a link between spin fluctuations and the superconducting mechanism in FeSe.

\section{\label{sec:level1}First-level heading:\protect\\ The line

The discovery of new iron-arsenide (FeAs) high $T_c$ superconductors \cite{Kamihara} has led to a frenzy of research over the last year \cite{Norman}.  The superconducting mechanism still remains enigmatic, but it has become clear that all FeAs superconductors share a salient feature; their undoped parent phase is magnetically ordered in a Spin Density Wave (SDW) state, and the superconducting phase emerges when electron or hole doping suppresses the SDW instability \cite{Norman}.  For example, both undoped LaFeAsO and BaFe$_2$As$_2$ have a SDW ground state below $\lesssim140$~K \cite{delaCruz,Rotter}, and the superconducting state in LaFeAsO$_{1-x}$F$_{x}$ ($T_{c}\sim 28$~K) \cite{Kamihara} and BaFe$_{2-x}$Co$_{x}$As$_{2}$ ($T_{c}\sim 22$~K) \cite{Sefat} requires $5 \sim 8$~\% of electron-doping.  Therefore one could speculate that residual spin fluctuations may be playing a key role in the superconducting mechanism.  Alternatively, one could also argue that magnetism and superconductivity are competing against each other.

In view of the possible link or competition between magnetism and superconductivity in FeAs high $T_c$ superconductors, superconductivity in FeSe ($T_{c}\sim 9$~K) \cite{Hsu, McQueen} raises interesting questions, and provides important test ground for the ideas to account for high $T_c$ superconductivity in iron-based systems \cite{Johannes}.  We note that the initial discovery identified $\alpha$-FeSe$_{1-\delta}$ with large deficiency $\delta \sim 0.12$ as the superconducting phase \cite{Hsu}, which led to a misperception that electron doping by the Se deficiency destroys a SDW ground state and stabilizes superconductivity.  However, as some of us have more recently shown, the apparently large $\delta$ is caused by oxygen contamination of the Fe ingredient \cite{McQueen}.  The actual superconducting phase is the stoichiometric $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01\pm0.02}$Se, or equivalently, $\beta$-FeSe$_{0.99\pm0.02}$ \cite{McQueen}, {\it i.e.} superconductivity in FeSe does not require electron doping.  Furthermore, application of pressure on FeSe raises $T_c$ to as high as $\sim$37~K \cite{Mizuguchi,Medvedev, Margadonna}.  These observations are counterintuitive if we compare the number of electrons at As and Se sites.  The nominal ionic state of the FeAs layers is [FeAs]$^{-}$ in the undoped parent phase with an SDW ground state ({\it e.g.} LaFeAsO and BaFe$_2$As$_2$), and the As$^{3-}$ sites have eight electrons in the (4s)$^2$(4p)$^6$ orbitals.  Since a Se atom has one extra electron compared to an As atom, we also expect that  eight electrons fill the (4s)$^2$(4p)$^6$ orbitals at Se$^{2-}$ sites in the stoichiometric FeSe.  This simple electron counting suggests that FeSe should also undergo a SDW rather than superconducting transition if analogies hold between FeAs and FeSe systems.  In fact, band calculations suggest that the Fermi surface nesting induces a SDW ground state in undoped FeSe \cite{Subedi}.   How different is the stoichiometric FeSe superconductor from electron or hole doped FeAs superconductors?  Is $T_c$ as low as $\sim 9$~K because spin fluctuations associated with the SDW instability are absent?  What is the driving mechanism behind the large enhancement of $T_c$ in FeSe under pressure?

In this {\it Letter}, we report a $^{77}$Se NMR investigation of FeSe.  We demonstrate that the electronic properties of the {\it undoped} FeSe ($T_{c}\sim 9$~K) share remarkable similarities with  {\it electron-doped} FeAs superconductors.  Our measurements of the $^{77}$Se spin-lattice relaxation rate, $1/T_1$, in ambient pressure indeed provide evidence for strong enhancement towards $T_c$ of antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations at finite wave vector ${\bf q}\neq {\bf 0}$. This finding suggests that undoped FeSe superconductor is actually on the verge of an SDW ordering.  Furthermore, we show that application of hydrostatic pressure {\it enhances} spin fluctuations as well as $T_c$.  These results strongly suggest that spin fluctuations have a strong link with the superconducting mechanism of FeSe.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{imai_Fig1
\caption{\label{fig1:epsart}(Color Online) (a) AC susceptibility of $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se in $B_{ext}=0$ and 8.3~Tesla under various pressures.  We measured the increase of the tuning frequency $F_{tune}\sim 1/\sqrt{L(1+4\pi \chi') C}$ of the LC tank circuit used for NMR.   $F_{tune}$ is normalized by the normal state value, $F_{tune}(T>T_{c})=67.5$~MHz.  Superconducting diamagnetic susceptibility, $\chi' < 0$, enhances $F_{tune}$.  Notice that the vertical axis is reversed.   (b) The $T-P$ phase diagram of $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se.  Circles, triangles and squares represent $T_c$ in $B_{ext}=0$ (from Fig.1a), the hump of $1/T_{1}T$ (from Fig.4), and the onset of the loss of the NMR signal intensity ("wipeout", from Fig.2d), respectively.  All lines are guides for the eyes.}
\end{figure}

Our NMR sample is $\beta$-Fe$_{1+\delta}$Se with a nearly defect free composition of $\delta=0.01\pm0.02$ \cite{McQueen}.  For comparison, we also investigated a non-superconducting sample with $\delta=0.03$.   From the transport, specific heat, and SQUID measurements, $T_{c} \sim 9$~K for $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se, while the upper bound of $T_{c}$ is 0.4~K for $\beta$-Fe$_{1.03}$Se \cite{McQueen}.  Detailed structural studies based on x-ray and neutron diffraction measurements revealed no hint of impurity phases.  While conducting NMR measurements at each pressure, we also carried out AC susceptibility measurements at 67.5~MHz using the NMR coil within the high pressure cell.  As shown in Fig.1a and 1b, $T_c$ in zero applied magnetic field ($B_{ext}=0$) rises roughly linearly from $\sim 9$~K in ambient pressure ($P=0$~GPa) to $\sim 14$~K (0.7~GPa), $\sim 16$~K (1.4~GPa),  and $\sim 22$~K (2.2~GPa).  We carried out most of the NMR measurements in $B_{ext}=8.3$ or 9~Tesla, which has very little effect on $T_c$ except in ambient pressure.  We carried out  $1/T_{1}$ measurements by saturating the whole NMR line with comb pulses.  We found that the recovery of nuclear magnetization can be fitted with single exponential very well.  In $P=0$~GPa, we used $B_{ext}=1.5$~Tesla for $1/T_{1}T$ measurements below $T_c$  to minimize the suppression of $T_c$ by $B_{ext}$; the results above $T_c$ showed no dependence on $B_{ext}$.

In Fig.2, we present representative powder-averaged $^{77}$Se NMR lineshapes for polycrystalline samples.  $^{77}$Se has nuclear spin $I=1/2$ with the nuclear gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma_{n}/2\pi = 8.118$~MHz/Tesla, hence it is expected to gives rise to a single NMR peak at the Zeeman frequency of $f_{o} \sim (\gamma_{n}/2\pi)B_{ext} \sim 67.4$~MHz in $B_{ext}=8.3$~Tesla, or $f_{o} \sim 73.0$~MHz in 9~Tesla.  The observed $^{77}$Se NMR linewidth of $\sim 0.03$~MHz in $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se is by a factor of $\sim3$ narrower than the earlier report for a highly disordered "FeSe$_{0.92}$" sample \cite{Tou}, and shows very little temperature dependence.  We also observed no distribution of $1/T_{1}$ in the normal state unlike the case of "FeSe$_{0.92}$".   These results assure us that our $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se sample is homogeneous and nearly defect free.  On the other hand, the NMR lineshape of $\beta$-Fe$_{1.03}$Se is somewhat broader, and becomes more broad at low temperatures without changing the integrated intensity.  This hints at the presence of defects, which may contribute to the suppression of $T_c$.

Our results in Fig.2 show that the actual NMR peak frequency, $f$, is shifted from $f_{o}$.  The shift, $\Delta f = f - f_{o}$, is temperature dependent.    We plot the temperature dependence of  the {\it Knight shift} $K = \Delta f/f_{o}$ in Fig.3.  The Knight shift arises because $B_{ext}$ polarizes the spin and orbital angular momenta of electrons in proportion to their magnetic susceptibilities, and these induced polarizations exert additional hyperfine magnetic fields on $^{77}$Se nuclear spins.  Generally, we can express $K = K_{spin}+K_{chem}$.  The spin contribution $K_{spin} = A_{hf}\chi_{spin}$ is proportional to the spin susceptibility, $\chi_{spin}$, in the FeSe layers ($A_{hf}$ is the hyperfine interaction between electrons and the $^{77}$Se nuclear spin).  The chemical shift $K_{chem}$ is generally temperature independent and caused by polarized orbital moments.  Thus our results in Fig.3 establish that $\chi_{spin}$ of the superconducting FeSe decreases almost linearly with temperature from 480~K to $\sim 100$~K, and then levels off.  The observed behavior of  $\chi_{spin}$ is similar to that of the electron doped LaFeAsO$_{1-x}$F$_{x}$ and Ba[Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$]$_{2}$As$_{2}$ superconductors \cite{Ahilan,NJP,Ning1,Ning2}.   In particular, our new results resemble the  $^{75}$As Knight shift in the optimally electron-doped superconductor Ba[Fe$_{0.92}$Co$_{0.08}$]$_{2}$As$_2$ \cite{Ning1,Ning2} ($T_{c}=22$~K, $K_{chem}=0.2 \sim 0.25 \%$ \cite{Ning1} and $A_{hf}\sim 20$~kOe/$\mu_{B}$ \cite{Kitagawa}).

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{imai_Fig2
\caption{\label{fig2:epsart}
(Color Online)  Representative $^{77}$Se NMR lineshapes measured for (a) $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se (0~GPa), (b) $\beta$-Fe$_{1.03}$Se (0~GPa), and (c) $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se ($P=1.4$~GPa).  The intensity is corrected for  the Boltzman factor.  (d) The temperature dependence of the integrated NMR intensity of $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se.  For comparison, we also show the results for $\beta$-Fe$_{1.03}$Se (x).
}
\end{figure}

How does $\chi_{spin}$ vary with applied pressure $P$ and the concentration $x$?  Our results in Fig.3 show that $K$, hence $\chi_{spin}$, changes little between $P=0$~GPa and 2.2~GPa.  Moreover, the non-superconducting $\beta$-Fe$_{1.03}$Se also exhibits nearly identical $\chi_{spin}$.  The inevitable conclusion from these findings is that the physical parameters that control $\chi_{spin}$ ({\it e.g.} the density of electronic states, Fe spin-spin exchange interaction $J$, {\it etc.}) may not have a direct link with the superconducting mechanism.  Generally, as is well known for high $T_c$ cuprate superconductors \cite{Johnston}, the growth of antiferromagnetic short-range order could suppress $\chi_{spin}$ with decreasing temperature.  In view of the absence of strong $P$ and $x$ dependencies of  $\chi_{spin}$ in Fig.3, it is tempting to conclude that such antiferromagnetic correlations, possibly caused by the nesting of Fermi surfaces \cite{Subedi}, may be irrelevant to superconductivity.  However, note that $\chi_{spin}$ is only a measure of the {\it uniform} ${\bf q}={\bf 0}$ response by electron spins to a uniform perturbation $B_{ext}$.  Furthermore, complicated Fermi surface geometry is likely to lead to coexistence of various ${\bf q}$ modes of spin excitations in the iron-based superconductors \cite{Scalapino}, hence $\chi_{spin}$ is not necessarily the best probe of magnetic correlations.   To explore the potential link between magnetism and the superconducting mechanism, one needs to measure the magnetic response of  the non-zero wave-vector modes, ${\bf q}\neq{\bf 0}$.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{imai_Fig3
\caption{\label{fig3:epsart}
(Color Online) The temperature, pressure, and concentration dependencies of $^{77}$Se NMR Knight shift $K = K_{spin}+K_{chem}$ in the normal state above $T_c$.  $K_{spin}$ is proportional to the uniform spin susceptibility $\chi_{spin}$, and $K_{chem}$ is constant, hence the results reflect the temperature dependence of $\chi_{spin}$. \\
}
\end{figure}

 In Fig.4, we present the temperature dependence of $1/T_{1}T \propto \sum_{{\bf q}}|A_{hf}({\bf q})|^{2} \chi"({\bf q}, f)$, the nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $1/T_1$ divided by temperature $T$.   $A_{hf}(\bf q)$ and $\chi"({\bf q}, f)$ represent the wave vector ${\bf q}$-dependent hyperfine form factor \cite{Shastry} and the imaginary part of the dynamical electron spin susceptibility at the NMR frequency $f \sim 67.5$~MHz, respectively.  Thus {\it $1/T_{1}T$ measures the weighted average for various ${\bf q}$-modes of the low frequency spin fluctuations}.  $1/T_{1}T$ observed for superconducting $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se is strikingly similar to that of the optimally electron-doped Ba[Fe$_{1.92}$Co$_{0.08}$]$_{2}$As$_2$ \cite{Ning2}; $1/T_{1}T$ decreases with $T$ down to $\sim 100$~K, then begins to increase toward $T_{c}$.  Since $K$ is nearly temperature independent below 100~K, the latter implies that {\it some ${\bf q}\neq{\bf 0}$ antiferromagnetic modes of spin fluctuations are strongly enhanced toward $T_c$}.

 Recalling that removal of a few percent of electrons transforms the superconducting ground state of Ba[Fe$_{0.92}$Co$_{0.08}$]$_{2}$As$_2$ into a SDW ordered state \cite{Ning2}, the similarities of $K$ and $1/T_{1}T$ between $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se and Ba[Fe$_{0.92}$Co$_{0.08}$]$_{2}$As$_2$ lead us to conclude that {\it  superconductng FeSe is also in close proximity to a magnetic instability}.   We also note that $1/T_{1}T$ measured in 0 and 0.7~GPa shows a sharp peak exactly at $T_{c}(B_{ext})$ as determined by the AC susceptibility data presented in Fig.1a.  This means that {\it superconductivity sets in at $T_c$ after antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations are enhanced}, and {\it the opening of the superconducting energy gap suddenly suppresses low frequency spin fluctuations}.  Unlike typical isotropic BCS s-wave superconductors with a full gap, $1/T_{1}T$ measured in 0 and 0.7~GPa does not exhibit a Hebel-Slichter coherence peak just below $T_c$.  Instead, as shown in the inset to Fig.4, $1/T_{1}$ dives below $T_c$, exhibiting a power-law-like behavior.  This finding is consistent with earlier NMR reports on various iron-based superconductors \cite{Nakai,Ning1,Tou,NJP}.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{imai_Fig4
\caption{\label{fig4:epsart} (Color Online)  $1/T_{1}T$ for superconducting $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se under various pressures, and for non-superconducting  $\beta$-Fe$_{1.03}$Se in $P=0$~GPa.  $1/T_{1}T$ reflects the spin fluctuation susceptibility averaged over various wave vector modes ${\bf q}$.  Inset : A log-log plot of $1/T_{1}$.  Vertical arrows mark (from left to right) $T_{c}$ for 0, 0.7, 1.4, and 2.2~GPa in the applied magnetic field.
}
\end{figure}

A sticky but essential question to address is whether our conclusions in the last two paragraphs imply that (a) antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations are positively linked with the superconducting mechanism, or (b) antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations are competing with superconductivity.   Two pieces of evidence seem to favor scenario (a).  First, $1/T_{1}T$ of $\beta$-Fe$_{1.03}$Se increases very little below 100~K, {\it i.e.} the enhancement of antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations below 100K in $\beta$-Fe$_{1.03}$Se, if any, is much weaker than in $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se.    Second, we find that both $T_c$ and spin fluctuations grow under pressure.  For example, $1/T_{1}T$ at 50~K increases from 0.15~sec$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ in 0~GPa to 0.18~sec$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ (0.7~GPa), 0.21~sec$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ (1.4~GPa), and 0.31~sec$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ (2.2~GPa).  If spin fluctuations with ${\bf q}\neq{\bf 0}$ are genuinely competing against the superconducting mechanism, we would expect a suppression of $1/T_{1}T$ under pressure when $T_c$ rises.

Close inspection of the $1/T_{1}T$ data reveals that $1/T_{1}T$ shows a broad hump at $\sim 20$~K in 1.4~GPa and $\sim 40$~K in 2.2~GPa.  These humps are significantly above $T_{c}(B_{ext})=14.5$~K and 18~K as determined by AC susceptibility measured in identical conditions of $B_{ext}$ and $P$, hence we can't attribute the suppression of $1/T_{1}T$ below these humps to the opening of a superconducting energy gap.  Furthermore, we found that the integrated intensity of the NMR signal begins to decrease at temperatures somewhat above these humps (at $\sim 34$~K in 1.4~GPa and $\sim 50$~K in 2.2~GPa) as shown in Fig.2c and 2d.  We summarize the T-P phase diagram of $\beta$-Fe$_{1.01}$Se in Fig.1b including these anomalies.   Notice that the NMR signal intensity in 1.4 and 2.2~GPa is almost completely wiped out by the time we reach $T_c$.  Thus we need to be somewhat cautious in interpreting the  $1/T_{1}T$ results below these humps, because $1/T_{1}T$ reflects only some parts of FeSe with observable NMR signals.

The disappearance of paramagnetic NMR signals below a peak of $1/T_{1}T$ is a typical signature of a magnetic phase transition or spin freezing.  If the Fe magnetic moments are statically ordered at lower temperatures, they would exert well-defined static hyperfine fields $B_{hf} \sim 1.5$~Tesla \cite{Kitagawa} on $^{77}$Se nuclear spins and split the NMR lineshape.  However, we didn't find any additional NMR signals at lower temperatures.  Therefore the disappearance of the NMR signals means that (i) glassy slowing of spin fluctuations makes the longitudinal and transverse relaxation times $T_1$ and $T_2$ of $^{77}$Se NMR signals so fast that spin echo can't form in some parts of FeSe layers, and/or (ii) (nearly) static hyperfine magnetic field $B_{hf}$ has a large distribution.  In the case of the SDW ordered phase in lightly electron-doped BaFe$_{2}$As$_2$, $B_{hf}$ has a continuous distribution up to $\sim 1.5$~Tesla \cite{Ning3}.  In the present context, even if these hyperfine fields are static, the $^{77}$Se NMR linewidth may be as broad as $\gamma_{n}/2\pi \times B_{hf} \sim 12$~MHz, {\it i.e.} the NMR line may be broadened by a factor of $\sim 400$.   In any case, these NMR anomalies above $T_c$ strongly suggest that {\it applied pressure above $\sim 1.4$~GPa enhances spin fluctuations so strongly that a glassy spin freezing takes place in the FeSe layers before bulk superconductivity sets in}.  We recall that high $T_c$ cuprate and URu$_2$Si$_2$ superconductors exhibit analogous situation in the vicinity of  the stripe phase and the hidden ordered phase, respectively \cite{Hunt,Kohori}.  In passing, the inhomogneous electronic properties may be the underlying reason why the superconducting transition in 2.2~GPa becomes  broad, as shown in Fig.1a.  The results in Fig.2d show that the loss of NMR signal intensity may be also present  in 0 and 0.7~GPa somewhat above $T_c$.  However, earlier $\mu$SR measurements  didn't reveal any static magnetic order in a superconducting specimen of "FeSe$_{0.85}$" \cite{Klauss}. The rather abrupt loss of the NMR signal below $T_c$ at 0 and 0.7~GPa may merely be due to the Meissner effect, which limits the NMR intensity by shielding the R.F. pulses for NMR measurements.

To summarize, we have demonstrated that the electronic properties of the stoichiometric
FeSe superconductor are very similar to those of optimally electron-doped Ba[Fe$_{0.92}$Co$_{0.08}$]$_{2}$As$_2$ high $T_c$ superconductor.   Contrary to an earlier NMR report on a disordered "FeSe$_{0.92}$" sample \cite{Tou}, our results for superconducting $\beta$-FeSe show no evidence for canonical Fermi liquid above $T_c$, {\it i.e.} the Korringa relation $1/T_{1}TK^{2} = const.$ is not satisfied.  Instead, large enhancement of $1/T_{1}T$ below 100~K  indicates that antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations are strongly enhanced toward $T_c$ in FeSe.  Application of pressure further enhances both spin fluctuations and $T_c$, pointing toward a positive link between antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations and the superconducting mechanism.

The work at McMaster was supported by NSERC
and CIFAR.  The work at Princeton was supported primarily by the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Basic Energy Sciences, Grant DE-FG02-98ER45706, and in part by the NSF-MRSEC program, grant DMR-0819860.\\

Superconductivity (cond-mat.supr-con); Strongly Correlated Electrons (cond-mat.str-el)