\section{Introduction}
\label{}

Far-forward calorimetry, covering the region between 5 and 50 milliradians
from the on-energy beam axis,
is envisioned as a component of both the ILD~\cite{ref:ILD_DBD} and SiD~\cite{ref:SiD_DBD}
detector concepts for the proposed International Linear Collider (ILC). The
BeamCal tungsten sampling calorimeter proposed to cover this angular region
is expected to absorb approximately 10 TeV of electromagnetic radiation
per beam crossing from e$^+$e$^-$ beamstrahlung pairs, leading to expected
annual radiation doses of 100 Mrad
for the most heavily-irradiated portions of the instrument.
While the deposited energy is expected to arise primarily from minimum-ionizing
electrons and positrons in the induced electromagnetic showers,
radiation damage to calorimeter sensors may be dominated
by hadrons induced by nuclear interactions of shower photons,
which are much more likely to contribute to the non-ionizing
energy loss that has been observed to damage sensors exposed to
hadronic radiation. We report here on the latest results of SLAC
Experiment T-506, for which several different types of
solid-state sensors were exposed to doses of up to 300 Mrad
at the approximate maxima of electromagnetic
showers induced in a tungsten radiator by electrons of energy
3.5-13.3 GeV, similar to that of electrons and positrons
from ILC beamstrahlung pairs.

Bulk damage leading to the suppression of the electron/hole
charge-collection efficiency (CCE) is generally thought to be proportional
to the non-ionizing energy loss (`NIEL') component of the energy
deposited by the incident radiation.
Observations from early studies of electromagnetically-induced damage to
solar cells~\cite{ref:TaeSung5,ref:TaeSung6,ref:TaeSung7}
suggested that p-type bulk sensors were more tolerant to
damage from electromagnetic sources, due to an apparent
departure from NIEL scaling, particularly for electromagnetic particles
of lower incident energy.

Several more-recent studies have
explored radiation tolerance of silicon diode to incident fluxes of electrons.
A study assessing the capacitance vs. bias voltage (CV) characteristics of sensors exposed
to as much as 1 Grad of incident 2 MeV electrons~\cite{ref:Rafi_09}
suggested approximately 35 times less damage to n-type magnetic
Czochralski sensors than that expected from NIEL scaling.
A study of various n-type sensor types exposed to 900 MeV electrons
showed charge-collection loss of as little as 3\% for exposures up to
50 Mrad~\cite{ref:Dittongo2004}; for exposures of 150 Mrad, the degree of damage
was observed to be as small as one-fourth that expected from NIEL scaling~\cite{ref:Dittongo2005}.
These discrepancies have been attributed to the different types of
defects created by lattice interactions: electrons tend to create point-like defects that are more
benign than the clusters formed due to hadronic interactions.

Finally, in studies of sensors exposed to large doses of hadron-induced
radiation, p-type bulk silicon was found to be more radiation-tolerant
than n-type bulk silicon, an observation that has been attributed to the absence of type inversion and the
collection of an electron-based signal~\cite{ref:TaeSung3,ref:TaeSung4}.
However, n-type bulk devices have certain advantages, such as a natural inter-electrode
isolation with commonly used passivation materials such as silicon oxide and silicon nitride.

More recently, a number of non-diode solid-state sensors have been proposed as a possible
radiation-tolerant alternative to silicon sensors, the latter of which can develop
a large dark current after significant irradiation.
Here, we report on an exploration of the radiation tolerance of silicon-diode pad sensors and
several bulk solid-state pad sensors, including gallium arsenide (GaAs), silicon carbide (SiC)
and industrial sapphire sensors. The sensors' radiation tolerance is
assessed via direct measurements of the median collected charge deposited
by minimum-ionizing particles as well as leakage current measurements.
Note that while diode sensors must be operated with the sense of bias voltage
that provides a reverse bias, bulk sensors can in principle be operated with
either sign of the bias voltage. When results are presented below for bulk sensors
with only one sign of the bias voltage, they are presented for the sign that provided the best
performance.

Two n-type and one p-type bulk silicon diode sensors were explored. The
p-bulk sensor (`WSI-P4' or `PF'), from a test structure associated
with a prototype sensor developed for the ATLAS upgrade tracker~\cite{ref:nobu},
was fabricated by the Hamamatsu Photonics Corporation (HPK) from a float-zone crystal
with a thickness of 320 $\mu$m, and had an un-irradiated depletion voltage of
approximately 180 V. The first of the n-bulk sensors (`N6906' or `NF'),
from a test structure associated with sensors developed for the
Fermi satellite~\cite{ref:Ohsugi}, was also manufactured by HPK from
a float zone crystal, in this case with a thickness of 400 $\mu$m,
and an un-irradiated depletion voltage of less than 40 V.
In addition, the radiation tolerance of
a 320$\mu$m-thick n-type pad structure designed for use in the ILC Luminosity
Calorimeter (LumiCal), which would cover the angular region just outside that of the BeamCal,
was explored. The sensor was manufactured by HPK; further
details about the sensor design can be found in~\cite{ref:Lumi}

This study made use of a fragment of a LumiCal sensor that had
been accidentally broken; once the broken sensor was obtained by SCIPP,
a study was done to determine, qualitatively, how the
leakage current of a given pad
depended upon that pad's proximity to the guard ring and the cleaved edge.
Based on this understanding, the fragment was intentionally cleaved into
two small pieces that could be mounted on the daughter boards used in the
radiation target and charge-collection-efficiency apparatus. After a regimen
of exposing the sensor to elevated temperature, and exposing the cleaved
edge to ultraviolet light, it was found that the sensor could be biased to over
200 V without breaking down (i.e. developing a leakage current greater than several $\mu$A), well above the
depletion voltage of 40 V. This allowed pre-irradiation charge-collection data
to be taken at full depletion. The irradiation process further raised the
breakdown voltage, allowing post-irradiation data to be taken at bias
voltages as high as 400 V.

The GaAs sensor used in the study was produced
by means of the Liquid Encapsulated Czochralski method doped by a shallow donor
(Sn or Te; Sn was used for the sensor in this study)~\cite{ref:GaAs},
and had a bulk thickness of 300 $\mu$m.
The SiC sensor used in the study featured double-layer nickel-gold
Schottky-barrier contacts mounted on a 4H-SiC crystal structure. The
sensors were 420 $\mu$m thick, with an high quality epitaxial (active)
layer of thickness 70 $\mu$m and an inactive substrate thickness of 350 $\mu$m.
More details about this sensor and its performance can be found in~\cite{ref:SiC}.
The industrial sapphire sensor used in the study had a thickness of 520 $\mu$m,
and was produced by Crystal GmbH, Berlin. A three-layer metal contact
consisting of aluminum (at the crystal surface) overlain with platinum
and then gold was applied at the GSI laboratory in Darmstadt.

Prior results on the radiation tolerance of the GaAs sensor, as well as of
silicon diode sensors, including a p-type float-zone sensor irradiated to a
dose of 270 Mrad, are presented in~\cite{ref:T506_NIM}
and~\cite{ref:lcws2015}. New to this report are results for
n-type float-zone and sapphire sensors irradiated to 300 Mrad, and for
a 77 Mrad irradiation of the SiC sensor. Extended annealing studies
are also presented for the GaAs sensor and for the p-type float-zone sensor
that was irradiated to 270 Mrad.

While the radiation dose was initiated by electromagnetic processes
(electrons showering in tungsten), the placement of the sensors near
shower max ensures that the shower incorporates an appropriate
component of hadronic irradiation arising from neutron spallation,
photoproduction, and the excitation of the $\Delta$ resonance.
Particularly for the case that NIEL scaling suppresses
electromagnetically-induced radiation damage, the small
hadronic component of the electromagnetic
shower might dominate the rate of damage to the sensor.
However, the size and effect of this component is difficult to
estimate reliably, and so we choose to study radiation damage in
a configuration that naturally incorporates all components present in
an electromagnetic shower.

\section{Experimental Setup}

Un-irradiated sensors were subjected to current vs. bias voltage (IV) and
capacitance vs. bias voltage (CV) tests,
the results of which allowed
a subset of them to be selected for irradiation based on their
breakdown voltage (typically above 1000 V for selected sensors) and low level of leakage
current. The sensors were placed on carrier printed-circuit `daughter boards' and wire-bonded to a
readout connector. The material of the daughter boards was milled away in the
region to be irradiated in order to facilitate the
charge collection measurement (described below) and minimize radio-activation.
The median collected charge was measured with the Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics (SCIPP)
charge-collection (CC) apparatus (also described below) before irradiation.
The sensors remained mounted to their individual daughter boards throughout irradiation and the followup
tests, simplifying their handling and reducing uncontrolled annealing.
Additionally, this allowed a reverse-bias voltage to be maintained across the sensor during irradiation.
This voltage was kept small (at the level of a few volts) to avoid possible damage of the devices
from a large instantaneous charge during the spill.

Sensors were irradiated with beam provided by the End Station
Test Beam (ESTB) facility at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
Parameters of the beam provided by the ESTB facility are shown in
Table~\ref{tab:ESTB}. The beam was incident upon a series of
tungsten radiators.
An initial 7mm-thick (2.0 radiation-length) tungsten plate (`R1')
served to initiate the electromagnetic shower.
The small number of
radiation lengths of this initial radiator permitted the
development of a small amount of divergence of the shower
relative to the straight-ahead beam direction without
significant development of the largely isotropic hadronic
component of the shower.

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{centering}
\caption{Parameters of the beam delivered by the
ESTB facility during the T-506 experiment.}
\label{tab:ESTB}
\vspace {5mm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
Parameter  &  Value   \\ \hline
Energy     &  3.5-14.5 GeV \\
Repetition Rate  &  5-10 Hz \\
Charge per Pulse  &  150-180 pC \\
Spot Size (radius) & $\sim 1$ mm \\
\end{tabular}
\par\end{centering}
\end{table}

This plate was followed by an
open length of approximately half a meter, which allowed a degree of
spreading of the shower before it impinged upon a second,
significantly thicker `R2' (4.0 radiation-length) tungsten plate,
which was followed immediately by the sensor undergoing
irradiation. This was closely followed, in turn, by an
8.0 radiation-length tungsten plate. Immediately surrounding the
sensor by tungsten radiators that both
initiated and absorbed the great majority of the electromagnetic
shower ensured that the sensor would be illuminated by a
flux of hadrons commensurate with that experienced by a calorimeter
sensor close to the maximum of a tungsten-induced shower.
More precise values of the location of the various radiator elements
and sensor, for each of the four years of running of T-506, are given in Table~\ref{tab:radiator}.

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{centering}
\caption{Location of the various radiator elements and
the sensor under irradiation, for the three successive
phases of T-506 running. The R1 radiator had a thickness
of 2 $X_0$, while the thickness of the R2 radiator was 4 $X_0$.
The apparent increased geometrical thickness of R2 in Year 1
was due to the presence of a 6mm air gap mid-way through the
radiator.}
\label{tab:radiator}
\vspace {5mm}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
                &  Year 1        & Year 2        & Year 3-4  \\
                &  (2013)        &  (2014)       &  (2015-6) \\
Surface         &  Location      & Location      & Location  \\
                &   (cm)         &    (cm)       & (cm)      \\
\hline
R1 Entrance  &  0.0  & 0.0  & 0.0  \\
R1 Exit      &  0.7  & 0.7  & 0.7  \\
R2 Entrance  &  55.0 & 45.7 & 46.6 \\
R2 Exit      &  57.0 & 47.1 & 48.0 \\
Sensor       &  57.7 & 47.6 & 48.5 \\
\end{tabular}
\par\end{centering}
\end{table}

Although initiating the shower significantly upstream of the sensor
promoted a more even illumination of the sensor
than would otherwise have been achieved, the half-width
of the resulting electron-positron fluence distribution
at the sensor plane was less than 0.5 cm. On the other hand,
the aperture of the CC apparatus (to be
described below) was of order 0.7 cm. Thus, in order to
ensure that the radiation dose was well understood over
the region of exposure to the CC apparatus source,
it was necessary to achieve a uniform illumination over
a region of approximately 1 cm$^2$. This was done by
`rastering' the detector across the beam spot through
a range of 1 cm in both dimensions
transverse to that of the incident beam.
According to Monte Carlo simulation studies, this is expected
to generate a region of approximately 1 cm$^2$ over which
the illumination is uniform to within $\pm 20$\%. To account
for potential millimeter-level misalginments of the beamline
center with the sensor, a `targeting factor' of $(90 \pm 10$)\%
is included in the final dose-rate calculations.

\section{Dose Rates}

During the 120 Hz operation of the SLAC Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS),
5-10 Hz of beam was deflected by a pulsed kicker magnet into the End Station transfer line.
The LCLS beam was very stable with respect to both current and energy. Electronic
pickups and ionization chambers measured the beam current and beam loss through the
transfer line aperture, ensuring that good transfer efficiency could be established
and maintained. The transfer efficiency
was estimated to be ($95 \pm 5$)\%.

To calculate the dose rate through the sensor, it is necessary to determine
the `shower conversion factor' $\alpha$ that provides the mean fluence of minimum-ionizing
particles (predominantly electrons and positrons), in particles per cm$^2$,
per incoming beam electron. This factor is dependent upon the radiator
configuration and incident beam energy, as well as the rastering pattern
used to provide an even fluence across the sensor (as stated above,
the detector was translated continuously across the beam centerline
in a 1 cm$^2$ square pattern).

To estimate $\alpha$, the Electron-Gamma-Shower (EGS) Monte Carlo program~\cite{ref:EGS}
was used to simulate showers through the radiator configuration
and into the sensor. The radiator configuration
was input to the EGS program, and a mean fluence profile (particles per
cm$^2$ through the sensor as a function of transverse distance from the nominal
beam trajectory) was accumulated by simulating the showers of 1000
incident electrons of a given energy. To simulate the rastering process,
the center of the simulated profile was then
moved across the face of the sensor in 0.5mm steps, and an estimated mean fluence
per incident electron as a function of position on the sensor (again, relative to the nominal beam
trajectory) was calculated. This resulted in a mean fluence per incident electron
that was uniform to within (as stated above) $\pm$20\% anywhere inside the boundary of the rastering region.
The value of $\alpha$ used for subsequent irradiation dose estimates was taken to be
the value found at the intersection of the nominal
beam trajectory with the sensor plane. The simulation was repeated for
various values of the incident electron energy, producing the values of
$\alpha$ shown in Table~\ref{tab:alpha_2013} (Table~\ref{tab:alpha_2014-15})
for the 2013 (2014-16) radiator configuration.
For years 2014 through 2016, the spacings
of the radiator and sensor were similar enough that
a single mean value of $\alpha$ sufficed.

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{centering}
\caption{Shower conversion factor $\alpha$, giving
the mean fluence at the sensor per incident
electron, as a function of electron energy. for the
2013 radiator configuration. These
values include the effect of rastering over a 1 cm$^2$
area surrounding the nominal beam trajectory.
Also shown is the number of rads per nC of delivered
charge, at the given energy, corresponding to the
given value of $\alpha$.
}
\label{tab:alpha_2013}
\vspace {5mm}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
Beam      & 2013 Shower                     & Dose per nC             \\
Energy    &   Conversion                    & Delivered                \\
(GeV)     & Factor $\alpha$                 & Charge (krad)           \\ \hline
2  &  2.1 & 0.34  \\
4  &  9.4 & 1.50  \\
6  & 16.5 & 2.64  \\
8  & 23.5 & 3.76  \\
10 & 30.2 & 4.83  \\
12 & 36.8 & 5.89  \\
\end{tabular}
\par\end{centering}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{centering}
\caption{Shower conversion factor $\alpha$, giving
the mean fluence at the sensor per incident
electron, as a function of electron energy,
for the 2014-16 radiator configuration. These
values include the effect of rastering over a 1 cm$^2$
area surrounding the nominal beam trajectory.
Also shown is the number of rads per nC of delivered
charge, at the given energy, corresponding to the
given value of $\alpha$. For 2014 through 2016, the spacings
of the radiator and sensor were similar enough that
a single mean value of $\alpha$ sufficed.
}
\label{tab:alpha_2014-15}
\vspace {5mm}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
Beam      & 2014-16 Shower      & Dose per nC             \\
Energy    & Conversion          & Delivered                \\
(GeV)     & Factor $\alpha$     & Charge (krad)           \\ \hline
3  & 4.6 &  0.73  \\
5  & 10.0 & 1.60  \\
7  & 15.5 & 2.48  \\
9  & 21.1 & 3.38  \\
11 & 26.7 & 4.27  \\
13 & 31.8 & 5.09  \\
15 & 37.7 & 6.03  \\
17 & 43.0 & 6.88  \\
\end{tabular}
\par\end{centering}
\end{table}

To convert this number to rads per nC of delivered charge, a mean
energy loss in silicon of 3.7 MeV/cm was assumed, leading to
a fluence-to-rad conversion factor of 160 rad per nC/cm$^2$.
It should be noted that while this dose rate considers only
the contribution from electrons and positrons, these
two sources dominate the overall energy absorbed by the
sensor. In addition, the BeamCal dose-rate spec of 100 Mrad
per year considered only the contribution from electrons
and positrons.

To confirm the adequacy of the dose-calibration simulation,
in 2013 an
in-situ measurement of the dose was made using a
radiation-sensing field-effect transistor (`RADFET')~\cite{ref:radfet}
positioned on a daughter board at the expected
position of the nominal beam trajectory at the
center of the rastering pattern.
Beam was delivered in 150 pC pulses of 4.02 GeV
electrons; a total of 1160 pulses were directed
into the target over a period of four minutes,
during which the sensor was rastered quickly
through its 1 cm$^2$ pattern.
The RADFET was then read out, indicating
a total accumulated dose of 230 krad,
with an uncertainty of roughly 10\%. Making
use of the dose rate calibration of Table~\ref{tab:alpha_2013},
interpolating to the exact incident energy of 4.02 GeV,
and taking into account the ($95 \pm 5$)\% transfer efficiency
of the ESTB beamline, leads to an expected dose of 250 krad,
within the $\sim$10\% uncertainty of the RADFET measurement.

\section{Sensor Irradiation Levels}

This proceeding reports on the study of three types of silicon diode sensors.
Two pad sensors with p-type and n-type bulk doping (denoted ``PF'' and ``NF'', respectively)
were produced from float-zone crystals. A third n-type silicon diode
sensor (denoted ``LUMI'') was designed for use in the ILC Luminosity Calorimeter.
In addition, irradiated bulk (non-diode)
GaAs, SiC and industrial sapphire sensors were studied.
Once a sensor was irradiated in a $0^{\circ}-5^{\circ}$ C environment
at the ESTB, it was placed
in a sub-freezing environment and not irradiated again.
Up to four sensors of each type were irradiated and
chilled until they could be brought back to the University
of California, Santa Cruz campus for the
post-irradiation CC and leakage current measurements. In
addition, the sub-freezing environment was maintained
both during and after the CCE and current measurements, so
that controlled annealing studies could be performed.
Table~\ref{tab:dose} displays the dose parameters of the
irradiated sensors. The
$(95 \pm 5)$\% transfer line efficiency
and the $(90 \pm 10)$\% targeting factor have been taken
into account in these estimates.

\begin{table*}[h]
\begin{centering}
\caption{Dose parameters of the irradiated sensors. A
$(95 \pm 5)$\% transfer line efficiency and
a $(90 \pm 10)$\% targeting factor has been taken
into account in final dose estimates.}
\label{tab:dose}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
Sensor  & Year &  Beam Energy         &   Delivered      &  Dose     \\
        &      & (GeV)                &  Charge ($\mu$C) & (Mrad)    \\ \hline \hline
WSI-P4 (PF)     & 2015 &  13.3       &  50.9        & 269   \\
N6906 (NF)      & 2015 &  14.6       &  60.0        & 290   \\
LUMI            & 2016 & (14.5,13.4) & (30.3,37.0)  & 316   \\ \hline
GaAs-09         & 2014 &  3.90       &  21.7        & 20.8  \\ \hline
SiC             & 2015 &  13.3       &  17.2        & 76.6    \\ \hline
Sapphire-04     & 2016 & (14.5,13.4) & (13.1,53.8)  & 307   \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\par\end{centering}
\end{table*}

\section{Charge Collection Measurement}

The SCIPP CC
apparatus incorporates a $^{90}$Sr source that has a secondary $\beta$-decay
with an end-point energy of 2.28 MeV that illuminate
the sensor under study, passing through to a scintillator immediately behind
the sensor that is read out by a photomultiplier tube.

For assessing the CCE of pad sensors,
a two-stage, single-channel amplifier was constructed from discrete components,
based on a design of Fabris, Madden and Yaver~\cite{ref:jfet_amp}.
For the first stage, a cascode of two NXP BF862 JFETs is used. The source of the second
JFET was connected to the non-inverting input of an LM6171 operational amplifier,
chosen for its high slew rate and low input noise contribution.
The output of this opamp was then fed back to the input of the first JFET through
a $0.05$ pF capacitor shunted by a 10 M$\Omega$ resistor,
completing the negative feedback loop. An external network, including
a 32 dB Sonoma Instrument 310 SDI amplifier, was used to further amplify the pulse and
shape it to a rise-time of 290 ns.

Upon receiving a trigger from the scintillator, the signal
from the amplifier was read out by a Tektronix DPO 4054
digital storage oscilloscope, and the digitized waveforms
were written out and stored on the disk of a dedicated
data-acquisition computer. After the waveforms were accumulated on the computer,
a narrow temporal window was set around the peak of the average excitation pulse
from through-going beta particles, and a histogram was made of the resulting
pulse-height distribution; a typical distribution is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:PH_dist}.
Since not all $\beta$ particles that trigger the scintillator go through the pad,
the distribution shows contributions from both the Landau deposition of the
through-going $\beta$ particles, as well as that of the noise pedestal, allowing
for an in-situ subtraction of the mean pedestal.

The amplification system was calibrated by reading out an unirradiated silicon diode
sensor of known thickness, and
comparing the median charge of the resulting Landau
distribution (after subtracting off the mean pedestal) to that expected
for an unirradiated sensor of that thickness.
The measured gain exhibited only a small dependence on load
capacitance. The width of the pedestal distribution then provides a measurement of the
readout noise, which was found to be approximately 250 electrons at room temperature.

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig_pad_ph_dist.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Histogram of pulse height for photomultiplier-triggered data events for
the single-channel readout. Both
the Landau distribution due to through-going $\beta$ particles as well
as the noise pedestal (for triggers for which the $\beta$ particle did not
traverse the sensor) are seen.
\label{fig:PH_dist}
}
\end{figure}

\section{Charge Collection and Leakage Current Results}

The daughter boards
containing the irradiated sensors were designed
with connectors that allowed them to be attached to the
CC apparatus readout board without handling the sensors.
The median CC was measured as a function of bias voltage for each sensor
both before and after irradiation, typically after a series of hour-long
annealing steps at successively higher temperatures.

\subsection{Results for bulk (non-diode) sensors}

GaAs has been made use of in sensors designed specifically for use in the BeamCal
instrument. The GaAs test structure described in Section~1 was irradiated to a
level of 21 Mrad in 2014.
Figure~\ref{fig:GaAs_traj} exhibits the observed CCE for the
GaAs sensor as a function of bias voltage and annealing temperature. Figure~\ref{fig:GaAs_slice}
shows the CCE as a function of annealing temperature.
The sensor exhibited a significant loss in CCE, which
worsened after low-temperature annealing but then recovered somewhat after
higher-temperature annealing. Figure~\ref{fig:GaAs_current} shows the sensor's pre- and
post-irradiation leakage current as a function of temperature, for a bias
voltage of $V_B$ = -600 V. A significant dependence on
sensor temperature is observed, as well as a degradation (increase) after irradiation.
This increased leakage current was not observed to improve significantly with annealing.

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_GaAs.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from a GaAs sensor upon bias
voltage and annealing temperature, after exposure to a dose of 21 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation. Also shown is the median
collected charge as a function of bias voltage prior to irradiation.
\label{fig:GaAs_traj}
}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_T_GaAs.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from a GaAs sensor upon
annealing temperature for a bias of $V_B$ = -600 V, before and after exposure to a dose of 21 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation.
\label{fig:GaAs_slice}
}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig_cur_T_GaAs.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Leakage current vs. temperature for unirradiated and irradiated (21 Mrad)
GaAs sensors. The study was done with a bias of $V_B$ = -600 V. The irradiated GaAs sensor
had been annealed for an hour at a temperature of 75$^o$ C.
\label{fig:GaAs_current}
}
\end{figure}

Industrial sapphire has been proposed as a possible sensor technology for the
BeamCal, due to an expectation that it will exhibit radiation tolerance similarly favorable
to that of industrial diamond, which is much more costly than industrial sapphire.
The intrinsic CCE is low, however, presumably
due to a short mean-free path of carriers in the sensor bulk. After exposure
to 307 Mrad of electromagnetically-induced radiation, leakage current remained
in the nanoamp range over the ~1 cm$^2$ area of the sensor. As illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig:Sap_traj}, the median collected charge before irradiation
was measured to be only of order 0.3 fC for a detector basis as high as 1000 V,
with a significant drop in CCE observed after irradiation. Figure~\ref{fig:Sap_slice}
shows the measure CCE as a function of annealing temperature for biases
of $\pm 1000$ V; no improvement is observed over the course of the annealing process.

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_Sap.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from an industrial sapphire sensor upon bias
voltage and annealing temperature, after exposure to a dose of 307 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation. Also shown is the median
collected charge as a function of bias voltage prior to irradiation.
\label{fig:Sap_traj}
}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_T_Sap.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from an industrial sapphire sensor upon
annealing temperature for biases of $\pm 1000$ V, before and after exposure to a dose of 307 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation.
\label{fig:Sap_slice}
}
\end{figure}

As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:SiC_traj}, the
sample sensor of 4H silicon carbide with an epitaxial (active) layer thickness of
70 $\mu$m exhibited charge collection of approximately 0.5 fC before irradiation. After
an electromagnetically-induced irradiation of 77 Mrad, substantial loss of
CCE was observed at lower bias levels ($V_B \simeq 200$ V); however, the CCE was approximately
2/3 of its unirradiated value for $V_B = 1000$ V. As illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig:SiC_slice}, little improvement was observed after hour-long
annealing episodes at successively higher temperature. Post-irradiation
leakage current, measured at approximately $-15^{\circ}$ C, remained at the
nanoamp level.

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_SiC.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from a SiC sensor upon bias
voltage and annealing temperature, after exposure to a dose of 77 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation. Also shown is the median
collected charge as a function of bias voltage prior to irradiation.
\label{fig:SiC_traj}
}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_T_SiC.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from a SiC sensor upon
annealing temperature for a bias of $V_B$ = 600 V, before and after exposure to a dose of 77 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation.
\label{fig:SiC_slice}
}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Results for silicon diode sensors}

CCE and leakage current were measured for three types
of Si diode sensors after doses of electromagnetically-induced
radiation of order 300 Mrad, including both p-bulk (PF) and n-bulk (NF)
float zone pad sensors as well as for an n-bulk sensor (LUMI) designed
for use in the ILC Luminosity Calorimeter.
Figures~\ref{fig:PF_traj} and ~\ref{fig:PF_slice}
exhibit the CCE for the PF sensor
before and after a 270 Mrad irradiation, with the post-irradiation
CCE exhibited after several successive annealing episodes.
Significant CCE loss was observed at lower ($V_B = -200$ V) bias
voltages, but for $V_B = -600$ V, the CCE was observed to exceed
80\% of its pre-irradiation value after annealing at moderate temperature.
Figure~\ref{fig:PF_curr} shows the PF sensor leakage current
observed after irradiation, measured as a function of bias
voltage at a temperature of $-10^{\circ}$ C. Taking into account
the $0.025$ cm$^2$ area of the sensor, the current
density was measured to be approximately 80 $\mu$A/cm$^2$,
with little dependence upon annealing temperature. Figure~\ref{fig:PF_curr_T}
exhibits the post-irradiation leakage current as a function of temperature
for a bias voltage of $V_B = -600$ V; the power-law behavior
of a doubling of the leakage current for every $5-10^{\circ}$ C
increase in temperature is typical for Si diode sensors.

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_PF.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from a p-bulk
float-zone technology silicon diode sensor upon bias
voltage and annealing temperature, after exposure to a dose of 270 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation. Also shown is the median
collected charge as a function of bias voltage prior to irradiation.
\label{fig:PF_traj}
}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_T_PF.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from a p-bulk, float-zone technology silicon diode sensor
as a function of annealing temperature for a bias of $V_B = -600$ V, before and after exposure to a
dose of 270 Mrad of electromagnetically-induced radiation.
\label{fig:PF_slice}
}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig_cur_PF.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the leakage current through a p-bulk
float-zone technology silicon diode sensor upon bias
voltage and annealing temperature, after exposure to a dose of 270 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation.
\label{fig:PF_curr}
}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{fig_cur_T_PF.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the leakage current through a p-bulk
float-zone technology silicon diode sensor upon temperature
after exposure to a dose of 270 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation. The sensor
was biased to $V_B = -600$ V.
\label{fig:PF_curr_T}
}
\end{figure}

Figures~\ref{fig:NF_traj}
and~\ref{fig:NF_slice} exhibit the CCE for the NF sensor
before and after a 290 Mrad irradiation, with the post-irradiation
CCE exhibited after several successive annealing episodes.
Again, significant CCE loss was observed at lower ($V_B = 200$ V) bias
voltages, while for $V_B = 600$ V, the CCE was observed to approach
60\% of its pre-irradiation value after annealing at moderate temperature.
The post-irradiation leakage current density was found to be similar in
magnitude and temperature dependence to that of the PF sensor discussed
above.

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_NF.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from an n-bulk
float-zone technology silicon diode sensor upon bias
voltage and annealing temperature, after exposure to a dose of 290 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation. Also shown is the median
collected charge as a function of bias voltage prior to irradiation.
\label{fig:NF_traj}
}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{fig_medQ_T_NF.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from an n-bulk, float-zone technology silicon diode sensor
as a function of annealing temperature for a bias of $600$ V, before and after exposure to a
dose of 290 Mrad of electromagnetically-induced radiation.
\label{fig:NF_slice}
}
\end{figure}

Finally, figure~\ref{fig:Lumi_traj}
exhibits the CCE for the LUMI sensor
before and after a 316 Mrad irradiation, with the post-irradiation
CCE again exhibited after several successive annealing episodes.
The results are qualitatively similar to those for the PF and NF
sensors, with significant CCE loss observed for lower bias voltages,
but with substantial improvement to the CCE observed for higher
bias voltages, particularly after annealing at moderate temperature.
Because of the breakdown experienced at bias voltages above several
hundred volts (due, again, to the fact that the integrity of the
sensor was compromised when it was broken and cleaved, but
not expected for an intact sensor), the
high-bias CCE behavior could not be
explored. Nonetheless, the behavior was observed to be qualitatively
consistent with that of the NF sensor discussed above.
Given the possibility that significant current was passing across
the cleaved edge of the sensor, only an upper bound could be
determined for the post-irradiation leakage current for the LUMI
sensor. Again, though, this bound suggested qualitative consistency with the NF
and PF sensor results.

\begin{figure}[h]
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{fig_medQ_Lumi.pdf}
 \end{center}
 \caption{
Dependence of the median collected charge from a fragment of
an n-bulk silicon diode sensor designed for use with the ILC
Luminosity Calorimeter, as function of bias
voltage and annealing temperature, after exposure to a dose of 316 Mrad
of electromagnetically-induced radiation. Also shown is the median
collected charge as a function of bias voltage prior to irradiation.
\label{fig:Lumi_traj}
}
\end{figure}

\section{Summary and Conclusions}

Using the End Station Test Beam facility at the SLAC National
Accelerator Laboratory,
we have explored the radiation tolerance of three different types of
silicon diode sensors as well as bulk (non-diode) sensors formed from
gallium arsenide, silicon carbide, and industrial sapphire crystals.
These sensors were exposed to doses of electromagnetically-induced
radiation that varied from 21 Mrad (for the gallium arsenide sensor)
to of order 300 Mrad (for the silicon diode and sapphire sensors).
At these dose levels, the silicon diode sensors were observed to
develop leakage currents of several tens of $\mu$A/cm$^2$
at operating temperatures of $-10^{\circ}$C,
increasing with temperature with a doubling interval of $5-10^{\circ}$C.
After moderate-temperature
annealing, and operating at a reverse bias of 400-600 V,
the silicon diode sensors were observed to retain charge-collection
efficiency above 50\%, with the p-bulk sensor retaining
somewhat better charge-collection efficiency than the two n-bulk
sensors that were irradiated. The silicon carbide and sapphire
sensors, after absorbing doses of 77 and 307 Mrad, respectively,
did not develop significant leakage current at an operating temperature
of $-10^{\circ}$C. Operating at a bias voltage of $V_B$ = 1000 V, the silicon
carbide sensor retained somewhat over 50\% of its unirradiated charge-collection
efficiency, while the sapphire sensor retained only about 20\% of its
unirradiated charge-collection efficiency. Neither sensors showed
improvement with annealing. Finally, after moderate temperature annealing,
the gallium arsenide sensor retained approximately 50\% of its
original charge-collection efficiency after a 21 Mrad dose. Somewhat
unexpectedly, the sensor was observed to develop a leakage current
of approximately 1 $\mu$A/cm$^2$ at an operating temperature of $-10^{\circ}$C,
with a fractional rate of increase with temperature similar to that of the silicon
diode sensors. These gallium arsenide results await confirmation with a
sensor that has been irradiated to 100 Mrad but has not yet been characterized.

\section{Acknowledgments}

We are grateful to Leszek Zawiejski, INP, Krakow for supplying us with the tungsten plates
needed to form our radiator, Georgy Shelkov, JINR, Dubna for supplying us with GaAs
sensors for irradiation studies,
Bohumir Zatko, Slovak Academy of Sciences, for supplying us with the SiC sensor,
and Sergej Schuwalow, DESY Zeuthen, for supplying us with the industrial sapphire sensor.
We would also like to express our gratitude
to the SLAC Laboratory, and particularly the End Station Test Beam delivery
and support personnel, who made the run possible and successful.
Finally, we would like to thank our SCIPP colleague Hartmut Sadrozinski for
the numerous helpful discussions and guidance he provided us.

\section{Role of the Funding Source}

The work described in this article was supported by the United States Department of Energy,
DOE contract DE-AC02-7600515 (SLAC) and grant DE-FG02-04ER41286 (UCSC/SCIPP). The funding agency
played no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or
documentation of the work described herein.

\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}


\section{Computation of Fig.\ref{fig:figure_2}}\label{a:A}
To compute Fig.\ref{fig:figure_2}, we take
\begin{equation}
p(x,0)=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{(x-1)^2}{2\sigma_i^2}\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_i}
\end{equation}
as initial condition for eq.\eqref{eq:FP}. In particular, $\sigma_i$ is such that $p(x,t)$ broadens inside the right well of $U(x)$ before developing a clean-cut second peak in the left well of the potential. We then solve eq.\eqref{eq:FP} with the Matlab \texttt{pdepe} function. With the solution we compute
\begin{equation}
P_0(t_R)=\int_{-\infty}^{0} p(x,t_R)
\end{equation}
for different refresh times $t_R$, and then we evaluate the failure probability
\begin{equation}
P_E=1-\left(1-P_0(t_R)\right)^\frac{t}{t_R}
\end{equation}
for different values of $t_R$ and $t\gg t_R$. As a last step, we use a spline fit of $P_E$ to sample $t_R$ for different values of $P_E$ and $t$. The results obtained in this way are plotted in Figure 2. These results are obtained with $T = 1/8$ which corresponds to $\tau_k = \num{5.3e4}\tau_w$.

\section{Derivation of eq.\eqref{eq:equation3} and eq.\eqref{eq:equation2}}\label{a:B}
We derive here two important equations given in the main text, namely eq.\eqref{eq:equation3} and eq.\eqref{eq:equation2}.
We start with eq.\eqref{eq:equation2}. To derive it we assume that $T \ll 1$. This simplifies the mathematical description of the system as it implies that the intra-well relaxation mechanisms of the system are faster than the inter-well ones. If we are interested in intra-well mechanism only, then a satisfactory form for the dimensionless $p(x,t)$ is
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:twopeaks}
\begin{align}
p(x,t)=&p_0(x,t)+p_1(x,t)\\
p_0(x,t)=&P_0\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{(x+1)^2}{2\sigma(t)^2}\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma(t)}\\
p_1(x,t)=&(1-P_0)\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{(x-1)^2}{2\sigma(t)^2}\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma(t)}\\
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $P_0$ is, to all effects, constant over time. We substitute eq.\eqref{eq:twopeaks} in eq.\eqref{eq:FP} and then we approximate eq.\eqref{eq:duffing} with an harmonic potential by Taylor-expanding around $x=\pm 1$. This yields two distinct equations
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:doppia_FP}
\begin{align}
\pdv{p_0}{t}-8\left(p_0+(x+1)\pdv{p_0}{x}\right)-T\pdv{^2p_0}{x^2}&=0\\
\pdv{p_1}{t}-8\left(p_1+(x-1)\pdv{p_1}{x}\right)-T\pdv{^2p_1}{x^2}&=0\\
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where used the fact that $p_1(x,t)$ ($p_0(x,t)$) can't affect the dynamics of the system in the left (right) well of $U(x)$ if $\Delta U \ll k_BT$. Eq.\eqref{eq:doppia_FP} can be combined into
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left(\pdv{p_0}{t}-8\left(p_0+(x+1)\pdv{p_0}{x}\right)-T\pdv{^2p_0}{x^2} \right)(x+1)^2 \mathrm{d}x\\
&+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left(\pdv{p_1}{t}-8\left(p_1+(x-1)\pdv{p_1}{x}\right)-T\pdv{^2p_1}{x^2}\right)(x-1)^2 \mathrm{d}x\\
&=0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma_eq}
\pdv{\sigma(t)^2}{t}+16\sigma(t)^2-2T=0.
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:sigma_eq} describes the time evolution of $\sigma(t)$ when intra-well relaxation mechanisms occurs. Its analytic solution for an initial condition $\sigma(0)=\sigma_i$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma_t}
\sigma(t)=\sqrt{\frac{T}{8}+\exp\left(-16 t\right)\left(\sigma_i^2- \frac{T}{8}\right)}
\end{equation}
which is the dimensionless version of the eq.\eqref{eq:equation2} given the main text.

To compute eq.\eqref{eq:equation3} we recollect that we defined the ``refresh operation restores a non-equilibrium condition by shrinking the width of each peak of $p(x,t)$.'' without error corrections. If we assume that the refresh protocol preserves the symmetry of $U(x)$, then $p(x,t)$ can be written as eq.\eqref{eq:twopeaks} during the whole refresh  procedure. As a consequence, the sole effect of a refresh operation with duration $t_p$ is to transform
\begin{equation}\label{eq:init_cond}
p(x,t)=P_0(t)\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{(x+1)^2}{2\sigma(t)^2}\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma(t)}+(1-P_0(t))\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{(x-1)^2}{2\sigma(t)^2}\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma(t)}\\
\end{equation}
into
\begin{equation}\label{eq:finit_cond}
p(x,t+t_p)=P_0(t)\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{(x+1)^2}{2\sigma_i^2}\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_i}+(1-P_0(t))\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{(x-1)^2}{2\sigma_i^2}\right)}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_i}\\
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(t)$ is given by eq.\eqref{eq:sigma_t}, $P_0(t)$ is fitted from the numerical solution of eq.\eqref{eq:FP} with eq.\eqref{eq:duffing}, and $\sigma_i=\sigma(0)$.
We now use the Gibbs entropy definition
\begin{equation}
S(t)=-k_B\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} p(x,t)\ln{p(x,t)} \mathrm{d} x
\end{equation}
to compute the entropy variation $\Delta S=S(t+t_p)-S(t)$ of the refresh protocol. Because of the $\Delta U\gg k_BT$ assumption, we have that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\Delta S\approx -k_B\Bigl(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{x^2}{2\sigma_i^2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_i}\ln\Bigl(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{x^2}{2\sigma_i^2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_i} \Bigr) \mathrm{d}x \\
&-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{x^2}{2\sigma(t)^2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma(t)}\ln\Bigl(\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{x^2}{2\sigma(t)^2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma(t)} \Bigr) \mathrm{d}x\Bigr),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DeltaS}
\Delta S\approx k_B\ln\left(\frac{\sigma_i}{\sigma(t)}\right).
\end{equation}
By using eq.\eqref{eq:DeltaS} with $t=t_R$ we obtain the eq.\eqref{eq:equation3} presented in the main text.

\section{Minimum value for $\sigma_i$}\label{a:C}
We discuss here the existence of the minimum possible value for $\sigma_i$. First of all, we observe that $\sigma_i\to0$ is a singular limit in eq.\eqref{eq:DeltaS}. This is inconsistent with the third law of thermodynamics, so there must be a minimum value for $\sigma_i$. This is given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In the best case scenario this reads
\begin{equation}
\sigma_x\sigma_p=\frac{\hbar}{2}.
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_x$ ($\sigma_p$) is the uncertainty on the position $x$ (momentum $p$). According to the equipartition theorem,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_p=m{\sqrt{\langle v^2\rangle-\langle v\rangle^2}}={\sqrt{mk_B T}},
\end{equation}
so we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma_x}
\sigma_x=\frac{\hbar}{2\sqrt{mk_BT}}
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:sigma_x} sets the minimum possible uncertainty for $\sigma_x$. Since $\sigma_i$ describes the uncertainty of the initial $x$ value, we therefore have that $\sigma_i\geq \sigma_{iMin} =\frac{\hbar}{2\sqrt{mk_BT}}$. The existence of a $\sigma_{iMin}$ implies that, even at $t=0$, the probability of error $P_0$ is greater than zero. Clearly, this does not exclude that one can have a smaller $\sigma_i$ by accepting a larger $\sigma_p$. This would imply to operate the memory out of the thermal equilibrium, growing the dissipated energy well above the fundamental minimum.

\end{document}


\section{Introduction} \label{sec-bck}
In noncommutative geometry Podle\'s noncommutative two-spheres \cite{P} are noncommutative low-dimensional manifolds, these are $SU_q(2)$-homogeneous spaces. Denoted by $S^2_{q,s}$ where
$$ q^n \neq 1 \text{    for all } n\in \mathbb N.$$
and $s \in [0,1]$, the Podle\'s quantum spheres are parametrized by $s$. We shall study the associated C*-algebra which corresponds to the algebra of smooth functions on the quantum two spheres $S^2_{q,s}$. An extensive study of the Dirac operators, spectral triples and corresponding local index formulae for the Podle\'s spheres can be found in articles \cite{CP} \cite{DL}. In the paper \cite{GoJ} authors studied the quantum isometries of the Podle\'s spheres. In \cite{HMS} the authors studied the quantum disc $D_q$ and the two dimensional quantum real projective space $\mathbb RP^2_q$ arising by two different involutive automorphisms of $S^2_{q,1}$(for $s>0, C(S^2_{q,s}) \cong C(S^2_{q,1}$)\cite{Sh}). All automorphisms of $S^2_{q,s}$ are known to be diagonal as described in \cite{K}. Let $\mathcal A$ denote the C*-algebra $C(S^2_{q,s})$ and $\rho \in Aut(\mathcal A)$. Hochschild and cyclic homology of the Podle\'s quantum spheres was calculated by Masuda, Nakagami and Watanabe [MNW], using a free resolution . In \cite{H} author used this resolution to calculate the Hochschild homologies $H_n(\mathcal A, {}_{\rho}\mathcal A)$, which by \cite{HK} are isomorphic to the twisted Hochschild homologies $HH^{\rho}_n(\mathcal
A)$. In the untwisted situation [MNW] the Hochschild groups $H_n(\mathcal A, \mathcal A)$ vanish for $n \geq 2$, in contrast to the classical situation $q = 1$. However, in the twisted situation, there exists an automorphisms $\rho$ with $H_n(\mathcal A, {}_{\rho}\mathcal A)\neq 0$ for $n = 0, 1, 2$. These automorphisms which are the positive powers of the canonical modular automorphism associated to the $SU_q(2)$-invariant linear functional is not an order two automorphism and hence will not be discussed here, but it is interesting to note this phenomenon studied in detail in \cite{H}. \par

To our knowledge, the Hochschild and periodic cyclic (co)homology of these two $\mathbb Z_2$ orbifolds of the Podle\'s two spheres are not known in the literature. In this article we compute the Hochschild and cyclic homology and cohomology groups of the two $S^2_{q,1}$ $\mathbb Z_2$-orbifolds $D_q$ and $\mathbb RP^2_q$. We also compute the Chern-Connes indices for each of these orbifolds by pairing the even periodic cocycles with the projections. While the projection for the quantum two dimensional real projective space was calculated in \cite{HMS}, for the quantum disc case the group $K_0(C(D_q)) \cong \mathbb Z$ as $C(D_q)$ is a Toeplitz algebra \cite[pp 191]{We}.

\section{$\mathbb Z_2$ actions on the Podle\'s sphere.}
The Podle\'s spheres $S^2_{q,s}$ has its C*-algebra $\mathcal A$, closure of the *-algebra generated by $A$ and $B$ satisfying the following relations:
$$A=A^\ast, \text{ } BA=q^2AB, \text{ }B^\ast B+A^2=(1-s^2)A + s^2, \text{ }BB^\ast + q^4A^2=(1-s^2)q^2A+s^2.$$
The automorphism of $\mathcal A$ acts diagonally on the generators, explicity for $\rho \in Aut(\mathcal A)$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb C$, $\rho$ has one of the following actions on the generators:

$$\sigma_\lambda(B)=\lambda B, \text{ } \sigma_\lambda(A)=A, \text{ } \sigma_\lambda(B^\ast) = \lambda^{-1} B^\ast.$$
$$\mu_\lambda(B)=\lambda B, \text{ } \mu_\lambda(A)=-A, \text{ } \mu_\lambda(B^\ast) = \lambda^{-1} B^\ast.$$
For $\rho = \sigma_{-1}$, the algebra $\mathcal A \rtimes_{\sigma_{-1}} \mathbb Z_2$ is associated to the quantum disc $D_q$, while for $\rho = \mu_{-1}$; the algebra $\mathcal A \rtimes_{\mu_{-1}} \mathbb Z_2$ corresponds to the quantum real projective space $\mathbb R P^2_q$\cite{HMS}.

\section{Strategy of the proof}
We use the paracyclic decomposition technique to decompose the the homology groups\cite{GJ}.
One can use the results of \cite{GJ} to deduce the following decomposition of the homology group of the algebra $\mathcal A \rtimes \Gamma$.
\begin{thm}\cite{GJ}
If $\Gamma$ is finite and $|\Gamma|$ is invertible in k, then there is a natural isomorphism of cyclic homology and
\begin{center}
$HH_\bullet(\mathcal A \rtimes \Gamma)= HH_\bullet(H_0(\Gamma, (\mathcal A)_\Gamma^\sharp),$
\end{center}
where $(H_0(\Gamma, (\mathcal A)_\Gamma^\sharp)$ is the cyclic module
\begin{center}
$H_0(\Gamma,(\mathcal A)_\Gamma^\sharp)(n) =  H_0(\Gamma,k[\Gamma] \otimes (\mathcal A)^{\otimes {n+1}})$.
\end{center}
\end{thm}
Since $\Gamma$ is abelian, we can conclude that the group homology $H_0(\Gamma, \mathcal {A} ^{ \natural}_{\Gamma})$ splits the complex into $|\Gamma|$ disjoint parts.
\begin{center}
$H_0(\Gamma,\mathcal {A} ^{ \natural}_{\Gamma})(n) = H_0(\Gamma, k[\Gamma] \otimes (\mathcal {A}_{} )^{\otimes {n+1}}) = \displaystyle \bigoplus_{t \in \Gamma} (({}_{t}\mathcal {A} )^{\otimes {n+1}})^{\Gamma}$\\
\end{center}
For each $t \in \Gamma$ ,  the algebra ${}_{t}\mathcal {A} $ is set-wise $\mathcal A$ with the twisted Hochschild differential ${}_{t}b$ acting as
$${}_{t}b(a_0 \otimes a_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes a_n) = b'(a_0 \otimes a_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes a_n) + (-)^n((t \cdot a_n)a_)\otimes a_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes a_{n-1})$$
on the complex ${}_{t}\mathcal A^{\otimes (\bullet+1)}$.
We therefore decompose Hochschild homology $HH_\bullet(\mathcal A \rtimes \Gamma)$ as follows:
\begin{center}
$HH_\bullet(\mathcal A \rtimes \Gamma)= HH_\bullet(H_0(\Gamma,\mathcal {A} ^{ \natural}_{\Gamma}))=\displaystyle \bigoplus_{t \in \Gamma} HH_\bullet(({}_{t}\mathcal {A}^{ \bullet})^{\Gamma})$.
\end{center}
It is enough to calculate $HH_\bullet(({}_{t}\mathcal {A} ^{ \bullet})^{\Gamma})$ for each $t \in \Gamma$. To calculate these individual homology groups, we use the lemma below.
\begin{lemma}\cite{Q}
Let
\begin{center}
$J_\ast :=  0 \xleftarrow{d} A \xleftarrow{d} (\mathcal A^{\otimes2}) \xleftarrow{d} (\mathcal A^{\otimes3}) \xleftarrow{d} (\mathcal A^{\otimes4}) \xleftarrow{d} (\mathcal A^{\otimes5}) \xleftarrow{d} ...$
\end{center}
be a chain complex. For a given $\Gamma$ action on $\mathcal A$, consider the following chain complex, with chain map $d^\Gamma :(\mathcal A^{\otimes n})^\Gamma \rightarrow (\mathcal A^{\otimes{n-1}})^\Gamma$ induced from the map $d : \mathcal A^{\otimes n} \rightarrow \mathcal A^{\otimes{n-1}}$.
\begin{center}
$J^\Gamma_{\ast} := 0 \xleftarrow{d^\Gamma} \mathcal A^\Gamma \xleftarrow{d^\Gamma} (\mathcal A^{\otimes2})^\Gamma \xleftarrow{d^\Gamma} (\mathcal A^{\otimes3})^\Gamma \xleftarrow{d^\Gamma} (\mathcal A^{\otimes4})^\Gamma \xleftarrow{d^\Gamma} (\mathcal A^{\otimes5})^\Gamma \xleftarrow{d^\Gamma} ...$
\end{center}
With the $\Gamma$ action commuting with the differential $d$. We have the following group equality $H_\bullet(J_\ast^\Gamma, d^\Gamma)=H_\bullet(J_\ast, d)^\Gamma$.
\end{lemma}
Hence using the above lemma we have the following is the decomposition of the Hochschild homology group $H_\bullet(\mathcal A \rtimes_{\rho} \mathbb Z_2)$:
$$H_\bullet(\mathcal A \rtimes_{\rho} \mathbb Z_2) =H_\bullet(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)^{\rho} \oplus H_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\rho}\mathcal A)^{\rho}. $$
Where ${}_{\rho}\mathcal A$, set-wise $\mathcal A$, is an $\mathcal A^e(=\mathcal A \otimes \mathcal A^{op})$ bi-module with the following actions:
$$\alpha \cdot a = (-1 \cdot \alpha)a\text{ and } a \cdot \alpha = a\alpha, \text{ for } \alpha \in \mathcal A \text{ and } a \in {}_{\rho}\mathcal A$$

The Hochschild and cyclic homology groups of $H_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\rho}\mathcal A)$ and $HC_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\rho}\mathcal A)$ equal the twisted Hochschild and cyclic homology groups $HH^{\rho}_{\bullet}(\mathcal A)$ and $HC^{\rho}_{\bullet}(\mathcal A)$ as $\rho$ is diagonal \cite{K}. Hence in order to understand $H_{\bullet}(\mathcal A \rtimes_{\rho} \mathbb Z_2)$ we need to understand the $\rho$ invariant subgroups of $H_\bullet(\mathcal A, \mathcal A)$ and $H_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\rho}\mathcal A)$. For this we use the MNW resolution which we describe below.  \par

In the article \cite{MNW}, the authors presented a resolution of $\mathcal A$,
$$ \cdots \rightarrow \mathcal M_{n+1} \rightarrow \mathcal M_n \cdots \rightarrow \mathcal M_2 \rightarrow \mathcal M_1 \rightarrow \mathcal M_0 \rightarrow \mathcal A \rightarrow 0 $$
by free left $\mathcal A^e$-modules $\mathcal M_n$, with $rank(\mathcal M_0)=1$, $rank(\mathcal M_1)=3$ and $rank(\mathcal M_n)=4$ for $n\geq 2$. Adapting their notation, $\mathcal M_1$ has basis $\{e_A, e_B, e_{B^{\ast}}\}$, with $d_1: \mathcal M_1 \rightarrow \mathcal M_0 = \mathcal A^e$ given by
$$d_1(e_t) = t \otimes 1 - 1 \otimes t^o, \text{  } t = A,B,B^{\ast}.$$
The module $\mathcal M_2$ has basis $\{e_a \wedge e_B, e_A \wedge e_B^{\ast}, \vartheta^{(1)}_S, \vartheta^{(1)}_T \}$, with $d_2: \mathcal M_2 \rightarrow \mathcal M_1$ given by
$$d_2(1_{\mathcal A^{e}} \otimes (e_A \wedge e_{B^{\ast}})) = (A\otimes 1 - 1 \otimes q^2A^{o})\otimes e_{B^{\ast}}-(q^2B^{\ast} \otimes 1 -1\otimes B^{\ast o})\otimes e_A,$$
$$d_2(1_{\mathcal A^{e}} \otimes (e_A \wedge e_{B^{\ast}})) = (q^2A\otimes 1 - 1 \otimes A^{o})\otimes e_{B^{}}-(B^{} \otimes 1 -1\otimes q^2B^{ o})\otimes e_A,$$
$$d_2(1_{\mathcal A^{e}} \otimes \vartheta^{(1)}_S) = -q^{-1}(B\otimes 1 \otimes e_{B^{\ast}}+1 \otimes B^{\ast o } \otimes e_B) - q(q^2(A\otimes  1 + 1 \otimes A^{o})\otimes e_A,$$
$$d_2(1_{\mathcal A^{e}} \otimes \vartheta^{(1)}_T) = -q^{-1}(1 \otimes B^o \otimes  e_{B^{\ast}} +B^{\ast} \otimes 1 \otimes e_B) - q^{-1}((A\otimes  1 + 1 \otimes A^{o})\otimes e_A.$$
The maps $d_i$; $i \geq 3$ are not needed in this article, for reference purpose we refer to \cite{MNW}. \par

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
    \arrow{r} & \mathcal M_2\arrow{r}{d_2}\arrow[harpoon]{d}{f_2} & \mathcal{M}_1\arrow{r}{d_1}\arrow[harpoon]{d}{f_1}  & \mathcal M_0\arrow{r}{d_0}\arrow[harpoon]{d}{f_0} & \mathcal A\arrow{r}\arrow{d}{\cong} & 0 \\
    \arrow{r} & \mathcal A^{\otimes 4}\arrow{r}{b'}\arrow[harpoon]{u}{h_2}\arrow{r} & \mathcal A^{\otimes 3}\arrow[harpoon]{u}{h_1}\arrow{r}{b'} & \mathcal A^{\otimes 2}\arrow{r}{b'}\arrow[harpoon]{u}{h_0}\arrow{r} & \mathcal A\arrow{r} & 0
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}

\
There exists chain homotopy equivalence between the MNW and the bar resolution of $\mathcal A$. This is a standard construction in homological algebra. Let $(\mathcal M, d)$ denote the MNW resolution of $\mathcal A$ and let $(\mathcal N, b')$ be the bar resolution. Then we have $\{\mathcal M\}_i = \mathcal M_i$ and $\{\mathcal N\}_i = \mathcal A^{\otimes {(i+2)}}$. And the maps $\{f\}_{i \geq 0} : \mathcal M_i \rightarrow \mathcal A^{\otimes(i+2)}$ lift the identity map on $\mathcal A$ onto the complex between the resolutions. Simialrly let $\{h\}_{i \geq 0} :  \mathcal A^{\otimes(i+2)} \rightarrow \mathcal M_i$ be the chain homotopy equivalence map between the resolutions. Explicitly these maps are as follows:
\begin{center}
$ f_0(a_1 \otimes a_2^o) = (a_1,a_2)$,   $f_1(e_t) = (1,t,1)$; for $t=A,B,B^{\ast}$.
\end{center}
The maps $f_i$, $i \geq2$ can be found inductively satisfying the relation $f_i \cdot d_{i+1} = b' \cdot f_{i+1}$.

Since  a Poincar\'e-Birkhoff-Witt(PBW) basis for $\mathcal A$ consists of the monomials
$$\{A^kB^j\}_{j,k\geq0}, \{A^kB^{\ast (j+1)}\}_{j,k\geq 0}$$
 we define $h_1$ on the above PBW basis elements.
For $a,b \in \mathcal A$, $h_0(a , b) =a \otimes b^o$ and for $t = B, B^\ast$
\begin{center}
$h_1(a,A^nt^m, b)= (a \otimes b^o)\{(t^m)^o(A^{n-1})^oe_A + (t^m)^o(A^{n-2})^oAe_A+...+ (t^m)^oA^{n-1}e_A+A^n(t^{m-1})^oe_t+A^n(t^{m-2})^ote_t+...+A^nt^{m-1}e_t\}$.
\end{center}
In order to locate the $\mathbb Z_2$ invariant cocycles of $H^\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\rho}\mathcal A)$, we need to use the resolution homotopy maps
$$h_{\ast}: \mathcal N_\ast \to \mathcal M_\ast$$ and $$f_{\ast}:\mathcal M_\ast \to \mathcal N_\ast.$$
We push a cocycles $\mathcal D$ into the bar complex and let $\mathbb Z_2$ act on it. Then, in the MNW complex, we compare the pullback of this $\mathbb Z_2$-acted cocycle with $\mathcal D$ to check the $\mathbb Z_2$ invariance.

\section{The quantum disc}
For $\rho =\sigma_{-1}$, the algebra $\mathcal A \rtimes_{\sigma{-1}} \mathbb Z_2$ corresponds to the quantum disc $D_q$.
\begin{thm}[Hochschild and Cyclic Homology] The Hochschild and cyclic homology groups of $D_q$ are as follows:
\begin{center}
$H_\bullet(C(D_q),C(D_q) ) \cong\begin{cases}
\mathbb C^{\mathbb N} & \text{ for } \bullet  = 0,1\\
0 & \text{ for } \bullet >1. \end{cases}$\\
\end{center}
\begin{center}
$HP_\bullet(C(D_q)) \cong\begin{cases}
\mathbb C^4 & \text{ for } \bullet  = 2n\\
0 & \text{ for } \bullet = 2n+1. \end{cases}$\\
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We have the following :
$$H_\bullet(C(D_q), C(D_q)) =H_\bullet(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)^{\sigma_{-1}} \oplus H_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A)^{\sigma_{-1}}. $$
From \cite{H} we know that $H_0(\mathcal A,\mathcal A) = \mathbb C[1] \oplus \mathbb C[A] \oplus \Sigma_{m \geq 1}^{\oplus}\mathbb C[B^m]\oplus \Sigma_{m \geq 1}^{\oplus}\mathbb C[B^{\ast m}]$. We push each of these cyclces into the bar complex using the map $f_0$ and let $\sigma_{-1}$ act on them, thereafter we pull it back to the MNW complex using the map $h_0$. We see that:
$$H_0(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)^{\sigma_{-1}} = \mathbb C[1] \oplus \mathbb C[A] \oplus \Sigma_{m \geq 1}^{\oplus}\mathbb C[B^{2m}]\oplus \Sigma_{m \geq 1}^{\oplus}\mathbb C[B^{\ast 2m}].$$
Similarly we also get that
$$H_0(\mathcal A,{}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A)^{\sigma_{-1}} = \mathbb C[1] \oplus \mathbb C[A] .$$
Hence we have $H_0(C(D_q),C(D_q)) \cong \mathbb C^{\mathbb N}$. Similarly we compute that $H_1(C(D_q),C(D_q) )$,  we use maps $h_1$ and $f_1$ to locate the invariant cyclic cocycles in the groups $H_\bullet(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)^{\sigma_{-1}}$ and $H_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A)^{\sigma_{-1}}$. The group $H_1(C(D_q),C(D_q) )$ is generated by the elements $1 \otimes {}_{\sigma_{-1}}{e_A}$, $1 \otimes e_A$, $\{B^{2j+1} \otimes e_B\}_{j\geq0}$ and $\{B^{\ast {2j+1}} \otimes e_{B^{\ast}}\}_{j\geq0}$. Here ${}_{\sigma_{-1}}{e_A}$ denotes the invariant copy of the cycle $e_A \in H_0(\mathcal A,{}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A)$. Since for $\rho= id \text{ and } \sigma_{-1}$ and  $\bullet >1$, $H_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\rho}\mathcal A)  = 0$. We have
$$H_\bullet(C(D_q),C(D_q) ) = 0 \text{ for } \bullet>1.$$
In a similar way we compute $HC_\bullet(C(D_q),C(D_q) )$. We observe that the cyclic homology group  $HC^{\rho}_{2n}(\mathcal A) = \mathbb C[1] \oplus \mathbb C[A]$ and $HC^{\rho}_{2n+1}(\mathcal A) =0$ for $\rho \in \{\sigma_{-1} , id\}$ \cite{H}. Using the paracyclic decomposition for the cyclic homology $HC_{\bullet}(C(D_q))$ we have:
$$HC_\bullet(C(D_q)) =HC_\bullet(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)^{\sigma_{-1}} \oplus HC_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A)^{\sigma_{-1}}. $$
We now check that each of the four cycles of $HC_{2n}(\mathcal A,\mathcal A) \oplus HC_{2n}(\mathcal A, {}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A)$ are $\sigma_{-1}$ invariant.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}[Hochschild and Cyclic Cohomology] The Hochschild and cyclic homology groups of $D_q$ are as follows:
\begin{center}
$H^\bullet(C(D_q),C(D_q )^{'}) \cong\begin{cases}
\mathbb C^{\mathbb N} & \text{ for } \bullet  = 0,1\\
0 & \text{ for } \bullet >1. \end{cases}$\\
\end{center}
\begin{center}
$HP^\bullet(C(D_q)) \cong\begin{cases}
\mathbb C^4 & \text{ for } \bullet  = 2n\\
0 & \text{ for } \bullet = 2n+1. \end{cases}$\\
\end{center}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Using the universal coefficient theorem we have relation between the Hochschild homology and the cohomology with dual algebra as the coefficient, $H_\bullet(C(D_q),C(D_q))^{'} = H^\bullet(C(D_q), C(D_q)^{'})$ \cite{L}. Hence $H^\bullet(D_q,D_q^{'}) = 0$ for $\bullet > 1$. And similarly we conclude that for $\bullet  =0, 1$; Hochschild cohomology groups are countably infinite in dimension. For periodic cyclic cohomology we consider the $B,S,I$ long exact sequence for Hochschild and cyclic cohomology and use that fact that higher Hochschild cohomology groups vanish.
\begin{center}
$\cdots \rightarrow HH^1({}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A )^{\sigma_{-1}} \xrightarrow{B} HC^0({}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A )^{\sigma_{-1}} \xrightarrow{S} HC^2({}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A )^{\sigma_{-1}} \xrightarrow{I} HH^2({}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A )^{\sigma_{-1}} \xrightarrow{B}  HC^1({}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A )^{\sigma_{-1}} \xrightarrow{S} \cdots$
\end{center}

Since $HC^{\rho}_{2n}(\mathcal A) = k[1] \oplus k[A]$ for $\rho = \{id, \sigma_{-1}\}$\cite[Prop. 5.2]{H}, and the above spectral sequence stabilizes with all further maps being zero, we conclude that the group $HP^{even}(C(D_q),C(D_q)) \cong \mathbb C^4$ and is generated by $[\tau_0]$, $[f_A]$ and $[{}_{\sigma_{-1}}\tau_0]$ and $[{}_{\sigma_{-1}}f_A]$, where for $\tau_0(1)=1$ and $\tau_0(a) =0$ for all $a \in \mathcal A$, and $f_A$ is the Haar state on $\mathcal A(SU_q(2))$ restricted to the Podle\'s sphere and is given by $f_A(A^{r+1}) = (1-q^4)(1-q^{2r+4})^{-1}$ and for $s>0$ and it vanishes on the PBW basis elements $A^r B^ s$ and $A^r B^{\ast  s}$;  $f_A(A^r B^ s) =0=f_A(A^rB^{\ast s})$\cite{SW}. For $a \in \mathcal A$ the element ${}_{\sigma_{-1}}a \in {}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A$ and hence ${}_{\sigma_{-1}}\tau_0(1_{{}_{\sigma_{-1}}\mathcal A})=1$ and ${}_{\sigma_{-1}}\tau_0(a)=0$ for $a\in {}_{\sigma{-1}}\mathcal A$. And likewise we defined the Haar measure ${}_{\sigma_{-1}}f_A$ on the $\sigma_{-1}$ copy of $\mathcal A$.
\end{proof}

\section{The quantum real projective space}
\begin{thm}[Hochschild and Cyclic Homology] The Hochschild and cyclic homology groups of $\mathbb RP^2_q$ are as follows:
\begin{center}
$H_\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q),C(\mathbb RP^2_q) ) \cong\begin{cases}
\mathbb C^{\mathbb N} & \text{ for } \bullet  = 0,1\\
0 & \text{ for } \bullet >1. \end{cases}$\\
\end{center}
\begin{center}
$HC_\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q),C(\mathbb RP^2_q) ) \cong\begin{cases}
\mathbb C^2 & \text{ for } \bullet  = 2n\\
0 & \text{ for } \bullet = 2n+1. \end{cases}$\\
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Similar to the quantum disc case, we have the following:
$$H_\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q)) =H_\bullet(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)^{\mu_{-1}} \oplus H_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\mu_{-1}}\mathcal A)^{\mu_{-1}}. $$
From \cite{H} we know that $H_0(\mathcal A,\mathcal A) = \mathbb C[1] \oplus \mathbb C[A] \oplus \Sigma_{m \geq 1}^{\oplus}\mathbb C[B^m]\oplus \Sigma_{m \geq 1}^{\oplus}\mathbb C[B^{\ast m}]$. We observe that:
$$H_0(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)^{\mu_{-1}} = \mathbb C[1] \oplus \Sigma_{m \geq 1}^{\oplus}\mathbb C[B^{2m}]\oplus \Sigma_{m \geq 1}^{\oplus}\mathbb C[B^{\ast 2m}].$$
Similarly we also have
$$H_0(\mathcal A,{}_{\mu_{-1}}\mathcal A)^{\mu_{-1}} = \mathbb C[1].$$
Hence we have $H_0(D_q,D_q ) \cong \mathbb C^{\mathbb N}$. For $\rho = \mu_{-1}$, $H_1(\mathcal A, {}_{\mu_{-1}}\mathcal A) = 0$ and hence $H_1(C(\mathbb RP^2_q),C(\mathbb RP^2_q) )$ is countably infinite dimensional generated by the elements $1 \otimes e_A$, $\{B^{2j+1} \otimes e_B\}_{j\geq0}$ and $\{B^{\ast {2j+1}} \otimes e_{B^{\ast}}\}_{j\geq0}$. Higher Hochschild homology groups $HH^{\rho}_{\bullet}({}_{\mu_{-1}}\mathcal A)$ for $( \bullet >1)$ vanishes\cite{H} and hence using the paracyclic decomposition for $H_\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q),C(\mathbb RP^2_q) ) $ we conclude that:
$$H_\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q),C(\mathbb RP^2_q) ) = 0 \text{ for } \bullet>1.$$

To compute $HC_\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q),C(\mathbb RP^2_q) )$. We observe that the cyclic homology group  $HC^{\mu_{-1}}_{n}(\mathcal A) = 0$ for  all $n > 0$\cite{H}. Using the paracyclic decomposition for the cyclic homology $HC_{\bullet}(\mathbb RP^2_q)$ we have:
$$HC_\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q)) =HC_\bullet(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)^{\mu_{-1}} \oplus HC_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\mu_{-1}}\mathcal A)^{\mu_{-1}}. $$
We now check that both the cycles of $HC_{2n}(\mathcal A,\mathcal A)$ are $\mu_{-1}$ invariant. Hence the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}[Hochschild and Cyclic Cohomology] The Hochschild and cyclic homology groups of $\mathbb RP^2_q$ are as follows:
\begin{center}
$H^\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q),C(\mathbb RP^2_q) ) \cong\begin{cases}
\mathbb C^{\mathbb N} & \text{ for } \bullet  = 0,1\\
0 & \text{ for } \bullet >1. \end{cases}$\\
\end{center}
\begin{center}
$HP^\bullet(C(\mathbb RP^2_q)) \cong\begin{cases}
\mathbb C & \text{ for } \bullet  = 2n\\
0 & \text{ for } \bullet = 2n+1. \end{cases}$\\
\end{center}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Through the reasoning as before we conclude that for $\bullet  =0, 1$; Hochschild cohomology groups are countably infinite in dimension and vanishes for $\bullet >1$. For periodic cyclic cohomology we have that the group $HP^{even}(C(\mathbb RP^2_q),C(\mathbb RP^2_q)) \cong \mathbb C$ and is generated by $\mathbb C[1]$. This is so because $H_\bullet(\mathcal A, {}_{\tau_{-1}}) = 0$ for $\bullet>0$ and Among the two cocycles of $HP^{even}(\mathcal A)$, only the one dimensional subspace spanned by $[1]$ is $\tau_{-1}$ invariant. Hence the result.
\end{proof}

\section{Chern-Connes Indices}
Chern-Connes indices are useful invariants in noncommutative geometry. Explicitly, for a C*-algebra $\mathcal B$ over $\mathbb C$ we have the following map\cite[Section 8]{L}:
$$ch_{0, {n}} : K_0(\mathcal B) \rightarrow HC_{2n}(\mathcal B).$$
defined by $$[e] \mapsto tr(c(e)).$$
where $K_0(\mathcal B)$ is the Grothendieck group of the ring $\mathcal B$. We have the following pairing:
$$K_0(\mathcal B) \times HC^{2n}(\mathcal B) \xrightarrow[]{ch \times id} HC_{2n}(\mathcal B) \times HC^{2n}(\mathcal B) \rightarrow \mathbb C.$$
In this section we calculate the above pairing for the quantum disc $D_q$ and the quantum real projective space $\mathbb RP^2_q$. The vanishing of the second Hochschild homology leaves the two orbifolds with fewer periodic cocycles than expected. While the algebra $C(D_q)$ is a Toeplitz algebra and hence $K_0(C(D_q)) \cong \mathbb Z$ and is generated by $[1_{D_q}]$. Since  $HC^{2n}(D_q) \cong \mathbb C^4$. Hence we have the following Chern-Connes index table for $D_q$.
 \begin{center}

  \begin{tabular}{c || c | c | c | c || }

     &   $S\tau_0$ & $Sf_A$ & $S{}_{\sigma_{-1}}\tau_0$ & $S{}_{\sigma_{-1}}f_A$ \\ \hline \hline
    $[1_{D_q}]$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ &$0$\\ \hline \hline

  \end{tabular}
\end{center}
Similarly we have a description of the group $K_0(\mathbb RP^2_q) \cong \mathbb Z \oplus \mathbb Z_2$ \cite{HMS}generated by $[1]$ and $[P]$. Hence we have the following Chern-Connes index table for $\mathbb RP^2_q$:
\begin{center}

  \begin{tabular}{c || c | c || }

     &   $S\tau_0$    \\ \hline \hline
    $[1_{\mathbb RP^2_q}]$ & $1$ \\ \hline \hline
    $[P]$ & $0$ \\ \hline \hline
  \end{tabular}.
\end{center}

\section{Conclusion}
We see that the quantum parameter $q$ does not appear in the Chern-Connes indices of both the $\mathbb Z_2$ orbifolds of the Podle\'s quantum spheres. This can be attributed to the vanishing of the second homology of the Podle\'s spheres. We see that similar computations for the Podle\'s spheres yielded more invariants \cite{W}, but the vanishing of several projection of the the Podle\'s spheres after $\mathbb Z_2$ action leaves few projections on the quotient space.

\textbf{Acknowledgment}:
 I acknowledge the discussion with Dr. Ulrich Kr\"ahmer and Prof. Xiang Tang and their valuable comments and references for the same.


\section{Introduction}

The \texttt{iopart-num} Bib\TeX{} style is intended for use in
preparing manuscripts for Institute of Physics Publishing journals,
including Journal of Physics.  It provides numeric citation with
Harvard-like formatting, based upon the specification in ``How to
prepare and submit an article for publication in an IOP journal using
\LaTeXe'' by Graham Douglas (2005).

The \texttt{iopart-num} package is available on the Comprehensive
\TeX{} Archive Network (CTAN) as \texttt{/biblio/bibtex/contrib/iopart-num}.

\section{General instructions}

To use the \texttt{iopart-num} style, include the command
\verb+\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}+ in the
document preamble.  The reference section is then inserted into the
document with the command \verb+
\section{Introduction}
Fermion Yukawa couplings in the Standard Model (SM) are free parameters and there is no explanation for the hierarchy among the fermion masses within the SM.
A popular Beyond Standard Model (BSM) framework that naturally generates the SM fermion Yukawa couplings was suggested by Froggatt and Nielsen \cite{Froggatt:1978nt}.

Lepton Flavour Violating (LFV) couplings of the Higgs boson are zero in the SM, however, ATLAS and CMS experiments have reported on a LFV decay of the observed boson \cite{Khachatryan:2015kon, Aad:2015gha}\footnote{The process $h\to l_i l_j$ is assumed to be the sum of $h\to l_i^{+}l_j^{-}$ and $h\to l_i^{-}l_j^{+}$.} at the LHC with the combined branching ratio
\begin{equation}
Br(h\to \mu \tau) = 0.82^{+0.33}_{-0.32} .
\label{h-tau-mu}
\end{equation}
Recent results from the LHC \cite{Aad:2016blu} has reduced this value to $0.55^{+0.28}_{-0.28}$.

In a recent paper \cite{Huitu:2016pwk}, we aimed at explaining LFV decays of the Higgs by employing the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism. This mechanism requires the addition of a scalar field, \emph{flavon}, singlet under the SM gauge group, charged under an extra $U(1)$-symmetry which breaks spontaneously due to the flavon field acquiring a Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) which then generates the SM Yukawa matrices through higher order operators.
The Higgs boson then acquires LFV couplings through mixing with the flavon.

The resulting mass eigenstates could then mediate LFV processes which are constrained by experimental data and exclude regions of the parameter space. We show that it is possible to acquire a large enough $Br(h\to\mu\tau)$ in the surviving regions of the parameter space of the model.

\section{The Froggatt-Nielsen framework}
\label{Froggatt-Nielsen-review}
In the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism the SM Yukawa interaction are generated through higher order operators which are
obtained by integrating out heavy states at some scale $\Lambda$. Such operators  which are invariant under a $U(1)$ symmetry are of the form
\begin{equation}
c_{ij} ~ { \Phi^{n_{ij}} \over \Lambda^{n_{ij} } }   \bar f_{L,i} f_{R,j} ~H  + {\rm h.c.} ~,
\label{operator}
\end{equation}
where $c_{ij}$ are order one coefficients, $f_{L,R}$ are SM fermions and $\Phi$ is the flavon which acquires a VEV,
\begin{equation}
\Phi = {1\over \sqrt{2}} (v_\phi + \phi)
\end{equation}
with $\phi=\Re\phi+ i \Im\phi$. The Yukawa couplings are then given by
\begin{equation}
 Y_{ij}= c_{ij} ~ \left( { v_\phi \over \sqrt{2} \Lambda }\right)^{n_{ij} } \equiv c_{ij}~ \epsilon^{n_{ij} } \;,
 \label{Y}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is a small parameter.
The $U(1)$ symmetry requires
\begin{equation}
 n_{ij} =-\frac{1}{q_{\phi}}(q_{\bar L,i}+q_{R,j}+q_{h}) \;,
\label{flavon power}
\end{equation}
where $q_i$ are the charges identified in Table \ref{U(1) charges}.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\br
Particle   &  $ f_{L,i}^c$ & $f_{R,i}$ & $H$ & $\Phi$\\
\mr
$U(1)$ charge & $q_{\bar L,i}$ & $q_{R,i}$ & $q_{h}$ & $q_{\phi}$ \\
\br
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The $U(1)$ charges of SM fermions $f_{R,L}$, SM Higgs field $H$ and the flavon $\Phi$.}
\label{U(1) charges}
\end{table}

In principle, one can introduce several flavons each responsible for describing the hierarchy of the masses in the quark, charged and neutral lepton sectors. Here, we focus on the leptonic sector and allow for only the flavon and the leptons to transform under the $U(1)$ symmetry. As a result, after the Higgs doublet acquires a VEV,
\begin{equation}
H = \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\frac{v+h}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{array}\right) \qquad
 \label{field-definition}
\end{equation}
the effective Lagrangian takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{L-eff}
\mathcal{L}_{eff}&\supset &
 \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}} ~ Y_{ij} ~ \left(      1+ {h\over v} +  n_{ij}~{\phi \over v_\phi} \right)   \bar{l}'_{L,i}l'_{R,j} \;.
 \end{eqnarray}

Here, $l'$ stands for the lepton fields in the weak basis and $l$ for the mass eigenstate basis.
Rotating the lepton fields from gauge eigenstates to the mass eigenstates requires diagonalising the lepton Yukawa matrix which is done using two unitary matrices:
\begin{equation}
Y_{\textrm{diag}}=U_{L}Y~U_{R}^{\dagger}.
\end{equation}
The effective Lagrangian then becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{eff}&\supset &
\frac{v}{\sqrt{2}} \bar{l}_{L} \; Y_{\textrm{diag}} \;l_{R} +
 {h\over \sqrt{2}} ~ \bar{l}_{L} \; Y_{\textrm{diag}} \; l_{R}
 + {\phi \over \sqrt{2}} {v\over v_\phi} ~\bar{l}_{L} \;  \kappa  \; l_{R}
   + {\rm h.c.},
   \label{LFVinteraction}
\end{eqnarray}
where the flavon
vertex involves the matrix
\begin{equation}
\kappa = U_{L} \; (Y_{ij} n_{ij}) \; U_{R}^{\dagger}~,
\end{equation}
with $n_{ij}=a_i +b_j$. Setting
$q_\Phi=-1$ and $q_h=0$
throughout this paper, we have
\begin{equation}
\kappa_{ij}= y_{j}\sum_{k=1}^{3}q_{\bar L,k}(U_{L})_{ik}(U_{L})^{\ast}_{jk}
+y_{i}\sum_{k=1}^{3}q_{R,k}(U_{R})_{ik}(U_{R})^{\ast}_{jk} ~,
\label{kappa}
\end{equation}
where $y_{i}$ are the Yukawa matrix eigenvalues. This is the source of lepton flavor violation in our model. Upon the Higgs--flavon mixing, such flavor changing couplings
also appear in the interactions of the physical Higgs--like boson.

\subsection{The scalar potential}
The $U(1)$-symmetric scalar potential is of the form
\begin{equation}
V(H,\Phi)=-\mu_h^2(H^\dagger H) + \lambda_h(H^\dagger H)^2 -\mu_\phi^2(\Phi^\dagger \Phi) + \lambda_\phi(\Phi^\dagger \Phi)^2 + \lambda_{h\phi} (H^\dagger H)(\Phi^\dagger \Phi)~.
\end{equation}
The minimisation conditions lead to the following mass eigenstates $H_1$ and $H_2$ which are rotated by the following matrix
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
H_1\\
H_2
\end{array}\right) \equiv
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\theta & \sin\theta\\
-\sin\theta & \cos\theta
\end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c}
h\\
\Re\phi
\end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
where the mixing angle is defined as
\begin{equation}
\tan 2\theta = \frac{\lambda_{h\phi} v_h v_\phi}{\lambda_{h} v_h^2 -\lambda_\phi v_\phi^2}
\end{equation}
and is constrained by theoretical and experimental data, reviewed and summarised for Higgs-portal models in \cite{Falkowski:2015iwa} which are taken into account in our calculations.
The masses of $H_1$ and $H_2$ are as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
m^2_{H_{1,2}}&=& \lambda_{h} v_h^2 +\lambda_\phi v_\phi^2  \pm \sqrt{\biggl(\lambda_{h} v_h^2 -\lambda_\phi v_\phi^2  \biggr)^2 + \lambda_{h\phi}^2 v_h^2 v_\phi^2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we take the lighter boson, $H_1$, to be the SM-like Higgs boson, the observed scalar at the LHC with mass $125$ GeV.

In the case of a global $U(1)$ symmetry which is broken by the flavon VEV, the model predicts a massless Goldstone boson which is    phenomenologically unacceptable. In the case of a gauged $U(1)$ symmetry, we find that  due to tight constraints on a flavor non-universal $Z^\prime$, the model does not lead to a large enough $Br(h\to\mu\tau)$. Here, we assume a discretized $U(1)\;\rightarrow \;Z_N$ by introducing a soft explicit breaking term ${ \tilde m}^2 \Phi^2 +  {\rm h.c.}$ which induces $m_{{\rm Im} \phi} \sim \tilde m$.
Note that our approach is one of an effective field theory and while tree level processes are well under control, the loop contributions are only indicative in nature and depend on the details of the UV completion.

\section{Bounds on lepton flavor violating processes}
\label{CLFV-bounds}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\br
 & Observable & Present limit \\[1mm]
\mr
1 & BR$(\mu\to eee)$  & $1.0\times 10^{-12}$ \cite{Bellgardt:1987du}
\\[2mm]
2 & BR$(\tau\to eee)$  & $3.0\times 10^{-8}$ \cite{Amhis:2012bh}
\\[2mm]
3 & BR$(\tau\to \mu\mu\mu)$  & $2.0\times 10^{-8} $ \cite{Amhis:2012bh}
\\[2mm]
4 & BR$(\tau^{-}\to\mu^{-}e^{+}e^{-})$  & $1.7\times 10^{-8}$ \cite{Hayasaka:2010np}
\\[2mm]
5 & BR$(\tau^{-}\to e^{-}\mu^{+}\mu^{-})$ & $2.7\times 10^{-8}$ \cite{Hayasaka:2010np}
\\[2mm]
6 & BR$(\tau^{-}\to e^{+}\mu^{-}\mu^{-})$ & $1.7\times 10^{-8}$ \cite{Hayasaka:2010np}
\\[2mm]
7 & BR$(\tau^{-}\to \mu^{+}e^{-}e^{-}$) & $1.5\times 10^{-8}$ \cite{Hayasaka:2010np}
\\[2mm]
8 & BR$(\mu\to e\gamma)$ & $5.7\times 10^{-13}$ \cite{Adam:2013mnn}
\\[2mm]
9 & BR$(\tau\to \mu\gamma)$  & $4.4\times 10^{-8}$ \cite{Amhis:2012bh}
\\[2mm]
10 & BR$(\tau\to e\gamma)$ & $3.3\times 10^{-8}$ \cite{Amhis:2012bh}
\\[2mm]
11 & CR$(\mu$-$e, Au)$ & $7.0\times 10^{-13}$ \cite{Bertl:2006up}
\\[1mm]
\br
\end{tabular}
\caption{Current experimental bounds on the branching ratios of three--body LFV decays, magnetic transitions   and the conversion rate of $\mu \to e$.}
\label{experimental-bounds}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The flavon interaction in equation (\ref{LFVinteraction}) induces LFV processes mediated by the three scalar mass eigenstates
which are strongly constrained by experiment. We impose the current bounds from
 the three--body decay  $l_{i}\to l_{j}l_{k}l_{l}$, magnetic transition $l_{i}\to l_{j}\gamma$ and $\mu \to e$ conversion processes presented in Table \ref{experimental-bounds} which put limits on the flavon couplings parametrized by
\begin{equation}
\tilde \kappa_{ij} = {1 \over \sqrt{2}} {v \over v_\phi} \kappa_{ij} \;,
\end{equation}
where the flavon--lepton coupling is  $ \tilde \kappa_{ij} \; \bar{l}_{L,i}  \; l_{R,j} \phi+ $ h.c.

We assign charges listed in Table \ref{charges-table1} to produce the following
Yukawa texture and $\tilde \kappa$ matrix
\begin{equation}
Y = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
 3.4 ~\epsilon^6 & -0.6 ~\epsilon^6 & 3.5~ \epsilon^7 \\
 5.4 ~\epsilon^4 & 6.1 ~\epsilon^4  & -3.1 ~\epsilon^5 \\
 0.5 ~\epsilon^2  & 0.5 ~\epsilon^2    & 7.3 ~\epsilon^3 \\
\end{array}
\right), \quad
\tilde \kappa = \frac{v}{v_\phi}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1\times 10^{-5}  & -1\times 10^{-6}  & -3\times 10^{-6}  \\
-2\times 10^{-5}  & 2\times 10^{-3} & 6\times 10^{-4}  \\
3\times 10^{-4} & -4\times 10^{-3} & 2\times 10^{-2}
\nonumber
\end{array}
\right),
\label{exact-texture}
\end{equation}
which reproduces the correct lepton masses for $\epsilon=0.1$ and the shown order one coefficients (their precise values are given in \cite{Huitu:2016pwk}).

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllllllll}
\br
Particle   &  $e_L^c$ & $e_R$ & $\mu_L^c$ & $\mu_R$ & $\tau_L^c$ &$\tau_R$ & $H$ & $\phi$
\\
\mr
Charge & 6 & 0 & 4 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 0 & -1\\
\br
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{U(1)/Z$_N$ charge assignment. }
\label{charges-table1}
\end{table}

\subsection{Negligible Higgs--flavon mixing }
It is instructive to consider a scenario where the Higgs-flavon mixing is close to zero in which case only Re$\phi$ and Im$\phi$ mediate the LFV processes. To make the discussion clearer, we also decouple the Im$\phi$ in this sub-section.

\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=1.0]
\fill[black] (1.5,0) circle (0.06cm);
\draw (1.5,0) -- node[black,above,xshift=-0.1cm,yshift=0.0cm] {$\widetilde{\kappa}_{j i}$} (1.5,0.03);
\draw[particle] (0,0) -- node[black,above,xshift=-0.9cm,yshift=-0.25cm] {$l_{i}$} (1.5,0);
\draw[particle] (1.5,0) -- node[black,above,xshift=1.0cm,yshift=0.2cm] {$l_{j}$} (3,1.0);
\draw[particle] (3,-0.75) -- node[black,above,yshift=0.15cm,xshift=0.7cm] {$l_{k}$} (4,-0.2);
\draw[particle] (4,-1.3) -- node[black,above,yshift=-0.6cm,xshift=0.7cm] {$\bar{l}_{l}$} (3,-0.75);
\draw[dashed] (1.5,0) -- node[black,above,yshift=-0.55cm,xshift=-0.15cm] {$\phi$} (3,-0.75);
\fill[black] (3,-0.75) circle (0.06cm);
\draw[particle] (3,-0.75) -- node[black,above,yshift=-0.7cm,xshift=0.0cm] {$\widetilde{\kappa}_{l k}$} (3,-0.78);
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{5mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=1.0]
\draw[particle] (0,0) -- node[black,above,sloped,yshift=0.0cm,xshift=0.0cm] {$\mu$} (1.25,0);
\draw[particle] (1.25,0) -- node[black,above,sloped,yshift=0.0cm,xshift=0.0cm] {$\tau$} (2,0);
\draw[particle] (2,0) -- node[black,above,sloped] {$\tau$} (2.75,0);
\draw[particle] (2.75,0) -- node[black,above,sloped] {$e$} (4,0);
\draw[decorate,decoration={snake,amplitude=2pt,segment length=5pt},green] (2,0) -- node[black,above,yshift=-0.2cm,xshift=0.2cm] {$\gamma$} (2,-2);
\draw[particle] (0,-2) -- node[black,above,sloped,yshift=0.0cm,xshift=0.0cm] {$N$} (2,-2);
\draw[particle] (2,-2) -- node[black,above,sloped,yshift=0.0cm,xshift=0.0cm] {$N$} (4,-2);
\draw[dashed]  (1.25,0) node[black,above,sloped,yshift=0.7cm,xshift=0.8cm] {$\phi$}  arc (180:0:0.75cm) ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{5mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[thick,scale=1.0]
\fill[black] (1,0) circle (0.06cm);
\draw (0,0) -- node[black,above,yshift=-0.8cm,xshift=0.0cm] {$\widetilde{\kappa}_{k i}$} (2,0);
\draw[particle] (0,0) -- node[black,above,sloped,yshift=-0.3cm,xshift=-0.9cm] {$l_{i}$} (1,0);
\draw[particle] (1,0) -- node[black,above,sloped,yshift=-0.7cm,xshift=0.0cm] {$l_{k}$} (3,0);
\draw[particle] (3,0) -- node[black,above,sloped,yshift=-0.3cm,xshift=0.9cm] {$l_{j}$} (4,0);
\draw[decorate,decoration={snake,amplitude=2pt,segment length=5pt},green] (3.2,0.9) -- node[black,above,yshift=-0.4cm,xshift=0.5cm] {$\gamma$} (4.5,2.2);
\draw[dashed]  (1,0) node[black,above,sloped,yshift=0.95cm,xshift=1.05cm] {$\phi$}  arc (180:0:1cm) ;
\fill[black] (3,0) circle (0.06cm);
\draw (3,0)  node[black,above,yshift=-0.8cm,xshift=0.0cm] {$\widetilde{\kappa}_{j k}$} (3,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\caption{The $l_{i}\to l_{j}l_{k}l_{l}$ (left), $\mu\leftrightarrow e$-conversion (center) and $l_{i}\to l_{j}\gamma$ (right) processes mediated by the flavon  $\phi$.  The decay $l_{i}\to l_{j}l_{k}l_{l}$ also receives important contributions at one loop.}
\label{CLFV-processes-fig}
\end{figure}
\end{minipage}

\vspace{2mm}

We have taken into account all processes represented in Fig.~\ref{CLFV-processes-fig} at tree and loop level. Here, we only show
the details of the $\mu \to e \gamma$ process which puts the strongest bounds on the model.
Neglecting the light lepton contributions, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(\mu\to e\gamma)&=&
\frac{\alpha m_{\mu}^{3}m_{\tau}^{2}}{1024\pi^{4}} ~ \frac{|\widetilde{\kappa}_{e\tau}|^2 |\widetilde{\kappa}_{\tau\mu}|^2 + |\widetilde{\kappa}_{\tau e}|^2|\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mu\tau}|^2}{m_{{\rm Re} \phi}^{4}} \left[\frac{3}{2}-\log\left(\frac{ m_{\phi}^{2}}{m_{\tau}^{2}}\right)\right]^{2},
\end{eqnarray}

The invariant amplitude $A_{\mu \to e\gamma}^{L}$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{invariant amplitude mu}
A_{\mu\to e\gamma}^{L}=-\frac{ie}{32\pi^{2}}\widetilde{\kappa}_{\tau e}^{\ast}\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mu\tau}^{\ast}\left[\frac{3}{2}-\log\left(\frac{m_{\phi}^{2}}{m^{2}_{\tau}}\right)\right]\frac{m_{\tau}}{m_{\phi}^{2}}~
\end{equation}
and the corresponding equation for $A^{R}$ is obtained by replacing $\widetilde{\kappa}_{ij}$ with $\widetilde{\kappa}_{ji}^*$.

Figure \ref{Zeromixing} shows the allowed values of
$v_\phi$ vs $m_{\phi}$ after imposing the $\mu\to e \gamma$ bounds.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{NoMixing.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-3mm}
\caption{ Allowed parameter space (shaded) for the texture at hand (Eq.\ref{exact-texture}) with negligible Higgs-flavon mixing. The strongest constraint is imposed by $Br(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$.}
\label{Zeromixing}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-3mm}

\subsection{Substantial Higgs--flavon mixing }
In the case of non-zero Higgs-flavon mixing, all three scalar  mass eigenstates, $H_1, H_2$ and Im$\phi$, mediate LFV processes. The relevant interaction terms are
 \begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L} &\supset&
\left[\cos\theta~\frac{Y^{\rm diag}_{ij}}{\sqrt{2}}+\sin\theta~\widetilde{\kappa}_{ij}\right]
\bar{l}_{i}P_{R}l_{j} \;H_{1}
 +\left[-\sin\theta~\frac{Y^{\rm diag}_{ij}}{\sqrt{2}}+\cos\theta~\widetilde{\kappa}_{ij}\right]\bar{l}_{i}P_{R}l_{j} \; H_{2}
 \nonumber\\
&+&
i  \widetilde{\kappa}_{ij} \; \bar{l}_{i}P_{R}l_{j}  \; \Im\phi
+ {\rm h.c.}
\label{couplings in mixing}
\end{eqnarray}
The couplings of $H_1, H_2$ to quarks are flavor--diagonal and are rescaled compared to the corresponding SM couplings by $\cos\theta$ and  $-\sin\theta$, respectively.

Note that in this case due to the couplings of $H_1$ and $H_2$ to quarks, the $\mu \leftrightarrow e$ conversion process is possible at tree level and the $\mu \to e \gamma$ processes gets significant contributions from 2--loop Barr-Zee diagrams with the top quark and the W in the loop.

Again, the most limiting constraints comes from the  $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$ process with the 1-- and 2--loop contributions to the amplitude
\begin{equation}
A_{\mu\to e\gamma}^{L}=A_{\mu\to e\gamma}^{L}(1-\textrm{loop})+A_{\mu\to e\gamma}^{L}(2-\textrm{loop}) ~.
\end{equation}
At one loop we have
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{\mu\to e\gamma}^{L}(1-\textrm{loop})&=&
-\frac{ie m_{\tau}}{32\pi^{2}}\widetilde{\kappa}^{\ast}_{\tau e}\widetilde{\kappa}^{\ast}_{\mu\tau}
\biggl\{
\frac{\sin^{2}\theta}{m_{H_{1}}^{2}}\left[\frac{3}{2}-\log\left(\frac{m_{H_{1}}^{2}}{m^{2}_{\tau}}\right)\right]  \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+\frac{\cos^{2}\theta}{m_{H_{2}}^{2}}\left[\frac{3}{2}-\log\left(\frac{m_{H_{2}}^{2}}{m^{2}_{\tau}}\right)\right]
-\frac{1}{m_{\Im\phi}^2}\left[\frac{3}{2}-\log\left(\frac{m_{\Im\phi}^{2}}{m^{2}_{\tau}}\right)\right]
\biggr\}.  \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The 2--loop amplitude receives contributions from the top quark and the $W$ boson \cite{Harnik:2012pb},
\begin{equation}
A_{\mu\to e\gamma}^{L}(2-\textrm{loop})=A^{L}_{t}+A^{L}_{W},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
A^{L}_{t}=-i\frac{e\alpha v G_{F} }{6\sqrt{2}\pi^3} \sin\theta\cos\theta \;\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mu e}^{\ast} \left[f(z_{tH_{1}})-f(z_{tH_{2}})\right]\;,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{L}_{W}&=&i\frac{e\alpha v G_{F}}{16\sqrt{2}\pi^3}\sin\theta\cos\theta \; \widetilde{\kappa}_{\mu e}^{\ast}\\
&&\times\left\{\left[3f(z_{WH_{1}})+5g(z_{WH_{1}})+\frac{3}{4}g(z_{WH_{1}})+\frac{3}{4}h(z_{WH_{1}})+\frac{f(z_{WH_{1}})-g(z_{WH_{1}})}{2z_{WH_{1}}} \right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&-\left.\left[3f(z_{WH_{2}})+5g(z_{WH_{2}})+\frac{3}{4}g(z_{WH_{2}})+\frac{3}{4}h(z_{WH_{2}})+\frac{f(z_{WH_{2}})-g(z_{WH_{2}})}{2z_{WH_{2}}} \right]\right\}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here the loop functions are:
\begin{eqnarray}
f(z)&=&\frac{1}{2}z\int_{0}^{1}dx\frac{1-2x(1-x)}{x(1-x)-z}\log\left(\frac{x(1-x)}{z}\right),\\
g(z)&=&\frac{1}{2}z\int_{0}^{1}dx\frac{1}{x(1-x)-z}\log\left(\frac{x(1-x)}{z}\right),\\
h(z)&=&z^{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac{g(z)}{z}\right)=\frac{z}{2}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{dx}{z-x(1-x)}\left[1+\frac{z}{z-x(1-x)}\log\left(\frac{x(1-x)}{z}\right)\right].
\end{eqnarray}
The arguments of these functions are defined by $z_{tH_{i}}=m_{t}^{2}/m^{2}_{H_{i}}$ and $z_{WH_{i}}=m_{W}^{2}/m^{2}_{H_{i}}$, with $i=1,2$. The $A_{\mu\to e\gamma}^{R}(2-\textrm{loop})$ amplitude is obtained by replacing  $\widetilde{\kappa}^{\ast}_{ji}$ with  $\widetilde{\kappa}_{ij}$.
The $\mu\to e\gamma$  decay width is then calculated to be
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\mu\to e\gamma)=\frac{m_{\mu}^{3}}{4\pi}\left(\lvert A^L\rvert^{2}+\lvert A^R\rvert^{2}\right)\;.
\end{equation}

In Fig.~\ref{1-LHC}  (left) we show the surviving region in the $(v_\phi, \sin\theta)$ plane after imposing these LFV bounds for and exemplary value of $m_{H_2}=500$ GeV.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.52]{Imaginary-HFMixing1.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.68]{HFMixing-LHC-coarse2.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Left:   parameter space allowed by the LFV constraints  for $m_{\Im\phi}=100,\;150, \;200$ GeV. We have set $m_{H_2}= 500$ GeV. (The discontinuities appear for technical reasons.) Right: BR$_{\rm eff} (H_{1}\to\mu\tau)$ as a function of $v_\phi$ and $\vert \sin\theta\vert$.
}
\label{1-LHC}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-3mm}

We see that for $\vert \sin\theta\vert \simeq 0.3$ and $v_\phi \sim 100$ GeV the model survives the LFV bounds for a range of $m_{\Im\phi}$ around 150-200 GeV. Note that direct collider constraints on Im$\phi$ are very loose due to its small couplings to leptons. Fig.~\ref{1-LHC} (right) then shows that one expects a substantial decay rate $H_{1}\to\mu\tau$ for $v_\phi \sim 100$ GeV.

It is important to note that such a scenario also leads to the
enhancement of the lepton diagonal couplings of Higgs which are constrained by the LHC data. We choose $\sin\theta<0$ which leads to some cancellations in $H_1 \rightarrow l_i l_i$ for our Yukawa texture.
We have
  \begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(H_{1}\to\mu\tau)&=&
\frac{m_{H_{1}}}{8\pi}\sin^{2}\theta \; \left(\vert \widetilde{\kappa}_{\mu\tau}\vert^2+\vert \widetilde{\kappa}_{\tau\mu}\vert^2\right) \\
\Gamma(H_{1}\to\tau\tau) &=&
 \frac{m_{H_{1}}}{8\pi}\left[\cos\theta\; \frac{Y_{\tau}^{\rm diag}}{\sqrt{2}}+\sin\theta \; \widetilde{\kappa}_{\tau\tau}\right]^{2} \;,
\end{eqnarray}
and analogously for $H_1 \rightarrow \mu\mu$. In our convention, a negative $\theta$ reduces  $\Gamma(H_{1}\to\tau\tau)$ without affecting the LFV rates.

Lastlly, to incorporate the difference between the $H_1$ and $h$ production cross sections, we introduce the effective branching ratio
${\rm Br_{eff} }(H_1 \rightarrow l_i l_j)$ through
 \begin{equation}
 \sigma(H_1)\; {\rm Br }(H_1 \rightarrow l_i l_j) = \sigma(h)\;  { \Gamma(H_1 \rightarrow l_i l_j)  \over  \Gamma^{\rm total}_{\rm SM} (h) } \equiv \sigma(h)\; {\rm Br_{eff} }(H_1 \rightarrow l_i l_j) \;,
 \end{equation}
and apply the LHC result in equation (\ref{h-tau-mu}) to this effective branching ratio.
We show our results in Fig. \ref{2-LHC} where all of the constraints are satisfied and the observed BR$_{\rm eff} (H_{1}\to\mu\tau)$  for $\sin \theta=-0.3$ is presented.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.72]{HFMixing-mutau_eff.png}
\end{center}
\caption{  Br$_{\rm eff} (H_1 \to \mu \tau) $ vs $v_\phi$ (black curve)  for  $\sin\theta=-0.3$. The red region is allowed by  ${\rm Br_{eff}  }(H_1 \rightarrow \mu\mu)$ at 95\% CL, the blue region is allowed  by ${\rm Br_{eff}  }(H_1 \rightarrow \tau\tau)$, while their overlap (purple) is consistent with both. The dashed lines show the $\pm 1 \sigma$ limits on the observed Br$_{\rm eff} (H_1 \to \mu \tau)$.
  }
\label{2-LHC}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-3mm}

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}

We have employed a lepton--specific Froggatt--Nielsen framework which naturally generates the lepton Yukawa couplings and leads to lepton flavor violation at the observable level. The flavon predicted by this mechanism mixes with the SM Higgs boson and introduces a $h\to \mu\tau$ decay channel with the branching ratio at the percent level with a flavon VEV at the electroweak scale. We have found this scenario to be consistent with the LFV  and Higgs data constraints.

\ack
VK's research is partially supported by the Academy of Finland project ``The Higgs Boson and the Cosmos'', project no. 267842. She also acknowledges the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2014 grant no. 645722 (NonMinimalHiggs) and would like to thank the organizers of DISCRETE 2016 for the kind hospitality and the lively scientific atmosphere provided by the conference.

\section*{References}