1: \documentclass[showpacs,twocolumn,aps]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{amssymb}

3: \usepackage{amsmath}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: \usepackage{lscape}

6: 

7: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}

8: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=Latex.dll}

9: %TCIDATA{Version=4.00.0.2312}

10: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Wednesday, March 10, 2004 15:27:54}

11: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

12: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}

13: 

14: \oddsidemargin=-1cm\textwidth=7in

15: 

16: 

17: \begin{document}

18: 

19: \title{Theoretical analysis for the apparent discrepancy between \={p}p and pp

20:         data in charged particle forward-backward multiplicity correlations}

21: \author{Yu-Liang Yan$^{1}$, Bao-Guo Dong$^{1,2}$, Dai-Mei Zhou$^{3}$,

22:         Xiao-Mei Li$^{1}$,Ben-Hao Sa$^{1,3,4,5}$

23:         \footnote{Corresponding author: sabh@ciae.ac.cn}}

24: \address{1) China Institute of Atomic Energy, P. O. Box 275(18), Beijing

25: 102413, China \\

26: 2) Center of Theoretical Physics, National Laboratory of Heavy Ion Collisions,

27: Lanzhou 730000, China\\

28: 3) Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan

29: 430079, China\\

30: 4) CCAST (World Laboratory), P. O. Box 8730 Beijing 100080, China\\

31: 5) Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academy Sciences, Beijing

32: 100080, China}

33: 

34: \begin{abstract}

35: The strength of charged particle forward-backward multiplicity

36: correlation in $\bar p+p$ and $p+p$ collisions at $\sqrt s$=200 GeV

37: is studied by PYTHIA 6.4 and compared to the UA5 and STAR data

38: correspondingly. It is turned out that a factor of 3-4 apparent

39: discrepancy between UA5 and STAR data can be attributed to the

40: differences in detector acceptances and observing bin interval in

41: both experiments. A mixed event method is introduced and used to

42: calculate the statistical correlation strength and the dynamical

43: correlation strengths stemming from the charge conservation, four-

44: momentum conservation, and decay, respectively. It seems that the

45: statistical correlation is much larger than dynamical one and the

46: charge conservation, four-momentum conservation and decay may

47: account for most part of the dynamical correlation. In addition, we

48: have also calculated the correlation strength by fitting

49: the charged particle multiplicity distribution from PYTHIA to the

50: Negative Binomial Distribution and found that the result

51: agrees well with the correlation strength calculated by mixed

52: events.

53: \end{abstract}

54: 

55: \pacs{25.75.Dw, 24.85.+p, 24.10.Lx}

56: 

57: \maketitle

58: 

59: Fluctuations and correlations are important observables

60: investigating the properties of thermodynamic system and are critical

61: tools revealing the mechanism of particle production and the

62: formation of quark-gluon-plasma in relativistic heavy ion collisions

63: \cite{hwa0,naya}. Several thermodynamic quantities and the produced

64: particle distributions show varying fluctuation patterns when system

65: undergoes phase transition. Such as the large energy density

66: fluctuation is expected in the first order phase transition and a

67: second order phase transition may relate to a divergence in specific

68: heat. The event-by-event fluctuation pattern in average transverse

69: momentum may significantly change around a critical point, etc.

70: 

71: The experimental study of correlation and fluctuation becomes a hot

72: topic in relativistic heavy ion collisions with the availability of

73: high multiplicity event-by-event measurements at the CERN-SPS and

74: BNL-RHIC experiments. There have accumulated an abundant experiment

75: data \cite{appe,afan,star,star1,star2,phen,phen1,phen2,phob} where

76: arisen new physics are urgent to be studied.

77: 

78: Recently STAR collaboration has measured the strength of charged particle

79: forward-backward multiplicity correlation, $b$ (defined later), in

80: $p+p$ collision at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV \cite{star3,star4}. It is 3-4 times

81: smaller than the one measured by UA5 in $\bar p+p$ collision at the same

82: energy apparently \cite{ua51983,ua51988}. In this

83: paper, the PYTHIA 6.4 \cite{soj} is employed to analyze both STAR $p+p$

84: and the UA5 $\bar{p}+p$ data. It is turned out that the above apparent

85: discrepancy is because of the differences in detector acceptances

86: and the interval of pseudo-rapidity bin in both experiments. In

87: addition, a mixed event method is proposed and used to calculate the

88: statistical correlation and dynamical correlations stemming from the

89: charge and four-momentum conservations and the decay of unstable

90: particles individually. We also fit the particle multiplicity

91: distribution from PYTHIA to the Negative Binomial Distribution (NBD)

92: and calculate the strength of charged particle forward-backward

93: multiplicity correlation which agrees well with the one calculated by

94: mixed events.

95: 

96: Following Refs \cite{star4,ua51988} the strength of charged particle

97: forward-backward multiplicity correlation, $b$, is defined

98: \begin{equation*}

99: \ b =\frac{\langle n_fn_b\rangle - \langle n_f\rangle \langle

100: n_b\rangle}{\langle n_f^2\rangle - \langle n_f\rangle^2} =

101: \frac{cov(n_f,n_b)}{var(n_f)}

102: \end{equation*}

103: \begin{equation}

104:  =\frac{\langle (n_f-\langle n_f\rangle)(n_b-\langle n_b\rangle)\rangle}

105:   {\langle n_f^2\rangle - \langle n_f\rangle^2},

106: \label{b}

107: \end{equation}

108: where $n_f$ and $n_b$ are, respectively, the number of charged

109: particles in forward and backward pseudo-rapidity bins ($\Delta

110: \eta$) defined relatively and symmetrically to a given pseudo-rapidity

111: $\eta$. The $\langle n_f\rangle$, for instance, refers to the mean value

112: of $n_f$ and the $cov(n_f,n_b)$ and $var(n_f)$ are, respectively, the

113: forward-backward multiplicity covariance and forward multiplicity

114: variance. If there is no correlation between forward and backward

115: multiplicity, then $\langle n_fn_b\rangle=\langle n_f\rangle \langle

116: n_b \rangle$ and $b=0$. Thus $b$ is a measure of the strength of

117: forward-backward multiplicity correlation. As the denominator in Eq.

118: \ref{b} is positive, if both $n_f$ and $n_b$ are, respectively,

119: larger or smaller than $\langle n_f\rangle$ and $\langle n_b\rangle$

120: simultaneously the correlation is positive, negative otherwise.

121: 

122: Although both STAR and UA5 experiments

123: \cite{star3,star4,ua51983,ua51988} measure the charged particle

124: multiplicity in Non-Single-Diffractive (NSD) $p+p$ and $\bar p+p$

125: collisions at $\sqrt s$=200 GeV, the detector acceptances are

126: different from each other. In UA5 experiment they are $p_T>0$ GeV/c

127: and $0.0<\vert \eta \vert <4$ \cite{ua51983,ua51988}, but $p_T>0.15$

128: GeV/c and $0.0<\vert \eta\vert< 1.0$ in STAR \cite{star3,star4}.

129: Meanwhile, the observed interval of forward- backward pseudo-rapidity

130: bin is $\Delta\eta$=1.0 in UA5 experiment rather than 0.2 in STAR. We

131: shall show that those differences are the origin of apparent

132: discrepancy between STAR and UA5 data in the strength of charged

133: particle forward-backward multiplicity correlation.

134: 

135: The UA5 data of energy dependence of the correlation strength have

136: been studied by Dual Parton Model \cite{dpm} and the statistical model

137: \cite{meng} and the STAR data of forward-backward charged particle

138: multiplicity covariance have been studied recently in \cite{hwa}. However,

139: the apparent discrepancy in correlation strength between UA5 and STAR data

140: is not investigated yet. In this paper PYTHIA 6.4 \cite{soj} is employed

141: to study that. Since we are not aim to reproduce the experimental data but

142: to study the physics, we do not adjust the model parameters and default

143: values are used in all the calculations.

144: 

145: The comparison of experimental strength of the charged particle

146: forward-backward multiplicity correlation to the corresponding

147: theoretical results is given in Figure \ref{bexp} where the upper

148: panel is for UA5 $\bar p+p$ collision and the lower panel for STAR

149: $p+p$ collision at $\sqrt s$=200 GeV. One sees in this figure that

150: the theoretical results are not so far apart from the experimental data

151: for both the $\bar p+p$ and $p+p$ collisions. The theoretical correlation

152: strength in $\bar p+p$ collision is also a factor of 3-4 larger than

153: the one in $p+p$ collision, especially.

154: 

155: \begin{figure}[htbp]

156: \includegraphics[height=4.2in,width=3.0in,angle=0]{bexp.eps}

157: \caption{The strength $b$ of the charged particle forward-backward

158: multiplicity correlation in $\bar p+p$ (upper panel) and $p+p$ (lower

159: panel) collisions at $\sqrt s$=200 GeV. The experimental data are taken

160: from \cite{ua51988} and \cite{star3}, respectively.}

161: \label{bexp}

162: \end{figure}

163: 

164: In the upper panel of Figure \ref{bcompare} the full squares are the

165: PYTHIA results for $\bar p+p$ collision with same detector

166: acceptances and $\eta$ bin interval as in UA5 experiment, whereas

167: the open triangles are the PYTHIA results with $p_T>0.15$ instead

168: of $p_T>0$ GeV/c. The open triangles are monotonously below

169: the full squares. Middle panel of Figure \ref{bcompare} shows the

170: PYTHIA results calculated at the same detector acceptances as UA5

171: but with varied pseudo-rapidity bin intervals: $\Delta\eta$ =1.0

172: (full squares), 0.5 (open circles), and 0.2 (open triangles-down),

173: respectively. Here one knows that the correlation strength, $b$, declines

174: dramatically with the decreasing of pseudo-rapidity bin interval. The

175: PYTHIA results calculated for both the $p+p$ (full squares) and $\bar

176: p+p$ (open triangles-up) collisions at STAR detector acceptances and

177: pseudo-rapidity bin interval are given in lower panel of Figure

178: \ref{bcompare}. We see in this panel that a factor of 3-4 apparent

179: discrepancy nearly disappears if both STAR and UA5 experiments are

180: performed at the same detector acceptances and pseudo-rapidity bin

181: interval.

182: 

183: \begin{figure}[htbp]

184: \includegraphics[height=6.3in,width=3.0in,angle=0]{bcompare.eps}

185: \caption{Correlation strength $b$: upper panel for $\bar p+p$

186: collision calculated at different $p_T$ cut; middle panel calculated

187: at varied intervals of $\eta$ bin; lower panel for $p+p$ and $\bar p+p$

188: collisions calculated at STAR detector acceptances and pseudo-rapidity

189: bin interval. The reaction energies are all $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.}

190: \label{bcompare}

191: \end{figure}

192: 

193: It is very hard to separate the statistical and dynamical

194: correlations (fluctuations) from the measured correlations

195: (fluctuations) \cite{naya}. We introduce a mixed event method based

196: on the real (PYTHIA) events (150 thousand events, for instance).

197: The mixed events are generated one by one according to the real

198: events. We assume first that the particle multiplicity $N$ in a mixed

199: event is the same as the corresponding one in real events. However, the

200: $N$ particles in a mixed event are sampled randomly from the particle

201: reservoir formed by all particles in the real events. As the

202: particles in a mixed event are separately and randomly taken from

203: different real events, there is not any dynamical relevance among them.

204: Thus the correlation strength, $b$, calculated by the mixed events

205: is reasonably to be identified as the statistical correlation. Of course,

206: we can also generate the mixed event with individual constraint, such as

207: charge conservation, four-momentum conservation, and decay, etc. The

208: corresponding correlation will be indicated by ``statistical plus

209: charge dynamical correlations", the ``statistical plus four-momentum

210: dynamical correlations", and the``statistical plus decay correlations",

211: etc., respectively.

212: 

213: The strength of charged particle forward-backward multiplicity

214: correlation is calculated individually from the real

215: events, mixed events, mixed events with charge conservation, and the

216: mixed events with charge and four-momentum conservations. They are

217: given in the upper panel of Figure \ref{bmix} by the full squares

218: (indicated as total correlation), open circles (statistical

219: correlation), open triangles-up (statistical plus charge dynamical

220: correlations) , and the open triangles-down (statistical

221: plus the charge and four-momentum dynamical correlations),

222: respectively. In lower panel of Figure \ref{bmix} are given the total

223: dynamical correlation strength (full squares), the charge dynamical one

224: (open triangles-up), the four-momentum dynamical one (open

225: triangles-down), and the decay dynamical correlation (open circles).

226: The former three are extracted from upper panel by subtracting,

227: respectively, the statistical correlation from total correlation,

228: the statistical one from ``statistical plus charge dynamical" one, the

229: ``statistical plus charge dynamical" one from ``statistical plus charge

230: and four-momentum dynamical" one. It has to mention that in the real

231: events generated above the decay of unstable hadrons is allowed.

232: In order to calculate the decay dynamical correlation (open circles in

233: lower panel of Figure \ref{bmix}), we have first to generate the real

234: events without decay of unstable hadrons and the corresponding

235: mixed events. One subtracts the $b$ calculated by mixed events with

236: (without) decay from the $b$ calculated by real events with (without)

237: decay, one has the dynamical correlation with (without) decay then. The

238: decay dynamical correlation in lower panel of Figure \ref{bmix} is just

239: resulted by subtracting the ``dynamical correlation with decay" from the

240: one without decay. One knows here that the dynamical correlations stemming

241: from charge, four-momentum, and the decay may account for the most part

242: of the total dynamical correlation.

243: 

244: \begin{figure}[htbp]

245: \includegraphics[height=4.8in,width=3.5in,angle=0]{bmix.eps}

246: \caption{Statistical and dynamical correlation strengths. See text

247:          for detail.}

248: \label{bmix}

249: \end{figure}

250: 

251: Many experiments have indicated that the particle multiplicity distribution

252: in hadron-hadron and the nucleus-nucleus collisions is well described by the

253: Negative Binomial Distribution (NBD) \cite{ua51985,ua51987b,e8021995,phen3}.

254: For an integer $n$ the NBD reads

255: \begin{equation}

256: \ P(n;\mu,k) = \begin{pmatrix}n+k-1\\k-1\end{pmatrix}\frac{

257: (\mu/k)^n}{(1+\mu/k)^{n+k}},

258: \label{NBD}

259: \end{equation}

260: where $\mu\equiv \langle n \rangle$ is a parameter, $P(n;\mu,k)$ is

261: normalized in $0\leq n \leq\infty$, and $k$ is another parameter responsible

262: for the shape of the distribution. If $k$ is a real the binomial coefficient

263: in Eq. \ref{NBD} is $k(k+1)\cdots(k+n-1)/n!$. In NBD the variance

264: ($\sigma^2$) and mean ($\mu$) is related to $k$ by

265: \begin{equation}

266: \ \sigma^{2} = \mu +\frac{\mu^2}{k}.

267: \label{b1}

268: \end{equation}

269: An important property of NBD is that if particle multiplicity $n$ is

270: NBD in whole phase space and the particle has unified probability,

271: $p$, in a partial phase space (such as in a $\eta$ bin here) then

272: particle multiplicity distribution in this partial phase space is

273: also NBD with same parameter $k$ and the mean is equal to $\mu p$

274: \cite{adc}. That is obviously based on the assumption that the

275: particles are independent with each other, i.e. there is no

276: dynamical correlation among them.

277: 

278: Since forward and backward pseudo-rapidity bins are symmetry

279: relative to the investigated pseudo-rapidity ($\eta$) and have same

280: width so $\langle n_f\rangle=\langle n_b\rangle$ and

281: $var(n_f)=var(n_b)$ in NBD. Using the statistic formula \cite{myer}

282: \begin{equation}

283: \ var(X\pm Y)=var(X)+var(Y)\pm 2cov(X,Y)

284: \end{equation}

285: the $b$ can be written as

286: \begin{equation}

287: \ b =\frac{cov(n_f,n_b)}{var(n_f)}=\frac{var(n_f+n_b)-2var(n_f)}{2var(n_f)}.

288: \label{b2}

289: \end{equation}

290: Substitute Eq. \ref{b1} into Eq. \ref{b2} one has

291: \begin{equation}

292: \ b = \frac{\langle n_f\rangle}{\langle n_f\rangle+k}.

293: \label{b3}

294: \end{equation}

295: We know that the NBD becomes a Poisson distribution in the limit

296: $k\rightarrow\infty$, so the correlation strength, $b$, is zero in

297: Poisson distribution. If the charged particle multiplicity

298: distribution in real events with decay assumption is fitted by NBD,

299: the parameter $k$ is obtained. As the real events are generated in

300: NSD (Non-Single-Diffractive) indeed, the charged particle

301: multiplicity distribution is not perfect NBD, therefore the above

302: fit is not so sensitive to the $k$ values within 6-7. If NBD with

303: $k$=6.6 is assumed for the charged particle multiplicity

304: distribution, the corresponding $b$ can be calculated by Eq.

305: \ref{b3} because $\langle n_f\rangle$ can be approximated by

306: $dN_{ch}$/$d\eta$ in real event. Those $b$ are shown in Fig.

307: \ref{bk} by open triangles. In this figure the full squares are

308: calculated by the mixed events with decay assumption (i.e. the open

309: circles in upper panel of Fig. \ref{bmix}) and the open circles are

310: the charged particle pseudo-rapidity distribution in real events

311: with decay (in drawing $dN_{ch}$/$d \eta$ the abscissa is identified

312: as $\eta$ and scaled by 2). The results of NBD agree well with the

313: results calculated by the mixed events with decay assumption, it

314: proves again that we are reasonable identifying the $b$ calculated

315: by mixed events as the statistical correlation strength. Comparing

316: the full squares and open triangles to the open circles one knows

317: that the statistical correlation strength may have shape similar to

318: the charged particle pseudo-rapidity distribution.

319: 

320: Recently, the forward-backward multiplicity covariance in $p+p$

321: collision at $\sqrt s$=200 GeV has been studied in Ref. \cite{hwa}.

322: They assumed the back-to-back partonic scattering is the origin of

323: hadronic correlation, related that partonic scattering angles to a

324: Gaussian like hadronization function, and derived the forward-backward

325: multiplicity covariance. Without more dynamical input their results

326: are well comparing with STAR data \cite{star3}. Therefore they conclude

327: that the correlation length might have no fundamental significance. We

328: plan to investigate the partonic origin of forward-backward multiplicity

329: correlation by transport model in next study.

330: 

331: \begin{figure}[htbp]

332: \includegraphics[height=2.3in,width=3.3in,angle=0]{bk.eps}

333: \caption{Charged particle forward-backward multiplicity statistical

334: correlation strength $b$ and the charged particle pseudo-rapidity

335: distribution in $\bar p+p$ collision at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.}

336: \label{bk}

337: \end{figure}

338: 

339: In summary, we have calculated the strength of charged particle

340: forward-backward multiplicity correlation in $\bar p+p$ and $p+p$

341: collisions at $\sqrt s$=200 GeV by PYTHIA 6.4 \cite{soj} and

342: compared with UA5 data \cite{ua51988} and STAR data \cite{star3},

343: respectively. It is turned out that a factor of 3-4 apparent

344: discrepancy between UA5 and STAR data can be attributed to the

345: differences in detector acceptances and the interval of observed

346: $\eta$ bin in both experiments. A mixed event method is introduced and

347: used to calculate the statistical correlation strength and the

348: individual dynamical correlations stemming from charge conservation,

349: four-momentum conservation, and the decay. It seems that the

350: statistical correlation is much larger than the dynamical one, and

351: the charge, four-momentum, and decay may account for the main part

352: of the dynamical correlation. The NBD $b$ results agree well with

353: the ones calculated by mixed events proves again that one is

354: reasonable to identify the correlation in mixed events as a

355: statistical correlation.

356: 

357: The financial support from NSFC (10635020, 10705012, and 10605040)

358: in China is acknowledged.

359: 

360: \begin{references}

361: \bibitem{hwa0} R. C. Hwa, nucl-th/701053.

362: \bibitem{naya} T. K. Nayak, J. of Phys. G {\bf 32}, S187 (2006);

363:  nucl-ex/0608021.

364: \bibitem{appe} H. Appelsh$\ddot{a}$user, et al., NA49 Collaboration, Phys.

365:  Lett. B {\bf 459},  679 (1999).

366: \bibitem{afan} S. V. Afanasiev, et al., NA49 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.

367:  {\bf 86}, 1965 (2001).

368: \bibitem{star} J. Adams et al., STAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C {\bf68},

369:  044905 (2003).

370: \bibitem{star1} J. Adams et al., STAR Collaboration, J. Phys. G {\bf 32}

371:  , L37 (2006).

372: \bibitem{star2} J. Adams et al., STAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C {\bf75}

373:  , 034901 (2007).

374: \bibitem{phen} K. Adcox et al., PHENIX Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.

375:  {\bf 89}, 082301 (2002).

376: \bibitem{phen1} S. S. Adler et al., PHENIX Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.

377:  {\bf 93}, 092301 (2004).

378: \bibitem{phen2} A. Adare et al., PHENIX Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.

379:  {\bf 98}, 232302 (2007).

380: \bibitem{phob} Zheng-Wei Chai, et al., PHOBOS Collaboration, J. of Phys.:

381:  Conference Series {\bf 27}, 128 (2005).

382: \bibitem{star3} B. K. Srivastavs, STAR Collaboration, nucl-ex/0702054.

383: \bibitem{star4} T. Tarnowsky, STAR Collaboration, nucl-ex/0702056.

384: \bibitem{ua51983} K. Alpg{\aa}rd et al., UA5 Collaboration, Phys.

385:  Lett. B {\bf 123}, 361 (1983).

386: \bibitem{ua51988} R. E. Ansorge et al., UA5 Collaboration, Z. Phys. C {\bf 37}

387:  , 191 (1988).

388: \bibitem{soj} T. S\"ojstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, J. High Energy Phys.

389:  {\bf JHEP05}, 026 (2006); hep-ph/0603175.

390: \bibitem{dpm} A. Capella, and J. Tran Thanh Van, Z. Phys, C {\bf 18}, 85 (1983).

391: \bibitem{meng} Liu Lian-sou and Meng Ta-chung, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 27}, 2640 (1983),

392:  ibid D {\bf 33}, 1287 (1986).

393: \bibitem{hwa} R. C. Hwa and C. B. Yang. arXiv:0705.3073.

394: \bibitem{ua51985} G. J. Alner et al., UA5 Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B

395:  {\bf 160}, 193 (1985).

396: \bibitem{ua51987b} G. J. Alner et al., UA5 Collaboration, Phys. Rep.

397:  {\bf 154}, 247 (1987).

398: \bibitem{e8021995} T. Abbott et al., E802 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C {\bf52},

399:  2663 (1995).

400: \bibitem{phen3} J. Mitchell, PHENIX Collaboration, nucl-ex/0701080.

401: \bibitem{adc} K. Adcox, et al., PHENIX Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 757}, 184 (2005).

402: \bibitem{myer} R. E. Walpole and R. H. Myers, ``Probability and statistics for

403:  engineers and scientists", 2-th Ed., P71, 1978, Macmillan Publishing Co.,

404:  Inc. New York.

405: 

406: \end{references}

407: 

408: \end{document}

409: