1: %% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%

2: %

3: % $Id: espcrc2.tex 1.1 1999/07/26 10:28:22 Simon Exp spepping $

4: %

5: \documentclass[twoside]{article}

6: \usepackage{fleqn,espcrc2}

7: 

8: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09

9: % \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}

10: 

11: % if you want to include PostScript figures

12: \usepackage{graphicx}

13: % if you have landscape tables

14: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}

15: 

16: % put your own definitions here:

17: %   \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}

18: %   \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]

19: %   ...

20: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}

21: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2

22:   A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

23: 

24: \font\quo=cmssqi8

25: \font\bsy=cmbsy10

26: \def\ub{\underbar}

27: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

28: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

29: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

30: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

31: 

32: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list

33: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}

34: 

35: % declarations for front matter

36: \title{KNO scaling 30 years later}

37: 

38: \author{S\'andor Hegyi\address{Particle Physics Department \\

39:         KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics \\ 

40:         H-1525 Budapest 114, P.O. Box 49. Hungary}}

41: 

42:        

43: \begin{document}

44: 

45: 

46: \begin{abstract}

47: KNO scaling, i.e. 

48: the collapse of multiplicity distributions $P_n$ onto a universal 

49: scaling curve manifests when $P_n$ is expressed as the distribution 

50: of the standardized multiplicity $(n-c)/\lambda$ with $c$ and 

51: $\lambda$ being location and scale parameters governed by leading 

52: particle effects and the growth of average multiplicity. 

53: At very high energies, strong violation of KNO scaling behavior is 

54: observed ($p\bar p$) and expected to occur ($e^+e^-$). This challenges one 

55: to introduce novel, physically well motivated and preferably simple scaling

56: rules obeyed by high-energy data. One possibility what I find useful

57: and which satisfies the above requirements is the repetition of the original 

58: scaling prescription (shifting and rescaling) in Mellin space, that is, 

59: for the multiplicity moments' rank. This scaling principle will be 

60: discussed here, illustrating its capabilities both on model predictions and 

61: on real data.

62: \end{abstract}

63: 

64: % typeset front matter (including abstract)

65: \maketitle

66: 

67: \leftline{\quo Dedicated to Wolfram Kittel}

68: \leftline{\quo on the occasion of his 60th birthday}

69: 

70: \vspace{.5cm}

71: 

72: \section{THE EARLY YEARS}

73: 

74: \subsection{Polyakov and Koba-Nielsen-Olesen}

75: 

76: In the Millennium Year we celebrated the 30{\it th\/} anniversary of 

77: the famous Eq.~(1), the basic result of Polyakov and of

78: Koba, Nielsen and Olesen concerning the asymptotic behavior of the

79: multiplicity distributions~\cite{pol,kno1,kno2}. These authors put forward 

80: the hypothesis that at very high energies~$s$ the probability

81: distributions 

82: $P_n(s)$ of producing $n$ particles in a certain collision

83: process should exhibit the scaling (homogeneity) relation

84: \begin{equation}

85:         P_n(s)=

86:         {1\over\langle n(s)\rangle}\,\psi\!

87:         \left({n\over\langle n(s)\rangle}\right)

88: \end{equation}

89: as $s\to\infty$ with

90: $\langle n(s)\rangle$ being the average multiplicity of secondaries at 

91: collision energy~$s$. 

92: This so-called KNO scaling hypothesis asserts that if we rescale $P_n(s)$

93: measured at different energies via stretching (shrinking) the vertical

94: (horizontal) axes by $\langle n(s)\rangle$, these rescaled curves will

95: coincide with each other. That is, the multiplicity distributions

96: become simple rescaled copies of the universal function $\psi(z)$ depending

97: only on the scaled multiplicity $z=n/\langle n(s)\rangle$. In the picturesque

98: terminology of Stanley~\cite{sta} the rescaled data points $P_n(s)$ measured

99: at different energies~$s$ collapse onto the unique scaling curve $\psi(z)$.

100: After Koba~\cite{kno2}, let me illustrate this schematically:

101: 

102: \begin{center}

103: \includegraphics[height=4.8cm]{fig3a.eps}

104: \begin{eqnarray*}

105: \qquad\qquad

106: {\quad\quad\Big\Downarrow\quad\mbox{\fbox{\it rescaling\thinspace}}}

107: \end{eqnarray*}

108: \includegraphics[height=4.8cm]{fig3bbb.eps}

109: \end{center}

110: 

111: \vspace{-.3cm}

112: 

113: The data collapsing behavior is a 

114: fundamental property of homogeneous functions.

115: According to Eq.~(1), at very high energies the multiplicity distributions 

116: $P_n(s)$ are homogeneous functions of degree $-1$ of $n$ and

117: $\langle n(s)\rangle$. Homogeneity rules play a central role in the

118: theory of critical phenomena~\cite{sta}. Near the critical point of a

119: physical system the thermodynamic functions exhibit homogeneous form

120: which implies the existence of a law of corresponding states: using a

121: suitably chosen scaling transformation it is possible to bring different 

122: states of the same system to coincidence and thus to compress many 

123: experimental or theoretical results into a compact form. The KNO 

124: scaling hypothesis Eq.~(1) is just such a law of corresponding states.

125: 

126: In the celebrated paper~\cite{kno1} Koba, Nielsen and Olesen showed 

127: that the validity

128: of Feynman scaling is a sufficient condition for Eq.~(1) to hold. It is 

129: worth mentioning however that the mathematical rigor of their derivation 

130: was criticized by several authors. Moreover, the precise finding of 

131: Ref.~\cite{kno1} was the energy independence of the moments

132: $C_q=\langle n^q(s)\rangle/\langle n(s)\rangle^q$ in the 

133: limit $s\to\infty$.

134: The scaling hypothesis Eq.~(1) was formulated with the additional

135: assumption that the moments $C_q=\int_0^\infty z^q\psi(z)\,dz$ determine

136: uniquely the scaling function $\psi(z)$. 

137: Polyakov arrived at the asymptotic multiplicity scaling law Eq.~(1)

138: two years earlier than Koba, Nielsen and Olesen by 

139: formulating a similarity hypothesis for strong 

140: interactions in $e^+e^-\to\mbox{\it hadrons\/}$ annihilation; see later.

141: Somehow this fundamental and elegant work was almost completely ignored 

142: in the early 70s and Eq.~(1) became known as the KNO scaling 

143: hypothesis in the high-energy physics community.

144: 

145: 

146: \subsection{Modifications}

147: 

148: 

149: The scaling relation Eq.~(1) can hold only approximately since

150: multiplicity~$n$ is a discrete random variable whose stretching or shrinking 

151: by a scale factor leaves the probabilities~$P_n$ unaltered. The proper 

152: meaning of Eq.~(1) is that with increasing collision energy~$s$ 

153: the discrete multiplicity distributions $P_n$ can be approximated

154: with increasing accuracy by a continuous probability density function

155: $f(x)$ via $P_n\approx f(x=n)$ (KNO prescription)

156: or by $P_n\approx\int_{x=n}^{x=n+1}f(x)\,dx$ (called KNO-G ``scaling'')

157: where, in the most popular modification of the original scaling rule, 

158: $f(x)$ has the generic Czy\.zewski-Rybicki form~\cite{cry,bla}

159: \be

160: 	f(x)=\frac{1}{\lambda}\,\psi\left(\frac{x-c}{\lambda}\right)

161: \ee

162: with scale parameter $\lambda>0$ and location parameter $c$. 

163: Data collapsing behavior is observed if the only $s$-dependent parameters 

164: of the approximate shape function $f(x)$ are $c$ and $\lambda$, i.e. if 

165: $f(x)$ depends on collision energy only through a change of location 

166: and scale in~$x$. The variation of $\lambda$ with increasing~$s$

167: reflects the growth of average multiplicity, whereas the $s$-dependence 

168: of $c$ is usually associated with leading particle effects (so-called

169: AKNO or KNO-$\alpha$ scaling). Other physical explanations are also possible, 

170: see e.g. the contribution of Marek P\l oszajczak on $\Delta$-scaling.

171: 

172: 

173: \section{NEW SCALING PRINCIPLE}

174: 

175: 

176: Taking into account a possible location change (shift) in 

177: multiplicity rarely proved to be sufficient to restore the data

178: collapsing behavior of $P_n$ when the original scaling law Eq.~(1) is 

179: violated at very high energies (hence we use \hbox{$c=0$}). 

180: Nevertheless, the principle of scale {\it and\/} 

181: location change in the shape of multiplicity distributions can be 

182: extremely powerful through the following generalization of the KNO scaling

183: rule. Consider that the multiplicity distributions, more precisely the 

184: continuous probability densities $f(x)$ approximating $P_n$ generate

185: $s$-dependent shifting and rescaling in Mellin space.

186: The Mellin transform of a 

187: probability density $f(x)$ is defined by 

188: ${\cal M}\{f(x);q\}=\int_0^\infty x^{q-1}f(x)\,dx$ and it provides the

189: $(q-1)${\it th\/} moment $\langle x^{q-1}\rangle$. Via the functional

190: relation

191: \begin{equation}

192: 	{\cal M}\bigg\{x^r f\big(x^\mu\big);q\bigg\}=

193: 	\frac{1}{\mu}\,{\cal M}\bigg\{f(x);{q+r\over\mu}\bigg\}

194: \end{equation}

195: one can introduce translation and dilatation in the moments' rank $q$ 

196: by performing the transformation $f(x)\to x^r f\big(x^\mu\big)$ of the 

197: probability densities approximating the shape of $P_n$. In the followings

198: I shall illustrate the utility of performing a location or scale change 

199: in Mellin space; for further details, see Refs.~\cite{hs1,hs2,hs3}.

200: 

201: 

202: 

203: \section{TRANSLATION IN {\bsy M}-SPACE}

204: 

205: \subsection{Motivation}

206: 

207: There are several possible dynamical explanations of

208: a shift in Mellin space.  The basic 

209: idea is simply the following. Recall that in Eq.~(1) the 

210: normalization of the KNO function reads

211: $

212: 	\int_0^\infty\psi(z)\,dz=\int_0^\infty z\,\psi(z)\,dz=1,

213: $

214: that is, $\langle z\rangle=1$. Assume that violation of KNO scaling 

215: is observed and we measure $s$-dependent ``scaling'' functions

216: $\psi(z)$. In order to arrive at data collapsing behavior of $P_n$

217: the simplest possibility is to rescale the function

218: $\varphi(z)=z\,\psi(z)$ by its first moment given by $C_2$.

219: In terms of $P_n$ and the moments $\langle n^q\rangle$ 

220: this corresponds to rescaling 

221: the distribution $P_{n,1}=nP_n/\langle n\rangle$ by its mean 

222: $\langle n\rangle_1=\langle n^2\rangle/\langle n\rangle$. The distribution

223: $P_{n,1}$ is known in the mathematical literature

224: as the first {\it moment distribution\/} of $P_n$. If the

225: rescaling of $P_{n,1}$ by $\langle n\rangle_1$ is not sufficient to

226: arrive at data collapsing behavior,

227: one can try the same recipe for the higher-order moment distributions

228: $P_{n,r}=n^rP_n/\langle n^r\rangle$. The generalization is 

229: straightforward. Let me show you now an example when Eq.~(1) 

230: is clearly violated, but performing a shift in Mellin space can

231: restore the collapse of different $P_n$ curves onto a single 

232: scaling curve.

233: 

234: \subsection{Intermittency and multifractality}

235: 

236: The most obvious example is intermittency. As it turned out during the 

237: past 15 years, multiparticle production often yields scale-invariant

238: density fluctuations~\cite{bp,bop,ddk}. This can be observed

239: through the power-law scaling $C_q\propto\delta^{-\varphi_q}$ of the 

240: normalized moments $C_q=\langle n^q\rangle/\langle n\rangle^q$ 

241: of $P_n(\delta)$ as the bin-size~$\delta$ in phase-space is varied (for 

242: clarity, we neglect here the influence of low count rates).

243: Assuming that the fluctuations show monofractal structure,

244: the so-called intermittency exponents 

245: $\varphi_q$ are given by~$\varphi_q=\varphi_2(q-1)$ and the anomalous 

246: fractal dimensions $D_q=\varphi_q/(q-1)$ are \hbox{$q$-independent}, 

247: $D_q=D_2$. The normalized moments $C_q$ of $P_n(\delta)$ take the form

248: \begin{equation}

249: 	C_q=A_q\,[C_2]^{\,q-1}\qquad\mbox{for}\quad q>2

250: \end{equation}

251: with coefficients $A_q$ independent of bin-size~$\delta$~\cite{ddk}. 

252: Of course Eq.~(1), with $s\to\delta$, is violated since we observe

253: $C_2\propto\delta^{-\varphi_2}$.

254: 

255: In the restoration of data collapsing behavior of $P_n$ for 

256: self-similar fluctuations the basic trick is the investigation 

257: of the higher-order moment distributions defined before. Their moments

258: are $\langle n^q\rangle_r=\langle n^{q+r}\rangle/\langle n^r\rangle$,

259: that is, the moments of the original $P_n$ are transformed out up to 

260: $r$th order via performing a shift in Mellin space, see

261: Eq.~(3). For $r=1$ the normalized moments of the 

262: first moment distribution $P_{n,1}$ are found to be

263: $

264: 	C_{q,1}=C_{q+1}/[C_2]^{\,q}

265: $

266: in terms of the original $C_q$ and comparison to Eq.~(4) yields

267: $C_{q,1}=A_{q+1}$ for monofractal multiplicity fluctuations. Since the 

268: coefficients $A_q$ are independent of bin-size~$\delta$, we see

269: that monofractality yields not only 

270: {\it power-law scaling\/} of the normalized moments of $P_n$ but also 

271: {\it data collapsing\/} behavior of the first moment distributions $P_{n,1}$

272: measured at different resolution scales $\delta$. Increasing the 

273: (possibly fractional)

274: rank~$r$ of the moment distributions allows the restoration of data

275: collapsing behavior in the presence of increasing degree of multifractality

276: of scale-invariant multiplicity fluctuations~\cite{hs1,hs2}. The effect of 

277: low multiplicities (Poisson noise) can be taken into account via the study 

278: of {\it factorial\/} moment distributions 

279: $P_{n,r}=n^{[r]}P_n/\langle n^{[r]}\rangle$

280: and their factorial moments. 

281: 

282: 

283: \subsection{Ginzburg-Landau phase transition}

284: 

285: 

286: In recent years considerable interest has been devoted to the

287: Ginzburg-Landau theory of the phase transition from quark-gluon plasma

288: to hadronic matter~\cite{hwa,hwb}. Instead of a strict power-law scaling

289: $F_q\propto\delta^{-\varphi_q}$ of the normalized factorial moments,

290: a so-called $F$-scaling behavior

291: $F_q\propto[F_2]^{\beta_q}$ is obtained with $\beta_q=(q-1)^\nu$.

292: For second-order transition $\nu=1.304$ and in case of a first-order

293: transition $\nu=1.45$. The $F$-scaling rule of the above form makes

294: difficult to identify the family of 

295: probability laws $P_n$ belonging to the model. But considering 

296: $P_{n,1}$ instead of $P_n$ the corresponding factorial moments 

297: turn out to be $F_{q,1}\propto[F_2]^{\beta_q}$ with $\beta_q=q^\nu-q$ and 

298: hence~\cite{hs1}

299: $$

300:         F_{q,1}\propto[F_{2,1}]^{\beta_q}\qquad\mbox{with}\quad

301:         \beta_q=\frac{q^\nu-q}{2^\nu-2}.

302: $$

303: This form of $F$-scaling is the familiar log-L\'evy law~\cite{lev} with

304: stability index $0<\nu\leq2$. Thus, via moment shifting, we succeeded 

305: in identifying $P_{n,1}$ for the Ginzburg-Landau formalism 

306: with a strict bound on the essential parameter~$\nu$ of the model.

307: The theoretically relevant values are within the allowed range.

308: Although this particular example is not related directly to data collapsing

309: behavior of multiplicity distributions, it illustrates the utility of the 

310: moment distributions $P_{n,r}\propto n^rP_n$ which

311: correspond to translation in Mellin space.

312: 

313: 

314: 

315: \section{RESCALING IN {\bsy M}-SPACE}

316: 

317: 

318: 

319: \subsection{Motivation}

320: 

321: The most important reason of a possible change of scale in

322: Mellin space comes from QCD. In higher-order pQCD calculations,

323: allowing a more precise account of energy conservation in the course of

324: multiple parton splittings, the natural variable of the multiplicity 

325: moments is the {\it rescaled\/} rank $q\gamma$ instead of rank $q$ 

326: itself~\cite{dok,och,dre} with

327: $\gamma(\alpha_s)$ being the multiplicity anomalous dimension of QCD.

328: Because of the running of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$,

329: it is inevitable to adjust an energy dependent scale factor in 

330: Mellin space if one wants to arrive at data collapsing behavior

331: of the multiplicity distributions $P_n(s)$.

332: 

333: 

334: 

335: \subsection{Running coupling}

336: 

337: 

338: In the very first paper predicting the multiplicity scaling law Eq.~(1),

339: Polyakov constructed a model for the short-distance behavior of strong

340: interactions based on the hypothesis of asymptotic scale- and conformal

341: invariance~\cite{pol}. When applied to the

342: process of $e^+e^-$ annihilation to hadrons at asymptotically high 

343: collision energies, the model predicts that multihadron production 

344: goes in a cascade way. First, a few heavy virtual objects, called jets, are

345: formed. These are repeatedly diminished in a branching process 

346: until the masses of the subsequent generation jets become at some 

347: very late stage  comparable to the hadronic masses. This cascading mechanism

348: gives rise to multiplicity distributions $P_n(s)$ satisfying Eq.~(1) and

349: the scaling function $\psi(z)$ behaves as

350: $

351: 	\psi(z)\propto a(z)\,\exp(-z^\mu)

352: $

353: with $\mu>1$ and $a(z)$ being a monomial. 

354: Up to a scale factor, $\psi(z)$ is a negative

355: binomial type scaling function, that is, a gamma distribution~\cite{cs} 

356: in the rescaled and power-transformed multiplicity~$z^\mu$.

357: 

358: 

359: It is worth emphasizing that the above result was achieved years earlier

360: than the emergence of quantum chromodynamics. Interestingly, the predictions

361: of QCD obey some important similarities to the findings of Polyakov:

362: 

363: {\it 1)\/} 

364: Hadronic jets produced in hard processes are expected in QCD to be

365: self-similar objects composed of subsequent 

366: parton branching decays~\cite{kon}. A highly

367: virtual quark or gluon decays into secondaries which are less off-shell and

368: less energetic. Each of these intermediate decay products splits into novel

369: ones. The subsequent decay chain steps form a scale-invariant branching 

370: process which continues until the virtual mass of the quanta becomes

371: approximately 1~GeV.

372: 

373: {\it 2)\/} 

374: The fragmentation of partons in QCD leads to the typical characteristics of

375: branching processes, in particular, to long-range correlations and to the

376: validity of KNO scaling~\cite{bas}. Further, it was shown~\cite{tes} that

377: KNO scaling in $e^+e^-$ annihilation is the consequence of the 

378: scale-invariance

379: (asymptotic freedom) in the presence of gluon self-coupling. It is thus

380: the manifestation of the essence of the non-abelian gauge theory of

381: strong interactions.

382: 

383: {\it 3)\/} 

384: Taking into account the higher pQCD effects responsible for

385: energy-momentum conservation in parton jets, the KNO scaling function

386: in $e^+e^-$ annihilation was shown~\cite{dok} to be identical to 

387: Polyakov's form:

388: \be

389: 	\psi(z)={\cal N}z^{\mu k-1}\exp\big(-[Dz]^\mu\big)

390: \ee

391: where $k=3/2$, ${\cal N}=\mu D^{\mu k}/\Gamma(k)$, 

392: $\mu=(1-\gamma)^{-1}\approx5/3$ and $D$ is a scale parameter

393: depending on $\gamma$, with $\gamma$ being the QCD anomalous dimension,

394: $\gamma\approx0.4$ at LEP1. Hence, the

395: conservation laws strongly reduce the width of the KNO scaling function 

396: as compared to the exponential fall-off obtained by lower-order pQCD 

397: calculations. The experimental data at $\sqrt s=91.2$~GeV (dots) confirm

398: the prediction (curve) as illustrated in the figure~a) below

399: (with the exception that $k$ turns out to be larger, $k\approx5$).

400: 

401: 

402: The crucial difference between the QCD prediction and Polyakov's result

403: lies in the fact that the scaling function $\psi(z)$  given by the 

404: Polyakov-Dokshitzer form Eq.~(5) {\it depends\/} on 

405: collision energy~$s$ in QCD. That is, QCD predicts violation of 

406: KNO scaling in $e^+e^-$ annihilation which becomes clearly visible 

407: at higher energies. This effect is due to the running

408: of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$, hence       

409: $\gamma\to0$ as $s\to\infty$, i.e., $\mu\to1$

410: asymptotically~\cite{dok}. Therefore the tail of $\psi(z)$ widens

411: with increasing~$s$ which gives rise to the KNO scaling violation pattern

412: shown in the figure~b) below. Asymptotically the exponential fall-off 

413: predicted by the double logarithmic approximation is recovered (solid curve) 

414: i.e. the negative binomial type scaling form of $P_n(s)$.

415: 

416: \vspace{-.2cm}

417: 

418: \begin{center}

419: \hbox{\hspace{-.2cm}\includegraphics[width=7.2cm]{logkno.fig1a.eps}}

420: \hbox{\hspace{-.2cm}\includegraphics[width=7.2cm]{logkno.fig1b.eps}}

421: \hbox{\hspace{-.2cm}\includegraphics[width=7.2cm]{logkno.fig1c.eps}}

422: \end{center}

423: 

424: \vspace{-.7cm}

425: 

426: Thus we have learned that the pre-QCD and QCD-based descriptions of $e^+e^-$

427: annihilation to hadrons make essential use of self-similar branching

428: processes, further, both predict the rescaled and

429: power-transformed multiplicity variable~$z^\mu$ 

430: to be gamma-distributed. But in the pre-QCD approach

431: the exponent $\mu$ is independent of collision energy~$s$ and

432: KNO scaling holds valid, as expected for scale-invariant branching with 

433: {\it fixed coupling\/}. On the contrary, the QCD-based calculations

434: predict violation of KNO scaling since $\mu$ varies with collision energy~$s$, 

435: due to the {\it running\/} of $\alpha_s$. Note however that

436: in the latter case data collapsing can be restored in a simple way using

437: {\it logarithmic\/} scaling variable. For the Polyakov-Dokshitzer form

438: of $\psi(z)$ given by (5) we have

439: $$

440: 	\psi(x)=\mu\exp\big(k\mu x-e^{\mu x}\big)/\Gamma(k),

441: 	\quad x=\ln(Dz).

442: $$

443: Since only the exponent $\mu$ and scale parameter $D$ of Eq.~(5) are 

444: expected to depend on collision energy~$s$ through the variation of 

445: $\gamma(\alpha_s)$, KNO scaling violated by 

446: QCD effects is recovered by plotting $\mu^{-1}\psi(\mu x)$ as displayed in 

447: the figure~c). The scale change in logarithmic multiplicity is 

448: governed by the QCD multiplicity anomalous dimension. This particular

449: type of data collapsing of the multiplicity distributions $P_n(s)$ 

450: is called log-KNO scaling~\cite{hs2,hs3} since we have the behavior

451: of type Eq.~(2) except that distributions of the logarithmic 

452: multiplicity satisfy it.

453: 

454: 

455: 

456: 

457: \subsection{Multiplicative cascades}

458: 

459: 

460: It may turn out that the log-KNO scaling law

461: has ubiquitous appearance in multiparticle dynamics.

462: Random multiplicative cascades play a distinguished role in the dynamics

463: underlying multihadron production, both in soft and hard processes.

464: The multiplicative cascade models like for example the

465: $\alpha$-model and $p$-model are in the focus of interest since the

466: pioneering work of Bia\l as and Peschanski~\cite{bp}, see also~\cite{ddk}

467: for a review. Recently, Frisch and Sornette developed a theory of 

468: extreme deviations~\cite{frs} which predicts for multiplication

469: of random variables the generic presence of stretched exponential

470: distributions $f(x)\propto\exp(-\lambda x^\mu)$ with $\mu<1$. 

471: To be specific, consider the product

472: $

473: 	X_N=m_1m_2\cdots m_N

474: $

475: of independent random variables $m_i$ distributed identically according to

476: the probability density $p(m_i)$. The above product can arise in a cascade 

477: process if primary entities (e.g. particle density) of initial size $s_0$

478: are repeatedly diminished in random proportions, so that after $N$ cascade

479: steps we have the product \hbox{$s_N=s_0m_1m_2\cdots m_N$}.

480: \begin{center} 

481: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{jet.eps}

482: \end{center}

483: In ref.~\cite{frs} it is shown that under

484: mild regularity conditions the distribution of the product variable $X_N$ 

485: exhibits the asymptotic behavior

486: \be

487: 	{\cal P}_N(X)\sim\big[p\big(X^{1/N}\big)\big]^N

488: 	\qquad\mbox{for}\quad X\to\infty

489: \ee

490: and for finite~$N$. Frisch and Sornette call attention to the intuitive

491: interpretation of (6): the tail of ${\cal P}_N(X)$ is controlled by

492: the realizations where all terms in the product are of the same order

493: hence ${\cal P}_N(X)$ is, to leading order, just the product of the $N$

494: densities $p$, each having the common argument $X^{1/N}$. When $p(x)$ is

495: chosen to be $\propto\exp(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ with $\alpha>0$,

496: then Eq.~(6) leads to stretched exponential tails

497: $\propto\exp(-\lambda Nx^{\alpha/N})$ for large $N$, with stretching

498: exponent $\alpha/N<1$. 

499: Expecting the cascade depth $N$ to be an increasing function of collision

500: energy $s$, Eq.~(1) breaks down but data collapsing can be recovered in

501: the log-KNO manner discussed previously.

502: 

503: 

504: \section{SCALING AT TEV ENERGIES}

505: 

506: 

507: The most exciting and challenging task in developing novel scaling 

508: relations is testing them on real data. In case of multiplicity 

509: distributions the KNO scaling laws Eqs.~(1-2) are known to be strongly

510: violated above ISR energies. This violation is most visible for the

511: multiplicity data measured by the E735 Collaboration~\cite{e735} see 

512: also~\cite{wal} for more details. In the followings I provide a very brief

513: summary of some preliminary results of a study of the E735 data.

514: 

515: 

516: \subsection{Analysis of E735 multiplicities}

517: 

518: The E735 Collaboration recently published the full phase-space 

519: multiplicity distributions in $pp$ and $p\bar p$ collisions

520: at c.m. energies $\sqrt s=$ 300, 546, 1000 and 1800 GeV 

521: at Tevatron~\cite{e735}. The

522:  $P_n$ curves corresponding to $\sqrt s=$ 300 and 1800 GeV are 

523: displayed in the following two figures. 

524: \begin{center}

525: \hbox{\hspace{-.4cm}\includegraphics[width=8cm]{scaling.fig1a.eps}}

526: \hbox{\hspace{-.4cm}\includegraphics[width=8cm]{scaling.fig1b.eps}}

527: \end{center}

528: 

529: 

530: It is apparent that bimodal shape of the $P_n$ curves arises at

531: TeV energies, obeying a (not too pronounced) shoulder structure like at SPS.

532: It is argued~\cite{e735,wal}

533: that the low-multiplicity regimes are affected mainly by single parton 

534: collisions and exhibit KNO scaling, 

535: whereas the \hbox{large-$n$} tail of the distributions is

536: influenced more heavily by double parton interactions and violate 

537: KNO scaling substantially. Another possible explanation of the

538: observed $P_n$ shape is the weighted superposition of a soft and

539: semihard component, the latter one being dominated by minijet production.

540: These components are responsible of the KNO scaling and KNO-violating

541: regimes of $P_n$~\cite{gu1,gu2}.

542: 

543: The solid curves in the previous two plots represent the Polyakov-Dokshitzer 

544: parametrization Eq.~(5) fitted to the KNO-violating $z\geq1$

545: component of the E735 data. The quality of fits is reasonably good 

546: (for all data sets) as can be depicted from the figures.

547: The fits correspond to $k=\frac{1}{2}$ kept fixed and $\mu$ decreasing from

548: $\mu\sim2.2$ to $\mu\sim1.7$ as one goes from 

549: $\sqrt s=$ 300 GeV to 1800 GeV. Our findings

550: indicate that the KNO violating component of the E735 multiplicity

551: distributions can be collapsed onto a single scaling curve 

552: in the log-KNO manner discussed previously. It is illustrated below.

553: \begin{center}

554: \hbox{\hspace{-.4cm}\includegraphics[width=8cm]{scaling.fig3a.eps}}

555: \hbox{\hspace{-.4cm}\includegraphics[width=8cm]{scaling.fig3b.eps}}

556: \end{center}

557: 

558: \vspace{-.3cm}

559: 

560: In the upper figure the $\sqrt s=$ 300 and 1800 GeV data sets 

561: are displayed only, 

562: whereas in the lower plot all the four data sets measured by the 

563: E735 experiment. The collapse of the data points onto a unique 

564: scaling curve is apparent. This very preliminary investigation suggests

565: that the pattern of KNO scaling violation by double parton collisions,

566: or by semihard processes dominated by minijet production, is similar

567: to that of $e^+e^-$ annihilations where log-KNO behavior is expected 

568: to arise as well at high energies (see before). 

569: But note that in parameter $k$ there 

570: is an order of magnitude difference between $e^+e^-$ and $p\bar p$ 

571: collisions, that is, the scaling functions have 

572: different shapes in the two reactions. 

573: 

574: 

575: 

576: One of the earliest reviews~\cite{ole} of Polyakov's pioneering work

577: concluded with the following speculative note:

578: {\rm ``Could it be that as in the theory of critical phenomena, while the

579: basic physics (Hamiltonians) between $e^+e^-$ annihilation and hadronic

580: multiparticle production could be entirely different, multiplicity

581: scaling may yet still be a \ub{universal} feature shared by both?''\/}

582: In the light of our findings the answer to this question is {\it yes\/}

583: but the scaling behavior foreseen 30 years ago arises in the logarithm

584: of multiplicity instead of multiplicity itself.

585: 

586: 

587: 

588: \section{SUMMARY}

589: 

590: 

591: In the past 30 years, data collapsing of multiplicity distributions $P_n$

592: according to the generic KNO scaling relation Eq.~(2) was one of the most

593: extensively studied topics in soft physics. Unfortunately, more and more 

594: experimental and theoretical results confirm that Eq.~(2) is too simple 

595: to be true. The information content of $P_n$

596: can be represented in an equally convenient manner 

597: making use of the multiplicity moments.

598: For example, validity of Eq.~(2) corresponds to constancy of the normalized

599: central moments for appropriately chosen $c$ and $\lambda$. What can we do

600: if the KNO scaling rule~(2) breaks down? How data collapsing behavior of 

601: $P_n$ can be restored, if it is~possible at all? 

602: The approach presented here is extremely

603: simple: let's perform the original scaling transformation (shifting and

604: \hbox{rescaling}) in the multiplicity moments' rank, that is, in Mellin space, 

605: rather than in  multiplicity.

606: 

607: The functional relation Eq.~(3) tells how things transform 

608: at the level of $P_n$.

609: Translation in Mellin space (moment shifting) corresponds to changing from

610: $P_n$ to the moment distributions $P_{n,r}\propto n^rP_n$. 

611: This makes possible

612: to arrive at data collapsing for intermittency phenomena: 

613: e.g. $P_{n,1}$ scales

614: for monofractal fluctuations, $P_{n,2}$ for bifractals and so on. Dilatation 

615: in Mellin space (rescaling of moments' rank) corresponds 

616: to the transformation

617: $P_n\to P_m$ with $m=n^\mu$. Therefore data collapsing arises in rescaled 

618: logarithmic multiplicity (log-KNO). Such behavior is expected to occur for

619: phenomena governed by running coupling effects or in multiplicative cascades

620: of varying length. Considering the physical significance of the mentioned

621: examples in multiparticle dynamics, it will be interesting to see how the

622: proposed scaling behaviors show up in the experiments of the Third

623: Millennium.

624: 

625: 

626: 

627: 

628: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}

629: 

630: 

631: I am grateful to the organizers of this workshop, in particular

632: to Alberto and Roberto for the invitation and kind hospitality

633: in Torino. 

634: 

635: The support of grants NWO-OTKA N25186 and OTKA T024094 is acknowledged.

636: 

637: 

638: \begin{thebibliography}{9}

639: \bibitem{pol} A.M. Polyakov, 

640:         Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 59}, 542 (1970).

641: \bibitem{kno1} Z. Koba, H.B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, 

642: 	Nucl. Phys. {\bf B40}, 317 (1972). 

643: \bibitem{kno2} Z. Koba,

644: 	in Proc. of the 1973 CERN School of Physics,

645: 	p.~171, CERN Yellow Report CERN-73-12 (1973).

646: \bibitem{sta} H.E. Stanley,

647: 	Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena

648: 	(Clarendon Press, 1971).

649: \bibitem{cry} O. Czy\.zewski and K. Rybicki,

650: 	Nucl. Phys. {\bf B47}, 633 (1972).

651: \bibitem{bla} M. Bla\v zek,

652: 	Z. Phys. {\bf C32}, 309 (1986).

653: \bibitem{hs1} S. Hegyi,

654: 	Phys. Lett. {\bf B411}, 321 (1997).

655: \bibitem{hs2} S. Hegyi,

656: 	Phys. Lett. {\bf B466}, 380 (1999).

657: \bibitem{hs3} S. Hegyi,

658: 	Phys. Lett. {\bf B467}, 126 (1999).

659: \bibitem{bp} A. Bia\l as and R. Peschanski,

660:         Nucl. Phys. {\bf B273}, 703 (1986); {\bf B308}, 857 (1988).

661: \bibitem{bop} P. Bo\.zek and M. P\l oszajczak,

662: 	Phys. Rep. {\bf 252}, 101 (1995).

663: \bibitem{ddk} E.A. De Wolf, I.M. Dremin and W. Kittel,

664: 	Phys. Rep. {\bf 270}, 1 (1996).

665: \bibitem{hwa} R.C. Hwa and M.T. Nazirov,

666:         Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 741 (1992).

667: \bibitem{hwb} R.C. Hwa, Phys. Rev. {\bf D47}, 2773 (1993);

668:                         Phys. Rev. {\bf C50}, 383 (1994).

669: \bibitem{lev} Ph. Brax and R. Peschanski,

670: 	Phys. Lett. {\bf B253}, 225 (1991).

671: \bibitem{cs} P. Carruthers and C.C. Shih,

672: 	Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A2}, 1447 (1987).

673: \bibitem{kon} K. Konishi, A. Ukawa and G. Veneziano,

674: 	Nucl. Phys. {\bf B157}, 45 (1979).

675: \bibitem{bas} A. Bassetto, M. Ciafaloni and G. Marchesini,

676: 	Nucl. Phys. {\bf B163}, 477 (1980).

677: \bibitem{tes} K. Tesima,

678: 	Phys. Lett. {\bf B133}, 115 (1983).

679: \bibitem{dok} Yu.L. Dokshitzer,

680: 	Phys. Lett. {\bf B305}, 295 (1993); LU-TP/93-3 (1993).

681: \bibitem{och} V.A. Khoze and W. Ochs,

682: 	Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A12}, 2949 (1997).

683: \bibitem{dre} I.M. Dremin and W. Gary,

684: 	hep-ph/0004215, to appear in Phys. Rep. (2000).

685: \bibitem{frs} U. Frisch and D. Sornette,

686: 	J. Phys. I France {\bf 7}, 1155 (1997).

687: \bibitem{e735} E735 Collab., T. Alexopoulos et al.,

688:         Phys. Lett. {\bf B435}, 453 (1998).

689: \bibitem{wal} S.G. Matinyan and W.D. Walker,

690:         Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 034022 (1999).

691: \bibitem{gu1} A. Giovannini and R. Ugoccioni,

692:         Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}, 094020 (1999).

693: \bibitem{gu2} A. Giovannini and R. Ugoccioni,

694:         Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 074027 (1999).

695: \bibitem{ole} P. Olesen and H.C. Tze,

696: 	``Multiplicity scaling in $e^+e^-$ annihilation and

697: 	Polyakov's bootstrap'', NBI-HE 74-9 (1974).

698: \end{thebibliography}

699: 

700: 

701: 

702: \end{document}

703: