1: \documentclass{icrc}
2: \usepackage{times}
3: \usepackage{graphicx} % when using Latex and dvips
4: % % (the latter best with option -Pcmz, if available,
5: % % to invoke Type 1 cm fonts)
6: %\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx} % when using pdfLatex (preferred)
7: \begin{document}
8: \hyphenation{flu-xes}
9: \hyphenation{so-ur-ce}
10: \hyphenation{ba-ck-gro-und}
11: \hyphenation{mu-ons}
12: \hyphenation{co-m-pu-ta-ti-on}
13: \hyphenation{pa-ra-me-te-ri-z-a-t-i-on}
14: \hyphenation{pro-g-r-ess}
15: \hyphenation{se-c-t-i-ons}
16: \hyphenation{bre-m-s-s-t-r-a-h-l-ung}
17: \hyphenation{te-le-s-co-p-es}
18: \hyphenation{So-k-a-l-s-ki}
19: \hyphenation{Spi-e-r-ing}
20: \hyphenation{an-a-l-y-t-i-c-al}
21: \hyphenation{me-th-ods}
22: \hyphenation{us-es}
23: \hyphenation{Mo-n-te}
24: \hyphenation{Ca-r-lo}
25: \hyphenation{te-ch-n-i-que}
26: \hyphenation{ex-p-e-c-t-ed}
27: \hyphenation{de-t-e-c-t-or}
28: \hyphenation{re-s-p-o-n-se}
29: \hyphenation{mu-on}
30: \hyphenation{tra-n-s-p-o-r-t-a-t-i-on}
31: \hyphenation{abo-ve}
32: \hyphenation{un-c-e-r-t-a-i-n-t-i-es}
33: \hyphenation{se-c-t-i-on}
34: \hyphenation{op-t-i-m-i-s-t-ic}
35: \hyphenation{ev-a-l-u-a-t-i-on}
36: \hyphenation{su-r-v-i-v-al}
37: \hyphenation{pro-b-a-b-i-l-i-t-i-es}
38: \hyphenation{co-m-p-u-t-ed}
39: \hyphenation{PRO-P-MU}
40: \hyphenation{MU-S-IC}
41: \hyphenation{si-m-u-l-a-t-i-ons}
42: \hyphenation{gi-ve}
43: \hyphenation{pra-c-t-i-c-a-l-ly}
44: \hyphenation{sa-me}
45:
46: \title{MUM: flexible precise algorithm for the muon propagation}
47: \author[1,2]{I. Sokalski}
48: \affil[1]{Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Science,
49: Moscow 117312, Russia}
50: \affil[2]{now at DAPNIA/SPP, CEA/Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX, France}
51: \author[1]{E. Bugaev}
52: \author[1]{S. Klimushin}
53: \correspondence{I. Sokalski (sokalski@hep.saclay.cea.fr)}
54: \firstpage{1}
55: \pubyear{2001}
56: %\titleheight{6cm} % uncomment and adjust in case your title block
57: % does not fit into the default and minimum 7.5 cm
58: \maketitle
59:
60: \begin{abstract}
61: We present a new muon propagation Monte Carlo FORTRAN code MUM (MUons+Medium)
62: which possesses some advantages over analogous codes presently in use. The
63: most important features of the algorithm are described. Data on the test for
64: algorithm accuracy are presented. Contributions of different sources to the
65: resulting error of simulation are considered. Selected results obtained with
66: MUM are given and compared with ones from other codes.
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \section{Introduction}
70: Propagation of muons in medium plays an important role for underground
71: (-water, -ice) experiments with natural fluxes of high energy (HE) neutrinos
72: and muons. Firstly, neutrinos are detected by muons which are born in $\nu N$
73: interactions and propagate a distance in medium from the point of interaction
74: to a detector. Secondly, muons which are produced in atmospheric showers
75: generated by cosmic rays represent the principal background for neutrino
76: signal and therefore their flux at large depths should be well known. Besides,
77: the atmospheric muons deep under sea or earth surface are the only natural
78: calibration source which allows to confirm correctness of the detector model by
79: comparison experimental and expected detector response. For the muon
80: propagation along with analytical methods one uses the Monte Carlo (MC)
81: technique which directly accounts for stochastic nature of the muon energy
82: losses. There are several MC muon transportation algorithms currently in use
83: (see, e.g. review in \citep{rhode1}) but theoretical and experimental progress
84: makes to create new ones.
85:
86: Here we present a new MC muon propagation code MUM (MUons+Medium) written in
87: FORTRAN. When working on MUM we aimed at creation of an algorithm which would:
88: {\it (a)} account for the most recent corrections for the muon cross-sections;
89: {\it (b)} be of adequate and known accuracy, i.e., does not contribute an
90: additional systematic error which would exceed one from ``insuperable''
91: uncertainties (i.e. muon and neutrino spectra and cross-sections);
92: {\it (c)} be flexible enough, i.e. could be easily optimized for concrete
93: purpose to desirable and well understood equilibrium between CPU time and
94: accuracy and easily extended for any medium and any correction for the
95: cross-sections of the processes in which HE muon looses its energy;
96: {\it (d)} be ``transparent'', i.e. provide user with the whole set of data
97: related to used models for the muon cross-sections, energy losses, etc.;
98: {\it (e)} be as fast as possible.
99: The MUM code has been developed for the Baikal experiment \citep{NT1,NT2} but
100: we believe it to be useful also for other experiments with natural fluxes of
101: HE muons and neutrinos.
102:
103: \section{The basic features of the MUM algorithm~\footnote{
104: Detailed description can be found in \citep{MUMpres}}}
105:
106: \begin{figure}[t]
107: \includegraphics[width=8.3cm]{icrc1.eps}
108: \protect\caption{
109: The {\it simulated} with MUM muon energy losses (markers) and {\it model of
110: energy losses} as used by MUM (solid lines). Also results on the muon energy
111: losses from \protect\citep{lohman} are presented (dashed lines). The plot
112: corresponds to simulation in pure water with $v_{cut} =$ 10$^{-2}$.
113: }
114: \label{test1}
115: \end{figure}
116:
117: \begin{figure}[t]
118: \includegraphics[width=8.3cm]{icrc2.eps}
119: \protect\caption{
120: Simulated with MUM distributions for the fraction of energy lost in a single
121: interaction $v$ for muons with $E =$ 100 GeV (triangles) and $E =$ 1 PeV
122: (circles) in comparison with corresponding differential cross-sections
123: (lines). The case for pure water and $v_{cut} =$ 10$^{-4}$ is presented. The
124: scales on Y-axis for $E =$ 100 GeV and $E =$ 1 PeV are different.
125: }
126: \label{test2}
127: \end{figure}
128:
129: To get finite CPU time $T_{CPU}$, the energy losses in any MC muon propagation
130: algorithm have to be decomposed into two parts: muon interactions with
131: fraction of energy lost $v$ which exceeds some value $v_{cut}$, are simulated
132: directly while the part of interaction with $v < v_{cut}$ is treated by the
133: approximate concept of ``continuum'' energy loss. Setting $v_{cut}$ too low
134: one looses the speed (roughly, $T_{CPU} \propto v^{-1}_{cut}$) but setting it
135: too high, one looses the accuracy. We did not fix $v_{cut}$ in MUM, it may be
136: set optionally within a range of 10$^{-4} \le v_{cut} \le$ 0.2, since the
137: optimum value depends on the concrete case \citep{MUMer}.
138:
139: An ``absolute'' energy transfer threshold $\Delta E_{cut}$ in a range of 10
140: MeV $\le \Delta E_{cut} \le$ 500 MeV can be used in MUM along with
141: ``relative'' threshold $v_{cut}$ to simulate the muon interactions within
142: detector sensitive volume. It is important for deep underwater (-ice)
143: Cherenkov neutrino telescopes
144: \citep{NT1,NT2,AMANDA1,AMANDA2,ANTARES1,ANTARES2,NESTOR1,NESTOR2}, where the
145: water or ice are used both as a shield which absorbs atmospheric muons and as
146: a detecting medium.
147:
148: The formulae for the cross-sections of muon interactions (bremsstrahlung,
149: $e^{+}e^{-}$-pair production, photo-nuclear interaction, knock-on electron
150: production) are given in \citep{MUMpres}. The code does not use any
151: preliminary computed files, all necessary data are prepared at the initiation
152: on the base of several relatively short routines, which give cross-sections
153: for the muon interactions and stopping-power formula for ionization. It allows
154: user to correct or even entirely change the model for any type of the muon
155: interaction.
156:
157: At each step we tried to avoid when possible any simplifications when
158: computing/simulating the free path between two interactions, energy transfers,
159: etc., or, at least, to track the error which comes from this or that kind of
160: simplification. In most cases, to keep $T_{CPU}$ at low level, roots for
161: equations and values for functions are found at initiation, tabulated and then
162: referenced when necessary by a interpolation algorithm which was carefully
163: checked for each case to guarantee the high enough level of accuracy.
164:
165: Formally, MUM simulates the propagation of the muons with the energies up to 1
166: EeV but one should keep in mind that above 1 PeV uncertainties with muon
167: cross-sections grow remarkably, some effects which expose at UHE (e.g., LPM
168: effect) are not accounted in MUM. Three media are available instantly for the
169: muon propagation with MUM, namely pure water, ice and standard rock. But any
170: medium can be easily composed by user following examples which are given in
171: the initiation routine. At its current version MUM represents an 1D--algorithm
172: which does not track the angular and lateral deviations of muons, but it is
173: planned to be 3D--extended.
174:
175: \section{The accuracy of the algorithm and an optimum setting of simulation
176: parameters}
177:
178: \begin{figure}[t]
179: \includegraphics[width=8.3cm]{flux1_1.eps}
180: \protect\caption{
181: Intensity of vertical atmospheric muon flux $I$ at different depths $D$ of
182: pure water vs. $v_{cut}$ as obtained by simulation with MUM. Muons were
183: sampled according to sea-level spectrum from \protect\citep{bks1}. Closed
184: circles: knock-on electron production with fraction of energy lost
185: $v \ge v_{cut}$ is simulated; open circles: ionization is completely
186: ``continuous''. Two horizontal solid lines on each plot show the flux
187: intensity simulated with all muon cross-sections multiplied by a factor 1.01
188: (lower line) and 0.99 (upper line) for $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$. Dashed lines on
189: plots for $D \le$ 5 km correspond to intensity which was calculated for all
190: energy loss treated as ``continuous''. Dash-dotted lines show the flux
191: intensity simulated with muons sampled according to sea level spectrum
192: \protect\citep{gaisser} and $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$. Dotted lines
193: correspond to $v_{cut}$ = 10$^{-4}$ and cross-section for absorption of a real
194: photon at photo-nuclear interaction parameterized according to
195: \protect\citep{ZEUS} instead of parameterization \protect\citep{phnubb} which
196: is the basic in MUM.
197: }
198: \label{test3}
199: \end{figure}
200:
201: Fig.1 shows results of an accuracy test which consisted of following. For a
202: muon energy $E_{0}$ the short distance $\Delta l$ was chosen and $n$ muons
203: were propagated through this distance with MUM~\footnote{The value
204: $l = n \cdot \Delta l$ must be much greater than mean free path $\bar L(E_0)$
205: between two interactions with $v > v_{cut}$ to obtain statistically significant
206: result but also must be small enough since there should be no stopped muons.}.
207: Then, $(E_0 - \frac{1}{n}\;\sum^{n}_{i=1}\;E^{i}_1)/\Delta l$ (where
208: $E^{i}_{1}$ is energy of $i$-th muon at the end of distance $\Delta l$)
209: represents energy losses {\it simulated} by the algorithm. In an ideal case
210: they should be equal to ones which can be directly calculated by integration
211: of differential cross-sections which represents the {\it incoming model} for
212: given code but, since algorithm itself necessarily contributes an error which
213: originates from application of numerical procedures which the code consists
214: of, the simulated energy losses and incoming model for energy
215: losses are not the same for any real code. The only case is presented in Fig.1
216: but actually such test was performed both for water and standard rock with
217: $v_{cut}$ in a range from 10$^{-4}$ to 0.05 \citep{MUMpres}. The difference
218: between simulated energy losses and incoming model for energy losses for MUM
219: does not exceed 1\%
220: except for the case when $v_{cut} \ge$ 0.01 and ionization is treated as
221: completely ``continuous'' process. It means that inner inaccuracy of
222: MUM contributes to the resulting error much less than principal uncertainties
223: with muons and neutrinos fluxes, cross-sections, etc.
224:
225: Fig.2 demonstrates the accuracy of simulation for fraction of energy lost $v$
226: for different kinds of muon interaction. Simulated distributions are plotted
227: along with functions for differential cross-sections $d\sigma / dv$. Again,
228: only small part of the data is shown in the plot but agreement between
229: simulated distributions and predictions is not worse for other media and other
230: muon energies which has been tested carefully.
231:
232: Results on simulation of atmospheric muon vertical flux at different depths in
233: the pure water vs. $v_{cut}$ are shown in Fig.3. Simulations were performed
234: for 2 atmospheric muon surface spectra; with knock-on electron production
235: included in simulation of energy losses and treated as totally ``continuous'';
236: with 2 different parameterizations for photo-nuclear interaction; with all
237: muon energy losses multiplied by 0.99, 1.00 and 1.01 (which corresponds to
238: the most optimistic evaluation for uncertainties with the muon cross-sections
239: of 1\%
240: \citep{rhode1,kp}). The general conclusion is as follows: the principal
241: uncertainties when computing the atmospheric muon flux at large depth are ones
242: for the muon cross-sections. Influence of set value for $v_{cut}$ in a range
243: 10$^{-4}$--10$^{-1}$ is much less and, in principal, in a ``ideal muon
244: propagation code'' one could set $v_{cut} =$ 10$^{-1}$ which allows
245: calculations to be rather fast without remarkable influence on the result.
246: Also the ionization energy losses can be treated as completely ``continuous''
247: (which saves $T_{CPU}$ with a factor of $\sim$2). But, as MUM's own accuracy
248: (in the sense of reproducing the muon energy losses) becomes worse than 1\%
249: for $v_{cut} \ge$ 10$^{-2}$ if ionization is excluded out of simulation and
250: for $v_{cut} \ge$ 5$\cdot$10$^{-2}$ if knock-on electrons are simulated
251: \citep{MUMpres} we conservatively affirm $v_{cut} =$ 5$\cdot$10$^{-2}$ and
252: knock-on electron production included in simulation as a optimum setting of
253: parameters for simulation the atmospheric muon flux at large depths with MUM.
254: With such setting the proportion of $T_{CPU}$ which is necessary to get the
255: same statistics with muon propagation algorithms MUM, PROPMU \citep{lipari} and
256: MUSIC \citep{music1} is approximately $1 : 10 : 600$ (note that MUM, in
257: contrast both to PROPMU and MUSIC, is 1D algorithm).
258:
259: We did not investigate
260: specially the influence of simulation parameters on the results for the muon
261: flux originated from neutrino. Generally, intensity of the muon flux
262: $I^{AC}_{\mu}$ which accompanies the neutrino flux in a medium is proportional
263: to the muon range, and, consequently, $I^{AC}_{\mu} \propto (dE/dx)^{-1}$ (in
264: contrast to atmospheric muons whose flux at the large depths depends more
265: sharply upon muon energy losses - see, e.g., Fig.3).
266: That means that an error for simulated flux of muons produced by neutrino
267: is proportional to an error in muon energy losses.
268: So, the setting of
269: parameters described above fits even better for propagation of muons
270: originated from neutrino.
271:
272: \section{Comparison to other muon propagation algorithms}
273:
274: \begin{figure}[t]
275: \includegraphics[width=8.3cm]{klim.eps}
276: \protect\caption{
277: Survival probabilities vs. distance of propagation in pure water as simulated
278: with MUM (solid lines), PROPMU (dashed lines) and MUSIC (circles). Figures
279: near curves indicate initial energy of mono-energetic muon beam as follows:
280: 500 GeV (1), 1 TeV (2), 3 TeV (3), 10 TeV (4), 30 TeV (5), 100 TeV (6),
281: 300 TeV (7), 1 PeV (8), 3 PeV (9), 10 PeV (10), 30 PeV (11).
282: }
283: \label{sp}
284: \end{figure}
285:
286: \begin{figure}[t]
287: \includegraphics[width=8.3cm]{dif_sp1.eps}
288: \protect\caption{
289: Differential spectra of vertical atmospheric muons at four depths in the pure
290: water as simulated with MUM, PROPMU and MUSIC and parameterized by
291: \protect\citep{bks1,okada}.
292: }
293: \label{sp1}
294: \end{figure}
295:
296: Fig.~\ref{sp} shows survival probabilities (fractions of muons which have
297: survived after propagation of distance $D$) vs. distance of propagation in
298: pure water as computed with MUM, PROPMU and MUSIC for a set of muon energies
299: from 500 GeV to 30 PeV. There are no statistically significant differences
300: between MUM and MUSIC but survival probabilities computed with PROPMU are
301: noticeably higher at energies $E \le$ 30 TeV (up to a factor of 6) and become
302: less at $E \ge$ 30 TeV.
303:
304: In Fig.~\ref{sp1} differential spectra for vertical atmospheric muons at
305: different depths in pure water are presented as simulated with MUM, PROPMU and
306: MUSIC. Muons at the surface were sampled according to spectrum \citep{bks1}.
307: Okada \citep{okada} and KBS \citep{bks1} parameterizations for deep underwater
308: muon spectra are shown, as well. MUSIC and MUM give almost the same results
309: because survival probabilities for muons in pure water are the same when
310: simulating with MUSIC and MUM. MUSIC's and MUM's spectra coincide with KBS
311: parameterization which is based on the same sea-level muon spectrum as was
312: used for simulation and on muon propagation with MUM. Okada parameterization is
313: lower than KBS, MUM and MUSIC results (up to 18\%
314: in terms of integral muon flux at $D =$ 1 km) at relatively shallow depths and
315: becomes higher at $D \ge$ 5 km because it is based on rather hard surface
316: muon spectrum with index $\gamma =$ 2.57 which leads to a deficit for low
317: energy muons comparing to KBS parameterization. Simulation with PROPMU
318: produces the muon spectra which {\it i)} are significantly higher
319: (31\%, 30\%, 27\% and 17\%
320: in terms of integral muon flux at the depths $D =$ 1 km, 3 km, 6 km and 10
321: km, correspondingly) and {\it ii)} are expanded to the low energies. It is in
322: qualitative agreement with results on survival probabilities presented in
323: Fig.~\ref{sp}.
324:
325: \section{Conclusions}
326:
327: We have presented the muon transportation algorithm MUM and have given
328: selected results obtained with it in comparison with ones obtained with
329: analogous codes. We consider the current version of MUM as a basis for the
330: further development. The code is available by request.
331:
332: \begin{acknowledgements}
333: We are grateful to I. Belolaptikov, A. Butkevich, R. Kokoulin, V. Kudryavzev,
334: P. Lipari, W. Lohmann, V. Naumov, O. Streicher and Ch. Wiebusch for their
335: comments and critic.
336: \end{acknowledgements}
337:
338: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
339:
340: \bibitem[Amram et al.(1999)]{ANTARES2}
341: Amram, P., et al.,
342: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 75A}, 415 (1999).
343: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,75A,415;%%
344: \bibitem[Anassontzis et al.(2000)]{NESTOR2}
345: Anassontzis, E. G., et al.,
346: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 85}, 153 (2000).
347: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,85,153;%%
348: \bibitem[Andres et al.(2000)]{AMANDA2}
349: Andres, E., et al.,
350: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 13}, 1 (2000) (astro-ph/9906203).
351: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906203;%%
352: \bibitem[Antonioli et al.(1997)]{music1}
353: Antonioli, P., et al.,
354: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 7}, 357 (1997) (hep-ph/9705408)
355: {\it (Version for pure water with bremsstrahlung
356: cross-sections by Kelner-Kokoulin-Petrukhin, 04/1999)}.
357: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705408;%%
358: %%\vadjust{\newpage}
359: \bibitem[Aslanides et al.(1999)]{ANTARES1}
360: Aslanides, E., et al.,
361: astro-ph/9907432, 1999.
362: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9907432;%%
363: \bibitem[Balkanov et al.(2000)]{NT2}
364: Balkanov, V. A., et al.,
365: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 87}, 405 (2000) (astro-ph/0011313).
366: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0011313;%%
367: \bibitem[Barwick et al.(1991)]{AMANDA1}
368: Barwick, S., et al.,
369: Wisconsin Univ. Preprint MAD-PH-629, 1991.
370: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
371: \bibitem[Bezrukov and Bugaev(1980,1981)]{phnubb}
372: Bezrukov, L. B. and Bugaev, E. V.,
373: Yad. Fiz. {\bf 32}, 1636 (1980)
374: [Sov. J.~Nucl. Phys. {\bf 32}, 847 (1980)]; {\em ibid.} {\bf 33},
375: 1195 (1981) [{\bf 33}, 635 (1981)].
376: %%CITATION = YAFIA,32,1636;%%
377: %%CITATION = YAFIA,33,1195;%%
378: \bibitem[Breitweg et al.(1999)]{ZEUS}
379: Breitweg, J., et al.,
380: Europ. Phys. J. {\bf C7}, 609 (1999) (hep-ex/9809005).
381: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9809005;%%
382: \bibitem[Bugaev et al.(2000)]{MUMer}
383: Bugaev, E. V., et al.,
384: hep-ph/0010323, 2000.
385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010323;%%
386: \bibitem[Gaisser(1990)]{gaisser}
387: Gaisser, T. K.,
388: Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics, Cambridge University Press,
389: Cambridge, 1990.
390: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
391: \bibitem[Klimushin et al.(2000)]{bks1}
392: Klimushin, S. I., et al.,
393: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 014016 (2001) (hep-ph/0012032), see also these
394: Proceedings.
395: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012032;%%
396: \bibitem[Kokoulin and Petrukhin(1991,1999)]{kp}
397: Kokoulin, R. P. and Petrukhin, A. A.,
398: in {\it Proceedings of the 22nd ICRC, Dublin, 1991}, edited by M. Cawley
399: et al., the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin, 1991, Vol. {\bf 4},
400: p. 536;
401: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
402: R. P. Kokoulin,
403: Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 70}, 475 (1999).
404: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,70,475;%%
405: \bibitem[Lipari and Stanev(1991)]{lipari}
406: Lipari, P. and Stanev, T.,
407: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 3543 (1991)
408: {\it Versions 2.01, 18/03/1993 and 2.1[preliminary], 01/2000)}.
409: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,3543;%%
410: \bibitem[Lohmann et al.(1985)]{lohman}
411: Lohmann, W., et al.,
412: CERN Preprint 85-03, 1985.
413: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
414: \bibitem[Okada(1994)]{okada}
415: Okada, A.,
416: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 2} 393 (1994).
417: %%CITATION = APHYE,2,393;%%
418: \bibitem[Resvanis et al.(1994)]{NESTOR1}
419: Resvanis, L. K., et al.,
420: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 35}, 294 (1994).
421: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,35,294;%%
422: \bibitem[Rhode and C\^arloganu(1998)]{rhode1}
423: Rhode, W. and C\^arloganu, C.,
424: in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on Simulation and Analysis Methods for
425: Large Neutrino Telescopes, Zeuthen, 1998}, edited by C. Spiering, DESY
426: Zeuthen, Zeuthen, 1998, p. 247.
427: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
428: \bibitem[Sokalski and Spiering(1992)]{NT1}
429: Sokalski, I. and Spiering, Ch.(eds.),
430: {\it The Baikal Neutrino Telescope NT-200 (project description)} Baikal Note
431: 92/11, 1992.
432: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
433: \bibitem[Sokalski et al.(2000)]{MUMpres}
434: Sokalski, I. A., et al.,
435: hep-ph/0010322, 2000.
436: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010322;%%
437:
438: \end{thebibliography}
439:
440: \end{document}
441: