1: %%only change the website address - 18/4/2000
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %%
4: %% ws-p8-50x6-00.tex : 20-11-97
5: %% This Latex2e file rewritten from various sources for use in the
6: %% preparation of the (smaller [8.50''x6.00'']) single-column proceedings
7: %% Volume, latest version by R. Sankaran with acknowledgements to Susan
8: %% Hezlet and Lukas Nellen. Please comments to:rsanka@wspc.com.sg
9: %%
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: %
12: \documentclass{ws-p8-50x6-00}
13: \usepackage{epsfig,citesort,amsmath,amssymb,comment,a4p}
14: \usepackage{color}
15:
16:
17: % A useful Journal macros
18: \def\jour#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf#2}, #4 (19#3)}
19: \def\jourm#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf#2} (20#3) #4}
20: \def\appj#1{{#1}}
21: %Some Journal names used
22:
23: \def\EPJ{Eur. Phys. J. {C}}
24:
25: \def\PRp{Phys. Reports}
26: \def\PRD{Phys. Rev. {D}}
27: \def\PRC{Phys. Rev. {C}}
28: \def\IJ{Int. J. Mod. Phys. {A}}
29: \def\ML{Mod. Phys. Lett. {A}}
30: \def\JP{J. Phys. {G}}
31: \def\AP{Acta Phys. Pol. {B}}
32: \def\NIM{Nucl. Instr. Meth. {A}}
33: \def\CP{Comp. Phys. Comm.}
34:
35: \def\etal{{\em et al.\/}}
36:
37:
38: %some other macros
39: \def\tmw4j{$\mw4j$}
40: \def\delq{\delta Q}
41: \def\nwp{\newpage}
42: \def\bi{\bibitem}
43: \def\vs{\vspace*}
44: \def\hs{\hspace*}
45: \def\ct{\cite}
46: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
47: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
48: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
49: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
50: \def\la{\label}
51: \def\bc{\begin{center}}
52: \def\ec{\end{center}}
53: \def\al{\langle}
54: \def\ar{\rangle}
55: \def\leq{\leqslant}
56: \def\geq{\geqslant}
57: \def\lssim{\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}
58: \def\gtsim{\stackrel{>}{_\sim}}
59:
60: \def\ea{{\sl et al.}}
61: \def\eg{{\sl e.g.}}
62: \def\et{{\sl etc.}}
63: \def\ie{{\sl i.e.}}
64: \def\va{{\sl via }}
65: \def\vrs{{\sl vs. }}
66:
67: \def\ep{e$^+$e$^-$ }
68: \def\z{Z$^0$}
69: \def\pT{p_T}
70: \def\phi{\Phi}
71: \def\yf{y$$\times$$\phi}
72: \def\yp{y$$\times$$\pT}
73: \def\fp{\phi$$\times$$\pT}
74: \def\3d{y$$\times$$\phi$$\times$$\pT}
75: \def\od{single-particle }
76:
77: %
78: % macros for some often-used words
79: %
80: \def\err{uncertainties }
81: \def\errp{uncertainties}
82: %\def\int{intermittency }
83: \def\intp{intermittency}
84: \def\BE{\mbox{\sc BE}}
85: \def\mom{moments }
86: \def\momp{moments}
87: \def\cum{cumulants }
88: \def\cump{cumulants}
89: \def\mupa{multiparticle }
90: \def\flus{fluctuations }
91: \def\cors{correlations }
92: \def\flup{fluctuations}
93: \def\corp{correlations}
94: \def\gen{genuine }
95: \def\phs{phase space}
96: \def\psh{phase-space}
97: \def\MC{Monte Carlo }
98: \def\HW{{\sc Herwig} }
99: \def\JT{{\sc Jetset} }
100: \def\OP{OPAL }
101: \def\DE{DELPHI }
102: \def\col{Collaboration}
103:
104: \def\PYTHIA{{\sc Pythia}}
105:
106: \def\fig{Fig. }
107: \def\fgs{Figs. }
108: \def\rfl{Ref. }
109: \def\rfs{Refs. }
110: \def\frm{Eq. }
111: \def\fre{Eqs. }
112: \def\aver#1{\langle#1\rangle}
113: \newcommand{\bfp}{\mathbf{p}}
114: \newcommand{\bfr}{\mathbf{r}}
115:
116: %\input revtop
117:
118: \newcommand{\ZF}[3]{Z. Phys. {\bf C{#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
119: \newcommand{\ZP}[3]{Z. Phys. {\bf C{#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
120: \newcommand{\PL}[3]{Phys. Lett. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
121: \newcommand{\MPL}[3]{Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
122: \newcommand{\PR}[3]{Phys. Rep. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
123: \newcommand{\NP}[3]{Nucl. Phys. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
124: %\newcommand{\PRL}[3]{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
125: \newcommand{\PRV}[3]{Phys. Rev. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
126: \newcommand{\SJNP}[3]{Sov. J. of Nucl. Phys. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
127: \newcommand{\APP}[3]{Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
128: % #1 is the VOLUME (eg. 37 NOT C37)
129: % #2 is the YEAR
130: % #3 is the PAGE
131:
132:
133: % To keep consistency in the naming of journals (e.g. Z. Physik---Particles
134: % and Fields, I suggest to use the macro \ZF in the drem.bib file.
135: \renewcommand{\ZF}[3]{Z. Phys. {\bf C{#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
136: \renewcommand{\ZP}[3]{Z. Phys. {\bf C{#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
137: \renewcommand{\PL}[3]{Phys. Lett. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
138: \renewcommand{\MPL}[3]{Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
139: \renewcommand{\PR}[3]{Phys. Rep. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
140: \renewcommand{\NP}[3]{Nucl. Phys. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
141: \renewcommand{\PRL}[3]{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
142: \renewcommand{\PRV}[3]{Phys. Rev. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
143: \renewcommand{\SJNP}[3]{Sov. J. of Nucl. Phys. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
144: \renewcommand{\APP}[3]{Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf {#1}} ({#2}) {#3}}
145: % #1 is the VOLUME (eg. 37 NOT C37)
146: % #2 is the YEAR
147: % #3 is the PAGE
148: %
149: %
150: \newcommand{\WSCP}{World Scientific, Singapore}
151:
152: \newcommand{\MPERICE}{\rm Proc. Europ. Study Conf. on Partons and Soft Hadronic
153: Interactions, Erice, ed.~R.T.~Van~de~Walle (\WSCP, 1982)}
154:
155: \newcommand{\FESTHOVE}{Festschrift L.~Van Hove,
156: eds.~A.~Giovannini and W. Kittel (\WSCP, 1990)}
157: %
158: \newcommand{\MPGOA}{\rm Proc. Xth Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics, \
159: Goa 1979, eds.~S.N. Ganguli, P.K. Malhotra and A. Subramanian (Tata Inst.)}
160:
161: % ************* LUND 1984 ********************************
162: \newcommand{\MPLUND}{\rm Proc. XV Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics,
163: Lund, Sweden 1984, eds.~G.~Gustafson and C.~Peterson (\WSCP, 1984)}
164: %
165: % ************* LUND 1985 ********************************
166: \newcommand{\MPISRAEL}{\rm Proc. XVI Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics,
167: Jerusalem, Israel, Sweden 1985, ed.~J.Grunhaus
168: (Editions Fronti\`eres, France and \WSCP, 1985)}
169:
170: % Tashkent 1987
171: \newcommand{\MPTASHKENT}{%
172: \rm Proc. XVIII Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics, Tashkent, USSR, 1987,
173: eds.~I.~Dremin and K.~Gulamov (\WSCP, 1988)}
174:
175: % ARLES 1988
176: \newcommand{\MPARLES}{%
177: \rm Proc. 19th Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics, Arles, 1988,
178: eds.~D.~Schiff and J.~Tran~Thanh~Van (Editions Fronti\`eres, France
179: and \WSCP, 1988)}
180:
181: % ************* GUT HOLMECKE 1990 ********************************
182: \newcommand{\MPHOLMECKE}{%
183: \rm Proc. XX Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics, Gut~Holmecke, Germany, 1990,
184: eds.~R.~Baier and D.~Wegener (\WSCP, 1991)}
185: %
186: % ************* WUHAN 1991 ********************************
187: \newcommand{\MPWUHAN}{\rm Proc. XXI Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics,
188: Wuhan, China, 1991, eds.~Y.F. Wu and L.S. Liu (\WSCP, 1992)}
189: %
190: %
191: % ********************* Santiago de Compostela 1992 ****************
192: \newcommand{\MPSANT}{%
193: \rm Proc. XXII Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics, Santiago de Compostela,
194: Spain, 1992, ed.~A.~Pajares (\WSCP, 1993)}
195:
196: % RINGBERG WORKSHOP 1992
197: \newcommand{\RINGBERG}{%
198: \rm Proc. Ringberg Workshop on Multiparticle Production, Ringberg Castle,
199: Germany 1991, eds.~R.C.~Hwa, W.~Ochs and N.~Schmitz (\WSCP, 1992)\ }
200: %
201: % MARBURG WORKSHOP 1992
202: \newcommand{\MARBURG}{%
203: \rm Proc. Int. Workshop on Correlations and Multiparticle Production, Marburg,
204: eds.~M.~Pl\"umer, S.~Raha and R.M.~Weiner (\WSCP, 1991)}
205: %
206: \newcommand{\SANTAFE}{%
207: \rm Proc. Santa F\'e Workshop Intermittency in High Energy Collisions, 1990,
208: eds.~F.~Cooper, R.C.~Hwa and I.~Sarcevic (\WSCP, 1991)}
209:
210:
211:
212: %
213: % macros for Figure captions
214: %
215: \def\mode{in comparison with the predictions of two \MC models.}
216: \def\lides{The total error is shown along with the statistical error
217: (inner error bars) for each point.
218: }
219: \def\vliet{The error bars show the total uncertainties.}
220:
221:
222: \begin{document}
223: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
224:
225: \title{ Genuine Correlations
226: %of Like-Sign Particles \\
227: in Hadronic {\z} Decays}
228:
229: \author{E.A. De Wolf\\[1ex] for the OPAL Collaboration}
230:
231: \address{CERN, European Organisation for Nuclear Research,
232: CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\
233: Physics Department, University of Antwerpen, B-2610 Antwerpen, Belgium \\
234: E-mail: Eddi.DeWolf@ua.ac.be}
235:
236: \maketitle
237:
238: \abstracts{\noindent Correlations among hadrons with the same
239: electric charge produced in \z\ decays are studied using the high statistics data
240: %a sample of over 4$\times 10^6$ multihadronic events
241: collected from 1991 through 1995 with the \OP detector at LEP.
242: Normalized factorial cumulants up to fourth order are used to measure genuine particle correlations
243: as a function of the size of phase space domains
244: in rapidity, azimuthal angle and transverse momentum.
245: %
246: %
247: %Both all-charge and like-sign particle combinations show
248: %strong positive genuine correlations.
249: %They are stronger in rapidity than in azimuthal angle.
250: %One-dimensional cumulants initially
251: %increase rapidly with decreasing size of the phase space cells
252: %but saturate quickly.
253: %The cumulants in two- and three-dimensional domains
254: % increase
255: %The strong rise of the cumulants for all-charge multiplets is increasingly
256: %driven by that of like-sign multiplets, pointing to the influence of Bose-Einstein correlations.
257: Some of the recently proposed algorithms to simulate Bose-Einstein effects,
258: implemented in the Monte Carlo model \PYTHIA, reproduce reasonably well the measured second- and higher-order
259: correlations between particles with the same charge
260: as well as those in all-charge particle multiplets.}
261:
262: \section{Introduction\la{intro}}
263: Correlations in momentum space
264: between hadrons produced in high energy interactions have been
265: extensively studied over many decades in different contexts.\cite{edw:review}
266: Being a measure of event-to-event fluctuations of the number of hadrons in a
267: phase space domain of size $\Delta$, correlations provide detailed information
268: on the hadronisation dynamics, complementary to that derived from
269: inclusive single-particle distributions and global event-shape characteristics.
270: %
271: The suggestion in\cite{bialas1} that multiparticle dynamics might possess (multi-)fractal
272: properties or be ``intermittent'', emphasized the importance of studying
273: correlations as a function of the size of domains in momentum space.
274: %
275: A key ingredient for such studies is the normalized
276: factorial moment and factorial cumulant technique.
277: %
278: Unlike factorial moments, cumulants of order $q$ are a direct measure of the stochastic
279: interdependence among groups of exactly $q$ particles emitted
280: in the same phase space cell.\cite{kendall,Mue71,cumulants}
281: Therefore, they are well suited for the study of true or ``genuine''
282: correlations between hadrons and are particularly sensitive to Bose-Einstein correlations.
283:
284: Two-particle Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) have been
285: observed in a wide range of multihadronic
286: processes.\cite{review:weiner}
287: %
288: Such correlations were extensively studied at
289: LEP.\cite{opal:bec,delphi:rhoshift,bec:asym}
290: Evidence for BEC among groups of more than two identical
291: particles has also been
292: reported.\cite{lep:higherorderbec,otherthanlep:higherorderbec}
293: %
294: The subject has acquired particular importance in connection with
295: high-precision measurements of the $W$-boson mass
296: at LEP-II.\cite{sjo,kh}
297: For these, better knowledge of correlations in general is needed,
298: as well as realistic Monte Carlo modelling of BEC.
299: %\cite{t1,kittel:review}.
300:
301:
302: The high statistics OPAL data collected at and near the Z$^0$ centre-of-mass
303: energy have been used to measure cumulants for multiplets
304: of particles with the same charge, hereafter referred to as ``like-sign cumulants''.
305: They are compared to ``all-charge'' cumulants,
306: corresponding to multiplets comprising particles of any
307: (positive or negative) charge.
308: %
309: %
310: The role of Bose-Einstein-type effects is studied, using recently
311: proposed BEC algorithms\cite{leif:sjo} implemented in the Monte Carlo event generator \PYTHIA\
312: for $e^+e^-$ annihilation.\cite{js74}
313: Proceeding beyond the usual analyses of two-particle correlations,
314: %%%%%
315: we show that, at least
316: within the framework of this model, a good description can be
317: achieved of the factorial cumulants up to fourth order
318: in one-, two- and three-dimensional phase space domains.
319:
320:
321:
322:
323: \section{The method\label{fac:method}}
324: %
325: %
326: To measure genuine multiparticle correlations in multi-dimensional
327: phase space cells,
328: we use the technique of normalized factorial cumulant moments, $K_q$, (``cumulants'' for brevity)
329: as proposed in.\cite{cumulants}
330: %
331: The cumulants are computed as in a previous OPAL analysis.\cite{Oic}
332: A $D$-dimensional
333: region of phase space is partitioned into $M^D$ cells of equal size $\Delta$.
334: From the number of particles counted in each cell, $n_m$
335: ($m=1,\dots,M^D$), event-averaged unnormalized
336: factorial moments, $\aver{n_m^{[q]}}$, and unnormalized cumulants,
337: $k_q^{(m)}$, are
338: derived,
339: using the relations given {\eg}
340: in\cite{kendall}.
341: For $q=2,3,4$, one has
342: %
343: \begin{eqnarray}
344: k_2^{(m)}&=&\al n_m^{[2]}\ar - \,\al n_m\ar^2,\\
345: k_3^{(m)}&=&\al n_m^{[3]}\ar - 3\,\al n_m^{[2]}\ar
346: \al n_m\ar\,
347: + 2\, \al n_m\ar ^3\\
348: k_4^{(m)}&=&\al n_m^{[4]}\ar
349: - 4\,\al n_m^{[3]}\ar\, \al n_m\ar
350: - 3\,\al n_m^{[2]}\ar^2
351: +12\,\al n_m^{[2]}\ar\,\al n_m\ar^2
352: -6\, \al n_m\ar^4.
353: \la{mm}
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: %
356: Here, $\aver{n^{[q]}}=\aver{n(n-1)\ldots(n-q+1)}$ and
357: the brackets $\aver{\cdot}$
358: indicate that the average over all events is taken.
359:
360: Normalized cumulants are calculated using the expression
361: %
362: \begin{equation}
363: K_q =
364: ({\cal N})^q
365: \bar{k}_q^{(m)}/
366: \overline{N_m^{[q]}}.
367: \la{kmh}
368: \end{equation}
369: As proposed in\cite{kadija:seyboth}, this form
370: is used to correct for statistical bias and non-uniformity of
371: the single-particle spectra.
372: Here, $N_m$ is the number of particles in the $m$th cell summed over all
373: $\cal N$ events in the sample,
374: $N_m= \sum_{j=1}^{\cal N}(n_m)_j$.
375: The horizontal bar indicates averaging over the $M^D$ cells in each event,
376: $(1/M^{D})\sum_{m=1}^{M^{D}}$.
377:
378: Here, data are presented for ``all-charge'' and for ``like-sign'' multiplets.
379: For the former, the cell-counts $n_m$ are determined using
380: all charged particles in an event, irrespective of their charge.
381: For the latter, the number of positive particles and the number of
382: negative particles in a cell
383: are counted separately. The corresponding cumulants are then averaged to
384: obtain those
385: for like-sign multiplets.
386:
387: \section{Experimental details\la{data}}
388: %
389: The analysis uses a sample of approximately
390: $4.1$$\times$$10^6$ hadronic {\z} decays collected from 1991 through 1995.
391: %About 91\% of this sample was taken at the {\z}; the
392: %remaining part has a centre-of-mass energy, $\sqrt{s}$,
393: %within $\pm 3$ GeV of the {\z} peak.
394: %
395: The OPAL detector has been described in detail in.\cite{bib-opal}
396: %
397: The results presented are mainly based on the information from the central
398: tracking chambers.
399: The event selection criteria are based on the multihadronic selection algorithms described in.\cite{Oic}
400: %
401: Multihadron events were selected with at least 5 good tracks,
402: a momentum imbalance (the magnitude of the vector sum of the momenta of all charged particles)
403: of less than $0.4~\sqrt{s}$ and
404: the sum of the energies of all tracks (assumed to be pions) greater than 0.2~$\sqrt{s}$.
405: %
406: In addition, the polar angle of the event sphericity axis,
407: calculated using tracks and clusters
408: had to satisfy \mbox{$\mathrm{|\cos \theta_{\mbox{\small sph}}|} < 0.7$}
409: in order to accept only events well contained in the detector.
410: %
411: %
412: A total of about $2.3$$\times$$10^6$ events were finally selected for further analysis.
413:
414: The cumulant analysis is performed in the kinematic variables
415: rapidity, $y$, azimuthal angle, $\phi$, and the transverse momentum variable,
416: $\ln{p_T}$, all calculated with respect to the sphericity axis.
417: %
418: \begin{itemize}\addtolength{\itemsep}{-1.2ex}
419: \item Rapidity is defined as $y=0.5\ln [(E+p_{\|})/(E-p_{\|})]$, with $E$ and
420: $p_{\|}$ the energy (assuming the pion mass) and longitudinal
421: momentum of the particle, respectively.
422: Only particles within the central rapidity region $-2.0\leq y\leq 2.0$ were retained.
423: %
424: \item In transverse momentum subspace, the logarithm of $p_T$ is used to eliminate as much as possible the
425: strong dependence of the cumulants on cell-size arising from the nearly exponential
426: shape of the $p_T^2$-distribution. Only particles within the range $-2.4\leq\ln(p_T)\leq0.7$
427: ($p_T$ in GeV/{\em c}) were used.
428: %
429: \item The azimuthal angle $\phi$ ( $0\leq\phi<2\pi$),
430: is calculated with respect to the eigenvector
431: of the momentum tensor having the smallest eigenvalue in the plane
432: perpendicular to the sphericity axis.
433: \end{itemize}
434:
435:
436: \section{Results\label{results}}
437:
438:
439: \begin{figure}
440: \begin{center}
441: \epsfysize=12cm
442: \epsffile[72 127 472 710]{pr346_02.ps}
443: \vspace*{-3ex}
444: \caption{
445: The cumulants $K_q$ in
446: two-dimensional $\Delta y\times\Delta\Phi$ (2D)
447: and
448: three-dimensional $\Delta y\times\Delta\Phi\times\Delta\ln p_T$ (3D) domains
449: % of rapidity ($y$), azimuthal angle ($\Phi$) and transverse momentum
450: %($\ \ln \pT$)
451: for all charged hadrons (solid symbols)
452: and for multiplets of like-sign particles
453: (open symbols), versus $M$.
454: Where two error-bars are shown, inner ones are statistical,
455: and outer ones are
456: statistical and
457: systematic errors added in quadrature.
458: The lines connect Monte Carlo predictions from \PYTHIA\ without BEC
459: (dashed)
460: and with BEC (full) simulated with algorithm
461: $\mbox{BE}_{32}$\protect\cite{leif:sjo} (see text).%
462: %
463: }
464: \la{fig:2}\end{center}
465: \end{figure}
466:
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \begin{center}
470: %\hs{0.5cm}
471: \epsfysize=10cm
472: \epsffile[10 150 530 661]{pr346_03.ps}
473: \vspace*{-3ex}
474: \caption{\it The cumulants $K_2$ for like-sign pairs
475: in one-dimensional domains of rapidity ($y$) and azimuthal angle ($\Phi$), and in
476: two-dimensional $\Delta y\times\Delta\Phi$ (2D)
477: and three-dimensional $\Delta y\times\Delta\Phi\times\Delta\ln p_T$ (3D) domains
478: %of rapidity ($y$), azimuthal angle ($\Phi$) and transverse momentum ($\ \ln \pT$)
479: versus $M$.
480: %
481: The error-bars show statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature.
482: The lines connect Monte Carlo predictions from \PYTHIA, without BEC
483: and with various
484: Bose-Einstein algorithms\protect\cite{leif:sjo} (see text).
485: }
486: \la{fig:7}
487: \end{center}
488: \end{figure}
489:
490:
491: %
492: %\subsection{Like-sign and all-charge cumulants}
493: The fully corrected normalized cumulants $K_q$ ($q=2,3,4$)
494: for all-charge and like-sign particle multiplets,
495: calculated in two-dimensional
496: $y\times\phi$ (2D) and three-dimensional $y\times\phi\times\ln{p_T}$ (3D)
497: phase space cells, are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}.
498: %
499: It is seen that
500: positive genuine correlations among groups of two, three and four particles are present: $K_q>0$.
501: Cumulants in 2D and 3D continue to increase
502: towards small phase space cells. Moreover, the 2D and 3D cumulants are of similar
503: magnitude at fixed $M$,
504: indicating that the contribution from correlations in transverse momentum
505: is small.
506: %
507: The like-sign cumulants increase faster and
508: approach the all-charge ones at large $M$.
509: As the cell-size becomes smaller, the rise of all-charge correlations
510: is increasingly driven by that of like-sign multiplets.
511:
512:
513: \begin{figure}
514: \begin{center}
515: %\hs{0.5cm}
516: \epsfysize=12cm
517: \epsffile[68 128 477 712]{pr346_05.ps}
518: \vspace*{-3ex}
519: \caption{
520: The cumulants $K_q$
521: in two-dimensional $\Delta y\times\Delta\Phi$ (2D)
522: and three-dimensional $\Delta y\times\Delta\Phi\times\Delta\ln p_T$ (3D) domains
523: %rapidity ($y$), azimuthal angle ($\Phi$) and transverse momentum
524: %($\ \ln \pT$)
525: for all charged hadrons versus $M$.
526: Where two error-bars are shown, inner ones are statistical,
527: and outer ones are statistical and
528: systematic errors added in quadrature.
529: The lines connect Monte Carlo predictions from \PYTHIA, without BEC
530: and with various
531: Bose-Einstein algorithms\protect\cite{leif:sjo} (see text).
532: }
533: \la{fig:4}
534: \end{center}
535: \end{figure}
536:
537:
538: %\subsection{Model comparison\label{sec:models}}
539: The cumulant data have been compared with predictions of
540: the \PYTHIA\ Monte Carlo event generator (version 6.158) without and with Bose-Einstein effects.
541: The model parameters, not related to BEC, were set at values obtained from a previous tune to OPAL data
542: on event-shape and single-particle inclusive
543: distributions.\cite{bib-jetset} In this tuning, BE-effects were not
544: included.
545:
546: To assess the importance of BE-type short-range correlations between identical
547: particles, and their influence on all-charge cumulants,
548: we concentrate on the algorithm BE$_{32}$,
549: described in\cite{leif:sjo}, using parameter values
550: $\mbox{\tt PARJ(93)}=0.26$~GeV ($R=0.76$~fm) and $\mbox{\tt
551: PARJ(92)}\equiv\lambda=1.5$.
552: %
553: %These values were determined by varying independently
554: %$\mbox{\tt PARJ(93)}$ and $\lambda$
555: %leaving all other
556: %model-parameters unchanged, until satisfactory agreement with the
557: %measured cumulants $K_2$ for like-sign pairs
558: %was reached.
559: %
560: Non-BEC related model-parameters were set at the following values:
561: {\tt PARJ(21)}=0.4 GeV,
562: {\tt PARJ(42)}=0.52 GeV$^{-2}$,
563: {\tt PARJ(81)}=0.25 GeV,
564: {\tt PARJ(82)}=1.9 GeV.
565: We find that calculations
566: with $\mbox{\tt PARJ(93)}$ in the range $0.2-0.3$ GeV, and the
567: corresponding
568: $\lambda$ in the range $1.7-1.3$, still provide
569: an acceptable description of the second-order like-sign cumulants.
570:
571:
572:
573: The dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:2} are \PYTHIA\
574: predictions
575: for {\em like-sign\/} multiplets for the model without BEC.
576: %
577: Model and data agree for small $M$ (large phase space domains), indicating
578: that the multiplicity distribution in those regions is well modelled.
579: However, for larger $M$, the predicted cumulants are too small.
580:
581:
582:
583:
584: The solid curves in Figs.~\ref{fig:2} show
585: predictions for {\em like-sign\/} multiplets using the BE$_{32}$ algorithm.
586: Inclusion of BEC leads to a very significant improvement of the data description.
587: Also two-particle and higher order correlations in 1D rapidity space are well accounted for (not shown).
588: The predicted 2D and 3D cumulants agree well with the data.
589:
590: The 1D, 2D and 3D cumulants
591: for particle pairs with the same charge are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:7}.
592: Since BEC occur only
593: when two identical mesons are close-by in all three phase space dimensions,
594: projection onto lower-dimensional subspaces, such as rapidity
595: and azimuthal angle, leads to considerable weakening of the effect.
596: Nevertheless, the high precision of the data in
597: Fig.~\ref{fig:7} allows to demonstrate clear sensitivity to the presence
598: or absence of BEC in the model.
599:
600: Whereas the BE-algorithm used implements pair-wise BEC only,
601: it is noteworthy (see Fig.~\ref{fig:2}) that the procedure
602: also induces like-sign higher-order correlations of approximately correct magnitude.
603: This seems to indicate that high-order cumulants are, to a large extent,
604: determined by the second-order one.
605: %
606:
607: To assess the sensitivity of the
608: cumulants to variations in the BEC algorithms available in \PYTHIA,
609: we have further considered the algorithms BE$_\lambda$ and BE$_0$.\cite{leif:sjo}
610: %
611: %
612: %
613: Using the same parameter values as for BE$_{32}$,
614: we observe that BE$_\lambda$ slightly
615: underestimates $K_2(y)$ and overestimates $K_2(\phi)$
616: for like-sign pairs (Fig.~\ref{fig:7}),
617: whereas the results coincide with those from BE$_{32}$ in 2D and 3D.
618: For all-charge multiplets (Fig.~\ref{fig:4}),
619: the predicted cumulants generally fall below those
620: for BE$_{32}$, except for $K_3$ and $K_4$ in 2D and 3D, where the differences are small.
621: The differences with respect to BE$_{32}$ are related
622: to the different pair-correlation functions used in the
623: algorithms.
624: Although a different choice of the parameters $R$ and $\lambda$
625: may improve the agreement with the data, we have not attempted such fine-tuning.
626:
627: We also considered the predictions based on the algorithm BE$_0$\cite{leif:sjo}
628: (dash-dotted curves in the figures) for the same parameter values as quoted above.
629: For like-sign pairs (Fig.~\ref{fig:7}), $K_2(y)$ and especially $K_2(\phi)$ are overestimated.
630: %This is also the case for $K_2(\phi)$ for all-charge pairs shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}.
631: In contrast, all-charge higher-order cumulants differ little from those
632: obtained with BE$_{32}$.
633: %
634: %It should be noted that the BE$_0$ algorithm, contrary to BE$_{32}$ and BE$_{\lambda}$,
635: %enforces energy conservation by a global
636: %rescaling of all final-state hadron momenta. This procedure affects the full hadronic final state and
637: %induces a large artificial shift in the $W$-mass when applied to the
638: %reaction $e^+e^-\to W^+W^-\to \mbox{hadrons}$.
639:
640:
641: To summarize, a comparison with \PYTHIA\ predictions
642: shows that
643: %besides correlations due to hard jet production and resonance decays,
644: short-range correlations of the BE-type
645: are needed, at least in this model,
646: to reproduce the magnitude and the $\Delta$-dependence of the cumulants
647: for like-sign multiplets. This further leads to a much improved description of
648: the cumulants for all-charge multiplets.
649: Since Bose-Einstein
650: correlations are a well-established phenomenon in multiparticle
651: production, it is likely that
652: the above conclusion has wider validity than the model from which it was
653: derived.
654:
655:
656:
657:
658: \begin{figure}
659: \begin{center}
660: %\hs{0.5cm}
661: \epsfysize=11cm
662: \epsffile[15 67 577 756]{pr346_06.ps}
663: \vspace*{-2ex}
664: \caption{
665: The Ochs-Wosiek plot
666: in two-dimensional $\Delta y\times\Delta\Phi$ (2D)
667: and three-dimensional $\Delta y\times\Delta\Phi\times\Delta \ln p_T$ (3D)
668: domains
669: %rapidity ($y$), azimuthal angle ($\Phi$) and transverse momentum ($\ \ln \pT$)
670: for all charged hadrons (solid symbols) and for multiplets of like-sign
671: particles (open symbols).
672: The dashed line shows the function, $K_q=(q-1)!\,K_2^{q-1}$ ($q=3,4$),
673: valid for
674: a Negative Binomial multiplicity distribution (NB) in each phase space cell.
675: The solid line shows a fit to the relation $\ln{K_q}=a_q+ r_q\ln{K_2}$.
676: }
677: \la{fig:5}\end{center}
678: \end{figure}
679:
680:
681:
682: %\subsection{The Ochs-Wosiek relation for cumulants\label{sec:ochs}}
683: The success of the \PYTHIA\ model with BEC in predicting both the magnitude and
684: domain-size dependence of cumulants, has led us to consider
685: the inter-dependence of these quantities.
686: %
687: %
688: Figure.~\ref{fig:5} shows $K_3$ and $K_4$ in 2D and 3D, as a function of $K_2$.
689: The 2D and 3D data for all-charge,
690: as well as for like-sign multiplets
691: follow approximately, within errors, the same functional dependence.
692: The solid lines are a simple fit to the function $\ln{K_q}=a_q+ r_q\ln{K_2}$.
693: %
694: Figure~\ref{fig:5}
695: suggests that the {\em cumulants\/} of different orders obey simple so-called ``hierarchical''
696: relations, analogous to the Ochs-Wosiek relation,
697: first established for {\em factorial moments\/}.\cite{Ochs:Wosiek:relation}
698: Interestingly, all-charge as well as like-sign multiplets are seen to follow, within errors,
699: the same functional dependence.
700: %Hierarchical relations of similar type are commonly encountered, or conjectured, in various branches
701: %of many-body physics (see {\eg}\cite{cumulants}).
702:
703: Simple relations among the cumulants of different orders exist for certain
704: probability distributions, such as the Negative Binomial distribution.\cite{neg:bin}
705: For this distribution, one has $K_q=(q-1)!\,K_2^{q-1}$ ($q=3,4,\dots$),
706: showing
707: that the cumulants are here solely determined by $K_2$.
708: This relation, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:5} (dashed lines) does not describe the data, indicating
709: that the multiplicity distribution of charged particles,
710: and that of like-sign particles, deviates
711: strongly from a Negative Binomial in small phase space domains.
712:
713: The Ochs-Wosiek type of relation
714: exhibited by the data in Fig.~\ref{fig:5} may explain
715: why the BE algorithms in \PYTHIA\ generate higher-order correlations of
716: (approximately) the correct magnitude.
717: %Assuming that the hadronization
718: % dynamics is such that higher-order correlation functions can be constructed from
719: %second-order correlations only,
720: %methods that are designed to ensure agreement with the two-particle correlation function,
721: %could
722: %then automatically generate higher-order ones of the correct magnitude.
723:
724:
725:
726: \section{Summary\label{conclusions}}
727: A comparative study of
728: like-sign and all-charge genuine correlations
729: between two and more hadrons produced in $e^+e^-$ annihilation at the $Z^0$ energy has been performed
730: by OPAL using the high-statistics data on hadronic $\mathrm{Z}^0$ decays
731: recorded with the OPAL detector from 1991 through 1995.
732: %Out of $4.1\times10^6$ events recorded with the OPAL detector,
733: %a data sample of about $2.3\times10^6$ hadronic {\z} decays
734: Normalized factorial cumulants were measured as a function of the domain size, $\Delta$, in
735: $D$-dimensional domains ($D=1,2,3$) in rapidity, azimuthal angle and (the logarithm of)
736: transverse momentum, defined in the event sphericity frame.
737:
738: Both all-charge and like-sign multiplets show
739: strong positive genuine correlations up to fourth order.
740: %
741: The 2D and 3D cumulants $K_3$ and $K_4$,
742: considered as a function of $K_2$,
743: follow approximately a linear relation of the Ochs-Wosiek
744: type: $\ln K_q\sim \ln K_2$, independent of $D$ and the same
745: for all-charge and for like-sign particle groups.
746: %This suggests that, for a given domain $\Delta$,
747: %correlation functions of different orders are not
748: %independent but determined, to a large extent, by two-particle correlations.
749: %obey a hierarchical structure, meaning that the higher-order correlation functions
750: %can be expressed in terms of the second-order one.
751:
752:
753:
754: The \PYTHIA\ model describes well
755: dynamical fluctuations in large phase space domains.
756: %
757: However, to achieve a more satisfactory data description,
758: short-range correlations of the Bose-Einstein type
759: between identical particles need to be included.
760:
761: The Bose-Einstein model BE$_{32}$ in \PYTHIA\ is able to simultaneously account for the
762: magnitude and $\Delta$-dependence of like-sign
763: as well as of all-charge cumulants. The models BE$_0$ and BE$_\lambda$,
764: when using the same parameters as for BE$_{32}$, show reasonable agreement with the data.
765: Although the algorithms implement pair-wise BEC only,
766: surprisingly good agreement with the measured third- and fourth-order
767: cumulants is observed.
768:
769:
770: \vspace*{-1ex}
771: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
772:
773: \bibitem{edw:review}
774: {E.A.~De Wolf, I.M.~Dremin and W.~Kittel, Phys. Rep. {\bf 270} (1996) 1}.
775:
776: \bibitem{bialas1}
777: {A. Bia\l as and R. Peschanski, \NP{B273}{1986}{703}; {\bf B308} (1988) 857}.
778:
779: \bibitem{kendall}
780: {M.G.~Kendall and A.~Stuart, {\it The Advanced Theory of Statistics\/}, Vol.~1,
781: C.~Griffin and Co., London 1969}.
782:
783: \bibitem{Mue71}
784: {A.H. Mueller, Phys. Rev. {\bf D4} (1971) 150}.
785:
786: \bibitem{cumulants}
787: {P. Carruthers and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63} (1989) 1562; E.A. De
788: Wolf, Acta Phys. Pol. {\bf B21} (1990) 611}.
789:
790: \bibitem{review:weiner}
791: {R.M.~Weiner, Phys. Rep. {\bf 327} (2000) 249}.
792:
793: \bibitem{opal:bec}
794: { \OP \col, P.D.~Acton {\ea}, Phys.~Lett.\ {\bf B267} (1991) 143;\\ \OP \col,
795: R.~Akers \ea, Z.~Phys.\ {\bf C67} (1995) 389}.
796:
797: \bibitem{delphi:rhoshift}
798: {DELPHI \col, P.~Abreu {\etal}, Z. Phys. {\bf C63} (1994) 17}.
799:
800: \bibitem{bec:asym}
801: {L3 Collaboration, M.~Acciarri {\ea}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B458} (1999) 517;\\
802: DELPHI Collaboration, P.~Abreu {\ea}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B471} (2000) 460}.
803:
804: \bibitem{lep:higherorderbec}
805: {DELPHI \col, P.~Abreu {\etal}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B355} (1995) 415;\\ \OP \col,
806: K.~Ackerstaff \ea, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C5} (1998) 239}.
807:
808: \bibitem{otherthanlep:higherorderbec}
809: {NA22 \col, N.M.~Agababyan \ea, Z.~Phys.\ {\bf C68} (1995) 229;\\ WA98 \col,
810: M.M.~Aggarwal \ea, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} (2000) 2895;\\ NA44 \col,
811: I.G.~Bearden \ea, {\tt nucl-ex/0102013}}.
812:
813: \bibitem{sjo}
814: {L. L\"{o}nnblad and T. Sj\"ostrand, Phys. Lett. {\bf B351} (1995) 293}.
815:
816: \bibitem{kh}
817: {V.A.~Khoze and T.~Sj\"ostrand, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C6} (1999) 271}.
818:
819: \bibitem{leif:sjo}
820: {L.~L\"{o}nnblad and T. Sj\"ostrand, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C2} (1998) 165 }.
821:
822: \bibitem{js74}
823: {T.~Sj\"ostrand, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf82} (1994) 74 and LU-TP 00-30 (2000)
824: [{\tt hep-ph/0010017}]}.
825:
826: \bibitem{Oic}
827: {\OP \col, G. Abbiendi {\ea}, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C11} (1999) 239}.
828:
829: \bibitem{kadija:seyboth}
830: {K.~Kadija and P.~Seyboth, {\ZF{61}{1994}{465}}}.
831:
832: \bibitem{bib-opal}
833: {\OP \col, K. Ahmet \ea, Nucl. Instr. Meth. {\bf A305} (1991) 275;\\ O.~Biebel
834: \ea, Nucl. Instr. Meth. {\bf A323} (1992) 169;\\ P.P. Allport \ea, Nucl.
835: Instr. Meth. {\bf A324} (1993) 34, {\bf A346} (1994) 476}.
836:
837: \bibitem{bib-jetset}
838: {\OP \col, G. Alexander \ea, \ZP{69}{1996}{543}}.
839:
840: \bibitem{Ochs:Wosiek:relation}
841: {W.~Ochs and J.~Wosiek, Phys. Lett. {\bf B214} (1988) 617;\\ W. Ochs, Z. Phys.
842: {\bf C50} (1991) 339}.
843:
844: \bibitem{neg:bin}
845: {For reviews see P.~Carruthers and C.C.~Shi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A2} (1987)
846: 1447; G.~Giacomelli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A5} (1990) 223}.
847:
848: \end{thebibliography}
849:
850: %\bibliography{pn-bis,multi}
851: %\bibliography{pn-bis}
852:
853: \end{document}
854:
855:
856:
857:
858:
859:
860:
861: