1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{times}
3: \usepackage[preprint]{dfttrob}
4: \usepackage[numbers,sort&compress]{natbib}
5: % for looking at labels (comment out in final version; only works when
6: % not draft)
7: %\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}
8: \usepackage{latexuseful2e}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10: \usepackage{graphicx}
11: % this is were the figures will be looked for:
12: % allow easy use of zapf font as in: \zapf{X}
13: \DeclareTextFontCommand{\zapf}{\fontencoding{U}\fontfamily{pzd}\selectfont}
14:
15: \dfttnum{DFTT 11/2002}
16: % preprint corrected with the new calculations of <nB> vs nF.
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{SUPERPOSITION EFFECT AND CLAN STRUCTURE\\
21: IN FORWARD-BACKWARD MULTIPLICITY CORRELATIONS}
22: \author{A. Giovannini and R. Ugoccioni\\
23: \it Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica and I.N.F.N - Sez. di Torino\\
24: \it Via P. Giuria 1, 10125 Torino, Italy}
25: \maketitle
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the link between
29: forward-backward multiplicity correlations properties and the shape of
30: the corresponding final charged particle multiplicity distribution in
31: various classes of events in different collisions. It is shown that
32: the same mechanism which explains the shoulder effect and the $H_n$
33: vs.\ $n$ oscillations in charged particle multiplicity distributions,
34: i.e., the weighted superposition of different classes of events with
35: negative binomial properties, reproduces within experimental errors also
36: the forward-backward multiplicity correlation strength in \ee\
37: annihilation at LEP energy and allows interesting predictions for $pp$
38: collisions in the TeV energy region, to be tested at LHC, for instance
39: with the ALICE detector. We limit ourselves at present to
40: study substructures properties in hadron-hadron collisions and \ee\
41: annihilation; they are examined as ancillary examples in the
42: conviction that their understanding might be relevant also in other
43: more complex cases.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46:
47:
48:
49:
50:
51: % enter the text here
52: \section{Forward-backward correlations in \ee\ and $hh$ collisions.}
53:
54: Forward-backward (FB) multiplicity correlations have been studied
55: in hadron-hadron collisions and \ee\ annihilation
56: \cite{UA5:correlations,UA5:FB,UA5:rep,Benecke:FB,ISR:FB,NA22:FB,OPAL:FB,Delphi:FB,Tasso:FB}.
57: It has been found that these correlations are much stronger in hadron-hadron
58: collisions than in \ee\ annihilation.
59:
60: Let us start with UA5 Collaboration results at CERN $p\bar p$ Collider
61: at 546 GeV c.m.\ energy \cite{UA5:FB,UA5:rep}.
62: It was found, by studying in each
63: event the number of charged particles falling in the forward hemisphere,
64: $n_F$, and in the backward hemisphere, $n_B$, that the
65: relation between the average number of charged particles in the backward
66: hemisphere, $\nbar_B$, and $n_F$ is very well approximated by a
67: linear one,
68: \begin{equation}
69: \nbar_B (n_F) = a + b n_F , \label{eq:nb_linear_nf}
70: \end{equation}
71: where $a$ is the intercept on the vertical axis and $b$ the slope of the
72: linear fit, i.e., the correlation strength:
73: \begin{equation}
74: b = \frac{\avg{(n_F-\nbar_F)(n_B-\nbar_B)}}
75: {\left[ \avg{(n_F-\nbar_F)^2} \avg{(n_B-\nbar_B)^2}
76: \right]^{1/2}} .
77: \label{eq:b_defined}
78: \end{equation}
79: Here the forward hemisphere corresponds to the region of the outgoing proton
80: and the backward hemisphere is the symmetric region in the opposite
81: direction.
82: In order to avoid correlations due to kinematical constraints like
83: phase-space limits and energy momentum conservation occurring at the border of
84: the rapidity range available in the collision, and short range correlations
85: produced from particle sources in more central rapidity intervals, the
86: study has been performed in the pseudo-rapidity interval $1 < |\eta| < 4$.
87: It has been found that $b$ parameter is equal to $0.43 \pm 0.01$, a much
88: larger value than that found at lower energy (ISR
89: and EHS) \cite{Benecke:FB,ISR:FB,NA22:FB},
90: e.g., $b = 0.156 \pm 0.013$ at 63 GeV c.m.\ energy.
91: Assuming uncorrelated random emission of charged
92: particles in the selected intervals of the pseudo-rapidity axis,
93: the shape of the $n_F$ multiplicity distribution at
94: fixed full multiplicity $n = n_B+n_F$ is
95: binomial with probability
96: $p =1/2$ for a particle of the full sample, $n$, to fall in the backward
97: or forward hemisphere, and
98: thus has variance $d^2_{n_F} (n)= p(1-p) n = n / 4$.
99: Since the experimental value of the dispersion of the full
100: distribution, $D_{n}$, in the above mentioned
101: pseudo-rapidity
102: interval is $9.2 \pm 0.1$, and $\nbar = 15.8\pm 0.2$, one has
103: \begin{equation}
104: b = \frac{D^2_{n} - 4\avg{d^2_{n_F} (n)}}
105: {D^2_{n} + 4\avg{d^2_{n_F} (n)}}
106: = \frac{D^2_{n} - \nbar}{D^2_{n} + \nbar} = 0.69 ,
107: \label{eq:3}
108: \end{equation}
109: a much higher value than the experimental one ($b = 0.43 \pm 0.01$).
110: This fact led the Collaboration to assume that not particles but particle
111: clusters of approximately the same size, $M$, are binomially distributed in the
112: two hemispheres and that the decay products of each cluster remain within
113: the same hemisphere. Accordingly
114: \begin{equation}
115: 4\avg{d^2_{n_F} (n)} = M n .
116: \end{equation}
117: But a reasonable agreement with experimental data is obtained by calculating
118: $M_{\text{eff}}$ for clusters of a mixture of sizes. One finds that
119: \begin{equation}
120: b = \frac{D^2_{n}/\nbar - M_{\text{eff}}}{D^2_{n}/\nbar + M_{\text{eff}}}
121: \qquad\text{with}\qquad
122: M_{\text{eff}} = \bar M_{\text{cluster}} +
123: D^2_{\text{cluster}}/\bar M_{\text{cluster}} . \label{eq:M_eff}
124: \end{equation}
125: Here $\bar M_{\text{cluster}}$ and $D^2_{\text{cluster}}$
126: are respectively the average charged
127: multiplicity within a cluster and its dispersion.
128: An even better agreement is obtained by allowing a certain amount of
129: particle leakage from one hemisphere to the other.
130: In conclusion the correlation strength increases with energy and
131: it is the result
132: of binomially distributed clusters, of approximately 2.2 particles per
133: cluster, in the two hemispheres.
134:
135: Forward-backward correlations have been studied also by OPAL
136: Collaboration \cite{OPAL:FB} in two-jet and three-jet events in \ee\
137: annihilation at LEP. The forward hemisphere is here chosen randomly
138: between the two defined by the plane perpendicular to the thrust axis;
139: although this definition is a bit misleading, a smaller effect than
140: that seen by UA5 collaboration is observed. FB multiplicity
141: correlations are absent in the two separate samples of events but it
142: turns out that a correlation strength $b = 0.103 \pm 0.007$ is found
143: when they are superimposed, a result comparable with that found by the
144: DELPHI Collaboration ($b=0.118\pm 0.009$) \cite{Delphi:FB}. By
145: comparing these results with that found at TASSO \cite{Tasso:FB},
146: e.g., $0.084\pm 0.016$ at 22 GeV, we can conclude that in \ee\
147: annihilation the energy dependence of the correlation strength is
148: quite weak.
149:
150: Our study is motivated by the just mentioned experimental facts and
151: by the finding that the superposition of weighted
152: negative binomial (Pascal) multiplicity distributions (NB (Pascal) MD's),
153: each describing a different class of events, (soft and semi-hard
154: events in $pp$ collisions, 2- and 3-jet events
155: in \ee\ annihilation) explains quite well the characteristic features
156: of global event properties of collisions in the GeV region,
157: like the shoulder effect in the total $n$-charged multiplicity distributions,
158: $P_n$,
159: and the $H_n$ vs.\ $n$ oscillations ($H_n$ is here the ratios of $n$-particle
160: factorial moments, $F_n$, to the $n$-particle factorial cumulant moments,
161: $K_n$). The main purpose of this search is to show that FB multiplicity
162: correlations in $pp$ collisions and in \ee\ annihilation as well as
163: their different behaviour can be understood in terms of the same cause
164: which explained $P_n$ vs.\ $n$ and $H_n$ vs.\ $n$ general properties,
165: i.e., the superposition of different substructures.
166: In addition, the assumption
167: that each substructure (class of events) is described by a NB(Pascal)MD
168: allows sound quantitative predictions on parameters which
169: are not known from experimental data.
170: Coming to the correlation strength obtained in
171: Eq.~(\ref{eq:3}), for instance,
172: if particles are independently produced and binomially distributed in
173: the two hemispheres, and the overall MD is a negative binomial with
174: characteristic parameters $\nbar$, the average charged multiplicity,
175: and $k$ (it is linked to the dispersion $D_n$ by the relation
176: $( D^2_n - \nbar)/\nbar^2 = 1/k$), one gets this simple Equation
177: \begin{equation}
178: b = \frac{\nbar^2/k + \nbar - \nbar}{\nbar^2/k + \nbar + \nbar}
179: = \frac{\nbar}{\nbar + 2k} .
180: \label{eq:b_nbd_binom}
181: \end{equation}
182: A formula which can be applied also to individual substructures
183: satisfying the requested conditions.
184:
185: The use of the NB(Pascal)MD in high energy phenomenology is not indeed
186: an arbitrary artifact but a consequence of our ignorance on a problem
187: (lack of experimental data and of explicit QCD calculations) and is quite
188: often supported by fits with excellent chi squares for charged
189: particles multiplicity distributions of the substructures appearing
190: in the total charged particle multiplicity distributions
191: through the above mentioned anomalies.
192:
193: The occurrence of the NB(Pascal)MD distribution in high energy
194: phenomenology has been interpreted
195: since long time as the by now quite well accepted idea that the
196: production process is a two-step process: to an initial phase in which
197: a certain number of sources, which have been called clans, are
198: independently emitted, it follows their decay into final particles.
199: All correlations among produced particles originated by the same
200: source are exhausted within the same clan. The average number of clans
201: $\Nbar$ is related to the standard NB parameters, $\nbar$ and $k$, by the
202: following relation
203: \begin{equation}
204: \Nbar = k \ln ( 1 + \nbar/ k). \label{eq:7}
205: \end{equation}
206: Accordingly
207: \begin{equation}
208: D^2_n = \nbar \exp( \Nbar/ k ) . \label{eq:8}
209: \end{equation}
210:
211: Each clan is either forward or backward. Produced particles by each clan
212: stay all in the same hemisphere where the clan is or some of them
213: may leak to the opposite hemisphere: the no-leakage and leakage
214: cases will be discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:3} under the assumption that
215: substructures in hadron-hadron collisions are described by NB(Pascal)MD
216: and therefore the concept of clan rather than the concept of cluster
217: should be used.
218:
219:
220:
221:
222:
223: \section{Superposition of different classes of events and its influence
224: on the correlation strength}
225:
226: In this Section the effect of the superposition of different classes of events
227: and its consequences on the strength $b$ of FB multiplicity
228: correlations will be discussed independently from the assumption that
229: charged particle MD's of the two classes of events are of NB type.
230: Results are therefore of general validity and can be applied to
231: any pair of MD's describing experimental data in the two substructures
232: of the total MD.
233: Accordingly
234: in the following the number 1 and 2 will indicate the different
235: substructures (i.e., soft and semi-hard, or 2-jet and 3-jet events)
236: of the distribution in the two classes of collisions. $\alpha$ will be
237: the weight.
238:
239: The joint distribution for $n_F$ and $n_B$ charged
240: particles is
241: \begin{equation}
242: P_{\text{total}}(n_F,n_B) = \alpha P_1(n_F,n_B) + (1-\alpha) P_2(n_F,n_B) .
243: \label{eq:superposition}
244: \end{equation}
245: In the following, the term `total' will be used used for quantities
246: referring to the superposition of the two components, and the
247: subscripts F and B stay as usual for `Forward' and `Backward'.
248:
249: Since we have defined the F and B hemispheres in a symmetric way,
250: and since the collisions we are studying do not imply a difference
251: between F and B hemispheres, it is clear that for each class
252: $i=1,2$ of events, the joint MD's are symmetric in their arguments:
253: \begin{equation}
254: P_i(n_F,n_B) = P_i(n_B,n_F) .
255: \end{equation}
256: in particular this implies that the average F multiplicity,
257: $\bar n_{F,i}$, equals the average B multiplicity, $\bar n_{B,i}$,
258: and both are equal to half the average multiplicity $\nbar_{i}$
259: in the two hemispheres, being $n_{i} = n_{F,i} + n_{B,i}$:
260: \begin{equation}
261: \bar n_{F,i} = \bar n_{B,i} = \frac{1}{2} \nbar_{i} .
262: \end{equation}
263: We will also use below the equality of the variances:
264: \begin{equation}
265: D^2_{n_F,i} \equiv \avg{n_{F,i}^2} - \nbar_{F,i}^2 =
266: \avg{n_{B,i}^2}-\nbar_{B,i}^2 \equiv D^2_{n_B,i}.
267: \end{equation}
268: which together with Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_defined}) applied to each class of
269: events gives:
270: \begin{equation}
271: \avg{(n_{F,i}-\nbar_{F,i})(n_{B,i}-\nbar_{B,i})} =
272: b_i D^2_{n_F,i} = b_i D^2_{n_B,i};
273: \end{equation}
274: the relation with the total variance
275: then follows:
276: \begin{equation}
277: D^2_{n,i} = D^2_{n_F,i} + D^2_{n_B,i} +
278: 2\avg{(n_{F,i}-\nbar_{F,i})(n_{B,i}-\nbar_{B,i})}
279: = 2 (1+b_i) D^2_{n_F,i} .
280: \end{equation}
281:
282: Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:superposition}), we obtain the following relations
283: for the total average multiplicity and variance:
284: \begin{gather}
285: \bar n_{F} = \bar n_{B} = \frac{1}{2} \nbar ;\\
286: D^2_{n_F} = D^2_{n_B}.
287: \end{gather}
288: We start now by calculating the total forward average multiplicity
289: $\bar n_{F}$:
290: \begin{equation}
291: \bar n_{F} = \alpha \bar n_{F,1} + (1-\alpha)\bar n_{F,2}.
292: \end{equation}
293: We proceed to calculate the total forward variance $D^2_{n_F}$, using
294: appropriately all the above mentioned relations:
295: \begin{equation}
296: \begin{split}
297: D^2_{n_F} &= \avg{n_{F}^2} -
298: {\bar n_{F}}^2 \\
299: &= \alpha \avg{n_{F,1}^2} + (1-\alpha) \avg{n_{F,2}^2} -
300: \left[ \alpha \bar n_{F,1} + (1-\alpha) \bar n_{F,2}
301: \right]^2\\
302: &= \alpha D^2_{n_F,1} + (1-\alpha)D^2_{n_F,2} +
303: \alpha (1-\alpha) \left( \bar n_{F,2} - \bar n_{F,1}
304: \right)^2\\
305: &= \frac{\alpha D^2_{n,1}}{2(1+b_1)} +
306: \frac{(1-\alpha)D^2_{n,2}}{2(1+b_2)} +
307: \frac{1}{4}\alpha (1-\alpha)
308: \left( \bar n_{2} - \bar n_{1} \right)^2 .
309: \end{split}
310: \end{equation}
311: The total covariance can be calculated as follows:
312: \begin{equation}
313: \begin{split}
314: \avg{(n_F-\nbar_F)&(n_B-\nbar_B)} = \alpha \avg{n_{F,1} n_{B,1}} +
315: (1-\alpha) \avg{n_{F,2} n_{B,2}} \\
316: &\quad - \left[ \alpha \bar n_{F,1} + (1-\alpha) \bar n_{F,2}
317: \right] \left[ \alpha \bar n_{B,1} + (1-\alpha) \bar n_{B,2}
318: \right] \\
319: &= \alpha \avg{(n_{F,1}-\nbar_{F,1})(n_{B,1}-\nbar_{B,1})} +
320: (1-\alpha) \avg{(n_{F,2}-\nbar_{F,2})(n_{B,2}-\nbar_{B,2})} \\
321: &\quad + \alpha (1-\alpha) \left( \bar n_{F,2} -
322: \bar n_{F,1} \right)^2\\
323: &= \alpha b_1 D^2_{n_F,1} + (1-\alpha) b_2 D^2_{n_F,2} +
324: \alpha (1-\alpha) \left( \bar n_{F,2} -
325: \bar n_{F,1} \right)^2\\
326: &= \frac{\alpha D^2_{n,1}}{2(1+b_1)} b_1 +
327: \frac{(1-\alpha)D^2_{n,2}}{2(1+b_2)} b_2 +
328: \frac{1}{4}\alpha (1-\alpha)
329: \left( \bar n_{2} - \bar n_{1} \right)^2 .
330: \end{split}
331: \end{equation}
332:
333: The total correlation strength $b$ for the weighted superposition of the two
334: classes of events can therefore be written as:
335: \begin{equation}
336: b = \frac{\alpha b_1 {D^2_{n,1}}(1+b_2) +
337: (1-\alpha) b_2 {D^2_{n,2}}(1+b_1) +
338: \frac{1}{2}\alpha(1-\alpha)(\nbar_{2} - \nbar_{1})^2(1+b_1)(1+b_2)}
339: {\alpha {D^2_{n,1}}(1+b_2) +
340: (1-\alpha) {D^2_{n,2}}(1+b_1) +
341: \frac{1}{2}\alpha(1-\alpha)(\nbar_{2} -
342: \nbar_{1})^2(1+b_1)(1+b_2)} .
343: \label{eq:b_total}
344: \end{equation}
345: It should be remarked that even if the correlation strengths for events
346: of class 1 and 2, $b_1$ and $b_2$,
347: separately vanish, the total strength does not: it
348: depends on the difference in average multiplicity between
349: the events of the two classes, namely
350: \begin{equation}
351: b_{12} = \frac{
352: \frac{1}{2}\alpha(1-\alpha)(\nbar_{2} - \nbar_{1})^2}
353: {\alpha {D^2_{n,1}} +
354: (1-\alpha) {D^2_{n,2}} +
355: \frac{1}{2}\alpha(1-\alpha)(\nbar_{2} - \nbar_{1})^2} .
356: \label{eq:b_12}
357: \end{equation}
358: Notice that in case
359: each component is of NBMD type, the above formulae can be rewritten
360: in terms of the standard NBMD parameters according to
361: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:7}) and (\ref{eq:8}).
362:
363: We conclude that for $b_1=b_2=0$ forward-backward correlations are
364: different from zero: the superposition of events of different classes
365: generates a certain amount of positive FB correlations.
366:
367: It should be stressed that up to now all results have been
368: obtained, as announced at the beginning of this Section, independently
369: of any specific form of the charged particle MD's of the classes
370: of events 1 and 2 contributing to the total charged particle MD and that
371: Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_12}) gives the amount of the superposition effect of
372: the substructures 1 and 2, $b_{12}$, to the correlation strength with
373: $b_1=b_2=0$ in terms of $\alpha, \nbar_1, D^2_1, \nbar_2, D^2_2$
374: parameters only. Once the different classes of events have been isolated
375: and the above mentioned parameters measured,
376: the estimate of $b_{12}$ can easily be done.
377: In \ee\ annihilation we are exactly in this situation and our test
378: can be performed.
379: It was shown by
380: the OPAL Collaboration \cite{OPAL:FB} that for the 2-jet and the
381: 3-jet event samples, separately, there is no correlations. Still
382: there is correlation in the total sample, with $b = 0.103 \pm 0.007$.
383: Using a fit to OPAL data \cite{hqlett:2}
384: with similar conditions of the jet finder algorithm
385: ($\alpha=0.463$, $\nbar_{1} = 18.4$, $D^2_{n,1} = 25.6$,
386: $\nbar_{2} = 24.0$, $D^2_{n,2} = 44.6$) we obtain from
387: Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_12}) the value $b_{12} = 0.101$, in perfect agreement
388: with the data.
389:
390: On the other hand, using UA5 two-components results \cite{Fug}
391: ($\alpha=0.75$, $\nbar_{1} = 24.0$, $D^2_{n,1} = 106$,
392: $\nbar_{2} = 47.6$, $D^2_{n,2} = 209$) in full phase-space
393: (thus including more correlations than present in the data,
394: but nothing better is available
395: in the actual phase-space range used by UA5) we obtain
396: $b_{12} = 0.28$, a number much lower than the value found
397: in the experiment (0.58).
398:
399: We conclude that FB correlations generated by the superposition of events
400: of different classes are enough to explain observed FB
401: correlations in \ee\ annihilation but not in $hh$ collisions,
402: where there exists a certain amount of correlation left within each
403: class of events which should be taken into account.
404: These results are a striking proof of the existence of the superposition
405: effect, which was up to now only a guess, and of its relevance.
406:
407:
408:
409:
410:
411:
412:
413: \section{Clan production and the correlation strength}\label{sec:3}
414: The next step in our approach is to calculate correlation strengths $b_1$
415: and $b_2$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_total}) in the two different classes of events in
416: $pp$ collisions in order to reproduce experimental data on $b$,
417: which ---as pointed out at the end of the previous Section--- are not correctly
418: reproduced by the knowledge of $b_{12}$ only.
419: The success of the superposition mechanism of weighted NB(Pascal)MD's
420: for describing anomalies found in $pp$ collisions strongly suggest to
421: proceed to calculate $b_1$ and $b_2$ by using NB properties.
422:
423: In a naive approach to the problem one can try to apply
424: Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_nbd_binom}), which gives at 546 GeV c.m.\ energy $b =
425: 0.78$: a much larger value than the experimental one (0.58).
426: We conclude that charged particles FB distribution is not compatible
427: with independent emission but is compatible with the production
428: in clusters. Within the framework of the NBMD, these will be
429: identified with clans.
430:
431: As already mentioned, clans can be produced forward or backward and
432: may or may not leak particles to the opposite hemisphere.
433:
434: \subsection{The no-leakage case}
435:
436: First, we will treat the general case in which no assumption is made
437: about the MD of clans and of particles within a clan; then we will specialise
438: our results to the case of the NBMD (Poissonian clans, logarithmic MD
439: within a clan) obtaining a fair simplification of all formulae.
440: This treatment is valid for each component separately, but
441: the component index is dropped here to simplify the notation;
442: Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_total}) can be used to obtain the total correlation
443: strength.
444:
445: Accordingly, we write the joint distribution in $n_F$,$n_B$
446: as a convolution over the number of produced clans:
447: \begin{equation}
448: P(n_F,n_B) = \sum_{N_F,N_B} {\cal P}(N_F,N_B) p_F(n_F|N_F)
449: p_B(n_B|N_B) ,
450: \end{equation}
451: where we have indicate with capital $N$ the number of clans and
452: with ${\cal P}$ the joint distribution for $N_F$ clans forward and
453: $N_B$ clans backward.
454: Here $p_F(n|N)$ is the forward particle multiplicity
455: distribution conditional on the number of forward clans, which, by arguments
456: of symmetry, is the same distribution as $p_B(n|N)$.
457:
458: The symmetry of the reaction and of the hemispheres definition imply
459: some conditions on ${\cal P}$, namely
460: that the average number of F and B clans at fixed full number of clans $N$
461: are equal, and similarly for the corresponding variances:
462: \begin{gather}
463: \Nbar_F(N) = \Nbar_B(N) = N/2 ; \\
464: d^2_{N_F}(N) = d^2_{N_B}(N) = \avg{N_F^2(N)} - N^2/4.
465: \end{gather}
466:
467: If we now indicate with $q(n)$ the MD within one clan, i.e., we
468: write:
469: \begin{equation}
470: p_F(n|N) = \underset{\{\sum_i n_i=n\}}{\sum_{n_1}\cdots\sum_{n_N} }
471: \,q(n_1)\cdots q(n_N) ;
472: \label{eq:breakintoclans}
473: \end{equation}
474: then it is straightforward to show that the average value and the
475: variance of $n$ at fixed $N$ equal $N\nc$ and $ND^2_c$ respectively.
476: Using these results, it can be shown that
477: \begin{equation}
478: \avg{n_F n_B} = \avg{N_F N_B}\nc^2 =
479: \left( \frac{1}{4}\avg{N^2} - \avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)} \right)\nc^2
480: \end{equation}
481: and
482: \begin{equation}
483: \avg{n_F^2} = \avg{N_F(N)} D^2_c + \avg{N_F^2(N)} \nc^2 =
484: \frac{1}{2}\Nbar D^2_c + \nc^2\left( \avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)} +
485: \frac{1}{4}\avg{N^2} \right) .
486: \end{equation}
487:
488: Then, without making any additional hypothesis on the
489: clan distributions used, we can calculate the variances
490: in the particle multiplicity:
491: \begin{equation}
492: \avg{(n_F-\nbar_F)^2} =
493: \avg{(n_B-\nbar_B)^2} =
494: \frac{1}{2} \Nbar D^2_c + \nc^2\left[ \frac{1}{4} D^2_N +
495: \avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)} \right] ,
496: \label{eq:var_noleakage}
497: \end{equation}
498: where $\Nbar$ is the average full number of clans and
499: $D^2_N = \avg{N^2} - \Nbar^2$
500: is the variance of the full clan multiplicity distribution;
501: $d^2_{N_F}(N)$ is the variance in the distribution
502: of the number of forward
503: clans given that the total number of clans is $N$, and
504: $\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}$ is its average over $N$;
505: $\nc$ is the full average number of particles per clan, and $D^2_c$ is the
506: corresponding variance.
507: The covariance is
508: \begin{equation}
509: \avg{(n_F-\nbar_F)(n_B-\nbar_B)} =
510: \nc^2\left[ \frac{1}{4} D^2_N - \avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)} \right] .
511: \label{eq:covar_noleakage}
512: \end{equation}
513: The final result is thus:
514: \begin{equation}
515: b = \frac{D^2_N - 4\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}}{D^2_N + 4\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)} +
516: 2\Nbar D^2_c / \nc^2} .
517: \label{eq:b_noleakage}
518: \end{equation}
519: This result can be expressed in terms of quantities referring to the
520: full MD: since
521: \begin{equation}
522: D^2_{n} = D^2_c \Nbar + D^2_N \nc^2 ,
523: \end{equation}
524: we obtain
525: \begin{equation}
526: b = \frac{D^2_{n}/\nbar - D^2_c/\nc - 4\nc\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}/\Nbar}
527: {D^2_{n}/\nbar + D^2_c/\nc + 4\nc\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}/\Nbar} .
528: \end{equation}
529: From the above formula, assuming binomially distributed clans,
530: one can deduce Eq.~(\ref{eq:M_eff}).
531:
532: The last formulae are of general validity, but now we specialise it
533: to the NBMD case, where
534: the overall clan multiplicity distribution is Poissonian and
535: thus one finds $D^2_N= \Nbar$, and where
536: clans do not talk to each other in this framework, thus
537: the forward distribution at fixed total number of clans
538: is binomial, $\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)} =\Nbar/4$;
539: putting these features together in Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_noleakage})
540: we obtain:
541: \begin{equation}
542: b = \frac{\Nbar - \Nbar}{\Nbar + \Nbar +
543: 2\Nbar D^2_c / \nc^2} = 0 .
544: \end{equation}
545: It follows the theorem:
546: If particles are grouped in Poisson distributed clans;
547: if each clan falls
548: in the forward or backward hemisphere with the same probability
549: independently of the other clans;
550: if there is no leakage of particles from one hemisphere to the other:
551: then no forward-backward correlation exist.
552:
553: We conclude that in order to have FB correlation in the
554: framework of the clan interpretation of the NBMD it is necessary
555: to allow clans to leak particles from one hemisphere to the other,
556: i.e., clans must extend rather far in rapidity.
557:
558:
559:
560: \subsection{The extension to the leakage case}
561:
562: We return now to the general treatment. We start by writing the joint
563: distribution as a convolution over the number of produced clans and
564: over the partitions of forward and backward produced particles among
565: the clans:
566: \begin{equation}
567: P(n_F,n_B) = \sum_{N_F,N_B} {\cal P}(N_F,N_B)
568: \mathop{\sum_{m_F'+m_F'' = n_F}}_{m_B'+m_B'' = n_B}
569: p_F(m_F',m_B'|N_F) p_B(m_F'',m_B''|N_B) ,
570: \label{eq:mainmodel}
571: \end{equation}
572: where $p_i(m_F',m_B'|N_i)$ is the joint probability of producing
573: $m_F$ F-particles and $m_B$ B-particles from $N_i$ clans in the $i$
574: hemisphere ($i=F,B$).
575: Notice that the summations are constrained to $n_F$ F-particles and
576: $n_B$ B-particles, respectively.
577: The usual symmetry argument imply that
578: \begin{equation}
579: p_F(n,m|N) = p_B(m,n|N) .
580: \end{equation}
581:
582: It is now straightforward to show that it is still true that
583: $\nbar_F = \Nbar \nc/2$.
584: Similarly to Eq.~(\ref{eq:breakintoclans}), we write now the
585: decomposition
586: \begin{equation}
587: p_F(m_F,m_B|N_F) =
588: \mathop{\sum_{\sum_i \mu_{F,i} = m_F}}_{\sum_i \mu_{B,i} = m_B}
589: q_F(\mu_{F,1},\mu_{B,1}) \dots q_F(\mu_{F,N_F},\mu_{B,N_F}) ,
590: \end{equation}
591: where $q_F(\mu_{F},\mu_{B})$ is the joint probability of producing,
592: within one clan, $\mu_F$ F-particles and $\mu_B$ B-particles.
593: Of course one has:
594: \begin{equation}
595: \sum_{\mu_F+\mu_B = n_c} q_F(\mu_{F},\mu_{B}) = q(n_c) .
596: \end{equation}
597: Define now
598: \begin{gather}
599: p\nc \equiv \sum \mu_F q_F(\mu_{F},\mu_{B}) =
600: \sum \mu_B q_B(\mu_{F},\mu_{B}),\\
601: q\nc \equiv \sum \mu_B q_F(\mu_{F},\mu_{B}) =
602: \sum \mu_F q_B(\mu_{F},\mu_{B}) ,
603: \end{gather}
604: where the second equality in each row has been obtained from the usual symmetry
605: arguments, which also imply $p+q=1$.
606: The just defined parameter $p$ controls the leakage from one hemisphere to the
607: other: $p=1$ means that no particle leaks, while $0.5 \leq p < 1$
608: indicates leakage ($p$ cannot be smaller than 0.5, or else the
609: clan is classified in the wrong hemisphere).
610:
611:
612: An important role
613: in the final formula will be played by the covariance, $\gamma$, of
614: $\mu_{F}$ forward and $\mu_{B}$ backward particles
615: within a clan:
616: \begin{equation}
617: \gamma \equiv \avg{ (\mu_{F} - \bar\mu_{F}) (\mu_{B} - \bar\mu_{B})
618: } = \sum \mu_F \mu_B q_F(\mu_{F},\mu_{B}) - pq\nc .
619: \end{equation}
620: In general, this quantity cannot be expressed in terms of $\nc$
621: or $D^2_c$ unless some explicit distribution for the forward
622: distribution at fixed number of particles per clan is assumed;
623: for example, when particles within one clan are F-B
624: binomially distributed, then $\gamma = (D^2_c-\nc)pq$.
625:
626: One then finds for the variance
627: \begin{equation}
628: \avg{(n_F-\nbar_F)^2} =
629: \avg{(n_B-\nbar_B)^2} =
630: \frac{1}{2}\Nbar D_c^2 - \Nbar\gamma
631: + \nc^2 \left[\frac{1}{4} D^2_N + \avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}(p-q)^2\right]
632: \end{equation}
633: ---compare with Eq.~(\ref{eq:var_noleakage})--- and for the covariance
634: \begin{equation}
635: \avg{(n_F-\nbar_F)(n_B-\nbar_B)} =
636: \Nbar\gamma + \nc^2\left[ \frac{1}{4} D^2_N -
637: \avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)} (p-q)^2 \right]
638: \end{equation}
639: ---compare with Eq.~(\ref{eq:covar_noleakage}).
640:
641: The final general result for clans, for each component, is thus
642: \begin{equation}
643: \begin{split}
644: b &= \frac{D^2_N - 4\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}(p-q)^2 + 4\Nbar\gamma/\nc^2}
645: {D^2_N + 4\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}(p-q)^2 - 4\Nbar\gamma/\nc^2 +
646: 2\Nbar D^2_c/\nc^2}\\
647: &= \frac{D^2_n/\nbar - D^2_c/\nc -
648: 4\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}(p-q)^2\nc/\Nbar + 4\gamma/\nc }{
649: D^2_n/\nbar + D^2_c/\nc +
650: 4\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)}(p-q)^2\nc/\Nbar - 4\gamma/\nc } .
651: \end{split}
652: \end{equation}
653: For NBMD clans, i.e., Poissonian ($D^2_N = \Nbar$)
654: and independent ($4\avg{d^2_{N_F}(N)} = \Nbar$) clans, one has inside
655: a clan a logarithmic distribution, for which
656: \begin{equation}
657: D^2_c = - \nc^2\left[ \frac{\log(1-b')}{b'} + 1\right]
658: \end{equation}
659: and
660: \begin{equation}
661: \nc = \frac{b'}{(b'-1)\log(1-b')} ,
662: \end{equation}
663: with
664: \begin{equation}
665: b' = \frac{\nbar}{\nbar+k}.
666: \end{equation}
667: The correlation strength can then be written as
668: \begin{equation}
669: b = \frac{1 - (p-q)^2 + 4\gamma/\nc^2}
670: {-1 + (p-q)^2 - 4\gamma/\nc^2 - 2\log(1-b')/b'} .
671: \label{eq:b_leakage}
672: \end{equation}
673: As anticipated, the correlation strength is no longer zero.
674: Notice that the no-leakage case can be re-obtained by setting
675: $p=1$ and consequently $q=0, \gamma = 0$. Recall that
676: $\gamma$ is the covariance between the forward and
677: backward multiplicities in one clan, so in Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_leakage}) only
678: parameters related to the within-clan distributions appear.
679: If one were to assume that particles within a clan are
680: independently distributed in the two hemispheres, so
681: that $\gamma = (D^2_c-\nc)pq$, then one arrives at a very
682: simple formula:
683: \begin{equation}
684: b = \frac{2b'pq}{1-2b'pq} = \frac{-1+p}{1-p-\frac{1}{2b'p}} .
685: \label{eq:b_leakage_binom}
686: \end{equation}
687: Notice that when $p=1/2$ we recover the expression for
688: the NBMD with binomially distributed particles,
689: Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_nbd_binom}).
690: For $b' \to 1$, $b$ turns out to depend on the $p$ parameter only,
691: a fact which will be very useful in the next Section.
692:
693:
694: \section{Energy dependence of the correlation strength}
695:
696: In Fig.~\ref{fig:b12}, the behaviour of $b_{12}$
697: as a function of c.m.\ energy, as suggested
698: by Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_12}), is shown in the framework of
699: the three scenarios proposed
700: by the present Authors in Ref.~\cite{combo:prd}.
701: The scenarios are based on the weighted superposition of soft (without
702: mini-jets) and semi-hard (with mini-jets) events in $p\bar p$
703: collisions, each class of events being described by a NB(Pascal)MD with
704: different characteristic parameters $\nbar$ and $k$.
705: In the first scenario KNO scaling is assumed for both components; in
706: scenario 2 KNO scaling is strongly violated for the semi-hard
707: component and satisfied for the soft one; the third scenario is a QCD
708: inspired scenario and its predictions turn out to be in general
709: intermediate between the previous two.
710: In addition, two alternative c.m.\ energy dependences have been
711: proposed for the semi-hard component: the first one is a consequence
712: of the UA1 analysis on mini-jets and leads to
713: \begin{subequations}
714: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\theparentequation \Alph{equation}}
715: \begin{equation}
716: \nbar_2(\sqrt{s}) \simeq 2 \nbar_1(\sqrt{s}) ;
717: \label{eq:A}
718: \end{equation}
719: the second one postulates that $\nbar_2$ increases more rapidly with
720: c.m.\ energy (it takes into account an eventual high particle density
721: production in the central rapidity region) and correct the previous
722: equation as follows
723: \begin{equation}
724: \nbar_2(\sqrt{s}) \simeq 2 \nbar_1(\sqrt{s})+ c'\ln^2(\sqrt{s}) ;
725: \label{eq:B}
726: \end{equation}
727: \end{subequations}
728: the estimate of $c'$ from existing fits is $\approx 0.1$.
729: The general trend of $\nbar$ as described by Eq.~(\ref{eq:B}) seems to be
730: favoured in the present approach.
731:
732: \begin{figure}
733: \begin{center}
734: \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure_b12.ps}}
735: \end{center}
736: \caption{Predictions for the correlation coefficient for the
737: superposition of two components in $p\bar p$ collisions
738: in the case in which each
739: component by itself presents no correlations;
740: prediction are given
741: in the three scenarios in full phase-space as function
742: of the c.m.\ energy.
743: The dotted line is a fit to
744: experimental values \cite{UA5:correlations}.}\label{fig:b12}
745: \end{figure}
746:
747: It should be noticed that the superposition effect alone does not
748: reproduce the logarithmic energy dependence of the correlation
749: strength $b$ in the GeV and TeV regions. $b_{12}$ does not depend on $p_1$
750: and $p_2$ parameters, it is an increasing function of c.m.\ energy in
751: the GeV region hardly distinguishable in the three scenarios.
752: At 900 GeV c.m.\ energy, $b_{12}$ general trends overlap, then they
753: start to decrease smoothly and to differentiate their behaviour in the
754: TeV region.
755: Accordingly, in all scenarios Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_total}), and not
756: Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_12}), should be used in order to get the correct $b$ behaviour.
757: The role of $b_{12}$ has been shown to be fundamental in understanding
758: FB correlations in \ee\ annihilation when
759: particle population within each clan are quite small ($\approx$ 1-2) and
760: particle leakage from one hemisphere to the other quite an exceptional
761: fact (remember that here $b_1 \approx b_2 \approx 0$).
762: In proton-proton collisions the decrease of $b_{12}$ with c.m.\ energy
763: goes together with the onset of a much larger leakage activity from
764: clans with large particle population, characteristic in particular of
765: semi-hard events in scenarios 2 and 3.
766: It is interesting to remark indeed in
767: Fig.~\ref{fig:b12} that the decrease of $b_{12}$ in the TeV region
768: is more pronounced in these two
769: scenarios than in scenario 1 and in scenario 2 with respect to scenario 3,
770: i.e., in general when clans with larger number of particles are produced
771: and leakage effect is expected to be more important.
772:
773:
774: \begin{figure}
775: \begin{center}
776: \mbox{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure_b.good.ps}}
777: \end{center}
778: \caption{Predictions for the correlation coefficients
779: for each component (soft and semi-hard)
780: and for the total distribution in $p\bar p$ collisions.
781: For each scenario, three
782: cases are illustrated, corresponding to the three numbered branches:
783: leakage increasing with $\sqrt{s}$ (upper branch, \zapf{\char'300}),
784: constant leakage (middle branch, \zapf{\char'301}) and
785: leakage decreasing with $\sqrt{s}$ (lower branch, \zapf{\char'302}).
786: Leakage for the soft component is assumed constant at all energies.
787: The dotted line is a fit to
788: experimental values \cite{UA5:correlations}.}\label{fig:b}
789: \end{figure}
790:
791: Figure~\ref{fig:b} summarises our findings on the c.m.\ energy dependence of
792: the FB charged particle multiplicity correlation strength parameter $b$
793: both for the soft and semi-hard components individually
794: and for their superposition
795: in the GeV and TeV regions up to 14 TeV for the three above mentioned
796: scenarios.
797: By assuming that in $pp$ collisions in the ISR energy range the
798: semi-hard component is negligible with respect to the soft one
799: and by using the experimental $b$ value at 63 GeV
800: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_leakage_binom}),
801: the parameter $p_1$ controlling the leakage of particles emitted by
802: clans in one hemisphere to the opposite one can be determined:
803: we find $p_1=0.78$, i.e., on the average 22\% of particle population
804: within a clan are expected to leak in the opposite hemisphere.
805: Since the average number of particles
806: per clan for the soft component goes from $\approx 2$ at 63 GeV up
807: to $\approx 2.44$ at
808: 900 GeV (clans are almost of the same size) it is quite reasonable
809: to conclude that $p_1$ is approximately energy independent in the
810: region.
811:
812: By using the $p_1$ value for the soft component at 546 GeV in
813: Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_leakage_binom}),
814: the value of the parameter $p_2$ controlling leakage effect in the semi-hard
815: component can also be determined: it is found that $p_2=0.77$, a pretty
816: close value to $p_1$. Clan structure analysis can help in understanding this
817: result: average clan size goes from 1.64 at 200 GeV up to 2.63 at 900 GeV
818: for the semi-hard component. A very small difference with respect to
819: the clan size for the soft component at the same c.m.\ energy.
820: In addition,
821: since the increase of clan size for the semi-hard component from 200 GeV up
822: to 900 GeV is indeed quite small, the $p_2$ value 0.77 can be considered
823: approximately also constant in the GeV energy range.
824:
825: With the just mentioned constant values of $p_1$ and $p_2$
826: parameters, and assuming the c.m.\ energy dependence of the average charged
827: particle multiplicity $\nbar$ corrected by a $\ln^2 s$ term as
828: indicated in Eq.~(\ref{eq:B}),
829: the general trend of the $b$ energy dependence from ISR up to top
830: $p\bar p$ CERN Collider energy obtained by superimposing soft and semi-hard
831: components effects is correctly reproduced. It agrees in particular with the
832: phenomenological fit proposed by different Collaborations
833: \cite{UA5:correlations,NA22:FB} in the full
834: range, i.e., $b= -0.019 + 0.061 \ln s$ (dotted line in
835: Figs.~\ref{fig:b12} and \ref{fig:b}).
836:
837: The just mentioned assumptions on $p_1$, $p_2$ and $\nbar$ are extended to the
838: TeV region. At 900 GeV a clear bending in the behaviour of the total strength
839: is visible in all three scenarios (full line \zapf{\char'301} in
840: Fig.~\ref{fig:b})
841: and is not compatible
842: with the logarithmic increase of $b$ in the GeV energy range.
843: In view of this result, should one question the validity of our assumptions
844: on the constant behaviour of $p_1$ and $p_2$ leakage parameters for the
845: soft and semi-hard components in the TeV region? Lack of sound experimental
846: data prevent us from making sharp statements on the problem. A possible
847: insight comes again from clan structure analysis in the new energy domain.
848:
849: The average number of particle per clan for the soft component is growing
850: from 2.63 at 900 GeV up to 2.98 at 14 TeV (and from 2 at 63 GeV).
851: Therefore
852: constant $p_1$ seems a quite well founded assumption (it should be
853: pointed out that variations of one-two per cent in the $p_1$ and $p_2$ values
854: as will be the case by increasing the average number of particles per clan
855: of one unit do not change the overall scenario we are discussing).
856:
857: The same conclusion can be drawn in the TeV region for the
858: semi-hard component
859: in scenario 1 where the average number of particles per clans goes from
860: 2.63 at 900 GeV to 3.28 at 14 TeV and which shares with the soft component
861: KNO scaling properties. But it is not true in general when KNO scaling
862: violations are expected to occur: the average number of particle per clan
863: goes for instance in scenario 2 from 2.63 at 900 GeV up to 7.36 at 14 TeV:
864: one should see more particle leakage from clans
865: and accordingly a decreasing $p_2$ value as c.m.\ energy
866: increases. This request can be taken into account
867: as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:b}:
868: $b$ bending becomes even higher assuming that $p_2$ is for instance a
869: logarithmic increasing function of c.m.\ energy in the TeV region and the
870: corresponding leakage effect decreasing (curves \zapf{\char'302} in the
871: figure).
872: The opposite situation occurs in the three scenarios and in particular in
873: scenario 2 and 3 assuming that $p_2$ is a logarithmically decreasing function
874: of the c.m.\ energy (curves \zapf{\char'300} in the figure)
875:
876: A similar global $b$ behaviour is found indeed
877: in the three scenarios when corresponding
878: $D^2_n / \nbar^2$ values are approximately the same.
879: Larger differences
880: appear when the increase of $\nbar$ with c.m.\ energy is not compensated by
881: a comparable decreasing of $k$ parameter. It is also clear that
882: asymptotically the above mentioned ratio will depend on $k$ parameter only.
883:
884: The bending of the total FB multiplicity correlation strength in
885: Fig.~\ref{fig:b}, in view of Eq.~(\ref{eq:b_leakage_binom}), is a
886: natural consequence of the fact that the quantity $\nbar/(\nbar + k)$
887: goes to 1 for increasing energy. This consideration notwithstanding,
888: it is shown that an increasing leakage effect leads to an increase of
889: $b$ towards its maximum value $b=1$. The impression is that in order
890: to get a quick saturation of $b$, larger leakage and clans with higher
891: population densities are needed: this could be a signal of a possible
892: onset of a third class of hard events, harder than soft and semi-hard
893: events discussed in this paper, producing the two requested effects.
894:
895: Although our approach is limited to full phase-space only and therefore
896: kinematical constraints at the border of the allowed rapidity range
897: as well as short range correlations effects from central rapidity
898: intervals might influence our claims, it seems quite reasonable
899: to say that the bending effect should be expected in the TeV
900: region. The deep connection between FB charged particle
901: multiplicity correlation strength $b$, leakage effects and clan structure
902: analysis in the framework of the superposition mechanism of
903: different classes of events suggested by the present approach in order to
904: try to understand and regulate $b$ bending should also
905: be tested in future experiment at LHC with the Alice detector.
906: Our results on $b$ bending effect should be compared with other
907: predictions based on different models \cite{jdd:FB,Carruthers:FB}.
908:
909: Another aspect of the problem should be examined for completeness:
910: is the linear relations between $\nbar_B(n_F)$ and $n_F$,
911: shown in Eq.~(\ref{eq:nb_linear_nf}),
912: affected by the assumptions which have been made in order to determine
913: the energy dependence of the total FB multiplicity
914: correlation strength $b$?
915:
916:
917: \begin{figure}
918: \begin{center}
919: \mbox{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure_exact.ps}}
920: \end{center}
921: \caption{Results of our model for $\nbar_B(n_F)$ vs.\ $n_F$ compared
922: to experimental data \cite{ISR:FB,UA5:correlations}
923: in full phase-space at 63 GeV (a) and in the
924: pseudo-rapidity interval $|\eta|<4$ at 900 GeV (b).
925: Theoretical predictions at 14 TeV in f.p.s. for constant $p_2$
926: (c) and $p_2$ decreasing logarithmically with energy (d) are
927: also shown.}\label{fig:MC}
928: \end{figure}
929:
930: Following the von Bahr-Ekspong theorem \cite{Ekspong:theorem},
931: in fact, the linear behaviour of
932: $\nbar_B(n_F)$ vs.\ $n_F$, the binomial distribution of particles in the
933: forward and backward hemispheres and the occurrence of the NBMD
934: are not independent statements. They are strongly linked: the validity
935: of any two of them implies the validity of the third.
936: It is clear that the linearity of the relation is violated in the
937: soft and semi-hard components separately in our approach: in fact, it should
938: be pointed out that in the first step of the production process clans,
939: not particles, are binomially distributed in the two hemispheres with
940: $p=1/2$, and that in the second step each clan generates particles, binomially
941: distributed in the two hemispheres but with $p_1$ and $p_2$ different from 1/2.
942: Accordingly, the final particles are not binomially distributed in the
943: two hemispheres. Being the multiplicity distribution of the two
944: classes of events a NBMD, the linearity of FB multiplicity
945: correlations in each substructure cannot be exact.
946: An example of a mild violation of linearity in the soft component
947: is shown
948: in Fig.~\ref{fig:MC}(a) where $\nbar_B(n_F)$ is plotted vs.\ $n_F$
949: at ISR energies (63 GeV).
950: In addition, the extremely good fit of experimental data obtained by using
951: a single NB(Pascal)MD for describing this component
952: which in this case represents the total MD
953: (at this energy the
954: semi-hard component has been assumed to be negligible) is an indirect
955: confirmation of the validity of our argument.
956: Of course by going to higher c.m.\ energies in $pp$ collisions one
957: expects that the linearity violation occur not only in the soft
958: component but also in the semi-hard one.
959: The linearity violation in each separate components is shown
960: in Fig.~\ref{fig:MC}(b)
961: at 900 GeV c.m energy: parameters from the two fits proposed in
962: \cite{Fug} have been used; their values determine the borders of the bands
963: shown in the figure;
964: the $p_2$ parameter has been taken equal to 0.77.
965:
966: It should be pointed out that since the total multiplicity
967: distribution resulting from the weighted superposition of events of
968: the two separate substructures (with and without mini-jets) is not of
969: NB type, and in view of the lack of binomial
970: structure in the final charged particles MD
971: in the two hemispheres,
972: the linear behaviour of $\nbar_B(n_F)$ vs.\ $n_F$ can in
973: principle be restored for the total MD in
974: agreement with the von Bahr-Ekspong theorem.
975:
976: In Fig.~\ref{fig:MC}(c) and (d),
977: predictions at 14 TeV by using the parameters
978: of the QCD-inspired scenario (labelled 3B in our notation) are given
979: for $p_2 = 0.77$ as in the GeV region and for $p_2$ logarithmically
980: decreasing with c.m.\ energy in the TeV region ($p_2 = 0.72$ at 14
981: TeV). They confirm the general trend of $\nbar_B(n_F)$ vs.\ $n_F$
982: seen at 900 GeV. The previously discussed scenarios 1B and 2B lead in
983: this case to very small modification (not shown).
984:
985: Some comments are needed in order to understand the
986: theoretical predictions of the weighted superposition
987: mechanism of the soft and semi-hard components for the general trend
988: of $\nbar_B(n_F)$ vs.\ $n_F$ and its linear behaviour found
989: experimentally in $|\eta|<4$ at 900 GeV by UA5 Collaboration
990: (Fig.~\ref{fig:MC}(b)).
991:
992: The theoretical predictions are based on a separation of the two
993: components which comes from fits \cite{Fug} to the total charged MD
994: and not from an event-by-event classification.
995: The idea of separating the total class of events into two components
996: is correct in principle---as we have shown in our work---but is
997: questionable here in its application.
998: Different sets of NB parameters for the two components could lead to
999: good fits of the total charged MD. Two sets we used are taken from
1000: \cite{Fug} and their predictions collected in bands in
1001: Fig.~\ref{fig:MC}(b). Results should be considered
1002: therefore only indicative of the general trend, which we consider quite
1003: satisfactory, especially for large $n_F$ values in the semi-hard
1004: component and small $n_F$ values in the soft one, as visible in the
1005: figure.
1006:
1007: The second warning comes from intrinsic limitations of our approach.
1008: The choice to perform our study analytically led us to consider the $p_1$
1009: and $p_2$ parameters approximately constant throughout the GeV region,
1010: an approximation which might turn out to be not correct and in any
1011: case to imply small modifications of our results.
1012:
1013: In addition our predictions are based on the separation of the events
1014: into two classes.
1015: The onset of a third class of the same kind as that which could modify
1016: the $b$ bending effect described in Fig.~\ref{fig:b}---when
1017: properly inserted in our approach---could lead to different results.
1018:
1019: All these considerations apply of course also to the FB multiplicity
1020: correlation strength energy dependence discussed in Fig.~\ref{fig:b}
1021: and testify that our predictions, in view of the lack of detailed
1022: experimental data, should be considerd only indicative of the
1023: expected general trends.
1024:
1025:
1026:
1027: \section{Conclusions}
1028: General formulas for FB multiplicity correlation strength in the
1029: framework of the superposition mechanism of two weighted MD's
1030: for different classes of events as functions of the average charged
1031: particle multiplicities and dispersions of each class of events are given.
1032: Assuming NB regularity behaviour for 2- and 3-jet samples of events
1033: in \ee\ annihilation at LEP energy, results obtained by OPAL
1034: collaborations are correctly reproduced within experimental errors
1035: in terms of the pure superposition effect, being FB multiplicity
1036: correlation strengths for the two separate classes of events negligible.
1037:
1038: The same approach has been successfully extended to $pp$ collisions.
1039: Differently from \ee\ annihilation, the FB multiplicity correlation
1040: strengths in the two substructures (soft and semi-hard events) turn
1041: out to be quite important and to lead to interesting predictions in
1042: the TeV region in the three scenarios discussed by the Authors in a
1043: previous paper and based on extrapolations of $pp$ collisions
1044: properties in the GeV region.
1045:
1046: In particular an interesting connection is found between the
1047: particle populations within clans, particle leakage from clans
1048: in one hemisphere to the opposite hemisphere and superposition effect
1049: between different substructure of the collision. This finding
1050: favours structures with larger particle populations per clans and
1051: the decrease of the average number of clans. The FB charged particle
1052: multiplicity correlation strength is predicted to bend in all
1053: scenarios in the TeV region.
1054:
1055: The effects of the main assumptions of the present approach on the linear
1056: relation between the average number of particles
1057: emitted in one hemisphere as function of particle emitted in the
1058: opposite hemisphere have also been studied and their expected general
1059: trend at LHC explored.
1060:
1061:
1062: \bibliographystyle{prstyR} % new, using bibref
1063: \bibliography{abbrevs,bibliography}
1064:
1065:
1066: \end{document}
1067:
1068: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1069: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1071: