1: \documentclass[aps,prd,endfloats*,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\sighat}{\hat{\sigma}}
8: \newcommand{\shat}{\hat{s}}
9: \newcommand{\that}{\hat{t}}
10: \newcommand{\uhat}{\hat{u}}
11: \newcommand{\qbar}{\overline q}
12: \newcommand{\np}{{Nuclear Phys.}}
13: \newcommand{\epj}{{European Phys. J.}}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \title{Parameterizations of Invariant Meson Production Cross Sections}
17: \author{Alfred Tang}
18: \email{atang@alum.mit.edu}
19: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Baylor University,
20: P. O. Box 97316, Waco, TX 76798-7316}
21: \author{John W. Norbury}
22: \email{norbury@uwm.edu}
23: \affiliation{Physics Department, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
24: P. O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201.}
25: \date{\today}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: The Lund string fragmentation model is applied in a non-perturbative
29: calculation of
30: the invariant production cross sections of pions from proton-proton
31: collisions in the soft $p_T$ region.
32: Invariant production cross sections of pions and kaons from proton-proton
33: collisions in the hard $p_T$ region
34: are calculated from the Feynman-Field perturbative QCD parton model.
35: Parameterizations of these invariant production cross sections are
36: described.
37: \end{abstract}
38: \pacs{12.38.Bx, 12.40.Ee, 13.85.Ni, 13.87.Fh}
39: \maketitle
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42: This work was originally motivated by the need of parameterized meson
43: production cross sections of $pp\to hX$ reactions ($p$ for primary proton, $h$
44: for identified hadron production and $X$ for unidentified hadron production)
45: for a NASA nuclear
46: transport code called \texttt{HZETRN}~\cite{wilson95}. The parameterization
47: scheme presented here parameterizes theory. Experimental data are used mostly
48: as checks. The parameterizations are based on
49: two main calculations---a non-perturbative QCD string fragmentation Lund model
50: calculation in the soft $p_T$ region $(p_T<1\,\rm GeV)$ and a perturbative
51: QCD Feynman-Field parton model calculation in the hard $p_T$ region
52: $(p_T\ge1\,\rm GeV)$. The threshold of $1\,\rm GeV$ separating the soft
53: and hard $p_T$ regions is chosen to be the proton mass $m_p=938\,\rm MeV$.
54: Descriptions of the Lund and Feynman-Field models can be found in
55: original sources~\cite{andersson98,field} and a review paper~\cite{appen}.
56: Both the Lund model and the Feynman-Field model are stochastic models
57: and are not explicitly quantized. In this sense, both are phenomenological
58: models. The goal of this work is to calculate $E\,d^3\sigma/dp^3$
59: with sufficient accuracy using reasonable theoretical models so that reliable
60: parameterizations of cross section formulas can be determined.
61: The Feynman-Field model is implemented numerically by the Monte Carlo
62: integration package \texttt{VEGAS}~\cite{nr97,lepage80}. The
63: invariant cross sections are parameterized for pions in the soft
64: $p_T$ region and for pions and kaons in the hard $p_T$ regions.
65:
66: \section{Pion Production in the Soft $p_T$ Region}
67: String fragmentation models such as the Lund Model fit experimental data
68: well. String theory reproduces the linear potential predicted
69: by non-perturbative QCD as in lattice gauge field theory. These
70: observations hint at the possibility that QCD string may be
71: conducive to solving non-perturbative QCD. Although
72: the Lund model is a $(1+1)$ model, it reproduces the essential dynamics of
73: the system as long as information on angular momentum is not needed.
74: Typically the Lund model is implemented numerically using Monte Carlo
75: simulation in \texttt{JETSET} and \texttt{PYTHIA}~\cite{sjostrand01}.
76: This section shows how to calculate meson production cross section formulas
77: analytically in the non-perturbative QCD region using the Lund
78: model. Special attention is given to the invariant production cross
79: sections of pions from proton-proton scattering in the soft $p_T$ region
80: $(p_T<1\,\rm GeV)$ where
81: non-perturbative effects dominate. The results of the string model are
82: compared against inclusive pion production cross section data of
83: proton-proton collision.
84:
85: This section uses the same notations of Reference~\cite{andersson98}.
86: The basic result of the Lund Model is the ``area law'' which is
87: summarized as~\cite{andersson98}
88: \be
89: dP=ds\,{dz\over z}\,(1-z)^a\,
90: \prod^n_{j=1}N\,dp^2_{0j}\,\delta^+(p_{0j}^2-m^2)\,
91: \delta\left(p_{rest}-\sum^n_{j=1}p_{0j}\right)\,e^{-bA}.\label{ar}
92: \ee
93: $P$ is the probability of the string fragmentation process,
94: $b$ and $N$ are constants and $s$ is the total energy square of $n$ produced
95: mesons. Lightcone coordinates are used
96: in the Lund model, $x_\pm=t\pm x$ and $p_\pm=E\pm p$. The
97: momentum $p_{rest}=(W_-,W_+)$ is that of the parent virtual quark pair
98: and $p_{0j}$ is that of the $j$-th rank meson. Momentum transfer
99: is $-t=-q^2=W_-W_+$ where $t$ is a Mandelstam variable. The mass of the
100: system is $m$. The area
101: $A=\Gamma+A_{rest}$ of the polygon in Fig.~\ref{pic} has a geometric
102: interpretation as the residual energy of the
103: virtual quark pair following the fragmentation process.
104: $\Gamma=\kappa^2 x_+x_-$, $A$ and $A_{rest}$ are Lorentz invariant kinematic
105: variables. The symbol $z=\sum_j z_{oj}$ denotes the sum of the fractions
106: $z_{0j}$ of lightcone energies
107: of the produced mesons along the $x_+$ direction. The quantity $\Gamma$
108: defines the surface of constant proper time along which the string is broken.
109: The area law captured in Eq.~(\ref{ar}) is usually incorporated into Monte
110: Carlo simulation programs such as \texttt{JETSET} and
111: \texttt{PYTHIA}~\cite{sjostrand01}.
112: Monte Carlo subroutines are too slow for nuclear transport codes.
113: Computational constraints
114: motivate the search for parameterized production cross section formulas.
115:
116: By taking $dP=d\sigma/\sigma_0$, where $\sigma_0$ is the total cross section,
117: and using the identities found in References~\cite{andersson98,appen},
118: Eq.~(\ref{ar}) can be rewiritten as
119: \be
120: d\sigma=\sigma_0\,ds\,dz\,(1-z)^a\,e^{-b\Gamma}\,
121: \delta\left(z-\sum^n_{j=1}z_{oj}\right)\,
122: \delta\left(s-\sum^n_{j=1}{m^2z\over z_{oj}}\right)\,
123: \prod^n_{j=1}N\,{dz_{oj}\over z_{oj}}\,e^{-bA_{rest}},\label{ar2}
124: \ee
125: where $z_{oj}$ is the fraction of
126: the parent quark momentum $p_+$ that goes
127: into the momentum $p_{oj+}$ of $j$-th rank meson. For $n>1$, the area
128: $A_{rest}$ can be divided into $n$ rectangles so that
129: \be
130: A_{rest}=\sum^n_{j=1}A_{oj}.
131: \ee
132: Fig.~\ref{pic} illustrates the first of such $n$ rectangles and the
133: geometric properties of the measures of its sides. By utilizing the
134: relation
135: \be
136: p_{oj+}={\Gamma\over p_{oj-}},
137: \ee
138: it can be shown that
139: \be
140: A_{oj}=z_{oj}\,\Gamma.
141: \ee
142: When $n=1$, there are 2 vertices and $A_{rest}=z_{o1}\Gamma$. In this case,
143: Eq.~(\ref{ar2}) can be integrated over $s$ and $z$ to give
144: \be
145: d\sigma=\sigma_0\,N\,(1-z)^a\,e^{-b(1+z)\Gamma}\,{dz\over z}.
146: \ee
147: It is easy to show that the Feynman variable $x=p_z/(p_z)_{max}$ is equal to
148: $z$ when there is only 1 produced meson so that $dx=dz$. The
149: differential cross section is found to be
150: \be
151: {d\sigma\over dx}=\sigma_0\,N\,{(1-z)^a\over z}\,e^{-b(1+z)\Gamma}.
152: \label{ar3}
153: \ee
154: The invariant quantity
155: \be
156: \Gamma=m_h\,e^{\mp y}\left(W_\pm-m_h\,e^{\pm y}\right),\label{gamma}
157: \ee
158: where $m_h$ is the mass the produced meson,
159: can be understood intuitively through geometrical considerations by focusing
160: on the rectangle in the spacetime diagram next to the first rank vertex $V_1$
161: in Fig.~\ref{pic}. Generally, the lightcone energies of the parent quarks
162: can be taken to be the momentum transfer $W_-=W_+=q$.
163: The feynman variable can be defined as
164: \be
165: x\equiv{p_z\over (p_z)_{max}}={2m_h\sinh y\over q}.\label{feyn2}
166: \ee
167: With Eqs.~(\ref{gamma}) and (\ref{feyn2}), Eq.~(\ref{ar3}) can be rewritten as
168: \ba
169: {d\sigma\over dx}&=&\left[\sigma_0\,N\,{(1-z)^a\over z}
170: \,e^{-b(1+z)m_h\,e^{-y}(q-m_h\,e^{-y})}\right]\,e^{-b(1+z)q(q-m_h\,e^{-y})x}\\
171: &\simeq&\left[\sigma_0\,N\,{(1-z)^a\over z}\,e^{-b(1+z)m_h(q-m_h)}\right]\,
172: e^{-b(1+z)q(q-m_h)x}\label{expo_a}\\
173: &\equiv& C\,e^{-Dx}.
174: \label{expo}
175: \ea
176: Eq.~(\ref{expo_a}) is obtained by setting $y=0$. In general, experimental
177: data average over rapidity that typically centers around zero such that
178: $y=0$ is a reasonable simplification. In addition, average values of
179: internal variables $z$ and $q$ are used in Eq.~(\ref{expo_a}) so that
180: $C$ and $D$ can be treated as
181: constants when comparing with experimental data.
182: The form of Eq.~(\ref{expo}) is consistent with
183: experimental data as shown in Figs.~\ref{ba84} and \ref{aj87}.
184:
185: When $n=2$, Eq.~(\ref{ar2}) is transformed as follow by integrating over
186: $z_{o1}$ and $z_{o2}$ and letting $\xi\equiv z_{o1}(z-z_{o1})$:
187: \ba
188: d\sigma&=&\sigma_0\,N\,(1-z)^a\,dz\,\delta(z-z_{o1}-z_{o2})\,
189: ds\,\delta\left(s-{m^2z\over z_{o1}}-{m^2z\over z_{o2}}\right)\nonumber\\
190: &&\quad\times
191: {dz_{o1}\over z_{o1}}\,{dz_{o2}\over z_{o2}}\,e^{-b\Gamma}\,
192: e^{-b(z_{01}+z_{o2})\Gamma}\nonumber\\
193: &=&\sigma_0\,N\,(1-z)^a\,dz\,
194: ds\,\delta\left(s-{m^2z\over z_{o1}}-{m^2z\over z-z_{o1}}\right)\,
195: {dz_{o1}\over z_{o1}(z-z_{o1})}\,e^{-b(1+z)\Gamma}\nonumber\\
196: &=&\sigma_0\,N\,(1-z)^a\,dz\,
197: ds\,\delta\left(s-{m^2z\over\xi}\right)\,
198: {d\xi\over\xi\sqrt{z^2-4\xi}}\,e^{-b(1+z)\Gamma}\nonumber\\
199: &=&\sigma_0\,N\,(1-z)^a\,dz\,ds\,
200: {1\over s\sqrt{z^2-{4m^2\over s}}}\,\,e^{-b(1+z)\Gamma}.\label{ar4}
201: \ea
202: One of the typical assumptions of the form of momentum transfer in QCD is
203: $-t=-q^2=4p_T^2$. With the relations
204: $s\simeq -t-(1+z)\Gamma=4p_T^2-(1+z)\Gamma$,
205: we obtain
206: \be
207: ds=4dp_T^2,\label{ds}
208: \ee
209: by keeping $z$ and $\Gamma$ constant. On the lightcone, $p_z=E$ so that
210: \be
211: dz={dE\over E}={dp_z\over E}.\label{dz}
212: \ee
213: Eqs.~(\ref{ds}) and (\ref{dz}) together give the relation
214: \be
215: dz\,ds=4\,{dp^2_T\,dp_z\over E}=4\,{dp^3\over E}.\label{dp3E}
216: \ee
217: By combining Eqs.~(\ref{ar4}) and (\ref{dp3E}), the invariant production
218: cross section can finally be shown to be
219: \be
220: E\,{d^3\sigma\over dp^3}=
221: {4N\,(1-z)^a\,\sigma_0\over\sqrt{s^2z^2-4s\,m^2}}\,e^{-b(1+z)\Gamma}.
222: \label{expo_inv}
223: \ee
224: If $W_+$ in Eq.~(\ref{gamma}) is taken to be $q=2p_T$, Eq.~(\ref{expo_inv})
225: can be expressed in terms of $p_T$ as
226: \ba
227: E\,{d^3\sigma\over dp^3}&=&\left[
228: {4N\,(1-z)^a\,\sigma_0\over\sqrt{s^2z^2-4s\,m^2}}\,
229: e^{b(1+z)\,m_h^2}\right]\,e^{-2b(1+z)\,m_h\,e^{-y}\,p_T}\\
230: \label{expo_pT_a}
231: &\simeq&\left[{4N\,(1-z)^a\,\sigma_0\over\sqrt{s^2z^2-4s\,m^2}}\,
232: e^{b(1+z)\,m_h^2}\right]\,e^{-2b(1+z)\,m_h\,p_T}\\
233: &\equiv&A\,e^{-B\,p_T}.\label{expo_pT}
234: \ea
235: Again $y=0$ is assumed in Eq.~(\ref{expo_pT_a}). Average values of
236: $s$ and $z$ are used when comparing with experimental data so that
237: $A$ and $B$ are treated as constants.
238: It must be emphasized that $s$ is not the beam energy square but the total
239: energy square
240: of the produced mesons in the string fragmentation process.
241: The parameters for pion cross section are listed in Table~\ref{softpar}.
242: $B$ is extracted from data as shown in Figs.~\ref{pp_non}--\ref{pi0_non}.
243: $A$ is chosen to match the pion cross sections at the boundary of
244: $p_T=1\,\rm GeV$ between the soft and hard $p_T$ regions so that
245: \be
246: A=3\times10^{-28}\,e^B
247: \ee
248: in unit of $\rm cm^2/GeV^2$ for pions. These figures suggest that the cross
249: sections are approximately constant in $\sqrt{s}$ and $\theta_{cm}$ in the
250: range of energy being parameterized $(22\,{\rm GeV}<\sqrt{s}<63\,\rm GeV)$.
251: Therefore the present parameterization of pion production cross sections for
252: $p_T<1\,\rm GeV$ is
253: expected to be valid for the energy range not narrower than
254: $20\,{\rm GeV}<\sqrt{s}<70\,\rm GeV$.
255: Kaons are not analyzed nor parameterized because of insuffucient data.
256:
257: \section{Pion and Kaon production in the hard $p_T$ region}
258:
259: The invariant cross sections of pions and kaons from proton-proton
260: scattering in the hard $p_T$
261: region $(p_T\ge1\,\rm GeV)$ are treated in this section by using
262: perturbative QCD. The theoretical foundation of
263: the present calculation is based on the Feynman-Field parton model.
264: A comprehensive review of the model is given in References~\cite{field,appen}.
265: The cross sections are parameterized at the end.
266:
267: The Feynman-Field invariant production cross section formula
268: incorporates the parton
269: distribution functions, $f_{A/a}(x_a, Q^2)$, obtained from DIS experiments
270: and the fragmentation functions, $D^h_q(z, Q^2)$, derived from a combination
271: of stochastic arguments and parameterizations of data. The cross section
272: formula is given as~\cite{field}
273: \be
274: E\,{d^3\sigma\over dp^3}={1\over\pi}\sum_{a,b}\int^1_{x_a^{min}}dx_a
275: \int^1_{x_b^{min}}dx_b\,f_{A/a}(x_a,Q^2)\,f_{B/b}(x_b,Q^2)\,D^h_c(z_c,Q^2)\,
276: {1\over z_c}\,{d\sighat\over d\that},\label{csf}
277: \ee
278: with
279: \ba
280: x_a^{min}&=&{x_1\over1-x_2},\\
281: x_b^{min}&=&{x_a x_2\over x_a-x_1}.
282: \ea
283: Monte Carlo integration package \texttt{VEGAS} is used to calculate
284: Eq.~(\ref{csf}). The parton distributions of proton is
285: given by the \texttt{CTEQ6} package~\cite{cteq6}.
286: The QCD running coupling constant, $\alpha_s(Q^2)$,
287: is the renormalized
288: coupling constant described in Reference~\cite{appen}. A typical value of
289: $\Lambda=0.4\,{\rm GeV}$ is used inside $\alpha_s(Q^2)$. The internal
290: scattering cross sections of the reactions $q_i\qbar_i\to gg$ and
291: $gg\to gg$ are excluded from the integral
292: because gluons do not fragment into hadrons.
293: The fragmentation functions used for this calculation are the
294: original fragmentation functions of Feynman and Field~\cite{ff78}.
295: For the $pp\to\pi\,X$ reactions, the fragmentation functions are
296: \be
297: D^{\pi^0}_u(z)=D^{\pi^0}_d(z)=\left[{\beta\over2}
298: +\beta^2\left({1-z\over z}\right)\right]\,(n+1)\,(1-z)^n,
299: \ee
300: \be
301: D^{\pi^0}_s(z)=\beta^2\left({1-z\over z}\right)\,(n+1)\,(1-z)^n,
302: \ee
303: \be
304: D^{\pi^-}_d(z)=D^{\pi^+}_u(z)=\left[\beta
305: +\beta^2\left({1-z\over z}\right)\right]\,(n+1)\,(1-z)^n,
306: \ee
307: \be
308: D^{\pi^{\pm}}_s(z)=D^{\pi^+}_d(z)=D^{\pi^-}_u(z)=
309: \beta^2\left({1-z\over z}\right)\,(n+1)\,(1-z)^n,
310: \ee
311: and for $pp\to K\,X$ reactions, the fragmentation functions are
312: \be
313: D^{K^+}_u(z)=D^{K^0}_d(z)={1\over2}\,\left[\beta
314: +\beta^2\left({1-z\over z}\right)\right]\,(n+1)\,(1-z)^n,
315: \ee
316: \be
317: D^{K^+}_s(z)=D^{K^0}_s(z)=D^{K^+}_d(z)=D^{K^0}_u(z)=
318: {\beta^2\over2}\,\left({1-z\over z}\right)\,(n+1)\,(1-z)^n,
319: \ee
320: \be
321: D^{\overline{K}^0}_s(z)=D^{K^-}_s(z)=\left[\beta
322: +{\beta^2\over2}\,\left({1-z\over z}\right)\right]\,(n+1)\,(1-z)^n,
323: \ee
324: \be
325: D^{K^-}_d(z)=D^{K^-}_u(z)=D^{\overline{K}^0}_d(z)=D^{\overline{K}^0}_u(z)=
326: {\beta^2\over2}\,\left({1-z\over z}\right)\,(n+1)\,(1-z)^n,
327: \ee
328: where $\beta=0.4$.
329: The distributions of $c$, $b$ and $t$ quarks are sufficiently low that
330: \be
331: D^h_c(z)=D^h_b(z)=D^h_t(z)=0,
332: \ee
333: for any hadron $h$. Feynman fixed $n=2$ in his original paper. In this work,
334: $n$ is a parameter freely adjusted to fit data.
335: There is a subtlety involved in summing all the
336: parton contributions over $a$ and $b$ in Eq.~(\ref{csf}) that is related to
337: the relative probabilitistic nature of the parton distributions and our
338: ignorance of the number of sea quarks and gluons inside the proton.
339: The parton distributions are normalized to
340: unity so that they give only the relative distributions of the partons.
341: The parton distributions give only the ratios of the partons in a hadron but
342: not their numbers. In order to sum over $a$ and $b$ partons in Eq.~(\ref{csf})
343: correctly, an integral multiplicative constant for
344: each of the hadrons $A$ and $B$ must be provided.
345: These multiplicative integral constants are not
346: known {\em a prior\'{i}} but are determined {\em a posterior\'{i}}
347: by fitting data. In other words, Eq.~(\ref{csf}) can be modified as
348: \ba
349: E\,{d^3\sigma\over dp^3}&=&{N_A\,N_B\over\pi}\,
350: \sum_{\{a,b\}}\,\int^1_{x_a^{min}}dx_a
351: \int^1_{x_b^{min}}dx_b\nonumber\\
352: &&\quad\times f_{A/a}(x_a,Q^2)\,f_{B/b}(x_b,Q^2)\,
353: D^h_c(z_c,Q^2)\,{1\over z_c}\,{d\sighat\over d\that},\label{csf2}
354: \ea
355: where $N_A$ and $N_B$ are the multiplicative constants corresponding
356: to $f_{A/a}(x_a, Q^2)$
357: and $f_{B/b}(x_b, Q^2)$ respectively and $\sum_{\{a,b\}}$ is the sum over
358: the parton {\em types} instead of a sum over the partons {\em per se}.
359: If $A=B$, the overall multiplicative constant, $N_A\,N_B$, is an integer
360: square. If $A\ne B$, the overall constant, $N_A\,N_B$,
361: is still an integer. In the case of fitting pQCD calculations
362: to experimental data of a $pp\to\pi X$ reaction, a factor of 100 is missing
363: if one simply sums over the parton types. It implies that the multiplicative
364: constant for the parton distributions of proton is $N_p=10$. The cross
365: sections for $K$ production is approximately half of that of $\pi$
366: production. It implies that the multiplicative constant for the
367: $pp\to K\,X$ reaction may be $N_p=7$. For the purpose parameterizing the shape
368: of the kaon production cross section, an exact scale is not required.
369: Therefore
370: $N_p$ in the $pp\to KX$ reactions is arbitrarily set to be the same as that of
371: $pp\to\pi X$ reactions at $N_p=10$. This choice is adequate because
372: fits to experimental data of kaons are not being pursued in this work due to
373: the lack of experimental data for kaons.
374:
375: It is observed that the invariant production cross sections
376: have the same basic shape regardless of the reactions, {\em i.e.} an
377: exponentially decaying function of the form $\exp(-\alpha x^\beta)$ at low
378: $p_T$ and a suppression at high $p_T$ which drops off to zero before the edge
379: of suppresion at $p_T\le\sqrt{s}/2$. The cross
380: section is at its maximum at $p_T=0$ and decreases monotonically in $p_T$.
381: The Feynman-Field code used in this calculation assumes that
382: $Q^2=4p_T^2$. In other words, by combining the previous two statements, the
383: cross section is at its maximum at $Q^2=0$ and decreases monotonically in
384: $Q^2$. This observation indicates that hadron fragmentation
385: is more favorable at low $Q^2$ in that a parton preserves more kinetic
386: energy to be made available for hadron fragmentation. It is also observed
387: that the cross section is suppressed at high $p_T$ and that the edge of
388: suppression of the cross section is $\sqrt{s}/2$ at low
389: $p_T$ and gradually increases toward high $p_T$. The reason for this
390: phenomenon is mostly due to the choice of $Q^2=4p_T$ such that
391: $s\ge Q^2$ or equivalently $\sqrt{s}/2\ge p_T$. It turns out that the
392: edge of suppression along $p_T$ is a function of $\sqrt{s}$. The comments
393: made so far apply to any angle $\theta_{cm}$ when $\sqrt{s}$ is replaced by
394: $\sin\theta\sqrt{s}$. The basic features of the graphs of the invariant
395: cross section is discussed in Reference~\cite{appen}.
396:
397: A lot of effort has been invested in parameterizing
398: $E\,d^3\sigma/dp^3$ from experimental data for use in the \texttt{HZETRN}
399: code~\cite{steve}. This work takes a different approach by parameterizing
400: theory. Experimental data are used merely as a means to fine-tune the
401: parameterizations.
402: Monte Carlo integration is the fastest numerical integration scheme available
403: but it is not faster than an analytic formula.
404: On the other hand, the explicit computation of the double integrals in
405: the Feynman-Field model is a daunting task if tractable at all.
406: These constraints motivate the present parameterization
407: scheme. The method of finding the parameters is mostly one of trial-and-error.
408: Guesses of the appropriate functions are made for different parts of the curve.
409: The pieces are put back together at the end and refit until the
410: parameterization has the desired global properties. The final form of
411: paramterized cross section formula is found to be
412: \ba
413: E\,{d^3\sigma\over dp^3}(\sqrt{s},\,p_T,\,\theta_{cm})&=&A\,
414: e^{-35.4\beta\,(p_T^\beta-1)}\nonumber\\
415: &&\times\left[\exp\left(1-\csc\left(\left(
416: {p_T-1\over a\left({\sin\theta_{cm}\sqrt{s}\over2}-1\right)}\right)^{b\beta}
417: {\pi\over2}\right)\right)\right]^{1\over b\beta},\label{para}
418: \ea
419: for $p_T-1<a\left({\sin\theta_{cm}\sqrt{s}\over2}-1\right)$. It is taken that
420: \be
421: E\,{d^3\sigma\over dp^3}=0,
422: \ee
423: for $p_T-1\ge a\left({\sin\theta_{cm}\sqrt{s}\over2}-1\right)$.
424: $A$ is a scale factor such that
425: \be
426: A=E\,{d^3\sigma\over dp^3}(\sqrt{s},\,p_T=1,\,\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}).
427: \ee
428: The functions $a$ and $\beta$ are
429: \be
430: a=2-e^{-\alpha\,\sin\theta_{cm}\sqrt{s}},
431: \ee
432: \be
433: \beta=\beta_0+\beta_1\,\left(\sin\theta_{cm}\sqrt{s}\right)^{-\beta_2},
434: \ee
435: and the parameters $a$, $b$, $\beta_0$, $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are freely
436: adjusted
437: to fit the curve. The unit of energy-momentum is GeV for the present
438: parameterization. $A$ is determined by varying $n$ to fit the data with
439: the Feynman-Field calculation.
440: The first exponential in
441: Eq.~(\ref{para}) controls the shape of the curve at low $p_T$ and
442: the square bracket term controls the suppression at high $p_T$. The function
443: $a$ shifts the edge of the suppression so that the edge is located at
444: $\sqrt{s}/2$ at low $p_T$ and $\sqrt{s}$ at high $p_T$. There is a
445: threshold $p_T\sim0.2\,{\rm GeV}$ set by the \texttt{CTEQ6} package.
446: In addition, non-perturbative effects become more prominent in the soft $p_T$
447: region $(p_T<1\,\rm GeV)$ so that the pQCD code cannot be applied there.
448: For these reasons, the present parameterization focuses on the region
449: $p_T\ge1\,{\rm GeV}$. The rapidity
450: distributions of hadron production is typically symmetric around $y=0$.
451: From~\cite{wong94}
452: \be
453: \eta=-\ln[\tan(\theta/2)]=
454: {1\over2}\,\ln\left[{\sqrt{m^2_T\cosh^2y-m^2}+m_T\sinh y\over
455: \sqrt{m^2_T\cosh^2y-m^2}-m_T\sinh y}\right]
456: \ee
457: and
458: \be
459: y={1\over2}\,\ln\left({E+p_z\over E-p_z}\right),
460: \ee
461: it can be easily shown that $y=0$, $x_L=p_z/(p_z)_{max}=0$ and
462: $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ are the same statements. Many experiments
463: average the data over a range of $y$ or $x_L$ symmetric around zero. In
464: these cases, the average center-of-momentum angle,
465: $\overline{\theta}_{cm}$, would be $90^{\circ}$, which happens to be the
466: most prominent contribution according to Fig.~\ref{test_deg}.
467: Hadron productions in
468: space radiation problems are mostly in the forward direction or equivalently
469: $\theta=0$. In highly relativistic regimes,
470: $\overline{\theta}_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ is transformed to a small
471: $\theta_{lab}$. For example, $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ is
472: equivalent to $\theta_{lab}=9.17^{\circ}$ at
473: $\sqrt{s}=70\,{\rm GeV}$~\cite{abramov80}. The scattering angle $\theta_{lab}$
474: decreases as
475: $\sqrt{s}$ increases. At sufficiently high $\sqrt{s}$, $\theta_{lab}$
476: is effectively zero so that a one-dimensional transport code is
477: justified and that the largest angular contribution of the cross section is
478: that at $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$.
479:
480: Figs.~\ref{pip_en}-\ref{km_en} show the goodness of fit between the
481: parameterized cross sections and the pQCD calculations at
482: $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ and Fig.~\ref{pip_deg_c} shows the goodness of
483: fit at various angles. Apparently the same parameterization
484: of $\beta$ works for all types of pions and kaons
485: (see Figs.~\ref{pip_en}--\ref{km_en}).
486: The Feynman-Field model fits data
487: well when $n$ is allowed to vary as it is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{pip_demo}.
488: Generally speaking, the parameterization of the model at a fixed value of
489: $n=2$ does not always fit data well. For this reason, data are
490: parameterized separately by reparameterizing $\beta$. The parameterizations
491: of pions are illustrated in Figs.~\ref{pi0}--\ref{pim}. Data of kaons
492: are fragmented so that only the theory (but not the data) is parameterized.
493: The parameters are tabulated in Table~\ref{partable}. The parameterization
494: of data is distinguished from that of theory by labelling the
495: paramters of the former as $\beta$ and those of the latter $\beta'$. All other
496: parameters are the same for both data and theory.
497: A sample graph of the fit between
498: the present parameterization and data with angular dependence is
499: shown in Fig.~\ref{pip_deg}.
500:
501: The parameters in Table~\ref{partable} are obtained by fitting curves
502: by hand. Curve-fitting algorithm such as the
503: Levenberg-Marquardt does not work well because of the presence of
504: singular matrices inherent in the present model. At this point,
505: there is not a cleverer method to find these parameters automatically. When
506: the parameters are obtained by hand, several data sets of
507: $E\,d^3\sigma/dp^3$ versus $p_T$ at different energies with $p_T>1\,\rm GeV$
508: and
509: $\overline{\theta}_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ are needed. In general, more data sets
510: means smaller $\chi^2$. In the case of parameterizing theory, the Monte
511: Carlo program can generate as many theoretical data sets as needed. In the
512: case of parameterizing experiment, data are generally fragmented except
513: those of pions.
514: At least 3 experimental data sets are needed to fit $\beta$. Pion data
515: are generally quite copious. In the case of kaons, the scarcity
516: of data prevents the parameterization of their experimental fits. The present
517: parameterization of pion production cross sections for $p_T>1\,\rm GeV$ is
518: expected to be valid over $10\,{\rm GeV}<\sin\theta_{cm}\sqrt{s}<70\,\rm GeV$,
519: which is given by the range of energy of the experimental data used in this
520: analysis.
521:
522: Most experiments agree with the shape of theoretical curves. However there are
523: diagreements in the magnitudes of the cross sections among experimental data
524: sets, sometimes even by the same authors. Figs.~\ref{pip} and \ref{pim}
525: show that Abramov {\em et al.} published 2 sets of pion data in identical
526: energy regimes in 2 consecutive years that are different by 3 orders of
527: magnitude\cite{abramov80,abramov81}. This phenomenon occurs
528: quite regularly in $E\,d^3\sigma/dp^3$ data. Some discretion must be
529: exercised in choosing the experimental data to parameterize.
530:
531: \section{Conclusion}
532: This work shows how to use the Lund model to calculate the invariant
533: production cross section non-perturbatively in the soft $p_T$ region.
534: This model predicts that the
535: functional form of the cross section in this sector is a simple exponential.
536: This prediction is confirmed by experiment in the case of pions
537: for $\theta=90^\circ$. The cross section formula in Eq.~(\ref{expo_pT})
538: has no angular nor energy dependence. Although the prediction of angular
539: independence is not yet confirmed by data, energy independence is shown
540: to be approximately correct according to the Figs.~\ref{pp_non}-\ref{pi0_non}.
541: The Feynman-Field model is a work horse
542: for calculating inclusive cross sections and is generally accepted to be
543: an accurate description of data in the high $p_T$ region. Several
544: typical assumptions of pQCD have been adopted in the present calculation
545: that are not necessarily unique, such as
546: the forms of $Q^2$ and the fragmentation functions. The
547: form of momentum transfer is assumed to be $Q^2=4p_T^2$ in the present work.
548: In principle, other guesses, such as
549: \be
550: Q^2={2\shat\that\uhat\over\shat^2+\that^2+\uhat^2},\label{other}
551: \ee
552: can also used. Nevertheless it is unlikely that the use of Eq.~(\ref{other})
553: in the Feynman-Field model
554: will drastically change its predictions. More experimental data of kaons
555: are needed to determine the corresponding paramterizations. Otherwise, the
556: parameterization procedure can in principle be applied to all types of mesons.
557: The production cross sections of baryons are also needed for a realistic
558: nuclear code. It is not yet clear that the Lund model and Feynman-Field can
559: be easily modified to incorporate baryon production. Eventually
560: production cross sections of hadrons from $pA$ and $AA$ collisions must also be
561: included in the transport code.
562: The phenomena of heavy nuclei collisions are much more complicated because
563: many-body effects such as the EMC effect, Cronin effect, nuclear shadowing,
564: jet quenching and gluon-plasma phase transition have to be considered.
565: It is hoped that the present work provide some basic ideas for more
566: complicated calculations to be undertaken in the future.
567:
568: \begin{acknowledgments}
569: This work was supported in part by NASA grant NCC-1-354.
570: \end{acknowledgments}
571:
572: \begin{thebibliography}{}
573: \bibitem{wilson95}
574: J. W. Wilson {\em et al.}, {NASA Technical Paper}, 3495 (1995).
575: \bibitem{andersson98}
576: B. Andersson, {\em The Lund Model.}, (Cambridge, Cambridge, 1998).
577: \bibitem{bailly84}
578: J. L. Bailly, {\em at al.},
579: {Zeitschrift f\"{u}r Physik C}, {\bf 22}, 119 (1984).
580: \bibitem{ajinenko87}
581: I. V. Ajinenko, {\em at al.} in {Zeitschrift f\"{u}r Physik C}, {\bf 35},
582: 7 (1987).
583: \bibitem{banner77}
584: M. Banner, {\em at al.} in \np B, {\bf 126}, 61 (1977).
585: \bibitem{eggert75}
586: K. Eggert, {\em at al.} in \np B, {\bf 98}, 49 (1975).
587: \bibitem{field}
588: R. D. Field, {\em Applications of Perturbative QCD}, (Addison-Wesley,
589: Redwood City, CA, 1989).
590: \bibitem{appen}
591: A. Tang, \eprint{hep-ph/0209167} (September 2002).
592: \bibitem{sjostrand01}
593: T. S\"{o}strand, L. L\"{o}nnblad and S. Mrenna, \eprint{hep-ph/0108264},
594: (31 August 2001).
595: \bibitem{nr97}
596: W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling and B. P. Flannery,
597: {\em Numerical Recipes in C}, (Cambridge, Cambridge, 1997).
598: \bibitem{lepage80}
599: G. P. Lepage, {\em Cornell University Publication}, CLNS-80/447 (1980).
600: \bibitem{steve}
601: S. R. Blattnig, S. R. Swaminathan, A. T. Kruger, M. Ngom and
602: J. W. Norbury, {NASA Technical Paper}, NASA/TP-2000-210640,
603: (December 2000).
604: \bibitem{cteq6}
605: J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. Nadolsky, and W. K. Tung,
606: \eprint{hep-ph/0201195} (22 January 2002).
607: \bibitem{ff78}
608: R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, \np B, {\bf 136}, 1-76 (1978).
609: \bibitem{wong94}
610: C. Y. Wong, {\em Introduction to High-Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions},
611: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).
612: \bibitem{abramov80}
613: V. V. Abramov, {\em et al.}, \np B, {\bf 173}, 348 (1980).
614: \bibitem{abramov81}
615: V. V. Abramov, {\em et al.}, {ZETFP}, {\bf 33}, 304 (1981).
616: \bibitem{jaffe89}
617: D. E. Jaffe, {\em et al.}, \prd, {\bf 40}, 2777 (1989).
618: \bibitem{busser76}
619: F. W. Busser, {\em et al.}, \np B, {\bf 106}, 1 (1976).
620: \bibitem{adams96}
621: D. L. Adams, {\em et al.}, \prd, {\bf 53}, 4747 (1996).
622: \bibitem{demarzo87}
623: C. Demarzo, {\em et al.}, \prd, {\bf 36}, 16 (1987).
624: \bibitem{akesson89}
625: T. Akesson, {\em et al.}, \eprint{CERN-EP/89-98}, (Aug 1989).
626: \bibitem{antreasyan77}
627: D. Antreasyan, {\em et al.}, \prl, {\bf 38}, 112 (1977).
628: \end{thebibliography}
629:
630: \begin{figure}
631: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{pic.eps}
632: \caption{\label{pic}
633: A spacetime diagram of the $(1+1)$ Lund string fragmentation process.
634: The vertices $V_i$ denote the spacetime points of the creation of virtual
635: quark pairs. The quarks are massless so that their trajectories are
636: light-like. The arrows indicate the directions of the trajectories of the
637: produced hadrons.}
638: \end{figure}
639:
640: \begin{figure}
641: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{bailly84.eps}
642: \caption{\label{ba84}
643: Comparison between experimental $d\sigma/dx$ and the string model result.
644: The constants used in the exponential function are chosen to fit the data
645: and are not parameterizations. The data are published in
646: Reference~\cite{bailly84}.}
647: \end{figure}
648:
649: \begin{figure}
650: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ajinenko87.eps}
651: \caption{\label{aj87}
652: Comparison between experimental $E\,d\sigma/dp_L$ and the string model result.
653: The constants used in the exponential function are chosen to fit the data
654: and are not parameterizations. The data are published in
655: Reference~\cite{ajinenko87}.}
656: \end{figure}
657:
658: \begin{figure}
659: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pp_non.eps}
660: \caption{\label{pp_non}
661: Comparison between experiment and theory of $E\,d^3\sigma/dp^3$
662: for $pp\to\pi^+\,X$ in the
663: soft $p_T$ region $(p_T<1 \rm GeV)$.
664: The data are published in Reference~\cite{banner77}.}
665: \end{figure}
666:
667: \begin{figure}
668: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pm_non.eps}
669: \caption{\label{pm_non}
670: Comparison between experiment and theory of $E\,d^3\sigma/dp^3$
671: for $pp\to\pi^-\,X$ in the
672: soft $p_T$ region $(p_T<1 \rm GeV)$.
673: The data are published in Reference~\cite{banner77}.}
674: \end{figure}
675:
676: \begin{figure}
677: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pi0_non.eps}
678: \caption{\label{pi0_non}
679: Comparison between experiment and theory of $E\,d^3\sigma/dp^3$
680: for $pp\to\pi^0\,X$ in the
681: soft $p_T$ region $(p_T<1\,\rm GeV)$.
682: The data are published in Reference~\cite{eggert75}.}
683: \end{figure}
684:
685: \begin{figure}
686: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{test_deg.eps}
687: \caption{\label{test_deg}
688: A sample plot of the Feynman-Field model for $pp\to\pi^+X$
689: at different angles. The plot shows that the
690: invariant cross section is symmetric around $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$
691: and is suppressed at $\theta_{cm}\ne90^{\circ}$.}
692: \end{figure}
693:
694: \begin{figure}
695: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pip_en.eps}
696: \caption{\label{pip_en}
697: Parameterization of the Feynman-Field model for $pp\to\pi^+X$
698: at $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ and $n=2$. The values of $\sqrt{s}$ listed
699: in the figure match the curves from left to right.}
700: \end{figure}
701:
702: \begin{figure}
703: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pim_en.eps}
704: \caption{\label{pim_en}
705: Parameterization of the Feynman-Field model for $pp\to\pi^-X$
706: at $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ and $n=2$. The values of $\sqrt{s}$ listed
707: in the figure match the curves from left to right.}
708: \end{figure}
709:
710: \begin{figure}
711: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pi0_en.eps}
712: \caption{\label{pi0_en}
713: Parameterization of the Feynman-Field model for $pp\to\pi^0X$
714: at $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ and $n=2$. The values of $\sqrt{s}$ listed
715: in the figure match the curves from left to right.}
716: \end{figure}
717:
718: \begin{figure}
719: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{kp_en.eps}
720: \caption{\label{kp_en}
721: Parameterization of the Feynman-Field model for $pp\to K^+X$
722: at $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ and $n=2$. The values of $\sqrt{s}$ listed
723: in the figure match the curves from left to right.}
724: \end{figure}
725:
726: \begin{figure}
727: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{k0_en.eps}
728: \caption{\label{k0_en}
729: Parameterization of the Feynman-Field model for $pp\to K^0X$
730: at $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ and $n=2$. The values of $\sqrt{s}$ listed
731: in the figure match the curves from left to right.}
732: \end{figure}
733:
734: \begin{figure}
735: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{km_en.eps}
736: \caption{\label{km_en}
737: Parameterization of the Feynman-Field model for the reactions
738: $pp\to K^-X$ and $pp\to \overline{K}^0X$
739: at $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$ and $n=2$. The values of $\sqrt{s}$ listed
740: in the figure match the curves from left to right.
741: $K^-$ and $\overline{K}^0$
742: have the same fragmentation functions and hence the same
743: Feynman-Field cross section. However their experimental cross
744: sections may not be the same.}
745: \end{figure}
746:
747: \begin{figure}
748: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pip_deg_par.eps}
749: \caption{\label{pip_deg_c}
750: Parameterization of the Feynman-Field model for $pp\to\pi^+X$
751: at various angles and $n=2$. The values of the angles listed in the
752: figures match the curves from left to right.}
753: \end{figure}
754:
755: \begin{figure}
756: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pip_demo.eps}
757: \caption{\label{pip_demo}
758: Comparisons of the Feynman-Field model fit for $pp\to\pi^+X$ for various
759: $n$ at $\theta_{cm}=90^{\circ}$. The references of the data sets Abromov80,
760: Abramov81, Jaffe89 and
761: Busser76 are~\cite{abramov80}, \cite{abramov81}, \cite{jaffe89} and
762: \cite{busser76} respectively.}
763: \end{figure}
764:
765: \begin{figure}
766: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pi0.eps}
767: \caption{\label{pi0}
768: Comparisons of pQCD and parameterized cross sections with
769: $pp\to\pi^0X$ experimental data at $\overline{\theta}_{cm}=90^{\circ}$.
770: The parameter $n$ in fragmentation functions of the Feynman-Field model
771: are adjusted freely as shown in the graph to fit
772: the data. The references of the data sets Adams96, Demarzo87 and
773: Akesson89 are~\cite{adams96}, \cite{demarzo87} and \cite{akesson89}
774: respectively.}
775: \end{figure}
776:
777: \begin{figure}
778: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pip.eps}
779: \caption{\label{pip}
780: Comparisons of pQCD and parameterized cross sections with
781: $pp\to\pi^+X$ experimental data at $\overline{\theta}_{cm}=90^{\circ}$.
782: The parameter $n$ in fragmentation functions of the Feynman-Field model
783: are adjusted freely as shown in the graph to fit
784: the data. The references of the data sets Abromov80, Abramov81, Jaffe89 and
785: Busser76 are~\cite{abramov80}, \cite{abramov81}, \cite{jaffe89} and
786: \cite{busser76} respectively.}
787: \end{figure}
788:
789: \begin{figure}
790: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pim.eps}
791: \caption{\label{pim}
792: Comparisons of pQCD and parameterized cross sections with
793: $pp\to\pi^-X$ experimental data at $\overline{\theta}_{cm}=90^{\circ}$.
794: The parameter $n$ in fragmentation functions of the Feynman-Field model
795: are adjusted freely as shown in the graph to fit
796: the data. The references of the data sets Abromov80, Abramov81, Jaffe89 and
797: Busser76 are~\cite{abramov80}, \cite{abramov81}, \cite{jaffe89} and
798: \cite{busser76} respectively.}
799: \end{figure}
800:
801: \begin{figure}
802: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{pip_deg.eps}
803: \caption{\label{pip_deg}
804: Comparisons pQCD and parameterized cross sections with
805: $pp\to\pi^+X$ experimental data at various energies and angles.
806: The parameter $n$ in fragmentation functions of the Feynman-Field model
807: are adjusted freely as shown in the graph to fit
808: the data. The experimental data set is published in
809: Reference~\cite{antreasyan77}.}
810: \end{figure}
811:
812: \begin{table}
813: \caption{Parameters of the parameterized cross section formula in the
814: soft $p_T$ region $(p_T<1\,\rm GeV)$. $A$ is
815: chosen to match the pion cross sections at the boundary between the soft and
816: hard $p_T$ regions and has the unit $\rm cm^2/GeV^2$. $B$ is extracted
817: from data as shown in Figs~\ref{pp_non}--\ref{pi0_non}.}
818: \begin{ruledtabular}
819: \begin{tabular}{crrr}
820: & $\pi^0$ & $\pi^+$ & $\pi^-$ \\
821: \hline
822: $A$ & 4.45E-26 & 6.64E-26 & 6.64E-26 \\
823: $B$ & 5.0 & 5.4 & 5.4 \\
824: \end{tabular}
825: \end{ruledtabular}
826: \label{softpar}
827: \end{table}
828:
829: \begin{table}
830: \caption{Parameters of the parameterized cross section formula. $A$ is
831: chosen to fit data and has the unit $\rm cm^2/GeV^2$. $\beta_i$ parameterizes
832: data while $\beta'_i$ parameterizes the Feynman-Field model at $n=2$.
833: $\beta_i$ of kaons are not parameterized because of insufficient data.}
834: \begin{ruledtabular}
835: \begin{tabular}{crrrrrrr}
836: & $\pi^0$ & $\pi^+$ & $\pi^-$ & $K^0$ & $K^+$ & $K^-$ & $\overline{K}^0$ \\
837: \hline
838: $\beta'_0$ & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33 \\
839: $\beta'_1$ & 1.9339 & 1.9339 & 1.9339 & 1.9339 & 1.9339 & 1.7931 & 1.7931\\
840: $\beta'_2$ & 1.0558 & 1.0558 & 1.0558 & 1.0558 & 1.0558 & 0.9849 & 0.9849 \\
841: $\alpha$ & 4.855E-3 & 4.855E-3 & 4.855E-3
842: & 4.855E-3 & 4.855E-3 & 7.5E-3 & 7.5E-3\\
843: $b$ & 0.98 & 1.00 & 0.90 & 1.00 & 0.90 & 0.85 & 0.85 \\
844: $A$ & 3e-28 & 3e-28 & 3e-28 & - & - & - &- \\
845: $\beta_0$ & 0.30 & 0.20 & 0.20 & - & - & - &- \\
846: $\beta_1$ & 0.3337 & 0.3228 & 0.3510 & - & - & - &- \\
847: $\beta_2$ & 0.3774 & 0.1472 & 0.1815 & - & - & - &- \\
848: \end{tabular}
849: \end{ruledtabular}
850: \label{partable}
851: \end{table}
852:
853:
854: \end{document}
855:
856: