1: \documentclass{jpconf}

2: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{amstext}

5: 

6: 

7: 

8: % file:        latexuseful2e.sty

9: % author:      Roberto Ugoccioni

10: % last update: june 4, 2003

11: % purpose:     frequently used definitions in LaTeX version 2e

12: % notes:       this file should be read in via \usepackage in the preamble.

13: 

14: % 0. commands

15: % zapf encoding: allow easy use of zapf font as in: \zapf{X}, where

16: %    X is a string or an octal character as in: \char'342

17: \DeclareTextFontCommand{\zapf}{\fontencoding{U}\fontfamily{pzd}\selectfont}

18: 

19: % 1. names

20: \def\jetset{\textsc{Jetset}}

21: \def\delphi{\textsc{Delphi}}

22: \def\luclus{\textsc{Luclus}}

23: \def\Tevatron{\textsc{Tevatron}}

24: \def\Hera{\textsc{Hera}}

25: 

26: % 2. new definitions in TEXT mode

27: \def\ee{$e^+e^-$}               % e+ e- (annihilations...)

28: \def\hh{$hh$}

29: \def\pp{$pp$}

30: \def\ppbar{$p\bar p$}

31: \def\qq{$q\bar q$}

32: \def\ljet{$l$-jet }

33: \def\hjet{$h$-jet }

34: \newcommand{\roots}[1]{$\sqrt{s} = #1$ GeV} % the well abused root s = xx GeV

35: \def\draftcitations{\def\cite##1{\texttt{[##1]}}}    % useful for early drafts,

36: %                     gives citations as literals instead of numbers

37: % 2.1 particular definitions

38: %   %  to annotate a figure (put text,vectors,anything in it)

39: %   usage:  \figannot[unitlength]{things to put in \picture}

40: %   hint:  start the {} with (xpos,ypos) if you want, or a cr if you don't

41: \newcommand{\figannot}[2][1cm]{

42:  \setlength{\unitlength}{#1}

43:  \begin{picture}(0.1,0.1)#2

44:  \end{picture}

45: }

46: 

47: % 3. new definitions in MATH mode

48: % 3.1 definitions

49: \def\JPsi{J/\Psi}

50: \def\inte{\int\limits}       % integr.symbol with limits on top&bottom

51: \def\GeV{\mathrm{GeV}}       % GeV must be roman inside mathmode

52: \def\nbar{\bar n}            % NB parameters: must be used in math mode

53: \def\Nbar{\bar N}            %   only, or it won't work!

54: \def\nc{{\bar n_c}}          % extra {} ensure subscriting it is ok.

55: \def\as{\alpha_s}

56: \def\pt{p\kern -.2pt\lower 4pt\hbox{\tiny T}}    %works?

57: \def\mt{m\kern -.2pt\lower 4pt\hbox{\tiny T}}    %works?

58: \def\ycut{y_\mathrm{cut}}

59: \def\Ycut{Y_\mathrm{cut}}

60: \def\ptcut{\pt_\mathrm{cut}}

61: \def\gmax{g_\mathrm{max}}

62: \def\p0{P_0(\Delta y)}

63: \def\Dy{\Delta y}

64: \def\lw{\log W}

65: \def\la{\log 2}

66: \def\yc{y_c}

67: \def\ymin{y_{\mathrm{min}}}

68: \def\NB{{\mathrm{NBD}}}

69: \def\chiDF{$\scriptstyle \chi^2$/{\small df}}

70: \def\kt{k_{\perp}}

71: \def\ncut{n_\mathrm{cut}}

72: 

73: % 3.2 constructions

74: \def\avg#1{\langle #1 \rangle}  % <n>:

75: 

76: % 3.3 calligraphic symbols

77: \def\NF{\mathcal{N}_{\kern -1.9pt f}}

78: \def\NC{\mathcal{N}_{\kern -1.7pt c}}

79: \def\vi{\mathcal{V}(\Dy)}

80: \def\P{\mathcal{P}(Q_0,Q_1|Q)}

81: \def\PP{\mathcal{P}}

82: \def\Y{\mathcal{Y}}

83: \def\cY{\mathcal{Y}}

84: \def\cG{\mathcal{G}}

85: 

86: 

87: 

88: 

89: 

90: 

91: 

92: \begin{document}

93: \title{Scenarios for multiplicity distributions in \pp\ collisions in

94: 	the TeV energy region}

95: 

96: \author{Roberto Ugoccioni and Alberto Giovannini}

97: 

98: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Università di Torino and

99: 	INFN, Sezione di Torino, via Giuria 1, 10125 Torino, Italy}

100: 

101: \ead{roberto.ugoccioni@to.infn.it, alberto.giovannini@to.infn.it}

102: 

103: \begin{abstract}

104: Possible scenarios based on available experimental data and

105: phenomenological knowledge of the GeV energy region are extended to

106: the TeV energy region in the framework of the weighted superposition

107: mechanism of soft and semi-hard events. KNO scaling

108: violations, forward-backward multiplicity correlations, $H_q$ vs.\ $q$

109: oscillations and shoulder structures are discussed.

110: \end{abstract}

111: 

112: 

113: 

114: 

115: \section{Introduction}

116: 

117: Given the current difficulty of performing QCD calculations in the

118: realm of multiparticle dynamics, one possible alternative path consists

119: in studying  the features of hadronic final states as

120: obtained in collision experiments. The main motivation is the

121: conviction that  the complex 

122: structures which we observe might very well be simple at the origin, and that 

123: such initial simplicity manifests itself  in terms of regularities in  final 

124: particle multiplicity distributions (MD's).

125: 

126: Indeed, the Pascal regularity \cite{ARS:report} appeared very soon: that final

127: charged particle MD's were well described by the negative binomial

128: (NB), also known as Pascal, distribution was discovered first in

129: cosmic rays observations \cite{Cosmic} in the '60, and later confirmed

130: in the 5--100 GeV energy range in \pp\ collisions and up to 40 GeV in 

131: \ee\ annihilations, as well as in other types of collisions

132: (see, e.g., \cite{Giacomelli+NA22+HRS:1+EMC}.)

133: 

134: The NB (Pascal) distribution is a two-parameter distribution:

135: \begin{equation}

136: 			P_n^{\text{(Pascal)}}(\nbar,k) = \frac{k(k+1)\cdots(k+n-1)}{n!} 

137: 		    \frac{\nbar^n k^k}{(\nbar+k)^{n+k}}

138: \end{equation}

139: where $\nbar$ is the average multiplicity and $1/k$ measures the

140: deviation of the variance $D^2\equiv\avg{n^2} - \nbar^2$ 

141: from the Poisson shape:

142: \begin{equation}

143: 	1/k + 1/\nbar = D^2/\nbar^2 .

144: \end{equation}

145: In fact, for the Poisson distribution $D^2 = \nbar$, i.e.,

146: $k\to\infty$, and for the geometric distribution $D^2 = \nbar +

147: \nbar^2$, i.e., $k=1$.

148: 

149: That different reactions showed the same, approximate, regularity was

150: worth of interpretation attempts. Probably the most successful of such

151: attempt has been \emph{clan structure analysis} \cite{AGLVH:0+AGLVH:4}.

152: `Clan' (recalling the Scottish sense of the word) refers to a 

153: group of particles of common ancestry:

154: clans are by definition independently produced in a number which

155: follows the Poisson MD, each clan contains

156: at least one particle by assumption and all correlations are exhausted 

157: within each clan. 

158: Clan ancestors, after their production, generate additional

159: particles via cascading, according to a logarithmic multiplicity distribution. 

160: 

161: The two relevant parameters in clan structure analysis

162: are the average number of clans, $\Nbar$, and the average 

163: number of particles per  clan,  $\nc$. 

164: They are linked to the standard

165: NB (Pascal) parameters $\nbar$ and $k$ by the following non-trivial relations

166: \begin{equation}

167: 	\Nbar = k \ln ( 1 + \nbar/ k )  \qquad\text{and}\qquad 

168: 	\nc = \nbar / \Nbar .

169: \end{equation}

170: Clan structure analysis reveals new interesting properties  when  applied 

171: to above mentioned  collisions.

172: %% as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:clan}.

173: In particular it is shown that in \ee\ there are more clans than 

174: \pp\ collisions,   whereas each clan is much smaller.

175: In addition, clans in central rapidity intervals are larger 

176: than in more peripheral intervals.

177: The deep inelastic case is intermediate between the previous ones:

178: clans are less numerous than in \ee\ annihilation

179: and hadronic in character, but the clan size tends to be leptonic. 

180: 

181: %% \begin{figure}

182: %%   \begin{center}

183: %%   \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{plot_clan.eps}}

184: %%   \end{center}

185: %%   \caption[Clans parameters at ISR,TASSO]{Average number of clans,

186: %%   $\Nbar$ (left panel), and average 

187: %%   number of particles per clan, $\nc$ (right panel) vs.\ the

188: %%   half-width of the pseudo-rapidity (for 546 GeV data) or rapidity

189: %%   (for the other energies) interval \cite{ISR:1}.}\label{fig:clan}

190: %% \end{figure}

191: 

192: 

193: \begin{figure}

194:   \begin{center}

195:   \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{plot_fuglesangdue_sup_bw.eps}}

196:   \end{center}

197:   \caption{The shoulder structure visible in this charged particle MD

198:   at 900 GeV c.m.\ energy from the UA5 Collaboration \cite{Fug} 

199: 	is well described

200:   by the weighted superposition of two NB (Pascal) MD (dashed and dotted

201:   lines).}\label{fig:fug}

202: \end{figure}

203: 

204: 

205: As soon as the c.m.\ energy increased, more detailed structures

206: appeared in the data: the MD was seen to have a `shoulder structure'

207: in the intermediate multiplicity range, first in \ppbar\ collisions

208: \cite{UA5:3} and later also in \ee\ annihilation \cite{DEL:1}.

209: In both cases an explanation was found in terms of the weighted

210: superposition of different classes of events: events with and without

211: mini-jets in the case of \ppbar\ collisions (called `semi-hard' and

212: `soft', respectively; see Figure~\ref{fig:fug}), 

213: events with a fixed number of jets

214: in \ee\ annihilation \cite{DEL:2}.

215: It should be stressed here that the MD of each class was again well

216: described by the Pascal distribution (which could not, of course,

217: by itself alone reproduce the shoulder structure). 

218: The degree of precision of such a description is witnessed by the

219: fact that not only the overall shape is visibly reproduced, but also the

220: quasi-oscillatory behaviour of the so-called

221: $H_q$ moments (defined as the ratio of factorial cumulant moments of

222: order $q$ to factorial moments of the same order, $H_q = K_q/F_q$),

223: which show sign changes when plotted as a function of the order $q$

224: \cite{hqlett}.

225: 

226: 

227: \begin{figure}

228:   \begin{center}

229:   \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figure_MC.modified4exact.report.eps}}

230:   \end{center}

231:   \caption{Results of the

232:   weighted superposition 

233:   model for $\nbar_B(n_F)$ vs.\ $n_F$ compared 

234:   to experimental data 

235:   in full phase-space at 63 GeV (a) and in the

236:   pseudo-rapidity interval $|\eta|<4$ at 900 GeV (b)

237: 	\cite{RU:FB}.}\label{fig:FB}

238: \end{figure}

239: 

240: 

241: Finally, a third observable was brought into play, with different

242: characteristic behaviour in \ee\ annihilation and \pp\ collisions, but

243: which can be understood in terms of the Pascal regularity and clan

244: structure analysis: the strength of forward-backward multiplicity

245: correlations \cite{RU:FB}.

246: In particular, it was shown that in \ee\ annihilation the

247: superposition mechanism is sufficient by itself to account for the

248: small amount of  forward-backward multiplicity correlations (FBMC)

249: present in the data, consistently with the idea of a large number of

250: small clans; on the other hand, the superposition was not enough in

251: \ppbar\ collisions (Figure~\ref{fig:FB}): it is required that particle

252: be produced in sizeable groups (clans!) which are not localised in phase-space,

253: i.e., clans must produce particles in both hemispheres 

254: (in other words, 

255: there must be a non-zero `leakage': there are particles going backwards 

256: from forward-emitted clans, and vice versa.)

257: 

258: 

259: 

260: 

261: \section{Extrapolations to higher energies}

262: 

263: We will now abandon the parallelism with \ee\ annihilation, and 

264: in the following concentrate on \pp\ and \ppbar\ collisions.

265: The knowledge from the GeV energy range, summarised briefly in the

266: previous section, will now be employed to extrapolate the MD's in the

267: TeV energy region \cite{combo:prd,combo:eta}, 

268: i.e., the region covered by Tevatron and LHC colliders.

269: 

270: The main equation of the extrapolation is the following:

271: \begin{equation}

272: 		P_n^{\text{(total)}} = \alpha_{\text{soft}}

273:         P_n^{\text{(Pascal)}}(\nbar_1,k_1)

274:     + 

275: 		(1-\alpha_{\text{soft}}) 

276:         P_n^{\text{(Pascal)}}(\nbar_2,k_2) , \label{eq:3}

277: \end{equation}

278: where $\alpha_{\text{soft}}$ is the fraction of `soft' 

279: events in the total sample.

280: An event is declared `soft' if it contains no mini-jets: there is some

281: ambiguity as to the threshold which defines a mini-jet, e.g., a

282: calorimetric tower of a few GeV, but a small variation of this

283: threshold does not result in a wild variation of each class'

284: parameters. On the other hand, a proper definition of what is ``hard''

285: and what is ``soft'' is an extremely interesting task on itself, but

286: it goes well beyond the scope of this paper.

287: 

288: \begin{figure}

289: \begin{minipage}{18pc}

290: \includegraphics[width=18pc]{plotppnbar.eps}

291: \caption{\label{fig:extrap:n}Extrapolation of the average multiplicity.}

292: \end{minipage}\hspace{2pc}%

293: \begin{minipage}{18pc}

294: \includegraphics[width=18pc]{plotalpha.eps}

295: \caption{\label{fig:extrap:a}Extrapolation of the weight parameter.}

296: \end{minipage} 

297: \end{figure}

298: 

299: The basic assumptions to be used in the extrapolation are as follows

300: (see Figure~\ref{fig:extrap:n}):

301: 

302: \begin{enumerate}

303: \item the average charged multiplicity in the total sample grows

304: 	with the logarithm of the c.m.\ energy (best fit to available data);

305: 

306: \item in agreement with the findings at ISR, where one component

307: 	gives an adequate description of the data, the growth of the average

308: 	charged multiplicity in the \emph{soft} sample is proportional to

309: 	$\ln s$. 

310: 

311: \item in agreement with UA1 findings at SpS, the average multiplicity

312: 	in the \emph{semi-hard} sample is twice as large as in the soft one,

313: 	but a very small term quadratic in $\ln s$ could be added as a 

314: 	correction (the two possibilities are called A and B in the figures).

315: 	Accordingly, most, if not all, of the $\ln^2 s$ behaviour

316: 	of $\nbar_{\text{total}}$ comes from the increase in the mini-jet

317: 	production cross section.

318: \end{enumerate}

319: 

320: One now has enough information to compute the expected energy dependence of

321: the weight $\alpha_{\text{soft}}$:

322: \begin{equation}

323: 	\alpha_{\text{soft}}(s) = 2 - \nbar_{\text{total}}(s) 

324: 	  / \nbar_{\text{soft}}(s),

325: \end{equation}

326: which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:extrap:a}.

327: 

328: We come now to the behaviour of $k$.

329: $k_{\text{soft}}$ was found to be constant in the GeV region by the

330: UA5 collaboration; together with the mentioned behaviour of 

331: $\nbar_{\text{soft}}$ this implies that KNO scaling behaviour is valid

332: for the soft component in the TeV region: 

333: \begin{equation}

334: 	D^2_{\text{soft}}/\nbar^2_{\text{soft}} \approx 0.14 

335: 	\approx \text{constant}.

336: \end{equation}

337: We stay with this assumption on $k_{\text{soft}}$.

338: 

339: As the data on the semi-hard component are scarce, it was decided to

340: explore three different scenarios for the energy behaviour of

341: $k_{\text{semi-hard}}$, summarised, together with the

342: average number of clans and the average number of particles per clan,

343: in Figures \ref{fig:scen1}-\ref{fig:scen3}.

344: 

345: 

346: \newcommand{\ohmy}[2]{\hspace*{1cm}#1\hspace*{6cm}#2\hspace*{4.5cm}~}

347: \begin{figure}

348:   \begin{center}

349: 		\ohmy{$1/k$}{$D^2/\nbar^2$}\\

350:   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{plotkkno.scen1.eps}

351: 		\ohmy{$\Nbar$}{$\nc$}\\

352:   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{plotnnc.scen1.eps}

353:   \end{center}

354:   \caption{Interpolated and extrapolated NB (Pascal) parameters in

355: 		scenario 1.}\label{fig:scen1}

356: \end{figure}

357: \begin{figure}

358:   \begin{center}

359: 		\ohmy{$1/k$}{$D^2/\nbar^2$}\\

360:   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{plotkkno.scen2.eps}

361: 		\ohmy{$\Nbar$}{$\nc$}\\

362:   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{plotnnc.scen2.eps}

363:   \end{center}

364:   \caption{Interpolated and extrapolated NB (Pascal) parameters in

365: 		scenario 2.}\label{fig:scen2}

366: \end{figure}

367: \begin{figure}

368:   \begin{center}

369: 		\ohmy{$1/k$}{$D^2/\nbar^2$}\\

370:   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{plotkkno.scen3.eps}

371: 		\ohmy{$\Nbar$}{$\nc$}\\

372:   \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{plotnnc.scen3.eps}

373:   \end{center}

374:   \caption{Interpolated and extrapolated NB (Pascal) parameters in

375: 		scenario 3.}\label{fig:scen3}

376: \end{figure}

377: 

378: 

379: \subsection*{Scenario 1 (Figure \ref{fig:scen1})}

380: In this scenario we assume that KNO scaling holds also for the

381: semi-hard component, i.e., that $k_{\text{semi-hard}}$ is constant.

382: This leads to a slow increase of the average number of clans and of

383: the average number of particles per clan.

384: 

385: \subsection*{Scenario 2 (Figure \ref{fig:scen2})}

386: Here we test the assumption of maximum KNO scaling violation, by

387: assuming that the growth $k_{\text{total}} \simeq 0.0512\ln

388: \sqrt{s} - 0.08$ continues in the TeV region. One notices that this

389: scenario implies a fast decrease with increasing energy of the average

390: number of clans, a fact which is quite unusual and interesting, and

391: is explored further in these proceedings

392: \cite{Giovannini:these}.

393: 

394: \subsection*{Scenario 3 (Figure \ref{fig:scen3})}

395: In this scenario we transport the QCD-predicted (at leading log level)

396: behaviour to fit the low energy \ppbar\ data: $k_{\text{semi-hard}}^{-1}

397: = 0.38 - \sqrt{0.42/\ln(\sqrt{s}/10)}$. It corresponds to an increase,

398: slower than in scenario 2, toward an asymptotic constant value, i.e.,

399: toward a MD which is asymptotically KNO scaling.

400: From the point of view of clan analysis, this scenario is intermediate

401: between 1 and 2, and shows again a decrease in $\Nbar$ with increasing

402: $\sqrt s$ ($\Nbar$ will start to increase again in the KNO scaling

403: regime, due to the increase of $\nbar$.)

404: 

405: 

406: \section{Extension to small rapidity intervals}

407: In going from full phase-space (FPS) to pseudo-rapidity ($\eta$) intervals,

408: our main concern is to be consistent with the scenarios explored in

409: FPS and extend them.

410: It should be pointed out that by assuming 

411: only a longitudinal growth of  phase space and constant height of the 

412: rapidity  plateau with c.m.\ energy for semi-hard events, as done in 

413: Ref.~\cite{combo:eta}, 

414: CDF data \cite{CDF:dNdeta} in pseudo-rapidity 

415: intervals  are underestimated.

416: These data are well

417: described by allowing a $\ln^2 s$ growth of the total rapidity plateau:

418: from this consideration one deduces a  more appropriate growth of

419: the semi-hard plateau height; the constraint is that

420: $\nbar_{\text{semi-hard}}$ 

421: in full phase space follows a logarithmic growth with $\sqrt{s}$ as

422: discussed above (curves B).

423: Predicted charged particle multiplicity  distributions 

424: in the three scenarios of the two-component model

425: for the interval  $|\eta| < 1$ at Tevatron and LHC energies, calculated

426: for the last mentioned case, are shown 

427: in Fig.~\ref{fig:md_GU} (notice

428: that a direct comparison with CDF data, in view of the relatively large

429: value of their resolution $\pt > 0.4$~GeV/$c$, is questionable).

430: If this behaviour for the semi-hard component will be confirmed  by data

431: one should conclude  that semi-hard events populate mainly the central 

432: rapidity region giving an important contribution to the increase of

433: charged particle density in central rapidity intervals.  

434: 

435: 

436: \begin{figure}

437:   \begin{center}

438:   \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{plot_likeE735.eps}

439:   ~~\raisebox{0.5cm}{\includegraphics[scale=0.71]{plote735.eps}}

440:   \end{center}

441:   \caption{E735 results do not quite agree with UA5 ones (left panel;

442:   data from the two experiments which were taken at nearly the same

443:   energy are here rescaled by the same factor), 

444: 	but are close to scenario 2's predictions (right panel).}\label{fig:e735}

445: \end{figure}

446: 

447: 

448: \begin{figure}

449:   \begin{center}

450:   \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth,height=0.9\textheight]{plot_mddy3.eps}}

451:   \end{center}

452:   \caption{Predictions for the multiplicity distributions  in

453: 		$|\eta|<1$ at 

454: 		1800 and 14000 GeV in our scenarios for \pp\ collisions.}\label{fig:md_GU}

455:   \end{figure}

456: 

457: \begin{table}

458: \begin{minipage}[t]{18pc}

459:   \caption{NB (Pascal) and clan structure analysis parameters for

460:   \pp\ collisions at 14 TeV in the two-component

461:   model.}\label{tab:md_GU}

462: 	\begin{center}

463: 		\lineup

464: 		\begin{tabular}{lllllll}

465:       \br

466: 			& {FPS} &    \%   &

467:       $\nbar$   &   $k$ &  $\Nbar$ &  $\nc$\\

468: 			\mr

469: 		  & soft    &      42  &   40        &    7     &       13.3    &

470: 		  3.0\\

471: 			& semi-hard  &    58  &   87      &     3.7     &      11.8&

472: 		  7.4\\

473: 			\br

474: 			& $ |\eta|<0.9$ &    \%   &

475:       $\nbar$   &   $k$ & $\Nbar$ &  $\nc$\\

476: 			\mr

477: 		  & soft    &42 &    \04.9     &     3.4       &   3.0      &   1.6\\

478: 			& semi-hard  & 58 &    14  &         2.0   &       4.2  &

479:       3.4\\

480: 			\br

481: 		\end{tabular}

482: 	\end{center}

483: \end{minipage}\hspace{2pc}%

484: \begin{minipage}[t]{18pc}

485:   \caption{Forward-backward multiplicity correlations strength

486:   parameter for

487:   \pp\ collisions at 14 TeV in the two-component

488:   model.}\label{tab:fb_GU}

489: 	\begin{center}

490: 		\lineup

491: 		\begin{tabular}{llll}

492:       \br

493:     & FB corr.\ strength  & FPS & $|\eta|<0.9$\\

494: 			\mr

495:     & soft             &    0.41   &     0.25   \\

496:     & semi-hard        &    0.51   &     0.45   \\

497:     & total (weighted) &    0.98   &     0.92   \\

498: 			\br

499: 		\end{tabular}

500: 	

501: \end{center}

502: \end{minipage}

503: \end{table}

504: 

505: 

506: \section{Fermilab results}

507: 

508: Two sets of data are available from Tevatron: the E735 Collaboration

509: \cite{Walker}

510: gives full phase-space results, from data measured

511: in $|\eta|<3.25$ and $\pt > 0.2$~GeV/$c$ and 

512: then extended via a Monte Carlo program, which do not completely agree

513: with those obtained at comparable energies 

514: at the SpS collider, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:e735} (left panel); 

515: Tevatron data are more precise than

516: SpS data at larger multiplicities (they have larger

517: statistics and extend to larger multiplicities than UA5 data), but

518: much less precise at low multiplicity.

519: Both sets of data show a shoulder structure, but the Tevatron MD is

520: somewhat wider. As seen from the same Figure~\ref{fig:e735} (right

521: panel), scenario 2 is the one that come closer to these data.

522: 

523: The second set of data comes from CDF \cite{CDF:soft-hard} for

524: charged particles in $|\eta|<1$ and $\pt > 0.4$~GeV/$c$:

525: it was found

526: that by subdividing the minimum bias

527: sample into two groups, characterised respectively by the absence

528: (`soft' events) or the presence (`hard' events) of mini-jets,

529: interesting features of the reaction can be investigated.

530: More precisely, a `hard' event has been defined as an event with at least

531: one calorimeter cluster in $|\eta|<2.4$, a cluster being defined as a

532: seed calorimeter tower with at least 1~GeV transverse energy $E_t$ plus at

533: least one contiguous tower with $E_t \ge 0.1$~GeV.  

534: A subdivision which is interesting \emph{per se} and can be tested at 14~TeV.

535: In summary, the soft component is found to satisfy KNO scaling

536: (as expected in our scenarios), while

537: the hard one does not (in disagreement with scenario 1, but in

538: agreement with scenarios 2 and 3); also the $\avg{\pt}$ distribution scales at

539: fixed multiplicity in the soft component and not in the hard one;

540: the dispersion of $\avg{\pt}$ vs.\ the inverse of the multiplicity is

541: compatible with an extrapolation to 0 as $n\to\infty$ in the soft

542: component but not in the hard one, indicating 

543: in this limit a lack of correlations in

544: the soft component.

545: 

546: 

547: \begin{figure}

548: \begin{minipage}{18pc}

549: \includegraphics[width=18pc]{alberto11b.eps}

550: \end{minipage}\hspace{2pc}%

551: \begin{minipage}{18pc}

552: \includegraphics[width=18pc]{alberto11c.eps}

553: \end{minipage}

554: \caption{\label{fig:cdf}CDF results on MD's at 1800 GeV: the soft

555: 	component satisfies KNO scaling, the hard one does not \cite{CDF:soft-hard}.}

556: \end{figure}

557: 

558: 

559: 

560: 

561: 

562: 

563: \section{Conclusions}

564: 

565: The weighted superposition mechanism of two NB (Pascal) MD's describes

566: not only MD and $H_q$ oscillations, but also forward-backward

567: multiplicity correlations in \pp\ and \ppbar\ collisions and \ee\

568: annihilations. 

569: In hadronic collisions, the two components were found to correspond to

570: soft events (without mini-jets) and to semi-hard events (with

571: mini-jets) respectively.

572: Based on this mechanism, the knowledge of the features of MD's up to

573: 900 GeV c.m.\ energy has been used to predict the characteristic

574: behaviour expected in the TeV energy range: the soft component

575: satisfies KNO scaling, while the semi-hard one violates it strongly.

576: These predictions do not disagree with the successive findings at

577: Tevatron.

578: In terms of clan structure analysis, a peculiar

579: behaviour was found: particles in the semi-hard component tend to aggregate

580: forming few, large clans. This behaviour, and its consequences for the

581: LHC experiments, will be investigated further in A. Giovannini's

582: contribution to these proceedings \cite{Giovannini:these}.

583: 

584: 

585: 

586: 

587: 

588: \section*{References}

589: %%\bibliographystyle{unsrt}  % new, using bibref

590: %%\bibliography{abbrevs,bibliography-std}

591: 

592: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

593: 

594: \bibitem{ARS:report}

595: Giovannini A and Ugoccioni R 2004

596:  Clan structure analysis and qcd parton showers in multiparticle

597:   dynamics. An intriguing dialog between theory and experiment

598:  \textit{Preprint} DFTT 12/2004, hep-ph/0405251

599: 

600: \bibitem{Cosmic}

601: MacKeown P K and Wolfendale A W 1966

602:  {\em Proc.\ Phys.\ Soc.} \textbf{89} 553

603: 

604: \bibitem{Giacomelli+NA22+HRS:1+EMC}

605: Giacomelli G and Jacob M 1979

606:  {\em Physics Reports} \textbf{55} 1

607: 

608: \nonum

609: Adamus M  \textit{et~al} 1986

610:  {\em Phys.\ Lett.} B \textbf{177} 239

611: 

612: \nonum

613: Derrick M \textit{et~al} 1986

614:  {\em Phys.\ Lett.} B \textbf{168} 299

615: 

616: \nonum

617: Arneodo M \textit{et al} 1987

618:  {\em Z. Phys.} C \textbf{35} 335

619: 

620: \bibitem{AGLVH:0+AGLVH:4}

621: Van Hove L and Giovannini A 1987

622: {\em XVII International Symposium on  Multiparticle Dynamics}

623:  ed {M Markitan  et al} 

624: (Singapore: World Scientific) p 561

625: 

626: \nonum

627: Giovannini A and Van Hove L 1988

628:  {\em Acta Phys.\ Pol.} B \textbf{19} 495

629: 

630: \bibitem{Fug}

631: Fuglesang C 1990 

632: {\em Multiparticle  Dynamics: Festschrift for L\'eon Van Hove}

633:  ed A Giovannini and W Kittel 

634: (Singapore: World  Scientific) p 193

635: 

636: \bibitem{UA5:3}

637: Ansorge R E \textit{et al} 1989

638:  {\em Z. Phys.} C \textbf{43} 357

639: 

640: \bibitem{DEL:1}

641: Abreu P \textit{et al} 1991 

642:  {\em Z. Phys.} C \textbf{50} 185

643: 

644: \bibitem{DEL:2}

645: Abreu P \textit{et al} 1991

646:  {\em Z. Phys.} C \textbf{52} 271

647: 

648: \bibitem{hqlett}

649: Ugoccioni R, Giovannini A and Lupia S 1995

650:  {\em Phys.\ Lett.} B \textbf{342} 387

651: 

652: \bibitem{RU:FB}

653: Giovannini A and Ugoccioni R 2002

654:  {\em Phys.\ Rev.} D \textbf{66} 034001

655: 

656: \bibitem{combo:prd}

657: Giovannini A and Ugoccioni R 1999

658:  {\em Phys.\ Rev.} D \textbf{59} 094020

659: 

660: \bibitem{combo:eta}

661: Giovannini A and Ugoccioni R 1999

662:  {\em Phys.\ Rev.} D \textbf{60} 074027

663: 

664: \bibitem{Giovannini:these}

665: Giovannini A 

666:  \textit{these proceedings}

667: 

668: \bibitem{CDF:dNdeta}

669: Abe F \textit{et al} 

670:  {\em Phys.\ Rev.} D \textbf{41} 2330

671: 

672: \bibitem{Walker}

673: Alexopoulos T \textit{et al} 1998

674:  {\em Phys.\ Lett.} B \textbf{435} 453

675: 

676: \bibitem{CDF:soft-hard}

677: Acosta D \textit{et al} 2002

678:  {\em Phys.\ Rev.} D \textbf{65} 072005

679: 

680: \end{thebibliography}

681: 

682: 

683: 

684: 

685: \end{document}

686: