text:
# FZJ-IKP(TH)-2000-05 Complete one–loop analysis of the nucleon’s spin polarizabilities

\[

## Abstract

We present a complete one–loop analysis of the four nucleon spin polarizabilities in the framework of heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory. The first non–vanishing contributions to the isovector and first corrections to the isoscalar spin polarizabilities are calculated. No unknown parameters enter these predictions. We compare our results to various dispersive analyses. We also discuss the convergence of the chiral expansion and the role of the delta isobar.

PACS numbers: 13.40.Cs, 12.39.Fe, 14.20.Dh

\]

Low energy Compton scattering off the nucleon is an important probe to unravel the nonperturbative structure of QCD since the electromagnetic interactions in the initial and final state are well understood. In the long wavelength limit only the charge of the target can be detected and the experimental cross sections, up to photon energies $`\omega `$ of about 50 MeV in the centre-of-mass system, can be described reasonably by the Powell formula . At higher energies $`50<\omega <100`$ MeV, the internal structure of the system slowly becomes visible. Historically this nucleon structure-dependent effect in unpolarized Compton scattering was taken into account by introducing two free parameters into the cross-section formula, commonly denoted the electric $`(\overline{\alpha })`$ and magnetic $`(\overline{\beta })`$ polarizabilities of the nucleon in analogy to the structure dependent response functions for light-matter interactions in classical electrodynamics. Over the past few decades several experiments on low energy Compton scattering off the proton have taken place, resulting in several extractions of the electromagnetic polarizabilities of the proton. At present, the commonly accepted numbers are $`\overline{\alpha }^{(p)}=(12.1\pm 0.8\pm 0.5)\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3`$, $`\overline{\beta }^{(p)}=(2.10.80.5)\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3`$ , indicating that the proton compared to its volume of $`1`$fm3 is a rather stiff object. In parallel to the ongoing experimental efforts theorists have tried to understand the internal dynamics of the nucleon that would give rise to such (small) structure effects. At present, several quite different theoretical approaches find qualitative and quantitative explanations for these 2 polarizabilities, but it can be considered as one of the striking successes of chiral perturbation theory (for a general overview, see e.g. ref.).

Quite recently, with the advent of polarized targets and new sources with a high flux of polarized photons, the case of polarized Compton scattering off the proton $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}\gamma p`$ has come close to experimental feasibility. On the theoretical side it has been shown  that one can define 4 spin-dependent electromagnetic response functions $`\gamma _i,i=1\mathrm{}4`$, which in analogy to $`\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta }`$ are commonly called the “spin-polarizabilites” of the proton. First studies have been published , claiming that the such parameterized information on the low-energy spin structure of the proton can really be extracted from the upcoming double-polarization Compton experiments. A success of this program would clearly shed new light on our understanding of the internal dynamics of the proton and at the same time serve as a check on the theoretical explanations of the polarizabilities. The new challenge to theorists will then be to explain all 6 of the leading electromagnetic response functions simultaneously. At present there only exists one experimental analysis that has shed some light on the magnitude of the (essentially) unknown spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i^{(p)}`$ of the proton: The LEGS group has reported  a result***Note that we have subtracted off the contribution of the pion-pole diagram in order to be consistent with the definition of the spin-polarizabilities given in . for a linear combination involving three of the $`\gamma _i`$, namely

$`\gamma _\pi ^{(p)}|_{\mathrm{exp}.}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1^{(p)}+\gamma _2^{(p)}+2\gamma _4^{(p)}`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`\left(17.3\pm 3.4\right)\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^4.`$ (2)
We note that this pioneering result was obtained from an analysis of an unpolarized Compton experiment in the backward direction, where the spin-polarizabilities come in as one contribution in a whole class of subleading order nucleon structure effects in the differential cross-section. Given these structure subtleties and the fact that most theoretical calculations  have predicted this particular linear combination of spin-polarizabilities to be a factor of 2 smaller than the number given in Eq.(2), we can only reemphasize the need for the upcoming polarized Compton scattering experiments.

In this note we are taking up the challenge on the theory side within the context of Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory (HBChPT), extending previous efforts  in a significant way. Previously an order $`𝒪(p^3)`$ SU(2) HBChPT calculation  was performed, which showed that the leading (i.e. long-range) structure effects in the spin-polarizabilities are given by 8 different $`\pi N`$ loop diagrams giving rise to a $`1/m_\pi ^2`$ behavior in the $`\gamma _i`$. Subsequently it was shown in an $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ SU(2) “small scale expansion” (SSE) calculation —which in contrast to HBChPT includes the first nucleon resonance $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) as an explicit degree of freedom —that 2 ($`\gamma _2,\gamma _4`$) of the 4 spin-polarizabilities receive large corrections due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) related effects, resulting in a big correction to the leading $`1/m_\pi ^2`$ behavior . Another important conclusion of  was that any HBChPT calculation that wants to calculate $`\gamma _2,\gamma _4`$ would have to be extended to $`𝒪(p^5)`$ before it can incorporate the large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) related corrections found in . Recently, two $`𝒪(p^4)`$ SU(2) HBChPT calculations  of polarized Compton scattering in the forward direction appeared, from which one can extract one particular linear combination$`\gamma _0`$ can also be calculated from the absorption cross sections of polarized photons on polarized nucleons via the GGT sum rule , as pointed out in . In the absence of such data several groups have tried to extract the required cross sections via a partial wave analysis of unpolarized absorption cross sections. Recent results of these efforts are given in table 2. of 3 of the 4 $`\gamma _i`$, which is usually called $`\gamma _0`$:

$`\gamma _0=\gamma _1\left(\gamma _2+2\gamma _4\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta |_{\theta 0}.`$ (3)
The authors of  claimed to have found a huge correction to $`\gamma _0`$ at $`𝒪(p^4)`$ relative to the $`𝒪(p^3)`$ result already found in , casting doubt on the usefulness/convergence of HBChPT for spin-polarizabilities. Given that $`\gamma _0`$ involves the very 2 polarizabilities $`\gamma _2,\gamma _4`$, which were already shown in  to receive huge corrections even up to $`𝒪(p^5)`$ when one tries to calculate them in an effective field theory without explicit $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) degrees of freedom, the (known) poor convergence for $`\gamma _0`$ found in  should not have come as a surprise. We will come back to this point later.

In the following we report on the results of a $`𝒪(p^4)`$ calculation of all 4 spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i`$, which allows to study the issue of convergence in chiral effective field theories for these important new spin-structure parameters of the nucleon. The pertinent results of our investigation can be summarized as follows:
1) We first want to comment on the extraction of polarizabilities from nucleon Compton scattering amplitudes. In previous analyses  it has always been stated that in order to obtain the spin-polarizabilities from the calculated Compton amplitudes, one only has to subtract off the nucleon tree-level graphs from the fully calculated amplitudes. The remainder in each (spin-amplitude) then started with a factor of $`\omega ^3`$ and the associated Taylor-coefficient was related to the spin-polarizabilities. Due to the (relatively) simple structure of the spin-amplitudes at this order, this prescription gives the correct result in the $`𝒪(p^3)`$ HBChPT  and the $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ SSE  calculations. However, at $`𝒪(p^4)`$ (and also at $`𝒪(ϵ^4)`$ ) one has to resort to a definition of the (spin-) polarizabilities that is soundly based on field theory, in order to make sure that one only picks up those contributions at $`\omega ^3`$ that are really connected with (spin-) polarizabilities. In fact, at $`𝒪(p^4)`$ ($`𝒪(ϵ^4)`$) the prescription given in  leads to an admixture of effects resulting from 2 successive, uncorrelated $`\gamma NN`$ interactions with a one nucleon intermediate state. In order to avoid these problems we advocate the following definition for the spin-dependent polarizabilities in (chiral) effective field theories: Given a complete set of spin-structure amplitudes for Compton scattering to a certain order in perturbation theory, one first removes all one-particle (i.e. one-nucleon or one-pion) reducible (1PR) contributions from the full spin-structure amplitudes. Specifically, starting from the general form of the T-matrix for real Compton scattering assuming invariance under parity, charge conjugation and time reversal symmetry, we utilize the following six structure amplitudes $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )`$  in the Coulomb gauge, $`ϵ_0=ϵ_0^{}=0`$,

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}+A_2(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\widehat{k}\stackrel{}{ϵ}\widehat{k}^{}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`iA_3(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\times \stackrel{}{ϵ})+iA_4(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\widehat{k}^{}\times \widehat{k})\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`iA_5(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{\sigma }[(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\times \widehat{k})\stackrel{}{ϵ}\widehat{k}^{}(\stackrel{}{ϵ}\times \widehat{k}^{})\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\widehat{k}]`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`iA_6(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{\sigma }[(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\times \widehat{k}^{})\widehat{ϵ}\widehat{k}^{}(\stackrel{}{ϵ}\times \widehat{k})\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\widehat{k}],`$ (7)
where $`\theta `$ corresponds to the c.m. scattering angle, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ},\widehat{k}(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{},\widehat{k}^{})`$ denote the polarization vector, direction of the incident (final) photon while $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ represents the (spin) polarization vector of the nucleon. Each (spin-)structure amplitude is now separated into 1PR contributions and a remainder, that contains the response of the nucleon’s excitation structure to two photons:

$`A_i(\omega ,\theta )=A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}+A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.},i=3,\mathrm{},6.`$ (8)
Taylor-expanding the spin-dependent $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ for the case of a proton target in the c.m. frame into a power series in $`\omega `$, the leading terms are linear in $`\omega `$ and are given by the venerable LETs of Low, Gell-Mann and Goldberger :

$`A_3(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1+2\kappa ^{(p)}(1+\kappa ^{(p)})^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \right]e^2}{2M_N^2}}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2),`$ (9)
$`A_4(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\kappa ^{(p)})^2e^2}{2M_N^2}}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2),`$ (10)
$`A_5(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\kappa ^{(p)})^2e^2}{2M_N^2}}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2),`$ (11)
$`A_6(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\kappa ^{(p)})e^2}{2M_N^2}}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2).`$ (12)
While it is not advisable to really perform this Taylor-expansion for the spin-dependent $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ due to the complex pole structure, one can do so without problems for the $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ as long as $`\omega m_\pi `$. For the case of a proton one then finds

$`A_3(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \left[\gamma _1^{(p)}(\gamma _2^{(p)}+2\gamma _4^{(p)})\mathrm{cos}\theta \right]\omega ^3+𝒪(\omega ^4),`$ (13)
$`A_4(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \gamma _2^{(p)}\omega ^3+𝒪(\omega ^4),`$ (14)
$`A_5(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \gamma _4^{(p)}\omega ^3+𝒪(\omega ^4),`$ (15)
$`A_6(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \gamma _3^{(p)}\omega ^3+𝒪(\omega ^4).`$ (16)
We therefore take Eq.(16) as starting point for the calculation of the spin-polarizabilities, which are related to the $`\omega ^3`$ Taylor-coefficients of $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$. As noted above, both the $`𝒪(p^3)`$ HBChPT  and the $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ SSE  results are consistent with this definition.
2) Utilizing Eqs.(8,16) we have calculated the first subleading correction, $`𝒪(p^4)`$, to the 4 isoscalar spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i^{(s)}`$ already determined to $`𝒪(p^3)`$ in  in SU(2) HBChPT. We employ here the convention

$`\gamma _i^{(p)}=\gamma _i^{(s)}+\gamma _i^{(v)};\gamma _i^{(n)}=\gamma _i^{(s)}\gamma _i^{(v)}.`$ (17)
Contrary to popular opinion we show, that even at subleading order all 4 spin-polarizabilities can be given in closed form expressions which are free of any unknown chiral counterterms! The only parameters appearing in the results are the axial-vector nucleon coupling constant $`g_A=1.26`$, the pion decay constant $`F_\pi =92.4`$MeV, the pion mass $`m_\pi =138`$MeV, the mass of the nucleon $`M_N=938`$MeV as well as its isoscalar, $`\kappa ^{(s)}=0.12`$, and isovector, $`\kappa ^{(v)}=3.7`$, anomalous magnetic moments. All $`𝒪(p^4)`$ corrections arise from 25 one-loop $`\pi N`$ continuum diagrams, with the relevant vertices obtained from the well-known SU(2) HBChPT $`𝒪(p)`$ and $`𝒪(p^2)`$ Lagrangians given in detail in ref.. To $`𝒪(p^4)`$ we find

$`\gamma _1^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{96\pi ^3F_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}}\left[1\mu \pi \right],`$ (18)
$`\gamma _2^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{192\pi ^3F_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}}\left[1+\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(6+\kappa ^{(v)})\pi }{4}}\right],`$ (19)
$`\gamma _3^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{384\pi ^3F_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}}\left[1\mu \pi \right],`$ (20)
$`\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{384\pi ^3F_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}}\left[1\mu {\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}\pi \right],`$ (21)
with $`\mu =m_\pi /M_N1/7`$ and the the numerical values given in table 1. The leading $`1/m_\pi ^2`$ behavior of the isoscalar spin-polarizabilities is not touched by the $`𝒪(p^4)`$ correction, as expected. With the notable exception of $`\gamma _4^{(s)}`$, which even changes its sign due to a large $`𝒪(p^4)`$ correction, we show that this first subleading order of $`\gamma _1^{(s)},\gamma _2^{(s)},\gamma _3^{(s)}`$ amounts to a 25-45% correction to the leading order result. This does not quite correspond to the expected $`m_\pi /M_N`$ correction of (naive) dimensional analysis, but can be considered acceptable. The physical origin of the large correction in $`\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ is not yet understood, but we remind the reader again of our comments above, that it was shown in the SSE calculation of  that one should not expect a good convergence behavior for $`\gamma _2^{(s)},\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ in HBChPT at all.
3) We further report the first results for the 4 isovector spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i^{(v)}`$ obtained in the framework of chiral effective field theories. Previous calculations at $`𝒪(p^3)`$  and $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$  were only sensitive to the isoscalar spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i^{(s)}`$, therefore this calculation gives the first indication from a chiral effective field theory about the magnitude of the difference in the low-energy spin structure between proton and neutron. As in the case of the isoscalar spin-polarizabilities there are again no unknown counterterm contributions to this order in the $`\gamma _i^{(v)}`$. All $`𝒪(p^4)`$ contributions arise from 16 one-loop $`\pi N`$ continuum diagrams with the relevant $`𝒪(p),𝒪(p^2)`$ vertices again obtained from the Lagrangians given in ref.. To $`𝒪(p^4)`$ one finds

$`\gamma _1^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{96\pi ^3F_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}}\left[0\mu {\displaystyle \frac{5\pi }{8}}\right],`$ (22)
$`\gamma _2^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{192\pi ^3F_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}}\left[0\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1+\kappa ^{(s)})\pi }{4}}\right],`$ (23)
$`\gamma _3^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{384\pi ^3F_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2}}\left[0+\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right],`$ (24)
$`\gamma _4^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (25)
with the numerical values again given in table 1. The result of our investigation is that the size of the $`\gamma _i^{(v)}`$ really tends to be an order of magnitude smaller than the one of the $`\gamma _i^{(s)}`$ (with the possible exception of $`\gamma _1^{(v)}`$), supporting the scaling expectation, $`\gamma _i^{(v)}(m_\pi /M_N)\gamma _i^{(s)}`$ from (naive) dimensional analysis. This is reminiscent of the situation in the spin-independent electromagnetic polarizabilities $`\overline{\alpha }^{(v)},\overline{\beta }^{(v)}`$ , which are also suppressed by one chiral power relative to their isoscalar partners $`\overline{\alpha }^{(s)},\overline{\beta }^{(s)}`$.
4) Finally, we want to comment on the comparison between our results and existing calculations using dispersion analyses. Given our comments on the convergence of the chiral expansion for the (isoscalar) spin-polarizabilities , we reiterate that we do not believe our $`𝒪(p^4)`$ HBChPT result for $`\gamma _2^{(s)},\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ to be meaningful. Their large inherent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) related contribution just cannot be included (via a counterterm) before $`𝒪(p^5)`$ in HBChPT that only deals with pion and nucleon degrees of freedom. In table 1 it is therefore interesting to note that by adding (“by hand”) the delta-pole contribution of $`\mathrm{2.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$fm4 found in  to $`\gamma _2^{(s)}`$ one could get quite close to the range for this spin-polarizability as suggested by the dispersion analyses . Similarly, adding $`+\mathrm{2.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$fm4 to $`\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ as suggested by  also leads quite close to the range advocated by the dispersion results . However, such a procedure is of course not legitimate in an effective field theory, but it raises the hope that an extension of the $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ SSE calculation of  that includes explicit delta degrees of freedom could lead to a much better behaved perturbative expansion for the isoscalar spin-polarizabilities. Whether this expectation holds true will be known quite soon . For the isovector spin-polarizabilities we have given the first predictions available from effective field theory. In general the agreement with the range advocated by the dispersion analyses is quite good. Judging from table 1 we note that the main difference between the 2 analyses from Mainz  seems to lie in the treatment of the isovector structure, indicating that the isospin separation might pose some difficulties in the dispersion approaches. In table 2 we give a comparison of our results for those linear combinations of the $`\gamma _i`$ that typically are the main focus of attention in the literature. However, we re-emphasize that we do not consider our $`𝒪(p^4)`$ HBChPT predictions for $`\gamma _0^{(s)},\gamma _\pi ^{(s)}`$ to be meaningful, because they involve $`\gamma _2^{(s)},\gamma _4^{(s)}`$. The corresponding isovector combinations, however, again seem to agree quite well with the dispersive results and so far we have no reason to suspect that they might be affected by the poor convergence behavior of some of their isoscalar counterparts. We further note that our $`𝒪(p^4)`$ HBChPT predictions for $`\gamma _0^{(s,v)}`$ differ from the ones given in 2 recent calculations . As noted above this difference solely arises from a different definition of nucleon spin-polarizabilities. If we (“by hand”) Taylor-expand our $`\gamma NN`$ vertex functions in powers of $`\omega `$ and include the resulting terms into the the $`\gamma _0`$ structure, we obtain the $`𝒪(p^4)`$ corrections $`\gamma _0^{(s)}=6.9,\gamma _0^{(v)}=1.6`$ in units of $`10^4`$fm4, in numerical (and analytical) agreement with . This brings us to an important point: Once the first polarized Compton asymmetries have been measured, it has to be checked very carefully whether the same input data fitted to the terms we define as 1PR plus the additional free $`\gamma _i`$ parameters leads to the same numerical fit-results for the spin-polarizabilities as in the dispersion theoretical codes usually employed to extract polarizabilities from Compton data. Small differences for example in the treatment of the pion/nucleon pole could lead to quite large systematic errors in the determination of the $`\gamma _i`$. Such studies are under way .

###### Acknowledgements.

G.C.G. would like to acknowledge financial support from the TMR network HaPHEEP under contract FMRX-CT96-0008.


format: text

text:
# Observation of the cluster spin-glass phase in La2-xSrxCuO4 by anelastic spectroscopy

## I INTRODUCTION

The low doping region of the phase diagram of La2-xSrxCuO4 is attracting considerable interest, due to the appearance of unconventional correlated spin dynamics and ordering processes (for a review see Ref. ). In undoped La2CuO4 the Cu2+ spins order into a 3D antiferromagnetic (AF) state with the staggered magnetization in the $`ab`$ plane. Doping by Sr rapidly destroys the long range AF order, with $`T_N`$ passing from 315 K to practically 0 K around $`x_c0.02`$. Above this critical value of the Sr content no long range AF order is expected at finite temperature. There are also indications that the holes are segregated into domain walls, sometimes identified as charge stripes, which separate hole-poor regions where the AF correlations build up. The holes should be mobile along these ”charge rivers”, but at low $`x`$ they localize near the Sr atoms below $`30`$K, causing a distortion of the spin texture of the surrounding Cu2+ atoms. For $`x<x_c`$ the spin distortions around the localized holes are decoupled from the AF background, and freeze into a spin-glass (SG) state below $`T_f\left(x\right)\left(815\text{K}\right)x`$. For $`x>x_c`$ a cluster spin-glass (CSG) state is argued to freeze below $`T_g\left(x\right)1/x`$ and AF correlations develop within the domains defined by the charge walls, with the easy axes of the staggered magnetization uncorrelated between different clusters. The formation of the SG and CSG states are inferred from sharp maxima in the 139La NQR and $`\mu `$SR relaxation rates, which indicate the slowing of the AF fluctuations below the measuring frequency ($`10^710^8`$ Hz in those experiments) on cooling, and from the observation of irreversibility, remnant magnetization, and scaling behavior in magnetic susceptibility experiments.

Here we report the observation of a step-like increase of the low-frequency acoustic absorption close to the temperature at which the spin freezing process is detected in the NQR measurements. The absorption is ascribed to changes of the sizes of the frozen clusters induced by the vibration stress through magnetoelastic coupling, or equivalently to the motion of the walls between them.

## II EXPERIMENTAL AND RESULTS

The samples where prepared by standard solid state reaction as described in Ref.  and cut in bars approximately $`40\times 4\times 0.6`$ mm3. The final Sr contents and homogeneities where checked from the temperature position and sharpness of the steps in the Young’s modulus and acoustic absorption due to the tetragonal (HTT) / orthorhombic (LTO) transition, which occurs at a temperature $`T_t`$ linearly decreasing with doping. The transitions appear narrower in temperature than the one of a Sr-free sample, indicating that the width was mostly intrinsic and not due to Sr inhomogeneity, except for the sample at the lowest Sr content. The Sr concentrations estimated in this way turned out $`x=0.0185\pm 0.0015`$, $`0.0315\pm 0.0015`$ and $`0.0645\pm 0.002`$, in good agreement with the nominal compositions. In the following the samples will be referred as $`x=0.019`$, 0.03 and 0.06.

The complex Young’s modulus $`E`$ was measured by electrostatically exciting either of the lowest three flexural modes and detecting the vibration amplitude by a frequency modulation technique. The elastic energy loss coefficient (or reciprocal of mechanical $`Q`$) is related to the imaginary part $`E^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`E`$ by $`Q^1(\omega ,T)=E^{\prime \prime }(\omega ,T)/E^{}(\omega ,T)`$, and it was measured by the decay of the free oscillations or the width of the resonance peak.

In Fig. 1 the anelastic spectra of three samples with $`x=0.019`$, 0.03, 0.06 below $`16`$K measured exciting the first flexural mode are reported. A step-like increase of the absorption is observed around or slightly below $`T_g`$ (Ref. ) The gray arrows indicate the values of $`T_g`$ in the magnetic phase diagrams deduced from NQR (lower values) and $`\mu `$SR (higher values) experiments, which are in agreement with the data in Ref.  (for the sample with $`x=0.019`$ the $`T_g\left(x=0.02\right)`$ values are indicated). The black arrows indicate the temperature of the maximum of the 139La NQR relaxation rate measured on the same samples in a separate study, which indicate a freezing in the spin-glass phase, as discussed later. The coincidence of the temperatures of the absorption steps with those of freezing of the spin fluctuations suggest a correlation between the two phenomena.

The sample with $`x=0.03`$ was outgassed from excess O by heating in vacuum up to $`790`$K, while the other two samples where in the as-prepared state, therefore containing some interstitial O. The concentration $`\delta `$ of excess O is a decreasing function of $`x`$ (Ref. ) and should be negligible for $`x=0.06`$ but not for $`x=0.019`$. This fact allowed us to observe the absorption step singled out from the high-temperature tail of an intense peak that occurs at lower temperature (see the sharp rise of dissipation below 3 K for $`x=0.019`$ in Fig. 1). Such a peak has been attributed to the tunneling-driven tilt motion of a fraction of the O octahedra. The LTO phase is inhomogeneous on a local scale, and a fraction of the octahedra would be unstable between different tilt orientations, forming tunneling systems which cause the anelastic relaxation process. The interstitial O atoms force the surrounding octahedra into a fixed tilt orientation, resulting in a decrease of the fraction of mobile octahedra and therefore in a depression of the absorption peak. In addition, doping shifts the peak to lower temperature at a very high rate, due to the coupling between the tilted octahedra and the hole excitations. Therefore, it is possible to reduce the weight of the low temperature peak by introducing concentrations of interstitial O atoms that are so small that do not change appreciably the doping level due to the Sr substitutionals. Figure 2 compares the absorption curves of the $`x=0.019`$ sample in the as-prepared state with a concentration $`\delta 0.002`$ of excess O and after removing it in vacuum at high temperature. The initial concentration $`\delta `$ has been estimated from the intensity of the anelastic relaxation process due to the hopping of interstitial O, whose maximum occurs slightly below room temperature at our measuring frequencies (not shown here). The presence of excess O indeed decreases and shifts to lower temperature the tail of the peak in Fig. 2, while the effect on the absorption step is negligible. This justifies the comparison of the sample with $`x=0.019`$ and $`\delta >0`$ together with the other samples with $`\delta 0`$, and demonstrates that the nature of the low temperature peak is different from that of the step-like absorption.

## III DISCUSSION

The present data show the presence of a step in the acoustic absorption at the boundary of the spin-glass quasi-ordered state in the $`T,x`$ magnetic phase diagram. The case of the $`x=0.019`$ sample is less clear-cut, since the step is rather smooth. Furthermore, the Sr content is within the range $`0.018<x<0.02`$, at the boundary between the SG and the CSG phases, where the phase diagram is largely uncertain. The $`T_f\left(x\right)`$ line ends at $`15`$K for $`x0.018`$, and the line $`T_g\left(x\right)`$ starts from 10-12 K at $`x0.02`$ (Refs. ). A larger spread of experimental data (from 7.8 to 12.5 K) is actually observed just at $`x=0.02`$.

A mechanism which in principle produces acoustic absorption is the slowing down of the magnetic fluctuations toward the spin-glass freezing. When measuring the spectral density $`J_{\text{spin}}(\omega ,T)`$ of the spin fluctuations (the Fourier transform of the spin-spin correlation function), e.g. through the 139La NQR relaxation rate, a peak in $`J_{\text{spin}}`$ is found at the temperature at which the fluctuation rate $`\tau ^1\left(T\right)`$ becomes equal to the measuring angular frequency $`\omega `$. Near the glass transition the magnetic fluctuation rate was found to approximately follow the law $`\tau ^1\left[\left(TT_g\right)/T_g\right]^2`$, and the temperature at which the condition $`\omega \tau =1`$ for the maximum of relaxation is satisfied for $`\omega /2\pi =1219`$ MHz is close to $`T_g`$. A similar peak would be observed in the spectral density of the lattice strain $`J_{\text{latt}}(\omega ,T)`$, if the spin fluctuations cause strain fluctuations through magnetoelastic coupling. The acoustic absorption is proportional to the spectral density of the strain and hence to $`J_{\text{latt}}`$, $`Q^1=\omega J_{\text{strain}}/T\omega J_{\text{latt}}/T`$, and therefore at our frequencies ($`\omega 50`$ kHz) we should observe a narrow peak at a temperature slightly lower than the ones detected by NQR relaxation. The absorption steps in Fig. 1 can hardly be identified in a strict way as due to the contribution from the freezing magnetic fluctuations because they appear as steps instead of peaks. We propose that the main contribution comes from the stress-induced movement of the domain boundaries between the clusters of quasi-frozen antiferromagnetically correlated spins. The mechanism is well known for ferromagnetic materials, but is possible also for an ordered AF state, if an anisotropic strain is coupled with the easy magnetization axis. In this case, the elastic energy of domains with different orientations of the easy axis would be differently affected by a shear stress, and the lower energy domains would grow at the expenses of the higher energy ones. The dynamics of the domain boundaries is different from that of the domain fluctuations and generally produces broad peaks in the susceptibilities. An example is the structural HTT/LTO transformation in the same samples, where the appearance of the orthorhombic domains is accompanied by a step-like increase of the acoustic absorption. We argue that the features in the anelastic spectra just below $`T_g`$ are associated with the stress-induced motion of the walls enclosing the clusters of AF correlated spins. More properly, the anelastic relaxation is attributed to the stress-induced changes of the sizes of the different domains.

The $`x=0.019`$ sample is at the border $`x_c0.02`$ between SG and CSG state. The NQR measurements on the same sample indicate a spin-freezing temperature $`9`$K, closer to the CSG $`T_g\left(x_c\right)`$ rather then to the SG $`T_f\left(x_c\right)`$, which is consistent with the presence of moving walls, otherwise absent in the SG state. Nonetheless, following the model proposed by Gooding et al. we do not expect a sharp transition between the SG and the CSG states. According to that model, at low temperature the holes localize near the Sr dopants, and in the ground state an isolated hole circulates clockwise or anti-clockwise over the four Cu atoms neighbors to Sr. Such a state induces a distortion of the surrounding Cu spins, otherwise aligned according to the prevalent AF order parameter. The spin texture arising from the frustrated combination of the spin distortions from the various localized holes produces domains with differently oriented AF order parameters, which can be identified with the frozen AF spin clusters. The dissipative dynamics which we observe in the acoustic response should arise from the fact that the energy surface of the possible spin textures has many closely spaced minima and the vibration stress, through magnetoelastic coupling, can favor jumps to different minima. In this picture, one could argue that the random distribution of Sr atoms may cause the formation of spin clusters also for $`xx_c`$ and it is possible to justify the fact that for $`x=0.019`$ the absorption step does not start below the maximum of the 139La NQR relaxation rate, which signals the freezing of the spin clusters. Rather, the acoustic absorption slowly starts increasing slightly before the $`T_g`$ determined by the NQR maximum is reached. This may indicate that the spin dynamics is not only governed by cooperative freezing, but is also determined by the local interaction with the holes localized at the surrounding Sr atoms. Then, the regions in which the Sr atoms induce a particularly strong spin-texture could freeze and cause anelastic relaxation before the cooperative transition to the glass state is completed. Systematic measurements around the $`x=0.02`$ doping range are necessary to clarify this point.

The dependence of the intensity of the absorption step on $`x`$, which is sharper and most intense at $`x=0.03`$, qualitatively supports the above picture. In fact, at lower doping one has only few domains embedded in a long range ordered AF background, while above $`0.05`$ the fraction of walls of disordered spins connecting the Sr atoms increases at the expenses of the ordered domains, with a cross-over to incommensurate spin correlations. The anelasticity due to the stress-induced change of the domain sizes is expected to be strongest in correspondence to the greatest fraction of ordered spins, namely between $`0.03`$ and $`0.05`$, in accordance with the spectra in Fig. 1.

Finally we point out the insensitiveness of the absorption step to the presence of interstitial O (Fig. 2 and Ref. ), in view of the marked effects that even small quantities of excess O cause to the low temperature peak (Fig. 2) and to the rest of the anelastic spectrum. This is consistent with a dissipation mechanism of magnetic rather than of structural origin.

## IV CONCLUSION

The elastic energy loss coefficient of La2-xSrxCuO4 (proportional to the imaginary part of the elastic susceptibility) measured around $`10^3`$ Hz in samples with $`x=0.019`$, 0.032 and 0.064 shows a step-like rise below the temperature of the transition to a quasi-frozen cluster spin-glass state. The origin of the acoustic absorption is thought to be magnetoelastic coupling, namely anisotropic in-plane strain associated with the direction of the local staggered magnetization. The absorption is not peaked at $`T_g`$ and therefore does not directly correspond to the peak in the dynamic spin susceptibility due to the spin freezing. Rather, it has been ascribed to the stress-induced changes of the sizes of the spin clusters, or equivalently to the motion of the walls. The phenomenology is qualitatively accounted for in the light of the model of Gooding et al. of magnetic correlations of the Cu2+ spins induced by the holes localized near the Sr dopants.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank Prof. A. Rigamonti for useful discussions and for a critical review of the manuscript. This work has been done in the framework of the Advanced Research Project SPIS of INFM.

## V Figures captions

Fig. 1 Elastic energy loss coefficient of La2-xSrxCuO4 with $`x=0.019`$ ($`1.3`$ kHz), $`x=0.03`$ ($`1.7`$ kHz), $`x=0.06`$ ($`0.43`$ kHz). The gray arrows indicate the temperature $`T_g`$ of freezing into the cluster spin-glass state deduced from NQR (lower values) and $`\mu `$SR (higher values) experiments The black arrows indicate the temperature of the maximum of the 139La NQR relaxation rate measured on the same samples.

Fig. 2 Elastic energy loss coefficient of the sample with $`x=0.019`$ in the as prepared state (with interstitial O) and after outgassing the excess O measured at 1.3 kHz.


text:
# CENTRAL RAPIDITY DENSITIES OF CHARGED PARTICLES AT RHIC AND LHC

## 1 Introduction

In the last years many experimental and theoretical efforts have been devoted to search Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) and/or collective effects111Collective effects are those considered to explain the event, which go beyond the superposition of elementary nucleon-nucleon collisions. in heavy ion collisions , as a tool to study the nonperturbative aspects of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). To achieve this goal several signatures of the phase transition(s) from confined to deconfined quarks and gluons and of chiral symmetry restoration have been proposed.

The finding of three of the proposed  signals at the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) at CERN has originated great excitement and debate in the scientific community in this field. In fact, an abnormal suppression of J/$`\psi `$  and a strong enhancement of strange baryons and antibaryons  have been observed in central222By central collision we mean a head-on one, in which most of the matter of the lightest nucleus participates. In practice different criteria are used, both theoretically (upper bound in impact parameter, minimum number of participant wounded nucleons,$`\mathrm{}`$) and experimentally (percentage of the cross section, lower bound in the number of charged particles,$`\mathrm{}`$). Pb-Pb collisions, compared with those measured in collisions between lighter projectiles and targets. Also an enhancement in the dilepton spectrum for dilepton masses below 0.8 GeV/c2 has been seen in Pb-Au collisions . Whether or not these three experimental observations are really an unambiguous proof of the existence of a QGP is still an open question , due to their possible explanation using more conventional, but still interesting, physics. In any case, it is expected that the forthcoming heavy ion experiments in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at BNL and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN will clarify definitively the point333RHIC and LHC will provide center of mass energies of 200 GeV and 5.5 TeV per nucleon respectively, to be compared with $`20`$ GeV per nucleon at the SPS. .

In spite of the work done these last years there are many fundamental aspects of the physics of heavy ions at high energies which are not clear at all. Fundamental questions like, e.g.:

* Is particle rapidity density proportional to the number of participant nucleons or to the number of elementary nucleon-nucleon collisions?
* Which is the physical explanation of the SPS particle correlation data?
* How large will particle multiplicities be at RHIC and LHC?

are answered in a very different way by several models, all of them claiming to agree with the existing experimental data.

Referring to the last question, in Fig. 1 it is shown the pseudorapidity distribution of charged particles from different models for central Pb-Pb collisions at a beam energy of 3 TeV per nucleon; this plot has been taken from the ALICE444ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) is the approved detector at the LHC fully dedicated to Heavy Ion Physics. Technical Proposal  done by the ALICE Event Generator Pool in December 1995. The results according to Monte Carlo codes of several models show large differences at central pseudorapidity. Indeed, between the String Fusion Model (SFM)  and the VENUS  or SHAKER  codes there is a factor larger than 4 at $`\eta =0`$, while the difference in the fragmentation regions ($`|\eta |5`$) is smaller. At RHIC energy555Un updated set of predictions for RHIC can be found in . the difference is about a factor 2 - most models give results in the range $`700÷1500`$.

These uncertainties in one of the most elementary aspects of the collision, may leave us uncomfortable regarding the necessity to keep under control the conventional physics of heavy ions to clearly distinguish the signatures of QGP and/or collective effects in the proposed observables. Needless to say, from the experimental point of view it is crucial to know whether there will be 2000 or 8000 charged particles per unit rapidity in central Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC for the design of the detectors. For these reasons we review in this paper charged particle central rapidity density predictions of different models for central collisions between the largest nuclei that will be available at RHIC and LHC, discussing the origin of the differences among the results.

According to their origin, models can be classified into three categories. On the one hand, some models like Dual Parton Model (DPM) , its Monte Carlo implementation DPMJET , Quark-Gluon String Model (QGSM) , FRITIOF , SFM , Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics (RQMD) , Ultrarelativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics (UrQMD) , VENUS  or its new version NEXUS , and LUCIAE  mainly pay attention to the soft part of the collision (there is no need of a hard perturbative part at SPS energies). The hard part in some of these models is included adding to the elementary soft cross section the jet one, as an input for the eikonalized cross section.

On the contrary, other models like the Heavy-Ion Jet Interaction Generator (HIJING) , Eskola et al. , and Geiger and Müller  are mainly focused to the hard part. They compute the number of minijets or partons with transverse momentum larger than a given $`p_01÷2`$ GeV/c. These hard partons are taken  as the starting point of an evolution and expansion previous to hadronization (for discussions on this point see for example ). A soft part, extracted from the SPS data, is added with an energy dependence taken from some model.

A third kind of models are the statistical and thermodynamical ones . In these models the main predictions refer to ratios between different kind of particles and not to absolute values of each kind. Usually to get absolute rapidity densities the volume at freeze-out has to be specified. The volumes used are $`3600`$ and $`14400`$ fm3, giving charged particle densities at midrapidity of 1200 and 8000 at RHIC and LHC energies respectively666The value of 8000 charged particles per unit rapidity at $`y=0`$ was the preferred value for many models before 1995. Indeed only the SFM gave values close to 2500. Now, by different although probably related reasons, several models have lowered their predictions to values close to the SFM one. .

The plan of this review will be the following: After this Introduction, in the next Section the DPM and DPMJET Monte Carlo code will be discussed in some detail, introducing several concepts which will also be used in the other models. In Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 the SFM, RQMD, HIJING and Perturbative QCD (PQCD) and Hydrodynamical models respectively, together with their predictions for charged particle densities at midrapidity, will be briefly reviewed. Other models will be discussed in Section 7. Afterwards, in Section 8 we will argue on percolation in heavy ion collisions, and in Section 9 possible implications for Cosmic Ray Physics will be commented. In the last Section the different results will be compared and some discussions presented.

## 2 The Dual Parton Model and the DPMJET Monte Carlo code

The DPM  is a dynamical model for low $`p_{}`$ hadronic and nuclear interactions, based on the large $`N`$ expansion of QCD with $`N_c/N_f`$ fixed . The dominant lowest order configuration in p-p scattering at high energy consists in the production of two strings between valence constituents, of type $`(qq)_vq_v`$, see Fig. 2.

There are also more complicated terms, corresponding to higher order diagrams in the large $`N`$ expansion, involving 4, 6,$`\mathrm{}`$ strings. These extra strings are of the type $`q_s\overline{q}_s`$, with sea quarks and antiquarks at their ends (Fig. 3). These configurations correspond to multiple inelastic scattering in the $`S`$-matrix approach, the number of strings being equal to twice the number of inelastic collisions. The contribution of each configuration to the cross section is determined using the generalized eikonal approach (see below) or the perturbative Reggeon calculus  in hadron-hadron collisions and the Glauber-Gribov model  in collisions involving nuclei.

For A-A collisions, the rapidity distribution of secondaries is given by

$$\frac{dN^{\mathrm{AA}}}{dy}=\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}\left[N^{(qq)_v^{\mathrm{A}_p}q_v^{\mathrm{A}_t}}(y)+N^{q_v^{\mathrm{A}_p}(qq)_v^{\mathrm{A}_t}}(y)\right]+2(\overline{n}\overline{n}_\mathrm{A})N^{q_s\overline{q}_s}(y),$$
(1)
where $`N(y)`$ are the rapidity distributions of produced particles in the individual strings stretched between the projectile ($`p`$) and target ($`t`$) nuclei, $`\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}`$ is the average number of wounded nucleons of A and $`\overline{n}`$ is the average number of nucleon-nucleon collisions. Both $`\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\overline{n}`$ are computed  in the Glauber model. For instance, for minimum bias collisions

$$\overline{n}=\frac{\mathrm{A}^2\sigma _{\mathrm{NN}}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{AA}}}\frac{\mathrm{A}^2\sigma _{\mathrm{NN}}}{\pi (2R_\mathrm{A})^2}\frac{\mathrm{A}^{4/3}}{4},$$
(2)
with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{NN}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{AA}}`$ the nucleon-nucleon and nucleus-nucleus cross sections respectively; for central collisions,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{AA}}\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2,\overline{n}\mathrm{A}^{4/3}.$$
(3)
If all strings would have the same plateau height (i.e. the same value of $`N(0)`$), $`dN^{\mathrm{AA}}/dy|_{y=0}`$ would increase like A4/3. However at present energies the plateau height of the $`q_s\overline{q}_s`$ strings is much smaller than that of the $`(qq)_vq_v`$ ones, and the first term in (1) dominates. One obtain in this way the result of the Wounded Nucleon Model (WNM) . At SPS energies only for central collisions some departure of the law

$$\frac{dN^{\mathrm{AA}}}{dy}\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}$$
(4)
is expected, and indeed has been seen in the experimental data .

At higher energies the contribution of the sea strings becomes increasingly important, not only because their plateau height gets higher but also due to the need to introduce multistring configuration in each nucleon-nucleon collision. If the average number of strings in each nucleon-nucleon collision is $`2\overline{k}`$ (this number can be computed in the generalized eikonal model), the total number of strings is $`2\overline{k}\overline{n}`$ and (1) is changed into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN^{\mathrm{AA}}}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}\left[N^{(qq)_v^{\mathrm{A}_p}q_v^{\mathrm{A}_t}}(y)+N^{q_v^{\mathrm{A}_p}(qq)_v^{\mathrm{A}_t}}(y)+(2\overline{k}2)N^{q_s\overline{q}_s}(y)\right]`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`2\overline{k}(\overline{n}\overline{n}_\mathrm{A})N^{q_s\overline{q}_s}(y).`$
The hadronic spectra of the individual strings $`N(y)`$ is obtained from a convolution of momentum distribution functions and fragmentation functions . Both functions can be determined to a large extent from known Regge trajectories.

For RHIC and LHC energies $`\overline{k}`$ $`2`$ and 3 respectively. Using these values in (5) it is obtained :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN^{\mathrm{SS}}}{dy}}|_{y=0}=170,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dN^{\mathrm{PbPb}}}{dy}}|_{y=0}=1890\text{ at }\sqrt{s}=200\text{ GeV per nucleon},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN^{\mathrm{SS}}}{dy}}|_{y=0}=500,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dN^{\mathrm{PbPb}}}{dy}}|_{y=0}=7900\text{ at }\sqrt{s}=7\text{ TeV per nucleon},`$ (6)
for charged particles in central ($`\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}>28`$ in S-S and 200 in Pb-Pb, corresponding to $`b0`$) A-A collisions (in  a value of 8500 for Pb-Pb, $`b<3`$ fm, at $`\sqrt{s}=6`$ TeV per nucleon is given).

In these results no semihard collisions were taken into account. The inclusion of this kind of collisions cannot modify significantly the numbers in (6) since the total number of strings is constrained by unitarity. The fact that some of the $`q_s\overline{q}_s`$ strings can be the result of a semihard gluon-gluon interaction, will affect the $`p_{}`$ distribution of the produced particles. However, average multiplicities are practically unchanged if one neglects changes from energy-momentum conservation due to the larger $`p_{}`$ in the semihard contribution.

Other effect not taken into account in these first estimations done in 1991  is shadowing corrections, which can be of importance at RHIC and LHC energies. The physical origin of shadowing corrections777For a discussion on the relation between unitarity, parton saturation and shadowing see for example . can be traced back to the difference between the space-time picture of the interaction in the Glauber model  and in Glauber-Gribov field theory . In Glauber we have successive collisions of the incident hadron to explain multiple scattering in hadron-nucleus interactions, while in Gribov theory simultaneous collisions of different projectile constituents with nucleons in the target nuclei are considered. Nevertheless, the h-A scattering amplitude can be written as a sum of multiple scattering diagrams with elastic intermediate states, which have the same expressions in both cases. In addition to these diagrams there are other ones which contain, as intermediate states, all possible diffractive excitations of the projectile hadron, whose influence at SPS energies is small. The size of the high mass excitations of the initial hadron is controlled by the triple Pomeron coupling. The value of this coupling, determined from soft diffraction experimental data, allows to describe hard diffraction measured at the Hadron-Electron Ring Accelerator (HERA) at DESY and also the size of the shadowing effects in the nuclear structure functions at small $`x`$ . These considerations imply a reduction of particle densities at midrapidity of a factor 2 at RHIC and 3 at the LHC .

This shadowing can be alternatively seen as a way of introducing the interaction among strings, see next Section. In (1) and (5) it is assumed that strings fragment independently one from each other. As the number of strings grows with the energy of the collision, with the size of the projectile or the target and with the degree of centrality of the collision, interaction of strings is expected at very high energies in central heavy ion collisions. This approach is equivalent to take into account the triple Pomeron coupling, whose effects on $`dN/dy`$ are very small at SPS energies and become large at RHIC and LHC.

In order to include the hard part in the DPM, the eikonal depending on impact parameter $`b`$ and energy is divided in a sum of soft plus hard pieces ,

$$\chi (b^2,s)=\chi _s(b^2,s)+\chi _h(b^2,s),$$
(7)
normalized to the corresponding elementary cross sections,

$$d^2b2\chi _i(b^2,s)=\sigma _i^0,i=s,h;$$
(8)
in terms of the eikonal, the inelastic cross section for the collision is

$$\sigma _{in}=d^2b\left[1e^{2\chi (b^2,s)}\right].$$
(9)
The soft eikonal is parametrized as

$$\chi _s(b^2,s)=\frac{\sigma _s^0}{8\pi \left[c+\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}(s/s_0)\right]}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b^2}{4\left[c+\alpha ^{}\mathrm{log}(s/s_0)\right]}\right)$$
(10)
and the hard one as

$$\chi _h(b^2,s)=\frac{\sigma _h^0}{8\pi d}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b^2}{4d}\right).$$
(11)
The soft input is a soft Pomeron with a linear trajectory, $`\alpha _s(t)=1+\mathrm{\Delta }_s+\alpha ^{}t`$,

$$\sigma _s^0=g^2s_s^\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(12)
and the hard cross section $`\sigma _h^0`$ is calculated from PQCD using a lower $`p_{}`$ cut-off and conventional structure functions. Unitarity of the cross section is explicit in (9), which can be expanded as

$$\sigma _{in}=d^2b\underset{l_c+m_c1}{}\sigma (l_c,m_c,b^2,s),$$
(13)
the sum running over $`l_c`$ soft elementary collisions and $`m_c`$ hard ones.

DPMJET is a Monte Carlo code for sampling hadron-hadron, hadron-nucleus, nucleus-nucleus, lepton-hadron and lepton-nucleus collisions at accelerator and cosmic ray energies . It uses the DPM for hadronic and nuclear interactions, the hard part being simulated using PYTHIA  and, in its latest version DPMJET-II.5 , one of the most recent sets of parton distribution functions, GRV-LO-98 . The code includes intranuclear cascade processes of the created secondaries with formation time considerations, and also nuclear evaporation and fragmentation of the residual nucleus.

In the first versions of the code, in addition to diagrams where the valence diquarks at the end of one string fragment into hadrons preserving the diquark, diquark breaking was allowed. This is the so-called popcorn mechanism, see Fig. 4. However the mechanism is not enough to explain the large baryon stopping observed in A-B collisions. For this reason in the DPM new diagrams  for diquark breaking, like the one in Fig. 5, have been proposed and discussed. In both Figs. 4 and 5 the dashed line is the string junction: at large $`N_c`$ a baryon can be pictured  as made out of three valence quarks together with three strings which join in the string junction888Using some supergravity solution and the recently conjectured duality between gauge and string theory the large $`N_c`$ baryon wave function has been constructed from $`N_c`$ strings connected via a junction . . These diagrams, included in DPMJET-II.5, shift the baryon spectrum to the central rapidity region and also produce an enhancement of strange baryons and antibaryons.

In the code the presence of diquarks and antidiquarks at sea string ends is also included. This increases baryon and antibaryon rapidity densities and, due to energy-momentum conservation, reduces that of pions.

The results of DPMJET-II.5 for charged particles in central Pb-Pb collisions at RHIC (3 % more central events) and LHC (4 % more central events) are

$$\frac{dN}{dy}|_{y=0}^{\mathrm{RHIC}}=1280,\frac{dN}{dy}|_{y=0}^{\mathrm{LHC}}=2800.$$
(14)
These values agree with the ones computed in the DPM , see above. The previous version of the code  gives a higher value at LHC, $`dN_{ch}/d\eta |_{\eta =0}=3700`$  (although for $`\sqrt{s}=6`$ TeV per nucleon and $`b3`$ fm). This reduction is due to the inclusion of new diagrams and to the energy-momentum conservation consequences of the inclusion of $`(qq)_s(\overline{q}\overline{q})_s`$ strings. Notice than the value obtained in the code is much smaller than that obtained in the DPM using (5). This fact is essentially due to energy-momentum conservation, which prevents some of the ($`\overline{n}`$,$`\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}`$,$`\overline{k}`$) configurations to take place.

## 3 The String Fusion Model

The SFM  is based on QGSM, a model which is quite similar to DPM with only minor differences. The main ingredient added in the SFM is the fusion of strings . The basic idea is that strings fuse as soon as their transverse position come within a certain interaction area, of the order of the string proper transverse dimension as dictated by its mean $`p_{}`$. In a Monte Carlo approach, such a picture can be realized by assuming that strings fuse as soon as partons which act as their sources, have their transverse positions close enough. In this language the fusion probability is determined by the parton transverse dimension, that is, by the parton-parton cross section. Energy conservation can be taken into account by distributing the available energy among these active partons, as it has always been done in string models . Then the emerging strings occupy different intervals in rapidity space, determined by the energy-momentum of their sources. The fusion of strings may only take place when their rapidity intervals overlap. In particular, for two pairs of partons from the projectile and target with rapidities $`y_1`$, $`y_2`$ and $`y_1^{}`$, $`y_2^{}`$ respectively, the two corresponding strings fuse in the interval $`[\mathrm{max}\{y_1^{},y_2^{}\},\mathrm{min}\{y_1,y_2\}]`$. If this interval becomes small the resulting object will have will have its total energy of the order of a typical hadron mass and, as with ordinary strings, is no more a string but rather an observed hadron. The exact value of the minimal string energy and thus of its minimal rapidity length is taken the same as for ordinary strings.

The color and flavor properties of the formed strings follow from the properties of their ancestor strings. The fusion of several quark-antiquark $`q\overline{q}`$ strings produces a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ complex with color $`Q`$ (quadratic Casimir operator of the representation $`Q^2`$), which is determined by the SU(3) color composition laws. For example, the fusion of two $`q\overline{q}`$ triplet strings produces a $`[\overline{3}]`$ string (that is, a diquark-antiquark string) with probability 1/3 and a $`[6]`$ string with probability 2/3 ($`[3][3]=[6][\overline{3}]`$). On the other hand, if two triplet strings with opposite color flux directions fuse (a quark $`[3]`$ state fuses with a $`[\overline{3}]`$ antiquark state), either colorless states at the end of the new string or a $`[8]`$ string are formed with probabilities 1/9 and 8/9 respectively ($`[3][\overline{3}]=[1][8]`$). The flavor of the fused string ends is evidently composed of the flavor of the partons sitting there. As a result of string fusion, we thus obtain strings with arbitrarily large color and differently flavored ends, in accordance with the probability to create the color $`Q`$ from several (anti)quarks. Crude characteristics of hadron interactions depend only on the fact that the total number of strings of whatever color in a given transverse area becomes limited because of their fusion. In other words, string density cannot grow infinitely but is bounded from above . More detailed properties of hadron spectra require knowledge of a particular manner in which the new fused strings decay into hadrons.

In all color string models, it is assumed that the homogeneous color field corresponding to the strings creates pairs of colored partons, which neutralize this field and provide for its subsequent decay. The basic formula which describes the probability of such a process is taken in the spirit of the famous Schwinger expression for the probability to create an electron-positron pair in a constant electromagnetic field . With a constant color field which originates from two opposite color charges $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ (8-vectors in SU(3)), the probability rate to create a pair of partons with color charges $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{C}`$, flavor $`f`$ and mass $`M_f`$ for unit string length is assumed to be given by

$$\frac{d\omega (\stackrel{}{Q},\stackrel{}{C})}{d^2p_{}}A_t(kQC)^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{M_{}^2}{kQC}\right).$$
(15)
The parameter $`A_t`$ has the meaning of the string transverse area and $`M_{}`$ is the transverse mass. $`k`$ is proportional to the string tension $`\kappa `$,

$$\kappa =\frac{\pi kQ^2}{2}.$$
(16)
In  the strings of high color, denoted as color ropes, break as a result of successive production of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, which gradually neutralize the color flux of the string until it breaks. In SFM, however, the process considered is that of creation of a pair of parton complexes with color $`\stackrel{}{Q}`$ equal to that of the ends of the string. This is the main contribution to the breaking of the string for low values of $`Q`$ . As, in the Monte Carlo code, fusion of strings is taken into account in an effective way and only fusion of two strings is allowed, the mechanism of string breaking for high color strings is the one just mentioned. It is also assumed that $`[3]`$, $`[\overline{3}]`$, $`[6]`$ and $`[8]`$ strings have the same transverse area999This assumption is a very strong one; other possibilities will be discussed in Section 8 in relation to percolation of strings . . The string tension is proportional to $`Q^2`$,

$$Q_{[3]}^2=4/3=Q_{[\overline{3}]}^2,Q_{[8]}^2=3,Q_{[6]}^2=10/3.$$
(17)
So, approximately $`\kappa _{[8]}\kappa _{[6]}2.5\kappa _{[3]}=2.5\kappa _{[\overline{3}]}`$.

As can be inferred from what has been presented above, fusion of strings leads to an enhancement of baryon and antibaryon production, due to the possibility of having $`(qq)`$ and $`(\overline{q}\overline{q})`$ at the end of the fused strings. In DPM a similar mechanism is introduced considering the possibility of diquarks in the sea, as mentioned in the previous Section. In addition to this mechanism there is another source of baryon enhancement, due to the larger tension of fused strings (17) which, through (16) and (15), implies a more efficient production of heavy quarks and diquarks, and of higher $`p_{}`$. Therefore, it is also expected heavy flavor enhancement and some increase of transverse momentum.

Another important consequences of string fusion is the possibility of producing particles in collisions involving nuclei, outside the nucleon-nucleon kinematical region, the so-called cumulative effect (part of these effect is usually addressed to the Fermi motion of nucleons inside nuclei). In fact the resulting fused string has an energy-momentum corresponding to the sum of the energy-momenta of its ancestor strings, which can be larger than the energy-momentum available in an isolated nucleon-nucleon collision .

In the SFM code, the nuclear parton wave function is taken as a convolution of the parton distribution in a nucleon with the nucleon distribution in a nucleus. In this way, hadrons and nuclei are treated in a similar way, different from what DPMJET does. Also, in a previous version of SFM  most of the computations where done at SPS energies and no hard part was considered. This part is now introduced in the code in a standard way  and modifies the central rapidity region at energies higher than those of SPS.

The probability of fusion of two strings is controlled by the parton-parton cross section,

$$\sigma _p=2\pi r^2.$$
(18)
Its numerical value is fixed to $`\sigma _p8`$ mb, in order to reproduce the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ enhancement seen in central S-S and S-Ag collisions at SPS energies . This value, which means $`r0.36`$ fm, has been obtained implementing in the code fusion of only two strings and therefore has to be considered as an effective one. The actual transverse size of a string should be less, a more realistic one being $`r0.2÷0.25`$ fm , a value which agrees with other considerations .

For the purpose of this review, the most important consequence of fusion of strings is that it suppresses total multiplicities, reducing the number of pions in the central rapidity region, although the rapidity distribution becomes larger at the extreme of the fragmentation regions. In the predictions done with the previous version of the model , no hard part was included and the charged particle densities at midrapidity for central ($`b=0`$) Au-Au collisions were

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}|_{y=0}`$ $`=`$ $`1000\text{ at }\sqrt{s}=200\text{ GeV per nucleon},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dy}}|_{y=0}`$ $`=`$ $`1900\text{ at }\sqrt{s}=6.3\text{ TeV per nucleon}.`$ (19)
The corresponding values without considering fusion of strings were 1850 and 4000 respectively. A strong suppression of the central density is produced (note the agreement with the values from DPMJET). Including the hard part , the values for collisions of charged particle densities corresponding to the 5% more central events101010In the model, this translates into $`b3.2`$ fm for Au-Au at RHIC and $`b3.3`$ fm for Pb-Pb at LHC. are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN^{\mathrm{AuAu}}}{dy}}|_{y=0}`$ $`=`$ $`910\text{ at }\sqrt{s}=200\text{ GeV per nucleon},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN^{\mathrm{PbPb}}}{dy}}|_{y=0}`$ $`=`$ $`3140\text{ at }\sqrt{s}=5.5\text{ TeV per nucleon},`$ (20)
and now the suppression due to string fusion is smaller (the corresponding values without fusion are 1300 and 3690 respectively). The reason for this is that the strings coming from hard scatterings do not fuse in the code. At LHC a large proportion of strings are hard ones and therefore the relative size of suppression is smaller. The hard strings have a size $`1/p_{}`$ and indeed should interact and fuse, although with smaller probability than the soft ones. Effects of overlapping of strings will be further discussed in Section 8.

## 4 The Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics Model

RQMD  is a semiclassical microscopic approach which combines classical propagation with stochastic interactions. Strings and resonances can be excited in elementary collisions, their fragmentation and decay leading to the production of particles. The nature of the active degrees of freedom in RQMD depends on the relevant length and time scales of the processes considered. In low energy collisions (around 1 GeV per nucleon in the center of mass) RQMD reduces to solving transport equations for a system of nucleons, other hadrons and eventually resonances interacting in binary collisions and via mean fields. At large beam energies ($`>10`$ GeV per nucleon in the center of mass) the description of a projectile hadron interacting in a medium (a cold nucleus) as a sequence of separated hadron or resonance collisions breaks down. A multiple collision series is formulated on the partonic level, following the Glauber-Gribov picture. In RQMD these multiple collisions correspond to strings formed between partons of the projectile and target, including sea quarks and antiquarks. The string excitation law $`dPdx^+/x^+`$ is the same used in FRITIOF . The decay of elementary color strings is done using JETSET . Rescattering is included: four classes of binary interactions, BB, BM, MM and $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$B (B denoting baryon, M denoting meson) are considered.

One of the main ingredients of RQMD is the inclusion of interaction of strings by means of formation of color ropes, see previous Section, when there are overlapping strings. These ropes are chromoelectric flux tubes whose sources are charge states in representations of color SU(3) with dimension higher than the triplet one. They are equivalent to the fused strings of SFM. As already mention, as a simplification in SFM only fusion of two strings is considered, as an effective way to take into account string interaction. In RQMD all possibilities are considered. The breaking of these higher color strings proceeds through successive production of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs  due to the Schwinger mechanism.

As in the case of SFM, introduction of color ropes in RQMD leads to heavy flavor and baryon and antibaryon enhancement. In version RQMD 2.3 the model reproduces the SPS rapidity distributions of h-, K0, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$. It slightly underestimates the yields of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ (by less than a factor 2). Also it is able to reproduce the $`m_{}`$ spectrum of all these particles. Let us mention that independent string models are not able to reproduce these slopes.

The formation of color ropes leads to a strong suppression of central rapidity distributions. The prediction of RQMD for central ($`b=3`$ fm) Pb-Pb collisions at RHIC is $`dN/dy|_{y=0}700`$ . This number is lower than the value of SFM, 910. The reason for that probably has to do with the strong fusion probability used in RQMD. The effect of this strong string interaction in some observables (like antibaryon enhancement) is compensated by other processes (a large $`\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$B annihilation).

## 5 The Heavy-Ion Jet Interaction Generator (HIJING)

In HIJING  the soft contribution is modeled by diquark-quark strings with gluon kinks induced by soft gluon radiation, in a way very similar to the FRITIOF model . Since this model treats explicitly minijet physics through PQCD, the transverse momentum in string kinks due to soft processes is limited from above by a minijet scale $`p_0=2`$ GeV/c. Gluon radiation is extended to the hard part of high $`p_{}`$, which, together with the use of momentum distribution functions for partons similar to those of DPM, constitutes a difference with FRITIOF. Strings decay independently by means of the JETSET  routines. In addition to the low $`p_{}<p_0`$ gluon kinks, HIJING includes an extra low $`p_{}`$ transfer between the constituent quarks and diquarks at the string ends. This extra $`p_{}`$ is chosen to ensure an smooth extrapolation in the $`p_{}`$ distributions from the soft to the hard regime.

Multiple minijet production with initial and final state radiation is included along the lines of the PYTHIA model . First, the cross section for hard parton scattering $`\sigma _{jet}`$ is computed in PQCD at leading order (LO), using a K-factor $`2`$ to simulate higher order corrections. The eikonal formalism, see Section 2, is employed to calculate the number of minijets per inelastic nucleon-nucleon collision. For A-A collisions at impact parameter $`b`$ the total number of jets is given by

$$N_{jet}^{\mathrm{AA}}(b)=\frac{\mathrm{A}^2T_{\mathrm{AA}}(b)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{AA}}(b)}\sigma _{jet},$$
(21)
with

$$T_{\mathrm{AA}}(b)=d^2b^{}T_\mathrm{A}(bb^{})T_\mathrm{A}(b^{}),$$
(22)
$`T_\mathrm{A}(b)`$ being the nuclear profile function normalized to 1 and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{AA}}(b)d^2b\{1\mathrm{exp}[\sigma _{\mathrm{NN}}A^2T_\mathrm{A}(b)]\}`$ the A-A cross section  for impact parameter $`b`$. For central collisions $`b=0`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{AA}}(b=0)1`$ and

$$N_{jet}^{\mathrm{AA}}(b)\frac{\mathrm{A}^2}{\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2}\sigma _{jet}\mathrm{A}^{4/3}.$$
(23)
Therefore, at high energies and for central nucleus-nucleus collisions there will be many minijets.

In the model, jet quenching  is included to enable the study of the dependence of moderate and high $`p_{}`$ observables, on an assumed energy loss per unit length $`dE/dx`$ of high energy partons traversing the dense matter produced in the collision. The effect of including jet quenching is a moderate enhancement of particle production in the central rapidity region and to diminish the yield in the fragmentation regions. Furthermore, in the last version of the model the mechanism of string junction migration  explained in Section 2 is included, in order to shift baryons from fragmentation to central rapidity regions.

The results for charged densities at midrapidity in central ($`b<3`$ fm) Au-Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV per nucleon are shown in Fig. 6. The different curves refer to different versions of the model with and without quenching and shadowing of the nucleon structure functions in the nucleus . For LHC, HIJING predictions  lie in the range $`5000÷7500`$ depending on structure functions used and quenching included or not.

## 6 Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics and Hydrodynamical models

It has been argued  that the initial state (the initial distribution of partons) in a high energy heavy ion collision could be computed using PQCD. Several groups  have developed models along this line. Concretely, Eskola et al. have computed  charged densities and transverse energies al midrapidities, using PQCD at some given scale which is taken to be equal to a saturation scale, the scale at which parton distributions stop their increasing at small $`x`$.

In ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions the number of produced gluons and quarks with $`p_{}`$ greater than some cut-off $`p_0`$, $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}(b,p_0,\sqrt{s})`$, increases when $`p_0`$ decreases, when the size of the nuclei increases or $`b`$ decreases, see (21) and (23), and when $`\sqrt{s}`$ increases due to the small $`x`$ enhancement of parton distribution functions. Shadowing of nucleon structure functions in nuclei will decrease $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}(b,p_0,\sqrt{s})`$, but next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections will increase it. At sufficient large cut-off $`p_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ the system of produced gluons is dilute and usual perturbation theory is applicable. However, at some transverse momentum $`p_0=p_{sat}`$ the gluon and quark phase space density saturate and no further increase is expected. In this case one may conjecture that evaluation of the number of charged particles $`N_{ch}`$ and transverse energy $`E_T`$ using QCD formulae at this saturation scale $`p_{sat}`$ gives a good estimate of the total $`N_{ch}`$ and $`E_T`$ (partons with $`p_{}p_{sat}`$ are rare, partons with $`p_{}p_{sat}`$ saturate and contribute little to the total $`E_T`$).

In , first $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}\left(b=0,p_0,\sqrt{s}\right)`$ for $`|y|<0.5`$ is computed using standard PQCD expressions at LO. Nuclear effects on parton distribution functions are implemented using the EKS98 parameterization  of nuclear corrections. To simulate NLO contributions, a K-factor $`\mathrm{K}=2`$ is used. The scale in the PQCD calculation is fixed from considering that at saturation $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}(b=0,p_{sat},\sqrt{s})`$ partons, each one with transverse area $`\pi /p_{sat}^2`$, fill the whole transverse area $`\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2`$,

$$N_{\mathrm{AA}}\left(b=0,p_{sat},\sqrt{s}\right)=p_{sat}^2R_\mathrm{A}^2.$$
(24)
In Fig. 7 $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}\left(b=0,p_0,\sqrt{s}\right)`$ is plotted for $`\mathrm{A}=208`$ as a function of $`p_0`$ at SPS, RHIC and LHC energies. The dashed curve is $`p_0^2R_\mathrm{A}^2`$. The intersection points give us $`p_{sat}`$ at the corresponding energies. Of course, all this is only valid as long as $`p_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ for perturbation theory to be justifiedly used, which is doubtful at SPS and RHIC (see the Figure; the saturation momentum are $`0.5`$, $`1.4`$ and $`2.3`$ GeV/c at SPS, RHIC and LHC energies respectively).

The values of $`N_i=N_{\mathrm{AA}}\left(b=0,p_{sat},\sqrt{s}\right)`$ and $`p_{sat}`$ can be well fitted by the expressions

$`N_i`$ $`=`$ $`1.383\mathrm{A}^{0.922}(\sqrt{s})^{0.383},`$ (25)
$`p_{sat}`$ $`=`$ $`0.208\mathrm{A}^{0.128}(\sqrt{s})^{0.191}\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}.`$ (26)
The initial state computed in this way very nearly fulfills the kinetic thermalization condition for bosons, $`ϵ/n=2.7T`$ (the number of gluons is much larger than that of quarks), and there also is some justification to consider that further hydrodynamical expansion is locally thermal, i.e. entropy conserving. Thus initially the entropy $`S_i=3.6N_i`$ (ideal system of bosons). For the final hadronic gas $`S_i=S_f4N_f`$ so that $`N_f=0.9N_i`$, i.e. the number of hadrons in the final state is, up to 10 % corrections, equal to the number of initially produced gluons at the scale $`p_{sat}`$. The multiplicity prediction

$$N_{ch}=\frac{2}{3}0.9N_i$$
(27)
is directly obtained from (25) and plotted as a dashed line in Fig. 8. The values at RHIC and LHC for central ($`b=0`$) Pb-Pb collisions are 900 and 3100, not very different from those obtained by DPM, DPMJET and SFM on very different grounds111111Theoretical models based on a semiclassical treatment of gluon radiation  by partons in the colliding nuclei give values compatible with these ones, see . .

## 7 Other models

In this Section we would like to comments on some other models. The fact that the rest of the models are joined together, do not mean at all that they are less important or successful than the mentioned ones. It is simply the shortage of space which prevents us from a longer study.

The VENUS model  is an extension of DPM. The main difference is the inclusion of diagrams in which there is two color exchanges, the first one providing two $`(qq)_vq_v`$ strings, one of the being intermediate, because a second color exchange breaks the diquark, giving a different $`(qq)_vq_v`$ string and a double string which consists in a forward moving quark linked to two backward moving quarks, see Fig. 9. These diagrams become increasingly important with a growing number of inelastic collisions, as in h-A or A-B, although of course they are also present in N-N collisions. They enhance stopping power, shifting the baryon spectrum towards midrapidities.

VENUS gives large values for central rapidity densities. At $`\sqrt{s}=6`$ TeV per nucleon for central ($`b3`$ fm) Pb-Pb collisions its result is $`dN_{ch}/d\eta |_{\eta =0}=8400`$ . The model has lately been extended to deal with $`\gamma ^{}`$-$`\gamma ^{}`$, $`\gamma ^{}`$-h, $`\nu `$-h, h-h, h-A and A-B collisions in the same unified approach . An unique Pomeron describes both soft and hard interactions by means of the evolution of structure functions from some properly chosen initial conditions. The new model , denoted by NEXUS, has not given values for LHC yet. Preliminary predictions for central ($`b<2`$ fm) Au-Au collisions at RHIC are $`dN_{ch}/dy|_{y=0}1100`$ . In this model particles and resonances produced in string fragmentation are allowed to rescatter and, if more than two of them are close enough, joined into a quark cluster which is decayed isotropically .

The LUCIAE event generator  (Lund University and China Institute of Atomic Energy) is a version of the FRITIOF model  where collective interactions among strings and rescattering of the produced particles are included. The collective interactions are incorporated following . LUCIAE has studied several observables at SPS comparing to experimental data, but, to our knowledge, has not worked out predictions for rapidity densities at RHIC and LHC. In any case, the inclusion of collective string effects produces very fast particles  at the extreme of the phase space, similar to the cumulative effect which occurs in the SFM. Also, simply by energy-momentum conservation, a suppression of particles in the central rapidity region should happen.

The Ultrarelativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics (UrQMD)  is a microscopic hadronic approach based on the covariant propagation of mesonic and baryonic degrees of freedom. It allows for formation of strings and resonances, and rescattering among them and of the produced particles. In this aspect it is quite similar to RQMD. In the low energy region, i.e. $`\sqrt{s}2`$ GeV per nucleon, the inelastic cross sections are dominated by s-channel formation of resonances, which decay into particles isotropically in their local rest frame according to their lifetimes. A large variety of baryonic and mesonic states have been incorporated in the model. All corresponding antiparticles are included and treated on the same footing. At higher energies strings are considered. Much attention is paid in the model to the intermediate energy region between AGS, the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron at BNL ($`\sqrt{s}5`$ GeV per nucleon), and SPS, in order to achieve a smooth transition between the low and high energy regimes. The prediction of the model  for central ($`b3`$ fm) Au-Au collisions at RHIC is shown in Fig. 10. The central density of charged pions is $`750`$, being for all charged particles $`1100`$.

Another approach using also UrQMD is the model denoted by VNI+UrQMD, where a combined microscopic partonic/hadronic transport scenario is introduced . The initial high density partonic phase of the heavy ion reaction is calculated in the framework of the parton cascade model VNI , using cross section obtained from PQCD at LO (see  for a discussion of the uncertainties introduced by NLO corrections and K-factors in VNI and other parton cascade models). The partonic state is then hadronized via a configuration space coalescence and cluster hadronization model, and used as initial condition for a hadronic transport calculation using UrQMD. In Fig. 11 the time evolution of parton and on-shell hadron rapidity densities for central ($`b1`$ fm) at RHIC can be seen . From this curve, the charged particle rapidity density is $`1000`$. When, instead of calculating the initial phase using a parton cascade approach, QGP formation is assumed, this plasma is evolved hydrodynamically until hadronization, and then UrQMD is used for hadronic transport (the model considers a first order phase transition and is denoted as Hydro+UrQMD ), a smaller charged particle central rapidity density is obtained for central ($`b=0`$) Au-Au collisions at RHIC, $`750`$.

Using also VNI there is the model denoted by VNI+HSD , where HSD stands for Hadron String Dynamics model . This model involves quarks, diquarks, antiquarks, antidiquarks, strings and hadrons as degrees of freedom. The parton cascade model VNI is extended by the hadronic rescattering as described by HSD. Its results for central ($`b2`$ fm) Au-Au collisions at RHIC are shown in Fig. 12, where VNI and HSD predictions are the four plots at the top and VNI+HSD are the two plots at the bottom. It is worth noting that VNI+HSD gives almost the same results as HSD, which already includes final state interactions. This fact, also observed in DPM and SFM (see Section 2) is based on unitarity, which controls the number of inelastic collisions independently of their soft or hard origin. The total number of charged particles at midrapidity is $`1150`$.

Another RHIC prediction  comes from a modification of the HIJING model to include a parton cascade model  and final state interactions based on the ART model . In this model (HIJING+ZPC+ART) the central rapidity density of charged particles for central ($`b=0`$) collisions at RHIC is of the order 1100.

The assumption that local thermodynamical equilibrium is attained by the system of two heavy ions colliding at high energies is a basic hypothesis of macroscopic statistical and thermodynamical models  (see  for a discussion on statistical equilibrium in heavy ion collisions). This idea comes from a long time ago . Following  the statistical model treats the system as a grand canonical ensemble with two free parameters, a temperature $`T`$ and a chemical potential $`\mu _B`$. Interactions of the produced particles are taken into account considering a excluded volume correction, corresponding to repulsion setting in for all hadrons at a radius of 0.3 fm (a hard core). Hadron yield ratios resulting from this model are in reasonable agreement with SPS central Pb-Pb data. Taking these results and looking at the expected phase boundary between the QGP and the hadron gas, the hadrochemical freeze-out points are where one expects, this being suggestive that hadron yields are frozen at the point when hadronization of the QGP is complete. This gives for RHIC a freeze-out temperature of 170 MeV, the same as found at SPS. The chemical potential is expected to be small, 10 MeV used as an upper limit. Strangeness and $`I_3`$ conservation then require values of $`\mu _s=2.5`$ MeV and $`\mu _{I_3}=0.2`$ MeV. In order to predict absolute yields one has to estimate the volume per unit rapidity at the time when hadronization is complete. Starting from an initial temperature of $`T_i=500`$ MeV at a time $`\tau =0.2`$ fm/c and using a transverse expansion with $`\beta =0.16`$, this volume is 3600 fm3 at the freeze-out temperature of 170 MeV. The number of charged pions per unit rapidity at $`y=0`$ is 1260, that of charged kaons 194, that of protons 62 and that of antiprotons 56. Modifying the freeze-out temperature to 160 MeV results in a reduction of hadron yields about 10 %. For central Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC, taking again $`T_f=170`$ MeV and $`\mu _B=10`$ MeV and performing similar calculations, the fireball volume per unit rapidity at chemical freeze-out is 14400 fm3, resulting in 5000 charged pions, 770 charged kaons, 250 protons and 220 antiprotons per unit rapidity. The total charged particle density is

$$\frac{dN}{dy}|_{y=0}=7560.$$
(28)
As at RHIC, small modifications of $`T_f`$ and $`\mu _B`$ lead to small changes in this prediction. Both at RHIC and LHC the centrality of these results should correspond roughly to the centrality of the SPS experimental data which were fitted to extract the parameters used in the predictions. As different experiments consider different centrality criteria, this is not fully determined, so let us take $`5÷10`$ % as an estimate.

The quark coalescence model  assumes that at RHIC a QGP will be produced in the collision, which will expand and cool, hadronization proceeding via quark coalescence as described by the ALCOR model . In this nonlinear coalescence model, subprocesses are not independent, competing one with each other. The coalescence equations relate the number of hadrons of a given type to the product of the numbers of different quarks from which the hadron consists. The main predictions of the model relates different particle ratios, but unfortunately the absolute values cannot be obtained in the model.

Finally, let us mention an extrapolation done by the WA98 Collaboration  from central pseudorapidity densities measured at SPS at different centralities. The predicted maximum charged pseudorapidity density for central Pb-Pb collisions is 1000 at RHIC and 2500 at LHC, for $`10`$ % more central events.

## 8 Percolation

In many models, multiparticle production at high energies is described in terms of color strings stretched between the projectile and target, see previous Sections. In principle, these strings fragment independently, the only correlation among them being energy-momentum conservation. However, with growing energy, centrality and/or size of the colliding particles, the number of strings grows and one expects that the hypothesis of independent fragmentation is no longer valid, interaction among them becoming essential. For these reasons we have seen in Section 3 and 4 different ways of taking into account such interaction. In particular, in SFM or RQMD the strings fuse or form color ropes, in such a way that the transverse size of the new string or rope is the same as that of the original strings. In this case it can be shown that there is no phase transition. However, other possibilities could be discussed. It could be the case that the new string would have a transverse size corresponding to the sum of the sizes of the original strings. In this case, a first order phase transition occurs .

An alternative and natural way to the formation of a (non-thermal) QGP is percolation of strings , which in any case can be used as an estimation for the failure of the independent fragmentation hypothesis. This a purely classical, geometrical mechanism. At a given energy and impact parameter $`b`$ in an A-B collision, there is an available transverse area. For simplicity, let us take A=B and $`b=0`$, so this area is $`\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2`$. Inside it, the strings formed in the collision can be viewed as circles of radius $`r_0`$. Some of the circles may overlap and then form clusters of strings. Above a critical density of strings, percolation occurs, so that clusters of overlapping strings are formed through the whole collision area. Percolation gives rise to the formation of a collective state, which can be identified as QGP, at a nuclear scale. The phenomenon of continuum percolation is well known and has been used to explain many different physical processes . The percolation threshold $`\eta _c`$ is related to the critical density of strings $`n_c`$ by

$`\eta _c`$ $`=`$ $`\pi r_0^2n_c,`$ (29)
$`n_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2}}\mathrm{at}b=0,`$ (30)
where $`N_c`$ is the number of exchanged strings and $`r_00.2÷0.25`$ fm , see Section 3. $`\eta _c`$ has been computed using Monte Carlo simulation and direct connectedness expansions . The results lie in the range $`1.12÷1.18`$ using step functions for the profile function of the nucleus (i.e. strings homogeneously distributed in the whole transverse area available). The use of Woods-Saxon or Gaussian nuclear densities leads to higher values of $`\eta _c`$ , up to $`1.5`$. The corresponding value of $`n_c`$ lies in the range $`6÷12`$ strings/fm2. In Table 1 we show the number of strings exchanged in different central ($`b=0`$) collisions together with their densities, as obtained in the SFM . It is seen that percolation could already occur for Pb-Pb at SPS. At RHIC and LHC, even collisions between much lighter nuclei could lead to the phase transition.

Notice that string percolation occurs in two dimensions. Percolation of hadrons was proposed long ago  as a possible way to reach QGP. However, in this case percolation is three-dimensional and the critical density is below even normal nuclear matter density. This is in agreement with lattice studies  which show that the so-called energy radius of the hadron is about 0.2 fm. Therefore the color fields inside hadrons occupy only a few percent of the transverse area, $`(r_0/R_h)^2(1/5)^2`$. This also explains the relative weak string-string interaction (for instance the triple Pomeron coupling of Glauber-Gribov theory used in DPM and DPMJET, see Section 2).

Percolation is a second order phase transition . The corresponding scaling law gives the behavior of the number of clusters of $`n`$ strings, $`\nu _n`$, in terms of $`\eta `$,

$$\nu _n=n^\tau \left(n^\sigma \left[\eta \eta _c\right]\right),|\eta \eta _c|1,n1,$$
(31)
where $`\tau =187/91`$ and $`\sigma =36/91`$. The fraction $`\varphi `$ of the total surface occupied by strings is determined by

$$\varphi =1e^\eta .$$
(32)
It can be seen  that the multiplicity $`\mu _n`$ due to a cluster of $`n`$ overlapping strings, compared to the multiplicity of one string $`\mu _1`$, is given by

$`\mu _n`$ $`=`$ $`n\mu _1F(\eta ),`$ (33)
$`F(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1e^\eta }{\eta }}}.`$ (34)
From Table 1 and taking $`r_0=0.25`$ fm, the values of $`F(\eta )`$ for central ($`b=0`$) Pb-Pb collisions at RHIC and LHC are 0.59 and 0.46 respectively, quite close to the values of the reduction factor of multiplicities in DPM due to triple Pomeron couplings, 1/2 and 1/3 respectively, see Section 2. A naive calculation for central rapidity densities of charged particles can be done multiplying the corresponding values obtained in the SFM  without fusion of strings for Pb-Pb at $`b=0`$, by these reduction factors $`F(\eta )`$. The results for RHIC and LHC are 910 and 1980 respectively (380 at $`\sqrt{s}=19.4`$ GeV with $`F(\eta )=0.68`$) and clearly, from the way they were obtained, should be considered as lower bounds.

Percolation, in addition to reduce central rapidity multiplicities and enhance heavy flavor production (as string fusion does), also gives rise to other consequences in long range correlations and transverse momentum correlations , and J/$`\psi `$ suppression . Also, as the energy-momentum of the clusters is the sum of the energy-momentum of the original strings, a huge cumulative effect is expected.

The critical point of percolation is the fixed point of a scale transformation (renormalization group equation) which eliminates short range correlations, surviving only long range ones. Close the that point observables should depend only on $`\eta `$, and not on energy or nuclear size separately.

By passing, let us notice that a similar intrinsic scale has been proposed  in the small $`x`$ physics domain, related with saturation of structure functions or minijets, which was discussed in Section 6. This quantity is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\frac{N_{\mathrm{AA}}(p_{sat})}{\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2},$$
(35)
with $`p_{sat}`$ the transverse momentum at which saturation starts. When the number of partons $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}(p_{sat})`$, each one with a transverse size of the order $`\pi /p_{sat}^2`$, verifies $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\pi p_{sat}^2`$, partons cover the whole nuclear area. Physics should depend only on the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. Furthermore, the effective action  which describes small $`x`$ physics should become critical at some fixed point of some renormalization group, the correlation functions depending only on critical exponents determined by symmetry considerations and dimensionality. Comparing with percolation, indeed $`\eta /(\pi r_0^2)=N/(\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2)`$ is formally $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, with the exchange of $`N`$ soft strings by $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}(p_{sat})`$ partons. Let us indicate that from the arguments exposed above, overlapping partons will only cover the whole transverse area $`\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2`$ asymptotically. According to (32), the transverse area $`S`$ covered by $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}(p_{sat})`$ partons of transverse size $`\pi /p_{sat}^2`$ is

$$S=\pi R_\mathrm{A}^2\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\pi /r_0^2\right)\right].$$
(36)
## 9 Cosmic Ray Physics and heavy ion accelerators

Usually it is considered that the highest cosmic ray energies, say $`10^{15}÷10^{20}`$ eV, are much higher than energies reached at accelerators. With the advent of RHIC and LHC, this is not true any longer. Pb-Pb collisions at RHIC and LHC will reach total energies of $`10^{15}`$ and $`10^{18}`$ eV respectively. This means that, although no participant nuclei larger than Fe is expected, there will be collective physics to explore in Cosmic Ray Physics. In particular changes in the multiplicity originate  changes in the development of atmospheric showers. Unfortunately, atmospheric showers are dominated by forward particles, and it is in the fragmentation regions where models which in the central rapidity region are quite different, are more similar. Nevertheless, collective effects like color rope formation will influence the fragmentation regions (for example, the enhancement of the cumulative effect) and have observable effects in the development of the shower . Besides, PQCD effects may be of importance for the transverse broadening of the shower. It would be convenient to apply the different models for multiparticle production to simulations of cosmic ray atmospheric showers .

## 10 Conclusions

In Table 2 predictions of the different models for charged particle densities produced in central Au-Au or Pb-Pb collisions at RHIC and LHC are presented, together with the corresponding centrality criteria. Some of the predictions of the models are not available and its place has been left empty. In order to estimate the discrepancy between different predictions induced by different definitions of centrality, by the fact that some of the results are $`dN/dy|_{y=0}`$ and other $`dN/d\eta |_{\eta =0}`$, and by using Au-Au or Pb-Pb at RHIC or slightly different energies at LHC, in Table 3 we present results obtained in the SFM  for different reactions. From them it can be concluded that results should be compared allowing for a $`20÷30`$ % discrepancy.

For completeness, we have included predictions from percolation and from the WNM . As discussed in Section 8, the former should be considered as lower bounds. The latter have been obtained computing in SFM  $`dN_{ch}/dy|_{y=0}`$ for p-p, p-n and n-n collisions at the corresponding energies, making an isospin weighted average and multiplying by the number of wounded nucleons in a central collision, taking $`\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}=200`$ in Pb-Pb and $`\overline{n}_\mathrm{A}=190`$ in Au-Au (which correspond to $`b0`$); the result that we get in this way for Pb-Pb at $`\sqrt{s}=17.3`$ GeV per nucleon (SPS) is 370. In the following we will not discuss these two quite naive predictions.

At RHIC energies all the predictions are in the range $`700÷1550`$ and most of them in $`1000÷1100`$. The lowest value corresponds to RQMD. The reason for that, as already commented at the end of Section 4, is the formation of color ropes with a large probability, which is required in the model to describe antibaryon enhancement at SPS because a rather large baryon-antibaryon annihilation cross section is used. In SFM, which considers a similar mechanism (string fusion), the charged density obtained is larger. The low value also obtained in Hydro+UrQMD is due to the initial QGP state and the first order transition assumed.

At LHC the differences among the predictions are larger, more than a factor 3. They lie in the range $`2500÷8500`$. Comparing Table 2 with Fig. 1, which summarizes the situation before 1996, it can be seen that nowadays predictions tend to gather around the lowest values; at the time of  only SFM gave predictions below 4000.

Essentially, models based on parton shower evolution predict larger values. Also statistical models obtain very large charged densities. However, the model described in Section 6, which uses mainly partonic degrees of freedom, obtains a low value (3100). This is due to the saturation of minijet production, which plays the role of an upper cut-off in the number of minijets. This saturation is a consequence of unitarity .

Unitarity is a basic ingredient that controls the number of soft and hard elementary scatterings (which are no more independent one from each other) in models like DPM, DPMJET, SFM and RQMD. In addition to that, energy-momentum conservation reduces the possible number of scatterings. Finally, interaction among strings is another collective effect which reduces central pion densities. In DPM these interactions are taken into account by means of the triple Pomeron. Its coupling is fixed to describe soft diffraction and HERA data. In other models as RQMD or SFM the interactions among strings are taken into account via the formation of color ropes or fusion of strings. Its strength is essentially fixed to reproduce heavy flavor and antibaryon enhancement at SPS. It is not unexpected that these three different forms of quantifying the shadowing give rise to similar predictions for global and simple observables as central rapidity densities of charged particles. Probably the knowledge of shadowing from small $`x`$ physics can help to reconcile models based on partonic degrees of freedom with those based on strings as degrees of freedom. On the other hand, statistical thermal models predict a larger value close to 8000 as a consequence of the rather large volume at freeze-out. A reduction in a factor 3 would mean a strong reduction in this volume and a large change of the ratio between different particles, or in the temperature and chemical potential values.

In the summary talks of three mayor conferences  were quoted 8000, 8000, and between 3000 and 8000, for the probable number of charged particles per unit rapidity at the center of mass in central Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC. Models with interaction among strings obtain a lower value. The interplay between soft and hard physics is one of the main issues in the study of strong interactions and, together with the search and characterization of QGP, one of the main goals of Heavy Ion Physics. Doubtless, the new experiments at RHIC and LHC will shed light on this subject, even measuring such a simple observable as central rapidity densities of charged particles.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been done under contract AEN99-0589-C02 of CICYT (Spain). We express our gratitude to N. S. Amelin, M. A. Braun, A. Capella, W. Cassing, K. J. Eskola, E. G. Ferreiro, A. B. Kaidalov, J. Ranft, C. A. Salgado, H. Sorge, D. Sousa and K. Werner for useful discussions and comments.

FIGURES