text:
# On the forward-backward correlations in a two-stage scenario

## 1 Introduction

Multiparticle production at high energy is currently (and successfully) described in a two-stage scenario. At the first stage a certain number of colour strings are formed, stretched between the incoming partons. At the second stage these strings decay into the observed secondary hadrons. In the simplest version the strings emit particles independently. However one may also introduce the interaction between strings in the form of their fusion and/or percolation. In any case the observed multiplicity distribution is a convolution of the probability distribution of the possible string configurations and the multiplicity distribution generated by the individual strings. In fact both are not well-known, so that to understand the dynamics of the multiparticle production one has to reconstruct both from a single distribution of the observed secondaries. To facilitate this task it is natural to use some other experimental information about the multiparticle production. An immediate candidate is the long-range correlation data, currently studied as the forward-backward correlations (FBC). They correspond to studying the average multiplicity in, say, the backward hemisphere $`B`$ as a function of the event multiplicity in the forward hemisphere $`F`$.

The most striking feature of the data is that they can be almost perfectly represented by a linear function \[1-4\]

$$B=a+bF,$$
(1)
the strength of the correlation measured by the coefficient $`b`$. The dynamical reason for this simple behaviour is not known. In this paper we try to understand this behaviour in the two-stage scenario, decribed above.

Our starting point is the assumption that individual emitters (colour strings) have a Poisson distribution in the number of produced particles. This assumption is based on the idea that a string is an homogeneous extended object in the rapidity space. Its fundamental property is that parts of the string occupying different regions in the rapidity space do not interfere (except at small rapidity distances). Then the particle distributions coming from parts of the string should have basically the same form which should also be similar to the overall particle distribution (except for the average multiplicities, which shoud sum together into a total one). In terms of the corresponding generating functions (GF) this means that the functional dependence of the product of GF corresponding to different parts of the string should be the same and coincide with the functional dependence of the total GF for the string. As we shall see, this condition is fulfilled by the exponential dependence of the Poisson GF (see Eq. (22)). It is difficult to imagine any other probability distribution with the same properties.

Our main result is that with the individual emitters having the Poisson multiplicity distribution, the FBC are completely determined by the final multiplicity distribution in the forward rapidity window $`P(F)`$ and do not depend explicitly on the distribution of strings themselves (and consequently on their dynamics). If, in accordance with the experimental data, one further requires that $`B`$ be a linear function of $`F`$, then one finds that the corresponding $`P(F)`$ must be a negative binomial distribution (NBD), also in agreement with the experimental data. Thus our explanation of the linear dependence (1) is that it comes from a Poissonian form of the elemental distribution, which the distribution in the elemental emitters transforms into a NBD. As we shall see such transformation is only possible with different kinds of strings, including those with very small multiplicities. Such strings are indeed present in current scenarios, either as ”short” strings, extended over comparatively small rapidity intervals, in the independent string picture, or strings with small transverse area, which appear in the percolation scenario.

This result is not at all trivial, as one can conclude from an alternative picture in which both the strings and the final distribution are negative binomial. In this case we find that $`B`$ is not a linear function on $`F`$, but rather a function which grows with $`F`$ with a falling derivative, so that at high $`F`$ it either saturates or grows only logarithmically.

To compare our predictions with (scarce) experimental data we take into account that most (if not all) particles are created as resonances. So in fact our numbers $`F`$ and $`B`$ refer not to the observed particles but only to the directly formed ones. As in most other approaches we then have to introduce an average number $`r`$ of the observed particles per single directly produced one (resonance, or cluster). The number of observed particles in the forward or backward rapidity windows will then be $`n_F=rF`$ and $`n_B=rB`$ respectively. Of course, from (1) also a linear relation will follow between $`n_B`$ and $`n_F`$ with the same parameter $`b`$. Using the experimental data on the forward multiplicity distribution in  and comparing them with the data on the parameter $`b`$  we find that $`r`$ does not seem to depend on energy and its value is around 3.

## 2 Formalism

Let us consider a set of $`N`$ identical elemental emitters distributed with a probability $`w(N)`$. We denote $`p(F,B)`$ the probability to find $`F(B)`$ particles in the forward (backward) hemispheres from a single emitter. The overall distribution in $`F,B`$ coming from any number of emitters is given by

$$P(F,B)=\underset{N}{}w(N)\underset{F_i,B_i}{}\delta _{F,{\scriptscriptstyle F_i}}\delta _{B,{\scriptscriptstyle B_i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p(F_i,B_i).$$
(2)
The overall averages are

$$A=\underset{F,B}{}A(F,B)P(F,B).$$
(3)
The conditional probability to find $`B`$ particles in the backward hemisphere with their number $`F`$ in the forward hemisphere fixed is

$$P_F(B)=\frac{P(F,B)}{P(F)}.$$
(4)
Here $`P(F)`$ is the (unconditional) probability to observe $`F`$ particles in the forward hemisphere

$$P(F)=\underset{B}{}P(F,B).$$
(5)
According to (4) and (5) the average with a given $`F`$ is given by the ratio

$$A_F=\frac{_BA(F,B)P(F,B)}{_BP(F,B)}.$$
(6)
It is convenient to pass to the formalism of generating functions (GF). One represents the Kronecker symbols entering (2) as

$$\delta _{m,n}=\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^{nm},$$
(7)
where the integration contour in the complex $`x`$ plane goes around the origin. Using this formula one writes for the probability (5)

$$P(F,B)=\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^F\frac{dy}{2\pi iy}y^B\underset{N}{}w(N)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\underset{F_i,B_i}{}x^{F_i}y^{B_i}p(F_i,B_i)\right).$$
(8)
Each sum inside the product over $`i=1,\mathrm{}N`$ gives a GF for the distribution $`p(F,B)`$ from a single emitter:

$$g(x,y)=\underset{F,B}{}x^Fy^Bp(F,B).$$
(9)
So we get

$$P(F,B)=\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^F\frac{dy}{2\pi iy}y^B,G(x,y)$$
(10)
where we introduced the overall GF

$$G(x,y)=\underset{N}{}w(N)g^N(x,y).$$
(11)
The averages with a fixed $`F`$ can be readily expressed in terms of $`G`$. We find

$$\underset{B}{}A(F,B)P(F,B)=\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^F\frac{dy}{2\pi iy}\underset{B}{}A(F,B)y^BG(x,y).$$
(12)
To do the sum over $`B`$ we use

$$\underset{B}{}A(F,B)y^B=A(F,y\frac{}{y})\underset{B}{}y^B=A(F,y\frac{}{y})\frac{y}{y1}.$$
(13)
The integration by parts in $`y`$ then gives

$$\underset{B}{}A(F,B)P(F,B)=\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^F\frac{dy}{2\pi (y1)}A(F,y\frac{}{y})G(x,y).$$
(14)
Taking finally the residue at $`y=1`$ we find

$$\underset{B}{}A(F,B)P(F,B)=\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^F\left[A(F,y\frac{}{y})G(x,y)\right]_{y=1}.$$
(15)
In partcular we get

$$P(F)=\underset{B}{}P(F,B)=\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^FG(x,1)$$
(16)
and

$$\underset{B}{}BP(F,B)=\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^FG_y^{}(x,1).$$
(17)
This allows to write the average number of particles in the backward hemisphere, given their number in the forward hemisphere, as

$$B_F=\frac{𝑑xx^{F1}G_y^{}(x,1)}{𝑑xx^{F1}G(x,1)}.$$
(18)
This formalism can be generalized in a straightforward manner to the case when the emitters are not identical. Call a configuration $`C`$ a particular number $`N_C`$ of emitters enumerated by $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}.N_C`$ all of them (or part of them) different. Let the probability to find $`F(B)`$ particles in the forward (backward) hemisphere from the $`i`$-th emitter be $`p_i(F,B)`$. Define corresponding GF $`g_i(x,y)`$ as in (9). Then for the overall GF one finds an evident generalization of (11)

$$G(x,y)=\underset{C}{}w(C)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_C}{}}g_i(x,y),$$
(19)
where $`w(C)`$ is the probability to find a given configuration $`C`$ and summation goes over all possible configurations.

## 3 Poisson emitters

In the following we assume that individual emitters have no FBC, which implies that both the probability and GF for them factorize

$$p(F,B)=p(F)p(B),g(x,y)=g(x)g(y).$$
(20)
As to the concrete form of the distributions $`p(F)`$ and $`p(B)`$, we assume them identical and Poissonian:

$$p(F)=e^\alpha \frac{\alpha ^F}{F!}.$$
(21)
The corresponding GF is an exponential:

$$g(x,y)=g(x)g(y),g(x)=e^{\alpha (x1)}.$$
(22)
The reason to assume the Poissonian distribution for a single emitter has been explained in the Introduction: it naturally goes with the notion of the string as a homogeneous extended object in the rapidity space.

Passing to the overall GF $`G`$, we see that it does not generally factorize. With (22) we find

$$G(x,y)=\underset{N}{}w(N)e^{Na(x+y2)}.$$
(23)
The only case when it does factorize corresponds to a fixed number of emitters $`w(N)=\delta _{N,N_0}`$.

The special property of the Poisson distribution for the elemental emitters shows itself in that the overall GF results depending only on the sum $`x+y`$. As a consequence we find

$$G_y^{}(x,1)=G_x^{}(x,1).$$
(24)
Putting this into (17) and integrating by parts in $`x`$ we transform the numerator in (18) as

$$(F+1)\frac{dx}{2\pi ix}x^{F1}G(x,1)=(F+1)P(F+1).$$
(25)
As a result $`B_F`$ becomes expressed entirely in terms of the distribution in the number of the forward particles:

$$B_F=\frac{(F+1)P(F+1)}{P(F)}.$$
(26)
Before we go further, note that this result holds not only for identical emitters, but also for different but Poissonian emitters. In fact the key point is that for an individual Poissonian emitter

$$p_i(x,y)=e^{\alpha _i(x+y2)}=p_i(x+y)$$
(27)
depends only on the sum $`x+y`$. Summation over configurations in (19) will not change this result, so that the crucial identity (24) and the following equations will be valid.

Eq. (26) allows to find $`B`$ once the particle distribution $`P(F)`$ in the forward rapidity window is known. A more detailed form of Eq. (26) can be obtained in the approximation of the KNO scaling, when $`B`$ can be expressed through the scaling function (see Appendix 1.).

## 4 Linear form of $`B_F`$

As we have shown, under the assumption that elemental emitters are Poissonian $`B_F`$ can be expressed entirely in terms of the distribution in the number of the forward particles by Eq. (26). Let us assume that the dependence of $`B_F`$ is linear and given by (1). Then from (26) we obtain a recurrent relation

$$P(F+1)=\frac{a+bF}{F+1}P(F)=\left(b+\frac{c}{F+1}\right)P(F),$$
(28)
where $`c=ab`$. As we demonstrate below, it allows to completely determine $`P(F)`$ (see also ).

We put

$$P(F)=b^FQ(F).$$
(29)
Then we find a recurrency for $`Q(F)`$

$$Q(F+1)=\left(1+\frac{\lambda }{F+1}\right)Q(F).$$
(30)
where $`\lambda =c/b=a/b1.`$ Recurrency (30) is trivially solved by

$$\mathrm{ln}Q(F)=\mathrm{ln}Q(0)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{F}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\lambda }{n}\right).$$
(31)
The sum over $`n`$ can be expressed via the Gamma-function. Indeed we find that if

$$S(\lambda )\underset{n=1}{\overset{F}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\lambda }{n}\right)$$
(32)
then its derivative in $`\lambda `$

$$S^{}(\lambda )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{F}{}}\frac{1}{n+\lambda }=\psi (F+\lambda +1)\psi (\lambda +1).$$
(33)
Integrating this over $`\lambda `$ in the interval $`[0,\lambda ]`$ we get

$$S=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(F+\lambda +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(F+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +1)}$$
(34)
This finally gives for the distribution $`P(F)`$:

$$P(F)=P(0)e^{F\mathrm{ln}b}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(F+\lambda +1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(F+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda +1)},$$
(35)
where $`P(0)`$ is to be determined from the normalization condition. Evidently one should have $`b<1`$ for normalizability.

One observes that (35) is nothing but a negative binomial distribution with the average value $`F`$ and parameter $`k`$ determined by

$$b=\frac{F}{F+k},k=\lambda +1=\frac{a}{b}.$$
(36)
Thus the NBD is singled out from all other distributions by the fact that if the elemental emitters are Poissonian it leads to a linear dependence of $`B`$ on $`F`$. However to give this result a physical meaning we still have to demonstrate that it is possible to produce a NBD distribution by a convolution of Poisson distributions with a physically admissible distribution of emitters. This problem is discussed in the next section.

## 5 Negative binomial distribution from Poisson distributions

We start by showing that if all the emitters are identical and Poissonian, one cannot produce a NBD distribution of final particles with any physically admissible distribution of emitters. Indeed let $`P(F)`$ have a NBD form. The corresponding GF is then

$$G_{NBD}(z)=(abz)^k,ab=1.$$
(37)
The distribution itself can be extracted by developing this function in a power series:

$$P_{NBD}(F)=a^kC_{k1+F}^F\left(\frac{b}{a}\right)^F,$$
(38)
where we define the binomial coefficient as

$$C_{k1+F}^F=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(F+k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(F+1)}$$
(39)
The average value of the multiplicity is given by

$$F=k(a1),$$
(40)
so that the NBD is fully determined by two parameters: the average multiplicity and $`k`$.

Now it is trivial to show that if the GF are known for both the individual emitter and for the overall distribution, the GF for the distribution of emitters is determined uniquely (provided all emitters are identical). Indeed, considering again the distribution of only forward particles, we have seen that the overall GF is given by

$$G(z)=\underset{N}{}w(N)g^N(z),$$
(41)
where $`g(z)`$ is the GF for the individual emitter. Introducing the GF for the distribution of emitters by

$$H(z)=\underset{N}{}w(N)z^N,$$
(42)
we observe that

$$G(z)=H(g(z)).$$
(43)
Assume that we know both $`G(z)`$ and $`g(z)`$. We solve $`g=g(z)`$ for $`z`$ to determine $`z=z(g)`$. Putting this into $`G(z)`$ we find the unknown function $`H(z)`$:

$$H(g)=G(z(g)).$$
(44)
As we see, the GF for the emitter distribution is determined in a unique manner. However it may be or may not be physical, depending on its behaviour at small values of argument. For a physically valid $`H(z)`$ it should be analytic at small $`z`$ with all the derivatives positive. Otherwise it cannot be interpreted as a GF for a physically sensible distribution.

Let us see what this means for the case when the final distribution is negative binomial and the individual emitter is Poissonian. Then the GF for an individual emitter is given by (22) Inverting we find

$$z=1+\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}g.$$
(45)
So with the final GF given by (37), the GF for the emitter distribution turns out to be

$$H(g)=\left[ab\left(1+\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}g\right)\right]^k=\left[1b\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}g\right]^k.$$
(46)
This function is not analytic at $`g=0`$, all its derivatives being infinite at the origin. So it cannot be interpreted as a GF for some physically sensible distribution of emitters.

Thus there does not exist a distribution of identical Poissonian emitters which gives an overall NBD. However this is not true if the emitters are allowed to be different and, in particular, continuously distributed in their average values $`\alpha _i`$. Indeed, for different Poissonian emitters, we have for the GF for the forward hemisphere

$$G(z)=\underset{C}{}w(C)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_C}{}}e^{\alpha _i(z1)}=\underset{C}{}w(c)e^{\alpha (C)(z1)},$$
(47)
where

$$\alpha (C)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_C}{}}\alpha _i$$
(48)
and has a meaning of the average forward multiplicity for a given configuration $`C`$. The quantity to be averaged over configurations in (47) depends only on $`\alpha (C)`$. Assuming it to vary continuously, one can rewrite (47) as

$$G(z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha w(\alpha )e^{\alpha (z1)},$$
(49)
where $`w(\alpha )>0`$ now has the meaning of the probability distribution for the average forward multiplicity of the emitters, normalized accordingly

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha w(\alpha )=1.$$
(50)
Now it is trivial to find a form of $`w(\alpha )`$ which leads to the NBD. In fact let us take

$$w(\alpha )=\frac{r^k}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}\alpha ^{k1}e^{r\alpha }.$$
(51)
Then (47) gives

$$G(z)=\left(\frac{r}{r+1z}\right)^k=(abz)^k,$$
(52)
where

$$a=1+1/r,b=1/r.$$

So we have indeed obtaind the NBD (37). From the derivation it can be seen that the crucial point in obtaining a GF which behaves as a meromorphic function, instead of the entire Poissonian, has been the integration over small valuses of $`\alpha `$ down to $`\alpha =0`$. Physically this implies existence of emitters (strings) with very small average multiplicities.

Note that a construction similar to (49) with (51) was used in the VENUS model  to obtain a realistic NBD for p-A spectra.

To conclude, in the picture where the Poissonian emitters are different and may have very small average multiplicities, it is possible to choose their distribution to have the overall NBD. In this picture the FBC have an exact linear dependence as in the empirical formula (1) with the parameter $`b`$ determined by (36)

## 6 Negative binomial distribution from negative binomial distributions

Although the results of the preceding section show that one can assume the elemental emitters to be Poissonian and end up with the NBD for the finally produced particles, provided the emitters are different and extend to very small average multiplicities, it presents some interest to see what happens in a more conservative picture, in which all elemental emitters are identical. As we have seen, to have the final NBD the emitters cannot be Poissonian in this case. So the first problem is to find an adequate distribution for a single emitter which would lead to the NBD with an approprate physically meaninful emitter distribution. This problem can evidently have many solutions. One of the simplest was found by C.Iso and K.Mori . In the following we use their results to study the long-range correlations which follow from their form of the distributions. We expect that the conclusion will not depend too heavily on this particular choice. In any case they will serve as a simple example to be compared with the Poissonian emitters. The solution of C.Iso and K.Mori is to take the GF for the individual emitter essentially also of the NBD form

$$g(z)=\frac{e}{d}\frac{1}{d}(abz)^y,$$
(53)
with the requirements:

$$y>0,d=e1<0,e=a^y.$$
(54)
The latter condition follows from the requirement that the emitter should emit at least one particle, i.e. $`g(0)=0`$. The average multiplicity from a single emitter corresponding to (53) is given by $`F/xd`$ ,where $`F`$ is the overall average corresponding to the NBD. With (53) one easily shows that the GF for the emitter distribution has a form

$$H(z)=(edz)^x,$$
(55)
where $`x<0`$ is determined by the final BND parameter $`k`$: $`k=xy`$. It turns out that (55) corresponds to a physically meaningful distribution so long as $`x2`$. The solution of C.Iso and K.Mori contains only one more parameter $`y`$ (or $`x`$) in addition to the two parameters of the final NBD.

Passing to the FBC, with a non-Poissonian emitters our simple formula (26) does not hold and we have to explicitly calculate them from (18). We have to calculate

$$G_u^{}(z,1)=\left[w(N)g^N(z)Ng^{N1}(u)h^{}(u)\right]_{u=1}.$$
(56)
Using the explicit form of $`g(u)`$, Eq. (57) we find

$$g^{}(1)=\left[\frac{by}{d}(abu)^{y1}\right]_{u=1}=\frac{by}{d}.$$
(57)
We are left with

$$G_u^{}(z,1)=\frac{by}{d}w(N)Ng^N(z)=\frac{by}{d}g\frac{d}{dg}w(N)g^N=\frac{by}{d}g\frac{d}{dg}(edz)^x.$$
(58)
In the last equation we used (55). Taking the derivatives and putting (37) for $`g(z)`$ we finally obtain

$$G_u^{}(z,1)=\frac{bk}{d}\left[e(abz)^{k+y}(abz)^k\right].$$
(59)
Both terms are the GF for the NBD, with parameters $`ky`$ and $`k`$ respectively. So projecting their $`F`$-th term in the development in the power series in $`z`$ will give

$$eP_{NBD}(F,ky)P_{NBD}(F,k).$$

According to (18) to obtain $`B`$ we have to divide this by $`P_{NBD}(F,k)`$. This brings us to our final result

$$B=\frac{bk}{d}\left[\frac{P_{NBD}(F,ky)}{P_{NBD}(F,k)}1\right],$$
(60)
or using relations between $`e`$, $`d`$ and the overall average $`F`$

$$B=\frac{F}{1a^y}\left[1a^y\frac{P_{NBD}(F,ky)}{P_{NBD}(F,k)}\right],$$
(61)
where

$$a=\frac{F}{k}+1$$

and $`y`$ is the only extra parameter introduced in the solution. Using the explicit expression for the NBD distribution we find

$$B=\frac{F}{1a^y}\left[1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ky)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(F+ky)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(F+k)}\right].$$
(62)
At large values of $`F`$ the negative second term is vanishing as $`(F+k)^y`$. So for $`y>0`$ $`B`$ grows with $`F`$ tending to a constant value, which is somewhat greater than its overall average. In the limiting case $`y=0`$ one gets

$$B=\frac{F}{a}\left[\psi (F+k)\psi (k)\right].$$
(63)
So $`B`$ continues to grow indefinitely with $`F`$, but only logarithmicallly. Thus, comparing with the Poisson emitters case, we find the same tendency in the behaviour of $`B`$: it grows with $`F`$. However now the growth is either stopped at high $`F`$ or severely moderated.

## 7 Comparison to the experiment. Discussion.

Passing to the comparison with the latest experimental data , we first have to stress that the observed values of $`b`$ strongly depend on the rapidity windows chosen. They diminish substantially with the gap between the forward and backward windows. This is thought to be an effect of the remaining short range correlations. However the fact that $`b`$ continues to considerably go down when the gap is raised from 4.37 to 5.43 makes this explanation dubious. In any case there is little reason to think that the FBC are universal for different choices of the rapidity windows, so that the analysis has to be made for each particular choice separately. To get rid of the short range correlations the gap should be taken large enough. From this point of view the data which involve the full forward and backward spaces are evidently not suitable. On the other hand our results are presented in terms of the particle distribution in the forward window. Such data are rather scarce in general and still more scarce if we want to have them exactly for the windows which have been used for the determination of the FBC. Thus, comparing the data from  and  we find only one pseudorapidity window

$$2.18<|\eta |<3.25$$
(64)
in which the parameter $`b`$ has been measured  and which is covered by two pseudorapidity windows of nearly the same length

$$2.5<|\eta |<3.5,\mathrm{and}2.0<|\eta |<3.0$$
(65)
where the particle distribution has been studied . The data on the FBC in the window agree with the form (1) with the parameter $`b`$ given in the Table 1 for various c.m, energies. As to the particle distributions in the two rapidity windows (65), it is claimed to be well described bu the NBD with parameters listed in Table 2 for two c.m. energies 200 and 900 GeV. As we see neither the windows nor the energies do not match in the two sets of data. In the following we use the values of the NBD parameters for the interval (64) as the average for the two intervals (65) and also use the parameters in Table 2 for energies 200 and 900 to desribe $`b`$ at 300 and 1000 GeV respectively.

Turning to our results we first stress that the form of $`B`$ which follows from the NBD for individual strings (62) or (63) is in striking contradiction with the data. In Figure we illustrate this behaviour for two possible values of the parameter $`y=0`$ and $`0.5`$ and compare it with the straight line corresponding to $`b=0.252`$ and $`a=1.2`$ (, with an appropriate reduction of $`a`$ for the interval (64)). The number $`r`$ of observed particles per directly produced was taken unity. However changing it does not improve the situation at all. So our first conclusion is that the scenario of strings with the NBD, which produce the overall NBD, does not work.

In our basic picture with Poissonian strings the linear form (1) holds exactly. The value of the parameter $`b`$ is given by Eq. (36) where the average $`F`$ refers to the directly produced particles. Passing to the observed particles we find

$$b=\frac{n_F}{n_F+rk},$$
(66)
where $`r`$ is the number of observed particle per one directly produced. The data shown in Tables 1 and 2 allow to extract the value of $`r`$ for the rapidity window (64) and two c.m. energies 200 and 900 GeV. We find

$$r=3.22\pm 0.68,\sqrt{s}=200\mathrm{GeV},$$

$$r=2.63\pm 0.52,\sqrt{s}=900\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(67)
Note the large errors, which come from the errors in the experimental $`b`$ and fitted $`k`$. From these values it is difficult to extract any definite information as to the behaviour of $`r`$ with energy. They are compatible with $`r`$ independent of energy altogether.

If we forget about the necessity to cut the central rapidity window and consider the whole phase space both in the forward and backward hemispheres, we get values of $`r`$ with less errors. They are presented in the first column of Table 3 for various energies. They also seem to be independent of energy.

Turning to the literature, we find that the FBC have been mostly discussed for the whole phase space in terms of the assumption by Chou and Yang  about the form of the multiplicity distributions in the total number of particles $`n`$ and in the difference $`z=n_Fn_B`$. On purely phenomenologal grounds Chou and Yang assumed that this distribution is a product of the NBD in $`n`$ and a binomial in $`z`$, the latter proportional to $`C_{n/r}^{n_F/r}`$, where $`r`$ is the number of particles per cluster. From this assumption, it was found in  by numerical calculation that the resulting behaviour of $`B`$ as a function of $`F`$ was close to linear. In this approach the parameter $`b`$ can be expressed through the total multiplicity as

$$b=\frac{n+kr}{n+k+r}.$$
(68)
Comparing this formula with the experimentally observed NBD parameters the values of $`r`$ were found for various energies in . They are presented in the second column of Table 3. As we see they are smaller than ours and seem to grow with energy.

Commenting on these results we have first to mention that our scenario with Poissonian strings automatically leads to the distribution in the difference $`z=FB`$ of the binomial type (see Appendix 2.). So in this way the formal assumption of Chou-Yang receives a concrete realization in our scheme. Since the linear dependence (1) is exact in our approach, we have little doubt that it should also hold in , which the numerical calculations made there confirm. However there remain a quantitative difference in the two approaches. One observes that for $`r`$ different from unity the final formulas for $`b`$ (36) and (68) remain different if one considers the whole phase space and takes into account that $`n=2F`$. Only for $`r=1`$ they coincide. As a result, our values for $`r`$ are systematically larger than those obtained in  from the essentially Chou-Yang approach (cf. the two columns in the Table 3). On the other hands our values do not essentially change with energy, whereas those of  grow, so that the difference between them seems to be disappearing at larger energies. The exact origin of this difference is easy to trace. It is related to the way in which the distribution in clusters is transformed into the one for the observed particles. In both approaches this transformation is made in an approximate manner. In the purely phenomenological approach of Chou-Yang the distribution in the total number of observed particles is taken to be the NBD just on experimental grounds. However it does not evidently correspond to the idea that particles are formed from clusters. In fact if we assume that all particles are formed from clusters which decay in exactly $`r`$ particles, their distribution cannot be an NBD in $`n`$, but rather an NBD in $`n/r`$. In this case one will only find a non-zero probability to see $`r,2r,3r\mathrm{}`$ observed particles. In our approach the distribution in $`n`$ is taken to be an NBD in $`n/r`$ suitably continued to non-integer values of the argument. This is evidently also only an approximation. It is trivial to find the exact distribution in $`n`$ which corresponds to cluster formation and decay in our approach (see Appendix 2.). Understandably it is not an NBD in the general case, passing into it only when the number of particles into which a cluster may go is fixed.

In conclusion we think that due to the introduction of a certain dynamical mechanism for particle production via interacting strings our approach allows not only to understand the reason for the formal assumption made in  and exploited in , but also presents some possibilities to improve the description of the FBC. In particular concrete models for string fusion and percolation introduce well defined distributions of strings and so allow, in principle, to predict the final form of the observed particle distribution. Unfortunately quantitative realization of this idea necessarily requires taking into account energy-momentum conservation at each step, which can only be achieved numerically, in a well developed Monte Carlo algorithm.

## 8 Acknowledgements

This work has been done under the contract AEN 99-0589-C02-02 from CICYT of Spain.

## 9 Appendix 1. KNO scaling functions

Using the KNO scaling for $`P(F)`$ we present it as

$$P(F)=F^1\psi \left(\frac{F}{F}\right)$$
(69)
with some smooth scaling function $`\psi (x)`$. Then

$$P(F+1)=F^1\psi \left(\frac{F+1}{F}\right)=P(F)+F^2\psi ^{}\left(\frac{F}{F}\right).$$
(70)
Putting this into (26) we obtain

$$B_F=F+1+\frac{F+1}{F}[\mathrm{ln}\psi (x)]_{x=F/F}^{}.$$
(71)
This formula is generally quite different from (1). Its exact form depends on the form of the KNO scaling function. Let us assume

$$\psi (x)=Ae^{\beta |x1|^\alpha }.$$
(72)
Then

$$[\mathrm{ln}\psi (x)]^{}=\mathrm{sign}(x1)\alpha \beta |x1|^{\alpha 1},$$
(73)
so that we finally get

$$B_F=F+1+\mathrm{sign}(FF)\alpha \beta \left(\left|\frac{F}{F}\right|^{\alpha 1}\left|\frac{F}{F}\right|^\alpha \right).$$
(74)
As one observes, as a rule, the $`F`$ dependence is much more compliciated than the linear one assumed in (1).

## 10 Appendix 2. The distribution in $`z`$ and production of clusters

We first show that the Poisson distribution of particles produced from the individual emitter automatically leads to a binomial distribution in $`z`$ at fixed total number of produced particles. (It is trivial to show that also the inverse is true: the binomial distribution in $`z`$ means that the elemental emitters are Poissonian). We again use the formalism of GF. In this language transition from numbers of particles $`F`$ and $`B`$ to $`n=F+B`$ and $`z=Fb`$ corresponds to the transition from variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ to $`u`$ and $`v`$ determined by

$$x=uv,y=u/v.$$
(75)
The GF $`G(u,v)`$ is related to the distribution $`P(n,z)`$ via

$$G(u,v)=\underset{n=0}{}\underset{z=n}{\overset{n}{}}u^nv^z.$$
(76)
Now assume that the elementary emitters are Poissonian so that $`G(x,y)=G(x+y)`$. We present it as

$$G(x+y)=\underset{n}{}a(n)(x+y)^N=\underset{n}{}a(n)(u/2)^n(v+1/v)^n=\underset{n}{}a(n)(u/2)^n\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}C_n^mv^{n2m}$$

$$=\underset{n}{}a(n)(u/2)^n\underset{z=n}{\overset{n}{}}C_n^{(n+z)/2}v^z.$$
(77)
From this expansion we conclude that

$$P(n,z)=(1/2)^na(n)C_n^{(n+z)/2}=(1/2)^na(n)C_n^F$$
(78)
and the overall distribution in $`n`$ is

$$P(n)=\underset{z=n}{\overset{n}{}}P(n,z)=a(n).$$
(79)
Dividing (78) by (79) we get the distribution in $`z`$ for fixed $`n`$ , which results proportional to $`C_n^F`$.

Now we discuss the correct treatment of resonance formation. Let the elemental emitter (string) produce two types of resonances 1 and 2 with a probability $`p(n_1,n_2)`$. Let the resonances decay into $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ observed particles respectively. The final distribution of the observed particles will be given by an evident generalization of Eq. (2):

$$P(n)=\underset{N}{}w(N)\underset{n_{1i},n2_i}{}\delta _{n_i(r_1n_{1i}+r_2n_{2i})}.\underset{i}{}p(n_{1i},n_{2i})$$
(80)
The GF for the distribution in $`n`$ will be given by

$$G(u)=\underset{n}{}P(n)u^n=\underset{N}{}w(N)\left(\underset{n_1,n_2}{}p(n_1,n_2)u^{r_1n_1+r_2n_2}\right)^N.$$
(81)
If we introduce the GF for a single emitter

$$g(u_1,u_2)=\underset{n_1,n_2}{}p(n_1,n_2)u_1^{n_1}u_2^{n_2},$$
(82)
then Eq. (81) can be rewritten as

$$G(u)=w(N)g^N(u^{r_1},u^{r_2}).$$
(83)
Now assume that the two resonances are produced independently and the distribution in both is Poissonian:

$$g(u_1,u_2)=e^{\alpha _1(u_11)+\alpha _2(u_21)},$$
(84)
where $`\alpha _{1,2}`$ give the average number of each sort of resonance produced by a single emitter. Also assume that the emitters are distributed like in (49) with the ratio $`\alpha _2/\alpha _1`$ fixed. Then in complete analogy with (52) we shall get an overall GF in the form

$$G(u)=\left(ab_1u^{r_1}b_2u^{r_2}\right)^k$$
(85)
with $`ab_1b_2=1`$. Evidently this is not a NBD. It passes into a NBD only in two limiting cases: $`b_2=0`$ when it gives a NBD in the observed particles and $`b_1=0`$ when it is a NBD in resonances and $`n`$ takes on values which are multiples of $`r`$.

## 11 References

1. S.Uhlig et al, Nucl. Phys. B132 (1978) 15.

2. UA5 coll., K.Alpgard et al., Phys. Lett., B 123 (1983) 361.

3. UA5 coll., R.E.Ansorge et al.,Z.Phys. C 37 (1988) 191.

4. E735 coll., T.Alexopulos et al., Phys. Lett. B 353 (1995) 155.

5. UA5 coll., R.E.Ansorge et al., Z.Phys. C 43 (1989) 357.

6. A.Giovanini and L.Van Hove, Z.Phys. 30 (1986) 242.

7. K.Werner and M.Kutschera, Phys.Lett. B 220 (1989) 243; K.Werner, Phys.Rep. 232 (1993) 87.

8. C.Iso and K.Mori Z.Phys. C46(1990) 59.

9. T.T.Chou and C.N.Yang, Phys. Lett. 135 (1984) 175.

10. S.L.Lim, Y.K.Lim, C.H.Oh and K.K.Phua, Z.Phys. C 43 (1989) 621.

## 12 Figure caption

$`B`$ as a function of $`F`$ with the NBD for individual emitters. The lower curve corresponds to $`y=0.5`$ in Eq. (62), the upper one corresponds to $`y=0`$ (Eq. (63)). The straight line shows the experimental behaviour at c.m.energy 200 GeV.

## 13 Tables

Table 1. Experimental data on $`b`$ for the rapidity window (64)

| Energy (GeV) | 300 | 546 | 1000 | 1800 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| b | $`0.252\pm 0.044`$ | $`0.376\pm 0.033`$ | $`0.381\pm 0.0021`$ | $`0.501\pm 0.008`$ |

Table 2. The NBD parameters for the rapdity windows (65)

| Energy (GeV) | $`\eta `$-interval | $`F`$ | k |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 200 | $`2.03.0`$ | $`2.40\pm 0.03`$ | $`2.01\pm 0.07\pm 0.10`$ |
| 200 | $`2.53.5`$ | $`2.14\pm 0.03`$ | $`2.2\pm 0.1\pm 0.1`$ |
| 900 | $`2.03.0`$ | $`3.72\pm 0.05`$ | $`2.2\pm 0.1\pm 0.1`$ |
| 900 | $`2.53.5`$ | $`3.41\pm 0.05`$ | $`2.2\pm 0.1\pm 0.1`$ |

Table 3. Number $`r`$ of particles per produced cluster

| Energy (GeV) | r, Eq. (66) | r, Eq (68)  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 300 | $`2.86\pm 0.29`$ | $`2.27\pm 0.24`$ |
| 546 | $`2.73\pm 0.26`$ | $`2.31\pm 0.19`$ |
| 1000 | $`3.11\pm 0.30`$ | $`2.65\pm 0.25`$ |
| 1800 | $`2.96\pm 0.21`$ | $`2.64\pm 0.16`$ |