text:
# Sideward Peak of Intermediate Mass Fragments in High Energy Proton Induced Reactions

## 1 Introduction

Multifragment formation from excited nuclei has attracted attention in this decade. It is closely related to the properties of nuclear matter, especially to its liquid-gas phase transition. For example, it has been proposed that multifragmentation would be caused by the volume instability of nuclear matter in the spinodal region , in which nuclear liquid and gas phase rapidly co-exist. The above idea on the fragment formation has received renewal interest, since recent high-quality heavy-ion experiments provide us of strong evidences of the first-order nature of the nuclear liquid-gas phase transition . It is a big challenge for theorists to elucidate the relation between the fragment formation and the equilibrium properties of nuclear matter, including its phase transitions. In heavy-ion collisions, however, non-trivial roles of strong collective flow make it difficult to relate fragment formations and the nuclear matter properties directly. Thus it is also necessary to investigate fragment formation phenomena in light-ion induced reactions, in which the flow effects on the fragmentation are expected to be smaller.

It has been known that the fragment mass distribution in high-energy proton induced reactions follows the power law, which signals the statistical formation of fragments in a critical but equilibrium condition. Energy spectra of IMFs also support the statistical fragment formation picture. In a recent KEK experiment of 12 GeV proton induced reaction on Au target, the energy spectra of IMFs such as O, F, Ne, and Na are measured, and it is found to be well fitted with a thermal model with Coulomb barrier.

Contrary to the mass and energy distribution of fragments, the angular distribution of IMFs contradicts to a picture of the statistical fragmentation from an equilibrated system. It is also long known that the angular distribution of Intermediate Mass Fragments (IMFs) becomes sideward peaked at proton incident energies above $`E_p=`$ 10 GeV . In the above KEK experiments, the angular distribution of IMFs such as O, F, Ne, and Na are shown to have a sideward peak around 70 degrees in the laboratory frame. The same experimental conclusion is also obtained in a BNL-AGS experiment. In the AGS p+Au experiment , the laboratory angular distribution of C isotopes becomes to have sideward peak as the incident energy of proton go beyond 10 GeV. This sideward peaked feature has been considered to be a mystery; it contradicts to a naive picture of statistical fragment formation from a spherical equilibrated residual nuclei.

In a statistical picture of fragment formation, the angular distribution of fragments is generally forward peaked. At low energies, the incident proton is absorbed into the target, and forms a thermalized compound nucleus having the incident proton momentum. At high energies, the incident proton collides with nucleons inside target nucleus (cascade process) in the first stage of reactions. These successive two-body scatterings give momentum transfers to the nucleons in target, and some of them are emitted from the residual nucleus. The momentum transfer to the residual nucleus is in the forward direction in average. Thus in both cases, the residual excited nucleus should have a forward momentum in average. If this residual compound nucleus decays statistically, produced fragments should have forward peaked angular distribution.

It is expected that these fragment angular distribution anomaly would be due to a new fragment formation mechanism, which becomes evident at higher incident energies. This new mechanism would be related to a new property of excited nuclei produced in GeV proton induced reactions. For the understanding of this sideward emission of IMFs, several characteristic mechanisms have been proposed so far; the shock wave propagation , the strange shaped nucleus formation  which is also predicted to be formed in heavy ion collisions , and recoil effects of particle scatterings . However, there is neither decisive conclusion nor satisfactory explanation for the sideward peak of IMF angular distribution, since it is not an easy task to analyze this phenomenon theoretically.

In the first stage of the high-energy proton induced reaction, the incident proton interacts with target nucleons and produces several pions. In the incident energy range around 10 GeV, the reaction mechanism of hadron-hadron collision evolves from single resonance baryon production to mutual excitation of incident baryons and/or string formation. For a reliable description of high-energy $`pA`$ reactions, it is necessary to invoke these incident-energy dependent elementary cross sections parametrized and verified in $`pp`$ and $`pA`$ reactions. In Ref. , a hadron-string cascade model (JAM) is developed, and it is successfully applied to $`hh`$ and $`pA`$ reactions as well as $`AA`$ reactions. In the next stage of the reaction, scattered nucleons evolve in the mean field and then form an excited residual nuclei. Since the nucleon kinetic energy ranges from a few MeV to around 10 GeV and the fragment mass ranges from two (deuteron) to around 200, it is necessary to invoke appropriate mean field which takes account of the energy dependence as well as the density dependence and is verified in $`pA`$ reactions. In Ref. , a parameterization of nuclear mean field is proposed, and this mean field is verified in $`pA`$ reactions in a wide range within a framework of the Quantum Molecular Dynamics (QMD). In addition, it is already shown to well describe the incident energy dependence of the nucleon potential depth and the binding energy behavior from light to the heaviest nuclei. In the third stage of the reaction, the residual nucleus breaks up into fragments having various masses including IMFs, and the fragmentation mechanism is not understood well in the case we cannot assume that the system decays statistically from an equilibrated system. In heavy-ion reactions, there are some dynamical transport models which do not assume equilibrium  and well reproduce the IMF multiplicities. In this case, the system expands to sub-saturation density due to the rapid collective expansion from the initial hot and compressed nuclei. At sub-saturation densities, local density fluctuation is energetically favored, then fragments are easily formed in the dynamical stage. However, in the case of $`pA`$ reactions, the flow effect is not large and the expansion is not enough to put the system into sub-saturation densities. At around the saturation density, density fluctuation is not energetically favored, but smoothed out during the evolution in a usual mean field type dynamics even if it is generated in the first stage of the reaction. Thus at present, there is no satisfactory microscopic model to describe the non-equilibrium fragmentation process in high energy proton induced reactions.

In order to develop a model of non-equilibrium fragmentation in proton-induced reactions, we start from an equilibrium fragmentation model, percolation. It has been shown that the percolation model gives a good description of mass and momentum distribution of fragments in high-energy proton induced reactions, if we ignore the anisotropy of fragment emission in the residual nuclear rest frame. Since the initial nucleons are assumed to be distributed uniformly in a sphere in the equilibrium percolation model, the fragment angular distribution becomes automatically isotropic in the residual nuclear rest frame. Therefore, it is expected that the fragment angular distribution would be anisotropic if the initial nucleon distribution contains dynamical information of the earlier stage. We here formulate a new Non-Equilibrium Percolation (NEP) model which takes account of initial density and momentum fluctuation generated in the earlier dynamics. In NEP, the nucleon phase space variables are taken from the results of the transport model calculation as the initial condition of percolation, instead of putting nucleons on sites. The bond breaking or connection probability is calculated by using the distance and momentum difference between the two nucleons under consideration, instead of giving a common bond breaking probability for the bonds connecting nearest neighbor sites. By doing these modifications, we can take into account the position and momentum fluctuations of nucleons inside fragment source and study the effects of non-equilibrium features of residual nucleus to the IMF formation processes.

In this paper, we study the sideward enhanced IMF formation mechanism by using a combined framework of a transport model and a newly developed Non-Equilibrium Percolation model. In the transport part, we use the cross sections and particle production algorithm developed in JAM , and the mean field verified in QMD . Hereafter we call this transport model, JAM/MF (JAM with mean field). The nucleon phase space information given in the transport model is used as the initial condition of NEP. We find that we can well reproduce the mass and energy distributions of IMFs in a unified way by using the above combined framework. In addition, if we assume that fragments are produced within a short time scale, we can also describe the sideward enhancement of IMF emission.

We find the following reaction mechanism to enhance sideward emission of IMF: In the short time scale (around 20 fm$`/c`$), the dynamical effect in the first hadronic cascade stage still remains. Nucleons along the path of the leading incident proton are heated-up and have large momenta in average. Since IMFs are formed mainly in the cold region, the probability of IMF formation is small around the leading proton path. Then the IMF formation points are distributed non-spherically, predominantly distributed in a doughnut shape. After forming fragments in this doughnut shape, Coulomb repulsion between fragments pushes more strongly in the sideward direction in the rest frame of the residual nuclei.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In Sec. 2, we explain the transport model JAM/MF used in this work. In Sec. 3, a newly developed Non-Equilibrium Percolation (NEP) model is explained, and we discuss the validity of this model to show the good reproduction of fragment mass distribution. Next in Sec. 4, we discuss the mechanism of sideward enhancement of IMF emission through the analysis of the production position distribution of IMF, the IMF energy distribution and the IMF angular distribution. Finally in Sec. 5, we summarize this paper.

## 2 Transport Model for High Energy Proton Induced Reactions

In high-energy ($`E_p\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}\mathrm{GeV}`$) proton induced reactions, there are mainly three stages — hadronic cascade, mean field evolution, and fragmentation. During these stages, nucleon energy decreases by about four order of magnitude from around 10 GeV to a few MeV. A large part of the proton incident energy ($``$ 10 GeV) is carried away by produced pions and emitted high momentum nucleons, and only a part of this energy remains as the excitation energy of the residual nucleus (several hundred MeV to a few GeV). This residual nuclear excitation energy is mainly exhausted to breakup the residual nucleus into fragments and nucleons, then the energy of finally produced fragments are around a few MeV per nucleon.

For a reliable microscopic description of dynamical evolution of the system throughout these stages, it is necessary to apply reliable hadronic cross sections for hadronic cascade processes, and well verified mean field. In this work, we have developed a transport model, JAM/MF, by extending the hadron-string cascade model JAM  to include the mean field developed in Ref. . It can be also considered as a version of QMD with hadronic cross sections developed in JAM. The results of JAM/MF are used as the initial configuration of the Non-Equilibrium Percolation described in the next section.

### 2.1 Hadronic cascade processes in JAM

Here we describe the outline of the hadron-string cascade model, JAM. The detail of JAM is described in Ref. . The main components of JAM are as follows.

1. Nuclear collision is assumed to be described by the sum of independent binary $`hh`$ collisions. Each $`hh`$ collision is realized by the closest distance approach. In the original version of JAM, no mean field effect is included, therefore the trajectory of each hadron is straight in between two-body collisions, decays or absorptions.
2. The initial position of each nucleon is sampled by the parameterized distribution of nuclear density. Fermi motion of nucleons are assigned according to the local Fermi momentum.
3. All established hadronic states, including resonances with masses up to around 2 GeV, are explicitly included with explicit isospin states as well as their anti-particles. All of them can propagate in space-time.
4. The inelastic $`hh`$ collisions produce resonances at low energies while at high energies ($`\sqrt{s}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\mathrm{GeV}`$ in $`BB`$ collisions $`\sqrt{s}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3}\mathrm{GeV}`$ in $`MB`$ collisions and $`\sqrt{s}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\mathrm{GeV}`$ in $`MM`$ collisions) color strings are formed and they decay into hadrons according to the Lund string model . Formation time is assigned to hadrons from string fragmentation. Formation point and time are determined by assuming yo-yo formation point. This choice gives the formation time of roughly 1 fm$`/c`$ with string tension $`\kappa =1`$GeV/fm.
5. Hadrons which have original constituent quarks can scatter with other hadrons assuming the additive quark cross section within a formation time. The importance of this quark(diquark)-hadron interaction for the description of baryon stopping at CERN/SPS energies was reported by Frankfurt group .
6. At very high energies ($`\sqrt{s}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}\mathrm{GeV}`$), multiple minijet production is also included in the same way as the HIJING model  in which jet cross section and the number of jet are calculated using an eikonal formalism for perturbative QCD (pQCD). Hard parton-parton scatterings with initial and final state radiation are simulated using PYTHIA  program.
7. Pauli-blocking for the final nucleons in two-body collisions are also considered.
8. We do not include any medium effect such as string fusion to rope , medium modified cross sections and in-medium mass shift. All results which will be presented in this paper are those obtained from the free cross sections and free masses as inputs.

Hadron (proton, $`\pi ^+,\pi ^{},K^+,K^{}`$) transverse mass $`m_t`$ in proton induced reactions (p(14.6GeV/c) + Be, Al, Cu, Au), light-heavy ion induced reactions (Si(14.6A GeV/c)+ Al, Cu, Au), and heavy-ion reactions (Au(11.6A GeV/c) + Au) has been analyzed in JAM, and it is found that JAM results show good agreement with the experimental data without any change of model parameters . This means that momentum distributions of isolated single proton are correctly calculated by collision cross sections of JAM.

On the other hand, it is required to take account of later mean field evolution and percolation processes for the description of IMF production.

### 2.2 Propagation in Quantum Molecular Dynamics

In the framework of Quantum Molecular Dynamics (QMD), the classical trajectory of hadrons is determined by the stochastic hadronic collisions, described in the previous subsection, and the Newtonian equation of motion. The single particle wave function of each nucleon is represented by a Gaussian wave packet, having the phase space centroid parameter of ($`_i,_i`$) for the $`i`$-th nucleon. The total wave function is assumed to be a product wave function of nucleon Gaussian wave packets. Then we can derive the Newtonian equations of motion on the basis of the time dependent variational principle . The equations of motion become the canonical equations of the Gaussian centroid parameters as phase space variables,

$$\dot{}_k=\frac{H}{_k},\dot{}_k=\frac{H}{_k}.$$
(1)
The Hamiltonian $`H`$ consists of the kinetic energy and the effective interaction energy.

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`T+V,`$ (2)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}E_i={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sqrt{m_i^2+_i^2},`$ (3)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V_{\mathrm{Skyrme}}+V_{\mathrm{Sym}}+V_{\mathrm{Mom}}+V_{\mathrm{Coul}}+V_{\mathrm{Pauli}}.`$ (4)
In this interaction energy, the following terms are included: Skyrme type density dependent interaction ($`V_{\mathrm{Skyrme}}`$), symmetry energy ($`V_{\mathrm{Sym}}`$), momentum dependent interaction taking account of the energy dependence of the nucleon potential ($`V_{\mathrm{Mom}}`$), Coulomb potential between protons ($`V_{\mathrm{Coulomb}}`$), and the Pauli potential ($`V_{\mathrm{Pauli}}`$). The last term is added to take into account the Pauli principle approximately. The form of each term is shown in the Appendix.

In this study we use parameters shown in Table 2. These parameters are determined to reproduce various kinds of systematic observables such as (1)the density dependence of the total kinetic energy of Fermi gas, (2)density dependence of the total energy of symmetric nuclear matter above normal nuclear density, and (3)energy dependence of the real part of proton-nucleus optical potential, binding energy and radius of heavy nuclei ($`A>3`$). All these observables are calculated by metropolis sampling method under the condition that the temperature of nucleus is 2.5 MeV. Including the Pauli potential improves the reproductivity of the quasi-elastic part of the neutron energy spectra in p(256MeV,800MeV)+$`{}_{}{}^{P}208`$ .

In the simulation of 12 GeV proton induced reaction, the ground state of target nucleus (Au) is calculated by frictional cooling and heating method to fit the binding energy of Au.

In the total Hamiltonian $`H`$ we have already introduced the relativistic form of kinetic energy expression and adopted the relativistic kinematics in the cascade processes in JAM. In order to make a full relativistic description, it is also necessary to formulate the interaction terms in a covariant way. A Lorentz-covariant extension of the QMD, debbed relativistic quantum molecular dynamics (RQMD), has been proposed in Ref. , which is based on the Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$-invariant constrained Hamiltonian dynamics. Although the RQMD is a numerically feasible extension of QMD towards a fully covariant approach, it still costs too much computing time to apply to heavy systems. Therefore, we make an alternative extension of QMD . We introduce Lorentz-scalar quantities into the arguments of the interactions,

$`𝔻_{ij}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(_i_j)^2\stackrel{~}{𝔻}_{ij}^2D_{ij}^2+(P_{ij}D_{ij})^2/P_{ij}^2,`$ (5)
$`_{ij}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(_i_j)^2\stackrel{~}{}_{ij}^2Q_{ij}^2+(P_{ij}Q_{ij})^2/P_{ij}^2.`$ (6)
In these expressions, thin letters ($`D_{ij},Q_{ij},P_{ij}`$) show four vectors, and $`P_{ij}`$ denotes the two-body center-of-mass four momentum

$$P_{ij}P_i+P_j=(E_i+E_j,_i+_j).$$
(7)
It is easy to show that the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{𝔻}_{ij}^2`$ is the two-body distance squared in the two-body CM system. By these procedures we can take into account the primary part of the relativistic dynamical effects approximately in our QMD.

## 3 Fragment Formation

There are many attempts to describe the IMF formation in multifragmentation processes by using microscopic molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Since nuclear fragmentation is a truly quantum-mechanical process and it is beyond the applicability limit of semiclassical MD theory, it is necessary to improve MD theory to include quantum mechanical effects . In Ref. , the widths of nucleon wave packets are treated as time-dependent dynamical variables. With this extension, we can find significant improvements in ground state properties such as binding energies, density profiles or $`\alpha `$-clustering structure in light nuclei, nucleon emission or disintegration of clusters in medium energy heavy-ion collisions. Another type of proposed modification is to include quantum fluctuation or quantum branching . In Refs. , the authors discussed the necessity of quantum fluctuation in the equation of motion of MD in order to ensure that the wave packet distribution follows the quantum statistics at equilibrium. The effects of quantum fluctuation in fragmentation processes such as evaporation of particle and fission like fragmentation are discussed in Ref. . The necessity of quantum branching is discussed in Refs. . The authors introduce the quantum branching process to compensate the restriction on the one body nucleon distribution, and incorporate the diffusion and the deformation of wave packets according to the Vlasov equation . By this modification, the nucleon motion in the mean field is improved, and the fragment mass distribution is successfully reproduced in heavy ion reactions.

It may be possible to improve the description of IMF formation also in high-energy $`pA`$ reactions by making above modifications. However, all of these modifications are formulated in non-relativistic ways, and the way to include quantum effects is under discussion. Thus in this work, we treat the fragmentation process in a more phenomenological manner.

In a standard treatment of fragment formation, first we calculate the formation of excited fragments in a transport model or in a phenomenological way, then provided that these fragments are thermalized they are forced to de-excite through particle emission and/or fission in a statistical model by using only a few quantities of fragments such as the mass, excitation energy and angular momentum. Since we would like to address the non-equilibrium properties of fragment formation in high-energy $`pA`$ reactions, here we do not assume that nucleons are distributed uniformly but utilize information in the dynamical stage — nucleon spatial and momentum distribution inside the residual nuclei generated in the transport model, JAM/MF. In order to activate these nucleon phase space degrees of freedom in fragmentation processes, the percolation model would be an appropriate starting point. In percolation models, nucleon positions are already considered, and we can easily assign the momentum to each nucleon.

In this section, we explain our prescription to form residual nuclei from transport model results, and how to incorporate non-equilibrium nature in the percolation model.

### 3.1 Residual nucleus formation

After successive collisions and mean field evolution of nucleons, several particles are emitted and a residual nucleus is formed. Here, we take all phase space information of all particles consisting the system. Then we can obtain physical property of residual nucleus such as charge, mass and excitation energy as follows.

We assume an external nuclear mean field of nucleons around the residual nuclei having a depth of 50 MeV. Then we assume that particles are trapped and form a residual nucleus when the nucleon single particle energy is negative (for neutrons) or below the Coulomb barrier (for protons). The excitation energy $`E^{}`$ of the residual nucleus is calculated in a similar way to that in the exciton model . Here, we assume the nucleon Fermi energy in the residual nuclei $`\epsilon _F`$ is 40 MeV.

$`E^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_h}{}}}\epsilon _i^h+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_p}{}}}\epsilon _j^p,`$ (8)
$`\epsilon _i^h`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _F\overline{\epsilon }_i,\epsilon _j^p=\epsilon _j\epsilon _F.`$ (9)
Here $`\overline{\epsilon }_i`$ denotes the target nucleon single particle energy just before the first collision of that target nucleon, then the hole number ($`N_h`$) corresponds to the number of target nucleons which collide with the leading proton or secondary cascade particles. The particle energy $`\epsilon _j`$ is the scattered nucleon single particle energy at the time of residual nucleus formation. The number of particles ($`N_p`$) is calculated at the residual nucleus formation. This method is basically the same as that of Ref. .

### 3.2 Non-Equilibrium Percolation model

In (bond) percolation models, nucleons in the residual nucleus are put on the lattice sites, and we cut the bond between the nearest neighbor sites according to the bond breaking probability given as a function of excitation energy. Then the connected nucleons are assumed to form fragments. By estimating the excitation energy and the mass of the residual nucleus in a simple physical model, it has been demonstrated that the percolation model works very well to describe the mass and energy distribution of fragments produced from multifragmentation processes in relativistic energy ( $`>`$ 10 GeV ) $`pA`$ reactions .

In standard percolation models, there is one strong assumption which disables us to describe IMF anisotropy: the total excitation energy is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the entire excited system of the residual nucleus, and the nucleons are spatially distributed uniformly in a sphere. This is equivalent to assume that equilibrium is reached in the residual nucleus. This assumption is very convenient to discuss some formal aspects of the model, such as the critical bond breaking probabilities, critical exponents, and so on. In reality, the nucleon may not be uniformly distributed spatially and the excitation may depend on the position inside the residual nucleus, if the fragmentation time scale is short. Therefore, as a natural extension of the percolation model to include non-equilibrium effects, we start percolation from nucleon phase space distribution given in the dynamical transport model calculation. In this case, since nucleons are not necessarily on the lattice sites, the bond breaking probability becomes a function of distance between the nucleon pair. In addition, we can consider the position dependence of the bond breaking probability.

Here we propose a Non-Equilibrium Percolation (NEP) model without lattice combined with a transport model. We start from nucleon phase space distribution given in the microscopic transport simulation, and the bond breaking probability is parametrized as a function of nucleon pair distance and positions. In the following, we explain the actual calculation procedure in NEP.

1. Dynamical evolution of the $`pA`$ reaction is simulated by using the transport model described in the previous section, Sec. 2, until $`t=t_{sw}`$.
2. Phase space information of nucleons inside the residual nucleus, and the bulk quantity of the residual nucleus such as charge $`Z_{res}`$, mass $`A_{res}`$ and excitation energy $`E^{}`$ are obtained according to the prescription described in the previous subsection, Subsec. 3.1.
3. All nucleons inside the residual nucleus are connected by bonds.
4. Break the bond when the bond length $`L_b`$ is large enough. When the total excitation energy exceeds a given value, $`E^{}E_0(A_{res})`$ ($`E_0=8c_1A_{res}`$ MeV), the bond is broken if $`L_b>R_{cut}`$. When the total excitation energy is small, $`E^{}<E_0(A_{res})`$, bonds are broken if $`L_b>c_2R_{cut}`$. This total excitation energy dependence is necessary to keep the residual nucleus stable at low excitation.
5. The bond between the $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th nucleons is broken with a probability $`p_b(i,j)`$. The bond breaking probability $`p_b(i,j)`$ depends on the local excitation of the residual nucleus, and it is parametrized as follows.

$$p_b(i,j)=1\mathrm{exp}\left[\nu E^{}(_{ij})\right]$$
(10)
Here, $`E^{}(_{ij})`$ is the local excitation energy at the center-of-mass position ($`_{ij}=(_i+_j)/2`$) of the nucleon pair. We calculate $`E^{}(_{ij})`$ as follows,

$`E^{}(_{ij})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}e_k^{}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(_{ij}_k)^2}{a^2}}\right],`$ (11)
$`e_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}t_ke\hfill & \text{(}t_ke\text{)}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{(}t_k<e\text{)}\hfill \end{array},`$ (12)
where $`t_k`$ is the kinetic energy of $`k`$-th nucleon in the CM frame of the residual nucleus and $`_k`$ is the position of $`k`$-th nucleon.
6. Fragments are identified as the bond connected nucleons at this stage. The fragment momentum $`_f`$ and position $`_f`$ are determined as the CM momentum and position of nucleons belonging to this fragment.

The model parameters, $`R_{cut},\nu ,a,e,c_1,c_2`$, are determined to fit the mass distribution of fragments produced in p(11.5GeV)+Au reaction. The values of NEP parameters are shown in Table 1.

In Fig. 1, we show the calculated fragment mass distributions in p(12 GeV)+Au reaction in comparison with the experimental data . The mass of residual nucleus (dashed histograms) is distributed in the range $`160\stackrel{<}{}A_{res}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}197}`$. This means that, in the transport model simulation, the number of emitted nucleons is less than 40. Then, the decay of the residual nucleus to various mass fragments is described in NEP as shown by the solid histograms. One can see that the characteristic U-shape curve of the experimental mass distribution is well reproduced in our calculation, and this behavior does not strongly depends on the switching time. When we analyze the impact parameter dependence of the mass distribution, we find that this U-shape distribution is a consequence of the integration over the impact parameter. At central collisions, the residual nucleus generally has smaller mass and larger excitation energy, and it decays into smaller fragments, in average. At peripheral collisions, the residual nucleus is not highly excited, and emits several nucleons even in the percolation stage.

It should be noted that the above global feature of the mass distribution can be also reproduced in a standard percolation model. In Fig. 2, we show the model dependence of the mass distribution. Here we compare the combination of the models, JAM with Statistical Decay Model (SDM), Percolation model, JAM with Percolation model, and JAM/MF with NEP. In SDM, the evaporation of light fragments ($`n,p,d,t,{}_{}{}^{3}\text{He},\alpha `$) and the fission of heavy nuclei are included, but these are not enough to form IMFs abundantly. On the other hand, in the percolation model of Ref.  which fit the mass distribution of $`p`$+Ag reaction at 300 GeV, the global mass distribution is reproduced without any change of the model parameters, and it is possible to get a better fit by using target dependent parameters.

This comparison of model calculations suggests the necessity to invoke some kind of multifragmentation mechanism such as the percolation in addition to the evaporation and fission. If we adopt the percolation model in fragmentation stage, we can qualitatively describe the U-shape mass distribution, which we cannot explain in statistical decay models with evaporation and fission. Furthermore, in order to reproduce the whole range of the mass spectrum, it is necessary to stabilize the nucleus at low excitation. In the original percolation model  (upper right panel), nucleon positions are kept to be on sites, and the bond breaking probability becomes smaller in peripheral collisions, then larger mass nuclei can survive. With QMD transport (lower right panel), heavy residual nuclei can survive percolation at low excitation, because the mean field keeps the nucleus stable. Without mean field (lower left panel), on the other hand, nucleons with moderate kinetic energy can easily escape from residual nuclei, then we cannot form stable heavy nuclei.

This comparison tells us the merit to use a combined framework of JAM/MF with percolation for the analysis of the fragmentation processes. However, it is possible to reproduce the mass spectra without invoking spatial and/or momentum fluctuation generated in the dynamical stage by modifying parameters. Therefore, for the investigation of non-equilibrium nature in the fragmentation, it is necessary to analyze the energy and angular distribution of fragments.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 IMF formation points

Now we analyze the non-equilibrium properties of IMF production in the framework explained in the previous sections. In Fig.3, IMF(6 $`Z`$ 20) formation position distributions in $`xy`$-plain calculated in the transport model calculation followed by NEP are shown. In the transport model simulations, 5000 events are generated, and the results of NEP from these events are overlayed in the figure. In central events ($`b3`$ fm, upper panels), we can see that IMFs are produced in the doughnut shaped region. Along the leading proton path, a large part of nucleons collide with the leading proton or secondary cascade particles. Since they have large kinetic energies, they are not judged to belong to the residual nuclei. Even if they stay in the residual nuclei, the local bond breaking probability becomes large. As a result, the IMF formation is suppressed along the leading proton path. In the surrounding doughnut shaped region, the number of collision is small, then the excitation energy is low.

In the lower panels of Fig.3, IMF formation points in peripheral collisions (3 fm $`b`$ 7.5 fm) are shown. We can see that IMFs are produced from a new moon shaped region. In peripheral collisions, highly excited region is shifted to outer side. Then peripheral excited region shrinks to narrower at time step 30fm$`/c`$.

In Fig. 4, we show calculated IMF formation points in $`xz`$-plain, restricted to $`|y|`$ 2.0 fm. We can see that IMF formation point distributions clearly have a hole along the leading proton path in central collisions (upper panels) and at early times in peripheral collisions (lower panels).

In both of the cases, IMFs are formed mainly on the surface of the residual nuclei, and the formation is suppressed in the central part. This feature can be understood as follows. When the excitation energy is small, nucleons are likely to be connected with each other. In the central part of the residual nucleus, IMF can grow easily to heavier nucleus by being connected with cold nucleons in the surrounding region. This mechanism may emerge also in the equilibrium percolation model. However, this will not generate any anisotropy in IMF angular distribution.

### 4.2 IMF energy distribution

After the fragments being simultaneously produced through the multifragmentation of the residual nucleus, the fragments are dispersed by the Coulomb repulsion. In the uniform Coulomb expansion of fragments, the total fragment kinetic energy is calculated as the sum of the thermal and the Coulomb energies. In order to describe the Coulomb expansion of fragments, here we consider the following classical Hamiltonian $`H`$,

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}\sqrt{_{fi}^2+m_{fi}^2}+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{fi}Z_{fj}e^2}{|_{fi}_{fj}|}}`$ (13)
where $`m_{fi}`$, $`_{fi}`$, $`Z_{fi}`$ and $`_{fi}`$ are the mass, position, charge, and momentum of the $`i`$-th fragment, respectively. From this Hamiltonian Eq.(13), the Newtonian equations of motion are solved numerically. The initial values of the $`_{fi}`$ and $`_{fi}`$ are given in NEP as discussed in Sec. 3. The time evolution of the Coulomb expansion is solved until the total kinetic energy of each fragment ceases to show appreciable changes. Then we obtain kinetic energies of fragments in the final state. Here, we adopt the time step of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$=0.5 fm$`/c`$ and integration until 500 time steps are carried out.

In Fig. 5, we compare the calculated IMF energy distributions produced in $`p`$(12 GeV)+Au reaction with the experimental data . From these results we can see large effects of Coulomb expansion in the energy distribution of IMF. If we take into account only the kinetic energy of fragments calculated in the transport model followed by NEP, the energy peak around 50 MeV is never reproduced. On the other hand, we find that the calculated results after Coulomb expansion reproduce the qualitative behavior of the experimental data well; peaked around 40-60 MeV, enhancement at sideward angles, and the absolute values of the double differential cross sections. These facts show us that the Coulomb expansion process plays a very important role in the fragmentation phenomenon.

### 4.3 Analysis of IMF angular distribution

In Fig. 6, we show the calculated switching time dependence of the IMF angular distribution. In comparing the results with (left panel) and without (right panel) Coulomb expansion, the Coulomb expansion effects are found to modify the angular distribution largely from forward peaked to sideward peaked. This mechanism is connected with the IMF formation point in the residual nucleus. As shown at Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, IMFs are produced dominantly in a doughnut shaped region in violent central collisions. Then the Coulomb force among fragments pushes IMFs sideways of the doughnut region even if IMFs are forward peaked before the Coulomb expansion. In peripheral collisions, although IMFs are formed in a new moon shaped regions at early times, the rapid energy transport washes out the anisotropy of the IMF production points. Then if the impact parameters are integrated over, the angular distribution of IMFs becomes forward peaked at around the switching time $`t_{sw}=30`$ fm$`/c`$ even after the Coulomb expansion as shown in the left panel of Fig. 6. This observation is consistent with the behavior expected in a equilibrium statistical picture of fragmentation. Therefore, our present study suggests the possibility that IMF angular distribution would have sideward peak at around 90 degrees in the rest frame of the residual nuclei if IMFs can be formed in a very short time scale around 20 fm$`/c`$.

## 5 Summary

In this paper, we have analyzed the mechanism of formation and sideward enhancement of IMFs produced in the 12 GeV proton induced reaction on Au target by using a combined framework of a transport model (JAM/MF) followed by a newly developed Non-Equilibrated Percolation (NEP) model. NEP can take into account non-uniform spatial distribution of nucleons and the local excitation in the residual nucleus, then it would be appropriate to analyze non-equilibrium natures of IMF formation. The present combined model has been verified in various ways. In the hadronic cascade stage (JAM), momentum distribution of nucleons has been verified by comparing hadron (proton,$`\pi ^+`$,$`\pi ^{}`$,$`K^+`$,$`K^{}`$) transverse mass spectra . The effective interaction in QMD has been verified through the study of matter and nuclear properties and the quasi-elastic neutron energy spectra in $`pA`$ reactions at 256 MeV and 800 MeV . In the fragmentation (NEP), although there are still several model parameters, they are determined to fit the fragment mass spectra in high-energy $`pA`$ reactions. By using the same parameter, we applied our model to the fragment energy distributions, and the experimental data are well reproduced.

By using this model we have shown that IMFs are produced in a doughnut shaped region and a new moon shaped one inside the residual nucleus in central and peripheral collisions, respectively. We suggest that combined effects of such a geometry of IMF formation point distribution and the Coulomb expansion between fragments would lead to a sideward peaked angular distribution of IMFs provided that the IMFs are formed in a very short time scale of around 20 fm$`/c`$. In principle, it would be possible to estimate this time scale experimentally by measuring the particle correlations in momentum multi-dimensions. Another remaining interesting problem is to study the mechanism of the incident energy dependence of the IMF angular distribution, which evolves from forward peaked, sideward peaked, to backward peaked as the incident energy grows. Our approach will be also useful in analyzing those problems.

## Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Prof. K.H. Tanaka and Dr. T. Murakami for preparing the experimental data and valuable comments and discussions. We would like to thank Prof. W. Bauer for providing us of the computer program of the original percolation model. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the hospitality and useful discussions of the members of the research group for nuclear theory at Hokkaido university and Hadron Science at Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute. The authors also would like to acknowledge Prof. Tomoyuki Maruyama for useful comments and discussions.

## Appendix A Quantum molecular dynamics ( QMD )

In QMD method, the single particle wave function of the $`i`$-th nucleon is represented in a Gaussian wave packet, having the density distribution,

$`\rho _i(𝕣)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi L)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}e^{\frac{(𝕣_i)^2}{2L}},`$ (14)
where $`L`$ denotes the width parameter for the Gaussian wave packets and $`_i`$ are the centers of position of the $`i`$-th nucleon.

Each term in the interaction energy in Eq. (4) depends on the center of position $``$ of the nucleon and the center of momentum $``$ of the nucleon as follows,

$`V_{\mathrm{Pauli}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{Pauli}}{2(q_0p_0/\mathrm{})^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}e^{\frac{(_i_j)^2}{2q_0^2}\frac{(_i_j)^2}{2p_0^2}}\delta _{\tau _i\tau _j}\delta _{\sigma _i\sigma _j},`$ (15)
$`V_{\mathrm{Skyrme}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}<\rho _i>+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{(1+\tau )\rho _0^\tau }}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}<\rho _i>^\tau ,`$ (16)
$`V_{\mathrm{Sym}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{sym}}{2\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(12|c_ic_j|)\rho _{ij},`$ (17)
$`V_{\mathrm{Mom}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ex}^{(1)}}{1+\left[\frac{_i_j}{\mu _1\mathrm{}}\right]^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ex}^{(2)}}{1+\left[\frac{_i_j}{\mu _2\mathrm{}}\right]^2}}\right]\rho _{ij},`$ (18)
$`V_{\mathrm{Coulomb}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_ic_je^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|_i_j|}}\mathrm{erf}({\displaystyle \frac{|_\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{j}|}{\sqrt{4\mathrm{L}}}}).`$ (19)
Here, erf denotes the error function, and $`c_i`$ is 1 for protons and 0 for neutrons. We only take into account the effective interactions which affect nucleons. $`<\rho _i>`$ is an overlap of density with other nucleons defined as

$`<\rho _i>`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j(i)}{}}\rho _{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{j(i)}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝕣\rho _i(𝕣)\rho _j(𝕣)}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j(i)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi L)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}e^{\frac{(_i_j)^2}{4L}}.`$
$`<\rho _i>^{}`$ means that $`L`$ of $`<\rho _i>`$ is modified to be $`L^{}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\tau )^{\frac{1}{\tau }}L`$. The parameters are listed in Table 2.


format: text

text:
# Spin Reduction Transition in Spin-3/2 Random Heisenberg Chains

## Abstract

Random spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chains are investigated using an asymptotically exact renormalization group. Randomness is found to induce a quantum phase transition between two random-singlet phases. In the strong randomness phase the effective spins at low energies are $`S_{eff}=\frac{3}{2}`$, while in the weak randomness phase the effective spins are $`S_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}`$. Separating them is a quantum critical point near which there is a non-trivial mixture of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$, spin-$`1`$, and spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ effective spins at low temperatures.

Some of the most dramatic effects of randomness in solids appear in the low temperature behavior of quantum systems. A (deceptively) simple class of such systems are random quantum spin chains, in particular Heisenberg antiferromagnetic chains with Hamiltonian

$$=\underset{i}{}J_i\widehat{𝐒}_𝐢\widehat{𝐒}_{𝐢+\mathrm{𝟏}}$$
(1)
From a real-space renormalization-group (RG) analysis, it has been shown that the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ random anti-ferromagnetic (AFM) chain is strongly dominated by randomness at low temperatures even when the disorder is weak. Its ground state is a random singlet (RS) phase in which pairs of spins — mostly close together but occasionally arbitrarily far apart — form singlets. As the temperature is lowered, some of these singlets form at temperatures of order the typical exchange and become inactive. But their neighboring spins will interact weakly across them via virtual triplet excitations. At lower temperatures, such further neighbors can form singlets and the process repeats. Concomitantly, the distribution of effective coupling strengths broadens rapidly. Eventually, singlets form on all length scales and the ground state is controlled by an RG fixed point with extremely strong disorder: an infinite randomness fixed point.

This low temperature behavior is in striking contrast to that of the pure spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ AFM chain in which spin-spin correlations decay as $`x^1`$ because of long-wavelength low-energy spin-wave (or spinon) modes. In the random singlet phase, the average correlations decay as a power of distance — as $`x^2`$ — but for a very different reason: A typical pair of widely spaced spins will have only exponentially (in the square root of their separation) small correlations. But a small fraction, those that form a singlet pair, will have correlations of order unity independent of their separation; these rare pairs completely dominate the average correlations as well as the other low temperature properties of the random system.

Infinite randomness fixed points are ubiquitous in random quantum systems. They probably control phase discrete-symmetry breaking transitions in all random quantum systems — in any dimension —  and, in addition to the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ AFM chain, also control the low-temperature properties of a range of random quantum phases.  Because of their ubiquity, further investigation of what types of random quantum phases and transitions can occur should shed light more generally on the combined roles of randomness and quantum fluctuations. The simplest cases to analyze are one-dimensional beacuse asymptotically exact RG’s can be used to extract much of the universal low-temperature behavior. In this paper, we study random spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ AFM chains and find that they exhibit a novel phenomenon: a quantum transition between two phases with both phases and the transition governed by infinite randomness fixed points.

We first review what is known about random spin-1 chains. Pure spin-$`1`$ AFM chains behave strikingly differently than spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$: their ground state is a non-degenerate disordered phase with excitations separated from it by a gap.  This Haldane gap provides robustness of spin-$`1`$ chains against weak bounded randomness. But for strong randomness, spin-$`1`$ chains will form a random singlet phase. As is the case in many random quantum systems, there is not a transition directly from the gapped phase to the strong randomness phase. Instead, when in some local regions the randomness overcomes the gap, there will be an intervening region in which there are localized gapless excitations but still exponential decay of correlations — a Griffiths-McCoy phase. The system undergoes a quantum transition from this to the random singlet phase as the randomness is increased further.

Pure spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ chains with Heisenberg interactions are gapless and behave very much like their spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ counterparts.  We will show that random spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ chains undergo a phase transition as a function of the randomness between two zero-temperature phases: the strong disorder phase is the spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ analog of the RS phase, with pairs of spins forming singlets \[Fig. 1(a)\]. Surprisingly, the weak randomness phase is also an RS phase, but of an effectively spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ chain superimposed on a Haldane phase \[Fig. 1(b)\]. At a critical disorder, there is a transition between these phases, with special behavior at the critical point, including a specific combination of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$, spin-$`1`$, and spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ character at low temperatures.

To make progress, we first review the RG  analysis of random spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ AFM chains. This proceeds by gradually reducing the energy scale, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. First, the pair of spins with the strongest coupling, $`J_{max}=\mathrm{\Omega }_I`$ — the initial energy scale — forms a singlet \[Fig. 2(a)\], and is decimated. Virtual triplet excitations cause the two sites neighboring the singlet to weakly interact with the effective coupling:

$$J_{eff}\alpha \frac{J_{\mathrm{}}J_r}{J_{max}}$$
(2)
where $`J_{\mathrm{}},J_r`$ are, respectively, the bonds to the left and right of the decimated pair and $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}`$. By repeating this procedure, we gradually reduce the energy scale, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the number of active spins in the chain. In the limit of low energy, the random singlet phase emerges and singlets form on all length scales. That this occurs for arbitrarily weak randomness, as it does,  cannot be convincingly shown by this RG as it is initially approximate when the distribution of $`J`$’s is not broad. But its qualitative validity for weak randomness is suggested, since $`J_{eff}`$ is always less than $`J_{\mathrm{},r}`$ due to the prefactor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in Eq. (2). The multiplicative structure of Eq. (2) suggests that the distribution of $`J`$’s broadens without bound. This means that the perturbative result (2) becomes exact at late stages of the RG,  and the universal low energy properties of the system can be found exactly.

The wide distribution of $`J`$’s allows one to associate the renormalized energy scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the temperature $`T`$. Bonds stronger than $`T`$ become frozen, and the remaining spins act as though they are free since almost all of their couplings are much weaker than $`T`$ at low temperatures.

The RG flow is simply parametrized in terms of

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_I}{\mathrm{\Omega }},& \beta _i=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{J_i}.\end{array}$$
(3)
As the RG evolves, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is reduced, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ increases. At low energies the coupling distributions become scale invariant functions of $`\beta /\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$ at the fixed point, the distributions become infinitely broad. The density of active spins decays as

$$\rho \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/\psi }}$$
(4)
with $`\psi =\frac{1}{2}`$ a universal exponent characterizing the random singlet phase. As $`\psi `$ relates the logarithm of energy scales to length scales ($`1/\rho `$), it replaces the exponent $`z`$ which parametrizes power-law energy-length scaling at conventional quantum critical points.

The strong randomness phase of the spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ chain can be understood similarly. Combining strongly interacting neighbors into a singlet yields Eq. (2) with $`\alpha =\frac{5}{2}`$. Strong randomness in the $`J`$’s will guarantee that despite the large prefactor ($`\frac{5}{2}`$) the new coupling will almost always obey $`J_{eff}<J_{\mathrm{},r}`$, yielding flow towards the random-singlet phase. In Fig. 1(a), this is indicated by varying length triple links representing singlets of spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$.

When the randomness is weak, the RG for spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ fails to reduce the energy scale, suggesting that strong randomness behavior might not be obtained. To proceed, we generalize the method of Monthus, Golinelli and Joliceur. Instead of fully decimating strongly coupled pairs of spins, we only partially decimate them, eliminating their highest energy subspace. Thus, when a spin pair, $`𝐒_L,𝐒_R`$, is renormalized, its totally ferromagnetic (maximum spin) combination is eliminated. This corresponds to breaking each spin into spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ parts — a spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ consists of three spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$’s symmetrized — with each contributing one spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ to form a spin-half singlet link, leaving a pair of spins with $`S_{L,R}^{}=S_{L,R}\frac{1}{2}`$ and modified couplings between them as well as between each one and its other neighbor. In the ground state, every site must have three links joining it to others, e.g., as in Fig. 1. When a link forms between two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$’s \[Fig. 2(a)\], both spins disappear and the $`J_{eff}`$ between the remaining neighboring spins is given by Eq. (2). As can be seen in Fig. 2(b), whenever only one of an antiferromagnetically coupled pair is spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$, it will be decimated, and its partner will form a ferromagnetic effective bond across it. Such ferromagnetic (FM) bonds can themselves be decimated forming, e.g., a spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ from a spin-$`1`$ and spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ pair; however, no spins greater than $`\frac{3}{2}`$ can form. We thus see, that as the energy scale is lowered, the distribution of effective spins changes. In the strong randomness phase, at low energies virtually all the active (undecimated) spins have $`S_{eff}=\frac{3}{2}`$. But this will not be the case when the randomness is weak.

For a spin-$`1`$ chain with a narrow distribution of exchanges, i.e. weak randomness, all of the bonds between spin-$`1`$’s would rapidly be partially decimated. The resulting (approximate) state which has one link connecting each site with each of its neighbors is the valence bond solid picture of the Haldane phase. The scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ at which the last spin is eliminated is the gap. For stronger randomness, some double links will form and the gap will disappear. But not until a critical randomness is reached does the continuous line of links break into finite segments; it is this that distinguishes the topological order of the Haldane phase from the random singlet phase.

The phases of a spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ chain can be understood in a related way. With weak randomness, decimation induces singlet links between most neighboring pairs, creating islands of valence-bond solid. Inside the islands, the active degrees of freedom are spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$’s left over from the decimations with spin $`1`$’s at the ends of islands \[Fig. 2(c)\]. The islands grow until the entire chain consists of one island with only spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$’s remaining. At lower energies, these spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$’s form spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ random singlets: the ground state is thus a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ random singlet phase superimposed on a (spin-$`1`$-like) valence bond solid; see Fig. 1(b).

Generally, the low energy structure of a spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ chain will consist of valence bond islands separated by AFM “sea” bonds with no links yet formed across them. Each island consists of a number — possibly zero — of antiferromagnetically coupled active spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$’s in the interior with each end being either spin-$`1`$ or two ferromagnetically coupled spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$’s as in Fig. 2(c). The exceptions to this are islets consisting of a single AFM bond between two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ ends; these arise from a pair of spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ sites connected by two links \[Fig. 2(c)\]. There can also be original undecimated spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$’s.

It is convenient to describe all this in terms of a purely spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ effective model with a spin $`1`$ represented as a pair of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ sites with a FM interaction stronger than the energy scale, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and a spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ by an island of three sites with two strong FM bonds. This has the advantage that coupling distributions and bond types remain independent if they are so initially; thus the number, $`n`$, of internal spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$’s in an island is distributed exponentially with density $`B^n`$. There are four coupling distributions: AFM sea bonds, FM edge bonds, AFM intra-island bonds, and (AFM) islet bonds. The other parameters are $`B`$ and $`q`$, the fraction of active spins that are in islets. The RG flows always broaden without bound the distributions of weak ($`<\mathrm{\Omega }`$) bonds,  justifying the claim that the RG is asymptotically exact. In the strong randomness limit, $`B0,q0`$, so that all islands are three spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$’s strongly FM’ly coupled internally and weakly AFM’ly coupled between them equivalent to spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$’s. In contrast, for weak randomness at low energies, $`B1`$ and $`q0`$, so that an infinite island forms and the system becomes equivalent to a random spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ chain; this then forms a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ RS phase. Separating these two zero-temperature phases is a novel critical point with non-trivial $`B`$ and $`q`$. Both phases and the critical point are controlled by infinite randomness fixed points.

To verify the above claims and quantitatively study the critical point, we implemented the full RG numerically. Initially, $``$ (1) is all spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ with the $`J`$’s uniformly distributed in $`(J_{min},J_{max})`$ and we define $`\delta \mathrm{var}(\mathrm{ln}J)`$. We studied 100 realizations of length $`5\times 10^6`$, measuring the evolution with energy scale of the active spin density $`\rho `$, the effective spin distribution, and the coupling distributions.

For $`\delta >\delta _c`$ the chain flows to the $`S_{eff}=\frac{3}{2}`$ random-singlet phase, while for $`\delta <\delta _c`$ it flows to the $`S_{eff}=\frac{1}{2}`$ random singlet phase. The density $`\rho `$ in both random singlet phases obeys Eq. (4), as expected, with $`\psi =\frac{1}{2}`$.

The critical point is at $`\delta _c=0.22\pm 0.01`$. The corresponding fixed point is very different from the stable fixed points. The fractions of active spins are ($`\pm 0.02`$):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p_{\frac{1}{2}}=0.54& p_1=0.33& p_{\frac{3}{2}}=0.13\end{array}$$
(5)
The appearance of spin-1 excitations may be surprising: in pure spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$chains, they do not appear at the ends because of the gapless nature of the bulk. At the critical point, the active spin density, $`\rho `$, decays with a larger power of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ than in either phase:

$$\frac{1}{\psi }=\frac{1}{\psi _c}=3.85\pm 0.15.$$
(6)
This implies that the dynamics is faster at the critical point than in the adjacent phases. At infinite randomness fixed points, $`\psi `$ also controls the decay of typical correlations:

$$\mathrm{ln}(|𝐒_i𝐒_j|)C_{ij}|ij|^\psi $$
(7)
with the random coefficient $`C_{ij}`$ having a universal distribution. The average correlations will, however, decay as $`1/|ij|^2`$ at the critical point as in both phases.

Deviations from the critical point, $`\delta \delta _c`$, are relevant perturbations and grow as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/\nu \psi _c}`$ as the energy scale is reduced, with $`\nu `$ the correlation length exponent. we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\nu \psi _c}=1.2\pm 0.1& \nu =3.2\pm 0.3.\end{array}$$
(8)
Many physical quantities are dominated by the almost decoupled active spins that remain at scale $`\mathrm{\Omega }=T`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }_I/T)`$. The magnetization density at temperature $`T`$ and applied field $`HT`$ is the the sum of that of the three kinds of spins with weights, $`\{p_{S(\mathrm{\Gamma }_T,\delta )}\}`$ (see, e.g., Fig. 3). The linear susceptibility obeys a universal scaling form: $`\chi (\delta ,T)\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T}}{T}\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{1/\psi _c}𝒩\left((\delta \delta _c)\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{1/\psi _c\nu }\right)/T`$. For $`x0`$, $`𝒩(x)`$ approaches a nonzero constant, yielding $`\chi (T)1/T\mathrm{ln}^{1/\psi _c}T`$ for $`|\delta \delta _c|<|\mathrm{ln}T|^{1/\psi _c\nu }`$. For large $`x`$, $`𝒩(x)|x|^{(12\psi _c)\nu }`$ leading to $`\chi (\delta ,T)X(\delta )/T\mathrm{ln}^2T`$ in both random singlet phases. Near the critical point $`X(\delta )`$ vanishes as $`X(\delta )|\delta \delta _c|^{(12\psi _c)\nu }`$ for $`|\delta \delta _c|>|\mathrm{ln}T|^{1/\psi _c\nu }`$. Unfortunately, this dip in the susceptibility would be hard to observe because of the low temperatures needed. But because of the $`\mathrm{ln}T`$ in scaling functions, a wide regime of the low temperature phase diagram will be governed by the critical fixed point with the spin mixtures described approximately by the universal fractions in Eq. (5).

Spatiotemporal correlations can be investigated by neutron scattering. The magnetic structure factor, $`𝒮(q,\omega )`$, will be dominated at low frequencies by excitations of spins that are paired together with energy scale $`\omega `$. At fixed $`\omega `$, $`𝒮(q,\omega )`$ will show a peak at $`q\rho _{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )}`$, the typical spacing between such spin pairs.  At the critical point, we also expect some strong ferromagnetic correlations between widely separated pairs on the same sublattice. These may give rise to interesting dependence on $`\delta `$ of the peak in $`𝒮(q,\omega )`$ near the zone boundary.

The dynamics of nominally pure spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ Heisenberg chains were recently studied experimentally in $`CsVCl_3`$ and $`CsVBr_3`$, cf. Itoh et al. If mixtures of these, or other pairs of compounds can be made with random AFM exchange, it should be possible to investigate some of the phenomena discussed here. Additional complications that would have to be investigated include the effects of random anisotropy. For spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ random chains, there is considerable robustness of the random singlet-like phases unless Ising anisotropy dominates. But for higher spin, this needs exploring. Another intriguing possibility is three-leg spin ladder compounds,  if ones can be found with combinations of ferro and antiferromagnetic interactions. More generally, the model studied here shows how regimes with complicated mixtures of effective spins can arise at low temperatures from seemingly-simple hamiltonians.

The spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$ AFM chain appears to be the first example of a system in which two phases and the transition between them are all governed by infinite randomness fixed points. How much of this behavior persists in other contexts, in particular with lower symmetry or in higher dimensions, is a subject for future investigations.

This work has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation via grants DMR-9976621 and DMR-9809334. S.K. was also supported by a DFG Fellowship and through Grant No. SFB 484 of the DFG. G.R. would like to thank J. P. Sethna for useful discussions.


text:
# Event shape studies, 𝜶_𝒔 and its running from LEP

## 1 Introduction

From LEP1 data millions of hadronic events at and around $`M_Z`$ are collected and analysed by the four LEP experiments. By selecting events with prompt and hard photon radiation the energy range below $`M_Z`$ is accessible. At LEP2 energies the statistics is about three orders of magnitudes smaller compared to LEP1, but still sufficient for measurements of event shape observables. The background conditions at LEP2 are much more various and complicated compared to LEP1. Events with initial state photon radiation and (semi-) hadronically decaying W- and Z-pairs have to be discarded.

From hadronic events infrared and collinear safe event shape observables and their mean values are deduced. All measurements are in good agreement with Monte Carlo simulations, none of the LEP collaborations reports about a significant excess of multi jet events at neither energy. By comparing the measurements with theoretical predictions from perturbative QCD the strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$ and its running as well as the QCD structure constants $`C_A`$ and $`C_F`$ are accessible. The theoretical prediction has to be corrected for hadronisation effects. Two different approaches are followed by the LEP collaborations. Either the transition from colour charged partons into colourless hadrons is simulated by Monte Carlo generators or power corrections are applied. Different generators based on string and cluster fragmentation, all tuned to LEP1 data have been used. Within power corrections a universal parameter $`\alpha _0(\mu _I)`$ is introduced, accounting for non perturbative contributions below an infrared matching scale $`\mu _I`$. Power corrections can be applied to most of the event shape observables, to their shapes as well as to their mean values.

By comparing results at different center of mass energies the energy dependence of event shape observables and of $`\alpha _s`$ is accessible.

## 2 Results

### 2.1 Measurements of $`\alpha _s`$

Measurements of $`\alpha _s`$ are performed by fitting QCD predictions to event shape observables . Predictions in fixed order ($`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ for 3-jet final states and $`𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ for 4-jet final states) and in NLLA are used as well as resummed predictions (R, $`\mathrm{ln}`$R matching). The predictions are folded either by a hadronisation correction with Monte Carlo Models (Pythia, Ariadne, Herwig, Apacic$`++`$) or by power corrections. The DELPHI collaboration is performing fits with optimised renormalisation scales, leeding to much more consistent results.

Using power corrections fits to event shape means leads to significantly larger results in $`\alpha _s`$ compared to fit results to event shape distributions. The expected universality of the parameter $`\alpha _0`$ is marginaly fullfilled.

The LEP QCD working group is working on unifying the analyses to merge the results. Inputs from the experiments with separated staistical, experimental, systematic, hadronisation and scale uncertainties allow to combine the single results by taking correlations into account. From highest energetic LEP data of the year 2000 an average value of $`\alpha _s(206GeV)=0.1080\pm 0.0014\pm 0.0043`$, corresponding to $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1210\pm 0.0018\pm 0.0054`$ is derived. By comparing $`\alpha _s`$ measurements at different energies the running of $`\alpha _s`$ is accesible, being in good agreement with the QCD expectation (Fig.1).

An overall $`\alpha _s`$ fit to LEP data yields: $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1195\pm 0.0007\pm 0.0048`$ with a reasonable $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{ndf}=31.3/36`$. The measurement uncertainties are dominated by systematics.

### 2.2 Measurements of $`C_A`$ and $`C_F`$

By performing QCD fits with $`C_A`$ and $`C_F`$ $`(n_f)`$ as free parameters, the structure constants of the QCD are accessible . Measurements are performed either to mainly 4-jet observables from LEP1 data or to the energy dependence of the mean values of event shape observables. In the latter case also data from lower energetic $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments are included. All measurements confirm the SU(3) being the gauge symmetry of QCD. The measurement uncertainties are dominated by systematics.

### 2.3 Renormalisation Group Invariant measurements

The DELPHI collaboration presents an analysis  with a renormalisation group invariant approach, where scale and scheme dependencies cancel out completely. A very surprising result is that rgi fits are able to describe the energy evolution of event shape means without any need of hadronisation corrections, implying that power corrections to event shape means mainly parametrise terms which can in principle be calculated perturbatively. This approach gives the most precise measure of the $`\beta `$-function of QCD. By including data from lower energetic $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments the first coefficient can be determined to be $`\beta _0=7.9\pm 0.3`$, corresponding to $`n_f=4.8\pm 0.4`$.

## 3 Summary

Event shape distributions at centre of mass energies from 41GeV to 206GeV are measured from LEP data and are used for direct tests of hard QCD. The strong coupling is derived from the data and measured to be $`\alpha _S(M_Z)=0.1195\pm 0.0007\pm 0.0048`$. The running of $`\alpha _s`$ is in good agreement with the QCD expectation. The measurement of the structure constants $`C_A`$ and $`C_F`$ underline the SU(3) being the gauge symmetry of QCD.

Within the analyses of the four LEP collaborations there are still many options: Theoretical predictions are used in fixed order and in NLLA, different matching schemes are applied. Hadronisation corrections are applied by power corrections or by Monte Carlo generators with different tunings. Scale optimisation, giving a more consistent measure of $`\alpha _s`$, are only slowly accepted by all experiments. There is still work to be done to unify the analyses to merge their results.


text:
# References

CERN-TH/2001-323

SINP/TNP/01-27

hep-ph/0111345

Testing orbifold models of Supersymmetric Grand Unification
Gautam Bhattacharyya 1***gb@theory.saha.ernet.in and K. Sridhar 2sridhar@theory.tifr.res.in On leave of absence from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India.
1. Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata 700064, India
2. Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland

Abstract

In a model of supersymmetric SU(5) Grand Unification with a spatial dimension described by the orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$, proton decay is naturally suppressed at all orders. This is achieved by a suitable implementation of the discrete symmetries on the brane. But baryon number violating interactions are present in this model. We propose a few possible experimental tests of this model which exploit the effect of the baryon number violating couplings on low-energy observables like neutron-antineutron oscillations, double nucleon decay into two kaons, hadronic decay widths of the $`Z`$ boson, and $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross-section in Run II of the Tevatron.

Weak scale Supersymmetry (SUSY) is arguably the most promising candidate for describing physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). It was introduced in the first place to protect the electroweak scale from destabilizing divergences . Later, the idea of SUSY being embedded into some Grand Unified Theories (GUT)  received a significant boost when it was observed that the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) has the right particle content to ensure that the gauge couplings indeed meet a high scale $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV . The unification condition, in fact, predicts the existence of superparticles in the TeV range which suggests that they may well be discovered in collider experiments in the near future.

While the SUSY GUT models are theoretically very appealing, they face stiff experimental challenges. For instance, the most minimal version of the supersymmetric SU(5) model has now been excluded  by the Super-Kamiokande lower limit on the proton lifetime in the $`pK^+\overline{\nu }`$ channel ($`6.7\times 10^{32}`$ years at 90% C.L. ). The argument goes as follows: Requiring that the gauge coupling constants exactly unify at the GUT scale, a precise knowledge of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _S(M_Z)`$ from LEP has now sharpened the interval $`3.5\times 10^{14}M_{H_C}3.6\times 10^{15}`$ (in GeV) at 90% C.L., where $`M_{H_C}`$ is the mass of the coloured triplet Higgs boson that mediates the dominant decay of the proton. On the other hand, the new Super-Kamiokande limit mentioned above imposes the constraint: $`M_{H_C}7.6\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. Such a gross disagreement between these two limits excludes minimal supersymmetric SU(5) even in the decoupling limit. To save the GUT models from this embarassment, one can either look for suppressing the dimension-5 proton decay operator in some way, or attempt to prepare a natural ground to solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem by pushing the coloured triplet Higgs mass very heavy while keeping the doublet Higgs at the weak scale.

In recent years, there has been a great resurgence of interest in the physics of extra dimensions. More recently, the implications of models in which SUSY is embedded into GUT in higher dimensions, and both SUSY and GUT breaking being eventually realised by orbifold compactifications, have been explored. There are several models in the literature , but one recent suggestion, originally due to Kawamura  and developed, in particular, by Altarelli and Feruglio , is particularly interesting because it provides a framework for an explicit realisation of minimal SUSY embedded into SU(5) GUT while avoiding all the aforementioned pitfalls of conventional SUSY GUT scenarios. We refer to this model as the Kawamura-Altarelli-Feruglio (KAF) model. We would like to point out at the very outset, that the model of Altarelli and Feruglio  does differ in the details of the interaction of the brane and bulk fields from the original Kawamura framework  and in all such cases of difference what we refer to as the KAF model is only the Altarelli-Feruglio model.

To recapitulate the basics, the minimal fermionic representation of the 5-dimensional Lorentz group is a 4-component spinor, which decomposes under the 4-dimensional Lorentz group as two 2-component Weyl spinors. Thus in 5 dimensions the minimal SUSY has 8 real supercharges which corresponds to $`N=(1,1)`$ or equivalently $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. In other words, a hypermultiplet ($`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y),\mathrm{\Phi }^c(x^\mu ,y)`$) in 5 dimensions corresponds to two sets of degenerate $`N=1`$ chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c(x^\mu ,y)`$ in 4-dimensional language with the 5th ($`y`$) coordinate acting as a label on the 4-dimensional fields. The 5-dimensional theory is necessarily a vector-like theory with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ transforming under SU(5) as 5 and $`\overline{5}`$, respectively. Also, in 5 dimensions the only interaction is the gauge interaction. In the KAF model, one starts with a 5-dimensional GUT with minimal SU(5) gauge group and $`N=2`$ SUSY. The 5-dimensional spacetime is factorised into a product of the four dimensional spacetime $`M^4`$ (labelled by the co-ordinates $`x^\mu `$) with the extra spatial dimension compactified on the orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ (labelled by the co-ordinate $`y=x_5`$)). The radius, $`R`$, of the circle $`S^1`$ is chosen to be of the order of $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}^1`$. The orbifold construction is as follows: One starts by dividing $`S^1`$ by a $`Z_2`$ transformation $`yy`$ and then a further division by $`Z_2^{}`$ which acts as $`y^{}y^{}`$ with $`y^{}=y+\pi R/2`$. After these identifications, the spacetime is the interval $`[0,\pi R/2]`$ with a brane located at each fixed point $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi R/2`$. As a result of the two reflections, the branes at $`y=\pi R`$ and $`\pi R/2`$ are identified with those at $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi R/2`$, respectively. The reason for the action of two discrete symmetries $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ becomes apparent when the following considerations are taken into account. Let us consider a generic field $`\varphi (x^\mu ,y)`$ exisiting in the 5-dimensional bulk. The $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ parities (called $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$, respectively) are defined for this field as

$`\varphi (x^\mu ,y)`$ $``$ $`\varphi (x^\mu ,y)=P\varphi (x^\mu ,y),`$
$`\varphi (x^\mu ,y^{})`$ $``$ $`\varphi (x^\mu ,y^{})=P^{}\varphi (x^\mu ,y^{}).`$ (1)
Using the notation $`\varphi _{\pm \pm }`$ for the fields with $`(P,P^{})=(\pm ,\pm )`$, a Fourier expansion in $`y`$ yields:

$`\varphi _{++}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _{++}^{(2n)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2ny}{R}},`$
$`\varphi _+(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _+^{(2n+1)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)y}{R}},`$ (2)
$`\varphi _+(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _+^{(2n+1)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)y}{R}},`$
$`\varphi _{}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _{}^{(2n+2)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{(2n+2)y}{R}}.`$
The above Fourier decompositions lead to the following observations: Upon compactification, the fields $`\varphi _{++}^{(2n)}`$ acquire a mass $`2n/R`$, while $`\varphi _+^{(2n+1)}`$ and $`\varphi _+^{(2n+1)}`$ acquire a mass $`(2n+1)/R`$ and $`\varphi _{}^{(2n+2)}`$ acquire a mass $`(2n+2)/R`$. This implies that the only fields which can have massless components are $`\varphi _{++}^{(2n)}`$. The other interesting consequence is that only $`\varphi _{++}`$ and $`\varphi _+`$ can have non-vanishing components on the $`y=0`$ brane. These simple observations have remarkable consequences. For example, consider the case when $`\varphi (x^\mu ,y)`$ transforms as a multiplet under some symmetry group G. Now if $`P`$ (or $`P^{}`$) are chosen to be different for different components of the multiplet, then upon compactification a symmetry reduction will result. The usual line of action is the following: Start with a 5-dimensional $`N=2`$ SUSY theory invariant under the gauge group SU(5); upon the first compactification by $`Z_2`$ the conjugated fields are projected out and the $`N=2`$ SUSY reduces to $`N=1`$ SUSY but still respecting the gauge SU(5), on the second compactification by $`Z_2^{}`$ the SU(5) gauge symmetry is broken to the SM gauge group SU(3) $`\times `$ SU(2) $`\times `$ U(1) with a unbroken $`N=1`$ SUSY. The assignment of parities in the KAF model (which we briefly summarise here but for details refer the readers to the original references ) are such that only the (+,+) fields, i.e. fields which have massless components and do not vanish on the $`y=0`$ brane (which is taken to be the ‘visible’ brane) are the gauge and Higgs multiplets of the MSSM. Other components like the coloured triplet Higgs fields, for example, do not have (+,+) parity assignments and therefore do not have any massless component but acquire a minimum mass of order $`1/RM_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. This provides a very elegant solution to the problem of doublet-triplet splitting and constitutes one of the attractive features of the orbifold compactification advocated in the KAF model.

The 5-dimensional theory contains the vector bosons $`A_M`$ ($`M=(\mu ,5)`$, where $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$), two gauginos $`\lambda ,\lambda ^c`$ and a real scalar $`\sigma `$, all of them transforming in the adjoint representation of SU(5). This is equivalent to a $`N=1`$ vector multiplet $`V(A_\mu ,\lambda )`$ and a chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\varphi _\mathrm{\Sigma },\psi _\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ in the adjoint representation, with $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\sigma +iA_5)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\psi _\mathrm{\Sigma }=\lambda ^c`$. Then there are $`N=1`$ chiral Higgs multiplets $`H_5`$ and $`H_{\overline{5}}`$ and their conjugated partners. $`H_5`$ and $`H_{\overline{5}}`$ contain the scalar Higgs doublets $`H_u^D`$ and $`H_d^D`$ and the corresponding scalar triplets $`H_u^T`$ and $`H_d^T`$. Their $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ parity assignments are listed in Table 1 of . We just mention that $`A_\mu `$, $`\lambda `$, $`H_u^D`$ and $`H_d^D`$ are (+,+) fields, which have zero modes and also can have nonvanishing components at the branes.

For the quark and lepton matter, there is more freedom in the assignments of parities. First of all, we notice that $`N=2`$ SUSY does not allow any trilinear Yukawa interaction in the bulk. In $`N=2`$ SUSY, all interactions are gauge interactions. The Yukawa interactions can however be placed in the branes where $`N=2`$ SUSY breaks to $`N=1`$ SUSY. Now, as Altarelli and Feruglio  have argued, the matter fields are located only at the branes. They cannot propagate in the bulk, because if they do, it is not possible to construct a bulk interaction invariant under the gauge SU(5) and the $`(Z_2,Z_2^{})`$ parities. For the sake of illustration, let us denote the matter fields in the SU(5) representation as: $`10(Q,U,E)`$ and $`\overline{5}(L,D)`$, which are $`N=1`$ chiral multiplets. Since all these matter fields can reside in the $`y=0`$ brane, the $`Z_2`$ parities for all of them are positive. What about the $`Z_2^{}`$ parities of the matter fields? They have to be fixed from the gauge interaction of the matter fields with the gauge fields and the Yukawa interaction of the matter fields with the Higgs fields in 4 dimensions. In the following, let us briefly summarise how it is realised in the KAF model.

First we explicitly write down all the relevant interactions. For that we denote a matter chiral multiplet by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(\varphi _M,\psi _M)`$, where $`M=(Q,L,U,D,E)`$, with $`\varphi _M`$ and $`\psi _M`$ being the scalar and fermionic components respectively. The gauge interaction induced at $`y=0`$ by the Kahler potential,

$`K10^{}e^V10+\overline{5}^{}e^V\overline{5},`$ (3)
when decomposed in components, reads:

$`_g=_g^a+_g^{\widehat{a}},`$ (4)
$`_g^a={\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}\overline{\psi _M}\overline{\sigma }^\mu T^a\psi _MA_\mu ^a,`$ (5)
$`_g^{\widehat{a}}=\overline{\psi _Q}\overline{\sigma }^\mu T^{\widehat{a}}\psi _UA_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}+\overline{\psi _Q}\overline{\sigma }^\mu T^{\widehat{a}}\psi _EA_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}+\overline{\psi _L}\overline{\sigma }^\mu T^{\widehat{a}}\psi _DA_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (6)
In the above equations, $`T^a`$ and $`T^{\widehat{a}}`$ correspond to the unbroken and broken SU(5) generators, respectively, and $`\overline{\sigma }_\mu =(1,\sigma ^k)`$ with $`\sigma ^k`$ being the Pauli matrices. The effective 4-dimensional Lagrangian is given by:

$`_g^{(4)}={\displaystyle 𝑑y\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y+\pi R)\right]_g(y)}.`$ (7)
The Yukawa interaction on the branes is given by

$`W^{(4)}={\displaystyle 𝑑y\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y+\pi R)\right]W(y)},\mathrm{where}`$ (8)
$`W(y)=y_u1010H_5+y_d10\overline{5}H_{\overline{5}}+y_R10\overline{5}\overline{5}.`$ (9)
The $`1010H_5`$ term contains the up quark mass term $`QUH_u^D`$, $`10\overline{5}H_{\overline{5}}`$ contains the down quark and electron mass terms $`QDH_d^D`$ and $`LEH_d^D`$ respectively, and $`10\overline{5}\overline{5}`$ can be decomposed as $`QLD+LLE+UDD`$. Now comes the task of assigning the matter $`P^{}`$ parities. The following three observations have been made in :

1. $`P^{}(Q,L,U,D,E)=(+,+,+,+,+)`$: After $`y`$-integration in Eq. (7), the contribution from Eq. (5) survives and that from Eq. (6) vanishes. So the SU(5) gauge interaction is broken to the SM gauge interaction. But the simultaneous presence of the lepton and baryon number violating operators inside $`10\overline{5}\overline{5}`$ mediates proton decay at a very rapid rate.
2. $`P^{}(Q,L,U,D,E)=\pm (+,+,,,),\mathrm{or}\pm (+,,,+,)`$: Full SU(5) symmetry is preserved on the branes. But, in the first case, the Yukawa interactions are $`P^{}`$ odd and vanish after the $`y`$-integration, while in the second case, up-type quark masses cannot be generated (since $`1010H_5`$ is $`P^{}`$ odd) leading to a unrealistic picture.
3. $`P^{}(Q,L,U,D,E)=(+,,+,+,)`$: SU(5) invariance is lost. The interactions only respect SU(3) $`\times `$ SU(2) $`\times `$ U(1). But (a) the necessary terms for yielding matter masses, namely, $`QUH_u^D+QDH_d^D+LEH_d^D`$ can be generated, (b) the first term in Eq. (6), an essential ingredient for vector boson mediated proton decay, is prohibited, (c) coloured Higgsino mediated proton decay operators, contained in Eq. (9) but not explicitly shown here (see ), is again forbidden, and, finally, (d) the lepton number violating $`LLE`$ and $`LQD`$ terms, inside $`10\overline{5}\overline{5}`$, are also disallowed. Note, even though the baryon number violating $`UDD`$ operator is allowed, this alone, without the assistance of any lepton number violating operator, cannot drive proton decay. We also observe that with this choice of $`P^{}`$ parities, the SU(5) invariance at the brane is abandoned, and the symmetry corresponds to that of the residual SU(3) $`\times `$ SU(2) $`\times `$ U(1). Still, some specific SU(5) properties, like $`m_b=m_\tau `$, can be realised.

So the lesson is that the most convenient $`(P,P^{})`$ assignments of matter fields are: $`(Q,U,D)=(+,+)`$, and $`(L,E)=(+,)`$. The 4-dimensional superpotential that follows this assignment is

$`W^{(4)}=2{\displaystyle 𝑑y\delta (y)\left[y_uQUH_u^D+y_d(QDH_d^D+LEH_d^D)+y_RUDD\right]}.`$ (10)
The first three terms in Eq. (10) are responsible for the mass generation of up-quarks, down-quarks and charged leptons respectively. The last term is baryon number violating, and we will see how it provides a handle to test this model. Even though terms involving $`H_u^T`$ and $`H_d^T`$ arise separately (not explicitly shown in Eq. (10)), there is no bilinear Higgs triplet mixing term. In fact, with the parity assignments above, proton decay is forbidden at all orders.

We find it appropriate to mention here that the assignments of $`P^{}`$ parities made in the KAF model are by no means the only possiblity. In the scenario presented by Hall and Nomura , the $`P^{}`$ assignments correspond to the case (2) listed above. The reason that in  this choice works is that Hall and Nomura suggest that in some cases (e.g. $`y_u`$) the same Yukawa coupling at $`y=0`$ and $`\pi R`$ may have a relative sign. This may, indeed, be true if the Yukawa couplings were functions of the 5th co-ordinate $`y`$ and this latter circumstance can occur quite naturally in string theories where the couplings arise as vacuum expectation values of moduli. So if one were to start from string-inspired considerations, it may seem that the choice made by Hall and Nomura is justified. In the KAF model, the approach is to treat the couplings as independent of $`y`$, i.e. to have no relative sign between the same Yukawa coupling at $`y=0`$ and $`\pi R`$. On the other hand, the Hall-Nomura approach would allow a relative sign between the same Yukawa coupling at $`y=0`$ and $`\pi R`$, thus permitting the $`P^{}`$ odd brane operators survive after the $`y`$ integration. This is precisely the point where Hall and Nomura  differ with Alterelli and Feruglio . While in  a SU(5) symmetric brane interaction at $`y=0`$ could be written down, in  the symmetry on the $`y=0`$ brane is that of the residual SU(3) $`\times `$ SU(2) $`\times `$ U(1). Furthermore, the choice of $`P^{}`$ parities in  predicts $`A_\mu ^{\widehat{a}}`$ boson exchanged proton decay at a rate to be seen in the forthcoming experiments, while the choice made in  prohibits all kinds of proton decay at all orders. The other important difference between  and  is that while the former allows baryon number violating term in the 4-dimensional superpotential, the latter contains $`R`$-parity as a discrete subgroup thus justifying the absence of either the lepton number or the baryon number violating interaction.

Thus having noted down the principal differences between  and , we now go back to the formalism of  which we have called the KAF model. Even though it is a GUT model, the conventional ‘smoking gun’ signal of proton decay is absent at all orders. Turning the argument around, if proton decay is discovered, this model will be ruled out. But then how we can experimentally verify this model? What are its observable consequences? We address ourselves to precisely this question in the present work. We observe that the baryon number violating $`UDD`$ term in Eq. (10) provides the clue as to where to look for its traces.

As such it is not possible to make any concrete estimation of the size of $`y_R`$ in the KAF model. The best we can do is to argue a purely geometrical suppresion of the $`y_u`$ or $`y_d`$ term, that contains one bulk field ($`H_u^D`$ or $`H_d^D`$) and two brane-localised matter fields, as compared to the $`y_R`$ induced term which contains all three brane-localised fields. The basic point is that while writing down the 4-dimensional effective Lagrangian involving a 5-dimensional bulk field, the latter has to be Fourier decomposed into a tower of Kaluza-Klein modes with a normalisation $`1/\sqrt{l}`$ due to compactification, where $`l=\pi R/2`$. In fact each time a bulk field appears in a 4-dimensional effective Lagrangian, it is accompanied by a volume suppression factor $`ϵ1/\sqrt{M_{}l}`$, where $`M_{}`$ is the UV cutoff scale for the effective theory which appears as a result of the correct normalization to provide the zero modes of the bulk field with appropriate 4-dimensional canonical dimensions. For the KAF model, this line of reasoning has the implication that the usual Yukawa couplings of the brane-localised matter fields with the bulk Higgs field are suppressed by $`𝒪(ϵ)`$ at the GUT scale as compared to the baryon number violating Yukawa couplings which involve all three matter fields.

But in the absence of any flavour physics whatsoever on the brane in the KAF model it is not possible to make any numerical estimate of the size of this suppression. On the other hand, in order to admit any flavour physics on the brane, different matter fields will have to be allowed to propagate in different dimensions in the bulk. However, we stated in the beginning that bulk matter does not respect SU(5) gauge invariance in 5 dimensions. Still, as has been observed in Refs. , one can order another set of $`5^{}`$ and $`10^{}`$ and their mirror partners to achieve a consistent bulk matter formalism. Although this amounts to a departure from the usual GUT structure, one can still ensure gauge coupling unification. In any case, this is the minimal alteration from the ‘traditional line’ needed to activate any flavour physics at all on the brane. Without going into the details of , we simply take a very crude but reasonable estimate the authors of  have made, namely, $`ϵ1/10`$. Even though in the KAF model there is no such extra $`5^{}`$ and $`10^{}`$, the approximate size of the volume suppression that we borrow from  seems a reasonable one. This choice allows us to make a general statement that in the KAF model a generic baryon number violating coupling at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ is about an order of magnitude larger than a generic Yukawa coupling at the same scale. In the following paragraph we try to make this statement more explicit.

Even though the KAF model does not discuss any flavour physics at all, we observe a significant hierarchy among the experimental quark and lepton masses at low energy anyway. To this end, we make the following simplistic assumption that the baryon number violating couplings may have a kind of generational hierarchy that is observed among the usual matter-Higgs Yukawa couplings. We first write down the effective 4-dimensional baryon number violating superpotential with explicit generation indices as $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }U_iD_jD_k`$ (with an antisymmetry between $`j`$ and $`k`$) and the 4-dimensional quark-Higgs superpotential as $`h_d^{ij}Q_iH_dD_j+h_u^{ij}Q_iH_uU_j`$, where $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ correspond to the zero modes of $`H_u^D`$ and $`H_d^D`$ respectively. For simplicity, we assume only two types of $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ couplings, those involving the maximum and minimum possible values of $`(ijk)`$, with the following relation at the GUT scale:

$`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }h_t/ϵ,\lambda _{112}^{\prime \prime }h_u/ϵ.`$ (11)
As the experimental upper limits imply, the other $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$ couplings are presumably related to the light quark Yukawa couplings. These assumptions are admittedly simplistic, but we will try to see what these simple assumptions will lead us to. We make a remark here that if the $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ couplings sit on their experimental upper limits, it turns out that $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }\lambda _{112}^{\prime \prime }`$ .

With the kind of hierarchy at GUT scale given by Eq. (11), particularly with $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }`$ being an order of magnitude larger than $`h_t`$ and more specifically both being non-perturbative at the GUT scale, an interesting possibility arises when both are driven to their fixed point values at the electroweak scale. This has been considered in  (see also ), and the fixed point solutions are obtained in terms of the gauge couplings at the scale $`M_Z`$ as ($`Y_t=h_t^2/4\pi `$, $`Y_3=\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime 2}/4\pi `$):

$`Y_t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left[8\alpha _3+9\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}\alpha _1\right],Y_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{56}{3}}\alpha _33\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{15}}\alpha _1\right].`$ (12)
Using the values $`\alpha _3(M_Z)=0.118`$, $`\alpha _2(M_Z)=0.0336`$ and $`\alpha _1(M_Z)=0.0167`$, we obtain $`m_t=`$ 174 GeV (for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >5`$) and $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }=1.3`$ at the weak scale.

What is the impact of such a large $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }`$ on electroweak observables? Certainly, this coupling will contribute to $`Zb\overline{b}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ via quark-squark triangle graphs . The $`Z`$ coupling to $`q_R`$ ($`q=s,b`$) will be modified by an amount $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime 2}N_cf(m_t^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^2)/16\pi ^2`$, where $`N_c=3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is an average squark mass. The explicit expression of the function $`f`$ in terms of the Passarino-Veltman two- ($`B`$) and three- ($`C`$) point functions are given in . The best constraint on $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }`$ comes from $`R_l=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{had}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ (where $`R_l^{\mathrm{SM}}=20.740`$, $`R_l^{\mathrm{exp}}=20.767\pm 0.025`$), given by $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }0.83`$ (at 2$`\sigma `$) for a common squark mass of 100 GeV. We have used the latest LEP Electroweak Working Group report  to obtain the above limit as an update of our previous work . This implies that the fixed point value $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }1.3`$ can be accommodated by taking the squark mass near 150 GeV or so. We make a remark in passing that with this interaction it is difficult to sizably alter the forward-backward asymmetry in the $`b`$ quark channel keeping consistency with the hadronic width measurement at the same time.

Another probe of $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }`$ is the $`t\overline{t}`$ production at the Tevatron . In the presence of the baryon number violating couplings, in addition to the SM process, $`q\overline{q}t\overline{t}`$ mediated by $`s`$-channel gluon exchange, there are new $`t`$-channel processes involving the exchange of a squark. This new process can lead to a significant enhancement of the $`t\overline{t}`$ cross-section. This enhancement can be effectively probed in Run II of the Tevatron because of the high-statistics that will be achieved in Run II and also because $`t\overline{t}`$ production at the Tevatron energy is dominated by $`q\overline{q}`$-initiated channel which will be affected by the baryon number violating operators. With a value of $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }1.3`$ as suggested by the above arguments, we compute the integrated $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross-section for $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV. The SM value for the $`t\overline{t}`$ cross-section at this energy is about 9.4 pb and assuming an integrated luminosity of 2 fb-1 we expect about 18,500 SM events. Assuming purely statistical errors, we then estimate the sensitivity of this process to probe the baryon number violating channel. We find that squark masses to values somewhat larger than 300 GeV at the 95% C.L. level can be probed for $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }1`$.

What about the $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ couplings which involve lower generation indices? Intuitively, if our approximation in Eq. (11) is sensible, then these couplings will be an order of magnitude larger than the lower generation quark Yukawa couplings. In view of the hierarchies among quark masses, it is rather impossible to ascertain any value for those $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ couplings, but roughly we can expect them to be in the range $`10^5`$$`10^3`$ at the GUT scale and more or less in the same range at the weak scale. Some of these couplings will induce large neutron-antineutron ($`n`$-$`\overline{n}`$) oscillation or drive double nucleon decay into two kaons at a rapid rate. The existing bounds from $`n`$-$`\overline{n}`$ oscillation are:

$`\lambda _{113}^{\prime \prime }5\times 10^3,\lambda _{312}^{\prime \prime }1.5\times 10^2,\lambda _{313}^{\prime \prime }2.0\times 10^2,`$ (13)
for an average squark mass of 200 GeV. These bounds have been obtained  using the $`n`$-$`\overline{n}`$ oscillation time $`\tau >1.2\times 10^8s`$: there are some uncertainties though coming from the nuclear matrix element calculations. The bound that follows from the consideration of $`NNKK`$ is :

$`\lambda _{112}^{\prime \prime }1.0\times 10^6,`$ (14)
again for a squark mass around 200 GeV. This bound also depends on a suitable choice of the ratio between the hadronic scale and the SUSY breaking scale. The values of $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ couplings close to their experimental upper limits can be easily accommodated in the KAF model. Turning the argument around, if we observe a significant enhancement (compared to the SM) in those channels, this might be interpreted in terms of the $`UDD`$ couplings. The other lesson we learn is that if we attempt to construct a realistic flavour model, apart from the $`\lambda _{323}^{\prime \prime }`$, all other $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ couplings would have to be small (see the bounds listed in ).

In conclusion, the simplest version of the supersymmetric SU(5) GUT models with an extra dimension compactified on a $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold, as introduced by Kawamura and further developed by Altarelli and Feruglio, solves the doublet-triplet splitting problem and suppresses proton decay at all orders by a suitable implementation of matter $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ parities. Since proton decay constitutes the ‘smoking gun’ signal of the Grand Unified models, a question that naturally arises is how we experimentally verify this particular incarnation of Grand Unification. Interestingly, this model admits baryon number violating couplings, and in this paper we seek to exploit the effects of these couplings on neutron-antineutron oscillations, double nucleon decay into two kaons, hadronic decay widths of the $`Z`$ boson, and $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross-section in Run II of the Tevatron. Although a significant deviation from the SM expectations on these observables will strengthen the case for a baryon number violating interaction, any future observation of proton decay will suffice to rule out the KAF model.

Acknowledgements: It is a pleasure to thank G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, J. March-Russell and Y. Nomura for useful discussions. GB thanks the Theory Division, CERN, Geneva, and ICTP, Trieste, for hospitality during the period in which most of the work has been done.