text:
# Crystal-based Approach to Beam Collimation in RHIC and SNS

## 1  Introduction

Classic two-stage collimation systems for loss localisation in accelerators typically use a small scattering target as a primary element, whereas the secondary element is a bulk absorber . Normally in colliders and storage rings the halo diffusion is pretty slow, therefore the first touch of a halo particle with the aperture-restricting collimator is rather a glancing touch, with the impact parameter on the order of micron. Such a near-surface particle is easiely scattered out of the collimator material. The role of the primary element is to give a substantial angular kick to incoming halo particles in order to increase the impact parameter of the particles on the secondary element placed in some position, optimised transversally and longitudinally for better interception.

Naturally, an amorphous target scatters particles in all possible directions. Ideally, one would prefer a ”smart target” that kicks all particles in only one direction: for instance, only in radial plane, only outward, and only into the preferred angular range corresponding to the center of absorber (to exclude escapes). Bent crystal is the first idea for such a smart target: it traps particles as much as possible and convenes them into desired direction. In physics language, we replace the scattering on single atoms of amorphous target by the coherent scattering on atomic planes of aligned monocrystal.

If the crystal channeling efficiency would be 100%, the crystal would serve as a kicker putting all the beam particles deeply onto the collimator for safe absorption. A real crystal is not 100% efficient, therefore only part of the beam goes into safe place, whereas the rest of the particles are scattered and then handled in traditional way by collimators.

Several issues may be important for real application of this technique for beam cleaning: channeling efficiency, withstanding a high beam intensity, long lifetime of crystal. Recently the crystal team of IHEP has demonstrated the following milestones.

* The channeling crystal withstand the intensity of 2$`\times `$1014 70-GeV proton hits per spill of $``$0.5 s duration . This corresponds to averaged (over days) intensity of 2$`\times `$1013 proton/s at crystal, already higher than the expected 0.1% beam loss in the SNS Accumulator Ring (=1.2$`\times `$1013 p/s).
In a special pulse-mode test, one of the crystals was exposed to even more extreme dump, $``$1014 proton hits in short 50-ms pulse with repetition rate once per 9.6 s. The later external-beam test has shown that this crystal retained normal channeling properties .
* Several crystals have been in exploitation at high intensity (order of 5$``$1011 extracted protons in every spill) for 1-2 months . As a result, the integrated dose of proton hits at the crystal has been about 1020/cm2 After this irradiation to 1020/cm2 the crystal extraction efficiency remained the same as measured in the beginning of physics run and at the end. Though high it is, the achieved integral irradiation is still below the world highest results obtained in BNL  and CERN , (4–5)$`\times `$1020 proton/cm2. The CERN experience showed that at the achieved threshold of 5$`\times `$1020 p/cm2 at 450 GeV the crystal lost 30% of its deflection efficiency. At 450 GeV, crystal is sensitive to lattice misalignment of $``$5 $`\mu `$rad, while at the SNS energy it is tolerant to $``$100 $`\mu `$rad, therefore crystal may withstand higher doses at SNS, $``$1021 p/cm2. One of the IHEP crystals did extract 70-GeV protons over 10 years without replacement!
* The experimentally demonstrated figures of crystal deflection efficiency are 65% (IHEP, 70 GeV slow extraction ) and 60% (CERN, 450 GeV external beam deflection), here efficiency is the ratio of the deflected beam to all incident beam. It’s been earlier demonstrated in IHEP experiment that crystal scraper (channeling then with 50% efficiency) has reduced two-fold the radiation levels downstream in the machine .

This year, in the framework of the project to design and test a collimation system prototype using bent channeling crystal for cleaning of the RHIC heavy ion beam halo, a silicon (110) single crystal is being installed into the vacuum chamber of one of the RHIC rings with proposition of being a primary element situated upstream of the traditional heavy ”amorphous” collimator .

The activities on crystal collimation concept have been largely supported by simulations of the impact that the improvement in scraping efficiency would have on the radiation backgrounds in the machines. Making use of computer code CATCH  for crystal simulations, earlier extensively verified in CERN, Fermilab, and IHEP experiments in 1992-2000 , it’s been shown in Tevatron scraping simulations that crystal scraper reduces accelerator-related background in CDF and D0 experiments by a factor of 10 .

For the application in the SNS one can take a 100%-safe approach: using a 1-mm bent Si crystal together (just in front) with normal primary scraper (like 5 mm Pt or W) of the collimation system, in the same location. First, this ensures that if crystal is not channeling then the system works as usual. When crystal is brought to channeling condition, it works just as a “crystalline edge” for the primary target, deflecting (“shaving off”) at $``$5 mrad as much halo as possible. In this way, the deflected particles will also be scattered then in the Pt target, therefore the actual resulting deflection will be rather in some range; this may even have an additional positive effect, spreading the beam load on the absorber over some larger area. The crystal scraper protects the edge of absorber from heat and radiation load.

The above said is a strong motivation to pursue the experimental tests of crystal-assisted collimation of beams in order to evaluate the potential benefits for the beam collimation systems. The experimental studies on beam collimation in 1 GeV range are under progress in the main ring of the IHEP U-70 accelerator, performed jointly by the collaboration of BNL/SNS and IHEP during 2000 . The following stage of the experimental program will make use of crystalline scrapers dedicated to 1 GeV studies.

## 2  Crystal Scraper

As the crystal can be aligned to the beam envelope, then to first approximation all the incoming halo particles are parallel to the crystal planes thus ensuring a high efficiency of channeling. How parallel they are, depends on a beam growth rate.

In case of RHIC gold ion beam, the intrabeam scattering provokes a pretty rapid growth of the beam. On the other hand, the location chosen for the bent crystal has a huge beta function, in excess of 1000 m. The earlier performed modelling of beam diffusion in RHIC  has provided us with a sample of halo particles that have a divergence at the incidence on the crystal of a few microradian, well within the critical angle of channeling in silicon, $`\theta _c`$= $`\pm `$10 $`\mu `$rad at the RHIC energy of 250 GeV per unit charge.

The crystal situated $``$8 m upstream of a massive collimator is bending the incoming particles by 0.5 mrad. As computer simulations show, the efficiency of bending at 0.5 mrad for the considered sample of particles is over 70%. If we include all the particles bent at least 0.1 mrad (they are still well intercepted by collimator), the bent fraction amounts to 78%.

For the SNS, the beam loss scenario is pretty unknown yet. Therefore, we study the effect of crystal scraper  as a function of divergence of the particles intercepted by a crystal. Figure 1 shows the bending effect when the incident particles are well within the angular acceptance of the silicon (110) crystal planes, 2$`\theta _c`$=0.25 mrad at the SNS kinetic energy of 1.3 GeV.

The particles that were not channeled in the crystal get some scattering, nearely the same as in an amorphous matter. Later, these unchanneled particles might be intercepted by crystal again and channeled on this later encounter. Multiple encounters of particles with channeling crystal essentially improve the chances to enter the channeling mode in crystal . In the experiments on ”multipass” crystal extraction this happens automatically, as the particles scattered in crystal go on circulating in the ring and occasionally may encounter crystal again.

In some cases it’s not that easy to have multiple encounters with a single crystal. For instance, the SNS has a rapid-cycling Accumulator Ring, 60 Hz, with a beam lifetime about 1200 turns, and it’s not obvious that particles once scattered in a crystal will encounter it again. Moreover, the behaviour of near-aperture particle can be quite complicated, and the beam instability driving the halo can be quite fast. In the case of RHIC, as a result of huge beta in the cleaning insertion, the scattering in crystal increases the betatron amplitude by sort of millimeters; this again makes it unobvious that the scattered particles, after some circulation in the ring, will likely come to crystal again.

The alternative to ”automatic” multiple encounters with a single crystal scraper is to install several (two, three, or more) crystals in a row. Then each of them must be aligned (or pre-aligned) in position and angle. This would complicate the mechanics and procedures, but at the moment we are interested only in potential physics benefits.

As the scattering of unchanneled particles in crystal increases their divergence and hence affects the chances of channeling on a later encounter with a crystal, one should further optimise the length of a crystal to improve in overall probability of channeling as a result of several encounters with a crystal.

For the same sample of gold particles in RHIC, we modelled their successive encounters with a crystal. For RHIC, the optimum crystal for 0.5 mrad bending is about the size already chosen for the real prototype of crystal collimator now ready for the beam tests. Figure 2 shows how the efficiency of crystal bending increases with the number of particle encounters with a crystal (4 mm long Si(110)).The first encounter provides the bending efficiency of just under 80%. The bent fraction (we count here all particles deflected more than 0.1 mrad toward the collimator) becomes order of 90% after about 3rd encounter, 95% after 7th, and over 97% after about 10 encounters with 4-mm crystal.

Although this figure may look impressive, 30-fold reduction of backgrounds by crystal alone, it’s not simple to realise technically. Either one installs 3–10 crystals in a row in same location, with a few-$`\mu `$m precision in relative radial position $`x`$ and a few-$`\mu `$rad precision in the angle $`x^{}`$; which is possible but may be a substantial headache. Or one installs a single crystal but takes care that particles scattered of the crystal are not intercepted elsewhere and likely will hit the crystal again on later turns.

Actually with every scattering in a 4-5 mm crystal the particles gain $``$1 mm in betatron amplitude in this location. This means that our crystal may have 2–3 encounters per particle, after that the scattered particle is likely to be lost elsewhere. Still, 2–3 encounters make a good improvement as shows Figure 2.

For the SNS the optimum for the crystal size should obviously be quite smaller if we take into account increased scattering angles near 1 GeV. Although a single crystal of $``$1 mm size (already in use in IHEP) provides a similar efficiency for a parallel beam as in RHIC case, a multi-crystal approach requires much shorter crystals. Luckily, there is a technique of graded composition Si1-xGex/Si strained layers which form a bent crystal lattice of uniform curvature  with any thickness along the beam direction from only 1 $`\mu `$m up to millimeters, having a big cross-section (many centimeters) at the same time. This technique limits the acievable bending angle at the SNS energy to order of 2 mrad . We optimised the crystal size in that case and found the optimum crystal to be about 70 $`\mu `$m along the beam, for the case of 2 mrad bending.

Figure 3 shows how the bent fraction of 1.3 GeV protons increases with the number of Si crystals encountered. In this example we have first taken a parallel incident beam, and showed in the Figure all the particles bent more than 1 mrad. After the first encounter, 73% of particles are found at 2 mrad, in the channeled peak, and 77% of particles are in the region of $``$1 mrad. The bent fraction comes over 90% on about 6th encounter, and totals near 93% after 10 encounters with 70 $`\mu `$m crystal.

This simulation was repeated with a divergent incident beam (1 mrad full width, flat distribution), with the results shown in Figure 3 (thin line, bottom). Very interesting feature is that – whereas the efficiency of a single encounter drops expectedly – the multiple encounters boost the bending effect essentially. The diverging particles, unchanneled first, modify their angles with scattering and eventually fit the crystallographic direction. After 10 crystals, 56% of the beam is found in the channeled peak at 2 mrad.

We studied further the effect of multi-crystal at several divergences. As shows Figure 4, while a single crystal scraper drops the efficiency when the divergence of incident particles goes in a range of milliradians, the pack of ten 70-$`\mu `$m crystals is efficient through this range.

Essential technological difference of the SNS case from the RHIC one is that all 10 wafers of Si1-xGex/Si can be packed together in a single unit (about 10$`\times `$70$`\mu `$ =0.7 mm along the beam and some centimeters across) before installing it into the accelerator. The 10 wafers can be pre-aligned to each other when they are mounted together into a single unit. This is easy in the SNS case because the needed accuracy of alignment is low; as shows Figure 4, if wafers are misaligned to the beam by sort of milliradian, they still channel a substantial part of the beam. This also means that the unit, 10-pack of crystals, will have to be aligned to the beam envelope with same accuracy; an accuracy of a fraction of milliradian might do the job. Potentially, such a low demand for accuracy might even mean that after installation of the crystal target into vicinity of the beam one doesn’t need anymore adjustment of its angle.

## 3 Conclusion

Our computer simulations of crystal channeling show that 80-95% of the incident halo particles in the rings of RHIC and SNS can be channeled directly into the absorber. The collimation system then has to intercept the remaining few particles only. This may give the factor of 5-20 improvement in the collimation efficiency.

An approach with multi-crystal scraper can be useful also in the cases where the same scraper must handle beams in a broad range of energies (e.g., during acceleration). Then the first crystal can be thin, dedicated to low-end of the energy range, while the next crystal is optimised for high-end of the range.

Further bending techniques and crystal materials can be investigated, including for instance low-Z (diamond) and high-Z (germanium, tungsten) , as options for scraping facilities.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The complex structure of hadrons can be described in a convenient way in terms of form factors. In a parity conserving and time invariant theory, each particle of spin $`S`$ can be described in terms of $`2S+1`$ elastic electromagnetic form factors, which are real functions in the space-like region and complex functions in the time-like region of momentum transfer square.

The (elastic or inelastic) electron-hadron scattering is the traditional way to determine the form factors, and it allows a direct comparison with the theory . The precise measurement of these form factors requires polarization experiments (except for spin zero particles, like pions or kaons). Recent measurements at the Jefferson Laboratory essentially improved the experimental data concerning the elastic form factors of protons and deuterons up to relatively large values of momentum transfer . The study of the internal structure of light hadrons is typically one of the main investigations which can be carried on with a high intensity, high duty cycle electron machine as Jefferson Laboratory (JLab). A large program is under way to measure the form factors of the neutron and of the first nucleon resonances . Information on the internal structure of the nucleon is also provided by the annihilation channels as $`e^++e^{}p+\overline{p}`$ .

We will discuss the implications of these new results and the related opportunities for the Nuclotron, due to its unique capability to accelerate polarized deuterons.

## 2 Proton electromagnetic form factors

The elastic $`ep`$ cross section, in one-photon exchange approximation, can be written as a function of the electric $`G_{Ep}`$ and magnetic $`G_{Mp}`$ proton form factors :

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_{Mott}\left[\frac{G_{Ep}^2+\tau G_{Mp}^2}{1+\tau }+2\tau G_{Mp}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\theta _e}{2}\right],\tau =\frac{Q^2}{4M^2}$$

with

$$\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_{Mott}=\frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _e/2)E^{}}{4E^3\mathrm{sin}^4(\theta _e/2)}\text{ and }E^{}=\frac{E}{1+2{\displaystyle \frac{E}{M}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _e/2)}$$

where $`M`$ is the proton mass, $`E`$ is the energy of the incident electron, $`E^{}`$ and $`\theta _e`$ are the energy and scattering angle of the outgoing electron, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. The momentum of the virtual photon is $`Q^2=4EE^{}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _e/2)`$ and it is positive in the space-like region. Measurements of the cross section for the same $`Q^2`$ and different angles allow, in principle, to determine $`G_{Ep}^2`$ and $`G_{Mp}^2`$. However, at larger $`Q^2`$, it is very difficult to disentangle the electric form factor with high precision, as its contribution dies out (it is $`8\%`$ at $`Q^2=9`$ GeV2). Therefore a measurement of the differential cross section allows to determine precisely only $`|G_{Mp}|`$. More than forty years ago it was shown in  that the polarized cross section (with longitudinally polarized electrons on a polarized proton target, or with measurement of the recoil proton polarization) contains a term proportional to $`G_{Ep}G_{Mp}`$ and it was suggested for the first time a very sensitive method for the determination of $`G_{Ep}`$. Only recently this method could be applied, as it needs high high intensity polarized beams, large solid angle spectrometers and advanced techniques of polarimetry .

### 2.1 The Recoil Polarization Method

The polarization method was first discussed by Akhiezer and Rekalo , then Dombey , and later by Arnold, Carlson and Gross . The idea is to measure the transferred longitudinal and sideways polarizations, $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`P_t`$ in $`\stackrel{}{e}pe\stackrel{}{p}`$, of the recoiling proton with a polarimeter.

Assuming one photon exchange there is no out-of-plane polarization transfer ($`P_n`$=0), and for a 100 $`\%`$ longitudinally polarized beam, $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`P_t`$ are:

$`I_0P_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_e+E_e^{}}{M}}\sqrt{\tau (1+\tau )}G_{Mp}^2\mathrm{tan}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}}`$ (1)
$`I_0P_t`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{\tau (1+\tau )}G_{Ep}G_{Mp}\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}}`$ (2)
where

$$I_0=G_{Ep}^2(Q^2)+\tau G_{Mp}^2(Q^2)\left[1+2(1+\tau )\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\theta _e}{2}\right].$$
(3)
One of the advantages of the polarization method is that the interesting observable, $`P_t`$, is an interference term; thus even a small $`G_{Ep}`$ will get amplified by a large $`G_{Mp}`$.

The proton polarization is measured by a polarimeter installed at the focal plane of a spectrometer. The protons, issued from a primary target, are momentum analyzed in the spectrometer and undergo a second scattering in a thick analyzer (usually carbon or polyethylene). The outgoing trajectories of the charged particles are reconstructed in a detection with $`2\pi `$ azimuthal angular acceptance. For each polar ($`\vartheta `$) and azimuthal ($`\phi `$) angle and for each helicity state $`\pm `$ of the beam, the event distribution after scattering in the analyzer can be written as:

$`N_p^\pm (\vartheta ,\phi )=N_p^\pm ϵ(\vartheta )\left[1\pm A_c(\vartheta )\left(P_t^{fpp}\mathrm{sin}\phi P_n^{fpp}\mathrm{cos}\phi \right)\right],`$ (4)
where $`N_p`$ is the number of protons incident on the polarimeter, $`ϵ(\vartheta )`$ is the differential efficiency, and $`A_c(\vartheta )`$ the analyzing power of the analyzer; $`P_t^{fpp}`$ and $`P_n^{fpp}`$ are the transverse and normal components of the polarization at the analyzer.

In the magnetic elements of a spectrometer spin precession occurs and the polarizations at the primary target can be exactly calculated knowing the spin transfer matrix. For each $`Q^2`$ a single measurement of the azimuthal angular distribution of the protons diffused in a secondary target determines simultaneously both $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`P_t`$.

The ratio $`G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}`$ can then be obtained directly from the ratio:

$$\frac{G_{Ep}}{G_{Mp}}=\frac{(E_e+E_e^{})}{2M}\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\theta _e}{2}\right)$$
(5)
Moreover, knowing the beam polarization (which is measured independently) and $`G_{Mp}`$, one can derive the values of the polarimeter analyzing powers for each of the proton energies.

### 2.2 Results

The recoil polarization method has been successfully used to measure the ratio $`G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}`$ in Hall A at JLab, in two steps: firstly a measurement up to $`Q^2`$ =3.5 GeV2  and, later, up to $`Q^2`$ =5.6 GeV2 . In both experiments the focal plane polarimeter (FPP) was installed in the focal plane of the 4 GeV/c high resolution magnetic spectrometer (HRS). Two changes were made to allow continuation to larger $`Q^2`$: first the 50 cm of carbon analyzer was replaced with 100 cm of CH2, to take advantage of the larger analyzing power of the hydrogen. Second, the electron was detected in lead-glass Cerenkov detector array with 3.5 $`m^2`$ frontal area, replacing the second HRS previously used. This technique allows for matching the solid angle of the hadron to the one of the electron increasing the counting rate by a factor up to six.

These experiments showed that the ratio of the two elastic form factors of the proton, electric and magnetic, $`G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}`$, decreases monotically with increasing four momentum squared (Fig. 1).

The magnetic form factor of the proton, $`G_{Mp}`$, is known to remain within a few percent of $`\mu _pG_D`$, over this range of $`Q^2`$, where $`G_D`$ is the dipole form factor: $`G_D=\left[1+Q^2/0.71\text{GeV}^2\right]^2`$. It follows that $`G_{Ep}`$ decreases significantly faster than $`G_D`$ and $`G_{Mp}`$ in the measured interval. In the Breit system, form factors are related to the Fourier transform of the charge and magnetic moment distribution and the dipole approximation results from an exponential distribution. The new results indicate that the electric charge distribution in the proton extends to larger distances than the magnetization distribution. The vector dominance model predicts a decrease of the $`G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}`$ ratio with increasing $`Q^2`$, and the same prediction comes from various relativistic constituent quark models, but these models depend on a large number of parameters, which are not constrained by other experimental data at this time. At a few GeV incident beam energy, one expects to ’see’ the manifestation of quark degrees of freedom. Perturbative QCD gives definite rules about the scaling behavior of the form factors and about helicity conservation, at very large $`Q^2`$. Other approaches, as lattice QCD calculations are still in a very early stage and formalisms based on generalized parton distributions lack predictive power.

We can fairly summarize the situation stating that there is not yet a coherent picture of the nucleon structure, in framework of any of these models. Moreover one aims to a global interpretation of form factors data, for proton and for neutron, in space-like and in time-like region, as well.

On the other hand, as we will show in next sections, one can already foresee major consequences of these data. The models describing the light nuclei structure usually assume a dipole behavior for $`G_{Ep}`$ and a vanishing or negligible neutron electric form factor $`G_{En}`$. Elastic electron-deuteron scattering is sensitive to the isoscalar form factor, $`G_{Es}=G_{Ep}+G_{En}`$. If $`G_{Ep}`$ turns out to be smaller than previously assumed, this has to be compensated either by $`G_{En}`$ or by other ingredients used in deuteron calculations (which are parametrized or adjusted on the data).

The same technique is proposed to measure the $`G_{Ep}/G_{Mp}`$ ratio to $`Q^2`$ = 9.0 GeV2 in Hall C at JLab . The future experiment will take advantage of the higher momentum capability of the spectrometer (HMS) of Hall C. A new polarimeter will be built, and a new calorimeter with finer granularity will be assembled for this purpose. The experiment will extend the data up to $`Q^2`$ 9 GeV2, with the current JLab maximum electron energy of 6 GeV. With the same set up in Hall C an extension up to at least $`Q^2`$ 11.5 GeV2 will become possible after the proposed upgrade of the accelerator to 12 GeV.

### 2.3 Opportunities for the Nuclotron

Polarization experiments are, in general, very lengthy and time consuming. Therefore a thorough optimization of the characteristics of the polarimeter is desired. This requires a careful study of the analyzing reaction, which has to have large cross section and large analyzing powers. The crucial feature of the polarimeter is its figure of merit $``$, defined as $`=ϵA_y^2`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the useful fraction of events scattered in the analyzer, and $`A_y^2`$ is the analyzing power squared. Adding hydrogen to the analyzer increases the analyzing power. The knowledge of $`A_y`$ to large momenta is highly desirable for preparing the future experiment. A calibration at different momenta, ranging from 3.7 to 5.4 GeV/c has been performed at the JINR-LHE accelerator complex, after installing the POMME polarimeter, transported from Saclay . Starting from a polarized deuteron beam of 9 GeV/c incident on a primary target (C or LH2), one can magnetically select the breakup protons with definite momentum; their polarization is known from previous breakup studies at Saclay and Dubna . The Nuclotron can play a major role in the optimization of the characteristics of the polarimeter, like efficiency and figure of merit.

## 3 The deuteron electromagnetic form factors

The measurement of the differential cross section of elastic $`ed`$scattering, for a fixed value of $`Q^2`$, at different scattering angles, allows to determine the structure functions $`A(Q^2)`$ and $`B(Q^2)`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_{Mott}𝒮,𝒮=A(Q^2)+B(Q^2)\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta _e/2).$$

Being the deuteron a spin 1 particle, $`A`$ and $`B`$ can be expressed in terms of the three form factors, $`G_c`$ (electric), $`G_m`$ (magnetic) and $`G_q`$ (quadrupole) as:

$$A(Q^2)=G_c^2(Q^2)+\frac{8}{9}\tau _d^2G_Q^2(Q^2)+\frac{2}{3}\tau _dG_m^2(Q^2),B(Q^2)=\frac{4}{3}(1+\tau _d)\tau _dG_m^2(Q^2),\tau _d=\frac{Q^2}{4M_d^2},$$
(6)
where $`M_d`$ is the deuteron mass. The measurement of the differential cross section is not sufficient to disentangle the three form factors. In case of unpolarized beam and target, the outgoing deuteron is tensorially polarized and the components of the tensor polarization give useful combinations of form factors, in particular $`t_{20}`$:

$$t_{20}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}𝒮}\left\{\frac{8}{3}\tau _dG_cG_q+\frac{8}{9}\tau _d^2G_Q^2+\frac{1}{3}\tau _d\left[1+2(1+\tau _d)\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta _e/2)\right]G_m^2\right\},$$

At the Jefferson Laboratory (JLab), the elastic $`ed`$ cross section has been recently precisely measured up to $`Q^26`$ GeV2,  and $`t_{20}`$ up to $`Q^2=1.9`$ GeV2 .

According to , the cross sections seems to scale as $`(Q^2)^{10}`$, as previously pointed out , and predicted by pQCD. The authors of  suggest that the data about the structure function $`A(Q^2)`$ in $`ed`$ elastic scattering, in the range $`2Q^2`$ 6 GeV2 are a good indication of the validity of the predictions of pQCD. However, from the $`t_{20}`$ data, it appears that the pQCD limit is not yet reached, and the data follow the trend suggested by impulse approximation (IA). On the other hand, it is not possible, from these data, to constrain definitely different models or determine unambiguosly the corrections to IA (for a detailed comparison with some theoretical models, see, for example, ). Following , one can define a generalized deuteron form factor, $`F_D(Q^2)`$, $`F_D(Q^2)=\sqrt{A(Q^2)}`$, and a reduced deuteron form factor $`f_D(Q^2)`$:

$$f_D(Q^2)=\frac{F_D(Q^2)}{F_N^2(Q^2/4)},$$
(7)
where $`F_N`$ is the nucleon electromagnetic form factor. The $`(Q^2)`$-behavior of $`f_D(Q^2)`$ (at large $`Q^2`$) can be predicted in the framework of pQCD, according to:

$$f_D(Q^2)=N\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{Q^2}\left(ln\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)^\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(8)
where N is the normalization factor (which can not be calcuated by QCD), $`\alpha _s`$ is the running QCD strong interaction coupling constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale QCD parameter, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is determined by the leading anomalous dimension, here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=8/145`$. In  it was shown that the QCD prediction (8), which applies to asymptotic momentum transfer, is working well already for $`Q^22`$ GeV2, with a plausible value of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ 100 MeV.

In ref. , the value of the nucleon form factor $`F_N`$ has been parametrized in dipole form:

$$F_N(Q^2)=G_D=\frac{1}{(1+Q^2/0.71\text{ GeV}^2)^2}$$
(9)
and it was not rigorously identified as magnetic or electric, proton or neutron.

From quark counting rules considerations, the dipole form of the nucleon form factors has been taken until recently as universal, consistent with the experimental data for three of the four nucleon form factors, $`G_{Mn}`$, $`G_{Mp}`$, and $`G_{Ep}`$. The fourth, $`G_{En}`$, was assumed negligible in the discussed region of $`Q^2`$.

Before the JLab measurement , the experimental data about $`eN`$-scattering, based on Rosenbluth separation  were consistent with this representation. The data from  can be fitted by:

$$G_{Ep}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{(1+Q^2/0.71\text{ GeV}^2)^2}\frac{1}{(1+Q^2/4.8\text{ GeV}^2)},$$
(10)
where the second factor explicitely shows the deviation from the dipole form. The data can still be described by a dipole form, but changing the well known mass parameter $`m_D^2=0.71`$ GeV2 to a smaller value: $`m_D^2=0.6`$ GeV2. This parametrization may seem preferable, because consistent with the pQCD counting rules, but the best fit value of $`m_D^2`$ is in contradiction with the nice relation between the $`Q^2`$-behavior of pion and nucleon form factors, derived in .

In Fig. (2) we show different data sets and best fits, using Eq. (8), corresponding to the following possibilities:

1. We replace, in Eq. (7), $`F_N`$ by the fit (10) of new data on the proton electric form factor, $`G_{Ep}`$:

$$f_D(Q^2)=\frac{F_D(Q^2)}{G_{Ep}^2(Q^2/4)}.$$

This yields to the data set represented by triangles and to the fit reported as a dashed line (case 1).
2. We replace, in Eq. (7), $`F_N^2`$ by the product of $`F_N`$, Eq. (9), and $`G_{Ep}`$ from (10):

$$f_D(Q^2)=\frac{F_D(Q^2)}{F_N(Q^2/4)G_{Ep}(Q^2/4)}.$$

The $`f_D`$ data are shown as squares and the best fit by dotted line (case 2).
3. We show, for comparison, the previous results of Ref. , using Eq. (9). The data are represented by circles and the fit by the solid line (case 3).

In all these three cases, instead of normalizing the model to the data at $`Q^2=4`$ GeV2, as in Ref. , we have fitted the data beyond $`Q^2=2`$ GeV2, according to Eq. (8), with two free parameters, a global normalization $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We found that even a relatively small change in nucleon form factors, causes a large instability in the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note that $`f_D`$ has logarythmic (i.e; relatively weak) dependence on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (Eq. (8)). For case 3, we obtain a different value compared to Ref. , due to the different normalization procedure.

The best fit parameters are reported in Table 1. The values which can be obtained for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may differ by an order of magnitude, according to the choice of the nucleon form factors. A similar situation occurs if we use Dirac and Pauli form factors, $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, instead of the Sachs form factors $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$.

| Case | N | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[GeV]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) | 225 $`\pm `$ 65 | .101 $`\pm `$ .089 |
| (2) | 263 $`\pm `$ 35 | .032$`\pm `$ .016 |
| (3) | 61 $`\pm `$ 20 | .648$`\pm `$ .228 |

Table 1 Values of the fit parameters, corresponding to Fig. 2. See text.

In  another interesting prediction, concerning the scaling behavior of the reduced deuteron form factor was done:

$$\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{m_0^2}\right)f_D(Q^2)const,$$
(11)
where $`m_0^2=0.28`$ GeV2 is a parameter related to the pion form factor. The same data from , if plotted in the representation of the reduced deuteron form factors, should illustrate the $`Q^2`$-independence of this product. This result is consisten by the previous $`A(Q^2)`$ data , in the limit of their accuracy, but not with the new data about $`A(Q^2)`$  (Fig. (3)). This is also true for the different choices of the electromagnetic nucleon form factors considered above. This result is quite insensitive to different values of the $`m_0`$ parameter.

One should also take into account the fact that the elastic $`ed`$-scattering is sensitive to the isoscalar combination of the nucleon form factors. So a linear combination of proton and neutron form factors seems more adequate for the parametrization of $`F_N`$. In the case of dipole parametrization of nuclear electromagnetic form factors, an isoscalar combination will only bring a different value of normalization. But, if one takes $`G_{En}`$ 0, two other possibilities: $`F_N^2=G_{Es}^2`$ and $`F_N^2=G_{Es}G_{Ms}`$ would lead to different results and different values for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We discussed above the sensitivity of the reduced deuteron form factor to different choices of nucleon form factors. However, the numerator of Eq. (7) contains a generalized deuteron form factor, derived from the structure function $`A(Q^2)`$. It would be more natural to include the electric, quadrupole or magnetic deuteron form factors, $`G_E`$, $`G_Q`$, and $`G_M`$ in the calculation of $`f_D`$.

Therefore we conclude that the situation with nucleon and deuteron electromagnetic form factors, at the light of the recent $`G_{Ep}`$ data, in the intermediate $`Q^2`$ range is less clear then in case of dipole parametrization for all form factors; the results of  open the way to new interpretations in different directions. We must stress that these considerations are essentially based on the existing experimental information about nucleon form factors.

## 4 The neutron electromagnetic form factors

Having high precision data on the differential cross section for $`ed`$ elastic scattering, and assuming a reliable model for their description, one can extract, in principle, the dependence of the electric neutron form factor $`G_{En}`$ on the momentum transfer $`Q^2`$. Such a procedure has been carried out in ref. , up to $`Q^2`$=0.7 GeV2. It can be extended at higher $`Q^2`$  using the elastic $`ed`$-scattering data mentioned above and the recent data on the proton electric form factor . The large sensitivity to the nucleon form factors of the models which describe the light nuclei structure, particularly the deuteron, was already carefully studied in , and it was pointed out that the disagreement between the relativistic impulse approximation and the data could be significantly reduced if $`G_{En}`$ were different from zero.

In the non relativistic IA, the deuteron form factors depend only on the deuteron wave function and on nucleon form factors:

$$G_c=G_{Es}C_E,G_q=G_{Es}C_Q,G_m=\frac{M_d}{M}\left(G_{Ms}C_S+\frac{1}{2}G_{Es}C_L\right),$$
(12)
where $`G_{Es}`$=$`G_{Ep}`$+$`G_{En}`$ and $`G_{Ms}`$=$`G_{Mp}`$+$`G_{Mn}`$ are the charge and magnetic isoscalar nucleon form factors, respectively. The terms $`C_E`$, $`C_Q`$, $`C_S`$, and $`C_L`$ describe the deuteron structure and can be calculated from the deuteron $`S`$ and $`D`$ wave functions, $`u(r)`$ and $`w(r)`$  :

$$C_E=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rj_0\left(\frac{Qr}{2}\right)\left[u^2\left(r\right)+w^2(r)\right],$$

$$C_Q=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}\eta }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rj_2\left(\frac{Qr}{2}\right)\left[u(r)\frac{w(r)}{\sqrt{8}}\right]w(r),$$

$$C_S=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left[u^2(r)\frac{1}{2}w^2(r)\right]j_0\left(\frac{Qr}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left[\sqrt{2}u(r)w(r)+w^2(r)\right]j_2\left(\frac{Qr}{2}\right),$$
(13)
$$C_L=\frac{3}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rw^2(r)\left[j_0\left(\frac{Qr}{2}\right)+j_2\left(\frac{Qr}{2}\right)\right],$$

where $`j_0(x)`$ and $`j_2(x)`$ are the spherical Bessel functions. The normalization condition is $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left[u^2(r)+w^2(r)\right]=1.`$

With the help of expressions (12) and (13), the formula (6) for $`A(Q^2)`$, can be inverted into a quadratic equation for $`G_{Es}`$. Then $`G_{Es}`$ can be calculated using the experimental values for $`A(Q^2)`$, assuming, for the magnetic nucleon form factors $`G_{Mp}`$ and $`G_{Mn}`$ the usual dipole dependence, which is in fair agreement with the existing data up to $`Q^2`$ 10 GeV2.

In Fig. 4 we illustrate the behavior of the different nucleon electric form factors: $`G_{Es}`$$`G_{Ep}`$ and $`G_{En}`$. The solid line represents the Gari-Krümpelmann parametrization . The new $`G_{Ep}`$ data, which decrease faster than the dipole function, are also well reproduced by the Gari-Krümpelmann parametrization (solid line). The fit of Eq. 10 is shown as a dashed line, and it is almost indistinguishable from .

The electric neutron form factor is calculated from the isoscalar nucleon form factor, taking for $`G_{Ep}`$ the fit, Eq. (10), based on the new data (open stars). The results for $`G_{En}`$ are in very good agreement with the parametrization . These results show that the neutron form factor becomes more sizeable than predicted by other parametrizations, often used in the calculations  (thin dashed line). Starting from $`Q^22`$ (GeV/c)2 the form factor $`G_{En}`$ becomes even larger than $`G_{Ep}`$. Let us mention that the more recent ’direct’ measurements  are in agreement with the present values.

## 5 Conclusions

We reviewed the situation with proton, neutron and deuteron electromagnetic form factors, in the space-like region, at the light of the new data from JLab. The precise data on proton electric form factors essentially deviate from the dipole approximation. This approximation, previously assumed, was in agreement, on one side with a representation of the nucleon as having an exponetial density distribution, and on the other side, with pQCD prediction. From a theoretical point of view, now the situation is certainly more complex and not yet clarified.

This new data bring a new view on the commonly assumed description of deuteron form factors. Let us mention that the $`\gamma ^{}\pi ^\pm \rho ^{}`$-contribution, which is a good approximation for the isoscalar transition $`\gamma ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ ($`\gamma ^{}`$ is a virtual photon), is typically considered as the main correction to IA, necessary, in particular, to improve the description of the SF $`A(Q^2)`$ . However the relative role of MEC is strongly model dependent  as the coupling constants for meson-NN-vertexes are not well known and arbitrary form factors are often added . It should be pointed out that the $`\gamma ^{}\pi \rho `$ vertex is of magnetic nature and its contribution to $`A(Q^2)`$ has to be of the same order of magnitude as the relativistic corrections. The electric neutron form factor may be essentially larger than what is commonly assumed, and even larger than the proton form factor, for $`Q^2`$ 2 GeV2.

The forthcoming data on neutron form factors up to $`Q^2`$=2 (GeV/c)2,  will be crucial in this respect. The large sensitivity of the deuteron structure to the nucleon form factors shows the necessity to reconsider the role of meson exchange currents and relativistic corrections in the deuteron physics at large momentum transfer.

A good description of the deuteron will have to take into account in a coherent way, not only wave functions and corrections to IA, but also nucleon from factors.

We thank the Hall A - GEp Collaboration, in particular C. F. Perdrisat, V. Punjabi and M. Jones for many interesting discussions. We thank A. I. Malakhoff and V. Penev, as well as all the organizers of RNP2001 for giving us the possibility to present our results in so loving and historical place. We feel especially honored to participate in this conference, held in memory of the Academician A. M. Baldin, where a large effort has been undertaken to exploit at best the LHE accelerator, that He conceived.


text:
# Backwards-induction outcome in a quantum game.

## 1 Introduction

Quantum game theory started from a seminal paper by Meyer . Later Eisert et. al.  studied the important bimatrix game of Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) while focussing on the concept of Nash equilibrium (NE) from noncooperative game theory. This concept attracted much attention in other recent works in quantum game theory . In fact Cournot (1838)  anticipated Nash’s definition of equilibrium by over a century but only in the context of a particular model of duopoly. In economics, an oligopoly is a form of market in which a number $`n`$ of producers, say, $`n2`$, and no others, provide the market with a certain commodity. In the special case where $`n=2`$, it is called a duopoly. Cournot’s work  is one of the classics of game theory and also a cornerstone of the theory of industrial organization . In Cournot model of duopoly two-firms simultaneously put certain quantities of a homogeneous product in the market. Cournot obtained an equilibrium value for the quantities both firms will decide to put in the market. This equilibrium value was based on a rule of behavior which says that if all the players except one abide by it, the remaining player cannot do better than to abide by it too. Nash gave a general concept of an equilibrium point in a noncooperative game but existence of an equilibrium in duopoly game was known much earlier. The “Cournot equilibrium” refers to NE in noncooperative form of duopoly that Cournot considered.

In an interesting later development Stackelberg (1934)  proposed a dynamic model of duopoly in which, contrary to Cournot’s assumption of simultaneous moves, a leader (or dominant) firm moves first and a follower (or subordinate) firm moves second. A well known example is the General Motors playing this leadership role in the early history of U.S. automobile industry when more than one firms like Ford and Chrysler acted as followers. In this sequential game a “Stackelberg equilibrium” is obtained using the backwards-induction outcome of the game. In fact Stackelberg equilibrium refers to the sequential-move nature of the game and this is a stronger solution concept than NE because sequential move games sometimes have multiple NE , only one of which is associated with the backwards-induction outcome of the game .

The seminal paper by Meyer  has initiated the new field of quantum games and has motivated many people to look at games from quantum perspectives. Eisert et. al.  quantized the famous bimatrix game of Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) and showed that dilemma disappears in quantum world. They allowed players an access to a maximally entangled state that can be generated from a system of two qubits. Each player then unitarily manipulates a qubit in his possession. Players apply a unitary operator from a particular subset of the general set of unitary operators that also forms a group. Benjamin  later showed that if the players have access to the set of general unitary operators then there is no NE in pure strategies in the PD game. Benjamin implied that Eisert’s set of unitary operators was carefully chosen to generate a NE that has no classical counterpart.

Eisert et. al.  used an unentangling gate in their scheme to be put before the quantum state is forwarded to measuring apparatus that collapses the wave function and gives the payoffs. The unentangling gate in Eisert’s scheme ensured that classical game could be reproducible but it motivated Marinatto  to question the necessity of its presence in the scheme to play a quantum game. Marinatto and Weber  came up with a solution where an initial quantum state, they called it an “initial strategy”, is made available to the players. This initial strategy is then unitarily manipulated by the players in the “tactics” phase of the game that consisted of applying two unitary and Hermitian operators (the identity and an inversion operator) with classical probabilities on the initial quantum strategy. This inversion operator reverts the quantum state just like the Pauli’s spin flip operator does . Marinatto and Weber  showed that for an initial strategy that is a maximally entangled state a unique NE for the game of Battle of Sexes can be obtained. Later in an interesting comment Benjamin  considered the players’ access to apply only two unitary and Hermitian operators with classical probabilities on a quantum state a severe restriction on all quantum mechanically possible manipulations. Marinatto and Weber replied  that the only restriction on a quantum form of a game is that corresponding classical game must be reproducible as a special case of the quantum form.

Agreeing with this reply we studied the concept of evolutionary stability in asymmetric as well as symmetric quantum games . Our prime motivation was an important and interesting element in Marinatto and Weber’s scheme. It was the fact that a switch-over between a classical and a non-classical form of a game could be achieved by having a control over the parameters of the initial quantum state or initial strategy. In the scheme of Eisert, Wilkens, and Lewenstein  such a switch-over takes place when the players assign specific values to the parameters of the unitary operators in their possession; while the initial two-qubit quantum state always remains to be maximally entangled. Starting a quantum game from a general pure state of two qubits that have interacted previously we were able to show the possibility that an unstable symmetric NE of a bimatrix classical game becomes stable in a quantum form of the same game . Our assumption in this approach was that a replacement of the maximally entangled two qubit quantum state, that Marinatto and Weber used to get a unique NE, with a general two qubit pure quantum state also results in another form of the same game. This assumption led us to find the conditions on the constants of a general three qubit pure state that made it possible to counter against coalition formation in a three player symmetric game . The person responsible for preparing quantum states can thus make vanish the motivation to make a coalition in the cooperative game.

Motivated by these recent developments in quantum games as well as the notion of backwards-induction outcome of a dynamic game of complete information  we present a quantum perspective on the interesting game of Stackelberg duopoly. In present paper we start with the same assumption that a game is decided only by players’ unitary manipulations, payoff operators, and the measuring apparatus deciding payoffs. When these are same a different input quantum initial state gives only a different form of the same game. This was our assumption when we studied evolutionary stability of a mixed NE in Rock-Scissors-Paper game . Therefore all the games that can be obtained by using a general two qubit pure state are only different forms of the same game if the rest of the procedures in playing the quantum game are same. For example in Marinatto and Weber’s Battle of Sexes  the game remains Battle of Sexes for all two qubit pure quantum states.

With this assumption we start an analysis of Stackelberg duopoly by asking a fundamental question: Is it possible to find a two qubit pure quantum state that generates the classical Cournot equilibrium as a backwards-induction outcome of the quantum form of Stackelberg duopoly? Why this question can be of interest? For us it is interesting because in case the answer is yes then the very important resource in quantum game theory i.e. entanglement can potentially be a particularly useful element for ‘follower’ in the leader-follower model of Stackelberg duopoly . This is because in classical settings when static duopoly changes itself into a dynamic form the follower becomes worse-off compared to leader who becomes better-off. We find that under certain restrictions it is possible to find the needed two qubit quantum states. Therefore a quantum form of a dynamic game of complete information gives out an equilibrium that corresponds to classical static form of the same game. In our analysis the equilibrium can be obtained for a certain range of the constant of the duopoly game. This restriction appears only due to an assumption that we introduce to simplify calculations. This fact, however, does not rule out the possibility of getting a quantum form of Stackelberg duopoly game with no such restriction.

## 2 Backwards-induction outcome

To make this paper self-contained we give an introduction of the backwards-induction outcome of a sequential game. For this we find very useful the ref. . Consider a simple three step game

1. Player 1 chooses an action $`a_1`$ from the feasible set $`A_1`$
2. Player 2 observes $`a_1`$ and then chooses an action $`a_2`$ from the feasible set $`A_2`$
3. Payoffs are $`u_1(a_1,a_2)`$ and $`u_2(a_1,a_2)`$

This game is an example of the dynamic games of complete and perfect information. Key features of such games are

1. the moves occur in sequence
2. all previous moves are known before next move is chosen, and
3. the players’ payoffs are common knowledge. At the second stage of the game when player $`2`$ gets the move he or she faces the following problem, given the action $`a_1`$previously chosen by the player

$$\underset{a_2A_2}{Max}u_2(a_1,a_2)$$
(1)
Assume that for each $`a_1`$ in $`A_1`$, player $`2`$’s optimization problem has a unique solution $`R_2(a_1)`$ also called the best response of player $`2`$. Now player $`1`$ can also solve player $`2`$’s optimization problem by anticipating player $`2`$’s response to each action $`a_1`$ that player $`1`$ might take. So that player $`1`$ faces the following problem

$$\underset{a_1A_1}{Max}u_1(a_1,R_2(a_1))$$
(2)
Suppose this optimization problem also has a unique solution for player $`1`$ and is denoted by $`a_1^{}`$. The solution $`(a_1^{},R_2(a_1^{}))`$ is the backwards-induction outcome of this game. In a simple version of the Cournot’s model two firms simultaneously decide the quantities $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ respectively of a homogeneous product they want to put into the market. Suppose $`Q`$ is the aggregate quantity i.e. $`Q=q_1+q_2`$ and $`P(Q)=aQ`$ be the market-clearing price, the price at which all products or services available in a market will find buyers. Assume the total cost to a firm producing quantity $`q_i`$ is $`cq_i`$ i.e. there are no fixed costs and the marginal cost is a constant $`c`$ with $`c<a`$. In a two-player game theoretical model of this situation a firm’s payoff or profit can be written as

$$P_i(q_i,q_j)=q_i\left[P(Q)c\right]=q_i\left[ac(q_i+q_j)\right]=q_i\left[k(q_i+q_j)\right]$$
(3)
Solving for the NE easily gives the Cournot equilibrium

$$q_1^{}=q_2^{}=\frac{k}{3}$$
(4)
At this equilibrium the payoffs to both firms from eq. (3) are

$$P_1(q_1^{},q_2^{})_{Cournot}=P_2(q_1^{},q_2^{})_{Cournot}=\frac{k^2}{9}$$
(5)
We now come to consider the classical form of duopoly game when it becomes dynamic. The game becomes dynamic but the payoffs to players are given by the same eq. (3) as for the case of the Cournot’s game. We find backwards-induction outcome in classical and a quantum form of Stackelberg’s duopoly. Taking advantage from bigger picture given to this dynamic game by Hilbert space structure we then find two qubit pure quantum states that give classical Cournot’s equilibrium as the backwards-induction outcome of the quantum game of Stackelberg’s duopoly.

## 3 Stackelberg duopoly

### 3.1 Classical form

A leader (or dominant) firm moves first and a follower (or subordinate) firm moves second in Stackelberg model of duopoly . The sequence of events is

1. firm $`A`$ chooses a quantity $`q_10`$
2. firm $`B`$ observes $`q_1`$ and then chooses a quantity $`q_20`$
3. the payoffs to firms $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given by their respective profit functions as

$`P_A(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=q_1\left[k(q_1+q_2)\right]`$
$`P_B(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=q_2\left[k(q_1+q_2)\right]`$ (6)
The backwards-induction outcome is found by first finding firm $`B`$’s reaction to an arbitrary quantity by firm $`A.`$ Denoting this quantity as $`R_2(q_1)`$ we find

$$R_2(q_1)=\underset{q_20}{Max}P_B(q_1,q_2)=\frac{kq_1}{2}$$
(7)
with $`q_1<k`$. Now the interesting aspect of this game is that firm $`A`$ can solve the firm $`B`$’s problem as well. Therefore firm $`A`$ can anticipate that a choice of the quantity $`q_1`$ will meet a reaction $`R_2(q_1)`$. In the first stage of the game firm $`A`$ can then compute a solution to his/her optimization problem as

$$\underset{q_10}{Max}P_A[q_1,R_2(q_1)]=\underset{q_10}{Max}\frac{q_1(kq_1)}{2}$$

It gives

$$q_1^{}=\frac{k}{2}\text{ and }R_2(q_1^{})=\frac{k}{4}$$
(8)
It is the classical backwards-induction outcome of dynamic form of the duopoly game. At this equilibrium payoffs or profits to players $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given by eqs. (6) and (8)

$$P_A[q_1^{},R_2(q_1^{})]_{Stackelberg}=\frac{k^2}{8},\text{ }P_B[q_1^{},R_2(q_1^{})]_{Stackelberg}=\frac{k^2}{16}$$
(9)
From eq. (9) find the following ratio

$$\frac{P_A[q_1^{},R_2(q_1^{})]_{Stackelberg}}{P_B[q_1^{},R_2(q_1^{})]_{Stackelberg}}=2$$
(10)
showing that with comparison to Cournot game in Stackelberg game the leader firm becomes better-off and the follower firm becomes worse-off. This aspect also hints an important difference between single and multi-person decision problems. In single-person decision theory having more information can never make the decision maker worse-off. In game theory, however, having more information (or, more precisely, having it made public that one has more information) can make a player worse-off .

Now we look at backwards-induction outcome in a quantum perspective. Our motivation is an interesting aspect that quantum form can bring into backwards-induction outcome. It is the possibility that the ‘extra information’ that firm $`B`$ has does not make firm $`B`$ worse-off.

### 3.2 Quantum form

Stackelberg duopoly is a two player sequential game. Meyer  considered quantum form of sequential game of PQ Penny Flip by unitary operations on single qubit. Important difference between Meyer’s PQ Penny Flip and Stackelberg duopoly is that at the second stage player in PQ Penny Flip doesn’t know the previous move but in Stackelberg duopoly he knows that.

Marinatto and Weber  used two qubits to play the noncooperative game of Battle of Sexes. Players apply unitary operators $`I`$ and $`C`$ with classical probabilities on a two-qubit pure quantum state. $`I`$ is identity and $`C`$ is inversion or Pauli’s spin-flip operator. We prefer this scheme to play the sequential game of Stackelberg duopoly for two reasons:

1. Interesting feature in this scheme that classical game is reproducible on making initial state unentangled.
2. We assumed that other games obtained from every pure two qubit initial state are only quantum forms of the classical game provided players’ actions and payoff generating measurement are exactly same . This assumption reduces the problem of finding a quantum form of Stackelberg duopoly with property that its equilibrium is same as in Cournot’s duopoly to the problem of finding conditions on parameters of two-qubit pure quantum state. If the conditions are realistic then the corresponding quantum game will give Cournot’s equilibrium as a backwards-induction outcome.

Fig. 1. Playing a quantum form of Stackelberg duopoly.

Stackelberg duopoly is a dynamic game of complete information. Its quantum form in Marinatto and Weber’s scheme  starts by preparing a pure two-qubit initial quantum state. Both these qubits are then forwarded to two players in the game called Alice and Bob. Marinatto and Weber expanded on the earlier scheme proposed by Eisert, Wilkens, and Lewenstein  using a two-qubit system in a maximally entangled quantum state. The fundamental idea remains the same i.e. to exploit entanglement to get new results for a simultaneous-move game. Suppose first move is to be played by Alice and she plays her strategy by applying two operators in her possession on her qubit with classical probabilities. She also announces her move immediately so that Bob knows Alice’s strategy before playing his move. Bob plays his strategy on his qubit and both Alice and Bob forward their qubits to a setup where measurement can be done to decide payoffs to both.

The concept of information about the previous moves is crucial for the understanding of the present paper. A comparison between the sequential game of Stackelberg duopoly with the simultaneous moves of the Battle of Sexes makes clear the different information structure between the two games. For example in the Battle of Sexes, when played sequentially, Alice does not announce her first move to Bob before he makes his move. In this way the game becomes sequential but the information structure of the game is still the same as in its static form. Consequently, the sequential Battle of Sexes in the above form has the same NE as in its static form. An unobserved-action form of a game has the same NE as its simultaneous-move form. This observation led us to play a quantum form of Stackelberg duopoly while keeping intact the original structure of a scheme designed for simultaneous moves. A consideration of playing a sequential game in a quantum way brings to mind the Meyer’s PQ Penny Flip  where only one qubit is used in the game. Contrary to this, in present paper we use the two-qubit system of a simultaneous moves game to play a sequential game.

One can ask what is the point of taking extra pains by using two qubits when a quantum form of this sequential game can also be played by only one qubit in similar way as Meyer’s PQ Penny Flip. We prefer two qubits for a reason that appeared to us quite important. In two-qubit case a comparison between classical and a quantum form of the game translates itself into comparing two games resulting from using unentangled and entangled initial quantum states. We do not rule out the possibility that a consideration of the dynamic game using only single qubit gives equally or even more interesting results.

The quantum form of Marinatto and Weber’s  Battle of Sexes game reduces to its classical form for the initial state $`|\psi _{ini}=|OO`$ where $`O`$ represents the pure classical strategy called ‘Opera’. In the same spirit we let classical payoffs in Stackelberg duopoly given by eq. (6) reproduced when the initial state $`|\psi _{ini}=|11`$ is used to play the game. The state $`|11`$ means that both qubits are in lower state. We represent the upper state of a qubit by number $`2`$. For $`|\psi _{ini}=|11`$ the corresponding density matrix is

$$\rho _{ini}=|1111|$$
(11)
When players apply the unitary operators $`I`$ and $`C`$ such that Alice and Bob apply $`I`$ with probabilities $`x`$ and $`y`$ respectively the density matrix (11) changes to

$`\rho _{fin}`$ $`=xyI_AI_B\rho _{ini}I_A^{}I_B^{}+x(1y)I_AC_B\rho _{ini}I_A^{}C_B^{}+`$
$`y(1x)C_AI_B\rho _{ini}C_A^{}I_B^{}+(1x)(1y)C_AC_B\rho _{ini}C_A^{}C_B^{}`$
(12)
where the inversion operator $`C`$ interchanges the vectors $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ i.e. $`C|1=|2,`$ $`C|2=|1`$ and $`C^{}=C=C^1`$. We now assume that in Stackelberg duopoly also players’ moves are again given by probabilities lying in the range $`[0,1]`$. The moves by Alice and Bob in classical duopoly game are given by quantities $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ where $`q_1,q_2[0,\mathrm{})`$. We assume that Alice and Bob agree on a function that can uniquely define a real positive number in the range $`(0,1]`$ for every quantity $`q_1,q_2`$ in $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. A simple such function is $`\frac{1}{1+q_i}`$, so that Alice and Bob find $`x`$ and $`y`$ respectively as

$$x=\frac{1}{1+q_1},\text{ }y=\frac{1}{1+q_2}$$
(13)
and use these real numbers as probabilities with which they apply the identity operator $`I`$ on the quantum state at their disposal. With a substitution from eqs. (11,13) the final density matrix (12) can be written as

$$\rho _{fin}=\frac{1}{(1+q_1)(1+q_2)}\left[|1111\left|+q_1q_2\right|2222\left|+q_1\right|2121\left|+q_2\right|1212|\right]$$
(14)
We now also suppose that in the measurement and payoffs finding phase the quantities $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ are known to the ‘agent’ doing this action. The agent applies the payoff operators $`(P_A)_{oper}`$, $`(P_B)_{oper}`$ given as follows

$`(P_A)_{oper}`$ $`=(1+q_1)(1+q_2)q_1\left[k|1111||2121||1212|\right]`$
$`(P_B)_{oper}`$ $`=(1+q_1)(1+q_2)q_2\left[k|1111||2121||1212|\right]`$ (15)
Note that the classical payoffs of eq. (6) are reproduced with the initial state $`|\psi _{ini}=|11`$ with the following trace operations

$`P_A(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=Trace\left[(P_A)_{oper}\rho _{fin}\right]`$
$`P_B(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=Trace\left[(P_B)_{oper}\rho _{fin}\right]`$ (16)
A more general form of quantum duopoly can now be played by keeping the payoff operators of eq. (15) in the agent’s possession and preparing a general initial pure state of the following form

$$|\psi _{ini}=c_{11}|11+c_{12}|12+c_{21}|21+c_{22}|22$$
(17)
$$\text{where }\left|c_{11}\right|^2+\left|c_{12}\right|^2+\left|c_{21}\right|^2+\left|c_{22}\right|^2=1$$
(18)
where $`c_{ij}`$,for $`i,j=1`$ or $`2,`$ are complex numbers and $`|ij`$ are orthonormal basis vectors in $`22`$ dimensional Hilbert space. The payoffs to Alice and Bob can now be obtained in this more general quantum game from eqs. (16) that use the same payoff operators of eqs. (15). The payoffs to Alice and Bob can now be written as

$`\left[P_A(q_1,q_2)\right]_{qtm}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _{11}+\omega _{12}q_2)+q_1(\omega _{21}+\omega _{22}q_2)}{(1+q_1)(1+q_2)}}`$
$`\left[P_B(q_1,q_2)\right]_{qtm}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(\chi _{11}+\chi _{12}q_2)+q_1(\chi _{21}+\chi _{22}q_2)}{(1+q_1)(1+q_2)}}`$ (19)
where the subscript $`qtm`$ is for ‘quantum’ and

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}\omega _{11}\\ \omega _{12}\\ \omega _{21}\\ \omega _{22}\end{array}\right]`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\left|c_{11}\right|^2& \left|c_{12}\right|^2& \left|c_{21}\right|^2& \left|c_{22}\right|^2\\ \left|c_{12}\right|^2& \left|c_{11}\right|^2& \left|c_{22}\right|^2& \left|c_{21}\right|^2\\ \left|c_{21}\right|^2& \left|c_{22}\right|^2& \left|c_{11}\right|^2& \left|c_{12}\right|^2\\ \left|c_{22}\right|^2& \left|c_{21}\right|^2& \left|c_{12}\right|^2& \left|c_{11}\right|^2\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}kq_1(1+q_1)(1+q_2)\\ q_1(1+q_1)(1+q_2)\\ q_1(1+q_1)(1+q_2)\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ (32)
$`\left[\begin{array}{c}\chi _{11}\\ \chi _{12}\\ \chi _{21}\\ \chi _{22}\end{array}\right]`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\left|c_{11}\right|^2& \left|c_{12}\right|^2& \left|c_{21}\right|^2& \left|c_{22}\right|^2\\ \left|c_{12}\right|^2& \left|c_{11}\right|^2& \left|c_{22}\right|^2& \left|c_{21}\right|^2\\ \left|c_{21}\right|^2& \left|c_{22}\right|^2& \left|c_{11}\right|^2& \left|c_{12}\right|^2\\ \left|c_{22}\right|^2& \left|c_{21}\right|^2& \left|c_{12}\right|^2& \left|c_{11}\right|^2\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}kq_2(1+q_1)(1+q_2)\\ q_2(1+q_1)(1+q_2)\\ q_2(1+q_1)(1+q_2)\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ (45)
(46)
The classical payoffs of duopoly game given in eqs. (6) are recovered from the eqs. (19) when the initial quantum state becomes unentangled and given by $`|\psi _{ini}=|11`$. Classical duopoly is, therefore, a subset of its quantum version.

We now find the backwards-induction outcome in this quantum form of Stackelberg duopoly. We proceed in exactly the same way as it is done in the classical game except that players’ payoffs are now given by eqs. (19) and not by eqs. (6). The first step in backwards-induction in quantum game is to find Bob’s reaction to an arbitrary quantity $`q_1`$ chosen by Alice. Denoting this quantity as $`\left[R_2(q_1)\right]_{qtm}`$ we find

$$\left[R_2(q_1)\right]_{qtm}=\underset{q_20}{Max}\left[P_B(q_1,q_2)\right]_{qtm}=\frac{q_1\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2}{2\left\{q_1\mathrm{}_3+\mathrm{}_4\right\}}\text{ where}$$

$$\left|c_{11}\right|^2+\left|c_{22}\right|^2k\left|c_{21}\right|^2=\mathrm{}_1\text{}\left|c_{12}\right|^2+\left|c_{21}\right|^2k\left|c_{11}\right|^2=\mathrm{}_2$$

$$\left|c_{12}\right|^2+\left|c_{21}\right|^2k\left|c_{22}\right|^2=\mathrm{}_3\text{}\left|c_{11}\right|^2+\left|c_{22}\right|^2k\left|c_{12}\right|^2=\mathrm{}_4$$
(47)
This reaction reduces to its classical value of eq. (7) when $`\left|c_{11}\right|^2=1`$. Similar to classical game Alice can now solve Bob’s problem as well. Therefore Alice can anticipate that a choice of the quantity $`q_1`$ will meet a reaction $`\left[R_2(q_1)\right]_{qtm}`$. In the first stage of the game like its classical version Alice can compute a solution to her optimization problem as

$$\underset{q_10}{Max}\left[P_A\{q_1,\left\{R_2(q_1)\right\}_{qtm}\}\right]_{qtm}$$
(48)
To find it Alice calculates the following quantity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\left[P_A(q_1,q_2)\right]_{qtm}}{dq_1}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(\left|c_{11}\right|^2+\left|c_{22}\right|^2\left|c_{12}\right|^2\left|c_{21}\right|^2)}{(1+q_1)}}\left\{2q_1^2+q_1(k2)+k\right\}`$
$`+(1+2q_1)\left\{(k1)\left|c_{21}\right|^2\left|c_{12}\right|^2\right\}+k(\left|c_{12}\right|^2\left|c_{22}\right|^2)`$
$`q_1{\displaystyle \frac{dq_2}{dq_1}}\left\{\mathrm{}_4+q_1\mathrm{}_3\right\}q_2\left\{2q_1\mathrm{}_3+\mathrm{}_4\right\}`$
(49)
and replaces $`q_2`$ in eq. (49) with $`\left[R_2(q_1)\right]_{qtm}`$ given by eq. (47) and then equates eq. (49) to zero to find a $`q_1^{}`$ that maximizes her payoff $`\left[P_A(q_1,q_2)\right]_{qtm}`$. For a maxima she would ensure that the second derivative of $`P_A\{q_1,\left\{R_2(q_1)\right\}_{qtm}\}`$ with respect to $`q_1`$ at $`q_1=q_1^{}`$ is a negative quantity. The $`q_1^{}`$ together with $`\left[R_2(q_1^{})\right]_{qtm}`$ will form the backwards-induction outcome of the quantum game.

An interesting situation is when the backwards-induction outcome in quantum version of Stackelberg duopoly becomes same as the classical Cournot equilibrium of duopoly. The classical situation of leader becoming better-off while the follower becoming worse-off is then avoided in the quantum form of Stackelberg duopoly. To look for this possibility we need such an initial state $`|\psi _{ini}=c_{11}|11+c_{12}|12+c_{21}|21+c_{22}|22`$ that at $`q_1^{}=q_2^{}=\frac{k}{3}`$ we should have following relations holding true also with the normalization condition given in eq. (18)

$$\frac{d\left[P_A\{q_1,\left\{R_2(q_1)\right\}_{qtm}\}\right]_{qtm}}{dq_1}_{q_1=q_1^{}}=0$$
(50)
$$\left[\frac{d^2\left[P_A\{q_1,\left\{R_2(q_1)\right\}_{qtm}\}\right]_{qtm}}{dq_1^2}_{q_1=q_1^{}}\right]<0$$
(51)
$$q_2^{}=\left\{R_2(q_1^{})\right\}_{qtm}$$
(52)
The conditions (50,51) simply say that the backwards-induction outcome of the quantum game is the same as Cournot equilibrium in classical game. The condition (52) says that Bob’s reaction to Alice’s choice of $`q_1^{}=\frac{k}{3}`$ is $`q_2^{}=\frac{k}{3}`$. To show that such quantum states can exist for which the conditions (50,51,52) with the normalization (18) hold true we give an example where $`\left|c_{11}\right|^2,\left|c_{12}\right|^2`$ and $`\left|c_{21}\right|^2`$ are written as functions of $`k`$ with our assumption that $`\left|c_{22}\right|^2=0`$. Though this assumption puts its own restriction on the possible range of $`k`$ for which the above conditions hold for these functions but still it shows clearly the possibility of finding the required initial quantum states. The functions are found as

$`\left|c_{12}(k)\right|^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{f(k)+\sqrt{f(k)^24g(k)h(k)}}{2g(k)}}\text{ where}`$
$`f(k)`$ $`=j(k)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{7}{18}}k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right\}+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right\}`$
$`g(k)`$ $`=j(k)^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}k^3+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{18}}k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right\}+j(k)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}k^3+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{18}}k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k1\right\}+`$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}k^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right\}`$
$`h(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}k\text{}j(k)={\displaystyle \frac{94k^2}{k^29}}`$
also

$`\left|c_{21}(k)\right|^2`$ $`=j(k)\left|c_{12}(k)\right|^2`$ (53)
$`\left|c_{11}(k)\right|^2`$ $`=1\left|c_{12}(k)\right|^2\left|c_{21}(k)\right|^2`$ (54)
Now, interestingly, given that allowed range of $`k`$ is $`1.5k1.73205`$, all of the conditions (18,50,51,52) hold at $`q_1^{}=q_2^{}=\frac{k}{3}`$. So that in this range of $`k`$ a quantum form of Stackelberg duopoly exists that gives the classical Cournot equilibrium as backwards-induction outcome. The restriction on allowed range of $`k`$ is result of our assumption that $`\left|c_{22}(k)\right|^2=0`$. In fig.$`2`$ below $`\left|c_{11}(k)\right|^2,\left|c_{12}(k)\right|^2`$and $`\left|c_{21}(k)\right|^2`$ are plotted against $`k`$ in the above range.

Fig. 2. $`\left|c_{11}(k)\right|^2,\left|c_{12}(k)\right|^2\&`$ $`\left|c_{21}(k)\right|^2`$against $`k`$ when $`\left|c_{22}\right|^2=0`$

## 4 Discussion and Conclusion

What can possibly be a relevance of considering a quantum form of a game that models a competition between two firms in macroscopic world of economics? Quantum mechanics was developed to understand phenomena in the regime of atomic and subatomic interactions and is still mostly used in that domain. What is of interest in extending a game theoretical model of interaction between firms towards quantum domain? These questions naturally arise not only with reference to Stackelberg duopoly considered in this paper but also other related works in quantum games. Apart from exciting new directions that quantum mechanics brings to game theory there is also a fundamental interest in quantum games from the view of quantum information theory. The fact that quantum algorithms may be thought of as games between classical and quantum agents was pointed out by Meyer . Meyer indicated a strong motivation for the study of quantum games by considering zero-sum quantum games in order to have a new starting point at hand to find quantum algorithms that outperform its classical analogue. Many quantum information exchange protocols have been modelled like games. Eavesdropping and optimal cloning are two such often cited examples where objective before a player is to gain as much information as possible. We believe that like other notions of game theory finding some relevance in quantum information a consideration of backwards-induction can be of interest for exactly the same reasons. It does not seem hard to imagine situations in quantum information where moves occur in sequence, all previous moves are observed before the next move is chosen, players’ payoffs from each feasible combination of moves are common knowledge. Interesting questions then arise about how a quantum version of dynamic game of complete information can influence the outcome. Our primary motivation, however, to study backwards-induction in quantum games is from the view of dynamic stability, especially of symmetric NE, that has important relevance in evolutionary games  that we found interesting in quantum settings .

The duopoly game models economic competition between firms and applied economics is the area where it is studied in detail. We considered this game in a scheme that tells how to play a quantum game and gives a Hilbert structure to the strategy space to which players have access to. The fact that quantum game theory can give entirely new views on games important in economics is apparent in recent interesting papers by Piotrowski and Sladkowski  proposing a quantum-like description of markets and economies where players’ strategies belong to Hilbert space. It shows that quantum games certainly have features of interest to applied economists. Reciprocating with it we showed that games played by firms in economic competition can give counter-intuitive solutions when played in a quantum world.

We conclude our results as follows. A comparison between the NE in Cournot game with backwards-induction outcome in classical Stackelberg duopoly shows that having Alice (or firm $`A`$ who acts first) know that Bob (or firm $`B`$ who acts second) knows $`q_1`$ (Alice’s move) hurts Bob. In fact in classical Stackelberg game Bob should not believe that Alice has chosen its Stackelberg quantity i.e. $`q_1^{}=\frac{k}{2}`$. We have shown that there can be a quantum version of Stackelberg duopoly where Bob is not hurt even if he knows the quantity $`q_1`$ chosen by Alice. The backwards-induction outcome of this quantum game is the same as the NE in classical Cournot game where decisions are made simultaneously and there is no such information that hurts a player. Though this outcome in quantum game is obtained for a restricted range of the variable $`k`$ but it is only because of a simplification in calculations.

## 5 Acknowledgment

This work is supported by Pakistan Institute of Lasers and Optics, Islamabad.


text:
# Strangeness Production in STAR at RHIC

## I Strange proofs for a Quark Matter Investigation

It is well known now that studying strangeness should provide information of different nature about the quark matter which has been created during the heavy ion collision. Since severals years, it is proposed that the quark gluon plasma (QGP) formation can be revealed via the observation of an enhancement in the strangeness production compared to a ”normal” yield in a hadronic gas ra . However, from recent results presenting by the NA49 collaboration va  measuring strangeness production in proton-proton (pp), proton-nucleus (pA) and nucleus-nucleus (AA) reactions, one learns that the definition of this enhancement has to be defined very rigorously and precisely, since an enhancement is already seen in pA with respect to pp collisions. Systematical studies have to be drawn up as a function of the collision energy, the system size, the degree of centrality of the reaction and even the particle species.

Upstream from the QGP highlight, an issue is to understand how strangeness is produced. Relativistic heavy ion physics could be understood with the characterization of some fundamental points like :
$`\mathrm{\_}`$ original environment (baryon density, degree of stopping) by measuring antibaryon/baryon ratios.
$`\mathrm{\_}`$ production mechanisms which can be assessed from different approaches : the comparison of spectra (in terms of transverse mass or rapidity) of particles and their anti-particles can inform if species obey or not the same production mechanisms depending on similarities or discrepancies which can be seen between them; ratios can also be informative on mechanisms such as coalescence processes for example.
$`\mathrm{\_}`$ relative and absolute yields of strange particle production, especially those of kaons since they carry the majority of the strangeness quark content of the reaction.
$`\mathrm{\_}`$ time scale of the different phases encountered during the system evolution by the observation of the production or suppression of resonances.
$`\mathrm{\_}`$ amplitude of the rescattering or collective effects by looking at the transverse momentum spectra.
$`\mathrm{\_}`$ degree of suddenness of the hadronisation, depending on the coincidence or not of the chemical and thermal freeze-out parameters extracted from particles ratios.

STAR (Solenoidal Tracker At Rhic) constitutes a very well suited experiment for strangeness measurement. It includes indeed a large tracker apparatus, the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) with a large pT-y acceptance and a full azimuthal coverage.

## II Some experimental considerations

Results presented in the following have been obtained from analyses of events collected during the year 2000. RHIC delivered gold beams at an energy of $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=`$130 GeV. At this time, the TPC was the main detector of STAR experiment st  operating with a 0.25 T field. The TPC allows for tracking of charged particles emitted in the $`\eta `$=1.8 and $`p_T`$0.75 GeV/c coverage for a collision occurring at the center of the detector. The event centrality is selected according to the multiplicity distribution of the negatively charged particles ac , once the event reconstruction is done. The number of events which can be used for physics analyses is equal to 460k and 330k for minimum bias and the most central events (top 5$`\%`$) respectively. Minimum bias events are triggered by requiring a coincidence of signals in both Zero Degree Calorimeters which detect spectator neutrons. A high threshold in the Central Trigger Barrel is set for selecting the central events.

More specifically, several methods are used for the identification of strange particles. Strange particles (K$`{}_{s}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) decaying at a certain distance from the primary vertex of the collision, are reconstructed using a topological method. The tracks of their daughters are reconstructed in the TPC, extrapolated back towards a common origin and the kinematics of the parent are calculated.

Charged kaons can be identified from their energy loss in the TPC if their momentum is lower than 0.6 GeV/c. Beyond this limit, their energy losses can not be separated unambiguously from those of the pions due to the TPC resolution. A topological method, the so-called kink method, is used for the determination of charged kaons via the K$`\mu \nu `$ channel. In this case, the charged kaon and charged daughter are used to reconstruct the kinematics of the parent. Opposite to the dE/dx measurement, the kink method allows to avoid any restriction on the momentum of the kaons and thus to identify them up to 2 GeV/c.

Reconstruction of resonances ($`\varphi `$, K0∗) is achieved by combinatorics calculating the invariant mass with all permutations of candidate decay particles. The background is obtained by the mixed-event technique. The combinatorics can be applied also for the reconstruction of the strange baryons, thus allowing an effective cross-check with the topological method.

Note that results (excepted anti-baryon over baryon ratios) presented here are corrected for tracking efficiencies, acceptance and detector effects. Besides, as a first attempt, the analyses have been restricted to the mid-rapidity region.

## III What rules strangeness production ?

### III.1 Production yields

Kaons carry about 70$`\%`$ of the strange quark content created during the collision, hence providing a good estimate of the amount of produced strangeness. The yields of kaons per unit of rapidity in the most central collisions reach for the K+, K- and K$`{}_{s}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ 35$`\pm `$3(stat)$`\pm `$5(syst), 30$`\pm `$3(stat)$`\pm `$4(syst) and 35.1$`\pm `$0.6(stat) respectively ca . Results are similar one to each other and when compared to the multiplicity of the negatively primary charged particles ad  (280$`\pm `$1(stat)$`\pm `$20(syst)), they demonstrate the large amount of strangeness created at RHIC (more than 10 times the amount found in Pb-Pb collisions at SPS).

Analyses of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ mesons reveal also a large production of strangeness phi . The energy dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$/h- ratio in heavy ion collisions from $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 5 up to 130 GeV indicates that this ratio increases with the collision energy hence that the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ production increases faster than that of the h-, up to RHIC energy.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production at mid-rapidity is shown on figure 2 as a function of the negative hadron (h-) multiplicity. The hyperon production increases with the centrality of the collision reaching the values of 18.6$`\pm `$0.7(stat.) and 12.9$`\pm `$0.5 for respectively $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in the 5$`\%`$ most central collisions. Moreover, this hyperon production appears to be linearly proportional to that of the h-. Figure 2 exhibits clearly that the pT distributions of the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are much flatter than the pT distribution of the negatively charged particles. The hyperon production becomes very important at high pT suggesting that the baryon to meson ratio should exceed 1 at very high pT values. This surprising trend has been observed also by the PHENIX collaboration measuring $`\overline{p}`$/$`\pi ^{}`$ ratio ja . The interpretation of such a behavior is still an open question : Shuryak mentioned simple flow effects shu  while Vitev and Gyulassy propose a novel non-perturbative component of baryon dynamics gy  as an explanation.

The $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ yields correspond, for the 14$`\%`$ most central collisions in the mid-rapidity region, to 3.07$`\pm `$0.13(stat) and 2.63$`\pm `$0.12(stat), respectively.

Due to an insufficient number of events, the absolute yields of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ are not yet accessible despite the signal of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }+\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ system has been extracted with a very good signal over noise ratio (S/N = 3.6). The new data of the year 2001 will allow solving this statistics issue.

### III.2 Initial environment

Due to the respective quark content of K+ and K-, their ratio indicate the amplitude of the net-baryon density. Figure 4 presents the K+/K- ratio at mid-rapidity as a function of the centrality. It is equal to 1.071$`\pm `$0.008(stat) and is rather constant as a function of the centrality as observed at AGS and SPS energies. The decrease of this ratio as a function of the collision energy reflects the change and drop of the net-baryon density as the energy increases.

The excitation function of anti-baryon to baryon ratios (figure 4) renders the strong increase anti-baryon production going from the lower to higher energy. Even at RHIC the net-baryon density is still not equal to 1 or, differently speaking, system is still not baryon free despite the important drop of the degree of stopping going from AGS to SPS to RHIC.

Figure 6 presents ratios of antibaryons to baryons according to their strangeness content for SPS and RHIC data. As predicted ra  and also already seen at SPS, STAR measurements indicate the enhancement of the ratios as strangeness content increases:

$`\overline{p}/p=0.63\pm 0.02\text{ (stat)}\pm 0.06\text{ (syst)}`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.73\pm 0.03\text{ (stat)}`$

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}/\mathrm{\Xi }=0.83\pm 0.03\text{ (stat)}\pm 0.05\text{ (syst)}`$

It is difficult to rule on the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio : despite it seems to be compatible with 1, there is still large statistical errors to allow an accurate evaluation. The data collected during 2001 should allow a more precise measurement.

From these ratios, Rafelski et al. fo  have extracted the values of chemical potential and temperature at which hadronisation occurs. From $`\overline{p}`$/p value pp , they estimate that the baryo-chemical potential is equal to 32(38)MeV if the temperature is fixed at 150(175)MeV, respectively. Furthermore, from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$/$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$/$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ ratios, they show that the strange quark fugacity is consistent with 1 and according to their thermal model, it corresponds to the value expected for sudden hadronisation.

On the other hand, Braun-Munzinger and collaborators have performed a fit to the preliminary RHIC data pbm  leading to a temperature of 175$`\pm `$7MeV and a baryo-chemical potential of 51$`\pm `$6MeV.

According to statistical models, the fireball seems to have reached a high degree of chemical equilibration. Note however, that to be conclusive, such an approach should be investigated with data extrapolated to a 4$`\pi `$ coverage.

### III.3 Production mechanisms

The $`\overline{p}`$/$`p`$ ratio indicates that, contrarily to AGS ags  or SPS sps1  trends, pair processes dominate baryon transport at RHIC, by about a factor 2 if one assumes that anti-proton production is due to pair processes (production and annhililation included) while protons come from both baryon transport and pair processes. Thus, 2/3 of protons come from pair processes.

Furthermore, ratios seem to be consistent with simple quark coalescence model coa . This latter assumes that quark matter hadronizes via a sudden recombination of its quark and anti-quark constituents . Within this approach, $`\overline{B}`$/B ratios can be predicted from a simple quark counting :

$`\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=D\frac{\overline{p}}{p}\text{and}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}}{\mathrm{\Xi }}=D\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=D^2\frac{\overline{p}}{p}\text{}\text{where}D=\frac{K^+}{K^{}}`$

Thus, the D values calculated with the various baryon ratios measured by STAR, are very close to the D value directly measured (1.071$`\pm `$0.008(stat)). The similarities between calculated and measured D values indicate the consistency of the coalescence model predictions with the baryon ratios at RHIC, as already seen at SPS energies.

Considering again the K-/K+ ratio (rather than K+/K- ratio), the excitation function of the $`\overline{B}`$/B can be revisited. Indeed, at energies far above the kaon production threshold, one can assume that the relative abundance of strange and anti-strange quarks do not impact the relative production of K- and K+. K-/K+ ratio becomes similar to $`\overline{u}`$/u. On the other hand, one can postulate that $`\overline{u}/u\overline{d}/d`$, which is reasonable once again at high energies for which the isospin difference at mid-rapidity is less significant. This implies the following relation : $`\overline{B}/B(\overline{u}/u)^3(K^{}/K^+)^3`$. The curve on figure 4 linking up the $`(K^{}/K^+)^3`$ data at various $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ indicates that the same behavior is observed for K-/K+ and $`\overline{p}`$/p at the highest energies. The different behavior seen at AGS can be explained by the fact that, at this lower energy, the assumptions are less valid and also the absorption of $`\overline{p}`$ in the medium is large ($``$20$`\%`$).

### III.4 Dynamics

Transverse mass spectra have been investigated for strange hadrons. For each couple (K+-K-, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$-$`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$), the mT distributions are rather identical for particles and anti-particles (same slopes), informing that they present the same final state spectra, despite the processes producing (anti-)particles may be very different.

The values of inverse slope extracted from a fit to the experimental transverse mass distributions with an exponential function are summarized on figure 6 as a function of the particle masses. It is well-known that within a hydrodynamical approach, these slopes can be interpreted as to be due to the combination of a thermal component (the corresponding parameter being the temperature at freeze-out) and a collective one (the parameter being the flow velocity). The comparison of STAR and SPS sps2  data allows to highlight two facts. First, it appears clearly that there is a strong indication of radial flow at STAR. Second, strange particles follow the same behavior at SPS and RHIC energies namely that the inverse slopes decrease with increasing mass. A hydrodynamical approach hydro  leads to the following parameters : TFO = 130 MeV and $`\beta _{flow}`$ = 0.5 c. Nevertheless, it is not trivial to obtain presently a coherent picture from the RHIC measurements (see $`\overline{p}`$ or $`\varphi `$ points). A possible explanation is that the slopes depend strongly on the transverse momentum range where the fit is performed (more details can be found in jo ) : For example, in the case of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, a unique exponential function is not able to reproduce the distribution. Investigations have to be pursued.

## IV Attempt of answers

STAR has highlighted the important amount of strangeness produced at RHIC energy. Information has been obtained about the original environment of the particle production. Measurements of particle ratios lead to the conclusion that the net-baryon density drops with the decrease of the degree of stopping going from AGS, to SPS to RHIC but even at the higher energy, the system is still not baryon free.

Ratios appear to be consistent with a simple coalescence model. They weakly depend on the transverse momentum, suggesting that the rescattering is not significant. It has also been observed that baryon and anti-baryon present similar final state spectra however mechanisms of their production can be different and further analyses have to be done. Inverse slopes of transverse mass distributions exhibit a strong radial flow governing the fireball evolution at RHIC. And it becomes quite puzzling to observe that statistical approach is able to reproduce quite well the data.

STAR future analyses will be very promising for the strangeness investigation. RHIC is running at full energy ($`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV), statistics will increase and an important issue is the adding of the Silicon Vertex Detector to the TPC.