text:
# New applications of non-hermitian random matrices11footnote 1Talk given at TH-2002, Paris, UNESCO, July 22-27 2002

## 1 Introduction

The subject of the theory of random matrices is a random matrix $`𝖬`$ distributed with some probability measure $`d\mu (𝖬)`$. Typically, one is interested in the distribution of eigenvalues and correlations between them as size of the matrix, $`N`$, tends to infinity.

The range of physical applications of this theory is enormously vast, with the role played by the matrix $`𝖬`$ being very different. In complex systems or systems with disorder $`𝖬`$ turns out to be a good substitute for the Hamiltonian or transfer matrix. Physical characteristics of the system are obtained via averaging over one or another ensemble of large matrices. Most extensively employed and well-studied are ensembles of hermitian matrices. In more recent applications to statistical models on random lattices and to string theory the key element is a set of graphs in the diagrammatic expansion of random matrix integrals while $`𝖬`$ has no physical meaning by itself. For different aspects of random matrix theory and related topics see e.g. .

Complex non-hermitian random matrices are employed in physics too. (A list of the relevant physical problems and corresponding references can be found in, e.g., .) New applications we are going to discuss are related to the distribution of their eigenvalues. To be specific, we consider the model of normal random matrices, i.e., such that $`𝖬`$ commutes with its hermitian conjugate, though similar results may hold for other ensembles. Eigenvalues of normal matrices are in general complex numbers. When $`N`$ becomes large, they densely fill a domain in the complex plane, the support of eigenvalues, with the mean density outside it being zero. The shape of this domain is determined by the probability measure and by the size of the matrix. As $`N`$ increases, the domain grows (see Fig. 1). The growth law is our main concern in this paper.

For simplicity we assume that the support of eigenvalues, $`D`$, is a connected domain. Let the size of the matrix grow linearly in time $`t`$: $`Nt`$. Then the support of eigenvalues grows in such a way that the normal velocity of the boundary is

$$\stackrel{}{v}(z)=\text{grad}\phi (z),zD$$
(1)
where $`\phi `$ is a function such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi (z)=0\hfill & z𝐂D\hfill \\ & \\ \phi (z)\mathrm{log}|z|\hfill & z\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \\ \phi (z)=0\hfill & zD\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_x^2+_y^2=4_z_{\overline{z}}`$ is the Laplace operator. We employ the complex notation $`z=x+iy`$. So, the dynamics of the boundary is governed by the function $`\phi `$ which is harmonic in the exterior of $`D`$ with a source at infinity, and vanishes on the boundary. The solution of the boundary problem (2) is unique: $`\phi (z)=\mathrm{log}|w(z)|`$, where $`w(z)`$ is the conformal map from the exterior of the domain $`D`$ onto the exterior of the unit circle such that $`\mathrm{}`$ is mapped to $`\mathrm{}`$. Such a map exists by virtue of the Riemann mapping theorem.

This dynamics is realized in various physical problems, classical and quantum. First, it is pertinent to viscous flows and other pattern formation processes when the normal velocity of the moving front is proportional to the gradient of a harmonic field (see, e.g., ). This mechanism is known as Darcy’s law. The droplet of eigenvalues behaves like an incompressible fluid with negligible viscosity (say water) surrounded by a viscous fluid (say oil), two fluids being confined in a thin plane gap (the Hele-Shaw cell). Oil is withdrawn at infinity at a constant rate while water is injected. In this context, the function $`\phi `$ is identified with the pressure $`P`$ in the viscous fluid with the opposite sign: $`\phi =P`$. In water, the pressure can be set to $`0`$. The condition that $`P=0`$ on the interface amounts to neglecting the surface tension effects. This idealization is good until the curvature of the interface becomes large. When the surface tension is small enough, the dynamics becomes unstable. The moving interface develops many fingers, they split into new ones, and in a sufficiently long time the water droplet looks like a fractal. In the literature, this phenomenon is refered to as the Saffman-Taylor fingering. This growth process was linked to the matrix model in .

As was recently pointed out in , the same growth law applies to semiclassical dynamics of an electronic droplet confined in a plane on the lowest Landay level of a strong magnetic field. This suggests applications to the Quantum Hall effect. It turns out that the shape of the electronic droplet is sensitive to magnetic fluxes localized well away from it. As one changes degeneracy of the level to increase the number of electrons in the droplet, its shape evolves in accordance with the Darcy law, thus showing up fingering instabilities. This phenomenon is purely quantum. Like the Aharonov-Bohm effect, it is caused by quantum interference. The function $`\phi `$ in this case has no obvious physical interpretation. The characteristic scale of this phenomenon is less than that of the Saffman-Taylor fingering by a factor of $`10^9`$. Remarkably, the matrix model provides a unified mathematical treatment of the both phenomena.

From mathematical side, it is also worth noting that calculation of certain expectation values and correlation functions of normal random matrices provides a constructive proof of some important mathematical statements in the inverse potential problem and the Dirichlet boundary problem proved in a different way in .

At last, the normal matrix model is known to be integrable. Its partition function is a tau-function of an integrable hierarchy of partial differential equations. Although we do not discuss integrability matters in this paper, let us point out that the above physical problems thus possess a hidden integrable structure.

## 2 Partition function of normal random matrices

A matrix $`𝖬`$ is called normal if $`[𝖬,𝖬^{}]=0`$, so that $`𝖬`$ and $`𝖬^{}`$ can be simultaneously diagonalized. The model of normal random matrices was introduced in . The integrable structure of the model is quite similar to that of the more widely known model of two hermitian random matrices  but physical interpretation is very different.

The partition function is

$$Z_N=_{\mathrm{normal}}𝑑\mu _0(𝖬)e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{tr}V(𝖬,𝖬^{})}$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is a parameter and $`V`$ is a real-valued function. The measure $`d\mu _0`$ is induced from the standard flat metric on the space of all complex matrices. To introduce coordinates in the subspace of normal matrices, one makes use of the decomposition $`𝖬=\mathrm{𝖴𝖹𝖴}^{}`$ of a normal matrix $`𝖬`$, where $`𝖴`$ is a unitary matrix and $`𝖹=\text{diag}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)`$ is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues of the $`𝖬`$. The measure is then given by

$$d\mu _0(𝖬)=\frac{d\mu _{𝒰(N)}(𝖴)}{N!\text{Vol}(𝒰(N))}|\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z)|^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^2z_i$$

where $`d\mu _{𝒰(N)}`$ is the Haar measure on the unitary group $`𝒰(N)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z)=_{i>j}^N(z_iz_j)`$ is the Vandermonde determinant. The partition function is, therefore, written as the following integral over eigenvalues:

$$Z_N=\frac{1}{N!}|\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z)|^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}V(z_j)}d^2z_j\right)$$
(4)
(For notational simplicity we shall write $`V(z)`$ instead of $`V(z,\overline{z})`$.) This quantity has two important interpretations.

One of them is the Coulomb gas picture . Writing $`Z_N=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}{\displaystyle e^{(z_i)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^2z_j}`$ where

$$=\underset{\text{2D Coulomb energy}}{\underset{}{\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{log}|z_iz_j|}}+\mathrm{}^1\underset{\text{potential}}{\underset{}{\underset{i}{}V(z_i)}}$$
(5)
we see that $`Z_N`$ is the partition function of the 2D Coulomb gas in the external potential. Another one is the Quantum Hall picture suggested in .

### Quantum Hall picture.

Consider spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ electrons on the plane in a non-uniform magnetic field $`B`$. The Pauli hamiltonian is

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}\left((i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{A})^2\mathrm{}\sigma _3B\right)$$

where $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ is the vector potential. If the magnetic field is uniform, the spectrum consists of equidistant Landau levels, each level being highly degenerate. The lowest level is very special. Due to a hidden supersymmetry of the problem, it can be found exactly and remains highly degenerate even for arbitrary non-uniform field $`B`$ . The energy of this level equals $`0`$ while the degeneracy equals the integer part of the total magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=B(z)d^2z`$ in units of the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\pi \mathrm{}`$ (we set $`e=c=1`$). One-particle states on the lowest level can be found explicitly. In the gauge $`A_x=\frac{1}{2}_yV`$, $`A_y=\frac{1}{2}_xV`$ they are

$$\psi _n(z)=P_n(z)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{V(z)}{2\mathrm{}}\right)$$

where $`B(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)`$. Here $`P_n=z^n+[\text{terms of lower degree}]`$ are holomorphic polynomials of any degree which is less than the degeneracy of the level .

Neglecting interactions between electrons, the wave function of $`N`$ particles on the lowest level is the Jastrow determinant: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_N\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}det\psi _n(z_m)`$, and so

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_N|^2=\frac{1}{N!}|\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z_i)|^2e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_nV(z_n)}$$
(6)
coincides with the statistical weight of normal random matrices expressed through eigenvalues. The partition function (4) is, in this context, the normalization factor of the $`N`$-particle wave function: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_N|^2_id^2z_i=Z_N`$. The mean density of electrons coincides with the expectation value of the density of eigenvalues in the matrix model:

$$NZ_N^1|\mathrm{\Psi }_N(z,\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{N1})|^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}d^2\xi _i=\text{tr}\delta ^{(2)}(z𝖬)$$

Similarly, multiparticle correlation functions are identified with multipoint correlation functions of densities.

All the above relations are exact at any finite $`N`$. As $`\mathrm{}`$ becomes small and $`N`$ large, one approaches a semiclassical regime. However, the semiclassical properties of the system are quite unusual. On the one hand, the density distribution acquires a well-defined edge, and one can speak about a well localized electronic droplet which behaves like an incompressible fluid. On the other hand, in this specific semiclassical regime, quantum effects are by no means negligible. Quite the reverse, they become rather strong if not dominant. In fact there is no surprize here because the semiclassical limit we are speaking about is not the usual one which would require excitations of higher energy levels. In our “semiclassical” limit all particles occupy the lowest level, so the droplet as a whole remains a quantum object. Amusingly enough, it is this limit where one makes contact with the purely classical Saffman-Taylor fingering. In the next section, we analyse the corresponding large $`N`$ limit of the matrix integral.

## 3 The semiclassical (large $`N`$) limit

The large $`N`$ limit we are interested in is $`N0`$, $`\mathrm{}0`$ with $`\mathrm{}N`$ finite and fixed. The expansion in $`N^1`$ is then the same as the expansion in $`\mathrm{}`$.

To elaborate the limit, we represent the energy $``$ (5) in the form

$$=\rho (z)\mathrm{log}|zz^{}|\rho (z^{})d^2zd^2z^{}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}V(z)\rho (z)d^2z$$

where $`\rho (z)=_i\delta ^{(2)}(zz_i)`$ is the density of eigenvalues. In the limit, one treats $`\rho (z)`$ as a continuous function normalized as $`\rho (z)d^2z=N`$. As $`\mathrm{}0`$, both terms in (5) are of order $`N^2`$, and the saddle point method can be applied to perform the integral.

The saddle point condition is $`\delta /\delta \rho (z)=0`$ which yields the integral equation for the mean density:

$$\mathrm{}\frac{\rho (z^{})d^2z^{}}{zz^{}}+_zV(z)=0$$
(7)
The meaning of this equation is especially clear in the Coulomb gas interpretation. It states that each charge is in the equilibrium. Indeed, consider a charge at the point $`z`$. The first term in the equation is the Coulomb force caused by other charges in the gas while the second term is the external force. The equation just tells that they compensate each other. Clearly, it makes sense to impose the equilibrium condition only in the domain where the charges are actually present, i.e., in the support of eigenvalues.

So, the equation should be satisfied in a domain $`D`$ where $`\rho 0`$. Here we assume that $`D`$ is a connected domain. For example, in the potential $`V=|z|^2`$ the eigenvalues uniformly fill the disk of radius $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}N}`$. Small perturbations of the potential slightly disturb the circular shape.

It appears that in case of normal matrices the above integral equation is much easier to solve than the similar equation for distribution of eigenvalues of hermitian matrices. Indeed, on applying $`_{\overline{z}}`$ to both sides of eq. (7) we obtain $`\rho (z)=\frac{1}{4\pi \mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)`$ in $`D`$, and $`\rho (z)=0`$ in $`𝐂D`$. The domain $`D`$ itself is determined by the condition

$$_D\frac{_z^{}V(z^{})dz^{}}{zz^{}}=0$$
(8)
which can be derived from (7) with the help of the Cauchy integral formula. The condition means, in other words, that $`D`$ is such that the function $`_zV`$ on its boundary is the boundary value of an analytic function in $`𝐂D`$.

An important particular case is $`V`$ equal to $`|z|^2`$ plus a harmonic function which we parametrize by its Taylor coefficients $`t_k`$ at the origin: $`V=|z|^2+2et_kz^k`$. Then the density is constant (equal to $`\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}`$) inside $`D`$ and zero outside. The area of $`D`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{}N`$. The shape of $`D`$ is determined by the conditions

$$\frac{1}{\pi k}_{𝐂D}z^kd^2z=t_k$$

which easily follow from (8), so that $`\pi kt_k`$ are harmonic moments of the domain complementary to $`D`$. In case of quadratic potential the domain is an ellipse .

The integrated version of eq. (7) allows one to find the leading contribution to the free energy, which is given by the value of $`\mathrm{}^2`$ at the saddle point. Let us denote the latter by $`F_0`$, then

$$F_0=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_D_D\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{1}{z}\frac{1}{z^{}}\right|\mathrm{\Delta }V(z^{})d^2zd^2z^{}$$
(9)
This is the tau-function of curves introduced in . The leading asymptotics of the partition function as $`\mathrm{}0`$ is therefore $`Z_Ne^{F_0/\mathrm{}^2}`$.

### Small variations of the potential and the growth law.

If one varies the potential, $`VV+\delta V`$, and size of the matrix, $`NN+\delta N`$, the support of eigenvalues slightly changes its shape and area. Let us examine how it goes. It is natural to characterize an infinitesimal change of the boundary by its normal displaycement $`\delta n(z)`$ at each point $`z`$, so that $`\delta n(z)`$ is a continuous function on the boundary curve (see Fig. 2).

First we vary the potential at constant $`N`$. The shape of the support of eigenvalues is determined by eq. (8). Its variation can be written as

$$\frac{_z^{}\delta V(z^{})dz^{}}{zz^{}}+\frac{i}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V(z^{})\delta n(z^{})}{zz^{}}|dz^{}|=0$$
(10)
It is natural to employ the ansatz $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)\delta n(z)=_nh(z)`$ where $`h`$ is yet unknown function in the exterior of $`D`$ such that $`h=0`$ on the boundary, and $`_n`$ means its normal derivative, with the normal vector pointing outward. This ansatz is suggested by an easy transform of the second integral into a Cauchy integral. Combining the two terms, we get $`\frac{_z^{}(\delta V(z^{})+h(z^{}))}{zz^{}}𝑑z^{}=0`$ for $`zD`$. This implies that the function $`_z(\delta V+h)`$ is analytic in the exterior of $`D`$, i.e., that the function $`\delta V+h`$ is harmonic in there. Hence $`h(z)=\delta V^H(z)\delta V`$ where, given a function $`f`$, we use the notation $`f^H`$ for the harmonic continuation of this function from the boundary to the exterior of $`D`$. Therefore,

$$\delta n(z)=\frac{_n\left(\delta V^H(z)\delta V(z)\right)}{\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)}$$
(11)
Similarly, to find how the domain $`D`$ grows at constant $`V`$ as $`N`$ increases, we use eq. (8) again. This time the first term in (10) is zero. Noting that

$$\delta N=\frac{1}{4\pi \mathrm{}}\delta n(z)\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)|dz|$$

it is easy to see that the solution is

$$\delta n(z)=\frac{2\mathrm{}\delta N}{\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)}_n\mathrm{log}|w(z)|$$
(12)
where $`w(z)`$ is the conformal map from $`𝐂D`$ onto the exterior of the unit circle such that $`\mathrm{}`$ is sent to $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\mathrm{log}|w|=0`$ on the boundary, the normal derivative can be substituted by gradient. Therefore, at $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=\text{const}`$ we get the Darcy law (1) (cf. ).

### Semiclassical electronic droplet in the presence of magnetic impurities.

Let us apply the above results to the semiclassical behaviour of an electronic droplet in a strong magnetic field. The notion of the Quantum Hall droplet  implies that the electronic liquid is incompressible, i.e., all states at the lowest energy level are occupied. Therefore, we want the degeneracy of the level to be equal to $`N`$. This can be achieved in different ways. One of them is to assume the following arrangement. Let a strong uniform magnetic field $`B_0>0`$ be applied in a large disk of radius $`R_0`$. The disk is surrounded by a large annulus $`R_0<|z|<R_1`$ with a magnetic field $`B_1<0`$ such that the total magnetic flux through the system is $`N\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The magnetic field outside the largest disk $`|z|<R_1`$ vanishes. The disk is connected through a tunnel barier to a large capacitor that maintains a small positive chemical potential slightly above the zero energy. If $`B_0`$ is strong enough, the gap is large, and the higher levels can be neglected. In this arrangement, the circular droplet of $`N`$ electrons is trapped at the center. Its radius is much less than $`R_0`$. The function $`V(z)`$ for $`|z|<R_0`$ is $`V(z)=\frac{1}{2}B_0|z|^2`$.

Now let us apply a non-uniform magnetic field $`\delta B`$ somewhere inside the disk $`|z|<R_0`$ but well away from the droplet. Suppose that the nonuniform magnetic field does not change the total flux: $`\delta Bd^2z=0`$. The potential $`V(z)`$ inside and around the droplet is modified as

$$V(z)=\frac{B_0}{2}|z|^2\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{log}|zz^{}|\delta B(z^{})d^2z^{}$$
(13)
The second term is harmonic inside and around the droplet. One may have in mind thin solenoids carrying magnetic flux (“magnetic impurities”). In the case of point-like magnetic fluxes $`q_i`$ at points $`a_i`$, we have $`V(z)=\frac{1}{2}B_0|z|^2+_iq_i\mathrm{log}|za_i|`$.

In the presence of the fluxes, the shape of the droplet is no longer circular (Fig. 3) although the magnetic field inside the droplet and not far from it remains uniform and is not changed at all. In this respect this phenomenon is similar to the Aharonov-Bohm effect. The responce of the droplet to an infinitesimal change of the magnetic field $`\delta B`$ is described by eq. (11) in which

$$\delta V^H(z)\delta V(z)=\frac{1}{\pi }_{𝐂D}G(z,z^{})\delta B(z^{})d^2z^{}$$

Here $`G(z,z^{})`$ is the Green function of the Dirichlet boundary problem in $`𝐂D`$ normalized in such a way that $`G(z,z^{})\mathrm{log}|zz^{}|`$ as $`zz^{}`$. In fact this formula holds for arbitrary $`\delta B`$, not necessarily vanishing inside the droplet. In particular, for small point-like fluxes $`\delta q_i`$ at some points $`a_i`$ we have $`\delta V=_i\delta q_i\mathrm{log}|za_i|`$, $`\delta B=\pi _i\delta q_i\delta ^{(2)}(za_i)`$, and

$$\delta V^H(z)\delta V(z)=\underset{i}{}G(z,a_i)\delta q_i$$

If $`a_i`$ is inside, $`G(z,a_i)`$ is set to be zero. The sum, therefore, goes over outside fluxes only. The fluxes inside the droplet, if any, appear to be completely screened and do not have any influence on its shape.

When $`B_1`$ adiabatically increases, with $`B_0`$ and $`\delta B`$ fixed, the droplet grows because the degeneracy of the lowest level is enlarged and new electrons enter the system. The growth is described by eq. (12) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(z)=2B_0`$ which is equivalent to the Darcy law.

## 4 Conclusion

We have analysed the large $`N`$ limit of the model of normal random matrices. It has been argued that as $`N`$ increases, the growth of the support of complex eigenvalues simulates important physical phenomena:

* Interface dynamics in viscous flows (the Saffman-Taylor fingering) in the zero surface tension limit
* Semiclassical behaviour of 2D electronic droplets in the Quantum Hall regime

The former is purely classical while the latter is purely quantum.

The relation to the matrix model may help to suggest a way to regularize singularities which usually occur in the zero surface tension limit and to obtain an analytically tractable formulation of the Saffman-Taylor problem with surface tension.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to O.Agam, E.Bettelheim, I.Kostov, I.Krichever, A.Marshakov, M.Mineev-Weinstein and P.Wiegmann for collaboration. This work was supported in part by the LDRD project 20020006ER “Unstable Fluid/Fluid Interfaces” at Los Alamos National Laboratory during the author’s visit at LANL in January-February 2002, by RFBR grant 00-02-16477, and by grant INTAS-99-0590.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We present a web-based facility for the comparison of measurements of hadronic final states and the expectations of physics calculations and simulations. The physics motivation is discussed. Then follows an outline of the design and technology used in the JetWeb server. Section 4 contains a user guide to the server, as presented on the web, while Sections 5 and 6 cover the implementation of the server with a view to further development and future plans.

## 2 The physics problem

Particle physics experiments at high-energy accelerators have provided a wealth of data on the final state in electron-positron, lepton-proton and proton-antiproton interactions. These data have seen the triumph of the standard model in precision electroweak measurements and the verification of the QCD sector of the standard model to a reasonable degree of precision.

Despite these successes, the final state in hadron-hadron collisions is in general poorly understood. The hadronisation stage of a collision is not calculable in perturbative QCD, and calculations of (for example) multijet production are impractical at higher orders in QCD. Other problems include the description of non-perturbative remnant-remnant interactions, and the determination of the intrinsic transverse momentum of partons in the incoming hadron. All these areas are calculated and/or modelled to some degree in general purpose Monte-Carlo simulation programs such as Pythia  and Herwig . These packages provide an invaluable tool in several distinct ways.

* They provide physically motivated input to detector simulations, thus facilitating the evaluation of acceptances and resolutions for detectors.
* They allow the estimation of the effects of hadronisation and other uncalculated effects on cross sections so that physically observable hadronic cross sections may be compared to partonic variables calculated to high orders in QCD.
* They allow predictions to be made for collisions at future colliders, which are vital input to the motivation and design of facilities.

For all these reasons, consistent tuning of the free parameters of these generators, and confirmation of the physics assumptions they contain, is of critical importance for the accuracy and interpretation of measurements at current and future high-energy colliders. However, determining whether such models are consistent with the wide range of available data is a non-trivial matter since the measurements are made with a variety of colliding beams, in many different regions of phase space, and for many complex observables. Detailed and successful fits have been performed using LEP data but these give no information on physics specific to incoming hadrons. In addition, there is an urgent need for the preservation of expertise and access to this data.

The JetWeb server is designed to provide the ability to compare quickly and efficiently existing or future calculations and models with all relevant collider data. This is an ambitious and long term (indeed indefinite) task. Currently a subset of HERA, LEP and Tevatron jet data are included and only the Herwig and Pythia generators are used. However, the server is designed to be scalable, with clean interfaces between the various technologies used for ease of development and maintenance and the inclusion of new data and simulations.

## 3 The JetWeb server

The components of the JetWeb server and their functions and interactions are illustrated in Figure 1.

At the centre of JetWeb is a java object model (Figures 2 and 3) containing the properties and interactions of Models, Papers, Plots and Fits. The data underlying this model are stored in the JetWeb database - a MySQL database (Figure 4). The approximate correspondences between tables and object model classes are given in Table 1.

A “Model” completely specifies a unique generator, version and set of parameters. A “Logparms” consists of a subset of these parameters relevant to a specific set of colliding beams (for example, proton-proton logparms do not define a photon parton distribution, and photon-photon logparms likewise do not specify a proton parton distribution). Consquently one model can currently have up to three logparms associated with it ($`ee`$, $`ep`$ and $`pp`$). A “Logfile” for an individual simulation run is associated with a single logparms. A “Paper” encapsulates the measured data from a single publication and is associated with measured cross sections. A “Fit” contains the results of a comparison between real data and the predictions of a specific model. For more detail on the constituents of the object model, see Figures 2 and 3.

Data is added to the database as follows:

* MC results from HZTOOL  are processed by a FORTRAN routine which reads in HBOOK  histogram files and writes out histograms in the form of XML files in the Java Analysis Studio  (JAS) plotML DTD format .
* The JetWeb XMLReader facility is a Java class, used to convert plotML data into the Java object model. It processes the XML data using the JDOM API , wrapping a SAX parser.
* Data held within the Java object model is written to the JetWeb database via JDBC . The interface between object model and database is provided by the database manager classes within the ucl.hep.jetweb.db package.

These stages are initiated by commands from the Maintainer (privileged access user interface, see below). The user accesses JetWeb via the web user interface (UI), which consists of Java servlets run on a Tomcat  server, delivering HTML pages written using the JetWeb HTMLWriter facility (ucl.hep.jetweb.html package). The servlets access the JetWeb database via the JDBC calls encapsulated within the java object model.

There are two levels of access to JetWeb:

* Normal access allows the user to query the JetWeb database for existing Job Results. The user can fit these results to the data from a range of papers stored on the database.

Fit data is loaded from the database into the object model. If this fit has been requested before, the static webpages will already exist. A comparison is made between the timestamp in the database and the date of these pages. If the pages are more up-to-date, they are served to the user (This avoids the extremely time consuming regeneration of histogram graphics files). If the pages predate any relevant data in the database they are regenerated. In this case an HTML summary of the fit is written, and ucl.hep.jetweb.plots.DataPlot and its subclasses access JAS to write gif plot files. Plot files are incorporated into HTML generated by servlets using the HTMLWriter utility. The graphics generation is done in a separate thread to improve response time for the user.

If there are no results stored for the user’s specified set of parameters, a new job request with the required parameters can be generated. The job requests are moderated and submitted by an administrator on the server side.
* Privileged access is available to allow maintenance of the JetWeb Server. It allows the update of the static webpages associated with the application. It controls the upload of new data to the JetWeb database. It also manages the running of new batch jobs, facilitating submission of new jobs and monitoring of incomplete runs.

## 4 User guide

This section outlines the expected use of the web pages (http://jetweb.hep.ucl.ac.uk) for a normal (unprivileged) user.

The top-level welcome page (Figure 5) provides the user with several options. Down the left hand side are various short cuts to static web pages. These include

* A short-cut to the current best fit for each simulation package used.
* Lists of all fits currently in the database.
* An extensive bibliography with references to the data used in JetWeb, presentations using results from JetWeb, and other related work.
* Documentation of the simulations currently available in HZTOOL.
* Links to the experiments whose data are used in JetWeb.

In the central section of the page are links allowing the user to

* Query the database directly
* Access previously prepared searches

### 4.1 Querying the database for existing results

#### 4.1.1 Prepared searches

A selection of standard queries relating to specific parameters or physics studies are listed on the JetWeb welcome page. Following the links from here gives access to all the fits as well as a summary of conclusions to be drawn from them.

#### 4.1.2 Interactive searches

On the welcome page, clicking ‘Search the Database’ causes a parameter input form to be displayed, as shown in Figure 6.

* Common parameters; various parameters common to all generators can be entered on first part of form
* Generator specific parameters: The search may be restricted to specialised parameters for a particular generator. Currenly HERWIG and PYTHIA are implemented.

+ HERWIG parameters. Check Generator - HERWIG. Click ‘Change HERWIG parameters’. This will display additional fields for the HERWIG parameters to be entered.
    + PYTHIA parameters. Check Generator - PYTHIA. Click ‘Change PYTHIA parameters’. Boxes will be displayed to enter the number and value of each MSTP and PARP parameter to be specified. Enter the values and press ‘Add’. MSTP and PARP parameters which have been set will be displayed on the form. To remove a value, enter its number in the relevant field, but leave the corresponding box blank, then press ‘Add’. Specify all the parameters required in this way before continuing with the search.
* The sort order of results can be specified by choosing a value from the ‘sort results…’ list at the top of the form.
* Results can be filtered by selecting a value for the ‘only show results..’ list at the top of the form. Some models in the database will have been compared to a subset of the available data only. This option allows the user to exclude any models that have not been compared to the chosen data.
* Submit a search by clicking ‘Get Results’ at the top of the form.

#### 4.1.3 Query output

If a search is successful, brief summaries of the available results will be listed. Each Job Result will also have a link (‘Plots etc’) for access to a detailed description of the Fit and the actual histograms showing the comparison (Figure 7).

If there are no data corresponding to the input search parameters, the JetWeb Request form will be displayed with the required parameters filled in. From here, a request can be made for a new job to be run.

### 4.2 Request new jobs

Job requests can be made in two contexts

* Search fails to find results - this brings up the JobRequest form with the failed search parameters filled in.
* A request for additional data can be made from the Fit Details page, Figure 7, for each job. First, the collider must be selected. More data for a particular collider (with unchanged job parameters) can be requested using the ‘Request highwer statistics’ option, while ‘Request similar data’ allows a new job to be specified with altered parameters. The latter option accesses the job request form, allowing the user to vary a subset of parameters while guaranteeing that all others will remain identical to those of the originally selected fit.

## 5 Developer guide

This section is intended to outline ways in which the application could be altered or enhanced to expand its scope. It should be used as a guide for developers in conjunction with JavaDoc for the JetWeb java application, and other documentation on the JetWeb website (jetweb.hep.ucl.ac.uk).

### 5.1 To switch database

MySQL is a simple relational SQL database with a JDBC driver available. The database is accessed from the java object model using the ucl.hep.jetweb.db package. Minimal changes would be required to convert to another SQL database (probably just changing the relevant JDBC driver). For conversion to a different type of database, new database manager classes would be required, implementing the same interface as the existing DBManager, DBFitManager and DBPlotManager.

### 5.2 To switch user interface

The interface of the ucl.hep.jetweb.servlet package would have to be implemented by any alternative UI. This application was originally run using a Java Swing UI. It should be very straightforward to implement a simple command-line interface. A new UI would replace the ucl.hep.jetweb.servlet package; accessing the same methods on ucl.hep.jetweb.ResultManager.

### 5.3 To add new measurements

There is a main method on Paper which adds new RealPlots to the database. To produce new PredictedPlots, the appropriate HZTool routines must be provided and called, and the Fortran modified to output XML data files for the new histograms.

### 5.4 To add a new simulation package

The major work here would be to interface the new package to HZTool (or an equivalent package capable of producing suitable output files - see below). In addition, tables would have to be added to the database specifying any extra parameters needed to define a model with the new simulation package.

### 5.5 To add information or new formatting to the web pages

The ucl.hep.jetweb.html package and specifically the HTMLWriter class is responsible for constructing the JetWeb web pages. Thus, changing the layout or content of these pages necessitates modification of this class’s methods.

### 5.6 To add servlet queries

The user requests fits by filling in an HTML form. A ucl.hep.jetweb.ResultSearchPattern and a ucl.hep.jetweb.PlotSelection are built from the HTML form. A database query is constructed from these objects. To add new parameters to user queries, the relevant fields must be added to ResultSearchPattern and PlotSelection, and the database query methods updated to incorporate these new fields.

### 5.7 To add HTML queries

The prepared searches available from the welcome page are simple HTML forms that are submitted to the server. These forms can be used as templates for users to prepare their own standard (or often repeated) searches.

### 5.8 To input data

#### 5.8.1 XML

Data is loaded into the JetWeb application in the form of XML files generated by the HZTool FORTRAN routine. The format of these files is derived from the JAS DTD - plotML. Although the XML files produced are valid plotML files, in fact only a subset of the elements in plotML are used. Thus, the JetWeb XML format can also be represented by a reduced size plotML (Figures 8 and 9). An example XML file using this reduced plotML DTD is included in the appendix. The ucl.hep.jetweb.plots.JetWebXMLReader reads in XML documents (reduced plotML format) using the JDOM utility . JetWebXMLReader will ignore any additional elements present in the files. The XMLReader utility could also be adapted to read

* a wider range of plotML documents;
* a different XML format.

However, it would be simpler to retain the original plotML Reader and use an XSL stylesheet to convert between XML formats, if this should be required.

One consequence of adopting the plotML input format for the java object model is that any program capable of producing plotML histograms can be used to provide simulation data for JetWeb. Currently a Fortran routine (h2XML) is provided (and is available from the web pages) to convert HBOOK histograms to the reduced plotML format described above. To allow JetWeb to read data from other formats, similar conversion facilities would be required.

### 5.9 To output data

#### 5.9.1 HTML

The ucl.hep.jetweb.html package is responsible for producing the web front end for JetWeb. Some of the classes (including Paper, DataPlot and JobResult) have toHTML methods. These should really be migrated to the HTML package in future releases.

#### 5.9.2 XML

The JDOM functionality could be used in an XMLWriter class which would reconstruct the XML documents from the object model. The documents could be constructed in plotML, or another DTD.

#### 5.9.3 XML, HTML, any text format

XSL stylesheets can be used to convert XML documents from one format to another. If several formats were required, only a single XMLWriter utility, used in conjunction with stylesheets, could produce multiple output formats including XML, HTML - allowing direct visualisation of data on a webpage - and plain text.

#### 5.9.4 Plots

ucl.hep.jetweb.plots.DataPlot and its subclasses can be output as gif files using the JAS utility. This utility is still under development and supports an increasing variety of output formats, including encapsulated postscript. If an unsupported format of plot file were required, it would probably be simplest to extract the data in XML format to be submitted to the plotting facility.

### 5.10 Batch job submission

Job submission from the server side is made in several ways. There are options for submission to UK particle physics grid  as well as direct submission to local batch systems. This is transparent to the general user. To submit to new facilties, template scripts must be provided and the extra protocols added to the ucl.hep.jetweb.script package.

## 6 Future plans

There are several obvious and important developments of the JetWeb facility which should take place. Some of these are described below.

Server side submission of jobs to the Grid has already been implemented. It is also likely that the database itself will become directly accessible as a grid data resource.

The Fortran library HZTOOL should eventually be augmented or replaced by a similar package following an object-oriented design. This is motivated by the advantages of OO design principals, the declining knowledge base in Fortran and the likely future requirement to validate C++ versions of the general purpose generators, PYTHIA7 & HERWIG++, which are currently under development.

In addition to the new versions of those generators, several next-to-leading order QCD generators are under development and these could be tested with this facility.

Finally, there are major data sets and classes of data which should be added to a truly ‘global’ validation facility, for example LEP and SLD hadronic data from the $`Z`$, HERA deep inelastic scattering data and data from proton machines other than the Tevatron.

## Acknowledgements

Thanks to Brian Cox and Ben Waugh for useful discussions, encouragement and CPU.

## Appendix

### 6.1 HZTool XML output file - example

```

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<!DOCTYPE plotML SYSTEM "plotML.dtd">
<plotML>
  <plot>
    <title>
      <border type="None"/>
      <label text="Jet ET > 4 GeV">
        <font style="BOLD" points="14" face="SansSerif"/>
      </label>
    </title>
    <legend visible="never">
    </legend>
    <dataArea>
      <border type="None"/>
      <!--
ΨEach of the following data1d elements contains a single point.
ΨThis handles variable bin widths.
Ψ(For a constant bin width histogram,
Ψ only one data1d element would be required,
Ψ with all data points in a single string,
Ψ separated by carriage returns)
       -->
      <data1d axis="y0">
        <bins1d title=" ">
          0.49,0.14,0.14
        </bins1d>
        <binnedDataAxisAttributes max="-1.4" numberOfBins="1"
          min="-1.15" type="double" axis="x"/>
        <style1d dataPointSize="6" showErrorBars="true"
          histogramBarsFilled="true" showLinesBetweenPoints="false"
          errorBarColor="Black" dataPointStyle="dot" showHistogramBars="false"
          lineColor="Black" dataPointColor="Black" showDataPoints="true"
          histogramBarColor="Blue"/>
      </data1d>
      <data1d axis="y0">
        <bins1d title=" ">
          0.88,0.22,0.22
        </bins1d>
        <binnedDataAxisAttributes axis="x" numberOfBins="1"
          min="-0.8999999999999999" type="double" max="-1.15"/>
        <style1d dataPointSize="6" showErrorBars="true"
          histogramBarsFilled="true" showLinesBetweenPoints="false"
          dataPointStyle="dot"
          errorBarColor="Black" showHistogramBars="false" lineColor="Black"
          dataPointColor="Black" showDataPoints="true"
Ψ  histogramBarColor="Red"/>
      </data1d>
      <data1d axis="y0">
        <bins1d title=" ">
          0.92,0.24,0.24
        </bins1d>
        <binnedDataAxisAttributes axis="x" numberOfBins="1"
          min="-0.7" type="double" max="-0.9000000000000001"/>
        <style1d dataPointSize="6" showErrorBars="true"
          histogramBarsFilled="true" showLinesBetweenPoints="false"
ΨdataPointStyle="dot"
          errorBarColor="Black" showHistogramBars="false" lineColor="Black"
          dataPointColor="Black" showDataPoints="true"
Ψ  histogramBarColor="Fuchsia"/>
      </data1d>
      <data1d axis="y0">
        <bins1d title=" ">
          0.83,0.14,0.14
        </bins1d>
        <binnedDataAxisAttributes axis="x" numberOfBins="1"
          min="-0.5" type="double" max="-0.7"/>
        <style1d dataPointSize="6" showErrorBars="true"
          histogramBarsFilled="true" showLinesBetweenPoints="false"
Ψ  dataPointStyle="dot"
          errorBarColor="Black" showHistogramBars="false" lineColor="Black"
          dataPointColor="Black" showDataPoints="true"
          histogramBarColor="Yellow"/>
      </data1d>
      <data1d axis="y0">
        <bins1d title=" ">
          0.85,0.17,0.17
        </bins1d>
        <binnedDataAxisAttributes axis="x" numberOfBins="1"
          min="-0.30000000000000004" type="double" max="-0.5"/>
        <style1d dataPointSize="6" showErrorBars="true"
          histogramBarsFilled="true" showLinesBetweenPoints="false"
Ψ  dataPointStyle="dot"
          errorBarColor="Black" showHistogramBars="false" lineColor="Black"
          dataPointColor="Black" showDataPoints="true"
          histogramBarColor="Lime"/>
      </data1d>
      <data1d axis="y0">
        <bins1d title=" ">
          0.78,0.14,0.14
        </bins1d>
        <binnedDataAxisAttributes axis="x" numberOfBins="1"
          min="-0.10000000000000003" type="double" max="-0.3"/>
        <style1d dataPointSize="6" showErrorBars="true"
          histogramBarsFilled="true" showLinesBetweenPoints="false"
Ψ  dataPointStyle="dot"
          errorBarColor="Black" showHistogramBars="false" lineColor="Black"
          dataPointColor="Black" showDataPoints="true"
          histogramBarColor="Orange"/>
      </data1d>
      <data1d axis="y0">
        <bins1d title=" ">
          0.54,0.12,0.12
        </bins1d>
        <binnedDataAxisAttributes axis="x" numberOfBins="1"
          min="0.04000000000000001" type="double" max="-0.1"/>
        <style1d dataPointSize="6" showErrorBars="true"
          histogramBarsFilled="true" showLinesBetweenPoints="false"
Ψ  dataPointStyle="dot"
          errorBarColor="Black" showHistogramBars="false" lineColor="Black"
          dataPointColor="Black" showDataPoints="true"
          histogramBarColor="Aqua"/>
      </data1d>
      <axis logarithmic="false" showOverflows="false"
        numberOfBins="50" allowSuppressedZero="true" type="double"
        location="x0">
        <label text="xgamma">
          <font style="PLAIN" face="Dialog" points="12"/>
        </label>
        <font style="PLAIN" face="Dialog" points="12"/>
      </axis>
      <axis logarithmic="false" showOverflows="false" min="0.0"
        allowSuppressedZero="true" type="double" max="1.0120000000000002"
Ψlocation="y0">
        <label text="d(sigma)/d(xgamma) (nb)">
          <font style="PLAIN" face="Dialog" points="12"/>
        </label>
        <font style="PLAIN" face="Dialog" points="12"/>
      </axis>
    </dataArea>
    <bounds width="400" height="400"/>
    <colorScheme foregroundColor="default"
      backgroundColor="(255,215,0)"/>
  </plot>
</plotML>

```


text:
# The bitensor algebra through operads

## 1 Introduction

Throughout this note we will work in the category of vector spaces over a field $`k`$. At some point we need to restrict to 1-reduced (non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) cooperads. A 1-reduced (non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) cooperad is a (non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) cooperad $`C`$ such that $`C(1)=k`$, and $`C(0)=0`$. For a collection $`C`$ we will extensively use the grading on the total space $`_nC(n)`$ defined by $`\left(_nC(n)\right)^m=C(m+1)`$. Throughout this note we denote by $`T`$ the unital free associative algebra functor, and by $`T^+`$ the non-unital free associative algebra functor. Similarly, $`S`$ (resp. $`S^+`$) will denote the free unital (reps. non-unital) commutative algebra functor. On pointed vector spaces (i.e. vector spaces $`V`$ together with a non-zero linear map $`u:kV`$), we define the pointed tensor algebra $`T_{}V`$ as the quotient of $`TV`$ by the ideal generated by $`(1u(1))`$. Similarly, we define $`S_{}V`$ as the quotient of $`SV`$ by the ideal generated by $`(1u(1))`$. Let $`B`$ be a bialgebra with comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. To $`B`$ we associate the opposite bialgebra $`B^{\text{op}}`$ with comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\text{op}}=s\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`s`$ is the symmetry of the tensor product. We will use that $`B`$ is a Hopf algebra iff $`B^{\text{op}}`$ is a Hopf algebra.

## 2 Constructions

###### 2.1 Definition ()

Let $`C`$ be a non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ cooperad with cocomposition given by maps

$$\gamma ^{}:C(n)\underset{k,n_1+\mathrm{}+n_k=n}{}C(k)(C(n_1)\mathrm{}C(n_k)).$$

Define the graded bialgebra $`B_C`$ to be the tensor algebra $`T(_nC(n))`$ on the total space of $`C`$ as a graded algebra (w.r.t. the usual grading of the total space). Use the natural inclusions

$$i_1:C(k)T(\underset{m}{}C(m)),\text{and}i_2:C(n_1)\mathrm{}C(n_k)T(\underset{m}{}C(m))$$

to define the coproduct on generators as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=(i_1i_2)\gamma ^{}$$

Extend as an algebra morphism. Define a counit $`\epsilon `$ such that $`\epsilon `$ vanishes on generators of degree $`0`$, and $`\epsilon |_{C(1)}=\epsilon _C`$, the coidentity of $`C`$. Again extend this as an algebra morphism. Coassociativity and counitality are immediate from the corresponding properties for $`C`$.

###### 2.2 Definition ()

Let $`C`$ be a cooperad (with $`S_n`$-action on $`C(n)`$). The bialgebra structure defined above descends to the symmetric algebra $`S(_nC(n)_{S_n})`$ on the total space of coinvariants of $`C`$. This bialgebra is denoted $`\overline{B}_C`$. To see that this bialgebra is welldefined, just note that for a cooperad we can write the cocomposition as

$$\gamma ^{}:C(n)\underset{k}{}(\underset{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_k=n}{}C(k)(C(n_1)\mathrm{}C(n_k)))^{S_k}.$$

###### 2.3 Definition ()

Let $`C`$ be a 1-reduced non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ cooperad. Define the Hopf algebra $`H_C`$ to be $`T_{}(_nC(n))`$ as an algebra with respect to the basepoint given by the inclusion of $`C(1)=k`$. The coalgebra structure is induced by the coalgebra structure on $`B_C`$. Since $`H_C`$ is a connected graded bialgebra, the existence of an antipode is assured.

###### 2.4 Definition ()

If $`C`$ be a 1-reduced cooperad, the Hopf algebra structure descends to the pointed symmetric algebra $`S_{}(_nC(n)^{S_n})`$ on the total space of invariants of $`C`$. This Hopf algebra is denoted $`\overline{H}_C`$.

###### 2.5 Definition ()

Let $`B`$ be a bialgebra. Let $`C_B`$ the non$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ cooperad $`C_B(n)=B^n`$ (for $`n1`$), with the cocomposition $`\gamma ^{}`$ defined on summands by the diagram below.

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the coproduct of $`B^n`$, and $`\mu _i:B^{n_i}B`$ is the multiplication of the algebra $`B`$. In Sweedler’s notation one can write the cocomposition $`\gamma ^{}`$ of $`C_B`$ on a generator $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)C_B(n)`$ as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma ^{}& (x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)=\hfill \\ & (x_{(1)}^1\mathrm{}x_{(1)}^{n_1},\mathrm{},x_{(1)}^{nn_k+1}\mathrm{}x_{(1)}^n)((x_{(2)}^1,\mathrm{},x_{(2)}^{n_1})\mathrm{}(x_{(2)}^{nn_k+1},\mathrm{},x_{(2)}^n)),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the first sum is over all $`k`$ and all partitions $`n=n_1+\mathrm{}+n_k`$, and the second sum is the sum of the Sweedler notation, and where $``$ denotes the product of $`B`$. Note that the unit of $`B`$ makes $`C_B`$ a coaugmented non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ cooperad. If the bialgebra $`B`$ is commutative, then $`C_B`$ is a cooperad.

## 3 The Bitensor Algebra

Recall the bialgebras $`T(T^+(B))`$ and $`S(S^+(B))`$ (Brouder ). Comparing the equation for $`\gamma ^{}`$ in Sweedler’s notation with Brouder’s formulas yields the following result.

###### 3.1 Corollary

Let $`B`$ be a bialgebra. The bialgebra $`T(T^+(B))`$ is isomorphic to the opposite bialgebra of $`B_{C_B}`$. If $`B`$ is commutative, the bialgebra $`S(S^+(B))`$ is isomorphic to the opposite bialgebra of $`\overline{B}_{C_B}`$.

Let $`C`$ be a coaugmented cooperad. Then the collection $`C^{>1}`$ defined by $`C^{>1}(1)=k`$ and $`C^{>1}(n)=C(n)`$ for $`n>1`$ is a 1-reduced cooperad with cocomposition induced by cocomposition in $`C`$.

###### 3.2 Corollary

The Pinter Hopf algebra associated to $`T(T^+(B))`$ (cf.  for terminology) is isomorphic to the opposite Hopf algebra of $`H_{C_B^{>1}}`$, and for $`B`$ commutative the Pinter Hopf algebra associated to $`S(S^+(B))`$ is isomorphic to the opposite Hopf algebra of $`\overline{H}_{C_B^{>1}}`$.

Pepijn van der Laan (vdlaan@math.uu.nl) and Ieke Moerdijk (moerdijk@math.uu.nl)

Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Utrecht, P.O.Box 80.010, 3508TA Utrecht, The Netherlands


text:
# Black hole, string ball, and 𝑝-brane production at hadronic supercolliders 1footnote 11footnote 1Talk presented in the SUSY02, DESY, Hamburg, Germany, June 2002

## I Introduction

In a model of large extra dimensions (ADD model) arkani , the fundamental Planck scale can be as low as a few TeV, which is made possible by localizing the SM particles on a brane while gravity is free to propagate in all dimensions. The observed Planck scale ($`10^{19}`$ GeV) is then a derived quantity. Signatures for the ADD model can be divided into two categories: sub-Planckian and trans-Planckian. The former has been studied extensively, while the latter just recently received more attention, especially black hole production in hadronic collisions.

The fact that the fundamental Planck scale is as low as TeV opens up an interesting possibility of producing a large number of black holes at collider experiments (e.g. LHC) hole ; scott ; greg . Reference emp  showed that a BH localized on a brane will radiate mainly in the brane, instead of radiating into the Kaluza-Klein states of gravitons of the bulk. In this case, the BH so produced will decay mainly into the SM particles, which can then be detected in the detector. This opportunity has enabled investigation of the properties of BH at terrestrial collider experiments.

An important quantity of a BH is its entropy $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}`$. To fulfill the thermodynamical description, a BH requires a large entropy of order of 25 giddings . Such an entropy requirement implies that the BH mass must be at least five times the fundamental Planck scale giddings ; me . This mass requirement makes the BH production not as large as previously calculated in a number of works scott ; greg , first pointed out in Ref. me . In addition, the signature of large multiplicity decay of a BH can only happen when the entropy is large. Even taking into account this mass requirement, the event rate is still large enough for detection. A typical signature of the BH decay is a high multiplicity, isothermal event, very much like a spherical “fireball.”

Other interesting trans-Planckian phenomena include string balls emparan  and $`p`$-branes ahn . Dimopoulos and Emparan emparan  pointed out that when a BH reaches a minimum mass, it transits into a state of highly excited and jagged strings – a string ball (SB). The transition point is at

$$M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{M_s}{g_s^2},$$
(1)
where $`M_s`$ is the string scale and $`g_s`$ is the string coupling. Naively, SB’s are stringy progenitors of BH’s. The BH correspondence principle states that properties of a BH with a mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=M_s/g_s^2`$ match those of a string ball with $`M_{\mathrm{SB}}=M_s/g_s^2`$. We can then equate the production cross sections of SB and BH at the transition point. The existence of string balls could be argued from the string point of view. When the energy of the scattering reaches the string scale, the scattering of particles is no longer described by point-particle scattering but replaced by string-string scattering. As the energy goes further up, the strings become highly excited, jagged and entangled string states, and become like a string ball. When the energy reaches the transition point, it turns into a BH. In the above we mentioned a large entropy requirement on the BH in order for the object to be a BH. Such a large mass requirement makes the production cross section smaller than previously thought. Here in the case of SB’s, the mass requirement is substantially lower, thus the production rate is significantly higher. Hence, an SB is more interesting in the experimental point of view if it decays with a distinct signature. Dimopoulos and Emparan emparan  argued that the decay of a SB is similar to that of a BH, i.e., a high multiplicity decay into the SM particles, though in some intermediate stages the SB decays more likely into bulk particles.

A $`p`$-brane is a solution to the Einstein equation in higher dimensions ahn . A BH can be considered a $`0`$-brane. In fact, the properties of $`p`$-branes reduce to those of a BH in the limit $`p0`$. In extra dimension models, in which there are large extra dimensions and small extra dimensions of the size of the Planck length, let a $`p`$-brane wrap on $`r`$ small and $`pr`$ large dimensions. It was found ahn  that the production of $`p`$-branes is comparable to BH’s only when $`r=p`$, i.e., the $`p`$-brane wraps entirely on the small dimensions only. If $`r<p`$, the production of $`p`$-branes would be suppressed by powers of $`(M_{}/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})`$, where $`M_{}`$ is the fundamental scale of the $`4+n`$ dimensions. Therefore, here we only consider the case in which $`r=p`$. The decay of $`p`$ branes is not well understood. One interesting possibility is cascade into branes of lower dimensions until they reach the dimension of zero. Whether the zero brane is stable depends on the model. Another possibility is the decay into brane and bulk particles, thus experimentally the decay can be observed. Or it can be a combination of cascade into lower-dimensional branes and direct decays. $`p`$-brane production in the unconfined scenario (e.g. in universal extra dimensions or fat-brane scenario) was studied in Ref. chou .

BH production has also been studied in cosmic ray experiments and neutrino telescopes feng , which are complementary to or even better than the LHC for BH discovery.

## II Production

### II.1 Black holes

A black hole is characterized by its Schwarzschild radius $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ and its entropy, which depend on the mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ of the BH. A simplified picture for BH production is as follows. When the colliding partons have a center-of-mass (c.o.m.) energy above some thresholds of order of the Planck mass and the impact parameter less than the Schwarzschild radius $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, a BH is formed and almost at rest in the c.o.m. frame. The BH so produced will decay thermally (regardless of the incoming particles) and thus isotropically in that frame.

The Schwarzschild radius $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ of a BH of mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ in $`4+n`$ dimensions is given by myers

$$R_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{1}{M_D}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_D}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\left(\frac{2^n\pi ^{\frac{n3}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+3}{2})}{n+2}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}=\frac{1}{M_D}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_D}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}f(n),$$
(2)
where $`f(n)`$ is introduced for convenience and $`M_D`$ is the fundamental Planck scale. The radius $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is much smaller than the size of the extra dimensions. When the colliding partons with a center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ pass within a distance less than $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, a black hole of mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is formed and the rest of the energy, if there is any, is radiated as ordinary SM particles me . This semiclassical argument calls for a geometric approximation for the cross section for producing a BH of mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ as

$$\sigma (M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2)\pi R_{\mathrm{BH}}^2.$$
(3)
In the $`21`$ subprocess, the c.o.m. energy of the colliding partons is just the same as the mass of the BH, i.e., $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}=M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, which implies a subprocess cross section

$$\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s})=d\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}{\widehat{s}}\right)\pi R_{\mathrm{BH}}^2\delta \left(1M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2/\widehat{s}\right)=\pi R_{\mathrm{BH}}^2.$$
(4)
On the other hand, for the $`2k(k2)`$ subprocesses the subprocess cross section is

$$\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{s})=_{(M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2)_{\mathrm{min}}/\widehat{s}}^1d\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}^2}{\widehat{s}}\right)\pi R_{\mathrm{BH}}^2.$$
(5)
The entropy of a BH is given by myers

$$S_{\mathrm{BH}}=\frac{4\pi }{n+2}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_D}\right)^{\frac{n+2}{n+1}}\left(\frac{2^n\pi ^{\frac{n3}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+3}{2})}{n+2}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}.$$
(6)
To ensure the validity of the above classical description of a BH giddings , the entropy must be sufficiently large, of order 25 or so. We verified that when $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}/M_D5`$, the entropy $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}25`$ me0 . Therefore, to avoid getting into the nonperturbative regime of the BH and to ensure the validity of the semiclassical formula, we restrict the mass of the BH to be $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}5M_D`$.

### II.2 String balls

According to the BH correspondence principle, the production cross section of a string ball or a BH should be smoothly joined at $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=M_s/g_s^2`$, i.e.,

$$\sigma (SB)|_{M_{SB}=M_s/g_s^2}=\sigma (BH)|_{M_{BH}=M_s/g_s^2}.$$

The production cross section for string balls with mass between the string scale $`M_s`$ and $`M_s/g_s`$ grows with $`s`$ until $`M_s/g_s`$, beyond which, due to unitarity, it should stay constant. Therefore, we can use the BH cross section and match to the string ball cross section at the transition point $`M_s/g_s^2`$. This string ball cross section then stays constant between $`M_s/g_s`$ and $`M_s/g_s^2`$. Then below $`M_s/g_s`$ the string ball cross section grows like $`M_{\mathrm{SB}}^2/M_s^4`$.

The cross sections for the SB or BH are given by

$$\widehat{\sigma }(\mathrm{SB}/\mathrm{BH})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\pi }{M_D^2}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_D}\right)^{\frac{2}{n+1}}\left[f(n)\right]^2\hfill & \frac{M_s}{g_s^2}M_{\mathrm{BH}}\hfill \\ \frac{\pi }{M_D^2}\left(\frac{M_s/g_s^2}{M_D}\right)^{\frac{2}{n+1}}\left[f(n)\right]^2=\frac{\pi }{M_s^2}\left[f(n)\right]^2\hfill & \frac{M_s}{g_s}M_{\mathrm{SB}}\frac{M_s}{g_s^2}\hfill \\ \frac{\pi g_s^2M_{\mathrm{SB}}^2}{M_s^4}\left[f(n)\right]^2\hfill & M_sM_{\mathrm{SB}}\frac{M_s}{g_s}\hfill \end{array},$$
(7)
in which we have set $`M_D^{n+2}=\frac{M_s^{n+2}}{g_s^2}`$.

### II.3 $`p`$-Branes

Consider an uncharged and static $`p`$-brane with a mass $`M_{p\mathrm{B}}`$ in $`(4+n)`$-dimensional space-time ($`m`$ small Planckian size and $`nm`$ large size extra dimensions such that $`np`$). Suppose the $`p`$-brane wraps on $`r(m)`$ small extra dimensions and on $`pr(nm)`$ large extra dimensions. Then the “radius” of the $`p`$-brane is

$$R_{p\mathrm{B}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }M_{}}\gamma (n,p)V_{p\mathrm{B}}^{\frac{1}{1+np}}\left(\frac{M_{p\mathrm{B}}}{M_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+np}},$$
(8)
where $`V_{p\mathrm{B}}`$ is the volume wrapped by the $`p`$-brane in units of the Planckian length. The $`M_{}`$ is related to $`M_D`$ by

$$M_D^{n+2}=\frac{(2\pi )^n}{8\pi }M_{}^{n+2}.$$

Recall $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=M_{}^2l_{nm}^{nm}l_m^m`$, where $`l_{nm}L_{nm}M_{}`$ and $`l_mL_mM_{}`$ are the lengths of the size of the large and small extra dimensions in units of Planckian length ($`1/M_{}`$). Then $`V_{p\mathrm{B}}`$ is given by

$$V_{p\mathrm{B}}=l_{nm}^{pr}l_m^r\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{M_{}}\right)^{\frac{2(pr)}{nm}},$$
(9)
where we have taken $`l_mL_mM_{}1`$. The function $`\gamma (n,p)`$ is given by

$$\gamma (n,p)=\left[8\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3+np}{2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{1+p}{(n+2)(2+np)}}\right]^{\frac{1}{1+np}}.$$
(10)
The $`R_{p\mathrm{B}}`$ reduces to the $`R_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ in the limit $`p=0`$.

The production cross section of a $`p`$-brane is similar to that of BH’s, based on a naive geometric argument ahn , i.e.,

$$\widehat{\sigma }(M_{p\mathrm{B}})=\pi R_{p\mathrm{B}}^2.$$
(11)
Therefore, the production cross section for a $`p`$-brane is the same as BH’s in the limit $`p=0`$ (i.e., a BH can be considered a $`0`$-brane). In $`21`$ and $`2k(k2)`$ processes, the parton-level cross sections are given by similar expressions in Eqs. (4) and (5), respectively. Assuming that their masses are the same and the production threshold $`M^{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the same, the ratio of cross sections is

$$R\frac{\widehat{\sigma }(M_{p\mathrm{B}}=M)}{\widehat{\sigma }(M_{\mathrm{BH}}=M)}=\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^{\frac{4(pr)}{(nm)(1+np)}}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^{\frac{2p}{(1+n)(1+np)}}\left(\frac{\gamma (n,p)}{\gamma (n,0)}\right)^2.$$
(12)
In the above equation, the most severe suppression factor is in the first set of parentheses on the right-hand side. Since we are considering physics of TeV $`M_{}`$, the factor $`(M_{}/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})10^{16}10^{15}`$. Thus, the only meaningful production of a $`p`$-brane occurs for $`r=p`$, and then their production is comparable.

## III Production at the LHC and VLHC

The production of BH’s and SB’s depends on $`M_s,n,M_D,g_s`$. Since we also require the transition point ($`M_s/g_s^2`$) at $`5M_D`$, we can therefore solve for $`M_s`$ and $`g_s`$ for a given pair of $`M_D`$ and $`n`$. We present the results in terms of $`M_D`$ and $`n`$. The minimum mass requirement for the SB is set at $`2M_s`$. The production of a $`p`$-brane also depends on $`m`$ and $`r`$. For an interesting level of event rates, $`r`$ has to be equal to $`p`$, i.e., the $`p`$-brane wraps entirely on small (of Planck length) extra dimensions.

In Fig. 1(a), we show the total production cross sections for BH’s, SB’s, and $`p`$-branes, including the $`21`$ and $`22`$ subprocesses (when computing the $`22`$ subprocess we require a $`p_T`$ cut of 500 GeV to prevent double counting). Typically, the $`22`$ subprocess contributes at a level of less than 10%. For the BH, SB, and $`p`$-brane, we show the results for $`n=3`$ and $`n=6`$. The results for $`n=4,5`$ lie in between. Since we require $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}^{\mathrm{min}},M_{p\mathrm{B}}^{\mathrm{min}}=5M_D`$, their production is only sizable when $`\sqrt{s}`$ reaches about 10 TeV, unlike the SB, which only requires $`M_{\mathrm{SB}}^{\mathrm{min}}=2M_s`$. The $`p`$-brane cross section is about a few times larger than the BH, as we have chosen $`r=p=m=n2`$. String ball production is, on average, two orders of magnitude larger than that of a BH in the energy range between 20 and 60 TeV. Below 20 TeV (e.g., at the LHC), the SB cross section is at least three orders of magnitude larger than the BH. Integrated cross sections for the LHC in Table 1. Sensitivity information can be drawn from the table. The event rates for BH and $`p`$-brane production are negligible for $`M_D=2.5`$ TeV and only moderate at $`M_D=2`$ TeV. At $`M_D=2`$ TeV, the number of BH events that can be produced in one year running (100 fb<sup>-1</sup>) is about $`120340`$ for $`n=37`$ while the number for $`p`$-brane events is $`2101300`$. Therefore, the sensitivity for a detectable signal rate for a BH and a $`p`$-brane is only around 2 TeV, if not much larger than 2 TeV. The SB event rate is much higher. Even at $`M_D=3`$ TeV, the cross section is of order of 30 pb. In Table 1, we also show the $`\sigma (\mathrm{SB})`$ for $`M_D=46`$ TeV. Roughly, the sensitivity is around 6 TeV.

The VLHC (very large hadron collider) is another $`pp`$ accelerator under discussions vlhc  in the Snowmass 2001 snowmass . The preliminary plan is to have an initial stage of about 40–60 TeV center-of-mass energy, and later an increase up to 200 TeV. The targeted luminosity is $`(12)\times 10^{34}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. In Fig. 1(b), we show the total production cross sections for BH’s, SB’s, and $`p`$-branes for $`\sqrt{s}=60200`$ TeV and for $`n=3`$ and $`6`$. We found that the sensitivity reaches for BH and $`p`$-brane production are roughly between $`6`$ and $`7`$ TeV for $`\sqrt{s}=50`$ TeV, $`10`$ and $`13`$ TeV for $`\sqrt{s}=100`$ TeV, $`14`$ and $`18`$ TeV for $`\sqrt{s}=150`$ TeV, and $`20`$ and $`25`$ TeV for $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ TeV. These estimates are rather crude based on the requirement that the number of raw events is $`50100`$.

## IV Decay Signatures

The main phase of the decay of a BH is via the Hawking evaporation. An important observation is that the wavelength $`\lambda `$ of the thermal spectrum corresponding to the Hawking temperature is larger than the size of the BH. This implies that the BH evaporates like a point source in $`s`$-waves, therefore it decays equally into brane and bulk modes, and will not see the higher angular momentum states available in the extra dimensions. Since on the brane there are many more particles than in the bulk, the BH decays dominantly into brane modes, i.e., the SM particles in the setup. Furthermore, the BH evaporates “blindly” into all degrees of freedom. The ratio of the degrees of freedom for gauge bosons, quarks, and leptons is $`29:72:18`$ (the Higgs boson is not included). Since the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ decay with a branching ratio of about 70% into quarks, and the gluon also gives rise to hadronic activities, the final ratio of hadronic to leptonic activities in the BH decay is about $`5:1`$ scott .

Another important property of the BH decay is the large number of particles, in accord with the large entropy in Eq. (6), in the process of evaporation. It was shown scott ; greg  that the average multiplicity $`N`$ in the decay of a BH is order of $`1030`$ for $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ being a few times $`M_D`$ for $`n=26`$. Since we are considering the BH that has an entropy of order 25 or more, it guarantees a high multiplicity BH decay. The BH decays more or less isotropically and each decay particle has an average energy of a few hundred GeV. Therefore, if the BH is at rest, the event is very much like a spherical event with many particles of hundreds of GeV pointing back to the interaction point (very much like a fireball). On the other hand, if the BH is produced in association with other SM particles (as in a $`2k`$ subprocess), the BH decay will be a boosted spherical event on one side (a boosted fireball), the transverse momentum of which is balanced by a few particles on the other side me . Such spectacular events should have a negligible background.

Highly excited long strings emit massless quanta with a thermal spectrum at the Hagedorn temperature. At $`M_{\mathrm{SB}}M_s/g_s^2`$, the wavelength $`\lambda `$ corresponding to the thermal spectrum at the Hagedorn temperature is larger than $`R_{\mathrm{SB}}`$. This argument is very similar to that of the BH, and so the string ball radiates like a point source and emits in $`s`$-waves equally into brane and bulk modes. With many more particles (SM particles) on the brane than in the bulk, the SB radiates mainly into the SM particles. When $`M_{\mathrm{SB}}`$ goes below $`M_s/g_s^2`$, the SB has the tendency to puff up to a random-walk size as large as the $`\lambda `$ of the emissions emparan . Therefore, it will see more of the higher angular momentum states available in the extra dimensions. Thus, it decays more into the bulk modes, but it is only temporary. When the SB decays further, it shrinks back to the string size and emits as a point source again emparan . Most of the time the SB decays into SM particles. On average, a SB decays into invisible quanta somewhat more often than a BH does.

The decay of $`p`$-branes is not well understood, to some extent we do not even know whether it decays or is stable. Nevertheless, if it decays one possibility is the decay into lower-dimensional branes, thus leading to a cascade of branes. Therefore, they eventually decay to a number of $`0`$-branes, i.e., BH-like objects. This is complicated by the fact that when the $`p`$-branes decay, their masses might not be high enough to become BH’s. Therefore, the final $`0`$-branes might be some excited string states or string balls. Whether the zero brane is stable or not depends on models. Another possibility is decay into brane and bulk particles, thus experimentally the decay can be observed. Or it can be a combination of cascade into lower-dimensional branes and direct decays. Since the size $`R_{p\mathrm{B}}`$ is much smaller than the size of the large extra dimensions, we expect $`p`$-branes to decay mainly into brane particles. However, the above is quite speculative.

This research was supported in part by the National Center for Theoretical Science under a grant from the National Science Council of Taiwan R.O.C.