text:
# HI Absorption in GPS/CSS Sources

## 1 Probing the gas content in GPS/CSS sources

Attempts to study the internal gas properties of GPS/CSS sources have been made in several different wavebands. For instance, optical studies show strong highly excited line emission with large equivalent widths (Gelderman & Whittle 1994), consistent with interactions between the radio source and the interstellar medium. The majority of the small GPS sources are weakly polarised (Stanghellini et al. 1998), suggesting strong depolarisation consistent with a very large central density. Other evidence for a dense environment comes from free-free absorption observations of for instance OQ208 (Kameno et al. 2000) and NGC1052 (e.g. Kellermann et al. 1999; Vermeulen et al. 2002a, 2002b). Another example is Marr et al. (2001) who found evidence for free-free absorption in the GPS 0108+388, consistent with a 100 pc radius disk with an electron density of 500 cm-3. Also in 1946+708 multi-frequency continuum studies show indications of free-free absorption concentrated toward the core and inner parts of the counter-jet, again suggesting a disk or torus origin (Peck et al. 1999). Disk-like kpc-scale distributions of gas have also been found in the optical, and the best example so far is the HST dust disk observed in the GPS 4C 31.04 (Perlman et al. 2001).

Another way to study the gas content in these sources is by spectral absorption experiments, which are advantageous mainly because the sensitivity is independent of the source redshift. With this method small masses of gas may be probed, although high column densities are required. Using the 21 cm line of atomic hydrogen in absorption it is possible to study the atomic hydrogen (H I) content of GPS/CSS sources. The H I is likely only a fraction of the total gas present, therefore the observations provide lower limits to the total gas mass and density. The strength of GPS/CSS sources at cm wavelengths makes them good targets for such experiments, in addition their small sizes indicate that lines of sight to CSSs will sample the dense gas confined within the centre of the host galaxy. Similarly the line of sight to a GPS source will trace gas within the narrow-line region (NLR).

## 2 The sample

In order to increase the statistics of high redshift sources with associated H I absorption, a survey to detect redshifted H I in northern sky sources has been performed using the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT). The WSRT is equipped with wide bandwidth UHF receivers (700-1200 MHz), which enables studies of the redshifted $`\lambda =`$ 21 cm line of neutral hydrogen for 0.19 $`<z<`$ 1.0. Around 60 GPS/CSS sources have been searched at the WSRT so far, as parts of several different projects with slightly varying goals (Vermeulen et al. 2002, in prep.). From those sources we select objects which have projected linear sizes $`<10`$ kpc, and in addition to our own observations we have included lower redshift GPS/CSSs from the literature which had available HI absorption data (see Pihlström 2001).

## 3 Relation between NHI and linear size

Including all targets, our preliminary results show a general H I absorption detection rate of 48%. However, if we make the GPS/CSS division at 1 kpc, we find that the GPS sources have a detection rate of 53% as compared to the CSS detection rate of 36%. This could reflect the fact that the more compact sources have a larger part of their continuum emission covered by nuclear gas. This effect has already been suspected due to the high detection rate of H I absorption in nearby GPS/CSS objects (Conway 1996).

The probable youth of GPS/CSSs implies the possibility of studying the birth of radio sources, and little is known of the mechanisms triggering the radio activity. It has been suggested that mergers could provide a way to transport gas to the centre of the host galaxies and thus be involved in the onset of the nuclear engine. Indeed, optical observations have shown that many of the GPS/CSS sources are in disturbed or interacting systems (de Vries et al. 2000; O’Dea et al. 1996). If the GPS/CSS sources are young sources resulting from mergers, we expect a gas rich galactic nucleus. The amount of gas needed to fuel the AGN is probably much smaller than the total gas mass available, thus we do not expect the total gas mass to be systematically different between sources which are all younger than a million years. However, a radial density profile may be reasonable to assume, and then absorption experiments would probe different column densities of gas as the source grows in size (since most of those objects are lobe-dominated). Using results from our H I absorption studies together with results compiled from the literature, we here investigate if the amount of neutral atomic gas shows any systematic variation with source size.

Despite that a few numbers are still tentative (data reduction is still in progress for a number of objects), there appears to be an anti-correlation between the source linear size and the H I column density (Fig. 1). A visual inspection suggests that the column densities for sources $`<`$ 1 kpc are larger than for those $`>`$ 1kpc. The data set contains upper limits both in H I column density, as well as a few points which have upper limits on their size. We therefore investigated the possible slope in Fig. 1 using the survival analysis package ASURV, taking into account also the upper limits (Lavalley et al. 1992). A Kendall’s Tau test show that there exists a correlation between the column density and the linear size with a probability $`>`$ 99%, while a Spearman’s Rho test shows a correlation with a probability $`>`$ 95%. Linear regression applied with ASURV finds the relationship $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}=`$1020.2$`LS^{0.33}`$; where $`LS`$ is the linear size in kpc. This linear fit is plotted with a dotted line in Fig. 1.

An interesting question is whether the population of small sources have larger column densities because the FWHM of the absorption line is wider, or because the line is deeper. Spearman rank tests show no significant correlation between the observed column densities and line widths, while the peak optical depths and linear sizes are correlated with probability $`>`$95%. This is shown in Figure 2, where the solid line represents a least square linear fit to the data points. The slope is $``$0.32, which implies that the slope in Fig. 1 mainly depends on a difference in the observed opacity and is not due to differences in the line width.

## 4 Origin of absorbing gas

Our first results show that the column density decreases when the linear size increases, implying a gas density which decreases with radius. Such a density distribution could be either spherical or disk like. By integrating the column density along the line-of-sight toward the two lobes, we have investigated some functional forms for the density distribution which may reproduce the observed correlation between linear size and H I optical depth. We have assumed a representative viewing angle of 45deg. Figure 3 shows a spherical and an axi-symmetric (disk-like) distribution, both with a simple power law radial fall-off in density, $`n=n_0(r/r_0)^\beta `$ ($`r_0=1`$ kpc) and also a King density profile with a cutoff outside 50 kpc $`n=n_0`$ (1+$`r^2/r_\mathrm{c}^2`$) ($`r_\mathrm{c}=1`$ kpc). While King profiles cannot provide a good fit, in contrast the power law models can fit the data adequately both for spherical and disk-like geometries. For more details, see Pihlström et al (2002, in prep.).

In most cases the spatial resolution of present H I data is not enough to determine whether the absorption covers both lobes (consistent with ISM gas) or only one lobe (indicating a disk distribution). To date high resolution H I data exist for a limited number of sources that in all cases indicate H I disks (Conway 1996; Peck et al. 1999; Peck & Taylor 1998), which argues for a disk model. One possibility to distinguish between a disk or a sphere is to look at any possible orientation effects; in general quasars are supposed to be seen at a smaller viewing angle than the radio galaxies. Because of relativistic boosting the core strength is considered to be a good indicator of orientation; Saikia et al. (1995) studied a sample of CSS sources with detected radio cores and found that the degree of core prominence were consistent with those for larger radio sources and also consistent with the unified scheme. Assuming the unified scheme holds for GPS/CSSs, a spherically symmetric distribution could thus be considered less likely, since we in fact have found that there appears to be a larger detection rate in galaxies ($`60\%`$) than in quasars ($`25\%`$; Pihlström 2001). We note however that there are indications that the GPS quasars may not be the same type of objects as the GPS galaxies, in which case we cannot use the argument of core prominence to distinguish between a disk or a spherical origin of the gas. Instead, future higher resolution VLBI observations (using the EVN UHF system) will be needed to determine whether disks are the most common cause of the H I absorption also in the higher redshift objects.

## Acknowledgments

The WSRT GPS/CSS HI surveys are done in collaboration with: P.D. Barthel, S.A. Baum, R. Braun, M.N. Bremer, W.H. de Vries, G.K. Miley, C.P. O’Dea, H.J.A. Röttgering, R.T. Schilizzi, I.A.G. Snellen, G.B. Taylor and W. Tschager.

## References

Conway, J. E. 1996, in ’The Second Workshop on Gigahertz Peaked Spectrum and Compact Steep Spectrum Radio Sources’, eds. I. Snellen, R. T. Schilizzi, H. A. J. Röttgering M. N. Bremer, Publ JIVE, Leiden, 198

de Vries, W. H., O’Dea, C. P., Barthel, P. D., Fanti, C., Fanti, R. Lehnert, M. D. 2000, AJ, 120, 2300

Gelderman, R. Whittle, M. 1994, ApJS, 91, 491

Kameno, S., Horiuchi, S., Shen Z.-Q., Inoue, M., Kobayashi, H., Hirabayashi, H. Murata, Y., 2000, PASJ 52, 209

Kellermann, K. I., Vermeulen, R. C., Cohen, M. H., Zensus, J. A. 1999, BAAS, 31, 856

Lavalley, M., Isobe, T. Feigelson, E. 1992, BAAS, 24, 839

Marr, J. M., Taylor, G. B. Crawford, F. III 2001, ApJ, 550, 160

O’Dea, C. P., Stanghellini, C., Baum, S. Charlot, S. 1996, ApJ, 470, 806

Peck, A. B. Taylor, G. B. 1998, ApJ, 502, L23

Peck, A. B., Taylor, G. B. Conway, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 521, 103

Perlman, E. S., Stocke, J. T., Conway, J. E. Reynolds, C. 2001, AJ, 122, 536

Pihlström, Y. M. 2001, PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg

Saikia, D. J., Jeyakumar, S. , Wiita, P. J., Sanghera, H. S. Spencer, R. E. 1995, A&A 295, 629

Stanghellini, C., O’Dea, C. P., Dallacasa, D., Baum, S. A., Fanti, R. Fanti, C. 1998, A&AS, 131, 303

Vermeulen, R. C., Ros, E., Kellermann, K. I., Cohen, M. H., Zensus, J. A., van Langevelde, H. J. 2002a, PASA in press

Vermeulen, R. C., Ros, E., Kellermann, K. I., Cohen, M. H., Zensus, J. A., van Langevelde, H. J. 2002b, Submitted to A&A


format: text

text:
# Some peculiarities of transition from discrete to continuum Fourier series in lattice theories

## 1 Introduction

Fourier series in discrete variables, or discrete Fourier series, is a routine instrument of computation on finite lattices with cyclic border conditions. Quite often it becomes necessary to remove lattice regularization with lattice length $`N`$ approaching infinity. Ordinarily lattice theory operates with regular functions. However, these functions may include terms which, in fact, play the role of a regularization parameter. In other words, even when such functions are analytical in the whole physical region for any finite $`N`$, the transition to $`N\mathrm{}`$ may convert regular functions into distributions. For the function with such nonstandard behavior, ordinary replacement of summing by integration for $`N\mathrm{}`$ may appear inadmissible.

In this paper we focus our attention on a frequently occurring case, when such “regularization” terms are inversely proportional to the lattice length. The conditions are specified when such replacement may or may not be done and instances are discussed, when this replacement is definitely erroneous and relevant corrections are needed. We also suggest two different methods for correction computation.

## 2 Some Remarks on Discrete Fourier Series

In the previous work  we considered the consequences of cyclization procedure

$$\stackrel{~}{ϝ}\left(\phi \right)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϝ\left(\phi +2\pi n\right)$$
(1)
application to the function $`ϝ\left(\phi \right)`$ of the continuous variable $`\phi `$. Similar procedure may be applied to the function $`F_k`$ of a discrete variable $`k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$. We assume that $`F_k`$ is a tempered function, i.e. that there exists a constant $`c<\mathrm{}`$ so that

$$\left|F_k\right|<\left|k\right|^c.$$
(2)
for $`\left|k\right|\mathrm{}`$

To simplify the problem, we associate $`F_k`$ with some periodic distribution

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)=\stackrel{~}{F}_+\left(\phi +i\epsilon \right)\stackrel{~}{F}_{}\left(\phi i\epsilon \right)$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon `$ is a routine positive infinitesimal parameter and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\pm \left(\phi \right)`$ are analytical functions in upper/lower complex half-plane $`\phi `$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_+\left(\phi \right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_k\mathrm{exp}\left\{ik\phi \right\};\stackrel{~}{F}_{}\left(\phi \right)=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{1}{}}F_k\mathrm{exp}\left\{ik\phi \right\}$$
(4)
Bearing in mind that a distribution is tempered, if and only if it is a finite order derivative of some continuous tempered function and that any tempered distribution may be presented in the form $`\left(\text{3}\right)`$ (see e.g. ). Moreover, every periodic distribution is tempered .

As it is seen from $`\left(\text{4}\right)`$ the expression $`\left(\text{3}\right)`$ coincides with an Abel-Poisson regularization of Fourier series

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)=reg\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_ke^{i\phi k}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_ke^{i\phi k\epsilon \left|k\right|}$$
(5)
Since Fourier coefficients $`F_k`$ in $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ coincide with the considered discrete function, they are related to $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ by the standard equation

$$F_k=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\pi +\sigma }^{\pi +\sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi k\right\}𝑑\phi $$
(6)
where an arbitrary real number $`\sigma `$ is usually chosen as $`\sigma =0`$ or $`\sigma =\pi `$ for convenience reasons.

Now one can easily check that applying cyclization procedure to $`F_k`$ in $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$ with the period $`N`$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_k=\underset{v=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_{k+vN}.$$
(7)
and making allowance of the Poisson relation

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{ik\varphi }2\pi \underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta \left(\varphi 2\pi r\right)$$
(8)
one gets

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_k=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\pi +\sigma }^{\pi +\sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)\delta \left(\phi \frac{2\pi n}{N}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi k\right\}𝑑\phi $$
(9)
From $`\left(\text{9}\right)`$ we see that a sufficient condition for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ to exist is the existence of the product of distributions $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ and $`\delta \left(\phi N2\pi n\right)`$. Unfortunately, for an arbitrary distribution (in our case for the arbitrary $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$) such product is not defined , which requires a more detailed consideration.

It is known that Dirac $`\delta `$-function is rigorously defined as functional $`\delta \left(\phi \right),\varphi \left(\phi \right)=\varphi \left(0\right)`$ on the space $`C^0`$ of continuous functions $`\varphi \left(\phi \right)C^0`$ . Therefore, if $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)C^0`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)\varphi \left(\phi \right)C^0`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is a multiplicator in $`C^0`$ so for such $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ the considered product is well-defined.

It is hardly worth mentioning that since $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is given by the Fourier series $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ this function is not absolutely arbitrary and had to obey specific conditions. However, even regarded as too restrictive, Dirichlet conditions require function $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ only to be piecewise monotonic, piecewise differentiable and bounded for $`0\phi <2\pi `$ (see e.g. ). Under given conditions Fourier series $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ converge to $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ at all points of $`[0,2\pi ],`$ but at some points $`\phi _\nu `$ of this segment it may have first order discontinuity. Despite the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is defined in all these points as $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi _\nu \right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi _\nu 0\right)+\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi _\nu +0\right)\right)`$ it is no remedy for the discontinuity. Therefore, when such discontinuity points coincide with $`\phi =2\pi n/N`$, special consideration is necessary. The distribution theory allows to consider even more singular function $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$.

If $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is singular, then function $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ defined in $`\left(\text{9}\right)`$ may appear to be nonperiodic, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k\stackrel{~}{F}_{k+N}`$. This case is very similar to one considered in  where the procedure $`\left(\text{1}\right)`$ was applied to a function, the Fourier integral of which has singularity. Therefore we confine ourselves to a simple case and take an example when $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ has the simple pole

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)=\frac{1}{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi \right\}}$$
(10)
From $`\left(\text{9}\right)`$ we get

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_k=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_\pi ^\pi \frac{1}{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi \right\}}\delta \left(\phi \frac{2n\pi }{N}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi k\right\}𝑑\phi $$
(11)
Without loss of generality we may take $`N`$ as an odd number

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi k\right\}}{i+\frac{1}{2}\phi +\frac{1}{6}i\phi ^2+O\left(\phi ^3\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\phi }}\delta \left(\phi \right)𝑑\phi `$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\frac{N1}{2}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{2n\pi }{N}k\right\}}{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{2n\pi }{N}\right\}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{2n\pi }{N}k\right\}}{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{2n\pi }{N}\right\}}}\right).`$
Making allowance of the fact that for any function $`f\left(\phi \right)`$ regular and nonvanishing in the vicinity of $`\phi =0`$ we may write

$$f\left(\phi \right)\frac{1}{\phi }\delta \left(\phi \right)=f\left(\phi \right)\delta ^{}\left(\phi \right)=f^{}\left(0\right)\delta \left(\phi \right),$$
(13)
we easily get from $`\left(\text{12}\right)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_k=\frac{2k+1}{N}+\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\frac{N1}{2}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi nk}{N}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi n\left(1k\right)}{N}}{2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi n}{N}}$$
(14)
It is evident that the second term in the right part of the equality $`\left(\text{14}\right)`$ is invariant under substitution $`kk+N`$. Such term appears as the sum of contributions of the points $`\phi =2\pi n/N`$; $`n0`$ the first term being the contribution of the pole of function $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ at $`\phi =0`$ (i.e. $`n=0`$). This term is evidently nonperiodic.

When function $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is bounded at all $`\phi =2\pi n/N`$ and continuous in the vicinities of those points, we regard that the sufficient condition for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ to be periodic is fulfilled. Indeed, from $`\left(\text{9}\right)`$ we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_k=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\frac{2\pi n}{N}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{2\pi n}{N}k\right\}$$
(15)
Therefore, since $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ is presented as the finite Fourier series it is an evidently periodic function with the period $`N`$. It is clear that $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\frac{2\pi n}{N}\right)`$, as a function of discrete variable $`n`$, is periodic with the same period by definition.

Making allowance of the simple identity

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{2\pi k}{N}n\right\}=\underset{v=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta _n^{vN}$$
(16)
one may write the transform inverse to $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\frac{2\pi n}{N}\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\stackrel{~}{F}_k\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{2\pi n}{N}k\right\}$$
(17)
We see that $`\left(\text{17}\right)`$ is nothing but the discrete version of Fourier series $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$, as well as $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ is the discrete version of $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$.

It is clear that the above condition on $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ may be related to the convergence of series $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ or rather to the behavior $`F_k`$ for $`k\pm \mathrm{}`$ that, in its turn, is related to the convergence of series in $`\left(\text{7}\right)`$. For instance, necessary conditions on $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ are fulfilled when series $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ is uniformly convergent on a closed segment $`\pi \phi \pi `$ (see e.g. ).

However, one may impose on $`F_k`$ a weaker restriction and consider $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ which has a limited variation, i.e. such functions which for arbitrary partition $`\pi \phi _v<\phi _{v+1}`$ $`\pi `$ and arbitrary $`N`$ obey

$$\underset{v=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left|\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi _v\right)\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi _{v+1}\right)\right|<M.$$
(18)
for some $`M<\mathrm{}`$.

A function with a limited variation in a segment is obviously bounded on it. Moreover, as it is shown by N.Weiner (see e.g. ), such function is continuous, if (and only if)

$$\underset{K\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{K}\underset{k=K}{\overset{K}{}}\left|kF_k\right|=0.$$
(19)
This condition, however, may be regarded as too restrictive as well, just for that very reason that it claims ’good’ behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ for all $`\phi `$, whereas it is actually needed only at infinitesimal vicinities of $`\phi =2\pi n/N`$. Hence there is no reason to expect that each particular $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ that is presented as discrete Fourier series $`\left(\text{17}\right)`$ obligatory obeys such conditions .

## 3 Regularization Removal and Transition to Continuum

The discrete Fourier series $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{17}\right)`$ are commonly used in lattice theories with periodic boundary conditions. Quite often one needs to apply a procedure inverse to $`\left(\text{7}\right)`$, which involves the removal of the lattice regularization and the lattice length $`N`$ then tends to infinity.

This section considers peculiarities of the transition from discrete to continuous Fourier series with $`N\mathrm{}`$. As it is said above, we are interested in a very particular aspect of such a fundamental problem as transition to continuum in a lattice gauge theory, and namely in the transition to continuum of the discrete Fourier series for functions which are regular at finite $`N`$, but convert into distributions with $`N\mathrm{}`$. Naturally, some important issues of transition to continuum are outside the limits of this study, nonetheless, the suggested approach allows, in particular, to compute the fermion contribution on an extremely anisotropic lattice .

Let $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ in $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ obey the conditions of Lebesgue theorem, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is a bounded function with a set of measure zero discontinuity points. In this case $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is Riemann integrable, i.e. the difference between upper and lower sum Darboux vanishes for arbitrary partition $`\left(\pi \phi _v<\phi _{v+1}\pi ;\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},N1\right)`$ when the number of terms $`N`$ infinitely increases111For piecewise-monotonic $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ the sum in $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ decomposees into partial sums over monotonic pieces. Each partial sum coinsides either with upper or with lower sum Darboux.. For $`N\mathrm{}`$ this allows us to make a change in $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$

$$\frac{2\pi n}{N}\phi ;\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi ;$$
(20)
which transforms $`\left(\text{15}\right)`$ into $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$.

For any finite value $`s`$ we may put $`s/N0`$. If, however, $`s=0`$ is a singular point of function $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ we need to preserve the information about the direction in which $`s/N`$ approach zero in a complex $`s`$-plane

$$s/N\epsilon \mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{arg}s\right\}$$
(21)
When, however, a transition for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ in $`\left(\text{17}\right)`$ is of interest, one needs $`\stackrel{~}{F}_k`$ to obey the conditions of Lebesgue theorem. If it is the case, then transition to continuous variable $`2\pi k/N\phi `$ may be fulfilled by the following substitution

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi ;\stackrel{~}{F}_k\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right);\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\frac{2\pi }{N}n\right)F_n.$$
(22)
To estimate the error, introduced by the procedure$`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ we apply the Poisson formula to truncated functions

$$\overline{F}\left(\phi \right)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right);& & 0\phi <2\pi ;\\ 0;& & otherwise.\end{array}$$
(23)
that gives

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\frac{2\pi n}{N}\right)=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi kN\right\}𝑑\phi $$
(24)
so, taking into account the definition $`\left(\text{6}\right)`$ we may write

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\frac{2\pi n}{N}\right)=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_{kN}=F_0+\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(25)
It is clear that the application of procedure $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ to the left part in $`\left(\text{25}\right)`$ gives but the term $`F_0`$. Therefore, to obtain an exact result, one had to include the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{k0}{}F_{kN}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(F_{kN}+F_{kN}\right)$$
(26)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to vanish, it is sufficient that for all $`k`$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi kN\right\}0;N\mathrm{}$$
(27)
Since $`kN`$ is an integer number we may rewrite $`\left(\text{27}\right)`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(\phi \sigma _0\right)kN\right\}0;N\mathrm{}$$
(28)
where $`\sigma _0=2\pi n_0/N`$ and $`n_0`$ is an arbitrary integer number. In other words, the result of application $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ to left-hand member of $`\left(\text{24}\right)`$ coincides with right-hand one only if the condition $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$ is satisfied for any $`\sigma _0`$ and all $`k0`$.

According to Riemann-Lebesgue lemma (see. e.g. ) all $`F_{kN}`$ in $`\left(\text{25}\right)`$ with $`k`$ $`0`$ turn into zero with $`N\mathrm{}`$, if either the integral in $`\left(\text{24}\right)`$ converge absolutely for $`k=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ has limited variation on $`0\phi <2\pi `$.

For singular enough $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$, the conditions of Lebesgue theorem may be violated and procedure $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ transforms the sum into improper integral, which value will depend on the choice of the way singularity is approached. The result of proceeding to limit in expressions like $`\left(\text{27}\right)`$ was studied in detail . Various type singularities of $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$, located infinitely near to $`\phi =0`$ were considered. Results obtained in  allow to conclude that the condition $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$ is satisfied, if $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is regular at infinitesimal vicinities of all $`\phi =2\pi n/N`$, where $`n=0,\mathrm{},N1`$.

Commonly the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ in $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$ doesn’t depend on $`N`$. In a lattice gauge theory, however, $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ may include small parameters, such as fermion mass term $`ma`$, which tends to zero with $`N\mathrm{}`$, provided that inverse temperature $`1/T=aN`$ remains finite. Actually, it introduces a dependence on $`N`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$. Therefore, it is not without interest to consider a case when $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ includes some ’regularization’ term which is proportional to $`1/N`$, i.e. singularity of $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ is located in a complex $`\phi `$ plane at finite distance $`\phi _s`$ $`i/N`$ from the real axis. In this case the increase of exponent oscillations in $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$ is matches singular point $`\phi _s`$ approaching physical region. In Appendix we suggest a simple recipe to modify the results obtained in  for this case.

## 4 Examples of nonstandard behavior

Let us consider an example of a periodic function with the simple pole

$$\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\frac{2\pi n}{N}\right)=\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{2\pi n}{N}\frac{\varkappa }{N}\right\}\right)^1\mathrm{exp}\left\{m\left(i\frac{2\pi n}{N}\frac{\varkappa }{N}\right)\right\}$$
(29)
It is clear that the role of regularization term in $`\left(\text{29}\right)`$ is played by $`\varkappa /N`$, where $`\varkappa `$ is finite and $`\mathrm{Im}\varkappa =0`$.

Writing series expansion

$$\left(1e^{\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}}\right)^1=\theta \left(\varkappa \right)+\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\theta \left(\varkappa \right)e^{r\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}}\theta \left(\varkappa \right)e^{r\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}}\right)$$
(30)
and collecting coefficients at $`r=k`$ modulo $`N`$, we obtain

$$\left(1e^{\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}}\right)^1=\theta \left(\varkappa \right)+\frac{\theta \left(\varkappa \right)}{1e^\varkappa }\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{k\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}}\frac{\theta \left(\varkappa \right)}{1e^\varkappa }\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{k\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}};$$
(31)
As it follows from$`\left(\text{16}\right)`$ one may write

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\pi in}{N}\left(m+k\right)\right\}=\delta _N^{m+k}\left(1\delta _0^m\right)+\delta _0^m\delta _0^k$$
(32)
for nonnegative integer $`m<N`$ and $`n<N`$. Therefore, from $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$ we finally get

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(1e^{\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}}\right)^1e^{m\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}}=\frac{1}{1e^\varkappa }\theta \left(\varkappa \right)\left(1\delta _0^m\right)$$
(33)
Proceeding to limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ in $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$ is trivial, because the right-hand member doesn’t depend on $`N`$.

On the other hand, the application of procedure $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ to the left-hand member in $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$ gives

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi m\right\}}{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi \epsilon signum\left(\varkappa \right)\right\}}𝑑\phi =signum\left(\varkappa \right)+\theta \left(\varkappa \right)\delta _m^0$$
(34)
We see that the procedure $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ leads to a result which differs essentially from an exact one given in $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$. The reason is that the difference between upper and lower sum Darboux computed for $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(2\pi in/N\right)`$ in $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$ doesn’t vanish for $`N\mathrm{}`$, thus the sum in $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$ doesn’t convert into Riemannian integral when $`N\mathrm{}`$. It may be anticipated, because Riemannian integral is defined only on bounded function, whereas $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$ remain finite only for finite $`N`$.

Let us compute now the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined in $`\left(\text{26}\right).`$ In considered case $`F_{kN}`$ is given by

$`F_{kN}`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi kN\right\}}{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi \frac{\varkappa }{N}\right\}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{2\pi }}`$
$`=\left[\theta \left(\varkappa \right)\theta \left(k\right)+\theta \left(\varkappa \right)\delta _{kN}^m\theta \left(\varkappa \right)\theta \left(k\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left\{k\varkappa \right\}`$ (35)
and we easily get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{1e^\varkappa }\theta \left(\varkappa \right)$$
(36)
Thereby it is confirmed that the correction $`\left(\text{36}\right)`$ added to $`\left(\text{34}\right)`$ allows to obtain the exact result $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$.

Applying the differentiation with respect to a parameter $`\varkappa `$ one may easily repeat the computation for arbitrary rational function of $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi in/N\right\}`$. Previously considered case may be easily generalized in another way, if we consider

$$F\left(\phi \right)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f\left(\varkappa \right)\frac{1}{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi \frac{\varkappa }{N}\right\}}𝑑\varkappa $$
(37)
where the integral has to be interpreted in the sense of a Cauchy principal value. Making allowance for $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$ we get

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}F\left(\frac{2\pi n}{N}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\pi in}{N}m\right\}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{f\left(\varkappa \right)}{1e^\varkappa }𝑑\varkappa \left(1\delta _m^0\right)_{\mathrm{}}^0f\left(\varkappa \right)𝑑\varkappa $$
(38)
On the other hand, the procedure $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ applied to the left-hand member in $`\left(\text{38}\right)`$ leads to

$`{\displaystyle _\pi ^\pi }\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{f\left(\varkappa \right)d\varkappa }{1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi \epsilon signum\left(\varkappa \right)\right\}}}\right)e^{i\phi m}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{2\pi }}`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}f\left(\varkappa \right)𝑑\varkappa \left(1\delta _m^0\right){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}f\left(\varkappa \right)𝑑\varkappa `$ (39)
which disagrees, as it may be anticipated, with $`\left(\text{38}\right)`$.

Let us now consider as an example the periodic function with logarithmic singularity. From ( 6.1.1$`\left(10\right)`$) one can easily get

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}\right\}\right)=1e^\varkappa $$
(40)
that leads to

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\pi in\varkappa }{N}\right\}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^\varkappa \right)$$
(41)
On the other hand, the procedure $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ gives

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi \mathrm{ln}\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(\phi +i\epsilon signum\left(\varkappa \right)\right)\right\}\right)𝑑\phi =0$$
(42)
that evidently disagree with $`\left(\text{41}\right)`$ at finite $`\varkappa `$.

In some instances the procedure $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ leads to ambiguous results and becomes inadmissible. Indeed, from (4.4.5$`\left(7\right)`$) one can get

$$Q_N\left(\varkappa \right)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi \frac{k+\frac{1}{2}}{N}m\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \frac{k+\frac{1}{2}}{N}\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varkappa }{N}\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi \frac{k+\frac{1}{2}}{N}\right)}e^{i\pi k}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(m\varkappa /N\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\varkappa }.$$
(43)
Hence, one obtains a well defined result for $`N\mathrm{}`$ and any finite $`m`$

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_N\left(\varkappa \right)Q\left(\varkappa \right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\varkappa }.$$
(44)
On the contrary, the procedure $`\left(\text{20}\right)`$ gives

$$Q\left(\varkappa \right)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi \frac{e^{i\phi N}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}m\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\left(\eta \right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\right)}𝑑\phi $$
(45)
where $`\eta =\epsilon \mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{arg}\varkappa \right\}`$.

Computation in $`\left(\text{45}\right)`$ of $`Q\left(\varkappa \right)`$ leads to an ambiguous result, because, on the one hand, $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi N\right\}`$ turns integrand into zero for all $`\phi `$ except the vicinity of $`\phi =0`$, on the other, - the integrand has the pole at $`\phi =2\eta `$ that is located infinitely near to $`\phi =0`$. Therefore, $`Q\left(\varkappa \right)`$ includes the factor $`lim_N\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{2i\eta N\right\}`$ which cannot be defined unambiguously without additional assumptions.

## 5 Appendix. Asymptotic Series for Distributions

Here we briefly sketch some of the results obtained in  for the asymptotic expansions of $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi N\right\}F\left(\phi \right)`$ for $`N\mathrm{}`$ with necessary modifications which we suggest for a case when the regularization term in $`F\left(\phi \right)`$ is proportional to $`1/N`$.

As it is known (see e.g. ), temperate distribution is defined as functional on infinitely differentiable fast decreasing test functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\phi \right)`$ i.e. $`lim_{\left|\phi \right|\mathrm{}}\left|\phi \right|^m\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(p\right)}\left(\phi \right)=0;`$ for any $`m0;`$ $`p0`$. As it pointed out in , one may write the asymptotic (Poincare) series for the functional defined on any test function $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\phi \right)`$

$$T_N^F\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi N\right\}F\left(\phi \right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\phi \right)𝑑\phi \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _n^\pm \left(N\right)C_n^\pm \left(\phi \right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\phi \right)𝑑\phi $$
(46)
where $`\psi _n^\pm \left(x\right)`$ for $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$ constitute asymptotic sequences obeying

$$\psi _{n+1}^\pm \left(x\right)/\psi _n^\pm \left(x\right)=O\left(1/x\right);\frac{\psi _n^\pm \left(x\right)}{x}/\psi _n^\pm \left(x\right)=O\left(1/x\right)$$
(47)
So, differentiating $`n`$-times $`\left(\text{46}\right)`$, we may get in particular

$$\phi ^nC_n^\pm \left(\phi \right)=0$$
(48)
that means

$$C_n^\pm \left(\phi \right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}C_{nk}^\pm \delta ^{\left(k\right)}\left(\phi \right)$$
(49)
The simplest form of $`C_n^\pm \left(\phi \right)\psi _n^\pm \left(N\right)`$ satisfying both$`\left(\text{49}\right)`$ and condition $`\left(\text{47}\right)`$ is

$$C_n^\pm \left(\phi \right)\psi _n^\pm \left(N\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}C_{nk}^\pm \psi _n^\pm \left(N\right)\delta ^{\left(k\right)}\left(\phi \right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}P_{nk}^\pm \left(\mathrm{ln}N\right)N^{rk}\delta ^{\left(k\right)}\left(\phi \right)$$
(50)
where polynomials $`P_{nk}^\pm \left(\mathrm{ln}N\right)`$ and constant $`r`$ are defined by the specific form of $`F\left(\phi \right)`$.

Bearing in mind that any tempered (not obligatory periodic) distribution may be presented in the form analogous to $`\left(\text{3}\right)`$ (see e.g. ) where $`F_\pm \left(\phi \right)`$ are analytical functions in upper/lower complex half-plane $`\phi `$

$$F\left(\phi \right)=F_+\left(\phi +i\epsilon \right)F_{}\left(\phi i\epsilon \right)$$
(51)
it can be shown that

$$F_\pm \left(\phi \pm i\epsilon \right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\pm i\phi N\right\}0,N\mathrm{}$$
(52)
and

$$F_\pm \left(\phi \pm i\epsilon \right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi N\right\}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n^\pm \left(N\right)\delta ^{\left(n\right)}\left(\phi \right),N\mathrm{}$$
(53)
As already mentioned, we are interested in a specific case, when singularity of $`F_\pm `$ is located not at infinitesimal distance $`\pm i\epsilon `$ but at finite222In this section we assume $`\varkappa >0`$. one $`\pm i\varkappa /N`$ from the real axes of $`\phi `$ and approaches the real axes only with $`N\mathrm{}`$. Thereby, instead of a definition given in $`\left(\text{46}\right)`$ we may write

$$T_N^F\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi N\right\}F_\pm \left(\phi \pm i\frac{\varkappa }{N}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\phi \right)𝑑\phi $$
(54)
and after a simple shift $`\phi \phi i\left(\varkappa /N\epsilon \right)`$ we obtain

$$T_N^F=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(\phi i\left(\frac{\varkappa }{N}\epsilon \right)\right)N\right\}F_\pm \left(\phi \pm i\epsilon \right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\phi i\left(\frac{\varkappa }{N}\epsilon \right)\right)𝑑\phi $$
(55)
The test functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\phi \right)`$ and their derivatives $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(n\right)}\left(\phi \right)`$ should not be obligatory analytical, but they are infinitely differentiable. Hence, their Taylor series may be taken as asymptotic one, no matter it is convergent or divergent in the area in question

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(n\right)}\left(\phi i\left(\frac{\varkappa }{N}\epsilon \right)\right)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{M1}{}}\frac{1}{m!}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(n+m\right)}\left(\phi \right)\left(i\left(\frac{\varkappa }{N}\epsilon \right)\right)^m+O\left(\left(\frac{\varkappa }{N}\epsilon \right)^M\right)$$
(56)
Taking into account that parameter $`\epsilon `$ is infinitely small in comparison with $`\varkappa /N`$ we obtain from $`\left(\text{55}\right)`$

$$T_N^F=e^\varkappa \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{M1}{}}C_n^\pm \left(N\right)\left(1\right)^n\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(n+m\right)}\left(0\right)}{m!}\left(\frac{i\varkappa }{N}\right)^m+O\left(\frac{\varkappa ^M}{N^M}\right)$$
(57)
and for $`N\mathrm{}`$ we get

$$T_N^F=e^\varkappa \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n^\pm \left(N\right)\left(1\right)^n\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(n\right)}\left(0\right)\left(1+O\left(\frac{\varkappa }{N}\right)\right)$$
(58)
or

$$\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi N\right\}F_\pm \left(\phi \pm i\frac{\varkappa }{N}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\varkappa \right\}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n^\pm \left(N\right)\delta ^{\left(n\right)}\left(\phi \right)$$
(59)
that with $`\left(\text{53}\right)`$ and $`\left(\text{52}\right)`$ gives after change $`NkN;\varkappa k\varkappa `$

$`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\phi kN\right\}F_\pm \left(\phi \pm i{\displaystyle \frac{k}{N}}\right)`$
$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{exp}\left\{k\varkappa \right\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}C_n^\pm \left(kN\right)\delta ^{\left(n\right)}\left(\phi \right)& for& k>0\\ 0& for& k<0\end{array}`$ (62)
We see that correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`\left(\text{25}\right)`$ may be written in a form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\varkappa k\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_n^\pm \left(kN\right)\delta ^{\left(n\right)}\left(\phi \sigma _0\right)d\phi `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\varkappa k\right\}C_0^\pm \left(kN\right)`$ (63)
As it is seen from $`\left(\text{63}\right)`$ the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is presented as a series which is a discrete version of Laplace transform, called $`Z`$ \- transformation (see e.g. ). Since we consider $`\varkappa /N+0`$, coefficients $`C_0^\pm \left(x\right)`$ in this series are the same as those computed for the asymptotic expansions in . It should be noted, that distributions studied in  are nonperiodic. Hence, if direct application of the method developed in  to the periodic distribution under consideration is technically difficult, it may be convenient to apply the cyclization procedure considered in  to those distributions that have already been studied in .

## 6 Conclusions

Some particularities of the transition from discrete to continuous Fourier series in a limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ are discussed. A case is studied when the regularization parameter is proportional to $`1/N`$ and the considered functions are analytical for $`N<\mathrm{}`$, but they are converted into generalized functions or distributions when regularization is removed, i.e. $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Some simple and rather general examples of functions with ’nonstandard’ behavior were presented to clarify the conditions under which ordinary replacement of summing by integration is inadmissible and the corresponding corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ were computed. It is also pointed out that when the periodic function $`\stackrel{~}{F}\left(\phi \right)`$ obeys the conditions of Riemann-Lebesgue lemma, the corresponding correction turns into zero.

We suggested a modification of asymptotic series expansions proposed in  for a case with regularization parameter proportional to $`1/N`$ and applied the modified series for the computation of the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.


text:
# Fundamental Research and Developing Countries 11footnote 1This an english version of the communications in french: Rôle de la Recherche Fondamentale dans les Pays en voie de Développement (Press: Tribune de Madagascar n. 4212: 26 November 2002) and Vers une Mondialisation de la Physique des Hautes Energies (to appear in Tribune de Madagascar: December 2002).

## Fundamental Research and Developing Countries 111This an english version of the communications in french: Rôle de la Recherche Fondamentale dans les Pays en voie de Développement (Press: Tribune de Madagascar n. 4212: 26 November 2002) and Vers une Mondialisation de la Physique des Hautes Energies (to appear in Tribune de Madagascar: December 2002).

Stephan Narison
Laboratoire de Physique Mathématique
Université de Montpellier II
Place Eugène Bataillon
34095 - Montpellier Cedex 05, France
Abstract

In the first part of this report, I discuss the sociological rôle of fundamental research in Developing Countries (DC) and how one can eventually realize this program. In the second part, I give a brief and elementary introduction to the field of high-energy physics (HEP), accessible to a large audience not necessary physicists. The aim of this report is to make politicians and financial backers aware on the long-term usefulness of fundamental research in DC and on the possible globalisation of HEP and, in general, of science.

## 1 Introduction

Fundamental research, like High-Energy Theoretical Physics (HEP), is a missing field in Developing Countries (DC) like Madagascar, Africa and other thirld world countries. Traditionnally reserved to rich or industrialised countries, this field of research is now becoming accessible to DC thanks to the progress of communications via Internet, fax and the uses of personal computers. However, the most efficient way for realizing this program is a joint collaboration between the DC and indutrialised countries, where the former can only bring brains and works, while the latter, in addition, can help for giving funds or/and fellowships.
HEP research consists for studying the constituents of matter and the different laws governing the mechanism of the universe. In the first part of this report, we shall discuss the sociological rôle of the fundamental research in DC. In the second part, we present in a very simple and pedagogical way (without any formulae!) an introduction to the field of HEP, in the aim that it will be accessible to a large audience not necessary physicists.

## 2 Sociological Rôle of Fundamental Research in DC

### 2.1 Fundamental research and education

In most of DC, one has the tendancy to favour the applied and technical formation which is the goal for forming in a short period the maximum of young peoples for training applied science and technical professions rapidly exploitable for the country. Though this short term formation is an useful initiative, one should not also neglect the formation of few young élite which will be useful at medium and long-terms in order to maintain the DC at a high intellectual and technical levels, the most possible way for the DC to reach the level of industrialised countries. One good possibilty for realizing this high-level formation is the fundamental research. One can take the example of India and Pakistan which are a rich reserve of researchers despite the poor economical situation of these countries. Thanks to their traditional philosophy and culture, one can find their some good scientists known in the world though most of them are expatriate either in Europe or in the USA. For instance, the physics Nobel price 1979, Pr. Abdus Salam ex-director and founder of the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) of Trieste-Italy is a pakistanian. Thanks to the creation of the ICTP, now named Abdus Salam Center, Pr. Salam has participated in a long term to the development of science in all DC, because most of thirld world scientists go regularly to this center for recycling and for getting informed on the last progress of science.
This short introduction shows quite well, how scientists can bring a lot to the society. A similar example should also be applied to the DC, and particularly to Madagascar. Therefore, it is the duty of the political decision-makers to encourage science in DC. However, this is a medium and long-term objectives, which one can essentially realize by the improvement of the educational system, which unfortunately has declined during the last thirty years in Madagascar for various reasons. Indeed, science should belong integrally to our general culture. Unfortunately, at present, fewer students choose the scientific fields, perhaps, because science needs some particular effort, or, because our society has not yet understood the rôle of science in our culture and civilisation. Ironically, our society is more and more dependent on the technological developments issued from the science discovery ( for instance, Internet has been discovered by the CERN-Geneva physicists (not by Microsoft!) as a tool for communicating experimental data between the different international teams), but in the same time, the scientific education declines. The russian academician Lev Okun told in 1995 during the HEP international conference in Marseille:
More peoples are ignorant, more they hate the spirit of scientific curiosity, and more the processus of intellectual deterioration is irreversible.
It appears to me that this remark especially applies to the DC, and in particular to Madagascar, when one observes the majority of young peoples taking the direction towards the study which is useful at short term but often at a low level. This choice, one should say, is mostly infuenced by the political and socio-economical environments where these youths are living. In particular, it is the obligation of the financial backers and of the government, not only to financially support the oriented and applied education and researches which yield well at short term, but, it is also especially important to encourage the long term education by providing fellowships and/or training courses. In parallel, they should also take all opportunuities for popularizing the science and the fundamental research using the modern media (press, radio, television,…) for communicating to the others the enthousiasm for the science and for explaining its interest. Fundamental science has a vital rôle for this development, because, contrary to applied sciences (ingeneering and technologies), the researcher is able to form the youths at different scientific and technical levels, from the secondary school to the ingeneering studies and PhD scientific diploma. This rôle becomes feasible, because physicists have a strong basis and deep knowledge of sciences (mathematical tools, informatics,…) combined with their talent of researcher or/and teacher. Indeed, in his profession, a physicist should know how to use these basic knowledges for explaining observable and measurable natural phenomena. This is an important aspect differentiating a physicist from a mathematician. For instance, for a mathematician, a sinusoïdal function is $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, while for a physicist, this function illustrates different phenomena like the alternate electric current or the wave propagations…

### 2.2 Science and technology: responsability of the scientist

Most part of our modern society does not even know the traditional goal of science, which is to understand the nature, the universe and the different laws which govern them. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a confusion between science and its utilisation., i.e. between science and technology, between the knowledge attainments and the utilisation which the society decides to do with. When, one talks, for instance, about nuclear physics, most of us thinks to nuclear power station, nuclear tests or massive destructive bombs, and believe that the science is guilty and socially irresponsible. When the utilisation of knowledge is an ethical problem, the research of these knowledges should be absolutely free, and it is advisable not to mix the two things. The preparation of an atomic bomb was due to technology (applied science), an actual product of ingeneers, though based on the fundamental principles of physics. However, the decision to built the hydrogen bomb was political, but not scientific. Robert Oppeinhemer, one of the assumed “fathers” of the american atomic bomb, explained clearly that:
The scientific is not responsible of the natural laws, but his job is to discover how these laws work. However, it is not the responsability of the scientific to determine if it is suitable or not to use the hydrogen bomb.
The dictates of defense have led the politicians to ask physicists to prepare massive destructive arms. But some other physicists have also contributed for establishing bridges and links between two adverse countries during the war. The rôle of CERN-Geneva and the ICTP-Trieste on the relations with the former Soviet Union are concrete examples. However, science should not apologize to the world on what it brings. On the contrary, its contribution represents one of the most noble and ambitious efforts of the humanity:
In trying to discover the nature of the Universe, the scientific attempts to discover himself in this fascinating and extremely embarrassing world.
It is the responsability of the scientist to let known to the society the true rôle of science, not only as a responsability to the taxpayers, but as the basis of the intellectual values. The scientific has the duty to inform the society, on the existence of tools or methods allowing to analyze complex situations, in order to find an appropriate solution to the hot problems raising the question of our survival. Therefore, the scientists should inform themseleves on the nature of important problems to which our society is confronted; in other respects, they should be able to predict the eventual problems of the future, and inform the society if an appropriate answer already exists. This is indeed their duty in the crucial domains like the needs of new energy sources, the planet pollution, the decrease of the ozone layer around the world, the demographic boom, the unproductiveness of the grounds, the decreases of biological species,…But it is neither the rôle nor the responsability of the scientist (this does not mean also that the scientist is not sensitive to this crucial problem) to resolve the unemployment problem, the famine,…that can only be solved from political decisions. The scientist rôle is at the same time crucial and modest, in the sense that scientists should not use science for settling a new type of power, the scientific power. The scientist should encourage the scientific attitude based on facts, on curiosity and on audacious search for new fundamental concepts. Michael Faraday has discovered the electricity by his own intellectual curiosity which guided his fundamental research on the electricity while the society has asked him at that time to improve the lighting with candles of lighthouses. Reciprocally, the history of sciences has many bitter examples, when one thinks about the Arab culture of the pre-medieval era, which brought to Europe wide knowledges such as medicine, mathematics and astronomy. But. for different reasons, this inquistiveness of mind disappeared, letting the Arab modern society very poor.
For this reason, and despite the social context of our country, one should encourage the fundamental and free research though its technological implications are at a long term, because it is a secure value. It is as expensive as other cultural values like literature, arts and some other national patrimony, which one should preserved.

### 2.3 How to do a fundamental research in DC?

When I have finished my degree of physics at the University of Antananarivo, I got a fellowship by the European Commussion to prepare a diploma of ingeneer at the Ecole Centrale or Supelec of Parish. However, when I have hesitated between this choice and the PhD thesis in Theoretical Physics, my former professor of quantum mechanics Pr. Raoelina Andriambololona has convinced me by these words:
For doing Theoretical Physics, one only needs a pencil and a sheet of paper…
These words perfectly summarize the profession of theoretical physicist in the years of 70 and show the cheap cost of the formation for this advanced profession, which is then feasible in DC, contrary to that one may a priori think. However, within the development of the modern society, and for doing fundamental research, one should add to these, the unavoidable computers as tools for calculations,…and communications (Internet), which hopefully we already have in Madagascar (note that the insulation was the major handicap for doing a research in our country during the pre-Internet period before 90). To these tools, one should add the bi- or multi-lateral scientific cooperations with advanced laboratories and institutes, because the exchanges between researchers are necessary at different viewpoint in order to have a competitive research work at the international level. Though the DC cannot bring funds (which are expected to be obtained from industrialised countries) for a such cooperation, they can instead bring brains and works, which are always useful inside a collaboration. Indeed, these means are relatively cheap and, a priori, feasible for a DC like Madagascar.

### 2.4 Can one do HEP in Madagascar?

Working in advanced domains needs a strong international competitivity. And for being competitive, one needs a good scientific environment and the possibility to visit regularly big research centers in order to be informed on new experimental data and new theoretical progresses. Unfortunately our country, was an inauspucious place (geographical and economical situations), and then, you can understand immediately, why I did not come back to Madagascar, despite my deep wishes to serve my nation. However, this choice of foreign residence should not lead to a total desinterest to the country but on the contrary should stimulate finding a way to contribute to its recovery. This is the reason why I have decided to create the HEP-MAD institute, project one which we have started to work in collaboration with the national teachers and researchers since last year. This institute will be useful for forming young students at high level and will serve as a platform to different international cooperations and HEP-MAD conferences. We have initiated the latter in september 2001 (HEP-MAD 01 conference).
We wish sharply that the new governement and the financial bakers give all means for concretising rapidly this project because it goes along the lines of their program for render Madagascar a competitive country at the international level.

## 3 Towards a globalisation of HEP

In this second part, we try to vulgarize this advanced research of HEP by limiting ourselves to the basic concepts and illustrative explanations in the aim to present a very elementary, pedagogical and qualitative report accesible to the majority of the population who are not necessarily physicists.

### 3.1 The structure of matter

In Fig. 1, one explains, from the example of hand (matter), the exploration of the underlying structure of matter before reaching the fundamental constituents (elementary particles) named leptons and quarks.

Imagine that you have started at the university to study the macromolecules of ADN (Acid DesoxyriboNucleic) in biochemistry. After, you go to the degree in chemistry (organic chemistry) where you study the properties of desoxyribose and of benzen molecules and their by-products. You continue your way and, with more energy, you succeed to bring the molecule into an atom of carbon ( Avogadro and Gay-Lussac laws). With a more energy, you can break the atom for studying its nucleus and the electrons which orbit around it (atomic physics). You continue your breakage and you will discover that the nucleus is composed by protons and neutrons linked together by the nuclear force (nuclear physics). Finally, bombing the proton, you will find that it is made by elementary particles which are quarks glued together by gluons (HEP area). The particle accelerators are conceived that you can do in practice the exploration of matter thanks to the energy which these accelerators communicate to particles. As you can see in Fig. 1:

* The electron is the 1st elementary particle known since a century. It is the 1st member of the particle family called leptons, where the other members differ from the electron by their masses (the muon and the $`tau`$ are respectively 200 and 3600 times heavier than the electron). To these three particles of electric charge -1, are associated electric neutral particles (neutrinos) lighter and which do not interact with matter. These particles existed after the Big Bang and are produced by particle accelerators or cosmic rays.
* The proton and neutron are composed by elementary particles called quarks which have fractional electric charge and possess three colours. The quarks are also consituted of three couples ($`u`$p, $`d`$own), ($`c`$harm, $`s`$trange) and ($`b`$eauty, $`t`$op). Each quark differs by their masses while in each couple (…,…), quarks have respectively electric charges 2/3 (u, c, t) and -1/3 (d, s, b). Then, a proton is constituted by two quarks $`u`$ and one quark $`d`$ ($`uud`$) which the sum of charge is +1. The neutron is neutral and composed by $`ddu`$
* To these particles are associated anti-particles which form the anti-matter.
* The repartition of charges and the correspondence between lepton and quark families are essential for having mathematical consistent theories (renormalizability,…)

### 3.2 The fundamental forces of nature and the HEP theories

Nature is gouverned by four fundamental forces, which by order of decreasing range are classified as:

* The strong interaction nuclear force mediated by eight coloured massless gluons responsible for the cohesion of quarks inside the nucleus has a range of $`10^{12}`$ cm. To this force and to the properties of quarks is associated the theory of Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD).
* The electromagnetic force mediated by the photon is responsible of the light and has a range $`10^{}3`$ weaker than the previous one. To this force and to the properties of leptons is associated the theory of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) tested, at present, with very high-precision.
* The weak interaction force mediated by the gauge bosons having masses 160 000 times the one of the elctron is responsible for the $`\beta `$ radiactivity and has a short range of about $`10^{17}`$ cm. To this force is associated the theory of Weak Interactions.
* The gravitational force eventually mediated by the gravitons has a macroscopic range of about $`10^{50}`$ cm and is responsible of our weight (recall the story of the famous Newton’s apple). Its corresponds to the theory of Gravitation.

QED and the theory of weak interactions, which, a priori, correspond to completely different forces are put together in a unique theory called commonly the Standard Model of Electroweak Interactions (SM). The discovery of the SM has led to the attribution of a Nobel price to their discoverers: Prs. S. Glashow (Harvard Univ.-USA), S. Weinberg (Austin Univ.-USA) and A. Salam (ICTP-Trieste-Italie), while more, recently, the physics Nobel price 1998 has been attributed to Prs. G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman of the Utrecht Univ-Holland, who have proved the mathematical consistencies of the SM, rendering it to be a theory not only a phenomenological model. QCD belongs to the strong link of the the SM, where the theory possesses the asymptotic freedom property at high-energies rendering easier different approximate perturbative calculations within QCD. There also exist some Grand Unified Theories (GUTS) like for instance supersymmetry which can unify these three forces to one force at higher energies. In fact, the goal of HE Physicists is to understand the laws governing the universe within a simple and elegant theory. The search for an unified and mathematically consistent theory, including the gravitational force is the present challenge of HE Physicists.

### 3.3 The particle accelerators

Today, science has important means for supporting advanced fundamental research, in particular, in the physics of space (Voyager, Hubble telescop,…) and in the field of HEP (which I know better) for studying the fundamental constituents of matter (quarks, leptons, gauge bosons,…) and their rôle in the birth of the universe. These domains need gigantic instruments, that a unique country cannot finance, like the large electron-positron collisionner LEP (and in the near future the Large hadron Collider (LHC)) at CERN-Geneva, in an underground tunnel of 9km diameter, straddling the France-Switzerland border. One can see in Fig. 2, an aerial view of CERN and the LEP tunnel where the airport of Geneva is visible in front.
In Fig. 3, one shows the reaction inside the LEP detector after the collision of the electron with its anti-particle, the positron, where new heavier particles are produced.

Though apparently expensive, these experiments are far from being useless, as these are material and intellectual tools which allow the humanity to make up all challenges to which it is, at present, confronted.

### 3.4 What are the socio-economical implications of HEP?

Apparently, this fundamental research is far from the every days life applications. However, this is not really true as any applied science and technologies need results from fundamental research. There are many indirect consequences of this research:

* Electricity which we use everyday comes from the discovery of the electron (1st elementary particle) and of its properties.
* TV screen is the smallest accelerator of particle (electron). It is a mini-LEP where LEP energy is about 5$`\times 10^6`$ the one of the TV. The similarity of the technologies behind the TV and LEP is commented in Fig. 4.
* Detector buildings stimulate high-technology in industry and in other branches of physics (semi-conductors,…) ; Charpak type-detectors are used in the container-custom controls (le Havre),…
* Accelerator technology is used in medicine for e.g. the cancer treatment (Orsay,…)…
* Internet Web pages were discovered at CERN (Geneva) being originally used for communicating data and informations between members of experimental groups.
* The treatment of HEP data needs powerful computers.
*

## 4 Summary and conclusions

In this short report, I have presented the social rôle of fundamental research in DC by emphasizing on its long-term usefulness and on the possible realization of the project in DC. I have also given a very elementary introduction to high-energy physics at the level accessible to a majority of readers not necessarily physicists. The aim of this report was to make politicians and financial backers aware on the long-term usefulness of the fundamental research in DC. I wish that after reading it, they have been convinced on the feasability of the project in DC.


text:
# Extensive Air Showers and Accelerator Data – The NEEDS Workshop

## 1 Introduction

The interpretation of most cosmic ray experiments relies on particle physics measurements done at accelerators. This is obvious in the case of measurements of cosmic rays with energies higher than $`10^{14}`$eV. At such energies direct measurements are very difficult or impossible because of low statistics due to the rapidly decreasing primary cosmic ray flux and limited detector aperture . However, utilizing the Earth’s atmosphere as target, large detector apertures and observation times can be achieved, extending the reach in energy up to $`10^{20}`$eV and beyond. The drawback is the highly indirect method of measurement which is based on the detection of secondary particles, forming extensive air showers (EAS), and associated Cherenkov or fluorescence light.

The complexity of EAS requires the detailed simulation of hadronic and electromagnetic particle cascades. Whereas there is a good understanding of the predictions of QED on em. particle production, up to now, hadronic multiparticle production cannot be calculated on theoretical grounds. Although QCD is the accepted theory of strong interactions, only processes with large momentum transfer (hard scale) can be calculated reliably in perturbation theory. The majority of hadronic interactions are not characterized by a hard scale and do not fall into the domain of perturbative QCD. Therefore soft hadron production has to be simulated using phenomenological models. Naturally, due to the lack of a calculable theory, the predictions of currently used models on multiparticle production differ considerably. Measurements of hadronic interactions at fixed target and collider experiments are the ultimate and most efficient method to learn more about soft particle production. They are essential for tuning hadronic interaction models and reducing their uncertainties when extrapolated to ultra-high energy.

There are many open questions related to the primary cosmic ray spectrum. For example, the sources of the cosmic rays, the origin of the knee at $`3\times 10^{15}`$eV and the ankle at about $`3\times 10^{18}`$eV, to name but a few, are not known. Many EAS measurements have been made to determine the mass composition of the cosmic rays in this energy region, which would help understand the origin of the knee. A compilation of the results expressed as mean logarithmic mass $`\mathrm{ln}A`$ is shown in Fig. 1. To date there is no consistent picture of the compositional changes in the knee energy region, however there is general, qualitative agreement that the composition becomes heavier above $`E3\times 10^{15}`$eV. One of the main reasons for the discrepancies between the different results is the use of different hadronic interaction models in the analysis of the measurements (see also discussions in ).

There is urgency of improving the interaction between the high energy physics (HEP) and cosmic ray (CR) communities. Modern CR experiments have reached the statistics and precision that the simulation of hadronic interactions becomes one of the main limiting factors of the data analysis (for example, ). Even small differences in the assumptions on hadronic particle production in forward direction are of crucial importance for the analysis. On the other hand, many measurements of forward particle production, being most important for the simulation of particle cascades, can be done at current accelerators of moderate energy. In the course of concentrating all HEP capacities to few very high energy collider projects more and more low and medium energy experiments cease operation and will no longer be available for such measurements.

Discussing how accelerator measurements can help in understanding CR data, about 50 physicists met in Karlsruhe for the workshop Needs from Accelerator Experiments for the Understanding of High-Energy Extensive Air-Showers (NEEDS). The workshop was organized by Hans Blümer, Andreas Haungs, Heinigerd Rebel (Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe), and Lawrence Jones (Univ. of Michigan) and took place in the Research Center Karlsruhe on April 18 - 20, 2002. The following list gives an overview of the contributions.

* current situation regarding EAS and CR measurements
(M. Roth, J. Knapp, E.C. Loh, O. Saaveedra, G. Schatz, A. Haungs, M. Risse, M. Unger)
* relation of hadronic interactions to EAS observables and hadronic interaction models
(L. Jones, D. Heck, T. Stanev, R. Engel, S. Ostapchenko, J.N. Capdeville, G. Battistoni, J. Ranft)
* relevant data from current accelerator experiments
(CDF @ Tevatron: V. Tano; H1 & ZEUS @ HERA: A. Rostovtsev, M. Erdmann; BRAHMS, PHOBOS, STAR & PHENIX @ RHIC: D. Bucher, E941 @ AGS: B. Fadem, HARP @ CERN PS: K. Zuber, G. Barr)
* planned accelerator experiments
(TOTEM/CMS & ATLAS @ LHC: S. Tapprogge; CASTOR @ LHC: A. Angelis; MIPP @ Tevatron: C. Rosenfeld)

Further details, including presentations of the speakers, can be found on the workshop web page .

This article is an attempt to review the discussions of this workshop. In Sec. 2 a brief overview of the relevant interaction energies and regions of phase space of secondary particles is given. The current situation and problems of measuring primary CR energy and mass spectra are reviewed in Sec. 3, including the possibilities to assess hadronic interaction models. A number of accelerator experiments and measurements of relevance to EAS physics are discussed in Sec. 4. Some conclusions are presented in the last part of this article.

A summary of similar activities prior to this workshop can be found in .

## 2 Simulation of CR interactions: energies and phase space regions

Fig. 2 shows measurements of the primary CR flux and equivalent collider energies. For RHIC and LHC only the proton-proton collider option is shown. A detailed list of different acceleration options and their equivalent CR energies can be found in . The energy of cosmic rays spans an energy range of more than 10 orders of magnitude and exceeds by far that currently available at man-made accelerators.

Interactions of highest energy cosmic rays open a window to ultra-high energy particle physics. In principle the analysis of EAS can yield information on multiparticle production in p-air collisions with CMS energies of up to 400 TeV. However, the features of the first interaction of a primary particle are largely washed out by the successive interactions of the secondaries with correspondingly lower energies. For example, Fig. 3 shows the number of successive interactions (generations) in a proton induced shower of $`E=10^{15}`$eV, which lead to the muons and hadrons observed at sea level. To obtain sensitivity to the physics of the first few interactions of the primary particle a good understanding of all subsequent interactions is needed.

One would expect that, because the energy of the knee corresponds roughly to that of the Tevatron collider, there is little uncertainty in modeling hadronic interactions up to this energy. This is not the case as modern collider experiments are designed to measure quantities which can be predicted within perturbation theory. Mainly hadronic processes with at least one hard scale (large mass or high virtuality) are studied. The measurement of hard processes requires typically high beam luminosities and sensitivity to secondaries with large transverse momentum. By contrast, particle production in cosmic ray cascades is dominated by the most energetic particles with small transverse momenta. The situation is shown in Fig. 4 by comparing the energy flow in p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ collisions at different collision energies with the phase space covered by the CDF and D$`\mathrm{}`$ detectors. In addition, measuring particles with momenta close to the beam direction is technically challenging. The mean transverse momentum of the secondary particles rises only very slowly with collision energy. This means that the detectors have to be placed the closer to the beam pipe the higher the energy of the collision is to cover a similar phase space region.

In summary, EAS and more generally cosmic ray interactions can only be understood and analyzed successfully if hadronic interaction models are developed, tuned to data, and maintained that
(i) cover the entire range of relevant energies extending from the particle production threshold to the energy of the primary cosmic ray,
(ii) give a good description of particle production in the forward direction, i.e. soft and diffractive interactions, and
(iii) allow the extrapolation of accelerator measurements to higher energies and to unmeasured phase space regions.

## 3 Cosmic ray data and interaction models

At the workshop numerous analyses demonstrated the strong dependence of the interpretation of cosmic ray data on the assumptions on hadronic multiparticle production. In the following we will concentrate on the impact of the hadronic interaction model on the composition analysis in the knee energy region.

The mass composition derived by the CASA-BLANCA Collab. , shown in Fig. 5 as mean logarithmic mass, is a typical example of the model-dependence of EAS results. Using different hadronic interaction models for analyzing the same EAS data leads to significantly different conclusions on the mass composition. The statistical uncertainties are much smaller than the systematic uncertainty due to the model dependence. It is clear that some of the used hadronic interaction models describe collider data better than others and a critical evaluation of the models is needed. First steps towards a systematic comparison of models were done in .

However, shortcomings of the modeling of hadronic multiparticle production are obvious even if the QGSjet model is used, which provides currently the best description of the data of the multi-component detector KASCADE. A similar spread of $`\mathrm{ln}A`$ values is found if different observables of the same data set are analyzed with this model. For example, Roth et al. find a range of $`\mathrm{ln}A1.73`$ for $`E10^{16}`$eV, whereas an analysis based on electron and muon numbers gives a systematically lighter composition than an analysis using muon and hadron observables .

On the other hand, the quality of the description of CR data by simulations can also be used to characterize how well a given interaction model describes leading particle production. For example, the KASCADE detector allows the simultaneous measurement of many different quantities which can be used as model discriminator . In particular the correlation of hadrons to other observables is sensitive to the assumptions made in the interaction models. The inelastic proton-air cross-section is a quantity that strongly influences the rate of hadrons observed in the detector. Increasing the cross-section not only reduces the number of hadrons reaching sea level but also reduces the predicted KASCADE trigger rate, which also depends on the number of muons, see Fig. 6.

Another example is the analysis of Pamir emulsion chamber data in . Due to the high altitude of the detector (4370m, $`X_{\mathrm{det}}600`$g/cm2) earlier stages of the shower evolution and also lower primary energies can be measured.

Fig. 7 shows the measured optical density distribution of high-energy secondary shower particles observed in the Pamir emulsion chamber experiment together with model predictions. Where available in CORSIKA , old and new model versions are shown. Larger optical density corresponds to higher particle energy. The energy threshold is about 4 TeV for photons and electrons, and 8 TeV for hadrons.

Finally it should be mentioned that the simulation of hadronic interactions at low energy is an important, integral part of any air shower simulation. In particular the number of GeV muons, one of the important energy estimators in EAS experiments, depends directly on the secondary particle multiplicity in $`\pi `$\- and p-air interactions in the 100 GeV range. The typical energies probed in EAS muon production are given in Fig. 8. The histograms show the distribution of the energy of hadron $`h_1`$ inducing the “last” interaction producing a hadron $`h_2`$ that subsequently decays into a muon which reaches sea level ($`X=1033`$ g/cm2)

$$h_1+\mathrm{air}h_2+X;h_2\mu +X^{}.$$
(1)
Most of the muons are produced in collisions with energies about 10 to 100 times larger than the muon energy. In addition, more than 80% of the muons are produced in pion-air and not p-air collisions. A recent analysis of interaction characteristics can be found in  and muon measurements are compared to simulations, for example, in .

## 4 Present and future accelerator experiments

Parton density measurements at the HERA collider are of particular importance as input in all modern hadronic interaction models. They are the basis of the calculation of inclusive minijet cross-sections at high energy and are one important component for the multiplicity and cross-section extrapolations (see, for example, ). In addition, recently measured leading proton and neutron spectra are of direct relevance to EAS simulations. Assuming that the forward, leading baryon distributions in p-$`\gamma `$ collisions are independent of the target type one can compare HERA data to model predictions for p-p collisions. The HERA data are the first measurement of leading baryons at energies greater than 400 GeV (Fig. 9).

Tevatron measurements at $`\sqrt{s}=1800`$GeV are a benchmark for all models. Unfortunately particle distributions and multiplicities measured so far are restricted to the pseudorapidity range shown in Fig. 4. The measurement of hadron distributions (p, $`\pi `$, and K) at large Feynman $`x`$ would allow a direct model comparison. The large theoretical uncertainty in the model extrapolations could be reduced by a measurement of rates and inclusive cross-sections of jets with a transverse energy as low as $`5`$GeV. Indeed it is the poorly known minijet cross-section which is one of the major parameters in contemporary models. First steps in this direction are the analysis of the soft underlying event in collisions with high-$`p_{}`$ jets  and the measurement of events with multiple jets . The CDF and D$`\mathrm{}`$ detector upgrades for Run II include the installation of forward detector components . The measurement of inclusive hadron distributions, not only that of diffractive events, would be of great help for tuning EAS interaction models. It would also allow to reduce uncertainties due to other phenomenological assumptions made in simulation codes .

RHIC data on Au-Au collisions at $`200`$GeV/n have underlined the limited predictive power of modern simulation programs. The observed central particle densities were about 20 - 30% lower than the theoretical expectations. RHIC heavy ion data are of interest to cosmic ray simulations as they offer a cross check of the theoretical concepts implemented in the simulation codes. Furthermore the high parton densities in heavy nuclei at RHIC energy are expected to be comparable to that in light nuclei at correspondingly higher energy. Heavy ion experiments typically select events according to the centrality of the collision whereas for EAS simulations minimum bias measurements are preferred. Some of the detectors have coverage of a part of the forward direction . The BRAHMS and STAR detectors allow particle identification up to $`\eta 3.7`$. Multiplicities can be measured with PHOBOS up to 5.5 in pseudorapidity. A particularly interesting option would be the installation of N2 or O2 gas targets.

The new RHIC data have raised a number of questions and competing model approaches are developed for their explanation. A discussion of recent RHIC results can be found in  and their importance for EAS simulations is analyzed in .

The inelastic p- and $`\pi `$-air cross-sections are very important parameters of EAS simulations (see, for example, Fig. 6). Unfortunately the measurements available from Tevatron allow for a wide range of different extrapolations.111The CDF Collaboration obtained with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=81.83\pm 2.29`$ mb a value which is considerably greater than those reported by E710 and E811  ($`72.81\pm 3.1`$ mb and $`71.71\pm 2.02`$ mb, respectively). The arising uncertainty translates directly to predictions for air showers. As shown in Fig. 10, the difference in the $`X_{\mathrm{max}}`$ predictions increases to more than 20 g/cm2 at $`10^{17}`$ eV. This difference has to be considered as a lower limit since it corresponds only to the change of the proton and pion interaction lengths with air and not any additional model changes.

An accurate measurement of the p-p cross-section at LHC by the TOTEM Collab.  would restrict the extrapolations and hence improve the predictive power of currently used models. An interesting option is the combination of the TOTEM and CMS detector readout which would allow for the combined analysis of events. In such a scenario the analysis of leading particles would be possible, within a restricted phase space range, in minimum bias measurements.

All LHC experiments will have the potential to contribute to minimum bias measurements in the central region . The phase space regions covered by the ATLAS and CMS detectors are very similar, $`|\eta |<2.5`$ with particle tracking and $`|\eta |<5`$ with hadronic and em. calorimeters. LHCb will offer particle identification in the range $`1.9<\eta <4.9`$. In general there is a lack of forward detectors (the FELIX proposal of a dedicated detector for forward measurements was not approved ).

One of the general problems will be the high luminosity, causing numerous independent p-p interactions per bunch crossing. Therefore the minimum bias measurements needed for event generator tuning have to be done when the collider starts operating and the luminosity is still low. From the point of view of air shower physics the acceleration of light ions would be of greatest interest, in particular asymmetric beam configurations such as p-C.

An example of a dedicated forward detector is the Castor project, planned as subdetector at CMS. It is designed to measure the ratio of electromagnetic to hadronic energy in the forward region (app. $`5.5<\eta <7.2`$) . Options to increase the angular and momentum resolution of this detector to enhance its physics potential are currently studied.

There are a number of important low-energy experiments which help fill in gaps in measured data (see, for example, ) or improve the precision of available data. Whereas measurements of p-N collisions are most important for understanding inclusive neutrino and muon production, pion initiated reactions dominate in EAS.

The HARP experiment, motivated by the physics of atmospheric neutrinos, is designed to measure secondary hadrons, including particle identification, with virtually full phase space coverage . Various particles (p, $`\pi ^\pm `$, and K±) are scattered off nuclear targets including nitrogen and oxygen. The beam energies range from 2 to 15 GeV. A related experiment  took data at 100 and 158 GeV using a modified setup of NA49.

Another dedicated low-energy experiment with full particle identification is MIPP (E907) at Fermilab . It will use the main injector and allow the investigation of interactions induced by p, $`\pi ^\pm `$, K± and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ on a variety of nuclear targets ranging from H2 to Pb. The beam energy will be between 5 and 120 GeV.

Some of the experiments at the Brookhaven AGS measure leading particle distributions in p-A interactions . These measurements were motivated by the anomalously strong stopping power of baryons observed in heavy ion collisions. For example, new data by the E941 Collab. on leading proton and neutron spectra in p-Be collisions at 12 and 19 GeV cover almost the entire large $`x`$ region .

Similar studies were made at the SPS beam by NA49. The NA49 analyzed the leading proton distribution in p-p, p-Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at $`158`$GeV per nucleon by comparing them to $`\pi `$-p interactions at the same energy . (Unfortunately there are no NA49 results for light target nuclei such as Be or C available so far.)

The HERA-B experiment, designed to study B-meson physics, can also measure minimum bias particle production in p-C collisions. With its beam energy of $`920`$GeV and particle identification in the range $`|x_\mathrm{F}|\stackrel{<}{}0.4`$ it can provide important constraints for EAS and muon flux simulations.

Finally it should be mentioned that the precise measurement of the inclusive atmospheric muon flux by L3+Cosmics  gives new insights into the description of forward particle production in p-air collisions in the 1 to 10 TeV energy range. In fact, no contemporary EAS Monte Carlo model can reproduce this measurement .

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

The current lack of methods for calculating QCD predictions for soft particle production at high energy necessitates the use of phenomenological models and assumptions. In modern CR experiments the uncertainty in the simulation of hadronic interactions has become the dominant source of systematic errors, which are difficult to estimate. Two types of data can help tuning interaction models, namely measurements of
(i) general properties of (forward) hadron production, and
(ii) particular predictions of models to test the underlying assumptions.
Whereas the former one serves mainly the adjustment of parameters of the models, the latter one validates the model concepts and increases the confidence in the extrapolations.

It is clear that the measurement of minimum bias hadron production in proton and pion induced collisions with light nuclei tops the priority list (i) of needs for EAS simulations. In particular data of fast secondary particles, both charged and neutral, would be important. At high energy proton or ion induced reactions are of primary interest whereas at low energy beams of pions and kaons are better suited.

All Monte Carlo codes use parametrizations for the production of the leading baryons which are assumed to scale with energy, up to effects due to energy-momentum conservation. These parametrizations are tuned to p-p data at fixed target and HERA energies and should be considered as educated guess only. On one hand models for hadronic multiparticle production cannot be used at low energy as the underlying assumptions are not applicable in this range. Thus, for tuning the high-energy extrapolation of models, p-nucleus data at energies below 200 GeV is of limited use only. On the other hand high-energy data of leading baryons in p-nucleus interactions is not available.

Transverse momentum spectra of particles are mainly of interest at low interaction energies. At high energy the scattering angle of most of the secondary particles is negligible and does not contribute to the lateral extent of EAS. Therefore data will be well-suited if high-energy measurements are integrated over $`p_{}`$.

The measurement of proton- and pion-nucleus cross-sections is important as these cross-sections influence the absorption in the atmosphere. The corresponding proton measurements at accelerators cover the energy range up to 400 GeV but pion beam data is virtually absent.

Finally, recalling that ions in the range from He to Fe are dominating the cosmic ray spectrum, it should be emphasized that the measurements outlined above done with ion beams are of great interest, too. Ideally, the measurements should integrate over all impact parameters and not be restricted to central collisions.

The list (ii) is more model specific but the inclusive minijet cross-section and its energy dependence are key observables for all models. Similarly, parton densities at low $`x`$ and investigations of the range of applicability of perturbative QCD will contribute to the reliability of the model extrapolations.

The discussions at the NEEDS workshop clearly showed that both the HEP and the CR communities are interested in a closer collaboration. However, dedicated measurements of data relevant to EAS simulation will only be done if the data potentially help to analyze the cosmic ray measurements with significantly better accuracy. More work has to be done to make the interests and needs of cosmic ray physics more transparent to the HEP community.

Accelerator experiments principally offer access to their data and resources to cosmic ray colleagues. However, as is the case in general, also projects of measurements at colliders are subject to evaluation, approval or rejection by committees and therefore have to be based on well-defined physics objectives and competitive, cost-effective designs. Therefore any form of active involvement of institutes or members of the cosmic ray community in form of

* sending people to accelerator experiments to help performing measurements and data analyses and
* financial support and cooperation

will be highly appreciated and is the best way to improve recognition of the EAS simulation problems.

Systematic studies of the uncertainties in contemporary hadronic interaction models are needed to work out the most sensitive observables whose measurement will allow to improve the physics descriptions and reduce the uncertainties of the extrapolations in energy and phase space. The publication of the results of such investigations is important for future reference and justifying funding proposals.

Acknowledgments: The author acknowledges lively and fruitful discussions with the attendants of the NEEDS workshop in Karlsruhe. He thanks in particular T. Gaisser, A. Haungs, D. Heck, S. Ostapchenko, J. Ranft, H. Rebel, S. Roesler, T. Stanev, and T. Thouw for the collaboration on various subjects related to this work, and L. Jones for comments on the manuscript. The author was supported by the US Department of Energy contract DE-FG02 91ER 40626.