text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is widely believed that Quantum Chromodynamics and the boson string theory are tightly connected. In the latter, the meson mass spectrum $`M^2(n)`$ is linear with respect to the number of radial excitation $`n`$. Phenomenological analysis of the experimental data shows that this picture, at least qualitatively, indeed takes place . Nevertheless, in the real world there are sizeable deviations from linear trajectories. There arises the natural question: what is the dynamics behind these deviations from the string model? Partly, the deviations can be induced by mixing of resonances and thresholds effects. Let us exclude these effects by setting the widths of resonances to zero. In the QCD it is equivalent to the limit $`N_c=\mathrm{}`$ . This limit is a good approximation to the real world, having an accuracy of about 10%. However, even in that limit one expects the linear mass spectrum only at a large enough $`n`$, as it is in the two-dimensional multicolor QCD — the ’t Hooft model .

In the present work I propose and analyze the hypothesis that, at least in the large-$`N_c`$ limit, deviations from the linear mass spectrum arise due to the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in QCD at low energies.

The convenient tools for the theoretical analysis are the two-point correlation functions for the quark currents. In Euclidean space there exist the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) for them at a large euclidean momentum . Their OPE results in the set of so-called chiral symmetry restoration (CSR) sum rules. Making use of these sum rules for the case of light, non-strange vector (V) and axial-vector (A) mesons, I first analyze the consequences of the hypothesis for the linear mass spectrum (sect. 2) and then consider a toy model describing the corrections to the linear trajectories (sect. 3). I conclude in sect. 4.

## 2 Linear mass spectrum

Let us consider the vector two-point functions which are defined in Euclidean space as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^J=d^4e^{iQx}\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^Jq(x)\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^Jq(0)=\left(Q_\mu Q_\nu \delta _{\mu \nu }Q^2\right)\mathrm{\Pi }^J(Q^2).$$
(1)
There $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^V=\gamma _\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^A=\gamma _\mu \gamma _5`$, and throughout the paper $`J=V,A`$. In the chiral limit the axial-vector correlator does not have the longitudinal part due to the pion pole.

In the chiral and large-$`N_c`$ limits, the OPE for the objects under consideration is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^J(Q^2)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(1+\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}+\frac{\alpha _s}{12\pi }\frac{G^2}{Q^4}+\frac{4a^J}{9}\pi \alpha _s\frac{\overline{q}q^2}{Q^6}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{Q^8}\right),$$
(2)
where $`a^V=7`$, $`a^A=11`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a normalization scale, $`G^2`$ and $`\overline{q}q`$ are the gluon and quark condensate respectively. For simplicity, the first-order perturbative correction to the partonic logarithm will not be taken into account. As follows from Eq. (2), the difference $`\mathrm{\Pi }^V\mathrm{\Pi }^A`$ (equal to zero in the perturbation theory) is proportional to $`\overline{q}q^2/Q^6`$. This reflects the fact that the quark condensate is an order parameter of the chiral symmetry breaking in QCD and that the chiral symmetry is restored at high energies.

On the other hand, the functions $`\mathrm{\Pi }^J(Q^2)`$ satisfy the dispersion relation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^J(Q^2)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s+Q^2}\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Pi }^J(s)+Subt.const.$$
(3)
If one assumes the string-like picture and the color confinement in the large-$`N_c`$ QCD, the meson spectrum consists then of the infinite set of equidistant narrow resonances with an universal slope in all channels. These states saturate completely the imaginary part of the correlation function:

$$\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{\Pi }^J(s)=2f_\pi ^2\delta (s)\delta _{A,J}+2\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_J^2(n)\delta \left(sM_J^2(n)\right).$$
(4)
In Eq. (4) $`f_\pi `$ is the pion decay constant, $`f_\pi 90`$ MeV (in the chiral limit), $`M_J(n)`$ and $`F_J`$ are the corresponding masses and decay constants, $`\delta _{A,J}=1`$ for $`J=A`$ and is zero otherwise. The first term in the l.h.s. of Eq. (4) is due to the contribution of the pion pole to the axial-vector correlator. If all quantum numbers are fixed the meson spectrum has the linear parametrization in the string-like picture:

$$M_J^2(n)=m_J^2+\mu ^2n,F_J^2=const,n=0,1,\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where $`m_J^2`$ is an intercept, $`\mu ^2`$ is an universal slope, and $`n`$ is the number of radial excitation. According to the made hypothesis and the discussion above, corrections to the spectrum (5) are proportional to the quark condensate. We omit them in the analysis of this section. Thus, the two-point functions take the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^J(Q^2)=\frac{2f_\pi ^2}{Q^2}\delta _{A,J}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2F_J^2}{Q^2+m_J^2+\mu ^2n}=\frac{2f_\pi ^2}{Q^2}\delta _{A,J}\frac{2F_J^2}{\mu ^2}\psi \left(\frac{Q^2+m_J^2}{\mu ^2}\right),$$
(6)
where the irrelevant (infinite) constants are cancelled. The $`\psi `$ function has an asymptotic representation at $`z1`$

$$\psi (z)=\mathrm{ln}z\frac{1}{2z}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B_{2n}}{2nz^{2n}},$$
(7)
there $`B_{2n}`$ denote the Bernoulli numbers.

Comparing expansion in $`1/Q^2`$ (7) for Eq. (6) with the OPE (2), one arrives at the following CSR sum rules:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{F_J^2}{\mu ^2}},`$ (8)
$`f_\pi ^2\delta _{A,J}`$ $`=F_J^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_J^2}{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{12\pi }}G^2`$ $`=F_J^2\mu ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_J^4}{\mu ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_J^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\right),`$ (10)
$`0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}F_J^2\mu ^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_J^6}{\mu ^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_J^4}{\mu ^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_J^2}{\mu ^2}}\right).`$ (11)
The l.h.s. of Eq. (11) is set to zero by virtue of the made hypothesis: the parameters of linear mass spectrum (5) do not depend on the quark condensate, which appears in the l.h.s. of Eq. (11) only after allowance for the corrections to the spectrum (5). This factorization is crucial for the given analysis.

Let us set $`m_J^2=x\mu ^2`$. Eq. (11) has the solutions: $`x_1=0`$, $`x_2=1/2`$, and $`x_3=1`$. As follows from Eq. (9), the solution $`x_2`$ corresponds to the vector channel and for the axial-vector case one has the only possibility — the solution $`x_3`$. The solution $`x_1`$ may be relevant to the pseudoscalar channel which we do not consider here.

From Eqs. (8) and (9) one has for the decay constants and slope111Here and further I do not trace the exact $`N_c`$-dependence of the physical quantities. In particular, the factor $`\sqrt{3/N_c}`$ for the slope $`\mu `$ is omitted in (12).

$$F_J=\sqrt{2}f_\pi ,\mu =4\pi f_\pi .$$
(12)
Thus, within this model, the whole V,A meson spectrum is parametrized by only one constant $`f_\pi `$. Following the classification of solutions given above, one obtains ($`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$):

$`M_V^2(n)`$ $`=16\pi ^2f_\pi ^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+n),`$ (13)
$`M_A^2(n)`$ $`=16\pi ^2f_\pi ^2(1+n).`$
The two remarkable properties of the spectrum (13) should be indicated: the value of the $`\rho `$ meson mass, $`M_\rho =2\sqrt{2}\pi f_\pi `$, which is highly successful prediction with respect to experiment , and the natural generalization of the Weinberg relation  ($`M_{a_1}=\sqrt{2}M_\rho `$)

$$M_A^2(n)=M_V^2(n)+M_\rho ^2.$$
(14)
The comparison of model estimates and experimental data is presented in Table 1. The data agree well within the large-$`N_c`$ approximation.

The ensuing from Eq. (10) estimate for the value of gluon condensate exceeds the corresponding phenomenological value, $`\frac{\alpha _s}{12\pi }G^2=(360\text{MeV})^4`$, in the axial-vector channel, $`\frac{\alpha _s}{12\pi }G^2=64\pi ^2f_\pi ^4=(450\text{MeV})^4`$, and gives a negative value in the vector one. The difficulty with the gluon condensate in the sum rule (10) is known (see the first paper in ). Within the scheme under consideration this problem can be overcome by introducing some non-linear corrections to the spectrum (5).

## 3 Non-linear mass spectrum

Let us consider the following ansatz for the meson mass spectrum:

$$M_J^2(n)=m_J^2+\mu ^2n+\frac{f_\pi ^2d_J}{(n+1)^{k_J}},k_J>2.$$
(15)
By hypothesis, the last term in Eq. (15) (where the dimensional parameter is singled out for clarity) represents a decreasing in $`n`$ correction to the linear spectrum, caused by the chiral symmetry breaking. Labeling this contribution as $`\delta `$, one may wright (the index $`J`$ is omitted):

$$\underset{n}{}\frac{F^2}{Q^2+m^2+\mu ^2n+\delta }=\underset{n}{}\frac{F^2}{Q^2+m^2+\mu ^2n}\underset{n}{}\frac{F^2\delta }{(Q^2+m^2+\mu ^2n)(Q^2+m^2+\mu ^2n+\delta )}.$$
(16)
The first term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (16) can be treated as in the previous section. In the second one, the summation over $`n`$ and the expansion in $`1/Q^2`$ can be permuted by virtue of the absolute convergence (up to $`𝒪(1/Q^4)`$).

Let us consider the axial-vector channel. The sum rules (8), (9), and (11) are solved in the zero order of the condensate expansion. Due to Eqs. (2) and (15), in the first order of this expansion Eq. (11) takes the form:

$$d_A=\frac{11\pi \alpha _s}{8\pi ^2\zeta (k_A1)}\frac{\overline{q}q^2}{f_\pi ^6}+𝒪\left(\frac{\overline{q}q^4}{f_\pi ^{12}}\right),$$
(17)
where $`\zeta (x)`$ is the Riemann zeta function. Let us impose the condition of fulfillment of the sum rule (10) in the first order of the condensate expansion. This yields the equation for the parameter $`k_A`$:

$$\frac{1}{f_\pi ^4}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2=64\pi ^248\zeta (k_A)d_A.$$
(18)
In the vector channel the corresponding equations look as follows:

$`d_V={\displaystyle \frac{7\pi \alpha _s}{2\pi ^2\left[2\zeta (k_V1)\zeta (k_V)\right]}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q^2}{f_\pi ^6}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q^4}{f_\pi ^{12}}}\right),`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}G^2=32\pi ^248\zeta (k_V)d_V.`$
For the inputs $`f_\pi =90`$ MeV, $`\overline{q}q=(240\text{MeV})^3`$, $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2=(360\text{MeV})^4`$, and $`\alpha _s=0.3`$ the numerical calculations give $`k_Ak_V2.1`$ and show that the quark condensate terms indeed can be treated as small parameters (their numerical contributions are less than the large-$`N_c`$ counting). The presented solution lowers the mass of $`\rho `$ meson by 40 MeV and enhances that of $`a_1`$ meson by 20 MeV. The masses of excitations virtually do not change.

For the given fits, the correction to the Weinberg relation is

$$M_{a_1}^22M_\rho ^2\frac{\overline{q}q^2}{20f_\pi ^4},$$
(20)
that is, in this toy model the deviation from the Weinberg relation represents an order parameter of the chiral symmetry breaking in QCD.

## 4 Summary

In the present work I have considered the problem of matching the vector and axial-vector two-point correlation functions in the large-$`N_c`$ and chiral limits to their Operator Product Expansion at a large euclidean momentum $`Q^2`$. In the first limit the two-point functions are saturated by an infinite number of narrow resonances and, given an ansatz for the meson spectrum, can be calculated exactly. Expanding a correlator in powers of $`Q^2`$ and comparing with its OPE, one obtains the sum rule at each order of the expansion. This activity was dealt with by various authors in the vector channel , in the vector and axial-vector channels on the same footing , and in the vector, axial-vector, scalar, and pseudoscalar channels simultaneously .

The distinguishing feature of the present analysis consists in the underlying hypothesis that corrections to the string-like meson spectrum are related to the chiral symmetry breaking in QCD. These contributions are proportional to the quark condensate squared (in the first order of the condensate expansion) and can be treated as small parameters. The sum rule (s.r.) at $`Q^6`$, which is sensitive to the chiral symmetry breaking, gives then the set of solutions for the intercepts (in the zero order of the condensate expansion). The s.r. at $`Q^2`$ allows to classify these solutions. The s.r. at $`Q^0`$ yields the residues (decay constants) and the s.r. at $`Q^2`$ in the axial-vector channel gives the value of universal slope. As a result, the linear meson mass spectrum turns out to be parametrized by only one constant $`f_\pi `$, being successful phenomenologically. The s.r. at $`Q^4`$ serves for checking the solutions. It is found that this s.r. can not be satisfied without non-linear corrections to the string-like spectrum. These corrections turned out to be rather small, but they make the sum rules self-consistent.

Thus, a simple toy-model is proposed, where the string-like part of QCD spectrum and the part responsible for the chiral symmetry breaking are naturally factorized. The phenomenological success of the model may signify that the considered physical picture is related to the real QCD.

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to A.A. Andrianov for useful discussions and enlightening comments. This work is supported by Grant RFBR 01-02-17152 and INTAS Call 2000 Grant (Project 587).


format: text

text:
# A Distributed Algorithm to Find 𝒌-Dominating Sets

## 1 introduction

Let $`G(n,m)`$ be a connected undirected graph with $`n`$ nodes and $`m`$ edges. For $`kn1`$, a $`k`$-dominating set $`D`$ in $`G`$ is a set of nodes with the property that every node in $`G`$ is at most $`k`$ edges away from at least one of the nodes of $`D`$. The problem of finding $`k`$-dominating sets of relatively small sizes is important in a variety of contexts, including multicast systems , the placement of servers in a computer network , the caching of replicas in database and operating systems , and message routing with sparse tables .

Finding a $`k`$-dominating set in $`G`$ with the least possible number of nodes is an NP-hard problem , so one normally settles for a set of small size that is not necessarily optimal. In general, the small size to be sought is at most $`n/(k+1)`$, since it can be argued that a $`k`$-dominating set with no more than this number of nodes always exists , and likewise that a connected graph on $`n`$ nodes necessarily exists for which every $`k`$-dominating set has at least $`n/(k+1)`$ nodes .

The argument for $`n/(k+1)`$ as an upper bound is instructive in the present context, and goes as follows . Let $`T`$ be a rooted spanning tree of $`G`$ and $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_{k+1}`$ a partition of its nodes such that, for $`0\mathrm{}k`$, every node in $`D_{\mathrm{}+1}`$ is away from the root a number $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ of tree edges such that $`x_{\mathrm{}}mod(k+1)=\mathrm{}`$. This partition can be constructed easily by traversing $`T`$ breadth-first from the root and assigning every new layer of nodes circularly to the sets $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_{k+1}`$. Clearly, every one of these sets is a $`k`$-dominating set in $`G`$. Also, because they partition the graph’s node set, and considering that $`nk+1`$, it must be that at least one of them has no more than $`n/(k+1)`$ nodes.

Our topic in this paper is finding a $`k`$-dominating set in $`G`$ having no more than $`n/(k+1)`$ nodes by means of a synchronous distributed computation on $`G`$. The model of distributed computation that we adopt is the standard fully synchronous model . In this model, the nodes of $`G`$ are processors that function in lockstep at the occurrence of clock pulses, and its edges are bidirectional communication channels that deliver messages between their end nodes before the clock pulse that follows the sending of the message occurs. Time is measured by counting clock pulses.

The current best synchronous algorithm to find a $`k`$-dominating set in $`G`$ is from , and is henceforth referred to as Algorithm KP. It proceeds in two stages: the first stage partitions $`G`$ into the trees of a rooted spanning forest $`F`$, each having at least $`k+1`$ nodes and height $`O(k)`$; the second stage approaches each tree $`UF`$ as described earlier for the spanning tree $`T`$ and partitions its nodes into the sets $`D_1^U,\mathrm{},D_{k+1}^U`$. If $`f`$ is the number of trees in $`F`$, then the $`k`$-dominating set output by the algorithm is $`D=D_\mathrm{}_1^{U_1}\mathrm{}D_\mathrm{}_f^{U_f}`$, where $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_f`$ are the trees of $`F`$ and $`D_\mathrm{}_i^{U_i}`$ is the smallest set of $`D_1^{U_i},\mathrm{},D_{k+1}^{U_i}`$ for $`1if`$. If $`n_U`$ is the number of nodes of $`UF`$, then

$`|D|`$ $`=`$ $`|D_\mathrm{}_1^{U_1}|+\mathrm{}+|D_\mathrm{}_f^{U_f}|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{UF}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_U}{k+1}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{UF}n_U}{k+1}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{k+1}},`$
since $`n_Uk+1`$ for all $`UF`$.

While the second stage of Algorithm KP can be easily implemented within the bounds of $`O(k)`$ time and $`O(n)`$ messages, its first stage is based on an arcane combination of previously developed algorithms for related problems , resulting in a time complexity of $`O(k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ and a message complexity of $`O(m\mathrm{log}k+n^2\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$. The latter, incidentally, is our best estimate of what is really involved, in terms of communication needs, in Algorithm KP—such needs are thoroughly ignored in , but this message complexity seems to follow from the message complexities of the algorithm’s building blocks.

In this paper, we introduce a new synchronous distributed algorithm for finding a $`k`$-dominating set of no more than $`n/(k+1)`$ nodes in $`G`$. Like Algorithm KP, our algorithm too comprises two subsequent stages, each having the same goal as its counterpart in Algorithm KP. The second stage, in particular, is exactly the same as Algorithm KP’s.

Our contribution is the introduction of a new algorithm for the partition of $`G`$ into the trees of $`F`$. When compared to Algorithm KP, our algorithm has the same complexity of $`O(k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ time while improving on the message complexity, which in our case is of $`O(m\mathrm{log}k+n\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$. We also find our algorithm to be conceptually simpler than Algorithm KP, which can probably be attributed to the fact that it was designed from scratch with the partitioning problem in mind. While our algorithm simply generates a sequence of “meta-graphs,” the last of which has nodes that directly give the rooted trees of $`F`$, Algorithm KP reduces the partition problem to other related problems and then combines algorithms for those problems into building a solution to the partition problem. Henceforth, we let the algorithm we introduce be called Algorithm PB.

The following is how the remainder of the paper is organized. The first stage of Algorithm PB is introduced in Section 2 and analyzed for correctness and complexity in Section 3. Concluding remarks are given in Section 4.

## 2 The algorithm

In this section we introduce the first stage of Algorithm PB. This stage finds a rooted spanning forest $`F`$ in $`G`$, each of whose trees has at least $`k+1`$ nodes and $`O(k)`$ height, and is referred to in the sequel as Partition\_$`G`$.

Partition\_$`G`$ starts by letting the node set of $`G`$ be the node set of a directed graph $`\stackrel{}{G}_0`$, and proceeds from there in $`\mathrm{log}(k+1)`$ phases. For $`0i\mathrm{log}(k+1)1`$, phase $`i`$ first builds the edge set of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ and then begins the transformation of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ into another directed graph, $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$, by clustering the nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ together to form the nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$. Each node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ stands for a rooted tree in $`G`$, and this clustering is performed in such a way that not only is each resulting node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$ also a rooted tree in $`G`$, but one that has at least $`2^{i+1}`$ nodes and $`O(2^{i+1})`$ height. After completion of phase $`\mathrm{log}(k+1)1`$, the node set of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{\mathrm{log}(k+1)}`$ represents the desired rooted spanning forest $`F`$ (earlier termination is also possible, as we discuss shortly).

If $`x`$ and $`y`$ are nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, then we say that $`x`$ and $`y`$ are potential neighbors in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ if an edge exists in $`G`$ joining some node in the rooted tree represented by $`x`$ to some node in the rooted tree represented by $`y`$. We say that they are neighbors in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ if a directed edge exists between them. A node that has no neighbors is isolated. If $`x`$ and $`y`$ are neighbors in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, then we use $`xy`$ to indicate that the edge between $`x`$ and $`y`$ is directed from $`x`$ to $`y`$. In this case, we say that $`x`$ is an upstream neighbor of $`y`$, which in turn is an downstream neighbor of $`x`$.

Partition\_$`G`$ is based on manipulations of node identifiers, which we assume to be a distinct nonnegative integer for every node in $`G`$. The identifier of node $`x`$ in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}(x)`$, is the identifier of the root of its tree. If a node’s identifier is less than those of all its neighbors, then we call the node a local minimum. If it is greater, then we call it a local maximum. The following is how Partition\_$`G`$ works during phase $`i`$. We use $`\mathrm{log}^{(t)}n`$ to denote $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}n`$, where $`\mathrm{log}`$ is repeated $`t`$ times.

Step 1. Find the edges of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$:

1. Let each node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ be inactive, if the height of the corresponding rooted tree is at least $`2^{i+1}`$, or active, otherwise.
2. For every active node $`x`$ of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, find the potential neighbors of $`x`$ in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$. If no potential neighbors are found for any node, then halt and exit Partition\_$`G`$.
3. For each active node $`x`$ of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, let $`y`$ be the active potential neighbor of $`x`$ with the least identifier. If $`x`$ has no active potential neighbors, then let $`y`$ be the (inactive) potential neighbor of $`x`$ having the least identifier. Add $`xy`$ to the edge set of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, thus making $`x`$ and $`y`$ neighbors in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$.

Remark. If no neighbors are found for any node in Step 1b, then in reality $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ has one single node that encompasses all the nodes of $`G`$ and therefore corresponds to a rooted spanning tree of $`G`$. In this case, Partition\_$`G`$ terminates prematurely, that is, before completing all $`\mathrm{log}(k+1)`$ phases.

Remark. At the end of Step 1c, every active node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ has exactly one downstream neighbor, while every inactive node has none. Similarly, both active nodes whose downstream neighbor is active and inactive nodes may have between zero and some positive number of upstream neighbors. An active node whose downstream neighbor is inactive has no upstream neighbors.

Step 2. Find the nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$:

1. If $`xy`$ is an edge of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ such that $`x`$ is an active node and $`y`$ an inactive node, then combine $`x`$ into $`y`$ by creating a single node whose identifier remains $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}(y)`$. Let $`X`$ be the set of active nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ that are not isolated.
2. For $`xX`$, let $`Z(x)X`$ be the set of upstream neighbors of $`x`$. If $`Z(x)\mathrm{}`$, then let $`z`$ be the member of $`Z(x)`$ having the least identifier. For $`yZ(x)`$ such that $`yz`$, check whether $`Z(y)=\mathrm{}`$. In the affirmative case, combine $`y`$ into $`x`$. Otherwise (i.e., $`Z(y)\mathrm{}`$), eliminate edge $`yx`$. Let $`X`$ be the set of active nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ that are not isolated.
3. For $`xX`$, if $`x`$ is a local minimum, then combine its (at most two) neighbors into it and make it isolated by eliminating edges from $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ appropriately. Also, combine into the newly-formed node any node in $`X`$ that may have become isolated. Let $`X`$ be the set of active nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ that are not isolated.
4. Repeat Step 2c for local maxima, then let $`X`$ be the set of active nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ that are not isolated. For $`xX`$, let $`l_x=\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}(x)`$.
5. For $`xX`$, let

$$l_x^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}l_y,\hfill & \text{if }yx\text{ is an edge of }\stackrel{}{G}_i\text{;}\hfill \\ l_x1,\hfill & \text{if }yx\text{ is not an edge of }\stackrel{}{G}_i\text{ and }l_z>l_x\text{;}\hfill \\ l_x+1,\hfill & \text{if }yx\text{ is not an edge of }\stackrel{}{G}_i\text{ and }l_z<l_x\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`z`$ is the downstream neighbor of $`x`$, and

$$l_x^+=\{\begin{array}{cc}l_y,\hfill & \text{if }xy\text{ is an edge of }\stackrel{}{G}_i\text{;}\hfill \\ l_x+1,\hfill & \text{if }xy\text{ is not an edge of }\stackrel{}{G}_i\text{ and }l_z<l_x\text{;}\hfill \\ l_x1,\hfill & \text{if }xy\text{ is not an edge of }\stackrel{}{G}_i\text{ and }l_z>l_x\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`z`$ is the upstream neighbor of $`x`$. Now consider the binary representations of $`l_x^{}`$, $`l_x`$, and $`l_x^+`$, and let $`A(x)`$ be the set of positive integers $`p`$ such that $`l_x^{}`$ and $`l_x`$ have the same bit at the $`p`$th position while $`l_x`$ and $`l_x^+`$ do not. Likewise, let $`B(x)`$ be the set of numbers $`p`$ such that $`l_x^{}`$ and $`l_x`$ have different bits at the $`p`$th position while $`l_x`$ and $`l_x^+`$ have the same bit. Assuming that position numbers increase from right to left in a binary representation, let $`p^{}(x)`$ be the greatest member of $`A(x)B(x)`$. If $`xy`$ is an edge of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ such that $`p^{}(x)=p^{}(y)`$, then combine $`x`$ into $`y`$ and make the resulting node isolated by eliminating edges appropriately (if any node in $`X`$ becomes isolated because of this, then combine that node into the newly-formed node as well). Now let $`X`$ be the set of active nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ that are not isolated, then repeat Steps 2c and 2d with $`p^{}`$’s in place of $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}`$’s, and once again let $`X`$ be the set of active nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ that are not isolated. If $`X\mathrm{}`$, then let $`l_x=p^{}(x)`$ for all $`xX`$ and repeat Step 2e. If $`X=\mathrm{}`$, then let the set of isolated nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ be the node set of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$.

Remark. In Step 2a, it is possible for more than one $`x`$ to exist for the same $`y`$. In this case, every such $`x`$ is combined into the single resulting node of identifier $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}(y)`$. Note that for no such $`x`$ there may exist a node $`z`$ such that $`zx`$ or $`yz`$ is an edge of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$. This is so, respectively, because $`x`$ has an inactive downstream neighbor and by Step 1c has no active neighbors, and because $`y`$, being inactive, has no downstream neighbors. As a consequence, the newly-formed node is isolated in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$. At the end of Step 2a, the single downstream neighbor of every member of $`X`$ is active, and therefore also a member of $`X`$.

Remark. In Step 2b, there may exist more than one $`yZ(x)`$ such that $`yz`$ and $`Z(y)=\mathrm{}`$. Every such $`y`$ gets combined into node $`x`$. At the end of Step 2b, every member of $`X`$ has exactly one downstream neighbor and at most one upstream neighbor. That is, the members of $`X`$ are arranged into groups of nodes, each group having at most one node with no upstream neighbor and exactly one node that has the same neighbor for both upstream and downstream neighbor. Except for these two-node directed cycles, such groups of nodes may be regarded as directed chains.

Remark. At the end of Step 2d, the members of $`X`$ are arranged into directed chains of nodes whose identifiers are strictly increasing or decreasing along the chains. Each such chain has at least two nodes, of which exactly one has no upstream neighbor and exactly one has no downstream neighbor.

Remark. Step 2e repeatedly manipulates the node labels $`l_x`$ so that the finding of minima and maxima, respectively as in Steps 2c and 2d, can once again be used to combine nodes in $`X`$ into isolated nodes. Initially, node identifiers are used for labels, but subsequently they get replaced by integers that point into the binary representations of the labels used in the previous iteration. As the iterations progress, these integers have an ever-dwindling range: if $`j1`$ identifies an iteration within Step 2e, then the range of labels during iteration $`j`$ is $`0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{log}^{(j)}n`$. Eventually, during a certain iteration $`j\mathrm{log}^{}n`$, this range becomes $`\{0,1\}`$ and consequently the taking of minima and maxima as in Steps 2c and 2d is guaranteed to produce an empty $`X`$. At the beginning of each iteration, the members of $`X`$ are arranged into directed chains whose labels are strictly increasing or decreasing along the chains. Each such chain has at least two nodes, of which exactly one has no upstream neighbor and exactly one has no downstream neighbor.

Steps 1 and 2 specify the $`i`$th phase of Partition\_$`G`$ as the manipulation of directed graphs, first to find the edges of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ in Step 1, then in Step 2 to find the nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$. Of course, the realization of such operations on graphs requires communication among the nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, which ultimately translates into communication among the nodes of $`G`$. However, the assumption of a synchronous model of distributed computation makes the communication needs of Partition\_$`G`$ rather straightforward to realize .

Because each node in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ stands for a rooted tree in $`G`$, Steps 1 and 2 can be regarded as being executed by the trees’ roots, which in turn coordinate the remaining nodes in their trees in carrying out the various tasks prescribed by the algorithm. For example, Step 1a is a broadcast with feedback on tree edges started by the root, which sends out the upper bound of $`2^{i+1}1`$ on the tree height for the $`i`$th phase. This is propagated by the other nodes in the tree, which send on what they receive, if nonzero, after decrementing it by one. The feedback is started by the leaves, which clearly never happens if at least one leaf is not reached by the broadcast, thus signaling to the root that the tree is oversized.

In the same vein, by simply letting every node in $`G`$ that belongs to the same node $`x`$ in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ have a record of $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}(x)`$, finding the potential neighbors of $`x`$ in Step 1b and the directed edges incident to it in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ in Step 1c are also simple procedures that function by probing the connections of $`x`$ in $`G`$. Whenever an edge is deployed between two nodes in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, a corresponding edge in $`G`$, referred to as the preferred edge between those two nodes, can also be easily identified and recorded for later use.

All the remaining actions in Partition\_$`G`$ can be realized via communication between the roots of two trees whose nodes in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ are connected by an edge. Whenever a message needs to be sent, it can be routed on tree edges only, except to move from one tree to the other, at which time it must go through the preferred edge between the two trees. This is, for example, the basis for realizing the combination of a node into another: combining a node $`x`$ into a node $`y`$ that is connected to it by an edge in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ involves making the preferred edge between them an edge of the new tree and then propagating through $`x`$’s tree the information that a new root exists and has identifier $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}(y)`$.

## 3 Correctness and complexity

Most of our correctness and complexity arguments hinge on how well Step 2e succeeds in breaking directed chains of nodes in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ as needed. It is to the properties of Step 2e that we turn first.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`xy`$ be an edge at the beginning of an iteration of Step 2e of Partition\_$`G`$. The following holds:

1. If $`p^{}(x)A(x)`$ and $`p^{}(y)A(y)`$, then $`p^{}(x)p^{}(y)`$;
2. If $`p^{}(x)B(x)`$ and $`p^{}(y)B(y)`$, then $`p^{}(x)p^{}(y)`$;
3. If $`p^{}(x)B(x)`$ and $`p^{}(y)A(y)`$, then $`p^{}(x)p^{}(y)`$.

Proof: By Steps 2a through 2e, edge $`xy`$ is in a chain of nodes whose labels are either strictly increasing or strictly decreasing along the chain. Suppose the former case first. Then $`l_x^{}<l_x<l_y<l_y^+`$.

If $`p^{}(x)A(x)`$, then $`l_x^{}`$ and $`l_x`$ have the same bit at position $`p^{}(x)`$ while $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ have different bits at that same position. If $`p^{}(y)A(y)`$, then $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ have the same bit at position $`p^{}(y)`$ while $`l_y`$ and $`l_y^+`$ have different bits at that same position. So $`p^{}(x)`$ and $`p^{}(y)`$ cannot be the same position, thus proving (i).

If $`p^{}(x)B(x)`$, then $`l_x^{}`$ and $`l_x`$ have different bits at position $`p^{}(x)`$ while $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ have the same bit at that same position. If $`p^{}(y)B(y)`$, then $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ have different bits at position $`p^{}(y)`$ while $`l_y`$ and $`l_y^+`$ have the same bit at that same position. So $`p^{}(x)`$ and $`p^{}(y)`$ cannot be the same position, which proves (ii).

We now prove (iii). If $`p^{}(x)B(x)`$, then $`l_x^{}`$ and $`l_x`$ have different bits at position $`p^{}(x)`$ while $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ have the same bit at that same position. Suppose these bits are $`100`$, respectively for $`l_x^{}`$, $`l_x`$, and $`l_y`$. By definition of $`p^{}(x)`$, at all other positions to the left of $`p^{}(x)`$ in the binary representations of $`l_x^{}`$, $`l_x`$, $`l_y`$ (that is, positions corresponding to higher powers of two) we must have the same bit for all three labels or bits that differ from $`l_x^{}`$ to $`l_x`$ and also from $`l_x`$ to $`l_y`$. In other words, the only possibilities are $`000`$, $`111`$, $`010`$, and $`101`$. But these possibilities have all the same bit for $`l_x^{}`$ and $`l_y`$, which contradicts the fact that $`l_x^{}<l_y`$. Then the bits for $`l_x^{}`$, $`l_x`$, and $`l_y`$ at position $`p^{}(x)`$ must be $`011`$.

If $`p^{}(x)=p^{}(y)`$, then the bits of $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ are both $`1`$ at position $`p^{}(y)`$, which is in agreement with the definition of $`A(y)`$. By this same definition, at position $`p^{}(y)`$ the bit of $`l_y^+`$ must be $`0`$. To the left of $`p^{}(y)`$, the possibilities for $`l_x`$, $`l_y`$, $`l_y^+`$ are $`000`$, $`111`$, $`010`$, and $`101`$, again following the definition of $`p^{}(y)`$. This implies the same bit for $`l_x`$ and $`l_y^+`$ at all those positions, which like before contradicts the fact that $`l_x<l_y^+`$. So $`p^{}(x)p^{}(y)`$.

If $`xy`$ is in a chain of nodes whose labels are strictly decreasing along the chain, then $`l_x^{}>l_x>l_y>l_y^+`$. In this case, the arguments that prove (i) and (ii) remain unchanged, while in the proof of (iii) it suffices to complement every bit in the triples we displayed (this leads to contradictions of $`l_x^{}>l_y`$ and $`l_x>l_y^+`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2

Let $`xy`$ be an edge at the beginning of an iteration of Step 2e of Partition\_$`G`$. If $`p^{}(x)=p^{}(y)`$, then $`p^{}(x)A(x)`$ and $`p^{}(y)B(y)`$.

Proof: If $`p^{}(x)B(x)`$ with either $`p^{}(y)B(y)`$ or $`p^{}(y)A(y)`$, then by Lemma 1, parts (ii) and (iii), $`p^{}(x)p^{}(y)`$. If $`p^{}(x)A(x)`$ and $`p^{}(y)A(y)`$, then by Lemma 1, part (i), $`p^{}(x)p^{}(y)`$. Thence the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3

Let $`xyz`$ be part of a chain at the beginning of an iteration of Step 2e of Partition\_$`G`$. If $`p^{}(x)=p^{}(y)`$, then $`p^{}(y)p^{}(z)`$.

Proof: By Lemma 2, $`p^{}(x)A(x)`$ and $`p^{}(y)B(y)`$. By Lemma 1, parts (ii) and (iii), $`p^{}(y)p^{}(z)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now let $`I`$ be the last phase of Partition\_$`G`$ in which premature termination in Step 1b does not occur. Then $`1I\mathrm{log}(k+1)1`$ and we have the following.

###### Lemma 4

For $`i=0,\mathrm{},I`$, every node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$ that is not an inactive node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ is formed by the combination of at least two nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$.

Proof: By Step 2e, the node set of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$ is the set of isolated nodes in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ at the end of Step 2. The lemma follows easily from the fact that every isolated node produced during Step 2 (that is, isolated nodes that are not inactive during phase $`i`$) result from the combination of at least two nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now in position to demonstrate that Partition\_$`G`$ does indeed achieve its goals.

###### Theorem 5

For $`i=0,\mathrm{},I+1`$, the nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ form a rooted spanning forest of $`G`$. Each tree in this forest has at least $`2^i`$ nodes and $`O(2^i)`$ height.

Proof: The theorem holds trivially for $`i=0`$, and we prove it inductively for $`i+1`$ with $`0iI`$. The induction hypothesis is that the nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ form a rooted spanning forest of $`G`$, each of whose trees having at least $`2^i`$ nodes and $`O(2^i)`$ height.

In order to show that the nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$ do indeed form a rooted spanning forest of $`G`$, by the induction hypothesis it suffices to argue that the set $`X`$ is empty at the end of phase $`i`$. The reason for this is that it is the set of isolated nodes at the end of phase $`i`$ that we take to be the node set of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$, and that $`X=\mathrm{}`$ indicates that every node in $`G`$ is part of the tree represented by some isolated node. But this follows directly from the fact that the range of labels during Step 2e decreases steadily as the iterations progress. Eventually, this range becomes such that every label is either $`0`$ or $`1`$, at which time the finding of minima and maxima makes $`X`$ empty.

Having shown this, we consider the number of nodes and height of each of the trees in the node set of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$. A node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$ is either an inactive node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ or results, by Lemma 4, from the combination of at least two nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$. In the former case, by Step 1a the node corresponds to a rooted tree in $`G`$ with at least $`2^{i+1}`$ nodes. In the latter case, by the induction hypothesis, it corresponds to a rooted tree in $`G`$ with at least $`q2^i`$ nodes for $`q2`$, that is, at least $`2^{i+1}`$ nodes.

As for the height, we reason similarly. If a node in $`\stackrel{}{G}_{i+1}`$ is an inactive node of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, then its height is, by the induction hypothesis, $`O(2^i)`$, which in turn is $`O(2^{i+1})`$. If it is a combination of at least two nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, then either this combination takes place in one of Steps 2a through 2d or in Step 2e. In the former case, the combination is either performed over a single edge (Steps 2a and 2b), or it is performed over a chain of at most six edges (first in Step 2c, then in Step 2d). In either case, the induction hypothesis leads to a height of $`q2^i`$ for $`q`$ a constant, which is $`O(2^{i+1})`$. The case of Step 2e is entirely analogous, since by Lemma 3 it is either performed over a single edge, or else by the taking of minima and maxima, as in Steps 2c and 2d. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 6

The nodes of $`\stackrel{}{G}_{I+1}`$ form a rooted spanning forest of $`G`$, and in this forest each tree has at least $`k+1`$ nodes and $`O(k)`$ height.

Proof: If Partition\_$`G`$ terminates in Step 1b of some phase, then $`I<\mathrm{log}(k+1)1`$ and the corollary holds, because $`\stackrel{}{G}`$ has in this case one single node encompassing all the $`nk+1`$ nodes of $`G`$, and furthermore the height of the tree that corresponds to this single node is by Theorem 5 $`O(2^{I+1})`$, which is $`O(k)`$. If Partition\_$`G`$ runs through all the phases, then $`I=\mathrm{log}(k+1)1`$ and the corollary follows directly from Theorem 5 with $`i=I+1=\mathrm{log}(k+1)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now finalize the section by discussing the time and number of messages needed by Partition\_$`G`$ and by Algorithm PB as a whole.

###### Theorem 7

Partition\_$`G`$ requires $`O(k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ time and $`O(m\mathrm{log}k+n\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ messages to complete.

Proof: During the $`i`$th phase, $`i=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{log}(k+1)1`$, each of Steps 1a through 2d requires a constant number of communication “rounds,” each in turn requiring a number of time units proportional to the height of a rooted tree in that phase, which by Theorem 5 is $`O(2^i)`$. The same holds for each of the iterations of Step 2e, of which there are at most $`\mathrm{log}^{}n`$. Then the time required for Partition\_$`G`$ to complete grows with

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{log}(k+1)1}{}}}2^i\mathrm{log}^{}n`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{log}(k+1)1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\mathrm{log}(k+1)}}{2^i}}\mathrm{log}^{}n`$
$`=`$ $`(k+1)\mathrm{log}^{}n{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{log}(k+1)1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^i}}`$
$`<`$ $`2(k+1)\mathrm{log}^{}n,`$
so Partition\_$`G`$ requires $`O(k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ time.

The number of messages that Partition\_$`G`$ requires can be estimated likewise for phase $`i`$, as follows. The number of messages sent during Step 1 is dominated by Step 1b to determine the potential neighbors in $`G`$ of a node in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$, which requires $`O(m)`$ messages. Steps 2a and 2b require $`O(n)`$ messages, which is the total number of tree edges, because several nodes may be combined into the same node during those steps. However, each of the $`O(\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ communication “rounds” in Steps 2c through 2e is more economical, because the chain structure of $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ in those steps allows communication to take place along single paths from the trees’ roots, and so the number of messages flowing in each rooted tree is proportional to its height, which during phase $`i`$ is $`O(2^i)`$ by Theorem 5. Also by Theorem 5, each rooted tree in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$ has at least $`2^i`$ nodes, so there are at most $`n/2^i`$ rooted trees in $`\stackrel{}{G}_i`$. It follows that the number of messages required by Partition\_$`G`$ for completion grows with

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{log}(k+1)1}{}}m+\frac{n}{2^i}2^i\mathrm{log}^{}n=m\mathrm{log}(k+1)+n\mathrm{log}^{}n\mathrm{log}(k+1),$$

so Partition\_$`G`$ requires $`O(m\mathrm{log}k+n\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ messages. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 8

Algorithm PB requires $`O(k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ time and $`O(m\mathrm{log}k+n\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ messages to complete.

Proof: Immediate from Theorem 7, considering that the algorithm’s second stage requires $`O(k)`$ time and $`O(n)`$ messages. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Concluding remarks

We have considered the problem of finding a $`k`$-dominating set with no more than $`n/(k+1)`$ nodes in $`G`$, and given a new synchronous distributed algorithm to solve it in $`O(k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ time while requiring $`O(m\mathrm{log}k+n\mathrm{log}k\mathrm{log}^{}n)`$ messages. Our algorithm follows the same overall strategy of , according to which first a rooted spanning forest is found in $`G`$ with certain characteristics, and then the desired $`k`$-dominating set on that forest.

Our algorithm introduces a new approach to finding the rooted spanning forest, which we think is conceptually simpler than the one of , and shares with the algorithm of  the additional computation that is required to find the $`k`$-dominating set. In both algorithms, the overall complexity is dominated by the forest-finding stage. Both have the same time complexity, but ours has better message complexity.

The authors acknowledge partial support from CNPq, CAPES, the PRONEX initiative of Brazil’s MCT under contract 41.96.0857.00, and a FAPERJ BBP grant.


text:
# SU(2) Glueballs, diquarks and mesons in dense matter

## 1 Motivation

The SU(2) QCD lattice theory has been recently reconsidered as a good starting point in order to get some insight into QCD phenomena at chemical potential $`\mu `$ and temperature different from zero. The main difficulty of the complex action once $`\mu 0`$ is avoided adopting the color SU(2) group as in this case the determinant is real and standard hybrid Monte Carlo simulations are possible. As a general reference see .

In the following we discuss the scalar gluonic correlators constructed by the smearing technique  in order to excite glueballs and compare their behavior with that of scalar mesons as a function of baryon density. The study of the pattern of chiral symmetry in the vector fermionic sector and of vector condensation signals is also addressed.

## 2 The simulation

The simulations were performed on $`6^3\times 12`$ lattice using a standard hybrid molecular dynamics algorithm for staggered fermions  at $`\beta =1.3`$ for two quark masses: $`m=0.05`$ and $`m=0.07`$ and four values of the chemical potential: $`\mu =0.0,0.2,0.4,0.6`$. We performed $`400000`$ steps saving configurations every $`10`$ steps. We also performed $`30000`$ steps for $`m=0.07`$ and $`\mu =0.25,0.30,0.32,0.35,0.90`$.

The glueball correlation functions have been obtained using the smearing procedure  trying six values of the smearing weight: $`w=0.025,0.05,0.07,0.1,0.2,0.3`$ repeated recursively $`1,2,3,4`$ times (smearing steps). Our analysis is in progress and the data shown in the following are to be considered preliminary, more details will be given in . See ref.  for recent result on glueballs at finite temperature. In Figs. 1 and 2 we show the good fluctuation reduction obtained by the smearing procedure; the glueball correlators and masses are plotted at $`\mu 0`$ as a function of a combined smearing variable (steps times weight). The value of masses are obtained as logarithm of the glueball correlation ratios at different distances.

The general features of the results are monitored by the behavior of the particle number matrix element $`<\overline{\psi }\gamma _0\psi >`$ and of the chiral condensate $`<\overline{\psi }\psi >`$ as a function of the chemical potential $`\mu `$. We find a clear signal of phase transitions at $`\mu _c=0.25`$ for $`m=0.05`$, and $`\mu _c=0.3`$ for $`m=0.07`$ in agreement with .

In Fig. 3 we show the behavior of the chiral susceptibility for the $`\rho `$ and the $`A_1`$ as a function of $`\mu `$. After the phase transition the two states become degenerate, consistently with a vanishing chiral condensate. However, the behavior of our staggered propagators at finite density is different from the free-like one observed at high temperature, confirming the observations of .

The trend of Fig. 3 suggests that the $`\rho `$ becomes heavier, while the $`A1`$ becomes lighter with density. The propagator themselves do not show any dramatic change, but, again their behavior suggests an heavier $`\rho `$ in the dense phase. Note that a recent study with Wilson fermions  reports instead a ligher $`\rho `$ in the medium. As spectrum’s qualitative features might well depend on the mass range, and on lattice artifacts, more work is needed before drawing general conclusions on the behavior of vector mesons in dense matter.

The vector diquark correlators do not show any hint of the predicted vector condensation , but the saturation effects might well hide this phenomenon ( the $`\rho `$ mass at zero chemical potential was estimated to be $`m_\rho 1.8`$, hence the threshold $`\mu _v=m_\rho /2`$ is well inside the saturation region).

A sample of the results for the scalar sector is given in Fig. 4: the lower diagram shows the propagators, normalised to their zero distance value, for the pion, sigma, and scalar glueball in the normal phase; the pion (the Goldstone meson) is the lightest particle. In the superfluid phase (upper diagram) the sigma meson and the pion are degenerate, and heavier than the glueball. In addition, by contrasting lower and upper diagram we note that the glueball is lighter in the medium.

## 3 Summary

It is possible to measure glueball states at $`\mu 0`$. The smearing procedure , already tested in the theory with $`\mu =0.0`$, increases very much the signal. The correlators at high density show the usual behavior.
In the vector sector we see the expected $`\rho `$ \- $`A_1`$ degeneracy at high density and we find a behavior clearly different from the high temperature one.
The $`\rho `$ appears to be heavier in dense matter, at least for $`m_q=0.07`$.
We find a different level ordering in the scalar sector after the phase transition: from $`m_\pi <m_\sigma m_{G^{00^+}}`$ at $`\mu =0.0`$ to $`m_{G^{00^+}}<m_\sigma m_\pi `$ at $`\mu =0.4`$


text:
# Gamma-ray bursts from alternating-current jets

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) probably result from the production of ultra-relativistic jets in rapidly rotating, collapsing cores of massive stars (Paczyński 1993). The jets are presumably powered by energy extracted electromagnetically from a rotating accretion disk and/or black hole. A remarkable fraction of the jet energy is dissipated and re-radiated in the form of gamma-ray bursts, at distances $`10^{13}10^{14}`$ cm from the core. The most popular models of energy dissipation involve internal shocks, formed via collisions between inhomogeneities propagating down the jet with different velocities (Rees & Mészáros 1994; Sari & Piran 1995). A very high level of velocity modulation at the source, of unknown origin, must be assumed in order to obtain an adequate rate of energy dissipation. The dissipated energy is assumed to be converted efficiently to relativistic electrons, which in turn produce gamma rays by the synchrotron mechanism. These models predict a spectral peak at photon energies consistent with observations (Zhang & Mészáros 2002) and are relatively successful in explaining the observed variety of light curves (Nakar & Piran 2002). However, they are unable to explain the extreme hardness of X-ray spectra that are sometimes observed (Ghirlanda et al. 2003).

The difficulties encountered in modeling very hard X-ray spectra have motivated researchers to study other mechanisms of gamma-ray production. Proposed scenarios include thermal photospheric radiation, thermal multiple Compton scatterings, and Compton scattering by the bulk flow (Lazzati et al. 2000 and references therein). If the polarization measured by the RHESSI satelite (Coburn & Boggs 2003) is real, even if overestimated, then the two former scenarios can be excluded. The bulk Compton mechanism can still work (Begelman & Sikora 1987; Eichler & Levinson 2003; Lazzati et al. 2003), provided that the jet has an opening angle $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor.

Another class of GRB models is based on the assumption that the jets are dominated by Poynting flux, even on very large scales (Lyutikov & Blackman 2001; Spruit et al. 2001; Drenkhahn 2002). In these models, energy is dissipated and particles are accelerated via reconnection of the magnetic field. Particularly promising are models in which the polarity of the toroidal magnetic field repeatedly flips. Such a structure can result from flux injection by a rotating misaligned dipole (Spruit et al. 2001). In such ‘‘striped-wind" models, which were originally proposed to model pulsars (Coroniti 1990), reconnection occurs at the sites of field reversals.

Toroidal field reversals can also arise from the self-consistent evolution of the magnetic field at the base of a jet, according to simulations that follow MRI (magneto-rotational instability) driven accretion. The combination of shear, supported by the differential rotation of the accretion flow, with magnetic turbulence, driven by MRI (Proga et al. 2003), causes the polarity of the toroidal component to change with time (Proga et al., in preparation). Even if a weak poloidal field of given polarity is imposed at the outer boundary, the flow loses memory of this polarity by the time it reaches the inner regions where the jet is formed. The field reversals are stochastic, but the characteristic time scale corresponds to the time scale for winding the toroidal field up to values at which the magnetic pressure becomes strong enough to power an outflow. Consequently, a jet with magnetic reversals is formed. A similar structure, albeit with a different origin, was postulated for AGN jets by Lovelace et al. (1997).

In this letter, we present our preliminary results on GRBs from jets with magnetic reversals. We state the model assumptions and flow parameters in §2.1, and in §2.2 we discuss the production of synchrotron radiation at the photosphere. In §2.3 we investigate the possible formation of sheets or filaments of cold, dense plasma and consider the hardening of the synchrotron spectrum by bound-free absorption. In §2.4 we make predictions about the basic features of the light curves, and in §2.5 we show how X-ray flashes (XRFs) can be unified with GRBs in terms of our model. The main advantages of the model, as well as its uncertainties, are summarized in §3.

## 2 THE MODEL

### 2.1 Assumptions and basic parameters

We assume that relativistic jets in GRBs are Poynting flux-dominated, and are composed of magnetic domains with opposite polarities of the toroidal magnetic field. In this model, GRBs are produced following the annihilation/reconnection of magnetic fields at the boundaries between domains. The observed gamma-ray emission comes from the region just downstream of the radius, $`R_0`$, where the jet becomes optically thin.

The jet is assumed to be conical and uniform in the transverse direction, and can be described by the following parameters: the total energy, $`E`$; the ratio of the magnetic energy flux to the matter energy flux in the radiating region, $`\sigma =L_B/L_M`$; the bulk Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; the opening angle of the jet, $`\theta _j`$; the GRB lifetime, $`t_{GRB}`$; the characteristic width of a magnetic domain, $`\lambda `$; and the ratio of electrons plus positrons to protons $`f_e=n_e^{}/n_p^{}`$.

In jets dominated by the toroidal magnetic component,

$$L_B2cu_B^{}\pi (R\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma })^2,$$
(1)
where $`u_B^{}B_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(8\pi )`$ is the magnetic energy density in the jet comoving frame (quantities measured in the jet comoving frame are primed, with the exception of the random electron Lorentz factor). Combining this with the relation

$$L_B=\frac{E_B}{t_{GRB}}=\frac{\sigma }{1+\sigma }\frac{E}{t_{GRB}}$$
(2)
gives

$$u_B^{}\frac{1}{2\pi c}\frac{\sigma }{\sigma +1}\frac{E}{t_{GRB}}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _j)^2}\frac{1}{R^2}.$$
(3)
Assuming $`n_e^{}(m_p/m_e)n_p^{}`$,

$$L_Mn_p^{}m_pc^3(R\theta _j\mathrm{\Gamma })^2,$$
(4)
and noting that

$$L_M\frac{E_M}{t_{GRB}}=\frac{1}{\sigma +1}\frac{E}{t_{GRB}},$$
(5)
we obtain

$$n_e^{}=\frac{1}{\pi m_pc^3}\frac{n_e^{}}{n_p^{}}\frac{1}{1+\sigma }\frac{E}{t_{GRB}}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _j)^2}\frac{1}{R^2}.$$
(6)
Hereafter, we adopt the following normalizations: $`t_{GRB}=30t_{30}`$ s; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=100\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$; $`\theta _j=0.1\theta _1`$; $`E=10^{52}E_{52}`$ erg; and $`\lambda =10^{10}\lambda _{10}`$ cm.

### 2.2 Synchrotron radiation at the photosphere

If $`ct_{GRB}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2>R`$, the Thomson optical depth for radiation produced within the flow at a distance $`R`$ and beamed within the Doppler cone is

$$\tau _T\frac{Rn_e^{}\sigma _T}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(7)
Combining this with the eq. (6) gives the distance of the photosphere

$$R_07.9\times 10^{13}f_e\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^3\theta _1^2E_{52}t_{30}^1\mathrm{cm}.$$
(8)
Inserting eq. (8) into eq. (3) gives

$$u_{B,0}^{}=2.8\times 10^9f_e^2\sigma ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^4\theta _1^2E_{52}^1t_{30}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(9)
and

$$B_0^{}=2.7\times 10^5f_e^1\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2\theta _1E_{52}^{1/2}t_{30}^{1/2}\mathrm{G},$$
(10)
while from inserting eq. (8) into eq. (6) one gets

$$n_{e,0}^{}=3.8\times 10^{12}f_e^1\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_2^4\theta _1^2E_{52}^1t_{30}\mathrm{cm}^3.$$
(11)
Magnetic energy, released via the reconnection process, is transmitted to the plasma at a rate (per unit surface area)

$$F_{in}^{}=u_B^{}v_{in}^{}$$
(12)
where $`v_{in}^{}`$ is the inflow velocity of magnetized plasma into the reconnection region. Assuming that the dissipated energy is shared equally among all particles dragged into the reconnection region, the electrons reach Lorentz factor

$$\gamma _{inj}=\frac{1}{m_ec^2}\frac{u_B^{}v_{in}^{}}{(n_e^{}+n_p^{})v_{in}^{}}=\frac{\sigma (m_p/2m_e)}{1+f_e}9.2\times 10^2f_e^1\sigma .$$
(13)
These electrons produce synchrotron radiation peaked around

$$E_{p,0}=\frac{2he}{3\pi m_ec}\gamma _{inj}^2\xi _BB_0^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }350\xi _Bf_e^3\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^3\theta _1E_{52}^{1/2}t_{30}^{1/2}\mathrm{keV},$$
(14)
where $`\xi _B=B_{rec}^{}/B^{}<1`$ and $`B_{rec}^{}`$ is the intensity of the reconnected magnetic field. This formula put constraints on the value of $`\sigma `$, which in our model is a free parameter. Noting that typical spectral peak energies in GRBs are $`300`$ keV (Preece et al. 2000), one can conclude that very high $`\sigma `$’s are allowed only for a high pair content ($`f_e1`$). If the latter is determined by locally (in situ) produced pairs, via absorption of synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) photons by synchrotron photons, then $`f_e`$ is not expected to be larger than a few. This is because $`L_{SSC}/L_{syn}v_{in}^{}/(\xi _Bc)1`$ and pairs are produced in the Klein-Nishina regime. This implies that GRB jets above the photosphere are only mildly dominated by magnetic fields, i.e. $`\sigma `$ a few.

Since the time scale of electron synchrotron energy losses,

$$t_{syn,0}^{}\frac{3m_ec^2}{4c\sigma _T\xi _B^2u_{B,0}^{}\gamma _{inj}}2.4\times 10^5\xi _B^2f_e^3\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^4\theta _1^2E_{52}t_{30}^1\mathrm{s},$$
(15)
is about 6 orders of magnitude shorter than the dynamical time scale, $`t_{dyn}^{}(R/c)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the electrons cool very rapidly. Steadily injected into a uniform magnetic field, they produce a synchrotron spectrum with a photon index $`\alpha =1.5`$. Such a spectrum is much softer than that observed in most GRBs (Preece et al. 2002).

### 2.3 Cold filaments and bound-free absorption?

Several mechanisms have been suggested to make the synchrotron spectra harder, including synchrotron self-absorption (Papathanassiou 1999; Granot et al. 2000), very small pitch angle radiation (Lloyd & Petrosian 2000; orginally elaborated by Epstein 1973), and jitter radiation (Medvedev 2001). All of these mechanisms face a variety of difficulties (Ghisellini et al. 2000; Ghirlanda et al. 2003) and none is able to account the hardest spectra observed ($`\alpha >0`$). Synchrotron models of GRBs are therefore seriously challenged by observations of extremely hard spectra. There is, however, at least one way to rescue the synchrotron mechanism for GRBs: absorption of synchrotron radiation by very dense and cold plasma sheets or filaments. Such filaments could be formed as follows:

Electrons cooling via synchrotron radiation and the SSC process, and then by thermal Comptonization of the synchrotron radiation, reach the Compton temperature $`T_C^{}10^810^9`$ K. Protons, very inefficient radiators and very weakly coupled to electrons via Coulomb interactions, might remain mildly relativistic, losing energy only via adiabatic expansion. However, the intense, small scale turbulence likely to be associated with reconnection could well drive plasma instabilities that couple the protons and electrons thermally on much shorter time scales (Begelman & Chiueh 1988; Quataert & Gruzinov 1999). In the latter case, energy would be drained from the protons to the electrons and radiated away (via thermal Comptonization of synchrotron radiation) and protons would also reach the Compton temperature. This cooling can be accompanied by strong compression of the matter along the reconnected magnetic field lines.

Plasma at $`T_C^{}10^810^9`$ K is unstable to further cooling if the gas pressure is somewhat larger than the ambient radiation energy density (Begelman & McKee 1990). This condition may be satisfied by a factor of a few, depending on the details of flow into the reconnection zone. If it is satisfied, plasma would cool down to temperatures $`T_w^{}10^4`$K and would form clouds or filaments with density

$$n_w^{}u_B^{}/kT_w^{}3\times 10^{21}f_e^2\sigma ^2\mathrm{cm}^3.$$
(16)
Under such conditions a significant fraction of the gas is in a neutral state and bound-free absorption of synchrotron radiation can lead to significant hardening of the synchrotron spectrum. Because of neutronization of the plasma in the central region and because only deuterium and $`\alpha `$-particles are recovered by nucleosynthesis during the initial expansion (Derishev et al. 1999; Beloborodov 2003), the absorber is expected to be strongly dominated by HI, HeI and HeII. It is only necessary for $`1`$% of the gas in the reconnection region to be in this state in order to provide enough hardening of the synchrotron spectrum in the observed energy ranges. Bound-free absorption hardens the spectrum of synchrotron radiation produced within a mist of a cold gas by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =3`$. If the intrinsic synchrotron spectrum has $`\alpha =1.5`$, this would lead to a photon index $`\alpha =1.5`$.

### 2.4 Light curves

Gamma-ray pulses, produced by individual reconnection sheets, start to build up at $`R=R_0`$ and, due to light travel time effects related to the transverse size within the Doppler beam, reach a maximum after

$$t_{rise}\frac{R_0}{2c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}0.13\sigma ^1t_{30}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^5\theta _1^2E_{52}\mathrm{s}.$$
(17)
After the maximum the pulse decays, partly because the peak of the synchrotron spectrum moves to lower energies with increasing distance ($`\nu _{pk}B^{}1/R`$), and partly because of the decreasing efficiency of the reconnection process. (Note, that in the case of reconnection proceeding with a constant rate $`v_{in}^{}\xi _Av_A^{}\xi _Ac`$, the bolometric flux would last $`\lambda /\xi _Ac`$ and would start to drop at a distance $`10^{15}\lambda _{10}\xi _{A,1}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^2`$ cm.) Sequential pulses are separated by the magnetic reversal time, $`t_\lambda \lambda /c`$. The observed rise time and interval between pulses are equal for

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_c85\lambda _{10}^{1/5}f_e^{1/5}\sigma ^{1/5}\theta _1^{2/5}E_{52}^{1/5}t_{30}^{1/5}.$$
(18)
Thus, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ the light curves are predicted to be ‘‘spiky," while for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ the light curves are expected to be smooth. This is assuming that all magnetic domains have similar widths. Since we expect a broad distribution of domain sizes, the rise time, for a given Lorentz factor, should define a time variability filter, which suppresses variability on timescales shorter than $`t_{rise}`$. The very strong dependence of the filter scale on the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ provides the new independent method for estimating the bulk Lorentz factor.

### 2.5 Total energetics and X-ray flashes

As was recently pointed out (Frail et al. 2001; Bloom et al. 2003), the total energetics may be similar for all GRB, and the different luminosities can simply be due to different jet opening angles, i.e., $`L\theta ^2`$ const. This, combined with the well-established correlation $`E_pL^{1/2}`$ (Lloyd et al. 2000; Yonetoku et al. 2003), suggests that $`E_p1/\theta `$. Our model predicts $`E_p\mathrm{\Gamma }^3\theta `$, and therefore can be reconciled with observations if

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta _j^{2/3},$$
(19)
assuming that in all GRBs $`\sigma `$ a few.

At present we are not able to verify this relation theoretically, however, we can use it to make a prediction regarding the correlation between short-term variability and the value of $`E_p`$. Namely, for larger $`\theta _j`$ and, therefore, lower luminosities and lower peak energies, we predict smaller bulk Lorentz factor, and this implies lower variability and smoother light curves (see previous section). The best objects to verify this prediction are XRFs, provided that they belong to the same class of phenomena as GRBs (Kippen et al. 2002). In these objects $`E_p<30`$ keV; therefore, XRFs having the same total energies as GRBs should be of much lower luminosity and produce much smoother light curves than typical GRBs.

## 3 CONCLUSIONS

Our main results can be summarized as follows:

$``$ Driven by MRI, accretion onto a black hole in a collapsar core may lead to the formation of jets with alternating toroidal magnetic fields;

$``$ Magnetic reconnection at the contact surfaces between domains with opposite magnetic polarities provide spatially separated particle acceleration regions. This provides a natural source of short-term variability in GRBs, without the necessity of imposing rapid, high-amplitude modulations of the jet’s density and speed at its base;

$``$ Under some circumstances, a portion of the plasma in the reconnection sites can condense into a very cold, dense phase. A mist of cold clouds/filaments can harden the synchrotron spectrum via bound-free absorption;

$``$ Our scenario predicts the formation of both smooth and spiky light curves, and provides a method to estimate the bulk Lorentz factor;

$``$ The model can be reconciled with observed correlations between variability, luminosity and spectral peak energy, provided that the bulk Lorentz factor anti-correlates with the jet opening angle. This allows us to make a prediction that the less luminous objects should have smoother light curves. In particular, this prediction applies to XRFs, provided that they represent the same phenomenon as GRBs.

The main uncertainties of the proposed scenario concern the efficiency of the magnetic reconnection process and the formation of cold and dense gas condensations. Unfortunately, the reconnection process is still not well understood, especially under the extreme conditions of relativistic outflows (Kirk & Skjæraasen 2003), and with rapidly cooling plasmas. The possible occurrence of thermal instability depends critically on such unknowns as the strength and geometry of the magnetic field in the cooling region and the efficiency of energy transport from protons to electrons.

Furthermore, we did not follow the role of pairs in detail. Our preliminary estimates show that SSC photons are effectively absorbed by synchrotron photons, to produce pairs within the reconnection sheets as well as outside. How they will affect the shape of the synchrotron spectrum, and its evolution, is not clear yet. Modeling of pair cascades is also important to provide constraints on the magnetization parameter $`\sigma `$.

Finally, we note that the creation of cold plasma condensations in our scenario can also provide a basis for bulk Compton models of GRBs. We recall that the plasma is required to be cold in this model in order to provide high linear polarization (Poutanen 1994). It must also satisfy another condition, $`\theta _j<1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (Begelman & Sikora 1987; Lazzati et al. 2003), the same as for internal shock models (Nakar et al. 2003). Confirmation of high polarization in GRBs, in particular in less luminous objects in which presumably $`\theta _j1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, would be a critical step toward discriminating between the reconnection model and others (Lyutikov et al. 2003).

The project was partially supported by Polish KBN grants 5 P03D 00221, PBZ-KBN-054/P03/2001 and NSF grant AST-0307502. D.P. acknowledges support from NASA LTSA grant NAG5-11736. M.S. and P.C. thank the Fellows of JILA, University of Colorado, for their hospitality.


text:
# Centrality-dependence of Particle Production at RHIC and the Combinational Approach

## 1 Introduction

In the recent past the PHENIX Collaboration conducted exhaustive measurements of the particle-yields in $`AuAu`$ collisions at RHIC-BNL at very high ranges of transverse momentum values and also at various centralities of the collisions. The data-sets on both identified centrality- dependent charged hadron spectra vs. transverse momenta and also on the average transverse momentum-values $`(<p_\mathrm{T}>)`$ of the various secondaries vs. the centralities of the collisionsChujo1 ; Mioduszewski1  were indicated by the graphical plots shown in various figures presented here. These measurements were mainly aimed at checking some predictions from the Standard Model(SM) on (i) the suppression of particle yields at large transverse momenta and (ii) the dependence of the degree of suppression on the centrality of the collision. In the framework of the standard model, all the secondary particles are produced by jets. These jets are likely to suffer significant energy loss via ‘gluon’ radiation, while passing through the hot dense medium arising out of the anticipated QGP formation. So, according to this view, the particle yield at large $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ should be suppressed to a considerable degree. Secondly, since the amount of energy loss is a function of the density and the path length through such a projected QGP media, the suppression effect is predicted to be dependent also on the centrality of the collisionJia1 . All the theoretical postulates and predictions serve as the background for such intense attempts at measurements.

But in our approach we would maintain a degree of neutrality to such standard theoretical views and would concern ourselves mainly with the results of measurements with the ulterior motive of checking and testing an alternative approach, called here the Combinational Approach or the grand combination of models(GCM) which would be utilized here to explain the sets of data on: (i) identified charged hadron spectra vs. $`p_\mathrm{T}`$-values and (ii) the values of average transverse momentum, denoted by $`<p_\mathrm{T}>`$, vs. the different centrality-ranges of the $`AuAu`$ reaction in particular.

The work is organized as follows: In Section 2 we offer an outline of the GCM to be made use of in the present study. The Section 3 contains and depicts the concrete results obtained on the basis of this model in the tabular forms and the graphical plots. The last section presents, as usual, the summary and final comments.

## 2 The Model: A Sketch

Following the suggestion of FaesslerFaessler1  and the work of PeitzmannPeitzmann1  and also of Schmidt and SchukraftSchmidt1 , we propose here a generalized empirical relationship between the inclusive cross-sections for any variety of the secondaries ($`Q`$), such as hadrons, pions, kaons or proton/antiprotpons, produced in nucleon(N)-nucleon(N) collision and that for nucleus (A)-nucleus(B) collision as given below:

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(ABQX)(AB)^{\varphi (y,p_\mathrm{T})}E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(PPQX),$$
(1)
where $`\varphi (y,p_\mathrm{T})`$ could be expressed in the factorization form, $`\varphi (y,p_\mathrm{T})=f(y)g(p_\mathrm{T})`$; and the product, $`AB`$ on the right hand side of the above equation is the product of mass numbers of the two nuclei participating in the collisions at high energies, of which one will be the projectile and the other one the target.

While investigating a specific nature of dependence of the two variables($`y`$ and $`p_\mathrm{T}`$), either of them is assumed to remain averaged or with definite values. Speaking in clearer terms, if and when $`p_\mathrm{T}`$-dependence is studied by experimental group, the rapidity factor is integrated over certain limits and is absorbed in the normalization factor. So, the formula turns into

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(ABQX)(AB)^{g(p_\mathrm{T})}E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(PPQX),$$
(2)
The main bulk of work, thus, converges to the making of an appropriate choice of form for $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$. And the necessary choices are to be made on the basis of certain premises and physical considerations which do not violate the canons of high energy particle interactions.

The expression for inclusive cross-section of $`Q`$ in proton-proton scattering at high energies occurring in Eqn.(2) could be chosen in the form suggested first by HagedornHagedorn1 :

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(PPQX)=C_1(1+\frac{p_\mathrm{T}}{p_0})^n,$$
(3)
where $`C_1`$ is the normalization constant, and $`p_o`$, $`n`$ are interaction-dependent chosen phenomenological parameters for which the values are to be obtained by the method of fitting the spectra in $`PP`$ interaction.

The final working formula for the nucleus-nucleus collisions is now being proposed here in the form given below:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(ABQX)\hfill & & (AB)^{(ϵ+\alpha p_\mathrm{T}\beta p_\mathrm{T}^2)}E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(PPQX)\hfill \\ & & (AB)^{(ϵ+\alpha p_\mathrm{T}\beta p_\mathrm{T}^2)}(1+\frac{p_\mathrm{T}}{p_0})^n,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
with $`g(p_\mathrm{T})=(ϵ+\alpha p_\mathrm{T}\beta p_\mathrm{T}^2)`$, where this suggestion of quadratic parametrization for $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$ is exclusively made by us and is called hereafter De-Bhattacharyya parametrization(DBP). In the above expression $`ϵ`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants for a specific pair of projectile and target.

Earlier experimental worksAggarwal1 ; Albrecht1 ; Antreasyan1  showed that $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$ is less than unity in the $`p_\mathrm{T}`$-domain, $`p_\mathrm{T}<1.5`$ GeV/c. Besides, it was also observed that the parameter $`ϵ`$, which gives the value of $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$ at $`p_\mathrm{T}=0`$, is also less than one and this value differs from collision to collision. The other two parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ essentially determine the nature of curvature of $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$. However, in the present context, precise determination of $`ϵ`$ is not possible for the following understated reasons:

(i) To make our point let us recast the expression for (4) in the form given below:

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(ABQX)C_2(AB)^ϵ(AB)^{(\alpha p_\mathrm{T}\beta p_\mathrm{T}^2)}(1+\frac{p_\mathrm{T}}{p_0})^n$$
(5)
where $`C_2`$ is the normalization term which has a dependence either on the rapidity or on the rapidity density of the $`Q`$ and which also absorbs the previous constant term,$`C_1`$ as well.

Quite obviously, we have adopted here the method of fitting. Now, in Eqn.(5) one finds that there are two constant terms $`C_2`$ and $`ϵ`$ which are neither the coefficients nor the exponent terms of any function of the variable, $`p_\mathrm{T}`$. And as $`ϵ`$ is a constant for a specific collision at a specific energy, the product of the two terms $`C_2`$ and $`(AB)^ϵ`$ appears as just a new constant. And, it will just not be possible to obtain fit-values simultaneously for two constants of the above types by the method of fitting.

(ii) From Eqn.(2) the nature of $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$ can easily be determined by calculating the ratio of the logarithm of the ratios of nuclear-to-$`PP`$ collision and the logarithm of the product $`AB`$. Thus, one can measure $`ϵ`$ from the intercept of $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$ along y-axis as soon as one gets the values of $`E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}`$ for any specific secondary production in both $`AB`$ collision and $`PP`$ collision at the same c.m. energy. In the present study we have tried to consider the $`AuAu`$ collision system in various centrality bins at two different c.m.energis. In order to do so, we have to consider the data on normalized versions of $`E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}`$ for any secondary particle produced in this collision system for which no clear $`E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}`$-data is available to us. Furthermore, from these normalized versions we can/could not extract the appropriate values of $`E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}`$ as the normalization terms, total inclusive cross-sections$`(\sigma _{in})`$ etc., for this collision system at all centrality-bins cannot always be readily obtained. Besides, it will also not be possible to get readily the data on inclusive spectra for $`PP`$ collisions at all c.m.energies.

In order to sidetrack these difficulties and also to build up an escape-route, we have concentrated here almost wholly to the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ for various collision systems and the resultant effects of $`C_2`$ and $`ϵ`$ have been absorbed into a single constant term $`C_3`$. Hence, the final expression becomes

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(ABQX)C_3(AB)^{(\alpha p_\mathrm{T}\beta p_\mathrm{T}^2)}(1+\frac{p_\mathrm{T}}{p_0})^n$$
(6)
with $`C_3=C_2(AB)^ϵ`$.

The exponent factor term $`\alpha p_\mathrm{T}\beta p_\mathrm{T}^2`$ obviously represents here $`[g(p_\mathrm{T})ϵ]`$ instead of $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$ alone. The expression(6) given above is the physical embodiment of what we have termed to be the grand combination of models(GCM) that has been utilized here. The results of $`PP`$ scattering are obtained in the above on the basis of eqn.(3) provided by Hagedorn’s model(HM); and the route for converting the results of $`NN`$ to $`NA`$ or $`AB`$ collisions is built up by the Peitzmann’s approach(PA) represented by expression(2). The further input is the De-Bhattacharyya parametrization for the nature of the exponent. Thus, the GCM is the combination of HM, PA and the DBP, all of which are used here.

And the choice of this form of parametrization for the power of the exponent in eqn.(4) is not altogether a coincidence. In dealing with the EMC effect in the lepton-nucleus collisions, one of the authors here(SB),SB1  made use of a polynomial form of $`A`$-dependence with a variable $`x`$ which is a variant of $`x_F`$ (the Feynman Scaling variable). This gives us a clue to make a similar choice for both $`g(p_\mathrm{T})`$ and $`f(y)`$ variable(s) in each case separately. In the recent times, De-Bhattacharyya parametrization is being extensively applied to interpret the measured data on the various aspectsDe1 ; De2 ; De3 ; De4  of the particle-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus interactions at high energies. In the recent past Hwa et. al.Hwa1  also made use of this sort of relationship in a somewhat different context. The underlying physics implications of this parametrization stem mainly from the expression(4) which could be identified as a clear mechanism for switch-over of the results obtained for nucleon-nucleon($`PP`$) collision to those for nucleus-nucleus interactions at high energies in a direct and straightforward manner. The polynomial exponent of the product term on $`AB`$ takes care of the totality of the nuclear effects.

For the sake of clarity and confirmation, let us further emphasize a point here very categorically. It is to be noted that this model(GCM) containing all the Eqns.(4), (5) and (6) was described in some detail earlier and was made use of in analyzing extensive sets of data in the previous publicationsDe1 ; De2 ; De4  by the same authors. And in verifying the validity of this model further, the purpose here is to apply the same model to some other problematical aspects of data which we would dwell upon in the subsequent sections. Before taking them up, let us state a point. In some previous worksDe2 ; De3 ; De4  we tried to provide some sort of physical interpretations for some of the parameters used in the present work. But, those explanations were only of suggestive nature. Besides, obviously, they are not complete and sufficient, for which we have chosen not to reiterate them here once more.

## 3 Presentation of Results

Obviously the GCM is the model of our choice here. The inclusive spectra for production of the main varieties of various secondaries produced in $`AuAu`$ collisions at RHIC at both $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=130`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200`$ GeV and also at various centrality values have been worked out here phenomenologically and shown in the several diagrams. The values of $`p_0`$ and $`n`$, occurring in eqn.(3), which are essentially the contribution of $`PP`$ collisions to the nucleus-nucleus collisions for the same secondaries produced at the same c.m.energies per nucleon, have been introduced by the following relationships:

$$p_0(\sqrt{s})=a+\frac{b}{\sqrt{\frac{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}{\mathrm{GeV}^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{\frac{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}{\mathrm{GeV}^2}})}$$
(7)
$$n(\sqrt{s})=\stackrel{´}{a}+\frac{\stackrel{´}{b}}{\mathrm{ln}^2(\sqrt{\frac{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}{\mathrm{GeV}^2}})}$$
(8)
These are products of just empirical analyzes made earlier and reported in some of our previous worksDe1 ; De2 . The actually used values of the arbitrary parameters, $`a,b,\stackrel{´}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{´}{b}`$ for various secondary particles are given in Table-1.

The obtained values of the average yields of hadrons at various centralities have been depicted in Fig.1. The left panel is for $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=130`$ GeV and the right panel is for $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200`$ GeV. The Fig.2 describes pion production on a charge-neutral and average basis at both the energies. Similar is case with kaons in Fig.3. The diagrams in Fig.4 reproduce data on proton production in $`AuAu`$ collisions at the two RHIC energies. The solid curves in Fig.5 display the theoretical yields of antiprotons in $`AuAu`$ reaction at various values of the centrality of the collision against measured data. The values of the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ have been initially chosen with the singular motivation of obtaining satisfactory fits to the data, though finally even this arbitrariness has led to some revelation of the specific nature of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as are shown in the plots of Fig.6 for the various secondaries in several panels.

The values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ to be used in obtaining our model-based results are shown in the different tables(Table 2 - Table 11). The extreme left columns in all of them contain information about the centrality of the reaction and the extreme right ones offer the $`\chi ^2`$/ndf values. Even for the cases of proton and antiproton production, wherein the data suffer a high degree of uncertainty, the $`\chi ^2`$/ndf values are modestly satisfactory. The systematic trends of the used values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ depict a harmony of their nature which have been hinted by Table 12 and Table 13 and represented by the sets of diagrams in Fig.6. The solid lines in Fig.6 provide the phenomenological fits which can be expressed by a common relationship of the form given below,

$$\alpha (N_{\mathrm{part}}),\beta (N_{\mathrm{part}})=R+S\mathrm{ln}(N_{\mathrm{part}})$$
(9)
The different values of $`R`$ and $`S`$ for various secondaries are given in Table 12 and Table 13.

A comment is in order here in a preemptive manner. The values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ shown in our previous work De1  even on $`AuAu`$ collision could be and are little different from what are depicted here for the two reasons: (i) The $`p_\mathrm{T}`$-range of the detected secondaries in the previous work was limited mostly in the region from 0.8 GeV/c to 3 GeV/c, whereas in the present case both the full low $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ and a larger domain of high $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ range for the secondaries(mainly charged hadrons) has been covered. (ii) Secondly, in the former studyDe1  the minimum bias event was studied in the main. On the contrary, the present study has very much been centrality-specific and the data for the various centrality-values of the $`AuAu`$ collision have been served within a phenomenological framework.

The average transverse momenta values for the different categories of particles have, however, been worked out on the basis of the following expression:

$$<p_\mathrm{T}>=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}p_\mathrm{T}\frac{dN}{p_\mathrm{T}dp_\mathrm{T}}𝑑p_\mathrm{T}^2}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dN}{p_\mathrm{T}dp_\mathrm{T}}𝑑p_\mathrm{T}^2}$$
(10)
The values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ to be introduced for $`<p_\mathrm{T}>`$-values are used in both energy-specific and particle-specific manner with the help of eqn.(9). The GCM-based results on $`<p_\mathrm{T}>`$ values are plotted in Fig.7. The different centrality values, the particle-species and the interaction energy-values are separately mentioned in each of the diagrams.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

The chosen model appears to present essentially a universal approach in the sense that (i) it provides a unified description of data on particle production in nuclear collisions in terms of the basic $`PP`$ interaction; (ii) the method could be applied in an integrated and uniform way without introduction of any artificial divide between the so-called ‘soft’(low-$`p_\mathrm{T}`$) and ‘hard’(large-$`p_\mathrm{T}`$) interactions; (iii) the general approach remains valid, irrespective of whether the collisions are central or peripheral; (iv) it has no model- or mechanism-specific physical picture as the input and as the constraint as well; (v) the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ which are the only arbitrary parameters need to be assumed and they demand tuning and adjustment on a case-to-case basis in an interaction-specific, secondary-specific and centrality-specific manner. So, the model seems to provide a universal, useful and economical description of a large body of data on the high energy heavy ion collisions. The model is useful, as it is seen to give a fair account of the vast amount of data; and it is economical, because there are only two arbitrary parameters alongwith one normalization term for the general studies on heavy ion reactions at high energies.

The agreements between the measured and/or extracted data and the phenomenological outputs are quite satisfactory on an overall basis of the $`p_\mathrm{T}`$-spectra and the $`<p_\mathrm{T}>`$ vs. centrality diagrams. The only exception is the case of the average transverse momenta values of kaons in $`AuAu`$ reaction at $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200`$ GeV. Though we cannot readily ascribe any reason for such departure, there is a general observation that the measurements related to any variety of the strange particles suffer, in general, a higher degree of uncertainty. Besides, we also fail to explain here how and why this phenomenological approach works functionally so well. No clue to any concrete physical reason arising out of some underlying dynamics of particle and nuclear interactions could be immediately ascertained. The harmony revealed in the natures of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ versus various $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$-values reflecting various centrality of the reactions is certainly an interesting observation from the present approach. The closeness of the values of $`S`$ in the Table-12 and Table-13 at two different neighbourly energies appears to indicate the fact that, beyond a certain value of $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$, the enhancement of the centrality of the collision with the increase in the number of wounded nucleons, i.e. $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$ does not necessarily and appreciably raise the values of $`<p_\mathrm{T}>`$s for any variety of the secondaries. This brings out strong hints to what is called parton saturation at and after a definite value of $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$. In fine, in so far as actual performance is concerned, the model has a modest degree of success. However, one major drawback in applying this approach is it’s over-reliance on the availability of the measured and dependable data-sets on the specific variety of the secondary in $`PP`$ interaction at some definite energies and at certain reasonable intervals in the energy-values in order to construct the energy-dependence profile for some parameters to be used in the model. Secondly, the final working formula for studying the properties of nuclear collisions in the present work does neither contain directly, nor exhibit any of the technicalities of the nuclear geometry, e.g., the impact parameter(denoted generally by $`b`$) or of the space-time evolution scenarios of the nuclear collisions. The entirety of the nuclear effects is taken care of by the simple product term $`(AB)^{f(y,p_\mathrm{T})}`$. This simplicity of form could very well be viewed in a positive way in favour of the model.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to express their thankful gratitude to the anonymous referee for his/her critical remarks and valuable suggestions for improvement of an earlier draft of the manuscript.