format: text

text:
# 𝜒_{𝑐𝐽} polarizations at the Fermilab Tevatron

## Abstract

We propose the measurement of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations at high energy hadron colliders to study heavy quarkonium production mechanism. We find that the color-singlet model in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach predicts very different behavior for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations at the Fermilab Tevatron compared with the NRQCD predictions in the collinear parton model. In the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach, for both $`\chi _{c1}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ productions, the helicity $`h=0`$ states dominate over other helicity states at large $`p_T`$. These properties are very useful in distinguishing between the two production mechanisms which are related to the interesting issue of $`J\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ polarizations, and may provide a crucial test for the $`k_t`$ factorization approach.

Studies of heavy quarkonium production in high energy collisions provide important information on both perturbative and nonperturbative QCD. In recent years, heavy quarkonium production has attracted much attention from both theory and experiment. To explain the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ surplus problem of large transverse momentum production at Tevatron, the color-octet production mechanism was introduced for the description of heavy quarkonium production based on the NRQCD factorization framework. During the last few years, extensive studies have been performed for the test of this color-octet production mechanism. However, most recently the CDF collaboration have reported their preliminary measurements on the polarizations of the promptly produced charmonium states, which appear not to support the color-octet predictions that the directly produced $`S`$-wave quarkonia have transverse polarizations at large $`p_T`$  In , the authors considered the feeddown contributions from $`\chi _c`$ decays, and found the prompt $`J/\psi `$ polarization disagree with the CDF data at large $`p_T`$ by 3 standard deviations. This conflict shows that the heavy quarkonium production mechanism may be more complicated than we knew before, and further studies on heavy quarkonium production mechanisms other than the color-octet mechanism in the collinear parton model are still needed at present.

In, the authors studied $`\chi _{cJ}`$ hadroproduction at Tevatron in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. Their results show that only color-singlet contributions can reproduce the Tevatron data on $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach, and the color-octet contributions disagree with the data. However, we note that previous studies in the collinear parton model have also given a good description for the data of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production at Tevatron in the NRQCD approach including both color-singlet and color-octet contributions. In this context, we have two different mechanisms, i.e., the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach and the NRQCD approach in the collinear parton model, of which both can successfully describe the Tevatron data on the large $`p_T`$ $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production rates. So, it is quite urgent now to distinguish between these two mechanisms for understanding heavy quarkonium production at high energy hadron colliders. For this purpose, we propose here the measurements of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations at the Fermilab Tevatron. From our calculations we find that the color-singlet model in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach predicts very different behavior for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations compared with the NRQCD predictions in the collinear parton model. In the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach, for both $`\chi _{c1}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ productions, the helicity $`h=0`$ states dominate over other helicity states at large transverse momentum. This novel property can provide a crucial test for this production mechanism. Furthermore, the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarization measurements can help to clarify the present conflict between the color-octet predictions and the experimental data on prompt $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ polarizations at Tevatron.

The polarized cross section formulas for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ hadroproduction in the NRQCD approach have been calculated in  (including both color-singlet and color-octet processes). In this paper, we will calculate the color-singlet $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarized cross sections in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. We will not include the color-octet processes in this approach, because their contributions to $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production disagree with the Tevatron data in shape.

The $`k_t`$-factorization approach differs greatly from the conventional collinear approximation because it takes the non-vanishing transverse momenta of the scattering partons into account. The conventional gluon densities are replaced by the unintegrated gluon distributions which depend on the transverse momentum $`k_t`$. In the calculations, for every 4-momenta $`k_i`$ we make a Sudakov decomposition as

$$k_i=\alpha _ip_1+\beta _ip_2+\stackrel{}{k}_{iT},$$
(1)
where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the momenta of the incoming hadrons. In the high energy limit, we have $`p_1^2=0`$, $`p_2^2=0`$, and $`2p_1p_2=s`$, where $`s`$ is the c.m. energy squared. $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ are the momentum fractions of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ respectively. $`k_{iT}`$ is the transverse momentum, which satisfies

$$k_{iT}p_1=0,k_{iT}p_2=0.$$
(2)
For the momenta of the incident gluons $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$, we have the following decompositions,

$$q_1=x_1p_1+q_{1T},q_2=x_2p_2+q_{2T}.$$
(3)
That is to say, the longitudinal component of $`q_1`$ ($`q_2`$) is only in the direction of light-like vector $`p_1`$ ($`p_2`$).

Using the above defined Sudakov variables, we can express the polarized cross sections for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ hadroproduction as the following form,

$$d\sigma (p\overline{p}\chi _{cJ}^{(\lambda )}X)=\frac{1}{64\times 16\pi }\frac{d\alpha _\chi }{\alpha _\chi }d^2q_{1T}d^2q_{2T}\frac{f(x_1;q_{1T}^2)}{q_{1T}^2}\frac{f(x_2;q_{2T}^2)}{q_{2T}^2}\frac{|A_0^{(\lambda )}(q_{1T},q_{2T})|^2}{q_{1T}^2q_{2T}^2},$$
(4)
where $`\lambda `$ denotes the helicity of $`\chi _{cJ}`$, and $`\alpha _\chi `$ is the momentum fraction of $`p_1`$ carried by $`\chi _{cJ}`$. The $`\chi _{cJ}`$ tranverse momentum $`p_T`$ comes from the sum of the transverse momenta of $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ as, $`\stackrel{}{p}_T=\stackrel{}{q}_{1T}+\stackrel{}{q}_{2T}`$. The amplitude squared $`|A_0^{(\lambda )}|^2`$ describes $`\chi _{cJ}`$ (with helicity $`\lambda `$) production in the gluon-gluon fusion processes $`g+g\chi _{cJ}^{(\lambda )}`$. To calculate these helicity amplitudes, we need the polarization sums for individual helicity levels of $`\chi _{cJ}`$. For $`\chi _{c1}`$, the longitudinal and transverse polarization sums can be written in the following covariant forms

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =0}{}}ϵ_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}ϵ_\beta ^{(\lambda )}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\alpha \beta }^L,`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{|\lambda |=1}{}}ϵ_\alpha ^{(\lambda )}ϵ_\beta ^{(\lambda )}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{\alpha \beta }^T=P_{\alpha \beta }P_{\alpha \beta }^L,`$ (6)
where

$$P_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }+\frac{p_\alpha p_\beta }{p^2}.$$
(7)
And in the laboratory frame (the helicity frame), $`P_{\alpha \beta }^L`$ is expressed as

$$P_{\alpha \beta }^L=\frac{(pQ)^2}{(pQ)^2M^2s}(\frac{p_\alpha }{M}\frac{M}{pQ}Q_\alpha )(\frac{p_\beta }{M}\frac{M}{pQ}Q_\beta ),$$
(8)
where $`M=2m_c`$ is the mass of $`\chi _{cJ}`$, and $`Q=p_1+p_2`$ is the sum of the initial hadron 4-momenta. For $`\chi _{c2}`$, the polarization sums for individual helicity levels ($`\lambda =0,1,2`$) can also be expressed in terms of $`P_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`P_{\alpha \beta }^T`$, and $`P_{\alpha \beta }^L`$. With these polarization sums, we can calculate the production cross sections for individual helicity states of $`\chi _{cJ}`$, which are more involved and will be presented elsewhere. We have checked that these cross section formulas can numerically reproduce the results of  for the inclusive production rates of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ at Tevatron after summing up all helicity states contributions.

The $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations can be measured by studying the photon’s angular distribution in the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ rest frame in the decay processes $`\chi _{cJ}J/\psi \gamma `$. These angular distributions have the following form,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\chi _{cJ}J/\psi \gamma )}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\frac{3}{2(3+\alpha )}(1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),$$
(9)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the photon’s 3-momentum in $`\chi _{cJ}`$ rest frame and the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ 3-momentum in the laboratory frame. $`\alpha `$ is the polarization parameter (angular distribution parameter). For $`\chi _{c1}`$, $`\alpha `$ is defined as

$$\alpha =\frac{23\rho }{2+\rho },$$
(10)
where

$$\rho =\frac{d\sigma (\chi _{c1}^{(|\lambda |=1)})}{d\sigma (\chi _{c1})}.$$
(11)
For $`\chi _{c2}`$, the polarization parameter is

$$\alpha =\frac{63\eta 12\tau }{10\eta 4\tau },$$
(12)
where

$$\eta =\frac{d\sigma (\chi _{c2}^{(|\lambda |=1)})}{d\sigma (\chi _{c2})},\tau =\frac{d\sigma (\chi _{c2}^{(|\lambda |=2)})}{d\sigma (\chi _{c2})}.$$
(13)
For numerical calculations, we choose the unintegrated gluon distribution of  which can well fit the $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ data over a wide range of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$, and we set the scales $`\mu ^2`$ for the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$ in the amplitude squared $`|A_0|^2`$ to be $`q_{1T}^2`$ for the interaction vertex associated with the incident gluon $`q_1`$, and $`q_{2T}^2`$ for the vertex associated with $`q_2`$.

We first display in Fig. 1 the production ratio of $`\chi _{c1}`$ to $`\chi _{c2}`$ at the Tevatron as a function of $`p_T`$, $`R=\sigma (\chi _{c1})/\sigma (\chi _{c2})`$. The solid line is for the color-singlet prediction in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach, and the dotted-dashed line for the NRQCD prediction in the collinear parton model. For comparison, in this figure we also plot the results for other two cases in the collinear parton model: the color-singlet prediction as the dotted line and the color-octet prediction as the dashed line. However, we must note that neither the color-singlet contributions nor the color-octet contributions alone can describe the Tevatron data on $`\chi _{cJ}`$ productions, and in this collinear parton model only the NRQCD predictions (including both the color-singlet and the color-octet contributions) can make sense to describe the Tevatron data on $`\chi _{cJ}`$ productions. From Fig. 1, we can see that the $`R`$ ratio increases as $`p_T`$ increases in the color-singlet model $`k_t`$ factorization approach, and its value approaches to $`2.0`$ at large transverse momentum, which means that at large $`p_T`$ $`\chi _{c1}`$ production dominates over $`\chi _{c2}`$ production. In contrast, the NRQCD approach predicts the $`R`$ ratio to be much smaller, and its value approaches to $`0.6`$ at large $`p_T`$. This is because, at large transverse momentum the color-octet gluon fragmentation (the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel) dominates the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ productions in NRQCD, which leads to $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production rates as $`\sigma (\chi _{c0}):\sigma (\chi _{c1}):\sigma (\chi _{c2})=1:3:5`$ (consistent with our numerical calculations at large $`p_T`$). This figure shows that the difference on $`R`$ ratio between the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach and the NRQCD approach in the collinear parton model is distinctive at sufficiently large $`p_T`$.

We then study the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations at Tevatron. With the polarized cross section formulas, we can calculate the production rates for definite helicity states of $`\chi _{cJ}`$, and get the angular distribution parameter $`\alpha `$. From our numerical calculations, we find that the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach predicts very different behavior for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations at the Fermilab Tevatron compared with the NRQCD predictions in the collinear parton model. In the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach, for both $`\chi _{c1}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ productions, the helicity $`h=0`$ states dominate over other helicity states at large transverse momentum. This property has distinguished consequence to the decay angular distribution parameter $`\alpha `$ for $`\chi _{cJ}J/\psi \gamma `$ processes. These results are displayed in Figs. 2-4. For $`\chi _{c1}J/\psi \gamma `$, at large $`p_T`$ the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach predicts $`\alpha `$ around $`0.8`$ while the NRQCD approach in the collinear parton model predicts $`\alpha `$ around $`0.2`$. For $`\chi _{c2}J/\psi \gamma `$, the difference between these two mechanisms are more distinctive. The color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach predicts $`\alpha (\chi _{c2}J/\psi \gamma )`$ to be negative (down to $`0.6`$) at large $`p_T`$, while the NRQCD approach in the collinear parton model predicts $`\alpha `$ to be positive (around $`0.3`$).

For the experimental measurement, it may be difficult to distinguish between $`\chi _{c1}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ contributions in the observation of the photon’s angular distributions in the decay processes $`\chi _{cJ}J/\psi \gamma `$. So, it may be more useful to give the angular distributions in $`\chi _{cJ}J/\psi \gamma `$ with both $`\chi _{c1}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ taken into account. We plot this result in Fig. 4. From this figure, we find that the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach predicts $`\alpha `$ for $`\chi _{cJ}J/\psi \gamma `$ being about $`0.5`$ while the NRQCD approach in the collinear parton model predicts $`\alpha `$ around $`0.25`$ at large transverse momentum. The difference between these two mechanisms is still distinctive.

Finally, we note that the polarized cross section formulas for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production can also be used to predict the polarization of $`J/\psi `$ which comes from $`\chi _{cJ}`$ feeddown decays. $`J/\psi `$ polarization can be measured by the lepton’s angular distribution in the $`J/\psi `$ rest frame in $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay process. These distributions have a similar form to those for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ decays,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{})}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\frac{3}{2(3+\alpha )}(1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),$$
(14)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the 3-momentum of the lepton in $`J/\psi `$ rest frame and the 3-momentum of $`J/\psi `$ in the laboratory frame. $`\alpha `$ is the polarization parameter, and is equal to

$$\alpha =\frac{3\xi 2}{2\xi },$$
(15)
where $`\xi `$ is the ratio of the transversely polarized to the total $`J/\psi `$, which can be calculated by using the polarized cross sections for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production. In Fig. 5 we give the $`J/\psi `$ polarization from the feeddown contributions of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ decays. Again, we find that the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach predicts $`\alpha (J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ being about $`0.5`$ while the NRQCD approach in the collinear parton model predicts $`\alpha `$ around $`0.25`$ at large $`p_T`$.

At the Tevatron, the CDF collaboration has measured the inclusive production cross sections of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ states, which contribute about $`30\%`$ of prompt $`J/\psi `$ production in a wide range of $`p_T`$. The $`\chi _{cJ}`$ states can be identified with a photon plus the $`J/\psi `$ which decays into a muon pair. The production cross section of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ is found to be comparable to that of $`J/\psi `$, and is not small. Unfortunately, the present statistics of Tevatron Run I is not high enough to allow separate polarization measurements for this part of $`J/\psi `$ (from $`\chi _c`$ decays) from the direct $`J/\psi `$ production and $`\psi ^{}`$ decay’s contribution . However, with the upgrade Tevatron Run II, the luminosity will be increased by a factor of more than 8, we will have much more data for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production, so it will be feasible to distinguish between different contributions to prompt $`J/\psi `$ polarizations, and then to measure the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations.

In conclusion, in this paper we have calculated the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations at high energy hadron colliders in the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach and the NRQCD approach in the collinear parton model. We find the difference on the polarization parameters for $`\chi _{cJ}`$ and their decay products $`J/\psi `$ between these two approaches are distinctive at large transverse momentum. Therefore, $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations can be used to study these two production mechanisms at hadron colliders and may provide important information on heavy quarkonium polarization mechanisms. Especially, the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach predicts that $`\chi _{cJ}`$ productions are dominated by the helicity $`h=0`$ states at large transverse momentum. This unique property may provide a crucial test for this production mechanism.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Education of China, and the State Commission of Science and Technology of China.
Figure Captions

FIG. 1. The production ratio of $`\chi _{c1}`$ to $`\chi _{c2}`$ as a function of $`p_T`$. The solid line is for the color-singlet $`k_t`$ factorization approach prediction, the dotted-dashed line for the NRQCD prediction in the collinear parton model, the dotted and dashed lines are respectively for the color-singlet and color-octet predictions alone in the collinear parton model.

FIG. 2. The polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ for $`\chi _{c1}J/\psi \gamma `$ as a function of $`p_T`$. The definitions of the curves are the same as in Fig. 1.

FIG. 3. The same as in Fig. 2 but for $`\chi _{c2}`$.

FIG. 4. The same as in Fig. 2 but for $`\chi _{cJ}J/\psi \gamma `$ with both $`\chi _{c1}`$ and $`\chi _{c2}`$ taken into account.

FIG. 5. The polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ for $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ for $`J/\psi `$ coming from $`\chi _{cJ}`$ decays.


text:
# Self-Duality of a Topologically Massive Born-Infeld Theory

## Abstract

We consider self-duality in a $`2+1`$ dimensional gauge theory containing both the Born-Infeld and the Chern-Simons terms. We introduce a Born-Infeld inspired generalization of the Proca term and show that the corresponding model is equivalent to the Born-Infeld-Chern-Simons model.

Many years ago Townsend et. al. studied self-duality in gauge theories in $`4k1`$ dimensions . In particular, in $`2+1`$ dimensions they considered the Proca equation for the massive gauge field:

$`^\mu F_{\mu \nu }+m^2A_\nu =0,`$ (1)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ . As a consequence of the antisymmetry of the field strength, it follows from above that $`_\mu A^\mu =0`$, and hence there are two, independent, propagating modes of equal mass. They observed that any gauge field which is proportional to the dual of it’s field strength does satisfy the above equation. In particular any gauge field which satisfy

$`A_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }F^{\nu \rho },`$ (2)
is a solution of the second order Eq. (1). They called Eq. (2) as the self-duality equation. This equation propagates one massive mode instead of two and it can be viewed as a square root of the second order Eq. (1). The self-dual Eq. (2) can be derived from the Lagrangian

$`_P={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2A_\mu A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}mϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu F_{\nu \rho }.`$ (3)
It is straightforward to see that the above Lagrangian is not gauge invariant. However, interestingly it was soon observed  that the above model is equivalent to gauge invariant, topologically massive, electrodynamics characterized by the Lagrangian

$`_M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}mϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu F_{\nu \rho }.`$ (4)
The corresponding field equation is

$`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mϵ^{\nu \alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }=0,`$ (5)
and following  it is easily shown that the field Eqs. (5) and (2) are equivalent. In fact, in  the authors have even shown the equivalence of the two Lagrangians $`_P`$ and $`_M`$ as given by Eqs. (3) and (4) respectively.

Long back Born and Infeld proposed  a nonlinear generalization to the Maxwell Lagrangian in order to cure the short distance divergence appearing in quantum electrodynamics. Recently it has attracted considerable attention both in field theory, because of it’s remarkable form, as well as in string theory for it is the action which governs the gauge field dynamics of the D-branes . Because of its importance in the open string theory, Gibbons and Rasheed studied various duality invariances of the Born-Infeld theory . In particluar, they have shown that the $`SO(2)`$ electric-magnetic duality rotation, that appears as a symmetry at the level of equations of motion in the Maxwell theory in four spacetime dimensions, also holds in the Born-Infeld theory. Because of the importance of duality in understanding various non-perturbative aspects of field theroy as well as string theory, the above results have been generalized to nonlinear theories with more then one Abelian gauge field, theories with interacting scalar fields as well as to the supersymmetric theories - . However most of the discussion about the duality invariance has been restricted to theories in four space time dimensions or more generally to the even dimensional theories.

On the other hand, several interesting generalizations of the self-dual Chern-Simons-Proca model  and its equivalence  with the three dimensional massive electrodynamics  has been studied in literature. Soon after the work of Deser and Jackiw, it has been realised that the self-duality can also occur in case both the Maxwell as well as the Proca term can simultaneously be incorporated in addition to the Chern-Simons term. The above model has also been used in the study of bosonization in higher dimensions . Recently it has been shown that there exists a unified theory  from which the self-dual model, the massive electrodynamics  as well as the Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Proca systems  can be recovered as special cases. However, to the best of our knowledge, the reuslts of Deser and Jackiw have not been generalized to the Born-Infeld theory. The purpose of this note is to consider the generalization of this equivalence in case the Maxwell term is replaced by the celebrated Born-Infeld Lagrangian.

Consider the Lagrangian

$`_{BI}=\beta ^2\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}mϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu F_{\nu \rho }.`$ (6)
Here we have ignored an irrelevant constant factor proportional to square of the Born-Infeld parameter $`\beta `$ which does not contribute to the equation of motion. This Lagrangian reduces to the topologically massive Lagrangian as given by Eq. (4) in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ when the constant factor is taken into account. The corresponding field equation is

$`_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{F^{\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{1\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}F_{\alpha \rho }F^{\alpha \rho }}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mϵ^{\nu \alpha \rho }F_{\alpha \rho }=0.`$ (7)
The question one would like to ask is: what is the self-dual analogue of Eq. (2)? We will now show that the corresponding “generalized self-dual equation” is

$`A_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }F_{\nu \rho }}{2m\sqrt{1\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}}}.`$ (8)
Before we prove our assertion, let us note that Eq. (8) reduces to the self dual Eq. (2) in the $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit. We call it the “generalized self-dual equation” because of it’s similarity with the self-dual equation even though in the literature the term self-dual is usually used while dealing with the linearized equations. To show that Eq. (7) follows from Eq. (8), differentiate both sides of Eq. (8) and multiply by $`ϵ^{\beta \gamma \mu }`$. We get

$`ϵ_{\beta \gamma \mu }^\gamma A^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}ϵ_{\beta \gamma \mu }ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }^\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{F_{\nu \rho }}{\sqrt{1\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}}}\right),`$ (9)
from which Eq. (7) follows.

Following  it is worth enquiring if there is a corresponding Born-Infeld self-dual Lagrangian from which self-dual Eq. (8) will follow as a field equation. It is easily seen that such a Lagrangian is

$`_{BIP}=\beta ^2\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}f_\mu f^\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}ϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }f_\alpha _\mu f_\nu .`$ (10)
Here we have changed the notation from $`A_\mu `$ to $`f_\mu =mA_\mu `$ in order to avoid confusion with the system described by Eq. (6). The corresponding field equation is

$`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu f_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{mf_\mu }{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\beta ^2}f_\mu f^\mu }}}=0.`$ (11)
Let us now show that the above equation is equivalent to the generalized self-dual Eq. (8). Taking the square of Eq. (11) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{m^2f_\mu f^\mu }{1+\frac{1}{\beta ^2}f_\mu f^\mu }},`$ (12)
which implies

$`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2m^2}}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\beta ^2}f_\mu f^\mu }}}.`$ (13)
Substituting this again in Eq. (11) we get the generalized self-dual equation which can be identified with Eq. (8) after the field redefinition. Thus both the theories described by Eqs (6) and (10) admit identical solution for the self-dual gauge field.

In fact the equivalence of the two theories is at a more basic level. In particular we show that the corresponding Hamiltonians of the two theories are equivalent after the constraints are taken into account. Let us start from the Born-Infeld Lagrangian (6). The corresponding canonical momentum is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{BI}}{\delta \dot{A}^i}}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E^i}{\sqrt{1\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ij}A^j.`$
For convenience we define

$`R=\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }},D^i={\displaystyle \frac{E^i}{R}}.`$ (15)
After some straightforward calculation we can write the expression for $`R`$ as

$`R=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\frac{1}{\beta ^2}B^2}{1\frac{1}{\beta ^2}𝐃^2}}},`$ (16)
where $`B=F_{12}`$ .
Now the Hamiltonian density is

$`_{BI}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }^i\dot{A}^i_{BI}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E^i\dot{A}^i}{R}}\beta ^2R`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{R}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}B^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\beta ^2\sqrt{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}𝐃^2\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}B^2\right)}.`$
The equal time commutation relation is

$`i[\mathrm{\Pi }^i(𝐫),A^j(𝐫^{})]=\delta ^{ij}\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$ (18)
from which we can derive the following equal time commutators:

$`i[D^i(𝐫),D^j(𝐫^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`mϵ^{ij}\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$ (19)
$`i[D^i(𝐫),B(𝐫^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ij}_j\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$ (20)
$`i[B(𝐫),B(𝐫^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (21)
These relations along with the Gauss law constraint

$`_i\mathrm{\Pi }^i+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}B=0,`$ (22)
can be solved in terms of a scalar field $`\varphi `$ as

$`D^i`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ij}\widehat{}_j\dot{\varphi }m\widehat{}_i\varphi `$ (23)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{^2}\varphi ,`$ (24)
where $`\widehat{}_j=_j/\sqrt{^2}`$ .

Now we consider the system described by Lagrangian (10). The conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{i}{}_{f}{}^{}`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{i}{}_{f}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{BIP}}{\delta \dot{f}^i}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}ϵ^{ij}f^j,`$ (25)
which implies the canonical commutation relation

$`i[f^i(𝐫),f^j(𝐫^{})]=mϵ^{ij}\delta (𝐫𝐫^{}).`$ (26)
This along with the Gauss law constraint

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_0}{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\beta ^2}f_\mu f^\mu }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}ϵ^{ij}_if_j,`$ (27)
can also be solved in terms of the field $`\varphi `$ as

$`f^i=\widehat{}_i\dot{\varphi }+mϵ^{ij}\widehat{}_j\varphi `$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_0}{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\beta ^2}f_\mu f^\mu }}}=\sqrt{^2}\varphi .`$ (29)
Solving Eq. (29) for $`f_0`$ we get

$`f_0=\sqrt{^2}\varphi \left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1\frac{1}{\beta ^2}𝐟^2}{1\frac{1}{\beta ^2}(\sqrt{^2}\varphi )^2}}}\right).`$ (30)
Now the Hamiltonian density is given by

$`_f`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{i}{}_{f}{}^{}\dot{f}^i_{BIP}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}ϵ^{ij}\left(f_0_if_j+(_if_j)f_o\right)\beta ^2\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}f_\mu f^\mu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_0^2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\beta ^2}f_\mu f^\mu }}}\beta ^2\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}f_\mu f^\mu }`$
where we have used the Gauss law to obtain the last step. On using Eq. (30) the Hamiltonian density $`_f`$ takes the form

$`_f=\beta ^2\sqrt{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}f_i^2\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}(\sqrt{^2}\varphi )^2\right)}.`$ (32)
which is identical to the Hamiltonian density $`_{BI}`$ because of Eqs. (23), (24) and (28). This gives us the following identification of the fields $`f_\mu `$ in terms of the field $`A_\mu `$.

$`f^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{F^\mu }{R}},`$ (33)
where

$`F^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }_\alpha A_\beta `$
while $`R`$ is given by Eq. (15).

Before finishing this note it is worth enquiring if there is a single “generalized master Lagrangian” from which the Lagrangians (6) and (10) follow. In this context it is worth pointing out that in , the authors have noted the common origin of the Lagrangians (3) and (4). In particular they have shown that these Lagrangians follow from a single “master Lagrangian”. Let us consider the Lagrangian

$`_{Mas}=\beta ^2\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}f_\mu f^\mu }ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }f_\mu _\alpha A_\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }A_\mu _\alpha A_\beta .`$ (34)
Here we treat $`f_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu `$ as independent variables. Varying this “generalized master Lagrangian” with respect to $`f_\mu `$ and after a little algebra we get Eq. (33). On eliminating $`f_\mu `$ from $`_{Mas}`$ by using Eq. (33), we get the Lagrangian $`_{BI}`$ as given by Eq. (6). On the other hand, on varying Eq. (34) with respect to $`A_\mu `$ we get

$`ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }_\alpha f_\beta =mF^\mu .`$ (35)
On using this to eliminate $`A_\mu `$ from Lagrangian (34) gives the Lagrangian $`_{BIP}`$ as given by Eq. (10). Note that in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ the Lagrangian (34) reduces to the “master Lagrangian” of .

To conclude, we have studied the generalized self-duality in the topologically massive Born-Infeld theory and shown that the equivalence of Maxwell-Chern-Simons thoery  with the Chern-Simons-Proca theory  also holds in the nonlinear Born-Infeld theory. Here it is worth mentioning that the $`2+1`$ dimensional Born-Infeld action is the world volume action for D2-brane which can appear in the type $`IIA`$ superstring theory and can have Ramond-Ramond coupling via the Chern-Simons term. More generally, the action for $`n`$ $`Dp`$-branes at small separation is descried by the Dirac-Born-Infeld action

$`S_{dbi}={\displaystyle d^{p+1}\sigma Tr\left(e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{det(G+B+F)}\right)}`$ (36)
which can couple to the Ramond-Ramond background via the Chern-Simons term

$`S_{cs}={\displaystyle _{p+1}}Tr\left[e^{(B+F)C}\right]`$ (37)
(Here we have used the stringy notation, where $`B`$ is the Neveu-Schwarz 2-form pulled back on the world volume, $`C`$ is the Ramond-Ramond field. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the dilaton, $`G`$ the pull back of the metric on the world volume of the brane and $`\sigma `$ is the coordinate on it.) It will be remarkable, if similar results, as given in our present work, can also hold for the above more genreal D-brane action for arbitrary $`p`$ in presence of the $`B`$-field. Clearly, further investigation is required to explore this point.


text:
# 1 The variation of the initial energy density with the number of participant nucleons [].

September 9, 2000 BI-TP 2000/31

The Search for the QGP:

A Critical Appraisal111Invited talk at Lattice 2000: XVIII International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, August 17-22, 2000, Bangalore/India; Proceedings to appear in Nucl. Phys. B. Also presented at the RHIC and AGS Users Meeting, August 7-8, 2000, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton/NY, USA, and at Bologna 2000: Structure of the Nucleus at the Dawn of the Century, May 29-June 3, 2000, Bologna/Italy.

Helmut Satz

Fakultät für Physik, Universität Bielefeld

D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany

Abstract:

Over the past 15 years, an extensive program of high energy nuclear collisions at BNL and CERN was devoted to the experimental search for the quark-gluon plasma predicted by QCD. The start of RHIC this year will increase the highest available collision energy by a factor 10. This seems a good time for a critical assessment: what have we learned so far and what can we hope to learn in the coming years?

“What’s the good of Mercator’s North Poles and Equators,

Tropics, Zones and Meridian Lines?”

So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply

“They are merely conventional signs!”

Lewis Carroll,

The Hunting of the Snark

1. Expecting the Unexpected

QCD predicts that at high energy density, hadronic matter will turn into a plasma of deconfined quarks and gluons. Eighteen years ago, theorists and experimentalists met in Bielefeld to chart the course for the study of quark-gluon plasma formation in heavy ion collisions. It was noted then: “In the past decades, we have investigated the strong interaction of elementary particles at higher and higher energies. So far, we have not been able to study in parallel strongly interacting macroscopic systems at higher and higher \[energy\] density. The thermodynamics of very dense matter is largely an unexplored field for terrestial experimental physics” .

In 1986/1987, experimental studies of high energy nuclear collisions began at the BNL-AGS and the CERN-SPS. The AGS started with 28Si beams (at 15 GeV/nucleon) and later went on to 200Au beams (at 12 GeV/nucleon) incident on heavy targets. At CERN, 16O and 32S beams (at 200 GeV/nucleon) were followed in 1995 by 208Pb beams (at 160 GeV/nucleon). While both labs have by now provided a wealth of data on the hadronic final states produced in the different collisions, the AGS program did not include any experiment able to reach back into the early ‘hot’ stages of the collision evolution. Moreover, estimates in general indicate that with the AGS beam energy one can at best barely reach the initial energy densities required for quark-gluon plasma formation. For these reasons, most of our present knowledge about a possible onset of deconfinement in nuclear collisions has come from the CERN-SPS.

At the beginning, the search for colour deconfinement in high energy nuclear collisions was very much an exploratory endeavor. As in most explorations, the enthusiasm of the explorers was greater than their knowledge of what to expect or look for. There was a general feeling that if the quark-gluon plasma was indeed produced, it would manifest itself in a variety of unknown but dramatic ways, including the end of the world; this, however, was ruled out . So the basic idea in the planning of experiments was to cover all possibilities, hoping that in this way the QGP would be observed somehow, somewhere, preferably everywhere.

Today, we are somewhat wiser. Changing conditions generally lead to a change in the related observables; if this happens in a monotonic way, it is indeed merely a conventional sign and has nothing to do with any phase transition. What we are really looking for is something like an ‘order parameter’ in statistical mechanics: an observable which remains constant over a range of different conditions, but which then at a certain point starts changing. Such non-analytic behaviour could be the consequence of a critical or transition point. It is not yet known if an experimentally accessible order parameter for deconfinement really exists.

It is clear today, however, that hard and soft probes of nuclear collisions provide information about different stages of the produced state, determined by the scale of the probing phenomenon. For hard probes, the associated length scale is much less than the confinement scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^11`$ fm; hence these can be used to study directly the short-distance features of a hot deconfined medium. Soft probes are of hadronic size and appear when the density of the medium has dropped sufficiently to allow the existence of hadrons. Hence they naturally provide information about the hadronic state of the medium; about earlier states they can at best give indirect information.

The hadronisation of the QGP could lead to a hot interacting hadronic medium, or it could directly result in free-streaming hadrons and/or resonances. Hence there are three different stages to be considered: the deconfined medium (QGP), a possible interacting hadronic medium, and the final hadronic state.

Let us recall the situation at the beginning of the experimental QGP search some fifteen years ago. The main phenomena predicted to constitute direct hard probes of the QGP were:

* Hard thermal dilepton/photon emission ; their spectrum should serve as a thermometer of the thermal medium from which they were emitted.
* Jet quenching ; the energy loss of fast partons passing through a deconfined medium should exceed that suffered in a passage through hadronic matter.
* $`J/\psi `$ suppression ; colour screening in a deconfined medium leads to quarkonium dissociation, while tightly bound heavy quark states are not effected by a hadronic medium.

A possible interacting hadronic medium could be identified by

* in-medium modifications of resonances observable in their dilepton decays ; in particular, changes of the $`\rho `$ mass or width should be observable in this decay pattern.

The proposed soft probes of the hadronic final state were:

* Strangeness enhancement ; a hot QGP contains strange and the different non-strange quark species in almost equal amounts, which, if preserved up to hadronization, should result in more abundant strangeness production than observed in p-p interactions.
* Transverse momentum broadening and flow ; compared to p-p interactions, a hot initial QGP could lead to more pronounced expansion and/or specific expansion patterns.

In addition, some more or less exotic states (strangelets, disoriented chiral condensates) or phenomena (softest point, tricritical point, event-by-event fluctuations) were proposed at various times as QGP or transition signatures; so far, none of these were observed.

Thermal dileptons and photons were the subject of intensive experimental studies. Nevertheless, there is up to now no real evidence for their production. The observed intermediate mass dilepton enhancement  may turn out to be a first indication of thermal dileptons , but so far its origin remains completely open. Moreover, real or virtual thermal photons, if observed, indicate the temperature of the medium, not its confinement status.

Much interesting theoretical work on jet quenching has appeared in recent years (see  for a survey); but energy limitations put the effect out of reach for AGS and SPS. Hopefully it will hopefully enter as a viable probe with the advent of RHIC and LHC.

All other phenomena were indeed observed in high energy nuclear collisions. However, we shall see that all occur in fact already under conditions where presumably no QGP can be formed, e. g., in p-p or p-A interactions. Hence their observation as such cannot be taken as evidence for QGP production; it is crucial to specify if, when and how the observed behaviour constitutes an unconventional sign. Various studies over the past years have led to a systematic approach to this problem, and we shall here try to apply it to the different observed phenomena.

Before doing that, however, let us briefly consider the thermodynamic conditions necessary for QGP formation and compare them to what can be achieved in nuclear collisions. From finite temperature lattice QCD we know that deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration occur in an equilibrated medium of vanishing baryon number density at a temperature of about 170 - 180 MeV; hence energy densities of some 1 - 3 GeV/fm3 are required for QGP formation . Percolation theory provides estimates valid also in non-equilibrium conditions; they lead to similar values .

We want to compare the predicted critical conditions to those obtained in nuclear collisions. The well-known evolution based on freely streaming hadrons  leads to the initial energy density

$$ϵ_0=\frac{1}{\tau _0A_T}\left(\frac{dE}{dy}\right)_{y=0},$$
(1)
where $`A_T`$ denotes the transverse overlap area of the two colliding nuclei, $`\tau _01`$ fm the formation time of the initial medium, and $`(dE/dy)_{y=0}`$ the measured total energy of all the hadrons emitted at central rapidity. Alternatively, $`ϵ_0`$ can be expressed in terms of the measured central multiplicity $`(dN/dy)_{y=0}`$ and the average energy $`p_0`$ of the hadrons at $`y=0`$, with $`(dE/dy)_{y=0}=p_0(dN/dy)_{y=0}`$. The relevant quantities in Pb-Pb collisions were determined by several SPS groups . In Fig. 2, we show the resulting estimate of the initial energy density in SPS Pb-Pb collisions as function of the number $`N_w`$ of participating nucleons. Through a Glauber analysis, this can be related to the impact parameter of the collision . We conclude that these collisions do reach the regime in which deconfinement could be expected in the early stages of the produced medium.

2. Charmonium Suppression

At present, the only accesible hard probe for a direct test of the confinement status of the early medium is charmonium production. The binding energy of the $`J/\psi `$ is about $`3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ and its radius about 0.2 fm, so that it indeed ‘sees’ the short scales of a hot pre-hadronic medium. In a deconfining environment, it dissolves once the screening radius falls below its binding radius . On a microscopic level, short-distance QCD calculations show that $`J/\psi `$-hadron collisions at the hadron momenta attained in SPS collisions do not lead to significant dissociation . Gluons confined to hadrons are not sufficiently hard for a break-up; deconfinement hardens the gluons and allows charmonium dissociation. Hadronic models claiming a large $`J/\psi `$ dissociation cross section in the threshold region  are not in accord with data from $`J/\psi `$ photoproduction .

The suppression of $`J/\psi `$ production was observed quite early in the CERN heavy ion program ; but it was soon noted that it occurs as well already in p-A collisions (see Fig. 2), where it inceases with increasing A -. It thus depends on the presence of a bulk medium, the nucleus; but the nucleus clearly is a confined medium and hence $`J/\psi `$ suppression cannot generally mean deconfinement .

Before one can apply $`J/\psi `$ suppression as probe in nuclear collisions, it is therefore necessary to carry out a sequence of steps:

* study the elementary production process in p-p collisions to determine its behaviour in the absence of any bulk medium,
* determine its behaviour in the confined nuclear medium given by p-A collisions;
* then check if in A-B collisions there are deviations from the ‘normal’ behaviour observed in the confined nuclear medium.

It should be emphasized that this procedure was by no means evident from the beginning; it is a lesson in method learned in over ten years of extensive experimental $`J/\psi `$ production studies and the corresponding theoretical attempts to understand the results (see ). I want to suggest here that it in fact defines a more general approach which any experimental QGP probe must follow in order to become conclusive.

$`J/\psi `$ production in high energy nucleon-nucleon collisions starts with the fusion of a target and a projectile gluon to form a colour octet $`c\overline{c}`$ pair. In the colour field of the interaction region, the pair neutralizes its colour to form a colour singlet state of $`J/\psi `$ quantum numbers. While the $`c\overline{c}`$ production can be described perturbatively, the colour neutralization is of non-perturbative nature. It can be described conceptually by the colour evaporation model , which is based on the total sub-threshold charm cross section. This is obtained by integrating the perturbatively calculated $`c\overline{c}`$ production over the mass interval from $`2m_c`$ to $`2m_D`$,

$$\sigma _{c\overline{c}}(s)=_{2m_c}^{2m_D}𝑑\widehat{s}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2g_p(x_1)g_t(x_2)\sigma (\widehat{s})\delta (\widehat{s}x_1x_2s),$$
(2)
where $`g_p(x)`$ and $`g_t(x)`$ denote the gluon densities, $`x_p`$ and $`x_t`$ the fractional momenta of projectile and target gluons, and $`\sigma `$ the $`ggc\overline{c}`$ cross section. The colour evaporation model now states that the production cross section of any charmonium state $`i`$ is given by

$$\sigma _i(s)=f_i\sigma _{c\overline{c}}(s),$$
(3)
where $`f_i`$ is an energy-independent constant to be determined empirically. This has two clear consequences: the energy dependence of any charmonium production cross section is predicted to be that of the perturbatively calculable sub-threshold charm cross section, and the production ratios of different charmonium states must be energy-independent. Both sets of predictions agree very well with data over a considerable energy range. As illustration, we show in Fig. 3 that the energy dependence is correctly described for the $`J/\psi `$, as it is in a corresponding treatment of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ production, where data are available up to 1.8 TeV. For further studies, see .

While the colour evaporation model gives an empirically well supported description of charmonium and bottonium production, it does not provide a space-time description of the production process. For charmonium production in p-A and A-B collisions, this is crucial, however, and hence a more detailed model for colour neutralization is needed. The colour octet model  proposes that the colour octet $`c\overline{c}`$ combines with a soft collinear gluon to form a singlet $`(c\overline{c}g)`$ state. After a short relaxation time $`\tau _8`$, this pre-resonant charmonium state (a ‘higher Fock space component’ of the $`J/\psi `$) turns into the physical $`c\overline{c}`$ singlet $`J/\psi `$ mode (the ‘basic Fock space component’) by absorbing the accompanying gluon. Such a formation process occurs as well for $`\chi _c`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ production. The colour octet model encounters difficulties if the collinear gluons are treated perturbatively, illustrating once more that colour neutralization seems to require non-perturbative elements . However, it does provide a conceptual basis for the evolution of the formation process.

The life-time $`\tau _8`$ and the size $`r_8`$ of pre-resonant charmonium can be estimated . Both are essentially determined by the lowest momentum possible for confined gluons and hence are the same for the different states $`J/\psi `$, $`\chi _c`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$, with $`r_8\tau _80.200.25`$ fm. This has striking consequences for charmonium production in p-A collisions.

$`J/\psi `$ production in p-A collisions has been studied in fixed target experiments with incident protons of momenta between 200 and 800 GeV/c -. Data are taken mainly for $`x_F>0`$, which gives the nascent $`J/\psi `$ momenta of 30 GeV/c or more in the target rest frame. As a result, the transition $`(c\overline{c}g)J/\psi ,\chi `$ or $`\psi ^{}`$ occurs at the edge of the target nucleus or completely outside; the nuclear medium of the target sees only the passage of pre-resonance states. Since these have essentially the same size for all charmonia, the observed attenuation of the production rates should be the same for $`J/\psi `$ as for $`\psi ^{}`$. This is indeed found to be quite well satisfied, as shown in Fig. 5 . Earlier attempts to explain charmonium suppression in p-A interactions in terms of the absorption of physical $`J/\psi `$ states  had encountered difficulties precisely because of this feature. The equal attenuation of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ for $`x_F>0`$ is a natural consequence of pre-resonance absorption; it can never be obtained for the physical $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ states with their very different geometric sizes.

The cross section for the absorption of pre-resonance charmonium in nuclear matter can be determined through a Glauber analysis of p-A data. Such an analysis of the most recent data for 200 and 450 GeV data  gives $`\sigma _{c\overline{c}gN}=6.9\pm 1.1`$ mb, in accord with previous analyses  and theoretical estimates .

With this, the first two steps of the mentioned procedure for the application of $`J/\psi `$ suppression as deconfinement probe are completed. We have a viable theoretical description of the elementary production process, although some aspects of colour neutralization still remain unclear . We know how this process is modified in the confined medium provided by nuclear matter. The expected ‘normal’ behaviour is clear, and the probe can now be applied to nuclear collisions in order to look for an onset of deconfinement. In Fig. 5, the production rates measured in different p-A and centrality-integrated A-B collisions with light ion beams  are seen to agree completely with ‘normal’ pre-resonance suppression; this agreement persists as well for the centrality dependence of $`J/\psi `$ production in S-U interactions, as determined by measuring the associated transverse energy $`E_T`$ . Hence up to central S-U collisions, there is no unconventional sign.

Before turning to Pb-Pb collisions, we note a characteristic feature of $`J/\psi `$ suppression by deconfinement. The $`J/\psi `$’s measured in hadronic collisions originate from three different sources: about 60% are directly produced $`J/\psi `$’s, while about 32% arise from $`\chi _c`$ decay and the remaining 8% from $`\psi ^{}`$ decay. Since the decay widths are extremely small, the decays occur far outside the interaction region; any produced medium therefore effects (after the pre-resonance stage) the survival of three different charmonium states. Dissociation calculations based on a screened confining potential  indicate that the $`\chi _c`$ and the $`\psi ^{}`$ are dissociated essentially at the deconfinement point, while the more tightly bound $`J/\psi `$ state requires higher energy densities to ‘melt’. This result is confirmed by collision calculations based on the different binding energies of the three states ; however, here one finds that the $`\psi ^{}`$, which is only 60 MeV below the open charm threshold, can also be dissociated by any interaction in a confined medium. These considerations predict a sequential suppression pattern : first any medium, whether confined or deconfined, will lead to $`\psi ^{}`$ suppression. When the energy density is increased beyond the deconfinement point $`ϵ_c`$, $`\chi _c`$ suppression will set in, and beyond 1.5 \- 2 $`ϵ_c`$, also the directly produced $`J/\psi `$’s will be suppressed.

$`J/\psi `$ suppression by colour deconfinement is thus predicted to have two specific qualitative features: apart from the small contribution due to $`\psi ^{}`$ decay, it should set in quite suddenly, since we are dealing with critical behaviour, and it should show a characteristic two-step pattern, corresponding to sequential $`\chi _c`$ and $`J/\psi `$ suppression.

The experimental studies over the past four years  have shown that in Pb-Pb interactions, $`J/\psi `$ production is reduced beyond the expected pre-resonance absorption (see Fig. 5). In detail, this anomalous suppression shows the following features:

* In peripheral Pb-Pb collisions, $`J/\psi `$ production follows the normal pattern of pre-resonance suppression up to $`E_T40`$ GeV.
* With increasing centrality, the anomalous suppression sets in quite suddenly at $`E_T40`$ GeV, corresponding to $`N_w100`$ participating nucleons.
* At $`E_T100`$ GeV, a second drop of $`J/\psi `$ production occurs; this corresponds to $`N_w300`$ participating nucleons.

In Fig. 7, the result is shown as function of the associated transverse energy $`E_T`$, together with the expected form for pre-resonance absorption. Using a zero-degree calorimeter, the experiment also determines the number $`N_w`$ of participant nucleons for each value of $`E_T`$, as noted above for the threshold points. In Fig. 7, the $`J/\psi `$ survival probability in the produced medium, i.e., the production rate divided by the pre-resonance absorption, is shown as function of $`N_w`$, for all p-A and A-B data taken by the collaboration. Using the free-streaming evolution model , one can convert $`E_T`$ into energy density for the different reactions. This is shown in Fig. 9 , with the first drop occurring just above 2 GeV/fm3 and the second around 3 GeV/fm3.

The observed two-step form of anomalous suppression is thus the one predicted by deconfinement . In contrast, it is in qualitative and quantitative disagreement wit all hadronic comover models, as illustrated in Fig. 9. We conclude that the $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern observed by the NA50 collaboration indeed constitutes an unconventional sign, which can be quite naturally interpreted as the onset of deconfinement in nuclear collisions .

However, this conclusion is still accompanied by a number of open questions which have to be answered in order to fully understand what is happening.

* What is the relevant variable which determines the onset of deconfinement - is it indeed the energy density, as suggested in Fig. 9? To answer this conclusively, experiments with different nuclei are needed.
* What is the origin of the rather steep final drop? The onset of suppression for direct production does not reproduce it in the observed strength . Transverse energy fluctuations could form another or additional mechanism .
* How does the $`\psi ^{}`$ fit into the picture? As expected, it shows the same pre-resonance suppression as the $`J/\psi `$. In all S-U collisions, however, it is significantly suppressed, with a rather abrupt onset at quite peripheral interactions. Because of the small binding energy, the $`\psi ^{}`$ could be dissociated by hadronic or partonic comovers.
* How do the suppression patterns for the different charmonium states vary with their transverse momentum? Here a normal and an anomalous behaviour can also be defined ; present data are still inconclusive.
* So far, charmonium production was studied experimentally with Drell-Yan production as reference. In view of the observed suppression of bound $`c\overline{c}`$ states in nuclear collisions, the unsuppressed behaviour ($`A^2`$) for unbound (open charm) $`c\overline{c}`$ production should be verified. In any case, open charm production provides a better reference, since it involves the same gluon distribution functions as charmonium production.

Some of these questions could well still be addressed by the SPS. The scaling variable, as noted, can be clarified by A-A experiments at lower A than Pb. To identify the origin of the second drop requires either experiments at lower A (SPS) or at higher incident energy (RHIC): does the drop shift to lower $`N_w`$ or higher $`E_T`$, respectively, as predicted if transverse energy fluctuations are responsible? In any case, a confirmation of the observed $`J/\psi `$ suppression pattern by RHIC, perhaps with even more pronounced thresholds, seems of basic importance for the entire QGP study. Finally we note that a recent study  invokes final state reinteractions to predict for A-A collisions (normalized to A) at very high energies a $`J/\psi `$ enhancement rather than suppression relative to p-p production rates. Similar conclusions are obtained through thermal colour neutralisation , although this model is not compatible with preliminary data on $`\psi ^{}`$/$`J/\psi `$ production in Pb-Pb, compared to S-U . The first $`J/\psi `$ data from RHIC, even if of low statistics, will thus already provide some interesting conclusions.

3. In-Medium Hadron Modifications

High energy nuclear collisions eventually produce a hadronic state, and it is clearly of interest to check if these hadrons form at some stage a dense, interacting medium. The $`\psi ^{}`$ suppression observed in S-U collisions could well be an indication for this, since the produced medium here does not effect $`J/\psi `$ production. A direct probe to study this question is provided by dilepton spectra in the hadronic resonance mass range. The decay width of the $`\rho `$ into a lepton pair gives this resonance a life-time of about 1 fm, so that any in-medium modifications should show up in the measurable dilepton spectrum . Most striking would be mass changes in the vicinity of the chiral symmmetry restoration point ; it is clear, however, that an interacting medium as such can quite generally lead to modified resonance properties .

The dilepton spectrum from very low masses up to the $`J/\psi `$ was measured by several SPS experiments . In Fig. 10 it is seen that the spectrum measured for proton beams incident on both light and heavy targets is accounted for quite well by the decay of the known and observed hadronic states decaying into lepton pairs. For S-U and Pb-Pb collisions this is no longer the case; an excess is observed both for low mass pairs, below the $`\rho \omega `$ peak, and for intermediate mass pairs, between $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$ (see Fig. 11).

The low mass enhancement has been the subject of much theoretical attention. A decrease of the $`\rho `$ mass in a hot medium near chiral symmetry restoration could indeed lead to such an effect ; however, lattice studies do not show any evidence of a changed $`rho`$ mass over a significant temperature range. On the other hand, in-medium broadening of the resonance due to hadronic interactions can as well reproduce the observed enhancement . Hence it is at present not clear if the observed modifications of the dilepton spectrum indeed constitute an unconventional sign. The rather low signal-to-background ratio of present data moreover does not allow a very quantitative study of the effect. It is thus not clear yet if there is really a low mass enhancement and a distinct separate enhancement at higher masses, or if the two observations are one effect. So far, there is also no evidence of any onset or threshold. Some interesting recent work  has tried to interpret in particular the higher mass enhancement in terms of thermal dileptons. In summary, here more precise experimental data seem very necessary before any conclusion can be reached.

4. Strangeness and Thermalization

One of the most remarkable observations in high energy multihadron production by whatever means is that the relative abundances of the secondary hadrons seem to be quite well described by an ideal resonance gas of a temperature $`T_h`$ 170 MeV . The only and systematic exception is due to strange particles: in p-p, p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions, these are produced less abundantly than expected in a resonance gas scheme. This reduction can be accounted for by a general strangeness suppression factor $`\gamma _s1/2`$: for each strange or antistrange quark in the hadron in question, one power of $`\gamma _s`$ reduces the production abundance. Thus the entire relative production spectrum of sometimes up to 30 different resonances can be described in terms of two parameters, $`T_h170`$ MeV and $`\gamma _s1/2`$ , as illustrated in Fig. 12.

The origin of such a “thermal” production scheme and of the observed strangeness suppression is not at all clear. Since the description is even valid in $`e^+e^{}`$ interactions with very few hadrons per unit rapidity, it can definitely not be caused by final state hadron interactions. Conceptually the most convincing picture is that any high energy collision implies a passage of colour charges through the vacuum, which is excited by this passage and subsequently neutralizes the excitation by a statistically governed formation of quark-antiquark pairs and gluons. As the bubble of excited vacuum expands, the quarks and gluons have to combine to produce the observed secondary hadrons, which reflect their “statistical” origin and the universal hadronization temperature $`T_h`$ . While the hadronization temperature is universal, the energy density of the initial excited vacuum bubble will increase with increasing collision energy, and it will presumably also be higher in A-A than in p-p collisions at the same incident beam energy. A possible cause of the observed strangeness suppression is thus the higher strange quark mass, which makes it more difficult to form $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs than pairs of light $`u`$ or $`d`$ quarks. For an ideal quark gas, one would expect

$$\gamma _s=1\frac{m_s^2}{2T_0^2},$$
(4)
where $`T_0T_h`$ is the initial temperature of the excited vacuum. An immediate prediction of this scheme is a diminishing of strangeness suppression in p-p (or p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$) collisions, either with increasing incident energy or at fixed energy with the number of produced secondaries per unit rapidity (i.e., with the energy deposit due to the collision). In Fig. 13, this is indeed observed, since in both cases the ratio of kaons to pions increases considerably, although the hadronization temperature $`T_h`$ determined through multiplicity integrated abundances remains the same.

For nucleus-nucleus collisions, a strangeness enhancement from the hadronic $`\gamma _s1/2`$ towards $`\gamma _s=1`$ was predicted as consequence of colour deconfinement . In a sufficiently hot QGP, the higher strange quark mass would become less and less important, so that $`u,d`$ and $`s`$ quarks should eventually appear in equal abundance. If the cooling of the QGP prodeeded rapidly enough to preserve this relative abundance, the final hadronic state obtained from a hadronized QGP in nucleus-nucleus collisions should contain more strange hadrons than that formed in p-p interactions, i.e, without an initial QGP. In Fig. 15 we see that Pb-Pb collisions at the SPS indeed lead to enhanced strangeness production, as again reflected in an increasing kaon to pion ratio. In Fig. 15, it is seen that the resonance gas description remains valid for centrality-integrated abundances, with the same $`T_h`$ as above, but with $`\gamma _s`$ close to unity.

Another possible origin for the strangeness suppression observed in $`e^+e^{}`$, p-p and p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ interactions could be the relatively small number of strange particles produced. The ideal resonance gas in its usual grand canonical formulation includes strangeness conservation on the average. If only one kaon and its antiparticle are produced in the event, strangeness conservation must be imposed exactly, and this leads to a strong appearent suppression compared to grand canonical rates . To illustrate: in the grand canonical formulation, a kaon acquires a Boltzmann factor $`\mathrm{exp}\{m_K/T_h\}`$, while exact strangeness conservation reduces this to $`\mathrm{exp}\{2m_K/T_h\}`$, since the production of one kaon requires that of one antikaon (we neglect associated production for the sake of argument). These considerations lead to a strangeness suppression which is strong at low relative multiplicities and vanishes for large multiplicities when the grand canonical limit is reached . The resulting suppression form is quite similiar to the pattern observed in the production of strange baryons and antibaryons, ranging from “suppression” in p-p and p-A to an “enhancement” in nuclear collisions .

In summary: since strangeness enhancement is observed already in hadron-hadron collisions for increasing energy or associated multiplicity, it is a priori not related to any macroscopic or bulk effects, much less to colour deconfinement. Vacuum excitation as well as exact strangeness conservation provide conventional monotonic descriptions of the enhancement observed in high energy nucleus-nucleus compared to p-p collisions. Before applying strangeness as a probe for deconfinement, it is therefore necessary to define a normal strangeness pattern, as seen in hadronic collisions and hence not related to QGP formation. This given, one could then check if sufficiently central nuclear collisions lead to any additional, non-montonic and hence unconventional effects.

The situation concerning transverse momentum broadening is quite similar. In nuclear collisions, expansion and flow of the produced medium are expected to lead to a broadening of the transverse momentum spectrum of secondary hadrons, and it has been suggested that the form of the broadening might reflect the transition to a QGP , flow effects  or the initial state scattering in the medium . Indeed a mass-dependent broadening of $`p_T`$-spectra is observed e.g. in Pb-Pb collisions; it increases with centrality (see Fig. 16). However, a very similar pattern, also increasing with particle mass, is observed in p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ collisions ; it increases with the associated multiplicity, as also shown in Fig. 16.

In addition, there are other broadening effects known from p-p and p-A collisions. In hadron-hadron interactions, there is the so-called “seagull” effect, due to emission from a scattered primary nucleon; it leads to a increase of $`p_T`$ with $`x_F`$, until the kinematic limit requires a decrease. In p-A interactions, there is the Cronin effect , due to initial state scattering of the nucleon on its passage through the nucleus. Thus here as well the challenge is to define normal broadening, not related to deconfinement, as observed in p-p and p-A collisions, and then check if nuclear collisions show more than this and if there is any kind of onset of anomalous behaviour. So far, this does not seem to be the case.

5. Catching the Elusive

Looking back to the beginning of the search, we note a definite progress in method: it is now clear how a systematic investigation must be carried out. Whatever probe is to be used, it must first be gauged in the absence of bulk matter, i.e., in p-p and/or p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ collisions. Following this, its behaviour must be gauged in normal nuclear matter as cold, confined medium. If possible, it should then be tested in a hot confined medium, e.g., in the collision of light nuclei. When all these tests clearly define the conventional behaviour of the probe, we can start to look for an onset of anomalous behaviour.

Where are we in this program with the different probes enumerated at the beginning of this appraisal?

* For charmonium suppression, normal behaviour is well-defined through p-A collisions and understood in terms of pre-resonance absorption in nuclear matter. This also accounts for all collisions up to central S-U interactions. In Pb-Pb collisions, there is a clear onset of anomalous behaviour once the collisions reach a certain centrality. The anomalour suppression pattern is in accord with the deconfinement predictions of stepwise $`\chi _c`$ and direct $`J/\psi `$ suppression, while it is in complete contradiction to all conventional hadronic scenarios.

$`J/\psi `$ suppression therefore constitutes the first and so far only observed unconventional sign. For its full understanding, however, a number of open questions still have to be answered.

* The dilepton enhancement in nucleus-nucleus collisions is specified in terms of a normal behaviour defined through hadronic decays in p-p and p-A collisions. In all nucleus-nucleus collisions studied, there are deviations; so far, no clear onset for these is observed. A conventional theoretical interpretation, based on resonance broadening in an interacting hadronic medium, appears to reproduce the effect. Interesting alternative explanations invoke changing hadron masses or thermal dileptons.

For more definite conclusions, also concerning the relation of low and intermediate mass dilepton enhancement, more precise data are necessary.

* A strangeness enhancement for increasing multiplicity or centrality is observed in all hadronic collisions, from p-p to A-A. There is so far no normal form and no observed onset. The effect may well provide for all cases a thermometer for the initial partonic environment; an increase of relative strangeness production between p-p and A-A is also predicted if strangeness conservation is taken into account exactly.
* A transverse momentum broadening is also observed quite generally in hadronic interactions, increasing with multiplicity in p-p, with A in p-A, and with centrality for A-A collisions. There are various normal mechanisms, such as initial and final state scattering, but so far there is neither a defined normal form nor any particular onset of the effect.

A great present challenge, for theory as well as for experiment, is thus to define a normal form for strangeness production and transverse momentum behaviour; such a reference is a prerequisite in the search for unconventional signs.

What can these results and conclusions teach us for RHIC and LHC studies? First and foremost, I believe, they indicate that – barring the unexpected – higher collision energies are no substitute for a systematic study. As we have seen, strangeness enhancement and $`p_T`$-broadening occur in p-p/p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ collisions precisely at high energy. It is therefore necessary to study p-p and p-A collisions here as well, both in experiment and theory, before drawing any conclusions. If a given probe is not calibrated, it cannot provide convincing results.

Quite a number of different interesting experiments or experimental components will be devoted to the search for the QGP at RHIC and LHC. As in any scientific endeavor, we must be aware here that some results, even if they come from an extensive and well-done experimental study, may nevertheless simply be insensitive to deconfinement and QGP-formation. If we insist on finding the QGP everywhere, the scientific community at large may well doubt that we found it anywhere.

Last, but not least, it seems necessary that experiments are made to address fundamental physics questions; life is too short to refute all wrong models. Moreover, appearently dead models quite often sprout new, equally ugly heads, turning the battle against them into an everlasting hydradynamics222The Hydra was a many-headed water serpent in Greek mythology. When one of its heads was cut off, two new heads would appear in its place. Hercules killed it by burning the neck after cutting off each head.. The basic task will remain to first understand the conventional and then identify the unconventional signs.

Acknowledgements

The financial support by DFG contract Ka 1198/4-1, BMBF contract 06BI804/5 and GSI contract BISATT is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Geometry Selects Highly Designable Structures

## Abstract

By enumerating all sequences of length $`20`$, we study the designability of structures in a two-dimensional Hydrophobic-Polar (HP) lattice model in a wide range of inter-monomer interaction parameters. We find that although the histogram of designability depends on interaction parameters, the set of highly designable structures is invariant. So in the HP lattice model the High Designability should be a purely geometrical feature. Our results suggest two geometrical properties for highly designable structures, they have maximum number of contacts and unique neighborhood vector representation. Also we show that contribution of perfectly stable sequences in designability of structures plays a major role to make them highly designable.

Proteins are bio-macromolecules, which consist of linear sequences of monomers, the 20 naturally occurring amino acids. Each protein folds to a unique spatial structure as its native state, which is its global minimum of the free energy . This structure specifies the functionality of the protein sequence in the nature.

It has been noted that certain structures are more commonly observed among proteins than others . There are efforts to explain this phenomenon by considering protein structure designability, defined as the number of sequences that would successfully fold in one structure . By definition, highly designable structures (HDSs) have more chance to be found as native, and also they have good stability against sequence mutations. A recent numerical analysis on experimental data revealed that the distribution of observed protein families over different folds can be modeled with a highly stretched exponential . This observation is quite consistent with designability explanation. Highly designable structures might also represent attractive targets for protein design .

In study of designability of native structures like many other features in the field of protein folding, the complexity of the problem forces to use more simplified models. Coarse grained view point to proteins introduce effective inter-monomer interactions as a relevant factor in designability of structures. Analyzing the interaction between the 20 amino acids suggests that amino asides can be separated to Hydrophobic (H) and Polar (P) groups . This introduces a very simple but highly popular two monomer types model, HP model. Although the chains in this simple model are too far from realistic protein and surly could not explain many features of real proteins, but this model had good success in clarifying the concept of designability . The simplicity of this model allows one to study the ground state properties of model proteins by enumerating chains and configurations for short length chains.

Enumerations on two and three dimensional lattice models have shown the existence of a few highly designable structures among many lowly designable ones . Some studies on dynamical properties of those model chains, which fold in the highly designable lattice structures, show that they are more protein-like. Such sequences are thermodynamically more stable  and they fold to native state faster than random sequences .

There have been many efforts to find the factors determining the high designability of a structure using simple models. One element is the set of inter-monomer interactions . Some evidences suggest that the set of highly designable structures depends on the number of monomer types in the model . However in lattice models with short chains, it is too difficult to talk about helixes and sheets, it is claimed that HDSs possess secondary structure in two and three dimensional HP models . By the use of a clever algebraic approach in the framework of a simple solvation model it is shown that HDSs should be rare and atypical in structure space . A recent argument shows that this result remains valid for more general models .

In this paper we study the designability of lattice structures in a wide range of interaction parameters between H and P monomers by using of a recently developed method . Results confirm that designability of structures depends on inter-monomer interactions but interestingly we find that the set of HDSs is invariant. Therefore in this simple model the geometry should have the essential role in the selection of some structures as most HDSs. Also the correlation with some other geometrical properties will be shown.

We use of a two dimensional Hydrophobic-Polar (HP) lattice Model  for sequences with length 20. It is obvious that two dimensional structures have significant differences with real three dimensional ones, but to get considerable results in three dimension it needs to go to the too longer chains which is not computationally accessible. Short chains in three dimension do not possess natural ratio of core sites. The method of this paper is based on contact matrix. Thus it can be easily generalized to any pair contact model.

In Pair Contact Models the energy of a given sequence $`\sigma `$ in a given structure can be written as

$$E=\underset{i,j}{}c_{ij}m_{\sigma _i\sigma _j}.$$
(1)
Where $`c_{ij}`$ and $`m_{\sigma _i\sigma _j}`$ are respectively the elements of the contact matrix ($`C`$) and the interaction matrix ($`M`$). $`c_{ij}`$ is 1 if the monomers $`i`$ and $`j`$ are non-sequential neighbor and is 0 otherwise. $`\sigma _i`$ is $`i`$th component of sequence vector $`\sigma `$. In our HP model, it is equal to $`0`$ ($`1`$) if $`i`$th monomer in sequence is a polar (hydrophobic) residue. The $`m_{\sigma _i\sigma _j}`$ is the interaction energy between monomer type $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\sigma _j`$.

In two-dimensional square lattice there are $`41,889,578`$ distinct structures (non-related by rotation or reflection symmetries) for a sequence with length 20. There is a contact matrix corresponding to each structure. It is possible that some structures have the same contact matrix. Such contact matrices which point to more than one structure are called degenerate contact matrices. The number of non-degenerate distinct contact matrices are about 1 million which is much less than the number of all possible structures. The maximum number of possible contacts for the sequences with length 20 is 12, and the number of maximally compact structures i.e. with maximum contacts, are 503.

In HP model the monomers are divided to two Hydrophobic (H) and Polar (P) groups. The interaction matrix $`M`$ is thus a $`2\times 2`$ matrix and its elements are $`E_{HH}`$ and $`E_{HP}`$ and $`E_{PP}`$. By choosing an arbitrary energy scale, we can parameterize these three elements of the interaction matrix in terms if two positive parameters, $`\gamma `$ and $`E_c`$ .

$`E_{HH}`$ $`=`$ $`2\gamma E_c,`$ (2)
$`E_{HP}`$ $`=`$ $`1E_c,`$ (3)
$`E_{PP}`$ $`=`$ $`E_c,`$ (4)
Substituting these elements of interaction matrix in equation (1) gives following simple expression for configuration energy.

$$E=mE_cb\gamma a$$
(5)
where $`m`$, $`b`$ and $`a`$ are three positive integers, related to $`\sigma `$ and $`C`$ as follows:

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`𝝈^tC\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (6)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝝈^tC𝝈,`$ (7)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}^tC\mathrm{𝟏}.`$ (8)
Using the set of possible ground states of sequences, enables us to find the ground state of any sequence for any given values of energy parameters . In this way the designability of all structures in a wide range of energy parameters $`E_c`$ and $`\gamma `$ is obtained by enumerating the all $`2^{20}`$ sequences. Fig 1 shows the average designability of structures in a 10 by 10 square region with the mesh $`0.1`$ in the space of $`E_c`$ and $`\gamma `$. In this average the structures with zero designability are excluded. 19,132 structures (about $`0.05\%`$ of all structures) have non-zero designability at least for some given values of $`E_c`$ and $`\gamma `$. As one can see in this figure, the average designability shows two different regimes in space of energy parameters. In a wide area of energy parameters it has a value in order of $`10`$, but for large $`E_c`$ and small $`\gamma `$ it rapidly jumps to several hundreds. This can be explained by the fact that for $`E_c\gamma `$ the contribution of $`b`$ in the configuration energy (eq. 5) is more essential. Therefore, all native structures are between the most compact ones. We can call this area of interaction parameters, compact regime. In this regime reduction in the number of native structures, increases the average designability. Alternatively when $`\gamma `$ is greater than $`E_c`$ or comparable with it, some non-compact configuration can compete with compact ones. We call this area swollen regime.

Fig. 2 shows the histogram of designability for two pairs of values of $`E_c`$ and $`\gamma `$. Fig 2.a is for the pair $`E_c=3`$, $`\gamma =8`$ which is a point in the swollen regime and fig 2.b is for the pair $`E_c=9`$, $`\gamma =0.5`$ which is a point in the compact regime . In the swollen regime where native structures are not restricted to only highly compact structures, there are many lowly designable structures and a few HDSs. Alternatively in the compact Regime there are many intermediately designable structures and again a few HDSs. Similar results are reported when one compares histograms of designability for a fixed given set of energy parameters using the search space of all structures and compact structures . Therefore, the interaction parameters just choose the search space and inside each regime (compact or swollen), the statistics of designability does not change qualitatively.

The relevant question is, if the set of HDSs depend on the interaction parameters. To study this, we sort the structures by their designabilities at any set of energy parameters. In this manner, the place of any structure in competition for designability is recognized with its rank. The rank one is the most HDS for those given energy parameters. Averaging the rank of one structure in all space of energy parameters gives a good perspective about its global attitude toward high designability.

Figure 3 shows the histogram of this average rank for all structures in the studied square region of energy parameters. The interesting point in this diagram is that there are a few structures with very small average rank. For example there are $`8`$ structure with average rank less than 10 and lowest average rank value is equal to $`1.48`$. It must be noted that since the rank of a structure is a positive quantity, the smallness of its average shows that the structure has small rank in all space of energy parameters. Thus structures with very low rank always are inside the hit-list of HDSs. We compared the behavior of average rank of structures with two asymptotic limits. If the rank of structures were invariant against the change of energy parameters, the histogram would show a completely flat behavior (solid line in figure 3). In the other side, if the structures rank were changed uncorrelatively by the changing the inter-monomer interactions, it would result a very sharp Gaussian distribution as a consequence of central limit theorem (dashed line in figure 3). As one can see in figure 3 it seems that the average rank behaves more similar to the case of quenched rank, than the random case. Especially, for the low ranks the histogram lies on the solid line very well. This shows that the ranks of HDSs are more rigid than the ranks of lowly designable structures. So, the set of HDSs does not depend on the interaction parameters, although the designability of structures does. The fact that the role of the interaction parameters is not important for choosing a structure as HDS, demonstrates the importance of geometry. This leads to the question which purely geometrical properties or symmetries select some structures as HDS. Furthermore it justifies the restriction of the search for HDS to highly compact structures.

Recently we have shown in HP lattice model that there are some sequences which have only one non-degenerate possible ground state in all space of energy parameters . Because the native structures of these sequences have perfect stability against the changing of inter-monomer interaction, we call them perfectly stable sequences (PSSs). PSSs give constant contribution to the designability of structures. For any given interaction parameters, each set of sequences which have a common ground state structure contains an invariant subset, constituted by PSSs. The designability of any structure has a constant part equal to the number of the members of its invariant subset of sequences. In our model, about $`7\%`$ of the sequences of length $`20`$ are PSS. These PSSs select 489 structures as their absolute native state out of the 503 most compact structures i.e. only 489 structures have a non-zero constant part of designability.(It is not possible that PSSs select non-compact structures as ground state because with a large enough $`E_c`$ the compact structures will gain lower energies.)

There is a strong correlation between the designability and its constant part. In figure 4 we have plotted the constant part of designability against the designability, for two sets of interaction parameters used in figure 2. This figure shows that designability is nearly proportional to its constant part, but the slope is a function of interaction parameters.

Indeed, in the swollen regime the slope is of order unity (fig 4.a). This means that the invariant subsets of sequences dominate the designability of structure. But in the compact regime, where the constant part of designability has a small contribution to designability, these quantities remain nearly proportional yet, and the most HDSs have the bigger constant parts (fig 4.b). This correlation is considerable because by definition the source of designability is different from its constant part. The former shows stability against monomer mutations in the sequence, and the later shows ability of structure to be an interaction independent native state. The strong correlation between these quantities suggests that they may have the same geometrical origin. It has been reported that designability has a good correlation with Energy gap . So it can be claimed that the existence of a large constant part in designability of a structure is a sign of large average energy gap. In fact, when a PSS exist, changing interaction parameters does not change the native structure of sequence. So the exited states of the sequence should be far enough and separated by a large energy gap.

As mentioned above the compactness is a necessary condition of HDSs because all interaction parameters are negative. We have found an additional geometrical symmetry for HDSs which is related to the solvation nature of proteins. In a HP solvation model for proteins a H monomer decrease the energy proportional to the number of non-sequential contacts in the structure and the position of P monomers does not change the energy. In a simpler version of the solvation model all non-core monomers behave the same (it takes both corner and edge monomers as surface.) . In contrast the solvation model is a pair contact model. Our pair contact model in the special case $`\gamma =0`$ becomes a solvation model. (We may call it alternatively additive .) This special case has some theoretical advantages because the energy has a simpler form . In this case to calculate the configuration energy (eq. 5) $`a`$ is an irrelevant parameter, and one can re-write $`m`$ and $`b`$ (equation 6) as follows.

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`𝝈^tV,`$ (9)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}^tV,`$ (10)
where $`V`$ is neighborhood vector (NV). Its $`i`$th component shows the number of non sequential neighbors of the $`i`$th monomer and is related to the contact matrix.

$$V_i=C\mathrm{𝟏}=\underset{j}{}c_{ij}.$$
(11)
In this case the information needed to calculate the configuration energy can be coded in a vector instead of a matrix. Obviously this is a source of an additional degeneracy in energy spectrum. This degeneracy is equal to the number of spatial structures which have the same NV and we label it by $`N_d`$. In our enumeration for native configurations of length $`20`$ the biggest $`N_d`$ for NVs is $`4`$.

We found that all HDSs are between those structures with unique NVs ($`N_d=1`$). Thus this additional geometric symmetry is another common property of HDSs.

Table 1. The average designability of structures

|  | Number of contacts | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`N_d`$ | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 1 | 0.85 | 2.07 | 14.17 | 692.78 |
| 2 |  | 1.09 | 4.97 | 155.71 |
| 3 |  | 1.87 | 2.65 | 101.17 |
| 4 |  |  | 2.69 | 40.04 |

Table 1 shows the average designability of structures with specific compactness and degeneracy of NVs. It can be inferred that the average designability of structures increase with the growth of compactness and with the decreasing of $`N_d`$. Thus those structures which have the highest compactness and unique NVs are good candidates for being highly designable. These are only necessary conditions for high designability and as some lowly designable structures also fulfill these criteria. In fact the structures should be also atypical to be HDS . Recently it was shown that these atypical structures possess $`\alpha `$ helices which are another character of real proteins . Also the uniqueness of NV representation of structures can give an explanation for the ratio of surface to core monomers in real proteins .

In summary we have studied the designability of structures in a two-dimensional HP pair contact lattice model in a wide range of inter-monomer interaction parameters by considering HP constraints. We find the designability of all structures by enumerating all sequences of length 20. Our results confirm that changing the inter-monomer interactions affects the structure designability and also chooses the search space of native state but the set of HDSs is invariant. Therefore geometry should have the essential role in the selection of some structures as most HDSs.

In some regions of inter-monomer interaction parameter space, the constant contribution of PSSs to designability of structures is dominant in selection of HDSs. Even in those regions where the designability is much larger than constant part, there is still a strong correlation between designability and its constant part. Thus those structures, which are attractive for PSSs, are in the set of HDSs. This suggests a close relation between average energy gap of a structure and its constant part of designability.

We find two geometrical necessary conditions for a structure to be HD. The first one is compactness. This is because the PSSs select only highly compact structures as absolute native states. Also we find that all HDSs have a non-degenerate NV representation. In average the designability of structures decreases by increasing the degeneracy of neighborhood vector and decreasing of compactness. This result shows that two monomer type pair contact models have the common result for designability of HDSs with the solvation model which is consistent with the recent study . The relevant question remains what will happen in models with more than two monomer types.

Acknowledgment: We would like to thank N. Hamedani, R. Golestanian, N. Buchler, for helpful discussions. We also thank R. Everaers for carefully reading the manuscript and useful comments.

Figure Captions

Figure 1.

The Average Designability of all native structures against interaction parameters $`E_c`$ and $`\gamma `$ in a $`10`$ by $`10`$ square region with mesh $`0.1`$. The compact and swollen regime correspond to areas of interaction space with large and small average designability respectively.

Figure 2.

Histogram of Designability for two pairs of interaction parameters. a) $`E_c=3`$ and $`\gamma =8`$ (swollen regime), b) $`E_c=9`$ and $`\gamma =0.5`$ (compact regime).

Figure 3.

The histogram of the number of structure with average ranks inside the intervals with width 50 is compared with the uncorrelated (dash line) and fixed (solid line) cases.

Figure 4.

The Designability of structures vs.  the number of PSSs which choose the structure as unique ground state (the constant part of designability) for two pairs of interaction parameters. a) $`E_c=3`$ and $`\gamma =8`$ (swollen regime), b) $`E_c=9`$ and $`\gamma =0.5`$ (compact regime).