text:
# On Maslanka’s representation for the Riemann zeta function

## 1. Introduction

In  and  K. Maslanka introduced the following representation of $`\zeta (s)`$ valid for all $`s`$

(1.1)
$$(s1)\zeta (s)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_kP_k\left(\frac{s}{2}\right),$$

where the $`A_k`$ are given by

(1.2)
$$A_k=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}\right)(2j+1)\zeta (2j+2),$$

and the $`P_k`$ are the so-called Pochhammer polynomials defined by

(1.3)
$$P_k(s):=\underset{r=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(1\frac{s}{r}\right),(P_0(s):=1).$$

We apologize for having changed the notation used in , , but we have found it more natural to write it as above with future applications in mind.

Maslanka indicates that he was led to this interesting expression by the desire to interpolate $`\zeta (s)`$ with a series of the form (1.1) treating the $`A_k`$ as indeterminates to be found from the system of equations

$$(2n1)\zeta (2n)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_kP_k(2n),(n=1,2,\mathrm{}).$$

This system is a triangular system because $`P_k(m)=0`$ when the integer $`mk`$. Its unique solution is found by a nice combinatorial argument given in Appendix A of .

The author of ,  gives two formal proofs that the series (1.1) with the coefficients as defined by (1.2) represents $`(s1)\zeta (s)`$. However no estimate of the size of the $`A_k`$ is given that would imply the convergence of the series in any region of the complex plane, and which would be needed to justify several of the formal interchanges of limits and series in his proofs. Professor Maslanka himself kindly indicated this gap to me in a personal communication. I thought it would be worthwhile to devote some effort, which proved quite rewarding, to provide the missing steps in the proof. An effective estimate of the rate at which $`A_k0`$ is the crucial missing link in the proof, and to this effect we shall show below that

(1.4)
$$A_kk^p$$

for every positive real.

In closing this introduction we would like to point out an interesting paradox that could deserve some attention. Once the Maslanka representation is shown to be valid in the whole complex plane it is obvious that (1.1) will be valid for $`s=1,0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, noting however that in this case the series does not truncate one obtains interesting identities as pointed out in . If, on the other hand, one proposed at the outset the analogous problem of finding a representation of the form

$$(s1)\zeta (s)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_kP_k(2s),$$

then it is clear that the series truncates for $`s=1,0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ giving again a triangular system which leads to a surprising solution, namely

$$(s1)\zeta (s)=1+\frac{1}{2}(s1)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_kP_k(2s),$$

where the $`B_k`$ are the Bernoulli numbers. This happens to be, in different garb, the divergent Euler-Maclaurin series of $`\zeta (s)`$. It may be objected that Dirichlet series (albeit $`(s1)\zeta (s)`$ is not a Dirichlet series) are determined by its values at any sequence with real parts tending to $`+\mathrm{}`$, while that is not the case toward the left. It may seldom be the case that this question is at all posed as “all” Dirichlet series of interest have a finite abscissa of convergence so there is no way to move toward $`\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand Professor Malanska claims he has a representation that interpolates symultaneously at points $`2n`$ and $`32n`$. We do not know what that series may be, perhaps he means something like $`c_kP_k(s/2)P_k((1s)/2)`$.

These considerations shall be taken up in a more general study  where we shall explore “p-series$`c_kP_k(s)`$ in general, and in particular in  where we produce a new necessary and sufficient criterion for the Riemann hypothesis (it looks like a discrete version of the well-known F. Riesz criterion ), namely, if

$$b_k:=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}\right)\frac{1}{\zeta (2j+2)},(k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}),$$

then the Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to the condition

$$b_kk^{\frac{3}{4}+ϵ},(ϵ>0).$$

This criterion is well-suited for numerical calculations. We have obtained a very smooth and convincing smooth curve $`b_kk^{\frac{4}{3}}`$ tending to zero like $`\mathrm{log}^2k`$.

## 2. Statement and proof of the main theorem

We now formally state and prove the representation theorem.

###### Theorem 2.1.

For $`A_k`$ defined as in (1.2) we have

(2.1)
$$(s1)\zeta (s)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_kP_k\left(\frac{s}{2}\right),$$

for all $`s`$. The convergence of the series is uniform and absolute in every compact set of the complex plane.

Throughout it shall be very important to bear in mind the simple estimate for the size of the Pochhammer polynomials contained in the following lemma. It is given here without proof as it is quite standard.

###### Lemma 2.1.

For every disk $`|s|r<\mathrm{}`$ there is a positive constant $`C_r`$ such that

(2.2)
$$|P_k(s)|C_rk^\mathrm{}s,(|s|R).$$

Do note also the equally trivial facts contained in:

###### Lemma 2.2.

(2.3)
$$P_k(s)=(1)^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s1}{k}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1s)}{k!\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s)}.$$

###### Proof of Theorem 2.1.

The key estimate (1.4) for the coefficients $`A_k`$ shall be proved in the next section. We accept it for the moment and show now how the informal steps in Maslanka’s second proof can be made rigorous. We shall first show that with no assumption on the size of the $`A_k`$ one can prove equality in (1.1) for $`\mathrm{}s>4`$. We start with Maslanka’s clever idea of expressing $`s1`$ as the derivative of $`\alpha ^{1s}`$ at $`\alpha =1`$. We indicate by $`D_\alpha `$ the operation of differentiating with respect to $`\alpha `$ and proceed as follows:

(2.4) $`\alpha ^s(s1)\zeta (s)`$ $`=`$ $`D_\alpha \alpha ^{1s}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^s}}`$
$`=`$ $`D_\alpha \alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha n)^s}}`$
$`=`$ $`D_\alpha \alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}}\right)^{\frac{s}{2}1}`$
$`=`$ $`D_\alpha \alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}}\left(1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}}\right)\right)^{\frac{s}{2}1}`$
$`=`$ $`D_\alpha \alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^k\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\frac{s}{2}1}{k}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}}\right)^k`$
$`=`$ $`D_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_k\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha n^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}}\right)^k,`$
where we have applied the binomial theorem assuming as we may that the derivative is calculated from the right so $`\alpha >1`$. Consider now the formally differentiated double series on the right-hand side above, namely

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_k\left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}\left(1\frac{2k+1}{(\alpha n)^2}\right)\left(1\frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}\right)^{k1}.$$

Using Lemma 2.1 we see that this double series is uniformly termwise majorized by a convergent double series of positive terms in $`\mathrm{}s4+2ϵ`$ since

$$\left|P_k\left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\right|\frac{1}{\alpha n^2}\left(1\frac{2k+1}{(\alpha n)^2}\right)\left(1\frac{1}{(\alpha n)^2}\right)^kk^{1ϵ}\frac{1}{n^2}.$$

Thus we can both invert the sums at the end of (2.4) and do the differentiation termwise at $`\alpha =1`$ obtaining

(2.5)
$$(s1)\zeta (s)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_k\left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n^2}\left(1\frac{2k+1}{n^2}\right)\left(1\frac{1}{n^2}\right)^{k1}.$$

We easily calculate the last series on the right as

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{j}\right)(\zeta (2j+2)(2k+1)\zeta (2j+4))$$

which, after separating in two sums and shifting indices in the second, becomes

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{j}\right)(2j+1)\zeta (2j+2),$$

which is none other than $`A_k`$. One could even argue this would be a direct way to find the coefficients. We have thus shown the desired relation (1.1) at least for $`\mathrm{}s>4`$. However the strong estimate (1.4), to be proved below, providing that $`A_kk^p`$ for every $`p>0`$, together with Lemma 2.1 immediately shows that the series $`A_kP_k(s/2)`$ converges uniformly on any compact of the plane, thus defining an entire function that must be equal to $`(s1)\zeta (s)`$ by analytic continuation. ∎

## 3. The size of the coefficients.

We shall establish here this Proposition:

###### Proposition 3.1.

For any $`p>0`$ there is a constant $`C_p>0`$ such that

(3.1)
$$|A_k|C_pk^p.$$

To lighten up the proof we first prove some lemmas. Define the crucial sequence of rational functions $`\varphi _k(x)`$ by

(3.2)
$$\varphi _k(x):=\left(1\frac{1}{x^2}\right)^k\frac{1}{x},(k^+).$$

We now record a very simple while extremely important property of $`\varphi (x)`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

For $`0ak`$ denote

$$\varphi _k^{(a)}(x):=\frac{d^a}{dx^a}\varphi _k(x),$$

then we have

(3.3)
$$\varphi _k^{(a)}(1)=\varphi _k^{(a)}(\mathrm{})=0,$$

where the second equality is unrestricted on $`a`$. All the $`\varphi _k^{(a)}(x)`$ for $`a1`$ are integrable.

The following lemma is the essential and quite elementary tool to get a grip on the size of $`A_k`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Define a double sequence of polynomials $`p_{a,j}`$, with integral coefficients as follows: Let $`p_{0,0}=1`$, $`p_{a,j}=0`$ when $`j<0`$ and when $`j>a`$, and specify the recurrence equation

(3.4)
$$p_{a,j}=(2j+a)p_{a1,j}+(2k+2ja)p_{a1,j1}.$$

With these definitions we have for any integers $`ka0`$

(3.5)
$$\varphi _k^{(a)}(x)=\left(1\frac{1}{x^2}\right)^{ka}\underset{j=0}{\overset{a}{}}\frac{p_{a,j}(k)}{x^{a+2j+1}}.$$

The simple proof is by (double) induction. The recurrence relation (3.4) will not be used other than the fact that it is part of the proof. It is nice to record it explicitly for further use if need be.

Having straightened some notation, as all the above was essentially, we are ready for a first preliminary estimate.

###### Lemma 3.3.

For any fixed integer $`a1`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ there is a constant $`C=C(a,ϵ)`$ such that

(3.6)
$$_1^{\mathrm{}}|\varphi _k^{(a)}(x)|𝑑xCk^{\frac{a}{2}(1ϵ)}.$$

###### Proof.

Take $`ka1`$. We split the interval of integration at the point $`x=k^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3}}`$. We express the $`a`$-th derivative according to Lemma 3.2 equation (3.5). For the finite range of the integral we have

(3.7) $`{\displaystyle _1^{k^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3}}}}|\varphi _k^{(a)}(x)|𝑑x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{k^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3}}}}\left|\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)^{ka}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{a}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{a,j}(k)}{x^{a+2j+1}}}\right|𝑑x`$
$``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{a}{}}}p_{a,j}(k)\right|{\displaystyle _1^{k^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3}}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)^{ka}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`O_a(k^a)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^{1\frac{2ϵ}{3}}}}\right)^{ka}k^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3}}`$
$`=`$ $`O_a(e^{k^{\frac{ϵ}{3}}}).`$
Now for the infinite range of integration we have

(3.8) $`{\displaystyle _{k^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3}}}^{\mathrm{}}}|\varphi _k^{(a)}(x)|𝑑x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{k^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3}}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left|\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)^{ka}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{a}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{a,j}(k)}{x^{a+2j+1}}}\right|𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{a}{}}}|p_{a,j}(k)|{\displaystyle _{k^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3}}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{a+2j+1}}}𝑑x`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{a}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a+2j}}{\displaystyle \frac{|p_{a,j}(k)|}{k^{(\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3})(a+2j)}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^{a(\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3})}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{a}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a+2j}}{\displaystyle \frac{|p_{a,j}(k)|}{k^{j(1\frac{2ϵ}{3})}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^{a(\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3})}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{a}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a+2j}}O_a(k^{\frac{2ϵ}{3}j})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^{a(\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ}{3})}}}O_a(k^{\frac{2ϵ}{3}a})=O_a\left(k^{\frac{a}{2}(1\frac{ϵ}{2})}\right).`$
Since this last estimate (3.8) surely dominates the smaller one in (3.7) we can allow the substitution of $`ϵ/2`$ by $`ϵ`$ to arrive at the desired (3.6). ∎

###### Remark 3.1.

Actually there is no need for $`ϵ`$ to be arbitraly small for the use this estimate (3.6) is destined for. If one takes, say $`ϵ=1`$ we see that the order obtained is $`O_a(k^{\frac{a}{4}})`$, which is plenty, since we are planning to differentiate a large but fixed number of times, while $`k\mathrm{}`$. The idea perhaps was to see how much we can eke out of this method, which is as close as $`k^{\frac{a}{2}}`$ as desired. Perhaps a more painstaking analysis, taking into account the actual nature of the polynomials $`p_{a,j}`$, could yield an essentially faster order of convergence to zero, which is desirable for the effectivenes of the Maslanka representation.

At this point it is high time to connect the coefficients $`A_k`$ with the function $`\varphi _k`$. So we have first a high school triviality, namely:

###### Lemma 3.4.

For any $`x0`$

(3.9)
$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}\right)(2j+1)\frac{1}{x^{2j+2}}=\varphi _k^{^{}}(x).$$

###### Proof.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right)(2j+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{2j+2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{2j}}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)^k\right).`$
It should now be clear why the work on the derivatives of $`\varphi _k(x)`$ if the reader notices that the sum below should be estimated by Euler-Maclaurin with a large number of terms.

###### Lemma 3.5.

(3.10)
$$A_k=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi _k^{^{}}(n).$$

###### Proof.

The following interchange of sums is totally elementary to justify:

$`A_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right)(2j+1)\zeta (2j+2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right)(2j+1){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{2j+2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right)(2j+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{2j+2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\varphi _k^{^{}}(n),`$
where, of course, we applied Lemma 3.4 in the last equality. ∎

We are finally ready to prove the estimate for the $`A_k`$.

###### Proof of Proposition 3.1.

Take an integer $`a>4p`$ and assume that $`k>a`$; naturally one will make $`k\mathrm{}`$. The crucial elementary properties of $`\varphi _k`$ and its derivatives expressed in Lemma 3.2 imply the remarkable fact that the application of the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula to a depth of $`a`$ steps to the sum in (3.10), that is to

$$A_k=\underset{n1}{}\varphi _k^{^{}}(n)$$

results in the sum being equal to the remainder term! Therefore

$$A_k=\frac{(1)^a}{a!}_1^{\mathrm{}}\overline{B_a}(x)\varphi _k^{(a)}(x)𝑑x,$$

where $`\overline{B_a}(x)`$ is the $`a`$-th periodified Bernoulli polynomial. Now apply Lemma 3.3 eq. (3.6) with $`ϵ=\frac{1}{2}`$ to get

$`|A_k|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{B_a}_{\mathrm{}}}{a!}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}|\varphi _k^{(a)}(x)|𝑑x`$
$``$ $`O_a(k^{\frac{a}{4}})=O_a(k^p).`$
###### Remark 3.2.

We believe there is room for improvement in estimating the smallness of the $`A_k`$. This should have a bearing on how useful the Maslanka formula may turn out to be in the end.

Luis Báez-Duarte
Departamento de Matemáticas
Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas
Apartado 21827, Caracas 1020-A
Venezuela


format: text

text:
# Minimum-error discrimination between a pure and a mixed two-qubit state

## I Introduction

Quantum state discrimination chefrev  is of fundamental importance for quantum communication and quantum cryptography. The problem consists in determining the state of a single copy of a quantum system that is prepared in a certain but unknown state, belonging to a given finite set of known states which occur with given a-priori probabilities. When the quantum states are non-orthogonal, it is impossible to device a measurement that can discriminate between them perfectly. Therefore strategies for an optimal measurement have been developed with respect to various criteria. Unambiguous discrimination can be achieved at the expense of the occurrence of inconclusive results chefrev  the probability of which is minimized in the optimum strategy. On the other hand, when a conclusive outcome is to be returned in each single measurement, errors are unavoidable. The strategy for minimum-error discrimination is optimized in such a way that the probability of errors takes its smallest possible value hel . Recently quantum state discrimination has been investigated in the context of distinguishing between sets of pure states, or between mixed states, respectively. In particular, it has been assumed that the actual state of the system belongs to either one of two complementary sets of pure states, where each pure state occurs with a given a-priori probability. Minimum-error discrimination between two sets containing both an arbitrary number of pure states has been treated analytically under the restriction that the total Hilbert space collectively spanned by the states is only two-dimensional HB . If the first set contains only a single state, the discrimination problem is referred to as quantum state filtering \[3 - 5\]. For optimum unambiguous discrimination, general analytical solutions have been derived to this problem SBH ; BHH . Another recent development consists in studying state discrimination for multipartite systems. Non-orthogonal bipartite and multipartite states have been considered with respect to both minimum-error discrimination and optimum unambiguous discrimination \[6 - 9\]. It has been found virmani  that any two pure non-orthogonal multipartite states can be discriminated with minimum error using only local measurements and classical communication, and that the same holds true for two mixed states provided these states span collectively only a two-dimensional Hilbert space.

In the present contribution we consider the problem of deciding with minimum error whether the state of a quantum system is either a given pure state, or a uniform statistical mixture of any number of states being mutually orthogonal. The study is motivated by two main aspects. First, it provides another example for an analytically solvable minimum-error state discrimination problem in an arbitrary dimensional Hilbert space, where so far non-trivial explicit solutions have been obtained only for discrimination between multiple states that are highly symmetric \[10 - 13\], or between three mirror-symmetric pure states andersson . Second, the solution can be applied to gain some insight into the problem of discriminating bipartite quantum states with minimum error. Minimum-error discrimination has been discussed previously for the joint polarization states of two indistinguishable photons travelling in the same spatial mode, where the associated Hilbert space is three-dimensional herzog . Here we shall focus our interest on two-qubit states that span a four-dimensional Hilbert space. These states could be for instance experimentally realized with the help of two polarization-entangled photons travelling along different paths. We study the minimum error probabilities for state discrimination that are achievable by collective measurement on the two qubits, on the one hand, and by local single-qubit measurements, on the other hand.

## II Minimum-error discrimination between two mixed states

We start by briefly reviewing the general problem of discriminating with minimum errror between two mixed states of a quantum system, being characterized by the densitity operators $`\widehat{\rho }_1`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$, and occurring with the a-priori probabilities $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, respectively, where $`p_1+p_2=1`$ hel ; virmani . The corresponding measurement can be formally described with the help of two positive-semidefinite detection operators, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2`$, defined in such a way that $`\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_k)`$ is the probability to infer the system to be in the state $`\widehat{\rho }_k`$ ($`k=1,2`$) if it has been prepared in a state $`\widehat{\rho }`$ chefrev ; hel . The total probability to get an erroneous result in the measurement is given by $`P_{\mathrm{err}}=p_1\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\rho }_1\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2)+p_2\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\rho }_2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1)`$. Since the measurement is exhaustive it follows that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\widehat{1}_{D_S}`$, with $`D_S`$ being the dimensionality of the physical state space associated with the quantum system under consideration. Therefore we obtain $`P_{\mathrm{err}}=p_1+\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1)=p_2\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2)`$, where we introduced the Hermitean operator

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=p_2\widehat{\rho }_2p_1\widehat{\rho }_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{D_S}{}}\lambda _k|\varphi _k\varphi _k|.$$
(1)
Here the states $`|\varphi _k`$ denote the orthonormal eigenstates belonging to the eigenvalues $`\lambda _k`$. By using the spectral decomposition of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ we get the representations

$$P_{\mathrm{err}}=p_1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{D_S}{}}\lambda _k\varphi _k|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1|\varphi _k=p_2\underset{k=1}{\overset{D_S}{}}\lambda _k\varphi _k|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2|\varphi _k.$$
(2)
The eigenvalues are real, and without loss of generality we can number them in such a way that $`\lambda _k<0`$ for $`k<k_0`$, and $`\lambda _k>0`$ for $`k_0kD`$, where $`DD_S`$, implying that $`\lambda _k=0`$ for $`k>D`$. The optimization task consists in determining the specific operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1`$, or $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2`$, respectively, that minimize $`P_{\mathrm{err}}`$ under the constraint that $`0\varphi _k|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i|\varphi _k1`$ ($`i=1,2`$) for all eigenstates $`|\varphi _k`$. The latter requirement is due to the fact that $`\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i)`$ denotes a probability for any $`\widehat{\rho }`$. From this constraint and from (2) it immediately follows that the smallest possible error probability, $`P_{\mathrm{err}}^{\mathrm{min}}P_E`$, is achieved when the equations $`\varphi _k|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1|\varphi _k=1`$ and $`\varphi _k|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1|\varphi _k=0`$ are fulfilled for eigenstates belonging to negative eigenvalues, while eigenstates corresponding to positive eigenvalues obey the equations $`\varphi _k|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1|\varphi _k=0`$ and $`\varphi _k|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1|\varphi _k=1`$. This is the case when

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{k_01}{}}|\varphi _k\varphi _k|,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\underset{k=k_0}{\overset{D}{}}|\varphi _k\varphi _k|.$$
(3)
According to (2) the error probability does not change when the detection operators are supplemented by projection operators onto eigenstates belonging to the eigenvalue $`\lambda _k=0`$, in such a way that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\widehat{1}_{D_S}`$. From (2) and (3) we get $`P_E=p_1_{k=1}^{k_01}|\lambda _k|=p_2_{k=k_0}^D|\lambda _k|`$. By taking the sum of these two alternative representations, using $`p_1+p_2=1`$, we arrive at the well known result hel

$$P_E=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\underset{k}{}|\lambda _k|\right)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}p_2\widehat{\rho }_2p_1\widehat{\rho }_1,$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{Tr}\sqrt{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$. Provided that there are positive as well as negative eigenvalues in the spectral decomposition of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, the minimum-error measurement for discriminating two quantum states is a von Neumann measurement that consists in performing projections onto two orthogonal subspaces, as becomes obvious from (3). On the other hand, when negative eigenvalues do not exist, it follows that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1=0`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\widehat{1}_{D_S}`$. Hence the minimum error probability can be achieved by always guessing the quantum system to be in the state $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$, without performing any measurement at all. Similar considerations hold true in the absence of positive eigenvalues. These findings are in agreement with the recently gained insight hunter  that measurement does not always aid minimum-error discrimination.

## III Distinguishing a pure state and a uniformly mixed state

Now we apply the general solution, given by (3) and (4), to the problem of deciding with minimum error whether an arbitrary single-partite or multi-partite quantum system is prepared either in a given pure state, $`|\psi `$, or in a uniformly mixed state, $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$, i. e. we wish to discriminate between the density operators

$$\widehat{\rho }_1=|\psi \psi |,\widehat{\rho }_2=\frac{1}{d}\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}|u_ju_j|,$$
(5)
where $`u_i|u_j=\delta _{ij}`$ and $`dD_S`$. In the special case $`d=D_S`$, the state $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ is the maximally mixed state that describes a completely random state of the system, containing no information at all. Discriminating between $`|\psi \psi |`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ then amounts to deciding whether the state $`|\psi `$ has been reliably prepared, or whether the preparation has totally failed hunter . Note that a density operator of the form $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ would result e. g. if the system was known to be prepared with the same a-priori probability, $`\eta =p_2/d`$, in each single one of the states $`|u_1\mathrm{},|u_d`$. Therefore the solution of our problem coincides with the solution of the corresponding quantum state filtering problem. Without any prior knowledge, however, the detection of the state $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ does not give any information about the method used for its preparation.

In the following we restrict ourselves to the situation that $`p_1=p_2/d`$ which means that in the corresponding quantum state filtering scenario all possible pure states would have equal a-priori probabilities, given by $`\eta =1/(d+1)`$. According to (4), the minimum error probability is then determined by the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ of the operator

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{1}{d+1}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}|u_ju_j||\psi \psi |\right).$$
(6)
In order to treat the resulting eigenvalue equation,

$$\widehat{F}(\lambda )=\lambda (d+1)\widehat{1}_{d+1}+|\psi \psi |\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}|u_ju_j|=0,$$
(7)
we introduce an additional basis vector $`|u_0`$ in such a way that

$$|\psi =|u_0\sqrt{1\psi ^{}^2}+|\psi ^{},u_0|u_j=\delta _{0,j}.$$
(8)
Obviously $`|\psi ^{}`$ is the component of $`|\psi `$ that lies in the subspace spanned by the states $`|u_1,\mathrm{},|u_d`$, i. e.

$$\psi ^{}^2=\psi ^{}|\psi ^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}|u_j|\psi |^2.$$
(9)
The total Hilbert space spanned by the set of states $`\{|\psi ,|u_1,\mathrm{},|u_d\}`$ is $`d`$-dimensional for $`\psi ^{}=1`$, and $`d+1`$-dimensional for $`\psi ^{}<1`$. Since $`_{j=1}^d|u_ju_j|=\widehat{1}_d`$ and $`\widehat{1}_{d+1}=\widehat{1}_d+|u_0u_0|`$, we find that the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ obey the equation

$$\mathrm{det}(\widehat{F})=\mathrm{det}(\widehat{F_1})+\mathrm{det}(\widehat{F_2})=0,$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{F_1}(\lambda )=|\psi ^{}\psi ^{}|+[(d+1)\lambda 1]\widehat{1}_d`$ and $`\widehat{F_2}(\lambda )=|\psi \psi |+[(d+1)\lambda 1]\widehat{1}_{d+1}`$. The decomposition (10) can be verified by considering the matrix elements of $`\widehat{F}`$ in the orthonormal basis system $`\{|u_0,\mathrm{}|u_d\}`$ and by expanding both $`\mathrm{det}(\widehat{F})`$ and $`\mathrm{det}(\widehat{F_2})`$ with respect to their first rows in this basis. We now use the alternative representation $`\widehat{1}_d=\psi ^{}^2|\psi ^{}\psi ^{}|+_{j=1}^{d1}|\stackrel{~}{u}_j\stackrel{~}{u}_j|`$, where the $`\{|\stackrel{~}{u}_j\}`$ are new basis vectors with $`\psi ^{}|\stackrel{~}{u}_j=0`$, and similiarly, we write $`\widehat{1}_{d+1}=|\psi \psi |+_{j=1}^d|\stackrel{~}{v}_j\stackrel{~}{v}_j|`$, where $`\psi |\stackrel{~}{v}_j=0`$. Thus we obtain

$`\mathrm{det}(\widehat{F_1})`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\psi ^{}^2+(d+1)\lambda 1\right]\left[(d+1)\lambda 1\right]^{d1}`$
$`\mathrm{det}(\widehat{F_2})`$ $`=`$ $`(d+1)\lambda \left[(d+1)\lambda 1\right]^d,`$ (11)
and upon substituting these expressions into (10) we find the eigenvalues

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d+1}}\sqrt{1\psi ^{}^2},`$ (12)
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1,\lambda _k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d+1}}(k=3,\mathrm{}d+1).`$
By applying (4), the minimum error probability follows to be

$$P_E=\frac{1}{d+1}\left(1\sqrt{1\psi ^{}^2}\right).$$
(13)
If the density operators to be discriminated are linearly independent, i. e. if $`\psi ^{}1`$, there exists exactly one negative eigenvalue, given by $`\lambda _1`$. Therefore the minimum-error measurement is a von-Neumann measurement that can be described by the detection operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1=|\varphi _1\varphi _1|`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\widehat{1}_{D_S}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1`$, where $`|\varphi _1`$ is the eigenstate belonging to $`\lambda _1`$. On the other hand, when $`\widehat{\rho }_1`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ are linearly dependent, i. e. when $`\psi ^{}=1`$, a negative eigenvalue does not exist, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\widehat{1}_{D_S}`$. In this case the resulting minimum error probability, $`P_E=1/(d+1)`$, is achievable by guessing the system always to be in the state $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$, without performing any measurement at all.

It is interesting to compare the minimum probability of errors, $`P_E`$, with the smallest possible failure probability, $`Q_F`$, that can be obtained in a strategy optimized for unambiguously discriminating between the quantum states given in (5). The solution of the latter problem coincides with the solution to the problem of optimum unambiguous quantum state filtering, where the state of the quantum system is known to be either $`|\psi `$, or any state out of the set of pure states $`\{|u_1,\mathrm{}|u_d\}`$. The general solution for optimum unambiguous quantum state filtering has been provided in BHH . Assuming equal a-priori-probabilities $`\eta =1/(d+1)`$ for all states, this solution can be directly applied to our case, yielding the failure probability $`Q_F=2\psi ^{}/(d+1)`$. By comparing this result with (13) it becomes obvious that $`P_EQ_F`$, where the equality sign holds for $`\psi ^{}=0`$, i. e. when $`\widehat{\rho }_1`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ are orthogonal.

## IV Application to bipartite qubit states

In the following we apply the results of the previous section in order to study state discrimination for the simplest case of bipartite quantum states, i. e. for two-qubit-states. In particular, we are interested in the question as to what is the difference between the smallest possible error probabilities for discriminating the two given states, achievable by collective measurements on the two qubits, on the one hand, and by a local measurement on a single qubit, on the other hand. An arbitrary bipartite two-qubit-state, shared among two parties A (Alice) and B (Bob), can be expressed with the help of the four orthonormal basis states

$$|v_1=|00,|v_2=|01,|v_3=|10,|v_4=|11,$$
(14)
where $`|mn`$ stands for $`|m_A|n_B`$, with $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ denoting any two orthonormal basis states of a single qubit. In the most general form, the state $`|\psi `$ and an arbitrary set of four orthonormal states $`|u_j`$ read

$$|\psi =\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}a_k|v_k,|u_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}c_{jk}|v_k.$$
(15)
Here $`j=0,\mathrm{},3`$, and from normalization, together with the requirement of orthogonality, it follows that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}|a_k|^2=1,\underset{j=0}{\overset{3}{}}c_{jk}c_{jl}^{}=\delta _{kl}.$$
(16)
Since the state space corresponding to the two-qubit-system is four-dimensional, the Ansatz (5) is only possible when $`d4`$. Like in the previous section, we assume again that $`p_1=1/(d+1)`$. If $`d=4`$, the states composing $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ span the entire state space of the two-qubit-system and hence $`\psi ^{}=1`$ for any state $`|\psi `$. This means that the minimum error probability, $`P_E=1/5`$, can be achieved by always guessing the system to be in the state $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$, and there exists no measurement, neither collective nor local, that would lead to a smaller error probability. For $`d=3`$, the minimum error probability follows from (13) to be

$$P_E=\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left|\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}c_{jk}^{}a_k\right|^2}.$$
(17)
As an interesting special case we consider the problem that Alice and Bob want to decide whether the quantum state in question is either the pure state $`|\psi \psi |`$, or a uniform mixture of the three symmetric states $`|u_1=|00,|u_2=|11,|u_3=(|01+|10)/\sqrt{2}`$. We then find from (17) that the minimum error probability is given by $`P_E=\frac{1}{4}\left(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|a_2a_3|\right)`$, and the same result would hold true if $`|u_1`$ and $`|u_2`$ were replaced by the two symmetric Bell states $`(|00\pm |11)/\sqrt{2}`$. According to (III) and to the discussion in connection with (4), minimum-error discrimination is achieved by performing a projection measurement onto the eigenstate $`|\varphi _1`$ that belongs to the negative eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$ of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. In general, this eigenstate will be a superposition of the two-qubit states (14). The optimum measurement strategy therefore requires a correlated measurement that has to be carried out collectively on the two qubits.

Now we turn to the case that only local measurements are performed, and that Alice and Bob are not able to communicate with each other. Alice wants to distinguish between the density operators given in (5) with the smallest possible error that is achievable by performing a local measurement on her qubit. This means that she has to discriminate with minimum error between the reduced density operators $`\widehat{\rho }_1^A=\mathrm{Tr}_B(\widehat{\rho }_1)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_2^A=\mathrm{Tr}_B(\widehat{\rho }_2)`$, and the minimum error probability takes the form

$$P_E^{\mathrm{loc}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}p_2\widehat{\rho }_2^Ap_1\widehat{\rho }_1^A=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}|\lambda _k^A|\right).$$
(18)
Supposing again that $`p_1=1/(d+1)`$, the eigenvalues $`\lambda _1^A`$ and $`\lambda _2^A`$ refer to the operator

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^A=\frac{1}{d+1}\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\mathrm{Tr}_B(|u_ju_j|)\mathrm{Tr}_B(|\psi \psi |)\right]$$
(19)
that acts in the two-dimensional Hilbert space spanned by the basis vectors of a single qubit. They can be expressed as

$$\lambda _{1,2}^A=\frac{L_{00}+L_{11}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(L_{00}L_{11})^2}{4}+|L_{01}|^2},$$
(20)
where $`L_{m_1m_2}=m_1|\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^A|m_2`$ with $`\{|m_1,|m_2\}=\{|0_A,|1_A\}`$. Using (14) – (16) we get the matrix elements

$`L_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}|c_{jk}|^2|a_k|^2\right),`$
$`L_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d+1}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}(c_{j1}c_{j3}^{}+c_{j2}c_{j4}^{})(a_1a_3^{}+a_2a_4^{})\right],`$
$`L_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=3}{\overset{4}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}}|c_{jk}|^2|a_k|^2\right),`$ (21)
where $`d4`$. Obviously, $`L_{00}+L_{11}=(d1)/(d+1)`$. Let us again consider the case the case $`d=3`$. In order to calculate $`P_E^A`$ we have to estimate whether $`\lambda _1^A`$ is positive or negative. For this purpose we represent the matrix elements with the help of the vector $`|u_0`$, making use of the conditions (16), and obtain

$`L_{00}L_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(|c_{0k}|^2+|a_k|^2\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=3}{\overset{4}{}}}\left(|c_{0k}|^2+|a_k|^2\right),`$
$`|L_{01}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}|c_{01}c_{03}^{}+c_{02}c_{04}^{}+a_1a_3^{}+a_2a_4^{}|^2.`$ (22)
By applying the Schwarz inequality, it can be immediately seen that $`|L_{01}|^2L_{00}L_{11}`$, and it follows that both $`\lambda _1^A`$ and $`\lambda _2^A`$ cannot be negative. Therefore from (18) and (20) we arrive at $`P_E^{\mathrm{loc}}=1/4`$. Taking into account (13), this yields the inequality

$$P_E^{\mathrm{loc}}=\frac{1}{4}P_E=\frac{1}{4}\left(1\sqrt{1\psi ^{}^2}\right).$$
(23)
Obviously, except for the case that $`\psi ^{}=1`$, i. e. that $`\widehat{\rho }_1`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ are linearly dependent, the minimum probability of errors achievable by a local measurement is larger than the minimum error probability resulting from a collective measurement. According to the discussion in connection with (4), it follows from the positivity of the two eigenvalues that for $`d=3`$ and $`p_1=1/4`$ there does not exist any local measurement that gives a probability of errors being smaller than the error probability that would arise from guessing the quantum system to be always in the state $`\widehat{\rho }_2`$. We still mention that for discriminating locally a pure two-qubit state from a mixture of only two orthogonal two-qubit states, i. e. for $`d=2`$, it is possible that the two eigenvalues have a different sign. Therefore in this case more subtle investigations are necessary, in dependence on the specific choice of the two orthogonal states. Moreover, it still remains to be studied to what extent the error probability decreases when classical communication is allowed in addition to local measurements.

## V Conclusions

In this paper we investigated the minimum probability of errors in deciding whether the state of a quantum system is either a given pure state or a uniform statistical mixture of any number of mutually orthogonal states. Based on our analytical result, we discussed the minimum error probabilities achievable by collective and local measurements on the two-qubit states. As a possible application, we note that the problem treated in the paper is of particular interest in the context of quantum state comparison jex ; jex1 , where one wants to determine whether the states of quantum systems are identical or not. It has been shown jex1  that for comparing two unknown single-particle states it is crucial to discriminate the anti-symmetric state of the combined two-particle system from the uniform mixture of the mutually orthogonal symmetric states. Finally, it is worth mentioning that completely mixed states are important for estimating the quality of a source of quantum states, as has been recently discussed in connection with single-photon sources hockney .


text:
# H II regions in spiral galaxies: Size distribution, luminosity function, and new isochrone diagnostics of density wave kinematics

## 1. Introduction

The H II region luminosity function (H II LF) is an important diagnostic of star formation properties in galaxies. It is a fairly straightforward parameter to determine for nearby galaxies (e.g., Kennicutt, Edgar, & Hodge 1989; Banfi et al. 1993; Rozas, Beckman, & Knapen 1996a; Thilker et al. 2002), and is usually presented in the differential form as a power law:

$$N(L)dL=AL^adL,$$
(1)
where $`N(L)dL`$ is the number of nebulae with H$`\alpha `$ luminosities in the range $`L`$ to $`L+dL`$. Occasionally, the cumulative H II LF is given, but we note that the differential form is a more powerful diagnostic of the underlying properties (Cioffi & Shull 1991).

In an earlier paper (Oey & Clarke 1998, hereafter Paper I), we modeled the behavior of the H II LF, and identified ways in which it can be used to examine the current properties of massive star formation and recent ($`10`$ Myr) star formation history. We assumed a power-law distribution in $`N_{}`$, the number of ionizing stars per object:

$$N(N_{})dN_{}=BN_{}^\beta dN_{}.$$
(2)
We then performed Monte Carlo simulations, in which we draw $`N_{}`$ from this distribution, and also draw the individual stellar masses from a Salpeter (1955) initial mass function (IMF). These models showed that reported variations of the measured slope $`a`$ (equation 1) in different environments do not require varying $`\beta `$, the slope of the $`N_{}`$ distribution (equation 2), but rather, can be explained by variations in the star formation history and the upper cutoff in the $`N_{}`$ distribution. An important feature is that stochastic effects for objects with small $`N_{}`$ cause a flattening in the H II LF below a certain luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$. Sparse clusters subject to this effect are termed “unsaturated” with respect to the IMF, and clusters with higher $`N_{}`$ we call “saturated”. We identified $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ with the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity associated with the most massive star in the IMF, although we refer readers to Paper I for a complete discussion.

A basic test on the nature of the H II LF is its relation to the size distribution of the H II regions. Although the H II LF has empirically been described by a power law, the corresponding size distribution has been described by an exponential law (van den Bergh 1981; Hodge 1983, 1987). As discussed above, Paper I found that the slope breaks and other features in the H II LF are nevertheless best explained by a simple power law in $`N_{}`$ (equation 2 of Paper I). Therefore we should naively expect the size distribution to also follow a power-law distribution. In §2 below, we examine whether observations of the H II region size distribution are consistent with a simple power-law relationship.

Another test on the nature of the H II LF addresses its evolutionary properties. The models constructed in Paper I included the evolution of the H II LF resulting from a single burst creation scenario. In Figure 1, we show representative zero-age and 7 Myr models (Figures 2$`a`$ and $`c`$ of Paper I). The zero-age model shows the flattening below $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$. As time goes by, the entire H II LF shifts to lower $`L`$. However, when considering a fixed range of $`L`$, this can result in an apparent elimination of the slope break in strongly evolved populations, due to the differential fading effect. If this model turns out to be correct, it would then be possible to distinguish, for example, between an older nebular population where high-luminosity objects were created in a single burst, and continuous creation of low-luminosity H II regions.

Paper I applied these results to observations of arm and interarm regions of grand design spiral galaxies, suggesting that arm populations represent the current burst of star formation, while interarm objects represent an aged population remaining in the wake of the spiral density waves. Observations in the literature sometimes suggest that interarm populations show a slightly steeper H II LF than the arm populations (e.g., Kennicutt et al. 1989; Rand 1992). This phenomenon can be explained by the two-slope structure in the zero-age models, which will cause a slope measurement to be flatter when fitted over $`L`$ below $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ (see Figure 1). In contrast, the evolved populations show the intrinsic slope of the high-$`L`$ regime. Figure 5 of Paper I shows that this interpretation of evolution between the arm and interarm H II regions is consistent, in all cases, with available observations of six grand design spiral galaxies.

Observations of the H II LF in the literature to date have been subjectively and coarsely binned into the arm and interarm categories. A more powerful test of this evolutionary scenario would be to rebin the H II regions more quantitatively into regions corresponding to fixed age ranges behind the leading edge of the spiral arms, as inferred from the spiral arm pattern speeds. We might then be able to examine the competing contributions in interarm regions, of aging nebular populations versus bona fide interarm star formation. These are our motivations for carrying out the studies described in §3. As an important by-product of this study, we developed a technique that compares nebular positions with spatial isochrones for the spiral density waves. This offers a new method for locating the corotation resonances in spiral galaxies, and is described in §4.

## 2. The form of the H II region size distribution

As mentioned in the Introduction, the conventional parameterization of the H II region size distribution as an exponential (e.g., van den Bergh 1981; Hodge 1983, 1987) is intuitively at odds with the power-law form of the H II LF. Since the H II LF’s behavior appears to be fairly well-understood (e.g., Paper I), it is important to reexamine the size distribution within the same framework, since they are physically related. In particular, we might also expect the size distribution to follow a power law of the form,

$$N_r(R)dRR^bdR,$$
(3)
where $`R`$ is the nebular radius. This has indeed been suggested for some galaxies (e.g., Pleuss, Heller, & Fricke 2000).

Since the nebular H$`\alpha `$ luminosity $`L`$ is integrated from the nebular volume emission, we should expect $`LR^3`$ and $`\frac{dL}{dR}R^2`$. Therefore, the differential size distribution should be:

$$N_r(R)dR=N(L)\frac{dL}{dR}dRR^{23a}dR.$$
(4)
Hence we find that the slopes $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the H II LF and size distribution, respectively, are related as $`b=23a`$. For the usual value $`a=2`$ found for the high-luminosity, “saturated” H II regions, we therefore predict a corresponding size distribution having $`b=4`$.

As mentioned earlier, a turnover in the H II LF caused by stochastic effects for “unsaturated” objects occurs at a luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$. Since $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ is associated with the most massive stars in the IMF, their Strömgren radius $`R_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ should be a corresponding inflection point in the size distribution. This flattening at small $`R`$ can mimic an exponential distribution. For the most massive stars, stellar atmosphere models suggest $`\mathrm{log}L_{\mathrm{sat}}/\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^138.0`$ to 38.5 (Schaerer & de Koter 1997; Vacca, Garmany, & Shull 1996; Panagia 1973), implying $`R_{\mathrm{sat}}130`$ pc for a density of $`1\mathrm{cm}^3`$. This estimate for $`R_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ should be taken as an upper limit, since the density is likely to be higher in the actual, central star forming area.

We can now compare observations of the H II region size distribution to our predictions for slope $`b=4`$, with a flattening in $`R`$ below $`\mathrm{log}R_{\mathrm{sat}}/\mathrm{pc}2.1`$. We refitted the nebular diameter distributions with power laws for a number of galaxies in the literature. Since size determinations can be sensitive to different methods, and thus to ensure relatively consistent comparisons, we used data from only two groups of investigators: the IAC–Hertfordshire collaboration (Knapen et al. 1993; Rozas et al. 1996b; Knapen 1998), and Youngblood & Hunter (1999). Hodge’s group (e.g., Hodge et al. 1994); Miller & Hodge 1994; Hodge et al. 1999) and Petit’s group (e.g., Petit 1993, 1996, 1998) have contributed many studies of H II region size distributions; however, their target galaxies generally do not offer enough objects to adequately sample the nebular size distribution at $`\mathrm{log}D/\mathrm{pc}>2.4`$, where $`D`$ is the nebular diameter. Likewise, we include only the three galaxies from the Youngblood & Hunter (1999) sample that provide adequate sampling in this regime.

Figure 2 shows the size distributions for the nine galaxies listed in Table 1. We fitted power law slopes for $`\mathrm{log}N(D)/\mathrm{pc}2.3`$, with the bins weighted by $`\sqrt{N}`$. The IAC–Hertfordshire galaxies are grand design spirals and the Youngblood & Hunter galaxies are Magellanic irregulars. Both these sets of galaxies have H II LFs extending to high luminosities, consistent with no upper cutoff in luminosity. Our fits to the size distributions therefore should not be influenced by possible truncation at the upper end of the H II LF. It appears that the H II region diameter distributions shown in Figure 2 are consistent with power laws in the given regime. Objects with smaller diameters show a flattening in the size distribution, qualitatively consistent with the flattening in the H II LF for statistically unsaturated objects.

The small dynamic range and small number statistics cause some ambiguity and large uncertainties in the fitted slope $`b`$, as shown in Figure 2. We also caution that we cannot rule out the existence of systematic effects. Nevertheless, the average slope, weighted inversely by the uncertainties, is $`b=4.12`$ with a standard deviation of 0.90. This preliminary result agrees with the value predicted above of $`b=4`$. Figure 2 also shows that the turnover in the diameter distribution is also consistent with the predicted value of $`\mathrm{log}D/\mathrm{pc}2.4`$. We therefore suggest that the H II region size distribution is intrinsically described by a power-law function in the regime beyond the turnover, consistent with its physical relation to the H II LF. While consistent functional forms are expected for the size distribution and H II LF, further confirmation of the empirical power law for the former is desireable, with attention to systematic uncertainties in size determinations.

## 3. Testing for an evolving H II LF

Based on Paper I, we approximate that the H II regions found along the leading edge of spiral arms represent the youngest, zero-age population of objects. H II regions behind the leading edge therefore represent a somewhat older population remaining in the wake of the spiral density wave. If the galactic rotation curve and spiral arm pattern speed are known, it is in principle possible to estimate the ages of objects based on their location with respect to the leading edges of the spiral arms. This would also assume that the velocities of the H II regions do not deviate significantly from the galactic rotation curve during the passage of the density wave.

We have developed a code that computes spatial isochrones from the rotation curve, given the current locus of the spiral arms. We defer discussion of the code and spiral arm kinematics until §4 below, and here use the spatial isochrones to search for evolutionary features as predicted in Paper I. We examined four of the grand design spiral galaxies studied in Paper I, while the two remaining galaxies included in that paper, NGC 3631 and NGC 6814, did not have a simple two-arm structure suitable for this analysis. Figure 7 below shows H$`\alpha `$ images of the galaxies: M51 (Rand 1992), M100 (Knapen et al. 1993), NGC 157, and NGC 6951 (Rozas et al. 1996). Five sets of spatial isochrones are calculated for each of the two dominant arms in these galaxies, calculated at intervals of 12 Myr. The color scheme for times –12, 0, 12, 24, and 36 Myr are: red, green, yellow, yellow, red for one arm; and blue, yellow, green, green, blue for the other. The zero-age isochrones correspond to an actual spatial fit to the arm positions. The adopted corotation radius is shown with the black dashed line, and the inner and outer Lindblad resonances are shown in the solid and dotted black lines, respectively, assuming $`m=2`$ spiral arms for these galaxies.

Unfortunately, it appears that the isochrone spatial separation that is sensitive to the nebular evolutionary timescale is of order the spatial scatter of the objects along the spiral density wave. Figures 7$`ac`$ show that the best-defined arms are enclosed within the –12 to +12 Myr isochrones, but show a spatial scatter that precludes further distinction. NGC 6951 is an exception (Figure 7$`d`$), showing larger separation between the isochrones that also corresponds to the nebular spatial distribution.

Figures 3 – 6 show the H II LF for sub-groups of H II regions binned within isochrones for –12 to +12 Myr (panels $`a`$); 0 to 24 Myr (panels $`b`$), and 12 to 36 Myr (panels $`c`$). As discussed above from Paper I, the H II LF naturally shows a break in slope below the high-luminosity power-law tail, that is caused primarily by the transition to unsaturated stellar clusters dominated by small-number statistics. For older nebular populations, this slope transition at $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ is expected to shift toward lower luminosities, while the high-luminosity power-law slope remains the same (Figure 1 above; Paper I). The vertical dotted line in these figures shows the luminosity bin where we estimate $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ to occur for the youngest binning; this value is plotted for reference, and remains constant between the three H II LF subsets for each galaxy.

It is apparent in Figures 3 – 6 that the location of $`L_{\mathrm{sat}}`$ is essentially indistinguishable between the three subsets. The transition point generally appears to be more ambiguous in the oldest binnings (panels $`c`$) as compared to the youngest (panels $`a`$), but more galaxies must be examined to determine whether that pattern is real. If so, then it would be consistent with a greater contribution from evolved populations (Paper I). The ambiguities again reflect our discussion above, that the isochrones for these galaxies are insensitive to aging effects, since the spatial scatter is of order the separation for isochrones over the nebular evolution time scale.

A number of other factors probably also contribute to the insensitivity of the isochrones to aging effects. First, the models in Paper I (e.g., Figure 1 above) assumed the instantaneous creation of all objects in the H II LF, whereas triggering by the spiral density wave most likely has a finite timescale. Since most H II regions recombine on timescales of $`10`$ Myr, we would not expect any significant population to be visible at 24 Myr. For the most part, this is consistent with the fairly negligible H$`\alpha `$ emission at the 24 Myr isochrone for most of the arms in M51, M100, and NGC 157. NGC 6951 shows spatially more extensive star formation, with H II regions also seen along the 24 Myr isochrone; this therefore implies an extended timescale for star formation at any given location. An extended star-formation timescale is also equivalent to a spatial scatter for objects of any given age, as mentioned above. For the H II LFs, this will blur the distinction between the youngest subset and next-to-youngest. It may also be that the luminosity fading of the H II regions is even faster than our extreme model in Paper I (see Paper I, Figure 2$`f`$). Another factor that affects the quantitative comparison to the H II LF evolution is the uncertainty in identifying and fitting the locus of the zero-age density wave. Finally, our simple analytic description for the rotation curve and pattern speed are idealized forms that do not describe the details of the gas kinematics (see §4 below), which also affect the location of the spatial isochrones.

Thus, our test of the evolutionary features in the H II LF for these galaxies is inconclusive, though an upper limit on the evolutionary effects is indicated. For most of the galaxies, the spatial isochrones do not offer the necessary separation to isolate populations of H II regions triggered in the arm density waves.

## 4. Locating corotation with spatial isochrones

We now describe our analysis of spatial isochrones, which offer some interesting insights on spiral arm kinematics.

While measurements of rotation curves are fairly straightforward, historically it has been much more difficult to estimate the spiral density wave pattern speed, or equivalently, to determine the location of the corotation radius. Several methods for determining the corotation radius or pattern speed have been proposed in the past. The earliest proposal was based on Lin’s (1970) conjecture that organized, two-armed spiral patterns exist only within the corotation circle, and that arms become more fragmented outside. Shu, Stachnik, & Yost (1971) were among the first to apply this conjecture to physical galaxies, placing the corotation where the distribution of H II regions is seen to end. Tremaine & Weinberg (1984) developed an approach for pattern speed determination based on measurement of surface brightness and velocity distributions of luminosity density tracers, assuming continuity in the tracer. Canzian’s (1993) method for determining corotation relies on the qualitative difference in the residual velocity field inside versus outside of corotation. Elmegreen, Elmegreen, & Seiden (1989) identified resonances through breaks in spiral arms, and Cepa & Beckman (1990) utilized the radial star formation efficiency. Elmegreen, Wilcots & Pisano (1998) determined corotation from the transition of the inward to outward streaming gas velocity. Finally, Clemens & Alexander (2001) used high-resolution spectroscopic data to find signatures of the pre- and post-shock gas across the spiral arms; this information determines the shock velocity, and hence, the pattern speed. In what follows, we explore a new approach that uses the nebular spatial distribution to constrain the corotation radius.

For a galaxy with a flat rotation curve, the corotation radius $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ is related to the angular pattern speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ as,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_p=\frac{v_{\mathrm{circ}}}{r_{\mathrm{co}}},$$
(5)
where $`v_{\mathrm{circ}}`$ is the circular velocity. Assuming that star formation is triggered by spiral density waves, the locus of the youngest H II regions essentially indicates the location of the density wave. As the nebulae age, their positions will be determined by both the spiral arm pattern speed and the galaxy’s rotation curve. It is therefore possible to determine spatial isochrones for a given galaxy, that represent the positions of objects that all formed simultaneously within a density wave.

Our code computes spatial isochrones, given an initial locus for the spiral arm pattern. The H II region positions are deprojected and converted to polar coordinates, and we fit the spiral pattern at the arm’s leading edge, using a polynomial function. We then compute spatial isochrones from the locus of the spiral arm pattern, rotation curve, and putative corotation radius. We assume a flat rotation curve, except for the innermost regions $`r<r_{\mathrm{circ}}`$, where we assume $`vr`$ (Table 2).

Our code includes a widget to easily adjust the assumed corotation radius. Varying $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ by hand, we found a value of $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ that determines a set of isochrones having a noticeable correspondence to the spatial configuration of the H II regions. These values of $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ turn out to correspond to the ends of the spiral arms in the star-forming disk. As we discussed above, other investigators (e.g., Shu et al. 1971; Rohlfs 1977; Kenney et al. 1992; Zhang, Wright, Alexander 1993) have identified $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ with the ends of the spiral arms in the past. For three of our four galaxies, Figure 7 shows that these values of $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ also yield inner Lindblad resonances (ILRs) that coincide well with the radial onset of significant star formation in the arms. Figure 7$`b`$ also suggests a correspondence between the outer Lindblad resonance (OLR) and the edge of the star-forming disk in M100.

For all four galaxies, the regions near the ILRs display the characteristic “twin-peaks” morphology (Kenney et al. 1992) or “twin-peaks-plus-inner-bar” (Zhang et al. 1993), together with an annular zone between the twin peaks and the inner bar/nucleus that is swept clear of star formation. This combination of central morphologies is common among mid- to early-type galaxies, and is related to the orbital behavior of gas near the double inner Lindblad resonances that are present in these galaxies with high central potential wells (Zhang et al. 1993, and references therein), namely, the inner-inner-Lindblad resonance (IILR) and the outer-inner-Lindblad resonance (OILR). This morphology allows the effective central channeling of gas and fueling of nuclear activity. Note that our simplified assumed rotation curves yield only one ILR which presumably is located between the IILR and OILR of the actual rotation curves.

For M51 and M100, Figure 7 shows that setting $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ to the tips of the spiral arms causes the isochrones to bunch or converge, but not cross over, at azimuthal locations near large clumps of nebulae. These clumps are not confined within the isochrones, and extend to radii substantially beyond them; however, their azimuthal coincidence with the isochrone convergences strongly suggests that these loci are associated with dynamical triggering of the star formation. These patterns are most likely related to non-circular motions and asymmetry in the mass distributions. Indeed, both M51 (see García-Burillo et al. 1993) and M100 (García-Burillo et al. 1998) show evidence of an inner tri-axial mass distribution. It is also apparent in Figure 7 that the spatial isochrones only cover a fraction of the active star-forming regions in the disks, which again must be caused by non-circular kinematics. However, our experimentation with rotation curve parameters showed that to first order, our simple assumptions for the rotation curve (flat, with a linear inner portion) worked best in matching the H$`\alpha `$ morphology of the arms.

A counterexample is shown in Figure 8 for M51. One previous estimate for $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ in this galaxy is 9.6 kpc (Elmegreen et al. 1992). It is apparent that the isochrones do not correspond to the H II region positions as cleanly as in Figure 7$`a`$. The arms show a smooth, continuous morphology in the region around the suggested $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$, whereas the predicted isochrones change character and diverge.

Table 2 shows our assumed rotation curve parameters and our estimates for the $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$, ILR, and OLR. We now compare our results for $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ with those in the literature, in particular, estimates derived from kinematic models. There are no modeled estimates of $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ for NGC 6951.

### 4.0.1 M51

Our analysis suggests that the corotation radius is twice as large as most previous determinations for M51. Both morphological estimates (e.g., Vogel et al. 1993; Elmegreen et al. 1992; Knapen et al. 1992) and kinematic model estimates (García-Burrillo et al. 1993b) found $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ of $`126\mathrm{}161\mathrm{}`$, in contrast to our estimate of $`301\mathrm{}`$. We note that M51 is one of the few examples where the arm definition is narrow enough that the $`R`$-band and H$`\alpha `$ or CO observations can clearly distinguish the stellar arms from the new star-formation (Rand & Kulkarni 1993; García-Burrillo et al. 1993a). At corotation, the youngest regions should switch from the inside edge of the arm to the outside; yet the data shown by Rand & Kulkarni (1990) and García-Burrillo (et al. 1993a) show no evidence for this transition at the smaller $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ suggested in the past.

### 4.0.2 M100

For M100, our corotation radius is larger than previous estimates, but by a smaller margin. Estimates by García-Burrillo et al. (1998) and Canzian & Allen (1997), based on kinematic modeling, and also Elmegreen et al. (1992) all agree fairly well with the range of $`82\mathrm{}114\mathrm{}`$ estimated for $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ by Sempere et al. (1995). Our estimate of $`r_{\mathrm{co}}154\mathrm{}`$ is larger, but is based on more simplistic morphological and kinematic assumptions; most of the above studies consider the more realistic, bar-dominated nature of the rotation curve. We also note that the ends of the arms are not clearly delineated in this galaxy.

### 4.0.3 NGC 157

Our estimate of $`r_{\mathrm{co}}56\mathrm{}`$ agrees well with estimates in the literature based on detailed kinematic models. Sempere & Rozas (1997) find $`r_{\mathrm{co}}50\mathrm{}`$, and Fridman et al. (2001) find $`36\mathrm{}<r_{\mathrm{co}}<63\mathrm{}`$ by two different methods. Elmegreen et al. (1992) also estimate corotation to be at 56$`\mathrm{}`$ based on morphological arguments.

Spatial isochrones thus appear to offer a new technique for constraining the corotation radius for a first-order approximation. We can set a spatial correspondence between: (1) Corotation and the end of the nebular spiral arms; (2) Isochrone bunching and H II region clumps; and possibly (3) Outer Lindblad resonance and the edge of the star-forming disk. These physical coincidences suggest that the location of corotation has been identified to first order. Thus, while some authors often identified the ends of the star-forming arms with the corotation resonance, and others with the OLR, our analysis supports the former. We also note that in wide-format, blue photographic images available via the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (e.g., from the Sandage-Bedke Atlas), there is no evidence in any of our galaxies that the dust lane crosses over from the inside to the outside of the arms at any point inside our adopted $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$.

## 5. Conclusion

To better understand the behavior of the H II LF and its ability to probe global star-formation properties, we have re-examined its relation to the H II region size distribution, and investigated its evolution with respect to density wave triggering in spiral galaxies.

We have analytically re-evaluated the relationship between the H II LF and the H II region size distribution. We suggest that the size distribution is intrinsically described as a power law, as physically related to the H II LF, rather than its conventional description by an exponential relation. We find that the physical relation between nebular luminosity and size implies that the slopes of the size distribution $`b`$ and the luminosity function $`a`$ should be related as $`b=23a`$. The normally observed value $`a=2`$ thus yields $`b=4`$, which we find to be consistent with observations. We find that the slope transition radius $`\mathrm{log}R_{\mathrm{sat}}2.1`$ pc corresponding to the transition luminosity $`\mathrm{log}L_{\mathrm{sat}}38.5`$ is also consistent with observations.

We have developed a code to compute spatial isochrones from the rotation curve, given the current locus of the spiral density waves. Our code allows quantitative comparison of the nebular spatial distribution with the spatial isochrones. We find that the best correspondence for the arm H II regions occurs when the corotation radius coincides with the ends of the star-forming arms. This value for $`r_{\mathrm{co}}`$ also yields a coincidence between the Inner Lindblad Resonance with the radial onset of star formation in the arms for three of the four galaxies. There may also be a hint that the Outer Lindblad Resonance coincides with the outer edge of the star-forming disk in at least one galaxy. The spatial isochrones therefore appear to offer a new technique for determining the corotation radius and principal resonances.

We had hoped that these isochrones would isolate subsets of H II regions that could then be used to study evolutionary effects of the nebular population. However, for three of the four galaxies, the isochrones do not yield adequate spatial separation over the nebular evolution timescale, relative to the spatial scatter at any given age. Encouragingly, we do find that the spatial concentration of the objects along the isochrones is consistent with the overall nebular evolutionary timescale in these galaxies. However, the data do suggest periods of extended star formation at any given location that blur the diagnostics. Combined with uncertainties in the kinematic parameters, this greatly limits the ability to obtain clear quantitative constraints on H II LF evolutionary parameters as related to the density wave passage. The observed rate of evolution, however, does set limits on the importance of this process in producing the observed arm-interarm variation in the H II LF.

We are pleased to acknowledge useful discussions with Ron Allen and Blaise Canzian, and also comments from the anonymous referee. Johan Knapen, Rich Rand, and Maite Rozas kindly provided their H$`\alpha `$ observations of the galaxies studied here. We thank Laura Woodney for tips with IDL. Much of this work was carried out by the PI while at the Space Telescope Science Institute, and by JSP and VJM under the STScI Summer Student Program. MSO also acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation, grant AST-0204853. XZ is supported in part by funding from the Office of Naval Research.


text:
# Hadron Production in Proton-Proton Scattering in NEXUS 3

## 1 Introduction

The recently published $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ data in pp collisions at 158 GeV by the NA49 collaboration have invalidated all customary quark-diquark string models , which have been employed since long time to describe pp as well as AA collisions. In all those models, the valence quarks are taken as the end points of the strings, which provokes that due to the string topology  more $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ than $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are produced, in disagreement with the data. This effect has been verified in detailed calculations.

In the new NEXUS 3 model, the observed particles are produced by two sources: a) strings which are formed by sea (anti)quarks and which are therefore symmetric with respect to the exchange of a particle and an antiparticle and b) excited remnants, which decay statistically. Whereas the string produces an equal number of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, the remnant favors due to its finite baryon number the production of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, in accordance with the data.

In this paper, we calculate the results of the NEXUS 3 model for particle yields, rapidity distributions, transverse momentum distributions and average transverse momenta. Where experimental data are available we compare with them. We will show that the prediction of this model, once the necessary parameters are fixed to describe the CERN SPS pp data at 158 GeV and the excitation function of the multiplicity of charged particles, are in good agreement with the experimental data down to beam energies as low as 10 GeV . A similar, however less complete, comparison between data and string fragmentation models has recently be performed by H. Weber et al. . They compare the URQMD and HSD model with data of nonstrange or single strange particles.

## 2 NEXUS 3

NEXUS 3 is a self-consistent multiple scattering approach to proton-proton and nucleus-nucleus scattering at high energies. The basic feature is the fact that several elementary interactions, referred to as Pomerons, may happen in parallel. We use the language of Gribov-Regge theory to calculate probabilities of collision configurations (characterized by the number of Pomerons involved, and their energy) and the language of strings to treat particle production.

We treat both aspects, probability calculations and particle production, in a consistent fashion: *In both cases energy sharing is considered in a rigorous way* *, and in both cases all Pomerons are identical.* This is one new feature of our approach. Another new aspect is the necessity to introduce remnants: The spectators of each baryon form a remnant, see Fig. 1. They will play an important role on particle production in the fragmentation region and at low energies ($`E_{Lab}=`$40-200 GeV). In the following we discuss some more details of our approach.

We first consider inelastic proton-proton scattering. We imagine an arbitrary number of elementary interactions to happen in parallel, where an interaction may be elastic or inelastic, see Fig. 2. The inelastic amplitude is the sum of all such contributions in with at least one inelastic elementary interaction is involved.

To calculate cross sections, we need to square the amplitude, which leads to many interference terms, as the one shown in Fig. 3(a), which represents interference between the first and the second diagram of Fig. 2. We use the usual convention to plot an amplitude to the left, and the complex conjugate of an amplitude to the right of some imaginary “cut line” (dashed vertical line). The left part of the diagram is a cut elementary diagram, conveniently plotted as a dashed line, see Fig. 3(b). The amplitude squared is now the sum over many such terms represented by solid and dashed lines.

When squaring the inelastic amplitude, all of the terms which correspond to the same final state interfere. For example, a single inelastic interaction does not interfere with a double inelastic interaction, whereas all the contributions with exactly one inelastic interaction interfere independent of the number of elastic collisions. So considering a squared amplitude, one may group terms together representing the same final state. In our pictorial language, this means that all diagrams with one dashed line, representing the same final state, may be considered to form a class, characterized by $`m=1`$ – one dashed line ( one cut Pomeron) – and the light cone momenta $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$ attached to the dashed line (defining energy and momentum of the Pomeron). In Fig. 4, we show several diagrams belonging to this class, in Fig. 5, we show the diagrams belonging to the class of two inelastic interactions, characterized by $`m=2`$ and four light-cone momenta $`x_1^+`$, $`x_1^{}`$, $`x_2^+`$, $`x_2^{}`$.

Generalizing these considerations, we may group all contributions with $`m`$ inelastic interactions. The sum of all these terms represents the probability of having $`m`$ inelastic interactions with $`x_1^+`$..$`x_{2m}^+`$, $`x_1^{}`$$`x_{2m}^{}`$ at a given impact parameter. Integrating over impact parameter provides the corresponding cross section. By this we obtain a probability distribution for the number of elementary interactions (number of Pomerons) and the momenta of these Pomerons.

How to form strings from Pomerons? No matter whether single-Pomeron or multiple-Pomeron exchange happens in a proton-proton scattering, all Pomerons are treated identically. Each Pomeron is identified with two strings, see Fig. 6.

The string ends are quarks and antiquarks from the sea. This differs from traditional string models, where all the string ends are valence quarks. Due to the possibility of having a large number of Pomerons, this is impossible in our approach. The valence quarks stay in remnants. Being formed from see quarks, string ends from cut Pomerons have complete flavour symmetry and produce particles and antiparticles in equal amounts.

Remnants are new objects, compared to other string models, see Fig. 7.

The partonic content of a remnant is as follows: three valence quarks and the corresponding antiparticles of the partons representing the string ends. The masses of remnants are assumed to be small compared to the kinetic energies involved and are therefore neglected for the calculations of multi-Pomeron configurations. To obtained finally the masses, one parameterize the mass distribution of a remnant as $`P(m^2)(m^2)^\alpha `$, $`m^2(m_{\mathrm{min}}^2,x^+s)`$, where $`s`$ is the squared energy at center mass system, $`m_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the minimum mass of hadrons to be made from the remnant’s quarks and antiquarks, and $`x^+`$ is the light-cone momentum fraction of the remnant which is determined in the collision configuration. Through fitting the data at 158 GeV we determine the parameter $`\alpha =1.5`$. Remnants decay into hadrons according to n-body phase space.

The leading order and therefore the most simple and most frequent collision configuration has two remnants and only one cut Pomeron represented by two $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ strings as in Fig. 8a. Besides the three valence quarks, each remnant has additionally a quarks and an antiquark to compensate the flavour.

In NEXUS 3, this most simple approach is slightly modified by allowing with a small probability $`P_{qq}`$ that an antiquark $`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ at one of the legs of the Pomeron is replaced by a diquark $`\mathrm{qq}`$. The corresponding string ends are then a diquark and a quark. In this way we get quark-diquark ($`\mathrm{q}\mathrm{qq}`$) strings from cut Pomerons. The $`\mathrm{qqq}`$ Pomeron end has to be compensated by the three corresponding antiquarks in the remnant, as in Fig. 8b. The ($`3\mathrm{q}3\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$) remnant may decay into three mesons ($`3\mathrm{M}`$) or a baryon and an anti-baryon ($`\mathrm{B}+\overline{\mathrm{B}}`$), but the $`3\mathrm{M}`$ mode is favored by phase space. For symmetry reasons, the $`\mathrm{q}`$ leg of a cut Pomeron is replaced by an antidiquark $`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ with the same probability $`P_{\mathrm{qq}}`$. This yields a $`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ string and a ($`6\mathrm{q}`$) remnant, as shown in Fig. 8c. The ($`6\mathrm{q}`$) remnant decays into two baryons. Since $`\mathrm{q}\mathrm{qq}`$ strings and $`\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ strings have the same probability to appear from cut Pomerons, baryons and antibaryons are produced in the string fragmentation with the same probability. However, from remnant decay, baryon production is favored due to the initial valence quarks.

With decreasing energy, the relative importance for the particle production of the strings decreases as compared to the remnants, because the energy of the string is lowered as well. If the mass of the string is lower than the cut off, it will be discarded. However, the fact that an interaction has taken place is taken into account by the excitation of the remnant which follows still the above mentioned distribution.

## 3 Results

To fix the main parameters for the Pomerons and the strings, we use the total cross section for pp scattering, the excitation functions for all identified charged particle yields from sqrt(s)=10 GeV to 2 TeV and the rapidity, pt and multiplicity distributions for at 200 GeV lab and cms and 1800 GeV for charged particles. To adjust the parameters of the remnant decay and the multistrange baryon production, we mainly use the NA49 results at 158 GeV lab. Then, with this set of parameters, we compare the simulation results to all pp data at quite wide energy range and also to np data at beam energy 40 GeV. This comparison work is not trivial, firstly because with decreasing beam energy the importance of the remnants for the particle production increases as compared to the pomerons. Secondly, pp collisions fix only the sum of the contributions of remnants and pomerons which contribute to different rapidity regions. The comparison of the predictions for np collisions with data reveals whether each individual source of particle production is correctly described.

### 3.1 Hadron Multiplicities

#### 3.1.1 Energy Dependence of Average Multiplicities

We start our investigation with the $`4\pi `$ multiplicities at different energies. In fig. 9 we display the excitation function of charged particles - as compared to the NEXUS 3 results. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`K_S`$ have been identified and their decay products are not included here. The agreement between calculation and experiment shows that this approach is able to describe excitation functions.

Now we come to the excitation function of identified hadrons. The predictions for $`4\pi `$ multiplicities of identified hadrons are shown in figs. 10,11,12 and here as well we find agreement with most of the data over a wide energy range, from $`\sqrt{s}=5\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`63\mathrm{GeV}`$. The largest discrepancies we observe for the $`\varphi `$ meson and for the $`\overline{p}`$ at low energies. It would be interesting to see in which rapidity region this discrepancies appears ( especially because the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is reasonable well reproduced but unfortunately such data are not available.

#### 3.1.2 $`K/\pi `$ ratios

Special interest has recently gained the excitation function of the $`K/\pi `$ ratio because it has been claimed that the appearance of a maximum in the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ excitation function, observed in heavy ion reactions, may be a signature that the plasma of quarks and gluons is formed. Although we are not concerned with heavy ion reactions here we display these ratios for later reference in fig. 13. Neither data nor calculation show a maximum of the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio in this elementary collision.

#### 3.1.3 Rapidity Spectra

We come now to more detailed information by studying the rapidity distribution. Fig. 14 shows the rapidity distribution of a multitude of hadrons for the reaction 40 GeV pp. Where data from the NA49 collaboration are available we have included them in the plot. The numbers give the average multiplicity of the hadrons in 4$`\pi `$. We see that the experimental data are reasonable well described. The non-strange baryons as well as those which contain one strange quark show a double hump structure, the others are peaked at midrapidity. This is a consequence of the three source structure (two remnants and Pomerons) in our approach. The leading baryon has still the quantum number of the incoming baryon but is moderately excited. Therefore it may disintegrate into baryons whose quantum numbers differ not too much. Also the calculation of the np reaction at 40 GeV, displayed in Fig. 15, reproduces the data quite nicely. We see of course a much lower number of protons in the fragmentation region. This difference to the pp collision is well reproduced. This agreement validates the correct description of the basic mechanism for particle production in the fragmentation region. A comparison between the spectra shows that the difference between pp and np in the pion spectra extends to negative rapidities (as seen as well in the data). For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ as well as for the other charge zero particles, the difference between pp and np is negligible. Naturally $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) are more copiously produced if the projectile is a p(n).

Fig. 16 shows the rapidity spectra for pp at 100 GeV. Again we see a quite reasonable agreement between data and calculation. At 158 GeV, Fig. 17, we included the experimental $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ spectra which have recently been published . We observe also more $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ than $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ as seen in experiment . This is a consequence of the modification of NEXUS 3 explained in  as compared to the original NEXUS 2 version  which yields more $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ than $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ due to the string topology .

For ISR energies there are only rapidity distributions for a given transverse momentum. In figs. 18 and 19 we display for $`p_T`$ = 0.4 GeV/c the rapidity distributions for $`\pi ^+,\pi ^{},K^+,K^{},p,\overline{p}`$ for energies in between $`E_{cm}`$ = 23 GeV and 63 GeV. We see that also here the spectra agree well with the data where data are available.

Fig. 20 shows the longitudinal $`x_F`$ distributions of identified hadrons from pp collisions at a beam energy 400 GeV. In order to be comparable with the before-mentioned rapidity distributions, we use a logarithmic representation of the x-axis. We see that also here the spectra agree reasonably well with the LEBC-EHS Col. data. Please note that there are two curves for the $`\rho `$’s. This is due to the inconsistency of the two available data sets: $`x_Edn/dx_F`$ and $`dn/dx_F`$ spectra. So $`dn/dx_F`$ spectra from our simulations are additionally plotted as dashed lines there.

### 3.2 Transverse Momentum

#### 3.2.1 Average Transverse Momenta

Fig. 21 displays the excitation function of the average transverse momentum for all charged particles and several particle species in comparison with the experimental data. We see that with the exception of K<sup>+</sup>, the average transverse momentum is reproduced over the whole kinematical range. For the $`K^+`$ we underpredict the average transverse momentum at smaller beam energies.

#### 3.2.2 Transverse Momentum Distribution

At SPS energies not only the mean transverse momenta but also the whole transverse momentum spectra is available and we compare these data with the NEXUS 3 predictions in figs. 22,23,24. Again, the agreement is quite reasonable up to $`p_t`$= 2GeV. The calculation of the spectra at higher transverse momenta at SPS energies is beyond the limits of present day computers, because of the very small cross section of hard process.

## 4 Conclusions

Employing the recently developed NEXUS 3 model where the parameters have been mainly fixed to the pp data at $`E_{lab}=`$ 158 GeV, we compare its predictions on average quantities, longitudinal and transverse spectra between $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 5 GeV and 65 GeV with the existing data of $`pp,np`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions.

We find a very nice agreement with data for $`4\pi `$ multiplicities, rapidity and $`x_F`$ distributions as well as for transverse momenta. This suggests that the basic mechanism of particle production is well described in the NEXUS 3 model. Based on this observation we can use this model to study pA and AA collisions which will be the subject of a forthcoming publication.