text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Growing interest has been focused on the statistical physics of complex networks. They describe a wide range of systems in nature and society, modeling diverse systems as the Internet, the World Wide Web, the net of human sexual contacts, a network of chemicals linked by chemical reactions, and social and biological networks . Such networks exhibit a rich set of scaling properties. A number of them are scale-free, that is, the probability that a randomly selected node has exactly $`k`$ links decays as a power law, following $`P(k)k^\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is the degree exponent. Consequently they present resilience against random breakdowns, an effect known as robustness of the network. The shortest-path length between their sites grows slowly (i.e. logarithmically) with the size of the network. That is, compared to the large sizes of networks, the distance between their sites are short - a feature known as the “small world” effect.

The majority of networks used to generate a scale-free topology are stochastic, i.e. the nodes appear to be randomly connected to each other. These scale-free random networks have naturally a continuous degree distribution. But recently it has been shown that discrete degree distributions of some deterministic graphs asymptotically also exhibit a power law decay . Furthermore, scale-free random networks are excellently modeled by such deterministic graphs. However the comparison between the behavior of stochastic and deterministic networks in the simulation of a particular model still remains open.

The involvement of physics in research on spreading of opinion has been increasing . Of particular interest here is the Sznajd model , which is one of several recent consensus-finding models  and in which each randomly selected pair of nearest neighbors convinces all its neighbors of their opinion, only if the pair shares the same opinion (“Together we stand”); otherwise, the neighbor opinions are not affected. One time step means that on average every lattice node is selected once as the first member of the pair. It differs from other consensus models by dealing only with communication between neighbors, and the information flows outward, as in rumor spreading. In contrast, in most other models the information flows inward. Initially, two opinions ($`+1`$ and $`1`$) are randomly distributed with probability $`p`$ and $`1p`$ respectively over all the nodes of the lattice. The basic Sznajd model with random sequential updating always leads to a consensus (all sites have the same opinion and the whole system reaches a fixed point after a certain simulation time). A phase transition is often observed as a function of the initial concentration of opinion $`p`$. A generalization to many different opinions (instead of only $`\pm 1`$) simulated on a Barabási-Albert network  reproduced quite well the results of the complex elections of city councillors in the state of Minas Gerais in Brazil in 1998 .

In the next section we present the deterministic scale-free network. Then we simulate using the Sznajd model an election process on such a network. We compare our results with the same simulations carried out on a stochastic scale-free network (the Barabási-Albert network) and with states election’s from Brazil and India.

## 2 Models and Results

The deterministic scale-free graph used in this work grows as follows: At each time step, every edge generates an additional vertex, which is attached to both end vertices of this edge. Initially, at $`t=0`$, we have a triangle of edges connecting three vertices, at $`t=1`$, the graph consists of $`6`$ vertices connected by $`9`$ edges, and so on (see Fig.1). The total number of vertices at iteration $`t`$ is

$$N_t=\frac{3(3^t+1)}{2}$$
(1)
This simple rule produces a complex growing network. Such a graph is called a pseudo-fractal. It has a discrete degree distribution. To relate the exponent of this discrete degree distribution to the standard $`\gamma `$ exponent of a continuous degree distribution for random scale-free networks, we use a cumulative distribution $`P_{cum}(k)`$, which follows

$$P_{cum}(k)k^{1\gamma }$$
(2)
and it is the probability that a node of the network hat at least $`k`$ neighbors. It decreases as a power of $`k`$ with exponent $`\gamma =1+\mathrm{ln}3/\mathrm{ln}2`$. In a similar way the average clustering coefficient , which is the probability of existence of a link between two nodes when they are both neighbors of a same node, can be calculated for the infinite graph, $`\overline{C}=4/5`$. One obtains a shortest-path-length distribution which tends to a Gaussian of width $`\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}N}`$ centered at $`\overline{l}\mathrm{ln}N`$ for large networks . These properties concerning the degree distribution, the clustering coefficient and the mean length, are also present in a wide range of stochastic scale-free networks reported in the literature. They make our simple deterministic networks suitable to examine applications very often found on stochastic networks. In the next section we apply the Sznajd model on our scale-free pseudo-fractal.

### 2.1 Monte Carlo simulations of the Sznajd model

We let the fractal of Fig.1 grow and at each step assign sites with random opinion $`\pm 1`$. At every step $`t>0`$, we have the following process:

1. The network grows, i.e., $`3^t`$ new sites are added.
2. A random opinion ($`\pm 1`$) is set to each new node of the network, with probability $`p`$ ($`1p`$) for opinion $`+1`$ ($`1`$).
3. $`N_s`$ Sznajd runs are performed. For each run, $`3^t`$ sites chosen randomly are analyzed and updated, i.e., one visits for the Sznajd model a number of sites equal to the number of sites added at that step to the network.

Three variations of the Sznajd model on the pseudo-fractal network have been investigated:

* 1 site convincing: For each site $`i`$ chosen, we change the opinion of all its neighbors to the site’s opinion.
* 2 sites convincing: For each site $`i`$ chosen, we select randomly one of its neighbors. If this selected neighbor has the same opinion of the site $`i`$, then all their neighbors follow the pair’s opinion. Otherwise, nothing is done.
* 3 sites convincing: For each $`i`$ site chosen, we select 2 of its neighbors at random. If all these three sites have the same opinion, they change the opinion of all their neighbors.

Figure (2) shows the mean opinion for the three rules ($`1`$, $`2`$ and $`3`$ sites convincing) for different initial concentrations $`p`$ and $`N_s`$ Sznajd runs per step (rps): $`1`$ rps ($`N_s=1`$) corresponds to one realization of Sznajd per step, that is at each step, one chooses $`3^t`$ nodes of the network at random to simulate Sznajd. $`10`$ rps ($`N_s=10`$) and $`50`$ rps ($`N_s=50`$) correspond, respectively, to choose $`10\times 3^t`$ and $`50\times 3^t`$ nodes randomly per step. We let the network grow up to $`29576`$ sites, that corresponds to $`10`$ steps. For $`1`$ node convincing, the model can not reach consensus, the results become more unpredictable, the larger the number of runs per step (Fig.2a). However, for two and three nodes convincing, a full consensus is observed (Figs.2b and 2c). We clearly see that for rules $`2`$ and $`3`$ one has a $`1st`$ order transition since the order parameter (opinion) jumps drastically and shows strong hysteresis. Our results are very similar to the ones obtained on the Barabási-Albert network when the same rules are applied , except that the latter requires more Sznajd runs for the network to reach a fixed point, i.e., a full consensus.

Since after some time steps the rules $`2`$ and $`3`$ always lead to a consensus and the whole system reaches a fixed point, in Fig.3 we show the number of samples, out of $`1000`$, for which the fixed point all “up” (all with opinion $`+1`$) is obtained when different values for the initial concentration $`p`$ of nodes “up” are simulated. As we can see, the fraction of realizations with fixed point “up” depends on the probability $`p`$ and on the implemented rule. This is opposed to the results obtained with the same rules ($`2`$ or more nodes convincing) on a square lattice, where an abrupt change is observed for $`p0.5`$ ; but in agreement with the ones on a Barabási-Abert network  and on a 1-dimensional chain. For $`1`$ node convincing the system does not tend to a fixed point (consensus), while on square lattices it does , although without the abrupt change of 2 sites convincing.

### 2.2 Simulation of elections with many candidates

We create a network of interacting nodes by using the pseudo-fractal network prescription as described before (Eq.1). In addition to our network, we also simulated the rule presented in  for modeling elections on a Barabási network. We summarize the generation of the Barabási network as follows: At the beginning of the simulation we have $`6`$ fully connected nodes. After that, we add more and more nodes and connect it with $`5`$ of the present nodes chosen at random. Thus the growth probability at any existing node is proportional to the number of nodes already connected to it. For comparison we generate both networks with the same number of nodes (voters), and the same number of candidates.

After generating a network, one starts with the “election process”. $`N`$ candidates are randomly distributed. The value $`n`$ ($`1nN`$) of a node on the network represents that this voter has preference for the candidate $`n`$. Initially, all sites start with value zero, meaning that there is no preference for any candidate, except for $`N`$ sites that have the number of a candidate. Now, the electoral campaign starts (only voters with preference for a candidate can influence other voters, à la Sznajd). At each time step all the nodes are randomly visited: a random list of nodes assures that each node is reached exactly once. For each visit, we implement the following process:

* We choose a node $`i`$ at random, if it has preference for a candidate, we choose among its connected nodes, a node $`j`$ at random. Otherwise, we randomly select another node.
* If node $`j`$ has the same candidate as node $`i`$, each node convinces all the nodes connected to it with probability:

$$p(k)=\frac{1}{n(k)^{1/\xi }}$$
(3)
where $`n(k)`$ is the number of nodes connected to either $`i`$ or $`j`$, and $`\xi >1`$ a switching factor that is analyzed later.
* If node $`j`$ has no candidate, node $`i`$ convinces it to accept its own candidate with the probability $`p(i)`$ of eq. (3).
* If node $`j`$ has a different candidate from node $`i`$, we choose another node $`i`$.

As in real elections, we do not wait for a kind of fixed point which here would correspond to all the nodes preferring the same candidate, but we count the votes at an intermediate time. We group in a histogram the number of candidates which received a certain number of votes. Because the bin size for the votes increases by a factor $`2`$ for each consecutive bin we divide each point of the histogram by the bin size, for this reason we have numbers lower than one for the histogram of the number of candidates, this kind of “voting distribution” is used in the literature for analyzing similar results . In Fig.4 we see that the results of the voting distribution for the simulations on the pseudo-fractal and on the Barabási network agree very well, using $`\xi =2`$ (Eq. 3) for the pseudo-fractal. In the inset we show the results of the simulation on the pseudo-fractal for $`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`1`$, $`2`$, $`4`$, $`8`$ and $`16`$, after $`400`$, $`20`$, $`4`$, $`2`$ and $`1`$ iterations, respectively. The results differ for each selection of $`\xi `$: the system reaches a fixed point more rapidly for larger parameter $`\xi `$, i.e, one needs less iterations in order to reach the same distribution’s width. Using the same value used in the simulations on the Barabási network, $`\xi =1`$, after nearly $`2000`$ iterations, a fixed point (consensus) on the pseudo-fractal network could not be reached. A similar result is observed on the square lattice for the Sznajd model, where if convincing happens only with a certain probability, then no complete consensus is found .

For the simulation on the Barabási network we use $`\xi =1`$, like reported in ; this selection means that on average each node convinces one other node at each process. As we show in Fig. 5 the degree distribution of the pseudo-fractal is discrete and is given by $`P_{cum}(k)=k^{\mathrm{ln}3/\mathrm{ln}2}`$, while the degree exponent for the Barabási network presented in this work is $`\gamma =2.9`$ . Knowing $`P(k)`$ we can calculate the probability distribution of convincing choosing one site at random, that is the probability of convincing Eq.3 multiplied by the degree distribution $`P(k)`$. For the convincing distribution of both networks to be similar, one has to chose Eq. 3 with $`\xi =2`$ for the simulation on the pseudo-fractal. We obtain qualitatively the same results in both simulations, being $`12`$ time faster in the pseudo-fractal than in the Barabási network, because it requires less memory space and computation time (see Fig.6).

In Fig. 7 we see that the shape of the voting distribution after a given number of iterations does not change with the size of the network. Changing the number of candidates doesn’t alter the form of the distribution (see the inset of Fig. 7).

We consider the results from two Brazilian states (São Paulo and Minas Gerais) for the positions of local state deputies. In such elections the voters vote directly for the candidate and not for parties. Some elections occur with a high number of candidates, of the order of thousands, and with a number of voters of the order of millions. The official results for each state are available on the Internet .

In Fig.8 we see the results of a simulation on a $`15`$-generations pseudo-fractal ($`21523362`$ nodes) and $`1144`$ candidates, and compare it to the results of real elections described in Fig.8. For the moment we do not take into account abstentions, or invalid votes in the simulation. The pseudo-fractal tends to consensus in a similar way as the real elections. After averaging over more than $`100`$ realizations we see, that the deviations from a perfect line in the intermediate regions of votes, seen in the real elections, are not of statistical nature but seem due to the determinism of the network. The general behavior of the distribution of candidates of the simulation of the elections on the pseudo-fractal however agrees with the one observed in real results. The results of the distribution of candidates for the simulated and the real cases follow hyperbolic law,

$$N(v)1/v,$$
(4)
for the number $`N`$ of candidates having $`v`$ votes, extending over two or three order of magnitude, with deviations only for small and large numbers of votes .

In addition we analyzed the behavior of the voting distribution for the elections in India to the lower house of the Parliament (Lok Sabha). These elections are events involving political mobility and organizational mobility on an amazing scale. In the 1998 election to Lok Sabha there were $`1269`$ candidates from $`38`$ officially recognized national and state parties seeking election,$`1048`$ candidates from registered parties not recognized and $`10635`$ independent candidates. A total number of $`596185335`$ people voted. The Election Commission employed almost $`400000`$ people to run the election. The official results of this elections are available on the Internet . In contrast to the Brazilian elections, in this process the country is divided into $`543`$ parliamentary constituencies, each of which return one representative to the Lok Sabha. That is, not all the voters elect among all the candidates of one state (like in Brazil), but there is one election process for each of the $`543`$ representatives, that occurs in each parliamentary constituency. These parliamentary constituencies are selected by an independent Delimitation Commission, which creates constituencies which have roughly the same population, subject to geographical considerations and the boundary of the states and administrative areas.

At the end of the process one can analyze the voting distribution of each state of the India. In Fig. 9 we observe the results for 5 states: Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Kerala, with 85, 2, 42, 10 and 20 constituencies respectively. The voting distribution for each state is the superposition of different electoral processes for all the constituencies of the state. For each election in a constituency there is a voting result that corresponds to few candidates, between $`5`$ and $`10`$. The difference between the India and Brazilian results appears at this stage. If one analyses the election process of each parliamentary constituency, even though one does not have a large number of candidates for the statistics, a distribution with slope $`1`$ is observed. However, the final results of the process for each Indian state provide a different profile far from the hyperbolic one ($`1/v`$ type of distribution) (see Fig.9), which was observed for many Brazilian states . In order to analyze the number of candidates $`N`$ which received a certain fraction of votes $`v`$ for the nationwide voting process, we have normalized the votes of each candidate by the total number of voters (Fig.10). As can be seen, the number of candidates $`\mathrm{N}`$ follows a power law $`N(v)v^\alpha `$ , with $`\alpha =1.3`$ (for Brazil, $`\alpha =1`$).

The differences in the Sznajd simulations on the pseudo-fractal network for the India and Brazilian elections are mainly due to the number of candidates considered for each one. In the latter, the number of candidates is almost $`0.005\%`$ of the lattice nodes, while for the former it is $`0.01\%`$. The fixed point (consensus) is reached the faster, the larger the density of candidates. Because of that, the comparison of the real elections in India with our simulations were made taking account only $`5`$ iterations of the Sznajd model on the pseudo-fractal network ($`20`$ iterations for Brazilian elections).

## 3 Conclusions

We studied the behavior of a deterministic scale-free network simulating a spreading of opinion model on it. We solved the Sznajd’s model on a growing deterministic scale-free network, obtaining always a consensus of opinion after some runs of the model. The final opinion presents a $`1st`$ order transition, that shows strong hysteresis, as a function of the initial concentration of opinions in the network for rules $`2`$ and $`3`$. The results coincide with the results reported for a stochastic scale free network . We found that there is not scaling in the finite-size cut-off showing that the system is not critical (Fig.7). We simulated election processes on the network. The probability of convincing of the model has to be adapted ($`\xi =2`$, in Eq. 3) in order to avoid the differences in the values of the exponents $`\gamma `$ of the degree distribution of our deterministic network and the $`\gamma `$ exponent of a typical stochastic network (Fig. 4). We obtained the same results, reported for a stochastic scale-free network, but with computation times considerably lower (see Fig.6). We could use our model to reproduce qualitatively good complex electoral processes, such as the states elections for parliament in Brazil and India.

Acknowledgments

We thank D. Stauffer for helpful discussions and a critical reading of the manuscript; A.O. Sousa acknowledges a research grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and M.C. González a fellowship from DAAD.


format: text

text:
# Solid-solid volume collapse transitions are zeroth order

## Model

The OP is taken to be the dilation strain $`e_1_{i=1}^dϵ_{ii}/\sqrt{d}`$ where $`ϵ_{ij}`$ are the components of the infinitesimal strain tensorcha94  $`ϵ`$ and $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system. Our starting point is a coarse grainedcha95  elastic Hamiltonian $`HH_1+H_h`$ with $`H_1`$ a non-linear Ginzgurg-Landau like double-well term:

$$H_1=d^dx\left(ae_1\frac{b}{2}e_1^2+\frac{c}{4}e_1^4+\frac{\kappa }{2}|e_1|^2\right),$$
(1)
The remaining $`d(d+1)/21`$ independent components of the strain tensor give the harmonic contribution:

$$H_h=\mu d^dx\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ij}^2.$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the shear modulus of the material, and the (traceless) ‘accommodation strains’ tensor $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ij}ϵ_{ij}\delta _{ij}e_1/\sqrt{d}`$ has been defined.

## Zero temperature theory

In the absence of dislocations and in order to be physical the strain tensor must fulfill the St. Venant compatibility conditioncha94 :

$$\mathrm{curl}\mathrm{curl}ϵ=\mathrm{𝟎}$$
(3)
which leads to constraints between $`e_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ij}`$. A uniform strain satisfies Eq. (3) trivially and therefore it is unconstrained. Thus the $`𝐤=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ term in the Fourier decomposition of $`H_h`$, corresponding to uniform accommodation strains, can be minimized by choosing $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ij}(𝐤=\mathrm{𝟎})=0`$. For $`𝐤\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the accommodation strains can be eliminated in favor of $`e_1`$ by minimizing $`H_h`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ij}`$, and enforcing the constraints in Eq. (3) by Lagrange multiplierskar95ras01 . The resulting equilibrium equations together with Eq. (3) allow Eq. (2) to be written as a function of $`e_1`$ alone:

$$H_h=(d1)\mu \frac{1}{L^d}\underset{𝐤\mathrm{𝟎}}{}e_1(𝐤)e_1(𝐤).$$

Here $`L`$ is the linear dimension of the system. A crucial point is that the $`𝐤=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ term is excluded from the sum. We can extend the sum to all $`𝐤`$ by explicitly subtracting the missing term. We obtain in real space:

$`H_h/[(d1)\mu ]={\displaystyle d^dx[e_1(𝐱)\overline{e}_1]^2}`$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle d^dxd^dx^{}\left[\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})\frac{1}{L^d}\right]e_1(𝐱)e_1(𝐱^{})}`$
with $`\overline{e}_1d^d𝐱e_1/L^d`$. The accommodation strains induce a local term that increases the stiffness at all wave vectors, and a distance independent “ferro” like interaction in $`e_1`$ that decreases the uniform stiffness alone, i.e., the stiffness at finite wave vector is larger than at zero wave vector, a well known result that holds also for linear elastic solidscha95 . A similar result has been obtained in $`d=2`$ in the context of the dislocation mediated melting problem close to an isostructural critical pointcho96 .

We define $`\varphi e_1\sqrt{c/b}`$, $`m4(d1)\mu /b`$ and $`\gamma 2\kappa /b`$. Up to an additive constant the coarse grained energy density $`h`$ \[from Eqs. (1) and (4)\] in units of the height of the double well barrier \[$`b^2/(4c)`$\] reads:

$$h(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })=h_0(\varphi )+\gamma |\varphi |^2+m(\varphi \overline{\varphi })^2$$
(5)
with $`h_0(\varphi )(1\varphi ^2)^2`$ being the double well in the dimensionless volume $`\varphi `$. The term linear in the OP has been eliminated by redefining the origin of pressure. The parameter $`\gamma `$ fixes the width of the interface between the low and high volume phases in a mixed state.

We first discuss the $`\gamma =0`$ case and generalize for a finite $`\gamma `$ below. The energy density Eq. (5) couples the values of $`\varphi `$ at different spatial positions only through $`\overline{\varphi }`$, namely it corresponds effectively to a MF. We stress however, that this is the exact energy of the model.

Mixed phase solutions for a constrained total volume obey the familiar common tangent construction: $`h(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })/\varphi |_{\varphi =\varphi _{}}=h(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })/\varphi |_{\varphi =\varphi _+}=[h(\varphi _{},\overline{\varphi })h(\varphi _+,\overline{\varphi })]/(\varphi _{}\varphi _+)`$ where $`\varphi _\pm =\pm \sqrt{(1m/2)}`$ and the $`+`$ ($``$) corresponds to the OP of the expanded (collapsed) phase. The only difference with a conventional phase separation computation is that the construction is $`\overline{\varphi }`$-dependent because $`h`$ depends on the global variable $`\overline{\varphi }`$ \[see Fig. 1(a)\]. This dependence makes the total energy of the mixture non additive. In Fig. 1(b) we report the resulting average energy density $`\overline{h}(\overline{\varphi })`$. For $`m>2`$ the mixed solution does not exist and the system remains always uniform. We have checked these results with direct analytical computations assuming specific shapes for the coexisting phases and different boundary conditions. In all cases the maximum shear strain is of the same order as the relative volume mismatch. As long as the volume mismatch is small (a few percent) the shear strain will behave elastically. For large volume mismatch glide of atomic planes may take place and our theory becomes approximate. In any case the transition will be irreversible.

For a pressure controlled experiment the physical pressure is given by $`P=p\sqrt{b^3/(16cd)}a/\sqrt{d}`$ with $`p`$ the dimensionless pressure: $`p=\overline{h}(\overline{\varphi })/\overline{\varphi }`$ at $`T=0`$. In the mixed phase the free energy has negative curvature so the compressibility is negative \[Fig. 1(b)\]. This thermodynamic state is stable at constant volume with the pined boundary conditions of Ref. ber76 . This violation of usual stability criteria is common in non-extensive systemsveg02 .

In Fig. 2 we show the values of $`\overline{\varphi }`$ and the Gibbs free energy density $`g(p)\overline{h}[\overline{\varphi }(p)]+p\overline{\varphi }(p)`$ as a function of $`p`$ for two values of $`m`$. Controlling the total volume the system would follow the continuous line. The straight portion of this solution in Fig. 2(a) corresponds to the mixed phase. Consider now a pressure controlled experiment for $`m<4/3`$ \[Fig. 2(a) and (c)\]. Starting from the high volume phase at low pressure and increasing $`p`$ the system remains uniform until $`p^{}`$, given by the point in which the mixed solution line intersects the uniform solution. At this point the small volume phase nucleates spontaneously since $`\gamma =0`$. It is easy to show that the mixed state is mechanically unstable at constant pressure due to the negative compressibility, so the volume collapses and the system jumps to the lower branch of the curve following the vertical line. Decreasing the pressure the process is reverted and the volume suddenly expands at $`p^{}(=p^{})`$ producing the hysteresis loop indicated in the figure. A conventional first-order phase transition driven by pressure at a very low rate (so that nucleation occurs) would follow a vertical line at $`p=0`$ in the top panel. This is not possible here because the infinite range interaction makes the critical drop radiuscha95  diverge, and the nucleation energy-barrier to scale as the volume of the system.

In the case $`m>4/3`$ the compressibility of the uniform solution diverges at the spinodal points \[full dots in Fig. 2 (b) and (d)\]. The transition proceeds by a $`𝐤=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ instability at $`p^{}=p^{}=8/(3\sqrt{3})`$, independent of $`m`$ and with no energy barrier. The lower panels in Fig. 2 show that the transition involves an unavoidable jump in the thermodynamic potential for all $`m0`$ justifying calling this transition ‘zeroth order’veg02 .

## Finite temperature theory

Using MF theory it is straightforward to obtain the exact partition function for $`\gamma =0`$, and the exact $`\overline{\varphi }p`$ dependence at different temperatures. In Fig. 3 we show the isotherms in the $`\overline{\varphi }p`$ plane for $`m=0.6`$ for different values of a dimensionless temperature $`t`$ (units are restored below). The pressure width ($`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$) and volume width ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\varphi }`$) of the hysteresis loop is reduced at finite temperatures up to the point where it vanishes, which determines the critical point coordinates $`(p_c=0,t_c(m))`$. The pressure width as a function of temperature determines a wedge of forbidden nucleation \[shown in Fig. 3(b) for different values of $`m`$\] around the critical pressure $`p_c=0`$.

For $`m<4/3`$ the singularities at $`p=\pm p^{}`$ of the $`T=0`$ isotherm become rounded at finite temperature \[Fig. 3(a)\] due to the thermally induced spatial fluctuations of the OP. This implies that the compressibility will show precursor effects for all $`m>0`$, diverging at the transition.

The solution in the case of finite $`\gamma `$ and $`m`$ is given implicitly by $`\overline{\varphi }=\overline{\varphi }_0(p+m\overline{\varphi })`$ where $`\overline{\varphi }_0(p)`$ is the equation of state of the same model except that $`m=0`$, i.e., the well studied $`\varphi ^4`$-model which has the universality class of the short-range Ising modelcha95 . If $`m>4/3`$ the qualitative description of the forbidden nucleation region are completely equivalent to the $`\gamma =0`$ case. For $`m<4/3`$ a region of normal nucleation and growth appears around the wedge of forbidden nucleation at low temperatures and the divergence of the compressibility gets a cutoff. These effects never reach the critical point. Both for $`\gamma =0`$ and $`\gamma >0`$ we find that critical exponents are given exactly by MF. This is also in agreement with the $`d=2`$ theoretical analysis of Ref. cho96 .

## Comparison with experiments

A wedge where nucleation does not occur is observed in Cegsc79 ; law81 , SmSras78  and related systems. Interestingly it is also observed in a volume-collapse transition in amorphous icemis94 . However without detailed studies it is difficult to be sure that it does not arise from usual hysteresis due to a finite driving rate, as occurring in other first order transitions. Other indicators however, point more strongly to the applicability of our theory.

In agreement with the present theory MF critical exponents have been observedlaw81 . The connection between MF critical behavior and long-range strains has long been suspectedlaw81 .

In contrast with usual first-order phase transitions, where hysteresis is not intrinsic, one can define here a critical exponent for the pressure width of the hysteresis loop: $`\mathrm{\Delta }p|tt_c|^{3/2}`$. We are not aware of detailed measures of this critical exponent, however the curvature of the boundaries found in Ref. ras78  for Gd doped SmS are compatible with this exponent. We hope our work will stimulate further experimental work.

Also in contrast with usual first-order transitions, critical behavior (although classic like) can be easily observed far from the critical point. The divergence of the compressibility discussed above implies that the bulk modulus vanishes as $`|pp^{}|^{1/2}`$ and jumps discontinuously to a finite value for $`p>p^{}`$. Decreasing pressure the jump and the square root singularity change side and occur at $`p^{}`$. Similar behavior is found as a function of temperature.

An anomaly measured in YbInCu4 on cooling resembles our prediction when plotted in an appropriate scale (see inset of Fig. 4 in Ref. bkin94 ). This also explains the appearance of precursor effects which have been very puzzling in the mixed valence literature and have led some authors to interpret the transition as second orderbkin94 .

In mixed valence systems the double well is attributed to the anomalous contribution of $`f`$-electrons to the crystal bindingall82joh95 . For a realistic description it may be necessary to take the parameters in Eq. (1) to depend on temperature to take into account temperature effects of the $`f`$-electrons. In fact a trivial linear and quadratic temperature dependence of $`a`$ fits our symmetric phase diagram to the asymmetric forms of Cegsc79 ; law81  and SmSlaw81 ; ras78 .

The temperature dependence of $`a`$ does not affect the critical temperature, but $`b`$ does. Indeed in current explanations of the critical point in $`f`$-electron systems this electronic effect is crucial whereas the shear rigidity does not play a relevant roleall82joh95 . To check the relevance of the temperature scale set by the shear modulus on determining real values of $`T_c`$ we take the opposite point of view, i.e., we neglect the temperature dependence of the coefficients in Eq. (1) and take into account the effect of the shear rigidity alone. Restoring dimensions, the critical temperature is given by: $`k_BT_c=t_c(m)v_0b^2/(4c)`$ where $`v_0`$ is the minimum volume in the system allowed to fluctuate independently. For the case $`\gamma =0`$ this volume should be assimilated to the atomic volume. In the case $`\gamma >0`$, this volume can be greater depending on the strength of the short distance interactions parametrized by $`\gamma `$. In any case we expect it to be of the order of a few atomic volumes. The parameters $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`m`$ can be fixed by fitting the observed pressure and volume with of the hysteresis loop at a given temperature and from the measured value of the shear modulusgsc79 ; hai84 . Within the experimental uncertainties this procedure gives the right value of $`T_c`$ for Ce ($`550`$Kgsc79 ; law81 ) and SmS ($`750`$Klaw81 ; ras78 ) if we assume $`v_02v_f`$ where $`v_f`$ is the volume associated with one formula unit. Since the relation between $`v_0`$ and $`v_f`$ go beyond our model we cannot exclude temperature effects on the coefficients of Eq. (1) contributing to $`T_c`$all82joh95  however the fact that we obtain the right order of magnitude with a $`v_0`$ on the order of $`v_f`$ implies that the scale set by the shear modulus can not be neglected in the determination of $`T_c`$.

In conclusion we have presented an exactly solvable model of an isostructural volume collapse transition, the solid-state analog of the van der Waals transition. Unlike the fluid counterpart the thermodynamics is very anomalous due to the presence of infinite range interactions. In particular, the transition is intrinsically irreversible with a discontinuity of the thermodynamic potential making of it a laboratory example of a class of phase transitions, namely zero order transitions, first discussed in the context of gravitational systemsveg02 .

Despite the simplicity of our model, which assumes an isotropic solid, we believe the present features are quite robust. Indeed our findings are in good agreement with the behavior of real anisotropic systemsgsc79 ; law81 ; ras78 ; bkin94 . In these mixed valence systems the unexpected thermodynamics is a consequence of the interplay between strong correlations, determining the double well potentialall82joh95 , and long-range strains. The present approach can be seen as a first step to understand this interplay in more complex non-isostructural transitions like the magnetoresistant manganiteslor01Ilor02  which also show volume mismatch among different phases and irreversibilitycox98 .


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is always a challenge to measure the quantum numbers of new states, particularly their spin and parity. We may measure the specific characteristics of given decay channels or angular correlations of the accompanying particles in the production process, especially the correlations between the outgoing protons in the central exclusive production process, $`ppp+h+p`$, shown in Fig. 1(a).

The advantage of the latter approach is that it offers the possibility, not only to separate different states by accurately measuring the missing mass, but also to distinguish between scalar and pseudoscalar new heavy objects, which is difficult from studying their decay products. In this paper we begin by studying the general implications of applying Reggeon techniques to describe such exclusive processes. At very high energies, and in the central region ($`x_F0`$), the double-Pomeron process, Fig 1(b), should give the dominant contribution.

The theory of double-Reggeon (and multi-Reggeon) exchanges was developed long ago . However the revival of interest in these processes is related to the new effects observed in the central production of resonances by the WA102 experiment  in the reaction $`pppX^0p`$, and to the proposal to look for the Higgs boson and other new particles in double-Pomeron-exchange processes, see, for example, . Indeed it will be one of the main challenges of the LHC to identify the nature (including the spin–parity) of newly-discovered heavy objects. It appears to be very hard to find a spin–parity analyser using conventional approaches.

Models for double-Pomeron-exchange production of hadrons with different quantum numbers have been developed in recent years . However in some papers  the formulas of Reggeon theory were not fully consistent, while some results of the others follow simply from general rules of the Reggeon approach. In Section 2 we first consider these rules and compare them with experimental observations , and with the results of the phenomenological analysis performed in Ref. . Also the dynamics for the Pomeron–Pomeron–particle vertices is discussed.

In Section 3 we illustrate how the general behaviour is distorted by the dynamics of the process, using $`h(0^\pm )`$ exclusive diffractive production as an example. Apart from subsection 3.1, where we discuss the uncertainties in the predicted cross sections, this section neglects the absorptive or unitary corrections. However at high energies these corrections are important (see, for example, Refs. ). They correspond to the diagrams of Fig. 2, and can be calculated using the Reggeon diagram technique .

It will be shown in Section 4 that the inclusion of these diagrams leads not only to a decrease of the cross sections of the double-Pomeron processes, but also to significant modifications of the angular correlations between the outgoing (forward) protons. Moreover, the magnitude of these absorptive corrections depends on the quantum numbers of the produced state $`h`$.

In Section 4 we illustrate the results using the important topical example of the double-Pomeron production of heavy bosons. In particular we compare the production of a Standard Model Higgs boson with spin-parity $`J^P=0^+`$, with that for a $`0^{}`$ Higgs111For convenience of presentation we will denote this particle $`h(0^{})`$, rather than the conventional notation $`A(0^{})`$. which appears in various extensions of the Standard Model, in particular in a supersymmetric extension. In Section 5, we consider the consequences of this approach to investigations of the Higgs sector at the LHC. For illustration we evaluate the exclusive cross sections using the minimal supersymmetric model222For a recent review see, for example, Ref. . (MSSM) with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$; a domain in which, for $`m(0^{})\stackrel{<}{}200\mathrm{GeV}`$, the conventional searches at the LHC will face difficulties to discriminate between the different Higgs states and to determine their masses. This is especially true in the so-called “intense coupling limit”, $`m_hm_Am_H𝒪(100\mathrm{GeV})`$ . As a specific example we calculate the event rates for the exclusive central production of mass $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$ $`0^\pm `$ bosons at the LHC.

## 2 Exclusive diffractive production: general rules

Here we study the general rules for the amplitudes of the exclusive diffractive process

$$1+23+h+4,$$
(1)
shown in Fig. 1, where $`1,\mathrm{},4`$ are hadrons, and where the centrally produced particle $`h`$ has spin and parity $`J^P`$. We show that the production process has characteristic features, that depend on the value of $`J^P`$, which follow from general principles.

To begin, we assume that all the particles are spinless. Then, at high energies and small momentum transfer,

$$\begin{array}{cc}s_1=(p_3+p_h)^2s_0,\hfill & s_2=(p_4+p_h)^2s_0\hfill \\ t_1p_3^2\stackrel{<}{}s_0,\hfill & t_2p_4^2\stackrel{<}{}s_0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
the amplitude can be written in the form

$$T_{12}^{3h4}(s_1,s_2,\stackrel{}{p}_3,\stackrel{}{p}_4)=\underset{i,k}{}g_{13}(t_1)g_{24}(t_2)\left(\frac{s_1}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _i(t_1)}\left(\frac{s_2}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _k(t_2)}\eta (\alpha _i(t_1))\eta (\alpha _k(t_2))g_{ik}^h(t_1,t_2,\varphi ),$$
(3)
where $`s_0=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the transverse momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_4`$ of the outgoing protons and

$$\eta (\alpha _i(t))=\left(\frac{1+\sigma _ie^{i\pi \alpha _i(t)}}{\mathrm{sin}\pi \alpha _i(t)}\right)$$
(4)
is the signature factor for Regge pole $`i`$ with trajectory $`\alpha _i(t)`$ and signature $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$. The vertex factors $`g_{13}(t_1)`$ and $`g_{24}(t_2)`$ describe the $`13\alpha _i`$ and $`24\alpha _k`$ couplings respectively, while $`g_{ik}^h`$ describes the transition $`\alpha _i\alpha _kh`$. Note that $`g_{ik}^h`$ depends, in general, on all the scalars that can be formed from the vectors which enter the vertex. Moreover, in the case of Reggeons, the longitudinal and transverse components of their momenta act as two different vectors . In our case, where the mass of the boson $`h`$ is fixed, it is enough to keep the transverse momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_4`$, and the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_0`$ in the direction of the colliding hadrons. Unlike $`g_{13}`$ and $`g_{24}`$, the function $`g_{ik}^h`$ may be complex. In the Regge domain (2),

$$s_1s_2=s(m_h^2+p_h^2),$$
(5)
where $`s=(p_1+p_2)^2`$.

When spin is included, the process is described by helicity amplitudes, each of which has a double-Regge behaviour as in (3.

$$T_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^{\lambda _3\lambda _h\lambda _4}(s_1,s_2,t_1,t_2,\varphi )=\underset{i,k}{}g_{\lambda _1\lambda _3}(t_1)g_{\lambda _2\lambda _4}(t_2)\left(\frac{s_1}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _i(t_1)}\left(\frac{s_2}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha _k(t_2)}\eta (\alpha _i(t_1))\eta (\alpha _k(t_2))g_{ik}^{\lambda _h}(t_1,t_2,\varphi )$$
(6)
The relations between the vertex couplings for different helicities, due to conservation of parity and other quantum numbers, are the same as for $`22`$ reaction . For example,

$$g_{\lambda _1\lambda _3}(t)=(1)^{\lambda _1\lambda _3}\xi _1g_{\lambda _1\lambda _3}(t),$$
(7)
with

$$\xi _1=\eta _1\eta _3(1)^{S_1S_3}P_i\sigma _i,$$
(8)
where $`S_1`$ ($`S_3`$) and $`\eta _1`$ ($`\eta _3`$) are the spin and parity of the particle 1 (3) respectively, and $`P_i,\sigma _i`$ are the parity and signature of the Reggeon $`i`$. The vertices behave as ,

$$g_{\lambda _1\lambda _3}(t)(t)^{\left|\lambda _1\lambda _3\right|/2},\mathrm{as}t0.$$
(9)
Note that relation (7) depends only on the product $`P_i\sigma _i`$ and thus the model-independent spin structure of the vertices $`g_{\lambda _1\lambda _3}(g_{\lambda _2\lambda _4})`$ is the same for all Reggeons with the same product $`P_i\sigma _i`$.

Below we will be interested mainly in the spin structure of the central vertex $`g_{ik}^{\lambda _h}(t_1,t_2,\varphi )`$. It can be written in the form

$$g_{ik}^{\lambda _h}=\underset{m_2=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{im_2\varphi }\gamma _{m_1m_2}^{\lambda _h},\mathrm{with}m_1+m_2=\lambda _h,$$
(10)
where $`m_2`$ has the meaning of the projection of the angular momentum $`j_k`$ of Reggeon $`k`$ (analytically continued from all angular momenta $`j_k`$ in the $`t_1,t_2`$-channels). Now invariance under parity leads to the relation

$$\gamma _{m_1m_2}^{\lambda _h}=(1)^{\lambda _h}\xi _3\gamma _{m_1m_2}^{\lambda _h},$$
(11)
where

$$\xi _3=\eta _h(1)^{S_h}P_i\sigma _iP_k\sigma _k.$$
(12)
Thus the spin structure of the central vertex depends only on the product of the naturalities (that is the parities and signatures) of particle $`h`$ and the exchanged Reggeons333It can be shown that similar formulae are also valid for photon–photon fusion processes.. The behaviour of $`\gamma _{m_1m_2}^{\lambda _h}`$ for small $`t_1,t_2`$ is given by the formula

$$\gamma _{m_1m_2}^{\lambda _h}(t_1)^{|m_1|/2}(t_2)^{|m_2|/2},\mathrm{with}m_1+m_2=\lambda _h.$$
(13)
Note that all values of $`m_2`$ ($`m_1`$) enter (10), but, due to (13), for small $`t_1,t_2`$ it is enough to consider the lowest values of $`m_2`$ ($`m_1`$) consistent with (11).

It is often convenient to write the spin structure of the amplitudes in terms of the characteristic 3-vectors of the problem. Such a representation is closely related to the helicity amplitudes discussed above , but the formulas become more transparent. In this case the central vertex $`g_{ik}^h`$ is written as a scalar (or pseudoscalar) function (depending on the product $`\eta _h(1)^{S_h}\sigma _iP_i\sigma _kP_k`$) of the vectors $`\stackrel{}{p}_3,\stackrel{}{p}_4`$ and the spin vectors (tensors) of particle $`h`$.

Let us consider particular examples for the spin-parity $`J^P`$ of $`h`$, in each case taking$`\sigma _iP_i\sigma _kP_k=+1`$ as for double-Pomeron exchange.

* $`J^P(h)=0^+`$

For a scalar particle $`h`$, the vertex coupling is simply

$$g_{ik}^h=f_{0^+}(p_3^2,p_4^2,\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4),$$
(14)
where $`f_{0^+}`$ is a function of the scalar variables which can be formed from the transverse momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_4`$ of the outgoing protons. When $`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$ or $`\stackrel{}{p}_40`$, this function in general tends to some constant $`f(0,0,0)`$. In order to obtain further information on the structure of this function, extra dynamical input is needed (see Section 3).
* $`J^P(h)=0^{}`$

For the central production of a pseudoscalar particle, the vertex factor takes the form

$$g_{ik}^h=f_0^{}(p_3^2,p_4^2,\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4)\epsilon _{ikl}(p_3)_i(p_4)_k(n_0)_l,$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}_0`$ is the unit vector in the direction of the colliding hadrons (in the c.m.s.). In this case, according to (11), all amplitudes with $`m_1,m_2=0`$ are zero, and so $`|m_1|=|m_2|=1`$ are the leading terms. According to (13) this corresponds to helicity amplitudes which are proportional to $`(t_1)^{\frac{1}{2}}(t_2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ for small $`t`$. Thus the cross section behaves as $`|t_1||t_2|`$. Also the angular distribution contains a factor $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$, which is evident from either (15) or (10) and (11). Again the function $`f_0^{}`$ is not predicted from general principles.

Note that the characteristic $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ dependence of the angular distribution, and the $`t`$-behaviour at small $`t`$, which are observed by the WA102 Collaboration for $`\eta `$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ production , are direct consequences of the general properties of the double-Regge-exchange amplitudes. This behaviour is valid not only for double-Pomeron exchange, but also for $`Pf,ff,\rho \rho ,A_2A_2,\omega \omega ,\mathrm{}`$ exchanges. Under the interchange of the Reggeons, $`ik`$,

$$(n_0)_l(n_0)_l$$
(16)
and hence if the Reggeons are the same, $`i=k`$, the function $`f_0^{}`$ should be symmetric under the interchange $`34`$.
* $`J^P(h)=1^+`$

For the production of an axial vector state, both $`\lambda _h=0`$ and $`\lambda _h=\pm 1`$ components are present, and the vertex factor can be written as

$$g_{ik}^h=f_{1^+}^0\epsilon _{ikl}(p_3)_i(p_4)_ke_l+\left(f_{1^+}^1(p_3)_i+\stackrel{~}{f}_{1^+}^1(p_4)_i\right)\epsilon _{ikl}(n_0)_ke_l,$$
(17)
where the $`f^i`$ are functions of the scalar variables $`p_3^2,p_4^2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4`$, and where $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ is the polarization vector of the $`1^+`$ meson. If both of the exchanged Reggeons are the same ($`i=k`$), then the function $`g_{ik}^h`$ is symmetric under the interchange $`34`$. As a consequence, for small $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$,

$$f_{1^+}^0(p_3^2p_4^2),f_{1^+}^1=\stackrel{~}{f}_{1^+}^1.$$
(18)

The form of the vertex factors $`g_{ik}^h`$ for the central production of states $`h`$ of higher spin can readily be constructed using equations (10)–(12).

It is interesting to note that the structure of the vertex factors given in (14)–(18) coincides, for small $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$, with that found using a non-conserved vector current model , which gives a good description of the experimental data of the WA102 Collaboration . However, from the discussion above, it is clear that these results simply follow from the general rules of Reggeon theory. They are not connected with a particular vector current model of the Pomeron, but rather follow from the fact that the product of the parity and signature of the Pomeron is $`+1`$. Moreover the Pomeron has positive signature and corresponds to the analytic continuation from angular momenta $`J^P=2^+,4^+,\mathrm{}`$ in the $`t`$-channel. The same results would be obtained if a tensor current model were used.

On the other hand, the detailed structure of the amplitudes $`f_m^k(p_3^2,p_4^2,\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4)`$ (with $`m=0^+,0^{},1^+,2^+,\mathrm{}`$) depends on dynamics and cannot be predicted from the general principles of Regge theory. For example, if the heavy state $`h`$ is strongly coupled to gluons and is produced perturbatively via the diagram shown in Fig. 3(a), then in the forward direction ($`p_3,p_4Q_{}`$) the vertex factor $`f_{0^+}`$ does not depend on $`p_3`$ or $`p_4`$. Moreover, as was shown in , there exists a $`J_z=0`$, parity-even, selection rule, for production by gluon–gluon fusion where each of these active gluons comes from colour-singlet digluon $`t`$-channel exchange, see Fig. 3. As a consequence the production of the negative-parity $`h(0^{})`$ state is strongly suppressed in comparison with the production of the $`h(0^+)`$ state. Similarly it follows that the central diffractive exclusive production of $`2^{++}`$ states is also suppressed in some topical cases; for example, $`2^{++}`$ states formed from heavy quark pairs (in the non-relativistic model)  or $`2^{++}`$ ‘gravitons’ in models with extra dimensions in which their coupling to gluons has a point-like nature (with no derivatives) so they are not produced via the $`J_z=0`$ two-gluon state . Also these processes can provide a unique opportunity to determine the quantum numbers of pair-produced new strongly-interacting objects . For example, comparatively light gluinos and squarks can be distinguished by the respective $`\beta ^3`$ and $`\beta `$ threshold behaviour, where $`\beta `$ is the particle velocity.

## 3 Example: dynamics of $`h(0^\pm )`$ Higgs production

So far we have discussed the structure of the production amplitudes for

$$ppp+h+p,$$
(19)
where $`h`$ has a given $`J^P`$, which follow from general principles. To go further we need to consider the dynamics of the process. We study $`h(0^\pm )`$ Higgs production as a topical example. The general rules imply that the central vertices behave as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}g_{ik}^{h(0^+)}\hfill & \hfill & \mathrm{constant}\hfill \\ g_{ik}^{h(0^{})}\hfill & \hfill & (\stackrel{}{p}_3\times \stackrel{}{p}_4)\stackrel{}{n}_0|t_1|^{\frac{1}{2}}|t_2|^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \hfill \end{array}$$

at small $`t`$.

### 3.1 Amplitudes for $`h(0^\pm )`$ production

To see how the dynamics modify this behaviour we have first to describe how the cross sections for the exclusive production of $`h(0^\pm )`$ Higgs bosons are calculated. We use the formalism of Ref. . The amplitudes are described by the diagram shown in Fig. 3(a), where the hard subprocesses $`ggh(0^\pm )`$ are initiated by gluon–gluon fusion and where the second $`t`$-channel gluon is needed to screen the colour flow across the rapidity gap intervals.

The Born amplitudes are of the form

$$T_h=N\frac{d^2Q_{}V_h}{Q_{}^2(\stackrel{}{Q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_3)^2(\stackrel{}{Q}_{}+\stackrel{}{p}_4)^2}f_g(x_1,x_1^{},Q_3^2,\mu ^2;t_1)f_g(x_2,x_2^{},Q_4^2,\mu ^2;t_2)$$
(20)
The overall normalization constant $`N`$ can be written in terms of the $`hgg`$ decay width , and the $`ggh`$ vertex factors are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V_{h(0^+)}\hfill & =\hfill & (\stackrel{}{Q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_3)(\stackrel{}{Q}_{}+\stackrel{}{p}_4)\hfill \\ V_{h(0^{})}\hfill & =\hfill & \left((\stackrel{}{Q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_3)\times (\stackrel{}{Q}_{}+\stackrel{}{p}_4)\right)\stackrel{}{n}_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The $`f_g`$’s are the skewed unintegrated gluon densities of the proton at the hard scale $`\mu `$, taken to be $`m_h/2`$, with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Q_3\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{min}\{Q_{},|(\stackrel{}{Q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_3)|\},\hfill \\ Q_4\hfill & =\hfill & \mathrm{min}\{Q_{},|(\stackrel{}{Q}_{}+\stackrel{}{p}_4)|\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Below, we assume factorization of the unintegrated distributions,

$$f_g(x,x^{},Q^2,\mu ^2;t)=f_g(x,x^{},Q^2,\mu ^2)F_N(t),$$
(21)
where we parameterize the form factor of the proton vertex by the form $`F_N(t)=\mathrm{exp}(bt)`$ with $`b=2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. To single log accuracy, we have

$$f_g(x,x^{},Q_i^2,\mu ^2)=R_g\frac{}{\mathrm{ln}Q_i^2}\left(\sqrt{T(Q_i,\mu )}xg(x,Q_i^2)\right),$$
(22)
where $`T`$ is the usual Sudakov form factor which ensures that the gluon remains untouched in the evolution up to the hard scale $`\mu `$, so that the rapidity gaps survive. The square root arises because the bremsstrahlung survival probability $`T`$ is only relevant to the hard gluon. $`R_g`$ is the ratio of the skewed $`x^{}x`$ integrated distribution to the conventional diagonal density $`g(x,Q^2)`$. For $`x1`$ it is completely determined . The apparent infrared divergence of (20) is nullified444In addition, at LHC energies, the effective anomalous dimension of the gluon gives an extra suppression of the contribution from the low $`Q_{}`$ domain . for $`h(0^+)`$ production by the Sudakov factors embodied in the gluon densities $`f_g`$. However the amplitude for $`h(0^{})`$ production is much more sensitive to the infrared contribution. Indeed let us consider the case of small $`p_i`$ of the outgoing protons. Then, from (3.1), we see that $`V_{h(0^+)}Q_{}^2`$, whereas $`V_{h(0^{})}p_3p_4`$ (since the linear contribution in $`Q_{}`$ vanishes after the angular integration). Thus the $`d^2Q_{}/Q_{}^4`$ integration for $`h(0^+)`$ is replaced by $`p_3p_4d^2Q_{}/Q_{}^6`$ for $`h(0^{})`$, and now the Sudakov suppression is not enough to prevent a significant contribution from the $`Q_{}^2\stackrel{<}{}1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ domain.

### 3.2 Uncertainties

To estimate the uncertainty in the predictions for the $`h^\pm (0)`$ exclusive diffractive cross sections we first quantify the above uncertainty arising from the infrared region, where the gluon distribution is not well known. Fig. 4 shows the $`\varphi `$ dependence of $`h(0^{})`$ and $`h(0^+)`$ production at the LHC, for $`m_h=120`$ GeV and $`\mu =m_h/2`$, using different treatments of the infrared region.

The continuous and dashed curves are calculated using MRST99  and CTEQ6M  partons respectively with the very low $`Q`$ gluon frozen at its value at $`Q_{3,4}=1.3`$ GeV. Then we integrate down in $`Q_{}`$ until $`Q_{3,4}`$ are close to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, where the contribution vanishes due to the presence of the $`T`$-factor. This will slightly overestimate the cross sections as the gluon density decreases with decreasing $`Q^2`$ for $`x0.01`$. A lower extreme is to remove the contribution below $`Q_{3,4}=1.3`$ GeV entirely. The result for MRST99 partons is shown by the dotted curve in Fig. 4. Even with this extreme choice, the $`0^+`$ cross section is not changed greatly; it is depleted by about 20%. On the other hand, as anticipated, we see for $`0^{}`$ production, the infrared region is much more important and the cut reduces the cross section by a factor of 5.

Another uncertainty is the choice of factorization scale $`\mu `$. Note that in comparison with previous calculations , which were done in the limit of proton transverse momenta, $`p_{3,4}Q_{}`$, now we include the explicit $`p_{}`$-dependence in the $`Q_{}`$-loop integral of (20). Moreover, we resum the ‘soft’ gluon logarithms, $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/(1z)`$, in the $`T`$-factor.555To account for the interference and the precise form of the amplitude for soft gluon ($`q_{}m_h`$) large-angle emission, we explicitly calculate the one-loop virtual correction to the $`ggh`$ vertex, integrating over the whole angular range for $`q_{}m_h`$. We adjust the upper limit of the $`z`$-integral so that $`z<0.62m_h/(0.62m_h+q_{})`$ in the expression for the $`T`$-factor (see eq. (10) of  with $`k_t=q_{}`$), in order to reproduce the complete one-loop result. So now the $`T`$-factor includes both the single soft logarithms and the single collinear logarithms. The only uncertainty is the non-logarithmic NLO contribution. This may be modelled by changing the factorization scale, $`\mu `$, which fixes the maximal $`q_{}`$ of the gluon in the NLO loop correction. As the default we have used $`\mu =m_h/2`$; that is the largest $`q_{}`$ allowed in the process with total energy $`m_h`$. Choosing a lower scale $`\mu =m_h/4`$ would enlarge the cross sections by about 30%.

Next there is some uncertainty in the gluon distribution itself. To illustrate this, we compare predictions obtained using CTEQ6M , MRST99  and MRST02  partons. For $`0^+`$ production at the LHC, with $`m_h=120`$ GeV and $`\mu =m_h/2`$, we find that the effective gluon–gluon luminosity, before screening, is

$$\frac{d}{dyd\mathrm{ln}M^2}|_{y=0}=(2.2,1.7,1.45)\times 10^2$$
(23)
respectively. This spread of values arises because the CTEQ gluon is 7% higher, and the MRST02 gluon 4% lower, than the default MRST99 gluon, in the relevant kinematic region. The sensitivity to the gluon arises because the central exclusive diffractive cross section is proportional to the 4th power of the gluon. For $`0^{}`$ production, the corresponding numbers are $`(4.2,2.7,1.7)\times 10^5`$. Up to now, we have discussed the effective gluon–gluon luminosity. However, NNLO corrections may occur in the $`ggh`$ fusion vertex. These give an extra uncertainty of $`\pm 20\%`$. Note that we have already accounted for the NLO corrections for this vertex .

Finally, we need to consider the uncertainty in the evaluation of the soft rescattering correction factor $`S^2`$, which is the probability that the rapidity gaps survive the soft $`pp`$ interaction. The computation of $`S^2`$ is discussed in some detail in Section 4. Here it suffices to say, from the analysis  of all soft $`pp`$ data, that a conservative error on the values of $`S^2`$ is $`\pm 50\%`$.

Combining together all these sources of error we find that the prediction for the $`0^+`$ cross section is uncertain to a factor of almost 2.5, that is up to almost 2.5, and down almost to $`1/2.5`$, times the default value.666For example, we predict the cross section for the exclusive diffractive production of a Standard Model Higgs at the LHC, with $`m_h=120`$ GeV, to be in the range 0.9–5.5 fb. On the other hand, $`0^{}`$ production is uncertain by this factor just from the first (infrared) source of error, with the remaining errors contributing almost another factor of 2.5. Although the rate of $`h(0^{})`$ production is very sensitive to the infrared contribution, and could indicate the presence of a significant non-perturbative contribution, we find that the form of the $`\varphi `$ dependence is not. We discuss this point in Section 5.

Note that the non-local structure of the amplitude leads to an extra angular dependence coming from the correlations between $`\stackrel{}{Q}_{}`$ and the $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ in the integral in (20). In fact, expanding the gluon propagators gives corrections of the type

$$\stackrel{}{Q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_3/Q_{}^2,\stackrel{}{Q}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_4/Q_{}^2,$$
(24)
which lead to an additional contribution of the form $`\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4/Q_{}^2`$. This reflects the dependence of the vertex factors $`f_{0^\pm }`$ on $`\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4`$, see (14) and (15). However, it is evident from Fig. 4 that this contribution does not give a large effect. What is more important is the suppression of $`h(0^{})`$ production in comparison to that for $`h(0^+)`$. The $`h(0^{})`$ amplitude is proportional to $`\stackrel{}{p}_3\times \stackrel{}{p}_4`$, where the dimensions must be compensated by some scale. In perturbative QCD this is the scale $`Q_{}^2`$ arising from the gluon loop in Fig. 3(a). Therefore the $`h(0^{})`$ cross section is reduced by a factor $`p_3^2p_4^2/2Q_{}^4`$, that is by a factor of the order of 500 for typical $`p_i^21/2b0.25\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ if $`Q_{}^24\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

## 4 Absorptive corrections

In this section we consider how exclusive double-diffractive production is influenced by the absorptive (shadowing) effects, which arise from the multi-Pomeron diagrams of Fig. 2. To determine the suppression due to these absorptive corrections, it is convenient to work in impact parameter, $`b`$, space.

### 4.1 Absorptive effects for $`h(0^+)`$ production

The amplitude for the central production of an $`h(0^+)`$ state, via the double-Pomeron-exchange process $`ppp+h+p`$, has the form

$$T^h(s,\stackrel{}{b}_1,\stackrel{}{b}_2,\stackrel{}{b})=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_P(s,b^2)\right)T_{PP}^h(s_1,s_2,\stackrel{}{b}_1,\stackrel{}{b}_2),$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$ is the contribution of Pomeron exchange to elastic $`pp`$ scattering in impact parameter space

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_P(s,b^2)=\frac{\sigma _{pp}^P}{4\pi B}\mathrm{exp}(b^2/4B),$$
(26)
where $`\sigma _{pp}^P`$ is the Pomeron contribution to the total cross section of the $`pp`$ interaction, and

$$B=\frac{1}{2}B_0+\alpha _P^{}\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)$$
(27)
is the slope of the elastic $`pp`$ amplitude. The amplitude $`T_{PP}^h`$ is the Fourier transform, to impact-parameter space, of the amplitude $`T_{12}^{3h4}(s_1,s_2,\stackrel{}{p}_3,\stackrel{}{p}_4)`$ of (1) with $`i=k=P`$. That is

$$T_{PP}^h(s_1,s_2,\stackrel{}{b}_1,\stackrel{}{b}_2)=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)^2d^2p_3d^2p_4e^{i\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{b}_1}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}_4\stackrel{}{b}_2}T_{PP}^h(s_1,s_2,\stackrel{}{p}_3,\stackrel{}{p}_4),$$
(28)
where $`\stackrel{}{b}=\stackrel{}{b}_1+\stackrel{}{b}_2`$ is the Fourier conjugate to $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4`$. For simplicity, we give the formula for a single-channel eikonal, where only intermediate proton states are considered, between the Pomeron exchanges in Fig. 2. The extension to the multichannel case is straightforward. In the calculations presented here we used the two-channel eikonal model of Ref. .

Note that if $`\alpha _P(0)1\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P(s,b^2)`$ increases with energy and leads to a substantial suppression of cross section at very high energies. Calculations, using the model of Ref. , show that at Tevatron energies the Born cross section, corresponding to the diagram of Fig. 1(b), is suppressed by the multi-Pomeron exchanges of Fig. 2 by a factor of roughly 0.05. At the LHC the suppression factor777It is interesting to note that the introduction of the $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ and angular correlations in (20), (3.1) raise $`S^2`$ from 0.023 to 0.026. $`S^2`$ is 0.026.

Since the amount of suppression depends on the impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$, it leads to a characteristic dependence of the factor $`S^2`$ on the angle $`\varphi `$ between the outgoing protons . This is related to the fact that $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is the Fourier conjugate to the vector $`\stackrel{}{q}=\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4`$. If the outgoing protons are tagged, then the characteristic peripheral form of the amplitude $`T^h`$ in $`\stackrel{}{b}`$-space can be studied experimentally in double-Pomeron-exchange processes by measuring the dependence of the cross section on $`\stackrel{}{q}`$.

We emphasize that the suppression $`S^2`$, due to absorptive or rescattering corrections, depends not only on the particular process, but also on the kinematical cuts which select events in a given $`p_i,\varphi `$ domain. Therefore the suppression $`S^2`$ has to be calculated for each particular kinematical configuration.

### 4.2 Comparison of exclusive diffractive $`h(0^\pm )`$ Higgs production

So far we have discussed absorptive corrections for $`h(0^+)`$ production. Here we compare these corrections with those for $`h(0^{})`$ production. For $`h(0^{})`$ production we predict a different $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ behaviour. This originates from (15); the Born double-Pomeron-exchange amplitude for process (1) now contains the kinematical factor $`(\stackrel{}{p}_3\times \stackrel{}{p}_4)\stackrel{}{n}_0`$ and this, in turn, implies that the Fourier transform contains the factor $`(\stackrel{}{b}_1\times \stackrel{}{b}_2)\stackrel{}{n}_0`$. Thus the corresponding amplitude $`T_{PP}^{h(0^{})}(s_1,s_2,\stackrel{}{b}_1,\stackrel{}{b}_2)`$ tends to zero as $`\stackrel{}{b}_1`$ or $`\stackrel{}{b}_20`$. As a result, the suppression arising from rescattering is less effective, and the factor $`S^2`$ is larger than for $`h(0^+)`$ production. Also the $`\varphi `$ distribution is distorted due to absorption.

The effect of the absorptive corrections on the angular correlations $`\varphi `$ between the outgoing protons was discussed in detail in Ref.  for $`h(0^+)`$ production888Note that there is a typographical error in eq. (25) of , where the last factor should be simply $`S^2`$ rather than its second derivative. However the results presented in  correspond to the correct definition of $`F`$.. There it was shown that the absorptive corrections are largest in the back-to-back configuration where $`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$ is directed against $`\stackrel{}{p}_4`$, since in this case both $`t_1(\stackrel{}{k}_{}+\stackrel{}{p}_3)^2`$ and $`t_2(\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{p}_4)^2`$ can be minimized simultaneously by the same momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ transferred in the elastic rescattering, see Fig. 3(b). Thus for $`\varphi =180^{}`$ the momentum is transferred mainly through the rescattering amplitude. The suppression factor $`S^2`$ was plotted versus $`\varphi `$ for different choices of $`p_3`$ and $`p_4`$ in Ref. . It was shown that the diffractive dip (which arises from the maximum cancellation between the bare amplitude and rescattering contribution) moves to smaller $`\varphi `$ as the values of $`p_i`$ are increased.

Here we calculate $`S^2`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$ for $`h(0^{})`$, as well as $`h(0^+)`$, exclusive diffractive production. We integrate over the $`p_i`$ of the outgoing protons assuming an $`\mathrm{exp}(b(p_3^2+p_4^2))`$ behaviour of the Pomeron-proton vertices $`g_{13}`$ and $`g_{24}`$, with $`b=2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. We use the two-channel eikonal model of Ref. . For the central vertex we take $`(\stackrel{}{p}_3\times \stackrel{}{p}_4)\stackrel{}{n}_0`$ for $`h(0^{})`$ production and a constant for $`h(0^+)`$ production. The results for the suppression factor $`S^2`$ are shown in Fig. 5 for $`h(0^\pm )`$ production of mass 120 GeV at the LHC energy, $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV.

As the azimuthal angle between $`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_4`$ increases, the first diffractive dip, followed by the second maximum, are evident in the $`S^2`$ curves obtained by integrating over all $`p_i`$. The dotted curves show the effect of restricting the outgoing protons to the domain $`p_i<0.35\mathrm{GeV}`$. As expected, the diffractive dip is pushed to larger angles and is barely reached even for the back-to-back configuration, $`\varphi =180^{}`$. As we see from Fig. 5 that the survival factor $`S^2`$ is about 3–4 times larger for $`h(0^{})`$ as compared to $`h(0^+)`$ production. This is a reflection of the more peripheral nature of $`h(0^{})`$ production. For the same reason the suppression $`S^2`$ obtained when integrating over the small $`p_i`$ domain, $`p_i<0.35\mathrm{GeV}`$, is less than when integrating over all $`p_i`$, since it is more weighted to the larger values of the impact parameter $`b`$.

Finally in Fig. 6 we show the predictions for the effective luminosity with the absorptive effects included. The original $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ and constant behaviours of $`h(0^{})`$ and $`h(0^+)`$, respectively, are distorted first by the $`\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4/Q^2`$ type corrections from the integration over the gluon loop in Fig. 4, and then by the absorptive effects given by the suppression factors $`S^2`$ shown in Fig. 5.

## 5 Consequences for signals in the Higgs sector

We have studied the central exclusive diffractive production of bosons via the process $`ppp+h+p`$, and emphasized that correlations between the outgoing proton momenta reflect the spin-parity of $`h`$. As a topical example to illustrate these properties we compared $`h(0^+)`$ and $`A(0^{})h(0^{})`$ Higgs production. In particular, Fig. 6 shows that the dependence on the angle $`\varphi `$ between the outgoing proton transverse momenta, $`\stackrel{}{p}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_4`$, is different for the natural ($`0^+`$) and unnatural ($`0^{}`$) parity states of $`h`$. The comparison with Fig. 4 shows that absorptive effects have significantly distorted the $`\varphi `$ distributions and, in fact, have increased the difference between the $`0^+`$ and $`0^{}`$ distributions. Thus this distribution provides a unique possibility to distinguish between $`0^+`$ and $`0^{}`$ bosons, which, in the case of inclusive production999A proposal, similar in spirit to our approach, can be found in Ref. . The idea is to determine the CP-parity of a Higgs boson by measuring the azimuthal correlations of the tagging (quark) jets which accompany Higgs production via the vector-boson-fusion mechanism. Even if we disregard the possible degradation of the characteristic features of the distribution caused by parton showers and the inclusive environment of the jets, we note that the method is not applicable in some important regions where the couplings of the Higgs to vector bosons are strongly suppressed. Another method to determine the spin-parity of the Higgs, which similarly relies on the vector-boson coupling, was discussed in Ref. ., is extremely difficult.

We have seen that the amplitude for the production of unnatural parity ($`P=(1)^{J+1}`$) states contains a factor $`(\stackrel{}{p}_3\times \stackrel{}{p}_4)\stackrel{}{n}_0`$. Thus the cross section vanishes as $`p_3`$ or $`p_40`$ and vanishes as $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ as $`\varphi 0`$ or $`\pi `$. These properties may be used to suppress the cross section for natural parity ($`P=(1)^J`$) production in comparison to that of unnatural parity states. In particular, selecting events with $`p_3,p_4>0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`20^{}<\varphi <120^{}`$ suppresses the $`0^+`$ yield by about a factor of 10, while only decreasing the $`0^{}`$ cross section by a factor of 2.3. The relative $`0^{}`$ enhancement may be important as the cross section for the central exclusive production of an $`A(0^{})`$ boson is quite small, and moreover, in many supersymmetric scenarios, the $`h(0^+)`$ (and/or $`H(0^+)`$) and $`A(0^{})`$ bosons are close in mass.

As a specific example we consider Higgs production in the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_A110`$–130 GeV. In this domain the branching ratios of Higgs-like bosons to vector bosons and photon pairs101010The branching ratios of $`h,H,A\gamma \gamma `$ are less than, or of the order of, $`10^5`$$`10^4`$, which is much smaller than in the SM., and the couplings to top quarks, are much suppressed , and it becomes problematic to perform a complete coverage of the Higgs boson sector using the conventional inclusive processes. In particular the problem of resolving the signals for different states becomes quite challenging111111The separation of $`h`$ and $`H`$ bosons may be especially difficult for inclusive signals, where the mass resolution is usually $`\mathrm{\Delta }m\stackrel{>}{}10\mathrm{GeV}`$, except in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and probably $`\mu \mu `$ modes. However, with forward proton taggers, the exclusive signal has the added bonus that a mass resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m1\mathrm{GeV}`$ may be obtained .. On the contrary the cross section, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{CEP}}`$, for central exclusive diffractive production in the MSSM is enhanced in comparison with that of the SM. The MSSM (for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$) and SM cross sections, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{CEP}}`$, at the LHC energy, are shown in Fig. 7.

They have been evaluated using the effective $`gg`$ luminosities obtained in Section 3 with the absorptive corrections calculated in Section 4.2, see Fig. 6. The normalization factor in (20) is

$$N^2=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(hgg)}{(N_c^21)^2m_H^3}K,$$
(29)
where the NLO $`K`$ factor $`1.5`$  and the number of colours $`N_c=3`$. The widths and properties of the Higgs scalar ($`h,H`$) and pseudoscalar ($`A`$) bosons are calculated using the HDECAY code, version 3.0 , with all other parameters taken from Table 2 of ; also we take $`\mathrm{IMODEL}=4`$, which means the radiative corrections are included according to Ref. .

From Fig. 7 we see that the $`0^+`$ Higgs bosons should be accessible at the LHC, via the central exclusive signal, over a wide mass range up to about 250 GeV in this scenario. The enhancement of the MSSM signals is clearly apparent, except near $`m_h127\mathrm{GeV}`$. For example, for the production of a Higgs boson of mass 115 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ (or 50) we have

$$\mathrm{Br}(hb\overline{b})\sigma _{\mathrm{CEP}}^{h(0^+)}20(70)\mathrm{fb},$$
(30)
about 10 (40) times larger than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{CEP}}`$ in the SM.

For the same parameters, for $`A(0^{})`$ production we obtain

$$\mathrm{Br}(Ab\overline{b})\sigma _{\mathrm{CEP}}^{A(0^{})}0.2(0.5)\mathrm{fb}.$$
(31)
However we have emphasized the infrared sensitivity of the rate of $`A(0^{})`$ production. It is possible that a non-perturbative contribution, coming from low values of $`Q_{}`$ in (20), may enhance the cross section by a factor of 3 or more. Nevertheless it would be extremely hard to observe the $`A(0^{})`$ boson under the $`h(0^+)`$ signal, when the masses are close. A typical mass difference is $`m_Am_h2.9`$ (1.4) GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ (50), if $`m_A=115\mathrm{GeV}`$. The situation for the observation of the $`A(0^{})`$ boson is even worse due to the comparatively large expected widths of the Higgs bosons. For instance, if $`m_A90130\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, then the widths of the Higgs bosons become of order 2 GeV . On the other hand, proton taggers, with a very accurate missing mass resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M1\mathrm{GeV}`$, offer the attractive possibility, not only to separate the $`h`$ and $`H`$ bosons, but also to provide a direct measurement of the widths of the $`h`$ (for $`m_h\stackrel{<}{}120\mathrm{GeV}`$) and the $`H`$ bosons (if $`m_H\stackrel{>}{}130\mathrm{GeV}`$). Also we note that by comparing the cross sections of (30) and (31), we see that if a new heavy object were observed in inelastic events, but not in exclusive central production, it would indicate that it had unnatural parity.

Although the rate of $`A(0^{})`$ Higgs production is sensitive to contributions from the infrared region, we do not expect a significant change in the qualitative behaviour of the $`0^{}`$ production amplitude. The reasons are as follows. First, the vanishing of the amplitude as $`p_i0`$ and/or $`\varphi 0,\pi `$ follows from the general form (15) of the vertex in Regge theory. Second, as a rule the extra $`\varphi `$ dependence caused by the $`\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4`$ term is weak, see Fig. 4 for example. Third, in the very extreme case where we use GRV94 partons  (which enable us to take a very low infrared cut-off $`Q_0^2=0.4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, but which are known to overestimate significantly the low $`x`$ gluon), the $`0^{}`$ Higgs cross section is enhanced, relative to that obtained using MRST99 partons with $`Q_0=1.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, by about a factor of 4, but the $`\varphi `$ and $`p_i`$ dependences are essentially unaltered.

Returning to $`h(0^+)`$ production, we see, for the example of (30), that already for an LHC luminosity $`=30\mathrm{fb}^1`$, about 600 (2000) bosons are produced. If the experimental cuts and efficiencies quoted in Ref.  are imposed, then the signal is depleted by about a factor of 6. This leaves about 100 (400) observable events, with an unaltered background of about 3 events  in a $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=1\mathrm{GeV}`$ missing mass bin; which gives an incredible significance for a Higgs signal!

## Acknowledgements

We thank Abdelhak Djouadi, Howie Haber, Leif Lonnblad, Risto Orava, Albert de Roeck and Georg Weiglein for valuable discussions. ABK and MGR would like to thank the IPPP at the University of Durham for hospitality. This work was supported by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, by grants INTAS 00-00366, RFBR 01-02-17383 and 01-02-17095, and by the Federal Program of the Russian Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology 40.052.1.1.1112 and SS-1124.2003.2.