text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

With the announcement of the discovery of Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) at the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) at CERN , the experimental heavy ion program moves now to the higher energies of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Whether this claim can be considered conclusive or not (see e.g. ), the most compelling experimental findings at the SPS  are interpreted as positive signatures of QGP only when conventional, non-QGP models fail to reproduce them. Therefore, even in the case that QGP has already been obtained, it is most important that conventional models employed at the SPS become generalized for RHIC and LHC: They can be used to describe collisions between less massive nuclei or more peripheral events than those in which QGP is expected, and to establish the background to events with QGP production.

On the other hand, the situation with conventional models is not clear at all. The description of a high energy collision between heavy ions is a complex task which involves different physical aspects. Predictions from different models for RHIC and LHC are far from being compatible, see the reviews  and . For example, the values for central rapidity densities of charged particles coming from different models lie in the ranges $`600÷1500`$ for central AuAu collisions at RHIC and $`2000÷8000`$ for central PbPb collisions at LHC.

In this paper a non-QGP model for collisions between nucleons or nuclei in the energy range going from SPS energies ($`20`$ GeV per nucleon in the center of mass) to LHC energies (5.5 TeV per nucleon in the center of mass) is presented (different steps in this direction can be found in ). The model is based on the ideas of Dual Parton Model (DPM)  or Quark-Gluon String Model (QGSM) , considering both soft and semihard components on a partonic level. These elementary partonic collisions lead to the formation of color strings. Collectivity is taken into account considering the possibility of strings in color representations higher than triplet or antitriplet, by means of string fusion, as done in  (see related approaches in ). String breaking leads to the production of secondaries. In this form, the model can be used as initial condition for subsequent evolution using a transport model, as those of . Nevertheless, in order to tune the parameters of the model and apply it to nucleus-nucleus collisions, rescattering between secondaries is considered on the basis of $`22`$ collisions, using a very simple model which allows us just to estimate the effects of such process. The results of the code turn out to agree reasonably with existing experimental data on total multiplicities, and longitudinal and transverse momentum distributions, and semiquantitatively with strangeness production and stopping power.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 string formation will be discussed, both for soft and semihard components, whose separation will be established. Also in this Section collectivity, considered as string interaction or fusion, will be presented. Hadronization of the produced strings will be formulated in Section 3. In Section 4 our simple approach to rescattering between secondaries will be presented. A comparison with experimental data will be done in Section 5, and predictions for RHIC and LHC shown in Section 6, together with some discussion on the first RHIC data . In the last Section we will summarize our conclusions and briefly compare with other approaches.

## 2 Initial stage

### 2.1 Elementary partonic collisions

To compute the number of elementary partonic collisions we have to generate the partonic wave functions of the colliding hadrons. The steps to generate this wave function for the projectile $`A`$ and target $`B`$ are the following: First, the impact parameter $`b`$ of the collision is generated uniformly between 0 and $`R_A+R_B`$ (in the case of nucleons, the total cross section determines the corresponding radius).

Second, the nuclear wave function is computed. Nucleon positions inside the nucleus are distributed in transverse space according to a Woods-Saxon distribution for $`A>11`$,

$$\rho (r)\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}[(rr_n)/a]},$$
(1)
with $`r_n=1.07A^{1/3}`$ fm and $`a=0.545`$ fm, and according to a Gaussian distribution for $`A11`$, with parameters chosen for each nucleus . Then, Fermi motion is given to the nucleons in the nuclei uniformly in the range $`0<p<p_F`$, with the maximum Fermi momentum given in the local Thomas-Fermi approximation  by

$$p_F=h[3\pi \rho (r)]^{1/3},$$
(2)
with $`h=0.197`$ fm GeV/c.

Now partons are generated inside each nucleon. Its number is given by a Poisson distribution ,

$$W_N\mathrm{exp}(g(s)C/2)\frac{[Cg(s)/2]^N}{CN!/2},g(s)=g_0s^{\mathrm{\Delta }/2},g_0=\frac{8\pi \gamma _P}{\sigma _P},$$
(3)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.139`$ the pomeron intercept minus 1, $`C=3.0`$ the quasieikonal parameter which takes into account low mass nucleon dissociation, $`\gamma _P=1.77`$ GeV2 the pomeron-nucleon vertex, $`\sigma _P=3.3`$ mb the parton-parton cross section and $`\sqrt{s}`$ the center of mass energy for each nucleon-nucleon collision.

Parton positions in transverse space (inside a nucleon) are given by a Gaussian according to Regge theory,

$$F(b)=\frac{1}{4\pi \lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b^2}{4\lambda }\right),\lambda =R_0^2+\alpha ^{}\mathrm{ln}s,$$
(4)
with $`R_0^2=3.18`$ GeV2 and $`\alpha ^{}=0.21`$ GeV2 the pomeron slope.

Now, one parton from the projectile and one from the target produce an inelastic collision if both are within an area in impact parameter equal to $`\sigma _P=2\pi r_P^2`$, $`r_P=0.23`$ fm. In this way, events with no inelastic collisions are elastic, while those with at least one inelastic collision are inelastic. Taking the total cross section given by the quasieikonal model

$$\sigma _{tot}=\sigma _Pf(z/2),z=\frac{C\gamma _Ps^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\lambda },f(z)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(z)^{k1}}{kk!},$$
(5)
all cross sections can be computed, see next Subsection (all formulae reduce to the usual eikonal ones with $`C=2`$).

### 2.2 Semihard component

The inclusion of semihard components, in the form of a two-component model, is needed to reproduce the $`p_T`$ spectra in hadronic collisions, see Section 5. In the model this is performed considering that an inelastic collision is hard with probability

$$W_h=\frac{C_h(ss_0)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_h}}{C_h(ss_0)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_h}+s^\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_h=0.50`$, $`\sqrt{s_0}=25`$ GeV and $`C_h=0.0035`$. A hard collision proceeds through the packages PYTHIA 5.5 + ARIADNE 4.02 + JETSET 7.3 . Only gluon-gluon collisions are included in PYTHIA, and the key parameter here is the cut-off in transverse momentum

$$p_{Tmin}=3.03+0.11\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}.$$
(7)
The minimum energy for an elementary collision to be accepted by PYTHIA is 20 GeV, and for the global collision the minimum center of mass energy per nucleon is $`\sqrt{s_0}=25`$ GeV. An event is considered hard if at least one of its inelastic elementary collisions successfully proceeds through PYTHIA.

While the concrete choice of the parameters in $`p_{Tmin}`$ comes from a fit to experimental data, let us make some comments on its functional form. In our case, an increase of $`p_{Tmin}`$ with increasing energy makes possible a smooth transition from the soft to the semihard part of the $`p_T`$ spectrum. Usually $`p_{Tmin}`$ is taken as either constant or increasing as a polynomial of a logarithm of $`s`$ . It may be argued that the $`p_{Tmin}`$ value which indicates the transition from nonperturbative to perturbative QCD (pQCD), is related with the proposed saturation scale $`Q_s^2`$ : below this $`Q_s^2`$, the number of partons in the hadron wave function cannot grow, as new partons fuse with the existing ones and cannot be resolved individually. Nevertheless, apart from conceptual differences, the dependences of $`p_{Tmin}`$ and $`Q_s^2`$ are not the same: while the first depends only on energy, the second one also depends on the size of the colliding objects ($`Q_s^2A^\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1/3÷2/3`$).

Results of the model for the total, inelastic (production) and hard cross sections in pp and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions at different energies are shown in Fig. 1 and compared with experimental data for the total cross section . It can be observed that both the total and the production cross section are too small at low energies, while they get reasonable values at higher energies. The reasons for the existing discrepancies are three: In first place, diffraction is not properly included in the model, so it is difficult to distinguish between production and inelastic cross sections. In second place, no reggeon contribution (decreasing with energy) has been included. In third place, at the level of the cross sections no distinction is made between nucleons and antinucleons as projectiles and targets. These two last reasons should improve the agreement with data at energies of SPS and Intersecting Storage Rings (ISR). Also in this Figure it is shown the value of $`p_{Tmin}`$ and the mean number of total and hard inelastic collisions per event.

### 2.3 String formation and fusion

Each soft parton-parton collision gives rise to two strings , stretched either between valence quarks and diquarks (for the first collision suffered by a nucleon) or sea quarks and antiquarks (for the subsequent ones). For the latter, their flavors follow the ratio $`u:d:s=1:1:0.26`$. Hard collisions proceed through PYTHIA as $`gggg`$. For the string ends and hard gluons, the longitudinal momentum fractions are distributed as

$$L(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)=f_{qq}(x_1)f_q(x_2)\mathrm{}f_q(x_n),\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_k=1.$$
(8)
For soft strings ends, the individual momentum distributions are those of the QGSM ,

$$f_{qq}(x)=x^{3/2},f_{q(\overline{q})}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}},$$
(9)
with a lower cut-off $`x_{min}=0.3\mathrm{GeV}/\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ to ensure that the strings have mass enough to be projected onto hadrons, $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ being the center of mass energy per nucleon.

For partons involved in hard collisions, the longitudinal momentum fractions are taken by PYTHIA from PDFLIB , with the possibility of considering the difference of parton distributions inside nuclei given by the parametrization EKS98  or by a parametrization as $`F_{2A}`$ . After generating the final gluons, each of them splits into a $`(q\overline{q})`$ pair and strings are stretched between them, according with the standard procedure in PYTHIA .

The transverse momentum of both partons at the string ends and hard partons, coming from a nucleon which has been wounded $`m`$ times, is given by a Gaussian:

$$T(p_{})=\frac{1}{\pi \delta ^2}\mathrm{exp}(p_{}^2/\delta ^2),\delta =0.5\sqrt{m}\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c};$$
(10)
in this way, $`p_T`$-broadening is taken into account .

The number of strings exchanged in one collision is quite low for nucleon-nucleon collisions, but this number increases with energy, size of projectile and target and centrality of the collisions. Strings can be viewed as objects with a certain area, given by the uncertainty relation as $`1/p_T^2`$, in the transverse plane of the collision. When the number of strings is high enough, they begin to overlap and the usual hypothesis in QGSM or DPM of the strings being independent sources of secondary particles is expected to break down. A possible way of considering this is to compute the density of strings in the transverse plane and use two-dimensional percolation as an indicator of the onset of collectivity . Percolation takes place when domains of overlapping strings acquire a size of the order of the total available size for the collision.

While percolation is a second order phase transition, the option we use in this model, fusion of strings, does not lead to any phase transition . In the model, ordinary strings (i.e. in a triplet representation of SU(3)) fuse111A similar mechanism exists in RQMD , called color ropes. in pairs when their parent partons (those which determined the inelastic collision the strings come from) are within a certain area $`\sigma _{fus}=2\pi r_{fus}^2`$ in impact parameter space. In the code we consider only fusion of two strings but there is a probability of fusion of more than two. An effective way of taking this into account is to increase the cross section for the fusion of two strings, for which we will take $`\sigma _P<\sigma _{fus}=7.5`$ mb ($`r_{fus}=0.35`$ fm). This value is crucial to reproduce the strangeness enhancement in central SS and SAg collisions at SPS . The fusion can take place only when the rapidity intervals of the strings overlap. It is formally described by allowing partons to interact several times, the number of interactions being the same both for projectile and target.

The quantum numbers of the fused strings are determined by the interacting partons and their energy-momentum is the sum of the energy-momenta of their ancestor strings. The color charge of the resulting string ends is obtained according to the SU(3) composition laws:

$$\{3\}\{3\}=\{6\}\{\overline{3}\},\{3\}\{\overline{3}\}=\{1\}\{8\}.$$
(11)
Thus, two triplet strings fuse into either a sextet or an antitriplet string with probabilities 2/3 and 1/3 respectively, and one triplet and one antitriplet string fuse into either a singlet or an octet string with probabilities 1/9 and 8/9 respectively.

Two comments are in order: On the one hand and as written above, the fusion of strings means nothing related to a phase transition. On the contrary, percolation of strings  is a non-thermal second order phase transition. In this case, the key parameter is $`\eta =\pi r^2N/(\pi R_A^2)`$, which is the density of strings $`N/(\pi R_A^2)`$ (number of strings $`N`$ produced in the overlapping area of the collision, $`\pi R_A^2`$ for central collisions) times the transverse size of one string $`\pi r^2`$. The critical point for percolation is $`\eta _c1.12÷1.5`$ depending on the profile function of the colliding nuclei . With $`r0.2÷0.25`$ fm, this critical value means $`6÷12`$ strings/fm2. The value of 9 is reached in central PbPb collisions at SPS, in central AgAg collisions at RHIC and in central SS collisions at LHC. We expect for $`\eta `$ around or greater than $`\eta _c`$, that the approximation of fusion of just two strings fails. On the other hand, only fusion of soft strings is considered. Hard strings are not fused, their area being proportional to $`1/p_T^2`$. Some effect of the fusion of such strings could appear at LHC energies where, for instance, in central PbPb collisions they amount for 32 % of the binary nucleon-nucleon collisions.

## 3 Hadronization

Now we consider the breaking of a soft string with color charges $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ in its ends (corresponding to a representation $`\{N\}`$ of SU(3)). In our model, it is due to the production of two (anti)quark complexes with the same color charges $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ as those at the ends of the string 222This possibility is the dominant one for strings formed by fusion of two triplet strings . For higher color representations, production of quark complexes with color charges $`Q^{}<Q`$ begins to dominate. This option is taken in RQMD ; nevertheless, the close similarities in the consequences of string fusion in both approaches, strongly suggest that the difference in the breaking mechanism can be compensated by a different choice of the fragmentation parameters.. The probability rate is given by the Schwinger formula

$$WK_{\{N\}}^2\mathrm{exp}(\pi M_T^2/K_{\{N\}}),$$
(12)
where $`K_{\{N\}}`$ is the string tension for the $`\{N\}`$ representation, proportional to the corresponding quadratic Casimir operator $`C_{\{N\}}^2`$ (as found both in lattice QCD and in the Stochastic Vacuum Model ), i.e.

$$K_{\{N\}}=K_{\{3\}}\frac{C_{\{N\}}^2}{C_{\{3\}}^2},C_{\{3\}}^2=4/3,C_{\{6\}}^2=10/3,C_{\{8\}}^2=3.$$
(13)
For the longitudinal breaking of the string, an invariant area law  is employed,

$$P\mathrm{exp}(bA),K_{\{N\}}bC_{\{N\}}^2,A=p_+p_{}$$
(14)
being the area in light-cone momentum space determined by the breaking point in the center of mass frame of the string. This law gives results quite similar to those of the Lund model  implemented in JETSET .

We proceed as follows: Eq. (12) is used to decide the flavors of the quark and antiquark complexes created. We take $`K_{\{3\}}=0.18`$ GeV2 and $`m_u=m_d=0.23`$ GeV/c2, $`m_s=0.35`$ GeV/c2, and the masses of a complex $`(q_1\mathrm{}q_l)`$ is given by $`M(q_1\mathrm{}q_l)=_{i=1}^lm_{qi}`$. Then $`p_T`$ is given to one of the created complexes and $`p_T`$ to the other one, according to a Gaussian law

$$f(p_T^2)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha _{\{N\}}p_T^2),$$
(15)
with $`\alpha _{\{3\}}=\alpha _{\{\overline{3}\}}=4`$ GeV-2 and

$$\alpha _{\{N\}}=2\alpha _{\{3\}}\frac{C_{\{3\}}^2}{C_{\{N\}}^2},\{N\}\{3\},\{\overline{3}\}.$$
(16)
Finally a breaking point is sampled according to Eq. (14) in the available phase space, with $`b=1.83`$ GeV-2.

Fragmentation proceeds in an iterative way: String fragments are taken as new strings which are broken again, until the mass of the created fragments is too low to allow further breaking (i.e. projection onto hadrons with the right quantum numbers). Then these final fragments (and those fused strings resulting in the singlet $`\{1\}`$ representation) are treated as quark clusters and decayed according to combinatorics and phase space. Spin of the produced particles is constructed according to SU(2) considerations.

The main consequences of string fusion are a strong reduction of multiplicities (both due to the energy-momentum conservation and to the reduction of the effective number of sources of secondaries) and a slight increase of $`p_T^2`$ , an increase in baryon and strangeness production , a strong increase in the cumulative effect  and a decrease in forward-backward correlations .

On the other hand, strings produced in hard collisions (only $`gggg`$) are managed by PYTHIA + ARIADNE + JETSET 333Although it is not relevant for the generation of momenta of final gluons, in PYTHIA and JETSET the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ has been taken from the corresponding set of parton densities for 5 flavors.. For ARIADNE, PARA(6) is fixed so as the transverse momentum of the radiated gluon should be less than that of the hard gluon (i.e. the one participating in the $`gg`$ scattering) and MSTA(9)=MSTA(14)= MSTA(31)=0. In JETSET, PARJ(41)=1.7 GeV-2 and PARJ(42)=0.6 GeV-2; besides, PARJ(21)=0.55 GeV/c. Only production of three flavors (u,d,s) is considered in the present implementation of the model, so it cannot be used to study production of heavier flavors (some steps in this direction were done in ). As a last point, MSTU(4), MSTU(5) and the dimensions in LUJETS have been set to 120000, which has shown to be enough for central PbPb collisions at LHC. All the other parameters and options in these programs have been set to their default values.

## 4 Rescattering of secondaries

As stated in the Introduction, in this stage the model can be used as an initial condition for further evolution, using either a hydrodynamical model or a microscopic transport as RQMD , UrQMD , HSD , ART ,$`\mathrm{}`$ (see  for a study of evolution of particle and energy densities). Nevertheless, it is usually assumed that the enhancement of hyperons, antihyperons and $`\varphi `$’s observed in heavy ion experiments at SPS  cannot be fully explained by using exclusively a mechanism which goes beyond the independent string hypothesis, as string fusion  or baryon junction migration . In order to reproduce these experimental features rescattering of particles in the hadron gas (produced particles among themselves and with spectator nucleons)  has been introduced in many models. To tune the code and study nucleus-nucleus collisions, we will make a very simple rescattering model with no space-time evolution, fitted to SPS data. Results of this approach will be presented, but one must keep in mind that predictions which depend critically on rescattering effects should be taken with much care.

Our implementation of rescattering is extremely naif, trying not to solve the full Boltzmann transport equation for all particles but only to make a model, as simple as possible, which gives us an estimation of which effects such rescattering would produce. Neither formation time nor space-time evolution of secondaries are properly considered; instead we require a common minimum density of particles in the rapidity bin of the considered particles, for rescattering to occur. This minimum density, $`dN/(dydp_T)|_{min}=17`$, has been chosen for rescattering not to affect results in nucleon-nucleon collisions up to the highest energies. Rapidity and $`p_T`$ distances between particles have to be lower than 1.5 units and 0.3 GeV/c respectively. Only two body reactions have been included, with inverse reactions as required by detailed balance. Spin is ignored, and rescattering takes place before resonance decay. All cross sections are taken equal for all reactions (except for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ production and nucleon annihilation).

Operationally, both products of string breaking and spectators are randomly ordered into an array $`(1,\mathrm{},N)`$. We compute the possibility of rescattering of the first element with all the others in pairs: $`(1,2)`$, $`(1,3)`$, $`(1,4)`$,$`\mathrm{}`$ If either in one of the pairs $`(1,j)`$, $`j=2,\mathrm{},N`$, rescattering (either elastic or inelastic) occurs or we reach pair $`(1,N)`$ with no kind of scattering happening, we go to element 2 and examine the pairs $`(2,1)`$, $`(2,3)`$, $`(2,4)`$,$`\mathrm{}`$ This is repeated until the pair $`(N,N1)`$ is examined. As particles produced in rescattering of the pair $`(i,j)`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$, $`ij`$, occupy the same places $`i,j`$ in the array as their ancestors, particles produced by rescattering have a chance to rescatter again.

The probability for two particles to scatter in a given inelastic channel is 7 % (except for channels involving $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s and nucleon annihilation, where it is 14 and 70 % respectively). For a given process, the probability for elastic scattering is given by the sum of those corresponding to all inelastic channels considered for these initial particles. Cross sections (probabilities) are considered energy independent, except for the trivial kinematical thresholds, and isotropic in the center of mass of the colliding secondaries and/or spectators. The considered reactions (together with those for the corresponding antiparticles)  can be classified into:

* Light pair, $`(q\overline{q})`$, annihilation to create another light pair, or light quark exchange: $`\pi N\pi N`$, $`\pi \pi \pi \pi `$, $`\pi Y\pi Y`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Xi }\pi \mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`KNKN`$ and $`KYKY`$, where $`Y=\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.
* Other considered reactions are: $`\pi NKY`$, $`\pi \pi K\overline{K}`$, $`\pi YK\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\pi \mathrm{\Xi }K\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\overline{K}N\varphi Y`$. These reactions can be classified into:

1. Light pair, $`(q\overline{q})`$, annihilation to create a $`(s\overline{s})`$ pair.
    2. Reactions with baryon exchange (that is, with three lines in the t-channel).
* Reactions with strangeness exchange: $`\overline{K}N\pi Y`$, $`\overline{K}Y\pi \mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\overline{K}\mathrm{\Xi }\pi \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`KY\varphi N`$, $`K\mathrm{\Xi }\varphi Y`$ and $`K\mathrm{\Omega }\varphi Y`$. This type of processes can produce (anti)baryons with several strange (anti)quarks and are exothermic.
* Nucleon-antinucleon annihilation into two pions: $`N\overline{N}\pi \pi `$. This type of reaction has a much larger cross section at low energies than reactions consider before; for this reason its probability has been chosen ten times larger than the others. This is also an effective way to take into account final states involving more than two pions.

To simplify, particles produced in rescattering are always projected onto the lowest spin state. Decay of resonances proceed through the usual JETSET routines, with MSTJ(22)=2, and decay of $`\pi ^0`$’s is forbidden. The results of our rescattering model on strangeness and baryon/antibaryon production can be summarized in three points: hyperon and $`\varphi `$ enhancement, antinucleon annihilation and a slight increase of stopping power (kinematical effects of our rescattering model are very small, due to the applied cuts in rapidity and transverse momentum). Besides, a slight decrease of multiplicities appears, as we will see in the next Section.

## 5 Comparison with experimental data

In order to show the quality of the choice of the parameters, in this Section we will compare the results of the code with experimental data. We will also analyze the influence of the different physical mechanisms implemented in the model. From now on and unless otherwise stated, results of the code come from its default version with string fusion, rescattering (which do not affect results in nucleon-nucleon collisions, and in pA collisions at SPS energies), and GRV 94 LO  parton densities with EKS98  nuclear corrections.

### 5.1 Hadron-hadron collisions

Results of the model for the mean numbers of produced particles in minimum bias pp collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=19.4`$ and 27.5 GeV are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively, compared with experimental data. An overall agreement can be observed. Two comments are in order: On the one hand, the influence of fusion in nucleon-nucleon collisions is tiny, apart from a slight increase in antibaryons. On the other hand, the number of both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$’s is overestimated in the model. This is due to the fact that in the model, threshold effects, important at these low energies, are treated very roughly (see further comments in the next Subsection). At higher energies the situation improves. For example, in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, the mean number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in the model is 0.56, to compare with the experimental result $`0.46\pm 0.12`$ .

In Fig. 2, rapidity and transverse momentum distributions of negative particles in minimum bias pp collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=19.4`$ GeV are shown and compared with experimental data. The result is satisfactory. In Figs. 3 and 4 pseudorapidity and transverse momentum distributions of charged particles in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ and 1800 GeV are compared with experimental data. The agreement is reasonable, although the multiplicity at 200 GeV seems to be slightly underestimated. The results of the model without semihard component are also shown in these Figs., and they do not describe the $`p_T`$ distributions, which justifies the inclusion of hard collisions. Besides, the results given for different sets of parton distributions, both old  and new  and leading order or next-to-leading order, are very similar. This fact may look surprising from a pQCD point of view. The main reason is that the cross sections and the number of inelastic collisions in our model are determined by Eqs. (3), (4), (5) and (6), which are independent of the choice of partonic distributions in PYTHIA (this is not so in other models, see e.g. ). We also think that the quite high $`p_{Tmin}`$ we use in PYTHIA, Eq. (7), and the gluon radiation and fragmentation performed by ARIADNE and JETSET, may have some influence on the fact that no difference is apparently seen in the transverse momentum distributions.

In Fig. 5, the evolution of the mean transverse momentum of charged particles is studied in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions at Sp$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$S, versus the center of mass energy and, for different particles, versus central charged multiplicity. The trend of data is reproduced and we find the agreement reasonable (this cannot be achieved without the hard component, as seen in this Figure). In Fig. 6 the topological cross section for charged particles in the central region is examined at different energies for $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions at Sp$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$S, and the agreement is also reasonable, considering that the model slightly underestimates multiplicities at 200 GeV but correctly reproduces those at 1.8 TeV, see Figs. 3 and 4.

### 5.2 Proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions

In Table 3 results of the model in pA collisions are compared with experimental data on negative multiplicities. An overall agreement is obtained. The reduction of multiplicities due to string fusion can be observed.

In Table 4, mean numbers of produced particles are compared with experimental data, for central SS collisions at SPS energies. The agreement is reasonable. Only the number of both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$’s in the model is significantly below the experimental data. The number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s is increased by both string fusion and rescattering, while that of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$’s is mainly determined by only string fusion (see results in PbPb below). Anyhow, rescattering is seen to have little effect in SS.

Let us now discuss PbPb collisions at SPS. In the last year a large excitement has arisen in the heavy ion physics community, related to the possibility of Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) already been obtained at SPS energies . In particular several signals were mentioned, which point out to the existence of QGP. Putting aside the abnormal $`J/\psi `$ suppression and the excess of dileptons found, there are three signals related to baryon and strangeness production, namely the large enhancement of the (anti)hyperon yields ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) in PbPb collisions compared to pPb, observed by the WA97  and the NA49  Collaborations444A recent reanalysis  of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ data done by the NA49 Collaboration gives yields at midrapidity which are in much closer agreement to the WA97  results than the previous analysis of NA49 .; the linear increase of the inverse exponential slope of the $`m_T`$ distributions (’temperature’) in PbPb collisions with the mass of the observed particle, except for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ; and the different behavior of the temperature between pp and AA collisions. These characteristics have been interpreted as the existence of an intrinsic freeze-out temperature and a collective hydrodynamical flow which is gradually developed: firstly, for SS collisions, and, in a more clear way, in PbPb collisions. In this Subsection we will examine some of these points using our model, together with other interesting aspects as $`\varphi `$ production , different particle ratios  and stopping power ,

In Fig. 7 we show our results for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ yields for pPb, and central PbPb collisions at SPS with four different centralities, together with the experimental data. In order to disentangle the different processes contributing, in Fig. 8 it is shown the results of the code for central ($`b3.2`$ fm) PbPb collisions without string fusion and rescattering, with string fusion, and with string fusion and rescattering. A reasonable agreement with data for PbPb is obtained, only the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s are a 40 % below the data and we have some excess of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$, see next paragraph. Similar results have been obtained in the Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics model  by a mechanism of color ropes which consider fusion of strings; also in the Ultra Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics model  and in the HIJING model  by using an ad hoc multiplicative factor in the string tension. Also the Dual Parton Model , considering the possibility of creation of diquark-antidiquark pairs in the nucleon sea, together with the inclusion of diagrams which take into account baryon junction migration , can reproduce the experimental data (for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s some rescattering has still to be added). The string fusion is the main ingredient to obtain an enhancement of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production and also to reproduce the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ data. However rescattering seems fundamental to get enough $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s.

Nevertheless, our results for pPb are higher than the data for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$; this last feature looks quite strange, as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ yields agree with data, but we overestimate both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production in pp collisions at this energy555In our opinion, the comparison of (anti)hyperon nucleus-nucleus data with those in nucleon-nucleon collisions should be taken with caution at SPS, because at this relatively low energy the nucleon-nucleon value rises sharply with increasing energy due to the $`t_{min}`$\- and delayed threshold effects , which usually are not properly implemented in models., see Table 1. As rescattering plays a minor role in minimum bias pPb collisions, this turns out to be a result of string fusion. About $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, our results are higher than the WA97 data also in PbPb, its production being mainly determined by string fusion and hardly affected by rescattering. This fact makes that our results for PbPb are really an extrapolation in the model from the value for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production in central SS collisions by the NA35 Collaboration, which was used to fix the fusion cross section $`\sigma _{fus}`$  (even so, the model underestimates $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ production in central SS, see Table 4). So, from the point of view of our model, there exists either a large $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ annihilation or a conflict between NA35 data for SS and WA97 data for PbPb and pPb.

In Fig. 9 we plot the inverse exponential slopes of the $`m_T`$ distributions for different particles, together with the WA97 experimental data666The fits have been performed in the same $`m_T`$ regions as WA97 did . For statistical reasons, we compare the slopes in the model for yields integrated over all rapidities, with experimental data taken in the central rapidity region.. A semiquantitative agreement is obtained. In particular it can be seen that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ slope does not obey the linear increase with increasing mass both in the model and in data, and that rescattering slightly increases temperatures.

About $`\varphi `$ enhancement, our integrated yields per event without fusion, with fusion, and with fusion and rescattering are 3.55, 4.20 and 5.35 respectively, in rough agreement with experimental data, $`7.6\pm 1.1`$ . In Fig. 10 the stopping power is shown, i.e. the $`p\overline{p}`$ rapidity distributions for central PbPb collisions at SPS, compared with the experimental data , together with the predictions for RHIC and LHC energies. This quantity is essentially determined by the string fusion mechanism and rescattering only plays a minor role. As discussed for strangeness enhancement, it has been pointed out that baryon junction migration  will enhance the stopping power due to diagrams additional to the usual ones of the Dual Parton Model. The inclusion of these diagrams also explains the SPS data. We have not taken into account such diagrams to avoid double counting, because in the fusion of strings they are partially included in an effective way. In Fig. 11 the antiproton rapidity distribution in central PbPb collisions is presented and compared to the experimental data ; a great suppression of the antiproton yield is seen, due to rescattering.

In Table 5 our results for the ratios between different particles are compared with the experimental data  for PbPb central collisions at SPS. We observe an overall, rough agreement with the SPS data, with some excess of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$, see Fig. 7 and comments above.

Let us emphasize that we obtain a semiquantitative agreement with the experimental data in PbPb, in three of the features advocated as signals of QGP production. We are only below data in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ production by less than a factor 2. So we think that our rescattering model, being very simple, can be useful as a tool to show the trend of such effect and at least help to tune the initial condition which can be used in transport models.

Finally, let us comment on multiplicities in PbPb collisions at SPS energies. For a centrality of 5 % (corresponding in the model to $`b3.4`$ fm), we get, for $`dN^{}/dy`$ at $`y=0`$, 265, 250 and 235 without string fusion, with string fusion, and with string fusion and rescattering respectively. Experimentally, the NA49 Collaboration gets $`196\pm 10`$ , while the WA97 Collaboration gets $`178\pm 22`$ . In view of these data the code overestimates multiplicities. On the other hand, if we compare the charged multiplicity per participant (wounded) nucleon and pseudorapidity unit at midrapidity versus the number of wounded nucleons in PbPb collisions at SPS, with data from the WA98 Collaboration , the trend of data seems to be reproduced, while their magnitude is underestimated . In Fig. 12 we show the rapidity distribution of negatives compared with NA49 data .

## 6 Predictions for RHIC and LHC

Predictions for pseudorapidity and transverse momentum distributions of charged particles in nucleon-nucleon and central nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC ($`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV per nucleon) and LHC ($`\sqrt{s}=5.5`$ and 14 TeV per nucleon for nucleus-nucleus and nucleon-nucleon collisions respectively) can be seen777About the reliability of predictions for RHIC and LHC, see comments in the last paragraph of Subsection 2.3 and in the first paragraph of Section 4. for nucleus-nucleus and nucleon-nucleon collisions respectively) in Figs. 13, 14 and 15. While at SPS the influence of string fusion on multiplicities at midrapidity is of the order $`10÷15`$ %, at RHIC it reaches a $`30÷35`$ %. In these Figures, the large influence of the hard contribution at LHC can be observed. Again, the striking fact of the small influence of parton densities appears, both in nucleon and in nuclear collisions. On the other hand, the scaling of nucleon-nucleon with the number of wounded nucleons (the Wounded Nucleon Model ) gives predictions which lie far below any of those of our model.

In Fig. 9 we plot the inverse exponential slopes of the $`m_T`$ distributions for different particles at RHIC. We see that, compared to the SPS situation, temperatures get higher in all cases, as expected.

We present our predictions for different particle ratios at RHIC and LHC in Table 6. It can be observed that our results are not very different to those of statistical models . However, strangeness enhancement in our case has nothing to do with thermal and/or chemical equilibrium. The main difference in the predictions for RHIC and LHC between the String Fusion Model and statistical models is the overall charged multiplicity, which is respectively 950 and 3100 for SFM and 1500 and 7600 for statistical models  (assuming initial temperatures of 500 and 1000 MeV for RHIC and LHC respectively). Besides, predictions for the stopping power at RHIC and LHC energies are presented in Fig. 10. Now, a pronounced dip appears at midrapidities.

Detailed discussions on first RHIC results will be given elsewhere . Here we simply compare our results with some preliminary data of the PHOBOS  and PHENIX  Collaborations at RHIC. For charged particles we obtain $`dN/d\eta _{\eta <1}=520`$ and 585 for the 6 % more central AuAu collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=56`$ and 130 GeV per nucleon respectively, to be compared with $`408\pm 12(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 30(\mathrm{syst}.)`$ and $`555\pm 12(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 35(\mathrm{syst}.)`$ ($`609\pm 1(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 37(\mathrm{syst}.)`$) in PHOBOS (PHENIX). Our prediction for $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV per nucleon with the same centrality cut is $`dN/d\eta _{\eta <1}=635`$.

## 7 Conclusions

A Monte Carlo model888The code, called psm-1.0, has been written in Fortran 77 and can be taken as an uuencoded file, containing instructions for installation and use, by anonymous ftp from ftp://ftp.uco.es/pub/fa1arpen/, or from the web sites http://www.uco.es/$`\stackrel{~}{}`$fa1arpen/ or http://fpaxp1.usc.es/phenom/, or requested from the authors. for nucleon and nuclear collisions in the energy range going from SPS to LHC has been presented. It is based on a partonic realization of Regge-Gribov and Glauber-Gribov models and its translation to strings following the DPM/QGSM ideas. A hard component is included to reproduce the high transverse momentum tail of the spectrum. Collectivity is included considering the possibility of fusion of pairs of strings. Strings are decayed in a conventional way. In order to tune the parameters of the model and apply it to collisions between nuclei, a naif model of rescattering has been introduced.

The results of the models turn out to agree reasonably with total multiplicities, and longitudinal and transverse momentum spectra in the energy range from SPS to TeVatron. The agreement with strangeness production, temperature behavior and stopping at SPS is semiquantitative.

There exist other Monte Carlo models for multiparticle production in nuclear collisions at ultrarelativistic energies (see  for a review): RQMD , UrQMD , HIJING , DPMJET , HSD , NEXUS , VNI , AMPT , LUCIFER ,$`\mathrm{}`$ Let us examine the main similarities and differences, concerning the stage before rescattering is applied. Both DPMJET and our model are realizations of the DPM/QGSM which include a hard component, but we introduce string fusion, while DPMJET considers diquark breaking diagrams. RQMD takes into account string fusion (and now UrQMD and HIJING  in a simple way), but no hard part is included either in RQMD or in UrQMD. The main difference with HIJING lies in the soft component, which is considered energy independent is HIJING (and in this way, the multiplicity increase with increasing energy is mainly due to the hard component), while in our case it increases as an unitarized supercritical pomeron. VNI is a parton cascade code, in which the initial stage is mainly generated by hard collisions, with no hadronic degrees of freedom (strings). AMPT is a hybrid code, which uses HIJING as initial condition for parton cascade and, after hadronization, performs hadronic transport. HSD is focused in the transport of hadronic degrees of freedom, the initial stage not coming from strings stretched between partons of projectile and target, but considering strings as excitations of nucleons in the projectile and target, as in Fritiof ; similar comments can be made for LUCIFER. Finally, NEXUS is based in DPM/QGSM, trying to solve the problem of energy-momentum conservation for both cross sections and multiparticle amplitudes at the same time. In our model, energy conservation is strictly taken into account only for multiparticle amplitudes. Besides NEXUS takes into account triple pomeron diagrams, which in our case are effectively included in string fusion.

A detailed comparison of results of the model with the first RHIC results will be presented elsewhere . As future developments, strangeness production should be reconsidered and production of heavier flavors included. Also fusion of more than two strings and the possibility of a phase transition like percolation of strings is needed in order to improve predictions for LHC and study the possibility of QGP formation in the framework of string models.

Acknowledgments: We thank M. A. Braun and E. G. Ferreiro, who participated in early stages of this work. We also thank G. S. Bali, A. Capella, K. J. Eskola, A. B. Kaidalov, C. A. Salgado, Yu. M. Shabelski and K. Werner for useful discussions, and J. Stachel for comments on the predictions of the statistical models for RHIC and LHC. N. A. and C. P. acknowledge financial support by CICYT of Spain under contract AEN99-0589-C02 and N. S. A. by Academy of Finland under grant number 48477. N. A. and D. S. also thank Universidad de Córdoba and Fundación Barrié de la Maza of Spain respectively, for financial support. N. A. thanks Departamento de Física de Partículas of the Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, and D. S. the ALICE Collaboration at CERN, for hospitality during stays in which part of this work was completed. Laboratoire de Physique Théorique is Unité Mixte de Recherche – CNRS – UMR no 8627.

List of figures:

1. Upper plot: Results in the model for the total (solid line), production (dashed line) and hard (dotted line) cross sections versus $`\sqrt{s}`$, compared with experimental data for total cross sections in pp (filled circles) and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p (open circles) collisions taken from . Lower plot: $`p_{Tmin}`$ (solid line) used in the model, and model results for the mean number of total (dashed line) and hard (dotted line) inelastic collisions per event versus $`\sqrt{s}`$ computed for the same collisions as in the upper plot. The ordinary reggeon contribution, which decreases quickly with increasing energy, is not included, see text.

2. Results of the code for the rapidity distribution (upper plot), and the $`p_T`$ distribution for particles with $`2<y_{lab}<4`$ (lower plot), of negative particles in minimum bias pp collisions at $`p_{lab}=200`$ GeV/c, compared with experimental data .

3. Results of the code for the pseudorapidity distribution (upper plot), and the $`p_T`$ distribution for particles with $`|\eta |<2.5`$ (lower plot), of charged particles in minimum bias $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, compared with experimental data . Solid lines are the results with GRV 94 LO parton densities , dashed lines with CTEQ5L , dotted lines with GRV 98 HO  and dashed-dotted lines results without semihard contribution. In the $`p_T`$ distribution, model results have been normalized to experimental data.

4. Results of the code for the pseudorapidity distribution (upper plot), and the $`p_T`$ distribution for particles with $`|\eta |<1`$ (lower plot), of charged particles in minimum bias $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV, compared with experimental data . Line convention is the same as in Fig. 3. In the $`p_T`$ distribution, model results have been normalized to experimental data.

5. Upper plot: results of the code without hard part (dotted line), without string fusion (dashed line) and with string fusion (solid line) for $`p_T`$ of charged particles with $`|\eta |<0.5`$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions, versus $`\sqrt{s}`$, compared with UA1 data  and a parametrization given in this reference (dashed-dotted line). Lower plot: results of the code for $`p_T`$ of $`\pi ^\pm `$ (solid line), $`K^\pm `$ (dashed line) and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ (dotted line) in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV, versus the pseudorapidity density of charged particles for $`|\eta |<3.15`$, compared with E735 data  for $`\pi ^\pm `$ (circles), $`K^\pm `$ (squares) and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ (triangles).

6. Results in the model (solid lines, arbitrarily normalized) for topological cross sections of charged particles with $`|\eta |<2.5`$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$p collisions, compared with experimental data from . Upper curves and data correspond to $`\sqrt{s}=0.9`$ TeV, those in the middle (multiplied by 0.1) to $`\sqrt{s}=0.5`$ TeV, and lower curves and data (multiplied by 0.01) to $`\sqrt{s}=0.2`$ TeV.

7. Yields per unity of rapidity at central rapidity, as a function of the number of wounded nucleons, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^+`$ (left), and for $`\overline{p}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }}^+`$ (right), for pPb collisions and four different centralities in PbPb collisions at SPS energies. Full lines represent our calculation with string fusion, and dashed lines with fusion and rescattering. Experimental data are from the WA97 Collaboration .

8. Results in the model (dotted line: without fusion, dashed line: with fusion, solid line: with fusion and rescattering) for strange baryon production in central PbPb collisions (5 % centrality) at SPS compared with experimental data from the WA97 Collaboration  (triangles) and the NA49 Collaboration  (squares).

9. Results in the model (filled circles: with fusion, open circles: with fusion and rescattering) for the inverse exponential slope of the $`m_T`$ distributions at midrapidity of different particles versus the mass of the particles in central (5 % centrality) PbPb collisions at SPS, compared with the experimental data of the WA97 Collaboration  (3.5 % centrality, open squares). We also present our predictions for the same collisions at RHIC energy with fusion, filled triangles, and with fusion and rescattering, open triangles.

10. Results in the model for the $`p\overline{p}`$ rapidity distribution in central (5 % centrality) PbPb collisions at SPS (a), solid line), and RHIC and LHC (b)), dashed and dotted lines respectively), compared with experimental data at SPS .

11. Results in the model (dotted line: without fusion, solid line: with fusion, dashed line: with fusion and rescattering) for the $`\overline{p}`$ rapidity distribution in central (5 % centrality) PbPb collisions at SPS, compared with experimental data .

12. Results in the model for the rapidity distribution of negative particles in central (5 % centrality) PbPb collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=17.3`$ GeV per nucleon, without fusion (dotted line), with fusion (dashed line) and with fusion and rescattering (solid line), compared with data from NA49 .

13. Results of the code for the pseudorapidity distributions (upper plots), and the $`p_T`$ distributions for particles with $`|\eta |<2.5`$ (lower plots), of charged particles in central ($`b3.2`$ fm) AuAu collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV per nucleon. In the plots on the left, solid lines are results with EKS98  parametrization of parton densities inside nuclei, dashed lines with a parametrization as $`F_{2A}`$ , and dotted lines without modification of parton densities inside nuclei. In the plots on the right, solid lines are results without string fusion, dashed lines with string fusion, dotted lines are nucleon-nucleon results at the same energy, scaled by the number of wounded nucleons (344.6/2), and dashed-dotted lines are results with string fusion and rescattering.

14. Results of the code for the pseudorapidity distribution (upper plot), and the $`p_T`$ distribution for particles with $`|\eta |<2.5`$ (lower plot), of charged particles in minimum bias pp collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=14000`$ GeV. Line convention is the same as in Fig. 3 (the dashed-dotted line is absent).

15. Results of the code for the pseudorapidity distributions (upper plots), and the $`p_T`$ distributions for particles with $`|\eta |<2.5`$ (lower plots), of charged particles in central ($`b3.2`$ fm) PbPb collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=5500`$ GeV per nucleon. In the plots on the left, line convention is the same as in Fig. 13 left, but results have been obtained without rescattering and the dashed-dotted lines show results without semihard contribution. In the plots on the right, solid lines are results without string fusion, dashed lines with string fusion, dotted lines are nucleon-nucleon results at the same energy, scaled by the number of wounded nucleons (382.1/2), and dashed-dotted lines are results with string fusion and rescattering.

List of tables:

1. Results in the model for mean multiplicities of different particles in minimum bias pp collisions at $`p_{lab}=200`$ GeV/c, without and with string fusion, compared with experimental data .

2. Results in the model for mean multiplicities of different particles in minimum bias pp collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=27.5`$ GeV, without and with string fusion, compared with experimental data .

3. Results in the model for mean multiplicities of negative particles in minimum bias pA collisions at $`p_{lab}=200`$ GeV/c, without and with string fusion, compared with experimental data for pS , pAr and pXe , and pAg and pAu .

4. Results in the model for mean multiplicities of different particles in central ($`b1.3`$ fm) SS collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=19.4`$ GeV per nucleon, compared with experimental data . Results are presented without fusion (NF), with fusion (F), and with fusion and rescattering (FR).

5. Results in the model for different particle ratios at midrapidity in central (30 % centrality) PbPb collisions at SPS, compared with experimental data , following the same convention as in Table 4.

6. Results in the model for different particle ratios at midrapidity in central ($`b3.2`$ fm) AuAu collisions at RHIC and PbPb collisions at LHC, following the same convention as in Table 4. For comparison, results from other models (Quark Coalescence Model (QCM) , Rafelski  and B-M ) for RHIC are included.

Figures:

Tables:


format: text

text:
# Inflationary Baryogenesis

## I Introduction

Explaining the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe is an essential ingredient in our understanding of the history of the universe. In this article, we study the possibility of creating the baryon asymmetry of the universe by the production of particles during inflation and reheating by the decay of a complex field related to the inflaton. We consider the case where the complex decaying field is the inflaton itself as well as the case where the phase of the complex field is the inflaton, as in natural inflation. The former case is similar to chaotic inflation but with a complex inflaton. By assigning baryon number to a scalar field present during inflation and introducing a baryon number violating coupling between this field and the inflaton we find that there is a net baryon number asymmetry in the produced particles.

The notion that the inflaton plays a role in baryogenesis is not new. If the reheat temperature is above the mass of certain heavy particles, such as GUT gauge and Higgs bosons, then the latter are thermally produced and their subsequent out-of-equilibrium decays create a baryon asymmetry.  The production of heavy GUT gauge and Higgs bosons or squarks by the direct decay of the inflaton when the reheat temperature and/or the inflaton mass is less than that of the heavy bosons has also been considered. Once again, the out-of-equilibrium decays or annihilations of these particles gives rise to the baryon asymmetry of the universe. In all the above scenarios  CP violation enters into the couplings of the heavier bosons to lighter particles. In our scenario the baryon asymmetry is produced in the direct decay of a field associated with the inflaton. Furthermore the CP violation must manifest itself in the decay of this field. In this respect it is similar to the scenario mentioned in Ref.  and discussed in more detail in Ref.  in which the baryon asymmetry is created by the direct decay of the inflaton. However, unlike in Ref. , in our scenario CP violation is provided dynamically through the time dependent phase of an evolving complex inflaton or of a complex field associated with the inflaton. We explicitly calculate the asymmetry in our scenario and compare it to the baryon asymmetry of the universe. We follow the work of Ref.  in which the asymmetry was calculated in the context of a universe that contracts to a minimum size, bounces back and then expands. The universe was static at both initial and late times. The B-violating coupling was $`\lambda R(\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi +\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\varphi )`$, where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar, $`\varphi `$ carried baryon number and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was a complex function of time, which provided the necessary CP violation. In this work, we have adapted the formalism of Ref.  to consider the asymmetry that might be created in a more realistic universe that is initially inflating and then enters a reheating phase followed by the standard evolution of the universe. Furthermore we have given a more realistic source of CP violation, namely, a time varying complex field.

Recently Ref.  appeared in which the authors discuss the generation of the baryon asymmetry during preheating in a scenario similar to the one discussed here. We discuss later the differences and similarities between our work and theirs.

As in Ref. , we consider a lagrangian consisting of two complex scalar fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$. $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are assumed to carry baryon number +1 and 0 respectively and we assume a B-violating term

$$\lambda (\eta ^2\varphi ^{}\psi +\eta ^2\psi ^{}\varphi ),$$
(1)
where $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionless constant and $`\eta `$ is related to the inflaton field and is complex. The baryon number of $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ particles is established by their interactions with other particles in the Standard Model. ***To ensure that the baryon asymmetry created is not erased by sphaleron processes, we assume that the interaction in Eq. (1) also violates B-L. This may be achieved, for example, if $`\psi `$ carries no lepton number. The latter are not included in our lagrangian below as they do not enter into our calculations. We assume that the initial velocity of the $`\eta `$ field and/or the shape of its potential ensures that its phase varies as the inflaton rolls down its potential. Thus we have dynamic CP violation.

To obtain the asymmetry in our scenario we use the fact that the annihilation and creation operators for the fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are not the same during the inflationary phase and at late times after reheating. However, the annihilation and creation operators at late times can be written as linear combinations of the annihilation and creation operators during the inflationary phase using the Bogolyubov coefficients. So,

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`A_ka_𝐤^\varphi +B_kb_𝐤^\varphi +A^{}a_𝐤^\psi +B_k^{}b_𝐤^\psi ,`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`C_ka_𝐤^\varphi +D_kb_𝐤^\varphi +C^{}a_𝐤^\psi +D_k^{}b_𝐤^\psi ,`$ (3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤^\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤^\varphi `$ are operators at late times and $`a_𝐤^\varphi `$ and $`b_𝐤^\varphi `$ are operators at early times in the inflationary phase. Similar expressions exist for $`\stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤^\psi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤^\psi `$. In the Heisenberg picture, if we choose the state to be the initial vacuum state, then it will remain in that state during its subsequent evolution. One can then see that the number of $`\varphi `$ particles and antiparticles of momentum $`𝐤`$, given by $`0|\stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤^\varphi \stackrel{~}{a}_𝐤^\varphi |0`$ and $`0|\stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤^\varphi \stackrel{~}{b}_𝐤^\varphi |0`$ respectively, are non-zero and proportional to $`|B_k|^2+|B_k^{}|^2`$ and $`|C_k|^2+|C_k^{}|^2`$. Furthermore, if $`|B_k|^2+|B_k^{}|^2|C_k|^2+|C_k^{}|^2`$ then one obtains a baryon number asymmetry. (If $`\lambda =0`$ in Eq. 1 then $`B^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$ are 0 and $`|B|=|C|`$, and one gets no asymmetry.)

Particle number, and correspondingly annihilation and creation operators, are well defined only in adiabatic vacuum states. However, the vacuum state in the inflationary era, i.e., our in state, must be chosen judiciously to avoid infrared divergences. This is discussed in Section III.

The framework of this article is as follows. In Section II we present the lagrangian density for the complex scalar fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ relevant to our calculation and obtain their equations of motion. We then write down the Fourier decomposition of $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ during the inflationary phase and during reheating. General expressions for the coefficients $`AD^{}`$ in Eqs. 2 and 3 have been derived in Ref. . We shall present these results without rederiving them and then present the general result for the baryon asymmetry of the universe. In Section III, we present the particular solutions for our scenario of a universe that undergoes exponential inflation $`(ae^{Ht})`$ followed by an inflaton-oscillation dominated phase $`(at^{2/3})`$. We then calculate the total baryon asymmetry for this scenario in the context of chaotic and natural inflation. We conclude in the last section. In the Appendix we discuss issues related to the regularisation of infrared divergences and the necessity of an infrared cutoff to satisfy the conditions of perturbation theory.

## II

Consider a lagrangian density

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}[g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi ^{}_\nu \varphi +g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \psi ^{}_\nu \psi (m_\varphi ^2+\xi _\varphi R)\varphi ^{}\varphi (m_\psi ^2+\xi _\psi R)\psi ^{}\psi `$ (5)
$`+g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \eta ^{}_\nu \eta m^2\eta ^{}\eta V(\eta )\lambda (\eta ^2\varphi ^{}\psi +\eta ^2\psi ^{}\varphi )],`$
where $`m_{\varphi ,\psi }`$ are the masses of the respective fields and $`\xi _{\varphi ,\psi }`$ are their couplings to the curvature. We have assumed that $`\eta `$ is minimally coupled. $`V(\eta )`$ includes all interactions of $`\eta `$ other than the coupling to $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ already listed above. Below we shall consider natural inflation and chaotic inflation scenarios. In the former case the inflaton will be associated with the phase of $`\eta `$. In the latter case we assume that the complex $`\eta `$ field is the inflaton field. (Thus we are really considering an extension of chaotic inflation since the inflaton is now complex.) We shall assume a spatially flat Robertson-Walker metric. The equations of motion for the above fields are

$`\ddot{\varphi }+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)\dot{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}^2\varphi +(m_\varphi ^2+\xi _\varphi R)\varphi `$ $`+`$ $`\lambda \eta ^2\psi =0,`$ (6)
$`\ddot{\psi }+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)\dot{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}^2\psi +(m_\psi ^2+\xi _\psi R)\psi `$ $`+`$ $`\lambda \eta ^2\varphi =0.`$ (7)
We now write

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{𝐤}{}e^{i𝐤𝐱}\frac{1}{[La(t)]^{3/2}}\varphi _𝐤(t),$$
(8)
with $`𝐤=\frac{2\pi }{L}(n_x,n_y,n_z)`$ and a similar expression for $`\psi (x)`$. The equations of motion for the Fourier coefficients $`\varphi _𝐤`$ and $`\psi _𝐤`$ are (note that $`\varphi _𝐤`$ and $`\psi _𝐤`$ are operators)

$$\ddot{\varphi }_𝐤(t)+\left(\frac{𝐤^2}{a^2}\frac{3}{4}\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}\frac{3}{2}\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+m_\varphi ^2+\xi _\varphi R\right)\varphi _𝐤(t)+\lambda R\mathrm{\Lambda }\psi _𝐤(t)=0,$$
(9)
$$\ddot{\psi }_𝐤(t)+\left(\frac{𝐤^2}{a^2}\frac{3}{4}\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}\frac{3}{2}\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+m_\psi ^2+\xi _\psi R\right)\psi _𝐤(t)+\lambda R\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\varphi _𝐤(t)=0,$$
(10)
$`\varphi _𝐤`$ and $`\psi _𝐤`$ satisfy

$$[\varphi _𝐤(t),\dot{\varphi }_{𝐤^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(t)]=i\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}},$$
(11)
$$[\psi _𝐤(t),\dot{\psi }_{𝐤^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(t)]=i\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}.$$
(12)
To use the results derived in Ref.  we shall have to solve Eqs. 9 and 10 for times during inflation and during reheating. To simplify our calculations we shall assume that the fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are massless and minimally coupled, i.e., $`m_{\varphi ,\psi }=0,\xi _{\varphi ,\psi }=0`$. (Typically, a spin zero particle will obtain a mass of order $`H`$ during inflation, if $`H`$ is greater than its bare mass. However, this does not occur if the mass is protected by a symmetry.)

To facilitate the use of perturbation theory and to be able to define an in state we assume that the B-violating interaction switches on at some time $`t_1`$. Let $`t_2`$ be the time when inflation ends, $`t_3`$ be the time when reheating ends and $`t_f`$ be the final time at which we evaluate the baryon asymmetry. We assume that B-violation vanishes after $`t_3`$. The annihilation and creation operators at $`t_f`$ can be expressed as linear combinations of the annihilation and creation operators at an early time $`t_i`$ before $`t_1`$ in the inflationary era. These relations have been derived perturbatively to order $`\lambda ^2`$ in Ref.  giving

$`a_{f,𝐤}^\varphi =`$ $`[\alpha _k^\varphi (1+i\lambda ^2H_1^\varphi )i\lambda ^2\beta _k^\varphi H_3^\varphi ]a_{i,𝐤}^\varphi +[\beta _k^\varphi (1i\lambda ^2H_4^\varphi )+i\lambda ^2\alpha _k^\varphi H_2^\varphi ]b_{i,𝐤}^\varphi `$ (13)
$`i\lambda [\alpha _k^\varphi I_1\beta _k^\varphi I_3]a_{i,𝐤}^\psi i\lambda [\alpha _k^\varphi I_2\beta _k^\varphi I_4]b_{i,𝐤}^\psi ,`$ (14)
$`b_{f,𝐤}^\varphi =`$ $`[\alpha _k^\varphi (1i\lambda ^2H_4^\varphi )+i\lambda ^2\beta _k^\varphi H_2^\varphi ]b_{i,𝐤}^\varphi +[\beta _k^\varphi (1+i\lambda ^2H_1^\varphi )i\lambda ^2\alpha _k^\varphi H_3^\varphi ]a_{i,𝐤}^\varphi `$ (15)
$`+i\lambda [\alpha _k^\varphi I_4\beta _k^\varphi I_2]b_{i,𝐤}^\psi +i\lambda [\alpha _k^\varphi I_3\beta _k^\varphi I_1]a_{i,𝐤}^\psi ,`$ (16)
$`a_{f,𝐤}^\psi =`$ $`[\alpha _k^\varphi (1+i\lambda ^2H_1^\psi )i\lambda ^2\beta _k^\psi H_3^\psi ]a_{i,𝐤}^\psi +[\beta _k^\psi (1i\lambda ^2H_4^\psi )+i\lambda ^2\alpha _k^\psi H_2^\psi ]b_{i,𝐤}^\psi `$ (17)
$`i\lambda [\alpha _k^\psi I_1^{}\beta _k^\psi I_2^{}]a_{i,𝐤}^\varphi i\lambda [\alpha _k^\psi I_3^{}\beta _k^\psi I_4^{}]b_{i,𝐤}^\varphi ,`$ (18)
$`b_{f,𝐤}^\psi =`$ $`[\alpha _k^\psi (1i\lambda ^2H_4^\psi )+i\lambda ^2\beta _k^\psi H_2^\psi ]b_{i,𝐤}^\psi +[\beta _k^\psi (1+i\lambda ^2H_1^\psi )i\lambda ^2\alpha _k^\psi H_3^\psi ]a_{i,𝐤}^\psi `$ (19)
$`+i\lambda [\alpha _k^\psi I_4^{}\beta _k^\psi I_3^{}]b_{i,𝐤}^\varphi +i\lambda [\alpha _k^\psi I_2^{}\beta _k^\psi I_1]a_{i,𝐤}^\varphi ,`$ (20)
where

$`I_1=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\eta ^2(t)\chi _k^\varphi (t)\chi _k^\psi (t)`$ , (21)
$`I_2=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\eta ^2(t)\chi _k^\varphi (t)\chi _k^\psi (t)`$ , (22)
$`I_3=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\eta ^2(t)\chi _k^\varphi (t)\chi _k^\psi (t)`$ , (23)
$`I_4=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\eta ^2(t)\chi _k^\varphi (t)\chi _k^\psi (t)`$ , (24)
and

$`H_1^\varphi =`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}\eta ^2(t)\chi _k^\varphi (t)`$ (25)
$`\times \mathrm{}_k^\psi (t,t^{})\chi _k^\varphi (t^{})\eta ^2(t^{})`$ , (26)
$`H_2^\varphi =`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}\eta ^2(t)\chi _k^\varphi (t)`$ (27)
$`\times \mathrm{}_k^\psi (t,t^{})\chi _k^\varphi (t^{})\eta ^2(t^{})`$ , (28)
$`H_3^\varphi =`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}\eta ^2(t)\chi _k^\varphi (t)`$ (29)
$`\times \mathrm{}_k^\psi (t,t^{})\chi _k^\varphi (t^{})\eta ^2(t^{})`$ , (30)
$`H_4^\varphi =`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}\eta ^2(t)\chi _k^\varphi (t)`$ (31)
$`\times \mathrm{}_k^\psi (t,t^{})\chi _k^\varphi (t^{})\eta ^2(t^{})`$ , (32)
and the $`H_i^\psi `$ are defined as $`H_i^\varphi `$ with $`\eta ^2`$ replaced by $`\eta ^2`$ and $`\chi _k^\varphi `$, $`\chi _k^\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{}^\psi `$ replaced by $`\chi _k^\psi `$, $`\chi _k^\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{}^\varphi `$ respectively. Above, $`\chi _k^\varphi `$ and $`\chi _k^\psi `$ are complex functions (not operators) that solve Eqs. 9 and 10, with $`\lambda `$ set to 0, respectively. $`\mathrm{}_k^\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{}_k^\psi `$ are the retarded Green’s functions for Eqs. 9 and 10 respectively, i.e., they satisfy Eqs. 9 and 10 with $`\lambda `$ set to 0 and a delta function $`\delta (tt^{})`$ on the r.h.s. of the equations. The subscripts on the coefficients $`\alpha _k`$ and $`\beta _k`$ and on the functions $`\chi _k`$ and $`\mathrm{}_k`$ refer to $`|𝐤|`$. $`\alpha _k`$ and $`\beta _k`$ are complex and satisfy

$$|\alpha _k^\varphi |^2|\beta _k^\varphi |^2=|\alpha _k^\psi |^2|\beta _k^\psi |^2=1.$$
(34)
We assume that the initial state at $`t_i`$ is the vacuum state. Then, in the Heisenberg picture, the number of $`\varphi `$ particles of momentum $`𝐤`$ at $`t_f`$ is given by

$`N_𝐤^\varphi (t_f)`$ $`=in|a_{f,𝐤}^\varphi a_{f,𝐤}^\varphi |in`$ (35)
$`=|\beta _k^\varphi |^2+\lambda ^2\left[|\alpha _k^\varphi |^2|I_2|^2+|\beta _k^\varphi |^2(|I_3|^2)+2Re\left(\alpha _k^\varphi \beta _k^\varphi (iH_2^\varphi I_2I_4^{})\right)\right]`$ (36)
and

$`\overline{N}_𝐤^\varphi (t_f)`$ $`=0,in|b_{f,𝐤}^\varphi b_{f,𝐤}^\varphi |0,in`$ (37)
$`=|\beta _k^\varphi |^2+\lambda ^2\left[|\alpha _k^\varphi |^2|I_3|^2+|\beta _k^\varphi |^2(|I_2|^2)+2Re\left(\alpha _k^\varphi \beta ^{\varphi _k}(iH_3^\varphi +I_1^{}I_3)\right)\right]`$ (38)
where we have used

$`2ImH_1=|I_1|^2|I_2|^2,`$ (39)
$`2ImH_4=|I_3|^2|I_4|^2.`$ (40)
The baryon asymmetry for particles of momentum $`𝐤`$ at $`t_f`$ is thus

$$\mathrm{}N_𝐤^\varphi (t_f)=N_𝐤^\varphi (t_f)\overline{N}_𝐤^\varphi (t_f)=\lambda ^2(|I_2|^2|I_3|^2),$$
(41)
where we have used Eq. 34 and

$$H_2^\varphi H_3^\varphi =iI_1I_3^{}iI_2I_4^{}.$$
(42)
The reader is referred to Ref.  for a more detailed derivation of the above results. Eqs. (4.1c) and (4.9) of Ref.  contain typographical errors. The corrected equations are displayed here in Eqs. 18 and 42 respectively. Note that the asymmetry does not depend on $`\alpha _k`$ and $`\beta _k`$ implying that the asymmetry is independent of the purely gravitational production of particles in the expanding universe. ($`\xi =0`$ does not imply a conformally invariant universe. Therefore there is non-zero purely gravitational production of particles in our scenario but it does not contribute to the asymmetry.)

To obtain the net baryon number at $`t_f`$ we sum over all momentum modes and take the continuum limit. Since we ultimately wish to express the baryon asymmetry as the baryon number density to entropy density ratio, and the baryon number does not change after $`t_3`$, we write

$`n_B(t_3)`$ $`=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}1/([La(t_3)]^3){\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\mathrm{}N_𝐤^\varphi `$ (43)
$`=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}1/([La(t_3)]^3)\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{2\pi }}\right)^3{\displaystyle d^3k\mathrm{}N_𝐤^\varphi }`$ (44)
$`=1/(2\pi ^2[a(t_3)]^3){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk^2\mathrm{}N_𝐤^\varphi .`$ (45)
Working in the approximation that at $`t_3`$ the inflaton completely decays and the universe instantaneously reheats to a temperature $`T_3`$, the baryon asymmetry of the universe is

$$BAUn_B/s=\frac{\lambda ^2}{(2\pi ^2[a(t_3)]^3)}_0^{\mathrm{}}dkk^2(|I_2|^2|I_3|^2)/[(2\pi ^2/45)g_{}T_3^3),$$
(46)
where we have assumed that there is no dilution of the baryon asymmetry due to entropy production during the subsequent evolution of the universe. Note that because the effective coupling is a complex function of time the baryon asymmetry is obtained at $`O(\lambda ^2)`$ and not $`O(\lambda ^4)`$.

For standard reheating, $`t_3\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the dominant perturbative decay rate of the inflaton. We take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{g^2}{8\pi }m_{inf}`$, corresponding to the decay of the inflaton of mass $`m_{inf}`$ to some light fermion-antifermion pair. Furthermore, $`T_3=\left(\frac{30}{\pi ^2g_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\rho (t_3)^{\frac{1}{4}}=0.6g_{}^{\frac{1}{4}}(M_{Pl}\mathrm{\Gamma })^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, where $`\rho `$ here refers to the inflaton energy density.  The final temperature $`T_4`$ at the end of reheating is also a function of the interactions of the inflaton decay products which we have ignored. See Ref.  and references therein for a discussion of thermalisation of the decay products.  $`\rho (t_3)\rho (t_2)[a(t_2)/a(t_3)]^3`$. We assume that the reheat temperature is not high enough for GUT B-violating interactions to be in equilibrium and wipe out the asymmetry generated in our scenario. On the other hand, we do not restrict ourselves to reheat temperatures below $`10^8\mathrm{GeV}`$ to avoid the gravitino problem  as we consider the possibility that the gravitino might be very light.

## III

To obtain the baryon asymmetry, we need to evaluate $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$. This requires obtaining $`\chi _k^\varphi `$ and $`\chi _k^\psi `$. We shall need to perform the integral for $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ only from $`t_1`$ to $`t_3`$ as B-violation vanishes earlier than $`t_1`$ and after $`t_3`$. Solutions of Eqs. 9 and 10 for $`\lambda =0`$ and $`a(t)=\sigma t^c,(c1,1/3)`$ and $`a(t)=\sigma e^{Ht}`$ have been obtained in Ref. . Using them we get §§§ Note that the definition of the mode functions $`\chi _k`$ in Ref.  differs from that in Ref.  by a factor of $`a^{3/2}`$.

$`\chi _k^{\varphi ,\psi }=[a(t)]^{\frac{3}{2}}\left[c_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3a(t)^3H}}\right)^{1/2}H_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(1)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a(t)H}}\right)+c_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3a(t)^3H}}\right)^{1/2}H_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{a(t)H}}\right)\right]\mathrm{for}t_1<t<t_2,`$ (47)
$`\chi _k^{\varphi ,\psi }=[a(t)]^{\frac{3}{2}}\left[c_1^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{a(t)^3}}\right)^{1/2}H_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(1)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3kt}{a(t)}}\right)+c_2^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{a(t)^3}}\right)^{1/2}H_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3kt}{a(t)}}\right)\right]\mathrm{for}t_2<t<t_3.`$ (48)
$`H_\nu (z)`$ are Hankel functions. The commutation relations Eqs. 11 and 12 imply that

$$\chi _k^{\varphi ,\psi }\dot{\chi }_k^{\varphi ,\psi }\chi _k^{\varphi ,\psi }\dot{\chi }_k^{\varphi ,\psi }=i$$
(49)
and therefore the constants $`c_{1,2}`$ and $`c_{1,2}^{}`$ satisfy

$`|c_2|^2|c_1|^2=3\pi /4,`$ (50)
$`|c_2^{}|^2|c_1^{}|^2=3\pi /4.`$ (51)
The constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ define an initial vacuum state in the inflationary era. If one makes a choice of the de Sitter invariant vacuum state ($`c_1=0`$ and $`c_2=\sqrt{3\pi /4}`$) as the in state then it is well known that such a state suffers from an infrared divergence. One option then is to choose the constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ appropriately so as to cancel the infrared divergences even though such states will no longer be de Sitter invariant. In Ref.  it is suggested that one may choose the constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ as below so as to cancel the infrared divergences:  Other mechanisms have also been suggested to avoid the infrared divergences. For example, see Ref. .

$`c_1=(kt_2/a(t_2))^p,`$ (52)
$`c_2=((kt_2/a(t_2))^{2p}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{4}})^{1/2},`$ (53)
with $`p>0`$. (We point out in the Appendix that there is also an upper limit on $`p`$ that was not mentioned in Ref. .) As we discuss in the Appendix, the nature of the infrared divergences is slightly different in our case. Though the above choice for the constants $`c_{1,2}`$ with appropriately chosen values of $`p`$ would make the final integral over $`k`$ infrared finite, the integrands for the intermediate integrals over $`t`$ become very large for small values of $`k`$, irrespective of the value of $`p`$. This leads to a problem with perturbation theory since the latter requires that $`\lambda ^2|I_{2,3}|^2`$ should be less than 1.  We thank D. Lyth for pointing this out to us. This is discussed in more detail in the Appendix. Therefore we are forced to introduce a low momentum cutoff $`k_L`$ to justify our use of perturbation theory. We choose $`k_L`$ such that $`k_L/a_2=1/t_2`$. Since the low momentum cutoff automatically regulates the integral over $`k`$, we then choose $`c_1=0`$ and $`c_2=\sqrt{3\pi /4}`$. Continuity conditions for $`\varphi (x)`$, $`\dot{\varphi }(x)`$ and $`a(t)`$ at $`t_2`$ imply that $`\chi (t)`$ and $`d/dt(\chi (t)/[a(t)]^{3/2})`$ are continuous at $`t_2`$, and these boundary conditions then give us $`c_1^{}`$ and $`c_2^{}`$. We have verified that the values of $`c_1^{}`$ and $`c_2^{}`$ obtained from the continuity conditions satisfy Eq. 51.

At this stage we need to specify $`\eta (t)`$. If we write $`\eta (t)`$ as $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sigma (t)e^{i\theta (t)}`$ (where $`\sigma (t)`$ is real), it is the time varying phase of $`\eta `$ that provides the CP violation necessary for creating a net baryon asymmetry.

Chaotic Inflation

We first consider the case of chaotic inflation in which the $`\eta `$ field represents a complex inflaton field. In the absence of any potential for $`\theta `$, the equation of motion for $`\theta `$ is

$$\sigma ^2\ddot{\theta }+3H\sigma ^2\dot{\theta }+2\dot{\sigma }\sigma \dot{\theta }=0.$$
(54)
In a more realistic model $`V(\eta )`$ will imply a potential for $`\theta `$. The equation of motion for $`\sigma `$ is

$$\ddot{\sigma }+3H\dot{\sigma }+m^2\sigma \dot{\theta }^2\sigma =0.$$
(55)
We assume that $`\theta (t)`$ evolves starting from an initial value of 0 at $`t=t_i`$ and an initial velocity $`\dot{\theta }_i`$. We choose $`\dot{\theta }_i`$ consistent with a universe dominated by the potential energy of $`\sigma `$. Therefore we take $`\dot{\theta }_i=m/2`$. During inflation, $`\dot{\sigma }^2m^2\sigma ^2`$ and $`\sigma M_{Pl}`$. Hence $`\dot{\sigma }/\sigma H`$ and we ignore the last term in the equation of motion for $`\theta `$. Then

$$\theta (t)=\frac{\dot{\theta }_i}{3H}(1e^{3H(tt_i)})t_itt_2$$
(56)
We take $`H`$ to be constant during inflation and corresponding to the initial energy density of the universe with $`\sigma (t_i)=3M_{Pl}`$. From above, one can see that $`\dot{\theta }`$ is much less than $`m`$ for most of the inflationary era and so we ignore the last term of Eq. 55 for this era. Invoking the slow roll approximation one may also ignore $`\ddot{\sigma }`$ during inflation.

During reheating the $`\sigma `$ and the $`\theta `$ fields are coupled and we can not ignore the last terms of their respective equations of motion. However, to obtain $`\theta (t)`$ it is simpler to first rewrite $`\eta `$ as $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\kappa _1+i\kappa _2)`$. Then the problem reduces to one of two uncoupled damped harmonic oscillators with solutions, $`\kappa _1=(A_1/t)cos(mt+\alpha )`$ and $`\kappa _2=(A_2/t)cos(mt+\beta )`$. Here we have assumed $`H=2/(3t)`$ during reheating. $`\theta (t)`$ is then $`tan^1(\kappa _2/\kappa _1)`$. The constants $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are determined by the values of $`\kappa _{1,2}`$ and their time derivatives at $`t_2`$ which can be obtained from the values of $`\theta `$ and $`\sigma `$ and their time derivatives at $`t_2`$. We take $`t_22/m`$, as the inflaton starts oscillating when $`3Hm`$. $`\sigma (t_2)M_{Pl}/6`$.

Eq. 56 implies that $`\theta `$ becomes nearly constant within a few e-foldings after $`t_i`$. If the B-violating interaction switches on subsequent to this then $`\theta `$ is approximately constant between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$. Furthermore, since $`\dot{\theta }(t_2)`$ is practically zero, there is practically no rotational motion during reheating in the absence of any potential for $`\theta `$. So during reheating $`\theta `$ takes values of $`\theta _2`$ and $`\theta _2+\pi `$ during different phases of the oscillation of $`\sigma `$, where $`\theta _2`$ is the value at $`t_2`$. ($`\theta `$ changes discontinuously at the bottom of the potential where $`\sigma `$ is 0.) Since the relevant phase in $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ is $`2\theta `$ the above implies that the CP phase is practically the same for the interval $`t_1`$ to $`t_3`$ and hence one should expect very little asymmetry.

Natural Inflation

We now consider natural inflation, in which case $`\sigma (t)=f`$ where $`f`$ is the scale of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the natural inflation scenario. In the presence of an explicit symmetry breaking term that gives mass $`m_\theta `$ to the inflaton $`\theta `$ the equation of motion for $`\theta `$ is

$$f^2\ddot{\theta }+3Hf^2\dot{\theta }+m_\theta ^2f^2\theta =0.$$
(57)
We assume that $`\theta `$ is constant during inflation between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ and is of $`O(1)`$. Our results are insensitive to $`t_1`$ for $`t_1`$ earlier than about 10 e-foldings before the end of inflation. At $`t_22/m_\theta `$ when $`3Hm`$ the $`\theta `$ fields starts oscillating in its potential. Between $`t_2`$ and $`t_3`$ $`\theta `$ evolves as

$$\theta (t)=\theta (t_2)\frac{t_2}{t}cos[m_\theta (tt_2)].$$
(58)
Now we obtain the asymmetry numerically. Smaller the value of $`g`$, longer is the period of reheating contributing to the asymmetry. But for $`g10^3`$, $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ become independent of $`g`$ and then the $`g`$ dependence in $`BAU`$ enters through $`a(t_3)`$ and the reheat temperature $`T_3`$. For $`g10^3`$, we get

$$BAU=\lambda ^2g(2\times 10^{10}).$$
(59)
As we have mentioned before, perturbation theory requires that $`\lambda |I_{2,3}|^2`$ must be less than 1. This translates into an upper bound on $`\lambda `$ of $`10^{11}`$. Then even for $`g=10^3`$ we get insufficient asymmetry. Other values of $`g`$ give even less asymmetry.

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion, we have discussed a mechanism for creating a baryon asymmetry during inflation and reheating. While the scenario illustrated above does not create sufficient asymmetry, it may be easily modified to accommodate a potential for $`\theta `$ which can give rise to a much larger asymmetry. A possible potential for $`\theta `$ for the chaotic inflation scenario is $`W(\theta )=m_\theta ^2\sigma ^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, which is equivalent to tilting the inflaton potential. Unlike in the analogous axion and natural inflation models, here both $`\sigma `$ and $`\theta `$ would be varying with time. Hence such a potential may allow for chaotic orbits and so would have to be studied with care.

We point out here that we include both the inflationary phase and the reheating phase in our calculation. Contributions during both phases do get mixed up in the evaluation of the asymmetry because of the presence of $`|I_2|^2`$ and $`|I_3|^2`$, where the time integrals in $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ include both the inflationary and the reheating eras. In fact we find in the natural inflation case that though the phase is taken to be constant during the inflationary era, the net baryon asymmetry for a fixed value of $`\lambda `$ decreases if we do not include the inflationary era in the integrals $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$. \**\**\**The values of $`|I_{2,3}|^2`$ also decrease and so, in principle, one may obtain a slightly larger asymmetry by choosing a larger value of $`\lambda `$ which is still consistent with the use of perturbation theory. This indicates that one should not ignore the inflationary era when calculating the asymmetry.

While we were writing up this paper Ref.  appeared. In this paper the authors discuss the generation of baryon asymmetry during reheating in a scenario similar to ours. The two calculations have some differences however. Our calculation is carried out in curved spacetime while the mode functions in Ref.  are obtained in Minkowski space. We consider standard reheating while they consider the more complicated preheating scenario. In both calculations the source of CP violation is a time varying phase. The authors of Ref.  suggest that the CP violating potential for the baryonic fields may be induced by their direct coupling to the inflaton or through loop effects involving the baryonic fields and other fields and then presume a form for the phase. We provide a specific scenario in which the inflaton, or a field related to the inflaton, which is coupled to the baryonic fields, is complex and its time varying phase dynamically provides CP violation. Involving the inflaton and its phase seems to us to be a simple and a very natural approach to obtain a time dependent phase. Our calculation includes both the inflationary and the reheating eras which, as we have pointed out, seems to be appropriate for our case.

###### Acknowledgements.

R. R. would like to thank Sacha Davidson, A. D. Dolgov, Salman Habib, Arul Lakshminarayan, David Lyth, Leonard Parker and U. B. Sathuvalli for useful discussions and comments. R. R. would also like to thank the University of Lancaster for their hospitality. The work of D. V. N. was partially supported by DOE grant DE-FG03-95-ER-40917.

## Appendix

In Ref.  infrared divergence in $`\varphi (x)\varphi (x^{})`$ for Robertson-Walker universes with power law expansion and exponential expansion is discussed. (In this Appendix, $`\varphi `$ is a generic scalar field.) Now

$$\varphi (x)\varphi (x^{})d^3ke^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐱^{})}\chi _k^{FP}(\tau )\chi _k^{FP}(\tau ^{}),$$
(60)
where $`\chi _k^{FP}(\tau )`$ are mode functions as defined in Ref.  (they are $`a^{3/2}`$ times the mode functions defined in this paper) and $`\tau =^ta^3(t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{\prime \prime }`$. If one argues that $`H_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(1)}(z)H_{\frac{3}{2}}^{(2)}(z)iY_1(z)z^{3/2}`$ as $`z0`$ the integrand in the above integral $`|c_1c_2|^2k^3`$, which implies a divergent 2-point function unless one chooses $`c_1(k)`$ and $`c_2(k)`$ such that $`|c_1c_2|0`$ fast enough as $`k0`$. Hence the choice given in Eqs. (52) and (53) is suggested in Ref.  which eliminates the infrared divergences if $`p>0`$. We would like to point out here that there is also an upper bound on $`p`$. Unless $`p`$ is less than 3, the term proportional to $`J_1^2`$ in the 2-point function, namely, $`|c_1+c_2|^2J_1^2k^{2p+3}`$ will also diverge at low values of $`k`$.

Unlike in Ref.  the divergent quantities for us are $`d^3k\chi _k^\varphi \chi _k^\psi `$ and $`d^3k\chi _k^\varphi \chi _k^\psi `$ and the form of the divergences is slightly different. Adapting the arguments of Ref.  we would choose $`\frac{3}{4}<p<\frac{9}{4}`$ for the constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ given in Eqs. (52) and (53) to avoid infrared divergences in the integral over momentum

In our case we also have intermediate integrals $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ over time and this leads to an additional problem. The $`k`$ dependence in the integrand of, for example, $`I_3`$, is contained in $`(c_1c_2)^2Y_1^2(z)+(c_1+c_2)^2J_1^2(z)+2i(c_1^2c_2^2)J_1(z)Y_1(z)`$, where $`z`$ is the relevant argument of the Bessel functions depending on whether the universe is in the inflationary or the reheating era. The $`k`$ dependence for $`I_2`$ is similar. When $`k`$ is small the argument of the Bessel functions becomes small. For low $`k`$ values the first term goes as $`k^{2p3}`$, the second as $`k^{32p}`$ and the third is $`k`$ independent. Now perturbation theory requires that $`\lambda ^2|I_{2,3}|^2`$ be less than 1. However, since $`2p3`$ and $`32p`$ cannot both be greater than 0, $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ will become very large at low $`k`$ values. Thus, without a low momentum cutoff, perturbation theory breaks down at some point for any finite value of $`\lambda `$. We emphasise again that this is an issue related to the validity of perturbation theory and not to the infrared divergence of the integral over momentum. The latter can be regulated by the choice of constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ mentioned above, irrespective of whether or not perturbation theory is valid.