text:
# Medium effects in the production and 𝜋⁰𝛾 decay of 𝜔-mesons in 𝑝𝐴 collisions in the GeV region 11footnote 1Supported by DFG and RFFI

## 1 Introduction

The question about the modifications of the vector meson properties in the nuclear medium has received a vivid attention during the last years (cf. Refs. ). Whereas the $`\rho `$-meson is expected to practically dissolve already at normal nuclear matter density $`\rho _0`$, the $`\omega `$-meson is expected to survive as a quasi-particle at densities $`\rho _0`$, i.e. in ordinary nuclei. A meson or baryon resonance produced in a pion or proton induced reaction on nuclei can decay ’outside’ or ’inside’ the target nucleus. Correspondingly, the invariant mass distribution of the decay products for each resonance contains two components . The first component is described by a Breit-Wigner formula with vacuum properties of the resonance mass $`M_0`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. The second component is strongly distorted by the nuclear medium due to a collisional broadening $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and a possible mass shift $`\delta M`$ , where in first approximation $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\delta M`$ are proportional to the nuclear density. In principle, medium modifications of $`\omega `$ mesons can be detected directly by measuring the dilepton invariant mass spectra in $`hA`$ and $`AA`$ collisions (see e.g. Refs.  and references therein). The advantages of this method are related to the fact that the dilepton mass spectra are almost undistorted by the final state interactions. However, the $`\omega `$-signal in the dilepton mode is rather weak ($`BR(\omega e^+e^{})7.1\times 10^5`$) and is always accompanied by a comparatively large background from $`\rho ^0`$ decays. From this point of view it is useful to consider also the $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ decay which has a branching ratio of about 3 orders of magnitude higher (see Refs. ). As it was shown in Ref.  the effect of the $`\omega `$ mass shift in the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ invariant mass distribution can be identified on top of the background which is related to $`\pi ^0N`$ rescattering events.

In the present paper we discuss in more detail the in-medium $`\omega `$ decay to an off-shell $`\pi ^0`$ and a photon and investigate additional criteria to separate the $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ signal in $`pA`$ collisions at GeV energies from different sources of background such as $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ or $`\pi ^0\eta `$ when one photon from the meson decays is not detected or misidentified..

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we will briefly discuss the propagation of a resonance in the nuclear medium, its decay to an off-shell pion and a photon and describe the Intranuclear Cascade (INC) Model that is used in the simulation of events for the reaction $`pA\omega (\pi ^0\gamma )X`$. In Section 3 we present the results of our calculations and summarize our work in Section 4.

## 2 Theoretical framework

### 2.1 Propagation of a resonance in the nuclear medium

We here consider the production of $`\omega `$-resonances in $`pA`$\- collisions not far above the threshold. Due to the kinematics of the production process the resonance will be quite fast in the laboratory frame (with the target almost at rest) and its propagation through the nucleus can be described within the framework of the eikonal approximation. The corresponding Green function, which describes the propagation of the resonance from the point $`\stackrel{}{r}=(\stackrel{}{b},z)`$ (where it is produced) to the point $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}=(\stackrel{}{b}^{},z^{})`$ (where it decays or rescatters incoherently) can be written as

$$G_p(\stackrel{}{b}^{},z^{};\stackrel{}{b},z)=\frac{1}{2ip}\mathrm{exp}\{i_z^z^{}[p+\frac{1}{2p}(\mathrm{\Delta }+4\pi f(0)\rho _A(\stackrel{}{b},\zeta ))]𝑑\zeta \}\times \delta (\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{b}^{})\theta (z^{}z),$$
(1)
where the $`z`$-axis is directed along the resonance momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is the impact parameter and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=P^2M_R^2iM_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_R$$
(2)
is the inverse resonance propagator, while $`M_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ are the resonance mass and width in the vacuum. The four-momentum $`P`$ in (2) can be defined through the four-momenta of the resonance decay products,

$$P=p^{}(\pi ^0)+p(\gamma ),$$
(3)
where $`p^{}(\pi ^0)`$ is the pion 4-momentum in the medium (cf. Section 2.2). Eq. (1) is written in the low density approximation with the optical potential defined as (see, e.g. Ref. )

$$U(\stackrel{}{r})=4\pi f(0)\rho _A(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(4)
where $`f(0)`$ is the forward $`\omega N`$-scattering amplitude and $`\rho _A(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the nuclear density.

The corresponding amplitude, which describes the production of the resonance in the point $`\stackrel{}{r}=(\stackrel{}{b},z)`$ inside the nucleus and its decay in the point $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}=(\stackrel{}{b}^{},z^{})`$, can be written as

$$M(\stackrel{}{P},P^2;\stackrel{}{b},z)=Bf_{pN_j\omega X_i}d^2\stackrel{}{b^{}}𝑑z^{}\{\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r}^{})G_p(\stackrel{}{r}^{}\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r})\}f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }.$$
(5)
Here $`f_{pN_j\omega X_i}`$ is the production amplitude; $`X_i=NN,\pi NN,\mathrm{\Delta }N,\mathrm{}`$; $`f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }`$ is the decay amplitude and $`B`$ is a normalization factor which takes into account the attenuation of the initial proton flux due to the screening from other nucleons.

Since we consider energies not far above threshold for $`\omega `$ production, the $`\omega `$ can be produced in the first hard proton-nucleon collision or through the two-step mechanism with an intermediate production of a pion : $`pN_j\pi pN,\pi N_k\omega N`$. The contribution of the two-step scattering mechanism has to be added to the direct mechanism described by Eq. (5). In the latter case the production amplitude is obtained by replacing $`f_{pN_j\omega X_i}`$ in (5) by $`f_{\pi N_k\omega X_i}`$ and $`G_p`$ by the pion propagator $`G_\pi `$. In addition an integration over all pion production points has to be performed.

If the resonance decays outside the nucleus, the amplitude for $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ production – in case of the primary production channel – can be written as

$$M_j^i(\stackrel{}{P},P^2;\stackrel{}{b},z)=Bf(pN_j\omega X_i)\{A_{in}(\stackrel{}{P},P^2;\stackrel{}{b},z)+A_{out}(\stackrel{}{P},P^2;\stackrel{}{b},z)\}f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma },$$
(6)
where the contributions from the resonance decays ’inside’ and ’outside’ the nucleus can be expressed as

$$A_{in}(\stackrel{}{P},P^2;\stackrel{}{b},z)=\frac{1\mathrm{exp}[i(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}/2k)(z_sz)]}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}},$$
(7)
and

$$A_{out}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}[i(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}/2k)(z_sz)]}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(8)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }+4\pi f(0)\rho _0=P^2M_R^2+iM_R^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{}.$$
(9)
Eq. (9) describes the resonance propagator $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^1`$ in the nuclear medium with distorted values of the resonance mass ($`M_R`$) and width ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{}`$) defined by

$$M_R^2=M_R^24\pi Ref(0)\rho _A,$$
(10)
$$M_R^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{}=M_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+4\pi Imf(0)\rho _A.$$
(11)
When the resonance decays ’inside’ the nucleus the amplitude (6) contains only the ’inside’ component $`A_{in}`$ defined by (7). Evidently, the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ invariant mass spectrum is given by the following expression:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dM}=\underset{i,j}{}d^2b𝑑z\rho (\stackrel{}{b},z)|M_j^i(\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{P}^2,\stackrel{}{b},z)|^2,$$
(12)
where the sum is taken over all nucleons in the target and all production channels, respectively.

### 2.2 $`\omega `$ decay to off-shell pions

Since not only the $`\omega `$-meson, but also the decay pion changes its spectral function in the medium, the in-medium $`\omega `$ Dalitz decay has to be discussed explicitly. Now let the in-medium $`\omega `$ mass be $`M`$ and the decay pion have a mass $`m_\pi ^{}`$ that might be selected by Monte Carlo according to its in-medium spectral function with width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi ^{}`$ and mass shift $`\delta m_\pi `$. Energy and momentum conservation - in the rest frame of the $`\omega `$ meson - than implies

$$M^2=(E_\pi ^{}+E_\gamma )^2=(\sqrt{p_\pi ^2+m_\pi ^2}+E_\gamma )^2,$$
(13)
with $`E_\gamma =|p_\pi ^{}|`$ denoting the photon energy which in magnitude equals the momentum of the decay pion. Whereas the photon propagates to the vacuum without distortion, the in-medium pion changes its momentum and spectral function during the propagation to the vacuum according to quantum off-shell propagation . In the particular case, where the pion self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi `$ has no explicit time dependence ($`_t\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi =0`$) and is only a function of momentum and density, which holds well for the case of $`p+A`$ reactions, the energy of the pion $`E_\pi ^{}=E_\pi `$ is a constant of motion (cf. Eq. (20) in Ref. ). Thus the off-shell mass and momentum balance out during the propagation as shown graphically in Ref.  in Figs. 1 and 2 for a related problem. The magnitude of the pion momentum in vacuum - if not scattered explicitly or being absorped - then is simply given by

$$p_\pi ^v=\sqrt{p_\pi ^2+m_\pi ^2m_0^2},$$
(14)
where $`m_0`$ denotes the vacuum pion mass and $`p_\pi ^{}`$ the pion momentum in the $`\omega `$ decay in-medium. The invariant mass (squared) of the pion and photon in the vacuum then is given by

$$M_r^2=(E_\pi +E_\gamma )^2(p_\pi ^vE_\gamma )^2=M^2(p_\pi ^vE_\gamma )^2.$$
(15)
The pion propagation thus leads to a slight downward shift of the invariant mass in vacuum relative to its original in-medium value. We note, that the above considerations apply well for heavy nuclei where the corrections in energy due to the recoil momentum of the nucleus ($`|p_\pi ^vE_\gamma |`$) can be discarded.

For an actual quantification of this effect one has to specify the pion spectral function e.g. at nuclear matter density (assuming a linear dependence on density $`\rho `$ for simplicity). The pions, that originate from the $`\omega `$ decay in $`p+A`$ reactions, have typical momenta $`300`$ MeV such that their interaction cross section with nucleons is in the order of 30-35 mb, while their velocity $`\beta _\pi `$ relative to the target is close to 1. Consequently the collisional broadening can be estimated as

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi \beta _\pi \sigma _{\pi N}\rho _0100120MeV,$$
(16)
which is still quite substantial. For the $`\omega `$ in-medium spectral function we assume a Breight-Wigner of width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$ = 50 MeV and pole mass of 0.65 GeV (cf. solid line in Fig. 1). Now for each invariant mass $`M`$ the decay of the $`\omega `$ to a photon and an in-medium pion can be evaluated and the pion momentum $`p_\pi ^V`$ according to (14). To obtain some upper limit for the pion off-shell effects we take $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$ = 200 MeV. The reconstructed invariant mass distribution in (15) is shown in Fig. 1 by the dashed line, which is close to the original $`\omega `$ spectral function (solid line) and indicates that such corrections can be safely neglected in view of presently achievable experimental mass resolutions. Furthermore, the effects are most pronounced for very low invariant masses $`M`$ where, however, the spectrum is strongly distorted by $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering (see below). Thus we continue our calculations with on-shell spectral functions for the pions without substantial loss in accuracy. For the general case of off-shell dynamics in transport or cascade calculations we refer the reader to Refs. .

### 2.3 The Intranuclear Cascade model and interaction parameters

The yields of $`\omega `$-mesons are calculated within the framework of the intranuclear cascade model (INC) developed in Ref. , which was also used in Ref.  for the analysis of medium effects for $`\omega `$’s produced in pion-nucleus reactions with respect to their dilepton decay. In the INC the linearized kinetic equation for the many-body distribution function is solved numerically by assuming that during the evolution of the cascade the properties of the target nucleus remain unchanged. Within the INC approach the target nucleus is regarded as a mixture of degenerate neutron and proton Fermi gases in a spherical potential well with a diffuse surface. The momentum distribution of the nucleons is treated in the local density approximation for a Fermi gas.

The following inputs were used for the elementary cross sections (see also Refs. : i) For the cross section of the reaction $`pN\omega pN`$ we use parametrization from Ref. ;
ii) For the process $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ we use a parametrization of the experimental data from Refs. :

$$\sigma (\pi ^{}p\omega n)=C\frac{P_{\pi N}P_\omega ^0}{P_{\pi N}^\alpha d},$$
(17)
where $`P_{\pi N}`$ is the relative momentum (in GeV) of the pion-nucleon pair while $`P_\omega ^0`$ = 1.095 GeV is the threshold value. The parameters $`C=`$ 13.76 mb$``$GeV/cα-1, $`\alpha `$=3.33 and $`d`$=1.07 GeVα describe satisfactorily the data on the energy-dependent cross section $`\pi ^{}p\omega n`$ in the near-threshold energy region.
iii) For the $`\omega N`$ elastic and total cross sections we use the same parametrization as in Ref. . The angular distributions for the particles produced in the elementary reactions are considered to be isotropic in the corresponding c.m.s. since we operate close to threshold energies.

The propagation of vector mesons in the nuclear medium is described in the same manner as in our previous works . A collisional broadening of the resonance in the nuclear medium is introduced according to Eq. (11) where $`Imf(0)`$ has been expressed through $`\sigma _{tot}(\omega N)`$ using the optical theorem. The $`\omega `$ mass shift is modeled according to Hatsuda and Lee  as

$$M_R^{}=M_R+\delta M_R=M_R(1\alpha \frac{\rho _A(r)}{\rho _0}),$$
(18)
where $`\rho _A(r)`$ is the nuclear density at the resonance decay point, $`\rho _0=0.16fm^3`$, and $`\alpha =0.18`$.

The decay of the $`\omega `$ to $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ with its actual spectral shape is performed as in Refs.  : when the resonance decays inside the nucleus its mass is generated according to a Breit–Wigner distribution with average mass $`M_R^{}`$ (18) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ (see (11)), where the collisional broadening and the mass shift are calculated according to the local nuclear density. Its decay to $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ is recorded as a function of the corresponding invariant mass bin and the local nucleon density $`\rho _A`$. If the resonance leaves the nucleus, its spectral function automatically coincides with the free distribution because $`\delta M_R`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ are zero in this case. Secondary interactions of $`\pi ^0`$ from $`\omega `$ decay are taken into account using realistic $`\pi ^0N`$ elastic, inelastic and charge exchange cross sections.

## 3 Production and $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay of $`\omega `$ mesons

### 3.1 General aspects

We continue with the actual numerical results of our calculations and first have a look at the $`\omega `$ momentum distributions in the laboratory for $`p+A`$ collisions at $`T_p`$ = 2.4 GeV. The solid histograms in Fig. 2 show the calculated momentum distributions of $`\omega `$ mesons in the reactions $`p+^{12}C`$ (left figures) and $`p+^{208}Pb`$ (right figures). Hatched areas in the upper part of the figure describe the contributions from the two-step $`\omega `$ production mechanism with an intermediate pion, which have a maximum at slightly lower momenta than the total spectrum (solid histograms) for both targets due to the different kinematics. The dotted and dashed histograms in the lower part of Fig. 2 correspond to $`\omega `$ decays ’outside’ ( $`\rho `$ 0.03 $`\rho _0`$) and ’inside’ ( $`\rho `$0.03 $`\rho _0`$) a nucleus, respectively. It is clearly seen that in case of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ target most of the $`\omega `$-mesons decay in the vacuum (dotted histogram) while in case of the $`Pb`$ target both components (integrated over momentum) become roughly comparable. By performing cuts on the $`\omega `$ momentum $`p_\omega `$ one can vary systematically the fraction of ’inside’ (dashed histogram) to ’outside’ decays (dotted histogram). Furthermore, the hatched areas in the lower part of Fig. 2 represent the events from the ’inside’ component with surviving neutral pions, i.e. with $`\pi ^0`$’s which propagate to the vacuum. Note, that this contribution includes also pions that rescatter elastically. The latter component (of surviving neutral pions) is dominant for the ’inside’ decay in case of the $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ target, but reduces to roughly 60% for the $`Pb`$ target. Nevertheless, there is still a large fraction of $`\pi ^0`$’s that escape without rescattering, since for $`\omega `$-mesons with momenta around 0.5 GeV/c the decaying pions also have large momenta with respect to the target (at rest in the laboratory) such that their interaction cross section with nucleons is only about 30-35 mb.

The upper and lower histograms in Fig. 3 show the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ invariant mass spectra from $`p+Pb`$ collisions at 2.4 GeV for slow ( $`p_\omega `$0.5 GeV/c) and fast ( $`p_\omega `$ 0.5 GeV/c) $`\omega `$-mesons, respectively. The right (left) figures demonstrate the distributions with (without) medium effects for the $`\omega `$ mesons taken into account whereas the hatched areas correspond to $`\omega `$ decays outside the nucleus. As seen from a comparison of the left and right figures, the events with invariant mass $`M(\pi ^0\gamma )`$ 0.75 GeV come up not only due to a collisional broadening and/or mass shift of $`\omega `$-mesons but also due to $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering. Especially for ’slow’ $`\omega `$’s this $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering contribution is more pronounced since in this case the cross section for $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering is quite large such that the interesting signal from the in-medium $`\omega `$ decay is masked substantially.

The question now arises to what extent one might possibly disentangle in-medium effects due to collisional broadening and/or $`\omega `$-meson mass shifts, respectively. To this aim we have performed calculations for a $`Pb`$ target (Fig. 4) and a $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ target (Fig. 5) at 2.4 GeV for different assumptions on the in-medium properties of the $`\omega `$-meson. In both figures we present again the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ invariant mass distributions, however, without performing cuts on the $`\omega `$ momentum. Figs. 4a) and 5a) show the invariant mass distributions when $`\omega `$ medium effects are discarded and all the distorsion of the $`M(\pi ^0\gamma )`$ spectrum from $`\omega `$ decay is due to $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering. Parts b) of Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ invariant mass spectrum when only the collisional broadening $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is taken into account while in parts c) both in-medium effects, i.e. $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\delta M`$ are taken into account. The hatched areas in parts a)-c) show the events with rescattered pions, the dotted histograms in a)-c) describe the events with $`\omega `$’s decaying outside, while the dashed histograms correspond to $`\omega `$’s decaying inside the nucleus with $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering switched off, such that the $`\omega `$ spectral function at the decay becomes visible explicitly.

For an actual comparison of the different scenarios the parts d) in Figs. 4 and 5 show the total spectra from a) - c) again: the dashed histograms correspond to the calculations without in-medium effects (a), the dotted histograms the spectra including collisional broadening $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ but without a mass shift $`\delta M=0`$ (b), while the solid histograms show the result with collisional broadening $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ and the mass shift $`\delta M0`$ (c). In the region $`M(\pi ^0\gamma )`$ = 0.65-0.75 GeV there is a substantial enhancement in the spectrum due to medium effects (solid histograms) relative to the vacuum $`\omega `$ decays (dashed histogram) even when including $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering. This finding is in agreement with the results of previous calculations on the $`\omega `$ properties from pion and proton induced reactions on nuclei, that have investigated the $`\omega `$ dilepton or $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay , respectively.

### 3.2 Background reduction

Experiments on $`\omega `$-production in nuclei might be carried out at the proton accelerator COSY-Jülich using a photon detector to look for the 3$`\gamma `$ invariant mass distribution and selecting 2$`\gamma `$’s in the invariant mass region of the $`\pi ^0`$, that stem from the decay of the neutral pion. However, in the mass region $`M(\pi ^0\gamma )`$ = 0.65–0.75 GeV there might be essential “background” with 3 (non-resonant) $`\gamma `$’s in the final state or from four photon final states (e.g. the decay products from 2$`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta \pi ^0`$ etc.) when one photon is not identified due to the finite geometrical acceptance of the detector. In the following a method is outlined which will help to identify events where the $`3\gamma `$’s in the final state are, in fact, produced via $`\omega `$-mesons.

It is possible to exploit, for example, kinematical conditions. When an $`\omega `$-meson is produced not far above threshold it will have comparatively small transverse momentum $`P_t`$ in the lab. system. In this case we can expect that the $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\gamma `$ from the $`\omega `$ decay will be strongly correlated in their transverse momenta, while $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ events from the background will not show such a correlation. In order to investigate this momentum correlation in the case of $`\omega `$ decays inside the nucleus we present in Fig. 6 the distributions in the azimuthal angle between two planes $`\varphi `$ = $`\varphi _{\pi ^0}\varphi _\gamma `$, where one plane is formed by the initial proton momentum and the final $`\pi ^0`$ momentum ($`𝐩_0𝐩_{\pi ^0}`$) and the second one is formed by the initial proton momentum and the $`\gamma `$ momentum ($`𝐩_0𝐩_\gamma `$). The solid histograms in Fig. 6 describe the distributions $`dN/d\varphi `$ from $`p+Pb`$ (upper part) and $`p+^{12}C`$ collisions (lower part) at $`T_p=2.4`$ GeV (left) and 1.9 GeV (right) for ’inside’ $`\omega `$ decays. The hatched histograms, which describe events with rescattered pions, are essentially flat and do not show any correlation between the $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\gamma `$. At the same time the solid histograms have distinctive maxima at $`\varphi =`$ 180o which correspond to correlated $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\gamma `$ events from the $`\omega `$ decay. The width of the distribution in $`dN/d\varphi `$ depends on the $`\omega `$-meson transverse momentum $`P_t`$. Therefore it becomes more narrow with decreasing initial energy $`T_p`$; very close to the threshold it will depend essentially on the Fermi motion of the target nucleons and effects from $`\omega `$ rescattering. These rescattering effects are smaller for $`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$ than for $`Pb`$ (compare upper and lower solid histograms in Fig. 6). Nevertheless, the azimuthal correlation remains quite pronounced also for $`Pb`$ even at $`T_p`$=2.4 GeV.

In Fig. 7 we present two dimensional plots for the distribution in the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ versus the $`\omega `$ transverse momentum $`P_t`$ (upper part) and in the invariant mass $`M(\pi ^0,\gamma )`$ versus $`P_t`$ (lower part) for $`p+Pb`$ at $`T_p=`$ 2.4 GeV. The l.h.s. describes events, where the rescattering of pions is switched off, while in the r.h.s. only events with rescattered pions are selected. By comparing the left and right distributions in Fig. 7 we conclude that the relative contribution of the background from $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering can be essentially suppressed choosing the cut $`P_t`$0.2 GeV/c. This is demonstrated in more detail in Fig. 9 (for $`p+Pb`$) and Fig. 10 (for $`p+C`$) at $`T_p`$=2.4 GeV, where we present the ratio

$$R=\frac{N(M(\pi ^0,\gamma )=0.60.75GeV)}{N(M(\pi ^0,\gamma )0.75GeV)}$$
(19)
calculated without cuts for the left histograms and with cuts on the total and transverse momentum of the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ system $`P_{tot}`$0.5 GeV/c, $`P_t`$0.2 GeV/c and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ = $`\varphi _{\pi ^0}\varphi _\gamma `$= $`180\pm 30^o`$ for the right histograms. Without cuts the ratio $`R`$ for $`Pb`$ ($`C`$) changes from 0.029 (0.008) – when medium effects are absent (upper left histograms) – to 0.053 (0.020) when only collisional broadening is taken into account (middle left histograms) and reaches 0.128 (0.059) when both medium effects -collisional broadening and mass shift - are included (lower left histograms). The calculations with cuts give the ratio $`R`$=0.033 (0.020) without medium effects (upper right histograms), 0.075 (0.032) with $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ but without mass shift (middle right histograms) and 0.401 (0.183) with collisional broadening $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ and mass shift $`\delta M0`$ (lower right), respectively. Therefore, using cuts on the total and transverse momentum of the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ system ( $`P_{tot}`$0.5 GeV/c, $`P_t`$0.2 GeV/c) and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ = $`\varphi _{\pi ^0}\varphi _\gamma `$= $`180\pm 30^o`$ it is possible to increase essentially the relative contribution of medium effects and to suppress the background from $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering or related uncorrelated sources. We point out again, that the cut in the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ is important to suppress different sources of background which contain uncorrelated $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ pairs.

The energy dependence of the $`\omega `$ production cross cross on $`Pb`$ (upper figure) and C (lower figure) multiplied by the branching BR($`\pi ^0\gamma `$) is shown in Fig. 8. The dotted and dash-dotted curves correspond to $`\omega `$ decays ’outside’ and ’inside’ the nucleus, respectively, where the ’inside’ component corresponds to events with a neutral pion (and photon) in the final state. It thus does not include $`\pi ^0`$ absorption or pion charge exchange reactions. The solid lines describe the total $`\omega `$ yield in the final $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ channel, while the dashed lines are calculated for the events with pion elastic rescattering from ’inside’ $`\omega `$ decays. The total cross section increases from 20 (3) $`\mu `$b at $`T_p`$ =1.7 to about 300 (40) $`\mu `$b at 2.6 GeV for a $`Pb`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{12}C`$) target whereas the ratio of the ’inside’ to ’outside’ component of the $`\omega `$ decay slightly decreases with bombarding energy due to kinematics. Since this ratio as well as the relative amount of $`\pi ^0`$ elastic rescattering changes only smoothly with bombarding energy, experiments at the highest energy of $`T_p`$ = 2.6 GeV are clearly favored.

The target mass (A)-dependence of the $`\omega `$ production cross section in the final $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ channel at 2.4 GeV is presented in Fig. 11, where the notation of the curves is the same as in Fig. 10. Here the ratio of ’inside’ (dash-dotted) to ’outside’ (dotted) $`\omega `$ decays increases substantially with mass number $`A`$, while the relative $`\pi ^0`$ rescattering increases with $`A`$ only moderately. This effect correlates with the average propagation time of the $`\omega `$ meson in the nucleus.

It is important to note that the actual mass shift of the $`\omega `$-meson at finite density is not known. In Eq. (18) we have used a coefficient $`\alpha `$ = 0.18 as suggested by QCD sum rules  for $`\omega `$-mesons at rest in the nucleus. However, the $`\omega `$ self energy might well be a function of momentum as suggested by the studies in Refs.  in case of the $`\rho `$ meson. Therefore, the actual mass shift seen in $`pA`$ reactions might be different; however, when gating on different momentum intervals for the $`\omega `$-mesons in the lab. this information might be determined experimentally, too.

One of the most important source of three photon background is related to the reactions $`ppp\mathrm{\Delta }^+(p\gamma )\pi _0(2\gamma )`$ and $`pNp\mathrm{\Delta }^0(n\gamma )\pi _0(2\gamma )`$. Taking into account that $`\sigma (NNN\mathrm{\Delta }\pi )`$ can be about 1 mb and the branching BR($`\mathrm{\Delta }N\gamma 5\times 10^3`$ ) we find that $`\sigma _{BG}5\mu `$b per nucleon. At the same time the cross section $`\sigma _0`$ for the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ yield from the $`\omega `$ decays inside the nucleus can be written as

$$\sigma _0=\sigma (pNpN\omega )BR(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )P(\text{inside)},$$
(20)
where $`\sigma (pNpN\omega )200300\mu `$b (cf. ), $`BR(\omega \pi ^0\gamma =0.085`$ while the probability $`P_{Pb}(\text{inside)}`$ for the $`\omega `$ to decay inside the $`Pb`$ nucleus is $`0.4`$ (cf. Fig. 2). As a result we have for a $`Pb`$ target $`\sigma _0710\mu `$b per nucleon. This implies that the background roughly is of the same order than the signal from $`\omega `$-production with subsequent decay in the nucleus. However, the non-resonant background has broader angular and invariant 3$`\gamma `$-mass distributions. Thus the analysis procedures outlined above can also be applied for events outside the $`\omega `$ peak and in such a way — although not explicitly shown here – it should be possible to subtract the non-resonant events from “real” $`\omega `$-events with decay in the nucleus.

## 4 Summary

In this work we have analyzed the possibility to detect in-medium effects for the $`\omega `$-meson in the reaction $`pA\omega (\pi ^0\gamma )X`$ by detecting 3 photons in the final channel where 2 photons add up in invariant mass to the $`\pi ^0`$ mass. As already shown in Ref. , the rescattering of pions will not spoil completely the in-medium effect related to the $`\omega `$-mass shift. Furthermore, we have demonstrated here that the in-medium $`\omega `$ decay to off-shell pions (and $`\gamma `$) does not modify the reconstructed invariant mass distribution very much relative to the dynamics of on-shell pions (cf. Fig. 1). However, the uncertainty of missing one photon due to the limited acceptance of the photon detector or possible background from nonresonance production of $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ might create serious problems for an unambiguous identification of the $`\omega `$ decay products.

For the kinematical conditions of the spectrometer ANKE at the proton accelerator COSY (Jülich) the $`\omega `$ meson can be produced only close to threshold and therefore will have small transverse momenta. This provides the possibility to separate a signal from the $`\omega `$ decay from an uncorrelated $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ pair using back-to-back correlations in transverse momentum of the $`\pi ^0`$ and $`\gamma `$. Alternatively, one can use the distributions in azimuthal angle between two planes $`\varphi `$ = $`\varphi _{\pi ^0}\varphi _\gamma `$, where one plane is formed by the initial proton momentum and the $`\pi ^0`$ momentum ($`𝐩_0𝐩_{\pi ^0}`$) and the second one is formed by the initial proton momentum and the $`\gamma `$ momentum ($`𝐩_0𝐩_\gamma )`$. We have demonstrated that the distribution in this azimuthal angle provides quite selective criteria for a separation of the in-medium effect.

We also have investigated, how different kinematical cuts can increase the signal-to-background ratio. The in-medium modifications are found to be most pronounced for the cuts on the total and transverse momentum of the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ system $`P_{tot}`$0.5 GeV/c, $`P_t`$0.2 GeV/c and in the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ = $`\varphi _{\pi ^0}\varphi _\gamma `$= $`180\pm 30^o`$. For example, the ratio $`R=\frac{N(M(\pi ^0,\gamma )=0.60.75GeV)}{N(M(\pi ^0,\gamma )0.75GeV)}`$ calculated for $`Pb`$ ($`C`$) at $`T_p`$ = 2.4 GeV without cuts changes from 0.029 (0.008) – when medium effects are absent – to 0.128 (0.059) when both medium effects -collisional broadening and mass shift - are included. The calculations with cuts give the ratio $`R`$=0.033 (0.020) without medium effects and 0.401 (0.183) with collisional broadening $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ and mass shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }M0`$ included. Therefore, the study of in-medium effects for $`\omega `$-mesons via the $`\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay mode in $`pA`$ collisions in the near threshold region appears very promising.

The authors acknowledge many useful discussions with K. Boreskov, A. Dolgolenko and A. Sibirtsev throughout this study.


format: text

text:
# Signatures of Randomness in Quantum Chaos

## 1 Regular versus irregular in quantum chaos

The vague notion of so-called quantum chaos, normally arising in conjunction with semiclassical quantum mechanics of chaotic dynamical systems , currently stands for a key-word capturing continued efforts to give a proper account to what extent quantization destroys, preserves, or qualitatively reproduces major features of classical chaos. There is no general agreement about what actually is to be interpreted as ”quantum chaos” or its definite manifestations. That in part derives from an inherent ambiguity of quantization schemes for nonlinear, possibly nonconservative, driven and damped classical problems, and is intrinsically entangled with a delicate reverse problem of a reliable (semi)classical limit procedure for once given quantum system. Other origins of this elusiveness seem to be rooted in the diversity of meanings attributed in the literature to the concepts of regular and/or irregular behaviour of a physical system, irrespective of whether it is classical or quantum.

Mathematical definitions of classical chaos emphasize an apparent appearance of randomness in deterministic situations, . That involves a deep question of when specific features of a physical system appear to be (or can be interpreted as) random. Quite typically, while dealing with an irregular behaviour, we need to quantify an interplay between chance and order in terms of suitable measures of randomness (if random, then ”how much”?), .

Disorder, irregularity and randomness are casually perceived as synonyms and are interpreted to stay at variance with notions of order and regularity. Albeit order and randomness may as well coexist as ”two faces of the same mysterious coin”, .

One of basic problems in the quantum chaos theory is to establish whether the classical order - disorder interplay induces any unambiguous imprints (”signatures of chaos”, ) in quantum systems. In this context, familiar concepts of regular and irregular spectra  were coined to characterize distinctive differences between semiclassical distributions of energy eigenvalues for generic quantum systems. The term ”generic” basically means ”more or less typical”, since one excludes from considerations all systems which do not behave properly, although there are many of them. (More stringent definition invokes suitable symmetry properties of the quantum system.)

Nowadays it is clear that an irregularity alone of any particular spectral series (possibly interpreted in terms of an irregular sequence of consecutive enery or quasi-energy levels) is not an adequate criterion for quantum manifestations of chaos. In fact, semiclassical spectra corresponding to many  classical systems, be them integrable or chaotic, have an irregular appearance. That was the motivation for attempts to classify such spectra in terms of the ”degree of randomness of the sequence of eigenvalues”, , cf. also  and  for related argumentation.

Let us however stress that a primordial question of whether a given energy level sequence can at all be regarded as random has been left untouched. Seldom one may have at disposal a complete analytic information about quantum spectra. Usually some experimentation is needed to extract the data and most of available spectral information relevant for quantum chaos studies, comes either from a genuine experiments (microwave analogs of quantum billiards, realistic nuclear data) or computer simulations, always with a definite beginning and an end. In each case that produces a finite string of data and it is known that no finite sequence can be interpreted as truly random. Fortunately, if a data sequence generated by a stochastic process of any origin (deterministic algorithms included) is sufficiently long, then it will always satisfy a test for randomness with fine-tuned confidence level, cf. .

We emphasize an issue of randomness, because various probability laws (and densities of invariant measures) are omnipresent in the quantum chaos research. In view of that, a stochastic modeling will be our major tool in below.

A rich class of classically integrable (hence regarded as regular) systems displays random -looking, locally uncorrelated sequences of energy eigenvalues, . However there are well known classically chaotic (hence regarded as irregular) systems whose quantum spectral statistics appears to bear no distinctive imprints of classical chaos and look appropriate for the completely integrable case, . Therefore, a supplementary rule is necessary to typify various classes of spectral irregularities and of the involved types of randomness (being random, but possibly ”random otherwise”), if those are to be interpreted as consequences of irregular characteristics of the related classical system.

A possible hint might have originated from discriminating between the spatial regularity and irregularity of the corresponding quantum eigenfunctions. It is the spatial pattern of wave functions that appears to have a decisive effect on the spectral pattern of eigenvalues, . However, a minor obstacle still persists: not all classically ergodic systems (irregular case of Ref. ) would semiclassically yield irregular eigenfunctions, . Consequently, one usually tries to narrow the class of quantum system that are suspected to show undoubtful ”signatures of chaos” to those which have irregular eigenfunctions, with no specific reference to their classical (chaotic or non-chaotic) behaviour. In this class one ultimately attempts to specify those systems which remain in a consistent semiclassical relationship with their chaotic classical partners. Those systems quite justifiably would deserve to be named generic and would more or less naturally fall into various spectral universality classes, in accordance with the random-matrix classification scheme, .

Under rather plausible assumptions, , quantum systems with spatially irregular wave functions were found to exhibit level repulsion, hence to ”avoid” degeneracies which is basically an indication of non-integrability, hence not necessarily that of any links with chaos.

We recall that an opposite spectral effect of level clustering, combined with the conjectured absence of correlations between levels, is characteristic for a large class (”almost all” according to , see however ) of classically integrable systems. Typically they display so-called Poisson statistics (strictly speaking, there is an exponential law of probability involved ) of adjacent level spacings: small spacings are predominant and there is enough room for multiply degenerate levels. One says then  that energy levels occur in a completely random way via a Poisson process on the energy axis.

Therefore, level repulsion, when regarded as an emergent spectral symptom of level correlations (usually interpreted as a certain departure from purely random behaviour), may be viewed as a necessary condition to deal either with quantum imprints of classical chaos or, in the least, with a classically nonintegrable phase-space irregularity.

Interestingly enough, this viewpoint finds some support in the discovery of pseudointegrable systems (variously shaped billiards, sometimes with singular scattering obstacles) which appear to be neither integrable nor chaotic, but give rise to various forms of ”wave chaos” while quantized, . The corresponding distribution of adjacent level spacings is named semi-Poisson and combines various forms (including fractional powers) of level repulsion with Poisson (exponential) statistics, hence purely random behaviour in the spectral series. The repulsion phenomenon is here a manifestation of the topologically complicated phase space (an invariant manifold is not topologically equivalent to a torus but to a higher genus manifold), which was conjectured to preclude integrability and thus the standard torus (EBK) semiclassical quantization, see e.g. -.

In view of the wide usage of such terms like ”universality” in the quantum chaos literature, one should always keep in mind that harmonic oscillators display level repulsion, , although they seem to be exemplary cases of classical and quantum regularity at their extreme. Another spectacular exception is the hydrogen atom spectrum. Like all higher dimensional harmonic oscillators, or a square billiard , the Coulomb spectrum belongs to a distinctive group of ”pathologically nongeneric” spectral problems, .

Nonetheless we shall confine our attention to the suggestive, random matrix theory universality classification that is considered to be faithful for local fluctuations in quantum spectra of (generic) systems that display global chaos in their classical phase spaces. Our hunch is to mimic (or rather extract) those features of the level-spacing classification which may bear imprints of pure randomness or in reverse - depart from randomness.

Studying classical manifestations of chaos in terms of probability measures (including their densities or distributions and their dynamics) is a respectable strategy, . In quantum theory, in view of Born’s statistical interpretation postulate alone, probability measures are ubiquitous. On the other hand, various probability laws and distributions naturally pervade the familiar random-matrix theory . This statistical theory of spectra, models a symmetry -limited spectral disorder in terms of statistical ensembles of complex quantum systems (e.g. heavy nuclei). Apart from an ensemble input, random-matrix theory forms a convenient vehicle to interpret spectroscopic properties of a concrete (single !) quantized version of a complex classical model. (The classical complexity notion refers e.g. to the phase-space organization specific to a system and various complication degrees of its dynamics related to ergodicity, mixing and exactness.)

However, one should keep in mind that the universality hypothesis in the context of quantum chaos proper, derives from exploiting a spectral affinity of an ensemble of large (with size ultimately growing to infinity) random matrices, with a once given individual quantum system (take into consideration the Sinai billiard or (a)periodically kicked pendulum/rotator). Therefore, we may justifiably ask how an individual (Hamiltonian or Floquet-type) quantum eigenvalue problem may capture all conceivable statistical properties of suitable random-matrix ensemble spectra ? Told otherwise, how may we justify a comparison of a statistical ensemble of disordered spectral series with one only specific energy (or quasi-energy) level sequence of an a priori chosen quantum system ?

To our knowledge this conceptual obstacle, except for preliminary investigations of Ref. , has not received much attention in the quantum chaos literature. A partial answer to that question, , points towards certain ergodicity properties appropriate for models of the parametric level dynamics (Coulomb gas, plasma or else, evolving in ”fictitious time”), that provide a reinterpretation of random-matrix theory in terms of an equilibrium statistical mechanics for a fictitious $`N`$-particle system (with $`N`$ allowed to grow indefinitely).

In the framework of random-matrix theory, an ergodic problem for Gaussian ensembles was analyzed long ago in Ref. , with a focus on the ergodic behaviour for the eigenvalue density and $`k`$-point correlation functions of individual random matrices and their statistical ensembles. That involves a local version of the ergodic theorem, where e.g. the spectral averaging over a finite energy span of the level density is compared with the matrix ensemble mean of the level density. That suggests analogies with disordered many-body quantum systems where ensemble averaging is a standard analytic tool, while for an individual system, only an energy averaging should be employed, .

We know that the distribution of spacings of highly excited quantum systems may involve definite laws like e.g. the exponential or Wigner-type distributions. Such laws may be related to definite stochastic processes as invariant measures, in particular as asymptotic measures to which the process does relax.

We shall focus upon the parametric dynamics (parametric interpolation) scenario for the nearest-neighbor spacing distributions of irregular quantum systems where asymptotic invariant (with respect to the parametric process) probability measures are ultimately involved. (Let us mention that a concept of parametric dynamics involves the possibly troublesome ”fictitious time” parameter. Its possible interpretation is that of a running coupling constant measuring the strength of the chaotizing perturbation, or more generally that of a ”complexity parameter” whose growth to infinity gives account of the complexity increase in the spectral properties of a quantum system.

Disregarding the origins of randomness in diverse settings, we shall take the view that stochastic processes are mathematically appropriate models when the time evolution (parametric ”dynamics” being included) of random phenomena is involved. Whenever probability laws are in usage, random phenomena and stochastic processes are always at hand, .

The major difference of our strategy, if compared to other approaches, amounts to considering exclusively the parametric evolution (relaxation) towards equilibiria of nearest neighbor spacing distributions as the major source of probabilistic information. We arrive here at prototype invariant measures of limiting stationary stochastic processes. We do not invoke any explicit eigenvalue (e.g. a solution of the spectral problem for the quantum system or the related random-matrix model) nor level dynamics input, since those data prove to be irrelevant for the primary ergodic behaviour that is displayed by the adjacent spacing probability densities. At least in the considered approximatio regime, where probability densities surmised by Wigner are assumed to be adequate (in reality, they have the status of reliable approximate formulas).

An exploitation of ergodicity (in fact strong mixing and/or exactness, ) of certain (parametrically evolving) Markovian stochastic processes is here found to provide a supplementary (probabilistic) characterization of quantum signatures of chaos.

## 2 Poissonian level sequences

### 2.1 Exponential random variable and semi-Poisson laws

”Poissonian” matrix ensembles with independent random diagonal elements are often used to model spectral properties of integrable Hamiltonian systems (we disregard an issue of various, even quite remarkable, deviations from an exact Poisson-type statistics, ). Indeed, many regular (integrable) systems, semiclassically exhibit spacings between adjacent energy levels which are distributed according to the exponential probability density $`p(s)=exp(s)`$ on $`R^+`$, where we tacitly assume a normalization of the first moment (mean spacing) of the probability measure (hence the unfolding of the energy spectrum, ).

A canonical statement in this respect, , conveys a message that ”for generic regular systems” $`p(s)`$ is ”characteristic of a Poisson process with levels distributed at random” and ”the levels are not correlated”. (A discussion of serious violations of the Berry - Tabor conjecture can be found in Ref. .)

Since the regular spectrum is perfectly deterministic and for each set of quantum numbers the corresponding energy level is obtained from an explicit formula (via Einstein-Brillouin-Keller semiclassical argument, or directly by solving the spectral problem for e.g. rectangular billiard) it is far form obvious that levels may come as a realization of a random variable. Even though probability distributions are thought to arise in near classical quantum systems, when the number of levels in any range of energy is very large (and indefinitely increases when the classical limit is approached).

Following Refs. , let us consider a sequence of numbers (we keep an explicit energy notation, although an unfolded sequence is rescaled to be non-dimensional):

$$E_{i+1}=E_i+x_i=E_0+\underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}x_j$$
(1)
where $`E_0=0`$ and $`x_j`$ with $`j=1,2,..`$ are outcomes of independent trials of the exponentially distributed random variable $`X`$ taking values in $`R_+`$.

The resulting sequence $`(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{})`$ of nonnegative numbers is a particular model realization (sample) for what is commonly named a Poisson spectrum. Here, randomly sampled (independent, in accordance with the exponential distribution) increments $`x_i=E_{i+1}E_i`$ play the role of adjacent level spacings. Let us emphasize that the Poissonian random-matrix ensemble would comprise all possible sequences of the above form, each obtained as a result of independent sampling procedures.

At this point let us turn to an explicit probabilistic lore (cf. ) whose absence is painfully conspicuous in major quantum chaos publications.

Let $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{}`$ be independent random variables with common for all exponential probability law $`\mu (x)=\alpha exp(\alpha x)`$, $`\alpha >0`$ with mean $`\frac{1}{\alpha }`$ and variance $`\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}`$.

Furthermore let us denote $`S_n=X_1+X_2+\mathrm{}+X_n`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. Then the random variable $`S_n`$ has a probability density:

$$p_n(x)=\frac{\alpha ^nx^{n1}}{(n1)!}exp(\alpha x)$$
(2)
coming from an (n-1)-fold convolution of exponential probability densities on $`R^+`$. The law (2) is infinitely divisibile, :

$$p_{n+m}(x)=(p_np_m)(x)=_0^xp_n(xy)p_m(y)𝑑y$$
(3)
where $`p_1(x)=\mu (x)`$ and $`n,m=1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

In particular, note that $`X_i+X_j`$ for any $`i,j,N`$ has a probability density

$$p_2(x)=\alpha ^2xexp(\alpha x).$$
(4)
which upon setting $`\alpha =2`$ and $`x=s`$ stands for an example of a semi-Poisson law $`P(s)=4sexp(2s)`$, , which has been identified to to govern the adjacent level statistics for a subclass of pseudointegrable systems.

It is also obvious that other (plasma-model related, ) semi-Poisson laws come directly from distributions appropriate for $`S_n`$. For example, $`S_3`$ has a density $`p_3(x)`$ which upon substituting $`\alpha =3`$ and $`x=s`$ gives rise to $`P(s)=\frac{27}{2}s^2exp(3s)`$. Analogously, $`S_5`$ yields $`p_5(x)`$ and upon setting $`\alpha =5`$ implies $`P(s)=\frac{3125}{24}s^4exp(5s)`$, cf. Eq. (36) in Ref. .

### 2.2 Gaussian regime

Both in the quantum chaos and random-matrix theory contexts, the regime of $`n>>1`$ is of utmost importance. Since the primary random variable $`X`$ has an exponential density with mean $`\mu =\frac{1}{\alpha }`$ and variance $`\sigma ^2=\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}`$, we stay within the conditions of the central limit theorem, . First of all we know that for every $`ϵ>0`$:

$$P[|\frac{1}{n}S_n\mu |>ϵ]0$$
(5)
when $`n\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`\frac{1}{n}S_n\mu `$ with probability $`1`$.
Furthermore, we have:

$$P[a<\frac{S_nn\mu }{\sigma \sqrt{n}}<b]\frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }}_a^bexp[\frac{(x\mu )^2}{2\sigma ^2}dx$$
(6)
To give a pedestrian intuition about the above formal observations, let us ask for a probability that there holds

$$|\frac{S_n}{n}\mu |<a\frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{n}}$$
(7)
for any $`a>0`$. In the regime of large $`n`$, an integral $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_a^aexp(y^2)𝑑y`$ gives a reliable answer. The same integral determines the probability that $`|S_nn\mu |<a\sigma \sqrt{n}`$, hence tells us how $`S_n`$ fluctuates about $`n\mu `$ (and $`\frac{1}{n}S_n`$ about $`\mu `$) with the growth of $`n`$.

### 2.3 Whence Poisson process on the energy axis ?

The probability density of the random variable $`S_n`$ allows us to evaluate a probability that the $`n`$-th level energy value $`E_n`$ is actually located in an interval $`[E,E+\mathrm{}E]`$ about a fixed nonnegative number $`E`$. It is easily obtained by redefining the previous $`p_n(x)`$, cf. Eq. (2):

$$P[ES_nE+\mathrm{}E]=\frac{\alpha ^nE^{n1}}{(n1)!}exp(\alpha E)\mathrm{}E=$$
(8)
$$\frac{S^{n1}}{(n1)!}exp(S)\mathrm{}S=P_n(S)\mathrm{}S$$

where $`x=E`$, $`S=\frac{E}{<E>}`$ and $`\frac{1}{\alpha }=<E>`$ is the mean adjacent level spacing. The probability density $`P_n(S)`$, in Ref.  is interpreted as ”probability density for finding the $`n`$-th neighbor of a level in the distance increment $`[S,S+dS]`$, for a stationary Poisson process”, while in Ref. , while denoted $`E(k,L)E(n1,S)`$ where $`L`$ is replaced by our $`S`$, stands for the ”probability that inside an interval of length $`S`$ we find exactly $`n1`$ levels”.
Since $`E(k,L)`$ has the form of a standard Poisson probability law with mean-value and variance $`L`$, one may also follow  to tell that ”if they are on the average $`L`$ events, then the probability to actually observe $`k`$ events is given by $`E_{Poisson}(k,L)=\frac{L^k}{k!}exp(L)`$”.

Indeed, if $`E>0`$ is a fixed energy value and we ask for a probability that there are exactly $`n`$ energy levels below $`E`$, then probability distributions for $`S_n`$ and $`S_{n+1}`$ combine together to yield the Poisson distribution with mean $`\alpha E`$:

$$P[S_nE<S_{n+1}]=P[N(E)=n]=\frac{(\alpha E)^n}{n!}exp(\alpha E)$$
(9)
In this connection, let us recall that a random variable $`N`$ taking discrete integer values $`0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is said to have Poisson distribution with the mean (and variance) $`\lambda `$ if the probability of $`N=k`$ reads $`P[N=k]=\frac{\lambda ^k}{k!}exp(\lambda )`$. Clearly, $`_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}P[N=k]=1`$ and $`E[N]=_0^{\mathrm{}}kP[N=k]=\lambda `$.

Let us however stress that no explicit Poisson process was involved anywhere in the above, since its precise mathematical definition  refers to a counting process with a one parameter family of random variables $`[N_t=N(t)=n]=[S_nt<S_{n+1}]`$ obeying the Poisson probability law for all $`tR^+`$:

$$P[S_nt<S_{n+1}]=P[N_t=n]=\frac{(\alpha t)^n}{n!}exp(\alpha t).$$
(10)
The Poisson process has stationary independent increments: $`N_{t_1},N_{t_2}N_{t_1},\mathrm{}`$ for $`0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}.`$ with the Poisson probability distribution for each increment:

$$P[N_tN_s=n]=\frac{[\alpha (ts)]^n}{n!}exp[\alpha (ts)]$$
(11)
where $`N_0=0`$ with probability $`1`$. Here, by denoting $`P_n(t)=P[N_t=n]`$ and $`P_n(ts)=P[N_tN_s=n]`$ we easily check that $`_0^tP_n(ts)P_m(s)(\alpha ds)=P_{n+m}(t)`$.

The related intensity (parameter, mean) of the Poisson ”process” equals $`E[N_t]=\alpha t`$ and displays the linear growth when $`t`$ increases. Notice also that $`\frac{N_t}{t}\alpha `$ with probability $`1`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$.
(The Poisson process is a particular example of a Markovian process in law , . We deal here with a temporally homogeneous process $`N_t,t>0`$ associated with an infinitely divisible probability distribution $`\mu (k)=\frac{c^k}{k!}exp(c)`$, The process in law is here recovered by simply setting $`\mu ^t(k)=\frac{(ct)^k}{k!}exp(ct)`$ where $`\mu ^1(k)=\mu (k)`$.)

The Poisson process involves time dependent probabilities: $`P_0(t)=exp(\alpha t)`$, $`P_1(t)=\alpha texp(\alpha t)`$, …, which should be compared with previous outcomes for the exponential random variable. By recalling Eq. (2) we immediately arrive at a formal identification of probability distributions:

$$p_{k+1}(t)=\alpha P_k(t).$$
(12)
In the above, the exponential probability desnity is labelled by time $`t`$. Let us stress that $`p_{k+1}(t)\mathrm{}t`$ stands for a probability that the random variable $`S_{k+1}`$ takes its value in the interval $`[t,t+\mathrm{}t]`$, while $`P_k(t)`$ is a probability that $`N_t=n`$.

Notwithstanding, Eq. (9) is formally identical with Eq. (10), and therefore we can in principle vary the parameter $`E`$, so setting (9) in a direct equivalence with a parametric (evolving in fictitious time) Poisson process. This formal equivalence underlies a Poisson process lore of the quantum chaos literature.

Instead of paying attention to the exponential probability rule which is responsible for the randomness of the collection of ”time” instants on $`R^+,`$ one is tempted to tell that it is the Poisson process which dictates those rules of the game. The standard way of thinking refers to the ”observation of the number of signals recorded up to an instant $`t`$ (actually, number of jumps of $`N_t`$ or the number of levels that are below $`E`$), .

### 2.4 Ergodicity

Sample paths of the Poisson process $`N_t`$ are nondecreasing functions of $`t`$ with integer values. If we attempt to draw a sample path, we begin from the value $`N_t=0`$ which is maintained up to the time instant $`S_1=t_1`$ when the jump occurs to $`N_t=1`$. This value stays constant up to the time $`S_2=x_1+x_2`$. Then, a new jump to $`N_t=3`$ occurs, and that value survives until $`S_3=x_1+x_2+x_3`$ is sampled. The sample path construction for the Poisson process strictly parallels a time series construction in terms of points on $`R^+`$ at which jumps of $`N_t`$ occur. Intervals between consecutive time instants form the sequence $`(x_1,x_2,x_3\mathrm{})`$ of adjacent level spacings.

On the other hand, it is Eq. (1) which provides us with a concrete sample sequence of levels $`(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{})`$, drawn in accordance with the exponential probability law for adjacent level spacings $`x_i,i1`$. Thus , the set of all realizations of the random variable $`E=(S_1,S_2,\mathrm{})`$ comprises a statistical ensemble of sample sequences $`\omega :E(\omega )=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{})`$. In fact, those sequences exemplify the Poissonian ensemble of spectra.
(If we set $`\alpha =1`$, then a connection with the standard Poissonian reasoning in the random-matrix approach to quantum chaos is immediate. A catalogue of various statistical measures for the Poissonian spectra can be found in .)

If we would construct a histogram of adjacent level spacings for a single sequence $`(E_1,E_2,,,)`$ which was compiled in accordance with the exponential distribution, the familiar Poissonian shape would be revealed.

As well, the very same picture would emerge if we would randomly collect and make a statistical analysis of various finite strings of neighboring energy levels, like in case of the so called nuclear data ensemble composition (there e.g. one makes a compilation of 1407 data points from 30 sequences of levels experimentally found for 27 different nuclei), .

All that is connected with a primitive at this stage notion of ergodicity of the exponential process .

Namely, let us consider a one-parameter family $`(X_n,n=1,2,\mathrm{})`$ of exponential random variables as a stochastic process with ”discrete time”. Since $`X_n`$ are independent random variables with the same for all $`n`$ probability distribution, then for any real function $`(f:xR^+f(x)R)`$ such that $`<f>=E[f(X_1)]`$ exists, we have

$$lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{1}{n}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}f(X_k)=<f>=_{R^+}f(x)\mu (dx)$$
(13)
for all sample sequences $`X(\omega )=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})`$. In that case the random sequence $`X_n,n1`$ is known to be ergodic with respect to $`f`$. That is a standard link between the ”time average” and ”ensemble average”, which is here accomplished by means of the exponential probability measure $`\mu `$. Indeed, as often happens in the the context of stationary stochastic processes, ergodicity property allows us to replace an average over the set of all realizations of the process at a chosen time instant, by the time average evaluated along one sample trajectory.

If we consider $`f(X_n)=X_n`$ for all $`n1`$, then the ergodicity notion refers to limiting properties of $`\frac{1}{n}S_n`$. Accordingly, in view of the law of large numbers (Eq. (5)), Eq. (13) holds true.

Presently, there is no wonder in the fact that single eigenvalue series of a suitable integrable quantum system (like e.g the rectangle billiard of Refs. ) may be utilized to generate a statistical information in (approximate, ) affinity with the ensemble statistics. Numerical research involving e.g. about $`10^6`$ \- $`10^{19}`$ levels for the eigenvalue series $`E_{m,n}=m^2+\gamma n^2`$, $`\gamma =\pi /3`$, cf. , allows to generate various statistical data. The nearest neighbor spacing histograms show a very close resemblance to the exponential distribution curve, in agreement with the conjecture of Ref. . Effectively, the eigenvalue sequence of the rectangle billiard can be interpreted as (in fact mimics) a sample path $`E(\omega )=(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{})`$ with adjacent spacings $`x_i`$ distributed according to the exponential law.

A standard (Poissonian) way of thinking in this context, refers to an ”observation of the number of signals recorded up to an instant $`t`$” (actually, jumps of $`N_t`$ or number of levels that are below $`E`$), . However, the sample path $`E(\omega )`$ encodes also a complete information about a sample path of the involved exponential process $`X=(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{})`$.

Our ergodic argument is valid with respect to any chosen sample path $`X(\omega )=(X_1(\omega )=x_1,X_2(\omega )=x_2,\mathrm{})`$ of $`X`$. An ensemble average is provided by $`_{R^+}x\mu (dx)=\frac{1}{\alpha }`$ and that value is to coincide with $`lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{1}{n}_{k=1}^nx_n`$ irrespective of the particular choice of a sample path $`\omega `$ of the exponential process $`X_n,n1`$.

Ergodicity property normally embodies the weakest form of complications present in the evolution of physical systems, including those modeled by stochastic processes. There is a well established catalog of irregular behaviours that the dynamics of any type may exhibit and there are stronger types of irregularity than those connected with ergodicity. A corresponding hierarchy of irregularities refers to the properties of mixing and exactness  which will be exploited in below.

## 3 Gaussian universality classes: Generalities

In the random matrix approach we have a priori involved random-looking sequences of energy levels, , which well agrees with the phenomenology of nuclei where inadequacies of fundamental theoretical models are compensated by resorting to statistical matrix ensembles with appropriate symmetries. The roots of randomness presumably can be attributed to random deformations of the ”shape of the nuclei” (bag) in the independent-particle model of nuclear dynamics, . An analogue of this reasoning can be found in a recent analysis  of a chaotic system in a cavity (billiard) with a parametric control of shape deformations. Then a quantum particle is confined within a continuously deformed boundary , whose parametric dynamics can be as well represented by a stochastic process of any kind.

A concrete quantum system (like e.g. a spectral problem for concretely shaped billiard) usually induces its own unique spectrum and there is no need, nor room for any statistical ensemble of systems (unless we shall indeed consider a family of quantum systems with a suitable selection of random potentials. We must thus cope with obvious discrepancies underlying otherwise attractive affinities (e.g. the universality classes idea for spectral statistics). Useful affinities appear to mask quite deep differences between the underlying physical mechanisms.

It is the level repulsion which is routinely interpreted as a quantum manifestation of classical nonintegrability and ultimately also of chaos, cf. .

Normally that is quantified by means of polynomial modifications of the Gaussian probability law (in association with the Wigner-Dyson statistics of adjacent level spacings for e.g. unitary, orthogonal and symplectic random matrix ensembles). For completness of the argument, let us list the standard formulas: $`P_1(s)=s\frac{\pi }{2}exp(\frac{s^2\pi }{4})`$, $`P_2(s)=s^2\frac{32}{\pi ^2}exp(\frac{s^2\pi }{4})`$ and $`P_4(s)=s^4\frac{2^{18}}{3^6\pi ^3}exp(\frac{s^264}{9\pi })`$, corresponding respectively to the GOE, GUE and GSE random-matrix theory predictions.

Let us point out  that for most practical cases the Wigner distributions (albeit exact in the $`2\times 2`$ random-matrix case only) are adequate. Typical spacing histograms drawn from experimental or numerically generated (quasi)energy spectra are too rugged to allow subtle distictions against the $`n\mathrm{}`$ random-matrix size related predictions.

We shall consider mostly the Wigner-type cases, even though neither of those probability laws deserves the status of being an exact representation of the real state of affairs. Remember that also in the context of random matrix theories the Wigner spacing formulas are approximations that usually improve in the large matrix size regime.

The nearest neighbor spacing distributions, in the random-matrix approach are the secondary notions and can be derived from an explicit formula for the joint probability density to find the (dimensionless) energy eigenvalues in respective infinitesimal intervals $`[x_i,x_i+\mathrm{}x_i]`$ with $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$:

$$P(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N)=C_{N\beta }[\underset{i>j=1}{\overset{N}{}}|x_ix_j|^\beta exp(\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}x_i^2)]$$
(14)
where $`\beta =1,2,4`$ and $`C_{N\beta }`$ is a normalization constant, . The level repulsion has been built into the framework from the very beginning and appropriate level spacing distributions (including the adjacent level case) can be directly evaluated on that basis, .

There were many attempts to provide convincing (and independent from the definite symmetry and Gaussian randomness inputs, proper to random-matrix theory)) arguments that would generate level repulsion through well defined dynamical mechanisms (like e.g. the parametric level dynamics) and would lead to statistical predictions as well. A suitable level dynamics scenario may as well give rise to the so-called intermediate statistics and possibly a continuous (parametric) interpolation among them.

In the random matrix theory context a radical probabilistic attempt due to Dyson explicitly involves the (parametric) Brownian motion assumption for each energy level separately, .

More satisfactory results were obtained by resorting to a fictituous gas of interacting particle representatives of individual energy levels. A corresponding many-particle system is then investigated at suitable ”thermal equilibrium” conditions. Then, without introducing a priori statistical ensembles of random matrices, level distribution functions are derived by means of ordinary statistical mechanics methods. That approach explictly involves the many-body Hamiltonian (Calogero model):

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{^2}{x_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\frac{\beta (\beta 2)}{4}\underset{i<j}{}\frac{1}{(x_ix_j)^2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i^2$$
(15)
whose squared ground state function (equlibrium measure density) has the form (14), .

Apart from that, explicit quantum mechanical investigations for billiard-type systems provide hints about the potential importance of interpolation studies, especially since various intermediate types of statistics were reported to occur, see e.g. .

There are two basic approaches to an interpolation issue. One refers explicitly to random matrix theories and their ”affinity” with quantum chaotic systems, . Another refers to the fictitious gas, interacting many-body analogy, . Recently, a related short-range plasma model was proposed to analyze an emergence of the ”pseudo-Poisson statistics”, .

## 4 Parametric dynamics of adjacent level spacings

### 4.1 Markov processes defined through their invariant measures

Once we have encountered probability densities on the positive half-line in $`R^1`$, it is rather natural to investigate a general issue of parametric stochastic processes which would provide a dynamical model of level repulsion in an irregular quantum system and generate at the same time spacing densities as those of asymptotic invariant (equilibrium) probability measures. Such random processes clearly must run with respect to the previously mentioned ”fictitious” time-parameter and take values in the set of all level spacings which are appropriate for a complex quantum system or the corresponding random-matrix ensemble.

Effectively, we wish to introduce a Markovian diffusion-type process which might stand for a reliable approximation of a random walk over level spacing sizes.

For future reference let us mention that in the regime of equilibrium (when an invariant measure appears in the large ”time” asymptotic), a sample path of such random walk would take the form of an ordered sequence of spacings which are sampled (drawn) according to the prescribed invariant probability distribution. That is precisely one explicit example of the ladder of energy levels, understood as a random sample drawn from a suitable ensemble.

An analysis of statistical features of this spectral sequence involves an ergodicity notion to stay in conformity with the ensemble evaluation of various averages (carried out with respect to the invariant density), .

We shall consider the previously listed GOE, GUE and GSE probability densities on $`R^+`$ (up to suitable rescalings !) as, distorted in view of the spacing size normalization, asymptotic invariant densities of certain parametric Markovian stochastic processes whose uniqueness status can be unambiguously settled.

Let is begin from the observation that probability densities on $`R^+`$, of the characteristic form $`f(x)xexp(\frac{x^2}{4})`$, $`g(x)x^2exp(\frac{x^2}{2})`$ and $`h(x)\frac{x^4}{4}exp(x^2)`$ appear notoriously in various quantum mechanical contexts (harmonic oscillator or centrifugal-harmonic eigenvalue problems), cf. . Notwithstanding, as notoriously they can be identified in connection with special classes of stationary Markovian diffusion processes on $`R^+`$, .

Anticipating further discussion, let us consider a Fokker-Planck equation on the positive half-line in the form:

$$_t\rho =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\rho [\frac{\beta }{2x}x)\rho ]$$
(16)
which may be set in correspondence with the stochastic differential equation $`dX_t=(\frac{\beta }{2X_t}X_t)dt+dW_t`$ formally valid for a random variable $`X_t`$ with values contained in $`(0,\mathrm{})`$. Here $`\beta 0`$ and $`W_t`$ represents the Wiener process.

Accordingly, if $`\rho _0(x)`$ with $`xR^+`$ is regarded as the density of distribution of $`X_0`$ then for each $`t>0`$ the function $`\rho (x,t)`$, solving Eq. (16), is the density of $`X_t`$. In view of a singularity of the forward drift at the origin, we refrain from looking for strong solutions of the above stochastic differential equation and confine attention to weak solutions only and the associated tractable parabolic problem (16q) with suitable boundary data, cf. .

In all those cases a mechanism of repulsion is modeled by the $`\frac{1}{x}`$ term in the forward drift expression. The compensating harmonic attraction which is modeled by the $`x`$ term, saturates the long distance effects of repulsion-induced scattering and ultimately yields asymptotic steady (stationary) probability densities.

To interpret a density $`\rho (x)`$ as an asymptotic (invariant) density of a well defined Markovian diffusion process we shall utilize the rudiments of so-called Schrödinger boundary and stochastic interpolation problem, , see also  when specialised to invariant measures.

Let us notice that both in case of the standard Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process and its Bessel (radial) variant, we have emphasized the role of a stochastic process with an asymptotic invariant density. To deduce such processes, in principle we can start from an invariant density and address an easier issue of the associated measure preserving stochastic dynamics. Next we can consider whether the obtained process would drive a given initial density towards a prescribed invariant measure (in that case we can tell about an asymptotic state of equilibrium to which the process relaxes). That feature involves the notion of exactness of the related stochastic process, whose straightforward consequence are the properties of mixing and ergodicity of the corresponding random dynamics, .

There is a general formula  relating the forward drift of the sought for stationary process with an explicit functional form of an invariant probability density. We confine our attention to Markov diffusion processes with a constant diffusion coefficient, denoted $`D>0`$. Then, the pertinent formula reads:

$$b(x)=2D\frac{\rho ^{1/2}}{\rho ^{1/2}}.$$
(17)
In particular, for the familiar Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process we have $`\rho ^{1/2}(x)=(\frac{1}{\pi })^{1/4}exp(\frac{x^2}{2})`$ and $`D=\frac{1}{2}`$, so we clearly arrive at $`b(x)=x`$ as should be. Quite analogously, in case of the GUE-type spacing density, we have $`D=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\rho ^{1/2}(x)=\frac{2}{\pi ^{1/4}}x\mathrm{exp}(\frac{x^2}{2})`$. Thus, accordingly $`b(x)=\frac{1}{x}x`$.

The very same strategy allows us to identify a forward drift of the Markovian diffusion process supported by the GOE-type spacing density. By employing $`\rho ^{1/2}(x)=\sqrt{2x}exp(\frac{x^2}{2})`$ and setting $`D=\frac{1}{2}`$ we arrive at the formula: $`b(x,t)=\frac{1}{2x}x`$.

We immediately identify the above forward drifts with the ones appropriate for the time homogeneous radial Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes, with a corresponding family of ($`N>1`$ and otherwise arbitrary integer) transition probability densities, :

$$p_t(y,x)=p(y,0,x,t)=2x^{N1}\mathrm{exp}(x^2)$$
(18)
$$\frac{1}{1\mathrm{exp}(2t)}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{(x^2+y^2)\mathrm{exp}(2t)}{1\mathrm{exp}(2t)}]$$

$$[xy\mathrm{exp}(t)]^\alpha I_\alpha (\frac{2xy\mathrm{exp}(t)}{1\mathrm{exp}(2t)})$$

where $`\alpha =\frac{N2}{2}`$ and $`I_\alpha (z)`$ is a modified Bessel function of order $`\alpha `$:

$$I_\alpha (z)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(z/2)^{2k+\alpha }}{(k!)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\alpha +1)}$$
(19)
while the Euler gamma function has a standard form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(t)t^{x1}𝑑t`$. We remember that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)=n!`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)=\sqrt{\pi }`$.

The resultant forward drift has the general form:

$$b(x)=\frac{N1}{2x}x$$
(20)
and corresponds to $`\beta =N1`$.

By setting $`N=2`$, and then employing the series representation of $`I_0(z)`$, we easily recover the asymptotic invariant density for the process: $`lim_t\mathrm{}p(y,0,x,t)=2x\mathrm{exp}(x^2)`$.

We can also analyze the large time asymptotic of $`p(y,0,x,t)`$, in case of $`N=3`$ which gives rise to an invariant density in the form: $`\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi }}x^2exp(x^2)`$. That obviously corresponds to the GUE-type case with $`b(x)=\frac{1}{x}x`$.

When passing to the GSE case, we are interested in the Markovian diffusion process which is supported by an invariant probability density $`\rho (x)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2)}x^4\mathrm{exp}(x^2)`$. Let us evaluate the forward drift of the sought for process (we set $`D=\frac{1}{2}`$): $`b(x,t)=\frac{2}{x}x`$. Clearly, we deal here with a radial Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process corresponding to $`N=5`$. The transition probability density of the process displays an expected asymptotic: $`lim_t\mathrm{}p(y,0,x,t)=\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi }}x^4\mathrm{exp}(x^2)`$. Here we have exploited $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)=\sqrt{\pi }`$ to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\pi }`$.

The above formulas allow us to formulate a hypothesis that further non-generic repulsion laws may be appropriate for quantifying quantum chaos. Straightforwardly, one can verify that our transition probability densities refer to asymptotic invariant densities of the form:

$$\rho (x)=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N/2)}x^{N1}exp(x^2).$$
(21)
In particular we get a direct evidence in favor of $`N=4`$, i. e. $`b(x)=\frac{3}{2x}x`$, universality class which in fact corresponds to the Ginibre ensemble of of non-Hermitian random matrices, , where a cubic level repulsion appears: $`\rho (x)=2x^3\mathrm{exp}(x^2)`$ (this formula is exact for $`2\times 2`$ random matrices).

In principle, processes corresponding to any $`N>5`$ may be realizable as well, and thus the related higher-power level repulsion might have relevance in the realm of quantum chaos.

In all considered cases, an asymptotic invariance of probability measures (densities) is sufficient to yield ergodic behaviour. For each value of $`N>1`$ we deal with an independent repulsion mechanism, albeit all of them belong to the radial Ornstein-Uhlenbeck family.

We have thus identified a universal stochastic law (in fact, a family of the like) behind the functional form of basic, Wigner surmise inspired, spacing probability densities appropriate for quantum chaos.

Let us emphasize at this point that one should keep in mind a number of possible reservations coming from the fact that neither of ”universal” or ”generic” laws can be regarded as a faithful representation of a real state of affairs. Usually exact laws are derived for two by two (hence of the small size !) random matrices, and are known to reappear again (at least in the generic cases) as approximate spacing formulas in the large random-matrix size regime. That in turn allows to achieve a correspondence with semiclassical quantum spectra of complex systems.

There is no obvious explanation of a physical meaning of the integer parameter $`N`$ in the radial stochastic process scenario. One hypothesis comes from the random-matrix theory, where $`\beta =N1=1,2,4`$ would correspond to a number of independent components of a typical matrix entry which is decided by the underlying symmetry of the problem (GOE, GUE, GSE). That can be presumably be extended to the case of $`N=4`$ and possibly all $`N8`$.

### 4.2 Link with Calogero Hamiltonian

Previously we have indicated that a common mathematical basis for various level repulsion mechanisms appropriate to quantum chaos is set by the Calogero-Moser Hamiltonian. At the first glance, our stochastic arguments may leave an impression that something completely divorced from that setting has been obtained in the present paper. However things look otherwise and our theoretical framework proves to be compatible with standard techniques for spectral analysis of complex quantum systems.

It is peculiar to the general arguments of Refs.  that invariant probability densities give rise to measure preserving stochastic processes in a fully controlled way. One of basic ingredients of the formalism is a proper choice of Feynman-Kac kernel functions, which are the building block for the construction of transition probability densities of the pertinent Markov processes. Feynman-Kac semigroup operators (and their kernels) explicitly involve one particle Hamiltonian operators as generators (in less technical terms one may think at this point about rather standard transformation from the Fokker-Planck operator to the associated self-adjoint one, ).

For stationary processes, a general formula relating forward drifts $`b(x)`$ of the stochastic process with potentials of the conservative Hamiltonian system reads (we choose a diffusion coefficient to be equal $`\frac{1}{2}`$), :

$$V(x)=\frac{1}{2}(b^2+b).$$
(22)
Upon substituting the general expression for $`b(x)`$ we arrive at:

$$V(x)=\frac{1}{2}[\frac{\beta (\beta 2)}{4x^2}(\beta +1)+x^2]$$
(23)
where $`\beta =N1`$. This potential function enters a standard definition of the one particle Hamiltonian operator (physical parameters have been scaled away):

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}+V(x)$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{}=\frac{d^2}{dx^2}`$. The operator (24) with $`V(x)`$ defined by (23) is an equivalent form of a two-particle (actually two-level) version of the Calogero-Moser Hamiltonian, cf. .

Indeed, the classic Calogero-type problem is defined by

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{1}{2}x^2+\frac{\beta (\beta 2)}{8x^2}$$
(25)
with the well known spectral solution. The eigenvalues read $`E_n(\beta )=2n+1+\frac{1}{2}[1+\beta (\beta 2)]^{1/2}`$, where $`n0`$ and $`\beta >1`$.

By inspection we can check that all previously considered $`N=2,3,4,5`$ radial processes correspond to the Calogero operator of the form $`HE_0`$ where $`E_0`$ is the ground state (n=0) eigenvalue. Its explicit foom relies on the choice of $`\beta `$ and by substituting $`\beta =1,2,3,4`$ we easily check that

$$E_0(\beta )=1+\frac{1}{2}[1+\beta (\beta 2)]^{1/2}=\frac{1}{2}(\beta +1).$$
(26)
Accordingly, all considered radial processes arise as the so-called ground state processes associated with the Calogero Hamiltonians (squared modulus of the ground state wave function stands for the pertinent probability density). Let us recall that the classic Ornstein - Uhlenbeck process can be regarded as the ground state process of the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian operator. That by the way corresponds to choosing $`N=1`$ i.e. $`\beta =0`$ in the above, plus allowing the whole of $`R^1`$ to the process. Like in the standard OU process case, radial OU processes share the property of exactness (while driving any initial density towards suitable equilibrium) and hence ergodicity.

## 5 Discussion

Our motivations were essentially probabilistic and spectral series with spacing densities governed by Wigner-type laws have emerged in the course of a parametric stochastic process that relaxes towards equilibrium (invariant measure). Such series have thus a definitely random origin. It is clear that an approximate value of Wigner densities indicates nonrandom input in realistic cases.

Let us point out that in the standard matrix-theory framework Dyson’ s ”threefold way” is based on the demonstration that on general (invariance under symmetry) grounds only three basic ensembles (orthogonal, unitary and symplectic) matter. Hence, the non-generic repulsion behaviour we have discussed before, goes beyond the standard framework (under assumptions of the Dyson theorem the non-generic laws are not admissible). Many different ensembles have been used in the literature, but their properties were more specific (less general) than the standard GOE, GUE and GSE cases show up.

The spacing distributions we have addressed (Wigner surmise), fail to be correct in general. The true random-matrix universal distributions differ from them, albeit the discrepancy is small when matrix size is going to infinity, .

In the discussed parametric relaxation process scenario, one may easily implement a transition of any initial density towards a concrete asymptotic one with the wealth of intermediate examples (e.g. from Poisson to GOE interpolation). In that case, both the initial and terminal distributions refer to random seqences of numbers (possible energy eigenvalues). Ergodicity of the ultimate stationary process implies that its sample paths arise as random sequences drawn from the Wigner-type distribution. Clearly, we cannot expect that such purely random sample sequences would reveal long range correlations typical of random-matrix models.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Karol Życzkowski for correspondence on semi-Poisson laws and for pointing Ref.  to my attention .