text:
# Current Density and Reversible Magnetization of HgBa2Ca2Cu3Ox Superconductors Containing Randomly Oriented Columnar Defects

## I Introduction

For strong pinning of vortices in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, some form of correlated disorder generally is most effective. Most widely studied have been columnar defects, which typically are formed by irradiation with energetic heavy ions; such particles are highly ionizing and create tracks of amorphous material along their path. Many morphologies have been investigated, ranging from the familiar parallel tracks to inclined defects, crossed arrays with “designer splay,” etc. One problem with heavy ions is their limited range, typically a few tens of micrometers. To overcome the limited range of heavy ions, Krusin-Elbaum et al. demonstrated an indirect formation of columnar defects using deeply penetrating 0.8 GeV protons. In this process, an incident proton is absorbed by a heavy nucleus (Hg) within the material and excites it into a highly energetic state. As a consequence, the nucleus breaks into two particles with similar mass, each having $``$ 100 MeV energy. The fission fragments form randomly oriented columnar defects (CD’s) deep within the superconductor. In a different approach to create pins deep inside a material, Weinstein and coworkers have created CD’s by introducing 235U as a dopant into the superconductor, which is induced to fission by irradiation with thermal neutrons.

Vortex pinning by proton-generated fission defects was first demonstrated in Bi-cuprate materials. In fact, the proton-based fission process is generally applicable in cuprate superconductors that contain a sufficient density of heavy nuclei. High-$`T_c`$ materials containing randomly oriented CD’s exhibit a variety of interesting physical phenomena, e.g., temperature independent quantum tunneling of vortices in Bi-2212 materials. In studies of a series of Hg-cuprates containing 1, 2, and 3 adjacent CuO layers, it was shown that sufficiently high superconductive anisotropy can lead to a rescaling of the splayed landscape of random CD’s. As a consequence, the pinning array and the applied field are ‘refocused’ toward the crystalline $`c`$-axis, even in polycrystalline materials. This is a useful feature that we will use when interpreting present studies of the equilibrium magnetization.

In this paper, we describe how the addition of random CD’s changes the superconductive properties of HgBa2Ca2Cu3Ox superconductors. Specific topics include the intragrain persistent current density $`J`$, as obtained from the magnetization; establishment of the optimum defect density; and analysis of the changes in the mixed state reversible (or equilibrium) magnetization resulting from interactions between vortices and randomly oriented columnar defects.

## II Experimental Aspects

Samples for study were bulk polycrystalline HgBa2Ca2Cu3Ox materials (Hg-1223) containing sets of 3 adjacent oxygen-copper layers. Small pieces, typically 30 mg mass and $``$ 1 millimeter thickness, were all cut from the same pellet. The samples were irradiated at room temperature in air with 0.8 GeV protons at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Proton fluences $`\varphi _p`$ were 0, 1.0, 3.2, 10, 19, and $`35\times 10^{16}`$ protons/cm2, as determined from the activation of Al dosimetry foils. The resulting density of fission events is $`N/V=\varphi _p\sigma _fn_{Hg}`$. Here $`n_{Hg}`$ is the number density of Hg nuclei and $`\sigma _f=80`$ millibarns is the cross-section for inducing a prompt fission of Hg nuclei. Each fission produces one CD, so $`N/V`$ is the volume density of defects, also. One can convert this into an approximate area density of CD’s by multiplying by the track length $``$$`\mu `$m, and the area density can be reexpressed in units of a matching field $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by multiplying by the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Resulting values for the defect density are $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ = 0, 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 1.9, and 3.4 Tesla, respectively. The fission process is random in direction, giving randomly oriented CD’s. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) studies of both Bi-2212 and Hg-cuprates have demonstrated the presence of randomly oriented columnar defects in these high-$`T_c`$ materials.

The superconductive properties of the virgin and processed samples were investigated magnetically. A SQUID-based magnetometer (model Quantum Design MPMS-7), equipped with a high homogeneity 7 T superconductive magnet, was used for studies in the temperature range 5–295 K, in applied fields to 6.5 T. The superconductive transition temperatures $`T_c`$ were measured in an applied field of 4 Oe (0.4 mT) in zero-field-cooling (ZFC) and field-cooling (FC) modes. The resulting values for the onset temperature $`T_c`$ are 133, 134, 132.3, 132, 131, and 129.3 K, respectively. Values for the Meissner (FC) fraction $`4\pi M/H`$ lie in the range of 40– 50%, except at the highest fluence where the fractional flux expulsion was 29%.

The isothermal magnetization $`M`$ was measured as a function of applied magnetic field. Below $`T_c`$ and below the irreversibility line, the magnetization was hysteretic due to the presence of intragrain persistent currents. From the magnetic irreversibility $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=[M(H)M(H)]`$, the persistent current density $`J`$ was obtained using the Bean critical state relation $`J\mathrm{\Delta }M/r`$, where $`r4`$ $`\mu `$m is the mean grain radius. Measurements of the background magnetization in the normal state above $`T_c`$ were used to correct the data in the superconducting state, in order to obtain the equilibrium magnetization $`M_{eq}`$. Above the irreversibility line where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=0`$, this process yields $`M_{eq}`$ directly; near the irreversibility line where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is small, we obtain $`M_{eq}`$ from the (background-corrected) average magnetization $`[M(H)+M(H)]/2`$, as illustrated later.

## III Experimental Results

We begin with a discussion of the effects of randomly oriented columnar defects on the irreversible properties of the Hg-1223 superconducting materials. The addition of correlated disorder increases the pinning of vortices, often quite significantly. An example is contained in Fig. 1, which shows the magnetization $`M(H)`$ at 60 K vs magnetizing field $`H`$, for various defect densities. With increasing fluence, the “hysteresis loops” increase in width and become symmetric about the $`M=0`$ axis. (The asymmetry for the virgin sample, coupled with the fact that the decreasing field branch lies near the $`M=0`$ axis, suggests that surface barriers  contribute to the observed hysteresis in this case. It is interesting to note that a relatively low dosage of CD’s, $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }=0.1`$ T, symmetrizes the $`M(H)`$ loop significantly; in particular, the magnitude of $`M`$ in the decreasing field branch is much larger. These features imply that the addition of CD’s suppresses the surface barrier, as recently discussed by Koshelev and Vinokur.)

Using the Bean model, one may obtain the persistent current density $`J(H,T)`$. For these weakly linked polycrystalline materials, the magnetization reflects the intragranular current density. Some results of this analysis are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 as plots of $`J`$ versus temperature $`T`$, in applied fields of 0.1 and 1 Tesla, respectively. The enhancement in $`J`$ is modest in low fields; this can be attributed to the presence in the virgin sample of both naturally occurring defects that provide some pinning and the likely influence of surface barrier effects, as already noted. In higher fields, the contribution of the random CD’s is more apparent and $`J`$ is enhanced by about an order-of-magnitude. For high-$`T_c`$ materials with these angularly dispersed defects, one generally achieves the maximum $`J`$ at some defect density $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ near 0.2–2 T. This optimization is shown by the insets in Figs. 2 and 3. For an applied field of 0.1 T (Fig. 2 inset), $`J`$ at 100 K is largest for $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }=0.1`$–0.3 T. For the second example with a field of 1 T (Fig. 3 inset), $`J`$ at 60 K is largest for $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ near 2 T. Qualitatively, the optimum defect density in each case is comparable with the vortex density, i.e., about $`2\times `$ larger. At higher defect densities, $`J`$ decreases. This may be due in part to the presence of additional CD’s that help to initiate the hopping of vortices to nearby empty pinning sites. A second, potential influence is a suppression of $`T_c`$; however, the change in $`T_c`$ is small and these measurements are far from $`T_c`$, so this contribution is expected to be small. A third and sizable effect is an irradiation-induced suppression of the vortex line energy and pinning energy, due to changes in the London penetration depth; this will be discussed in a following section. The optimum defect density depends weakly on the temperature as well.

Next we consider the equilibrium magnetization in the mixed state. Figure 4 illustrates the method used to obtain $`M_{eq}`$ by plotting the background-corrected experimental magnetization for the virgin material (open squares) versus applied magnetic field $`\mu _0H`$ on a logarithmic scale. The closed symbols show the average $`M`$, which provides a very good approximation to $`M_{eq}`$ when the hysteresis is small. The solid line is a fit to conventional London theory, which provides that $`M_{eq}`$ is directly proportional to $`(1/\lambda _{ab}^2)\times \mathrm{ln}(\beta B_{c2}/H)`$, where $`\lambda _{ab}`$ is the in-plane London penetration depth, $`\beta `$ is a constant of order unity, and $`B_{c2}`$ is the upper critical field. The straight line fit in Fig. 4 shows that the London $`\mathrm{ln}(H)`$ logarithmic variation describes the field dependence well. Results for $`M_{eq}`$ in the virgin Hg-1223 material at other temperatures are presented in Fig. 5. One sees from the linear regression lines that the London field dependence is followed over a wide range of fields and temperatures. Deviations from linearity occur at low fields when $`H`$ approaches $`H_{c1}`$ where simple London theory is not valid, and at low temperatures where the materials are sufficiently hysteretic that the averaging procedure illustrated in Fig. 4 is not valid. The slopes of the curves in Fig. 5 provide values for the London penetration depth $`\lambda _{ab}(T)`$ in the virgin material. These results will be compared and contrasted with values deduced for the irradiated Hg-1223.

We now address the question of how the addition of randomly oriented columnar defects modifies the equilibrium magnetization in the mixed state. The qualitative effects of the CD’s are illustrated in Fig. 4, which includes data for $`M_{eq}`$ at 77 K for irradiated samples with defect densities $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }1.0`$ and 3.4 T. Comparing these data with the virgin curve shows that the CD’s reduce the magnitude of the equilibrium magnetization considerably, especially at lower fields. In addition, they generate a pronounced deviation from the “standard” London field dependence, giving $`M_{eq}`$ an “S”-like dependence on field. This “anomalous” behavior has been observed previously in cuprates containing parallel columnar defects formed by 5.8 GeV Pb-ions, in thallium-based single crystals; in Bi-2223 tapes ; and in Bi-2212 single crystals.

These changes in the equilibrium magnetization have been attributed to magnetic interactions between the vortex lattice and the columnar defects. By occupying a pinning site, a vortex gains pinning energy. This reduction in system energy must exceed the energy increase arising from direct intervortex repulsion when a vortex is displaced from its natural position in the lattice to a particular columnar defect. For a defect geometry with parallel tracks that have a Poisson distribution of separations, Wahl et al. obtained an expression for $`M_{eq}`$ that describes reasonably well the S-shaped field dependence in Tl-cuprate crystals containing parallel CD’s.

In the Hg-cuprates investigated here, one might expect that the randomly oriented columnar microstructure should entangle the vortices. Consequently it is somewhat curious that the $`M_{eq}`$ in polycrystalline materials with random CD’s can resemble single crystals with parallel defects. We have suggested that this similarity originates from an anisotropy-induced “refocussing” of the defects and field toward the crystalline $`c`$-axis. For highly anisotropic single crystals, it is long recognized that only the normal component of field is effective. More recent studies of polycrystalline Hg-cuprates demonstrated a recovery of vortex variable range hopping (VRH), very similar to that observed in YBaCuO single crystals containing parallel CD’s. Among the Hg-cuprates with 1, 2, and 3 adjacent Cu-O layers, the recovery of VRH was most pronounced in the Hg-1223 material with the largest mass anisotropy parameter $`\gamma `$. According to the theoretical development, the complexity of randomly oriented columnar defects in a polycrystalline material is reduced to some degree by a large superconducting anisotropy, restoring the simple physics of a crystal with parallel pins. Thus vortex pinning by random CD’s provides a reasonable qualitative explanation for the reduction in equilibrium magnetization, despite the complexity of the materials in real space.

Next we use the vortex-defect interaction theory of Wahl et al. to model our experimental data. From the theory, one has

$`M_{eq}`$ $`=`$ $`(\epsilon _0/2\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\times \mathrm{ln}(\beta H_{c2}/B)`$ (2)
$`(U_0/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\left\{1\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{U_0B_\mathrm{\Phi }}{\epsilon _0B}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{U_0B_\mathrm{\Phi }}{\epsilon _0B}}\right)\right\}`$
where $`\epsilon _0=[\mathrm{\Phi }_0/4\pi \lambda _{ab}]^2`$ is the line energy, $`U_0`$ is the pinning energy, and $`B=(H+4\pi M)=H`$ since $`M`$ is small. The first term is the conventional London expression. The second is an added term to account for interactions; it is most significant in intermediate fields and it vanishes in large fields $`BB_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In modeling of data at various temperatures $`T`$ (77, 90, 100, and 110 K), our objective was to maintain an internally consistent set of parameters. The results are shown as solid lines in Fig. 6a for the sample with $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }1`$ T and in Fig. 6b for the sample with a higher defect density. Given the complexity of the polycrystalline material and of the vortex and defect arrays, the description of the experimental data (filled symbols) is relatively good. The values for the pinning energy are a significant fraction of the line energy and are quite reasonable, with $`U_0=0.65\epsilon _0`$ and $`0.8\epsilon _0`$, respectively. To obtain reasonable modeling of the data for the two irradiated materials, we used values of 2.0 and 2.5 T, respectively, for the effective defect densities $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The differences from the nominal values (calculated from the proton fluences) may arise from some overlap of tracks at the highest fluence combined with uncertainty in calculating the production rate for CD’s. It is also possible that the effective values for $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ compensate for other factors, such as residual entanglement and angular distribution in the CD array. Indeed, for more highly anisotropic Tl-2212 materials ($`\gamma >100`$, compared with $`\gamma 60`$ in Hg-1223), similar modeling was achieved with $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ values within 20% of those calculated from the proton fluence.

An important feature of any superconductor is the London penetration depth. Figure 7 summarizes the results for these materials in a plot of 1/$`\lambda _{ab}^2`$ versus temperature. Values for the virgin sample were obtained from a standard London analysis of the data in Fig. 5. An extrapolation of the Ginzburg-Landau linear dependence near $`T_c`$ (dashed line) to $`T=0`$ yields a value $`\lambda (T=0)=174`$ nm, which is comparable with earlier determinations. The values for the materials with CD’s were obtained from the modeling procedure. All of these results are reasonably behaved, with 1/$`\lambda _{ab}^2`$ varying linearly with $`T`$ at high temperature. It is clear that proton irradiation increased $`\lambda `$ significantly. This is expected, from two theoretical perspectives. First, conventional GLAG theory predicts that the penetration depth $`\lambda ^2`$ increases as $`(1+\xi _0/\mathrm{})`$ when the electronic mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$ is reduced by scattering, as produced by irradiation-generated defects from neutrons and secondary protons released by spallation. Second, the theory of Wahl-Buzdin provides that introducing CD’s increases the penetration depth as

$$\lambda ^2(B_\mathrm{\Phi })=\lambda ^2(B_\mathrm{\Phi }=0)\times [12\pi R^2B_\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0]$$
(3)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the columnar track. The combination of these two effects leads to the significant, progressive increases in $`\lambda `$ observed in Fig. 7. To compare with Eq. 2, the inset of Fig. 7 shows 1/$`\lambda ^2`$, linearly extrapolated to $`T=0`$, plotted versus defect density. The open symbols denote values for $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ calculated from the proton fluence, while the closed symbols are values used for the modeling, as discussed above. The dashed line in the inset illustrates the theoretical dependence in Eq. 2 and shows a qualitative agreement with the data; its slope corresponds to a value $`R8.4`$ nm, somewhat below the 11 nm value obtained for Tl-2212 materials. As discussed previously, it is likely that the CD’s have a large effective radius due to oblique passage of ion tracks through CuO planes and a “halo” of oxygen depletion around the central amorphized zone.

An interesting consequence of a larger London penetration depth is that the vortex line energy $`\epsilon _0`$ decreases significantly. As a result, one can expect the vortex pinning energy of a CD and its pinning force to decrease, reducing its effectiveness. This effect counteracts the nominally positive influence of increasing the defect density $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is likely that these competing effects play a major role in determining the range of $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that maximizes the current density $`J`$, as illustrated in the insets of Figs. 2 and 3. This competition is reminiscent of the formation of (point-like) defects in YBa2Cu3O7-δ, where progressive removal of oxygen creates defects, but also reduces their effectiveness through increases in the superconductive length scales.

## IV Summary

We irradiated polycrystalline HgBa2Ca2Cu3Ox materials with 0.8 GeV protons to produce randomly oriented columnar defects via a fission process. Enhancements in vortex pinning increased the persistent current density, with the optimum defect density depending on the range of field and temperature. Adding random linear defects significantly reduced the magnitude of the equilibrium magnetization and changed its dependence on magnetic field from a simple London $`\mathrm{ln}(H)`$ form (as observed for the virgin material) to a more complex “S-shaped” dependence. Invoking an anisotropy-induced “refocusing” of the vortex-defect array, we have modeled these results using the theory of Wahl-Buzdin that incorporates vortex-defect interactions. This analysis shows that the addition of random columnar defects increases the London penetration depth markedly, which diminishes their effectiveness for pinning vortices. Overall, however, the formation of randomly oriented columnar defects both enhances the current-carrying performance of the material and creates interesting superconductive systems for study of the interaction of vortices with correlated disorder.

We thank M. Paranthaman for providing the starting Hg-1223 materials used in this study. The work of JGO was supported in part by the Chilean FONDECYT, grant # 1000394. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Los Alamos National Laboratory is funded by the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.

## V References

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1. The magnetization of polycrystalline Hg-1223 materials at 60 K, versus applied magnetic field. Samples were irradiated with various fluences $`\varphi _p`$ of 0.8 GeV protons, as shown, to create randomly oriented columnar defects with approximate “matching fields” $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

Fig. 2. The intra-granular persistent current density $`J`$ vs temperature for various irradiated materials, measured in applied magnetic field of 0.1 T. The inset shows that $`J`$ at 100 K is maximized at a defect density of 0.1–0.3 T.

Fig. 3. The intra-granular persistent current density $`J`$ vs temperature for various irradiated materials, measured in applied magnetic field of 1 T. Inset: $`J`$ at 60 K versus defect density $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ exhibits a maximum at a defect density of $``$2 T.

Fig. 4. The magnetization of virgin Hg-1223 at 77 K, versus applied magnetic field (log scale). Open squares show the measured $`M`$ in increasing and decreasing field history, while closed squares show the average $`MM_{eq}`$. The solid line is a fit to the conventional London $`\mathrm{ln}(H)`$ dependence. Data for Hg-1223 containing randomly oriented columnar defects are included for comparison.

Fig. 5. The equilibrium magnetization $`M_{eq}(H,T)`$ plotted vs ln(H) for unirradiated Hg-1223 at the temperatures shown. Lines are fits to conventional London theory.

Fig. 6. Plots of $`M_{eq}(H,T)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{ln}(H)`$ for irradiated Hg-1223 with (a) $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }1`$ T and (b) with $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }3.4`$ T. Symbols are experimental results, while lines show modeling of data using Eq. 1 where effects of vortex-defect interactions are included.

Fig. 7. The temperature dependence of the London penetration depth 1/$`\lambda ^2`$. Values for the virgin sample come from a conventional London analysis of the data in Fig. 5; for the irradiated materials, values come from modeling the equilibrium magnetization shown in Fig. 6. Inset shows values for 1/$`\lambda ^2`$, extrapolated to $`T=0`$, plotted versus defect density; open symbols denote $`B_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ values calculated from the proton fluence and closed symbols are values used in the modeling.


format: text

text:
# Methods for the Study of Particle Production Fluctuations

## I Introduction

The numbers of particles produced in relativistic nuclear collisions differ dramatically from collision to collision due to the variation of impact parameter, energy deposition, baryon stopping and other dynamical effects Baym89 ; Gazdzicki92 ; Heiselberg01 . Such fluctuations can also be influenced by novel phenomena such as disoriented chiral condensate Rajagopal93 ; Gavin95  or the appearance of multiple event classes Gavin00 . Even globally conserved quantities such as net charge, baryon number and strangeness can fluctuate when measured, e.g., in a limited rapidity interval. The rapid hadronization of a quark-gluon plasma (QGP) can reduce net charge fluctuations compared to hadronic expectations Jeon00 ; Koch02 , while phase separation can increase net-baryon fluctuations Gavin01 . Fluctuations of conserved quantities are possibly the best probes of such novel dynamics, because conservation laws limit the degree to which final-state scattering can dissipate them.

Many statistical measures have been suggested for analyzing particle number fluctuations in experiments Mrowczynski02 ; Jeon00 ; Heiselberg00 ; Gavin00 . Although these measures superficially appear to be different in nature and unrelated, closer examination reveals they are in fact connected. On the other hand, each measure exhibits different dependence on collision centrality, detector acceptance (rapidity and $`p_t`$ region used to calculate the observable), particle detection efficiency, and susceptibility to experimental biases. The utility of each measure depends on the particle species measured and the physical phenomena one wishes to extract. For example, “robust” efficiency-independent measures are best for observing the correlations between neutral and charged particles produced by disoriented chiral condensate Taylor97 ; Gavin02 .

Experimental efforts to measure event-by-event fluctuations have followed two approaches. Many advocate a statistical approach in which fluctuations of particle numbers are characterized by variances, covariances or other moments Mrowczynski02 ; Jeon00 ; Heiselberg00 ; Trainor01 ; Gavin00 ; Phenix02 ; Zaranek01 . These moments can be compared to expectations based on thermal-equilibrium or other statistical models; any difference can be attributed to novel dynamics. Others emphasize the importance of the momentum-dependent correlation functions, such as the balance functionBass00 . The correlation-function approach has yielded great success in the case of identical pion Hanbury-Brown and Twiss correlations.

In this paper, we discuss relations between correlation functions and moment measures of net-charge fluctuations to study the dependence of these measures on collision centrality, experimental efficiency and acceptance. We focus initially on the variance $`\nu _{dyn}`$ suggested in Voloshin01 , which is derived from integrals of the single- and two-particle distribution functions. Next, we compare these measures to alternatives suggested in Mrowczynski02 ; Jeon00 . Our correlation-function based analysis complements a study by Mrowczynski using a statistical point of view Mrowczynski02 . Specifically, we begin in Sect. II by defining the fluctuation measure $`\nu _{dyn}`$ in relation to the microscopic correlation functions. In the next section, we determine the scaling properties of $`\nu _{dyn}`$ with system size and, equivalently, collision centrality. We then introduce alternative fluctuation measures, and discuss their relationship with $`\nu _{dyn}`$ in Sect. IV. A relation between the net-charge fluctuations, and the balance function introduced by Bass et al. Bass00  is presented in Sect. VII. Sect. VIII is devoted to a discussion on the robustness of fluctuation observables, i.e., whether and how fluctuation measures introduced in Sect.IV depend on detection efficiency. Finally, we consider and compare, in Sect.IX, the various fluctuation measures in the context of simple particle production models.

## II Net-charge fluctuations as a measure of 2-particle correlations

In this section we show that multiplicity fluctuations are driven by intrinsic 2-particle correlations. Statistical quantities that we discuss are constructed from the one-body and two-body densities,

$`\rho _1(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\eta }},`$
$`\rho _2(\eta _1,\eta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N}{d\eta _1d\eta _2}}.`$ (1)
For simplicity, we focus on pseudo-rapidity dependence, although results can be generalized to address transverse-momentum and azimuthal-angular dependence. Our approach and notation in this section follows Ref. Whitmore76 ; Foa75 .

To extract statistical information from these microscopic densities, we use (1) to write the multiplicity in the rapidity range $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ as

$$N=_{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\rho _1(\eta )𝑑\eta .$$
(2)
Here $`N`$ represents an average of the observable $`N`$ over an event ensemble. Fluctuations of the particle number in this rapidity range are determined by integrating the two-particle density,

$$N(N1)=_{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\rho _2(\eta _1,\eta _2)𝑑\eta _1𝑑\eta _2.$$
(3)
The ”-1” appears on the left side because the integral over $`\rho _2(\eta _1,\eta _2)`$ counts the average number of particle pairs in the rapidity interval. Note that $`N`$ and $`N(N1)`$ are the first and second order factorial moments of the multiplicity distribution.

A familiar statistical measure of particle number fluctuations is the variance,

$$V=(NN)^2.$$
(4)
We can obtain the variance from (2) and (3), since $`V=N(N1)N(N1)`$. In the absence of particle-particle correlations, the two-body density factorizes into a product of two one-body densities. In that case, we find

$$N(N1)_{\mathrm{uncorr}}=_{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\rho _1(\eta _1)\rho _1(\eta _2)𝑑\eta _1𝑑\eta _2=N^2.$$
(5)
The variance is then $`V=N`$, as expected since the number of particles produced in a sequence of independent events follows Poisson statistics StatisticsBook . Note that the relative uncertainty in the mean number $`N`$ is $`\sqrt{V}/N=1/\sqrt{N}`$ for this case. Observe that the particle number in a grand canonical ensemble in thermal equilibrium follows Poisson statistics.

Information on net-charge fluctuations is contained in the two-body density for distinct particles with opposite charges. We determine these fluctuations from

$$N_\alpha N_\beta =_{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\rho _2(\eta _\alpha ,\eta _\beta )𝑑\eta _\alpha 𝑑\eta _\beta ,$$
(6)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ label the particle species. In a statistical framework, this average is related to the two-particle covariance,

$$V_{\alpha \beta }=N_\alpha N_\beta N_\alpha N_\beta .$$
(7)
The covariance vanishes if there are no correlations between the species $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, since $`\rho _2(\eta _\alpha ,\eta _\beta )=\rho _1(\eta _\alpha )\rho _1(\eta _\beta )`$.

Following Whitmore76 ; Foa75  we define the robust variance,

$$R_{\alpha \alpha }=\frac{VN}{N^2},$$
(8)
and the robust covariance,

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{V_{\alpha \beta }}{N_\alpha N_\beta },$$
(9)
for particle species $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. These quantities have the same sensitivity to fluctuations as the variance (4) and covariance (7) but have three significant advantages. First, these quantities vanish for $`V=N`$ and $`V_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, so that they measure the deviation from Poisson-statistical behavior. Second – and of greater practical importance – the ratios (8) and (9) are ‘robust’ in that they are independent of experimental efficiency, To see why Eq. (8) is robust, let the probability of detecting each charged particle be $`ϵ`$ and the probability of missing it be $`1ϵ`$. For a binomial distribution the average number of measured particles is $`N_{\mathrm{exp}}=ϵN`$ while the average square is $`N^2_{\mathrm{exp}}=ϵ^2N^2+ϵ(1ϵ)N`$. The variance $`V_{\mathrm{exp}}=N^2_{\mathrm{exp}}N_{\mathrm{exp}}^2=ϵ^2(N^2N^2)+ϵ(1ϵ)N`$, so that $`V_{\mathrm{exp}}N_{\mathrm{exp}}=ϵ^2(VN)`$. We then find

$$R_{\alpha \alpha }^{\mathrm{exp}}=R_{\alpha \alpha },$$
(10)
independent of $`ϵ`$; the proof that (9) is robust is similar. The ratios (8) and (9) are strictly robust only if the efficiency $`ϵ`$ is independent of multiplicity. We discuss this point in more detail in section VIII.

Third, $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ are directly related to the particle correlations. For $`\alpha \beta `$, we combine (2), (6), (7) and (9) to obtain

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{_{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\rho _2(\eta _\alpha ,\eta _\beta )𝑑\eta _\alpha 𝑑\eta _\beta }{_{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\rho _1(\eta _\alpha )𝑑\eta _\alpha _{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\rho _1(\eta _\beta )𝑑\eta _\beta }1;$$
(11)
one can check that (11) also holds for $`\alpha =\beta `$. As in an HBT analysis, we define a correlation function $`C`$ by

$$\rho _2(\eta _1,\eta _2)=\rho _1(\eta _1)\rho _1(\eta _2)[1+C(\eta _1,\eta _2)],$$
(12)
so that (11) yields

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{_{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\rho _1(\eta _\alpha )\rho _1(\eta _\beta )C_{\alpha \beta }(\eta _\alpha ,\eta _\beta )𝑑\eta _\alpha 𝑑\eta _\beta }{N_\alpha N_\beta }$$
(13)
We use this result to illustrate how to extract microscopic information on the rapidity range of correlations from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ dependence of $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ in sec. VII.

To study net-charge fluctuations, one can measure the robust covariance for charged hadrons $`R_+`$. On the other hand, it would be better to isolate the potentially interesting net-charge fluctuations from factors that cause the numbers of positive and negative hadrons to fluctuate together, such as variations in energy deposition or collision volume. Toward that end, we consider dynamic charge observable defined as the linear combination

$$\nu _{dyn}=R_{++}+R_{}2R_+.$$
(14)
Ratio fluctuations considered by Jeon and Koch Jeon00  are an alternative, see sec. IV. This combination vanishes when the positive and negative hadrons fluctuate simultaneously, since all the $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ are then the same. We also see that $`\nu _{dyn}`$ is both robust (see sec.VIII) and straightforwardly related to the microscopic correlators (1), as are the $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$. We find an alternative expression for $`\nu _{dyn}`$ in terms of

$$\nu _+=\left(\frac{N_+}{N_+}\frac{N_{}}{N_{}}\right)^2,$$
(15)
where $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$ are respectively the multiplicities of positive and negative hadrons. In the limit of independent particle production, $`\nu `$ becomes

$$\nu _{stat}=\frac{1}{N_+}+\frac{1}{N_{}}.$$
(16)
The dynamic charge observable is the difference,

$$\nu _{dyn}=\nu \nu _{stat},$$
(17)
as we see by expanding the square in (15). Observe that $`\nu _{dyn}`$ is nonzero when net-charge fluctuations are correlated (non-Poissonian). Furthermore, eqs. (15-17) are more useful than (14) for extracting correlations from numerical data since the net-charge fluctuations are typically smaller than the fluctuations of the total number of hadrons.

We examine the scaling properties of the $`\nu _{dyn}`$ variance with collision system size in the next section.

## III  Scaling of $`\nu _{dyn}`$ with system size and collision centrality in A+A collisions

We now study the scaling of the observables $`C_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$, and $`\nu _{dyn}`$, with collision centrality, target and projectile mass. For concreteness, we assume that nuclear collisions are a superposition of independent nucleon-nucleon ($`NN`$) sub-collisions and neglect the rescattering of the hadrons. These assumptions imply that charged-particle pairs can be correlated only if produced in the same sub-collision. We expect the contribution to the two-body density from these related pairs to grow linearly with the number of sub-collisions $`M`$. Related pairs will be diluted by random pairs. The $`AA`$ densities are

$`\rho _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{AA}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`M\rho _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{NN}(\eta ),`$ (18)
$`\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{AA}(\eta _1,\eta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`M\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{NN}(\eta _1,\eta _2)`$
$`+M(M`$ $``$ $`1)\rho _1^{NN}(\eta _1)\rho _1^{NN}(\eta _2).`$ (19)
The first term of (19) describes the related pairs while the second accounts for the $`M(M1)`$ random pairs. These expressions apply generally to particle production from $`M`$ sources; we focus on the independent collision model for simplicity. We apply these considerations to more realistic models at the end of this section.

To compute the correlation function, we substitute the $`AA`$ densities Eqs. (18-19) in (12) to find

$$C_{\alpha \beta }^{AA}(\eta _1,\eta _2)=\frac{C_{\alpha \beta }^{NN}(\eta _1,\eta _2)}{M}.$$
(20)
For independent sub-collisions and in the absence of rescattering, we therefore expect the $`AA`$ correlation function to have the same rapidity dependence as in $`pp`$ collisions, with an overall scale that is reduced by a factor $`M^1`$.

Before turning to realistic experiments, we consider for the moment a collision with a fixed number of sub-collisions. The statistical observables then satisfy

$$R_{\alpha \beta }^{AA}=\frac{R_{\alpha \beta }^{NN}}{M}$$
(21)
and

$$\nu _{dyn}(AA)=\frac{\nu _{dyn}(pp)}{M}.$$
(22)
We see that all quantities scale as $`M^1`$.

More realistically, suppose that one specifies a centralility range by measuring the total charge multiplicity, the zero degree energy, or some analogous global observable. The number of sub-collisions will then fluctuate, adding to the variance and covariance of particle numbers and changing (21). Specifically, the fluctuations of $`M`$ contribute a term $`N_\alpha N_\beta (M^2M^2)`$ to the variance and covariance, $`V_n`$ and $`V_{\alpha \beta }`$, so that (8) and (9) give

$$R_{\alpha \beta }^{AA}=\frac{R_{\alpha \beta }^{NN}}{M}+\frac{M^2M^2}{M^2}.$$
(23)
See the appendix for a full derivation. We remark that these $`M`$ fluctuations are essentially equivalent to the “volume fluctuations” discussed in a local equilibrium framework Jeon00 ; Koch02 .

On the other hand, random changes in the number of independent sub-collisions can change the total number of particles but not the net charge, so that (22) is effectively unchanged. We find

$$\nu _{dyn}(AA)=R_{++}+R_{}2R_+=\frac{\nu _{dyn}(pp)}{M}.$$
(24)
The contributions from sub-collision or volume fluctuations are the same for all $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, so that (14) implies that this contribution does not affect $`v_{dyn}`$. The second term in (21) is of order $`1/M`$ and comparable to the first, since ISR and FNAL experiments suggest that $`R_{++}^{NN}R_{}^{NN}R_+^{NN}/2`$, each of order unity in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =12`$ at RHIC Whitmore76 ; Foa75 .

We now extend these considerations to the wounded nucleon model, which sucessfully describes many global features in SPS and AGS experiments. There, one assumes that only the first sub-collision of each nucleon drives particle production and neglects all subsequent interactions Bialas:1976ed . Since (18) and (19) formally describe particle production from $`M`$ independent sources, we can adapt (18) and (19) to the wounded nucleon scenario by replacing the number of sub-collisions $`M`$ with the number of participant nucleons, $``$. We must also replace the densities $`\rho _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{NN}`$ and $`\rho _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{NN}`$ in (18) and (19) with coefficients $`\rho _1^0`$ and $`\rho _2^0`$ that describe the production per participant. Observe that nucleons are counted as particpants if they interact at least once and that there are two participants per $`NN`$ collision.

Results of the form (23) and (24) then follow from the wounded nucleon model if we replace $`M`$ with one-half the number of participants $``$. The average number of participants at impact parameter $`b`$ for a symmetric $`AA`$ collision is $`(b)=2𝑑sT(s)\{1e^{\sigma _{NN}T(bs)}\}`$, where $`T(b)=\rho (z,b)𝑑z`$ is the familiar nuclear thickness function and $`\rho `$ is the nuclear density. By comparison, the number of sub-collisions is $`M(b)=\sigma _{NN}𝑑sT(s)T(bs)`$. We remark that both wounded-nucleon and independent-collision approximations imply that the total multiplicity of pions $`N_\pi `$ scales as the respective number (participants or subcollisions). Therefore, both models imply $`\nu _{dyn}N_\pi ^1`$, albeit with different coefficients.

We point out that particle production at RHIC energy has contributions from soft interactions, which scale as the number of participants, and hard processes, which scale as the number of subcollisions JeonKapusta ; KharzeevNardi . In this case the scaling of $`\nu _{dyn}`$ with $`N_\pi `$ can be more complex. Furthermore, final state scattering effects can certainly modify this scaling.

## IV Alternative Measures of Fluctuations

In this section we consider the connection between the variance $`\nu _{dyn}`$ and other fluctuations measures. We discuss some of the merits and problems associated with each observable.

### IV.1 $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-Measure

The $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measure of the net charge fluctuation was introduced by Mrowczynski Mrowczynski02  and is based on statistical considerations. It consists of the difference between the mean of particle production variances calculated event-by-event and the variance calculated over the entire dataset. Consider $`x`$ an observable of interest e.g. the net charge of produced particles. The inclusive mean of $`x`$ (i.e. average over all particles an events) is noted $`\overline{x}`$. Deviation from the inclusive mean are noted $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=x\overline{x}`$. By construction, one has $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}=0`$. The root mean square (RMS) deviation is $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}=\overline{(x\overline{x})^2}`$. To investigate the dynamics, one determines how the event-wise net value of “$`x`$”, defined as $`X=_ix_i`$, changes event by event. One defines $`\mathrm{\Delta }X=XN\overline{x}`$ as the event deviation from the inclusive mean (with N being the number of particles in the given event). By construction, its event average $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ vanishes, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }X^2`$ does not. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measure is defined as Mrowczynski02

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }X^2}{N}}\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}}.$$
(25)
For a system with particles of charge $`q_+`$ and $`q_{}`$, the inclusive standard deviation is:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}=(q_+q_{})^2\frac{N_+N_{}}{N^2}.$$
(26)
The magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }X^2`$ is determined by both statistical and dynamic fluctuations. Defining $`Q`$ as the net charge of an event, one has $`\mathrm{\Delta }X=QNQ/N`$, from which one finds indeed $`\mathrm{\Delta }X=0`$. The average $`\mathrm{\Delta }X^2`$ is however non-zero. One finds

$`\mathrm{\Delta }X^2`$ $`=`$ $`(q_+q_{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_+^2N_{}^2}{N^3}}`$ (27)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{N_+^2N_+^2}{N_+^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N_{}^2N_{}^2}{N_{}^2}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{N_+N_{}N_+N_{}}{N_+N_{}}}),`$
so that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`(q_+q_{})\{{\displaystyle \frac{N_+N_{}}{N^{3/2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{N_+^2N_+^2}{N_+^2}}`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N_{}^2N_{}^2}{N_{}^2}}`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{N_+N_{}N_+N_{}}{N_+N_{}}})^{1/2}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_+N_{}}{N^2}}\right)^{1/2}\},`$
Examination of eqs. (26), (27), and (28) reveals that they can, in fact, be expressed as the $`\nu `$ and $`\nu _{stat}`$ variances as follows (as also reported by Mrowczynski Mrowczynski02 ):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }X^2`$ $`=`$ $`(q_+q_{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_+^2N_{}^2}{N^3}}\nu `$ (29)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}`$ $`=`$ $`(q_+q_{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_+^2N_{}^2}{N^3}}\nu _{stat}`$ (30)
so one can express $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2N_+N_{}}{N}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\nu }{N}}\sqrt{\frac{\nu _{stat}}{N}}\right).$$
(31)
In general, the dynamic component of the fluctuations is much smaller than the statistical component: $`\nu _{dyn}<<\nu _{stat}`$ implying $`\sqrt{\nu /N}\sqrt{\nu _{stat}/N}=\sqrt{\nu _{stat}/N}(\sqrt{1+\nu _{dyn}/\nu _{stat}}1)\nu _{dyn}(2\sqrt{\nu _{stat}N})^1`$. Substituting the value of $`\nu _{stat}`$ given by Eq.16, the above expression can thus be approximated by:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{N_+^{3/2}N_{}^{3/2}}{N^2}\nu _{dyn}.$$
(32)
One thus finds that indeed the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measure is determined (mostly) by the dynamical fluctuations of the system, i.e. by the particle correlations implicit in the sum $`R_{++}+R_{}2R_+`$.

Eq. (32) further simplifies, as follows, for cases where $`N_+=N_{}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{N}{8}\nu _{dyn}.$$
(33)
Given, as we discussed in Sect. III, that the variance $`\nu _{dyn}`$ should vary inversely to the multiplicity of charge particles in the limit of independent particle collisions and absence of rescattering of the secondaries, one should expect that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\nu _{dyn,pp}/8`$ in that limit, and independent of the collision centrality if the collision dynamic do not vary with collision centrality. Note however one must exercise caution while comparing $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measured by experiments with different acceptances (See Sect. VI for details). Note finally that unlike $`\nu _{dyn}`$, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measure is a non robust observable given it explicitly depends on the detection efficiency of positive and negative particles through the factor $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$ as we shall discuss in more detail in section VIII.

### IV.2 Particle Ratios

Another approach advocated in ref. Koch02  focuses on the variance of the ratio of positive and negative particle multiplicities, $`R=N_+/N_{}`$. As shown in ref. Koch02 , the fluctuations of the ratio offer the advantage that “volume” fluctuation effects cancel to first order. This is also true for $`\nu _{dyn}`$ (see sec. III) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ Mrowczynski02 .

For small fluctuations, the variance of the ratio can be related to the charge variance $`\nu `$ (15). A small fluctuation of $`R=N_+/N_{}`$ satisfies

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_+}{N_+}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_{}}{N_{}},$$
(34)
so that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R^2}{R^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_+^2}{N_+^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_{}^2}{N_{}^2}2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_+\mathrm{\Delta }N_{}}{N_+N_{}}.$$
(35)
Expanding the square in (15), we see that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }R^2=R^2\nu $$
(36)
Observe that neither $`\nu `$ nor $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^2`$ are robust. Also, note that this equivalence holds only when $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_\pm ^2^{1/2}<<N_\pm `$; an approximation, which breaks down at small multiplicities. Problems with these quantities for small multiplicities are discussed in Phenix02 . The $`D`$ measure used by Jeon and Koch Koch02 ,

$$DN\mathrm{\Delta }R^2=N_++N_{}R^2\nu ,$$
(37)
is also efficiency dependent.

### IV.3 Reduced Variance

Lastly, we consider the reduced variance $`\omega _Q`$ used by authors Gavin00 ; Heiselberg00 ; Koch02 ; Bopp02 ; Phenix02 . If we write $`N=N_++N_{}`$ and $`Q=N_+N_{}`$, then the reduced variance is

$$\omega _Q=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Q^2}{N}.$$
(38)
As before, we expand the square to find

$$\omega _Q=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_+^2+\mathrm{\Delta }N_{}^22\mathrm{\Delta }N_+\mathrm{\Delta }N_{}}{N_++N_{}}.$$
(39)
This ratio is unity for Poissonian fluctuations or for a thermal ensemble in chemical equilibrium; any measured multiplicity dependence would be interesting. In terms of robust ratios, we obtain

$$\omega _Q=1+\frac{N_+^2}{N}R_{++}+\frac{N_{}^2}{N}R_{}2\frac{N_+^{}N_{}}{N}R_+.$$
(40)
Generally, this quantity has a complicated dependence on the correlators $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$. However, for $`N_+N_{}`$, the above expression reduces to

$$\omega _Q1+\frac{N_++N_{}}{4}\nu _{dyn},$$
(41)
indicating that this quantity has the same efficiency dependence as the total number of charged particles.

We note, in closing this section, that the reduced variance, $`\omega _Q`$, unlike $`\nu _{dyn}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, has an explicit dependence on collision volume fluctuations, as given by the following expression.

$$\omega _Q=\omega _{Q,V}+\frac{\left(N_+N_{}\right)^2}{N_++N_{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V^2}{V^2}$$
(42)
where $`\omega _{Q,V}`$ corresponds to the reduced variance at fixed volume, while $`V`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^2`$ are respectively the mean and variance of the collision volume. The importance of volume fluctuations was pointed out by Jeon and Koch Jeon99 . Following their work, it is straightforward to show that $`\nu _{dyn}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are independent of volume fluctuations.

## V Charge conservation effects

The total charge of the system is fixed due to the charge conservation. It implies some “trivial” correlation in particle production regardless of other dynamical effects. As such, it only affects the two-particle density $`\rho _+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$. We proceed to study the effect of charge conservation on the net charge fluctuation by calculating the correlation function $`C_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$ as a function of single and two-particle density expressed in terms of probability distributions of positive and negative particle in order to emphasize the role of charge conservation. One writes, for fixed number $`N_\pm `$ of positive and negative particles:

$`\rho _\pm (\eta _\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`N_\pm P_\pm (\eta _\pm )`$ (43)
$`\rho _+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$ $`=`$ $`N_{}P_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$
$`+(N_{}N_+N_{})P_+(\eta _+)P_{}(\eta _{})`$
$`P_\pm (\eta _\pm )`$ are probabilities to find one + or - particle at rapidity $`\eta _\pm `$. $`P_+`$ is the probability to find one positive particle and one negative particles at rapidities $`\eta _+`$ and $`\eta _{}`$ respectively. $`N_{}`$ and $`N_+`$ are respectively the total number of negative and positive particles produced (over $`4\pi `$ solid angle) by a collision. By virtue of charge conservation, and given the total charge $`Q0`$, one has $`Q=N_+N_{}`$, and $`N_+N_{}`$. The first term of Eq. (V) accounts for correlations between positive and negative particles. As there are $`N_{}`$ +- pairs created, one has a contribution $`N_{}P_+`$. The second term arises because there are $`N_+N_{}N_{}`$ ways to pair the uncorrelated +- particles. In general, at a fixed impact parameter (or number of nn collisions), the multiplicities $`N_{}`$ and $`N_+`$ shall fluctuate event-by-event. One must then average over such fluctuations and rewrite the above expression as

$`\rho _\pm (\eta _\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`N_\pm _{4\pi }P_\pm (\eta _\pm )`$ (45)
$`\rho _+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$ $`=`$ $`N_{}_{4\pi }P_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})+`$
$`(N_{}N_+_{4\pi }+N_{}_{4\pi })P_+(\eta _+)P_{}(\eta _{})`$
where the notation $`O_{4\pi }`$ represents an average taken over $`4\pi `$ acceptance. In the absence of dynamical correlations, and by virtue of charge conservation, one has

$`N_{}^2_{4\pi }N_{}_{4\pi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`N_{}_{4\pi }`$ (47)
$`N_{}N_+_{4\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`N_{}_{4\pi }^2+N_{}_{4\pi }N_{}_{4\pi }Q`$
The correlation function $`C_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$ can then be calculated and written as

$`C_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _+(\eta _+,\eta _{})}{\rho _+(\eta _+)\rho _{}(\eta _{})}}1`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_+_{4\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})}{P_+(\eta _+)P_{}(\eta _{})}}`$
This result is fairly generic and includes the possibility of dynamical spatial (or rapidity) correlations between the particles of a created pair. Neglecting such a correlation however, and for the purpose of evaluating the role of charge conservation alone, one sets $`P_+=P_+P_{}`$. One then finds that charge conservation implies:

$$C_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})=\frac{1}{N_+_{4\pi }}\frac{2}{N_{4\pi }}$$
(49)
where $`N_{4\pi }`$ stands for the mean total number of charged particles produced in the event. Obviously, at large multiplicities one can neglect the difference between $`N_+`$ and $`N/2`$.

The correlator $`R_+`$ is obtained by integration (see Eq. (11)) of $`C_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$ over the experimental acceptance. Given that $`C_+(\eta _+,\eta _{})`$ is actually independent of $`\eta _\pm `$, $`R_+`$ is independent of the experimental acceptance. One thus finds that the charge conservation contribution to $`\nu _{dyn}`$ amounts to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{dyn}=\frac{4}{N_{4\pi }}.$$
(50)
It is independent of the experimental acceptance, and only determined by the total charge particle multiplicity at a given impact parameter.

We emphasize that $`\nu _{dyn}0`$ for a $`4\pi `$ acceptance because charge conservation imposes a correlation on the system. The total $`\nu _+`$ given by (15) is strictly zero when all particles are detected. However, (16) implies that $`\nu _{stat}0`$ in this case, since the Poisson distributions used to calculate $`\nu _{stat}`$ do not incorporate a global charge conservation constraint. It follows that $`\nu _{dyn}=\nu \nu _{stat}\nu _{stat}`$ for a $`4\pi `$ acceptance, as seen in (50). This estimate of the effect of charge conservation is in agreement with a correction reported in Bleicher00 . Note however that the correction is additive not multiplicative as stated in Bleicher00 .

## VI Rapidity Dependence of Fluctuations and Detector Acceptance

Measuring the dependence of $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\nu _{dyn}`$ on the rapidity window $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ can yield information on the rapidity range of correlations as well as their magnitude. Information on the rapidity dependence of $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ is also needed to compare data from experiments with different geometric acceptance. The microscopic correlations themselves can and indeed must be determined from balance function and similar measurements Bass00 ; such experiments have different practical issues. We relate $`\nu _{dyn}`$ and balance function measurements in the next section.

To exhibit the rapidity dependence of $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$, we assume that $`\rho _1`$ are $`\eta `$ independent and that $`C=C_{\alpha \beta }(0)\mathrm{exp}\{(\eta _1\eta _2)^2/2\sigma ^2\}`$. ISR and FNAL data Whitmore76 ; Foa75  show that charged particle correlation are functions of the relative rapidity $`\eta _1\eta _2`$ with only a weak dependence on the average rapidity of the pair. Data can be roughly characterized as Gaussian near midrapidity. Using (13) we find

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{C_{\alpha \beta }(0)}{x^2}\left\{\sqrt{\pi }x\mathrm{erf}(x)\left(1e^{x^2}\right)\right\},$$
(51)
where $`x=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\eta /\sigma `$. The function $`R_{\alpha \beta }`$ is shown as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ in Fig. 1. ISR and FNAL data suggest that the rapidity range of correlations is roughly from 1 to 2 rapidity units.

Both $`R`$ and the microscopic correlator $`C`$ depend on the value $`C_{\alpha \beta }(0)`$ at $`\eta _1=\eta _2`$ and the rapidity range of correlations, $`\sigma `$. Equation (51) carries the same value – and caveats – as does the Gaussian parameterization of HBT correlations. The range $`\sigma `$ depends on the dynamics and may vary with centrality as well as target and projectile mass.

One must account for this rapidity dependence when comparing experiments of different geometrical acceptance. We estimate, for instance, that the difference between of the fluctuations measured by the STAR ($`|\eta |1.5`$,$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\pi `$) and PHENIX ($`|\eta |0.35`$,$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi /2`$) experiments to be roughly $``$ 10% for $`\sigma 12`$. While this is a rather small correction, we emphasize that the experiments should measure the rapidity dependence. In general $`\sigma `$ can differ from $`pp`$ to $`AA`$ collisions and, moreover, is expected to depend on centrality.

## VII Relation between the balance function and $`\nu _{dyn}`$

The balance function was proposed by Bass et al. Bass00  as a technique to study the dynamics of hadronization in relativistic heavy ion collisions. The idea is that the rapidity range of correlations is changed when a collisions forms quark gluon plasma. Specifically, charged hadrons form late in the reaction, after hadronization, resulting in shorter-ranged correlations in rapidity space for charge/anti-charge pairs than expected in the absence of plasma.

The balance function as defined by Bass et al. Bass00  is written (here again focusing, without loss of generality on the rapidity dependence)

$`B(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2|\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{D(,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2|+,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)`$ (52)
$`D(+,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2|+,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)`$
$`+D(+,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2|,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)`$
$`D(,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2|,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)\},`$
where

$$D(b,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2|a,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)=\frac{_{\eta _1\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1/2}^{\eta _1+\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1/2}_{\eta _2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2/2}^{\eta _2+\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2/2}𝑑\eta _a𝑑\eta _b\rho _2(\eta _b,\eta _a)}{_{\eta _2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1/2}^{\eta _2+\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1/2}𝑑\eta _a\rho _1(\eta _a)}.$$
(53)
The ratio $`D(b,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2|a,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)`$ is essentially a conditional probability for finding a number of particles of type $`b`$ in the phase space bin $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2`$ of centroid $`\eta _2`$ given the presence of particles of type $`a`$ in the phase space bin $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1`$ of centroid $`\eta _1`$, i.e.

$$D(b,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2|a,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)=\frac{N(b,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2;a,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)}{N(a,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1)}$$
(54)
The bins need not overlap. Experimentally, evaluations of the balance function can be restricted to a determination of the correlation of particle $`a`$ and $`b`$ as a function of their relative rapidity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$. In this case, particle $`a`$ can be anywhere within the full detector acceptance $`Y`$, and particle $`b`$ is at a rapidity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ relative to $`a`$. This leads to a one-dimensional balance function, $`B(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |Y)`$, defined as:

$`B(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{D(,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |+,Y)`$ (55)
$`D(+,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |+,Y)`$
$`+D(+,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |,Y)`$
$`D(,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |,Y)\}.`$
To understand this expression better, observe that for a sufficiently narrow bin $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ we can write

$$D(b,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |a,Y)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }{N_a}_{Y/2}^{Y/2}𝑑\eta _a\rho _2(\eta _a,\eta ),$$
(56)
where $`N_a`$ is the number in the full domain $`Y/2\eta Y/2`$. For a boost invariant system the pair correlation function $`C`$ is a function only of the rapidity difference, so that this integral is essentially $`C`$ averaged over the system volume, plus a constant term that cancels in (55).

The integral of this function over the entire acceptance $`Y`$ is noted $`B(Y|Y)`$. By virtue of Eq. (54), it amounts to:

$`B(Y|Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^Y}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\eta B(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta |Y)`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{N_+N_{}_Y}{N_+_Y}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_+N_{}_Y}{N_{}_Y}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_+(N_+1)_Y}{N_+_Y}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{}(N_{}1)_Y}{N_{}_Y}}\}`$
The four terms of this equation are part of the expression of the correlators $`R_{ab}`$ given in Eqs. (8,11). The integral $`B(Y|Y)`$ can thus be re-written:

$`B(Y|Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{R_+N_{}+R_+N_+`$ (58)
$`R_{++}N_+R_{}N_{}\}`$
which establishes a relationships between the integral, $`B(Y|Y)`$, of the Balance function, and the correlators $`R_{++}`$, $`R_{}`$, and $`R_+`$.

At RHIC, one observes that $`N_{}N_+=N/2`$ near central rapidities in Au+Au collisions Phobos01 . The above expression simplifies

$`B(Y|Y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{4}}\left\{2R_+R_{++}R_{}\right\}`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{4}}\nu _{dyn}.`$
The integral, $`B(Y|Y)`$, of the balance function, $`B(\mathrm{\Delta }y|Y)`$, is thus indeed proportional to the variance $`\nu _{dyn}`$ and the total multiplicity $`N`$ when $`N_{}N_+`$.

## VIII Finite Reconstruction Efficiency Effects

We consider the effect of finite reconstruction efficiency on measurements of fluctuations studied as a function of collision centrality. We assume the centrality is experimentally determined based on the total multiplicity of charged particles detected in a reference acceptance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ whereas the multiplicity fluctuations of interest are measured in a fiducial acceptance $`\mathrm{\Omega }_N`$. We account for the finite detection efficiency, in a given acceptance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha `$, by introducing a detector response function $`P_D(n_\alpha |N_\alpha )`$ expressing the probability of detecting a multiplicity $`n_\alpha `$ given a produced multiplicity $`N_\alpha `$. In general, $`P_D(n_\alpha |N_\alpha )`$ shall account for finite efficiency effects as well as measurements of ghost tracks. We shall calculate, quite generally, moments, $`M_{k,\alpha }`$, and factorial moments, $`F_{k,\alpha }`$, of the particle multiplicity distribution defined respectively as:

$`M_{k,\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`N_\alpha ^k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{ev}}}{\displaystyle N_\alpha ^k}`$
$`F_{k,\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`N_\alpha (N_\alpha 1)(N_\alpha k)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{ev}}}{\displaystyle N_\alpha (N_\alpha 1)\mathrm{}(N_\alpha k)},`$
where $`N_{ev}`$ is the number of events studied. The mean is $`\mu _\alpha =M_{1,\alpha }`$ and the variance, $`V=\delta N_\alpha ^2=M_{2,\alpha }M_{1,\alpha }^2`$. Here we will restrict our calculation to these lowest moments, but the calculation can easily be generalized to higher moments.

We shall use lower case letter (e.g. $`m_{k,\alpha }`$) to distinguish measured moments from the intrinsic or actual moment of the produced particles (i.e. that one wishes to infer) represented with capital letters (e.g. $`M_{k,\alpha }`$).

We assume that moments of the multiplicity distributions are measured as a function of the collision centrality estimated based on the total multiplicity, $`m`$, measured in the reference acceptance. The moments can then be expressed (neglecting for simplicity the particle type label $`\alpha `$):

$$m_k=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^kP(n|m),$$
(61)
where the sum is taken over all relevant multiplicities, and $`P(n|m)`$ is the probability to measure “n” given the centrality estimator “$`m`$”. We emphasize that both “$`n`$” and “$`m`$” are influenced by the finite efficiency of the detector. We in fact seek to extract the intrinsic moments of the particle production

$$M_k=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N^kP(N|M),$$
(62)
where $`P(N|M)`$ is the probability “N” particles are produced at a given centrality “M”. The measured distribution $`P(n|m)`$ can be expressed as a function of the intrinsic distribution as follows

$$P(n|m)=\underset{N,M}{}P_D(n|N)P(N|M)P_D(M|m),$$
(63)
with the sum extending over all relevant produced multiplicities $`N`$ and $`M`$. The factor $`P_D(M|m)`$ corresponds to the probability of having a produced multiplicity $`M`$ given the measured value $`m`$. It is evaluated using Bayes rule:

$$P_D(M|m)=\frac{P_D(m|M)P(M)}{P(m)},$$
(64)
where $`P(M)`$ and $`P(m)`$ are respectively the probability of the produced, M, and measured, m, multiplicities. The measured probability distribution is thus

$`P(n|m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(m)}}{\displaystyle P(n|N)}`$ (65)
$`\times P(N|M)P(m|M)P(M).`$
Measured moments can be calculated as function of the intrinsic (produced) moment by inserting the above expression in (62). Introducing for convenience the functions $`h_s(N)`$ and $`g_s(M)`$ defined as follows:

$`h_s(N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n^sP(n|N)`$ (66)
$`g_s(M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}h_s(N)P(N|M)`$ (67)
one finds a general expression for the moments as follows:

$$m_k=\frac{1}{P(m)}\underset{M}{}P(m|M)P(M)g_k(M).$$
(68)
Assuming $`P(n|N)`$ can be appropriately approximated by a binomial distribution, the above expressions can be readily simplified. The moments $`h_s(N)`$ yield

$`h_1(N)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon N`$
$`h_2(N)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^2N^2+\epsilon (1\epsilon )N,`$ (69)
where $`\epsilon _n`$ is the detection efficiency achieved in the measurement of “n”. Substituting these quantities in Eq. (67) leads to

$`g_1(M)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _nN`$
$`g_2(M)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _n^2N^2+\epsilon _n(1\epsilon _n)N.`$ (70)
The first and second moments, are thus in general

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(m)}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}P_D(m|M)P(M)\epsilon _nN`$
$`n^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(m)}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}P_D(m|M)P(M)`$ (71)
$`\times (\epsilon _n^2N^2+\epsilon _n(1\epsilon _n)N)`$
with the moments $`N^s`$ evaluated at a fixed value of $`M`$. Clearly, the measured moments are determined by the intrinsic moments smeared over the response function of the multiplicity, $`M`$. Assuming the efficiency of the total multiplicity detection process is near unity, one can approximate the response function $`P_D(m|M)`$ with a delta function $`\delta _{m,M}`$, and the above expressions simplifies as follows

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _nN`$
$`n^2`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _n^2N^2+\epsilon _n(1\epsilon _n)N.`$ (72)
We show in appendix the above results holds for finite efficiency as long as “$`n`$” has a linear dependence on the total multiplicity “$`m`$” over the range of the response function $`P_D(m|M)`$.

We now proceed to use these for the calculation of the various fluctuation measures introduced in Sect. IV. We use sub-indices “+”, “-”, “Q”, and “CH” to denote positively and negatively charged particles, net charge, and total charge particle multiplicity, respectively. We use overlined symbols to represent the intrinsic measures. We find using Eqs. VIII, 32, 41

$`\omega _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`1\epsilon _\pm +\epsilon _\pm \overline{\omega }_\pm `$
$`\omega _Q`$ $`=`$ $`1\epsilon _\pm +\epsilon _\pm \overline{\omega }_Q`$
$`\omega _{CH}`$ $`=`$ $`1\epsilon _\pm +\epsilon _\pm \overline{\omega }_{CH}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_+^{3/2}ϵ_{}^{3/2}}{ϵ^2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}.`$ (73)
The above fluctuation measures display an explicit dependence on the charged particle detection efficiencies $`\epsilon _\pm `$ or the total efficiency $`\epsilon `$. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ observable, in particular, has a non trivial dependence on the detection efficiencies of positively and negatively charged particles. This dependence however simplifies to a single factor, $`\epsilon `$, if the positive, negative, and global efficiencies are equal (i.e. $`\epsilon _+=\epsilon _{}=\epsilon `$). By contrast, one finds that the dynamic variance $`\nu _{dyn}=\overline{\nu }_{dyn}`$ i.e. it is independent of the detection efficiencies, and is thus, in that sense, a robust observable. Note that this conclusion remains strictly correct as long as the Gaussian approximation is valid. See the Appendix for a discussion of the Gaussian approximation.

## IX Simple Production Models

### IX.1 Poissonian Particle Production

We first consider a multi-particle production model where no correlation are involved. Specifically, we assume that on average, particle species, $`i`$, are produced in fixed fractions $`f_i`$ of the total particle production. We consider cases where the fluctuation measures are evaluated over kinematic ranges that might be identical (case A) or smaller (case B) than the kinematic range used to calculate the total (charge) particle production.

The probability to produce species, $`i`$, with multiplicities, $`N_i`$, is evaluated with a multinomial distribution. In general, one has

$$P(N_1,N_2,\mathrm{},N_k|M)=\frac{1}{M!}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{f_\alpha ^{N_\alpha }}{N_\alpha !}.$$
(74)
In case A, one shall have $`M=N_\alpha `$ and $`f_\alpha =1`$ whereas in case B, $`MN_\alpha `$, and $`f_\alpha <1`$.

The multiplicity moments, and variance are calculated at fixed total multiplicity, M, assumed to be representative of the collision impact parameter:

$`N_\alpha _m`$ $`=`$ $`f_\alpha M`$
$`N_\alpha ^2_m`$ $`=`$ $`f_\alpha M+f_\alpha ^2M(M1)`$
$`N_\alpha N_\beta _m`$ $`=`$ $`M(M1)f_\alpha f_\beta `$
$`N_\alpha (N_\alpha 1)_m`$ $`=`$ $`f_\alpha ^2M(M1)`$
$`V_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`Mf_\alpha (1f_\alpha )`$ (75)
Consider now the specific case of net charge fluctuations with the index $`\alpha `$ taking values $`+`$ and $``$. One has in case “B”:

$`V_Q`$ $`=`$ $`M(f_++f_{}(f_+f_{})^2)`$
$`\omega _Q`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{(f_+f_{})^2}{f_++f_{}}}`$
$`\omega _{ch}`$ $`=`$ $`1(f_+f_{})`$
$`\nu _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_+f_{}}{Mf_+f_{}}}`$
$`\nu _{dyn}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Case A is easily calculated from the above by setting $`f_+f_{}=1`$.

The coefficients $`f_\pm `$ can be experimentally determined. It is thus straightforward to determine the normalized variances expected for particle independent production and compare with measured values to seek for the presence of sub or super Poissonian fluctuations. Note additionally that both the $`\nu _{dyn}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ variables have null expectation values irrespective of the fraction of the fractions $`f_\pm `$. They thus constitute a more reliable measure of the dynamic fluctuations.

### IX.2 Simple Resonance Production Model

Two-particle correlations are determined by a host of phenomena such as collective (flow) effects, production of resonances, jet production, Fermi/Bose statistics, as well as intrinsic phenomena related to the underlying collision dynamics. Here we examine the role of resonance decays (e.g. $`\rho ^o`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^o`$) on measurements of the net charge fluctuations. We show that the production of neutral resonances that decay into pairs of positively and negatively charged particles produce an effective dynamical correlation.

We formulate a simple toy model where we include only three types of particles: $`\pi ^+`$, $`\pi ^{}`$, and $`\rho ^o`$. The $`\rho ^o`$ shall be viewed as a generic neutral resonance, which decays into $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$. Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the problem and a fuller treatment shall account for other species, all relevant resonances, and the finite acceptance of the detection apparatus.

We consider the $`\pi ^+`$, $`\pi ^{}`$, and $`\rho ^o`$ to be produced independently (neglecting Bose effects) at freeze out in relative fractions $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$, and $`f_3`$ respectively, and model the multiplicity production according to a multinomial distribution (as in the previous section). The probability of producing $`n_1`$ $`\pi ^+`$, $`n_2`$ $`\pi ^{}`$, and $`n_3`$ $`\rho ^o`$ is expressed

$$P(n_1,n_2,n_3;N)=\frac{N!}{n_1!n_2!n_3!}f_1^{n_1}f_2^{n_2}f_3^{n_3}.$$
(77)
Given our assumption that all $`\rho ^o`$ decay into a pair $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$, the probability of measuring $`n_+`$ positive $`n_{}`$ negative particles respectively can be written

$`P(n_+,n_{};N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2,n_3}{}}P(n_1,n_2,n_3;N)`$ (78)
$`\times \delta _{n_+,n_1+n_3}\delta _{n_{},n_2+n_3}.`$
One then writes the moment generating function of the probability $`P(n_+,n_{};N)`$ as

$$G(t_+,t_{};N)=(p_1e^{t_+}+p_2e^t_{}+p_3e^{t_++t_{}})^N,$$
(79)
which one uses to computes the moments of the pion multiplicity distributions. One finds:

$`N_+`$ $`=`$ $`N(f_1+f_3)`$
$`N_{}`$ $`=`$ $`N(f_2+f_3)`$
$`N_+(N_+1)`$ $`=`$ $`N(N1)(f_1+f_3)^2`$
$`N_{}(N_{}1)`$ $`=`$ $`N(N1)(f_2+f_3)^2`$
$`N_+N_{}`$ $`=`$ $`N(N1)(f_1+f_3)(f_2+f_3)`$ (80)
$`+Nf_3.`$
The variance $`\nu _{dyn}`$, in the presence of resonances, is thus simply

$$\nu _{dyn}=\frac{2p_3}{N(p_1+p_3)(p_2+p_3)}.$$
(81)
One finds that the variance $`\nu _{dyn}`$ increases with the fraction of resonances, $`p_3`$ produced in the final state. One also finds it to scale inversely to the number of particles produced in the initial state. Note that in the limit $`p_3=0`$, $`\nu _{dyn}`$ vanishes by our assumption of independent production. The simple treatment done here does not account for finite acceptance effects on the decay of resonances. Obviously, if too small a rapidity region is integrated, one of the decay partners may on average be missed, and $`|\nu _{dyn}|`$ shall be increased accordingly.

In AA collisions, one does not expect resonance production to be the sole cause of correlation, i.e. $`\nu _{dyn}<0`$, but it is yet to be determined what fraction of the observed fluctuations may be attributed to resonance production or to truly dynamic correlations. In that respect, it shall be interesting to consider fluctuations of specific particle species such $`p/\overline{p}`$ in contrast to $`\pi ^\pm `$ or $`K^\pm `$ given no known resonance decay into $`p+\overline{p}`$ whereas many resonances exist that decay into $`\pi ^++\pi ^{}`$ or $`K^++K^{}`$.

## X  Summary and Conclusions

We introduced the net charge fluctuation measure, $`\nu _{dyn}`$, on the basis of two-particle correlation functions. We showed that for heavy ion collisions involving independent nucleon collision and negligible rescattering of secondaries, $`\nu _{dyn}`$ scales as the multiplicative inverse of the produced charged particle multiplicity. We also showed that $`\nu _{dyn}`$ is simply related to other observables used or proposed for fluctuation measurement by various authors. We found however that the different fluctuation measures have different dependence on the experimental acceptance, detector efficiency, and collision centrality. We showed that $`\nu _{dyn}`$ has a weak dependence on the rapidity range used experimentally to measure the fluctuations provided the rapidity range is of the order or smaller than the two-particle correlator width, whereas observables such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ have basically a linear dependence on the size of the acceptance. We found also that $`\nu _{dyn}`$ is, by construction, independent, to first order, of the detection efficiency whereas measures such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\omega _Q`$ have a explicit dependence on the detection efficiency. We also found that charge conservation has a finite, and actually sizable effect on the charge fluctuation measure $`\nu _{dyn}`$ determined by the total charge particle multiplicity (over $`4\pi `$ and independent of the detector acceptance used to measure the net charge fluctuations. We further showed, as also pointed out by Mrowczynski Mrowczynski02  , that the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measure shall be independent of the collision centrality provided the collision dynamic is also independent of the collision centrality. Note however that because the detection efficiency may be a subtle function of the detector occupancy, and hence the collision centrality, caution has to be exercised when interpreting uncorrected measurement of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ vs. collision centrality. Finally, we presented, as an example, a simple particle production model that can be used to account for the production of resonances as well as charge conservation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank R. Bellwied for discussions. This work was supported in part by U.S. DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-92ER40713.

## Appendix A Finite Efficiency Effects on the Measurement of $`\nu _{dyn}`$

A range of collision impact parameters is selected in experiments using a measured multiplicity $`m`$ (or a similar observable). This introduces additional fluctuations because a single $`m`$ corresponds to a range of impact parameters. In this appendix we estimate the effect of centrality selection. We use these results in secs. III and VIII.

We assume, in the Gaussian approximation, that the moments scale with the true multiplicity $`M`$ as

$`N_a`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _aM,`$
$`N_a^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _a^2M^2+\sigma _a^2M,`$
$`N_aN_b`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _a\mu _bM^2+\xi _{ab}M`$ (82)
where $`\mu _a`$ and $`\mu _b`$ are average branching fractions for the production of species “a” and “b” respectively, while $`\sigma _a^2`$ and $`\xi _{ab}`$ are their variance and covariance. These relations are strictly true in the independent collision model or the wounded nucleon model where both $`M`$ and $`N_a`$ are respectively proportional to the number of sub-collisions or the number or strings. The first moment (VIII) is then

$`n_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(m)}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}P_D(m|M)P(M)\epsilon _a\mu _aM`$ (83)
$`=`$ $`\epsilon _a\mu _a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(m)}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}MP_D(m|M)P(M)`$
$`=`$ $`\epsilon _a\mu _aM_m`$
where we have introduced the expectation value of $`M`$ at fixed $`m`$ defined as

$$M_m=\frac{1}{P(m)}\underset{M}{}MP_D(m|M)P(M)$$
(84)
The factor $`ϵ_a`$ is the probability that a particle of type “a” is detected. One gets similarly for the 2nd moment and cross term:

$`n_a^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{P(m)}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}P_D(m|M)P(M)[\epsilon _a^2(\mu _a^2M^2+\sigma _a^2M)`$
$`+\epsilon _a(1\epsilon _a)\mu _aM],`$
$`n_a^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\epsilon _a^2(\sigma _a^21)+\epsilon _a\right]M_m+\epsilon _a^2\mu _a^2M^2_m,`$
and

$`n_an_b`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _a\epsilon _b\mu _a\mu _b\left(M^2_mM_m^2\right)`$ (86)
$`+\epsilon _a\epsilon _b\xi _{ab}M_m.`$
The correlators $`R_{aa}`$ and $`R_{ab}`$ are therefore

$$R_{aa}=\frac{\sigma _a^2\mu _a}{\mu _a^2}\frac{1}{M_m}+\frac{M^2_mM_m^2}{M_m^2}$$
(87)
and

$$R_{ab}=\frac{\xi _{ab}}{\mu _a^2}\frac{1}{M_m}+\frac{M^2_mM_m^2}{M_m^2}$$
(88)
The variance $`\nu _{dyn}=R_{aa}+R_{bb}2R_{ab}`$ measured at a given $`m`$ is then

$$\nu _{dyn}(m)=\frac{\nu _0}{M_m}$$
(89)
where

$$\nu _0=\frac{\sigma _a^2\mu _a}{\mu _a^2}+\frac{\sigma _b^2\mu _b}{\mu _b^2}2\frac{\xi _{ab}}{\mu _a\mu _b}.$$
(90)
This expression amounts to the value of $`\nu _{dyn}`$ evaluated at $`M=M_m`$. One finds that the correlators $`R_{ab}`$ exhibit a contribution from the variance $`M^2_mM_m^2`$ whose magnitude depends on the detector response function width. The variance $`\nu _{dyn}`$ however does not have such a contribution and as such is also independent of the detection efficiency for measuring $`M`$.

Note that the above result implies that $`\nu _{dyn}`$ is robust, i.e. independent of detection efficiencies, in the Gaussian approximation (A). An explicit dependence on efficiencies would arise if the Gaussian approximation is not valid, e.g. if the detector response functions differ markedly from Binomial or Gaussian functions, or if the efficiencies exhibit very large variations with detector occupency.