text:
# Classicality of spin coherent states via entanglement and distinguishability

## I Introduction

The transition from the quantum to the classical world is not fully understood at present. Although classical physics is believed to be a limiting case of quantum mechanics, it is frequently unclear which limit should be taken and how this is to be achieved. We can, for example, try to think of how the laws of physics come to appear as the classical laws if we start from the Schrödinger equation, as in Gell-Mann92 . Alternatively, we might think about how physical objects themselves come to appear classical, when they are so manifestly quantum at the most basic level that we can test in our most accurate experiments. In this case, initial quantum states describing objects would somehow have to make a transition to become classical. Quantum physics has been considered to approach the classical in many different ways and we name several of them. (1) As $`\mathrm{}`$ goes to zero, the variance (or uncertainty) of two non commuting measures go to zero and we can separate all states perfectly (this is known as Bohr’s correspondence principle); also, the classical Hamilton-Jacobi dynamics can be “derived” from the Schrödinger equation in this limit. (2) Positivity of the Wigner or $`P`$ function is often taken to imply classicality, since they then can be thought of as representing real probability functions as in classical statistical mechanics. (3) The entanglement present in a collection of states is clearly an indication of nonclassicality and a lack of it can be construed as a signature of classicality (various decoherence pictures, on the other hand, use the entanglement with the environment as an indication of classicality; in this case the global presence of entanglement leads to classicality). (4) Distinguishability of states (classical states are always fully distinguishable at least in principle). Although each of these criteria is adequate in its own domain, it needs to be stressed that they are by no means equivalent in general. In fact, they frequently contradict each other. A well known example of this is that a state of two light modes can be entangled and still have an overall positive Wigner function, as well as vice versa. It is, therefore, very important to investigate the relationship between these various approaches in order to gain a deeper understanding of the transition between the quantum and the classical. In this paper we trace the spin-coherent state through a range of spin $`S`$, from $`S=1/2`$ to the limit $`S\mathrm{}`$, and comment on this as a transition to classicality for this class of pure states.

One of the first set of states defined specifically with classicality in mind is the optical coherent states or Glauber states Glauber63 . These are minimum-uncertainty states and their creation can be implemented with classical currents. The Glauber states can then be generalised in different ways to a wider set of states, including minimum-uncertainty-defined states and group-defined states (see Klauder  and Klauder01  for good reviews). One such generalisation is the set of spin coherent states, introduced in Radcliffe71  and Arecchi72 , which have been compared to the Glauber states and some parallels drawn. For example, they too are states of minimum uncertainty and they can be produced by classical fields acting on the ground state. Historically, one claim of classicality of the Glauber states is that they are the only pure states to remain unentangled when passed through a beam splitter Aharonov66  (which relates to one aspect of classicality mentioned above). More recently it has been shown that a mixture of these states also remains unentangled when passed through a beam splitter Kim02 ; Xiang-bin02  (implying that generation of entanglement requires “nonclassical” states). Unlike the Glauber state however, the spin-coherent state can produce entanglement when passed through a beam splitter, even a maximally entangled state for the spin $`1/2`$ case. In the $`s\mathrm{}`$ limit though, the spin-coherent states go to the high amplitude limit of the Glauber states Radcliffe71 ; Arecchi72 , and hence the entanglement goes to zero.

In this paper, we extend this comparison of the spin-coherent states to looking at the transition as we change the size of the spin from $`S=1/2`$ to the limit $`S\mathrm{}`$ Glauber states. This is done with respect to their robustness against the entanglement created through a beam splitter. As well as being interesting in its own right, this property allows us to investigate how quickly the classical features of the Glauber states mentioned above appear. We discuss the transition as an approach to this classicality, considering the “most classical” to be the limiting Glauber states. We note, however, that this is of course by no means a complete study of classicality. We deal here only with pure states, and classically we can only truly model mixed states. Indeed, even then the states are, of course, still quantum and they behave like classical states only if the quantum features are small enough to be ignored Vogel00 . In this paper we ignore the dynamical aspects. Even when states are “classical”, one could argue that their dynamics may not be (although, with respect to this, it should be pointed out that under the influence of a classical electric field - essentially a rotation - the spin-coherent states remain spin coherent states, as proved by Arecchi et al.Arecchi72 ); for example, the complexity of quantum dynamics may be very different from that of classical. We talk about classicality in a very specific sense, namely, in entanglement and distinguishability, for which, in the specific scenarios discussed, the Glauber state is the most classical among the set of pure spin-coherent states. In this sense, we trace the spin-coherent state from what we think of as the “least” classical, $`S=1/2`$, to the “most” classical $`S\mathrm{}`$.

In particular, in Sec. II we investigate the entanglement of the state generated by passing it through one arm of a 50:50 beam splitter while the other arm is left in the empty vacuum state. We present a different proof to those of Radcliffe71  and Arecchi72  that the spin-coherent states tend to the Glauber states in the infinite $`S`$ limit, in terms of the states in the first quantisation. Our method has the advantage that it easily follows that there are infinitely many other states of the same dimensionality as spin-coherent state with the same property that they asymptotically approach the Glauber states, which is not imediately obvious from Radcliffe71  and Arecchi72 . We find that the reluctance to generate entanglement is very slow to increase with $`S`$ and the entanglement can be near zero only for very high $`S`$. In addition, the entanglement generation is dependent on $`z`$ and for $`|z|>1`$ we see a surprising rise in entanglement with $`S`$\- hence, a decline in classicality in this sense. This is explained and parallels drawn to another similar case noted by Arnesen et al. Arnesen01 .

In Sec. III, we discuss this transition in terms of classicality as viewed as a reluctance to create of quantum correlations (entanglement). We then discuss different ways in which this transition can be viewed in terms of classicality. We focus on one classical feature, that of distinguishability, and illustrate the changes with $`S`$ using the Majorana representation Majorana32  via the Helstrom optimal measurement Helstrom ; Fuchsthesis  (which gives different measures and success probabilities for different states, depending on how close they are to orthogonal). For a $`d`$-dimensional state, the Majorana representation defines the state (up to a global phase) by $`d1`$ points on the surface of a Riemann sphere. Geometric interpretation of physical systems is often very helpful in gaining further intuition. For example, the Bloch sphere can be used to see intuitively how optimal fidelity is achieved in universal quantum cloning Gisin98 . The Majorana representation shows well the changes in the measures affected by changing $`S`$ for spin-coherent states in a simple geometry.

## II Action Through A Beam Splitter

In quantum optics the action of a beam splitter is described as a particular kind of mixer of two beams of light or, more mathematically, two modes of the quantised electromagnetic field. A beam splitter takes an input state comprised of a general $`n`$-photon Fock state in one mode and a ground (vacuum) Fock state in the other, $`|n,0`$, to a superposition of binomially populated modes:

$`U_{bs}|n,0={\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{p}}\right)^{1/2}T^pR^{(np)}|p,np,`$ (1)
where $`T`$ and $`R`$ are the complex transition and reflection coefficients, with normalisation $`|T|^2+|R|^2=1`$. In general, these resultant states will be entangled; indeed, for any input made up of a finite superposition of Fock states the entanglement cannot be zero (except, of course, in the case of the trivial ground state). This can easily be proved by tracing one of the output modes and checking that the resulting state (of the other mode) is strictly mixed, i.e., its trace is less than $`1`$. Since we will deal only with overall pure states in our paper, this method for quantifying entanglement will be adequate in general and we will use it later on in this section.

A Glauber state is defined as

$`|\alpha =\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\alpha |^2\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n}{(n!)^{1/2}}}|n`$ (2)
Glauber63 . When this enters one mode of a beam splitter and a ground state the other, the output state is

$`|\psi _{out}=Ubs|\alpha ,0`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\alpha |^2\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{p}}\right)^{1/2}T^pR^{(np)}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n}{(n!)^{1/2}}}|p,np,`$
which reduces to a product state

$`|\psi _{out}=|\alpha /\sqrt{(}2)|\alpha /\sqrt{(}2).`$ (4)
It has been proven that the Glauber states are the only pure states that when passed through one arm of a beam splitter return product states with zero entanglement Aharonov66 . Therefore they are the only classical states within this framework. Although the beam splitter needs to be defined in a more general way (by giving the transformation of the general basis state $`|n,m`$, or, equally well, by defining the action of annihilation and creation operators on different modes as in, for example, Compos89 ), it will for us be sufficient to use Eq. (1) as a specialised definition on the state $`|n,0`$. We now ask what effect such a beam splitter has on a spin-coherent state and to what extent the output state depends on the magnitude of the spin.

A spin-coherent state $`|z`$ is defined here to be the complex rotation of the ground state, parameterised by a complex amplitude $`z`$ Klauder ; Radcliffe71 ; Arecchi72 .— In terms of the spin raising operator $`\widehat{S}_+`$ acting on the ground state, we have that

$`|z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|z|^2)^S}}\mathrm{exp}(\overline{z}\widehat{S}_+/\mathrm{})|0.`$ (5)
Expanding the exponential we get

$`|z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|z|^2)^S}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2S}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2S}{n}}\right)^{1/2}\overline{z}^n|n.`$ (6)
The summation only goes up to $`2S`$ since for $`m=2S`$, $`\widehat{S}_+|m=0`$. This can be seen easily using the Holstein-Primakoff representation of spin operators in terms of single-mode creation and annihilation operators Holstein40 . The uncertainty relation for the spin operators, defined with the algebra $`[\widehat{S}_i,\widehat{S}_j]=i\mathrm{}\widehat{S}_k`$, is given by

$`\widehat{S}_i^2\widehat{S}_j^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{}^2\widehat{S}_k^2.`$ (7)
This equality holds for the state $`|z`$; hence the spin-coherent states are minimum-uncertainty states.

In Radcliffe71  and Arecchi72  it is shown by means of the second quantisation, in terms of the operators generating the state, that the limit takes the spin-coherent states to the Glauber states. We now look at this limit purely in terms of the first quantisation, which has the advantage that it allows us to easily generate an infinite set of states that have the same property that they asymptotically approach the Glauber states. With the appropriate amplitude relationship, as $`S`$ goes to infinity the spin-coherent states are equivalent to a limit of Glauber states, namely, the infinite amplitude limit. Setting $`\alpha =\sqrt{2S}\overline{z}`$ provides a suitable substitution. To prove the equivalence it is enough to show that the overlap between the Glauber state $`|\alpha `$ and the spin-coherent state $`|z^{}`$ with this substitution goes to $`1`$ in the infinite $`S`$ limit. That is, we wish to prove

$`\underset{S\mathrm{}}{lim}\alpha |z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{S\mathrm{}}{lim}\{\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\alpha |^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2S})^S}}`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2S}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2S!}{(2Sn)!(2S)^n}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2n}}{n!}}\}`$
$`=`$ $`1.`$
We can see that the normalisation term outside the sum clearly goes to the exponential in the limit. We also see that each term in the sum goes to $`|\alpha |^{2n}/n!`$ in the limit. The limit of the sum then gives an inverse exponential. Since both terms converge in the same limit, the product of these terms converges to the product of the convergences and so gives us a product of two exponentials in the limit which cancel to give $`1`$. In fact, this is true of any state $`|\psi =_{n=0}^{d1}f(n,d)[A^n/(n!)^{1/2}]|n`$ such that $`f(n,d)>0,n,d`$, and $`f(n,d)`$ converges to $`1`$ in $`n`$ for all $`p`$. There are infinitely many such functions and therefore these states define an infinite set of states that asymptotically approach the Glauber state. A detailed proof can be found in Appendix A (the orthogonality of these states is discussed later). This result shows that, in the infinite $`S`$ limit, the spin-coherent states do not entangle when put through one arm of a beam splitter (since they are in fact equivalent to Glauber states).

We now wish to see exactly how the entanglement reaches this zero limit. More precisely, we would like to determine if entanglement falls off quickly with increasing spin, such that any reasonably large spin system effectively returns a product state or if, for instance, the drop-off is monotonic. The action of a beam splitter on an input state, comprised of a spin-coherent state in one mode/arm and the vacuum state in the other, gives

$`U_{bs}|z,0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+|z|^2)^S}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2S}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2S}{n}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{p}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (9)
$`\times T^pR^{(np)}\overline{z}^n|p,np\}.`$
We use the von Neumann entropy VonNeumann  as our measure for entanglement, defined for a bipartite state $`\rho _{AB}`$ as

$`E=Tr(\rho _A\mathrm{ln}\rho _A)={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{i=2S}{}}}r_i\mathrm{ln}r_i,`$ (10)
where $`\rho _A=Tr_B(\rho _{AB})`$ is the reduced density matrix of system $`A`$, and $`r_i`$ are its eigenvalues (and the squared Schmidt coefficients of a pure state). In our case, from Eq. (9),

$`\rho _A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2S!}{(1+|z|^2)^{2S}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p,p^{}=0}{\overset{2S}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(2Sp,2Sp^{})}{}}}`$ (11)
$`\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p!p^{}!(2Smp)!(2Smp^{})!}}\right)^{1/2}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{|z|^{2m}}{m!}}|T|^{2m}R^p\overline{R}^p^{}\overline{z}^pz^p^{}|pp^{}|\}.`$
We notice that in forming the reduced density matrix the complex phases of $`R`$ and $`z`$ are effective only up to a unitary change of basis, which does not effect its eigenvalues, and hence does not affect the entanglement. Also, $`\rho _A`$ depends on only the modulus of $`T`$. Thus from here on we are concerned only with the modulus of these values: $`|z|`$; $`|R|`$ and $`|T|`$. In Fig. 1 we plot the entanglement against $`S`$ and $`|R|^2`$ for $`|z|=3`$. For all $`S`$ we see a maximum entanglement for $`|R|^2=1/2`$. In fact, we found this for all $`|z|`$ checked between $`0`$ and $`50`$. In addition, we can prove that setting $`|R|=|T|=1/\sqrt{2}`$ gives the minimum linear entropy (see Appendix B), which is an upper bound to the von Neumann entropy of entanglement, and can itself be regarded as a measure of entanglement (see, for example, Bose00 ). Since it is analytically proven for the linear entropy, and it is confirmed by all our numerical evidence, and the von Neumann and linear entropy follow the same patterns in all our numerics, it is reasonable to suppose that $`|R|=|T|=\sqrt{1/2}`$ does indeed give maximum von Neumann entanglement. Hence from here on we take this to be the appropriate value.

Two interesting features appear. The first is that the entanglement does not quickly go to zero with increasing $`S`$, in fact, after an initial quick change with amplitude $`|z|`$, the entanglement settles to a very slow decline. The point where it settles to the slow decline is very dependent on $`|z|`$. For higher $`|z|`$ this point is both at a higher entanglement and for a higher value of $`S`$. For each value of $`|z|`$ we see first a quick and then a very slow fall from the maximum entanglement with $`S`$. For $`|z|1`$ the maximum is at the origin, for higher $`|z|`$ we see a peak, then the slow descent. For example, in Fig. 2 we see that the entanglement falls quickly to about $`E=0.15`$ at around $`S=15`$, and then decreases very slowly thereafter (note that, although it may not appear to, the entanglement does drop with increasing $`S`$ \- each consecutive point after $`S=15`$ is lower than the previous one; the decline is just very slow). In contrast, in Fig. 3 for $`|z|=3`$, we see a slow tailing off from around $`S=40`$ at around $`E=0.8`$. In Fig. 4 we plot the entanglement against $`S`$, from $`S=1/250`$ for $`|z|=050`$. We can see that the peak where it reaches maximum is higher for higher $`|z|`$. In this range of $`S`$, the peak is not reached for $`|z|`$ larger than around $`7`$, indicating that for such $`|z|`$ the drop to zero is even slower and longer. Also, for any one $`S`$, the entanglement is higher for larger $`|z|`$. It looks as if the entanglement settles down to a value, dependent on $`|z|`$, from which it falls very slowly with increasing $`S`$. If the rate of decline continues as in our results, as we might expect, it would require huge $`S`$ to see the zero limit approached. It seems the dependency on $`|z|`$ is far greater than $`S`$.

The second feature of interest is that, for values of $`|z|`$ larger than unity, the entanglement initially increases with increasing $`S`$ (Figs. 3 and 4) and we see a peak. Since we know that the entanglement must come arbitrarily close to zero in the approach to the limit, we know it must go down from the beginning value at $`S=1/2`$, and we might have expected this to be a smooth fall.

The initial peak in generated entanglement, for $`|z|`$ larger than around $`1`$, is best explained by looking at the output, superposition state 9. Roughly speaking, as we increase $`S`$, the addition of entangled states to the superposition causes a growth in entanglement. This is then countered as more states are added, having the effect of diluting the superposition, so that the entanglement goes down for greater $`S`$. We do not see this for $`|z|`$ less than around $`1`$, because the coefficients for the higher entangled states in the superposition decrease for higher orders. We note that a similar phenomenon was seen in Arnesen01 , where Arnesen et al. studied the entanglement between two spin $`1/2`$ particles in a mixed thermal state with an external magnetic field, according to the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model. For some field strengths, as the temperature of the chain increased, there was an initial increase in entanglement, although in the large limit the entanglement went down to zero, as we would expect for such a mixed system. The increase can be put down to the inclusion of highly entangled states in the mixture, which then becomes countered as the mixture dilutes as it extends to more states. There is also a difference here in that in our case the increase came from the addition of states to a pure superposition and in theirs they are added to the mixture.

In addition to the subject of classicality discussed in the next section, these results may be interesting for other reasons. Coherent states are useful objects, with simple and continuous parametrisation, they have many theoretical applications and allow many simplifications (see Klauder  for many examples). They can be created, for example, by a rotation of the ground state of $`N`$ atoms Hepp73  or, in terms of the Schwinger spin states, by optical fields passing through a beam splitter (e.g., Buzek89 ). The latter can be squeezed and used to improve interferometry Kitagawa93 . Beam splitters are also useful; they are among the simplest devices implementable by experiment and have many applications, including entanglement generation itself (for example, Tan91 ); so it is valuable to understand them better in any scenario, especially one involving entanglement generation, like this one. From this point of view it might be interesting to note, for instance, that for an input state with spin $`S`$, there exists an optimal amplitude $`|z|`$ that returns the greatest entanglement.

It is also informative to consider the physical notion of a beam splitter in the sense described above. In the case of an optical state, when we use the term “beam” we usually mean literally a beam, or mode of light, that is defined by the path it takes. The action of the beam splitter is then to split the incoming photons of one mode (or path) into two, so the photons leave in a superposition of both paths. This can be written in terms of creation and annihilation operators, whence the beam splitter annihilates photons from the input path and creates photons in both output paths. With spin-coherent states this is not so clear. The analogous operators to the annihilation and creation operators are the step up and down operators. The analogy of creating a photon in a beam would be to add a unit of spin to the system (although the analogy is not exact because of different commutation relations, which change the beam splitter transformation, but broadly speaking it still accomplishes the same). With this in mind one possible interpretation of a spin $`S`$ system is as a symmetric superposition of $`2S`$ spin $`1/2`$ systems. Hence one can think of a beam of spin $`1/2`$ particles being split into two paths, where the increase of one unit of spin is equivalent to the addition of a spin $`1/2`$ particle. In this way, the addition of more particles increases the total spin and so makes the system more “classical”, as is the case for optical states, where the more photons there are (the higher the amplitude) the more classical the system can be said to be in terms of distinguishability and entanglement (the states out of a beam splitter are only the same as the input in the infinite limit of $`\alpha `$). This view of a spin $`S`$ system has a natural link to the Majorana representation to be discussed later, since it can be seen as an illustration of these particles.

## III Comments on Classicality

We now consider what the results of the previous section could mean in terms of classicality. For the spin-coherent state, we do not see the classical feature of the Glauber state of zero entanglement generation when passed through one arm of a beam splitter, except for those with the highest spin. Indeed, the validity of the infinite limit case depends on the physical situation at hand. It is possible though to imagine when such a limit may be reasonable, for example, for a group of $`10^5`$ atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate. For the range we explored, $`S=1/250`$, the entanglement is high and very dependent on $`|z|`$. It is to be expected that this carries on for larger $`S`$ too. The infinite $`S`$ limit offers the set of “most” classical spin-coherent states, since they are equivalent to the Glauber states and hence generate no entanglement. On this ground alone though, the spin-coherent states are no more classical than infinitely many other possible sets of states.

Then, the fact that we get an increase in entanglement as we increase $`S`$ is surprising, in that it indicates a reduction in classicality in this sense. Given this, we may ask if we can think of a state that is more classical in this way; for example, one that generates less entanglement and for which the entanglement decreases more rapidly with the dimension of the Hilbert space. This is a complicated problem since the only finite dimensional state to give nonentangled states through a beam splitter is the ground or vacuum state. The spin-coherent states can be arbitrarily close to this zero entanglement, but that is simply because they are arbitrarily close to the ground state in some sense. We then ask how valid this measure of classicality is. For example, we could think of other unitary transformations that would create more entanglement with the input states here; indeed, the amount of entanglement generated for a given transformation is dependent on the input state. We can talk of the entangling capacity of a unitary transformation Leifer02 , which is a maximum taken over all input states; however, to define a class of minimum entangling states for one unitary transformation does not mean it is the class of minimum entangling states for a different unitary transformation. The beam splitter transformation is a very specific example, which is important in showing one classical feature of the Glauber states, but one must ask if there is a valid reason to take this one over other transformations as a general measure. As such, we may claim that this is not an ideal measure; indeed, as a concept, the resistance to entanglement generation of a state is not well defined.

We can also consider the transition $`S=1/2\mathrm{}`$ from other points of view. A paper by Lieb in 1973 showed that in respect to the free energies of states, the spin states converge to the classical case in the thermodynamic limit of a large number and large $`S`$ spin states Lieb73 . This limit is very similar to the one we take; however, here Lieb talks about a thermal states, i.e., mixtures of spin-coherent states, whereas we talk only about pure states. Other discussions of classicality focus on the picture of the phase space, and how this can be said to become that of a classical state (e.g., Hall02 ). Indeed, the use of coherent states to construct and compare phase spaces can be used in many different situations, including the limit of Lieb, as was discussed in detail by Yaffe in 1982 Yaffe82 .

We can look at the natural curvature of the phase space of the set of spin-coherent states arrising from the Fubini-Study metric Provost80 . The Riemannian curvature $`K`$, given by $`K=1/2S`$ is dependent on the size of the spin system. This can be seen by imagining the phase gained by following a closed loop on the surface of the sphere Vedral02 . In general, as a vector follows a closed loop on a given space (maintaining parallel transport), it gains a phase. This phase depends on the curvature of the space; for a flat space no phase is acquired. As a spin-coherent state follows a closed loop on the sphere, it will gain a phase $`\gamma =\psi (s)|d/ds|\psi (s)𝑑s`$, which is equal to the curvature (up to a constant), and we get $`K=1/2S`$. We see that for the “least” classical, $`S=1/2`$, state the curvature is maximum at $`K=1`$. This reduces smoothly and monotonically with increasing $`S`$ until in the infinite limit, for the “most” classical state, the curvature is zero and that of the Glauber states. This is also related to the distinguishability of states, since the distance between two states (used in the definition of this metric) increases as the size of the sphere increases. Any two points on the phase space become further apart (i.e., their overlap decreases). In this sense, the distinguishability increases. Since in classical physics objects should be distinguishable, in principle at least, this indicates an increase in classicality. We note, though, that distinguishability alone is not enough to claim classicality, for example the Fock states, which exhibit clearly nonclassical features, are orthogonal. However, it is an important feature of classical physics and one that should be mentioned in any discussion on classicality.

We now look at the change in distinguishability through the transition $`S=1/2\mathrm{}`$ for two spin-coherent states, via the Helstrom optimal measurement Helstrom . We illustrate this change using the Majorana representation Majorana32 .

One of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is the uncertainty relation between incompatible observables which, in turn, prohibits us from distinguishing two nonorthogonal states perfectly with one measurement. This strongly contrasts with the classical world where again, at least in principle, all states can be distinguished perfectly. We can, however, optimise our measurement strategy in quantum mechanics to give us the most reliable answer possible. One such strategy is that given by Helstrom Helstrom  (see also Fuchsthesis  for a very readable account) where a measurement is made to give two outcomes, one corresponding to each of the states, with a minimal probability of error. We briefly state some of those results before applying them to analysing spin-coherent states.

Suppose that we are given a system we know to be in one of two states, $`\rho _A`$ or $`\rho _B`$, with probabilities $`p_A`$ and $`p_B`$, respectively. When trying to ascertain which of the two nonorthogonal states we have, we construct a two-outcome generalised measurement, or positive operator-valued measure (POVM), made up of $`\widehat{E}_A`$ and $`\widehat{E}_B=\widehat{\mathrm{I}1}\widehat{E}_A`$, and associate the states with the corresponding results. The probability of being incorrect in our association, $`P_e`$, is given by

$`P_e=p_A\text{tr}(\widehat{E}_B\rho _A)+p_B\text{tr}(\widehat{E}_A\rho _B).`$ (12)
For us it is important that in the case of pure states $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ this POVM becomes a projection measurement with the probability of error given by

$`P_e`$ $`=`$ $`p_A\text{tr}(\widehat{E}_B|AA|)+p_B\text{tr}(\widehat{E}_A|BB|).`$ (13)
Optimisation of this expression comes through our choice in the projection measurements. Heuristically, we wish to choose the projection spaces of $`\widehat{E}_A`$ and $`\widehat{E}_B`$ such that $`|A`$ and $`\widehat{E}_B`$ are as close to orthogonal as possible; similarly for $`|B`$. This must be balanced against the a priori probabilities to give the minimum probability of error. When attempting to distinguish two spin-coherent states $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$ we get

$`P_e={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\sqrt{14p_Ap_B\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\alpha \overline{\beta })^{2S}}{(1+|\alpha |^2)^S(1+|\beta |^2)^S}}\right|^2}\right).`$
As mentioned earlier, as $`S\mathrm{}`$, all spin coherent states become “orthogonal”, that is, the overlap tends to zero. This can be easily seen. Two spin-coherent states $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$ have overlap $`|\alpha |\beta |=|(1+\alpha \overline{\beta })^{2S}|/|(1+|\alpha |^2)^S(1+|\beta |^2)^S|`$. Since $`|(1+\alpha \beta ^{})^2||(1+|\alpha |^2)(1+|\beta |^2)|`$, the limit in $`S`$ gives $`lim_S\mathrm{}|\alpha |\beta |=0`$ except when the equality is reached, i.e., $`\alpha `$ equals $`\beta `$, which, for all $`S`$, gives $`|\alpha |\alpha |=1`$. Thus, in the limit of large $`S`$ all spin-coherent states become distinguishable and $`P_e`$ becomes zero, (see Fig. 5).

One very illuminating way to see the difference in the measurement process as we change $`S`$ or $`p_A`$/$`p_B`$ is to represent the states and the POVMs on the Riemann sphere using the Majorana representation Majorana32  \- which was also used by Zimba and Penrose to recast the Kochen-Specker paradox Zimba93 . In this system, a state with spin $`S`$ is represented by $`2S`$ points on a Riemann sphere. The position of these points is given by the zeros of a complex function, constructed from the overlap of the state with a non-normalised spin-coherent state. The overlap between a non-normalised spin-coherent state $`|\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`|n`$, is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{z}|n=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2S}{n}}\right)^{1/2}z^n.`$ (15)
The general state $`|\psi =_{n=0}^{2S}a_n|n`$ is described (up to a global phase) by the overlap function in $`z`$ (also known as the “amplitude function” Arecchi72  or the “coherent-state decomposition” Leboeuf91 )

$`\psi (z)=\stackrel{~}{z}|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2s}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2s}{n}}\right)a_nz^n,`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`N\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^{2s}(zz_i).`$ (17)
where $`N`$ is simply a normalisation constant.

The zeros of this function describe the state $`|\psi `$ entirely, again up to a global phase. To plot these points onto the sphere, we view them as stereographic projections from the north pole onto the complex plane going through the equator. Thus a zero on the plane marks the south pole and as the modulus of the root tends to infinity we get a point at the north pole - this happens when $`\psi (z)`$ is of order less than the dimension $`d`$ minus $`1`$. The multiplicity of points at the north pole is equal to the difference between the order of $`\psi (z)`$ and $`d1`$; thus the state $`|0`$ is represented by $`2S`$ points at the north pole. The projection of $`z=e^{i(\pi \varphi )}/\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)`$ onto the sphere represents the rotation of a point at the north pole through angle $`\theta `$ around the axis $`\widehat{n}=(\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ),0)`$, i.e., a point with azimuthal and polar angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, respectively. This can also be thought of as representing the rotation $`\widehat{R}_{\theta ,\varphi }`$ on state $`|0`$.

In the $`S=1/2`$ case we find the well known Bloch sphere. Then, the state $`|\psi =\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|0+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|1`$ has an overlap function $`\psi (z)=\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$ with one zero at $`z=e^{i(\pi \varphi )}\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)`$, where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the polar and azimuthal angles, respectively. We also note that the Majorana picture could equally represent a multiparticle state of $`2S`$ spin $`1/2`$ particles in a symmetric superposition. Each point represents one spin $`1/2`$ particle PenroseRindler . Going back to the notion of a beam of spin $`S=1/2`$ particles mentioned in the previous section, each point would then represent a particle in our beam.

We can make a number of observations from this definition. First, spin-coherent states are represented by $`2S`$ points all at the same position on the unit two-sphere. This is clear since for a spin-coherent state $`|\alpha `$ the overlap function is $`\stackrel{~}{z}|\alpha =(1+z\overline{\alpha })^{2S}/(1+|\alpha |^2)^S`$, which has $`2S`$ zeros at $`1/\overline{\alpha }`$. Thus, the Majorana plot of a spin-coherent state can be seen as a representation of the rotation $`\widehat{R}_{\theta ,\varphi }`$ that defines the state 5. Second, any rotation of a state $`|\psi `$ rotates the sphere, since when forming the overlap function \[Eq. (16)\], we can equally consider the rotation on $`\psi `$ as a reverse rotation on each of the $`|\stackrel{~}{z}`$’s, corresponding to the zeros, which is also a rotation of the points around the sphere. Note, though, that such a rotation can still add a phase that will not be seen on the Majorana sphere. This provides the basis for the next two points.

The modulus of the overlap between any two spin-coherent states is given entirely by the angle between their points on the sphere. This is true since any two pairs of spin-coherent states, with the same angle between them on the Majorana sphere, are only a unitary rotation apart (up to a phase); since this preserves the overlap up to a phase, any such pairs have equal overlap modulus. Any state with one or more points antipodal to a coherent state is orthogonal to that state. To see this it is sufficient to show it for the case $`|\alpha =|0`$, since we can simply rotate the sphere and maintain any overlap up to a phase. The set of states orthogonal to $`|0`$ are given by $`|\alpha ^{}=_{n=1}^{2S}a_n|n`$. The coherent state decomposition thus has $`z=0`$ as one of its zeros at least; indeed, this can occur only if the state has no components in $`|0`$. This gives a Majorana point at the south pole, i.e., antipodal.

With this, we can begin to look at how the Helstrom discrimination strategy for two spin-coherent states can be seen in this representation. The states themselves are shown as two points on the sphere. To represent the projections we show the two resultant states after the measurement takes place, $`|e_A`$, $`|e_B`$, corresponding to $`\widehat{E}_A`$ and $`\widehat{E}_B`$, respectively. We can do this because the two states to be distinguished will both collapse onto the same one of two resultant states. This is because any projection we make will be on the two-dimensional subspace of the two states, since to project outside this space would not be optimal. Hence, they project onto the same pair of states in this subspace.

The first thing we notice is that for any $`S`$ these states give Majorana points that lie on a circle on the surface of the sphere. This is, in fact, the case for any state that is a superposition of two spin-coherent states. For any complex coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$, the state $`|\psi =a|0+b|\beta `$ gives overlap function zeros that lie on a circle of radius $`r=\left|a/b\right|^{1/2S}(1+|\beta |^2)^{1/2}/|\beta |`$, centred at $`1/\overline{\beta }`$ on the complex plane. The stereographic projection preserves circles and angles Eves ; hence the Majorana points lie on a circle also (since this is true for the above superposition, it is true for any superposition of two coherent states because we can always rotate the pair so that one state is $`|0`$ and maintain the geometry). Furthermore, the radius and position of these circles relate back to the overlap of the states and their a priori probabilities, although the relationships are complicated, and we will talk about trends qualitatively only.

In Fig. 6 we see the Majorana projection of two spin-coherent states, given by two black points, and the states post projection, given by the grey points, which exist on two circles, for $`S=10`$. State $`|A=|0`$ is on the north pole and state $`|B=|i`$ is at $`(1,0,0)`$. The a priori probabilities are set at $`p_A=p_B=0.5`$.

We can now look at how when changing the a priori probabilities $`p_A`$/$`p_B`$ and $`S`$, the Helstrom measurements we make, found from the minimisation of Eq. (13), also change. For any fixed spin, as the a priori probability of $`|A`$ increases, the circle of the corresponding projection $`\widehat{E}_A`$ closes in around the state, until it becomes that state. That is, $`|e_A|A`$, as we would expect for minimisation of the error (13). The other circle, for projection $`\widehat{E}_B`$, widens until it becomes the state orthogonal to $`|A`$ in the $`|A`$,$`|B`$ subspace ($`|A_{}`$), this gives the circle whose width allows one point to exist antipodal to the Majorana point of $`|A`$. The opposite to this occurs should $`p_B`$ increase.

Keeping $`p_A,p_B`$ fixed and increasing $`S`$, both circles become larger, as $`|e_A|B_{}`$ and $`|e_B|A_{}`$. This shows the reason for the decrease in probability of error with $`S`$. As $`S`$ increases, the states $`|A`$ and $`|B`$ become more orthogonal; this allows the projection POVMs to change to become more orthogonal to the anticorresponding states, in accordance with the minimisation of Eq. (13), seen by the growth of the circles, where $`P_e`$ then reduces with increasing $`S`$. Therefore, the smooth growth of the projection circles illustrates that, within this distinguishability criterion for classicality, spin-coherent states approach the “classical”, Glauber, states with the increase of spin. This is in contrast with the previous criterion based on entanglement generation where we see a brief increase of entanglement with spin.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper, we have examined the transition of spin-coherent states from spin $`S=1/2`$ to the limit $`S\mathrm{}`$ with respect to the generation of entanglement through a beam splitter. We gave an alternative proof that, as the spin tends to infinity, the spin-coherent states tend to the infinite amplitude limit of the Glauber states. From this proof we can easily see that this is not unique to spin coherent states; indeed, there are infinitely many sets of states for which this is true. The spin-coherent state does represent an element of these that achieves minimum uncertainty.

We have studied the entanglement generation of spin-coherent states for the specific case where they are sent through one arm of a 50:50 beam splitter and a vacuum through the other. Two main features were observed. The first is that the entanglement of the output states depends heavily on $`|z|`$, more than $`S`$. For all $`|z|`$, after an initial quick change with $`S`$, the entanglement settles to a very slow, almost flat decline. The entanglement at which this slow tailing off begins is very dependent on $`|z|`$ and is higher for larger $`|z|`$. To see the high $`S`$ near zero entanglement, one would need a system of huge spin number. The relevance of this limit is very dependent on the physical system. In our numerics we considered only up to spin $`S=50`$, but we may see a significantly low resultant entanglement for systems with extremely large $`S`$, for example, of the order of $`10^5`$ spin $`1/2`$ atoms. The second interesting feature is that for $`|z|>1`$ the entanglement initially rose with $`S`$.

We then discussed this transition in terms of classicality. The high dependence on $`|z|`$, very slow decline to zero, and increase of entanglement (thus dip in this sense of classicality) are indicators that this measure may be inadequate as a universal signature of classicality, as we found. The value in these results is in the understanding of a beam splitter as an entanglement generator, with respect to which it is also found that the generated entanglement increases with amplitude $`z`$, and that for any spin $`S`$ we can find an amplitude with $`|z|`$ that gives the maximum entanglement at output. In a sense we have sacrificed the generality of this result as a classicality measure for its simplicity and applicability.

We listed briefly some examples of other ways the transition can be looked at in terms of classicality. The large $`S`$ limit discussed by Lieb also leads to a classical description, in terms of free energies. The change in phase space as we change $`S`$ also indicates a transition to classicality in some sense. We then focused on distinguishability in terms of state discrimination using the Helstrom optimal measurement strategy and illustrated it using the Majorana picture. The geometry of the states and the Helstrom POVMs is simple, and allows us to illustrate easily the changes affecting the probability of error for the measurement. A spin-coherent state is simply one point on the sphere and the POVMs are represented by circles of points. The decrease in probability of error with an increase in $`S`$ is seen by the increase in the diameter of the circles on the sphere representing the measurements. We reiterate that distinguishability does not constitute classicality in its own right. The standard example of Fock states makes is an example. Indeed none of these measures give a common result; they all follow different declines and cannot be said to be equivalent exactly in the transition regime. Distinguishability is important and although not a complete description, if we want to look at classicality, we must discuss this, as we must all areas.

Possible extensions of this work would naturally include the move to considering the mixed case as in Kim02  and Xiang-bin02 . A consideration of a thermal mixture of states, as in Lieb’s calculation, may offer interesting results in terms of entanglement. It would also be interesting for future work to create common criteria for “classicality measures” or indicators of (pure) states. It seems that one common feature that should be imposed is the increase in classicality with the size of a system, or the number of subsystems involved, so that it appears classical in the large macroscopic limit. An important problem, brought to light in the discussion of the beam splitter, is the assignment of classicality in terms of entanglement. A classical system should be inefficient at generating entanglement within itself, but on the other hand, should be able to strongly entangle with its environment (this is required, for example, in decoherence models). It is not at all clear that there exists a single measure that would capture all these desirable properties and this remains a challenging open problem.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank William Irvine, Manfred Lein, and Stefan Scheel for very useful discussions on the subject of this paper and Jens Eisert for critical reading of the proofs involved. This work was sponsored by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the European Community, the Elsag spa and the Hewlett-Packard company.

## Appendix A

Glauber states are defined as Glauber63

$`|\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha \widehat{a}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\alpha |^2\right)|0`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\alpha |^2\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n}{(n!)^{1/2}}}|n.`$
We wish to show that, by appropriate substitution, the spin-coherent state (6) is equal to a subclass of Glauber states as $`S`$ tends to infinity. We know that for any two different spin-coherent states, the overlap tends to zero as $`S`$ tends to infinity; thus the “amplitude” $`\alpha `$ for the optical case must tend to infinity as $`S`$ does. We set $`\alpha =\sqrt{2S}\overline{z}`$. Substituting this into Eq. (6) we get

$`|z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2S})^S}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2S}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2S}{n}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2S}}\right)^n|n.`$ (19)
To prove the equivalence of the two states in the infinite limit, it is sufficient to show that the overlap of a Glauber state $`|\alpha `$ and such a spin-coherent state goes to $`1`$ (i.e., they are the same state). Thus, we wish to prove that

$`\underset{S\mathrm{}}{lim}\alpha |z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{S\mathrm{}}{lim}\{\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\alpha |^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2S})^S}}`$ (20)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2S}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2S!}{(2Sn)!(2S)^n}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha |^{2n}}{n!}}\}`$
$`=`$ $`1.`$
Let us first look at the summation.
Lemma. For all $`A^+`$,

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(np)!n^p}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}={\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}.`$ (21)
Proof. We will use the method of showing that the upper and lower bounds to $`\alpha |z^{}`$ coincide as $`S`$ tends to infinity. Since each term in the sum is positive, one upper bound of the left hand side of Eg. (21) can be found by taking the sum to infinity. Thus

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(np)!n^p}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}`$ $``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(np)!n^p}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}},`$
where the last line is given by taking the limit inside the sum, which we are allowed to do since each term converges.

We then find a lower bound by taking the sum to some finite $`m`$, so

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(np)!n^p}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}`$ $``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(np)!n^p}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}.`$
However, taking the infinite limit of $`m`$ this inequality still holds, since it is true for any finite $`m`$ and so it is true for any arbitrarily small distance from the limit, so the limit can at most be equal. This gives the same upper as lower bound; hence

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(np)!n^p}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n!}{(np)!n^p}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^p}{p!}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(A).`$
Since the normalisation and the summation in Eq. (20) converge with increasing $`n`$, the limit of the product is the product of the limits and thus

$`\underset{S\mathrm{}}{lim}\alpha |z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(|\alpha |^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(|\alpha |^2\right)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`1.`$
Interestingly, this is also true of any state $`|\psi =_{n=0}^{d1}f(n,d)[A^n/(n!)^{1/2}]|n`$ such that $`f(n,d)>0,n,d`$, and $`f(n,d)`$ converges to $`1`$ in $`n`$, for all $`p`$, for example, $`|z=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}|z|^2\right)_{p=0}^n(z^p/p!)|p`$. There are infinitely many such functions and therefore there are infinitely many states that will tend to the Glauber state in the limit, as stated in Sec. II.

## Appendix B

Linear entropy is an upper bound to the von Neumann entropy and is defined as

$`S_{lin}=1Tr\left(\rho _A^2\right).`$ (26)
The linear entropy of the two output “beams” is given by

$`S_{lin}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{(2S!)^2}{(1+|z|^2)^{4S}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p,p^{}=0}{\overset{2S}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{\overset{min(2Sp,2Sp^{})}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{|z|^{m+m^{}+p+p^{}}}{m!m^{}!}}`$ (27)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2Smp)!(2Smp^{})!}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2Sm^{}p)!(2Sm^{}p^{})}}}`$
$`\times |R|^{2(p+p^{})}|T|^{2(m+m^{})}),`$
with $`|R|^2+|T|^2=1`$. Differentiating this with respect to $`|R|`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS_{lin}}{d|R|}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,p^{}=0}{\overset{2S}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{\overset{min(2Sp,2Sp^{})}{}}}\{f(|z|,S,m,m^{},p,p^{})`$ (28)
$`\times `$ $`(|R|^{(p+p^{}1)}(p+p^{})(1|R|)^{(m+m^{})}`$
$`(1|R|)^{(m+m^{}1)}(m+m^{})|R|^{(p+p^{})})\},`$
where

$`f(|z|,S,m,m^{},p,p^{})={\displaystyle \frac{(2S!)^2}{(1+|z|^2)^{4S}}}({\displaystyle \frac{|z|^{m+m^{}+p+p^{}}}{m!m^{}!}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2Smp)!(2Smp^{})!}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2Sm^{}p)!(2Sm^{}p^{})}}}).`$ (29)
Using the symmetry of the summations and the symmetry of $`f(|z|,S,m,m^{},p,p^{})`$, one can see that Eq. (28) gives a zero at $`|R|=|T|=1/\sqrt{2}`$. Hence the linear entropy is maximum, for any $`S`$ and $`z`$, when $`|R|=|T|=1/\sqrt{2}`$.


format: text

text:
# Multi-hadron Final StatesPresented at X International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS2002), Kraków, Poland, 30 April - 4 May, 2002

## 1 Introduction

Presentations at the *Multi-hadron final states* sessions covered a wealth of recent results on jet production characteristics and jet properties, heavy flavor production and decays, dimuon photoproduction, instanton searches, small-$`x`$ final states, studies of hadronization, and theoretical progress in resummation and parton shower formalisms, providing new insights into and sensitivity to a broad range of physics aspects. Due to space limitation, we refer the interested reader to individual papers in these proceedings for exact definitions of variables, experimental selections, plots, and further references.

## 2 Physics of Jets

Jet production processes in $`ep`$, $`e^+e^{}`$ and hadronic interactions continue to be primary tools for studies of parton dynamics and for testing specific theoretical descriptions and Monte Carlo models (MC) based on QCD.

While results from HERA on inclusive, dijet, and multi-jet reactions, induced by real and virtual photons, dominated the discussion, they were complemented by recent multi-jet measurements at LEP that directly probe the color structure and the coupling constant of strong interactions, and by a variety of jet studies at the Tevatron, covering a large range of jet $`E_T`$ and probing QCD aspects from the hardest partonic scatter to the properties of the soft underlying and minimum bias events.

### 2.1 Inclusive and dijet results from HERA, plus some photons

The results presented in the sessions were generally in an impressive agreement with theoretical predictions, for many kinematic variables, and for several orders of magnitude of cross sections. Here, we will attempt to highlight hints of disagreements, which may point to weaknesses in the description of particular aspects of the underlying physics. Most of the measurements used versions of the $`k_T`$ algorithm and were carried out in the Breit frame. In general, the veracity of next-to-leading order (NLO) matrix elements is confirmed by good agreement with the angular distributions in the data (cos$`\theta ^{}`$ in dijet photoproduction, especially for high dijet mass; cos$`\theta _3`$, $`\psi _3`$ in 3-jet DIS and in 4-jet photoproduction at high 4-jet mass.)

The photoproduction data from both H1 and ZEUS probe the photon parton distribution functions (PDFs); the GRV-HO set provides predictions 10-15% above those from AFG-HO (and seems to be in better agreement with the data).

Jacek Turnau presented an H1 measurement of the single inclusive jet cross section in photoproduction ($`Q^2<1`$ GeV2) at high $`E_T`$ (21–75 GeV), where the sensitivity to soft physics is reduced. The data agree very well with NLO QCD and with previous ZEUS results, but because of the large uncertainty in the jet energy scale, the preference for the GRV PDF is only marginal; this uncertainty needs to be reduced to take advantage of the high luminosity measurements at HERA II.

Maria Krawczyk discussed theoretical issues in the inclusive direct-photon production. There are two different approaches to counting the powers of $`\alpha _s`$ in NLO calculations, leading to different sets of subprocesses being included; other authors considered the $`\mathrm{log}Q^2`$ factor present in the photon $`F_2`$ function as an inverse of $`\alpha _s`$. The ZEUS data currently have errors too large to discriminate between these calculations, or between the photon PDFs, but are in rough agreement with expectations (although none of them describe the data for rapidities below 0.1).

Dijet photoproduction probes direct and resolved photon components in more detail and is sensitive, already at lowest order, to the gluon content of the photon. At HERA, the photon structure can be probed at higher scales than at LEP. Theoretical calculations are available at NLO.

Dijet photoproduction cross sections from ZEUS, presented by Anna Lupi, are sensitive to the photon PDFs, but neither GRV-HO or AFG-HO fully describe all features of the data. In particular, the predictions do not track the data when compared as function of the cut on the lower energy jet, $`E_T^{jet2}`$. For the cut value used by ZEUS, $`E_T^{jet2}>11`$ GeV, there is a significant difference between data and theory for $`x_\gamma <0.8`$, $`x_\gamma `$ being the momentum fraction of the photon partaking in the hard interaction. The H1 comparisons, presented by Gilles Frising, show a better agreement with theory, which may be related to the higher cut value ($`E_T^{jet2}>15`$ GeV) used by H1. Frising pointed to significant NLO scale uncertainty, and sizable hadronization corrections at high $`x_\gamma `$. Both speakers concluded that HERA data can constrain and should be included in fits to PDFs; the constraints could be made more stringent if improved higher-order or resummed calculations were available. The H1 analysis also exhibits some sensitivity to the proton PDFs; this could be exploited with the high-statistics HERA II data.

Up a step in $`Q^2`$, the region $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2<<Q^2<E_T^2`$ is the place to investigate contributions from longitudinally polarized photon interactions, which vanish in the photoproduction limit. The analysis of H1 data, presented by Kamil Sedlak, demonstrated the importance of the resolved transverse component even in this $`Q^2`$ region; however, addition of longitudinal resolved photon contributions (within the  HERWIG  framework) further improves the agreement with data. Based on a study of $`y`$-distributions, such a longitudinal component is preferred to a pure enhancement of the transverse part. Interestingly, the predictions of the C  ASCADE  MC, based on the CCFM evolution, describe the data almost as well, without explicitly introducing a resolved component (however, the $`Q^2`$ dependence at low $`x_\gamma `$ is poorly described.)

The above analysis neglected the possibility of interference between transverse and longitudinal components, which was found to be important in some cases studied at LEP. Urszula Jezuita-Da̧browska investigated theoretical aspects of such interference effects in the semi-inclusive Compton process in $`ep`$ collisions. She found that at HERA energies the interference term is of similar magnitude as the longitudinal term, but of the opposite sign! The extension of this study to dijet production at low $`Q^2`$ would be certainly interesting.

The partonic content of the virtual photon is suppressed when $`Q^2`$ increases, leading to a corresponding suppression of the ratio $`R`$ between cross sections for $`x_\gamma <0.75`$ (dominated by the resolved component) and for $`x_\gamma >0.75`$ (dominated by the direct component). Matthew Lightwood investigated this behavior (as seen in the ZEUS data) in the case when the dijets were identified as originating from charm quarks. The charm events were tagged by reconstructing a high-$`p_T`$ $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi _s^+`$ decay. After correcting for the $`D^{}`$ kinematic selections, the $`Q^2`$ suppression of $`R`$ for charm events was significantly weaker than for the all-flavors case – clearly a consequence of the charm-quark mass. Again, C  ASCADE  described the charm data well.

A novel approach to the analysis of H1 dijet data in the DIS regime ($`150<Q^2<35000`$ GeV2) was discussed by Günter Grindhammer, using a modified Durham algorithm. The traditional DIS analyses require a large inter-jet separation, with only $`10\%`$ of the inclusive sample classified as dijet events. H1 investigated the minimum separation required for an adequate agreement with NLO calculation in terms of the variable $`y_2=\mathrm{min}k_{Tij}^2/scale^2`$ (with $`scale`$ chosen either as $`W`$ or $`Q`$). For $`y_2>0.001`$ the agreement with NLO was excellent, and the sample retained a third of all DIS events. Detailed studies of several variables in this expanded sample showed a very good agreement with NLO calculations, for two choices of the renormalization scale. Interestingly, a LO+parton-shower (PS) MC R  APGAP  describes the $`y_2`$-distribution down to $`10^5`$, and reproduces other data well, while A  RIADNE ,  HERWIG  and L  EPTO  fail at places.

Sonja Hillert reviewed ZEUS studies of internal structure of jets in neutral-current, charged-current and photoproduction data. Such studies provide insights into the transition from partons to the observed jets of hadrons and are sensitive to emission of gluons, thus allowing a determination of the strong coupling constant. The jet substructure is studied through the measurement of the mean subjet multiplicity; subjets are resolved by reapplying the $`k_T`$-clustering algorithm to particles within the jet while using a smaller resolution parameter $`y_{cut}`$. Using $`y_{cut}=10^2`$, and for both NC and CC data, the mean subjet multiplicity was compared to NLO calculations with the $`\alpha _s`$-dependent A-series of CTEQ4 PDFs, yielding fits to $`\alpha _s`$ in good agreement with the PDG value, and with other ZEUS determinations; the errors are dominated by the theoretical uncertainty. Results were also presented for both integrated and differential energy-density distributions as function of the distance from the jet axis. The quark-initiated jet shapes determined in DIS events are in good agreement with NLO expectations and are consistent between CC and NC samples. In photoproduction, however, one finds a somewhat different shape, which is expected because of the contributions from gluon initiated jets. A quark-enriched sample has been selected by the $`D^{}`$ charm-tagging technique; these jets have shape distributions similar to DIS jets. By taking the fractional contributions of quark and gluon jets in photoproduction data from LO MC, and assuming the measured shape for the quark jets, ZEUS solved for the shape of gluon jets and found that P  YTHIA  provides a good representation.

### 2.2 Multi-jet studies at HERA and LEP

A direct sensitivity to higher-order effects is obtained through investigations of multi-jet events. Using ZEUS data Claire Gwenlan presented the first four-jet photoproduction cross section measurement. Multi-jet production in the photoproduction regime is also sensitive to the photon structure and to the ensuing multiple parton interactions. The distribution of $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{OBS}}`$ agrees well with P  YTHIA  for high mass events, $`m_{4\mathrm{J}}>50`$ GeV, but requires a large contribution of multiple parton interactions (MPI) at lower masses and low $`x_\gamma ^{\mathrm{OBS}}`$. Angular distributions cos$`\theta _3`$ and $`\psi _3`$ have been compared to the MC expectations. While  HERWIG  alone, and  HERWIG  +SUE (a soft underlying event model) fail,  HERWIG  \+ J  IMMY  (a multi-parton interaction model) work fine, as does P  YTHIA  \+ MPI; at high mass the soft effects are much reduced and the LO+PS generators alone provide a satisfactory description of the data.

In the DIS regime, extra jets are produced primarily through hard gluon emission, prodding enhanced sensitivity to $`\alpha _s`$ and allowing more stringent test of NLO theory. Christian Schwanenberger presented H1 measurements of the 3-jet cross section versus several variables, for $`5<Q^2<5000`$ GeV2. At lowest $`Q^2`$ the dominant theoretical uncertainty is related to the choice of scales, but at the high-$`Q^2`$ end this uncertainty is reduced, thus providing sensitivity to $`\alpha _s`$. This sensitivity is enhanced in the ratio of 2-jet and 3-jet cross sections, as the scale and some other theoretical and experimental uncertainties tend to cancel. The data are in good agreement with NLO (but not LO) using the world average for $`\alpha _s`$. It is notable that the angular cos$`\theta _3`$ and $`\psi _3`$ distributions are well described by NLO, but not by phase space, confirming the expectation for QCD radiation patterns.

Data from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into hadrons provide a particularly clean environment to study characteristics of multi-jet events. Pablo Tortosa presented results from LEP measurements of 4-jet events. The underlying theoretical description assumes only a non-abelian gauge symmetry and standard hadronization models, thus allowing determinations of the strong coupling constant and the SU(3) color factors by comparison of the measured 4-jet production rate and four different angular correlations between jets to NLO perturbative predictions. The measurements are in agreement with SU(3) expectations and with the world average value of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$; the uncertainties on the extracted parameters depend on the number of free parameters in the fits. Flavor tagging has been used to enhance the sensitivity to color factors by identifying quark versus gluon jets. The results exclude the existence of a massless gluino at more than 95% confidence level (it would modify the factors by adding light fermion degrees of freedom).

### 2.3 Selected jet results from the Tevatron

Traditionally, the Tevatron jet measurements have been based on the cone algorithm, and were aimed primarily at the highest transverse energies. In recent years, however, more attention has been paid to alternative algorithms and to studies of jet and event structure issues at low energies.

Iain Bertram reviewed several recent analyses from DØ based on the Ellis-Soper version of the $`k_T`$ algorithm. DØ recently published the inclusive $`k_T`$ jet cross section, the first such measurement at the hadron collider. The measurement includes a study of hadronization effects, usually neglected for cone jets. The agreement with NLO theory is not as good as previously obtained with the cone algorithm – a behavior that can be partially traced to energy differences between jets reconstructed with these algorithms. The probability of agreement with NLO (J  ETRAD ) is fair (44%), but the possibility of some discrepancy reinvigorated investigations of issues, such as hadronization, influence of the underlying event, and properties of the algorithms. With the $`k_T`$ algorithm, DØ studied the jet substructure, similarly to the discussion above by Hillert. The quark and gluon subjet multiplicities have been disentangled by comparing the measurements at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 630 GeV and 1800 GeV and by assuming that the respective fractions of quark and gluon initiated jets are known from the MCs. The result for the ratio between quark and gluon subjet multiplicities has been found to be in good agreement with  HERWIG . A very recent analysis, based on the $`k_T`$ algorithm, investigated the event-shape thrust variable $`T`$, defined here using only the transverse momenta of the two leading jets; despite of this simplification, $`T`$ remains sensitive to extra jets (radiation) in the event through the imbalance of the leading jets in the azimuthal plane. The measurement disagrees with the NLO J  ETRAD  description at the very low values of $`1T`$, where resummation effects are expected to be important, and at high values of $`1T`$, where the lowest order is $`𝒪(\alpha _s^4)`$. Thus, this measurement provides an excellent opportunity for testing future resummed and higher order calculations. Using the cone algorithm, DØ investigated the production of multi-jet events at low $`E_T20`$ GeV (for inclusive $``$1, 2, 3 and 4 jets), compared to expectations from P  YTHIA  and  HERWIG . Both MCs can be tuned to reproduce the data in $`E_T`$ and in various angular distributions, but fail to do so with the default parameters. The sensitive parameter in P  YTHIA  is the fraction of core region of hadronic matter distribution (PARP(83)), which controls the rate of multiple parton interactions; in  HERWIG  the sensitive parameter is the minimum $`p_T`$ of the hard process.

Christina Mesropian discussed recent analyses from CDF focused on jet fragmentation properties, jet evolution from minimum bias events to higher $`E_T`$, and studies of properties of the underlying event (UE) in jet and minimum bias events. These analyses were performed using variations of the cone algorithm, and utilized both calorimeter and tracking information. Fragmentation into charged particles of well-balanced high-mass central dijet events was studied within the MLLA formalism combined with the LPHD hadronization prescription. The inclusive momentum distribution of charged particles in the jet was found to agree well with theoretical predictions, allowing extraction of the effective momentum cutoff $`Q_{eff}`$ at which partons undergo hadronization; a value of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ was obtained. The ratio of hadron multiplicities in quark and gluon jets was also extracted. For studies of the development and evolution of jets from low (0.5 GeV/c) to high (50 GeV/c) transverse momenta charged jets were defined using only charged particles of $`p_T>0.5`$ GeV/c in a cone clustering algorithm. Evidence of charged jets has been observed in minimum bias data already around 1–2 GeV/c, and their properties join smoothly these for jets observed in regular jet-triggered data ($`>20`$ GeV/c). This charged jet technique was also employed for investigating properties of the UE and of minimum bias events. The analysis required a reconstructed charged jet, and the phase space was divided into angular regions “toward”, “away” and “transverse” to the jet, the latter being of primary interest here. While the two former regions were fairly well described by P  YTHIA  and  HERWIG , none of the MCs examined described correctly all the properties of the UE (i.e. the “transverse” region). The influence of the UE on jet energies was also studied in the high-$`E_T`$ calorimeter-jet data by defining two cones at the same $`\eta `$, but at $`\pm 90^{}`$ in azimuth from the leading jet. The lower energy ($`min`$) cone was used to estimate the contribution from UE, while the higher ($`max`$) cone also receives contributions from perturbative radiation (thus measured by the $`maxmin`$ difference). The study concluded that the UE in hard scattering events is more active than in soft collisions. In general, these results will be useful for tuning the MC generators.

## 3 Heavy Flavor Production and Decay

With the observation of large discrepancies between data and theory Heavy Flavor Production is currently one of the most interesting topics of High Energy Physics. At this workshop new results concerning charm, beauty and charmonium production at HERA and LEP were reported. ¿From the experimental point of view, the improvement in background reduction for the measurement of charm mesons, as obtained by the application of a decay length cut using the H1 Central Silicon Detector, is particularly impressive, see the talk by Jeannine Wagner. On the theoretical side, applications of the saturation model and the $`k_T`$ factorization model to heavy flavor production, as presented during this workshop, are particularly noteworthy.

### 3.1 Charm production

In general, the agreement between theory and measurement of open charm production is satisfactory. NLO calculations of charm production in deep inelastic scattering are able to reproduce the measured rates of $`D^{}`$ production . In photoproduction the predictions to fixed-order plus next-to-leading logarithms agree with measurements of H1 at two different $`\gamma p`$ center of mass energies, but lie a factor 1.5 to 2 below measurements of the ZEUS collaboration. As of now, there are no published measurements of open charm production cross sections available from the Tevatron collider. Given the large differences between measurement and calculation for beauty and charmonium production at the Tevatron, measurements of charm production cross sections in $`p\overline{p}`$ are eagerly awaited.

With the large sample of charm mesons collected at HERA it is possible to extract charm fragmentation factors and parameters with a precision comparable to $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments. Jeannine Wagner presented new measurements by H1 of the fragmentation factors $`f(cD)`$ for $`D^+`$, $`D^0`$, $`D_s`$ and $`D^{}`$ mesons. The results are in excellent agreement with the values obtained elsewhere and can be used to extract various charm fragmentation parameters, such as $`P_v`$ (the fraction of vector mesons), $`R_{u/d}`$ (the ratio of u and d quarks) and $`\gamma _s`$ (the strangeness suppression factor). For instance, assuming isospin invariance the fraction of vector mesons is determined to be $`P_v=0.613\pm 0.061(stat)\pm 0.033(syst)\pm 0.008(theo)`$. Sanjay Padhi reported on a similar determination based on ZEUS data, quoting $`P_v=0.546\pm 0.045(stat)\pm 0.028(syst)`$ . Both results are in excellent agreement with the world average of $`P_v=0.601\pm 0.032`$.

Various processes contribute to the photoproduction of charm quarks: in direct photoproduction the dominant process is $`\gamma g`$ fusion with a quark exchange, in resolved photoproduction charm excitation with a gluon exchange is expected to dominate. Due to the different spins of quarks and gluons, the angular distribution of the two processes differ, leading to an excess of events in the $`\gamma `$-direction for resolved events. A study of the angular distribution of dijet events with an identified $`D^{}`$ meson based on ZEUS data was presented by Sanjay Padhi. The angular distributions for the direct and resolved photon enriched samples are observed to be significantly different. A significant excess of events is observed in the $`\gamma `$ direction for the sample enriched in resolved photoproduction events. This may be interpreted as the first convincing evidence for charm excitation in the photon.

Stephen Robins presented new measurements of $`D^{}`$ production cross sections in deep inelastic scattering by the ZEUS collaboration. The results are based on the large data sets collected in the 1998-2000 running periods, corresponding to 82 $`pb^1`$. Overall the data exhibit the features expected from NLO pQCD predictions based on recent parton density functions, such as CTEQ5F3. However, the data for electron- and positron-proton scattering show a statistically somewhat significant difference: the ratio of $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ events increases with momentum transferred, from about 1.25 at $`Q^2=30`$ GeV2 to 2.25 at $`Q^2=450`$ GeV2. Detailed systematic checks have been performed to exclude differences in the acceptance of $`e^{}p`$ and $`e^+p`$ collision events. No plausible physics reason for the observed difference has yet been proposed.

A wealth of results on charm production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ interaction is emerging from the LEPII data. Armin Böhrer reported on $`D^{}`$ rates versus pseudorapidity, $`\eta `$, transverse momentum of the $`D^{}`$, $`p_T^D^{}`$, momentum fraction of the photon partaking in the hard interaction, $`x_\gamma `$, visible $`\gamma \gamma `$ center-of-mass energy, $`W_{vis}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass energy, $`\sqrt{s}`$ . The agreement with NLO pQCD predictions is very good, apart from the differential cross section versus $`x_\gamma `$, as measured by OPAL, which shows an excess at a low value of $`x_\gamma =0.03`$. The excess might be explained by additional hadron like contributions not included in standard parton density functions of the photon.

Motivated by the success of the Saturation Model in describing the proton structure function in the transition region between photoproduction and deep inelastic scattering and inclusive diffractive scattering in deep inelastic scattering, Antoni Szczurek extended the formalism to include heavy quark production in $`\gamma `$ \- nucleon and $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering. The saturation model describes the scattering of photons with the nucleon as convolution of a perturbatively calculable transverse photon wave function with a dipole-nucleon cross section parametrized in fits to proton structure function data. In its extension to describe heavy flavor production, particular care was devoted to the effects of the kinematical threshold and the phase-space limitations in the region of large $`x_\gamma `$. The calculations are able to describe measurements at low $`W_{\gamma p}`$, but lay significantly below the measurements from HERA with $`W_{\gamma p}>100`$ GeV. The situation for charm production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions is somewhat better. The calculations are able to reproduce the shape of the rising cross section with $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$, however the absolute normalization appears to be about 30% below the data.

Traditionally, inclusive DIS is analyzed within the framework of the DGLAP evolution scheme. In a different formalism, the $`k_T`$ factorization scheme, terms proportional to $`\alpha _s\mathrm{log}(\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\mathrm{log}(1/x))^n`$ are resummed to all orders and give rise to a so-called unintegrated gluon momentum distribution, $`A(x,k_T^2,\mu ^2)`$. The latter is dependent on $`x`$, the momentum fraction of the gluon in the proton, the probing scale $`\mu `$ and the transverse momentum $`k_T`$ of the gluon. Nikolaj Zotov presented a calculation of charm production cross sections based on three different choices of unintegrated gluon momentum distributions: a) by J Blümlein, based on the leading order solution of the BFKL equation; b) by J Jung and G Salam, based on a numerical solution to the CCFM equation; and c) by M Kimber et al., based on a combination of the BFKL and DGLAP equations.

Despite large differences among the three choices of unintegrated gluon distributions, the corresponding predictions for the charm production cross sections in both photoproduction and DIS are remarkably similar and agree well with measurements by the HERA collider experiments.

### 3.2 Beauty production

Production of beauty quarks is an area where the predictions of pQCD are expected to be accurate and reliable. Beauty production cross sections have been measured in $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma p`$, $`\gamma ^{}p`$, and $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions. Strikingly, in all these environments the experimental results lie factors of 3 - 5 above next-to-leading order pQCD predictions.

In order to understand the reasons for the failure of the calculations, the experiments are devoting large efforts to cross check their measurements, using e.g. other detection methods, and/or to extend the kinematical range of their measurements. In this context Monica Turcato presented a recent analysis of photoproduction events by the ZEUS collaboration. The events containing b-quarks are identified through the measurement of the relative momentum of the decay $`\mu `$ with respect to the axis of its associated jet. The analysis makes use of the forward muon chambers, thus extending the angular coverage to pseudorapidities of 2.3. The results compare well to leading-order MC, such as P  YTHIA . Measurements of the differential cross sections and comparison to NLO pQCD calculations are forthcoming.

Another way to obtain a handle on the b-quark production cross section was presented by Jeannine Wagner. The analysis investigates the angular correlation of $`D^{}`$ mesons and $`\mu `$’s in events containing both particles. The event sample is subdivided in four subsamples with either same/opposite charge and same/opposite side $`D^{}`$’s and $`\mu `$’s. The sample of same side and same charge particles is almost entirely originating from B meson decays, with only a small contamination of charm quarks and ‘fake’ $`\mu `$’s. The extracted visible b quark production cross section $`\sigma _{vis}(epe^{}D^{}\mu X)=(380\pm 120\pm 130)`$ pb is significantly above the predictions of 106 pb by the A  ROMA  leading-order MC.

The situation is very similar in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ environment. Arnim Böhrer presented recent measurement by L3 and OPAL of the inclusive beauty cross section. The measurements are based on an analysis of the relative momentum of either an electron or muon with respect to the axis of an associated jet. The measurements cluster around 13 pb and are about a factor three above the NLO pQCD prediction, a difference which corresponds to four standard deviations.

Given the many significant discrepancies between experiment and theory in beauty production, one would expect a large theoretical effort aiming at resolving these differences. Disappointingly, the workshop received only one contribution in which Antoni Szczurek applied the saturation model (see above) to beauty photoproduction. Similarly to the collinear approach, his results are about a factor 2-3 below the recent HERA measurements at $`W_{\gamma p}`$ 190 GeV. To help resolve this discrepancy, measurements at different $`W_{\gamma p}`$ would be particularly useful.

### 3.3 Charmonium production

Jungil Lee presented a comprehensive overview of the status of theoretical calculations of $`J/\psi `$ \- meson production. He reviewed the physics of the non-relativistic QCD factorization approach and the contributions of color-singlet (CS) and color-octet (CO) processes. Due to their different dependences on the transverse momentum $`p_T`$ of the $`J/\psi `$ meson the sum of these processes is able to describe the differential cross section versus $`p_T`$, as measured by CDF at the Tevatron. The strength of the CO contribution is described by universal matrix elements which can not (yet) be calculated theoretically, but have to be determined by experiment.

Katja Krüger presented new results from the H1 collaboration concerning inelastic $`J/\psi `$ photo- and electroproduction. The measurements span a large region of $`z`$, the inelasticity of the $`J/\psi `$ mesons, defined as the ratio of the energies of the $`J/\psi `$ meson and the photon in the proton rest frame. The results in photoproduction are well described by NLO pQCD calculation and the CS model. The importance of NLO corrections is particularly evident in the description of the $`p_{T,\psi }^2`$, where a leading order calculation fails to describe the shape of the cross section. Unfortunately, the NLO calculations suffer from a large uncertainty due to the wide range of allowable masses of the charm quark. When compared to leading order calculations, the differential cross sections are compatible with small values of the CO matrix element, but do not appear to be in contradiction with the values determined from the Tevatron data. Clearly, a rigorous calculation to NLO including both CS and CO contributions is needed for both the HERA and Tevatron environment before firm conclusions about the universality of the matrix element can be drawn.

The measurement of the helicity distribution of $`J/\psi `$ mesons versus $`z`$ in photoproduction shows a different trend than LO calculations including CS or CS+CO contributions. The data tend to go from a full transverse polarization at low $`z`$ to no polarization at high $`z`$, whereas the calculations seem to do the inverse. However, one has to keep in mind that the calculations are to leading order and do not resum soft gluon emissions. This may be an important shortcoming of the calculations, since each emitted gluon carries away one unit of spin.

Arnim Böhrer reported on recent calculations of the differential cross section versus $`p_T^2`$ for inelastic $`J/\psi `$ production in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ environment. The calculations use the matrix elements determined by Tevatron data to estimate the CO contribution and is in good agreement with the data. However, the data are not precise enough to unambiguously establish the presence of CO contributions. Furthermore, the calculations are to LO only and large NLO corrections may affect the present results.

## 4 Dimuon photoproduction

H1 measured di-muon photoproduction in search of deviations from Standard Model expectations. Boris Leissner presented the measured differential cross section versus the mass of the dimuon system. No obvious deviation from expectations, calculated with the G  RAPE  MC, are observed. The visible cross section, both inclusive and for the inelastic subsample, are in excellent agreement with the predictions.

## 5 Instanton searches at HERA

Instanton induced events are expected to leave a distinct signature: high multiplicity of tracks in the forward region, flavor symmetry, large muon content etc. Birger Koblitz applied a multi-variant discrimination method to obtain limits on instanton induced processes. The analysis is performed in a corner of phase space where backgrounds from non-instanton induced events are minimized. Based on H1 data, exclusion limits of 55 to 80 pb are obtained if backgrounds from non-instanton induced processes, as predicted by standard LO MCs, are subtracted. Under the assumption that all selected events are instanton induced, the limit is degraded to 255 pb.

## 6 Small-$`𝒙`$ final states

As measurements from HERA of small-$`x`$ final states have accumulated, it has become very clear that we do not understand the details of partonic evolution in this region of phase space. Even though NLO DGLAP  evolution is able to reproduce the increase of $`F_2`$ with decreasing $`x`$, it is clear from final-state data that parton evolution is more complicated. The alternative, BFKL  evolution, has turned out to suffer from huge NLO corrections  and there does not seem to be any completely satisfactory model available for small-$`x`$ final states today (see e.g.  for a recent review).

One problem with the BFKL formalism is that it does not conserve energy and momentum. Although this may formally not be a problem at asymptotically large energies, in the real world it may make a very large difference. This was clearly demonstrated in the presentation by Jeppe Andersen . By implementing BFKL evolution in an event generator where energy and momentum is conserved exactly in each vertex, he showed that the predicted BFKL enhancement of di-jet cross sections with the rapidity difference between the jets, actually transforms into a suppression. The reason is that if you take into account the energy needed to emit the gluons responsible for the increase of the partonic cross section, you will find that the parton densities are probed at correspondingly higher $`x`$-values. And since the gluon density decreases steeply with $`x`$, the total effect is a suppression. Andersen also suggested measurements which involved incoming quarks, the densities of which do not decrease as much with $`x`$.

When going to next-to-leading order in the evolution , some energy-momentum conservation effects are taken into account. But to get reliable predictions it is necessary to also calculate the so-called impact factors (or off-shell matrix elements) to next-to-leading order. This has previously been done for the $`\gamma ^{}`$ impact factors , but to describe di-jets at large rapidity differences one needs to calculate the jet impact factors to NLO. Gian Paulo Vacca presented a first calculation for this . For the $`\gamma ^{}`$ impact factors one must treat carefully the cancellation between real and virtual diagrams in the ladder and the corresponding ones from the scattered $`q\overline{q}`$ system. For the jet impact factors there is the additional complication of also considering real and virtual diagrams in the parton densities. At the time of the presentation, the calculations were not quite ready and no predictions were presented, but since then the calculation has been completed .

Further theoretical progress in understanding small-$`x`$ evolution was presented in the Structure Functions parallel sessions . Also some new measurements were presented. Relevant for this summary was the report from Lidia Goerlich on forward pion production at HERA . The advantage of looking at $`\pi ^0`$ production rather than at jets, is that it is possible to go further forward and hence be more sensitive to small-$`x`$ dynamics. The downside is, of course, that one needs to understand the fragmentation of partons into pions. The presented measurement is a update of a previous measurement  with increased statistics and a more detailed study of the event structure. The result is that, similar to forward jet measurements, it is impossible to describe the rate and distribution of forward $`\pi ^0`$ with standard DGLAP based Event Generators, while adding a resolved virtual photon component does quite well. To some surprise, the C  ASCADE  program , which is able to describe forward jets, is not able to describe forward pions. The problem may be that the program does not include quarks in the evolution. The investigation into the distribution of particle flow in events with a forward pion was also presented, but no additional discrimination power between models was obtained.

## 7 Hadronization

One problem with small-$`x`$ evolution is that it balances on the border between perturbative and non-perturbative QCD, and our understanding of the latter is very poor. For the hadronization process we have a couple of models, string  and cluster  fragmentation, which are able to describe most features of the hadronic final-states in $`e^+e^{}`$, but it is not entirely clear if these models can be used without modification in collisions involving incoming hadrons.

Dimitry Ozerov presented an investigation of the fragmentation parameters in the P  YTHIA  program  and found that he needed a smaller value of the parameter controlling the di-quark production in the string braking to reproduce the production of (anti-) protons in photoproduction events at HERA as compared to the value fitted to LEP data . It was noted, however, that he had only been looking at minimum bias events, which are known to be notoriously difficult to model. Ozerov also noted an interesting scaling property when looking at the $`m_{}=m+p_{}`$ distribution scaled with the number of spin states, which seemed to be independent of particle species.

Looking at high-$`E_T`$ jets and DIS events, where there is a hard scale present, the fragmentation of jets are assumed to be more similar to the $`e^+e^{}`$ case. Indeed, contrary to the minimum bias case above, there does not seem to be any need for a very different di-quark suppression in string fragmentation. At least not when comparing the production of kaons and lambdas in photo-production as presented by Stewart Boogert . On the other hand, he finds a need for stronger strangeness suppression in the string fragmentation (again compared to LEP data) when looking at $`\varphi (1020)`$ production in DIS, although there were some questions raised about the normalization uncertainties. Since the $`\varphi (1020)`$ is a pure $`\mathrm{s}`$$`\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$ state, Boogert also showed that he can use such particles with very large fraction of the virtual photon momentum to directly probe the strange sea distribution.

Erika Garutti presented an interesting investigation of the formation time of hadrons . Looking at pions, kaons and protons produced in DIS on heavy nuclei at HERMES, and comparing the attenuation in different nuclei as a function of their speed, she showed that protons seem to have a longer formation time than pions and kaons. Although there may still be some model dependency in the conclusions, these findings will be important for e.g. finding evidence for quark-gluon plasma.

Another result from HERMES was presented by Volodymyr Uleshchenko . Looking at particles carrying a large fraction of the virtual photon momentum, one would expect that the ratio of charged to uncharged pions would be constant, if one only considered the naïve parton model. This is, however, not what has been found at HERMES. Uleshchenko showed that the discrepancy can be explained by adding a diffractively produced $`\rho ^0`$ decaying into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. He also noted that this may influence previously published results on the flavour asymmetry of the light sea quarks .

Another way of getting insight into the particle production mechanism is to look at particle correlations. It is well known that the production of identical bosons should be enhanced if the particles are close in phase space. This so-called Bose-Einstein correlation depends on the size of the production region and can thus tell us about how particles are produced. Edward Sarkisyan-Grinbaum reviewed some results on multi-particle correlations from LEP . He showed that the size of the production region, as obtained from Bose-Einstein correlations, seems to depend on the mass of the produced hadron, which casts some doubt on whether we really understand what is measured. He also showed results on genuine 3- and 4-particle correlations which are consistent with an incoherent source of particles. An interesting fact is that in fully hadronic W+W- events, where we expect the hadronization region from the two W’s to overlap, there seems to be no cross-talk whatsoever between the W’s. Note that even if particles are produced completely independent from the W’s we still expect Bose-Einstein correlations, but none has been found.

Malcolm Derrick reported on Bose-Einstein correlations at HERA . Here one could imagine a decreasing size of the production region with increasing $`Q^2`$, but no such dependence was found. In photo-production there does, however, seem to be a larger size of the production region.

## 8 Resummation and parton showers

By looking at infrared safe event shapes it is possible to avoid event generator based hadronization models altogether and still be able to obtain reliable QCD predictions. This is done by careful resummation of perturbative diagrams, together with a simple perturbatively inspired model to take power corrections from hadronization effects into account. Gavin Salam gave a brief overview of the results for wide range of event shapes measured at LEP, where it is possible to obtain a consistent fit to the two parameters, $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\alpha _0`$ . The main part of his presentation was aimed towards DIS, where one naïvely would expect the current hemisphere of the Breit frame to look like half an $`e^+e^{}`$ event. There are, however large spill-over effects from the target hemisphere, the phase space of which becomes very large at small $`x`$, and Salam presented a way to overcome these problems. He also presented a new program called D  ISPATCH  with a common interface to the D  ISENT   and D  ISASTER++   NLO programs.

Giulia Zanderighi also presented results on event shapes in DIS, but while most such investigations so far have dealt with two-jet shapes, she has been looking at the three-jet related $`K_{\mathrm{out}}`$ shape . This measures the momenta out of the plane defined by the $`\gamma ^{}`$p and thrust-major axis. The calculation involves resummation of large single and double logarithms of $`K_{\mathrm{out}}/Q`$ which depend on the geometry of two outgoing jets, the colour structure, the parton densities and the experimental acceptance in the forward region. She also presented an effort to produce a MC program to semi-automatically calculate resummed power-corrected event shape predictions for any hard interaction in $`e^+e^{}`$, DIS and hadronic collisions.

Another three-jet related event shape in DIS was discussed by Andrea Banfi . He presented a calculation of the azimuthal correlations in DIS, which is similar to the energy-energy correlations in $`e^+e^{}`$, but uses transverse momenta in the Breit frame rather than energies. One peculiarity of this event shape is that it does not go to zero with the azimuthal angle, which results in a non-integer power correction. This event shape has not yet been measured at HERA, but now that a prediction exists, such a measurement is surely called for.

There were two presentation about new algorithms for combining fixed order matrix elements with parton showers. Fixed order matrix can be used to describe the production of a handful well separated partons, but cannot be used to describe the soft and collinear inter- and intra-jet partons. For the parton shower models, the situation is reversed, which is why algorithms combining the two are very useful. Such algorithms are, however, not trivially constructed.

The first of these presentations, by Frank Krauss , described an algorithm based on the angular ordered parton shower in  APACIC++  . Using a 2-, 3-,…,$`n`$-jet matrix element generator for $`e^+e^{}`$, the events obtained are reweighted with the relevant Sudakov form factors from the parton shower. To do this he needs to use the $`k_{}`$-algorithm  to reconstruct the emission scales. After this, a special vetoed version of the parton shower is added before hadronization can be performed. In this way the dependence on the regularization scale in the matrix element is canceled to next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy . Krauss also presented a strategy for extending this algorithm to hadronic collisions .

Leif Lönnblad presented a similar algorithm  also based on the ideas in . The main difference was that the Colour Dipole Model as implemented in A  RIADNE   was used for the partonic cascade rather than the  APACIC++  parton shower. Also a modified version of the D  ICLUS  algorithm  was used to reconstruct, not only emission scales, but complete dipole cascade histories of the matrix element generated states. The Sudakov form factors are then generated from within the dipole cascade with a special veto algorithm.