format: text

text:
# Full two-loop electroweak corrections to the pole masses of gauge bosons

## 1 INTRODUCTION

An important type of “universal” (process independent) corrections relevant for complete electroweak 2-loop calculations of physical processes are the contributions from on-shell gauge boson self-energies which incorporate the relation between bare, $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ and on-shell (pole) masses (2-loop renormalization constant in on-shell scheme). Such calculations are important to scrutinize theoretical uncertainties which might obscure e.g. the indirect Higgs mass bounds obtained by the LEP experiments. Most interesting are $`22`$ fermion processes, which in future eventually may be investigated with much higher precision at TESLA in case the Giga$`Z`$  option would be realized. Here, we outline the complete 2-loop SM calculation of the pole position of the massive gauge-boson propagators presented in .

The position of the pole $`s_P`$ and the wave-function renormalization constant $`Z_2`$ of the propagator of a massive gauge-boson are defined by the relation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sm_0^2\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2,m_0^2,\mathrm{})}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{sM^2+iM\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ (1)
for $`ss_P`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2,\mathrm{})`$ is the transversal part of the one-particle irreducible self-energy and $`m_0^2`$ is the bare mass and we have adopted the standard parameterization of the pole $`s_{P,V}=M_V^2iM_V\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$ is the width of the unstable gauge-boson.

This equation can be solved perturbatively, order by order. Up to two loops the solution reads

$`s_P`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}+\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{},`$ (2)
$`Z_2^1`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime },`$ (3)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(L)}`$ is the bare or $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ -renormalized $`L`$-loop contribution to $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, the prime (double prime) denotes the derivative (second derivative) with respect to $`p^2`$ at $`p^2=m^2`$. One of the remarkable properties of (2) is that the pole position is well-defined in terms of self-energy diagrams and its derivatives at momentum (square) equal to the bare or the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass (square) which, by construction, are real parameters.

For the $`Z`$-boson the equation for the position of the pole is modified due to $`\gamma Z`$ mixing

$$s_Pm_Z^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}(s_P)\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma Z}^2(s_P)}{s_P\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma \gamma }(s_P)}=0.$$

The 2-loop wave-function renormalization constant in this case is equal to

$$Z_{ZZ}^1=1\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ZZ}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\frac{2}{m_Z^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma Z}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\gamma Z}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}.$$

We would like to stress, that in order to obtain gauge invariant results the tadpole contributions have been included .

## 2 CALCULATIONS

At the 2-loop level we have about 1000 1PI diagrams each for the $`Z`$\- and the $`W`$-propagator. Our calculation is largely automatized: we use $`\mathrm{𝐐𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐅}`$  to generate the diagrams and then the C-program DIANA  to produce for each diagram the input suitable for our FORM packages.

Two-loop propagator type diagrams with several masses can be reduced to a restricted set of so-called master-integrals by using a complete set of recurrence relations given in . We have used this approach only for the calculation of the 2-loop massless fermion corrections, where analytical results for the master-integrals are available . As compared to the existing calculation of the massless fermion contribution, performed in , we apply Tarasov’s recurrence relations  which allows us to reduce the number of master-integrals to a minimal set. The latter includes integrals which may be evaluated by using the package ON-SHELL2  plus the following new prototypes: (using standard notation )

* $`ZZ`$:

$`F_{W0W00},F_{0000W},V_{H00Z},V_{W00W},J_{00\{H,W\}}.`$

* $`WW`$:

$`F_{Z0W00},F_{0000Z},V_{W00Z},V_{\{H,Z\}00W},J_{00\{H,Z\}}.`$
We have worked out an independent analytical calculation of these master integrals by using a method developed in . One of the crucial points of our approach is the observation  that the analytical results for diagrams with two-massive cuts have a very simple form if written in terms of new variables. For diagrams with two equal internal masses $`m^2`$ and arbitrary external momentum $`p^2`$ the new variable is $`y=\frac{1\sqrt{\frac{z}{z4}}}{1+\sqrt{\frac{z}{z4}}}`$, where $`z=p^2/m^2`$. When the external momentum belongs to one of the internal masses $`p^2=m^2`$, the new variable is $`\chi =\frac{1\sqrt{14x}}{1+\sqrt{14x}}`$, where $`x=m^2/M^2`$. To speed up the numerical evaluation of on-shell gauge-boson self-energies, an expansion in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ may be used, which converges well and simplifies the results considerably. However, it is not a naive Taylor expansion due to the presence of threshold singularities of the form $`\mathrm{ln}^j\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. We therefore briefly outline the corresponding expansions for the relevant master-integrals by giving two examples. The integral $`F_{W0W00}[z=1/\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W]`$ depends on the small parameter $`s11/z`$ via the variable (see )

$`y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}s}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{}}s^j\right)`$
$`\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\right)ss{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{3}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\right]`$
which we expand first and then substitute it into the analytical result in order to get the series expansion for $`F_{W0W00}`$. The integral $`F_{Z0W00}[x=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W]`$ depends on $`s`$ via the variable

$`\chi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+s+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}s}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{}}s^j\right)`$
$`\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}\right)+ss{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{3}}\right)^n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\right]`$
and we proceed as in the previous case. However, in all other cases, the master-integrals which show up are not know analytically so far. They can be calculated numerically, by using one of the approaches and/or programs developed for the 2-loop self-energies . The full list of master-integrals occurring in the 2-loop calculation of the pole-mass of the gauge-bosons (for the photon propagator see ) reads:

* $`ZZ`$:

$`F_{WWWWH},F_{ttttH},F_{ZWHWZ},F_{ZHHZZ},F_{ZZHHH},`$ $`F_{WWWWZ},F_{ZtHtt},F_{W0W0t},F_{WtWt0},F_{t0t0W},`$ $`V_{WZWW},V_{WHWW},V_{HWWZ},V_{HttZ},V_{ZWWH},`$ $`V_{ZttH},V_{tHtt},V_{W0tW},V_{t0Wt},V_{tZtt},V_{HHZZ},V_{ZZZH},`$ $`J_{ZWW},J_{HWW},J_{0WW},J_{0tt},J_{Ztt},J_{Htt},J_{0WZ},`$ $`J_{ZHH},J_{0Wt}.`$

* $`WW`$:

$`F_{00ttZ},F_{W0Ztt},F_{W0Htt},F_{WWZZH},F_{WWHZZ},`$ $`F_{WWHHH},F_{WZZWW},F_{WZHWW},F_{WHHWW},`$ $`F_{WtZ00},V_{00Wt},V_{0Ztt},V_{0Htt},V_{WHHH},V_{WWWZ},`$ $`V_{WWWH},V_{WttZ},V_{WttH},V_{WZZH},V_{WZHZ},`$ $`V_{Z0tW},V_{H0tW},V_{ZWHW},V_{HWZW},V_{ZWZW},`$ $`V_{HWHW},J_{0WZ},J_{0Wt},J_{0WH},J_{0Zt},J_{0Ht},J_{WHH},`$ $`J_{WZZ},J_{Wtt},J_{WZH}.`$
To keep control of gauge invariance we adopt the $`R_\xi `$ gauge with three different gauge parameters $`\xi _W,\xi _Z`$ and $`\xi _\gamma `$. In most cases exact analytic results in terms of known functions are not available. Thus, instead of working with the exact formulae (which only can be evaluated numerically, at present) we resort to some approximations, namely, we perform appropriate series expansions in (small) mass ratios . For diagrams with several different masses it is possible that several small parameters are available. In this case we apply different asymptotic expansions (see ) one after the other. Specifically, we expand in the gauge parameters about $`\xi _i=1`$, in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and, for diagrams with Higgs or/and top-quark lines, in $`m_V^2/m_H^2`$ or/and $`m_V^2/m_t^2`$. Numerical results are obtained using the packages ON-SHELL2  and TLAMM  (see ).

Renormalizing the pole-mass at the 2-loop level requires to calculate the 1-loop renormalization constants for all physical parameters (charge and masses), as well as the 2-loop mass-renormalization constant itself. Not needed are the wave-function and ghost sector renormalizations.

The full 2-loop relation between pole and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ parameters can be written in the form

$`s_{P,V}=m_{V,0}^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{V,0}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{V,0}^{(2)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{V,0}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Pi }_{V,0}^{(1)}^{}`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(\delta m_{j,0}^2)^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_{j,0}^2}}+(\delta e_0)^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{e_0}}\right]\mathrm{\Pi }_{V,0}^{(1)},`$ (4)
where the sum runs over all species of particles, $`(\delta e_0)^{(1)}`$ and $`(\delta m_{j,0}^2)^{(1)}`$ are the 1-loop counter-terms for the charge and physical masses in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ -scheme. The derivatives in (4) correspond to the subtraction of sub-divergencies. The genuine 2-loop mass counter-term is obtained by expanding $`m_{V,0}^2`$ in terms of the renormalized mass.

Summing all 2-loop contributions we restore gauge invariance of the position of the complex pole before UV renormalization. After UV-renormalization the propagator pole is represented in terms of finite amplitudes. For explicite results we refer to . For the numerical evaluation we were using the first six coefficients in the weak angle $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and in the mass ratios $`m_V^2/m_{heavy}^2`$.

## 3 RENORMALIZATION GROUP EQUATIONS

We now consider the SM renormalization group (RG) equations. We will denote on-shell masses by capital $`M`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ masses by lowercase $`m`$. We adopt the following definitions for the RG functions: for all dimensionless coupling constants, like $`g,g^{},g_s,e,\lambda `$, the $`\beta `$-function is given by $`\mu ^2\frac{}{\mu ^2}g=\beta _g`$ and for all mass parameters (a mass or the Higgs v.e.v. $`v`$) the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _{m^2}`$ is given by $`\mu ^2\frac{}{\mu ^2}\mathrm{ln}m^2=\gamma _{m^2}.`$ Using the fact that $`s_P`$ is RG-invariant: $`\mu ^2\frac{d}{d\mu ^2}s_P0`$, we are able to calculate the anomalous dimension of the gauge bosons masses from our finite results. At the same time, a typical relation between bare- and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ -masses has the form

$$m_{V,0}^2=m_V^2(\mu )(1+\underset{k=1}{}Z_V^{(k)}\epsilon ^k)$$

such that the RG functions may be calculated directly from the UV counter-terms $`\gamma _V=_j\frac{1}{2}g_j\frac{}{g_j}Z_V^{(1)}`$, ($`j=g,g_s`$). In addition, the UV counter-terms satisfy relations connecting the higher order poles with the lower order ones:

$`\left(\gamma _V+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\beta _{g_j}{\displaystyle \frac{}{g_j}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\gamma _im_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_i^2}}\right)Z_V^{(n)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}g_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{g_j}}Z_V^{(n+1)}.`$ (5)
In the SM it is interesting to compare the RG equations calculated in broken phase with the ones obtained in the unbroken phase. Let us remind that at the tree-level the vacuum expectation value $`v`$ is given by $`v^2\frac{m^2}{\lambda }`$, where $`m^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ are the parameters of the symmetric scalar potential. The masses of the gauge-bosons are equal to $`m_Z^2=\frac{1}{4}(g^2+g^2)v^2`$ and $`m_W^2=\frac{1}{4}g^2v^2`$, respectively. The fact that these relations are RG invariant on the level of the bare quantities implies the relations

$`\gamma _W2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _g}{g}}=\gamma _{m^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\lambda }{\lambda }},`$ (6)
$`\gamma _Z\gamma _{m^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\lambda }{\lambda }}=2\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _g}{g}}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _g^{}}{g^{}}}\right),`$
(7)
where the 2-loop RG functions $`\beta _g,\beta _g^{},\beta _\lambda ,\gamma _{m^2}`$ have been calculated in the unbroken phase in . We have verified in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, that these relations are valid up to 2-loop order in the broken phase with the same RG functions. Thus the RG equations for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ masses in the broken theory can be written as

$`m_W^2(\mu ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\mu ^2)}{\lambda (\mu ^2)}}m^2(\mu ^2),`$
$`m_Z^2(\mu ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(\mu ^2)+g^{}(\mu ^2)}{\lambda (\mu ^2)}}m^2(\mu ^2),`$
$`m_H^2(\mu ^2)=2m^2(\mu ^2),`$
$`m_t^2(\mu ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_t^2(\mu ^2)}{\lambda (\mu ^2)}}m^2(\mu ^2),`$ (8)
where $`y_t`$ is the top-quark Yukawa coupling (the other Yukawa couplings are kept zero). The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ Fermi constant

$$\widehat{G}_F(\mu ^2)\frac{\sqrt{2}e^2(\mu ^2)}{8m_W^2(\mu ^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(\mu ^2)}$$
(9)
satisfies the following RG equation

$`\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{G}_F(\mu ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _\lambda }{\lambda }}\gamma _{m^2}.`$ (10)
The knowledge of the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _V`$ allow us to write expression for the pole positions $`s_{P,V}`$ with explicit factorization of the RG logarithms. What we get is

$`s_{P,V}=m_V^2\left(1g^2\gamma _V^{(1)}L_a\right)+g^2X_{V,1}`$
$`+g^4m_V^2\left(C^{(2,2)}L_a^2C^{(2,1)}L_a\right)+g^4X_{V,2},`$ (11)
where $`\mu ^2\frac{}{\mu ^2}\mathrm{ln}m_a^2=\gamma _a^{(1)}g^2+\gamma _a^{(2)}g^4`$, $`L_a=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{m_a^2}`$,

$`2C_V^{(2,2)}=\left[\theta +{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\gamma _{m_j}^{(1)}m_j^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_j^2}}\right]\gamma _V^{(1)},`$ (12)
$`C_V^{(2,1)}=\gamma _V^{(2)}+\gamma _V^{(1)}\gamma _a^{(1)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_V^2}}\left[2\beta _g^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\gamma _{m_j}^{(1)}m_j^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_j^2}}\right]X_{V,1},`$ (13)
and $`\theta =\gamma _V^{(1)}+2\beta _g^{(1)}`$, $`\mu ^2\frac{}{\mu ^2}g=\beta _g^{(1)}g^3`$. In contrast to QCD, $`\gamma _V^{(1)}`$ and $`C_V^{(i,j)}`$ have non-polynomial structure in the massless coupling constants which originated from the tadpole contributions. $`X_{V,1}`$ has been calculated long time ago  and $`X_{V,2}`$ are our results which, for the numerical evaluation, we approximated by finite series. The functions $`X_{V,j}`$ we have represented in terms of $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ parameters. We note that the amplitudes $`X_{V,j}`$ entering (11) have no explicit $`\mu `$ dependence.

## 4 SCHEME DEPENDENCE

Our results reveal terms of unexpectedly high powers of the Higgs and the top-quark masses in (11), arising from 2-loop corrections. In fact the purely bosonic diagrams yield $`m_H^4/m_V^4`$ terms and the $`(t,b)`$ quark-doublet ($`m_tm_b`$) contributes $`m_t^6/(m_H^2m_V^4)`$ power corrections. At a first glance, such terms contradict Veltman’s screening theorem  which states, that the L-loop Higgs dependence of a physical observable is bounded by $`(m_H^2)^{L1}\mathrm{ln}^Lm_H^2`$ for large Higgs masses. However, this theorem only applies to physical observables like cross sections and asymmetries. If we consider quantities like $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ (which is an observable in the on-shell scheme) in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme the screening theorem does not hold in general. To illustrate this, let us compare the 1-loop EW corrections to the Fermi constant  in the on-shell and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme111We should mention that $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{MS}^{(1)}`$ introduced in (14) is different from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ defined via a hybrid scheme (couplings $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ , masses on-shell) in .:

$`G_F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_W^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W}}\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }r_{OS}^{(1)}\right)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{G}_F(\mu ^2)\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }r_{MS}^{(1)}\right)`$
so that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r_{MS}^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Delta }r_{OS}^{(1)}+\left[\frac{m_W^2}{M_W^2}1\right]+\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}{\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W}1\right]+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha .$$

The 1-loop correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{OS}^{(1)}`$ in the limit of a heavy Higgs boson has a logarithmic Higgs mass dependence only . In contrast, in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, higher powers of the Higgs mass are showing up, because $`\frac{m_W^2}{M_W^2}1`$ contributes the term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r_{MS}^{(1)}\frac{\sqrt{2}\widehat{G}_F(\mu ^2)m_W^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{7}{2}\frac{m_H^2}{m_W^2}+O(m_H^2),$$

while all other corrections exhibit logarithmic behavior in the Higgs mass, only222The hybrid quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}^{(1)}`$ does not show extra powers of the Higgs mass since masses are kept on-shell.. Our relation (11) between parameters of two different schemes does not relate physical observable but it is very important for analysis of the uncertainties coming from higher order effects . In particular, our estimations of the 2-loop boson contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$  is very close to the results of real calculations .

## 5 CONCLUSION

By an explicite 2-loop calculation we have shown that (to this order): $`\mathrm{𝟏}.`$ The position of the complex pole $`s_p`$ of a the gauge-boson ($`Z,W`$) propagator is a gauge invariant quantity after inclusion of the Higgs tadpole contributions (see also ). $`\mathrm{𝟐}.`$ The renormalized on-shell self-energies are infrared finite. This derives from the fact that within dimensional regularization, which allows to regularize UV and IR singularities by the same $`\epsilon `$ ($`\epsilon =(4d)/20`$) parameter, the singular $`1/\epsilon `$ terms are absent after UV renormalization. $`\mathrm{𝟑}.`$ The inclusion of the tadpoles is important for the renormalization group invariance and for the gauge invariance of the parameter renormalizations. $`\mathrm{𝟒}.`$ By our calculation we have proven that the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme is self consistent and works properly in case of unstable particles. $`\mathrm{𝟓}.`$ Our results for the 2-loop mass renormalization constants in the on-shell and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme can be applied in calculations of physical quantities in both of these schemes at the 2-loop level. Examples of such calculations, where results of our paper  have been used, are the computations of the bosonic 2-loop contributions to the Muon life-time presented in .


text:
# Probing hadronization and freeze-out with multiple strange hadrons and strange resonances

### Hadronization in proton-proton interactions

In the string picture, high energy proton-proton collisions create “excitations” in form of strings, being one dimensional objects which decay into hadrons according to longitudinal phase space. This framework is well confirmed in low energy electron-positron annihilation  where the virtual photon decays into a quark-anti-quark string which breaks up into various kinds of hadrons. However, specific string models differ in their philosophy and the types of strings that are created. In general two classes of models - based on color or momentum exchange - can be distinguished, the resulting objects two quark-diquark strings with valence quarks being their ends, however, is quite similar. Here we will contrast the present UrQMD prescription for string formation (similar to the PYTHIA model  with the approach used in NeXuS 3.0: In UrQMD the projectile and target protons become excited objects due to the momentum transfer in the interaction. The resulting strings, with at most two strings being formed, are of the di-quark-quark type.

In NeXuS 3.0, the pp interaction is described in terms of Pomeron exchanges or ladder diagrams. Both hard and soft interactions take place in parallel. Energy is shared equally between all cut Pomerons and the remnants. Here, for the string ends of soft and semi-hard Pomerons quarks and anti-quarks from the sea are taken in a flavour-symmetric way. Thus, the valence quarks stay in the remnants, yielding excited quark bags  (see Fig. 1). In contrast to these string models, the predictions of two statistical models (model I, being fully canonical  and model II, being canonical with respect to strangeness ) are also shown.

Fig. 2 (left) depicts the anti-baryon to baryon ratio at midrapidity in proton proton interactions at 160 GeV. The results of the calculations by the new NeXuS 3.0 (ratios calculated from ) and UrQMD/PYTHIA, which are well established string-fragmentation models for elementary hadron hadron interactions, are included in this figure. In both di-quark models, the $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio increases strongly with the strangeness content of the baryon. For strangeness $`|s|=3`$ the ratio significantly exceeds unity. In UrQMD and PYTHIA the hadronization of the di-quark-quark strings leads directly to the overpopulation of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ as discussed in detail in . The new string formation scheme employed in NeXuS 3.0, however, allows to get a reasonable agreement with experimental data. The basic features of the production of multi-strange baryons as well as of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s and protons can be understood within the model picture of proton-proton scattering: the created final particles emerge from a non-trivial system of projectile/target remnant states and a number of cut Pomerons each represented by a pair of strings.

The predictions of the statistical models (in full phase space) are shown in Fig. 2 (right). In these approaches the $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio is seen to exhibit a significantly weaker increase with the strangeness content of the baryon than expected in the di-quark string fragmentation models. In the grand canonical picture, where the $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratio is very sensitive to the baryon chemical potential $`\mu _B`$, it is easily understood that statistical models, can not yield a ratio of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$. For finite baryon densities as in the pp system, the $`\overline{B}/B`$ has to stay below one and only in the limit of $`\mu _B=0`$ may $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ be approached. This feature is not blurred in the canonical approach. For comparison, both figures include preliminary data on the $`\overline{B}/B`$ ratios obtained at midrapidity by the NA49 Collaboration  (Very preliminary NA49 data seems to support a $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ratio below one ).

It is important to note that the result $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$ in pp collisions from the di-quark string models solely depends on the geometry of the decaying objects. The ratio can not be altered (or even inverted) by modifications of the strangeness and di-quark suppression factors. These factors can only modify the absolute yields of strange hadrons, but do not influence the ratio discussed here.

If the new NA49 data can be confirmed, one is forced to conclude that the di-quark string models fail to describe the ratios of multiple strange baryons in pp interactions at the SPS. A solution might be to replace the conventional approach by a system of sea quark strings and remnants or to abandon the flux tube picture, which has explained many dynamical features of hh collisions, for a statistical hadronization model.

### Chemical and kinetic freeze-out in AA collisions

In nucleus-nucleus collisions the situation is by far more involved than in the pp case discussed above. Here, the major fraction of finally observed particles in the experimental setup stem from decays of resonances (mesonic or baryonic) which have undergone many scatterings from their point of production to observation. The final hadron yields seem to be compatible with a hadronic gas described by the baryo-chemical potential $`\mu _B`$ and a temperature parameter $`T`$ in a statistical model (see e.g. ). It has been suggested that both parameters are coupled by a universal freeze-out criterion assuming a mean energy per hadron $`E/N=1`$ GeV/hadron  at chemical freeze-out. In this framework, the formed hadrons do only undergo elastic collision from this chemical freeze-out time (at SPS energies at a temperature of $`160170`$ MeV to the final kinetic freeze-out at temperatures of the order of 120 MeV.

To explore whether this sequential freeze-out is realized in heavy ion reactions at highest energies and how it can be probed, the Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics model (UrQMD 1.2) is used . This microscopic transport approach is based on the covariant propagation of constituent quarks and di-quarks accompanied by mesonic and baryonic degrees of freedom. As discussed above, the leading hadrons of the fragmenting strings contain the valence-quarks of the original excited hadron and represent a simplified picture of the leading (di)quarks of the fragmenting string. The elementary hadronic interactions are modelled according to measured cross sections and angular distributions. If the cross sections are not experimentally known, detailed balance is employed in the energy range of resonances. The partial and total decay widths are taken from the Particle Data Group.

To analyse the different stages of a heavy ion collision, Fig. 3 (top) depicts the time evolution of the elastic and inelastic collision rates in central Pb+Pb interactions at 160AGeV. The inelastic collision rate (full line) is defined as the number of collisions with flavour changing processes (e.g. $`\pi \pi K\overline{K}`$). The elastic collision rate (dashed dotted line) consists of two components, true elastic processes (e.g. $`\mathrm{K}\pi \mathrm{K}\pi `$) and pseudo-elastic processes (e.g. $`\mathrm{K}\pi \mathrm{K}^{}\mathrm{K}\pi `$). While elastic collision do not change flavour, pseudo-elastic collisions are different. Here, the ingoing hadrons are destroyed and a resonance is formed. If this resonance decays later into the same flavours as its parent hadrons, this scattering is pseudo-elastic. Fig. 3 (bottom) depicts the average thermal energy - calculated from interacted hadrons with $`p_z^2=\left(p_x^2+p_y^2\right)/2`$ \- per particle at midrapidity ($`|yy_{\mathrm{cm}}|0.1`$).

The present microscopic study of the collision dynamics, indeed supports the idea of separated phases in the evolution of the system:

* $`t<2`$ fm/c: In the initial stage of the nucleus-nucleus reaction non-equilibrium dynamics leads to strong baryon stopping in multiple inelastic interactions, shown by huge and strongly time dependent collision rates. This stage deposits a large amount of (non-thermalized) energy and creates the first generation particles.
* 2 fm/c$`<t<6`$ fm/c: Due to the high particle densities and energies inelastic scatterings dominate this stage of the reaction. Chemical equilibrium might be achieved due to a large number of flavour and hadro-chemistry changing processes until chemical freeze-out.
* 6 fm/c$`<t<11`$ fm/c: After the system has expanded and cooled down, elastic and pseudo-elastic collisions take over. Here, only the momenta of the hadrons change, but the chemistry of the system is mainly unaltered, leading to the kinetic freeze-out of the system.
* $`t>11`$ fm/c: Finally, the reactions cease and the scattering rates drop drastically. The systems breaks up.

Even the hypothesis of chemical decoupling at an energy per hadron of 1 GeV, is in line with our analysis as demonstrated in Fig. 3 (bottom). In the non-equilibrium stage $`E/N`$ decreases steadily. While the system is ’cooking’ in the inelastic scattering stage, $`E/N`$ stays constant around 1 GeV and drops suddenly as the hadronic system enters the kinetic stage.

The spectra and abundances of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$, $`K^0(892)`$ and other resonances can be used to study the break-up dynamics of the source between chemical and thermal freeze-out. If chemical and thermal freeze-out are not separated - e.g. due to an explosive break-up of the source - all initially produced resonances are reconstructable by invariant mass analysis of the final state hadrons. However, if there is a separation between the different freeze-outs, a part of the resonance daughters rescatter, making this resonance unobservable in the final state. Thus, the relative suppression of resonances in the final state compared to those expected from thermal estimates provides a chronometer for the time period between the different reaction stages. Even the chemical composition of the system might be changed by up to 10% in the hyperon sector (after chemical ’freeze-out’), due to inelastic scatterings of the resonance daughters (e.g. $`\overline{K}p\mathrm{\Lambda }`$).

The rapidity spectra for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1520)`$, K$`{}_{}{}^{0}(892)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Pb($`160A`$GeV)Pb, b$`<3.4`$ fm collisions. are depicted in Fig. 4.

The left part, shows the total amount of decaying resonances. Here, subsequent collisions of the decay products have not been taken into account - i.e. whenever a resonance decays during the systems evolution it is counted. However, the additional interaction of the daughter hadrons disturbs the signal of the resonance in the invariant mass spectra. This lowers the observable yield of resonances drastically as compared to the primordial yields at chemical freeze-out. Fig. 4 (right) addresses this in the rapidity distribution of those resonances whose decay products do not suffer subsequent collisions - these resonances are in principle reconstructable from their decay products. Note that reconstructable in this context still assumes reconstruction of all decay channels, including many body decays.

By using the estimates done by  in a statistical model, it seems possible to relate the result of the present microscopic transport calculation to thermal freeze-out parameters. The surprising result is that the microscopic source seems to have a lifetime shorter than 1 fm/c and a freeze-out temperature lower than 100 MeV. Apparently, the values obtained from UrQMD seem to favour a scenario of a sudden break-up of the initial hadron source, in contrast to the time evolution of the chemical and thermal decoupling as shown in Fig. 3. This misleading interpretation might be due to the re-creation of resonances in the elastic scattering stage, which was not taken into account in the statistical model analysis. The influence of these effects is currently under investigation.

However, even the question of the existence of such resonance states in the hot and dense environment is still not unambiguously answered. Since hyperon resonances are expected to dissolve at high energy densities (see .e.g. ) it is of utmost importance to study the cross section of hyperon resonances as a thermometer of the collision.

To set the stage, Figs. 5 and 6 address the excitation function of observable resonance multiplicities. In addition, a comparison of rapidity integrated yields ($`4\pi `$ values, circles) with the center-of-mass values ($`y_{\mathrm{cm}}\pm 0.5`$, squares) is given. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ includes decays from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, but not from $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Protons do not include decays from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s. All strong decays are included. No cuts are applied except when mentioned. The anti-K multiplicities are monotonously increasing with energy, while the hyperon resonance show a pronounced maximum in the excitation function at $`\sqrt{s}=`$8 GeV (E$`{}_{\mathrm{lab}}{}^{}30`$ AGeV). This maximum is also present - as earlier observed for hyperons by  \- if scaled by the number of pions. This makes the newly planned GSI200 facility an ideal place to study in-medium modifications of resonances.

More information can be obtained if the multiplicities are normalised to the groundstate hadrons, i.e. (anti-)Kaons and Lambdas. Figs. 7 and 8 show the energy dependence of the $`h^{}/h`$ ratios. Here the baryo-chemical potentials cancel out and information on the freeze-out temperature can be obtained.

To summarise, hadronization into multiple strange hadrons in elementary pp interactions has been studied within different string approaches and statistical models and confronted with data. Di-quark string models seem not to be in line with the experimental observations of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ production in pp at the SPS. The freeze-out dynamics in AA has been microscopically explored. Different decoupling stages have been identified in the non-equilibrium dynamics. Observables to clock the kinetic scattering stage and the freeze-out temperature with (strange-) resonances were discussed.

## Acknowledgements

I want to acknowledge interesting and stimulating discussions with Drs. Klaus Werner, Jörg Aichelin, Fuming Liu, Tanguy Pierog, Christina Markert and Giorgio Torrieri.


text:
# Spontaneous coalition forming. Why some are stable?

## 1 Introduction

Twenty years ago, using physics to describe political or social behavior was a very odd approach. Among very scarce attempts, one paper was calling on to the creation of a new field under the name of “Sociophysics” . It stayed without real continuation. Only in the last years did physicists start to get involved along this line of research . Among various subjects , we can cite voting process , group decision making , competing opinion spreading , and very recently international terrorism .

In this paper we adress the question of spontaneous coalition forming within military alliances among a set of independant countries . A model is built from the complexe physics of spin glasses . While coalitions are found to form spontaneously, they are unstable. It is only the construction of extra-territory macro organizations which are able to produce stable alliances.

The following of the paper is organised as follows. The second part contains the presentation of the model. Basic features of the dynamics of spontaneous froming bimodal coalitions are outlined. The building of extra-territory coaltions is described in Section 3. The cold war situation is then analysed in Section 4. Section 5 is devoted to the situation in which only one world coalition is active. A new explanation is given in Section 6 to Eastern European instabilities following the Warsaw pact dissolution as well as to Western European stability. Some hints are also obtained on how to stabilize these Eastern Europe instabilities. Last Section contains some concluding remarks.

## 2 Presentation of the model

We start from a group of $`N`$ independant countries . From historical, cultural and economic experience, bilateral propensities $`J_{i,j}`$ have emerged between pairs of countries $`i`$ and $`j`$. They are either favoring cooperation $`(J_{i,j}>0)`$, conflict $`(J_{i,j}<0)`$ or ignorance $`(J_{i,j}=0)`$. Each propensity $`J_{i,j}`$ depends solely on the pair $`(i,j)`$ itself. Propensities $`J_{i,j}`$ are local and independant frozen bonds. Respective intensities may vary for each pair of countries but are always symmetric, i.e., $`J_{ij}=J_{ji}`$.

From the well known saying “the enemy of an enemy is a friend” we get the existence of only two competing coalitions. They are denoted respectively by A and B. Then each country has the choice to be in either one of two coalitions. A variable $`\eta _i`$ where index i runs from 1 to N, signals the $`i`$ actual belonging with $`\eta _i=+1`$ for alliance A and $`\eta _i=1`$ for alliance B. From bimodal symmetry all A-members can turn to coalition B with a simultaneous flip of all B-members to coalition A.

Given a pair of countries $`(i,j)`$ their respective alignment is readily expressed through the product $`\eta _i\eta _j`$. The product is $`+1`$ when $`i`$ and $`j`$ belong to the same coalition and $`1`$ otherwise. The associated “cost” between the countries is measured by the quantity $`J_{ij}\eta _i\eta _j`$ where $`J_{ij}`$ accounts for the amplitude of exchange which results from their respective geopolitical history and localization.

Here factorisation over $`i`$ and $`j`$ is not possible since we are dealing with competing bonds . It makes teh problem very hard to solve analytically. Given a configuration $`X`$ of countries distributed among coaltions A and B, for each nation $`i`$ we can measure its overall degree of conflict and cooperation with all others $`N1`$ countries via the quantity,

$$E_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}J_{ij}\eta _j,$$
(1)
where the summation is taken over all other countries including $`i`$ itself with $`J_{ii}0`$. The product $`\eta _iE_i`$ then evaluates the “cost” associated with country $`i`$ choice with respect to all other country choices. Summing up all country individual “cost” yields,

$$E(X)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\eta _iE_i,$$
(2)
where the $`1/2`$ accounts for the double counting of pairs. This “cost” measures indeed the level of global satisfaction from the whole country set. It can be recast as,

$$E(X)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{<i,j>}{}J_{ij}\eta _i\eta _j,$$
(3)
where the sum runs over the $`N(N1)`$ pairs $`(i,j)`$. At this stage it sounds reasonable to assume each country chooses its coalition in order to minimize its indivual cost. Accordingly to make two cooperating countries $`(J_{i,j}>0)`$ in the same alliance, we put a minus sign in from of the expression of Eq. (3) to get,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{<i,j>}{}J_{ij}\eta _i\eta _j,$$
(4)
which is indeed the Hamiltonian of an Ising random bond magnetic system. There exist by symmetry $`2^N/2`$ distinct sets of alliances each country having 2 choices for coalition. Starting from any initial configuration, the dynamics of the system is implemented by single country coalition flips. An country turns to the competing coalition only if the flip decreases its local cost. The system has reached its stable state once no more flip occurs. Given $`\{J_{ij}\}`$, the $`\{\eta _i\}`$ are thus obtained minimizing Eq. (4).

Since the system stable configuration minimizes the energy, we are from the physical viewpoint, at the temperature $`T=0`$. In practise for any finite system the theory can tell which coalitions are possible. However, if several coalitions have the same energy, the system is unstable and flips continuously from one coalition set to another one at random and with no end.

For instance, in the case of three conflicting nations like Israel, Syria and Iraq, any possible alliance configuration leaves always someone unsatisfied. Let us label them respectively by 1, 2, 3 and consider equal and negative exchange interactions $`J_{12}=J_{13}=J_{23}=J`$ with $`J>0`$ as shown in Fig. (1). The associated minimum of the energy is equal to $`J`$. However this minimum value is realized for several possible and equivalent coalitions which are respectively (A, B, A), (B, A, A), (A, A, B), (B, A, B), (A, B, B), and (B, B, A). First three are identical to last ones by symmetry since here what matters is which countries are together within the same coalition. This peculiar property of a degenerate ground state makes the system unstable. There exists no one single stable configuration which is stable. Some dynamics is shown in Fig. (1). The system jumps continuously and at random between (A, B, A), (B, A, A) and (A, A, B).

To make the dynamics more explicit, consider a given site $`i`$. Interactions with all others sites can be represented by a field,

$$h_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}J_{ij}\eta _j$$
(5)
resulting in an energy contribution

$$E_i=\eta _ih_i,$$
(6)
to the Hamiltonian $`H=\frac{1}{2}_{i=1}^NE_i`$. Eq. (6) is minimum for $`\eta _i`$ and $`h_i`$ having the same sign. For a given $`h_i`$ there exists always a well defined coalition choice except for $`h_i=0`$. In this case site $`i`$ is unstable. Then both coalitions are identical with respect to its local energy which stays equal to zero. An unstable site flips continuously with probability $`\frac{1}{2}`$ (see Fig. (1)).

## 3 Setting up extra territory coalitions

In parallel to the spontaneous emergence of unstable coalitions, some extra territory organizations have been set in the past to create alliances at a global world level. Among the recent more powerfull ones stand Nato and the former Warsow pact. These alliances were set above the country level and produce economic and military exchanges. Each country is then adjusting to its best interest with respect to these organisations. A variable $`ϵ_i`$ accounts for each country $`i`$ natural belonging. For coalition A it is $`ϵ_i=+1`$ and $`ϵ_i=1`$ for B. The value $`ϵ_i=0`$ marks no apriori. These natural belongings are also induced by cultural and political history.

Exchanges generated by these coalitions produce additional pairwise propensities with amplitudes $`\{C_{i,j}\}`$. Sharing resources, informations, weapons is basically profitable when both countries are in the same alliance. However, being in opposite coalitions produces an equivalent loss. Therefore a pair $`(i,j)`$ propensity is $`ϵ_iϵ_jC_{i,j}`$ which can be positive, negative or zero to mark respective cooperation, conflict or ignorance. It is a site induced bond . Adding it to the former bond propensity yields an overall pair propensity,

$$J_{i,j}+ϵ_iϵ_jC_{i,j},$$
(7)
between two countries $`i`$ and $`j`$.

At this stage an additional variable $`\beta _i=\pm 1`$ is introduced to account for benefit from economic and military pressure attached to a given alignment. It is still $`\beta _i=+1`$ for A and $`\beta _i=1`$ for B with $`\beta _i=0`$ in case of no pressure. The amplitude of this economical and military interest is measured by a local positive field $`b_i`$ which also accounts for the country size and its importance. At this stage, the sets $`\{ϵ_i\}`$ and $`\{\beta _i\}`$ are independent.

Actual country choices to cooperate or to conflict result from the given set of above quantites. The associated total cost becomes,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{<i,j>}{}\{J_{i,j}+ϵ_iϵ_jC_{ij}\}\eta _i\eta _j\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\beta _ib_i\eta _i.$$
(8)
An illustration is given in Fig. (2) with above exemple of Israel, Syria and Iraq labeled respectively by 1, 2, 3 with $`J_{12}=J_{13}=J_{23}=J`$ and $`b_1=b_2=b_3=0`$. Suppose an arab coalition is set against Israel with $`ϵ_1=+1`$ and $`ϵ_2=ϵ_3=1`$. The new propensities become respectively $`J+C`$, $`JC`$, $`JC`$. They are now minimized by $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3`$ to gives an energy of $`JC`$ to all three couplings.

## 4 Cold war scenario

The cold war scenario means that the two existing world level coalitions generate much stonger couplings than purely bilateral ones, i.e., $`|J_{i,j}|<C_{i,j}`$ since to belong to a world level coalition produces more advantages than purely local unproper relationship. Local bond propensities are neutralized since overwhelmed by the two block site exchanges. The overall system is very stable. There exists one stable distribution between both competing alliances.

We consider first the coherent case in which cultural and economical trends go along the same coalition, i.e., $`\beta _i=ϵ_i`$. Then from Eq. (8) the minimum of $`H`$ is unique with all country propensities satisfied. Each country chooses its coalition according to its natural belonging, i.e., $`\eta _i=ϵ_i`$. This result is readily proven via the variable change $`\tau ϵ_i\eta _i`$ which turns the energy to,

$$H_1=\frac{1}{2}\underset{<i,j>}{}C_{ij}\tau _i\tau _j\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}b_i\tau _i.$$
(9)
Above Hamiltonian representd a ferromagnetic Ising Hamiltonian in positive symmetry breaking fields $`b_i`$. Indeed it has one unique minimum with all $`\tau _i=+1`$.

The remarkable result here is that the existence of two apriori world level coalitions is identical to the case of a unique coalition with every country in it. It shed light on the stability of the Cold War situation where each country satisfies its proper relationship. Differences and conflicts appear to be part of an overall cooperation within this scenario.

The dynamics for one unique coalition including every country, or two competing alliances, is the same since what matters is the existence of a well defined stable configuration. However there exists a difference which is not relevant at this stage of the model since we assumed $`J_{i,j}=0`$. In reality $`J_{i,j}0`$ makes the existence of two coalitions to produce a lower “energy” than a unique coalition since then, more $`J_{i,j}`$ can also be satisfied.

It worth to notice that field terms $`b_iϵ_i\eta _i`$ account for the difference in energy cost in breaking a pair proper relationship for respectively a large and a small country. Consider for instance two countries $`i`$ and $`j`$ with $`b_i=2b_j=2b_0`$. Associated pair energy is

$$H_{ij}C_{ij}ϵ_i\eta _iϵ_j\eta _j2b_0ϵ_i\eta _ib_0ϵ_j\eta _j.$$
(10)
Conditions $`\eta _i=ϵ_i`$ and $`\eta _j=ϵ_j`$ give the minimum energy,

$$H_{ij}^m=J_{ij}2b_0b_0.$$
(11)
From Eq. (11) it is easily seen that in case $`j`$ breaks proper alignment shifting to $`\eta _j=ϵ_j`$ the cost in energy is $`2J_{ij}+2b_0`$. In parallel when $`i`$ shifts to $`\eta _i=ϵ_i`$ the cost is higher with $`2J_{ij}+4b_0`$. Therfore the cost in energy is lower for a breaking from proper alignment by the small country ($`b_j=b_0`$) than by the large country ($`b_j=2b_0`$). In the real world, it is clearly not the same for instance for the US to be against Argentina than to Argentina to be against the US.

We now consider the uncoherent case in which cultural and economical trends may go along opposite coalitions, i.e., $`\beta _iϵ_i`$. Using above variable change $`\tau ϵ_i\eta _i`$, the Hamiltonian becomes,

$$H_2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{<i,j>}{}J_{ij}\tau _i\tau _j\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\delta _ib_i\tau _i,$$
(12)
where $`\delta _i\beta _iϵ_i`$ is given and equal to $`\pm 1`$. $`H_2`$ is formally identical to the ferromagnetic Ising Hamiltonian in random fields $`\pm b_i`$.

The local field term $`\delta _ib_i\tau _i`$ modifies the country field $`h_i`$ in Eq. (9) to $`h_i+\delta _ib_i`$ which now can happen to be zero. This change is qualitative since now there exists the possibility to have “unstability”, i.e., zero local effective field coupled to the individual choice. Moreover countries which have opposite cultural and economical trends may now follow their economical interest against their cultural interest or vice versa. Two qualitatively different situations may occur.

* Unbalanced economical power: in this case we have $`_i^N\delta _ib_i0`$.

The symmetry is now broken in favor of one of the coalition. But still there exists only one minimum.
* Balanced economical power: in this case we have $`_i^N\delta _ib_i=0`$.

Symmetry is preserved and $`H_2`$ is identical to the ferromagnetic Ising Hamiltonian in random fields which has one unique minimum.

## 5 Unique world leader

Very recently the Eastern block has disappeared. However it the Western block is still active as before. In this model, within our notations, denoting A the Western alignment, we have still $`ϵ_i=+1`$ for countries which had $`ϵ_i=+1`$. On the opposite, countries which had $`ϵ_i=1`$ have now turned to either $`ϵ_i=+1`$ if joining Nato or to $`ϵ_i=0`$ otherwise.

Therefore above $`J_{i,j}=0`$ assumption based on the inequality $`|J_{i,j}|<|ϵ_iϵ_j|C_{i,j}`$ no longer holds for each pair of countries. In particular propensity $`p_{i,j}`$ become equal to $`J_{i,j}`$ in all cases where $`ϵ_i=0`$, $`ϵ_j=0`$ and $`ϵ_i=ϵ_j=0`$.

A new distribution of countries results from the collapse of one block. On the one hand A coalition countries still determine their actual choices between themselves according to $`C_{i,j}`$. On the other hand former B coalition countries are now determining their choices according to competing links $`J_{i,j}`$ which did not automatically agree with former $`C_{i,j}`$.

This subset of countries has turned from a random site spin glasses without frustration into a random bond spin glasses with frustration. The former B coalition subset has jumped from one stable minimum to a highly degenerated unstable landscape with many local minima. This property could be related to the fragmentation process where ethnic minorities and states are shifting rapidly allegiances back and forth while they were formerly part of a stable structure just few years ago.

While the B coalition world organization has disappeared, the A coalition world organization did not change and is still active. The condition $`|J_{i,j}|<C_{i,j}`$ is still valid for A pair of countries with $`ϵ_iϵ_j=+1`$. Associated countries thus maintain a stable relationship and avoid a fragmentation process. This result supports a posteriori argument against the dissolution of Nato once Warsaw Pact was disolved. It also favors the viewpoint that former Warsaw Pact countries should now join Nato.

Above situation could also shed some light on the current European debate. It would mean European stability is mainly the result of the existence of European structures with economical reality and not the outcome of a new friendship among former ennemies. These structures produce associated propensities $`C_{i,j}`$ much stronger than local competing propensities $`J_{i,j}`$ which are still there. European stability would indeed result from $`C_{i,j}>|J_{i,j}|`$ and not from all having $`J_{i,j}>0`$. An eventual setback in the European construction ($`ϵ_iϵ_jC_{i,j}=0`$) would then automatically produce a fragmentation process analogous of what happened in former Yugoslavia with the activation of ancestral bilateral local conflicts.

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper we have proposed a new way to describe alliance forming phenomena among a set of countries. It was shown that within our model the cold war stabilty was not the result of two opposite alliances but rather the existence of alliances which neutralize the conflicting interactions within allies. It means also that having two alliances or just one is qualitatively the same with respect to stability.

From this viewpoint the strong instabilies which resulted from the Warsow pact dissolution are given a simple explanation. Simultaneously some hints are obtained about possible policies to stabilize world nation relationships. Along this line, the importance of European construction was also underlined. At this stage, our model remains rather basic. However it opens some new road to explore and to forecast international policies.


text:
# 1 The phase diagram of the SU(2) Yang-Mills theory with a fundamental Higgs field; schematic sketch (left panel); 𝐸 and the vortex density as function of 𝜅 in the crossover regime.

UNITU-THEP-31/02 December 17, 2002

Lattice effective theory and the phase transition

at finite densities

Kurt Langfeld

Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Tübingen

D-72072 Tübingen, Germany.

## Abstract

The transition from the hadronic phase to the phase of color-superconductivity at large densities is addressed by an effective theory which incorporates the Yang-Mills dynamics in addition to the di-quark degree of freedom. A toy version of this theory is studied by lattice simulations. A first order phase transition separates the regime of broken color-electric flux tubes from the color superconducting phase. My findings suggest that the quark and gluon liberation occurs at the same critical chemical potential.

> email: Kurt.Langfeld@uni-tuebingen.de
>
> Talk presented at the International conference on Strong and electro-weak matter,
>
> October 2-5, 2002; Heidelberg, Germany

Introduction. While the QCD phase diagram is well understood as function of the temperature $`T`$ for small baryon chemical potential $`\mu `$, very little is known about the phase diagram as function of $`\mu `$ and small temperatures. At very large densities, one might expect that a Fermi surface of quarks exists by virtue of asymptotic freedom. The residual weak gluonic interactions therefore lead to the formation of a condensate in certain di-quark channels . For a baryon chemical potential of the order of several GeVs, the Fermi surfaces smears out due to the strong interactions, and when confinement effects become important at small $`\mu `$, the quark matter is re-arranged forming a Fermi surface of baryons. In my talk, I will address this transient regime.

The effective theory. For this purpose, I will develop a lattice effective theory for the degrees of freedom which are relevant at the transition: the Yang-Mills degrees of freedom, and the composite scalar field representing the 2-flavor di-quark field, $`\varphi _A=ϵ_{ABC}ϵ^{ik})(\overline{q}_c)^B_i\gamma _5q^C_k`$, where $`A,B,C=1\mathrm{}3`$ denote the color index of the SU(3) fundamental representation and $`i,k`$ represent the flavor index. $`q`$ and $`q_c`$ are the quark spinor and its charge conjugated. I am assuming the following evolution of scales: even if one encounters a first order transition, one expects that the relevant correlation length grows when the chemical potential approaches the critical values from below, $`\mu \mu _c^{}`$. In the low density phase, di-quarks are confined within the baryon. The crucial assumption is that e.g. the electro-magnetic mean square radius increases less rapidly than the correlation length. In this case, one might treat the composite di-quark field as a point-like Higgs field belonging to the fundamental representation of the Yang-Mills color group. The effective theory is determined by gauge invariance and renormalizability. The Higgs Lagrangian with a non-vanishing di-quark chemical potential included is therefore given by

$`L_{\mathrm{H}iggs}`$ $`=`$ $`[D_\mu \varphi (x)]^{}[D_\mu \varphi (x)]+\left[m^2\mu ^2\right]\varphi ^{}(x)\varphi (x)`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda \left[\varphi (x)^{}\varphi (x)\right]^2i\mu Q_0(x),`$
where

$$Q_0(x)=\frac{1}{i}\left\{\varphi ^{}(x)D_0\varphi (x)\left[D_0\varphi (x)\right]^{}\varphi (x)\right\}$$
(2)
is proportional to the Baryon density, which, in the present effective theory, is entirely provided by the scalar currents. One observes that for $`\mu \stackrel{>}{_{}}m`$ the theory is pushed towards the Higgs, i.e., the color-superconducting, phase. The aim of the present investigation is to study the competition between the confining forces and the di-quark correlations of the superconducting phase.

Bose-Einstein condensation versus confinement.  To my knowledge, lattice Yang-Mills theory is the only possibility to put rigor to an effective theory designed for a description of confinement as well as condensation effects. In this first investigation, I will adopt a coarse graining point of view: I will study an $`SU(2)`$ gauge group with a fundamental Higgs field rather than the realistic gauge group $`SU(3)`$. I will drop the imaginary part of the action which gives rise to severe sign problem in practical simulations . With the latter simplification, one looses the interpretation of $`\mu `$ as di-quark chemical potential. An inspection of (S0.Ex1), however, shows that this parameter can still be used to change the sign of the mass squared term of the Landau theory and to drive the theory towards the Higgs phase. The complete lattice effective action, which is subject of the simulations below is given by

$`S_{\mathrm{l}att}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{tr}U_p`$
$`+`$ $`\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{x\nu }{}}\rho _x\rho _{x+\nu }\left[1+\left(\mathrm{cosh}(\mu a)1\right)\delta _{\nu 0}\right]\text{tr}\left\{\alpha (x)U_\nu (x)\alpha ^{}(x+\nu )\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\left\{\lambda \left[\rho _x^21\right]^2+\rho _x^2\right\}`$
where $`p`$ denotes the plaquettes of the discretized space-time, and $`U_p`$ is the plaquette matrix constructed in the usual way from the link variables. $`\kappa `$ is the Higgs hopping parameter, and $`\lambda `$ parameterizes the strength of the quartic Higgs coupling. The $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`\alpha `$ represents the angular part of the Higgs field, and $`\rho (x)`$ its modulus.

Litmus papers.  For a detection of the Higgs phase, one usually  uses the expectation values of the spatial Higgs hopping term, i.e., $`E=\text{tr}\varphi _x^{}U_{x,k}\varphi _{x+k}`$, $`k\{1,2,3\}`$. One observes that $`E`$ jumps when the first order transition line (see figure 1) is crossed. Alternatively , one might use that fact that, after gauge fixing, the residual global color symmetry is spontaneously broken in the Higgs phase. Here, I use Landau gauge for these purposes. If $`\varphi ^f`$ denotes the gauge fixed Higgs field, I use $`\varphi ^f=\left(\frac{1}{N}_x\varphi ^f(x)\right)^2^{1/2}`$ as an indicator for color-superconductivity.

The properties of the so-called center vortices are ideal candidates to understand quark confinement. Using the so-called Maximal Center Projection , these vortex matter was observed to extrapolate properly to continuum theory . A percolating vortex cluster signals the formation of color-electric flux tubes: at zero density, this leads to quark confinement, while at non-zero densities short flux tubes are formed until the color-electric string breaks (see figure 1). It will turn out that the (planar) vortex density is the interesting observable in the present case.

In order to address the question whether quark- and gluon-deconfinement occurs at the same $`\mu _c`$, a litmus paper for the liberation of gluons is required. The vacuum energy density is the ideal quantity, since it rapidly rises when gluonic black body radiation becomes possible due to de-confinement. Here, I use the expectation value of the difference between the spatial and time-like plaquettes, which is know to contribute the major part to the energy density .

Results. Let us first study the phase-diagram of the effective lattice theory as function of $`\kappa `$ and $`\beta `$ for a vanishing chemical potential. I find that the crossover at small values $`\beta `$ as function of $`\kappa `$ is accompanied by a drastic reduction of the vortex density. These results are in agreement with the recent achievements reported in . With the help of the vortex density, it is possible to extend the line of the phase transitions (green lines) into the crossover regime. Figure 1 (left panel) illustrates my findings concerning the phase diagram. The right panel shows the result of lattice simulation using a $`6^4`$ lattice, $`\beta =0.4`$. Hence, the line provided by the vortex suppression (red line in figure 1 left panel) is able to separate between the regime of short color electric flux tubes and the regime which has lost is capability to form color-electric strings. This line can be viewed as the analog of the “Kertész-line”  of the Ising model. The center vortices in the present case can be used in the same manner as the Polyakov lines in the context of Yang-Mills theory with dynamical quarks: in the latter case, the “Kertész-line” of percolating Polyakov lines separates the phase with a broken color electric string from the Coulomb type phase .

Subsequently, I have chosen the parameters $`\beta =2.3`$, $`\kappa =0.1`$, $`\lambda =0.01`$, $`12^4`$ lattice to lie within the regime of the broken flux tubes. I have then increased the parameter $`\mu `$. At small values $`\mu `$, the confining effects dominate and the dependence of $`E`$ with $`\mu `$ is small. If $`\mu `$ exceeds a critical value, the onset of color-superconductivity is signaled by the rapid increase of $`E`$ and a value of $`\varphi ^f`$ significant from zero (see figure 2 left panel). At the same time, the vortex density rapidly drops indicating that the regime of short flux tubes was abandoned. The drop of the vortex density is accompanied by the rise of the difference between the spatial and time-like plaquettes. This indicates that liberation of gluons and quarks takes place at the same critical value for $`\mu `$.

Acknowledgments:  Many helpful discussions with U.-J. Wiese are greatly acknowledged. I thank S. Hands for helpful comments. I am grateful to the organizers for the possibilty to present my results at this interesting meeting.


text:
# I. INTRODUCTION

## I. INTRODUCTION

The advent of so-called “the proton spin puzzle” which has emerged from the measurement of the polarized structure function of proton $`g_1^p(x)`$ by the EMC collaboration , has stimulated a great theoretical and experimental activities in nuclear and particle physics . Though a great deal of efforts have been made for solving this puzzle so far, many problems still remain to be solved. As is well known, the spin of proton is carried by quarks, gluons and their orbital angular momenta. From the next–to–leading order QCD analysis for many and precise data on the polarized structure function $`g_1(x)`$ of nucleons, now we have a rather good knowledge on the polarized quark distribution in the proton. However, the polarized gluon distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ in the nucleon is still very uncertain. To know how the gluon polarizes in the nucleon is very important to solve the proton spin puzzle. So far, the behavior of gluons in the proton have been studied in many cases for deep inelastic polarized $`ep`$ scattering. However, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider(RHIC) could open another chance to probe internal structure of proton via $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}`$ collisions. In the RHIC experiments , several interesting processes, such as high $`p__T`$ prompt photon production, jet production, heavy flavor production, etc. are proposed to probe the polarized gluon in the proton. Here we also propose another processes, i.e. the polarized charmed hadron production, $`p\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+X`$ and $`p\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{D}^{}X`$, in the polarized proton–unpolarized proton collision to extract information about $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$.♯♯\sharp1♯♯\sharp1$`\mathrm{}`$1In this report we focus only on the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ production, though we have calculated for $`D^{}`$ production, too, because the main point of the result remain unchanged. In these processes, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is mainly produced via fragmentation of a charm quark which is originated dominantly from gluon-gluon fusion subprocess.♯♯\sharp2♯♯\sharp2$`\mathrm{}`$2This is because charm quarks are tiny contents in the proton. Thus, its cross section is expected to be sensitive to the gluon distribution in the target proton. Moreover, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is composed of a heavy charm quark and antisymmetrically combined light up and down quarks, the spin of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is basically carried by a charm quark which is produced via gluon-gluon fusion subprocess. Therefore, observation of the spin of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ gives us information about $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ in the nucleon.

## II. SPIN CORRELATION ASYMMETRY AND ITS STATISTICAL SENSITIVITY

As a useful observable to extract $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ in the proton, we introduce a spin correlation asymmetry between the target polarized–proton and produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ baryon;

$`A_{LL}={\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{++}d\sigma _++d\sigma _{}d\sigma _+}{d\sigma _{++}+d\sigma _++d\sigma _{}+d\sigma _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /dX}{d\sigma /dX}},(X=p__T\mathrm{or}\eta ),`$ (1)
where $`d\sigma _+`$, for example, denotes the spin-dependent differential cross section with the positive helicity of the target proton and the negative helicity of the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ baryon. $`p__T`$ and $`\eta `$, which are represented as $`X`$ in Eq.(1), are transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity of produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, respectively. The spin-independent(-dependent) differential cross section $`d(\mathrm{\Delta })\sigma /dX`$ can be calculated by the quark-parton model (see ref.  for details).

Statistical sensitivities of $`A_{LL}`$ for the $`p__T`$ and $`\eta `$ distribution are estimated by using the following formula;

$$\delta A_{LL}\frac{1}{P}\frac{1}{\sqrt{b_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}ϵLT\sigma }}.$$
(2)
To numerically estimate the value of $`\delta A_{LL}`$, here we use following parameters: operating time; $`T=`$100-day, the beam polarization; $`P=`$70%, a luminosity; $`L=8\times 10^{31}(2\times 10^{32}`$) cm-2 sec-1 for $`\sqrt{s}=200(500)`$ GeV, the trigger efficiency; $`ϵ=10\%`$ for detecting produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ events and a branching ratio; $`b_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}\mathrm{Br}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+)5\%`$ . The branching ratio of this purely charged decay mode is needed to measure the polarization of produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$. $`\sigma `$ denotes the unpolarized cross section integrated over suitable $`p__T`$ or $`\eta `$ region.

## III. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

In the numerical calculation of $`A_{LL}`$, we limited the integration region of $`\eta `$ and $`p__T`$ of produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ as $`1.3\eta 1.3`$ and 3 GeV $`p__T`$ 15(40) GeV, respectively, for $`\sqrt{s}=200(500)`$ GeV. The range of $`\eta `$ and the lower limit of $`p__T`$ were selected in order to get rid of the contribution from the diffractive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ production. As for the upper limit of $`p__T`$, we took it as described above, for simplicity, though the kinematical maximum of $`p__T`$ of produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is slightly larger than 15 GeV and 40 Gev for $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 GeV and 500 GeV, respectively. In addition, we took the AAC and GRSV01  parameterization models for the polarized gluon distribution function and the GRV98  model for the unpolarized one. Though both of AAC and GRSV01 models excellently reproduce the experimental data on the polarized structure function of nucleons $`g_1(x)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ for those models are quite different. Therefore, those models should be tested in other processes. Since our process is semi-inclusive, the fragmentation function of a charm quark to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is necessary to carry out numerical calculations. For the unpolarized fragmentation function, we used Peterson fragmentation function, $`D_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}(z)`$ . However, since we have no data, at present, about polarized fragmentation functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+}(x)`$ for the polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ production, we took the following ansatz for it

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D_{\stackrel{}{c}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^+}(z)=C_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}D_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}(z),$$
(3)
where $`C_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}`$ is a scale-independent spin transfer coefficient. In this analysis, we studied two cases: (A) $`C_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}=1`$ (non-relativistic quark model) and (B) $`C_{c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+}=z`$ (Jet fragmentation model ). As we discussed before, if the spin of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ is equal to the spin of the charm quark produced in the subprocess, the model (A) might be a reasonable scenario.

## IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Numerical results of $`A_{LL}`$ are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. In these figures, we attached $`\delta A_{LL}`$ to the solid line of $`A_{LL}`$ calculated for the case of the GRSV01 parametrization model of polarized gluon and the non-relativistic fragmentation model.♯♯\sharp3♯♯\sharp3$`\mathrm{}`$3Note that as shown from Eq.(2), $`\delta A_{LL}`$ does not depend on both of the model of polarized gluons and the model of fragmentation functions. Comparing with those figures, we can see that the $`\eta `$ distributions of $`A_{LL}`$ are more effective than the $`p__T`$ distributions at $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 GeV and 500 GeV to distinguish various models.

As shown in the right panel of Fig. 2 given at $`\sqrt{s}=`$500 GeV, we could distinguish the parametrization models of polarized gluon as well as the models of the spin-dependent fragmentation function, though the magnitude of $`A_{LL}`$ is rather small. At $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 GeV, the magnitude of $`A_{LL}`$ for $`\eta `$ distribution becomes larger, though statistical sensitivities are not so small. If the integrated luminosity at $`\sqrt{s}=`$200 GeV becomes large and the detection efficiency $`ϵ`$ is improved, this observable could be promising to distinguish not only the models of $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$ but also the models of $`\mathrm{\Delta }D(z)`$. On the other hand, we cannot say anything from the $`p__T`$ distribution of $`A_{LL}`$ at high $`p__T`$ region, since $`\delta A_{LL}`$ becomes rapidly large with increasing $`p__T`$. However, if we confine the kinematical region in rather small $`p__T`$ range such as $`p__T=3`$5(10) GeV at $`\sqrt{s}=200(500)`$ GeV, it might be still effective.

Though this analysis is confined to leading order, the results are interesting and we hope our prediction will be tested in the forthcoming RHIC experiment.