text:
# Probing Topcolor-Assisted Technicolor from Top-Charm Associated Production at LHC

## Abstract

We propose to probe the topcolor-assisted technicolor (TC2) model from the top-charm associated productions at the LHC, which are highly suppressed in the Standard Model. Due to the flavor-changing couplings of the top quark with the scalars (top-pions and top-Higgs) in TC2 model, the top-charm associated productions can occur via both the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel parton processes by exchanging a scalar field at the LHC. We examined these processes through Monte Carlo simulation and found that they can reach the observable level at the LHC in quite a large part of the parameter space of the TC2 model.

The fancy idea of technicolor (TC) provides a possible mechanism of breaking the electroweak symmetry dynamically. However, it is hard for technicolor to generate the fermion masses, especially the heavy top quark mass. As a realistic TC model, the topcolor-assisted technicolor (TC2) model  combines technicolor with topcolor, with the former mainly responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking and the latter for generating a major part of top quark mass. This model is one of the promising candidates of new physics, awaiting to be tested at the upcoming CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

As shown in numerous previous studies, the top quark processes are sensitive to new physics . In some new physics models like supersymmetry, there may emerge some new production and decay mechanisms for the top quark at hadron colliders . The study of these new mechanisms will help to reveal the new physics effects. It is noticeable that the TC2 model may have richer top-quark phenomenology than other new physics models since it treats the top quark differently from other quarks to single out top quark for condensation . In fact, the top-color interaction is flavor non-universal and consequently may induce new large flavor-changing (FC) interactions . One kind of such FC interactions occur between quarks and the top-pion, the pseudo-goldstone boson predicted by TC2 model with mass of a few hundred GeV, which are given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{\sqrt{2}F_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{v^2F_t^2}}{v}}[iK_{UR}^{tt}K_{UL}^{tt}\overline{t}_Lt_R\pi _t^0`$ (3)
$`+\sqrt{2}K_{UR}^{tt}K_{DL}^{bb}\overline{t}_Rb_L\pi _t^++iK_{UR}^{tc}K_{UL}^{tt}\overline{t}_Lc_R\pi _t^0`$
$`+\sqrt{2}K_{UR}^{tc}K_{DL}^{bb}\overline{c}_Rb_L\pi _t^++h.c.],`$
where $`v174`$ GeV, $`F_t50`$ GeV is the top-pion decay constant and the factor $`\sqrt{v^2F_t^2}/v`$ reflects the effect of the mixing between the top-pions and the would-be goldstone bosons . $`K_{UL}`$, $`K_{DL}`$ and $`K_{UR}`$ are the rotation matrices that transform the weak eigenstates of left-handed up-type, down-type and right-handed up-type quarks to the mass eigenstates, respectively. As pointed out in , the transition between $`t_R`$ and $`c_R`$, $`K_{UR}^{tc}`$, can be naturally around $`10\%30\%`$ without conflict with low energy experimental data and $`K`$s can be parameterized as follows:

$`K_{UL}^{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`K_{DL}^{bb}=1,K_{DR}^{tt}=1ϵ,`$ (4)
$`K_{UR}^{tc}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1K_{UR}^{tt2}K_{UR}^{tu2}}\sqrt{2ϵϵ^2},`$ (5)
with $`ϵ`$ representing the fraction of top quark mass generated from TC interactions. Throughout this paper, we fix $`K_{UR}^{tc}=\sqrt{2ϵϵ^2}`$ and treat $`ϵ`$ as an input parameter in the range $`00.1`$. TC2 model also predicts a CP-even scalar $`h_t`$ called top-Higgs. Its couplings to quarks are similar to that of the neutral top-pion except that the neutral top-pion is CP-odd.

The above large Yukawa couplings will induce the top-charm associated production $`ppt\overline{c}+X`$ through both the $`s`$-channel $`gg\pi _t^0,h_tt\overline{c}`$, as shown in Fig.1(a), and the $`t`$-channel $`bbt\overline{c}`$ by exchanging a $`\pi _t^+`$, as shown in Fig.1(b). Compared to the $`t\overline{b}`$ productions, which is also sensitive to TC2 , the $`t\overline{c}`$ productions are highly suppressed in the SM and thus its observation would be a robust evidence of new physics.

The $`t\overline{c}`$ production through the $`s`$-channel $`ggh_tt\overline{c}`$ has been briefly studied in the literature . But a detailed Monte Carlo study of its observability, with the consideration of the SM backgrouds, is still lacking. Given the great importance of the LHC phenomenology, such a study of observability is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the $`t\overline{c}`$ production via the $`t`$-channel $`bbt\overline{c}`$, which is more important when the top-pion is heavy, has not been studied before. In this work we will give a comparative study of both processes. We will not only study the production rates, but also perform a Monte Carlo simulation to show explicitly the observability at the LHC. Our result shows that both the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel processes can reach the observable level at the LHC in quite a large part of the parameter space. Therefore, looking for the top-charm associated productions at the LHC will serve as an important probe for the TC2 model.

The spin- and color-averaged amplitudes of the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel processes are given by

$`|_s^{\pi _t^0}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{2F_t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2F_t^2}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2(2ϵϵ^2)(1ϵ)^2`$ (7)
$`\times \left|c_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{m_t^2}}\right)\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2(\widehat{s}m_t^2)}{(\widehat{s}m_{\pi ^0}^2)^2+m_{\pi ^0}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi _t^0}^2}},`$
$`|_s^{h_t}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{2F_t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2F_t^2}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2(2ϵϵ^2)(1ϵ)^2`$ (9)
$`\times \left|c_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}}{m_t^2}}\right)\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2(\widehat{s}m_t^2)}{(\widehat{s}m_{h_t}^2)^2+m_{h_t}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h_t}^2}},`$
$`|_t^{\pi _t^+}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{2F_t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2F_t^2}{v^2}}\right)^2(2ϵϵ^2)(1ϵ)^2`$ (11)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}(\widehat{t}m_t^2)}{(\widehat{t}m_{\pi ^+}^2)^2}},`$
where $`\alpha _s=g_s^2/(4\pi )`$ with $`g_s`$ denoting strong coupling constant, $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{t}`$ are patron level Mandelstam variables. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi _t^0}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h_t}`$) is the width of neutral top-pion (top-higgs) which can be calculated by considering all its decay modes. $`c_{1,2}(R)`$ are loop functions defined by $`c_1(R)=_0^1dx\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1Rx(1x))}{x}`$ and $`c_2(R)=2+(1\frac{4}{R})c_1(R)`$. Note there is no interference between $`M_s^{\pi _t^0}`$ and $`M_s^{h_t}`$ due to different CP property of $`\pi _t^0`$ and $`h_t`$. In our numerical calculation, we use the CTEQ5L parton distribution functions  with $`Q=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}/2`$.

In Fig.2 we plotted the two-body $`t\overline{c}`$ production cross section versus corresponding scalar mass for both the $`s`$-channel and $`t`$-channel processes. The charge conjugate production channel, i.e., the $`\overline{t}c`$ production, is also included in our analysis throughout this paper.

We see from Fig.2 that for the $`t`$-channel process the production rate drops monotonously with the increase of the charged top-pion mass. For the $`s`$-channel processes the production rates are maximum when the neutral scalars lie in the range of $`m_t+m_cm_{\pi _t^0,h_t}2m_t`$. The reason is that in this range, $`t\overline{c}`$ is the dominant decay mode of the neutral scalars. Comparing the rates of $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channel productions, one sees that for a common scalar mass the $`s`$-channel rate is higher than the $`t`$-channel rate only in the range from $`m_t`$ to $`400`$ GeV. From this figure one can also see that the cross section of $`pp\pi _t^0t\overline{c}`$ is at least a couple of times larger than that of $`pph_tt\overline{c}`$ for $`m_{\pi _t^0}=m_{h_t}`$.

Under the assumption that the top quark decays via the normal weak interactions to $`Wb`$, the final state of $`t\overline{c}`$ production is $`Wb\overline{c}`$. We look for events with the leptonic decay of the $`W`$, $`W\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e`$ or $`\mu `$) and thus the signature of $`t\overline{c}`$ production is an energetic charged lepton, one $`b`$-quark jet, one light $`c`$-quark jet, plus missing $`E_T`$ from the neutrino. The potential SM backgrounds are the single top productions, top pair ($`t\overline{t}`$) productions, and $`Wb\overline{b}`$, $`Wc\overline{c}`$, $`Wcj`$ and $`Wjj`$ productions. These backgrounds have been studied extensively in . In order to use the background results in , in our analysis we applied the same selection cuts as in .

First, we assumed silicon vertex tagging of the $`b`$-quark jet with $`60\%`$ efficiency and the probability of 0.5% (15%) for a light quark ($`c`$-quark) jet to be mis-identified as a $`b`$-jet, which can reduce the background $`Wjj`$ efficiently. We required the reconstructed top quark mass $`M(bW)`$ to lie within the mass range $`|M(bW)m_t|<20`$ GeV, which can reduce all the non-top backgrounds efficiently.

To simulate the detector acceptance, we made a series of basic cuts on the transverse momentum ($`p_T`$), the pseudo-rapidity ($`\eta `$), and the separation in the azimuthal angle-pseudo-rapidity plane ( $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2})`$ between a jet and a lepton or between two jets. These cuts are chosen to be

$`p_T^{\mathrm{}},p_T^j,p_T^{\mathrm{miss}}20\mathrm{GeV},`$ (12)
$`|\eta _{\mathrm{}}|2.5,|\eta _j|4,|\eta _b|2,`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj},\mathrm{\Delta }R_j\mathrm{}0.7.`$ (14)
Further simulation of detector effects is made by assuming a Gaussian smearing of the energy of the final state particles, given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E=30\%/\sqrt{E}1\%`$ for leptons and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E=80\%/\sqrt{E}5\%`$ for hadrons, where $``$ indicates that the energy dependent and independent terms are added in quadrature and $`E`$ is in GeV.

Under the above cuts the total cross section of backgrounds is 16839 fb , of which 7159 fb is from single top productions, 2770 fb from $`t\overline{t}`$ productions, and 5070 fb, 1460 fb, 230 fb and 150 fb from $`Wcj`$, $`Wjj`$, $`Wb\overline{b}`$, $`Wc\overline{c}`$ productions, respectively.

A few remarks are due regarding our analysis:

(1) The main kinematic difference between the $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channel processes is that for the former the signal has a peak in the top-charm invariant mass distribution and this feature might be used to effectively reduce background . In our analysis, we ignored this difference and adopt the same strategy to probe the top-charm signal. The reason is twofold. One is that without any information of $`m_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`m_{h_t}`$, we do not know where the peak lies at. The other is, due to strong interaction of the neutral scalars with quarks, their widths are of several hundred GeV for $`m_{\pi ^0,h_t}>2m_t`$ and as a result, the peak is highly smeared.

(2) The two jets in the signal are $`b\overline{c}`$ (or $`\overline{b}c`$). Since the $`c`$-quark jet could be mis-identified as a $`b`$-jet with a probability of 15%, the efficiency of tagging one $`b`$-jet from $`b\overline{c}`$ (or $`\overline{b}c`$) should be slightly higher than 60%. In our analysis we conservatively assumed the tagging efficiency of 60%.

(3) For the same reason stated above, we could possibly require to tag two $`b`$-jets for the signal. Compared with tagging only one $`b`$-jet, this will further reduce the signal rate by a factor of 15% while suppress the $`Wjj`$ and $`Wcj`$ backgrounds by a factor of 0.5%. However, the large backgrounds of top quark productions cannot be relatively suppressed because they contain two $`b`$-jets in their final states. As a result, the total background is reduced only by a factor of 37%. So this strategy of tagging two $`b`$-jets does no better.

The observability of the $`t\overline{c}`$ productions through $`gg\pi _t^0t\overline{c}`$ and $`b\overline{b}t\overline{c}`$ are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 for the LHC with $`L=100`$ fb-1. Throughout our analysis we restrict the value of the parameter $`ϵ`$ in the range of $`0.0010.1`$.

We see from Figs. 3 and 4 that for both processes the observable parameter region is quite large. For the $`s`$-channel process the region $`m_t+m_cm_{\pi _t^0}2m_t`$ is observable for any $`ϵ`$ value in the range of $`0.0010.1`$. The reason for this is already elucidated in the discussions for Fig.2. Outside the region the signal is observable only for enough large $`ϵ`$ value. But given $`0.001ϵ0.1`$ , the signal is observable for $`m_{\pi _t^0}550`$ GeV. In case of nonobservation, the $`2\sigma `$ lower limit on $`m_{\pi _t^0}`$ is about $`600`$ GeV.

The $`t`$-channel process exhibits a different feature from the $`s`$-channel process, which can be inferred from the behavior of its two-body $`t\overline{c}`$ production rate shown in Fig.2. The observable region of the parameter space shrinks monotonously with the increase of the charged top-pion mass. But for a relatively high $`ϵ`$ value in the range of $`0.0010.1`$, the signal is observable up to $`m_{\pi _t^+}800`$ GeV. This value is much larger than the constraint from $`R_b`$, i.e. $`m_{\pi _t^+}250`$ GeV. In case of nonobservation, the $`2\sigma `$ lower limit on $`m_{\pi _t^+}`$ can reach $`1`$ TeV.

We did not show the observable region in the plane ($`h_t`$, $`ϵ`$) for the s-channel process $`ggh_tt\overline{c}`$ because it is similar to Fig.3. The only difference is if $`ϵ0.1`$, the signal is observable at $`3\sigma `$ level for $`h_t480`$ GeV and unobservable at $`2\sigma `$ level for $`h_t530`$ GeV.

In our analysis of neutral scalar production, we did not choose $`t\overline{t}`$ as the signal of the new physics for $`m_{\pi ^0},m_{h_t}>2m_t`$. The reason is the effect of these scalars on the cross section of $`t\overline{t}`$ is small, resulting in a contribution of the order of $`\sigma (t\overline{t})_{TC2}/\sigma (t\overline{t})_{SM}=10^210^3`$ at the LHC.

In some extensions of the SM, such as the generic two-Higgs doublet models with tree level FC scalar interactions , both $`s`$\- and $`t`$-channel top-charm associated productions can also occur via exchanging neutral and charged Higgs bosons, respectively. However, although the corresponding cross sections are large, they are at least one order of magnitude smaller than those of TC2 for a common mass of Higgs bosons and top-pions . The reason is that TC2 model predicts a large Yukawa coupling $`\frac{m_t}{2F_t}2.5`$ and a possible large FC coefficient $`K_{UR}^{tc}`$ (see Eq.(3)).

The interactions between the scalars and quarks can also induce large neutral flavor changing gauge interaction, such as the coupling $`t\overline{c}g`$ . Since it is not easy to observe top rare decay $`tcg`$ at hadron collider , such a coupling may be well tested via single top production, $`cgt`$, at the LHC. This process was extensively studied in effective Lagrangian approach  with the conclusion that for LHC with $`100`$ fb-1 the discovery limit on the effective interaction coefficient $`\kappa _c/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is $`0.0048`$ TeV-1 at $`3\sigma `$ level, or alternatively, new physics contribution to the cross section $`ppt^{}b\overline{l}_ev_e`$ must be larger than $`40`$ fb. We examined this process in TC2 model and found that for $`ϵ0.1`$ only when $`m_{h_t}400`$ GeV and $`m_{\pi ^+,\pi ^0}350`$ GeV can such single top events be observable. Obviously, the observable region is smaller than that from top-charm associated production.

TC2 model also predicts some new top-quark decay modes, such as $`tb\overline{b}c`$ via exchanging a $`\pi _t^+`$ and $`tcWW`$ via an intermediate $`h_t`$. Among these new decay modes, $`tb\overline{b}c`$ is dominant for a not heavy charged top-pion. For example, for $`ϵ=0.1`$ and $`m_{\pi ^+}=250`$ GeV, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(tb\overline{b}c)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(tbW)`$ can reach $`9\times 10^3`$, which maybe not accessible at the LHC due to the SM backgrounds . For the decay mode $`tcWW`$ , it drop quickly with the increase of $`m_{h_t}`$ and for $`m_{h_t}>250`$ GeV the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(tWW)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(tbW)`$ is of $`10^7`$. As a result, such a decay mode cannot put severe bounds on TC2 parameter.

So we conclude the top-charm associated productions at the LHC are a powerful probe for the TC2 model. The LHC can either observe the productions or set stringent bounds on the parameters of the TC2 model.

The work of Z.X. was supported by the postdoctor followship of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


format: text

text:
# The Mean Distance to the 𝑛-th Neighbour in a Uniform Distribution of Random Points: An Application of Probability Theory

## I Introduction

Consider random geometrical points, i.e., points with uncorrelated positions, distributed uniformly in a $`D`$-dimensional Euclidean space, with a density of $`N`$ points per unit volume. A point is said to be the $`n`$-th neighbour of another (the reference point) if there are exactly $`n1`$ other points that are closer to the latter than the former. We address the following problem: what is the mean distance $`r_n`$ between a given reference point and its $`n`$-th neighbour, $`n<N`$? This is essentially a problem of geometrical interest. However the quantity $`r_n`$ is relevant in certain physical and computational contexts: for example, in astrophysics it gives the mean distance between neighbouring stars distributed independently in a homogeneous model of the universe Chandrasekhar1943 . In optimization theory the values of $`r_n`$ help in estimating the optimal length of a closed path connecting a given set of points in space, as in the case of the travelling salesman problem Beardwood1959 ; Armour1983 ; Rujan1988 ; Percus1996 ; Cerf1997 . It may also help in determining the statistical properties of complex networks Albert2002 .

In this article we study different ways of determining the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance. We first present a heuristic method of estimating $`r_n`$ by using a physical picture. Next we describe the derivation of the exact expression of $`r_n`$ in two ways: we review the method using absolute probability and derive the result by an alternative method using conditional probability. The former method is comprehensive while the latter is more analytic and explicitly illustrates the notion of ensemble average, i.e., the mean value of a macroscopic quantity calculated over all possible configurations of a system. Finally we calculate the mean volume which separates the reference point from its $`n`$-th neighbour and obtain an approximate expression of $`r_n`$ from its radius. We find out how this approximation deviates from the exact expression of $`r_n`$.

## II A Heuristic Method

We begin with a heuristic approach to find the mean first neighbour distance. Consider a unit volume of the space described in the introduction, say, in the form of a hypersphere or a hypercube containing exactly $`N`$ random points including the reference one. Let us divide this unit volume into $`N`$ equal parts. Since the $`N`$ random points are distributed uniformly over the unit volume each part is expected to contain just one of these. The mean distance $`r_1`$ between any point and its first neighbour is naively given by the linear extent of each part. Since the volume of each part is $`1/N`$, we expect

$$r_1(N)\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^{1/D}.$$
(1)
We extend the above result for the first neighbour to the $`n`$-th neighbour by the following heuristic argument. We choose any one of the points as the reference and locate its $`n`$-th neighbour, $`n<N`$. The expected distance between them is $`r_n(N)`$. Keeping these two points fixed we change the number of points in the unit volume to $`N\alpha `$ by adding or removing points at random; the factor $`\alpha `$ is arbitrary to the extent that $`N\alpha `$ and $`n\alpha `$ are natural numbers. Since the distribution of points is uniform, the hypersphere that had originally enclosed $`n`$ points is now expected to contain $`n\alpha `$ points. Therefore, what was originally the $`n`$-th neighbour of the reference point is now expected to be the $`n\alpha `$-th neighbour for which the expected distance from the reference point is now $`r_{n\alpha }\left(N\alpha \right)`$. Since the two points under consideration are fixed, so is the distance between them. Consequently

$$r_n(N)r_{n\alpha }(N\alpha ).$$
(2)
The above relation is approximate as the change in the density of points does not always convert the $`n`$-th neighbour of the reference point to exactly its $`n\alpha `$-th neighbour. Now we take $`\alpha =1/n`$, so that

$$r_n(N)r_1\left(\frac{N}{n}\right)$$
(3)
which shows that the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance for a set of $`N`$ random points distributed uniformly is approximately given by the mean first neighbour distance for a depleted set of $`N/n`$ random points in the same volume. The above relation is derived for such values of $`n`$ that divide $`N`$ exactly; however this approximate relation may be used for any value of $`n`$ when $`Nn`$, by replacing $`N/n`$ with the integer nearest to it. Using the expression of $`r_1(N)`$ from Eq. (1) we get

$$r_n(N)\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)^{1/D}$$
(4)
which, therefore, requires as a necessary condition that $`Nn`$. The results of Eq. (1) and Eq. (4) are extremely crude approximations; however these provide us with a rough picture of the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance.

## III The Method of Absolute Probablity

We now review the derivation of the exact expression of $`r_n`$ by using the theory of absolute probability Feller1968 . The method described is similar to that followed in Ref. Cerf1997 . Consider the system of random points described at the begining of the introduction. Assuming a certain random point as the reference there will be $`N1`$ other random points within a $`D`$-dimensional hypersphere of unit volume with the reference point at its center. For a given reference point the absolute probability of finding its $`n`$-th neighbour ($`n<N`$) at a distance between $`r_n`$ and $`r_n+\mathrm{d}r_n`$ from it is given by the probability that out of the $`N1`$ random points (other than the reference point) distributed uniformly within the hypersphere of unit volume, exactly $`n1`$ points lie within a concentric hypersphere of radius $`r_n`$ and at least one of the remaining $`Nn`$ points lie within the shell of internal radius $`r_n`$ and thickness $`\mathrm{d}r_n`$:

$$P(r_n)\mathrm{d}r_n=\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n1\end{array}\right)V_n^{n1}\underset{q=1}{\overset{Nn}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}Nn\\ q\end{array}\right)\left(1V_n\right)^{Nnq}\left(\mathrm{d}V_n\right)^q$$
(5)
where

$$V_n=\frac{\pi ^{D/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)}r_n^D$$
(6)
is the volume of the $`D`$-dimensional hypersphere of radius $`r_n`$ centered at the reference point and

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n1\end{array}\right)=\frac{(N1)!}{(n1)!(Nn)!},\left(\begin{array}{c}Nn\\ q\end{array}\right)=\frac{(Nn)!}{q!(Nnq)!}$$

are binomial coefficients. Ignoring differentials of order higher than the first ($`q=1`$) in Eq. (5) we get:

$$P(r_n)\mathrm{d}r_n=\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n1\end{array}\right)(Nn)V_n^{n1}\left(1V_n\right)^{Nn1}\mathrm{d}V_n.$$
(7)
Since the $`n`$-th neighbour $`(n<N)`$ must certainly lie within a unit volume centered at the reference point, its mean distance from the reference point is given by:

$$r_n=_0^Rr_nP(r_n)dr_n,$$
(8)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the $`D`$-dimensional hypersphere of unit volume:

$$R=\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}.$$
(9)
Changing the variable of integration in Eq. (8) from radius to volume (by the relation of Eq. (6)) and using the probability distribution of Eq. (7) we get the exact result for the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance:

$`r_n(N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n1\end{array}\right)(Nn){\displaystyle _0^1}V_n^{n+(1/D)1}\left(1V_n\right)^{Nn1}dV_n`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n1\end{array}\right)(Nn)B(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}},Nn)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{D}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+\frac{1}{D}\right)}}.`$ (16)
Here $`B(x,y)`$ is the beta function defined as $`B(x,y)=_0^1t^{x1}(1t)^{y1}dt`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)`$ is the complete gamma function: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}t^{z1}e^tdt`$. These functions are related by the formula Abramowitz1972  : $`B(x,y)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }(y)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(x+y)`$.

For large values of $`N`$ we get by using Stirling’s approximation Graham1994  for the gamma function: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+1/D\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\right)N^{1/D}`$; therefore, for a large density $`N`$, Eq. (16) reduces to the following asymptotic form:

$$r_n(N)\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{D}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^{1/D}.$$
(17)
If the neighbour index $`n`$ is also large (but $`n<N`$), we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+1/D\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n\right)n^{1/D}`$ and the complete asymptotic expression of the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance is given by:

$$r_n(N)\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)^{1/D}.$$
(18)
The above equation shows that the expression of $`r_n(N)`$ obtained by heuristic means \[Eq. (4)\] has the correct asymptotic dependence on $`N`$ and $`n`$.

## IV The Method of Conditional Probability

Next we develop an alternative way of deriving the exact expression of $`r_n`$ by using the theory of conditional probability Feller1968 . We proceed by asserting that we look for the $`n`$-th neighbour of a reference point only after its first $`n1`$ neighbours have been located. In that case the reference point and its first $`n1`$ neighbours are considered as given; now the probablity $`𝒫(r_n)\mathrm{d}r_n`$ of finding the $`n`$-th neighbour of the reference point at a distance between $`r_n`$ and $`r_n+\mathrm{d}r_n`$ from it is a conditional probability as the $`n`$-th neighbour must certainly lie outside the hypersphere of radius $`r_{n1}`$:

$$𝒫\left(r_n\right)\mathrm{d}r_n=\underset{q=1}{\overset{Nn}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}Nn\\ q\end{array}\right)\left[1\frac{V_nV_{n1}}{1V_{n1}}\right]^{Nnq}\left[\frac{\mathrm{d}V_n}{1V_{n1}}\right]^q.$$
(19)
Here $`V_n`$ is the volume of the $`D`$-dimensional hypersphere of radius $`r_n`$ centered at the reference point \[Eq. (6)\]. Ignoring differentials of order higher than the first ($`q=1`$) in Eq. (19) we get:

$$𝒫\left(r_n\right)\mathrm{d}r_n=\left[1\frac{V_nV_{n1}}{1V_{n1}}\right]^{Nn1}\frac{(Nn)\mathrm{d}V_n}{1V_{n1}}.$$
(20)
For a given reference point and its first $`n1`$ neighbours the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance is thus obtained as:

$$r_n^{(\mathrm{conditional})}=_{r_{n1}}^Rr_n𝒫\left(r_n\right)dr_n$$
(21)
where, as before, $`R`$ is the radius of a $`D`$-dimensional hypersphere of unit volume. The quantity $`r_n^{(\mathrm{conditional})}`$ is a function of the particular $`r_{n1}`$, $`r_{n2}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`r_1`$ which are the distances of the first $`n1`$ neighbours of the reference point. To remove the dependence of the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance on the particular set of values of the first $`n1`$ neighbour distances the quantity $`r_n^{(\mathrm{conditional})}`$ must be averaged successively over the probability distributions of each of the first $`n1`$ neighbours:

$$r_n=_0^Rdr_1𝒫(r_1)_{r_1}^Rdr_2𝒫(r_2)\mathrm{}_{r_{n3}}^Rdr_{n2}𝒫(r_{n2})_{r_{n2}}^Rdr_{n1}𝒫(r_{n1})r_n^{(\mathrm{conditional})}$$
(22)
where the probability distribution of the $`i`$-th neighbour distance is given by Eq. (20) with $`i`$ replacing $`n`$. This step is equivalent to an ensemble average in statistical mechanics Kittel1958 . After changing all the variables of integration in Eq. (22) from radii to the corresponding volumes (by the relation of Eq. (6)) and changing the order of the integrals such that the integral with respect to $`V_n`$ has to be evaluated last, we get:

$`r_n(N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}}(N1)(N2)\mathrm{}(Nn){\displaystyle _0^1}dV_nV_n^{1/D}\left(1V_n\right)^{Nn1}`$ (23)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{V_n}}\mathrm{d}V_1{\displaystyle _{V_1}^{V_n}}\mathrm{d}V_2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{V_{n3}}^{V_n}}\mathrm{d}V_{n2}{\displaystyle _{V_{n2}}^{V_n}}\mathrm{d}V_{n1}`$
which gives the final form of the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance:

$`r_n(N)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n1\end{array}\right)(Nn){\displaystyle _0^1}V_n^{n+(1/D)1}\left(1V_n\right)^{Nn1}dV_n`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{D}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+\frac{1}{D}\right)}}.`$ (27)
This is identical to the result of Eq. (16) obtained in the previous section.

## V The mean volume estimate

Instead of calculating the mean distance to the $`n`$-th neighbour we now calculate the mean volume $`V_n`$ separating the reference point from its $`n`$-th neighbour. The volume separating a reference point from its $`n`$-th neighbour located at a distance $`r_n`$ from it is defined as the volume of the hypersphere of radius $`r_n`$ and centered at the reference point. Therefore, from Eq. (6), we get:

$$V_n=\frac{\pi ^{D/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)}r_n^D.$$
(28)
Using the absolute probability distribution of Eq. (7) we get

$$r_n^D=_0^Rr_n^DP(r_n)dr_n$$
(29)
where $`R`$ is defined in Eq. (9). Consequently, we get from the above two equations:

$`V_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n1\end{array}\right)(Nn){\displaystyle _0^1}V_n^n\left(1V_n\right)^{Nn1}dV_n`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}N1\\ n1\end{array}\right)(Nn)B(n+1,Nn)`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N+1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}.`$ (34)
Now we may estimate the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance by using the following approximation:

$$r_nr_n^D^{1/D}.$$
(35)
From Eqs. (28) and (34) we get:

$$r_n^D(N)^{1/D}=\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}{\pi ^{1/2}}\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)^{1/D}.$$
(36)
The above result is the same as the asymptotic expression of $`r_n`$ obtained in Eq. (18) and thus Eq.(35) is valid as $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`n<N`$. Comparison with Eq. (4) shows that this approximation is a better estimate of $`r_n`$ than the result obtained by heuristic means.

The error in this estimate of $`r_n`$ by Eq. (35) is given by $`r_n^D^{1/D}r_n`$. From Eqs. (16) and (36) we get:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{1/2}}{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}}\left[r_n^D^{1/D}r_n\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\right)^{1/D}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{D}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+\frac{1}{D}\right)}}.`$ (37)
It is obvious that the error is zero for $`D=1`$ and from the expression in Eq. (37) it is clear that the error is greater than zero for all finite dimensions $`D2`$. For large values of $`D`$ we get:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{D}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{1}{D}\right)\left[1+\frac{H_{n1}}{D}\right]$$
(38)
and a similar expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N+1/D\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N\right)`$, where $`H_n=_{k=1}^n1/k`$ are called harmonic numbers Graham1994 . Consequently Eq. (37) reduces to the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{1/2}}{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}}\left[r_n^D^{1/D}r_n\right]`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\right)^{1/D}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{1}{D}H_{n1}}{1+\frac{1}{D}H_{N1}}}`$ (39)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}}\right)^{1/D}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D}}\left(H_{n1}H_{N1}\right)\right].`$
Since $`lim_n\mathrm{}(H_n\mathrm{ln}n)=\gamma =lim_N\mathrm{}(H_N\mathrm{ln}N)`$, where $`\gamma =0.5772156649\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler’s constant Graham1994 , for large values of $`n`$ and $`N`$ Eq. (39) may be written as:

$$\frac{\pi ^{1/2}}{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{D}{2}+1\right)\right]^{1/D}}\left[r_n^D^{1/D}r_n\right]\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)^{1/D}\left[1+\frac{1}{D}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\right].$$
(40)
The error is then practically zero, since, for large values of $`D`$, we get:

$$\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)^{1/D}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{D}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\right]1+\frac{1}{D}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n}{N}\right).$$
(41)
## VI Concluding remarks

In this article we have studied two kinds of approaches to determine the mean $`n`$-th neighbour distance in a system of uniformly distributed random points. In one kind of approach we construct the solution from a physical picture of the system; though it produces only an approximate mathematical result it helps to visualise the solution. The heuristic method of section 2 and the mean volume method of section 5 are of this kind. The other kind of approach is rigorous and produces the exact mathematical result : while the method of absolute probability used in section 3 is largely pedagogical, the method of conditional probability used in section 4 provides a detailed insight into the problem. Though the heuristic estimate of $`r_n`$ is close to the exact result only for large values of $`n`$, $`N`$ and $`D`$, along with the condition $`Nn`$, the advantage of the heuristic method lies in its simplicity; however approximate, it gives an essence of $`r_n`$. Therefore, in cases where the distribution of points in space is such that an exact evaluation of $`r_n`$ is not possible Percus1998 , heuristic constructions similar to this one may be useful.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank D. Dhar, A. G. Percus, S. S. Manna and A. Chakraborti for their comments.