text:
# The QCD Pomeron in Ultraperipheral Heavy Ion Collisions: I. The Double 𝐽/Ψ Production

## I INTRODUCTION

Understanding the behavior of high energy hadron reactions from a fundamental perspective within QCD is an important goal of particle physics. The behavior of scattering in the limit of high energy and fixed momentum transfer is described in QCD, at least in situations in which perturbation applies, by the Balitskii-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) Pomeron . Attempts to test experimentally this sector of QCD have started in last years, mainly considering processes where specific conditions are satisfied, which minimize the contributions of the other mechanisms competing with the QCD Pomeron and guarantee the validity of the perturbative QCD methods. In particular, the virtualities of the gluons along the ladder should be large enough to assure the applicability of the perturbative expansion. The hard scale may be provided either by the coupling of the ladder to scattering particles, which contain a hard scale themselves, or by a large momentum transfer carried by the gluons. Furthermore, to distinguish the BFKL from DGLAP evolution effects it is convenient to focus on processes in which the scales on both ends of the ladder are of comparable size. Some examples are the measurements of forward jets in deeply inelastic events at low values of the Bjorken variable $`x`$ in lepton-hadron scattering, jet production at large rapidity separations in hadron-hadron collisions and off-shell photon scattering at high energy in $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, where the photons are produced from the leptons beams by bremsstrahlung (For a recent review of BFKL searches, see e.g. Ref. ). This last process presents some theoretical advantages as a probe of QCD Pomeron dynamics compared to the other ones because it does not involve a nonperturbative target . Moreover, such reaction presents analogies with the process of scattering of two quarkonia, which has been proposed as a gedanken experiment to investigate the high energy regime in QCD . In such a case, nonperturbative effects are suppressed by the smallness of the quarkonium radius.

Other possibility for the study of the QCD Pomeron is the vector meson pairs production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions . At very high energies $`st`$, diffractive processes such as $`\gamma \gamma `$ neutral vector (or pseudoscalar) meson pairs with virtual or real photons can test the QCD Pomeron (Odderon) in a detailed way utilizing the simplest possible initial state. As in the case of the large angle exclusive $`\gamma \gamma `$ processes, the scattering amplitude is computed by convoluting the hard scattering pQCD amplitude for $`\gamma \gamma q\overline{q}q\overline{q}`$ with the vector meson wave functions. For heavy vector mesons, this cross section can be calculated using the perturbative QCD methods. First calculations considering the Born two-gluon approximation have been done in Refs. . More recently, the double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions has been proposed as a probe of the hard QCD Pomeron . There, the hard QCD pomeron is presumably the dominant mechanism. Theoretical estimates of the cross sections presented in  have demonstrated that measurement of this reaction at a Photon Collider should be feasible.

In this paper we study the possibilities for investigating QCD Pomeron effects in a different context, namely in photon-photon scattering at ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions. In this case, the cross sections are enhanced since the $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity increases as $`Z^4`$, where $`Z`$ is the atomic number . Here, we will focus our analyzes on double diffractive $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions, with the photons coming from the Weizsäcker - Williams spectrum of the nuclei. This process is unique since in principle it allows to test the QCD Pomeron for arbitrary momentum transfers, where the hard scale is already provided by the relative large mass of the charm quark. Here, our goal is twofold: to analyze the potentiality of this process to constraint the QCD dynamics at high values of energy and to provide reliable estimates for the cross sections concerning that reaction. We calculate the cross section considering suitable approximations for the $`\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ subprocess. In particular, we estimate it considering the two-gluon exchange (Born level), the leading order solution of the BFKL equation, as well as estimate the corrections on the energy dependence associated to the next-to-leading effects through the Pomeron intercept (for a review on NLO BFKL corrections, see e.g. Ref.  and references therein). Shortly, we have found that the two-gluon exchange mechanism gives rise to a constant $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross section at large c.m.s. two-photon energy $`W`$. To higher orders in perturbation theory, the iteration of gluons in the $`t`$-channel promotes this constant to logarithms, and the perturbative expansion of the cross section at high energy has the form,

$`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }\sigma ^{(0)}\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_k[\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(W^2/s_0)]^k\right]+\mathrm{},`$ (1)
where $`s_0`$ is the scale of the order of the charm mass squared, the summation represents the series of the leading logarithms on energy to all orders in the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$, and the ellipsis stands for nonleading terms. The sum of the leading logarithmic terms is made by the BFKL equation at leading order, which predicts that cross section grows exponentially, $`\sigma W^{2\omega _{IP}}`$, where $`\omega _{IP}=4\mathrm{ln}2N_c\alpha _s/\pi `$ in the LLA solution. It has recently been demonstrated that the NLO corrections to the BFKL equation are large. The main effect is a reduced value of the so-called Lipatov exponent $`\omega _{IP}`$. Since then the effects of higher orders have been studied for measurable processes, but the conclusions are not unambiguous . This situation should be improved in the future with the next generation of linear colliders, such as the Japan Linear Collider (JLC) at KEK, TeV Energy Superconducting Linear Accelerator (TESLA) at DESY and CERN Linear Collider (CLIC), etc. However, until these colliders become reality is important to consider alternative searches in the current accelerators which allow us to constrain the QCD dynamics.

This paper is organized as follows. In next section (Section II) we present a brief review of the ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions and the main formulae to describe the photon-photon process in these reactions. In Section III we consider the double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions and estimate this cross section considering distinct approximations to the QCD Pomeron dynamics. There, we calculate the total cross sections for the subprocess for each approximation and present our results for double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions. Finally, we present a summary of our main conclusions in the Section IV.

## II Ultraperipheral Heavy Ion Collisions

In ultraperipheral relativistic heavy-ion collisions the ions do not interact directly with each other and move essentially undisturbed along the beam direction . The only possible interaction is due to the long range electromagnetic interaction and diffractive processes. Due to the coherent action of all the protons in the nucleus, the electromagnetic field is very strong and the resulting flux of equivalent photons is large. A photon stemming from the electromagnetic field of one of the two colliding nuclei can interact with one photon of the other nucleus (two-photon process) or can penetrate into the other nucleus and interact with its hadrons (photon-nucleus process). For a recent review, see e.g. Ref. . In particular, the photoproduction of heavy quarks as a probe of the high density effects have been recently emphasized in Refs. , where the color glass condensate formalism  was used to estimate the cross section and transverse momentum spectrum. Similarly, the elastic photoproduction of vector mesons in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions was studied recently in Ref. , demonstrating that this process can be used to constraint the nuclear gluon distribution, which determines the dynamics at high energies. For other studies of QCD dynamics in one-photon processes see Ref. . Here, we will restrict our analyzes for the two-photon process and its potentiality to investigate the QCD dynamics.

Relativistic heavy-ion collisions are a potentially prolific source of $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions at high energy colliders. The advantage of using heavy ions is that the cross sections varies as $`Z^4\alpha ^4`$ rather just as $`\alpha ^4`$. Moreover, the maximum $`\gamma \gamma `$ collision energy $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is $`2\gamma /R_A`$, about 6 GeV at RHIC and 200 GeV at LHC, where $`R_A`$ is the nuclear radius and $`\gamma `$ is the center-of-mass system Lorentz factor of each ion. In particular, the LHC will have a significant energy and luminosity reach beyond LEP2, and could be a bridge to $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions at a future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider. For two-photon collisions, the cross section for the reaction $`AAAAJ/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, represented in Fig. 1, will be given by

$`\sigma _{AAAAJ/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}={\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{\omega _1}n_1(\omega _1)\frac{d\omega _2}{\omega _2}n_2(\omega _2)\sigma _{\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(W=\sqrt{4\omega _1\omega _2})},`$ (2)
where the photon energy distribution $`n(\omega )`$ is calculated within the equivalent photon or Fermi-Weizsäcker-Williams (FWW) approximation . In general, the total cross section $`AAAA\gamma \gamma AAX`$, where $`X`$ is the system produced within the rapidity gap, factorizes into the photon-photon luminosity $`\frac{d_{\gamma \gamma }}{d\tau }`$ and the cross section of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ interaction,

$`\sigma _{AAAAJ/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(s)={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \frac{d_{\gamma \gamma }}{d\tau }\widehat{\sigma }_{\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(\widehat{s})},`$ (3)
where $`\tau =\widehat{s}/s`$, $`\widehat{s}=W^2`$ is the square of the center of mass (c.m.s.) system energy of the two photons and $`s`$ of the ion-ion system. The $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity is given by the convolution of the photon fluxes from two ultrarelativistic nuclei:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_{\gamma \gamma }(\tau )}{d\tau }}={\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}f(x)f(\tau /x),`$ (4)
where the photon distribution function $`f(x)`$ is related to the equivalent photon number $`n(\omega )`$ via $`f(x)=(E/\omega )n(xE)`$, with $`x=\omega /E`$ and $`E`$ is the total energy of the initial particle in a given reference frame. The remaining quantity to be determined in order to proceed is the quantity $`f(x)`$, which has been investigated by several groups (for more details, see e.g. ). Here, we consider the photon distribution of Ref., providing a photon distribution which is not factorizable. The authors of  produced practical parametric expressions for the differential luminosity by adjusting the theoretical results, which reads as,

$$\frac{d_{\gamma \gamma }}{d\tau }=\left(\frac{Z^2\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2\frac{16}{3\tau }\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\xi (z),& 0.05<z<5\\ \left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1.234}{z}\right)\right]^3,& z<0.05\end{array}$$
(5)
where $`z=mR/\gamma =2MR\sqrt{\tau }`$, $`m`$ is the mass of the system produced in the two photon collision, $`M`$ is the nucleus mass, $`R`$ its radius and $`\xi (z)`$ is given by,

$$\xi (z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_ie^{b_iz},$$
(6)
from an adjust to the numerical integration of the photon distribution, with an accuracy of $`2\%`$ in the referred region on $`z`$. The adjustable parameters are the following: $`A_1=1.909`$, $`A_2=12.35`$, $`A_3=46.28`$, $`b_1=2.566`$, $`b_2=4.948`$, and $`b_3=15.21`$.

The approach given above excludes possible final state interactions of the produced particles with the colliding particles, allowing reliable calculations of ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions. Therefore, to estimate the double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production it is only necessary to consider a suitable QCD model for the double heavy meson production. In lines of the analysis presented here, it is worth mentioning that estimates for the double pion (light mesons) production in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions have been presented in Ref. . In addition, there it was found a negligible contribution of pomeron-pomeron (considered in the Regge approach) interaction for very heavy ions, whereas this is non-negligible for lightest ions.

## III Double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ Production

The process $`\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a clean reaction testing the BFKL Pomeron physics and provides estimates for the heavy mesons production in photon induced processes. The hard scale involved in the reaction, that is the charm mass, and the presence of the photon as the initial state turns out it suitable for perturbative treatment. The non-perturbative content is provided only by the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ light-cone wave function, which is well constrained through the experimental measurement of its leptonic width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }l^+l^{}}`$. In the following we use the high energy factorization and the BFKL dynamics in order to perform estimates for the referred reaction. Our general formulae for the differential cross section and imaginary part of the scattering amplitude are given as follows ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi })}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|𝒜(W^2,t)|^2}{16\pi }},`$ (7)
$`m𝒜(W^2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝒌,𝒒)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(W^2,𝒌,𝒒)}{(𝒌+𝒒/2)^2(𝒌𝒒/2)^2}},`$ (8)
where $`W`$ is the center of mass energy of the two photon system and the photon-meson impact factor is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$. At the Born level $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the reaction is described by the two-gluon (a bare approximation for the QCD Pomeron), which have transverse momenta $`𝒒/2\pm 𝒌`$ and where the momentum transfer is $`t=𝒒^2`$. When considering the complete gluon ladder contribution, the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ contains the impact factor and the gluon emission on the ladder, which is driven by the QCD dynamics. At the LLA level, the BFKL ladder contribution for the $`t`$-channel exchange provides the following expression for it,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(W^2,𝒌,𝒒)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝒌^{}\frac{𝒌^2}{𝒌^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}F(W^2,𝒌,𝒌^{},𝒒)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝒌^{},𝒒)},`$ (9)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝒌,𝒒)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒞\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2+𝒒^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2+𝒌^2}}\right],`$ (10)
and $`F(W^2,𝒌,𝒌^{},𝒒)`$ is the solution of the LLA BFKL equation at $`t0`$. The Eq. (10) defines the impact factor in the nonrelativistic approximation. We have considered the following parameters for the further calculations: $`m_c=m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}/2=1.55`$ GeV, $`𝒞=\sqrt{\alpha _{em}}\alpha _s(\mu ^2)e_c\frac{8}{3}\pi m_cf_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$, with $`e_c=2/3`$ and $`f_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}=0.38`$ GeV.

In order to compute the total cross section for the process, we would need consider the LLA BFKL non-forward solution  (for a derivation in the momentum space, see e.g. ) in Eq. (9), put all together to obtain the amplitude and then integrate Eq. (7) over $`0|t|\mathrm{}`$. Further refinements can be considered. For instance, the infrared contributions by modifying the gluon propagator can be still investigated, as done in Ref.  for the Born case and as in Ref.  for the full resummation. Moreover, non-leading corrections could be also implemented in a numerical calculation, for instance in lines of Ref. . Here, we follow a different procedure, since we are interested mostly in the energy dependence of the process. We will consider a small $`t`$ approximation, providing accuracy enough for our purposes in the present work, in a such way that the total cross section can be written as,

$`\sigma _{tot}(\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi })}{dt}}|_{t=0},`$ (11)
with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi })}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|𝒜(W^2,t=0)|^2}{16\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(B_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}|t|\right),`$ (12)
where $`B_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is the corresponding slope parameter. This quantity is not available from experimental measurements, instead of the slope $`B_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }p}`$ obtained from $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction . In the following we should estimate this quantity using information about the Born two-gluon approximation, where $`F=\delta ^2(𝒌𝒌^{})`$ . In this particular case the amplitude reads as,

$`𝒜_{Born}(W^2,t)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝒌,𝒒)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝒌,𝒒)}{(𝒌+𝒒/2)^2(𝒌𝒒/2)^2}},`$ (13)
which can be computed analytically if one considers a strong coupling constant not depending on $`k^2`$. Using the impact factor given by Eq. (10) and performing the integration over gluon the transverse momentum, one obtains

$`𝒜_{Born}(W^2,t)={\displaystyle \frac{16𝒞^2}{m_c^2(4m_c^2+|t|)^2}}.`$ (14)
Now, we are able to use Eq. (14) in order to estimate the $`B`$ parameter for the double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production. This quantity can be computed from the scattering amplitude above by the small $`t`$ approximation,

$`B_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{|t|0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{Born}}{dt}}\right)\right]=\underset{|t|0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{16𝒞^4}{\pi m_c^4(4m_c^2+|t|)^4}}\right)\right],`$ (15)
which gives a slope parameter with value $`B_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }}=m_c^2`$. Moreover, we expect that this estimate has little sensitivity on energy, since it is known that the hard Pomeron gives a low $`\alpha _{IP}^{}`$ (almost no shrinkage) . That is, the phenomenology on $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction has provided $`\alpha _{IP}^{}0.1`$ , instead of the usual $`\alpha _{IP}^{}=0.25`$ from the hadronic analysis, where the corresponding slope is given by $`B=b_0+2\alpha _{IP}^{}\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)`$ in the Regge analysis. We have verified also the accuracy of our approximation comparing the analytical calculation, Eq. (15), with the small-$`t`$ estimate given by Eq. (12). The comparison is shown in Fig. 2, for a fixed coupling constant $`\alpha _s(m_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}^2)0.289`$, in agreement with the estimates at Ref. . It is worth mentioning that the typical values measured in elastic $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ photoproduction stay in the range $`|t|<1.5`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup>, where our approximation produces the same result as the analytical case.

Having the slope parameter $`B`$, and taking Eq. (11), one can estimate the total cross section considering the Born two-gluon exchange. It is simple to verify that the normalization for $`\sigma _{tot}`$ depends significantly on the strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$. We have obtained that the cross section takes values of order a few pb’s, having a lower bound if the typical HERA value $`\alpha _s=0.2`$ is used as well as an upper bound for $`\alpha _s(m_c^2)`$. These estimates are corroborated by previous calculations , and some results are presented in the Table I, considering different values of $`\alpha _s`$. The results are also consistent with Ref. , where the calculations were done beyond the leading log approximation. For instance, we have found $`\sigma _{tot}=3.6`$ pb using the running $`\alpha _s(𝒌^2+m_c^2)`$ and $`s_0=0.16GeV^2`$ (this is the parameter accounting for the infrared cutoff). The refined study of  gives a close result, $`\sigma _{tot}22.6`$ pb. Our estimates are quite reliable in view of the approximations considered here. It should be stressed that other additional sources of uncertainty are the charm mass and the nonrelativistic approximation for the impact factor.

In order to perform a LLA BFKL calculation, the following solution for the evolution equation in the forward case was considered (see the pedagogical reviews on Refs. ),

$`F(W^2,𝒌,𝒌^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi ^3a𝒌^2𝒌^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}(W^2/\stackrel{~}{s})}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{W^2}{\stackrel{~}{s}}}\right)^{\omega _{IP}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(𝒌^2/𝒌^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})}{2a\mathrm{ln}(W^2/\stackrel{~}{s})}}\right],`$ (16)
where

$`\omega _{IP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{\pi }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},a={\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha _s}{\pi }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}28}\zeta (3)`$ (17)
and $`1+\omega _{IP}`$ is the Pomeron intercept in the leading logarithmic approximation, which depends on $`\alpha _s`$. We have taken $`\stackrel{~}{s}=1`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. The results are sensitive to the choice for the intercept, providing an enhancement of the total cross section by one/two orders of magnitude in relation to the Born level at the considered energy range. For the further studies we have selected the results using $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)=0.22`$, typical at the HERA kinematical region.

The total cross section is shown in Fig. 3, represented by the solid line, producing an effective behavior given by $`W^{4\lambda }`$ and where $`\lambda =0.54`$. The range on $`W`$ is the region possibly to be available at LEP2 and two-photon process in ultraperipheral heavy ions collisions at LHC. The behavior is considerably steep on energy and it is timely ask by the NLO corrections to the LLA BFKL equation or unitarity corrections to the LO calculation. Concerning the NLO effects, the correction looks like $`\omega _{IP}^{NLO}=\omega _{IP}(1N\overline{\alpha }_s)`$, where $`\overline{\alpha }_s=3\alpha _s/\pi `$. The value $`N=6.5`$, obtained in the literature , turns out the corrections too large and even producing negative values if large $`\alpha _s`$ values are considered. The complete resummation of the non-leading effects, mostly collinear-enhanced contributions, is currently argued in order to provide reliable calculations (see Ref.  for a review).

For practical purpose in our further investigation below, we have considered the modification of the Pomeron intercept in order to be consistent with the stable higher order resummation results , which give $`\omega _{IP}0.3`$ at the HERA kinematic regime. Even a lower effective exponent is found concerning the NLO BFKL using the BLM scheme for the renormalization scale setting . For a full calculation we would need the NLO impact factor, which is not completely known . However, one can use the LO impact factor, assuming that the main energy-dependent NLO corrections come from the NLO BFKL sub-process rather than from the photon impact factors . In order to simulate the NLO effects, we have used a value $`\omega _{IP}=0.37`$, shown in the dot-dashed curve of Fig. 3. The effective behavior obtained is given by $`W^{4\lambda }`$, with $`\lambda =0.29`$, which value is somewhat close to $`\lambda 0.230.29`$ obtained in .

It would be timely compare our estimates with the more refined works in  and in Ref. . In the former, the most part of the NLO correction comes from considering a kinematical constraint. That is, the effects from restricting the range for the term of real emission in the BFKL equation, imposed upon the available phase space, corresponding to the requirement that the virtuality of exchanged gluons in the BFKL ladder is dominated by the transverse momentum squared. Such a procedure covers up to 70 % of the NLO corrections to the Pomeron intercept. As discussed above, our results are similar. In Ref. , the dipole-dipole approach is considered and predictions to double meson (light and heavy) production are performed. There, the result for the total cross section $`\gamma \gamma J/\mathrm{\Psi }J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is one or two order of magnitude below the presented here and in .

Having determined the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross section we can estimate the double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ cross section in ultraperipheral heavy ion collision \[Eq. (3)\]. In Fig. 4 we present the energy dependence of the cross section, considering the Pb + Pb collisions and distinct approximations for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ subprocess. We have found that the LLA BFKL solution predicts large values of cross section for LHC energies in comparison with the Born approximation. Basically, we have that the ratio between the BFKL prediction and the two-gluon cross section is around 40 at $`\sqrt{s}=5500`$ GeV. If the non-leading corrections are considered, as discussed above, we have that this ratio is reduced to approximately 1.7. Therefore, our results indicate that if the NLO corrections to the BFKL approach are account in the approximation considered here, a future experimental analyzes of double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions could not constrain the QCD dynamics, since the BFKL(NLO) result is similar to the Born prediction. Only accurate measurements would allow discriminate between the two cases. Moreover, it is important to salient that the NLO corrections can be larger, implying a full suppression of energy enhancement associated with the iteration of gluons in the $`t`$-channel present in the QCD dynamics at high energies. However, if the energy dependence of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross section was driven for a large intercept, closer to the LO prediction, the analyzes of ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions can be useful.

Using the results for the cross section shown in Fig. 4 we can estimate the expected number of events for the LHC luminosity. For PbPb collisions with energies of center of mass equal to $`\sqrt{s}=5500AGeV`$, luminosities of $`_{AA}=4.2\times 10^{26}cm^2s^1`$ are used. Consequently, during a standard $`10^6s/`$ month heavy ion run at the LHC, we predict approximately 30, 50 and 1100 events for Born, BFKL (MOD) and BFKL (LO), respectively. It is interesting to compare these predictions with the results for double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production at LEP2, since the $`\gamma \gamma `$ center of mass energies are similar. Considering an integrated luminosity of $`500pb^1`$ in three years and $`\sqrt{s}=175GeV`$, almost 70 events are expected taking into account the non-leading corrections to the BFKL approach . Therefore, we predict a large number of events in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions, allowing future experimental analyzes, even if the acceptance for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ detection being low. It should be stressed that the LHC probably will operate in its heavy ion mode only four weeks per year.

Some comments related to background processes are in order here. We did not consider the additional contribution of the pomeron-pomeron process in the present calculations. It has been verified that such reactions would be non-negligible for light ions, while they are significantly suppressed for heavy ions . In the particular case of the double heavy meson production this contribution deserves more detailed studies, since the current treatments rely on the Regge formalism instead of a QCD approach. An important background for the photon-photon processes are the photonuclear interactions, since the reactions have similar kinematics. For the process consider here, the diffractive $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production in photon-pomeron interactions  should contribute significantly. In particular, because the cross section for this process is large, the probability of having double (independent) production of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in a single nucleus-nucleus collision, associated to multiple interactions, is non-negligible . However, in principle, an analyzes of the impact parameter dependence should allow to separate between the two classes of reactions, since two-photon interactions can occur at a significant distance from both nuclei, while a photonuclear interaction must occur inside or very near a nucleus. We salient that the experimental separation between the two classes of processes is an important point, which deserves more studies. An additional contribution in two photon ultraperipheral collisions is the meson production accompanied by mutual Coulomb dissociation. It has been estimated that these reactions increases the total cross section for an amount of $`10\%`$ at RHIC/LHC energies . We disregarded this contribution in our calculations, since we believe that it is smaller than the theoretical uncertainty, associated, for example, to the choice of the running coupling constant, charm mass, etc.

## IV Summary

Dedicated measurements have been proposed for detecting and studying the large $`1/x`$ logarithm ressumation effects in QCD. Experimentally establishing the BFKL effect in data is very important for the understanding of the high energy limit in QCD scattering. In the last years, many studies with this objective have been realized, but the conclusions are not unambiguous. This situation should be improved in the future with the next generation of linear colliders. As an alternative, in this paper we propose to investigate QCD Pomeron effects in a different context, namely, in photon-photon scattering at ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions. We have analyzed the potentiality of this process to constraint the QCD dynamics at high values of energy and provide reliable estimates for the cross sections concerning that reaction. In particular, we analyze in detail the double $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ production, considering distinct approximations for the QCD dynamics. We have that the LO BFKL cross section is much larger than the two-gluon cross section. Unfortunately, the higher order corrections of the BFKL equation are large, reducing the ratio between BFKL and two-gluon cross section. It makes difficult to discriminate between non-leading effects and the Born approximation. However, the number of events predicted for LHC is large, allowing a future experimental analyzes of this process as well as more detailed studies about the QCD dynamics.

As a last comment, it is important to salient that there are limitations on the perturbative treatment that are intrinsic to the BFKL equation, which come from the region of very high $`s`$. The BFKL equation is known to give rise to violation of the unitarity bound at asymptotically large energies. Consequently, the growth of the cross section predicted by the BFKL equation cannot continue indefinitely, and unitarity corrections (saturation effects) must arise to slow it down. They correspond to multiple bare pomeron exchanges and multi-pomeron interactions, taming the steep increase at high energies. We expect that the inclusion of these effects in our calculations should imply in a similar behavior of the non-leading BFKL predictions presented here. More detailed studies related to the unitarity corrections and BFKL dynamics will be analyzed in the sequel of this paper , where we calculate the heavy quark production in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions and investigate the saturation effects in the cross section.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank C. A. Bertulani, S. Klein, A. Natale and C. Roldão for helpful discussions. We are particularly grateful to L. Motyka for his careful reading of the manuscript and for his valuable comments. M.V.T.M. thanks the support of the High Energy Physics Phenomenology Group at Physics Institute, UFRGS, and the hospitality of the IFM-UFPel where this work was accomplished. This work was partially financed by the Brazilian funding agencies CNPq and FAPERGS.


format: text

text:
# Changes in the surface electronic structure upon martensitic transformation in TiNi and TiPd

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was jointly supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant N 02-02-16336), by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF-2002) and by POSTECH basic research fund.


text:
# Scale-invariant universal crossing probability in one-dimensional diffusion-limited coalescence

## 1 Introduction

The study of crossing probabilities for standard percolation has been the subject of much interest during the last decade \[1–16\] (for a recent introductory review see reference ).

In two dimensions, the crossing probability may be defined as the probability $`\pi `$ to have at least one cluster joining two opposite edges of a rectangular-shaped finite system with length $`L_{}`$ and width $`L_{}`$. It turns out that, at the percolation threshold, in the finite-size scaling limit ($`L_{}\mathrm{}`$, $`L_{}\mathrm{}`$, with $`r=L_{}/L_{}`$ fixed), the crossing probability is a scale-invariant universal function, $`\pi (r)`$, of the aspect ratio $`r`$ .

Following the numerical work of Langlands et al , Cardy  was able to derive an exact expression for $`\pi (r)`$. Using the relation between percolation and the $`q`$-state Potts model in the limit $`q1`$  and boundary conformal field theory, he obtained the crossing probability between two non-overlapping segments on the edge of the half-plane at criticality. The corresponding result in the rectangular geometry was then obtained through a conformal mapping. The non-trivial scale invariance of $`\pi (r)`$ is linked to the vanishing of the scaling dimension $`x(q)`$ of a boundary condition changing operator of the Potts model in the percolation limit, $`q1`$. Let us notice that some of these results have been rigorously proven recently . A related problem concerns the number of incipient spanning clusters at criticality \[12–16\]. Exact formulas have been also obtained in this field through conformal and Coulomb-gas methods .

In a recent work  the critical crossing probability was studied numerically for a strongly anisotropic system, namely, directed percolation in $`1+1`$ dimensions. In this case, the crossing probability in the time direction $`\pi _t`$ is also the probability that the system of size $`L`$ remains active at time $`t`$. Anisotropic scaling  then implies that the appropriate aspect ratio is $`r=L^z/t`$, where $`z`$ is the dynamical exponent. Here, too, it was found that, in the finite-size scaling limit, the critical crossing probability is a scale-invariant universal function of an effective aspect ratio which is the product of $`r`$ by a non-universal constant.

In the present work we continue the examination of critical crossing probabilities in strongly anisotropic systems by considering the case of diffusion-limited coalescence (DLC). This is one of the many actively studied off-equilibrium systems \[22–26\] which yields itself to an exact analysis \[27–40\]. We study the problem with periodic and free boundary conditions using the empty interval method, or interparticle distribution function method, which is reviewed in .

The case of periodic boundary conditions is studied in section 2 using the standard empty interval method for a finite discrete system \[33–35\]. In section 3 we use a modification of the standard method to treat the problem with free boundary conditions. The results are discussed in section 3.

## 2 Diffusion-limited coalescence with periodic boundary conditions

We consider the time evolution of DLC on a one-dimensional lattice with $`L`$ sites and periodic boundary conditions. Each site is in one of two states, either vacant or occupied by a particle $`A`$. The dynamics is governed by the following processes

$$A\mathrm{}\stackrel{D}{}\mathrm{}A(\mathrm{diffusion}),AA\stackrel{D}{}\{\begin{array}{cc}A\mathrm{}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{}A\hfill & \end{array}(\mathrm{coagulation}),$$
(1)
with the same rate $`D`$. When a particle jumps with rate $`D`$ on a nearest-neighbour site which is already occupied, the two particles coalesce immediately on this site. Thus coagulation may occur either to the left or to the right. To simplify we assume that the $`L`$ sites are occupied with probability one in the initial state at $`t=0`$. As a consequence, the probability distribution of the particles $`A`$ is translation invariant at later time $`t0`$.

We study the time evolution of the system using the empty interval method . Let the symbol $``$ ($``$) denote an occupied (vacant) site. The probability for a given interval of length $`n`$ to be empty at time $`t`$,

$$I_n(t)=\mathrm{Prob}\left(\stackrel{n}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}\right),$$
(2)
is translation invariant on the periodic system with uniform initial conditions. Its time evolution involves the probability

$$F_n(t)=\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{n}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}})=\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{n}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}})$$
(3)
to have an empty interval of length $`n`$, either preceded or followed by an occupied site. Since

$$\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{n}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}})+\mathrm{Prob}\left(\stackrel{n+1}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}\right)=\mathrm{Prob}\left(\stackrel{n}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}\right),$$
(4)
the following relation is obtained:

$$F_n(t)=I_n(t)I_{n+1}(t).$$
(5)
For $`n=1,L1`$, the empty interval probability satisfies the master equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}I_n(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=2D[F_{n1}(t)F_n(t)]=2D[I_{n1}(t)2I_n(t)+I_{n+1}(t)].$$
(6)
The gain terms correspond to processes in which a particle occupying the first site on the right (left) of an empty interval of length $`n1`$ jumps to the right (left) to diffuse or coalesce on the next site, thus leaving behind an empty interval of length $`n`$. The loss terms correspond to processes in which a nearby particle enters an empty interval of length $`n`$ either from the left or from the right. The final form of the difference equation follows from (5).

Equation (6) has to be solved with the boundary conditions

$$I_0(t)=1,I_L(t)=0.$$
(7)
The first one results from the expression of the site occupation probability, $`F_0(t)=1I_1(t)`$, the second follows from the fact that an initially non-empty system remains so at later time, since the coalescence process leaves at least one surviving particle. With a full lattice at $`t=0`$, the initial condition corresponds to

$$I_n(0)=\delta _{n,0}.$$
(8)
The master equation (6) is solved through the Ansatz

$$I_n(t)=\underset{q}{}\varphi _q(n)\mathrm{}^{\omega _qt}$$
(9)
where $`\varphi _q(n)=u_q\mathrm{sin}(qn)+v_q\mathrm{cos}(qn)`$ when $`\omega _q=8D\mathrm{sin}^2(q/2)`$ is non-vanishing. It takes the form $`\varphi _0(n)=an+b`$ for the zero mode, $`\omega _0=0`$, corresponding to the stationary state. The first boundary condition in (7),

$$I_0(t)=1=b+\underset{q0}{}v_q\mathrm{}^{\omega _qt},$$
(10)
leads to $`b=1`$ and $`v_q=0`$ whereas the second,

$$I_L(t)=0=1+aL+\underset{q0}{}u_q\mathrm{sin}(qL)\mathrm{}^{\omega _qt},$$
(11)
gives $`a=1/L`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(qL)=0`$. Thus the empty interval probability can be written as

$$I_n(t)=1\frac{n}{L}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}c_k\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{nk\pi }{L}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[8Dt\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{k\pi }{2L}\right)\right].$$
(12)
The stationary state solution $`I_n(\mathrm{})=1n/L`$ corresponds to a single particle diffusing on the $`L`$ sites so that, a site being occupied with probability $`1/L`$, an interval of $`n`$ sites is non-empty with probability with probability $`n/L`$.

According to (8), at $`t=0`$ we have:

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}c_k\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{nk\pi }{L}\right)=\frac{n}{L}1,n0.$$
(13)
Making use of the orthogonality relation for the sines,

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{L1}{}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{nk\pi }{L}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{nl\pi }{L}\right)=\frac{L}{2}\delta _{k,l},(k,l=1,L1),$$
(14)
in equation (13), we obtain

$$\frac{L}{2}c_k=\frac{S_1(k)}{L}S_2(k),$$
(15)
where

$`S_1(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}n\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{nk\pi }{L}}\right)=(1)^{k+1}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}}\right),`$
$`S_2(k)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{nk\pi }{L}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1(1)^k}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}}\right),`$ (16)
so that finally

$$I_n(t)=1\frac{n}{L}\frac{1}{L}\underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{k\pi }{2L}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{nk\pi }{L}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[8Dt\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{k\pi }{2L}\right)\right].$$
(17)
The mean number of particles per site (or site occupation probability), $`\rho (t)=1I_1(t)`$ has the well-known $`t^{1/2}`$ long-time behaviour in the infinite system . Here we are interested in the behaviour of the crossing probability in a system with aspect ratio $`r=L^z/t`$ with a dynamical exponent $`z=2`$ for DLC. The crossing probability in the time direction, $`P_t(L,t)`$, is the probability that the system of size $`L`$ is still active at time $`t`$.

The probability that the system is in the stationary state, with the last particle on a given site, is equal to the probability $`I_{L1}(t)`$ that the $`L1`$ other sites are empty. Since there are $`L`$ possible choices for the occupied site, one obtains:

$$P_t(L,t)=1LI_{L1}(t)=2\underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}(1)^{k+1}\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{k\pi }{2L}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[8Dt\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{k\pi }{2L}\right)\right].$$
(18)
In the finite-size scaling limit, this leads to the scale-invariant expression

$$\pi _t(r_{\mathrm{eff}})=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L,t\mathrm{}}{r\text{fixed}}}{lim}P_t(L,t)=2\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{k+1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2k^2\pi ^2}{r_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)+\mathrm{O}(L^2),$$
(19)
where the crossing probability $`\pi _t`$ shown in figure 1 is a universal function of the effective aspect ratio $`r_{\mathrm{eff}}=r/D=L^2/Dt`$.

## 3 Diffusion-limited coalescence with free boundary conditons

### 3.1 Master equations for the empty interval probabilities

With free boundary conditions a modified version of the empty interval method is needed to calculate the crossing probability. We define

$$J_{m,n}(t)=\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{m}{}\stackrel{n+1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{L}{})$$
(20)
as the probability to have two disconnected empty intervals with sites $`1`$ to $`m`$ and $`n+1`$ to $`L`$ empty. Its time evolution depends on the probabilities

$`G_{m,n}(t)`$ $`=\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{m+1}{}\stackrel{n+1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{L}{}),`$
$`H_{m,n}(t)`$ $`=\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{m}{}\stackrel{n}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{L}{}).`$ (21)
The different probabilities satisfy the relations

$`\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{m}{}`$ $`\stackrel{n+1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{L}{})=`$ (22)
$`=\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{m+1}{}\stackrel{n+1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{L}{})+\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{m+1}{}\stackrel{n+1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{L}{})`$
$`=\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{m}{}\stackrel{n}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{L}{})+\mathrm{Prob}(\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{m}{}\stackrel{n}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{L}{})`$
so that we have

$`G_{m,n}(t)`$ $`=J_{m,n}(t)J_{m+1,n}(t),`$
$`H_{m,n}(t)`$ $`=J_{m,n}(t)J_{m,n1}(t).`$ (23)
As before we assume that the $`L`$ sites are occupied in the initial state. Thus the system contains at least one particle at later time. The condition of non-emptiness can be written as

$$J_{m,m}(t)=0,m=0,L.$$
(24)
One may notice that according to the definitions given in (21), $`G_{m,m+1}(t)=H_{m,m+1}(t)=J_{m,m+1}(t)`$, in agreement with equations (23) and (24).

When $`0<m<n<L`$, the empty interval is indeed built of two disconnected parts and its probability satisfies the master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}J_{m,n}(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=D[G_{m1,n}(t)+H_{m,n+1}(t)G_{m,n}(t)H_{m,n}(t)]`$ (25)
$`=D[J_{m1,n}(t)2J_{m,n}(t)+J_{m+1,n}(t)+J_{m,n1}(t)2J_{m,n}(t)+J_{m,n+1}(t)]`$
where the gain terms correspond either to a particle at $`m`$ jumping to the right or a particle at $`n+1`$ jumping to the left and the loss terms either to a particle at $`m+1`$ jumping to the left or a particle at $`n`$ jumping to the right. When $`m=0`$, there is a single empty interval from site $`n+1`$ to site $`L`$ and the master equation reads

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}J_{0,n}(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=D[H_{0,n+1}(t)H_{0,n}(t)]=D[J_{0,n1}(t)2J_{0,n}(t)+J_{0,n+1}(t)].$$
(26)
In the same way, when $`n=L`$, we are left with a single empty interval from site $`1`$ to site $`m`$ and the corresponding probability evolves according to

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}J_{m,L}(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=D[G_{m1,L}(t)G_{m,L}(t)]=D[J_{m1,L}(t)2J_{m,L}(t)+J_{m+1,L}(t)].$$
(27)
Equations (26) and (27) contain the same gain and loss terms as for the corresponding empty intervals in equation (25). They remain valid for $`n=L1`$ and $`m=1`$, respectively, provided $`J_{m,n}(t)`$ satisfies the boundary condition

$$J_{0,L}(t)=1.$$
(28)
### 3.2 Solution of the eigenvalue problem

Looking for the solutions under the form

$$J_{m,n}(t)=\underset{\omega }{}\varphi _\omega (m,n)\mathrm{}^{\omega t},$$
(29)
the master equations (2527) lead to an eigenvalue problem which has been discussed in details in reference .

Since $`0m<nL`$, there is a total of $`L(L+1)/2`$ modes. According to (24), $`\varphi _\omega (m,n)`$ is an antisymmetric combination of eigenfunctions of the second difference operators involved in (2527). The problem is invariant under space reflection so that $`\varphi _\omega (m,n)`$ can be chosen as an eigenfunction of the space reflection operator

$$P:(m,n)(Ln,Lm).$$
(30)
Three types of solutions are obtained :

* The stationary solution

$$J_{m,n}(\mathrm{})=\varphi _0(m,n)=\frac{nm}{L}$$
(31)
which is an eigenstate of $`P`$ with eigenvalue $`+1`$. Its expression follows from the fact that the zero mode eigenfunction is linear in $`m`$ and $`n`$ and has to satisfy the boundary conditions (24) and (28). The first condition leads to the form $`\varphi _0(m,n)=c(nm)`$ and the second gives $`c=1/L`$. It has also a simple physical interpretation: since a single particle remains in the stationary state, a site is occupied with probability $`1/L`$. Thus the probability to have $`Ln+m`$ empty sites, from $`1`$ to $`m`$ and from $`n+1`$ to $`L`$, is given by $`1(Ln+m)/L`$.

One may notice that with $`J_{0,L}(\mathrm{})=1`$, the time-dependent part of $`J_{m,n}(t)`$ has to satisfy the boundary condition

$$J_{0,L}(t)J_{0,L}(\mathrm{})=0$$
(32)
according to (28).
* The $`2(L1)`$ one-fermion excitations

$`\varphi _k^+(m,n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}}\left[\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{mk\pi }{L}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{nk\pi }{L}}\right)\right],`$
$`\varphi _k^{}(m,n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{L}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{mk\pi }{L}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{L}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{nk\pi }{L}}\right)\right],`$ (33)
with $`k=1,L1`$. These functions are antisymmetric eigenstates of $`P`$ such that $`P\varphi _k^\pm =\pm (1)^k\varphi _k^\pm `$. They vanish when $`m=0`$ and $`n=L`$ in agreement with (32). The excitations energies are given by

$$\omega _k=4D\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{k\pi }{2L}\right).$$
(34)
Actually the odd eigenstate of $`P`$, $`\varphi _k^{}(m,n)`$, is the combination of a one-fermion excitation with a zero mode.
* The $`(L1)(L2)/2`$ two-fermion excitations

$$\varphi _{kl}(m,n)=\frac{2}{L}\left[\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{mk\pi }{L}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{nl\pi }{L}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{ml\pi }{L}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{nk\pi }{L}\right)\right],$$
(35)
with $`1k<lL1`$. These antisymmetric two-particle states are eigenstates of $`P`$ with eigenvalues $`(1)^{k+l+1}`$ and they satisfy the boundary condition (32). The corresponding eigenvalues read

$$\omega _{kl}=\omega _k+\omega _l=4D\left[\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{k\pi }{2L}\right)+\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{l\pi }{2L}\right)\right].$$
(36)

The solution satisfying the boundary conditions can be written as the expansion

$$J_{m,n}(t)=\frac{nm}{L}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}\left[\underset{\alpha =\pm }{}a_k^\alpha \varphi _k^\alpha (m,n)\right]\mathrm{}^{\omega _kt}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{L2}{}}\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{L1}{}}b_{kl}\varphi _{kl}(m,n)\mathrm{}^{\omega _{kl}t}.$$
(37)
All the sites are occupied with probability one in the initial state, so that

$$J_{m,n}(0)=\delta _{m,0}\delta _{n,L}.$$
(38)
Thus, for $`0<m<n<L`$, we have:

$$\varphi _0(m,n)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}\underset{\alpha =\pm }{}a_k^\alpha \varphi _k^\alpha (m,n)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{L2}{}}\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{L1}{}}b_{kl}\varphi _{kl}(m,n).$$
(39)
The coefficients of the eigenvalue expansion can be determined by making use of the orthogonality relations between the different eigenfunctions. Following reference , let us define surface and bulk scalar products for arbitrary functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ as

$`f|g_\mathrm{s}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}f(m,L)g(m,L)+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}f(0,n)g(0,n),`$
$`f|g_\mathrm{b}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{L1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}f(m,n)g(m,n).`$ (40)
It turns out that the one-fermion eigenfunctions in (33) are orthogonal for the surface scalar product whereas the two-fermion eigenfunctions in (35) are orthogonal for the bulk one:

$`\varphi _k^\alpha |\varphi _k^{}^\beta _\mathrm{s}`$ $`=\delta _{kk^{}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }(k,k^{}=1,L1;\alpha ,\beta =\pm ),`$
$`\varphi _{kl}|\varphi _{k^{}l^{}}_\mathrm{b}`$ $`=\delta _{kk^{}}\delta _{ll^{}}(0<k<l<L;0<k^{}<l^{}<L).`$ (41)
Thus, taking appropriate scalar products in (39), one obtains:

$`a_k^+`$ $`=\varphi _k^+|\varphi _0_\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \frac{2S_1(k)}{L^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_2(k)}{L^{1/2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^k}{2\sqrt{L}}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}}\right),`$
$`a_k^{}`$ $`=\varphi _k^{}|\varphi _0_\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \frac{S_2(k)}{\sqrt{L}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1(1)^k}{2\sqrt{L}}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}}\right),`$
$`b_{kl}`$ $`=\varphi _{kl}|\varphi _0_\mathrm{b}{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\pm }{}}a_k^{}^\alpha \varphi _{kl}|\varphi _k^{}^\alpha _\mathrm{b}=\varphi _{kl}|\varphi _0_\mathrm{b}`$ (42)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k(1)^l}{2L}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}}\right)\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\pi }{2L}}\right).`$
The relation

$$\underset{k^{}=1}{\overset{L1}{}}\varphi _k^{}^\pm (m,n)\varphi _k^{}^\pm |\varphi _0_\mathrm{s}=\varphi _0(m,n)$$
(43)
has been used in the calculation of $`b_{kl}`$. The final form of $`J_{m,n}(t)`$ satisfying the initial and boundary conditions follows from (37) and (42).

### 3.3 Crossing probability

Since $`J_{n1,n}(t)`$ gives the probability that all the sites are empty, except site $`n`$ which is occupied by the last particle, the probability that the system is still active at time $`t`$ is given by:

$`P_t(L,t)`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}}J_{n1,n}(t)`$ (44)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\pm }{}}a_k^\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\varphi _k^\alpha (n1,n)]\mathrm{}^{\omega _kt}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{L2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=k+1}{\overset{L1}{}}}b_{kl}[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\varphi _{kl}(n1,n)]\mathrm{}^{\omega _{kl}t}.`$
Straightforward but lengthy calculations lead to the following results for the different sums over $`n`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\varphi _k^+(n1,n)`$ $`=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\varphi _k^{}(n1,n)`$ $`=2{\displaystyle \frac{1(1)^k}{L^{3/2}}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}}\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\varphi _{kl}(n1,n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1(1)^{k+l}}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{k\pi }{L}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{l\pi }{L}\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{(kl)\pi }{2L}\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{(k+l)\pi }{2L}\right]}}.`$ (45)
Thus we obtain

$`P_t(L,t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k=1}{k\text{odd}}}{\overset{L1}{}}}\mathrm{cot}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}}\right)\mathrm{cot}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{l\pi }{2L}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[4Dt\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}}\right)\right]`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{L2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l=k+1}{k+l\text{odd}}}{\overset{L1}{}}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{k\pi }{2L}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{l\pi }{2L}\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{(kl)\pi }{2L}\right]\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{(k+l)\pi }{2L}\right]}}\mathrm{exp}\{4Dt[\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{k\pi }{2L}})+\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{l\pi }{2L}})]\}.`$
In the finite-size scaling limit, the crossing probability displays the scale-invariant dependence on the effective aspect ratio $`r_{\mathrm{eff}}=L^2/Dt`$ and reads

$`\pi _t(r_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ $`=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L,t\mathrm{}}{r\text{fixed}}}{lim}P_t(L,t)`$ (47)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{16}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k=1}{k\text{odd}}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2\pi ^2}{r_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{32}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l=k+1}{k+l\text{odd}}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{k^2l^2}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2+l^2)\pi ^2}{r_{\mathrm{eff}}}}]+\mathrm{O}(L^2).`$
The rapid convergence to the scaling limit is shown in figure 2.

## 4 Discussion

We have studied DLC at the critical point where the particle density and other quantities display power laws in the thermodynamic limit. The problem can be made off-critical by introducing a birth process with rate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, corresponding to the back-reaction of the coagulation process in (1). The system being strongly anisotropic, under a change of the length scale by a factor $`b`$, the length transforms as $`L^{}=L/b`$ whereas the time transformation, $`t^{}=t/b^z`$, involves the anisotropy or dynamical exponent $`z`$ . For a scale-invariant crossing probability one obtains

$$P_t(L,t,\mathrm{\Delta })=P_t(\frac{L}{b},\frac{t}{b^z},b^{1/\nu }\mathrm{\Delta }),$$
(48)
where $`\nu `$ is the exponent of the correlation length, $`\xi =\widehat{\xi }\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu `$, which diverges at the critical point, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. Taking $`b=\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu `$ leads to

$$P_t(L,t,\mathrm{\Delta })=P_t(\frac{L}{\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu },\frac{t}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{z\nu }},1)=f(\frac{L}{\xi },\frac{t}{\tau }),$$
(49)
where we introduced the relaxation time, $`\tau =\widehat{\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }^{z\nu }`$. Both the correlation length and the relaxation time contain a non-universal amplitude, $`\widehat{\xi }`$ and $`\widehat{\tau }`$, respectively. In equation (49), $`f(x,y)`$ is a universal scaling function of its dimensionless variables, $`x=L/\xi `$ and $`y=t/\tau `$. The finite-size scaling limit at criticality amounts to take $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`b=L`$ in (48), which gives

$$P_t(L,t,0)=P_t(1,\frac{t}{L^z},0)=\pi _t\left(c\frac{L^z}{t}\right).$$
(50)
Thus the crossing probability $`\pi _t`$ is a scale-invariant universal function of the effective aspect ratio $`cr`$. The non-universal amplitude $`c`$ depends on the choice of the length and time units. It can be expressed as a function of the non-universal correlation length and relaxation time amplitudes  by comparing (50) to (49). Since $`r`$ appears through the dimensionless ratio $`x^z/y`$, one obtains

$$cr=\frac{(L/\xi )^z}{t/\tau }=\frac{\widehat{\tau }}{\widehat{\xi }^z}r$$
(51)
and $`c=\widehat{\tau }/\widehat{\xi }^z`$ which is equal to $`D^1`$ in our case.

We have shown on the example of DLC that the crossing probability $`\pi _t`$ is a scale-invariant function of the effective aspect ratio for different types of boundary conditions. This function is expected it to be universal as in the case of directed percolation . An indication of the universality of $`\pi _t`$ can be found in  where a birth process of the form $`A\mathrm{}A\stackrel{2\lambda D}{}AAA`$ was added to (1). The problem stays in the same universality class and remains exactly solvable through the empty interval method for all values of $`\lambda `$. It turns out that $`I_n(t)`$ is only modified by terms of higher order in $`1/L`$ which disappear in the finite-size scaling limit. One could also check the universality of $`\pi _t`$ on the diffusion-annihilation problem, which has been shown to belong to the same universality class as DLC, through a similarity transformation in the quantum Hamiltonian formulation of the master equation \[38–40\]. Another possibility would be to verify the independence on the initial conditions, provided a finite fraction of the sites are occupied in the initial state.

Finally, let us mention that a recent generalization of local scale invariance for strongly anisotropic systems  leaves the hope for directly obtaining the crossing probability formulas in a given universality class, like in isotropic systems.

The author wishes to thank Malte Henkel for valuable discussions. The Laboratoire de Physique des Matériaux is Unité Mixte de Recherche CNRS No 7556.

## References