text:
# Standard-like models from D-branes

## 1 Introduction

The D-brane world offers an attractive, bottom-up route to getting standard-like models from Type II string theory. Open strings that begin and end on a stack $`a`$ of $`N_a`$ D-branes generate the gauge bosons of the group $`U(N_a)`$ living in the world volume of the D-branes. So the standard approach is to start with one stack $`a=1`$ of three D-branes, another $`a=2`$ of two D-branes, and $`n`$ other stacks each having just one D-brane, thereby generating the gauge group $`U(3)\times U(2)\times U(1)^n`$. Fermions in bi-fundamental representations of the corresponding gauge groups can arise at the intersections of such stacks, but to get $`D=4`$ chiral fermions the intersecting branes should sit at a singular point in the space transverse to the branes, an orbifold fixed point, for example. In general, such configurations yield a non-supersymmetric spectrum, so to avoid the hierarchy problem the string scale associated with such models must be no more than a few TeV. Gravitational interactions occur in the bulk ten-dimensional space, and to ensure that the Planck energy has its observed large value, it is necessary that there are large dimensions transverse to the branes. The D-branes with which we are concerned wrap the 3-space we inhabit and closed 1-, 2- or 3-cycles of a toroidally compactified $`T^2,T^2\times T^2`$ or $`T^2\times T^2\times T^2`$ space. Thus getting the correct Planck scale effectively means that only D4- and D5-brane models are viable, since for D6-branes there is no dimension transverse to all of the intersecting branes.

During the past year orientifold models with intersecting D6- and D5-branes have been constructed that yield precisely the fermionic spectrum of the standard model (plus three generations of right-chiral neutrinos). (Other recent work on intersecting brane models, both supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric, and their phenomenological implications may be found in.) The spectrum includes $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet scalar tachyons that may be regarded as the Higgs doublets that break the electroweak symmetry group, but also, unavoidably, colour-triplet and charged singlet tachyons either of which is potentially fatal for the phenomenology. In a previous paper we studied D4-brane models, transverse to a $`Z_3`$ orbifold, having three generations of chiral matter that were constrained to have no colour triplet or charged singlet scalar tachyons, and which contained the Yukawa couplings to the Higgs doublets needed to give masses to all quarks and leptons; these models, unavoidably, also possessed extra, vector-like leptonic matter. The wrapping numbers of the various stacks are constrained by the requirement of Ramond-Ramond tadpole cancellation and also by the requirement that the mixed $`U(1)_Y\times SU(2)_L^2`$ and $`U(1)_Y\times SU(3)_c^2`$ anomalies cancel. In string theory, these latter constraints derive from a generalised Green-Schwarz mechanism that ensures that the gauge bosons associated with all anomalous $`U(1)`$s acquire string-scale masses. In fact the cancellation of anomalies is necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure the masslessness of the gauge boson associated with $`U(1)_Y`$. When the stronger constraints derived from this Green-Schwarz mechanism are applied we find that in the models constructed in the weak hypercharge $`U(1)_Y`$ survives only as a global, not a local, symmetry111A similar observation applies also to the models constructed in and Kataoka and Shimojo.. A recent paper was the first to construct semi-realistic intersecting D4-brane orbifold models without this defect. In this talk I outline the features of our new D4-brane models and some results from our attempts to construct analogous models using D5-branes.

## 2 D4-brane models

The stacks of D4-branes wrap closed 1-cycles of $`T^2`$ and are all situated at a fixed point of the transverse $`T^2\times T^2/Z_3`$ orbifold. A stack $`a`$ is specified by two wrapping numbers $`(n_a,m_a)`$ that specify the number of times $`a`$ wraps the basis 1-cycles of $`T^2`$. The generator $`\theta `$ of the $`Z_3`$ point group is embedded in the stack of $`N_a`$ branes as $`\gamma _{\theta ,a}=\alpha ^{p_a}I_{N_a}`$, where $`\alpha =e^{2\pi i/3},p_a=0,1,2`$. The first two stacks $`a=1,2`$ defined above, that generate a $`U(3)\times U(2)`$ gauge group, are common to all models; their Chan-Paton factors $`\alpha ^{p_a}`$ have $`p_1p_2`$. Besides these we have, in general, three sets $`I,J,K`$ of $`U(1)`$ stacks characterised by their Chan-Paton factors: $`p_i=p_2iI,p_1p_jp_2jJ`$, and $`p_k=p_1kK`$; the sets $`I,J,K`$ are each divided into two subsets $`I_1I_2=I`$ etc., defined so that the weak hypercharge $`Y`$ is the linear combination of the $`U(1)`$ charges $`Q_a`$

$$Y=\frac{1}{3}Q_1+\frac{1}{2}Q_2+\underset{i_1I_1}{}Q_{i_1}+\underset{j_1J_1}{}Q_{j_1}+\underset{k_1K_1}{}Q_{k_1}$$
(1)
In general, tachyonic scalars arise at intersections between stacks $`a`$ and $`b`$ which have the same Chan-Paton factor $`p_a=p_b`$; the number $`I_{ab}=n_am_bm_an_b`$ of intersections gives the number of such particles. Thus, Higgs doublets, which are needed to give mass to the fermionic matter, arise at $`(2i_1)`$ and $`(2i_2)`$ intersections222 In our models, as in all others, the Higgs content is non-minimal; this seems to be a generic feature of models deriving from string theory.. In we obtained general solutions for the wrapping numbers of three-generation models that satisfy the constraints deriving from twisted tadpole cancellation and the requirement that the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge boson associated with weak hypercharge does not get a Green-Schwarz mass. We also demand that there are tree-level Yukawa couplings needed to give masses to all matter. As before, the three fermion generations include right-chiral neutrinos in all models. At least six stacks are required, and there is a unique, one-parameter family of six-stack models having stacks $`1,2,i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2`$ that include the (tachyonic) Higgs doublets needed to generate mass terms for all matter. They have extra vector-like leptonic, but not quark, matter. We find

$$12(L+\overline{L})+6(e_L^c+\overline{e}_L^c)+3(\nu _L^c+\overline{\nu }_L^c)$$
(2)
Besides 9 Higgs doublets, there are also 3 charged-singlet tachyons, but no colour-triplet tachyons. The gauge coupling strengths are inversely proportional to the length of the 1-cycle wrapped by the corresponding stack, so the wrapping numbers determine gauge coupling constant ratios, at the string scale. The ratios predicted by the above six-stack models are inconsistent with those measured at the electroweak scale, but our previous experience suggests that they might be consistent with only a modest amount of renormalisation group running, so they are not necessarily inconsistent with a string scale of a few TeV that is required for non-superymmetric models such as these. It is conceivable too that radiative corrections could render the tree-level, charged-singlet tachyons non-tachyonic. However, there is a further unwelcome feature of these models that seems unavoidable. It turns out that in the models under discussion there is one surviving additional $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry, coupled to the observable matter, that is not spontaneously broken at the electroweak transition. We can do better if we abandon the requirement of mass terms for all matter at renormalisable level. Then there is a one-parameter family of six-stack models having stacks $`1,2,i_1,j_1,j_2,k_2`$ with no unwanted (coupled) surviving $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry, but which has additional vector-like leptonic and quark matter. We find

$$3(d_L^c+\overline{d}_L^c)+6(L+\overline{L})+6(e_L^c+\overline{e}_L^c)+3(\nu _L^c+\overline{\nu }_L^c)$$
(3)
In addition there are 3 Higgs doublets, 3 charged-singet tachyonic scalars and 3 colour-triplet scalar tachyons.

We have also found two-parameter, eight-stack models having precisely one stack in each of the sets $`I_1,I_2,J_1,J_2,K_1,K_2`$, that have mass terms at renormalisable level for all matter and that are free of charged-singlet tachyons. As before, there is extra vector-like leptonic, but not quark, matter. The precise vector-like matter content depends upon one of the parameters. There are several values of this parameter that give gauge coupling constant ratios fairly close to those measured, and one value that comes very close. In this case, therefore, the string scale cannot be far from the electroweak scale. As before, baryon number is anomalous, and survives as a global symmetry, so the proton is stable despite the low string scale. Unfortunately, these models too are afflicted with several unwanted $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetries that survive electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking.

## 3 D5-brane models

It is natural to wonder whether similar models, constructed using D5-branes that wrap $`T^2\times T^2`$ and are situated at a fixed point of $`T^2/Z_3`$, can improve upon the results of D4-brane models. In this case each stack $`a`$ is characterised by a total of four wrapping numbers $`(n_a,m_a)(\stackrel{~}{n}_a,\stackrel{~}{m}_a)`$, two for each wrapped torus. The intersection number is now given by $`I_{ab}=(n_am_bm_an_b)(\stackrel{~}{n}_a\stackrel{~}{m}_b\stackrel{~}{m}_a\stackrel{~}{n}_b)`$. Important differences from the D4-brane case arise in connection with the tachyonic scalar states. As before, they arise at intersections of stacks having the same Chan-Paton factor; in fact, only scalar tachyons arise at such intersections in this case. The difference of the angles $`\theta _{ab}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{ab}`$ between the intersecting 1-cycles on the two wrapped tori determine the squared mass of the tachyon at such an intersection, and when they are equal the tachyon is massless. Thus in D5-brane models potentially unwelcome (e.g. charged-singlet and/or colour-triplet) tachyons might be removable by this mechanism. A further difference is that tachyons may also arise when the intersecting D5-branes have parallel 1-cycles in one, but not both, of the two wrapped tori, i.e. $`\theta _{ab}=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{ab}=0`$. The intersection number of the non-parallel 1-cycles determines the number of such states that arise. The distance between the parallel 1-cycles enters the mass formula, so the masses of these states are continuously adjustable. When it is zero (or small enough) the states are tachyonic, but when the cycles are far enough apart the states are massive and can be removed from the low-energy spectrum. There are eight constraints on the wrapping numbers deriving from twisted tadpole cancellation and requiring that the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge boson associated with weak hypercharge does not get a Green-Schwarz mass. The constraints are quadratic in the wrapping numbers, and the only six-stack models that can satisfy them have stacks $`1,2,i_1,i_2,k_1,k_2`$. Unfortunately, the solution gives $`I_{2i_1}=0=I_{2i_2}`$ and, since the 1-cycles in both tori are parallel, these models have no Higgs doublets (or charged-singlet or colour-triplet tachyons). They are therefore not standard-like and we are forced to consider eight-stack models from the outset.

We may obtain non-zero intersection numbers for the Higgs doublets by taking the sets $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ to contain more than one stack. In particular, if we take each to have two stacks $`i_1^{(1,2)}`$ and $`i_2^{(1,2)}`$ respectively, then there are consistent eight-stack, three-generation models with just $`j_1`$ (or $`k_1`$) and $`j_2`$ (or $`k_2`$) stacks in addition. A priori, the Green-Schwarz mechanism gives string-scale masses to eight linear combinations of the $`U(1)`$ gauge fields. However, in the models we are considering three of these are lost, and the three surviving massless $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetries include (an unwanted) one which is coupled to observable matter, but which remains unbroken after electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking. We have also investigated models in which the Higgs doublets arise from intersections on just one of the wrapped tori, the 1-cycles on the other being parallel. We find eight-stack, three-generation models satisfying the constraints with just one stack in each of the sets $`I_1,I_2,J_1,J_2,K_1,K_2`$, and some of these are free of unwanted coupled U(1) gauge symmetries. The models have extra vector-like leptonic, but not quark, matter, and charged-singlet scalar tachyons. The two parameters may be chosen so that the tree-level gauge coupling constant ratios are equal to those measured, consistent with a string scale very close to the electroweak scale. These models will be analysed elsewhere.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to acknowledge an enjoyable collaboration with George Kraniotis and Alex Love with whom all of this work was done. This account is a modified version of the talk I gave in Oxford in July, 2002. The research is supported in part by PPARC and by the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research (GIF).


format: text

text:
# Parameterizations of Invariant Meson Production Cross Sections

## I Introduction

This work was originally motivated by the need of parameterized meson production cross sections of $`pphX`$ reactions ($`p`$ for primary proton, $`h`$ for identified hadron production and $`X`$ for unidentified hadron production) for a NASA nuclear transport code called HZETRN wilson95 . The parameterization scheme presented here parameterizes theory. Experimental data are used mostly as checks. The parameterizations are based on two main calculations—a non-perturbative QCD string fragmentation Lund model calculation in the soft $`p_T`$ region $`(p_T<1\mathrm{GeV})`$ and a perturbative QCD Feynman-Field parton model calculation in the hard $`p_T`$ region $`(p_T1\mathrm{GeV})`$. The threshold of $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$ separating the soft and hard $`p_T`$ regions is chosen to be the proton mass $`m_p=938\mathrm{MeV}`$. Descriptions of the Lund and Feynman-Field models can be found in original sources andersson98 ; field  and a review paper appen . Both the Lund model and the Feynman-Field model are stochastic models and are not explicitly quantized. In this sense, both are phenomenological models. The goal of this work is to calculate $`Ed^3\sigma /dp^3`$ with sufficient accuracy using reasonable theoretical models so that reliable parameterizations of cross section formulas can be determined. The Feynman-Field model is implemented numerically by the Monte Carlo integration package VEGAS nr97 ; lepage80 . The invariant cross sections are parameterized for pions in the soft $`p_T`$ region and for pions and kaons in the hard $`p_T`$ regions.

## II Pion Production in the Soft $`p_T`$ Region

String fragmentation models such as the Lund Model fit experimental data well. String theory reproduces the linear potential predicted by non-perturbative QCD as in lattice gauge field theory. These observations hint at the possibility that QCD string may be conducive to solving non-perturbative QCD. Although the Lund model is a $`(1+1)`$ model, it reproduces the essential dynamics of the system as long as information on angular momentum is not needed. Typically the Lund model is implemented numerically using Monte Carlo simulation in JETSET and PYTHIA sjostrand01 . This section shows how to calculate meson production cross section formulas analytically in the non-perturbative QCD region using the Lund model. Special attention is given to the invariant production cross sections of pions from proton-proton scattering in the soft $`p_T`$ region $`(p_T<1\mathrm{GeV})`$ where non-perturbative effects dominate. The results of the string model are compared against inclusive pion production cross section data of proton-proton collision.

This section uses the same notations of Reference andersson98 . The basic result of the Lund Model is the “area law” which is summarized as andersson98

$$dP=ds\frac{dz}{z}(1z)^a\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}Ndp_{0j}^2\delta ^+(p_{0j}^2m^2)\delta \left(p_{rest}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}p_{0j}\right)e^{bA}.$$
(1)
$`P`$ is the probability of the string fragmentation process, $`b`$ and $`N`$ are constants and $`s`$ is the total energy square of $`n`$ produced mesons. Lightcone coordinates are used in the Lund model, $`x_\pm =t\pm x`$ and $`p_\pm =E\pm p`$. The momentum $`p_{rest}=(W_{},W_+)`$ is that of the parent virtual quark pair and $`p_{0j}`$ is that of the $`j`$-th rank meson. Momentum transfer is $`t=q^2=W_{}W_+`$ where $`t`$ is a Mandelstam variable. The mass of the system is $`m`$. The area $`A=\mathrm{\Gamma }+A_{rest}`$ of the polygon in Fig. 1 has a geometric interpretation as the residual energy of the virtual quark pair following the fragmentation process. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\kappa ^2x_+x_{}`$, $`A`$ and $`A_{rest}`$ are Lorentz invariant kinematic variables. The symbol $`z=_jz_{oj}`$ denotes the sum of the fractions $`z_{0j}`$ of lightcone energies of the produced mesons along the $`x_+`$ direction. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defines the surface of constant proper time along which the string is broken. The area law captured in Eq. (1) is usually incorporated into Monte Carlo simulation programs such as JETSET and PYTHIA sjostrand01 . Monte Carlo subroutines are too slow for nuclear transport codes. Computational constraints motivate the search for parameterized production cross section formulas.

By taking $`dP=d\sigma /\sigma _0`$, where $`\sigma _0`$ is the total cross section, and using the identities found in References andersson98 ; appen , Eq. (1) can be rewiritten as

$$d\sigma =\sigma _0dsdz(1z)^ae^{b\mathrm{\Gamma }}\delta \left(z\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{oj}\right)\delta \left(s\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{m^2z}{z_{oj}}\right)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}N\frac{dz_{oj}}{z_{oj}}e^{bA_{rest}},$$
(2)
where $`z_{oj}`$ is the fraction of the parent quark momentum $`p_+`$ that goes into the momentum $`p_{oj+}`$ of $`j`$-th rank meson. For $`n>1`$, the area $`A_{rest}`$ can be divided into $`n`$ rectangles so that

$$A_{rest}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}A_{oj}.$$
(3)
Fig. 1 illustrates the first of such $`n`$ rectangles and the geometric properties of the measures of its sides. By utilizing the relation

$$p_{oj+}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{p_{oj}},$$
(4)
it can be shown that

$$A_{oj}=z_{oj}\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(5)
When $`n=1`$, there are 2 vertices and $`A_{rest}=z_{o1}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In this case, Eq. (2) can be integrated over $`s`$ and $`z`$ to give

$$d\sigma =\sigma _0N(1z)^ae^{b(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{dz}{z}.$$
(6)
It is easy to show that the Feynman variable $`x=p_z/(p_z)_{max}`$ is equal to $`z`$ when there is only 1 produced meson so that $`dx=dz`$. The differential cross section is found to be

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dx}=\sigma _0N\frac{(1z)^a}{z}e^{b(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(7)
The invariant quantity

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=m_he^y\left(W_\pm m_he^{\pm y}\right),$$
(8)
where $`m_h`$ is the mass the produced meson, can be understood intuitively through geometrical considerations by focusing on the rectangle in the spacetime diagram next to the first rank vertex $`V_1`$ in Fig. 1. Generally, the lightcone energies of the parent quarks can be taken to be the momentum transfer $`W_{}=W_+=q`$. The feynman variable can be defined as

$$x\frac{p_z}{(p_z)_{max}}=\frac{2m_h\mathrm{sinh}y}{q}.$$
(9)
With Eqs. (8) and (9), Eq. (7) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\sigma _0N{\displaystyle \frac{(1z)^a}{z}}e^{b(1+z)m_he^y(qm_he^y)}\right]e^{b(1+z)q(qm_he^y)x}`$ (10)
$``$ $`\left[\sigma _0N{\displaystyle \frac{(1z)^a}{z}}e^{b(1+z)m_h(qm_h)}\right]e^{b(1+z)q(qm_h)x}`$ (11)
$``$ $`Ce^{Dx}.`$ (12)
Eq. (11) is obtained by setting $`y=0`$. In general, experimental data average over rapidity that typically centers around zero such that $`y=0`$ is a reasonable simplification. In addition, average values of internal variables $`z`$ and $`q`$ are used in Eq. (11) so that $`C`$ and $`D`$ can be treated as constants when comparing with experimental data. The form of Eq. (12) is consistent with experimental data as shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

When $`n=2`$, Eq. (2) is transformed as follow by integrating over $`z_{o1}`$ and $`z_{o2}`$ and letting $`\xi z_{o1}(zz_{o1})`$:

$`d\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _0N(1z)^adz\delta (zz_{o1}z_{o2})ds\delta \left(s{\displaystyle \frac{m^2z}{z_{o1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2z}{z_{o2}}}\right)`$ (13)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{dz_{o1}}{z_{o1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_{o2}}{z_{o2}}}e^{b\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{b(z_{01}+z_{o2})\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$
$`=`$ $`\sigma _0N(1z)^adzds\delta \left(s{\displaystyle \frac{m^2z}{z_{o1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2z}{zz_{o1}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dz_{o1}}{z_{o1}(zz_{o1})}}e^{b(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$
$`=`$ $`\sigma _0N(1z)^adzds\delta \left(s{\displaystyle \frac{m^2z}{\xi }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\xi }{\xi \sqrt{z^24\xi }}}e^{b(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$
$`=`$ $`\sigma _0N(1z)^adzds{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s\sqrt{z^2\frac{4m^2}{s}}}}e^{b(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }}.`$
One of the typical assumptions of the form of momentum transfer in QCD is $`t=q^2=4p_T^2`$. With the relations $`st(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }=4p_T^2(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we obtain

$$ds=4dp_T^2,$$
(14)
by keeping $`z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ constant. On the lightcone, $`p_z=E`$ so that

$$dz=\frac{dE}{E}=\frac{dp_z}{E}.$$
(15)
Eqs. (14) and (15) together give the relation

$$dzds=4\frac{dp_T^2dp_z}{E}=4\frac{dp^3}{E}.$$
(16)
By combining Eqs. (13) and (16), the invariant production cross section can finally be shown to be

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}=\frac{4N(1z)^a\sigma _0}{\sqrt{s^2z^24sm^2}}e^{b(1+z)\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(17)
If $`W_+`$ in Eq. (8) is taken to be $`q=2p_T`$, Eq. (17) can be expressed in terms of $`p_T`$ as

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4N(1z)^a\sigma _0}{\sqrt{s^2z^24sm^2}}}e^{b(1+z)m_h^2}\right]e^{2b(1+z)m_he^yp_T}`$ (18)
$``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4N(1z)^a\sigma _0}{\sqrt{s^2z^24sm^2}}}e^{b(1+z)m_h^2}\right]e^{2b(1+z)m_hp_T}`$ (19)
$``$ $`Ae^{Bp_T}.`$ (20)
Again $`y=0`$ is assumed in Eq. (19). Average values of $`s`$ and $`z`$ are used when comparing with experimental data so that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are treated as constants. It must be emphasized that $`s`$ is not the beam energy square but the total energy square of the produced mesons in the string fragmentation process. The parameters for pion cross section are listed in Table 1. $`B`$ is extracted from data as shown in Figs. 46. $`A`$ is chosen to match the pion cross sections at the boundary of $`p_T=1\mathrm{GeV}`$ between the soft and hard $`p_T`$ regions so that

$$A=3\times 10^{28}e^B$$
(21)
in unit of $`\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ for pions. These figures suggest that the cross sections are approximately constant in $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`\theta _{cm}`$ in the range of energy being parameterized $`(22\mathrm{GeV}<\sqrt{s}<63\mathrm{GeV})`$. Therefore the present parameterization of pion production cross sections for $`p_T<1\mathrm{GeV}`$ is expected to be valid for the energy range not narrower than $`20\mathrm{GeV}<\sqrt{s}<70\mathrm{GeV}`$. Kaons are not analyzed nor parameterized because of insuffucient data.

## III Pion and Kaon production in the hard $`p_T`$ region

The invariant cross sections of pions and kaons from proton-proton scattering in the hard $`p_T`$ region $`(p_T1\mathrm{GeV})`$ are treated in this section by using perturbative QCD. The theoretical foundation of the present calculation is based on the Feynman-Field parton model. A comprehensive review of the model is given in References field ; appen . The cross sections are parameterized at the end.

The Feynman-Field invariant production cross section formula incorporates the parton distribution functions, $`f_{A/a}(x_a,Q^2)`$, obtained from DIS experiments and the fragmentation functions, $`D_q^h(z,Q^2)`$, derived from a combination of stochastic arguments and parameterizations of data. The cross section formula is given as field

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{a,b}{}_{x_a^{min}}^1𝑑x_a_{x_b^{min}}^1𝑑x_bf_{A/a}(x_a,Q^2)f_{B/b}(x_b,Q^2)D_c^h(z_c,Q^2)\frac{1}{z_c}\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}},$$
(22)
with

$`x_a^{min}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{1x_2}},`$ (23)
$`x_b^{min}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_ax_2}{x_ax_1}}.`$ (24)
Monte Carlo integration package VEGAS is used to calculate Eq. (22). The parton distributions of proton is given by the CTEQ6 package cteq6 . The QCD running coupling constant, $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$, is the renormalized coupling constant described in Reference appen . A typical value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4\mathrm{GeV}`$ is used inside $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$. The internal scattering cross sections of the reactions $`q_i\overline{q}_igg`$ and $`gggg`$ are excluded from the integral because gluons do not fragment into hadrons. The fragmentation functions used for this calculation are the original fragmentation functions of Feynman and Field ff78 . For the $`pp\pi X`$ reactions, the fragmentation functions are

$$D_u^{\pi ^0}(z)=D_d^{\pi ^0}(z)=\left[\frac{\beta }{2}+\beta ^2\left(\frac{1z}{z}\right)\right](n+1)(1z)^n,$$
(25)
$$D_s^{\pi ^0}(z)=\beta ^2\left(\frac{1z}{z}\right)(n+1)(1z)^n,$$
(26)
$$D_d^\pi ^{}(z)=D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)=\left[\beta +\beta ^2\left(\frac{1z}{z}\right)\right](n+1)(1z)^n,$$
(27)
$$D_s^{\pi ^\pm }(z)=D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)=D_u^\pi ^{}(z)=\beta ^2\left(\frac{1z}{z}\right)(n+1)(1z)^n,$$
(28)
and for $`ppKX`$ reactions, the fragmentation functions are

$$D_u^{K^+}(z)=D_d^{K^0}(z)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\beta +\beta ^2\left(\frac{1z}{z}\right)\right](n+1)(1z)^n,$$
(29)
$$D_s^{K^+}(z)=D_s^{K^0}(z)=D_d^{K^+}(z)=D_u^{K^0}(z)=\frac{\beta ^2}{2}\left(\frac{1z}{z}\right)(n+1)(1z)^n,$$
(30)
$$D_s^{\overline{K}^0}(z)=D_s^K^{}(z)=\left[\beta +\frac{\beta ^2}{2}\left(\frac{1z}{z}\right)\right](n+1)(1z)^n,$$
(31)
$$D_d^K^{}(z)=D_u^K^{}(z)=D_d^{\overline{K}^0}(z)=D_u^{\overline{K}^0}(z)=\frac{\beta ^2}{2}\left(\frac{1z}{z}\right)(n+1)(1z)^n,$$
(32)
where $`\beta =0.4`$. The distributions of $`c`$, $`b`$ and $`t`$ quarks are sufficiently low that

$$D_c^h(z)=D_b^h(z)=D_t^h(z)=0,$$
(33)
for any hadron $`h`$. Feynman fixed $`n=2`$ in his original paper. In this work, $`n`$ is a parameter freely adjusted to fit data. There is a subtlety involved in summing all the parton contributions over $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Eq. (22) that is related to the relative probabilitistic nature of the parton distributions and our ignorance of the number of sea quarks and gluons inside the proton. The parton distributions are normalized to unity so that they give only the relative distributions of the partons. The parton distributions give only the ratios of the partons in a hadron but not their numbers. In order to sum over $`a`$ and $`b`$ partons in Eq. (22) correctly, an integral multiplicative constant for each of the hadrons $`A`$ and $`B`$ must be provided. These multiplicative integral constants are not known a priorí but are determined a posteriorí by fitting data. In other words, Eq. (22) can be modified as

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_AN_B}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\{a,b\}}{}}{\displaystyle _{x_a^{min}}^1}𝑑x_a{\displaystyle _{x_b^{min}}^1}𝑑x_b`$ (34)
$`\times f_{A/a}(x_a,Q^2)f_{B/b}(x_b,Q^2)D_c^h(z_c,Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}},`$
where $`N_A`$ and $`N_B`$ are the multiplicative constants corresponding to $`f_{A/a}(x_a,Q^2)`$ and $`f_{B/b}(x_b,Q^2)`$ respectively and $`_{\{a,b\}}`$ is the sum over the parton types instead of a sum over the partons per se. If $`A=B`$, the overall multiplicative constant, $`N_AN_B`$, is an integer square. If $`AB`$, the overall constant, $`N_AN_B`$, is still an integer. In the case of fitting pQCD calculations to experimental data of a $`pp\pi X`$ reaction, a factor of 100 is missing if one simply sums over the parton types. It implies that the multiplicative constant for the parton distributions of proton is $`N_p=10`$. The cross sections for $`K`$ production is approximately half of that of $`\pi `$ production. It implies that the multiplicative constant for the $`ppKX`$ reaction may be $`N_p=7`$. For the purpose parameterizing the shape of the kaon production cross section, an exact scale is not required. Therefore $`N_p`$ in the $`ppKX`$ reactions is arbitrarily set to be the same as that of $`pp\pi X`$ reactions at $`N_p=10`$. This choice is adequate because fits to experimental data of kaons are not being pursued in this work due to the lack of experimental data for kaons.

It is observed that the invariant production cross sections have the same basic shape regardless of the reactions, i.e. an exponentially decaying function of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha x^\beta )`$ at low $`p_T`$ and a suppression at high $`p_T`$ which drops off to zero before the edge of suppresion at $`p_T\sqrt{s}/2`$. The cross section is at its maximum at $`p_T=0`$ and decreases monotonically in $`p_T`$. The Feynman-Field code used in this calculation assumes that $`Q^2=4p_T^2`$. In other words, by combining the previous two statements, the cross section is at its maximum at $`Q^2=0`$ and decreases monotonically in $`Q^2`$. This observation indicates that hadron fragmentation is more favorable at low $`Q^2`$ in that a parton preserves more kinetic energy to be made available for hadron fragmentation. It is also observed that the cross section is suppressed at high $`p_T`$ and that the edge of suppression of the cross section is $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ at low $`p_T`$ and gradually increases toward high $`p_T`$. The reason for this phenomenon is mostly due to the choice of $`Q^2=4p_T`$ such that $`sQ^2`$ or equivalently $`\sqrt{s}/2p_T`$. It turns out that the edge of suppression along $`p_T`$ is a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. The comments made so far apply to any angle $`\theta _{cm}`$ when $`\sqrt{s}`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \sqrt{s}`$. The basic features of the graphs of the invariant cross section is discussed in Reference appen .

A lot of effort has been invested in parameterizing $`Ed^3\sigma /dp^3`$ from experimental data for use in the HZETRN code steve . This work takes a different approach by parameterizing theory. Experimental data are used merely as a means to fine-tune the parameterizations. Monte Carlo integration is the fastest numerical integration scheme available but it is not faster than an analytic formula. On the other hand, the explicit computation of the double integrals in the Feynman-Field model is a daunting task if tractable at all. These constraints motivate the present parameterization scheme. The method of finding the parameters is mostly one of trial-and-error. Guesses of the appropriate functions are made for different parts of the curve. The pieces are put back together at the end and refit until the parameterization has the desired global properties. The final form of paramterized cross section formula is found to be

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}}(\sqrt{s},p_T,\theta _{cm})`$ $`=`$ $`Ae^{35.4\beta (p_T^\beta 1)}`$ (35)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{exp}\left(1\mathrm{csc}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_T1}{a\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{cm}\sqrt{s}}{2}1\right)}}\right)^{b\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{b\beta }},`$
for $`p_T1<a\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{cm}\sqrt{s}}{2}1\right)`$. It is taken that

$$E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}=0,$$
(36)
for $`p_T1a\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{cm}\sqrt{s}}{2}1\right)`$. $`A`$ is a scale factor such that

$$A=E\frac{d^3\sigma }{dp^3}(\sqrt{s},p_T=1,\theta _{cm}=90^{}).$$
(37)
The functions $`a`$ and $`\beta `$ are

$$a=2e^{\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta _{cm}\sqrt{s}},$$
(38)
$$\beta =\beta _0+\beta _1\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{cm}\sqrt{s}\right)^{\beta _2},$$
(39)
and the parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, $`\beta _0`$, $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ are freely adjusted to fit the curve. The unit of energy-momentum is GeV for the present parameterization. $`A`$ is determined by varying $`n`$ to fit the data with the Feynman-Field calculation. The first exponential in Eq. (35) controls the shape of the curve at low $`p_T`$ and the square bracket term controls the suppression at high $`p_T`$. The function $`a`$ shifts the edge of the suppression so that the edge is located at $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ at low $`p_T`$ and $`\sqrt{s}`$ at high $`p_T`$. There is a threshold $`p_T0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ set by the CTEQ6 package. In addition, non-perturbative effects become more prominent in the soft $`p_T`$ region $`(p_T<1\mathrm{GeV})`$ so that the pQCD code cannot be applied there. For these reasons, the present parameterization focuses on the region $`p_T1\mathrm{GeV}`$. The rapidity distributions of hadron production is typically symmetric around $`y=0`$. From wong94

$$\eta =\mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)]=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\sqrt{m_T^2\mathrm{cosh}^2ym^2}+m_T\mathrm{sinh}y}{\sqrt{m_T^2\mathrm{cosh}^2ym^2}m_T\mathrm{sinh}y}\right]$$
(40)
and

$$y=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{E+p_z}{Ep_z}\right),$$
(41)
it can be easily shown that $`y=0`$, $`x_L=p_z/(p_z)_{max}=0`$ and $`\theta _{cm}=90^{}`$ are the same statements. Many experiments average the data over a range of $`y`$ or $`x_L`$ symmetric around zero. In these cases, the average center-of-momentum angle, $`\overline{\theta }_{cm}`$, would be $`90^{}`$, which happens to be the most prominent contribution according to Fig. 7. Hadron productions in space radiation problems are mostly in the forward direction or equivalently $`\theta =0`$. In highly relativistic regimes, $`\overline{\theta }_{cm}=90^{}`$ is transformed to a small $`\theta _{lab}`$. For example, $`\theta _{cm}=90^{}`$ is equivalent to $`\theta _{lab}=9.17^{}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=70\mathrm{GeV}`$ abramov80 . The scattering angle $`\theta _{lab}`$ decreases as $`\sqrt{s}`$ increases. At sufficiently high $`\sqrt{s}`$, $`\theta _{lab}`$ is effectively zero so that a one-dimensional transport code is justified and that the largest angular contribution of the cross section is that at $`\theta _{cm}=90^{}`$.

Figs. 8-13 show the goodness of fit between the parameterized cross sections and the pQCD calculations at $`\theta _{cm}=90^{}`$ and Fig. 14 shows the goodness of fit at various angles. Apparently the same parameterization of $`\beta `$ works for all types of pions and kaons (see Figs. 813). The Feynman-Field model fits data well when $`n`$ is allowed to vary as it is illustrated in Fig. 15. Generally speaking, the parameterization of the model at a fixed value of $`n=2`$ does not always fit data well. For this reason, data are parameterized separately by reparameterizing $`\beta `$. The parameterizations of pions are illustrated in Figs. 1618. Data of kaons are fragmented so that only the theory (but not the data) is parameterized. The parameters are tabulated in Table 2. The parameterization of data is distinguished from that of theory by labelling the paramters of the former as $`\beta `$ and those of the latter $`\beta ^{}`$. All other parameters are the same for both data and theory. A sample graph of the fit between the present parameterization and data with angular dependence is shown in Fig. 19.

The parameters in Table 2 are obtained by fitting curves by hand. Curve-fitting algorithm such as the Levenberg-Marquardt does not work well because of the presence of singular matrices inherent in the present model. At this point, there is not a cleverer method to find these parameters automatically. When the parameters are obtained by hand, several data sets of $`Ed^3\sigma /dp^3`$ versus $`p_T`$ at different energies with $`p_T>1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\overline{\theta }_{cm}=90^{}`$ are needed. In general, more data sets means smaller $`\chi ^2`$. In the case of parameterizing theory, the Monte Carlo program can generate as many theoretical data sets as needed. In the case of parameterizing experiment, data are generally fragmented except those of pions. At least 3 experimental data sets are needed to fit $`\beta `$. Pion data are generally quite copious. In the case of kaons, the scarcity of data prevents the parameterization of their experimental fits. The present parameterization of pion production cross sections for $`p_T>1\mathrm{GeV}`$ is expected to be valid over $`10\mathrm{GeV}<\mathrm{sin}\theta _{cm}\sqrt{s}<70\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is given by the range of energy of the experimental data used in this analysis.

Most experiments agree with the shape of theoretical curves. However there are diagreements in the magnitudes of the cross sections among experimental data sets, sometimes even by the same authors. Figs. 17 and 18 show that Abramov et al. published 2 sets of pion data in identical energy regimes in 2 consecutive years that are different by 3 orders of magnitudeabramov80 ; abramov81 . This phenomenon occurs quite regularly in $`Ed^3\sigma /dp^3`$ data. Some discretion must be exercised in choosing the experimental data to parameterize.

## IV Conclusion

This work shows how to use the Lund model to calculate the invariant production cross section non-perturbatively in the soft $`p_T`$ region. This model predicts that the functional form of the cross section in this sector is a simple exponential. This prediction is confirmed by experiment in the case of pions for $`\theta =90^{}`$. The cross section formula in Eq. (20) has no angular nor energy dependence. Although the prediction of angular independence is not yet confirmed by data, energy independence is shown to be approximately correct according to the Figs. 4-6. The Feynman-Field model is a work horse for calculating inclusive cross sections and is generally accepted to be an accurate description of data in the high $`p_T`$ region. Several typical assumptions of pQCD have been adopted in the present calculation that are not necessarily unique, such as the forms of $`Q^2`$ and the fragmentation functions. The form of momentum transfer is assumed to be $`Q^2=4p_T^2`$ in the present work. In principle, other guesses, such as

$$Q^2=\frac{2\widehat{s}\widehat{t}\widehat{u}}{\widehat{s}^2+\widehat{t}^2+\widehat{u}^2},$$
(42)
can also used. Nevertheless it is unlikely that the use of Eq. (42) in the Feynman-Field model will drastically change its predictions. More experimental data of kaons are needed to determine the corresponding paramterizations. Otherwise, the parameterization procedure can in principle be applied to all types of mesons. The production cross sections of baryons are also needed for a realistic nuclear code. It is not yet clear that the Lund model and Feynman-Field can be easily modified to incorporate baryon production. Eventually production cross sections of hadrons from $`pA`$ and $`AA`$ collisions must also be included in the transport code. The phenomena of heavy nuclei collisions are much more complicated because many-body effects such as the EMC effect, Cronin effect, nuclear shadowing, jet quenching and gluon-plasma phase transition have to be considered. It is hoped that the present work provide some basic ideas for more complicated calculations to be undertaken in the future.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by NASA grant NCC-1-354.


text:
# Antiferromagnetism in the 2D Hubbard Model – Phase Transition and Local Quantities

## 1 Introduction

An antiferromagnetic phase is observed in most *cuprate* high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductors. On the other hand antiferromagnetic correlations are considered to play an important role in the mechanism of pair formation in those materials.

The normal phase of $`2D`$ Hubbard model has been studied intensively by the composite operator method (COM), leading to good agreement with numerical results and experimental data . A study of the AF phase in the $`2D`$ Hubbard model by COM is therefore supposed to give some insight in both, the nature of antiferromagnetism and the pair forming mechanism.

## 2 Results

We investigate the Hubbard Hamiltonian on a $`2D`$ square lattice with additional next–nearest neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}\left(t_{ij}+t_{ij}^{}\delta _{ij}\mu \right)c_\sigma ^{}(i)c_\sigma (j)`$
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_{}(i)n_{}(i)`$
by means of COM , using the Hubbard operators $`\xi _\sigma (i)=c_\sigma (i)\left(1n_{\overline{\sigma }}(i)\right)`$ and $`\eta _\sigma (i)=c_\sigma (i)n_{\overline{\sigma }}(i)`$ as components of the basic spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }(i)`$.

To describe the AF phase we introduce a coarse grained, bipartite lattice with lattice constant $`a`$, overlaying the chemical lattice by grouping together pairs of nearest neighbors in the usual way. For the two sublattices $`A`$ and $`B`$ we assume a symmetric electronic state, $`A,\sigma =B,\overline{\sigma }`$.

The retarded Greens functions $`G^{XY}(𝐤,\omega )=\{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(i),\mathrm{\Psi }(j)\}_{\mathrm{F}.\mathrm{T}.}`$ with $`X,Y\{A,B\}`$ in the static approximation where finite life time effects are neglected are determined in a fully self–consistent way by the constraints $`\xi _\sigma (i)\eta _\sigma ^{}(i)=0`$ and $`\xi _{}(i)\xi _{}^{}(i)=\xi _{}(i)\xi _{}^{}(i)`$, emerging from the algebra of the Hubbard operators, namely from the Pauli principle.

The critical value of the Coulomb interaction is given in Fig. 1 as function of $`t^{}`$.

$`U_\mathrm{c}`$ turns out to be significantly larger then in results obtained by renormalization group techniques , which might be due to the fact, that the latter is valid only in the weak coupling limit, whereas COM provides a good approximation for intermediate and strong coupling as well. The band structure shows the opening of a gap at the transition line between the paramagnetic and the AF phase.

In Fig. 2 the sublattice magnetization $`m=n_{}^A(i)n_{}^A(i)`$ is plotted versus temperature for different values of the Coulomb interaction. With decreasing magnetization the energy per site, which is not sublattice dependent because of the above symmetry assumption on the electronic state, is increasing, reaching finally the paramagnetic value at vanishing $`m`$.

## 3 Conclusions

First results for the AF phase of the $`2D`$ Hubbard model obtained by COM within a fully self–consistent treatment were presented. Further results and a detailed elaboration of the theoretical framework will be presented elsewhere.