format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Nowadays the strong interest is springing up to the investigations and measurements of azimuthal correlations in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions (see, for instance,  and references therein). One of the main reasons is that the rescattering and energy loss of hard partons in the azimuthally non-symmetric volume of dense quark-gluon matter, created initially in the nuclear overlap zone in collisions with non-zero impact parameter, can result in the visible azimuthal anisotropy of high-$`p_T`$ hadrons at RHIC .

Recent anisotropic flow data at RHIC  can be described well by hydrodynamical models for semi-central collisions and $`p_T`$ up to $`2`$ GeV/c (the elliptic flow coefficient $`v_2`$ appears to be monotonously growing with increasing $`p_T`$  in this case), while the majority of microscopical Monte-Carlo models underestimate the flow effects (see however ). The saturation and gradual decrease of $`v_2`$ at relatively large transverse momentum ($`p_T\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}2`$ GeV/c), predicted as a signature of strong partonic energy loss in a dense QCD plasma, seem now to be supported by the preliminary data extending up to $`p_T10`$ GeV/c at RHIC. The interpolation between the low-$`p_T`$ relativistic hydrodynamics region and the high-$`p_T`$ pQCD-computable region was evaluated in .

The initial gluon densities in Pb$``$Pb reactions at $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=5.5`$ TeV at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are expected to be significantly higher than at RHIC, implying stronger partonic energy loss. Moreover, since at LHC energies the inclusive cross section for hard jet production at $`E_T100`$ GeV is large enough to study the impact parameter dependence of such processes , one can hope to observe the azimuthal anisotropy for hadronic jet itself . In particular, CMS experiment at LHC  will be able to provide both the jet reconstruction and adequate measurement of impact parameter of nuclear collision using calorimetric information . In the case of jets, the methodical advantage of azimuthal observables is that one needs to reconstruct only azimuthal position of the jet without measuring its total energy. It can be done more easily and with high accuracy, while the reconstruction of jet energy is a more ambiguous problem . However the measurement of jet production as a function of azimuthal angle requires event-by-event determination of the nuclear event plane based on the anisotropic flow analysis.

The methods for elliptic flow analysis can be generally divided in two categories: two-particle methods suggested and summarized in works  and multi-particle methods . In two-particle methods the contribution of non-flow (non-geometric) correlations to the determination of the elliptic flow coefficient $`v_2`$ is of the order of $`1/\sqrt{N_0}`$, where $`N_0`$ is the measured multiplicity. In multi-particle methods this contribution goes down typically as $`1/N_0^{3/4}`$, i.e., smaller by a factor of the order of $`N_0^{1/4}`$. Thus experimental techniques based on higher order cumulant analysis should be able in many cases to allow access to the smaller values of azimuthal particle anisotropy in comparison with two-particle methods, due to automatic elimination of the major non-flow many-particle correlations and the systematic errors originating from azimuthal asymmetry of the detector acceptance. This kind of analysis for particle flow has been already done by the STAR Collaboration at RHIC .

In our previous Letter  we proposed the method for measurement of jet azimuthal anisotropy coefficients without direct reconstruction of the event plane, and illustrated its reliability in a real experimental situation. This technique is based on the calculation of correlations between the azimuthal position of the jet axis and the angles of particles not incorporated in the jet, the azimuthal distribution of jets being described by the elliptic form. To improve our approach, in the given paper we extend our analysis , considering the cumulant expansion  of multi-particle azimuthal correlations.

## 2 Correlators versus the jet elliptic anisotropy

Let us remind some features of our previous investigation . We start from the essence of techniques  for measuring azimuthal elliptic anisotropy of particle distribution, which can be written in the form

$$\frac{dN}{d\phi }=\frac{N_0}{2\pi }[1+2v_2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)],N_0=\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \frac{dN}{d\phi }.$$
(1)
Knowing the nuclear reaction plane angle $`\psi _R`$ allows one to determine the coefficient $`v_2`$ of azimuthal anisotropy of particle flow as an average (over particles) cosine of $`2\phi `$:

$$<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)>=\frac{1}{N_0}\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)\frac{dN}{d\phi }=v_2.$$
(2)
However in the case when there are no other correlations of particles except those due to flow (or such other correlations can be neglected), the coefficient of azimuthal anisotropy can be determined using two-particle azimuthal correlator without the event plane angle $`\psi _R`$:

$`<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2){\displaystyle \frac{d^2N}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2\mathrm{cos}2((\phi _1\psi _R)(\phi _2\psi _R)){\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi _2}}=v_2^2.`$ (3)
Let us consider now the event with high-pT jet (dijet) production, the distribution of jets over azimuthal angle relatively to the reaction plane being described well by the elliptic form ,

$$\frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi }=\frac{N_0^{jet}}{2\pi }[1+2v_2^{jet}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)],N_0^{jet}=\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi },$$
(4)
where the coefficient of jet azimuthal anisotropy $`v_2^{jet}`$ is determined as an average over all events cosine of $`2\phi `$,

$$\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)_{event}=\frac{1}{N_0^{jet}}\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)\frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi }=v_2^{jet}.$$
(5)
One can calculate the correlator between the azimuthal position of jet axis $`\phi _{jet}`$111The other possibility is to fix the azimuthal position of a leading particle in the jet. In this case calculating azimuthal correlations can provide the information about azimuthal anisotropy of high-$`p_T`$ particle spectrum. and the angles of particles, which are not incorporated in the jet(s). The value of this correlator is related to the elliptic coefficients $`v_2`$ and $`v_2^{jet}`$ as

$`<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )>_{\mathrm{event}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^{jet}N_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _{jet}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi \mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi _{jet}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi }}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^{jet}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _{jet}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\psi _R){\displaystyle \frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi _{jet}}}v_2=v_2^{jet}v_2.`$
Using Eq. (2) and intermediate result in Eq. (6) (after averaging over particles $`\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )`$ reduces to $`v_2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\psi _R)`$) we derive the formula for computing absolute value of the coefficient of jet azimuthal anisotropy (without reconstruction of sign of $`v_2^{jet}`$):

$$v_2^{jet}=\frac{<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )>}{\sqrt{<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>}}_{\mathrm{event}}.$$
(7)
This formula does not require the direct determination of reaction plane angle $`\psi _R`$. The brackets $``$ represent the averaging over particles (not incorporated in the jet) in a given event, while the brackets $`_{event}`$ are the averaging over events.

The formula (7) can be generalized by introducing as weights the particle momenta,

$$v_{2(p)}^{jet}=\frac{<p_T(\phi )\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )>}{\sqrt{<p_{T1}(\phi _1)p_{T2}(\phi _2)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>}}_{\mathrm{event}}.$$
(8)
In this case the brackets $``$ denote the averaging over angles and transverse momenta of particles. The other modification of (8),

$$v_{2(E)}^{jet}=\frac{<E(\phi )\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )>}{\sqrt{<E_1(\phi _1)E_2(\phi _2)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>}}_{\mathrm{event}},$$
(9)
($`E_i(\phi _i)`$ being energy deposit in a calorimetric segment $`i`$ of position $`\phi _i`$) allows one using calorimetric measurements (9) for the determination of jet azimuthal anisotropy.

## 3 Higher order correlators

The main advantage of the higher order cumulant analysis is in the fact that, as argued in Ref. , if flow is larger than non-flow correlations, the contribution of the latter to $`v_2`$ extracted from higher order correlators is suppressed222This can be essential under data analysis with not high enough multiplicity of particles in an event. by powers of particle multiplicity $`N_0`$ in an event.

Thus, for example, the fourth order cumulant for elliptic particle flow is defined as

$`c_2[4]<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1+\phi _2\phi _3\phi _4)>`$
$`<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _3)><\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _2\phi _4)><\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _4)><\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _2\phi _3)>,`$ (10)
and in the case of existing only correlations with the reaction plane (i.e. the factorization of multi-particle distributions is held as in Eq. (2)) is equal to

$$c_2[4]=v_2^4.$$
(11)
If now one defines the coefficient $`v_2`$ of azimuthal anisotropy through two-particle correlator

$$v_2=\sqrt{<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>},$$
(12)
then the contribution of non-flow correlations, as argued in , is of order $`1/\sqrt{N_0}`$. While their contribution to $`v_2`$, extracted from the fourth order correlator

$$v_2=(c_2[4])^{1/4},$$
(13)
scales as $`1/N_0^{3/4}`$, i.e. it is suppressed by an extra factor of $`1/N_0^{1/4}`$. Corresponding data analysis based on Eq. (3) and result (11) has been already carried out at STAR .

Now using the derivation of Eq. (7) and the result (11) it is straightforward to obtain the formula for calculation (measurement) of coefficient of jet azimuthal anisotropy through the higher order correlator, which is less sensitive to non-flow correlations:

$`v_2^{jet}[4]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(c_2[4])^{3/4}}}[<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}+\phi _1\phi _2\phi _3)>`$
$`+<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi _2)><\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _3)>`$
$`+<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi _3)><\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>]_{\mathrm{event}}.`$ (14)
Here we stress once more that in the case of existing only correlations with the reaction plane, Eq. (3) together with Eq. (7) transforms into identity. The formula just derived can be, as in Sect. 2, generalized for calorimetric measurements of energy flows:

$`v_{2(E)}^{jet}[4]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(c_{2(E)}[4])^{3/4}}}[<E_1(\phi _1)E_2(\phi _2)E_3(\phi _3)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}+\phi _1\phi _2\phi _3)>`$
$`+<E_2(\phi _2)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi _2)><E_1(\phi _1)E_3(\phi _3)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _3)>`$
$`+<E_3(\phi _3)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi _3)><E_1(\phi _1)E_2(\phi _2)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>]_{\mathrm{event}},`$ (15)
where

$`c_{2(E)}[4]=<E_1(\phi _1)E_2(\phi _2)E_3(\phi _3)E_4(\phi _4)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1+\phi _2\phi _3\phi _4)>`$
$`<E_1(\phi _1)E_3(\phi _3)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _3)><E_2(\phi _2)E_4(\phi _4)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _2\phi _4)>`$
$`<E_1(\phi _1)E_4(\phi _4)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _4)><E_2(\phi _2)E_3(\phi _3)\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _2\phi _3)>.`$ (16)
In the case when the azimuthal position of jet axis correlates not only with the reaction plane, one can try to improve this technique using the multiple correlators of another form: averaging over not all events but selecting some their sub-events. For instance, one can consider sub-events $`1`$ and $`2`$, when jets are produced with the rapidity $`y>0`$ and $`y<0`$. Then calculating correlator

$`c_2^{jet}[4]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)><\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi _1\varphi _2)>}}}[<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi +\varphi _{jet}\varphi )>`$
$`+<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi \varphi _{jet}+\varphi )>`$
$`<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )><\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi _{jet}\varphi )>]_{\mathrm{sub}\mathrm{event}1,2},`$ (17)
we obtain that, if there are flow particle correlations only and the distribution of jets over azimuthal angles is described by the elliptic form (4) in every sub-event, it is equal to

$$c_2^{jet}[4]=v_2^{jet}(y>0)v_2^{jet}(y<0).$$
(18)
In Eq. (3) the angles $`\phi `$ are defined as the azimuthal angles of particles and jets in sub-event with $`y>0`$, and $`\varphi `$ — in sub-event with $`y<0`$. Correspondingly the brackets $`<>`$ represent the averaging over particles in sub-events 1, 2, while the brackets $`_{\mathrm{sub}\mathrm{event}1,2}`$ are the averaging over these sub-events. The generalization of Eq. (3) for calorimetric measurements of energy flow is obvious (similar to Eqs. (9) and (3)). We do not write also this result specially as the examples of utilizing six- and other higher order correlators.

## 4 Non-flow correlations

Here we discuss the influence of non-flow correlations333See also Appendix of work  and Ref.  on the $`v_2^{jet}`$ determination. There are various sources of such correlations, among which minijet production , global momentum conservation , resonance decays (in which the decay products are correlated), final state Coulomb, strong or quantum interactions . We restrict our consideration to two-particle correlations only. It will be enough to illustrate the advantage in using higher order cumulants. In this case multi-particle distributions are not factorized again and instead of Eq. (2) we have

$`c_2[2]<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)[{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi _2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}}]`$
$`=v_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+v_{cor}^{}/v_2^2}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (19)
where

$`N_2={\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2[{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi _2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}}],`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}},`$
$`v_{cor}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2){\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}}.`$
Eq. (6) remains unchangeable and result (7) transforms into

$$v_2^{jet}[2]\frac{<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )>}{\sqrt{<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>}}_{event}=v_2^{jet}\sqrt{\frac{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}{1+v_{cor}^{}/v_2^2}}.$$
(21)
After some algebra the fourth order cumulant (3) reduces to

$`c_2[4]=v_2^4{\displaystyle \frac{1+4v_{cor}^{}/v_2^2+2v_{cor}^{}/v_2^4+2v_{cor}^+/v_2^2+v_{cor}^{++}/v_2^4}{1+6\mathrm{\Delta }+3\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}`$
$`2v_2^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+v_{cor}^{}/v_2^2}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)^2,`$ (22)
where

$`v_{cor}^+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\psi _R+\phi _2\psi _R){\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}},`$
$`v_{cor}^{++}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _3{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _4\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1+\phi _2\phi _3\phi _4){\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _3d\phi _4}},`$
$`v_{cor}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _3{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _4\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1+\phi _2\phi _3\phi _4){\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _2d\phi _4}}`$
$`=(v_{cor}^{})^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _3\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _1\phi _3){\displaystyle \frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _3}}\right)^2`$ (23)
$`=(v_{cor}^{})^2`$ if $`\frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}`$ is an even function of angular difference $`(\phi _1\phi _2)`$.

The numerator in Eq. (3) is rewritten in the following form:

$`Num<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}+\phi _1\phi _2\phi _3)>`$
$`+<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi _2)><\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _3)>+<\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi _3)><\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)>`$
$`=v_2^3\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\psi _R){\displaystyle \frac{1+2v_{cor}^{}/v_2^2+v_{cor}^+/v_2^2}{1+3\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`+2v_2^3\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\psi _R){\displaystyle \frac{1+v_{cor}^{}/v_2^2}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}}+SIN,`$ (24)
where the terms $`SIN`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2(\phi _{jet}\psi _R)`$ and vanishing after averaging over $`\phi _{jet}`$.

At the first glance it is hard to see the advantage in using higher order cumulants from Eqs. (21), (4) and (4). However, it is reasonable to suppose that the contribution of two-particle correlations to the normalization factor $`N_2`$ is small, $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$, while their “second Fourier harmonic” $`v_{cor}^{}`$ can be of the order of $`v_2^2`$. Then all direct two-particle correlations $`v_{cor}^{}`$ are automatically canceled out444This is one of the main advantage of the cumulant expansion. from Eqs. (4) and (4) in first order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but are survived in Eq. (21). The non-direct two-particle correlations $`v_{cor}^+,v_{cor}^{++}`$ are survived. But they are suppressed in the comparison with the direct correlations $`v_{cor}^{}`$ (contributing to $`v_2^{jet}[2]`$) due to the fact that $`\frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}`$ is an even function of angular difference $`(\phi _1\phi _2)`$ only in most physically interesting cases . Moreover, for the small-angle $`\delta `$-like correlations ($`\frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}\frac{\mathrm{exp}((\phi _1\phi _2)^2/2\sigma ^2)}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma },\sigma 0`$) and for the large-angle oscillating ones ($`\frac{dN_{cor}}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)`$) the non-direct correlations $`v_{cor}^+,v_{cor}^{++}`$ are equal to zero. Then

$`v_2^{jet}[4]={\displaystyle \frac{Num}{(c_2[4])^{3/4}}}_{event}v_2^{jet}`$ (25)
in this case, while

$$v_2^{jet}[2]v_2^{jet}\sqrt{\frac{1}{1+v_{cor}^{}/v_2^2}}.$$
(26)
Thus Eqs. (25) and (26) demonstrate the better accuracy of higher order cumulants explicitly.

## 5 Discussion

In order to illustrate the applicability of the method presented with regard for the real physical situation, we consider the following model (see Ref.  for details).

The model

The initial jet distributions in a nucleon-nucleon sub-collision at $`\sqrt{s}=5.5`$ TeV have been generated using PYTHIA$`\mathrm{\_}5.7`$ . We simulated the rescattering and energy loss of jets in gluon-dominated plasma, created initially in the nuclear overlap zone in Pb$``$Pb collisions at different impact parameters. For details of this approach one can refer to Refs. . Essential for our consideration here is that in non-central collisions the azimuthal distribution of jets is approximated well by the elliptic form (4). In the model the coefficient of jet azimuthal anisotropy increases almost linearly with the growth of impact parameter $`b`$ and becomes maximum at $`b1.2R_A`$, where $`R_A`$ is the nucleus radius. After that $`v_2^{jet}`$ drops rapidly with increasing $`b`$: this is the domain of impact parameter values, where the effect of decreasing energy loss due to reducing effective transverse size of the dense zone and initial energy density of the medium is crucial and not compensated anymore by stronger non-symmetry of the volume. The kinematical cuts on jet transverse energy and rapidity has been applied: $`E_T^{jet}>100`$ GeV and $`|y^{jet}|<1.5`$. After this the dijet event is superimposed on the Pb$``$Pb event containing anisotropic flow.

Anisotropic flow was generated using the simple hydrodynamical Monte-Carlo code  giving hadron (charged and neutral pion, kaon and proton) spectrum as a superposition of the thermal distribution and collective flow. To be definite, we fixed the following “freeze-out” parameters: the temperature $`T_f=140`$ MeV, the collective longitudinal rapidity $`Y_L^{max}=3`$ and the collective transverse rapidity $`Y_T^{max}=1`$. We set the Poisson multiplicity distribution and took into account the impact parameter dependence of multiplicity in a simple way, just suggesting that the mean multiplicity of particles is proportional to the nuclear overlap function. We also suggested  that the spatial ellipticity of the “freeze-out” region is directly related to the initial spatial ellipticity of the nuclear overlap zone. Such “scaling” allows one to avoid using additional parameters and, at the same time, results in the elliptic anisotropy of particle and energy flow due to the dependence of effective transverse size of the “freeze-out” region on the azimuthal angle of a “hadronic liquid” element. Obtained in such a way azimuthal distribution of particles is described well by the elliptic form (1) for the domain of reasonable impact parameter values.

To be specific, we consider the geometry of CMS detector  at LHC. The central (“barrel”) part of the CMS calorimetric system covers the pseudo-rapidity region $`|\eta |<1.5`$, the segmentation of electromagnetic and hadron calorimeters being $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.0174\times 0.0174`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.0872\times 0.0872`$ respectively . In order to reproduce roughly the experimental conditions (not including real detector effects, but just assuming calorimeter hermeticity), we applied Eqs. (9) and (3) to the energy deposition $`E_i(\phi _i)`$ of generated particles, integrated over the rapidity in $`72`$ segments (according to the number of segments in the hadron calorimeter: $`72\times 0.0872=2\pi `$; $`i=1,\mathrm{},72`$) covering full azimuth.

Note that in the CMS heavy ion physics program, the modified sliding window-type jet finding algorithm has been developed to search for “jet-like” clusters above the average energy, and to subtract the background from the underlying event . Strictly speaking, after jet extraction the background energy deposition in the calorimetric cells should be redefined and can appear to be not exactly equal to the initially generated one. However we neglect this effect here. In a real experimental situation, in order to avoid the influence of jet contribution on the particle flow, one can consider jets and particles incorporated in the energy flow analysis in different rapidity regions.

Numerical results

We have found  that the accuracy of $`v_2^{jet}`$ determination from Eq. (9) is close to $`100\%`$ for semi-central ($`b\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}R_A`$) collision and becomes significantly worse in very peripheral collision ($`b2R_A`$), wherein decreasing multiplicity and azimuthal anisotropy of the event results in relatively large fluctuations of energy deposition in each segment.

In the given paper we test the efficiency of the higher order correlator (3) and have found, at first, that the results for $`v_2^{jet}`$ obtained from Eqs. (9) and (3) are practically the same. This is explained by the fact that our simple Monte-Carlo event generator gives the elliptic anisotropy of energy flow, correlated with the reaction plane, but no correlations between energy deposition in the calorimeter segments. We can introduce such correlations at the calorimetric level “by hand”, simply assuming that the probability of finding the energy $`E_i`$ in a segment $`i`$ and the energy $`E_j`$ in a segment $`j`$ is proportional to $`E_iE_j(1+c_{ij})`$, where the “correlation strength” $`c_{ij}`$ may be, for example, proportional to $`\delta _{ij}`$ (the short-range $`\delta `$-like correlations) or $`\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _i\phi _j)`$ (the long-range oscillating correlations). In this case we became convinced that the higher order cumulant (3) was almost independent of such correlations (as it was shown in Sect. 4), while the result of calculation (9) changed, closely following the formula (26) corrected by autocorrelation terms which are non-vanishing in finite summation .

We have also found at the calorimetric level that, taking into account the effect of possible detector inefficiency (i.e. that the particles and jets are not detected in a “blind” azimuthal sector of size $`\alpha `$), the accuracy of $`v_2^{jet}`$ determination appears to be less than $`50\%`$ at $`\alpha \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}30^{}`$ in our model calculation without correlations and at $`bR_A`$, whichever algorithm (9) or (3) we used.

Fig.1 is presented to illustrate the improvement due to the fourth order cumulant method in the determination of jet azimuthal anisotropy $`v_2^{jet}`$ depending on the ratio $`\overline{v}_{cor}^{}/\overline{v}_2^2`$, where $`\overline{v}_2`$ is the coefficient of elliptic azimuthal anisotropy of energy flow defined here as

$$\overline{v}_2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{E_{max(i)}E_{min(i)}}{E_{max(i)}+E_{min(i)}},$$
(27)
and $`E_{max(i)}`$ and $`E_{min(i)}`$ are the maximum and minimum energy deposit in a segment respectively ($`i=1,\mathrm{},72`$). The coefficient $`\overline{v}_{cor}^{}`$ determines the “correlation strength” at the calorimetric level, $`c_{ij}=72\overline{v}_{cor}^{}\delta _{ij}`$ for short-range correlations 555 Here one should note that the majority of sources of non-flow correlations mentioned above is effective at small angles between particles. In our case these correlations can be partially smoothed out after summing particle energies over the azimuthal angles in a calorimeter segment of finite size ($`5^{}`$). This can result in the smaller value of the ratio $`\overline{v}_{cor}^{}/\overline{v}_2^2`$ in comparison with the ratio $`v_{cor}^{}/v_2^2`$ (and, as consequence, in a somewhat less improvement due to the higher order method at the calorimetric level (3) in comparison with the particle level (3)). We still have no any adequate Monte-Carlo generator for particle flow effects at LHC including the physical model for correlations. Thus we can not estimate the real value of $`\overline{v}_{cor}^{}/\overline{v}_2^2`$ (true benefit from the higher order method) and just treat it here as a phenomenological parameter. (the similar result is obtained for long-range correlations with $`c_{ij}=2\overline{v}_{cor}^{}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _i\phi _j)`$). The plots show the $`b`$-dependence of the “theoretical” value of $`v_2^{jet}`$ (calculated including collisional and radiative energy loss when the reaction plane angle is known in each event), and the $`v_2^{jet}`$ determined by the methods (9) and (3) for the three ratios $`\overline{v}_{cor}^{}/\overline{v}_2^2=0,0.01,0.1`$. We used two values of the input parameter, the number of charged particles per unit rapidity at $`y=0`$ in central Pb$``$Pb collisions: $`dN^\pm /dy=3000`$ (Fig.1a) and $`6000`$ (Fig.1b).

One can see that improvement due to the fourth order cumulant method (result of (3) is independent of $`\overline{v}_{cor}^{}/\overline{v}_2^2`$ and coincides with the result of (9) for $`\overline{v}_{cor}^{}/\overline{v}_2^2=0`$) is pronounced for more peripheral collisions, smaller particle multiplicities and larger “correlation strengths”.

## 6 Conclusions

In the present paper we have analyzed the method for measurements of jet azimuthal anisotropy coefficients without reconstruction of the event plane considering the higher order correlators between the azimuthal position of the jet axis and the angles of particles not incorporated in the jet. The method is generalized by introducing as weights the particle momenta or the energy deposit in the calorimeter segments. In the latter case, we have illustrated its reliability in the real physical situation under LHC conditions. Introducing in the model correlations between energy deposits in the calorimeter segments does not practically change the accuracy of the method using fourth order cumulant calculations (3), while the result obtained with second order correlator (9) is dependent significantly of the “strength” of such correlations. The advantage of the higher order cumulant analysis is pronounced for more peripheral collisions and smaller particle multiplicities.

To summarize, we believe that the present technique may be useful investigating azimuthal anisotropy of jets and high-$`p_T`$ particles in heavy ion collisions at RHIC and LHC.

Acknowledgments. Discussions with A.I. Demianov, S.V. Petrushanko, V.V. Uzhinskii, I.N. Vardanian, S.A. Voloshin, U. Wiedemann and E.E. Zabrodin are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Deformation Energy Minima at Finite Mass Asymmetry

## I Introduction

One of the earliest features observed in nuclear fission was the preference for breakup into two fragments of unequal mass hod95mb . The asymmetric distribution of fragment masses from the spontaneous or low excitation energy induced fission was a longstanding puzzle of the theory p195b96b . In the framework of the liquid drop model (LDM), the mass distribution of fission fragments is symmetric. By adding shell corrections within Strutinsky’s str67np  macroscopic-microscopic method, it was shown mol70pl ; pas71np  that the outer barrier for asymmetric shapes is lower than for symmetric ones. In this way it was possible to explain qualitatively the fission asymmetry. Significant progress was achieved with the development of the asymmetric two center shell model by the Frankfurt school mar72zp ; gre96bt . The fragmentation theory was succesful in describing both regions of low and high mass asymmetry.

The shapes during a fission process from one parent nucleus to the final fragments, have been intensively studied either statically (looking for the minimimum of potential energy) coh63ap ; str62jetf , or dynamically (by choosing a path with the smallest value of action integral) hil58c ; bra72rmp . Particularly important points on a potential energy surface are those corresponding to the ground state mun02jnrs , saddle point(s) coh63ap ; mol00prc  and scission point nag96pl . In a static approach, the equilibrium nuclear shapes are usually determined by minimizing the energy functional on a certain class of trial functions representing the surface equation. The required number of independent shape parameters may be as high as nine values coh63ap ; they are discussed in ref. mol00prc .

The purpose of this paper is to present a method allowing to obtain a very general reflection asymmetric saddle point shape as a solution of an integro-differential equation without a shape parametrization apriori introduced. This equation was derived by minimizing the potential energy with constraints (constant volume and given deformation parameter). The method str62jetf ; p241jnrs02  allows to obtain straightforwardly the axially symmetric surface shape for which the liquid drop energy, $`E_{LDM}=E_s+E_C`$, is minimum. By adding the shell correction $`\delta E`$ to the LDM deformation energy, $`E_{def}=E_{LDM}+\delta E`$, we can obtain minima at a finite value of the mass asymmetry parameter. Phenomenological shell corrections are used. Results for binary fission of parent nuclei 226-238Th and 230-238U are presented.

## II Deformation Energy

One assumes cylindrical symmetry. The deformation parameter $`\alpha `$ is defined as the distance between centers of mass of the fragments lying at the left hand side and right hand side of the plane $`z=0`$, respectively: $`\alpha =|z_L^c|+|z_R^c|`$. This definition allows to reach all intermediate stages of deformation from one parent nucleus to two fragments by a continuous variation of its value. The position of separation plane, $`z=0`$, is given by the condition: $`\left(d\rho /dz\right)_{z=0}=0`$.

We are looking for a nuclear surface equation $`\rho =\rho (z)`$ in cylindrical coordinates, which minimizes the potential energy of deformation with two constraints: volume conservation, and given deformation parameter, $`\alpha `$, assumed to be an adiabatic variable.

Relative to a spherical shape, the deformation energy is defined by

$$E_{def}(\alpha )E^0=E_s^0[B_s1+2X(B_C1)]+\delta E\delta E^0$$
(1)
where $`E_s^0=a_s(1\kappa I^2)A^{2/3}`$ and $`E_C^0=a_CZ^2A^{1/3}`$ are energies corresponding to spherical shape and $`I=(NZ)/A`$. The relative surface and Coulomb energies $`B_s=E_s/E_s^0`$, $`B_C=E_C/E_C^0`$ and the shell correction $`\delta E(\alpha )`$ are functions of the nuclear shape. The dependence on the neutron and proton numbers is contained in $`E_s^0`$, the fissility parameter $`X=E_C^0/(2E_s^0)=[3Z^2e^2/(5R_0)]/2[a_s(1\kappa I^2)A^{2/3}]`$, as well as in shell correction energy $`\delta E^0`$ of the spherical nucleus. From a fit to experimental data on nuclear masses, quadrupole moments, and fission barriers, the following values of the parameters have been obtained mye66np : $`a_s=17.9439`$ MeV, $`\kappa =1.7826`$, $`a_C=3e^2/(5r_0)=0.7053`$ MeV. The radius of spherical nucleus is $`R_0=r_0A^{1/3}`$ with $`r_0=`$ 1.2249 fm, and $`e^2=1.44`$ MeV$``$fm is the square of electron charge. The shape-dependent dimensionless surface term is proportional to the surface area, and the expression of Coulomb energy is a double integral. Both are computed p75cpc78  by Gauss-Legendre numerical quadratures.

To the LDM energy we add a phenomenological shell correction $`\delta E(\alpha )`$ by using a formula adapted after Reference mye66np . At a given deformation we calculate the volumes of fragments and the corresponding numbers of nucleons $`Z_i(\alpha ),N_i(\alpha )`$ ($`i=1,2`$), proportional to the volume of each fragment. Then we add for each fragment the contribution of protons and neutrons

$$\delta E(\alpha )=\underset{i}{}\delta E_i(\alpha )=\underset{i}{}[\delta E_{pi}(\alpha )+\delta E_{ni}(\alpha )]$$
(2)
given by

$$\delta E_{pi}=Cs(Z_i);\delta E_{ni}=Cs(N_i)$$
(3)
where

$$s(Z)=Z^{2/3}F(Z)cZ^{1/3}$$
(4)
and a similar equation for $`s(N)`$.

$$F(n)=\frac{3}{5}\left[\frac{N_i^{5/3}N_{i1}^{5/3}}{N_iN_{i1}}(nN_{i1})n^{5/3}+N_{i1}^{5/3}\right]$$
(5)
where $`n(N_{i1},N_i)`$ is the current number of protons ($`Z`$) or neutrons ($`N`$) and $`N_{i1},N_i`$ are the nearest magic numbers. The parameters $`c=0.2`$, $`C=6.2`$ MeV were determined by fit to experimental masses and deformations. The dependence on deformation $`\alpha `$ sch71pl  is given by

$$\delta E(\alpha )=\frac{C}{2}\left\{\underset{i}{}[s(N_i)+s(Z_i)]\frac{L_i(\alpha )}{R_i}\right\}$$
(6)
where $`L_i(\alpha )`$ are the lenghths of fragments along the symmetry axis. During the deformation process, the variation of separation distance between centers induces the variation of the geometrical quantities and of the corresponding nucleon numbers. Each time a proton or neutron number reaches a magic value, the correction energy passes through a minimum, and it has a maximum at midshell.

## III Integro-Differential Equation

As mentioned above, the nuclear surface equation with axial symmetry around $`z`$ axis is expressed as $`\rho =\rho (z)`$ in cylindrical coordinates. We use the following relationships for the principal radii of curvature $`_1=\tau \rho `$, $`_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\rho ^{\prime \prime }/\tau ^3`$, in which $`\tau ^2=1+\rho ^2`$. In order to minimize the deformation energy the surface equation should be a solution of the following equation

$$\rho \rho ^{\prime \prime }\rho ^2\left[\lambda _1+\lambda _2|z|+10XV_s(z,\rho )\right]\rho (1+\rho ^2)^{3/2}1=0$$
(7)
where $`\rho ^{}=d\rho /dz`$, $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }=d^2\rho /dz^2`$, and $`V_s`$ is the Coulomb potential on the nuclear surface. In this equation $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are Lagrange multipliers corresponding to the constraints of volume conservation (or given mass asymmetry if the voulume is conserved in each “half” of the nucleus) and a determined value of the deformation parameter $`\alpha `$. All lengths are given in units of $`R_0`$, Coulomb potential in units of $`Ze/R_0`$, and energy in units of the surface energy $`E_s^0`$. One can calculate for every value of $`\alpha `$ the deformation energy $`E_{def}(\alpha )`$. The particular value $`\alpha _s`$ for which $`dE_{def}(\alpha _s)/d\alpha =0`$ corresponds to the extremum, i.e. the shape function describes the saddle point (or the ground state). The associated surface equation gives the unconditional extremum of the energy and corresponds to the fission barrier. The other surfaces (for $`\alpha \alpha _s`$) are extrema only with condition $`\alpha =`$ constant.

The Coulomb potential on the surface depends on the function $`\rho (z)`$, hence eq 7 is an integro-differential one, as $`V_s`$ is expressed by an integral on the nuclear volume. The integration method used to solve eq 7 is based on the weak dependence of Coulomb energy on the nuclear shape. It is invariant under subtraction from $`V_s`$ of a linear function because $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are arbitrary constants. The extremal surface depends on the quantity with which the Coulomb potential on the nuclear surface differs from the function $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2|z|`$, where the constants $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ could be chosen in a way to minimize this difference. In the next iterration one uses the solution $`\rho (z)`$ previously determined.

The following boundary conditions have to be fulfilled

$$\rho (z_1)=\rho (z_2)=0$$
(8)
$$\underset{zz_1}{lim}d\rho (z)/dz=\mathrm{};\underset{zz_2}{lim}d\rho (z)/dz=\mathrm{}$$
(9)
where $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ are the intercepts with $`z`$ axis at the two tips. Equations 9 are called transversality conditions. For reflection symmetric shapes $`z_1=z_2=z_p`$, hence one can consider only positive values of $`z`$ in the range $`(0,z_p)`$. In order to get rid of singularities in eq 9 it is convenient to introduce a new function $`u(v)`$ instead of $`\rho (z)`$

$$u(v)=𝒜^2\rho ^2(z(v))$$
(10)
where

$$z(v)=z_pv/𝒜$$
(11)
By substituting into eq 7 one has

$`u^{\prime \prime }2`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}[u^2+({\displaystyle \frac{5XV_s}{2𝒜}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2z_p}{4𝒜}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2v}{4𝒜^2}})`$ (12)
$`(4u+u^2)^{3/2}]=0`$
Then we introduce a linear function of $`v`$ by adding and subtracting $`a+bv`$ to $`5XV_s/(2𝒜)`$ and defining $`V_{sd}`$ as deviation of Coulomb potential at the nuclear surface from a linear function of $`v`$

$$V_{sd}=[5X/(2𝒜)]V_savb$$
(13)
The linear term may be considered an external potential of deformation with $`a=[5X/(2𝒜)]V_s(v=0)`$ and $`b=\left\{[5X/(2𝒜)]V_s(v=v_p)a\right\}/v_p`$ leading to

$`u^{\prime \prime }2`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\{u^2+[({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1+\lambda _2z_p}{4𝒜}}+a)+v(b{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{4𝒜^2}})`$ (14)
$`+V_{sd}](4u+u^2)^{3/2}\}=0`$
Here we have new constants $`𝒜`$ and $`z_p`$ related to eq 10, besides the previous ones $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. Nevertheless the solution is not dependent on each parameter; important are the linear coefficients in $`v`$ of the binomial term within parantheses. By equating with 1 the coefficient of $`v`$, one can establish the following link between parameter $`𝒜`$ and the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda _2`$

$$𝒜^2=\lambda _2/4(b1)$$
(15)
In this way $`u(v)`$ should be determined by equation

$$u^{\prime \prime }=2+\frac{1}{u}[u^2+(vd+V_{sd})(4u+u^2)^{3/2}]$$
(16)
containing a single parameter $`d`$. At the limit

$$u(0)=0,u^{}(0)=1/d$$
(17)
and eq 9 is satisfied if $`z_p=v_p/𝒜`$ is obtained from

$$u^{}(v_{pn})=0$$
(18)
The subscript $`n`$ was introduced as a consequence of the fact that the number of points $`v_{pn}`$ (depending on $`d`$ and other parameters), satisfying eq 18 is larger than unity. In order to solve eq 16 one starts with given values of parameters $`d`$ and $`n`$. Different classes of shapes solutions of eq. 16 are obtained by taking various values of $`n`$: for $`n=2`$ there is one neck (binary fission), $`n=3`$ gives two necks (ternary fission), etc. For reflection symmetric shapes $`d_L=d_R`$ and $`n_L=n_R`$. Although the parameter $`𝒜`$ is not present in this equation we have to know it in order to determine the shape function from eq 10. From the volume conservation one has

$$𝒜=\left\{\frac{3}{2}_0^{v_{pn}}u(v)𝑑v\right\}^{1/3}$$
(19)
After solving the integro-differential equation one can find the deformation parameter $`\alpha =z_L^c+z_R^c`$, where

$$z_L^c=_{z_1}^0|z|\rho ^2(z)𝑑z/_{z_1}^{z_2}\rho ^2(z)𝑑z$$
(20)
$$z_L^c=\frac{3}{2}𝒜^4_0^{v_p}(v_pv)u(v)𝑑v$$
(21)
depends on $`d`$. From $`\alpha (d)`$, one can obtain the inverse function $`d=d(\alpha )`$.

For reflection asymmetrical shapes we need to introduce another constraint: the asymmetry parameter, $`\eta `$, defined by

$$\eta =\frac{M_LM_R}{M_L+M_R}=\frac{A_1A_2}{A_1+A_2}$$
(22)
should remain constant during variation of the shape function $`\rho (z)`$. Consequently eq 16 should be written differently for left hand side and right hand side. Now $`d_L`$ is different from $`d_R`$, and $`𝒜_L𝒜_R`$. They have to fulfil matching conditions $`\rho _L(z=0)=\rho _R(z=0)`$ hence

$$u_L^{1/2}(v_p)/𝒜_L=u_R^{1/2}(v_p)/𝒜_R$$
(23)
The second derivative $`\rho ^{\prime \prime }(z)`$ can have a discontinuity in $`z=0`$ if $`d_Ld_R`$. The parameters $`𝒜_L`$ and $`𝒜_R`$ are expressed in terms of $`\eta `$, if we write eq 22 as

$$M_L=\frac{2\pi }{3}(1+\eta )=\pi 𝒜_L^3_0^{v_p}u_L(v)𝑑v$$
(24)
$$M_R=\frac{2\pi }{3}(1\eta )=\pi 𝒜_R^3_0^{v_p}u_R(v)𝑑v$$
(25)
We assume that $`M_L+M_R`$ is equal to the mass of a sphere with $`R=1`$. From eqs 24, 25 we obtain

$$𝒜_L=(1+\eta )^{1/3}𝒜_{L0}$$
(26)
$$𝒜_R=(1\eta )^{1/3}𝒜_{R0}$$
(27)
where we introduced notations similar to eq 19

$$𝒜_{L0(R0)}=\left\{\frac{3}{2}_0^{v_p}u_{L(R)}(v)𝑑v\right\}^{1/3}$$
(28)
The equation 16 is solved by successive approximations. In every iteration one uses the 2nd order Runge-Kutta numerical method with constant integration step. The initial value $`u^{\prime \prime }(v=0)`$ can be found straightforwardly by removing the indetermination in the point $`v=0`$, $`u^{\prime \prime }(0)=2+(1b+g)/2d^2`$, where $`g=[5X/(2𝒜)][dV_s(v)/dv]_{v=0}`$. The equation is integrated up to the point $`v=v_{pn}`$, in which the first derivative $`u^{}(v_{pn})`$ vanishes.

## IV Mass Asymmetry

The variations of the saddle point energy with the mass asymmetry parameter $`d_Ld_R`$ (which is almost linear function of the mass asymmetry $`\eta `$) for some even-mass isotopes of Th and U are plotted in figures 1 and 2. The minima of the saddle-point energy occur at nonzero mass asymmetry parameters $`d_Ld_R`$ between about 0.04 and 0.085 for these nuclei. When the mass number of an isotope increases, the value of the mass asymmetry corresponding to the minimum of the SP energy decreases.

From the saddle point energies $`E_{SP}`$ of every nucleus we subtract the minimum $`E_{SP}^{min}`$, as in the figures 1 and 2. The equilibrium conditions are changed when the shell effects are taken into account. The minimum of the $`E_{SP}`$ is produced by the negative values of the shell corrections $`\delta E\delta E^0`$.

In conclusion, the liquid drop model saddle point shapes and energy barrier heights are well reproduced by the present method. By adding shell corrections to the LDM energy we succeded to obtain the minima shown in Figures 1 and 2 at a finite value of mass asymmetry for the binary fission of 226-238Th and 230-238U nuclei.

As mentioned by Wilkins et al. wil76pr , calculations of PES for fissioning nuclei “qualitatively account for an asymmetric division of mass”. From the qualitative point of view the results displayed in Figures 1 and 2 proove the capability of the method to deal with fission mass and charge asymmetry.

The experimentally determined mass number of the most probable heavy fragment wah88adnd  for U isotopes ranges from 134 to 140. The corresponding values at the displayed minima in Figures 1 and 2 are very close to 125, which means a discrepancy between 6.7 % and 10.7 % for $`A_H`$. The inaccuracy in reproducing the experimental mass asymmetry is due to the contribution of the phenomenological shell corrections. In the absence of shell corrections the pure liquid drop model (LDM) reflection-symmetric saddle point shapes  are reproduced, and the barrier height increseas with an increased mass asymmetry. When the shell corrections are taken into account the LDM part behaves in the same manner (larger values at non-zero mass asymmetry). Only the contribution of shell effects can produce a minimum of the barrier height at a finite value of the mass asymmetry. One may hope to obtain a better agreement with experimental data by using a more realistic shell correction model.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partly supported by UNESCO (UVE-ROSTE Contract 875.737.2), by the Centre of Excellence IDRANAP under contract ICA1-CT-2000-70023 with European Commission, Brussels, by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Bonn, Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI), Darmstadt, by Ministry of Education and Research, Bucharest.


text:
# Differential Geometry via Harmonic Functions

## 1. Introduction

In 1992, the author and Luen-fai Tam  discovered a general method to determine if a complete, non-compact, Riemannian manifold have finitely many ends. An end is simply defined to be an unbounded component of the compliment of a compact set in the manifold. If the number of ends is finite, their technique also provides an estimate on the number of ends. In particular, they applied this method to prove that a certain class of manifolds must have finitely many ends.

###### Theorem 1 (Li-Tam)

Let $`M^m`$ be a complete, non-compact, manifold with

$$Ric_M(x)k(r(x)),$$

where $`k(r)`$ is a continuous non-increasing function satisfying

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}r^{m1}k(r)𝑑r<\mathrm{}.$$

Then there exists a constant $`0<C(m,k)<\mathrm{}`$ depending only on $`m`$ and $`k`$, such that, $`M`$ has at most $`C(m,k)`$ number of ends.

Since a manifold with non-negative Ricci curvature will satisfy the hypothesis, this theorem can be viewed as a perturbed version of the splitting theorem  of Cheeger-Gromoll. A weaker version of the above theorem for manifolds with non-negative Ricci curvature outside a compact set was also independently proved by Cai .

In some recent work of Jiaping Wang and the author, they successfully applied the general theory of determining the number of ends to other situations. The purpose of this note is to give a quick overview of the theory and its applications to manifolds with positive spectrum and minimal hypersurfaces.

## 2. General theory

Throughout this article, we will assume that $`(M^m,ds_M^2)`$ is an $`m`$-dimensional, complete, non-compact Riemannian manifold without boundary. In terms of local coordinates $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_m)`$, if the metric is given by

$$ds_M^2=g_{ij}dx_idx_j,$$

then the Laplacian is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{}{x_i}\left(g_{ij}\sqrt{g}\frac{}{x_j}\right),$$

where $`(g^{ij})=(g_{ij})^1`$ and $`g=det(g_{ij}).`$ A function is said to be harmonic on $`M`$ if it satisfies the Laplace equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(x)=0$$

for all $`xM.`$

In order to state the general theorem, it is necessary for us to define the following spaces.

###### Definition 1

Let

$$_D(M)=\{f|\mathrm{\Delta }f=0,f_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{},_M|f|^2<\mathrm{}\}$$

be the space of bounded harmonic functions with finite Dirichlet integral defined on $`M.`$

###### Definition 2

Let

$$_+(M)=\{f|\mathrm{\Delta }f=0,f>0\}$$

be the space spanned by the set of positive harmonic functions defined on $`M`$.

###### Definition 3

Let

$$^{}(M)=\{f|\mathrm{\Delta }f=0,\text{bounded from one side on each end}\}$$

be the space spanned by the set of harmonic functions defined on $`M`$, which has the property that each one is bounded either from above or below on each end.

Observe that these spaces are monotonically contained in each other, i.e.,

$$_D(M)_+(M)^{}(M).$$

Let us also recalled the following potential theoretic definition.

###### Definition 4

An end $`E`$ of $`M`$ is non-parabolic if it admits a positive Green’s function with Neumann boundary condition on $`E`$. Otherwise, $`E`$ is said to be parabolic.

It is important to note that if $`M`$ has at least one non-parabolic end, then $`M`$ admits a positive Green’s function. In this case, we say that $`M`$ is non-parabolic. The interested reader can refer to  for more detail descriptions. Let us now state the general theorem in .

###### Theorem (Li-Tam)

Let $`M`$ be a complete, non-compact manifold without boundary. Then there exists a subspace $`𝒦^{}(M)`$, such that, $`dim𝒦`$ is equal to the number of ends of $`M.`$

Moreover, if $`M`$ is non-parabolic , then the subspace $`𝒦`$ can be taken to be in $`_+(M)`$. Also there exists another subspace $`𝒦_N_D(M)`$, such that, $`dim𝒦_N`$ is equal to the number of non-parabolic ends of $`M`$.

At this point, it is important to point out that even though an estimate on the dimension of the spaces $`^{}(M)`$, $`_+(M),`$ or $`_D(M)`$ will imply an estimate on the number of ends of corresponding type, however, in general, these spaces can be bigger than $`𝒦`$ or $`𝒦_N.`$ Hence to effectively use the above theorem, one should use the constructive argument in the proof of the theorem to give an estimate on $`𝒦`$ and $`𝒦_N`$ directly. Indeed, this was the case in the proof of Theorem 1. This is also true for the two applications stated in the subsequence sections.

## 3. Manifolds with positive spectrum

A complete manifold $`(M,ds_M^2)`$ is conformally compact if $`M`$ is topologically a manifold with boundary given by $`M.`$ Moreover, there is a background metric $`ds_0^2`$ on $`(M,M)`$ such that

$$ds_M^2=\rho ^2ds_0^2,$$

where $`\rho `$ is a defining function for $`M`$ satisfying the conditions

$$\rho =0\text{on}M$$

and

$$d\rho 0\text{on}M.$$

A direct computation reveals that the sectional curvature, $`K_M`$, of the complete metric $`ds^2`$ has asymptotic value given by

$$K_M|d\rho |^2,$$

near $`M.`$ Hence if $`(M,ds_M^2)`$ is also assumed to be Einstein with

$$Ric_M=(m1),$$

then

$$K_M(x)1,$$

as $`x\mathrm{}.`$

In 1999, Witten-Yau  proved a theorem concerning the AdS/CFT correspondence, which effectively ruled out the existence of worm holes. It is also a very interesting theorem in Riemannian geometry.

###### Theorem (Witten-Yau)

Let $`M^m`$ be a conformally compact, Einstein manifold of dimension at least 3. Suppose the boundary $`M`$ of $`M`$ has positive Yamabe constant, then

$$H_{m1}(M,)=0.$$

In particular, this implies that $`M`$ is connected and $`M`$ must have only 1 end.

Shortly after, Cai-Galloway  relaxed the assumption of Witten-Yau by assuming the boundary $`M`$ has non-negative Yamabe constant. We would also like to point out that by a theorem of Schoen , a compact manifold has non-negative Yamabe constant is equivalent to the fact that it is conformally equivalent to a manifold with non-negative scalar curvature.

In his Stanford thesis, X. Wang  generalized the Witten-Yau, Cai-Galloway theorem by studying $`L^2`$ harmonic 1-forms.

###### Theorem (Wang)

Let $`M^m`$ be a conformally compact manifold of dimension at least 3. Suppose the Ricci curvature of $`M`$ is bounded by

$$Ric_M(m1)$$

and the lower bound of the spectrum of the Laplacian $`\lambda _1(M)`$ has a positive lower bound given by

$$\lambda _1(M)(m2),$$

then either

(1) $`M`$ has no non-constant $`L^2`$-harmonic 1-forms, i.e.,

$$H^1(L^2(M))=0;$$

or

(2) $`M=\times N`$ with the warped product metric

$$ds_M^2=dt^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2tds_N^2,$$

where $`(N,ds_N^2)`$ is a compact manifold with $`Ric_N(m2).`$ Moreover, $`\lambda _1(M)=m2.`$

To see that this is indeed a generalization of the theorems of Witten-Yau and Cai-Galloway, one uses a theorem of Mazzeo  asserting that on a conformally compact manifold

$$H^1(L^2(M))H^1(M,M).$$

By a standard exact sequence argument, the conclusion that $`H^1(L^2(M))=0`$ implies that $`M`$ has only 1 end. In addition to this, one also uses a theorem of Lee  giving a lower bound on $`\lambda _1`$ for conformally compact, Einstein manifold with non-negative Yamabe constant on $`M.`$

###### Theorem (Lee)

Let $`M`$ be a conformally compact, Einstein manifold with

$$Ric_M=(m1).$$

Suppose that $`M`$ has non-negative Yamabe constant, then

$$\lambda _1(M)\frac{(m1)^2}{4}.$$

Since $`\frac{(m1)^2}{4}m2`$, Wang’s theorem implies the theorems of Witten-Yau and Cai-Galloway. Observe that the warped product case in Wang’s theorem has negative Yamabe constant on $`M`$.

At this point, let us also recall a theorem of Cheng  stating that:

###### Theorem (Cheng)

Let $`M`$ be a complete manifold with

$$Ric_M(m1),$$

then

$$\lambda _1(M)\frac{(m1)^2}{4}.$$

Combining the results of Cheng and Lee we conclude that

$$\lambda _1(M)=\frac{(m1)^2}{4}$$

for conformally compact, Einstein manifolds, whose Ricci curvature is given by

$$Ric_M=(m1)$$

and has non-negative Yamabe constant for its boundary.

In the authors recent joint work with Jiaping Wang  , they proved this splitting type theorem without assuming the manifold is conformally compact.

###### Theorem 2 (Li-Wang)

Let $`M^m`$ be a complete manifold with dimension $`m3`$. Suppose the Ricci curvature of $`M`$ is bounded by

$$Ric_M(m1)$$

and

$$\lambda _1(M)m2,$$

then either

(1) $`M`$ has only 1 end with infinite volume;

or

(2)$`M=\times N`$ with the warped product metric

$$ds_M^2=dt^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2tds_N^2,$$

where $`(N,ds_N^2)`$ is compact with $`Ric_N(m2).`$ Moreover, $`\lambda _1(M)=m2.`$

It is worth noting that this theorem implies that when the lower bound for $`\lambda _1(M)`$ of Cheng is achieved, then either

(1)$`M`$ has only 1 end with infinite volume,

or

(2)$`M=\times N`$ is the warped product and $`m=3.`$

Also, since all the ends of a conformally compact manifold must have infinite volume, Theorem 2 is, in fact, a generalization of the theorems of Witten-Yau, Cai-Galloway, and Wang. It is also interesting to note that without the conformally compactness assumption, it is possible to have finite volume ends as indicated by following example.

###### Example 1

Let $`M^m=\times N^{m1}`$ with the warped product metric

$$ds_M^2=dt^2+\mathrm{exp}(2t)ds_N^2,$$

where $`N`$ is a compact manifold with

$$Ric_N0.$$

A direct computation shows that $`M`$ has Ricci curvature bounded by

$$Ric_M(m1)$$

and

$$\lambda _1(M)m2.$$

In fact, when $`m=3,`$ $`\lambda _1(M)=1.`$ Obviously $`M`$ has two ends. One end $`E`$ has infinite volume growth with

$$V_E(r)C\mathrm{exp}((m1)r),$$

while the other end $`e`$ has finite volume with volume decay given by

$$V_e(\mathrm{})V_e(r)C\mathrm{exp}((m1)r).$$

We would like to point out that the pair of conditions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Ric_M& (m1)\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda _1(M)& m2\hfill \end{array}\}$$
$`1`$
is equivalent to the pair of conditions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Ric_M& \frac{m1}{m2}\lambda _1(M)\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda _1(M)& >0.\hfill \end{array}\}$$
$`2`$
On the other hand, the pair of conditions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Ric_M& \frac{m1}{m2}\lambda _1(M)\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda _1(M)& =0\hfill \end{array}\}$$
$`3`$
are equivalent to the single assumption that

$$Ric_M0,$$

because the condition $`\lambda _1(M)=0`$ is a consequence of the curvature assumption.

Taking this point of view, Theorem 2 can be viewed as an analogue to the splitting theorem of Cheeger-Gromoll. Similarly to the fact that Theorem 1 is a perturbed version of the Cheeger-Gromoll splitting theorem, the following theorem in  is a perturbed version of Theorem 2.

###### Theorem 3 (Li-Wang)

Let $`M^m`$ be a complete manifold with $`m3.`$ Suppose $`B_p(R)M`$ is a geodesic ball such that

$$Ric_M(m1)\text{on}MB_p(R)$$

and the lower bound of the spectrum of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $`MB_p(R)`$ is bounded by

$$\lambda _1(MB_p(R))m2+ϵ$$

for some $`ϵ>0.`$ Then there exists a constant $`0<C(m,R,\alpha ,v,ϵ)<\mathrm{}`$ depending only on $`m`$, $`R`$, $`\alpha =inf_{B_p(3R)}Ric_M,`$ $`v=inf_{xB_p(2R)}V_x(R)`$, and $`ϵ`$, so that the number of infinite volume ends of $`M`$ is at most $`C(m,R,\alpha ,v,ϵ)`$.

In both Theorem 2 and Theorem 3, the authors only managed to estimate the number of infinite volume ends by estimating the number of non-parabolic ends. In fact, when a manifold has positive spectrum, they proved that an end must either be non-parabolic with exponential volume growth, or it must be parabolic and finite volume with exponential volume decay. Moreover, these growth and decay estimates can be localized at each end.

###### Theorem 4 (Li-Wang)

Let $`M`$ be a complete, non-compact, Riemannian manifold. Suppose $`E`$ is an end of $`M`$ given by a unbounded component of $`MB_p(R)`$, where $`B_p(R)`$ is a geodesic ball of radius $`R`$ centered at some fixed point $`pM`$. Assume that the lower bound of the spectrum $`\lambda _1(E)`$ of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $`E`$ is positive. Then as $`r\mathrm{},`$ either

(1) $`E`$ is non-parabolic and has volume growth given by

$$V_E(r)C_1\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{\lambda _1(E)}r)$$

for some constant $`C_1>0`$;

or

(2) $`E`$ is parabolic and has finite volume with volume decay given by

$$V(E)V_E(r)C_2\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{\lambda _1(E)}r)$$

for some constant $`C_2>0.`$

In particular, if $`\lambda _1(M)>0`$, then $`M`$ must have exponential volume growth given by

$$V_p(r)C_1\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{\lambda _1(M)}r).$$

Both the volume growth and the volume decay estimates are sharp. For example, the growth estimate is achieved by the hyperbolic $`m`$-space, $`^m.`$ Also, in Example 1 when dimension $`m=3`$, the infinite volume end achieves the sharp volume growth estimate and the finite volume end achieves the sharp volume decay estimate. It is also interesting to point out that the sharp volume growth estimate is previously not known for manifolds with $`\lambda _1(M)>0.`$

## 4. Minimal hypersurfaces

Let us recall that the well-known Bernstein’s theorem (Bernstein, Fleming, Almgren, DeGiorgi, Simons) asserts that an entire minimal graph $`M^m^{m+1}`$ must be linear if $`m7.`$ Moreover, the dimension restriction is necessary as indicated by the examples of Bombieri, DeGiorgi, and Guisti. Since minimal graphs are necessarily area minimizing and hence stable (second variation of the area functional is non-negative), Fischer-Colbrie and Schoen  considered a generalization of Bernstein’s theorem in this category. They proved that a complete, oriented, immersed, stable minimal surface in a complete manifold with non-negative scalar curvature must be conformally equivalent to either $``$ or $`\times 𝕊^1.`$ Moreover, if the ambient manifold is $`^3`$ then the minimal surface must be planar. This special case was independently proved by do Carmo and Peng .

Later, Fischer-Colbrie  studied the structure of minimal surfaces with finite index. Recall that a minimal surface has finite index means that there are only a finite dimension of variations such that the second variations of the area functional is negative. In this case, Fischer-Colbrie proved that a complete, oriented, immersed, minimal surface with finite index in a complete manifold with non-negative scalar curvature must be conformally equivalent to a compact Riemann surface with finitely many punctures. In particular, $`M`$ must have finitely many ends. The special case when $`N=^3`$ was also independently proved by Gulliver . It is in the spirit of the number of ends that Cao, Shen and Zhu  found a higher dimensional statement for stable minimal hypersurfaces in $`^{m+1}.`$

###### Theorem (Cao-Shen-Zhu)

Let $`M^m^{m+1}`$ be a complete, oriented, immersed, stable minimal hypersurface in $`^{m+1},`$ then $`M`$ must have only 1 end.

This theorem is recently generalized to minimal hypersurfaces with finite index by the author and Jiaping Wang .

###### Theorem 5 (Li-Wang)

Let $`M^m^{m+1}`$ be a complete, oriented, immersed, minimal hypersurface with finite index in $`^{m+1}`$, then $`M`$ must have finitely many ends.

In another paper , they also considered complete, properly immersed, stable (or with finite index) minimal hypersurfaces in a complete, non-negatively curved manifold.

###### Theorem 6 (Li-Wang)

Let $`M^mN^{m+1}`$ be a complete, oriented, properly immersed, stable, minimal hypersurface. Suppose $`N`$ is a complete manifold with non-negative sectional curvature. Then either

(1) $`M`$ has only 1 end;

or

(2) $`M=\times S`$ with the product metric, where $`S`$ is a compact manifold with non-negative sectional curvature. Moreover, $`M`$ is totally geodesic in $`N.`$

###### Theorem 7 (Li-Wang)

Let $`M^mN^{m+1}`$ be a complete, oriented, properly immersed, minimal hypersurface with finite index. Suppose $`N`$ is a complete manifold with non-negative sectional curvature. Then $`M`$ must have finitely many ends.

It is interesting to point out that in the case when $`M=\times S,`$ the manifold is parabolic. In this case, it is necessary to estimate the space $`𝒦`$ rather than $`𝒦^{}.`$ Again, the crucial point is to follow the construction of $`𝒦`$ and obtain sufficient estimates on the functions in $`𝒦`$ so that analytic techniques can be applied. In the case of Theorem 5, since the ambient manifold is $`^{m+1}`$ and hence the ends of $`M`$ must all be non-parabolic, it is sufficient to estimate the space $`𝒦^{}`$ as stated in Theorem 2.

## References