text:
# ARPES and optical renormalizations: phonons or spin fluctuations

## I Introduction

With the advent of improved resolution, both in energy and momentum, several angular resolved photo emission spectroscopy (ARPES) groups have measured the renormalized quasiparticle energies and/or lifetimeskaminski ; valla ; johnson ; kaminski1 ; lanzara ; bogdanov ; valla1 ; valla2  in the cuprates. The data shows that a definite energy scale exists for the renormalization. This energy scale has tentatively been assigned by somelanzara ; bogdanov  to interactions of the charge carriers with phonons. This provocative possibility has again brought to the forefront the open question of mechanism in the cuprates and in particular the possibility that the electron-phonon interaction plays an important role. While the electron-phonon interaction is widely believed to cause superconductivity in conventional materials, the gap symmetry in the cuprates is $`d`$-wavemars6 ; hardy ; shen ; wollm ; tsuei  rather than $`s`$-wave which means that it is the projection of the electron phonon interaction on the $`d`$-channel which enters the equation for the critical temperature $`T_c`$. This would imply that some of the details of the electron-phonon interaction would be drastically different in the oxides compared to conventional metals. While conventional superconductors do exhibit anisotropytomlinson ; carb2  in their superconducting gap as a function of momentum k on the Fermi surface, the $`s`$-channel always overcomes the $`d`$-channel interaction. Also in dirty $`s`$-wave materials with the mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$ smaller than the coherence length $`\xi _0`$, the anisotropy is washed out and the gap becomes isotropic. On the other hand, in the pure limit there are many ways in which this gap anisotropy manifests itself in a conventional superconductor.carb2  One example is the low temperature $`(T)`$ electronic specific heat which exhibits the expected exponential dependence $`\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{\Delta }/T\}`$ only for temperatures much lower than the lowest gap $`(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in the system.

Arguments for why the form of the electron-phonon interaction can be very different in the oxides as compared with conventional metals have been presented in the literature. Some of the critical ideas have been reviewed by Kulić.no15  The main argument for our purpose here is that the electron-phonon interaction becomes strongly peaked in the forward direction when corrections for strong correlations are properly accounted for through charge vertices.zeyher ; kulic  Another related idea is that because of the large static dielectric function in the oxides the screening is greatly reduced as compared with ordinary metals. This also leads to enhanced forward scattering as can be seenweger ; weger1  from the following simple argument. The Fourier transform of the bare Coulomb potential diverges like $`1/q^2`$ for small q, here q is the momentum transfer. Screening eliminates this singularity and the screened potential goes, instead, like $`1/(q^2+\lambda _{\mathrm{FT}}^2)`$, where $`\lambda _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ is an inverse screening length. For small $`\lambda _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ the increased forward scattering has the general tendency of increasing the weighting of the higher harmonics in its expansion. For example the expansion of a delta function $`\delta (𝐪)`$ has equal weight in each spherical harmonics.kulic1  Strong forward scattering can in fact lead to $`d`$-wave superconductivity which is not suppressed by the strong Coulomb repulsion in contrast to the $`s`$-wave channel.kulic1 ; kulic2

While the possibility of phonon induced $`d`$-wave superconductivity cannot be eliminated on general grounds, it has not been favored in much of the literature. While there is no consensus on mechanism, many workers believe instead in an electronically driven scenario: for instance, the $`tJ`$ model can exhibit superconductivity.sorella  A spin fluctuation mechanism, such as is envisaged in the Nearly Antiferromagnetic Fermi Liquid (NAFFL) model of Pines and coworkerspines1 ; pines2  is also electronic in nature with the exchange of spin fluctuations rather than phonons. Another electronic mechanism is the Marginal Fermi Liquid (MFL) modelvarma1 ; varma2 ; varma3  which in its original form had $`s`$-wave symmetry.

In this paper we attempt to understand the renormalization effect observed in ARPES within a boson exchange mechanism. We will consider explicitly both, phonon and spin fluctuation exchange. We will also try to reconcile within the same model, both, ARPES data on equilibrium quasiparticle properties and the optical conductivity. Infrared measurements in the cuprates have produced a wealth of information on charge dynamics in the oxides.puchkov ; timusk  They have played a key role in our present understanding of the microscopic nature of the cuprates. In particular, $`c`$-axis infrared conductivity data have given detailed spectroscopic information on the pseudogaptimusk  which has been widely viewed as a direct manifestation of strong correlation effects. Recently, improvements in resolution have also been achieved in $`ab`$-plane measurements.tu

From reflectance measurements as a function of frequency it is possible to extract separately the real and the imaginary part of the conductivity $`\sigma (T,\omega )`$ as a function of $`\omega `$ for a fixed temperature $`T`$. Within a generalized Drude model, in which the optical scattering rate and optical effective mass acquire a frequency dependence, we can define an isotropic optical scattering time $`\tau _{op}(T,\omega )`$ as $`\tau _{op}^1=(\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2/4\pi )\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\sigma ^1(T,\omega )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is the plasma frequency. This quantity can be determined from the optical sum rule on the real part of $`\sigma (T,\omega )`$, namely $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \sigma _1(T,\omega )=(\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2/8)`$. The optical scattering rate defined above is related to the quasiparticle lifetime which may be considered to be more fundamental as they directly define quasiparticle motion. While these two lifetimes are related, they are by no means identical, however, except for a simplified case of isotropic elastic impurity scattering. Even in this case, if the electronic density of states has an important dependence on energy or the elastic scattering is anisotropic, quasiparticle and transport scattering rates are no longer the same. Note that, in as much as the in-plane conductivity is isotropic, the optical scattering rate is also isotropic and represents a weighted average of the more fundamental momentum dependent quasiparticle scattering. While there have been some attempts in the literaturekaminski  to compare both sets of data, i.e.: ARPES and optical directly, we will emphasize here that, because they are not so simply related, they cannot easily be compared. On the other hand, any viable microscopic model needs to be able to provide a unifying description of both sets of experiments. In this regard, we will emphasize that in addition to the differences between quasiparticle and transport scattering rate which we have already discussed, they differ in another fundamental way. In a boson exchange mechanism the charge carrier-exchange boson spectral density (denoted by $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ in the explicit case of phonons) which describes the equilibrium properties can be quite different from the corresponding transport spectral density, usually denoted by $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$.tomlinson1 ; leung  The origin of this fundamental difference lies in a well-known factor $`(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between initial and final electron momentum undergoing a scattering process. For quasiparticle properties such as its lifetime, only the probability that an electron of momentum k leaves the state $`|𝐤`$ is relevant, while for transport, for instance for the d.c. resistivity, it is also important where it ends up since backward scattering depletes the current more than forward scattering. This basic physics is accounted for by the $`(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ factor which eliminates forward scattering $`(\theta =0)`$ and weights with a factor two backward scattering $`(\theta =\pi )`$. Serious estimatesno15 ; zeyher ; kulic  of these two spectral densities for a model electron-phonon interaction in the poor screening regime with explicit inclusion of correlation effects, have lead to an estimate that $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$ may be smaller by about a factor of $`1/3`$ compared with $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$, the corresponding quasiparticle quantity. On the other hand, in the NAFFL model the interaction with spin fluctuations is believed to strongly peak around $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ in momentum. This means that the scattering potential itself weights more strongly the backward scattering processes, and so we expect that the transport spectral density will be larger than its quasiparticle counterpart. The above arguments immediately suggest that phonons effects could very well show up prominently in quasiparticle properties while at the same time play only a minor role in transport, i.e.: in the infrared conductivity and vice versa for spin fluctuations.

In section II we make general remarks about the renormalization effects due to boson exchange mechanisms based on perturbation theory. In particular we contrast the electron-phonon case with spin fluctuations. In section III we deal with fits to the ARPES data in Bi2212 and in section IV we consider, in addition, optical conductivity data. We describe the constraints on microscopic models that a fit to both sets of data imposes in the specific case of Bi2212. In section V we draw conclusions.

## II General results

For an electron-phonon system, the renormalization of the electronic quasiparticles follows from a knowledge of the electron-phonon spectral density $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$. This function which depends only on frequency, and which is limited in range to the maximum phonon frequency, contains all of the complicated information about electronic band wave functions, dispersion relation, phonon dynamics, and electron-lattice vibration coupling which is needed to compute self energy effects. In lowest order perturbation theory, the quasiparticle scattering rate $`\tau _{qp}^1(\omega )`$ at energy $`\omega `$ is given byallen

$$\tau _{qp}^1(\omega )=2\pi \underset{0}{\overset{\omega }{}}𝑑\nu \alpha ^2F(\nu ).$$
(1)
For a $`\delta `$-function Einstein phonon at $`\omega _E`$ of the form $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )=A\delta (\omega \omega _E)`$

$$\tau _{qp}^1(\omega )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2\pi A& \omega >\omega _E\hfill \\ \hfill 0& \omega <\omega _E,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
and we see that $`\omega _E`$ sets the energy at which $`\tau _{qp}^1(\omega )`$ jumps from zero to a finite value. For an $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ distributed in energy, the rise will be more gradual but for $`\omega \omega _D`$, with the Debye energy $`\omega _D`$, the scattering rate will, again, become constant.

The expression for the optical scattering rate, on the other hand, which is also obtained in lowest order perturbation theory isallen

$$\tau _{op}^1(\omega )=\frac{2\pi }{\omega }\underset{0}{\overset{\omega }{}}𝑑\nu (\omega \nu )\alpha _{tr}^2F(\nu ),$$
(3)
which gives $`\tau _{op}^1(\omega )=0`$ for $`\omega \omega _E`$ in an Einstein model, but now for $`\omega >\omega _E`$

$$\tau _{op}^1(\omega )=2\pi \left(1\frac{\omega _E}{\omega }\right)A_{tr},$$
(4)
which starts at zero with $`\omega =\omega _E`$ and gradually increases towards $`2\pi A_{tr}`$ with increasing $`\omega `$. This is quite distinct from the abrupt jump to $`2\pi A`$ at $`\omega =\omega _E`$ found for the quasiparticle scattering rate. Here the subscript ‘$`tr`$’ denotes transport as opposed to equilibrium properties. It is clear that the singularity in $`\tau ^1(\omega )`$ associated with the boson energy scale $`\omega _E`$ is more significant in the quasiparticle (equilibrium case) than in the transport scattering rate. There is yet another difference between quasiparticle and transport rates. If we denote the electron-phonon interaction matrix element by $`g_{𝐤,𝐤^{},\nu }`$ for electrons scattering from k to $`𝐤^{}`$ with a phonon of energy $`\omega _\nu (𝐤𝐤^{})`$ ($`\nu `$ is a branch index) the quasiparticle spectral density isgrimvall ; carb1 ; mars6

$$\alpha ^2F(\omega )=\underset{\nu }{}\left|g_{𝐤,𝐤^{},\nu }\right|^2\delta (\omega \omega _\nu (𝐤𝐤^{})),$$
(5)
with the double average over the Fermi surface denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$

$$G=\frac{\underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}G_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}\delta (\epsilon _𝐤\mu )\delta (\epsilon _𝐤^{}\mu )}{\underset{𝐤}{}\delta (\epsilon _𝐤\mu )},$$
(6)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, so all integrals are pinned at the Fermi surface. The optical spectral weight is relatedtomlinson ; leung ; grimvall  instead to

$$\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )\underset{\nu }{}\left|g_{𝐤,𝐤^{},\nu }\right|^2\left(v_𝐤v_𝐤^{}\right)^2\delta (\omega \omega _\nu (𝐤𝐤^{})).$$
(7)
The extra factor of $`v_𝐤v_𝐤^{}`$ with $`v_𝐤`$ the velocity of the electron k weights forward scattering by zero and emphasizes most backward collisions.

The functions $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ of Eq. (5) and $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$ of Eq. (7) are isotropic, momentum averages, given by the right hand side of each of these equations. Both involve a double integral over initial and final states $`|𝐤`$ and $`|𝐤^{}`$. The full complicated momentum dependence of the electron-phonon coupling $`g_{𝐤,𝐤^{},\nu }`$ and of the phonon dispersion $`\omega _\nu (𝐤𝐤^{})`$ is included with no approximations, although after the double summation over momentum, indicated in Eq. (6), $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ is now isotropic, dependent only on frequency. This is the function that enters isotropic Eliashberg theory. An anisotropic formulation of the Eliashberg equationsdaams  also exists and in this case a directional electron-phonon spectral density distinct for each electron state $`|𝐤`$ on the Fermi surface, which we denote by $`\alpha _𝐤^2F(\omega )`$, would replace its Fermi surface average:

$$\alpha ^2F(\omega )=\frac{\underset{𝐤}{}\alpha _𝐤^2F(\omega )}{\underset{𝐤}{}\delta (\epsilon _𝐤\mu )}.$$
(8)
To calculate $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ from first principles is difficult and complex.carb1  It can, fortunately, be measured directly from tunneling data through consideration of current voltage characteristics.mcmillan ; mcmillan1  The resulting function of $`\omega `$ often, but not always, looks qualitatively very much like the phonon frequency distribution $`F(\omega )`$ but this does not imply that momentum dependence of coupling and/or of phonons is not included in Eq. (5). Any nesting effects such as are present in the nested Fermi liquid theory of Virosztek and Ruvaldsru1 ; ru2  and in the work of Savrasov and Andersensavr  are fully incorporated on the right hand side of Eq. (5). It is only because we take the left hand side from experiment that these important issues do not become prominent in our work.

A further complication arises in the case of coupling to spin fluctuations.branch  In this case the magnetic spin susceptibility $`\chi _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}(\omega )`$ is involved as well as its coupling to charge. The susceptibility in the cuprates is sharply peaked in momentum space at the antiferromagnetic wave vector $`𝐤𝐤^{}`$ (momentum transfer) for electron scattering from $`|𝐤`$ to $`|𝐤^{}`$. In this case, what enters Eliashberg theorybranch  is the complex function $`\chi _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}(\omega )`$ weighted by electron coupling. For instance, in the NAFFL modelpines1

$$\chi _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}(\omega )=\frac{\chi _𝐐}{1+\xi ^2(𝐪𝐐)^2i\frac{\omega }{\omega _{MMP}}},q_x,q_y>0,$$
(9)
with $`𝐪=𝐤𝐤^{}`$, $`\chi _𝐐`$ the static susceptibility, $`\xi `$ the magnetic coherence length, $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$ the commensurate antiferromagnetic momentum, and $`\omega _{MMP}`$ the characteristic energy of the spin fluctuations at the point Q. A Fermi surface to Fermi surface approximation does not naturally reveal itself since this may not include transitions with $`𝐤𝐤^{}=(\pi ,\pi )`$ for which the susceptibility is the largest. However, one can still introduce, as an approximation, some average effective electron-spin fluctuation spectral function denoted by $`I^2\chi (\omega )`$ which can be used in the isotropic version of the Eliashberg equations. It represents the appropriate average of the susceptibility that enters superconductivity. Its value is to be determined from consideration of experimental data. As described by Carbotte et al.schach4  this isotropic spectral density is given by the second derivative of $`\omega `$ times the optical scattering rate $`\tau _{op}^1(\omega )`$. Recall, $`\tau _{op}^1(\omega )=(\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2/4\pi )\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\sigma ^1(\omega )`$, where $`\sigma (\omega )`$ is the in-plane optical conductivity. This conductivity is isotropic in tetragonal systems. For the orthorhombic case, $`\sigma (\omega )`$ with $`𝐄a`$ and $`𝐄b`$ can be different. Defining

$$W(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d^2}{d\omega ^2}\left(\frac{\omega }{\tau _{op}(\omega )}\right),$$
(10)
the approximate relation $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )W(\omega )`$ holds.mars4  We emphasize that in terms of microscopic theory $`W(\omega )`$ is related to an appropriate average of the full momentum and energy spin susceptibility $`\chi _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}(\omega )`$ (Eq. (9)). Recently, infrared optical data has been used very effectively to obtain $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$ in the oxides and we will use these in our work.schach4 ; schach7 ; schach5 ; schach8  In this way we circumvent all of the complications that would arise in a first principle calculation of the average effective function $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$. We will return to this important point later in equation (13). We note in passing that $`W(\omega )`$ very often exhibits a pronounced resonance like structure particularly if $`\tau _{op}^1(\omega )`$ data at low temperatures in the superconducting state is analyzed. In the following we use the expression ‘optical resonance’ in reference to such a structure. In most materials analyzed so far, this optical resonance has a spin resonance equivalent measured using inelastic neutron scattering. We will discuss this in more detail in Sec. IV.

In some sense the opposite extreme to the NAFFL model of Pines and coworkerspines1 ; pines2  in which the interaction peaks at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ is the MFL model of Varma et al.varma1 ; varma2 ; varma3  in which the interaction with the fluctuation spectrum is thought of as momentum independent in a first approximation. As originally conceived, this model leads to an $`s`$-wave superconducting gap rather than $`d`$-wave as is now generally believed to be the case. This represents a real limitation for the model. Nevertheless, it has been very useful in correlating much data on the normal state transport properties in the cuprates.

In as much as it is only the magnitude and energy dependence of the resulting average spectral function $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ ($`I^2\chi (\omega )`$) that matter, these may not be very different between the MFL and NAFFL models. Both have an average spectral density which is reasonably flat as a function of energy and which extends to some high frequency of order several hundred meV. Of course, if anisotropies on the Fermi surface were to be considered, the directional $`\alpha _𝐤^2F(\omega )`$ ($`I_𝐤^2\chi (\omega )`$), Eq. (8), would be expected to vary strongly in the NAFFL model and not in the MFL model, but here, for simplicity, we have assigned to each electron the same average interaction. For phonons in conventional metals the mass renormalization parameter $`\lambda _𝐤=2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \alpha _𝐤^2F(\omega )/\omega `$ can vary by several tens of percentage points over the Fermi surface.carb2  For the NAFFL model based on the susceptibility (9), the variations are much larger, and can be of the order of a factor of two or three.branch  It is clear that ARPES data in a particular direction could considerably under or overestimate the average renormalizations. In this sense optics is better.

We should make one further remark. In conventional materials for which $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ and $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$ have been calculated from band structure and phonon information usually obtained by inelastic neutron scattering, they have been found to differtomlinson ; carb2 ; tomlinson1 ; leung  in shape as a function of $`\omega `$ and in size. But these differences have often been overlooked in the literature. In the work of Kulić and Zeyher no15 ; zeyher ; kulic  the corresponding differences are large. These authors considered directly the cuprates and try to account seriously for the ionicity and the increased effect of correlations. As described in the introduction, they find that the electron-phonon interaction in this case is strongly peaked in the forward direction and this leads to large differences between $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ and $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$. They estimate $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ to be about a factor of three larger than $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$. The consequence of this is that phonons would show up much more prominently in quasiparticle properties (equilibrium) than in the corresponding transport property. In particular, at large $`\omega `$, $`\tau _{qp}^1(\omega )`$ and $`\tau _{op}^1(\omega )`$ (Eqs. (2) and (4), respectively) would approach each other if $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ and $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$ were identical, but in fact $`\tau _{op}^1(\omega )`$ is expected to be larger than $`\tau _{qp}^1(\omega )`$. The opposite would hold for the NAFFL model which emphasizes backward rather than forward scattering because the interaction peaks at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. In this case spin fluctuations should show up more prominently in transport than in equilibrium properties. Even though these differences are hard to quantify, the general qualitative features of transport as compared with quasiparticle spectral weight just described must be kept in mind when analyzing data. In the MFL model we expect smaller differences between quasiparticle and transport spectral densities because the underlying interaction is assumed to be approximately momentum independent.

So far we have only discussed scattering rates and have emphasized the differences and similarities between infrared optical absorption and quasiparticle lifetimes. In ARPES the dressed electronic dispersion relation is measured and denoted by $`E_𝐤`$. It is related to the bare band dispersion $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ through the electron self energy. In the electron-phonon case with an Einstein phonon spectrum and at $`T=0`$ (zero temperature) the self energy reduces to a simple form

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega +i0^+)=\frac{\lambda \omega _E}{2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\omega _E\omega }{\omega _E+\omega }\right|i\pi \theta (\omega \omega _E)\right].$$
(11)
In Eq. (11) $`\lambda `$ is the electron mass enhancement parameter defined as $`m^{}/m=1+\lambda `$ where $`m^{}`$ is the renormalized electron mass at the Fermi surface. In terms of $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$, $`\lambda =2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \alpha ^2F(\nu )/\nu =2A/\omega _E`$ for the simplified Einstein case. The imaginary part of Eq. (11) just gives back $`\tau _{qp}^1(\omega )=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega +i0^+)`$ of Eq. (3). The real part gives the renormalized energies as solutions of equation $`E_𝐤=\epsilon _𝐤+\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Sigma }(E_𝐤)`$ and for $`\epsilon _𝐤0`$ (on the Fermi surface) this gives $`E_𝐤=\epsilon _𝐤/(1+\lambda )`$: the quasiparticle mass is simply renormalized to $`m^{}`$. Note that in Eq. (11) the self energy has a logarithmic divergence at $`\omega =\omega _E`$ and this leads to a singular structure in $`E_𝐤`$ at that energy as has been investigated in detail by Verga et al.verga  to which the reader is referred for details. Here we have chosen to emphasize instead the nature of the structure in the imaginary part. It is sufficient to remark that for a finite distribution of phonon energies in $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ the logarithmic singularity is moderated as it also is when temperature $`(T)`$ is included. In the general case, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega +i0^+)`$ takes the form

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega +i0^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}d\nu \alpha ^2F(\nu )\mathrm{}\mathrm{e}[\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\nu \omega }{2\pi T}})`$ (12)
$`\psi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\nu \omega }{2\pi T}})],`$
where $`\psi (z)`$ is the digamma function. In lead, the electron-phonon spectral density $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ is well known from tunneling spectroscopytomlinson ; carb1 ; mcmillan ; mcmillan1  as well as from direct calculations. It is shown as an insert in the top frame of Fig. 1.

The phonons extend to $`12`$meV and show a characteristic peak for transverse and for longitudinal branches. In the top frame of this figure we show numerical results in the normal state for $`E_𝐤`$ on the Fermi surface as a function of the bare band electronic energy $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ up to $`30`$meV at which point bare (dotted curve) and renormalized energies are pretty well parallel to each other. The solid curve applies to the normal state at $`T=1K`$. We see structure in the renormalized quasiparticle energy $`E_𝐤`$ ranging up to roughly $`10`$meV. The structure clearly corresponds to the structure in the phonon spectrum (inset). Beyond this range multi-phonon processes are operative and the renormalization effects are less. Further results in the normal state are for $`T=10`$K (dashed) and $`T=100`$K (dash-dotted). We see that by the time this last temperature is reached, which is of the order of the maximum phonon energy, the thermal effects have smeared out much of the structure. Note also, that in all three cases the curves go through zero at $`\epsilon _𝐤=0`$ and the slope of each line out of the origin gives the renormalized effective mass parameter $`(1+\lambda )`$ at the temperature $`T`$. For the convenience of the reader we included in the bottom frame of Fig. 1 results for the superconducting state at $`T=1`$K (black solid) and at $`T=6.5`$K (black dashed) just below the critical temperature of lead which is $`T_c=7.2`$K. We note that in each case the phonon structure is somewhat more pronounced than in the corresponding normal state (shown as gray lines). Also at $`\epsilon _𝐤0`$ the renormalized energy $`E_𝐤`$ now goes to a finite value equal to the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ at that temperature. In an ARPES experiment the gap is seen as a shift of the leading edge of the electron spectral density $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$, downward from the chemical potential level.

Before moving on to other possible models for the renormalization we wish to make an important point about how some of the ARPES data has been analyzed in the literature.kaminski ; valla ; johnson  It is essential to be aware that the bare electron band energies are not known independently in ARPES experiments. However, electron momentum change $`(kk_F)`$ can be measured in the particular direction of interest. The bare energy is then related to this momentum change through the Fermi velocity $`v_F`$. The bare value of $`v_F`$ denoted $`v_F^0`$ is then determined from $`E_𝐤`$ under the assumption that at $`E_𝐤250`$meV renormalization effects have become small and are negligible in a first approximation. This assumption can, however, result in a significant underestimate of the true mass renormalization $`\lambda `$ involved as is illustrated

in our Fig. 2. The solid curve gives $`E_𝐤`$ vs $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ for a case where the Einstein frequency defining $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ is taken to be very large, $`\omega _E=1`$eV, compared with the energies of interest in this figure. The curve is almost a perfect straight line (there is no structure) with slope giving $`(1+\lambda )`$ with $`\lambda =1`$ by choice. This is to be compared with the dotted line which gives the bare dispersion and has slope 1. Applying the construction that the “ARPES bare dispersion” is a straight line going through the renormalized energy at $`E_𝐤=250`$meV would give the same straight line as the solid curve and, therefore, we would conclude that $`\lambda =0`$, i.e.: there is no renormalization. As a second example we use for the spectral density a form appropriate to a spin fluctuation model. The form is obtained directly from consideration of experimental data on the infrared conductivity in the normal state of the cuprates. It is given by the experimental form $`W(\omega )`$ of Eq. (10) which can be adequately represented by a Lorentzian

$$I^2\chi (\omega )W(\omega )I^2\frac{\omega }{\omega _{sf}^2+\omega ^2}\theta (\omega _{\mathrm{max}}\omega ).$$
(13)
(We will refer to this form in the following as MMP-form.) In Eq. (13) $`\omega _{sf}`$ is a characteristic spin fluctuation frequency taken for illustrative purposes $`250`$meV and $`\lambda =2_0^{\omega _{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑\nu I^2\chi (\nu )/\nu =1.1`$ with $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}=400`$meV. With this spectral density we get the dashed line in Fig. 2 which is to be compared with both, the dotted line (real bare dispersion) and the dash-dotted line (ARPES constructed ‘bare’ dispersion). It is clear that the ARPES construction again drastically underestimates the spin fluctuation mass renormalization giving a value of $`\lambda 0.1`$ rather than 1.1. Also, the curve does not show any identifiable sharp structure, instead it changes only rather gradually. In order to get the correct value of $`\lambda `$ one would need data up to energies higher than the maximum energy involved in the fluctuation spectrum that is responsible for the renormalization. For spin fluctuation theories this energy scale is set by the magnitude of $`J`$ of the $`tJ`$ model and is high of order several hundred meV.sorella  The $`tJ`$ model is widely believed to provide the appropriate Hamiltonian needed to describe the strongly correlated charge carriers in the CuO<sub>2</sub>-planes in the cuprates. In this instance ARPES experiments at much higher energies than presently sampled would be required to get the full value of $`\lambda `$ involved.

## III Comparison of theory and experiment in Bi2212

In the interpretation of their ARPES data some experimentalists have considered the possibility that the renormalizations are due to phonons. We consider here only the specific case of Bi2212 for which there also exists a recent set of high accuracy optical conductivity measurements.tu  The phonon frequency distribution in this material has been measured by incoherent inelastic neutron scattering by Renker et al.renker  Such experiments give directly $`F(\omega )`$ and a first attempt at a model for an electron-phonon interaction spectral density $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ can be constructed by multiplying the experimental $`F(\omega )`$ by a constant adjusted to best fit the ARPES data on the renormalized quasiparticle energy $`E_𝐤`$ as shown in

Fig. 3. The datajohnson  at $`T=130`$K are shown in the top frame and at $`T=70`$K in the bottom frame as solid squares. On the top horizontal scale we show momentum differences $`kk_F`$ in Å<sup>-1</sup> while on the bottom horizontal scale we have the value corresponding to our bare band energy $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ which implies a theoretical bare energy of $`256`$meV at $`kk_F=0.089`$Å<sup>-1</sup>. The fit in both cases was obtained with a value of $`\lambda =1.46`$. We see that the resulting theoretical results (solid curves) fit reasonably well the experimental data. Here, no attempt has been made to get a best fit by varying the shape of the underlying spectral density $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$. The reader is referred to the work by Verga et al.verga  for an alternative approach to the analysis of ARPES data for the material La<sub>2-x</sub>Sr<sub>x</sub>CuO<sub>4</sub> (LSCO). These authors do attempt to get the shape of the spectrum from the data itself and we will return to this issue later. Two final comments on Fig. 3. The dotted curve which is the ARPES construction for the bare dispersion gives at $`kk_F=0.089`$Å<sup>-1</sup> an $`\epsilon _𝐤=253`$meV which is nearly the same as the theoretical value of $`256`$meV. This is to be expected since phonon renormalization effects are small at $`250`$meV and beyond. Secondly, we wish to point out that the data at $`T=70`$K is in the superconducting state. The formalism needed to treat superconductivity is more complicated than that for the normal state which we have sketched, but the ideas and concepts are the same and no details are included here. The reader is referred to an extensive existing literature.carb1 ; mars1  Here it will be sufficient to point out that the value of the critical temperature for superconductivity in a $`d`$-wave superconductor is determined most directly by a different function that which comes into the mass renormalization channel. For an $`s`$-wave isotropic superconductor this issue does not arise. The quasiparticle $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ would also determine superconductivity and one could ask if ARPES data on $`\lambda `$ are indeed consistent with the observed superconductivity. But in the cuprates the superconducting gap has $`d`$-wave symmetry. In this case it is the projection of the quantity $`\left|g_{𝐤,𝐤^{},\nu }\right|^2\delta (\omega \omega _\nu (𝐤𝐤^{}))`$ onto the $`d`$-wave channel which determines the spectral function which is most directly involved in superconductivity (rather than its projection on the $`s`$-channel). ARPES does not measure this projection separately and so this technique, stricktly speaking, remains silent on the issue of mechanism for superconductivity even if phonons should be the main cause of renormalization of the electron dispersion curves.

Returning to the top frame of Fig. 3 the dash-dotted curve which does not agree well with the data is shown for comparison. It is based on a model electron-phonon spectral density $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ in which the coupling is entirely to a single frequency fixed at $`70`$meVlanzara ; bogdanov  with a mass enhancement factor $`\lambda =0.98`$ chosen to get a critical temperature of $`T_c=91`$K when $`s`$\- and $`d`$-channel spectral densities are taken to be the same. Such a model does not agree well with experiment and when it is used, in the superconducting state at $`T=70`$K, the disagreement is even worse. The $`\delta `$-function model corresponds to an extreme in which it is assumed that the electron-phonon coupling is to a single mode. This is unlikely to be the case. A model based on the entire phonon spectrum is more realistic although, as we said before, $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ does not need to have the same shape as $`F(\omega )`$. Special modes could be weighted more heavily in $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ as compared to $`F(\omega )`$.

## IV Optical conductivity

We can impose a second constraint on renormalization effects by considering the infrared conductivity. There exists much data on optical conductivity in the cuprates and these have given us considerable insight into the inelastic scattering involved. The conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ at $`T=0`$ (to remain simple) in the normal state also follows in a first approximation from the knowledge of the electron self energy:mars1

$$\sigma (\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2}{4\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\omega }{}}𝑑\nu \frac{1}{i\tau _{\mathrm{imp}}^1\mathrm{\Sigma }(\nu )\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega \nu )}.$$
(14)
More complicated formulas exist at any finite temperature $`T`$ and/or for the superconducting case and including vertex corrections which we will not repeat here for the sake of brevity. They can be found in many places including our own work. Since here we will fit the electron-boson exchange density to optical data directly, the resulting form can be thought of as including higher order corrections.

In Eq. (14) $`\tau _{\mathrm{imp}}^1`$ is the elastic impurity scattering rate while the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ deals with the corresponding inelastic scattering. What is most often measured in optical experiments, is the reflectance $`R(\omega )`$ as a function of $`\omega `$. This is

shown in the top frame of Fig. 4 for Bi2212. The solid curve is the data of Tu et al.tu  for room temperature $`T=296`$K. The dashed curve was obtained with the same neutron based electron-phonon interaction spectrum having a $`\lambda =1.46`$ as we found from our ARPES analysis. It provides a poor fit as is illustrated, even more sharply, in the bottom frame of Fig. 4 which deals with optical scattering rates. It has now become standard procedure for experimentalists to extract from their reflectance data the real and imaginary part of the optical conductivity and to construct from this information the optical scattering rate $`\tau _{op}^1(\omega )`$. The solid line in the bottom frame is the data. The two other curves are theoretical and the dashed is based on the neutron $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ with $`\lambda =1.46`$. It is clear that it does not agree with the data, particularly as $`\omega `$ increases. This defect remains whatever value of $`\lambda `$ is used. The fundamental problem is that the phonon spectrum cuts off too soon as a function of frequency to fit the optics and, consequently, the calculated $`\omega `$-dependence of $`\tau _{op}^1(\omega )`$ is much too flat. Any boson mechanism that fits the data will need to have an energy scale that extends to order of a few $`100`$meV or so. This is consistent with a spin NAFFLpines1 ; pines2  or a MFL modelvarma1 ; varma2 ; varma3  but is not compatible with phonons. It is important to note that this limitation of a phonon mechanism is independent of any difference there might be in the size of $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$ as compared with $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$. Both functions cut off at the maximum phonon energy ($`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}=80`$meV in case of Bi2212) and this cannot give agreement with the optics. On the other hand, a spin fluctuation model provides a natural explanation because it involves a higher boson energy scale of the order $`J`$ of the $`tJ`$-model as previously noted.sorella  This is demonstrated in the lower frame of Fig. 4 by the dash-dotted curve which is for an MMP-form with $`\omega _{sf}=82`$meV and $`\lambda =1.79`$. It fits the experiment almost perfectly with no need for any adjustment of any kind. (Deviations from $`\omega _{sf}=82`$meV within $`\pm 5`$meV will change the quality of this fit only marginally.) It is interesting to note in closing this discussion that in the case of electron-phonon interaction the same value for $`\lambda `$ is required to get a reasonable fit of the ARPES data and to get agreement at least in the low energy regime with the optical data. This is in conflict with the findings by Kulićno15  that in the phonon assisted case $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$ should be significantly smaller than $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$.

In the top frame of Fig. 5 we compare theory with experiment at three

temperatures, namely $`T=100`$K, $`T=200`$K, and $`T=295`$K. The data on the optical scattering rate was obtained by Tu et al.tu  from their infrared measurements in Bi2212 and is denoted by gray solid lines (top to bottom is decreasing temperature). The black dotted lines are theory obtained from an MMP-form given by Eq. (13) with $`\omega _{sf}=82`$meV. The $`T=295`$K curve repeats the fit shown in the bottom frame of Fig. 4. The same spectral density, however, does not fit well the $`T=200`$K and $`T=100`$K data (dotted lines). To get agreement with these data sets it is necessary to augment the MMP-form by adding coupling to an additional optical resonance at $`43`$meV (this gives the dashed curves). This is the frequency at which inelastic neutron scattering experiments have revealed a strong peak in the magnetic susceptibility at momentum $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ in the two dimensional Brillouin zone of the CuO<sub>2</sub> plane,fong  in the superconducting state. The first report of such a resonance in neutron scattering was by J. Rossat-Mignot et al. for YBa<sub>2</sub>Cu<sub>3</sub>O<sub>6+δ</sub>.ros  We have already described our method for obtaining $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$,mars4 ; mars5 ; schach4 ; schach7 ; schach5 ; schach8 ; schach9  thus it is not necessary to give details here except to mention that Tu et al.tu  also get this peak using a slightly different method. We present final results for our model $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$ in the bottom frame of Fig. 5. While no peak at $`43`$meV is observed at $`T=295`$K (solid line) one shows up at lower temperatures, dotted line for $`T=200`$K and a somewhat bigger peak at $`T=100`$K (dashed curve). At present, neutron scattering does not reveal a spin resonance at these temperatures. Returning to the top frame of Fig. 5 we stress that the introduction of a resonance peak in addition to the MMP-form is responsible for the observed rapid rise around $`50`$meV in the optical scattering rate at $`T=100`$K and also, although less obvious, at $`T=200`$K. The model spectral density fits the data remarkably well. Such optical resonances have been seen before in YBa<sub>2</sub>Cu<sub>3</sub>O<sub>6.96</sub>schach4  as well as in Tl compoundsschach5 ; schach9  in the superconducting state of optimally doped samples, and have their equivalent in spin resonances observed by inelastic neutron scattering.fong ; ros ; dai ; he  Here the high temperature optical resonances in Bi2212 are seen for the first time in the normal state above $`T_c`$, as reported by Tu et al.tu  Their exact microscopic origin, however, cannot be deduced from optical data alone. It could be that the $`43`$meV neutron spin resonance forms above $`T_c`$ in this optimally doped material. Alternatively one might argue that this may be a phonon contribution (see gray solid curve in the bottom frame of Fig. 5) to the total electron-boson transport spectral density. If this were the case, however, we would not expect the peak of Fig. 5 (bottom frame) to show significant temperature dependence in this temperature regime. Also, the phonon peak in the bottom frame of Fig. 5 has more weight at low $`\omega `$ than is indicated in optics. In terms of the area under the spectral density $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$ we note that the peak itself contributes less than about 15% of the total weight (at $`T=100`$K), the rest comes from the MMP-form. While the issue of the origin of the peak is important, here we concentrate instead on the consequences of its existence for the ARPES data. The possibility of coupling to a resonance mode has been discussed in the past in connection with such data.norm1 ; norm2 ; norm3

In Fig. 6 we compare our theoretical results for the

renormalized quasiparticle energies with the ARPES experimental data (solid squares). The theory (solid curve) is based on the optics derived spectral density (see Fig. 5, bottom frame). The top frame is for $`T=130`$K in the normal state and the bottom frame is for $`T=70`$K in the superconducting state. For the top frame we renormalized downward the $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$ to account for the expectation that in a spin fluctuation mechanism the quasiparticle electron-boson interaction spectral density should be smaller than its transport counterpart. To get the fit seen in the figure we used $`\lambda =1.28`$. A smaller value of $`\lambda =1.09`$ was used in the bottom frame. We see that we can get an equally good fit to ARPES with spin fluctuations including the $`43`$meV resonance as we did with phonons. This new fit (see Fig. 6), however, has the advantage that it can equally well explain the optical data while this is impossible with phonons. It is also clear from the calculations that the transport electron-boson interaction spectral density is larger than the quasiparticle spectral density by a factor of about two as is expected in theories of the NAFFL model. It should be acknowledged, however, that part of the difference in the value of $`\lambda `$ needed to fit ARPES data as compared with optics reflects anisotropies in the quasiparticle renormalizations over the Brillouin zone.

Also included in the two frames of Fig. 6 are our results for a $`E_𝐤`$ (heavy dash-dotted) when the resonant peak in the spectral density is left out of the calculations. We see that the pronounced structure at $`kk_F0.04`$Å<sup>-1</sup> seen in the superconducting state is not reproduced in this case. If we used instead the MFL model, i.e.: $`I^2\chi (\omega )=I^2\theta (\omega _{max}\omega )`$, the deviation from the data would be worse and even clearly seen in the normal state. The resonance peak, absent in the MMP-form and in the MFL model, is what gives the observed structure. Also shown in the figure is the the bare dispersion relation (light dash-dotted curve) on which our calculations are based. This is quite different from the ARPES derived ‘bare’ dispersion, the light dashed curve, obtained by making the curve go through the experimental point at $`253`$meV on the assumption that the renormalization by boson-exchange interaction has ended at this energy. Reference to the difference between the theoretical bare dispersion (light dash-dotted) and the dressed curve (solid line) shows clearly that this is not the case in a spin fluctuation model.

It is interesting to note the similarities and differences between our work and that of Verga et al.verga  An important difference is that these authors invert the ARPES data directly from which they obtain a model electron-boson spectral density. Instead, we have inverted the optical data which serves as a second constraint on the microscopics not considered by Verga et al. While they invert data in LSCO at three different doping levels $`x`$, they, nevertheless, find a spectrum which has a peak which is, however, not as prominent as either the spin resonance peak or the phonon peak in the bottom frame of our Fig. 5. Their peak could simply be a peak of the MMP-form as in the solid black curve in the bottom frame of Fig. 5. Nothing definite can be concluded. However, we point out that they do find tails at higher energies ($`\omega >100`$meV), as we have, which rather support spin fluctuations and not phonons. In this paper we consider in addition to ARPES optical data and from this we conclude more forcefully that high energy tails extending up to several hundred meV exist in the boson assisted spectral functions describing the electron boson interaction in Bi2212.

Whatever the mechanism by which the quasiparticles are renormalized the $`(11)`$-component of the $`2\times 2`$ Nambu Green’s function in the superconducting state can be expressed in the general formmars6

$`G_{11}(𝐤,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\omega Z_𝐤(\omega )+\epsilon _𝐤}{\omega ^2Z_𝐤^2(\omega )\epsilon _𝐤^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_𝐤^2(\omega )}},`$ (15)
where the renormalized frequency $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }(\omega )\omega Z(\omega )`$. The inverse quasiparticle lifetime is defined as twice the imaginary part of the poles of $`G_{11}(𝐤,\omega )`$ for a given momentum label k. For $`\omega =E_𝐤i\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐤`$ we obtainmars6

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐤=\frac{E_𝐤Z_{𝐤2}(E_𝐤)}{Z_{𝐤1}(E_𝐤)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{𝐤1}(E_𝐤)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{𝐤2}(E_𝐤)}{E_𝐤Z_{𝐤1}^2(E_𝐤)},$$
(16)
where the indices 1 and 2 refer to the real and imaginary part respectively, and the corresponding renormalized energy is a solution of

$$E_𝐤=\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon _𝐤^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{𝐤1}^2(E_𝐤)}{Z_{𝐤1}^2(E_𝐤)}}.$$
(17)
For the normal state $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_𝐤(\omega )=0)`$ these expressions reduce to those previously given in the limit of weak scattering with the modification that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is renormalized by a mass enhancement factor $`(1+\lambda )`$.

In Fig. 7 we emphasize once again the difference obtained

between quasiparticle scattering rates and its optical counterpart. It applies to $`T=80`$K for Bi2212 in the superconducting state. The gray solid curve represents the data of Tu et al.tu  for the optical scattering rate and the solid line our theoretical fit to this data which also determines the transport spectral density $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$. The corresponding value of $`\lambda _{tr}`$ is 2.18. Consideration of the ARPES data on quasiparticle renormalizations shows us that the equilibrium spectral density $`I^2\chi (\omega )`$ must be considerably smaller. To calculate the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )`$ of Eq. (16) we have reduced $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$ by a factor of two but without changing its shape. This is done to get reasonable agreement with ARPES shown in Fig. 6. The results are shown as dashed and dotted lines for the antinodal and nodal directions respectively. Not only is the shape of the resulting scattering rate different from the frequency variation obtained in the optical case but its magnitude is also different reflecting the difference in magnitude of $`I_{tr}^2\chi (\omega )`$ and $`I^2\chi (\omega )`$.

## V Conclusion

We have reconsidered the interpretation of the quasiparticle renormalizations observed in high resolution ARPES data for the specific case of Bi2212. We confirm that the observed energy scale is compatible with coupling to phonons. We find, however, that present data and, in particular, the way they are analyzed might well significantly underestimate renormalization due to other boson exchange mechanisms distinct from phonon exchange and for which the energy scale is larger. As an example this would be the case in a spin fluctuation exchange mechanism as is envisaged in the NAFFL model where the energy scale for the spin fluctuations is set by $`J`$ of the $`tJ`$ model and is consequently very high.

If in addition to ARPES, optical data is also considered, it is found that an explanation in terms of phonons becomes less tenable. Of course, there are many complications and these make a definitive interpretation impossible. What is clear, however, is that transport properties and in particular the observed infrared conductivity cannot be understood as due to the electron-phonon interaction. This holds even if modifications are introduced to account for the reduced screening present in the cuprates because of the low electron density and also the increased effects of correlations. The main point is that the underlying charge carrier-phonon spectral density is cut off at the maximum phonon frequency and this feature is in conflict with optical data. By contrast, spin fluctuations give a natural explanation of the data. Our analysis of the data of Tu et al.tu  also provides a natural explanation of the ARPES data. What we find is that an optical resonance is present in the infrared data even in the normal state above $`T_c`$ and this resonance can explain the energy scale seen in ARPES. (Below $`T_c`$ this optical resonance has a spin resonance equivalent observed by Fong et al.fong  using inelastic neutron scattering.) The microscopic nature of the optical resonance is not entirely known. It could have its origin in spin fluctuations theories and be the spin one resonance observed in inelastic polarized neutron scattering experiments, or could even contain a phonon contribution over and beyond the spin fluctuation contribution.

Our analysis of both ARPES and optical data together has served to emphasize once more the differences between the equilibrium electron-boson exchange spectral density $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ and its transport counterpart $`\alpha _{tr}^2F(\omega )`$ be it for phonon exchange or spin fluctuations. The data indicates that these two quantities differ in magnitude by roughly a factor of two or so. This is understood to arise from the fact that transport scattering rates emphasize more strongly backward collisions than do equilibrium rates. While detailed and elaborate calculations beyond the scope of this paper would be required to pin down the expected differences quantitatively, present ideas about reduced screening in the cuprates lead directly to the expectation that phonons will be much less important in transport than for equilibrium properties while ideas about the NAFFL model lead to opposite expectations. Spin fluctuations dominate the transport while at the same time could be less important in determining quasiparticle properties. This agrees well with the available combined set of optical and ARPES data in Bi2212.

###### Acknowledgements.

Research supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR). We thank Dr. T. Valla for discussions and for making his data available to us.


format: text

text:
# Spectroscopic Discovery of the Supernova 2003dh Associated with GRB 030329Based on data from the MMTO 6.5m telescope, the Magellan 6.5m Clay telescope, and the FLWO 1.5m telescope

## 1 Introduction

The origin of gamma-ray bursts (GRB) has been a mystery since their discovery in the 1960’s. It has only been since the BeppoSAX satellite (Boella et al. 1997) began providing rapid, accurate localization of several bursts per year that it has it been possible to study these events and their afterglows in detail. Optical observations of afterglows (e.g. GRB 970228: Groot et al. 1997; van Paradijs et al. 1997) have allowed redshifts to be measured for a number of GRBs (e.g. GRB 970508: Metzger et al. 1997), providing definitive proof of their cosmological origin. GRB 980425 was likely associated with supernova 1998bw and this was the first direct evidence that at least some GRB result from the core collapse of massive stars (Galama et al. 1998). However the isotropic energy of that burst was 10-3 to 10-4 times weaker (Woosley, Eastman, & Schmidt 1999) than classical cosmological GRB which placed it in a unique class. Indirect evidence of the connection between GRB and massive stars has come from studies of the location of GRB in their host galaxies (e.g. Holland & Hjorth 1999) and statistics on the types of galaxies that host GRB (e.g. Hogg & Fruchter 1999). Chevalier & Li (2000) have shown that the afterglow properties of some GRB are consistent with a shock moving into a stellar wind formed from a massive star.

Direct evidence of a classical GRB/supernova connection has been difficult to obtain because the typical redshift of a GRB is $`z1`$, meaning even powerful supernovae would peak at $`R>23`$ mag. A number of GRB have shown late deviations from a power-law decline (e.g. GRB 980326, Bloom et al. 1999) which are suggestive of a supernova peaking a few weeks after the burst. At $`z=0.36`$, GRB 011121/SN2001ke was a relatively nearby burst which showed a late-time bump and color changes consistent with a supernova (Garnavich et al. 2003a; Bloom et al. 2002). That burst was indeed the best evidence to date that classical, long gamma-ray bursts are generated by core-collapse supernovae, but it lacked a clear spectroscopic detection of a supernova signature. Detection of such a signature is reported in this paper for the GRB 030329.

The extremely bright GRB 030329 was detected by the FREGATE, WXM, SXC instruments aboard HETE II at 11:14:14.67 UT on 2003 March 29 (Vanderspek et al. 2003). The burst falls in the ‘long’ category with a duration of $`>25`$ seconds. Peterson & Price (2003) and Torii (2003) reported discovery of a very bright ($`R13`$), slowly fading (Uemura 2003) optical transient (OT), located at $`\alpha `$ = $`10^\mathrm{h}44^\mathrm{m}50\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}0`$, $`\delta `$ = $`+21\mathrm{°}31\mathrm{}17\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}8`$ (J2000.0), and identified this as the GRB optical afterglow. Due to the brightness of the afterglow and its slow decay, photometric observations were extensive, making it one of the best-observed afterglows.

The afterglow was also very bright in X-rays (Marshall & Swank 2003), radio (Berger, Soderberg & Frail 2003), sub-millimeter (Hoge et al. 2003) and infrared (Lamb et al. 2003). Using archival data Blake & Bloom (2003) have put a $`3\sigma `$ upper limit of R=22.5 on the brightness of the host. Martini et al. (2003) were the first to report optical spectroscopy of the afterglow. Because the very bright OT overwhelmed the emission from the faint host galaxy, only a single emission line was detected and confirmed by Della Ceca et al. (2003). Suggesting that this line may be due to \[OII\] provided a redshift of $`z0.5`$. However, a high-resolution VLT spectrum by Greiner et al. (2003) revealed additional emission and also absorption lines which fixed the redshift at a very low $`z=0.1685`$. This was later confirmed by Caldwell et al. (2003), making GRB 030329 the second nearest burst overall (GRB 980425 is the nearest at z=0.0085) and the classical burst with the lowest known redshift.

## 2 Observations

From the moment the low redshift for the GRB 030329 was announced (Greiner et al. 2003), we started organizing a campaign of spectroscopic and photometric follow-up of the afterglow and later the possible associated supernova. Spectra of the OT associated with GRB 030329 were obtained over many nights with the 6.5m MMT telescope, the 1.5m Tillinghast telescope at the F. L. Whipple Observatory (FLWO), and the Magellan 6.5m Clay telescope. The spectrographs used were the Blue Channel (Schmidt et al. 1989) at the MMT, FAST (Fabricant et al. 1998) at the FLWO 60” telescope, and LDSS2 (Mulchaey 2001) at Magellan. The observations were reduced in the standard manner with IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. and our own routines. Spectra were optimally extracted (Horne 1986). Wavelength calibration was accomplished with HeNeAr lamps taken immediately after each OT exposure. Small-scale adjustments derived from night-sky lines in the OT frames were also applied. We used Feige 34 (Stone 1977) and HD 84937 (Oke & Gunn 1983) as spectrophotometric standards. We attempted to remove telluric lines using the well-exposed continua of the spectrophotometric standards (Wade & Horne 1988; Matheson et al. 2000). The spectra were in general taken at or near the parallactic angle (Filippenko 1982). The relative fluxes are thus accurate to $``$ 5% over the entire wavelength range. Figure 1 shows a subset of our spectra. The initial report on some of these data was presented by Martini et al. (2003) and Caldwell et al. (2003). Circulars by Matheson et al. (2003a), Garnavich et al. (2003b), Matheson et al. (2003b) and Garnavich et al. (2003c) reported the first detection of supernova associated with GRB 030329 (see next section).

## 3 Results

The brightness of the OT and its slow and uneven rate of decline, with episodes of increased brightness (well documented by many GCN circulars) allowed us to observe the OT every night since the GRB event (so far until Apr. 9 UT), thus providing a unique opportunity to look for spectroscopic evolution over many nights. The early spectra of the OT of GRB 030329 (top of Figure 1) consist of a power-law continuum typical of GRB afterglows, with narrow emission features identifiable as H$`\alpha `$, \[OIII\], H$`\beta `$ and \[OII\] at $`z=0.1687`$ (Greiner et al. 2003; Caldwell et al. 2003) probably from HII regions in the host galaxy. These lines can be used to estimate the star formation rate within the spectrograph slit (Kennicutt 1998). Preliminary analysis of the \[OII\] flux suggests a low star formation rate of $`0.1M_{}yr^1`$ (Caldwell et al. 2003), but a more detailed analysis is possible after the afterglow has faded.

A fit to the early spectra provides a power-law index of $`\beta =0.94+/0.01`$ for April 1 and $`0.93+/0.01`$ for April 4 (statistical errors only). This is consistent with the spectral slope of $`0.94`$ found using SDSS photometry taken March 31/April 1 (Lee et al. 2003). Correcting for low Galactic extinction of $`E(BV)=0.025`$ (Schlegel et al. 1998) lowers the slope to $`0.85`$ which is a typical spectral index for GRB afterglows (e.g. Stanek et al. 2001).

Beginning April 6, our spectra showed the development of broad peaks in flux, characteristic of a supernova. The broad bumps are seen at approximately 5000Å and 4200Å (rest frame). At that time, the spectrum of GRB 030329 looked similar to that of the peculiar type Ic SN 1998bw a week before maximum light (Patat et al. 2001). Over the next few days the SN features became more prominent as the afterglow faded and the SN brightened towards maximum.

To discern the spectrum of the SN component, we assume that the spectral slope of the afterglow light did not evolve significantly in time. This allows us to subtract the afterglow dominated spectrum obtained on April 4 UT (see Figure 1) from the supernova dominated spectrum of April 8. The resulting spectrum is shown in Fig 2. For comparison, spectra of SN 1998bw at maximum and a week before maximum are also shown (Patat et al. 2001). The similarities of the GRB 030329 supernova to SN 1998bw are striking while the match to other ‘hypernovae’ such as SN 1997ef (Iwamoto et al. 2000) and SN 2002ap (Mazzali et al. 2002) is not as good. The primary difference is that the feature around 4400 Å (rest frame) in GRB 030329 supernova and SN 1998bw is very broad while in SN 1997ef and SN 2002ap the feature is sharp and well defined. This is likely an indication that the expansion velocities in 1998bw and GRB 030329 supernova are significantly higher than in the other two events.

The evolution of the GRB 030329/SN 2003dh is still ongoing. In a future paper (Matheson et al. 2003, in preparation) we will discuss in more detail the properties of the afterglow of GRB 030329, in itself a very unusual event, and long-term spectroscopic and photometric evolution of the SN 2003dh. With this future paper we will also release our data for this GRB/SN via anonymous ftp.

We have shown convincing spectroscopic evidence that a supernova was lurking beneath the optical afterglow of the classical, long gamma-ray burst 030329. The supernova spectrum was very similar to the type Ic ‘hypernova’ SN 1998bw which was associated with the intrinsically weak GRB 980425. With two confirmed cases, it is tempting to link only type Ib/c events with GRB. However, the type IIn hypernova 1997cy (Germany et al. 2000) may have triggered a GRB and the blue color of SN 2001ke near maximum was consistent with some hydrogen rich events (Garnavich et al. 2003a).

The 4400Å feature in the spectrum of GRB 030329 is significantly broader than seen in ‘hypernovae’ SN 1997ef and SN 2002ap, neither of which was clearly associated with a GRB event. While the presence of supernovae have been inferred from the light curves and colors of GRB afterglows in the past, this is the first direct, spectroscopic confirmation that some and maybe all classical gamma-ray bursts originate from supernovae.

We would like to thank the staffs of the MMT, Las Campanas and the FLWO observatories. Thanks to A. Milone for helping with the MMT spectra. PMG acknowledges the support of NASA/LTSA grant NAG5-9364. PM was supported by a Carnegie Starr Fellowship. JCL acknowledges financial support from NSF grant AST-9900789. DJE was supported by NSF grant AST-0098577 and by an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship. BP is supported by NASA grant NAG5-9274. EWO was partially supported by NSF grant AST 0098518.


text:
# Simple Cellular Model of Long-Range Multiplicity and 𝑝_𝑡 Correlations in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions

## 1 Introduction.

The colour strings approach  is widely applied for the description of the soft part of the hadronic and nuclear interactions at high energies.

In the frame work of this approach the string fusion model was suggested . Later it was developed - and applied for the description of the long-range multiplicity and $`p_t`$ correlations in relativistic nuclear collisions -.

The aim of the present paper is to formulate some simple cellular analog of the model, which enables explicit analytical calculations of the correlation functions in some asymptotic cases and drastically simplifies calculations in the case of real nucleus collisions.

We check up the assumptions of the cellular model and the validity of a suggested Gauss approximation in the simplest (no fusion) case when the explicit solution of the model can be found.

The paper organized as follows. Next section is devoted to the formulation of the a cellular analog of the string fusion model. The version of the model with a local string fusion is considered.

The section 3 deals with the no string fusion limit of the model. The correspondence with the previous results  is demonstrated.

In the section 4 a Gauss approximation for the correlation function calculations is formulated. The results of the calculations in this approximation is compared with exact solution, which can be found in the no fusion case.

In the section 5 the role of the size of cells is anylised. The cluster size dependence is considered and the version of the model with global string fusion is formulated.

The modification of the results in the case of non-Poissonian distributions is discussed in the section 6.

## 2 Cellular approach to the string fusion phenomenon.

Let us consider the collision of nuclei in two stage scenario when at first stage the colour strings are formed, and at the second stage these strings (or some other (higher colour) strings formed due to fusion of primary strings) are decaying, emitting observed particles.

We’ll consider three possibilities: without string fusion, with local and with global string fusion. The case with a local fusion corresponds to the model, where colour fields are summing up only locally and the global fusion case corresponds to the model, where colour fields are summing up globally - all over the cluster area - into one average colour field, the last case corresponds to the summing of the sources colour charges. (In section 5 we are refering to these cases as A) and B) correspondingly.)

In the transverse plane depending on the impact parameter $`b`$ we have some interaction area $`S(b)`$. Let us split this area on the cells of order of the transverse string size. Then we’ll have $`M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$ cells, where $`\sigma _0=\pi r_0^2`$ is the transverse square of the string and $`r_00.2fm`$ is the string radius.

Local string fusion. At first let us consider the case with a local fusion. In this case the assumption of the model is that if the number of strings belonging to the $`i`$-th cell is $`\eta _i`$, then they form higher colour string, which emits in average $`\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}`$ particles with mean $`p_t^2`$ equal to $`p^2\sqrt{\eta _i}`$, compared with $`\mu _0`$ particles with $`p_t^2=p^2`$ emitting by a single string. (Note that situation when some $`\eta _i=0`$ is also admitted.)

Let us denote by $`n_i`$ and $`\overline{n}_i`$ \- the number and the average number of particles emitted by the higher string from $`i`$-th cell in a given rapidity interval, then

$$\overline{n}_i=\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}$$
(1)
From event to event the number of strings $`\eta _i`$ in $`i`$-th cell will fluctuate around some average value - $`\overline{\eta }_i`$. Clear that in the case of real nuclear collisions these average values $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ will be different for different cells. They will depend on the position ($`𝐬`$) of the $`i`$-th cell in the interaction area ($`𝐬`$ is two dimensional vector in transverse plane). To get the physical answer we have to sum the contributions from different cells, which corresponds to integration over $`𝐬`$ in transverse plane.

The average local density of primary strings $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ in the point $`𝐬`$ of transverse plane is uniquely determined by the distributions of nuclear densities and the value of the impact parameter - $`b`$. They can be calculated, for example, in Glauber approximation. We’ll do this later in a separate paper. In present paper we consider that all $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ are already fixed from these considerations at given value of the impact parameter - $`b`$.

If we introduce:

$$N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\eta _i,\overline{N}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\overline{\eta }_i$$
(2)
then clear that $`N`$ is the number of strings in the given event and $`\overline{N}`$ is the mean number of strings for this type of events (at the fixed impact parameter $`b`$.

To go to long-range rapidity correlations let us consider two rapidity windows $`F`$ (forward) and $`B`$ (backward). Each event corresponds to a certain configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$ of strings and certain numbers of charged particles $`\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_M\}`$ emitted by these strings in the forward rapidity window. Then the total number of particles produced in the forward rapidity window will be equal to $`n_F`$:

$$n_F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}n_i$$
(3)
The probability to detect $`n_F`$ particles in the forward rapidity window for a given configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$ of strings is equal to

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)=\underset{\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_M\}}{}\delta _{n_F,_in_i}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}p_{\eta _i}(n_i)$$
(4)
where $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ is the probability of the emission of $`n_i`$ particles by the string $`\eta _i`$ in the forward rapidity window. By our assumption (1)

$$\overline{n}_i\underset{n_i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n_ip_{\eta _i}(n_i)=\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}$$
(5)
If we denote else by $`W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)`$ the probability of realization of the string configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$ in the given event, then the average value of some quantity $`O`$ under condition of the production of $`n_F`$ particles in the forward window will be equal to

$$O_{n_F}=\frac{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}O_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)}{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)}$$
(6)
One has to omit in this $`M`$-fold sums one term, when all $`\eta _i=0`$, which corresponds to the absence of inelastic interaction between the nucleons of the colliding nuclei.

If the $`O`$ in the number of particles produced in the backward rapidity window $`n_B`$ in the given event, then (for $`n_B_{n_F}`$ correlations) we have to use

$$n_B_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=\mu _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\sqrt{\eta _i}$$
(7)
If the $`O`$ in the mean squared transverse momentum of particles produced in the backward rapidity window $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2`$ in the given event, then (for $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}`$ correlations) we have to use:

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\sqrt{\eta _i}}{_{i=1}^M\sqrt{\eta _i}}p^2\sqrt{\eta _i}=p^2\frac{_{i=1}^M\eta _i}{_{i=1}^M\sqrt{\eta _i}}$$
(8)
Later we’ll assume that numbers of primary strings in each cell $`\eta _i`$ fluctuate independently around some average quantities $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ uniquely determined by the distributions of nuclear densities and the value of the impact parameter - $`b`$ (see above). then

$$W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}w(\eta _i),\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\eta _iw(\eta _i)=\overline{\eta }_i$$
(9)
For clearness we’ll sometimes address to a simple ”homogeneous” case, when all $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ (but not the $`\eta _i`$, which fluctuate!) is equal each other in the interaction area $`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta `$. The parameter $`\eta `$ coincides in this case with the parameter $`\eta `$ used in the papers  and has the meaning of the mean number of strings per area of one string ($`\eta =(\mathrm{mean}\mathrm{string}\mathrm{density})\times \sigma _0`$). In general case the parameters $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ have the same meaning, but with mean string density depending on the point $`𝐬`$ in the transverse interaction plane ($`\overline{\eta }_i=(\mathrm{mean}\mathrm{string}\mathrm{density}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{point}𝐬)\times \sigma _0`$).

If we assume else the Poissonian form of $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ ($`\rho _a(x)`$ is the Poisson distribution with $`\overline{x}=a`$):

$$p_{\eta _i}(n_i)=\rho _{\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}}(n_i)e^{\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}}\frac{(\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i})^{n_i}}{n_i!}$$
(10)
then we find for $`P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)`$:

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)=\rho _{\mu _0_i\sqrt{\eta _i}}(n_F)$$
(11)
## 3 No string fusion. Correspondence with the previous results.

No string fusion. In the no fusion case we have the same formulae, but instead of (5), (7) and (8), we have to use

$$\overline{n}_i=\underset{n_i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n_ip_{\eta _i}(n_i)=\mu _0\eta _i$$
(12)
$$n_B_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=\mu _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\eta _i$$
(13)
$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\eta _i}{_{i=1}^M\eta _i}p^2=p^2$$
(14)
which immediately leads to the absence of $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}`$ correlations.

In this case we have to use also

$$p_{\eta _i}(n_i)=\rho _{\mu _0\eta _i}(n_i)e^{\mu _0\eta _i}\frac{(\mu _0\eta _i)^{n_i}}{n_i!}$$
(15)
and

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)=\rho _{\mu _0_i\eta _i}(n_F)$$
(16)
instead of (10) and (11). Then for $`n_B_{n_F}`$ correlations we find

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\mu _0_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}\left(_i\eta _i\right)\left(_iw(\eta _i)\right)\rho _{\mu _0_i\eta _i}(n_F)}{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}\left(_iw(\eta _i)\right)\rho _{\mu _0_i\eta _i}(n_F)}$$
(17)
Introducing under the sums

$$1=\underset{N}{}\delta _{N,_i\eta _i}$$
(18)
and putting everywhere $`_i\eta _i=N`$ we find

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\mu _0_NNW(N)\rho _{\mu _0N}(n_F)}{_NW(N)\rho _{\mu _0N}(n_F)}$$
(19)
where

$$W(N)=\underset{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}{}\delta _{N,_i\eta _i}\underset{i}{}w(\eta _i)$$
(20)
If we also admit the Poissonian form for $`w(\eta _i)`$ and that all $`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta `$ (the homogeneous case):

$$w(\eta _i)=\rho _\eta (\eta _i)e^\eta \frac{(\eta )^{\eta _i}}{\eta _i!}$$
(21)
then we find

$$W(N)=\rho _{M\eta }(N)$$
(22)
and (19) has the form

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\mu _0_NN\rho _{M\eta }(N)\rho _{\mu _0N}(n_F)}{_N\rho _{M\eta }(N)\rho _{\mu _0N}(n_F)}$$
(23)
As $`\overline{N}_NNW(N)=M\eta `$ we see, that (23) coincides with the formula from the paper , where the notation $`\overline{n}=\mu _0`$ for the mean multiplicity from one string (emitter). The $`N`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ is the number and the mean number of strings (emitters) was used.

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\overline{n}_NN\rho _{\overline{N}}(N)\rho _{\overline{n}N}(n_F)}{_N\rho _{\overline{N}}(N)\rho _{\overline{n}N}(n_F)}$$
(24)
## 4 Gauss approximation.

Let us now evaluate (24) at $`\overline{N}1`$ and $`\mu _0\overline{N}1`$. At these assumptions we can replace $`_N`$ by $`𝑑N`$ and the Poissonian distributions by Gaussian distributions ($`g_{a,\sigma }(x)`$ is the Gauss distribution with $`\overline{x}=a`$ and $`\overline{x^2}\overline{x}^2=\sigma ^2`$).

$$\rho _{\mu _0N}(n_F)g_{n_F_N,\sigma _F}(n_F)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _F}e^{\frac{(n_Fn_F_N)^2}{2\sigma _F^2}}$$
(25)
with $`\sigma _F^2=n_F_N=\mu _0N`$. Similarly

$$\rho _{\overline{N}}(N)g_{\overline{N},\sigma _N}(N)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _N}e^{\frac{(N\overline{N})^2}{2\sigma _N^2}}$$
(26)
with $`\sigma _N^2=\overline{N}`$.

So we find

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\mu _0𝑑NN\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}e^{\phi (N,n_F)}}{𝑑N\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}e^{\phi (N,n_F)}}$$
(27)
with

$$\phi (N,n_F)=\frac{(N\overline{N})^2}{2\overline{N}}+\frac{(n_F\mu _0N)^2}{2\mu _0N}$$
(28)
and

$$\frac{d\phi }{dN}=\frac{N}{\overline{N}}1+\frac{\mu _0}{2}\frac{n_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\mu _0N^2}$$
(29)
Let us denote by $`N_{}`$ the point where $`\frac{d\phi }{dN}=0`$. Then we can evaluate (27) as follows

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _0N_{}(n_F)$$
(30)
In relative variables we can rewrite condition $`\frac{d\phi }{dN}=0`$ as follows

$$z^3z^2=\frac{\mu _0}{2}(f^2z^2)$$
(31)
which defines $`z`$ as function of $`f`$, where $`z=N_{}/\overline{N}`$ and $`f=n_F/n_F=n_F/(\mu _0\overline{N})`$ and then

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _0N_{}(n_F)=\mu _0\overline{N}z(f)=n_Fz(f)$$
(32)
Let us define correlation coefficient as

$$b\frac{dn_B_{n_F}}{dn_F}|_{n_F=n_F}=\frac{dz}{df}|_{f=1}$$
(33)
From (31) we have

$$\frac{dz}{df}=\frac{\mu _0f}{3z^2+z(\mu _02)}$$
(34)
and then

$$b=\frac{\mu _0}{\mu _0+1}$$
(35)
Because as clear from (31) at $`f=1`$ one has $`z=1`$.

In reality for one string $`\mu _0=\frac{d\mu }{dy}\mathrm{\Delta }y`$, where $`\frac{d\mu }{dy}1.0÷1.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ is the width of the rapidity window. If one chooses backward and forward windows of a different width $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_B\mathrm{\Delta }y_F`$, then $`\mu _{0B}\mu _{0F}`$, and instead of (35) we have

$$\frac{dn_B_{n_F}}{dn_F}|_{n_F=n_F}b=\frac{\mu _{0B}}{\mu _{0F}+1}$$
(36)
or for ”relative” quantities

$$\frac{dn_B_{n_F}/n_B}{dn_F/n_F}|_{n_F=n_F}\overline{b}=\frac{\mu _{0F}}{\mu _{0F}+1}$$
(37)
We see that in the last case correlation coefficient depends only on value of $`\mu _{0F}`$ in the forward window (see physical explanation of this fact in the end of the section).

In Figs.1-2 we present the results of the exact (dashed lines) and approximate (in the Gauss approximation)(solid lines) calculations of the function $`n_B_{n_F}`$ using formulas (24) and (32) correspondingly at the different values of the mean number of strings $`\overline{N}=M\eta `$ and $`\mu _0`$ in the no fusion case. We see that the Gauss approximation works very well starting from $`\overline{N}=4`$ especially in the region $`n_F=n_F`$, where the most of experimental points lay and where correlation coefficient is defined.

One has also to pay attention on the approximate linearity of the correlation functions obtained here in the case of two Poisson distributions by use of the formula (24), which coincides with the corresponding formula from , the problem dealt with in that paper.

In Figs.3 we present the results of the exact (dashed lines) and approximate (in the Gauss approximation)(solid lines) calculations of the correlation coefficient $`b\frac{dn_B_{n_F}}{dn_F}|_{n_F=n_F}`$ as function of $`\mu _0`$ using formulas (24) and (35) correspondingly at the different values of the mean number of strings $`\overline{N}=M\eta `$ in the no fusion case. We see again that Gauss approximation works very well starting from $`\overline{N}=4`$ for any $`\mu _0`$.

As one can see from Figs.1-3 we have $`\overline{N}`$-independence for correlation functions and correlation coefficient $`\overline{b}`$ starting very early (from $`\overline{N}=4`$). It’s interesting to mention that as one can see from Figs.4,5 at that the resulting distributions $`P(n_F)`$ are changing drastically with $`\overline{N}`$ from $`\overline{N}=4`$ to $`\overline{N}=128`$.

We see also that we have practically ideal Gauss distribution for $`P(n_F)`$ at $`\overline{N}=128`$. This is in agreement with the experimental data. Unlike the case of pp-interactions (where NBD for $`P(n_F)`$ takes place) in the case of nuclear collisions with a large number of emitting centers the ideal Gauss distribution for $`P(n_F)`$ has been observed experimentally for central PbPb collisions (i.e. at fixed value of impact parameter $`b`$ and hence fixed $`S(b)`$) (see, for example, Fig.6 in ). Note that for nuclear collisions in Glauber approximation we have also Gauss distribution for $`P(n_F)`$ at fixed value of impact parameter $`b`$ (see, for example, ).

Physical interpretation. Let us to discuss in the conclusion of the section why the correlation coefficient for ”relative” quantities $`\overline{b}`$ (37) depends only on the multiplicity in the forward rapidity window.

The correlations between $`n_B`$ and $`n_F`$ in the model under consideration arise only through fluctuations in the number of strings $`N`$. At large values of $`\mu _{0F}1`$ it’s more probable that fluctuation in the number of forward produced particles $`n_F`$ was caused by the fluctuation in the number of strings $`N`$ than by the fluctuations in $`n_i`$ and vice versa at small values of $`\mu _{0F}1`$ it’s more probable that fluctuation in the number of forward produced particles $`n_F`$ was caused not by the fluctuation in the number of strings $`N`$ but by the fluctuations in $`n_i`$.

Formally we can see it from analysis of the maximum $`N_{}`$ of the function $`\phi (N,n_F)`$ (28), in which the first term originates from the fluctuations of $`N`$ and the second term originates from the fluctuations of $`n_i`$. If we have some fluctuation (i.e. $`n_F\mu _0\overline{N}`$), then at $`\mu _{0F}1`$ $`N_{}n_F/\mu _0`$ and at $`\mu _{0F}1`$ $`N_{}\overline{N}`$.

So if every string emits in average large number of particles ($`\mu _{0F}1`$) in the given forward interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_F`$ then based on information of $`n_F`$ we can do the justified conclusion on the number of strings $`N`$ in the given event and hence expect corresponding change in the $`n_B`$. And if every string emits in average small number of particles ($`\mu _{0F}1`$) in the given interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_F`$ then based on information of $`n_F`$ we can’t do any conclusions on the number of string $`N`$ in the given event.

Note that more detail analysis shows that this conclusion is not based on the specific (Poissonian) form of the distributions. At small $`\overline{n}_i1`$ one always will have $`\sigma _i\overline{n}_i`$ due to discrete nature of $`n_i`$.

## 5 Cell size, cluster size, global string fusion.

Let us go back to the string fusion and consider the case, when $`r_c`$ \- correlation radius (cluster size) is not equal to the string radius - $`r_0`$ ($`\gamma r_c/r_0>1`$), then the square of the cluster in a transverse plane will be equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\gamma ^2\sigma _0`$ and $`\gamma ^2`$ is the square of the cluster in string square units. If j-th cluster was formed in the given event by $`m_j`$ strings, then it will have $`\eta _{cj}=m_j\sigma _0/\mathrm{\Delta }S=m_j/\gamma ^2`$, where $`j=1,\mathrm{},M_c`$ and $`M_c`$ is the number of the clusters: $`M_c=S(b)/\mathrm{\Delta }S=\gamma ^2)=M/\gamma ^2`$. (We keep notation $`M`$ for the quantity $`S(b)/\sigma _0=M`$.) The $`S(b)`$ is the transverse square of interaction area of nuclei at given impact parameter $`b`$. Note that in given approach we consider the clusters of the fixed (by hands) area ($`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$) with fluctuating from event to event number of strings $`m_j`$ forming it (i.e. the $`\eta _{cj}`$ fluctuates around $`\eta `$ in the homogeneous case).

Now the elementary emitters will be not strings, but clusters. The mean number of particles emitted by such cluster will be equal to $`\mu _c\sqrt{\eta _{cj}}`$ (in the case with string fusion), where $`\mu _c=\mu _0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S}{\sigma _0}=`$ $`\mu _0\gamma ^2=`$ $`\frac{d\mu }{dy}\mathrm{\Delta }y\gamma ^2`$. So to study the dependence on the cluster size $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ in the given model we have to
1) increase the luminosity of elementary emitters $`\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}\mu _c\sqrt{\eta _{cj}}=`$ $`\mu _0\gamma ^2\sqrt{m_j/\gamma ^2}=`$ $`\mu _0\gamma \sqrt{m_j}`$
2) simultaneously reduce the number of clusters $`MM_c=S(b)/\mathrm{\Delta }S=`$ $`S(b)/(\sigma _0\gamma ^2)=`$ $`M/\gamma ^2`$.

Note that there is no sense to introduce the clusters $`\mathrm{\Delta }S>\sigma _0`$ (i.e. correlated fluctuations of the $`\eta _i`$ within area $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$) in the case without string fusion. Similarly it’s no physical reasons to consider clusters at small values of $`\eta `$ ($`\eta <1`$) even in the case with string fusion.

On the contrary at large $`\eta `$ ($`\eta >>1`$) there are physical reasons in the case $`\mathrm{𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ}`$ string fusion to consider two possibilities:
A) $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\sigma _0,\gamma ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }S/\sigma _0=1,M_c=M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$
B) $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=S(b),\gamma ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }S/\sigma _0=M,M_c=1`$ (one cluster).
The first one corresponds to the model, where colour string fields are summing up only locally (formulated in section 2) and the second one corresponds to the model, where colour string fields are summing up all over the interaction area $`S(b)`$ into one colour field.

In the case A) at the first stage we have $`M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$ with $`\eta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$ fluctuated around $`\eta `$. Then we have to generate particles from each area $`\sigma _0`$ with average multiplicities equal to $`\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}`$ (see section 2).

Global string fusion. In the case B) we must MODIFY our formulae, as at first stage we also have $`M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$ (like in the case A)) with $`\eta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$ fluctuated around $`\eta `$. Then (unlike the case A)) we have to find average $`\eta _c=\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i=\frac{N}{M}`$ for given event, and then to generate particles from one cluster with average multiplicity equal to $`\mu _c\sqrt{\eta _c}=`$ $`\mu _0M\sqrt{\eta _c}`$ $`=\mu _0M\sqrt{N/M}`$ $`=\mu _0\sqrt{MN}`$. (Note that for configuration when all $`\eta _i=\eta `$ the average multiplicity in the case A) and B) is the same $`\mu _0(S(b)/\sigma _0)\sqrt{\eta }`$. In general case they will be slightly different, as $`\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}`$$`\frac{1}{M}_i\sqrt{\eta _i}`$.)

So in case B) we must replace (6) by

$$O_{n_F}=\frac{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}O_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)p_{\mu _c\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}}(n_F)}{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)p_{\mu _c\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}}(n_F)}$$
(38)
In the case B) we must ALSO MODIFY our expressions for $`O_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}`$ \- the rates of the backward production from configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$. We have to use instead of (7) for $`n_B_{n_F}`$ correlations:

$$n_B_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=\mu _c\sqrt{\eta _c}=\mu _0M\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}\underset{i}{}\eta _i}$$
(39)
with $`M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$ and instead of (8) for $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}`$ correlations:

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=p^2\sqrt{\eta _c}=p^2\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}\underset{i}{}\eta _i}$$
(40)
Again we see that the difference with the case A) consists in replace $`\frac{1}{M}_i\sqrt{\eta _i}\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}`$. As a consequence calculations in the case B) are much more simple as we can reduce all sums $`_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}`$ to one sum $`_N`$ using identity (18) as in the no fusion case.

So in the fusion case with one cluster (case B)) we can write simple formulas as in the no fusion case. Namely we have

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\mu _0\sqrt{M}_N\sqrt{N}W(N)p_{\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N}}(n_F)}{_NW(N)p_{\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N}}(n_F)}$$
(41)
and

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}=\frac{p^2}{\sqrt{M}}\frac{_N\sqrt{N}W(N)p_{\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N}}(n_F)}{_NW(N)p_{\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N}}(n_F)}$$
(42)
with $`M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$ and $`W(N)`$ is given by the formula (20). We see that in this case B) (one cluster at large $`\eta `$) n-n and pt-n correlations are connected

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}=\frac{p^2}{\mu _0M}n_B_{n_F}$$
(43)
Note also that in the case A) for Poissonian distributions $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ (10) we have for $`P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)`$ the formula (11) which is very similar to (38) but with $`\frac{1}{M}_i\sqrt{\eta _i}`$ instead of $`\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}`$. More over we can fulfil in the case A) the summation (4) over $`\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_M\}`$ and get the similar formula for $`P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)`$ also in the cases of binomial and negative binomial distributions (see the next section). In these formulas the rate of $`n_F`$ production depends only on some average quantities for configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$ (on $`\frac{1}{M}_i\sqrt{\eta _i}`$ in the case A) and on $`\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}`$ in the case B)) So we expect that we’ll have very similar results for n-n and pt-n correlations in the cases A) and B).

## 6 Non-Poissonian ( binomial, negative binomial ) distributions.

Important note: Even if we have no Poisson distributions (15) for $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ we still can get Gauss type formula (25) for $`P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)`$ at $`M1`$ using (4) and the central limit theorem of the probability theory

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)g_{n_F,\sigma _F}(n_F)$$
(44)
with $`n_F=_i\overline{n}_i`$ and $`\sigma _F^2=_i\sigma _i^2`$, but now $`\sigma _F^2`$ can be not equal to $`n_F`$.

Let us consider, as an example, the binomial distributions instead of Poisson distributions.

$$p_{\eta _i}(n_i)=\beta _{k_i,\lambda }(n_i)C_{k_i}^{n_i}\lambda ^{n_i}(1\lambda )^{k_in_i}$$
(45)
Unlike Poisson distribution there are two parameters in binomial distribution. We choose the same parameter $`\lambda `$ for all $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ distributions. In this case we can sum these distributions like Poisson distributions due to formula

$$\beta _{_ik_i,\lambda }(n_F)=\underset{\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_M\}}{}\delta _{n_F,_in_i}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\beta _{k_i,\lambda }(n_i)$$
(46)
For binomial distributions we have

$$\overline{n}_i=k_i\lambda \sigma _i^2=k_i\lambda (1\lambda )=\overline{n}_i(1\lambda )$$
(47)
In the no fusion case we also have $`\overline{n}_i=\mu _0\eta _i`$ and hence $`k_i=`$$`\overline{n}_i/\lambda =`$$`\frac{\mu _0}{\lambda }\eta _i`$. So we have to choose $`\lambda `$ so that to ensure the $`\frac{\mu _0}{\lambda }`$ will be integer, in other respects the parameter $`\lambda `$ is arbitrary. (Clear that $`n_i^{max}=k_i`$ and the case of small $`\lambda `$, when $`k_i=n_i^{max}\overline{n}_i`$, corresponds to the Poisson case.) Then we find

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)=\beta _{\frac{n_F}{\lambda },\lambda }(n_F)$$
(48)
with $`n_F=`$$`_i\overline{n}_i=`$$`\mu _0_i\eta _i`$ and $`\sigma _F^2=`$$`_i\sigma _i^2=`$$`(1\lambda )\mu _0_i\eta _i`$. We see that for binomial distribution $`\sigma _F^2=(1\lambda )n_F`$ with $`0<\lambda <1`$. Note that case $`\lambda 1`$ corresponds to the situation, when all $`n_i=n_i^{max}=k_i`$ and there are no dispersion all $`\sigma _i^2=0`$.

Similarly for $`w(\eta _i)`$ starting instead of (21) from

$$w(\eta _i)=\beta _{r_i,\lambda _\eta }(\eta _i)$$
(49)
with

$$\overline{\eta }_i=r_i\lambda _\eta =\eta \sigma _{\eta _i}^2=r_i\lambda _\eta (1\lambda _\eta )=\overline{\eta }_i(1\lambda _\eta )$$
(50)
where now $`\eta /\lambda _\eta `$ must be integer. Then we find instead of (22)

$$W(N)=\beta _{\frac{M\eta }{\lambda _\eta },\lambda _\eta }(N)$$
(51)
with $`\overline{N}=`$$`_i\overline{\eta }_i=`$$`M\eta `$ and $`\sigma _N^2=`$$`_i\sigma _{\eta _i}^2=`$$`(1\lambda _\eta )M\eta `$ and again $`\sigma _N^2=(1\lambda _\eta )\overline{N}`$ with $`0<\lambda _\eta <1`$. Clear that the case $`\lambda _\eta 0`$ corresponds to the Poissonian case and the case $`\lambda _\eta 1`$ corresponds to the situation, when $`N=\overline{N}`$ and there are no dispersion $`\sigma _N^2=0`$ (fixed number of strings).

Then instead of (24) we find

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\mu _0_NN\beta _{\frac{\overline{N}}{\lambda _\eta },\lambda _\eta }(N)\beta _{\frac{\mu _0}{\lambda }N,\lambda }(n_F)}{\mu _0_N\beta _{\frac{\overline{N}}{\lambda _\eta },\lambda _\eta }(N)\beta _{\frac{\mu _0}{\lambda }N,\lambda }(n_F)}$$
(52)
In Gauss approximation we have the same formulas (25) and (26) but now with $`\sigma _F^2=n_F_N(1\lambda )=\mu _0N(1\lambda )`$ and $`\sigma _N^2=\overline{N}(1\lambda _\eta )`$. We have also the same formula (27) but now with

$$\phi (N,n_F)=\frac{(N\overline{N})^2}{2\overline{N}(1\lambda _\eta )}+\frac{(n_F\mu _0N)^2}{2\mu _0N(1\lambda )}$$
(53)
Clear that the case $`\lambda 1`$ corresponds to $`\delta (n_F\mu _0N)`$ and $`N=n_F/\mu _0`$. Each string emits exactly $`\mu _0`$ particles and the number of strings $`N`$ in the given event can be uniquely reconstructed on the value of $`n_F`$ which leads to 100% correlations (see discussion in the end of the section 4). The case $`\lambda _\eta 1`$ corresponds to $`\delta (N\overline{N})`$ and $`N=\overline{N}`$, which corresponds to the fixed number of strings. There are no dependence of $`N`$ on the value of $`n_F`$ in this case which leads to no correlations (note that we consider the no fusion case).

We’ll have all the same formulae (30,32,33) for $`n_B_{n_F}`$ and $`b`$, but with modified equation for $`z(f)`$:

$$z^3z^2=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{2}(f^2z^2)$$
(54)
where

$$\kappa =\frac{1\lambda _\eta }{1\lambda }$$
(55)
We see again that at $`\lambda 1`$ we have $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$ and $`z=f`$; at $`\lambda _\eta 1`$ we have $`\kappa 0`$ and $`z=1`$ (doesn’t depend on $`f`$). Instead of (34) and (35) we have

$$\frac{dz}{df}=\frac{\mu _0\kappa f}{3z^2+z(\mu _0\kappa 2)}$$
(56)
and then

$$b=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{\mu _0\kappa +1}$$
(57)
We see that really at $`\lambda 1`$ we have $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$ and the correlation coefficient $`b=1`$; at $`\lambda _\eta 1`$ we have $`\kappa 0`$ and the correlation coefficient $`b=0`$.

Clear that we can do all the same for negative binomial distributions. We can also use any combinations of these distributions - one type for $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ and another type for $`w(\eta _i)`$.

## 7 Conclusion. Acknowledgments.

We see that suggested simple cellular model for the description of the $`p_t`$ and multiplicity correlations in high-energy nuclear collisions and the Gauss approximation which enables explicit analytical calculations of the correlation functions in some asymptotic cases give the adequate results in the no fusion case.

In the next paper we plan to present the results of the correlation functions calculations with taking into account the string fusion phenomenon, based both on numerical summations on the configurations $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$ using formulae of the section 2 and on analytical calculations using the Gauss approximation discussed in section 4.

In conclusion the authors would like to thank M.A. Braun and G.A. Feofilov for numerous valuable discussions. The work has been partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research under Grant No. 01-02-17137-a.