format: text

text:
# Precise Propagation of Upper and Lower Probability Bounds in System P

## 1 Introduction

In the applications of intelligent systems to automated uncertain reasoning the explicit knowledge of the agent is represented by a knowledge base $`𝒦`$, constituted by a set of conditional assertions (i.e. defaults). The nonmonotonic inferential process is developed using a suitable set of rules. Among the many formalisms which have been proposed for default reasoning, the so-called System P developed in (Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor 1990) is widely accepted and has a probabilistic semantics based on infinitesimal probabilities, see (Adams 1975, Pearl 1988). An extended probability logic has been proposed in (Adams 1986) by allowing disjunction of conditionals. The corresponding system P+ has been studied in (Schurz 1998) where the perspectives of the infinitesimal probability semantics and that of a noninfinitesimal one, based on probabilistic inequality relations, have been unified. In (Hawthorne 1996) many logics of nonmonotonic conditionals, that behave like conditional probabilities at various levels of probabilistic support, have been examined. In the quoted paper the author shows that, for each given conditional $``$, there is a probabilistic support level $`r`$ and a conditional probability $`P`$ such that, for all sentences $`B,A`$, it is $`BA`$ only if $`P(A|B)r`$. We recall that an early examination of Adams rules by means of imprecise probabilities has been given in (Dubois, and Prade 1991). In the quoted paper a semantic interpretation in terms of intervals has been given for the relations of negligibility, closeness and comparability examined in the system of qualitative reasoning proposed in (Raiman 1986). Moreover, an application to the inference rules of Adams has been given interpreting ”$`P(A|B)`$ is large” by means of the relation of closeness to 1 (making the infinitesimal parameter $`ϵ`$ explicit). In this way a quantification of the degradation of the validity of Adams’ rules when reasoning with noninfinitesimal probabilities has been obtained. While in practical applications the semantics of infinitesimal probabilities may involve some difficulties, the approach based on lower (and possibly upper) probability bounds, proposed also in (Bourne, and Parsons 1998), is clearly more flexible and realistic. In this paper the propagation of probability bounds to the conditional assertions associated with the rules of System P is examined in the framework of the de Finetti’s probabilistic methodology, based on the coherence principle. Notice that a coherent set of conditional probability assessments satisfies all the usual properties of conditional probabilities. A short examination of the logic of conditionals of Adams from the point of view of coherence has been given in (Gilio 1997), where the propagation of probabilistic bounds has not been considered. We point out that the peculiarity of our approach is given by the possibility of looking at the conditional probability $`P(A|B)`$ as a primitive concept,with no need of assuming that the probability of the conditioning event $`B`$ be positive. On the contrary, in the probabilistic approaches usually adopted in the literature, see, e.g., (Adams 1975, Hawthorne 1996, Schurz 1998), by definition the quantity $`P(A|B)`$ is the ratio of $`P(AB)`$ and $`P(B)`$ if $`P(B)0`$, with $`P(A|B)=1`$ if $`P(B)=0`$. Notice that a clear rationale of this latter assumption does not seem to exist. Indeed, in the framework of coherence, this assumption is not made and the case of conditioning events of zero probability is managed without any problem: as an example, the condition $`P(A|B)+P(A^c|B)=1`$, where $`A^c`$ denotes the negation of $`A`$, is satisfied also when $`P(B)=0`$. We think that the opportunity, offered by the probabilistic approach based on coherence, of developing a completely general treatment of probabilistic default reasoning is important specially in the field of nonmonotonic reasoning where infinitesimal probabilities play a significant role. Moreover, exploiting the algorithms developed in our framework, the lower and upper probability bounds associated with the conditional assertions of a given knowledge base can be propagated to further conditional assertions, obtaining in all cases the tightest probability bounds. Beside allowing a more flexible and realistic approach to probabilistic default reasoning, this provides an exact illustration of the degradation of System P rules when interpreted in probabilistic terms. The probabilistic approach based on coherence has been adopted in many recent papers, see, e. g., (Biazzo, and Gilio 1999), (Capotorti, and Vantaggi 1999), (Coletti 1994), (Coletti, and Scozzafava 1996), (Coletti, and Scozzafava 1999), (Gilio 1995a), (Gilio 1995b), (Gilio 1999), (Gilio, and Ingrassia 1998), (Gilio, and Scozzafava 1994), (Lad 1999), (Lad, Dickey, and Rahman 1990), (Scozzafava 1994). The algorithms described in (Biazzo, and Gilio 1999), based on the linear programming technique, have been implemented with Maple V. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give some preliminary concepts on coherence and probability logic. In Section 3 we consider the definitions of probabilistic consistency and entailment given by Adams; then we recall the main inference rules of his probability logic. In Section 4 we consider the propagation of lower and upper probability bounds in System P. We also examine the disjunctive Weak Rational Monotony of System P+. In Section 5 we examine the propagation of lower bounds with real $`ϵ`$values. Then, in Section 6 we apply the results to (a slightly modified version of) an example given in (Bourne, and Parsons 1998). Finally, in Section 7 we give some conclusions.

## 2 Some preliminaries

We recall some preliminary concepts on coherence of imprecise probability assessments and on probability logic. Given a family $`_n=\{E_1|H_1,\mathrm{},E_n|H_n\}`$ and a vector $`𝒜_n=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ of lower bounds $`P(E_i|H_i)\alpha _i`$, with $`iJ_n=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, we consider the following definition of generalized coherence (g-coherence), given in (Biazzo, and Gilio 1999), which essentially coincides with a previous one introduced in (Gilio 1995a).

###### Definition 1

The vector of lower bounds $`𝒜_n`$ on $`_n`$ is said g-coherent if and only if there exists a precise coherent assessment $`𝒫_n=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ on $`_n`$, with $`p_i=P(E_i|H_i)`$, which is consistent with $`𝒜_n`$, that is such that $`p_i\alpha _i`$ for each $`iJ_n`$.

The Definition 1 can be also applied to imprecise assessments like

$$\alpha _iP(E_i|H_i)\beta _i,iJ_n,$$

since each inequality $`P(E_i|H_i)\beta _i`$ amounts to the inequality $`P(E_i^c|H_i)1\beta _i`$.
Then, given an imprecise assessment $`𝒜_n=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ on $`_n`$, a suitable procedure, given in (Gilio 1995b), can be used to check the g-coherence of $`𝒜_n`$. The g-coherent extension of $`𝒜_n`$ to a further conditional event $`E_{n+1}|H_{n+1}`$ has been studied in (Biazzo, and Gilio 1999) where, defining a suitable interval $`[p_{},p^{}][0,1]`$, the following result has been obtained.

###### Theorem 1

Given a g-coherent imprecise assessment $`𝒜_n=([\alpha _i,\beta _i],iJ_n)`$ on the family $`_n=\{E_i|H_i,iJ_n\}`$, the extension $`[\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}]`$ of $`𝒜_n`$ to a further conditional event $`E_{n+1}|H_{n+1}`$ is g-coherent if and only if the following condition is satisfied

$$[\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}][p_{},p^{}]\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
In the quoted paper an algorithm has been proposed to determine $`[p_{},p^{}]`$. Moreover, starting with a g-coherent assessment $`𝒜_n`$, by the same algorithm it is possible to determine the corresponding assessment $`𝒜_n^{}`$ coherent wrt definition given in (Walley 1991).
We can frame our approach to the problem of propagating imprecise conditional probability assessments (probabilistic deduction) from the probability logic point of view, see, e. g., (Frisch, and Haddawy 1994), (Lukasiewicz 1998), (Nilsson 1986).
We associate to each conditional assertion $`H|E`$ in the knowledge base $`𝒦`$ a probability interval $`[\alpha ,\beta ]`$. In particular, given a family $`_n`$ of $`n`$ conditional assertions, we consider an interval-valued probability assessment $`𝒜_n=([\alpha _i,\beta _i],i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$. Then, we can look at the pair $`(_n,𝒜_n)`$ as a probabilistic knowledge base, where each imprecise assessment $`\alpha _iP(E_i|H_i)\beta _i`$ is a probabilistic formula denoted by $`(E_i|H_i)[\alpha _i,\beta _i]`$. In our approach a probabilistic interpretation is just a coherent precise conditional probability assessment $`𝒫_n`$ on $`_n`$. A probabilistic interpretation $`𝒫_n=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ is a model of a probabilistic formula $`(E_i|H_i)[\alpha _i,\beta _i]`$ iff $`𝒫_n(E_i|H_i)[\alpha _i,\beta _i]`$, that is $`\alpha _ip_i\beta _i`$. $`𝒫_n`$ is a model of the probabilistic knowledge base $`𝒦=(_n,𝒜_n)`$, denoted $`𝒫_n𝒦`$, iff $`𝒫_n(E|H)[\alpha ,\beta ]`$ for every $`(E|H)[\alpha ,\beta ]𝒦`$. Therefore, $`𝒫_n`$ is a model of $`𝒦=(_n,𝒜_n)`$ iff $`𝒫_n`$ is consistent with $`𝒜_n`$. A set of probabilistic formulas $`𝒦`$ is satisfiable iff a model of $`𝒦`$ exists, therefore the concept of satisfiability of $`𝒦=(_n,𝒜_n)`$ coincides with that of g-coherence of $`𝒜_n`$ on $`_n`$. A probabilistic formula $`(E_{n+1}|H_{n+1})[\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}]`$ is a logical consequence of $`𝒦=(_n,𝒜_n)`$, denoted $`𝒦(E_{n+1}|H_{n+1})[\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}]`$, iff

$$\alpha _{n+1}inf,\beta _{n+1}sup,$$

where $``$ is the set of the real values $`p`$ such that there exists a model of $`𝒦\{(E_{n+1}|H_{n+1})[p,p]\}`$. As shown by the condition ( 1), in our approach this amounts to

$$[p_{},p^{}][\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}].$$

A probabilistic formula $`(E_{n+1}|H_{n+1})[\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}]`$ is a tight logical consequence of $`𝒦=(_n,𝒜_n)`$, denoted $`𝒦_{tight}(E_{n+1}|H_{n+1})[\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}]`$, iff

$$\alpha _{n+1}=inf,\beta _{n+1}=sup,$$

that is

$$\alpha _{n+1}=p_{},\beta _{n+1}=p^{}.$$

Considering a probabilistic query $`(E_{n+1}|H_{n+1})[\alpha ,\beta ]`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are two different variables, to a probabilistic knowledge base $`𝒦=(_n,𝒜_n)`$ a correct answer is any $`[\alpha ,\beta ]=[\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}][p_{},p^{}]`$, that is such that $`𝒦(E_{n+1}|H_{n+1})[\alpha _{n+1},\beta _{n+1}]`$. The tight answer is $`[\alpha ,\beta ]=[p_{},p^{}]`$.

## 3 Probabilistic consistency and entailment

We recall that in (Adams 1975) the conditional assertion ”if $`A`$ then $`B`$  is looked at as $`P(B|A)1ϵ(ϵ>0)`$. Adopting a more realistic point of view we may look at the same conditional assertion as the probabilistic formula $`(B|A)[\alpha ,\beta ]`$, with $`0\alpha \beta 1`$, where usually $`\beta =1`$. Then, a (probabilistic) knowledge base might be defined as a family of probabilistic formulas $`𝒦=\{(E|H)[\alpha ,\beta ]\}`$. In (Adams 1975) the following definition has been given.

###### Definition 2

The knowledge base $`𝒦`$ is probabilistically consistent (p-consistent) if, for every $`ϵ>0`$, there exists a probability $`P`$ on A, proper for $`𝒦`$, such that $`P(E|H)1ϵ`$ for every $`E|H𝒦`$ .

In our framework the concept of probabilistic consistency can be defined in the following way.

###### Definition 3

The knowledge base $`𝒦`$ is probabilistically consistent (p-consistent) if, for every set of lower bounds $`𝒜=\{\alpha _{E|H},E|H𝒦\}`$ on $`𝒦`$, there exists a precise coherent probability assessment $`P=\{p_{E|H},E|H𝒦\}`$ on $`𝒦`$, with $`p_{E|H}=P(E|H)`$, such that, for each $`E|H𝒦`$, $`p_{E|H}\alpha _{E|H}`$.

We recall the concept of probabilistic entailment as defined in (Adams 1975).

###### Definition 4

A p-consistent knowledge base $`𝒦`$ probabilistically entails (p-entails) the conditional $`B|A`$ if, for every $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that for all probabilities $`P`$, proper for $`𝒦\{B|A\}`$, if $`P(E|H)1\delta `$ for each $`E|H𝒦`$, then $`P(B|A)1ϵ`$.

In our framework the concept of probabilistic entailment can be defined in the following way.

###### Definition 5

A p-consistent knowledge base $`𝒦`$ probabilistically entails the conditional $`B|A`$ if there exists a subfamily $`𝒦`$ such that, for every $`\alpha _{B|A}`$, there exists a set of lower bounds $`𝒜=\{\alpha _{E|H},E|H\}`$ on $``$ such that for all precise coherent probability assessment $`P=\{p_{B|A},p_{E|H},E|H\}`$ on $`\{B|A\}`$, with $`p_{B|A}=P(B|A),p_{E|H}=P(E|H)`$, if $`p_{E|H}\alpha _{E|H}`$ for each $`E|H`$, then $`p_{B|A}\alpha _{B|A}`$.

The probabilistic entailment of $`B|A`$ by $`𝒦`$ is denoted by the symbol $`𝒦B|A`$. In (Adams 1975) a suitable set $``$ of seven inference rules has been introduced, by means of which an inferential system can be developed to deduce in an automatic way all the plausible conclusions of a knowledge base $`𝒦`$.See also (Pearl 1988). The fundamental rules of the set $``$ are the following ones:

$$\begin{array}{cc}R1.\hfill & A|C,A|BAB|C\hfill \\ & (Triangularity)\hfill \\ & \\ R2.\hfill & AB|C,A|BA|C\hfill \\ & (Bayes)\hfill \\ & \\ R3\hfill & A|C,B|CAB|C\hfill \\ & (Disjunction)\hfill \end{array}$$

The previous rules, among others, have been used (with different names and in the framework of symbolic approaches too) by many authors, with the aim of developing some nonmonotonic logics to formalize the plausible reasoning (see e.g. (Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor 1990), (Lehmann, and Magidor 1992), (Dubois, and Prade 1994)). See also the survey given in (Benferhat, Dubois, and Prade 1997).
We recall that in (Gilio 1997) the following concept of strict probabilistic consistency has been introduced.

###### Definition 6

The knowledge base $`𝒦`$ is strictly p-consistent if the probability assessment $`P`$ on $`𝒦`$, such that $`P(E|H)=1`$ for each $`E|H𝒦`$, is coherent.

Then the following result, which has some relations with the Theorem 3 given in (Schurz 1998), has been given (without proof).

###### Theorem 2

$`𝒦`$ is p-consistent if and only if $`𝒦`$ is strictly p-consistent.

The proof of Theorem 2 is based on the following three assertions:

If $`𝒦`$ is strictly p-consistent, then $`𝒦`$ is p-consistent;

If $`𝒦`$ is p-consistent, then $`𝒦`$ is consistent;

If $`𝒦`$ is consistent, then $`𝒦`$ is strictly p-consistent.

Hence, the property of p-consistency can be simply defined on the basis of the property of strict p-consistency. Moreover, the following well known result

###### Theorem 3

If $`𝒦`$ is consistent, then $`𝒦B|A`$ if and only if $`𝒦\{B^c|A\}`$ is inconsistent.

can be reformulated in the following way:

###### Theorem 4

Given a consistent knowledge base $`𝒦`$ and a conditional $`B|A`$, $`𝒦`$ p-entails $`B|A`$ if and only if the probability assessment $`P`$ on $`𝒦\{B^c|A\}`$, with $`P(B^c|A)=P(E|H)=1`$ for each $`E|H𝒦`$, is not coherent.

## 4 Exact propagation of probability bounds in System P

We recall that the inference rules in System P are the following ones:

$$\begin{array}{cc}1.\hfill & A|A\hfill \\ & (Reflexivity)\hfill \\ & \\ 2.\hfill & AB,A|CB|C\hfill \\ & (LeftLogicalEquivalence)\hfill \\ & \\ 3.\hfill & BC,A|BA|C\hfill \\ & (RightWeakening)\hfill \\ & \\ 4.\hfill & A|B,A|CA|BC\hfill \\ & (And)\hfill \\ & \\ 5.\hfill & A|C,A|BAB|C\hfill \\ & (CautiousMonotonicity)\hfill \\ & \\ 6.\hfill & A|C,B|CAB|C\hfill \\ & (Or)\hfill \end{array}$$

Two derived rules in System P are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}7.AB|C,A|BA|C\hfill & & (\mathrm{C}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{t})\hfill \\ & & \\ 8.AB|CA|BC\hfill & & (\mathrm{S})\hfill \end{array}$$

As we can see, the rules $`R1,R2,R3`$ coincide respectively with the rules Cautious Monotonicity, Cut, Or in System P. In (Adam86) an extended probability logic (System P+) was developed by allowing the disjunction of conditionals in the conclusion of inferences and by adding the following dWRM rule.

$$\begin{array}{cc}9.\hfill & A|CA|B^cAB|C\hfill \\ & (disjunctiveWeakRationalMonotony)\hfill \end{array}$$

Now we will show how the probability intervals associated with the antecedents in each rule of System P propagate in a precise way to the consequent of the given rule. We will also examine the rules Cut, S and dWRM. These bounds will provide an exact illustration of the degradation of System P rules when interpreted in probabilistic terms. Perhaps, as a by-product, also a better appreciation of the results given in (Hawthorne 1996) on the interpretation of nonmonotonic conditionals in terms of probabilistic support levels could be obtained. We assume that the basic events $`A,B,C`$ are logically independent.

1. Reflexivity rule. As for every assertion $`A`$ the assessment $`P(A|A)=p`$ is coherent if and only if $`p=1`$, to the conditional assertion $`A|A`$ we associate the interval $`[\alpha ,\beta ]=[1,1]`$.
2. Left Logical Equivalence rule. If two assertions $`A,B`$ are equivalent, then for every assertion $`C`$ the assessment $`(x,y)`$ on the pair of conditional events $`C|A,C|B`$ is coherent if and only $`x=y`$. Therefore we associate the same probability interval to the conditional assertions $`C|A,C|B`$. In other words, the assessment $`[\alpha ,\beta ]`$ on $`C|A`$ propagates to the same interval on $`C|B`$.
3. Right Weakening rule. If $`BC`$ then, defining the inclusion among conditional events as in (Goodman, and Nguyen 1988), it is $`B|AC|A`$ and then the assessment $`(x,y)`$ on the pair of conditional events $`B|A,C|A`$ is coherent if and only $`xy`$, see (Gilio 1993). Therefore, the assessment $`[\alpha ,\beta ]`$ on $`B|A`$ propagates to the interval $`[\alpha ,1]`$ on $`C|A`$.
4. And rule. Given the assessment $`(x,y)`$ on the pair of conditional events $`B|A,C|A`$, as well known the extension $`P(BC|A)=z`$ is coherent if and only if

$$Max\{0,x+y1\}=z^{}zz^{\prime \prime }=Min\{x,y\}.$$

Therefore, the probability intervals $`[\alpha _1,\beta _1],[\alpha _2,\beta _2]`$ on the antecedents $`B|A,C|A`$ of the rule propagate to the exact interval $`[\alpha _3,\beta _3]`$, with

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _3=Minz^{}=Max\{0,\alpha _1+\alpha _21\},\hfill \\ \\ \beta _3=Maxz^{\prime \prime }=Min\{\beta _1,\beta _2\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
on the consequent $`BC|A`$.
5. Cautious Monotonicity rule. Given the assessment $`(x,y)`$ on the pair of conditional events $`C|A,B|A`$, as proved in (Gilio 1995b), the extension $`P(C|AB)=z`$ is coherent if and only if $`z[z^{},z^{\prime \prime }]`$, with

$$\begin{array}{c}z^{}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{x+y1}{y},\hfill & \text{if}& x+y>1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}& x+y1\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \\ z^{\prime \prime }=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{x}{y},\hfill & \text{if}& x<y\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if}& xy\hfill \end{array}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We observe that, for $`(x,y)[\alpha _1,\beta _1]\times [\alpha _2,\beta _2]`$ the function $`f(x,y)`$ attains its minimum value at the point $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$. Then, it follows

$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _3=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\alpha _1+\alpha _21}{\alpha _2},\hfill & \text{if }\hfill & \alpha _1+\alpha _2>1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }\hfill & \alpha _1+\alpha _21\hfill \end{array}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3)
Moreover, the function $`g(x,y)`$ attains its maximum value at the point $`(\beta _1,\alpha _2)`$. Then it follows

$$\beta _3=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\beta _1}{\alpha _2},\hfill & \text{if }\hfill & \beta _1<\alpha _2\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }\hfill & \beta _1\alpha _2\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Then, in order to determine the interval $`[\alpha _3,\beta _3]`$ we have to consider the position of the vertices $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2),(\beta _1,\alpha _2)`$ wrt diagonals of the unitary square $`[0,1]^2`$.
6. Or rule. Given the assessment $`(x,y)`$ on the pair of conditional events $`C|A,C|B`$, it can be proved that the extension $`P(C|(AB))=z`$ is coherent if and only if $`z[z^{},z^{\prime \prime }]`$, with

$$\begin{array}{c}z^{}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{xy}{x+yxy},\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & (x,y)(0,0)\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & (x,y)=(0,0)\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \\ z^{\prime \prime }=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{x+y2xy}{1xy},\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & (x,y)(1,1)\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & (x,y)=(1,1)\hfill \end{array}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover, we observe that both $`z^{}`$ and $`z^{\prime \prime }`$ increase as either $`x`$ or $`y`$ increase. Therefore, the probability intervals $`[\alpha _1,\beta _1],[\alpha _2,\beta _2]`$ on the antecedents $`C|A,C|B`$ of the rule propagate, under the condition $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)(0,0),(\beta _1,\beta _2)(1,1)`$, to $`[\alpha _3,\beta _3]`$, with

$$\alpha _3=\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _2}{\alpha _1+\alpha _2\alpha _1\alpha _2},$$
(5)
$$\beta _3=\frac{\beta _1+\beta _22\beta _1\beta _2}{1\beta _1\beta _2},$$
(6)
on the consequent $`C|(AB)`$.

Concerning the rules Cut and S we have the following results.
(e) Cut rule. Given the assessment $`(x,y)`$ on the pair of conditional events $`C|AB,B|A`$, it can be proved that the extension $`P(C|A)=z`$ is coherent if and only if

$$xyzxy+1y.$$

Therefore, the probability intervals $`[\alpha _1,\beta _1],[\alpha _2,\beta _2]`$ on the antecedents $`C|AB,B|A`$ of the rule propagate to $`[\alpha _3,\beta _3]`$, with

$$\alpha _3=\alpha _1\alpha _2,\beta _3=\beta _1\alpha _2+1\alpha _2,$$
(7)
on the consequent $`C|A`$.
(f) S rule. As $`C|AB(B^cC)|A`$, then the assessment $`(x,y)`$ on the conditional events $`C|AB,(B^cC)|A`$ is coherent if and only if $`xy`$. Therefore, the probability interval $`[\alpha _1,\beta _1]`$ on the antecedent $`C|AB`$ of the rule propagates to $`[\alpha _2,\beta _2]`$, with

$$\alpha _2=\alpha _1,\beta _2=1,$$

on the consequent $`(B^cC)|A`$.
(g) dWRM rule. Let $`𝒫=(x,y,z)`$ a probability assessment on the family $`\{C|A,B^c|A,C|AB\}`$. For this family the constituents (possible worlds) are

$$\begin{array}{c}C_0=A^c,C_1=ABC,C_2=ABC^c,\hfill \\ \\ C_3=AB^cC,C_4=AB^cC^c.\hfill \end{array}$$

To the constituents $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_4`$ we associate the points

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_1=(1,0,1),Q_2=(0,0,0),\hfill \\ \\ Q_3=(1,1,z),Q_4=(0,1,z).\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, based on the method given in (Gilio 1995b) and denoting by $``$ the convex hull of the points $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_4`$, it can be proved that the coherence of $`𝒫`$ amounts to the condition $`𝒫`$. Notice that in general this condition is necessary but not sufficient for the coherence of an assessment $`𝒫_n=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ on a family $`_n=\{E_1|H_1,\mathrm{},E_n|H_n\}`$. The study of the condition $`𝒫`$ requires considering the equations of the four planes determined respectively by the terns of points

$$\begin{array}{c}\{Q_1,Q_2,Q_3\},\{Q_2,Q_3,Q_4\},\hfill \\ \\ \{Q_1,Q_2,Q_4\},\{Q_1,Q_3,Q_4\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Denoting by $`X,Y,Z`$ the axes’ coordinates, the equations are given respectively by

$$\begin{array}{c}Z=X+(z1)Y,Z=zY,\hfill \\ \\ Z=X+zY,Z=(z1)Y+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, given the values $`x,y`$, it is

$$𝒫z^{}zz^{\prime \prime },$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}z^{}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{xy}{1y},\hfill & \text{if}& x>y\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}& xy\hfill \end{array},\hfill \\ \\ z^{\prime \prime }=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{x}{1y},\hfill & \text{if}& x+y<1\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if}& x+y1\hfill \end{array}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In order to examine the probabilistic interpretation of the rule we introduce a partition $`\{_1,_2,_3,_4\}`$ of the unitary square $`[0,1]^2`$, with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_1\hfill & =\hfill & \{(x,y):x+y<1,xy\},\hfill \\ & & \\ _2\hfill & =\hfill & \{(x,y):x+y<1,x<y\},\hfill \\ & & \\ _3\hfill & =\hfill & \{(x,y):x+y1,x<y\},\hfill \\ & & \\ _4\hfill & =\hfill & \{(x,y):x+y1,xy\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We have to examine the case in which $`x`$ is ”high”, therefore $`_2`$ is not of interest. In $`_3`$, since $`x<y`$, if $`x`$ is ”high” then $`y`$ is ”high” too. In $`_1`$ and $`_4`$ it is $`zz^{}=\frac{xy}{1y}`$ so that, if $`x`$ is ”high” and $`y`$ is ”not high”, then $`z`$ is ”high”.
Concerning propagation of probability intervals, if we consider the assessments $`[\alpha _1,\beta _1],[\alpha _2,\beta _2]`$ on the conditional events $`C|A,B^c|A`$, then for the interval $`[\alpha _3,\beta _3]`$ associated with $`C|AB`$ we first observe that the quantity $`\frac{x}{1y}`$ attains its maximum value at the point $`(\beta _1,\alpha _2)`$, while the quantity $`\frac{xy}{1y}`$ attains its minimum value at the point $`(\alpha _1,\beta _2)`$. Then, we have:

$$\alpha _3=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\alpha _1\beta _2}{1\beta _2},\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & \alpha _1\beta _2\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & \alpha _1<\beta _2\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
$$\beta _3=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\beta _1}{1\alpha _2},\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & \beta _1+\alpha _2<1\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & \beta _1+\alpha _21\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
###### Remark 1

Using the lower bounds computed previously, we can verify the probabilistic entailment in each inference rule on the basis of Definition 5. We have

* And rule. For each given value $`\alpha _3`$, from ( 2) we have that, for every $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)[\alpha _3,1]\times [\alpha _3,1]`$ such that $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2=1+\alpha _3`$, if $`P(B|A)\alpha _1,P(C|A)\alpha _2`$ then $`P(BC|A)\alpha _3`$.
* Cautious Monotonicity rule. For each given value $`\alpha _3`$, from ( 3) we have that, for every $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)[\alpha _3,1]\times (0,1]`$ such that $`\alpha _1+(1\alpha _3)\alpha _2=1`$, if $`P(C|A)\alpha _1,P(B|A)\alpha _2`$ then $`P(C|AB)\alpha _3`$.
* Or rule. For each given value $`\alpha _3`$, from ( 5) we have that, for every $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)[\alpha _3,1]\times [\alpha _3,1]`$ such that $`\alpha _2=\frac{\alpha _1\alpha _3}{\alpha _1(1+\alpha _3)\alpha _3}`$, if $`P(C|A)\alpha _1,P(C|B)\alpha _2`$ then $`P(C|AB)\alpha _3`$.
* Cut rule. For each given value $`\alpha _3`$, from ( 7) we have that for every $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)[\alpha _3,1]\times [\alpha _3,1]`$ such that $`\alpha _2=\frac{\alpha _3}{\alpha _1}`$, if $`P(C|AB)\alpha _1,P(B|A)\alpha _2`$ then $`P(C|A)\alpha _3`$.

## 5 Propagation with $`ϵ`$values

The results of the previous section can be examined in the particular case in which for $`i=1,2`$ it is $`[\alpha _i,\beta _i]=[1ϵ_i,1]`$. As it can be verified, the $`ϵ`$values propagate in the following way.

* And rule. From ( 2), the probability bounds $`[1ϵ_1,1],[1ϵ_2,1]`$ on the antecedents $`B|A,C|A`$ of the rule propagate, on the consequent $`BC|A`$, to the exact bounds $`[1ϵ_3,1]`$, with

$$ϵ_3=ϵ_1+ϵ_2$$
(10)
* Cautious Monotonicity rule. From ( 3), the probability intervals $`[1ϵ_1,1]`$, $`[1ϵ_2,1]`$ on the antecedents $`C|A,B|A`$ of the rule propagate, on the consequent $`C|AB`$, to $`[1ϵ_3,1]`$, with

$$ϵ_3=\frac{ϵ_1}{1ϵ_2}$$
(11)
* Or rule. From ( 5), the probability intervals $`[1ϵ_1,1],[1ϵ_2,1]`$ on the antecedents $`C|A,C|B`$ of the rule propagate, on the consequent $`C|(AB)`$, to $`[1ϵ_3,1]`$, with

$$ϵ_3=\frac{ϵ_1+ϵ_22ϵ_1ϵ_2}{1ϵ_1ϵ_2}$$
(12)
* Cut rule. From ( 7), the probability intervals $`[1ϵ_1,1],[1ϵ_2,1]`$ on the antecedents $`C|AB,B|A`$ of the rule propagate, on the consequent $`C|A`$, to $`[1ϵ_3,1]`$, with

$$ϵ_3=ϵ_1+ϵ_2ϵ_1ϵ_2$$
(13)

###### Remark 2

Our results concerning the value of $`ϵ_3`$ coincide with that ones obtained in (Bourne, and Parsons 1998) for the rules And and Cautious Monotonicity and are better for the rules Or and Cut, as from ( 12) and ( 13) one has respectively

$$\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_3=\frac{ϵ_1+ϵ_22ϵ_1ϵ_2}{1ϵ_1ϵ_2}<ϵ_1+ϵ_2& (ϵ_1<1,ϵ_2<1),\\ & \\ ϵ_3=ϵ_1+ϵ_2ϵ_1ϵ_2<ϵ_1+ϵ_2& (ϵ_1>0,ϵ_2>0).\end{array}$$

The use of the precise bounds may have some relevance when the inference rules are applied with real $`ϵ`$values.

## 6 An application

We will now examine an example to give an idea, on one hand, of how much the conclusions may be sensible to the use of methods of exact propagation of probability bounds and, on another hand, of the related phenomenon of degradation of inference rules when interpreted in probabilistic terms. The example is a modified version of an application considered in (Bourne, and Parsons 1998) which was inspired by examples given in (Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor 1990). We consider a probabilistic knowledge base consisting of some conditional assertions, which concern the fact that a given party has various attributes (the party is great, noisy, Linda and Steve are present, and so on). By the symbol $`A|_ϵB`$ we denote the assessment $`P(B|A)1ϵ`$. We start with a knowledge base which has the following rules and $`ϵ`$values:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}1.& & Linda|_{0.05}great\\ & & \\ 2.& & Linda|_{0.2}Steve\\ & & \\ 3.& & LindaSteve|_{0.1}\neg noisy\\ & & \\ 4.& & Steve|_{0.05}Linda\\ & & \\ 5.& & \neg noisy|_{0.2}\neg great\end{array}$$

Notice that the conditional $`\mathrm{"}Linda|_{0.05}great\mathrm{"}`$ means that the probability of the conditional event

”(The party will be great $`|`$ Linda goes to the party)”

is greater than or equal to $`10.05`$, and so on. We are interested in propagating the previous bounds to find the $`ϵ`$values of the following conditionals:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(a)& & Linda|_ϵ\neg noisy\\ & & \\ (b)& & |_ϵ\neg Linda\\ & & \\ (c)& & LindaSteve|_ϵgreat\neg noisy\\ & & \\ (d)& & Steve|_ϵ\neg noisy\\ & & \\ (e)& & LindaSteve|_ϵ\neg noisy\end{array}$$

By the symbol $``$ we denote (any tautology representing) the certain event.
Applying the Cut rule to the conditionals

$$Linda|_{0.2}Steve,LindaSteve|_{0.1}\neg noisy,$$

we obtain the conditional

$$Linda|_{0.28}\neg noisy.$$

Then, applying the And rule to the conditionals

$$Linda|_{0.28}\neg noisy,Linda|_{0.05}great,$$

we obtain the conditional

$$Linda|_{0.33}great\neg noisy.$$

Applying the S rule to

$$Linda|_{0.33}great\neg noisy$$

we obtain

$$|_{0.33}\neg Lindagreat\neg noisy.$$

Applying the S rule to

$$\neg noisy|_{0.2}\neg great$$

we obtain

$$|_{0.2}noisy\neg great.$$

Finally, applying the And rule to the conditionals

$$|_{0.33}\neg Lindagreat\neg noisy,|_{0.2}noisy\neg great,$$

we obtain the conditional

$$|_{0.53}\neg Linda(noisy\neg great).$$

Then, by the Right Weakening rule we have

$$|_{0.53}\neg Linda(noisy\neg great)|_{0.53}\neg Linda.$$

Concerning the conditional $`(c)`$, applying the Cautious Monotonicity rule to

$$Linda|_{0.05}great,Linda|_{0.2}Steve,$$

we obtain

$$LindaSteve|_{0.0625}great.$$

Then, applying the And rule to the conditionals

$$LindaSteve|_{0.0625}great,LindaSteve|_{0.1}\neg noisy,$$

we obtain the conditional

$$LindaSteve|_{0.0725}great\neg noisy.$$

Concerning the conditional $`(d)`$, applying the Cut rule to the conditionals

$$LindaSteve|_{0.1}\neg noisy,Steve|_{0.05}Linda,$$

we obtain the conditional

$$Steve|_{0.145}\neg noisy$$
(14)
Then, applying the Or rule to the conditionals

$$Steve|_{0.145}\neg noisy,Linda|_{0.28}\neg noisy,$$

we obtain the conditional

$$LindaSteve|_{0.358}\neg noisy$$
(15)
We observe that, propagating the bounds with $`ϵ_3=ϵ_1+ϵ_2`$, instead of the conditionals ( 14) and ( 15) we would obtain respectively

$$Steve|_{0.15}\neg noisy,$$

and

$$LindaSteve|_{0.425}\neg noisy.$$

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper the inference rules of System P have been considered in the framework of coherence. We have also examined the disjunctive Weak Rational Monotony proposed by Adams in his extended probability logic, corresponding to System P+. Differently from the probabilistic approaches generally given in the literature, see, in particular, (Hawthorne 1996) and (Schurz 1998), within our framework we can directly manage conditional probability assessments, even if some (or possibly all the) conditioning events have zero probability. We think that this opportunity is important specially in the field of nonmonotonic reasoning where infinitesimal probabilities play a significant role. Moreover, exploiting our algorithms, the lower and upper probability bounds associated with the conditional assertions of a given knowledge base can be propagated to further conditional assertions, obtaining in all cases the precise probability bounds. In particular, beside allowing a more flexible and realistic approach to probabilistic default reasoning, this provides an exact illustration of the degradation of System P rules when interpreted in probabilistic terms.

### 7.1 Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the referees for the very helpful criticisms and suggestions.

## 8 References

Adams, E. W. 1975. The Logic of Conditionals. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Adams, E. W. 1986. On the logic of high probability, Journal of Philosophical Logic 15: 255-279.
Benferhat, S.; Dubois, D.; and Prade, H. 1997. Nonmonotonic reasoning, conditional objects and possibility theory. Artificial Intelligence 92(1-2): 259-276.
Biazzo, V.; and Gilio A. 1999. A generalization of the fundamental theorem of de Finetti for imprecise conditional probability assessments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. Forthcoming.
Bourne, R.; and Parsons, S. 1998. Propagating probabilities in System P. In Proceedings of the 11th International FLAIRS Conference, 440-445.
Capotorti, A.; and Vantaggi, B. 1999. A general interpretation of conditioning and its implication on coherence. Soft Computing 3/3: 148-153.
Coletti, G. 1994. Coherent numerical and ordinal probabilistic assessments. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 24(12): 1747-1754.
Coletti, G.; and Scozzafava, R. 1996. Characterization of coherent conditional probabilities as a tool for their assessment and extension. Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-based Systems 4(2): 103-127.
Coletti, G.; and Scozzafava, R. 1999. Conditioning and inference in intelligent systems. Soft Computing 3/3: 118-130.
Dubois, D.; and Prade, H. 1991. Semantic consideration on order of magnitude reasoning. In Decision support systems and qualitative reasoning, Singh, M. G.; and Trave-Massuyes L. eds., 223-228. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North Holland.
Dubois, D.; and Prade, H. 1994. Conditional Objects as Nonmonotonic Consequence Relationships. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24(12): 1724-1740.
Frisch, A. M.; and Haddawy, P. 1994. Anytime Deduction for Probabilistic Logic, Artificial Intelligence 69: 93-122.
Gilio, A. 1993. Conditional events and subjective probability in management of uncertainty. In Uncertainty in Intelligent Systems - IPMU’92, Bouchon-Meunier, B.; Valverde, L.; and Yager, R. R. eds., 109-120. Elsevier Science Publ. B. V., North-Holland.
Gilio, A. 1995a. Probabilistic consistency of conditional probability bounds. In Advances in Intelligent Computing - IPMU ’94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 945, Bouchon-Meunier, B.; Yager, R. R.; and Zadeh, L. A. eds., 200-209. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Gilio, A. 1995b. Algorithms for precise and imprecise conditional probability assessments. In Mathematical Models for Handling Partial Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence, Coletti, G.; Dubois, D.; and Scozzafava, R. eds., 231-254. New York: Plenum Press.
Gilio, A. 1997. Probabilistic modelling of uncertain conditionals. In Procedings of European Symposium on Intelligent Techniques, 54-57. Bari, Italy.
Gilio, A. 1999. Probabilistic relations among logically dependent conditional events, Soft Computing 3/3: 154-161.
Gilio, A.; and Ingrassia, S. 1998. Totally coherent set-valued probability assessments, Kybernetika 34(1): 3-15.
Gilio, A.; and Scozzafava, R. 1994. Conditional events in probability assessments and revision, IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 24(12): 1741-1746.
Goodman, I. R.; Nguyen H. T. 1988. Conditional objects and the modeling of uncertainties. In Fuzzy Computing Theory, Hardware and Applications, Gupta, M. M.; and Yamakawa, T. eds., 119-138. New York: North-Holland.
Hawthorne, J. 1996. On the logic of nonmonotonic conditionals and conditional probabilities, Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 185-218.
Kraus, K.; Lehmann, D.; and Magidor, M. 1990. Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics, Artificial Intelligence 44: 167-207.
Lad, F. 1999. Assessing the foundations for Bayesian networks: a challenge to the principles and the practice, Soft Computing 3/3: 174-180.
Lad, F. R.; Dickey, J. M.; and Rahman, M. A. 1990. The fundamental theorem of prevision, Statistica, anno L(1): 19-38.
Lehmann, D.; and Magidor, M. 1992. What does a conditional knowledge base entail?, Artificial Intelligence 55: 1-60.
Lukasiewicz, T. 1998. Magic inference rules for probabilistic deduction under taxonomic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 354-361. Madison, Wisconsin.
Nilsson, N. J. 1986. Probabilistic logic, Artificial Intelligence 28: 71-87.
Pearl, J. 1988. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Raiman, O. (1989). Le raisonnement sur les ordres de grandeur, Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle 3(4): 55-67.
Schurz, G. 1998. Probabilistic semantics for Delgrande’s conditional logic and a counterexample to his default logic, Artificial Intelligence 102(1): 81-95.
Scozzafava, R. 1994. Subjective probability versus belief functions in artificial intelligence, Int. J. General Systems 22: 197-206.
Walley, P. 1991. Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. London: Chapman and Hall.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

Recently, the factorization of the hadron production process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma h\overline{h}`$ in a partonic handbag diagram and a two-hadron distribution amplitude has been discussed , which describes the exclusive fragmentation of a quark-antiquark pair into two hadrons. This factorization is valid in the kinematic region where the squared c.m. energy of the final hadrons $`s=(p+p^{})^2`$ is much smaller than the photon virtuality $`Q^2`$, see Fig. 1. So far, mostly the process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ has been studied and is known to NLO precision . The central object there is the two-pion distribution amplitude , which has been expressed in terms of the instanton vacuum . The same object enters in terms of hard diffractive electro production of two pions . A detailed QCD analyses of the cross section of exclusive production of pion pairs for $`s<1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ can be found in . The general process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ has also been studied earlier in the resonance region  and in a purely perturbative kinematics involving two light cone wave functions instead of a two-hadron distribution amplitude (2HDA) .
In our contribution we want to look at this process from the viewpoint of a semi-classical theory as it was proposed in the Lund model . In a semi-classical theory we will not be able to study the 2HDA. However, the factorization picture motivates a semi-classical description in which a quark-antiquark pair produced by $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ interaction fluctuates with some probability $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)`$ into a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair. The two-meson fragmentation function $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)`$ can be evaluated in terms of the string fragmentation picture. Decaying resonances above the mass of $`\sqrt{s}=`$1 GeV are treated here as strings. The semi classical picture should be a good approximation when many resonances overlap and interference effects can be neglected.
In the kinematics, where the above mentioned factorization holds, the common picture is that a gluonic string is formed between the quark-antiquark pair and finally breaks into $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. This process is of special interest because it contains a string breaking exactly one tine, and, therefore, it would be a very interesting probe for an understanding of the dynamics of QCD strings. The picture which we are referring to is an incoherent one, because we do not work on the level of amplitudes but of probability densities. This incoherent picture of the Lund string model, as implemented in Monte Carlo (MC) programs like JETSET , has been very successful in the description of many particle final states in high-energy physics. It is our aim to investigate what the prediction of this model will be if we reduce the number of final particles to very few ones, actually only two.
In terms of the Lund model few-body states have been discussed only recently . The fragmentation functions used in JETSET  only work for high energy processes, where the invariant mass of the string $`\sqrt{s}`$ is much larger than the masses of the particles produced. In the two-body case the Lund model fixes the fragmentation function only up to a normalizing function $`g_{q\overline{q}}(s)=_ng_{q\overline{q}n}(s)`$, where $`g_{q\overline{q}n}(s)`$ describes the (unnormalized) probability that a quark-antiquark string fragments into $`n`$ particles. In  $`g_{q\overline{q}}(s)`$ was fixed by the requirement that for a given invariant mass squared $`s=4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ one should get the same results as the JETSET program, which originally only describes many-body states well. The crucial point is, that especially for two particles the JETSET program is not reliable as it does not contain $`C`$-parity for example. In this approach we try to compute $`g_{q\overline{q}}(s)`$ directly by evaluating the phase space and the string breaking probability for all channels that contribute.
The paper is outlined as follows. In Sec. II we describe the factorization of the cross section $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in terms of Weizsäcker-Williams spectrum, photon structure function and the two-meson fragmentation probability. In Sec. III we will outline how the fragmentation mechanism is understood according to the Lund model plus some minor extensions as to spin and $`C`$-parity. Finally, in Sec. IV we will evaluate all competing channels to the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair production in a region $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2<s<2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. We will compare our semi-classical formalism with data from the time-like pion form factor and predict the total cross section $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ at LEP2 energies.

## II The process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in the semi-classical theory

The kinematics of the process $`\gamma ^{}(q)+\gamma (q_0)h(p)+\overline{h}(p^{})`$ in Fig. 1 has been given in  and . The process is governed by the virtuality of the off shell photon $`Q^2=q^2`$ and the invariant mass squared of the final state hadrons $`s=(p+p^{})^2`$. To ensure the factorization according to Fig. 1 we have to satisfy $`sQ^2`$. Quark-antiquark configurations which have an invariant mass squared $`s>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ are treated in our approach as strings. Below this value the length of the ’string’ becomes smaller than 1 fm (with a string constant taken to be $`\kappa 1\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{fm}`$), and it is not sensible to speak of the configuration as an extended two-dimensional object, as it is then smaller than a typical hadron-radius. A more involved point is the real photon which enters with the momentum $`q_0`$. In principle it can have a substructure in the sense that it fluctuates in to a $`\rho ^0`$ meson state which interacts then with the virtual $`\gamma `$. This Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) contribution is important for quasi real photons .
In this paper we want to look at the process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in the sense of Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS) where the nucleon probe is replaced by a quasi real photon, see e.g. . We treat the exclusive process in the spirit as the MC program LEPTO  treats the DIS of electrons off protons: The process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ factorizes in a handbag diagram including the photon structure function, for which the whole machinery of perturbative QCD is applicable , and the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ fragmentation function, see Fig. 2.
The production of the initial $`q\overline{q}`$ pair is given by the handbag diagram of lepton-photon scattering, while the hadronization is given by a probability $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ that this pair fragments into two pions. The total cross section for the whole process $`e^+(l_0)+e^{}(l)`$ $``$ $`e^+(l_0^{})+e^{}(l^{})+\pi ^+(p)+\pi ^{}(p^{})`$ is then given to leading order accuracy by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{dy_0dxdQ_0^2dQ^2d^2𝐩_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{Q^4}}(1+(1y)^2)f_q^\gamma (x,Q^2,Q_0^2)f_{\gamma /e}^T(y_0,Q_0^2)P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s,p_{}^2).`$ (2.1)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_0q}{q_0l}},y_0={\displaystyle \frac{q_0l}{l_0l}},q=ll^{},q_0=l_0l_0^{}Q^2=q^2,Q_0^2=q_0^2,`$ (2.2)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2q_0q}},s=(q+q_0)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}Q^2,Q^2=Sxyy_0,S=(l_0+l)^2.`$ (2.3)
$`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ depends on the transverse momentum $`p_{}^2`$ of the two produced pions, which is defined with respect to the axis given by the string spanned by the two initial quarks. However, $`p_{}^2`$ is not a Lorentz invariant quantity. Therefore, from an experimental point of view, one would like to reconstruct the the $`p_{}^2`$-dependence in terms of the Lorentz invariant variables $`t=(qp)^2`$ and $`x`$, see also Eqs. (4.66) and (4.70). For the definition of the transversity it is furthermore essential, that to leading twist we can define the quark momenta in the framework of the standard parton model in DIS, i.e. that we can express in Fig. 1 $`k=xq_0+q`$. The virtuality $`Q_0^2`$ of the photon with the 4-momentum $`q_0`$ should be small, so that it can be treated as a quasi real photon and the standard approximations in terms of the photo-production formalism are valid.

Also, one should note, that in the convention used here $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)`$ = $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s,p_{}^2)d^2𝐩_{}`$ is a dimensionless quantity. For the factorization to be valid the ordering $`Q_0^2sQ^2`$ must be fulfilled. The part of the generation of the (quasi) real photon is described by the standard Weizsäcker-Williams spectrum  for a transversely polarized photon:

$$f_{\gamma /e}^T(y_0,Q_0^2)=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{2\pi }\left(\frac{(1+(1y_0)^2)}{y_0}\frac{1}{Q_0^2}\frac{2m_e^2y_0}{Q_0^4}\right).$$
(2.4)
The contribution of longitudinal polarized photons can be neglected as it is suppressed by one power of $`Q_0^2`$ .
The $`f_q^\gamma (x,Q^2,Q_0^2)`$ are the quark parton distributions of the quasi real photon which has the small virtuality $`Q_0^2`$. We will use the parameterization given in  . There is one subtility in using the quark parton distributions of the photon for an approximation of the quasi real photon in our case. Normally, those parton distributions contain also the case that the incoming virtual photon scatters off a quark from the sea. Obviously, in this case the ’photon remnant’ is a more complicated object than just an antiquark and it will lead in the end to some more complicated final state than just a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair. As we regard exclusive $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair production, this part of the photon parton distribution is not taken into account in our description. However, we recall here the necessary condition for factorization:

$$x=\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+s}1,\mathrm{as}Q^2s.$$
(2.5)
For large $`x`$, however, it is known that the parton distributions represent nearly exclusively the valence quarks which correspond in our case just to the valence $`q\overline{q}`$ pair in the $`\rho ^0`$. It means that the photon remnant is then to a very high precision just the corresponding antiquark, carrying the full rest momentum $`(1x)q_0`$, and, in this respect, the photon structure function is a good approximation.
$`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)`$ is the (semi-classical) probability that the produced $`q\overline{q}`$ pair fragments into a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ state. We will calculate this quantity in terms of the Lund model. For intermediate values of $`s`$ (as compared to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$) the fragmentation process should be described non-perturbatively. Here the string picture is indisputably valid. For larger and larger $`s`$ a more perturbative prescription should be valid , where the second $`q\overline{q}`$ pair is generated by the branching of a perturbative gluon. In principle, the Lund model should also contain the perturbative contribution, because it describes the generation of the second $`q\overline{q}`$ pair in a tunneling mechanism which should resume the interaction to all orders. However, the model is an incoherent approximation, so that we cannot expect a one to one correspondence at all. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to study how far the string picture remains valid in this situation.

## III String breaking and fragmentation

In this chapter we want to derive $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}`$ semi-classically. We will pick up some elements from the Lund model as described in , but add extensions as to the particle spin and $`C`$-parity. The general strategy is to determine $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)`$ by the fraction of the two-meson weight $`g_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)`$ and the total weight $`g_{q\overline{q}}(s)`$. Here $`g_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)`$ is the weight for the process that the initial $`q\overline{q}`$ pair fragments into a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair, and $`g_{q\overline{q}}(s)`$ is the sum of all $`n`$-meson weights for all possible reactions, which the initial $`q\overline{q}`$ pair can undergo to produce an arbitrary number of mesons. Limiting the value $`s<4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ we can neglect any contribution from baryons.

$$P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s,p_{}^2)d^2𝐩_{}=\frac{g_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s,p_{}^2)d^2𝐩_{}}{g_{q\overline{q}}(s)}.$$
(3.6)
The term ’weight’ denotes a product of the phase pace of the given process and its production probability. We will specify these objects in the following. The simplest access is to regard the total weight $`g_{q\overline{q}}(s)`$. First of all, it is the sum of all weights of the initial $`q\overline{q}`$ pair producing $`n`$ mesons:

$$g_{q\overline{q}}(s)=\underset{n}{}g_{q\overline{q}n}(s).$$
(3.7)
The $`n`$-particle weight is then the sum over all weights where the initial quark-antiquark pair $`q\overline{q}`$ fragments into $`n`$ mesons $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_n`$:

$$g_{q\overline{q}n}(s)=\underset{M_1,\mathrm{},M_n}{}g_{q\overline{q}M_1,\mathrm{},M_n}(s).$$
(3.8)
In these weights only meson combinations are included which have the right quantum number with respect to the initial state. For example, in $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ we have to ensure that the final hadronic state has positive $`C`$-parity. In the Lund model approach the production of final state hadrons happens only through string breaking. This means that a resonance like $`f_2(1270)`$, which is an important intermediate state for the reaction $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ , is treated in the framework of the string picture. As the string constant $`\kappa `$ has the value $`\kappa (1\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{fm})=0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ this is a reasonable picture for all mesons with masses above 1 GeV like the $`f_2(1270)`$ for example, because it means that the distance between the quark-antiquark pair in the meson is considerable larger than 1 fm, which justifies the picture of a string. In fact, the string picture cannot describe resonance poles or interference effects of overlapping resonances as it is an incoherent semi-classical picture. In fact resonances with masses smaller than 1 GeV, namely the $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ resonances, have to be treated differently as we will show in the case of $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, see in Sec. IV E. Because of C-parity conservation, $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ resonances are forbidden as intermediate states in exclusive $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ scattering. However, they make a considerable contribution in the reaction $`\gamma ^{}N\pi ^+\pi ^{}+N`$, see , and, as we will see later, in the annihilation reaction $`e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.
We start now with the description of the two-particle weight $`g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2}`$ with $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ being two mesons.

### A The two-particle weight

The two-meson weight is given by the following formula:

$`g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐩_{}g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2}(s,p_{}^2)}`$ (3.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝐩_{}𝑑m_1P_{\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{M}_1}(m_1)𝑑m_2P_{\mathrm{mass}\mathrm{M}_2}(m_2)P_{\mathrm{tunnel}}(p_{})}`$ (3.11)
$`\times P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(M_1,M_2)P_{\mathrm{spin}}(M_1)P_{\mathrm{spin}}(M_2)g_2(s,m_1^2,m_2^2).`$
Here $`P_{\mathrm{mass}M_1}(m)`$ is the symmetric Breit-Wigner distribution to allow for the fact that some of the mesons considered here, like the $`\rho `$, are comparatively broad resonances:

$$P_{\mathrm{mass}}(m)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\left[(mm_0)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}\right]}.$$
(3.12)
$`P_{\mathrm{spin}}(M_1)`$ gives the probability that the two quarks which are under consideration to form the meson $`M_1`$ are coupled to the right spin state. Counting the number of $`S_z`$ components, the naive values would be:

$`P_{\mathrm{spin}}^{\mathrm{naive}}(S=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},P_{\mathrm{spin}}^{\mathrm{naive}}(S=1)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}.`$ (3.13)
However, experimentally, a ratio of pseudoscalar mesons to vector mesons is found that is close to 1:1 . One can model this in assuming that for $`S=1`$ only one of the three spin degrees of freedom is active leading to the factors

$`P_{\mathrm{spin}}(S=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},P_{\mathrm{spin}}(S=1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}.`$ (3.14)
$`P_{\mathrm{tunnel}}`$ gives the probability for the via string breaking generated quark-antiquark pair to carry the transverse momentum $`p_{}`$ with respect to the line of the string. The transverse momentum is generated by tunneling through a linear barrier of length $`l=p_{}/\kappa `$, see Fig. 3, with $`\kappa `$ being the string constant. The tunneling process can be best understood by considering the situation when the new quark antiquark pair has just been produced. Then the mother string has been split into two new ones. Each of them consists of a quark-antiquark pair sitting in a linear potential. The two linear potentials do not interfere with each other. The distance of the generated quark-antiquark pair is $`l`$. The energy of the quantum mechanically forbidden region where this quark-antiquark pair has tunneled through, has been invested in transverse momentum $`p_{}=l\kappa `$. To calculate the probability for such a kinematical configuration one has to calculate the overlap of the quark wave functions at the beginning and at the end of the tunneling process. The WKB method predicts for the wave function of one of the quarks in the linear potential:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }(0)\mathrm{exp}\left[_0^x\sqrt{p_{}^2(\kappa x^{})^2}𝑑x^{}\right].$$
(3.15)
One gets the tunneling probability from the normalized square of the overlap of the two density distributions i.e. the square of the two wave functions:

$`P_{\mathrm{tunnel}}(p_{})\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(l)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(0)}}\right|^4P_{\mathrm{tunnel}}(p_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi p_{}^2}{\kappa }}\right)\right].`$ (3.16)
For the string constant one naively would assume a value $`\kappa _{\mathrm{string}}`$ $``$ $`1\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{fm}`$ $``$ $`0.2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Again, it turns out in experiment that a somewhat larger value is needed in order to describe the $`p_{}`$ of hadrons properly . We get a good result in the end for the time-like pion form factor of the pion using a value $`\kappa =0.35\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ which results in an average hadron transverse momentum of $`p_{}=0.472\mathrm{GeV}`$. This is a bit larger than the value $`p_{}=0.42\mathrm{GeV}`$ cited in . On the other hand, at the small invariant masses considered here, it is likely that soft effects which could lead to a $`p_{}`$ smearing are quite important.
$`P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(M_1,M_2)`$ is the probability to produce the correct flavor for the mesons $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. From long termed experience with the JETSET program, the following probabilities in the Lund model have been shown to be reasonable :

$$P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(d\overline{d})=P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(u\overline{u})=1/2.3,P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(s\overline{s})=0.3/2.3.$$
(3.17)
The generation of heavy quarks is negligible. For high-energy fragmentation an alternative model has been developed  using $`P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(d\overline{d})`$ =$`P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(u\overline{u})`$ =$`P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(s\overline{s})`$ = 1. Using this assumption, the final results for the $`e^++e^{}e^++e^{}+A`$ cross sections (with $`A`$ being a two meson system) Fig. 21 become smaller about 15% for $`\rho \rho `$ and $`\pi \rho `$ production. In case of the production of pion pairs the changes are negligible. The same is true for the prediction of the time-like pion form factor Fig. 20. As the overall changes are small we will stick in this contribution to the parameters of the LUND model with the reservation that a precise determination of the strange suppression will be left to a future work on kaon production.
The central objects of the two-particle weights are the two-particle phase space weights $`g_2(s,m_1^2,m_2^2)`$. $`m_j`$ denotes the transverse mass, i.e., $`m_j^2=m_j^2+p_j^2`$. For a concise treatment one has to regard the general $`n`$-particle phase space weights $`g_n(s,m_1^2,\mathrm{},m_n^2)`$ first.

### B $`n`$-particle weights

The $`n`$-particle weights $`g_{q\overline{q}n}(s)`$ can be derived by means of the $`n`$-particle phase space weights $`g_n(s,m_1^2,\mathrm{},m_n^2)`$ which are given according to the Lund model :

$$g_n(s,m_1^2,\mathrm{},m_n^2)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}N_jd^2𝐩_𝐣\delta (p_j^2m_j^2)\delta \left(\underset{j}{}p_j(\sqrt{s},0)\right)\mathrm{exp}(b𝒜).$$
(3.18)
$`𝒜`$ is the shaded area spanned by the particle momenta shown in Fig. 4. $`b`$ is one of the two parameters in the Lund model which have to be fitted to experimental data. The value used for the calculations is $`b=0.75\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ . $`m_j^2=m_j^2+p_j^2`$ is the transverse mass of the j-th particle. One should observe that the phase space weight is independent of the flavor $`q`$. We will see later how $`n`$-particle weights and $`n`$-particle phase space weights fit together. $`N_j`$ can be interpreted as a sort of coupling constant for the $`j`$th particle. It can be fixed by a simple iterative condition. The two-particle phase space weight gives a simple analytic expression : It is constructed from energy momentum conservation (see Fig. 5):

$$m_2^2=(1z)\left(s\frac{m_1^2}{z}\right),$$
(3.19)
which yields:

$`z_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s+m_1^2m_2^2\pm \sqrt{\lambda (s,m_1^2,m_2^2)}}{2s}}`$ (3.20)
$`\lambda (x,y,z)`$ $`=`$ $`x^2+y^2+z^22xy2xz2yz.`$ (3.21)
The area is then given by (see Fig. 5):

$$𝒜_\pm =m_2^2+\frac{m_1^2}{z_\pm }=m_2^2+sz_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(s+m_1^2+m_2^2\sqrt{\lambda (s,m_1^2,m_2^2)}\right).$$
(3.22)
Furthermore, one has also:

$$d^2𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}d^2𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}\delta (p_1^2m_1^2)\delta (p_2^2m_2^2)\delta (p_1+p_2(\sqrt{s},0))=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda (s,m_1^2,m_2^2)}},$$
(3.23)
which yields the analytic result for the two-particle phase space weight:

$`g_2(s,m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_1,N_2{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{b}{2}(s+m_1^2+m_2^2)\right]}{b\sqrt{\lambda (s,m_1^2,m_2^2)}}}\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}\sqrt{\lambda (s,m_1^2,m_2^2)}\right).`$ (3.24)
We included a factor b in the denominator to get an dimensionless expression. The cosh corresponds to two possible solutions that obey energy momentum conservation when the two-dimensional string breaks into two parts. Then the other phase space weights can be obtained iteratively via :

$$g_n(s,m_1^2,\mathrm{},m_n^2)=N_n\frac{dz}{z}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{bm_n^2}{z}\right)g_{n1}[(1z)\left(s\frac{m_n^2}{z}\right),m_1^2,\mathrm{},m_{n1}^2].$$
(3.25)
This equation is also suitable to fix $`N_j`$. In the Lund model the $`N_j`$ are universal constants only dependent on $`m_j`$, but not on $`s`$ to ensure left right symmetry. The idea is  that after summation over $`n`$ on both sides, the iterative equation has a solution in form of $`_ng_n(s,)s^a`$ for asymptotically large $`s`$, which yields then in this limit:

$`N_j=N(a,bm_j^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{1/{\displaystyle _{m_j^2/s}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}(1z)^a\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{bm_j^2}{z}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_j^2}{sz}}\right)^a\right\}`$ (3.26)
$`=`$ $`1/{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}(1z)^a\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{bm_j^2}{z}}\right).`$ (3.27)
$`a`$ is the second parameter in the Lund model. The value, which we will use in our calculation, is $`a=0.5`$ .

### C The weights for n mesons

The procedure described in the previous two subsections can easily be generalized to describe the weight to produce $`n`$ mesons $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_n`$ from one mother string:

$`g_{q\overline{q}M_1,\mathrm{}M_n}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐩_𝐣P_{\mathrm{tunnel}}(p_j)}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑m_iP_{\mathrm{mass},\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{i}}(m_i)P_{\mathrm{spin}}(M_i)}\right]`$ (3.28)
$`\times `$ $`g_n(s,m_1^2,\mathrm{},m_n^2)P_{\mathrm{flavor}}(M_1,\mathrm{},M_n).`$ (3.29)
One should then observe that:

$`m_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2+p_1^2;`$ (3.30)
$`m_i^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_i^2+(p_{i1}p_i)^2,(1<i<n);`$ (3.31)
$`m_n^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_n^2+p_{n1}^2.`$ (3.32)
In practice, it will be easier to make use of the recurrence relation. Here the three-meson phase space weight is given by:

$$g_3(s,m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)=N(a,bm_3^2)\frac{dz}{z}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{bm_3^2}{z}\right)g_2((1z)\left[s\frac{m_3^2}{z}\right],m_1^2,m_2^2).$$
(3.33)
What causes problems numerically, is the integration over the transverse momenta. The kinematic situation is the one of Fig. 6, i.e., that the particle in the middle receives transverse momentum from two string break points, whereas a particle at the end only from one. To simplify things we will take average values instead of a time consuming $`p_{}`$ integration. First, the average over the relative orientation of the transverse vectors yields:

$$(p_1p_2)^2p_1^2+p_2^2.$$
(3.34)
To simplify things further, we will also replace $`p_1^2p_1^2=\kappa /\pi `$ for one of the three particles. Taking into account that each of the three particles may sit in mid position in Fig. 6, we get:

$`g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2M_3}(s,m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)`$ (3.35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}[e^{\frac{b(m_3^2+2\kappa /\pi )}{z}}N(a,b(m_3^2+2\kappa /\pi ))g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2}((1z)(s{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2+2\kappa /\pi }{z}}),m_1^2,m_2^2)`$ (3.39)
$`+e^{\frac{b(m_3^2+\kappa /\pi )}{z}}N(a,b(m_3^2+\kappa /\pi ))g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2}((1z)\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2+\kappa /\pi }{z}}\right),m_1^2+\kappa /\pi ,m_2^2)`$
$`+e^{\frac{b(m_3^2+\kappa /\pi )}{z}}N(a,b(m_3^2+\kappa /\pi ))g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2}((1z)(s{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2+\kappa /\pi }{z}}),m_1^2,m_2^2+\kappa /\pi )]`$
$`\times P_{\mathrm{spin}}(M_3)P_{\mathrm{flavor}}.`$
Here, we have taken advantage of the fact that the functions $`g_n(s,m_1^2,\mathrm{},m_n^2)`$ are symmetric under permutation of the $`m_{i,}^2`$ up to a finite energy correction. We will check later to which extent this symmetry is fulfilled. Furthermore, we have to state that this approximation is only valid because we will restrict ourselves to $`u`$ and $`d`$-quarks. Strange quarks would lead to at least two kaons plus a third meson and this will not contribute in the range $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2<s<2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. One has to take into account that one has to deal with transverse masses here, i.e. one has to add the average transverse momentum, which is roughly 1/3 GeV per contributing quark in our case. If one calculates the weight for KK$`\pi `$ production, for example, one will observe that its shape resembles essentially the one of the $`\pi \pi \eta ^{}`$ contribution in Fig. 14, which starts around $`s=2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Neglecting the KK$`\pi `$ and corresponding channels, the expression Eq. (3.39) is basically flavor independent, as u and d quarks are treated equal because of their small mass difference. Otherwise we would be in trouble because the initial quark-antiquark pair in the two-meson weight and the three-meson weight are not identical. Our three-meson weight contains then all three possible combinations of the three particles being formed along the line of a string breaking two times. One finds analogously for the four-meson weight:

$`g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2M_3M_4}(s,m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2,m_4^2)`$ (3.40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}[2e^{\frac{b(m_4^2+2\kappa /\pi )}{z}}N(a,b(m_4^2+2\kappa /\pi ))g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2M_3}((1z)(s{\displaystyle \frac{m_4^2+2\kappa /\pi }{z}}),m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)`$ (3.45)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^{\frac{b(m_4^2+\kappa /\pi )}{z}}N(a,b(m_4^2+\kappa /\pi ))g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2M_3}((1z)\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{m_4^2+\kappa /\pi }{z}}\right),m_1^2+\kappa /\pi ,m_2^2,m_3^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^{\frac{b(m_4^2+\kappa /\pi )}{z}}N(a,b(m_4^2+\kappa /\pi ))g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2M_3}((1z)\left(s{\displaystyle \frac{m_4^2+\kappa /\pi }{z}}\right),m_1^2,m_2^2+\kappa /\pi ,m_3^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^{\frac{b(m_4^2+\kappa /\pi )}{z}}N(a(b,m_4^2+\kappa /\pi ))g_{q\overline{q}M_1M_2M_3}((1z)(s{\displaystyle \frac{m_4^2+\kappa /\pi }{z}}),m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2+\kappa /\pi )]`$
$`\times P_{\mathrm{spin}}(M_4)P_{\mathrm{flavor}}.`$
The factors take into account that the fourth particle has two possibilities to sit at the head of the string and two possibilities to sit the midst, see Fig. 6.

## IV Numerical estimates

### A Two-meson weights

Fig. 7 shows the weight $`g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s=1\mathrm{GeV}^2,p_{}^2)`$. The region in $`p_{}^2`$ is limited by the requirement that $`\lambda ^2(s,m_1^2,m_2^2)>0`$. One encounters from the phase-space an integrable singularity at:

$$p_{}^2=\frac{1}{4}\left[s2(m_1^2+m_2^2)+\frac{(m_1^2m_2^2)^2}{s}\right].$$
(4.46)
We have to calculate all possible two-meson weights. As we will restrict to a comparatively small region in s, i.e. $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2<s<2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, we will only take into account the lightest pseudoscalar mesons and vector mesons. As we are only interested in $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ production we have to regard for the principal quark-antiquark pair only the flavors $`u`$ and $`d`$. As heavy quarks are actually not generated in fragmentation we can exclude all mesons carrying charm, bottom and of course top quarks. In our formalism, an $`s\overline{s}`$ pair can only be generated through string breaking, and consequently, it cannot recombine to a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ meson, as the two strange quarks belong to different strings. Therefore, the generation of an $`s\overline{s}`$ pair in fragmentation leads exclusively to kaon pairs, while the $`d\overline{d}`$ and $`u\overline{u}`$ pairs only produce pions, rhos, etas, and omegas. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ mesons are neglected altogether because they consist to almost 100% of $`s\overline{s}`$ . According to recent analysis , the $`\eta `$ meson consists to 40% of $`s\overline{s}`$ and the $`\eta ^{}`$ meson to 60% of $`s\overline{s}`$. This means that we have to weight the $`\eta `$ production by a factor 3/5 and the $`\eta ^{}`$ production by a factor 2/5.
For neutral particles that are their own antiparticles we have to take into account that the final state must be in total $`C=+`$. This leads to the possible combinations in Tab. I. The masses and widths used for the computation are given in Tab. II. In fact, the Breit-Wigner distribution has to be taken into account only for the vector mesons.
Fig. 8 shows the contributions from the charged non strange sector, i.e. the combinations $`\pi ^\pm ,\rho ^\pm `$. In general, vector mesons have a larger mass than their pseudoscalar partners. Therefore, their weight starts later in $`s`$, where there is more competition with other channels. One sees later that this suppresses the contribution of the $`\rho `$.
Fig. 9 shows the two-meson weights for the neutral $`C=+`$ mesons. One observes that due to the strange content of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons their weight is suppressed. The neutral $`C=`$ sector consists only of combinations of $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ mesons. Their masses are close to each other, so the only effect visible comes from their different widths, see Fig. 10. In case of the mixed combinations (one vector meson and one pseudoscalar meson) we observe both effects: the suppression of the contribution from the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons on the one hand and the fact, that $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ mesons basically can be only distinguished according to their widths, on the other hand (Fig. 11). The mixed combinations will not contribute in $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ scattering because of $`C`$-parity conservation, but they will contribute to other processes like $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. For the strange meson contribution (Fig. 12) one observes the suppression of the strangeness production versus the production of $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs.
It is very interesting to investigate the dependence of our results on the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ in the Lund model. In Fig. 13 we show again the function $`g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)`$ with $`a`$ varying between $`0.4<a<0.6`$ and $`b`$ varying between $`0.65\mathrm{GeV}^2<b<0.85\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The parameter $`a`$ accounts for most of the uncertainty. In general, the deviations are small. This means that the results are relatively insensitive to the choice of $`a`$ and $`b`$.
From the results obtained so far, we can compute the total two-meson or two-particle weight function. In case of a $`C=+`$ state it is given by:

$`g_{u\overline{u}2}^{(+)}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\rho ^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\rho ^+\pi ^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\rho ^+\rho ^{}}(s)`$ (4.51)
$`+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^0\pi ^0}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\eta \eta }(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\eta ^{}\eta ^{}}(s)`$
$`+2g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^0\eta }(s)+2g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^0\eta ^{}}(s)+2g_{u\overline{u}\eta \eta ^{}}(s)`$
$`+g_{u\overline{u}\rho ^0\rho ^0}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\omega \omega }(s)+2g_{u\overline{u}\rho ^0\omega }(s)`$
$`+g_{u\overline{u}K^+K^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}K^+K^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}K^+K^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}K^+K^{}}(s);`$
and in case of a $`C=`$ state by:

$`g_{u\overline{u}2}^{()}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\rho ^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\rho ^+\pi ^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\rho ^+\rho ^{}}(s)`$ (4.55)
$`+2g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^0\rho ^0}(s)+2g_{u\overline{u}\eta \rho ^0}(s)+2g_{u\overline{u}\eta ^{}\rho ^0}(s)`$
$`+2g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^0\omega }(s)+2g_{u\overline{u}\eta \omega }(s)+2g_{u\overline{u}\eta ^{}\omega }(s)`$
$`+g_{u\overline{u}K^+K^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}K^+K^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}K^+K^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}K^+K^{}}(s).`$
In the case $`g_{d\overline{d}2}^{(\pm )}(s)`$ only the contribution of the charged kaons has to be replaced by neutral kaons.

### B Three-meson weights

For the three-meson weights we make use of the approximation Eq. (3.39). We will only take into consideration the lightest mesons. In case of neutral particles we get again limitations because of $`C`$-parity conservation, thus reducing the number of possible combinations to the following for a $`C=+`$ state:

| $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0,`$ | $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0,`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\eta ,`$ | $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta ,`$ |  |
| $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\eta ^{},`$ | $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta ^{},`$ |  |
| $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\rho ^0,`$ | $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\omega ,`$ |  |
| $`\pi ^+\pi ^0\rho ^{},`$ | $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0\rho ^+;`$ |  |

and to

| $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\rho ^0,`$ | $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\rho ^0,`$ |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\omega ,`$ | $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\omega ,`$ |  |
| $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0,`$ |  |  |
| $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\eta ,`$ | $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\eta ^{},`$ |  |
| $`\pi ^+\pi ^0\rho ^{},`$ | $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0\rho ^+`$ |  |

for a $`C=`$ state. We put the heaviest particle always at position 3 in Eq. (3.39) because this is the position where the approximation $`p_{}^2p_{}^2=\kappa /\pi `$ takes place and the error should be proportional to $`p_{}^2/m^2`$. Fig. 14 shows the various three-meson contributions. A quite substantial contribution comes from the combinations $`\pi \pi \rho `$ and $`\pi \pi \omega `$.
It is important to make a check of the reliability of the approximation. In Eq. (3.39) the meson in the position 3 is treated different from the mesons at position 2 and 1. We will have a brief look what consequences this asymmetry has. In Fig. 15 we show for the combination $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta `$ the two possibilities: One time the $`\eta `$ holds position three as in the calculation and one time it is on position 2 or 1, respectively. One observes that the absolute magnitude does not change much, but that when $`\eta `$ sits on position 2 or 1 the weight starts later in $`s`$. From the calculated three-meson weights we can compute the three-particle weight, which is in case of a $`C=+`$ state:

$`g_{u\overline{u}3}^{(+)}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0}(s)`$ (4.59)
$`+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\eta }(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta }(s)`$
$`+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\eta ^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^0\pi ^0\eta ^{}}(s)`$
$`+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\rho ^+}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^0\rho ^{}}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\rho ^0}(s)+g_{u\overline{u}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\omega }(s).`$
The corresponding expression for the $`C=`$ state is trivial.

### C Four-meson weights

For the four-meson contribution we take into account only pions because they are the lightest particles. Then the following combinations contribute:

$$\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{},\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0,\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0.$$
(4.60)
Because of the small mass difference the weights of the three combinations are practically indistinguishable, so it is sufficient to calculate one of them. Again, we make use of the recurrence relation Eq. (3.45). Fig. 16 shows the weight for the case $`\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, but it is indistinguishable from any other possible combination with charged pions. It is seen that the four-meson weight numerically only becomes relevant for $`s>2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Therefore, no four-meson weights or even higher weights are taken into account in our calculation.

### D The total weight function and the $`q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ fragmentation function

Now we can compute the total weight function relevant in the region $`s<2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ or with some reservations also to $`s<2.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. Fig. 17 shows the total weight $`g_{u\overline{u}}(s)`$ $``$ $`g_{u\overline{u}2}^{(+)}(s)`$ \+ $`g_{u\overline{u}3}^{(+)}(s)`$ for the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ reaction. The weight $`g_{d\overline{d}}(s)`$ cannot be distinguished from $`g_{u\overline{u}}(s)`$ as the mass difference between charged and neutral kaons is negligible. One observes that in the region $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2<s<2.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ the correction of the three-meson weights is substantial. The same observations hold also for the total $`C=`$ weight, which is not displayed here.
Fig. 18 shows the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ fragmentation probabilities $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi \pi }(s)`$, $`P_{q\overline{q}\pi \rho }(s)`$, and $`P_{q\overline{q}\rho \rho }(s)`$, where $`q`$ can be an $`u`$ or a $`d`$ quark. One observes an effective suppression for the production of $`\rho `$ mesons. The reason lies in the fact that the $`\rho `$ resonance appears later in $`s`$, where there is more competition with other channels. One should bear in mind that the primary production ratio between pseudoscalar and vector mesons in the model is 1:1.

### E Comparison to the time-like pion form factor

It is interesting to confront our mechanism with data one knows from the time-like pion form factor $`F_\pi (s)`$. In the region $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2<s<4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ one has data from Novosibirsk  and the DM2 Collaboration . Here the pion form factor is measured in the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation process where the cross section is given let alone from mass corrections by (see ):

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})(s)=\frac{\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{3s}|F_\pi (s)|^2.$$
(4.61)
In our approach, this should be the same as the cross section for the annihilation reaction $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ times the subsequent fragmentation probability into the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pair (see Fig. 19):

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})(s)=\underset{q}{}\sigma (e^+e^{}q\overline{q})(s)P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}^{()}(s)=\underset{q}{}\frac{4\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{s}e_q^2\frac{g_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)}{g_{q\overline{q}}^{()}(s)}.$$
(4.62)
In contrast to the production of two pions from $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$, the final state in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation must have the quantum number $`C=`$. This means that we have to take a total weight function $`g_{q\overline{q}}^{()}(s)`$ which includes all relevant $`C=`$ states. Our model will be a good description for the decay of resonances with masses larger than 1 GeV, where the resonance can be interpreted as a string. In order to compare with data we have to include the fact that because of the final state being of $`C=`$ a considerable contribution comes from the decay of one $`\rho (770)`$ meson (neglecting the G parity violating transitions $`\omega ,\mathrm{\Phi }\pi \pi `$). We can take into consideration this contribution via the Vector Meson Dominance model (VMD) :

$$|F_\pi (s)|_{\mathrm{VMD}}^2=\frac{g_{\rho \gamma }^2g_{\rho \pi \pi }^2}{(sm_\rho ^2)^2+\frac{m_\rho ^6\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2}{s^2}\left(\frac{s4m_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^24m_\pi ^2}\right)^3}.$$
(4.63)
We take the value $`g_{\rho \gamma }g_{\rho \pi \pi }=0.705`$ . In Fig. 20 it is shown that adding the string fragmentation contribution to the VMD contribution yields a qualitatively good semi-classical description of the time like pion form factor. Of course the incoherent ansatz cannot model the interference structure of the resonances, but it gives a good description on the average, exactly what this semi-classical picture should be.

### F The process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ at LEP2

Finally, we calculate the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cross section. As a small digression we want to show how to reconstruct $`p_{}`$ from Lorentz-invariant and experimentally accessible quantities. Defining the variables $`t=(pq)^2`$, $`t^{}=(pk)^2`$, and $`k=xq_0+q`$ we get the relation:

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\pi ^22pk`$ (4.64)
$`=`$ $`m_\pi ^22({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{s},\stackrel{}{p}_{},\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{s}}}\sqrt{s})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{s},\stackrel{}{0},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{s})`$ (4.65)
$`=`$ $`(szm_\pi ^2)=(1x)t+xm_\pi ^2.`$ (4.66)
Then for the total cross section one can in principle rewrite the $`p_{}`$ dependence as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (eeee\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{dy_0dsdQ_0^2dQ^2d^2𝐩_{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{Q^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+(1y)^2)}{\left(1+s/Q^2\right)^2}}f_q^\gamma (x,Q^2,Q_0^2)f_{\gamma /e}^T(y_0,Q_0^2)P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s,p_{}^2)`$ (4.67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (eeee\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{dy_0dsdQ_0^2dQ^2dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{Q^6}}(1+(1y)^2)f_q^\gamma (x,Q^2,Q_0^2)f_{\gamma /e}^T(y_0,Q_0^2)`$ (4.70)
$`\times \pi {\displaystyle \frac{s/Q^2}{(1+s/Q^2)^3}}\sqrt{14{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{s}}}P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s,p_{}^2),p_{}^2=sz(1z)m_\pi ^2.`$
So, $`p_{}^2`$ can be reconstructed from $`t`$,$`s`$, and $`Q^2`$. Unfortunately, the luminosity that we will consider here is not sufficient to trace the $`p_{}`$ dependence of the cross section. But we can instead have a look at the $`s`$ dependence of the total $`p_{}`$-integrated cross section. For the numerical integration we use the standard LEP-2 parameters  with a luminosity $`=500\mathrm{pb}^1`$ and the $`e^+e^{}`$ center of mass energy $`\sqrt{S}=175\mathrm{GeV}`$. For $`Q^2`$ the allowed and measurable range is $`5\mathrm{GeV}^2<Q^2<500\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. For the lower boundary of $`Q^2`$ we have to choose a rather low value in order to get a considerable rate, although higher-twist contributions may be quite important here. For the other cuts we choose:

$`0.01`$ $`<y_0<`$ $`0.99`$ (4.71)
$`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ $`<s<`$ $`2.5\mathrm{GeV}^2.`$ (4.72)
We approximate the total cross section with the $`Q_0^2`$ integrated Weizsäcker-Williams spectrum :

$`f_{\gamma /e}^T(y,Q_{\mathrm{WW}}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{2\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+(1y)^2)}{y}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{\mathrm{WW}}^2(1y)}{m_e^2y^2}}+2m_e^2y\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q_{\mathrm{WW}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1y}{m_e^2y^2}}\right)\right].`$ (4.73)
We choose for the Weizsäcker-Williams scale $`Q_{\mathrm{WW}}^2=(m_1+m_2)^2`$, where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the masses of the two mesons produced , hereby assuming that the maximum virtuality of the quasi real photon is smaller than 0.09 GeV<sup>2</sup>. For the electromagnetic coupling constant we choose a constant value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}=1/137`$. Then, we get the approximated (and $`p_{}`$-integrated) formula:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (eeee\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{dy_0dsdQ^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{Q^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+(1y)^2)}{\left(1+s/Q^2\right)^2}}f_q^\gamma (x,Q^2,0\mathrm{GeV}^2)f_{\gamma /e}^T(y_0,Q_{\mathrm{WW}}^2)P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s),`$ (4.74)
using again

$$P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s)=d^2𝐩_{}P_{q\overline{q}\pi ^+\pi ^{}}(s,p_{}^2).$$
(4.75)
For the photon structure function we choose the set SAS2 ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme). Fig. 21 shows the cross section for the LEP2 parameters above. In the given kinematical range the contribution of $`\pi ^+\rho ^{}`$ dominates over the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ one.
Experimentally, exclusive $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ scattering is a subprocess of the more general exclusive $`e\gamma `$ scattering, see Fig. 22: Taking the process $`e\gamma e\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ for example, the measurable cross section consists of a contribution from $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ scattering (Fig. 22(a)), and a background process of bremsstrahlung (Fig. 22(b)). The cross sections for both reactions have been estimated in . We can use their model predictions and calculations for the cross section $`d\sigma _{e\gamma e\pi ^+\pi ^{}}/(dsdQ^2)`$ to compare with our results of the Lund model, see Fig. 23. Here we have plotted the Lund model prediction for $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ scattering versus the result for $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ scattering and the bremsstrahlung background from  for three different values of $`Q^2`$, choosing for the invariant mass of the photon-electron system $`\sqrt{S_{e\gamma }}=60\mathrm{GeV}`$. It turns out that at the matching point $`s`$ = 1 GeV<sup>2</sup> the Lund model prediction is a factor 3.5 larger than the model prediction in . The discrepancy increases to a factor of nearly 5 if one goes down to $`s`$ = 0.8 GeV<sup>2</sup>, but at that value of $`s`$ it is doubtful whether the Lund model is reliable any longer. Considering that the model assumptions made in our case are still crude and that in  they estimate their model to be correct roughly by a factor of 2, the discrepancy is tolerable, and the model predictions shown here will be improved as soon as data are available. One can conclude, that the bremsstrahlung contribution is also negligible for $`Q^2<100\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`s>1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The interference contribution between $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ scattering and bremsstrahlung vanishes if one integrates over the azimuthal angle between the planes defined by the in and outgoing lepton on the one hand and the two produced pions on the other hand, which we have done here.

## V Summary and conclusions

In this contribution we described the production of two-meson states at intermediate momentum transfers in a semi-classical picture using elements of the Lund model. In contrast to the well known application of this model to high energy physics we counted all states explicitly and took spin and $`C`$-parity into consideration. The model gives a fairly good description at intermediate momentum transfers above 1 GeV<sup>2</sup> when the decay of meson resonances can be identified with the breaking of a string. This can be seen from the fact that we get a consistent description for the time-like pion form factor averaging over all interference effects. The procedure has the potential to be the basis of a Monte Carlo program for intermediate energies. As an application we have used this picture to predict the cross section $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, which is interesting because it is sensitive to the two-particle distribution amplitude and offers the possibility to observe the decay of a single string and the formation of hadrons from quarks. The cross section should be sizable at LEP2.
Acknowledgment: The author acknowledges stimulating discussion with B. Andersson, J. Bijnens, G. Gustafson, L. Lönnblad and T. Sjöstrand, and especially with M. Diehl, who also sent the program for the comparison of his model with the calculations performed in the Lund model.