text:
# Hard scattering cross sections at LHC in the Glauber approach: from 𝑝𝑝 to 𝑝𝐴 and 𝐴𝐴 collisions 11footnote 1⋆ Contribution to the CERN Yellow Report on Hard Probes in Heavy Ion Collisions at the LHC

### 0.1 Proton-nucleus ($`pA`$) collisions

#### 0.1.1 Glauber formalism

The inelastic cross-section of a $`p+A`$ reaction, $`\sigma _{pA}`$, can be derived in the eikonal limit (straight line trajectories of colliding nucleons) from the corresponding inelastic nucleon-nucleon $`NN`$ cross-section, $`\sigma _{\text{NN}}(s)`$ at the center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, and the geometry of the $`pA`$ collision simply determined by the impact parameter $`b`$ of the reaction. In the Glauber multiple collision model , such a cross-section reads

$$\sigma _{pA}=d^2b\left[1e^{\sigma _{\text{NN}}(s)T_A(b)}\right],$$
(1)
where $`T_A(b)`$ is the nuclear thickness function (or nuclear profile function) of the nucleus $`A`$ at impact parameter $`b`$:

$$T_A(b)=𝑑z\rho _A(b,z).$$
(2)
$`T_A(b)`$ gives the number of nucleons in the nucleus $`A`$ per unit area along a direction $`z`$ separated from the center of the nucleus by an impact parameter $`b`$. The nuclear density, $`\rho _A(b,z)`$, is usually parametrized by a Woods-Saxon distribution with nuclear radius $`R_A=1.19A^{1/3}1.61A^{1/3}`$ fm and surface thickness $`a=0.54`$ fm as given by the experimental data  and normalized so that

$$d^2bT_A(b)=A.$$
(3)
#### 0.1.2 Hard scattering cross-sections

Though Eq. (1) is a general expression for the total inelastic cross-section, it can be applied to an inclusive $`p+Ah+X`$ process of production of particle $`h`$. When one considers hard scattering processes, the corresponding cross-section $`\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$ is small and one can expand Eq. (1) in orders of $`\sigma _{\text{NN}}T_A(b)`$ and then, to first approximation

$$\sigma _{pA}^{hard}d^2b\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard}T_A(b)$$
(4)
#### 0.1.3 “Minimum bias” hard scattering cross-sections

Integrating Eq. (4) over impact parameter, and using (3), one gets the minimum bias ($`MB`$) cross-section for a given hard process in $`pA`$ collisions relative to the same cross-section in $`pp`$ (or $`NN`$) collisions:

$$(\sigma _{pA}^{hard})_{\text{MB}}=A\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard}$$
(5)
From this expression it is easy to see that the corresponding minimum bias multiplicity (invariant yield per nuclear reaction: $`N_{\text{NN,pA}}^{hard}=\sigma _{\text{NN,pA}}^{hard}/\sigma _{\text{NN,pA}}^{geo}`$) for a given hard-process in a $`pA`$ collision compared to that of a $`pp`$ collision is

$$N_{\text{pA}}^{hard}_{\text{MB}}=A\frac{\sigma _{\text{NN}}}{\sigma _{\text{pA}}^{geo}}N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}=\frac{A}{\sigma _{\text{pA}}^{geo}}\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard},$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _{\text{pA}}^{geo}`$ is the geometrical $`pA`$ cross-section given, in its most general form, by Eq. (1). The average nuclear thickness function for minimum bias reactions \[making use of Eq. (3)\] reads:

$$T_\text{A}_{\text{MB}}\frac{d^2bT_\text{A}}{d^2b}=\frac{A}{\pi R_A^2}=\frac{A}{\sigma _{\text{pA}}^{geo}}.$$
(7)
Thus, for a p+Pb ($`A(Pb)`$ = 208) collision at LHC energies $`\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}`$ = 8.8 TeV with

$`\sigma _{\text{NN}}`$ $``$ $`77\text{ mb }\text{[3]}\text{, and}`$ (8)
$`\sigma _{\text{pPb}}^{geo}`$ $``$ $`2162\text{ mb }\text{[6]}\text{,}`$ (9)
one obtains: $`N_{\text{pPb}}^{hard}_{\text{MB}}7.4N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$, and the average nuclear thickness function amounts to $`T_{\text{Pb}}_{\text{MB}}=`$ 0.096 mb-1 = 0.96 fm-2.

### 0.2 Nucleus-nucleus ($`AB`$) collisions

#### 0.2.1 Glauber formalism

As in the proton-nucleus case, the inclusive inelastic cross-section $`\sigma _{\text{AB}}`$ for a collision of nuclei $`A`$ and $`B`$ is given in the multiple-scattering Glauber approximation by:

$$\sigma _{\text{AB}}=d^2b\left[1e^{\sigma _{\text{NN}}(s)T_{\text{AB}}(b)}\right],$$
(10)
where now $`T_{\text{AB}}(b)`$ is the nuclear overlap function of the nuclei $`A`$ and $`B`$ separated by impact parameter $`b`$. $`T_{\text{AB}}(b)`$ can be written as a convolution of the corresponding thickness functions of $`A`$ and $`B`$ over the element of overlapping area $`d^2\stackrel{}{s}`$ ($`\stackrel{}{s}=(x,y)`$ is a 2-D vector in the transverse plane, and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is the impact parameter between the centers of the nuclei):

$$T_{\text{AB}}(b)=d^2\stackrel{}{s}T_A(\stackrel{}{s})T_B(|\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s}|).$$
(11)
$`T_{\text{AB}}(b)`$ is normalized so that integrating over all impact parameters one gets:

$$d^2bT_{\text{AB}}(b)=AB.$$
(12)
#### 0.2.2 Hard scattering cross-sections

As in the $`pA`$ case, for hard processes of the type $`A+Bh+X`$, Eq. (10), can be approximated by:

$$\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{hard}d^2b\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard}T_{\text{AB}}(b).$$
(13)
#### 0.2.3 “Minimum bias” hard scattering cross-sections and yields

Integrating Eq. (13) over impact parameter and using (12), one gets the minimum bias ($`MB`$) cross-section for a given hard process in $`AB`$ collisions relative to the corresponding $`pp`$ cross-section:

$$(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{hard})_{\text{MB}}=AB\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard}$$
(14)
Again the corresponding minimum bias multiplicity (invariant yield per nuclear reaction: $`N_{\text{NN,AB}}^{hard}=\sigma _{\text{NN,AB}}^{hard}/\sigma _{\text{NN,AB}}^{geo}`$) for a given hard-process in a $`AB`$ collision compared to that of a $`pp`$ collision is

$$N_{\text{AB}}^{hard}_{\text{MB}}=AB\frac{\sigma _{\text{NN}}}{\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo}}N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}=\frac{AB}{\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo}}\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard},$$
(15)
where $`\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo}`$ is the geometrical $`AB`$ cross-section given, in its most general form, by Eq. (10). The average nuclear overlap function for minimum bias reactions \[making use of Eq. (12)\] reads now:

$$T_{\text{AB}}_{\text{MB}}\frac{d^2bT_{\text{AB}}}{d^2b}=\frac{AB}{\pi (R_A+R_B)^2}=\frac{AB}{\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo}},$$
(16)
Thus, for a Pb+Pb ($`A^2(Pb)`$ = 43264) collision at LHC energies $`\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}`$ = 5.5 TeV with

$`\sigma _{\text{NN}}`$ $``$ $`72\text{ mb }\text{[3]}\text{, and}`$ (17)
$`\sigma _{\text{PbPb}}^{geo}`$ $``$ $`7745\text{ mb }\text{[7]}\text{,}`$ (18)
one gets: $`N_{\text{PbPb}}^{hard}_{\text{MB}}400N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$, and the average nuclear overlap function amounts to $`T_{\text{PbPb}}_{\text{MB}}=`$ 5.58 mb-1 = 55.8 fm-2.

#### 0.2.4 Binary collision scaling

For a given impact parameter $`b`$ the average hard scattering yield can be obtained by multiplying each nucleon in nucleus $`A`$ against the density it sees along the $`z`$ direction in nucleus $`B`$, then integrated over all of nucleus $`A`$, i.e.

$$N_{\text{AB}}^{hard}(b)=\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard}d^2\stackrel{}{s}\rho _A(\stackrel{}{s},z^{})\rho _B(|\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{s}|,z^{\prime \prime })𝑑z^{\prime \prime }𝑑z^{}\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard}T_{\text{AB}}(b),$$
(19)
where we have made use of expressions (2) and (11). In the same way, one can obtain a useful expression for the probability of an inelastic $`NN`$ collision or, equivalently, for the average number of binary inelastic collisions, $`N_{coll}`$, in a nucleus-nucleus reaction with impact parameter $`b`$:

$$N_{coll}(b)=\sigma _{\text{NN}}T_{\text{AB}}(b)$$
(20)
From this last expression one can see that the nuclear overlap function, $`T_{\text{AB}}(b)=N_{coll}(b)/\sigma _{\text{NN}}`$ \[mb-1\], can be thought as the luminosity (reaction rate per unit of cross-section) per $`AB`$ collision at a given impact parameter. As an example, the average number of binary collisions in minimum bias Pb+Pb reactions at LHC ($`\sigma _{\text{NN}}`$ = 72 mb = 7.2 fm2) is:

$$N_{coll}_{\text{MB}}=7.2\text{fm}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}55.9}\text{fm}^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}400}.$$
(21)
From (19) and (20), we get so-called “binary (or point-like) scaling” formula for the hard scattering yields in heavy-ion reactions:

$$N_{\text{AB}}^{hard}(b)N_{coll}(b)N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}$$
(22)
#### 0.2.5 Hard scattering yields and cross-sections in a given centrality class

Equation (13) gives the reaction cross-section for a given hard process in $`AB`$ collisions at a given impact parameter $`b`$ as a function of the corresponding reaction cross-section in $`pp`$ collisions. Very usually, however, in nucleus-nucleus collisions we are interested in calculating such a reaction cross-section for a given centrality class, $`(\sigma _{AB}^{hard})_{C_1C_2}`$, where the centrality selection $`C_1C_2`$ corresponds to integrating Eq. (13) between impact parameters $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$. It is useful, in this case, to define two parameters :

* The fraction of the total cross-section for hard processes occurring at impact parameters $`b_1<b<b_2`$ ($`d^2b=2\pi bdb`$):

$$f_{hard}(b_1<b<b_2)=\frac{2\pi }{AB}_{b_1}^{b_2}b𝑑bT_{\text{AB}}(b).$$
(23)
* The fraction of the geometric cross-section with impact parameter $`b_1<b<b_2`$:

$$f_{geo}(b_1<b<b_2)=\left[2\pi _{b_1}^{b_2}b𝑑b\left(1e^{\sigma _{\text{NN}}T_{\text{AB}}(b)}\right)\right]/\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo},$$
(24)
\[$`f_{geo}`$ simply corresponds to a 0.$`X`$ (e.g. 0.1) factor for the $`X`$%(10%) centrality.\]

Hard scattering production is more enhanced for increasingly central reactions (with larger number on $`N_{coll}`$) as compared to the total reaction cross-section (which includes “soft”, - scaling with the number of participant nucleons $`N_{part}`$ -, as well as “hard” contributions). The growth with $`b`$ of the geometric cross-section is slower than that of the hard component. For this reason, the behaviour of $`f_{\text{hard}}`$ and $`f_{geo}`$ as a function of $`b`$, although similar in shape is not the same (see ): $`f_{hard}`$ 1 for $`b`$ = 2$`R_A`$, but $`f_{geo}`$ 0.75 for $`b`$ = 2$`R_A`$.

Similarly to (16), we can obtain now the nuclear overlap function for any given centrality class $`C_1C_2`$:

$$T_{\text{AB}}_{C_1C_2}\frac{_{b_1}^{b_2}d^2bT_{\text{AB}}}{_{b_1}^{b_2}d^2b}=\frac{AB}{\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo}}\frac{f_{hard}}{f_{geo}}$$
(25)
The number of hard processes per nuclear collision for reactions with impact parameter $`b_1<b<b_2`$ is given by

$$N_{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}}_{C_1C_2}=\frac{\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{hard}(b_1<b<b_2\text{)}}{\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo}\left(b_1<b<b_2\right)}=AB\frac{\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}}{\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo}}\frac{f_{hard}}{f_{geo}},$$
(26)
which we could have just obtained directly from (19) and (25). From (15) and (26) it is also easy to see that:

$$N_{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}}_{C_1C_2}=N_{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}}_{\text{MB}}\frac{f_{hard}}{f_{geo}}$$
(27)
Finally, the cross-section for hard processes produced in the centrality class $`C_1C_2`$ (corresponding to a fraction $`f_{geo}`$ of the reaction cross-section, $`(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo})_{C_1C_2}`$) is:

$$(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}=ABf_{hard}\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}$$
(28)
Figure 1, extracted from , plots the (top) fraction of the hard cross-section, $`f_{hard}(0<b<b_2)`$ (labeled in the plot as $`f`$), as a function of the top fraction of the total geometrical cross-section, $`f_{geo}(0<b<b_2)`$, for several nucleus-nucleus reactions.

As a practical application of Eq. (28) and the results of Fig. 1, the hard-scattering cross-sections in Pb+Pb for the top 0-10% ($`f_{hard}`$ = 0.41 for $`f_{geo}`$ = 0.1 from the practically equivalent Au+Au system of figure 1) and 0-20% ($`f_{hard}`$ = 0.664 for $`f_{geo}`$ = 0.2) central collisions relate to the $`pp`$ cross-section, in the absence of nuclear effects, respectively as:

$`(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{010\%}`$ $`=`$ $`(208)^20.41\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.7}10^4\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (29)
$`(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{020\%}`$ $`=`$ $`(208)^20.664\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.9}10^4\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (30)
A straightforward way to compute the invariant yield for a given hard process in a given centrality class of a nucleus-nucleus collision from the corresponding yield in $`pp`$ collisions consists in determining, via a Glauber MC calculation, the average number of inelastic $`NN`$ collisions corresponding to that centrality class via

$$N_{coll}_{C_1C_2}=T_{\text{AB}}_{C_1C_2}\sigma _{\text{NN}},$$
(31)
and then use this value in the “binary-scaling” formula

$`N_{\text{AB}}^{hard}_{C_1C_2}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{coll}_{C_1C_2}N_{\text{NN}}^{hard},\text{ or}`$ (32)
$`(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{AB}_{C_1C_2}(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{geo})_{C_1C_2}\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (33)
The same two formulae above apply to $`pA`$ collisions (of course substituting $`AB`$ by $`pA`$ and computing $`N_{coll}`$ from $`T_A`$ instead of from $`T_{AB}`$).

Finally, to obtain the experimental rates, $`(𝒩_{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}`$, actually measured in a given centrality bin one needs to take into account the expected integrated luminosity $`_{int}`$ \[mb-1\] as follows:

$`(𝒩_{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}`$ $`=`$ $`_{int}(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}`$ (34)
### 0.3 Hard scattering yields and cross-sections for $`pPb`$ and $`PbPb`$ collisions at LHC

As a practical application of the Glauber approach described here, in Table 1, the values of $`N_{coll}`$ and $`T_{pPb}`$ are quoted for different centrality classes obtained from a Monte Carlo calculation  for p+Pb ($`\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}`$ = 8.8 TeV and $`\sigma _{\text{NN}}`$ = 77 mb) and Pb+Pb ($`\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}`$ = 5.5 TeV for an inelastic $`pp`$ cross-section of $`\sigma _{\text{NN}}`$ = 72 mb) collisions (Woods-Saxon Pb density parametrization with $`R_A`$ = 6.78 fm and $`a`$ = 0.54 fm).

Using (LABEL:eq:binary\_scaling\_yields1), (33) and Table I, we can now easily get the scaling factors of the cross-sections and yields from $`pp`$ to, e.g., central (0-10%), minimum bias, and semi-peripheral (60-80%, from the combined average 60-70% and 70-80%) p+Pb (8.8 TeV) and Pb+Pb (5.5 TeV) collisions :

For p+Pb collisions ($`\sigma _{\text{pPb}}^{geo}`$ = 2162 mb):

$`N_{\text{pPb}}^{\text{hard}}_{010\%}=15.3N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$ $`,`$ $`(\sigma _{\text{pPb}}^{\text{hard}})_{010\%}=0.1980.12162\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}450}\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (35)
$`N_{\text{pPb}}^{\text{hard}}_{6080\%}=3.2N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$ $`,`$ $`(\sigma _{\text{pPb}}^{\text{hard}})_{6080\%}=0.0420.22162\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}18}\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (36)
$`N_{\text{pPb}}^{\text{hard}}_{MB}=7.4N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$ $`,`$ $`(\sigma _{\text{pPb}}^{\text{hard}})_{MB}=0.0962162\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}10^2\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (37)
For Pb+Pb collisions ($`\sigma _{\text{PbPb}}^{geo}`$ = 7745 mb):

$`N_{\text{PbPb}}^{\text{hard}}_{010\%}=1670N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$ $`,`$ $`(\sigma _{\text{PbPb}}^{\text{hard}})_{010\%}=23.20.17745\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}1.610^4\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (38)
$`N_{\text{PbPb}}^{\text{hard}}_{6080\%}=29.1N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$ $`,`$ $`(\sigma _{\text{PbPb}}^{\text{hard}})_{6080\%}=0.40.27745\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}6.210^2\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (39)
$`N_{\text{PbPb}}^{\text{hard}}_{MB}=400N_{\text{NN}}^{hard}`$ $`,`$ $`(\sigma _{\text{PbPb}}^{\text{hard}})_{MB}=5.587745\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}4.310^4\sigma _{\text{NN}}^{\text{hard}}`$ (40)
### 0.4 Nuclear effects in $`pA`$ and $`AB`$ collisions

Eqs. (4) and (13) for the hard scattering cross-sections in $`pA`$ and $`AB`$ collisions have been derived within an eikonal framework which only takes into account the geometric aspects of the reactions. Any differences of the experimentally measured $`\sigma _{pA,AB}^{hard}`$ with respect to these expressions indicate “de facto” the existence of “nuclear effects” (such as e.g. “shadowing”, “Cronin enhancement”, or “parton energy loss”) not accounted for by the Glauber formalism. Indeed, in the multiple-scattering Glauber model each nucleon-nucleon collision is treated incoherently and thus, unaffected by any other scattering taking place before (initial-state) or after (final-state effects) it.

If the Glauber approximation holds, from (4) and (13) one would expect a $`A^1`$, and $`A^2`$ growth of the hard processes cross-section with system size respectively. Equivalently, since $`N_{\text{NN,AB}}^{hard}=\sigma _{\text{NN,AB}}^{hard}/\sigma _{\text{NN,AA}}^{geo}`$ and $`\sigma _{\text{NN,AB}}^{geo}R_A^2`$ with $`R_AA^{1/3}`$, one would expect a growth of the number of hard process as $`A^{1/3},A^{4/3}`$ for $`pA,AA`$ collisions respectively. Experimentally, in minimum bias $`pA`$ and $`AB`$ collisions, it has been found that the production cross-sections for hard processes actually grow as:

$$(\sigma _{pA}^{hard})_{\text{MB}}=A^\alpha \sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard},\text{ and }(\sigma _{\text{AB}}^{hard})_{\text{MB}}=(AB)^\alpha \sigma _{\text{NN}}^{hard},\text{ with }\alpha 1$$
(41)
More precisely, in high-$`p_T`$ processes in $`pA`$ and heavy-ion collisions at SPS energies one founds $`\alpha >`$ 1 (due to initial-state pT broadening or “Cronin enhancement”); whereas $`\alpha <`$ 1 at RHIC energies (“high-$`p_T`$ suppression”). Theoretically, one can still make predictions on the hard probe yields in $`pA,AB`$ collisions using the pQCD factorization machinery for the $`pp`$ cross-section complemented with the Glauber formalism while modifying effectively the nuclear PDFs and parton fragmentation functions to take into account any initial- and/or final- state nuclear medium effect.

### 0.5 Summary of useful formulae

Finally, let us summarize a few useful formulae derived here to determine the hard-scattering invariant yields, cross-sections, or experimental rates, from $`pp`$ to $`pA`$ and $`AB`$ collisions for centrality bin $`C_1C_2`$ (corresponding to a nuclear thickness $`T_A`$ or nuclear overlap function $`T_{AB}`$ and to an average number of $`NN`$ inelastic collisions $`N_{coll}`$):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(d^2N_{\text{pA,AB}}^{hard})_{C_1C_2}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{A,AB}_{C_1C_2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\text{pp}}^{hard}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(d^2\sigma _{\text{pA,AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{A,AB}_{C_1C_2}(\sigma _{\text{pA,AB}}^{geo})_{C_1C_2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\text{pp}}^{\text{hard}}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(d^2𝒩_{\text{pA,AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{int}T_{A,AB}_{C_1C_2}(\sigma _{\text{pA,AB}}^{geo})_{C_1C_2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{\text{pp}}^{\text{hard}}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(d^2N_{\text{pA,AB}}^{hard})_{C_1C_2}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{coll}_{C_1C_2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\text{pp}}^{hard}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(d^2\sigma _{\text{pA,AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{coll}_{C_1C_2}(\sigma _{\text{pA,AB}}^{geo})_{C_1C_2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\text{pp}}^{\text{hard}}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(d^2𝒩_{\text{pA,AB}}^{\text{hard}})_{C_1C_2}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{int}N_{coll}_{C_1C_2}(\sigma _{\text{pA,AB}}^{geo})_{C_1C_2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\text{pp}}^{\text{hard}}}{dp_Tdy}}`$ (47)
## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank K. Reygers for the use of his Glauber Monte Carlo code and for useful comments, H. Delagrange for valuable discussions, and A. Morsch for detecting a few inconsistencies in a previous version of the document. Support from the 5th European Union TMR Programme (Marie-Curie Fellowship No. HPMF-CT-1999-00311) is also gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The work of Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase (BMN)  made a major step for understanding the holographic correspondence of string theory and gauge theories. Superstring theory on the maximally supersymmetric plane wave , which is given by the Penrose limit  of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, is exactly solvable . Based on this result and the AdS/CFT correspondence , BMN identified the string states on the plane wave background as certain sectors of the $`D=4`$, $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory. Supersymmetric gauge theories with conformal invariance but less supersymmetry has been also investigated extensively -.

It is an interesting problem to explore holographic correspondences for non-conformal gauge theories  using string theories on brane backgrounds. In a previous paper , Fuji and the present authors have studied string theories on the Penrose limits of the brane solutions including the D$`p`$-brane, $`(p,q)`$ fivebrane and $`(p,q)`$ string solutions. We have solved exactly the equations of motion of bosonic strings on certain backgrounds, which have time-dependent masses. Aspects of the quantization of strings on time-dependent plane wave backgrounds are discussed in refs. .

String theories on the Penrose limits of brane solutions and the possible connections to the gauge theories have been studied in the works such as ref.  for the D$`p`$-branes, and refs.  for the fivebrane solutions. The Pilch-Warner solution , which provides the dual of the RG flow from the $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory to the superconformal $`𝒩=1`$ theory of Leigh and Strassler , have been studied in the Penrose limit . String theories were analyzed near the region of the geometry corresponding to the IR fixed point. Recently, Gimon et.al.  studied the Maldacena-Núñez  and the Klebanov-Strassler  solutions, which are dual to $`𝒩=1`$ theories. They considered the Penrose limit along a special class of null geodesics which give solvable string theories. It was argued that the string spectrum represent hadrons in the IR limit of the gauge theories.

In this paper, we study geometries which are dual to super Yang-Mills theories with 8 supercharges. The brane system corresponds to the D-branes wrapped on $`K3`$, which is described by the ‘enhançon’ geometry . When D$`(p+4)`$-branes are wrapped on $`K3`$, the curvature of the $`K3`$ induces negative D$`p`$-brane charges. In the supergravity, they are effectively described by a geometry which is similar to the D$`(p+4)`$-$`\overline{\mathrm{D}p}`$-brane system. This geometry is valid outside the ‘enhançon radius’. Inside the radius, we have flat space. It is proposed that this enhançon geometry is dual to the $`(p+1)`$-dimensional super Yang-Mills theory . As a result of the $`K3`$ compactification, the gauge theory has half the maximal supersymmetry, and contain the massless fields which are the same as the $`D=4`$, $`𝒩`$=2 super Yang-Mills theory with no hypermultiplets.

We study superstring theory on the Penrose limit of enhançon geometry. We investigate the general null geodesics of the enhançon geometry for D$`(p+4)`$-branes wrapped on $`K3`$. Our particular interest is the special null geodesics such that the radial transverse coordinate is fixed. The Penrose limit along such geodesics gives plane waves on which the light-cone string theory has constant masses.

In recent studies , it has been noted that many plane wave backgrounds which are obtained by the Penrose limits yield string theories which have negative mass-squared. Although stability analysis based on supergravity suggests the background is stable , it is difficult to make sense of those string theories which have instability on the world-sheet. The ground state of the string would be a stretched configuration due to the tidal force of the brane background . In this paper, we add an example of string theory where all the mass-squared are non-negative. In such a case, we expect that the string spectrum and their interpretation in terms of the gauge theory are clearly understood.

On the enhançon geometry, we find that the null geodesics with constant radius exist only for the $`p=0`$ case (D4-branes wrapped on $`K3`$). Moreover, in this case, we obtain a superstring theory whose mass-squared are all non-negative. We will calculate the superstring spectrum based on the light-cone Hamiltonian. By taking the decoupling limit, we can discuss the correspondence with the gauge theory. In the present work, however, we do not discuss correspondence between string states and gauge-theory operators. We argue that our results of the string theory should give information on the gauge theory in the large $`N`$ limit with large effective ’t Hooft coupling. We also note a qualitative behavior of the string spectrum as the volume of $`K3`$ varies. For $`p=1,2`$ cases, we show that null geodesic with constant radius does not exist.

This paper is organized as follows. We first review the enhançon geometry in section 2. In section 3, we discuss the null geodesic with constant radius in general brane backgrounds and the Penrose limit along such a geodesic. In section 4, we examine null geodesics in the enhançon geometry associated with D$`(p+4)`$-branes wrapped on $`K3`$. We take the Penrose limit along the geodesic with constant radius for the $`p=0`$ case. In section 5, we study the spectrum of the superstring theory in this Penrose limit. Discussion on the dual gauge theory is given in section 6. Conclusions and discussion are in section 7.

We include an Appendix, in which we apply the general discussion on the null geodesics with constant radius to other brane solutions. We analyze D$`p`$-brane, $`(p,q)`$ fivebrane, $`(p,q)`$ string solutions, which have been treated in the previous paper . The conditions for the existence of the null geodesics with constant radius on these backgrounds are carefully reexamined.

## 2 Enhançon geometry

We begin with a brief review on the enhançon geometry. When D$`(p+4)`$-branes are wrapped on the whole $`K3`$, the curvature of the $`K3`$ induces one unit of negative D$`p`$-brane charge per one D$`(p+4)`$-brane. The supergravity solution which describes this system in the string frame is given as follows

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`Z_p^{1/2}Z_{p+4}^{1/2}(dt^2+dx_a^2)+Z_p^{1/2}Z_{p+4}^{1/2}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{4p}^2)`$ (1)
$`+V^{1/2}Z_p^{1/2}Z_{p+4}^{1/2}ds_{K3}^2,`$
$`A_{p+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_sZ_p}}dx^0d\mathrm{vol}(R^p),`$ (2)
$`A_{p+5}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{g_sZ_{p+4}}}dx^0d\mathrm{vol}(R^p)d\mathrm{vol}(K3),`$ (3)
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`g_sZ_p^{(3p)/4}Z_{p+4}^{(p+1)/4},`$ (4)
$`Z_p`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{r}_p^{3p}}{r^{3p}}},Z_{p+4}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_{p+4}^{3p}}{r^{3p}}},`$ (5)
where $`x^a`$ $`(a=1,\mathrm{},p)`$ are the coordinates along the brane other than those wrapped on the $`K3`$. $`r`$ is the radial coordinate in the transverse $`(5p)`$-dimensional space. $`A_p`$ denotes the RR $`p`$-form, and $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton. The string coupling at the infinity is given by $`g_s`$. $`ds_{K3}^2`$ is the metric of the $`K3`$ with unit volume, $`d\mathrm{vol}(K3)`$ is the corresponding volume form, and the constant $`V`$ is the volume of $`K3`$ measured at the infinity. The parameters $`\stackrel{~}{r}_p`$ and $`r_{p+4}`$, which are positive, are given by

$$r_{p+4}^{3p}=(2\sqrt{\pi })^{1p}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3p}{2}\right)g_sN\alpha ^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{3p}{2}},\stackrel{~}{r}_p^{3p}=\frac{V_{}}{V}r_{p+4}^{3p},$$
(6)
where $`V_{}(2\pi )^4\alpha ^{}^2`$ and $`N`$ is the number of the D$`(p+4)`$-branes. We will consider the cases of $`p=0,1,2`$.

As explained in ref. , this geometry is valid outside the ‘enhançon radius’ $`r_e`$. The D$`(p+4)`$-branes form a shell at the enhançon radius, and the geometry inside is replaced with the flat space. A way to find $`r_e`$ is to consider a probe D$`(p+4)`$-brane (also wrapped on $`K3`$). The enhançon radius is determined as the radius at which the tension of the probe brane vanishes. Following the arguments in refs. , we have

$$r_e^{3p}=\frac{2V}{VV_{}}\stackrel{~}{r}_p^{3p}.$$
(7)
The metric (1) has a naked singularity called the ‘repulson singularity’ at $`r=\stackrel{~}{r}_p`$, where repulsive force on a test particle diverges, but it is removed since the singularity is in the unphysical region $`\stackrel{~}{r}_p<r_e`$.

It is proposed that the decoupling limit of this geometry is dual to super Yang-Mills theory with 8 supercharges . The decoupling limit is given by replacing $`Z_p`$ and $`Z_{p+4}`$ in (5) with

$$Z_p=1\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}_p^{3p}}{r^{3p}},Z_{p+4}=\frac{r_{p+4}^{3p}}{r^{3p}}.$$
(8)
This is obtained from the full geometry by taking $`rr_{p+4}`$ with $`r\stackrel{~}{r}_p`$. In other words, this corresponds to a ‘near-shell limit’ with $`V/V_{}`$ taken large. Also note that the enhançon radius for the metric in the decoupling limit is given by $`r_e^{3p}=2\stackrel{~}{r}_p^{3p}`$.

## 3 Null geodesics with constant radius in general brane backgrounds

The main purpose of this paper is to study enhançon geometry in the Penrose limit along null geodesics which stay at constant radius. Before beginning to study the enhançon geometry, we shall discuss some general properties of the null geodesics with constant radius. Assuming that the metric takes the form of generic brane solutions, we derive the condition for the existence of the null geodesic with constant radius. We then obtain the formula for the Penrose limit along such a geodesic.

### 3.1 Geodesic equations

Let us consider generic brane solutions in $`D`$ spacetime dimensions, which are static, rotationally symmetric in the transverse space, and homogeneous in the spatial directions along the brane:

$$ds^2=A^2dt^2+\stackrel{~}{A}^2dx_a^2+B^2dr^2+\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Dp2}^2.$$
(9)
where $`x^a(a=1,\mathrm{},p)`$ are the coordinates along the branes. $`A`$, $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ are functions of the transverse radial distance $`r`$. Here, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Dp2}^2`$ is the metric of the unit sphere $`S^{Dp2}`$. We will use the following parametrization of $`S^{Dp2}`$:

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Dp2}^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Dp4}^2.$$
(10)
We consider null geodesics in the $`(t,r,\psi )`$ space. A null geodesic is given by the trajectory of a test particle with the action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(A^2\dot{t}^2+B^2\dot{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2\dot{\psi }^2\right)}`$
and the massless constraint

$$g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu =A^2\dot{t}^2+B^2\dot{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2\dot{\psi }^2=0$$
(12)
where $`d/d\tau `$.

From the equations of motion for $`t`$ and $`\psi `$, we see that the energy $`EA^2\dot{t}`$ and the angular momentum $`J\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2\dot{\psi }`$ are conserved. We rescale $`\tau \tau /E`$ and normalize the energy to one. Then, we have

$$\dot{t}=\frac{1}{A^2},\dot{\psi }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2},$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{}J/E`$. The massless constraint becomes

$$\frac{1}{A^2}+B^2\dot{r}^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2}=0.$$
(14)
The velocity in the radial direction $`\dot{r}`$ is determined as

$$\dot{r}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{1}{B^2A^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{B^2\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2}}.$$
(15)
Since $`\dot{r}^20`$, (14) gives the region of $`r`$, which is determined by

$$\frac{1}{B^2A^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{B^2\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2}.$$
(16)
The points where the equality in (16) holds are generically the turning points of the geodesic. The direction to which the geodesic turns is determined by the second time-derivative $`\ddot{r}`$ at that point. From the equation of motion for $`r`$:

$$2B^2\ddot{r}(A^2)^{}\dot{t}^2(B^2)^{}\dot{r}^2+(\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2)^{}\dot{\psi }^2=0,$$
(17)
we obtain

$$\ddot{r}=\frac{1}{2B^2}\left(\frac{(A^2)^{}}{A^4}+\frac{(\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2)^{}\mathrm{}^2}{\stackrel{~}{B}^4r^4}(B^2)^{}\dot{r}^2\right)$$
(18)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}d/dr`$.

We may consider a geodesic which stays at a fixed radius when $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are adjusted such that $`\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0`$ are satisfied. From (15) and (18), we find that the fixed radius conditions are given by

$$\frac{1}{B^2}\left(\frac{1}{A^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2}\right)=0,\frac{1}{B^2}\left(\frac{(A^2)^{}}{A^4}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2)^{}\mathrm{}^2}{\stackrel{~}{B}^4r^4}\right)=0.$$
(19)
It is useful to define the function

$$F(r)A^2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}.$$
(20)
The conditions (19) are equivalent to

$$F(r)=0,F^{}(r)=0,$$
(21)
if $`\mathrm{}^2/(A^2B^2\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2)0`$.

### 3.2 Penrose limit along a null geodesic with constant radius

When a null geodesic stays at a constant radius, we can take the Penrose limit along it in the following way. The coordinates of the geodesic are parametrized by

$$t=\frac{1}{A_{}^2}\tau ,\psi =\frac{\mathrm{}_{}}{\stackrel{~}{B}_{}^2r_{}^2}\tau ,r=r_{}$$
(22)
where $`r_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ are the solutions of (21). $`A_{}`$ stands for $`A(r_{})`$ etc.

We introduce the light-cone coordinates

$$x^\pm \frac{1}{2}\left(A_{}^2t\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_{}^2r_{}^2}{\mathrm{}_{}}\psi \right),$$
(23)
and rewrite the metric (9) of the brane solution as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{A_{}^4}}(dx^++dx^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{}_{}^2}{\stackrel{~}{B}_{}^4r_{}^4}}(dx^+dx^{})^2`$ (24)
$`+\stackrel{~}{A}^2dx_a^2+B^2dr^2+\stackrel{~}{B}^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_{6p}^2).`$
The Penrose limit is given by the following combination of the coordinate transformation and the rescaling of the metric,

$`x^+x^+,x^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^{},z\mathrm{\Omega }z,\theta \mathrm{\Omega }\theta ,x^a\mathrm{\Omega }x^a,`$
$`ds^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2ds^2,`$ (25)
in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$. Here $`z`$ is a shifted radial coordinate $`zrr_{}`$.

The divergent terms in (24) cancel due to (19). The parts which remain finite take the plane wave form. After rescaling the coordinates by suitable constants, we obtain333In this paper we have changed the sign of the definition of $`m_i^2`$ in (26) from the one in the previous paper .

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}\left(m_x^2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{p}{}}}x_a^2+m_y^2{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{Dp3}{}}}y_l^2+m_z^2z^2\right)(dx^+)^2`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{p}{}}}dx_a^2+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{Dp3}{}}}dy_l^2+dz^2.`$
The coefficients $`m_i`$ are constant and are given by

$$m_x^2=0,m_y^2=\frac{\mathrm{}_{}^2}{\stackrel{~}{B}_{}^4r_{}^4},m_z^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{B_{}^2A_{}^4}F^{\prime \prime }(r)_{}$$
(27)
where $`F^{\prime \prime }(r)_{}F^{\prime \prime }(r)|_{r=r_{}}`$, and $`F(r)`$ is defined in (20). The coordinates $`y_l`$ ($`l=1,\mathrm{},Dp3`$) are defined by

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{Dp3}{}}dy_l^2=d\theta ^2+\theta ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{Dp4}^2.$$
(28)
As we will see in section 5, $`m_i^2`$ are the mass-squared (times a positive constant) for the bosonic modes $`X^i`$ of the string in the light-cone gauge on this background. Note that the sign of $`m_y^2`$ is always positive, but the sign of $`m_z^2`$ is given by the sign of $`F^{\prime \prime }(r)_{}`$. In the present work, we will study string theory on the plane wave where $`m_i^2`$ are all non-negative. When some of the $`m_i^2`$ become negative, there will be an instability on the world-sheet. Note that this does not necessarily mean an instability of the spacetime (26). In fact, the analyses of the linearized fluctuations around some plane waves with negative $`m_i^2`$ suggests that the spacetime is stable . This instability on the world-sheet suggests that the ground state of the string is not point-like, but is rather a stretched configuration, due to the tidal force, as mentioned in ref. . Semi-classical analysis of strings around expanded configurations were performed in refs.  for the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background. Study of string theories on various brane backgrounds along this line would be interesting, but it is beyond the scope of the present paper.

In Appendix, we apply the general discussion in this section to various brane backgrounds. We examine the conditions for the fixed radius null geodesics for the D$`p`$-brane, $`(p,q)`$ fivebrane, $`(p,q)`$ string solutions. We will find several examples of the null geodesics with fixed radius. We will also see that the resulting string theories have non-negative mass-squared only for the near-horizon limits of the fivebrane solutions.

## 4 Penrose limit of enhançon geometry

We now study the Penrose limit of enhançon geometry. In the first subsection, we will discuss possible null geodesics in the enhançon geometries associated with D$`(p+4)`$-branes. In particular, we look for the null geodesics which stay at constant radius, by using the formulas in the previous section. We will show that such geodesics exist for the $`p=0`$ case. In the second subsection, we will obtain the Penrose limit of the $`p=0`$ enhançon geometry along the geodesic.

### 4.1 Possible types of the null geodesics

We consider null geodesics in the $`(t,r,\psi )`$ space in the enhançon geometry, where $`r`$ is the radial coordinate and $`\psi `$ is one of the angular coordinates on the $`S^{4p}`$ in the transverse space. We assume that the geodesic is fixed in the $`K3`$ or in the directions $`x^a`$ along the $`p`$-brane. We may use the formulas in the last section by setting $`D=6`$, $`A^2=Z_p^{1/2}Z_{p+4}^{1/2}`$ and $`B^2=\stackrel{~}{B}^2=Z_p^{1/2}Z_{p+4}^{1/2}`$. For our background, it is convenient to define

$`f(r)`$ $``$ $`r^{42p}\mathrm{}^2Z_p^{1/2}Z_{p+4}^{1/2}F(r)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`r^{62p}+(r_{p+4}^{3p}\stackrel{~}{r}_p^{3p})r^{3p}\mathrm{}^2r^{42p}\stackrel{~}{r}_p^{3p}r_{p+4}^{3p}.`$
The condition (16) for the allowed region of a geodesic is equivalent to $`f(r)0`$. Moreover, the condition for the fixed radius $`\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0`$ is equivalent to $`f(r)=f^{}(r)=0`$, and the sign of $`f^{\prime \prime }(r)`$ evaluated at the fixed radius is the same as the sign of $`m_z^2`$.

Firstly we examine what kind of null geodesics are possible for the cases of $`p=1`$ and $`p=2`$. We can see from (29), that we have $`f(r)>0`$ for sufficiently large $`r`$, and that $`f(r)=0`$ has one solution $`r=r_T`$. If the parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ is chosen such that $`r_T`$ is in the physically sensible region ($`r_Tr_e`$), $`r_T`$ is a turning point where a geodesic which comes from $`r=\mathrm{}`$ turns outward. On the other hand, if $`r_T<r_e`$, the geodesic from the infinity reaches the enhançon radius, and it would pass through the flat region ($`r<r_e`$) and then goes back to infinity. We can easily see that $`f(r)=f^{}(r)=0`$ do not have a solution, and there is not a geodesic which stay at constant radius for $`p=1,2`$.

For the $`p=0`$ case, on the other hand, null geodesics with fixed radius is possible. The conditions for the fixed radius for $`p=0`$ become

$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`r^6\mathrm{}^2r^4+(r_4^3\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3)r^3\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3r_4^3=0,`$ (30)
$`f^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`6r^54\mathrm{}^2r^3+3(r_4^3\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3)r^2=0.`$ (31)
By eliminating $`\mathrm{}^2`$ from (30) and (31), we obtain the equation which determines the fixed radius

$$2r^6(r_4^3\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3)r^3+4\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3r_4^3=0,$$

which have two solutions

$$r_\pm ^3=\frac{1}{4}\left(x1\pm \sqrt{(x1)^232x}\right)\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3.$$
(32)
Here we have set $`xV/V_{}`$, and used the relation $`r_4=x\stackrel{~}{r}_0`$. The formal solutions in (32) are both positive when $`x1>0`$ and $`(x1)^232x>0`$, which is equivalent to

$$x17+12\sqrt{2}.$$
(33)
The two positive solutions $`r_\pm `$ in this case are both in the physical region, i.e. outside the enhançon radius $`r_e`$. In fact, the difference $`r_{}^3r_e^3`$ is given by

$$r_{}^3r_e^3=\frac{1}{4}\left\{x1\frac{8x}{x1}\sqrt{(x1)^232x}\right\}\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3.$$

When (33) holds, the r.h.s. is positive since

$$\{(x1)^28x\}^2(x1)^2\{(x1)^232x\}=16x(x+1)^2>0.$$

Thus, $`r_{}`$ and $`r_+`$ are greater than $`r_e`$. If (33) is not satisfied, (30) and (31) do not have positive solution for any $`\mathrm{}`$.

If the $`K3`$ volume $`V`$ is large enough to satisfy (33), we may consider the null geodesic which is fixed at $`r=r_+`$ or at $`r=r_{}`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ is fixed to $`\mathrm{}_+`$ or to $`\mathrm{}_{}`$, correspondingly, by the condition $`f^{}(r)=0`$:

$$\mathrm{}_\pm ^2=\frac{3}{2}r_\pm ^2+\frac{3}{4r_\pm }(r_4^3\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3).$$
(34)
Evaluating $`f^{\prime \prime }(r)`$ with $`r=r_\pm `$, $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_\pm `$, we obtain

$$f^{\prime \prime }(r)=\pm 3r_\pm \sqrt{(r_4^3\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3)^232\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3r_4^3}.$$

That is, we have $`f^{\prime \prime }(r)<0`$ at $`r=r_{}`$, but $`f^{\prime \prime }(r)>0`$ at $`r=r_+`$.

We may analyze the null geodesics in the enhançon geometries in the decoupling limit (8) by replacing the function $`f(r)`$ in (29) with

$$f(r)=\mathrm{}^2r^{42p}+r_{p+4}^{3p}r^{3p}\stackrel{~}{r}_p^{3p}r_{p+4}^{3p}.$$
(35)
For $`p=0`$, the condition for the constant radius $`f(r)=f^{}(r)=0`$ has one solution:

$$r_d^3=4\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3,\mathrm{}_d^2=\frac{3}{4}\frac{r_4^3}{r_d}.$$
(36)
When evaluated with this solution, we have $`f^{\prime \prime }(r)=3r_4^3r_d<0`$. This radius $`r_d`$ is greater than the enhançon radius $`r_e^3=2\stackrel{~}{r}_0^3`$. Note that this $`r_d`$ corresponds to $`r_{}`$ in the full geometry. Indeed, we may obtain (36) by taking the $`x\mathrm{}`$ limit for $`r_{}`$ in (32). The larger solution $`r_+`$ is scaled out in the decoupling limit. For the $`p=1,2`$, we do not have a solution of $`f(r)=f^{}(r)=0`$ with $`f(r)`$ in (35).

### 4.2 Penrose limit of the $`p=0`$ enhançon along the null geodesic with constant radius

We take the Penrose limit along the null geodesic with constant radius which we have found for the $`p=0`$ enhançon. We can readily obtain the plane wave using the formula in section 3.

From (26) and (27), we get

$$ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}(m_y^2y_l^2+m_z^2z^2)(dx^+)^2+dy_l^2+dz^2+dw_s^2$$
(37)
where coordinates $`w_s`$ $`(s=5,6,7,8)`$ are the ones along the $`K3`$. In our case where the geodesic is fixed in the $`K3`$, the $`w_s`$-part of the metric becomes flat. Note that we do not have $`x^a`$ (spatial directions along the $`p`$-brane), since $`p=0`$. The constant coefficients $`m_y^2`$ and $`m_z^2`$ are given by

$$m_y^2=\frac{\mathrm{}_{}^2}{Z_0Z_4r_{}^4},m_z^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_{}^2r_{}^4}f^{\prime \prime }(r)_{}.$$
(38)
where $`Z_p`$, $`Z_{p+4}`$ mean $`Z_p(r_{})`$, $`Z_{p+4}(r_{})`$, and $`f^{\prime \prime }(r)_{}f^{\prime \prime }(r)|_{r=r_{}}`$. We denote the solutions of $`f(r)=f^{}(r)=0`$, which are given in (32) and (34) or in (36), by $`r_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{}`$.

If the Penrose limit is taken along $`r_{}`$ or $`r_d`$, $`m_z^2`$ is positive, but if the limit is taken along $`r_+`$, $`m_z^2`$ is negative, as we see from the signs of $`f^{\prime \prime }(r)_{}`$. We will study string theory in the former cases, for the reason mentioned at the end of section 3. Substituting $`r_{}=r_{}`$, $`\mathrm{}_{}=\mathrm{}_{}`$ into (38), we obtain the explicit forms of $`m_i^2`$ as follows:

$`m_y^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(x1h(x))(3x3h(x))}{(x5h(x))(5x1h(x))}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{}^2}},`$
$`m_z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4h(x)}{(3x3h(x))}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{}^2}},`$ (39)
where

$$h(x)\sqrt{(x1)^232x},$$

and $`r_{}`$ is given in (32). The plane wave for the geometry in the decoupling limit, obtained by substituting $`r_{}=r_d`$, $`\mathrm{}_{}=\mathrm{}_d`$ in (38), is given by

$$m_y^2=\frac{1}{r_d^2},m_z^2=\frac{2}{r_d^2},$$
(40)
where $`r_d`$ is in (36). Note that (40) can be obtained from (39) by taking the $`x\mathrm{}`$ limit.

The RR fields in the Penrose limit are obtained by applying the coordinate transformations and the rescalings of the coordinates mentioned in section 3.2, to (2), (3):

$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`dA_1={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_{}}{g_sr_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_0^{1/4}Z_4^{1/4}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_0}}\right)_{}^{}dx^+dz,`$
$`F_6`$ $`=`$ $`dA_5={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_{}}{g_sr_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_4^{3/4}}{Z_0^{5/4}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_4}}\right)_{}^{}dx^+dw^5dw^6dw^7dw^8dz.`$ (41)
Here, we have used the relation

$$VZ_0Z_4^1d\mathrm{vol}(K3)dw^5dw^6dw^7dw^8,$$

which follows from the fact that the $`w`$-part of the metric becomes flat in the Penrose limit. In the following, we will use the field strength $`F_4`$, dual to $`F_6`$:

$$F_4=\frac{\mathrm{}_{}}{g_sr_{}}\frac{Z_4^{3/4}}{Z_0^{5/4}}\left(\frac{1}{Z_4}\right)_{}^{}dx^+dy^1dy^2dy^3.$$
(42)
The explicit forms of the RR-field strengths (times a dilaton factor) for $`r_{}=r_{}`$ are given by

$`e^\varphi F_{+z}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{3/2}3^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(3x3h(x))^{1/2}(x1h(x))^{1/2}}{(5x1h(x))^{1/2}(x5h(x))^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{}}},`$
$`e^\varphi F_{+123}`$ $`=`$ $`2^{3/2}3^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{x(3x3h(x))^{1/2}(x1h(x))^{1/2}}{(5x1h(x))^{3/2}(x5h(x))^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{}}}.`$ (43)
For $`r_{}=r_d`$, we have

$$e^\varphi F_{+z}=\frac{1}{r_d},e^\varphi F_{+123}=\frac{3}{r_d}.$$
(44)
## 5 Superstring spectrum on the plane wave

Having obtained the Penrose limit of the $`p=0`$ enhançon, we now study superstring theory on the plane wave background. Our convention for the fermionic part of the action follows that of Cvetič et.al. . The covariant action of type IIA superstring up to the quadratic order in fermions444It has been shown that the superstring action in the light-cone gauge is quadratic in fermions for fairly general pp-wave backgrounds . is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \left(_b+_f\right)}`$
$`_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{h}h^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu B_{\mu \nu }`$ (45)
$`_f`$ $`=`$ $`i_\alpha X^\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\sqrt{h}h^{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\beta \mathrm{\Theta }.`$ (46)
Indices $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ denote the world-sheet directions $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$. $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the world-sheet metric and $`ϵ^{\tau \sigma }=+1`$. Spacetime indices are $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},9`$, and the indices for the transverse directions are $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},8`$. We will use $`m,n=0,1,\mathrm{},9`$ for the tangent frame. Fermion $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the 32-component Majorana spinor, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ are the background metric and the NS-NS 2-form, respectively. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ in 10 dimensions satisfy $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_m,\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\}=2\eta _{mn}`$. Chirality matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_9`$. Also note $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm =(\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_0)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. The conjugate spinor $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ is defined by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\mathrm{\Theta }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$. Curved-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ are given by applying the vielbein on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$.

The derivative $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\alpha `$ is the ‘pull-back of the supercovariant derivative’ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }+_\alpha X^\mu \left(\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu {}_{}{}^{mn}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \right)\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(47)
where $`\omega _\mu ^{mn}`$ is the spin connection, and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \frac{1}{8}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho \sigma }F_{\mu \rho \sigma }\frac{1}{16}e^\varphi (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\rho \sigma \lambda \tau }F_{\rho \sigma \lambda \tau })\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu .$$
(48)
Here, $`F_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is the NS-NS 3-form field strength, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ are the RR 2-form and 4-form field strengths, respectively, and $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton background. The antisymmetrized product of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$ is defined with weight 1.

On the pp-wave background, the only non-vanishing contribution from the spin connection is $`\omega _+{}_{}{}^{mn}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}^{}=_ig_{++}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. Since the NS-NS flux is absent and the non-vanishing components of the RR fluxes are $`F_{+i}`$ and $`F_{+ijk}`$ in our case, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ is written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_+=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+,\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0,\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{1}{8}e^\varphi \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }^iF_{+i}\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk}F_{+ijk}\right).$$

We substitute the plane wave background (37) for the $`p=0`$ enhançon into the action, and impose the light-cone gauge condition

$$\sqrt{h}h^{\alpha \beta }=\eta ^{\alpha \beta },X^+=\alpha ^{}p^+\tau ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Theta }=0.$$
(49)
The equations of motion for the transverse bosonic fields $`X_i`$ become

$$_\tau ^2X^i_\sigma ^2X^i+\stackrel{~}{m}_i^2X^i=0,$$
(50)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i^2(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2m_i^2`$. $`m_i^2`$ are obtained in section 4.2. There are four massless fields ($`m_w=0`$), three massive fields with mass $`m_y`$ and one massive field with mass $`m_z`$.

The fermionic part of the Lagrangian in the light-cone gauge reads

$$_f=i(\alpha ^{}p^+)\left\{\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+_\tau \mathrm{\Theta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+_\sigma \mathrm{\Theta }+(\alpha ^{}p^+)\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Theta }\right\}.$$
(51)
We now decompose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ into $`16\times 16`$ blocks following ref. :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sqrt{2}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \sqrt{2}& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _i& 0\\ 0& \gamma _i\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _9& 0\\ 0& \gamma _9\end{array}\right)$$

where $`\gamma _i`$ are the SO(8) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices which satisfy $`\{\gamma _i,\gamma _j\}=\delta _{ij}`$, and $`\gamma _9\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _8`$. In this representation, spinors which satisfy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ are of the form

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \theta \end{array}\right).$$

We further decompose $`\theta `$ into a pair of 8 component spinors $`\theta _\pm `$ according to their SO(8) chiralities:

$$\theta =\theta _++\theta _{},\gamma _9\theta _\pm =\pm \theta _\pm .$$
(52)
We can write (51) in the form

$$_f=\sqrt{2}i(\alpha ^{}p^+)\left\{\theta _+^{}(_\tau +_\sigma )\theta _++\theta _{}^{}(_\tau _\sigma )\theta _{}+2\theta _+^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}\theta _{}+2\theta _{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+\theta _+\right\}$$
(53)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm \frac{\alpha ^{}p^+}{8}e^\varphi \left(\gamma _iF_{+i}+\frac{1}{6}\gamma _{ijk}F_{+ijk}\right).$$

The equations of motion become

$$(_\tau +_\sigma )\theta _++2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}\theta _{}=0,(_\tau _\sigma )\theta _{}+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+\theta _+=0.$$
(54)
Bringing these equations into diagonalized second-order forms, we find that the masses of the fermionic modes are given by the eigenvalues of $`4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}`$. Evaluating it with the plane wave fluxes (43) for the fixed radius $`r_{}`$, we obtain

$`4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}{16}}\left\{(e^\varphi F_{+123})^2(e^\varphi F_{+4})^2+2e^{2\varphi }F_{+123}F_{+4}\gamma _{1234}\right\}`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{27}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}{r_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(3x3h(x))(x1h(x))}{(x5h(x))^3(5x1h(x))^3}}`$
$`\times \{5x1h(x)\pm x(x5h(x))\}^2.`$
Here, indices $`1,2,3`$ denote the $`y`$-directions, and $`4`$ denotes the $`z`$-direction. Signs $`\pm `$ in (55) denote the eigenvalues of $`\gamma _{1234}`$. In the decoupling limit, where the fluxes are given by (44), this reduces to

$$4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}=\frac{(3\pm 1)^2}{16}\frac{(\alpha ^{}p^+)^2}{r_d^2}.$$
(56)
For the world-sheet fermions, we have four fields of the same mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{f1}^2`$ given by the plus signs of (55) or (56), and four fields of the same mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{f2}^2`$ given by the minus signs of (55) or (56).

The frequency of the oscillator at the $`n`$-th level is given by $`\omega _n=\sqrt{n^2+\stackrel{~}{m}^2}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ is either the mass for the bosonic modes $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i^2`$ or for the fermionic modes $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{f1}^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{f2}^2`$. We note here that the sum of $`\omega _n^2`$ for the bosonic oscillators is equal to that for the fermionic oscillators, at each $`n`$. Indeed, the following equality (relation for the sum of $`\omega _0^2`$’s) holds

$$4\times m_w^2+3\times m_y^2+m_z^2=4\times m_{f1}^2+4\times m_{f2}^2,$$

as we see from (39) and (55), or from (40) and (56). This property, which was also observed for the plane waves for the Maldacena-Núñez and the Klebanov-Strassler solutions in ref. , guarantees that the string theory is finite.

Mode expansion can be performed in the standard way. (See e.g. refs. .) We obtain the light-cone Hamiltonian as follows:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_{b0}+H_b+H_{f0}+H_f+E_0,`$ (57)
$`H_{b0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}P_i^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=5}{\overset{7}{}}}\stackrel{~}{m}_ya_0^i{}_{}{}^{}a_{0}^{i}+\stackrel{~}{m}_za_0^z{}_{}{}^{}a_{0}^{z}\right),`$ (58)
$`H_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}({\displaystyle \underset{i=5}{\overset{7}{}}}\sqrt{n^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_y^2}(a_n^i{}_{}{}^{}a_{n}^{i}+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_{n}^{i})+\sqrt{n^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_z^2}(a_n^z{}_{}{}^{}a_{n}^{z}+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^z{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_{n}^{z})`$ (59)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}n(a_n^i{}_{}{}^{}a_{n}^{i}+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_{n}^{i})),`$
$`H_{f0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{A=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{4}{}}}\stackrel{~}{m}_{f,A}b_{0,\rho }^Ab_{0,\rho }^A,`$ (60)
$`H_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{A=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho =1}{\overset{4}{}}}\left(\sqrt{n^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{f,A}^2}(b_{n,\rho }^Ab_{n,\rho }^A+\stackrel{~}{b}_{n,\rho }^A\stackrel{~}{b}_{n\rho }^A)\right).`$ (61)
Here $`P_i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ is the center of mass momentum in the $`w`$-directions. $`a_n^i`$ ($`n0`$; $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i`$ ($`n1`$; $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$) are the annihilation operators for the bosonic harmonic oscillators. $`b_{n,\rho }^A`$, $`b_{n,\rho }^A`$ $`(A=1,2)`$ are the fermionic harmonic oscillators, where we have written the spinor indices $`\rho =1,\mathrm{},4`$ explicitly. These oscillators obey the standard commutation relations: $`[a_n^i,a_m^j]=\delta ^{ij}\delta _{nm}`$, $`[\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i,\stackrel{~}{a}_m^j]=\delta ^{ij}\delta _{nm}`$, $`\{b_{n,\rho }^A,b_{m,\sigma }^B\}=\delta ^{AB}\delta _{nm}\delta _{\rho \sigma }`$, $`\{\stackrel{~}{b}_{n,\rho }^A,\stackrel{~}{b}_{m,\sigma }^B\}=\delta ^{AB}\delta _{nm}\delta _{\rho \sigma }`$. There should also be a vacuum energy $`E_0`$ in (57). A physical state $`|\psi `$ is subject to the level matching condition:

$$\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}na_n^ia_n^i+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{A=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{4}{}}nb_{n,\rho }^Ab_{n,\rho }^A\right)|\psi =\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}n\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{A=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{4}{}}n\stackrel{~}{b}_{n,\rho }^A\stackrel{~}{b}_{n,\rho }^A\right)|\psi .$$

## 6 Comment on the dual gauge theory

The gauge theory which is dual to the string theory on the decoupling limit of the $`p=0`$ enhançon geometry is the five dimensional super Yang-Mills theory compactified on $`K3`$ with the volume $`V`$. Firstly, we recall that the gauge coupling of the five dimensional theory and that of the $`K3`$-compactified one dimensional theory are given by

$$g_{YM,5}^2=(2\pi )^2g_s\alpha ^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2},g_{YM,1}^2=(2\pi )^2g_s\alpha ^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}V_{}^{1},$$
(62)
respectively. For the energy scale larger than the inverse radius of $`K3`$ ($`E>V^{1/4}`$), the five dimensional gauge theory provides a good description, and for the small energy scale $`(E<V^{1/4})`$, the one dimensional gauge theory will take over. The effective coupling at energy scale $`E`$ for the gauge theory in the large $`N`$ limit will be given by the following dimensionless ’t Hooft couplings :

$$g_{YM,5}^2NE^{1/2}(\text{for }E>V^{1/4}),g_{YM,1}^2NE^{3/2}(\text{for }E<V^{1/4}).$$
(63)
Let us examine what is the parameter region of the gauge theory to which our string-theory results correspond. The string theory on the supergravity background gives a good description when the effective string coupling (determined by the dilaton v.e.v.) and the curvature of the background measured in the string unit are both small. Let us examine these conditions at the constant radius555It may be more appropriate to require that the above two conditions are satisfied throughout the ‘near-shell’ region $`r_err_4`$, as assumed in the case of the holography for the D0-branes . If we take this viewpoint, the condition for the smallness of the dilaton is replaced by $`g_s1`$. $`r_d=4^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{r}_0`$. We have

$`e^\varphi |_{r_d}`$ $`=`$ $`g_sZ_0^{3/4}Z_4^{1/4}|_{r_d}=2^13^{3/4}g_s\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{}}{V}}\right)^{1/4}=2^13^{3/4}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{N}},`$ (64)
$`R|_{r_d}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_0^{1/2}Z_4^{1/2}r^2|_{r_d}=4^{1/3}3^{1/2}\pi ^{2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2/3}}{\alpha ^{}}},`$ (65)
where $`\mu g_sN\left(V_{}/V\right)^{1/4}`$. Thus, we need to set $`\mu 1`$ fixed but large, and take the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, in order to have the string coupling and the curvature both small.

Note that $`\mu `$ is the effective coupling (63) at the energy scale $`E=V^{1/4}`$. The effective coupling grows as we increase the energy above $`V^{1/4}`$, and also grows as we decrease the energy below $`V^{1/4}`$. Thus, the condition $`\mu 1`$ implies that the gauge theory to which our string results should correspond is strongly coupled at every energy region666In ref. , identification of weakly coupled descriptions at various energy scales was attempted. It was assumed that $`\mu 1`$, which is opposite to our requirement here..

We note a qualitative behavior of the string spectrum as we vary the volume $`V`$ of the $`K3`$. The world-sheet mass is written as

$$m^2\frac{1}{r_d^2}\left(\frac{V_{}}{V}g_sN\right)^{2/3}\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}=\left(\left(\frac{V_{}}{V}\right)^{3/4}\mu \right)^{2/3}\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}.$$
(66)
From this, we see that in the five dimensional limit (when $`V/V_{}1`$), we have $`m^2\alpha ^{}1`$, and in the one dimensional limit (when $`V/V_{}1`$), $`m^2\alpha ^{}1`$. This suggests that in the five dimensional limit, the energy of the low lying states are degenerate, since $`\omega _n=\sqrt{n^2+(p^+\alpha ^{}m)^2}(p^+\alpha ^{}m)+n^2/(p^+\alpha ^{}m)`$. On the other hand, in the one dimensional limit, $`m^2`$ becomes small, and the spectrum approaches that of the string in the flat space.

We note that there are natural candidates for the gauge-theory operators which correspond to the string states in the Penrose limit. The bosonic fields in the five dimensional super Yang-Mills theory on the D4-branes are $`A_0`$, $`A_a`$, $`\varphi _i`$, where the indices $`a(=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ denote the spatial directions along the branes, and the indices $`i(=5,\mathrm{},9)`$ denote the directions transverse to the branes. Upon the K3 compactification, the one dimensional gauge field $`A_0`$ and five scalars $`\varphi _i`$ remain massless. Following the idea of BMN , the ground state of the string, which have angular momentum in the $`S^4`$ in the transverse space, would be identified as the trace of the product of $`Z\varphi _8+i\varphi _9`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}(Z\mathrm{}Z)`$. Creation of the state by the oscillators in the ‘$`y`$-directions’ $`a_n^i`$ $`(i=5,6,7)`$ will correspond to the $`\varphi _i`$ insertions in the trace, oscillators in the ‘$`z`$-direction’ will be represented by replacing one $`Z`$ with the covariant derivative $`D_0Z`$, and oscillators in the ‘$`w`$-directions’ $`a_n^a`$ $`(a=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ will be given by replacing one $`Z`$ with $`D_aZ`$. There should be the ordering-dependent phase factors, to represent each string mode $`n`$, as in ref. .

We leave the explicit prediction of the correlation functions of the gauge theory for future study. In the case of $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory, only a subset of the Feynman diagrams contribute to the scaling dimensions of the operators studied by BMN . Whether similar non-renormalization properties exist for the theory with half the maximal supersymmetry is a non-trivial question. Indeed, the superstring spectrum for our case is not supersymmetric. It would be necessary to add SUSY breaking term to the Lagrangian. It is an interesting problem to reproduce the behavior of the spectrum from the gauge theory calculation.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper, we have studied the Penrose limit along the null geodesics with fixed radius both in general brane background and in enhançon geometry. In general background we have obtained the explicit formula for the plane wave metric and discussed the condition that resulting string theories have tachyonic mass. In enhançon geometry associated with $`D(p+4)`$ ($`p=0,1,2`$) branes wrapped on the $`K3`$ surface, we examined possible types of null geodesics with fixed radius and obtained solvable superstring theories from the Penrose limit of the $`p=0`$ enhançon geometry. This geometry is dual to the five dimensional super Yang-Mills theory wrapped on $`K3`$ with eight supercharges.

In order to formulate the holography for this background, and to extract the information on the gauge theory from the string theory on the null geodesic with constant radius, further analysis is necessary. It would be important to study the superstring theory on the Penrose limit along generic null geodesic, which has time-dependent masses, and regard the present result as a special limit. In particular, we note that the null geodesic with constant radius found in this paper can be regarded as a limit of a family of the ‘tunneling null geodesics’ introduced in ref. . These are the null geodesics in the space-time in which $`t`$ and $`\psi `$ are simultaneously Wick rotated. Such a geodesic passes the region where $`f(r)0`$, in the notation of section 4.1. Authors of ref.  formulated the holography for $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, based on the string theory along tunneling null geodesic which connect two points of the base space of the gauge theory living on the boundary of the background in the decoupling limit. The null geodesic with constant radius found for our background corresponds to the limiting case where the two points on the boundary are infinitely separated. This suggests that the string on this special geodesic represents the gauge theory in the IR limit. By clarifying the interpretation of the null geodesic with constant radius, it might be possible to have an explanation for the fact that such a geodesic exist only for $`p=0`$ case from the gauge-theory point of view.

Another direction for future study would be to apply the analysis of the present paper on the null geodesics to other geometries. A possibly interesting background is the Pilch-Warner solution  corresponding to the flow from $`𝒩=4`$ to $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. The massless field content of the above $`𝒩=2`$ theory is the one for the pure $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory, which is the same as the dual theory for the enhançon geometry given by the D7-brane wrapped on $`K3`$. In refs. , it was shown that the enhançon mechanism also takes place for this $`𝒩=2`$ Pilch-Warner solution. It might be the case that the structure of the holographic RG flow has some similarities with the ones for our enhançon geometries.

Recently, the authors of ref.  proposed an interpretation of the string spectrum at fixed radius on the Maldacena-Núñez and the Klebanov-Strassler solutions. It is argued that the string states correspond to stable hadrons which are described by composite operators made from massive fields. It is an interesting question whether a similar interpretation can be applied to our case.

Acknowledgements

YS would like to thank M. Egoshi and T. Yoneya for valuable discussions. We are also grateful to H. Fuji for useful discussion.

## Appendix: Null geodesics with constant radius for various brane solutions

As an application of the general procedure described in section 3, we analyze the D$`p`$-brane, $`(p,q)`$ fivebrane $`(p,q)`$ string solutions, which have been studied in the previous paper . We examine the conditions for the existence of the null geodesic with fixed radius for each brane solution. When such a geodesic exist, we take the Penrose limit. We note here again that we have changed the sign in the definition of the $`m_i^2`$ from ref. .

We investigate the D$`p`$-branes in appendix A.1, the $`(p,q)`$ fivebranes including the NS5-branes in appendix A.2, the $`(p,q)`$ strings including the fundamental strings in appendix A.3. We will see that a stable geodesic for which all $`m_i^2`$ are non-negative, is possible only for the fivebrane solutions in the near-horizon limit.

### A.1 D$`p`$-branes

The D$`p`$-brane solution in the string frame is given by

$`ds^2=H^{1/2}(dt^2+dx_a^2)+H^{1/2}(dr^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2),`$
$`H=1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_p}{r^{7p}}}.`$ (A.1)
We can apply the formulas of section 3 by substituting $`A^2=H^{1/2}`$, $`B^2=H^{1/2}`$, and $`D=10`$. We study the D$`p`$-branes with $`0p6`$. To study the behavior of the null geodesics on this background, it is convenient to define $`f(r)`$ which is related to $`F(r)`$ in (20) by

$$f(r)r^{5p}\mathrm{}^2H^{1/2}F(r).$$
(A.2)
The conditions $`\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0`$ for the null geodesic with fixed radius are equivalent to

$`f(r)=r^{7p}\mathrm{}^2r^{5p}+Q_p=0,`$ (A.3)
$`f^{}(r)=(7p)r^{6p}(5p)\mathrm{}^2r^{5p}=0.`$ (A.4)
Note that the sign of $`m_z^2`$ is the same as that of $`f(r)`$.

In the near-horizon limit, the metric is given by replacing $`H`$ in (A.1) with

$$H=\frac{Q_p}{r^{7p}}.$$
(A.5)
In this case, the conditions for $`\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0`$ become

$`f(r)=\mathrm{}^2r^{5p}+Q_p=0,`$ (A.6)
$`f^{}(r)=(5p)\mathrm{}^2r^{5p}=0.`$ (A.7)
We shall examine whether there are solutions to (A.3) and (A.4), or (A.6) and (A.7) for each brane background.

For the D$`p`$-branes with $`p4`$, we have the solution $`r=r_{}`$, $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_{}`$ of (A.3) and (A.4)

$`r_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{5p}{2}}Q_p\right)^{\frac{1}{7p}},`$
$`\mathrm{}_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(7p)(5p)^{\frac{5p}{7p}}2^{\frac{2}{7p}}Q^{\frac{2}{7p}}.`$ (A.8)
Penrose limit along the null geodesic fixed at the radius $`r_{}`$ is obtained from the formula in section 3. We get the plane wave metric (26) with

$$m_x=0,m_y=\frac{1}{r_{}^2},m_z=\frac{5p}{r_{}^2}.$$
(A.9)
Since we have $`m_z^2<0`$, string theory has tachyonic mass on this plane wave.

In the near-horizon limit, there is no solution to (A.6) and (A.7). Indeed, this is clear from the fact that the fixed radius $`r_{}`$ is of the same order as the boundary of the near-horizon region $`rQ^{\frac{1}{7p}}`$.

For $`p=5`$, (A.3) and (A.4) is satisfied by $`r_{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{}^2=Q_5`$. Taking the Penrose limit along this geodesic, we get $`m_y^2`$, $`m_z^2`$ which are divergent. On the other hand, when we consider the near-horizon geometry, (A.6) and (A.7) are satisfied by an arbitrary $`r_{}`$ if $`\mathrm{}_{}^2=Q_5`$ is satisfied. The Penrose limit is given by

$`m_x^2=m_z^2=0,`$ (A.10)
$`m_y^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{}^2}}.`$ (A.11)
In this case, we have $`m_z^2=0`$, and there is no tachyonic mass on the world-sheet of the string on this background. The Penrose limit of fivebrane solutions along the null geodesic with constant radius was obtained by Oz and Sakai .

For $`p=6`$, the conditions for the constant radius (A.3) and (A.4), or (A.6) and (A.7) do not have solutions.

### A.2 $`(p,q)`$ fivebranes

The $`(p,q)`$ fivebrane metric in the string frame is

$`ds^2=h^{1/2}(dt^2+dx_a^2+\stackrel{~}{H}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}_5}{r^2}},h^1=\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma \stackrel{~}{H}^1+\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma .`$ (A.12)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma =q/p`$. This includes the NS5-branes ($`\mathrm{cos}\gamma =1`$) and the D5-branes ($`\mathrm{cos}\gamma =0`$) discussed above. The conditions for the fixed radius $`\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0`$ are equivalent to $`f(r)=f^{}(r)=0`$, where

$$f(r)h^{1/2}\mathrm{}^2F(r)=r^2\mathrm{}^2+\stackrel{~}{Q}_5.$$
(A.13)
The conditions are of the similar form as for the D5-branes, i.e. the $`p=5`$ case of (A.3). (A.13) can be satisfied by $`r_{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{}^2=\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$, but $`m_y^2`$, $`m_z^2`$ are divergent.

The $`(p,q)`$ fivebrane metric in the near-horizon limit is given by replacing $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ in (A.12) with

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}_5}{r^2}.$$
(A.14)
The conditions for the constant radius is satisfied by arbitrary $`r_{}`$, if we have $`\mathrm{}_{}^2=\stackrel{~}{Q}_5`$. In the Penrose limit, we have

$`m_x^2=m_z^2=0,`$ (A.15)
$`m_y^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{Q}_5\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma +\stackrel{~}{r}_{}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }},`$ (A.16)
which is consistent with the result given in ref. . As in the case of the D5-branes, we have $`m_z^2=0`$ which is non-negative, for the $`(p,q)`$ fivebranes in the near-horizon limit.

### A.3 $`(p,q)`$ strings

The $`(p,q)`$ string metric in the string frame is given by

$`ds^2=h^{1/2}(\stackrel{~}{H}^1(dt^2+dx^2)+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}_1}{r^6}},h^1=\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma \stackrel{~}{H}+\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma .`$ (A.17)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma =q/p`$. We obtain the fundamental strings by setting $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma =1`$, and the D1-branes discussed above by setting $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma =0`$. The conditions $`\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0`$ are equivalent to $`f(r)=f^{}(r)=0`$, where

$$f(r)h^{1/2}\mathrm{}^2r^4\stackrel{~}{H}F(r)=r^6\mathrm{}^2r^4+\stackrel{~}{Q}_1.$$

Since (A.3) is of the same form as the $`p=1`$ case of (A.3), the conditions for the constant radius are the same the ones for the D1-branes:

$`r_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\stackrel{~}{Q}_1)^{\frac{1}{6}}`$
$`\mathrm{}_{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`32^{\frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_1^{\frac{1}{3}}.`$ (A.18)
Taking the Penrose limit, we obtain

$`m_x^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (A.19)
$`m_y^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{3\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{}^2}},`$ (A.20)
$`m_z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{3\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{}^2}}.`$ (A.21)
We have negative mass-squared $`m_z^2<0`$.

The near-horizon limit of the $`(p,q)`$ string metric is given by replacing $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ in (A.17) with

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{Q_1}{r^6}.$$
(A.22)
In this case, there is no null geodesic with constant radius.


text:
# Northwestern-1101 Brown-HET-1342 February 14, 2004 A global test of factorization for nucleon-nucleon, 𝛾p and 𝛾𝛾 scattering

The purpose of this note is to show that the cross section factorization relation $`\sigma _{nn}(s)/\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)=\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)/\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)`$ is satisfied experimentally in the energy domain $`8\sqrt{s}2000`$ GeV, where the $`\sigma `$’s are total cross sections and $`nn`$ denotes the even portion of the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ total cross section. A convenient phenomenological paramaterization for a global simultaneous fit to the $`pp`$, $`\overline{p}p`$, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ total cross section data together with the $`\rho `$-value data for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ is provided by using real analytic amplitudes. Within experimental errors, we show that factorization is satisfied when we unfold the published $`\gamma \gamma `$ data which had averaged the cross sections obtained by using the two different PHOJET and PYTHIA Monte Carlo results. Our analysis clearly favors the PHOJET results and suggests that the additive quark model, together with vector meson dominance, allows one to compute $`\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)`$ from $`\sigma _{nn}(s)`$ with essentially no free parameters. The universal $`\rho `$-value predicted by our fit, i.e., $`\rho _{nn}=\rho _{\gamma p}=\rho _{\gamma \gamma }`$, is compared to the $`\rho `$-value obtained by a QCD-inspired analysis of $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ data, including the p-air cross sections from cosmic rays. The $`\rho `$-values obtained from the two techniques are essentially indistinguishable in the energy region $`8\sqrt{s}2000`$ GeV, giving us increased confidence in our parameterization of the cross sections needed for the factorization relation.

In this note we investigate experimentally the cross section factorization relation

$$\frac{\sigma _{nn}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)},$$
(1)
where the $`\sigma `$’s are the total cross sections and $`\sigma _{nn}`$, the total nucleon-nucleon cross section, is the even (under crossing symmetry) cross section for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering.

Using eikonals for $`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\gamma p`$ and the even portion of nucleon-nucleon scattering, Block and Kaidalov have proved the factorization relation of eq. (1) by assuming that the ratio of elastic scattering to total scattering is process-independent, i.e.,

$$\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{elastic}}(s)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)}\right)_{\gamma \gamma }=\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{elastic}}(s)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)}\right)_{\gamma p}=\left(\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{elastic}}(s)}{\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)}\right)_{nn},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}s.$$
(2)
They have further shown that

$$\rho _{\mathrm{nn}}(s)=\rho _{\gamma \mathrm{p}}(s)=\rho _{\gamma \gamma }(s),$$
(3)
where $`\rho `$ is the ratio of the real to the imaginary portion of the forward scattering amplitude. These theorems are exact, for all  $`s`$ (where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the c.m.s. energy), and survive exponentiation of the eikonal (see ref. ). The assumption of eq. (2) implies that all of the processes approach a black disk in the same way. In the Regge approach, factorization breaks down in general, for singularities other than a simple pole in the complex angular momentum plane. However, since the radius of interaction for the Pomeron exchange which determines an eikonal grows with energy as $`R^2=R_o^2+\alpha _P^{}\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)`$ and the Pomeron slope $`\alpha _P^{}`$ is very small, it was argued by Block and Kaidalov that the factorization relations of eq. (1) were expected to be valid to a good accuracy, even in a Regge model. Indeed, one can give “factorization-like” relations for the residue-like constants associated with double or triple poles in the angular momentum plane from t-channel unitarity with certain extra provisos \[see Cudell et. al.\].

The strategy of this paper is to test factorization ( eq. (1)) empirically by making a global fit to all of the experimental data for $`pp`$, $`\overline{p}p`$, $`\gamma p`$, and $`\gamma \gamma `$ total cross sections and the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ $`\rho `$-values, i.e., making a simultaneous fit to all of the available experimental data using the factorization hypothesis (along with a minimum number of parameters), and seeing if the $`\chi ^2`$ to this global fit gives a satisfactory value. We find that a convenient phenomenological framework for doing this numerical calculation is to parameterize the data using real analytic amplitudes that give an asymptotic $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$ rise for the total cross sections, for which there are mounting evidences for phenomenological success compared to other forms such as a power form (see for example the COMPETE collaboration ). We then make the cross sections satisfy factorization and test the value of the overall $`\chi ^2`$ to see if the factorization hypothesis is satisfied.

We will show that the factorization relation $`\frac{\sigma _{nn}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)}`$ is satisfied experimentally when we use the PHOJET Monte Carlo analysis of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross section data, rather than the published values. We emphasize that the fit using real analytic amplitudes is only phenomenological and is used to provide a convenient analytical structure for the comparison of the shapes of the total cross sections for the three processes as a function of the energy.

The COMPETE collaboration has also done an analysis of these data, using real analytical amplitudes. However, there are major differences between our analysis and the one done by the COMPETE group. In order to test factorization,

* we fit simultaneously $`\overline{p}p`$, $`pp`$, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ data assuming complete factorization using the same shape parameters, whereas they fit each reaction separately, using different shape parameters
* we fit individually the two $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ sets of L3 and OPAL data that are obtained using the PHOJET and PYTHIA Monte Carlos and do not use their average (the published value quoted in the Particle Data Group compilations), since the two sets taken individually have very different shapes and normalizations compared to their experimental errors. We emphasize that this individual fitting of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ data, i.e., a detailed understanding of the experimental situation, is key to our analysis.

At the end of our computation, we investigate whether the overall $`\chi ^2`$ is satisfactory.

Using real analytic amplitudes, we calculate the total cross sections $`\sigma _{nn}`$, $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$, along with the corresponding $`\rho `$-values. This (numerically convenient) technique has a hallowed tradition, being first proposed by Bourrely and Fischer and utilized extensively by Kang and Nicolescu and more recently by Block and collaborators by Block, by Block and Pancheri, and by the COMPETE group. This work follows the procedures and conventions used by Block and Cahn. The variable $`s`$ is the square of the c.m.s. energy, $`p`$ is the laboratory momentum and $`E`$ is the laboratory energy. We will use a scattering amplitude that gives a total cross section that rises asymptotically as $`\mathrm{ln}^2(s)`$. In terms of the even and odd forward scattering amplitudes $`f^+`$ and $`f^{}`$ (even and odd under the interchange of $`\mathrm{E}\mathrm{E}`$), the even and odd total cross sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{even}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{odd}}`$ are given by the optical theorem as

$$\sigma _+=\frac{4\pi }{p}\mathrm{Im}f^+\mathrm{and}\sigma _{}=\frac{4\pi }{p}\mathrm{Im}f^{}.$$
(4)
Thus,

$$\sigma _{\overline{p}p}=\sigma _++\sigma _{}\mathrm{and}\sigma _{pp}=\sigma _+\sigma _{}$$
(5)
The cross section $`\sigma _{nn}`$, referred to in the factorization theorem of eq. (1), is given by

$$\sigma _{nn}=\frac{4\pi }{p}\mathrm{Im}f^+,$$
(6)
i.e., the even cross section. The unpolarized total cross sections for $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering are, in turn, given by

$$\sigma _{\gamma p}=\frac{4\pi }{p}\mathrm{Im}f_{\gamma p}^+\mathrm{and}\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }=\frac{4\pi }{p}\mathrm{Im}f_{\gamma \gamma }^{}.$$
(7)
In all of the above, the $`f`$’s and $`\sigma `$’s are functions of $`s`$.

We further assume that our amplitudes are real analytic functions with a simple cut structure. We will work in the high energy region, far above any cuts, (see ref., p. 587, eq. (5.5a), with $`a=0`$), where the amplitudes simplify considerably and are given by

$$\frac{4\pi }{p}f^+(s)=i\left\{A+\beta [\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)i\pi /2]^2+cs^{\mu 1}e^{i\pi (1\mu )/2}\right\},$$
(8)
and

$$\frac{4\pi }{p}f^{}(s)=Ds^{\alpha 1}e^{i\pi (1\alpha )/2},$$
(9)
where $`A`$, $`\beta `$, $`c`$, $`s_0`$, D, $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$ are real constants. We ignore any real subtraction constants. In eq. (8), we have assumed that the nucleon-nucleon cross section rises asymptotically as $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$. Using equations (5), along with eq. (8) and eq. (9), the total cross sections $`\sigma _{\overline{p}p}`$, $`\sigma _{pp}`$ and $`\sigma _{nn}`$ for high energy scattering are given by

$$\sigma _{\overline{p}p}(s)=A+\beta \left[\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right]+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}D\mathrm{cos}(\pi \alpha /2)s^{\alpha 1},$$
(10)
$$\sigma _{pp}(s)=A+\beta \left[\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right]+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}+D\mathrm{cos}(\pi \alpha /2)s^{\alpha 1},$$
(11)
$$\sigma _{nn}(s)=A+\beta \left[\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right]+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1},$$
(12)
and the $`\rho `$’s, the ratio of the real to the imaginary portions of the forward scattering amplitudes, are given by

$$\rho _{\overline{p}p}(s)=\frac{\beta \pi \mathrm{ln}s/s_0c\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}D\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha /2)s^{\alpha 1}}{\sigma _{\overline{p}p}},$$
(13)
$$\rho _{pp}(s)=\frac{\beta \pi \mathrm{ln}s/s_0c\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}+D\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha /2)s^{\alpha 1}}{\sigma _{pp}},$$
(14)
$$\rho _{nn}(s)=\frac{\beta \pi \mathrm{ln}s/s_0c\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}}{\sigma _{nn}}.$$
(15)
If we assume that the term in $`c`$ is a Regge descending term, then $`\mu =1/2`$.

To test the factorization theorem of eq. (1), we write the (even) amplitudes $`f_{\gamma p}`$ and $`f_{\gamma \gamma }`$ as

$$\frac{4\pi }{p}f_{\gamma p}(s)=iN\left\{A+\beta [\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)i\pi /2]^2+cs^{\mu 1}e^{i\pi (1\mu )/2}\right\},$$
(16)
and

$$\frac{4\pi }{p}f_{\gamma \gamma }(s)=iN^2\left\{A+\beta [\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)i\pi /2]^2+cs^{\mu 1}e^{i\pi (1\mu )/2}\right\},$$
(17)
where $`N`$ is the proportionality constant in the factorization relation $`\frac{\sigma _{nn}(s)}{\sigma \gamma p(s)}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)}{\sigma \gamma \gamma (s)}=N`$. We note, from eq. (8), eq. (16) and eq. (17), that

$$\rho _{nn}=\rho _{\gamma p}=\rho _{\gamma \gamma }=\frac{\beta \pi \mathrm{ln}s/s_0c\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}}{A+\beta \left(\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right)+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}},$$
(18)
automatically satisfying the Block and Kaidalov relation of eq. (3).

In the additive quark model, using vector dominance, the proportionality constant $`N=\frac{2}{3}P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma `$, where $`P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma `$ is the probability that a photon turns into a vector hadron. Using (see Table XXXV, p.393 of Ref. ) $`\frac{f_\rho ^2}{4\pi }=2.2`$, $`\frac{f_\omega ^2}{4\pi }=23.6`$ and $`\frac{f_\varphi ^2}{4\pi }=18.4`$, we find

$$P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }_V\frac{4\pi \alpha }{f_V^2}=1/249,$$
(19)
where $`V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi `$. In this estimate, we have neither taken into account the continuum vector channels nor the running of the electromagnetic coupling constant, effects that will tend to increase $`P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma `$ by several percent as well as give it a very slow energy dependence, increasing as we go to higher energies. In the spirit of the additive quark model and vector dominance, we can now write, using $`N=\frac{2}{3}P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma `$ in eq. (16) and eq. (17),

$$\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)=\frac{2}{3}P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma \left(A+\beta \left[\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right]+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}\right)$$
(20)
and

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)=\left(\frac{2}{3}P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma \right)^2\left(A+\beta \left[\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\right]+c\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mu /2)s^{\mu 1}\right)$$
(21)
with the real constants $`A,\beta ,s_0,c,D`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma `$ being fitted by experiment (assuming $`\alpha =\mu =1/2`$). One might choose to vary the Regge intercepts $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$ in the fits. Since we want to test the goodness of the cross section factorization relations, we need a reasonable rendition of the even hadronic amplitude, i.e., $`\alpha `$ plays no role. Further, a small deviation of $`\mu `$ from 1/2 also gives no significant difference to our fit to shape of the hadronic data in the energy region of our interest, which is explicitly supported by the results of the COMPETE Collaboration. Total cross sections for $`\gamma p`$ scattering have been measured for energies up to $``$ 200 GeV, while total cross sections for $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering from the OPAL and the L3 collaborations are now available for c.m.s. energies up to $``$130 GeV.

In fitting the $`\gamma \gamma `$ data, one might be tempted to use the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross sections—along with their quoted errors—that are given in the Particle Data Group cross section summary. However, on closer inspection of the original papers, it turns out that results quoted by the PDG are the averages of two independent analyses performed by both the OPAL and L3 groups, using the two different Monte Carlo programs, PHOJET and PYTHIA. The error quoted by the Particle Data Group was essentially half the difference between these two very different values, rather than the smaller errors associated with each individual analysis.

The Monte Carlo simulations used by OPAL and L3 play a critical role in unfolding the $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross sections from the raw data. To quote the OPAL authors, “In most of the distributions, both Monte Carlo models describe the data equally well and there is no reason for preferring one model over the other for the unfolding of the data. We therefore average the results of the unfolding. The difference between this cross section and the results obtained by using PYTHIA or PHOJET alone are taken as the systematic error due to the Monte Carlo model dependence of the unfolding.” For the testing of factorization, there is good reason for possibly preferring one model over another, since the two models give both different normalizations and shapes, which are vital to our analysis. Hence, we have gone back to the original papers and have deconvoluted the data, according to whether PHOJET or PYTHIA was used. These results are given in Fig. 1. Clearly, there are major differences in shape and normalization that are due to the different Monte Carlos, with the PYTHIA results significantly higher and rising much faster for energies above $`15`$ GeV. On the other hand, the OPAL and L3 data agree within errors, for each of the two Monte Carlos, and seem to be quite consistent with each other, as seen in Fig. 1.

For these reasons, we will make three different fits, whose results are shown in Table 1. Fit 1 is a simultaneous $`\chi ^2`$ fit of eq. (10), (11), (13), (14) and (20) to the experimental $`\sigma _{\overline{p}p}`$, $`\sigma _{pp}`$, $`\rho _{\overline{p}p}`$, $`\rho _{pp}`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$ data in the c.m.s. energy interval $`10\mathrm{GeV}\sqrt{s}1800`$ GeV, i.e., we don’t include the $`\gamma \gamma `$ data. We next make two different simultaneous $`\chi ^2`$ fits of eq. (10), (11), (13), (14), (20) and (21) to the experimental $`\sigma _{\overline{p}p}`$, $`\sigma _{pp}`$, $`\rho _{\overline{p}p}`$, $`\rho _{pp}`$, $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$ and the unfolded $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$, using either PHOJET or PYTHIA results, in the c.m.s. energy interval $`10\mathrm{GeV}\sqrt{s}1800`$ GeV. Fit 2 uses $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ from PHOJET unfolding and Fit 3 uses $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ from PYTHIA unfolding. In order to account for possible systematic overall-normalization factors in the experimental data, the cross sections for L3 are multiplied by the overall-renormalization factor $`N_{\mathrm{L3}}`$ and those for OPAL are multiplied by an overall-renormalization factor $`N_{\mathrm{OPAL}}`$, with these factors also being fitted in Fits 2 and 3.

¿From Fits 1, 2 and 3, we see that the major fit parameters $`A`$, $`\beta `$, $`s_0`$, $`D`$, $`c`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma `$ are the same, within errors. The purpose of Fit 1 was to show the robustness of our procedure, independent of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ data.

However, when we introduce the unfolded $`\gamma \gamma `$ cross sections in Fits 2 and 3, we see that the results strongly favor the PHOJET data of Fit 2. The $`\chi ^2`$/d.f. jumps from 1.49 to 1.87 (the total $`\chi ^2`$ changes from 115.9 to 146.0 for the same number of degrees of freedom). Further, and perhaps more compelling, the normalizations for both OPAL and L3 are in complete agreement, being $`0.929\pm 0.037`$ and $`0.929\pm 0.025`$, respectively. Thus, they differ from unity by $`7\pm 3`$%, compatible with the experimental systematic normalization error of 5% quoted by L3 . The PYTHIA results from Fit 3 have normalizations that disagree by $`14`$% and $`19`$% for OPAL and L3, respectively, in sharp disagreement with the 5% estimate. Thus, from here on, we only utilize the PHOJET results of Fit 2, whose parameters are given in Table 1.

Using the parameters of Fit 2, we find that $`P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma =1/(233.1\pm 0.63)`$, which is in reasonable agreement with our preliminary estimate of 1/249, being $`6`$% larger, an effect easily accounted for by continuum vector channels in $`\gamma p`$ reactions that are not accounted for in the estimate of eq. (19).

The fitted total cross sections $`\sigma _{\overline{p}p}`$ and $`\sigma _{pp}`$ from eq. (10) and eq. (11) are shown in Fig. 2, along with the experimental data. The fitted $`\rho `$-values, $`\rho _{\overline{p}p}`$ and $`\rho _{pp}`$ from eq. (13) and eq. (14) are shown in Fig. 3, along with the experimental data. The fitted total cross section $`\sigma _{\gamma p}=\frac{2}{3}P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma \sigma _{nn}`$ from eq. (20) is compared to the experimental data in Fig. 4, using $`P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma =1/233`$. The overall agreement of the $`\overline{p}p`$, $`pp`$ and $`\gamma p`$ data with the fitted curves is quite satisfactory. We now turn our attention to the $`\gamma \gamma `$ data.

The fitted total cross section $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }=(\frac{2}{3}P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma )^2\sigma _{nn}`$ from eq. (21) is compared to the experimental data in Fig. 5, again using $`P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma =1/233`$. The experimental data plotted in Fig. 5 are not renormalized, but are the results of unfolding the original experimental results, i.e., use $`N_{\mathrm{OPAL}}=N_{\mathrm{L3}}=1`$. We see from Fig. 5 that within errors, both the shape and normalization of the PHOJET cross sections from both OPAL and L3 are in reasonable agreement with the factorization theorem of eq. (1), whereas the PYTHIA cross sections are in distinct disagreement. This conclusion is born out by the $`\chi ^2`$’s of Fit 2 and Fit 3 in Table 1.

Finally, the fitted results for $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$, using the parameters of Fit 2, are compared to the renormalized OPAL and L3 (PHOJET only) data in Fig. 6. The agreement in shape and magnitude is quite satisfactory, indicating strong experimental support for factorization.

For completeness, we show in Fig. 7 the expected $`\rho `$-value for the even amplitude, from eq. (18). Also shown in this graph is the predicted value for $`\rho _{nn}`$ found from a QCD-inspired eikonal fit by Block et al. to $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ total cross sections and $`\rho `$-values from accelerators plus p-air cross sections from cosmic rays. The agreement between these two independent analyses, using very different approaches, with one using real analytic amplitudes with a $`\mathrm{ln}s^2`$ behavior and the other using a QCD-inspired eikonal model in impact parameter space, giving rise to a cross section also eventually rising as $`\mathrm{ln}s^2`$, is most striking. In both cases, these two analyses give $`\rho _{\mathrm{nn}}=\rho _{\gamma p}=\rho _{\gamma \gamma }`$, another factorization theorem of Block and Kaidalov.

We conclude that the cross section factorization hypothesis of , $`\frac{\sigma _{nn}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)}=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)}`$, is satisfied for nn, $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ scattering, if one uses the PHOJET Monte Carlo program to analyze $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$. Further, we find that the experimental data also satisfy the additive quark model using vector meson dominance, since

$`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma \sigma _{nn}`$
$`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma \right)^2\sigma _{nn},`$ (22)
with $`\kappa =2/3`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma =1/233`$.

The assumption of Block and Kaidalov in eq. (2) that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{elastic}}(s)/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(s)`$ is process-independent yields another factorization theorem

$$\frac{B_{nn}(s)}{B_{\gamma p}(s)}=\frac{B_{\gamma p}(s)}{B_{\gamma \gamma }(s)},$$
(23)
where the $`B`$’s are the nuclear slopes for elastic scattering (the logarithmic derivatives of the elastic scattering cross sections $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{elastic}}/dt`$, where $`t`$ is the squared 4-momentum transfer). For $`\gamma p`$ processes, using vector dominance, the $`B`$’s are the slopes of the ‘elastic’ scattering reactions

$$\gamma +pV+p,$$
(24)
where the vector meson $`V`$ is either a $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ or $`\varphi `$ meson. Using the additive quark model, eq. (23) implies that

$$B_{\gamma p}(s)=\kappa B_{nn}(s),\mathrm{where}\kappa =\frac{2}{3}.$$
(25)
It has been shown by Block, Halzen and Pancheri that a $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the available $`\gamma p`$ data gives

$$\kappa =0.661\pm 0.008,$$
(26)
in excellent agreement with the 2/3 value predicted by the additive quark model, again justifying the use of 2/3 in our fits.

We conclude that if we determine $`\sigma _{nn}(s)`$, $`\rho _{nn}`$ and $`B_{nn}`$ from experimental $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ data for $`\sqrt{s}8`$ GeV, we can then predict rather accurately $`\sigma _{\gamma p}(s)`$, $`\rho _{\gamma p}`$, $`B_{\gamma p}`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma }(s)`$, $`\rho _{\gamma \gamma }`$, $`B_{\gamma \gamma }`$, in essentially a parameter-free way, by using factorization and the additive quark model with vector dominance. Clearly, this conclusion would be greatly strengthened by precision cross section measurements of both $`\gamma p`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ reactions at high energies.