Analyses of multiplicity distributions and Bose Einstein correlations at the LHC using negative binomial distribution and generalized Glauber Lachs formula Minoru Biyajima, and Takuya Mizoguchi 2 Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Matsumoto 390-862, Japan 2 National Institute of Technology, Toba College, Toba 57-850, Japan arxiv:804.08089v [hep-ph] 22 Apr 208 April 24, 208 Abstract This study aims to analyze the data on multiplicity distributions and Bose Einstein correlations collected at the LHC by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations using a double-generalized Glauber Lachs formula (D- GGL) and double-negative binomial distribution (). From this investigation, it can be inferred that the formula performs as effectively as the. Moreover, our results show that the parameters estimated in multiplicity distributions (MD) () are related to those contained in the BEC formula. Introduction Recently variouskinds ofdataonmultiplicity distributions(md ()) with pseudorapidityintervals( η < η c ) at LHC energies have been reported [, 2, 3, 4]. The double-negative binomial distribution () formula has been utilized to analyze these data [5, 6]. The formula was originally proposed in [7] to explain the violation of KNO scaling [8] at s = 900 GeV observed by the UA5 collaboration [9]. The is expressed as follows: P(n, n ) = αp NBD (n, k N, n )+( α)p NBD (n, k N2, n 2 ), () where α is the weight factor for the first NBD [0,, 2]. The notations, k and k 2, represent intrinsic parameters contained in the NBDs, and n and n 2 are the averaged multiplicities. The NBD is given by the following equation: P NBD (n, k N, n ) = Γ(n+k N) ( n /k N ) n Γ(n+)Γ(k N ) (+ n /k N ) n+kn, (2) On the other hand, in [3] we analyzed various data with η η c on MD () in terms of the NBD and generalized Glauber Lachs (GGL) formula [4, 5]. In that work, we found that the role of the GGL formula is compatible with that of the NBD. The GGL formula is given as follows, P GGL (n, k G, p, n ) = (p n /k G ) n exp n+kg (+p n /k G ) [ γp n + n /k G ] L (kg ) n ( γk G + n /k G ), (3) where p = /(+γ) with the ratio of γ = n coherent / n chaotic. It should be noted that the average coherent and chaotic multiplicities are contained in Eq. (3). Here, k G is also an intrinsic parameter of the GGL formula. The analyses in [3] suggested that a finite γ indicates that the coherent component seems to be necessary in data with η < η c. We remark that Eq. (3) has the following stochastic property. Eq. (3) k G= original GL k G=k N, p NBD of Eq. (2) k N p Poisson distribution p Furry dis. (4)
Thus, in this paper, we propose the following double-ggl formula () to analyze data on charged MD () at LHC energies: P(n, n ) = αp GGL (n, k G = 2, p, n )+( α)p NBD (n, k G = 2, p 2, n 2 ), (5) where p i, n i (i =, 2) are introduced to distinguish the parameters contained in formula. It should be noted that k G = 2 reflects the degree of freedom for the (+ ) charged particle ensembles. (a) (b) Figure : (a) The stochastic properties of the generalized Glauber Lachs formula are shown in the κ-p plane. At the point (2.0,.0), the perfect Bose Einstein statistics for the same charged particles ensemble holds. At the point (.0,.0), the Bose Einstein statistics for the (+ ) charged particle ensemble holds. (b) The charged particleensembleisdecomposedintothepositive(+)andnegative( )ensembles. Hereγ = n coherent / n chaotic can be assumed to reflect the contamination (K, p / π s), and the degree of superposition of the phase spaces of particles. As a next step, we would like to consider the BEC. The BEC for positive charged particles [6] is given by as follows: { } N (2+) GL /NBG = + [2p (+) ( p (+) )E /2 BE +(p(+) ) 2 E BE ], (6) k (+) GL where the left-hand side represents the normalized number of pairs of positive charged particles, and E BE is the exchange function between them, { exp( RQ), E BE = (7) exp( (RQ) 2 ), whereq = (p p 2 ) 2, andrdenotestheinteractionrangebetweentwoparticles. Hereafter, fortheconcrete analysis of the BEC we employ the exponential form, because values of χ s for the Gaussian formula are larger than those of the exponential formula. AsseeninFig., k (+) GL = k( ) GL = andp = p(+) = p ( ) areutilized. Forthe formula,wecancalculate the following formula for the BEC with weight factor α, provided that MD (P GGL (n)) and (P GGL2 (n)) are independent ensembles, N (2+:2 ) D GGL /NBG = { } +α[2p ( p )E /2 BE +p 2 E BE ]+( α)[2p 2 ( p 2 )E /2 BE 2 +p 2 2E BE2 ]. (8) In Eq. (8), because p = p 2 =.0 and using the replacements k (+) N = k ( ) N = 2/k N and k (+) N 2 = k ( ) N 2 = 2/k N2, we obtain the following BEC for the : N (2+:2 ) D NBD /NBG = {+α(2/k N )E BE +( α)(2/k N2 )E BE2 }. (9) In the appendix, Eq. (9) is derived from a stochastic approach. In Eq. (9), when E BE and E BE2 are the same functions, we obtain the conventional formula (CF) N (2+:2 ) CF /N BG = {+λ eff E BE }. (0) 2
provided that the coefficient of λ eff = 2[α/k N +( α)/k N2 ] is assumed to be a free parameter. By employing Eqs. () (5) for the MD (), it can be expected that we can analyze the data on MD () and the BEC concurrently. The present paper is organized as follows. In the second section, data on the MD () at the LHC collected by the ATLAS collaboration are treated. In the third section, data on the BEC collected by the ATLAS collaboration are performed. In the fourth section, data on the MD () and the BEC by the CMS collaboration are analyzed. In the final section, concluding remarks and discussions are presented. In the appendix, the derivation of the BEC in the two-component model is presented. 2 Analyses of MD at s =0.9, 7, 8, and 3 TeV by ATLAS data By employing Eqs. () and (5), we can analyze data on MD collected by the ATLAS collaboration [] at LHC energies. Our results are presented in Figs. 2 and 3 and Table. 0 ATLAS s= 0.9 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 2 NBD 0 2 NBD 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 0 20 40 n 60 80 00 ATLAS s= 8.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 0 50 00 n 50 200 ATLAS s= 3 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 2 NBD 0 2 NBD 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 50 00 n 50 200 0 50 00 50 n 200 250 Figure 2: Analyses of ATLAS data (p t > 00 MeV, η < 2.5, n ch 2) using Eq. (). 3
0 ATLAS s= 0.9 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 2 GGL 0 2 GGL 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 0 20 40 n 60 80 00 ATLAS s= 8.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 0 50 00 n 50 200 ATLAS s= 3 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 2 GGL 0 2 GGL 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 50 00 n 50 200 0 50 00 50 n 200 250 Figure 3: Analyses of ATLAS data (p t > 00 MeV, η < 2.5, n ch 2) using Eq. (5). Table : Analyses of MD () collected by the ATLAS collaboration (p t > 00 MeV, η < 2.5, n ch 2) using Eqs. () and (5). MD ( Eq. () s [TeV] α k n k 2 n 2 χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.23±0.03 7.52±0.77 32.9±.3 2.70±0.2 2.6±0.4 70.2/46 7.0 0.60±0.02 2.6±0.0 39.4±0.6 2.72±0.09.0±0. 29/80 8.0 0.57±0.02 2.70±0.2 42.7±0.8 2.58±0.0.9±0.2 9/80 3 0.66±0.00 2.00±0.02 44.2±0.2 2.46±0.06 0.9±0. 263/8 s [TeV] Eq. (5) α p n p 2 n 2 χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.4±0.05 0.25±0.04 27.0±.4 0.39±0.02 0.6±0.4 60.3/46 7.0 0.67±0.0 0.68±0.03 36.7±0.3 0.42±0.02 0.4±0. 4/80 8.0 0.65±0.0 0.66±0.03 39.5±0.4 0.45±0.03.±0.2 /80 3 0.66±0.00 0.90±0.06 44.±0.2 0.60±0.03 0.7±0. 280/8 4
3 Analysis of Bose Einstein correlation at s = 0.9 and 7.0 TeV for ATLAS data By employing Eqs. (8) and (9), we can analyze data on the Bose Einstein correlation at s = 0.9 and 7.0 TeV [7, 8]. Our results are presented in Figs. 4 and 5 and Table 2. Here, R denotes the magnitude of the interaction region in the exponential formula. Table 2: Analyses of Bose Einstein correlation (BEC) collected by the ATLAS collaboration (p t > 00 MeV, η < 2.5, n ch 2) using Eqs. (9), (8), and (0). Here, α is a new weight factor for data with the interval ( n). Physical quantities, denoted with bars (ᾱ, k, k 2, p, and p 2 ) are taken from Table. BEC Eq. (9) s [TeV] n ᾱ, α k k2 R [fm] R 2 [fm] ε ( 0 3 ) χ 2 /n.d.f. n 2 0.23 7.52 2.70.7±0.4.7±0..5±.8 98.6/75 0.9 36 n 45 0.8 7.52 2.70.5±0.2.5±0.3 2.±4. 55.8/75 n 2 0.60 2.6 2.72.8±0.0 3.±0. 7.±0.2 743/75 7.0 68 n 79.00 2.6 2.4±0.0 8.±0. 38/76 n 50.00 2.6 3.0±0.0 2.5±0.2 6/76 Eq. (8) s [TeV] n ᾱ, α p p 2 R [fm] R 2 [fm] ε ( 0 3 ) χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 n 2 0.4 0.25 0.39 2.8±0.2 2.7±0. 3.5±.9 48/75 36 n 45 0.965 0.25 0.39 3.±0.2 2.9±2.0.9±4. 47.2/75 n 2 0.67 0.68 0.42 3.6±0. 3.2±0. 6.7±0.3 629/75 7.0 68 n 79.00 0.68 3.8±0.0 6.8±0. 04/76 n 50.00 0.68 4.9±0..5±0.2 32/76 BEC Eq. (0) conventional formula s [TeV] n λeff R ε ( 0 3 ) χ 2 /n.d.f. n 2 0.74±0.03.8±0. 0.9±.86 86.0/75 0.9 36 n 45 0.75±0.2 2.3±0.2 5.8±3.9 33.9/75 n 2 0.72±0.0 2.±0.0 8.3±0.2 99/75 7.0 68 n 79 0.72±0.02 2.3±0.0 7.6±0.6 33/75 n 50 0.53±0.03 2.4±0. 0.2±0.9 25/75 Combining the results from Tables and 2, we can choose favorable frameworks that govern the multiplicity distribution and Bose Einstein correlations at s =0.9 and 7 TeV for the ATLAS collaboration data. For the BEC with the constraints of multiplicity, by taking into account the averaged probabilities over the interval ( n) and calculating new weight factors (denoted as α) we can analyze data on the BEC with multiplicity intervals. 4 Analyses of MD and the BEC at s = 0.9, and 7 TeV for CMS data In this section, we present our analyses of MD for data collected by the CMS collaboration [4], using Eqs. () and (5), and the BEC [9] using Eqs. (8) and (9). In our analysis of the data on MD (), as in the ATLAS case, P(0) and P() are disregarded, because the estimated parameters are used in the analysis of the data on the BEC. We have adopted a renormalization scheme in our calculations. Our results are presented in Figs. 6 and 7 and Tables 3 and 4. 5 Concluding remarks and discussion C) As seen in Fig. 8, the α values are almost constant at s 7.0 8.0 TeV. On the other hand, fluctuation are observed for the α values at s 0.9 TeV. This behavior represents the beginning of the violation of KNO scaling, because z = n/ n = n/(a n ) = z/a (a = n / n ) and z 2 = n/ n 2 = z/a 2 (a 2 = n / n 2 ) in the 5
.8 ATLAS s= 0.9 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2.8 ATLAS s= 0.9 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, 36 n ch 45.6.4 NBD.6.4 NBD.2.2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2.8 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2.8 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, 68 n ch 79.6.4 NBD.6.4 NBD.2.2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2.8 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 50.6.4 NBD.2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2 Figure 4: Analyses of ATLAS data on the BEC (p t > 00 MeV, η < 2.5, n ch 2) using Eq. (9) with E BE = exp( RQ). Table 3: Analyses of MD () collected by the CMS collaboration (p t > 0 GeV, η < 2.4, n ch 2) using Eqs. () and (5). MD () Eq. () s [TeV] α k n k 2 n 2 χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.40±0.5 5.72±.68 29.6±3.8 3.52±0.68 2.±.8 4.55/6 7.0 0.58±0.06 2.94±0.34 44.6±2.5 2.94±0.43 4.7±.0 3.0/20 s [TeV] Eq. (5) α p n p 2 n 2 χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.57±0.2 0.3±0.08 25.3±2.4 0.29±0.07 0.6±0.9 3.95/6 7.0 0.69±0.04 0.6±0.07 40.2±.2 0.35±0.08 3.6±0.7 2.9/20 6
.8 ATLAS s= 0.9 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2.8 ATLAS s= 0.9 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, 36 n ch 45.6.4 GGL.6.4 GGL.2.2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2.8 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2.8 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, 68 n ch 79.6.4 GGL.6.4 GGL.2.2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2.8 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV p t >00 MeV, η <2.5, n ch 50.6.4 GGL.2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2 Figure 5: Analyses of ATLAS data on the BEC (p t > 00 MeV, η < 2.5, n ch 2) using Eq. (8) with E BE = exp( RQ). 7
0 CMS s= 0.9 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 2 0 CMS s= 0.9 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 2 0 2 NBD 0 2 GGL 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 0 20 40 n 60 80 00 CMS s= 7.0 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 2 0 0 20 40 n 60 80 00 CMS s= 7.0 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 2 0 2 NBD 0 2 GGL 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 50 00 n 50 200 0 50 00 n 50 200 Figure 6: Analyses of CMS data (p t > 0 GeV, η < 2.4, n ch 2) using Eqs. () and (5). Table 4: Analyses of the Bose Einstein correlation (BEC) for CMS collaboration data (p t > 0 GeV, η < 2.4) using Eqs. (9), (8), and (0). BEC Eq. (9) s [TeV] ᾱ k k2 R [fm] R 2 [fm] ε ( 0 2 ) χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.40 5.72 3.52.3±0..3±0.0 3.±0. 68/94 7.0 0.58 2.94 2.94.6±0.0 3.2±0. 2.4±0.0 69/94 s [TeV] Eq. (8) ᾱ p p 2 R [fm] R 2 [fm] ε ( 0 2 ) χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.57 0.3 0.29 2.5±0. 2.5±0. 3.±0. 668/94 7.0 0.69 0.62 0.35 3.9±0. 2.7±0. 2.4±0. 683/94 BEC Eq. (0) conventional formula s [TeV] λeff R ε ( 0 2 ) χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.62±0.0.56±0.02 2.8±0. 487/94 7.0 0.62±0.0.9±0.0 2.2±0.0 738/94 8
.8 CMS s= 0.9 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 2.8 CMS s= 0.9 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 2.6.4 NBD.6.4 GGL.2.2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2.8 CMS s= 7.0 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2.8 CMS s= 7.0 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 2.6.4 NBD.6.4 GGL.2.2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2 0 0.5 Q [GeV].5 2 Figure 7: Analyses of CMS data (p t > 0 GeV, η < 2.4, n ch 2) using Eqs. (9) and (8). 9
KNO scaling function in Eq. (). ψ(z) = lim n {αp NBD (n, k N, n )+( α)p NBD (n, k N2, n 2 )} n, n ( ) k ( z e k z a +( α) kk2 2 z Γ(k 2 ) = α kk Γ(k ) a Because ψ(z) contains α, k, k 2, a, and a 2, the violation of KNO scaling is obvious. a 2 ) k2 e k2 z a 2 () 0.8 0.6 α 0.4 0.2 ATLAS ATLAS CMS CMS α=0.64[ exp(.s)] 0 s [TeV] 0 Figure 8: The energy dependence of the α parameters in Eqs. () and (5). C2) It can be inferred from the analyses of the data on MD () and the BEC that the formula performs as effectively as the. See Tables () (4). This can also be seen from a somewhat different point of view. Rewriting κ = 2/k N in the NBD as in Fig., we are able to compare it with p in the GGL formula as κ = /[+(k N 2)/2] p = /(+γ). (2) Our calculations are depicted in Table 5. The corresponding relation (2) appears to be satisfied provided that n. We can say that the NBD and the GGL formula are complementary to each other. Table 5: Comparison of κ i = 2/k Ni from with p i from the formula. MD () by ATLAS collaboration s [TeV] κ = 2/k N p κ 2 = 2/k N2 p 2 0.9 0.27±0.03 0.25±0.04 0.74±0.02 0.39±0.02 7.0 0.77±0.03 0.68±0.03 0.74±0.02 0.42±0.02 8.0 0.74±0.03 0.66±0.03 0.78±0.03 0.45±0.03 3.00±0.0 0.90±0.06 0.8±0.02 0.60±0.03 s [TeV] MD () by CMS collaboration κ p κ 2 p 2 0.9 0.35±0.0 0.3±0.08 0.57±0. 0.29±0.07 7.0 0.68±0.08 0.6±0.07 0.68±0.0 0.35±0.08 C3) In our analyses of BEC, we have employed parameters estimated in the analyses of MD (). Our values obtained for the χ 2 s in Tables 2 and 4 show that the adopted procedure indeed seems to be valid. 0
C4) The ATLAS collaboration has stressed that the interaction ranges estimated in their analyses of the data on the BEC demonstrate the saturation of the interaction ranges (R s) as the multiplicity increases when the conventional formula is utilized. However, our results on the BEC for the ATLAS collaboration data have shown an opposite behavior, i.e., the interaction range increases as the multiplicity increases. 5 ATLAS s= 7.0 TeV, BEC conventional 4 R and R [fm] 3 2 0 n ch 2 40 80 20 60 Figure 9: The multiplicity (n ch ) dependences of R and R in Eqs. (8), (9), and (0) for the BEC. n ch D) Our two-component model is necessary to introduce two corresponding sources or two kinds of collision mechanism [20, 2]. The following correspondences may be inferred, because n > n 2 : P Non-diffractive (ND) process, single diffractive (SD) process, (3) P 2 double diffractive (DD) process. The weight factor α in Eqs. () and (5) can be interpreted by means of various cross sections, σ ND, σ 2SD, σ DD, and σ inel = σ ND +σ 2SD +σ DD, as { α σ ND /σ inel, (4) ( α) (σ 2SD +σ DD )/σ inel. In other words, α means the occurrence rate in two kinds of collisions [22, 23]. The total average multiplicity in Eqs. () and (5) is defined as n = α n P (n, n )n+( α) n P 2 (n, n 2 )n = α n +( α) n 2 (5) Various kinds of average multiplicities n, n 2, α n, ( α) n 2 are shown in Fig. 0(a) and (b). D2) In the fourth section, to investigate BEC by CMS collaboration, we have analyzed data excluding P(0) and P() as ATLAS collaboration did. We show our results of analysis of data including P(0) and P() using Eqs. () and (5) in Fig. and Table 6. As compared values of χ 2 s at 0.9 TeV in Table 6 and that in Table 3, the formers are larger than the latters. However, those at 7.0 TeV are almost the same. In Ref. [24], the value of χ 2 /n.d.f. = 0.84 (color reconnection approach in the Monte Carlo study) for the analysis of MD () at 7.0 TeV is mentioned. Ours in Table 6 are compatible with that above. Acknowledgement. MB would like to thank colleagues of Department of Physics, Shinshu University for their kindness.
n and n2 50 40 30 20 ATLAS, η <2.5 : n : n 2 : n : n 2 α n and ( α) n2 40 30 20 ATLAS, η <2.5 Emperical values: n : α n : ( α) n 2 : α n : ( α) n 2 0 0 0 s [TeV] 0 (a) 0 s [TeV] 0 (b) Figure 0: (a) The energy dependences of the parameters n and n 2, (b) α n and ( α) n 2 in Eqs. () and (5). Table 6: Analyses of MD () collected by the CMS collaboration (p t > 0 GeV, η < 2.4, n ch 0) using Eqs. () and (5). MD () Eq. () s [TeV] α k n k 2 n 2 χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.7±0.2 8.08±2.60 35.±4.0 2.35±0.30 4.6±2. 3.9/63 7.0 0.47±0.08 3.36±0.5 47.8±3.6 2.22±0.23 5.4±.6 3.7/22 s [TeV] Eq. (5) α p n p 2 n 2 χ 2 /n.d.f. 0.9 0.40±0.6 0.24±0.09 28.±4. 0.45±0.08.5±.8 2.9/63 7.0 0.60±0.06 0.54±0.08 4.9±2.2 0.58±0.3 3.7±.2 3.4/22 2
0 CMS s= 0.9 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 0 0 CMS s= 0.9 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 0 0 2 NBD 0 2 GGL 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 0 20 40 n 60 80 00 CMS s= 7.0 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 0 0 0 20 40 n 60 80 00 CMS s= 7.0 TeV p t >0 GeV, η <2.4, n ch 0 0 2 NBD 0 2 GGL 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 50 00 n 50 200 0 50 00 n 50 200 Figure : Analyses of CMS data (p t > 0 GeV, η < 2.4, n ch 0) using Eqs. () and (5). 3
A Derivation of the BEC in the two-component model Taking into account that P(n, n ) in Eq. () is the probability distribution for the charged particles ensembles (a = (+) and b = ( ) indicate the positive and negative charges respectively), we can decompose it into two probability distributions with the labels a and b as, P (ab) (n, n, k) = n=n a+n b P (a) (n a, n a, k (a) ) P (b) (n b, n b, k (b) ) (6) where n a = n b = n /2 and k (a) = k (b) = k/2. P (n, n, k ) and P 2 (n 2, n 2, k 2 ) in Eq. () can also be decomposed into the same charged particle probability distributions. Combining these, we obtain the following relations: P (a) (n, n a, k (a) ) = αp (a) (n, n a, k (a) /2)+( α)p(a) 2 (n, n a 2, k (a) 2 /2), (7) P (b) (n, n b, k (b) ) = αp (b) (n, nb, k (b) /2)+( α)p(b) 2 (n, nb 2, k (b) 2 /2). (8) By employing Eqs. (6) (8) and calculating the number of pairs in the same charged particle ensembles ((2a) and (2b)) and the number of pairs in opposite charged particle ensembles ((ab)), we obtain the following relations: N (2a) +N (2b) = n P (a) (n, n a, k (a) /2) n(n ) + 2 n P (b) (n, nb, k (b) /2) n(n ) 2 = 2 ( na (n a ) + n b (n b ) ), (9) ( )( ) N BG(ab) = P (a) (n, n a, k (a) /2)n P (b) (n, nb, k (b) /2)n n n = n a n b. By taking the following ratio, we obtain the BEC as N (2a:2b) /N BG(ab) = n(n ) / n 2 = +2/k E BE. (2) At the final step, we have introduced the exchange function for the BEC, E BE same manner, we obtain the second formula for the second component (20) Q 0 and Q 0. In the N (2a:2b) 2 /N BG(ab) 2 = +2/k 2 E BE2. (22) Combining Eqs. (2) and (22) with weight factors α and ( α), we obtain Eq. (9) from the introduction, N (2+:2 ) D NBD /NBG = α(+2/k N E BE )+( α)(+2/k N2 E BE2 ). Using the same method for the GGL formula with k G = 2.0 and p, Eq. (3), we can obtain Eq. (8) with α and p i (i =, 2) for the two-component model. References [] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], New J. Phys. 3 (20) 053033. [2] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (206) no.9, 502. [3] K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 68 (200) 345. [4] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 0 (20) 079. [5] P. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D 85 (202) 05407. [6] V. Zaccolo [ALICE Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. A 956 (206) 529. 4
[7] C. Fuglesang, La Thuile Multiparticle Dynamics 989 (989) 93-20. [8] Z. Koba, H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B 40 (972) 37. [9] R. E. Ansorge et al. [UA5 Collaboration], Z. Phys. C 43, 357 (989). [0] A. Giovannini and R. Ugoccioni, Phys. Rev. D 59 (999) 094020. For three-component model, see, A. Giovannini and R. Ugoccioni, ibid. D 68 (2003) 034009. [] I. M. Dremin and V. A. Nechitailo, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 034005. [2] I. Zborovsky, J. Phys. G 40 (203) 055005. [3] T. Mizoguchi and M. Biyajima, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (200) 06. [4] M. Biyajima, Prog. Theor. Phys. 69 (983) 966. Addendum: [Prog. Theor. Phys. 70 (983) 468]. [5] M. Biyajima and N. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. 43B (984) 463. [6] M. Biyajima, A. Bartl, T. Mizoguchi, O. Terazawa and N. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 84 (990) 93; Addendum: [Prog. Theor. Phys. 88 (992) 57]. [7] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (205) no.0, 466. [8] R. Astalo s, Dr. Thesis Bose-Einstein correlations in 7 TeV proton-proton collisions in the ATLAS experiment, (Uiversity of Nijmegen, 205). It should be noticed that his quantum optical formula has a different exponential formula, E BE = exp( 2RQ). [9] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 05 (20) 029. [20] J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus and K. Reygers, J. Phys. G 37 (200) 08300. [2] S. Navin, Diffraction in Pythia, LUTP-09-23 [arxiv:005.3894 [hep-ph]]. [22] [ATLAS Collaboration], Charged particle multiplicities in pp interactions for track p T > 00 MeV at s = 0.9 and 7 TeV measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, ATLAS-CONF-200-046. [23] R. Ciesielski and K. Goulianos, MBR Monte Carlo Simulation in PYTHIA8, PoS ICHEP 202 (203) 30 [arxiv:205.446 [hep-ph]]. [24] S. Gieseke, P. Kirchgaeser and F. Loshaj, Soft and diffractive scattering, KA-TP-36-207, MCnet-7-8 [arxiv:70.0925 [hep-ph]]. 5