# Resilient Reducibility in Nuclear Multifragmentation

## Abstract

The resilience to averaging over an initial energy distribution of reducibility and thermal scaling observed in nuclear multifragmentation is studied. Poissonian reducibility and the associated thermal scaling of the mean are shown to be robust. Binomial reducibility and thermal scaling of the elementary probability are robust under a broad range of conditions. The experimental data do not show any indication of deviation due to averaging.

The complexity of nuclear multifragmentation underwent a remarkable simplification when it was empirically observed that many aspects of this process were: a) “reducible”; and b) “thermally scalable” .

“Reducibility” means that a given many-fragment probability can be expressed in terms of a corresponding one-fragment probability, i.e., the fragments are emitted essentially independent of one another.

“Thermal scaling” means that the one-fragment probability so extracted has a thermal-like dependence, i.e., it is essentially a Boltzmann factor.

Both “reducibility” and “thermal scaling” were observed in terms of a global variable, the transverse energy $`E_t`$ (defined as $`E_t=_iE_i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _i`$, i.e. the sum of the kinetic energies $`E`$ of all charged particles in an event weighted by the sine squared of their polar angles $`\theta `$), which was assumed (see below) to be proportional to the excitation energy of the decaying source(s) .

In particular, it was found that the $`Z`$-integrated multiplicity distributions $`P(n)`$ were binomially distributed, and thus “reducible” to a one-fragment probability $`p`$. With higher resolution, it was noticed that for each individual fragment species of a given $`Z`$, the $`n_Z`$-fragment multiplicities $`P(n_Z)`$ obeyed a nearly Poisson distribution, and were thus “reducible” to a single-fragment probability proportional to the mean value $`n_Z`$ for each $`Z`$ .

The one-fragment probabilities $`p`$ showed “thermal scaling” by giving linear Arrhenius plots of $`\mathrm{ln}p`$ vs $`1/\sqrt{E_t}`$ where it is assumed that $`\sqrt{E_t}T`$. Similarly $`n`$-fragment charge distributions $`P_n(Z)`$ were shown to be both “reducible” to a one-fragment $`Z`$ distribution as well as “thermally scalable” . Even the two-fragment angular correlations $`P_{1,2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )`$ were shown to be expressible in terms of a one-body angular distribution with amplitudes that are “thermally scalable” . Table I gives a summary of the “reducible” and “thermal scaling” observables.

Empirically, “reducibility” and “thermal scaling” are pervasive features of nuclear multifragmentation. “Reducibility” proves nearly stochastic emission. “Thermal scaling” gives an indication of thermalization.

Recently, there have been some questions on the significance (not the factuality) of “reducibility” and “thermal scaling” in the binomial decomposition of $`Z`$-integrated multiplicities . For instance, had the original distribution in the true excitation-energy variable been binomially distributed and thermally scalable, wouldn’t the process of transforming from excitation energy $`E`$ to transverse energy $`E_t`$ through an (assumedly) broad transformation function $`P(E,E_t)`$ destroy both features?

Specifically, under a special choice of averaging function (Gaussian), for a special choice of parameters (variance from GEMINI ), and for special input $`p`$ (the excitation energy dependent one-fragment emission probability) and $`m`$ (the number of “throws” or attempts) to the binomial function, the binomial parameters extracted from the averaged binomial distribution are catastrophically altered, and the initial thermal scaling is spoiled . This “spoiling” in  is not due to detector acceptance effects (which has been commented on extensively in ), but rather is due to the intrinsic width of correlation between $`E_t`$ and $`E`$ as discussed below.

It should be pointed out that, while the decomposition of the many-fragment emission probabilities $`P(n)`$ into $`p`$ and $`m`$ may be sensitive to the averaging process, the quantity $`mp`$ is not . However, both $`p`$ and $`mp`$ are known to give linear Arrhenius plots with essentially the same slope (see below). This by itself demonstrates that no damaging average is occurring.

Furthermore, we have observed that by restricting the definition of “fragment” to a single $`Z`$, the multiplicity distributions become nearly Poissonian and thus are characterized by the average multiplicity $`mp`$ which gives well behaved Arrhenius plots . Thus, the linearity of the Arrhenius plots of both $`p`$ and $`mp`$ extracted from all fragments, and the linearity of the Arrhenius plots of $`mp`$ for each individual $`Z`$ value eliminate observationally the criticisms described above. In fact, it follows that no visible damage is inflicted by the true physical transformation from $`E`$ to $`E_t`$. Therefore, the experimental Poisson “reducibility” of multiplicity distributions for each individual $`Z`$ and the associated “thermal scaling” of the means eliminates observationally these criticisms.

We proceed now to show in detail that: 1) binomial reducibility and thermal scaling are also quite robust under reasonable averaging conditions; 2) the data do not show any indication of pathological behavior.

We first discuss the possible origin and widths of the averaging distribution.

It is not apparent why the variance of $`P(E,E_t)`$ calculated from GEMINI  should be relevant. GEMINI is a low energy statistical code and is singularly unable to reproduce intermediate mass fragment (IMF:$`3Z20`$) multiplicities, the magnitudes of $`E_t`$, and other multifragmentation features. There is no reason to expect that the variance in question is realistic.

Apparently, $`E_t`$ does not originate in the late thermal phase of the reaction. Rather, it seems to be dominated by the initial stages of the collision. Consequently its magnitude may reflect the geometry of the reaction and the consequent energy deposition in terms of the number of primary nucleon-nucleon collisions. This is attested to by the magnitude of $`E_t`$ which is several times larger than predicted by any thermal model. Thus, the worrisome “thermal widths” are presumably irrelevant.

Since there is no reliable way to determine the actual resolution of the correlation between $`E_t`$ and $`E`$, experimentally or via simulation calculations , instead of using large or small variances, we will show:

a) which variables control the divergence assuming a Gaussian distribution, and in what range of values the averaging is “safe”, i.e. it does not produce divergent behavior;

b) that the use of Gaussian tails is dangerous and improper unless one shows that the physics itself requires such tails.

The input binomial distribution is characterized by $`m`$, the number of throws (assumed constant in the calculations in ), and $`p`$ which has a characteristic energy dependence of

$$\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{p}\frac{B}{\sqrt{E_t^{}}}.$$
(1)   
We denote the one-to-one image of $`E`$ in $`E_t`$ space with a prime symbol.

The averaging in  is performed by integrating the product of an exponential folded with a Gaussian (Eq. (12) of ).

$$p\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{B}{\sqrt{x}}\frac{(xx_0)^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)𝑑x.$$
(2)   
If the slope of the exponential is large, there will be 1) a substantial shift $`ϵ`$ in the peak of the integrand, and 2) a great sensitivity to the tail of the Gaussian.

The shifts $`ϵ_p`$ and $`ϵ_{p^2}`$ can be approximately evaluated:

$$ϵ_p=\frac{\sigma ^2B}{2x_0^{3/2}}$$
(3)   
$$ϵ_{p^2}=2\frac{\sigma ^2B}{2x_0^{3/2}}.$$
(4)   
This illustrates the divergence at small values of $`x_0`$ both in the shift of the integrand in $`p`$ and $`p^2`$ and the corresponding divergence in $`\sigma _p^2=p^2p^2`$. The scale of the divergence is set by the product $`\sigma ^2B`$. Thus one can force a catastrophic blowup by choosing a large value of $`\sigma ^2`$, of $`B`$, or of both. This is what has been shown to happen with large values of $`\sigma ^2`$ and $`B`$. The counterpart to this is that there possibly exists a range of values for $`B`$ and $`\sigma ^2`$ which leads to a “safe” averaging process.

In order to illustrate this, we have calculated the “apparent” values of the single fragment emission probability $`p_{app}`$ for widths characterized by the ratio of the full width at half maximum $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}`$ over $`E_t`$. Specifically we have extracted $`p_{app}`$:

$$p_{app}=1\frac{\sigma _n^2}{n}$$
(5)   
and $`m_{app}`$:

$$m_{app}=\frac{n}{p_{app}}$$
(6)   
by calculating the observed mean:

$$n=\underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}nP_n^m(E_t^{})g(E_t^{})dE_t^{}$$
(7)   
and variance:

$$\sigma _n^2=\left[\underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}n^2P_n^m(E_t^{})g(E_t^{})dE_t^{}\right]n^2$$
(8)   
for “thermal” emission probabilities $`P_n^m`$ folded with a Gaussian distribution $`g(E_t)`$. We have assumed $`m`$ is constant.

For a value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}/E_t`$=0.3, $`m`$=12, and $`B`$=40MeV<sup>1/2</sup> (consistent with the upper limits of the slopes observed in the Xe induced reactions ), the onset of divergence is observed in the Arrhenius plot at small values of $`E_t`$ (top left panel of Fig. 1, open circles). For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}/E_t`$=0.2 (open circles in bottom left panel of Fig. 1), the divergent behavior is “shifted” to even lower energies and the resulting Arrhenius plot remains approximately linear. Therefore, the thermal signature survives. For both widths, the linear (thermal) scaling survives in the physically explored range of $`1/\sqrt{E_t}0.08`$ ($`E_t`$ 150 MeV) shown by the dashed lines in Fig. 1. As we shall see below, the effect is weaker for even lower values of $`B`$ which are commonly seen experimentally.

The divergent behavior manifests itself as well in the parameter $`m`$, the number of “throws” in the binomial description. Values of $`m_{app}`$ are plotted (open circles) as a function of $`E_t`$ in the right column of Fig. 1 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}/E_t`$=0.3 (top panel) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}/E_t`$=0.2 (bottom panel).

While the distortions depend mostly on the variance of the energy distribution, distributions with similar widths can be associated with very different variances. For instance, a Lorentzian distribution with finite $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has infinite variance. Its use would lead to a divergence even for infinitely small values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus, even innocent trimmings to the (non-physical) tails of a Gaussian can produce big differences in the variance of the distribution and in the ensuing corrections. We exemplify this point in two ways.

a) We use a “square” distribution with a width equal to the full width at half maximum of the Gaussian. As can be seen by the star symbols of Fig. 1 this simple exercise dramatically extends the range over which the average can be performed safely.

b) We truncate the tails of the Gaussian at 1$`\sigma `$ (diamonds) and 2$`\sigma `$ (solid circles) in Fig. 1. Already the cut at $`2\sigma `$ shows a dramatic improvement over a full Gaussian. The 1$`\sigma `$ cut actually makes things even better than the square distribution (as seen in Fig. 1).

To illustrate the conditions under which the “thermal” scaling survives (i.e. linear Arrhenius plots as a function of $`1/\sqrt{E_t}`$), we have traced the evolution of the “divergence energy” (or the point at which $`m_{app}`$ and $`p_{app}`$ change sign) as a function of the two parameters which control the strength of the divergence: the slope parameter $`B`$ and the variance $`\sigma ^2`$ (hereafter characterized by its full width at half maximum value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}2.35\sqrt{\sigma ^2}`$).

A particular example for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}/E_t`$=0.3 is shown by the open circles in the top panel of Fig. 2. In addition, values of the divergence energy for 1$`\sigma `$ and 2$`\sigma `$ truncations of the Gaussian as well as a square distribution are also plotted. For all intents and purposes, divergencies that occur at less than 100 MeV do not alter substantially the linear Arrhenius plots as they have been observed to date  in the $`E_t`$ range of 150 to 1600 MeV.

In a similar manner, the dependence of the divergence energy can also be determined as a function of the relative width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}/E_t`$ (for a fixed value of $`B`$). This behavior is demonstrated in the bottom panel of Fig. 2.

A more global view of the parameter space is shown in Fig. 3 where the divergence energy is plotted (contour lines) as a function of the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{E_t}/E_t`$ and slope $`B`$. The shape of the contour lines reflects the $`\sigma ^2B`$ scale deduced in Eqs. (3) and (4). The calculation in ref.  sits nearly in the upper right hand corner of the graph. But, as is clearly demonstrated, large regions exist where binomial reducibility and thermal scaling survive (roughly given by the region with divergence energies less than 100 MeV).

From the above exercises it is concluded that there is abundant room for the survival of binomiality and thermal scaling.

In this second part, we show that none of the symptoms of divergence are present in the available experimental data . Furthermore, the average fragment multiplicity $`n`$ is expected to be “distortion free” . As such, it provides a baseline reference with which to compare the “distorted” variable, $`p_{app}`$ (to verify whether the label “distorted” is appropriate). In addition, we can force the divergence to appear in the data, by artificially broadening the $`E_t`$ bins, thus establishing that it is not present with ordinary (small) $`E_t`$ bins. Finally, we show that thermal scaling is present and persists in the data even when the divergence is forced.

First, we draw attention again to the two pathologic features arising from excessive averaging. 1) The quantity $`m`$ diverges near $`E_t`$=0. 2) The quantity $`1/p`$ suffers a corresponding discontinuity at the same low energy.

Inspection of the published data shows that:

1) $`m`$ never diverges near $`E_t`$ = 0. To the contrary $`m`$ remains relatively constant or actually decreases with decreasing $`E_t`$. This is particularly true for all of the Xe induced reactions  (see Fig. 6);

2) $`\mathrm{log}1/p`$ is nearly linear vs. $`1/\sqrt{E_t}`$ over the experimental $`E_t`$ range without the indications of trouble suggested by the calculations in the previous section.

Thus the experimental data do not show any signs of pathological features.

The quantity $`n=m_{app}p_{app}`$ does not suffer from the distortions due to averaging. In fact, $`n`$ is a suitable alternative for constructing an Arrhenius plot in those cases where $`m`$ depends only weakly on $`E_t`$ (as observed in many of the data sets we have studied). A comparison of the Arrhenius plots constructed from $`1/p_{app}`$ and $`1/n`$ is shown in Fig. 4. The striking feature of this comparison is that the $`1/p_{app}`$ values have the same slope as the “distortion-free” case of $`1/n`$. Similar observations can be made for all the other reactions studied so far. As a consequence both the “fragile” $`p`$ and the “robust” $`mp`$ survive the physical transformation $`P(E,E_t)`$ unscathed.

When the probability becomes small, the binomial distribution reduces to a Poisson distribution. This can be achieved experimentally by limiting the selection to a single $`Z`$ . The observed average multiplicity is now experimentally equal to the variance. Thus we are in the Poisson reducibility regime and can check the thermal scaling directly on $`n_Z`$. For a Poisson distribution, $`\mathrm{log}n_Z`$ should scale linearly with $`1/\sqrt{E_t}`$. This can be seen experimentally for the average yield of individual elements of a given charge (see Fig. 5) for the reaction Ar+Au at $`E/A`$=110 MeV. For the case of a single species, the reducibility is Poissonian, and the thermal (linear) scaling with $`1/\sqrt{E_t}`$ is readily apparent. As pointed out at the outset of the paper, this evidence, together with that of Fig. 4 indicates that no significant averaging is occurring even in the case of binomial decomposition.

The data can be “encouraged” to demonstrate the sort of catastrophic failures described here. By widening the bins in transverse energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E_t`$), we can induce an artificial broadening to mimic a broad correlation between $`E`$ and $`E_t`$. For example, the behavior of $`p_{app}`$ and $`m_{app}`$ is shown in Fig. 6 for three different widths and two different reactions. The divergencies of $`p_{app}`$ and $`m_{app}`$ are readily visible for large $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_t`$ values, but are noticeably absent for small values. The spectacularly large binning in $`E_t`$ (100 MeV!) necessary to force the anticipated pathologies to appear is reassuring indeed. Notice that here the absolute width, not the relative width, was kept fixed even at the lowest energies! Furthermore, the stability of $`n`$ is readily apparent from the complete overlap of the values of $`n`$ extracted for different windows of $`E_t`$ (open symbols of Fig. 6).

In summary:

a) Binomial reducibility and the associated thermal scaling survive in a broad range of parameter space. The single case shown in  is an extreme one based on unsupported assumptions about the averaging function.

b) The experimentally observed simultaneous survival of the linear Arrhenius plot for parameter $`p`$ and the robust average $`mp`$ suggests that no serious damage is generated by the physical transformation $`P(E,E_t)`$.

c) The multiplicity distributions for any given $`Z`$ value are Poissonian and the resulting average multiplicity $`n=mp`$ gives linear Arrhenius plots confirming the conclusion in b).

d) Finally, the data themselves do not show any indication of pathological behavior. This can be seen, for instance, by comparing the behavior of $`p`$ with $`n`$. The pathology can be forced upon the data by excessively widening the $`E_t`$ bins. Even then, the thermal scaling survives in the average multiplicity.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Nuclear Physics Division of the US Department of Energy, under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.