abstract:
  .
  We present a Monte Carlo study of the finite temperature properties of an extended Hubbard-Peierls model describing one dimensional $\pi$-conjugated polymers. The model incorporates electron-phonon and hyperfine interaction and it is solved at the mean field level for half filling. In particular we explore the model as a function of the strength of electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions. At low temperature the system presents a diamagnetic to antiferromagnetic transition as the electron-electron interaction strength increases. At the same time by increasing the electron-phonon coupling there is a transition from a homogeneous to a Peierls dimerized geometry. As expected such a Peierls dimerized phase disappears at finite temperature as a result of thermal vibrations. More intriguing is the interplay between the electron-phonon and the electron-electron interactions at finite temperature. In particular we demonstrate that for a certain region of the parameter space there is a spin-crossover, where the system transits from a low-spin to a high-spin state as the temperature increases. In close analogy to standard spin-crossover in divalent magnetic molecules such a transition is entropy driven. Finally we discuss the rôle played by the hyperfine interaction over the phase diagram.
author: S. Bhattacharya, M.S. Ferreira and S. Sanvito
date: 2024-10-01
title: Monte-Carlo phase diagram of a Hubbard-Peierls model in the search for spin crossover transition in $\pi$-conjugated polymers

# Introduction

Over the past few years the field of organic spintronics has received interest from a growing and diverse scientific community . This is primarily driven by its potential for opening new avenues to cheap, low-weight, mechanically flexible, chemically inert and bottom up fabricated spin-devices. The most important advantage of organic materials over their inorganic counterparts is the strong suppression of any efficient spin flipping mechanisms, resulting in extremely long spin lifetimes. Spin orbit coupling is very weak in organic semiconductors, as Carbon has a low atomic number ($Z=12$) and the strength of spin orbit interaction is proportional to $Z^{4}$. Furthermore also the hyperfine interaction is weak in molecules, since there are very few nuclei with non-vanishing magnetic moment in the upper part of the periodic table and the molecular orbitals typically responsible for the electron transport are extended $\pi$-type . A recent experimental work on (La,Sr)MnO$_{3}$(LSMO)/*tris*\[8-hydroxyquinoline\] Aluminum(Alq$_{3}$)/Co tunnel junctions reported a giant tunnel magneto resistance of up to 300% at low temperatures. This is a value that compares well with the best inorganic tunnel junctions and it is attributed to a favorable interaction between the organic molecules and the magnetic metallic surface .

Amongst the various possible materials for organic spintronics, $\pi$-conjugated organic semiconductors appears very appealing . This is because of their very long and relatively temperature independent spin relaxation time and their ability to form good interfaces with metal electrodes when incorporated in spin-valve-like devices. The most relevant structural feature of such polymers is their planar shape. The $\pi$-electron wave function distends from the molecular plane and it can easily interact with the wave function of adjacent molecules. Therefore a face-to-face molecular configuration is usually stabilized through strong $\pi$-$\pi$ bonding and diffusive Van der Waals interaction. This leads to a molecular stacking arrangement resulting in the formation of a low dimensional lattice. Because of this peculiar structural conformation many of the $\pi$-conjugated polymers can be described by simplified one dimensional (1D) model Hamiltonians .

An important aspect for the successful integration of organic semiconductors in magnetic memories and in magnetic switching devices is the feasibility of manipulating the spin orientation in the organic media. This is difficult to achieve in non-magnetic molecules by the tiny non-equilibrium spin population originating from spin injection. In fact the standard techniques for manipulation used in inorganic semiconductors, for example optical methods, are ineffective because of the weak spin-orbit interaction. A more promising option is that of manipulating the internal spin degrees of freedom of the organic medium, when this is magnetic. Intriguingly there is a vast class of molecules, generally known as spin crossover compounds, whose spin state can be changed from low spin to high spin by an external perturbation . Since the crossover transition is entropy driven, it is most typically achieved by increasing the temperature, although also light, pressure and electro-chemical redox reactions can all produce it. Most recently the possibility of spin crossover driven by static electric fields has been proposed theoretically . Notably all these processes occur in compounds incorporating a transition metal \[usually Fe(II)\], which is responsible for the magnetic moment. Thus, it is interesting to explore the possibility of obtaining spin crossover in organic $\pi$-conjugated polymers.

In this work we use a combination of energy minimization techniques and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to investigate the temperature dependent phase diagrams for a model Hamiltonian describing $\pi$-conjugated polymers. In particular, we explore the parameter space of the model in the search of a spin crossover transition. Intriguingly we find that the interplay between on-site Coulomb repulsion and electron-phonon (el-ph) coupling, leading to Peierls distortion, can be responsible for spin crossover.

# Computational Methods

We consider an extended single-site Hubbard-Peierls model for a 1D lattice described by the following Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamiltonian}
\textit{H}&=&\sum_{i\sigma}{\epsilon_{i\sigma} c_{i\sigma}^\dagger c_{i\sigma}}+ \nonumber \\
&+&\sum\limits_{ij}{[t_{ij} +\alpha (q_{i}-q_{j})] (c_{i\sigma}^\dagger c_{j\sigma} + c_{j\sigma}^\dagger c_{i\sigma})} \nonumber + \nonumber \\
&+& U \sum\limits_{i} {\hat{n_{i \uparrow}} \hat{n_{i \downarrow}}} + J_\mathrm{H} \sum\limits_{i\alpha\beta} {\vec{S}_{i}\cdot[c_{i\alpha}^{\dagger}  (\vec{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta}) c_{i\beta} ] }+\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{2} k \sum\limits_{i,j} {(q_{i}-q_{j})^2}
\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{i\sigma}^\dagger$($c_{i\sigma}$) denotes the creation (annihilation) operator for an electron at site $i$ with spin $\sigma$, $\epsilon_{i\sigma}=\epsilon$ is the onsite energy and $t_{ij}$ is the transfer integral for an uniform undimerized lattice. Here we consider only nearest neighbour hopping, i.e. $t_{ij}=t$ for $i=j\pm 1$ and $t_{ij}=0$ for any other $(i,j)$ pair. The other microscopic parameters of the model are the el-ph coupling parameter, $\alpha$, the Hubbard repulsion strength, $U$, the hyperfine exchange $J_\mathrm{H}$, and the elastic constant, $k$. Thus, the second term of the Hamiltonian, in addition to electron hopping, describes the el-ph coupling, with $q_{i}$ being the atomic displacement of site $i$ (we consider 1D longitudinal motion only). The third term is the standard on-site Hubbard repulsion while the fourth one describes a Heisenberg-like interaction between the electron spins, $c_{i\alpha}^{\dagger}  (\vec{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta}) c_{i\beta}$, and a set of classical vectors, $\vec{S}_i$, representing the nuclear spins. Finally the last term is classical elastic energy.

In all our calculations we consider only the half-filling case (one electron per site) so that the model exhibits an insulating behaviour at $T=0$ for an undistorted infinite chain. The data presented here are for 10 site long chains as further tests for longer chains (20 sites) gave rather similar results. Our approach consists in replacing the Hubbard term with its unrestricted mean-field approximation and then in solving the Hamiltonian self-consistently for different lattice displacements $\{q_{i}\}$. Energy minimization is performed by conjugate gradient over $\{q_{i}\}$ and further verified by additional simulated annealing . The bond lengths, $x_{i}$, are calculated from the ground state displacements as $x_{i}=d+q_{i+1}-q_{i}$, where $d$ is the equillibrium bond distance. The main observables calculated are the dimerization parameter, $D$, and the local magnetic moment per site, $m_{i}$. These are defined respectively in Eq.  and Eq.  $$\label{dim}
D = \displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N-2}  |x_{i}-x_{i+1}|+|x_{i+1}-x_{i+2}|\:,$$ $$\label{moment}
m_{i} = |n_{i}^{\uparrow}-n_{i}^{\downarrow}|\:.$$ Note that in Eq.  $n_{i}^{\sigma}$ is the electron spin density at site $i$, which is calculated as the diagonal matrix elements of the density matrix $\hat{\rho}=\sum\limits_{n=1}^\mathrm{occupied}\{|\Psi_{n} \rangle \langle \Psi_{n}|\tfrac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\beta E_{n}}-1} \}$, where $E_{n}$ and $|\Psi_{n}\rangle$ are respectively $n$-th electronic eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Our results are then plotted in a phase-diagram like form, where the different phases are presented as a function of $\alpha$ and $U$.

For finite temperature simulations we consider the system described by the Hamiltonian of Eq.  and evolve the classical dynamical variables $\{q_{i}\}$ and $\{\vec{S}_i\}$ by using the standard Metropolis algorithm . Note that since $J_\mathrm{H}\ll t$ the hyperfine interaction has little effect on the $\alpha$-$U$ phase diagram, so that in what follows we will neglect it unless otherwise indicated. As such the only classical dynamical variables are the atomic displacements $\{q_{i}\}$. In the Metropolis algorithm the acceptance probablity of a new state is unity if the new configuration has an energy lower than that of the old configuration. Otherwise it is given by the Boltzmann factor $\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{ \Delta G}{k_\mathrm{B} T }}$, where $\Delta G$ is the difference in the Gibbs free energy between the old and new configuration. By using the grand-canonical ensemble the Gibbs free energy $G$ can be written as $$\label{gee}
G (\{q_{i}\})=-\dfrac{1}{\beta}\sum_{n=1}^{N_{o}} \ln\left(1+\mathrm{e}^{\:-\beta[E_{n}(\{q_{i}\})-\mu]}\right)\:,$$ where the chemical potential $\mu$ is obtained from $$N = \sum_{n} \dfrac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\beta[E_{n}(\{q_{i}\})-\mu]}+1}\:,$$ with $\beta=\tfrac{1}{k_\mathrm{B}T}$ being the inverse temperature and $N$ the total number of electrons ($N=10$ here). For every value of ($\alpha/t$, $U/t$) and each temperature the system is allowed to reach equilibrium. Then both $D$ and $m_i$ are calculated over several million MC steps.

In what follows we will express all energy related quantities (including the temperature) as a function of $t$, which sets the energy scale of the problem. The on-site energy is taken to be zero and $k$ is 5 $t$/Å$^2$. Note that for $t\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}2.5 eV this corresponds to $k=12.5$ eV/Å$^2$, which is in between the value for the H$_2$ molecule and that of Au monoatomic chains . Also it is important to note that $k>5t/$Å$^2$ is a value commonly used in recent literature about transport in organic polymers .

# Results and Discussion

## Ground State

Let us begin our discussion by investigating the $\alpha$-$U$ phase diagram at $T=0$, which is presented in Fig. . This is populated by four difference phases characterized by the different combined structural and magnetic properties of the chain. In particular there are two magnetic states and two geometrical configurations. For small $\alpha/t$ and $U/t$ the chains are undistorted (the atomic spacing is approximately uniform throughout the chain) and in a non-spin-polarized diamagnetic (DM) state. We denote this phase as DM-undistorted. As $U/t$ increases eventually a spin-polarized solution develops. This is the one expected from the mean field Hubbard model at half-filling, i.e. it is a antiferromagnetic (AFM) phase, where local moments form at each atomic site, but their orientation alternates along the chain. Such an AFM phase may or may not be accompanied by a structural distortion, depending on the value of $\alpha/t$. In general however there is a vast region of the model parameter space, where no significant distortion appears for the AFM spin state. We denote this phase as AFM-undistorted.

As $\alpha/t$ increases for moderate $U/t$ the system progressively developed a Peierls instability and makes a transition to a geometry where long bond distances alternate to short ones. This dimerized phase, expected for the non-interacting case, remains diamagnetic (DM-dimerized) for small $U/t$ but can coexist with a AFM solution for a significant range of parameter. In summary the phase diagram is characterized by a competition between the on-site repulsion, driving the magnetic instability, and the el-ph coupling, driving the Peierls distortion.

In the discussion we have assigned the phase boundary of the magnetic transition to the condition $\sum |m_i|\ne0$. In contrast assigning the phase boundary to the Peierls transition is more complicated since $D$ changes continuously upon increasing $\alpha$. Thus we have used the operational definition of placing the phase boundaries at $D=0.17$, which is interpreted as representative of strong dimerization. The complete evolution of $D$ as a function of $U/t$ and $\alpha/t$ is presented in the right hand side panel of Fig. . The figure clearly reveals the interplay between el-ph coupling and Coulomb repulsion. In fact $D$ grows almost linearly with $\alpha/t$ for small $U/t$ but then is drastically reduced as $U/t$ grows.

## Finite temperature phase diagram

We now move to study the finite temperature properties of our model. These are summarized in Fig. , where we present the $\alpha$-$U$ phase diagram for two representative temperatures, respectively $\beta=200, 400$ 1/eV (these correspond respectively to $T=0.002\:t, 0.001\:t$ or, for $t=2.5$ eV, to $T=58, 29$ K).

The most important feature of the finite temperature plots is the complete absence of a structural phase transition. This means that in general the system does not dimerize any longer as the temperature is increased. The dimerization is instead replaced by a general increase in bond length and by a random distribution of the various bonds along the chain.

More details about the structure of the chains at finite temperature can be found in the right-hand side panes of Fig. , which show the quantity $D$ \[defined in Eq. \] as a function of $U/t$ and $\alpha/t$ for $T=0.001t$ and $0.002t$. Note that at finite temperature the quantity $D$ plotted is a measure of the disorder in the bond distances of the chain as thermal vibrations onset. As such $D$ is maximum at high values of the el-ph coupling and low $U/t$ but falls rapidly as $U/t$ increases.

The second most striking feature of the finite temperature $\alpha$-$U$ phase diagram is the movement of the DM-AFM phase boundary towards lower $U/t$ as the temperature increases. This essentially means that as the temperature grows it takes less on-site Coulomb interaction to drive the system towards a magnetic instability. We further explore this finding in figure , where we present the critical $U$ value, $U_\mathrm{C}$, at which the magnetic phase develops. This effectively represents the position of the DM-AFM phase boundary. In particular $U_\mathrm{C}$ is plotted as a function of the temperature, $T$, and for three different el-ph strengths $\alpha/t$.

In general we find that the DM-AFM phase boundary moves in response to the disappearing of the distorted phase. Thus for the lower value of $\alpha/t$ (0.12), for which there is no distorted phase even at $T=0$, the phase boundary does not change as the temperature is increased and $U_\mathrm{C}$ remains constant at $\sim1.4\:t$. For the larger values of the el-ph interaction strengths investigated the $T=0$ phase diagram presents both a distorted and a homogeneous structural phase depending on $U$. In this case the DM-AFM phase boundary (i.e. $U_\mathrm{C}$) decreases fast at low temperatures in response to the melting of the distorted phase and then becomes essentially constant.

An important consequence of the movement of the DM-AFM phase boundary as the temperature increases is the fact that there is a vast region in the $\alpha$-$U$ diagram where the system makes a DM to AFM transition as the temperature increases. Such a region is the one enclosed between the two vertical lines marking respectively the phase boundary at finite temperature and at $T=0$ in figure . For the particular values of $\alpha$ and $U$ found in such a region (called the spin crossover -SC- region) there is a temperature driven spin crossover. This is analyzed next.

## Spin crossover

We now explain the spin crossover transition by using the standard framework of spin crossover usually employed for magnetic molecules incorporating divalent transition metals . In general the thermodynamically stable phase at finite temperature of a system that can assume different competing configurations is the one with the lowest Gibbs free energy, $G$. For the present case, where the competition is among the DM and the AFM phases, the relevant quantity is the difference, $\Delta G=G_\mathrm{AFM}-G_\mathrm{DM}$, between their Gibbs energies, $$\label{gibbs}
\Delta G=\Delta H-T\Delta S$$ where $\Delta H=H_\mathrm{AFM}-H_\mathrm{DM}$ and $\Delta S=S_\mathrm{AFM}-S_\mathrm{DM}$ are respective the enthalpy and entropy differences.

For standard spin crossover $\Delta H >0$, so that the most stable phase at low temperature in low spin (DM here). However, since the crossover transition is associated to the softening of the phonon modes of the first coordination shell around the transition metal and to the formation of a local magnetic moment, we also have $\Delta S>0$. Hence as the temperature increases the entropic contribution to the Gibbs energy may eventually dominate over the enthalpic one and drive a phase transition. We now want to establish that the same mechanism holds for the spin crossover region of the $\alpha$-$U$ diagram of Fig. .

We have already demonstrated (see figure ) that for $T=0$ the spin crossover region is occupied by the DM phase, meaning that $\Delta H >0$. Therefore one has only left to show that also $\Delta S>0$. In general the entropy comprises of two main contributions, an electronic, $S^\mathrm{\:el}$, and a vibrational one, $S^\mathrm{\:vib}$. Since the AFM phase is characterized by local spins, which are absent for the DM phase, we can immediately conclude that $\Delta S^\mathrm{\:el}=S^\mathrm{\:el}_\mathrm{AFM}-S^\mathrm{\:el}_\mathrm{DM}>0$. A more precise evaluation of $S^\mathrm{\:el}$ can be obtained by computing $$\label{S_el}
S^\mathrm{\:el}= -k_\mathrm{B} \mathrm{Tr}[\hat{\rho} \ln \hat{\rho}]\:,$$ where $\hat{\rho}$ is the system density matrix. The calculated $\Delta S^\mathrm{\:el}$ as a function of $U/t$ for the representative value of $\alpha/t=1$, for which the spin crossover region is quite large, is presented in figure . The electron densities entering the evaluation of $S^\mathrm{\:el}$ have been calculated as follows. For the low temperature phase (DM) $\rho$ is calculated by fixing the occupation to $n_i=1/2$ for every site and the geometry is that obtained from the $T=0$ diagram. In contrast the entropy of the high-temperature phase is computed from a density matrix in which the occupation is fixed to the proper antiferromagnetic state (the temperature is $T=0.001t$) and the geometry is again that of the $T=0$ solution. We have checked that the finite temperature geometry is rather similar to that obtained at $T=0$ for such a density-constraint solution.

The general trend can be understood as follows. For small values of $U/t$ there is no local magnetic moment formation, regardless of the chain geometry, so that $\Delta S^\mathrm{\:el} = 0$. Then, as $U/t$ gets larger a local magnetic moment gradually appears at each site, producing a linear increase of $\Delta S^\mathrm{\:el}$. Such an increases continues until the local moment reaches the maximum value compatible with the chosen electron filling, which is 1 $\mu_\mathrm{B}$ ($\mu_\mathrm{B}$ is the Bohr magneton) for half-filling. At this point there is no further change in the electronic entropy and $\Delta S^\mathrm{\:el}$ saturates to a positive value.

Similarly we can also estimate the vibrational contribution to the entropy. This is obtained from the molecule phonon spectrum, $\hbar\omega_i$, as $$\label{S_vib}
S^\mathrm{\:vib}= k_\mathrm{B} \ln \sum\limits_{i}^{N_{v}} \frac{1}{e^{\beta \hbar \omega_{i}}-1} + k_\mathrm{B}\beta \sum\limits_{i}^{N_{v}} \hbar \omega_{i}\:,$$ where $\omega_i$ is the vibration frequency of the $i$-th mode and $N_v$ is the total number of modes. We calculate the phonon spectra of the AFM and DM configurations by diagonalizing the associated dynamical matrices. These are constructed by finite difference, i.e. by displacing the atomic sites by a small fraction of the equilibrium bond length (0.1 %) and then by numerically evaluating the energy gradient (the force) associated to such a displacement. The density matrices and the initial geometries used to construct the finite difference dynamical matrices are the same used for calculating the electronic contribution to the entropy. Also in this case $\Delta S^\mathrm{\:vib}$ as a function of $U/t$ for $\alpha/t=1$ is presented in figure .

In general the vibrational contribution to the entropy difference shows only a small dependence on the Coulomb on-site repulsion and approximately $\Delta S^\mathrm{\:vib}\sim0$. However we also report a relatively sharp decreases as $U/t$ approaches 1.7. This is value close to $U_\mathrm{C}$ for $T=0$, i.e. corresponds to a region in the parameter space where our Monte Carlo analysis does not find a DM-AFM transition and therefore system remains in the AFM state at any of the temperatures investigated.

In summary the picture emerging from figure  is that of a region $0.84t<U<1.85t$ in which $\Delta S$ is always positive. This is the only region of the parameter space where the entropy can drive the spin crossover and substantially matches the spin crossover region observed in our Monte Carlo simulations (see Fig. ). We then conclude that also in this case, where the magnetic moment is not associated to the $d$ shell of a transition metal, the spin crossover is entropy driven.

Finally before summarizing, we wish to comment on the rôle played by the hyperfine interaction. In general we expect very little changes to the phase diagram obtained by neglecting the hyperfine contribution to the total energy, since this is rather small for realistic hyperfine coupling strengths. In particular we have verified that minor modifications to the $T=0$ phase diagram start to appear for $J_\mathrm{H}$ is the region of $0.01\:t$, which corresponds to local magnetic fields of 10$^7$ T (considering $|\vec{S}_i|=1$ and $t$ of the order of 1 eV).

# Conclusion

In summary we have discussed the phase diagram of an extended Hubbard-Peierls model chosen to emulate the electronic structure of $\pi-$conjugated polymer chains. The model has been explored both in its $T=0$ ground state and at finite temperature by Monte Carlo methods combined with a mean field treatment of the Hubbard many-body interaction. At $T=0$ the model presents four different phases depending on the relative strength of the Coulomb on-site repulsion $U/t$ and the el-ph coupling strength $\alpha/t$. The four phases are characterized either by a diamagnetic or an antiferromagnetic magnetic state and by the possible presence of a dimerized geometrical configuration. By increasing the temperature the structural distortion disappears and only the phase boundary between the DM and the AFM solution remains. Intriguingly the position in the $\alpha$-$U$ parameter space of such a phase boundary changes with temperature so that there is a region of parameters where a temperature driven DM-AFM spin crossover transition can be found. We have investigated the nature of the phase transition by calculating the relative entropy of the different magnetic phases and found that this is indeed entropy driven as in the most conventional case of divalent magnetic molecules. This suggests that $\pi$-type magnetism can be achieved in organic polymers and that this can be tuned by temperature.

# Acknowledgments

This work is sponsored by Science Foundation of Ireland CSET grant underpinning CRANN. Computational resources have been provided by the HEA IITAC project managed by the Trinity Centre for High Performance Computing.


abstract: **Cosmic ray energy spectra exhibit power law distributions over many orders of magnitude that are very well described by the predictions of $q$-generalized statistical mechanics, based on a $q$-generalized Hagedorn theory for transverse momentum spectra and hard QCD scattering processes. QCD at largest center of mass energies predicts the entropic index to be $q=\frac{13}{11}$. Here we show that the escort duality of the nonextensive thermodynamic formalism predicts an energy split of effective temperature given by $\Delta kT =\pm \frac{1}{10} kT_H \approx \pm 18$ MeV, where $T_H$ is the Hagedorn temperature. We carefully analyse the measured data of the AMS-02 collaboration and provide evidence that the predicted temperature split is indeed observed, leading to a different energy dependence of the $e^+$ and $e^-$ spectral indices. We also observe a distinguished energy scale $E^* \approx 50$ GeV where the $e^+$ and $e^-$ spectral indices differ the most. Linear combinations of the escort and non-escort $q$-generalized canonical distributions yield excellent agreement with the measured AMS-02 data in the entire energy range.**
author: G. Cigdem Yalcin$\,^1$ and Christian Beck$\,^{2*}$
title: Generalized statistical mechanics of cosmic rays: Application to positron-electron spectral indices

# Introduction

Statistical mechanics is a universal formalism based on the maximization of the Boltzmann-Gibbs-Shannon entropy subject to suitable constraints. Despite its universal validity and success for short-range equilibrium systems, the applicability of the Boltzmann-Gibbs formalism has severe restrictions: It is not valid for nonequilibrium systems, it is not valid for systems with long-range interactions (such as gravity), and it is not valid for systems with a very small volume and fluctuating temperature (as probed in scattering processes of cosmic ray particles at very high energies). For these types of complex systems it is useful to generalize the formalism to a more general setting, based on the maximization of more general entropy measures which contain the Shannon entropy as a special case. Probably the most popular one of these generalizations is based on $q$-entropy (or Tsallis entropy), which leads to power law distributions (the so-called $q$-exponentials), but other generalized entropic approaches are possible as well . In high energy physics, a recent success of the $q$-generalized approach is that excellent fits of measured transverse momentum spectra in high energy scattering experiments have been obtained , based on an extension of Hagedorn's theory to a $q$-generalized version and a generalized thermodynamic theory . This includes recent experiments in the TeV region for $pp$ and $p\bar{p}$ collisions , but there is also early work on cosmic ray spectra and $e^+e^-$ annihilation .

In this paper we systematically investigate the relevant degrees of freedom of the $q$-generalized statistical mechanics formalism at highest center of mass energies and develop an effective theory of energy spectra of cosmic rays, which are produced by scattering processes at extremely high energies (e.g. supernovae explosions). Some remarkable predictions come out of the formalism in its full generality. First of all, the parameter $q$ is not an arbitrary fitting parameter but fixed at highest center of mass energies— by comparing the predicted power law decay for transverse momentum spectra with the hard QCD parton scattering amplitude . In the parametrization we use in the current paper this leads to $q=\frac{13}{11}=1.1818$. Next, the average temperature parameter for QCD scattering processes and subsequent hadronization is theoretically expected to be the Hagedorn temperature, it cannot be varied either but is fixed by theory. In fact, in this paper we will show that in full generality the $q$-generalized statistical mechanics predicts a small temperature splitting close to the Hagedorn temperature, by applying the escort and non-escort formalism of the theory (a manifestation of the so-called $q$-duality of the generalized statistical mechanics ). Remarkably, this temperature split prediction of the theory is confirmed by the recent AMS-02 measurements of fluxes for cosmic ray electrons and positrons, as we will show in this paper. The small temperature split leads to a different behavior of electron and positron spectral indices as a function of energy, which so far was not understood, but is here identified as a feature of the generalized statistical mechanics formalism.

# Background and previous work

Let us motivate the use of generalized statistical mechanics as an effective theory for cosmic rays in a bit more detail. Generally, it is well known that a large variety of different physical processes contribute to the observed spectrum of cosmic rays at the Earth. First of all, there is the primary statistics generated by the primary production and acceleration process of cosmic rays in sources such as supernovae, active galactic nuclei, heavy stars with stellar winds, or even the big bang itself. Not much is known about the primary production process, but of course QCD scattering processes at extremely high energies will play an important role. The primary spectrum is then modified by subsequent propagation through the interstellar medium, where magnetic turbulence, ionization, Coulomb interactions, Bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton and synchrotron processes play an important role, as well as fragmentation in the interstellar medium. There is not just one process but a whole spectrum of many different complex processes involved, which suggests the use of generalized statistical mechanics as an effective theory. Finally, when entering the heliosphere the cosmic ray flux is further modulated by solar activity .

QCD scattering and selfsimilar hadronic fragmentation processes have been previously successfully described by $q \not= 1$ theories , and applied to data taken at LHC . It is precisely these types of scattering processes that we postulate as main ingredients to imprint on the momentum spectrum of primary cosmic rays, an initial spectrum set by QCD that in its main features is basically conserved, while other important processes then only yield small perturbations of the initial spectrum set by QCD, at least in a statistical sense. Still subtle differences between electron and positron statistics are possible, as well as deviations from simple QCD behavior, which we will discuss in more detail in the following sections.

Among phenomenological approaches to understand high energy cascading scattering processes, power laws associated with Tsallis statistics are by now widely used by many groups . In fact they yield surprisingly good fits of a variety of data sets for different systems. This approach uses the assumption that the highly excited and fragmented states formed in high energy collisions follow Tsallis statistics instead of Boltzmann statistics. Initially only regarded as a mathematical playground for more general versions of statistical mechanics, based on the maximization of more general entropy measures , the approach has more recently led to more sophisticated theories which do produce excellent agreement with experimental data, much more beyond the original fitting approach. Recent models are now going much more in-depth on which specific type of formalism is appropriate, and relate the entropic index to QCD scattering processes in the perturbative regime . But also the nonperturbative regime is accessible, where the generalized statistical mechanics formalism arises out of the self-similarity of the fragmentation process and can be related to the fractal-like structure of hadrons within the MIT bag model for hadron structure . Moreover, Tsallis statistics is generally well-known to be highly relevant for velocity distributions in astrophysical plasmas (here these distributions come under the name *Kappa-distributions*, see, e.g., for a recent review). Importantly, an entropic index $q \not= 1$ can also arise from nonequilibrium dynamics, in particular from suitable spatio-temporal fluctuations of an intensive parameter such as the local (inverse) temperature (the superstatistics approach , as developed by Beck and Cohen (see note in the acknowledgements)). In this paper, for the very first time, we apply these techniques borrowed from generalized statistical mechanics to analyse the AMS-02 data sets.

# Results

## $q$-dualities and theoretical prediction of a temperature split

While there are by now many different versions of the nonextensive formalism in high energy physics, each describing different aspects of different scattering systems, for cosmic rays consisting of electrons and positrons we start from one of the simplest versions: As in early work on cosmic ray data we start from $q$-generalized canonical distributions of the form $$p(E)\sim \frac{E^2}{(1+(q-1)\beta_0 E)^\frac{1}{q-1}}.
\label{1}$$ Here $q$ is the entropic index and $\beta_0$ is an inverse temperature parameter. $E$ is the energy of the particle. For $q \rightarrow 1$ the ordinary Maxwell Boltzmann distribution

$$p(E)\sim {E^2}e^{-\beta_0 E}
\label{xxx}$$ is recovered. The above distributions are $q$-generalized canonical distributions in the nonextensive formalism, $E^2$ is a phase space factor. They maximize Tsallis entropy $S_q=\frac{1}{q-1} \sum_i (1-p_i^q)$ subject to suitable constraints . They generate power law distributions for large energies $E$ and are thus very well suited to fit power law distributions observed in cosmic ray physics. Defining the spectral index $\gamma$ by $\gamma := d \log p(E)/ d \log E$ we obtain the result that a single distribution of the form eq. () generates the spectral index $$\gamma (E) =2-\frac{\beta_0 E}{1+(q-1)\beta_0 E} \to 2 - \frac{1}{q-1} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (\beta_0 E \to \infty)$$

A physical motivation for the occurrence of the above asymptotic power-law distributions can be given by the superstatistics approach, which quite generally describes the effect of big temperature fluctuations in nonequilibrium situations . We can write eq. () in the equivalent form $$\int_0^\infty d \beta f(\beta) E^2 e^{-\beta E}
=\frac{E^2}{(1+(q-1)\beta_0 E)^{1/(q-1)}}$$ where $f(\beta)$ is a $\chi^2$ distribution with $N=2/(q-1)$ degrees of freedom and $\beta_0= \int_0^\infty d\beta \, \beta f(\beta)=\langle \beta \rangle$ is the average of a fluctuating random variable $\beta$ that is distributed with $f(\beta)$. One can easily check that $q=\langle \beta^2 \rangle/\beta_0^2$, so $q-1$ is a measure of the width of the inverse temperature fluctuations . The physical interpretation is that power law Boltzmann factors $(1+(q-1)\beta_0 E)^{-1/(q-1)}$ arise from ordinary Boltzmann factors $e^{-\beta E}$ in nonequilibrium situations where there is a distribution $f(\beta)$ of inverse temperatures $\beta$, after integrating over all possible $\beta$ weighted with $f(\beta)$. The relevance of temperature fluctuations in cosmic ray physics has been previously emphasized in .

Our main goal in the following is to derive physically plausible values for $q$ and $\beta_0$ for cosmic ray energy spectra, in particular for $e^+$ and $e^-$ cosmic rays, and to proceed to linear combinations of distributions of type (). To this end we assume that the underlying primary production process of the cosmic rays is QCD parton scattering at largest possible energies. Essentially protons (which make up the dominant component of cosmic rays) collide at extremely high energies and produce other particles in the process. In these high energy scattering processes and subsequent hadronisation cascades a large number of baryons and anti-baryons as well as mesons are produced. These hadrons ultimately decay to stable particles, including electrons and positrons, which continue their way as cosmic rays, but imprinted on their statistical transverse momentum distribution is the original high-energy scattering and hadronisation process that took place at the Hagedorn temperature.

Wong et al. have derived that for hard parton QCD scattering processes the asymptotic power law dependence of the cross section imposed by the leading QCD scattering amplitude is $E \frac{d^3 \sigma}{d p^3} \sim E^{-\frac{9}{2}}$ (see their eqs. (45) and (46) in ) which in our parametrization using the phase space factor $E^2$ implies $p(E)\sim{E^{-\frac{7}{2}}}.$ Thus QCD at largest energies fixes in our formula (1) the parameter $q$ to be $$2-\frac{1}{q-1}=-\frac{7}{2}\Leftrightarrow q=\frac{13}{11}=1.1818
\label{4}$$

For QCD scattering processes, the average temperature $1/\beta_0$ should be essentially given by the Hagedorn temperature. To get the precise relation, we recall that in the nonextensive formalism there is a second important canonical distribution, the so-called escort distribution . This is given by $$\hat{p}(E)\sim E^2\frac{1}{(1+(\hat{q}-1)\hat{\beta_0}E)^\frac{\hat{q}}{\hat{q}-1}}
\label{5}$$ where $\hat{q}$ and $\hat{\beta_0}$ are the entropic index and inverse temperature parameter for the escort distribution. Basically, the escort distribution is obtained by raising all given microstate probabilities $p_i$ to the power $q$ and renormalizing this distribution (see for details). In this way, for any $q\not= 1$ two degrees of freedoms arise out of the generalized statistical mechanics treatment: Escort distributions and non-escort distributions. Both formalisms can be mapped onto each other, this is called the *escort duality*. The escort duality can also be understood in terms of superstatistics, a related concept was called type-A and type-B superstatistics in . There are actually two $q$-dualities in the nonextensive formalism, corresponding to the replacements $q \to 2-q$ and $q\to 1/q$. These are sometimes called *additive* and *multiplicative* duality , and they can be combined to give the *escort* duality $q \to 2-\frac{1}{q}$.

In our case, QCD fixes the power law index $$n:=\frac{1}{q-1}=\frac{\hat{q}}{\hat{q}-1}
\label{6}$$ to $n=\frac{11}{2}$ at largest energies. From this we derive a relation between $q$ and $\hat{q}$: $$q=2-\frac{1}{\hat{q}}  \Leftrightarrow  \hat{q}=\frac{1}{2-q}
\label{7}$$ which is just the escort duality. The distributions $p(E)$ given in eq. () and $\hat{p}(E)$ given in eq. () describe the same physics and should be the same, no matter whether we mathematically use the escort or non-escort formalism. This yields a relation between the inverse temperature parameters $\beta_0$ and $\hat{\beta_0}$: $$(q-1)\beta_0=(\hat{q}-1)\hat{\beta_0},
\label{8}$$ which can be solved to give $\hat{\beta_0}=\frac{q-1}{\hat{q}-1}\beta_0 =(2-q)\beta_0$. In terms of average temperature $kT=\beta_0^{-1}$ the fixed index $n$ implies the existence of two different temperature parameters: $$\hat{T}=\frac{1}{2-q}T
\label{10}$$

If we define the Hagedorn temperature $T_H$ as the average of these two degrees of freedom,

$$T_H=\frac{1}{2}(\hat{T}+T)
\label{15}$$ we obtain $T_H=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{2-q}+1)T
=\frac{1}{2}  \frac{3-q}{2-q}T$. It then follows $T=2  \frac{2-q}{3-q}T_H,$ and $\hat{T}= \frac{2}{3-q}T_H$ so that $\Delta T :=\hat{T}-T_H= \frac{q-1}{3-q}T_H$. In particular, for the QCD hard scattering processes with $n=\frac{11}{2}$ we have $q=\frac{13}{11}=1.1818$, $\hat{q}=\frac{11}{9}=1.2222$ and the predicted split in temperature is given by $$T=\frac{9}{10}T_H=T_H-\frac{1}{10}T_H,
\label{21}$$

$$\hat{T}=\frac{11}{10}T_H=T_H+\frac{1}{10}T_H.
\label{22}$$ This means that two different effective temperatures degrees of freedom come out of the formalism, and this is an experimentally testable prediction that one can check on the measured cosmic ray data. There are slight uncertainties in the knowledge of the precise value of the Hagedorn temperature in the literature, for our fits in the following we use the value $kT_H=$ 180 MeV as in , getting $kT$=162 MeV and $k\hat{T}$=198 MeV.

The main idea of our derivation of the above temperature split is that in the $q$-generalized formalism the physical meaning is not directly connected with the entropic index $q$ but with the power law exponent $n$, since the latter one is directly measurable. However, it does not matter if one writes $n$ in either the form $n=1/(q-1)$ or $n=q/(q-1)$. But if one does both then the temperature must be different in each of these cases, as shown above. This temperature splitting occurs only for $q\not= 1$, whereas ordinary statistical mechanics with $q=1$ has a temperature fixed point.

## Comparison with AMS-02 measurements

Let us now compare our theoretical predictions with the measurements of the AMS-02 collaboration . Fig. 1 shows that formula (1) with the predicted $q$-value $q=\frac{13}{11}$ and the two predicted temperatures $T$=$T_H$$\pm\frac{1}{10}T_H$ yields an excellent fit of the AMS data up to energies of about 50 GeV. Remarkably, electrons are described by $\hat{T}$=$\frac{11}{10}T_H$ and positrons by $T$=$\frac{9}{10}T_H$, thus giving physical meaning to the two degrees of freedom that come out of the generalized statistical mechanics theory. The fits are very sensitive to the $q$-values used, up to 3-4 digits of precision in $q$ can be distinguished, confirming the QCD value $q=1.1818$ derived from theory, as well as the predicted temperature split.

The error bars of the data that are plotted in Fig. 1 (as listed by AMS-02) are small, when these error bars are plotted in our logarithmic plot, they are of the same order of magnitude as the size of the symbols, and have therefore been omitted in our Fig. 1 for reasons of better visibility. Note that in Fig. 1 all parameters used are predicted, and not fitted. Excellent agreement is obtained up to energies of about 50 GeV. The only fitting parameters used in Fig. 1 is the absolute strength of the flux (corresponding to the vertical position of the curves in the logarithmic plots): The electron flux amplitude $A_-=770$ is about 7 times stronger than the positron amplitude $A_+=115$.

Our $q$-generalized statistical mechanics has no tool to predict the amplitude parameters $A_\pm$ from first principles, it can only give predictions on the shape of the spectrum, given some fixed amplitude parameter for a given particle species. The conventional wisdom to explain why $A_- >> A_+$ is that electrons are mainly produced in the primary acceleration process, whereas positrons are believed to be mainly secondary particles arising from collisions with the interstellar plasma. An alternative approach, more in line with what we see from the actual fits of the $e^+$ and $e^-$ spectra, would be that both positrons and electrons are initially produced in the same primary QCD cascading process with similar amplitude (and with the same $q$-value and only a slightly different Hagedorn temperature), but that then an energy-independent absorption process sets in where anti-particles (positrons) have a higher probability of being absorbed than particles (electrons), leading finally to the observed ratio $A_+/A_- \approx 1/7$. One might speculate that this absorption process has to do with the (unknown) process that leads to CP symmetry breaking in the universe and the dominance of matter over anti-matter abundance. As said, a full understanding of the amplitude ratio $A_+/A_-$ is out of reach of our simple statistical mechanics model, but has been the subject of other papers.

Another important feature to discuss, important for the low-energy end of the spectrum, are solar modulation effects. At low energies (typically $E \leq 1$ GeV) the flux of $e^+$ and $e^-$ varies in time due to the changing pattern of solar activity, thus making the measured flux of electron and positron cosmic rays time dependent. Solar modulations occur because of interactions of cosmic rays entering the solar heliosphere; they are due to charge sign dependent propagation in the solar magnetic field. For a review, see . It is clear that our prediction, based on a simple statistical mechanics model which does not know about this effect, cannot give quantitative predictions related to the solar modulation effects. What is measured in the experimental data is the time-integrated effect, but this effect is not zero but always depletes the spectrum at very low energies. What our analysis and the good agreement with the data seems to indicate is that the averaged effect of solar modulation is negligible at energies down to around 1 GeV, at least in the logarithmic scale that is being used in Fig. 1.

Let us use previous work to estimate the order of magnitude of the expected solar periodic modulation. Fig. 20 of (based on PAMELA data) indicates that at an energy of 0.7 GeV, the lowest energy considered in our Fig. 1, the half-yearly measured flow changes by a factor of up to 1.5, due to the solar modulation effect. Although the effect is highly significant for a detailed understanding of the time dependence of the low-energy spectra, a factor of 1.5 is hardly visible in the logarithmic plot of our Fig. 1, where it just leads to a shift of the data that has the same order of magnitude as the symbol size, given the logarithmic scale of the figure. That said, an interesting future project would be a precision comparison of the time-dependent fitting parameters of the generalized statistical mechanics approach with time-dependent data as presented e.g. in .

Let us now proceed to higher energies. In Fig. 2 it is shown that at an energy of the order 50 GeV our formula based on a single $q$-exponential as given in eq. () starts to deviate significantly from the measured flux data. Positrons start to deviate earlier than electrons. We will later give a suitable definition of a joint transition point by analysing the ratio of local positron and electron spectral indices, which is an amplitude-independent quantity.

Apparently, an additional process starts to contribute to the cosmic ray flux for energies $E$ larger than about 50 GeV. We found that this crossover is very well described by a linear combination of generalized canonical distributions where the entropic index takes on two values, namely the QCD value $13/11=1.1818$ and the escort value $11/9=1.2222$, evaluated at temperature $T$ for positrons and $\hat{T}$ for electrons. Fig. 3 shows that in the entire energy range the measured cosmic ray flux is very well fitted by the linear combination

$$\! \! \! \! P_\pm (E)=A_\pm (\frac{E^2}{(1+(q-1)\beta_0 E)^\frac{1}{q-1}}+C_\pm \frac{E^2}{(1+(\hat{q}-1)\beta_0 E)^\frac{1}{\hat{q}-1}})
\label{24}$$ where $C_+\approx$ 0.04 for positrons, $C_-\approx$ 0.0053 for electrons, and $\beta_0=T^{-1}$, respectively $\hat{T}^{-1}$.

Apparently, the power law exponent $-\frac{1}{\hat{q}-1}=-4.5$ is larger than the power law exponent $-\frac{1}{q-1}=-5.5$, and hence the former term dominates the large energy behavior if $E\rightarrow\infty$. The crossover scale observed in the AMS data is roughly 50 GeV. We may physically interpret this crossover again as an effect of the two degrees of freedom (escort and non-escort) that are predicted by the $q$-generalized statistical mechanics formalism: The physically relevant generalized canonical distribution is a mixed state of both, and hence at smaller energies the behavior is dominated by the power law exponent $\frac{1}{q-1}$, whereas at higher energies it is dominated by $\frac{1}{\hat{q}-1}$.

Let us summarize the main assumptions underlying our approach. The generalized statistical mechanics presented in this paper gives concrete predictions on the shape of the flux spectrum as a function of observed energy of the particles, but it relies on the assumption that mainly QCD scattering and fragmentation process determine the shape of the spectrum, whereas other processes are either neglected or absorbed in terms of an effective description. While we do predict general spectral shapes based on generalized statistical mechanics methods, we certainly cannot give predictions on the size of the absolute flow of particles as modified by the local astrophysical environment. In particular, very low energy spectra of electrons in the MeV region (such as those discussed in ) are certainly out of reach of the current formalism.

The generalized statistical mechanics model applies to both primary and secondary production processes of electrons and positrons, just the relevant parameter $q$ is different, depending on the center of mass energy $E_{CMS}$ considered. In particle physics scattering processes at typical LHC center of mass energies $E_{CMS}$ in the TeV region, $q$ is observed to be typically around $q \approx 1.10$ , and one has theoretical predictions that for $E_{CMS} \to \infty$, $q$ should approach 1.22 . The latter value fits much better the observed cosmic ray spectra, hence our conjecture is that both electron and positron spectra get their $q \approx 1.2$ imprinted already in the primary production process, at significantly higher energies than the TeV region. The secondary scattering processes then have a $q$ more in the region like the LHC data, $q\approx 1.1$, so this secondary power law decays stronger and can thus be neglected as compared to the primary power spectrum which decays slower since $q$ is bigger. Generally, the power laws decay as $E^{2-\frac{1}{q-1}}$, so the largest $q$ dominates the relevant spectrum. In this context it is interesting to note that at very large center of mass energies the existence of both a limiting $q$ and a limiting $\beta$ has been predicted on the basis of thermodynamic consistency relations. A systematic comparison with LHC scattering data for various particle species was presented in .

## WIMP annihilation and other new physics

An observed crossover feature in the cosmic ray flux pattern of particles and anti-particles such as the one in Fig. 3 can have many origins, ranging from conventional astrophysical explanations to more speculative explanations such as dark matter annihilations and/or decay. Let us here concentrate on a possible interpretation in terms of WIMP physics, following the ideas presented in . If there is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) underlying dark matter, then WIMP annihilation and/or WIMP decay can modify the relative abundance of $e^+$ and $e^-$ flux. In particular, a distinct change of behavior of the flux is expected at a threshold energy given by the WIMP mass. Presently WIMP masses of $\sim 50$ GeV near the $Z^{\circ}$ pole are still consistent with particle collider experiments in a variety of models and have been proposed as an explanation for the observed $\gamma$-ray excess from the center of the galaxy . Also, a recent analysis of the AMS-02 antiproton flux data appears to be consistent with a WIMP mass of about 50 GeV . Interestingly, our fit of the electron positron data seems to indicate $A_-C_-=A_+C_+$, meaning the excess flux contribution starting to dominate in eq. () from 50 GeV onwards has the same amplitude for electrons and positrons.

To better characterize the crossover point, we define it as the point where the spectral indices $\gamma_+$ and $\gamma_-$ of positrons and electrons differ the most: $|\gamma_+-\gamma_-|=max$ implies that $\gamma_+/\gamma_-$ has a minimum. Fig. 4 shows the ratio $\gamma_{+}(E)/\gamma_{-}(E)$ as a function of energy $E$ as measured by AMS-02 (the error bars of the ratio were estimated by standard methods). We observe that there is a local minimum at $E=E^*=(50 \pm 10)$ GeV, at this special point we have $\gamma_+-\gamma_-=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\gamma_+/\gamma_-=0.8462=11/13=q^{-1}$ (Fig. 3 in indicates $\gamma_+=-2.75$ and $\gamma_-=-3.25$). It is remarkable that the unknown crossover process taking place at $E^*$ satisfies $\gamma_+(E^*)=\hat{\gamma} -\frac{1}{4}$ and $\gamma_-(E^*)=\gamma +\frac{1}{4}$, so there is an antisymmetric correction $\pm \frac{1}{4}$ to the scaling exponents $\gamma=2-\frac{1}{q-1}$ and $\hat{\gamma}=2-\frac{1}{\hat{q}-1}$ associated with $q=13/11$ and $\hat{q}=11/9$. Fig. 4 indicates that over a wide range of energies centered around $E^*=50$ GeV the ratio $\gamma_+/\gamma_-$ exhibits a quadratic logarithmic energy dependence, $$\frac{\gamma_+}{\gamma_-}(E)=q^{-1}+C \left( \ln \frac{E}{E^*} \right)^2 \label{para}$$ where $q=13/11$, $C=0.037$. The minimum at $E^*$ corresponds to a distinguished superstatistical state satisfying $N_-=N_++1$, i.e. the $\chi^2$-distributions of inverse temperatures that are relevant for electrons and positrons differ by precisely 1 degree of freedom at this point. Physically this could be interpreted in terms of an additional particle degree of freedom that does influence the temperature fluctuations and is seen by electrons, but not by positrons.

$\;$

$\;$

Note that QCD on its own (without any $q$-generalized statistical mechanics) predicts the same spectral indices $\gamma_+= \gamma_-$ for positrons and electrons. But the AMS-02 data (and previous data from PAMELA ) have shown that there is a significant difference between spectral indices of electrons and positrons, an asymmetry that is not fully understood so far. Whatever the theoretical explanation, the measured difference $|\gamma_+- \gamma_-|(E)$ as a function of energy can be regarded as a measure of the significance of the new physics underlying this difference. We see from the data analysed in Fig. 4 that the deviation is strongest at $E=E^* \approx 50$ GeV. This observation is based on the measured AMS-02 data and is independent of any model assumption. It is intriguing to notice that the deviation is strongest at a mass scale that is the same as the extracted WIMP mass for other data sets such as the $\gamma$ ray flux from the center of the galaxy and the antiproton flux data .

Summarizing, our analysis of the very precise AMS-02 data has shown that for cosmic rays with an energy below the order of magnitude 50 GeV the observed statistics of both electrons and positrons is well described by what one would expect from QCD at largest possible center of mass energies $E_{CMS} \to \infty$, a $q$-statistics with $q=13/11$ (equivalent to a power law decay with exponent -5.5), and a temperature given by the Hagedorn temperature but with a small split in temperature, as expected from the $q$-generalized formalism in its full generality. While there are certainly important further processes for electrons and positrons on their way to Earth, such as e.g. energy loss by inverse Compton and synchrotron processes, our data analysis suggests that these additional processes do not significantly modify the primary entropic index $q$ set by QCD at largest center of mass scattering energies. Indeed generalized statistical mechanics with $q \not= 1$ has been shown in many previous papers to be relevant for QCD and hadronization cascades, but less so for electromagnetic interaction processes which are better embedded into ordinary $q=1$ statistical mechanics. So our main hypothesis, supported by the data, is that the primary entropic index $q\not=1$ set by QCD is essentially conserved, at least in a statistical sense, even if many further electrodynamical processes accompany the individual electrons and positrons on their way to Earth. But QCD alone cannot explain the spectra measured by AMS-02 in the high-energy region: What we actually observe is a transition point around $E^* \approx 50$ GeV where the observed power law decay exponent switches from $-5.5$ to $-4.5$, and where one needs an additional mechanism to explain the excess of electrons and positrons as compared to the original QCD prediction. As WIMPs can decay into $e^+e^-$ it is natural to associate this observed increased flux to some new physics associated with WIMP decay. However, very recent experiments seem to provide growing evidence that WIMPs might not exist at all . In this case a more conservative interpretation of the transition would be that both escort and non-escort distributions are realized in QCD scattering processes, with a crossover scale $E^*$ where the escort index $-4.5$ starts to dominate the behavior.

# Discussion

In this paper we have applied $q$-generalized statistical mechanics methods to high energy scattering processes, which lie at the root of the production process of cosmic rays. These QCD scattering processes are thermodynamically described by the Hagedorn temperature, they are very similar in their momentum characteristics to the collision processes of TeV protons that are performed in experiments on the Earth , except that they can take place at much higher center of mass energy. Stable particles such as electrons and positrons finally arise out of the hadronisation cascade by decays of pions, neutrons and other hadrons, and they memorize the momentum statistics of the Hagedorn fire ball. In this paper we carefully investigated the discrete degrees of freedom that are contained in the $q$-generalized statistical mechanics describing this. We showed that there are basically two degrees of freedom in the formalism that correspond to escort and non-escort distributions, and which allowed us to identify different statistical behavior of particle and anti-particle degrees of freedom, as observed in the measured cosmic ray spectra.

When comparing with the experimental data, the result of our analysis were two distinct energy scales: A large energy scale of about $(50 \pm 10)$ GeV, where the spectral indices of $e^+$ and $e^-$ differ the most, and a small energy scale of about $(18\pm 1)$ MeV, which corresponds to a splitting of the effective Hagedorn temperature. The former energy scale sets the scale where the escort distribution power law starts to dominate the non-escort power law. The latter energy leads to a slightly different temperature statistics for electrons and positrons.

An interesting observation is that the theoretically predicted and experimentally observed split in Hagedorn temperature of $\frac{q-1}{3-q}kT_H \approx (18\pm 1)$ MeV coincides with the mass scale of the recently postulated protophobic gauge boson . A physical interpretation could be that some of the kinetic energy represented by the Hagedorn temperature is either absorbed or enhanced by this exotic postulated protophobic gauge boson should it exist. This would potentially be a quantum manifestation of the observed temperature split. By definition a protophobic gauge boson as introduced in couples to neutrons but not to protons. Assuming that electrons in cosmic rays arise to a significant part from $\beta$-decays of neutrons, then this could influence the observed momentum statistics and effectively lead to a slight asymmetry in the temperature statistics of electrons (which arise from neutron decays) as compared to that of positrons (which don't). While the existence of the protophobic gauge boson still requires independent experimental verification, it is interesting that the $q$-generalized Hagedorn theory allows for a possible embedding of these types of energy scales close to the Hagedorn temperature.

To conclude, we have shown that the different energy dependence of the spectral indices of positron and electron cosmic rays is well explained by a $q$-generalized Hagedorn theory. The value of the parameter $q=13/11$ and the relevant temperature parameters were derived, they are not fitting parameters but theoretically determined and appear to be in excellent agreement with the measurements of the AMS-02 collaboration for $E< E^*$. The generalized statistical mechanics formalism together with the AMS-02 data analysed indicates the existence of two energy scales that could be potentially associated with new physics, a low-energy temperature split in Hagedorn temperature given by $\frac{1}{10} kT_H\simeq 18$ MeV and a crossover scale $E^*\simeq 50$ GeV where a process beyond QCD sets in, of unknown nature. These two energy scales appear to coincide with the mass scale of the recently postulated protophobic gauge boson and the mass scale of a WIMP that could explain the excess of $\gamma$ rays from the galactic center .

# Acknowledgements

We dedicate this paper to the memory of Prof. E.G.D. Cohen, Boltzmann medalist of the year 2004, who made many outstanding research contributions in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics and superstatistical approaches, and who passed away on 24 September 2017.

G.C.Y. gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of Queen Mary University of London, School of Mathematical Sciences, during a research visit in 2017. C.B.'s research is supported by EPSRC under grant number EP/N013492/1.


abstract: We conducted an empirical analysis into the relation between control and discourse structure. We applied control criteria to four dialogues and identified 3 levels of discourse structure. We investigated the mechanism for changing control between these structures and found that utterance type and not cue words predicted shifts of control. Participants used certain types of signals when discourse goals were proceeding successfully but resorted to interruptions when they were not.
author: Steve Whittaker & Phil Stenton
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Filton Road, Bristol BS12 6QZ, UK.
email: email@example.com
title: Cues and control in Expert-Client Dialogues

# Introduction

A number of researchers have shown that there is organisation in discourse above the level of the individual utterance (5, 8, 9, 10), The current exploratory study uses control as a parameter for identifying these higher level structures. We then go on to address how conversational participants co-ordinate moves between these higher level units, in particular looking at the ways they use to signal the beginning and end of such high level units.

Previous research has identified three means by which speakers signal information about discourse structure to listeners: Cue words and phrases (5, 10); Intonation (7); Pronominalisation (6, 2). In the cue words approach, Reichman (10) has claimed that phrases like "because", "so", and "but" offer explicit information to listeners about how the speaker's current contribution to the discourse relates to what has gone previously. For example a speaker might use the expression "so" to signal that s/he is about to conclude what s/he has just said. Grosz and Sidner (5) relate the use of such phrases to changes in attentional state. An example would be that "and" or "but" signal to the listener that a new topic and set of referents is being introduced whereas "anyway" and "in any case" indicate a return to a previous topic and referent set. A second indirect way of signalling discourse structure is intonation. Hirschberg and Pierrehumbert (7) showed that intonational contour is closely related to discourse segmentation with new topics being signalled by changes in intonational contour. A final more indirect cue to discourse structure is the speaker's choice of referring expressions and grammatical structure. A number of researchers (4, 2, 6, 10) have given accounts of how these relate to the continuing, retaining or shifting of focus.

The above approaches have concentrated on particular surface linguistic phenomena and then investigated what a putative cue serves to signal in a number of dialogues. The problem with this approach is that the cue may only be an infrequent indicator of a particular type of shift. If we want to construct a general theory of discourse than we want to know about the whole range of cues serving this function. This study therefore takes a different approach. We begin by identifying all shifts of control in the dialogue and then look at how each shift was signalled by the speakers. A second problem with previous research is that the criteria for identifying discourse structure are not always made explicit. In this study explicit criteria are given: we then go on to analyse the relation between cues and this structure.

# The data

The data were recordings of telephone conversations between clients and an expert concerning problems with software. The tape recordings from four dialogues were then transcribed and the analysis conducted on the typewritten transcripts rather than the raw recordings. There was a total of 450 turns in the dialogues.

**2.1 Criteria for classifying utterance types.** Each utterance in the dialogue was classified into one of four categories: (a) **Assertions** - declarative utterances which were used to state facts. Yes or no answers to questions were also classified as assertions on the grounds that they were supplying the listener with factual information; (b) **Commands** - utterances which were intended to instigate action in their audience. These included various utterances which did not have imperative form, (e.g. "What I would do if I were you is to relink X") but were intended to induce some action; (c) **Questions** - utterances which were intended to elicit information from the audience. These included utterances which did not have interrogative form. e.g. "So my question is...." They also included paraphrases, in which the speaker reformulated or repeated part or all of what had just been said. Paraphrases were classified as questions on the grounds that the effect was to induce the listener to confirm or deny what had just been stated; (d) **Prompts** - These were utterances which did not express propositional content. Examples of prompts were things like "Yes" and "Uhu".

**2.2 Allocation of control in the dialogues.** We devised several rules to determine the location of control in the dialogues. Each of these rules related control to utterance type: (a) For questions, the speaker was defined as being in control unless the question directly followed a question or command by the other conversant. The reason for this is that questions uttered following questions or commands are normally attempts to clarify the preceding utterance and as such are elicited by the previous speaker's utterance rather than directing the conversation in their own right. (b) For assertions, the speaker was defined as being in control unless the assertion was made in response to a question, for the same reasons as those given for questions; an assertion which is a response to a question could not be said to be controlling the discourse; (c) For commands, the speaker was defined as controlling the conversation. Indirect commands (i.e. utterances which did not have imperative form but served to elicit some actions) were also classified in this way; (d) For prompts, the listener was defined as controlling the conversation, as the speaker was clearly abdicating his/her turn. In cases where a turn consisted of several utterances, the control rules were only applied to the final utterance.

We applied the control rules and found that control did not alternate from speaker to speaker on a turn by turn basis, but that there were long sequences of turns in which control remained with one speaker. This seemed to suggest that the dialogues were organised above the level of individual turns into phases where control was located with one speaker. The mean number of turns in each phase was 8.03.

# Mechanisms for switching control

We then went on to analyse how control was exchanged between participants at the boundaries of these phases. We first examined the last utterance of each phase on the grounds that one mechanism for indicating the end of a phase would be for the speaker controlling the phase to give some cue that he (both participants in the dialogues were always male) no longer wished to control the discourse. There was a total of 56 shifts of control over the 4 dialogues and we identified 3 main classes of cues used to signal control shifts These were prompts, repetitions and summaries. We also looked at when no signal was given (interruptions).

**3.1 Prompts.** On 21 of the 56 shifts (38%), the utterance immediately prior to the control shift was a prompt. We might therefore explain these shifts as resulting from the person in control explicitly indicating that he had nothing more to say.

(In the following examples a line indicates a control shift)

Example 1 - Prompt Dialogue C -

> 1\. E: "And they are, in your gen you'll find that they've relocated into the labelled common area" (E control)
> 2. C: "That's right." (E control)
> 3. E: "Yeah" (E abdicates control with prompt)
> —————————–
> 4. C: "I've got two in there. There are two of them." (C control)
> 5. E: "Right" (C control)
> 6. C: "And there's another one which is % RESA" (C control)
> 7. E: "OK um" (C control)
> 8. C: "VS" (C control)
> 9. E: "Right" (C control)
> 10. C: "Mm" (C abdicates control with prompt)
> —————————-
> 11. E: "Right and you haven't got - I assume you haven't got local labelled common with those labels" (E control)

**3.2 Repetitions and summaries.** On a further 15 occasions (27%), we found that the person in control of the dialogue signalled that they had no new information to offer. They did this either by repeating what had just been said (6 occasions), or by giving a summary of what they had said in the preceding utterances of the phase (9 occasions). We defined a repetition as an assertion which expresses part or all of the propositional content of a previous assertion but which contains no new information. A summary consisted of concise reference to the entire set of information given about the client's problem or the solution plan.

Example 2 - Repetition. Dialogue C -

> 1\. Client: "These routines are filed as DS" (C control)
> 2. Expert: "That's right, yes" (C control)
> 3. C: "DS" (C abdicates control with repetition)
> ——————————–
> 4. E: "And they are, in your gen you'll find they've relocated
>
> into your local common area." (E control)

Half the repetitions were accompanied by cue words. These were "and", "well" and "so", which prefixed the assertion.

Example 3 - Summary Dialogue B -

> 1\. E. "OK. Initialise the disc retaining spares" (E control)
> 2. C: "Right" (E control)
> 3. E: "Uh and then TF it back" (E control)
> 4. C: "Right" (E control)
> 5. E: "Did you do the TF with verify?" (E control)
> 6. C: "Er yes I did" (E control)
> 7. E: "OK. That would be my recommendation and that will ensure that you get er a logically integral set of files" (E abdicates control with summary)
> ——————————-
> 8. C: "Right. You think that initialising it using this um EXER facility." (C control)

What are the linguistic characteristics of summaries? Reichman (10) suggests that "so" might be a summary cue on the part of the speaker but we found only one example of this, although there were 3 instances of "and", one "now" one "but" and one "so". In our dialogues the summaries seemed to be characterised by the concise reference to objects or entities which had earlier been described in detail, e.g. (a) "Now, I'm wondering how the two are related" in which "the two" refers to the two error messages which it had taken several utterances to describe previously. The other characteristic of summaries is that they contrast strongly with the extremely concrete descriptions elsewhere in the dialogues, e.g. "err the system program standard call file doesn't complete this means that the file does not have a tail record" followed by "And I've no clue at all how to get out of the situation". Example 3 also illustrates this change from specific (1, 3, 5) to general (7). How then do repetitions and summaries operate as cues? In summarising, the speaker is indicating a natural breakpoint in the dialogue and they also indicate that they have nothing more to add at that stage. Repetitions seem to work in a similar way: the fact that a speaker reiterates indicates that he has nothing more to say on a topic.

**3.3 Interruptions.** In the previous cases, the person controlling the dialogue gave a signal that control might be exchanged. There were 20 further occasions (36% of shifts) on which no such indication is given. We therefore went on to analyse the conditions in which such interruptions occurred. These seem to fall into 3 categories: (a) vital facts; (b) responses to vital facts; (c) clarifications.

**3.3.1 Vital facts.** On a total of 6 occasions (11% of shifts) the client interrupted to contradict the speaker or to supply what seemed to be relevant information that he believed the expert did not know.

Example 4 Dialogue C -

> 1\. E: ".... and it generates this warning, which is now at 4.0 to warn you about the situation" (E control)
> ———————————
> 2. C: "It is something new though um" (C assumes control by interruption)
> 3. E: "Well" (C control)
> 4. C: "The programs that I've run before obviously LINK A's got some new features in it which er..." (C control)
> ———————————
> 5. E: "That's right, it's a new warning at 4.0" (E assumes control by interruption)

Two of these 6 interjections were to supply extra information and one was marked with the cue "as well". The other four were to contradict what had just been said and two had explicit markers "though" and "well actually": the remaining two being direct denials.

**3.3.2 Reversions of control following vital facts.** The next class of interruptions occur after the client has made some interjection to supply a missing fact or when the client has blocked a plan or rejected an explanation that the expert has produced. There were 8 such occasions (14% of shifts).

The interruption in the previous example illustrates the reversion of control to the expert after the client has supplied information which he (the client) believes to be highly relevant to the expert. In the following example, the client is already in control.

Example 5 Dialogue B -

> 1\. "I'll take a backup first as you say" (C control)
> 2. E: "OK" (C control)
> 3. C: "The trouble is that it takes a long time doing all this" (C control)
> ————————————
> 4. E: "Yeah, yeah but er this kind of thing there's no point taking any short cuts or you could end up with no system at all." (E assumes control by interruption)
> On five occasions the expert explicitly signified his acceptance or rejection of what the client had said, e.g."Ah","Right indeed","that's right","No","Yeah but". On three occasions there were no markers.

**3.3.3 Clarifications.** Participants can also interrupt to clarify what has just been said. This happened on 6 occasions (11%) of shifts.

Example 6 Dialogue C -

> 1\. C: "If I put an SE in and then do an EN it comes up" (C control)
> ———————————-
> 2. E: "So if you put in a ...?" ( E control)
> 3. C: "SE" (E control)

On two occasions clarifications were prefixed by "now" and twice by "so". On the final two occasions there was no such marker, and a direct question was used.

**3.3.4 An explanation of interruptions.** We have just described the circumstances in which interruptions occur, but can we now explain why they occur? We suggest the following two principles might account for interruptions: these principles concern: (a) the information upon which the participants are basing their plans, and (b) the plans themselves.

(A). Information quality:

:   Both expert and client must believe that the information that the expert has about the problem is true and that this information is sufficient to solve the problem. This can be expressed by the following two rules which concern the truth of the information and the ambiguity of the information: (A1) if the listener believes a fact P and believes that fact to be relevant and either believes that the speaker believes not P or that the speaker does not know P then interrupt; (A2) If the listener believes that the speaker's assertion is relevant but ambiguous then interrupt.

(B). Plan quality:

:   Both expert and client must believe that the plan that the expert has generated is adequate to solve the problem and it must be comprehensible to the client. The two rules which express this principle concern the effectiveness of the plan and the ambiguity of the plan: (B1) If the listener believes P and either believes that P presents an obstacle to the proposed plan or believes that part of the proposed plan has already been satisfied, then interrupt; (B2) If the listener believes that an assertion about the proposed plan is ambiguous, then interrupt.

In this framework, interruptions can be seen as strategies produced by either conversational participant when they perceive that a either principle is not being adhered to.

**3.4 Cue reliability.** We also investigated whether there were occasions when prompts, repetitions and summaries failed to elicit the control shifts we predicted. We considered two possible types of failure: either the speaker could give a cue and continue or the speaker could give a cue and the listener fail to respond. We found no instances of the first case; although speakers did produce phrases like "OK" and then continue, the "OK" was always part of the same intonational contour as that further information and there was no break between the two, suggesting the phrase was a prefix and not a cue. We did, however, find instances of the second case: twice following prompts and once following a summary, there was a long pause, indicating that the speaker was not ready to respond. We conducted a similar analysis for those cue words that have been identified in the literature. Only 21 of the 35 repetitions, summaries and interruptions had cue words associated with them and there were also 19 instances of the cue words "now", "and", "so", "but" and "well" occurring without a control shift.

# Control cues and global control

The analysis so far has been concerned with control shifts where shifts were identified from a series of rules which related utterance type and control. Examination of the dialogues indicated that there seemed to be different types of control shifts: after some shifts there seemed to be a change of topic, whereas for others the topic remained the same. We next went on to examine the relationship between topic shift and the different types of cues and interruptions described earlier. To do this it was necessary first to classify control shifts according to whether they resulted in shifts of topic.

**4.1 Identifying topic shifts.** We identified topic shifts in the following way: Five judges were presented with the four dialogues and in each of the dialogues we had marked where control shifts occurred. The judges were asked to state for each control shift whether it was accompanied by a topic shift. All five judges agreed on 24 of the 56 shifts, and 4 agreed for another 22 of the shifts. Where there was disagreement, the majority judgment was taken.

**4.2 Topic shift and type of control shift.** Analysing each type of control shift, it is clear that there are differences between the cues used for the topic shift and the no shift cases. For interruptions, 90% occur within topic, i.e. they do not result in topic shifts. The pattern is not as obvious for prompts and repetitions/summaries, with 57% of prompts occurring within topic and 67% of repetitions/summaries occurring within topic. This suggests that change of topic is a carefully negotiated process. The controlling participant signals that he is ready to close the topic by producing either a prompt or a repetition/summary and this may or may not be accepted by the other participant. What is apparent is that it is highly unusual for a participant to seize control and change topic by interruption. It seems that on the majority of occasions (63%) participants wait for the strongest possible cue (the prompt) before changing topic.

**4.3 Other relations between topic and control.** We also looked at more general aspects of control within and between topics. We investigated the number of utterances for which each participant was in control and found that there seemed to be organisation in the dialogues above the level of topic. We found that each dialogue could be divided into two parts separated by a topic shift which we labelled the central shift. The two parts of the dialogue were very different in terms of who controlled and initiated each topic. Before the central shift, the client had control for more turns per topic and after it, the expert had control for more turns per topic. The respective numbers of turns client and expert are in control before and after the central shift are :Before 11-7,22-8,12-6,21-6; After 12-33,16-23,2-11,0-5 for the four dialogues. With the exception of the first topic in Dialogues 1 and 4, the client has control of more turns in every topic before the central shift, whereas after it, the expert has control for more turns in every topic. In addition we looked at who initiated each topic, i.e. who produced the first utterance of each topic. We found that in each dialogue, the client initiates all the topics before the central shift, whereas the expert initiates the later ones. We also discovered a close relationship between topic initiation and topic dominance. In 19 of the 21 topics, the person who initiated the topic also had control of more turns. As we might expect, the point at which the expert begins to have control over more turns per topic is also the point at which the expert begins to initiate new topics.

# Conclusions

The main result of this exploratory study is the finding that control is a useful parameter for identifying discourse structure. Using this parameter we identified three levels of structure in the dialogues: (a) control phases; (b) topic; and (c) global organisation. For the control phases, we found that three types of utterances (prompts, repetitions and summaries) were consistently used to signal control shifts. For the low level structures we identified, (i.e. control phases), cue words and phrases were not as reliable in predicting shifts. This result challenges the claims of recent discourse theories (5, 10) which argue for a the close relation between cue words and discourse structure. We also examined how utterance type related to topic shift and found that few interruptions introduced a new topic. Finally there was evidence for high level structures in these dialogues as evidenced by topic initiation and control, with early topics being initiated and dominated by the client and the opposite being true for the later parts.

Another focus of current research has been the modelling of speaker and listener goals (1, 3) but there has been little research on real dialogues investigating how goals are communicated and inferred. This study identifies surface linguistic phenomena which reflect the fact that participants are continuously monitoring their goals. When plans are perceived as succeeding, participants use explicit cues such as prompts, repetitions and summaries to signal their readiness to move to the next stage of the plan. In other cases, where participants perceive obstacles to their goals being achieved, they resort to interruptions and we have tried to make explicit the rules by which they do this.

In addition our methodology is different from other studies because we have attempted to provide an explanation for whole dialogues rather than fragments of dialogues, and used explicit criteria in a bottom-up manner to identify discourse structures. The number of dialogues was small and taken from a single problem domain. It seems likely therefore that some of our findings (e.g the central shift) will be specific to the diagnostic dialogues we studied. Further research applying the same techniques to a broader set of data should establish the generality of the control rules suggested here.