# A femtoscopic correlation analysis tool using the Schrödinger equation (CATS)

## Abstract

We present a new analysis framework called “Correlation Analysis Tool using the Schrödinger equation” (CATS) which computes the two-particle femtoscopy correlation function *C*(*k*), with *k* being the relative momentum for the particle pair. Any local interaction potential and emission source function can be used as an input and the wave function is evaluated exactly. In this paper we present a study on the sensitivity of *C*(*k*) to the interaction potential for different particle pairs: p–p, p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\), \(\mathrm {K^-}\)–p, \(\mathrm {K^+}\)–p, p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) and \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\). For the p–p Argonne \(v_{18}\) and Reid Soft-Core potentials have been tested. For the other pair systems we present results based on strong potentials obtained from effective Lagrangians such as \(\chi \)EFT for p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\), Jülich models for \(\mathrm{K}(\bar{\mathrm{K}})\)–N and Nijmegen models for \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\). For the p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) pairs we employ the latest lattice results from the HAL QCD collaboration. Our detailed study of different interacting particle pairs as a function of the source size and different potentials shows that femtoscopic measurements can be exploited in order to constrain the final state interactions among hadrons. In particular, small collision systems of the order of 1 fm, as produced in pp collisions at the LHC, seem to provide a suitable environment for quantitative studies of this kind.

## 1 Introduction

Femtoscopy has been mainly employed so far to study the properties of the particle emitting source in heavy-ion collisions by analyzing particle pairs with low relative momentum undergoing a known interaction [1, 2]. In heavy-ion collisions pion femtoscopy has been the most common tool to get insight into the time-space evolution of the produced medium [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].

Unlike heavy-ion collisions, nucleon–nucleon (NN) collisions are not affected by the formation of a medium such as the Quark–Gluon–Plasma. This means that the time evolution of the source can be neglected and the hadron interaction is not influenced by collective processes.

More generally, femtoscopy allows to describe any hadron-hadron correlation involving both (anti)mesons and (anti)baryons. Recent femtoscopy studies in pp at \(\sqrt{s}=7\) TeV and p–Pb at \(\sqrt{s_\mathrm {NN}}=5.02\) TeV showed that in these systems a smaller source size radius is extracted compared to heavy-ion collisions [14, 15, 16]. When mesons are considered the correlation function is affected by a mini-jet background over the whole *k* range [14, 15]. This effect is also visible in baryon-antibaryon correlations (\(\mathrm {B}\)–\({\bar{\mathrm{B}}}\)), where partons from the colliding protons hadronize in particle cones containing a \(\mathrm {B}\)–\({\bar{\mathrm{B}}}\) pair. The production of such pairs is enhanced due to the intrinsic baryon number conservation and therefore shows a strong kinematic correlation which overlaps to the true femtoscopic signal in the final correlation function. Since these mini-jets are not present in the correlation function of \(\mathrm {B}\)–\(\mathrm {B}\)/\({\bar{\mathrm{B}}}\)–\({\bar{\mathrm{B}}}\) [17], those systems are well suited to study the final state interaction.

The above formula is based on the assumptions that space and momentum emission coordinates are uncorrelated and the emission process is time independent [2]. The dynamics of the processes is explicitly embedded on one hand in the emitting source \(S(\mathbf {r})\), which depends on the colliding system, and on the other hand in the interaction potential between the two particles expressed by the relative wave function \(\psi _{k}(\mathbf {r})\).

The source could be either parametrized using a specific distribution function, e.g. a Gaussian or a Cauchy function, or extracted directly from transport models such as EPOS [18]. The pair wave function can be obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation for a specific interaction potential and a popular tool to do that is the Correlation Afterburner (CRAB) [19]. This afterburner only delivers the asymptotic solution at large relative distances which eventually leads to a wrong correlation function at small distances. For heavy-ion collisions the source radius is typically between 2 and 6 fm [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. However in pp collisions at LHC energies the extracted source can be even smaller than 1.5 fm [14, 15], and the EPOS transport model predicts a non-Gaussian source which peaks at distances of around 1 fm (see Fig. 1).

This calls for a tool capable of providing an exact solution of the Schrödinger equation valid also at short distances.

Another common approach based on solving the Schrödinger equation and used to study p–p correlations is the Koonin model [20]. Here a Gaussian source distribution is assumed and the relative wave function is obtained by employing a Coulomb potential and a Reid Soft-Core potential for the strong interaction [21].

Analytical solutions to compute *C*(*k*) do exist, but they are limited by different approximations. One of the most popular analytical models was developed by Lednický and Lyuboshits [22]. The emission source is assumed to have a Gaussian shape and the wave function is modeled within the effective range approximation, using the scattering length \((a_0)\) and the effective range of the potential \((r_{eff})\). Such a parametrization is only sensitive to the asymptotic region of the interaction. Due to its long range nature, the Coulomb potential is normally not considered in the Lednický model and can at most be treated in an approximate way [13].

All the above-mentioned issues motivated the development of a new femtoscopy tool called “Correlation Analysis Tool using the Schrödinger equation” (CATS).

CATS is capable of evaluating numerically the full wave function without using any approximations and computing *C*(*k*) for different source functions and interaction potentials. CATS is faster than most of the conventional numerical tools and also more flexible since it can be used together with an external fitter.

The main purpose of this work is to test the sensitivity of the correlation function to different potentials and provide qualitative examples.

In particular for p–p and p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) interactions we only investigate the most common potentials used in femtoscopy so far and compare them to more up-to-date potentials.

The p–p correlation function has been studied by comparing the Reid Soft-Core [21] potential adopted in most femtoscopic analyses to the most recent Argonne \(v_{18}\) [23] potential which provides a better description of scattering data.

Similarly, for the p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) combination we compare the commonly used Usmani potential [24] to the most recent NLO potential obtained in \(\chi \)EFT calculations [25] which significantly improves the agreement with available data.

For the \(\mathrm {K^{\pm }}\)–p interaction we employ the Jülich model [26, 27] and we investigate the interplay between the Coulomb and the strong interaction in the correlation function.

At the moment, the limited amount of experimental data for the \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) interaction do not allow to discriminate among different potentials. In this paper we show that future femtoscopic analyses for the \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) correlation function performed with CATS open the possibility to differentiate between different types of potentials.

For this pair, following the results presented in [28], we adopt four potentials: two versions of hard-core Nijmegen models (ND56 [29], NF50 [30]), a quark-model potential with meson exchange effect included (fss2 [31]) and another hard-core Nijmegen potential NF42 [30] which allows for a bound state.

The first three ones have been chosen since they deliver the best agreement with the recent \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) STAR measurements [12] while the latter has been selected since it is connected to a possible bound state and it shows a different behavior as a function of the relative distance *r* between the two particles.

For p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }\) pairs we adopt the most recent potential obtained by the HAL QCD lattice collaboration [32, 33].

The most modern potentials can also be implemented in CATS, however this would require their transformation to a local form, nevertheless this is beyond the scope of the current study.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2.1 we introduce the formalism of the Schrödinger equation as embedded in the algorithm, while in Sect. 2.2 we introduce the interaction potentials used for the later investigations of the p–p, p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\), \(\mathrm {K}\)(\({\bar{\mathrm{K}}}\))–p, p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) and \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) systems.

In Sect. 3 we show our results for the correlation functions of the above-mentioned pairs using different interaction potentials and source sizes. A comparison with the emitting source obtained from the EPOS transport model is presented for p–p and p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) pairs. In addition we show results for p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) and \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) correlation functions including experimental effects such as momentum resolution and feed-down decays. Moreover we present a comparison between the extracted source radius for p–p pairs obtained from the HADES collaboration in p–Nb reactions at \(\sqrt{s_\text {NN}}=3.18\) GeV and a CATS fit of the same data.

Finally in Sect. 4 we present conclusions and future outlooks. In addition in Appendix A we provide technical information related to the installation of CATS and the numerical methods used in the code.

## 2 CATS

### 2.1 Overview

CATS is designed to compute the two-particle correlation function for any emission distribution and interaction potential. This is achieved by numerically solving the Schrödinger equation (SE) and by evaluating the convolution of the resulting wave function with a source distribution (see Eq. (1)).

*V*, the total wave function is separated into a radial term and an angular term given by the spherical harmonics

The overall interaction potential *V*(*r*) is the sum of a short range strong contribution and a long range Coulomb potential. Since we are looking for scattering states as a function of the relative momentum *k* and not for bound states, the energy *E* of the system needs to be fixed by using the relation \(E=\frac{\hbar ^2 k^2}{2\mu }\). The scattered state will then approach the asymptotic solution outside the range of the strong potential leading to a free or a pure Coulomb wave function depending on the charge of the particles involved.

The sum over the partial waves runs until the convergence of the solution is reached, and from there we obtain the total wave function \(\psi _{k}(\mathbf {r})\) to be used in Eq. (1).

Taking into account the Fermi statistics of the particle pairs and fixing the isospin (*I*) configuration, only specific states \(^{2S+1}L_J\) are allowed depending on the particle species, where we use the standard spectroscopic notation with *S* denoting the total spin, *L* the orbital angular momentum and *J* the total angular momentum of the pair. Moreover, since NN, nucleon–hyperon (NY), kaon–nucleon (KN) and hyperon–hyperon (YY) potentials might involve spin-orbit coupling \(\bar{L}\cdot \bar{S}\), the total angular momentum \(\bar{J}=\bar{L}+\bar{S}\) has to be taken as a good quantum number to characterize the eigenstates and has to be accounted for in the total degeneracy of the states.

In experimental conditions with unpolarized particles we should take into account the degeneracy in *S*, as well as in *I*. Moreover for \(L>0\) states also the degeneracy in *J* has to be considered. How to compute the corresponding weights \(w_{(I,S,L,J)}\) is explained in Appendix A.

*x*,

*y*and

*z*single particle coordinates. The emission source \(S(r,\theta ,\phi )\) is defined as the probability density function (pdf) to emit a particle pair at a certain relative distance

*r*and relative polar and azimuthal angles \(\theta \) and \(\phi \). For an uncorrelated particle emission the Gaussian source reads

*r*a trivial integration over the solid angle is necessary

In Fig. 1 we compare the shapes of differently sized Gaussian sources to the EPOS source for p–p pairs obtained in a simulation of pp collisions at 7 TeV. Notably the EPOS source predicts that most of the particle pairs will be emitted at distances below 2 fm, which is the typical range of the strong interaction. Hence the asymptotic solution of the wave function will no longer be valid in that region, highlighting the necessity of an exact treatment of the problem. Moreover we see that EPOS predicts a non-Gaussian source.

### 2.2 NN and NY interaction potentials

The NN interaction has been widely constrained thanks to a large amount of scattering data along with data on bound states such as the deuteron [34]. In the common Yukawa picture the NN potential is described by means of model-independent components as the long range One-Pion-Exchange term (OPE) and the \(\pi \pi \) exchange term for the intermediate attraction [35]. The vector meson (typically \(\omega \)) exchange accounts for the repulsive core.

All these features are included in the most common NN potentials such as Bonn [36, 37], Urbana [38], Paris [39], Nijmegen [40], Reid [21] and Argonne [23] potentials. In addition, the results obtained within a chiral effective field theory approach (\(\chi \)EFT) [41, 42, 43, 44, 45] and within the latest version of the Nijmegen model ESC08 [46] have to be mentioned, since they provide similar results for the scattering parameters and both models show a nice description of the available data.

For the study of the p–p correlation function in this paper we employ the Argonne \(v_{18}\) [23] and the Reid Soft-Core (RSC) [21] potentials. The latter is the default choice in femtoscopic analyses [19, 20]. In the Koonin model only the RSC singlet state \(^1 S_0\) is considered, while in the CRAB calculations also the triplet \(^3 P_2\) state is included but without spin-orbit or tensor terms. Nevertheless, these terms are crucial in order to reproduce the \(^3 P_2\) phase shift, as can be seen in Fig. 2. Here the Argonne \(v_{18}\), which includes all *s*- and *p*-wave states and both the spin-orbit and tensor terms, results in a much better agreement with the partial wave data in the momentum range we are interested in.

It should be noted that a more recent version of the RSC potential [47] is available. Nevertheless it is beyond the purpose of the current work to study in details the subtle differences between a large variety of NN potentials, since we do not expect a large discrepancy in the p–p correlation function.

The range of relative momenta *k* relevant for femtoscopic studies stops at \(k_{max}\approx 200\) MeV/c and the dominant contribution in the phase shifts in this regime is mainly coming from s- and p-wave states [34]. For this reason at the moment we are neglecting the coupled channel to the \(^3 F_2\) wave.

Unfortunately in the nucleon–hyperon sector only 36 scattering data points have been measured [50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55] and the available phenomenological potentials are fitted in order to reproduce these data along with the accessible hypernuclei binding energies. In particular, for the p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) interaction we adopt the potential introduced by Bodmer, Usmani, and Carlson [24], which reproduces the available cross section data as shown in Fig. 3. This potential is similar to a NN Argonne interaction since it includes a repulsive Woods–Saxon core and a two-pion intermediate exchange term. At the moment we just consider s-waves, which account for both the singlet \(^1S_0\) and the triplet \(^3S_1\) state.

The p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) scattering parameters of the Usmani and the chiral potentials. We denote with (*s*) and (*t*) the singlet and triplet state respectively. The scattering parameters for the Usmani potential are evaluated here [24]. The parameters for the the chiral potential are taken from [25] for a cutoff scale of 600 MeV

Parameter | Usmani | \(\chi \)EFT NLO |
---|---|---|

\(a^{(s)}_0\) (fm) | \(-\) 2.88 | \(-\) 2.91 |

\(r^{(s)}_{eff}\) (fm) | 2.92 | 2.78 |

\(a^{(t)}_0\) (fm) | \(-\) 1.66 | \(-\) 1.54 |

\(r^{(t)}_{eff}\) (fm) | 3.78 | 2.72 |

Concerning the \(S=-\,2\) sector the interaction of \(\mathrm {\Xi }\) hyperons with nuclei is not well constrained experimentally or phenomenologically [56]. Recently a \(\mathrm {\Xi }\)-hypernucleus candidate has been detected [57] and ongoing measurements suggest that the N–\(\mathrm {\Xi }\) interaction is weakly attractive [58].

Recent lattice QCD calculations from the HAL QCD collaboration showed preliminary results on the p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) correlation function based on local potentials in the s-wave singlet and triplet states, both in \(I=0\) and \(I=1\) channels [32, 33]. The interaction potentials have been obtained in \((2+1)\)-flavor lattice QCD simulations close to the physical masses of pions and kaons. In particular in the isoscalar \(^1 S_0\) channel it has been shown that the p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) interaction is deeply attractive at intermediate distances and relatively weakly repulsive at shorter distances. The isoscalar spin triplet state \(^3 S_1\) has a shallow attractive well and a very repulsive core.

The \(I=1\) channel does not present any attraction in the spin singlet state while a mildly attractive region enclosing a repulsive inner core has been found in the spin triplet state. These contributions might not be relevant for large source sizes [32] but could impact the overall correlation function for smaller emitting sources as obtained in elementary collisions.

### 2.3 KN and \({\bar{\mathrm{K}}}N\) interaction

As for the hyperon–nucleon case, the (anti)kaon–nucleon system is a powerful tool to study the short range strong interaction with the exchange of strangeness as a new degree of freedom.

Model | \({v}_{1}\) (MeV) | \({\mu }_{1}\) (fm) | \({v}_{2}\) (MeV) | \({\mu }_{2}\) (fm) | \({a}_{0}\) | \({r}_{eff}\) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

ND56 | \(-\) 144.26 | 1.0 | 1413.75 | 0.45 | \(-\) 1.179 | 4.656 |

NF42 | \(-\) 878.97 | 0.6 | 1048.58 | 0.45 | 3.659 | 0.975 |

NF50 | \(-\) 2007.35 | 0.6 | 5678.97 | 0.45 | \(-\) 0.772 | 4.271 |

fss2 | \(-\) 103.9 | 0.92 | 658.2 | 0.41 | \(-\) 0.81 | 3.99 |

The understanding of the short range kaon–nucleon interaction, already in vacuum, is fundamental to unveil more complicated systems such as quasi-bound states near threshold, kaonic atoms and kaonic clusters [60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66].

From a theoretical point of view, based on the successful description of the NN interaction, several meson-baryon exchange models, such as the Jülich model [26, 27], have been applied so far in the description of the available KN data. In this approach the short range repulsion in \(\mathrm {K^+}\)-N is not well reproduced by the simple presence of the \(\omega \) meson. In order to reproduce the s-wave scattering parameters an additional repulsive contribution is needed. The inclusion of spin-dependent terms, such as one gluon exchange (OGE) or exchange of the scalar-isovector meson *a*(980), improves the agreement in the s-channel [67].

It is also worth mentioning that different theoretical approaches based on quark models [68, 69, 70] and \(\chi \)EFT interactions [71] have also been used to investigate the kaon–nucleon interaction.

In this work we adopted the above mentioned Jülich model, which besides single particle exchange terms also contains box diagrams allowing for intermediate states such as \(\mathrm {N},\mathrm {\Delta },\mathrm{K}(\bar{\mathrm{K}}), {\mathrm{K}^*(\bar{\mathrm{K}^*})}\). A local potential was not available for this model, nevertheless we were provided with the exact solution of the radial wave function, which was included in CATS for the computation of the correlation function.

### 2.4 YY interaction

In the YY sector the available experimental data on the binding energy of \(\mathrm {\Lambda \Lambda }\) hypernuclei, despite recent data on \(\mathrm { _{\Lambda \Lambda } ^6 He}\) [73, 74], do not allow to set tight constraints on the nature of the underlying interaction [56].

Recently the STAR collaboration employed the femtoscopy technique to study \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) correlations in Au-Au collisions at \(\sqrt{s_\text {NN}}\) = 200 GeV [12]. The reported shallow repulsive interaction in this work is still under debate, since in an alternative analysis, that considered the contribution of the residuals in a more sophisticated way, a shallow attractive interaction was confirmed [28]. One of the goals of this work is to show that a detailed study of the \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) correlation function might be a sensitive tool to extract information on the interaction of the two particles.

*r*.

It is worthwhile mentioning that only the NF42 model provides a positive scattering length \(a_0\approx 3.7\) fm due to the presence of a bound state, while all the remaining potentials lead to negative (attractive) values of \(a_0\) and effective ranges between 4 and 5 fm.

## 3 Results

In Fig. 5 a comparison between the correlation functions obtained by CRAB and CATS for p–p pairs is shown. In particular two different transport models are used to model the source: UrQMD [75] for simulating p–Nb reactions at \(\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=3.18\) GeV and EPOS [18] for simulating pp reactions at \(\sqrt{s}=7\) TeV. The p–Nb system is expected to have a Gaussian source of around 2 fm [76], while the pp system produces a much smaller source, comparable to a Gaussian source of below 1 fm (see Fig. 1). As already pointed out the CRAB tool provides only an approximate solution at small distances. Figure 5 shows that in the case of the larger source (the p–Nb system) the two models are in agreement within few percent. However for pp collisions at 7 TeV the source is much smaller and consequently a much larger discrepancy, of up to 20%, is observed between CRAB and the exact CATS solution.

In Fig. 6 we show the correlation function *C*(*k*) obtained by CATS for p–p pairs (upper panel) and p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) pairs (lower panel) with different interaction potentials and Gaussian source sizes.

In particular for p–p pairs we perform the calculations for the RSC potential as used in the Koonin and CRAB models and compare them to the A\(v_{18}\) potential. The profile of the resulting correlation functions reproduce the main features coming from the interplay between the attractive part of the NN potential and the short-range repulsive core along with contributions from Coulomb and Fermi-Dirac statistics. The repulsive interaction is visible between \(60<k<200\) MeV since *C*(*k*) is below unity. This effect is enhanced for smaller sources.

The strength of the p–p correlation signal increases by almost a factor 2.5 going from \(r_0=2\) fm to \(r_0=0.85\) fm. The differences among the potentials are negligible for most of the source sizes. Nevertheless it is evident that for sources below 1 fm deviations up to 10% are present at \(k>150\) MeV.

The p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) pair is neither affected by Coulomb interaction nor by quantum statistics. As a result the shape of the corresponding correlation function *C*(*k*) is only affected by the strong interaction potential. Here results are shown for the Usmani potential and the \(\chi \)EFT NLO potential (see Sect. 2.2). Both of these potentials possess a phenomenological repulsive core which is dominated by an intermediate attraction as *k* decreases. This results in a rise of *C*(*k*) at lower momenta. The two potentials produce very similar correlation functions and the differences are mostly associated with the slightly more attractive \(^3S_1\) state in the Usmani potential. This can be easily understood by comparing the scattering parameters (see Table 1) of the Usmani and the chiral potential. While the scattering lengths in the singlet state are almost identical, they do differ in the triplet state, where the Usmani potential is slightly more attractive, resulting in an enhanced correlation.

In addition for the NLO correlation function we compare the exact solution to the approximate Lednický model. As expected we observe a significant deviation between the exact and approximate solution at small source radii. The Lednický model produces an enhanced correlation signal because it contains the NLO scattering parameters that account only for the average attractive interaction. On the contrary the correlation function obtained feeding the exact NLO wave function in CATS shows the repulsive component expected within this model.

It is clear that for sources \(\ge 2\) fm the correlation function is not sensitive to the repulsive core both for p–p and p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) pairs. However, in the case of smaller sources, as shown in the last panel of Fig. 6, the correlation functions split up and remain different even for relative momenta \(k>150\) MeV. This region is commonly used in femtoscopy analyses as a correlation free baseline to which the overall normalization of *C*(*k*) is applied. Due to to the possible non-flat correlation in that region particular care has to be considered in including the correct potential in the correlation function.

Results for \(\mathrm {K^-}\)–p and \(\mathrm {K^+}\)–p correlations for different source sizes are shown in the upper and lower panel of Fig. 8. The correlation function including only the Coulomb interaction is plotted in order to see the effect of the strong potential.

The \(\mathrm {K^-}\)–p correlation function is deeply affected by the strong interaction already at \(k\approx 200\) MeV and it dominates the low *k* region. As expected both these effects are enhanced when the source gets smaller.

The opposite scenario is depicted for the \(\mathrm {K^+}\)–p pair, where the Coulomb and the strong repulsion lead to an anti-correlated signal at low momenta.

In Fig. 9 we show the expected theoretical p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) correlation function. We compare *C*(*k*) for a pure Coulomb interaction with the correlation function including the preliminary strong potential from the HAL QCD collaboration. The included channels are the \((I=0,~S=0)\), \((I=0,~S=1)\), \((I=1,~S=0)\) and \((I=1,~S=1)\), where only s-waves are considered. There is a clear enhancement of the correlation signal at small relative momenta *k*, which is a result of the attractive \(I=0\) channel. This effect is further increased for small emitting sources.

In Fig. 10 we present results for \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) analysis with several interaction potentials (see Sect. 2.4). As a comparison the correlation function obtained only with the quantum statistics included is presented. The latter is responsible for the limit value \(C(k) =0.5\) as the relative momentum *k* tends to zero.

The correlation function shows a strong sensitivity to the interaction potential and moreover the shape of *C*(*k*) is deeply affected by the source size. This behaviour can be explained easily by looking at the potentials shown in Fig. 4 and their corresponding scattering parameters listed in Table 2. The most binding potentials, NF42 and ND56, lead to a correlation function that is significantly enhanced for smaller sources as it becomes sensitive to the deep attractive contribution. The weakly attractive potentials, NF50 and fss2, also show an enhancement compared to the quantum statistics baseline, nevertheless the correlation signal is much weaker due to the presence of a large repulsive core.

One can see in Fig. 11 that for the \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) case the effect of the different potentials on the correlation function is significantly damped by the inclusion of expected experimental effects. This implies that very large statistics are needed to reach a high precision in the determination of the scattering parameters or in testing different models. For the p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) case the effect of the strong potential is clearly distinguishable from the Coulomb-only interaction even if realistic \(\lambda \) parameters are considered.

In order to apply the CATS framework to experimental data we present, in Fig. 12, the result for the p–p correlation function obtained in p–Nb collisions at \(\sqrt{s_\text {NN}}=3.18\) GeV [76]. We evaluated *C*(*k*) in CATS using the A\(v_{18}\) potential with s- and p-waves included and performed a fit to the data by multiplying *C*(*k*) with a normalization constant *N*. The source is assumed to be Gaussian and the source size is a free fit parameter. The HADES analysis extracts a radius of \(r_0=2.02\pm 0.01(\text {stat})\) fm and our fit value is \(2.01\pm 0.01(\text {stat})\) fm, which is in perfect agreement with the published data.

## 4 Conclusions and outlooks

In this paper we presented the new femtoscopy analysis tool CATS, which allows for an exact computation of the correlation function for different sources and potentials. To obtain a solution valid for any source size CATS solves the Schrödinger equation exactly, thus providing the possibility to investigate not only heavy-ion reactions but small collision systems as well.

In the present work we show the theoretical correlation functions for the p–p, p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\), \(\mathrm{K}(\bar{\mathrm{K}})\)–p, p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) and \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) particle pairs, by using different models for the interaction potential.

A comparison between CATS and CRAB reveals that for an emitting source of around 2 fm the correlation functions are quite similar. Nevertheless, for small colliding systems, such as pp at TeV energies, the exact treatment of the Schrödinger equation strongly deviates from the approximate solution of CRAB. Thus CATS provides a unique opportunity to investigate the short-range interaction between particles in small systems.

We show that both the p–p and p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) correlation functions are affected by the repulsive core of their interaction potentials, which is mostly evident for small emitting sources. This effect is particularly relevant for momenta above 100 MeV, where the exact solution deviates significantly compared to approximate models like Lednický.

Moreover for the p–p and p–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) correlations we test different emission sources by using the EPOS transport model. In Fig. 1 we show that the emitting source provided by EPOS is completely different from the traditionally Gaussian form used so far in femtoscopic analyses. The results presented here suggest the need for a more detailed analysis of the profile of the emitting source beyond the traditional Gaussian parametrization, whenever dealing with small systems.

The investigation of the \(\mathrm{K}(\bar{\mathrm{K}})\)–p correlation function shows a relevant modification due to the strong interaction. This effect increases with a decreasing source size.

The p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) correlation function is calculated by employing a preliminary local potential obtained from recent lattice HAL QCD results. We observe that for small emitting sources, as expected in pp collision systems, the strong interaction modifies the correlation function significantly. This implies that future experimental femtoscopic data on the p–\(\mathrm {\Xi }^-\) correlation should be sensitive to this effect. This statement is still valid if one includes momentum resolution corrections and residual effects in the correlation function.

For the \(\mathrm {\Lambda }\)–\(\mathrm {\Lambda }\) correlation function we show results for different interaction potentials, based on Nijmegen boson-exchange models and quark models. Starting from source sizes of \(r_0=2\) fm, the corresponding *C*(*k*) shows a relevant sensitivity to the strong potentials. As the source radius decreases the correlation function is modified by the attractive contribution common to all of the above-mentioned potentials. We also show that the inclusion of the expected experimental effects makes the separation of the different potentials extremely challenging and will require a lot of statistics.

CATS was designed such that it can easily be used with an external fitter. To demonstrate this we perform a refit of the p–p correlation function measured by the HADES experiment in p–Nb reactions at \(\sqrt{s_\text {NN}}=3.18\) GeV. The obtained results are in a perfect agreement with the published data.

The experimental database of femtoscopy is constantly growing, thus in the near future it will be essential to perform global analyses over all available data in order to get the best possible constraints on the interaction potentials. The flexibility of CATS allows it to be used as the base of more complex frameworks and is therefore ready to fulfill the requirements of the upcoming experimental analyses.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. Stefano Gandolfi, Prof. Johann Haidenbauer, Prof. Tetsuo Hatsuda, Prof. Norbert Kaiser, Prof. Kenji Morita and Prof. Wolfram Weise for the stimulating discussions and the useful contributions to the work presented here. This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant SFB 1258 “Neutrinos and Dark Matter in Astro- and Particle Physics”. We also gratefully acknowledges the support by the grants BMBF05P15WOFCA, DFG EClust 153, MLL, TU München (Germany).

## References

- 1.S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**53**, 1219 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.53.1219 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.M.A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, U. Wiedemann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.
**55**, 357 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151533 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.G. Agakishiev et al., Eur. Phys. J. A
**47**, 63 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2011-11063-x ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.R. Kotte et al., Eur. J. Phys.
**A23**, 271 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2004-10075-y ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.M.M. Aggarwal, et al., (2007). arXiv:0709.2477 [nucl-ex]
- 6.J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. C
**71**, 044906 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.71.044906 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.K. Aamodt et al., Phys. Lett. B
**696**, 328 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.12.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. C
**74**, 064906 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.064906 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.T. Anticic et al., Phys. Rev. C
**83**, 054906 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.054906 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.P. Chung et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
**91**, 162301 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.162301 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.G. Agakishiev et al., Phys. Rev. C
**82**, 021901 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.021901 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.L. Adamczyk et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
**114**(2), 022301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.022301 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.J. Adam et al., Phys. Rev. C
**92**(5), 054908 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.054908 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.Kea Aamodt, Phys. Rev. D
**84**, 112004 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.112004 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.B. Abelev et al., Phys. Rev. D
**87**(5), 052016 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.052016 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.Jea Adam, Phys. Rev. C
**91**, 034906 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.034906 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.J. Adam et al., Eur. Phys. J. C
**77**(8), 569 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5129-6 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J.M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C
**92**, 034906 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034906 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.S. Pratt. http://web.pa.msu.edu/people/pratts/freecodes/crab/home.html. Accessed 6 May 2018
- 20.S.E. Koonin, Phys. Lett.
**70B**, 43 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(77)90340-9 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.R.V. Reid Jr., Ann. Phys.
**50**, 411 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(68)90126-7 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.R. Lednicky, V.L. Lyuboshits, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.
**35**, 770 (1982). [Yad. Fiz.35,1316(1981)]Google Scholar - 23.R.B. Wiringa, V.G.J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C
**51**, 38 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.51.38 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.A.R. Bodmer, Q.N. Usmani, J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C
**29**, 684 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.29.684 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U.G. Meissner, A. Nogga, W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A
**915**, 24 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.06.008 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.A. Mueller-Groeling, K. Holinde, J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A
**513**, 557 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(90)90398-6 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.R. Buettgen, K. Holinde, A. Mueller-Groeling, J. Speth, P. Wyborny, Nucl. Phys. A
**506**, 586 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(90)90205-Z ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.K. Morita, T. Furumoto, A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C
**91**(2), 024916 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024916 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.M.M. Nagels, T.A. Rijken, J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D
**15**, 2547 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2547 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.M.M. Nagels, T.A. Rijken, J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D
**20**, 1633 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.20.1633 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 31.Y. Fujiwara, Y. Suzuki, C. Nakamoto, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.
**58**, 439 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.08.001 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.T. Hatsuda, K. Morita, A. Ohnishi, K. Sasaki, Nucl. Phys. A
**967**, 856 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.04.041 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 33.K. Sasaki, et al., PoS LATTICE2016, 116 (2017)Google Scholar
- 34.V.G.J. Stoks, R.A.M. Klomp, M.C.M. Rentmeester, J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C
**48**, 792 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.48.792 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 35.M.C.M. Rentmeester, R.G.E. Timmermans, J.L. Friar, J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**82**, 4992 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4992 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 36.R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, C. Elster, Phys. Rep.
**149**, 1 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(87)80002-9 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 37.R. Machleidt, Adv. Nucl. Phys.
**19**, 189 (1989)Google Scholar - 38.I.E. Lagaris, V.R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A
**359**, 331 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(81)90240-2 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 39.M. Lacombe, B. Loiseau, J.M. Richard, R. Vinh Mau, J. Cote, P. Pires, R. De Tourreil, Phys. Rev. C
**21**, 861 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.21.861 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 40.M.M. Nagels, T.A. Rijken, J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D
**17**, 768 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.17.768 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 41.D.R. Entem, N. Kaiser, R. Machleidt, Y. Nosyk, Phys. Rev. C
**92**(6), 064001 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.064001 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 42.E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, U.G. Meiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**115**(12), 122301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.122301 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 43.D.R. Entem, R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C
**68**, 041001 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.041001 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 44.E. Epelbaum, W. Gloeckle, U.G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A
**637**, 107 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00220-6 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 45.N. Kaiser, R. Brockmann, W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A
**625**, 758 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00586-1 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 46.M.M. Nagels, T.A. Rijken, Y. Yamamoto (2014). arXiv:1408.4825 [nucl-th]
- 47.V.G.J. Stoks, R.A.M. Klomp, C.P.F. Terheggen, J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C
**49**, 2950 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.49.2950 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 48.G. Alexander, U. Karshon, A. Shapira, G. Yekutieli, R. Engelmann, H. Filthuth, W. Lughofer, Phys. Rev.
**173**, 1452 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.173.1452 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 49.B. Sechi-Zorn, B. Kehoe, J. Twitty, R.A. Burnstein, Phys. Rev.
**175**, 1735 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.175.1735 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 50.R. Engelmann et al., Phys. Lett.
**21**, 587 (1966)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 51.F. Eisele, H. Filthuth, W. Foehlisch, V. Hepp, G. Zech, Phys. Lett.
**37B**, 204 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(71)90053-0 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 52.V. Hepp, H. Schleich, Z. Phys.
**214**, 71 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01380085 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 53.D. Stephen, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts p. unpublished (1970)Google Scholar
- 54.J. De Swart, C. Dullemond, Ann. Phys.
**19**, 485 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 55.S. Bart et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
**83**, 5238 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5238 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 56.A. Gal, E.V. Hungerford, D.J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys.
**88**(3), 035004 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035004 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 57.
- 58.T. Nagae, et al., PoS INPC2016, 038 (2017)Google Scholar
- 59.P.A.K. et al., Phys. Rev.
**D1**, 1267 (1970)Google Scholar - 60.R.H. Dalitz, S.F. Tuan, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**2**, 425 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.2.425 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 61.Y.A. Chao, R.W. Kraemer, D.W. Thomas, B.R. Martin, Nucl. Phys. B
**56**, 46 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(73)90218-6 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 62.A. Engler, H.E. Fisk, Rw Kraemer, C.M. Meltzer, J.B. Westgard, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**15**, 224 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.224 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 63.G. Agakishiev et al., Phys. Rev. C
**87**, 025201 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.025201 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 64.K. Moriya, R. Schumacher, Nucl. Phys. A
**835**, 325 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.01.210 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 65.M. Bazzi et al., Phys. Lett. B
**704**, 113 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2011.09.011 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 66.M. Agnello et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
**94**, 212303 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.212303 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 67.D. Hadjimichef, J. Haidenbauer, G. Krein, Phys. Rev. C
**66**, 055214 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.66.055214 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 68.I. Bender, H.G. Dosch, H.J. Pirner, H.G. Kruse, Nucl. Phys. A
**414**, 359 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(84)90608-0 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 69.B. Silvestre-Brac, J. Labarsouque, J. Leandri, Nucl. Phys. A
**613**, 342 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(96)00424-1 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 70.S. Lemaire, J. Labarsouque, B. Silvestre-Brac, Nucl. Phys. A
**700**, 330 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01304-5 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 71.Y. Ikeda, T. Hyodo, W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A
**881**, 98 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.01.029 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 72.B. Holzenkamp, K. Holinde, J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A
**500**(3), 485 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(89)90223-6 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 73.H. Takahashi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
**87**, 212502 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.212502 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 74.J.K. Ahn et al., Phys. Rev. C
**88**(1), 014003 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.014003 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 75.S.A. Bass et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.
**41**, 255 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6410(98)00058-1. [Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41,225(1998)]ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 76.J. Adamczewski-Musch et al., Phys. Rev. C
**94**(2), 025201 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.025201 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 77.O. Arnold, Study of the hyperon–nucleon interaction via femtoscopy in elementary systems with hades and alice. Ph.D. thesis (2017)Google Scholar
- 78.B.B. Abelev et al., Eur. Phys. J. C
**75**(1), 1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3191-x ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 79.Bass, Pang and Werner, (Accessed 21 February 2018). https://karman.physics.purdue.edu/OSCAR/index.php/Main_Page
- 80.D. Griffiths,
*Introduction to Quantum Mechanics*(Pearson Prentice Hall, Prentice, 2004)Google Scholar - 81.M. Galassi,
*GNU Scientific Library: Reference Manual*(Network Theory, 2009)Google Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP^{3}