Hydrogen-bond-mediated structural variation of metal guanidinium formate hybrid perovskites with unit cell volume

Abstract: The hybrid perovskites are coordination frameworks with the same topology as the inorganic perovskites, but with properties driven by different chemistry, including host-framework hydrogen bonding. Like the inorganic perovskites, these materials exhibit many different phases, including structures with potentially exploitable functionality. However, far less is known about their behaviour under pressure. We have studied the structures of of manganese and cobalt guanidinium formate under pressure using single-crystal X-ray and powder neutron diffraction. Remarkably, when pressure reduces these materials' volume, they transform to a phase isostructural to cadmium guanidinium formate, which has an larger volume. Using DFT calculations, we show that this counterintuitive behaviour depends on the hydrogen-bonded network of guanidinium ions, which act as struts protecting the metal formate framework against compression. Our results demonstrate more generally that engineering desirable crystal structures in the hybrid perovskites will depend on achieving suitable host-guest hydrogen-bonding geometries.

\section{Introduction}

The hybrid perovskites are a family of materials analogous in
structure to the inorganic perovskites. In both the inorganic and
hybrid materials, ``\textbf{B} site'' cations are linked by anions
into a cubic network, with ``\textbf{A} site'' cations occupying the
cubic interstices. In the hybrid materials, however, a relatively
large linker anion such as iodide, cyanide, or formate expands the
network compared to the inorganic analogues, allowing the interstitial
\textbf{A} site to be occupied by a polyatomic organic ion such as an
alkylammonium, guanidinium, formamidinium, acetamidinium, or
imidazolium. Like their inorganic analogues, the hybrid materials
exhibit both a great diversity of potential compositions, with
hundreds of these materials reported over the past
decade,\autocite{li_chemically_2017, kieslich_same_2017} and important
functionality, most famously including solar energy
conversion\autocite{kanemitsu_photophysics_2018} but also
ferroelectric\autocite{shi_structural_2017} and caloric
behaviour.\autocite{bermudez-garcia_giant_2017}

There is every reason to expect the phase diagrams of this family of
materials to be as rich as their inorganic
counterparts.\autocite{xu_structural_2016} Indeed, because the
polyatomic linker anions lend the frameworks greater intrinsic
flexibility, we might anticipate an even greater diversity of phases
in the hybrid materials. This phase transition behaviour will depend
on fundamentally new physics and chemistry. In contrast with the
inorganic perovskites, organic \textbf{A}-site cations have a shape:
more formally, they may have intrinsic electric dipole or higher-order
multipole moments,\autocite{evans_control_2016} which will strongly
influence their structure and properties. Similarly, hydrogen bonding
between the organic guest cation and anionic framework may
dramatically change the relative stability of different
structures. These effects have only recently begun to be explored and
remain poorly understood. Yet mapping and understanding phase
transitions in the hybrid perovskites is both of intrinsic interest
from a crystal engineering perspective and of great value for
potential applications, as a means to tune these materials' electrical
and magnetic properties.

The best-explored variable in the phase diagrams of the hybrid
perovskites is temperature, with many phase changes with respect to
temperature now known.\autocite{shi_structural_2017} On the other
hand, with the exception of the well-studied lead halide perovskite
semiconductors,\autocite{postorino_pressure-induced_2017} relatively
few structural studies of materials in this family under applied
pressure have been reported,\autocite{collings_neon-bearing_2016,
  collings_structural_2016, feng_high_2016} although in some cases
vibrational spectroscopy has intriguingly indicated structural
changes.\autocite{gomez-aguirre_room-temperature_2015,
  xin_growth_2016} In particular, spectroscopic methods have revealed
high-pressure changes in many metal formate hybrid
perovskites.\autocite{maczka_raman_2014, maczka_temperature-_2014,
  maczka_comparative_2015, maczka_raman_2016,
  maczka_temperature-_2016, maczka_structural_2016}

We report here single-crystal synchrotron X-ray diffraction, powder
neutron diffraction, and density-functional theory calculations on the
metal guanidinium formate hybrid perovskites under pressure. Our
results demonstrate that the phase diagrams of these materials are
dictated by hydrogen-bonding interactions between the guanidinium and
formate ions, with implications for crystal engineering of the hybrid
perovskites more generally.

\section{Target materials}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics{fig1.pdf}
  \caption{(a) In the crystal structures discussed here, the
    guanidinium (\ce{N(CH2)3+}) and formate (\ce{HCO2-}) ions have a
    snug hydrogen-bonded fit.
    Depending on the metal ion, two metal guanidinium formate
    perovskite structures are known at ambient pressure: (b)~an
    orthorhombic phase in which guanidinium ions lie in two
    differently oriented planes, alternating down each column; and
    (c)~a rhombohedral phase (referred here to hexagonal axes) in
    which all guanidinium ions lie in parallel planes.}
  \label{fig:structure}
\end{figure}

We focus here on the metal guanidinium formates,
\ce{C(NH2)3[\textbf{M}^{II}(HCO2)3]}, which we henceforth abbreviate
\textbf{MGF}.  In these materials, the metal ions \textbf{M} are
linked by formate ions into a network, with the guanidinium ions
occupying the cubic interstices.\autocite{hu_metalorganic_2009} The
guanidinium ions act as struts that support the framework through the
snug hydrogen-bonded fit between guanidinium and formate ions
(Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}a). As a result of this strong interaction,
the guanidinium ions are crystallographically ordered, in contrast
with, for instance, the dimethylammonium metal
formates\autocite{jain_multiferroic_2009} and the guanidinium metal
cyanides,\autocite{xu_controlling_2016} where the guest-framework
interaction is weaker and the guest ions are disordered at room
temperature.

The materials in this family with
$\mathbf{M} = \ce{Mn}, \ce{Fe}, \ce{Co}, \ce{Ni}, \ce{Zn}$ have an
orthorhombic structure (space group $Pnna$), in which the pseudocubic
perovskite cell is distorted slightly along the face diagonal. In this
structure, alternate planes of guanidinium ions have different
orientations, forming a herringbone pattern
(Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}b). By contrast, \textbf{CdGF} adopts a
rhombohedral structure (space group $R\bar{3}c$) in which the
pseudocubic cell is distorted along the body
diagonal.\autocite{collings_compositional_2015} In this form, each
guanidinium ion has the same orientation (Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}c).

\begin{figure}[tp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics{fig2.pdf}
  \caption{Crystallographic unit cell parameters of (a) \textbf{MnGF}
    and (b) \textbf{CoGF}, relative to the lowest-pressure values in
    each phase, as determined from powder neutron
    diffraction. Normalised crystallographic unit cell volumes along
    with fitted bulk moduli (see ESI), are shown in (c, d).  The same
    data can be alternatively visualised in terms of the pseudocubic
    perovskite (e, f) cell length $a$ and (g, h) lattice angle
    $\alpha$. Closed symbols represent the orthorhombic phase, open
    symbols the rhombohedral one; different symbols (circle, triangle,
    square) correspond to different sample loadings.}
    \label{fig:cell}
  \end{figure}

  We have studied the behaviour of \textbf{MnGF} and \textbf{CoGF}
  under pressure, using single-crystal laboratory and synchrotron
  X-ray and powder neutron diffraction.  We found that both
  \textbf{MnGF} and \textbf{CoGF} undergo a first-order transition
  from the ambient orthorhombic phase to a rhombohedral phase
  isostructural with \textbf{CdGF} at moderate pressures, with the two
  phases in each case coexisting over a small pressure range
  (\textbf{MnGF}: \SIrange{1.2}{1.5}{GPa}; \textbf{CoGF}:
  \SIrange{2.0}{2.6}{GPa}).  Unlike the related metal ammonium
  formates in argon pressure-transmitting medium, no indication of the
  medium entering the framework was
  observed.\autocite{collings_neon-bearing_2016} In single-crystal
  measurements, the high-pressure phase exists as a non-merohedral
  twin, with two components corresponding to the two orientations of
  the guanidinium ions in the ambient-pressure herringbone pattern
  (see ESI). Indeed, parallel twin domains are clearly visible in the
  high-pressure phase (Fig. S1). Taking layers of the two different
  guanidinium orientations to represent ``spin up'' and ``spin down'',
  the system is thus analogous to a one-dimensional Ising spin-chain:
  initially antiferromagnetic, applying pressure causes the
  nearest-neighbor interactions to become ferromagnetic, and hence
  domains of aligned guanidinium ions grow to macroscopic sizes.

Here we will first discuss the behaviour within each phase and then
consider the reasons for the phase transition itself.

\section{Strain}

It is instructive to examine the structural variation within each
phase in two different ways. First, we can simply plot the relative
change of each lattice parameter on applying pressure
(Fig.~\ref{fig:cell}a, b).  In both the orthorhombic and the
rhombohedral phases, the linear compressibility varies substantially
between the crystallographic axes (Table~\ref{tab:linear}). At the
most extreme example, in the orthorhombic phase of \textbf{MnGF}, the
linear compressibility along the $a$ axis is substantial while that
along the $c$ axis is within experimental error of zero.  This
behaviour is readily understandable in terms of the orientation of the
guanidinium ions, which act as struts, keeping the framework
relatively rigid within their plane (see Figure 1). In the
orthorhombic phase, the $c$ axis runs parallel to the plane of every
guanidinium ion, while the $a$ and $b$ axes are angled away from these
planes; thus the linear compressibility is far greater along the $a$
or $b$ axes than along $c$. By contrast, in the rhombohedral phase the
guanidinium ions lie in the $ab$ plane, and the linear compressibility
is hence greater along $c$ than along $a$ or $b$. The net effect in
both materials is that the two phases have comparable bulk moduli
(Fig.~\ref{fig:cell}c, d).

  \begin{table}
  \centering\footnotesize
  \begin{tabular}{lSS}
    \toprule
    Axis & {\textbf{MnGF}} & {\textbf{CoGF}} \\
    \midrule
    \multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Orthorhombic}} \\
    $a$ & 26.7(4) & 19.5(3) \\
    $b$ & 15.2(2) & 11.4(2) \\
    $c$ & 0.03(16) & 1.10(8) \\
    \midrule
    \multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Rhombohedral (hexagonal axes)}} \\
    $a=b$ & 2.04(15) & 2.34(10) \\
    $c$ & 27.3(5) & 21.9(7) \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Linear compressibilities $-\partial\ell/\ell\partial P$
    (\si{TPa^{-1}}) of the target materials in the orthorhombic and
    rhombohedral phases, estimated from straight-line fits to the
    crystallographic data shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cell}.}
  \label{tab:linear}
\end{table}

A second way to examine these data is to transform the lattice
parameters to a pseudocubic cell corresponding to the cubic perovskite
aristotype. In the orthorhombic phase, this pseudocubic cell has two
independent cell lengths and one variable angle (with the other two
fixed at \ang{90}); in the rhombohedral phase, the pseudocubic cell's
three lengths and three angles are respectively identical.  Analysing
the data in this fashion shows by contrast that the pseudocubic cell
lengths $a$ decrease in both phases of both materials at an
approximately constant rate (Fig.~\ref{fig:cell}e, f), while the pseudocubic cell
angle $\alpha$ increases (Fig.~\ref{fig:cell}g, h). In each case this reflects the
compression and collapse that would be expected of a topologically
cubic framework under pressure.

Of course, these two analyses contain exactly the same information,
but they highlight different aspects. Whilst applying pressure causes
the cubic metal formate framework to collapse, the guest guanidinium
ions act as relatively incompressible struts.

\section{Phase transition}

We now turn to the phase transition itself. At first glance it seems
puzzling that, starting from the orthorhombic phase of \textbf{MnGF}
or \textbf{CoGF}, either \emph{increasing} the unit cell volume by
replacing manganese (crystal radius $r = \SI{0.97}{\angstrom}$) or
cobalt ($r = \SI{0.885}{\angstrom}$) by cadmium ($r =
\SI{1.09}{\angstrom}$),\autocite{shannon_revised_1976} or
\emph{decreasing} the unit cell volume by applying pressure should
result in the same rhombohedral structure.

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \includegraphics{fig3.pdf}
  \caption{Lattice energy as a function of volume of the rhombohedral
    and orthorhombic phases from DFT geometry optimisations at
    constant volume, with fits to the second-order Birch-Murnaghan
    equation of state, for (a) \textbf{MnGF}, (b) \textbf{CoGF}, and
    (c) \textbf{CdGF}. Both energy and volume are given per formula
    unit. The fitted bulk modulus $B$ is labelled on the graph; full
    fitted parameters are given as ESI.}
  \label{fig:dft}
\end{figure}

To help resolve this puzzle, we used density-functional theory
calculations to calculate the energy of each phase as a function of
volume for \textbf{MnGF}, \textbf{CoGF} and \textbf{CdGF}.  In
agreement with the experimental data, our results show that in
\textbf{MnGF} and \textbf{CoGF}, the orthorhombic phase is the most
stable at zero pressure, while the rhombohedral phase, with smaller
volume, is favored at higher pressures (Fig.~\ref{fig:dft}a, b). The predicted
transition pressures are \SI{0.99}{GPa} (\textbf{MnGF}) and
\SI{0.65}{GPa} (\textbf{CoGF}). It is not surprising that these values
are both smaller than observed experimentally: this first-order phase
transition involves substantial rearrangement of the guanidinium ions,
and the pressure at which the two phases nominally have the same
enthalpy should thus be considered a lower bound rather than a
quantitative prediction of the phase transition pressure. Indeed, one
might expect that in the larger Mn cell this rearrangement should be
slightly easier than in the smaller Co analogue, rationalising the
observations that both the difference between the nominal DFT and
experimentally observed phase transition pressures, and the pressure
range where the phases coexist, are smaller for \textbf{MnGF} than for
\textbf{CoGF}.

By contrast, in \textbf{CdGF}, although the stablest orthorhombic
structure again has greater volume than the stablest rhombohedral
structure, the rhombohedral phase is favored at all cell volumes
(Fig.~\ref{fig:dft}c). Again, this is in agreement with the experimental
observation that no orthorhombic phase has been observed in this
material.

\section{Discussion}

The difference between these materials' behaviour can be rationalised
in terms of the hydrogen bonding between guanidinium and formate
ions. Table~\ref{tab:NO-dist} shows the \ce{N-H\bond{...}O} distance
in \textbf{MnGF} and \textbf{CdGF}, as determined from single-crystal
X-ray diffraction experiments and DFT calculations. In each case the
DFT values are \SIrange{0.05}{0.08}{\angstrom} smaller than the
diffraction results at ambient temperature and pressure. In
\textbf{MnGF}, the DFT \ce{N\bond{...}O} distances fall by at most
\SI{0.025}{\angstrom} across the phase transition. Even considering
the energy minima, rather than the structures immediately before and
after the phase transition, the differences in distance between the
phases range from \SIrange{0.03}{0.04}{\angstrom}. This result is
slightly smaller than the experimental values of
\SIrange{0.03}{0.09}{\angstrom}, where to provide the most accurate
experimental comparison, we have combined the atomic coordinates from
single-crystal diffraction with lattice parameters from powder
diffraction at a pressure where the phases coexist.

On the other hand, in \textbf{CdGF}, the difference in the DFT
\ce{N\bond{...}O} distance between the two energy minima is
\SI{0.11}{\angstrom}, four times the corresponding value in
\textbf{MnGF}. Moreover, the absolute DFT \ce{N\bond{...}O} distance
in the putative orthorhombic phase, \SI{2.99}{\angstrom}, is
substantially larger than the DFT value from any experimentally
observed phase (\SIrange{2.87}{2.91}{\angstrom}). Thus it seems that
the hypothetical orthorhombic unit cell in \textbf{CdGF} is both too
large and too rigid to allow effective hydrogen bonding.

This is consistent with our observations of these structures'
flexibility more generally. As previously noted, the rhombohedral
structure is distorted along the pseudocubic body diagonal
(\emph{i.e.}, the hexagonal $c$ axis; see Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}c), which is
perpendicular to all guanidinium ions, and is therefore relatively
flexible along this direction. On the other hand, the herringbone
arrangement of guanidinium ions makes the orthorhombic structure more
rigid. Thus the rhombohedral structure is able to accommodate
favorable hydrogen-bonding distances in both \textbf{MnGF} and
\textbf{CdGF}; by contrast, the more rigid orthorhombic structure is
unable to distort in this way.

At this point we pause to consider the extent and nature of the
agreement between our experimental and computational data. In addition
to uncertainties associated, for instance, with the specific choice of
exchange-correlation functional, the DFT methodology used here has two
features that fundamentally differentiate it from experiment. First,
DFT does not intrinsically take thermal vibrations into account, and
thus effectively produces data at absolute zero temperature. Second,
fitting optimised energy as a function of cell volume considers only
distortions at the gamma point (that is, those in which every unit
cell distorts in the same way). The first of these points helps to
explain why, in neglecting thermal expansion, the DFT underestimates
the unit cell volume and hence overestimates the bulk modulus. The
second explains why the DFT predicts that the orthorhombic phase is
mechanically stiffer than the rhombohedral one (Fig.~\ref{fig:dft}),
while the experimental bulk moduli of the phases are similar
(Fig.~\ref{fig:cell}c, d). Indeed, the DFT isolates the specific sense
of flexibility that we argue is responsible for the phase
transformation behaviour: the ability of the metal formate framework
to accommodate the guanidinium ions at a variety of unit cell volumes;
thus the apparent discrepancy between experimental and simulated bulk
moduli does not contradict our argument above.

\begin{table*}
  \centering\footnotesize
  \begin{tabular}{lllr}
    \toprule
    \textbf{Material} & \textbf{Conditions}                                               & \textbf{Phase} & \textbf{\ce{N-H\bond{...}O} distance (Å)} \\
    \midrule
    \textbf{MnGF}     & SCXRD, \SI{0}{GPa}, \SI{293}{K}\autocite{hu_metalorganic_2009}        & $Pnna$         & 2.9529(19), 2.976(2), 2.9904(16)          \\
                      & PND, \SI{1.25}{GPa}, ambient $T$                                & $Pnna$         & 2.906(5), 2.919(5), 2.965(5)             \\
                      &                               & $R\bar{3}c$    & 2.879(10)                                \\
    \cmidrule{2-4}
                      & DFT, minimum energy                                               & $Pnna$         & 2.8964, 2.8968, 2.9136                    \\
                      & DFT, minimum energy                                               & $R\bar{3}c$    & 2.8705                                    \\
    \cmidrule{2-4}
                      & DFT, \SI{220}{\angstrom^3}                                        & $Pnna$         & 2.8580, 2.8639, 2.8749                    \\
                      & DFT, \SI{214}{\angstrom^3}                                        & $R\bar{3}c$    & 2.8498                                    \\
    \midrule
    \textbf{CdGF}     & DFT, minimum energy                                               & $Pnna$         & 2.9883, 2.9883, 2.9883                    \\
                      & DFT, minimum energy                                               & $R\bar{3}c$    & 2.8736                                    \\
    \cmidrule{2-4}
                      & SCXRD, \SI{0}{GPa}, \SI{300}{K}\autocite{collings_compositional_2015} & $R\bar{3}c$    & 2.927(3)                                  \\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{\ce{N-H\bond{...}O} distances, in the orthorhombic and
    rhombohedral phases of \textbf{MnGF} and \textbf{CdGF}, from
    single-crystal X-ray and powder neutron diffraction and
    DFT modelling. For the powder neutron data, the atomic
      coordinates were fixed at their value from single-crystal X-ray
      models at the nearest available pressure.}
  \label{tab:NO-dist}
\end{table*}

As a final comparison, we consider related manganese(II) formate
perovskites in which host-guest hydrogen bonding is less important. In
dimethylammonium manganese formate, under ambient conditions, the
manganese-formate framework has the same rhombohedral structure as
discussed above, with the dimethylammonium ions disordered about the
threefold axis for want of a strongly bound hydrogen-bonding
site.\autocite{jain_multiferroic_2009, duncan_local_2016} This suggests
that host-guest hydrogen bonding is not needed to stabilise the
rhombohedral phase.  An even more dramatic example is provided by the
material ``\ce{[Mn(HCO2)3].$n$H2O}'', which has no bulky
\textbf{A}-site cation at all.  Under ambient conditions, it has the
same rhombohedral structure as discussed above, with guest water
molecules occupying the cubic interstices
($a = \SI{8.327}{\angstrom}$,
$c = \SI{22.890}{\angstrom}$).\autocite{zhou_novel_2006} The original
report suggested that this compound contains manganese(III)
ions. However, the crystals were colorless and the \ce{Mn-O} bond
lengths were \SI{2.190}{\angstrom}; both of these observations suggest
that the correct oxidation state is
manganese(II),\autocite{sidey_universal_2014} with charge balance
preserved by a guest hydronium ion, \ce{[Mn(HCO2)3].H3O.$n$H2O}. (For
comparison, the closely related compound
\ce{[Mn(HCO2)3].$\tfrac12$CO2.$\tfrac14$HCOOH.$\tfrac23$H2O}, which
unambiguously contains manganese(III) ions, is dark red and has an
\ce{Mn-O} bond length of
\SI{2.001}{\angstrom}.\autocite{cornia_manganeseiii_1999}) If this
oxidation state assignment is accepted, then this material
demonstrates that the rhombohedral structure is stable even in the
absence of a bulky organic \textbf{A}-site cation.

\section{Conclusion}

In conclusion, we have identified a new high-pressure phase in the
guanidinium metal formate perovskites \textbf{MnGF} and \textbf{CoGF}
that is isostructural with the ambient-pressure structure of
\textbf{CdGF}. Our experimental and modelling data demonstrate that
the host-guest hydrogen bonding between guanidinium and formate ions
plays a crucial role in determining which phase is the most stable:
the rhombohedral structure is able to accommodate a wide range of cell
volumes, while the orthorhombic structure provides a snug fit at
optimal cell volume but cannot as easily distort. Thus the
rhombohedral structure is favored for both small (\textbf{MnGF} and
\textbf{CoGF} under pressure) and large (\textbf{CdGF}) unit cells.
Host-guest hydrogen-bonding interactions also strongly influence
distortion within each phase, with the linear compressibility being
notably smaller in directions where the guanidinium ions are able to
resist compression by acting as ``struts'' within the framework.  More
generally, our results provide a further demonstration of the complex
interplay between framework and guest in determining the structures of
the hybrid perovskites. In contrast with their inorganic analogues,
host-guest hydrogen bonding may greatly stabilise particular
structures but only over a relatively small pressure, temperature, or
composition range. The complexity of the resulting phase diagrams, and
the consequences for these materials' properties, will reward
considerable further investigation.

\section{Methods}

All samples were synthesised by literature
methods.\autocite{hu_metalorganic_2009}

In the laboratory X-ray measurements, a single crystal of
\textbf{MnGF} was loaded in paraffin oil in a diamond anvil cell at a
pressure of \SI{1.70(3)}{GPa}. For the synchrotron X-ray experiments,
single crystals were loaded in 4:1 methanol-ethanol
pressure-transmitting medium in a diamond anvil cell and full data
collections were performed on I19 (Diamond Light Source) at several
pressures up to \SI{2.14(3)}{GPa} (\textbf{MnGF}) or \SI{1.75(3)}{GPa}
(\textbf{CoGF}). In each case a small ruby sphere was included as
internal pressure reference; the pressure was determined from the ruby
fluorescence wavelength.\autocite{ruby} For the neutron measurements,
perdeuterated powder samples of both materials were loaded, again in
4:1 methanol-ethanol medium, in a Paris-Edinburgh cell with a small
piece of lead as internal pressure reference; data were collected on
PEARL (ISIS Neutron and Muon Source)\autocite{bull_pearl:_2016} while
the pressure was monitored from refinement of the lead cell parameter.

In each of the DFT measurements, the cell parameters and atomic
positions were allowed to relax while maintaining the symmetry of the
appropriate phase and the cell volume. For \textbf{MnGF} and
\textbf{CoGF} a G-type antiferromagnetic arrangement of magnetic
moments was used. Calculations were perfomed with CASTEP
18.3\autocite{CASTEP} using the PBEsol functional\autocite{PBEsol} and
Tkatchenko-Scheffler semi-empirical dispersion
correction.\autocite{SEDC-TS}

Full experimental and computational details, along with refined
crystal structures and fit parameters, are given as ESI.

\section{Acknowledgements}

We gratefully acknowledge Bj\"orn Winkler (Goethe-Universit\"at
Frankfurt) for collaboration on preliminary experiments for this work;
Nicholas Funnell (ISIS Neutron and Muon Source) and Viswanathan
Mohandoss (QMUL) for assistance with the neutron experiments; Mark
Warren and David Allan (Diamond Light Source) for assistance with the
X-ray experiments; and Keith Refson (Royal Holloway, University of
London) for helpful discussion about the DFT calculations. We are
grateful to ISIS Neutron and Muon Source and Diamond Light Source for
the award of beam time and to the UK Materials and Molecular Modelling
Hub for computational resources, which is partially funded by EPSRC
(EP/P020194/1). ZY and GC thank the Chinese Scholarships Council for
scholarships. AF acknowledges financial support from the DFG, Germany,
within priority program SPP1236 (Project No. FR-2491/2-1) and from
Goethe-Universit\"at Frankfurt. AEP thanks EPSRC for funding
(EP/L024977/1).

\newpage

\renewcommand*{\bibfont}{\small}
\singlespacing
\printbibliography

\end{document}


Chirality of Intermediate Filaments and Magnetic Helicity of Active Regions

Abstract: Filaments which form either between or around active regions (ARs) are called intermediate filaments. In spite of various theoretical studies, the origin of the chirality of filaments is still uncovered. We investigated how intermediate filaments are related to their associated ARs, especially from the point of view of magnetic helicity and the orientation of polarity inversion lines (PILs). The chirality of filaments has been determined based on the orientations of barbs observed in BBSO full-disk Halpha images taken during the rising phase of solar cycle 23. The sign of magnetic helicity of ARs has been determined using S/inverse-S shaped sigmoids from Yohkoh SXT images. As a result, we have found a good correlation between the chirality of filaments and the magnetic helicity sign of ARs. Among 45 filaments, 42 filaments have shown the same sign as helicity sign of nearby ARs. It has been also confirmed that the role of both the orientation and the relative direction of PILs to ARs in determining the chirality of filaments is not significant, against a theoretical prediction. These results suggest that the chirality of intermediate filaments may originate from magnetic helicity of their associated ARs.

\section{INTRODUCTION}
It is a well-known property that all filaments are located above the
polarity inversion lines (PILs) \citep{Bab55} and magnetic fields in
filaments are nearly parallel to PILs \citep{Ler78, Ler83}. The
direction of the parallel axial fields viewed from the positive
polarity side is the basis for defining the chirality of filaments
as either dextral or sinistral \citep{Mar98}. The alignment of
fibrils along the PIL in a filament channel observed even before the
visible filament forms \citep{Gai97}, indicates that the existence
of the highly sheared axial field components is a necessary
condition for the formation of filaments. Understanding how this
parallel axial field forms in a filament channel is the key to
understanding the formation of filament itself.

Solar differential rotation has been regarded as one of the most
probable mechanism, which introduces strong shear along the PILs
combined with other surface effects such as meridional flow and
diffusion \citep{van98, van00, Mac00, Marte01}. The common feature
of such models is the unexpected strong dependence of the chirality
on the initial orientation of PILs. According to \citet{van98}, in
the northern hemisphere, filaments which form along the east-west
oriented PILs have the sinistral chirality while filaments along the
north-south oriented PILs have the dextral chirality. As a result,
the similar numbers of dextral filaments and sinistral filaments
form in each hemisphere. This result contradicts the well-observed
hemispheric pattern of chirality reported by \citet{Mar94}. Then,
what caused this wrong prediction of chirality? Those models assumed
the initial condition of magnetic fields to be potential where there
is no initial twist before the formation of filaments. The surface
effects are the only source which generates the shear in PILs.
\citet{van00} and \citet{Mac00} also pointed out that this potential
field assumption cannot guarantee the sign of chirality which is
consistent with the observation. This recognition of the limitation
of the models based on the surface effects only raised the necessity
to find other origin of filament chirality that does not depend on
the initial geometric configuration such as the orientation of PILs.

The alternative source for the filament chirality suggested by
\citet{van00} and \citet{Mac00} is the injection of axial field
components along the PILs. Their simulation predicted the observed
chirality pattern correctly when there occured the axial flux
emergence during the evolution of magnetic fields. The estimated
amount of axial flux emergence is about $10^{19}$~Mx~day$^{-1}$.
However, do we see this amount of flux emergence on the quiet-sun
region prior to the formation of filaments? Unfortunately, there is
no observational evidence which supports this axial flux emergence
in the quiet-sun region. In spite of this lack of the observational
supports of axial flux emergence, the excellent agreement between
the predicted chirality from the simulation and the observed
chirality strongly indicates that the additional axial flux should
be provided somehow other than by the surface effects only.

Recent simulations have started considering the active region (AR)
magnetic helicity which is accumulated in the solar corona before
the filament formation as a probable origin of the filament
chirality. In an open volume such as corona, magnetic helicity could
be injected due to either the emergence of the helical flux through
the photosphere or the horizontal motion of the field lines on the
photosphere \citep{Ber84}. According to \citet{Jeo07}, helicity
injection in an AR occurs mainly at the early phase of its flux
emergence, which indicates that the majority of AR helicity is the
initial helicity and the helicity generated by surface effects is
the minority. The injected helicity is partly accumulated in the
corona and is partly lost by ejections via CMEs \citep{Dev00, Dem02,
Gre02, Lim07}. This AR helicity accumulated in the corona could
provide the initial twist to the filament channel which is essential
in order for axial fields to match the observed hemispheric pattern
and to reveal inverse polarity configuration also \citep{Mac03}. The
significant improvement of the research was carried out by
\citet{Mac03} who considered the initial helicity of ARs instead of
inserting axial flux into PILs during the evolution \citep{van00,
Mac00}. The importance of initial helicity in determining the
chirality of filaments was also suggested by \citet{Mac05} which
examined the variance of the skew angle according to both the
different sign of the initial helicity and the various tilt angles.
Their result shows the positive correlation between the chirality
and the sign of helicity within the range of tilt angle between
$20^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$ in the northern hemisphere. On the
other hand, dextral skew was not produced for the large positive
tilt angle ($40^{\circ}$) even with the negative helicity sign, and
dextral skew was dominant within the range of tilt angle between
$-40^{\circ}$ and $10^{\circ}$ even with the positive helicity sign.
This result suggests that the surface effects still predominate over
the initial helicity under certain configuration.

Then which component is more fundamental and more important in the
formation of filament and chirality in the real solar space, surface
effects or initial helicity? According to our observational
experience, it is thought that the chirality of filaments is
determined predominantly by initial helicity contained in associated
ARs rather than the differential rotation. In order to verify the
significance of AR initial helicity in the filament formation and
its chirality determination in an observational way, we aim to
examine the one-to-one correspondence between the chirality of
quiescent filaments and the sign of the initial helicity of
associated ARs. In addition, we will also examine whether there is
any effect of the orientation of PILs on the chirality
determination.

As the first step of the observational study on quiescent filaments,
we limit the scope of the present work to focusing on the special
type of filaments, namely, intermediate. In that intermediate
filaments form external to single flux system, not within AR, we
regard intermediate filaments as a special type of quiescent
filaments. Unlike high latitude quiescent filaments that form
between two old flux systems, however, intermediate filaments form
adjacent to relatively young ARs. This property makes intermediate
filaments suitable objects to study the relationship between
filaments and their associated ARs.

\section{OBSERVATION \& METHOD}
We searched for intermediate filaments observed in the rising phase
of solar cycle $23$ from $1996$ to 2001, each of which formed
between a decayed polarity region and a relatively young AR.
Relatively short filaments near sunspots were selected as
intermediate filaments from BBSO H$\alpha$ full--disk images. Then
magnetic environments around filaments were examined using
line--of--sight full--disk magnetograms taken by SOHO/MDI, for the
purpose of confirming if they satisfy the above condition of
intermediate filaments.

The chirality of filaments has been determined based on the
orientation of barbs seen in the H$\alpha$ images that
right--bearing/left--bearing barbs always correspond to
dextral/sinistral \citep{Mar94}. Utilization of limb darkening
subtracted full--disk H$\alpha$ images provided by BBSO makes it
easy to check the orientation of barbs.
The uncertainty in
the determination of chirality of a filament depends on the number of barbs
as well as the seeing condition of H$\alpha$ images. If the seeing condition
is good enough and filaments have clear barbs more than 1,
the chirality can be unambiguously determined.
Most of intermediate filaments we examined  had three barbs, and that
chirality could be unambiguously determined unless the seeing condition is very poor.
Three filaments showed only one clear barb that was used to determine the chirality.
We have excluded from the sample a few filaments
that either ambiguously showed barbs of both type,
probably due to the projection effect, or whose structures were not clearly visible due to
the poor seeing condition of the images.

In order to determine the sign of magnetic helicity or twist of the
AR close to each intermediate filament, we used soft X--ray images
taken by SXT/Yohkoh. \citet{Can07} showed the one--to--one
correspondence between \textsf{S} or inverse--\textsf{S} sigmoids
within ARs and right--hand or left--hand twist of ARs respectively.
In case the shape of a sigmoid observed at the same day as a
filament is not clear, we checked SXT images one or two days before
or after the observation time assuming that the sign of helicity in
an AR maintains at least during a few days. Only 2 ARs contain
X--ray structures whose shape is neither S nor inverse--S.

Figure \ref{fig1} shows one filament in the sample. It was observed
on 11 August 1999; SOHO/MDI magnetogram, BBSO/H$\alpha$ image and
Yohkoh/SXT image. It is clear that the filament in the southern
hemisphere is an intermediate filament since it formed between the
negative polarity of decaying flux region in the left side and the
positive polarity of the younger AR in the right side
(Figure~\ref{fig1}(a)). The left-bearing barbs shown in
Figure~\ref{fig1}(b) indicate that the filament is sinistral. In
this case of sinistral filament in the southern hemisphere, the
orientation of the PIL is nearly north-south direction and the AR is
in the western side of the PIL. Therefore, we sort this filament
into group 'N-S' in terms of the PIL orientation, and group 'W' in
terms of the relative direction of the AR. The compact and bright
coronal structure observed in the SXT image (Figure~\ref{fig1}(c))
which is in the same location as the AR shows \textsf{S} shaped
sigmoid indicating that the twist of the AR is right-hand sense, or
the sign of the helicity in this AR is positive.

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{fig1_a.eps}
    \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{fig1_b.eps}
    \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{fig1_c.eps}
\caption{A set of sample which contains the magnetogram, H$\alpha$
image and soft X-ray image. (a) MDI/SOHO magnetogram taken on 11
August 1999 (b) H$\alpha$ image taken on 11 August 1999 (c)
SXT/YOHKOH image taken on 12 August 1999}\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{RESULT}

\subsection{Examples}

Figure~\ref{fig2} and Figure~\ref{fig3} are examples of sinistral
and dextral filaments observed on 11 August 1999 and on 26 February
1999, respectively. Figure~\ref{fig2} is a partially enlarged image
of Figure~\ref{fig1}. Both filaments in Figure~\ref{fig1} and
Figure~\ref{fig3} are located in the southern hemisphere and in the
eastern side of each AR. However, as seen in the SXT images, the
signs of their associated ARs are the opposite. In case of the AR
observed on 11 August 1999, Figure~\ref{fig2}, the shape of the
bright sigmoid is \textsf{S}. Two bundles of loops in the north and
south part of the AR form \textsf{S} shaped sigmoid which means this
AR contains the positive helicity.  The helicity of this active
region is the same as the statistically determined hemispheric
pattern of active region helicity.
 On the other hand, the AR
observed on 26 February 1999 shows a definite inverse-\textsf{S}
shaped sigmoid which indicates the presence of the negative helicity
in the AR. This is opposite to the hemispheric pattern mentioned above.
The point is that  even though these two ARs are in the same hemisphere,
and in the same relative direction to the filament, they have  opposite signs of
helicity. More important is that  the associated filaments have opposite chirality
signs, too; the filament adjacent to the positive-helicity AR is sinistral and
the one adjacent to the negative-helicity AR is dextral.
This suggests that the relationship between AR helicity and filament chirality
is not a coincidence resulting from the hemispheric patterns of AR helicity and
filament chirality.

One of the well known features of filaments is the existence of the
right-skewed coronal arcades above the sinistral filaments and
left-skewed coronal arcades above the dextral filaments
\citep{Mar97, Mar98}. This feature is also notable in
Figure~\ref{fig2} and Figure~\ref{fig3}. The coronal arcade above
the filaments are anchored in magnetic pole of AR next to the
filaments. This close linkage between AR magnetic fields and magnetic
environment of the filaments indicates that the intermediate filaments may have
formed under the magnetic environment that is strongly affected by the adjacent ARs.
As a consequence, it may not be surprising that  the chirality of an intermediate
filament is related to the helicity of the associated AR.

\subsection{Statistics}

Among the filaments observed during the rising phase of cycle 23, we
have selected $45$ filaments the chirality of which were reliably determined
and whose associated ARs showed clear sigmoid coronal
structures. These filaments were grouped by their chirality,
helicity sign of their nearby ARs, the orientations of PILs and the
relative directions of adjacent ARs to old flux regions.

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\plottwo{fig2_a.eps}{fig2_b.eps}
\caption{A sinistral filament in the southern hemisphere. The
\textsf{S} sigmoid above the adjacent AR indicates the positive AR
helicity.} \label{fig2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\plottwo{fig3_a.eps}{fig3_b.eps}
\caption{A dextral filament in the southern hemisphere. The
inverse-\textsf{S} sigmoid above the adjacent AR indicates the
negative AR helicity.} \label{fig3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

 Table~\ref{tbl1} shows that the relationship between the chirality of filaments  and the sign of AR helicity.  It indicates that 38 among 45 filaments (84\% level) follow the hemispheric pattern, and 39 among 45 ARs (87\%) follow the hemispheric pattern. The table shows that there is a very
strong correlation between the filament chirality and the sign of AR
helicity in each hemisphere. About  42 among 45 intermediate filaments ($93\%$) have the same sign of chirality as that of their associated AR helicity. This
strong correlation between the chirality and the AR helicity sign
supports the idea that there is one-to-one correspondence between
the chirality of filaments and the sign of  AR helicity.
Especially in the southern hemisphere,
all sinistral filaments are associated with the positive AR helicity,
and all dextral filaments with negative AR helicity. This strong
correlation may not be due to the statistically  established hemispheric
patterns of filament chirality  and active region helicity,
for dextral filaments in the southern hemisphere do not follow such a pattern.

On the other hand, in the northern hemisphere, there are
three filaments, one dextral and two sinistral, which do not
follow the strong correlation as seen in the southern hemisphere.
Do these filaments represent clear counter examples indicating any exception
to the inferred relationship between filament chirality and AR helicity sign?
They may be not. As for the dextral filament,  the determination of the sign of AR helicity was somewhat ambiguous, because the sigmoid of AR was not so well developed.
In the other two sinistral filaments,  the associated ARs were complex,  not being well isolated from other ARs. These complex magnetic environments surrounding the filaments may have introduced the ambiguity in identifying the associated active region.
 Therefore, we think that these three cases represent some uncertainty in our approach  rather than clear counter examples.
If we can find any clear counter example which does not follow the correlation, that would be quite interesting one, but so far we have found none.

\begin{table}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{The relationship between the sign of chirality and the sign
of AR helicity. Numbers in bold represent the number of filaments
which have the positive correlation between chirality and AR
helicity. \label{tbl1}}\vspace{1ex}
\vspace{1ex}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{(a) Northern hemisphere}\\
\tableline\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}AR helicity & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Filament chirality}\\
\rule{0pt}{3ex}            & (sinistral) & (dextral)\\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex} $+$ & $\textbf{3}$ & $1$ \\
\rule{0pt}{3ex} $-$ & $2$ & $\textbf{19}$ \\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}Total & $5$ & $20$ \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}\,\,\,\,\,
\vspace{3ex}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{(b) Southern hemisphere}\\
\tableline\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}AR helicity & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Filament chirality}\\
\rule{0pt}{3ex}            & (sinistral) & (dextral)\\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex} $+$ & $\textbf{18}$ & $0$ \\
\rule{0pt}{3ex} $-$ & $0$ & $\textbf{2}$ \\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}Total & $18$ & $2$ \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Table~\ref{tbl2} suggests that the PIL orientation may not be
important in determining the chirality of filaments, unlike some
theoretical studies based on the surface effects \citep{van98,
van00}. According to these studies, it is expected that the 'N-S'
orientation of the PIL corresponds to dextral (sinistral) chirality
in the northern (southern) hemisphere. Table~\ref{tbl2} indicates
that $31$ filaments are consistent with this prediction, but
$6$ filaments are not. We think that this number ($6$ out of
$31$) may not be statistically negligible. On the other hand,
the studies predict that the 'E-W' orientation of the PIL
corresponds to sinistral (dextral) chirality in the northern
(southern) hemisphere. However, Table~\ref{tbl2} shows that only one
out of seven filaments is consistent with this prediction, and the
other six filaments are not. Therefore, our results strongly suggest
that the orientation of the PIL may not be the most important factor
in the determination of filament chirality, and hence differential
rotation may not be crucial to the chirality of filaments, even
though it might play some role.

\begin{table}[tb]
\begin{center}
\caption{The relationship between the orientation of PILs and the
chirality of filaments. NH (SH) indicates the northern (southern)
hemisphere. The numbers of filaments consistent with the theoretical
 prediction (see text) are indicated in bold.
\label{tbl2}} \vspace{2ex}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
\tableline\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}PIL orientation & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Filament chirality}\\
\rule{0pt}{3ex} & dextral(NH)/sinistral(SH) & sinistral(NH)/dextral(SH) \\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}N---S & $\textbf{32}$ & $6$ \\
\rule{0pt}{3ex}E---W & $6$ & $\textbf{1}$ \\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}Total & $39$ & $7$ \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}\\
\end{center}
\end{table}

Next, we have compared our result with the model of \citet{Mac98}
which predicted that the position of the younger AR relative to the
older, decaying flux system, is one factor affecting the filament
chirality. Table~\ref{tbl3} shows the result we have obtained to
test the model prediction. Note that for easy comparison, only the
filaments with the 'N-S' PIL were used to produce the table. In the
northern hemisphere, only $40\%$ of filaments are consistent
with the model and in the southern hemisphere, $47\%$ are,
clearly indicating that the relative position of the younger AR is
not an important factor unlike the prediction.

\begin{table}[tb]
\begin{center}
\caption{The relationship between the chirality and the relative
position of AR to the older flux systems in each hemisphere. The
numbers of filaments consistent with the prediction of \citet{Mac98}
are indicated in bold. \label{tbl3}} \vspace{1ex}
\vspace{1ex}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{(a) Northern hemisphere}\\
\tableline\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}AR position & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Filament chirality}\\
\rule{0pt}{3ex}              & (sinistral) & (dextral)\\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}eastern side & $\textbf{2}$ & $10$ \\
\rule{0pt}{3ex}western side & $2$ & $\textbf{6}$ \\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}Total & $4$ & $16$ \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}\,\,\,\,\,
\vspace{3ex}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
\multicolumn{3}{c}{(b) Southern hemisphere}\\
\tableline \tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}AR position & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{Filament chirality}\\
\rule{0pt}{3ex}              & (sinistral) & (dextral)\\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}eastern side & $7$ & $\textbf{0}$ \\
\rule{0pt}{3ex}western side & $\textbf{8}$ & $2$ \\
\tableline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}Total & $15$ & $2$ \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section{DISCUSSION}
Our observation of intermediate filaments using BBSO H$\alpha$
full-disk images during the rising phase of solar cycle $23$ bears
out three main results: 1) There is a strong correlation between the
sign of filament chirality and the sign of AR helicity. 2) The
orientation of the PIL is not crucial to determining the filament
chirality. 3) The position of the associated ARs relative to the old
flux systems is not correlated to the sign of filament chirality.
The second result implies that the major origin of filament
chirality can not be differential rotation, the effect of which
helicity injection is sensitive to the orientation of the PIL. In
this regard, our result supports the studies done by Mackay and his
collaborators \citep{van00, Mac00, Mac03}. Our result on the
relative position of ARs, however, does not support \citet{Mac98}
which attempted to the formation and chirality of an intermediate
filament.

These results also raise a challenge to all of previous efforts to
explain the chirality of filaments by assuming geometric factors
such as orientation, location, specific configuration and so on.
These assumptions  were often stated implicitly in the form of
schematic drawings.  For example, \citet{Marte01} successfully
reproduced the hemispheric pattern of the filament chirality using
the head-to-tail linkage model of two initially unconnected bipoles.
The success of their model is attributed to the configuration where
the bipole at the lower latitude is slightly displaced toward the
west with respect to the one at the higher latitude. There is no
explanation why this configuration should happen. It might be due to
the effect of differential rotation.   If this is  the case,the
origin of filament chirality in their model is the differential
rotation,  which  our results do not support.

Another example of a schematic model is found in the recent work of
\citet{Wan07} that reported the observation of the formation of
intermediate filaments. They used the magnetic reconnection between
potential-like global magnetic fields of the AR and the  bipoles
located on the outer polarity inversion line, and then successfully
produced dextral filaments as observed (see Fig. 10 in the paper).
Note that the success of their model is due to their choice
of the PIL in the upper left. If they had chosen the PIL on the
upper right, the filament would have turned out to be sinistral.
Therefore this model suggests that it is possible for both dextral filaments and sinistral ones to be associated with the same active region if it has a potential-like field configuration. This prediction is not consistent with our results indicating the strong correlation between the chirality of filaments and the sign of AR helicity. The discrepancy
might be attributed to the fact that the ARs we examined were far from potential-like configurations as employed by \citet{Wan07}. It would then be interesting to examine whether ARs of weakly twisted or potential field configuration can have intermediate filaments of both signs of chirality or not.

The most important result we have obtained, of course, is the strong
correlation between the sign of chirality of intermediate filaments
and that of helicity of their associated ARs. This result may shed
light on the physical nature of the {\em initial helicity} that has
been often assumed to explain for the correct sign of filament
chirality \citep{van00, Mac00, Mac03, Mac05}. Since a quiescent
filament is most likely to be formed at the interface of two flux
systems when they converge \citep{Tan87}, the initial helicity of
the filament should come from either of two flux systems. If one of
these flux systems is younger than the other, which is the case for
intermediate filaments, the helicity of filaments may be more
contributed by the younger one as we shall argue below. According to
this scenario, the sign of chirality of intermediate filaments
should be equal to the sign of AR magnetic helicity, being
consistent with our result.

In the case of an intermediate filament, the helicity of the younger
system  is likely to dominate over the older flux system  since the
helicity content of a flux system  may decrease with its age. The
intensive injection of helicity in ARs occurs mainly in the flux
emerging phase, and the total amount of helicity injected during
this period is about a few $10^{43}\,\textrm{Mx}^2$ \citep{Jeo07}.
Once the notable flux emergence is over so that the injection of
helicity becomes mere, the rest of the lifetime may be regarded as a
helicity-losing period. CMEs, for instance, are a well-known
mechanism through which helicity is expelled from the corona of ARs.
Each CME carries out helicity with an amount of
$\sim10^{42}\,\textrm{Mx}^2$ \citep{Dev00}. Supposing
 that over $5-10$ times of CMEs occur
from an AR during its lifetime \citep{Dev00, Dem02}, a very old flux
system may contain little amount of remnant helicity. On the other
hand, a young flux system may have experienced less CMEs, so that it
may keep enough amount of helicity that can contribute to the
initial helicity for the formation of filaments. As a consequence,
the contribution of the younger flux system would be dominant.

Supposing that our above speculation on the intermediate filaments is correct and  it can be extended to quiescent filaments in a similar way,  we present a prediction on the formation and chirality of quiescent filaments which form between two old flux systems. If the signs of remnant helicity of two old flux systems
are the same, then either or both of two systems would supply
helicity into the PIL, leading to the formation of filaments with
the same sign of chirality. On the other hand, if the two systems
contain helicity of opposite sign, which system will contribute more
would not be determined straightforward. Then we could think of two
possibilities. If the two systems have remnant helicity of
comparable amount, but of different sign, the net helicity at the
interface would  be close to zero, and filaments would not be formed
there. If, on the other hand, there is unbalance between the amount
of helicity, the interface would contain significant amount of
helicity and filaments would be formed. The sign of chirality of
these quiescent filaments would follow that of the dominant
helicity. We plan to investigate the relationship between the
chirality of quiescent filaments and AR remnant helicity to verify
this prediction.

\acknowledgements We greatly appreciate the referee's constructive comments.  This work was supported by the Korea Research
Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government
(KRF-2005-070-C00059), and the Seoul Fellowship.

Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR)


Possible links between the liquid-gas and deconfinement-hadronization phase transitions

Abstract: It is commonly accepted that strongly interacting matter has several phase transitions in different domains of temperature and baryon density. In this contribution I discuss two most popular phase transitions which in principle can be accessed in nuclear collisions. One of them, the liquid-gas phase transition, is well established theoretically and studied experimentally in nuclear multifragmentation reactions at intermediate energies. The other one, the deconfinement-hadronization phase transition, is at the focus of present and future experimental studies with relativistic heavy-ion beams at SPS, RHIC and LHC. Pssible links between these two phase transitions are identified from the viewpoint of their manifestation in violent nuclear collisions.

\section{General remarks}

A primary goal of present and future experiments on heavy-ion collisions is to study
properties of strongly interacting matter away from the nuclear ground
state. Main efforts are focused on searching for possible phase transitions
in such collisions. Several phase transitions are predicted in different domains
of temperature ($T$)---baryon density ($\rho_B$) plane. As is well known,
strongly interacting matter has at least one multi-baryon bound state
at $\rho_B=\rho_0\approx0.16$ fm$^{-3}$ and a binding energy of about 10 MeV,
corresponding to atomic nuclei, which can be considered as droplets of nuclear matter.
This means that the equation of state of symmetric nuclear matter has a
zero-pressure point at $\rho_B=\rho_0$. Since the pressure should also vanish
at $\rho_B\to 0$, it must be a non-monotonic function of $\rho_B$, i. e.
$\partial P/\partial \rho_B<0$ in a certain temperature--density domain.
This condition signals instability of matter with respect to growing density
fluctuations, a characteristic feature of the liquid-gas phase transition.
Therefore, it follows from the very existence of the
nuclear bound state that there should be a first order phase
transition of the liquid-gas type in normal nuclear matter at subsaturation
densities, $\rho_B<\rho_0$, and low temperatures, $T\leq 10$ MeV.

The nuclear liquid-gas phase transition manifests itself most clearly in a
nuclear multifragmentation phenomenon, observed in
intermediate-energy nuclear reactions.
Here we mention only a few guiding ideas which helped to identify
this phase transition. The first one is the
anomaly (plateau) in the caloric curve, which was first predicted theoretically
\cite{Bon2} and later found experimentally \cite{Poch}.
More recently, an interesting proposal was made \cite{Cho,Ago1} to look for
anomalous energy fluctuations in the multifragmentation events, which might be a
good signal of a first order phase transition in finite systems.
Another productive idea proposed in ref.~\cite{Ran} was to search for
residual signals of the spinodal decomposition expected in connection
with a liquid-gas phase transition. Such a signal, although small,
was indeed found experimentally as an enhanced emission of equal-size
fragments \cite{Bar}. Other evidences for the liquid-gas phase transition include
large fluctuations in the partition space, bimodality \cite{Bot0,Ago2}, or
critical behavior
near the critical point \cite{Ago2,Sri,Ell}.

The situation at high $T$ and non-zero baryon chemical potential $\mu_B$
is not so clear, although it is expected that
the deconfinement and chiral transitions occur at high enough
$T$ and $\rho_B$. As the result, a new state of matter, the Quark-Gluon
Plasma (QGP), should be formed. A rigorous theoretical background for these
studies is provided by the QCD based numerical simulations on a lattice.
However, at present reliable lattice
calculations exist only for $\mu=0$, i.e. $\rho_B=0$, where they predict a
smooth deconfinement transition (crossover) at $T\approx 170$ MeV \cite{Kar}.
As model calculations show, the QCD phase diagram in the
$(T,\mu_B)$ plane may contain a first-order transition line (below called
the critical line) which ends at a (tri)critical point \cite{Jac,Raj,Sca1}.
Unfortunately, at finite $\mu$ the lattice calculations suffer from the so called
"sign problem" and cannot be done easily. Different approximation schemes lead
to differing predictions concerning the existence of a critical point (see e.g.
refs.~\cite{Fod,All,Gav}). Possible signatures of this point in heavy-ion
collisions were discussed in ref.~\cite{Ste}. However, it is unclear at present
whether critical fluctuations associated with the second-order phase transition
can develop in a rapidly expanding system produced in a relativistic heavy-ion
collision, because of the critical slowing down effect \cite{Ber}.
A more promising strategy would be to search for a first-order phase transition,
which may have more spectacular manifestations, as we discuss below.

Relative to the liquid-gas transition, the exploration of the
QCD phase diagram is considerably more challenging.
On the theoretical side, we have no tractable models to
predict how the phase diagram looks in the $T$-$\mu$ plane,
nor where the dynamical trajectories of expanding matter go.  Since, by the nature of
a phase transition, the effective degrees of freedom are
different in the two phases, often two different models are applied
below and above the critical line.
Moreover, lattice QCD can only be applied to systems in statistical
equilibrium, i. e. it cannot be used for dynamical simulations in real time.
With regard to dynamical models, the best candidate is perhaps
fluid dynamics which needs no specific information about
the structure of the matter but merely macroscopic
quantities such as the equation of state and kinetic coefficients.
However, in its standard form this model is unsuitable for studies
of unstable regimes associated with a first-order phase transition.
Thus, it is very difficult to provide experimentalists
with quantitative guidance to ensure that the parameters of the
experiments are those where the phase transition signals are best seen.

On the experimental side, the exploration of the QCD phase
structure is made extra complicated by the fact that only the
hadronic phase survives in the final state\footnote{Some information about
the deconfined phase can be obtained from the electromagnetic probes and
from quenching of hard partonic jets, see e.g. ref.~\cite{STAR}.},
in contrast to the nuclear liquid-gas transition where both phases
can occur in the final state.
Therefore, the experience accumulated in the liquid-gas
phase transition studies may be very useful for designing
the analysis techniques for the
exploration of the deconfinement-hadronization \linebreak[4]
phase transition.

A similarity between the liquid-gas phase transition and the
deconfinement - hadronization transition is the presence of more than one conserved
charge:  at low energy we have electric charge (Z) and mass number (A),
while at high energy, in addition to baryon number B (which
is identical  to A) and electric charge Q (which corresponds to Z),
we have also strangeness (S).  Therefore, the lessons learned at low energy
regarding multicomponent systems, in particular the isospin degree of freedom,
may be helpful for the QGP studies, too.

Finally, notwithstanding the large uncertainty with regard to the
value of the critical baryon density (above which the deconfinement
transition is first order), it appears likely that the first-order
transition can best be studied experimentally in the region
of moderate bombarding energies where compressed matter is characterized
by a considerable net baryon density. As we know now, a strongly interacting
matter produced at RHIC, presumably a hot quark-gluon plasma, has practically
vanishing net baryon density \cite{Bra}. While more suitable conditions may well have
been achieved already at SPS, those data have not been analyzed in a way
which would unambiguously demonstrate the QGP formation.
To study the first-order transition of the QCD phase diagram,
the most promising facility for the future is the planned
FAIR at GSI, where compressed baryonic matter is one of the
prime areas of intended research.

A striking feature of central heavy-ion collisions at high energies, confirmed
in many experiments (see e.g. \cite{reisdorf,Xu}), is a very strong collective
expansion of matter at later stages of the reaction. This process looks like an
explosion with the matter flow velocities comparable with the speed of light.
The applicability of equilibrium concepts for
describing phase transitions under such conditions becomes questionable
and one should expect strong non-equilibrium effects.
Below we demonstrate that non-equilibrium phase
transitions in rapidly expanding matter can lead to interesting
phenomena which, in a certain sense, are even easier to observe.

\section{Dynamical fragmentation of a metastable phase}

\subsection{Nuclear liquid-gas transition}

Let us consider a simple
model showing how the collective flow can modify the conventional picture of
a first-order phase transition \cite{nn97}. Let us consider first the liquid-gas
transition in nuclear matter.
We assume that a system expands uniformly
with the collective velocity field of a Hubble type,
${\bf v}_f({\bf r})=H{\bf r}$,
where $H$ is an appropriate Hubble constant.
The expansion acts against the attractive forces which keep the nucleons
together at normal density. Therefore, instead of uniformly expanding the whole
system, it is energetically more favorable to split it into droplets which
preserve a sufficiently high density inside, to keep attractive forces acting,
and recede from each other according to the Hubble law. The space between
the droplets is almost empty so that the energy cost for producing such an
inhomogeneous state may be estimated as an extra interface area times a surface
tension coefficient $\sigma$. One should expect that in violent reactions where
thermal excitation is high, $\sigma$ might be significantly reduced
compared to the value of about 1 MeV/fm$^2$ known
for cold nuclei. The shape of the droplets, which is determined by the
local density fluctuations, might be also quite complicated. But for our
order-of-magnitude estimates we assume that the system splits into
more or less spherical droplets of a similar size.

Now let us imagine that at the stage of the break-up the expanding system
is represented by the collection of droplets with density $\rho_B\approx \rho_0$
(nuclear fragments) separated
by fully developed surfaces. Within the leptodermous approximation the total energy of
an individual spherical droplet of radius $R=\left(3A/4\pi\rho_B\right)^{1/3}$
can be decomposed as
\begin{equation} \label{balance}
E= E_{\rm bulk}+E_{\rm kin}+E_{\rm sur}.
\end{equation}
Here the bulk term at $\rho_B\neq \rho_0$ can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{bulk}
E_{\rm bulk}=\left[a_V+\frac{K}{2}\left(1-\frac{\rho_B}{\rho_0}\right)^2\right]\cdot A~,
\end{equation}
where $a_V$ is the bulk coefficient in the  Weizs{\"a}cker formula and $K$ is the
incompressibility modulus.
The kinetic energy of an individual droplet, associated
with its collective expansion with respect to the center of mass, is easily calculated,
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm kin}=\int_0^R \frac{1}{2} m_N v_f^2(r) \rho(r) 4\pi r^2dr=
\frac{2\pi}{5} m_N H^2\rho_B R^5,
\end{equation}
where $m_N$ is the nucleon mass. The surface energy of a droplet is
$4\pi R^2 \sigma$. It is worth noting that the collective kinetic energy acts
here as an effective long-range potential similar to the Coulomb potential in
nuclei.

To find the optimal droplet size one can apply
Grady's argument \cite{Gra} that the redistribution of matter is a local process that
minimizes the energy per droplet volume, $\Delta E/V$. Then, since the bulk contribution
does not depend on $R$, the minimization condition constitutes the balance
between the collective kinetic energy and interface energy. This gives for the optimal
droplet mass
\begin{equation} \label{mass}
\overline{A}=\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho R^3=\frac{20\pi}{3}\frac{\sigma}{m_N H^2}~.
\end{equation}
It is determined by only two parameters: the surface tension $\sigma$ and the Hubble
constant $H$. The latter one can be estimated from flow observables.
For instance, in central Au + Au collisions at 150, 250 and 400 MeV/nucleon
the measured flow velocities $v_f$ are 0.20c, 0.26c and 0.34c respectively
\cite{reisdorf}. Now one can estimate the Hubble constant as
$H^{-1}=R_{Au}/v_f$, which gives  35, 26 and 20 fm/c, respectively.
To get the mean fragment mass $\overline{A}\approx 3$, as seen in experiment,
one should take in eq.~(\ref{mass}) $\sigma\approx 0.2$ MeV/fm$^2$,
which is about a factor 5 smaller than in cold
nuclei! Maybe this is not surprising because at a ``temperature'' 17 MeV,
obtained for this reaction, $\sigma$ would already vanish in a thermodynamically
equilibrated system. One should bear in mind, however, that the observed cold
fragments are produced from hot primary fragments after their de-excitation.
Therefore, primary fragments produced at the break-up stage should be bigger.

One can use the minimum information principle \cite{Aichelin,Knuth} to
find the  inclusive fragment mass distribution, $P(A)$.
In principle, the information entropy should be defined in terms of
microstate probabilities, $p_i$, as $\sum_ip_i\ln{p_i}$.
Since we are interested only in the inclusive mass distribution,
we can sum up all microstates containing the fragment of mass A.
Then the information function can be defined simply as $\sum_A P(A)\ln{P(A)}$.
Minimizing this function under constraint that the average fragment mass
is fixed, $\overline{A} =\sum_AAP(A)$, we get the normalized mass distribution
of the form
\begin{equation}
P(A)=\frac{1}{\overline{A}}\exp\left(-\frac{A}{\overline{A}}\right).
\end{equation}
This kind of mass distribution has been seen in numerical simulations \cite{Hol}
as well as in the free-jet fragmentation experiments \cite{Knuth}.
It is remarkable that exactly this type of mass (charge) distributions is also
observed in nuclear experiments! For instance, exponential fragment charge
distributions have been found in central Au + Au collisions at 150, 250 and
400 MeV/nucleon \cite{reisdorf} discussed above.
By applying naively the statistical approach to these reactions
one obtains charge distributions which are much too steep (smaller $\overline{A}$).

\subsection{Deconfinement-hadronization transition}

A similar scenario can also be considered for the deconfine-ment-hadronization
phase transition in relativistic nuclear collisions \cite{Mis0,Mis2}.
The difference will be mainly in the parameters characterizing this phase
transition. Of course, this consideration is
justified only for the first-order
phase transition, which is expected at moderate T and high enough $\rho _B$
(see discussion in the Introduction). Most likely, this picture does not apply
for the RHIC energies, where produced matter is characterized by very high T and
very low $\mu$ \cite{Bra}, corresponding to the crossover transition.

For simplicity, below we use capital letters
Q and H (not to be confused with the Hubble constant $H$) for the
deconfined (quark-gluon) phase and the hadronic phase, respectively.
Let us assume that the dynamical fragmentation
of the deconfined phase has resulted in a collection of Q droplets
embedded in a dilute H phase, as illustrated in Fig.~1.
The optimal droplet size can be determined by applying the same energy balance
prescription discussed above.
The only difference is that the droplet mass with respect to the hadronic
background is now calculated as $M=\Delta{\cal E}V$, where $\Delta{\cal E}
={\cal E}_Q-{\cal E}_H$ is the energy density difference of Q and H bulk
phases, and $V$ is the volume of the droplet.
Applying Grady's minimization rule we get the optimum droplet radius
\begin{equation}  \label{R}
R^*=\left(\frac{5\sigma}{\Delta{\cal E}H^2}\right)^{1/3}.
\end{equation}

\begin{figure*}[htp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{BubblesB-m.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic view of the multi-droplet state produced after the dynamical
fragmentation of a metastable high energy-density phase (in this example,
the Q phase). The droplets are embedded in the low energy-density phase
(in this example, the H phase). Each droplet expands individually as well as
participates in the overall Hubble-like expansion.}
\label{potcrit}
\end{figure*}

As eq.~(\ref{R}) indicates, the droplet size depends
strongly on $H$. When expansion is slow (small $H$) the droplets are big.
In the adiabatic limit the process may look like a fission of a cloud of plasma.
But fast expansion should lead to very small droplets. This state of matter
is very far from a thermodynamically
equilibrated mixed phase, particularly because the H phase
is very dilute. One can say that the metastable Q matter is torn apart by a
mechanical strain associated with the collective expansion.
This has a direct analogy with the dynamical multifragmentation process, described
in the previous section, or with the fragmentation of pressurized fluids
leaving nozzles \cite{Knuth}.

The driving force for expansion is the pressure gradient,
$\nabla P
\equiv c_s^2\nabla {\cal E}$,
which depends crucially on the sound velocity in matter, $c_s$.
Here we are interested in the expansion rate of the partonic phase, which
is not directly observable but predicted by the hydrodynamical simulations.
In the vicinity of the phase transition, one may expect a ``soft point''
\cite{Shu,Ris} where the sound velocity is smallest and the ability of
matter to generate the collective expansion is minimal. If the initial state
of the Q phase is close to this point, its subsequent expansion will be slow.
Accordingly, the droplets produced in this case will be big. When moving away
from the soft point, one would see smaller and smaller droplets. For numerical
estimates we choose two values of the Hubble constant: $H^{-1}$=20 fm/c to
represent the slow expansion from the soft point and $H^{-1}$=6 fm/c for the
fast expansion.

One should also specify two other parameters, $\sigma$ and
$\Delta{\cal E}$. The surface tension $\sigma$ is a subject of debate at
present. Lattice simulations indicate that it could be as low as a few MeV/fm$^2$
in the vicinity of the critical line. However, for our non-equilibrium scenario,
more appropriate values are closer to 10-20 MeV/fm$^2$, which follow from
effective chiral models. As a compromise, the value $\sigma=10$ MeV/fm$^2$ is
used below for rough estimates. Bearing in mind that nucleons and heavy mesons
are the smallest
droplets of the Q phase, one can take $\Delta{\cal E}=0.5$ GeV/fm$^3$, i.e.
the energy density inside the nucleon. Then one gets $R^*$=3.4 fm for
$H^{-1}$=20 fm/c and $R^*$=1.5 fm for $H^{-1}$=6 fm/c.
As follows from eq.~(\ref{R}), for a spherical droplet $V\propto 1/\Delta{\cal E}$,
and in the first approximation its mass,
\begin{equation}
M^*\approx \Delta{\cal E}V=\frac{20\pi}{3}\frac{\sigma}{H^2},
\end{equation}
is independent of $\Delta{\cal E}$ (compare with
eq.~(\ref{mass})). For the two values of $R^*$ given above the
optimal droplet mass is $\sim$100 GeV and $\sim$10 GeV,
respectively. As mentioned in the previous section, the
distribution of droplet masses should follow an exponential law,
$\exp{\left(-{M \over M^*}\right)}$. Thus, about 2/3 of droplets
have masses smaller than $M^*$, but with 1$\%$ probability one can
find droplets as heavy as $5M^*$.

\begin{figure*}[htp!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{LEGO.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic view of the momentum space distribution of secondary
hadrons produced from an ensemble of droplets. Each droplet emits hadrons
(mostly pions) within a rapidity interval $\delta y\sim1$ and azimuthal
angle spreading of $\delta\phi\sim 1$.}
\end{figure*}

\section{Observable manifestations of quark droplets}

After separation, the QGP droplets will recede from each other according to the
global collective expansion, predominantly in the beam direction. Therefore,
their c.m. rapidities y$_i$ will be in one-to-one correspondence with their spatial
positions.
One may expect that they will be distributed more or less uniformly between the target
and the projectile rapidities. Since rescatterings in the dilute H phase are rare,
most hadrons produced from individual droplets will go directly into detectors.
This may explain why freeze-out parameters extracted from the hadronic yields are
close to the phase transition boundary \cite {Bra}.
Indeed, due to the rapid expansion it is unlikely that the thermodynamical equilibrium
will be established between the Q and H phases or within the H phase alone.
If this were to happen, the final H phase would be more or less  uniform,
and thus, no traces of the droplet phase
would appear  in the final state.

The final fate of individual droplets depends on their sizes and on
details of the equation of state. Due to the negative Laplace pressure,
$2\sigma/R$, the residual expansion of individual droplets will slow down. The
smaller droplets may even reverse their expansion and cooling to shrinking
and reheating. Then, the conversion of Q matter into H phase may proceed
through the formation of the imploding deflagration front \cite{Ris,Dig}.
Bigger droplets may expand further until they enter the region of
spinodal instability At this stage the difference
between 1-st and 2-nd order phase transitions or a crossover is
insignificant. Since the characteristic ``rolling down'' time is rather short,
$\sim 1$ fm/c \cite{Cse}, the Q droplets will be rapidly converted into the non-equilibrium
H phase. In refs.~\cite{Mis1,Sca,Dum} the evolution of individual droplets was
studied numerically within a
hydrodynamical approach including dynamical chiral fields.
It has been demonstrated that the energy released at the spinodal decomposition
can be transferred directly into the collective oscillations of the ($\sigma,{\bf \pi}$)
fields which give rise to the soft pion radiation. One can also expect
the formation of Disoriented Chiral Condensates (DCC) \cite{Bjo93} in the voids between
the droplets.

It is interesting to note that the surface tension has stabilizing
effect on the droplet evolution. Since the droplets are hot, their
life time will be mainly determined by the rate of hadron
evaporation from the surface (see also the discussion in
ref.~\cite{Alf}). This will lead to their cooling and shrinking.
One can speculate about all kinds of exotic objects, like e.g.
strangelets, glueballs, formed in this way. The possibility of
forming "vacuum bubbles', i.e. regions with depleted quark and
gluon condensates, was discussed in ref.~\cite{Mis1}. All these
interesting possibilities deserve further study and numerical
simulations.

In the droplet phase the mean number of produced hadrons in a given rapidity
interval is
\begin{equation}
\langle N\rangle=\sum\limits_i^{N_D}\overline{n_i}=\langle n\rangle\langle N_D\rangle~,
\end{equation}
where $\overline{n_i}$ is the mean multiplicity of hadrons emitted from a
droplet i, $\langle n\rangle$ is the average multiplicity per droplet and
$\langle N_D\rangle $ is the mean number of droplets produced in this interval.
If droplets do not overlap in rapidity space, each of them
will give a bump in the hadron rapidity distribution around its
center-of-mass rapidity $y_i$ \cite{Mis0,Cse}. In case of a Boltzmann spectrum the
width of the bump will be $\delta y \approx \sqrt{T/m}$, where $T$ is the
droplet temperature and $m$ is the particle mass. At $T\sim 100$ MeV this
gives $\delta y \approx 0.8$ for pions and $\delta y \approx 0.3$ for nucleons.
These spectra might be slightly modified by the residual expansion of droplets.
Due to the radial expansion of the fireball the droplets should also be well
separated in the azimuthal angle. The characteristic angular spreading of pions
produced by an individual droplet is determined by the ratio of the thermal
momentum of emitted pions to their mean transverse momentum, $\delta\phi\approx
3T/\langle p_{\perp}\rangle\sim$ 1.
The resulting phase-space distribution of hadrons in a single event will be a
superposition of contributions from different Q droplets superimposed on a more
or less uniform background from the H phase. Such a distribution is shown schematically
in Fig.~2. It is obvious that such inhomogeneities (clusterization) in the
momentum space will be reflected in strong non-statistical fluctuations of hadron
multiplicities measured in a given rapidity and angular window.
The fluctuations will be more pronounced if primordial droplets are big,
as expected in the vicinity of the soft point. If droplets as heavy as 100 GeV are
formed, each of them will emit up to $\sim$200 pions within a narrow rapidity and
angular interval, $\delta y \sim 1$, $\delta\phi\sim 1$. If only a few droplets
are produced on average per unit rapidity, $N_D\gtrsim 1$,
they will be easily resolved and analyzed. On the other hand, the fluctuations
will be suppressed by a factor $\sqrt{N_D}$ if many small droplets fall in the same
rapidity interval.

It is convenient to characterize the multiplicity fluctuations in a given rapidity
window by the scaled variance
\begin{equation}
\omega_N\equiv \frac{\langle N^2\rangle-\langle N\rangle^2}{\langle N\rangle}~.
\end{equation}
Its important property is that $\omega_N=1$ for the Poisson distribution, and therefore
any deviation from unity will signal a non-statistical emission mechanism.
As shown in ref.~\cite{Bay}, for an ensemble of emitting sources (droplets)
$\omega_N$ can be expressed in a simple form,
$\omega_N=\omega_n+\langle n\rangle\omega_D$,
where $\omega_n$ is an average multiplicity fluctuation in a single droplet,
$\omega_D$ is the fluctuation in the droplet mass distribution and $\langle n\rangle$
is the mean multiplicity from a single droplet. Since $\omega_n$ and $\omega_D$
are typically of order of unity, the fluctuations from the multi-droplet emission
are enhanced by the factor $\langle n\rangle$. According to the picture of
a first-order phase transition advocated above, this enhancement factor can
be as large as $10\div 100$. A more detailed consideration of the multiplicity
distributions associated with the hadron emission from an ensemble of droplets
is given in ref.~\cite{Mis2}. Until now no strong anomalies in hadron multiplicity
distributions have been observed in relativistic heavy-ion collisions (see
e. g. ref.~\cite{Ryb}).

\section{Conclusions}

$\bullet$ It is most likely that strongly interacting matter has
at least two first-order phase transitions, i.e. the nuclear
liquid-gas transition and the deconfinement-hadronization
transition. Their unambiguous experimental identification is the
main goal of heavy-ion collision experiments at present and future
facilities. Studying phase transitions in such a dynamical
environment should take into account strong non-equilibrium
effects.

$\bullet$ A first-order phase transition in rapidly expanding
matter should proceed through the nonequilibrium stage when a
metastable phase splits into droplets whose size is inversely
proportional to the expansion rate. The primordial droplets should
be biggest in the vicinity of a soft point when the expansion is
slowest.

$\bullet$ Hadron emission from droplets of the quark-gluon plasma
should lead to large nonstatistical fluctuations in their rapidity
and azimuthal spectra, as well as in multiplicity distributions in
a given rapidity window. The hadron abundances may reflect
directly the chemical composition in the plasma phase.

$\bullet$ To identify the phase transition threshold, the
measurements should be done at different collision energies. The
predicted dependence on the expansion rate and the reaction
geometry can be checked in collisions with different ion masses
and impact parameters.

$\bullet$ If the first-order deconfinement/chiral phase transition
is only possible at finite baryon densities, one should try to
identify it by searching for the anomalous fluctuations in the
regions of phase space characterized by a large baryon chemical
potential. These could be the nuclear fragmentation regions in
collisions with very high energies (high-energy SPS, RHIC, LHC) or
the central rapidity region in less energetic collisions (AGS,
low-energy SPS, future GSI facility FAIR).

$\bullet$ A rich experience has been accumulated in theoretical
and experimental studies of nuclear multifragmentation as a signal
of the liquid-gas phase transition in normal nuclear matter. These
lessons may be useful in present and future studies of the
deconfinement-hadronization and chiral phase transitions in
relativistic heavy-ion collisions.\\

I thank J. Randrup and F. Gulminelli
for fruitful discussions and useful advises. This work was supported
in part by the grants RFFR 05-02-04013 and NS-8756.2006.2 (Russia).

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)