arxiv:hep-ph/ v1 19 Mar 1998

Transcription

1 DFF302/0398 Energy Scale(s) and Next-to-leading BFKL Equation 1 arxiv:hep-ph/ v1 19 Mar 1998 Marcello Ciafaloni and Gianni Camici Dipartimento di Fisica dell Università, Firenze and INFN, Sezione di Firenze, Italy Astract We complete the calculation of the next-to-leading kernel of the BFKL equation y disentangling its energy-scale dependent part from the impact factor corrections in large- k dijet production. Using the irreducile part previously otained, we derive the final form of the kernel eigenvalue and of the hard Pomeron shift for various scales. We also discuss the scale changes, the physical equivalence of a class of scales, and how to use the collinear safe ones. PACS Cy 1 Work supported in part y EU Network contract FMRX-CT and y M.U.R.S.T. (Italy) 1

2 The theoretical effort devoted in the past few years [1 10] to the next-to-leading (NL) corrections to the BFKL equation [1], is now approaching its final steps [11, 12]. After the calculation of the relevant high-energy vertices [2 7] y Fadin, Lipatov and other authors, and of the q q part of the kernel [8,10] y the present authors, we computed the eigenvalue of the irreducile part of the gluonic kernel [9], y pointing out that the left-over leading terms, after sutraction of a common scale, would lead to an additional contriution to the kernel, yet to e determined. Thepurposeofthis noteistocomplete thecalculationaovewithitsmissing part, and to discuss the energy-scale dependence of the kernel. Our results, which refer to large-k dijet production, are ased on the separation of the NL kernel from the one-loop partonic impact factors, recently determined y one of us [11], and depending on some input scale s 0. For the case s 0 = k 1 k 2 (where the k s are the transverse momenta of the jets), the full kernel derived here agrees with the one recently proposed y Fadin and Lipatov [12], who do not discuss the impact factors contriution. The starting point of our argument is a k-factorized form of dijet production in a parton scattering of the type introduced y one of us [11] dσ a d[k 1 ]d[k 2 ] h (0) a (k 1 )h (0) = dω 2πi (k 2 )ρ a (k 1,k 2 ) = (1) ( ) ω s π s 0 (k 1,k 2 ) ω h a(k 1 )G ω (k 1,k 2 )h (k 2 ), where d[k] = d 2(1+ǫ) k/π 1+ǫ in D = 4+2ǫ dimensions, h a (a = q,g) are the partonic impact factors, which at Born level are of type h (0) a C a α s /k 2 (C a = C F,C A ), and G ω is the gluon Green s function, given y G ω = (1+α s H L ) G ω (1+α s H R ) (2) where H L,H R are ω-independent kernels to e defined elow, and the resolvent G ω = [1 α s ω (K 0 +K NL )] 1, α s = α sn C π, (3) is given in terms of the leading kernel K 0 and of the NL one K NL, whose scale-invariant part [9] we denote y α s K 1. 2

3 The representation (1) differs from the one adopted in [11] y the introduction in the Green s function (2) of the NL operator factors H L,H R which, for a class of scale choices, cannot e incorporated in a redefinition of the impact factors (see elow). Both the impact factors and the NL kernel are in general dependent on the scale s 0 for which the representation (1) is assumed. It is presumed that such dependence will not lead to physical differences in oservale quantities. In order to understand how scale, impact factors and kernel are tight-up together, let us expand the r.h.s. of Eq (1) up to two-loop level, y setting H L = H R = 0 for simplicity. One has [ α s (h (0) a h(0) K 0 log s + h (0) a s h(1) +h (1) 1 a h(0) )+α s 0 2 +log s s 0 (h (0) a α s K 0 h (1) + h (1) a α s K 0 h (0) +h (0) a h (0) α s K 1 )+const ( log s s 0 ) 2 h (0) a α sk 2 0 h(0) + (4) ] +..., where the superscripts refer to the order of the expansion. A similar expansion holds, for say H R 0, with h (1) replaced y h (1) +H R h (0). From the one-loop terms in round rackets of Eq. (4) one can determine the leading kernel K 0 [1] unamiguously, as the coefficient of log s. However, at NL order, the impact factor h (1) can only e determined [11] after sutracting the log s 0 contriution, and is thus s 0 -dependent. Similarly, the NL kernel can e extracted from the two-loop contriution in square rackets only after the one-loop impact factors have een found, and is thus s 0 -dependent too. For this reason the derivation in Ref. [12], which is not supplemented y a determination of the one-loop impact factors, appears to e incomplete. The one-loop analysis of Eq. (4) was carried out in Ref. [11]. The prolem was to match the central region with the fragmentation region in the squared matrix element for emitting a gluon of transverse momentum q = k 1 k 2 and momentum fraction z 1 = qe y / s. By explicit calculation of the fragmentation vertex F 0 (z 1 ), it was found 3

4 that, for initial quarks, ρ (1) 1g (k 1,k 2 ) = α ( 1 s q 2 ( = α s q 2 = α s q 2 ) dz 1 F q/ 0 (z 1,k 1,q)+(1 2) s z 1 ) s log Max(q,k 1 ) +h q(q,k 1,)+(1 2), (5) s log q ) Θ qk1 +h q (q,k 1 )+(1 2) k 1 k 1 ( log where the additional constant h q [11] is characterized y its vanishing at q = 0 and y its collinear limit at k 1 = 0, related to the non singular part ˆγ gq (ω = 0) of the anomalous dimension matrix element. The physical content of Eq (5) is that the gluon phase space 0 < y < Y q log s q (availale in full for q > k 1 ), is dynamically cut-off y the fragmentation vertex for q < k 1, yielding the integration region 0 < y < Y 1 log s k 1, which corresponds to the angular ordering of the emitted gluon (coherence effect [13]). Mathematically, Eq (5) implies, for the scale s > = Max (k 1,q) Max (k 2,q), that the k 1 -integral of the constant piece h q /q 2 yields the one-loop correction to the quark impact factor [11] [( ) 1 h (1) q /h (0) q = α real s(k 2 ) ǫ 4 3 ) π2 4ǫ 3 1 ] 2, (6) with the expected collinear singularity due to ˆγ gq (ω = 0). For this reason one could set H L = H R = 0 in this case, and the scale s > was singled out as collinear safe. For other scale choices, the result in Eq (5) implies H L,H R 0 in general. For instance, if we take s 0 = k 1 k 2, the 3 rd line of Eq (5) shows some additional constant contriutions, of the form α s H = α s H R (k 1,k 2 ) α s q 2 log q k 2 Θ qk2 α s q 2l(q,k 2) (H L (k 1,k 2 ) = H R (k 2,k 1 ) = H ), (7) which cannot e integrated over k 2 (k 1 ) ecause of their unacceptale collinear ehaviour ( 1 ǫ 2 poles). Therefore, the kernels H and H are to e incorporated in the gluon Green s 4

5 function, as anticipated in Eq. (2). Their collinear ehaviour is apparent from the eigenvalues of H(H ) on test functions (k 2 ) γ 1, which are given y h(γ)(h(1 γ)), where h(γ) = 1 2 n=0 ( ) 2 Γ(γ +n) 1 γ 0 = 1 Γ(γ)n! (γ +n) 2 2γ 2 +O(γ2 ), (8) thus showing a 1/γ 2 (1/(1 γ) 2 ) singularity. For the reasons aove it was concluded that the scale k 1 k 2 is not collinear safe (while s > is), even if a representation of the type (1) can e written in oth cases up to two loops, with properly chosen H R and H L. The real prolem is, however, for which scale(s) the representation in Eq (1) is supposed to e valid to all orders. This question has no clearcut answer yet. However, the scales k p 1 k2 p 2, whose k-dependence is factorized (like k 1 k 2,k1 2,k2 2 ), are favoured y t- channel unitarity arguments [14] and y the use of O(2, 1) group-theoretical variales [15]. For this reason we shall mostly consider this class of scales. On the other hand, the scales of the type s > used efore, (e.g., s M =Max (k 2 1,k2 2 )) are automatically collinear safe, ut are not factorized in their k-dependence. We shall comment on their use later on, ecause switching from one class of scales to the other to all orders is not simply achieved y a change in the two-loop NL kernel. Let us first derive the scale-dependent NL corrections to the kernel for the scale k 1 k 2. The leading terms at two-loop level were defined in Ref [9] as ρ (2) 1g = for one-gluon emission, and as ρ (2) 2g = dy[ω 1 (Y 1 +Y 2 2y)+ω 2 (Y 1 +Y 2 +2y)] α s q 2 (9) dy 1 dy 2 d[k]α 2 s q 2 1q 2 2 for two-gluon emission, where ω i = ω(k 2 i ), ω(k2 ) = α s 2ǫ s Y i = log, y i = log k i ( z i s q i (10) Γ 2 (1+ǫ) Γ(1+2ǫ) (k2 ) ǫ, (11) ), q 2 i = (k i k) 2. 5

6 The rapidity integrations in the r.h.s. of Eqs (9) and (10) are meant to e defined y matching with the fragmentation vertices. For instance in the fragmentation region of a, Eq (9) should e replaced, at NL level, y ρ (2) 1g = α 1 s [F q 2 q/ 0 (z 1,k 1,q)ω 2 (Y 1 +Y 2 +2(Y q +logz 1 ))+ (12) s + F 1 (z 1,k 1,q)ω 1 (Y 1 +Y 2 2(Y q +logz 1 ))], where F 0 is - y k-factorization - the one-loop fragmentation vertex occurring in Eq (5). In principle, we should calculate the vertex F 1 also. However, at NL level, we can set F 1 = 1 ecause the factor in front of F 1 is just a constant in the fragmentation region of a, so that F 1 1 contriutes at NNL level only. We can thus calculate the logarithmic terms in ρ (2) 1g on the asis of Eqs (12) and (5). By simple algera we find, after factorization of the one-loop impact factors of Eq (6), the expression = ρ (2) 1g logs = [ ( ) ] α s 1 ω Γ(1 ǫ)q (Y 1 1 +Y 2 )+2(Y 1 l(q,k 1 )) +ω 1 2 (Y 1 +Y 2 )+1 2 (13) α s Γ(1 ǫ)q 2 [2(ω 1 +ω 2 )(Y 1 +Y 2 ) 2ω 1 l(q,k 2 ) 2ω 2 l(q,k 1 )+(Y 1 Y 2 )(ω 1 ω 2 )], where l(q,k 1 ) occurs in the definition of H and H (Eq (7)). A similar calculation can e performed for matching the two gluon emission density of Eq (10) with the fragmentation regions. By k-factorization, the F 0 vertex only turns out to e relevant and, y using Eq (5) and y factorizing the one-loop impact factors, we otain ρ (2) 2g logs = α 2 s (Y Γ 2 (1 ǫ)q 2 1q 2 1 +Y 2 l(q 1,k 1 ) l(q 2,k 2 )). (14) 2 We recognize, in the sum of Eqs (13) and (14), the logarithmic terms at scale k 1 k 2, due to the iteration of the leading kernel α s K 0 = α s q 2 Γ(1 ǫ) +2ω(k2 )π 1+ǫ δ 2(1+ǫ) (q). (15) 6

7 By sutracting them out, we otain the NL part ) dσ (2) [ ] a = α 2 s h (0) a K 0 (h (1) +Hh (0) )+(h (1) a +h (0) a H + )K 0 h (0) (16) dlogs NL h (0) α s a h(0) q log k 1 (ω 2 2 ω 1 ), k 2 where H is defined as in Eq (7). By comparing with Eq (4) (with H 0), we finally identify the scale-dependent contriution to the NL kernel at scale k 1 k 2 as the last term in Eq. (13), which, for ǫ 0, reads (α s K 1 ) = 1 ( ) 2 4 α sk 0 (k 1,k 2 ) log k2 1, k2 2 (s 0 = k 1 k 2 ). (17) The eigenvalue function of this kernel is simply (α s χ 1 ) = α s 4 χ 0, (s 0 = k 1 k 2 ). (18) where χ 0 = 2ψ(1) + ψ(γ) ψ(1 γ) is the leading eigenvalue. By adding it to the irreducile contriution previously derived [9], we otain the total gluonic eigenvalue for the scale s 0 = k 1 k 2 : α s χ (g) 1 = α s 4 [ 11 ( 67 6 (χ2 0 +χ 0)+ ( π sinπγ ) 2 cosπγ 3(1 2γ) 9 π2 3 ( 11+ ) χ 0 (γ)+6ζ(3) (19) ) ( ) ] γ(1 γ) π 2 + (1+2γ)(3 2γ) 3γ(1 γ) + h(γ) χ 0. The final result in Eq (19) agrees 2 with the one in Eq (14) of Ref.(12) after the identification π 2 3γ(1 γ) + h(γ) = π3 4Φ(γ), (20) sinπγ where in the l.h.s. (r.h.s.) we use the notation of Ref.(9) (Ref (12)). Since χ 0 1/γ + 2ζ(3)γ for γ 0, the additional term (18) has a nasty 1/γ 3 (1/(1 γ) 3 ) singularity for γ = 0(γ = 1), thus confirming that the scale k 1 k 2 is 2 Therefore, thecomparisonwith Ref. [9]madeafterEqs(7) and(24)ofref.(12) ismisleading(preprint version hep-ph/980290). 7

8 not collinear safe for k 1 k 2 (k 2 k 1 ). However, one can change scale to k 2 1 (k2 2 ) in Eq (1) y a simple trick. The gluon Green s function (actually, its scale-invariant part) has the representation ( ) ω dγ dω s g ω (γ) 1 ( ) k 2 γ 1,g 2πi 2πi k 1 k 2 k1 2 k2 2 ω (γ) = 1+α s(h(γ)+h(1 γ)) 1 αs (χ ω 0(γ)+α s χ 1 (γ)). (21) Therefore, a scale change k 1 k 2 k 2 1 (k2 2 ) is equivalent to replacing γ with γ+ 1 2 ω(γ 1 2 ω). By shifting γ and then expanding in ω up to NL level, it is straightforward to rewrite Eq (21) for the scale k 2 1, say, with the Green s function g ω (1) ( s h(γ)+h(1 γ) 1 2 χ 0 ( (γ)) χ0 (γ)+α s χ 1 1 α, 2 sχ 0 χ 0) (s 0 = k 2 1 ). (22) 1 αs ω This means that the scale-dependent contriution to the NL kernel is, for the scale k 2 1 (k2 2 ), given y (α s χ 1 ) = α s 4 (χ 0 +χ2 0 ), (s 0 = k1 2 ), (23) = α s 4 (χ 0 χ2 0 ), (s 0 = k 2 2 ). It is apparent that χ 1 at scale k 2 1 is now perfectly regular for γ = 0, the γ 3 singularity eing cancelled, while it still keeps the nasty cuic singularity at γ = 1. Furthermore, y Eq. (8), the numerator in Eq. (22) ecomes regular at γ = 0 too, where it takes the value (1+α s h(1)) = (1 α s ψ (1)), which renormalizes the impact factors, as noticed already in Ref [11]. This confirms the importance of factorizing H in the gluon Green s function in Eq. (2). In other words, the scale k 2 1(k 2 2) is proved to e collinear safe for k 2 1 k 2 2(k 2 1 k 2 2), ut oth cases are descried y quite asymmetrical kernels, related y an ω-dependent similarity transformation to the symmetrical one descriing the scale k 1 k 2. In the anomalous dimension regime k 2 1 k 2 2, the scale-dependent contriution in Eq (23) changes the small γ expansion of χ 1 = A 1 /γ 2 + A 2 /γ + A y just the constant 2ζ(3). Therefore the constant A 3 takes the value A 3 = N ( C 2ζ(3) 395 4π ) 18 π2 + π2 3 + h(0) 8 (24)

9 and determines the NL anomalous dimension at 3-loop level. The result (24) agrees with Eq (23) of Ref (12), ecause h(0) = 4ζ(3) π 2 /3. Since χ 0 (1 ) = 0, the hard Pomeron shift, as singularity of the anomalous dimension 2 expansion [8], is independent of which scale is eing used in the factorized class (k 1 k 2, or k 2 1, or k 2 2). However, since χ 0( 1 2 ) is large, the shift of Ref [9] is strongly affected y χ 1 and ecomes ω P = α s χ 0 ( 1 2 )[1 ( )α s] = α s χ 0 ( 1 2 )[1 6.4α s], (25) so that the NL correction is almost douled. Therefore, ω P saturates at the small value ω Max P =.11, 3 and for a very small value of α s =.08. This means that the trend of a negative correction is confirmed ut, unfortunately, the next-to-leading hierarchy is even less convergent than previously thought. What aout switching to the (non-factorized) scale s M = Max (k 2 1,k 2 2)? In this case the argument after Eq (21) applies with a γ-shift of 1 2 ω(+1 ω) according to whether 2 k 1 > k 2 (k 1 < k 2 ). More precisely, the Green s function for scale s M is given y g ω (M) (γ) ] = g L ω(γ 1 ] 2 ω), g ω (M) (γ) ] = g R ω(γ + 1 ] 2 ω) L wherewehavedecomposed g ω (γ)intoitsprojectionsg L (g R )havingl.h. (r.h.) singularities in the γ-plane. A careful analysis shows that the transformation (26) implies changing the NL quantities, at two-loop level, as follows h (M) (γ) = h(γ) 1 2 χ 0 ] L( ) 1 1 (γ) = α s χ 1 (γ)+α s 2 χ 0[χ 0] s [χ 0 χ 0] s α s χ (M) R (26), s M = Max(k1 2,k2 2 )), (27), where O(γ)] s = O(γ)] L O(γ)] R is a symmetrical comination of L and R projections. However, since such projections act on non linear cominations of H and K 1, reproducing 3 The value.214 quoted in Ref (12) (version hep-ph ) is presumaly misprinted y a factor of 2. 9

10 Eq (26) to all orders requires modifying the two-loop relation (27) y additional powers of αs ω at higher orders. Note also that the hard Pomeron shift implied y Eq (27) is different from the result (25), due to a nonvanishing contriution of the term in round rackets. This somewhat puzzling feature is due to the fact just mentioned that equivalent results in the two scales cannot e simply hinted at y a two-loop calculation, ut require reshuffling the whole perturative series. In other words, if χ 1 iterates, χ (M) 1 in Eq. (27) does not, and viceversa. To sum up, we have proved in this note the form (19) of the NL eigenvalue for the scale k 1 k 2, y deriving the scale-dependent contriutions (18), (23) and (27). In the class of factorized scales, assuming Eq. (1) to all orders, the NL corrections are even larger than previously thought. It ecomes then important to supplement the NL hierarchy with finite-x effects, perhaps along the lines suggested y the CCFM equation [13, 16]. References [1] L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 23 (1976) 338; E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V.S. Fadin Sov. Phys. JETP 45 (1977) 199; Ya. Balitskii and L.N. Lipatov, Sov.J. Nucl. Phys. 28 (1978) 822. [2] V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, Yad. Fiz. 50 (1989) [3] S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni and F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B 242 (1990) 97; Nucl. Phys. B 366 (1991) 135. [4] V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, Nucl. Phys. B 406 (1993) 259. V.S. Fadin, R. Fiore and A. Quartarolo, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2265; Phys Rev. D 50 (1994) 5893; V.S. Fadin, R. Fiore and M.I. Kotsky, Phys. Lett. B 389 (1996) 737. [5] V.S. Fadin, R. Fiore and M.I. Kotsky, Phys. Lett. B 359 (1995) 181 and Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996)

11 [6] V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, Nucl.Phys. B 477 (1996) 767; V.S. Fadin, L.N. Lipatov and M.I. Kotsky, preprint hep-ph / [7] V. Del Duca, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 989; Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 4474; V. Del Duca and C.R. Schmidt, preprint hep-ph/ [8] G. Camici and M. Ciafaloni, Phys. Lett. B 386 (1996) 341; B 395 (1997) 118; Nucl. Phys. B 496 (1997) 305. [9] G. Camici and M. Ciafaloni, Phys. Lett. B 412 (1997) 396, and Erratum, Phys. Lett. (to appear). [10] V.S. Fadin, R. Fiore, A. Flashi, and M.I. Kotsky, preprint hep-ph / [11] M. Ciafaloni, hep-ph/ , Phys. Lett. (to e pulished). [12] V.S. Fadin and L.N. Lipatov, preprint hep-ph / [13] M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B 296 (1988) 49. [14] See, e.g., C. Corianó and A.R. White, Nucl. Phys. B 451 (1995) 231; B 468 (1996) 175 and references therein. [15] See, e.g., M. Ciafaloni, C. De Tar and M.N. Misheloff, Phys. Rev. 188 (1969) 2522 and references therein. [16] S. Catani, F. Fiorani and G. Marchesini, Phys. Lett. B 234 (1990) 339, Nucl. Phys. B 336 (1990)