1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %                     Latex File

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}

5: 

6: \usepackage[usenames]{color}

7: \usepackage{amssymb,epsfig}

8: \usepackage{psfrag}

9: 

10: 

11: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0pt} \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}

12: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}

13: \addtolength{\jot}{5pt} \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}

14: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}

15: 

16: 

17: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

18: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

19: 

20: % Volodya:

21: 

22: \newcommand{\beq}[1]{

23: %\marginpar{\small\textsf{#1}}

24: \begin{equation}\label{#1}}

25: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

26: %

27: \newcommand{\bea}[1]{

28: %\marginpar{\small\textsf{#1}}

29: \begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}

30: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

31: 

32: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right|}

33: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right\rangle}

34: 

35: \newcommand{\Gl}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

36: \newcommand{\Ab}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}

37: \newcommand{\Ta}[1]{Tab.~(\ref{#1})}

38: 

39: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

40: \newcommand{\be}{\beta}

41: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}

42: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}

43: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}

44: \newcommand{\et}{\eta}

45: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}

46: \newcommand{\ph}{\varphi}

47: \newcommand{\si}{\sigma}

48: \newcommand{\ro}{\varrho}

49: \newcommand{\dd}{{\rm d}}

50: \newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma}

51: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

52: 

53: \newcommand{\zslash}{\not{z}}

54: \newcommand{\pslash}{\!\not\!{P}}

55: \newcommand{\px}{{p\cdot x}}

56: \newcommand{\pz}{{p\cdot z}}

57: 

58: \newcommand{\D}{{\cal D}}

59: \newcommand{\PS}{{\cal P}}

60: \newcommand{\V}{{\cal V}}

61: \newcommand{\A}{{\cal A}}

62: \newcommand{\T}{{\cal T}}

63: 

64: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

65: 

66: \newcommand{\up}{{\uparrow}}

67: \newcommand{\down}{{\downarrow}}

68: 

69: \newcommand{\lash}[1]{\not\! #1 \,}

70: 

71: 

72: % Andreas:

73: 

74: \newcommand{\s}{\hspace{-0.21cm}\slash}

75: \newcommand{\q}{\hspace{-0.30cm}\slash}

76: 

77: % Dieter

78: \newcommand{\insertfig}[2]{\mbox{\epsfxsize=#1cm \epsfbox{#2.eps}}}

79: 

80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

82: 

83: \DeclareOption{nopreprintnumbers}{\@booleanfalse\preprint@sw}%

84: \DeclareOption{preprintnumbers}{\@booleantrue\preprint@sw}%

85: 

86: 

87: 

88: \begin{document}

89: 

90: 

91: %%%%%%%%%%% Titlepage

92: 

93: %\draft

94: 

95: \preprint@{

96: \hspace{2.2mm}IPPP/07/54\\

97: \phantom{abc}DCPT/07/108\\

98: }

99: \vspace{4mm}

100: 

101: 

102: \title{Exclusive processes in position space

103:             and the pion distribution amplitude}

104: 

105: \author{V. M. Braun\\}

106: 

107: \affiliation{Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit{\"a}t

108:           Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany\\}

109: 

110: \author{D. M{\"u}ller\\}

111: 

112: \affiliation{Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische Physik II,

113: Ruhr-Universit{\"a}t Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany\\}

114: 

115: 

116: 

117: 

118: \begin{abstract}

119: \noindent We suggest to carry out  lattice calculations of current

120: correlators in position space, sandwiched between the vacuum and a

121: hadron state (e.g.~pion), in order to access hadronic light-cone

122: distribution amplitudes (DAs). In this way the renormalization

123: problem for composite lattice operators is avoided altogether, and

124: the connection to the DA is done using perturbation theory in the

125: continuum. As an example, the correlation function of two

126: electromagnetic currents is calculated to the

127: next-to-next-to-leading order accuracy in perturbation theory and

128: including the twist-4 corrections. We argue that this strategy is

129: fully competitive with direct lattice measurements of the moments

130: of the DA, defined as matrix elements of local operators, and

131: offers new insight in the space-time picture of hard exclusive

132: reactions.

133: \end{abstract}

134: 

135: \pacs{12.38.-t, 14.20.Dh; 13.40.Gp}

136: 

137: \maketitle

138: 

139: 

140: 

141: \section{Introduction}

142: 

143: Hadron light-cone distribution amplitudes (DAs) present the

144: principal nonperturbative input in the pQCD description of hard

145: exclusive reactions and are to a large extent complementary to the

146: usual parton distributions. The existing information on DAs is,

147: however, very limited. The main reason for this is that the DAs

148: are much more difficult to access experimentally: for realistic

149: momentum transfers, the contributions of interest are often

150: contaminated by large nonperturbative corrections coming from the

151: end-point regions in the quark momentum fraction.

152: 

153: The pion leading twist DA is the simplest one and has attracted

154: most attention. There is increasing evidence that at the scale of

155: the order of 1 GeV this DA differs considerably from its

156: asymptotic form. In particular, QCD sum rule estimates

157: \cite{Bakulev:2001pa,Bakulev:2002hk}, lattice calculations

158: \cite{Braun:2006dg} and the analysis of the experimental data on

159: the transition form factor $\gamma^*\to\pi\gamma$

160: \cite{SchYak99,Bakulev:2002uc,Bakulev:2001pa} are consistent with

161: the positive value of the second Gegenbauer moment of the pion DA

162: which is roughly a factor two below the original estimate by

163: Chernyak and Zhitnitsky \cite{Chernyak:1981zz}. Beyond the second

164: moment, very little is known. The analysis of the $ \gamma^* \to

165: \pi \gamma $ form factor in Ref.~\cite{SchYak99,Bakulev:2001pa}

166: indicates a negative value for the fourth Gegenbauer moment, but

167: the status of this result is not clear as the analysis has some

168: model dependence. The lattice calculations of the fourth and

169: higher Gegenbauer moments would be very difficult because they

170: contribute with a small coefficient, and because the lattice

171: renormalization of local operators with many derivatives becomes

172: too cumbersome. The aim of this letter is to suggest an

173: alternative approach, based on the lattice calculation of

174: exclusive amplitudes in coordinate space. We will argue that the

175: interpretation of such calculations in the framework of QCD

176: factorization is equally straightforward and offers new insights

177: compared to the standard momentum space formulation. {}From the

178: lattice side, the advantage is that the renormalization problem

179: for composite operators is avoided altogether, but, instead, in

180: order to be sensitive to the detailed structure of the pion DA,

181: one needs pion sources with large momentum,  at least of order

182: 2--3 GeV.

183: 

184: The idea to  emphasis  the coordinate rather than momentum-space

185: dependence of the correlation functions is by itself not new, see

186: e.g.~\cite{Schafer:1995uz,Braun:1994jq}.  Our proposal goes in the

187: same direction as the work \cite{Aglietti:1998ur,Abada:2001yt},

188: the difference is that we suggest to calculate physical

189: observables that are free from renormalzation uncertainties. Also,

190: we demonstrate that the analysis of such correlation functions in

191: continuum theory is aided by the conformal operator product

192: expansion.

193: 

194: The presentation is organized in follows. In Sec.~\ref{Sec-Exa} we

195: introduce the coordinate-space correlation function of two

196: electromagnetic currents sandwiched between vacuum and the pion.

197: We calculate this correlation function to leading order (LO) in

198: QCD perturbation theory and discuss the physical interpretation.

199: In Sec.~\ref{Sec-StaArt} the state-of-the-art

200: (next-to-next-to-leading order) calculation of this correlation

201: function is presented, including two-loop radiative corrections

202: and nonperturbative twist-4 effects. The main result of this

203: analysis is that the QCD corrections remain well under control for

204: all pion momenta. In Sec.~\ref{Sec-RevDA} we discuss possible

205: strategies and the potential accuracy of the extraction of the

206: pion distribution amplitude from the coordinate space dependence

207: of this correlation function, assuming that it is measured in a

208: limited range of distances accessible in lattice calculations. The

209: corresponding setup and several possible generalizations are

210: discussed in Sec.~\ref{Sec-Lat}, which also contains a summary and

211: our final conclusions.

212: 

213: 

214: 

215: \section{Example}

216: \label{Sec-Exa} \setcounter{equation}{0}

217: %

218: As an example, we consider the correlation function of two

219: electromagnetic currents sandwiched between vacuum and the pion

220: state

221: \begin{equation}

222: T_{\mu\nu} = \langle 0| T\{j_\mu(x)j_{\nu}(-x)\}\pi^0(p)\rangle\,,

223: \label{lo:1}

224: \end{equation}

225: where

226: \begin{eqnarray}

227: j_\mu(x) =

228: \frac{2}{3}\bar u(x) \gamma_\mu u(x) -

229: \frac{1}{3} \bar d(x) \gamma_\mu d(x)\,,

230: \end{eqnarray}

231: which is the coordinate space analog of the pion transition form

232: factor involving two photons. Note that one and the same

233: correlation function (\ref{lo:1}) enters the pion decay $\pi^0\to

234: \gamma\gamma$ and the form factors $\gamma^*\to\pi^0\gamma^*$ for

235: two virtual or $\gamma^*\to\pi^0\gamma $ for one virtual and one

236: real photons. Differences arise at the stage when one goes over to

237: the states with given momenta: depending on the virtuality,

238: different coordinate space regions are emphasized/suppressed by

239: the Fourier transform.

240: 

241: At small space-like separations $|x^2| \ll

242: 1/\Lambda^2_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ the amplitude in (\ref{lo:1}) can be

243: calculated using the operator product expansion (OPE). To

244: LO in the strong coupling,

245: \begin{figure}[ht]

246: \begin{center}

247: \mbox{

248: \begin{picture}(250,105)(0,0)

249: \put(35,-5){\insertfig{6}{diag}}

250: \end{picture}

251: }

252: \end{center}

253: \caption{\label{figsum} \small Leading-order contribution to the

254: correlation function (\ref{lo:1}) }

255: \end{figure}

256: the answer is obtained from the diagram in Fig.~1 and reads:

257: \begin{equation}

258: T_{\mu\nu} =

259: -\frac{5i}{9}f_\pi\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}

260: \frac{x^\rho p^\sigma}{8\pi^2 x^4}T(p\cdot x,x^2)

261: \label{def:T}

262: \end{equation}

263: with

264: \begin{equation}

265: T(p\cdot x,x^2) = \int_0^1 du\, e^{i(2u-1)p\cdot x} \phi_\pi(u,\mu)

266: \label{def:T-0}\,.

267: \end{equation}

268: The relevant nonperturbative input is provided by the pion DA

269: defined as

270: \begin{eqnarray}

271: \lefteqn{

272: \langle 0| \bar q(a_1 n) \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 q(a_2 n)\pi^0(p)\rangle=}

273: \nonumber

274: \\&&{} =

275: i f_\pi p_\mu \int_0^1 du e^{-ipn(\bar u a_1 + u a_2)}\phi_\pi(u,\mu)\,,

276: \end{eqnarray}

277: where $f_\pi =93$~MeV is the pion decay constant, $\bar u\equiv

278: 1-u$, $n_\mu$ is a light-light vector, $n^2=0$, and $\mu$ is the

279: normalization scale, which is set to be of the order

280: $1/\sqrt{|x^2|}$.

281: 

282: In the following we write the pion DA as an expansion over

283: Gegenbauer polynomials,

284: \begin{equation}

285:  \phi_\pi(u,\mu) =

286:  6u\bar u \sum_{n=0}^\infty \phi_n(\mu) C^{3/2}_n(2u-1)\,,

287: \label{GegExp}

288: \end{equation}

289: and use the fact that the Fourier transform

290: \begin{eqnarray}

291: \label{Def-FT-Geg} \lefteqn{

292:  8\int_{0}^1 du\, u\bar u\, e^{i\rho (2u-1)} C^{3/2}_n(2u-1) =}

293: \nonumber\\&&{}=

294:    \sqrt{2\pi} (n+1)(n+2)i^n \rho^{-3/2} J_{n+3/2}(\rho)

295: \end{eqnarray}

296: leads to Bessel functions. To our accuracy we obtain then for the

297: correlation function (\ref{def:T-0})

298: \begin{equation}

299:  T(p\cdot x,x^2) =

300:  \frac34\sum_{n=0}^\infty \phi_n(\mu) {\mathcal F}_n\left(p\cdot x\right)

301:  \label{def:T-1}

302: \end{equation}

303: with

304: \begin{equation}

305: \label{Def-F-LO}

306:  {\mathcal F}_n(\rho) = i^n \sqrt{2\pi}\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} \rho^{-3/2} J_{n+3/2}(\rho)\,.

307: \end{equation}

308: We will view this result (\ref{def:T-1}) as a partial wave

309: expansion of the correlation function $T(\rho=p\cdot x,x^2)$. (a

310: group theoretical explanation will be given below). The partial

311: waves ${\mathcal F}_n(\rho)$, expressed by Bessel functions

312: $J_{n+3/2}(\rho)$ with half integer index, are simply given in

313: terms of trigonometric functions, e.g., we have for $n=0$:

314: ${\mathcal F}_0(\rho)=2[\sin(\rho)-\rho \cos(\rho))/\rho^3$. In

315: particular this term, appearing as the leading one in the

316: expansion (\ref{def:T-1}), corresponds to the contribution of the

317: asymptotic distribution amplitude, while ${\mathcal F}_2(\rho)$

318: and ${\mathcal F}_4(\rho)$ take into account contributions of the

319: second, $C^{3/2}_2(2u-1)$, and the fourth, $C^{3/2}_4(2u-1)$,

320: Gegenbauer moments, respectively. Note that only even values of

321: $n$ contribute to the series because of $C$-parity conservation.

322: The used approximation allows for a partonic interpretation of the

323: correlation function $T(p\cdot x,x^2)$, which is obvious: it

324: corresponds to a probability amplitude of the valence quark

325: distribution in the pion in the longitudinal distance

326: (``Ioffe-time'') $\rho=p\cdot x$ at transverse distance $x^2$.

327: 

328: 

329: The partial waves ${\mathcal F}_0(\rho)$, $-{\mathcal F}_2(\rho)$

330: and ${\mathcal F}_4(\rho)$ are plotted in Fig.~\ref{figharm}.

331: %

332: \begin{figure}[ht]

333: \begin{center}

334: \mbox{

335: \begin{picture}(250,105)(0,0)

336: \put(0,35){\rotatebox{90}{$ i^n {\cal F}_n(\rho)$}}

337: \put(15,-10){\insertfig{6.4}{harmonics1}} \put(190,-15){$\rho$}

338: \end{picture}

339: }

340: \end{center}

341: \caption{\small From left to right: ${\mathcal F}_0(\rho)$

342: (solid), $-{\mathcal F}_2(\rho)$ (dashdotted), ${\mathcal

343: F}_4(\rho)$ (dashed).}

344:  \label{figharm}

345: \end{figure}

346: %

347: These oscillating functions are strongly peaked at a position that

348: moves with increasing index $n$ to the r.h.s.~and so the

349: contribution of the asymptotic DA and the corrections are well

350: separated. On the other hand, large values of $p\cdot x$ and,

351: hence, of the pion momentum are needed to probe higher-order

352: Gegenbauer moments efficiently.

353: 

354: {}To see this, we plot in Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO} the correlation

355: function $T(\rho,x^2)$, given in the approximation

356: (\ref{def:T-1}), as a function of $\rho=p\cdot x$ for the

357: asymptotic pion DA (dashed curve), and for the model with

358: $\phi_2=0.25$ and two choices $\phi_4 = 0.1$ and $\phi_4 = -0.1$,

359: respectively, cf.~Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO-DA}.

360: %

361: \begin{figure}[ht]

362: \begin{center}

363: \mbox{

364: \begin{picture}(250,105)(0,0)

365: \put(0,40){\rotatebox{90}{$T(\rho,x^2)$}}

366: \put(15,-10){\insertfig{6.4}{figmod1}} \put(190,-15){$\rho$}

367: \end{picture}

368: }

369: \end{center}

370: \caption{ \label{Fig-LO} \small The correlation function

371: $T(\rho,x^2)$, leading-order (\ref{def:T-1}), calculated using

372: asymptotic pion DA (dashed), the model with $\phi_2=0.25$ and two

373: choices $\phi_4 = 0.1$ (dashdotted) and $\phi_4 = -0.1$ (solid). }

374: \end{figure}

375: %

376: \begin{figure}[ht]

377: \begin{center}

378: \mbox{

379: \begin{picture}(250,105)(0,0)

380: \put(0,40){\rotatebox{90}{$\phi(u)$}}

381: \put(15,-10){\insertfig{6.4}{figmodMS}} \put(180,-15){$u$}

382: \end{picture}

383: }

384: \end{center}

385: \caption{ \label{Fig-LO-DA} \small Models for the pion DA as

386: specified in Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO}.}

387: \end{figure}

388: %

389: 

390: 

391: Note that the value of $T(\rho,x^2)$ at $\rho=0$ is equal to 1/2

392: in our normalization (up to radiative and higher twist corrections

393: discussed in the next Section) and does not depend on the shape of

394: the pion DA. The deviation from the asymptotic DA (dashed curve)

395: for a realistic model is significant starting $\rho \sim 1$.  The

396: dependence on $\phi_4$, taken as $\phi_4 = 0.1$ (dashdotted curve)

397: and $\phi_4 = -0.1$ (solid curve), becomes visible at distances

398: $\rho \ge 3-4$. We remark that a more closer look, given in

399: Sect.~\ref{Sec-RevDA}, reveals that a partial wave analysis might

400: allow to access the forth Gegenbauer moment even for $\rho

401: \lesssim 3$. With increasing $\rho$ the correlation function

402: changes sign and becomes negative, unless the fourth Gegenbauer

403: moment is larger as the second one, which seems to be unlikely

404: (not shown).

405: 

406: 

407: The $\rho$-behavior of the models, plotted in Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO},

408: results from the $\cos$-Fourier transform (\ref{def:T-0}) of the DA

409: (because for a symmetric DA the $\sin$-component dies out) and can

410: qualitatively be understood as follows. The position of the first

411: zero at $\rho= \rho_{0}$ gives us the effective width

412: $\pi/\rho_{0}$ of the DA in momentum space. For instance, a flat

413: DA $\phi_\pi(u)=1$ corresponds to $\rho_{0}=\pi$, an equal

414: momentum sharing DA $\phi_\pi(u)=\delta(u-1/2)$ leads to a

415: constant correlation function, i.e., $\rho_0\to \infty$, while the

416: effective width of the asymptotic DA follows from $\rho_{0}

417: \approx 1.43 \pi.$ Compared to the asymptotic DA, for the

418: realistic models, shown by the solid and the dash-dotted curves,

419: the first zero is shifted to the left, which indicates that these

420: DAs are broader than the asymptotic one, cf.~Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO-DA}.

421: The difference between the solid and the dash-dotted models, on

422: the other hand, is mostly pronounced near the first minimum. The

423: magnitude of the correlation function at this minimum

424: $\rho=\rho_1$ is a measure for the overlap of the DA with the

425: harmonic $\cos((2u-1)\rho_{1})$ which is maximized at $u_{1} =

426: 1/2-\pi/\rho_{1}\sim 0.2$. It is large for the models with a

427: two-hump DA like the one of Ref.~\cite{Bakulev:2001pa}, where it

428: was also argued that all higher Gegenbauer moments are negligible.

429: It is much smaller for a dash-dotted model corresponding to a flat

430: (albeit still oscillating) DA as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO-DA}.

431: These oscillations are not significant and can be understood as an

432: artifact of truncating the conformal spin partial wave expansion.

433: In fact, a conjectured ADS/QCD model $\phi^{\rm ADS/QCD}= (8/\pi)

434: \sqrt{u(1-u)}$ \cite{Polchinski:2002jw,Brodsky:2003px} gives rise

435: to a similar shape.

436: We add to our discussion that very narrow DA's

437: and those with nodes, leading to huge resonance effects,  are

438: clearly distinguishable in the correlation function from those

439: shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO}, even at smaller values of $\rho$.

440: 

441: 

442: 

443: \section{State-of-the-Art }

444: \label{Sec-StaArt}

445: 

446: The previous discussion was mainly qualitative. In this section we

447: present the state-of-the-art calculation of the correlation

448: function $T(p\cdot x,x^2)$, defined in Eq.~(\ref{def:T}), in

449: next-to-next-to-leading (NNLO) of perturbative QCD and including

450: the twist-four corrections.

451: 

452: An adequate technical framework is provided by the conformal

453: operator product expansion (OPE). Recall that the expansion in

454: Gegenbauer polynomials in (\ref{GegExp}) alias the partial wave

455: decomposition in (\ref{def:T-1}) to LO are governed by conformal

456: symmetry: the expansion is organized as the irreducible

457: decomposition of the product of two currents into conformal

458: operators. The partial waves specified in Eq.~(\ref{Def-F-LO}) are

459: nothing but the LO Wilson-coefficients of the leading

460: twist operators in the conformal OPE.  They can be viewed as the

461: Clebsch--Gordon coefficients of the collinear conformal group

462: $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$  and are labelled by the conformal spin

463: $j=n+2$, for a review see Ref.~\cite{BraKorMue03}. The advantage

464: of such a decomposition is that the Gegenbauer moments do not mix

465: under evolution in LO or, in other words, the conformal spin is a

466: good quantum number to this accuracy.

467: 

468: Taking into account radiative corrections to the leading twist

469: Wilson-coefficients translates to the modification of the partial

470: waves which become scale- (and scheme-) dependent:

471: $$ {\cal F}_n(\rho)\to {\cal F}_n(\rho,-\mu^2 x^2;\alpha_s(\mu))\,.$$

472: In turn, the higher-twist corrections  yield $x^2$ suppressed

473: additive terms and for our present purposes it is convenient to

474: reexpand them in terms of the leading-twist partial waves taken to

475: leading-order. We end up with the expansion of the form

476: \begin{eqnarray}

477: \label{Def-T}

478: && T(\rho,x^2)=

479: \\

480: &&=\frac{3}{4}\sum_{n=0}^\infty

481: \phi_n(\mu^2)\, {\cal F}_n(\rho,-\mu^2 x^2;\alpha_s(\mu)) +

482: O(\alpha_s^3)

483: \nonumber\\

484: &&\;\; +    \frac{3}{4} x^2 \sum_{n=0}^\infty \phi^{(4)}_n(\mu^2)\,

485: {\cal F}_n(\rho) + O(x^2 \alpha_s)+ O(x^4)\,,

486: \nonumber

487: \end{eqnarray}

488: where $\phi^{(4)}_n$ are related to the matrix elements of

489: twist-four operators, weighted with specific Wilson coefficients.

490: Viewed this way, both the corrections to the partial waves and the

491: twist-4 coefficients $\phi^{(4)}_n(\mu^2)$ are specific for the

492: considered correlation function. The Gegenbauer moments

493: $\phi_n(\mu^2)$ are universal, however, they depend on the scheme

494: conventions.

495: 

496: In what follows we consider separately perturbative and twist-four

497: corrections in some detail.

498: 

499: 

500: 

501: \subsection{Perturbative corrections}

502: \label{Sec-PerCor}

503: 

504: The next-to-leading (NLO) perturbative corrections to the pion

505: transition form factor were calculated in the minimal subtraction

506: ($\overline{\rm MS}$) scheme in Refs.~\cite{AguCha81,Bra83,KadMikRad86}

507: and were supplemented by the evaluation of the logarithmical scale

508: change \cite{DitRad84,Sar84,MikRad85,Mue94}.

509: In addition NNLO diagrams that are proportional to $n_f$, the number

510: of light quark flavors, have been evaluated in the same scheme \cite{MelNicPas02}. This

511: result can be used to obtain the NNLO corrections that are

512: proportional to $\beta_0 = (11/3) C_A - (2/3) n_f$, the first

513: coefficient appearing in the QCD beta-function $\beta(g)/g =

514: -(\alpha_s/4\pi^2)\beta_0 + O(\alpha_s^2)$. Finally, the

515: constraints imposed by the conformal symmetry, tested at NLO level

516: \cite{Mue97a,BelMue97a}, have been used to obtain the missing

517: terms at NNLO. A detailed NNLO analysis can be found in

518: Ref.~\cite{MelMuePas02}, see also Appendix \ref{AppPerQua} for a

519: discussion of different factorization schemes. A Fourier transform

520: of these results provides one with the radiative corrections to

521: the correlation function (\ref{def:T}) in position space.

522: 

523: It is instructive to consider the results in the hypothetical

524: conformal limit, in which the $\beta$ function is vanishing (which

525: means, technically, that the $\beta_0$ proportional terms are

526: omitted). In this case the modification of the partial waves, cf.

527: Eq.~(\ref{Def-T}), is entirely governed by conformal symmetry:

528: \begin{eqnarray}

529: \label{Def-ParWav-CS}

530:  {\cal F}_n &=&

531: C_{n}(\alpha_s)\; (-\mu^2 x^2)^{\frac{\gamma_n}{2}}  i^n

532: \sqrt{\pi}  \frac{(n+1) (n+2)}{4}

533: % (-\mu^2 x^2)^{\gamma_n/2}

534: \\

535: &&\!\!\!\times \frac{\Gamma(n+5/2+\gamma_n/2)}{\Gamma(n+5/2)}

536: \left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^{-\frac{3+\gamma_n}{2}}

537: J_{n+\frac{3+\gamma_n}{2}}(\rho).

538: \nonumber

539: \end{eqnarray}

540: As compared to the LO expressions  (\ref{Def-F-LO}), the  $\rho$

541: dependence  is modified by the anomalous dimensions

542: $\gamma_n(\alpha_s)$, which alter, e.g., the index of Bessel

543: functions. In addition the normalization is changed by the factor

544: \begin{equation}

545: \label{Def-ParWav-CS-coe} C_{n}(\alpha_s) =

546: \frac{\Gamma(2-\gamma_n/2) \Gamma(1+n)}{\Gamma(1+n+\gamma_n/2)}

547: c_{n}(\alpha_s)\,,

548: \end{equation}

549: where $c_{n}(\alpha_s)$ are the Wilson coefficients that appear in

550: polarized deep inelastic scattering structure function $g_1$ and

551: are known to NNLO \cite{ZijNee92}. Since of conformal symmetry, a

552: scale change does not lead to a mixing of conformal partial waves

553: (\ref{Def-ParWav-CS-coe}) or the Gegenbauer moments.

554: 

555: One possibility to go beyond the conformal limit is to restore

556: both the scale dependence of the coupling and the renormalization

557: logs within the normalization condition of

558: Ref.~\cite{MelMuePas02}. This scheme is discussed in Appendix

559: \ref{AppPerQua}; we refer to it as the conformal subtraction

560: scheme, the $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme. We will use the

561: renormalization group improved partial waves, defined in

562: Eq.~(\ref{Def-PW-CS-NNLO}), for the numerical analysis. In

563: general, the anomalous dimensions govern the evolution of the

564: Gegenbauer moments with respect to a scale change:

565: \begin{equation}

566: \mu \frac{d}{d\mu} \phi_n(\mu^2) = -\gamma_n(\alpha_s(\mu))

567: \phi_n(\mu^2) + \cdots .

568: \end{equation}

569: Even in the $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme which is designed to make

570: maximal use of the conformal symmetry, we expect that the

571: Gegenbauer moments will mix under evolution, indicated by the

572: ellipsis.  This mixing is induced by the trace anomaly and gives

573: rise to a $(\alpha_s/2\pi)^2 \beta_0 \ln(-x^2 \mu^2_0) $

574: proportional contribution which, however, vanishes at a reference

575: scale $-x^2=1/\mu_0^2$. We expect that this unknown NNLO mixing

576: effect is small and can safely be ignored.

577: 

578: The partial waves in the conventional $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme

579: can be obtained from those in  $\overline{\rm CS}$ by the

580: appropriate transformation. In particular the Gegenbauer moments

581: in these two schemes are related as

582: \begin{equation}

583: \label{rotMSCS} \phi^{\overline{\rm CS}}_n = \phi^{\overline{\rm

584: MS}}_n - \frac{\alpha_s}{2 \pi} \sum_{m=0}^{n-2}  B^{(1)}_{n m}

585: \phi^{\overline{\rm MS}}_m + O(\alpha_s^2)\,.

586: \end{equation}

587: The matrix $B^{(1)}_{nm}$ is known explicitly and is given in

588: Eq.~(\ref{Def-B}) of Appendix \ref{AppPerQua}. This relation is

589: also valid in the hypothetical conformal limit.  Note that the

590: $\overline{\rm MS}$ Gegenbauer moments are given  by a finite sum

591: of those in the $\overline{\rm CS}$. Consequently, plugging

592: Eq.~(\ref{rotMSCS}) into Eq.~(\ref{Def-T}), one sees that in the

593: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme all conformal partial waves

594: (\ref{Def-ParWav-CS}) are excited even if a truncated model for

595: the DA is used. We stress that the scheme independence of the

596: correlation function is only guaranteed  if the Gegenbauer moments

597: are rotated at the given input scale. Taking the same model in

598: different schemes will in general lead to different predictions

599: for the correlation function.

600: 

601: As we will see in Sect.~\ref{Sec-RevDA}, such scheme--dependent

602: mixing effects are numerically important. For illustration,

603: consider the asymptotic DA which we define here as the zero mode

604: of the evolution kernel in a given scheme and order of

605: perturbation theory. By construction, the asymptotic DA does not

606: evolve under scale transformations. In the $\overline{\rm CS}$

607: scheme to NLO this amounts to the same choice of the Gegenbauer

608: coefficients as in LO: $\phi_0=1$ and $\phi_n=0$ for $n>0$. The

609: one-loop corrections to the correlation function (\ref{Def-T}) are

610: then given by

611: \begin{equation}

612: \label{Def-T-CS-asy} T^{\rm as}\simeq \frac{3}{4} \left[1-

613: \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi} + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)\right]\,

614: {\cal F}_0(\rho)\,.

615: \end{equation}

616: The current conservation implies $\gamma_0(\alpha_s)=0$,

617: protecting the $\rho$-dependence of the lowest partial wave from

618: radiative corrections. In the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, on the

619: other hand, the Gegenbauer moments of the asymptotic DA for

620: $n\ge2$ are nonzero and are obtained by the rotation

621: (\ref{rotMSCS}):

622: \begin{eqnarray}

623: \label{AsyDA-MS} \phi^{{\rm as}-\overline{\rm MS}}_n &=&

624: \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{2 \pi} \frac{8 C_F (2 n+3)}{n (n+1) (n+2) (n+3)}

625: \\

626: &&\times \left(S_1(n+2)-\frac{n+3}{2(n+1)}\right)

627: +{\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)\,, \nonumber

628: \end{eqnarray}

629: whereas the normalization, i.e., $\phi_0=1$, remains unchanged.

630: The excitation of higher Gegenbauer moments is, however, rapidly

631: decreasing with $n$: For  $n=\{2,4,6,8\}$ we find the values

632: $\{0.124 , 0.039 , 0.018 , 0.009 \}$ in units of $\alpha_s(\mu)$,

633: respectively. A more extensive discussion about scheme

634: dependence can be found in Ref.\ \cite{Mue9498}.

635: 

636: Finally, the limit $\rho\to 0$ of the correlation function

637: (\ref{def:T}) yields the analog of the Bjorken sum rule in

638: polarized deep inelastic scattering:

639: \begin{equation}

640: \label{SumRul} T(\rho= 0, x^2)\simeq \frac{1}{2} C_{0}(-\mu^2 x^2,

641: \alpha_s(\mu))\,.

642: \end{equation}

643: In this limit, which is independent on the factorization scheme,

644: any information contained in the DA is washed out. Hence, this sum

645: rule is a {\em pure} QCD prediction, which is known as

646: perturbative expansion to three loop order \cite{LarVer91}.

647: 

648: After these general remarks, we consider the perturbative

649: corrections for the particular models of the pion DA specified in

650: Sect.~\ref{Sec-Exa}. We assume that the models are defined at the

651: scale $1\,$GeV and set the factorization scale to $\mu^2 =

652: -1/x^2$. For the demonstration we consider two current

653: separations: a larger one $-x^2=1/{\rm GeV}^{2}\;\left[\approx

654: (0.2\, {\rm fm})^2\right]$ and a smaller one $-x^2=1/4{\rm

655: GeV}^{2}\; \left[\approx (0.1\, {\rm fm})^2\right]$. In the latter

656: case evolution of Gegenbauer moments is taken into account: The

657: leading logs are resummed and non--leading ones are consistently

658: combined with the $\alpha_s/2\pi$ power expansion of the

659: correlation function (\ref{Def-T}), for details see, e.g.,

660: Ref.~\cite{MelMuePas02}. The coupling is specified at the

661: normalization point $\mu=2\, {\rm GeV}$ to be $\alpha_s=0.36$ and

662: $\alpha_s=0.3$ at LO and NLO, respectively.

663: 

664: \begin{figure}[ht]

665: \begin{center}

666: \mbox{

667: \begin{picture}(250,220)(0,0)

668: \put(0,128){\rotatebox{90}{$T(\rho,x^2 = -1/4{\rm GeV}^{2} )$}}

669: \put(15,98){\insertfig{7}{NLOcor4}}

670: \put(0,20){\rotatebox{90}{$T(\rho,x^2 = -1/{\rm GeV}^{2} )$}}

671: \put(15,-10){\insertfig{7}{NLOcor1}} \put(180,-15){$\rho=p\cdot

672: x$}

673: \end{picture}

674: }

675: \end{center}

676: \caption{ \label{Fig-MScorPT} \small NLO predictions for the

677: correlation function (\ref{def:T}) in the $\overline{\rm MS}$

678: scheme (thin) and rotated to the $\overline{\rm CS}$ one (thick)

679: at the scale $-x^2= 1/{\rm GeV}^{2}$  (lower panel) $-x^2=

680: 1/4\,{\rm GeV}^{2}$ (upper panel) compared to the LO results

681: (dots) for the three models of the pion DA shown in

682: Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO-DA}.}

683: \end{figure}

684: 

685: The NLO results are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig-MScorPT} for $-x^2 =

686: 1/{\rm GeV}^2$ and $-x^2 =1/4{\rm GeV}^2$ in the lower and

687: upper panel, respectively. Notice that the perturbative

688: corrections lead to a universal shift of the value at $\rho=0$,

689: which is 1/2 in LO, downwards to $1/2(1-\alpha_s/\pi)$ which is

690: about -15\% for the larger and -9\% for the smaller  separation

691: between the currents, respectively. This effect is entirely due to

692: the negative NLO correction in the sum rule (\ref{SumRul}).

693: 

694: Besides the overall normalization, perturbative corrections result

695: in a slight change of the $\rho$ dependence, seen as a shift of

696: zeros and extrema to larger $\rho$ values (compare thin and dotted

697: lines). This scheme dependent effect arises from the excitation of

698: higher conformal partial waves, as discussed above, and is more

699: pronounced at larger separations  (lower panel). Note that the

700: $\rho$-dependence corresponding to the asymptotic DA (dashed

701: curves), evaluated in the $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme (thick

702: curves), is not affected, see Eq.~(\ref{Def-T-CS-asy}). For the

703: other two models in the $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme only a slight

704: shift of extrema appears, which is visible in the lower panel at

705: larger values of $\rho$ (compare thick and dotted lines). A more

706: quantitative look reveals that in general the absolute size of

707: radiative correction grows somewhat with increasing $\rho$.

708: 

709: Note that at smaller distances the model dependence slightly

710: weakens, compare the magnitude of solid or dash-dotted curves at

711: the first minima in the upper and lower panel. This is caused by

712: evolution, which does not change the value at $\rho=0$, however,

713: reduces Gegenbauer moments with a strength that grows with

714: increasing conformal spin. Obviously, even at $-x^2 = 1/4{\rm

715: GeV}^2$ the model predictions remain clearly distinguishable.

716: 

717: The NNLO corrections evaluated in the $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme

718: (not shown) lead to a further decrease of the normalization, so

719: that the net reduction for $\rho=0$ is, compared to LO,  $-25\%$

720: and $-13\%$ for $-x^2 = 1/{\rm GeV}^2$ and $-x^2 =1/4{\rm GeV}^2$,

721: respectively. The modification  of the $\rho$ dependence is,

722: however, negligible as compared to the NLO result in the

723: $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme, and is hardly visible even for the

724: larger separation $-x^2 = 1/{\rm GeV}^2$. As mentioned above,

725: mixing effects due to the NNLO evolution are not taken into

726: account, but are expected to be tiny.

727: 

728: 

729: 

730: \subsection{Higher-twist Corrections}

731: Higher--twist corrections are in general suppressed by full powers

732: of the separation $x^2$ between the currents. In particular,

733: including twist--four contributions one obtains

734: \begin{equation}

735: \label{DefT-Tu}

736:  T(p\cdot x,x^2) = \int_0^1\! du\, e^{i(2u-1) p\cdot x} t(u,x^2)\,,

737: \end{equation}

738: where

739: \begin{eqnarray}

740: \label{DefT-Tw4}

741:  t(u,x^2) &=& \phi_\pi(u) +

742:  \frac{x^2}{4}\phi_4(u) -

743:  x^2

744:  \int_0^u\! d\alpha_1\!\!\int_0^{\bar u}\! d\alpha_2

745: \nonumber\\

746: && \times \left[

747: \frac{1}{\alpha_3}\widetilde\Phi_4(\underline{\alpha}) +

748:  \frac{(u-\bar u-\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}{\alpha_3^2}

749:  \Phi_4(\underline{\alpha})\right]\,.

750:  \nonumber\\

751:  {\ }

752: \end{eqnarray}

753: The leading--twist perturbative corrections are not shown for

754: brevity. The notations correspond to Ref.~\cite{Ball:2006wn},

755: where one can find the definitions and the corresponding

756: expressions for the twist-four distribution amplitudes to the

757: next-to-leading conformal spin accuracy. In the last term

758: $\alpha_1, \alpha_2$ and $\alpha_3=1-\alpha_1-\alpha_2$ are the

759: quark, antiquark and gluon momentum fractions, respectively.

760: Including the contributions of the lowest and the next-to-lowest

761: conformal spin one obtains \cite{BraFil90,Ball:2006wn}

762: \begin{eqnarray}

763: \label{DefDA-Tw4}

764:   \phi_4(u) &=& \frac{200}{3}\delta^2_\pi u^2 \bar u^2 +

765:   21 \delta^2_\pi \omega_{4\pi} \Big\{ u\bar u (2+13 u\bar u)

766: \nonumber\\

767:   &&+ [2u^3(6u^2-15u+10)\ln u] + [u\leftrightarrow \bar u] \Big\}\,,

768: \nonumber\\

769:    \widetilde\Phi_4(\underline{\alpha}) &=&

770:    120 \alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3 \delta^2_\pi

771:  \left[-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{21}{8}\omega_{4\pi} (3\alpha_3-1)\right]\,,

772: \nonumber\\

773:  \Phi_4(\underline{\alpha}) &=&

774:  120\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3 (\alpha_1-\alpha_2)

775:  \delta^2_\pi \frac{21}{8} \omega_{4\pi}\,.

776: \end{eqnarray}

777: The nonperturbative parameters $\delta^2_\pi$ and $\omega_{4\pi}$

778: are defined as reduced matrix elements of local operators, for

779: example

780: \begin{equation}

781:  \langle 0|\bar q ig\widetilde G_{\mu\nu}\gamma_\nu q |\pi^0(p)\rangle

782:  = - f_\pi \delta^2_\pi p_\mu\,.

783: \end{equation}

784: Numerical estimates for these matrix elements are available from

785: QCD sum rules:

786: \begin{equation}

787: \label{Tw4-par}

788:   \delta^2_\pi = (0.18\pm 0.06)~\mbox{GeV}^2\,,\qquad

789:   \omega_{4\pi} = 0.2\pm 0.1

790: \end{equation}

791: at the scale 1 GeV [$\delta^2_\pi = (0.14\pm 0.05)~\mbox{GeV}^2$,

792: $\omega_{4\pi} = 0.13\pm 0.07$ at the scale 2 GeV], see

793: Ref.~\cite{Ball:2006wn} and the references therein.

794: 

795: Note that beyond the leading conformal spin accuracy the

796: twist-four contributions are not polynomials \cite{BraFil90}.

797: Plugging Eq.~(\ref{DefDA-Tw4}) into Eq.~(\ref{DefT-Tw4}), we find,

798: however, that the next-to-leading conformal spin contributions

799: completely cancel each other and the leading conformal spin yields

800: the total $O(x^2)$ correction:

801: \begin{equation}

802: t(u,x^2) =  \phi_2(u)+x^2 \frac{8}{9} \delta_\pi^2 \cdot 30

803: u^2\bar u^2\,.

804: \end{equation}

805: This can be effectively rewritten as the correction to the first

806: two leading twist Gegenbauer coefficients $1\to 1+(8/9)

807: x^2\delta_\pi^2$, $\phi_2\to \phi_2 - (8/9)(1/6) x^2\delta_\pi^2$.

808: Hence, we have

809: \begin{equation}

810: \phi^{(4)}_0(\mu) = \frac{8}{9} \delta_\pi^2(\mu)\,,\quad

811: \phi^{(4)}_2(\mu) = -\frac{8}{54} \delta_\pi^2(\mu)\,.

812: \label{effect4}

813: \end{equation}

814: The upper bound for the contributions to (\ref{DefDA-Tw4}) of

815: higher conformal spins can be obtained using the renormalon model

816: of Ref.~\cite{Braun:2004bu}. These extra contributions mainly

817: influence the large $\rho$-behavior of the correlation function

818: while the  numbers in (\ref{effect4}) are not affected. We see

819: that, to LO accuracy, higher--twist correction produce an additive

820: shift in the physical values of the Gegenbauer moments of the pion

821: DA, which is calculable, at least in principle.

822: 

823: \begin{figure}[ht]

824: \begin{center}

825: \mbox{

826: \begin{picture}(250,220)(0,0)

827: \put(0,128){\rotatebox{90}{$T(\rho,x^2 = -1/4{\rm GeV}^{2} )$}}

828: \put(15,98){\insertfig{7}{Tw4cor4}}

829: \put(0,20){\rotatebox{90}{$T(\rho,x^2 = -1/{\rm GeV}^{2} )$}}

830: \put(15,-10){\insertfig{7}{Tw4cor1}} \put(180,-15){$\rho=p\cdot

831: x$}

832: \end{picture}

833: }

834: \end{center}

835: \caption{ \label{Fig-corTW4} \small LO predictions for the

836: correlation function (\ref{def:T}) with (thick) and without (thin

837: curves) twist-four corrections for two choices of the

838: quark-interquark separation: $-x^2= 1/{\rm GeV}^{2}$  (lower

839: panel) and $-x^2= 1/4\,{\rm GeV}^{2}$ (upper panel). Models for

840: pion DA are the same as used for the LO predictions, shown by

841: dotted curves, in Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO}.}

842: \end{figure}

843: 

844: 

845: Beyond LO, one may define effective partial waves,

846: \begin{equation}

847: \label{Def-F-eff} {\cal F}^{\rm eff}_n(\rho,x^2) = {\cal

848: F}_n(\rho,-x^2 \mu^2;\alpha_s(\mu))  + x^2

849: \frac{\phi^{(4)}_n(\mu)}{\phi_n(\mu)} {\cal F}_n(\rho),

850: \end{equation}

851: that additively combine perturbative and higher twist corrections

852: together. Here, the evolution of the twist-four coefficient is

853: governed by the difference in the LO anomalous dimensions of the

854: corresponding operators:

855: \begin{equation}

856: \frac{\phi^{(4)}_n(\mu)}{\phi_n(\mu)} =

857: \left(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(\mu_0)}\right)^\frac{32/9-

858: \gamma_n^{(0)}}{\beta_0}

859: \frac{\phi^{(4)}_n(\mu_0)}{\phi_n(\mu_0)},

860: \end{equation}

861: where $ \gamma_0^{(0)}=0$ and  $ \gamma_2^{(0)}=50/9$. Note that

862: these effective partial waves depend on the non-perturbative

863: quantities, which induces some model dependence.

864: 

865: As it is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig-corTW4}, twist-four

866: contributions are significant at $-x^2= 1/{\rm GeV}^{2}$ (lower

867: panel) and much less important at $-x^2=1/4{\rm GeV}^{2}$ (upper

868: panel). In particular, for  $-x^2= 1/{\rm GeV}^{2}$ the value at

869: $\rho=0$ decreases by about $16\%$ which is comparable to the NLO

870: perturbative correction, whereas for  $-x^2=1/4{\rm GeV}^{2}$ the

871: decrease is only by $\sim 3.5\%$ which is roughly one third of the

872: respective NLO effect. Note that the $\rho$ dependence of separate

873: partial waves is not affected by the twist-four contributions.

874: Their magnitude is changing, however: the second partial wave is

875: enhanced and the lowest one somewhat suppressed by the twist-four

876: corrections. These effects depend linearly on $x^2$ and are

877: additionally suppressed by evolution.

878: 

879: \begin{figure}[ht]

880: \begin{center}

881: \mbox{

882: \begin{picture}(250,220)(0,0)

883: \put(0,128){\rotatebox{90}{$T(\rho,x^2 = -1/4{\rm GeV}^{2} )$}}

884: \put(15,98){\insertfig{7}{TotCor4}}

885: \put(0,20){\rotatebox{90}{$T(\rho,x^2 = -1/{\rm GeV}^{2} )$}}

886: \put(15,-10){\insertfig{7}{TotCor1}} \put(180,-15){$\rho=p\cdot

887: x$}

888: \end{picture}

889: }

890: \end{center}

891: \caption{ \label{Fig-Cor} \small Combined NNLO and twist-four

892: predictions for the correlation function (\ref{def:T}) in the

893: $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme (thick curves) compared to the LO

894: results (thin curves). The factorization scale is set to the

895: quark-interquark separation, $\mu^2=-1/x^2$, which is $-x^2=1/{\rm

896: GeV}^{2}$ ($-x^2=1/4\,{\rm GeV}^{2}$) for the lower (upper) panel,

897: respectively. Models for pion DA are the same as in

898: Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO}.}

899: \end{figure}

900: Our final predictions combining the  perturbative effects to NNLO

901: accuracy in the $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme and the twist-four

902: corrections are shown by thick curves in Fig.~\ref{Fig-Cor} and

903: compared to the corresponding leading-order leading twist

904: predictions (thin curves). {}For the separation $-x^2  =  1/4{\rm

905: GeV}^{2}$ the overall

906:  correction is rather small.

907: The normalization at $\rho=0$ is reduced by about $17\%$, whereas

908: the zeros and positions of extrema are essentially fixed. We

909: remind that there will be small flow of these points in the

910: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, cf.~upper panel in

911: Fig.~\ref{Fig-MScorPT}. The overall corrections for $-x^2 = 1/{\rm

912: GeV}^{2}$ are much larger.

913: 

914: The conclusion is that the correlation function (\ref{def:T}) can

915: be calculated in QCD to a high accuracy. In particular for  $-x^2

916: \lesssim 1/4{\rm GeV}^{2} \sim (0.1~{\rm fm}^2$ the perturbation

917: theory works rather well and the higher--twist effects do not

918: exceed $3\%$.

919: 

920: The next question to address is whether the knowledge of the

921: correlation function (\ref{def:T}) can be used to constrain the

922: shape of the pion DA and, for example, allow for an accurate

923: determination of the few lowest Gegenbauer moments.

924: 

925: \section{Revealing the pion DA}

926: \label{Sec-RevDA}

927: 

928: Let us first consider the QCD prediction for the normalization of

929: the correlation function in the vicinity of $\rho=0$. Here only

930: the lowest partial wave contributes, while higher ones are

931: suppressed as

932: \begin{equation}

933: \label{Apr-F} |{\cal F}_n(\rho)| \le \frac{(n+1) (n+2) \sqrt{\pi

934: }}{4\Gamma(n+5/2)} \left|\frac{\rho}{2}\right|^n .

935: \end{equation}

936: Note the factorial suppression factor. For the favored value of

937: $\phi_2\sim 0.25$, we find for $\rho \simeq 1/4\, [\simeq 1/2]$

938: that the contamination of the second partial wave is  already

939: below three per mil [about 1\%], respectively. All higher partial

940: waves can certainly be omitted. We remind that a strong

941: suppression of higher partial waves occurs also in momentum space,

942: if both photons have a large virtuality \cite{Diehl:2001dg,

943: MelMuePas02}.  It follows that to three per mil [1\%] accuracy the

944: sum rule (\ref{SumRul}) can be extended for $\rho \le 1/4 [1/2]$:

945: \begin{eqnarray}

946: \label{SumRul-Ex} T(\rho\sim 0, x^2) &=&

947: \left[C_{0}(1,\alpha_s(-1/x^{2})) + \frac{8}{9} x^2

948: \delta^2_\pi\right] \frac{3}{4}{\cal F}_0(\rho)

949: \nonumber\\

950: &&+ O(\alpha_s x^2)+ O(x^4)\,,

951: \nonumber\\

952: \end{eqnarray}

953: where $(3/4){\cal F}_0(\rho) =1/2 -\rho^2/20 + O(\rho^4)$. We

954: emphasize again that in the $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme the radiative

955: corrections to the lowest partial wave are absent at the

956: normalization point. We expect that the excitation of higher

957: partial waves due to the evolution yields a negligible $O(\rho^2

958: \alpha_s^2)$ effect, see also Eq.~(\ref{rotMSCS}) and  the

959: discussion of the $\overline{\rm MS}$ mixing. Hence, in this

960: scheme, the perturbative corrections can be borrowed from the

961: Bjorken sum rule, known to order $\alpha_s^3$ \cite{LarVer91}. For

962: shortness we display the two-loop result:

963: \begin{eqnarray}

964: &&C^{(2)}_{0}(-\mu^2 x^2, \alpha_s(\mu)) =

965: 1-\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi} - \frac{\alpha_s^2(\mu)}{\pi^2}

966: \\

967: &&\qquad  \times\left(\frac{55  - 4 n_f}{12}+\frac{\beta_0}{4}

968: \ln\left(-x^2 \mu^2 e^{2 \gamma_{\rm E}-1}\right)\right).

969: \nonumber

970: \end{eqnarray}

971: Note that due to the Fourier transform the argument of the

972: renormalization logs is decorated with a transcendent number $e^{2

973: \gamma_{\rm E}-1} \approx 1.166994\cdots$.

974: 

975: \begin{figure}[ht]

976: \begin{center}

977: \mbox{

978: \begin{picture}(250,120)(0,0)

979: \put(0,33){\rotatebox{90}{$T(\rho=1/4,x^2)$}}

980: \put(15,-10){\insertfig{7}{NorPre}} \put(180,-20){$\sqrt{-x^2}\;

981: [{\rm fm}]$}

982: \end{picture}

983: }

984: \end{center}

985: \caption{ \label{Fig-QCD-pre} \small Normalization uncertainty of

986: the correlation function (\ref{def:T}) for $\rho=1/4$. The upper

987: error band  entirely arises by the uncertainty  of the running

988: coupling, while the lower one takes  also into account twist-four

989: contamination within the central value, given in

990: Eq.~(\ref{Tw4-par}).}

991: \end{figure}

992: To predict the normalization of the correlation function, we have

993: to specify the QCD coupling. The world average value of

994: $\alpha_s$, given at the $Z$-boson mass scale, reads to three loop

995: accuracy \cite{Bet00}

996: \begin{equation}

997: \label{Def-asNNLO} \alpha_s^{(3)}(\mu=91.18\, {\rm GeV}) = 0.1184

998: \pm 0.003\,.

999: \end{equation}

1000: In the backward evolution to a lower scale we take into account

1001: quark thresholds, treated in the standard way \cite{CheKuhSte00}.

1002: {}For $\rho=0$ and the current separation  $-x^2 = 1/4{\rm

1003: GeV}^{2} \sim (0.1~{\rm fm})^2$ we obtain, including three--loop

1004: and higher--twist effects::

1005: \begin{equation}

1006: \label{Nor-T-rho0} T(0,-1/4 {\rm GeV}^2) = 0.430^{+0.008}_{-0.007}

1007: - 0.018^{+0.006}_{-0.006},

1008: \nonumber\\

1009: \end{equation}

1010: where the number of quarks is set to $n_f=4$. The predicted

1011: twist-four correction is comparable to the error induced by the

1012: uncertainty of $\alpha_s$, see Fig.~\ref{Fig-QCD-pre}, where the

1013: dependence of $T(0,x^2)$, including the error bands, is displayed

1014: as a function of $x^2$.

1015: 

1016: Next we discuss the access to the  Gegenbauer moments. We assume

1017: that the correlation function is measured in a certain interval of

1018: pion momenta alias an interval in $\rho$, $\rho_0 \le \rho \le

1019: \rho_{\rm max}$. Since an overall normalization might be

1020: difficult, we consider the ratio

1021: \begin{eqnarray}

1022: \label{Def-ratT}

1023: {R}(\rho_0,\rho,x^2)=\frac{T(\rho,x^2)}{T(\rho_0,x^2)}\,,\quad

1024: \rho_0< \rho\,,

1025: \end{eqnarray}

1026: which is normalized to one at $\rho=\rho_0$. Requiring that

1027: $\rho_0 < 1$ allows to truncate the partial wave expansion in the

1028: denominator at the second term $\sim\phi_2$. As the result,

1029: ${R}(\rho_0,\rho,x^2)$ is essentially a linear function of

1030: $\phi_n$ with $n> 2$.

1031: 

1032: The maximal accessible value of $\rho$, given by $\rho_{\rm max}$,

1033: is limited by the pion momentum that is feasible in a lattice

1034: calculation. We assume here that $\rho_{\rm max} < 3$, i.e., lower

1035: than the first zero of the lowest conformal partial wave, cf.

1036: Fig.~\ref{figharm}. Staying away from the zero allows one to

1037: consider the subtracted ratio to access directly the second

1038: Gegenbauer moment:

1039: \begin{equation}

1040: \label{Def-M} {\cal

1041: M}(\rho_0,\rho,x^2)=1-\frac{R(\rho_0,\rho,x^2)}{{\cal

1042: R}_0(\rho_0,\rho)}\,,\quad \rho_0 < \rho \lesssim 3\,,

1043: \end{equation}

1044: where ${\cal R}_n(\rho_0,\rho)= {\cal F}_n(\rho)/{\cal

1045: F}_0(\rho_0)$. Since ${\cal R}_0(\rho_0,\rho)$ only decreases by

1046: at most a factor three in the whole range $\rho \lesssim 3$, this

1047: weight does not introduce any numerical instability. The conformal

1048: spin expansion of ${\cal M}$ in terms of ratios of the effective

1049: partial waves (\ref{Def-F-eff}) reads:

1050: \begin{equation}

1051: \label{Def-M-exp}

1052: {\cal M}^{(4)}%(\rho_0,\rho_1,x^2)

1053: \simeq \frac{\left[{\cal R}_2^{\rm eff}(\rho_0) -{\cal R}^{\rm

1054: eff}_2(\rho)\right]\phi_2}{1+{\cal R}^{\rm eff}_2(\rho_0)\phi_2}-

1055: \frac{{\cal R}_4^{\rm eff}(\rho)\phi_4}{1+{\cal R}^{\rm

1056: eff}_2(\rho_0)\phi_2}\,,

1057: \end{equation}

1058: where

1059: \begin{eqnarray}

1060: {\cal R}^{\rm eff}_n(\rho,x^2) &=& \frac{{\cal F}^{\rm

1061: eff}_n(\rho,x^2)}{{\cal F}_0^{\rm eff}(\rho,x^2)}\,.

1062: \end{eqnarray}

1063: Here we neglected all contributions in $\phi_6$, $\phi_8$, etc.

1064: from the expansion in the numerator. The corresponding truncation

1065: error is estimated to be  on the per mil [percentage] level for

1066: $\rho < 2 [3]$, respectively. For example, for $\rho = 3$ we find

1067: to LO accuracy:

1068: \begin{equation}

1069: {\cal M} - {\cal M}^{(4)}\sim 3\cdot 10^{-4} \phi_4 + 7\cdot

1070: 10^{-2} \phi_6 + 3\cdot 10^{-3} \phi_8  \,.

1071: \end{equation}

1072: Here the first term on the r.h.s.~comes from the truncation in the

1073: dominator (assuming $\rho_0 =1/2$) and can safely be neglected,

1074: same as the contribution of $\phi_8$. The remaining term in

1075: $\phi_6$  effectively induces a small additive uncertainty in

1076: determination of the first two Gegenbauer moments. For instance,

1077: assuming values of  ${\cal M}^{(4)}$ are known for two different

1078: values $\rho=2$ and  $\rho=3$, we find by solving the set of two

1079: linear equations:

1080: \begin{eqnarray}

1081: \delta\phi_2 \approx  -0.01 \phi_6\,\quad \delta\phi_4 \approx

1082: -0.13  \phi_6\,.

1083: \end{eqnarray}

1084: Assuming  $\phi_6\sim 0.1$ the errors induced by the truncation of

1085: the partial wave expansion are in this version negligible for

1086: $\phi_2$ and probably  on the one percent level for $\phi_4$. We

1087: remind that convergency of the Gegenbauer expansion in the vicinity of

1088: $u=0$ ($u=1$), which is required if the DA vanishes at the end points,

1089: leads to an upper bound for the large--$n$ behavior of the

1090: coefficients $|\phi_{n}| < {\rm const}/n^p$ with $p> 1$, so that

1091: large values of $\phi_n$ with $n>4$ are increasingly unlikely.

1092: Clearly, a fitting procedure including $\phi_6$ is also possible.

1093: This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig-Ext}, where the effect on

1094: ${\cal M}$ is shown for the $\phi_6$  varied in the interval

1095: $-0.2\cdots 0.2$, which we consider as an overestimation.

1096: \begin{figure}[ht]

1097: \begin{center}

1098: \mbox{

1099: \begin{picture}(250,120)(0,0)

1100: \put(0,0){\rotatebox{90}{${\cal M}(1/2,\rho,x^2= -1/{\rm

1101: GeV}^{2})$}} \put(15,-10){\insertfig{7}{ExtConMo}}

1102: \put(180,-20){$\rho=p\cdot x$}

1103: \end{picture}

1104: }

1105: \end{center}

1106: \caption{ \label{Fig-Ext} \small Subtracted ratio (\ref{Def-M}) of

1107: the correlation function (\ref{def:T}) calculated at LO as a

1108: function of $\rho$ with $\rho_0=1/2$ and $-x^2= 1/{\rm GeV}^{2}$.

1109: Models of the pion DA are same as in Fig.~\ref{Fig-LO}, where the

1110: splitting of curves shows the possible (overestimated)

1111: contribution of higher conformal partial waves with $n>4$. }

1112: \end{figure}

1113: 

1114: 

1115: 

1116: \begin{figure}[ht]

1117: \begin{center}

1118: \mbox{

1119: \begin{picture}(250,120)(0,0)

1120: \put(0,0){\rotatebox{90}{${\cal M}(1/2,\rho,x^2= -1/4\,{\rm

1121: GeV}^{2})$}} \put(15,-10){\insertfig{7}{ExtConMoSch}}

1122: \put(180,-20){$\rho=p\cdot x$}

1123: \end{picture}

1124: }

1125: \end{center}

1126: \caption{ \label{Fig-Ext-R} \small Same as in Fig.~\ref{Fig-Ext}

1127: to NLO for the $\overline{\rm MS}$  (thin) and $\overline{\rm CS}$

1128: radiative (thick) schemes. The variation within the predicted

1129: twist-four corrections are shown as error band. Here $-x^2=

1130: 1/4\,{\rm GeV}^{2}$ and the coupling is specified by the central

1131: values (\ref{Def-alphas}). }

1132: \end{figure}

1133: 

1134: Radiative corrections to the ratio (\ref{Def-ratT}) of the

1135: correlation function are much milder as compared to their overall

1136: normalization. A precision analysis requires a careful

1137: specification of the running coupling. We take the world average

1138: value (\ref{Def-asNNLO}) and calculate the corresponding value at

1139: the scale $\mu=2\, {\rm GeV}$ by the tree loop evolution equation

1140: within $n_f=4$:

1141: \begin{eqnarray}

1142: \label{Def-alphas} \alpha_s(\mu=2\, {\rm GeV})&=&

1143: 0.304^{\rm + 0.024}_{\rm - 0.021}.

1144: \end{eqnarray}

1145: We note that the resulting central value and errors of $\alpha_s$

1146: at two loop accuracy are compatible with the given one; it is,

1147: however, in the heart of perturbation theory that the

1148: specification of $\alpha_s$ to LO accuracy goes hand in hand with

1149: large uncertainties. As discussed in Sect.~\ref{Sec-PerCor}, the

1150: asymptotic DA at NLO in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ differs from that

1151: in the $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme, mainly for the $n=2$ and $n=4$

1152: moments, see Eq.~(\ref{AsyDA-MS}). This effect is  seen in

1153: Fig.~\ref{Fig-Ext-R}, where the subtracted ratio $\mathcal{M}$

1154: (\ref{Def-M-exp}) calculated in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme

1155: using the LO asymptotic DA (thin dashed curve) clearly deviates

1156: from zero. This deviation is removed for the corrected asymptotic

1157: DA (\ref{AsyDA-MS}), for which the $n=2$ moment is $\approx 0.04$.

1158: For the same reason, the other two model predictions in the

1159: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme (thin curves) are systematically

1160: shifted downwards compared to the $\overline{\rm CS}$ (thick

1161: curves). A small deviation from zero for the prediction

1162: corresponding to the asymptotic DA in the $\overline{\rm CS}$

1163: scheme (thick dashed curve) comes from the excitation of the $n=2$

1164: partial wave  by a twist-four contribution. The shown narrow error

1165: bands arise from the variation of the twist-four parameter in the

1166: range $\delta_\pi^2(\mu = 2\,{\rm GeV}^2) = 0.09...0.19\, {\rm

1167: GeV}^2.$

1168: 

1169: 

1170: Since   perturbative corrections to the partial waves  in the

1171: $\overline{\rm CS}$  scheme only induce a small modification of

1172: the $\rho$ dependence in the considered range (absent for the

1173: lowest one and on the one percent  or lower  level for higher

1174: ones), the extraction of the first few Gegenbauer moments can be

1175: considerably simplified. To this end, we define the effective

1176: Gegenbauer moments:

1177: \begin{equation}

1178: \label{Def-Phi} \Phi_n^{\rm eff}=

1179: \frac{C_n(\langle\langle\rho\rangle\rangle_n

1180: |\alpha_s,-x^2\mu^2)\phi_n+ x^2

1181: \phi_n^{(4)}}{C_0(\alpha_s,-x^2\mu^2)+ (8/9) x^2 \delta_\pi^2}\,,

1182: \end{equation}

1183: which depend on the average value of $\rho$ in the given range

1184: ($\langle\langle\rho\rangle\rangle_n\sim 2$ for  $\rho_{\rm

1185: max}\sim 3$).

1186: 

1187: The subtracted ratio (\ref{Def-M-exp}) in the range  $\rho_0 \leq

1188: \rho\leq \rho_{\rm max}$ can be written to a good accuracy in

1189: terms of the effective moments as

1190: \begin{equation}

1191: \label{Def-M-exp-1}

1192: {\cal M}^{(4)}%(\rho_0,\rho_1,x^2)

1193: \simeq \frac{\left[{\cal R}_2(\rho_0) -{\cal

1194: R}_2(\rho)\right]\Phi^{\rm eff}_2}{1+{\cal R}_2(\rho_0)\Phi^{\rm

1195: eff}_2}- \frac{{\cal R}_4(\rho)\Phi^{\rm eff}_4}{1+{\cal

1196: R}_2(\rho_0)\Phi^{\rm eff}_2}\,,

1197: \end{equation}

1198: where ${\cal R}_n(\rho) = {\cal F}_n(\rho)/{\cal F}_0(\rho)$ is

1199: the ratio of the LO partial waves (\ref{Def-F-LO}).

1200: 

1201: The relation between the effective moments and the physical

1202: Gegenbauer moments in the expansion of the pion DA includes

1203: radiative and higher twist corrections. As an illustration, for

1204: $\langle\langle\rho\rangle\rangle_n = 2.2$ and at $\mu = 2\, {\rm

1205: GeV} $ we find

1206: \begin{eqnarray}

1207: \phi_2(2\, {\rm GeV}) &=& \left[0.961^{+0.003}_{-0.003} -

1208: 0.03^{+0.01}_{-0.01}\right] \Phi^{\rm eff}_2

1209: \nonumber\\

1210: &&{}+0.005^{+0.002}_{-0.002} +\cdots,

1211: \\

1212: \phi_4(2\, {\rm GeV}) &=& \left[0.902^{+0.008}_{-0.008} -

1213: 0.03^{+0.01}_{-0.01}\right] \Phi^{\rm eff}_4 +\cdots.

1214: \nonumber

1215: \end{eqnarray}

1216: The first term in the square brackets corresponds to the

1217: perturbative correction  while the second one arises from the

1218: twist-four contribution. Note that the normalization change due to

1219: radiative corrections is only on the level of 4\% for $\phi_2$ and

1220: 10\% for $\phi_4$, respectively, and is comparable with the higher

1221: twist correction. In NNLO we find a slight increase of the

1222: normalization $0.961 \to 0.982$ and $0.902 \to 0.951$ (for

1223: $n_f=4$), whereas the error is drastically reduced. The residual

1224: factorization and the renormalization scale dependence also prove

1225: to be very small.

1226: 

1227: As the final step, the Gegenbauer moments in the $\overline{\rm

1228: MS}$ scheme to NLO follow from

1229: \begin{eqnarray}

1230: \phi_2^{\overline{\rm MS}} &=&  \phi_2 + \frac{7}{18}

1231: \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} + O(\alpha_s^2)\,,

1232: \\

1233: \phi_4^{\overline{\rm MS}} &=&  \phi_4 +\frac{209}{810}

1234: \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\phi_2 + \frac{11}{90} \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}+

1235: O(\alpha_s^2)\,. \nonumber

1236: \end{eqnarray}

1237: 

1238: 

1239: 

1240: 

1241: \section{Conclusion}

1242: \label{Sec-Lat}

1243: 

1244: A typical setup for a lattice calculation of the correlation

1245: function (\ref{lo:1}) would be to take the separation between the

1246: two currents purely spacelike, $x^\mu \to \{0,\vec{x}\}$, and

1247: integrate over the c.m.~position of the currents with a certain

1248: three-dimensional momentum. Since the pion coupling to the source

1249: is usually momentum dependent, the simplest strategy would

1250: probably be to consider ratios of the correlation function

1251: calculated for the same pion momentum but different $\vec{x}$ (and

1252: different c.m.~momenta of the pair of currents), thus creating the

1253: set of ``data points'' with correlated values of $x^2=

1254: -|\vec{x}|^2$ and $\rho = \vec{p}\cdot\vec{x}$. In this way the

1255: dependence on the pion coupling cancels out. The crucial condition

1256: for such a calculation is to have a sufficient ``lever arm'' in

1257: $\rho$. {} For a lattice spacing $a$ the momentum cannot be larger

1258: than

1259: $$ |\vec{p}| < a^{-1}\,, $$

1260: which translates to the restriction on the maximal accessible value

1261: of $\rho$

1262: $$ \rho_{\rm max} < \frac{|\vec{x}|}{a}.$$

1263: In other worlds, $\rho$ cannot be larger than (half of) the

1264: separation between the currents in lattice units. Since, on the

1265: other hand, perturbative treatment of the correlation function is

1266: possible for $|\vec{x}|\le 0.2$~fm, this requirement translates to

1267: a necessity to work on a fine lattice with $a < 0.03-0.05$ fm.

1268: This presents a considerable challenge for an unquenched

1269: calculation. The advantage of this formulation is, however, that

1270: the problem of (nonperturbative) renormalization of lattice

1271: operators is avoided altogether.

1272: 

1273: 

1274: {}For a demonstration, we have chosen in this work to consider the

1275: correlation function of two electromagnetic current in which case

1276: the perturbative expansion is known to the NNLO accuracy. This

1277: choice may be inconvenient for a lattice calculation because of

1278: the epsilon-tensor appearing as a prefactor in (\ref{def:T}). This

1279: problem can easily be avoided by considering a correlation

1280: function of a vector and an axial-vector current, e.g.,

1281: \begin{equation}

1282: T'_{\mu\nu} = \langle 0| T\{\bar q(x) \gamma_\mu q(x) \bar q(-x)

1283: \gamma_{\nu}\gamma_5 q(-x)\}\pi^0(p)\rangle\,.

1284: \label{lo:1a}

1285: \end{equation}

1286: 

1287: More importantly, the same strategy can be used to

1288: extract information about the B-meson distribution

1289: amplitude in the heavy quark limit from the lattice

1290: measurement of the correlation function of the type

1291: \begin{equation} \langle 0| T\{\bar h_v(x)

1292: \gamma_\mu q(x) \bar q(-x) \Gamma q(-x)\} |B_v(p)\rangle\,,

1293: \end{equation} where $v$ is the heavy quark velocity and $h_v$ an

1294: effective heavy--quark field operator, which can be calculated in

1295: terms of the B-meson DA using soft-collinear effective theory

1296: \cite{DescotesGenon:2002mw,Bosch:2003fc,Beneke:2003pa}. The

1297: standard method (calculation of the moments) is not applicable in

1298: this case, since the existing definition of the B-meson DA relies

1299: entirely on a perturbative factorization; the relation with the

1300: Wilson operator expansion is lost unless an additional energy

1301: cutoff is introduced, see \cite{Braun:2003wx,Lee:2005gza}.

1302: 

1303: Finally, nucleon distribution amplitudes

1304: \cite{Chernyak:1983ej,Braun:2000kw} can be studied in the same

1305: manner, from the correlation functions involving a local baryon

1306: current.\\

1307: 

1308: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1309: V.B. is grateful to IPPP for hospitality and financial support

1310: during his stay at Durham University where this work was

1311: finalized. This work has been partially supported by the

1312: Verbundforschung (Hadrons and Nuclei) of the German Federal

1313: Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) (Contract 06 BO 103)

1314: and by the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative Hadron Physics

1315: Project under contract number RII3-CT-2004-506078.

1316: 

1317: 

1318: 

1319: 

1320: 

1321: 

1322: 

1323: 

1324: \begin{appendix}

1325: 

1326: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}

1327: 

1328: \section{Perturbative expansion}

1329: \label{AppPerQua}

1330: 

1331: \begin{widetext}

1332: The radiative corrections in the position space might be obtained

1333: from those in the momentum space by Fourier transform:

1334: \begin{equation}

1335: \label{FT-Mom2Pos} \frac{i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} x^\rho

1336: p^\sigma}{8\pi^2 x^4} T(p\cdot x, x^2) = \int\!

1337: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\; e^{2i\,q\cdot x}\;

1338: \frac{i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} q^\rho p^\sigma}{q^2}

1339: \widetilde{T}(\omega, -q^2)\,,

1340: \end{equation}

1341: where the hard scattering amplitude $\widetilde{T}(\omega, -q^2)$

1342: is expressed by the asymmetry variable $\omega = -q\cdot p/q^2$

1343: and $q= (q_1-q_2)/2$. Note that to LO accuracy the normalization

1344: is chosen to be $\widetilde{T}(\omega=0)=1$. The correlation

1345: function is given by the partial wave expansion:

1346: \begin{equation}

1347: \label{Def-T-MomSpa} \widetilde{T}(\omega, -q^2) = \sum_{n=0 \atop

1348: {\rm even}}^\infty \widetilde{\cal F}_n(\omega,

1349: -\mu^2/q^2;\alpha_s(\mu)) \phi_n(\mu^2)\,.

1350: \end{equation}

1351: In the hypothetical conformal limit the running coupling is

1352: replaced by its non-trivial fixed point value, at which the

1353: $\beta$-function vanishes. Then the predictive power of the conformal

1354: operator product expansion can be used to obtain the partial

1355: waves:

1356: \begin{equation}

1357: \label{Def-F-CS} \widetilde{\cal F}_n(\omega, -\mu^2/q^2|\gamma_n)

1358: =  c_{n}(\alpha_s)  \frac{(n+1) (n+2) \sqrt{\pi}}{2^{n+2}

1359: \Gamma(n+5/2)} \left(\frac{\mu^2}{-q^2}\right)^{\epsilon} \omega^n

1360: {_2F_1}\!\left({(n+1+\epsilon)/2,(n+2+\epsilon)/2\atop

1361: (n+5+\epsilon)/2}\Big|\omega^2\!\right)

1362: %\int_0^1\!du\; \frac{ [(1-u)u]^{n+1+\epsilon}

1363: %(1+\omega -2 \omega u)^{-n-1-\epsilon}}{{\rm B}(n+2+\epsilon,n+2+\epsilon)}

1364: \Bigg|_{\epsilon=\gamma_n/2}\,. \nonumber

1365: \end{equation}

1366: Here

1367: \begin{equation}

1368: \gamma_{n}(\alpha_s) = \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}  \gamma_n^{(0)}  +

1369: \frac{\alpha^2_s}{(2\pi)^2}  \gamma_n^{(1)} + O(\alpha_s^3)\,,

1370: \quad \gamma^{(0)}_n = C_F\left(4 S_1(n+1)-\frac{2}{(n+1)(n+2)}

1371: -3\right)

1372: \end{equation}

1373: are the anomalous dimensions and

1374: \begin{eqnarray}

1375: \label{Def-WilCoeNL} \hspace{-0.5cm}

1376: c_{n} =1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} c_n^{(1)}  + \cdots

1377: %\frac{\alpha_s^2}{(2\pi)^2} c^{(2)}_n + O(\alpha_s^3)

1378: \,, \quad c_n^{(1)} = C_F \left(S^2_1(n+1) -S_2(n+1) +\frac{3}{2}

1379: S_1(n+2)

1380:  + \frac{3-2 S_1(n)}{2(n+1)(n+2)}  -\frac{9}{2}\right)

1381: \end{eqnarray}

1382: are the Wilson coefficients, normalized to one ($c_n^{(0)}\equiv

1383: 1$) at LO, of the polarized deeply inelastic structure function

1384: $g_1$ for the flavor non-singlet sector. Both of them are

1385: evaluated in the momentum space within the $\overline{\rm MS}$

1386: scheme. The NLO anomalous dimensions can be found, e.g., in

1387: Ref.~\cite{FloRosSac77}, and the few lowest one to NNLO in

1388: Ref.~\cite{RetVer00}. The NNLO expressions (or numerical values

1389: for the few lowest) Wilson--coefficients $c_{n}$  are obtained

1390: from Ref.~\cite{ZijNee94}. All numbers, used in this paper, are

1391: collected in Ref.~\cite{MelMuePas02}.

1392: 

1393: 

1394: To transform the conformal predictions (\ref{Def-F-CS}) into the

1395: position space, we first utilize the standard integral

1396: representation for hypergeometric functions and in addition a

1397: quadratic transformation:

1398: \begin{eqnarray}

1399: {_2F_1}\!\left({(n+1+\epsilon)/2,(n+2+\epsilon)/2\atop

1400: (n+5+\epsilon)/2}\big|\omega^2\!\right)=

1401: \frac{\Gamma(2n+4+2\epsilon)}{\Gamma(n+2+\epsilon)^2}

1402: \int_0^1\!du\; \frac{ [(1-u)u]^{n+1+\epsilon} }{(1+\omega -2

1403: \omega u)^{n+1+\epsilon}} \,.

1404: \end{eqnarray}

1405: Plugging Eq.~(\ref{Def-F-CS}) into Eq.~(\ref{Def-T-MomSpa}), and

1406: interchanging $u$ and $q$ integration in Eq.~(\ref{FT-Mom2Pos}),

1407: the Fourier transform can now be easily performed by means of:

1408: \begin{eqnarray}

1409: \label{FT} \int\! \frac{d^4q}{(2 \pi)^2}\, e^{2i x\cdot q}

1410: \left(\frac{\mu^2}{-\bar{q}^2}\right)^{\epsilon}

1411: \frac{\bar{q}_\rho}{\bar{q}^2} \left(\frac{p\cdot

1412: \bar{q}}{-\bar{q}^2}\right)^n = \frac{1}{16  \pi^2} \frac{\Gamma

1413: \left(2-\epsilon\right)}{\Gamma(1+n+\epsilon)} \frac{x_{\rho}

1414: (-x^2  \mu^2)^{\epsilon}}{(-x^2)^2}(-i p\cdot x)^n e^{i(2u-1)

1415: x\cdot p},

1416: \end{eqnarray}

1417: where $\bar q = q +(2u-1) p/2 $. Here $p^2$  and $p_\rho$ terms

1418: are neglected to leading twist accuracy (the latter drops out

1419: after contraction with the Levi-Civita tensor). Finally, the

1420: $u$-integration leads to the partial waves (\ref{Def-ParWav-CS})

1421: in position space  within the Wilson coefficients

1422: (\ref{Def-ParWav-CS-coe}).

1423: 

1424: 

1425: The conformal symmetry breaking due to the trace anomaly appears

1426: the first time as $\alpha_s^2 \beta_0$ correction. It contains the

1427: renormalization logs, needed to restore the renormalization group

1428: invariance in the perturbative expansion with respect to a running

1429: coupling $\alpha_s(\mu)$, and induces a mixing of Gegenbauer

1430: moments, which depends on the factorization scheme. It is purely

1431: conventional how we are dealing with this mixing. Appealing

1432: possibilities are

1433: \begin{enumerate}

1434: \item[i.\phantom{ii}]

1435: combining the conformal predictions (\ref{Def-F-CS}) with the

1436: diagrammatical $\overline{\rm MS}$ result \cite{MelNicPas02},

1437: \item[ii.\phantom{i}]

1438: the partial waves  matches at the normalization point $-q^2=\mu^2$

1439: the conformal predictions (\ref{Def-F-CS}),

1440: \item[iii.] the Gegenbauer moments evolve autonomously.

1441: \end{enumerate}

1442: Certainly, the latter case is the most appealing ones, however, it

1443: requires the full NNLO result for the trace anomaly induced term

1444: (in an arbitrary scheme). Unfortunately, the corresponding piece

1445: of the NNLO anomalous dimensions is unknown. Hence, we are only

1446: able to follow the first two suggestions, where the mixing due to

1447: evolution remains unknown \cite{MelMuePas02}. It turned out that

1448: the numerical differences of the constant $\beta_0 \alpha_s^2/2$

1449: proportional terms of these both schemes, are moderate. Moreover,

1450: it is expected that the mixing effect due to the evolution is

1451: tiny. We remind that in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme such a

1452: mixing under evolution already appears at NLO and leads in fact

1453: only to small numerical effects.

1454: 

1455: Following  the second suggestion, we present here the NNLO

1456: corrections in the so-called $\overline{\rm CS}$ scheme. To do so

1457: we restore in the conformal predictions (\ref{Def-F-CS}) the scale

1458: dependence of the coupling, i.e., $\alpha_s\to\alpha_s(\mu)$, and

1459: the renormalization logs, which are governed by the

1460: renormalization group equation

1461: \begin{eqnarray}

1462: \left[\mu\frac{\partial}{\partial \mu} +

1463: \beta(\alpha_s)\frac{\partial}{\partial g}\right] \widetilde{\cal

1464: F}_n(\omega, -\mu^2/q^2;\alpha_s(\mu))  = \gamma_n(\alpha_s(\mu))

1465: \widetilde{\cal F}_n(\omega, -\mu^2/q^2;\alpha_s(\mu)) +

1466: O(\alpha_s^3)\,,

1467: \end{eqnarray}

1468: approximated to NNLO.  The remaining freedom is fixed by the

1469: requirement that at the normalization point $-q^2=\mu^2$ the

1470: partial waves coincide with those in Eq.~(\ref{Def-F-CS}). A more

1471: detailed discussion is given in Ref. \cite{MelMuePas02}. The so

1472: found result,

1473: \begin{equation}

1474: \widetilde{\cal F}_n(\omega, -\mu^2/q^2;\alpha_s(\mu)) =

1475: \widetilde{\cal F}_n(\omega, -\mu^2/q^2|\gamma_n(\alpha_s(\mu))) -

1476: \frac{\beta_0}{2} \frac{\alpha_s^2(\mu)}{(2\pi)^2}

1477: \Delta_{n}^{(2,\beta)}(\omega,-\mu^2/q^2) + O(\alpha_s^3)\,,

1478: \end{equation}

1479: is understood as a perturbative expansion up to NNLO accuracy,

1480: where the addenda,

1481: \begin{eqnarray}

1482: \label{Def-Cbeta-MomSpa} \Delta_{n}^{(2,\beta)}(\omega,-\mu^2/q^2)

1483: =  \ln(-\mu^2/q^2) \frac{\partial}{\partial (\alpha_s/2\pi)}

1484: \left(1 + \frac{1}{2}\gamma_n(\alpha_s)\ln(-\mu^2/q^2)\!\right)

1485: \widetilde{\cal F}_n(\omega,

1486: -\mu^2/q^2|\gamma_n(\alpha_s))\Bigg|_{\alpha_s=0}\,,

1487: \end{eqnarray}

1488: restores the renormalization group invariance.

1489: 

1490: Again utilizing Eq.~(\ref{FT}) as expansion with respect to

1491: $\epsilon$, the Fourier transform of the addenda

1492: (\ref{Def-Cbeta-MomSpa}) is straightforward. Combining the

1493: resulting expression with the perturbative expansion of the

1494: conformal predictions (\ref{Def-ParWav-CS}) and

1495: (\ref{Def-ParWav-CS-coe}) we find up to order $\alpha_s^2$:

1496: \begin{equation}

1497: \label{Def-PW-CS-NNLO} {\cal F}_n(\rho, -x^2 \mu^2;\alpha_s(\mu))=

1498: \left[1 + \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{2\pi} C^{(1)}_{n}(\rho,-x^2\mu^2) +

1499: \frac{\alpha_s^2(\mu)}{(2\pi)^2} C^{(2)}_{n}(\rho,-x^2\mu^2) +

1500: O(\alpha_s^3)\right]\, {{\cal F}_n(\rho)}\,,

1501: \end{equation}

1502: where ${{\cal F}_n(\rho)}$ is the LO partial wave (\ref{Def-F-LO})

1503: and

1504: \begin{equation}

1505: C_{n}^{(1)}=

1506:  c_n^{(1)} + \frac{s_n^{(1)}(\rho,-x^2\mu^2)}{2} \gamma_n^{(0)}\,,

1507:  \quad

1508: C_{n}^{(2)}= \!c_n^{(2)} + \frac{s^{(1)}_n}{2}

1509: \left(\gamma_n^{(1)}+c_n^{(1)} \gamma_n^{(0)}\right)+

1510: \frac{s^{(2)}_n}{8} \left(\!\gamma_n^{(0)}\!\right)^2

1511: -\frac{\beta_0}{2}C_{n}^{(2,\beta)} \,.

1512: \end{equation}

1513: The `shift' functions

1514: \begin{eqnarray}

1515: s_n^{(m)}(\rho,-x^2\mu^2)= \frac{d^m}{d\epsilon^m} (-\mu^2

1516: x^2)^{\epsilon} \frac{\Gamma(2-\epsilon)

1517: \Gamma(1+n)}{\Gamma(1+n+\epsilon)} \frac{{\cal

1518: F}_n(\rho,-x^2\mu^2|2\epsilon)}{{\cal

1519: F}_n(\rho)}\Bigg|_{\epsilon=0}

1520: \end{eqnarray}

1521: depend on the variables $-x^2\mu^2$ and $\rho$. To obtain the

1522: renormalization group improved Wilson--coefficients we restore the

1523: scale dependence of the coupling, i.e., $\alpha_s\to \alpha_s(\mu)

1524: $, and take into account

1525: \begin{equation}

1526: C_{n}^{(2,\beta)} =  \left[ \left(\!\frac{\gamma_n^{(0)}}{4} {\rm

1527: Ln}_n(-x^2 \mu^2)-C^{(1)}_{n}(\rho,-x^2\mu^2) \!\right){\rm

1528: Ln}_n(-x^2 \mu^2) + \frac{3}{4}

1529: \gamma_n^{(0)}\left(1-S_2(n)\right) \right],

1530: \end{equation}

1531: where ${\rm Ln}_n(-x^2 \mu^2)= \ln(-x^2 \mu^2)-S_{1}(n)+2

1532: \gamma_{\rm E} -1$. We finally remark that the following

1533: substitutions restores the result in momentum space:

1534: \begin{eqnarray}

1535: {{\cal F}_n(\rho)}\ &\Rightarrow&\ \widetilde{\cal F}_n(\omega)=

1536: \frac{(n+1) (n+2) \sqrt{\pi}}{2^{n+2} \Gamma(n+5/2)} \omega^n

1537: {_2F_1}\!\left({(n+1)/2,(n+2)/2\atop

1538: (n+5)/2}\Big|\omega^2\!\right)\,,

1539: \nonumber\\

1540: s^{(m)}_n(\rho,-x^2\mu^2)  \ &\Rightarrow&\

1541: s^{(m)}_n(\omega,-\mu^2/q^2) = \frac{d^m}{d\epsilon^m}

1542: \left(\!\frac{\mu^2}{-q^2}\!\right)^{\epsilon}

1543: \frac{{_2F_1}\!\left({(n+2\epsilon+1)/2,(n+2\epsilon+2)/2\atop

1544: n+2\epsilon+5/2}\big|\omega^2\!\right)}{

1545: {_2F_1}\!\left({(n+1)/2,(n+2)/2\atop

1546: n+5/2}\big|\omega^2\!\right)}\Bigg|_{\epsilon=0},

1547: \\

1548: C_{n}^{(2,\beta)}(\rho,-\mu^2 x^2)  \ &\Rightarrow&\

1549: C_{n}^{(2,\beta)}(\omega,-\mu^2/q^2) =

1550: \left(\!C^{(1)}_{n}(\omega,-\mu^2/q^2) + \frac{1}{2}\gamma_n^{(0)}

1551: \ln(-\mu^2/q^2)\!\right)\ln(-\mu^2/q^2)\,. \nonumber

1552: \end{eqnarray}

1553: 

1554: 

1555: The NLO corrections to the correlation function in the

1556: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme might be  obtained by Fourier transform

1557: from the known result in momentum space

1558: \cite{AguCha81,Bra83,KadMikRad86}. Representing the

1559: hard--scattering part as a convolution of the LO hard-scattering

1560: part within some kernels, see Ref.~\cite{Mue97a}, the

1561: transformation can be straightforwardly performed by utilizing

1562: Eq.~(\ref{FT}) for $n=0$. Alternatively, we can simply rotate the

1563: partial waves (\ref{Def-PW-CS-NNLO}) in the $\overline{\rm CS}$

1564: scheme, expanded up to NLO. Note that the trace anomaly does not

1565: enter in this approximation. The non--vanishing entries of the

1566: rotation matrix, used in Eq.~(\ref{rotMSCS}),

1567: \begin{eqnarray}

1568: \label{Def-B} B^{(1)}_{nm}= \frac{2(2n\!+\!3) C_F }{

1569: (n\!+\!1)(n\!+\!2)} \left[

1570: \frac{(m\!+\!1)(m\!+\!2)}{(n\!-\!m)(n\!+\!m\!+\!3)} \left(2

1571: A_{nm}-\frac{ \gamma^{(0)}_m}{2 C_F}

1572: \right)+A_{nm}-S_1(n+1)\right],

1573: \end{eqnarray}

1574: appear for $n>m$ and $n-m$-even, where

1575: \begin{equation}

1576: A_{nm} = S_1((n+m+2)/2)-S_1((n-m-2)/2)+2 S_1(n-m-1) - S_1(n+1)\,.

1577: \end{equation}

1578: 

1579: 

1580: \end{widetext}

1581: 

1582: 

1583: \end{appendix}

1584: 

1585: 

1586: %%%%%%  Bibliography %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1587: %\input{BM.bbl}

1588: %\bibliography{../../../../texinput/referenc,../../../../texinput/veroefli}

1589: %\bibliographystyle{h-physrev4}

1590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1591: 

1592: 

1593: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

1594: 

1595: 

1596: %\cite{Bakulev:2001pa}

1597: \bibitem{Bakulev:2001pa}

1598:   A.~P.~Bakulev, S.~V.~Mikhailov and N.~G.~Stefanis,

1599:   %``QCD-based pion distribution amplitudes confronting experimental data,''

1600:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 508}, 279 (2001)

1601:   [Erratum-ibid.\  B {\bf 590}, 309 (2004)]

1602:   [hep-ph/0103119].

1603:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B508,279;%%

1604: 

1605: %\cite{Bakulev:2002hk}

1606: \bibitem{Bakulev:2002hk}

1607:   A.~P.~Bakulev and S.~V.~Mikhailov,

1608:   %``Lattice measurements of nonlocal quark condensates, vacuum correlation

1609:   %length, and pion distribution amplitude in QCD,''

1610:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 65}, 114511 (2002)

1611:   [hep-ph/0203046].

1612:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D65,114511;%%

1613: 

1614: %\cite{Braun:2006dg}

1615: \bibitem{Braun:2006dg}

1616:   V.~M.~Braun {\it et al.},

1617:   %``Moments of pseudoscalar meson distribution amplitudes from the lattice,''

1618:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 74}, 074501 (2006)

1619:   [hep-lat/0606012].

1620:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,074501;%%

1621: 

1622: \bibitem{SchYak99}

1623: A.~Schmedding and O.~I. Yakovlev,

1624: \newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 116002 (2000) [hep-ph/9905392].

1625: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9905392;%%

1626: 

1627: %\cite{Bakulev:2002uc}

1628: \bibitem{Bakulev:2002uc}

1629: A.~P.~Bakulev, S.~V.~Mikhailov and N.~G.~Stefanis,

1630: %``Unbiased analysis of CLEO data at NLO and pion distribution amplitude,''

1631: Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 67}, 074012 (2003)

1632: [hep-ph/0212250].

1633: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D67,074012;%%

1634: 

1635: %\cite{Chernyak:1981zz}

1636: \bibitem{Chernyak:1981zz}

1637:   V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,

1638:   %``Exclusive Decays Of Heavy Mesons,''

1639:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 201}, 492 (1982)

1640:   [Erratum-ibid.\  B {\bf 214}, 547 (1983)].

1641:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B201,492;%%

1642: 

1643: %\cite{Schafer:1995uz}

1644: \bibitem{Schafer:1995uz}

1645:   T.~Schafer and E.~V.~Shuryak,

1646:   %``Hadronic Correlation Functions in the Interacting Instanton Liquid,''

1647:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 54}, 1099 (1996)

1648:   [hep-ph/9512384].

1649:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D54,1099;%%

1650: 

1651: %\cite{Braun:1994jq}

1652: \bibitem{Braun:1994jq}

1653:   V.~Braun, P.~Gornicki and L.~Mankiewicz,

1654:   %``Ioffe - time distributions instead of parton momentum distributions in

1655:   %description of deep inelastic scattering,''

1656:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 51}, 6036 (1995)

1657:   [hep-ph/9410318].

1658:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D51,6036;%%

1659: 

1660: 

1661: %\cite{Aglietti:1998ur}

1662: \bibitem{Aglietti:1998ur}

1663:   U.~Aglietti, M.~Ciuchini, G.~Corbo, E.~Franco, G.~Martinelli and L.~Silvestrini,

1664:   %``Model independent determination of the light-cone wave functions for

1665:   %exclusive processes,''

1666:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 441}, 371 (1998)

1667:   [hep-ph/9806277].

1668:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B441,371;%%

1669: 

1670: %\cite{Abada:2001yt}

1671: \bibitem{Abada:2001yt}

1672:   A.~Abada, P.~Boucaud, G.~Herdoiza, J.~P.~Leroy, J.~Micheli, O.~Pene and J.~Rodriguez-Quintero,

1673:   %``The pion light-cone wave function Phi(pi) on the lattice: A partonic

1674:   %signal?,''

1675:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 106}, 338 (2002)

1676:   [hep-lat/0110181].

1677:   %%CITATION = NUPHZ,106,338;%%

1678: 

1679: %\cite{Polchinski:2002jw}

1680: \bibitem{Polchinski:2002jw}

1681:   J.~Polchinski and M.~J.~Strassler,

1682:   %``Deep inelastic scattering and gauge/string duality,''

1683:   JHEP {\bf 0305}, 012 (2003)

1684:   [hep-th/0209211].

1685:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0305,012;%%

1686: 

1687: %\cite{Brodsky:2003px}

1688: \bibitem{Brodsky:2003px}

1689:   S.~J.~Brodsky and G.~F.~de Teramond,

1690:   %``Light-front hadron dynamics and AdS/CFT correspondence,''

1691:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 582}, 211 (2004)

1692:   [hep-th/0310227].

1693:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B582,211;%%

1694: 

1695: \bibitem{BakMicSte05}

1696: A.~P. Bakulev, S.~V. Mikhailov and N.~G. Stefanis,

1697: \newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 056002 (2006) [hep-ph/0512119].

1698: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512119;%%

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{BraKorMue03}

1701: V.~M. Braun, G.~P. Korchemsky and D.~M{\"u}ller,

1702: \newblock Prog. in Part. and Ncul. Phys. {\bf 51}, 312 (2003)

1703:   [hep-ph/0306057].

1704: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306057;%%

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{AguCha81}

1707: F.~D. Aguila and M.~Chase,

1708: \newblock Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B193}, 517 (1981).

1709: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,517;%%

1710: 

1711: \bibitem{Bra83}

1712: E.~Braaten,

1713: \newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 28}, 524 (1983).

1714: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D28,524;%%

1715: 

1716: \bibitem{KadMikRad86}

1717: E.~Kadantseva, S.~Mikhailov and A.~Radyushkin,

1718: \newblock Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 44}, 326 (1986).

1719: %%CITATION = YAFIA,44,507;%%

1720: 

1721: \bibitem{DitRad84}

1722: F.~M.~Dittes and A.~V.~Radyushkin,

1723: %``Two Loop Contribution To The Evolution Of The Pion Wave Function,''

1724: Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 134}, 359 (1984).

1725: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B134,359;%%

1726: 

1727: \bibitem{Sar84}

1728: M.~H.~Sarmadi,

1729: %``The Asymptotic Pion Form-Factor Beyond The Leading Order,''

1730: Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 143}, 471 (1984).

1731: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B143,471;%%

1732: 

1733: \bibitem{MikRad85}

1734: S.~V.~Mikhailov and A.~V.~Radyushkin,

1735: %``Evolution Kernels In QCD: Two Loop Calculation In Feynman Gauge,''

1736: Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 254}, 89 (1985).

1737: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B254,89;%%

1738: 

1739: \bibitem{Mue94}

1740: D.~M\"uller,

1741: %``Conformal constraints and the evolution of the nonsinglet meson

1742: %distribution amplitude,''

1743: Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 49}, 2525 (1994).

1744: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,2525;%%

1745: 

1746: 

1747: \bibitem{MelNicPas02}

1748: B.~Meli{\' c}, B.~Ni{\v z}i{\' c} and K.~Passek,

1749: \newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 053020 (2002) [hep-ph/0107295].

1750: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107295;%%

1751: 

1752: \bibitem{Mue97a}

1753: D.~M{\"u}ller,

1754: \newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 054005 (1998) [hep-ph/9704406].

1755: %%CITATION=HEP-PH 9704406;%%

1756: 

1757: \bibitem{BelMue97a}

1758: A.~Belitsky and D.~M{\"u}ller,

1759: \newblock Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417}, 129 (1997) [hep-ph/9709379].

1760: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709379;%%

1761: 

1762: \bibitem{Diehl:2001dg}

1763: M.~Diehl, P.~Kroll and C.~Vogt,

1764: %``The annihilation of virtual photons into pseudoscalar mesons,''

1765: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  C {\bf 22}, 439 (2001)  [hep-ph/0108220].

1766: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C22,439;%%

1767: 

1768: \bibitem{MelMuePas02}

1769: B.~Meli{\' c}, D.~M{\"u}ller and K.~Passek-Kumeri{\v c}ki,

1770: \newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 014013 (2003) [hep-ph/0212346].

1771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212346;%%

1772: 

1773: \bibitem{ZijNee92}

1774: E.~B. Zijlstra and W.~L. van Neerven,

1775: \newblock Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 383}, 525 (1992).

1776: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B383,525;%%

1777: 

1778: \bibitem{LarVer91}

1779: S.~Larin and J.~Vermaseren,

1780: \newblock Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 259}, 345 (1991).

1781: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B259,345;%%

1782: 

1783: \bibitem{Mue9498}

1784: D.~M\"uller,

1785: %``The Evolution of the pion distribution amplitude in

1786: %next-to-leading-order,''

1787: Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 51}, 3855 (1995) [hep-ph/9411338];

1788: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D51,3855;%%

1789: %``Scheme dependence of NLO corrections to exclusive processes,''

1790: {\em ibid.}~{\bf 59}, 116003 (1999) [hep-ph/9812490].

1791: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,116003;%%

1792: 

1793: \bibitem{Ball:2006wn}

1794: P.~Ball, V.~M. Braun and A.~Lenz,

1795: \newblock JHEP {\bf 05}, 004 (2006) [hep-ph/0603063].

1796: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0603063;%%

1797: 

1798: \bibitem{BraFil90}

1799: V.~Braun and I.~Filyanov,

1800: \newblock Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 48}, 239 (1990).

1801: %%CITATION = SJNCA,52,126;%%

1802: 

1803: \bibitem{Bet00}

1804: S.~Bethke,

1805: \newblock J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 26}, R27 (2000) [hep-ex/0004021].

1806: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0004021;%%

1807: 

1808: \bibitem{CheKuhSte00}

1809: K.~G. Chetyrkin, J.~H. Kuhn and M.~Steinhauser,

1810: \newblock Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 133}, 43 (2000) [hep-ph/0004189].

1811: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0004189;%%

1812: 

1813: \bibitem{FloRosSac77}

1814: E.~Floratos, D.~Ross and C.~Sachrajda,

1815: \newblock Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 129}, 66 (1977),

1816: \newblock [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 139}, 545 (1978)].

1817: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B129,66;%%

1818: 

1819: \bibitem{RetVer00}

1820: A.~Retey and J.~Vermaseren,

1821: \newblock Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 604}, 281 (2001) [hep-ph/0007294].

1822: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007294;%%

1823: 

1824: \bibitem{ZijNee94}

1825: E.~Zijlstra and W.~{v}an Neerven,

1826: \newblock Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 417}, 61 (1994)

1827: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 426}, 245  (1994), B {\bf 773}, 105  (2007)

1828: ].

1829: %%CITATION = {NUPHA},{B417},61;%%

1830: 

1831: %\cite{Braun:2004bu}

1832: \bibitem{Braun:2004bu}

1833:   V.~M.~Braun, E.~Gardi and S.~Gottwald,

1834:   %``Renormalon approach to higher-twist distribution amplitudes and the

1835:   %convergence of the conformal expansion,''

1836:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 685}, 171 (2004)

1837:   [hep-ph/0401158].

1838:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B685,171;%%

1839: 

1840: %\cite{DescotesGenon:2002mw}

1841: \bibitem{DescotesGenon:2002mw}

1842:   S.~Descotes-Genon and C.~T.~Sachrajda,

1843:   %``Factorization, the light-cone distribution amplitude of the B-meson and the

1844:   %radiative decay B --> gamma l nu/l. ((V)),''

1845:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 650}, 356 (2003)

1846:   [hep-ph/0209216].

1847:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B650,356;%%

1848: 

1849: %\cite{Bosch:2003fc}

1850: \bibitem{Bosch:2003fc}

1851:   S.~W.~Bosch, R.~J.~Hill, B.~O.~Lange and M.~Neubert,

1852:   %``Factorization and Sudakov resummation in leptonic radiative B decay,''

1853:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 67}, 094014 (2003)

1854:   [hep-ph/0301123].

1855:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D67,094014;%%

1856: 

1857: %\cite{Beneke:2003pa}

1858: \bibitem{Beneke:2003pa}

1859:   M.~Beneke and T.~Feldmann,

1860:   %``Factorization of heavy-to-light form factors in soft-collinear  effective

1861:   %theory,''

1862:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 685}, 249 (2004)

1863:   [hep-ph/0311335].

1864:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B685,249;%%

1865: 

1866: %\cite{Braun:2003wx}

1867: \bibitem{Braun:2003wx}

1868:   V.~M.~Braun, D.~Y.~Ivanov and G.~P.~Korchemsky,

1869:   %``The B-meson distribution amplitude in QCD,''

1870:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 69}, 034014 (2004)

1871:   [hep-ph/0309330].

1872:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,034014;%%

1873: 

1874: %\cite{Lee:2005gza}

1875: \bibitem{Lee:2005gza}

1876:   S.~J.~Lee and M.~Neubert,

1877:   %``Model-independent properties of the B-meson distribution amplitude,''

1878:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 72}, 094028 (2005)

1879:   [hep-ph/0509350].

1880:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,094028;%%

1881: 

1882: %\cite{Chernyak:1983ej}

1883: \bibitem{Chernyak:1983ej}

1884:   V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,

1885:   %``Asymptotic Behavior Of Exclusive Processes In QCD,''

1886:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 112}, 173 (1984).

1887:   %%CITATION = PRPLC,112,173;%%

1888: 

1889: %\cite{Braun:2000kw}

1890: \bibitem{Braun:2000kw}

1891:   V.~Braun, R.~J.~Fries, N.~Mahnke and E.~Stein,

1892:   %``Higher twist distribution amplitudes of the nucleon in QCD,''

1893:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 589}, 381 (2000)

1894:   [Erratum-ibid.\  B {\bf 607}, 433 (2001)]

1895:   [hep-ph/0007279].

1896:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B589,381;%%

1897: 

1898: \end{thebibliography}

1899: 

1900: \end{document}

1901: