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

2: %                     Latex File

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

4: \documentstyle[12pt,amssymb,epsfig]{article}

5: %\documentstyle[12pt,amssymb,epsfig,showkeys]{article}

6: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0pt}

7: \setlength{\textwidth}{15.8cm}

8: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}

9: \setlength{\textheight}{23.0cm}

10: \addtolength{\jot}{5pt}

11: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}

12: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}

13: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.05}

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

15: \def \thesection {\arabic{section}.}

16: \def \thesubsection {\thesection\arabic{subsection}.}

17: \def \thesubsubsection {\thesubsection\arabic{subsubsection}.}

18: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

20: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

21: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

22: \newcommand{\baa}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

23: \newcommand{\btab}{\begin{tabular}}

24: \newcommand{\etab}{\end{tabular}}

25: \newcommand{\eaa}{\end{eqnarray*}}

26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

27: %\def \labeltest #1 {\label{#1}             \mbox{\# ${#1}$}}

28: \def \labeltest #1 {\label{#1}}

29: \newcommand\re[1]{(\ref{#1})}

30: \def \qqquad {\qquad\quad}

31: \def \qqqquad {\qquad\qquad}

32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

33: \newcommand\lr[1]{{\left({#1}\right)}}

34: \newcommand\lrs[1]{{\left[{#1}\right]}}

35: \def \matrix #1 {\left(\begin{array}{cc} #1 \end{array}\right)}

36: \def \Tr {\mbox{Tr\,}}

37: \def \tr {\mbox{tr}}

38: \newcommand \vev [1] {\langle{#1}\rangle}

39: \newcommand \VEV [1] {\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}

40: \newcommand \rvev [1] {\langle{#1}\rangle}

41: \newcommand \ket [1] {|{#1}\rangle}

42: \newcommand \bra [1] {\langle {#1}|}

43: \newcommand\bin[2]{\left({#1}\atop{#2}\right)}

44: \def \e {\mbox{e}}

45: \def \CO {{\cal O}}

46: \def \CP {{\cal P}}

47: \def \CT {{\cal T}}

48: \def \CM {{\cal M}}

49: \def \CK {{\cal K}}

50: \def \CH {{\cal H}}

51: \def \CI {{\cal I}}

52: \def \CV {{\cal V}}

53: \def\II{\hbox{{1}\kern-.25em\hbox{l}}}

54: 

55: \catcode`\@=11

56: \def\numberbysection{\@addtoreset{equation}{section}

57:                      \def\theequation{\thesection\arabic{equation}}}

58: \numberbysection

59: 

60: \begin{document}

61: 

62: \begin{titlepage}

63: \begin{flushright}

64: \begin{tabular}{l}

65: LPT--Orsay--00--63\\

66: hep-ph/0007005

67: \end{tabular}

68: \end{flushright}

69: 

70: \vskip3cm

71: 

72: \begin{center}

73:   {\large \bf

74:   On power corrections to the event shape distributions in QCD}

75: 

76: \vspace*{1cm}

77: {\sc G.P.~Korchemsky} and {\sc S.~Tafat}

78: 

79: \vspace*{0.1cm}

80: {\it

81: Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique%

82: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}%

83: \footnote{Unite Mixte de Recherche du CNRS (UMR 8627)},

84: Universit\'e de Paris XI, \\

85: 91405 Orsay C\'edex, France

86:                        }

87: 

88: \vskip0.8cm

89: {\bf Abstract:\\[10pt]} \parbox[t]{\textwidth}

90: {We study power corrections to the differential thrust, heavy jet mass and

91: $C-$parameter distributions in the two-jet kinematical region. We argue that

92: away from the end-point region, $e\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$, the leading

93: $1/Q-$power corrections are parameterized by a single nonperturbative scale

94: while for $e\sim\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$ one encounters a novel regime in which

95: power corrections of the form $1/(Qe)^n$ have to be taken into account for

96: arbitrary $n$. These nonperturbative corrections can be resummed and factor out

97: into a universal nonperturbative distribution, the shape function, and the

98: differential event shape distributions are given by convolution of the shape

99: function with perturbative cross-sections. Choosing a simple ansatz for the

100: shape function we demonstrate a good agreement of the obtained QCD predictions

101: for the distributions and their lowest moments with the existing data over a

102: wide energy interval.}

103: 

104: \vskip1cm

105: 

106: \end{center}

107: 

108: \end{titlepage}

109: 

110: \newpage

111: 

112: %{\small \tableofcontents}

113: 

114: %\newpage

115: 

116: \section{Introduction}

117: 

118: Analysis of hadronization effects to the final states in $\e^+\e^--$annihilation

119: has became the subject of active QCD studies \cite{Exp}. There exist infrared and

120: collinear safe event shape variables for which perturbative QCD can be applied

121: at large center-of-mass energies $s=Q^2$ to calculate their differential

122: distributions and mean values as series in $\alpha_s(Q)$. It has been observed

123: many years ago \cite{Old} that for some shape variables like thrust, $t$, and

124: heavy jet mass, $\rho$, perturbative QCD predictions deviate from the data by

125: corrections suppressed by powers of the large energy scale $1/Q^p$, with the

126: exponent $p$ depending on the variable and $p=1$ for $t-$ and $\rho-$variables.

127: Such hadronization corrections were measured experimentally \cite{Exp} over a

128: wide energy interval $14\le\sqrt{s}/{\rm GeV}\le 189$ and were found to have a

129: different form for the differential event shape distributions, ${d\sigma}/{d

130: e}$, as compared to their mean values, $\vev{e} =\sigma_{\rm tot}^{-1}\int

131: de\,e{d\sigma}/{d e}$. For the mean value $\vev{e}$ the leading power correction

132: is parameterized by a nonperturbative {\it scale\/} $\lambda_p$ of dimension

133: $p$, while hadronization corrections to the differential distribution are

134: described by a {\it function} $f_{\rm hadr}(Q,e)$ depending on both the shape

135: variable and the center-of-mass energy

136: \be

137: \vev{e} = \vev{e}_{_{\rm PT}} + \lambda_p/Q^p\,,\qquad

138: \frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}\frac{d\sigma}{d e} =

139: \frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}{d e} + f_{\rm hadr}(Q,e)

140: \label{f-hadr}

141: \ee

142: with $e$ denoting a general event shape variable $(e=t\,,\rho\,,C\,,...)$ and the

143: subscript PT referring to perturbative contribution, $\vev{e}_{_{\rm PT}}=\int

144: de\,e{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}/{d e}$. Obviously, the hadronization corrections to

145: the differential distributions have a richer structure then those to the mean

146: values. For instance, nonperturbative scales $\lambda_p$ parameterizing power

147: corrections to $\vev{e}$ are defined by the moment $\int de\,e f_{\rm

148: hadr}(Q,e)$.

149: 

150: Power corrections in \re{f-hadr} are associated with hadronization effects in

151: ${\rm e}^+{\rm e}^--$final states and, as a consequence, the magnitude of the

152: scales $\lambda_p$ and the function $f_{\rm hadr}(Q,e)$ cannot be calculated

153: within perturbative QCD approach. However it was recognized some time ago

154: \cite{W,KS,AZ,BB}, that analysis of infrared renormalon ambiguities of perturbative QCD

155: series suggests the value of dimensionless exponents $p$ as well as the

156: dependence of the function $f_{\rm hadr}(Q,e)$ on the large scale $Q$. Namely,

157: perturbative QCD series generate power corrections of the form \re{f-hadr}

158: through IR renormalons contribution but fail to predict uniquely their values --

159: it is only the sum of perturbative and nonperturbative contributions that

160: becomes well-defined \cite{Beneke}. To give a meaning to the perturbative series

161: in \re{f-hadr} one has to regularize IR renormalon singularities. This can be

162: done in two different ways: one can specify a particular prescription for

163: integrating IR renormalon singularities like principal value prescription

164: \cite{GG}. Alternatively, one can avoid IR renormalon ambiguities by introducing

165: an explicit IR cut-off $\mu$ on momenta of soft particles in perturbative

166: expressions. In this case, one can either impose a ``hard'' IR cut-off on

167: momenta of soft particles in the Feynman integrals, $k_\perp >\mu$, \cite{KS} or

168: replace QCD coupling constant by a effective IR finite coupling constant which

169: coincides with $\alpha_s(k_\perp)$ at large scale $k_\perp$ and deviates from it

170: at $k_\perp<\mu$ \cite{W,DMW}. Following each of these ways, one specifies

171: perturbative ($\mu-$dependent) contribution to \re{f-hadr} including

172: perturbatively induced power corrections. Still, there exists a genuine

173: nonperturbative contribution to the event shapes coming from the QCD dynamics at

174: scales below $\mu$. This contribution cannot be determined from the analysis of

175: perturbative QCD series while its magnitude depends on the choice of the IR

176: regularization and, as a consequence, on the IR cut-off $\mu$.

177: 

178: For some hadronic observables like mean values of the event shapes and their

179: differential distributions away from the end-point region, leading

180: nonperturbative power corrections can be parameterized using different IR

181: renormalon inspired phenomenological models \cite{W,AZ,KS,Beneke}. Their

182: predictions agree well with the experimental data and the extracted values of

183: phenomenological nonperturbative parameters exhibit approximate universality.

184: Despite a phenomenological success of these models, it remains still unclear what

185: is the physical meaning of new nonperturbative QCD scales and what is the origin

186: of the universality property within QCD. In the present paper we address these

187: problems using the factorization properties of the event shape distributions

188: established in \cite{KS-shape}. We shall argue that nonperturbative power

189: corrections to the thrust, heavy jet mass and $C-$parameter distributions are

190: described by the universal shape function which is a new nonperturbative QCD

191: distribution measuring the energy flow in the two-jet final states in

192: $\e^+\e^--$annihilation.

193: 

194: The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~2 we discuss the general properties

195: of power corrections to the event shape distributions in the end-point region. In

196: Sect.~3 we formulate the factorization procedure and define the shape function.

197: In Sect.~4 we show that the differential event shape distributions are given by

198: the convolution of the resummed perturbative cross-sections with universal shape

199: function. Choosing a simple ansatz for this function we compare QCD predictions

200: with the existing data. In Sect.~5 we apply the obtained expressions to calculate

201: the power corrections to the first two moments of the distributions. Concluding

202: remarks are given in Sect.~6.

203: 

204: \section{Event shape distributions}

205: 

206: In this paper we shall consider three event shape variables: thrust $T$, heavy

207: jet mass $\rho$ and $C-$parameter. They are defined in the standard way as

208: \cite{KNMW}

209: \be

210: T=\max_{\vec n_T} \frac{\sum_k |{\vec p_k\cdot\vec n_T}|}{\sum_k |{\vec

211: p_k}|}\,,\qqquad

212: \rho = \max\lr{\frac{M_R^2}{Q^2},\frac{M_L^2}{Q^2}}\,,

213: \ee

214: where $M_R^2$ and $M_L^2$ denote the total invariant masses flowing into the

215: right and left hemispheres with respect to the plane orthogonal to the thrust

216: axis $\vec n_T$. The $C-$parameter is given by

217: \be

218: C=3(\theta_1\theta_2+\theta_2\theta_3+\theta_3\theta_1)

219: \ee

220: with  $\theta_j$ being eigenvalues of space-like part of the energy-momentum

221: tensor $\Theta^{\alpha\beta}=\sum_k {p_k^\alpha p_k^\beta}/|p_k|/\sum_j |p_j|$.

222: 

223: Introducing the new variable $t=1-T$ one notices that thus defined event shapes

224: $e=(t\,,\rho\,,C)$ have a number of common features. Lowest order perturbative

225: QCD calculation leads in all three cases to the following expression for the

226: differential distribution for $e>0$

227: \cite{KNMW}

228: \be

229: \frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}{d e}= \frac{\alpha_s(Q)}{2\pi} A_e(e)\theta(e_{\rm

230: max}-e) +\lr{\frac{\alpha_s(Q)}{2\pi}}^2 B_e(e)+{\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)\,,

231: \label{A_e}

232: \ee

233: where $A_e$ and $B_e$ are known coefficient functions and normalization is chosen

234: as $\int de\frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}{d e}=1$. Lowest order correction $A_e$ gets

235: contribution only from the three-particle final state which populates the

236: kinematic region $0\le e \le e_{\rm max}$ with $t_{\rm max}=\rho_{\rm max}=1/3$

237: and $C_{\rm max}=3/4$. Away from the end-point region, $e\gg \Lambda_{_{\rm

238: QCD}}/Q$, the perturbative expansion \re{A_e} is well-defined and it describes

239: the final states consisting of particles with relative transverse momentum that

240: scales at large center-of-mass energy as $\sim Q$. As $e$ approaches the

241: three-particle upper limit, $e=e_{\rm max}$, $A_t$ and $A_\rho$ vanish while

242: $A_C$ takes a finite value

243: \cite{KNMW,ERT}

244: \ba

245: &&

246: A_t(1/3) = A_\rho(1/3) =0 \,,

247: \nonumber

248: \\

249: && A_C(C) = \frac{256}{243}\pi\sqrt{3} C_F\left[ 1-\frac83\lr{C-\frac34} + {\cal

250: O}\lr{(C-3/4)^2}\right]\,.

251: \label{A's}

252: \ea

253: 

254: For $e=(t\,,\rho\,,C) \to \Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$ the final states consist of two

255: narrow jets with invariant mass $M^2_{R,L}\sim

256: \Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}Q$. Examining \re{A_e} one finds that $A_e$

257: diverges in the end-point region $e\to 0$ as \cite{KNMW,ERT,CTTW,CW}

258: \be

259: A_e(e) = \frac{4C_F}{e}\left[\ln{\frac{e_0}{e}}-\frac34\right] + {\cal O}(\ln e)

260: \ee

261: with $t_0=\rho_0=1$ and $C_0=6$. Similar Sudakov-type corrections appear to

262: higher orders, $\alpha_s^N\ln^{2N-n}e/e$ with $n\ge 0$, and need to be resummed

263: \cite{CTTW,CW}. They originate from the effects of collinear splitting of quarks and gluons

264: inside two narrow energetic jets and their interaction with surrounding cloud of

265: soft gluons. The underlying QCD dynamics depends on two infrared scales, $Q e$

266: and $Q^2 e$, such that $1/Q\ll 1/(Qe^{1/2})\ll 1/(Q e)$. The smallest scale $Q e$

267: sets up the typical energy carried by soft gluons, while the scale $Q\sqrt{e}$

268: defines the transverse momenta of the jets, $k_\perp^2= Q^2 e$. Applying the

269: standard IR renormalon analysis and examining sensitivity of perturbative

270: expressions with respect to emission of particles on each of these scales, that

271: is soft gluons with energy $\sim Q e$ and collinear particles with the

272: transverse momentum $\sim Q^2e$, one finds that nonperturbative corrections to

273: the differential distribution appear suppressed by powers of both scales. Then,

274: in the end-point region, $e={\cal O}(\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q)$, we may use the

275: fact that $Q e={\cal O}(\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}})$ and expand the differential

276: distribution in powers of larger scale $Q^2 e$. Keeping only the leading term of

277: the expansion one gets

278: \be

279: \frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}\frac{d\sigma}{d e} = \sigma_0\lr{\alpha_s(Q),\ln e, \frac1{Qe}}

280: + {\cal O}\lr{\frac1{Q^2e}} \,,

281: \label{sigma_0}

282: \ee

283: where $\sigma_0$ resums perturbative corrections in $\alpha_s(Q)$ as well as

284: power corrections on the smallest scale $Qe$

285: \be

286: \sigma_0=%\frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}

287: \frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}{d e}

288: +\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda_k}{(Q e)^k}\Sigma_{k}(\alpha_s(Q),\ln e)

289: \,.

290: \label{gen-exp}

291: \ee

292: Here, $\Sigma_k$ are dimensionless perturbative coefficient functions and

293: $\lambda_k$ are some nonperturbative scales, depending, in general, on the

294: choice of the event shape variable. Using \re{gen-exp} we notice that the power

295: corrections have a different form for $e\gg\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$ and $e

296: \sim\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$.

297: 

298: For $e$ away from the end-point region, $e\gg

299: \Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$, one may keep in

300: \re{gen-exp} only the first term

301: \be

302: \frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}\frac{d\sigma}{d e}

303: =\frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}{d e} +\frac{\lambda_1}{Q e}\Sigma_{1}(\alpha_s(Q),\ln

304: e) + {\cal O}\lr{\frac1{(Qe)^2}}\,.

305: \label{off-peak}

306: \ee

307: The coefficient function $\Sigma_{1}$ can be found using the well-known property

308: \cite{KS,DW} that the {\it leading\/} $1/Q-$power correction to the differential

309: distribution \re{off-peak} is generated by a shift of perturbative spectrum,

310: $e\to e-\lambda_1/Q$. This leads to

311: \be

312: \Sigma_{1}(\alpha_s(Q),\ln e)=-\frac{d}{d\ln e}\left[

313: \frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}{d e}\right]\,.

314: \label{Sigma1}

315: \ee

316: Then, it follows from \re{off-peak} that for $e\gg\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$ the

317: leading power corrections to the differential distributions have a rather simple

318: structure: they are parameterized by a single nonperturbative scale $\lambda_1$.

319: The same scale determines $1/Q-$power correction to the mean value $\vev{e}$. The

320: QCD predictions \re{off-peak} are in a good agreement with the experimental data

321: and the value of $\lambda_1$ has been fitted for different shape variables

322: \cite{Exp}. It is worthwhile to note that in the performed analysis of power

323: corrections to the differential distributions \cite{Exp} the fitting range of

324: event shape variables was restricted to the region $e\gg\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$.

325: At the same time, as we shall argue below, it is in the region

326: $e\sim\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$ where a novel QCD regime is realized and the

327: structure of hadronization corrections is drastically changed.

328: 

329: For $e \sim \Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$ one finds that all terms in \re{gen-exp}

330: become equally important and, therefore, need to be resummed to all orders in

331: $1/(Qe)$. The resummation is based on the remarkable factorization properties of

332: the differential distributions. As was shown in \cite{KS-shape}, the

333: nonperturbative corrections to the leading asymptotic term $\sigma_0$ are

334: factorized out into nonperturbative distribution function, the so-called shape

335: function. The general factorized expression for differential distribution looks

336: like \cite{KS-shape}

337: \be

338: \frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}\frac{d\sigma}{d e}=

339: \int_0^{eQ} d\varepsilon f_e(\varepsilon)\frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}

340: (e-\frac{\varepsilon}{Q})}{d e} +{\cal O}\lr{\frac1{Q^2e}} \,.

341: \label{factor}

342: \ee

343: Its explicit form depends on the choice of the event shape variable

344: $e=(t\,,\rho\,,C)$ and will be given in Sect.~4 (see Eqs.~\re{dis-t}, \re{dis-C}

345: and \re{dis-rho}).  For $e\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$ one can expand the r.h.s.\ of

346: \re{factor} in powers of $1/Q$ to reproduce the expansion \re{gen-exp} with

347: \be

348: \lambda_n=\int d\varepsilon\,\varepsilon^n f(\varepsilon)\,,\qquad

349: \Sigma_n(\alpha_s(Q),\ln e)=\frac{(-e)^n}{n!}\frac{d^n}{de^n}\left[\frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}{de}

350: \right]\,.

351: \label{lambda_n}

352: \ee

353: Expression \re{factor} has a simple physical interpretation -- nonperturbative

354: corrections increase invariant masses of jets and effectively shift perturbative

355: spectrum towards larger values of the shape variables with the weight given by

356: nonperturbative distribution $f_e(\varepsilon)$.

357: 

358: \section{Factorization and Shape functions}

359: 

360: Factorization relations \re{factor} take a simple form for the radiator functions

361: $R(e)$ defined as \cite{CTTW}

362: \be

363: R(e) = \int_0^e de' \frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}\frac{d\sigma}{d e'} \equiv

364: \vev{\theta(e - e(N))}\,.

365: \ee

366: Here, $\vev{...}$ denotes averaging over all possible final states in ${\rm

367: e}^+{\rm e}^--$annihilation with the weight given by the differential

368: distribution $1/{\sigma_{\rm tot}}{d\sigma}/{d e}$ and $e(N)$ denotes the value

369: of the event shape variable $e$ for a given final state $\ket{N}$. Calculating

370: $R(e)$ in perturbation theory one finds

371: \be

372: R_{_{\rm PT}}(e) = 1 - \frac{\alpha_s(Q)}{2\pi}\int_{e}^{e_{\rm max}} de' A_e(e')

373: %- \lr{\frac{\alpha_s(Q)}{2\pi}}^2\int_{e}^{e_{\rm max}} de' B_e(e')

374: + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^2(Q))\,.

375: \label{R_pt}

376: \ee

377: 

378: Close to the two-jet region, $e\to 0$, perturbative expressions for $R(e)$

379: involve Sudakov logs $\alpha_s^N \ln^{2N-n} e$ with $n\ge 0$. In the case of

380: event shapes under consideration, $e=(t\,,\rho\,,C)$, these corrections can be

381: systematically resummed to next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) order and matched

382: into exact two-loop perturbative expressions \re{R_pt} \cite{CTTW,CW}. To this

383: accuracy the weights $e(N)$ can be expressed in terms of the total invariant

384: masses $M_R^2$ and $M_L^2$ of two jets flowing into the right and left

385: hemispheres, respectively. Moreover, the $t-$ and $C-$parameters depend only on

386: the sum of two masses and the corresponding perturbative radiation functions can

387: be expressed to the NLL approximation as

388: \cite{CTTW,CW}

389: \ba

390: R_t^{_{\rm PT}}(e) &=& \vev{\theta(e - t(N))}_{_{\rm PT}} = \VEV{\theta\left(e -

391: \frac{M_R^2+M_L^2}{Q^2}\right)}_{_{\rm PT}}

392: \label{R-t}

393: \\

394: R_C^{_{\rm PT}}(e) &=& \vev{\theta(e - C(N))}_{_{\rm PT}} = \VEV{\theta\left(e -

395: 6\frac{M_R^2+M_L^2}{Q^2}\right)}_{_{\rm PT}} = R_t^{_{\rm PT}}(e/6)\,,

396: \nonumber

397: \ea

398: where the subscript PT indicates that the final states in $\e^+\e^--$annihilation

399: are generating by perturbative branching of outgoing quark and antiquark. The

400: radiator function for the $\rho-$parameter depends separately on the masses of

401: two jets. Taking into account that perturbative evolution of two jets is

402: independent on each other to the NLL approximation one gets \cite{CTTW}

403: \be

404: R_\rho^{_{\rm PT}}(e) = \vev{\theta(e - \rho(N))}_{_{\rm PT}} =

405: \VEV{\theta\left(e - \frac{M_R^2}{Q^2}\right)}_{_{\rm PT}}

406: \VEV{\theta\left(e - \frac{M_L^2}{Q^2}\right)}_{_{\rm PT}}\,.

407: \label{R-rho}

408: \ee

409: The perturbative expressions \re{R-t} and \re{R-rho} are valid in the two-jet

410: kinematical region $\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q \ll e < e_{\rm max}$ except the

411: end-point region $e\sim\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$, in which the energy of emitted

412: soft particles scales as $k_\perp\sim e Q\sim\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}$ and

413: perturbation theory is expected to fail.

414: 

415: Calculating the radiator functions $R_e(e)$ one has to combine together

416: perturbative and nonperturbative corrections. In the case of inclusive

417: distributions, like deep inelastic structure functions and Drell-Yan

418: distributions, this can be achieved by applying the factorisation theorems. They

419: allow to separate short-distance dynamics into perturbatively calculable

420: coefficient functions and absorb large-distance corrections into universal

421: nonperturbative distributions. Specific feature of the differential event-shape

422: distributions is that they are not inclusive quantities but rather weighted

423: cross-sections and, as a consequence, the standard methods are not applicable in

424: this case.

425: 

426: It turns out \cite{KS-shape} that IR factorization still holds for the leading

427: term $\sigma_0$ in the expansion of the event-distributions \re{sigma_0} in the

428: end-point region $e\sim\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$. Its origin has a simple physical

429: interpretation. In end-point region, the final state in $\e^+\e^--$annihilation

430: consists of two narrow jets surrounding by a cloud of soft gluons.

431: Nonperturbative corrections $\sim 1/(Q^2e)$ and $\sim 1/(Q e)$ are associated

432: with emission of collinear particles with the transverse momenta $k_\perp^2 \sim

433: Q^2 t$ and soft particles on the energy scale $k_\perp\sim Q e$, respectively.

434: Neglecting power corrections to \re{sigma_0} on a larger scale, $\sim 1/(Q^2e)$,

435: we may restrict analysis to soft particles only. Since soft particle cannot

436: resolve the internal structure of narrow jets of transverse size $k_\perp^2

437: \sim Q^2 e$, we may effectively replace two jets by a pair

438: of energetic quark and antiquark moving back-to-back with the energy $\sim Q/2$.

439: The internal dynamics of two jets is governed by perturbative branching of quark

440: and antiquark while effects of their interaction with soft gluons can be

441: factorized out into the eikonal phase $W_+W_-^\dagger$ with $W_+$ and $W_-$ being

442: the eikonal phases of quark and antiquark, respectively. They are given by Wilson

443: lines $W_\pm=P\exp(i\int_0^\infty d s n_\pm A(sn_\pm))$ in which soft gluon field

444: $A_\mu(x)$ is integrated along the light-like directions $n_\pm$ defined by the

445: momenta of two outgoing jets. In the end-point region, collinear and soft

446: particles provide additive contributions to the shape variables

447: $e=(t\,,\rho\,,C)$. As a consequence, the radiator functions are given in all

448: three cases by a convolution of perturbative radiators $R_{_{\rm PT}}$ and the

449: same universal nonperturbative distribution $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)$

450: describing the energy flow into the right and left hemispheres in the final

451: state, $\varepsilon_R$ and $\varepsilon_L$, respectively, created by

452: nonperturbative soft gluon radiation. The nonperturbative distribution

453: $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)$ is defined as follows \cite{KS-shape}

454: \be

455: f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)= \sum_{N} |\vev{0|W_+ W_-^\dagger|N}|^2 \delta(

456: \varepsilon_{_R}-(k_{_R}n_+))\delta( \varepsilon_{_L}-(k_{_L}n_-))\,.

457: \label{shape}

458: \ee

459: Here, sum goes over all possible soft gluon final states $\ket{N}$ with $k_R$ and

460: $k_L$ being the total momentum of soft particles moving into right and left

461: hemispheres, respectively. The quantities $(k_{_R}n_+)$ and $(k_{_L}n_-)$ define

462: the projection of the soft gluon momenta onto the directions of two jets,

463: $n_\pm^\mu=(1,{\mathbf 0}_\perp,\pm 1)$, propagating into the same hemisphere.

464: 

465: Finally, the factorized expressions for the radiator function for the $t-$ and

466: $C-$variables look like

467: \ba

468: R_t(e) &=& \int_0^{e Q} d\varepsilon \, f_t(\varepsilon)\, R_t^{_{\rm

469: PT}}\lr{e-\frac{\varepsilon}{Q}}

470: \label{R-t-f}

471: \\

472: R_C(e) &=& \int_0^{\frac2{3\pi}e Q} d\varepsilon \, f_t(\varepsilon)\,

473: R_C^{_{\rm PT}}\lr{e-\frac{3\pi}2\frac{\varepsilon}{Q}}

474: \label{R-C-f}

475: \ea

476: with nonperturbative distribution $f_t(\varepsilon)$ defined as

477: \be

478: f_t(\varepsilon) = \int d\varepsilon_R\int d\varepsilon_L

479: f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L) \,\delta(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_R-\varepsilon_L)

480: =\int_0^\varepsilon d \varepsilon'\, f(\varepsilon-\varepsilon',\varepsilon')\,.

481: \label{f-sing}

482: \ee

483: In the case of the $\rho-$variable,

484: \be

485: R_\rho(e) = \int_0^{e Q} d\varepsilon_R\int_0^{e Q} d\varepsilon_L  \,

486: f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L) R_J^{_{\rm PT}}\lr{e-\frac{\varepsilon_R}{Q}}

487: R_J^{_{\rm PT}}\lr{e-\frac{\varepsilon_L}{Q}}

488: \label{R-rho-f}

489: \ee

490: with $R_\rho^{_{\rm PT}}(e)=[R_J^{_{\rm PT}}(e)]^2$ and $R_J^{_{\rm PT}}(e)

491: =\VEV{\theta\left(e - {M_R^2}/{Q^2}\right)}_{_{\rm PT}}$ being a single jet

492: radiator function. We would like to stress that Eqs.~\re{R-t-f}, \re{R-C-f} and

493: \re{R-rho-f} hold in the region $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/Q^2 < e < e_{\rm max}$. They resum all

494: power corrections of the form $1/(Q e)^n$ and are valid up to corrections $\sim

495: 1/(Q^2 e)$. According to \re{R-t-f}, \re{R-C-f} and \re{R-rho-f}, the power

496: corrections have a different form for $\rho$ and $e=(t,C)$ variables. In the

497: latter case, the radiator function depends on an overall energy flowing into both

498: hemispheres and described by the integrated distribution \re{f-sing}.

499: 

500: Nonperturbative corrections to the radiator functions \re{R-t-f}, \re{R-C-f} and

501: \re{R-rho-f} are governed by the universal shape function $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)$.

502: This function is different from the well-known inclusive QCD distributions and

503: its operator definition was given in \cite{KS-shape}. Using \re{shape} it is

504: straightforward to show that $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)$ is a symmetric

505: function of its arguments, it does not depend on the center-of-mass energy $Q$

506: and is normalized as

507: \be

508: \frac{d}{d Q^2}f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)=0\,,\qquad

509: \int d\varepsilon_R \int d\varepsilon_L\, f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)=1\,,

510: \label{props}

511: \ee

512: where the last relation follows from unitarity of the eikonal phase $W_+

513: W_-^\dagger$. The matrix element entering \re{shape} does not depend on any

514: kinematical scale and, as a consequence, the momenta of soft gluons contributing

515: to \re{shape} are not restricted from above. To separate the region of small

516: gluon momenta one has to introduce the factorisation scale $\mu$. Then, the shape

517: function describes the contribution of gluons with $k_\perp < \mu$, while the

518: contribution of gluons with $k_\perp>\mu$, is absorbed into perturbative

519: radiator function $R(e)$. In this way, both nonperturbative shape function and

520: perturbative radiator become $\mu-$dependent while this dependence cancel in

521: their convolution \re{R-t-f},

522: \re{R-C-f} and \re{R-rho-f}. Since the $\mu-$dependence of radiator function

523: $R_{_{\rm PT}}$ can be calculated perturbatively, the above condition allows to

524: obtain the evolution equations on the nonperturbative distributions

525: \cite{KS-shape}. Clearly, there exists an ambiguity in implementing IR cut-off

526: inside perturbative expressions. Different prescriptions correspond to different

527: ways of regularizing IR renormalon singularities and therefore lead to the

528: different expressions for the nonperturbative distributions. In what follows we

529: shall impose a ``hard'' IR cut-off \cite{KS-shape} on gluon momenta inside the

530: perturbative radiator functions entering \re{R-t-f}, \re{R-C-f} and \re{R-rho-f}

531: as \cite{KS-shape}

532: \be

533: R_{_{\rm PT}}(e)\to R_{_{\rm PT}}(e;\mu) = \theta\lr{e-\frac{\mu}{Q}} R_{_{\rm

534: PT}}^{^{\rm NLL}}(e) +

535: \theta\lr{\frac{\mu}{Q} -e} R_{_{\rm PT}}^{^{\rm NLL}}(\mu/Q)\,.

536: \label{R-fin}

537: \ee

538: Throughout the paper we shall substitute $R_{_{\rm PT}}^{^{\rm NLL}}(e)$ by its

539: perturbative expression resummed to the NLL accuracy and matched into two-loop

540: explicit expressions within the modified $\ln R-$matching scheme

541: \cite{CTTW}. Thus defined radiator function \re{R-fin} depends on two scales,

542: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and IR cut-off $\mu$, that we choose as

543: \be

544: \Lambda_{\rm QCD} = \mu = 0.25 \ {\rm GeV}\,.

545: \label{mu}

546: \ee

547: Within the prescription \re{R-fin}, the ``regularized'' perturbative spectrum

548: $d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}(e;\mu)\/d e= d R_{_{\rm PT}}(e;\mu)/d e$ coincides with the

549: $\ln R-$matched perturbative distribution $dR_{_{\rm PT}}^{^{\rm NLL}}(e)/de$ for

550: $\mu/Q < e<e_{\rm max}$ and it vanishes inside the nonperturbative ``window''

551: $0<e<\mu/Q$. Choosing the value of $\mu$ in \re{mu} one has to be sure that the

552: end-point of the perturbative distribution, $e=\mu/Q$, belongs to applicability

553: range of the NLL resummed radiator function $R_{_{\rm PT}}^{^{\rm NLL}}(e)$

554: \cite{CTTW}, $2\beta_0\alpha_s(Q^2)\ln e < 1$. Despite the fact that the

555: perturbative spectrum is well defined at $e=\mu/Q$ we do not expect that it

556: provides a reasonable description of the physical distribution in the end-point

557: region. Indeed, it is in this region that nonperturbative power corrections

558: become dominant.

559: 

560: \section{Differential distributions}

561: 

562: Differentiating the radiator functions \re{R-t-f} and \re{R-C-f} we obtain the

563: following expressions for the differential $t-$distribution

564: \be

565: \frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}\frac{d\sigma_t}{d e}= Qf(Qe;\mu) R_t^{_{\rm PT}}(0;\mu)

566: +\int_0^{Qe} d\varepsilon f_t(\varepsilon;\mu) \frac{d\sigma_t^{_{\rm PT}}

567: (e-\varepsilon/Q;\mu)}{d e}

568: \label{dis-t}

569: \ee

570: and $C-$distribution

571: \be

572: \frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}\frac{d\sigma_C}{d e}= \frac2{3\pi}Qf\lr{\frac{3\pi}2Q e;\mu}

573: R_C^{_{\rm PT}}(0;\mu)+\int_0^{\frac2{3\pi} Qe} d\varepsilon f_t(\varepsilon;\mu)

574: \frac{d\sigma_C^{_{\rm PT}} \lr{e-\frac{3\pi}2\frac{\varepsilon}{Q};\mu}}{d e}\,.

575: \label{dis-C}

576: \ee

577: Here, we indicated explicitly the dependence of nonperturbative shape function

578: and perturbative distributions on the factorization scale $\mu$. Two terms

579: entering the r.h.s.\ of \re{dis-t} and \re{dis-C} have the following

580: interpretation. Since the shape function $f_t(\varepsilon)$ rapidly vanishes for

581: large $\varepsilon$, the first term contributes inside the nonperturbative

582: window $0 \le e < \mu/Q$. In this region the emission of perturbative real soft

583: gluons is suppressed due to cut-off imposed on soft gluon momenta $k_\perp > \mu$

584: and the shape of the distribution is governed entirely by nonperturbative

585: function $f_t(\varepsilon)$. Additional Sudakov factor $R^{_{\rm PT}}(0;\mu)$

586: takes into account the contribution of virtual soft gluons with $\mu < k_\perp

587: <Q$ and it rapidly vanishes as $\mu$ decreases. The second term in \re{dis-t} and

588: \re{dis-C} defines the spectrum inside the perturbative window $\mu/Q < e< e_{\rm

589: max}$. In this region, nonperturbative corrections smear the perturbative

590: spectrum over the interval $\Delta e \sim \Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/Q$.

591: 

592: For the heavy mass distribution one finds

593: \be

594: \frac1{\sigma_{_{\rm tot}}}\frac{d\sigma_\rho}{d e}

595: =Q f_\rho(e Q,e Q;\mu)R_J^{_{\rm PT}}(0;\mu) +

596: \int_0^{e Q} d\varepsilon\,f_\rho(\varepsilon,e Q;\mu)

597: \frac{d\sigma_J^{_{\rm PT}}

598: (e-\varepsilon/Q;\mu)}{d e}\,,

599: \label{dis-rho}

600: \ee

601: where $d\sigma_J^{_{\rm PT}}/d e$ is single jet distribution resummed to the NLL

602: order and defined by the radiator function \re{R-rho-f}, $d\sigma_J^{_{\rm PT}}/d

603: e= d R_J^{_{\rm PT}}(e)/de$. The heavy mass nonperturbative distribution is given

604: by

605: \be

606: f_\rho(\varepsilon,e Q) = 2 \int_0^{e Q} d\varepsilon'\,

607: f(\varepsilon,\varepsilon') R_J^{_{\rm PT}}\lr{e-\frac{\varepsilon'}{Q}}\,.

608: \label{fH}

609: \ee

610: Comparing \re{dis-rho} with \re{dis-t} and \re{dis-C} we notice that the

611: factorized expressions for the differential $t-$, $C-$ and $\rho-$distributions

612: have a similar form but the structure of power corrections is different in the

613: case of the heavy mass. In distinction with \re{f-sing}, the heavy mass

614: nonperturbative function $f_\rho$ depends on the shape variable, $e$, and the

615: center-of-mass energy, $Q$. This dependence is controlled by perturbative

616: radiator function and has the following interpretation. In the two-jet limit,

617: the invariant mass of each jet is given by the sum of perturbative and

618: nonperturbative contributions, $M_R^2=M^2_{R,{\rm PT}} +\varepsilon_RQ$ and

619: $M_L^2=M^2_{L,{\rm PT}} +\varepsilon_L Q$. Perturbative radiation leads to

620: $M^2_{R,{\rm PT}}/Q^2\sim M^2_{L,{\rm PT}}/Q^2\sim {\cal O}(\alpha_s(Q))$, while

621: nonperturbative contribution scales as $\varepsilon_R\sim\varepsilon_L\sim{\cal

622: O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$. In contrast with the $t-$variable, which depends on the

623: sum of both masses and therefore is additive with respect to perturbative and

624: nonperturbative contributions, the $\rho-$parameter is defined by the largest

625: mass for which the ``additivity'' property is lost. Namely, comparing invariant

626: masses flowing into two hemispheres one encounters a situation when masses of

627: two perturbative jets are of the same order, $M^2_{R/L,_{\rm PT}}={\cal O}(Q^2)$,

628: while their difference is much smaller $|M_{L,{\rm PT}}^2-M_{R,{\rm PT}

629: }^2|={\cal O}(Q\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$.%

630: \footnote{To see that this configuration is not rare it is enough to notice that

631: it corresponds to the vicinity of peak of the perturbative distribution over the

632: difference of the jet masses $|M_L^2-M_R^2|/Q^2$ \cite{KNMW}.} In this case,

633: nonperturbative correction to the difference of the jet masses becomes

634: comparable with the perturbative contribution $|M_{L,{\rm PT}}^2-M_{R,{\rm

635: PT}}^2|\sim Q |\varepsilon_L-\varepsilon_R|$, and therefore it can invert the

636: perturbative hierarchy of jet masses, $M_{R,{\rm PT}}^2 < M_{L,{\rm PT}}^2$,

637: into $M_R^2 > M_L^2$, for instance. Expression \re{dis-rho} takes into account

638: this effect through the induced $Q-$dependence of the nonperturbative function

639: \re{fH}.

640: 

641: According to \re{dis-t}, \re{dis-C} and \re{dis-rho} the nonperturbative

642: corrections to the $t-$, $C-$ and $\rho-$distributions involve two different

643: nonperturbative functions. They are related however to the same universal

644: nonperturbative shape function \re{shape} describing the energy flow into two

645: hemispheres in the final state. We recall, that

646: $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L;\mu)$ depends on the cut-off $\mu$ imposed on the

647: maximal momenta of soft particles but it is independent on the center-of-mass

648: energy $Q$. By the definition, $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L;\mu)$

649: distinguishes between particles propagating into right and left hemispheres in

650: the final state and therefore it is not completely inclusive with respect to

651: partonic final states. Namely, it takes into account that quarks and gluons

652: produced at short distances $\sim 1/Q$ and moving into one of the hemispheres

653: will eventually decay at large distances $\sim 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and their

654: remnants could flow into opposite hemispheres.\footnote{Similar effect has been

655: studied using the IR renormalon approach in \cite{NS}.} This implies that,

656: firstly, in contrast with the well-known inclusive QCD distributions, the shape

657: function $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L;\mu)$ is not related to the short

658: distance QCD dynamics and, in particular, its moments can not be related to

659: hadronic matrix elements of {\it local\/} composite operators. Indeed, according

660: to the operator definition proposed in \cite{KS-shape}, the shape functions are

661: defined in terms of the so-called ``maximally nonlocal'' QCD operators

662: \cite{Nonloc,CS}. Secondly, non-inclusive corrections to the shape function

663: describe a ``cross-talk'' between two hemispheres in the final state leading to

664: correlations between $\varepsilon_R$ and $\varepsilon_L$. As a consequence, the

665: shape function is not factorizable into the product of functions depending on

666: the energy flowing into separate hemispheres

667: \be

668: f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)=f_{\rm incl}(\varepsilon_R)f_{\rm

669: incl}(\varepsilon_L)+\delta f_{\rm non-incl} (\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)\,.

670: \label{non-inc}

671: \ee

672: One should notice that similar property holds for perturbative Sudakov resummed

673: radiator function \re{R-rho}. However, one finds that there the factorization

674: holds to the NLL accuracy, Eq.~\re{R-rho}, and non-inclusive corrections first

675: appear at the NNLL level $\sim\alpha_s^2 (\alpha_s L)^N$.

676: 

677: In what follows we shall rely on a particular ansatz for the shape function

678: $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)$ which agrees with general properties of

679: nonperturbative QCD distributions and has been used in previous studies of power

680: corrections to the thrust distributions \cite{KS-shape}. Namely, one expects that

681: for small values of $\varepsilon_R$ and $\varepsilon_L$ the shape function

682: should vanish as a power of the energy. Similarly,

683: $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)$ should rapidly vanish as $\varepsilon_R$ or

684: $\varepsilon_L$ becomes large. Taking into account these properties together with

685: \re{non-inc} one chooses the following expression

686: \be

687: f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)=\frac{{\cal N}(a,b)}{\Lambda^2}

688: \lr{\frac{\varepsilon_R\varepsilon_L}{\Lambda^2}}^{a-1}

689: \exp\lr{-\frac{\varepsilon_R^2+\varepsilon_L^2+2b \varepsilon_R\varepsilon_L}{\Lambda^2}}

690: \,.

691: \label{ansatz}

692: \ee

693: It depends on two dimensionless parameters $a$ and $b$ and the scale $\Lambda$.

694: The factor ${\cal N}(a,b)$ is fixed by normalization condition

695: \re{props}.

696: 

697: The free parameters, $a$, $b$ and $\Lambda$, have the following meaning. The

698: exponent $a$ determines how fast the shape function vanishes at the origin. The

699: scale $\Lambda$ sets up the typical energy of soft radiation. The parameter $b$

700: controls the non-inclusive contribution to the shape function and its possible

701: values are restricted as $b>-1$ in order for the shape function

702: \re{ansatz} to be normalizable. Non-inclusive corrections vanish at $b=0$,

703: $\delta f_{\rm non-incl} =0$ in \re{non-inc}. For $b\gg 1$, the shape function

704: enhances the regions of the phase space $\varepsilon_R\gg\varepsilon_L$ and

705: $\varepsilon_R\ll\varepsilon_L$, in which most of the energy flows into one of

706: the hemispheres. For $b\to -1$ the energies are of the same order,

707: $\varepsilon_R\sim\varepsilon_L$, and strongly correlated to each other. We

708: expect that non-inclusive corrections to the shape function should be important

709: and the configurations in which energy flows mostly into one of the hemispheres

710: to be suppressed. This suggests that the possible values of the $b-$parameter

711: should lie within the interval $-1 < b < 0$.

712: 

713: The parameters $a$, $b$ and $\Lambda$ depend on the factorization scale $\mu$

714: and are independent on the center-of-mass energy $Q$ as well as the choice of

715: the shape variable $e=(t,\rho,C)$. This allows to fit their values by comparing

716: the event shape distributions, Eqs.~\re{dis-t}, \re{dis-C} and \re{dis-rho}, with

717: the most precise available experimental data at $Q=M_Z$. Following this procedure

718: we found that the fit to the heavy jet mass distribution is more sensitive to

719: the choice of the parameters (especially to the non-inclusiveness parameter $b$)

720: then the one to the thrust and the $C-$parameter. Then, fitting the heavy jet

721: mass distribution at $Q=M_Z$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig-91}a we obtain

722: \be

723: a=2\,,\qquad b=-0.4\,,\qquad \Lambda=0.55 \ {\rm GeV}\,.

724: \label{para}

725: \ee

726: Using these values we compare the QCD predictions for the $C-$parameter

727: distribution at $Q=M_Z$ with and without nonperturbative corrections included as

728: shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig-91}b. Similar plot for the thrust distribution can be

729: found in \cite{KS-shape}. We observe that the differential distributions

730: \re{dis-rho} and \re{dis-C} combined with the shape function, Eqs.~\re{ansatz}

731: and \re{para}, correctly describe the data throughout the interval $0<e<e_{\rm

732: max}$ including the end-point region $e={\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q)$. In

733: addition, the $\rho-$parameter distribution turns out to be very sensitive to

734: the choice of the $b-$parameter. The fact that its value, \re{para}, is

735: relatively large indicates that non-inclusive corrections to the shape function

736: \re{non-inc} are important indeed.

737: 

738: \begin{figure}[ht]

739: \begin{center}

740: \hspace*{-5mm}

741: \epsfig{file=KT_HM_91.eps,angle=-90,width=7.5cm}

742: \hspace*{5mm}

743: \epsfig{file=KT_C_91.eps,angle=-90,width=7.5cm}

744: \\

745: {\small (a)}\hspace*{75mm}{\small (b)}

746: \end{center}

747: \caption[]{Heavy jet mass (a) and $C-$parameter (b) distributions at $Q=M_Z$ with and without

748: power corrections included.}

749: \label{Fig-91}

750: \end{figure}

751: 

752: Having determined the parameters of the shape function, Eq.~\re{para}, at the

753: reference energy scale $Q=M_Z$, we can now apply the factorized expressions for

754: the differential distributions, \re{dis-t}, \re{dis-C} and \re{dis-rho} with the

755: {\it same\/} ansatz for the shape function \re{ansatz} to obtain the QCD

756: predictions at different energy and compare them with the data. The combined

757: plot for the $\rho-$ and $C-$parameter distributions over the center-of-mass

758: energy interval $35\ {\rm GeV}\le Q \le 189\ {\rm GeV}$ is shown in

759: Fig.~\ref{Fig-C} a and b, respectively. Similar plot for the thrust distribution

760: can be found in

761: \cite{KS-shape}. We observe that the theoretical curves reproduce the data over the whole

762: interval of the shape variables including the end-point region.

763: 

764: 

765: \begin{figure}[ht]

766: \begin{center}

767: \hspace*{-10mm}

768: \epsfig{file=KT_HM.eps,angle=-90,width=8cm}%\\ \hspace*{1.2cm}{\small (a)}

769: \epsfig{file=KT_C.eps,angle=-90,width=88mm}

770: \\

771: {\small (a)}\hspace*{80mm}{\small (b)}

772: \end{center}

773: \caption[]{Comparison of the QCD predictions for the heavy jet mass (a) and

774: $C-$parameter (b) distributions with the data at different center-of-mass

775: energies (from bottom to top): $Q/{\rm GeV} = 35\,, 44\,, 91\,, 133\,, 161\,,

776: 172\,, 183\,,189$, based on the shape function.}

777: \label{Fig-C}

778: \end{figure}

779: 

780: \section{Moments of the event shapes}

781: 

782: Recently, the experimental data for the first few moments of various event shape

783: distributions became available \cite{Exp}. Their analysis indicates a presence

784: of large hadronization corrections whose form deviates from IR renormalon models

785: describing the nonperturbative corrections to the distributions as the shift of

786: perturbative spectrum.

787: 

788: Let us apply the obtained expressions for differential distributions to calculate

789: the first two moments of the $t-$, $C-$ and $\rho-$distributions defined as

790: \be

791: \vev{e^n} = \int_0^{e_{\rm max}} de\, e^n \frac1{\sigma_{\rm tot}}\frac{d\sigma}{d

792: e}\,, \qquad (n=1\,,\ 2)\,.

793: \label{moms}

794: \ee

795: Here, integration goes only over the part of the available phase space, $0<e<

796: e_{\rm max}$, corresponding to the three-particle final states, and it does not

797: take into account the contribution of multi-jet final states, $e>e_{\rm max}$.

798: Quantitative description of hadronization corrections to such final states is not

799: available yet. Putting an upper limit on the value of the shape variable in

800: \re{moms} allows us to avoid the latter contribution and to replace the differential

801: distribution ${d\sigma}/{d e}$ in \re{moms} by the obtained expressions

802: \re{dis-t}, \re{dis-C} and \re{dis-rho} which are valid for $0< e< e_{\rm max}$.

803: 

804: Using general expression \re{factor} one calculates the mean value of the event

805: shape as

806: \be

807: \vev{e} = \vev{e}_{_{\rm PT}} + \frac{\vev{\varepsilon}}{Q}\left[1-{e_{\rm

808: max}}\frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}(e_{\rm max})}{de}\right] +{\cal

809: O}\lr{\frac1{Q^2}}\,,

810: \label{mean-gen}

811: \ee

812: where $\vev{...}_{_{\rm PT}}=\int_0^{e_{\rm max}} de\,(...)\, {d\sigma_{_{\rm

813: PT}}}/{d e}$ denotes averaging with respect to perturbative distribution and the

814: scale $\vev{\varepsilon}$ is defined as the first moment of the shape function,

815: $\vev{\varepsilon}=\int d\varepsilon\,\varepsilon f(\varepsilon)$. It is

816: important to remember that the factorized expressions for the differential

817: distributions \re{dis-t}, \re{dis-C} and \re{dis-rho} are valid up to ${\cal

818: O}(1/(Q^2 e))-$correc\-tions which may modify the mean value $\vev{e}$ by ${\cal

819: O}(1/Q^2)-$terms. The additional factor in front of $\vev{\varepsilon}/Q$ takes

820: into account that close to the edge of the three-particle phase space, $ e\to

821: e_{\rm max}$, the perturbative distribution \re{A_e} could take nonzero values

822: \be

823: {e_{\rm max}}\frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}(e_{\rm max})}{de}=

824: \frac{\alpha_s(Q)}{2\pi}

825: e_{\rm max}A_e(e_{\rm max}) + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)\,.

826: \ee

827: This can be checked using the explicit expressions for perturbative

828: distributions \re{A's}. We find that ${d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}}/{de}$ vanishes to

829: one-loop order as $e\to e_{\rm max}$ for the $t-$ and $\rho-$variables while for

830: the $C-$parameter it approaches a finite value. Finally, calculating the mean

831: values $\vev{\varepsilon}$ with respect to nonperturbative distributions

832: $f_t(\varepsilon)$ and $f_\rho(\varepsilon,eQ)$ defined in \re{f-sing} and

833: \re{fH}, respectively, we obtain

834: \ba

835: \vev{t} &=& \vev{t}_{_{\rm PT}} + \frac{\lambda_1}{Q} + {\cal O}(1/Q^2)\,,

836: \label{mean-t}

837: \\

838: \vev{\rho} &=& \vev{\rho}_{_{\rm PT}} + \frac{\lambda_1}{2Q} + {\cal O}(1/Q^2)\,.

839: \label{mean-rho}

840: \ea

841: Similarly, for the mean value of the $C-$parameter we get

842: \be

843: \vev{C} = \vev{C}_{_{\rm PT}} + \frac{3\pi}{2} \frac{\lambda_1}{Q}

844: \left[1-\frac{\alpha_s(Q)}{2\pi}5.73 + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^2) \right]+ {\cal

845: O}(1/Q^2)\,.

846: \label{mean-C}

847: \ee

848: %

849: \begin{figure}[ht]

850: \begin{center}

851: %\epsfxsize=0.8\hsize

852: \epsfig{file=mean.eps,angle=-90,width=12cm}

853: \end{center}

854: \caption[]{Comparison of the QCD predictions to the mean values $\vev{t}$,

855: $\vev{\rho}$ and $\vev{C}$ with the data. Dotted lines denote ${\cal

856: O}(\alpha_s^2)-$perturbative contribution, solid lines take into account power

857: corrections given by Eqs.~\re{mean-t}, \re{mean-rho} and \re{mean-C}.}

858: \label{Fig-mean}

859: \end{figure}

860: %

861: Here, large perturbative coefficient originates from \re{A's} and it reduces a

862: magnitude of the nonperturbative scale $\lambda_1$ by $11\%$ at $Q=M_Z$.

863: Relations \re{mean-t} and \re{mean-rho} coincide with IR renormalon model

864: predictions \cite{W,AZ,CW}, while \re{mean-C} differs by perturbative

865: $\alpha_s(Q)-$dependent ``boundary" term. Nonperturbative $Q-$independent scale

866: $\lambda_1$ is given by

867: \be

868: \lambda_1 = \int d\varepsilon_R \int d\varepsilon_L\, (\varepsilon_R+\varepsilon_L)

869: f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L) = \int d\varepsilon\, \varepsilon f_t(\varepsilon)

870: \,.

871: \label{lambda_1}

872: \ee

873: Substituting expression for the shape function, Eq.~\re{ansatz}, one finds

874: $\lambda_1=\Lambda\,\varphi(a,b)$ with $\varphi$ given by

875: ${}_2F_1-$hypergeometric series. Using the values of the parameters \re{para} we

876: find

877: \be

878: \lambda_1 = 1.22 \ {\rm GeV}\,.

879: \ee

880: We would like to recall that this value depends on the factorization scale

881: $\mu$, Eq.~\re{mu}, and its $\mu-$dependence is described by QCD evolution

882: equation \cite{KS-shape}. Obviously, the value of $\lambda_1$, and as a

883: consequence $1/Q-$corrections to the mean values \re{mean-t}, \re{mean-rho} and

884: \re{mean-C} are less sensitive to the choice of the parameters $a$, $b$ and

885: $\Lambda$ as compared with nonperturbative corrections to the corresponding

886: differential distributions.

887: 

888: The comparison of the QCD predictions, \re{mean-t}, \re{mean-rho} and

889: \re{mean-C}, with the data over the energy interval $35\ {\rm GeV} \le Q \le 189\

890: {\rm GeV}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig-mean}. One should notice that \re{mean-t},

891: \re{mean-rho} and \re{mean-C} describe the contribution of the two-jet configurations

892: while experimental data take into account all possible final states. A good

893: agreement observed in Fig.~\ref{Fig-mean} indicates that the contribution to the

894: mean values of the final states with three and more jets as well as ${\cal

895: O}(1/(Q^2e))$ subleading corrections to the distributions are subdominant.

896: Indeed, the dominant contribution to the moments \re{moms} comes from the

897: vicinity of peak of the differential distribution $e^n d\sigma/de$. Using

898: existing experimental data one can show \cite{G-M} that for $n=1$ and $n=2$ the

899: position of the peak is located in the two-jet kinematical region while for

900: higher $n$ it moves towards larger $e$ for which the integral \re{moms} becomes

901: very sensitive to the choice of the upper integration limit $e_{\rm max}$. We

902: shall use this observation calculating the second moment of the event shape

903: distributions.

904: 

905: \begin{figure}[ht]

906: \begin{center}

907: \epsfig{file=mean2.eps,angle=-90,width=12cm}

908: \end{center}

909: \caption[]{Comparison of the QCD predictions for the second moments

910: $\vev{t^2}$, $\vev{\rho^2}$ and $\vev{C^2}$ with the data. Dotted lines denote

911: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)-$perturbative contribution, solid lines take into account

912: power corrections given by Eq.~\re{2nd}.}

913: \label{Fig-2nd}

914: \end{figure}

915: 

916: Let us apply \re{moms} to calculate $\vev{e^2}$. Neglecting $1/(Q^2

917: e)-$corrections to the distribution \re{factor} we find after some algebra the

918: following general expression

919: \ba

920: \vev{e^2} &=& \vev{e^2}_{_{\rm PT}}+\frac{\vev{\varepsilon}}{Q}\left[

921: 2\vev{e}_{_{\rm PT}}-{e_{\rm max}^2}\frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}(e_{\rm

922: max})}{de}\right]+

923: \nonumber

924: \\

925: &+&\frac{\vev{\varepsilon^2}}{Q^2}\left[1-{e_{\rm max}}\frac{d\sigma_{_{\rm

926: PT}}(e_{\rm max})}{de} + \frac12{e_{\rm max}^2}\frac{d^2\sigma_{_{\rm PT}}(e_{\rm

927: max})}{de^2}

928: \right]+{\cal O}(1/Q^3)\,.

929: \ea

930: Similar to the mean value, \re{mean-gen}, the boundary terms vanish for the $t-$

931: and $\rho-$variables while for the $C-$parameter they provide a sizeable

932: contribution. Using the explicit expression for the shape functions,

933: \re{f-sing} and \re{fH}, we calculate the scales $\vev{\varepsilon^2}$

934: and take into account the boundary terms \re{A's} to obtain%

935: \footnote{We are grateful to O.~Biebel and S.~Kluth for providing us ${\cal

936: O}(\alpha_s^2)-$expressions for the moments of the event shapes.}

937: \ba

938: \vev{t^2}&=& \vev{t^2}_{_{\rm PT}} + 2\frac{\lambda_1}{Q}\vev{t}_{_{\rm

939: PT}}+\frac{\lambda_2}{Q^2}

940: \nonumber

941: \\

942: \vev{\rho^2}&=&\vev{\rho^2}_{_{\rm PT}} + \frac{\lambda_1}{Q}\vev{\rho}_{_{\rm

943: PT}}+\frac{\lambda_2+\delta\lambda_2(Q)}{4Q^2}

944: \label{2nd}

945: \\

946: \vev{C^2}&=& \vev{C^2}_{_{\rm PT}} + \frac{3\pi}2\frac{\lambda_1}{Q}

947: \left[2\vev{C}_{_{\rm PT}}- \frac{\alpha_s(Q)}{2\pi} 4.30 \right] +

948: \frac{9\pi^2}4\frac{\lambda_2}{Q^2}\left[1 - \frac{\alpha_s(Q)}{2\pi} 11.46\right]\,.

949: \nonumber

950: \ea

951: Here, the scale $\lambda_1$ was defined in \re{lambda_1} and new scales

952: $\lambda_2$ and $\delta\lambda_2$ are given by

953: \be

954: \lambda_2 = \vev{(\varepsilon_R+\varepsilon_L)^2}\,,

955: \qquad

956: \delta\lambda_2(Q) =

957: \langle \left(\varepsilon_R-\varepsilon_L\right)^2\rangle\,

958: \left\{1+4\int_0^{\rho_{\rm max}} d\rho'\rho'\,

959: \left({d\sigma^{\rm PT}_J\over d\rho'}\right)^2 \right\}\,,

960: \ee

961: where average is taken with respect to the shape function

962: $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)$. The $Q-$dependence of the scale

963: $\delta\lambda_2$ is attributed to perturbative prefactor depending on the single

964: jet distribution, $d\sigma_J^{\rm PT}/d\rho$, defined in \re{dis-rho}. Its origin

965: was explained in Sect.~4. We find that the value of this factor varies from

966: $2.19$ at $Q=10\, {\rm Gev}$ to $1.85$ at $Q=100\, {\rm Gev}$. It is important to

967: notice that $\vev{\left(\varepsilon_R-\varepsilon_L\right)^2}$ vanishes if one

968: does not take into account non-inclusive corrections to the shape function

969: \re{non-inc}, $\delta f_{\rm non-incl}=0$. Using \re{ansatz} and \re{para} one

970: gets

971: \be

972: \lambda_2 = 1.70 \ {\rm GeV}^2\,, \qquad

973: \vev{\left(\varepsilon_R-\varepsilon_L\right)^2}= 0.14 \ {\rm GeV}^2\,.

974: \ee

975: It follows from \re{2nd} that the boundary terms generate a sizable perturbative

976: corrections to the second moment of the $C-$parameter distribution and diminish

977: the magnitude of scales parameterizing $1/Q-$power corrections. Moreover, one

978: finds from \re{mean-t}, \re{mean-rho}, \re{mean-C} and \re{2nd} that the

979: variance of the distribution, $\vev{e^2}-\vev{e}^2$, does not receive $1/Q-$power

980: corrections for the $t-$ and $\rho-$variables while for the $C-$parameter the

981: boundary terms produce a negative $1/Q-$correction

982: \be

983: \vev{C^2}-\vev{C}^2=\vev{C^2}_{_{\rm PT}}-\vev{C}^2_{_{\rm PT}}

984: - 3.23\,\frac{\lambda_1}{Q} \alpha_s(Q)+ {\cal O}(1/Q^2)\,.

985: \ee

986: The comparison of the QCD predictions \re{2nd} with the experimental data is

987: shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig-2nd}. We would like to recall that the obtained

988: expressions for the moments do not take into account the contribution of

989: multi-jet final states configurations and assume a smallness of

990: $1/(Q^2e)-$correc\-tions to the distributions \re{sigma_0}. It is interesting to

991: note that the last assumption is supported by the recent analysis of the power

992: corrections to the first two moments of the thrust distribution in the single

993: dressed gluon approximation

994: \cite{G}. This analysis is complimentary to our studies since it does not resum

995: leading power corrections in the two-jet region and takes into account the

996: contribution coming from the region $e\to e_{\rm max}$.

997: 

998: \section{Conclusions}

999: 

1000: In this paper we have studied the power corrections to the thrust, $t$, heavy

1001: jet mass, $\rho$, and $C-$parameter distributions in the two-jet kinematical

1002: region. Our analysis was based on the observation \cite{KS-shape} that

1003: perturbative and nonperturbative effects can be separated in the differential

1004: event shape distributions into calculable Sudakov resummed distribution,

1005: $d\sigma_{\rm PT}/de$, and nonperturbative shape function,

1006: $f(\varepsilon_R,\varepsilon_L)$, respectively. Each of them depends separately

1007: on the factorization scale $\mu$ but this dependence cancels in their product.

1008: The shape function describes the energy flow into two hemispheres in the final

1009: state. It does not depend on the center-of-mass energy $Q$ as well as on the

1010: choice of the event shape variable $e=t\,,\rho$ and $C$.

1011: 

1012: We demonstrated that away from the end-point region, $e\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$,

1013: nonperturbative corrections to the distributions have a simple form \re{off-peak}

1014: with the leading $1/Q-$power correction parameterized by a single scale given by

1015: the first moment of the shape function. In this region, to which all performed

1016: experimental analysis have been restricted so far, our predictions for the thrust

1017: and heavy mass distributions and their mean values coincide with those of IR

1018: renormalon based models while for the $C-$parameters we find an additional

1019: sizeable perturbative contribution modifying the magnitude of the $1/Q-$power

1020: correction \re{mean-C}.

1021: 

1022: In the end-point region, $e\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$, the obtained factorized

1023: expressions for the distributions take into account power corrections of the form

1024: $1/(Qe)^n$ for arbitrary $n$. They are controlled by the shape function through

1025: \re{lambda_n} and are sensitive to the choice of this function. Comparing the QCD

1026: predictions with the data we have chosen the simplest ansatz for the shape

1027: function \re{ansatz} which is consistent with general properties of

1028: nonperturbative distributions and includes nonzero correlations between energy

1029: flows into different hemispheres. Examining the dependence of the distributions

1030: on the corresponding parameter of the shape function we have observed that these

1031: correlations play an important r\^ole and are not negligible.

1032: 

1033: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}

1034: 

1035: We would like to thank E.~Gardi and G.~Sterman for very interesting discussions.

1036: We are grateful to O.~Biebel, G.~Salam and B.~Webber for useful correspondence.

1037: This work was supported in part by the EU network ``Training and Mobility of

1038: Researchers'', contract FMRX--CT98--0194 (G.K.) and the BFA fellowship -- Bourse

1039: de coop\'eration Franco-Alg\'erienne (S.T.).

1040: 

1041: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1042: 

1043: \bibitem{Exp}

1044: O.~Biebel,

1045: %``Event Shapes and Power Corrections in e+e- Annihilation,''

1046: hep-ex/0006020; \\

1047: M.~Acciarri {\it et al.}  [L3 Collaboration],

1048: %``QCD studies in e+ e- annihilation from 30-GeV to 189-GeV,''

1049: hep-ex/0005045; \\

1050: G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.}  [JADE collaboration],

1051: %``QCD analyses and determinations of alpha(s) in e+ e- annihilation at  energies between 35-GeV and 189-GeV,''

1052: hep-ex/0001055; \\

1053: G.~Dissertori,

1054: %``Event shapes and power corrections in e+ e- annihilations,''

1055: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 79} (1999) 438 [hep-ex/9904033]; \\

1056: P.~Abreu {\it et al.}  [DELPHI Collaboration],

1057: %``Energy dependence of event shapes and of alpha(s) at LEP-2,''

1058: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B456} (1999) 322.

1059: 

1060: \bibitem{Old}

1061: F.~Barreiro,

1062: %``Jets In E+ E- Annihilation And QCD,''

1063: Fortsch.\ Phys.\  {\bf 34} (1986) 503.

1064: 

1065: \bibitem{W}

1066: B.~R.~Webber,

1067: %``Estimation of power corrections to hadronic event shapes,''

1068: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B339} (1994) 148 [hep-ph/9408222];

1069: \\

1070: Y.~L.~Dokshitzer and B.~R.~Webber,

1071: %``Calculation of power corrections to hadronic event shapes,''

1072: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B352} (1995) 451 [hep-ph/9504219].

1073: 

1074: \bibitem{KS}

1075: G.~P.~Korchemsky and G.~Sterman,

1076: %``Nonperturbative corrections in resummed cross-sections,''

1077: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B437} (1995) 415 [hep-ph/9411211];

1078: %``Universality of infrared renormalons in hadronic cross sections,''

1079: in Proceedings of the 30th Rencontres de Moriond: QCD and High Energy Hadronic

1080: Interactions, France, 19-25 Mar 1995, Hadronic:0383-392 (QCD161:R4:1995:V.2)

1081: [hep-ph/9505391].

1082: 

1083: \bibitem{AZ}

1084: R.~Akhoury and V.~I.~Zakharov,

1085: %``Leading power corrections in QCD: From renormalons to phenomenology,''

1086: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B465} (1996) 295 [hep-ph/9507253].

1087: 

1088: \bibitem{BB}

1089: M.~Beneke and V.~M.~Braun,

1090: %``Power corrections and renormalons in Drell-Yan production,''

1091: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B454} (1995) 253 [hep-ph/9506452].

1092: 

1093: \bibitem{Beneke}

1094: M.~Beneke,

1095: %``Renormalons,''

1096: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 317} (1999) 1 [hep-ph/9807443].

1097: 

1098: \bibitem{GG}

1099: E.~Gardi and G.~Grunberg,

1100: %``Power corrections in the single dressed gluon approximation:  The average thrust as a case study,''

1101: JHEP {\bf 9911} (1999) 016 [hep-ph/9908458].

1102: 

1103: \bibitem{DMW}

1104: Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, G.~Marchesini and B.~R.~Webber,

1105: %``Dispersive Approach to Power-Behaved Contributions in QCD Hard Processes,''

1106: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B469} (1996) 93 [hep-ph/9512336].

1107: 

1108: \bibitem{KS-shape}

1109: G.~P.~Korchemsky,

1110: %``Shape functions and power corrections to the event shapes,''

1111: in Proceedings of the 33rd Rencontres de Moriond, Les Arcs, France, 21-28 Mar

1112: 1998, pp.~489--498 [hep-ph/9806537];

1113: \\

1114: G.~P.~Korchemsky and G.~Sterman,

1115: %``Power corrections to event shapes and factorization,''

1116: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B555} (1999) 335 [hep-ph/9902341]\,.

1117: 

1118: \bibitem{KNMW}

1119: Z.~Kunszt, P.~Nason, G.~Marchesini and B.~R.~Webber, Z Physics at LEP 1, preprint

1120: CERN 89-08, vol. 1, pp.~373-453.

1121: 

1122: \bibitem{ERT}

1123: R.~K.~Ellis, D.~A.~Ross and A.~E.~Terrano,

1124: %``The Perturbative Calculation Of Jet Structure In E+ E- Annihilation,''

1125: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B178} (1981) 421.

1126: 

1127: \bibitem{CTTW}

1128: S.~Catani, L.~Trentadue, G.~Turnock and B.~R.~Webber,

1129: %``Resummation of large logarithms in e+ e- event shape distributions,''

1130: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B407} (1993) 3.

1131: 

1132: \bibitem{CW}

1133: S.~Catani and B.~R.~Webber,

1134: %``Resummed C-parameter distribution in e+ e- annihilation,''

1135: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B427} (1998) 377 [hep-ph/9801350].

1136: 

1137: \bibitem{DW}

1138: Y.~L.~Dokshitzer and B.~R.~Webber,

1139: %``Power corrections to event shape distributions,''

1140: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B404} (1997) 321 [hep-ph/9704298].

1141: 

1142: \bibitem{NS}

1143: P.~Nason and M.~H.~Seymour,

1144: %``Infrared renormalons and power suppressed effects in e+ e- jet events,''

1145: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B454} (1995) 291 [hep-ph/9506317].

1146: 

1147: \bibitem{Nonloc}

1148: F.~R.~Ore and G.~Sterman,

1149: %``An Operator Approach To Weighted Cross-Sections,''

1150: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B165} (1980) 93;

1151: \\

1152: G.~P.~Korchemsky, G.~Oderda and G.~Sterman, in Proceedings of the 5th

1153: International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and QCD (DIS 97), Chicago,

1154: IL, 14-18 Apr 1997

1155: %``Power corrections and nonlocal operators,''

1156: [hep-ph/9708346].

1157: 

1158: \bibitem{CS}

1159: N.~A.~Sveshnikov and F.~V.~Tkachev,

1160: %``Jets and quantum field theory,''

1161: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B382} (1996) 403 [hep-ph/9512370];

1162: \\

1163: P.~S.~Cherzor and N.~A.~Sveshnikov,

1164: %``Jet observables and energy-momentum tensor,''

1165: hep-ph/9710349

1166: 

1167: \bibitem{G-M}

1168: E.~Gardi, Talk at the 35th Rencontres de Moriond, Les Arcs, France, 18-25 Mar

1169: 2000 [http://moriond.in2p3.fr/QCD00/transparencies/4\_wednesday/pm/gardi/].

1170: 

1171: \bibitem{G}

1172: E.~Gardi,

1173: %``Suppressed power corrections for moments of event-shape variables in  e+ e- annihilation,''

1174: JHEP {\bf 0004} (2000) 030 [hep-ph/0003179].

1175: 

1176: \end{thebibliography}

1177: 

1178: \end{document}

1179: