1: \chapter{The CSS Formalism}
2: \label{ch:CSS}
3:
4: \section{Derivation}
5:
6: In 1984, Collins, Soper, and Sterman (CSS) used renormalization
7: group methods to arrive at an improved resummation scheme, one
8: which not only preserves momentum conservation, but which can be
9: made increasingly more precise as additional terms are calculated
10: ~\cite{CSS85}. Although derived for Drell-Yan processes, the
11: result is, in principle, generally applicable to all two-scale
12: processes.
13:
14: It will be helpful here to recall a bit of the physical picture:
15: at leading order, two partons (one from each incoming hadron)
16: collide and produce a measured final state, of mass $Q$ and
17: transverse momentum $Q_T$. In the case of Drell-Yan production,
18: this final state is a pair of leptons. As the incoming partons are
19: assumed to be collinear with each other and the hadronic beam, if
20: no other particles are observed, there is nothing for the system
21: to recoil against, and one predicts that $Q_T$ will equal zero.
22: Similarly, by energy conservation, the mass of the system of
23: colliding partons (as measured in the same frame) must also have
24: been $Q$, each parton contributing a fraction of this energy.
25:
26: In general, of course, other particles are generated from this
27: partonic collision, and one can go to higher orders in
28: perturbation theory to predict more accurately the
29: $Q_T$-dependence as measured in the lab. As noted in Chapter
30: \ref{ch:PPResum}, these predictions are plausible, without
31: modification, at high-$Q_T$, but in the limit $Q_T\ll Q$, the
32: biggest contributions come from cases in which the additional
33: particles are either too soft to individually detect or are
34: themselves nearly collinear with one or the other incoming parton.
35: Resummation is then required for a complete description.
36:
37: Fortunately, in this limit the long-distance (low energy) and
38: short-distance (high energy) phenomena become roughly independent
39: of one another, and one can expect a factorization of the
40: cross-section as follows:
41:
42: \begin{eqnarray}
43: \sigma_S &\sim& \int d^2 k_{Ta} \int d^2 k_{Tb} \int d^2 k_{TS}
44: \delta^2 \bigl( \vec{Q_T} - \sum_i \vec{k_{Ti}} \bigr) \; \cr
45: &\times& J_a \Bigl( {p_a^0 \over \mu}, {k_{Ta} \over \mu}, g(\mu)
46: \Bigr) J_b \Bigl( {p_b^0 \over \mu}, {k_{Tb} \over \mu}, g(\mu)
47: \Bigr) \; \cr &\times& S \Bigl( {k_{TS} \over \mu}, g(\mu) \Bigr)
48: H \Bigl( {p_a^0 \over \mu}, {p_b^0 \over \mu}, {Q \over \mu},
49: g(\mu) \Bigr) \;. \label{CSS01}
50: \end{eqnarray}
51:
52: Here high-energy quantities such as $Q$ and the parton energies
53: $p_{a,b}^0$ organize themselves within a hard scattering factor
54: $H$, while small, non-collinear transverse momenta $k_{TS}$
55: contribute to a soft function $S$. Associated with each incoming
56: parton (and the nearly collinear quanta $k_{Ti}$ surrounding it)
57: is a non-perturbative factor $J_i$, which remains dependent upon
58: both low and high-energy quantities ($k_{Ti}$ and $p_i^0$
59: respectively). For the transverse momenta shown, there is a
60: delta-function included which relates their vector sum to the
61: $\vec{Q}_T$ of the observed system. The hard quantities are
62: related to each other in a way: in the limit described, both
63: $p_a^0$ and $p_b^0$ are expressible as simple fractions of $Q$.
64: Thus the functions $J_{a,b}$ have an implicit dependence upon $Q$
65: which will become important in what follows. Each function depends
66: upon the QCD coupling strength $g(\mu)$ and its argument, the
67: renormalization scale $\mu$; the fact that the cross section
68: itself does not depend upon $\mu$ will also be of import.
69:
70: Proof of such factorizations can be found, for example, in
71: references ~\cite{CS81,CSS89}; the particular choice of variables
72: which express the high and low-energy scales is different, but the
73: general argument is the same. The crucial point is that
74: factorization, coupled with invariance of the cross section under
75: certain transformations, leads to renormalization group
76: properties of the factored functions, and thus to exponentiation.
77: An all-orders resummation of the leading terms is the end result,
78: the corresponding leading coefficients determined by comparison
79: with the perturbatively-calculated result at fixed order.
80:
81: Equation \ref{CSS01} above is in the form of a multiple
82: convolution; that is, only the matrix element, not the phase
83: space, has factorized. Significant simplification arises after a
84: Fourier transform to impact parameter space,
85:
86: \BQN \int d^2Q_T e^{i\vec{b} \cdot \vec{Q_T}} \delta^2 (\vec{Q_T}
87: - \sum_i \vec{k}_{Ti} ) = e^{i \vec{b} \cdot \sum_i \vec{k}_{Ti}}
88: = \prod_i e^{i\vec{b} \cdot \vec{k}_{Ti}} \;, \label{CSS02} \EQN
89:
90: \noindent in which the impact parameter is the two-dimensional
91: axial vector $\vec{b}$. Then, for each transverse momentum
92: $\vec{k}_{Ti}$, one obtains
93:
94: \BQN \int d^2k_{Ti} e^{i\vec{b} \cdot \vec{k}_{Ti}} f(k_{Ti}) =
95: f(b) \;. \label{CSS03} \EQN
96:
97: \noindent This produces the simple product
98:
99:
100: \begin{equation}
101: {\tilde{\sigma}}_S (b,Q) = {\tilde{J}}_a \Bigl( {p_a^0 \over
102: \mu}, b\mu, g(\mu) \Bigr) {\tilde{J}}_b \Bigl( {p_b^0 \over \mu},
103: b\mu, g(\mu) \Bigr) \tilde{S} \Bigl( b\mu, g(\mu) \Bigr)
104: \tilde{H} \Bigl( {p_a^0 \over \mu}, {p_b^0 \over \mu},{Q\over \mu}
105: , g(\mu) \Bigr) \;, \label{CSS04}
106: \end{equation}
107:
108: \noindent where the tilde above each function is a reminder of the
109: transform that has taken place.
110:
111: Taking the logarithmic derivative of both sides with respect to
112: the large scale $Q^2$, CSS arrived at
113:
114: \BQN {{\partial\ln{\tilde{\sigma}}_S}\over {\partial\ln Q^2}} =
115: {{\partial\ln{\tilde{J}}_a}\over {\partial\ln Q^2}} +
116: {{\partial\ln{\tilde{J}}_b}\over {\partial\ln Q^2}} +
117: {{\partial\ln\tilde{H}}\over {\partial\ln Q^2}} \;. \label{CSS05}
118: \EQN
119:
120: \noindent The logarithms of ${\tilde{J}}_a$ and ${\tilde{J}}_b$
121: now contain explicit dependences upon $Q$, and, as shown in
122: references ~\cite{CS81,CSS89,CLS96}, each derivative thereof
123: contributes to two separate quantities, one a function of $b\mu$
124: and $g(\mu)$ only, the other a function of $Q/\mu$ and $g(\mu)$
125: only:
126:
127: \BQN {{\partial \ln {\tilde{J}}_a}\over {\partial \ln Q^2}} +
128: {{\partial \ln {\tilde{J}}_b}\over {\partial \ln Q^2}} = K \bigl(
129: b\mu,g(\mu) \bigr) + G_J \bigl( Q/ \mu, g(\mu) \bigr) \;.
130: \label{CSS06} \EQN
131:
132: \noindent As $\tilde{H}$ doesn't depend on $b$, its derivative
133: contributes only to a function of $Q/\mu$ and $g(\mu)$:
134:
135: \BQN {{\partial \ln \tilde{H}}\over {\partial \ln Q^2}} = G_H
136: \bigl( Q/ \mu, g(\mu) \bigr) \;. \EQN
137:
138: \noindent Adding $G_J$ and $G_H$ to form a new function $G$, one
139: arrives at
140:
141: \begin{equation}
142: {{\partial\ln{\tilde{\sigma}}_S}\over {\partial\ln Q^2}} = K
143: \bigl( b\mu,g(\mu) \bigr )+G \bigl( Q/\mu,g(\mu) \bigr) \;.
144: \label{CSS07}
145: \end{equation}
146:
147: CSS then made use of the fact that the cross section is
148: independent of renormalization scale $\mu$:
149:
150: \BQN {\partial\over {\partial\ln Q^2}} {{\partial\ln
151: {\tilde{\sigma}}_S}\over {\partial\ln \mu}} = {\partial\over
152: {\partial\ln \mu}} {{\partial\ln {\tilde{\sigma}}_S}\over
153: {\partial\ln Q^2}} = {\partial\over {\partial\ln \mu}} \bigl[ K+G
154: \bigr] = 0 \;, \label{CSS08} \EQN
155:
156: \noindent and so, since $K$ and $G$ share only a dependence on
157: $g$, it must be that there exists some function $\gamma$ such that
158:
159: \begin{equation}
160: {{\partial K}\over {\partial\ln\mu}} = - {{\partial G}\over
161: {\partial\ln\mu}} \equiv -\lambda(g(\mu)) \;. \label{CSS09}
162: \end{equation}
163:
164: \noindent All the $b$-dependence is in $K$, while all the
165: $Q$-dependence is in $G$, and both can be independently scaled,
166: since both satisfy their own evolution equations.
167:
168: It will be instructive here to stop and see why this is
169: important. In a perturbative calculation, after dealing with the
170: soft and collinear poles, the cross section can be written as a
171: sum of two series in $\alpha_s / 2 \pi$:
172:
173: \begin{equation}
174: \sigma = \sum_{N =0}^\infty {\bigl[ {\alpha_s(g(\mu)) \over
175: {2\pi}}\bigr]}^N \Bigl[ \sigma_S^{(N)} + \sigma_R^{(N)} \Bigr] \;,
176: \label{CSS09b}
177: \end{equation}
178:
179: \noindent in which the coefficients are either integrably
180: divergent as $Q_T \rightarrow 0$ (here $\sigma_S^{(N)}$, the
181: ``singular'' piece) or are zero in this limit and thus pose no
182: threat to the convergence of the expansion ($\sigma_R^{(N)}$, the
183: ``regular'' piece). \footnote{This structure results from the use
184: of the subtraction method (see Section \ref{sec:sublead}).
185: Asymptotic limits of the fixed-order result (that is, the logs of
186: $Q/Q_T$) are subtracted to form $\sigma_R^{(N)}$, and then added
187: back in to form $\sigma_S^{(N)}$ after pole-cancellation.} The
188: former series ($\sigma_S^{(N)}$) corresponds to the cross section
189: we began with in equation \ref{CSS01}, and we know something about
190: its perturbative structure:
191:
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \sigma_S^{(N)} &=& T_0^{(N)}(Q/\mu,g(\mu)) \delta({\vec Q_T}) \cr
194: &+& \sum_{m=0}^{\rm 2N-1} T^{(N,m)}(Q/\mu,g(\mu))
195: {\Bigl[{{\ln^m(Q^2/Q_T^2)} \over Q_T^2} \Bigr]}_+ \;.
196: \end{eqnarray}
197:
198: \noindent Here the ``plus-distribution'' ${\bigl[ \quad \bigr]}_+$
199: denotes a regularization such that
200:
201: \BQA \int_0^{Q^2} dQ_T^2 {\Bigl[{{\ln^m(Q^2/Q_T^2)} \over Q_T^2}
202: \Bigr]}_+ f(Q_T) &\equiv& \int_0^{Q^2} dQ_T^2
203: {\Bigl[{{\ln^m(Q^2/Q_T^2)} \over Q_T^2} \Bigr]} \Bigl[
204: f(Q_T)-f(0) \Bigr] \; \cr {\rm or} \; \cr \int_0^{p_T^2} dQ_T^2
205: {\Bigl[{{\ln^m(Q^2/Q_T^2)} \over Q_T^2} \Bigr]}_+ &=& -{1 \over
206: {m+1}} \ln^{m+1}(Q^2/p_T^2) \;. \EQA
207:
208: CSS realized that, once the Fourier transform to $b$-space is
209: performed, as in equation \ref{CSS04}, the large logs of $Q/Q_T$
210: become large logs of $Qb$, or equivalently, logs of $Q/\mu$ and
211: $b\mu$:
212:
213: \begin{equation}
214: \int d^2 Q_T e^{-i {\vec Q_T} \cdot {\vec b}}
215: {\Bigl[{{\ln^m(Q^2/Q_T^2)} \over Q_T^2} \Bigr]}_+ \sim
216: \sum_{n=0}^{m+1} \ln^n (Qb) \;.
217: \end{equation}
218:
219: \noindent Since these large logs occur, the expansion doesn't
220: converge, and one can't even approximate $d{\tilde\sigma}_S$ well
221: by the sum of the leading log terms ($m=2N-1$).
222:
223: Fortunately, given the separability of these logarithms (as shown
224: in equation \ref{CSS07}) and the independent renormalization
225: groups of $K$ and $G$ (equation \ref{CSS09}), CSS were able to do
226: something about this. \footnote{The derivation to be embarked
227: upon is rather involved, and the casual reader may wish to skip
228: to equation \ref{CSSpert}.} They scaled $\mu$ in $K$ up to order
229: $1/b$, and $\mu$ in $G$ to order $Q$. Both the large logs of
230: $b\mu$ in $K$ and the logs of $Q/\mu$ in $G$ then tended to $0$.
231: In practice, this need not be exact, and CSS allowed for variation
232: by using $c_1/b$ and $c_2Q$, where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are both of
233: order 1. The canonical choice for these constants is
234: $c_1=b_0\equiv 2e^{-\gamma_E}\simeq 1.123$, $c_2=1$. From
235: equation \ref{CSS09}:
236:
237: \begin{eqnarray}
238: K(c_1,g(c_1/b))-K(b\mu,g(\mu)) &=& -\int_{\mu}^{c_1/b}
239: {{d\bar{\mu}} \over \bar{\mu}} \gamma(g(\bar{\mu})) \; \cr
240: G(1/c_2,g(c_2Q))-G(Q/\mu,g(\mu)) &=& \int_{\mu}^{c_2Q}
241: {{d\bar{\mu}} \over \bar{\mu}} \gamma(g(\bar{\mu})) \;,
242: \label{CSS10}
243: \end{eqnarray}
244:
245: \noindent and thus
246:
247: \begin{eqnarray}
248: [K(c_1,g(c_1/b))+G(1/c_2,g(c_2Q))] &-&
249: [K(b\mu,g(\mu))+G(Q/\mu,g(\mu))] \cr &=&
250: \int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2} {d\bar{\mu}^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}
251: {\gamma(g(\bar{\mu})) \over 2} \;. \label{CSS11}
252: \end{eqnarray}
253:
254: \noindent Now, for any function $F(b,Q)$,
255:
256: \begin{equation}
257: {dF(b,Q) \over {d(1/b^2)}} = {\partial F(b,Q) \over {\partial
258: \ln(1/b^2)}} {d\ln(1/b^2) \over {d(1/b^2)}} = {1 \over {(1/b^2)}}
259: {\partial F(b,Q) \over {\partial \ln(1/b^2)}} \;,
260: \end{equation}
261:
262: \noindent so
263:
264: \begin{eqnarray}
265: \int_{F(b,Q)}^{F(c_1/c_2Q,Q)} dF(\bar{b},Q) &=&
266: F(c_1/c_2Q,Q)-F(b,Q) \cr &=& \int_{1/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2/c_1^2}
267: {d(1/{\bar b}^2) \over {(1/{\bar b}^2)}} {\partial F({\bar b},Q)
268: \over {\partial \ln(1/{\bar b}^2)}} \;.
269: \end{eqnarray}
270:
271:
272: \noindent If one takes $F(b,Q) \equiv
273: K(b\mu,g(\mu))+G(Q/\mu,g(\mu))$, it follows that
274:
275: \begin{eqnarray}
276: K(b\mu)+G(Q/\mu) &=& K(c_1\mu/c_2Q,g(\mu))+G(Q/\mu,g(\mu)) \; \cr
277: &-& \int_{1/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2/c_1^2} {d(1/{\bar b}^2) \over {(1/{\bar
278: b}^2)}} {\partial[K({\bar b}\mu)+G(Q/\mu)] \over {\partial
279: \ln(1/{\bar b}^2)}} \;, \label{CSS14}
280: \end{eqnarray}
281:
282: \noindent where
283:
284: \BQN {\partial[K({\bar b}\mu)+G(Q/\mu)] \over {\partial
285: \ln(1/{\bar b}^2)}} = {\partial[K(c_1,g(c_1/{\bar
286: b}))+G(1/c_2,g(c_2Q))] \over {\partial \ln(1/{\bar b}^2)}} +
287: {\gamma(g(c_1/{\bar b})) \over 2}\;, \EQN
288:
289: \noindent by equation \ref{CSS11} and the theorem
290:
291: \BQN {\partial \over {\partial x}} \int_a^x f(t) dt = f(x) \;,
292: \EQN
293:
294: \noindent with $x \equiv c_1^2/{\bar b}^2$, $t \equiv
295: \bar{\mu}^2$, and $a \equiv c_2^2Q^2$. Meanwhile,
296:
297: \BQN {{\partial[K(c_1,g(c_1/{\bar b}))+G(1/c_2,g(c_2Q))]} \over
298: {\partial \ln(1/{\bar b}^2)}} = \beta(g(1/\bar{b}^2)) {{\partial
299: K(c_1,g(1/\bar{b}^2))} \over {\partial g(1/\bar{b}^2)}} \; \EQN
300:
301: \noindent for $\beta(g(x)) \equiv {{d g(x)} \over {d\ln x}}$, and
302:
303: \BQN K(c_1\mu/c_2Q,g(\mu))+G(Q/\mu,g(\mu)) =
304: K(c_1,g(c_2Q))+G(1/c_2,g(c_2Q)) \;, \EQN
305:
306: \noindent by equation \ref{CSS11} again, with $c_1/b \rightarrow
307: c_2Q$.
308:
309: Performing the change of variables $\bar{\mu} \equiv c_1/{\bar
310: b}$ in the integral of equation \ref{CSS14}:
311:
312: \begin{equation}
313: \int_{1/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2/c_1^2} {d(1/{\bar b}^2) \over {(1/{\bar
314: b}^2)}} \rightarrow \int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2}{d\bar{\mu}^2
315: \over \bar{\mu}^2} \;,
316: \end{equation}
317:
318:
319: \noindent CSS derived, in all,
320:
321: \begin{equation}
322: K(b\mu,g(\mu))+G(Q/\mu,g(\mu)) =
323: -\int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2}{d\bar{\mu}^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}
324: A(c_1,g(\bar{\mu})) - B(c_1,c_2,g(c_2Q)) \;,
325: \end{equation}
326:
327: \noindent where
328:
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: A(c_1,g(\bar{\mu})) &\equiv& {\gamma(g(\bar{\mu})) \over 2} + {1
331: \over 2} \beta(g(\bar{\mu})) {\partial K(c_1,g(\bar{\mu})) \over
332: {\partial g(\bar{\mu})}} \; \cr B(c_1,c_2,g(c_2Q)) &\equiv& -
333: [K(c_1,g(c_2Q))+G(1/c_2,g(c_2Q))] \;.
334: \end{eqnarray}
335:
336:
337: \noindent Thus, returning to equation \ref{CSS07},
338:
339: \begin{equation}
340: {{\partial \ln \tilde{\sigma}_S(b,Q)} \over {\partial \ln Q^2}} =
341: - \int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2} {d\bar{\mu}^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}
342: A(c_1,g(\bar{\mu})) - B(c_1,c_2,g(c_2Q)) \;, \label{CSS19}
343: \end{equation}
344:
345:
346: \noindent where, since $K$,$G$,$\gamma$, and $\beta \partial K /
347: \partial g$ all have perturbative expansions in $\alpha_s$, so do
348: $A$ and $B$.
349:
350:
351: Treating equation \ref{CSS19} as an ordinary differential equation
352: in $c_2Q$ with a parameter $b$, CSS found the solution, and
353: generated the Sudakov exponent, as follows. Separating variables
354: and integrating both sides from $c_1/b$ to $c_2Q$ gives:
355:
356: \begin{eqnarray}
357: \int_{c_1/b}^{c_2Q} d\ln {\tilde{\sigma}}_S (b,\bar{Q}) &=& \ln
358: {\tilde\sigma}_S(b,c_2Q) -\ln {\tilde\sigma}_S(b,c_1/b) \equiv
359: -S(b,Q) \cr {\rm or} \cr {\tilde\sigma}_S (b,Q) &=&
360: {\tilde\sigma}_S(b,c_1/c_2b) e^{-S(b,Q)} \;, \label{CSS46}
361: \end{eqnarray}
362:
363:
364: \noindent where
365:
366: \begin{equation}
367: S(b,Q) \equiv \int_{\ln(c_1/b)}^{\ln(c_2Q)} d\ln(c_2\bar{Q})
368: \Bigl[ \int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2{\bar{Q}}^2} {d\bar{\mu}^2 \over
369: \bar{\mu}^2} A(\bar{\mu}) + B(c_2\bar{Q}) \Bigr] \;.
370: \end{equation}
371:
372:
373: \noindent This Sudakov exponent can be simplified as follows. The
374: first term,
375:
376: \begin{equation} \int_{\ln(c_1/b)}^{\ln(c_2Q)} d\ln(c_2\bar{Q})
377: \int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2{\bar{Q}}^2} {{d\bar{\mu}^2} \over
378: \bar{\mu}^2} A(\bar{\mu}) = 2 \int_{c_1/b}^{c_2Q} {{d\bar{\mu}}
379: \over \bar{\mu}} \int_{c_1/b}^{\bar{\mu}} {{d{\bar{\mu}'}} \over
380: {\bar{\mu}'}} A({\bar{\mu}'}) \;,
381: \end{equation}
382:
383: \noindent followed by an integration by parts gives
384:
385: \begin{eqnarray}
386: \int &=& 2 \ln\bar{\mu} \int_{c_1/b}^{\bar{\mu}} {d{\tilde{\mu}}
387: \over {\tilde{\mu}}} A({\tilde{\mu}}) \Bigr|_{c1/b}^{c_2Q} - 2
388: \int_{c1/b}^{c_2Q}{d\bar{\mu} \over \bar{\mu}} \ln\bar{\mu}
389: A(\bar{\mu}) \; \cr &=& 2 \ln{c_2Q} \int_{c1/b}^{c_2Q}
390: {d{\tilde{\mu}} \over {\tilde{\mu}}} A({\tilde{\mu}}) -
391: 2\ln{c_1/b} \int_{c_1/b}^{c_1/b}{d{\tilde{\mu}} \over
392: {\tilde{\mu}}} A({\tilde{\mu}}) - 2\int_{c1/b}^{c_2Q} {d\bar{\mu}
393: \over \bar{\mu}} \ln\bar{\mu} A(\bar{\mu}) \cr &=&
394: \int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2}{d\bar{\mu}^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}
395: \ln\bigl( {c_2^2Q^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}\bigr) A(\bar{\mu}) \;,
396: \end{eqnarray}
397:
398: \noindent while
399:
400: \begin{equation}
401: \int_{\ln(c_1/b)}^{\ln(c_2Q)} d\ln(c_2\bar{Q}) B(c_2\bar{Q}) = {1
402: \over 2}\int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2}{d\bar{\mu}^2 \over
403: \bar{\mu}^2} B(\bar{\mu}) \;,
404: \end{equation}
405:
406: \noindent and thus
407:
408: \begin{equation}
409: S = \int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2}{d\bar{\mu}^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}
410: \Bigl[ \ln\bigl( {c_2^2Q^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}\bigr) A(\bar{\mu})
411: + B(\bar{\mu}) \Bigr] \;. \label{CSS52}
412: \end{equation}
413:
414:
415:
416: Evaluating \ref{CSS04} with $Q=c_1/c_2b$ gives the coefficient of
417: the Sudakov exponential in equation \ref{CSS46}. Pulling out the
418: parton distributions from ${\tilde{J}}_{a,b}$ and rewriting the
419: rest as separable functions $C_{i/\tilde{i}}$, CSS obtained :
420:
421: \begin{eqnarray}
422: {\tilde{\sigma}}_S(b,\mu) &=& \sum_{\tilde{a}} \int_{x_1^0}^1
423: {dx_1 \over x_1} f_{\tilde{a}/A} (x_1,\mu) C_{a/\tilde{a}}
424: (x_1^0/x_1,b,c_1/c_2,g(\mu)) \cr &\times& \sum_{\tilde{b}}
425: \int_{x_2^0}^1 {dx_2 \over x_2} f_{\tilde{b}/B} (x_2,\mu)
426: C_{b/\tilde{b}} (x_2^0/x_2,b,c_1/c_2,g(\mu)) \;, \label{CSS54}
427: \end{eqnarray}
428:
429: \noindent for which they, in practice, set the scale $\mu=c_1/b$.
430:
431: To regain a useful expression in $Q_T$-space, CSS performed the
432: inverse Fourier transform on equation \ref{CSS46}, added back in
433: the finite remainders $\sigma_R$ from equation \ref{CSS09b}, and
434: arrived at their final result for the perturbative region
435:
436: \begin{equation}
437: \sigma = \Biggl\{ {1\over{2\pi}^2} \int d^2 \vec{b} e^{i\vec{b}
438: \cdot \vec{Q_T}} {\tilde{\sigma}}_S (b,c_1/c_2b) e^{-S(b,Q)}
439: \Biggr\} + \sigma_F \;, \label{CSSpert}
440: \end{equation}
441:
442: \noindent in which
443:
444: \begin{equation}
445: S = \int_{c_1^2/b^2}^{c_2^2Q^2}{d\bar{\mu}^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}
446: \Bigl[ \ln\bigl( {c_2^2Q^2 \over \bar{\mu}^2}\bigr) A(\bar{\mu})
447: + B(\bar{\mu}) \Bigr] \; \label{CSSsud}
448: \end{equation}
449:
450: \BQN \sigma_F = \sum_{a,b} \int_{x_1^0}^1 {dx_1 \over x_1}
451: \int_{x_2^0}^1 {dx_2 \over x_2} \sum_{\rm N=1}^\infty {\bigl[
452: {\alpha_s(\mu) \over 2\pi}\bigr]}^N \sigma_R^{(N)}
453: (a,b,Q_T,Q,\mu,{x_1^0 \over x_1},{x_2^0 \over x_2}) \;.
454: \label{CSSfin} \EQN
455:
456: CSS resummation allows for the resummation of tiers of logarithms
457: two at a time. That is, given the first $N$ $\{A,B,C\}$
458: coefficients, one can resum the first $2N$ tiers of logarithms
459: over all orders. Implicitly, there occurs a reorganization of the
460: logs ($L \equiv \ln (Q/Q_T)$) such that successive orders grow by
461: $\alpha_s$ as opposed to $\alpha_s L^2$:
462:
463:
464:
465: \begin{eqnarray}
466: \sigma &\sim& \alpha_s {\color{red}(L+1)} \cr &+& \alpha_s^2
467: \biggl[ {\color{red}(L^3+L^2)}+ {\color{green4}(L+1)} \biggr] \cr
468: &+& \alpha_s^3 \biggl[
469: {\color{red}(L^5+L^4)}+{\color{green4}(L^3+L^2)}+{\color{blue}(L+1)}
470: \biggr] \cr &+& \cdots \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
471:
472: \begin{eqnarray} \rightarrow &\rightarrow& \alpha_s \biggl[
473: {\color{red}(L+1)} + \alpha_s {\color{red}(L^3+L^2)} + \alpha_s^2
474: {\color{red}(L^5+L^4)} + \cdots \biggr] \cr &+& \alpha_s^2
475: \biggl[ {\color{green4}(L+1)} + \alpha_s
476: {\color{green4}(L^3+L^2)} + \alpha_s^2 {\color{green4}(L^5+L^4)}
477: + \cdots \biggr] \cr &+& \alpha_s^3 \biggl[ {\color{blue}(L+1)} +
478: \alpha_s {\color{blue}(L^3+L^2)} + \alpha_s^2
479: {\color{blue}(L^5+L^4)} + \cdots \biggr] \cr &+& \cdots \nonumber
480: \end{eqnarray}
481:
482: To obtain these coefficients, one expands the resummed form to
483: the same order as one has calculated perturbatively, and compares
484: this expansion with the asymptotic approximation of the
485: perturbative result. Double-counting is avoided, as in the AEGM
486: result, by use of the subtraction method. Furthermore, the $C$
487: coefficients contain the unexponentiated subleading terms
488: discussed in Section \ref{sec:sublead}.
489:
490: \section{Extension to the Nonperturbative Region.}
491: \label{sec:CSSNP}
492:
493: Strictly, the above result is valid only at low $b$ ($b \ll
494: 1/\Lambda_{QCD}$). At $b > \sim {1\over\Lambda_{QCD}}$, the
495: coefficients $A$ and $B$ in the Sudakov exponent become dependent
496: not only on $\alpha_s(\bar{\mu})$ but on the parton masses in the
497: form $m_f/\bar{\mu}$. A high enough impact parameter is reached
498: that perturbation theory is not a valid description, and
499: $\bar{\mu}$ is then allowed to go small enough that both
500: $g(\bar{\mu})$ and $m_f/\bar{\mu}$ blow up. As Parisi and
501: Petronzio have shown ~\cite{PP79}, ${\tilde{\sigma}}_S$ is
502: dominated by $b \simeq {1\over\Lambda_{QCD}}
503: {({Q\over\Lambda_{QCD}})}^{-0.41} \ll {1\over\Lambda_{QCD}}$ for
504: large $Q/Q_T$, but we don't with current technology obtain large
505: enough $Q$ to ignore the $b>{1\over\Lambda_{QCD}}$ region. At low
506: $b$, $c_1/b$ and hence $\bar{\mu}$ stays high enough that both
507: $m_f/\bar{\mu}$ and $g(\bar{\mu})$ are small, and one recovers the
508: perturbative results above.
509:
510:
511: It is clear that some arrangements must be made to parametrize the
512: effects of the nonperturbative region, while keeping the
513: perturbative formalism in use in its region of applicability. CSS
514: suggested the following: define a function
515:
516: \begin{equation}
517: b^*(b) \equiv {b\over \sqrt{1+b^2/b_{max}^2}} \;,
518: \end{equation}
519:
520: \noindent which goes no higher than $b_{max}$. Use this $b^*$ for
521: evaluations of the perturbative $d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S$, and rewrite
522: the full $d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S$ as
523:
524: \begin{equation}
525: d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S (b) = d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S(b^*) \Bigl[
526: {{d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S(b)} \over {d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S(b^*)}} \Bigr]
527: \;,
528: \end{equation}
529:
530: \noindent where the second factor is approximated by a
531: parametrization in $b$.
532:
533: Perhaps the easiest way to predict the form of such a
534: parametrization is to return to equation \ref{CSS07} and directly
535: integrate, starting at some minimum scale $Q_0$ at which one would
536: deem a finite-order expansion in terms of $\alpha_s(Q_0)$
537: ``sufficiently accurate'' ({\it e.g.} $Q_0=c_1/b_{max}$). Dividing
538: by the result taken at $b=b^*$ yields a ratio of the form
539: ~\cite{CS82}
540:
541: \BQN {{d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S(b)} \over {d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S(b^*)}}
542: = \exp \Bigl[ - h_K(b) \ln (Q^2/Q_0^2) - h_A (x_a^0,b) - h_B
543: (x_b^0,b) \bigr] \;. \EQN
544:
545: We will hereafter refer to the exponent above as the
546: nonperturbative function $S_{NP}$. Like the parton
547: distributions, the coefficient functions $h$ are intended to be
548: universal (generally applicable) and extractible from data. The
549: one constraint is that $exp(S_{NP}) \rightarrow 1$ as $b
550: \rightarrow b^* \rightarrow 0$.
551:
552: To date, sufficient data have not been taken to study the flavor
553: dependence of the functions $h_{A,B}$, nor the dependence upon
554: $x_a^0$ or $x_b^0$ individually. However, attempts have been made
555: to fit simplified versions of the above form. Ladinsky and Yuan
556: (LY) ~\cite{LY94} in 1994 and Landry, Brock, Ladinsky, and Yuan
557: (LBLY) ~\cite{LBLY99} in 1999 used the three-parameter form shown
558: here:
559:
560: \BQN S_{NP} = -g_2 b^2 \ln \Bigl( {Q\over {2Q_0}} \Bigr) - g_1b^2
561: - g_1g_3b \ln (100x_a^0x_b^0) \;. \EQN
562:
563: A previous analysis by Davies, Webber, and Stirling (DWS)
564: ~\cite{DWS85} in 1985 was made with a two-parameter form obtained
565: by setting $g_3=0$ in the above. LBLY also studied the
566: two-parameter form, and the results of all these efforts are
567: collected in Table \ref{NPparms} below. In Chapter
568: \ref{ch:Results}, we will provide evidence that a
569: single-parameter, $Q$-independent form may agree better with data.
570:
571: \begin{table}[h]
572: \caption{Nonperturbative Parameters.} \vspace{.5cm}
573: \begin{center}
574: \thicklines
575: \begin {tabular} { lllll }
576: \hline \hline \thinlines
577: &DWS&LBLY &LY &LBLY \\
578: \hline \thicklines
579: $g_1 (GeV^2)$& 0.40&0.24 & 0.11&0.15 \\
580: $g_2(GeV^2)$& 0.15&0.34 & 0.58 & 0.48 \\
581: $g_3(GeV^{-1})$& N/A & N/A & -1.5 & -0.58 \\
582: $Q_0(GeV)$& 2.0& 1.6 & 1.6 & 1.6 \\
583: $b_{max}(GeV^{-1})$& 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.5 \\
584: PDF&DO1&CTEQ3M&CTEQ2M&CTEQ3M\\
585: DATA&E288,R209&E288,R209,&E288,R209,&E288,R209,\\
586: & &CDF-Z,E605&CDF-Z &CDF-Z,E605\\
587: \hline \hline
588: \end{tabular}
589: \end{center}
590: \label{NPparms}
591: \end{table}
592:
593: In lieu of equation \ref{CSSpert} then, the final CSS result can
594: be written as:
595:
596: \begin{equation}
597: d\sigma = \Biggl\{ {1\over{2\pi}^2} \int d^2 \vec{b} e^{i\vec{b}
598: \cdot \vec{Q_T}} d{\tilde{\sigma}}_S (b^*,c_1/c_2b^*)
599: e^{-S(b^*,Q)} e^{S_{NP}(b,Q)} \Biggr\} + d\sigma_F \;.
600: \label{CSSfull}
601: \end{equation}
602:
603:
604:
605: \section{The Sudakov Exponent at very low $b$.}
606:
607: Now, what about the very low-$b$ region, where $c_1/b > c_2Q$?
608: Here there are no large logs, but one does not want the Sudakov
609: exponent to change sign. In practice one may consider cutting off
610: the exponent, that is, simply taking $\exp[-S(b)] \rightarrow
611: \exp[0] =1$ for this region. But will this preserve the proper
612: normalization upon integration over $Q_T$? Altarelli, {\it et.
613: al.} (1984) ~\cite{AEGM84} calculated the exact first-order
614: result for the Sudakov form factor and arrived at
615:
616: \BQN S(b,Q) = {\alpha_s\over {2\pi}} \int_0^{Q^2}
617: {{d{\bar{\mu}}^2}\over {\bar{\mu}}^2} \Bigl[A^{(1)} \ln \biggl(
618: {Q^2\over {\bar{\mu}}^2} \biggr) + B^{(1)} \Bigr]
619: \bigl(J_0(b\bar{\mu})-1 \bigr) \;, \EQN
620:
621: \noindent which by inspection has the desired property of becoming
622: zero as $b \rightarrow 0$.
623:
624: In the proposal of Ellis, {\it et. al.} (1997) ~\cite{ERV97}, the
625: CSS form for $S$ is maintained, but new scales $\lambda(b)$ and
626: $\mu(b)$, which never go above $c_2Q$, are used as lower limits:
627:
628: \begin{equation}
629: S(b,Q) = \int_{\lambda^2(b)}^{c_2^2Q^2} {{d{\bar{\mu}}^2}\over
630: {\bar{\mu}}^2} \ln {Q^2\over {\bar{\mu}}^2} A(\alpha_s
631: (\bar{\mu})) + \int_{\mu^2(b)}^{c_2^2Q^2} {{d{\bar{\mu}}^2}\over
632: {\bar{\mu}}^2} B(\alpha_s (\bar{\mu})) \;.
633: \end{equation}
634:
635: \noindent To agree with the Altarelli result, these scales must be
636: defined such that
637:
638: \begin{eqnarray}
639: \int_\lambda^{c_2Q} {dx \over x} \ln {{c_2Q}\over x} &= {1\over
640: 2} \ln^2 {{c_2Q}\over \lambda} &= \int_0^{c_2Q} {dx \over x} \ln
641: {{c_2Q}\over x} [1-J_0(bx)] \;, \cr \int_\mu^{c_2Q} {dx \over x}
642: &= \ln {{c_2Q}\over \mu} &= \int_0^{c_2Q} {dx \over x} [1-J_0(bx)]
643: \;,
644: \end{eqnarray}
645:
646: \noindent and so must be
647:
648: \BQA \mu(b) &=& Q \exp \Bigl\{ - \int_0^Q {dx\over x} \bigl(
649: 1-J_0(bx) \bigr) \Bigr\} \; \cr \lambda(b) &=& Q \exp \Bigl\{ -
650: {\biggl[ \int_0^Q {dx\over x} \ln (Q/x) \bigl( 1-J_0(bx) \bigr)
651: \biggr]}^{1\over 2} \Bigr\} \;. \EQA
652:
653: \noindent At large $b$, $\lambda$ and $\mu$ both $\rightarrow \sim
654: b_0/b$, in agreement with CSS.
655: