1: \documentclass[nohyper]{JHEP3}

2: 

3: \usepackage{cite}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: 

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

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

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

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

10: 

11: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

12: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

13: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

14: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}

15: \def\eq#1{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

16: \def\spins{\hbox{\tiny spins}}

17: \def\real{\hbox{\tiny real}}

18: \def\IR{\hbox{\tiny IR}}

19: \def\PT{\hbox{\tiny PT}}

20: \def\res{\hbox{\tiny res}}

21: \def\NP{\hbox{\tiny NP}}

22: \def\UV{\hbox{\tiny UV}}

23: \def\SDG{\hbox{\tiny SDG}}

24: \def\ps{\hbox{\tiny phase \, space}}

25: \def\NLL{\hbox{\tiny NLL}}

26: \def\bins{\hbox{\tiny bins}}

27: \def\DGE{\hbox{\tiny DGE}}

28: \def\Tr{\,{\rm Tr}\, }

29: \def\det{\,{\rm det}\, }

30: \def\Str{\,{\rm Str}\, }

31: \def\tr{\,{\rm tr}\, }

32: \def\Im{\,{\rm Im}\, }

33: \def\Re{\,{\rm Re}\, }

34: \def\im{\, {\rm Im}\, \tau}

35: \def \MS {\overline{MS}}

36: 

37: \newcommand{\deriv}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D}}

38: \newcommand{\derleft}{\stackrel{\gets}{D}}

39: \newcommand{\derright}{\stackrel{\to}{D}}

40:  

41: \psfull

42: 

43: \title{The $C$ parameter distribution in $e^+e^-$ annihilation}

44: 

45: \author{Einan Gardi \\

46: TH Division, CERN, CH--1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland, and \\

47: Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit{\"a}t Regensburg,

48: D--93040 Regensburg, Germany\footnote{present address}}

49: \author{Lorenzo Magnea \\

50: Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Universit{\`a} di Torino, and\\

51: INFN, Sezione di Torino, Via P. Giuria, I--10125 Torino, Italy}

52:   

53: \abstract{We study perturbative and non--perturbative aspects of the

54: distribution of the $C$ parameter in $e^+e^-$ annihilation using

55: renormalon techniques. We perform an exact calculation of the

56: characteristic function, corresponding to the $C$ parameter

57: differential cross section for a single off--shell gluon.  We then

58: concentrate on the two--jet region, derive the Borel representation of

59: the Sudakov exponent in the large--$\beta_0$ limit and compare the

60: result to that of the thrust $T$. Analysing the exponent, we

61: distinguish two ingredients: the jet function, depending on $Q^2 C$,

62: summarizing the effects of collinear radiation, and a function

63: describing soft emission at large angles, with momenta of order $Q

64: C$. The former is the same as for the thrust upon scaling $C$ by $1/6$,

65: whereas the latter is different.  We verify that the rescaled $C$ distribution

66: coincides with that of $1 - T$ to next--to--leading logarithmic accuracy,

67: as predicted by Catani and Webber, and demonstrate that this relation

68: breaks down beyond this order owing to soft radiation at large angles.

69: The pattern of power corrections is also similar to that of the thrust:

70: corrections appear as odd powers of $\Lambda/(Q C)$. Based on the size

71: of the renormalon ambiguity, however, the shape function is different:

72: subleading power corrections for the $C$ distribution appear to be

73: significantly smaller than those for the thrust.}

74: 

75: \keywords{QCD,  Jets}

76: 

77: \preprint{

78: CERN--TH/2003--129\\

79: DFTT--6/2003

80: }

81: 

82: %======================================================================

83: %======================================================================

84: 

85: \begin{document}

86: 

87: %======================================================================

88: %======================================================================

89: 

90: \section{Introduction}

91: 

92: Event shape distributions have proven to be valuable in pushing

93: forward our quantitative understanding of jet production and

94: hadronization and of the interplay between perturbative and

95: non--perturbative phenomena. Being infrared and collinear safe, these

96: distributions can be computed order by order in perturbation theory,

97: without the need to introduce non--perturbative parameters

98: \cite{ST77,FO78,PA78,DO79,ERT}.  Even at large center--of--mass

99: energies ($Q$), however, event--shape distributions involve substantial

100: power corrections. As a consequence, they provide an important tool to

101: study the onset of non--perturbative physics.

102: 

103: The two--jet region, where the distributions of most event shapes

104: peak, is particularly important in this regard, and consequently it is

105: also quite challenging.  First of all, the perturbative analysis

106: involves large Sudakov logarithms (double logarithms of the event

107: shape $e$ which vanishes in the limit of two massless jets, examples

108: being the $C$ parameter, jet masses $\rho_J$, and $t \equiv 1 - T$,

109: with $T$ the thrust). These logarithms make the perturbative

110: coefficients of the distributions diverge at any finite order in the

111: limit $ e \to 0$.  It is only upon resummation that one recovers the

112: qualitative features of the cross section, namely the fact that it

113: vanishes in the two--jet limit where radiation is inhibited (Sudakov

114: suppression). A further complication is that power corrections, which

115: are associated with large--angle soft emission, are also enhanced in

116: this limit, as the relevant scale is typically $Q e$.

117: 

118: The resummation of large perturbative

119: corrections~\cite{CO81,STE86,CSS,CT,CTTW,CTW,CMW,CW,BRO,BSZ} and the

120: parameterization of power corrections based on renormalon

121: techniques~\cite{BEN,MW,W94,KS,K95,K98,KOS,KT,DW,NA95,DW97,DMW,AK,DO98,DMS,SMY,BB,BE97,GG99,GA00,EGT,EGJ,G01}

122: have opened up the way for quantitative predictions in the two--jet

123: region. While much progress was made during the LEP era, some of the

124: fundamental questions concerning power corrections have not yet been

125: fully answered. A classical example is the relation (``universality'')

126: between corrections to different observables which may be deduced from

127: renormalon models.  Even a more pragmatic motivation to study event

128: shapes, namely to provide a precise measurement of the strong

129: coupling, is hampered by theoretical

130: uncertainties~\cite{LEP,GG99,EGT,EGJ}. Thus, in spite of having no

131: active $e^+ e^-$ collider, further theoretical progress is

132: important. Progress is made nowadays in fixed--order

133: calculations~\cite{BE02}, as well as in resummation and

134: parametrization of power corrections~\cite{MA02,FR02,ST03,BA02,DA02,BE03}. Tools

135: developed in the context of event shapes in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation are

136: often used in other applications.

137: 

138: One of the aspects where the study of event shapes has taught us

139: general lessons about QCD is the interplay between perturbative and

140: non--perturbative corrections. The phenomenological success of

141: renormalon--based models for power corrections has important

142: consequences. On the one hand, it shows that perturbative tools are

143: quite powerful. In a sense, the state--of--the--art theoretical

144: description of event--shape distributions pushes perturbative

145: calculations beyond their natural regime of applicability.  In

146: general, this relies on the understanding that hadronization is a soft

147: phenomenon, which does not involve significant momentum flow and thus

148: does not change drastically the perturbative distribution.  On the

149: other hand, the success of these models implies that there is no way

150: to quantify non--perturbative corrections and relate them to matrix

151: elements without controlling first perturbative corrections to all

152: orders. This stands in sharp contrast to the standard approach taken

153: when vacuum condensates are estimated in the framework of QCD sum

154: rules~\cite{SH79}.  The current understanding of power corrections

155: highlights the significance of running--coupling effects at the

156: perturbative level.

157: 

158: Our main focus in this paper is the two--jet region. Quantitative

159: predictions in this region are highly non--trivial, involving large

160: logarithmic corrections from multiple soft and collinear gluon

161: radiation, as well as significant running--coupling effects. The

162: latter have both perturbative and non--perturbative aspects, and some

163: of the difficulty is related to the ambiguous separation between

164: them. An important feature of the two--jet region is the fact that, as

165: $e \to 0$, it becomes necessary to resum not only singular

166: perturbative contributions, but power corrections as well: in fact for

167: values of $e = {\cal O} (\Lambda/Q)$, which are not far from the peak

168: of the distribution in typical LEP data, all power corrections of the

169: form $(\Lambda/(Q e))^p$ become equally important. The feasibility in

170: principle of such a resummation was shown in Refs.~\cite{K98,KOS},

171: extending the factorization of the cross section in the two--jet limit

172: to power--suppressed effects. Power corrections of this kind can be

173: summarized in a ``shape function'', which can be naturally combined

174: with the effects of Sudakov resummation. Renormalon calculations can

175: then be used to construct highly constrained QCD

176: models for the shape function.  In this paper, we will essentially

177: construct such a model for the $C$ parameter distribution, following

178: the Dressed Gluon Exponentiation (DGE) approach, first developed in

179: connection with the thrust distribution~\cite{EGT}. In this approach

180: one computes and resums Sudakov logs and renormalons simultaneously,

181: obtaining information on leading as well as subleading power

182: corrections, which can be summarized if desired in an ansatz for the

183: shape function.  Note that the combination of Sudakov effects with

184: parametrically enhanced power corrections is definitely not unique to

185: event--shape distributions. It appears whenever differential cross

186: sections in QCD are evaluated near a kinematic threshold; other

187: important examples are Drell--Yan production near the energy

188: threshold~\cite{KS,BB}, structure functions near the elastic limit

189: (Bjorken $x$ close to~$1$)~\cite{GKRT,GA02}, and fragmentation

190: functions of light~\cite{DMS,G01} and heavy quarks~\cite{CA02} near $z

191: = 1$.  In spite of the different nature of these processes, certain

192: characteristics of the perturbative expansion are generic~\cite{G01},

193: and similar techniques are applicable in all cases.

194: 

195: As announced, we will consider here the distribution of a specific

196: event--shape variable, the $C$~parameter. This variable was first

197: proposed 25 years ago~\cite{FO78}, and became one of the classical

198: examples of infrared and collinear safe observables. A

199: next--to--leading order (NLO) ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ calculation for

200: the distribution of the $C$ parameter was performed long ago\cite{ERT}

201: (the next order is still not available), while the resummation of

202: Sudakov logs to next--to--leading logarithmic accuracy (NLL) has

203: become available only recently~\cite{CW}. In the last few years the

204: example of the $C$ parameter, and in particular its average value, had

205: an important place in the ongoing debate concerning universality of

206: power corrections, see {\it e.g.}~\cite{CW,KT,DMS,SMY}. On the other

207: hand, as far as the resummation of running--coupling effects is

208: concerned, the $C$ parameter distribution was not analysed, and the

209: prime example has always been the thrust~\cite{GG99,GA00}.

210: 

211: The study of the thrust and of the heavy--jet mass distributions by

212: means of DGE~\cite{EGT,EGJ} highlighted several significant features

213: of higher--order perturbative as well as non--perturbative

214: contributions. In particular, it was found that subleading Sudakov

215: logs, that are usually neglected, can give substantial contributions:

216: they carry the factorial enhancement of renormalons.

217: Phenomenologically, the refinement of the calculated distribution by

218: DGE (as compared to the standard resummation to NLL accuracy) turned

219: out to have a dramatic effect on data fits in the peak region. The

220: most impressive demonstration of this fact is the agreement between

221: the non--perturbative parameters extracted from the thrust and the

222: heavy--jet mass distributions~\cite{EGJ}.  The effect this resummation

223: has on the extracted value of the coupling is also substantial.  It

224: is, of course, of great interest to extend the DGE analysis to other

225: event--shape variables and learn which features are generic and which

226: depend on the observable. The purpose of this paper is to perform such

227: an analysis for the $C$ parameter.

228: 

229: We proceed as follows. In the next section we recall the definition of

230: the $C$ parameter, present the kinematics in a three--particle final

231: state where the gluon is off shell, and compute the characteristic

232: function. The final result is summarized in Appendix A.  In Section 3

233: we expand the characteristic function at small $C$ (details are given

234: in Appendix B) in order to identify the source of logarithmically

235: enhanced terms which dominate the two--jet limit; next, we construct a

236: Borel representation of the Sudakov exponent, and we use it to extract

237: perturbative as well as non--perturbative information on the

238: distribution, comparing it with the case of the thrust. Our results

239: are summarized and briefly discussed in Section 4.

240: 

241: 

242: \section{The characteristic function}

243: 

244: The $C$ parameter for electron--positron annihilation events was

245: originally\footnote{Another definition has been introduced

246: in~\cite{FO78}; see also \cite{ERT}.}

247: defined~\cite{PA78,DO79} as

248: \be

249: C = 3 (\lambda_1 \lambda_2 + \lambda_2 \lambda_3 + 

250:   \lambda_3 \lambda_1)~, 

251: \ee

252: where $\lambda_{\alpha}$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix

253: \be 

254: \Theta_{\alpha \beta} = \frac{1}{\sum_j \left\vert 

255: {\bf p}^{(j)} \right\vert } \, \sum_i \frac{{\bf p}_{\alpha}^{(i)} \,

256: {\bf p}_{\beta}^{(i)}}{\left| {\bf p}^{(i)} \right|}~, 

257: \ee 

258: and ${\bf p}_{\alpha}^{(i)}$ are the spatial components ($\alpha = 1,

259: 2, 3$) of the $i$--th particle momentum in the center--of--mass

260: frame. The sums over $i$ and $j$ run over all the final state

261: particles.

262:  

263: A related definition in terms of Lorentz invariants is

264: \be

265: C = 3 - \frac32 \sum_{i, j} \frac{(p^{(i)} \cdot p^{(j)})^2}{(p^{(i)}

266: \cdot q) \, ( p^{(j)} \cdot q)}~,

267: \label{C_def}

268: \ee

269: where $p^{(i)}$ is the four--momentum of the $i$--th particle and $q$

270: is the total four momentum, $q = \sum_i p^{(i)}$.  The two definitions

271: are equivalent provided particle masses are neglected (for a discussion

272: of mass effects in power corrections, see~\cite{SW}).

273: 

274: The $C$ parameter varies in the range $0 \leq C \leq 1$. $C = 0$

275: corresponds to a perfect two--jet event (with massless jets), while $C

276: = 1$ characterizes a spherical event. Planar events, including, in

277: particular, the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ perturbative result, are

278: distributed in the range $0 \leq C \leq 3/4$.

279: 

280: The information needed to perform renormalon resummation at the level

281: of a single dressed gluon (the large--$\beta_0$ limit) and,

282: eventually, learn about power corrections, is present in the

283: leading--order differential cross section, calculated with an

284: off--shell gluon~\cite{BEN,DMW,BBB}, sometimes called ``characteristic

285: function''.  In this section we present an exact calculation of the

286: characteristic function for the distribution of the $C$ parameter. An

287: analogous calculation for the thrust was performed

288: in~\cite{GA00}. Although the calculation and the general structure of

289: the result are similar, in the case under consideration the

290: expressions involved are significantly more complicated.

291: 

292: It should be noted that the renormalon calculation we perform treats

293: the decay of the gluon inclusively. The characteristic function

294: depends only on the total invariant mass of the particles eventually

295: produced by the gluon and not on their separate momenta.  Since

296: event--shape variables such as the $C$ parameter are sensitive to the momenta

297: of individual final--state particles, our calculation differs, for

298: example, from a strict large--$N_f$ limit. This point was first noted

299: in~\cite{NA95}, and was since addressed in various occasions, first in

300: applications to single--particle inclusive cross sections~\cite{BE97},

301: then in the context of the conjectured universality of power

302: corrections~\cite{DO98}. In the thrust case the inclusive

303: approximation is good, in the sense that higher--order perturbative

304: terms are numerically close to the strict large--$N_f$

305: result~\cite{GG99,GA00,EGT} (larger differences occur if one considers

306: purely non--Abelian contributions). The approximation is especially

307: good in the two--jet limit in which we are interested.  In the case of

308: the average $C$ parameter, Smye~\cite{SMY} has performed a detailed

309: analysis of the effect non--inclusive contributions have on the

310: coefficient of the $1/Q$ correction, within the framework

311: of~\cite{DO98}. Also in this case the inclusive approximation is close

312: to the large--$N_f$ result, while larger differences appear in the

313: non--Abelian part. An analysis of this kind has not yet been performed

314: for the distribution. We observe also that it is unclear to what

315: extent non--inclusive contributions can consistently be treated within

316: the framework of the dispersive approach, since they contain terms

317: that are genuinely unrelated to running--coupling effects, even in the

318: abelian limit.

319: 

320: It should be kept in mind that, with present technology, renormalon

321: models can only be used as a tool to gather information on the general

322: structure of power corrections, and possibly a rough estimate on their

323: size. For such purposes, we believe that the inclusive approximation

324: is sufficient, a view which is supported by the phenomenological

325: success of the data fits performed with it, and also by the small

326: relative size of the non--inclusive correction in the cases in which

327: it was computed. Given the complexity of the calculation in the case

328: of the $C$ parameter, we will not attempt here a calculation in the

329: strict large--$N_f$ limit. A calculation of the distribution along the

330: lines of \cite{SMY} would in any case be welcome, since it would

331: improve the control on phase--space effects, and gauge the stability of

332: our result.

333: 

334: In order to perform the calculation of the characteristic function we

335: first calculate the $C$ parameter for a three--particle final state: a

336: quark and an antiquark with momenta $p_1$ and $p_2$ ($p_1^2 = p_2^2 =

337: 0$) and an off--shell gluon with momentum $k$. It is convenient to

338: define the normalized gluon virtuality by $\xi \equiv k^2/q^2$, and

339: the variables

340: \ba 

341: x_1 & = & 2 p_1 \cdot q/q^2~, \nonumber \\

342: x_2 & = & 2 p_2 \cdot q/q^2~, \label{ourv} \\ 

343: y & = & 2 k \cdot q/q^2 \, = \, 2 - x_1 - x_2~, \nonumber 

344: \ea

345: which correspond to the energy fractions in the centre--of--mass frame.

346: Using these variables one finds

347: \be 

348: {\bf c}(x_1, x_2, \xi) \, \equiv \, C/6 \, = \,

349: \frac{(1 - x_1)(1 - x_2)(1 - y + 2 \xi) - \xi^2}{x_1 x_2 y}~.

350: \label{C}

351: \ee

352: Here we rescaled the shape variable by a factor of 6; we will compute the

353: differential cross section for the rescaled variable $c$, from which

354: the standard observable can be readily obtained, as

355: \be

356: \frac{1}{\sigma} \frac{d \sigma}{d C}(C, Q^2) = \frac16 \left.

357: \frac{1}{\sigma} \frac{d \sigma}{d c}(c, Q^2) \right\vert_{c = C/6}~.

358: \label{risc}

359: \ee

360: Depending on the precise interpretation of the definition of the $C$

361: parameter for massive particles there can be in \eq{C} an additional

362: term (from $i$ and $j$ in (\ref{C_def}) both corresponding to the

363: gluon) of the form $ - \xi^2/y^2$. Here, however, we will be using

364: \eq{C} as written. As we shall see below, in the small--$c$ region, $c

365: = {\cal O}(\xi/y)$, so this term is negligible.

366: 

367: The renormalon--resummed differential cross section in the single

368: dressed gluon approximation is

369: \be

370: \frac{1}{\sigma} \frac{d \sigma}{d c} (c, Q^2) = - \frac{C_F}{2 \beta_0}

371: \, \int_{0}^{1}{d \xi} \, \frac{d {\cal F}(\xi, c)}{d \xi} \, A(\xi Q^2)~,

372: \label{diff_c}

373: \ee

374: where $\beta_0 = \frac{11}{12} C_A - \frac16 N_f$, and $A(\xi Q^2)$ is the

375: large--$\beta_0$ running coupling ($A=\beta_0\alpha_s/\pi$) on the 

376: time--like axis, admitting the Borel representation

377: \be

378: A(\xi Q^2) = \int_0^{\infty} d u \, \left( Q^2/\Lambda^2 \right)^{- u}

379:   \, \frac{\sin \pi u}{\pi u} \, {\rm e}^{\frac53 u} \, \xi^{- u}\,,

380: \label{axiq}

381: \ee

382: where $\Lambda$ is the QCD scale in the ${\overline {\rm MS}}$ scheme,

383: the constant $5/3$ comes from the renormalization of the fermion loop

384: in this scheme, and the sine factor originates in the analytic

385: continuation to the time--like axis.

386: 

387: The characteristic function is of the form

388: \be

389: {\cal F}(\xi, c) = \int d x_1 d x_2 \,

390: {\cal M}(x_1, x_2, \xi) \, \delta \left({\bf c}(x_1, x_2, \xi) - c \right)~.

391: \label{F}

392: \ee

393: Here ${\cal M}$ is the squared matrix element for $\gamma^*

394: \longrightarrow q \overline{q} g$ (with the coupling and the colour

395: factor extracted), and is given by

396: \be

397: {\cal M}(x_1, x_2, \xi) = \frac{(x_1 + \xi)^2 + (x_2 + \xi)^2}{(1 -

398:   x_1)(1 - x_2)} - \frac{\xi}{(1 - x_1)^2} - \frac{\xi}{(1 - x_2)^2}~.

399: \ee

400: Phase space (illustrated in figure~\ref{contours}) is limited by the

401: restrictions

402: \ba

403: \label{limits}

404: {\rm hard\, limit} & \hspace*{30pt} & x_1 + x_2 \geq 1 - \xi~, \nonumber \\

405: {\rm soft\, limit} & \hspace*{30pt} & (1 - x_1)(1 - x_2) \geq \xi~,

406: \ea

407: where the hard and soft limits correspond to the upper and lower

408: bounds on the gluon energy fraction $y = 2 - x_1 - x_2$.

409: 

410: Note that along the soft limit, which will be our main interest in the next

411: section, the expression for $c$ in \eq{C} simplifies a lot. One gets

412: \be

413: \left. {\bf c}(x_1, x_2, \xi) \right\vert_{\rm soft} = \xi/y~.

414: \label{bou}

415: \ee

416: Along this phase--space boundary, the maximal value for $c$ with fixed

417: $\xi$ is obtained for $x_1 = x_2 = 1 - \sqrt{\xi}$, so $y = y_{\min} =

418: 2 \sqrt{\xi}$ and $c_{\max}^{{\rm soft}} = \sqrt{\xi}/2$. This is the

419: relevant phase--space limit for large--angle soft gluon emission.  The

420: minimal value of $c$ is obtained in the intersection with the hard

421: limit, for either $x_1 = 0$ or $x_2 = 0$, so $y = y_{\max} = 1 + \xi$

422: and $c_{\min} = \xi/(1 + \xi)$. This is the relevant limit for

423: collinear gluon emission. The maximum value of $c$ is attained away

424: from the boundaries of phase space, as seen in Figure 1. It can be

425: determined by maximizing the explicit expression in \eq{C} within the

426: physical region, and for small $\xi$ is given by $c_{\max} = 1/8 + 3

427: \xi/4 + {\cal O} (\xi^2)$.

428: \FIGURE{

429: \epsfig{file=contours.eps,angle=-90,width=12.55cm}

430: \vspace*{20pt}

431: \caption{The $x_1$ -- $x_2$ plane for a fixed $\xi=0.06$. The

432: phase--space limits (\ref{limits}) (green) are shown together with

433: contours of fixed $c$ belonging to the two regions in (\ref{Fy}):

434: contours that close within the phase--space boundaries, corresponding

435: to $F_h$ (thick, blue), and contours that reach the soft phase--space limit,

436: corresponding to $F_l$ (thin, red).}

437: \label{contours} }

438: 

439: In order to perform the integrations in~(\ref{F}), it is convenient to

440: change variables from $x_1$ and $x_2$ into $y$ and $z = (1 - x_2)/y$. In

441: the new variables the integral has the form

442: \ba

443: \label{Fyz}

444: {\cal F}(\xi, c) & = & \int_{2 \sqrt{\xi}}^{1 + \xi} \frac{dy}{y}

445:   \int_{\frac12 \left(1 - \sqrt{1 - 4 \xi/y^2} \right)}^{\frac12

446:   \left(1 + \sqrt{1 - 4 \xi/y^2} \right)} d z

447:   \, \delta \left((z - z_+)(z - z_-) \frac{y (1 + 2 \xi - y (1 +

448:   c))}{(1 - y z)(1 - y (1 - z))} \right)

449:   \nonumber \\ && \nonumber \\ &&

450:   \,\left[ \frac{(1 - y (1 - z))^2 + (1 - y z)^2 + 2 \xi(2 + \xi - y)}{z

451:   (1 - z)} - \frac{\xi}{z^2} - \frac{\xi}{(1 - z)^2} \right]\,,

452: \ea

453: where

454: \be

455: z_{\pm} = \frac12 \left[ 1 \pm \sqrt{1 - \frac{4 (c y (1 - y) +

456:   \xi^2)}{y^2 (1 + 2 \xi - y (1 + c))}} \right]\,.

457: \label{Zpm}

458: \ee

459: Here the symmetry $x_1 \longleftrightarrow x_2$ appears as $z

460: \longleftrightarrow 1-z$. Using this symmetry, the integral over $z$

461: equals twice the integral between the lower limit in \eq{Fyz} and $z =

462: 1/2$, where only $z = z_-$ in the $\delta$ function is relevant.  The

463: condition $z_- \geq {\frac12 \left(1 - \sqrt{1 - 4\xi/y^2}\right)}$

464: for physical values of $c$ implies that

465: \be

466: \frac{\xi}{c} \, \leq \,y \, \leq \, \frac{1 + 2 \xi}{1 + c} \equiv y_0\,.

467: \label{z_in_range}

468: \ee

469: The condition that $z_-$ be real, on the other hand, implies that

470: \be

471: (1 + c) y^3 - (1 + 2 \xi + 4 c) y^2 + 4 c y + 4 \xi^2 \leq 0\,.

472: \label{cub}

473: \ee

474: It turns out that within the physical region all three roots $y_{1,2,3}$

475: of \eq{cub} are real. Choosing $y_1 \leq y_2 \leq y_3$, \eq{cub} requires

476: that

477: \be

478: y_2 \leq y \leq y_3~.

479: \label{z_real}

480: \ee

481: Investigating the solutions of \eq{cub}, one finds that $y_2 >

482: {\xi}/c$ for $c > \sqrt{\xi}/2$, while $y_2 \leq {\xi}/c$ for $c \leq

483: \sqrt{\xi}/2$, so the conditions~(\ref{z_real}) and~(\ref{z_in_range})

484: together imply that the lower integration limit over $y$ is $y_2$ for

485: $c> \sqrt{\xi}/2$, but it is $\xi/c$ for $c\leq \sqrt{\xi}/2$. The

486: result is therefore

487: \ba

488: \label{Fy}

489: {\cal F}(\xi, c) & = & \left\{

490: \begin{array}{ll}

491:   \displaystyle{{\cal F}_{l}(\xi, c) \equiv \int_{\xi/c}^{y_3} d y

492:   f(y, c, \xi)} & \hspace*{40pt} \frac{\xi}{1 + \xi} \, \leq \, c \,

493:   \leq \, \frac{\sqrt{\xi}}{2}~,

494:   \\

495:   \\

496:   {\cal F}_{h}(\xi, c) \equiv \displaystyle{\int_{y_2}^{y_3} d y

497:   f(y, c, \xi)} & \hspace*{40pt} \frac{\sqrt{\xi}}{2} \, < \, c \,

498:   \leq \, c_{\max} = \frac18 + \frac34 \xi + {\cal O}(\xi^2)~,

499: \end{array}

500: \right.

501: \ea

502: where

503: \ba

504: \label{f}

505: f(y, c, \xi) & = & \frac{2}{(1 + c)^2} \frac{y (1 + \xi - y)^3}

506:   {(c y (1 - y) + \xi^2)^2 \, \sqrt{(y_0 - y)^3 (y_3 - y)(y -

507:   y_1)(y - y_2)}} \nonumber \\

508:   & & \times \Big[

509:   - c \, (1 + c) \, y^4 + ((5 \, c + 2 \, c^2 + 1) \, \xi + 3 \, c

510:   + 4 \, c^2) \, y^3 \nonumber \\

511:   & & \,\,\,\,\,\, + ((- 2 - 4 \, c) \, \xi^2 + (- 2 \, c^2 - 1 - 10 \, c)

512:   \, \xi - 4 \, c - 4 \, c^2) \, y^2 \\ \nonumber

513:   & & \,\,\,\,\,\, + ((- 2 \, c - 2) \, \xi^3 - 2 \, \xi^2 + 8 \, \xi \,c

514:   + 2 \, c) \, y + 4 \, \xi^4 + 8 \, \xi^3 + 2 \, \xi^2 \Big]\,.

515: \ea

516: The two regions of the parameter space of \eq{Fy} are distinguished by

517: whether, for fixed $\xi$ and $c$, the soft phase--space limit in

518: \eq{limits} can be reached. The corresponding classes of contours are

519: shown in Figure \ref{contours} in the $x_1$ -- $x_2$ plane. A similar

520: situation occurs in the case of the thrust distribution~\cite{GA00}.

521: In both cases the characteristic function is given by two different

522: analytic function in these two regions.

523: 

524: Finally, ${\cal F}(\xi, c)$ can be expressed as a sum of standard

525: elliptic integrals. These are complete elliptic integrals for ${\cal

526: F}_{h}(\xi,c)$ and incomplete ones for ${\cal F}_{l}(\xi,c)$. The

527: explicit expressions are given in Appendix~A.

528: 

529: 

530: \section{The Sudakov exponent}

531: 

532: Having calculated the characteristic function for the distribution of

533: the $C$ parameter, we can use DGE to compute the Sudakov exponent for

534: the two--jet limit in the large--$\beta_0$ limit. The procedure we

535: follow was introduced in~\cite{EGT}, where the exponent for the thrust

536: distribution was computed. Similar calculations were done since for

537: heavy--jet mass distribution~\cite{EGJ}, light--quark fragmentation,

538: deep inelastic structure functions and Drell--Yan production for

539: $x\longrightarrow 1$~\cite{G01}, and, most recently, the heavy--quark

540: fragmentation function~\cite{CA02}.

541: 

542: The Borel representation of \eq{diff_c} can be constructed by using

543: the explicit expression for $A(\xi Q^2)$ given in \eq{axiq} and

544: changing the order of integration. One obtains

545: \be

546: \left. \frac{1}{\sigma} \frac{d \sigma}{d c}(c, Q^2) \right\vert_{\SDG}

547:   = \frac{C_F}{2 \beta_0} \, \int_0^{\infty} d u \,

548:   \left( Q^2/\Lambda^2 \right)^{- u} \, B(c, u)\,,

549: \label{Borel_c}

550: \ee

551: where the subscript stands for a Single Dressed Gluon. The Borel

552: function is

553: \be

554: B(c, u) \, = \, - \, \frac{\sin \pi u}{\pi u} \, {\rm e}^{\frac53 u}

555:   \, \left[ \int_{0}^{4 c^2}{d \xi} \, \frac{d {\cal F}_h (\xi, c)}{d \xi} 

556:   \, \xi^{- u} \, + \, \int_{4 c^2}^{c/(1 - c)}{d \xi} \, 

557:   \frac{d {\cal F}_l(\xi, c)}{d \xi} \, \xi^{- u} \right]\,.

558: \label{Bint}

559: \ee

560: 

561: While these expressions are completely general, and can be used to

562: resum the renormalons in the large--$\beta_0$ limit for arbitrary $c$,

563: we are interested specifically in Sudakov logs, which dominate the

564: cross section in the two--jet region.  Starting from the full

565: characteristic function, the first step is to identify the ${\cal

566: O}(1/c)$ singular terms, namely those terms that upon integration over

567: the gluon virtuality in \eq{diff_c} or in \eq{Bint} would lead to

568: logarithmically enhanced contributions in the perturbative expansion

569: of the distribution.

570: 

571: The identification of the relevant terms was straightforward in

572: the case of the thrust, but it is much less so here, given the

573: complexity of the characteristic function, \eq{Fy}. One can expand the

574: integrand given in~\eq{f} or the closed--form expressions of Appendix A

575: at small $c$, but this requires of course to specify how $\xi$ behaves in

576: the limit considered. Given the

577: limits of integration in \eq{Bint}, there are two natural $c \to 0$

578: limits to consider: one with fixed $a \equiv \xi/c$, which is relevant

579: in the collinear region, and the second with fixed $b \equiv \xi/c^2$,

580: relevant in the large--angle soft emission region.

581: 

582: On general grounds, one expects Sudakov logs to emerge from the soft

583: boundary of phase space in \eq{limits}. Figure~\ref{contours} shows

584: that only for ${\cal F}_l$ the soft boundary of phase space is

585: relevant, so it is only the second term in \eq{Bint} that is expected

586: to be relevant. We will verify this statement explicitly below. A

587: similar situation occurs for the thrust distribution~\cite{EGT}.

588: 

589: The details of the small--$c$ expansion of ${\cal F}_l$ at fixed $a$

590: and at fixed $b$, and of ${\cal F}_h$ at fixed $b$, are summarized in

591: Appendix B. The final results for the leading ${\cal O}(1/c)$ terms

592: are

593: \ba

594: \label{Fl_fixed_ab}

595: \left. {\cal F}_{l} (\xi, c) \right\vert_{{\rm fixed} \, a \equiv \xi/c}

596:   & = & \frac{1}{c} \left[- 4 \ln a - 3 + 2 a + a^2 \right]

597:   + {\cal O}(c^0) \nonumber \\

598:   \left. {\cal F}_{l} (\xi, c) \right\vert_{{\rm fixed} \, b\equiv \xi/c^2}

599:   & = & \frac{1}{c} \left[- 4 \ln b c - 3 - 8 \ln \left(\frac12

600:   \left(1 + \sqrt{1 - 4/b} \right) \right) \right] + {\cal O}(c^0)\,,

601: \ea

602: while

603: \be

604: \left. {\cal F}_{h} (\xi, c) \right\vert_{{\rm fixed} \, b \equiv \xi/c^2}

605:   = \frac{1}{c} \left[- 4 \ln c - 3 \right] + {\cal O}(c^0)\,.

606: \label{Fh_fixed_b}

607: \ee

608: \eq{Fh_fixed_b}) implies that indeed the first term in \eq{Bint}, the

609: one involving ${\cal F}_h$, is irrelevant for logarithmically enhanced

610: terms. In order to compute the Sudakov exponent we therefore

611: concentrate on $F_l$. Using \eq{Fl_fixed_ab} it is straightforward to

612: write down an expression for $F_l$ that has the correct ${\cal

613: O}(1/c)$ terms both for fixed $a$ and for fixed $b$. It is given by

614: 

615: \ba

616: \label{Fl_expand}

617: \hspace{-6mm}

618: \left. {\cal F}_{l} (\xi, c) \right\vert_{{\cal O}(1/c)}

619:   \! = \! \frac{1}{c} \left[- 4 \ln \left( \frac{\xi}{c} \right) - 3 +

620:   2 \left( \frac{\xi}{c} \right) + \left( \frac{\xi}{c} \right)^2 -

621:   8 \ln \left(\frac12 \left(1 + \sqrt{1 - 4 c^2/\xi} \right) \right) 

622:   \right].

623: \ea

624: Taking a derivative of \eq{Fl_expand} and substituting into

625: \eq{Bint} we find

626: \be

627: \left. B(c, u) \right\vert_{\rm logs} \, = \, 2{\rm e}^{\frac53 u} \,

628:   \frac{\sin \pi u}{\pi u} \, \int_{4 c^2}^{c}{d \xi} \, \xi^{- u}

629:   \left[\frac{2}{\xi c} - \frac{1}{c^2} - \frac{\xi}{c^3} +

630:   \frac{8 c}{\xi \sqrt{\xi - 4 c^2} \left(\sqrt{\xi} + \sqrt{\xi - 4 c^2} 

631:   \right)} \right]\,,

632: \label{Bint_Fl}

633: \ee

634: where we simplified the upper limit without affecting the relevant

635: (log--enhanced) terms. As expected from \eq{Fl_fixed_ab}, only the

636: first and the last terms in the square brackets in \eq{Bint_Fl}

637: contribute to the Sudakov exponent owing to the lower (large--angle)

638: integration limit, while the first three terms, and not the last,

639: contribute owing to the upper (collinear) limit.  The result of the

640: integration is

641: \be

642: \left. B(c, u) \right\vert_{\rm logs} \, = \, 2 {\rm e}^{\frac53 u} \,

643:   \frac{\sin \pi u}{\pi u} \, \left[ 4 (2 c)^{ - 1 - 2 u}

644:   \frac{\sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(u)}{\Gamma(\frac12 + u)} - c^{- 1 - u}

645:   \left(\frac2u + \frac1{1 - u} + \frac{1}{2 - u} \right) \right]\,.

646: \label{Bc}

647: \ee

648: This simple expression summarizes all log--enhanced contributions to

649: the $c$ distribution (\ref{Borel_c}), to any order in perturbation

650: theory, in the large--$\beta_0$ limit. The result is written as a sum

651: of two ingredients, each originating in a different region of phase

652: space: the first, where the relevant scale is $4 Q^2 c^2$ (gluon

653: virtuality $\xi \simeq 4 c^2$) is associated with large--angle soft

654: emission (it can be traced through the calculation to the region where

655: $y \simeq 2 \sqrt{\xi}$ and $x_1 \simeq x_2 \simeq 1 - \sqrt{\xi}$);

656: the second, where the scale is $Q^2 c$ (gluon virtuality $\xi \simeq

657: c$) is associated with collinear emission (corresponding to $y \simeq

658: 1 + \xi$, and either $x_1 \simeq 0$ or $x_2 \simeq 0$). Note that

659: infrared safety is guaranteed in \eq{Bc} thanks to the cancellation

660: between ${\cal O}(1/u)$ terms between the soft and the collinear

661: ingredients, so each of these ingredients is ill--defined unless a

662: factorization prescription is introduced. Note also that \eq{Bc} is

663: free of renormalon singularities, but the Borel integral

664: (\ref{Borel_c}) does have convergence constraints at small $c$, which

665: will turn into renormalons in the Sudakov exponent upon performing the

666: necessary Laplace transform, as outlined below.

667: 

668: For comparison we quote the analogous result for the thrust

669: distribution~\cite{EGT,G01}.  Defining $t = 1 - T$,

670: the Borel function in the large--$\beta_0$ limit is

671: \be

672: \left. B(t, u) \right\vert_{\rm logs} \, = \, 2 {\rm e}^{\frac53 u} \,

673:   \frac{\sin \pi u}{\pi u} \, \left[ \frac{2}{u} \, t^{- 1 - 2 u} -

674:   t^{- 1 - u} \left(\frac2u + \frac1{1 - u} + 

675:   \frac{1}{2 - u} \right) \right]\,.

676: \label{Bt}

677: \ee

678: The result for the heavy--jet mass~\cite{EGJ} (in this approximation)

679: is the same as \eq{Bt} up to an overall factor of $1/2$.  The

680: similarity, as well as the differences, between \eq{Bc} and \eq{Bt}

681: are easily understood: the collinear ingredient is {\em identical}

682: (with $c$ replaced by $t$), while the large--angle soft emission

683: ingredient is different.  In fact, replacing $c$ by $1 - x$, the

684: collinear ingredient coincides with the large--$\beta_0$

685: expression~\cite{G01} for the jet function~\cite{STE86,CSS,CT} which

686: controls the large--$x$ limit in single--particle inclusive

687: cross--sections in $e^+e^-$ annihilation~\cite{G01,CA02}, as well as

688: for structure functions near the elastic limit~\cite{GKRT,GA02}. This

689: object describes the radiation from an unobserved jet under a

690: restriction on its invariant mass. It therefore appears in each of

691: these observables.

692: 

693: As noted above, the large--angle soft emission ingredient for the $c$

694: distribution in \eq{Bc} turns out to be quite different from that of

695: the thrust, in \eq{Bt}. This is not surprising: different event--shape

696: variables weigh differently the soft radiation. One immediately

697: recognizes that the relevant scale of large--angle soft radiation in

698: the $c$ distribution is $2 Q c$, while for thrust it is $Q t$. As we

699: shall see below this factor of~$2$ suppresses subleading logarithmic

700: corrections, as well as subleading power corrections, in the case of

701: $c$, as compared to $t$.

702: 

703: We now turn to the computation of the Sudakov exponent.

704: Owing to the additivity property of the $C$ parameter in the small $C$ limit

705: with respect to multiple emission, and the factorization property of QCD

706: matrix elements for soft and collinear radiation, logarithmically enhanced

707: terms in the perturbative expansion exponentiate in Laplace space.

708: Consequently, the resummed cross section can be written, in full analogy

709: with the thrust~\cite{CTTW,EGT}, as

710: \be

711: \left. \frac{1}{\sigma} \frac{d \sigma}{d c} (c, Q^2)

712:   \right\vert_{\DGE} = \int_{ k - {\rm i} \infty}^{k + {\rm i} \infty}

713:   \frac{d \nu}{2 \pi {\rm i}} \, {\rm e}^{\nu c} \,

714:   \exp \left[ S(\nu, Q^2) \right]\,,

715: \label{c_DGE}

716: \ee

717: where $k$ is to the right of the singularities of the integrand. The

718: Sudakov exponent is given~by

719: \be

720: S(\nu, Q^2) \equiv \left< e^{- \nu c} \right> = \int_0^{\infty} \,

721:   d \tilde{c} \, \left. \frac{1}{\sigma} \frac{d \sigma}{d

722:   {\tilde{c}}} (\tilde{c}, Q^2) \right\vert_{\SDG}

723:   \left({\rm e}^{- \nu \tilde{c}} - 1 \right)\,,

724: \label{S}

725: \ee

726: where the upper limit of integration was extended to infinity ({\it

727: i.e.} beyond the range where the physical distribution has support) to

728: comply with the standard definition of the Laplace transform. The

729: integral is dominated by the Sudakov region, so that singular terms

730: for $c \to 0$ in \eq{Borel_c} generate logarithmically divergent terms

731: for $\nu \to \infty$ in $S(\nu, Q^2)$. It should be noted that, as far

732: as these singular terms are concerned, and to any logarithmic

733: accuracy, the Laplace transform is equivalent to a Mellin transform,

734: where $\nu$ is the moment conjugate to $1 - \tilde{c}$.

735: 

736: Next, we compute $S(\nu, Q^2)$ in the large--$\beta_0$ limit using

737: \eq{Borel_c} and \eq{Bc}. The result is

738: \be

739: S(\nu, Q^2) = \frac{C_F}{2 \beta_0} \, \int_0^{\infty} d u \,

740:   \left(Q^2/\Lambda^2\right)^{- u} \, B_\nu^c (u)\,,

741: \label{Borel_S}

742: \ee

743: with 

744: \ba

745: B_\nu^c (u) & = & \int_0^{\infty} d c \, B(c, u) \, 

746:   \left({\rm e}^{- \nu c} - 1 \right) = \, 2 {\rm e}^{\frac53 u} \,

747:   \frac{\sin \pi u}{\pi u} \, \left[\Gamma(- 2 u) \left(\nu^{2 u} - 1 

748:   \right) 2^{1 - 2 u} \frac{\sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(u)}{\Gamma(\frac12 + u)}

749:   \right.\nonumber \\ 

750:   & & \hspace*{80pt} - \left. \Gamma(- u) \left({\nu}^{u} - 1 \right)

751:   \left(\frac2u + \frac1{1 - u} + \frac{1}{2 - u} \right) \right]\,,

752: \label{Bnu}

753: \ea

754: where terms suppressed by powers of $1/\nu$ were neglected.

755: 

756: Contrary to~\eq{Bc}, the Borel function in Laplace space given by

757: \eq{Bnu} has renormalon singularities. The appearance of infrared

758: renormalons as a consequence of taking a Laplace or a Mellin transform

759: is characteristic of differential cross--sections near a kinematic

760: threshold~\cite{EGT,G01,GA02,CA02}.  In \eq{Bnu} renormalons appear in

761: both the large--angle soft emission factor and in the jet function. In

762: the former, they correspond to corrections that scale as odd powers of

763: $Q/\nu$, while in the latter to ones that scale as the first two

764: powers of $Q^2/\nu$, {\it i.e.} twist four and twist six, as in

765: structure functions. The leading power corrections in the Sudakov

766: region (so long as $Q^2c\gg \Lambda^2$) are of the former type, and

767: they can be summed up into a shape function, as discussed

768: in~\cite{KS,K95,K98,KOS,KT,EGT,EGJ}.  We further address this issue

769: below.

770: 

771: \eq{Bnu}, together with \eq{Borel_S} and \eq{c_DGE}, is our final

772: result for the $c$ distribution, calculated by DGE. The experience

773: gained in the case of the thrust and the heavy--jet mass

774: distributions~\cite{EGT,EGJ} shows that there is a significant

775: difference between the resummed cross section \`a la DGE and standard

776: resummation with NLL accuracy.  Owing to the renormalon factorial

777: growth, the additional terms (subleading logs) which are resummed by

778: DGE and neglected otherwise are numerically important.  DGE has a

779: significant impact on the quality of the description of the

780: distribution in the peak region, on the extracted non--perturbative

781: parameters, and, in particular, on the consistency of the latter

782: between the thrust and the heavy--jet mass distributions. It is

783: therefore important to analyse more event--shape distributions with the

784: same methodology, and the road is now open to do so for the $C$

785: parameter.

786: 

787: It should be emphasized that controlling the large--$\beta_0$ terms is

788: sufficient for generating the entire set of logs up to NLL

789: accuracy. This can be done~\cite{EGT} by promoting the running

790: coupling of~\eq{axiq} to two loops, while replacing the constant $5/3$

791: in the exponent by the full coefficient of the $x \to 1$ singular term

792: in the NLO splitting function~\cite{CMW}, according to

793: \be 

794: \frac53 \, \longrightarrow \, \frac53 + \left(\frac13 - \frac{\pi^2}{12} 

795:   \right) \frac{C_A}{\beta_0}\,.

796: \label{subst}

797: \ee

798: One should keep in mind, though, that this replacement is sufficient

799: only to NLL accuracy, while the correct generalization of the Borel

800: function~(\ref{Bnu}) beyond the large--$\beta_0$ limit is not

801: known. See~\cite{GA02} for a relevant discussion.

802: 

803: Of course, as it stands, the integral in \eq{Borel_S} is ill defined

804: due to its renormalons singularities.  It is straightforward, however,

805: to perform a principal--value regularization either

806: analytically~\cite{EGT,EGJ} or numerically~\cite{CA02}. The size of

807: the ambiguity of \eq{Borel_S}, as measured by the residues of the

808: singularities, can be used as an estimate of the size of the

809: corresponding power corrections, as discussed below. Let us also

810: recall that, in order to use the DGE result in practice, one needs to

811: match it onto the known fixed--order calculation, to take into account

812: terms which are not logarithmically enhanced. The procedure~\cite{EGT}

813: is similar to the one used in a standard NLL resummation

814: program~\cite{CTTW}.

815: 

816: The location of the renormalons in \eq{Bnu} is identical to the case

817: of the thrust. For easy comparison we quote the analogous expression

818: derived in that case, where $\nu$ is the Laplace conjugate variable to

819: $t = 1 - T$. It is given by

820: \be

821: \label{Bnu_t}

822: B_\nu^t (u) = \, 2{\rm e}^{\frac53 u} \, \frac{\sin \pi u}{\pi u}

823:   \left[\Gamma(- 2 u) \left(\nu^{2 u} - 1 \right) \frac{2}{u}

824:   - \Gamma(- u) \left(\nu^u - 1\right) \left(\frac2u + \frac1{1 - u}

825:   + \frac{1}{2 - u} \right) \right]\,.

826: \label{bnut}

827: \ee

828: In order to extract the perturbative coefficients of the exponent

829: $S(\nu, Q^2)$ in the large--$\beta_0$ limit, it is sufficient to

830: expand $B_\nu (u)$ in powers of $u$ and replace $u^n$ by $n!

831: \left(\beta_0 \alpha_s/\pi \right)^{n + 1}$.  Before looking at the

832: actual coefficients, let us first note that the difference between the

833: $c$ distribution, \eq{Bnu}, and the thrust distribution, \eq{Bnu_t},

834: which is all due to the coefficient of $\left(\nu^{2 u} - 1\right)$,

835: is relatively small.  Taking the ratio between these two coefficients and

836: expanding in $u$ we get

837: \be

838: 2^{- 2 u} \frac{\sqrt{\pi} u \Gamma(u)}{\Gamma(\frac12 + u)} = 1 - 

839:   \frac{\pi^2}{6} u^2 + 2 \zeta_3 u^3 + {\cal O} (u^4) \, .

840: \label{diff}

841: \ee

842: The fact that the ratio is $1$ at leading order (as it must be, in

843: order to cancel the $1/u$ singularity of the jet function, which is

844: identical in the two cases) implies that the leading logs ($L^{n + 1}

845: \alpha_s^n$ where $L \equiv \ln \nu$, for any $n$) are identical for

846: the two shape variables; the fact that the next term, of order~$u$, is

847: missing, implies that also the next--to--leading logs ($L^{n}

848: \alpha_s^n$, for any $n$) are identical. This confirms the prediction

849: by Catani and Webber~\cite{CW}.  Differences between the two

850: distributions appear only at the next--to--next--to--leading

851: logarithmic level.

852: 

853: In order to illustrate the enhancement of subleading

854: logarithms~\cite{EGT}, as well as the difference between the $c$

855: distribution and the thrust in this context, we present below an

856: expansion of \eq{Bnu} and \eq{Bnu_t} to the first few orders. One

857: finds for the $c$ parameter

858: \ba

859: \label{expand_c}

860: B_{\nu}^{c}\left(u\right)&=&- 2\,L^{2} + 0.691\,L  \nonumber\\

861: &&\hspace{-6pt}+\, \left( - 2\,L^{3} - 5.297\,L^{2} + 0.095

862: \,L\right)\,u\\

863: &&\hspace{-6pt}+\,\left( - 1.167\,L^{4} - 5.527\,L^{3} -

864: 7.911\,L^{2} - 22.709\,L\right)\,u^{2} \nonumber\\

865: &&\hspace{-6pt}+\, \left( - 0.5\,L^{5} -

866: 3.262\,L^{4}  - 7.943\,L^{3} - 30.058\,L^{2} - 61.322\, L\right)

867: \,u^{3}

868: \nonumber\\\nonumber

869: &&\hspace{-6pt}+\,\left( - 0.172\,L^{6} - 1.405\,L^{5} - 4.639\,L^{4}

870:  - 22.488\,L^{3} - 67.59\,L^{2} - 135.22\,L\right)\,u^{4}

871: \ea

872: while the thrust gives

873: \ba

874: \label{expand_t}

875: B_{\nu}^{\rm thrust}\left(u\right)&=& - 2\,L^{2} + 0.691\,L

876: \nonumber\\

877: && \hspace{-6pt}+\, \left( - 2\,L^{3} - 5.297\,L^{2} - 6.485\,L\right)\,u

878: \\

879: &&

880: \hspace{-6pt}+\, \left( - 1.167\,L^{4} - 5.527\,L^{3} -

881: 14.491\,L^{2} - 31.655\,L\right)\,u^{2} \nonumber\\

882: &&

883: \hspace{-6pt}+\, \left( - 0.5\,L^{5} -

884: 3.262\,L^{4}  - 12.329\,L^{3} - 39.003\,L^{2} - 80.940\,

885: L\right)\,u^{3} \nonumber\\\nonumber

886: &&\hspace{-6pt}+\,\left( - 0.172\,L^{6} - 1.405\,L^{5} - 6.832\,L^{4}

887:  - 28.452\,L^{3}  - 87.21\,L^{2} - 175.80\,L\right)\,u^{4}

888: \ea

889: As explained above, the leading and next--to--leading logarithms are

890: the same. Beyond this order the general trend is similar, however the

891: increase of the coefficients is milder in the case of $c$.

892: 

893: Finally, we return to the issue of power corrections. One can

894: construct a parametrization of non--perturbative corrections based on

895: the ambiguity induced by renormalon singularities in $B_\nu (u)$.  The

896: residue of a pole at $u = m/2$, where $m$ is an odd integer,

897: multiplies an ambiguous contribution, and thus a non--perturbative

898: correction of order $\left(\Lambda\nu/Q\right)^m$ in $S(\nu,Q^2)$ is

899: necessary to compensate for the ambiguity of the perturbative

900: result. Summing over $m$, these corrections amount to a multiplication

901: of the perturbative Laplace--space result

902: $\exp\left[S(\nu,Q^2)\right]$, entering \eq{c_DGE}, by a

903: non--perturbative shape function~\cite{KS,K95,K98,KOS,KT,EGT,EGJ} of

904: the variable $\Lambda\nu/Q$. Since these corrections exponentiate, the

905: leading $m = 1$ correction generates a shift of the perturbative

906: distribution~\cite{K95,DW97}, while $m = 3$ and higher--order powers

907: generate smearing.  Although the large--$\beta_0$ renormalon

908: calculation is not sufficient to determine the actual magnitude of

909: power corrections, the size of the residues\footnote{Note that the

910: large--$\beta_0$ limit does not necessarily provide a good estimate of

911: the residue. Moreover, in the full theory the singularities are

912: usually not simple poles.} may be taken as a na\"{\i}ve estimate. The

913: first few residues (times $\pi$) are summarized in

914: Table~\ref{tab:residues}.

915: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}

916: \TABLE{

917: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|l|}

918:   \hline

919:   Correction & residue ($c$) & residue ($t$) & ratio ($c/t$) \\ 

920:   \hline

921:   $\left(\bar{\Lambda} \nu/Q \right)^1$ & $2 \,\pi$ & $8$ 

922:   & $\frac{\pi}{4} \simeq 0.79$ \\  

923:   \hline

924:   $\left(\bar{\Lambda} \nu/Q \right)^3$ & $- \frac{\pi}{72}$ 

925:   & $ - \frac{4}{27} $ & $ \frac{3 \, \pi}{32} \simeq 0.29$ \\  

926:   \hline

927:   $\left(\bar{\Lambda} \nu/Q \right)^5$ & $ \frac{\pi}{12800}$

928:   & $\frac{1}{375} $ & $\frac{15 \pi}{512} \simeq 0.092$ \\  

929:   \hline

930:   $\left(\bar{\Lambda} \nu/Q \right)^7$ & $- \frac{\pi}{3612672} $

931:   & $- \frac {1}{30870}$ & $\frac{35 \, \pi}{4096} \simeq 0.027$ \\  

932:   \hline

933:   $\left(\bar{\Lambda} \nu/Q \right)^9$ & $ \frac{\pi}{1528823808} $

934:   & $\frac{1}{3674160} $ & $\frac{315 \, \pi}{131072} \simeq 0.0076 $ \\  

935:   \hline

936: \end{tabular}

937: \caption{The size of the residues of renormalon singularities in the

938: large--$\beta_0$ limit, based on \eq{Bnu} for the $c$ distribution and

939: on \eq{Bnu_t} for the thrust $t$. The numbers quoted are $\pi$ times

940: the coefficients of $\left(\bar{\Lambda} \nu/Q\right)^m$, where we

941: define $\bar{\Lambda}^2 = \Lambda^2 {\rm e}^{5/3}$. We ignore here the

942: ${\cal O}(1)$ factor $C_F/(2 \beta_0)$ in \eq{Borel_S}.}

943: \label{tab:residues} }

944: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.}

945: 

946: Assuming that the large--$\beta_0$ residues do provide some hint on

947: the size of the corrections, from Table \ref{tab:residues} one would

948: conclude that the non--perturbative shape functions for the $c$

949: parameter and the thrust distributions must be significantly

950: different.  From the perspective of this renormalon model, it seems

951: therefore that the conjecture of~\cite{KT}, that the same function

952: (with the same parameters) would be appropriate for both distribution,

953: should be excluded.  In fact, while the powers of $\Lambda \nu/Q$

954: identifying the relevant moments of this function are the same for

955: both variables, subleading corrections to the $c$ distribution are

956: significantly smaller than the corresponding ones for the thrust.

957: This means that while the shift of the two distributions is of

958: comparable magnitude (the first line in the table), the extent to

959: which subleading non--perturbative corrections smear the $c$

960: distribution is much smaller than for thrust.

961:    

962: 

963: \section{Conclusions}

964: 

965: In this paper we performed a renormalon calculation for the

966: distribution of the $C$ parameter.  We adopted the dispersive approach

967: and extracted all--order information from the differential cross

968: section with a single off--shell gluon. The only approximation we made

969: with respect to the exact, all--order result in the large--$N_f$

970: limit, was to treat the gluon decay inclusively.

971: 

972: The characteristic function given in Appendix A can be used to improve

973: existing fixed--order calculations of the distribution and its first

974: few moments through the resummation of running--coupling

975: effects~\cite{GG99,GA00}.  We recall that the perturbative

976: coefficients of the first few moments of event--shape distributions,

977: and in particular the average, are dominated by running--coupling

978: effects, so the impact this resummation has on phenomenology is

979: significant.

980: 

981: Here we concentrated on the distribution in the two--jet region, where

982: the perturbative expansion is dominated by Sudakov logs. Starting from

983: the exact characteristic function, we identified the origin of

984: logarithmically enhanced terms and computed the Sudakov exponent in

985: the large--$\beta_0$ limit by Dressed Gluon Exponentiation, similarly

986: to previous calculations for the thrust and the heavy--jet mass

987: distributions~\cite{EGT,EGJ}. We showed that the all--order result for

988: the Sudakov exponent, given in \eq{Bnu}, separates into two

989: ingredients in a natural way: one is the jet function, depending on

990: $Q^2 c$, where $c \equiv C/6$, and the other is associated with soft

991: emission at large angles, with momenta of order~$2 Q c$.  The jet

992: function~\cite{STE86,CSS,CT} describes the radiation from an

993: unobserved jet under a restriction on its invariant mass. It can be

994: defined and computed in a process independent way, and it plays a role

995: in a large class of differential cross sections near partonic

996: threshold, which include, in addition to event--shape

997: distributions~\cite{EGT,EGJ}, the coefficient functions for

998: single--particle inclusive cross sections in $e^+e^-$ annihilation, as

999: well as deep--inelastic structure functions. The same large--$\beta_0$

1000: result for the jet function was shown to be relevant for all of these

1001: observables~\cite{G01,GKRT,CA02,GA02}.

1002: 

1003: Throughout the paper we compared the case of the $C$ parameter to that

1004: of the thrust. As noted first by Catani and Webber~\cite{CW}, the two

1005: distributions are closely related: upon scaling $C$ by $1/6$ the

1006: Sudakov exponents of the two variables coincide to NLL accuracy.

1007: Since the jet functions are the same to any logarithmic accuracy,

1008: differences between the two exponents appear only in the large--angle

1009: soft emission ingredient. The large--$\beta_0$ results, \eq{Bnu} and

1010: \eq{Bnu_t}, indicate that such differences appear at the NNLL order.

1011: The universal phenomenon that subleading logs appear with increasing

1012: numerical coefficients owing to infrared renormalons~\cite{EGT} is

1013: realised, of course, also for the $C$ parameter. The increase of the

1014: coefficients, however, is milder than for thrust. The difference is

1015: largest for the NNLL term at order\footnote{Note that

1016: the coefficients at this order coincide with the exact large $N_f$

1017: result -- they are not influenced at all by the inclusive

1018: approximation~\cite{EGT,EGJ}.} ${\cal O}(u)$,

1019: {\it i.e.} ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$, in

1020: \eq{expand_c}, as compared to \eq{expand_t}.

1021: 

1022: It is natural to expect that the difference between the thrust and the

1023: $c$ distribution, owing to large--angle soft emission, would be

1024: realised also at the non--perturbative level. While the general

1025: pattern of renormalon singularities in the Sudakov exponent is similar

1026: in the two cases, and the parametrization of non--perturbative

1027: corrections as a shift~\cite{K95,DW97} of the perturbative

1028: distribution, or better, through a convolution with a shape

1029: function~\cite{KS,K95,K98,KOS,KT,EGT,EGJ}, is appropriate in both, it

1030: seems that the corrections themselves are different.  This conclusion

1031: is based on the comparison (Table~\ref{tab:residues}) between the

1032: renormalon residues in the two cases: subleading power corrections for

1033: the $c$ distribution are expected to be smaller and thus a shift

1034: should be a better approximation for the $c$ distribution than it is

1035: for thrust.  We emphasize that the residues computed in the

1036: large--$\beta_0$ limit are not necessarily indicative of the actual

1037: size of the corrections, and it remains to be seen whether future

1038: phenomenological analyses will support these conclusions.

1039: 

1040: 

1041: %======================================================================

1042: 

1043: \acknowledgments

1044: 

1045: We would like to thank G.P.~Korchemsky and V.M.~Braun for very useful

1046: discussions. E.G. would like to thank the DFG for financial support.

1047: L.M. would like to thank the CERN Theory Division for

1048: support during part of this work. Work supported by the italian

1049: Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), under contract

1050: 2001023713--006.

1051: 

1052: %======================================================================

1053: 

1054: \newpage

1055: 

1056: \appendix

1057: 

1058: \section{Explicit expression of the characteristic function}

1059: 

1060: The last integration over the gluon energy fraction $y$ in \eq{Fy} can

1061: be explicitly performed, and the result expressed in terms of standard

1062: elliptic functions. This is a consequence of a well--known theorem of

1063: Legendre, stating that any integral of the general form

1064: \beq

1065: {\cal I}(x) = \int d x R \Big[ x, S (x) \Big]~,

1066: \label{leg}

1067: \eeq

1068: where $R$ is a rational function of its arguments, while $S^2(x)$ is a

1069: polynomial of degree $d \leq 4$, can be expressed as a linear

1070: combination of the three basic elliptic integrals, plus the integral

1071: of a rational function. Our integrand, \eq{f}, clearly fulfills the

1072: requirements. To fix our notation, we define the three basic kinds of

1073: (incomplete) elliptic integrals by

1074: \beqa

1075: F \left(\phi, m\right) & \equiv & \int_0^\phi d \theta \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - 

1076: m \sin^2 \theta}} = \int_0^{\sin \phi} \frac{d x}{\sqrt{(1 - 

1077: x^2)(1 - m x^2)}}~, \nonumber \\

1078: E \left(\phi, m\right) & \equiv & \int_0^\phi d \theta \sqrt{1 - 

1079: m \sin^2 \theta} = \int_0^{\sin \phi} \sqrt{\frac{1 - m x^2}{1 - x^2}}~,

1080: \label{elli} \\

1081: \Pi \left(n, \phi, m\right) & \equiv & \int_0^\phi d \theta

1082: \frac{1}{(1 - n \sin^2 \theta) \sqrt{1 - m \sin^2 \theta}} =

1083: \int_0^{\sin \phi} \frac{d x}{(1 - n x^2) \sqrt{(1 - x^2)(1 - m x^2)}}~.

1084: \nonumber

1085: \eeqa

1086: The corresponding complete elliptic integrals are obtained by setting

1087: $\phi = \pi/2$, according to ${\bf K} (m) \equiv F (\pi/2, m)$, ${\bf

1088: E} (m) \equiv E (\pi/2, m)$, and ${\bf \Pi} (n, m) \equiv \Pi (n,

1089: \pi/2, m)$. The algorithms to reduce the generic integral in \eq{leg}

1090: to a combination of the standard ones given in \eq{elli}, as well as

1091: the analytic properties of elliptic integrals, are described in some

1092: detail in Ref.~\cite{BAT}.

1093: 

1094: To express the result of the integration over the gluon energy

1095: fraction $y$ in \eq{Fy}, it is convenient to recall the special values

1096: of $y$ that correspond to singularities in the integrand,

1097: \eq{f}. First, there are the three roots of the cubic

1098: equation~(\ref{cub}), which are real in the physical region and which

1099: we ordered according to $y_1 \leq y_2 \leq y_3$. Recall that the $y$

1100: integration specified in~\eq{Fy} extends over the range from $y_2$ to

1101: $y_3$ for ${\cal F}_h$, or part of it, from $a \equiv \xi/c$ to $y_3$,

1102: for ${\cal F}_l$.  Thus these square--root singularities are either

1103: outside the integration region or on its boundaries. An additional

1104: singularity in the integrand appears at $y = y_0 \equiv (1 + 2 \xi)/(1

1105: + c)$, however it obeys $y_0 \geq y_3$ so it is always outside the

1106: integration region. Finally there are two double poles outside the

1107: integration region at $y = y_4 \equiv (1 - \sqrt{1 + 4 \xi^2/c})/2$

1108: and at $y = y_5 \equiv (1 + \sqrt{1 + 4 \xi^2/c})/2$.

1109: 

1110: The arguments of the relevant elliptic integrals can be expressed

1111: in terms of simple ratios of these special values of the gluon energy

1112: fraction. One needs

1113: \beq

1114: \chi \left( \xi, c \right)  = \arcsin \left[

1115:   \sqrt{\frac{(y_0 - y_2)(y_3 - a)}{(y_3 - y_2) (y_0 - a)}} \right]~,

1116: \label{chi}

1117: \eeq

1118: \beq

1119: m \left( \xi, c \right)  = \frac{(y_3 - y_2)(y_0 - y_1)}{(y_0 - 

1120:   y_2) (y_3 - y_1)}~,

1121: \label{mpar}

1122: \eeq

1123: \beq

1124: n \left( \xi, c \right)  = \frac{y_3 - y_2}{y_0 - y_2}~,

1125: \label{n0}

1126: \eeq

1127: \beq

1128: n_4 \left( \xi, c \right)  =  \frac{(y_3 - y_2)(y_4 - y_0)}{(y_0 - 

1129:   y_2)(y_4 - y_3)}~,

1130: \label{n4}

1131: \eeq

1132: \beq

1133: n_5 \left( \xi, c \right)  = \frac{(y_3 - y_2)(y_5 - y_0)}{(y_0 - 

1134:   y_2)(y_5 - y_3)}~.

1135: \label{n5}

1136: \eeq

1137: In terms of these rather intricate functions of $\xi$ and $c$, one can

1138: write the explicit expression for ${\cal F}_{l}(\xi,c)$. It is

1139: \beqa

1140: {\cal F}_{l}(\xi,c) & = & r \left(\xi, c \right) + 

1141:   f \left(\xi, c \right) F \Big[ \chi \left(\xi, c \right), 

1142:   m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big] + e \left(\xi, c \right) 

1143:   E \Big[ \chi \left( \xi, c \right), m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big] 

1144:   \nonumber \\ & + &

1145:   p \left(\xi, c \right) \Pi \Big[ n \left(\xi, c \right), 

1146:   \chi \left(\xi, c \right), m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big] +

1147:   p_4 \left(\xi, c \right) \Pi \Big[ n_4 \left(\xi, c \right), 

1148:   \chi \left(\xi, c \right), m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big] 

1149:   \nonumber \\ & + & 

1150:   p_5 \left(\xi, c \right) \Pi \Big[ n_5 \left(\xi, c \right), 

1151:   \chi \left(\xi, c \right), m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big]~,

1152: \label{flfin}

1153: \eeqa

1154: where

1155: \begin{eqnarray}

1156: r \left(\xi, c \right) & = & \frac{\sqrt{\xi^2 - 4 c^2 \xi}}{c^3 \left(1 +

1157:   c \right)^2 \left(c + 4 \xi^2 \right)} \Big[4 \xi^3 + c \, \xi

1158:   \left(1 + 18 \xi + 32 \xi^2 \right) \nonumber \\

1159:   & + & c^2 \left( 4 + 7 \xi + 20 \xi^2 + 48

1160:   \xi^3 \right) + c^3 \left( 4 + 10 \xi + 2 \xi^2 + 4 \xi^3 \right) \Big]~,

1161: \label{rest}

1162: \end{eqnarray}

1163: and the coefficients of the five elliptic integrals involved are given by

1164: \begin{eqnarray}

1165: f \left(\xi, c \right) & = & \frac{1}{c^2 \left( 1 + c \right)^4

1166:   \left( c + 4 \xi^2 \right) y_1 \sqrt{\left( y_3 - y_1 \right) 

1167:   \left(y_0 - y_2 \right)}} \nonumber \\

1168:   & \times & \Bigg[ 4 \left( 1 + c \right) \xi^2 

1169:   \Big( 12 \xi^3 + 2 c \, \xi \left( 1 + 6 \xi + 18 \xi^2 \right)  + 

1170:   c^2 \left( 3 + 6 \xi + 24 \xi^2 + 68 \xi^3 \right) \nonumber \\

1171:   & + &  2 c^3 \left( 3 + 7 \xi + 2 \xi^3 \right) \Big) + 

1172:   4 c y_1 \Big( 10 \xi^3 \left( 1 + 2 \xi \right)  + 

1173:   c \, \xi \left( 2 + 21 \xi + 88 \xi^2 + 120 \xi^3 + 16 \xi^4 \right) 

1174:   \nonumber \\ & + & 2 c^2 \left( 2 + 10 \xi + 25 \xi^2 + 52 \xi^3 + 

1175:   58 \xi^4 \right) + c^3 \left( 5 + 22 \xi + 45 \xi^2 + 64 \xi^3 + 

1176:   64 \xi^4 + 16 \xi^5 \right) \nonumber \\

1177:   & + & 2 c^4 \left( 1 + \xi \right)^2 

1178:   \left( 2 + 3 \xi \right) \Big) -

1179:   y_1^2 \left( 1 + c \right)  \left( 1 + 2 \xi \right)  

1180:   \Big( 12 \xi^3 + 2 c \xi \left( 1 + 6 \xi + 18 \xi^2 \right) 

1181:   \nonumber \\ & + & c^2 \left( 3 + 6 \xi + 24 \xi^2 + 68 \xi^3 \right)

1182:   + 2 c^3 \left( 3 + 7 \xi + 2 \xi^3 \right) \Big)

1183:   \Bigg]~,

1184: \label{cof}

1185: \end{eqnarray}

1186: \begin{eqnarray}

1187: e \left(\xi, c \right) & = & - \frac{\sqrt{(y_3 - y_1) \left(y_0 - y_2

1188:   \right)}}{c^2 \left( 1 + c \right)^2 \left( c + 4 \xi^2 \right)}

1189:   \Big[ 12 \xi^3 + 2 c \, \xi \left( 1 + 6 \xi + 18 \xi^2 \right) 

1190:   \nonumber \\ & + &

1191:   c^2 \left( 3 + 6 \xi + 24 \xi^2 + 68 \xi^3 \right) +

1192:   2 c^3 \left( 3 + 7 \xi + 2 \xi^3 \right) \Big]~,

1193: \label{coe}

1194: \end{eqnarray}

1195: \begin{eqnarray}

1196: p \left(\xi, c \right) & = & \frac{4 \left( y_0 - y_3 \right)}{c^2 

1197:   \left( 1 + c \right)^3 \sqrt{(y_3 - y_1) \left(y_0 - y_2 \right)}}

1198:   \Big[ 3 \xi^2 + c \left( 2 + 4 \xi + 11 \xi^2 \right) 

1199:   \nonumber \\ & + &

1200:   c^2 \left( 1 + 6 \xi + 13 \xi^2 \right) + 

1201:   c^3 \left( 2 + 6 \xi + 9 \xi^2 \right) \Big]~,

1202: \label{cop}

1203: \end{eqnarray}

1204: \begin{eqnarray}

1205: p_4 \left(\xi, c \right) & = & \frac{32 \left( y_0 - y_3 \right) 

1206:   \xi^2 }{\left( y_5 - y_4 \right)  

1207:   \left( 1 - 2 y_3 + y_4 - y_5 \right) \left( 1 - c + 

1208:   \left( 1 + c \right) \left(y_5 - y_4\right)  + 4 \xi \right)^

1209:   3 \left( c + 4 \xi^2 \right) } \nonumber \\

1210:   & \times & \frac{1}{c^5 \sqrt{\left( y_3 - y_1 \right)  

1211:   \left( y_0 - y_2 \right)}}

1212:   \times \Bigg[ 12 \xi^7 + 2 c \, \xi^5 \left( 5 + 34 \xi + 

1213:   172 \xi^2 \right) \nonumber \\ 

1214:   & + & c^2 \xi^3 \left( 1 + 8 \xi \right) \left(2 + 37 \xi + 

1215:   18 \xi^2 + 132 \xi^3 \right) \nonumber \\ 

1216:   & + & c^3 \xi^2 \left( 16 + 114 \xi + 265 \xi^2 + 1002 \xi^3 + 

1217:   212 \xi^4 + 776 \xi^5 \right) \nonumber \\

1218:   & + &  c^4 \left( 2 + 16 \xi + 56 \xi^2 + 202 \xi^3 - 147 \xi^4 + 

1219:   318 \xi^5 - 148 \xi^6 + 116 \xi^7 \right) \nonumber \\

1220:   & + & c^5 \xi^2 \left( - 57 + 104 \xi - 37 \xi^2 + 68 \xi^3 - 

1221:   24 \xi^4 \right) \nonumber \\

1222:   & + & c^6 \xi \left(20 - 11 \xi + 2 \xi^2 - 14 \xi^3 \right) - 

1223:   c^7 \left( 3 + 2 \xi + 2 \xi^2 \right) \nonumber \\

1224:   & + & c \left(y_5 - y_4 \right) 

1225:   \Big( 6 \xi^5 \left( 1 + 8 \xi \right)  + 

1226:   c \, \xi^3 \left( 2 + 33 \xi + 86 \xi^2 + 368 \xi^3 \right) 

1227:   \nonumber \\ & + &

1228:   c^2 \xi^2 \left( 12 + 82 \xi + 323 \xi^2 + 158 \xi^3 + 536 \xi^4 \right) 

1229:   \nonumber \\ & + &

1230:   c^3 \left( 2 + 16 \xi + 56 \xi^2 + 22 \xi^3 + 313 \xi^4 - 6 \xi^5 + 

1231:   192 \xi^6 \right) 

1232:   \nonumber \\ & + &

1233:   c^4 \xi^2 \left( 57 - 64 \xi + 33 \xi^2 - 52 \xi^3 + 8 \xi^4 \right) +

1234:   c^5 \xi \left( - 20 + 5 \xi - 6 \xi^2 + 10 \xi^3 \right) 

1235:   \nonumber \\ & + &

1236:   c^6 \left( 3 + 2 \xi + 2 \xi^2 \right) \Big) \Bigg]~,

1237: \label{copp4}

1238: \end{eqnarray}

1239: while $p_5 (\xi, c)$ can be obtained from $p_4 (\xi, c)$ by simply

1240: interchanging $y_4$ and $y_5$.

1241: 

1242: Having obtained ${\cal F}_l (\xi, c)$, it is a simple matter to derive

1243: the `hard' component of the characteristic function, ${\cal F}_h (\xi,

1244: c)$ in \eq{Fy}. In fact, since the only change is in the lower limit

1245: of integration, which for ${\cal F}_h$ coincides with one of the

1246: branch points of the integrand, one obtains {\it the same} linear

1247: combination of elliptic integrals, with each incomplete integral

1248: replaced by the corresponding complete one. Furthermore, the

1249: `remainder' rational function which would play the role of $r(\xi, c)$

1250: in the present case vanishes. The result is

1251: \beqa

1252: {\cal F}_{h}(\xi,c) & = & f \left(\xi, c \right) {\bf K} 

1253:   \Big[ m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big] 

1254:   + e \left(\xi, c \right) {\bf E} \Big[ m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big] 

1255:   + p \left(\xi, c \right) {\bf \Pi} \Big[ n \left(\xi, c \right), 

1256:   m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big] \nonumber \\ & + &

1257:   p_4 \left(\xi, c \right) {\bf \Pi} \Big[ n_4 \left(\xi, c \right), 

1258:   m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big] + 

1259:   p_5 \left(\xi, c \right) {\bf \Pi} \Big[ n_5 \left(\xi, c \right), 

1260:   m \left(\xi, c \right) \Big]~.

1261: \label{fhfin}

1262: \eeqa

1263: Clearly, the same technology used here can be applied to the simpler

1264: situation in which $\xi = 0$. The characteristic function in this

1265: limit coincides with the leading--order coefficient for the 

1266: $C$--parameter distribution, which, to our knowledge, was never

1267: computed in closed form before. In the limit $\xi \to 0$ one finds

1268: \beqa

1269: y_1 & \to & - \frac{\xi^2}{c} + {\cal O} \left( \xi^3, c^3 \right)~,

1270: \nonumber \\

1271: y_2 & \to & \frac{1 + 4 c - \sqrt{1 - 8 c}}{2 (1 + c)} + {\cal O} (\xi)~,

1272: \label{y0} \\

1273: y_3 & \to & \frac{1 + 4 c + \sqrt{1 - 8 c}}{2 (1 + c)} + {\cal O} (\xi)~,

1274: \nonumber

1275: \eeqa

1276: while $y_4 \to 0$ and $y_5 \to 1$.  At this point one can get to the

1277: result by either taking the limit $\xi \to 0$ in \eq{Fy}, and then

1278: applying the algorithm to express that integral in terms of the basic

1279: set of (complete) elliptic integrals, or one can take directly the

1280: limit of \eq{fhfin}, since in the massless limit only ${\cal F}_h$

1281: contributes. Using either method, the result takes the form

1282: \beq

1283: {\cal F}_0 (c) = f_0(c) \, {\bf K} 

1284:   \Big[ m_0(c) \Big] + e_0(c) \, {\bf E} \Big[ m_0(c) \Big] 

1285:   + p_0(c) \, {\bf \Pi} \Big[ n_0(c), m_0(c) \Big]~,

1286: \label{f0fin}

1287: \eeq

1288: where, as the notation suggests, the various functions are the $\xi

1289: \to 0$ limits of the corresponding functions in \eq{fhfin}. Some care

1290: must be exercised in taking the limit, due to the $1/y_1$ singularity

1291: in $f(\xi, c)$. The coefficients $p_4 (\xi, c)$ and $p_5 (\xi, c)$

1292: vanish in the massless limit (while the corresponding integrals are

1293: nonsingular), so that only three complete elliptic integrals appear in

1294: the final answer. Explicitly one finds

1295: \beqa

1296: m_0(c) & = & \frac{2 \sqrt{1 - 8 c}}{1 - 4 c (1 + 2 c) + \sqrt{1 - 8 c}}~,

1297: \nonumber \\

1298: n_0(c) & = & \frac{4 \sqrt{1 - 8 c}}{(1 + \sqrt{1 - 8 \, c})^2}~,

1299: \nonumber \\

1300: f_0(c) & = & \frac{4 \sqrt{2} \left(1 - 2 c \, (2 + c) 

1301:   \right)}{(1 + c)^3 \sqrt{1 - 4 c (1 + 2 c) + 

1302:   \sqrt{1 - 8 c}}}~, \label{fun0} \\

1303: e_0(c) & = & - \frac{3 (1 + 2 c) \sqrt{1 - 4 c (1 + 2 c) + 

1304:   \sqrt{1 - 8 c}}}{\sqrt{2} c (1 + c)^3}~,

1305: \nonumber \\

1306: p_0(c) & = & \frac{\sqrt{2} (2 + c + 2 c^2)(1 - \sqrt{1 - 

1307:   8 c})^2}{c (1 + c)^3 \sqrt{1 - 4 c (1 + 2 c) + \sqrt{1 - 8 c}}}~.

1308: \nonumber

1309: \eeqa

1310: As shown in Appendix B, \eq{fun0} reproduces known results for the

1311: leading singular behavior near $c = 0$~\cite{CW}.

1312: 

1313: \section{Expansions of the characteristic function}

1314: 

1315: Here we provide some details on the expansions of the characteristic

1316: functions ${\cal F}_l$ and ${\cal F}_h$ at small $c$. As one can see

1317: from \eq{Bint}, and as discussed in Section 3, the relevant scaling

1318: limits for the computation of log--enhanced contributions to the

1319: Sudakov exponent are $c \to 0$ with $a \equiv \xi/c$ kept constant for

1320: ${\cal F}_l$, and $c \to 0$ with $b \equiv \xi/c^2$ kept constant for

1321: both ${\cal F}_l$ and ${\cal F}_h$.  These limits can be computed in

1322: two different ways: either carefully taking the appropriate limit of

1323: the integrand in \eq{Fy}, and then performing the resulting simplified

1324: integration, or by expanding directly the elliptic integrals in

1325: Eqs.~(\ref{flfin}) and (\ref{fhfin}). In either case one needs the

1326: expansions of the roots of the cubic equation~(\ref{cub}). For

1327: constant $a \equiv \xi/c$ one finds

1328: \beqa

1329: y_1 & = & 2 (1 - \sqrt{1 + a^2}) c - 2 a \left( 2 - a - 

1330:   \frac{2 - a (1 - a)}{\sqrt{1 + a^2}} \right) c^2 + {\cal O} 

1331:   \left( c^3 \right)~, \nonumber \\

1332: y_2 & = & 2 (1 + \sqrt{1 + a^2}) c - 2 a \left(2 - a + 

1333:   \frac{2 - a (1 - a)}{\sqrt{1 + a^2}} \right) c^2 + 

1334:   {\cal O} \left( c^3 \right)~, \nonumber \\

1335: y_3 & = & 1 - (1 - 2 a) c - (3 - 6 a + 4 a^2) c^2 + {\cal O} 

1336:   \left( c^3 \right)~.

1337: \label{coar}

1338: \eeqa

1339: On the other hand, for constant $b \equiv \xi/c^2$ one finds

1340: \beqa

1341: y_1 & = & - b^2 c^3 + {\cal O} \left( c^5 \right)~, \nonumber \\

1342: y_2 & = & 4 c + (4 - b)^2 c^3 + {\cal O} \left( c^4 \right)~, \nonumber \\

1343: y_3 & = & 1 - c - (3 - 2 b) c^2 - (13 - 6 b) c^3 + 

1344:   {\cal O} \left( c^4 \right)~.

1345: \label{cobr}

1346: \eeqa

1347: Similar expansions can immediately be derived for the other singular

1348: points, $y_0$, $y_4$ and $y_5$.

1349: 

1350: Working at the level of the integrand, $f(y, c, \xi)$ in \eq{f}, the

1351: limit $c \to 0$ with $a \equiv \xi/c$ constant is particularly

1352: simple. In that region in fact both limits of integration behave like

1353: constants, and one can simply expand $f(y, c, \xi)$ in powers of $c$

1354: at fixed $a$, obtaining

1355: \beq

1356: f(y, c, a c) = \frac{2 (2 - (2 + a) y + y^2 )}{c y} + {\cal O}(c^0)~,

1357: \label{fll}

1358: \eeq

1359: which can be immediately integrated to give the first line of

1360: \eq{Fl_fixed_ab}.  The limit with fixed $b = \xi/c^2$ is slightly more

1361: difficult, since in that region the lower limits of integration for

1362: both ${\cal F}_l$ and ${\cal F}_h$ vanish linearly with $c$. Simply

1363: expanding the integrand in powers of $c$ at fixed $b$ is not

1364: sufficient in this case, since all powers of $c$ contribute to the

1365: leading behavior of the integral. The reason is easily tracked to the

1366: square--root singularity at $y = y_2$.  One can then solve the problem

1367: by keeping exactly the factor $(y - y_2)^{-1/2}$, and expanding the

1368: other factors of $f(y, c, \xi)$ in powers of $c$ at fixed $b$, with

1369: the result

1370: \beq

1371: f(y, c, b \, c^2) = \frac{2 \left( 2 - 2y + y^2\right)}{c \sqrt{y} \sqrt{y - y_2}} + {\cal O}(c^0)~.

1372: \label{fh}

1373: \eeq

1374: It is fairly easy to see that \eq{fh} gives the second line of

1375: \eq{Fl_fixed_ab} when integrated between $b c$ and $y_3$, while it

1376: gives \eq{Fh_fixed_b} when integrated between $y_2$ and $y_3$.

1377: 

1378: The same results were obtained by expanding directly the final

1379: expressions for ${\cal F}_l$ and ${\cal F}_h$ in \eq{flfin} and

1380: \eq{fhfin}, respectively.  This involves expanding the elliptic

1381: functions in the approriate scaling limits, a non--trivial task owing

1382: to the singularities of these functions.  One effective method to

1383: perform this expansion is to first scale the integration variable such

1384: that the integration limits are constants and then express the product

1385: of square root factors as a single denominator using Feynman

1386: parametrization.  Let us demonstrate this in the case of the

1387: incomplete $\Pi(n,\phi,m)$ integral which contributes to the ${\cal

1388: O}(1/c)$ terms in ${\cal F}_l$ in both limits.  Since the coefficient

1389: multiplying this function in ${\cal F}_l(\xi,c)$ is ${\cal O}(c)$ in

1390: these limits,

1391: \ba

1392: \label{p_expansion_results}

1393: \hspace*{-30pt}

1394: p(\xi,c) & \simeq & \left\{

1395: \begin{array}{lr}

1396:   \displaystyle{32(1-a)^2c}

1397:   & \quad \quad{\rm fixed}  \,\, a  \\

1398:    \displaystyle{32c}

1399:    & \quad \quad{\rm fixed} \,\, b

1400: \end{array}

1401: \right.

1402: \ea

1403: relevant terms in $\Pi \left[n(\xi,c), \chi(\xi,c), m(\xi,c)\right]$

1404: would be ${\cal O}(1/c^2)$. Starting from the definition (\ref{elli})

1405: and defining $z\equiv \sin \phi$, one gets

1406: \beqa

1407: \Pi \left(n, \phi, m\right) & = &

1408:   \frac{z}{2} \int_0^{1} \frac{d w}{\sqrt{w} \,(1 - n z^2 w) 

1409:   \sqrt{(1 -z^2 w)(1 - mz^2 w)}}  \\ \nonumber

1410:   & = &\frac{z}{2 \pi} \int_0^1

1411:   \frac{d \alpha}{\sqrt{\alpha}{\sqrt{1 - \alpha}}} \int_0^{1} 

1412:   \frac{d w}{\sqrt{w}} \,\, \frac{1}{1 - n z^2 w} \,\,\,

1413:   \frac{1}{\alpha(1 - z^2 w) + (1 - \alpha)(1 - m z^2 w)}\,.

1414: \eeqa

1415: The $w$ integral can be easily done, and the result be safely

1416: expanded in the two relevant limits.  After the expansion the

1417: integration over the Feynman parameter~$\alpha$ can be readily

1418: performed. The leading terms are the following:

1419: \ba

1420: \label{Pi_expansion_results}

1421: \hspace*{-30pt}

1422: \Pi \left[n(\xi,c), \chi(\xi,c), m(\xi,c)\right] & \simeq & 

1423:   -\frac{1}{8}\frac{1}{c^2} \times\left\{

1424:   \begin{array}{lr}

1425:   \displaystyle{\frac{\ln{a}}{(1 - a)^2} }& \quad \quad{\rm fixed} \,\, a  

1426:   \\  \\

1427:   \displaystyle{\left[\ln{b c} + 2 \ln \left(\frac{1 + \sqrt{1 - 4/b}}{2}

1428:   \right) \right]}

1429:   & \quad \quad{\rm fixed} \,\, b

1430: \end{array}

1431: \right.

1432: \ea

1433: In the case of~${\cal F}_l$, in both limits, additional ${\cal

1434: O}(1/c)$ contributions appear in~\eq{flfin} from $E \left[\chi(\xi,c),

1435: m(\xi, c) \right] = 1 + {\cal O}(c^0)$, since

1436: \ba

1437: \label{e_expansion_results}

1438: \hspace*{-30pt}

1439: e \left(\xi, c \right) & \simeq & \left\{

1440: \begin{array}{lr}

1441:   \displaystyle{-(3 + 2 a)/{c}}

1442:   & \quad \quad{\rm fixed}  \,\, a  \\

1443:   \displaystyle{- 3/{c}}

1444:   & \quad \quad{\rm fixed} \,\, b

1445: \end{array}

1446: \right.

1447: \ea

1448: Finally for fixed $a$ also $r\left(\xi, c \right)$ contributes: $r

1449: \left(\xi, c \right)\simeq a(4+a)/c$.  Using the method described

1450: above it is straightforward to verify that the other elliptic integral

1451: terms in~\eq{flfin} do not contribute at order ${\cal O}(1/c)$. The

1452: results are summarized by \eq{Fl_fixed_ab}.  The case of~${\cal F}_h$

1453: is simpler: the elliptic integrals in~\eq{fhfin} are the complete ones

1454: and only the fixed~$b$ limit is relevant. One gets ${\cal O}(1/c)$

1455: contributions from ${\bf \Pi} \left[n(\xi,c), m(\xi,c)\right]\simeq

1456: -\ln(c)/(8c^2)$ and from ${\bf E} \left[ m(\xi,c)\right]=1+{\cal

1457: O}(c^0)$. The result is summarized by~\eq{Fh_fixed_b}.

1458: 

1459: Finally, we note that using the same techniques one can also treat the

1460: exact expression for the leading order, which is given by the

1461: characteristic function at $\xi = 0$ (see \eq{f0fin}).  The relevant

1462: elliptic integrals have the asymptotic behavior

1463: \beqa

1464: {\bf K} \Big[m_0(c)\Big] & = & - \frac{3}{2} \log c + {\cal O} \left(

1465:   c^3 \log c \right)~, \nonumber \\

1466: {\bf E} \Big[m_0(c)\Big] & = & 1 + {\cal O} \left(

1467:   c^3 \log c \right)~, \label{asell} \\

1468: {\bf \Pi} \Big[n_0(c), m_0(c)\Big] & = & - \frac{1}{8 c^2} \log c -

1469:   \frac{1}{4 c} \left( 1 + \log c \right) +

1470:   {\cal O} \left( c^0 \log c \right)~, \nonumber

1471: \eeqa

1472: which leads to

1473: \beq

1474: {\cal F}_0 (c) = - \frac{3 + 4 \log c}{c} + 1 - 28 \log c +

1475:   {\cal O} \left( c \log c \right)~,

1476: \label{asf0}

1477: \eeq

1478: in agreement with Ref.~\cite{CW}, when the overall normalization is

1479: taken into account.

1480: 

1481: %======================================================================

1482: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1483: %%%%%%%%%%omit arXiv in several places

1484: 

1485: \bibitem{ST77}

1486: G.~Sterman and S.~Weinberg, \prl{39}{1977}{1436}.

1487: %%CITATION = PRLTA,39,1436;%%

1488: 

1489: \bibitem{FO78}

1490: G.C.~Fox and S.~Wolfram,

1491: \prl{41}{1978}{1581}; \npb{149}{1979}{413}, [Erratum--ibid. {\bf B 157} 

1492: (1979) 543].

1493: %%CITATION = PRLTA,41,1581;%%

1494: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B149,413;%%

1495: 

1496: \bibitem{PA78}

1497: G.~Parisi, \plb{74}{1978}{65}.

1498: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B74,65;%%

1499: 

1500: \bibitem{DO79}

1501: J.F.~Donoghue, F.E.~Low and S.Y.~Pi,

1502: \prd{20}{1979}{2759}.

1503: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D20,2759;%%

1504: 

1505: \bibitem{ERT}

1506: R.K.~Ellis, D.A.~Ross and A.E.~Terrano,

1507: \prl{45}{1980}{1226}; \npb{178}{1981}{421}.

1508: %%CITATION = PRLTA,45,1226;%%

1509: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B178,421;%%

1510: 

1511: \bibitem{CO81}

1512: J.C.~Collins and D.E.~Soper, \npb{193}{1981}{381}, [Erratum--ibid. 

1513: {\bf B 213} (1983) 545].

1514: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,381;%%

1515: 

1516: \bibitem{STE86}

1517: G.~Sterman, \npb{281}{1987}{310}.

1518: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B281,310;%%

1519: 

1520: \bibitem{CSS}

1521: J.C.~Collins, D.E.~Soper and G.~Sterman,

1522: {\em Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.} {\bf 5} (1988) 1, published in

1523: ``Perturbative QCD'', ed. A.H.~Mueller, World Scientific Publ., 1989. 

1524: 

1525: \bibitem{CT}

1526: S.~Catani and L.~Trentadue,

1527: \npb{327}{1989}{323}; \npb{353}{1991}{183}.

1528: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B327,323;%%

1529: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B353,183;%%

1530: 

1531: \bibitem{CTTW}

1532: S.~Catani, L.~Trentadue, G.~Turnock and B.R.~Webber,

1533: \plb{263}{1991}{491}; \npb{407}{1993}{3}.

1534: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B407,3;%%

1535: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B263,491;%%

1536: 

1537: \bibitem{CTW} 

1538: S.~Catani, G.~Turnock and B.R.~Webber, \plb{295}{1992}{269}.

1539: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B295,269;%%

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{CMW}

1542: S.~Catani, B.R.~Webber and G.~Marchesini, \npb{349}{1991}{635}.

1543: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B349,635;%%

1544: 

1545: \bibitem{CW} 

1546: S.~Catani and B.R.~Webber,

1547: \plb{427}{1998}{377}, \hepph{9801350}.

1548: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801350;%%

1549: 

1550: \bibitem{BRO}

1551: Y.L.~Dokshitzer, A.~Lucenti, G.~Marchesini and G.P.~Salam,

1552: \jhep{01}{1998}{011}, \hepph{9801324}.

1553: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801324;%%

1554: 

1555: \bibitem{BSZ}

1556: A.~Banfi, G.P.~Salam and G.~Zanderighi, \jhep{01}{2002}{018}, 

1557: \hepph{0112156}.

1558: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112156;%%

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{BEN}

1561: For a review, see M.~Beneke, \prep{317}{1999}{1}, \hepph{9807443}.

1562: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807443;%%

1563: 

1564: \bibitem{MW} 

1565: A.V.~Manohar and M.B.~Wise, \plb{344}{1995}{407}, \hepph{9406392}.

1566: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406392;%%

1567: 

1568: \bibitem{W94} 

1569: B.R.~Webber, \plb{339}{1994}{148}, \hepph{9408222}.

1570: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408222;%%

1571: 

1572: \bibitem{KS} 

1573: G.P.~Korchemsky and G.~Sterman, \npb{437}{1995}{415}, \hepph{9411211}.

1574: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411211;%%

1575: 

1576: \bibitem{K95}

1577: G.P.~Korchemsky and G.~Sterman, in {\it Moriond 1995, proceedings},

1578: ``QCD and High Energy Hadronic Interactions'', Meribel Les

1579: Allues, France, March 1995, 383, \hepph{9505391}.

1580: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505391;%%

1581: 

1582: \bibitem{K98}

1583: G.P.~Korchemsky, in {\it Minneapolis 1998, proceedings}, ``Continuous 

1584: advances in QCD'', Minneapolis, USA, April 1998, 179, \hepph{9806537}.

1585: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806537;%%

1586: 

1587: \bibitem{KOS}

1588: G.P.~Korchemsky, G.~Oderda and G.~Sterman, in {\it Chicago 1997, 

1589: proceedings}, DIS 97, Chicago, USA, April 1997, \hepph{9708346};

1590: G.P.~Korchemsky and G.~Sterman, \npb{555}{1999}{335}, \hepph{9902341}.

1591: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708346;%%

1592: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902341;%%

1593: 

1594: \bibitem{KT} 

1595: G.P.~Korchemsky and S.~Tafat, \jhep{10}{2000}{010}, \hepph{0007005}.

1596: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007005;%%

1597: 

1598: \bibitem{DW}

1599: Y.L.~Dokshitzer and B.R.~Webber, \plb{352}{1995}{451}, \hepph{9504219}.

1600: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504219;%%

1601: 

1602: \bibitem{NA95}

1603: P.~Nason and M.H.~Seymour, \npb{454}{1995}{291}, \hepph{9506317}.

1604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506317;%%

1605: 

1606: \bibitem{DW97} 

1607: Y.L.~Dokshitzer and B.R.~Webber, \plb{404}{1997}{321}, \hepph{9704298}.

1608: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704298;%%

1609: 

1610: \bibitem{DMW}

1611: Y.L.~Dokshitzer, G.~Marchesini and B.R.~Webber, \npb{469}{1996}{93}, 

1612: \hepph{9512336}.

1613: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512336;%%

1614: 

1615: \bibitem{AK} 

1616: R.~Akhoury and V.I.~Zakharov, \plb{357}{1995}{646}, \hepph{9504248};

1617: \npb{465}{1996}{295}, \hepph{9507253}.

1618: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504248;%%

1619: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507253;%%

1620: 

1621: \bibitem{DO98}

1622: Y.L.~Dokshitzer, A.~Lucenti, G.~Marchesini and G.P.~Salam,

1623: \jhep{05}{1998}{003}, \hepph{9802381}.

1624: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802381;%%

1625: 

1626: \bibitem{DMS}

1627: M.~Dasgupta, L.~Magnea and G.E.~Smye, \jhep{11}{1999}{025}, \hepph{9911316}.

1628: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911316;%%

1629: 

1630: \bibitem{SMY}

1631: G.E.~Smye, \jhep{05}{2001}{005}, \hepph{0101323}.

1632: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101323;%%

1633: 

1634: \bibitem{BB} 

1635: M.~Beneke and V.M.~Braun, \npb{454}{1995}{253}, \hepph{9506452}.

1636: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506452;%%

1637: 

1638: \bibitem{BE97}

1639: M.~Beneke, V.M.~Braun and L.~Magnea, \npb{497}{1997}{297}, \hepph{9701309}.

1640: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701309;%%

1641: 

1642: \bibitem{GG99}

1643: E.~Gardi and G.~Grunberg, \jhep{11}{1999}{016}, \hepph{9908458}.

1644: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908458;%%

1645: 

1646: \bibitem{GA00}

1647: E.~Gardi, \jhep{04}{2000}{030}, \hepph{0003179}.

1648: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003179;%%

1649: 

1650: \bibitem{EGT}

1651: E.~Gardi and J.~Rathsman, \npb{609}{2001}{123}, \hepph{0103217}.

1652: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103217;%%

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{EGJ}

1655: E.~Gardi and J.~Rathsman, \npb{638}{2002}{243}, \hepph{0201019}.

1656: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201019;%%

1657: 

1658: \bibitem{G01}

1659: E.~Gardi, \npb{622}{2002}{365}, \hepph{0108222}.

1660: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108222;%%

1661: 

1662: \bibitem{LEP} 

1663: See for example: P.D.~Acton {\it et al.}  [OPAL Collaboration],

1664: \zpc{59}{1993}{1}; \\

1665: P.~Abreu {\it et al.}  [DELPHI Collaboration],

1666: \zpc{73}{1997}{229}; \\

1667: O.~Biebel, P.A.~Movilla Fernandez and S.~Bethke  [JADE Collaboration],

1668: \plb{459}{1999}{326}, \hepex{9903009}.

1669: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C59,1;%%

1670: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C73,229;%%

1671: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9903009;%%

1672: 

1673: \bibitem{BE02}

1674: Z.~Bern, in {\it Amsterdam 2002, procedings}, ICHEP 2002, Amsterdam, The

1675: Netherlands, July 2002, \npps{117}{2003}{260}, \hepph{0212406}.

1676: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212406;%%

1677: 

1678: \bibitem{ST03}

1679: G.~Sterman, in {\it Paris 2002, proceedings}, TH 2002, Paris, France, 

1680: July 2002, \hepph{0301243}.

1681: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301243;%%

1682: 

1683: \bibitem{MA02}

1684: L.~Magnea, in {\it Parma 2002, proceedings}, IFAE 2002, Parma, Italy, 

1685: April 2002, \hepph{0211013}.

1686: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211013;%%

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{FR02}

1689: S.~Frixione, in {\it Amsterdam 2002, procedings}, ICHEP 2002, Amsterdam, 

1690: The Netherlands, July 2002, \npps{117}{2003}{222}, \hepph{0211434}.

1691: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211434;%%

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{BA02}

1694: A.~Banfi, G.~Marchesini and G.E.~Smye, \jhep{08}{2002}{006}, 

1695: \hepph{0206076}.

1696: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206076;%%

1697: 

1698: \bibitem{DA02}

1699: M.~Dasgupta and G.P.~Salam, \jhep{08}{2002}{032}, \hepph{0208073}.

1700: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208073;%%

1701: 

1702: \bibitem{BE03}

1703: C.F.~Berger, T.~Kucs and G.~Sterman, \hepph{0303051}.

1704: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303051;%%

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{SH79}

1707: M.A.~Shifman, A.I.~Vainshtein and V.I.~Zakharov, \npb{147}{1979}{385}.

1708: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,385;%%

1709: 

1710: \bibitem{GKRT}

1711: E.~Gardi, G.P.~Korchemsky, D.A.~Ross and S.~Tafat, \npb{636}{2002}{385}, 

1712: \hepph{0203161}.

1713: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203161;%%

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{GA02}

1716: E.~Gardi and R.G.~Roberts, \npb{653}{2003}{227}, \hepph{0210429}.

1717: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210429;%%

1718: 

1719: \bibitem{CA02}

1720: M.~Cacciari and E.~Gardi, \hepph{0301047}.

1721: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301047;%%

1722: 

1723: \bibitem{SW}

1724: G.P.~Salam and D.~Wicke, \jhep{05}{2001}{061}, \hepph{0102343}.

1725: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102343;%%

1726: 

1727: \bibitem{BBB}

1728: P.~Ball, M.~Beneke and V.M.~Braun, \npb{452}{1995}{563}, 

1729: \hepph{9502300}.

1730: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9502300;%%

1731: 

1732: \bibitem{BAT}

1733: A. Erd\'elyi {\it et al.}, ``Higher trascendental functions'', Vol. II,

1734: ed. McGraw--Hill, New York 1953.

1735: 

1736: \end{thebibliography}

1737: 

1738: \end{document}

1739: 

1740: