1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{graphicx,amsmath,amssymb,euscript,psfrag,epsf}

3: \usepackage{a4wide}

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

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

6: \setlength{\textheight}{22cm}

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

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

9: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}

10: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}

11: 

12: \def\bm#1{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$\unboldmath}}

13: 

14: 

15: 

16: \newcommand\cmp[3]{Comm.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

17: \newcommand\epjc[3]{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

18: \newcommand\ijmpa[3]{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

19: \newcommand\jhep[3]{J.\ High Ener.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

20: \newcommand\npb[3]{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

21: \newcommand\npps[3]{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

22: \newcommand\plb[3]{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

23: \newcommand\prd[3]{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

24: \newcommand\prep[3]{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

25: \newcommand\prl[3]{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

26: \newcommand\rmp[3]{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

27: \newcommand\sjnp[3]{{Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ }{\bf#1} (#2) #3}

28: \newcommand\yf[3]{{Yad.\ Fiz.\ }{\bf#1} (#2) #3}

29: \newcommand\zpc[3]{Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf #1} (#2) #3}

30: \newcommand{\hepph}[1]{{\tt hep-ph/#1}}

31: \newcommand{\heplat}[1]{{\tt hep-lat/#1}}

32: \newcommand{\hepex}[1]{{\tt hep-ex/#1}}

33: \newcommand{\MS}{$\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$\ }

34: \newcommand{\LMS}{\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}}

35: \newcommand{\LQCD}{\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}

36: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}

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

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

39: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

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

41: \newcommand{\nl}{\nonumber \\}

42: \newcommand{\order}{{\cal O}}

43: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}

44: \newcommand{\sla}[1]{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}{#1}}

45: \newcommand{\ov}[1]{ \overleftarrow{#1} }

46: \newcommand{\hcbar}{\bar{hc}}

47: \newcommand{\scbar}{\bar{sc}}

48: \def\slash#1{#1 \hskip-0.45em /}

49: \def\Slash#1{#1 \hskip-0.59em /}

50: 

51: \def\beq{\begin{eqnarray}}

52: \def\eeq{\end{eqnarray}}

53: \def\vareps{\varepsilon}

54: \def\no{\nonumber}

55: \def\eps{\epsilon}

56: 

57: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

58: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

59: 

60: \def\newabs{\vskip0.2cm\noindent}

61: 

62: \def\np{n_+}

63: \def\nm{n_-}

64: 

65: \newcommand{\SCETI}{\mbox{SCET(hc,c,s)}}

66: \newcommand{\SCETII}{\mbox{SCET(c,s)}}

67: 

68: 

69: \def\nslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}{n}}

70: \def\nbslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}{\bar n}}

71: \def\qslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}{q}}

72: \def\vslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}{v}}

73: \def\zslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}{z}}

74: \def\Aslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.07cm}/}{A}}

75: \def\calAslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.08cm}/}{{\EuScript A}}}

76: \def\epsslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}{\varepsilon}}

77: 

78: \def\nbar{\bar{n}}

79: \def\LQCD{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}

80: \def\A{{\EuScript A}}

81: \def\H{{\EuScript H}}

82: \def\Q{{\EuScript Q}}

83: \def\F{{\EuScript F}}

84: \def\J{{\EuScript J}}

85: \def\X{{\EuScript X}}

86: \def\D{{\EuScript D}}

87: \def\L{{\cal L}}

88: \def\J{{\EuScript J}}

89: \def\W{{\EuScript W}}

90: \def\K{{\EuScript K}}

91: \def\XW{\bar{\xi}W_c}

92: \def\WX{W_c^\dagger\xi}

93: \begin{document}

94: 

95: \begin{titlepage}

96: 

97: \begin{flushright}

98: SI-HEP-2005-07 \\

99: SFB/CPP-05-27 \\

100: {\tt hep-ph/0506269}\\[0.2cm]

101: \today

102: \end{flushright}

103: 

104: \vspace{1.2cm}

105: \begin{center}

106: {\Large\bf  Non-factorizable contributions  to deep inelastic scattering 

107: at large $x$ }

108:  \end{center}

109: 

110: \vspace{0.5cm}

111: \begin{center} { Ben D. Pecjak} \\[0.1cm]

112: { Theoretische Physik 1, Fachbereich Physik,

113: Universit\"at Siegen\\ D-57068 Siegen, Germany}

114: \end{center}

115: 

116: \vspace{0.8cm}

117: \begin{abstract}

118: \vspace{0.2cm}\noindent

119: We use soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) to

120: study the factorization properties of deep inelastic scattering

121: in the region of phase space where 

122: $(1-x)\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$.  By applying a regions analysis to

123: loop diagrams in the Breit frame, we show that the  

124: appropriate version of SCET includes anti-hard-collinear,

125: collinear, and   soft-collinear fields.  We find that

126: the effects of the soft-collinear fields spoil  

127: perturbative factorization even at leading order in the $1/Q$ expansion.

128: 

129: 

130: 

131:          

132: \end{abstract}

133: 

134: 

135: \end{titlepage}

136: 

137: 

138: \section{Introduction}

139: This paper deals with the factorization properties of deep

140: inelastic scattering (DIS) in the region of phase space where

141: $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$, with $Q$  the large 

142: energy carried by the virtual photon.  In this kinematical

143: region the final-state jet carries an 

144: energy of order $Q$, but has a small invariant mass

145: $p_x^2=Q^2(1-x)/x\sim Q\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. 

146: We assume that perturbation theory is valid at both the 

147: hard scale $Q^2$ and the jet scale $Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. 

148: The invariant mass of the target proton defines a third,  

149: non-perturbative scale $M_P^2 \sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$.

150: In similar cases in inclusive $B$ decay it is  possible to

151: derive  factorization formulas which separate the physics

152: from the three scales 

153: $Q^2\gg Q\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\gg\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$ into a

154: convolution of the  generic form \cite{Korchemsky:1994jb}

155: \be\label{eq:fact}

156: H \cdot J \otimes S.

157: \ee

158: The functions $H$ and $J$ are perturbatively calculable

159: hard and jet functions depending on fluctuations at

160: the scales $Q^2$ and $Q\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ respectively, 

161: and $S$ is a non-perturbative function 

162: containing  physics at the low-energy

163: scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$. The symbol $\otimes$ stands

164: for a convolution. Our goal is to use effective field

165: theory methods to establish whether such a

166: factorization formula can be derived for deep inelastic 

167: scattering in the large-$x$ limit.

168: 

169: Recent studies of perturbative factorization in $B$ decay

170: have relied heavily on soft-collinear effective

171: theory (SCET)

172: \cite{Bauer:2000yr, Bauer:2001yt, Beneke:2002ph, Beneke:2002ni}.  

173: These include many applications to 

174: inclusive decay, both at leading order

175: \cite{Bauer:2001yt,Bauer:2003pi, Bosch:2004th}  

176: and including power corrections 

177: \cite{Lee:2004ja,Bosch:2004cb,Beneke:2004in}.

178: For inclusive $B$ decay these proofs are rather

179: straightforward.  Inclusive decay deals

180: with interactions between hard-collinear particles fluctuating

181: at the jet scale $m_b\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ 

182: with soft particles fluctuating at the non-perturbative scale

183: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$.  The leading-order 

184: Lagrangian interactions between soft and 

185: hard-collinear particles can be 

186: decoupled by field redefinitions involving

187: Wilson lines \cite{Bauer:2001yt}.  

188: After integrating out hard fluctuations in a first 

189: step of matching, 

190: the factorization of the SCET matrix elements into a convolution

191: of jet and soft functions 

192: is  more or less a natural consequence of this

193: decoupling  at the level of the Lagrangian.

194: 

195: Applications of SCET to exclusive decay are

196: considerably more complicated 

197: \cite{Hill:2002vw, Bauer:2002aj,

198: Beneke:2003pa, Lange:2003pk}.

199: Exclusive processes typically involve both soft and

200: collinear particles fluctuating 

201: at the scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$, in

202: addition to hard-collinear fluctuations

203: which are integrated out in the first step

204: of a two-step matching procedure. It has been argued that a  

205: low-energy theory of soft and collinear 

206: particles  contains a third mode, referred

207: to as soft-collinear \cite{Becher:2003qh}. This follows from

208: an analysis of loop diagrams with soft and collinear external

209: lines by the method of regions \cite{Beneke:1997zp}.

210: This soft-collinear ``messenger mode'' has the special property that

211: it can interact with both soft and collinear particles

212: without taking them far off shell. These modes introduce an 

213: additional, highly non-perturbative soft-collinear scale 

214: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/Q$.

215: To prove  factorization formulas of the type in 

216: (\ref{eq:fact}), one must show that the effects

217: of this fourth scale are irrelevant to the low-energy

218: matrix elements defining the soft functions $S$.  

219: This has been emphasized in  

220: \cite{Lange:2003pk, Becher:2003kh, Becher:2005fg}.

221: In $B$ decay the soft-collinear scale is

222: relevant at the endpoints of  convolution integrals

223: linking non-perturbative 

224: soft and collinear functions, so the soft-collinear field has 

225: often been associated with endpoint divergences

226: in these integrals \cite{Lange:2003pk}.

227: 

228: 

229: In this paper we show that the soft-collinear mode is 

230: relevant to an analysis of DIS at large $x$. 

231: Near the endpoint, DIS involves the three widely separated

232: scales $Q^2\gg (1-x)Q^2 \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$.  Our main

233: finding is that we cannot correlate the two small scales by the

234: definition $\lambda^2 \sim (1-x)\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$ without

235: introducing a fourth scale, $ \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/Q

236: \sim Q^2 \lambda^6$.  

237: The appearance of this fourth scale is associated with

238: the soft-collinear mode. For values of $x$ satisfying

239: $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$,  the 

240: low-energy matrix element defining 

241: the parton distribution function 

242: involves fluctuations at both the collinear and soft-collinear

243: scales. An attempt to use effective field theory methods to prove

244: a factorization formula such as (\ref{eq:fact}) leads instead

245: to an expression 

246: \be\label{eq:nonfact}

247: H\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right) 

248: J\left(\frac{Q^2(1-x)}{\mu^2}, \frac{Q \omega_{sc}}{\mu^2} \right)\otimes

249: f\left( \frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2}{\mu^2}, 

250: \frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2 \omega_{sc}}{Q \mu^2}\right),

251: \ee 

252: where $\omega_{sc}\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is a convolution variable.

253: Since the parton distribution function $f$ contains a non-perturbative

254: dependence on the large energy $Q$, factorization is spoiled. 

255: 

256: The organization of this paper is as follows.  In Section

257: \ref{sec:regions} we define our power counting and identify

258: the relevant SCET fields by applying the method of regions

259: to a representative loop diagram.  Section \ref{sec:SCET}

260: deals with matching the QCD Lagrangian and electromagnetic

261: current onto a version of SCET which accounts for 

262: these momentum regions.  In Section \ref{sec:tree} we show

263: with a tree-level example that the parton distribution function 

264: is sensitive to soft-collinear effects,

265: and discuss this further in  Section \ref{sec:oneloop} 

266: with a  one-loop calculation.  In

267: Section \ref{sec:sc} we summarize the implications of the 

268: soft-collinear mode on factorization.

269: We compare our results with previous work in

270: Section \ref{sec:comparison} and conclude in Section

271: \ref{sec:conclusions}.

272:  

273: 

274: 

275: 

276: 

277: 

278: 

279: 

280: \section{Power counting and momentum regions}

281: \label{sec:regions}

282: 

283: Deep inelastic scattering involves

284: the scattering of an energetic virtual photon with a large

285: invariant mass $q^2=-Q^2$ 

286: off a  proton with momentum $P$ to form 

287: a hadronic jet carrying momentum $p_x$ and 

288: an invariant mass  $p_x^2= Q^2 (1-x)/x$, where 

289: \be

290: x=-\frac{q^2}{2 P \cdot q}=\frac{Q^2}{2 P\cdot q}.

291: \ee

292: We are interested in the region of phase space  

293: where the hadronic jet carries a 

294: large energy of order $Q$, but has a small invariant mass on the

295: order of the jet scale $Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. More precisely,

296: we work in the kinematic region  where

297: $p_x^2\sim Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD} \sim Q^2 (1-x)$.  

298: This  correlates 

299: the two small scales $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$. 

300: We make this explicit in the effective theory by introducing

301: an expansion parameter $\lambda^2\sim(1-x)\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$.

302: We then calculate the cross section as a double series in the

303: perturbative coupling constant and $\lambda$.  

304: In terms of $\lambda$ the 

305: invariants $P \cdot p_x\sim Q^2,\, p_x^2\sim Q^2 \lambda^2,$

306: and $P^2 \sim Q^2 \lambda^4$ define three widely separated

307: scales $Q^2 \gg Q^2\lambda^2 \gg Q^2\lambda^4$. 

308: In this paper we investigate  

309: whether we can derive a factorization formula which separates

310: the physics from these scales.

311:      

312: Our analysis relies on soft-collinear effective theory.

313: Unlike in applications of SCET to $B$ decay, there is no natural

314: Lorentz frame in which to describe the scattering process.

315: We find the Breit frame most convenient for what follows. 

316: In terms of two light-like vectors 

317: $n_{\pm}$ satisfying $\np\nm=2$, the  components

318: of the photon momentum $q^\mu$ in the Breit frame are given by

319: $(\np q, q_\perp,\nm q)=(-Q,0,Q)$.  If the 

320: proton momentum is  $P = (Q/x,0,M_p^2 x/Q)$,

321: then at leading order in $\lambda$ the jet momentum $p_x=q+P$ is given by 

322: $p_x=(Q(1-x)/x,0,Q)$ and satisfies $p_x^2=Q^2 (1-x)/x$.

323: We will refer to momenta with the scaling 

324: $p_c\sim Q(1,\lambda^2,\lambda^4)$

325: as collinear, and momenta with the scaling 

326: $p_{\hcbar}\sim Q(\lambda^2, \lambda, 1)$

327: as anti-hard-collinear.  With this terminology,

328: the proton momentum is collinear and the final-state

329: jet momentum is anti-hard-collinear.

330: Above and in the rest of the paper we work in

331: the reference frame where the transverse components

332: of the external momenta vanish. 

333: 

334: To construct the effective theory we must first identify

335: the momentum regions that produce on-shell

336: singularities in loop diagrams.  

337: SCET fields are then introduced to reproduce the 

338: effects of these momentum regions.  The relevant momentum 

339: regions depend on the choice of $x$.  In the kinematical 

340: regime where $1-x\sim\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$, 

341: we find that we must consider

342: hard, anti-hard-collinear, collinear, and 

343: soft-collinear regions.  

344: 

345: The appearance of soft-collinear instead of soft modes will have

346: important consequences in our analysis.  Before we begin, it is

347: useful to explain their origin in simple terms. 

348: For the final-state jet to be anti-hard-collinear

349: requires that  $\np P+ \np q=\np p_x \sim Q \lambda^2$.  This is possible

350: only if $\np P =-\np q + \omega$, where $\omega$ is 

351: a residual momentum scaling as $\omega\sim Q\lambda^2$ and

352: $-\np q=Q$ is a large kinematic piece. 

353: This is similar to HQET, where

354: the $b$-quark momentum is $m_b v +k_s$, with $k_s$ a

355: soft residual momentum  $k_s\sim m_b(\lambda^2,\lambda^2,\lambda^2)$

356: and $m_b v$ a large kinematic piece.

357: For a collinear particle, however, the residual momentum

358: cannot be soft because $\nm k_s\sim Q\lambda^2$,

359: while for a collinear momentum  $\nm p_c \sim Q\lambda^4$. 

360: The simplest possibility is that the residual momentum 

361: scales as $Q(\lambda^2,\lambda^3,\lambda^4)$,

362: a scaling to which we will refer as soft-collinear. We 

363: will show below that this is indeed the scaling which is relevant

364: in loop diagrams.  This leads us to interpret the soft-collinear

365: mode as the residual momentum of a collinear field.   

366:   

367: We will now make these  observations more rigorous

368: by analyzing a loop diagram using

369: the method of regions \cite{Beneke:1997zp}, 

370: similarly to \cite{Becher:2003qh}.

371: As a simplification, we begin with the scalar version of

372: the triangle diagram shown in

373: Figure \ref{fig:scalar}. This allows us

374: to identify the relevant momentum regions without complications related

375: to Dirac algebra. The external lines carry a collinear momentum

376: $p_p$ and an  anti-hard-collinear momentum $p_x=p_p+q$.

377: We set all masses to zero, and regularize  

378: IR divergences by keeping the external lines off shell

379: by an amount $p_x^2\sim  Q^2 \lambda^2$ and 

380: $p_p^2\sim P^2\sim  Q^2 \lambda^4$. 

381: The integral in the full theory is given by  

382: \bea\label{eq:fullintegral}

383: I& =& \int [dL]\frac{1}{(L+p_x)^2}\frac{1}{(L+p_p)^2}\frac{1}{L^2} \nl

384: &=&\frac{1}{Q^2}\left[\ln\frac{-p_x^2}{Q^2}\ln\frac{-p_p^2}{Q^2}

385: +\frac{\pi^2}{3}\right],

386: \eea

387: where we have defined the measure as 

388: \be

389: [dL]=i 16 \pi^2 \left(\frac{\mu^2 e^{\gamma_E}}{4\pi}\right)^\eps 

390: \frac{d^d L}{(2\pi)^d},

391: \ee

392: and expanded the  result to leading order

393: in $\lambda$. At leading order $Q^2= \np p_p \nm p_x$.

394: 

395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

396: \begin{figure}[t]

397: \begin{tabular}{c}

398: \hspace{4cm}\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{striangle.ps} 

399: \end{tabular}

400: \caption{\label{fig:scalar}The triangle diagram. The momentum

401: $p_p$ is collinear and the momentum $p_x$ is anti-hard-collinear.}

402: \end{figure}

403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

404: 

405: 

406: 

407: We seek to reproduce this result by the method of regions.

408: This strategy splits the loop integration into contributions

409: from momentum regions according to the scaling of their light-cone

410: components with $\lambda$.  The integrand is expanded as

411: appropriate for the particular momentum region before 

412: evaluating the integral. 

413: Once all relevant regions are identified, their sum reproduces

414: the full theory result. We start with the hard region, 

415: where the loop momentum scales as $L\sim Q(1,1,1).$ 

416: The expanded

417: integral is

418: \bea

419: I_h &=&\int [dL]\frac{1}{(L^2 + \nm p_x \np L)}

420: \frac{1}{(L^2 + \np p_p \nm L)}

421: \frac{1}{L^2}\nonumber \\

422: &=& \frac{1}{Q^2}\left[\frac{1}{\eps ^2}-

423: \frac{1}{\eps}\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}+

424: \frac{1}{2}\ln^2\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{12}\right].

425: \eea 

426: We have regularized additional divergences with dimensional

427: regularization in $d=4-2 \eps$ dimensions.

428: 

429: The integral $I_h$ contains logarithms depending on the hard scale

430: $Q^2$. This is a generic feature: 

431: the result for a given region always involves logarithms 

432: at that momentum scale. For this reason 

433: we need to consider the anti-hard-collinear and collinear

434: regions, since these integrals can depend on $p_x^2$

435: and $p_p^2$.

436: For the anti-hard-collinear region, where  the 

437: loop momentum scales as $L\sim Q(\lambda^2,\lambda,1)$,

438: we find 

439: \bea

440: I_{\hcbar}&=&\int [dL]\frac{1}{(L+p_x)^2}

441: \frac{1}{(\nm L \np p_p)}\frac{1}{L^2} \nonumber \\ 

442: &=& \frac{1}{Q^2}\left[-\frac{1}{\eps ^2}+

443: \frac{1}{\eps}\ln\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}-

444: \frac{1}{2}\ln^2\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}+\frac{\pi^2}{12}\right].

445: \eea 

446: For the collinear region, where 

447: $L\sim Q (1,\lambda^2,\lambda^4)$, we have

448: \bea

449: I_{c}&=& \int[dL]\frac{1}{(\np L \nm p_x)}

450: \frac{1}{(L+p_p)^2}\frac{1}{L^2}\nonumber \\

451: &=& \frac{1}{Q^2}\left[-\frac{1}{\eps ^2}+

452: \frac{1}{\eps}\ln\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}-

453: \frac{1}{2}\ln^2\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}+\frac{\pi^2}{12}\right].

454: \eea 

455: Taking the sum of the regions considered so far does not

456: reproduce the result for the full integral  

457: (\ref{eq:fullintegral}). It is easy to check that

458: $I-I_h-I_{\hcbar}-I_c$ contains logarithms depending

459: on $p_x^2 p_p^2/Q^2\sim Q^2 \lambda^6$.  This is taken

460: into account by including the soft-collinear region, where 

461: $L\sim Q(\lambda^2,\lambda^3,\lambda^4)$.  This region

462: gives

463: \bea\label{eq:SCscalar}

464: I_{sc}&=& \int[dL]\frac{1}{(\np L \nm p_x + p_x^2)}

465: \frac{1}{(\nm L \np p_p +p_p^2 )}\frac{1}{L^2} \nonumber \\

466: &=& \frac{1}{Q^2}\left[\frac{1}{\eps ^2}+

467: \frac{1}{\eps}\ln\frac{Q^2\mu^2}{p_x^2 p_p^2}+

468: \frac{1}{2}\ln^2\left(\frac{p_x^2p_p^2}{Q^2\mu^2}\right)

469: +\frac{\pi^2}{4}\right].

470: \eea

471: Adding $I_h+I_{\bar{hc}}+I_c+I_{sc}$, 

472: we see that the poles cancel, and that we recover the 

473: result for the full integral given in (\ref{eq:fullintegral}).

474: We will  construct a version of SCET which 

475: accounts for these momentum regions in the next section.

476: 

477: Note that the soft and hard-collinear regions  are 

478: needed in applications of SCET to $B$ decay, but are

479: not needed here.     

480: The soft region, where $L\sim Q(\lambda^2,\lambda^2,\lambda^2)$,

481: is irrelevant because

482: \bea\label{eq:Is}

483: I_s &=& \int[dL]\frac{1}{(\np L \nm p_x + p_x^2)}

484: \frac{1}{(\nm L \np p_p)}\frac{1}{L^2} \nl

485:  &=& \frac{1}{Q^2}\int[dL]\frac{1}{(\np L  + \np p_x)}

486: \frac{1}{(\nm L)}\frac{1}{L^2}=0.

487: \eea

488: To derive the second line we used 

489: $p_x^2=\np p_x \nm p_x$ (recall $p_{x_\perp}=0$), and 

490: then that scaleless integrals vanish in dimensional 

491: regularization. The hard-collinear integrand,

492: where $L\sim Q(1,\lambda, \lambda^2)$, is also scaleless and 

493: vanishes. 

494: 

495: While it may be possible to eliminate the soft-collinear

496: scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/Q$ by introducing an

497: IR regulator to cut off momentum regions with 

498: virtuality smaller than the QCD scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$,

499: we find it more convenient to keep the collinear 

500: quarks off shell by an amount $p_p^2\sim P^2$ 

501: and use dimensional regularization.  

502: In our end analysis we will adopt the philosophy

503: of  \cite{Becher:2003kh, Becher:2005fg}, and 

504: interpret any sensitivity of low-energy matrix 

505: elements to the soft-collinear 

506: mode as a breakdown of factorization.

507: 

508: We should emphasize that all results are frame

509: independent. It is also possible to carry out 

510: the analysis in the target rest frame, where the proton

511: momentum is soft.  We can identify the scaling of the light-cone

512: components of the momentum regions in the rest frame 

513: by performing a Lorentz boost to this frame,

514: which amounts to rescaling $n_{\pm}$. 

515: The components of a generic momentum change

516: according to $(\np p, p_\perp ,\nm p)\to (\np p \lambda^2,

517: p_\perp, \nm p \lambda^{-2})$.  The correspondence between

518: the two frames is given by

519: 

520: \begin{center}

521: \begin{tabular}{lllll}

522:  &&&\\ & &   Breit Frame &   & Rest Frame  \\

523:  &hard & $Q(1,1,1)$ & \hspace{.5cm}  

524: $\leftrightarrow$ \hspace{.5cm} 

525: & $Q(\lambda^2,1,\frac{1}{\lambda^2})$ \\

526: &anti-hard-collinear & $Q(\lambda^2,\lambda,1)$&  

527: \hspace{.5cm}  

528: $\leftrightarrow$ \hspace{.5cm} & 

529: $Q(\lambda^4,\lambda,\frac{1}{\lambda^2})$\\

530: &collinear & $Q(1,\lambda^2,\lambda^4)$ &  \hspace{.5cm}  

531: $\leftrightarrow$ \hspace{.5cm} & 

532: $Q(\lambda^2,\lambda^2,\lambda^2)$ \\

533: & soft-collinear  & $Q(\lambda^2,\lambda^3,\lambda^4)$ 

534: & \hspace{.5cm}  

535: $\leftrightarrow$ \hspace{.5cm} & 

536: $Q(\lambda^4,\lambda^3,\lambda^2)$\\

537:  & & &

538: \end{tabular}

539: \end{center}

540: Although the individual light-cone components of the momentum 

541: regions scale differently in the two frames,

542: the number of regions is the same.  

543: Moreover, the result for each region depends on invariants at that

544: scale and is therefore frame independent.  

545: This can be seen from the explicit results, or by noticing

546: that each integrand is invariant under the simultaneous 

547: rescalings of $n_{\pm}$ shown above.  In the effective theory this 

548: is referred to as reparameterization invariance (RPI) 

549: \cite{Manohar:2002fd, Chay:2002vy}.    

550: 

551: 

552: \section{Matching onto SCET}\label{sec:SCET}

553: This section deals with matching the QCD Lagrangian and 

554: electromagnetic current onto SCET.  Our eventual goal is to examine the 

555: factorization properties of 

556: the hadronic tensor using effective field theory methods.

557: In inclusive processes all QCD effects are contained

558: in the hadronic tensor, which is given by the spin-averaged

559: matrix element between proton states

560: \be\label{eq:htensor}

561: W^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}\langle P|T^{\mu\nu}|P\rangle,

562: \ee

563: where the current correlator $T^{\mu\nu}$ is defined through 

564: the time-ordered product

565: \be\label{eq:correlator}

566: T^{\mu\nu}= i\int d^4 z e^{iq z}{\rm T}

567: \left\{J^{\mu\dagger}(z)J^\nu(0)\right\}.

568: \ee

569: Here $J^\mu$ is the electromagnetic current, and $q$ is the 

570: momentum of the incoming photon.  

571: We will evaluate the correlator in effective field

572: theory by separating the contributions from the momentum

573: regions identified in the previous section, namely

574: \begin{center}

575: \begin{tabular}{ll}

576: hard & \hspace{.5cm} $Q(1,1,1)$ \\

577: anti-hard-collinear & \hspace{.5cm} $Q(\lambda^2,\lambda,1)$ \\

578: collinear &\hspace{.5cm} $Q(1,\lambda^2,\lambda^4)$ \\

579: soft-collinear & \hspace{.5cm} $Q(\lambda^2,\lambda^3,\lambda^4)$

580: \end{tabular}

581: \end{center}

582: We calculate the hadronic tensor using a two-step matching

583: procedure familiar from applications of SCET to inclusive $B$ decay

584: in the shape-function region \cite{Bauer:2001yt, Bauer:2003pi, Bosch:2004th}. 

585: In the first step, we  match the QCD Lagrangian and electromagnetic

586: current onto SCET by integrating out fluctuations 

587: at the hard scale $Q^2$ and introducing effective theory

588: fields for the regions $p_{\bar {hc}},\,p_c,p_{sc}$.

589: The Lagrangian can be derived exactly, and

590: will be discussed in the next sub-section.  The current, on the

591: other hand, receives corrections from fluctuations at the hard

592: scale.  These corrections can be absorbed into a hard Wilson

593: coefficient, which we will calculate at one loop

594: in Section \ref{sec:currents}.

595: In a second step of matching we evaluate the hadronic tensor

596: (\ref{eq:htensor}) using the SCET Lagrangian

597: and current.  In this step

598: of matching we integrate out fluctuations at the hard-collinear

599: scale $Q\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and match onto the parton 

600: distribution function.  We discuss

601: this at tree level in Section \ref{sec:tree} and at 

602: one loop in Section \ref{sec:oneloop}.

603: 

604: \subsection{SCET Lagrangian}\label{sec:lagrangians}

605: The QCD Lagrangian for light quarks contains no hard scale and the 

606: SCET Lagrangian can be derived exactly \cite{Beneke:2002ph}.  

607: For the case at hand, we have 

608: \be

609: {\cal L}_{\rm QCD}\to {\cal L}_{c+sc} + {\cal L}_{\hcbar +sc} +{\cal L}_{sc} +{\cal L}_{YM},

610: \ee

611: where ${\cal L}_{c+sc}$ contains the collinear Lagrangian as well

612: as interactions with the soft-collinear gluon field, and

613: analogously for ${\cal L}_{\hcbar + sc}$. There

614: is no interaction term ${\cal L}_{c+\hcbar}$ for processes

615: where the initial and final states contain only one type of

616: collinear field \cite{Becher:2005fg}. The soft-collinear

617: Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{sc}$ can be found in \cite{Becher:2003qh},

618: and the Yang-Mills Lagrangian for each sector is the same

619: as in QCD.

620: 

621: The Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{c+sc}$

622: can be derived using the methods of

623: \cite{Beneke:2002ph, Beneke:2002ni}, as was done in 

624: \cite{Becher:2003qh}.   

625: The result for the leading-order Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{c+sc}$

626: is

627: \bea\label{eq:Lssc}

628: {\cal L}_{c+sc}= \bar \xi_c\left(i\nm D_{c+sc}+(i\Slash{D}_{c_\perp }-m_q)

629: \frac{1}{i\np D_c}(i\Slash{D}_{c_\perp }+m_q) \right)

630: \frac{\slash{n}_+}{2}\xi_c,

631: \eea

632: where $i D_{c+sc}^\mu=i\partial^\mu + g A_c^\mu +g A_{sc}^\mu$.

633: In interactions between collinear and 

634: soft-collinear fields the soft-collinear fields

635: are multipole expanded and depend  on $z_-^\mu=(\np z)\nm^\mu/2$.

636: We have omitted a pure glue interaction term, which will not be

637: needed here.

638: We can derive the Lagrangian  ${\cal L}_{\hcbar+sc}$

639: by making the replacements $\nm \leftrightarrow \np$

640: and $\phi_c\to \phi_{\hcbar}$ in the expressions above. 

641: The result is 

642: \bea\label{eq:Lhcbarsc}

643: {\cal L}_{\hcbar+sc}= \bar \xi_{\hcbar}

644: \left(i\np D_{\hcbar+sc}+i\Slash{D}_{\hcbar_\perp}

645: \frac{1}{i\nm D_{\hcbar}}i\Slash{D}_{ \hcbar_\perp } \right)

646: \frac{\slash{n}_-}{2}\xi_{\hcbar}.

647: \eea 

648: We have again omitted a pure glue interaction term. 

649: In interactions between anti-hard-collinear and soft-collinear fields

650: the soft-collinear fields must be multipole expanded and depend only on

651: $z_+^\mu=(\nm z)\np^\mu/2$.

652: 

653: We have included a collinear quark mass  

654: $m_q\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}\sim Q\lambda^2$ in the leading-order

655: Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{c+sc}$ above. 

656: We are free to include such a mass without changing

657: the regions analysis. In fact, keeping the collinear momentum 

658: off shell by an amount $p_p^2\sim Q^2\lambda^4$ 

659: effectively gave such a scale to the collinear line, adding an 

660: actual mass just changes $p_p^2\to p_p^2-m_q^2$ in the collinear

661: propagator.  This does not eliminate soft-collinear effects.  We

662: checked this claim by modifying the scalar triangle integral

663: to include a mass $m_q\sim Q\lambda^2$ 

664: for the collinear line and confirmed

665: that, at least to one loop, the regions analysis 

666: is unchanged.  We have no proof that the regions 

667: analysis is unchanged beyond one loop, and in the following

668: calculations we will always set $m_q=0$ for simplicity. 

669: 

670: A property of the Lagrangians crucial for 

671: factorization proofs is that the 

672: soft-collinear fields can be decoupled from 

673: the anti-hard-collinear

674: and collinear fields through field redefinitions involving Wilson 

675: lines \cite{Becher:2003qh}. We introduce the Wilson lines

676: \bea

677: S_{sc}(z)&=&{\rm P\, exp}\left(ig\int_{-\infty}^0 

678: ds\,\nm A_{sc}(z+s\nm)\right)\\

679: S_{\scbar}(z)&=&{\rm P\, exp}\left(ig\int_{-\infty}^0 

680: ds\,\np A_{sc}(z+s\np)\right)

681: \eea

682: along with similar objects $W_c$ and $W_{\hcbar}$, 

683: where the soft-collinear fields are replaced by 

684: collinear or anti-hard-collinear fields, and 

685: $\np \leftrightarrow \nm$. 

686: After making the field redefinitions

687: \bea\label{eq:decoupling}

688: \xi_c&=& S_{sc}\xi^{(0)}_c,\quad A_c= S_{sc}A_c^{(0)}S_{sc}^\dagger,

689: \quad W_c= S_{sc}W_c^{(0)} S_{sc}^\dagger, \\

690: \xi_{\hcbar}&=& S_{\scbar}\xi_{\hcbar}^{(0)},\quad 

691: A_{\hcbar}= S_{\scbar}A_{\hcbar}^{(0)}S_{\scbar}^\dagger,

692: \quad W_{\hcbar}= S_{\scbar}W_{\hcbar}^{(0)} S_{\scbar}^\dagger,

693: \nonumber

694: \eea

695: the fields with the superscript $0$ no longer interact with

696: the soft-collinear fields.  This factorization of soft-collinear

697: fields at the level of the Lagrangians does not 

698: guarantee the factorization of the current correlator 

699: (\ref{eq:correlator}), however,

700: because the effects may reappear in time-ordered products

701: with the external currents \cite{Becher:2003kh}.  

702: 

703: 

704: \subsection{SCET  current at one loop}

705: \label{sec:currents}

706: Having obtained the relevant SCET Lagrangian, we now 

707: consider the one-loop matching of 

708: the electromagnetic current onto its effective

709: field theory expression.  This was done previously in

710: \cite{manohar} and we agree with the results obtained there.

711: We will repeat the calculation to show how logarithms 

712: related to the soft-collinear mode are essential to the

713: analysis. 

714: 

715: At leading order the matching of the electromagnetic current

716: onto SCET takes the form

717: \be\label{eq:falsch}

718: \bar \psi_c(z)\gamma^\mu \psi_{\hcbar}(z)\to 

719: \int  d s  d t \, \tilde C( s, t, \mu)

720: (\bar\xi_c W_c)(z+s\np)

721: \gamma^\mu (W_{\hcbar}^\dagger \xi_{\hcbar})(z+t\nm).

722: \ee

723: As in \cite{manohar}, we consider a single quark flavor

724: with unit charge.  The convolution arises because $\np p_c$ 

725: and $\nm p_{\hcbar}$ are on the

726: order of the hard scale, so the operator can 

727: be non-local by an amount $1/Q$ in these directions.  

728: Setting $z$ to zero and using translational invariance, the

729: current can be written as 

730: \be

731: C(\np P_c \,\nm P_{\hcbar},\mu)(\bar\xi_c W_c)(0)

732: \gamma^\mu (W_{\hcbar}^\dagger \xi_{\hcbar})(0),

733: \ee

734: where the Fourier-transformed coefficient function is

735: \be

736: C(\np P_c\,\nm P_{\hcbar} ,\mu)=\int ds dt \, 

737: \tilde C( s, t)e^{i(s\np P_c- t\nm P_{\hcbar})},

738: \ee

739: and  $P_{c,\hcbar}$ are momentum operators. In our case

740: these are both $Q$  so we have $C(Q^2,\mu)$.   

741: 

742: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

743: \begin{figure}[t]

744: %   \vspace{-3.5cm}

745: %   \epsfysize=10cm

746: \begin{tabular}{c}

747: \hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Vertex.ps} 

748: \end{tabular}

749: \caption{\label{fig:SCETcurrent}One-loop corrections to the SCET current.  

750: The long-dashed lines are collinear and the short-dashed lines

751: anti-hard-collinear. The gluon scaling is indicated explicitly.}

752: \end{figure}

753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

754: 

755: To calculate the one-loop matching conditions we take 

756: the difference of the  QCD result from

757: that evaluated in SCET. The QCD graph is the same as in

758: Figure \ref{fig:scalar} but evaluated with the Feynman 

759: rules of QCD. We find it useful to break up the QCD result into 

760: contributions from each momentum region, as we 

761: did with the scalar triangle. The matching conditions

762: are related only to the hard region. For the QCD result

763: we find

764: \bea

765: I_{\rm QCD}&=&\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi}\gamma^\mu\left[\frac{1}{\eps_{\rm UV}}

766: -\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}-2\ln\frac{-p_p^2}{Q^2}\ln\frac{-p_x^2}{Q^2}-

767: 2\ln\frac{-p_p^2}{Q^2}-2\ln\frac{-p_x^2}{Q^2}-\frac{2\pi^2}{3}\right]\nl

768: &=&I_h + I_{\hcbar}+ I_c + I_{sc},

769: \eea

770: where   

771: \bea

772: I_h&=& \frac{C_F \alpha_s }{4\pi}\gamma^\mu

773: \left[-\frac{2}{\eps^2} +

774: \frac{2}{\eps}\left(\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}-2\right)

775: +\frac{1}{\eps_{\rm UV}} - \ln^2 \frac{Q^2}{\mu^2} +

776: 3\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}

777: +\frac{\pi^2}{6} -8 \right],

778: \label{eq:QCDhard}\\

779: I_{\hcbar}&=& \frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi} \gamma^\mu

780: \left[\frac{2}{\eps^2}-\frac{2}{\eps}\left(

781: \ln\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}-1\right)+\ln^2\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}- 

782: 2\ln\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+4\right],

783: \label{eq:QCDhcbar} \\

784: I_c&=& \frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi} \gamma^\mu

785: \left[\frac{2}{\eps^2}-\frac{2}{\eps}\left(

786: \ln\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}-1\right)+\ln^2\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}- 

787: 2\ln\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+4\right],

788: \label{eq:QCDc}\\

789: I_{sc}&=& \frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi} \gamma^\mu

790: \left[-\frac{2}{\eps^2}+\frac{2}{\eps}\ln\frac{p_x^2 p_p^2}{Q^2\mu^2}

791: -\ln^2\frac{p_x^2 p_p^2}{Q^2\mu^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{2}\right]

792: \label{eq:QCDsc}.

793: \eea

794: We have expanded all  results to leading order 

795: in $\lambda$, and used that $Q^2=\np p_p \nm p_x$ at 

796: this order. 

797: We must supplement these graphs with the wave-function

798: renormalization for off-shell quarks, which gives 

799: a contribution 

800: \be\label{eq:wave}

801: I_w=\frac12\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi} \gamma^\mu

802: \left[-\frac{1}{\eps_{\rm UV}}-1+ \ln \frac{-p_i^2}{\mu^2}\right]

803: \ee 

804: for each external quark line.

805: The UV poles cancel in the sum $I_h + I_w$, as required by

806: current conservation. 

807: 

808: 

809: The next step is to evaluate the

810: SCET diagrams in Figure \ref{fig:SCETcurrent}.

811: Evaluating the graphs in the figure using

812: the Feynman rules of SCET  reproduces the result for the 

813: QCD regions calculation.  By this we mean that Figure 2(a)

814: evaluates to $I_{sc}$, Figure 2(b) to $I_{\hcbar}$,

815: and Figure 2(c) to $I_c$.  This just confirms that

816: we have constructed the effective theory correctly. 

817: The wave-function graphs in the effective theory are the

818: same as  (\ref{eq:wave}) \cite{Bauer:2000ew}.

819: 

820: The difference

821: between the two theories is that the hard integral $I_h$ is absent in

822: SCET. Its finite part is taken into account by

823: a hard matching coefficient, and its infinite part is reproduced

824: by a renormalization factor $Z_J$ applied to the bare current. 

825: Including the tree-level contribution, the 

826: matching coefficient is therefore 

827: \be

828: C(Q^2,\mu)=1+\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi}\left[-\ln^2\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}

829: +3\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}+\frac{\pi^2}{6}-8\right],

830: \ee

831: and the renormalization factor is 

832: \be\label{eq:ZJ}

833: Z_J=1+\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi}\left[-\frac{2}{\eps^2}-\frac{3}{\eps}+

834: \frac{2}{\eps}\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right].

835: \ee

836: The hard coefficient $C(Q^2,\mu)$ and the renormalization factor

837: $Z_J$ depend on the hard scale  $Q^2$. 

838: For the infinite counter terms,

839: this is possible only after a cancellation between logarithms that

840: occurs when adding the anti-hard-collinear, collinear, and

841: soft-collinear graphs. That logarithms of UV origin related to the

842: soft-collinear field are needed to ensure that the renormalization

843: factor $Z_J$ depends only on the hard scale $Q^2$ was first 

844: noted in \cite{Becher:2003kh}, in a slightly different context.

845: On the other hand, no such cancellation occurs for the finite 

846: terms, where the sum of the anti-hard-collinear, collinear, and soft

847: collinear graphs still contains logarithms at each scale.

848: We will see in Sections \ref{sec:oneloop} and \ref{sec:sc} 

849: that the matrix element 

850: of the current correlator shares this property, and that the

851: logarithms related to the soft-collinear scale 

852: cause problems for factorization.

853: 

854: 

855: 

856: 

857: \section{Matching onto parton distributions at tree level}

858: \label{sec:tree}

859: Matching onto the intermediate theory has absorbed the effects

860: of hard fluctuations into a short-distance Wilson coefficient. This leaves

861: the three widely separated scales 

862: $Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}\gg  \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2 \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/Q$.

863: We now examine the factorization properties of the hadronic tensor 

864: (\ref{eq:htensor}). To achieve a perturbative 

865: factorization of the form (\ref{eq:fact}), we would

866: need to show that the soft-collinear scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/Q$

867: is irrelevant.  We could then perform a second and final step

868: of matching at the scale $Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, and 

869: identify the associated matching 

870: coefficient with the jet function $J$. The low-energy matrix

871: element would define a parton distribution function $f$ 

872: characterized by fluctuations at the collinear scale 

873: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$ only, which would be linked to $J$ 

874: in a convolution integral. The purpose of this section is 

875: to demonstrate with a tree-level example that this 

876: is impossible, by showing that soft-collinear effects

877: do not decouple from the low-energy matrix element.  

878: In fact, the jet function is linked to the parton distribution

879: function by a convolution variable related to  

880: the soft-collinear scale.  We will argue that 

881: a full separation of scales would require integrating

882: out the collinear scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$ in 

883: a third step of matching, which however cannot be 

884: done perturbatively.

885: 

886: At leading order, the current correlator (\ref{eq:correlator})

887: is given by the time-ordered product 

888: \be

889: T^{\mu\nu}=i\int d^4 z e^{iq\cdot z}

890: {\rm T}\bigg\{\bar\chi_c(z)\gamma^\mu

891:  \chi_{\hcbar}(z)\bar\chi_{\hcbar}(0)

892: \gamma^\nu \chi_c(0)\bigg\},

893: \ee  

894: where we have defined the fields

895: \be

896: \chi_c\equiv W_c^\dagger\xi_c,\qquad 

897:  \chi_{\hcbar}\equiv W_{\hcbar}^\dagger\xi_{\hcbar},

898: \ee

899: which are manifestly gauge invariant under anti-hard-collinear 

900: and collinear gauge transformations.  At tree level

901: and to lowest order in $g$ the hard Wilson coefficient $C(Q^2,\mu)$ 

902: and the Wilson lines $W$ are unity.

903: We perform a second step of matching by integrating out 

904: the anti-hard-collinear fields. 

905: This is done at the scale $Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, which we treat 

906: as perturbative.  To do this at tree level, we first

907: perform the decoupling redefinition (\ref{eq:decoupling})

908: on the anti-hard-collinear fields (and 

909: immediately drop the superscript (0)), and then contract

910: the anti-hard-collinear fields into a propagator. This is represented

911: by the Feynman diagram in Figure \ref{fig:tree}(a).

912: The anti-hard-collinear propagator is

913: given in momentum space by

914: \be

915: \langle 0|\xi_{\hcbar}(z)_{a\alpha}

916: \bar\xi_{\hcbar}(0)_{b\beta}|0\rangle=

917: \int \frac{d^4 L}{(2\pi)^4}e^{-iL z}\frac{i\nm L}{L^2 + i 0}

918: \left(\frac{\slash{n}_+}{2}\right)_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{ab}.

919: \ee

920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

921: \begin{figure}[t]

922: %   \vspace{-3.5cm}

923: %   \epsfysize=10cm

924: \begin{tabular}{c}

925: \hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{treelevel.ps} 

926: \end{tabular}

927: \caption{

928: Tree-level contribution to the current correlator in SCET,

929: evaluated in terms of collinear fields $\xi_c$ (a),

930: and soft-collinear fields $\xi_{Q,sc}$ (b). 

931: The short-dashed propagator is 

932: anti-hard-collinear.\label{fig:tree}}

933: \end{figure}

934: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

935: This forces $z$ to scale as an anti-hard-collinear quantity, and 

936: we need to perform the multipole expansion accordingly.  

937: This is in general different from the multipole expansion

938: in SCET Lagrangian interactions, because the photon injects a

939: large external momentum $q$ into the diagram. In particular, since

940: $z$ scales as anti-hard-collinear, the collinear and soft-collinear

941: fields can depend only on $z_+^\mu=(\nm z/2) \np^\mu$.   

942: The result for the current correlator is then

943: \bea\label{eq:int}

944: T^{\mu\nu}&=&-\int d^4 z e^{iq z}\bar\xi_c(z_+)\gamma^\mu

945: S_{\bar{sc}}(z_+)\frac{\slash{n}_+}{2}S^\dagger_{\bar{sc}}(0)

946: \gamma^\nu\xi_c(0) \nl && \int \frac{d^4 L}{(2\pi)^4}e^{-iL z}

947: \frac{\nm L}{\nm L \np L+L_\perp^2+i0}

948: \eea

949: The soft-collinear and collinear fields do not depend on $\np z$ or

950: $z_\perp$, so we can perform these integrations.  

951: We then have

952: \bea \label{eq:cctree}

953: T^{\mu\nu}&=&-\int \frac{d(\nm z)}{2} \frac{d (\np L)}{2\pi}

954: e^{-i\np L\nm z/2}\frac{\nm q}{\nm q \np L+i0}\nl &&

955: e^{i\np q\nm z/2}\bar\xi_c(z_+)S_{\scbar}(z_+)S^\dagger_{\scbar}(0)

956: \gamma^\mu\frac{\slash{n}_+}{2}\gamma^\nu\xi_c(0).

957: \eea

958: Even though $\np p_c \sim Q$ and $\np p_{sc}\sim Q\lambda^2$ 

959: we cannot set the argument of the soft-collinear Wilson

960: line $S_{\bar{sc}}(z_+)$ to zero. This is because 

961: $\np p_c + \np q\sim Q\lambda^2$, so we need to 

962: keep $\np p_{sc}\sim Q\lambda^2$ in the $\np L\sim Q\lambda^2$ 

963: component of the anti-hard-collinear propagator.  We will discuss

964: this further below.  For now, we simply note that soft-collinear 

965: effects do not decouple even at leading order 

966: in the $1/Q$ expansion.

967: 

968: In order to calculate the hadronic tensor (\ref{eq:htensor})

969: we now take the matrix element of the current 

970: correlator between proton states. We define a parton 

971: distribution function through the spin-averaged matrix element

972: \bea\label{eq:f}

973: &&\langle P|\bar\chi_c(t\np)S_{\scbar}(t\np)S^\dagger_{\scbar}(0)

974: \gamma^\mu\frac{\slash{n}_+}{2}\gamma^\nu\chi_c(0)|P\rangle 

975: =\tilde f(t){\rm tr}\left[\frac{\slash{n}_-}{2}

976: \gamma^\mu\frac{\slash{n}_+}{2}\gamma_\nu\right](-\np q).

977: \eea

978: The factor of $-\np q = Q + {\cal O}(Q\lambda^2)$ 

979: preserves manifest boost invariance. 

980: Although not necessary for tree-level matching,

981: we have reinserted the Wilson lines $W_c$

982: in order to define a gauge invariant hadronic matrix element.

983: The Fourier transformed function is 

984: \be

985: \tilde f(t)=

986: \int d\omega e^{-i\omega t} f(\omega).

987: \ee

988: Inserting this into (\ref{eq:int}), the  hadronic tensor becomes

989: \be\label{eq:factorized}

990: W^{\mu\nu}=-\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}\int d\omega f(\omega)

991: \frac{Q}{\np q -\omega +i 0}

992: {\rm tr}\left[\frac{\slash{n}_-}{2}\gamma^\mu

993: \frac{\slash{n}_+}{2}\gamma^\nu\right].

994: \ee

995: 

996: As written,  (\ref{eq:factorized}) obscures the power

997: counting in the effective theory.

998: We have used a delta function to eliminate 

999: $\np L \sim Q \lambda^2$, so we must have  

1000: $\np q -\omega \sim Q \lambda^2$.  

1001: This requires that $\omega=\np q+ \omega_{sc}$, 

1002: where $\omega_{sc}\sim Q\lambda^2$.  The large component

1003: of the collinear momentum simply balances that of the incoming

1004: photon momentum, it is the residual soft-collinear component

1005: $\omega_{sc}$ which controls the dynamics.     

1006: We can make this transparent by integrating out

1007: the collinear scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$ 

1008: and matching onto a low-energy theory defined at the 

1009: soft-collinear scale. 

1010: This is of course not possible because QCD is already strongly

1011: coupled at the collinear scale, and we will revisit

1012: this point below.  At tree level, however, 

1013: such a matching is trivial: we simply introduce a new field  

1014: by writing $e^{i Q \nm z/2}\xi_c(z)

1015: =\xi_{Q,sc}(z)$, so that 

1016: $\xi_{Q,sc}$  carries the residual 

1017: momentum $\omega_{sc}$.\footnote {This field is similar 

1018: to the SCET field $\xi_{Q,n}$ 

1019: defined in the label formalism \cite{Bauer:2001yt},

1020: the difference being that the residual momentum 

1021: is soft-collinear instead of ultra-soft.}  

1022: Figure \ref{fig:tree}(b) shows the 

1023: tree-level diagram for the

1024: current correlator evaluated using the $\xi_{Q,sc}$.  

1025: We calculate the correlator using the same steps as before,

1026: and define a distribution function $f_{sc}$ 

1027: analogously to (\ref{eq:f}), 

1028: but in terms of $\xi_{Q,sc}$ instead of $\chi_c$. 

1029: We furthermore choose $\np q= -Q + \np p_x$, 

1030: with $\np p_x=Q(1-x)$.  The result is

1031: \be\label{eq:tree}

1032: W^{\mu\nu}=\int d\omega_{sc} \,J(\np p_x -\omega_{sc}) f_{sc}(\omega_{sc})

1033: {\rm tr}\left[\frac{\slash{n}_-}{2}\gamma^\mu

1034: \frac{\slash{n}_+}{2}\gamma^\nu\right],

1035: \ee

1036: where 

1037: \be

1038: J(\np p_x-\omega_{sc}) = -\frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im}

1039: \frac{Q}{\np p_x-\omega_{sc} + i0}=Q\delta(\np p_x -\omega_{sc}).

1040: \ee

1041: This completes the tree-level matching calculation.

1042: We could have obtained this same result in the

1043: free-quark decay picture by calculating

1044: the diagram in Figure \ref{fig:tree} and taking the imaginary part.

1045: In the free-quark picture at tree level we can interpret

1046: $f_{sc}(\omega_{sc})= \delta(\omega_{sc})$, so that

1047: the  convolution $J\otimes f_{sc}$ reproduces 

1048: the result for the diagram.  We went through the 

1049: extra step of defining the parton distribution function 

1050: in terms of a hadronic matrix 

1051: element in order to draw some parallels between

1052: (\ref{eq:tree}) and the factorization formula 

1053: derived for inclusive $B$ decay in the shape-function region,

1054: where one finds a convolution of the form 

1055: \cite{Korchemsky:1994jb,Bauer:2001yt}

1056: \be

1057: \int d\omega_s \,J(\np p_x-\omega_s)S(\omega_s),

1058: \ee

1059: with $\np p_x=m_b(1-x)\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. 

1060: The function $J(\omega_s)$ is a perturbatively calculable jet function

1061: containing  physics at the scale $m_b\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$,

1062: and $S(\omega_s)$ is a shape function containing non-perturbative

1063: effects at the scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$. It is defined by

1064: the HQET matrix element

1065: \be

1066: S(\omega_s)=\int dt e^{-it\omega_s}

1067: \langle \bar B_v|\bar h_v(tn_-)\,h_v(0)|\bar B_v\rangle.

1068: \ee 

1069: The crucial difference between $B$ decay and DIS 

1070: is that the heavy-quark field $h_v$ carries a residual 

1071: momentum $\omega_s$ which 

1072: is soft. Matching 

1073: can be stopped at the perturbative scale 

1074: $m_b\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.  This should be compared

1075: with (\ref{eq:tree}), where the convolution involves

1076: the soft-collinear residual momentum $\omega_{sc}$.

1077: To isolate the physics at this low scale requires

1078: an extra step of matching at the scale

1079: $p_p^2\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$. We did this above in

1080: order to define $f_{sc}$, but it is important to

1081: understand that this was only a formal manipulation.  

1082: Since we cannot do this

1083: matching perturbatively, we  must always 

1084: lump the collinear and soft-collinear effects together

1085: into one non-perturbative function. 

1086: We will emphasize in Section \ref{sec:sc} that 

1087: any sensitivity of the parton distribution function

1088: to the soft-collinear scale signals 

1089: a breakdown of factorization.  

1090: However, to explain how effective field theory could in 

1091: principle be used to separate all the scales, 

1092: we end this section by considering a fictitious QCD

1093: where perturbation theory is valid at the collinear scale. 

1094: In this fictitious theory we can remove 

1095: collinear fluctuations when matching 

1096: the electromagnetic current onto SCET.

1097: This matching takes the form

1098: \be \label{eq:richtig}

1099: \bar\psi_c\gamma^\mu \psi_{\hcbar}\to 

1100:  C(Q^2,\mu) D_c(p_p^2,\mu)

1101: \bar\xi_{Q,sc}

1102: \gamma^\mu  \chi_{\hcbar}.

1103: \ee

1104: The matching coefficient $D_c(p_p^2,\mu)$ 

1105: reproduces the effects of collinear loop diagrams,

1106: and could be obtained at one loop from the finite

1107: part of our expressions in Section 

1108: \ref{sec:currents}, see (\ref{eq:QCDhard}-\ref{eq:QCDsc}).  

1109: To consider such a (fictitious) matching of the SCET 

1110: current will be useful in some of the discussion in the

1111: next two sections.

1112: 

1113: 

1114: 

1115: \section{Matching onto parton distributions at one loop}

1116: \label{sec:oneloop}

1117: In this section we examine the one-loop corrections to the

1118: current correlator (\ref{eq:correlator}),  and interpret

1119: the results in terms of the effective theory.

1120: The relevant one-loop diagrams  

1121: are shown in  Figure \ref{fig:1loop}.  

1122: Note that the graph in Figure \ref{fig:1loop}(e) 

1123: containing collinear exchange, as well as graphs 

1124: \ref{fig:1loop}(h) and \ref{fig:1loop}(i),  

1125: are not actually SCET graphs.  

1126: In these graphs the short-dashed propagator

1127: is hard, not anti-hard-collinear. It was our 

1128: intention to remove all hard fluctuations in the first

1129: step of matching, but we have clearly not done so. Although

1130: these graphs are power suppressed by a factor of $p_x^2/Q^2 \sim

1131: \lambda^2$, we find it awkward 

1132: to generate power-suppressed graphs from the leading-order

1133: Feynman rules of the effective theory. 

1134: A formal solution to this problem is to remove the collinear scale 

1135: when matching the current, as in (\ref{eq:richtig}).

1136: We cannot do this matching perturbatively, but  

1137: we are interested only in the sum of collinear and soft-collinear

1138: graphs, which can equally well be written in this way.  This 

1139: simplifies the book-keeping, because after taking this step

1140: the graphs \ref{fig:1loop}(e), \ref{fig:1loop}(h) 

1141: and \ref{fig:1loop}(i) no longer exist, so the

1142: short-dashed propagator is always anti-hard-collinear.    

1143: Note that we have not drawn box diagrams 

1144: related to gluon distributions. These are power suppressed, either 

1145: because the intermediate propagator is hard, analogously to

1146: \ref{fig:1loop}(h), or because 

1147: they involve insertions of soft-collinear quark fields (not to 

1148: be confused with $\xi_{Q,sc}$), which 

1149: are absent from the leading order 

1150: SCET Lagrangian \cite{Becher:2003qh}. 

1151: 

1152: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1153: \begin{figure}[t]

1154: %   \vspace{-3.5cm}

1155: %   \epsfysize=10cm

1156: \begin{tabular}{c}

1157: \hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figure.ps} 

1158: \end{tabular}

1159: \caption{\label{fig:1loop}

1160: One-loop corrections to the current correlator.  The long-dashed 

1161: lines are collinear and the short-dashed lines 

1162: anti-hard-collinear.  The gluon scaling is labeled explicitly.

1163: The mirror image graphs are not shown. The part of (e)

1164: involving collinear exchange, (h),  and (i) 

1165: should {\it not} be included in the effective theory.}

1166: \end{figure}

1167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1168: 

1169: We now give results for the remaining diagrams, which

1170: we calculate using the free-quark picture.  As before, 

1171: we keep the external collinear quarks 

1172: off shell by an amount $p_p^2$ when performing the matching.

1173: We work in Feynman gauge.  With this choice of 

1174: gauge graphs \ref{fig:1loop}(d) 

1175: and \ref{fig:1loop}(e) vanish, 

1176: as do the parts of \ref{fig:1loop}(b), \ref{fig:1loop}(f) 

1177: involving soft-collinear exchange, since $n_{\pm}^2=0$.

1178: We suppress the Dirac structure, which is always the same

1179: as in the tree-level expression (\ref{eq:f}) after summing

1180: over spins, and also the Wilson coefficients

1181: $C^2(Q^2,\mu)$, which appear as a multiplicative factor.  

1182: 

1183: The non-vanishing anti-hard-collinear graphs add up to 

1184: \bea\label{eq:Dhcbar}

1185: &&T_{\hcbar}=-\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi}\frac{Q^2}{p_x^2}

1186: \Bigg\{\left[-\frac{1}{\eps}-1+\ln\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}\right]\nl

1187: &&

1188: +\left[\frac{4}{\eps^2}+\frac{4}{\eps}

1189: \left(1-\ln\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}\right)+ 2\ln^2\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}

1190: - 4\ln\frac{-p_x^2}{\mu^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{3}+8\right]\Bigg\},

1191: \eea

1192: the collinear graphs (including wave-function graphs)

1193: evaluate to

1194: \bea\label{eq:Dc}

1195: &&T_{c}=-\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi}\frac{Q^2}{p_x^2}

1196: \Bigg\{\left[-\frac{1}{\eps}-1+\ln\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}\right] \nl

1197: &&

1198: +\left[\frac{4}{\eps^2}+\frac{4}{\eps}

1199: \left(1-\ln\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}\right)+ 2\ln^2\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}

1200: - 4\ln\frac{-p_p^2}{\mu^2}-\frac{\pi^2}{3}+8\right] \Bigg\},

1201: \eea

1202: and the soft-collinear graphs give

1203: \be\label{eq:Dsc}

1204: T_{sc}=

1205: -\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi}

1206: \frac{Q^2}{p_x^2}\left[-\frac{4}{\eps^2}+

1207: \frac{4}{\eps}\ln\frac{p_x^2 p_p^2}{Q^2\mu^2}

1208: -2\ln^2\frac{p_x^2 p_p^2}{Q^2\mu^2}-\pi^2\right].

1209: \ee

1210: 

1211: The $1/\eps$ terms in the sum of all diagrams is subtracted

1212: by the current renormalization factor $Z_J^2$ given in ({\ref{eq:ZJ}).

1213: This is possible only after the same cancellation between logarithms in

1214: the divergent pieces of the  anti-hard-collinear, collinear, and 

1215: soft-collinear graphs that we observed when matching 

1216: the SCET current.  No such cancellation occurs in the finite 

1217: pieces, where logarithms at each scale remain.

1218: We can interpret the finite parts as the one-loop corrections

1219: to a convolution of functions characterizing the physics at the various scales.

1220: This takes the form

1221: \be\label{eq:corrections}

1222: \frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im} \left(T_{\hcbar}+T_{c}+T_{sc}\right)

1223: = J^{(1)}\otimes\left[S^{(0)}\cdot f_{sc}^{(0)}\right]

1224:  +  J^{(0)}\otimes \left[S^{(1)}\cdot f_{sc}^{(0)}

1225: +S^{(0)}\cdot f_{sc}^{(1)}\right].

1226: \ee 

1227: The superscript refers to the $n$-loop correction to 

1228: each function.  We have defined a function 

1229: $S=D_c^2$ (see (\ref{eq:richtig})), 

1230: which takes into account collinear effects, and 

1231: grouped the sum of the collinear and soft-collinear 

1232: corrections inside the square brackets.  

1233: In this step of matching we want to obtain the one-loop

1234: correction to the jet function $J$.  To do this rigorously,

1235: we would first need to calculate the renormalized 

1236: expression for the object $\left[S\cdot f_{sc}\right]$, 

1237: using the free-quark picture.

1238: This calculation would require a more precise formulation 

1239: of an effective theory

1240: defined at the soft-collinear scale.  We will not 

1241: go through this exercise here, but rather assume

1242: that we can construct a low-energy theory that properly

1243: accounts for the IR physics related

1244: to the collinear and soft-collinear fields.  The difference

1245: between this low-energy theory and SCET is that the

1246: anti-hard-collinear fields are absent, so the 

1247: the matching function $J$ is given by 

1248: imaginary part of the finite piece of $T_{\hcbar}$

1249: in  (\ref{eq:Dhcbar}).

1250: This imaginary part is singular at 

1251: $p_x^2=0$ and must be interpreted in terms of distributions

1252: to be integrated against a smooth function $F(p_x^2)$.  

1253: To stay in the region where the SCET treatment 

1254: is valid requires a cut on $p_x^2$, so we find it 

1255: convenient to express the results in terms of  star 

1256: distributions, which are defined as  \cite{DeFazio:1999sv}

1257: \bea

1258: \int_{\leq 0}^z dx F(x)\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)_*^{[u]}&=&

1259: \int_0^z dx\frac{F(x)-F(0)}{x}+F(0)\ln\frac{z}{u}, \nl

1260: \int_{\leq 0}^z dx F(x)\left(\frac{\ln(x/u)}{x}\right)_*^{[u]}&=&

1261: \int_0^z dx\frac{F(x)-F(0)}{x}\ln\frac{z}{u}+\frac{F(0)}{2}

1262: \ln^2\frac{z}{u}.

1263: \eea

1264: In terms of these distributions, we find

1265: \bea\label{eq:Jfact}

1266:  J^{(1)}&\otimes& \left[S^{(0)} \cdot f_{sc}^{(0)}\right]

1267: = \frac{1}{\pi}{\rm Im} \, T_{\hcbar}\nl 

1268: &=&Q^2 \frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi}

1269: \left[\left( 7- \pi^2\right)\delta(p_x^2)

1270: -3 

1271: \left(\frac{1}{p_x^2}\right)_*^{[\mu^2]}+

1272: 4\left(\frac{\ln (p_x^2/\mu^2)}{p_x^2}\right)_*^{[\mu^2]}\right].

1273: \eea

1274: In the limit $x\to1$ the star distribution is 

1275: related to the plus distribution, and (\ref{eq:Jfact}) agrees  

1276: with a corresponding expression in \cite{manohar}.  This matching

1277: function also appears in inclusive $B$ decay in the shape-function

1278: region  \cite{Bauer:2003pi, Bosch:2004th}.

1279: 

1280: Having obtained an expression for the one-loop jet function,

1281: we end this section by  taking a closer look at 

1282: the low-energy physics relevant to the

1283: parton distribution function. If the hadronic tensor obeyed the factorization 

1284: formula (\ref{eq:fact}), then the low-energy physics 

1285: would depend on the collinear scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$ 

1286: only.  However, we have shown that the low-energy 

1287: theory contains a product of collinear and soft-collinear

1288: functions, what we called $\left[S\cdot f_{sc}\right]$

1289: above, and that this object contains 

1290: logarithms at both the collinear 

1291: and soft-collinear scales.  The soft-collinear 

1292: scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/Q$  depends on the large energy $Q$,

1293: so not all of the $Q$ dependence 

1294: has been factorized into the hard coefficient $C(Q^2,\mu)$. 

1295: We will explain the consequences of this in the next section. 

1296: 

1297: 

1298: 

1299: \section{Soft-collinear effects and factorization}

1300: \label{sec:sc}

1301: In this section we consolidate our results

1302: concerning the factorization of the

1303: hadronic tensor. To summarize,  we found that for values 

1304: of $x$ satisfying $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$, 

1305: DIS involves four scales 

1306: \be\label{eq:mscales}

1307: Q^2 \gg Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2 \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/Q.

1308: \ee

1309: The relevance of the soft-collinear

1310: scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^3/Q$ makes it impossible to derive

1311: a factorization formula of the type  (\ref{eq:fact}).

1312: To clarify this, we find it useful to first consider

1313: a fictitious version of QCD, where

1314: the collinear scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$ is

1315: perturbative and the soft-collinear scale is 

1316: non-perturbative.  In this fictitious QCD, we can derive 

1317: a factorization formula by matching onto a  

1318: low-energy theory defined at the soft-collinear scale. 

1319: To do so, we split up the initial-state parton momentum as 

1320: $p_p=Q\nm/2 + p_{sc}$, where the soft-collinear residual

1321: momentum satisfies $\np p_{sc}\sim Q(1-x)\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ 

1322: and $\nm p_{sc}\sim M_P^2/Q\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/Q$.

1323: This treats the parton as a massless on-shell

1324: collinear quark carrying momentum $Q\nm/2$, which receives

1325: a residual momentum $p_{sc}$ through interactions with 

1326: soft-collinear partons.

1327: Beyond tree level the factorization formula

1328: contains a convolution between $f_{sc}$ and 

1329: $D_c$, in addition to that between $f_{sc}$ and $J$.

1330: This is because $\nm p_{sc}\sim \nm p_c$, 

1331: so the $\nm p_{sc}$ momentum can be distributed between the 

1332: collinear and soft-collinear fields, just as the 

1333: $\np p_{sc}\sim \np p_x$ momentum can be distributed 

1334: between the anti-hard-collinear and soft-collinear fields.

1335: Writing the mass scales (\ref{eq:mscales})

1336: in terms of $Q$, $p_{sc}$, and $p_x$ we

1337: find a factorization formula of the form 

1338: \be\label{eq:fiction}

1339: W\sim  H\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right) 

1340: J\left(\frac{Q\np p_x -Q\np p_{sc}}{\mu^2}\right)\otimes

1341: f_{sc}\left(\frac{\nm p_{sc}\np p_{sc}}{\mu^2}\right)\otimes

1342: S\left(\frac{Q\nm p_{sc}}{\mu^2}\right),

1343: \ee

1344: where $\np p_{sc}$ and $\nm p_{sc}$ are convolution variables.

1345: The hard function  $H$ and the soft function 

1346: $S$ are related to the Wilson coefficients 

1347: arising when matching the SCET current

1348: as in (\ref{eq:richtig}),  $H=C^2$ and 

1349: $S=D_c^2$.  The jet function $J$ is

1350: calculated as explained in Section \ref{sec:oneloop}, 

1351: and the soft-collinear function

1352: $f_{sc}$ is defined by the spin-averaged matrix element 

1353: in (\ref{eq:f}), but with $\chi_c\to \xi_{Q,sc}$. 

1354: The jet function $J$ and the collinear function 

1355: $S$ are not linked directly through a convolution. 

1356: Instead, they are linked to each other only 

1357: through a mutual convolution with the function $f_{sc}$. 

1358: Although this formula is 

1359: qualitatively different from  (\ref{eq:fact}),  we 

1360: could in principle derive the 

1361: renormalization group equations for this effective theory, 

1362: and use them to resum all large logarithms involving

1363: the ratio $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$. This scenario has been

1364: mentioned in \cite{Becher:2003kh}, in analogy with 

1365: techniques used for the off-shell Sudakov form factor 

1366: \cite{Korchemsky:1988hd, Kuhn:1999nn}.

1367: 

1368: Our derivation of (\ref{eq:fiction}) was based on an effective

1369: field theory approach that integrated out the larger scales 

1370: until reaching the smallest scale, which is soft-collinear.

1371: In real QCD it is not possible to 

1372: use perturbation theory at the scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$. 

1373: This obligates us to stop the matching 

1374: procedure at the jet scale $Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ 

1375: and lump the collinear and soft-collinear

1376: effects into one non-perturbative function.

1377: We have seen that some cancellations occur between 

1378: the sum of the infinite parts of the collinear and 

1379: soft-collinear graphs, but this does not occur in 

1380: the finite pieces defining the matrix elements.

1381: The hadronic tensor therefore takes the form

1382: \be\label{eq:nonpertfact}

1383: W\sim  H\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right) 

1384: J\left(\frac{Q\np p_x-Q\np p_{sc}}{\mu^2}\right)

1385: \otimes f\left( \frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2}{\mu^2}, 

1386: \frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2\np p_{sc}}{Q \mu^2}\right),

1387: \ee 

1388: where we have inserted the physical scaling $\nm p_{sc}\sim

1389: \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/Q$.  The notation makes clear that

1390: the parton distribution function $f$ contains physics

1391: at both the collinear and soft-collinear scales.  

1392: We cannot match perturbatively at the scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$,

1393: so we have no way of deriving a low-energy theory that would

1394: allow us to resum logarithms at the soft-collinear scale,  and 

1395: large logarithms depending on $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$ remain.

1396: In other words, the parton distribution function contains a 

1397: non-perturbative dependence on the large energy $Q$. 

1398: This is different from both (\ref{eq:fact}) and (\ref{eq:fiction}).

1399: We conclude that a perturbative factorization of scales

1400: is not possible in this region of phase space.

1401: 

1402: 

1403: 

1404: 

1405: 

1406: \section{Comparison with previous work}

1407: \label{sec:comparison}

1408: 

1409: 

1410: \subsection{Diagrammatic Approach}

1411: Factorization formulas for deep inelastic scattering near

1412: the endpoint have been derived  

1413: using diagrammatic methods in 

1414: \cite{Sterman:1986aj, Catani:1989ne, Korchemsky:1992xv}.  

1415: It seems that the effective field theory calculation

1416: leads us to different conclusions concerning the perturbative

1417: factorization of scales.  The differences 

1418: can be traced directly to the soft-collinear mode.  

1419: In turn, we found that the soft-collinear

1420: mode is relevant in a very specific region of phase space,

1421: where $1-x$ is correlated with $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$

1422: through the relation $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q \sim \lambda^2$. 

1423: To the best of our knowledge, such a power counting

1424: has not been implemented within the diagrammatic 

1425: approach, where one takes the 

1426: limit $1-x\to 0$ without making the 

1427: above-mentioned correlation.  To understand the significance

1428: of this, recall that the effective

1429: field theory approach led us to split the parton distribution

1430: function into two parts according to

1431: \be\label{eq:split}

1432: f\to 

1433: S\left(\frac{Q\nm p_{sc}}{\mu^2}\right)

1434: f\left(\frac{\nm p_{sc} \np p_{sc}}{\mu^2}\right)

1435: \sim

1436: S\left(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2}{\mu^2}\right)

1437: f\left(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2(1-x)}{\mu^2}\right).

1438: \ee

1439: A very similar observation has been made in the diagrammatic

1440: approach, where $S$ and $f$ are related to $\phi$ and $V$ 

1441: \cite{Sterman:1986aj}. The function $f$ is linked to the

1442: jet function $J$ by the convolution variable $\np p_{sc}$.  

1443: Boost invariance and dimensional

1444: analysis require that this enter the parton 

1445: distribution function in the combination 

1446: $\nm p_{sc}\np p_{sc}/\mu^2$.

1447: From this alone it is apparent that the parton distribution

1448: function involves fluctuations at two scales, as shown 

1449: above.  The second scale depends on $1-x$, and need not 

1450: be soft-collinear.  One sees this clearly

1451: from (\ref{eq:SCscalar}).  For generic values of $p_x^2\approx Q^2(1-x)$, 

1452: the soft-collinear region is replaced by an $x$-dependent

1453: soft region scaling as $(Q(1-x),\Lambda_{\rm QCD} \sqrt{(1-x)},

1454: \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/Q$). The 

1455: function $f$ is associated with the vacuum matrix element of 

1456: a Wilson loop built out of

1457: gauge fields with this scaling. 

1458: As long as $\np p_{sc} \sim Q(1-x)\sim Q\lambda_D$,

1459: with $\lambda_D$ numerically small but still ${\cal O}(1)$,

1460: then both the collinear modes and these additional soft modes 

1461: are parametrically of the order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$.  

1462: Formulas derived with the diagrammatic approach 

1463: are valid within this particular

1464: large-$x$ limit.  We emphasize that this is a different 

1465: large-$x$ limit than that considered in our work.

1466: The non-factorizable soft-collinear effects

1467: studied here emerge for  values of $x$ satisfying 

1468: $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$. 

1469: To apply effective field theory methods in the most straightforward way 

1470: requires that we make this correlation, 

1471: because only then can we calculate the results as an expansion 

1472: in a single small parameter $\lambda.$  

1473: This power counting for $1-x$

1474: also ensures that we avoid the resonance region, 

1475: where $1-x \sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/Q^2$. 

1476: The failure of factorization for $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$

1477: suggests that the most useful application

1478: of SCET to DIS in the endpoint region might instead

1479: use a multi-scale approach  to study

1480: the limit $1-x\to\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$ more carefully. This 

1481: would involve replacing the soft-collinear modes by the $x$-dependent

1482: soft modes identified above, carefully re-deriving the factorization

1483: formula for the large-$x$ limit obtained within the diagrammatic

1484: approach \cite{Sterman:1986aj}, 

1485: and studying power corrections in terms of SCET operators.

1486: This could make use of techniques similar

1487: to those developed for the  multi-scale operator 

1488: expansion in inclusive $B$ decay \cite{Neubert:2004dd}.

1489: 

1490: 

1491: \subsection{SCET based approach}

1492: 

1493: The first application of SCET to DIS can be found in

1494: \cite{Bauer:2002nz}, which is however limited to the standard

1495: OPE region and has little overlap with our work. 

1496: In \cite{manohar} Manohar carried out a SCET analysis of DIS at 

1497: large $x$, also using a two-step matching procedure.

1498: In the first step, the author matched

1499: QCD in the Breit frame onto a version of SCET involving

1500: hard-collinear fields interacting with anti-hard-collinear fields

1501: via soft gluon exchange.  This differs from the version of SCET

1502: used here, which involves collinear fields interacting with 

1503: anti-hard-collinear fields via soft-collinear gluon exchange.

1504: While our two approaches differ conceptually, our results 

1505: for  the anomalous dimension and hard matching coefficient 

1506: of the SCET current agree. The results are the same

1507: because the leading-order  Lagrangians 

1508: ${\cal L}_{c+sc}, \,{\cal L}_{\hcbar + sc}$ are of the 

1509: same form as ${\cal L}_{hc + s},\, {\cal L}_{\hcbar +s}$. 

1510: The author used these results to derive some interesting

1511: consequences for the anomalous dimension of the SCET current.

1512: We disagree on some points concerning the calculation of 

1513: the hadronic tensor in the second step of matching.

1514: The major difference is that  \cite{manohar} found that

1515: the effects of soft gluon exchange  

1516: are irrelevant to the 

1517: low-energy matrix element defining the parton distribution 

1518: function (in the Breit frame).

1519: Using the translation between the leading-order

1520: Lagrangians given above, this would imply the irrelevance

1521: of soft-collinear effects, which we did not observe here. 

1522: This also contradicts the results for the large-$x$ limit

1523: derived in the diagrammatic approach, where the low-energy 

1524: matrix element splits into a product of collinear and soft

1525: functions, often called $\phi$ and $V$ \cite{Sterman:1986aj}.  

1526: 

1527: 

1528:  

1529: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}

1530: 

1531: We used soft-collinear effective theory

1532: to examine the factorization properties of deep inelastic

1533: scattering in the region of phase space where 

1534: $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$.  An analysis of loop diagrams

1535: in the Breit frame showed that the  

1536: appropriate effective theory includes anti-hard-collinear,

1537: collinear, and soft-collinear fields.  We found that 

1538: soft-collinear effects ruin perturbative factorization. 

1539: An attempt to use SCET to prove a perturbative factorization formula

1540: yields instead an expression where the low-energy matrix element

1541: defining the parton distribution function

1542: contains a non-perturbative dependence on the large energy

1543: $Q$.  It is therefore impossible to separate

1544: the three scales $Q^2 \gg Q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$ in

1545: terms of a factorization formula.  These complications 

1546: related to the soft-collinear mode are similar 

1547: to those found in a SCET analysis of the 

1548: heavy-to-light form factors relevant 

1549: to exclusive $B$ meson decay \cite{Lange:2003pk}. 

1550: They do not appear in an analysis of factorization for 

1551: inclusive $B$ decay in the shape-function region, 

1552: where the presence of a heavy quark ensures that soft 

1553: instead of soft-collinear fields are relevant to the effective

1554: theory construction.

1555: 

1556: Our conclusions are true as long as $1-x$ is

1557: correlated with $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$ through the relation

1558: $1-x\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$. If 

1559: $1-x$ is numerically small but still larger than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$, 

1560: the standard large-$x$ factorization formula derived

1561: within the diagrammatic approach is valid.

1562: As $1-x$ approaches the endpoint, however, non-factorizable

1563: soft-collinear effects emerge. It would be interesting 

1564: to use a multi-scale effective field theory approach to 

1565: carefully re-derive the large-$x$ factorization formula using SCET,  

1566: quantify power corrections in terms of SCET operators, and 

1567: more carefully study the limit $1-x \to \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q$. 

1568: 

1569: 

1570: 

1571: 

1572: 

1573: 

1574: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1575: I am grateful

1576: to Thomas Becher, Thorsten Feldmann, Thomas Mannel, and Matthias

1577: Neubert for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript.

1578: This work was supported by the DFG Sonderforschungsbereich SFB/TR09 

1579: ``Computational Theoretical Particle Physics''.

1580: 

1581: \newpage

1582: 

1583: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1584: 

1585: %\cite{Korchemsky:1994jb}

1586: \bibitem{Korchemsky:1994jb}

1587:   G.~P.~Korchemsky and G.~Sterman,

1588:   %``Infrared factorization in inclusive B meson decays,''

1589:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 340} (1994) 96

1590:   [hep-ph/9407344].

1591:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9407344;%%

1592: 

1593: 

1594: %\cite{Bauer:2000yr}

1595: \bibitem{Bauer:2000yr}

1596:   C.~W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

1597:   %``An effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light

1598:   %decays,''

1599:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 114020

1600:   [hep-ph/0011336].

1601:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011336;%%

1602: 

1603: \bibitem{Bauer:2001yt}

1604:   C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

1605:   %``Soft-collinear factorization in effective field theory,''

1606:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054022 (2002)

1607:   [hep-ph/0109045].

1608:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109045;%%

1609: 

1610: %\cite{Beneke:2002ph}

1611: \bibitem{Beneke:2002ph}

1612: M.~Beneke, A.~P.~Chapovsky, M.~Diehl and T.~Feldmann,

1613: %``Soft-collinear effective theory and heavy-to-light currents beyond  leading

1614: %power,''

1615: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643}, 431 (2002)

1616: [hep-ph/0206152].

1617: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206152;%%

1618: 

1619: %\cite{Beneke:2002ni}

1620: \bibitem{Beneke:2002ni}

1621:  M.~Beneke and T.~Feldmann,

1622:  %``Multipole-expanded soft-collinear effective theory with non-abelian gauge

1623:  %symmetry,''

1624:  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 553}, 267 (2003)

1625:  [hep-ph/0211358].

1626:  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211358;%%

1627: 

1628: \bibitem{Bauer:2003pi}

1629:   C.~W.~Bauer and A.~V.~Manohar,

1630:   %``Shape function effects in B $\to$ X/s gamma and B $\to$ X/u l nu decays,''

1631:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 034024 (2004)

1632:   [hep-ph/0312109].

1633:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312109;%%

1634: 

1635: %\cite{Bosch:2004th}

1636: \bibitem{Bosch:2004th}

1637:   S.~W.~Bosch, B.~O.~Lange, M.~Neubert and G.~Paz,

1638:   %``Factorization and shape-function effects in inclusive B-meson decays,''

1639:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699}, 335 (2004)

1640:   [hep-ph/0402094].

1641:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402094;%%

1642: 

1643: %\cite{Lee:2004ja}

1644: \bibitem{Lee:2004ja}

1645: K.~S.~M.~Lee and I.~W.~Stewart,

1646: %``Factorization for power corrections to B $\to$ X/s gamma and B $\to$ X/u l

1647: %anti-nu,''

1648: [hep-ph/0409045].

1649: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409045;%%

1650: 

1651: %\cite{Bosch:2004cb}

1652: \bibitem{Bosch:2004cb}

1653: S.~W.~Bosch, M.~Neubert and G.~Paz,

1654: %``Subleading shape functions in inclusive B decays,''

1655: JHEP {\bf 0411}, 073 (2004)

1656: [hep-ph/0409115].

1657: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409115;%%

1658: 

1659: %\cite{Beneke:2004in}

1660: \bibitem{Beneke:2004in}

1661: M.~Beneke, F.~Campanario, T.~Mannel and B.~D.~Pecjak,

1662: %``Power corrections to anti-B $\to$ X/u l anti-nu (X/s gamma) decay spectra in

1663: %the 'shape-function' region,''

1664: [hep-ph/0411395].

1665: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411395;%%

1666: 

1667: %\cite{Hill:2002vw}

1668: \bibitem{Hill:2002vw}

1669:   R.~J.~Hill and M.~Neubert,

1670:   %``Spectator interactions in soft-collinear effective theory. ((U)),''

1671:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 657}, 229 (2003)

1672:   [hep-ph/0211018].

1673:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211018;%%

1674: 

1675: %\cite{Bauer:2002aj}

1676: \bibitem{Bauer:2002aj}

1677:   C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

1678:   %``Factorization and endpoint singularities in heavy-to-light decays,''

1679:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 071502 (2003)

1680:   [hep-ph/0211069].

1681:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211069;%%

1682: 

1683: 

1684: %\cite{Beneke:2003pa}

1685: \bibitem{Beneke:2003pa}

1686:   M.~Beneke and T.~Feldmann,

1687:   %``Factorization of heavy-to-light form factors in soft-collinear  effective

1688:   %theory,''

1689:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 685}, 249 (2004)

1690:   [hep-ph/0311335].

1691:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311335;%%

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{Lange:2003pk}

1694:   B.~O.~Lange and M.~Neubert,

1695:   %``Factorization and the soft overlap contribution to heavy-to-light form

1696:   %factors,''

1697:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 690}, 249 (2004)

1698:   [hep-ph/0311345].

1699:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311345;%%

1700: 

1701: %\cite{Becher:2003qh}

1702: \bibitem{Becher:2003qh}

1703:   T.~Becher, R.~J.~Hill and M.~Neubert,

1704:   %``Soft-collinear messengers: A new mode in soft-collinear effective

1705:   %theory,''

1706:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 054017 (2004)

1707:   [hep-ph/0308122].

1708:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308122;%%

1709: 

1710: \bibitem{Beneke:1997zp}

1711:   M.~Beneke and V.~A.~Smirnov,

1712:   %``Asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals near threshold,''

1713:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 522} (1998) 321

1714:   [hep-ph/9711391].

1715:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711391;%%

1716: 

1717: %\cite{Becher:2003kh}

1718: \bibitem{Becher:2003kh}

1719:   T.~Becher, R.~J.~Hill, B.~O.~Lange and M.~Neubert,

1720:   %``External operators and anomalous dimensions in soft-collinear effective

1721:   %theory,''

1722:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 034013

1723:   [hep-ph/0309227].

1724:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309227;%%

1725: 

1726: %\cite{Becher:2005fg}

1727: \bibitem{Becher:2005fg}

1728:   T.~Becher, R.~J.~Hill and M.~Neubert,

1729:   %``Factorization in B $\to$ V gamma decays,''

1730:   [hep-ph/0503263].

1731:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503263;%%

1732: 

1733: \bibitem{Manohar:2002fd}

1734:   A.~V.~Manohar, T.~Mehen, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

1735:   %``Reparameterization invariance for collinear operators,''

1736:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539} (2002) 59

1737:   [hep-ph/0204229].

1738:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204229;%%

1739: %\cite{Chay:2002vy}

1740: 

1741: \bibitem{Chay:2002vy}

1742:   J.~Chay and C.~Kim,

1743:   %``Collinear effective theory at subleading order and its application to

1744:   %heavy-light currents,''

1745:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 114016

1746:   [hep-ph/0201197].

1747:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201197;%%

1748: 

1749: \bibitem{manohar}

1750:  A.~V.~Manohar,

1751:  %``Deep inelastic scattering as x $\to$ 1 using soft-collinear effective

1752:  %theory,''

1753:  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 114019

1754:  [hep-ph/0309176].

1755:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309176;%%

1756: 

1757: 

1758: 

1759: %\cite{Bauer:2000ew}

1760: \bibitem{Bauer:2000ew}

1761:   C.~W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming and M.~E.~Luke,

1762:   %``Summing Sudakov logarithms in B $\to$ X/s gamma in effective field

1763:   %theory,''

1764:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 014006

1765:   [hep-ph/0005275].

1766:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005275;%%

1767: 

1768: \bibitem{DeFazio:1999sv}

1769:   F.~De Fazio and M.~Neubert,

1770:   %``B $\to$ X/u l anti-nu/l decay distributions to order alpha(s),''

1771:   JHEP {\bf 9906}, 017 (1999)

1772:   [hep-ph/9905351].

1773:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905351;%%

1774: 

1775: 

1776: \bibitem{Korchemsky:1988hd}

1777:   G.~P.~Korchemsky,

1778:   %``Sudakov Form-Factor In QCD,''

1779:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 220} (1989) 629.

1780:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B220,629;%%

1781: 

1782: \bibitem{Kuhn:1999nn}

1783:   J.~H.~Kuhn, A.~A.~Penin and V.~A.~Smirnov,

1784:   %``Summing up subleading Sudakov logarithms,''

1785:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17} (2000) 97

1786:   [hep-ph/9912503].

1787:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912503;%%

1788: 

1789: 

1790: %\cite{Sterman:1986aj}

1791: \bibitem{Sterman:1986aj}

1792:   G.~Sterman,

1793:   % ``Summation Of Large Corrections To Short Distance 

1794:   % Hadronic Cross-Sections,''

1795:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 281}, 310 (1987).

1796:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B281,310;%%

1797: 

1798: %\cite{Catani:1989ne}

1799: \bibitem{Catani:1989ne}

1800:   S.~Catani and L.~Trentadue,

1801:   %``Resummation Of The QCD Perturbative Series For Hard Processes,''

1802:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 327} (1989) 323.

1803:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B327,323;%%

1804: 

1805: 

1806: %\cite{Korchemsky:1992xv}

1807: \bibitem{Korchemsky:1992xv}

1808:   G.~P.~Korchemsky and G.~Marchesini,

1809:   %``Structure function for large x and renormalization of Wilson loop,''

1810:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 406} (1993) 225

1811:   [hep-ph/9210281].

1812:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9210281;%%

1813: 

1814: \bibitem{Neubert:2004dd}

1815:   M.~Neubert,

1816:   %``Renormalization-group improved calculation of the B $\to$ X/s+ gamma

1817:   %branching ratio,''

1818:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 40} (2005) 165

1819:   [hep-ph/0408179].

1820:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408179;%%

1821: 

1822: %\cite{Bauer:2002nz}

1823: \bibitem{Bauer:2002nz}

1824:   C.~W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming, D.~Pirjol, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart,

1825:   %``Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory,''

1826:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 014017

1827:   [hep-ph/0202088].

1828:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202088;%%

1829: 

1830: 

1831: 

1832: 

1833: 

1834: 

1835: 

1836: \end{thebibliography}

1837: 

1838: \end{document}

1839: 

1840: