1: 

2: \documentclass[fleqn,12pt,twoside]{article}

3: \usepackage{espcrc1}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: 

7: 

8: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}

9: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}

10: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt

11:   \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}

12: 

13: \def\tform{t_{\mbox{\scriptsize form}}}

14: 

15: \def\lrang#1{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}

16: \def\cO#1{{\cal O}\left(#1\right)}

17: 

18: \def\sigmatot{\sigma^{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}}

19: 

20: \def\1{$^{\mbox{\scriptsize\{1\}}}$}

21: \def\2{$^{\mbox{\scriptsize\{2\}}}$}

22: 

23: 

24: 

25: 

26: % references

27: \def\ib#1#2#3{{ibid.}~\underline{#1} (19#3) #2}

28: \def\np#1#2#3{{ Nucl.Phys.}~\underline{B#1} (19#3) #2}

29: \def\pl#1#2#3{{ Phys.Lett.}~\underline{#1B} (19#3) #2}

30: \def\pr#1#2#3{{ Phys.Rev.}~\underline{D#1} (19#3) #2}

31: \def\prep#1#2#3{{ Phys.Rep.}~\underline{#1} (19#3) #2}

32: \def\prl#1#2#3{{ Phys.Rev.Lett.}~\underline{#1} (19#3) #2}

33: \def\rmp#1#2#3{{ Rev.Mod.Phys.}~\underline{#1} (19#3) #2}

34: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{{ Sov.J.Nucl.Phys.}~\underline{#1} (19#3) #2}

35: \def\spj#1#2#3{{ Sov.Phys.JETP}\/~\underline{#1} (19#3) #2}

36: \def\jl#1#2#3{{ JETP Lett.}~\underline{#1} (19#3) #2}

37: \def\zp#1#2#3{{ Zeit.Phys.}~\underline{C#1} (19#3) #2}

38: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{{ Int. J. Mod. Phys.}\/ {\underline {#1}} (19#3) #2}

39: 

40: 

41: 

42: \title{QCD at moderately large distances}

43: 

44: \author{Yuri Dokshitzer\thanks{On leave 

45: from PNPI, 188350 Gatchina, St.~Petersburg, Russia.} \\ { LPTHE,

46: Universit{\'e} Pierre et Marie Curie,\\ 4, Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris,

47: France }}

48:        

49: \begin{document}

50: 

51: \maketitle

52: 

53: \begin{abstract}

54: \end{abstract}

55: 

56: 

57: \section{INTRODUCTION}

58: 

59: Phenomenology of scattering processes involving hadrons always was,

60: and still is, providing puzzles and inspiration.  

61: %

62: If 30--40 years ago quantum field theory (QFT) had been kept in higher

63: respect, the most general phenomenological features of hadron

64: interactions that were known then could have already hinted at QCD as

65: a possible underlying microscopic theory of hadrons.

66: 

67: Hints from the past:

68: \begin{itemize}

69: \item 

70: The fact that in high energy hadron interaction processes {\em

71: inelastic}\/ breakup typically dominates over elastic scattering

72: hinted at proton being a loosely bound compound object:

73: \begin{quote}

74: $\Longrightarrow$\qquad   {\em Constituent Quarks}

75: \end{quote}

76:  

77: \item

78: Constancy of transverse momenta of produced hadrons, rare appearance

79: of large-$k_\perp$ fluctuations, was signaling the weakness of

80: interaction at small relative distances:

81: \begin{quote}

82: $\Longrightarrow$\qquad  {\em Asymptotic Freedom}

83: \end{quote}

84: 

85: \item 

86: The last but not the least; 

87: \begin{itemize}

88: 

89: \item

90: The total hadron interaction cross sections turned out to be

91: practically {\em constant}\/ with energy. {\em If}\/ we were to employ

92: the standard quantum field theory (QFT) picture of a particle exchange

93: between interacting objects,

94: %

95: $$

96:    \sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}} \propto s^{J-1} \>\simeq\> \mbox{const},

97: $$

98: %

99: {\em then} this called for a spin-one elementary field, $J=1$, to be

100: present in the theory.

101: 

102: 

103: \item

104: {\em Uniformity in rapidity}\/ of the distribution of produced hadrons

105: (Feynman plateau) pointed in the same direction, {\em if}, once again,

106: we were willing to link final particle production to accompanying QFT

107: ``radiation''.

108: \end{itemize}

109: \begin{quote}

110: $\Longrightarrow$\qquad  {\em Vector Gluons}.

111: \end{quote}

112: \end{itemize}

113: Nowadays the dossier of puzzles \&\ hints that the hadron

114: phenomenology has accumulated is very impressive. It includes a broad

115: spectrum of issues ranging from unexplained regularities in hadron

116: spectroscopy to soft ``forceless'' hadroproduction in hard processes.

117: %

118: To locate and formulate a puzzle, to digest a hint, --- these are the

119: road-signs to the hadron chromodynamics construction site.  We are

120: learning how to listen. And to hear.

121: 

122: The reason why one keeps talking, for almost 30 years now, about

123: puzzles and hints, about {\em constructing}\/ QCD rather than {\em

124: applying}\/ it, lies in the conceptually new problem one faces when

125: dealing with a non-Abelian theory with unbroken symmetry (like

126: QCD). We have to understand how to master QFTs whose dynamics is

127: intrinsically unstable in the infrared domain: the objects belonging

128: to the physical spectrum of the theory (supposedly, colourless hadrons,

129: in the QCD context) have no direct one-to-one correspondence with the

130: fundamental fields the microscopic Lagrangian of the theory is made of

131: (coloured quarks and gluons).

132: 

133: In these circumstances we don't even know how to formulate at the

134: level of the microscopic fields the fundamental properties of the

135: theory, such as conservation of probability (unitarity) and

136: analyticity (causality):

137: \begin{itemize}

138: \item

139:   What does {\em Unitarity}\/ imply for confined objects?

140: \item

141:   How does {\em Causality}\/ restrict quark and gluon Green functions

142:   and their interaction amplitudes?

143: \item

144:   What does the {\em mass}\/ of an INFO (Identified Non-Flying Object)

145:   mean?

146: \end{itemize}

147: The issue of quark masses is especially damaging since a mismatch

148: between quark and hadron thresholds 

149: % (whatever the former might mean)

150: significantly affects predicting the yield of heavy-flavoured hadrons

151: in hadron collisions. 

152: % markedly at LHC.

153: 

154: Understanding confinement of colour remains an open problem.  Given

155: the present state of ignorance, one has no better way but to circle

156: along the {\em Guess-Calculate-Compare}\/ loop.  There are, however,

157: {\em guesses}\/ and {\em guesses}.

158: 

159: 

160: 

161: \section{WORDS, WORDS, ...}

162: 

163: Speaking of ``perturbative QCD'' (pQCD) can have two different

164: meanings.

165: \begin{itemize}

166: \item

167:  In a narrow, strict sense of the word, {\em perturbative approach}\/

168:  implies representing an answer for a (calculable) quantity in terms

169:  of series in a (small) expansion parameter $\alpha_s(Q)$, with $Q$

170:  the proper hardness scale of the problem under consideration.

171: 

172: \item

173:  In a broad sense, {\em perturbative}\/ means applying the language of

174:  quarks and gluons to a problem, be it of perturbative

175:  (short-distance, small-coupling) or even non-perturbative nature.

176: \end{itemize}

177: 

178: The former definition is doomed: the perturbative series so

179: constructed are known to diverge. In QCD these are asymptotic series

180: of such kind that cannot be ``resummed'' into an analytic function in

181: a unique way. For a given calculable (collinear-\&\ {}-infrared-safe;

182: CIS) observable~\cite{SW} the nature of this nasty divergence can be

183: studied and quantified as an intrinsic uncertainty of pQCD series, in

184: terms of the so-called {\em infrared renormalons}\/~\cite{Beneke}.

185: Such uncertainties are non-analytic in the coupling constant and

186: signal the presence of non-perturbative (large-distance) effects.  For

187: a CIS observable, non-perturbative physics enters at the level of

188: power-suppressed corrections $\exp\{-c/\alpha_s(Q)\}\propto

189: Q^{-\gamma}$, with $\gamma$ an observable-dependent positive

190: integer\footnote{usually, though not necessarily~\cite{EEC}} number.

191: 

192: On the contrary, the broader definition of being ``perturbative'' is

193: bound to be right. At least as long as we aim at eventually deriving

194: the physics of hadrons from the quark-gluon QCD Lagrangian.

195: 

196: To distinguish between the two meanings, in what follows we will

197: supply the word {\em perturbative}\/ with a superscript \1  or \2.  

198: %

199: Thus, when discussing the strong interaction domain in terms of quarks

200: and gluons, we will be able to speak about non-perturbative\1

201: perturbative\2 effects.

202: 

203: 

204: \section{PROBING CONFINEMENT WITH PERTURBATIVE TOOLS}

205: % {Probing confinement with perturbative tools}

206: 

207: Let us discuss the test case of the total cross section of $e^+e^-$

208: annihilation into hadrons as an example.

209: 

210: To predict $\sigma^{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize hadr}}$

211: one calculates instead the cross sections of quark and gluon

212: production, $(e^+e^-\to q\bar{q})$ + $(e^+e^-\to q\bar{q}+g)$ + etc.,

213: where quarks and gluons are being treated {\em perturbatively}\/ as

214: real (unconfined, flying) objects. The {\em completeness}\/ argument

215: provides an apology for such a brave substitution:

216: \begin{quote}

217:   Once instantaneously produced by the electromagnetic (electroweak)

218:   current, the quarks (and secondary gluons) have nowhere else to go

219:   but to convert, {\em with unit probability}, into hadrons in the end

220:   of the day.

221: \end{quote}

222: This {\em guess}\/ looks rather solid and sounds convincing, but

223: relies on two hidden assumptions:

224: \begin{enumerate}

225: \item 

226:   The allowed hadron states should be numerous as to provide the

227:   quark-gluon system the means for ``regrouping'', ``blanching'',

228:   ``fitting'' into hadrons.

229: \item

230:   It implies that the ``production'' and ``hadronization'' stages of

231:   the process can be separated and treated independently.

232: \end{enumerate}

233: 1. To comply with the first assumption the annihilation energy has to

234: be taken large enough, $s\equiv Q^2\gg s_0$. In particular, it fails

235: miserably in the resonance region $Q^2\la s_0\sim 2M_{\rm res}^2$.

236: Thus, the point-by-point correspondence between hadron and quark cross

237: sections,

238: %

239: $$

240:  \sigma^{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize hadr}}(Q^2) 

241:  \>\stackrel{\mbox{?}}{=}\> 

242:  \sigma^{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}_{{q\bar{q}+X}}(Q^2), 

243: $$

244: %

245: cannot be sustained except at very high energies.

246: %%%%% How high is high? 

247: %%%%% And how accurate? 

248: It can be traded, however, for something better manageable.

249: 

250: Invoking the dispersion relation for the photon propagator (causality

251: $\Longrightarrow$ analyticity) one can relate the {\em energy

252: integrals}\/ of $\sigmatot(s)$ 

253: % over the Minkowsky region 

254: with the correlator of electromagnetic currents in a deeply Euclidean

255: region of large {\em negative}\/ $Q^2$. The latter

256: % which 

257: corresponds to small space-like distances between interaction points,

258: where the perturbative\2 approach is definitely valid.

259: 

260: Expanding the answer in a formal series of local operators, one

261: arrives at the structure in which the corrections to the trivial unit

262: operator generate the usual perturbative\1 series in powers of

263: $\alpha_s$ (logarithmic corrections), whereas the vacuum expectation

264: values of dimension-full (Lorentz- and colour-invariant) QCD operators

265: provide non-perturbative\1 corrections suppressed as powers of $Q$.

266: 

267: This is the realm of the famous ITEP sum rules~\cite{ITEP}

268: %

269: which proved to be successful in linking the parameters of the

270: low-lying resonances in the Minkowsky space with expectation values

271: characterising a non-trivial structure of the QCD vacuum in the

272: Euclidean space.

273: %

274: The leaders among them are the gluon condensate $\alpha_s

275: G^{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}$ and the quark condensate

276: $\lrang{\psi\bar\psi}\lrang{\psi\bar\psi}$ which contribute to the

277: total annihilation cross section, symbolically, as

278: \begin{equation}

279: \label{eq:itep}

280: \sigma^{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize hadr}}(Q^2) 

281: -  \sigma^{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}_{{q\bar{q}+X}}(Q^2)

282: \>=\> c_1{\frac{\alpha_s G^2}{Q^4} + c_2\frac{\lrang{\psi\bar\psi}^2}{Q^6}} 

283: + \ldots\,.  

284: \end{equation}

285: 

286: 

287: \noindent

288: 2. Validating the second assumption also calls for large $Q^2$.  To be

289: able to separate the two stages of the process, it is {\em

290: necessary}\/ to have the production time of the quark pair $\tau\sim

291: Q^{-1}$ to be much smaller than the time $t_1\sim \mu^{-1}\sim 1\,{\rm

292: fm}/c$ when the first hadron appears in the system. Whether this

293: condition is {\em sufficient}, is another valid question. And a tricky

294: one.

295: 

296: Strictly speaking, due to gluon bremsstrahlung off the primary quarks,

297: the perturbative production of secondary gluons and $q\bar{q}$ pairs

298: spans an immense interval of time, ranging from a very short time

299: %

300: $\tform\sim Q^{-1}\ll t_1$ 

301: %

302: all the way up to a macroscopically large time 

303: %

304: $\tform\la Q/\mu^2\gg t_1$.

305: 

306: This accompanying radiation is responsible for formation of hadron

307: jets. It does not, however, affect the total cross section.  It is the

308: rare hard gluons with large energies and transverse momenta,

309: $\omega\sim k_\perp\sim{Q}$, that only matter.  This

310: % statement constitutes the essence of 

311: follows from 

312: %

313: the famous Bloch-Nordsieck theorem

314: %%%%% ~\cite{BN} 

315: which states that the logarithmically enhanced (divergent)

316: contributions due to real production of {\em collinear}\/ ($k_\perp\ll

317: Q$) and {\em soft}\/ ($\omega\ll Q$) quanta cancel against the

318: corresponding virtual corrections:

319: %

320: $$

321:  \sigma^{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}_{q\bar{q}+X} = \sigma_{Born}

322: \left(1+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\left[\infty_{\mbox{\scriptsize real}}

323: -\infty_{\mbox{\scriptsize virtual}} \right]+\ldots \right) =

324: \sigma_{Born}

325: \left(1+\frac{3}{4}\frac{C_F\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}+\ldots\right).

326: $$

327: %

328: The nature of the argument is purely perturbative. 

329: Can the Bloch-Nordsieck result hold beyond pQCD?  

330: 

331: Looking into this problem produced an extremely interesting result

332: that has laid a foundation for the development of perturbative\2

333: techniques aimed at analysing non-perturbative\1 effects.

334: 

335: V.~Braun, M.~Beneke and V.~Zakharov have demonstrated that the

336: real-virtual cancellation actually proceeds much deeper than was

337: originally expected. 

338: 

339: Let me briefly sketch the idea.  

340: %

341: \begin{itemize}

342: \item

343:  First one introduces an infrared cutoff (non-zero gluon mass $m$)

344:  into the calculation of the radiative correction.

345: \item

346:  Then, one studies the dependence of the answer on $m$.  A CIS

347:  quantity, by definition, remains finite in the limit $m\to0$.  This

348:  does not mean, however, that it is insensitive to the modification of

349:  gluon propagation. In fact, the $m$-dependence provides a handle for

350:  analyzing the {\em small transverse momenta}\/ inside Feynman

351:  integrals. It is this region of integration over parton momenta where

352:  the QCD coupling gets out of perturbative\1 control and the genuine

353:  non-perturbative physics comes onto the stage.

354: \item

355:  Infrared sensitivity of a given CIS observable is determined then by

356:  the first non-vanishing term which is {\em non-analytic}\/ in $m^2$ at

357: $m= 0$.

358: \end{itemize}

359: %

360: In the case of one-loop analysis of $\sigmatot$ that we are

361: discussing, one finds that in the sum of real and virtual

362: contributions not only the terms singular as $m \to 0$,

363: %

364: $$

365: \ln^2m^2\;,  \;\;\;\;\;\; \ln m^2

366: \,,

367: $$

368: %

369: cancel, as required by the Bloch-Nordsieck theorem, but that the

370: cancellation extends~\cite{BBZ,BB} also to the whole tower of {\em

371: finite}\/ terms

372: %

373: $$

374: m^2\ln^2 m^2\;, \;\;\;\; m^2\ln m^2\,, \;\;\;\; m^2\;, 

375: \;\;\;\; m^4\ln^2m^2\;, \;\;\;\; m^4\ln m^2 

376: \,. 

377: $$ 

378: %

379: In our case the first {\em non-analytic}\/ term appears at the level

380: of $m^6$:

381: %

382: $$ 

383: \frac{3}{4}\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{\pi}\left( 1 + 2\frac{m^6}{Q^6}\ln

384: \frac{m^2}{Q^2} +\cO{m^8}\right).

385: $$

386: %

387: It signals the presence of the non-perturbative $Q^{-6}$ correction to

388: $\sigmatot$, which is equivalent to that of the ITEP quark condensate

389: in~\eqref{eq:itep}. (The gluon condensate contribution emerges in the

390: next order in $\alpha_s$.)

391: 

392: A similar program can be carried out for other CIS quantities as well,

393: including intrinsically Minkowskian observables which address the

394: properties of the final state systems and, unlike the total cross

395: sections, do not have a Euclidean image.

396: 

397: The most spectacular non-perturbative\1 results were obtained for a

398: broad class of 

399: %%%%% so-called 

400: {\em jet shape variables}\/ (like thrust, $C$-parameter, broadenings,

401: and alike).  As has long been expected~\cite{hadro,DW,MW,AkZak}, these

402: variables possess relatively large $1/Q$ confinement correction

403: effects.

404: %

405: 

406: Employing the ``gluon mass'' as a large-distance trigger was

407: formalized by the so-called dispersive method~\cite{DMW}.

408: %

409: There it was also suggested to relate new non-perturbative\1

410: dimensional parameters with the momentum integrals of the effective

411: QCD coupling $\alpha_s$ in the infrared domain. Though it remains

412: unclear how such a coupling can be rigorously defined from the first

413: principles, the  {\em universality}\/ of the coupling 

414: %%%%% of the coupling 

415: makes this guess verifiable and therefore legitimate. All the

416: observables belonging to the same class $1/Q^{p}$ with respect to the

417: nature of the leading non-perturbative\1 behaviour, should be

418: described by the same parameter.

419: 

420: In particular, the extended family of jet shapes (including

421: energy-energy correlations~\cite{EEC}, out-of-plane transverse

422: momentum flows~\cite{kout} etc.) can be said to ``measure'' the first

423: moment of the perturbative\2 non-perturbative\1 coupling,

424: \begin{equation}

425: \alpha_0 \>\equiv\> \frac{1}{\mu_I}

426: %%%%% {2\,\mbox{\scriptsize GeV}} 

427: \int_0^{\mu_I}

428: %%%%% {2\,\mbox{\scriptsize GeV}}

429:  dk\,

430: \alpha_s(k^2), \qquad \mu_I= 2\,\mbox{GeV},

431: \end{equation}

432: where the choice of the ``infrared'' boundary value $\mu_I$ is a

433: matter of convention.

434: 

435: 

436: The interested reader will find a detailed discussion of the method,

437: of the guesses made and the problems faced, as well as the turbulent

438: history of its application, in review talks~\cite{rev}.  Here I will

439: only report the new spectacular results of the perturbative\2 study of

440: jet shape variables in DIS carried out recently by M.~Dasgupta and

441: G.~Salam~\cite{DISevsh}.

442: 

443: 

444: \section{INTERMEDIATE DISTANCES IN DIS}

445: %{Intermediate distances in DIS}

446: In Fig.~1 the results are shown of the two-parameter fits to the means

447: of jet shapes in $e^+e^-$ annihilation together with the fits to the

448: jet shape distributions in DIS~\cite{DISevsh}.

449: %

450: Consistency among the same-family variables is quite impressive.

451: 

452: \begin{figure}[h]

453: \begin{center}

454: %\vspace{3 cm}

455:  \epsfig{file=cont-pscheme+DISdist-bw.eps}

456: \end{center}

457: \caption{$\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ and $\alpha_0$ from jet shapes.

458: 1--$\sigma$ contours for the means in $e^+e^-$ annihilation (solid)

459: and for the shape distributions in the current fragmentation jet in

460: DIS (dashed).}

461: \end{figure}

462: 

463: It is important to stress that prior to hunting for non-perturbative\1

464: effects, the state-of-the-art perturbative\1 predictions have to be

465: derived and implemented.  In the case of distributions this involves

466: resummation of logarithmically enhanced contributions in all order of

467: perturbation theory.  Having addressed this problem in the DIS

468: environment, Dasgupta and Salam have found a new set of log-enhanced

469: terms that has been previously overlooked in the literature. These

470: corrections (dubbed ``non-global'' by the founders) only affect the

471: observables that are based on a measurement restricted to a {\em

472: fraction}\/ of the total phase space available for gluon

473: radiation. For example, restricted to one hemisphere, or to any

474: limited angular region.

475: %

476: (In particular, among the observables that suffer from this newly

477: discovered effect is the Sterman-Weinberg jet cross section,--- the

478: first classical example of a CIS quantity.)

479: 

480: Being subleading (single logarithmic) in nature, these corrections

481: nevertheless modify the log-resummed perturbative predictions quite

482: significantly, as shown in Fig.~2.

483: 

484: \begin{figure}

485: \begin{center}

486:   \epsfig{file=NGeffect-rhoE-noPC-noMtch-bw.eps}

487: \end{center}

488: \caption{Normalised invariant mass distribution with and without

489: non-global single-logarithmic corrections~\cite{NonGlobal}.}

490: \end{figure}

491: 

492: \section{CONCLUSIONS}

493: Deep inelastic scattering phenomena always were on the QCD forefront.

494: Exploring quark-gluon dynamics in the DIS environment becomes even

495: more important nowadays.

496:  

497: While we concentrated on {\em veryfying}\/ perturbative\1 QCD

498: predictions for multiple hadroproduction, DIS was handicapped as

499: lacking a manageable hadron-free initial state, as compared with the

500: ``clean'' $e^+e^-$ annihilation.

501: %

502: Now that one aims at understanding an interface between hard and soft

503: physics, this is no longer a disadvantage, and DIS should take the

504: lead.

505: 

506: The main {\em advantage}\/ of DIS is that the {\em energy}\/ of

507: the process, $s$, is not kinematically equated to its hardness, $Q^2$,

508: as in the case of annihilation ($s=Q^2$).  Thus, in DIS one can study

509: intermediate and small hardness scales while staying away from the

510: difficult resonance region, without restricting the phase space for

511: multiparticle production.

512: 

513: On the other hand, the study of quasi-diffractive phenomena in

514: lepton-hadron scattering offers a variety of hardness handles ($Q^2$,

515: $t$, $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ masses). Diffraction is interesting on

516: its own as a non-linear phenomenon closely linked to unitarity.

517: Moreover, it can be looked upon as a first step towards understanding

518: multi-gluon exchange, which is necessary for uncovering the

519: perturbative\2 non-perturbative\1 physics of lepton/hadron-nucleus and

520: heavy ion scattering.

521: 

522: 

523:  

524: \begin{thebibliography}{9}

525: 

526: \bibitem{SW} G.\ Sterman and S.\ Weinberg,  

527: Phys.Rev.Lett. \underline{39} (1977) 1436. 

528:  

529: \bibitem{Beneke} M.\ Beneke, 

530: Phys.Rept. \underline{317} (1999) 1. 

531: % e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9807443 

532: 

533: \bibitem{EEC}

534: % 1) NONPERTURBATIVE EFFECTS IN THE ENERGY ENERGY CORRELATION.  By Yuri

535: Yu.L.\ Dokshitzer, G.\ Marchesini and B.R. Webber,  {JHEP}\/ 9907:012, 1999.

536: %[hep-ph/9905339]

537: 

538: \bibitem{ITEP}

539:        {\it Vacuum Structure and QCD Sum Rules: Reprints}, 

540:        ed.\ M.A.\ Shifman \\  

541:        (North-Holland, 1992:

542:        Current Physics, Sources and Comments, v.\ 10).

543: %%%%%%%%%%

544: 

545: \bibitem{BBZ}

546:   M.\ Beneke, V.M.\ Braun and V.I.\ Zakharov, \prl{73}{3058}{94}.

547: 

548: \bibitem{BB}

549:        M.\ Beneke and V.M.\ Braun, \np{454}{253}{95}.

550: 

551: 

552: 

553: %%%%%%%%%   1/Q

554: \bibitem{hadro}

555:        B.R.\ Webber, \pl{339}{148}{94};

556:        see also {\em Proc.\ Summer School on Hadronic Aspects

557:        of Collider Physics, Zuoz, Switzerland, August 1994}, 

558:        ed.\ M.P.\ Locher \\ (PSI, Villigen, 1994).

559: \bibitem{DW}

560:        Yu.L.\ Dokshitzer and B.R.\ Webber, \pl{352}{451}{95}.

561: \bibitem{MW}

562:        A.V.\ Manohar and M.B.\ Wise, \pl{344}{407}{95}.

563: \bibitem{AkZak}

564:        R.\ Akhoury and V.I.\ Zakharov, \pl{357}{646}{95}.

565: %       preprint UM-TH-95-19 [hep-ph/9507253].

566: 

567: \bibitem{DMW} Yu.L.\ Dokshitzer, G.\ Marchesini and B.R. Webber,

568: 

569: \bibitem{kout} A.\ Banfi, et al.,

570: % Yu.L.\ Dokshitzer, G.\ Marchesini and G.\ Zanderighi, 

571: Phys.Lett. \underline{508B} (2001) 269. 

572: % e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0010267 

573: 

574: \bibitem{rev} Yu.L.\ Dokshitzer,

575: %15) PERTURBATIVE QCD THEORY (INCLUDES OUR KNOWLEDGE OF ALPHA(S)).

576: Talk given at 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics

577: (ICHEP 98), Vancouver, Canada, 23-29 Jul 1998. In *Vancouver 1998,

578: High energy physics, vol.~1, 305; e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9812252;\\

579: %

580: %11) PERTURBATIVE QCD AND POWER CORRECTIONS.

581: Invited talk at 11th Rencontres de Blois: Frontiers of Matter, Chateau

582: de Blois, France, 28 Jun - 3 Jul 1999; e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9911299.

583: 

584: \bibitem{DISevsh} M.\ Dasgupta and G.P.\ Salam,

585: Talk given at 37th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and Hadronic

586: Interactions, Les Arcs, France, 16-23 Mar 2002, and at 10th

587: International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS 2002), Cracow,

588: Poland, 30 Apr - 4 May 2002; 

589: in preparation; e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0205161.

590: 

591: \bibitem{NonGlobal} M.\ Dasgupta and G.P.\ Salam,

592: % 4) RESUMMATION OF NONGLOBAL QCD OBSERVABLES.  

593: Phys.Lett. \underline{512B} (2001) 323.

594: % e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0104277

595: 

596: \end{thebibliography}

597: 

598: 

599: \end{document}

600: 

601: 

602: