1:  \documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: 

4: \parskip 2mm plus 2mm minus 2mm

5: \newlength{\dinwidth}

6: \newlength{\dinmargin}

7: \setlength{\dinwidth}{20.0cm}

8: \textheight24.5cm \textwidth18.0cm

9: \setlength{\dinmargin}{\dinwidth}

10: \addtolength{\dinmargin}{-\textwidth}

11: \setlength{\dinmargin}{0.5\dinmargin}

12: \oddsidemargin -0.8in

13: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{\dinmargin}

14: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin}

15: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.9\dinmargin}

16: \marginparsep 8pt \marginparpush 5pt

17: \topmargin -57pt

18: \headheight 11pt

19: \headsep 30pt

20: 

21: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}

22: 

23: 

24: 

25: %\def\eq#1{{Eq.\ \ref{#1}\,}}

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

27: \def\eq#1{{(\ref{#1})}}

28: \newcommand{\Le}{\left(}

29: \newcommand{\Ra}{\right)}

30: \newcommand{\by}{\mathbf{y}}

31: \newcommand{\bk}{\mathbf{k}}

32: \newcommand{\bq}{\mathbf{q}}

33: \newcommand{\bb}{\mathbf{b}}

34: \newcommand{\ddt}{\sigma^{DD}/\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}} }

35: %

36: %

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

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

39: %

40: \newcommand{\beqar}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}

41: \newcommand{\eeqar}{\end{eqnarray}}

42: 

43: \def\fig#1{{Fig.~\ref{#1}}}

44: %

45: \newcommand{\bas}{\bar{\alpha}_s}

46: % definitions from the paper

47: \newcommand{\m}{\marginpar{*}}

48: \newcommand{\lash}[1]{\not\! #1 \,}

49: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\big< #1 \big|}

50: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\big| #1 \big>}

51: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

52: \newcommand{\D}{\partial}

53: \newcommand{\g}{{\rm g}}

54: \newcommand{\el}{{\cal L}}

55: \newcommand{\A}{{\cal A}}

56: \newcommand{\K}{{\cal K}}

57: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

58: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}

59: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}

60: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}

61: \newcommand{\De}{\Delta}

62: \newcommand{\et}{\eta}

63: \newcommand{\ka}{\vec{\kappa}}

64: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}

65: \newcommand{\ph}{\varphi}

66: \newcommand{\si}{\sigma}

67: \newcommand{\ro}{\varrho}

68: \newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma}

69: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

70: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

71: \newcommand{\tG}{\tilde{G}}

72: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}

73: \newcommand{\di}{\partial}

74: \newcommand{\baralpha}{\bar{\alpha}_S}

75: 

76: \newcommand{\tdm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

77: \newcommand{\tdmi}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath\scriptsize $#1$}}

78: 

79: 

80: \newcommand{\vb}{\tdm{b}}

81: \newcommand{\vq}{\tdm{q}}

82: \newcommand{\vk}{\tdm{k}}

83: \newcommand{\vr}{\tdm{r}}

84: \newcommand{\vbb}{\tdmi{b}}

85: \newcommand{\vqq}{\tdmi{q}}

86: 

87: \newcommand{\im}{\mathrm{Im}\;}

88: \newcommand{\fda}{f^\dagger}

89: \newcommand{\kbf}{{\cal K}_0}

90: \newcommand{\fbk}{f^{\mathrm{BK}}(y,k^2)}

91: \newcommand{\fbkd}{f^{\mathrm{\dagger BK}}(y',k^2)}

92: %

93: 

94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

95: 

96: \newcommand{\beeq}{\begin{eqnarray}}

97: \newcommand{\eeeq}{\end{eqnarray}}

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

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

100: 

101: \def\funp{{I\!\!P}}

102: \def\xp{x_{{I\!\!P}}}

103: 

104: \def\pcq{{p\! \cdot\!q}}

105: \def\munu{{\mu\nu}}

106: \def\alphaem{\alpha_{em}}

107: \def\pslash{{\not\!{p}}}

108: \def\qslash{{\not\!{q}}}

109: \def\qprime{q^\prime}

110: 

111: \def\kpri{k^\prime}

112: \def\kprii{{k^\prime}^2}

113: \def\lpri{l^\prime}

114: \def\lprii{{l^\prime}^2}

115: \def\kbop{{\bf k}^\prime}

116: \def\kbo{{\bf k}}

117: \def\kjbo{{\bf k}_1}

118: \def\kdbo{{\bf k}_2}

119: \def\lbo{{\bf l}}

120: \def\lbop{{\bf l}^\prime}

121: \def\qbo{{\bf q}}

122: \def\rbo{{\bf r}}

123: \def\rbop{{\bf r}^\prime}

124: \def\bbo{{\bf b}}

125: \def\rjbo{{\bf r}_1}

126: \def\rdbo{{\bf r}_2}

127: \def\fbar{\bar f}

128: \def\fhat{\hat f}

129: \def\kbar{\bar k}

130: \def\Qdash{\overline{Q}}

131: \def\phibar{\bar phi}

132: \def\xz{\frac{x}{z}}

133: \def\K{{\cal K}}

134: \def\F{{\cal F}}

135: \def\alfab{{\overline{\alpha}}_s}

136: \def\alfabn{{\frac{\alfab}{n}}}

137: \def\xz{\frac{x}{z}}

138: \def\fcal{{\cal{F}}}

139: 

140: \def\gev{\mbox{\rm GeV}}

141: 

142: \def\ytau{y}

143: 

144: 

145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

146: % ABBREVIATED JOURNAL NAMES

147: %

148: \def\ap#1#2#3{     {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

149: \def\arnps#1#2#3{  {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

150: \def\npb#1#2#3{    {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1}:#2 (#3)}

151: \def\plb#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1}:#2 (#3)}

152: \def\prd#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1}:#2 (#3)}

153: \def\prep#1#2#3{   {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

154: \def\prl#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

155: \def\ptp#1#2#3{    {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

156: \def\rmp#1#2#3{    {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

157: \def\zpc#1#2#3{    {\it Z. Phys. }{\bf C#1}:#2 (#3)}

158: \def\mpla#1#2#3{   {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A#1}:#2 (#3)}

159: \def\nc#1#2#3{     {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

160: \def\yf#1#2#3{     {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

161: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{   {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

162: \def\jetp#1#2#3{   {\it Sov. Phys. }{JETP }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

163: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{  {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

164: %%%%%%%%% notice the parentheses is only on one side

165: \def\ppsjnp#1#2#3{ {\it (Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

166: \def\ppjetp#1#2#3{ {\it (Sov. Phys. JETP }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

167: \def\zetf#1#2#3{   {\it Zh. ETF }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

168: \def\cmp#1#2#3{    {\it Comm. Math. Phys. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

169: \def\cpc#1#2#3{    {\it Comp. Phys. Commun. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

170: \def\dis#1#2{      {\it Dissertation, }{\sf #1 } #2}

171: \def\dip#1#2#3{    {\it Diplomarbeit, }{\sf #1 #2} #3 }

172: \def\ib#1#2#3{     {\it ibid. }{\bf #1}:#2 (#3)}

173: \def\jpg#1#2#3{        {\it J. Phys}. {\bf G#1}#2#3}

174: %

175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

177: 

178: \begin{document}

179: 

180: \title{{~}\\[1cm]

181: {\Large \bf 

182: Solving effective field theory of interacting QCD pomerons 

183: \\ in the semi-classical approximation }}

184: %

185: \author{ 

186: {~}\\

187: S.~Bondarenko$\,{}^{a)}\,$\thanks{Email: sergb@mail.desy.de}, 

188: \hspace{1ex}

189: L.~Motyka$\,{}^{b),c)}\,$\thanks{E-mail: motyka@th.if.uj.edu.pl}

190: \\[10mm]

191: {\it\normalsize ${}^{a)}$ II Institute for  Theoretical Physics, 

192: University of Hamburg, Germany}\\

193: {\it\normalsize ${}^{b)}$ DESY Theory Group, Hamburg, Germany }\\

194: {\it\normalsize $^{c)}$ Institute of Physics, Jagellonian University,

195: Krak\'{o}w, Poland} \\}

196: 

197: \date{16 May 2006}

198: 

199: \maketitle

200: \thispagestyle{empty}

201: 

202: \begin{abstract}

203: Effective field theory of BFKL pomerons interacting by QCD 

204: triple pomeron vertices is investigated. Classical equations of motion 

205: for the effective pomeron fields are presented being a minimal extension 

206: of the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation that incorporates both  

207: merging and splitting of the pomerons and that is self-dual.   

208: The equations are solved for symmetric boundary conditions. 

209: The solutions provide the dominant contribution to the scattering 

210: amplitudes in the semi-classical approximation. We find that for 

211: rapidities of the scattering larger than a critical value $Y_c$ at 

212: least two classical solutions exist. Curiously, for each of the two 

213: classical solutions with the lowest action the symmetry between 

214: the projectile and the target is found to be spontaneously broken, 

215: being however preserved for the complete set of classical solutions. 

216: The solving configurations at rapidities $Y>Y_c$ consist of a Gribov 

217: field being strongly suppressed even at very large gluon momenta and the 

218: complementary Gribov field that converges at high $Y$ to a solution of 

219: Balitsky-Kovchegov equation. Interpretation of the results is given 

220: and possible consequences are shortly discussed. 

221: \end{abstract}

222: 

223: 

224: \begin{flushright}

225: \vspace{-20.8cm}

226: %{DESY 06--xxx}

227: hep-ph/0605185\\

228: %\today

229: \end{flushright}

230: \thispagestyle{empty}

231: 

232: \newpage

233: 

234: 

235: \section{Introduction}

236: 

237: 

238: Understanding of scattering of hadrons and nuclei at very high energies 

239: in terms of Quantum Chromodynamics remains one of the most important

240: challenges for the theory of strong interactions. The reasons for that are

241: both of the phenomenological and of the purely theoretical nature. 

242: In practical terms, the basic physics of the present and future 

243: colliders, HERA, Tevatron, RHIC and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), 

244: is the physics of high energy scattering in QCD. 

245: On the other hand, the high energy regime of QCD reveals intriguing 

246: similarities to high energy regime of string theory~\cite{ads1}. 

247: To trace and explore postulated dualities between string theories and 

248: gauge theories and possible manifestations of those dualities in high 

249: energy scattering is a goal of primary importance.

250: 

251: 

252: 

253: The most successful approach to high energy scattering in QCD is based

254: on infinite resummations of large logarithms of collision energy $\sqrt{s}$

255: in perturbative expansions of the scattering amplitudes. The corner stone 

256: of this formalism is the evolution equation derived by Balitsky, Fadin, 

257: Kuraev and Lipatov (BFKL)\cite{bfkl,bfklsum,nlbfkl}. 

258: In the BFKL framework, the energy evolution of the exchange of an 

259: interacting gluon pair in a colour singlet state (the BFKL pomeron) 

260: was analyzed at the leading logarithmic (LL) approximation, and consequently, 

261: the energy dependence of the hard scattering amplitude was obtained that

262: exhibits a power like growth with energy, ${\cal A} \sim s^{1+\Delta}$ 

263: with the intercept $\Delta \sim 0.3$. Such behaviour would eventually lead 

264: to violation of unitarity. Clearly, this indicates that when the energy 

265: is sufficiently large unitarity corrections to the BFKL evolution 

266: must be added. 

267: 

268: 

269: 

270: In recent years unitarity effects in high energy QCD have been vigorously 

271: investigated along two main lines. The Color Glass Condensate (CGC) approach

272: \cite{balitsky,jimwalk} is formulated in the transverse position space and it 

273: is based on energy evolution of Wilson loops and phenomena of rescattering 

274: and recombination. In the large $N_c$ limit, the dynamics of the 

275: Color Glass Condensate may be analyzed in terms of a statistical model 

276: of color dipoles~\cite{dipmod}.  At a very general level, the dipole 

277: description of high energy scattering may be presented as a combination of 

278: multiple dipole splittings, the rescattering of dipoles off a target and 

279: a stochastic fluctuation term~\cite{stochastic}. 

280: 

281: 

282: 

283: The QCD Reggeon Field Theory (QCD-RFT) approach is formulated in momentum 

284: space and bases the on standard diagrammatic 

285: calculus~\cite{vert1,vert2,eglla1,eglla2,eglla3,eglla4}. The main building 

286: blocks here are QCD reggeon Green's functions and multi-reggeon vertices 

287: derived in the perturbative QCD. Scattering amplitudes may be represented 

288: in terms of Feynman diagrams of effective (non-local) reggeon fields. 

289: This effective field theory is constructed using the so-called 

290: Extended Generalized Leading Logarithmic Approximation (EGLLA)~\cite{eglla1} 

291: which resums the leading powers of $\,\alpha_s \log s\,$ for given topology of 

292: the reggeon diagram. 

293: The CGC and the QCD-RFT formulations should be, in fact, 

294: two different descriptions of the same theory, and they 

295: should be equivalent. 

296: 

297:  

298: 

299: In parallel to the theoretical efforts to determine the deep fundamental 

300: structure of the effective field theory for high energy scattering, more 

301: phenomenological studies of the unitarity effects have been carried out. 

302: Probably, a pair of the most fruitful (and entangled) concepts of the 

303: last decade were the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) evolution 

304: equation~\cite{balitsky,kov1,kov2}, and 

305: the saturation model proposed by Golec-Biernat and W\"{u}sthoff 

306: (GBW)~\cite{gbw1,gbw2}. The BK equation was derived in the CGC formulation 

307: and in the framework of QCD-RFT it can be viewed as a resummation of 

308: the BFKL pomeron fan diagrams of the type depicted in \fig{diag1}a.

309: An important feature of the BK equation is 

310: its simplicity -- absence of the vertex for pomeron splitting removes 

311: all quantum loops of the complete theory. Therefore, a classical treatment

312: of PFT is exact in the case of the BK equation. 

313: 

314: 

315: \begin{figure}[t]

316: \begin{center}

317: \psfig{file=diag1.eps,width=180mm} 

318: \end{center} 

319: \caption{\it 

320: Examples of diagrams of the effective field theory of QCD pomerons 

321: interacting with triple pomeron vertices:

322: a) a fan diagram; b) a tree diagram defining the classical limit; 

323: c) a diagram with quantum loops.}

324: \label{diag1}

325: \end{figure}

326: 

327: 

328: 

329: Numerous explicit solutions~\cite{bksols,bdepkov,jimsol} and 

330: semi-analytical analyzes of the BK equation were 

331: presented~\cite{bksols,bksemi1,bksemi2} and applications were developed 

332: for the deep inelastic scattering (DIS) of nuclei and off the 

333: nucleon~\cite{bk-pheno,kks,iim}.

334: Probably, the most remarkable features of the BK equation is generation

335: of the {\em saturation scale} $Q_s(y)$, increasing exponentially  with the 

336: available rapidity $y$: $Q_s(y) \sim \exp(\lambda y)$, and the 

337: {\em geometric scaling}~\cite{scaling,barlev,traveling}. 

338: Both the features of the BK equation are strongly favoured by the 

339: experimental data for $\sigma(\gamma^*(Q^2) p)$ down to $Q^2=0$,

340: the diffractive~DIS data and heavy flavour electro-production~\cite{gbw1,gbw2,gbwev}; two-photon cross sections~\cite{tkm}; exclusive photo- and 

341: electroproduction of vector mesons and the deeply virtual Compton 

342: scattering~\cite{kt,kmw}, etc. 

343: 

344:  

345: Unfortunately, the BK equation is not sufficient to address the problem

346: of scattering of two similar objects, that is the symmetric situation, like

347: proton-proton and nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC and the LHC.

348: At present, efforts are made to understand the effective PFT beyond 

349: the BK limit~\cite{stochastic,braun1,braun2,braun3,absorptive,balshock}. 

350: The first key step is to determine properties of the theory after the 

351: vertex describing splitting of the pomeron to two pomerons is added to 

352: the BK framework. Importantly, the form of this vertex is imposed by the

353: form of the vertex for two pomeron merging. The reason for that is that

354: the two vertices differ only by the choice of direction of evolution in 

355: rapidity, which is arbitrary and should have no impact on physics.

356: This simple fact was known in the RFT since a long 

357: time~\cite{0dimc,0dimq,0dimi} and recently it was re-discovered in the 

358: CGC framework, as the self-duality of the CGC Hamiltonian~\cite{selfdual}. 

359: With the pomeron splitting  vertex quantum pomeron loops become possible, 

360: as exemplified in \fig{diag1}c, and solving the theory becomes much more 

361: difficult. There exists, however, an interesting limit in 

362: which some explicit results can be found. Namely, collision of two large 

363: nuclei composed of $A \gg 1$ nucleons each, can be analyzed. 

364: In the limit of very large $A$ the quantum pomeron loops will provide 

365: only subleading contribution, suppressed by powers $1/A$. 

366: Then, the tree topologies of the pomeron diagrams give the 

367: dominant contribution to the $S$-matrix, corresponding to the classical 

368: limit of the effective Pomeron Field Theory. A pomeron diagram that has 

369: the tree topology is shown in \fig{diag1}b. This concept was put forward and 

370: developed in a series of pioneering papers by 

371: Braun~\cite{braun1,braun2,braun3}, and an analogous

372: path was taken by Balitsky in the framework of the Color Glass 

373: Condensate~\cite{balshock}. In the present study we provide a complementary 

374: analysis to that of Braun, solving the classical equations of motion of the 

375: Pomeron Field Theory, and reporting observations of some new, unexpected 

376: features of the PFT. Among them, perhaps, the most surprising is a break-down

377: of the symmetry between the target and the projectile at the classical level.

378: 

379: 

380: 

381: The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the 

382: formalism of the effective QCD Pomeron Field Theory. In Sec.~3 we 

383: provide insight into the theory coming from a toy model of the 

384: Reggeon Field Theory in zero transverse dimensions. In Sec.~4 solutions 

385: of PFT are presented. We discuss the results in Sec.~5 and conclude in Sec.~6. 

386:  

387: 

388: 

389: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

390: 

391: 

392: 

393: 

394: \section{Formalism}

395: 

396: \subsection{The Balitsky-Kovchegov equation and the triple pomeron vertex}

397: 

398: Scattering of the small perturbative probe off a large nucleus was

399: studied by Balitsky and Kovchegov~\cite{balitsky,kov1,kov2}. 

400: Balitsky derived the rapidity 

401: evolution equations describing the scattering amplitude in QCD, which 

402: involved an infinite tower of the correlators. This hierarchy is cut down to

403: the lowest correlator in the large $N_c$ limit, leading to a much simpler

404: and better tractable evolution equation. Such an equation was derived by

405: Kovchegov in the framework of the dipole model. Thus, the Balitsky-Kovchegov 

406: equation provides the correct limit of the scattering amplitude in QCD

407: for a large nucleus at the LL$s$ accuracy, and for $1/N_c \to 0$.

408: In the infinite momentum frame, the BK equation resums the BFKL pomeron fan

409: diagrams (see \fig{diag1}a), with the triple pomeron vertex equivalent to the 

410: Bartels vertex at the leading~$1/N_c$ accuracy. 

411: 

412: The BK equation was initially proposed as a non-linear evolution equation 

413: for the dipole scattering amplitude $N(\ytau;\rbo,\bbo)$, where 

414: the dipole spans the vector $\rbo$ and is located at the transverse 

415: position $\bbo$. Thus, the BK equation reads

416:  \beeq

417: \nonumber

418: \frac{\partial N(\ytau;\rbo,\bbo)}{\partial \ytau}

419: &=&

420: \overline{\alpha}_s\

421: (\tilde{\cal K}\otimes N)(\ytau;\rbo,\bbo)

422: \\

423: &-&

424: \overline{\alpha}_s\,

425: \int \frac{d^2\rbop}{2\pi}\,

426: \frac{r^2}{r^{\/\prime 2}(\rbo+\rbop)^2}\,

427: N\left(\ytau;

428: \rbo+\rbop,\bbo+\frac{\rbop}{2}\right)\;

429: N\left(\ytau;\rbop,\bbo+\frac{\rbo+\rbop}{2}

430: \right).

431: \label{eq:kov}

432: \eeeq

433: where $\overline{\alpha}_s=N_c \alpha_s/\pi$, and the linear term is

434: determined by the BFKL kernel in the position space

435: \begin{equation}

436: \\

437: \label{eq:bfklkernel}

438: (\tilde{\cal K}\otimes N)(\ytau;\rbo,\bbo)=

439: \int \frac{d^2\rbop}{2\pi\/ r^{\/\prime 2}}\,

440: \left\{

441: \frac{2\, r^2}{(\rbo+\rbop)^2}\,N(\ytau;\rbo+\rbop,\bbo)

442: -

443: \frac{r^2}{r^{\/\prime 2}+(\rbo+\rbop)^2}\,N(\ytau;\rbo,\bbo)

444: \right\}.

445: \\

446: \end{equation}

447: In the limit of the small scattering amplitude the quadratic term may be

448: neglected and the BFKL equation in the dipole picture is obtained.

449: 

450: 

451: The BK equation is a differentio-integral equation, for which

452: the integral kernel depends on two two-dimensional vectors $\rbo$ and 

453: $\bbo$. Numerical solution of the complete equation is possible~\cite{bdepkov} 

454: but cumbersome. Besides that, the treatment of the large dipoles and large

455: impact parameters in the BK equation is, strictly speaking, incorrect

456: as far as QCD is concerned. Namely, the confinement of colour is not 

457: accounted for, which can be seen, for instance from the conformal 

458: invariance of the equation. Thus, the Froissart limit for the scattering 

459: matrix is broken due to a power like diffusion to the large impact 

460: parameters~\cite{kovn1}.

461: Thus, in this work we follow the approximation made in  

462: the earlier analyzes that the dominant contribution to the scattering 

463: amplitude comes from perturbative dipoles for which $r \ll R$, 

464: where $R$ is the nucleus size. In this case the evolution may be assumed 

465: to be local in the transverse plane and Eq.~(\ref{eq:kov}) becomes 

466: independent of $\bbo$. Thus, the $\bbo$-dependence can be suppressed 

467: in $N(\ytau;\rbo,\bbo)$ and it enters only through the initial 

468: condition for the evolution equation. 

469: 

470: 

471: For an azimuthally symmetric solution, $N(\ytau,\rbo)=N(\ytau,r)$,  

472: it is convenient to Fourier transform Eq.~(\ref{eq:kov}) 

473: to the momentum space,

474: \begin{equation}

475: \phi(k^2,\ytau)

476: \,=\,

477: \int \frac{d^2\rbo}{2\pi} \exp(-i\kbo\cdot \rbo)\,

478: \frac{N(\ytau,r)}{r^2}

479: \,=\,

480: \int_0^\infty

481: \frac{dr}{r}\, J_0(k\/r)\,N(\ytau,r),

482: \end{equation}

483: where $J_0$ is the Bessel function.

484: In this case the following equation is obtained

485: \beeq

486: \label{eq:newkov}

487: \frac{\partial \phi(\ytau,k^2)}{\partial \ytau}

488: \,=\,

489: \overline{\alpha}_s\, ({\cal K}^\prime\otimes \phi)(\ytau,k^2)

490: \,-\

491: \overline{\alpha}_s\, \phi^{\,2}(\ytau,k^2),

492: \eeeq

493: and the action of the BFKL kernel (suitably

494: shifted in the space of the Mellin moments in $k^2$) is given by

495: \begin{equation}

496: ({\cal K}^\prime\otimes \phi)(\ytau,k^2)

497: \,=\,

498: \int_0^{\infty} \frac{da^2}{a^2}\,

499: \left\{

500: \frac{a^{2}\,\phi(\ytau,a^{2})\, -\, k^2\, \phi(\ytau,k^2)}

501: {|k^2\,-\, a^{2}|}

502: \,+\,

503: \frac{k^2\, \phi(\ytau,k^2)}{\sqrt{4 a^{4}\,+\,k^4}}

504: \right\},

505: \end{equation}

506: where $k^2$ and $a^2$ are the virtualities of the 

507: exchanged gluons in the BFKL ladder.

508: 

509: Equation \eq{eq:newkov} may be further transformed to the form dependent 

510: on the unintegrated gluon density in the transverse space~\cite{kks}.

511: One has

512: %\footnote{Strictly speaking, this relation between the scattering 

513: %amplitude of a dipole and the unintegrated gluon density is valid only if 

514: %the dipole is coupled to a pair of gluons, that is if no eikonalization 

515: %effects are included in this amplitude.}

516: \beq

517: f(\ytau,k^2) = {N_c \over 4 \alpha_s \pi^2} k^4 \nabla_k ^2 \phi(\ytau,k^2), 

518: \label{phi2f}

519: \eeq

520: and conversely,

521: \beq

522: \phi(\ytau,k^2) = {\pi^2 \alpha_s \over N_c} 

523: \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} f(\ytau,a^2) \,

524: \log\left( {a^2 \over k^2} \right). 

525: \label{f2phi}

526: \eeq

527: The unintegrated gluon density in the transverse space may be related  

528: in the small-$x$ limit to the collinear gluon distribution of the target~$A$

529: \beq

530: \int_{A}\! d^2 \vb\, f(\ytau,k^2,\vb) = 

531: {\partial xg(x,k^2)\over\partial \log k^2},  

532: \eeq 

533: where $y=\log(1/x)$ and we restored the dependence of $f(\ytau,k^2,\vb)$ 

534: on the tranverse position $\vb$, assuming that it is mild enough 

535: to ensure effective decoupling of the $\vb$~dependence from the BK 

536: evolution, which should hold for a large target.

537:  

538: 

539: After this transform is executed the BK equation reads~\cite{kks}

540: %

541: \[

542: \partial_\ytau f(\ytau,k^2) = 

543: {N_c \alpha_s \over \pi}\, k^2\, \int {da^2 \over a^2}

544: \left[

545: %

546: {f(a^2)-f(k^2) \over |a^2-k^2|} +

547: {f(k^2)\over [4a^4+k^4]^{{1\over 2}}}

548: %

549: \right]

550: \]

551: \beq

552: - {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

553: \left[

554: k^2 \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \;  f(\ytau,a^2)

555: \int_{k^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \;  f(\ytau,b^2)

556: + f(\ytau,k^2)\int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \; 

557: \log\left( {a^2 \over k^2} \right) f(\ytau,a^2)\right].

558: \eeq

559: %

560: It is easy to verify that the nonlinear term describing joining of two

561: pomerons, $(f,f) \to f$ is generated from the amplitude of the 

562: Bartels triple pomeron vertex (in the forward limit),

563: \[

564: (\fda|  V_{3P} | f \otimes f)  =  -{2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

565: \int {da^2 \over a^4} \,a^2 \fda(\ytau,a^2)

566: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \;  f(\ytau,b^2)

567: \int_{a^2} {dc^2 \over c^4} \; f(\ytau,c^2)

568: \]

569: \beq

570: - {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

571: \int {da^2 \over a^4} \, \fda(\ytau,a^2) f(\ytau,a^2)

572: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \; \log\left( {b^2 \over a^2} \right)

573: f(\ytau,b^2).

574: \eeq

575: by functional differentiation with respect to the pomeron field 

576: $\fda(\ytau,k^2)$. The details of the complete

577: effective action for interacting pomerons are given in the next 

578: section.

579: 

580: 

581: \subsection{Effective action and the self-duality}

582: 

583: Following Braun~\cite{braun1,braun2,braun3}, 

584: we shall construct an effective action to represent both 

585: pomeron merging and splitting. We wish to study the minimal extension of 

586: the BK equation, thus we neglect vertices at which more than three pomerons 

587: meet. It is clear that the vertex for pomeron splitting must be the same 

588: as the vertex for pomeron merging. The reason is that in order to distinguish

589: merging of the pomerons from a splitting of a pomeron we have to specify the 

590: direction of the evolution in rapidity. This choice is, however, 

591: completely arbitrary and the form the action should not depend on it. 

592: More precisely, the inversion of the direction of evolution, $y \to -y$ 

593: results with the interchange of the outgoing ($\fda$) and incoming 

594: ($f$) pomeron fields. In result, the effective action is invariant 

595: under the transform,

596: \beq

597: f \leftrightarrow \fda, \qquad \ytau \to -\ytau,

598: \label{ptsym}

599: \eeq 

600: and the form of the splitting vertex 

601: $(\fda\otimes \fda |  V^\dagger_{3P} | f )$ is given by 

602: $(\fda|  V_{3P} | f \otimes f)^\dagger$. 

603: 

604: 

605: \begin{figure}[t]

606: \begin{center}

607: \psfig{file=diag2.eps,width=150mm} 

608: \end{center} 

609: \caption{\it 

610: Elements of the effective action: a) the BFKL pomeron propagator; b) the merging vertex;

611: c) the splitting vertex and d) the external sources of the fields. The arrow indicates

612: the direction of evolution.}

613: \label{diag2}

614: \end{figure}

615: 

616: 

617: 

618: 

619: 

620: Thus, in what follows we shall write the effective action for the interacting 

621: pomeron system based on the following principles:

622: \begin{enumerate}

623: \item Free propagation of the pomeron fields is described by the forward 

624: BFKL equation.

625: \item Pomerons interact only through triple pomeron vertices. 

626: \item The vertex for merging of the pomerons is the Bartels triple pomeron 

627: vertex at large $N_c$ and in the forward limit, equivalent to the vertex 

628: that generates the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation.

629: \item Splitting and merging of the pomerons are described by 

630: identical vertices.

631: \item The fields do not depend on the transverse position.  

632: \end{enumerate}

633: The elements of the action are graphically represented in \fig{diag2}.

634: %

635: The above assumptions lead to a unique form of the action,

636: \beq

637: {\cal A}[f,\fda;Y] = 

638: {4\pi^3 \over N_c^2 - 1} \, \int_0 ^Y d\ytau\; \left\{

639: {\cal L}_0[f,\fda] +  

640: {\cal L}_3[f,\fda] + 

641: {\cal L}_3 ^{\dagger}[f,\fda] +

642: {\cal L}_E[f,\fda] \right\},

643: \label{eq:aeff}

644: \eeq

645: %

646: where the Lagrange function for the free propagation reads

647: \[

648: {\cal L}_0[f,\fda] = 

649: {1\over 2}

650: \int {da^2 \over a^4} \,

651: \left[

652: f(\ytau,a^2) \partial_\ytau \fda(\ytau,a^2) -

653: \fda(\ytau,a^2) \partial_\ytau f(\ytau,a^2) 

654: \right]

655: \]

656: \beq

657: + \int {da^2 \over a^4} \,

658: \int {db^2 \over b^4} \; 

659: \fda(\ytau,a^2) \kbf(a^2,b^2) f(\ytau,b^2),

660: \eeq

661: and ${\cal K}_0$ is the amputated forward BFKL kernel given by

662: \beq

663: \int {db^2 \over b^4}\kbf(a^2,b^2)f(b^2) = 

664: {N_c \alpha_s \over \pi}\, a^2\,

665: \int {db^2 \over b^2}

666: \left[

667: %

668: {f(b^2)-f(a^2) \over |b^2-a^2|} +

669: {f(a^2)\over [4b^4+a^4]^{{1\over 2}}}

670: %

671: \right].

672: \eeq

673: %

674: The Lagrange function describing merging of two pomerons takes the form 

675: \[

676: {\cal L}_3[f,\fda] =  

677: - {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

678: \int {da^2 \over a^4} \,a^2 \fda(\ytau,a^2)

679: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \;  f(\ytau,b^2)

680: \int_{a^2} {dc^2 \over c^4} \; f(\ytau,c^2)

681: \]

682: \beq

683: - {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

684: \int {da^2 \over a^4} \, \fda(\ytau,a^2) f(\ytau,a^2)

685: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \; \log\left( {b^2 \over a^2} \right)

686: f(\ytau,b^2).

687: \eeq

688: %

689: Splitting of a pomeron contributes with

690: \[

691: {\cal L}^{\dagger}_3[f,\fda] =  

692: -{2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

693: \int {da^2 \over a^4} \,a^2 f(\ytau,a^2)

694: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \;  \fda(\ytau,b^2)

695: \int_{a^2} {dc^2 \over c^4} \; \fda(\ytau,c^2)

696: \]

697: \beq

698: -  {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

699: \int {da^2 \over a^4} \,f(\ytau,a^2) \, \fda(\ytau,a^2) \;

700: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \; \log\left( {b^2 \over a^2} \right)

701: \fda(\ytau,b^2).

702: \eeq

703: %

704: The coupling of the pomerons to the external sources is represented by

705: \beq

706: {\cal L}_E [f,\fda] =  

707: \int {da^2 \over a^4}\, \left[ 

708: \fda_E(\ytau,a^2) f(\ytau,a^2) + \fda(\ytau,a^2) f_E(\ytau,a^2)

709: \right],

710: \eeq

711: where the external sources will be assumed to be localized in

712: rapidity,

713: \beq

714: f_E(\ytau,a^2) = f_A(a^2) \delta(\ytau), \qquad \qquad

715: \fda_E(\ytau,a^2) = \fda_B(a^2) \delta(\ytau-Y).

716: \eeq

717: Clearly, $f_A$ represents the amplitude of emission of the pomeron

718: described by the field $f(\ytau,k^2)$ from the source at $\ytau = 0$ and 

719: $\fda_B$ is the coupling of $f^{\dagger}(\ytau,k^2)$ to an external source at

720: $\ytau = Y$.

721: 

722: 

723: 

724: 

725: 

726: 

727: Let us stress that the treatment of the transverse position is missing and 

728: thus the evaluation of the quantum loops of the complete theory cannot be 

729: performed with this action. Nevertheless, the action treated in the 

730: semi-classical framework may be used to approximately resum the BFKL 

731: pomeron tree diagrams (see \fig{diag1}b) in scattering of two large objects, 

732: for instance of two nuclei. For a scattering in which the 

733: projectile and the target have sizes much larger than the typical momenta in

734: the QCD pomeron, the momentum transfer of the pomeron line originating from

735: the external particles is bounded to be small by the form-factors of the 

736: sources and may be therefore neglected. In the diagrams without closed pomeron

737: loops the constraint imposed on momentum transfer of the external lines 

738: propagates and extends to all pomeron lines. 

739: 

740: In fact, a complete action that properly represents the degrees of freedom

741: corresponding to the momentum transfer (or equivalently to the transverse positions of the pomerons), that are missing in the action \eq{eq:aeff}, 

742: was proposed by Braun~\cite{braun3}. 

743: It is also straightforward to 

744: write down an analogous action in the present formulation. 

745: That complete action, however, leads to the same dynamics of 

746: a scattering of two large objects in the semi-classical limit, the problem 

747: that we address in this work. Therefore, we restrict ourselves to 

748: the simplified effective action given by \eq{eq:aeff}.

749: 

750: 

751: Let us return to the symmetry of the action defined by Eq.~\eq{ptsym}. 

752: This symmetry causes the action to be self-dual. 

753: Indeed, after integration by parts of the ``time derivative'' part of the 

754: action

755: \beq 

756: \int_0 ^Y dy \,

757: {1\over 2}

758: \left[

759: f(\ytau,a^2) \partial_\ytau \fda(\ytau,a^2) -

760: \fda(\ytau,a^2) \partial_\ytau f(\ytau,a^2) 

761: \right]

762: \to 

763: \int_0 ^Y dy \,

764: \left[

765: -\fda(\ytau,a^2) \partial_\ytau f(\ytau,a^2) 

766: \right] + (\ldots)

767: \eeq

768: where $\, (\ldots) \,$ denote the boundary terms, one gets that 

769: \beq

770: {\delta {\cal L}[f,\fda] \over \delta (\partial_\ytau f(\ytau,k^2))}

771: = -{1 \over k^4} \fda(\ytau,k^2).

772: \label{eq:canmom}

773: \eeq 

774: This means, that the field $\fda(y,k^2)$ is the canonical conjugate of $f(y,k^2)$, 

775: up to the factor of ${1/k^4}$ which can be easily absorbed into the field definitions

776: and trivial complex phase factors. After invoking the symmetry~\eq{ptsym} we conclude

777: that the bulk part of the action \eq{eq:aeff} may be rewritten in the self-dual form. 

778: The symmetry of the action \eq{eq:aeff} may be completed by assuming the symmetric 

779: external sources, that enter ${\cal L}_E$. Then, one expects the solution of the 

780: field equations $\{f,\fda\}$ to be also symmetric 

781: \beq

782: f(y,k^2) = \fda(Y-y,k^2). 

783: \label{eq:tarpro}

784: \eeq 

785: In what follows, we shall refer to this as to the {\em projectile-target symmetry}.

786: 

787: 

788: 

789: 

790: 

791: \subsection{Equations of motion}

792: 

793: Let us list the functional derivatives of the action of the 

794: effective Pomeron Field Theory \eq{eq:aeff} with respect to

795: $\fda(\ytau,k^2)$:

796: %

797: \beq

798: {\delta {\cal L}_0[f,\fda] \over \delta (\partial_\ytau\fda(\ytau,k^2))}

799: = {1\over 2}{1 \over k^4} f(\ytau,k^2);

800: \label{eq:diff1}

801: \eeq 

802: 

803: 

804: \beq

805: {\delta {\cal L}_0[f,\fda] \over \delta \fda(\ytau,k^2)}

806: = -{1 \over k^4} 

807: \left[ {1\over 2} \partial_\ytau f(\ytau,k^2) - 

808: \int {db^2 \over b^4} \kbf(k^2,b^2)  f(\ytau,b^2) \right];

809: \label{eq:diff2}

810: \eeq 

811: 

812: 

813: \beq

814: {\delta {\cal L}_3[f,\fda] \over \delta \fda(\ytau,k^2)}

815: =  -{2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

816: {1\over k^4} \left[

817: k^2 \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \;  f(\ytau,a^2)

818: \int_{k^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \;  f(\ytau,b^2)

819: + f(\ytau,k^2)

820: \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \; \log\left( {a^2 \over k^2} \right)

821: f(\ytau,a^2)

822: \right];

823: \label{eq:diff3}

824: \eeq 

825: 

826: 

827: \[

828: {\delta {\cal L}^{\dagger}_3[f,\fda] \over \delta \fda(\ytau,k^2)} 

829: =  -{2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

830: {1\over k^4} \left[

831: 2 \int_0 ^{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \,a^2 f(\ytau,a^2)

832: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \; \fda(\ytau,b^2) \right.

833: \] 

834: \beq

835: \left.

836: +  f(\ytau,k^2) 

837: \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \; \log\left( {a^2 \over k^2} \right)

838: \fda(\ytau,a^2) 

839: + \int_0 ^{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \, f(\ytau,a^2) \, \fda(\ytau,a^2) \;

840:  \log\left( {k^2 \over a^2} \right)

841: \right];

842: \label{eq:diff4}

843: \eeq

844: 

845: \beq

846: {\delta {\cal L}_E[f,\fda] \over \delta \fda(\ytau,k^2)} = 

847: {1 \over k^4} f_E(\ytau,k^2). 

848: \label{eq:diff5}

849: \eeq 

850: 

851: Analogously one computes the functional derivatives with respect to

852: $f(\ytau,k^2)$. The results of that procedure may be obtained by 

853: an interchange of $f\leftrightarrow \fda$ in equations 

854: (\ref{eq:diff1}--\ref{eq:diff5}) and changing the sign of $f(\ytau, k^2)$ 

855: in \eq{eq:diff1} and of the $\partial_\ytau f(\ytau, k^2)$ in \eq{eq:diff2}. 

856: Thus, one obtains the following equations of motion,

857: \[

858: \partial_\ytau f(\ytau,k^2) = 

859: {N_c \alpha_s \over \pi} \, k^2\,\int {da^2 \over a^2}

860: \left[

861: %

862: {f(a^2)-f(k^2) \over |a^2-k^2|} +

863: {f(k^2)\over [4a^4+k^4]^{{1\over 2}}}

864: %

865: \right]

866: \]

867: \[

868: - {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

869: \left[

870: k^2 \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \;  f(\ytau,a^2)

871: \int_{k^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \;  f(\ytau,b^2)

872: + f(\ytau,k^2)\int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \; \log\left( {a^2 \over k^2} \right)

873: f(\ytau,a^2)\right]

874: \]

875: \[

876: -  {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

877: \left[

878: 2 \int_0 ^{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \,a^2 f(\ytau,a^2)

879: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \; \fda(\ytau,b^2)

880: +  f(\ytau,k^2) 

881: \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \; \log\left( {a^2 \over k^2} \right)

882: \fda(\ytau,a^2) \right]

883: \]

884: \beq 

885: - {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

886: \int_0 ^{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \, f(\ytau,a^2) \, \fda(\ytau,a^2) \;

887:  \log\left( {k^2 \over a^2} \right),

888: \label{evolf}

889: \eeq

890: %%%%%%%%%%%

891: and

892: %%%%%%%%%%

893: \[

894: -\partial_\ytau \fda(\ytau,k^2) = 

895: {N_c \alpha_s \over \pi}\, k^2\, \int {da^2 \over a^2}

896: \left[

897: %

898: {\fda(a^2)-\fda(k^2) \over |a^2-k^2|} +

899: {\fda(k^2)\over [4a^4+k^4]^{{1\over 2}}}

900: %

901: \right]

902: \]

903: \[

904: - {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

905: \left[

906: k^2 \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \;  \fda(\ytau,a^2)

907: \int_{k^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \;  \fda(\ytau,b^2)

908: + \fda(\ytau,k^2)\int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} 

909: \; \log\left( {a^2 \over k^2} \right) \fda(\ytau,a^2)\right]

910: \]

911: \[

912: - {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

913: \left[

914: 2 \int_0 ^{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \,a^2 \fda(\ytau,a^2)

915: \int_{a^2} {db^2 \over b^4} \; f(\ytau,b^2)

916: +  \fda(\ytau,k^2) 

917: \int_{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \; \log\left( {a^2 \over k^2} \right)

918: f(\ytau,a^2) \right]

919: \]

920: \beq 

921: -  {2\pi \alpha_s ^2} \; 

922: \int_0 ^{k^2} {da^2 \over a^4} \, \fda(\ytau,a^2) \, f(\ytau,a^2) \;

923:  \log\left( {k^2 \over a^2} \right),

924: \label{evolfd}

925: \eeq

926: with the two-point boundary conditions,

927: \beq

928: f(\ytau=0,k^2) = f_A(k^2), \qquad\qquad  \fda(\ytau=Y,k^2) = \fda_B(k^2).

929: \label{boundary}

930: \eeq

931: 

932: The equations are equivalent to the equations derived by Braun~\cite{braun1}, 

933: although they are formulated using other variables. 

934: Therefore we shall refer to equations (\ref{evolf}), (\ref{evolfd})

935: as to the {\em Braun equations}.

936: Apparently, the present formulation is more complicated and less convenient 

937: than the original one. Still, it might be advantageous to use the present 

938: form. The reason is that the interpretation of the  degrees of 

939: freedom that we use is straightforward in terms of perturbative QCD

940: in the momentum space; the basic physical objects: the unintegrated gluon 

941: and the triple pomeron vertex in the momentum space are represented 

942: in a transparent way. Using the present form it should be also relatively 

943: simple to account for non-leading corrections to the BFKL kernel, 

944: as it was done for the BK equation~\cite{kks}.  

945:  

946: 

947: \subsection{The $S$-matrix}

948: 

949: Solutions to classical equations of motions for the pomeron fields 

950: may be used to determine the $S$-matrix for the high energy scattering 

951: in the semi-classical approximation. In order to do that, however, 

952: the dependence of the problem on the transverse position has to be taken 

953: into account. 

954: 

955: 

956: First, let us consider the general case, in which the action has 

957: the complete dependence on the transverse position. Thus, the pomeron 

958: fields depend on the position $\vb_1$ and $\vb_2$ with respect to the 

959: center of the projectile and the target, correspondingly: 

960: $f(y,k^2) \to \tilde f(y,k^2, \vb_1)$ 

961: and $\fda(y,k^2) \to \tilde\fda(y,k^2,\vb_2)$. 

962: Suppose that we know the solutions to the Braun equations with the full 

963: dependence of the transverse position 

964: for a given impact parameter $\vb$ of the collision. 

965: Then, the complete action may be evaluated for such a solution 

966: by performing integrations over transverse positions of all the fields, 

967: with the weights provided by the $\vb$-dependent Lagrangian density.

968: 

969: 

970: In this paper we do not attempt to resolve the complex dynamics of the 

971: fields in the transverse plane. Therefore we should apply an approximate 

972: treatment, in the spirit of the original work of Kovchegov and following 

973: the initial Braun proposal. 

974: Those authors assumed that the sources of pomeron fields were 

975: large nuclei. Those objects are much larger than typical

976: pomeron sizes, defined as inverse of the typical gluon virtualities in the 

977: pomeron. Therefore, for the bulk of interactions, an approximate 

978: translational invariance in the transverse space holds. This is not true 

979: only at the nucleus boundary, which gives, however, only a subleading 

980: contribution to the scattering amplitude. The simplest way to approximately

981: account for this situation is to assume that the action is local in the 

982: transverse position. Then, it is enough to solve the Braun equations with 

983: input conditions dependent on the transverse position,  

984: $\tilde f_A(k^2,\vb_1)$ and $\tilde\fda_B(k^2,\vb_1-\vb)$ 

985: at given impact parameter vector $\vb$. In writing so, we assume that

986: the initial condition $\tilde f_A(k^2,\vb_1)$ is centered at $b_1=0$ and 

987: the distribution $\tilde\fda_B(k^2,\vb_1-\vb)$ develops around the point

988: whose position is given by $\vb$. For instance, for a collision of two

989: cylindrical nuclei with the same radius $R$, one has: 

990: $\tilde f_A(k^2,\vb_1) =   f_A(k^2) \Theta(R-b_1)$ and

991: $\tilde \fda_B(k^2,\vb_2) =   \fda_B(k^2) \Theta(R-b_2)$.

992: 

993: Thus, assuming locality of the evolution in the transverse space

994: the complete action takes the form

995: \beq

996: \tilde{\cal A}[\tilde{f},\tilde{f}^{\dag};Y,\vb]\,=\,

997: \int\,d^2 \vb_1\;{\cal A}[\tilde{f}(y,k^2,\vb_1),

998: \tilde{f}^{\dag}(y,k^2,\vb-\vb_1);Y],

999: \eeq

1000: where the equations of motion may be employed to obtain

1001: \beq 

1002: {\cal A}[\tilde{f},\tilde\fda;Y] = 

1003: {1\over2} \int_{0-} ^{Y^+} dy 

1004: \left\{ {\cal L}_E[\tilde f,\tilde\fda] 

1005: -{\cal L}_3[\tilde f,\tilde\fda]   

1006: -{\cal L}^\dagger _3[\tilde f,\tilde\fda] \right\},  

1007: \eeq

1008: leading, in the semi-classical approximation, to the $S$-matrix

1009: \beq

1010: S(Y,\vb)\,=\,\exp\{-\tilde{\cal A}[\tilde{f},\tilde{f}^{\dag};Y,\vb]\}\,.

1011: \eeq

1012: Some more details and subtleties of this approximation will be discussed 

1013: in the next section.

1014: 

1015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1016: 

1017: \section{Toy model -- Reggeon Field Theory in zero transverse dimensions}

1018: \label{sec:rft0}

1019: 

1020: \subsection{Formulation}

1021: 

1022: As a constructive example of a possible qualitative behavior of the

1023: interacting pomeron system we consider a zero dimensional toy model 

1024: of interacting pomerons, the, so called, Reggeon Field Theory in zero 

1025: transverse dimensions (RFT-0). 

1026: The model of RFT-0 was formulated and studied in depth long time ago, 

1027: see e.g.\ \cite{0dimc,0dimq} and recently it has enjoyed a revived 

1028: interest~\cite{0dimnew,0dimkl}. 

1029: In fact, it turns out that RFT-0 in the weak coupling regime exhibits

1030: some generic features which seem to be present also for interacting QCD 

1031: pomerons. Therefore, this much simpler model may be used to provide 

1032: some insight into the complex dynamics of QCD Pomeron Field Theory.

1033: 

1034: 

1035: This model is determined by the action

1036: \beq

1037: {\cal A}_{RFT-0}[q(y),p(y);Y] = \int_0 ^Y dy \, {\cal L}_{\mathrm{RFT-0}}.

1038: \label{arft}

1039: \eeq 

1040: with the Lagrangian: 

1041: %  

1042: \beq\label{RFT1}

1043: {\cal L}_{\mathrm{RFT-0}}\,=\,\frac{1}{2}\,q\,\partial_y {p}\,-

1044: \frac{1}{2}\,p\,\partial_y {q}\,+

1045: \,\mu\,q\,p\,-\,\lambda\,q\,(q\,+\,p)\,p\,

1046: +\,p(y)\,q_0(y)\,+\,p_0(y)\,q(y)\,\,,

1047: \eeq

1048: %

1049: where $\mu$ is the intercept of the pomeron, $\lambda$ is the triple pomeron 

1050: coupling and $\{q,p\}$ are (up to complex phase factors) Gribov 

1051: fields depending only on rapidity and responsible for the creation 

1052: and annihilations of pomerons.

1053: They correspond to $f$ and $\fda$ of the BFKL Pomeron Field Theory. 

1054: The functions $\,q_0(y)\,$ and $\,p_0(y)\,$  are the external sources 

1055: of the $q$ and $p$ fields respectively. 

1056: In analogy to the assumptions of the previous section

1057: we shall consider a scattering process at rapidity $Y$ with the 

1058: source terms assumed to take the form:

1059: \beq

1060: q_0(y)\, = \, g_1 \delta(y), \qquad p_0(y)\, = \, g_2 \delta(y-Y). 

1061: \eeq

1062: %

1063: Note, that the action is invariant under the duality transformation 

1064: \beq

1065: p \leftrightarrow q\qquad \mbox{and}\qquad y \to Y-y

1066: \label{self0}

1067: \eeq

1068: for symmetric boundary conditions $g_1=g_2$ (obviously, the bulk action 

1069: is invariant for any external couplings).

1070: 

1071: 

1072: Dynamics of the system defined by the Lagrangian \eq{RFT1} was intensively

1073: investigated both in the complete quantum framework~\cite{0dimq} and in 

1074: the semi-classical approximation~\cite{0dimc}. 

1075: Here, we focus on the latter treatment in order to match the approximations 

1076: which we use in the description of the BFKL Pomeron Field Theory.  

1077: Thus, the quantum evolution of the system may be represented by the 

1078: $S$-matrix expressed using the path integral

1079: \beq

1080: S(Y;g_1,g_2) = \int [Dq\,Dp] 

1081: \exp \left\{-{\cal A}_{RFT-0}[q(y),p(y);Y] \right\},  

1082: \label{s-path}

1083: \eeq 

1084: where the probe trajectories obey $q(0) = 0$ and $p(Y)=0$, as the initial 

1085: conditions are absorbed in the action. In the semi-classical limit, 

1086: the dominant contribution to the path integral comes form the 

1087: classical trajectories $\{\bar q_\alpha, \bar p_\alpha\}$ 

1088: for which the action is stationary,

1089: \beq

1090: S(Y;g_1,g_2) \simeq \sum_{\alpha} \Delta_\alpha

1091: \exp \left\{-{\cal A}_{RFT-0}[\bar q_\alpha, \bar p_\alpha;Y] \right\},  

1092: \label{s-semi}

1093: \eeq

1094: where $\Delta_\alpha$ represent the quantum weights of subsequent classical 

1095: trajectories, which at the leading approximation come from resummation of 

1096: Gaussian quantum fluctuations around the classical trajectory. 

1097: Note, that the system evolves in rapidity which is formally equivalent 

1098: to an evolution in the Euclidean time, thus the $S$-matrix is dominated by 

1099: classical trajectories with the minimal value of the action. In is important

1100: to stress that the action of RFT-0 exhibits the feature of self-duality 

1101: (or projectile-target symmetry) as its PFT counterpart.

1102: 

1103: 

1104: \subsection{Solutions: spontaneous breaking of projectile-target symmetry}

1105: \label{sec:ssb0}

1106: 

1107: 

1108: The extremal value of the action is reached for classical trajectories

1109: $\{q,p\}$ which obey the equations of motion,

1110: %

1111: \begin{eqnarray}\label{RFT2}

1112: \,&\,&\,\partial_y q\,=\,\mu\,q\,-\,\lambda\,q^2\,-\,2\,\lambda\,q\,p\,\\

1113: \,&\,&\,-\partial_y p\,=\,\mu\,p\,-\,\lambda\,p^2\,-\,2\,\lambda\,q\,p\,

1114: \end{eqnarray}

1115: with the two-side boundary condition

1116: \beq

1117: q(0)\,=\,g_1\,, \qquad\,\,p(Y)\,=\,g_2.

1118: \eeq

1119: For $g_1 < \mu / \lambda$ and $g_2 < \mu / \lambda$ the classical 

1120: trajectories are confined to a triangle in the phase space spanned by

1121: points with $(p,q)$ coordinates: $(0,0)$, 

1122: $(0,\mu/\lambda)$ and $(\mu/\lambda,0)$.

1123: These boundary conditions permit for existence of multiple solutions provided 

1124: that rapidity $Y$ is large enough. Thus, for $Y$ smaller than a critical 

1125: value~$Y_c$ (depending on $g_1$, $g_2$, $\lambda$ and $\mu$) there exists 

1126: a unique solution to the classical problem, 

1127: $\{\bar q_1(y;g_1,g_2), \bar p_1(y; g_1, g_2)\}$. 

1128: In the case of $g_1 = g_2=g$ the solution preserves the symmetry between the 

1129: target and the projectile,  

1130: \beq

1131: \label{sym0}

1132: \bar q_1(y;g,g) = \bar p_1(Y-y;g,g).

1133: \eeq

1134: 

1135: 

1136: 

1137: \begin{figure}[h]

1138: \begin{center}

1139: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1140: \psfig{file=solution7.eps,width=80mm} 

1141: &

1142: \psfig{file=solution2.eps,width=80mm} \\

1143: \fig{RFT7}-a  & \fig{RFT7}-b

1144: \end{tabular}

1145: \end{center} 

1146: \caption{\it Classical solutions of the RFT-0: 

1147: a) the $\{ q,p\}$ trajectories for $Y>Y_c$; 

1148: b) value of the action ${\cal A}_{RFT-0}[\bar q(y;g,g),\bar p(y;g,g);Y]$

1149: for the symmetric solution (dotted line) and the asymmetric solution

1150: (dashed line) as a function of scaled rapidity $\mu Y$.}

1151: \label{RFT7}

1152: \end{figure}

1153: 

1154: 

1155: This simple picture changes at $Y=Y_c$. In this point two more solutions 

1156: $\{\bar q_2(y;g,g), \bar p_2(y;g,g)\}$ and

1157: $\{\bar q_2 '(y;g,g), \bar p_2 '(y;g,g)\}$

1158: become possible which do not inherit the symmetry between the target and the

1159: projectile embedded in the action and the boundary conditions,

1160: \beq

1161: \label{nsym0}

1162: \bar q_2(y;g,g) \neq \bar p_2(Y-y;g,g), \quad \mbox{and} 

1163: \quad  q'_2(y,g,g) \neq \bar p'_2(Y-y;g,g).

1164: \eeq

1165: An example of the solutions is given in \fig{RFT7}a plotted in the phase 

1166: space $\{p,q\}$. The parameters of the model were chosen to be 

1167: $\mu / \lambda  = 5$, $g_1 = g_2 = 0.7$, and $\mu Y = 8$.  

1168: For this rapidity, one finds the symmetric trajectory~1 and two 

1169: asymmetric trajectories:~2 and~2'. 

1170: At yet larger values of rapidity~$Y$ more solutions are possible, 

1171: corresponding to cycles in the phase space and giving larger values 

1172: of the action, so we neglect those cycles in the present analysis.

1173: 

1174: 

1175: 

1176: The value of the action corresponding to trajectories~1 and~2 

1177: is plotted in \fig{RFT7}b as a function of the total rescaled rapidity 

1178: $\mu Y$. Note, that trajectory~2 is only possible for $Y > Y_c$, and the 

1179: critical rapidity $Y_c \simeq 4$ for our choice of parameters. Clearly, the

1180: value of the action is smaller for the asymmetric trajectories, therefore 

1181: the asymmetric trajectories are expected to dominate the Euclidean path

1182: integral defining the scattering amplitude at large rapidities. 

1183: At $Y=Y_c$, however, the action of the asymmetric trajectory joins 

1184: smoothly the action of the symmetric trajectory. 

1185: Thus, one concludes that at the transition region of $Y \simeq Y_c$

1186: the contribution of trajectory~1 to the scattering amplitude should be also 

1187: included. 

1188: 

1189: 

1190: 

1191: Note, that the emergence of the dominant asymmetric solutions may be

1192: interpreted in terms of {\em spontaneous breaking of a discrete symmetry}

1193: of the action. The symmetry between the projectile and the target 

1194: (leading to the self-duality of the action) is built in the action 

1195: (\ref{arft}) and in the boundary conditions. 

1196: Clearly, this is a discrete symmetry. The dominant solutions of the 

1197: equations of motion, however, are not symmetric. Thus, the symmetry is 

1198: spontaneously broken. This is possible, as the boundary conditions are 

1199: defined at two points of rapidity and the classical solutions need not 

1200: be unique. As usual, however, the symmetry still holds for the full 

1201: set of solutions,

1202: \beq

1203: \bar q'_2(y;g,g) = \bar p_2(Y-y;g,g)\quad \mbox{and} \quad 

1204: \bar p'_2(y;g,g) = \bar q_2(Y-y;g,g).

1205: \eeq

1206: This means that the under the duality transformation (\ref{self0}) 

1207: each solution is transformed into itself (solution~1) or into 

1208: another solution (solutions~2 and~$2'$), and

1209: the full set of solutions $\{\bar p,\bar q\}$ is 

1210: invariant under the duality transformation of $p \leftrightarrow q$

1211: and $y \to Y-y$.

1212: 

1213: 

1214: 

1215: \begin{figure}[h]

1216: \begin{center}

1217: \psfig{file=solution11.eps,width=80mm} 

1218: \end{center} 

1219: \caption{\it Scattering amplitude $iT = 1-S$ from RFT-0 for 

1220: $\,g_1\,=\,g_2\,=\,0.7\,$ at $\mu / \lambda\,=\,5\,$ as a function of 

1221: rescaled rapidity $\mu Y$ in various approximations:

1222: dotted line represents amplitude obtained from the symmetric solution~1, 

1223: dashed line correspond to the pair of asymmetric solutions $\{2,2'\}$, 

1224: the dash-dotted line accounts for sum of contributions from $\{1,2,2'\}$

1225: and the solid line represents the full quantum solution of the problem.

1226: (the plot is taken from~\cite{0dimour}).

1227: }   

1228: \label{RFT8}

1229: \end{figure}

1230: 

1231: 

1232: 

1233: 

1234: The observed phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking  

1235: occurs at the classical level.  At the quantum level, however, 

1236: the projectile-target symmetry should hold\footnote{Due to quantum coherence

1237: in finite quantum systems the spontaneous symmetry breaking does not happen. 

1238: It is only possible in the thermodynamical limit when the coherence between 

1239: the asymmetric configurations is broken.}. 

1240: One sees it, for instance, from the form of the $S$-matrix in the 

1241: semi-classical approximation using the three solutions $\{1,2,2'\}$. 

1242: The calculation of the quantum weights for $Y>Y_c$ was performed 

1243: in \cite{0dimi} leading to,

1244: \beq

1245: S(Y;g_1,g_2) \simeq 

1246: -\exp \left\{-{\cal A}_{RFT-0}[\bar q_1, \bar p_1;Y]\right\}

1247: +\exp \left\{-{\cal A}_{RFT-0}[\bar q_2, \bar p_2;Y]\right\}

1248: +\exp \left\{-{\cal A}_{RFT-0}[\bar q'_2, \bar p'_2;Y]\right\},

1249: \eeq

1250: where the minus sign of the first term comes form the complex phase factors  

1251: picked up by the trajectory~1 at the turning points. One sees that the symmetry

1252: between the projectile and the projectile is restored for the $S$-matrix 

1253: already at the semi-classical level, by summation over the complete set

1254: of (asymmetric and symmetric) classical trajectories. 

1255: It is interesting to ask, however, whether there could be some signs 

1256: of the symmetry breaking found at the classical level, 

1257: that would be seen for more exclusive observables, like for the 

1258: rapidity distribution of produced particles. 

1259: In principle, such a {\em classical measurement} should destroy the quantum 

1260: coherence and select just one of the classical solutions. 

1261: If this were true, it should lead to an asymmetric particle production 

1262: between the identical projectile and target in individual events.  

1263: 

1264: 

1265: 

1266: 

1267: 

1268: 

1269: 

1270: It is instructive to compare various approximations to the scattering

1271: amplitude $iT = 1-S$. Thus, we plot in \fig{RFT8}a the scattering amplitude 

1272: evaluated in the semi-classical approximation assuming that it is dominated  

1273: by the symmetric solution~1 (which should be valid for $Y<Y_c$), 

1274: by the pair of asymmetric solutions~$\{2,2'\}$, (which should hold for 

1275: $Y\gg Y_c$), and including contributions to the $S$-matrix of all  

1276: three solutions for $Y>Y_c$. 

1277: We expect the last and the most complete choice be the most 

1278: accurate. The comparison to the exact quantum evaluation of the 

1279: scattering amplitude\footnote{The curve was obtained in the course of 

1280: our ongoing study of the RFT-0~\cite{0dimour}, 

1281: where we solve the RFT-0 

1282: both at the classical and the quantum level. We leave the description

1283: of the details to that paper.} (the continuous curve) to the various 

1284: semi-classical evaluations reveals, however, that the contribution

1285: of $\{2,2'\}$ approximates the exact answer best. It may be a coincidence

1286: or a hint on the subtle point of how to treat contributions to the $S$-matrix 

1287: from subleading trajectories. We leave the issue for further studies. 

1288: 

1289: 

1290: 

1291: 

1292: \subsection{Fan dominance}

1293: 

1294: 

1295: %{\bf Continue here}

1296: 

1297: \begin{figure}[t]

1298: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1299: \psfig{file=solution333.eps,width=80mm} &

1300: \psfig{file=solution5.eps,width=80mm} \\

1301: \fig{RFT6}-a & \fig{RFT6}-b \\

1302: \end{tabular}

1303: \caption{\it

1304: Comparison of the classical asymmetric solution of the full theory 

1305: to the solution of the equation resumming the fan diagrams:

1306: a) the trajectory: $\bar q_2(y)$ (upper solid line) and 

1307: $\bar p_2(y)$ (lower solid line) and the trajectories of the 

1308: fan equation $\bar q_f(y)$ and $\bar p_f(y)$ (upper and lower

1309: dotted lines respectively) for the total rapidity $\mu Y=8$ as a 

1310: function of $\mu y$;   

1311: b) the action for the classical solutions: 

1312: the asymmetric one (the dashed line) 

1313: the symmetric one (the dotted line) versus the 

1314: action resumming pomeron fan diagrams as a function of $\mu Y$. }

1315: \label{RFT6}

1316: \end{figure}

1317: 

1318: 

1319: 

1320: 

1321: Anticipating the results of the next section, let us briefly mention an

1322: interesting feature of asymmetric solutions for $Y$ being significantly larger 

1323: than the critical rapidity $Y_c$ and for sources $g_1,g_2 \ll \mu / \lambda$. 

1324: Then, one of the fields, say $q$, grows with the increasing rapidity. The 

1325: other field, $p$, assumed to take the value of $g_2\ll \mu / \lambda$ 

1326: at rapidity~$Y$ decreases further for decreasing $y$. 

1327: Therefore the term involving $p^2$ in Lagrangian (\ref{RFT1}) is of 

1328: little importance and it may be neglected. Thus, one ends up with the 

1329: evolution equations of the system with the absent vertex for the 

1330: pomeron splitting. This evolution equation resums the {\em fan diagrams} 

1331: of the merging fields $q$, and it will be referred to as the {\em fan 

1332: equation}. 

1333: 

1334: 

1335: 

1336: We exemplify in \fig{RFT6}a the similarity of the asymmetric solution of the 

1337: full theory $\{\bar q_2(y),\bar p_2(y)\}$ to the solution of the 

1338: equation resumming the fan diagrams  $\{\bar q_f(y),\bar p_f(y)\}$.

1339: The figure was obtained with $\mu/\lambda = 5$, $g_1=g_2=0.7$, and we

1340: set $\mu Y= 8 \simeq 2\mu Y_c$.  The smaller fields $p_2(y)$ and $p_f(y)$

1341: turned out to overlap with high accuracy. We find some noticeable difference

1342: between  $q_2(y)$ and $q_f(y)$ only at higher values of $\mu y$. 

1343: We checked that the asymmetric solution is closer to the ``fan equation'' 

1344: solution if $Y$ is larger and $g_1$ and $g_2$ are smaller.

1345: The results of evaluation of the action corresponding to  

1346: $\{\bar q_2(y),\bar p_2(y)\}$, $\{\bar q_f(y),\bar p_f(y)\}$ and to the 

1347: symmetric classical solution $\{\bar q_1(y),\bar p_1(y)\}$ are shown 

1348: in \fig{RFT6}b. Again, the solution to the fan equation yields the action 

1349: that reasonably well approximates the action 

1350: ${\cal A}_{RFT-0}(\bar q_2(y;g,g),\bar p_2(y;g,g);Y)$ 

1351: of the dominant trajectory.  

1352: 

1353: We find this convergence of the classical system to the fan-dominated regime

1354: to be a rather surprising effect especially in view of the fact that we 

1355: started from completely symmetric boundary conditions. A similar observation,

1356: however, was made in sligtly different realisation of RFT-0, with a non-zero 

1357: four pomeron coupling~\cite{0dimkl}.

1358: It will be very interesting to check whether 

1359: a similar phenomenon occurs for the theory of interacting QCD pomerons. 

1360: 

1361: 

1362: 

1363: \section{Solutions of the Braun equations}

1364: 

1365: \subsection{Parameters and the solving procedure}

1366: 

1367: Classical equations of motion \eq{evolf} and \eq{evolfd} 

1368: for the effective pomeron fields $f(y,k^2)$ and $\fda(y,k^2)$ 

1369: were solved numerically for various values of the total rapidity $Y$ of 

1370: the scattering. We chose a fixed coupling constant $\alpha_s = 0.2$.

1371: The boundary conditions were assumed to be symmetric

1372: \beq

1373: \label{input}

1374: f_A(k^2) = \fda_B(k^2) = {N\over \pi R^2} {k^4 \over Q_0 ^4 + k^4}.

1375: \eeq

1376: The form of the input condition was inspired by the properties of 

1377: a saturated gluon distribution in the nucleon. 

1378: Thus we set $R^2 = 8$~GeV$^{-2}$ in order to match the preferred 

1379: value of the nucleon size. The scale $Q_0^2 = 0.5$~GeV$^2$  

1380: corresponds to the saturation scale for $10^{-3} < x < 10^{-2}$.

1381: The overall normalisation factor $N=2$ so that the collinear gluon 

1382: distribution obtained from the input is similar to the actual 

1383: collinear gluon distribution $xg(x,Q^2)$ in the proton for 

1384: $10^{-3} < x < 10^{-2}$ and for moderate $Q^2$.  Let us stress

1385: that we made that choice only to pin down the physically relevant 

1386: ranges of parameters.

1387: 

1388: 

1389: The numerical solution was based on a Chebyshev interpolation method 

1390: in the variable $\log(k^2)$ used to discretize the differentio-integral 

1391: equations (\ref{evolf}) and  (\ref{evolfd}). In order to solve the two-point

1392: boundary problem, we applied the iterative procedure defined by 

1393: Braun~\cite{braun2}. Thus, in each iteration the evolution in rapidity 

1394: of one of the field $f(y,k^2)$ or $\fda(y,k^2)$ was performed while the 

1395: other field was set to its value obtained in the previous iteration. 

1396: In the odd iterations, the field $f(y,k^2)$ was evolved from its initial 

1397: value $f_A(k^2)$ from $y=0$ to $y=Y$ and the field $\fda(y,k^2)$ was 

1398: kept fixed (in the first iteration $\fda(y,k^2)$ was set identically to zero).

1399: In the even iterations $\fda(y,k^2)$ was evolved from $y=Y$ 

1400: down to $y=0$ with the initial value $\fda_B(k^2)$ at $y=Y$. 

1401: The iterations were continued until a fixed point of $f(y,k^2)$ 

1402: and $\fda(y,k^2)$ was reached. Clearly, at the fixed point of the iterative 

1403: procedure the fields $\{f(y,k^2),\fda(y,k^2)\}$ solve the 

1404: system of Braun equations (\ref{evolf}) and (\ref{evolfd}) 

1405: with boundary conditions (\ref{boundary}). 

1406: The method was found to be stable and robust and no problems with 

1407: convergence occurred of the kind reported in \cite{braun2}. 

1408: A disadvantage of the iterative method is that it may be only used 

1409: to find the solutions which represent the attractive fixed points of the

1410: procedure. Unfortunately, we expect from the analysis of solutions of 

1411: the RFT in zero transverse dimensions, that the solution to Braun equations 

1412: is not unique at larger rapidities and there should exist multiple solutions.

1413: Therefore it is probable that the iterative method finds only some of them. 

1414: On the other hand, one hopes that the most relevant 

1415: solutions that minimize the action may become an attractive fixed 

1416: points of a reasonable iterative procedure. 

1417: Some more arguments in favour of this scenario will be given 

1418: based on the properties of the found solutions.

1419: 

1420: 

1421: \subsection{Properties of solutions and spontaneous symmetry breaking}

1422: 

1423:    

1424: In what follows we shall describe the properties of the solutions to the

1425: Braun equations for rapidities of the scattering $Y=6,8,10,12$ and $Y=16$.

1426: The pomeron field $\fda(y,k^2)$ will be often presented as a function of

1427: the transformed rapidity $y'= Y-y$, so that the initial condition for 

1428: $\fda$ is imposed at $y'=0$. In the figures we shall plot 

1429: $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ and $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ unless we explicitly specify 

1430: differently. Such a choice of variables

1431: is preferred by their {\em solitonic} behaviour in the case of the

1432: BK equation. For future reference, let us introduce the notation

1433: $\fbk$ to represent the solution to the BK equation with the input

1434: given by (\ref{input}). In the figures the label ``Input'' is used 

1435: for  $f_A(k^2)/k^2$, where $f_A(k^2)$ defined by~(\ref{input}).

1436: 

1437: 

1438: In \fig{Res1}a and \fig{Res1}b we show the solutions to the Braun

1439: equations for $Y=6$ and $Y=8$ respectively. Solid lines 

1440: denote $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ and $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ is shown with points. 

1441: The curves are plotted for $y$ varying from zero to $Y$ in the steps 

1442: of one. Clearly, in both cases the solutions are symmetric, 

1443: $f(y,k^2)=\fda(Y-y,k^2)$. Anticipating \fig{Res5}a, we 

1444: point out that the the solutions exhibit a similar behaviour to

1445: solutions of the BK~equation at large gluon momenta $k^2$. 

1446: At small momenta, below the saturation scale of the BK equation, 

1447: $f(y,k^2)$ and $\fda(y',k^2)$ are much flatter than $\fbk$.

1448: 

1449: 

1450: 

1451: We find that the symmetry between $f$ and $\fda$ breaks down at some 

1452: critical rapidity $Y_c \simeq 9$. For $Y>Y_c$ only the

1453: asymmetric solutions are found, for which $f(y,k^2) \neq \fda(Y-y,k^2)$,

1454: compare Fig.~\ref{Res2n}a (Fig.~\ref{Res2n}b) 

1455: and Fig.~\ref{Res3n} (Fig.~\ref{Res4n}) for $Y=10$ ($Y=16$).

1456: Thus, the symmetry between the projectile and the target is spontaneously

1457: broken for individual classical solutions, in close analogy with the

1458: phenomenon appearing in RFT-0, described in detail in  Sec.~\ref{sec:ssb0}. 

1459: The asymmetry between $f(y,k^2)$ and $\fda(Y-y,k^2)$ vanishes at $Y=Y_c$, 

1460: so the asymmetric solutions connect smoothly to the symmetric one 

1461: at $Y=Y_c$ and the asymmetry  builds up gradually with increasing $Y$.

1462: Certainly, the numeric value of the critical rapidity~$Y_c$ 

1463: is not universal, it depends on the boundary conditions and on the

1464: value of $\alpha_s$. It is important to note, that for each asymmetric

1465: solution $\{f,\fda\}$ there exists a complementary solution 

1466: $\{f',{f^{\dagger}}'\}$, 

1467: such that $f'(y,k^2) = \fda(Y-y,k^2)$ and ${f^{\dagger}}'(Y-y,k^2) = f(y,k^2)$,

1468: reflecting the symmetry between the projectile and the target encoded

1469: in the action and the symmetric boundary conditions.

1470: Knowing that, in the further analysis of the solutions we choose 

1471: arbitrarily that $f(y,k^2)$ is the larger field and $\fda(y',k^2)$ 

1472: is the smaller one.

1473: 

1474: 

1475: For $Y>Y_c$, the general features of the larger field $f$ are the following.

1476: At $Y\simeq Y_c$ the solution is similar to the symmetric solutions 

1477: found for $Y<Y_c$. With increasing $Y$ a pattern appears of a 

1478: traveling wave, that is formation of a peak of $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ traveling 

1479: towards larger values of $\log(k^2)$ with increasing rapidity with 

1480: only small changes of the shape, see Fig.~\ref{Res2n}a and Fig.~\ref{Res2n}b.

1481: Recall, that it is behaviour characteristic for the BK 

1482: equation~\cite{traveling}. The similarity of the solution to the BK 

1483: solution will be investigated in more detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:bkfan}.

1484: 

1485:  

1486: 

1487: The smaller field $\fda(y,k^2)$ evolves differently, see Fig.~\ref{Res3n} and

1488: Fig.~\ref{Res4n}. At $Y=Y_c$ it matches $f(Y-y,k^2)$ and for the increasing 

1489: $Y$ it experiences a significant overall suppression, stronger at larger $Y$. 

1490: For instance, for $y \simeq Y/2$ the maximal value of  $\fda(y,k^2)/k^2$ 

1491: is about an order of magnitude smaller than the maximal value of  

1492: $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ at $Y=10$ (compare Fig.~\ref{Res2n}a and Fig.~\ref{Res3n})

1493: and about three orders of magnitude smaller at $Y=16$ 

1494: (see Fig.~\ref{Res2n}b and Fig.~\ref{Res4n}).

1495: Thus, we conjecture that in the limiting case of very large

1496: total rapidity $Y$, $\fda$ may is arbitrarily small except of the 

1497: rapidities $y\simeq Y$ where the source term for $\fda$ is still 

1498: important. In this context, it is instructive to study the $y$-dependence

1499: of $\fda(y,k^2)/k^2$ at fixed~$k$ and compare it to $f(y,k^2)/k^2$. This

1500: comparison may be performed using Fig.~\ref{Res4.5}. It turns out, 

1501: that there appear two distinct regimes of evolution of  $\fda(y,k^2)/k^2$ with 

1502: rapidity (at fixed momentum). Thus, if the field $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ is strong,

1503: the smaller field $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ is exponentially suppressed with 

1504: increasing $y'$, $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2 \sim \exp(-\beta_1 y')$

1505: with $\beta_1 \sim 1$, crudely. This is the region

1506: where the absorption of $\fda$ by $f$ drives the evolution of $\fda$. 

1507: Then, when $y$ is sufficiently small and the field  $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ is 

1508: weaker, the absorption becomes less relevant and $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ grows

1509: exponentially with increasing $y'$,  $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2 \sim \exp(\beta_2 y')$

1510: with the exponent $\beta_2 \simeq 0.4$ (with our choice of parameters)  

1511: a value somewhat smaller than the BFKL intercept 

1512: $\omega_0 = 4\bar\alpha_s\log(2) \simeq 0.53$.

1513: Note, that the characteristic rapidity $y$, at which 

1514: the transition occurs from the strong absorption regime to the BFKL 

1515: driven growth regime, depends on~$k$. This is natural, as the field

1516: $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ becomes strong at larger values of~$y$ for larger~$k$.

1517: 

1518: 

1519: The shape of $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ in $k^2$ exhibits some interesting features 

1520: too, see Fig.~\ref{Res3n} and Fig.~\ref{Res4n}.

1521: At small values of~$k$, $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ tends to a flat function.

1522: This should be compared with the case of the BK where $\fbk/k^2 \sim k^2$

1523: at small~$k$. On the other hand, at large $k^2$ the decrease of 

1524: $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ with increasing $k^2$ is slower than the decrease

1525: of $\fbk/k^2$. Thus, the overall picture is that $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$

1526: is much flatter than $\fbk/k^2$. 

1527: As rather surprising comes an observation that effects 

1528: of non-linear interactions in $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ extend to very large 

1529: values of momenta, causing a strong suppression of $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ 

1530: for all momenta up to  $k=10^3$~GeV, the value larger than the saturation 

1531: scale generated by the large field $f(y,k^2)$, 

1532: see for example Fig.~\ref{Res4n}.

1533: In fact, we checked that the suppression of $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ in comparison

1534: to $\fbk/k^2$ is strong even at $k=10^5$~GeV (not shown). 

1535: 

1536: 

1537: The explanation of this phenomenon is the following. At large 

1538: values of $k^2$ the input function $\fda_B(k^2)$ was assumed to tend to a 

1539: constant, in other words the anomalous dimension vanished for the input. 

1540: For the BFKL or the BK system the rapidity evolution generates an anomalous 

1541: dimension of $\gamma_0 \simeq 0.3-0.5$, strongly enhancing $f(y,k^2)$

1542: for large $k^2$ and $y$. For $\fda(y',k^2)$, however, the evolution and 

1543: BFKL diffusion are almost completely blocked by large absorptive corrections

1544: coming from the interaction of $\fda(y',k^2)$ with the large field  

1545: $f(y,k^2)$. Recall, that the input for $\fda(y',k^2)$ resides in $y=Y$,

1546: where the value of the field $f(y,k^2)$ is the largest and so is the related

1547: saturation scale. Therefore, before any BFKL diffusion or enhancement 

1548: of $\fda(y',k^2)$ becomes possible (that is at sufficiently small $y'$)

1549: strong suppression of $\fda(y',k^2)$ occurs and the population of the

1550: large momenta region is initiated from a drastically reduced $\fda(y',k^2)$.

1551: 

1552: In order to provide a more synthetic picture of the behaviour 

1553: of $f(y,k^2)$ and $\fda(y,k^2)$ we illustrate the case of $Y=16$

1554: with three dimensional plots of the solutions shown in Fig.~\ref{Res3d}.

1555: Note, that we plot in this figure $\fda(y,k^2)$ instead of $\fda(y',k^2)$. 

1556: Thus, the input for $f$ appears at $y=0$ in Fig.~\ref{Res3d}a and the

1557: input of $\fda$ is plotted for $y=16$ in  Fig.~\ref{Res3d}b.

1558: 

1559: 

1560: \subsection{BK fan dominance}

1561: \label{sec:bkfan} 

1562: 

1563: We have already related briefly the larger component  $f(y,k^2)$

1564: of the solution to the Braun equation to the solution of the 

1565: Balitsky-Kovchegov equation $\fbk$. A more detailed comparison is 

1566: performed for  $f(y,k^2)$ in \fig{Res5} for $Y=8$ and $Y=12$, and in 

1567: \fig{Res7}a for $Y=16$. 

1568: For $Y=8$ where the solution is still symmetric, the difference between

1569: $f(y,k^2)$ (lines) and $\fbk$ (points) is quite large and low $k^2$ and

1570: visible at large $k^2$, see \fig{Res5}a. The difference is significantly

1571: reduced at $Y=12$, as clearly seen in \fig{Res5}b. Here, $f(y,k^2)$ and 

1572: $\fbk$ almost exactly coincide except of some deviations for very small 

1573: $k<0.1$~GeV and $y > Y/2$. The overlap between  $f(y,k^2)$ and $\fbk$  

1574: is further improved at $Y=16$. Evolution of the smaller component 

1575: $\fbkd$ in the BK limit may be also performed by solving the system 

1576: \eq{evolf} and \eq{evolfd} with the terms neglected that were 

1577: generated by the triple pomeron vertex corresponding to the pomeron 

1578: splitting (the contribution to the action of ${\cal L}_3 ^\dagger$). 

1579: The comparison of $\fda(y',k^2)$ and $\fbkd$ is given for 

1580: $Y=8$, $Y=12$ in \fig{Res6} and for $Y=16$ in \fig{Res7}b.

1581: In this case, the two different kinds of solutions coincide even better

1582: than the large components $f(y,k^2)$ and $\fbk$.

1583: 

1584: 

1585: 

1586: Recall, that we also observed the similarity between the asymmetrical 

1587: classical solutions of RFT-0 and the solution to the ``fan equation'',

1588: the counterpart of the BK~equation in zero transverse dimensions. 

1589: Thus, the ``fan dominance'' at $Y \gg Y_c$ seems to be a generic feature 

1590: of the interacting pomeron system. Even more can be said -- the dependence

1591: of the QCD pomeron fields on the momentum might even enhance the convergence

1592: to the fan dominated system, compare \fig{RFT6} and \fig{Res7}.

1593: It happens probably because the deviations from the fan behavior appear at

1594: rapidities $y \to Y$, close to the source of the smaller field 

1595: (which we chose to be $\fda(y,k^2)$ for QCD pomerons and $p(y)$ for RFT-0) 

1596: where the smaller field is not yet strongly suppressed by the evolution. 

1597: In QCD, however, the input is localized at rather small values of 

1598: gluon momenta~$k$, whereas the larger field, $f(y,k^2)$, is concentrated

1599: around the saturation scale $Q_s(y)$ which is large for $y\to Y$. Therefore, 

1600: the relatively large $\fda(y',k^2)$ in this rapidity domain

1601: affects only the tail of low momenta in $f(y,k^2)$, with little relevance 

1602: for the dynamics of the system. Possible implications of the 

1603: ``fan dominance'' are discussed in the Sec.\ \ref{sec:disc}. 

1604: 

1605: 

1606: 

1607: As the last point, let us comment shortly on the issue of multiple solutions

1608: to the Braun equations out of which only some can be found by the 

1609: iterative solving procedure. Recall, that in the semi-classical 

1610: approximation of the system moving in the Euclidean time, the most relevant

1611: are the trajectories with the lowest value of the action. We have no proof

1612: that the asymmetric classical trajectories that were found in this paper 

1613: fulfill this requirement. Numerous similarities of the patterns of 

1614: solutions obtained in the interacting QCD Pomeron Field Theory and RFT-0 

1615: are, fortunately, reassuring. In both cases there exists a symmetric solution

1616: at low rapidity and two asymmetric solutions at $Y>Y_c$. In both theories 

1617: the ``fan dominance'' phenomenon was found. Therefore, one may conjecture

1618: that the asymmetric solutions of the Braun equations, indeed, are the 

1619: classical trajectories with the lowest action, in analogy to the explicit 

1620: result obtained in RFT-0.

1621: 

1622: 

1623: \subsection{Summary of the results}

1624: 

1625: Let us summarize the presentation of results with a 

1626: recapitulation of the most important observations:

1627: \begin{enumerate}

1628: 

1629: \item Solutions $\{f,\fda\}$ of the Braun equations with symmetric 

1630: boundary conditions split into two different types: the symmetric 

1631: solution $f(y,k^2)=\fda(Y-y,k^2)$ that dominates below the critical 

1632: rapidity $Y_c$ and a pair of the asymmetric solutions, found for $Y>Y_c$.

1633: 

1634: \item The asymmetric solutions exhibit the feature of ``fan dominance''

1635: which becomes more accurate with increasing $Y$. Due to the smallness of one 

1636: of the field the system evolves as if one of the triple pomeron vertices 

1637: (describing splitting or merging) was absent. The larger field is close 

1638: to the solution of the BK equation. 

1639: 

1640: \item Unitarity corrections for the smaller field $\fda(y',k^2)$ 

1641: are very pronounced at $Y\gg Y_c$ leading to very strong damping 

1642: (even 2-3 orders of magnitude at $Y=16$, and increasing with~$Y$) 

1643: of the smaller field and flattening of the shape of $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$. 

1644: We find that $\fda(y',k^2) \sim k^2$ for $k^2 < Q^2 _s(y)$, where  

1645: $Q_s(y)$ is the saturation scale generated by the

1646: larger field $f(y,k^2)$.

1647: 

1648: \item The symmetric solution below the critical rapidity is significantly 

1649: flatter at low momenta than the BK~solution. At large momenta the decrease 

1650: of the symmetric solution is power-like, with an exponent close to that of 

1651: BK, but the solution to the Braun system is somewhat smaller the the 

1652: BK~solution from the same input.   

1653: 

1654: 

1655: \end{enumerate}

1656: 

1657: \section{Discussion}

1658: \label{sec:disc}

1659: The breaking of the projectile-target symmetry which

1660: we have found above the critical rapidity is rather surprising and it calls

1661: for an explanation and interpretation. To our understanding the mechanism 

1662: of this breaking is the following. Suppose that we have a symmetric 

1663: situation in the system of the two evolving pomeron fields $\{f,\fda\}$.

1664: If the fields are small and therefore weakly interacting then the

1665: interaction is only a small perturbation and the symmetry of the 

1666: action and of the initial conditions should be reflected in the solution.

1667: This is, indeed, the case for the Braun equations with the total rapidity~$Y$

1668: smaller than the critical value $Y_c$. Let us consider now a symmetric 

1669: system of pomeron fields when the fields are already strong due to

1670: their rapidity evolution. Then, the fields absorb intensively each other.

1671: The combination of the multiplication of the fields and the strong mutual

1672: absorption is a potential source of instability. 

1673: Namely, if we perturb the symmetric system of fields in this regime by, say, 

1674: small increase of the value of the field~$f$ then the absorption 

1675: of $\fda$ by interaction with $f$ will be also increased. 

1676: Thus, after this perturbation $\fda$ should become smaller. 

1677: This results, however, in a smaller absorption of the field $f$, 

1678: leading to yet higher values of $f$, so that the instability will 

1679: self-amplify generating finally an asymmetric configuration. 

1680: Of course, whether this scenario is realized, depends on the particular form 

1681: of the action. From our numerical results we conclude that this is, indeed, 

1682: the case for the interacting pomeron fields above the critical rapidity

1683: in the classical approximation. It is curious that in the earlier study of 

1684: the Braun equations the symmetry breaking was not found~\cite{braun2}. 

1685: Instead, there was reported an instability of the iterative procedure at 

1686: critical values of rapidity, depending on the input. It was interpreted 

1687: as a possible indication of a phase transition. We speculate that those 

1688: instabilities might be, in fact, signs of emergence of asymmetrical solutions. 

1689: 

1690: 

1691: 

1692: The key question arises what happens with the spontaneous symmetry

1693: breaking (SSB) when the quantum effects are considered. Strictly speaking, for

1694: finite systems SSB does not occur at the quantum level. 

1695: The ground state of the finite system in which the symmetry is spontaneously

1696: broken at the classical level is a symmetric coherent superposition 

1697: of non-symmetric states. It is only in the thermodynamic limit when

1698: the SSB may take place in a quantum system. In the case of the reggeon

1699: field theory situation is even more complicated due to the fact that 

1700: the evolution variable (the rapidity) would correspond to imaginary

1701: time in the Schr\"{o}dinger picture. The consequences of the fact were 

1702: investigated in detail in the framework of the reggeon field theory with

1703: impact parameter dependence (RFT-b)~\cite{0dimb}. 

1704: It turns out that in RFT-b the degenerate vacua communicate 

1705: by quantum evolution irrespectively to the

1706: extension of the system in the transverse space and the symmetry of 

1707: quantum theory is maintained even in the thermodynamical limit. 

1708: The communication was found to be realized by solitons in the impact 

1709: parameter plane smoothly interpolating between the two asymmetric vacua.

1710: In addition, the bifurcation of the classical solution at $Y=Y_c$ would 

1711: indicate presence of a singularity of the $S$-matrix\footnote{We thank Lev Lipatov for this point.} in~$Y$. This singularity is not expected to 

1712: be present in the complete quantum theory. 

1713: 

1714: 

1715: 

1716: It should be stressed, however, that in this paper we do not address 

1717: the issue of properties of the QCD pomeron field theory in the 

1718: thermodynamical context. The goal is rather to get insight into 

1719: scattering of two strong sources of colour field e.g.\ the nuclei.

1720: In collisions of two nuclei the measurements give access not only to the

1721: total cross sections but also to extended information about the kinematics

1722: of the produced particles on the event-by-event basis. This is a classical

1723: measurement which, necessarily, breaks the quantum coherence. Therefore it

1724: is possible that such measurement selects one of the classical pomeron field 

1725: trajectories which exhibit the symmetry breaking between the target 

1726: and the projectile. In fact, the rapidity dependence of the saturation 

1727: scale is different for the two asymmetric solutions of the Braun equations:

1728: for one of the solutions the saturation scale increases from the target to

1729: the projectile, while for the other it decreases. The average transverse 

1730: momentum $\bar p_T$ of the emitted particles should be correlated with the 

1731: saturation scale. Hence, a classical measurement of the event should 

1732: select one of the asymmetric solutions and it could exhibit

1733: some asymmetry in rapidity distribution of the produced particles.

1734: The pattern may be somewhat obscured, however, when the dependence 

1735: on the transverse position is taken into account. In the collision 

1736: the regions separated in the impact parameter are only weakly correlated

1737: and, in principle, it is possible that different domains in the transverse

1738: space are dominated by different asymmetric solutions of Braun equations. 

1739: This would make the possible effects of asymmetry more subtle and harder to 

1740: disentangle. 

1741: 

1742: 

1743: 

1744: One of the question which should be addressed is what observables could 

1745: serve as experimental signatures of the asymmetry between the target 

1746: and the projectile in heavy ion collisions. Certainly, the total cross section

1747: carries no information about the details of the evolution, so one should 

1748: focus on more detailed observables. As a first guess we would propose

1749: investigation of the average 

1750: transverse momentum~$\bar p_T = \sqrt{\langle p_T ^2 \rangle} $ 

1751: of the particles produced in central collisions of heavy ions as a 

1752: function of rapidity~$y$ in the c.m.s.\ frame on the event-by-event basis. 

1753: With the symmetry between the target and the projectile being preserved 

1754: the observable $\bar p_T(y)$ measured for individual events 

1755: should be the same after changing the definition of rapidity $y \to -y$. 

1756: If the symmetry is broken in the event, however, $\bar p_T(y)$ should 

1757: exhibit a clear trend.

1758: 

1759: 

1760: 

1761: At this stage, we are not able to determine whether the symmetry breaking 

1762: is a real physical phenomenon or an artifact of the effective theory of 

1763: interacting pomerons. Needless to say, the framework of Braun equations 

1764: relies on several assumptions that are far from being proven.

1765: First of all, it is not clear if the pomerons are valid degrees of 

1766: freedom in dense and strongly interacting gluonic systems. One may 

1767: argue that at high density the pomerons overlap and melt down to 

1768: gluons, whose dynamics may be significantly different from the

1769: dynamics of the pomeron fields. Secondly, in the present analysis we

1770: neglected quantum effects related to the pomeron loops. The impact

1771: of the quantum effects on the phenomenon of symmetry breaking is 

1772: unknown. Moreover, we neglected contribution of vertices with more than 

1773: three pomerons. In addition, the NLL corrections to the BFKL pomeron kernels

1774: and to the triple pomeron vertices are neglected in the present form

1775: of Braun equations. This causes the BFKL intercept to be roughly two  

1776: times too large. This means that the spontaneous breaking of the 

1777: projectile-target symmetry should occur (if it occurs) at much higher 

1778: rapidities than it may be deduced from the analysis employing the LL~BFKL 

1779: kernel, perhaps for energies beyond reach of the LHC.  

1780: On the other hand, the value of $\alpha_s=0.2$ underestimates 

1781: significantly the expected value of $\alpha_s$ for the triple pomeron 

1782: vertex (recall that the vertex is proportional to $\alpha_s^2$) and

1783: with a more realistic value a smaller $Y_c$ would be predicted. 

1784: Finally, in order to evaluate relevance of the effect the input

1785: conditions should be carefully tuned to embody the available information

1786: on the unintegrated gluon density in the nuclei, including the impact

1787: parameter profiles. Keeping in mind all these reservation, we believe that 

1788: further theoretical and experimental studies of the issue should

1789: be carried out.

1790: 

1791: 

1792: 

1793: 

1794: Leaving the issue of the symmetry breaking, we point out that 

1795: the ``fan dominance'' phenomenon at $Y>Y_c$ found in the case of the 

1796: symmetric boundary conditions should be even more pronounced when the 

1797: projectile and the target are different. 

1798: This might provide some basis for the use of the BK equation to 

1799: describe the saturation effects in the DIS at low $Q^2$. 

1800: Strictly speaking, the BK equation is valid for a small perturbative 

1801: probe scattering off a large target, for instance a nucleus. This condition 

1802: is, certainly, not fulfilled for almost real photon scattering off a proton,

1803: nor it is for the diffractive DIS, dominated by scattering of large dipoles.

1804: Still, the fits based on the BK amplitudes are very successful in both 

1805: cases. The ``fan dominance'' in the symmetric Braun system could provide 

1806: some support for those applications of the BK equation, although it is fair

1807: to admit that the use of Braun equations to processes of this kind is not on 

1808: the firm ground either.

1809: 

1810: 

1811: 

1812: The Braun equations are a minimal extension of the very 

1813: fruitful concept of the BK equation, that embodies the symmetry between 

1814: the pomeron fields $f$ and $\fda$ at the level of the action. 

1815: Possibly, this extension may also find some interesting

1816: phenomenological applications. Following Braun we state that description of 

1817: heavy ion collisions is the obvious application of the equations. In that 

1818: case the quantum loops should have only a subleading effect and the 

1819: approximate treatment of the dependence transverse position is certainly 

1820: sufficient.   A more challenging is an application of the formalism 

1821: to the vital problem of understanding of $pp$ collisions at the LHC 

1822: energies. In particular, we have in mind the description of underlying 

1823: event, particle production (see e.g.~\cite{gsv,inew}), diffractive 

1824: processes and 

1825: determination of the gap survival factor in hard exclusive processes, 

1826: like for instance the exclusive Higgs boson production. Expanding on this

1827: example, the exclusive Higgs boson production is an important

1828: process which is probable to be measured at the LHC~\cite{ehiggs}. 

1829: It was shown, that the theoretical understanding of the cross section

1830: for this process requires a good control of the hard rescattering 

1831: corrections~\cite{higgsres}. 

1832: The framework of the semi-classical field theory of the interacting 

1833: pomerons may serve as a tool to perform the necessary resummations of

1834: multi-pomeron diagrams and to obtain improved estimates of the gap

1835: survival factor. All the listed applications are, however, non-trivial as

1836: they require inclusion of NLL~BFKL corrections and, possibly, more accurate 

1837: treatment of the dynamics of the system in the transverse position space.

1838: 

1839: 

1840: 

1841: In the last part of this section we will briefly mention some intriguing 

1842: open questions. Thus, it would be interesting to investigate the stochastic 

1843: QCD evolution of the color glass condensate using the realization 

1844: of the semi-classical approximations in which only the tree topologies

1845: of the pomeron are retained. In analogy to the Pomeron Field Theory, this

1846: limit should be simpler than the accurate treatment also in the 

1847: CGC formulation. Furthermore, a similar analysis of the Pomeron Field Theory 

1848: should be possible after inclusion of the pomeron vertices at which

1849: more than three pomeron fields. The form of those vertices may be predicted 

1850: using the conjectured conformal symmetry of the pomeron field 

1851: theory ~\cite{conformal}. 

1852: While the conformal symmetry of the effective field theory of the interacting 

1853: pomerons in the EGLLA was not explored in the present study, 

1854: it constitutes, certainly, a key ingredient of the structure of the 

1855: complete theory. Thus, it is mandatory to account for it in similar 

1856: future studies.

1857: 

1858: 

1859: 

1860: Finally, let us refer to recent developments on the connection between

1861: the superconformal gauge theories in four dimensions and the superstring 

1862: theory on the $AdS_5\times S^5$ background~\cite{ads1}. Using the AdS/CFT 

1863: duality it was found that the BFKL pomeron in gauge theories corresponds

1864: to the graviton Regge trajectory in the AdS space~\cite{grav1}. 

1865: Thus, it is desirable to find an interpretation of the effective pomeron field 

1866: theory at the string side, perhaps in terms of gravity. 

1867: Curiously enough, it was discovered recently that collisions of heavy 

1868: ions possess a dual gravitational description~\cite{ion_gravity}. 

1869: The dual of the scattering is given by a collision of two gravitational 

1870: shock waves in which black holes can be formed. 

1871: Example of such a black hole solution being produced, 

1872: that moves in the fifth dimension of the Anti de Sitter space was 

1873: found~\cite{ion_jp}. 

1874: Thus, the relation between the fifth dimension in the AdS and the 

1875: gluon virtuality inspires a question about the possible 

1876: connection of the black hole to the BK traveling wave solution, 

1877: whose existence we established in the classical pomeron field theory.

1878: Therefore, it is important to verify whether phenomena analogous to

1879: the symmetry breaking between the target and the projectile and the 

1880: ``fan dominance'' also happen in the string world.

1881: 

1882: 

1883: 

1884: 

1885: \section{Conclusions}

1886: 

1887: Effective field theory of interacting QCD pomerons was investigated in the 

1888: semi-classical limit, as a framework to describe high energy scattering of two

1889: nuclei. The effective action was proposed in the form using the pomeron 

1890: amplitudes, as the basic degrees of freedom, related to the 

1891: unintegrated gluon densities in the linear regime.  Triple pomeron 

1892: vertices in the momentum space accounted for the pomeron merging 

1893: and splitting. Arbitrariness in the choice of the direction of evolution 

1894: in rapidity required both the vertices to be identical and induced 

1895: the self-duality of the action. 

1896: This symmetry combined with symmetric initial conditions 

1897: defined the scattering problem to be symmetric under the interchange of 

1898: the target and the projectile. Classical pomeron field equations 

1899: ({\em Braun equations}) were re-derived and solved numerically. 

1900: The solutions were found that were invariant under the projectile-target 

1901: symmetry only for scattering rapidities~$Y$ smaller than a critical 

1902: (non-universal) value $Y_c$. For $Y>Y_c$ the projectile-target symmetry 

1903: turned out to be {\em spontaneously broken}. Above the critical rapidity, the 

1904: solutions converged to the solutions of the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation,

1905: the phenomenon which we called the {\em BK fan dominance}. A very similar 

1906: pattern of symmetry breaking and the fan dominance occurs also in the 

1907: Reggeon Field Theory in zero transverse dimensions, which suggests that this

1908: is a generic feature of the interacting pomeron system. 

1909: We discussed possible consequences of those observations for the 

1910: phenomenology of heavy ion collisions and the physics of $pp$ scattering at

1911: the LHC. Finally, we suggested that the results of this paper may have

1912: counterparts in the dual description of heavy ion collisions in terms of

1913: scattering of two gravitational shock waves in the Anti de~Sitter space in

1914: five dimensions. 

1915:  

1916: 

1917: 

1918: \begin{figure}[t]

1919: \begin{center}

1920: a) \psfig{file=br6sols.eps,width=120mm} \\

1921: b) \psfig{file=br8sols.eps,width=120mm} 

1922: \end{center} 

1923: \caption{\it Solutions of the Braun equations 

1924: $f(y,k^2)/k^2=\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ for a) $Y=6$ and b) $Y=8$.}   

1925: \label{Res1}

1926: \end{figure}

1927: 

1928: 

1929: 

1930: \begin{figure}[t]

1931: \begin{center}

1932: a)\psfig{file=br10sol2.eps,width=120mm} \\

1933: b)\psfig{file=br16sol2.eps,width=120mm} 

1934: \end{center} 

1935: \caption{\it 

1936: Solutions of the Braun equations  $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ for a) $Y=10$ 

1937: and b) $Y=16$.}

1938: \label{Res2n}

1939: \end{figure}

1940: 

1941: 

1942: 

1943: 

1944: \begin{figure}[t]

1945: \begin{center}

1946: a)\psfig{file=br10sol1a.eps,width=120mm} \\

1947: b)\psfig{file=br10sol1b.eps,width=120mm} 

1948: \end{center} 

1949: \caption{\it Solutions of the Braun equations $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ for $Y=10$:

1950: a) $y'=0,1,\ldots,5$;  

1951: b) $y'=6,7,\ldots,10$.}   

1952: \label{Res3n}

1953: \end{figure}

1954: 

1955: 

1956: 

1957: \begin{figure}[t]

1958: \begin{center}

1959: a)\psfig{file=br16sol1a.eps,width=120mm} \\

1960: b)\psfig{file=br16sol1b.eps,width=120mm} 

1961: \end{center} 

1962: \caption{\it Solutions of the Braun equations $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ for $Y=16$:

1963: a) $y'=0,1,\ldots,8$;  

1964: b) $y'=9,10,\ldots,16$.}   

1965: \label{Res4n}

1966: \end{figure}

1967: 

1968: 

1969: 

1970: 

1971: \begin{figure}[t]

1972: \begin{center}

1973: a)\psfig{file=brk16am.eps,width=110mm} \\

1974: b)\psfig{file=brk16bm.eps,width=110mm} 

1975: \end{center} 

1976: \caption{\it Solutions of the Braun equations for $Y=16$ plotted 

1977: as a function of rapidity $y$ for $k=1.3$~GeV (solid line), 

1978: $k=14$~GeV (dashed line) and $k=185$~GeV (dotted line):

1979: a) $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ and  b) $\fda(y,k^2)/k^2$.}   

1980: \label{Res4.5}

1981: \end{figure}

1982: 

1983: 

1984: 

1985: \begin{figure}[t]

1986: \begin{center}

1987: a)\psfig{file=3d16a.eps,width=160mm} \\

1988: b)\psfig{file=3d16b.eps,width=160mm} 

1989: \end{center} 

1990: \caption{\it Solutions of the Braun equations for $Y=16$ plotted 

1991: as a function of rapidity $y$ and $k$: 

1992: a)~$f(y,k^2)/k^2$ and  b)~$\fda(y,k^2)/k^2$.}   

1993: \label{Res3d}

1994: \end{figure}

1995: 

1996: 

1997: 

1998: 

1999: 

2000: 

2001: 

2002: \begin{figure}[t]

2003: \begin{center}

2004: a)\psfig{file=br8.bk.eps,width=120mm} \\

2005: b)\psfig{file=br12.bk.eps,width=120mm} \\

2006: \end{center} 

2007: \caption{\it Comparison of the larger solution $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ 

2008: of the Braun equations (solid line) to the solution of the 

2009: BK equation (points) for a) $Y=8$ and b) $Y=12$.}   

2010: \label{Res5}

2011: \end{figure}

2012: 

2013: 

2014: 

2015: \begin{figure}[t]

2016: \begin{center}

2017: a)\psfig{file=br8.bk2.eps,width=120mm} \\

2018: b)\psfig{file=br12.bk2.eps,width=120mm} \\

2019: \end{center} 

2020: \caption{\it Comparison of the smaller solution $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ 

2021: of the Braun equations (solid line) to the ``smaller solution'' 

2022: $\fbkd/k^2$ of the BK equation (points) for a) $Y=8$ and b) $Y=12$.}   

2023: \label{Res6}

2024: \end{figure}

2025: 

2026: 

2027: \begin{figure}[t]

2028: \begin{center}

2029: a) \psfig{file=br16.bk.eps,width=120mm} \\ 

2030: b)\psfig{file=br16.bk2.eps,width=120mm} \\

2031: \end{center} 

2032: \caption{\it Comparison of the solution of the Braun equations 

2033: (solid line) to the solution of the BK equation (points) for $Y=16$:

2034: a) the larger solution $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ and b) the smaller solution 

2035: $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$.

2036: }   

2037: \label{Res7}

2038: \end{figure}

2039: 

2040: 

2041: 

2042: 

2043: 

2044: 

2045: 

2046: \section*{Acknowledgments}

2047: %

2048: We are especially grateful to Jochen Bartels for his continued 

2049: interest in this work and numerous enlightening discussions. 

2050: We thank Mikhail Braun, Krzysztof Golec-Biernat, Eugene Levin, Lev Lipatov 

2051: and Alfred Mueller for discussions and useful comments.  

2052: S.B.\ thanks the Minerva foundation for its support and

2053: L.M.\ gratefully acknowledges the support of the grant 

2054: of the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research 

2055: No.\ 1~P03B~028~28. 

2056: 

2057: 

2058: \vspace{3mm}

2059: 

2060: 

2061: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2062: 

2063: \bibitem{ads1}

2064:   J.~M.~Maldacena,

2065:   %``The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,''

2066:   Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2} (1998) 231

2067:   [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 38} (1999) 1113];

2068: %  [arXiv:hep-th/9711200].

2069:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%

2070: %\bibitem{ads2}

2071:   E.~Witten,

2072:   %``Anti-de Sitter space and holography,''

2073:   Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2} (1998) 253;

2074: %  [arXiv:hep-th/9802150].

2075:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802150;%%

2076: %

2077: %\bibitem{ads3}

2078:   O.~Aharony, S.~S.~Gubser, J.~M.~Maldacena, H.~Ooguri and Y.~Oz,

2079:   %``Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,''

2080:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 323} (2000) 183.

2081: %  [arXiv:hep-th/9905111].

2082:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9905111;%%

2083: 

2084: 

2085: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2086: 

2087: \bibitem{bfkl}

2088:   L.~N.~Lipatov,

2089:   %``Reggeization Of The Vector Meson And The Vacuum Singularity In Nonabelian

2090:   %Gauge Theories,''

2091:   Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 23} (1976) 338

2092:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 23} (1976) 642];

2093:   %%CITATION = SJNCA,23,338;%%

2094: %

2095: %\bibitem{bfkl2}

2096:   E.~A.~Kuraev, L.~N.~Lipatov and V.~S.~Fadin,

2097:   %``The Pomeranchuk Singularity In Nonabelian Gauge Theories,''

2098:   Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 45} (1977) 199

2099:   [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 72} (1977) 377];

2100:   %%CITATION = SPHJA,45,199;%%

2101: %

2102: %\bibitem{bfkl3}

2103:   I.~I.~Balitsky and L.~N.~Lipatov,

2104:   %``The Pomeranchuk Singularity In Quantum Chromodynamics,''

2105:   Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 28} (1978) 822

2106:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 28} (1978) 1597].

2107:   %%CITATION = SJNCA,28,822;%%

2108: 

2109: \bibitem{bfklsum}

2110: L.~N.~Lipatov, {Phys.\ Rept.\ } {\bf  286} (1997) 131.

2111: 

2112: %\cite{Fadin:1998py}

2113: \bibitem{nlbfkl}

2114:   V.~S.~Fadin and L.~N.~Lipatov,

2115:   %``BFKL Pomeron in the next-to-leading approximation,''

2116:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429} (1998) 127;

2117: %  %[arXiv:hep-ph/9802290].

2118:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802290;%%

2119: %

2120: %\cite{Ciafaloni:1998gs}

2121: %\bibitem{nlbfkl2}

2122: M.~Ciafaloni and G.~Camici,

2123: %``Energy scale(s) and next-to-leading BFKL equation,''

2124:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 430} (1998) 349;

2125: %  %[arXiv:hep-ph/9803389].

2126:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803389;%%

2127: %

2128: %\cite{Fadin:2004zq}

2129: %\bibitem{nlbfkl3}

2130:   V.~S.~Fadin and R.~Fiore,

2131:   %``Non-forward BFKL pomeron at next-to-leading order,''

2132:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 610} (2005) 61

2133:   [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 621} (2005) 61];

2134:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0412386].

2135:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412386;%%

2136: %

2137: %\cite{Fadin:2005zj}

2138: %\bibitem{nlbfkl4}

2139:   V.~S.~Fadin and R.~Fiore,

2140:   %``Non-forward NLO BFKL kernel,''

2141:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 014018.

2142:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0502045].

2143:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502045;%%

2144: 

2145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2146: 

2147: 

2148: %\cite{Balitsky:1995ub}

2149: \bibitem{balitsky}

2150:   I.~Balitsky,

2151:   %``Operator expansion for high-energy scattering,''

2152:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 463} (1996) 99.

2153: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9509348].

2154:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509348;%%

2155: 

2156: %

2157: 

2158: %\cite{Jalilian-Marian:1997dw}

2159: \bibitem{jimwalk}

2160:   J.~Jalilian-Marian, A.~Kovner and H.~Weigert,

2161:   %``The Wilson renormalization group for low x physics: Gluon evolution at

2162:   %finite parton density,''

2163:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 014015;

2164:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9709432].

2165:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709432;%%

2166: %

2167: %\cite{Jalilian-Marian:1997gr}

2168: %\bibitem{Jalilian-Marian:1997gr}

2169: J.~Jalilian-Marian, A.~Kovner, A.~Leonidov and H.~Weigert,

2170: %``The Wilson renormalization group for low x physics: Towards the high

2171: %density regime,''

2172: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 014014;

2173:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9706377].

2174:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706377;%%

2175: %

2176: %\cite{Iancu:2000hn}

2177: %\bibitem{Iancu:2000hn}

2178:   E.~Iancu, A.~Leonidov and L.~D.~McLerran,

2179:   %``Nonlinear gluon evolution in the color glass condensate. I,''

2180:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 692} (2001) 583;

2181:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0011241].

2182:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011241;%%

2183: %

2184: %\cite{Iancu:2001ad}

2185: %\bibitem{Iancu:2001ad}

2186:   E.~Iancu, A.~Leonidov and L.~D.~McLerran,

2187:   %``The renormalization group equation for the color glass condensate,''

2188:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 133;

2189:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0102009].

2190:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102009;%%

2191: %  

2192: %\cite{Iancu:2001md}

2193: %\bibitem{Iancu:2001md}

2194:   E.~Iancu and L.~D.~McLerran,

2195:   %``Saturation and universality in QCD at small x,''

2196:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 145;

2197:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0103032].

2198:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103032;%%

2199: %

2200: %\cite{Ferreiro:2001qy}

2201: %\bibitem{Ferreiro:2001qy}

2202:   E.~Ferreiro, E.~Iancu, A.~Leonidov and L.~McLerran,

2203:   %``Nonlinear gluon evolution in the color glass condensate. II,''

2204:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 703} (2002) 489.

2205:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109115].

2206:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109115;%%

2207: 

2208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2209: 

2210: 

2211: 

2212: %\cite{Mueller:1993rr}

2213: \bibitem{dipmod}

2214:   A.~H.~Mueller,

2215:   %``Soft gluons in the infinite momentum wave function and the BFKL pomeron,''

2216:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 415} (1994) 373.

2217:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B415,373;%%

2218: 

2219: %\cite{Iancu:2004iy}

2220: \bibitem{stochastic}

2221: %\bibitem{Iancu:2004es}

2222:   E.~Iancu, A.~H.~Mueller and S.~Munier,

2223:   %``Universal behavior of QCD amplitudes at high energy from general tools  of

2224:   %statistical physics,''

2225:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 606} (2005) 342;

2226: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0410018].

2227: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410018;%%

2228: %

2229:   E.~Iancu and D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,

2230:   %``A Langevin equation for high energy evolution with pomeron loops,''

2231:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 756} (2005) 419;

2232:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0411405].

2233:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411405;%%

2234: %

2235: %\cite{Mueller:2005ut}

2236: %\bibitem{Mueller:2005ut}

2237:   A.~H.~Mueller, A.~I.~Shoshi and S.~M.~H.~Wong,

2238:   %``Extension of the JIMWLK equation in the low gluon density region,''

2239:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 715} (2005) 440;

2240:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0501088].

2241:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501088;%%

2242: %

2243: %

2244: %\cite{Munier:2005re}

2245: %\bibitem{Munier:2005re}

2246:   S.~Munier,

2247:   %``High energy scattering in QCD as a statistical process,''

2248:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 755} (2005) 622;

2249: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0501149].

2250:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501149;%%

2251: %

2252: E.~Levin and M.~Lublinsky,

2253:   %``Towards a symmetric approach to high energy evolution: Generating

2254:   %functional with Pomeron loops,''

2255:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 763} (2005) 172;

2256: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0501173].

2257:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501173;%%

2258: %

2259: %\cite{Iancu:2005nj}

2260: %\bibitem{Iancu:2005nj}

2261: E.~Iancu and D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,

2262: %``Non-linear QCD evolution with improved triple-pomeron vertices,''

2263: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 610} (2005) 253;

2264: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0501193].

2265: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501193;%%

2266: %

2267: %

2268: %\cite{Enberg:2005cb}

2269: %\bibitem{Enberg:2005cb}

2270:   R.~Enberg, K.~Golec-Biernat and S.~Munier,

2271:   %``The high energy asymptotics of scattering processes in QCD,''

2272:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 074021;

2273: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0505101].

2274: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505101;%%

2275: %

2276: %\bibitem{Triantafyllopoulos:2005cn}

2277:   D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,

2278:   %``Pomeron loops in high energy QCD,''

2279:   Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 36} (2005) 3593.

2280:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0511226].

2281:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511226;%%

2282: 

2283: 

2284: 

2285: \bibitem{vert1}

2286: J.~Bartels,

2287: %``Unitarity corrections to the Lipatov pomeron and the four gluon operator in

2288: %deep inelastic scattering in QCD,''

2289: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 60} (1993) 471.

2290: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C60,471;%%

2291: 

2292: \bibitem{vert2}

2293: J.~Bartels and M.~W\"{u}sthoff,

2294: %``The Triple Regge limit of diffractive dissociation in deep inelastic

2295: %scattering,''

2296: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 66} (1995) 157.

2297: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C66,157;%%

2298: 

2299: 

2300: \bibitem{eglla1}

2301:   J.~Bartels and C.~Ewerz,

2302:   %``Unitarity corrections in high-energy QCD,''

2303:   JHEP {\bf 9909} (1999) 026.

2304:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9908454].

2305:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908454;%%

2306: 

2307: 

2308: %\cite{Ewerz:2001uq}

2309: \bibitem{eglla2}

2310:   C.~Ewerz,

2311:   %``Conformal invariance of unitarity corrections,''

2312:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 512} (2001) 239.

2313:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0105181].

2314:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105181;%%

2315: 

2316: 

2317: %\cite{Ewerz:2003an}

2318: \bibitem{eglla3}

2319:   C.~Ewerz and V.~Schatz,

2320:   %``How pomerons meet in coloured glass,''

2321:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 736} (2004) 371.

2322:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0308056].

2323:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308056;%%

2324: 

2325: 

2326: %\cite{Bittig:2005ni}

2327: \bibitem{eglla4}

2328:   T.~Bittig and C.~Ewerz,

2329:   %``Diffraction, the color glass condensate and string theory,''

2330:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 755} (2005) 616.

2331: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0501192].

2332:  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501192;%%

2333: 

2334: 

2335: %\cite{Kovchegov:1999yj}

2336: \bibitem{kov1}

2337:   Y.~V.~Kovchegov,

2338:   %``Small-x F2 structure function of a nucleus including multiple Pomeron

2339:   %exchanges,''

2340:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 034008.

2341: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9901281].

2342:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901281;%%

2343: 

2344: %\cite{Kovchegov:1999ua}

2345: \bibitem{kov2}

2346:   Y.~V.~Kovchegov,

2347:   %``Unitarization of the BFKL Pomeron on a nucleus,''

2348:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 074018.

2349: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9905214].

2350:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905214;%%

2351: 

2352: 

2353: 

2354: %cite{GBW}

2355: \bibitem{gbw1}

2356:   K.~Golec-Biernat and M.~W\"{u}sthoff,

2357:   %``Saturation effects in deep inelastic scattering at low Q**2 and its

2358:   %implications on diffraction,''

2359:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 014017.

2360:  % [arXiv:hep-ph/9807513].

2361:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807513;%%

2362: 

2363: %cite{GBW2}

2364: \bibitem{gbw2}

2365: K.~Golec-Biernat and M.~W\"{u}sthoff,

2366:   %``Saturation in diffractive deep inelastic scattering,''

2367:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 114023.

2368: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9903358].

2369:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903358;%%

2370: 

2371: 

2372: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2373: %%%%braun

2374: 

2375: 

2376: %BK sols

2377: 

2378: 

2379: %\cite{Levin:1999mw}

2380: \bibitem{bksols}

2381:   E.~Levin and K.~Tuchin,

2382:   %``Solution to the evolution equation for high parton density QCD,''

2383:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573} (2000) 833;

2384:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9908317].

2385:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908317;%%

2386: %

2387: %\cite{Braun:2000wr}

2388: %\bibitem{Braun:2000wr}

2389: M.~Braun,

2390: %``Structure function of the nucleus in the perturbative QCD with N(c)  $\to$

2391: %infinity (BFKL pomeron fan diagrams),''

2392: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 16} (2000) 337;

2393: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0001268].

2394: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001268;%%

2395: %

2396: %\cite{Weigert:2000gi}

2397: %\bibitem{Weigert:2000gi}

2398:   H.~Weigert,

2399:   %``Unitarity at small Bjorken x,''

2400:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 703} (2002) 823;

2401: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0004044];

2402:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004044;%%

2403: %\bibitem{Lublinsky:2001yi}

2404:   M.~Lublinsky, E.~Gotsman, E.~Levin and U.~Maor,

2405: %``Non-linear evolution and parton distributions at LHC and THERA energies,''

2406:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 696} (2001) 851;

2407: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0102321].

2408: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102321;%%

2409: %

2410: %\bibitem{AB}

2411:   N.~Armesto and M.~A.~Braun,

2412:   %``Parton densities and dipole cross-sections at small x in large nuclei,''

2413:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20} (2001) 517;

2414: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0104038].

2415:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104038;%%

2416: %

2417: %\bibitem{GBMS}

2418:   K.~Golec-Biernat, L.~Motyka and A.~M.~Sta\'{s}to,

2419:   %``Diffusion into infrared and unitarization of the BFKL Pomeron,''

2420:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 074037;

2421: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0110325].

2422:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110325;%%

2423: %\cite{Chachamis:2004ab}

2424: %\bibitem{Chachamis:2004ab}

2425: G.~Chachamis, M.~Lublinsky and A.~Sabio Vera,

2426: %``Higher order effects in non linear evolution from a veto in rapidities,''

2427: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 748} (2005) 649.

2428: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0408333].

2429: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408333;%%

2430: %

2431: 

2432: 

2433: \bibitem{bdepkov}

2434:   K.~Golec-Biernat and A.~M.~Sta\'{s}to,

2435:   %``On solutions of the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation with impact parameter,''

2436:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 668} (2003) 345.

2437:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306279].

2438:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306279;%%

2439: 

2440: \bibitem{jimsol}

2441:   K.~Rummukainen and H.~Weigert,

2442:   %``Universal features of JIMWLK and BK evolution at small x,''

2443:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 739} (2004) 183.

2444:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0309306].

2445:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309306;%%

2446: 

2447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2448: 

2449: 

2450: %\cite{Levin:2000mv}

2451: \bibitem{bksemi1}

2452:   E.~Levin and K.~Tuchin,

2453:   %``New scaling at high energy DIS,''

2454:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 691} (2001) 779;

2455:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012167].

2456:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012167;%%

2457: %

2458: %\cite{Kwiecinski:2002ep}

2459: %\bibitem{Kwiecinski:2002ep}

2460:   J.~Kwieci\'{n}ski and A.~M.~Sta\'{s}to,

2461:   %``Geometric scaling and QCD evolution,''

2462:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 014013;

2463:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0203030].

2464:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203030;%%

2465: %

2466: %

2467: %\cite{Iancu:2002tr}

2468:   E.~Iancu, K.~Itakura and L.~McLerran,

2469:   %``Geometric scaling above the saturation scale,''

2470:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 708} (2002) 327.

2471:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0203137].

2472:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203137;%%

2473: 

2474: 

2475: %\cite{Mueller:2002zm}

2476: \bibitem{bksemi2}

2477:   A.~H.~Mueller and D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,

2478:   %``The energy dependence of the saturation momentum,''

2479:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 640} (2002) 331;

2480:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205167].

2481:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205167;%%

2482: %

2483: %\cite{Triantafyllopoulos:2002nz}

2484: %\bibitem{Triantafyllopoulos:2002nz}

2485:   D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,

2486:   %``The energy dependence of the saturation momentum from RG improved BFKL

2487:   %evolution,''

2488:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 648} (2003) 293;

2489:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0209121].

2490:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209121;%%

2491: %\cite{Motyka:2005ep}

2492: %\bibitem{lmodd}

2493:   L.~Motyka, Phys.\ Lett.\ B, in print;

2494:   %``Nonlinear evolution of pomeron and odderon in momentum space,''

2495:   arXiv:hep-ph/0509270.

2496: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509270;%%

2497: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2498: 

2499: 

2500: 

2501: 

2502: 

2503: %\cite{Gotsman:2002yy}

2504: \bibitem{bk-pheno}

2505: E.~Gotsman, E.~Levin, M.~Lublinsky and U.~Maor,

2506: %``Towards a new global QCD analysis: Low x DIS data from non-linear

2507: %evolution,''

2508: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 27} (2003) 411;

2509: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0209074].

2510: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209074;%%

2511: %

2512: %

2513: 

2514: 

2515: \bibitem{kks}

2516: K.~Kutak and J.~Kwieci\'{n}ski,

2517: %``Screening effects in the ultrahigh energy neutrino interactions,''

2518: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 29} (2003) 521;

2519: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0303209].

2520: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303209;%%

2521: %\cite{Kutak:2004ym}

2522: %\bibitem{Kutak:2004ym}

2523: K.~Kutak and A.~M.~Sta\'{s}to,

2524: %``Unintegrated gluon distribution from modified BK equation,''

2525: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 41} (2005) 343.

2526: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0408117].

2527: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408117;%%

2528: 

2529: 

2530: \bibitem{iim}

2531: E.~Iancu, K.~Itakura and S.~Munier,

2532: %``Saturation and BFKL dynamics in the HERA data at small x,''

2533: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 590} (2004) 199.

2534: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0310338].

2535: %

2536: 

2537: %%%%%%%%%%

2538: 

2539: 

2540: 

2541: 

2542: 

2543: 

2544: %scaling

2545: 

2546: \bibitem{scaling}

2547:   A.~M.~Sta\'{s}to, K.~Golec-Biernat and J.~Kwieci\'{n}ski,

2548:   %``Geometric scaling for the total gamma* p cross-section in the low x

2549:   %region,''

2550:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86} (2001) 596.

2551:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0007192].

2552:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007192;%%

2553: 

2554: \bibitem{barlev}

2555: J.~Bartels and E.~Levin,

2556: %``Solutions to the Gribov-Levin-Ryskin equation in the nonperturbative

2557: %region,''

2558: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 387} (1992) 617.

2559: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B387,617;%%

2560: 

2561: 

2562: \bibitem{traveling}

2563:   S.~Munier and R.~Peschanski,

2564:   %``Geometric scaling as traveling waves,''

2565:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91} (2003) 232001;

2566: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0309177].

2567:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309177;%%

2568: %

2569: %\bibitem{MuPe2}

2570:   S.~Munier and R.~Peschanski,

2571:   %``Traveling wave fronts and the transition to saturation,''

2572:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 034008 (2004);

2573: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0310357].

2574:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310357;%%

2575: %

2576: %\bibitem{MuPe3}

2577:   S.~Munier and R.~Peschanski,

2578:   %``Universality and tree structure of high energy QCD,''

2579:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 077503 (2004).

2580: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0401215].

2581:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401215;%%

2582: 

2583: 

2584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2585: 

2586: 

2587: %\cite{Kovchegov:2003dm}

2588: %\bibitem{whimiks}

2589: %  Y.~V.~Kovchegov, L.~Szymanowski and S.~Wallon,

2590: %  %``Perturbative odderon in the dipole model,''

2591: %  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 586} (2004) 267;

2592: %  %[arXiv:hep-ph/0309281].

2593: %  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309281;%%

2594: %

2595: %%\cite{Hatta:2005as}

2596: %%\bibitem{Hatta:2005as}

2597: %  Y.~Hatta, E.~Iancu, K.~Itakura and L.~McLerran,

2598: %  %``Odderon in the color glass condensate,''

2599: %  Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 760} (2005) 172.

2600: %  %[arXiv:hep-ph/0501171].

2601: %  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501171;%%

2602: 

2603: 

2604: %\cite{Motyka:2005ep}

2605: %\bibitem{lmodd}

2606: %  L.~Motyka, Phys.\ Lett.\ B, in print;

2607: %  %``Nonlinear evolution of pomeron and odderon in momentum space,''

2608: %  arXiv:hep-ph/0509270.

2609: %  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509270;%%

2610: 

2611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2612: 

2613: 

2614: %\cite{Bartels:2002cj}

2615: \bibitem{gbwev}

2616:   J.~Bartels, K.~Golec-Biernat and H.~Kowalski,

2617:   %``A modification of the saturation model: DGLAP evolution,''

2618:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 014001.

2619:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0203258].

2620:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203258;%%

2621: %

2622: 

2623: %\cite{Timneanu:2001bk}

2624: \bibitem{tkm}

2625:   N.~T\^{i}mneanu, J.~Kwieci\'{n}ski and L.~Motyka,

2626:   %``Saturation model for two-photon interactions at high energies,''

2627:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 513.

2628:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0110409].

2629:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110409;%%

2630: %

2631: %\cite{Kowalski:2003hm}

2632: \bibitem{kt}

2633:   H.~Kowalski and D.~Teaney,

2634:   %``An impact parameter dipole saturation model,''

2635:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 114005.

2636:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0304189].

2637:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304189;%%

2638: %

2639: \bibitem{kmw}

2640: H.~Kowalski, L.~Motyka and G.~Watt, in preparation; K.~Kowalski, talk given

2641: at XIV International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering, April 2006, 

2642: Tsukuba, Japan.

2643: %

2644: 

2645: 

2646: 

2647: \bibitem{braun1}

2648: %\cite{Braun:2000bi}

2649: %\bibitem{Braun:2000bi}

2650:   M.~A.~Braun,

2651:   %``Nucleus nucleus scattering in perturbative QCD with N(c) $\to$ infinity,''

2652:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 483} (2000) 115.

2653: %   [arXiv:hep-ph/0003004].

2654:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003004;%%

2655: 

2656: %\cite{Braun:2003dz}

2657: \bibitem{braun2}

2658:   M.~A.~Braun,

2659:   %``Nucleus nucleus interaction in the perturbative QCD,''

2660:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 33} (2004) 113.

2661:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0309293].

2662:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309293;%%

2663: 

2664: %\cite{Braun:2005hx}

2665: \bibitem{braun3}

2666:   M.~A.~Braun,

2667:   %``Conformal invariant pomeron interaction in the perurbative QCD with large

2668:   %N(c),''

2669:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 632} (2006) 297.

2670:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0512057].

2671:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512057;%%

2672: 

2673: 

2674: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2675: 

2676: 

2677: 

2678: %%%two boundaries

2679: %\cite{Mueller:2004se}

2680: \bibitem{absorptive}

2681:   A.~H.~Mueller and A.~I.~Shoshi,

2682:   %``Small-x physics beyond the Kovchegov equation,''

2683:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 692} (2004) 175.

2684:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0402193].

2685:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402193;%%

2686: 

2687: 

2688: %balitsky

2689: 

2690: %\cite{Balitsky:2004rr}

2691: \bibitem{balshock}

2692:   I.~Balitsky,

2693:   %``Scattering of shock waves in QCD,''

2694:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 114030;

2695:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0409314].

2696:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409314;%%

2697: %

2698: %\cite{Balitsky:2005we}

2699: %\bibitem{balshock2}

2700:   I.~Balitsky,

2701:   %``High-enegy effective action from scattering of QCD shock waves,''

2702:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 074027.

2703:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0507237].

2704:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507237;%%

2705: 

2706: 

2707: 

2708: 

2709: 

2710: 

2711: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2712: %0-dim

2713: 

2714: 

2715: \bibitem{0dimc}

2716:   D.~Amati, L.~Caneschi and R.~Jengo,

2717:   %``Summing Pomeron Trees,''

2718:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 101} (1975) 397.

2719:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B101,397;%%

2720: %

2721: %\cite{Jengo:1976nt}

2722: 

2723: \bibitem{0dimq}

2724:   R.~Jengo,

2725:   %``Zero Slope Limit Of The Pomeron Field Theory,''

2726:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 108} (1976) 447;

2727:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B108,447;%%

2728: %

2729: %\cite{Amati:1976ck}

2730: %\bibitem{Amati:1976ck}

2731:   D.~Amati, M.~Le Bellac, G.~Marchesini and M.~Ciafaloni,

2732:   %``Reggeon Field Theory For Alpha (O) > 1,''

2733:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 112} (1976) 107;

2734:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B112,107;%%

2735: %

2736: %\bibitem{Ciafaloni:1977xv}

2737:   M.~Ciafaloni, M.~Le Bellac and G.~C.~Rossi,

2738:   %``Reggeon Quantum Mechanics: A Critical Discussion,''

2739:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 130} (1977) 388.

2740:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B130,388;%%

2741: 

2742: \bibitem{0dimi}

2743:   M.~Ciafaloni,

2744:   %``Instanton Contributions In Reggeon Quantum Mechanics,''

2745:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 146} (1978) 427.

2746:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B146,427;%%

2747: 

2748: 

2749: %self-duality

2750: 

2751: %\cite{Kovner:2005en}

2752: \bibitem{selfdual}

2753: A.~Kovner and M.~Lublinsky,

2754: %``From target to projectile and back again: Selfduality of high energy

2755: %evolution,''

2756: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94} (2005) 181603;

2757: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0502119].

2758: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502119;%%

2759: %

2760: %\cite{Blaizot:2005vf}

2761: %\bibitem{self2}

2762:   J.~P.~Blaizot, E.~Iancu, K.~Itakura and D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,

2763:   %``Duality and Pomeron effective theory for QCD at high energy and large

2764:   %N(c),''

2765:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 615} (2005) 221;

2766:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0502221].

2767:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502221;%%

2768: %

2769: %\bibitem{self3}

2770: Y.~Hatta, E.~Iancu, L.~McLerran, A.~Sta\'{s}to and D.~N.~Triantafyllopoulos,

2771: %``Effective Hamiltonian for QCD evolution at high energy,''

2772: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 764} (2006) 423;

2773: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0504182].

2774: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504182;%%

2775: %

2776: %

2777: %\cite{Marquet:2005hu}

2778: %\bibitem{self4}

2779:   C.~Marquet, A.~H.~Mueller, A.~I.~Shoshi and S.~M.~H.~Wong,

2780:   %``On the projectile-target duality of the color glass condensate in the

2781:   %dipole picture,''

2782:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 762} (2005) 252.

2783:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0505229].

2784:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505229;%%

2785: 

2786: 

2787: 

2788: % froissart 

2789: 

2790: %\cite{Kovner:2001bh}

2791: \bibitem{kovn1}

2792:   A.~Kovner and U.~A.~Wiedemann,

2793:   %``Nonlinear QCD evolution: Saturation without unitarization,''

2794:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 051502;

2795: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0112140].

2796:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112140;%%

2797: %

2798: %\bibitem{kovn2}

2799: A.~Kovner and U.~A.~Wiedemann,

2800: %``No Froissart bound from gluon saturation,''

2801: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551} (2003) 311.

2802: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0207335].

2803:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207335;%%

2804: 

2805: 

2806: 

2807: %\cite{0dimnew}

2808: \bibitem{0dimnew}

2809: P.~Rembiesa and A.~M.~Sta\'{s}to,

2810: %``Algebraic models for the hierarchy structure of evolution equations at small

2811: %x,''

2812: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 725} (2005) 251;

2813: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0503223].

2814: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503223;%%

2815: %

2816: %\cite{Shoshi:2005pf}

2817: %\bibitem{Shoshi:2005pf}

2818: A.~I.~Shoshi and B.~W.~Xiao,

2819: %``Pomeron loops in zero transverse dimensions,''

2820:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 094014;

2821: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0512206].

2822:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512206;%%

2823: %\cite{Shoshi:2006eb}

2824: %\bibitem{Shoshi:2006eb}

2825:   A.~I.~Shoshi and B.~W.~Xiao,

2826:   %``Diffractive dissociation including pomeron loops in zero transverse

2827:   %dimensions,''

2828:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605282.

2829:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605282;%%

2830: 

2831: 

2832: %

2833: %\cite{Kozlov:2006zj}

2834: %

2835: \bibitem{0dimkl}

2836:   M.~Kozlov and E.~Levin,

2837:   %``Solution for the BFKL pomeron calculus in zero transverse dimensions,''

2838:   arXiv:hep-ph/0604039.

2839:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604039;%%

2840: 

2841: 

2842: 

2843: 

2844: \bibitem{0dimour}

2845: S.~Bondarenko and L.~Motyka, in preparation.

2846: 

2847: 

2848: 

2849: \bibitem{0dimb}

2850:   D.~Amati, G.~Marchesini, M.~Ciafaloni and G.~Parisi,

2851:   %``Expanding Disk As A Dynamical Vacuum Instability In Reggeon Field Theory,''

2852:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 114} (1976) 483;

2853:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B114,483;%%

2854:   V.~Alessandrini, D.~Amati and M.~Ciafaloni,

2855:   %``Classical Kinks And Their Quantization In Supercritical Reggeon Field

2856:   %Theory,''

2857:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 130} (1977) 429.

2858:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B130,429;%%

2859: 

2860: 

2861: 

2862: 

2863: 

2864: \bibitem{gsv}

2865:   F.~Gelis, A.~M.~Sta\'{s}to and R.~Venugopalan,

2866:   %``Limiting fragmentation in hadron-hadron collisions at high energies,''

2867:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605087.

2868:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605087;%%

2869: 

2870: \bibitem{inew}

2871:   E.~Iancu, C.~Marquet and G.~Soyez,

2872:   %``Forward gluon production in hadron-hadron scattering with Pomeron loops,''

2873:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605174.

2874:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605174;%%

2875: 

2876: 

2877: %\cite{Khoze:2000cy}

2878: \bibitem{ehiggs}

2879:   V.~A.~Khoze, A.~D.~Martin and M.~G.~Ryskin,

2880:   %``Can the Higgs be seen in rapidity gap events at the Tevatron or the

2881:   %LHC?,''

2882:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14} (2000) 525;

2883: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0002072].

2884:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002072;%%

2885: %\cite{DeRoeck:2002hk}

2886: %\bibitem{DeRoeck:2002hk}

2887:   A.~De Roeck, V.~A.~Khoze, A.~D.~Martin, R.~Orava and M.~G.~Ryskin,

2888:   %``Ways to detect a light Higgs boson at the LHC,''

2889:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25} (2002) 391;

2890: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0207042].

2891:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207042;%%

2892: %\cite{Kaidalov:2003fw}

2893: %\bibitem{Kaidalov:2003fw}

2894:   A.~B.~Kaidalov, V.~A.~Khoze, A.~D.~Martin and M.~G.~Ryskin,

2895:   %``Central exclusive diffractive production as a spin parity analyser:  From

2896:   %hadrons to Higgs,''

2897:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 31} (2003) 387.

2898: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0307064].

2899:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307064;%%

2900: 

2901: 

2902: %\cite{Bartels:2006ea}

2903: \bibitem{higgsres}

2904:   J.~Bartels, S.~Bondarenko, K.~Kutak and L.~Motyka, 

2905:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 093004;

2906:   %``Exclusive Higgs boson production at the LHC: Hard rescattering

2907:   %corrections,''

2908:   arXiv:hep-ph/0601128.

2909:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601128;%%

2910: 

2911: 

2912: 

2913: 

2914: \bibitem{conformal}

2915: %\bibitem{3p-conf}

2916: J.~Bartels, L.~N.~Lipatov and M.~W\"{u}sthoff,

2917:   %``Conformal Invariance of the Transition Vertex $2 \to 4$ gluons,''

2918: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 464} (1996) 298;

2919: %  %[arXiv:hep-ph/9509303].

2920: %  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509303;%%

2921: %%%%%%%%%

2922: % equivalnece of the vertices

2923: G.~P.~Korchemsky,

2924: %``Conformal bootstrap for the BFKL pomeron,''

2925: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 550} (1999) 397;

2926: %%[arXiv:hep-ph/9711277].

2927: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711277;%%

2928: %\cite{3p_bv}

2929: %\bibitem{3p_bv}

2930: M.~A.~Braun and G.~P.~Vacca,

2931: %``Triple pomeron vertex in the limit N(c) $\to$ infinity,''

2932: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 6} (1999) 147;

2933: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9711486].

2934: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711486;%%

2935: %

2936: %%\cite{Janik:1999fk}

2937: %\bibitem{cb_jp}

2938: R.~A.~Janik and R.~Peschanski,

2939: %``Conformal invariance and {QCD} pomeron vertices in the 1/N(c) limit,''

2940: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 549} (1999) 280;

2941: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9901426].

2942: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901426;%%

2943: %

2944: %%\cite{Bartels:2004ef}

2945: %\bibitem{3p_blv}

2946: J.~Bartels, L.~N.~Lipatov and G.~P.~Vacca,

2947: %``Interactions of Reggeized gluons in the Moebius representation,''

2948: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 706} (2005) 391.

2949: %%[arXiv:hep-ph/0404110].

2950: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404110;%%

2951: 

2952: 

2953: 

2954: %gravity

2955: 

2956: %\cite{Janik:1999zk}

2957: \bibitem{grav1}

2958:   R.~A.~Janik and R.~Peschanski,

2959:   %``High energy scattering and the AdS/CFT correspondence,''

2960:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 565} (2000) 193;

2961:   %[arXiv:hep-th/9907177].

2962:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9907177;%%

2963: %

2964: %

2965: %\cite{Polchinski:2001tt}

2966: %\bibitem{Polchinski:2001tt}

2967:   J.~Polchinski and M.~J.~Strassler,

2968:   %``Hard scattering and gauge/string duality,''

2969:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88} (2002) 031601;

2970:   %[arXiv:hep-th/0109174].

2971:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109174;%%

2972: %

2973: %\cite{Polchinski:2002jw}

2974: %\bibitem{Polchinski:2002jw}

2975:   J.~Polchinski and M.~J.~Strassler,

2976:   %``Deep inelastic scattering and gauge/string duality,''

2977:   JHEP {\bf 0305} (2003) 012;

2978:   %[arXiv:hep-th/0209211].

2979:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209211;%%

2980: %

2981: %

2982: %\cite{Danilov:2006fv}

2983: %\bibitem{Danilov:2006fv}

2984:   G.~S.~Danilov and L.~N.~Lipatov,

2985:   %``BFKL pomeron in string models,''

2986:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603073;

2987:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603073;%%

2988: %

2989: %\cite{Brower:2006ea}

2990: %\bibitem{Brower:2006ea}

2991:   R.~C.~Brower, J.~Polchinski, M.~J.~Strassler and C.~I.~Tan,

2992:   %``The pomeron and gauge / string duality,''

2993:   arXiv:hep-th/0603115.

2994:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0603115;%%

2995: 

2996: %%%%%%%%%%% heavy ion 

2997: 

2998: %\cite{Policastro:2001yc}

2999: \bibitem{ion_gravity}

3000:   G.~Policastro, D.~T.~Son and A.~O.~Starinets,

3001:   %``The shear viscosity of strongly coupled N = 4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills

3002:   %plasma,''

3003:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 081601;

3004:   %[arXiv:hep-th/0104066].

3005:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104066;%%

3006: %

3007: %\cite{Kovtun:2004de}

3008: %\bibitem{Kovtun:2004de}

3009:   P.~Kovtun, D.~T.~Son and A.~O.~Starinets,

3010:   %``Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole

3011:   %physics,''

3012:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94} (2005) 111601;

3013:   %[arXiv:hep-th/0405231].

3014:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405231;%%

3015: %

3016: %

3017: %\cite{Shuryak:2005ia}

3018: %\bibitem{Shuryak:2005ia}

3019:   E.~Shuryak, S.~J.~Sin and I.~Zahed,

3020:   %``A gravity dual of RHIC collisions,''

3021:   arXiv:hep-th/0511199.

3022:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0511199;%%

3023: %

3024: 

3025: %\cite{Janik:2005zt}

3026: \bibitem{ion_jp}

3027:   R.~A.~Janik and R.~Peschanski,

3028:   %``Asymptotic perfect fluid dynamics as a consequence of AdS/CFT,''

3029:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 045013.

3030:   %[arXiv:hep-th/0512162].

3031:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0512162;%%

3032: 

3033: 

3034: 

3035: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3036: 

3037: 

3038: \end{thebibliography}

3039: 

3040: 

3041: 

3042: \end{document}

3043: 

3044: 

3045: 

3046: 

3047: 

3048: 

3049: 

3050: 

3051: 

3052: \begin{figure}[t]

3053: \begin{center}

3054: a)\psfig{file=br10sol2.eps,width=120mm} \\

3055: b)\psfig{file=br10sol1.eps,width=120mm} 

3056: \end{center} 

3057: \caption{\it Solutions of the Braun equations for $Y=10$ a) $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ and 

3058: b) $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$.}   

3059: \label{Res2}

3060: \end{figure}

3061: 

3062: 

3063: 

3064: \begin{figure}[t]

3065: \begin{center}

3066: a)\psfig{file=br16sol2.eps,width=120mm} \\

3067: b)\psfig{file=br16sol1.eps,width=120mm} 

3068: \end{center} 

3069: \caption{\it Solutions of the Braun equations for $Y=16$ a) $f(y,k^2)/k^2$ and 

3070: b) $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$.}   

3071: \label{Res3}

3072: \end{figure}

3073: 

3074: 

3075: 

3076: \begin{figure}[t]

3077: \begin{center}

3078: a)\psfig{file=br16.fp1.eps,width=120mm} \\

3079: b)\psfig{file=br16.fp2.eps,width=120mm} 

3080: \end{center} 

3081: \caption{\it Solutions of the Braun equations $\fda(y',k^2)/k^2$ for $Y=16$:

3082: a) $y'=0,1,\ldots,8$;  

3083: b) $y'=9,10,\ldots,16$.}   

3084: \label{Res4}

3085: \end{figure}

3086: 

3087: 

3088: 

3089: