1: \documentclass[prd,aps,preprint,tightenlines,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[prl,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: %\usepackage{axodraw}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{slashed}
7: \newcommand{\insertfig}[2]{\mbox{\epsfxsize=#1cm\epsfbox{#2.eps}}}
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: %\preprint{RBRC-562} \preprint{UMDOE40762-351}
11:
12:
13: \title{QCD Factorization for Deep-Inelastic Scattering \\
14: At Large Bjorken $x_B \sim 1-{\cal O}( \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q)$}
15:
16: \author{Panying Chen}
17: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College
18: Park, Maryland 20742, USA}
19: \author{Ahmad Idilbi}
20: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Maryland,
21: College Park, Maryland 20742, USA}
22: \author{Xiangdong Ji}
23: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College
24: Park, Maryland 20742, USA} \affiliation{Department of Physics,
25: Peking University, Beijing, 100871, P. R. China}
26:
27: \date{\today}
28: \vspace{0.5in}
29: \begin{abstract}
30: We study deep-inelastic scattering factorization on a nucleon in
31: the end-point regime $x_B \sim 1-{\cal O}( \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q)$
32: where the traditional operator product expansion is supposed to fail.
33: We argue, nevertheless, that the standard result holds to
34: leading order in $1-x_B$ due to the absence of the scale
35: dependence on $(1-x_B)Q$. Refactorization of the scale $(1-x_B)Q^2$
36: in the coefficient function can be made in the
37: soft-collinear effective theory and remains valid in the end-point
38: regime. On the other hand, the traditional refactorization approach
39: introduces the spurious scale $(1-x_B)Q$ in various factors, which
40: drives them nonperturbative in the region of our interest.
41: We show how to improve the situation by introducing a
42: rapidity cut-off scheme, and how to recover the effective
43: theory refactorization by choosing appropriately the cut-off parameter.
44: Through a one-loop calculation, we demonstrate explicitly that
45: the proper soft subtractions must be made in the collinear
46: matrix elements to avoid double counting.
47:
48: \end{abstract}
49: \maketitle
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52:
53: In lepton-nucleon deep-inelastic scattering (DIS), the Bjorken
54: regime with virtual photon mass $Q^2\rightarrow \infty$ and
55: $x_B=Q^2/2M\nu$ fixed presents a textbook example of
56: perturbative QCD (pQCD) factorization \cite{collins89}. In this
57: regime, the scale $(1-x)^\alpha Q$ goes to infinity (we drop the
58: subscript $B$ on $x$ henceforth), where $\alpha$ is any real number,
59: or at least much larger than the soft QCD scale $\Lambda_{\rm
60: QCD}$. An alternative DIS regime is $Q^2\rightarrow \infty$ with
61: $(1-x)Q \sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, where the final hadron state
62: invariant mass $(1-x)Q^2\sim Q\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is still large
63: and is distinct from the resonance region. This large-$x$
64: regime has so far received little attention in theory, possibly
65: because it covers only a small kinematic interval in real
66: experiments. The existing QCD studies in the literature are
67: somewhat controversial \cite{kim,pecjak}.
68:
69: In this paper, we present a factorization study of DIS at this
70: regime. The main point we advocate here is that the standard
71: pQCD factorization remains valid in this new kinematic domain
72: to leading order in $1-x$.
73: Then we move on to discuss refactorization which factorizes the
74: physics at scale $(1-x)Q^2$ from that at $Q^2$. The useful
75: theoretical framework for this purpose is the so-called
76: soft-collinear effective field theory (SCET) developed recently
77: \cite{SCET}. Indeed, the first treatment of the large-$x$ region
78: in DIS using SCET was made in \cite{manohar} and followed
79: in \cite{kim,pecjak} for $(1-x)Q\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$
80: [see also \cite{neu}.] Because the scale $(1-x)Q$ does not enter in
81: the perturbative calculation, the final result amounts to a
82: standard pQCD factorization, with the additional benefit that the
83: refactorization becomes manifest. One subtlety we discuss
84: extensively in this paper is the role of the soft contribution and
85: its relation to the light-cone parton distribution. In a recent paper
86: \cite{kim}, a factorization formula for the DIS structure function
87: is derived in SCET, which is similar to what we find here.
88: However, because of the lack of a consistent regularization and
89: clear separation of contributions among different factors, the result
90: does not recover that of Ref.~\cite{manohar} in the limit $(1-x)Q\gg
91: \Lambda_{QCD}$.
92:
93: The traditional approach of refactorization was pioneered in \cite{sterman},
94: where a new parton distribution together
95: with soft factor and jet function is introduced. These matrix elements
96: are designed to absorb large logarithms generated from soft gluon
97: radiations off on-shell lines. Evolution equations for them are derived and
98: solved to resum the large soft-gluon logarithms. In this approach, the
99: factorization of scales are not apparent from the start.
100: Moreover, a spurious scale $(1-x)Q$ appears in all factors which
101: makes them nonperturbative in the regime of our
102: interest. After reviewing this, we present a more general
103: factorization along this line with dependence on a rapidity cut-off
104: $\rho$. Different choices of the cutoff lead to
105: redistributions of large logarithms in different matrix elements.
106: A particular choice yields a picture similar to that of the SCET
107: approach.
108:
109: The presentation of this paper is as follows. In section II, we
110: argue that the standard factorization approach remains valid in the end-point
111: regime $x \sim 1-{\cal O}( \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q)$. In section III, we present
112: an effective field theory approach to refactorization, following the previous
113: work of Ref. \cite{kim}. The difference is that our result is consistent
114: with that of Ref. \cite{manohar}, with the jet
115: factor absorbing all physics at the intermediate scale $(1-x)Q^2$.
116: We explain that the soft and collinear contributions
117: combine to give the light-cone parton distribution. In section IV,
118: we first review the traditional factorization in which various
119: matrix elements are introduced to account for soft gluon radiations. We
120: then show how to derive a more general factorization
121: with a rapidity cutoff. We demonstrate explicitly that
122: the proper soft subtractions must be made in the collinear
123: matrix elements to avoid double counting.
124: By choosing different cut-off, we find different
125: pictures of factorization and large-logarithmic resummation.
126: The effective field theory refactorization can be recovered this way.
127:
128:
129: \section{Validity of the standard QCD factorization at $x_B \sim 1-{\cal O}(
130: \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/Q)$ }
131:
132: The standard pQCD factorization theorem is derived in the Bjorken
133: limit in which $Q^2\rightarrow \infty$ and $x$ is a fixed constant
134: between $0$ and $1$. To leading order in $1/Q^2$, the proton's
135: spin-independent structure function $F_1(x, Q^2)$ can be factorized
136: as
137: \begin{equation}
138: F_1(x, Q^2) = \sum_f \int^1_x \frac{dy}{y}
139: C_f\left(\frac{x}{y}, \frac{Q^2}{\mu^2} \right) q_f(y, \mu^2) \ ,
140: \end{equation}
141: where $\mu$ is a factorization scale, $C_f$ is the coefficient
142: function depending on scale $Q^2$ and $\mu^2$ (factorization scale),
143: and $q_f$ is a quark distribution of flavor $f$. For simplicity, we
144: omit the quark charges and gluon contribution which are inessential
145: for our discussion. In the moment space, the factorization takes a
146: simple product form,
147: \begin{equation}
148: F_1^N(Q^2) = \sum_f C_{fN}(Q^2/\mu^2) q_{fN}(\mu^2) \ ,
149: \end{equation}
150: where the moments are defined the usual way, e.g., $q_N = \int^1_0
151: dxx^{N-1}(q(x)+\bar q(x))$ with $N$ even.
152:
153: The above factorization in principle is invalid in non-Bjorken
154: regions. However, we argue that it still holds in the regime of
155: our interest, $(1-x)Q \sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, with the same
156: physical parton distributions to leading order in $1-x$. The main
157: point is that although we now have a new infrared scale $(1-x)Q$,
158: it does not appear in the above factorization.
159:
160: Indeed, as $x\rightarrow 1$ the coefficient function $C_f$ can
161: only depend on the two hard scales---invariant photon mass $Q^2$
162: and the final-hadron-state invariant mass $(1-x)Q^2$, both remain
163: large when $(1-x)Q\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. Hence there is no
164: emerging infrared scale entering physical observables in this new
165: regime, and the original factorization remains valid to
166: leading order in $1-x$.
167:
168: The above observation can be seen clearly in the one-loop result.
169: The coefficient function at order $\alpha_s$ in the
170: $x$-space
171: \begin{equation}
172: C^{(1)}(x)=\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F\left[
173: \left(\frac{2\ln((1-x)Q^2/\mu^2)
174: - 3/2}{1-x}\right)_+ - \left(\frac{3}{2} \ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2} +
175: \frac{9}{2}
176: + \frac{\pi^2}{3} \right) \delta(1-x)\right] \ ,
177: \end{equation}
178: where we have neglected higher order in $(1-x)$. The scheme we use
179: here is the modified minimal subtraction (${\overline {\rm MS}}$).
180: In term of moments, one finds
181: \begin{equation}
182: C_N^{(1)}\left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2},\frac{Q^2}{N\mu^2}\right) = \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}
183: C_F\left[\ln^2\frac{Q^2}{N\mu^2}
184: - \frac{3}{2}\ln \frac{Q^2}{N\mu^2}- \ln^2\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}
185: + 3 \ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2} -
186: \frac{9}{2}
187: - \frac{\pi^2}{6}\right] \ .
188: \label{ff}
189: \end{equation}
190: The scale dependence is manifest: The first two logarithms come from
191: physics at scale $\mu^2 = Q^2/N$, whereas the next two logarithms
192: come from scale $Q^2$. Clearly, there is no physics from scale
193: $\mu^2\sim (1-x)^2Q^2\sim Q^2/N^2$. Therefore, even when $(1-x)Q$
194: becomes of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the coefficient function has
195: no infrared sensitivity to it.
196:
197: The fundamental reason for the absence of the scale $(1-x)Q$ in a
198: physical observable is that it is not a Lorentz scalar, whereas
199: $(1-x)Q^2$ is the invariant mass of the final hadron state. In
200: principle, the energy of soft gluons and quarks in the Breit frame is
201: of order $(1-x)Q$ which can appear in the factorization. However,
202: this happens only for frame-dependent factorization. The
203: factorization we quoted above is frame-independent and thus any
204: non-Lorentz scalar cannot appear.
205:
206: Although the above conclusion appears simple and natural, we have
207: not seen it stated explicitly in the literature.
208:
209: \section{Refactorization: Effective Theory Approach}
210:
211: In the large-$x$ region, independent of whether $(1-x)Q \gg
212: \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ or $\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, there is an
213: emerging ``infrared" scale $(1-x)Q^2\ll Q^2$. Of course, we always
214: assume $(1-x)Q^2\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2$. The presence of this new
215: scale suggests a further factorization in which the physics
216: associated with scales $Q^2$ and $(1-x)Q^2$ is disentangled. This
217: type of factorization was proposed by G. Sterman and others for
218: the purpose of summing over the large double logarithms of type
219: $\alpha_s^k [\ln^{i}(1-x)/(1-x)]_+$ $(i\le 2k-1)$ in the
220: coefficient functions \cite{sterman}. We consider this
221: refactorization in this and the following sections, commenting on
222: its applicability in the region of our interest.
223:
224: We first study refactorization in the effective field theory
225: (EFT) approach in this section, and will discuss a more intuitive
226: approach in the next. The EFT method is based on strict scale
227: separation, very much like the usual QCD factorization discussed
228: in the previous section. When the scales are separated, one can
229: sum over large logarithms by using renormalization group
230: evolutions between scales. Some of the basic discussions here
231: follow Refs. \cite{manohar,ji, kim}.
232:
233: \subsection{EFT Refactorization}
234:
235: To understand the EFT factorization heuristically, we write the
236: one-loop coefficient function in Eq. (\ref{ff}) in a factorized
237: form,
238: \begin{equation}
239: C_N^{(1)} \left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2},\frac{Q^2}{\overline{N}\mu^2}\right) =
240: 2 C^{(1)}
241: \left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right) +
242: {\cal M}_N^{(1)}\left(\frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}\mu^2}\right)\ ,
243: \end{equation}
244: where $C^{(1)}$ is $N$-independent and comes from physics at scale
245: $Q^2$ and ${\overline N}=Ne^{\gamma_E}$ where $\gamma_E$ is Euler
246: constant. The one-loop result for $C$ is
247: \begin{equation}
248: C^{(1)} \left(\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right)= \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
249: C_F\left[-\ln^2\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}
250: + 3 \ln \frac{Q^2}{\mu^2} - 8 + \frac{\pi^2}{6} \right] \ ,
251: \label{C}
252: \end{equation}
253: where the constant term is, in principle, arbitrary; we choose it
254: to be consistent with the effective current below. The two-loop
255: result for $C$ can be found in \cite{feng,idi}. The other factor
256: ${\cal M}_N^{(1)}$ comes entirely from physics at scale $(1-x)Q^2
257: \sim Q^2/\overline{N}$,
258: \begin{equation}
259: {\cal M}_N^{(1)}\left(\frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}\mu^2}\right) =
260: \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F\left[
261: \ln^2 \frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}\mu^2}
262: - \frac{3}{2} \ln\frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}\mu^2} + \frac{7}{2}
263: - \frac{\pi^2}{3}\right] \ ,
264: \end{equation}
265: and the second order result for ${\cal M}_N$ can also be found in
266: \cite{idi}. The key point is that the above refactorization of
267: scales works to all orders in perturbation theory and EFT provides
268: a formal approach to establish this: The physics at scale $Q^2$
269: can be included entirely in $\vert C\vert ^2$ and that at the
270: other scale is in ${\cal M}_N$.
271:
272: To arrive at the above refactorization, we start off at the scale
273: $Q^2$ at which perturbative physics involves virtual gluon
274: corrections to the hard interaction photon vertex. Note that the
275: soft-gluon radiations off a hard vertex are usually high-order
276: effects in $1/Q^2$ and can be neglected. Thus the physics at $Q^2$
277: can be found from just the quark electromagnetic form factor.
278: Integrating out physics at scale $Q^2$ is equivalent to matching the
279: full QCD electromagnetic current to an effective one involving just
280: soft-collinear physics.
281: \begin{equation}
282: J_{\rm QCD}^{\mu} = C(Q^2/\mu^2) J_{\rm eff}^{\mu}(Q^2/\mu^2)\ ,
283: \end{equation}
284: with the one-loop result given in Eq. (\ref{C}).
285:
286: We can run the effective current from scale $Q^2$ to scale
287: $(1-x)Q^2$ using the renormalization group equation
288: \begin{equation}
289: \mu \frac{dJ_{\rm eff}(Q^2/\mu^2)}{d\mu} = -\gamma_1(\alpha_s(\mu)) J_{\rm
290: eff}(Q^2/\mu^2) \ ,
291: \end{equation}
292: where the anomalous dimension can be calculated from $C$, $\gamma_1
293: = \mu d\ln C/d \mu$, and has the following generic form,
294: \begin{equation}
295: \gamma_1 = A(\alpha_s) \ln Q^2/\mu^2 + B_1(\alpha_s) \ ,
296: \end{equation}
297: in which $A$ and $B_1$ are a series in strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$
298: and are now known up to three loops \cite{dd}.
299:
300: At scale $\mu_I^2=(1-x)Q^2$, we follow Ref. \cite{kim}, matching
301: products of the effective currents to a product of the jet
302: function, collinear parton contribution, and soft distribution in
303: SCET. Introducing a small expansion parameter $\lambda$, with
304: $\lambda^2 Q \sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, $1-x$ in the region of our
305: interest scales like $\lambda^2$. The collinear partons at the
306: matching scale $\mu_I^2$ have momentum $(p^+,p^- p_\perp) \sim
307: Q(1,\lambda^4, \lambda^2)$ [our notation for light-cone components
308: for arbitrary four-vector $l$ is $l\equiv (l^+,l^-,l_\perp)$ with
309: $l^{\pm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(l^0 \pm l^3)$], and the soft partons
310: have momentum $(\lambda^2, \lambda^2, \lambda^2)Q$. The moment of
311: the structure function $F_1$ after the second stage matching has
312: the following form \cite{kim},
313: \begin{equation}
314: F_1^N(Q) = C^2(Q^2/\mu_I^2) J_P(N, Q^2/\mu_I^2) \phi_N(\mu_I^2)
315: S_N(\mu_I^2) \ ,
316: \end{equation}
317: where various factors are defined as follows.
318:
319: The jet function $J_P(N, \mu^2_I)$ is related to the absorbtive
320: part of the hard collinear quark propagator ${\cal G}_P$,
321: \begin{equation}
322: \langle 0|T\left[ W_n^\dagger\xi_n(z)
323: \bar \xi_n W_n(0)\right]|0\rangle
324: = i \frac{\not\! n}{\sqrt 2}\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}
325: e^{-ikz} {\cal G}_P(k) \ .
326: \end{equation}
327: where $\xi_n$ is a collinear quark field and $W_n$ is a Wilson
328: line along the light-cone direction $\bar n$ $(n^2=\bar n^2=0,
329: \bar n \cdot n=1)$. A hard collinear quark has momentum $p + k$,
330: where $p$ is the so-called label momentum with $p^+\sim Q$ and $k$
331: is a hard residual momentum with components of order $Q(1,
332: \lambda^2, \lambda)$. Therefore, the virtuality of the
333: hard-collinear quark is $2p\cdot k \sim \lambda^2 Q^2$, consistent
334: with that of the hadron final state. The jet function has no
335: infrared divergences because the hadron final states are summed
336: over. However, it does have light-cone divergences which are
337: handled by the standard minimal subtraction method. An important
338: feature of the jet function is that it is only sensitive to
339: physics at scale $\mu_I^2$. In fact, at one-loop order, the jet
340: function reproduces the ${\cal M}_N$ function in the previous
341: section.
342:
343: The soft contribution in Eq. (12) is defined in terms of the soft
344: Wilson lines \cite{chay1}: $Y_n(x) = {\mathcal P}
345: \exp[-ig\int^x_{-\infty} ds n\cdot A_{\rm us}]$ and $\widetilde
346: Y_n(x) = \overline{{\mathcal P}} \exp[-ig\int^\infty_{x} ds
347: n\cdot A_{\rm us}]$, where $A_{\rm us}$ are the so-called
348: ultra-soft gluons with momentum $Q(\lambda^2, \lambda^2,
349: \lambda^2)$ and ${\mathcal P}$ stands for path ordering [the sign
350: convention for the gauge coupling is
351: $D^{\mu}=\partial^{\mu}+igA^{\mu}$],
352: \begin{equation}
353: S(x, \mu_I^2) = \frac{1}{N_c} \left\langle 0\left|{\rm Tr} \left[ {Y_{\bar
354: n}}^\dagger \tilde Y_n\delta\left(1-x+
355: \frac{n\cdot i\partial}{n\cdot p}\right) \tilde Y^\dagger_n Y_{\bar n
356: }\right]\right|0\right\rangle \ ,
357: \end{equation}
358: where the ratio in the delta function fixes the momentum of the
359: emitted gluon to be soft (of order $\lambda^2$). As such, the soft
360: factor is a non-perturbative contribution.
361:
362: The collinear contribution,
363: \begin{equation}
364: \phi(x,\mu_I^2) = \left\langle P\left|\bar \xi_{\bar n} W_{\bar n} \delta
365: \left(x - \frac{n\cdot {\cal P}_+}{n\cdot p}\right)
366: \frac{\not\! n}{\sqrt 2} W^\dagger_{\bar n} \xi_{\bar n}\right|P\right\rangle
367: \end{equation}
368: comes from collinear quarks and gluons with momentum
369: $(1,\lambda^2, \lambda)Q$ and $n\cdot {\cal P}_+$ is the total light-cone
370: momentum carried by the partons. In Ref. \cite{kim}, the collinear
371: contribution was identified as the usual Feynman parton
372: distribution. This, however, is incorrect because the soft gluons
373: with longitudinal momentum $(1-x)Q\sim \lambda^2$ in the proton
374: cannot be included in the collinear contribution according to the
375: definition of the collinear gluons in SCET. On the other hand, the
376: Feynman parton distribution contains a factorizable soft
377: contribution in the limit $x\rightarrow 1$ \cite{korchemsky, ji1}.
378: Further discussion on this issue will be made in the next
379: subsection as well as in the next section. The correct approach is
380: to combine the soft and collinear contributions together to get
381: the correct Feynman parton distribution in the $x\rightarrow 1$
382: limit.
383:
384: Thus EFT arguments lead finally to the following refactorization, valid
385: when $(1-x)Q\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ at leading order in $1-x$,
386: \begin{equation}
387: F_{1}^N(Q^2) = C^2(Q^2/\mu^2_I) J_P(Q^2/N\mu_I^2) q_N(\mu_I^2) + {\cal O}(1-x),
388: \end{equation}
389: where $q_N(\mu_I^2)$ is the moment of the quark distribution, and
390: the jet function is exactly the ${\cal M}_N$ function introduced in
391: the previous section. Although formally this factorization is made
392: at $\mu_I^2$, the product of factors is independent of it. The claim
393: of non-factorizability of DIS in this very regime in Ref. \cite{pecjak} was
394: criticized in \cite{manohar1}. On the other hand, the above result seems
395: consistent with that of Ref. \cite{neu} if used in the same regime.
396:
397: The above factorization allows us to resum over large logarithms.
398: Since the physical structure function is $\mu$-independent, we can
399: take $\mu_I$ in the above expression to whatever value we choose.
400: For example, if one sets $\mu^2_I=Q^2$, all large logarithms are
401: now included in the jet function. One can derive a renormalization
402: group equation for $J_P$ \cite{manohar}. Solving this equation
403: leads to a resummation of large logarithms.
404:
405: Alternatively, with the original scale $\mu_I^2$, there are large
406: logarithms in $C$, which can be resummed using the renormalization
407: group equation and the anomalous dimension $\gamma_1$. The
408: resulting exponential evolution can be regarded as the evolution
409: of the jet function from scale $Q^2$ to $\mu_I^2$. The parton
410: distribution $q_N(\mu_I)$ runs from $\mu_I^2$ to a certain
411: factorization scale $\mu_F^2$ using the DGLAP evolution
412: \cite{dglap}. This running generates the logarithms from
413: initial-state parton radiations.
414:
415: In the above refactorization, no scale $(1-x)Q$ appears explicitly
416: although soft and collinear gluons in SCET do have
417: reference to that scale. This explains that the factorization holds in
418: the region of our interest, namely, when $(1-x)Q\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.
419:
420: \subsection{Collinear Contribution in SCET and Double Counting}
421:
422: SCET is an operator approach designed to take into account
423: contributions from different regions in Feynman integrals.
424: Calculations in SCET are sometimes formal if without a careful
425: definition of regulators for individual contributions.
426: Occasionally, the regulators in different parts must be defined
427: consistently to obtain the correct answer. Otherwise, one can
428: easily lead to double counting. The same issue has been discussed
429: recently in Ref. \cite{zb}.
430:
431: To see the need of consistent regulators in SCET, let us consider
432: the usual quark distribution in the proton. In the full QCD, the
433: quark distribution is defined as
434: \begin{equation}
435: q(x) = \frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d\lambda}{2\pi}
436: e^{i\lambda x}
437: \langle P|\overline{\psi}(\lambda n)
438: \not\! n e^{-ig\int^\lambda_0 d\lambda' n\cdot A(\lambda' n)}
439: \psi(0)|P\rangle \ ,
440: \end{equation}
441: where $\psi(x)$ and $A(\lambda n)$ are full QCD quark and gluon
442: fields (here we use the vector $n$ with mass-dimension 1). Now
443: suppose the nucleon is moving with a high momentum $Q$ in the $z$
444: direction. The quarks and gluons in the proton, in general, have
445: large $k^+$, and small momentum $k^-$ and $k_\perp$, in the sense
446: that they are collinear to the proton momentum. Therefore, one may
447: match the full QCD fields in the above expression to the
448: corresponding collinear fields in SCET.
449:
450: However, the procedure is incomplete for wee gluons with
451: $(1-x)\sim \Lambda/Q$. Such a gluon has a soft longitudinal
452: momentum and is definitely included in the above gauge link. The
453: QCD factorization theorem shows that soft gluons do not make a
454: singular contribution to the parton density, but it does not
455: exclude the non-singular wee gluon contributions of type $
456: [\ln^k(1-x)/(1-x)]_+$. In fact, the wee gluon effect in the
457: $x\rightarrow 1$ limit can be factorized out into a soft factor
458: $S(x)$, which is responsible for the large-$x$ behavior of the
459: parton distribution \cite{korchemsky, ji1}. Therefore, in SCET it
460: is natural to express $q(x)$ in terms of the product of the soft
461: factor and true collinear gluon contribution.
462:
463: In Ref.~\cite{kim}, the evolution equation was derived for the
464: collinear contribution $\phi(x)$ and is found to be the same
465: as the DGLAP evolution, even in the $x\rightarrow 1$ limit. This
466: could be the main motivation to identify $\phi(x)$ as $q(x)$.
467: However, the collinear gluons in the one-loop Feynman diagrams can
468: no longer be considered as ``collinear" if $(1-x)Q\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, and
469: must be subtracted explicitly. This subtraction was not made
470: through certain regulators and hence there is a double counting.
471: In fact, once the soft-gluons are subtracted, a collinear parton
472: jet shall not have singularity in the limit $x\rightarrow 1$.
473: Likewise, the calculation of the soft-factor in Ref.~\cite{kim}
474: should have a soft transverse-momentum cutoff to include just the
475: true soft gluons. Thus, the regulators in the soft and collinear
476: contributions must be made consistently to avoid double counting.
477: A consistent scheme of defining the soft and collinear
478: contributions for a parton distribution defined with off light-cone
479: gauge link can be found in Ref. \cite{korchemsky}. We will present another
480: example of a consistent regularization in the following section.
481:
482: \section{ReFactorization: Intuitive Approach}
483:
484: The EFT approach for refactorization is gauge-invariant and all
485: factors are defined at separate scales. The resummation is of the
486: simple renormalization-group type. However, the physical origin of
487: the large logarithms is not entirely transparent. For example, it
488: is well known in QED that the double infrared logarithms are
489: generated from soft radiations from jet-like lines. This is not
490: obvious in the EFT approach.
491:
492: In the approach introduced by Sterman and others \cite{sterman},
493: the structure functions are factorized into different factors
494: which have clear physical significance, although each factor now
495: contains multi-scales. Explicit equations can be derived to bridge
496: the scales within these factors, which allow one to resum large
497: logarithms. The main shortcoming of this intuitive approach is the
498: introduction of a spurious scale $(1-x)Q$ in each factor, which
499: make them nonperturbative in the kinematic region of our interest.
500:
501: In this section, we first briefly review Sterman's approach in
502: subsection A. We then introduce in subsection B a more general
503: factorization approach along this direction, which involves a
504: rapidity cutoff. With an appropriate cutoff, we
505: arrive at a picture similar to that of EFT. The example also shows
506: that a consistent soft subtraction must be made to obtain a
507: correct factorization.
508:
509: \subsection{Sterman's Method}
510:
511: Consider the lepton-nucleon DIS process in the Breit frame in
512: which the initial and final partons have similar momentum but move
513: in opposite directions. In the region $x\rightarrow 1$, the final
514: hadron state consists of a high-energy jet plus soft gluon
515: radiations. A so-called reduced diagram is shown in Fig. 1,
516: showing the space-time picture of the process. There are in
517: principle four different scales which are relevant: virtual photon
518: mass $Q^2$, final-hadron invariant mass $(1-x)Q^2$, the soft
519: parton energy radiated off the proton $(1-x)Q$, and finally the
520: genuine nonperturbative QCD scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.
521:
522:
523: \begin{figure}[t]
524: \label{fullcurrent}
525: \begin{center}
526: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{fac.eps}
527: \end{center}
528: \vskip -0.7cm \caption{The leading reduced diagram contributing to
529: the deep-inelastic structure function in $x\rightarrow 1$ regime.}
530: \end{figure}
531:
532:
533: According to the analysis in Ref. \cite{sterman}, the reduced
534: diagram can be factorized into various physically intuitive
535: contributions, and the structure function can be expressed as a
536: product of a soft factor, a final-state jet function, and a parton
537: distribution,
538: \begin{equation}
539: F_1(x, Q^2) = H(Q^2)\int^1_x
540: \frac{dy}{y}\phi(y)\int^{y-x}_0\frac{dw}{1-w}S(w)J(x,y,w)\ .
541: \end{equation}
542: The parton distribution $\phi(x)$ is not the usual gauge-invariant
543: one on the light-cone. Rather it is defined as
544: \begin{equation}
545: \phi(y) = \frac{1}{2p^+}\int \frac{d\lambda}{2\pi} e^{-iy\lambda}
546: \langle P|\overline{q}(\lambda n)\gamma^+ q(0)|P\rangle \ ,
547: \end{equation}
548: in $A^z=0$ gauge, or equivalently there are gauge links along the
549: $z$ direction going from the quark positions to infinity. Because
550: it is not truly gauge-invariant, it is frame-dependent. In
551: particular, it can depend on the soft parton energy $(1-x)Q$. This
552: parton distribution contains contributions of both collinear and
553: soft gluon radiations form the initial state quark, thus involving
554: double logarithms.
555:
556: Likewise, the jet function is defined as
557: \begin{equation}
558: J \sim {\rm Disc} \int \frac{d^4x}{(2\pi)^4} e^{-ixl}
559: \langle 0| T \left[ \overline{q}(x) q(0)\right]|0\rangle
560: \end{equation}
561: and normalized to $\delta(1-x)$ at the leading order. Once again
562: the jet is defined in the axial gauge and is frame dependent. In
563: particular, it depends on the infrared scale $(1-x)Q$ as well.
564: However, this jet function contains no true infrared divergences.
565: It accounts for the collinear and soft radiations from the jet
566: final state.
567:
568: Finally, the soft function $S$ is defined as the matrix element of
569: Wilson lines first going along the $\bar n$ direction from
570: $-\infty$ along the light-cone, then going along $n$ direction to
571: $+\infty$. The collinear divergences are regularized by $A^z=0$
572: gauge. Therefore, it contains no true infrared divergences.
573:
574: In the moment space, the refactorization appears in a simple form,
575: \begin{equation}
576: F_1^N(Q^2) = H(Q^2/\mu^2) \phi_N(Q^2/\mu^2) S_N(Q^2/\mu^2) J_N(Q^2/\mu^2)\ ,
577: \end{equation}
578: and $H$ stands for the hard contribution which comes only from
579: virtual diagrams. Again, we emphasize that the factorization
580: follows intuitively from the space-time picture of the reduced
581: diagrams. However, one pays a price for this: the breaking of
582: Lorentz invariance and introduction of a new scale $(1-x)Q$. When
583: this scale becomes of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, as this is the
584: main interest of the paper, all factors becomes nonperturbative in
585: principle. On the other hand, the scale $(1-x)Q$ is spurious, it
586: should be cancelled out. It is unclear how this is achieved at the
587: nonperturbative level.
588:
589: The physics of the above factorization is best seen through a
590: one-loop calculation. The parton distribution is
591: \begin{equation}
592: \phi(x) = \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_F\left\{-\frac{1}{\epsilon}
593: P_{qq}(x)
594: + \left[ \left(2D_1+ D_0\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right)
595: -D_0- \left(\frac{\pi^2}{6} + 1\right) \delta(1-x)
596: \right]\right\} \ ,
597: \end{equation}
598: where $P_{qq}(x)$ is the quark splitting function and
599: \begin{eqnarray}
600: D_i \equiv \left
601: [\frac{\ln^{i}(1-x)}{1-x}\right]_+\,\,\,\,\,i=0,1,2....
602: \end{eqnarray}
603: Apart from the divergent term which is the same as the Feynman
604: parton distribution, there are extra constant terms which absorb
605: the soft-collinear gluon contribution. Some of these come from the
606: scale $(1-x)^2Q^2$. In moment space, we have
607: \begin{equation}
608: \phi_N(x) = 1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}C_F
609: \left[-\frac{1}{\epsilon}(3-4\ln \overline{N})+\ln^2\frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}^2\mu^2}
610: - 2 \ln \frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}^2\mu^2}- \ln^2\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}
611: + 2 \ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2} - 4\right] \ .
612: \end{equation}
613: One may view the double logarithmic terms as from the initial state
614: radiation. The large logarithms resulting from large scale
615: differences can be summed through an $x$-space evolution equation
616: \cite{sterman}.
617:
618: The one-loop jet function is explicit finite,
619: \begin{eqnarray}
620: J(x) &=& \delta(1-x) + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}C_F \left[4\left(D_1 +
621: D_0\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right) -
622: 4\left(2D_1 + D_0\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right)- 7D_0
623: \right. \\ \nonumber && \left. + \left(3
624: -3\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right) \delta(1-x)\right] \ ,
625: \end{eqnarray}
626: which involves physics at both scales $(1-x)^2Q^2$ and $(1-x)Q^2$.
627: Both type terms generate double logarithms, corresponding to the
628: radiations from the jet. In moment space, the jet function
629: becomes,
630: \begin{eqnarray}
631: J_N &=& 1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}C_F
632: \left[-\ln^2\frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}^2\mu^2}
633: +2\ln \frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}^2\mu^2}
634: +2\ln^2\frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}\mu^2}
635: - 3\ln \frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}\mu^2} \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. -
636: 4\ln\frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}^2\mu^2}
637: - \ln^2\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2} + 3
638: - \frac{\pi^2}{3}
639: \right]\ .
640: \end{eqnarray}
641: Again the large logs can be resummed through an evolution equation
642: for $J$ \cite{sterman}.
643:
644: The soft function is also finite and at one-loop;
645: \begin{equation}
646: S(x) = \delta(1-x)+ \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_F \left[2D_0+
647: \left(\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right)\delta(1-x)\right]\ ,
648: \end{equation}
649: which contains physics at scale $(1-x)^2Q^2$, generating a single
650: logarithm. In the moment space, it is
651: \begin{equation}
652: S_N = 1 + \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} C_F \ln \frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}^2\mu^2} \
653: .
654: \label{soft}
655: \end{equation}
656: Here the collinear singularity is regulated by gauge fixing.
657:
658: When summing over the jet, parton distribution and soft
659: contribution, the soft scale $(1-x)^2Q^2$ dependence cancels. We
660: are left with only the physical scale $(1-x)Q^2$. All the factors
661: introduced above are sufficient to factor away the singular
662: contributions in the structure function at $x\rightarrow 1$ limit.
663: In fact, at one-loop
664: \begin{equation}
665: F_1^{(1)}(x,Q^2)
666: - (\phi^{(1)}(x) + J^{(1)}(x) + S^{(1)}(x)) = \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} C_F
667: \left[-4+\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right]\delta(1-x)\ ,
668: \end{equation}
669: which contains only the $\delta$-function singularity. Therefore, the
670: large double logarithms have been absorbed either into the parton
671: distribution or the jet function. This is, in fact, the purpose of
672: the intuitive refactorization approach: The double logarithms
673: from the initial and final state radiations are made
674: explicit through factorization.
675:
676: However, because of the presence of the extra scale $(1-x)Q$, the
677: above refactorization is not very useful in the region of our
678: interest because all factors, except $H$, become nonperturbative.
679:
680: \subsection{Alternative Regulator, Consistent Subtraction and Relation to
681: SCET Factorization}
682:
683: In defining various contributions in Sterman's approach, the
684: gauge choice $A^z=0$ is made, or equivalently gauge links along
685: the $z$-direction are added to operators to make them gauge
686: invariant. This choice of a non-light-like gauge can serve in addition
687: as a regulator for collinear divergences arising from
688: gauge links going along the light-cone direction, as can be seen
689: from the one-loop the soft factor, Eq.~(\ref {soft}).
690:
691: In this subsection we present an alternative method to arrive at the
692: correct factorization formula with factors that are manifestly
693: gauge invariant.
694: %Moreover, the appearance of the ``scale''
695: %$(1-x)Q$ becomes manifest, as it will be shown below that the soft
696: %contribution and the PDF live at that scale, nonetheless, the finite
697: %part of their ratio will depend only on $\ln \frac{\mu^2 {\overline
698: %N}}{Q^2}$ which gets minimized at the intermediate scale
699: %$\mu_I=Q/\sqrt {{\overline N}}$ . This could only be achieved after
700: %(regularization and) cancellation of the collinear divergences in
701: %the soft factor.
702: We regulate collinear divergences by choosing gauge links slightly
703: off the light-cone (for more discussion of off-light-cone gauge
704: links see \cite{korchemsky, coll,ji1}.) The direction of a gauge link
705: supports a finite rapidity which can serve as a rapidity cutoff,
706: thereby avoiding light-cone singularities which appear in
707: calculations of scaleless quantities like the parton distribution
708: and which cannot be regularized by dimensional regularization
709: \cite{coll2}. We show that the factorization theorem proposed
710: here is obtained only after proper subtractions of soft factors
711: are made. By choosing the rapidity
712: parameter $\rho$ appropriately, we can eliminate the intermediate
713: scale $(1-x)Q$ and arrive at a factorization similar to that of
714: EFT.
715:
716: Let ${\tilde v}=({\tilde v}^+,{\tilde v}^-,0)$ with ${\tilde
717: v}^+\gg {\tilde v}^-$ and $v=(v^+,v^-,0)$ with $v^-\gg v^+$ with
718: $\rho \equiv {\tilde v}^+/{\tilde v}^-=v^-/v^+$. It is assumed
719: below that the incoming quark is collinear in the $z$ direction
720: with momentum $p_1=(Q/{\sqrt 2},0,0)$ and the outgoing quark is
721: collinear in the $-z$ direction with $p_2=(0,Q/{\sqrt 2},0)$, and
722: we denote $p^+=p_1^+=p_2^-=Q/{\sqrt 2}$. We define the soft factor
723: as
724: \begin{eqnarray}
725: S(1-x)&=&\int \frac{d\lambda}{2\pi} e^{i\lambda (1-x)p^+}
726: \langle 0|{\rm Tr}[Y^\dagger_{\tilde v}(0,-\infty;\lambda {\tilde
727: v})Y^\dagger_v(\infty,0;\lambda v)
728: \nonumber \\
729: && \times Y_v(\infty, 0; »0)Y_{\tilde v}(0,-\infty ; 0)]|0\rangle
730: \frac{1}{N_c}
731: \end{eqnarray}
732: where $Y_v$ is
733: \begin{equation}
734: Y_v(a,b; \xi) = \mathcal{P}\exp\left(-ig\int^a_b d\lambda' v\cdot
735: A(\lambda'
736: v+ \xi)\right) \ ,
737: \end{equation}
738: Similar definition holds for
739: $Y_{\tilde v}$. Thus the soft factor depends on two off-light-cone
740: Wilson lines
741: in the directions of $v$ and ${\tilde v}$.
742: This definition of the soft factor has no collinear divergences.
743: On the other hand, if we take one of the Wilson lines on the
744: light-cone, the resulting light-cone divergence may be considered
745: as the collinear divergence. Then the $S$ factor will include a
746: collinear contribution as discussed in \cite{coll}. However, here
747: we are interested in the soft factor that is not contaminated with
748: collinear divergences.
749:
750: The final state jet function is defined as follows:
751: \begin{equation}
752: \tilde J(x, Q) = \int \frac{d\lambda}{2\pi} e^{i\lambda (1-x)p^+}
753: \langle 0 | W^\dagger_{v}(\infty,0;\lambda {\tilde v})
754: \psi(\lambda {\tilde v}) \overline \psi(0) W_{
755: v}(\infty,0;0)|0\rangle\ , \label{jet}
756: \end{equation}
757: where it involves a Wilson line in the $\tilde v$ direction which
758: is taken to be in the (almost) conjugate direction to the out-going partons.
759: It is given by:
760: \begin{eqnarray}
761: W_v(a,b;\xi)={\mathcal P}\exp\left(-ig\int^a_b d\lambda' {\tilde
762: v}\cdot A(\lambda'
763: {\tilde v}+ \xi)\right).
764: \end{eqnarray}
765: Finally we define the parton distribution function as
766: \begin{eqnarray}
767: \tilde \phi (x) &=& \frac{1}{2p^+}\int \frac{d\lambda}{2\pi}
768: e^{i\lambda x\!p^+} \langle P | \overline{\psi}(\lambda v) W_{
769: {\tilde v}}^\dagger(\infty,0;\lambda v) \nonumber \\ && \times
770: \gamma^+ W_{\tilde v}(\infty,0;0)\psi (0)|P\rangle \ , \label{pdf}
771: \end{eqnarray}
772: where the Wilson line is taken along the (almost) conjugate
773: direction of the incoming partons, i.e., in the $v$ direction.
774: Both the jet and parton distribution are in principle defined to absorb just
775: the collinear gluon contributions. Although this can be done by
776: cutoffs in loop integrals, it is difficult to achieve in an
777: operator approach. In fact, it will be clear later that both
778: $\tilde J(x)$ and $\tilde \phi(x)$ do contain soft contributions as well,
779: which must be subtracted explicitly.
780:
781: Let us consider the factorization of the DIS structure function at
782: one-loop using the above definitions of the factors. We first
783: calculate the soft factor, jet function, and parton distribution
784: in pQCD. The one-loop soft factor is
785: \begin{eqnarray}
786: S(1-x) & = & \delta(1-x)+\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F
787: \left(-2+\frac{\rho^2+1}{\rho^2-1}\ln\rho^2\right)
788: \left(2D_0+\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\delta(1-x)\right)\nonumber \\
789: & \approx & \delta(1-x)+\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F
790: \left(-2+\ln\rho^2\right)
791: \left(2D_0+\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\delta(1-x)\right) \ ,
792: \end{eqnarray}
793: where the second line is obtained by taking the large $\rho^2$ limit.
794: The result does not have any soft and collinear divergences. It does have
795: an ultraviolet divergence coming from the cusp of the Wilson lines, which
796: has been subtracted minimally in dimensional regularization. In moment space,
797: \begin{eqnarray}
798: S_{N}=1+\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F \left[2-\ln \rho^2 \right]\ln
799: \frac{\mu^2{\overline N}^2}{Q^2} \ .
800: \end{eqnarray}
801: The UV-subtracted soft factor obeys the following renormalization group
802: equation
803: (RGE),
804: \begin{equation}
805: \mu \frac{\partial S(1-x,\mu^2)}{\partial \mu} = 2\gamma_S ~S(1-x,\mu^2)
806: \ ,
807: \end{equation}
808: where the anomalous dimension is
809: \begin{equation} \gamma_{S} = \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F
810: (2-\ln \rho^2)\ ,
811: \end{equation}
812: which depends on the rapidity cutoff $\rho$ and is related to the
813: so-called cusp anomalous dimension \cite{kor}.
814:
815: The jet function has no infrared divergences either. At one-loop,
816: \begin{eqnarray}
817: \tilde J(x,Q)&=& \delta(1-x)+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
818: C_F\left[\left(3-2\pi^2-3\ln \frac
819: {Q^2}{\mu^2}+4\ln\rho-2\ln^2\rho\right ) \delta(1-x)\right.
820: \\ \nonumber
821: &&-7D_0-4D_1+4\ln\rho\, D_0\Big] \ .
822: \end{eqnarray}
823: In moment space, it has a particularly simple form,
824: \begin{eqnarray}
825: \tilde J_N=1+ \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}C_F\left\{3\ln \frac{{\overline
826: N}\mu^2}{Q^2} -2[\ln({\overline
827: N}\rho)-1]^2+5-\frac{7}{3}\pi^2\right\} \ .
828: \end{eqnarray}
829: %In the limit that $\rho=-1$, the above result reduces to that in
830: %Ref. \cite{sterman}.
831: The wave function renormalization brings in the scale-dependence
832: of the jet function, which therefore obeys the following RGE,
833: \begin{equation}
834: \mu \frac {\partial \tilde J_N}{\partial \mu} = \gamma_{J,\mu} \tilde
835: J_N \ ,
836: \end{equation}
837: with
838: \begin{equation}
839: \gamma_{J,\mu}=\frac{3\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F \ ,
840: \end{equation}
841: which is the anomalous dimension of the quark field in axial gauge
842: \cite{flo}.
843: %And
844: %\begin{equation}
845: % \rho \frac {\partial J_N}{\partial \rho} = \gamma_{J,\rho} J_N
846: %\end{equation}
847: %%\begin{equation}
848: %\gamma_{J,\rho}=-\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_F\big(\ln(\bar{N}\rho)-1\big)
849: %\end{equation}
850:
851: The parton distribution at one-loop is,
852: \begin{eqnarray}
853: \tilde \phi(x) & = & \delta(1-x)+ \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
854: C_F\left\{-\frac{1}{\epsilon}P_{qq}(x)
855: -\left(4+\frac{2\pi^2}{3}\right)\delta(1-x)
856: \right.\nonumber\\
857: &
858: &\left.+\left(4\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}+4\ln\rho-4\right)D_0+8D_1\right\}
859: \ ,
860: \end{eqnarray}
861: where the $1/\epsilon$ pole comes from collinear divergences.
862: In moment space we have
863: \begin{equation}
864: \tilde \phi_N=\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\left\{
865: -\frac{1}{\epsilon}\Big[3-4\ln {\overline N}\Big] +4\left[-1+\ln
866: {\overline N} +\ln^2 {\overline N} -\ln\overline{N}\ln\rho-\ln
867: {\overline N}\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\right]\right\} \ .
868: \end{equation}
869: Its UV divergences come from wave function corrections and have been
870: subtracted minimally, and therefore its evolution in $\mu^2$ is
871: the same as that for the jet function.
872:
873: Because $\tilde \phi$ and $\tilde J$ contain the soft contribution
874: as well, the structure function $F_1$ cannot be factorized into
875: $\tilde \phi\otimes \tilde J \otimes S$ multiplied by a hard
876: contribution, where $\otimes$ is a convolution operator in
877: $x$-space. Instead, one must define the soft-subtracted version of
878: the parton distribution $\phi = \tilde \phi/S$ and jet $J =\tilde
879: J/S$. Then the factorization reads:
880: \begin{eqnarray}
881: F_1(x, Q^2) &=& H(Q^2) \otimes J(x,Q^2/\mu^2) \otimes \phi(x, Q^2/\mu^2)
882: \otimes S(x, Q^2/\mu^2) + {\cal O}(1-x) \nonumber \\
883: &=& H(Q^2)\otimes \tilde J(x, Q^2/\mu^2)\otimes \tilde \phi(x, Q^2/\mu^2)/S(x, Q^2/\mu^2)
884: + {\cal O}(1-x) \ ,
885: \end{eqnarray}
886: where $H(Q^2)$ is hard contribution independent of $x$.
887: This can be easily checked at one-loop level by calculating $H$,
888: \begin{eqnarray}
889: H^{(1)}(Q^2) & = & F_{1}^{(1)}(x, Q^2)-\tilde J^{(1)}(x, Q^2)
890: - \tilde \phi^{(1)}(x, Q^2) + S^{(1)}(x, Q^2)\nonumber\\
891: & = & \left[1+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\left(2\ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}+4
892: \ln\frac{Q^2}{\mu^2}\ln\rho+2\ln^2\rho-4\ln\rho-8+2\pi^2\right)\right]\delta(1-x)
893: \end{eqnarray}
894: which is indeed independent of $D_i(x)$. All singular contributions
895: of type $1/(1-x)_+$ have been subtracted from the structure
896: function $F_1$ by the jet, soft factor and parton distribution.
897: We emphasize that this is possible only when
898: the soft contributions to the jet and parton distributions have been
899: subtracted first. The anomalous dimension of the hard part is
900: \begin{eqnarray}
901: \gamma_{H}& \equiv &
902: \frac{\mu}{H}\frac{dH}{d\mu}=-\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}C_F\big(2\ln\rho+1\big)
903: \ ,
904: \end{eqnarray}
905: which is $\rho$-dependent.
906:
907: The above factorization uses the rapidity cutoff parameter $\rho$,
908: which has the similar role as the renormalization scale
909: $\mu^2$: Every factor is a function of it, but the product has no
910: dependence. Therefore, one can get different pictures of
911: refactorization by choosing different value of $\rho$. For
912: instance, if one takes $\rho\rightarrow \infty$, all gauge links
913: move back to the light-cone. Here collinear divergences shows up
914: in different factors which have to be subtracted beforehand to
915: yield a meaningful factorization. Distribution $\tilde \phi$
916: corresponds to the physical quark distribution $q(x)$.
917: The subtraction of the soft contribution in $\tilde J(x)$ ensures $J(x)$
918: have collinear contributions only. Thus factorization can be written as
919: \begin{equation}
920: F_1(x, Q^2) = H(Q^2) \otimes J(x,Q^2/\mu^2) \otimes \tilde \phi(x, Q^2/\mu^2)
921: + {\cal O}(1-x)
922: \end{equation}
923: which is heuristically similar to Eq. (15)
924:
925: One can also take $\rho =-1$. Then $\tilde J(x) = J_{\rm st}(x)$, and
926: $\tilde \phi(x) = \phi_{\rm st}(x)$ and $S(x) = S_{\rm st}^{-1}(x)$, where quantities
927: with subscripts ``st" refer to those in the previous subsection. Eq. (44)
928: then reproduces the factorization Eq. (20) from Ref. \cite{sterman}.
929:
930: We can also make contact with the EFT approach
931: by taking $\rho$ to be small although it shall be considered as large in principle.
932: Consider the moment of $\phi(x)= \tilde \phi(x)/S$,
933: \begin{eqnarray}
934: \phi_N=1+ \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
935: C_F\left\{-\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left[3-4\ln\overline{N}\right]+4\left[1-\ln({\overline
936: N}\rho)\right] \ln\frac{Q^2}{{\overline N}\mu^2}-4\right\} \ ,
937: \end{eqnarray}
938: where the finite part depends on a single logarithm
939: $\ln\frac{Q^2}{\bar{N}\mu^2}$, i.e., the scale $(1-x)Q$. In
940: the leading-logarithmic approximation, if $\rho$ is taken to be
941: $1/\overline{N}$, the distribution $\phi(x)$ no longer depends on
942: scale $(1-x)Q$. The anomalous dimension of the distribution
943: $\phi(x)$ is
944: \begin{equation}
945: \gamma_{\phi, \rho}\equiv\frac{\mu}{\phi_N}
946: \frac{d\phi_N}{d\mu}=\frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}C_F(-1+4\ln\rho) \ .
947: \end{equation}
948: With $\rho\sim 1/\overline{N}$, the evolution equation for $\phi(x)$ is
949: similar to that of the light-cone quark distribution $q(x)$.
950:
951: Now let us examine the refactorization in the following form,
952: \begin{equation}
953: F_1^N(Q^2) = H(Q^2/\mu^2,\rho) \otimes \tilde J_N(Q^2/\mu^2,\rho )
954: \otimes \phi_N(Q^2/\mu^2, \rho)|_{\rho~\sim~1/\overline{N}} + {\cal O}(1-x) \ ,
955: \end{equation}
956: Taking $\mu^2 = \mu_I^2 = Q^2/N$, the jet factor $\tilde J_N$
957: in Eq. (39) does not contain any large logarithms. The hard factor $H(Q^2/\mu^2)$
958: contains large logarithms that can be resummed.
959: The resummation generates exactly the evolution of the matching
960: coefficient $C^2$ for the product of effective currents in SCET.
961: Therefore, the above form of factorization exactly reproduces the
962: SCET result in Eq. (15).
963:
964: \section{Summary}
965:
966: In this paper, we considered deep-inelastic scattering in a region
967: $(1-x)Q\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ where the standard pQCD
968: factorization is not supposed to work. We argued, however, there
969: is nothing that invalidates it in the new regime in leading order
970: $1-x$ because the Lorentz invariant factorization does not involve
971: this soft scale in the sense that there are no new infrared
972: divergences associating with this scale.
973:
974: We then discussed refactorization of the coefficient function. The
975: EFT approach maintains Lorentz invariance and hence allows a
976: form of refactorization which is valid in the new regime. However,
977: in the traditional approach in which jets and parton distributions
978: are defined to take into account explicitly the double-logarithmic
979: soft radiations, the scale $(1-x)Q$ does appear in various
980: factors, making them nonperturbative in nature. We consider a more
981: general factorization in this spirit which involves a rapidity
982: cutoff. We showed how the EFT result can be reproduced through
983: choices of this cutoff. The example also shows how to make
984: consistent subtraction of the soft contribution in collinear matrix elements.
985:
986: \section*{Acknowledgments}
987: We acknowledge support of the U. S. Department of Energy via grant
988: DE-FG02-93ER-40762. X. J. is partially supported by the China
989: National Natural Science Foundation and Ministry of Education.
990:
991: \begin{references}
992: \frenchspacing
993: \bibitem{collins89}
994: J.~C.~Collins, D.~E.~Soper and G.~Sterman, Perturbative Quantum
995: Chromodynamics, in A.~H.~Mueller (Ed.), World Scientific,
996: Singapore, 1989, p. 1.
997: \bibitem{kim}
998: J.~Chay and C.~Kim, [arXiv:hep-ph/0511066].
999: \bibitem{pecjak}
1000: B.~D.~Pecjak, JHEP {\bf 0510}, 040 (2005).
1001: \bibitem{SCET}
1002:
1003: C.~W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
1004: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 114020 (2001);
1005: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011336;%%
1006: %\cite{Bauer:2001yt}
1007: %\bibitem{Bauer:2001yt}
1008: C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
1009: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054022 (2002); C.~Chay, C.~Kim, Phys.\
1010: Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 114016 (2002).
1011:
1012: \bibitem{manohar}
1013: A.~V.~Manohar,
1014: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 114019 (2003).
1015: \bibitem{neu}
1016: T.~Becher and M.~Neubert, [arXive:hep-ph/0605050].
1017: \bibitem{sterman}
1018: G.~Sterman, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 281}, 310 (1987).
1019: \bibitem{ji}
1020: A.~Idilbi, X.~Ji, J-P.~Ma, and F.~Yuan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73},
1021: 077501 (2006).
1022: \bibitem{idi}
1023: A.~Idilbi, X.~Ji, and F.~Yuan, [arXive:hep-ph/0605068].
1024: \bibitem{feng}
1025: A.~Idilbi, X.~Ji, and F.~Yuan, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625}, 253
1026: (2005).
1027: \bibitem{dd}
1028: A.~Vogt, S.~Moch, and J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf
1029: 691}, 129
1030: (2004).
1031: \bibitem{chay1}
1032: J.~Chay, C.~Kim, Y.~G.~Kim, and J.~Lee, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71},
1033: 056001 (2005).
1034: \bibitem{korchemsky}
1035: G.~P.~Korchemsky, Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A{\bf 4} 1257 (1989).
1036: \bibitem{ji1}
1037: X.~Ji, J-P.~Ma, and F.~Yuan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 034005
1038: (2005).
1039: \bibitem{dglap}
1040: L.~N.~Lipatov, Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 20}, 95 (1975);
1041: V.~N.~Gribov abd L.~N.~Lipatov, Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 15},
1042: 438 (1972); G.~Altraelli and G.~Parisi, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 126},
1043: 298 (1977); Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer, Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 46}, 641
1044: (1977).
1045: %\cite{Manohar:2005az}
1046: \bibitem{manohar1}
1047: A.~V.~Manohar,
1048: %``Infrared scales and factorization in QCD,''
1049: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633}, 729 (2006)
1050: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512173].
1051: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512173;%%
1052: \bibitem{zb}
1053: A.~V.~Manohar and I.~W.~Stewart, [arXiv:hep-ph/0605001].
1054:
1055: \bibitem{coll}
1056: J.~C.~Collins and F.~Hautmann, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 472}, 129
1057: (2000).
1058: \bibitem{coll2}
1059: J.~C.~Collins and F.~V.~Tkachov, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 294}, 403
1060: (1992).
1061: \bibitem{kor}
1062: G.~P.~Korchemsky and A.~.V.~Radyushkin, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {bf
1063: 283}, 342 (1987).
1064: \bibitem{flo}
1065: E.~G.~Florates, D.~A.~Ross, and C.~T.~Sachrajda,Nucl.\ Phys.\ B
1066: {\bf 129}, 66 (1977).
1067: \bibitem{alta}
1068: G.~Altarelli, R.~K.~Ellis, and G.~Marinelli, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf
1069: 157}, 461 (1979).
1070:
1071:
1072:
1073:
1074:
1075: % \bibitem{bar}
1076: % W.~A.~Bardeen, A.~J.~Buras, D.~W.~Duke, and T.~Muta, Phys.\
1077: % Rev.\ D {\bf 18}, 3998 (1978).
1078: \end{references}
1079: \end{document}
1080: