1: \documentclass[12pt,final]{elsart}

2: 

3:   \setlength{\parskip}{0ex}

4:   \setlength{\parindent}{0.5cm}

5:   \setlength{\parsep}{0cm}

6:   \setlength{\textwidth}{16cm}

7:   \setlength{\textheight}{22.9cm}

8:   \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.26cm}

9:   \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.26cm}

10:   \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.04cm}

11: 

12:   \newcommand{\preprint}{SACLAY--T07/013\\BNL--NT--07/10}

13: 

14:   \renewcommand{\rmdefault}{ptm}

15: %  \renewcommand{\sfdefault}{phv}

16: 

17:   \usepackage{latexsym,bm,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}

18:   \usepackage{epsfig,graphics,graphicx}

19:   \usepackage{cite}

20:   \usepackage{slashed}

21: 

22:   \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

23:   \long\def\comment#1{ }

24: 

25:   \newcommand{\dif}{{\rm d}}

26:   \newcommand{\dY}{\dif Y}

27:   \newcommand{\abar}{\bar{\alpha}_s}

28:   \newcommand{\atpi}{\frac{\bar{\alpha}_s}{2\pi}}

29:   \newcommand{\del}{\partial}

30:   \newcommand{\lan}{\left\langle}

31:   \newcommand{\ran}{\right\rangle}

32:   \newcommand{\mcal}{\mathcal}

33:   \newcommand{\rme}{{\rm e}}

34:   \newcommand{\rmi}{{\rm i}}

35:   \newcommand{\rmL}{{\rm L}}

36:   \newcommand{\rmR}{{\rm R}}

37:   \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm tr}}

38:   \newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm Tr}}

39:   \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}

40:   \newcommand{\Path}{{\rm P}}

41:   \newcommand{\grad}{\nabla}

42:   \newcommand{\Lam}{\Lambda_{{\rm QCD}}}

43:   \newcommand{\lap}[1]{\nabla_{\bm{#1}}^2}

44:   \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber\\}

45:    \newcommand{\wtP}{\widetilde{P}}

46:   \newcommand{\order}[1]{\mcal{O}{(#1)}}

47: 

48: 

49:   \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{eqnarray}}

50:   \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray}}

51:   \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

52:  \def\simge{\mathrel{%

53:    \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}

54: \def\simle{\mathrel{

55:    \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}

56: 

57:   \newcommand{\PLB}{{\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B}}

58:   \newcommand{\NPA}{{\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf A}}

59:   \newcommand{\NPB}{{\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B}}

60:   \newcommand{\PRep}{{\it Phys. Rep.}}

61:   \newcommand{\PPNP}{{\it Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.}}

62:   \newcommand{\CPC}{{\it Comput. Phys. Commun.}}

63: 

64:   \newcommand{\PRL}{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}}

65:   \newcommand{\PRD}{{\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D}}

66:   \newcommand{\PRE}{{\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf E}}

67:   \newcommand{\PR}{{\it Phys. Rev.}}

68: 

69:   \newcommand{\JHEP}{{\it JHEP}}

70:   \newcommand{\EPJC}{{\it Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C}}

71:   \newcommand{\NCA}{{\it Nuovo Cimento }{\bf A}}

72:   \newcommand{\ZP}{{\it Z. Phys.}}

73:   \newcommand{\ZPC}{{\it Z. Phys. }{\bf C}}

74: 

75:   \newcommand{\SJNP}{{\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.}}

76:   \newcommand{\SPJETP}{{\it Sov. Phys. JETP}}

77:   \newcommand{\JETPL}{{\it JETP Lett.}}

78:   \newcommand{\APPB}{{\it Acta Phys. Pol. }{\bf B}}

79: 

80:   \newcommand{\AP}{{\it Ann. Phys.}}

81: 

82:   \newcommand{\Jour}[4]{#1 {\bf #2} (#3) #4}

83:   \newcommand{\arxiv}[1]{{\tt #1}}

84: 

85: \begin{document}

86: 

87: \begin{flushright}

88: {\small \preprint}

89: \end{flushright}

90: \vspace{1.5cm}

91: 

92: 

93: \begin{frontmatter}\parbox[]{16.0cm}{\begin{center}

94: \title{\rm \LARGE Liouville field

95: theory for gluon saturation\\ in QCD at high energy}

96: 

97: 

98: \author{E.~Iancu$^{\rm a,1,2}$}%\thanksref{th2}},

99: \author{ and L.~McLerran$^{\rm b,c,1}$}

100: 

101: \address{$^{\rm a}$ Service de Physique Theorique, CEA Saclay,

102: CEA/DSM/SPhT, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France}

103: \address{$^{\rm b}$ RIKEN BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory,

104: Upton, NY 11973, USA}

105: \address{$^{\rm c}$ Physics Department, Brookhaven

106: National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA}

107: 

108: 

109: 

110: \thanks{{\it E-mail addresses:}

111: iancu@dsm-mail.cea.fr (E.~Iancu), mclerran@quark.phy.bnl.gov

112: (L.~McLerran).}

113: \thanks{Membre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

114: (CNRS), France.}

115: 

116: 

117: {\small \today}

118: %\vspace{0.8cm}

119: \begin{abstract}

120: We argue that quantum Liouville field theory supplemented with a

121: suitable source term is the effective theory which describes the

122: short--range correlations of the gluon saturation momentum in the

123: two--dimensional impact--parameter space, at sufficiently high

124: energy and for a large number of colors. This is motivated by

125: recent developments concerning the stochastic aspects of the

126: high--energy evolution in QCD, together with the manifest scale

127: invariance of the respective evolution equations and general

128: considerations on the uncertainty principle. The source term

129: explicitly breaks down the conformal symmetry of the (pure)

130: Liouville action, thus introducing a physical mass scale in the

131: problem which is identified with the average saturation momentum.

132: We construct this source term for the case of a homogeneous

133: distribution and show that this leads to an interesting theory:

134: the relevant correlation functions are ultraviolet {\em finite}

135: (and not just renormalizable) when computed in perturbation

136: theory, due to mutual cancellations of the tadpole divergences.

137: Possible generalizations to inhomogeneous source terms are briefly

138: discussed.

139: 

140: \end{abstract}

141: \end{center}}

142: 

143: \end{frontmatter}

144: 

145: %\newpage

146: %\tableofcontents

147: \newpage

148: 

149: 

150: \section{Introduction}

151: \setcounter{equation}{0} \label{SECT_INTRO}

152: 

153: Recently, there has been significant progress in our understanding

154: of the dynamics in perturbative QCD at high energy/high gluon

155: density, leading to a consistent picture of the high--energy

156: evolution as a classical stochastic process of a special type

157: \cite{IMM04,IT04}: a non--local generalization of the

158: reaction--diffusion process of statistical physics, with the

159: `non--locality' referring both to the transverse momenta and to

160: the position in the two--dimensional `impact--parameter space' ---

161: the plane transverse to the collision axis. However, the

162: consequences of this new picture for the dynamics in

163: impact--parameter space are still to be explored: although the

164: impact--parameter dependence is in principle encoded in the

165: underlying evolution equations --- the Pomeron loop equations of

166: Refs. \cite{IT04,MSW05,IT05} ---, this dependence turns out to be

167: too complicated to deal with in practice, and so far it has been

168: neglected in the applications of these equations. Some important

169: aspects of this dynamics --- like the peripheral dynamics

170: responsible for the Froissart growth of the total cross--section

171: (see, e.g., \cite{FB,KW02}) ---  are clearly non--perturbative.

172: Still, with increasing energy, there is an increasingly large

173: region around the center of the hadron where the gluon density is

174: high and perturbation should apply, including for a calculation of

175: the correlations in $\bm{b}$ (the two--dimensional vector denoting

176: the impact parameter).

177: 

178: For long time, this high--density central region has been assumed

179: to be quasi--homogeneous --- a disk which appears uniformly black

180: to any external probe whose resolving power $Q^2$ in the

181: transverse space is smaller than some critical value fixed by the

182: gluon density in the target. Such a uniform disk would be

183: characterized by just two quantities: \texttt{(i)} the (local)

184: saturation momentum $Q_s^2(\bm{b})$, which fixes the critical

185: scale for `blackness' (i.e., for the onset of unitarity

186: corrections) and is roughly independent of $\bm{b}$ (it typically

187: has a smooth profile decreasing from the center towards the

188: periphery on a radial distance set by the `soft' QCD scale

189: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$), and \texttt{(ii)} the radius $R$ of this

190: central region where the density is high. Both quantities are

191: expected to grow with the energy, but whereas the respective

192: growth is rapid (power--like) for the saturation momentum and can

193: be computed in perturbation theory --- since determined by

194: quasi--local gluon splitting processes within the high--density

195: region ---, that of the `black disk' radius is much slower

196: (logarithmic in $s$) and also non--perturbative, since it is

197: related to the expansion of the black disk into the outer corona

198: at relatively low density.

199: 

200: Very recently, however, this traditional picture has been

201: challenged \cite{IT04,HIMST06,GLUON} by the newly developed

202: picture of the stochastic evolution, which suggests that, for

203: sufficiently high energies at least, the central region at high

204: density should be the site of {\em wild fluctuations}, leading to

205: the coexistence of regions where the gluon density is anomalously

206: high --- i.e., the local saturation momentum $Q_s^2(\bm{b})$ is

207: considerably larger than the respective {\em average} value $\bar

208: Q_s^2$ --- with regions which are anomalously dilute, such that

209: $Q_s^2(\bm{b})\ll \bar Q_s^2$. The high--density regions appear as

210: {\em black spots} to an external probe with a resolution $Q^2\sim

211: \bar Q_s^2$, whereas the low--density ones rather look `grey' on

212: the same resolution scale, with the precise nuance of `grey'

213: depending upon the ratio between the local saturation scale

214: $Q_s^2(\bm{b})$ and its average value $\bar Q_s^2$ (see  Fig.

215: \ref{BSfig}).

216: % (more precisely, upon the {\em logarithm} of this ratio; see below).

217: Remarkably, it turns out that, at least for a simple projectile

218: like a dipole, the `black spots' completely dominate the {\em

219: average} scattering amplitude $\langle T(Q^2)\rangle$ up to very

220: high resolution scales $Q^2$, well above $\bar Q_s^2$ \cite{IT04}.

221: That is, even for values $Q^2$ which are so high that the

222: scattering is weak {\em on the average}, i.e., such that $\langle

223: T(Q^2)\rangle\ll 1$, the average amplitude is still controlled by

224: the dense fluctuations for which $T(Q^2)\sim 1$, i.e., by the rare

225: events in which the projectile has hit a black spot.

226: 

227: 

228: \begin{figure}

229: \begin{center}

230: \centerline{\epsfig{file=HotSpotsGrey.eps,height=5.cm}}

231:  \caption{A transverse view of a high--energy hadron,

232:  as `seen' in deep inelastic scattering at very high energy. The

233:  dipole projectile probes a target area of the order of its own

234:  transverse area, at various impact parameters.}

235: \label{BSfig}

236: \end{center}

237: \end{figure}

238: 

239: This new picture has rich and interesting consequences: it leads

240: to a total breakdown of the `twist expansion' up to very high

241: values for $Q^2$ and it predicts a new scaling law for $\langle

242: T(Q^2)\rangle$ at high energies \cite{IMM04,IT04,MS04}

243: --- known as {\em diffusive scaling} \cite{HIMST06} ---, which should

244: replace the {\em geometric scaling} expected

245: \cite{SCALING,MT02,MP03} from mean field approximations like the

246: Balitsky--Kovchegov equation \cite{B,K} or the more general

247: (functional) JIMWLK equation \cite{JKLW,W,CGC}.

248: 

249: The strong fluctuations in the gluon distribution at high energy

250: find their origin in gluon--number fluctuations in the early

251: stages of the evolution, i.e., BFKL--like \cite{BFKL,AM94}

252: splitting processes\footnote{The `black spots' have been

253: originally observed \cite{AMSalam95} in numerical simulations of

254: Mueller's dipole picture \cite{AM94}

255: --- the large--$N_c$ version of the BFKL evolution ---, but at that

256: time it was not clear whether they would survive after including

257: the `unitarity corrections' (i.e., the saturation effects due to

258: the non--linear gluon dynamics at high density

259: \cite{GLR,B,JKLW,CGC}).}, which induce correlations between the

260: gluons having a common ancestor, and thus between the `spots'

261: generated via the subsequent evolution of these gluons. So far,

262: the effects of these correlations have been studied only at fixed

263: impact parameter, via a coarse--graining of the Pomeron loop

264: equations in impact--parameter space \cite{IMM04,IT04}. This

265: approximation is perhaps sufficient for a study of the scattering

266: of a small projectile which is quasi--localized in $\bm{b}$ (e.g.,

267: the case of the dipole scattering, as relevant for $\gamma^*p$

268: deep inelastic scattering \cite{HIMST06}, and also for $pp$ or

269: $pA$ collisions under specific circumstances \cite{GLUON}), but on

270: the other hand it prevents one from studying the {\em

271: correlations} in $\bm{b}$, which could be experimentally accessed

272: via multiple--particle production in hadron--hadron collisions

273: (say, at LHC). { Moreover, as we shall later argue, this

274: approximation has some shortcomings even for the description of

275: the short--range correlations, for which it was {\em a priori}

276: intended: by ignoring any information about the {\em size} of the

277: fluctuations in impact--parameter space, it artificially

278: suppresses the fluctuations with very small sizes, i.e., the tiny

279: spots where the local saturation momentum is much larger than the

280: average one. Or, as alluded to before, a proper description of

281: such tiny spots is essential in order to study the scattering of

282: small projectiles with resolution $Q^2\gg Q_s^2$.

283: 

284: In this paper, we shall make a first attempt to go beyond the

285: coarse--graining approximation introduced in Refs.

286: \cite{IMM04,IT04}. Namely, we shall propose an {\em effective

287: field theory} describing the distribution of the saturation

288: momentum in impact--parameter space at a fixed (high) energy and

289: for a large number of colors $N_c$. (The large--$N_c$

290: approximation is needed in order to be able to neglect long--range

291: color exchanges between saturated spots; see Sect.

292: \ref{SECT_Local} for details.) Note that the saturation momentum

293: $Q_s(\bm{b})$ is also the typical transverse momentum of the gluon

294: configuration located around $\bm{b}$. Hence, the effective theory

295: that we shall propose encodes information about the gluon

296: distributions in both momentum space and impact--parameter space.

297: 

298: Let us start by emphasizing that the very existence of an

299: effective field theory for $Q_s(\bm{b})$ is not at all obvious.

300: For instance, it is not {\em a priori} clear whether one can

301: effectively replace (even if only approximately) the information

302: about the gluon distribution or the dipole scattering amplitudes

303: by a theory for the distribution of the saturation momentum alone.

304: Furthermore, even assuming that such a theory exists, it is not at

305: all clear whether it can be made {\em local}. The Pomeron loop

306: equations are non--local in the transverse momenta and

307: coordinates, and this may translate into non-localities in

308: $\bm{b}$ in the effective theory that we are looking for.

309: Moreover, the correlations induced by the evolution are generally

310: non--local in rapidity, since associated with gluon splittings in

311: the intermediate steps of the evolution. Still, as we shall argue

312: in Sect. \ref{SECT_Local}, the {\em short--range} correlations, at

313: least, are quasi--local in rapidity, since predominantly produced

314: via gluon splittings in the late stages of the evolution, close to

315: the final rapidity $Y$. By `short--range' we mean distances of the

316: order of, or smaller than, the average saturation length

317: $1/Q_0(Y)$ at rapidity $Y$ (with the notation\footnote{Note that

318: so far we have introduced two different notations for the `average

319: saturation momentum', namely $\bar Q_s^2$ and $Q_0^2\equiv\langle

320: Q_s^2\rangle$; they correspond to different definitions, as we

321: shall explain in Sect. 2.} $Q_0^2\equiv\langle Q_s^2\rangle$).

322: Hence, we expect a local field theory to be meaningful, at least,

323: for the dynamics over such short distances.

324: 

325: To proceed, we shall simply {\em assume} that a local field theory

326: for $Q_s(\bm{b})$ exists and then we shall constrain its structure

327: from general physical considerations. More precisely, we shall

328: construct this theory as the natural generalization of the

329: $\bm{b}$--independent distribution proposed in Refs.

330: \cite{IMM04,IT04} which is consistent the {\em uncertainty

331: principle} and the {\em conformal symmetry} of the high--energy

332: evolution equations. Together, these constrains almost uniquely

333: fix the structure of the effective theory, as we explain now: }

334: 

335: 

336: As already mentioned, the saturation momentum $Q_s(\bm{b})$ is

337: also the typical transverse momentum of the gluon configuration

338: centered at $\bm{b}$. By virtue of the uncertainty principle, the

339: area occupied by that configuration cannot be {\em smaller} than

340: $1/Q_s^2(\bm{b})$. This area cannot be much {\em larger} either,

341: since a gluon configuration which has reached saturation on some

342: scale $Q_s(\bm{b})$ can hardly emit gluons with soft momenta

343: $k_\perp\ll Q_s(\bm{b})$ \cite{JKMW97,AM99,SAT,GAUSS}. That is,

344: its subsequent evolution predominantly proceeds via the emission

345: of harder gluons with $k_\perp\gg Q_s(\bm{b})$, which cannot

346: increase the size of the configuration (except very slowly, via

347: peripheral emissions). In turn, such hard gluons become spots

348: which evolve towards saturation on their own sizes and at the same

349: time act as sources for even smaller spots, which spread over the

350: surface of the original configuration and where the local

351: saturation momenta are much harder. We see that the high--energy

352: evolution is strongly biased towards smaller sizes, thus leading

353: --- in a three--dimensional picture where the impact--parameter

354: space occupies the $(x,y)$--plane and the saturation momentum

355: $Q_s(\bm{b})$ is represented along the $z$--axis --- to a

356: `landscape' picture, with spikes of various heights, randomly

357: distributed and surrounded by valleys.

358: 

359: Furthermore, the equations describing the evolution in QCD at high

360: energy and in the leading logarithmic approximation have the

361: important property of {\em conformal symmetry}, that is, they are

362: invariant under conformal (M\"obius) transformations in the

363: transverse plane. This has since long been appreciated in the

364: context of the linear, BFKL, evolution \cite{BFKL}, with important

365: consequences \cite{lipatov,lipatov1,FK95} (in particular, for the

366: calculability of the theory; see Ref. \cite{ewerz} for a review

367: and more references), but this remains true for the non--linear BK

368: \cite{B,K}, JIMWLK \cite{JKLW,W,CGC}, or Pomeron loop

369: \cite{IT04,MSW05,IT05}, equations, since all these equations

370: involve the BFKL splitting kernel (for gluons or dipoles) together

371: with gluon--number changing vertices, which indeed respect

372: conformal symmetry. One may think that this symmetry is

373: inconsistent with the emergence of a special scale --- the

374: (average) saturation momentum

375: --- in the solutions to these equations, but this is actually not

376: true: the saturation scale is not spontaneously generated by the

377: evolution, rather it comes out as the evolution of the scale

378: introduced by the initial conditions at low energy

379: \cite{GLR,AM99,SCALING,MT02}. On the other hand, the gluon {\em

380: correlations} are generated by the conformally--invariant

381: evolution\footnote{We assume that there were no correlations in

382: the initial conditions at low energy, for simplicity.}, so we

383: expect this symmetry to constrain the effective theory describing

384: these correlations.

385: 

386: The effective theory that we shall arrive at by exploiting such

387: considerations is a two--dimensional, interacting, scalar field

388: theory, in which the field $\phi$ is proportional to the logarithm

389: of the local saturation momentum, and which involves two `free'

390: parameters: the expectation value $Q_0^2\equiv\langle

391: Q_s^2\rangle$ of the saturation momentum and a dimensionless

392: coupling constant $\sigma$, which characterizes the degree of

393: disorder introduced by gluon--number fluctuations in the course of

394: the evolution. Both parameters are expected to rise with the

395: energy, in a way which is in principle determined by the

396: underlying QCD evolution equations, but which needs not be

397: specified for our present purposes. It suffices to say that the

398: weak coupling regime $\sigma\ll 1$ in the effective theory

399: corresponds to low, or intermediate, energies, where the dynamics

400: is quasi--deterministic, whereas the strong coupling regime

401: $\sigma\gg 1$ corresponds to the more interesting situation at

402: high energy, where the stochastic aspects are fully developed and

403: essential.

404: 

405: The effective theory involves three basic ingredients:

406: \texttt{(i)} the standard kinetic term, which couples fluctuations

407: at neighboring points, \texttt{(ii)} a potential term, which

408: ensures that the typical gradients at $\bm{b}$ are of order

409: $Q_s^2(\bm{b})$, in fulfillment of the uncertainty principle, and

410: \texttt{(iii)} a source term, which enforces the value

411: $Q_0^2\equiv\langle Q_s^2(\bm{b})\rangle$ of the average

412: saturation momentum. Since proportional to

413: $Q_s^2\propto\rme^{\sigma\phi}$, the potential is exponential in

414: $\phi$, which is precisely as it should for consistency with

415: conformal symmetry: together, the kinetic plus the potential terms

416: are recognized as the {\em Liouville action}, which is

417: conformally--invariant, and thus integrable. The quantum Liouville

418: field theory (LFT) has been extensively studied over the last

419: decades --- especially, in connection with studies of quantum

420: gravity in two dimensions --- and many exact results are known by

421: now about its properties

422: \cite{Poly81,Se90,GinMoore,DO94,ZZ96,Tesch}. However, precisely by

423: virtue of its symmetry, LFT involves no mass scale (it gives rise

424: to power--law correlations on all distance scales), and thus

425: cannot accommodate a non--zero value for the average saturation

426: momentum. This is taken care off by the source term, linear in

427: $\phi$, at the expense of explicitly breaking the conformal

428: symmetry. This breaking has dramatic consequences on the

429: properties of the theory and it also complicates its analysis very

430: much (since it is not possible to directly exploit the large

431: amount of information known about LFT).

432: 

433: Yet, some general properties of the effective theory can be

434: inferred by semi--classical and perturbative techniques, or simply

435: by inspection of the action. The presence of the source term

436: endows this theory with a stable ground state (in contrast to

437: LFT), which appears as a saddle point of the action and allows for

438: a perturbative treatment of the weak coupling ($\sigma\ll 1$)

439: regime. The perturbative calculations, that we shall push up to

440: two--loop order, reveal a very interesting property, which is

441: furthermore confirmed, at non--perturbative level, by inspection

442: of the corresponding Dyson equations: the correlations of the

443: saturation momentum (an exponential operator in this theory) are

444: {\em ultraviolet finite}, and not just renormalizable, as

445: generally expected for a two--dimensional field theory. {This

446: means that the operator $Q_s^2$ has no anomalous dimension, which

447: in turn implies that its short--range correlations, over distances

448: $R\simle 1/Q_0$, have a {\em power--like} decay, with exactly the

449: {\em same} powers as in pure Liouville theory --- since these

450: powers are fixed by the natural dimension of the operator. On the

451: other hand, the theory predicts that these correlations decay {\em

452: exponentially} on larger distances $R \gg 1/Q_0$, with the

453: (average) saturation momentum $Q_0$ playing the role of a

454: screening mass. The emergence of an exponential fall--off in the

455: context of perturbative QCD may look surprising, but it is

456: presumably an artifact of our insistence on a field theory which

457: is local in rapidity: the physical correlations on large distances

458: $R\gg 1/Q_0$ are typically generated via gluon splittings in the

459: early stages of the evolution (the earlier, the larger $R$ is; see

460: Sect. \ref{SECT_Local})), which are not encoded in our present

461: theory.}

462: 

463: The paper is organized as follows: Sect. \ref{SECT_Local} presents

464: a brief and critical discussion of the $\bm{b}$--independent

465: distribution proposed in Refs. \cite{IMM04,IT04}, with the purpose

466: of clarifying its limitations and, more generally, the limitations

467: of any effective theory which is local in rapidity. In Sect.

468: \ref{SECT_Weak} we construct the low--energy/weak coupling

469: ($\sigma\ll 1$) version of the effective field theory, as the

470: straightforward extension of the $\bm{b}$--independent

471: distribution alluded to above. Sect. \ref{SECT_Strong} is our main

472: section: after a quick introduction to the Liouville field theory

473: and its conformal symmetry, we explain the relevance of this

474: theory for the QCD problem at hand, then present the complete

475: action for our effective theory (including the symmetry--breaking

476: source term) and discuss some of its properties. Sect.

477: \ref{SECT_UV} is slightly more technical, since devoted to

478: perturbative calculations to two--loop order, with the purpose of

479: demonstrating the ultraviolet--finiteness of the correlation

480: functions when computed in the effective theory. Finally, Sect. 6

481: summarizes our results and conclusions. In the Appendix, we show

482: how to couple the effective theory to the CGC formalism (within

483: the simple context of McLerran--Venugopalan model \cite{MV}),

484: which is useful in view of computing observables.

485: 

486: \section{The coarse--graining approximation and its limitations}

487: \setcounter{equation}{0}\label{SECT_Local}

488: 

489: Our starting point is the Gaussian probability distribution for

490: the saturation momentum introduced in Refs. \cite{IMM04,IT04} (see

491: also Refs. \cite{BD97,BDMM,MSX06}), which can be viewed as a

492: coarse--grained version of the effective theory that we intend to

493: construct, in which the impact--parameter dependence has been

494: averaged out. The applicability of such a coarse--graining will be

495: shortly discussed.

496: 

497: The random variable in this distribution is the logarithm

498: $\rho_s\equiv \ln(Q_s^2/\Lambda^2)$ of the saturation momentum

499: (with $\Lambda$ some arbitrary scale of reference), which is the

500: scale which separates, in an event--by--event description, between

501: a high--density, or `Color Glass Condensate' \cite{EDICGC}, phase

502: at low transverse momenta ($k_\perp < Q_s$ or $\rho\equiv

503: \ln(k_\perp^2/\Lambda^2)<\rho_s$), where the gluon occupation

504: factor saturates\footnote{Strictly speaking, the gluon occupancy

505: keeps growing with the energy in the CGC phase, but only very

506: slowly: logarithmically in $s$, that is, linearly in the rapidity

507: $Y=\ln s$ \cite{AM99,SAT}.} at a large value of

508: $\mathcal{O}(1/\alpha_s)$, and a low density phase at high momenta

509: ($\rho > \rho_s$), where the gluon occupancy is still low but it

510: rises rapidly with the energy (as a power of $s$), via BFKL gluon

511: splitting. It is customary to work with the `rapidity' variable

512: $Y\equiv \ln s$, which plays the role of an `evolution time' for

513: the high--energy evolution. When increasing $Y$, modes with higher

514: and higher values of $k_\perp$ enter at saturation, so the

515: borderline $\rho_s$ propagates towards higher transverse momenta.

516: However, due to gluon--number fluctuations in the splitting

517: process --- which can be associated with the fact that the

518: particle number is discrete \cite{IMM04} ---, this progression of

519: $\rho_s$ is not uniform but stochastic, like a one--dimensional

520: Brownian motion.

521: 

522: Based on the analogy with the reaction--diffusion problem

523: \cite{BD97,SaarPanja,BDMM,MSX06}, it has been argued in Refs.

524: \cite{IMM04,IT04} that $\rho_s$ should be a Gaussian random

525: variable with probability distribution

526: \begin{equation}\label{eq-prob}

527:     P_Y(\rho_s) =

528:     \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\,

529:     \exp \left[

530:     -\frac{\left( \rho_s - \langle \rho_s \rangle \right)^2}{2\sigma^2}

531:     \right]\,,

532: \end{equation}

533: where both the central value $\langle \rho_s \rangle$ and the

534: dispersion $\sigma^2=\lan\rho_s^2\ran - \langle\rho_s\rangle^2$

535: are expected\footnote{Recall that, throughout this analysis, we

536: consider the leading--order approximation where the coupling is

537: not running.} to rise linearly with $Y$ (for $Y$ large enough):

538: $\langle \rho_s \rangle=\lambda\bar\alpha_s Y$ and $\sigma^2

539: \simeq D\bar\alpha_s Y$, with $\bar\alpha_s\! =\!\alpha_sN_c/\pi$.

540: The coefficients $\lambda$ and $D$ are known \cite{BD97,BDMM} only

541: in the formal limit $\alpha_s\to 0$, and the corresponding

542: expressions cannot be extrapolated to realistic values of

543: $\alpha_s$ since they depend upon $\ln(1/\alpha_s^2)$. For what

544: follows, their actual values are unimportant, and so are the

545: precise $Y$--dependencies of $\langle \rho_s \rangle$ and

546: $\sigma$; all that matters is that these quantities rise quite

547: fast with $Y$. So long as $\sigma\ll 1$ --- the case for

548: relatively low energies --- the theory remains

549: quasi--deterministic. But the most interesting regime for us here

550: is the {\em high--energy regime} at $\sigma \ge 1$, where the

551: fluctuations are fully developed and have a strong influence on

552: the theory.

553: 

554: \begin{figure}

555: \begin{center}

556: \centerline{\epsfig{file=phase_DiffScaling.eps,height=9.cm}}

557:  \caption{A picture of the diffusive saturation boundary in the

558:  presence of fluctuations; shown are the average saturation line

559:  $\langle \rho_s \rangle=\lambda\bar\alpha_s Y$,

560:  the diffusive radius $\sigma\propto\sqrt{Y}$

561:  for the Gaussian distribution (\ref{eq-prob}), and the

562:  diffusive scaling window with a width $\sigma^2\propto Y$.}

563: \label{DSWfig}

564: \end{center}

565: \end{figure}

566: 

567: Since the saturation momentum is fluctuating, a physical

568: discussion will naturally involve a {\em range} of values for

569: $Q_s$, rather than just a single value (see Fig. \ref{DSWfig}).

570: The range which is {\em a priori} privileged by the Gaussian

571: probability (\ref{eq-prob}) is the `diffusive disk' at $|\rho_s

572: -\langle \rho_s\rangle| \le \sigma$, where the probability is

573: reasonably large: $P(\rho_s)\simge 1/\sigma$. But the relevant

574: range also depends upon the physical quantity of interest, which

575: can favor some values of $Q_s$ over the others. The simplest

576: example in that sense refers to the very definition of the

577: `average saturation momentum', which is not unique (because the

578: relation between $Q_s$ and $\rho_s$ is non--linear: $Q_s^2=

579: \Lambda^2 {\rm e}^{\rho_s}$) and thus needs to be properly

580: specified --- different definitions can be relevant for different

581: problems. The form of the Gaussian distribution (\ref{eq-prob})

582: makes it natural to define

583:  \beq\label{eq-QSdef1}

584:  \bar Q_s^2\,\equiv\,\Lambda^2 \,{\rm e}^{\langle \rho_s

585:  \rangle}\,.

586:  %\,=\,\Lambda^2 {\rm e}^{\lambda \abar Y}\,,

587:  \eeq

588: But the expectation value of the `operator' ${\rm e}^{\rho_s}$ can

589: be also computed, with the following result:

590:   \beq\label{eq-QSdef2}

591:   \langle Q_s^2 \rangle\,\equiv\,\Lambda^2 \,\langle

592:  {\rm e}^{\rho_s}\rangle\,=\,\Lambda^2\,{\rm e}^{\langle \rho_s

593:  \rangle}\, {\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2}\,=\,

594:  \bar Q_s^2 \, \,{\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2}

595:  % \Lambda^2 \,{\rm e}^{(\lambda +D/2)\abar Y }

596:  \,.

597:  \eeq

598: This is always harder than the scale in Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSdef1}), and

599: for sufficiently high energies, where $\sigma \gg 1$, it is even

600: {\em much} harder. This considerable difference between the two

601: definitions can be easily traced back: in computing $\langle Q_s^2

602: \rangle$, the exponential operator ${\rm e}^{\rho_s}$ biases the

603: integration towards very large values of $\rho_s$, of order

604: $\rho_s\sim \langle \rho_s\rangle + \sigma^2$, as opposed to the

605: typical value $\rho_s\sim \langle \rho_s\rangle$ contributing to

606: $\bar Q_s^2$. Note that the large deviation $\rho_s -\langle

607: \rho_s\rangle \sim \sigma^2$ corresponds to fluctuations which are

608: very rare: $P(\rho_s)\sim \exp(-\sigma^2/2)\ll 1$, and which

609: occupy a very small area $\sim 1/\langle Q_s^2 \rangle$ in

610: impact--parameter space (by the uncertainty principle). Yet, such

611: rare and tiny fluctuations are physically important, as they

612: define the upper bound of the {\em diffusive scaling window}

613: \cite{IT04,HIMST06,GLUON}:

614:    \beq\label{eq-diffscaling}

615:  - \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\,\ll\,  \rho -\langle \rho_s\rangle \,\ll\,

616:  \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\,,

617:  \eeq

618: (see also Fig. \ref{DSWfig}) where $\rho\equiv

619: \ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)$, with $Q^2$ the transverse resolution of a

620: small projectile, like a `color dipole' (a $q\bar q$--pair

621: fluctuation of the virtual photon in deep inelastic

622: electron--hadron scattering), which scatters off the hadron. The

623: interval in Eq.~(\ref{eq-diffscaling}) represents the kinematical

624: window at high energy ($\sigma \gg 1$) within which the (average)

625: dipole scattering amplitude $\langle T(\rho,Y)\rangle$  `scales'

626: as a function of the dimensionless variable $Z\equiv (\rho

627: -\langle \rho_s\rangle)/\sigma$ rather than separately depending

628: upon $\rho$ and $Y$ : $\langle T(\rho,Y)\rangle\approx \langle

629: T(Z)\rangle$ (see Refs. \cite{IT04,HIMST06,GLUON} for details).

630: The diffusive scaling window in Eq.~(\ref{eq-diffscaling}) can be

631: alternatively described as

632:   \beq\label{eq-diffscaling1}

633:  \bar Q_s^2 \,{\rm e}^{-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2}

634:  \,\ll\,\,  Q^2 \,\ll\, \,

635:  \bar Q_s^2 \,{\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2}

636:  \equiv\, \langle Q_s^2 \rangle\,,

637:  \eeq

638: which explicitly shows that both definitions for the `average

639: saturation momentum' introduced in Eqs.~(\ref{eq-QSdef1}) and,

640: respectively, (\ref{eq-QSdef2}) play a role in characterizing the

641: physical effects of the fluctuations in $Q_s$.

642: 

643: At this point one should remember that the previous discussion was

644: based on the local approximation (\ref{eq-prob}) for the

645: distribution of $Q_s$, so it is important to understand what are

646: the assumptions beyond this approximation. In Refs.

647: \cite{IMM04,IT04} (see, especially, the discussion in Sect. 6 of

648: Ref. \cite{IT04}), the distribution (\ref{eq-prob}) has been

649: obtained  via a {\em coarse--graining} in impact--parameter space:

650: the $\bm{b}$--dependence of the dipole scattering amplitudes, as

651: encoded in the Pomeron loop equations \cite{IT05,MSW05}, has been

652: averaged out over a region in the impact--parameter space which in

653: Refs. \cite{IMM04,IT04} has been loosely characterized as the

654: `dipole size', but which should be more properly interpreted as an

655: intrinsic scale in the hadron, so like $1/\bar Q_s$. In this

656: averaging, one has potentially neglected two types of

657: correlations: \texttt{(i)} {\em short--range} correlations between

658: the fluctuations (`spots') with small sizes $R\ll 1/\bar Q_s$

659: (i.e., with large saturation momenta $Q_s\gg \bar Q_s$) which lie

660: inside the coarse--graining cell --- such smaller spots were

661: treated as being uniformly distributed over the cell area $1/\bar

662: Q_s^2$, and \texttt{(ii)} the {\em long--range} ($R\gg 1/\bar

663: Q_s$) correlations between different cells. Besides, one has

664: assumed {\em homogeneity} in $\bm{b}$ --- the average saturation

665: momentum $\bar Q_{s}^2$ and the dispersion $\sigma^2$ were taken

666: to be independent of $\bm{b}$

667: ---, which is not really an approximation, but merely a choice for

668: the initial conditions at low energy (the homogeneity being

669: preserved by the evolution according to the Pomeron loop

670: equations). Under these assumptions, the $\bm{b}$--dependence has

671: disappeared from the evolution equations, which were then shown

672: \cite{IT04} to be equivalent to a stochastic equation of the sFKPP

673: type --- the Langevin equation for the reaction--diffusion process

674: \cite{SaarPanja}. The Gaussian probability distribution in

675: Eq.~(\ref{eq-prob}) then follows from known properties of the

676: sFKPP equation, as recently clarified in the respective literature

677: \cite{BD97,BDMM,MSX06}.

678: 

679: Thus, the fact that here is no explicit $\bm{b}$--dependence in

680: Eq.~(\ref{eq-prob}) must be understood as follows: this formula is

681: meant to apply to points $\bm{b}$ within a given coarse--graining

682: cell, with an area $\sim 1/\bar Q_{s}^2\,$; at all such points,

683: the event--by--even local saturation scale is assumed to be the

684: same, and equal to $\rho_s$ (in logarithmic units); that is, all

685: the points within a cell fluctuate {\em coherently} with each

686: other, so like a rigid body. On the other, nothing is said about

687: the correlations between different cells: Eq.~(\ref{eq-prob})

688: apply only to {\em local} fluctuations within a given cell, as

689: averaged over the size of that cell.

690: 

691: {How does this approximate picture compare with the physical

692: reality ? There are {\em a priori} two mechanisms for building

693: spot--spot correlations: \texttt{(a)} {\em Long--range

694: interactions between saturated spots:} A gluon configuration with

695: saturation momentum $Q_s$ has a low but non--zero probability to

696: emit low--momentum gluons with $k_\perp\ll Q_s$, thus creating

697: long--range color fields over distances $R\gg 1/Q_s$. These are

698: dipolar fields, and not Coulomb ones, because the total color

699: charge gets screened at saturation \cite{SAT,AM02,GAUSS}. These

700: fields mediate dipole--dipole interactions between saturated spots

701: which are far away from each other. However, these interactions

702: are suppressed by a factor $1/N_c^2$, as they imply color

703: exchanges, and thus can be safely neglected in the large--$N_c$

704: approximation underlying the present discussion. \texttt{(b)} {\em

705: Gluon--number fluctuations in the high--energy evolution:} As

706: mentioned in the Introduction, different spots can be correlated

707: with each other because they have a common ancestor at some

708: earlier rapidity. Such correlations survive at large $N_c$, since

709: associated with fluctuations in a colorless quantity: the number

710: of gluons in the light cone gauge. Eq.~(\ref{eq-prob}) is meant to

711: capture these fluctuations in the coarse--graining approximation,

712: and our purpose here is to relax this approximation by restoring

713: the $\bm{b}$--dependence of the induced correlations.

714: 

715: However, as also mentioned in the Introduction, the relevant

716: correlations are generally {\em non--local in rapidity}, since

717: induced through branching processes which can occur at all the

718: intermediate rapidities. As we shall explain now\footnote{We would

719: like to thank Al Mueller for illuminating discussions on this

720: particular issue.}, the {\em short--range} correlations generated

721: in this way can nevertheless be encoded in a {\em local} (in $Y$)

722: field theory, of the type we would like to construct. To that aim,

723: we shall consider two spots which are separated by a distance $R$

724: at the final rapidity $Y$. These spots are correlated with each

725: other provided they had a common ancestor at some earlier rapidity

726: $0<y<Y$. It turns out that $y$ is correlated with $R$. Indeed, the

727: typical spots at rapidity $y$ have a saturation momentum $\bar

728: Q_{s}(y)$ and a size $\sim 1/\bar Q_{s}(y)$. If that size is much

729: smaller than $R$, then such a typical spot has only little

730: probability to emit a gluon at a distance $R$ away from its center

731: and thus initiate the evolutions leading to the two final spots

732: that we measure at $Y$. (This probability decreases as a large

733: power of $(R\bar Q_{s}(y))^{-1}$ because of the screening of the

734: color charge at saturation.) If, on the other hand, $1/\bar

735: Q_{s}(y)\gg R$, then there is a geometrical penalty factor $\sim

736: (R\bar Q_{s}(y))^2$ for the gluon to be emitted inside the

737: (relatively small) domain with area $R^2$. Hence, the most

738: important intermediate rapidity $y$ for creating correlations over

739: a distance $R$ is the one for which $\bar Q_{s}(y)\sim 1/R$.

740: Therefore, the larger is $R$, the more we have to go backwards in

741: the evolution, and the more non--local are the respective

742: correlations in $Y$. Vice--versa, the short--range correlations

743: with $R\simle 1/\bar Q_{s}(Y)$ are typically produced in the late

744: stages of the evolution, at $y\sim Y$, and hence are quasi--local

745: in rapidity. It should be therefore possible to encode such

746: short--range correlations in a local, effective, field theory.

747: 

748: As we shall later see, these considerations are indeed consistent

749: with the effective field theory that we shall arrive at, except

750: for the fact that the actual scale for correlations which will

751: emerge from that theory is not the scale $\bar Q_s^2$ that we have

752: focused on in the above discussion, but rather the harder scale

753: $\langle Q_s^2 \rangle$, cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSdef2}). }

754: 

755: %The reason for this difference is because a quantum field theory

756: %favors the high--momentum fluctuations, which have small sizes and

757: %hence are costless in action.

758: 

759: \section{The effective field theory: weak coupling}

760: \setcounter{equation}{0}\label{SECT_Weak}

761: 

762: With this section, we start our program aiming at extending the

763: coarse--grained distribution in Eq.~(\ref{eq-prob}) to an

764: effective field theory which describes the distribution of the

765: saturation momentum in impact--parameter space. For more clarity,

766: we shall first develop our arguments for the low energy/weak

767: coupling regime $\sigma\ll 1$, where we shall argue that the

768: corresponding extension is a free field theory for a massive

769: scalar field in two (Euclidean) dimensions. Then, in Sect.

770: \ref{SECT_Strong}, we shall present the generalization of this

771: theory to arbitrary values of the coupling $\sigma$.

772: 

773: 

774: For more clarity, we shall assume `mean-field--like' initial

775: conditions at low energy ($Y=0$): the initial gluon density is

776: large and homogeneous, and the saturation momentum $Q_s(Y=0)$

777: takes the same value $\Lambda$ (with $\Lambda^2\gg \Lambda^2_{\rm

778: QCD}$) at all the points. By boosting this system to high energy,

779: the gluon distribution evolves via (generally, non--linear) gluon

780: splitting, and inhomogeneities (`spots') appear in the

781: event--by--event description, due to gluon--number fluctuations.

782: 

783: In the early stages of this evolution --- namely, so long as

784: $\sigma\ll 1$ ---, the fluctuations have no time to significantly

785: develop, so all the spots have more or less the same

786: size\footnote{Note that, when $\sigma\ll 1$, the various `average

787: saturation scales' characterizing the statistical ensemble (cf.

788: Sect. \ref{SECT_Local}) are close to each other: $\bar Q_s^2

789: \approx \langle Q_s^2 \rangle$.}, $\sim 1/\bar Q_s$, and the same

790: value for the saturation momentum, $\sim \bar Q_s$; furthermore,

791: they are only weakly correlated with each other. It is then

792: straightforward to extend the coarse--grained approximation

793: (\ref{eq-prob}) to a distribution which covers the whole

794: transverse profile of the hadron: this is simply the product of

795: independent Gaussian distributions like that in

796: Eq.~(\ref{eq-prob}), one for each spot :

797:  \begin{equation}\label{eq-probi}

798:     P_Y[\rho_s] = \prod_j

799:     \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\,

800:     \exp \left[

801:     -\frac{\left( \rho_s(j) - \langle \rho_s \rangle \right)^2}{2\sigma^2}

802:     \right]\quad\mbox{for}

803:  \quad \sigma\ll 1\,,

804: \end{equation}

805: where the discrete variable $j$ labels the spots, and each spot

806: has roughly an area $1/\bar Q_s^2$. Introducing the fluctuation

807: field $\eta(j)\equiv \rho_s(j) - \langle \rho_s \rangle$,

808: Eq.~(\ref{eq-probi}) implies: $\langle \eta(j)\eta(l)\rangle=

809: \sigma^2\delta_{lj}$. So far, the quantities $\rho_s(j)$ or

810: $\eta(j)$ refer globally to a spot. In order to promote them to

811: {\em field} variables $\rho_s(\bm{x})$ or $\eta(\bm{x})$, with

812: $\bm{x}$ denoting the impact parameter, but keep the same

813: correlations as above, one needs to introduce a kinetic term to

814: smear out correlations over the spot size $\sim 1/\bar Q_s$. The

815: simplest kinetic term, and also the only one to be renormalizable

816: in two dimensions, is the standard, quadratic, kinetic term, that

817: we shall adopt in what follows. We are thus led to the following

818: field--theoretical extension of Eq.~(\ref{eq-probi})

819:   \beq\label{eq-S0}

820:   P_Y[\eta]\,=\,\exp\left\{-S_0[\eta]\right\},\quad\mbox{with}

821:  \quad S_0[\eta]\equiv \,\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\int \dif^2 \bm{x}

822:  \left\{ (\grad^i \eta)^2 + \bar Q_s^2 \eta^2\right\}\,,\eeq

823: which provides the weight function for the functional integral

824: over $\eta(\bm{x})$ which defines expectation values in the

825: framework of this effective field theory. The measure in the

826: functional integral is assumed to carry the proper normalization:

827: $\int D[\eta]\,\exp\left\{-S_0[\eta]\right\} = 1$.

828: 

829: Eq.~(\ref{eq-S0}) implies $ \langle

830: \eta(\bm{x})\eta(\bm{y})\rangle= \sigma^2\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{y})$, with

831: $D$ the propagator of a free, massive, scalar field in a

832: two--dimensional Euclidean space:

833:  \beq\label{eq-D0}

834:  D(\bm{x-y})=\int\frac{\dif^2 \bm{k}}{(2\pi)^2}

835:  \,\frac{\rme^{i\bm{k}\cdot \bm{(x-y)}}}{k^2+\bar Q_s^2}\,

836:  =\, \frac{1}{2\pi}\,{\rm K}_0(r\bar Q_s)

837:  \eeq

838: where $r=|\bm{x-y}|$ and ${\rm K}_0$ is the respective Bessel

839: function, with the following limiting behaviours at short and,

840: respective, large distances:

841:  \beq\label{eq-K0}

842:   {\rm K}_0(z)\approx\,

843:   \begin{cases}

844:          \displaystyle{\ln\frac{1}{z}\,,} &

845:         \text{ for\,  $z \ll 1$}

846:         \\*[0.5cm]

847:         \displaystyle{\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2z}}\rme^{-z}\,,} &

848:         \text{ for\,  $z\gg 1$}.

849:     \end{cases}

850:   \eeq

851: We see that the correlations generated by the field theory in

852: Eq.~(\ref{eq-S0}) have indeed the sought for structure: they are

853: quasi--uniform on relatively short distances, $r\simle 1/\bar

854: Q_s$, (i.e., among points located within a same spot), but they

855: decay very fast (exponentially) over distances much larger than

856: the typical size of a spot.

857: 

858: The emergence of {\em exponentially} decaying correlations at

859: large distances should be taken with a grain of salt (cf. the

860: discussion in the Introduction): It corresponds to the fact that

861: the correlations over larger distances $r\gg 1/\bar Q_s$ are

862: predominantly produced via splittings occuring in the early stages

863: of the evolutions, i.e., at rapidities $y < Y$, whose effects are

864: not included in the present formalism, local in $Y$. As for the

865: late splittings (those taking place at $y\sim Y$), they produce

866: correlations which fall off according to power laws at large

867: separations $r\gg 1/\bar Q_s$, because the emissions of soft

868: gluons with $k_\perp\ll \bar Q_s(Y)$ is strongly suppressed by

869: saturation. The fact that, in our formalism, this fall--off

870: appears to be exponential, rather than power--like, is because we

871: have not provided a faithful description of the gluon spectrum,

872: including its softening at momenta below $Q_s$, but rather we have

873: replaced this whole spectrum by a unique scale --- the saturation

874: momentum ---, which represents the average transverse momentum of

875: the saturated gluons. To summarize this argument, the theory with

876: action (\ref{eq-S0}) provides the correct, logarithmic, behaviour

877: at short distances, and it mimics the rapid fall--off at larger

878: distances by an exponential tail, rather than the correct,

879: power--law, one. This will be a generic feature of the effective

880: theory, including at strong coupling.

881: 

882: 

883: We now return to the functional distribution in Eq.~(\ref{eq-S0})

884: and consider its predictions for the correlation functions of the

885: operator saturation momentum, $Q_s^2(\bm{x})\equiv \Lambda^2 {\rm

886: e}^{\rho_s}= \bar Q_s^2 {\rm e}^{\eta}$. One finds

887:   \beq\label{eq-QSweak0}

888:   \langle Q_s^2 (\bm{x})\rangle&\,=\,&

889:  \bar Q_s^2 \, \,{\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2D(0)}\,,\nn

890:   \langle Q_s^2 (\bm{x})Q_s^2 (\bm{y})\rangle&\,=\,&

891:  \bar Q_s^4 \, \,{\rm e}^{\sigma^2[D(0)+D(\bm{x}-\bm{y})]}

892:  \,,

893:  \eeq

894: etc. Strictly speaking, these expressions should be trusted only

895: up to terms of $\mcal{O}(\sigma^2)$, since we are working under

896: the assumption that $\sigma\ll 1$; notwithstanding, we here

897: display the full exponentials, for comparison with subsequent

898: results at strong coupling.

899: 

900: The above formul\ae{} involve the equal--point limit $D(0)$ of the

901: propagator, which is divergent: $D(0)=({1}/{2\pi})\ln({1}/{a\bar

902: Q_s})$, with $a$ a short--distance cutoff (`lattice spacing')

903: introduced to regularize the divergence. We see that, even within

904: this free field theory, the exponential (or `vertex') operator

905: $V(\bm{x})\equiv{\exp}\{\eta(\bm{x})\}$ develops ultraviolet

906: divergences, which arise from contractions internal to this

907: operator. As is well known \cite{ZJ}, and also manifest on

908: Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSweak0}), such divergences can be eliminated via

909: multiplicative renormalization of the vertex operator (which here

910: is tantamount to normal--ordering the polynomial operators which

911: appear in its expansion). Namely, we shall define the renormalized

912: vertex operator as

913:  \beq\label{eq-Vren}

914:  V_R(\bm{x})\equiv V(\bm{x})\,{\exp}\left\{\frac{\sigma^2}{4\pi}

915:  \ln\left(a\rme^{2\pi}\bar Q_s\right)\right\}\,=\,

916:   {\exp}\left\{\frac{\sigma^2}{2}[1-D(0)]\right\}\,

917:  {\rm e}^{\eta(\bm{x})}\,,

918:  \eeq

919: where the particular subtraction point $1/a=\rme^{2\pi}\bar Q_s$

920: has been chosen for reasons to shortly become clear. One then

921: obtains the following, finite, vertex correlation functions:

922:  \beq\label{eq-Vweak}

923:   \langle V_R (\bm{x})\rangle\,=\,

924:   {\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2},\ \dots \ , \

925:   \langle V_R (\bm{x}_1) \cdots V_R (\bm{x}_n)\rangle

926:   \,=\,{\exp}\Big\{\frac{n}{2}\sigma^2  + \sigma^2\sum_{i<j}

927:   D(\bm{x}_i-\bm{x}_j)\Big\}

928:  \,,

929:  \eeq

930: which in turn imply, for the renormalized operator

931: $Q_s^2(\bm{x})\equiv \bar Q_s^2\,V_R(\bm{x})$,

932:    \beq\label{eq-QSweakR}

933:   \langle Q_s^2 (\bm{x})\rangle&\,=\,&

934:  \bar Q_s^2 \, \,{\rm e}^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2}\,,\nn

935:   \langle Q_s^2 (\bm{x})Q_s^2 (\bm{y})\rangle&\,=\,&

936:  \bar Q_s^4 \, \,{\rm e}^{\sigma^2+ \sigma^2

937:  D(\bm{x}-\bm{y})}\,=\,\langle Q_s^2\rangle^2

938:   \,{\rm exp}\{\sigma^2 D(\bm{x}-\bm{y})\}

939:  \,.

940:  \eeq

941: One can now appreciate the particular choice for the subtraction

942: point in Eq.~(\ref{eq-Vren}): this is such that the expectation

943: value $\langle Q_s^2\rangle$ computed in the present field theory

944: precisely matches the corresponding prediction of the

945: coarse--grained approximation, cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSdef2}).

946: 

947: Interestingly, Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSweakR}) reveals the emergence of

948: {\em power--like} correlations over (relatively) short distances,

949: that is, in between the points lying inside a same spot:

950:  \beq\label{eq-QSweakpower}

951:   \langle Q_s^2 (\bm{x})Q_s^2 (\bm{y})\rangle\,\approx\,

952:   \frac{  \langle Q_s^2\rangle^2}

953:   {\big[|\bm{x-y}|\bar Q_s\big]^{{\sigma^2}/{2\pi}}}

954:    \qquad \mbox{for}\qquad |\bm{x-y}| \ll 1/\bar Q_s\,.

955:  \eeq

956: This exhibits a singularity in the equal--point limit, which is

957: however physical, in the sense that one cannot localize

958: fluctuations in a quantum field theory down to a point without

959: generating singularities. On the other hand, at large distances,

960: the {\em connected} piece of the 2--point function in

961: Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSweakR}) dies away exponentially:

962:  \beq\label{eq-QSweakexp}

963:   \langle Q_s^2 (\bm{x})Q_s^2 (\bm{y})\rangle-

964:   \langle Q_s^2\rangle^2\,\propto\,\,\sigma^2\langle Q_s^2\rangle^2

965:   \exp(-|\bm{x-y}|\bar Q_s)

966:    \quad\ \mbox{for}\quad\ |\bm{x-y}| \gg 1/\bar Q_s\,.

967:  \eeq

968: Once again, this exponential decay should be taken with a grain of

969: salt: the effective theory is not supposed to apply to such large

970: separations.

971: 

972: 

973: \section{The effective field theory: general case}

974: \setcounter{equation}{0}\label{SECT_Strong}

975: 

976: Although this has not been explicitly spelled out in the previous

977: discussion, the free field theory of Eq.~(\ref{eq-S0}) is indeed

978: consistent with the uncertainty principle in the regime where this

979: theory is meant to apply (i.e., for $\sigma\ll 1$): indeed, the

980: kinetic term there smears out inhomogeneities over the very short

981: distances $r \ll 1/\bar Q_s$, in agreement with the fact that the

982: size of a spot cannot be smaller than the inverse of the typical

983: momentum of the gluons composing that spot, namely $k_\perp\sim

984: \bar Q_s$. However, for sufficiently high energy, such that

985: $\sigma\simge 1$, the fluctuations become important and then the

986: actual saturation momentum $Q_s^2 (\bm{x})$ at a given point and

987: in a given event can be very different from any of its expectation

988: values ($\bar Q_s^2$ or $\langle Q_s^2\rangle$) previously

989: introduced. In such a case, the uncertainty principle requires

990: that the minimal size of a spot located at $\bm{x}$ be fixed by

991: the actual value $Q_s^2(\bm{x})$ of the saturation momentum, and

992: not by its expectation value. This means that, in the general

993: action for $\eta$, the kinetic term should compete with the {\em

994: actual} (event--by--event) saturation momentum, and not with its

995: `expectation value' (whatever the meaning of the latter is).

996: 

997: Accordingly, the effective `mass term' in the action should be the

998: field--dependent scale $Q_s^2(\bm{x})\equiv \bar

999: Q_s^2\,{\exp}\{\eta(\bm{x})\}$. This argument suggests the

1000: following generalization of Eq.~(\ref{eq-S0}):

1001:  \beq\label{eq-S1}

1002:  S_1[\eta]\equiv \,\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}\int \dif^2 \bm{x}

1003:  \left\{ (\grad^i \eta)^2 + \bar Q_s^2 \eta^2{\rme}^{\eta}

1004:  \right\}\,,\eeq

1005: which involves an {\em exponential} potential. Clearly, this is

1006: now an interacting field theory in which the parameter $\sigma$

1007: --- which, we recall, is a measure of the dispersion introduced by

1008: fluctuations --- plays the role of a coupling constant, as it can

1009: be recognized after rescaling $\eta\equiv\sigma\phi$ :

1010:  \beq\label{eq-S1phi}

1011:  S_1[\phi]= \int \dif^2 \bm{x}

1012:  \left\{ \frac{1}{2}(\grad^i \phi)^2 +

1013:  \frac{1}{2}\,\bar Q_s^2 \phi^2{\rme}^{\sigma\phi}

1014:  \right\}\,.\eeq

1015: Strong interactions for the field $\phi$ correspond to strong

1016: correlations between spots with different sizes and at different

1017: locations, as physically expected at sufficiently high energy.

1018: However, it should be clear that the {\em precise} form of the

1019: potential for $\phi$, beyond the exponential factor, cannot be

1020: uniquely fixed by the uncertainty principle alone: a factor of

1021: $\phi$ counts like $\ln Q_s$ and hence it cannot modify the

1022: power--counting argument that $\grad^2\sim Q_s^2$. Thus, the

1023: uncertainty principle alone would allow for any potential where

1024: ${\rme}^{\sigma\phi}$ is multiplied by an arbitrary polynomial in

1025: $\phi$.

1026: 

1027: At this point we shall invoke {\em conformal symmetry} to further

1028: specify the form of the potential. As mentioned in the

1029: Introduction, the high--energy evolution equations in QCD in the

1030: leading logarithmic approximation are invariant under scale, and,

1031: more generally, (special) conformal transformations. It is likely

1032: that a similar symmetry should also hold for the correlations

1033: generated by this evolution, at least within limited ranges. This

1034: is a very strong constraint on the effective theory, which almost

1035: uniquely fixes its structure, as we shall explain in what follows.

1036: 

1037: \subsection{Liouville field theory in a nutshell}

1038: Let us temporarily assume that the effective theory should have

1039: {\em exact} conformal symmetry (this assumption cannot right, as

1040: we shall later argue, but it allows us to provide a first

1041: iteration for the effective action). Then, the potential for

1042: $\phi$ is necessarily a pure exponential, and the corresponding

1043: effective action is the same as the {\em classical Liouville

1044: action\footnote{The classical Liouville theory was extensively

1045: studied at the end of the nineteenth century in connection with

1046: the uniformization problem for Riemann surfaces (see, e.g., the

1047: discussion in \cite{GinMoore}).}} \cite{Se90,Tesch} :

1048:  \beq\label{eq-SL}

1049:  S_L[\phi]= \int \dif^2 \bm{x}

1050:  \left\{ \frac{1}{2}(\grad^i \phi)^2 +

1051:  \frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma^2}\,{\rme}^{\sigma\phi}

1052:  \right\}\,.\eeq

1053: A factor $1/\sigma^2$ has been introduced in the coefficient of

1054: the potential to ensure that, in the weak--coupling limit

1055: $\sigma\to 0$ with fixed $\eta\equiv\sigma\phi$, both terms in the

1056: action are of $\mcal{O}(1/\sigma^2)$. Also, for later convenience,

1057: we have replaced the mass scale $\bar Q_s^2$ in front of the

1058: potential by the generic scale $Q_0^2$. Correspondingly, we

1059: re-interpret the field $\phi$ as

1060:  \beq\label{eq-phidef}

1061:  \phi(\bm{x})\,\equiv\,\frac{1}{\sigma}\,\ln\frac {Q_s^2(\bm{x})}

1062:  {Q_0^2}\,,\eeq

1063: so that the quantity

1064: ${Q_0^2}\,{\rme}^{\sigma\phi(\bm{x})}=Q_s^2(\bm{x})$ preserves its

1065: original meaning as the event--by--event saturation momentum (a

1066: composite, `vertex', operator in the present field theory).

1067: 

1068: The exponential potential has the remarkable property to be

1069: invariant under conformal transformations provided one allows the

1070: field $\phi$ to change by a shift under such transformations.

1071: Consider indeed the scale transformation $\bm{x} \to \lambda

1072: \bm{x}$ with $\lambda > 0$. Then the action (\ref{eq-SL}) is

1073: invariant under the following transformations:

1074:  \beq\label{eq-lambda}

1075:  \bm{x} &\,\to\,& \bm{x}' = \lambda \bm{x}\nn

1076:  \phi(\bm{x})&\,\to\,& \phi'(\bm{x}')\,=\,\phi(\bm{x})\,-\,

1077:  \frac{2}{\sigma}\,\ln\lambda\,.

1078:  \eeq

1079: More generally, $S_L$ is invariant under {\em local} conformal

1080: transformations, that is, the general holomorphic transformations

1081: of the complex plane (which include the special, or global,

1082: conformal transformations). To formulate this symmetry, it is

1083: convenient to introduce complex notations: $\bm{x}=(x_1,x_2) \to z

1084: = x_1 + \rmi x_2$. Then, the action (\ref{eq-SL}) is invariant

1085: under

1086:   \beq\label{eq-conf}

1087:  z &\,\to\,& w=f(z)\nn

1088:  \phi(z)&\,\to\,& \phi'(w)\,=\,\phi(z)\,-\,

1089:  \frac{1}{\sigma}\,\ln\left|\frac{\del f}{\del z}\right|^2\,.

1090:  \eeq

1091: since, e.g., $\rme^{\sigma\phi}\dif z\dif \bar

1092: z=\rme^{\sigma\phi'}\dif w\dif \bar w$.

1093: 

1094: Via an appropriate quantization procedure, which turns out to be

1095: quite non--trivial \cite{Se90,Tesch}, the above symmetry

1096: properties can be carried over to the {\em quantum} version of the

1097: Liouville field theory (QLFT), with important consequences: First,

1098: being invariant under a continuum class of symmetry

1099: transformations, the quantum Liouville theory is {\em integrable}.

1100: Second, the point--dependence of the correlation functions of the

1101: vertex operator $V(\bm{x})\equiv{\exp}\{\sigma\phi(\bm{x})\}$ is,

1102: to a large extent, fixed by the Ward identities associated with

1103: conformal transformations (see, e.g., the textbook discussion in

1104: \cite{CFT}). This yields, e.g.,

1105:    \beq\label{eq-VL}

1106:   \langle V(\bm{x})V(\bm{y})\rangle&\,=\,&

1107:   \frac{C_2(\sigma)}

1108:   {|\bm{x-y}|^{4}Q_0^{4}}

1109:   \,,\nn

1110:   \langle V(\bm{x})V(\bm{y})V(\bm{z})\rangle&\,=\,&

1111:     \frac{C_3(\sigma)}

1112:   {|\bm{x-y}|^{2}|\bm{y-z}|^{2}|\bm{z-x}^{2}|Q_0^6}

1113: \,,

1114:  \eeq

1115: where the coefficients $C_2(\sigma)$, $C_3(\sigma)$, etc., are

1116: known {\em exactly} \cite{DO94,ZZ96}. These formul\ae{} follow

1117: from the conformal symmetry of the (properly defined) path

1118: integral together with the fact that $V(\bm{x})$ is a primary

1119: field with scaling dimension $\Delta=1$ (cf.

1120: Eq.~(\ref{eq-lambda})) :

1121:  \beq\label{eq-Vlambda}

1122:  \bm{x} \,\to\,\bm{x}' = \lambda \bm{x}\quad\Longrightarrow\quad

1123:  V(\bm{x})&\,\to\,& V'(\bm{x}')\,=\, \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\,V(\bm{x})\,

1124:  \equiv\,\frac{1}{\lambda^{2\Delta}}\,V(\bm{x})\,.

1125:  \eeq

1126: This particular transformation law for the vertex operator is

1127: natural from the point of view of  QCD: under a scale

1128: transformation, the saturation momentum $Q_s^2(\bm{x})\equiv

1129: {Q_0^2}V(\bm{x})$ transforms as an operator with mass dimension

1130: two, which is its physical dimension indeed.

1131: 

1132: A rather subtle aspect of LFT, which complicates its quantum

1133: implementation, refers to the interplay between ultraviolet

1134: renormalization and conformal symmetry: although

1135: superrenormalizable (since the exponential potential can be

1136: expanded out in a series in powers of $\phi$ and each term in this

1137: series is superrenormalizable in $d=2$), the quantum theory

1138: requires renormalization to remove `tadpole' divergences

1139: --- i.e., divergences associated with the equal--point limit of

1140: the propagator. Such divergences arise from contracting fields at

1141: the same point and thus can be eliminated by normal--ordering the

1142: operators. But this procedure introduces `anomalous dimensions'

1143: for the vertex operators (their scaling dimensions acquire quantum

1144: corrections), which could spoil conformal symmetry. To maintain

1145: the symmetry, the theory is modified in such a way to ensure that

1146: the vertex operator $V=\rme^{\sigma\phi}$ which enters the action

1147: preserves at quantum level the classical dimension $\Delta=1$, cf.

1148: Eq.~(\ref{eq-Vlambda}). Note however that for a generic vertex

1149: operator $V_\alpha\equiv\rme^{\alpha\phi}$ with $\alpha\ne\sigma$,

1150: the ensuing quantum dimension is different from the respective

1151: prediction $\Delta_\alpha^{\rm (cl)}=\alpha/\sigma$ of the

1152: classical Liouville theory (cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq-lambda})) (see, e.g.,

1153: \cite{Se90,ZZ96,Tesch}). Here, we do not need to discuss these

1154: complications in more detail because, as we shall see, they do not

1155: show up in the modified version of the Liouville theory that we

1156: shall propose as an effective theory for the QCD problem at hand.

1157: In fact, the only reason for us to mention these subtleties here,

1158: it is to emphasize, by contrast, the situation in our final theory

1159: (cf. Sect. \ref{SECT-EFT}), where all such UV complications

1160: disappear.

1161: 

1162: But before turning to that presentation, let us rapidly explain

1163: why the standard QLFT cannot be, by itself, the complete effective

1164: theory that we need in QCD. The problem comes precisely from that

1165: feature of this theory which is also its main virtue : the exact

1166: conformal symmetry. Because of this symmetry, QLFT involves no

1167: real mass scale --- the scale $Q_0^2$ apparent in

1168: Eq.~(\ref{eq-SL}) has no intrinsic meaning since its magnitude can

1169: be changed at will (and thus made arbitrarily large or arbitrarily

1170: small) by shifting the field $\phi$ under the path integral ---,

1171: and hence it cannot describe a non--trivial gluon distribution, as

1172: characterized by a non--zero expectation value for the saturation

1173: momentum. In fact, the Ward identities for conformal symmetry

1174: \cite{CFT} imply $\langle V(\bm{x})\rangle=0$, showing that, from

1175: the perspective of QCD, the LFT would be a theory for

1176: fluctuations, but ... without matter: $\langle

1177: Q_s^2(\bm{x})\rangle=0$ at any $\bm{x}$ in pure QLFT !

1178: 

1179: The same basic problem can be seen under different angles,

1180: revealing as many `paradoxes' from the point of view of QCD: The

1181: exponential potential in Eq.~(\ref{eq-SL}) has no local minimum

1182: and becomes flat when $\phi$ is negative and large; hence, the

1183: classical field is rolling down to $-\infty$ and, correspondingly,

1184: the quantum theory has no stable ground state. Because of that, it

1185: makes no sense to compute the correlation functions of the field

1186: $\phi$ --- only the correlations of the vertex operator

1187: $V_\alpha\equiv\rme^{\alpha\phi}$ (with generic $\alpha$), or the

1188: mixed correlations involving both $\phi$ and $V_\alpha$, are {\em

1189: a priori} well defined. Still because of the lack of a stable

1190: ground state, there is no fundamental difference between `weak'

1191: and `strong' coupling in QLFT:  the vertex correlation functions

1192: exhibit the same power--law behaviour, cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq-VL}), for

1193: {\em any} value of $\sigma$, small or large, since this behaviour

1194: is fixed by conformal symmetry alone. Besides, the coefficients in

1195: these correlations, so like $C_2(\sigma)$ and $C_3(\sigma)$ in

1196: Eq.~(\ref{eq-VL}), show interesting `self--duality' properties

1197: under the exchange $\sigma\leftrightarrow 1/\sigma$ \cite{ZZ96}.

1198: There is furthermore no distinction between `short' and `long'

1199: distances, precisely because there is no intrinsic mass scale in

1200: the theory: QLFT generates power--law correlations for the vertex

1201: operators on {\em all} scales.

1202: 

1203: Clearly, all these properties would be unacceptable in the

1204: framework of our original QCD problem, where, on the contrary, we

1205: expect pronounced differences between the weak and the strong

1206: coupling regimes, or between short and large distances. To

1207: understand the way out of such paradoxes, let us remind that, in

1208: the context of QCD, the conformal symmetry characteristic of the

1209: evolution equations is explicitly broken by the initial condition

1210: at $Y=0$, which introduces a physical scale in the problem. It is

1211: the subsequent evolution of this scale with increasing energy

1212: which fixes the average saturation momentum at some later $Y$. But

1213: the effective theory that we are looking for is not a theory for

1214: the evolution, but rather for the {\em results} in this evolution

1215: (in terms of correlations of $Q_s$) at the final rapidity $Y$. In

1216: this theory, the average saturation momentum at $Y$ is a parameter

1217: that must be introduced by hand, with the effect that conformal

1218: symmetry is explicitly broken. A particularly simple

1219: implementation of this idea will be described in the next section.

1220: 

1221: 

1222: \subsection{Liouville field theory with a homogeneous source term}

1223: \label{SECT-EFT}

1224: 

1225: From now on, we shall adopt the point of view that the Liouville

1226: action describes the {\em fluctuations} in the high--energy

1227: evolution (since it has the correct symmetry in that sense), but

1228: that in order to also describe the {\em average} gluon

1229: distribution, this action must be supplemented with a `source

1230: term' which breaks down the scale symmetry and thus provides a

1231: non--zero expectation value for the saturation momentum. We shall

1232: consider here the simplest source term, namely, an operator linear

1233: in $\phi$ whose strength (the source density) is adjusted in such

1234: a way to produce a prescribed value for the average saturation

1235: momentum. For simplicity, we shall first consider a {\em

1236: homogeneous} gluon distribution, as produced by the high--energy

1237: evolution of an initial distribution which was itself homogeneous

1238: (say, a `large nucleus' in the context of the

1239: McLerran--Venugopalan model \cite{MV}). This is not a very strong

1240: restriction, since the typical length scales that we shall be

1241: interested in at high energy are anyway much shorter than the

1242: scales characterizing the inhomogeneity in a physical hadron at

1243: low energy.

1244: 

1245: We thus introduce the following extension of the Liouville action:

1246: $S=S_L + j\int_{\bm{x}}\phi(\bm{x})$, where $S_L$ is given by

1247: Eq.~(\ref{eq-SL}) and $j$ is the source density, assumed to be

1248: homogeneous. There are several ways to fix $j$, all of them

1249: leading to the same result. For instance, by requiring $S$ to

1250: reduce to the Gaussian action (\ref{eq-S0}) in the limit of small

1251: fluctuations/weak coupling $\sigma\phi\ll 1$, one immediately

1252: finds that the source term should remove the linear term from the

1253: expansion of the Liouville exponential. One thus finds:

1254:   \beq\label{eq-OURS}

1255:  S[\phi]= \int \dif^2 \bm{x}

1256:  \left\{ \frac{1}{2}(\grad^i \phi)^2 +

1257:  \frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma^2}\,\Big({\rme}^{\sigma\phi}  - \sigma\phi

1258:  -1\Big)

1259:  \right\}\,,\eeq

1260: where we have also subtracted the constant, unit, term from the

1261: exponential, for convenience. By construction, the above action

1262: has the saddle point $\phi=0$, which controls the dynamics in the

1263: weak coupling (i.e., low energy) regime $\sigma\ll 1$. More

1264: generally, the above potential has a unique minimum at $\phi=0$,

1265: which implies that the quantum theory defined by $S$ has a stable

1266: ground state (at least, in perturbation theory). In particular,

1267: within this theory it makes sense to perturbatively compute the

1268: correlation functions of $\phi$ (unlike in LFT).

1269: 

1270: 

1271: The comparison between Eq.~(\ref{eq-OURS}) and the quadratic

1272: action in Eq.~(\ref{eq-S0}) seems to suggest $Q_0^2 \equiv\bar

1273: Q_s^2$. However, this identification is wrong in general --- it

1274: holds only as an approximate equality in the weak--coupling regime

1275: where the action (\ref{eq-OURS}) is supposed to reduce to

1276: Eq.~(\ref{eq-S0}). To make the proper identification in the

1277: general case, consider the first Dyson equation generated by

1278: Eq.~(\ref{eq-OURS}), that is

1279:     \beq\label{eq-Dyson}

1280:   \lan \frac{\delta S}{\delta

1281:   \phi(\bm{x})}\ran=\,0\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad

1282:   -\grad^2\!\lan\phi(\bm{x})\ran +

1283:   \frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma}\,\lan

1284:   {\rme}^{\sigma\phi}\ran=\,\frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma}\,.

1285:   \eeq

1286: By homogeneity, the mean field $\lan\phi(\bm{x})\ran$ is

1287: independent of $\bm{x}$, hence $\grad^2\!\lan\phi\ran =0$, and

1288: then Eq.~(\ref{eq-Dyson}) implies:

1289:     \beq\label{eq-V1}

1290:  \lan {\rme}^{\sigma\phi}\ran\,=\,1\,,\qquad\mbox{or}\qquad

1291:   \langle Q_s^2 \rangle\,\equiv\,Q_0^2 \,\lan

1292:  {\rm e}^{\sigma\phi}\ran\,=\,Q_0^2\,.

1293:  \eeq

1294: Thus, the scale $Q_0^2$ in the action (\ref{eq-OURS}) must be

1295: understood as the {\em average saturation momentum} in the sense

1296: of Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSdef2}) (and not of Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSdef1}) !). In

1297: fact, one could have alternatively determined the value of the

1298: source density $j$ by directly requiring $\langle Q_s^2 \rangle

1299: =Q_0^2$ (rather than going through a weak coupling argument); via

1300: the first Dyson equation, this condition would have again implied

1301: $j=-Q_0^2/\sigma$, as above.

1302: 

1303: Note the importance of the source term in the action for the

1304: previous argument: without that term, the r.h.s. of

1305: Eq.~(\ref{eq-Dyson}) would be zero, and then the only solution

1306: consistent with homogeneity would be $\langle

1307: {\rme}^{\sigma\phi}\rangle=0$, as expected in QLFT. The source

1308: term explicitly breaks down conformal symmetry and thus introduces

1309: a mass scale in the problem, to be physically identified with the

1310: average value of the saturation momentum. To better appreciate the

1311: role of the source term in that sense, imagine starting with two

1312: different scales, say, $M^2$ (instead of $Q_0^2$) in front of the

1313: Liouville potential in Eq.~(\ref{eq-SL}) and $Q_0^2$ in front of

1314: the source term. After shifting the field as

1315: $\phi=\tilde\phi+\phi_0$, with $\sigma\phi_0\equiv

1316: \ln(Q_0^2/M^2)$, the scale $M^2$ gets replaced by $Q_0^2$ in the

1317: action for $\tilde\phi$. This `scale transmutation' is generic in

1318: relation with LFT: since the Liouville potential is by itself

1319: scale--invariant, the associated mass parameter ($M^2$ in the

1320: above discussion) adjusts itself to the scale introduced by the

1321: symmetry--violating term, if any.

1322: 

1323: Eq.~(\ref{eq-V1}) is remarkable also in a different respect: it

1324: shows that, in the present theory, the one--point function

1325: $\langle {\rme}^{\sigma\phi}\rangle$ is {\em finite} (and equal to

1326: one) without any ultraviolet renormalization. This is remarkable

1327: since, {\em a priori}, one would expect this quantity to be

1328: dominated by the fluctuations with the highest momenta and thus be

1329: afflicted with ultraviolet divergences. This was already the case

1330: in the free field theory, cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq-Vren}), and this is

1331: also the general situation in the known two--dimensional field

1332: theories, which are superrenormalizable, but not strictly finite.

1333: The finite result in Eq.~(\ref{eq-V1}) anticipates a more general

1334: property of the effective theory (\ref{eq-OURS}), that we shall

1335: verify in Sect. \ref{SECT_UV} via explicit perturbative

1336: calculations up to two--loop order\,: Namely, this theory is {\em

1337: ultraviolet finite}, in the following sense: all the $n$--point

1338: functions (with $n\ge 2$) of the Liouville field $\phi$, as well

1339: as all the $n$--point correlation functions (with $n\ge 1$) of the

1340: vertex operator $V=\rme^{\sigma\phi}$, come out truly finite when

1341: computed in perturbation theory and thus do not require

1342: ultraviolet renormalization. (More general operators, however,

1343: like $\rme^{\alpha\phi}$ with $\alpha\ne\sigma$, can still meet

1344: with UV divergences, which then can be renormalized in the

1345: standard way.) As we shall discover in Sect. \ref{SECT_UV}, this

1346: UV--finiteness comes out as a result of order--by--order

1347: cancellations between divergent, `tadpole', diagrams, which are

1348: abundantly produced by the perturbative expansion, but which

1349: precisely cancel with each other, due to the special symmetry

1350: factors of the interaction vertices. An important consequence of

1351: such cancellations is that the vertex operator has no anomalous

1352: dimension.

1353: 

1354: But whereas the perturbation theory for the effective theory is

1355: meaningful and rather straightforward (see Sect. \ref{SECT_UV}),

1356: it is on the other hand difficult to derive firm results about the

1357: non--perturbative behaviour of the theory in the interesting

1358: regime at high energy, or strong coupling, $\sigma\gg 1$ (with the

1359: noticeable exception of Eq.~(\ref{eq-V1})). Unlike in the standard

1360: Liouville theory, here one cannot rely anymore on conformal

1361: symmetry to deduce, or at least constrain, the general form of the

1362: correlations. In what follows we shall attempt to deduce some

1363: general properties of the theory from a qualitative analysis of

1364: its action (\ref{eq-OURS}).

1365: 

1366: 

1367: Since this action involves a physical mass scale $Q_0^2$, which is

1368: moreover the curvature of the potential at its minimum, it is

1369: quite clear that the correlation functions in this theory should

1370: die out exponentially over sufficiently large distances $R\gg

1371: 1/Q_0$. However, the potential in Eq.~(\ref{eq-OURS}) is not a

1372: standard mass term for $\phi$, and this difference has interesting

1373: consequences:

1374: 

1375: First, the minimum of the potential, which roughly speaking

1376: indicates the most probable value for the saturation momentum,

1377: occurs at a harder scale in Eq.~(\ref{eq-OURS}) than it was the

1378: case in the free field theory (\ref{eq-S0}), or in the Gaussian

1379: approximation (\ref{eq-prob}). Indeed, in Eq.~(\ref{eq-OURS}) this

1380: minimum corresponds to $Q_s^2=Q_0^2 \equiv Q_0^2 \langle {\rm

1381: e}^{\sigma\phi}\rangle$, whereas in Eqs.~(\ref{eq-S0}) and

1382: (\ref{eq-prob}) it rather corresponds to $Q_s^2=\bar Q_s^2\equiv

1383: {Q_0^2}\,{\rme}^{\sigma\langle\phi\rangle}$ (recall

1384: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-QSdef1})--(\ref{eq-QSdef2})). Since $\langle {\rm

1385: e}^{\sigma\phi}\rangle$ is always larger than

1386: ${\rme}^{\sigma\langle\phi\rangle}$, it is clear that, in the

1387: theory with action (\ref{eq-OURS}), the fluctuations in $Q_s^2$

1388: are pushed towards harder scales, as anticipated.

1389: 

1390: Second, unlike the quadratic potential in Eqs.~(\ref{eq-S0}) or

1391: (\ref{eq-prob}), the one in Eq.~(\ref{eq-OURS}) is asymmetric

1392: under $\phi\to -\phi$, and this asymmetry is very pronounced for

1393: the relatively strong fluctuations with $\sigma\phi\simge 1$: the

1394: potential favors large {\em negative} fluctuations as opposed to

1395: large {\em positive} ones. One may think that the exponential

1396: piece of this potential totally forbids the fluctuations with

1397: $\sigma\phi \simge 1$ (or $Q_s^2\gg Q_0^2$), but this is actually

1398: not so: arbitrarily hard fluctuations with $Q_s^2\gg Q_0^2$ are

1399: still allowed, because they have tiny sizes and thus give small

1400: contributions to the action. Such a propensity towards small--size

1401: fluctuations is of course natural in any field theory, but this is

1402: not properly taken into account by the coarse--graining

1403: approximation (\ref{eq-prob}), which ignores any information about

1404: the sizes of the spots.

1405: 

1406: To be (slightly) more quantitative, let us estimate the

1407: contribution of a fluctuation with size $R$ to the action. The

1408: typical gradients for this configuration are $\grad \sim 1/R$,

1409: hence the kinetic term contributes $\int_{R} (\grad^i \phi)^2 \sim

1410: R^2 (\grad^i \phi)^2 \sim \phi^2$. After similarly estimating the

1411: potential term, one has

1412:  \beq\label{eq-SR}

1413:  S(R) \,\sim\, \phi^2 \,+ R^2\,\frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma^2}\,

1414:  \big({\rme}^{\sigma\phi}\,  -

1415:  \,{\sigma}{\phi} \big)

1416:  \,.\eeq

1417: Roughly speaking, the allowed fluctuations are those for which

1418: $S(R)\simle 1$.

1419: 

1420: Consider first the situation in pure Liouville theory, i.e.,

1421: without the source term; then, whatever the value of $R$ is, the

1422: exponential potential allows for all the fluctuations with $\phi

1423: \simle \phi_{\rm max}$, with $\sigma\phi_{\rm max} \equiv \ln(

1424: \sigma^2/R^2Q_0^2)$. Note that $\sigma\phi_{\rm max}$ can be

1425: arbitrarily large, as anticipated, provided $R$ is correspondingly

1426: small. The correlation functions of the vertex operator are

1427: dominated by the fluctuations with maximal field strength, which

1428: implies, e.g.,

1429:  \beq\label{eq-VL2}

1430:   \langle {\rme}^{\sigma\phi(\bm{x})}{\rme}^{\sigma\phi(\bm{y})}

1431:   \rangle\,\sim\,

1432:   \frac{\sigma^4}

1433:   {R^{4}Q_0^{4}}\qquad\mbox{where}\qquad |\bm{x-y}| = R,\eeq

1434: in qualitative agreement (in so far as the $R$--dependence is

1435: concerned) with the correct result, Eq.~(\ref{eq-VL}). Note also

1436: that the saturation momentum for the relevant fluctuations is

1437: correlated to their size, ${Q_0^2}{\rme}^{\sigma\phi_{\rm max}}

1438: \simge 1/R^2$, in agreement with the uncertainty principle.

1439: 

1440: We now turn to the full potential, including the linear source

1441: term. Then, we need to distinguish between two kinds of

1442: fluctuations --- small--size and large--size ---, according to the

1443: value of the ratio $R^2Q_0^2/\sigma^2$ :

1444: 

1445: 

1446: \texttt{(i)} When $R^2Q_0^2\ll \sigma^2$, we expect the same

1447: situation as in pure Liouville theory\footnote{We implicitly

1448: assume here that the coupling is sufficiently strong:

1449: $\sigma\simge 1$.}. Indeed, in this case, the potential in

1450: Eq.~(\ref{eq-SR}) authorizes fluctuations within the relatively

1451: wide range $\phi_{\rm min} \simle \phi \simle \phi_{\rm max}$,

1452: with $\phi_{\rm max}$ as above and ${\sigma}\phi_{\rm min}\equiv -

1453: \sigma^2/R^2Q_0^2$. The correlations of ${\rme}^{\sigma\phi}$ are

1454: controlled by the fields towards the upper limit, where the source

1455: term is negligible; that is, they are determined by the Liouville

1456: piece of the action, and thus are power--like, with the same

1457: powers as in LFT.

1458: 

1459: \texttt{(ii)} On the other hand, for $R^2Q_0^2\simge \sigma^2$,

1460: the potential allows only weak--amplitude fluctuations, such that

1461: ${\sigma}|\phi|\simle\sigma^2/R^2Q_0^2\simle 1$. (By itself, the

1462: exponential piece of the potential would also allow for larger

1463: negative values, but these are suppressed by the source term.)

1464: Within this range, the potential reduces to a quadratic mass term

1465: with mass $Q_0^2$. Hence, the large--size fluctuations die out

1466: exponentially over a typical distance $1/Q_0$.

1467: 

1468: To summarize, the (admittedly crude) estimates above suggest that,

1469: in the effective theory with action (\ref{eq-OURS}), the

1470: correlations of the vertex operator ${\rm e}^{\sigma\phi}$ have a

1471: power--law behaviour, with Liouville--like exponents, over short

1472: distances $R\simle 1/Q_0$, but they decay exponentially over

1473: larger distances $R\gg 1/Q_0$. Note that, in order to conclude in

1474: favor of Liouville--like exponents at short distances, it was

1475: essential that the vertex operator has no anomalous dimension, as

1476: we shall check via perturbative calculations in Sect.

1477: \ref{SECT_UV}.

1478: 

1479: 

1480: \subsection{A more general source term}

1481: \label{SECT-SOURCE}

1482: 

1483: A physical hadron is never homogeneous, and the original

1484: inhomogeneity at low energy gets transmitted to, and it is

1485: modified by, the high energy evolution. Assume, e.g., that one

1486: starts with a large nucleus at $Y=0$, in which the gluon density

1487: is large and quasi--homogeneous inside a large disk of radius $R$,

1488: but it rapidly drops out to zero at impact parameters larger than

1489: $R$ (so like in the McLerran--Venugopalan model \cite{MV}).

1490: Whatever was the initial law for this fall--off at large

1491: distances, it will get replaced by a {\em power} law after

1492: evolving the system to sufficiently high energies according to the

1493: perturbative evolution equations in QCD. The BK equation (or,

1494: equivalently, the BFKL equation supplemented with a saturation

1495: boundary condition) predicts that, for the saturation momentum,

1496: this power must be 4: $Q_s^2(\bm{x})\sim 1/x^4$ for $x\gg R$ (see,

1497: e.g., \cite{MW03,GBS03}). It is therefore interesting to consider

1498: generalizations of the effective theory introduced in the previous

1499: subsection which allow for a inhomogeneous source term. The action

1500: then becomes $S=S_L + \int_{\bm{x}} j(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{x})$, with

1501: $j(\bm{x})$ describing the strength and the impact parameter

1502: dependence of the average saturation momentum.

1503: 

1504: The functional form of $j(\bm{x})$ is in principle fixed by the

1505: underlying evolution equations (together with the initial

1506: conditions at low energy) and represents a `free parameter' from

1507: the perspective of the effective theory. Here, we shall

1508: parameterize this in the form

1509:   \beq\label{eq-jphi0}

1510:  j(\bm{x})\,=\,- \frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma}\,

1511:  {\rme}^{\sigma\phi_0(\bm{x})}\,,\eeq

1512: where $Q_0^2(Y)$ determines the value of the average saturation

1513: momentum at the center of the hadron and at rapidity $Y$, whereas

1514: the function $\phi_0(\bm{x})$, with $\phi_0(0)=0$, describes the

1515: profile of $\langle Q_s^2(\bm{x})\rangle$ in impact--parameter

1516: space. As previously mentioned, a physically motivated choice is

1517:   \beq\label{eq-phi0x}

1518:  {\rme}^{\sigma\phi_0(\bm{x})}\,=\,\frac{1}{[1+x^2/R^2]^2}

1519:  \,,\eeq

1520: with $x=|\bm{x}|$ and $R$ the hadron radius at $Y=0$. The current

1521: in Eq.~(\ref{eq-jphi0})--(\ref{eq-phi0x}) is clearly only an

1522: approximation, as it implicitly assumes that the evolutions in $Y$

1523: and in $\bm{x}$ decouple from each other; yet, this approximation

1524: captures the salient features of this evolution, namely the fact

1525: that the (average) saturation momentum rises rapidly with $Y$ at

1526: any $x$ and it develops a $1/x^4$--tail at distances $x\gg R$. We

1527: shall furthermore assume that $Q_0^2(Y) R^2 \gg 1$ at any $Y$, as

1528: appropriate for a sufficiently large nucleus which is relatively

1529: dense already at $Y=0$ and has a size $R$ fixed by the

1530: non--perturbative, soft, physics.

1531: 

1532: The first Dyson equation corresponding to this current, that is

1533: (cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq-Dyson}))

1534:     \beq\label{eq-Dysonj}

1535:   -\grad^2\!\lan\phi(\bm{x})\ran +

1536:   \frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma}\,\lan

1537:   {\rme}^{\sigma\phi(\bm{x})}\ran=\,\frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma}\,

1538:  {\rme}^{\sigma\phi_0(\bm{x})}\,,

1539:   \eeq

1540: cannot be exactly solved in general, but it clearly implies

1541: $\langle Q_s^2(\bm{x})\rangle\approx Q_0^2\,

1542: {\rme}^{\sigma\phi_0(\bm{x})}$. (Indeed, the scale of the

1543: inhomogeneity being fixed by $R$, one has $|\grad^2\!\lan\phi\ran|

1544: \sim R^2$, which is much smaller than ${Q_0^2}/{\sigma}$ at any

1545: $Y$.)

1546: 

1547: It is furthermore quite clear that the short--distance behaviour

1548: of the theory (on distance scales $r\ll R$) cannot be changed by

1549: the soft inhomogeneity visible in Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi0x}). In

1550: particular, the relevant correlation functions (those of the

1551: Liouville field and of the vertex operator

1552: ${\rme}^{\sigma\phi(\bm{x})}$) are still ultraviolet finite. Also,

1553: these correlations preserve the same behaviour on short ($r\simle

1554: 1/Q_0$) and intermediate ($1/Q_0 \ll r\ll R$) distances as in the

1555: homogeneous case. On the other hand, on very large distances $r\gg

1556: R$, the correlation should show a slower decay, although still

1557: exponential, because the effective mass for this decay, namely

1558: $\langle Q_s^2(\bm{x})\rangle$, becomes smaller and smaller when

1559: increasing the distance from the origin.

1560: 

1561: The role of $\langle Q_s^2(\bm{x})\rangle$ as an effective mass

1562: becomes manifest on the expansion of the action $S$ around its

1563: saddle point at $\sigma\to 0$, as appropriate for the purposes of

1564: perturbation theory. Specifically, the saddle point condition is

1565: obtained by removing the brackets in Eq.~(\ref{eq-Dysonj}) and

1566: determines the classical solution $\phi_{\rm cl}(\bm{x})$ :

1567:  \beq\label{eq-saddle}

1568:   -\grad^2\,\phi_{\rm cl}(\bm{x}) +

1569:   \frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma}\,

1570:   {\rme}^{\sigma\phi_{\rm cl}(\bm{x})}=\,\frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma}\,

1571:  {\rme}^{\sigma\phi_0(\bm{x})}\,.

1572:   \eeq

1573: For instance, for the particular current (\ref{eq-phi0x}), the

1574: above equation can be easily solved to give

1575:  \beq\label{eq-phicl}

1576:  {\rme}^{\sigma\phi_{\rm cl}(\bm{x})}\,=\,\frac{C}{[1+x^2/R^2]^2}

1577:  \qquad \mbox{with}\qquad C = 1 - \frac{8}{Q_0^2 R^2}\,\approx 1

1578:  \,.

1579:  \eeq

1580: By separating $\phi=\phi_{\rm cl}+\delta\phi$ and expanding around

1581: $\phi_{\rm cl}$, one finds the action which governs the dynamics

1582: of the fluctuation field $\delta\phi$:

1583:   \beq\label{eq-deltaphi}

1584:  S[\phi]&\,=\,& S[\phi_{\rm cl}]+\int \dif^2 \bm{x}

1585:  \left\{ \frac{1}{2}(\grad^i \delta\phi)^2 +

1586:  \frac{Q_{\rm cl}^2(\bm{x})}

1587:  {\sigma^2}\,\Big({\rme}^{\sigma\delta\phi}  - \sigma\delta\phi

1588:  -1\Big)

1589:  \right\}\nn&\,=\,&

1590:  S[\phi_{\rm cl}]+\int \dif^2 \bm{x}

1591:  \left\{ \frac{1}{2}(\grad^i \delta\phi)^2 +

1592:  \frac{1}{2}{Q_{\rm cl}^2(\bm{x})}\delta\phi^2

1593:  + Q_{\rm cl}^2(\bm{x})\sum_{k\ge 3}\,

1594:  \frac{\sigma^{k-2}\delta\phi^k}{k!}\right\}

1595:  \,,\eeq

1596: where $Q_{\rm cl}^2(\bm{x})\equiv Q_0^2{\rme}^{\sigma\phi_{\rm

1597: cl}(\bm{x})}$ is the value of $\langle Q_s^2(\bm{x})\rangle$ in

1598: the saddle point approximation, and plays the role of a

1599: point--dependent mass for $\delta\phi$, as anticipated. The

1600: expansion in the second line of Eq.~(\ref{eq-deltaphi}) will be

1601: used in the perturbative calculations to be presented in the next

1602: section (for the homogeneous case $\phi_0=0$, for simplicity).

1603: 

1604: \section{Ultraviolet finiteness of the correlation functions}

1605: \setcounter{equation}{0}\label{SECT_UV}

1606: 

1607: In this section, we shall demonstrate via explicit calculations

1608: that some interesting classes of correlations generated by the

1609: effective theory are ultraviolet finite in perturbation theory.

1610: Our calculations will be performed only to finite orders (namely,

1611: up to two--loop order), and thus they cannot be seen as a

1612: complete, and even less rigorous, proof in that sense. Yet, as we

1613: shall see, they reveal a very non--trivial pattern of tadpole

1614: cancellations, which is very unlikely to be accidental, but most

1615: probably is representative for the way how such cancellations

1616: proceed to all orders in the perturbative expansion.

1617: 

1618: The correlations that we shall show to be finite are the

1619: $n$--point {\em connected} correlation functions of $\phi$ with

1620: $n\ge 2$ and all the $n$--point correlation functions (with $n\ge

1621: 1$) of the vertex operator $V=\rme^{\sigma\phi}$. The mean field

1622: $\langle\phi\rangle$, on the other hand, appears {\em not} to be

1623: finite, as its perturbative expansion starts with a divergent

1624: contribution of $\mcal{O}(\sigma)$ (while the respective

1625: corrections of higher orders are still found be finite). But this

1626: unique divergence plays an essential role in that it cancels, via

1627: its iterations, similar divergences which appear in the expansion

1628: of the vertex operator and in the disconnected pieces of the

1629: $n$--point functions of $\phi$.

1630: 

1631: \subsection{The $n$--point functions of the Liouville field}

1632: \label{SECT_CorrelPhi}

1633: 

1634: We shall first consider the $n$--point functions of the Liouville

1635: field $\phi$, which are interesting not only by themselves, but

1636: also as ingredients in the respective calculations for the vertex

1637: operator, to be presented in the next subsection.

1638: 

1639: As a representative example, we shall consider the perturbative

1640: expansion for 2--point function $\langle

1641: \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\rangle$ up to $\mcal{O}(\sigma^4)$,

1642: meaning two--loop order for the self--energy. Our presentation

1643: will focus on the systematics of tadpole cancellations, which is

1644: our main concern here.

1645: 

1646: The expectation value is defined by the following path integral:

1647:    \beq\label{eq-phi2}

1648:  \lan \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran\equiv \,\frac{1}{Z}

1649:  \int D[\phi]\,\,\phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\,

1650:  \rme^{-S[\phi]}\,,

1651:  \eeq

1652: where $S$ is the action in Eq.~(\ref{eq-OURS}) and $Z$ denotes the

1653: partition function: $Z\equiv \int

1654: D[\phi]\,\exp\left\{-S[\phi]\right\}$. For the purposes of the

1655: perturbation theory, we separate the quadratic and the interaction

1656: parts of $S$ in the standard way: $S=S_0+S_{\rm int}$, where

1657:    \beq\label{eq-Sf}

1658:   S_0[\phi]\equiv \,\frac{1}{2}\int \dif^2 \bm{x}

1659:  \left\{ (\grad^i \phi)^2 + Q_0^2 \phi^2\right\}\,,\eeq

1660: provides the free propagator $D$ (that is, Eq.~(\ref{eq-D0}) with

1661: $\bar Q_s^2\to Q_0^2$), and

1662:  \beq\label{eq-Sint}

1663:   S_{\rm int}[\phi]\equiv \,\frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma^2}\int \dif^2 \bm{x}

1664:  \,\left\{{\rme}^{\sigma\phi} -1 - \sigma\phi

1665:  -\frac{1}{2}(\sigma\phi)^2

1666:  \right\} =\,\sigma Q_0^2\int \dif^2 \bm{x} \sum_{k\ge 3}\,

1667:  \frac{\sigma^{k-3}\phi^k}{k!}

1668:  \,,\eeq

1669: provides the interaction vertices. The special symmetry factors

1670: associated with these vertices, as generated by the expansion of

1671: the exponential, lie at the heart of the ultraviolet finiteness to

1672: be demonstrated below: at any given order in perturbation theory,

1673: tadpoles produced by various vertices $\phi^k$ cancel with each

1674: other, because of these special symmetry factors.

1675: 

1676: The following identity, involving the free propagator, will be

1677: also useful in what follows :

1678:   \beq\label{eq-intD0}

1679:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z})

1680:  \equiv \int \dif^2 \bm{z}\int\frac{\dif^2 \bm{k}}{(2\pi)^2}

1681:  \,\frac{\rme^{i\bm{k}\cdot \bm{(x-z)}}}{k^2+Q_0^2}\,

1682:  \,=\,\frac{1}{Q_0^2}\,.\eeq

1683: 

1684: 

1685: 

1686: \begin{figure}

1687: \begin{center}

1688: \centerline{\epsfig{file=Phi2P1L.eps,height=1.6cm}}

1689:  \caption{The four diagrams contributing to

1690: the 2--point function $\lan \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran$ to

1691: $\mcal{O}(\sigma^2)$, in the order in which they are listed in

1692: Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi23}).} \label{P2P1L}

1693: \end{center}

1694: \end{figure}

1695: 

1696: 

1697: By expanding $S_{\rm int}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi2}) to

1698: $\mcal{O}(\sigma^2)$, one finds $\lan \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran

1699: \approx D(\bm{x},\bm{y})+\lan \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran^{(2)}$,

1700: with (an upper index on an expectation value indicates the order

1701: in $\sigma$ to which the respective expectation value is to be

1702: evaluated)

1703:  \beq\label{eq-phi22}

1704:  \lan \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran^{(2)}&\,=\,&

1705:  -\frac{\sigma^2Q_0^2}{4!}

1706:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,\lan\phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})

1707:  \phi^4(\bm{z})\ran_0\nn &\,+\,&

1708:  \frac{\sigma^2Q_0^4}{2(3!)^2}

1709:  \int_{\bm{z}_{1},\bm{z}_2}\,\lan\phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})

1710:  \phi^3(\bm{z}_1)\phi^3(\bm{z}_2)\ran_0\,

1711:  \,,

1712:  \eeq

1713: where $\lan\cdots\ran_0\equiv \lan\cdots\ran^{(0)}$ is a simpler

1714: notation for the expectation value computed with the quadratic

1715: action $S_0$. After performing the above contractions, one obtains

1716: the following four terms (recall that the vacuum diagrams are

1717: eliminated by the denominator $Z$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi2}))

1718:  \beq\label{eq-phi23}

1719:  \lan \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran^{(2)}&\,=\,&

1720:  -\frac{\sigma^2Q_0^2}{2}\,D(0)\int_{\bm{z}}\,

1721:  D(\bm{x}-\bm{z})D(\bm{z}-\bm{y})

1722:  \nn &\,+\,&\frac{\sigma^2Q_0^4}{2}\,D(0)

1723:  \int_{\bm{z}_{1},\bm{z}_2}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z}_1)

1724:  D(\bm{z}_1-\bm{y})D(\bm{z}_1-\bm{z}_2)

1725:  \nn &\,+\,&\frac{\sigma^2Q_0^4}{2}

1726:  \int_{\bm{z}_{1},\bm{z}_2}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z}_1)

1727:  D^2(\bm{z}_1-\bm{z}_2)

1728:  D(\bm{z}_2-\bm{y})

1729:   \nn &\,+\,&\left[\frac{\sigma Q_0^2}{2}\,D(0)

1730:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z})\right]^2

1731:  \,,

1732:  \eeq

1733: corresponding to the four diagrams exhibited in Fig. \ref{P2P1L}.

1734: The first two diagrams involve the divergent tadpole $D(0)$, but

1735: the corresponding symmetry factors are such that these diagrams

1736: precisely cancel with each other. (Note that the integral over

1737: $\bm{z}_2$ in the second term can be performed using

1738: Eq.~(\ref{eq-intD0}).) The third diagram yields a finite

1739: contribution in $d=2$. Finally, the last term in

1740: Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi23}), which involves a tadpole squared, is

1741: recognized as the disconnected piece

1742: $\lan\phi(\bm{x})\ran\lan\phi(\bm{y})\ran$ of the 2--point

1743: function $\lan\phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran$ (to this order). One

1744: has indeed:

1745:   \beq\label{eq-phi1}

1746:  \lan \phi(\bm{x})\ran^{(1)} &\,=\,&-

1747:   \frac{\sigma Q_0^2}{3!}

1748:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,\lan\phi(\bm{x})

1749:  \phi^3(\bm{z})\ran_0\nn \,

1750:  &\,=\,&-\frac{\sigma Q_0^2}{2}\,D(0)

1751:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z})

1752:  \,=\,-\frac{\sigma}{2}\,D(0)\,.

1753:  \eeq

1754: To summarize, the self--energy to one--loop order is given by the

1755: three connected diagrams in Fig. \ref{P2P1L} (after amputating the

1756: external lines); the first two diagrams are divergent but cancel

1757: with each other, while the third one is finite and represents the

1758: net one--loop contribution. Note that the cancellation of the UV

1759: divergences has occurred between tadpoles generated by two

1760: different interaction vertices: $\phi^3$ and $\phi^4$.

1761: 

1762: \begin{figure}

1763: \begin{center}

1764: \centerline{\epsfig{file=Phi2P2Tad.eps,height=4.4cm}} \caption{The

1765: double--tadpole diagrams contributing to the self--energy at

1766: two--loop order.} \label{P2P2T}

1767: \end{center}

1768: \end{figure}

1769: 

1770: 

1771: 

1772: \begin{figure}

1773: \begin{center}

1774: \centerline{\epsfig{file=Phi2P2L.eps,height=3.8cm}} \caption{The

1775: UV--finite two--loop diagrams which give the net result for the

1776: self--energy at $\mcal{O}(\sigma^4)$.} \label{P2P2L}

1777: \end{center}

1778: \end{figure}

1779: 

1780: 

1781: When moving to $\mcal{O}(\sigma^4)$, the pattern of tadpole

1782: cancellations becomes significantly more complicated. The

1783: one--loop subdivergences (as associated with self--energy

1784: insertions on the internal propagators) cancel with each other as

1785: explained above, but there are six self--energy diagrams which

1786: feature genuinely two--loop divergences, that is, which are

1787: proportional to $D^2(0)$. These diagrams are displayed in Fig.

1788: \ref{P2P2T}, together with the respective symmetry factors. Each

1789: such a diagram equals $Q_0^2D^2(0)$ times the corresponding

1790: symmetry factor. Thus, as one can read off Fig. \ref{P2P2T}, the

1791: two--loop divergences exactly compensate with each other. The net

1792: contribution to the self--energy to this order is given by the

1793: diagrams exhibited in Fig. \ref{P2P2L}, all of them being finite.

1794: (We do not display this final result, since not particularly

1795: illuminating.) Note that, at this level, the compensating tadpoles

1796: are produced by vertices $\phi^k$ with $k$ ranging from 3 to 6.

1797: Clearly, the fact that the symmetry factor for the vertex $\phi^k$

1798: has the specific value $1/k!$, as generated by the expansion in

1799: Eq.~(\ref{eq-Sint}), was crucial for the success of these

1800: cancellations.

1801: 

1802: 

1803: 

1804: \begin{figure}

1805: \begin{center}

1806: \centerline{\epsfig{file=Phi1point.eps,height=6.4cm}}

1807:  \caption{All the diagrams contributing to the mean field

1808:  $\lan\phi(\bm{x})\ran$ up to $\mcal{O}(\sigma^3)$. The first

1809:  line illustrates the three diagrams which survive in the net

1810:  result, cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi11}). The diagrams in the second line

1811:  cancel with each other, and similarly for those in the

1812:  third line.} \label{P1P}

1813: \end{center}

1814: \end{figure}

1815: 

1816: It is furthermore interesting to notice that the two--loop

1817: contribution to the average field $\lan\phi(\bm{x})\ran$, which is

1818: of $\mcal{O}(\sigma^3)$, is UV--finite as well --- all the

1819: contributing tadpoles mutually cancel, as shown in Fig. \ref{P1P}.

1820: We display here the net result to this order, since this will be

1821: useful later on (see Fig. \ref{P1P} for the respective diagrams) :

1822:  \beq\label{eq-phi11}

1823:  \lan \phi(\bm{x})\ran&\,=\,&-

1824:  \frac{\sigma}{2}\,D(0)+

1825:  \frac{\sigma^3Q_0^4}{6}

1826:  \int_{\bm{z}_{1},\bm{z}_2}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z}_1)

1827:  D^3(\bm{z}_1-\bm{z}_2)\nn&{}&

1828:  - \frac{\sigma^3Q_0^6}{4}

1829:  \int_{\bm{z}_{i}}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z}_1)

1830:  D(\bm{z}_1-\bm{z}_2) D(\bm{z}_1-\bm{z}_3)

1831:  D^2(\bm{z}_2-\bm{z}_3)\,+\,

1832:  \mcal{O}(\sigma^5)\,.

1833:  \eeq

1834: The apparent $\bm{x}$--dependence of the

1835: $\mcal{O}(\sigma^3)$--terms is only illusory: by homogeneity, the

1836: results of the integrations over $\bm{z}_2$ in the first such a

1837: term, respectively over $\bm{z}_2$ and $\bm{z}_3$ in the second

1838: one, are independent of $\bm{z}_1$; hence, the integral over

1839: $\bm{z}_1$ can be explicitly done with the help of

1840: Eq.~(\ref{eq-intD0}), and then the $\bm{x}$--dependence disappears

1841: indeed.

1842: 

1843: It becomes more and more tedious to extend such explicit

1844: calculations to higher orders in $\sigma$, and we shall not

1845: attempt to do so. However, we are confident that the pattern of

1846: tadpole cancellations demonstrated by the explicit examples above,

1847: as well by those those to follow in the next subsection, is

1848: non--trivial enough not to be accidental, but rather it is

1849: representative for similar cancellations taking place to all

1850: orders. Based on that, we conjecture that all the $n$--point

1851: functions of $\phi$ with $n\ge 2$ come out finite to all orders in

1852: perturbation theory in this effective theory. Moreover, it seems

1853: that even for the 1--point function $\lan\phi\ran$, the

1854: perturbative corrections are finite beyond one--loop order: the

1855: only UV divergence in this theory seems to be the lowest order

1856: (one--loop) contribution to the mean field, cf.

1857: Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi1}). From Sect. \ref{SECT_Local}, we recall that

1858: $\lan\phi\ran$ enters the definition of the `average saturation

1859: momentum' in the sense of Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSdef1}): $\bar Q_s^2\equiv

1860: Q_0^2\rme^{\sigma\lan\phi\ran}$. Hence, by choosing a physical

1861: value for the latter, one could in principle fix the value of the

1862: ultraviolet cutoff in the effective theory. However, this appears

1863: to be superfluous within the present context, where $\bar Q_s^2$

1864: plays no special role and thus needs not be introduced. Rather, it

1865: is natural to define the saturation momentum in terms of the

1866: vertex operator, whose correlation functions will be discussed in

1867: the next subsection.

1868: 

1869: \subsection{The $n$--point functions of the vertex operator}

1870: \label{SECT_CorrelV}

1871: 

1872: Consider now the $n$--point functions of the vertex operator

1873: $V(\bm{x})\equiv {\rme}^{\sigma\phi(\bm{x})}$ --- hence, of the

1874: saturation momentum $Q_s^2(\bm{x})\equiv Q_0^2 V(\bm{x})$ ---,

1875: which are defined as

1876:     \beq\label{eq-Vn}

1877:  \lan V(\bm{x}_1)V(\bm{x}_2)\cdots

1878:  V(\bm{x}_n)\ran\equiv \,\frac{1}{Z}

1879:  \int D[\phi]\,\,V(\bm{x}_1)V(\bm{x}_2)\cdots

1880:  V(\bm{x}_n)\,\,

1881:  \rme^{-S[\phi]}\,.

1882:  \eeq

1883: It is straightforward to construct Dyson equations relating these

1884: quantities to the correlations functions $\lan

1885: \phi(\bm{x}_1)\phi(\bm{x}_2)\cdots \phi(\bm{x}_n)\ran$ of the

1886: Liouville field, and thus deduce the ultraviolet finiteness of the

1887: former from the corresponding property of the latter, as discussed

1888: in the previous subsection. We have already seen this on the

1889: example of the 1--point function for which Eq.~(\ref{eq-Dyson})

1890: implies $\lan V(\bm{x})\ran=1$. For the 2--point function, one

1891: similarly finds

1892:   \beq\label{eq-Dyson2}

1893:  \grad^2_{\bm{x}}\grad^2_{\bm{y}}\!\lan\phi(\bm{x})

1894:  \phi(\bm{y})\ran +

1895:   \frac{Q_0^4}{\sigma^2}\,\lan V({\bm{x}})V({\bm{y}})

1896:   -1\ran=\,({Q_0^2}+\grad^2_{\bm{x}})\delta^{(2)}({\bm{x}}-{\bm{y}})

1897:   \,.

1898:   \eeq

1899: But since Dyson equations are often formal (precisely because of

1900: ultraviolet divergences), it is still instructive to verify the

1901: ultraviolet--finiteness via some explicit calculations in

1902: perturbation theory. Below, we shall do that up to two--loop order

1903: for the 1--point and the 2--point functions of the vertex

1904: operator. As we shall see, the pattern of tadpole cancellations is

1905: now even richer, because it extends to the additional tadpoles

1906: generated by the expansion of the vertex operators.

1907: 

1908: \vspace*{0.2cm} {\bf (a) One--loop order}

1909: 

1910: For the 1--point function $\lan V(\bm{x})\ran$, the corresponding

1911: calculation is straightforward (as before, an upper script on an

1912: expectation value indicates the order in $\sigma$ to which that

1913: expectation value must be evaluated) :

1914:  \beq\label{eq-V11}

1915:  \lan V(\bm{x})\ran&\,=\,&1+\sigma\lan \phi(\bm{x})\ran^{(1)}

1916:  +\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\lan \phi^2(\bm{x})\ran^{(0)}+\,\dots\nn

1917:  &\,=\,&1 - \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\,D(0)+\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\,D(0)

1918:  +\,\dots \,=\,1+\mcal{O}(\sigma^4)\,,\eeq

1919: where we have also used Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi1}). But although very

1920: simple, the above calculation illustrates an important point which

1921: is generic: when computing the $n$--point functions of $V$,

1922: tadpoles generated by the interaction vertices from the action

1923: --- in Eq.~(\ref{eq-V11}), the trilinear vertex which is implicit

1924: inside $\lan \phi\ran^{(1)}$, cf. Fig. \ref{P1P} --- cancel

1925: against other tadpoles generated by the vertices produced when

1926: expanding $V$ --- in Eq.~(\ref{eq-V11}), the quadratic vertex

1927: explicit in the second term there (see also Fig. \ref{V1P2L}).

1928: 

1929: For the 2--point function, one needs to work a little harder. Note

1930: first that, to $\mcal{O}(\sigma^2)$, $\langle

1931: V_{\bm{x}}V_{\bm{y}}\rangle$ is automatically finite in the

1932: present theory --- at variance to what happens in the free theory,

1933: cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSweak0}) ---, because the only divergences that

1934: could appear to that order are those associated with the

1935: renormalization of the individual vertex operators, but these

1936: cancel out according to Eq.~(\ref{eq-V11}). This is a general

1937: property: since we expect $\lan V\ran=1$ to all orders, in the

1938: calculation of $\langle V_{\bm{x}}V_{\bm{y}}\rangle$ we can

1939: discard all the diagrams contributing to the disconnected piece

1940: $\langle V_{\bm{x}}\rangle \langle V_{\bm{y}}\rangle$,

1941: anticipating that they sum up to one. Then, to

1942: $\mcal{O}(\sigma^4)$ --- corresponding to one--loop order for the

1943: connected piece --- one finds (with $V_{\bm{x}}\equiv V(\bm{x})$,

1944: etc)

1945:  \beq\label{eq-V20}

1946:   \langle V_{\bm{x}}V_{\bm{y}}\rangle

1947:   &\,=\,&1+\sigma^2\left(D_{\bm{x}\bm{y}}+

1948:   \lan \phi_{\bm{x}}\phi_{\bm{y}}\ran^{(2)}\right)

1949:   +\frac{\sigma^3}{2}\lan \phi^2_{\bm{x}}\phi_{\bm{y}}+

1950:   \phi_{\bm{x}}\phi^2_{\bm{y}}\ran^{(1)}\nn&{}&

1951:   +\frac{\sigma^4}{3!}\lan \phi^3_{\bm{x}}\phi_{\bm{y}}+

1952:   \phi_{\bm{x}}\phi^3_{\bm{y}}\ran^{(0)}

1953:    +\frac{\sigma^4}{4}\lan \phi^2_{\bm{x}}\phi^2_{\bm{y}}

1954:    \ran^{(0)}

1955:   +\,\dots

1956:   \eeq

1957: where one should keep only the `connected' pieces of the various

1958: correlation functions appearing in the r.h.s., that is, the

1959: contributions in which the two external points $\bm{x}$ and

1960: $\bm{y}$ are connected with each other. E.g., in

1961:  \beq\label{eq-phi221}

1962:  \lan \phi^2_{\bm{x}}\phi^2_{\bm{y}}

1963:    \ran_0\,=\,2D^2(\bm{x}-\bm{y})+D^2(0),\eeq

1964: one must discard the second, divergent, piece, $D^2(0)\equiv

1965: \langle \phi^2_{\bm{x}}\rangle_0\langle \phi^2_{\bm{y}}\rangle_0$,

1966: since this a part of $\langle V_{\bm{x}}\rangle \langle

1967: V_{\bm{y}}\rangle$. With this rule, the other correlations

1968: appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq-V20}) are evaluated as

1969:  \beq\label{eq-phi31}

1970:  \lan

1971:  \phi^3_{\bm{x}}\phi_{\bm{y}}\ran_0\,=\,3D(0)D_{\bm{x}\bm{y}},

1972:  \eeq

1973: and, respectively,

1974:  \beq\label{eq-phi21}

1975:  \lan \phi^2_{\bm{x}}\phi_{\bm{y}}\ran^{(1)}   &\,=\,&-

1976:   \frac{\sigma Q_0^2}{3!}

1977:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,\lan\phi^2_{\bm{x}}\phi_{\bm{y}}

1978:  \phi^3_{\bm{z}}\ran_0\,=\,-\sigma D(0)D_{\bm{x}\bm{y}}

1979:  -\sigma Q_0^2

1980:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,D^2_{\bm{x}\bm{z}}D_{\bm{z}\bm{y}},

1981:  \eeq

1982: where we have also used Eq.~(\ref{eq-intD0}). The quantities in

1983: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-phi31}) and (\ref{eq-phi21}) represent one--loop

1984: vertex corrections at $\bm{x}$ (there are, of course, similar

1985: corrections at $\bm{y}$; see Fig. \ref{V2P1L}) and involve

1986: divergent tadpoles. However, when inserted into

1987: Eq.~(\ref{eq-V20}), the symmetry factors are such that these

1988: tadpoles cancel with each other.  Once again, one of these

1989: tadpoles has been generated via contractions inside the vertex

1990: operator $V_{\bm{x}}$ (the one in Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi31})) and the

1991: other one, via contractions inside a vertex from the interaction

1992: piece of the action (that in Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi21})).

1993: 

1994: \begin{figure}

1995: \begin{center}

1996: \centerline{\epsfig{file=V2P1L.eps,height=5.5cm}}

1997:  \caption{All the diagrams contributing to the 2--point function

1998:  $\langle V_{\bm{x}}V_{\bm{y}}\rangle$ up to $\mcal{O}(\sigma^4)$.

1999:  A vertex with a blob represents a factor of $\sigma$ coming

2000:  from the expansion of the exponential operators.

2001:  The diagrams in the first line are finite and

2002:  contribute to the net result, Eq.~(\ref{eq-V22}).

2003:  The other diagrams are divergent but cancel with each other.

2004:  } \label{V2P1L}

2005: \end{center}

2006: \end{figure}

2007: Finally, Eq.~(\ref{eq-V20}) involves the connected part of the

2008: 2--point function $\lan \phi_{\bm{x}}\phi_{\bm{y}}\ran^{(2)}$,

2009: which has been previously shown to be UV finite (this is given by

2010: the third term in the r.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi23})). All the

2011: diagrams contributing to the r.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{eq-V20}) ---

2012: including the divergent ones which mutually cancel --- are

2013: displayed in Fig. \ref{V2P1L}. By adding the previous results, one

2014: finds the following, finite, result for $\langle

2015: V_{\bm{x}}V_{\bm{y}}\rangle$ to $\mcal{O}(\sigma^4)$ :

2016:  \beq\label{eq-V22}

2017:   \langle V_{\bm{x}}V_{\bm{y}}\rangle

2018:   &\,=\,&1+\sigma^2 D_{\bm{x}\bm{y}}

2019:  +\frac{1}{2}\big[\sigma^2D_{\bm{x}\bm{y}}\big]^2\nn

2020:   &{}&

2021:   +\frac{\sigma^4Q_0^4}{2}

2022:  \int_{\bm{z}_{1},\bm{z}_2}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z}_1)

2023:  D^2(\bm{z}_1-\bm{z}_2)

2024:  D(\bm{z}_1-\bm{y})\nn &{}&

2025:  -   \frac{\sigma^4Q_0^2}{2}

2026:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,\big[D^2_{\bm{x}\bm{z}}D_{\bm{z}\bm{y}}+

2027:  D_{\bm{x}\bm{z}}D^2_{\bm{z}\bm{y}}\big]

2028:   +\,\mcal{O}(\sigma^6).

2029:   \eeq

2030: All the terms in the r.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{eq-V22}) except for the

2031: last one can be recognized as the expansion of $\exp\{\sigma^2

2032: G_{\bm{x}\bm{y}}\}$, with $G_{\bm{x}\bm{y}}\equiv \lan

2033: \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran$ the {\em full} propagator, to the

2034: order of interest. However, the presence of the last term, which

2035: represents vertex corrections, shows that such a simple

2036: exponentiation does not hold in the present theory, in contrast to

2037: what happens in the free theory (recall Eq.~(\ref{eq-QSweakR})).

2038: 

2039: \comment{ To summarize, the perturbative contributions to

2040: Eq.~(\ref{eq-V20}) of the self--energy type are by themselves

2041: finite, as already demonstrated in the previous subsection,

2042: whereas those of the vertex type add together to a finite result:

2043: tadpoles generated by the vertices implicit in $V$ cancel against

2044: those generated by the vertices from $S_{\rm int}$. This pattern

2045: will be now shown to persist to two--loop order.}

2046: 

2047: \vspace*{0.2cm} {\bf (b) Two--loop order}

2048: 

2049: Although considerably more involved (especially for the 2--point

2050: function), the two--loop calculations are also more interesting,

2051: in that they show a richer pattern of tadpole cancellations.

2052: 

2053: We start with the 1--point function, for which `two loops' means

2054: $\mcal{O}(\sigma^4)$. One has

2055:   \beq\label{eq-V12}

2056:  \lan V(\bm{x})\ran^{(4)}&\,=\,&\sigma\lan \phi(\bm{x})\ran^{(3)}

2057:  +\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\lan \phi^2(\bm{x})\ran^{(2)}+

2058:  \frac{\sigma^3}{3!}\lan \phi^3(\bm{x})\ran^{(1)}+

2059:  \frac{\sigma^4}{4!}\lan \phi^4(\bm{x})\ran^{(0)}

2060:  \,,\eeq

2061: where the first two terms are already known, cf.

2062: Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi11}) and, respectively, Eq.~(\ref{eq-phi23}) ---

2063: within the latter, one has to take $\bm{x}=\bm{y}$, thus yielding

2064:  \beq\label{eq-phi24}

2065:  \frac{\sigma^2}{2} \lan \phi^2(\bm{x})\ran^{(2)}&\,=\,&

2066:  \frac{\sigma^4Q_0^4}{4}

2067:  \int_{\bm{z}_{1},\bm{z}_2}\,D(\bm{x}-\bm{z}_1)

2068:  D^2(\bm{z}_1-\bm{z}_2)

2069:  D(\bm{z}_2-\bm{x})

2070:  \,+\,\frac{\sigma^4}{8}\,D^2(0)

2071:  \,,

2072:  \eeq

2073: ---, while the remaining two are easily computed as

2074:   \beq\label{eq-phi3}

2075:  \frac{\sigma^3}{3!}\lan \phi^3(\bm{x})\ran^{(1)}

2076:  \,=\,-

2077:  \frac{\sigma^4Q_0^2}{6}

2078:  \int_{\bm{z}}\,D^3(\bm{x}-\bm{z})

2079:  \,-\,\frac{\sigma^4}{4}\,D^2(0)

2080:  \,,

2081:  \eeq

2082: and, respectively,

2083:  \beq\label{eq-phi4}

2084:  \frac{\sigma^4}{4!}\lan \phi^4(\bm{x})\ran^{(0)}

2085:  \,=\,\frac{\sigma^4}{8}\,D^2(0)

2086:  \,.\eeq

2087: The Feynman graphs associated with these various contributions are

2088: illustrated in Fig. \ref{V1P2L}, where the respective

2089: cancellations are also indicated.  By adding all the

2090: contributions, it is clear that

2091:  \beq\label{eq-V13}

2092:  \lan V(\bm{x})\ran&\,=\,&1+\mcal{O}(\sigma^6)\,.\eeq

2093: 

2094: 

2095: \begin{figure}

2096: \begin{center}

2097: \centerline{\epsfig{file=V1P2L.eps,height=4.cm}}

2098:  \caption{All the diagrams contributing to the 1--point function

2099:  $\langle V_{\bm{x}}\rangle$ up to two--loop order. Diagrams within

2100:  a same group cancel with each other.}

2101: \label{V1P2L}

2102: \end{center}

2103: \end{figure}

2104: 

2105: Consider now the two--loop contributions to $\langle

2106: V_{\bm{x}}V_{\bm{y}}\rangle$, which count to $\mcal{O}(\sigma^6)$.

2107: One of these contributions is $\sigma^2\lan

2108: \phi(\bm{x})\phi(\bm{y})\ran^{(4)}$, which has been already argued

2109: to be UV--finite in Sect. \ref{SECT_CorrelPhi}. The other ones

2110: involve various vertex corrections, which separately develop a

2111: large number of (single or double) tadpoles, but which add

2112: together to a finite result. The respective cancellations show a

2113: pattern which is similar to, but richer than, the one already

2114: observed for the 2--loop self--energy in Sect.

2115: \ref{SECT_CorrelPhi}. In Fig. \ref{V2P2Tad}, we display the

2116: diagrams involving double tadpoles (together with the

2117: corresponding symmetry factors), grouped in such a way to

2118: illustrate the various cancellations. Note that there are three

2119: types of such diagrams, each of them involving three graphs whose

2120: symmetry factors are such that they mutually cancel. We shall not

2121: display the diagrams involving a single tadpole which cancel among

2122: each other, nor the finite ones which yield the net result at this

2123: order, since these diagrams are quite numerous and the result is

2124: not particularly illuminating. Suffices to say that the respective

2125: UV--finite diagrams exhibit the same two--loop topologies as the

2126: self--energy diagrams shown in Fig. \ref{P2P2L}, but which now

2127: appear also in the form of vertex corrections.

2128: 

2129: 

2130: \begin{figure}

2131: \begin{center}

2132: \centerline{\epsfig{file=V2P2Tad.eps,height=6.5cm}}

2133:  \caption{Divergent two--loop diagrams contributing to

2134:  $\langle V_{\bm{x}}V_{\bm{y}}\rangle$ which involve

2135:  double tadpoles. The net result is zero on each of the

2136:  three lines.}

2137: \label{V2P2Tad}

2138: \end{center}

2139: \end{figure}

2140: 

2141: \section{Conclusions}

2142: \setcounter{equation}{0}\label{SECT_Conclusion}

2143: 

2144: In this paper, we have proposed an effective scalar field theory

2145: for the distribution of the saturation momentum in the

2146: two--dimensional impact--parameter space, in QCD at high energy

2147: and large $N_c$. This theory has been constructed as the minimal

2148: field--theoretical generalization of the $\bm{b}$--independent

2149: distribution in Refs. \cite{IMM04,IT04} which is local (in both

2150: $\bm{b}$ and the rapidity $Y$) and which is consistent with the

2151: uncertainty principle and the conformal symmetry of the

2152: high--energy evolution in perturbative QCD to leading order.

2153: 

2154: The effective action consists in two pieces: one which is

2155: universal (in the sense that it is uniquely fixed by our general

2156: assumptions) and is recognized as the conformally--invariant

2157: Liouville action, and the other which explicitly breaks down

2158: conformal symmetry, thus introducing a physical scale for the

2159: saturation momentum, and which is less universal --- in the sense

2160: that, first, there are many technical options for breaking down

2161: conformal symmetry (here, we have chosen a particularly simple

2162: one: a source term linear in $\phi$) and, second, the structure of

2163: this piece also depends upon the details of the average gluon

2164: distribution that one needs to reproduce. In its minimal version,

2165: the theory is characterized by only two parameters, which are

2166: energy--dependent and homogeneous: the expectation value

2167: $Q_0^2(Y)\equiv \langle Q_s^2\rangle$ of the saturation momentum

2168: and the coupling constant $\sigma(Y)$ which characterizes the

2169: disorder introduced by fluctuations, and corresponds to the `front

2170: dispersion' in the previous literature \cite{IMM04,IT04}. But

2171: additional parameters can be added, if needed (e.g., in order to

2172: describe a inhomogeneous distribution), via the symmetry--breaking

2173: term.

2174: 

2175: The description offered by this effective theory is certainly

2176: crude and oversimplified as compared to the original QCD problem.

2177: It has some obvious shortcomings --- e.g., it cannot accommodate

2178: the long--range correlations in impact--parameter space, which are

2179: non--local in rapidity --- and there might be some other, less

2180: obvious, ones, which are however difficult to recognize in the

2181: absence of explicit QCD calculations (like solutions to the

2182: Pomeron loop equations). On the other hand, we expect this theory

2183: to be correct at least at short distances, of the order of the

2184: average saturation length $1/Q_0(Y)$ or smaller, and this is

2185: important, since this is precisely the range where the predictions

2186: of the theory are more interesting, and also universal, since

2187: determined by the Liouville piece of the action alone.

2188: 

2189: Specifically, there are two interesting predictions: \texttt{(i)}

2190: The short--range correlations are power--like, with the powers

2191: determined by the natural dimension of the squared saturation

2192: momentum $Q_s^2$, which is $2$. This result is a direct

2193: consequence of the conformal symmetry, and it is indeed natural to

2194: find manifestations of this symmetry on distance scales which are

2195: shorter than any symmetry--breaking length scale in the problem

2196: (here, $1/Q_0$). \texttt{(ii)} The fluctuations in the saturation

2197: momentum are pushed to much harder scales than expected from

2198: previous analyses: the minimum of the potential, corresponding to

2199: the most probable value for $Q_s^2$, occurs for $Q_s^2=\langle

2200: Q_s^2\rangle \equiv Q_0^2 \langle {\rm e}^{\sigma\phi}\rangle$,

2201: rather than for $Q_s^2=\bar Q_s^2\equiv

2202: Q_0^2\,{\rme}^{\sigma\langle\phi\rangle}$, as it was the case for

2203: the coarse--grained distribution in Eq.~(\ref{eq-prob}). This is a

2204: reflection of the uncertainty principle, together with the

2205: multivalence of the saturation momentum: $Q_s^2(\bm{x})$, which is

2206: an operator in the present theory, is also the measure of the size

2207: of the fluctuation at $\bm{x}$, and hence the natural value for

2208: its gradient. Whereas in the context of the coarse--grained

2209: approximation (\ref{eq-prob}), the value $\langle Q_s^2\rangle$

2210: corresponds to a very rare fluctuation, in the tail of the

2211: distribution, this is not so anymore in the context of the

2212: effective field theory, where fluctuations with arbitrarily high

2213: values for $Q_s^2$ are allowed, since they have tiny sizes and

2214: thus give a small contribution to the action.

2215: 

2216: It would be very interesting to understand the physical

2217: consequences of these new results. To that aim, the formalism

2218: needs to be further developed, to allow for the calculation of

2219: observables. A possible direction in that sense will be sketched

2220: in the Appendix, where we show --- within the simple context of

2221: the McLerran--Venugopalan model --- how to couple the present

2222: field theory describing the statistics of the saturation momentum

2223: to the CGC formalism, where the small--$x$ gluons are represented

2224: by a color charge density in terms of which observables can be

2225: constructed in a standard way \cite{EDICGC}.

2226: 

2227: For our particular choice for the symmetry--breaking source term

2228: (an operator linear in $\phi$), we found that the theory has a

2229: remarkable property: the correlation functions of interest (in

2230: particular, those of the vertex operator which enters the

2231: definition of the saturation momentum) are ultraviolet finite when

2232: computed in perturbation theory, and thus do not call for

2233: renormalization. Our proof in that sense is not complete (it is

2234: limited to two--loop calculations), so it would be interesting to

2235: extend that to an all--order proof, and also to put this result in

2236: a more general perspective --- e.g., to clarify the general

2237: conditions under which a theory of this kind (a deformation of the

2238: Liouville field theory) has UV--finite correlations.

2239: 

2240: It should be relatively straightforward to perform lattice

2241: simulations for the effective theory that we propose, and thus

2242: better understand its properties in the strong coupling/high

2243: energy regime. The theory is finite and has no special symmetry,

2244: so there is no need for special care in constructing its lattice

2245: regularization. Also, lattice artifacts should rapidly vanish in

2246: the continuum limit. Moreover, it might be possible to

2247: analytically investigate this theory, via non--perturbative

2248: methods: formally, this theory is just Liouville field theory

2249: perturbed by a relatively simple operator --- a source term linear

2250: in $\phi$.

2251: 

2252: 

2253: \section*{Acknowledgments}

2254: 

2255: This paper had a rather lengthy gestation with several critical

2256: phases during which we have profited from discussions with

2257: numerous colleagues. We acknowledge useful conversations with

2258: Kazunori Itakura, Andrei Parnachev, and Gr\'egory Soyez,

2259: insightful observations from Kenji Fukushima and Yoshitaka Hatta,

2260: and patient explanations and critical remarks from Al Mueller.

2261: Both authors are grateful to the INT, Washington University,

2262: Seattle and to the organizers of the program ``From RHIC to LHC:

2263: Achievements and Opportunities'' for hospitality during one of the

2264: critical phases alluded to above.

2265: 

2266: This manuscript has been authorized under Contract No. DE-

2267: AC02-98CH0886 with the US Department of Energy.

2268: 

2269: 

2270: 

2271: 

2272: \appendix

2273: \section{The random McLerran--Venugopalan

2274: model}

2275: 

2276: 

2277: 

2278: Given the effective theory for $\phi$, which describes the

2279: fluctuations in the saturation momentum, one can wonder how to

2280: compute the effects of these fluctuations on physical observables,

2281: so like the scattering amplitude of a projectile dipole. To that

2282: aim, one can resort on the CGC formalism, in which the observables

2283: are expressed in terms of the color charge density which

2284: represents the source of the gluon distribution. Using the

2285: Liouville field $\phi$, it is possible to couple this color charge

2286: density to the fluctuating saturation momentum in a

2287: conformally--invariant way.  As a simple example, let us describe

2288: a `random' extension of the McLerran--Venugopalan model \cite{MV},

2289: which is conformally--invariant. Recall that, in this model, the

2290: color charge density in a large nucleus, $\rho_a(\bm{x})$, is a

2291: Gaussian random field variable with zero expectation value and

2292: local 2--point function proportional to the saturation momentum:

2293:   \beq\label{eq-MV}

2294:  W_{\rm MV}[\rho]= \mcal{N}\exp\left\{-\int \dif^2 \bm{x}\,

2295: \frac{\rho_a(\bm{x})\rho_a(\bm{x})}{2Q_s^2(\bm{x})}\right\}\,.\eeq

2296: ($\mcal{N}$ is a normalization constant such that $\int\!

2297: D[\rho]\,W_{\rm MV}[\rho]=1$.) In the original formulation of the

2298: model, $Q_s^2(\bm{x})$ is a given (generally, point--dependent)

2299: quantity, which fixes the strength of the color charge density

2300: squared, and hence of the gluon distribution. In the present

2301: context,  this is interpreted as

2302: $Q_s^2(\bm{x})={Q_0^2}\,{\rme}^{\sigma\phi(\bm{x})}$, with

2303: $\phi(\bm{x})$ a random field distributed according to the

2304: effective theory. This leads to a statistical field theory for the

2305: coupled fields $\phi$ and $\rho_a$, with the following partition

2306: function

2307:  \beq\label{eq-MVR}

2308:  Z=   \int\!D[\phi] \int\! D[\rho_a]\,

2309: \exp\left\{-\int \dif^2 \bm{x}\,\left(

2310:  \frac{1}{2}(\grad^i \phi)^2 +

2311:  \frac{Q_0^2}{\sigma^2}\,{\rme}^{\sigma\phi}\,+\,

2312: \frac{\rho_a\rho_a}{2Q_0^2}\,{\rme}^{-\sigma\phi} \right

2313:  )\right\}\,,\eeq

2314: which is conformal invariant, as anticipated. To see this, note

2315: that under the scale transformation in Eq.~(\ref{eq-lambda}), the

2316: field $\rho_a(\bm{x})$, which has mass dimension two, transforms

2317: as follows:

2318:   \beq\label{eq-rholambda}

2319:  \bm{x} \,\to\,\bm{x}' = \lambda \bm{x}\quad\Longrightarrow\quad

2320:  \rho_a(\bm{x})&\,\to\,&

2321:  \rho_a'(\bm{x}')\,=\, \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\,\rho_a(\bm{x})\,, \eeq

2322: so that the term coupling $\rho$ to $\phi$ in the action in

2323: Eq.~(\ref{eq-MVR}) is indeed invariant, so like the other terms

2324: there. Of course, this symmetry is ultimately broken by the source

2325: terms (for either $\rho$ or $\phi$), which need to be added to the

2326: action in Eq.~(\ref{eq-MVR}) in order to generate a non--trivial

2327: expectation value for the saturation momentum (or for the local

2328: gluon distribution).

2329: 

2330: 

2331: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}

2332: %\bibliography{myrefs}

2333: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2334: 

2335: \bibitem{IMM04}

2336: E.~Iancu, A.H.~Mueller and S.~Munier, {\it Phys.~Lett.~}{\bf B606}

2337: (2005) 342.

2338: 

2339: \bibitem{IT04}

2340: E.~Iancu and D.N.~Triantafyllopoulos, {\it Nucl.~Phys.~}{\bf A756}

2341: (2005) 419.

2342: 

2343: \bibitem{MSW05}

2344: A.H.~Mueller, A.I.~Shoshi, S.M.H.~Wong, {\it Nucl.~Phys.~}{\bf

2345: B715} (2005)

2346:   440.

2347: 

2348: \bibitem{IT05}

2349: E.~Iancu and D.N.~Triantafyllopoulos, {\it Phys.~Lett.~}{\bf B610}

2350: (2005) 253.

2351: 

2352: \bibitem{FB}

2353: E.~Ferreiro, E.~Iancu, K. Itakura, and L.~McLerran, {\it Nucl.

2354: Phys.} {\bf

2355:   A710} (2002) 373.

2356: 

2357: \bibitem{KW02}

2358: A. Kovner and U.A. Wiedemann, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66} (2002)

2359: 034031; {\it

2360:   ibidem} 051502.

2361: 

2362: \bibitem{HIMST06}

2363: Y.~Hatta, E.~Iancu, C. Marquet, G. Soyez, and

2364: D.N.~Triantafyllopoulos, {\it

2365:   Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A773} (2006) 95.

2366: 

2367: \bibitem{GLUON}

2368: E.~Iancu, C. Marquet, and G. Soyez, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A780}

2369: (2006) 52.

2370: 

2371: \bibitem{MS04}

2372: A.H.~Mueller and A.I.~Shoshi, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B692}

2373: (2004) 175.

2374: 

2375: \bibitem{SCALING}

2376: E.~Iancu, K.~Itakura, and L.~McLerran, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf

2377: A708} (2002) 327.

2378: 

2379: \bibitem{MT02}

2380: A.H.~Mueller and D.N.~Triantafyllopoulos, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf

2381: B640} (2002)

2382:   331.

2383: 

2384: \bibitem{MP03}

2385: S.~Munier and R.~Peschanski, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 91}

2386: (2003) 232001;

2387:   {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D69} (2004) 034008; {\it ibid.} {\bf D70} (2004)

2388:   077503.

2389: 

2390: \bibitem{B}

2391: I.~Balitsky, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B463} (1996) 99; {\it Phys.

2392: Lett.} {\bf

2393:   B518} (2001) 235; {\it ``High-energy QCD and Wilson lines''},

2394:   arXiv:hep-ph/0101042.

2395: 

2396: \bibitem{K}

2397: Yu.V.~Kovchegov, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999) 034008; {\it

2398: ibid.} {\bf

2399:   D61} (1999) 074018.

2400: 

2401: \bibitem{JKLW}

2402: J.~Jalilian-Marian, A.~Kovner, A.~Leonidov and H.~Weigert, {\it

2403: Nucl.\ Phys.}\

2404:   {\bf B504} (1997) 415; {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D59} (1999) 014014;

2405:   J.~Jalilian-Marian, A.~Kovner and H.~Weigert, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D59}

2406:   (1999) 014015; A. Kovner, J. G. Milhano and H. Weigert, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf

2407:   D62} (2000) 114005.

2408: 

2409: \bibitem{W}

2410: H.~Weigert, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A703} (2002) 823.

2411: 

2412: \bibitem{CGC}

2413: E.~Iancu, A.~Leonidov and L.~McLerran, {\it Nucl. Phys.}~{\bf

2414: A692} (2001) 583;

2415:   {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B510} (2001) 133; E.~Ferreiro, E.~Iancu, A.~Leonidov

2416:   and L.~McLerran, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A703} (2002) 489.

2417: 

2418: \bibitem{BFKL}

2419: L.N.~Lipatov, {\it Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.}\,{\bf 23} (1976) 338;

2420: E.A.~Kuraev,  L.N.~Lipatov and V.S.~Fadin, {\it Zh. Eksp. Teor.

2421: Fiz} {\bf 72}, 3 (1977)  ({\it Sov. Phys. JETP }{\bf 45} (1977)

2422: 199); Ya.Ya.~Balitsky and

2423:   L.N.~Lipatov, {\it Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf 28} (1978) 822.

2424: 

2425: \bibitem{AM94}

2426: A.H.~Mueller, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B415} (1994) 373;

2427: A.H.~Mueller, B. Patel,

2428:   {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B425} (1994).

2429: 

2430: \bibitem{AMSalam95}

2431: A.H.~Mueller and G.P.~Salam, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B475} (1996)

2432: 293.

2433: 

2434: \bibitem{GLR}

2435: L.V.~Gribov, E.M.~Levin, and M.G.~Ryskin, {\it Phys. Rept. } {\bf

2436: 100} (1983)

2437:   1.

2438: 

2439: \bibitem{JKMW97}

2440: J.~Jalilian-Marian, A.~Kovner, L.~McLerran and H.~Weigert, {\it

2441: Phys.\ Rev.}\

2442:   {\bf D55} (1997) 5414.

2443: 

2444: \bibitem{AM99}

2445: A. H. Mueller, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B558} (1999) 285.

2446: 

2447: \bibitem{SAT}

2448: E.~Iancu and L.~McLerran, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B510} (2001) 145.

2449: 

2450: \bibitem{GAUSS}

2451: E.~Iancu, K.~Itakura, and L.~McLerran, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf

2452: A724} (2003) 181.

2453: 

2454: \bibitem{lipatov}

2455: L.~N.~Lipatov, {\it Phys.\ Lett.\ } {\bf B251} (1990) 284; {\it

2456: Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B309} (1993) 394; {\it JETP Lett.} {\bf 59}

2457: (1994) 596; see also

2458:   L.~N.~Lipatov, ``Pomeron in Quantum Chromodynamics", in {\it Perturbative

2459:   Quantum Chromodynamics}, Ed. A.~H.~Mueller, World Scientific, Singapore,

2460:   1989.

2461: 

2462: \bibitem{lipatov1}

2463: L.~N.~Lipatov, arXiv:hep-th/9311037; DFPD/93/TH/70 (unpublished);

2464: {\it JETP

2465:   Lett.} {\bf 59} (1994) 596.

2466: 

2467: \bibitem{FK95}

2468: L.~D.~Faddeev and G.~P.~Korchemsky, {\it Phys.\ Lett.} B {\bf 342}

2469: (1995) 311;

2470:   G.~P.~Korchemsky, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B443} (1995) 255.

2471: 

2472: \bibitem{ewerz}

2473: C.~Ewerz, {\it`` The odderon in quantum chromodynamics''},

2474:   arXiv:hep-ph/0306137.

2475: 

2476: \bibitem{Poly81}

2477: A.Polyakov. {\it Phys. Lett.}, {\bf B103} (1981) 207.

2478: 

2479: \bibitem{Se90}

2480: N. Seiberg, {\it ``Notes on quantum Liouville theory and quantum

2481: gravity''}, in

2482:   {\it Progr. Theor. Phys. Suppl.} {\bf 102} (1990) 319.

2483: 

2484: \bibitem{GinMoore}

2485: P. Ginsparg, G. Moore, {\it ``Lectures on 2D gravity and 2D string

2486: theory (TASI

2487:   1992)}'', hep-th/9304011.

2488: 

2489: \bibitem{DO94}

2490: H.Dorn, H.-J.Otto, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B429} (1994) 375.

2491: 

2492: \bibitem{ZZ96}

2493: A. B. Zamolodchikov and Al. B .Zamolodchikov {\it Nucl. Phys.}

2494: {\bf B477}

2495:   (1996) 577.

2496: 

2497: \bibitem{Tesch}

2498: J. Teschner, {\it ``Liouville theory revisited''}, in {\it Class.

2499: Quant. Grav.}

2500:   {\bf 18} (2001) R153; e-Print Archive: hep-th/0104158.

2501: 

2502: \bibitem{MV}

2503: L.~McLerran and R.~Venugopalan, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D49}

2504: (1994) 2233; {\it

2505:   ibid.} {\bf 49} (1994) 3352; {\it ibid.} {\bf 50} (1994) 2225.

2506: 

2507: \bibitem{BD97}

2508: E.~Brunet and B.~Derrida, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf E56} (1997) 2597;

2509: {\it Comp.

2510:   Phys. Comm.} {\bf 121-122} (1999) 376; {\it J. Stat. Phys.} {\bf 103} (2001)

2511:   269.

2512: 

2513: \bibitem{BDMM}

2514: E. Brunet, B. Derrida, A. H. Mueller and S. Munier, {\it Phys.

2515: Rev.} {\bf E73}

2516:   (2006) 056126.

2517: 

2518: \bibitem{MSX06}

2519: C. Marquet, G. Soyez, Bo-Wen Xiao, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B639}

2520: (2006) 635.

2521: 

2522: \bibitem{EDICGC}

2523: E.~Iancu, A.~Leonidov and L.~McLerran, {\it ``The Colour Glass

2524: Condensate: An

2525:   Introduction''}, arXiv:hep-ph/0202270. Published in {\it QCD Perspectives on

2526:   Hot and Dense Matter}, Eds. J.-P.~Blaizot and E.~Iancu, NATO Science Series,

2527:   Kluwer, 2002;\\ E.~Iancu and R.~Venugopalan, {\it ``The Color Glass

2528:   Condensate and High Energy Scattering in QCD''}, arXiv:hep-ph/0303204.

2529:   Published in {\it Quark-Gluon Plasma 3}, Eds. R.C.~Hwa and X.-N.~Wang, World

2530:   Scientific, 2003.

2531: 

2532: \bibitem{SaarPanja}

2533: W.~Van Saarloos, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 386} (2003) 29; D.~Panja,

2534: Phys. Rep.

2535:   {\bf 393} (2004) 87.

2536: 

2537: \bibitem{AM02}

2538: A. H. Mueller, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B643} (2002) 501.

2539: 

2540: \bibitem{ZJ}

2541: J. Zinn-Justin, {\it Quantum field theory and critical phenomena},

2542:   (International series of monographs on physics, 77), Clarendon, Oxford, 1989.

2543: 

2544: \bibitem{CFT}

2545: Ph. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal, {\it ``Conformal

2546: Field Theory''

2547:   (Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics)}, Springer.

2548: 

2549: \bibitem{MW03}

2550: S. Munier and S. Wallon, {\it Eur. Phys. J} {\bf C30} (2003) 359.

2551: 

2552: \bibitem{GBS03}

2553: K.~Golec-Biernat and A.M.~Stasto, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B668}

2554: (2003) 345.

2555: 

2556: \end{thebibliography}

2557: 

2558: \end{document}

2559: