text:
# Quark-Hadron Duality in Structure Functions

## I Introduction

### A Background

Duality is a much used and much abused concept. In some cases it is used to describe an equivalence between quark- and hadron-based pictures which is trivial; in others an equivalence which is impossible. In almost all cases, the conceptual framework in which duality is discussed and used is either hopelessly muddled or hopelessly abstract. Nevertheless, the data indicate that some extremely interesting and potentially very important “duality” phenomena are occurring at low energy.

We begin by making the trivial observation that any hadronic process can be correctly described in terms of quarks and gluons, assuming that Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) is the correct theory for strong interactions. While this statement is obvious, it rarely has practical value, since in most cases we can neither perform nor interpret a full QCD calculation. We will refer to the above statement that any hadronic process can be described by a full QCD calculation as “degrees of freedom duality”: if one could perform and interpret the calculations, it would not matter at all which set of states — hadronic states or quark and gluon states — was used.

On the other hand, there are rare cases where the average of hadronic observables is described by a perturbative QCD (pQCD) calculation. We reserve the use of the term “duality” to describe these rare correspondences, in contrast to the trivial “degrees of freedom duality” described above. In these rare cases, a quark-gluon calculation leads to a very simple description of some phenomenon even though this phenomenon “materializes” in the form of hadrons. Deep inelastic scattering is the prototypical example, and the one on which we focus here. These rare examples are all characterized by a special choice of kinematic conditions which serve to expose the “bare” quarks and gluons of the QCD Lagrangian. In the case of deep inelastic scattering, the kinematics are such that the struck quark receives so much energy over such a small space-time region that it behaves like a free particle during the essential part of its interaction. This leads to the compellingly simple picture that the electron-nucleon cross section is determined in this kinematic region by free electron-quark scattering, i.e. duality is exact for this process in this kinematic regime.

For inclusive inelastic electron scattering from a proton in the scaling region, the cross section is determined by the convolution of a non-perturbative and currently difficult to calculate parton distribution function with an electron-quark scattering cross section determined by perturbative QCD (pQCD). For semileptonic decays of heavy quarks, e.g. $`\overline{B}X_cl\overline{\nu }_l`$, one can prove using pQCD that the decay rate is determined by that of the underlying heavy quark, in this case obtained from the process $`bcl\overline{\nu }_l`$ . In $`e^+e^{}hadrons`$, it is the underlying $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ process that applies because of pQCD. However, while duality applies to all of these phenomena, we will see that even in these special processes we must invoke an averaging procedure to identify the hadronic results with the quark-gluon predictions.

In addition to its need of an averaging procedure, it is easy to see that the pQCD picture of inelastic electron scattering must fail for $`Q^20`$. For duality to hold for the nucleon structure functions in this case, the elastic electric proton and neutron form factors, which take the value of the nucleon charges for $`Q^20`$, would have to be reproduced by electron scattering off the corresponding $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. This is possible for the proton since the squares of the charges of two $`u`$ quarks and one $`d`$ quark add up to 1 . However, for the neutron, the squared quark charges cannot add up to 0, so it is clear that local duality in inclusive inelastic electron scattering from a neutron must fail for $`Q^20`$. Also, we know that duality must fail for polarized structure functions at low $`Q^2`$, as the Ellis-Jaffe sum rule and the Gerassimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule, which can be written as integrals over $`g_1(\nu ,Q^2)`$ at different $`Q^2`$, are negative (GDH sum rule for $`Q^2=0`$) and positive (Ellis-Jaffe sum rule at $`Q^2`$ of several GeV), respectively .

Thus duality in inelastic electron scattering has to hold in the scaling regime and must in general break down at low energy. Obviously, a very interesting question is what happens in between these regimes, i.e. how does duality break down? This paper answers this question, which is not only interesting in itself, but also crucial for practical, quantitative applications of duality.

### B Introducing Local Averaging and Our Model

We begin by discussing the issue of averaging. If duality is relevant at all at low energy, then it is quite obvious that we need to perform some sort of average: the smooth, analytic pQCD prediction cannot in general correspond exactly to the generally highly structured hadronic data. For low energies this requirement is universally accepted; however, even in the “scaling” region one must average in principle. To see this, consider QCD in the large-$`N_c`$ limit . We can do this because no element of the pQCD results for deep inelastic scattering depends on the number of colors. However, in this limit the hadronic spectrum consists entirely of infinitely narrow noninteracting resonances , i.e., there are only infinitely narrow spikes in the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ hadronic world. Since the quark level calculation still yields a smooth scaling curve, and the kinematic conditions for being in the scaling region are unchanged as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$, we see that we must average even in the scaling region. While in Nature, the resonances have fairly broad decay widths so that the averaging takes place automatically in the data, the large $`N_c`$ limit shows us that averaging is always required in principle. It is thus clearly important to be able to define this averaging procedure, e.g., how large the intervals must be and which resonances have to be included.

It is easy to see that this procedure will not be universal, and will certainly not simply be that the resonances one-by-one locally average the pQCD-derived scaling curve: the averaging method will depend on the process and on the target. Consider, as an illustration of these points, the case of a spinless quark and antiquark with charges $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ and equal masses bound into a nonrelativistic $`q_1\overline{q}_2`$ system. The inelastic electron scattering rate calculated at the quark level in leading twist will then be proportional to $`e_1^2+e_2^2`$. Since the elastic state will be produced with a rate proportional to $`(e_1+e_2)^2`$, it clearly cannot in general be locally dual to the scaling curve . How then is duality realized in this system? Consider the charge operator $`_ie_ie^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}_i}`$: from the ground state it excites even partial wave states with an amplitude proportional to $`e_1+e_2`$ and odd ones with an amplitude proportional to $`e_1e_2`$. Thus the resonances build up a cross section of the form $`\alpha _1(e_1+e_2)^2+\alpha _2(e_1e_2)^2+\alpha _3(e_1+e_2)^2+\mathrm{}`$ and one can see by explicit calculations in models that (up to phase space factors) the cross terms in this sum will cancel to give a cross section proportional to $`e_1^2+e_2^2`$ once averaged over nearby even and odd parity resonances. It is clear that such target- and process-dependence is worthy of study. However, in this paper we will restrict ourselves to a model with $`e_2=0`$ so that local duality might apply .

The question of the validity of low energy duality, i.e., duality in electron scattering at finite beam energies in inelastic electron scattering after suitable averaging, is as old as the first inclusive electron scattering experiments themselves. It begins with the seminal paper of Bloom and Gilman , which made the observation that the inclusive $`F_2`$ structure function in the resonance region at low $`Q^2`$ generally oscillates about and averages to a global scaling curve which describes high $`Q^2`$ data. More recently, interest in Bloom-Gilman duality has been revived with the collection of high precision data on the $`F_2`$ structure function from Jefferson Lab . These data not only confirmed the existence of Bloom-Gilman duality to rather low values of $`Q^2`$, but also seem to demonstrate that for the proton the equivalence of the averaged resonance and scaling structure functions holds also for each resonance so that duality also exists locally.

Here we present a model for the study of quark-hadron duality in electron scattering that uses only a few basic ingredients. Namely, in addition to requiring that our model be relativistic, we assume confinement and that it is sufficient to consider only valence quarks (this latter simplification being underwritten, as mentioned previously, by the large $`N_c`$ limit). In addition, since our model is designed to explore conceptual issues and not to be compared to data, and since we postpone addressing spin-dependent issues to later work, for simplicity we also take the quarks, electrons and photons to be scalars. A model with these features will not give a realistic description of any data, but it should allow us to study the critical questions of when and why duality holds. While this model is extremely simple, we see no impediment to extending it to describe a more realistic situation since we find that duality arises from the most basic properties of our model.

We make several more convenient simplifications. Although it is our aim to study duality in electron scattering from the nucleon, i.e. from a three-quark-system, as a first step we study these issues in what is effectively a one quark system by considering such a quark to be confined to an infinitely massive antiquark. In the case of scalar quarks considered here, we can therefore describe the system by the Klein-Gordon equation. We also select for our confining potential one which is linear in $`r`$, namely $`V^2(\stackrel{}{r})=\alpha r^2`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a generalized, relativistic string constant. This choice allows us to obtain analytic solutions, without which the required numerical work for this study would be daunting. Indeed, the energy eigenvalues, $`E_N=\sqrt{2\sqrt{\alpha }(N+3/2)+m^2}`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of interacting quark, can be readily obtained by noting the similarity to the Schrödinger equation for a non-relativistic harmonic oscillator potential: the solutions for the wave functions are the same as for the non-relativistic case.

In the next Section we construct the structure function out of resonances described by form factors, each of which individually gives vanishing contributions at large momenta, and show that it both scales and, when suitably averaged, is equal to the “free quark” result. An analysis in terms of structure function moments is presented in Section III. In Section IV we examine the onset of scaling, and the appearance of Bloom-Gilman duality, while in Section V we discuss the connection of Bloom-Gilman duality with duality in heavy quark systems. Finally, in Section VI we summarize our results and mention some possible directions for future research.

## II Quark-Hadron Duality in the Scaling Limit

The differential cross section for inclusive inelastic scattering of a “scalar electron” via the exchange of a “scalar photon” is

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dE_fd\mathrm{\Omega }_f}=\frac{g^4}{16\pi ^2}\frac{E_f}{E_i}\frac{1}{Q^4}𝒲,$$
(1)
where the scalar coupling constant $`g`$ carries the dimension of a mass, and the factor multiplying the scalar structure function $`𝒲`$ corresponds to the Mott cross section. In a model where the only excited states are infinitely narrow resonances, $`𝒲`$ is given entirely by a sum of squares of transition form factors weighted by appropriate kinematic factors:

$$𝒲(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q}^2)=\underset{N=0}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\frac{1}{4E_0E_N}\left|F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})\right|^2\delta (E_NE_0\nu ),$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{p}_f`$, the form factor $`F_{0N}`$ represents a transition from the ground state to a state characterized by the principal quantum number $`N`$, and the sum over states $`N`$ goes up to the maximum $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ allowed kinematically. Note that for fixed, positive $`Q^2\stackrel{}{q}^2\nu ^2`$, $`N_{max}=\mathrm{}`$.

The excitation form factors can be derived using the recurrence relations of the Hermite polynomials. One finds:

$$F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q}^2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}i^N\left(\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|}{\sqrt{2}\beta }\right)^N\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{}{q}^2/4\beta ^2),$$
(3)
where $`\beta =\alpha ^{1/4}`$. This form factor is in fact the sum of all form factors for excitations from the ground state to degenerate states with the same principal quantum number $`N`$. As a precursor to our discussion of duality, we note that it will be a necessary condition for duality that these form factors (or more generally those corresponding to some other model potential) can represent the pointlike free quark. It is in fact the case that $`_{N=0}^{N_{\mathrm{max}}}|F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})|^21`$ as $`N_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{}`$, a relation which follows from the completeness of the confined wave functions. Incidentally, an examination of the convergence of this sum as a function of $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$ is sufficient to make the point that reproducing the behavior of a free quark requires more and more resonances as $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$ increases (details of this will be discussed in a forthcoming publication).

Scaling in the presence of confining final state interactions has previously been investigated in Refs. , where similar conclusions are reached. This suggests that scaling may indeed be a trivial feature of a large class of simple quantum mechanical models. Some sense of how this can occur can be obtained by considering some of the properties of the relativistic oscillator model used in this paper. In particular, consider the properties of the square of the form factors. For a fixed principal quantum number, $`N`$, the form factor has a maximum in $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ at $`\stackrel{}{q}_N^2=2\beta ^2N`$. Using $`\nu _N=E_NE_0`$ and $`E_N=\sqrt{2\beta ^2N+E_0^2}`$, it can be shown that

$$\nu _N=\frac{Q_N^2}{2E_0}$$
(4)
where $`Q_N^2=\stackrel{}{q}_N^2\nu _N^2`$. So the position of the peak in the averaged structure function occurs at $`u_{Bj}=m/E_0`$ where $`u_{Bj}=Q^2/2m\nu `$ is a scaled Bjorken scaling variable $`u_{Bj}\frac{M}{m}x_{Bj}`$ which takes into account that as the mass of the antiquark $`M_{\overline{Q}}\mathrm{}`$, the constituent quark will carry only a fraction of order $`m/E_0`$ of the hadron’s infinite-momentum-frame momentum. Furthermore, for fixed $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ the structure function falls off smoothly for energy transfers away from the peak value. The width of this peak as a function of energy transfer also becomes constant for large $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$.

Now consider the integral of the structure function

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{q}^2)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu 𝒲(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q}^2)=\underset{nlm}{}\frac{1}{4E_0E_N}<\psi _{000}|\rho (\stackrel{}{q})|\psi _{nlm}><\psi _{nlm}|\rho (\stackrel{}{q})|\psi _{000}>$$
(5)
where $`N=2(n1)+l`$ with $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, and where $`\rho (\stackrel{}{q})=e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{x}}`$. Since the form factor sum for a fixed $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ peaks about $`E_{N_{max}}=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{q}^2+E_0^2}`$, we can substitute $`E_NE_{N_{max}}`$ and then sum over the complete set of final states to give

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{q}^2)\frac{1}{4E_0E_{N_{max}}}\frac{1}{4E_0q}$$
(6)
for large momentum transfer. Therefore, if we define the scaling function as $`𝒮|\stackrel{}{q}|𝒲`$, as will be done below, the area of the scaling function becomes constant at large momentum transfer.

Since the scaling function peaks at fixed $`u_{Bj}`$, smoothly falls about the peak, has fixed width and constant area at large momentum transfer, the model scales. It is a common misconception that the presence of scaling implies that the final states must become plane waves. In fact, the argument above makes it clear that scaling occurs when the structure function becomes independent of the final states as in the closure approximation used here.

To see duality clearly both experimentally and theoretically, one needs to go beyond the Bjorken scaling variable $`x_{Bj}`$ and the scaling function $`𝒮_{Bj}=\nu 𝒲`$ that goes with it. This is because in deriving Bjorken’s variable and scaling function, one not only assumes $`Q^2`$ to be larger than any mass scale in the problem, but also that high $`Q^2`$ (pQCD) dynamics controls the interactions. However, duality has its onset in the region of low to moderate $`Q^2`$, and there masses and violations of asymptotic freedom do play a role. Bloom and Gilman used a new, ad hoc scaling variable $`\omega ^{}`$  in an attempt to deal with this fact. In most contemporary data analyses, the Nachtmann variable  is used together with $`𝒮_{Bj}`$. Nachtmann’s variable contains the target mass as a scale, but neglects quark masses. For our model, the constituent quark mass (assumed to arise as a result of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking) is vital at low energy, and a scaling variable that treats both target and quark masses is desirable. Such a variable was derived more than twenty years ago by Barbieri et al.  to take into account the masses of heavy quarks; we use it here given that after spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking the nearly massless light quarks have become massive constituent quarks, calling it $`x_{cq}`$:

$$x_{cq}=\frac{1}{2M}\left(\sqrt{\nu ^2+Q^2}\nu \right)\left(1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4m^2}{Q^2}}\right).$$
(7)
The scaling function associated with this variable is given by:

$$𝒮_{cq}|\stackrel{}{q}|𝒲=\sqrt{\nu ^2+Q^2}𝒲.$$
(8)
This scaling function and variable were derived for scalar quarks which are free, but have a momentum distribution. The derivation of a new scaling variable and function for bound quarks will be published elsewhere. Numerically, this scaling variable does not differ very much from the one in Eq. (7). Of course all versions of the scaling variable must converge to $`x_{Bj}`$ and all versions of the scaling function must converge towards $`𝒮_{Bj}`$ for large enough $`Q^2`$. One can also easily verify that in the limit $`m0`$ one obtains from (7) the Nachtmann scaling variable. In the following, we use the variable $`x_{cq}`$ and the scaling function $`𝒮_{cq}`$.

We are now ready to look at scaling and duality in our model. Since the target has mass $`M\mathrm{}`$, it is convenient to rescale the scaling variable $`x_{cq}`$ by a factor $`M/m`$:

$`u`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{m}}x_{cq}.`$ (9)
The variable $`u`$ takes values from 0 to a maximal, $`Q^2`$ dependent value, which can go to infinity. The high energy scaling behavior of the appropriately rescaled structure function $`𝒮_{cq}`$ is illustrated in Fig. 1.

The structure function has been evaluated using the phenomenologically reasonable parameters $`m=0.33`$ GeV and $`\alpha =(0.4\mathrm{GeV})^{1/4}`$, though we remind the reader not to compare our results, which might resemble electron scattering from a $`B`$ meson, to nucleon data! To display it in a visually meaningful manner, the energy-dependent $`\delta `$-function has been smoothed out by introducing an unphysical Breit-Wigner shape with an arbitrary but small width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ chosen for purposes of illustration:

$$\delta (E_NE_0\nu )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\pi }\frac{f}{(E_NE_0\nu )^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2},$$
(10)
where the factor $`f=\pi /[\frac{\pi }{2}+\mathrm{arctan}\frac{2(E_NE_0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}]`$ ensures that the integral over the $`\delta `$-function is identical to that over the Breit-Wigner shape. The curves in Fig. 1 show that scaling sets in rather rapidly. The resonances show up as bumpy structures in the low $`Q^2`$ region (which will be discussed in Section IV below), a trace of which is visible for the $`Q^2=5`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> curve.

By taking the continuum limit for the energy and applying Stirling’s formula, one can obtain an analytic expression for the scaling curve, valid in the scaling region, for the transition of the quark from the ground state to the sum of all excited states:

$$𝒮_{cq}(u)=\frac{E_0}{\sqrt{\pi }\beta }\mathrm{exp}\frac{(E_0mu)^2}{\beta ^2}.$$
(11)
Of course we still need to verify that this scaling curve as seen in Fig. 1 found by summing over hadrons is the same as the one which we would obtain from deep inelastic scattering off the quark, i.e., if we were to switch off the potential in the final state. In this case, the tower of hadronic states is replaced by the free quark continuum. Duality predicts that the results should be the same in the scaling limit, and by direct calculation we confirm this.

## III Moments of Structure Functions

Bloom-Gilman duality relates structure functions at low and high $`Q^2`$ averaged over appropriate intervals of the hadronic mass $`W`$. As a quantitative measure of this feature of the data, one conventionally examines the $`Q^2`$-dependence of moments of structure functions. The moments offer the cleanest connection with the operator product expansion of QCD, and provide a natural connection between duality in the high- and low-$`Q^2`$ regions. By considering the moments, we also remove artifacts introduced through the smoothing procedure described above for the structure function itself.

The moments of the structure function $`𝒮_{cq}(u,Q^2)`$ are defined as:

$$M_n(Q^2)=_0^{u_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑uu^{n2}𝒮_{cq}(u,Q^2),$$
(12)
where $`u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ corresponds to the maximum value of $`u`$ which is kinematically accessible at a given $`Q^2`$. Evaluating the moments of the structure function (8) explicitly one has (provided the kinematics allow us to access all excited states):

$`M_n(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{2m}}\right)^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\sqrt{\nu _N^2+Q^2}\nu _N\right)^{n1}{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{E_N}}\left|F_{0N}\left(\sqrt{\nu _N^2+Q^2}\right)\right|^2,`$ (13)
where $`\nu _N=E_NE_0`$ and $`r=1+\sqrt{1+4m^2/Q^2}`$. The elastic contribution to the moments is

$$M_n^{\mathrm{elastic}}(Q^2)=\left(\frac{r}{2m}\right)^{n1}Q^{n1}\left|F_{00}(Q^2)\right|^2=u_0^{n1}\left|F_{00}(Q^2)\right|^2,$$
(14)
where $`u_0(Q^2)`$ is the position in $`u`$ of the ground state. Note that $`M_n^{\mathrm{elastic}}(Q^2)`$ becomes independent of $`n`$ in the limit $`Q^20`$, approaching unity and that the inelastic contributions to the moments vanish for vanishing $`Q^2`$.

In Fig. 2 we show the $`n=2`$, 4, 6 and 8 moments $`M_n`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$. All the moments appear qualitatively similar, rising to within about 10% of their asymptotic values by $`Q^2=1`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. Also evident is the fact that the lower moments reach their asymptotic values earlier than the higher moments. This is qualitatively consistent with the expectation from the operator product expansion discussed in , where it was argued that the effective expansion parameter in the twist expansion $`n/Q^2`$, so that for higher moments, $`n`$, the higher twist terms survive to larger values of $`Q^2`$.

Unfortunately, these moments do not have such useful interpretations here as they do in real deep inelastic scattering. For example, the analog of the Gross-Llewellyn Smith sum rule is not applicable here because the scalar current which couples to our quark is not conserved. Nonetheless, the moments in Fig. 2 do serve to demonstrate that scaling is a natural consequence of our model, and illustrate the relative onset of scaling for different moments.

## IV Onset of Scaling and Bloom-Gilman Duality

After studying the scaling behavior of the structure functions in our model at high $`Q^2`$ and the moments over a range of four-momentum transfers, we now study the structure functions at low $`Q^2`$ where not only in the large $`N_C`$ limit but also in nature resonances are visibly dominant over a wide range in the scaling variable. Here, we consider a target where only one quark carries all the charge of the system, so there is no forced breakdown of duality at $`Q^2=0`$ of the type noted earlier for the neutron. Still, one cannot expect that the perturbative QCD result will describe even averaged hadronic observables well at very low $`Q^2`$: these are after all strong interactions!

If local duality holds, one might expect the resonance “spikes” to oscillate around the scaling curve and to average to it, once $`Q^2`$ is large enough. (We remind the reader that while scaling in deep-inelastic electron scattering from the nucleon is known from experiment to set in by $`Q^22`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, the target considered here corresponds to an infinitely heavy “meson” composed of scalar quarks interacting with a scalar current, so one should not expect numerically realistic results, only qualitative ones.) Figure 3 shows the onset of scaling for the structure function $`𝒮_{cq}`$ as a function of $`u`$, as $`Q^2`$ varies from 0.5 GeV<sup>2</sup> to 2 GeV<sup>2</sup>. As in Fig. 1, for each of the resonances (excluding the elastic peak) the energy $`\delta `$-function has been smoothed out using the Breit-Wigner method with a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=100`$ MeV. With increasing $`Q^2`$, each of the resonances moves out towards higher $`u`$, as dictated by kinematics. At $`Q^2=0`$, the elastic peak is the only allowed state and contributes about 44% of the asymptotic value of $`M_2`$. It remains rather prominent for $`Q^2`$ = 0.5 GeV<sup>2</sup>, though most of $`M_2`$ is by this point built up of excited states, and it becomes negligible for $`Q^2`$ 2.0 GeV<sup>2</sup>. Remarkably, the curves at lower $`Q^2`$ do tend to oscillate (at least qualitatively) around the scaling curve, as is observed in proton data. Note that these curves are at fixed $`Q^2`$, but sweep over all $`\nu `$. In a typical low energy experiment, $`\nu `$ will also be limited; in such circumstances these curves still apply, but they get cut off at the minimum value of $`u`$ that is kinematically allowed. For another perspective on these curves, note that $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2=Q^2+\nu ^2`$ so for fixed $`Q^2`$, as $`\nu `$ is increased so that more and more highly excited states are created, the struck quark is being hit harder and harder.

In contrast, the structure function $`𝒮_{Bj}`$ when plotted as a function of the scaled Bjorken variable $`u_{Bj}`$ shows very poor duality between its low- and high-$`Q^2`$ behaviors, as seen in Fig. 4. One of the reasons for this failure is that $`x_{Bj}`$ and $`𝒮_{Bj}`$ know nothing about the constituent quark mass, while low energy free quark scattering certainly does, so the corresponding pQCD cross section calculated neglecting the quark mass is simply wrong at low energy.

## V  Duality in Semileptonic Decays of Heavy Quarks

We have seen that low-energy (Bloom-Gilman) duality is displayed by our model in terms of the appropriate low-energy variable $`u`$ and described some of the physics behind this duality (completeness of the bound state wave functions to expand a plane wave and an approximate closure based on the required expansion states being in a narrow band of $`\nu `$ relative to those that are kinematically allowed). To obtain a deeper understanding of the physics behind low energy duality, it is instructive to compare and contrast duality in electron scattering with that in heavy quark decays. We will begin by carefully examining duality in heavy-light systems, where it is exact in the heavy quark limit even down to zero recoil, and where the mechanisms behind this exact duality are very clear.

Duality in heavy quark systems is easily understood intuitively. Consider a $`Q^{}\overline{q}`$ system where $`m_Q^{}>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, and imagine that $`Q^{}`$ can decay to $`Q`$ by emitting a scalar particle $`\varphi `$ of mass $`\mu `$: $`Q^{}Q+\varphi `$. (Note that in this case it is the heavy quark that interacts with the current and not the light quark as in our model!) At the free quark level, the decay of $`Q^{}`$ at rest will produce the $`\varphi `$ with a single sharp kinetic energy $`T_{free}`$ and corresponding $`Q`$ recoil velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$. (We use the standard variables $`T_{free}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, but others, like the $`\varphi `$ recoil momentum, could be chosen.) In reality, since the heavy quarks are bound into mesons, $`\varphi `$ will (in the narrow resonance approximation) emerge from the decay at rest of the initial meson’s ground state $`(Q^{}\overline{q})_0`$ with any of the sharp kinetic energies allowed by the processes $`(Q^{}\overline{q})_0(Q\overline{q})_n+\varphi `$ as determined by the strong interaction spectra of these two mesonic systems. Since in the heavy quark limit $`m_{(Q^{}\overline{q})_n}m_{(Q\overline{q})_n}m_Q^{}m_Q`$, $`m_{(Q^{}\overline{q})_n}m_Q^{}`$, and $`m_{(Q\overline{q})_n}m_Q`$, the hadronic spectral lines are guaranteed to cluster around $`T_{free}`$, and to coincide with it exactly as $`m_Q\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, since $`m_Q^{},m_Q>>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, one can show using an analog of the operator product expansion  that the strong interactions can be neglected in calculating the total decay rate (i.e., the heavy quarks $`Q^{}`$ and $`Q`$ are so heavy that the decay proceeds as though it were free.) Thus the sum of the strengths of the spectral lines clustering around $`T_{free}`$ is the free quark strength: there is perfect low energy duality as $`m_Q^{},m_Q\mathrm{}`$.

What is now especially interesting is to unravel this duality to understand how the required “conspiracy” of spectral line strengths arises physically. Because the heavy quark is so massive, if it would as a free particle recoil with a velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, then this velocity would be changed only negligibly by the strong interaction since in the heavy quark limit it carries off a negligible kinetic energy, but a momentum much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. In the rest frame of the recoiling meson, this configuration requires that the two constituents have a relative momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ which grows with $`\stackrel{}{v}`$. Thus the strong interaction dynamics is identical to that of our model in which the relative momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is supplied by the scattered electron. Moreover, in this case, with duality exact at all energies, we can reconstruct exactly how it arises. What one sees is remarkably simple . At low $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ corresponding to low $`\stackrel{}{q}`$, only the ground state process $`(Q^{}\overline{q})_0(Q\overline{q})_0+\varphi `$ occurs. Since the masses and matrix elements for the transitions $`(Q^{}\overline{q})_0(Q\overline{q})_0+\varphi `$ and $`Q^{}Q+\varphi `$ are identical (the elastic form factor goes identically to unity as $`\stackrel{}{q}0`$), the hadronic and quark spectral lines and strengths are also identical and duality is valid at $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2=0`$! Next consider duality at a different kinematic point (which one might reach by choosing a smaller $`\varphi `$ mass) where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and therefore $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ have increased. The elastic form factor will fall, so its spectral line (which is still found at exactly the new value of $`T_{free}`$ in the heavy quark limit) will carry less strength. However, once $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ differs from zero, excited states $`(Q\overline{q})_n`$ can be created, and indeed are created with a strength that exactly compensates for the loss of elastic rate. These excited state spectral lines also coincide with $`T_{free}`$ and duality is once again exact. Indeed, no matter how large $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$ becomes, all of the excited states produce spectral lines at $`T_{free}`$ with strengths that sum to that of the free quark spectral line.

Heavy quark theory also allows one to go beyond the heavy quark limit to the case of quarks of finite mass. In this case one of course finds that duality-violation occurs, but that it is formally suppressed by two powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_Q`$ , with the spectral lines now clustered about $`T_{free}`$ but not coinciding with it. A remarkable feature of this duality violation is that the spectral line strengths differ from those of the heavy quark limit in ways that tend to compensate for the duality-violating phase space effects from the spread of spectral lines around $`T_{free}`$. An additional source of duality-violation is that some of the high mass resonances that are required for exact duality are kinematically forbidden since for finite heavy quark masses $`m_Q^{}m_Q`$ is finite.

From this discussion it is clear that the strong interaction dynamics of heavy-light decays is the same as that of scattering a probe off of the $`Q`$ of a $`Q\overline{q}`$ system : what is relevant is that the system must in each case respond to a relative momentum kick $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. Needless to say, one must still carefully organize the kinematics to expose duality: in a decay to a fixed mass $`\varphi `$ only a single magnitude $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$ is produced at the quark level, while in electron scattering a large range of $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$ and $`\nu `$ is produced by a given electron beam.

Given these connections, it is relevant to note that in addition to the obvious conceptual relevance of heavy-light systems, model studies indicate that in these systems heavy quark behavior continues to hold qualitatively even for $`m_Qm`$. These models are, as one might expect, similar to ours which displays the same clustering of spectral lines, the same tendency for excited state spectral lines to compensate for the fall with $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$ of lighter states, and the same sources of duality violation such as kinematically forbidden states and mismatches between the mass of the recoiling hadrons and the struck quark. We believe that these elements of the dynamics are clearly in operation and that we have understood through our model that the qualitative applicability of duality for real systems should indeed extend all of the way down to zero recoil as seen in Nature.

## VI Summary and Outlook

We have presented a simple, quantum-mechanical model in which we were able to qualitatively reproduce the features of Bloom-Gilman duality. The model assumptions we made are the most basic ones possible: we assumed relativistic, confined, valence scalar quarks and treated the hadrons in the infinitely narrow resonance approximation. To further simplify the situation, we did not consider a three quark “nucleon” target, but a target made up by an infinitely heavy antiquark and a light quark. The present work does not attempt to quantitatively describe any data, but to give qualitative insight into the physics of duality.

Our work complements previous work on duality, where the experimental data were analyzed in terms of the operator product expansion (OPE) . There, it was observed that at moderate $`Q^2`$, the higher twist corrections to the lower moments of the structure function are small. The higher twist corrections arise due to initial and final state interactions of the quarks and gluons. Hence, the average value of the structure function at moderate $`Q^2`$ is not very different from its value in the scaling region. While true, this statement is merely a rephrasing in the language of the operator product expansion of the experimentally observed fact that the resonance curve averages to the scaling curve. However, the operator product expansion does not explain why a certain correction is small or why there are cancellations: the expansion coefficients which determine this behavior are not predicted. The numerical confirmation of these coefficients will eventually come from a numerical solution of QCD on the lattice, but an understanding of the physical mechanism that leads to the small values of the expansion coefficient will almost certainly only be found in the framework of a model like ours.

For example, one clear lesson from our study of duality is that the commonly made sharp distinction between the “resonance region”, corresponding to an invariant mass $`W<2`$ GeV for scattering from a proton, and the deep inelastic region, where $`W>2`$ GeV, is completely artificial.

Finally, we remind the reader that our model, with all the charge on a single quark, with scalar currents, and with no spin degrees of freedom, leaves much to be done in model-building. The next step is to use more realistic currents. While making the calculations more complicated, coupling to the conserved quark current will allow one to study the $`Q^2`$-evolution of the Gross-Llewellyn Smith and momentum sum rules. To use a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ target will also be a useful step forward, but it may require foregoing the great advantages of the analytic solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation. As we have emphasized, the local duality seen here cannot be expected for more complicated targets and processes, and pursuing this issue is also clearly very important . Here we have taken a first small step which nevertheless has been enough to strongly suggest that for these more realistic models and more general processes there will be a generalization of local averaging — a theoretically well-defined procedure for integrating over regions of $`x_{cq}`$ — which will also display low energy duality. If so, we will not only have understood quark-hadron duality. We will also have opened the door to extending studies of a variety of structure functions into previously unreachable kinematic regimes.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank C. Carlson, F. Close, R. Ent, J. Goity, C. Keppel, R. Lebed, I. Niculescu and S. Liuti for stimulating discussions, and N.N. Nikolaev and S. Simula for pointing out several references. This work was supported in part by DOE contract DE-AC05-84ER40150 under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab), and by the Australian Research Council.


format: text

text:
# Measuring preferential attachment for evolving networks

\[

## Abstract

A key ingredient of current models proposed to capture the topological evolution of complex networks is the hypothesis that highly connected nodes increase their connectivity faster than their less connected peers, a phenomenon called preferential attachment. Measurements on four networks, namely the science citation network, Internet, actor collaboration and science coauthorship network indicate that the rate at which nodes acquire links depends on the node’s degree, offering direct quantitative support for the presence of preferential attachment. We find that for the first two systems the attachment rate depends linearly on the node degree, while for the latter two the dependence follows a sublinear power law.

(Last revised )

\]

Modeling the highly interconnected nature of various social, biological and communication systems as complex networks or graphs has attracted much attention in the last few years. . As for a long time these networks were modeled as completely random , the recent interest is motivated by the increasing evidence that real network display short length-scale clustering  and obey unexpected scaling laws , interpreted as signatures of deviation from randomness. Current approaches, using the tools of statistical physics  search for universalities both in the topology of these webs and in the dynamics governing their evolution. These efforts resulted in a class of models that view networks as evolving dynamical systems, rather than static graphs. Most evolving network models  are based on two ingredients : growth and preferential attachment. The growth hypothesis suggests that networks continuously expand through the addition of new nodes and links between the nodes, while the preferential attachment hypothesis states that the rate $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ with which a node with $`k`$ links acquires new links is a monotonically increasing function of $`k`$. While most versions of such evolving network models assume that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ is linear in $`k`$ , recently several authors proposed that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ could follow a power-law . Consequently, the time evolution of the degree $`k_i`$ of node $`i`$ can be obtained from the first order differential equation

$$\frac{dk_i}{dt}=m\mathrm{\Pi }(k_i),$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is a constant and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(k_i)=\frac{k_i^\alpha }{_jk_j^\alpha }=C(t)k_i^\alpha ,$$
(2)
with $`\alpha >0`$ an unknown scaling exponent. For $`\alpha =1`$ these models reduce to the scale-free model , for which the degree distribution $`P(k)`$, giving the probability that a node has $`k`$ links, follows $`P(k)k^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma =3`$. As Krapvisky, Redner and Leyvraz have shown , for $`\alpha <1`$ the degree distribution follows a stretched exponential, while for $`\alpha >1`$ a gelation-like phenomenon is expected, where a single site links to nearly all other nodes. On the other hand the hypothesis (2) raises a series of fundamental questions, that are not yet supported directly by experimental data. First, is preferential attachment indeed present in real networks? I.e. does indeed $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ depend on $`k`$, or it is $`k`$ independent, as assumed both by the Erdős-Rényi  or Watts-Strogatz  models? Second, if $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ does indeed depend on $`k`$, what is its functional form? Is it linear, as assumed in , or follows a power-law as suggested in ? Could $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ follow some unknown and yet unexplored functional form?

Here we offer the first direct attempt to answer these questions in quantitative terms by proposing a numerical method that allows us to extract the functional form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ directly from dynamical data on real evolving networks. Our measurements indicate that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ follows a power law for all investigated networks. For the Internet and the citation network we find $`\alpha =1`$, while for the science collaboration network and the Hollywood actor network the results indicate sublinear attachment, i.e. $`\alpha <1`$. These results offer the crucial missing link for modeling the dynamics of complex evolving networks.

Methods: To measure $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ we use computerized data on the dynamics of large networks. Consider a network for which we know the order in which each node and link joins the system. According to (1) and (2) the function $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ gives the rate at which an existing node with $`k`$ links acquires new links as the network grows. To measure $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ we need to monitor to which old node new nodes link to, in function of the degree of the old node. However, there is an important problem with this simple approach: the normalization constant, $`C(t)`$, depends on the time at which a given node joins the system, creating unwanted biases in the measurements. To avoid such bias we study the attachment of new nodes within a relatively short time-frame. Consider all nodes existing in the system at time $`T_0`$, called ”$`T_0`$ nodes”. Next select a group of ”$`T_1`$ nodes”, added between $`[T_1,T_1+\mathrm{\Delta }T]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T<<T_1`$ and $`T_1>T_0`$. When a $`T_1`$ node joins the system we record the degree $`k`$ of the $`T_0`$ node to which the new node links to. The histogram providing the number of links acquired by the $`T_0`$ nodes with exactly $`k`$ degree, after normalization, gives the $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k,T_0,T_1)`$ function. If the growing network develops a stationary state, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k,T_0,T_1)`$ should be independent of $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$, and should depend on $`k`$ only, providing us the $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ preferential attachment function. As we are forced to use relatively short $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ intervals, even for large networks with hundreds of thousands of nodes $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ has significant fluctuations, particularly for large $`k`$. To reduce the noise level, instead of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ we study the cumulative function:

$$\kappa (k)=_0^k\mathrm{\Pi }(k)𝑑k.$$
(3)
If $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ follows (2), we expect that

$$\kappa (k)k^{\alpha +1}.$$
(4)
Measurements: The method described above can be applied to systems for which the order in which the nodes are added to the network is known. In this respect we had access to four different computerized networks, whose main parameters are shown in Table 1.

(1) In the coauthorship networks of neuro-science (NS) the nodes are scientists, two nodes being linked if they coauthored a paper together . The database considered by us contains paper titles and authors of all relevant journals in the field of NS published between 1991-98. Similar to other collaboration networks  the distribution $`P(k)`$ for NS follows a power-law. Papers published between 1991-9x are used to reveal the network topology up to the considered 199x year, so that papers published in year 199x+1 are used to measure $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$.

(2) In the citation network the nodes are papers published in 1988 in Physical Review Letters, and links represent the citations these articles received. $`T_0`$ is chosen as the year 1989.

(3) In the actor network nodes are actors which are linked if they played together in a movie. The network investigated by us contains all movies and actors from 1892 up to 1999 . We determined $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ for actors that debuted between 1920 and 1940, i.e. $`T_0`$=1940. We followed the evolution of the new links yearly between 1942 and 1993.

(4) For the Internet data we investigated the nodes represent Autonomous Systems (AS) and links are direct connections between them . The available data follows the network evolution from 1997 up to the present days. The function $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ was determined for the nodes existing in year 2000.

Results: The $`\kappa (k)`$ functions obtained for the discussed databases are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. If preferential attachment is absent, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ is independent of $`k`$, we expect $`\kappa (k)k`$. In Figs. 1 and 2 we show as continuous line the linear fit. In each of the investigated examples the increase of $`\kappa (k)`$ is faster than linear, offering direct evidence that preferential attachment is present in each of the considered systems. Furthermore, we find that the curves follow a straight line on a log-log plot, indicating that with a good approximation the power law hypothesis (2) is valid. Note that apart from statistical fluctuations, the functional form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ is independent of $`T_0`$, supporting the stationary nature of the attachment process. There is some degree of variation, however, when it comes to the value of the exponent $`\alpha `$.

On Fig. 1 we present two $`\kappa (k)`$ curves for the citation network and for the Internet. For both networks we find that the slope of $`\kappa (k)`$ is very close to two, shown as dashed line on the figure. For the Internet where the measurement was performed for only one year, we obtain $`\alpha =1.05`$, while for the citation network we determined $`\kappa (k)`$ for eight different years, obtaining the set of $`\alpha `$ values shown in the Inset, indicating $`<\alpha >=0.95\pm 0.1`$. Thus we conclude that for these two networks the linear ($`\alpha =1`$) preferential attachment hypothesis offers a good approximation.

On the other hand, for the scientific collaboration and actor networks, we find $`\alpha <1`$ (Fig. 2) The set of $`\alpha `$ values for these networks are summarized in the insets of Fig. 2. On average we get $`<\alpha >=0.81\pm 0.1`$ for the actor network, and $`<\alpha >=0.79\pm 0.1`$ for the scientific collaboration networks.

Internal and external links: The observed sublinear behavior predicts that $`P(k)`$ for the systems shown in Fig. 2 should follow a stretched exponential . Nevertheless, the measured $`P(k)`$ indicate that a power law offers a better fit. How can we than reconcile the nonlinear form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ with the measured $`P(k)`$? A potential resolution of this conflict lies in the presence of internal links. For the scientific coauthorship network or the actor web links appear not only from new nodes added to the network, but as a result of new links connecting previously existing nodes as well. The method presented above allows us to investigate separately the attachment mechanisms of these distinct type of links. For is, when determining $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ we first limit the measurements only to external links, i.e. links that have been added to the system as a result of the appearance of new nodes. Second, we focus only on new internal links, i.e. new links that connect two previously present but disconnected nodes. For example, such internal link appears when two researchers who have not published jointly before, coauthor their first paper together or two actors, who did not act together before, are joined in a new movie. In general, preferential attachment implies that the probability that a new internal link appears between two nodes with $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ degree scales with the $`k_1k_2`$ product . Focusing on the actor network we find that both external and internal links follow preferential attachment. However, the exponent $`\alpha `$ differs for the two type of links.

From Fig. 3a we conclude that new incoming nodes tend to link to the already existing nodes, following the functional form (2) with $`\alpha <1`$. The $`\kappa (k_1k_2)`$ function determined from the internal links also follows a power-law. The scaling is clearly not sublinear, and the exponent determined from the assymptotic behavior is close to two (Fig. 3b). Thus the results indicate that the placement of the internal links is also governed by preferential attachment, which scales linearly with $`k`$. Similar results (not shown) have been obtained for the scientific collaboration web in neuroscience and mathematics . Note that for the science citation network internal links are not allowed, and the data resolution for the Internet does not allows to perform the same analysis at this point. We find that while the preferential attachment of the external links is clearly sublinear, the internal links follow a close to linear behavior. As in both the actor network and the scientific collaboration network the number of internal links far out-weight the external links, we believe that in the asymptotic limit the internal attachment is the one that drives the shape of the $`P(k)`$ distribution, eventually being responsible for its power-law form. These measurements raise several interesting possibilities for the analytical treatment of the complex coexistence of internal and external links, that could shed further light on the evolution of complex networks.

Initial attractiveness: Dorogovtsev, Mendes and Samukhin have recently suggested that in order to account for the fact that even nodes with no links can acquire links, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ should have an additive term, $`k_0`$, called initial attractiveness  so that, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)k_0+k^\alpha `$. For $`\alpha =1`$ it has been demonstrated the the degree exponent, $`\gamma `$, depends continuously on $`k_0`$. In principle, having the functional form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ allows us to determine $`k_0`$ as well. We inspected the form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$, which indeed does indicate that a nonzero $`k_0`$ is present. On the other hand the available statistics was not sufficient to determine unambiguously the value of $`k_0`$. In any case, our estimates indicate that $`k_0`$ is rather small, in the $`10^6`$ range, thus its presence has no effect on the scaling of $`\kappa (k)`$ at large $`k`$. Nevertheless, the nonzero $`k_0`$ plays an important role in starting the evolution of the node connectivity, since in its absence no disconnected node could acquire initial links.

| Database | \# nodes | \# links | $`\alpha `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Citation | 1736 | 83252 | $`0.95\pm 0.1`$ |
| Internet | 12409 | 13445 | $`1.05`$ |
| Collaboration | 209293 | 3534724 | $`0.79\pm 0.1`$ |
| Actor | 392340 | 33646882 | $`0.81\pm 0.1`$ |

Table 1. Summary of the investigated database, showing the number of nodes, links, and the average value of the obtained exponent $`\alpha `$.

In summary, our measurement offer direct confirmation for the existence of preferential attachment for rather different real evolving networks. The emerging picture is more complex, however, than originally assumed in . We find that for all the networks we studied Eq. (2) gives a good fit for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$, implying that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ follows a power-law. The exponent $`\alpha `$, however, is system dependent: while for the Internet and the citation network a linear $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ offers a reasonable fit, for the actor network and collaboration web the attachment rate is sublinear. These results give firmer foundation for the evolving network models, that have been studied extensively to describe the dynamics of real evolving networks. But they also pose an important question: what is the microscopic origin of preferential attachment? What determines the exponent $`\alpha `$ in general? While some preliminary answers have been proposed , a good understanding of this fundamental question is still lacking.

We acknowledge useful discussion with R. Albert, I. Derényi, and T. Vicsek. This research was supported by NSF, PHY-9988674 and CAREER DMR97-01998.


text:
# Errata to the article “Seiberg-Witten-Floer stable homotopy of three-manifolds with 𝑏₁=0”

There is a significant error at the top of p.921 in the paper. The sentence “Changing everything by a gauge, we can assume without loss of generality that $`i^{}(\widehat{a})\mathrm{ker}d^{}`$” is not correct. There is no gauge freedom available on $`X`$, because on p.916 we already fixed the gauge by imposing the Coulomb-Neumann condition on forms, $`\widehat{a}\mathrm{\Omega }_g^1(X)`$.

Furthermore, if we do not assume that $`i^{}(\widehat{a})\mathrm{ker}d^{}`$, then the estimates on the second term on the right hand side of Equation (17) do not go through. Precisely, in the paragraph on p.921 starting with “Similarly one can show that …,” instead of $`db_n0`$ in $`L_k^2`$ and $`b_n0`$ in $`L_{k+1}^2`$ we would have $`db_ndb`$ in $`L_k^2`$ and $`b_nb`$ in $`L_{k+1}^2`$, where $`i^{}(\widehat{x})=(a+db,\varphi )`$ and $`a\mathrm{ker}d^{}`$. Knowing that $`b_nb`$ and $`p_{\lambda _n}^{\mu _n}(a_n,e^{ib_n}\varphi _n)(a,e^{ib}\varphi )`$, we would like to deduce that $`p^0(a_n,\varphi _n)p^0(a,\varphi )`$. (Here, all limits are in $`L_{k+1}^2`$.) By hypothesis, we also know that the $`L_{k+1}^2`$ norms of $`(a_n,\varphi _n)`$ are bounded, and that $`(a_n,\varphi _n)V_{\lambda _n}`$. Thus, $`p^0(a_n,\varphi _n)=p_{\lambda _n}^0(a_n,\varphi _n)`$. We have

$`p^0(a_n,\varphi _n)p^0(a,\varphi )`$ $`=p_{\lambda _n}^0(a_n,\varphi _n)p^0(a,\varphi )`$
$`p_{\lambda _n}^0(a_n,e^{ib_nib}\varphi _n)p^0(a,\varphi )+p_{\lambda _n}^0(0,(e^{ib_nib}1)\varphi _n),`$
where all norms are $`L_{k+1}^2`$. Since $`b_nb`$ and $`\varphi _n_{L_{k+1}^2}`$ is bounded, using the Sobolev multiplication $`L_{k+1}^2\times L_{k+1}^2L_{k+1}^2`$ we get that the second term in the last expression above converges to $`0`$. If multiplication by $`e^{ib}`$ commuted with the projection $`p_{\lambda _n}^{\mu _n}`$, from $`p_{\lambda _n}^{\mu _n}(a_n,e^{ib_n}\varphi _n)(a,e^{ib}\varphi )`$ we would get that $`p_{\lambda _n}^{\mu _n}(a_n,e^{ib_nib}\varphi _n)(a,\varphi )`$, and then (applying $`p^0`$) the first term would converge as well. It would then follow that $`p^0(a_n,\varphi _n)p^0(a,\varphi )`$, as desired.

This argument works for $`b=0`$ but fails in general, because multiplication by $`e^{ib}`$ does not commute with $`p_{\lambda _n}^{\mu _n}`$. The origin of the problem is that the nonlinear map $`C^\mu `$ defined on p.917 is not compact.

The simplest way to fix this issue is to replace the Coulomb-Neumann condition by a double Coulomb condition. This approach is the subject of Khandhawit’s paper . We sketch the argument here, and refer to  for more details.

On p.916, when we define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g^1(X)`$, instead of the condition $`\widehat{a}|_X(\nu )=0`$ we impose a boundary Coulomb condition, $`i^{}(\widehat{a})\mathrm{ker}(d^{})`$. We also ask that the integral of $`\widehat{a}|_{Y_i}(\nu )`$ is zero on each connected component $`Y_iX`$. (This is automatic when $`X`$ is connected.) The new gauge condition satisfies a Fredholm property similar to Proposition 5; see \[1, Proposition 2\]. Moreover, the nonlinear map $`C^\mu `$ from p.917 is now compact, and we can delete $`\mathrm{pr}_{\mathrm{ker}d^{}}`$ from the second term on the right hand side of Equation (17) on p.921. Then, it is easy to show that this term converges to zero. A new difficulty appears in the argument at the top of p.922, when we glue a half-trajectory on $`[0,\mathrm{})\times Y`$ with a monopole on $`X`$ that may have a non-trivial $`dt`$ component on the boundary. Nevertheless, the gluing can be done after changing the half-trajectory on $`[0,\mathrm{})\times Y`$ by a suitable gauge transformation; see \[1, Corollary 2\].

There were a few other minor errors in the article:

1. On p.898, the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ on $`V`$ was defined by the formula

$$(b,\psi )_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=(b,\psi )+(id\xi ,i\xi \varphi )_{L^2},$$

measuring the norm of the projection of $`(b,\psi )`$ to the local Coulomb slice at $`(a,\varphi )`$. However, this formula does not yield a non-degenerate metric. There is still a residual $`S^1`$ gauge action on $`V`$, and the vectors tangent to the $`S^1`$-orbits, such as $`(0,i\varphi )`$, would have length zero. We can correct this by adding a circular projection term, given by the square of the inner product with $`(0,i\varphi )`$. Precisely, we set:

$$(b,\psi )_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2=(b,\psi )+(id\xi ,i\xi \varphi )_{L^2}^2+\left(\mathrm{Re}i\varphi ,\psi \right)^2.$$

Since the gradient of the $`CSD`$ functional is perpendicular to the $`S^1`$-orbits, it is still true that the trajectories of the $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$-gradient of $`CSD|_V`$ are the Coulomb projections of the trajectories of $`CSD`$ on $`i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0)`$.
2. In the middle of p.907, when we define the desuspension of $`X`$ by $`E`$ in the category $`_0`$, the alternative definition as $`\mathrm{\Omega }^EX`$ is incorrect. The correct definition is the one given in the previous line, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^EX=(E^+X,2dimE,0)`$. In general, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^EX`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^EX`$ may not even have the same homology, so they are not isomorphic in $`_0`$.
3. At the bottom of p.917, the set $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ should be the preimage of $`B(U_n,ϵ_n)\times V_\lambda ^\mu `$ under the map $`\mathrm{pr}_{U_n\times V_\lambda ^\mu }\mathrm{𝑆𝑊}^\mu `$, not under the linear map $`L^\mu `$.
4. Lemma 4 on p.918 is incorrect as stated. There can be trajectories that start outside the ball $`\overline{B(2R)}`$, go inside $`\overline{B(2R)}`$ at some time $`t_0`$, and converge to a point in $`B(R)`$. For the lemma to be true, we need an additional hypothesis, that $`x_n(t_0)`$ is the restriction of an approximate Seiberg-Witten solution on a compact $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ with boundary $`Y`$. An argument of this type is used in the proof of Lemma 2 in .
5. At the top of p.924, the proof that the class $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is independent of the choices made in the construction was incomplete. One needs to show independence of the index pair $`(N,L)`$ chosen in Theorem 4. This is done by Khandhawit in Proposition 5 from \[1, Appendix A\].

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Tirasan Khandhawit for pointing out two of the errors discussed above, as well as for fixing them in his paper . I am also grateful to Mikio Furuta, Tye Lidman and Jianfeng Lin for discussions that led to finding the other issues.


text:
# Revealing the black-body regime of small-𝑥 deep-inelastic scattering through final-state signals

## Abstract

We derive the major characteristics of inclusive and diffractive final states in deep-inelastic scattering off heavy nuclei for the-high energy (small-$`x`$) kinematics in which the limit of complete absorption is reached for the dominant hadronic fluctuations in the virtual photon (the black-body limit of the process). Both the longitudinal and transverse distributions of the leading hadrons are found to be strikingly different from the corresponding ones within the leading-twist approximation, and hence provide unambiguous signals for the onset of the black-body limit.

preprint:   ADP-01-13/T448 LTH 497

The black-body limit (BBL) of deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) from a heavy nucleus was first considered by V. Gribov in 1969 , before the discovery of perturbative QCD (PQCD). He assumed that at ultrahigh energies each hadronic configuration in the photon scatters with the same strength, and is absorbed by the nucleus. If the (virtual) photon is expressed as a linear superposition of partonic components (characterised by the transverse and longitudinal momenta of the individual partons) then the interaction with the target does not mix up these partonic components, i.e., they are eigenstates of the scattering matrix. This implies that the interaction is diagonal for each hadronic fluctuation, and features such as transverse sizes, invariant masses, and longitudinal momentum distributions are preserved by the BBL interaction. Away from the BBL, the diagonality is grossly violated (see, e.g., ).

The proton structure function, $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$, measured in DIS at DESY $`ep`$ collider (HERA) exhibits a rapid rise with the energy of the photon-proton subprocess, $`W`$, at high energies, or small $`x=q^2/(2Pq)`$, where $`P`$ is the proton’s momentum, and $`q,q^2=Q^2`$ are the photon’s momentum and virtuality. The standard leading-twist approximation (LTA) of PQCD describes $`F_2^p`$ extremely successfully in terms of a convolution of perturbatively calculable hard coefficient functions with quark and gluon parton distributions, which evolve in scale according to the Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP)  evolution equations. The rise of $`F_2^p`$ is translated into a rapid rise of the gluon and sea-quark distributions of the proton with $`1/x`$ at small $`x`$. To leading-log accuracy in $`Q^2`$, this leads to a numerically large density of partons at small $`x`$, which calls into question the applicability of the LTA at even smaller $`x`$ (for recent reviews, see ). This concern is best understood in the target rest frame by considering the inelastic interaction cross sections for given partonic configurations of the virtual photon. In particular, the expression for the scattering of a small $`q\overline{q}`$ dipole of transverse diameter $`d_{}`$ at small $`x`$ is given, in terms of the leading-log gluon distribution of the nuclear target $`xg^A`$, by:

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{PQCD}}^{\text{inel}}(d_{}^2,x)=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}d_{}^2\alpha _s(\overline{Q}^2)xg^A(x,\overline{Q}^2),$$
(1)
in which the scale $`\overline{Q}^2=\lambda /d_{}^2`$, with $`\lambda `$ a logarithmic function of $`Q^2`$. For large gluon densities, this leads to a conflict with unitarity of the $`S`$ matrix for the interaction of spatially small wave packets in the virtual photon which are almost completely absorbed  (especially in the case of heavy nuclei, where the gluon density is enhanced by nucleon number $`A`$). This may be conveniently expressed in terms of the geometrical limit for the inelastic “small dipole - nucleus” interaction of

$`\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{PQCD}}^{\text{inel}}`$ $`\widehat{\sigma }_{\text{black}}`$ $`=\pi R_{\text{target}}^2,`$ (2)
corresponding to the BBL for the total cross section of $`2\pi R_{\text{target}}^2`$.

Numerical studies performed using Eqs. (1 and 2) have demonstrated that interactions at the upper range of HERA energies in gluon-induced processes may be fairly close to the BBL in a wide range of impact parameters (see, e.g., ). This is consistent with an analysis  of current fits to HERA diffractive data, which lead to diffractive gluon densities which are significantly larger than the quark ones (see also ).

For heavy nuclei and central impact parameters, the perturbative $`x,Q^2`$ region, in which the interaction should be close to the BBL in both quark and gluon channels, is much broader than for nucleons, where scattering amplitudes at peripheral impact parameters are important and are far from the BBL. For example, for DIS on Pb at $`x10^3`$, at small impact parameters the BBL may be reached for $`Q^27(15)`$GeV2 for the quark (gluon) channel , that is, for the region where $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2\mathrm{ln}x_0/x`$ ($`x_00.05÷0.1`$ is the starting scale of the evolution at small $`x`$). This indicates that DGLAP becomes inapplicable in an $`x,Q^2`$ range, where the expansion of a small dipole in the transverse direction (diffusion) due to gluon bremsstrahlung is still small and hence the coupling constant is small. This indicates an exciting possibility of the existence of the BBL in QCD in the perturbative domain for the kinematics which will be probed at CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and which could also be probed at Relativistic-Heavy-Ion-Collider (RHIC) (at BNL) in pA collisions and at HERA/THERA in eA mode.

The experimental and theoretical challenge is to find unambiguous signals for the BBL. One problem is that predictions for the inclusive structure functions do not contain “smoking gun” signatures since they must account for leading twist shadowing, uncertainties in the input gluon densities, etc. This is especially acute in the case of the nucleon scattering where, even in the BBL, the structure function $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ is expected to increase rather rapidly, $`F_2^p\mathrm{ln}^31/x`$, of which $`\mathrm{ln}^21/x`$ is due to a Froissart-like increase of the radius of interaction $`r_{\text{int}}\mathrm{ln}1/x`$ ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}\mathrm{ln}1/x`$) and the remaining $`\mathrm{ln}1/x`$ reflects the infinite renormalization of the electric charge . As discussed in , the latter results from the fact that the photon couples in a pointlike manner to quarks. This also implies that for any energy there will always be small configurations in the photon wave function which have not yet reached the BBL. However, we expect that the BBL formulae will give a reasonable description of structure functions and hard diffractive processes for heavy nuclear target, where the blackness of the interaction is enhanced by the number of nucleons. The growth in the radius is essentially screened by the nuclear environment so that, for large nuclei, $`F_2^A\mathrm{ln}1/x`$.

To deduce predictions for the properties of the final states it is useful to work within the $`q\overline{q}`$ dipole approximation for the photon wave function. In the BBL the elastic and inelastic contributions are equal so that the total cross section is given by twice the inelastic contribution (summed over all dipole configurations):

$$\sigma _{\gamma ^{}A}=2\frac{dzd^2p_{}}{2(2\pi )^3}|\psi _\gamma ^{}^{q\overline{q}}(z,p_{},Q^2)|^2\pi R_A^2.$$
(3)
Here $`z`$ is the fraction of the photon plus momentum, $`q_+=q_0+q_3`$, carried by the quark, $`z=p_+/q_+`$, and $`p_{}`$ is the modulus of its transverse momentum in the plane perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ (the antiquark has $`(1z)`$ and $`p_{}`$). In Eq. (3) we implicitly use the fact that the interaction is diagonal in $`z`$ and $`p_{}`$ and black for each configuration. It is convenient to define

$$M^2=(p_{}^2+m_q^2)/(z(1z))$$
(4)
for the mass squared of the $`q\overline{q}`$ system and angle $`\theta `$ between the direction of the momentum of the quark in the centre of mass frame and the photon direction (the transverse plane is defined to be perpendicular to this). Neglecting $`m_q^2`$ compared to $`M^2,Q^2`$ gives

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta =2p_{}/\sqrt{M^2},z=(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )/2.$$
(5)
Hence for the nuclear structure functions we get

$$F_T^A(x,Q^2)=_0^{M_{\text{max}}^2}𝑑M^2\frac{2\pi R_A^2}{12\pi ^3}\frac{Q^2M^2\rho (M^2)}{(M^2+Q^2)^2}_1^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{3}{8}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),$$
(6)
$$F_L^A(x,Q^2)=_0^{M_{\text{max}}^2}𝑑M^2\frac{2\pi R_A^2}{12\pi ^3}\frac{Q^4\rho (M^2)}{(M^2+Q^2)^2}_1^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{3}{4}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,$$
(7)
$$\rho (M^2)=\sigma ^{e^+e^{}\text{hadrons}}/\sigma ^{e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}}.$$
(8)
Integration over $`\theta `$ gives the transverse and longitudinal structure functions in the BBL as an integral over produced masses. If one takes into account only the suppression induced by the square of the nuclear form factor in the rescattering amplitude, then $`M_{\text{max}}^2W^2/(m_NR_A)`$ and Eqs. (6) and (7) coincide with the original result of . However, in QCD, due to color transparency, $`M_{\text{max}}^2`$ is determined by the unitarity constraint and is substantially smaller than $`W^2/(m_NR_A)`$ (for a recent discussion, see ). The contribution of larger $`M^2`$ is suppressed by a smaller interaction cross section ($`1/M^2`$, in the LTA with small enough gluon densities). In order to visualize manifestations of the BBL, in the following discussion we neglect this contribution, which has a stronger $`A`$ dependence than the BBL term. The inclusion of $`\rho (M^2)`$ corrects the dipole formula, for which Eq. (3) holds, for higher order corrections (in $`\alpha _s`$) contributing at a given $`M^2`$. A relation between $`\rho (M^2)`$ and nuclear structure functions was also suggested in .

We also obtain, for the ratio of the deeply virtual Compton scattering and elastic amplitudes,

$$\frac{M(\gamma _T^{}A\gamma A)}{M(\gamma _T^{}A\gamma _T^{}A)}=\frac{_0^{M_{\text{max}}^2}\frac{dM^2\rho (M^2)}{(M^2+Q^2)}}{_0^{M_{\text{max}}^2}\frac{dM^2\rho (M^2)M^2}{(M^2+Q^2)^2}}.$$
(9)
The ability to neglect nondiagonal transitions in the BBL  justifies the removal of the integral over the masses in Eqs. (6) and (7) and, since diffraction is $`50\%`$ of the total cross section, we immediately find for the spectrum of diffractive masses:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dF_T^{D(3)}(x,Q^2,M^2)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dM^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵdF_L^{D(3)}(x,Q^2,M^2)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta dM^2}}=`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R_A^2}{12\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2\rho (M^2)}{(M^2+Q^2)^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}M^2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}ϵQ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ),`$ (11)
where $`ϵ`$ is the photon polarization. Thus, the spectrum of hadrons in the centre of mass of the diffractively produced system should be the same as in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. Hence, the dominant diffractively produced final state will have two jets (with fractal substructure) with a distribution in the centre of mass emission angle proportional to $`1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ for the transverse case and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ for the longitudinal case. The diffractive cross section, integrated over $`\theta `$, is obtained from Eq. (10) by removing the $`\frac{3}{8}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ factors. It follows from Eq. (10) that in the BBL diffractive production of high $`p_{}`$ jets is $`M^2`$ (while in the LTA it is $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$) and hence is enhanced: $`p_{}^2(jet)_T=3M^2/20,p_{}^2(jet)_L=M^2/5`$ .

The relative rate and distribution of jet variables for three jet events (originating from $`q\overline{q}g`$ configurations) will also be the same as in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and hence is given by the standard expressions for the process $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}g`$. In addition, in the BBL, the production of jets is flavor democratic (weighted by quark charges but unrelated to the quark content of the target).

An important advantage of the diffractive BBL signal is that these features of the diffractive final state should hold for $`M^2Q_{\text{BBL}}^2`$ even for $`Q^2Q_{\text{BBL}}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}^2`$ because configurations with transverse momenta $`Q_{\text{BBL}}/2`$ are perturbative but still interact in the black regime (and correspond to transverse size fluctuations for which the interaction is already black).

Another interesting feature of the BBL is the spectrum of leading hadrons in the photon fragmentation region. It is essentially given by Eq. (10). Since the distributions in $`z`$ (or equivalently $`\theta `$) do not depend on $`M`$, the jet distribution in $`z`$ is given by

$$\frac{d(\sigma _T+ϵ\sigma _L)}{dz}\frac{M^2}{Q^2}\frac{1+(2z1)^2}{8}+ϵ(zz^2).$$
(12)
Exclusive vector meson production in the BBL corresponds, in a sense, to a resurrection of the original vector meson dominance model  without off-diagonal transitions. The amplitude for the vector meson-nucleus interaction is proportion to $`2\pi R_A^2`$ (since each configuration in the virtual photon interacts with the same BBL cross section). This is markedly different from the requirements  for matching the generalised vector dominance model (see, e.g., ) with QCD in the scaling limit, where the off-diagonal matrix elements are large and lead to strong cancellations. We can factorize out the universal black interaction cross section for the dipole interaction from the overlap integral between wave functions of the virtual photon and vector mesons to find, for the dominant electroproduction of vector mesons,

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{\gamma _T^{}+AV+A}}{dt}=\frac{M_V^2}{Q^2}\frac{d\sigma ^{\gamma _L^{}+AV+A}}{dt}=\frac{(2\pi R_A^2)^2}{16\pi }\frac{3\mathrm{\Gamma }_VM_V^3}{\alpha (M_V^2+Q^2)^2}\frac{4\left|J_1(\sqrt{t}R_A)\right|^2}{tR_A^2},$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$ is the electronic decay width $`Ve^+e^{}`$, $`\alpha `$ is the fine-structure constant. Thus the parameter-free prediction is that, in the BBL (complete absorption) at large $`Q^2`$, vector meson production cross sections have a $`1/Q^2`$ behaviour. This is in stark contrast to an asymptotic behaviour of $`1/Q^6`$ predicted in PQCD  since a factor $`1/Q^4`$, due to the square of the cross section of interaction of a small dipole with the target (color transparency), disappears in the BBL.

In the LTA, the factorization theorem is valid and leads to a universal (i.e., target-independent) spectrum of leading particles for scattering off partons of the same flavor. Fundamentally, this can be explained by the fact that, in the Breit frame, the fast parton which is hit by the photon carries practically all of its light-cone momentum ($`z1`$). As a result of QCD evolution, this parton acquires virtuality, $`Q^2`$, and a rather large transverse momentum, $`k_t`$ (which is still $`Q^2`$). So, in PQCD, quarks and gluons emitted in the process of QCD evolution and in the fragmentation of heavily virtual partons together still carry all the photon momentum. In contrast, in the BBL, the leading particles originate from coherent diffraction (peripheral collisions) and central highly inelastic collisions. These contributions come from the fragmentation of a highly virtual $`q\overline{q}`$ pair with similar light-cone fractions of longitudinal momenta and large relative transverse momenta \[see, e.g., Eqs. (10) and (12)\].

The inclusive spectrum of leading hadrons can be assumed, neglecting energy losses, as being due to the independent fragmentation of quark and antiquark of virtualities $`Q^2`$, with $`z`$ and $`p_{}`$ distributions given by Eqs. (10) and (12) (cf. diffractive production of jets discussed above). Note that energy losses of partons calculated in the limit of small nuclear parton densities do not lead to a change of the the $`z`$ fraction carried by a parton, and hence do not violate the LTA (see, e.g., ). In the BBL, energy losses may be larger, further suppressing the spectrum as compared to Eq. (14).

The independence of fragmentation is justified because large transverse momenta of quarks dominate in the photon wave function \[cf. Eqs. (4)–(7)\] and because of the weakness of the final-state interaction between $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$, since $`\alpha _s`$ is small and the rapidity interval is of the order of 1. Obviously, this leads to a gross depletion of the leading hadron spectrum as compared to the LTA situation in which leading hadrons are produced in the fragmentation region of the parton which carries essentially all momentum of the virtual photon. If we neglect gluon emissions in the photon wave function, we find, for instance, for the differential multiplicity of leading hadrons, $`dN^{\gamma _T^{}/h}/dz`$, produced by transverse virtual photons, in the BBL,

$$\frac{dN^{\gamma _T^{}/h}}{dz}=2_z^1D^{q/h}(z/y,Q^2)\frac{3}{4}(1+(2y1)^2)𝑑y.$$
(14)
Here $`D^{q/h}(z/y,Q^2)`$ is the fragmentation function of a quark, with any flavor $`q`$, into hadrons. To simplify Eq. (14) we used $`D^{u/h}=D^{d/h}`$ and neglected a rather small difference between $`D^{u/h}`$ and $`D^{s,c/h}`$.

Calculations using Eq. (14) show a strong suppression of the leading hadron spectrum as compared to the LTA predictions (see Fig. 1). Moreover we expect a further softening as $`Q^2`$ increases, resulting from increased parton emission in the virtual photon wave function: progressively more configurations contain extra hard gluons, each fragmenting independently in the BBL, further amplifying deviations from the standard LTA predictions.

Another important signature of the BBL is the hardening of $`p_{}`$ distributions with decreasing $`x`$ (at fixed $`Q^2`$). Hence, an efficient experimental strategy would be to select leading jets in the current fragmentation region and examine their $`z`$ and $`p_{}`$-dependence as a function of $`x`$. Qualitatively, the effect of broadening of $`p_{}`$ distributions is similar to the increase of the $`p_{}`$ distribution in , although final states in DIS were not discussed in this model. However, due to the distribution of the available $`p_{}`$ between the produced hadrons, this effect would be more difficult to observe than the $`z`$ depletion one, and one would require detailed modelling.

An important advantage of nondiffractive scattering is the ability to select scattering at central impact parameters (for example, via studies of inelastic interactions as a function of the number of nucleons produced in the nucleus fragmentation region). Such a selection allows the effective thickness of the nucleus to be increased, as compared to the inclusive situation, by a factor of $``$ 1.5, and hence allows the BBL to be reached at significantly larger $`x`$. An important signature will be a strong depletion of the leading hadron spectrum with centrality (in the BBL) and a lack of correlations with centrality (in the LTA).

To summarize, we have demonstrated that the study of final states in DIS off nuclei would provide several stringent signals for the onset of the BBL. In contrast to inclusive observables they will not depend on details of the input parton distributions, and hence will be far more reliable. In the nucleon target case, despite the fact that many photon configurations are far away from the BBL, an examination of these final-states observables appears to be a promising way to search for precursors of the BBL. In particular, looking for a strong depletion of hadrons in the current fragmentation region, in combination with the detection of particles in the proton fragmentation region, looks promising.

We thank A.H. Mueller for a useful discussion and GIF, ARC, PPARC, and DOE for support. LF and MS thank INT (University of Washington) for hospitality during the time this work was completed.


text:
# 1 mSUGRA solutions

The reach of a future Linear Collider

after the g-2 result

F. RICHARD

Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire, IN2P3-CNRS

et Université de Paris-Sud, F-91405 Orsay Cedex, France

## Abstract

Combining the cosmological requirement on dark matter with the recent BNL g-2 measurement it is argued that, within the mSUGRA framework, the preferred region for SUSY mass parameters falls well inside the area covered by the future linear colliders under consideration for right handed sleptons and of the 2 lightest neutralinos. The coverage for the lightest chargino and left handed sleptons is also favoured but with smaller confidence.

The main uncertainty on the physics potential of future e+e- colliders comes from our ignorance of the SUSY mass spectrum. As recently pointed out in , if the mass spectrum of gauginos (charginos, neutralinos) and sleptons is light enough to be observable with a 500 GeV LC, then signals should appear before LHC starts(2006)either in the precise measurement of g-2 under way at BNL, or in the observation of primordial neutralinos in the high sensitivity experiments under construction (CDMS, EDELWEISS, CRESST).

The recent indication  reported from the BNL experiment although not yet conclusive (2.6 s.d. effect), is encouraging since it is compatible with the expected contributions of a light SUSY spectrum as will be discussed in more detail below.

As already mentioned, there is no definite SUSY symmetry breaking, SSB, mechanism which can allow a precise prediction of the SUSY mass spectrum. In the most general approach this spectrum has more than 100 free parameters but there are various experimental constraints (in particular the requirement to avoid FCNC) which impose to reduce considerably this number.

In the so-called gravity-mediated SSB, mSUGRA, there are 2 mass parameters, m0 and m1/2, one related to the mass of the scalar superpartners and the other related to the mass of the fermionic superpartners, and 3 mixing parameters tan$`\beta `$, $`\mu `$ and A. These parameters enter in the definition of the SUSY particles, the Higgs bosons and the Z masses. The latter provides one constraint which allows to determine $`\mu ^2`$, leaving unknown sign($`\mu `$).

Four ingredients play an important part in defining the allowed domain for m0, m1/2 and tan$`\beta `$ (A plays a less important role):

* The Higgs mass which, according to LEP, should be above 114 GeV (and probably at 115 GeV) which imposes m1/2 above 350 GeV (this lower bound can be reduced to $``$ 200 GeV taking into account various uncertainties) unless m0 is very large (unlikely given the observation on g-2 as discussed below).
* The recent measurement of g-2 for the muons at BNL with a 2.6 sd excess above the SM value which, interpreted in terms of SUSY, crudely speaking says  (at the 1.5 sd level) that $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is below 65$`\sqrt{tan\beta }`$ GeV, where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is of order Mchargino+Msneutrino. From LEP2 we can tell that this quantity is above 200 GeV, implying that tan$`\beta `$ should be larger than $``$ 10. The sign of g-2 also implies that $`\mu `$ should be positive.
* The cosmological solution which favours small values of m0 to generate the proper amount of dark matter in the universe($`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2`$0.3). To insure that the LSP is neutral (neutralino) and not charged (stau lepton) m0 is limited from below. The co-annihilation process stau+neutralino, active when both particles have the same mass, favours solutions which are close to this limit.
* The branching ratio b$``$s$`\gamma `$ implies that for large tan$`\beta `$, m1/2 and m0 should be large to be compatible with the data. This constraint is only very restrictive for negative values of $`\mu `$ while for positive values, compatible with the g-2 result, it simply implies that tan$`\beta `$ cannot be above $``$ 30 .

Putting together the 4 requirements, one can easily derive a valid SUSY spectrum. Typical mass spectra for 3 relevant values of tan$`\beta `$ are given in table 1.

Note that one can adjust the lightest Higgs mass to 115 GeV with the A parameter.

As often discussed in the litterature, the dark matter constraint suggesting light neutralinos and sleptons can be evaded in several ways. Without discussing the details one may simply state that the g-2 result prevent most of these scenarios. One can also predict whether the direct neutralino search is likely to produce a signal when the detectors under construction will reach a mass of 10-100kg of Ge (in the table the rate per day with 100kg of Ge is indicated) provided that the background can be controlled according to expectations.

To compute the SUSY contribution to g-2=2$`\delta a_\mu `$, I have used the detailed formulae given in . The solution with tan$`\beta `$=10 is clearly disfavored. The reason for this is simply that the Higgs mass constraint from LEP2 gives large mass values for the sneutrino and the chargino which therefore forces large values of tan$`\beta `$ to satisfy the bound coming from g-2.

The choice of tan$`\beta `$30 is a standard one in grand unified theories with unification of the Yukawa coupling constants of the 3d generation of fermions. Higher values of tan$`\beta `$ cannot be accomodated with the low values of m0 and m1/2 needed for g-2 according to . The conclusion is that with the g-2 result, an e+e- collider operating at 500 GeV can very likely observe sleptons and neutralinos (first + second lightest neutralino).

At 800 GeV there is also access to charginos. Very similar numbers can be found in .

Figure 1 and 2 give a more general picture of the coverage offered by a LC operating at 800 GeV. The LSP relic abundance satisfies the cosmological bounds in a small band at the frontier of the excluded band (co-annihilation with staus with a mass close to the LSP). Combining this cosmological requirement with the g-2 measurement one can conclude that the preferred region falls well inside the area covered by the LC for right handed sleptons and of the 2 lightest neutralinos. The coverage for the lightest charginos and left handed sleptons is also favoured but with smaller confidence.

These conclusions are based on the mSUGRA approach which is still consistent with the main requirements dictated by the Higgs limits/signal from LEP2, g-2 and DM. There are however several motivations to relax the tight unification of the mSUGRA scheme and this can be done without contradicting experimental constraints. Recall for instance that EW baryogenesis requires a light stop, of order 100 GeV, which is acceptable if one relaxes the unification of scalar masses at GUT. One could then have a light right handed stop and a very heavy left-handed stop (providing the necessary input for the Higgs mass at $``$115 GeV).

Relaxing the mSUGRA connection between the slepton and the squark masses, one could ignore the Higgs limit from LEP2 which mainly comes from the stop sector, and allow for lighter chargino/slepton to have a g-2 value consistent with the tan$`\beta `$=10 solution (table 2). Nothing therefore forbids at present the possibility to observe with e+e- a more complete SUSY spectrum than suggested by the mSUGRA scheme.

Although still speculative, given the present error on g-2 (which however should be reduced by two with the existing data), this discussion illustrates the impact of the BNL result. If confirmed, it could herald a brillant future of major discoveries for a LC operating up to $``$1 TeV and for dark matter searches.

APPENDIX

In this appendix, I will briefly describe the various assumptions made to derive above results.

Concerning the derivation of $`\mu ^2`$ from the ESWB relation, I have used the approximation valid for large tan$`\beta `$:

$$\mu ^21.5m_{1/2}^20.5M_Z^20.04m_0^2$$

As noted in  one can almost neglect the dependence with m0 for the large values of tan$`\beta `$ considered here.

One can in principle also derive mA using (standard notations):

$$m_A^2=m_1^2+m_2^2m_{H_1}^2+\mu ^2$$

At moderate values of tan$`\beta `$, one should have :

$$m_{H_1}^2=m_0^2+0.52m_{1/2}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m^2$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is a correction expected to be negative and important at large tan$`\beta `$. Checking with the results given in  there seems to be good agreement even up to tan$`\beta `$=30 as shown in table 3. This implies that the CP-odd Higgs boson will be light enough that one will be able to measure sizeable deviations on the light Higgs branching ratios. This important conclusion has to be checked more precisely.

Acknowledgements Useful discussions with A. Djouadi and P. Zerwas are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# X-raying Active Galaxies with the New Generation of X-ray Observatories: Ionized Outflows and High-Redshift Studies

## 1. Introduction

The main goals of X-ray studies of active galactic nuclei (AGN) are (1) to measure the key parameters of the accreting black hole system, such as the black hole mass, spin, and accretion rate, (2) to determine the distribution, dynamics and physical conditions of nuclear and circumnuclear material (e.g., the accretion disk and its corona, the torus, jets, winds, clouds, and any circumnuclear starburst), and (3) to understand the cosmic X-ray evolution of AGN. The talks and posters at this symposium have made it clear that studies with Chandra and XMM-Newton have already touched all aspects of AGN research, and it is wonderful to see such progress.

This proceedings paper will briefly cover two important areas of AGN research that should show exciting growth during the new century: (1) X-ray studies of ionized outflows in Seyfert galaxies and quasars, and (2) X-ray studies of the highest-redshift AGN. Only limited citations will be possible due to space limitations; our apologies in advance.

## 2. Ionized Outflows in Seyfert Galaxies and Quasars

One of the most revolutionary aspects of the new observatories are the gratings spectra they regularly provide; in AGN outflow research these have given qualitatively new information by increasing the number of spectral features available for study from 2–3 to 30–60 (see Figures 1 and 2). These features include absorption lines, emission lines, unresolved transition arrays, and edges. They provide constraints on the dynamics, geometry, and physical conditions in an AGN outflow. For example, the Doppler shifts of absorption lines have shown that the X-ray absorber is indeed outflowing with typical bulk velocities of a few hundred km s-1 and can have a velocity dispersion comparable to the bulk velocity (e.g., Kaspi et al. 2001 and references therein). In some cases multiple velocity components and P Cygni profiles are discernible. In terms of geometry, X-ray emission-line strengths confirm that these outflows have large covering factors ($``$ 0.3–0.8), but the characteristic distance from the black hole and radial extent are still poorly constrained. Pinning down these quantities will require a better understanding of the physical conditions in the absorbing gas, particularly its density. It is also crucial to determine if the gas is in photoionization equilibrium and to assess its abundances and dust content. Hopefully the long gratings observations currently being performed will provide the requisite constraints.

Aside from the measurement of key parameters, X-ray gratings studies have also allowed a re-evaluation of the basic interpretation of the low-energy spectral complexity seen from many Seyfert galaxies (e.g., Branduardi-Raymont et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2001); some have argued for the presence of accretion-disk lines formed close to a Kerr black hole. The current debate over these lines should be resolvable with better spectral data and constraints on the rapid variability of the low-energy spectral complexity.

Looking further into the future of X-ray outflow studies, it is important that X-ray grating spectrometers achieve better spectral resolution (also see the paper by M. Elvis in these proceedings). The current ones, while a major advance, have velocity resolutions comparable to that of IUE ($``$ 300–600 km s-1). Just as HST revealed unresolved structure (e.g., multiple velocity components) in many of the ultraviolet lines studied by IUE, future X-ray missions may further subdivide the currently detected X-ray absorption lines (see Figure 3). Larger collecting area is also of great importance; currently even the brightest Seyfert galaxies require gratings observations of $`>1`$ day, and X-ray gratings studies of the more powerful outflows known in luminous quasars \[e.g., Broad Absorption Line (BAL) quasars\] are essentially impossible. The few X-ray CCD spectra available for BAL quasars suggest that X-ray BALs may be awaiting discovery (e.g., Gallagher et al. 2001; Mathur et al. 2001). Given the large X-ray column densities observed in BAL quasars, constraints on the velocity structure of the X-ray absorbing gas will have fundamental implications for our understanding of the energy budget of luminous AGN.

## 3. X-rays from the Dawn of the Modern Universe

One of the main themes in astronomy over the coming decades will be the exploration of the dawn of the modern Universe, when the first stars, galaxies, and black holes formed, ending the cosmic “dark age” (e.g., the USA National Research Council 2000 Decadal Report). X-ray astronomy can play a crucial role in this project by allowing studies of warm and hot objects in the early Universe, thereby complementing studies of the cooler Universe with observatories such as NGST, ALMA, Herschel, SIRTF, and SKA. Large X-ray missions such as XEUS ($`\$2`$ billion) are being planned to focus on the first massive black holes (at $`z`$ 5–20) and black hole evolution.

It is critical to use Chandra and XMM-Newton to lay the observational groundwork for future high-redshift X-ray efforts. At present, our knowledge about the $`z>4`$ X-ray Universe is unfortunately quite limited. Only 16 objects at $`z>4`$ have published X-ray detections: 10 quasars, four blazars, one Seyfert galaxy, and one gamma-ray burst afterglow. The quasars and Seyfert galaxy have limited counts (typically 10–50); their broad-band spectral energy distributions look roughly consistent with those of lower-redshift objects (e.g., Kaspi, Brandt, & Schneider 2000; Brandt et al. 2001a). The four blazars are the only $`z>4`$ objects with X-ray spectra. Three of them show low-energy cutoffs apparently due to X-ray absorption (e.g., Fabian et al. 2001 and references therein), extending the absorption-redshift trend found for radio-loud quasars at lower redshifts (e.g., Fiore et al. 1998).

Figure 4 shows the redshift distribution of published luminous AGN at $`z>4`$ with published X-ray detections marked. Most of the X-ray detections are at $`z<4.6`$, and there is only one at $`z>5`$ separated from the others by $`\mathrm{\Delta }z>1`$. This object, SDSS 1044–0125 at $`z=5.80`$, was recently detected by XMM-Newton and was found to be $`10`$ times weaker in X-rays than expected given its optical flux (Brandt et al. 2001b). Absorption was proposed as the most likely cause of its X-ray weakness, and BALs have indeed recently been discovered by Maiolino et al. (2001) and F.H. Chaffee et al., in preparation. Given that SDSS 1044–0125 is likely to be an unusual member of the $`z>5`$ population, at present we have no constraints on the X-ray properties of normal $`z>5`$ quasars. X-ray astronomers are largely “groping in the dark (age)” when attempting to plan missions to study AGN at $`z`$ 5–20. Fortunately, over the next five years surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000) should provide a large number of $`z=`$ 5–6.5 AGN, many of which should be bright enough for study in X-rays. It should also be possible to detect moderate-luminosity AGN at $`z=`$ 5–10 in the deepest X-ray surveys (e.g., Haiman & Loeb 1999); follow-up of such objects will prove challenging. Moderate-to-extreme photon starvation will limit our ability to perform X-ray spectroscopy of the highest-redshift AGN for the next few years, even with XMM-Newton (barring fortuitous finds such as lensed quasars or bright blazars). However, prospects are good for Constellation-X and XEUS which should be able to deliver many 10,000–100,000 count spectra of the highest redshift AGN (see Figure 5).

### Acknowledgments.

We thank the organizers for an excellent symposium. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of NASA grant NAS8-38252 (WNB, SK, SCG), NASA LTSA grant NAG5-8107 (WNB, SK), CXC grant GO0-1160X (WNB, SK), and NASA GSRP grant NGT5-50277 (SCG).

## References

Brandt, W.N., et al. 2001a, AJ, in press (astro-ph/0102411)

Brandt, W.N., Guainazzi, M., Kaspi, S., Fan, X., Schneider, D.P., Strauss, M.A., Clavel, J., & Gunn, J.E. 2001b, AJ, 121, 591

Branduardi-Raymont, G., Sako, M., Kahn, S.M., Brinkman, A.C., Kaastra, J.S., & Page, M.J. 2001, A&A, 365, L140

Collinge, M.J., et al. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0104125)

Fabian, A.C., Celotti, A., Iwasawa, K., Ghisellini, G. 2001, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0101288)

Fiore, F., Elvis, M., Giommi, P., & Padovani, P. 1998, ApJ, 492, 79

Gallagher, S.C., Brandt, W.N., Laor, A., Elvis, M., Mathur, S., Wills, B.J., & Iyomoto, N. 2001, ApJ, 546, 795

Haiman, Z., & Loeb, A. 1999, ApJ, 521, L9

Kaspi, S., Brandt, W.N., & Schneider, D.P. 2000, AJ, 119, 2031

Kaspi, S., et al. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0101540)

Lee, J.C., Ogle, P.M., Canizares, C.R., Marshall, H.L., Schulz, N.S., Morales, R., Fabian, A.C., & Iwasawa, K. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0101065)

Maiolino, R., Mannucci, F., Baffa, C., Gennari, S., & Oliva, E. 2001, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0104147)

Mathur, S., Matt, G., Green, P.J., Elvis, M., & Singh, K.P. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0102308)

Sako, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L168

York, D.G., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579