text:
# math-ph/0112063 An example of simple Lie superalgebra with several invariant bilinear forms

## 1 Introduction

In this paper the associative superalgebra $`𝒜=SH_3^{}(0)`$ with two-dimensional space of supertraces is presented. It is shown that (i) it is simple, (ii) its commutant $`A_1=[SH_3^{}(0),SH_3^{}(0)\}`$ is a simple Lie superalgebra and (iii) $`A_1`$ has at least 2-dimensional space of nondegenerate bilinear invariant forms. Would $`A_1`$ be finitedimensional superalgebra having 2-dimensional space of invariant bilinear forms, it necessarily would not be simple.

The superalgebra $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ belongs to the class of superalgebras of observables of $`N`$-particle Calogero model which is denoted in  as $`SH_N^{}(\nu )`$, where $`\nu `$ is a coupling constant of this Calogero model .

Let $`x_iR`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

The Hamiltonian of Calogero model after some similarity transformation attains the form

$`H_{Cal}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_i^2}}x_i^2+\nu {\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x_ix_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}\right]`$ (1)
which coincides with the operator

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\{a_i^0,a_i^1\}`$ (2)
on the space of symmetric functions. The annihilation and creation operators $`a_i^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ correspondingly) acting on the space of complex valued infinitely smooth functions of $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$, … , $`x_N`$ are expressed via the differential-difference Dunkl operators $`D_i(x)`$

$`a_i^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(x_i+(1)^\alpha D_i(x)),\text{ where }D_i={\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}+\nu {\displaystyle \underset{li}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_ix_l}}(1K_{il}),`$ (3)
and $`K_{ij}=K_{ji}`$ are the operators of elementary transpositions

$`K_{ij}x_i=x_jK_{ij},K_{ij}x_k=x_kK_{ij}\text{ if }ki\text{ and }kj,`$ (4)
satisfying as a consequence the following relations:

$`K_{ij}a_i^\alpha =a_j^\alpha K_{ij},K_{ij}a_k^\alpha =a_k^\alpha K_{ij}\text{ if }ki\text{ and }kj,K_{ij}^2=1.`$ (5)
The operators $`a_i^\alpha `$ satisfy the following commutation relations

$`[a_i^\alpha ,a_j^\beta ]=ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\left(\delta _{ij}+\nu \delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1,li}{\overset{N}{}}}K_{il}\nu \delta _{ij}K_{ij}\right),`$
where $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$ = $`ϵ^{\beta \alpha },`$ $`ϵ^{\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1}}=1`$, which lead  to the relations

$`[H,a_i^\alpha ]=(1)^\alpha a_i^\alpha ,`$
and, therefore, $`a_i^1`$ when acting on the Fock vacuum $`|0`$ such that $`a_j^0|0=0`$ for any $`j`$, give all the wavefunctions of the model (2) and, consequently, of the model (1). In  Perelomov operators , describing the wavefunctions of the model (1) are expressed via these operators $`a_i^\alpha `$.

Definition 1. $`SH_N(\nu )`$ is the associative superalgebra of all polynomials in the operators $`K_{ij}`$ and $`a_i^\alpha `$ with $`Z_2`$-grading $`\pi `$ defined by the formula: $`\pi (a_i^\alpha )=1`$, $`\pi (K_{ij})=0`$.

The superalgebra $`SH_N(\nu )`$ is called the algebra of observables.

It is clear that $`SH_N(\nu )=SH_1(0)SH_N^{}(\nu )`$, where $`SH_1(0)`$ is generated by the operators $`a^\alpha =_ia_i^\alpha /\sqrt{N}`$ satisfying the commutation relations $`[a^\alpha ,a^\beta ]=ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$, while $`SH_N^{}(\nu )`$ is generated by the transpositions $`K_{ij}`$ and by all linear combinations of the form $`_i\lambda _ia_i^\alpha `$ with coefficients $`\lambda _i`$ satisfying the condition $`_i\lambda _i=0`$.

The group algebra $`C[S_N]`$ of the permutation group $`S_N`$, generated by elementary transpositions $`K_{ij}`$ is a subalgebra of $`SH_N^{}(\nu )`$.

Definition 2. The supertrace on an arbitrary associative superalgebra $`𝒜`$ is complex-valued linear function $`str()`$ on $`𝒜`$ which satisfies the condition

$`str(fg)=(1)^{\pi (f)\pi (g)}str(gf)`$ (6)
for every $`f,g𝒜`$ with definite parity.

It is proven in  that $`SH_N(\nu )`$ has nontrivial supertraces and the dimension of the space of the supertraces on $`SH_N(\nu )`$ is equal to the number of partitions of $`N`$ into the sum of positive odd integers. 111The analogous result for Calogero model based on arbitrary root system  is presented in . In particular, $`SH_2(\nu )`$ has only one supertrace and $`SH_3(\nu )`$ has two independent supertraces. Since $`SH_N(\nu )=SH_1(0)SH_N^{}(\nu )`$ and $`SH_1(0)`$ has one supertrace, it follows that the numbers of supertraces on $`SH_N(\nu )`$ and on $`SH_N^{}(\nu )`$ are the same.

Every supertrace $`str()`$ defines the bilinear form $`B_{str}`$:

$`B_{str}(f,g)=str(fg).`$ (7)
Since the complete set of null-vectors of every invariant bilinear form constitutes the two-sided ideal of the algebra, the supertrace is a good tool for finding such ideals.

It should be noticed that the existence of supertraces depends on the choice of $`Z_2`$-grading $`\pi `$, while the existence of an ideals does not depend on the grading.

In the well known case of $`SH_2^{}(\nu )`$ corresponding to the usual two-particle Calogero model the only supertrace defines the bilinear form (7) which degenerates when $`\nu `$ is half-integer , hence, the superalgebra $`SH_2^{}(\nu )`$ has an ideal for these values of $`\nu `$. When $`N3`$ the situation is more complicated as $`SH_N^{}(\nu )`$ has more than one supertrace. In the case of finitedimensional superalgebra this would be sufficient for existence of ideals but for infinitedimensional superalgebras under consideration the existence of ideals is not completely investigated yet.

It is shown in  that in the superalgebras $`SH_3^{}(\nu )`$ with $`\nu =n\pm 1/3`$ or $`\nu =n+1/2`$ ($`n`$ is an integer) there exists one supertrace with degenerated corresponding bilinear form (7) and that for the other values of $`\nu `$ all the bilinear forms corresponding to supertraces are non-degenerate.

One can suggest that for the latest case the corresponding superalgebras are simple.

Below it is shown that the associative superalgebra $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ is simple and that its commutant is simple Lie superalgebra.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the generating elements of associative superalgebra $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ are presented together with the relations between them. The simplicity of $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ is proved in Section 3 and in the last section the simplicity of $`[SH_3^{}(0),SH_3^{}(0)\}`$ is established.

## 2 The algebra $`SH_3^{}(0)`$

In this Section we present the generating elements of associative superalgebra $`𝒜=SH_3^{}(0)`$ and relations between them.

Let $`\lambda =exp(2\pi i/3)`$. As a basis in $`C\left[S_3\right]`$ let us choose the vectors

$`L_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\lambda ^kK_{12}+K_{23}+\lambda ^kK_{31}),`$
$`Q_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(1+\lambda ^kK_{12}K_{13}+\lambda ^kK_{12}K_{23}),`$
$`L_{i+3}=L_i,Q_{i+3}=Q_i,`$
$`L_\pm \stackrel{def}{=}L_{\pm 1},Q_\pm \stackrel{def}{=}Q_{\pm 1}.`$
Instead of the generating elements $`a_i^\alpha `$ let us introduce the vectors

$`x^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`a_1^\alpha +\lambda a_2^\alpha +\lambda ^2a_3^\alpha ,x\stackrel{def}{=}x^0,x^+\stackrel{def}{=}x^1,`$
$`y^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`a_1^\alpha +\lambda ^2a_2^\alpha +\lambda a_3^\alpha ,y\stackrel{def}{=}y^0,y^+\stackrel{def}{=}y^1,`$
which are derived from $`a_i^\alpha `$ by subtracting the center of mass $`a^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2,3}{}}a_i^\alpha `$.

The Lie algebra $`sl_2`$ of inner automorphisms of $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ is generated by the generators $`T^{\alpha \beta }`$

$`T^{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(x^\alpha y^\beta +x^\beta y^\alpha ).`$ (8)
These generators satisfy the usual commutation relations

$`[T^{\alpha \beta },T^{\gamma \delta }]=ϵ^{\alpha \gamma }T^{\beta \delta }+ϵ^{\alpha \delta }T^{\beta \gamma }+ϵ^{\beta \gamma }T^{\alpha \delta }+ϵ^{\beta \delta }T^{\alpha \gamma },`$ (9)
and act on generating elements $`x^\alpha `$ and $`y^\alpha `$ as follows:

$`[T^{\alpha \beta },x^\gamma ]=ϵ^{\alpha \gamma }x^\beta +ϵ^{\beta \gamma }x^\alpha ,[T^{\alpha \beta },y^\gamma ]=ϵ^{\alpha \gamma }y^\beta +ϵ^{\beta \gamma }y^\alpha `$ (10)
leaving the group algebra $`C[S_3]`$ invariant: $`[T^{\alpha \beta },K_{ij}]=0`$.

Clearly, $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ decomposes into the infinite direct sum of finitedimensional irreducible representations of this $`sl_2`$. Let $`𝒜_s`$ ($`s`$ is a spin) be the direct sum of all $`2s+1`$-dimensional irreducible representations in this decomposition. So

$`𝒜=𝒜_0𝒜_{1/2}𝒜_1\mathrm{}`$ (11)
Evidently, $`𝒜_0`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝒜=SH_3^{}(0)`$.

As every element of the subspace $`𝒜_s`$ for $`s>0`$ is a linear combinations of the vectors of the form $`[f,T^{\alpha \beta }]`$ where $`T^{\alpha \beta }`$ is defined in (8), every supertrace vanishes on this subspace and has non-trivial values only on the associative subalgebra $`𝒜_0SH_3^{}(0)`$ of all $`sl_2`$-singlets.

Let $`m=\frac{1}{4}\{x^\alpha ,y_\alpha \}`$. Clearly, $`m`$ is a singlet under the action of $`sl_2`$ (8); $`m`$ can also be expressed in the form

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(x^\alpha y_\alpha +3\right)\text{ or, equivalently,}`$ (12)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(y_\alpha x^\alpha 3\right).`$ (13)
In these formulas the greek indices are lowered and raised with the help of the antisymmetric tensor $`\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta }`$: $`a^\alpha =_\beta \epsilon ^{\alpha \beta }a_\beta `$.

The generating elements $`x^\alpha `$, $`y^\alpha `$, $`Q_i`$, $`L_i`$ and the element $`m`$ satisfy the following relations:

$`L_iL_j=\delta _{i+j}Q_j,L_iQ_j=\delta _{ij}L_j,`$ (14)
$`Q_iL_j=\delta _{i+j}L_j,Q_iQ_j=\delta _{ij}Q_j,`$ (15)
where $`\delta _0=1`$ and $`\delta _i=0`$ if $`i0`$,

$`L_ix^\alpha =y^\alpha L_{i+1},`$ $`L_iy^\alpha =x^\alpha L_{i1},`$ (16)
$`Q_ix^\alpha =x^\alpha Q_{i+1},`$ $`Q_iy^\alpha =y^\alpha Q_{i1},`$ (17)
$`L_im=mL_i,`$ $`Q_im=mQ_i,`$ (18)
$`[x,x^+]=0,[y,y^+]=0,[y,x^+]=[x,y^+]=3,`$
$`[x,y]=[x^+,y^+]=0,`$ (19)
and

$`[m,x^\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(x^\alpha \right),`$
$`[m,y^\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(y^\alpha \right),`$ (20)
Corollary 1. There exists $`Z_3`$ grading $`\rho `$ on $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ defined by the formulas:

$`\rho (Q_i)=0`$,

$`\rho (L_i)=i`$,

$`\rho (x^\alpha )=1`$,

$`\rho (y^\alpha )=1`$,
such that $`fQ_i=Q_if`$ for any element $`fSH_3^{}(0)`$ with $`\rho (f)=0`$. Particularly, $`[(x^\alpha )^3,Q_i]=[(y^\alpha )^3,Q_i]=0`$.

Corollary 2. There exists the antiautomorphism $`\tau `$ of associative algebra $`SH_3^{}(0)`$:
$`\tau (x^\alpha )=y^{1\alpha }`$, $`\tau (y^\alpha )=x^{1\alpha }`$, $`\tau (m)=m`$,
$`\tau (L_i)=L_i`$, $`\tau (Q_i)=Q_i`$.

Every supertrace on $`SH_3^{}(\nu )`$ is completely determined by its values on $`C\left[S_3\right]SH_3^{}(\nu )`$, i.e., by the values $`str(1)`$, $`str(K_{12})`$ = $`str(K_{23})`$ = $`str(K_{31})`$ and $`str(K_{12}K_{23})=str(K_{12}K_{13})`$, which are consistent with (6) and admit the extension of the supertrace from $`C\left[S_3\right]`$ to $`SH_3^{}(\nu )`$ in a unique way, if and only if $`str(K_{ij})=\nu (2str(1)str(K_{12}K_{23}))`$ .

It was noticed above that only trivial representations of $`sl_2`$ can contribute to any supertrace on $`SH_3^{}(0)`$. Evidently, the associative algebra $`𝒜_0`$ of $`sl_2`$-singlets contains only the polynomials of $`m`$ with coefficients in $`C\left[S_3\right]`$.

To describe the restrictions of all the supertraces on $`𝒜_0`$, it is convenient to use the generating functions, which are computed in  for any values of $`\nu `$, and for $`\nu =0`$ take the following form:

$`_i`$ $`\stackrel{def}{=}`$ $`str(e^{2/3\xi m}L_i)=0,`$ (21)
$`𝒬_i`$ $`\stackrel{def}{=}`$ $`str(e^{2/3\xi m}Q_i)={\displaystyle \frac{P_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (22)
where

$`P_0`$ $`=`$ $`2S_1+{\displaystyle \frac{S_2}{2}}\left(e^{2\xi }+e^{2\xi }2e^\xi 2e^\xi \right),`$ (23)
$`P_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}S_1\left(e^{2\xi }+2e^\xi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{S_2}{2}}\left(e^{2\xi }2e^\xi +3\right),`$ (24)
$`P_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}S_1\left(e^{2\xi }+2e^\xi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{S_2}{2}}\left(e^{2\xi }2e^\xi +3\right)`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`exp(3\xi )(exp(3\xi )+1)^2.`$ (26)
Here $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ are arbitrary parameters, specifying the supertrace in the two-dimensional space of supertraces:

$`S_1=2str(1)str(K_{12}K_{23}),S_2={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}str(1){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}str(K_{12}K_{23}).`$
## 3 The simplicity of $`SH_3^{}(0)`$.

To prove the simplicity of $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ it is sufficient to prove that elements $`Q_i`$ belong to any nonzero ideal $``$.

Let $`f`$, $`f=f_0+f_{1/2}+f_1+\mathrm{}`$, where $`f_s𝒜_s`$. As $`[T^{\alpha \beta },f]`$ then $`f_s`$. So each ideal in $`𝒜`$ is graded.

Proposition 1. Let $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ be two-sided nonzero ideal. Then there exist nonzero polynomial $`f(x^\alpha ,y^\alpha )`$ and a polynomial $`g(x^\alpha ,y^\alpha )`$ such that $`fQ_0+gL_0`$.

Indeed, let $`r`$, $`r0`$. Then at least one of the polynomials $`rQ_0`$, $`rL_0`$, $`rxQ_0`$, $`rxL_0`$, $`ryQ_0`$, $`ryL_0`$ has the desired form.

Proposition 2. Let $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ be two-sided nonzero ideal. Then there exist nonzero polynomial $`f_0(m)`$ and a polynomial $`g_0(m)`$ such that $`f_0Q_0+g_0L_0`$.

Let $`f(x^\alpha ,y^\alpha )0`$ and $`h_0=fQ_0+gL_0𝒜_s`$ with some polynomial $`g(x^\alpha ,y^\alpha )`$. Let

$`h_{k+1}=[T^{00},h_k]`$ (27)
Evidently, $`h_k`$ for any $`k`$. Then there exists such integer $`K`$ that $`h_K0`$ and $`h_{K+1}=0`$. The vector $`h_K`$ is the highest vector of some irreducible representation of $`sl_2`$ algebra (8) and has the form

$`h_K={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2s}{}}}\left((x)^i(y)^{2si}q_i(m)Q_0+(x)^i(y)^{2si}p_i(m)L_0\right)`$ (28)
where some polynomial $`q_n(m)0`$. Then $`F=(y^+)^n(x^+)^{2sn}h_K`$. Let $`F_0`$ be the singlet part of $`F`$. Evidently, $`F_00`$, $`F_0`$, and $`F_0=f_0(m)Q_0+g_0(m)L_0`$ with nonzero polynomial $`f_0(m)`$.

Proposition 3. Let $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ be two-sided nonzero ideal. Then there exists nonzero polynomial $`f_0(m)`$ such that $`F_0=f_0(m)Q_0`$.

Let $`F=f(m)Q_0+g(m)L_0`$, $`f(m)0`$. Then $`mf(m)Q_0=\frac{1}{2}(mF+Fm)`$ due to commutational relations.

Proposition 4. Let $`SH_3^{}(0)`$ be two-sided nonzero ideal. Then there exist nonzero polynomials $`f_i(m)`$ such that $`F_i=f_i(m)Q_i`$ for $`i=0,\pm 1`$.

Let $`F_0=f_0(m)Q_0`$ is nonzero polynomial from Proposition 3. Let us denote the singlet part of arbitrary element $`F𝒜`$ as $`(F)_0`$ Then $`F_1=(y^+F_0x)_0=f_1(m)Q_1`$ and $`F_2=(x^+F_0y)_0=f_2(m)Q_2`$ are nonzero and belong to $``$.

Proposition 5. Let $`_i=\{f(m)C[m]:f(m)Q_i\}`$. Then $`_i`$ are nonzero ideals in $`C[m]`$.

This proposition follows trivially from Proposition 4.

Hence there exist polynomials $`\phi _i(m)=m^{k_i}+\mathrm{}`$ such that $`_i=\phi _i(m)C[m]`$.

Proposition 6. The polynomials $`\phi _i(m)`$ generating the ideals $`_i`$ satisfy the relations

$`\phi _0(m)=\pm \phi _0(m),`$ (29)
$`\phi _1(m)=\pm \phi _2(m).`$ (30)
Indeed, $`\phi _0(m)Q_0=L_0\phi _0(m)Q_0L_0`$, hence $`\phi _0(m)_0`$ and all the roots of $`\phi _0(m)`$ are the roots of $`\phi _0(m)`$. Further, $`L_1\phi _1(m)Q_1L_2=\phi _1(m)Q_2`$ and, as a consequence, $`\phi _1(m)=p(m)\phi _2(m)`$ with some nonzero polynomial $`p(m)`$. Analogously, $`\phi _2(m)=q(m)\phi _1(m)`$ with some nonzero polynomial $`q(m)`$. So $`p(m)q(m)=1`$, and $`\phi _2(m)=\pm \phi _1(m)`$.

Now we can prove the following theorem:

Theorem 1. The associative superalgebra $`𝒜=SH_3^{}(0)`$ is simple.

We will prove that arbitrary nonzero ideal in $`𝒜`$ contains the element $`1𝒜`$. Let $``$ be nonzero ideal in $`𝒜`$ and $`\phi _i(m)`$ generate the ideals $`_i`$ described above. So $`\phi _i(m)Q_i`$ and hence $`y^3\phi _i(m)Q_i(x^+)^3`$. Consider the $`sl_2`$-singlet part of this element which also belongs to $``$ and can be computed with the help of (2):

$`(y^3\phi _i(m)Q_i(x^+)^3)_0=P(m)\phi _i(m+9/2)Q_i,`$ (31)
$`\text{where }P(m)=const(m+3/2)(m+3)(m+9/2)0.`$ (32)
So $`P(m)\phi _i(m+9/2)_i`$ and

$$P(m)\phi _i(m+9/2)=p_i(m)\phi _i(m)$$

with some polynomials $`p_i(m)`$. Since $`\phi _0(m)`$ is even or odd polynomial, the real part of the rightest root of $`\phi _0(m)`$ is non negative, and so this rightest root is not a root of polynomial $`(m+3/2)(m+3)(m+9/2)\phi _0(m+3/2)`$. So $`\phi _0(m)`$ has no roots and $`\phi _0(m)=1`$. One can apply the same consideration to the function $`\phi (m)=\phi _1(m)\phi _2(m)`$ which is even due to Proposition 6 and satisfies the equation

$$P(m)^2\phi (m+9/2)=p_1(m)p_2(m)\phi (m).$$

So $`\phi _1(m)\phi _2(m)=1`$ and $`\phi _1(m)=\phi _2(m)=1`$.

In such a way, $`Q_i`$ and $`1=Q_0+Q_1+Q_2`$.

## 4 Lie superalgebra $`𝒜^L`$

Now let us consider Lie superalgebra $`A=𝒜^L`$ which consists of elements of associative algebra $`𝒜=SH_3^{}(0)`$ with operation $`[f,g\}=fg(1)^{\pi (f)\pi (g)}gf`$. This Lie superalgebra has an ideal $`A_1=[A,A\}`$ with the following evident properties

(i) $`codimA_1=2`$,

(ii) $`𝒜_{1/2}𝒜_1\mathrm{}A_1`$.

Let $`Z`$ be the center of $`SH_3^{}(0)`$. Obviously, $`Z𝒜_0`$ and so every element of $`Z`$ is a polynomial of $`m`$ with coefficients in $`C\left[S_3\right]`$.

Proposition 7. $`Z=C`$.

Let $`f(m)Z`$. As $`m`$ is even then $`f`$ is even element also. As $`mL_i=L_im`$, the relation $`[f,m]=0`$ gives that $`f(m)=f_i(m)Q_i`$. Due to equalities $`[(x)^3,Q_i]=0`$ and (2) one has $`[(x)^3,f(m)]=(x)^3(f(m)f(m9/2))`$ and as a consequence $`f(m)=f(m9/2)`$. So $`f(m)`$ does not depend on $`m`$, $`f(m)`$$`C\left[S_3\right]`$. To finish the proof it is sufficient to commute $`f`$ with $`x`$ or $`y`$.

Proposition 8. $`ZA_1=\{0\}`$.

As there exists such supertrace that $`str(1)0`$ and $`Z=C`$, it follows from $`str(ZA_1)=0`$ that $`ZA_1=\{0\}`$.

Proposition 9. Let $`A_1`$ be an ideal and $`_{even}=\{0\}`$. Then $`_{odd}=\{0\}`$.

Let $`r_{odd}`$. Due to $`sl_2`$ invariance one can choose $`r`$ in the form

$$r=\underset{i=0,1,2}{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{2s}{}}\left((x)^n(y)^{2sn}f_{ni}(m)Q_i+(x)^n(y)^{2sn}g_{ni}(m)L_i\right)$$

with odd value of $`2s`$. As $`(x)^3𝒜_{3/2}A_1`$ then $`[(x)^3,r\}_{even}`$ and $`\{(x)^3,r\}=0`$. So the following relations take place:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2s}{}}}(x)^{n+3}(y)^{2sn}\left(f_{ni}(m)+f_{ni}(m+9/2)\right)Q_i=0`$ (33)
and so $`f_{ni}=0`$.

Further, it follows from $`0=\{(x)^3,r\}_{i=0,1,2}_{n=0}^{2s}\left((x)^3+(y)^3\right)(x)^n(y)^{2sn}g_{ni}(m)L_i`$ that $`g_ni(m)=0`$ also. Here the sign $``$ is used to denote the equality up to polynomials of lesser degrees.

Theorem 2 Lie superalgebra $`A_1`$ is simple.

This Theorem follows from the next two general theorems proven by S.Montgomery in .

Theorem 3 Let $`𝒜`$ be associative simple superalgebra and $`[𝒜^L,𝒜^L\}`$ be a graded ideal of $`[𝒜^L,𝒜^L\}`$ such that $`[𝒜^L,𝒜^L\}`$. Then $`_3=\{0\}`$, where $`_1=[,\}`$, $`_2=[_1,_1\}`$, $`_3=[_2,_2\}`$.

Theorem 4. Let $`𝒜`$ be associative simple superalgebra and $`[𝒜^L,𝒜^L\}`$ be agraded ideal of $`[𝒜^L,𝒜^L\}`$ such that $`[_{even},\}Z(𝒜)`$ where $`Z(𝒜)`$ is the center of $`𝒜`$. Then $`_{even}Z(𝒜)`$.

Indeed, let $`A_1`$ be an ideal such that $`A_1`$. Due to Theorem 3 one can consider that $`[,\}=\{0\}`$. Then it follows from Theorem 4 and Proposition 8 that $`_{even}=\{0\}`$. Further, Proposition 9 gives that $`_{odd}=\{0\}`$, and so $`=\{0\}`$.

Theorem 5 Simple Lie superalgebra $`A_1`$ has at least 2 independent bilinear invariant forms.

Two-dimensional space of supertraces $`str()`$ on $`𝒜=SH_3^{}(0)`$ generates some space of invariant bilinear forms $`B(u,v)=str(uv)`$ on $`A_1`$. This space is also 2-dimensional. Indeed, let some supertrace $`str_0()`$ on $`𝒜`$ leads to bilinear form $`B_0`$ on $`A_1`$ which is equal to zero identically. The elements $`x`$, $`y^+`$, $`xQ_1`$ and $`y^+Q_1`$ belong to $`𝒜_{1/2}A_1`$. So, $`0=B_0(x,y^+)B_0(y^+,x)=str_0([x,y^+])=3str_0(1)`$ and $`0=B_0(x,y^+Q_1)B_0(y^+,xQ_1)=str_0([x,y^+]Q_1)=3str_0(Q_1)`$. It follows from (22) that $`str_0(1)=\frac{1}{6}(S_1\frac{3}{2}S_2)`$ and $`str_0(Q_1)=\frac{1}{6}(S_1+\frac{3}{2}S_2)`$. So $`S_1=S_2=0`$ and $`str_0`$ is equal to zero identically.

Acknowledgments The author is very grateful to M. Vasiliev and to D. Leites for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# FINITE TEMPERATURE INDUCED FERMION NUMBER*footnote **footnote *Based on talks given at Workshop on Lattice Hadron Physics (Cairns, July 2001), Workshop on Light-Cone: Particles and Strings (Trento, September 2001), and Workshop on Quantum Field Theory in External Conditions (Leipzig, September 2001).

## I Introduction

The phenomenon of induced fermion number arises due to the interaction of fermions with nontrivial topological backgrounds (e.g., solitons, vortices, monopoles, skyrmions), and has many applications ranging from polymer physics to particle physics . At zero temperature, the induced fermion number is a topological quantity, and is related to the spectral asymmetry of the relevant Dirac operator, which counts the difference between the number of positive and negative energy states in the fermion spectrum. Mathematical results, such as index theorems and Levinson’s theorem, imply that the zero temperature induced fermion number is determined by the asymptotic topological properties of the background fields . This topological character of the induced fermion number is a key feature of its application in certain model field theories. At finite temperature, the situation is very different . In this talk I explain why at finite T the induced fermion number is generically nontopological, and is not a sharp observable.

This work has also been partly motivated by recent results that certain anomalies in $`T=0`$ field theory become much more subtle at nonzero $`T`$. For example , in even dim. spacetime, finite T anomalous $`\pi ^0`$ decay amplitudes are T dependent even though the chiral anomaly (a topological object that is related to the anomalous $`\pi ^0`$ decay amplitude at $`T=0`$) is independent of $`T`$. And, in odd dim. spacetime, the topological Chern-Simons term is the only parity-violating term induced in the $`T=0`$ effective action, but at finite $`T`$ there are infinitely many parity-violating terms .

## II Induced fermion number

The induced fermion number is an expectation value of the fermion number operator, $`N=𝑑x\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Psi }^{},\mathrm{\Psi }]`$. For a given classical static background field configuration, the fermion field operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be expanded in a complete set of eigenstates of the Dirac Hamiltonian $`H`$. The $`T=0`$ fermion number, $`N_00|N|0`$, is related to the spectral asymmetry of the Dirac Hamiltonian:

$`N_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E\sigma (E)\mathrm{sign}(E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{spectral}\mathrm{asymmetry}).`$ (1)
Here $`\sigma (E)`$ is the spectral function of $`H`$:

$`\sigma (E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}m\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{HEiϵ}}\right).`$ (2)
So, $`N_0`$ essentially counts the number of positive energy states minus the number of negative energy states.

At nonzero temperature $`T`$, the induced fermion number is a thermal expectation value

$`N_T={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left(e^{\beta H}N\right)}{\mathrm{Tr}\left(e^{\beta H}\right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E\sigma (E)\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta E}{2}}\right)`$ (3)
where $`\beta =\frac{1}{T}`$. This finite T expression (3) reduces smoothly to the zero T expression (1) as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$; in fact, finite temperature provides a physically meaningful and mathematically elegant regularization of the spectral asymmetry.

Note that the spectrum of the fermions in the static background has nothing to do with the temperature. All information about the fermion spectrum is encoded in the spectral function. Thus, if one knows $`\sigma (E)`$, one immediately has integral representations for both $`N_0`$ and $`N_T`$. In fact, one only needs to know the odd part of $`\sigma (E)`$, as is clear from (1) and (3). It is convenient to use the explicit form (2) of the spectral function to write (3) as a contour integral involving the resolvent of the Dirac Hamiltonian

$`N_T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _𝒞}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Hz}}\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta z}{2}}\right)`$ (4)
where $`𝒞`$ is the contour $`(\mathrm{}+iϵ,+\mathrm{}+iϵ)`$ and $`(+\mathrm{}iϵ,\mathrm{}iϵ)`$ in the complex energy plane. Thus the resolvent is the key to the computation.

## III Two 1+1 dimensional examples

Before going to the general case, it is instructive to consider two important cases in 1+1 dim field theory. These two examples are very similar at T=0, but turn out to be very different for $`T>0`$. Consider an abelian model of fermions interacting via scalar and pseudoscalar couplings to two (classical, static) bosonic fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$:

$`=i\overline{\psi }/\psi \overline{\psi }\left(\varphi _1+i\gamma _5\varphi _2\right)\psi `$ (5)
We distinguish between two different cases:

(a) kink case : $`\varphi _1=m`$ is constant, but $`\varphi _2(x)`$ has a kink-like shape (for example $`\varphi _2(x)=\mathrm{tanh}(x)`$), with $`\varphi _2(\pm \mathrm{})=\pm \widehat{\varphi _2}`$.

(b) sigma-model case : $`\varphi _1(x)`$ and $`\varphi _2(x)`$ are constrained to the “chiral circle”: $`\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2=m^2.`$

The kink case (a) is relevant to the polymer physics applications, while the sigma-model case (b) is a low-dimensional analogue of sigma models used in 3+1 dim. particle physics models .

In each case, we define the angular field

$`\theta (x)\mathrm{arctan}\left[\varphi _2(x)/\varphi _1(x)\right]`$ (6)
In the sigma model case (b), the angular field $`\theta (x)`$ has the interpretation of a local chiral angle, and is chosen to have a kink-like shape, with asymptotic values $`\theta (\pm \mathrm{})\pm \widehat{\theta }`$. Note that in the kink case (a), the angular field $`\theta (x)=\mathrm{arctan}[\varphi _2(x)/m]`$ also has a kink-like shape.

For both the kink case and the sigma-model case, at zero T, the induced fermion number is

$`N_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\theta ^{}(x)}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\theta }}{\pi }}`$ (7)
which is topological in the sense that it only depends on the asymptotic values of $`\theta (x)`$, not on its detailed shape. In the kink case, this calculation is easy because the even part of the corresponding Dirac resolvent is known exactly

$`\left[\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Hz}}\right)\right]_\mathrm{e}={\displaystyle \frac{m\widehat{\varphi }_2}{(m^2z^2)\sqrt{m^2+\widehat{\varphi }_2^2z^2}}}`$ (8)
But in the sigma-model case the resolvent is not known exactly, and one must resort to an approximation such as the derivative expansion. Nevertheless, both cases lead to the same result (7).

At finite T, the kink case is also easy because we know the relevant part of the resolvent exactly . Inserting (8) into the contour integral expression (4) one finds

$`N_T^{\mathrm{kink}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2}{\pi }(\frac{m\beta }{\pi })^2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta }}{((2n+1)^2+(\frac{m\beta }{\pi })^2)\sqrt{(2n+1)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\widehat{\theta }+(\frac{m\beta }{\pi })^2}}}`$ (9)
Note that $`N_T^{\mathrm{kink}}`$ is temperature dependent, but it is still topological in the sense that it only depends on the background field through its asymptotic value $`\widehat{\theta }=\mathrm{arctan}[\widehat{\varphi _2}/m]`$. Also, even though the expression (9) looks complicated, it smoothly reduces to (7) as $`T0`$. It is also interesting that the angular nature of $`\widehat{\theta }`$ is more obvious at finite T than at zero T.

At finite T, the sigma-model case is much more complicated, because there is no simple closed formula for the relevant part of the resolvent. In  the derivative expansion was used, and it was shown that for $`Tm`$ the derivative expansion can be resummed to all orders, leading to the following simple expression

$`N_T^{\mathrm{sigma}}=N_0^{\mathrm{sigma}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta \pi }}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xe^{m\beta }\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\beta \theta ^{}}{2}\right)}+\mathrm{}`$ (10)
The correction term is temperature dependent and nontopological, as it is sensitive not just to the asymptotic values of $`\theta (x)`$, but also to the details of the shape of $`\theta (x)`$. This nontopological term has a simple physical interpretation as follows . For the sigma model case we can write the interaction term in (5) as $`m\overline{\psi }\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +i\gamma _5\mathrm{sin}\theta \right)\psi =m\overline{\psi }e^{i\gamma _5\theta }\psi `$. Then make the local chiral rotation $`\psi =e^{i\gamma _5\theta /2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ to obtain

$`=i\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}/\stackrel{~}{\psi }m\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}\stackrel{~}{\psi }+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}\gamma ^0{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{}}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ (11)
which describes a fermion of mass $`m`$ in an inhomogeneous electric field $`E(x)=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\prime \prime }(x)`$. In this language the zero T induced fermion number (7) can be understood as the vacuum polarization, due to the inhomogeneous electric field background, of virtual vacuum $`e^+e^{}`$ dipoles. This effect is independent of the temperature as the virtual vacuum dipoles do not live long enough to thermalize. However, at finite T there is another effect of the background electric field. The real particles and antiparticles respond to this electric field in a way that can be described by linear response theory. In the derivative expansion limit, where $`\theta ^{}m`$, the leading effect of the electric field background can be represented as a local chemical potential $`\mu (x)=\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{}(x)`$. With local Fermi distributions

$`f_\pm (x,k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta (\sqrt{k^2+m^2}\mu (x))}+1}}`$ (12)
the linear response charge density is $`\rho (x)=\frac{dk}{2\pi }f(x,k)`$, where $`f=f_+f_{}`$. For $`Tm`$,

$`\rho (x)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2mT}{\pi }}}e^{m/T}\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{}}{2T}}\right)`$ (13)
in perfect agreement with the non-topological term in (10).

So, while at zero T, the kink and sigma-model cases each have induced fermion number given by the same expression (7), at nonzero T they have very different induced fermion number, given by (9) and (10) respectively. In each case $`N_T`$ is temperature dependent, but in the kink case it is topological, while in the sigma-model case it is nontopological. The physical reason for this difference is explained in the next section.

## IV Topological versus Nontopological

The straightforward mathematical reason why $`N_T`$ is topological for the kink case is that the odd part of the spectral function is itself topological, as shown by the Callias result (8). But a much more physical understanding can be obtained by considering the symmetries of the fermionic spectrum . And this perspective generalizes immediately to higher dimensional models.

Begin with the simple trigonometric identity, $`\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{\beta E}{2})=12n(E)`$, where $`n(E)=1/(e^{\beta E}+1)`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. Then the finite T fermion number (3) separates as

$`N=N_0+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E\sigma (E)\mathrm{sgn}(E)n(|E|)`$ (14)
The first term is just the zero temperature contribution, which can be expressed in terms of the spectral asymmetry, and is known to be topological. But the second term is highly sensitive to the details of the spectrum, because of the presence of the Fermi weighting factor $`n(|E|)`$. Thus, the only way this term can be topological is if the odd part of $`\sigma (E)`$ is itself topological. In terms of the spectrum, this can only happen if the spectrum is symmetric under $`EE`$. Remarkably, this does sometimes happen, but only for extremely special backgrounds. One example of such a special background is the one-dim kink background discussed in the previous section. Indeed, for any kink background (with $`\widehat{\theta }`$ positive), the spectrum of the Dirac Hamiltonian always has the form shown in Fig. 1.

There are continuum states for $`|E|>\sqrt{m^2+\widehat{\varphi }_2^2}=m\mathrm{sec}\widehat{\theta }`$. In addition, there is always a bound state at $`E=\mathrm{sign}(\widehat{\theta })m`$. There may or may not be additional bound states with $`m<|E|<m\mathrm{sec}\widehat{\theta }`$. But if these additional bound states are present, they necessarily occur in $`\pm E`$ pairs, because of the quantum mechanical SUSY of the Dirac Hamiltonian in the kink case . Thus, the contributions of these paired bound states to the integral in (14) cancel in pairs, while the unpaired bound state at $`E=\mathrm{sign}(\widehat{\theta })m`$ leads to a contribution $`\mathrm{sign}(\widehat{\theta })n(m)`$. The quantum mechanical SUSY of the Dirac Hamiltonian is likewise the key to the exact Callias index theorem result  for the odd part of the spectral function \[which is equivalent to knowing the even part of the resolvent in (8)\]. This means that the remaining integral over the continuum states can be expressed as an integral of the odd part of the spectral function, weighted by the Fermi factor $`n(E)`$, over the positive continuum beginning at the threshold energy $`m\mathrm{sec}\widehat{\theta }`$. Putting all this together, we obtain

$`N_T^{\mathrm{kink}}=N_0^{\mathrm{kink}}n(m)+{\displaystyle _{m\mathrm{sec}\widehat{\theta }}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2\mathrm{tan}\widehat{\theta }n(E)}{(E^2m^2)\sqrt{E^2m^2\mathrm{sec}^2\widehat{\theta }}}}`$ (15)
One can check that this is, in fact, the Sommerfeld-Watson transform of the summation expression found before in (9).

On the other hand, for the sigma-model case the fermion spectrum has no obvious symmetry. In this case, the Dirac spectrum has the form shown in Fig. 2. The only general thing we can say is that the continuum thresholds are at $`E=\pm m`$. There may or may not be one or more bound states for $`|E|<m`$. The existence of (and the precise location of) bound states is highly sensitive to the actual shape of the $`\theta (x)`$. As there is no special symmetry in the spectrum, there is nothing general that can be said about the odd part of the spectral function. Nevertheless, the first term in (14), which is $`N_0`$, yields a topological result since the integral can be written, using Levinson’s theorem, in terms of the phase shift at infinity, which is topological . This application of Levinson’s theorem doesn’t work for the T dependent second term in (14) because of the Fermi factor. This is another way to understand why the finite temperature induced fermion number is generically nontopological.

These arguments based on the symmetry of the fermion spectrum (in the given background) clearly generalize to any dimension of spacetime. So, we conclude that the generic situation is that the finite T induced fermion number is non-topological; but, if the background is such that the fermion spectrum is highly symmetric, then the induced fermion number may be topological even though it is temperature dependent.

## V Thermal fluctuations of fermion number

Fluctuations in the induced fermion number can be analyzed in an analogous manner :

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2N^2N^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E\sigma (E)\mathrm{sech}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta E}{2}}\right)`$ (16)
The trigonometric identity, $`\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{sech}^2(\frac{\beta E}{2})=n(E)(1n(E))`$, re-expresses this as

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E\sigma (E)n(E)\left(1n(E)\right)`$ (17)
which is simply a sum over the fermion spectrum of $`n(1n)`$, as it should be for the thermal occupation of independent single-particle states . From (17) it is clear that the fluctuations are always non-topological, as they are sensitive to the details of the fermion spectrum. Another way to see this is to note that the expressions (16,17) require knowledge of the even part of the spectral function, which is not accessible to an index theorem. So the fluctuations must typically be calculated approximately; however, for a special class of kink backgrounds, $`\varphi _2(x)=\widehat{\varphi }\mathrm{tanh}(\widehat{\varphi }x/j)`$, where $`j`$ is an integer, it is possible to compute $`(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2`$ exactly, and one sees the explicit (nontopological) dependence on the scale factor $`j`$ .

These expressions also make it clear why the fluctuations vanish at zero T, because the $`\mathrm{sech}^2(\beta E/2)`$ factors vanish exponentially fast as $`T0`$. Thus, the induced fermion number is a sharp observable at $`T=0`$, in agreement with previous results , but at nonzero T it is not a sharp observable, simply because the thermal expectation value mixes states other just the ground state. Another example of non-sharp fractional fermion number (but not in the context of temperature dependence) has been discussed recently in the context of liquid helium bubbles .

## VI Conclusions

To conclude, the finite temperature induced fermion number $`N_T`$ is generically nontopological, and is not a sharp observable. The induced fermion number naturally splits into a topological temperature-independent piece that represents the effect of vacuum polarization on the Dirac sea, and a nontopological temperature-dependent piece that represents the thermal population of the available states in the fermion spectrum, weighted with the appropriate Fermi-Dirac factors. As the temperature approaches zero, the nontopological terms vanish exponentially fast, and we regain smoothly the familiar topological results at zero temperature. But at nonzero temperature, the nontopological contribution is more sensitive to the details of the spectrum, and so is generically nontopological. This argument applies in any dimension.

Consider, for example, for a chiral $`SU(2)`$ sigma model with a Skyrme background in 3+1 dim.,

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`m\overline{\psi }\left(\pi _0+i\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\tau }\right)\psi `$ (18)
$`=`$ $`m\overline{\psi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g+g^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(gg^{})\gamma _5\right)\psi `$ (19)
where $`\pi _0^2+\stackrel{}{\pi }^2=1`$ and $`\pi _0+i\stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\tau }=g`$, which is the analogue of the 1+1 dim. sigma-model case analyzed in this paper. From numerical work , the Dirac energy spectrum of the fermions is not symmetric, and the energy of a possible bound state (and indeed the number of bound states) is highly sensitive to the details of the shape of the radial hedgehog field. This shows that in this case the finite temperature induced fermion number is nontopological. Thus, for a (large) Skyrme background in 3+1 dim., the finite temperature fermion number is not simply the (topological) winding number of the Skyrme field, but a much more complicated nontopological object.

Acknowledgement: This talk is based on work done in collaboration with Ian Aitchison and Kumar Rao. I also thank the US DOE for support.


text:
# Semi-numerical resummation of event shapes Research supported in part by the EU Fourth Framework Programme ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’, Network ‘Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles’, contract FMRX-CT98-0194 (DG 12-MIHT).

## 1 Introduction

In QCD, for many observables of interest, the only calculational approach that is currently available is a perturbative expansion in powers of the strong coupling $`\alpha _\text{s}`$. Quite often the coefficients of this expansion are well behaved and reasonable accuracy can be obtained given the first two or three terms of the series.

However there exist whole classes of observables for which the coefficients grow rapidly order by order. Typically this happens in problems involving two or more scales, in which case the coefficient of $`\alpha _\text{s}^n`$ may involve up to $`2n`$ factors of the logarithm, $`L`$, of the ratio of scales. These logarithms are generally associated with soft and collinear regions of phase space. When $`L`$ is large it compensates the smallness of $`\alpha _\text{s}`$ and reliable predictions can be obtained only by including an infinite number of terms. While significant technical difficulties prevent an exact determination of high-order terms, it is sometimes possible to calculate the coefficient of their dominant (and sub-dominant) logarithmic parts, order by order, and *resum* this subset of terms. In many cases this is sufficient to obtain a reliable prediction.

One class of observables that has been extensively studied in this context is that of event shapes  and jet rates . These measure geometrical properties of the hadronic energy flow in the final state of a given reaction, *e.g.* in $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons}`$, and are widely used in tests of QCD, the measurement of $`\alpha _\text{s}`$, and studies of the interface between perturbative and non-perturbative physics. When the value $`V`$ of the observable is small, the perturbative expansion of its distribution is dominated by terms $`(\alpha _\text{s}^n\mathrm{ln}^{2n1}V)/V`$ and a resummation is necessary.

The determination of the order $`\alpha _\text{s}`$ and $`\alpha _\text{s}^2`$ contributions to such observables is usually fairly straightforward. One writes a computer subroutine which calculates the observable for an arbitrary set of 4-momenta and links it with a program which codes the fixed-order real and virtual matrix elements for a given process. The ‘hard’ part of the problem is to determine the matrix elements and code them into the program so as to obtain a numerically efficient cancellation of real and virtual contributions. But this part of the problem is common to all infrared and collinear safe observables and is ‘ready-solved’ in the form of a range of publicly-available programs, such as EVENT2 and DISENT , and also many others, see for example .

On the other hand the determination of resummed distributions of event shape observables has up to now proved more labour-intensive. This is despite the fact that many aspects of the calculation are actually fairly similar from one observable to another — for example one can generally make the same set of approximations concerning the multi-particle matrix-element, writing it as a product of matrix elements for independent emissions. However it is also necessary to relate the value of the observable to some condition on the ensemble of emissions. For a resummation to be feasible analytically, one must express this condition as a product of factors each involving a single emission. It is this part that requires a separate analytical calculation for each observable.

To explain in more detail what we mean, it is useful to consider the thrust $`T`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$ (defined in appendix B).111The thrust is slightly unusual in that the two-jet region (where the resummation is needed) corresponds to $`T1`$, but this is just a matter of definition. In the two-jet region its value is given by a sum over contributions from individual emissions:

$$T=1\underset{i}{}\frac{k_{ti}}{Q}e^{|\eta _i|}.$$
(1)
In performing the resummation one determines the cross section for $`1T`$ to be smaller than some value, say $`1T<\tau `$. Using an integral transform this condition can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\tau (1T))=\frac{d\nu }{2\pi i\nu }e^{\nu \tau }\underset{i}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\nu \frac{k_{ti}}{Q}e^{|\eta _i|}\right),$$
(2)
which is a product of factors for individual emissions, just as required.

The thrust is a particularly simple example, because it is easy both to determine its dependence on multiple emissions, eq. (1), and to factorise this dependence, eq. (2). Other variables are less trivial. For example for the jet-broadenings the determination of the dependence on multiple emissions involves subtle issues of hard-parton recoil, and the factorisation requires at least two integral transforms . Some multi-jet event shapes, such as the thrust minor in the three-jet limit involve as many as five additional Fourier transforms ! This makes the resummation of event shapes quite tedious (and sometimes even error prone). Furthermore for some variables, for example the thrust major and oblateness in $`e^+e^{}`$, it is not even possible to write down a closed expression for the dependence of the observable on a general multi-particle configuration, rendering an analytical resummation unfeasible.

So in this article we take a step towards the development of a systematic semi-numerical approach for calculating resummed distributions for a large class of observables, essentially those for which double logarithms exponentiate. The probability, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(v)`$, of a suitable observable having a value smaller than $`v`$ is given by an expression of the form

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(v)=\mathrm{exp}\left[Lg_1(\alpha _\text{s}L)+g_2(\alpha _\text{s}L)+\mathrm{}\right],L=\mathrm{ln}1/v.$$
(3)
The terms in $`Lg_1(\alpha _\text{s}L)`$ are known as leading, or double logarithms (LL, DL), and start at $`𝒪\left(\alpha _\text{s}L^2\right)`$. The terms in $`g_2(\alpha _\text{s}L)`$ are known as next-to-leading, or single logarithms (NLL, SL), and start at $`𝒪\left(\alpha _\text{s}L\right)`$. The double logarithms arise from a veto of a soft and collinear portion of phase space and are straightforward to calculate. The single logarithms arise from a variety of sources. For global variables  most of the sources (*e.g.* from the running coupling, hard collinear emission, angles between hard partons) can be understood by considering the phase space for just a single emission. What remain are single logarithms associated with the observable’s dependence on multiple emissions. It is this contribution that we address here.

Our method involves first considering a ‘simple’ reference variable, in which the dependence on multiple emissions is trivial, leading to a straightforward analytical resummation. One then numerically relates the resummation of the simple variable to that of a more complicated variable of our choosing. For this to work the two variables must have the same structure of double logs.

So in section 2 we show how to relate a pair of variables with the same double logs, and give a procedure for designing a suitable ‘simple’ reference variable. We then show how this can be implemented in a Monte Carlo algorithm for calculating the single-logarithmic function relating the resummation of the two variables.

In section 3 we show that this method reproduces known results, with examples from $`e^+e^{}2`$ jets and $`e^+e^{}3`$ jets.

Finally in section 4 we present new results for some widely studied variables in $`e^+e^{}2`$ jets: for the thrust major and the oblateness for which no resummation had ever been performed up to now (and which are probably beyond analytical treatment) and for the Durham three-jet resolution parameter for which resummed results existed but not to full NLL order .

## 2 General procedure

This section sets out the principal elements of our approach. It is divided into several parts. First we see how, at NLL accuracy, to relate the distributions of two variables, starting from knowledge of the probability of distribution of one variable given the value of the other.

We then see how to design a ‘simple’ reference variable for which the analytical resummation is trivial and examine how to calculate the probability distribution of a more complicated variable given the value of this simple one.

The section finishes with the consideration of the subtle but practically important issues of how to ensure that our final numerical calculation is free of contamination from next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (NNLL) corrections, and how to determine its expansion to second order in $`\alpha _\text{s}`$ (needed for the subtraction of doubly counted terms when matching to fixed order results).

### 2.1 Relating the resummations of two observables

Suppose we have a ‘complicated’ observable $`V`$ and a ‘simple’ observable $`V_s`$ with the same all-orders double logarithmic structure (terms $`\alpha _\text{s}^nL^{n+1}`$ in the exponent). We introduce the probability distribution $`P(v|v_s)`$ for the value $`v`$ of the complicated observable, given a value $`v_s`$ for the simple one.

Writing the distribution of the simple observable as $`D_s(v_s)/v_s`$, one obtains the distribution of the more complex observable $`D(v)/v`$ through the following convolution:

$$D(v)=v\frac{dv_s}{v_s}D_s(v_s)P(v|v_s).$$
(4)
If $`P(v|v_s)`$ is dominated by the region $`vv_s`$ (this will follow naturally from the two variables having the same double-log structure) then one may expand the distribution $`D_s(v_s)`$ using eq. (3),

$$D_s(v_s)=D_s(v)\mathrm{exp}\left(R^{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{v}{v_s}+𝒪\left(\alpha _\text{s}^nL^{n1}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{v}{v_s}\right)\right),$$
(5)
where $`R^{}`$, which is related to the (differential) phase space for emissions, is defined as

$$R^{}=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{dL}.$$
(6)
Neglecting NNLL terms, $`\alpha _\text{s}^nL^{n1}`$, this gives

$$D(v)=vD_s(v)\frac{dv_s}{v_s}e^{R^{}\mathrm{ln}v/v_s}P(v|v_s).$$
(7)
As we shall see shortly, for suitable observables (as defined in appendix A), to NLL accuracy $`vP(v|v_s)`$ depends only on the ratio $`v/v_s`$ and on the phase space for emissions (through $`R^{}`$):

$$P(v|v_s)=\frac{1}{v}p(\frac{v}{v_s},R^{})\left(1+𝒪\left(\alpha _\text{s}^nL^{n1}\mathrm{ln}\frac{v}{v_s}\right)\right),$$
(8)
where we have introduced a rescaled probability $`p(x,R^{})`$ for the ratio $`v/v_s`$ to be to equal to $`x`$ (with measure $`dx/x`$). As long as $`v`$ and $`v_s`$ are of the same order, the ambiguity of whether $`R^{}`$ should be evaluated at $`v`$ or $`v_s`$ corresponds to a subleading effect since $`R^{}(v)=R^{}(v_s)+𝒪\left(\alpha _\text{s}^nL^{n1}\mathrm{ln}v/v_s\right)`$. This allows us to write

$$D(v)=D_s(v)(R^{}),$$
(9)
where

$$(R^{})=\frac{dx}{x}e^{R^{}\mathrm{ln}x}p(x,R^{}).$$
(10)
A relation analogous to eq. (9) holds also for the integrated distributions

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(v)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(v)(R^{}),$$
(11)
as can be seen by differentiating and noting that extra term relative to (9) is subleading:

$$\frac{d}{dL}\mathrm{\Sigma }(v)=\left((R^{})+\frac{R^{\prime \prime }\frac{d}{dR^{}}}{\frac{d}{dL}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s}\right)\frac{d}{dL}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(v).$$
(12)
### 2.2 The ‘simple’ observable

So far the simple observable has been left as a fairly vague concept. Here we outline a concrete procedure for constructing it.

Given a Born configuration consisting of hard momenta $`\{p_{\mathrm{Born}}\}`$ together with an arbitrary set of soft and collinear emissions $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_n`$, a general way of defining the simple observable is as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}V_s(\{p_{\mathrm{Born}}\},k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)=\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{max}[V(\{p_{\mathrm{Born}}\},k_1),V(\{p_{\mathrm{Born}}\},k_2),\mathrm{},V(\{p_{\mathrm{Born}}\},k_n)].\end{array}$$
(13)
This definition is unsafe with respect to secondary collinear branching of the soft and collinear emissions. However for the ‘suitable’ class of event shapes under consideration, secondary collinear branching is irrelevant except insofar as it is responsible for determining the scale of the coupling  — accordingly to calculate the resummation of the simple observable and $`(R^{})`$ we consider only independent emissions from the Born configuration and account for collinear splitting by directly setting the scale of the coupling.222One could perhaps devise a collinear-safe definition which for our purposes is equivalent to the above one. This might involve the application of a clustering algorithm to emissions before using eq. (13).

Having dealt with this issue, the resummation for $`V_s`$ is then simple, because the condition for the value of the observable to be smaller than $`v_s`$ factorises straightforwardly,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(v_sV_s(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n))\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(v_sV(k_i)),$$
(14)
where for brevity we have dropped the Born momenta from the arguments of $`V`$.

To illustrate this we shall consider the class of global observables in $`e^+e^{}2`$ jets. Emissions can be taken to be independent, as shown in , giving the following expression for their probability distribution:

$$dP(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)=e^{R_ϵ}\frac{1}{n!}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d\eta _i\frac{dk_{ti}^2}{k_{ti}^2}\frac{d\varphi _i}{2\pi }\frac{C_F\alpha _\text{s}(k_{ti})}{\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{k_{ti}}\frac{3}{4}|\eta _i|\right),$$
(15)
where $`k_{ti}`$, $`\eta _i`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ are respectively the transverse momentum, the rapidity and the azimuthal angle of $`k_i`$ with respect to the $`q\overline{q}`$ axis. Virtual corrections are given by the factor $`e^{R_ϵ}`$, with

$$R_ϵ=𝑑\eta \frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2}\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }\frac{C_F\alpha _\text{s}(k_t)}{\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{k_t}\frac{3}{4}|\eta |\right),$$
(16)
where the $`ϵ`$ indicates that some regularisation must be applied to both the real and virtual parts. In the above formulae, the coupling is defined in the gluon Bremsstrahlung scheme  and the $`3/4`$ in the limit on the rapidity accounts for the hard part of the $`P_{qq}`$ collinear splitting function (see for example ). Combining these expressions with eq. (14) gives

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(v_s)=\mathrm{exp}\left(R_s(v_s)\right),$$
(17)
with

$$R_s(v_s)=C_F^{Q^2}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2}\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }\frac{\alpha _\text{s}(k_t)}{\pi }_{\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{k_t}+\frac{3}{4}}^{\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{k_t}\frac{3}{4}}𝑑\eta \mathrm{\Theta }(V(k)v_s).$$
(18)
In processes with three hard partons the resummation of the simple variable also proves straightforward, with $`R_s`$ just involving a sum over dipoles . On the other hand, with 4 or more hard partons subtleties will arise from the large angle region as can be seen from .333Though it remains to be seen whether the extensive technology developed in  accounts for the non-global effects that are to be expected for the observables that are considered there.

### 2.3 The probability $`𝑷\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{|}𝒗_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$

One of the advantages of the above choice for the ‘simple’ observable is that it is easy to design a Monte Carlo algorithm to construct, for a given $`R^{}`$, an ensemble of configurations which all have the same value of $`v_s`$ and known (equal) weights.

Fixing $`v_s`$ implies taking only those configurations where one of the emissions, $`j`$, satisfies $`V(k_j)=v_s`$, and all others $`ij`$ satisfy $`V(k_i)<v_s`$. Using eq. (15), renumbering emissions such that $`j`$ is always $`1`$, and dividing by the total probability of the simple variable having value $`v_s`$, we obtain the following expression for the probability distribution of configurations given $`v_s`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}dP(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n|v_s)=\frac{v_s}{R_s^{}(v_s)}\frac{e^{R_ϵ+R_s(v_s)}}{(n1)!}\times \delta (v_sV(k_1))\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(v_sV(k_i))\hfill \\ \hfill \left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d\eta _i\frac{dk_{ti}^2}{k_{ti}^2}\frac{d\varphi _i}{2\pi }\frac{C_F\alpha _\text{s}(k_{ti})}{\pi }\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{k_{ti}}\frac{3}{4}|\eta _i|\right)\right],\end{array}$$
(19)
where

$$R_s^{}(v_s)=v_s\frac{dR_s}{dv_s}=R^{}(v_s)+𝒪\left(\alpha _\text{s}^nL^{n1}\right).$$
(20)
It is now straightforward to construct $`P(v|v_s)`$:

$$P(v|v_s)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑P(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n|v_s)\delta (V(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n)v).$$
(21)
### 2.4 Eliminating subleading effects

As they stand, the above expressions contain not just single-log terms but also many (sometimes spurious) subleading contributions. For example while in eq. (18) the ‘$`3/4`$’ is necessary in order to obtain the correct single (NL) logs, in eq. (19) it leads only to NNLL terms. These subleading terms are awkward for a variety of reasons. Firstly there is currently no way of guaranteeing their correctness. Secondly when matching to fixed-order predictions they lead to some technical difficulties because one needs a good knowledge of their expansion to $`𝒪\left(\alpha _\text{s}^2\right)`$. Finally one notes that the expressions of the previous section contain integrals over $`\alpha _\text{s}(k_t)`$ down into the infrared. The Landau pole in $`\alpha _\text{s}`$ (or whatever other structure occurs in higher orders) will then introduce a power correction ambiguity in one’s answer, requiring that one make an arbitrary non-perturbative ‘choice’ concerning its treatment. Accordingly it has become standard to give predictions containing nothing but leading and NL logs (though we note the alternative philosophy advocated in ).

Truncating the expressions for $`R_s`$ and $`R^{}`$ at NLL order is easy, since they are computed analytically. However ensuring that $``$ is purely a function of $`R^{}`$, required in order for it to have just NLL terms, turns out to be the most subtle part of our semi-numerical resummation approach. We present two ways of doing it.

##### Method 1 (general).

One way of eliminating subleading effects is by numerically taking the limit of $`\alpha _\text{s}0`$, while keeping $`\alpha _\text{s}\mathrm{ln}1/v`$ fixed (*i.e.* fixed $`R^{}`$). While conceptually straightforward and very general, such an approach turns out to be numerically awkward: the NNLL contamination in one’s answer is of order $`\alpha _\text{s}`$, and for fixed $`R^{}`$, $`\mathrm{ln}1/v`$ scales roughly as $`1/\alpha _\text{s}`$. So if for argument’s sake we want to eliminate subleading effects to within a percent, then we need to consider values of $`v`$ of the order of $`10^{100}`$ (since we are dealing with orders of magnitude of the logarithm, we ignore the difference between $`e^{100}`$ and $`10^{100}`$). Unfortunately standard algorithms for calculating event shapes generally work only for $`v\epsilon ^p`$ where $`\epsilon `$ is the relative floating precision (usually $`10^{15}`$ in double precision) and $`p`$ is some algorithm-dependent power of order $`1`$.

So in order for this approach to work we need to find an algorithm for calculating the observable that is free of sensitivity to the limited accuracy of the floating-point arithmetic.444An alternative approach, whose feasibility we have not investigated in detail, would be to use arbitrary precision arithmetic. This would entail a significant penalty in terms of computing time needed, but might nevertheless be an approach worthy of investigation. Additionally the algorithm should work with a representation of 4-momenta that does not suffer from the limit on the smallest representable floating-point number (in standard double precision the smallest number that can be represented is of the order of $`10^{308}`$). Both these issues restrict the generality of the approach, and imply a certain amount of analysis of one’s observable so as to understand the elements fundamental to its determination in terms of a set of soft and collinear momenta. This will be illustrated in detail in section 4.3 when we come to discuss the 2-jet rate for the Durham algorithm.

##### Method 2 (event-shape specific).

Fortunately there exists a much simpler approach which works in almost all cases. Event shapes (but not jet rates) have the following useful property: given an ensemble of soft and collinear momenta $`\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n\}`$, if we vary the $`\{k_i\}`$ such that the $`\{V(k_i)\}`$ are kept constant and the $`\{k_i\}`$ all remain collinear to the legs to which they were originally collinear, then $`V(\{k_i\})`$ also remains constant. In eq. (21) this allows us to carry out the integration over rapidity analytically and replace it with a sum over the different hard legs to which an emission may be collinear (in calculating $``$ the large-angle region gives only NNLL terms).

So we divide the phase space $`R^{}`$ into contributions $`R_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ coming from $`N`$ different hard legs

$$R^{}(v)=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}R_{\mathrm{}}^{}(v),$$
(22)
and write

$$\begin{array}{c}dP(\stackrel{~}{k}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{k}_n|v_s)=\frac{v_s}{R_s^{}(v_s)}\frac{e^{R_ϵ+R_s(v_s)}}{(n1)!}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{dv_i}{v_i}\frac{d\varphi _i}{2\pi }R_\mathrm{}_i^{}(v_i)\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \times \delta (v_sv_1)\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(v_sv_i),\end{array}$$
(23)
where the use of $`\stackrel{~}{k}_i`$ rather than $`k_i`$ denotes the fact that emissions are characterised by the leg $`\mathrm{}_i`$ to which they are collinear, their azimuthal angle $`\varphi _i`$ and the value of $`v_i`$. The transverse momentum and rapidity are no longer individually defined — they have been integrated over while keeping $`v_i`$ constant.

To eliminate subleading logarithms, we now exploit the infrared safety of event shapes, which implies that the emissions that contribute significantly to $`V(\{k_i\})`$ are those for which $`v_iv_1`$. Accordingly we can throw away logs of $`v_1/v_i`$ (both in the real and virtual parts) to get

$$dP(\stackrel{~}{k}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{k}_n|v_s)=\frac{v_s}{R^{}}\frac{e^{R^{}^{v_s}\frac{dv}{v}}}{(n1)!}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{dv_i}{v_i}\frac{d\varphi _i}{2\pi }R_\mathrm{}_i^{}\right]\delta (v_sv_1)\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }(v_sv_i),$$
(24)
where the $`R_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ are all evaluated at $`v_s`$. By truncating their analytical expressions at SL level, we obtain an answer for $`dP(\mathrm{}|v_s)`$ that has only single logarithmic dependence on $`v_s`$. Finally to get the equivalent of eq. (21) we have to remember not only to integrate over the $`\varphi _i`$ and $`v_i`$ but also to sum over all the $`\mathrm{}_i`$:

$$p(\frac{v}{v_s},R^{})=v\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_n}{}dP(\stackrel{~}{k}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{k}_n|v_s)\delta (V(\stackrel{~}{k}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{k}_n)v).$$
(25)
We have written the answer for $`p(v/v_s,R^{})`$ rather than for $`P(v|v_s)`$ so as to emphasise that we are free to choose $`v_s`$ as we like, and that the result is a function only of $`v/v_s`$ and $`R^{}`$, free of subleading logarithms (we recall that at NLL order, $`R^{}`$ itself depends only on $`\alpha _\text{s}L`$). In practice there is still some contamination from power suppressed contributions associated with the observable itself, terms of relative order $`v_s^q`$, with $`q`$ some observable dependent power of order $`1`$. However it is usually perfectly feasible to choose values of $`v_s`$ such that $`v_s^q1`$, while keeping the relative rounding errors associated with the numerical calculation of the observable, $`\epsilon ^p/v_s`$, also negligible.

For the calculations whose results are given below, the following Monte Carlo algorithm has been used to generate configurations according to the probability distribution in eq. (24). One starts with $`i=1`$ and $`y_1=1`$, then:

* One chooses a leg $`\mathrm{}_i`$ randomly, the probability of leg $`\mathrm{}`$ being $`R_{\mathrm{}}^{}/R^{}`$.
* One chooses uniformly a random azimuthal angle, $`\varphi _i`$, with respect to the leg.
* One then chooses the transverse momentum $`k_{ti}`$ and rapidity $`\eta _i`$ with respect to the leg, such that the emission is soft, collinear and satisfies $`V(k_i)=y_iv_s`$. Within these constraints one has total freedom in one’s choice of transverse momentum and rapidity.
* One chooses $`\mathrm{ln}y_{i+1}`$ such that $`y_{i+1}<y_i`$, with a random distribution proportional to $`(y_{i+1}/y_i)^R^{}`$ reflecting the fact that the phase space to produce an emission with $`yv_s<V_k<(y+\delta y)v_s`$ is $`R^{}\delta y/y`$.
* If $`y_{i+1}<ϵ1`$, with $`ϵ`$ some arbitrary small cutoff, one stops. Otherwise one replaces $`ii+1`$ and goes back to step 1.

### 2.5 The coefficient of $`𝑹_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$

For the purposes of matching with fixed order calculations it is necessary to have the expansion of $`(R^{})`$ in powers of $`R^{}`$

$$(R^{})=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_nR_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}$$
(26)
(from which one can deduce the expansion in terms of powers of $`\alpha _\text{s}L`$). Since matching is currently usually carried out to NL order one needs the first two terms. As a consequence of our definition of the ‘simple’ observable, the first term is automatically zero. The second term can be obtained by expanding eqs. (10) and (25) to give

$$_2=\underset{\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2}{}\left(\underset{\alpha _\text{s}L0}{lim}\frac{R_\mathrm{}_1^{}R_\mathrm{}_2^{}}{R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)\frac{d\varphi _1d\varphi _2}{(2\pi )^2}^{v_s}\frac{dv_2}{v_2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{V(\stackrel{~}{k}_1,\stackrel{~}{k}_2)}{v_s},V(\stackrel{~}{k}_1)=v_s.$$
(27)
We specify the limit $`R^{}0`$ for the ratio of $`R_{\mathrm{}}^{}/R^{}`$ because for some more complicated observables, such as $`\tau _{zE}`$ in DIS , $`R_{\mathrm{}}^{}/R^{}`$ is not a pure number but rather itself a function of $`R^{}`$. We also note that despite the appearance of $`v_s`$ in the integral, $`_2`$ is of course independent of $`v_s`$.

Finally we point out that if necessary (*e.g.* for NNLO matching) one can in a similar way derive corresponding expressions for yet higher order terms in the expansion of $``$.

## 3 Reproducing known results

An important test of our method is that it reproduces known analytical results. This section shows results for a variety of previously calculated observables in configurations with $`2`$ and $`3`$ hard jets. For definitions of the observables, the reader is referred to appendix B.

### 3.1 $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\text{2 jets}`$: thrust and broadenings

Here we recover the known results for the thrust $`T`$ and the jet broadenings (total $`B_T`$ and wide $`B_W`$). In each case we have tested both methods for the elimination of subleading logs (section 2.4) and verified that they give identical results.

For the thrust distribution the ‘simple’ observable is given by

$$\tau _s\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\frac{k_{ti}}{Q}e^{|\eta _i|}\right\},$$
(28)
The lowest line of figure 1 shows the comparison between the function $`_\tau `$ and the corresponding exact result ,

$$_\tau (R^{})=\frac{e^{\gamma _ER^{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+R^{})}.$$
(29)
In the broadening case we start from

$$B_s\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}_{ti}|}{Q}.$$
(30)
The Monte Carlo procedure gives $`B_L`$ and $`B_R`$ (see (41)) and then $`B_T`$ and $`B_W`$ (see (42)). The comparison between numerical and analytical resummation ,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{B_T}(R^{})& =\frac{e^{\gamma _ER^{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+R^{})}\left(_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x^2}\left(\frac{1+x}{4}\right)^{R^{}/2}\right)^2,\hfill \\ \hfill _{B_W}(R^{})& =\frac{e^{\gamma _ER^{}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1+R^{}/2)}\left(_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x^2}\left(\frac{1+x}{4}\right)^{R^{}/2}\right)^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
is given by the top two lines of figure 1.

### 3.2 $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\text{3 jets}`$: thrust minor (a.k.a. $`𝑲_{\mathrm{𝐨𝐮𝐭}}`$)

The procedure can also be applied to multi-jet event shapes, such as $`T_m`$ and $`D`$ parameter, which have been studied recently in the near-to-planar three-jet region . In particular, we would like to compare the numerical results to the analytical resummation of $`T_m`$ distribution, which is much more involved than that of the $`D`$ parameter due to hard parton recoil effects.

In the near to planar three-jet region $`TT_MT_m`$, a three-jet event consists of a hard quark-antiquark-gluon system accompanied by soft secondary partons. We denote the hard partons by $`p_1,p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ with $`p_1^0>p_2^0>p_3^0`$ and call $`\delta =1,2,3`$ the configuration in which the gluon momentum is $`p_\delta `$. As discussed in , the function $`_{T_m}(R^{})`$ depends on the colour configuration of the hard underlying system.

The simple observable $`T_{m,s}`$ is determined by (13). In terms of soft parton momenta this gives $`T_{m,s}=\mathrm{max}_i\{N_i|k_{ix}|/Q\}`$, where $`k_{ix}`$ is the out-of-event-plane momentum component of emitted parton $`i`$ and, due to the recoil kinematics, $`N_i`$ is $`4`$ or $`2`$ respectively according to whether or not emission $`i`$ is in the same hemisphere as the most energetic hard parton (as was shown in  and can easily be determined numerically as well as analytically).

The analytical result for $`_{T_m}^{(\delta )}(R^{})`$ has been computed in .555Note that in  $``$ represented a different quantity. We do not reproduce here its explicit form, since its various components involve up to as many as five nested integrals, but we plot in figure 2 the analytical results as a function of $`R^{}`$ together with $`_{T_m}^{(\delta )}`$ obtained using the numerical procedure.

## 4 New results

We now exploit our method to compute the function $``$ for some observables for which an analytical expression for the resummed PT distribution has not so far been found: the thrust major, the oblateness and the Durham three-jet resolution. In the first two cases we suspect that it may not even be possible to find analytical expressions.

### 4.1 Thrust major

The thrust major, $`T_M`$, is defined in (38). In order to compute $`_{T_M}`$ we have as the ‘simple’ observable

$$T_{M,s}2\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}_{ti}|}{Q}.$$
(32)
Our numerical procedure gives the function $`_{T_M}(R^{})`$ shown in figure 3. The resummed $`T_M`$ distribution is then given by (11), where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(T_M)`$, defined generally in (17), is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_s(T_M)& =e^{R_s(T_M/2)}=e^{R_s(T_M)}e^{R^{}\mathrm{ln}2},\hfill \\ \hfill R_s(T_M)& =2C_F_{T_M^2Q^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2}\frac{\alpha _\text{s}(k_t)}{\pi }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{k_t}\frac{3}{4}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
*i.e.* it is expressed in terms of a radiator, $`R_s(T_M)`$, which is identical to that for $`B_T`$ and $`B_W`$. Its analytical expression to SL accuracy has been already computed in  and is recalled in Appendix C.1.

We then match the above resummed result (using the $`\mathrm{log}R`$-matching scheme ) with the exact $`𝒪\left(\alpha _\text{s}^2\right)`$ results computed with EVENT2 , to give the curve shown in figure 4.

### 4.2 Oblateness

The ‘simple’ observable (32) can be also exploited to compute $`(R^{})`$ for the oblateness, defined as the difference between the thrust major and the thrust minor (see (40)).

The function $`(R^{})`$ for the oblateness (also shown in figure 3) behaves quite differently from that for the other variables considered so far, since it increases rather than decreases with increasing $`R^{}`$.

There is a simple reason for this difference. For most variables, adding an extra emission to the ensemble can only increase the value of the observable, largely because most observables essentially involve a sum of positive definite quantities.

The oblateness is unusual in that it is a difference of two quantities. For a single emission the thrust minor is zero and so the oblateness is equal to the thrust major. But as soon as one considers a second emission, there exist configurations for which the thrust minor is almost equal to the major, leading to a value for the oblateness which is smaller than that of the simple observable.

This is illustrated in figure 5 which shows the probability distribution for the ratio of the true variable to the simple one, for both the thrust major and the oblateness. The thrust major exhibits a sharp cutoff for $`v/v_s<1`$. The oblateness on the other hand has a roughly power-like tail extending to arbitrarily small values of $`v/v_s`$, originating from events with nearly identical major and minor projections. Since eq. (10) involves the ratio $`(v/v_s)^R^{}`$, if a sufficient fraction of events has $`v<v_s`$, then $`(R^{})`$ can be larger than $`1`$.

However $``$ being larger than one is not the only consequence of the tail at small $`v/v_s`$: if $`R^{}`$ is too large then the factor $`(v/v_s)^R^{}`$ can completely compensate the smallness of $`P(v|v_s)`$, and the integral (7) then diverges. The start of this divergence is clearly visible for the oblateness in figure 3. We shall refer to the position of the divergence as $`R_\mathrm{c}^{}`$.

In the case of the oblateness, simple considerations based on two-gluon configurations suggest that $`R_\mathrm{c}^{}=2`$, corresponding to a tail of $`vP(v|v_s)`$ proportional to $`(v/v_s)^2`$. This does not quite correspond to what is seen in figure 5, and it is not clear whether the actual $`vP(v|v_s)`$ has a different power for the tail, or simply some extra logarithmic enhancement.

We emphasise that the divergence in $``$ is not a particularity of our approach. Recently for example, such a problem has been extensively discussed in the context of the jet broadening in DIS , and it is in general present for all observables which can have zero value even in the presence of emissions. Physically, what happens is that for $`RR_\mathrm{c}^{}`$ there is a transition from the normal double-log Sudakov suppression to some other behaviour (*e.g.* a suppression proportional to $`v^2`$). Such a transition is beyond representation in terms of a pure SL function, leading to a breakdown in the hierarchy of leading and subleading logs. This is seen for example in the fact that NNLL terms are even more strongly divergent that the NLL ones. In analytical resummation approaches, with considerable extra work, it is sometimes possible to include an appropriate subset of subleading terms so as to bring the answer back under control over the whole range of the $`R^{}`$.

On the other hand as long $`R_\mathrm{c}^{}R^{}`$ is of order one (formally $`\sqrt{\alpha _\text{s}}`$) it can be shown that the divergence can be ignored . Therefore, so as to be sure of remaining in the region under control, we suggest that the oblateness distribution be studied only for $`R^{}(O)<1`$. This is illustrated in figure 4, which shows the full resummed matched distribution for the oblateness (based on an expression analogous to (33)). The point $`R^{}=1`$ is just to the right of the peak region — accordingly, it should be possible to compare most, though not all the data with the resummed predictions.

### 4.3 Durham three-jet resolution

Now we wish to calculate the multiple emission single-logs for the distribution of the three-jet resolution parameter, $`y_3`$, in the Durham algorithm (the corresponding integrated distribution is also referred to as the two-jet rate). The leading logs, and some subleading logs (those necessary for NLL accuracy in the exponentiated answer rather than the exponent) were calculated in . The NL logs associated with the appropriate scheme choice for $`\alpha _\text{s}`$ were given in . However those coming from the non-trivial dependence on multiple emissions have yet to be calculated.

Jet rates differ from most event shapes in that they do not satisfy item 3 of the conditions for applicability given in appendix A, which was required for a straightforward elimination of subleading logarithms, using the event-shape specific method of section 2.4. This condition was that $`V(\{k_i\})`$ should stay invariant under certain transformations of the $`k_i`$ which kept the $`\{V(k_i)\}`$ constant. It allowed phase-space integrations over rapidity to be carried out analytically.

Nevertheless we can still use the ‘general’ method for the elimination of subleading logs, as outlined in section 2.4. It requires that we be able to evaluate the observable accurately even when it takes values much smaller than the smallest machine representable (double precision) floating point number, so that we can take the limit $`\alpha _\text{s}0`$ with constant $`\alpha _\text{s}L`$ (which implies $`L\mathrm{}`$).

It turns out that to succeed in doing this (without recourse to arbitrary precision arithmetic) we must carry out an analytical analysis of the observable’s dependence on multiple soft and collinear emissions. One might raise the criticism that this negates the philosophy of our numerical approach. Such a criticism would be only partially justified since in a traditional resummation approach once one has determined this dependence, one still has to understand what transformations are needed in order to write it in a factorised form (*cf.* the discussion in the introduction), and then one has to carry out the inverse transformations, both operations involving considerable work.

#### 4.3.1 Soft and collinear analysis

It is useful to start by recalling the definition of the Durham jet finding algorithm , given in terms of a resolution parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ as follows:

1. For all pairs of (pseudo)particles $`i,j`$ calculate

$$y_{ij}=\frac{2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}(E_i^2,E_j^2)(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij})}{Q^2}.$$
(34)
2. If all $`y_{ij}>y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ stop. The number of jets is then defined to be equal to the number of (pseudo)particles left.
3. Otherwise *recombine* the pair with the smallest $`y_{ij}`$ into a single pseudoparticle (there are various schemes according to whether one wants the recombined particle to be massless, see for instance ).
4. Go back to step 1.

The three-jet resolution parameter, $`y_3`$, is the maximum value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ that leads to a $`3`$-jet event.

To understand the soft and collinear limit of our observable, we shall suppose that we have an event with hard partons $`a`$ and $`b`$ and soft-collinear partons $`1\mathrm{}n`$. To start with we should examine the value of the $`y_{ij}`$ for different kinds of pairings of particles:

* If $`i`$ and $`a`$ are in the same hemisphere $`y_{ia}E_i^2\theta _i^2k_{ti}^2`$.
* If $`i`$ and $`j`$ are in different hemispheres then $`y_{ij}4E_<^2`$, where $`E_<=\mathrm{min}(E_i,E_j)`$.
* If $`i`$ and $`j`$ are in the same hemisphere then $`y_{ij}E_<^2|\stackrel{}{\theta }_i\stackrel{}{\theta }_j|^2`$, where we define the angles as vectors in the transverse directions.

In these relations we have defined $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_i`$ to be the angle between parton $`i`$ and its nearest hard parton (the vector indicates the azimuthal direction), and $`k_{ti}`$ to be the relative transverse momentum. The centre of mass energy $`Q`$ is taken to be $`1`$.

To determine the value of $`y_3`$ for an arbitrary ensemble of soft and collinear particles it is beneficial to start first with some simple cases: if we have just a single emission then $`y_3=k_t^2`$ of that emission (hence the alternative name — $`k_t`$ algorithm).

Now let us consider two emissions, labelled $`1`$ and $`2`$. We take $`k_{t1}>k_{t2}`$, the non-trivial case being when $`k_{t2}`$ and $`k_{t1}`$ are however of the same order. We shall assume that the two emissions are widely separated in rapidity, as is appropriate when considering only NLL terms. There are then four relevant configurations, illustrated in figure 6:

* If $`1`$ and $`2`$ are in opposite hemispheres (as in figure) then $`y_{12}=4\mathrm{min}(E_1^2,E_2^2)y_{1a}>y_{2b}`$, so parton $`2`$ gets recombined with $`b`$. Since now the only soft-collinear parton left is $`1`$ we get $`y_3=k_{t1}^2`$.
* If $`1`$ and $`2`$ are in the same hemisphere (say the hemisphere of $`a`$) and $`\theta _1\theta _2`$ (which implies $`E_1E_2`$), then we get $`y_{12}y_{1a}=k_{t1}^2`$, while $`y_{2a}=k_{t2}^2`$ which is smaller. So once again parton 2 recombines with a hard parton and we are left with just parton 1, which then leads us to $`y_3=k_{t1}^2`$.
* If $`1`$ and $`2`$ are in the same hemisphere (again the hemisphere of $`a`$), but $`\theta _1\theta _2`$ (which implies $`E_1E_2`$), then we have $`y_{12}y_{2a}=k_{t2}^2`$, while $`y_{1a}=k_{t1}^2`$ which is larger. So the recombination that will take place is either $`12`$ or $`a2`$. Which one depends on whether $`|\stackrel{}{\theta }_2\stackrel{}{\theta }_1|^2>\theta _2^2`$. If $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_1\stackrel{}{\theta }_2<0`$ then the inequality is satisfied, and we have a $`a2`$ recombination, so that just as before $`y_3=k_{t1}^2`$.
* If $`1`$ and $`2`$ are in the same hemisphere and $`\theta _1\theta _2`$, as in iii), but with $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_1\stackrel{}{\theta }_2>0`$, then $`y_{12}<y_{2a}`$ and (at last a non trivial result!) we recombine partons $`1`$ and $`2`$. This gives us a pseudoparticle with the energy of parton $`1`$ (recall $`E_1E_2`$) and squared transverse momentum $`k_{tp}^2=|\stackrel{}{k}_{t1}+\stackrel{}{k}_{t2}|^2`$. The value of $`y_3`$ is then just set by the $`k_{tp}^2`$ of the pseudoparticle. We note that since $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_1\stackrel{}{\theta }_2>0`$, $`k_{tp}`$ is always larger than $`k_{t1}`$.

We can see from this analysis that item 3 of the conditions for applicability in appendix A is violated: exchanging the rapidities of the two gluons, while keeping their transverse momenta and azimuths constant (*i.e.* exchanging configurations ii and iv), leads to a change in the value of $`y_3`$.

The above two-gluon analysis also points the way to a general algorithm suitable for taking the limit of very small values of $`y_3`$. In order to be able to represent all quantities on a computer in standard double precision we work in terms of rapidities $`\eta _i`$ and rescaled transverse momenta $`\kappa _i=k_{ti}/\mathrm{max}_j\{k_{tj}\}`$. We further assume (as is appropriate at NLL order) that particles are all widely separated in rapidity from one another. The $`y_3`$ value for the Durham jet algorithm can then be determined as follows:

1. Find the index $`I`$ of the smallest of the $`\{\kappa _i\}`$.
2. Considering only the soft partons $`j`$ in the same hemisphere as $`I`$ and which satisfy $`\stackrel{}{\kappa }_I\stackrel{}{\kappa }_j>0`$, find the index $`J`$ of the one with the smallest positive value of $`|\eta _j||\eta _I|`$. If there are no soft partons $`j`$ with both $`\stackrel{}{\kappa }_I\stackrel{}{\kappa }_j>0`$ and $`|\eta _j|>|\eta _I|`$, then let $`J=a`$ or $`b`$, according to which is the collinear hard parton.
3. If $`J=a`$ or $`J=b`$ then just throw away parton $`I`$. Otherwise recombine $`I`$ and $`J`$ as follows: the rapidity $`\eta _p`$ of the pseudoparticle is just set to $`\eta _J`$ (this involves a mistake on $`\eta _p`$ by an additive amount of order $`1`$ — but that is subleading), while its transverse momentum is the vector sum, $`\stackrel{}{\kappa }_p=\stackrel{}{\kappa }_I+\stackrel{}{\kappa }_J`$. At NLL order, this procedure is appropriate for all standard recombination schemes.
4. If only one soft pseudoparticle remains, $`P`$, then $`y_3/\mathrm{max}_j\{k_{tj}^2\}=\kappa _P^2`$. Otherwise go back to step 1.

#### 4.3.2 Numerical results

Using the above algorithm for calculating $`y_3`$ at arbitrarily small values we can now numerically determine the function $`_{y_3}(R^{})`$. The results are shown in figure 3 together with those for the thrust major and the oblateness.666We note that the above analysis also makes it quite simple to determine $`_2`$ analytically:
$$_2=\frac{1}{4}_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }_0^{k_{t1}^2}\frac{dk_{t2}^2}{k_{t2}^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{k_{t1}^2+k_{t2}^2+2k_{t1}k_{t2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{k_{t1}^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{32},$$
(35)  where the leading factor of $`1/4`$ comes because only a quarter of the time are the particles in the same hemisphere with $`\theta _1\theta _2`$.

For phenomenology one also needs to know the resummation for the simple observable related to $`y_3`$. Since $`y_{3s}`$ is just the (normalised) squared transverse momentum, $`y_{3s}=k_t^2/Q^2`$, we have from (17) and (18) that

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{\Sigma }_s(y_3)=e^{R_s(y_3)},R_s(y_3)=C_F_{y_3Q^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dk_t^2}{k_t^2}\frac{\alpha _\text{s}(k_t)}{\pi }\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{k_t^2}\frac{3}{2}\right).\end{array}$$
(36)
This corresponds to what was calculated in , which contains the explicit NLL form for the result of the integration. The full NLL resummed prediction for the Durham $`y_3`$ can then be obtained from (11), with $`_{y_3}(R^{})`$ as shown in figure 3.

For completeness, in figure 7 we show the final perturbative result for the NLL resummed Durham $`y_3`$ distribution, matched to the NLO fixed order results. We choose here as a recombination scheme the $`E0`$ scheme (see for instance ), in which the energy of the recombined pseudo-particle equals the sum of the energies of the two (pseudo)-particles, while the three-momentum is rescaled so as to keep pseudo-particles massless. Choosing a different recombination scheme will affect only the large $`y_3`$ region and subleading logs. In the same figure we also show the matched resummed curve for the Cambridge algorithm , which is also in the ‘family’ of $`k_t`$ algorithms — however it has a different clustering sequence which leads to the property that for emissions widely separated in rapidity, the $`y_3`$ value is simply the maximum of the emitted squared transverse momenta.777We would like to thank Yu.L. Dokshitzer and B.R. Webber for bringing this to our attention. As a consequence $`(R^{})=1`$, so that the full resummed distribution is simply given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have presented a general method for the numerical calculation of the only non-trivial class of next-to-leading logarithms in (global) event shapes. For most event shapes it means that the calculation of the resummed distribution (in the $`n`$-jet limit for an observable which has non-zero values only for ensembles of $`n+1`$ or more particles) can be reduced to the following three tasks:

* The evaluation of the dependence of the observable on a single soft and collinear emission.
* The calculation of a resummed distribution, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$, based on that single-emission dependence, through eqs. (17) and (18) (or their extensions in situations with more than two hard ‘legs’, and/or incoming hadrons).
* The provision of a computer subroutine which calculates the value of the observable for an arbitrary set of four-momenta. One can then use the algorithm of this paper to determine a single logarithmic function $`(R^{})`$ which accounts for the observable’s non-trivial dependence on multiple emissions, and multiplies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ to give the resummed distribution to full NLL accuracy.

The method thus provides both a very simple, but also general way of obtaining NLL resummed distributions for final-state observables.

As a cross check, it has been tested against a range of previously studied observables (including some in processes other than $`e^+e^{}`$, which for brevity we have not shown here, but which are listed at the end of appendix B), and consistently reproduces the known analytical results.

It has also been applied to observables that up to now had proved beyond the scope of existing analytical methods, allowing us to present the first fully NLL resummed distributions for the thrust major, the oblateness and the three-jet resolution $`y_3`$ in the Durham algorithm. For the three-jet resolution some analytical analysis was required in order to provide a subroutine capable of giving an accurate evaluation of $`y_3`$ even in the limit of very small $`y_3`$. That analysis also has some intrinsic interest for the light it casts on the functioning of the Durham jet algorithm.

It should be emphasised that the philosophy of the approach presented here differs entirely from that of a Monte Carlo event generator (such as Herwig  or Pythia ). An event generator may well reproduce many of the leading and subleading logarithms for event shape distributions, however even at parton level there will also be contamination from potentially spurious NNLL and non-perturbative terms, and it is not currently possible to match to exact next-to-leading order calculations.

On the other hand the results produced by our algorithm are indistinguishable from those of fully analytical methods, allowing the same procedures of truncation at pure LL and NLL terms, and straightforward matching to fixed leading and NLO calculations. As such, our method is an essential development should one wish at some stage to fully automate the calculation of resummed distributions, in a manner analogous to what has become standard for fixed-order predictions of non-inclusive observables.

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Pino Marchesini for discussions in the early stages of this work, Yuri Dokshitzer for helpful suggestions and Stefano Catani, Günther Dissertori and Bryan Webber for useful conversations on the subject of jet algorithms.

## Appendix A Conditions for applicability

Various steps in this article rely on the observable under consideration being ‘suitable’. Here we attempt to define what is meant by this. The first two conditions are required for the exponentiation of the double logarithms. The third condition is specific to the second (event-shape specific) method for eliminating subleading effects (discussed in section 2.4):

1. If one is resumming from a Born level consisting of $`n`$ coloured hard partons (incoming or outgoing), then for any configuration consisting of just $`n`$ hard partons the observable must have a constant value $`V_0`$ independent of the hard configuration. Furthermore for a general configuration of $`n+1`$ hard partons the observable must have a value different from $`V_0`$. Without loss of generality, one can redefine the observable such that $`V_0=0`$.

So for example, we can consider the thrust in the 2-jet limit, or the thrust minor in the 3-jet limit, but not the thrust-minor in the 2-jet limit, nor the thrust in the 3-jet limit.
2. If we select $`m`$ soft, collinear momenta (with respect to any of the $`n`$ hard partons) such that $`V(k_1)V(k_2)\mathrm{}V(k_m)`$, then the observable must satisfy the condition $`V(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)V(k_1)`$. This is necessary in order for the double logarithms to exponentiate, and excludes for example observables based on the JADE jet-clustering algorithm .
3. Given $`m`$ soft and collinear (SC) partons, the value of the observable $`V(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m)`$ must remain unchanged (to within corrections of relative order of the softness or collinearity) if we vary the rapidity and absolute transverse momentum (but not the azimuth) of any of the $`m`$ SC partons subject to the following restrictions:

* the $`V(k_i)`$ are all kept constant;
    * each SC parton remains collinear to the hard parton to which it was originally collinear.

This condition is necessary if one is to use method 2 of section 2.4 for the elimination of subleading logs. We note that in general it is satisfied by event shapes, but not for example by the jet rate with the Durham algorithm.

In addition to the above conditions, we note that for the simple observable to have a straightforward resummation in terms of independent emissions (*cf.* eqs. (15), (17) and (18)) it is necessary that it be global .

## Appendix B Definition of observables

For completeness we recall here the definition of all the event shape variables that we refer to in the main text (except for $`y_3`$ whose definition is explicitly needed in section 4.3 and so is directly given there).

* Thrust $`T`$, Thrust major $`T_M`$, Thrust minor $`T_m`$, Oblateness $`O`$

The thrust is defined as

$$T=\frac{1}{_i|\stackrel{}{p}_i|}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{i}{}|\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{n}|,$$
(37)
where $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ are the three-momenta of the outgoing particles. The thrust axis is the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_T`$ which maximises the sum in (37) and gives therefore the direction along which the projection of momenta is maximal.

The thrust major is then defined similarly, but the maximisation procedure is restricted to unit vectors perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{n}_T`$

$$T_M=\frac{1}{_i|\stackrel{}{p}_i|}\underset{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{n}_T=0}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{i}{}|\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{n}|.$$
(38)
The vector $`\stackrel{}{n}_{T_M}`$ which maximises the sum in (38) defines the thrust major axis.

Given the thrust and the thrust major axes, the thrust minor is defined as

$$T_m=\frac{1}{_i|\stackrel{}{p}_i|}\underset{i}{}|\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{n}_{T_m}|,\stackrel{}{n}_{T_m}=\stackrel{}{n}_T\times \stackrel{}{n}_{T_M},$$
(39)
and the oblateness as

$$O=T_MT_m.$$
(40)
* The broadenings:

The broadenings measure the transverse size of the jets. The plane perpendicular to the thrust axis through the origin divides an event in two hemispheres, which are usually called left (L) and right (R) hemisphere. One defines first the right ($`B_R`$) and left broadening ($`B_L`$) as

$$B_{R/L}=\frac{1}{2_i|\stackrel{}{p}_i|}\underset{iR/L}{}|\stackrel{}{p}_{ti}|,$$
(41)
with $`\stackrel{}{p}_{ti}=\stackrel{}{p}_i\times \stackrel{}{n}_T`$.

One can then define the total ($`B_T`$) and wide ($`B_W`$) jet broadening as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill B_T& =B_R+B_L,\hfill \\ \hfill B_W& =\mathrm{max}\{B_R,B_L\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)

As well as having been applied to the observables defined above, our method has also been successfully tested against known analytical results for several other variables: the $`D`$-parameter in 3-jet $`e^+e^{}`$ events , the current-jet broadening (with respect to the photon axis) in $`1+1`$-jet DIS events , the out-of-plane momentum in $`2+1`$-jet DIS events  and the out-of-plane momentum for $`W/Z+\mathrm{jet}`$ events in hadron-hadron collisions .

## Appendix C Analytical ingredients

Here we summarise all the analytical ingredients needed for the calculation of the resummed distributions of the three observables studied in section 4. This means NLL expressions for the simple radiators and derivatives (the formulae are all well known in the literature), as well as the fixed order expansions.

Computer subroutines which interpolate tabulated numerical values for the functions $`(R^{})`$ are available on request from the authors, as are example programs for calculating the complete resummed, matched distributions.

### C.1 Thrust major and oblateness

For the thrust major and oblateness, the simple radiator, $`R_s`$ (defined in (33)) is given to NLL order by $`R_s(v)=Lg_{s1}(\alpha _\text{s}L)+g_{s2}(\alpha _\text{s}L)`$ with

$$g_{s1}(\alpha _\text{s}L)=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _0\lambda }\left(2\lambda \mathrm{ln}(12\lambda )\right),$$
(43)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}g_{s2}(\alpha _\text{s}L)=\frac{3C_F}{2\pi \beta _0}\mathrm{ln}(12\lambda )+\frac{C_FK}{2\pi ^2\beta _0^2}\frac{2\lambda +(12\lambda )\mathrm{ln}(12\lambda )}{12\lambda }\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{C_F\beta _1}{\pi \beta _0^3}\left(\frac{2\lambda +\mathrm{ln}(12\lambda )}{12\lambda }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2(12\lambda )\right),\end{array}$$
(44)
where $`\lambda =\alpha _\text{s}\beta _0L`$ and $`L=\mathrm{ln}1/v`$. The coefficients of the $`\beta `$-function are given by

$$\beta _0=\frac{11C_A2n_f}{12\pi },\beta _1=\frac{17C_A^25C_An_f3C_Fn_f}{24\pi ^2},$$
(45)
and the constant relating the gluon Bremsstrahlung scheme  to the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ is

$$K=C_A\left(\frac{67}{18}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\right)\frac{5}{9}n_f.$$
(46)
Also useful is the formula for $`R^{}`$ (at NLL equal to $`R_s^{}`$):

$$R^{}(v)\frac{d}{dL}(Lg_{s1}(\alpha _\text{s}L))=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _0}\frac{4\lambda }{12\lambda }.$$
(47)
For matching to fixed order calculations, it is necessary to have the coefficients of the fixed order expansion of the full resummed distribution. They are given in table 1, using the notation of .

Tables 2a and 2b show the two subleading coefficients $`G_{21}`$ and $`C_2`$ for the thrust major and the oblateness respectively. They are obtained from the fixed order integrated distribution (calculated with EVENT2 ) after subtracting the leading and next-to-leading logs. The final errors shown are obtained by adding in quadrature the mean error and the maximal discrepancy between the mean coefficient and the coefficient obtained in a single fit. The errors are to be considered as indicative only, because of the difficulty in estimating the systematic uncertainty associated with the choice of fit range.

### C.2 Three-jet resolution

For the Durham (and Cambridge) three jet resolution parameter, the simple radiator, $`R_s`$, defined in (36), is given to NLL order by $`R_s(v)=Lg_{s1}(\alpha _\text{s}L)+g_{s2}(\alpha _\text{s}L)`$ with

$$g_{s1}(\lambda )=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _0\lambda }\left[\lambda \mathrm{ln}(1\lambda )\right],$$
(48)
$$\begin{array}{c}g_{s2}(\lambda )=\frac{3C_F}{2\pi \beta _0}\mathrm{ln}(1\lambda )+\frac{KC_F[\lambda +(1\lambda )\mathrm{ln}(1\lambda )]}{2\pi ^2\beta _0^2(1\lambda )}\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{C_F\beta _1}{\pi \beta _0^3}\left[\frac{\lambda +\mathrm{ln}(1\lambda )}{1\lambda }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2(1\lambda )\right],\end{array}$$
(49)
and, as before, $`\lambda =\alpha _\text{s}\beta _0L`$. $`R^{}`$ is given by

$$R^{}=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _0}\frac{\lambda }{1\lambda }.$$
(50)
The coefficients of the fixed order expansion of the resummation are given in table 3.

From fixed order results we also extract the subleading coefficients, shown in tables 4a and 4b for the Durham and Cambridge algorithms respectively. We follow the same fit procedure as for the thrust major and the oblateness. Note that these coefficients are obtained in the $`E0`$-scheme (see for example ), and that choosing a different recombination scheme will affect their value.