text:
# The Inflationary Gravity Waves in light of recent Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies data.

## I Introduction

The last years have seen spectacular advances in our ability to confront the inflationary scenario of structure formation to observational data. The “multiple peaks” observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) angular power spectrum (, , , , ) are indeed providing strong supporting evidence for the inflationary predictions of a flat universe and of a primordial background of scale-invariant adiabatic perturbations (see e.g. ,). More recently, the new CMB results from the Archeops experiment () have confirmed and refined the present observational status, sampling angular scales between those probed by the COBE satellite and the latest high precision datasets. Again, flatness, adiabaticity and scale invariance are in agreement with the data ().

It has been argued that the next and probably most conclusive evidence for inflation would be the detection of a stochastic background of Gravity Waves (GW) (see e.g. , ). Two types of spacetime metric fluctuations are indeed naturally produced during inflation: density perturbations (scalar modes), which form the “seeds” of structure formation, and gravity waves (tensor modes) ().

The GW background, if detected, would also provide valuable information on the inflationary scenario. In particular, in most inflationary models (and certainly in the simplest ones), the amplitude of the GW background is proportional to the square of the energy scale of inflation (see e.g. ). Furthermore, a complementary measurement of the ’tilt’ of the GW perturbations (and of the scalar as well) can give direct information up to the second derivatives of the inflaton potential, sheding light on the physics at $`10^{16}GeV`$ (see e.g. ).

The GW background leaves an imprint on the CMB anisotropies at large scales through the Sachs-Wolfe effect. On scales smaller than the horizon at recombination, however, unlike the anisotropies generated by scalar fluctuations, those generated by GW damp like fluctuations in a fluid of massless bosons (see e.g. ). Since the theoretical spectrum, normalized to COBE, is a linear sum of the scalar and tensor components, if there is a relevant contribution from GW this would lower the predicted amplitude of the acoustic peaks on sub-degree angular scales.

With the advent of the new CMB peaks detections, many authors have therefore addressed the question of the GW’s contribution (see e.g. , , , , , , ). However, despite the different scale dependence, robust constraints on tensor modes remain difficult to obtain. The decrease in the amplitude of the acoustic oscillations induced by GW can indeed be compensated by an increase in one of the unconstrained parameters of the model, like, for example, the spectral index of scalar fluctuations $`n_S`$. Therefore, some form of ’cosmic degeneracy’ arises in the tradeoff between these two (and more) parameters (see , ) and only weak constraints on the GW background were obtained.

In this context, and before more accurate polarization data become available (see discussion below), the new results on intermediate angular scales, as recently provided by Archeops, can offer an interesting opportunity.

As we illustrate in Fig.1, this spectral region has a particular sensitivity to a GW contribution. In the figure, we plot two theoretical power spectra. The models have identical power on sub-degree scales and on COBE scales (considering cosmic variance), but different tensor contributions, parametrized by a tensor over scalar ratio of the angular power spectrum quadrupole $`r=C_2^T/C_2^S`$ (see e.g. ).

As we can see, while the two models are degenerate on scales $`\mathrm{}200`$, the degeneracy is broken on larger angular scales (see the bottom panel), mostly in the region sampled by Archeops. Both increasing $`n_S`$ and adding tensors change the rate of growth of the scalar modes from the Sachs-Wolfe plateau towards the first peak and this can in principle be used to constrain the GW background.

It is therefore extremely timely to analyze the Archeops data allowing the possibility of a GW contribution in order to see if the amplitude of this background can now be better constrained than in the past.

Furthermore, the GW background produces a unique statistical signature in the polarization of the CMB by inducing a curl component (, ), often defined as $`B`$ mode, while scalar (but also tensor) perturbations produces a gradient component ($`E`$ mode). Given the large number of future and ongoing CMB polarization experiments, it is interesting to forecast from the present CMB temperature data the expected amplitude of the $`B`$ modes and/or if the $`E`$ modes produced by tensors can be distinguished from those produced by scalar perturbations only.

We pursue this investigation in the present Rapid Communication as follows: in Section II we illustrate our analysis method. In section III we present our results. Finally, in section IV, we discuss our findings.

## II Analysis: Method

As a first step, we consider a template of flat, adiabatic, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-CDM scalar and tensor spectra computed with CMBFAST (), sampling the various parameters as follows: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2\omega _{cdm}=0.05,\mathrm{}0.25`$, in steps of $`0.02`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2\omega _b=0.009,\mathrm{},0.024`$, in steps of $`0.003`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5,\mathrm{},0.95`$, in steps of $`0.05`$. Our choice of the above parameters is motivated by the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis bounds on $`\omega _b`$ (both from $`D`$  and $`{}_{}{}^{4}He+^7Li`$ ), from supernovae () and galaxy clustering observations (see e.g. ).

Variations in the tensor and scalar spectral indices, $`n_S`$ and $`n_T`$ are not computationally relevant. However, we restrict our analysis to relevant inflationary values $`n_S=0.7,\mathrm{},1.3`$ and we fix $`n_T=0`$ (see discussion below for different values of $`n_T`$).

Furthermore, the value of the Hubble constant is not an independent parameter, since $`h=\sqrt{(\omega _{cdm}+\omega _b)/(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$. We also include the further top-hat prior $`h=0.7\pm 0.2`$ () and we consider only models with age $`t_0>11`$ Gyrs.

We allow for a reionization of the intergalactic medium by varying the compton optical depth parameter $`\tau _c`$ in the range $`\tau _c=0.0,\mathrm{},0.45`$ in steps of $`0.05`$. We note here that high values of $`\tau _c`$ are in severe disagreement with recent estimates of the redshift of reionization $`z_{re}6\pm 1`$ (see e.g. ) which points towards $`\tau _c0.050.10`$. On the other hand, if the reported CBI excess at $`\mathrm{}3000`$ is due to Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, then this would favour values $`\tau _c0.3`$ ().

For the CMB data, we use the recent results from the BOOMERanG-98, DASI, MAXIMA-1, CBI, VSA and Archeops experiments. The power spectra from these experiments were estimated in $`19`$, $`9`$, $`13`$, $`14`$, $`10`$ and $`16`$ bins respectively (for the CBI, we use the data from the MOSAIC configuration, ), spanning the range $`2\mathrm{}1500`$. We also use the COBE data from the RADPACK compilation ().

For the CBI, DASI, MAXIMA-I and VSA experiments we use the publicly available correlation matrices and window functions. For the Archeops and BOOMERanG experiments we assign a flat interpolation for the spectrum in each bin $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}/2\pi =C_B`$, and we approximate the signal $`C_B`$ inside the bin to be a Gaussian variable. The likelihood for a given theoretical model is defined by $`2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}=(C_B^{th}C_B^{ex})M_{BB^{}}(C_B^{}^{th}C_B^{}^{ex})`$ where $`M_{BB^{}}`$ is the Gaussian curvature of the likelihood matrix at the peak.

We consider $`5\%`$, $`10\%`$, $`4\%`$, $`5\%`$, $`3.5\%`$ and $`5\%`$ Gaussian distributed calibration errors (in $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$) for the Archeops, BOOMERanG-98, DASI, MAXIMA-1, VSA, and CBI experiments respectively and we include the beam uncertainties by the analytical marginalization method presented in ().

Finally, we parametrize the GW contribution by the tensor over scalar quadrupole ratio $`r=C_2^T/C_2^S`$ and we rescale the sum spectrum by a prefactor $`C_{10}`$, assumed to be a free parameter, in units of $`C_{10}^{COBE}`$.

## III Analysis: Results

The main results of our analysis are plotted in Fig.2. In the left top panel we plot the likelihood contours in the $`n_Sr`$ plane, maximizing over the remaining nuisance parameters. As we can see, in the framework of models we considered, the gravitational wave contribution is constrained to be $`r0.2`$ ($`r0.43`$) at $`68\%`$ C.L. ($`95\%`$ C.L.), with $`n_S=0.97_{0.07}^{+0.06}`$ ($`68\%`$ C.L.). While the inclusion of the Archeops data has little effect on $`n_S`$, it drastically improves the constraint on $`r`$. Removing the Archeops data yields $`r0.6`$ at $`95\%`$ C.L..

In the right top panel of Fig.2, we plot the likelihood contours in the $`n_S\tau _c`$ plane. As we can see, the present CMB constraint on $`\tau _c`$ is rather weak, with $`\tau _c<0.25`$ ($`\tau _c<0.36`$) at $`68\%`$ C.L. ($`95\%`$ C.L.). It is interesting to note that the inclusion of the ARCHEOPS datapoints has little effect.

Finally, in the bottom panel of Fig.2, we plot the likelihood contours in the $`r\tau _c`$ plane. An increase in $`\tau _c`$ or $`r`$ produces a similar damping on the small/intermediate angular scales. It is interesting to notice that the present data is allowing just a well defined amount of small-scale damping. Values of $`\tau _c0.3`$ are in disagreement with the presence of a tensor component. If $`\tau _c>0.2`$ then $`r<0.05`$ at $`68\%`$ C.L..

To each theoretical model in the likelihood planes produced in Fig.2, is possible to associate a theoretical polarization power spectrum and translate the confidence contours into an expected maximum and minima polarization signal.

We do this in the $`3`$ panels of Fig.3, where we plot the envelope of the minima and maxima polarization spectra that, in the panels of Fig.2, are at $`95\%`$ c.l. consistent with the CMB temperature data.

As we can see from the center panel of Figure $`3`$, the level of the $`B`$-modes, is expected to be of $`0.2`$ $`\mu K`$, at maximum. The signal is out of the reach of most of the current polarization experiment like DASI or POLATRON which are sensitive to few $`\mu K`$. Near future experiments like B2K or QUEST, will probably have enough sensitivity to have a statistical B-mode detection. However, the $`B`$-signal in the angular region sampled by these experiments ($`\mathrm{}>50`$), can be contaminated by a foreground component due to the conversion of $`E`$ modes to $`B`$ modes from gravitational lensing (see Fig. 3) (). Higher-order correlations will be necessary to map the cosmic shear and subtract this contribution to the $`B`$ mode ().

Tensor perturbations produce $`E`$ modes as well. However, the amplitude of the $`E`$ tensor modes is predicted to be generally much smaller than those from the scalar modes (see bottom panel). A window of opportunity may appear in the temperature-polarization ($`<TE>`$) cross-correlation spectra, where, at $`\mathrm{}50`$, the amplitude from tensor can be larger than those from scalar modes, leaving a possible detectable excess for experiments like QUEST or B2K.

In order to cross-check if any information can be obtained on $`n_T`$ we performed the analysis on just one cosmological model defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\omega _b=0.022`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=1`$, $`\tau _c=0.04`$. We then considered tensor contributions by varying the scalar and tensor spectral indices independently: $`n_S=0.7,\mathrm{},1.3`$ and $`n_T=0.3,\mathrm{},0.0`$, step $`0.01`$. We found that the tensor spectral index is not constrained by the present data, but that a value of $`n_T=0`$ is preferred.

## IV Conclusions

In this Rapid Communication we have presented new constraints on the stochastic background of gravitational waves from recent microwave anisotropy data. Thanks to Archeops, our results improve the constraints on tensor modes from previous analyses (see e.g. , ).

In the framework of models we considered, we found (at $`95\%`$ C.L.) $`r<0.43`$ and $`n_S=0.97_{0.12}^{+0.10}`$. The energy scale of inflation $`E_{inf}`$ can be related to tensor by $`E_{inf}^4=0.65C_2^Tm_{Pl}^4`$. The above bound translates therefore in $`E_{inf}1.6\times 10^{16}GeV`$.

When comparing with the results presented in , a part from the different template of theoretical models considered, our analysis differs mainly in the following points: we assumed the low-$`\mathrm{}`$ Archeops bins as gaussian distributed, we included the COBE data using the RADPACK compilation, we have a strong upper limit on $`\omega _b<0.025`$ from BBN and, finally, we numerically computed the models with $`\tau _c>0`$ (while in  an analytical formula was used).

The GW background induces a unique signature in the polarization of the CMB by producing a curl component, not present in the case of scalar perturbations. In the set of models we considered (and under the assumption of a bayesian method of statistical analysis) we found that the maximum expected level of $`B`$ modes allowed by current data is of about $`0.2\mu K`$, which can be partially attainable by near future experiments and severly contaminated by lensing $`EB`$ conversion.

The $`E`$ modes expected from gravity waves are lower than the $`E`$ modes expected from scalar perturbations. However, the tensor $`<TE>`$ cross-correlation might be larger at $`\mathrm{}50`$.

In this context, deviations in the $`<TE>`$ cross-correlation scalar spectrum at $`\mathrm{}50`$ can possibly offer competitive information with respect to $`B`$ modes search.

All our predictions derived from the temperature data are consistent with the recent claim of detection of polarization $`E`$ modes from the DASI experiment ().

As a final remark, we want to stress that the results presented here have been obtained under the assumption of a theoretical framework. The bounds on the polarization spectrum must be considered just as an indication of what future observations may detect.

In particular, we just considered $`n_T=0`$ in the main analysis and we looked at the effect of having $`n_T`$ as low as $`0.3`$. For inflation, only values $`n_T0`$ can be considered and we checked that varying $`n_T`$ has little effect on the final results. Spectra with “blue” ($`n_T>0`$) spectral indices can be produced in Ekpyrotic () or Pre-Big Bang (see e.g. ) scenarios. However, extremely blue spectra ($`n_T2`$) are excluded by constraints on the GW energy density background from timing milli-second binary pulsars . Allowing for extra primordial perturbation modes like isocurvature, will probably tight our constraints on GW, since the shape of CDM scalar isocurvature modes is similar to those from adiabatic tensor modes. However, considering the most general initial conditions scheme and including cross correlations, will certainly enlarge our constraints (). Including curvature ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}1`$) would relax our bounds on $`r`$ (see e.g. ). Non-flat models in agreement with the CMB data are in general closed models, which, a part from a few exceptions (), are difficult to obtain from inflation. Finally, including a different model for dark energy like quintessence would change the large scale anisotropy through the Integrated Sach Wolfe effect (see e.g. ), affecting our constraints as well.

Even if the results presented here do not hint for a presence of GW background, the data is still consistent with a sizable tensor contribution. It will therefore be the duty of future and ongoing experiments to scrutinize this fundamental prediction from inflation.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Anthony Challinor, Asantha Cooray, Will Kinney, Rocky Kolb, Mike Hobson, Robert Izzard, Anthony Lasenby, Antonio Riotto and Francois Xavier-Desert. AM is supported by PPARC. CJO is supported by a Girton College Scholarship and an Isaac Newton Studentship.


format: text

text:
# Constraints on the mixing of states on bipartite quantum systems

(September,2002)

## Abstract

We give necessary conditions for the mixing of states on bipartite quantum systems, which are independent of the eigenvalues of these mixed states and based on the algebraic-geometric invariants introduced in . These are further constraints except the previously known constraints based on majorization of eigenvalues (). One implication of our results is that for some special mixed states, only mixed states in a measure zero set can be used to mix to get them. As indicated in  and  for many physical problems in composite quantum systems the majorization of some numerical invariants such as eigenvalues is not sufficient.

The general problem of quantum operations was considerd in ,,, essentially new aspects from the view of quantum information processing was added recently in ,,,,. All possible physical operations on quantum systems can be divided into (1)state-to-ensemble operations and (2)ensemble-to-state operations(mixing), where ensemble is a set of mixed states $`\{\rho _i\}`$ with ascribed possibilities $`\{p_i\}`$. The class (2) can be described by taking convex combination

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\{p_i,\rho _i\}\rho _{out}=\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i\rho _i& & & & \end{array}(1)$$

In the context of quantum information processing, the action of mixing corresponds to erasure of informations concerning identity of a member of ensemble. An important problem in quantum mechnics is the following mixing problem: given a $`\rho `$, characterize the ensembles $`\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$ such that $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i\rho _i`$ (,).

In uni-partite case there are some previously known constraints on $`\{p_i,\rho _i\}`$ for a given mixed state $`\rho `$ based on majorization of eigenvalues of $`\rho `$, $`\rho _i`$ and $`p_i`$ (see ,,,,). We first recall the notation of majorization (,,). For two given vectors of real numbers $`r`$ and $`s`$, we re-order the components of $`r`$ and $`s`$ into decreasing order, writing for example $`r^{}=(r_1^{},\mathrm{},r_d^{})`$ for the vector whose components are the same as those of $`r`$, but in decreasing order. We say $`r`$ is majorized by $`s`$ , written $`rs`$ if

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}r_1^{}s_1^{}& & & & & & & & \\ r_1^{}+r_2^{}s_1^{}+s_2^{}& & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{}& & & & & & & & \\ r_1^{}+\mathrm{}+r_{d1}^{}s_1^{}+\mathrm{}+s_{d1}^{}& & & & & & & & \\ r_1^{}+\mathrm{}+r_d^{}=s_1^{}+\mathrm{}+s_d^{}& & & & & & & & \end{array}(2)$$

Then we can recall the previously known constraints of the mixing problem in uni-partite case.

Theorem 1 (,,,). Suppose $`\rho `$ is a mixed state. Let $`\{p_i\}`$ ba a probility distribution. Then there exist nomarlized quantum states $`|\varphi _i>`$ such that $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_ip_i|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$ if and only if $`(p_i)\lambda (\rho )`$, where $`\lambda (\rho )`$ is the vector of eigenvalues of $`\rho `$.

Theorem 2 (). Let $`\rho `$ be a mixed state, $`\{p_j\}`$ a probility distribution and $`\{\rho _j\}`$ mixed states such at $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_jp_j\rho _j`$. Then the following constraints must be obeyed: $`\lambda (\rho )\mathrm{\Sigma }_jp_j\lambda (\rho _j)`$, where $`\lambda ()`$ denotes the vector of eigenvalues.

We now consider the bipartite case. Let $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _i`$’s be mixed states on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ and $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i\rho _i`$ where $`p_i>0`$. It is clear that we can take partial traces of both sides and get some constraints on the eigenvalues of $`tr_A(\rho )`$ and $`tr_A(\rho _i)`$ from Theorem 2 (respectively $`tr_B(\rho )`$ and $`tr_B(\rho _i)`$). However there are other constraints for the mixing problem of bipartite mixed states related to Schmidt numbers. First we need to recall the concept of Schmidt numbers of bipartite mixed states introduced in . For a bipartite mixed state $`\rho `$, it has Schmidt number $`k`$ if and only if for any decomposition $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_ip_i|v_i><v_i|`$ for positive real numbers $`p_i`$’s and pure states $`|v_i>`$’s, at least one of the pure states $`|v_i>`$’s has Schmidt rank at least $`k`$, and there exists such a decomposition with all pure states $`|v_i>`$’s Schmidt rank at most $`k`$. It is clear that the mixed states are entangled if their Schmidt numbers are bigger than 1. It is proved () that Schmidt number is entanglement monotone, ie., they cannot increase under local quantum operations and classical communication . So we can naturally think Schmidt numbers of mixed states as a measure of their entanglement.

We have the following necessary condition of mixing problem in bipartite case, which is independent of eigenvalues.

Proposition 1. Let $`\rho `$ be a mixed state on a bipartite system with Schmidt number $`r`$. Suppose $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$ where $`|\varphi _i>`$’s are pure states and $`p_i`$’s are positive. Then one of $`|\varphi _i>`$ has Schmidt rank at least $`r`$. In the case that $`r2`$, ie., $`\rho `$ is entangled, then at least one of $`|\varphi _i>`$ is entangled.

From this observation it is clear that the mixing problem in bipartite case is more complicated than the uni-partite case and cannot be characterized by only using eigenvalues. In  algebraic-geometric invariants of bipartite mixed states under local unitary transformations are introduced and it is showed that these invariants can help us to understand the physical problems such as separability of mixed states and simulation of Hamiltonians (,). In this paper we give some necessary conditions of the mixing problem in bipartite case in the term of only these algebraic-geometric invariants (thus independent of eigenvalues). First we need to recall the definition of these invariants. For any bipartite mixed states $`\rho `$ on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ , we want to understand it by measuring it with separable pure states, ie., we consider the $`<\varphi _1\varphi _2|\rho |\varphi _1\varphi _2>`$ for any pure states $`\varphi _1H_A^m`$ and $`\varphi _2H_B^n`$. For any fixed $`\varphi _1P(H_A^m)`$, where $`P(H_A^m)`$ is the projective space of all pure states in $`H_A^m`$, $`<\varphi _1\varphi _2|\rho |\varphi _1\varphi _2>`$ is a Hermitian bilinear form on $`H_B^n`$, denoted by $`<\varphi _1|\rho |\varphi _1>`$ . We consider the degenerating locus  of this bilinear form, ie., $`V_A^k(\rho )=\{\varphi _1P(H_A^m):rank(<\varphi _1|\rho |\varphi _1>)k\}`$ for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$. We can use the coordinate form of this formalism. Let $`\{|11>,\mathrm{},|1n>,\mathrm{},|m1>,\mathrm{},|mn>\}`$ be the standard orthogonal base of $`h_A^mH_B^n`$ and $`\rho `$ be an arbitrary mixed states. We represent the matrix of $`\rho `$ in the base $`\{|11>,\mathrm{}|1n>,\mathrm{},|m1>,\mathrm{},|mn>\}`$, and consider $`\rho `$ as a blocked matrix $`\rho =(\rho _{ij})_{1im,1jm}`$ with each block $`\rho _{ij}`$ a $`n\times n`$ matrix corresponding to the $`|i1>,\mathrm{},|in>`$ rows and the $`|j1>,\mathrm{},|jn>`$ columns. For any pure state $`\varphi _1=r_1|1>+\mathrm{}+r_m|m>P(H_A^m)`$ the matrix of the Hermitian linear form $`<\varphi _1|\rho |\varphi _1>`$ with the base $`|1>,\mathrm{},|n>`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j}r_ir_j^{}\rho _{ij}`$. Thus the “degenerating locus” is actually as follows.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}V_A^k(\rho )=\{(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)CP^{m1}:rank(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j}r_ir_j^{}\rho _{ij})k\}& & & & \end{array}$$

for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$. Similarly $`V_B^k(\rho )CP^{n1}`$ can be defined. Here * means the conjugate of complex numbers. It is known from Theorem 1 and 2 of  that these sets are algebraic sets (zero locus of several multi-variable polynomials, see ) and they are invariants under local unitary transformations depending only on the eigenvectors of $`\rho `$. Actually these algebraic sets can be computed easily as follows.

Let $`\{|11>,\mathrm{},|1n>,\mathrm{},|m1>,\mathrm{},|mn>\}`$ be the standard orthogonal base of $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ as above and $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l=1}^tp_l|v_l><v_l|`$ be any given representation of $`\rho `$ as a convex combination of projections with $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_t>0`$. Suppose $`v_l=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j=1}^{m,n}a_{ijl}|ij>`$ , $`A=(a_{ijl})_{1im,1jn,1lt}`$ is the $`mn\times t`$ matrix. Then it is clear that the matrix representation of $`\rho `$ with the base $`\{|11>,\mathrm{},|1n>,\mathrm{},|m1>,\mathrm{},|mn>\}`$ is $`AP(A^{})^\tau `$, where $`P`$ is the diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_t`$. We may consider the $`mn\times t`$ matrix $`A`$ as a $`m\times 1`$ blocked matrix with each block $`A_w`$, where $`w=1,\mathrm{},m`$, a $`n\times t`$ matrix corresponding to $`\{|w1>,\mathrm{},|wn>\}`$. Then $`V_A^k(\rho )`$ is just the algebraic set in $`CP^{m1}`$ as the zero locus of the determinants of all $`(k+1)\times (k+1)`$ submatrices of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^mr_iA_i`$.

Now we can state the main results of this paper.

Theorem 3. Let $`\rho ,\rho _i`$ be bipartite mixed states on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ and $`p_i`$’s be positive real numbers. Suppose $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i\rho _i`$. Then $`V_A^j(\rho )V_A^j(\rho _i)`$ and $`V_B^j(\rho )V_B^j(\rho _i)`$ for any possible indices $`i`$ and $`j`$.

Proof. Suppose $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^hp_i\rho _i`$. For any $`\rho _i`$, if $`\rho _i=\mathrm{\Sigma }_t^{s_i}q_t^i|v_t^i><v_t^i|`$ where $`q_t^i>0`$. Then $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{it}p_iq_t^i|v_t^i><v_t^i|`$. From the definition we can compute algebraic-geometric invariants $`V_A^k(\rho )`$ of $`\rho `$ from all vectors $`v_t^i`$’s, where $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$ and $`t=1,\mathrm{},s_i`$, and compute $`V_A^k(\rho ^{})`$ from vectors $`v_t^i`$, where $`t=1,\mathrm{},s_i`$. Thus the matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^mr_jA_j`$ of $`\rho _i`$ is a submatrix of the corresponding matrix of $`\rho `$ and the conclusion is proved.

Because algebraic-geometric invariants of bipartite mixed states are independent of eigenvalues of the states, thus the constriants in Theorem 3 is essentially different with previously known constraints in Theorem 1 and 2.

We need the following result. For pure states $`\rho =|v><v|`$ on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ with $`mn`$, we can compute its algebraic-geometric invariants from its Schmidt decomposition $`v=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^da_ie_ie_i^{}`$, where $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_m`$ (resp., $`e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_n^{}`$) is a orthogonal base of $`H_A^m`$ (resp. $`H_B^n`$). It is clear that $`V_A^0(\rho )=\{(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)CP^{m1}:(a_1r_1,\mathrm{},a_dr_d,0,\mathrm{},0)^\tau =0\}`$. Thus we have

Proposition 2. For the pure state $`\rho =|v><v|`$, $`d=m`$ if and only if $`V_A^0(\rho )=\mathrm{}`$ and $`d=m1dim(V_A^0(\rho ))`$ if $`dm1`$.

From Proposition 2 the following result is an easy implication of Theorem 3.

Corollary 1. Let $`\rho `$ be a mixed state on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$, $`|\varphi _i>`$’s be pure states and $`p_i`$’s be positive real numbers. Suppose $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$ . Then the following constraints hold.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}k(|\varphi _i>)m1dimV_A^0(\rho )& & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ k(|\varphi _i>)n1dimV_B^0(\rho )& & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}(1)$$

, where $`k(|\varphi _i>)`$ is the Schmidt rank of the pure state $`|\varphi _i>`$. Here $`dimV_A^0(\rho )`$ or $`dimV_B^0(\rho )`$ is $`1`$ if it is empty set.

The following example is a simple application of Corollary 1.

Example 1. Let $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}(|\varphi _1><\varphi _1|+|\varphi _2><\varphi _2|)`$ where

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}\varphi _1=\frac{1}{2}(|11>+|12>+|21>+|22>)& & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11>+|21>)& & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}(2)$$

on $`H_A^2H_B^2`$ be a separable rank 2 mixed states. If there are some pure states $`|\psi _i>`$’s such that $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i|\psi _i><\psi _i|`$ where $`p_i>0`$. From Proposition 1 we cannot say anything about $`|\psi _i>`$’s since the Schmidt number of $`\rho `$ is 1. However we can compute that $`V_A^0(\rho )CP^1`$ is one point $`(1:1)`$. Thus from Corollary 1 it is clear that the Schmidt rank of each $`|\psi _i>`$ has to be 1, ie., each $`|\psi _i>`$ is separable.

This can be generalized to the following result, which is direct from Corollary 1.

Corollary 2. If $`\rho `$ is a mixed state on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ with $`dimV_A^0(\rho )=m2`$ or $`dimV_B^0(\rho )=n2`$. Suppose $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$ where $`p_i>0`$. Then each $`|\varphi _i>`$ is a sepaprable pure state.

The following example is an application of Theorem 3.

Example 2. Let $`\rho =\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^4|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$ be a rank 4 mixed state on $`H_A^3H_B^3`$, where,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc}\varphi _1=|11>& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|21>+|32>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|12>+|33>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _4=|33>& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}(3)$$

and $`\rho ^{}=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^3|\psi _1><\psi _i|`$ be a rank 3 mixed state on $`H_A^3H_B^3`$, where,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}\psi _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|11>+|22>+|33>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \psi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|12>+|23>+|31>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \psi _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|13>+|21>+|32>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}(4)$$

It is easy to compute that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$ for $`\rho `$ is the following matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}r_1& r_2& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & \\ 0& r_3& r_1& 0& & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& r_2& r_3& & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)(5)$$

and thus the line in $`CP^2`$ defined by $`r_1=0`$ is in $`V_A^2(\rho )`$. However it is easy to compute that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$ for $`\rho ^{}`$ is the following matrix.

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}r_1& r_2& r_3& & & & & & & & & & \\ r_2& r_3& r_1& & & & & & & & & & \\ r_3& r_1& r_2& & & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)(6)$$

We can check that for some points $`(0:r_2:r_3)`$ in $`CP^2`$, the rank of (6) is 3. Thus $`V_A^2(\rho )`$ is not contained in $`V_A^2(\rho ^{})`$ and from Theorem 3, there is no positive reals $`p^{},p_i^{}s`$ and mixed states $`\rho _i^{}s`$ such that $`\rho =p^{}\rho ^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_ip_i\rho _i`$.

From Corollary 1 and Proposition 2 we have the following result.

Corollary 3.If $`\rho `$ is a mixed state on $`H_AH_B^n`$ with $`V_A^0(\rho )\mathrm{}`$ or $`V_B^0(\rho )\mathrm{}`$. Suppose $`\rho =\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$ where $`p_i>0`$. Then the Schmidt rank of each $`|\varphi _i>`$ cannot be $`min\{m,n\}`$.

Example 3. Let $`\rho =\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^4|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$ be a rank 4 mixed state on $`H_A^3H_B^3`$, where,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc}\varphi _1=|11>& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}(|12>+|21>+|22>+|31>+|32>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|13>+|22>+|32>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _4=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|23>+|33>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}(7)$$

It is esay to compute that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$ for $`\rho `$ is the following matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}r_1& r_2+r_3& 0& 0& & & & & & & & & \\ 0& r_1+r_2+r_3& r_2+r_3& 0& & & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& r_1& r_2+r_3& & & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)(8)$$

Thus $`V_A^0(\rho )`$ is the one point $`(0:1:1)`$ in $`CP^2`$, not empty, thus only pure states with their Schmidt rank smaller than 3 can be used to mix to get $`\rho `$.

Here we should note that in the set of all pure states $`\{|\varphi >=\mathrm{\Sigma }a_{ij}|ij>\}`$, since the Schmidt rank of $`|\varphi >`$ is the rank of the matrix $`A=(a_{ij})_{1im,1jn}`$, the set of all pure states with their Schmidt ranks smaller than $`min\{m,n\}`$ is a measure zero set definded by $`det(A)=0`$. Thus Corollary 2 indicates that for mixed states $`\rho `$ with $`V_A^0(\rho )`$ or $`V_B^0(\rho )`$ not empty, only pure states in a measure zero set can be used to mix to get $`\rho `$. Actually this is quite common phenomenon even for mixed states as illustrated in the following Theorem 4.

Theorem 4. Let $`r`$ and $`t`$ be non-negative integers satisfying $`1rmn`$ and $`t\frac{m+r+\sqrt{(m+r)^24mr+4m}}{2}`$ or $`t\frac{m+r+\sqrt{(m+r)^24mr+4m}}{2}`$, $`\rho `$ be a mixed state on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ with $`rank(\rho )r`$. If $`V_A^t(\rho )\mathrm{}`$, then the set of rank $`r`$ mixed states $`\rho ^{}`$ for which there exist positive reals $`p^{}`$ and $`p_i^{}s`$ and mixed states $`\rho _i^{}s`$ such that $`\rho =p^{}\rho ^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i\rho _i`$ is a measure zero set.

Example 4. Let $`\rho =\frac{1}{5}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^5|\varphi _i><\varphi _i|`$ be a rank 5 mixed state on $`H_A^4H_B^4`$, where,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc}\varphi _1=|11>& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|12>+|21>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|32>+|33>+|41>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _4=\frac{1}{2}(|31>+|34>+|42>+|43>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \varphi _5=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|12>+|14>+|23>)& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}(9)$$

It is esay to compute that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_ir_iA_i`$ for $`\rho `$ is the following matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}r_1& r_2& r_4& r_3& 0& & & & & & & & \\ 0& r_1& r_3& r_4& r_1& & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& r_3& r_4& r_2& & & & & & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& r_3& r_1& & & & & & & & \end{array}\right)(10)$$

We take $`r=4`$ and $`t=2`$. It is clear that the line in $`CP^3`$ defined by $`r_1=r_2=0`$ is in $`V_A^2(\rho )`$. Thus from Theorem 4, the set of rank 4 mixed states $`\rho ^{}`$ on $`H_A^4H_B^4`$ for which there exist positive reals $`p^{}`$ and $`p_i^{}s`$ and mixed states $`\rho _i^{}s`$ such that $`\rho =p^{}\rho ^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i\rho _i`$ is a measure zero set in the set of all rank 4 mixed states.

For the purpose to prove Theorem 4, we need to recall a well-known result in the theory of determinantal varieties (see Proposition in p.67 of ). Let $`M(m,n)=\{(x_{ij}):1im,1jn\}`$ (isomorphic to $`CP^{mn1}`$) be the projective space of all $`m\times n`$ matrices. For a integer $`0kmin\{m,n\}`$, $`M(m,n)_k`$ is defined as the locus $`\{A=(x_{ij})M(m,n):rank(A)k\}`$. $`M(m,n)_k`$ is called generic determinantal varieties.

Proposition 3. $`M(m,n)_k`$ is an irreducible algebriac subvariety of $`M(m,n)`$ of codimension $`(mk)(nk)`$.

We describe the basic idea of Proposition 3. Since all entries in the $`m\times n`$ matrix are indeterminants , we can suppose that the 1st $`k\times k`$ submatrix is nonsingular and the remaining $`mk`$ columns ($`nk`$ rows) are linear dependent on the 1st $`k`$ columns ($`k`$ rows). This condition implies that the determinants of all $`(mk)(nk)`$ $`(k+1)\times (k+1)`$ submatrices containing 1st $`k\times k`$ submatrix are zero, ie., we have $`(mk)(nk)`$ (independent) algebraic equations to define $`M(m,n)_k`$, thus the conclusion of Proposition 3 is valid.

Proof of Theorem 4. From Theorem 3, we know that for $`\rho ^{}`$, if there exist positive reals $`p^{}`$ and $`p_i^{}s`$ and mixed states $`\rho _i^{}s`$ such that $`\rho =p^{}\rho ^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i\rho _i`$, then $`V_A^t(\rho ^{})`$ is not empty. Thus we only need to prove that $`V_A^t(\rho ^{})`$ of generic (generic=outside a measure zero set) rank $`r`$ mixed states on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ is empty. From Propositin 3 the codimention of $`V_A^t(\rho ^{})`$ of generic rank $`r`$ mixed states on $`H_A^mH_B^n`$ is $`(mt)(rt)`$. From the condition of $`t`$ in Theorem 4, $`(mt)(rt)m`$, thus $`V_A^t(\rho ^{})`$ in $`CP^{m1}`$ is empty. The conclusion is proved.

In conculsion, we have proved necessary conditions for the mixing of states on bipartite quantum systems , which are independent of eigenvalues of states and essentially different with previously known constraints. We also proved that for some special bipartite mixed states, only special mixed states in a measure zero set can be used to mix to get them. These results indicate that for the mixing problem in bipartite case, except previously known constraints based on majorization of eigenvalues, there are other very strong constraints described by algebraic-geometric invariants.

The author acknowledges the support from NNSF China, Information Science Division, grant 69972049.

e-mail: chenhao1964cn@yahoo.com.cn

REFERENCES

1.H. Chen, quant-ph/01008093

2.M.A.Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A, 63(02), 022144,2000

3.M.A.Nielsen, Phys.Rev. A, 62:052308, 2000

4.M.A.Nielsen and G.Vidal, Quantum Information and Computation, Vol.1, No.1: 76-92, 2001

5.H.Chen, quant-ph/0109115

6.K Kraus, States, Effects and Operations (Springer, Berlin, 1983)

7.E.B.Davis, Quantum Theory of Open Systems, Academic, London, 1976

8.P.Bush, M.Grabowski and Lahti, Operational Quantum Physics, Springer, 1997

9.C.H.Bennett,D.P.DiVincenzo,J.Smolin and W.K.Wooters, Phys.Rev.A 54, 3814(1997)

10.G.Vidal, J.Mod.Opt. 47, 355(2000)

11.A.Peres, Phys.Rev. A 61(2000) 022116

12.P.Horodecki, Ph. D. Thesis , Politechnika Gdanska, Gdanska 1999

13.E.M.Rains, Phys. Rev. A 60, 173 (1999)

14.M.Horodecki,Quantum Information and Computation, Vol.1, No.1:3-26, 2001

15.A.Uhlmann, Rep. Math. Phys. 1(2):147-159, 1970

16.L.P.Hughston, R.Jozsa and W.K.Wooters, Phys. Lett. A, 183:14-18, 1983

17.B.M.Terhal and P.Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A R040301, 61(2000)

18.J.Harris, Algebraic Geometry, A First course, GTM 133, Springer-Verlag 1992

19.E.Arbarello, M.Cornalba, P.A.Griffiths and J.Harris, Geometry of algebraic curves,Volume I, Springer-Verlag, 1985, Chapter II”Determinantal Varieties”


text:
# Black hole masses of BL Lac objects

## 1. Introduction

The mass of the central black hole (BH) is of paramount importance in theoretical models of AGN. In particular, the dependence of BH mass ($`M_{BH}`$) on global host galaxy properties provides clues to the role of BHs in galaxy formation and evolution. Dynamical determination of $`M_{BH}`$ in AGN is difficult because of the bright nuclear emission. The main method that has proved to be successful for AGN is the time-consuming reverberation mapping of broad emission lines. Only for a few quasars and Seyfert galaxies $`M_{BH}`$ is thus known (e.g. Kaspi et al. 2000; Wandel 2002). Reverberation mapping cannot obviously be employed for BL Lac objects because they lack prominent broad emission lines. The discovery of a correlation between $`M_{BH}`$ and the bulge luminosity in nearby early-type galaxies (e.g. Magorrian et al. 1998) offered a new tool for evaluating $`M_{BH}`$ (see Merritt & Ferrarese 2001). This correlation has been applied so far for nearby quasars (McLure & Dunlop 2001) and BL Lacs (Treves et al. 2002).

Recently, a tighter correlation was found relating $`M_{BH}`$ with the stellar velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ of the bulge in nearby inactive galaxies (Gebhardt et al. 2000; Ferrarese & Merritt 2000). This relationship clearly demonstrates a connection between BHs and bulges of galaxies and has spurred substantial effort in theoretical modelling (e.g. Silk & Rees 1998; Hähnelt & Kauffmann 2000). The relationship predicts more accurately $`M_{BH}`$, but requires the measurement of $`\sigma `$ in AGN host galaxies that is difficult, in particular for objects at high redshift and with luminous nuclei. On the other hand, BL Lacs have relatively fainter nuclei than quasars, and for low redshift BL Lacs this measurement can be secured with a single spectrum observable with a medium-sized telescope.

We have carried out medium resolution optical spectroscopy of the host galaxies of nearby (z $`<`$ 0.2) BL Lac objects to derive $`\sigma `$ and to determine $`M_{BH}`$. Here we present results based on a sample of 7 BL Lacs including 2 LBLs (3C 371 and PKS 2201+04) and 5 HBLs (see also Falomo, these proceedings; and full discussion in Falomo, Kotilainen & Treves 2002), For all of them, high quality images have been obtained either from the ground (Falomo & Kotilainen 1999) or with HST (Urry et al. 2000; Falomo et al. 2000). From these images, the characterization of the host galaxies and the nuclear luminosity can be obtained. In Falomo, Kotilainen & Treves (in prep.), we shall discuss the implications of the results of the full sample of 11 BL Lacs for the unified models of radio-loud AGN.

## 2. Observations and data analysis

The observations were obtained using the 2.5m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) equipped with ALFOSC. Spectra were secured using two grisms to cover the spectral ranges 4800 – 5800 Å (setup A) and 5700 – 8000 Å (setup B) at 0.54 Å pixel-1 and 1.3 Å pixel-1 dispersion, respectively. This allows us to measure the absorption lines of H$`\beta `$ (4861 Å), Mg I (5175 Å), Ca E-band (5269 Å), Na I (5892 Å) and the TiO + CaI (6178 Å), TiO + FeI (6266 Å) and other absorption line blends from the host galaxies at a spectral resolution R $``$3000.

The chosen grisms combined with a 1′′ slit yield a spectral resolution for $`\sigma `$ measurement of $``$60 – 80 km s-1, which is adequate for the expected range of $`\sigma `$ in luminous ellipticals (e.g. Djorgovski & Davis 1987; Bender, Burstein & Faber 1992) such as the hosts of BL Lacs. In addition, we acquired spectra of bright stars of type G8-III to K1-III, that exhibit low rotational velocity (V$`\times `$$`\mathrm{sin}(i)<`$ 20 km$`s^1`$) to be used as templates of zero velocity dispersion. Furthermore, spectra of the well studied nearby elliptical galaxy NGC 5831 were secured to provide a test of the adopted procedure to derive $`\sigma `$.

During the observations, seeing ranged between 1′′ and 1.5′′. The slit was centered on-target or positioned 1′′ away from the nucleus and the 1D spectrum was extracted from an aperture of 3′′ \- 5′′ diameter, in all cases within the effective radius of the host galaxy. In one case (Mrk 180), spectra with the slit both on-target and off-centered by 1′′ were taken but no significant difference was found in the shape of the spectral features.

The stellar velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ was determined using the Fourier Quotient method (e.g. Sargent et al. 1977). The spectra were normalized by subtracting the continuum, converted to a logarithmic scale and multiplied by a cosine bell function that apodizes 10% of the pixels at each end of the spectrum. All regions affected by emission lines (see Fig. 1) have been masked in the analysis. Finally, the Fourier Transform of the galaxy spectra were divided by the Fourier Transform of template stars and $`\sigma `$ was computed from a $`\chi ^2`$ fit with a Gaussian broadening function (see e.g. Bertola et al. 1984; Kuijken & Merrifield 1993). The $`rms`$ scatter of the $`\sigma `$ results using different template stars was typically $``$10 km$`s^1`$ and can be considered as the minimum uncertainty of the measurement.

For three objects we have spectra in both spectral ranges. The resulting values of $`\sigma `$ are in good agreement, ensuring sufficient homogeneity of data taken with different grisms and/or resolution. Note, however, that there is a tendency for the red grism (lower resolution) data to result in slightly larger value of $`\sigma `$. For the nearby elliptical NGC 5831 we obtained $`\sigma `$ = 167$`\pm `$5 and 185$`\pm `$10 km s-1 for the setup A and B, respectively, in good agreement with previous measurements ($`<\sigma >`$ = 168 km s-1; Prugniel et al. 1998). In Fig. 1 we show the spectrum of the BL Lac object PKS 2201+04, observed in both spectral ranges.

Since early-type galaxies exhibit gradients in velocity dispersion (e.g. Fisher, Illingworth & Franx 1995), the measured value of $`\sigma `$ depends somewhat on the distance of the galaxies and the aperture size (see Falomo et al. 2002 for details). The individual measurements of corrected $`\sigma `$ are given in Table 1.

Barth, Ho & Sargent (2002) have recently reported a similar systematic study of $`\sigma `$ in 11 BL Lac objects, six of which are common with our sample. There are some discrepancies for individual BL Lacs, most notably for Mrk 501 and I Zw 187, for which they derive $`\sigma `$ = 372$`\pm `$18 and 171$`\pm `$12 km s-1, respectively. These differences are most likely related to the method of deriving $`\sigma `$ (Fourier Quotient vs. direct fitting) and the different wavelength range used. The average values of $`\sigma `$, however, are in good agreement in the two samples.

## 3. Results and discussion

We have adopted the relationship between $`M_{BH}`$ and $`\sigma _c`$ found for nearby early-type galaxies based on optical spectroscopy (Merritt & Ferrarese 2001): $`M_{BH}`$ = 1.48$`\pm `$0.24 $`\times `$ 108 ($`\sigma `$/200 km s-1)4.65±0.48 \[M$`_{}`$\]. We assume that this relationship is also valid for BL Lacs. This is consistent with imaging studies of BL Lacs (Falomo & Kotilainen 1999; Urry et al. 2000; Falomo et al 2000), indicating that all BL Lacs are hosted by giant ellipticals. The derived values of $`M_{BH}`$ are reported in Table 1, where the errors are the composition in quadrature of uncertainties in $`\sigma `$ and in the Merritt & Ferrarese (2001) relationship. Using instead the Gebhardt et al. (2000) relationship tends to yield slightly lower values of $`M_{BH}`$ but does not substantially modify our main conclusions. The values of $`M_{BH}`$ (Table 1) span a factor $``$20 from 5 x 107 M for PKS 2201+04 to 9 x 108 M for Mrk 501, with a median value of 4 x 108 M. These values are in good agreement with those derived by Barth et al. (2002).

As mentioned above, $`M_{BH}`$ is also correlated with the bulge luminosity of the host galaxy. $`M_{BH}`$ was calculated following the relationship by McLure & Dunlop (2002): log $`M_{BH}`$ = –0.50$`\pm `$0.05 MR – 2.91$`\pm `$1.23 \[M\]. The corresponding values of $`M_{BH}`$ are given in Table 1. For most sources the difference of $`M_{BH}`$ derived with the two methods is within the estimated uncertainty. The average values of $`M_{BH}`$ derived, respectively, from $`\sigma `$ and the host luminosity are: $`<`$log$`M_{BH}>_\sigma `$ = 8.62 $`\pm `$ 0.23 and $`<`$log$`M_{BH}>_{host}`$ = 8.66 $`\pm `$ 0.25.

The measurements of $`\sigma `$ combined with the effective radii of the host galaxies can be used to estimate the mass of the hosts through the relationship (Bender et al. 1992): $`M_{host}`$=5$`\sigma ^2r_e`$/G. This dynamical mass (Table 1) is in the range of 1 – 4 x 1011 M. The ratio between $`M_{BH}`$ and $`M_{host}`$ is in the range of 0.5 – 3.6 $`\times `$ 10-3, with average $`<M_{BH}`$/$`M_{host}>`$ = 1.4 $`\times `$ 10-3. This is in good agreement with values derived for both AGN and inactive galaxies ($`<M_{BH}`$/$`M_{host}>`$ = 1.2 $`\times `$ 10-3 ; McLure & Dunlop 2001; Merritt & Ferrarese 2001).

According to the unified model of radio-loud AGN (e.g. Urry & Padovani 1995), BL Lacs are drawn from the population of FR I radio galaxies viewed along the jet axis. It is therefore interesting to compare orientation-independent properties of BL Lacs and radio galaxies. The largest comparison sample with available measurements of $`\sigma `$, effective radii and surface brightness is that of 73 low redshift radio galaxies by Bettoni et al. (2001, 2002). In Fig. 2, we compare the distribution of the BH masses of the BL Lacs and the radio galaxies from Bettoni et al.

The close similarity of the distributions in these samples implies that the distributions of $`M_{BH}`$ in BL Lacs and radio galaxies are indistinguishable, consistent with both types of AGN belonging to the same parent population, observed from different orientation angles (see also Barth et al. 2002). Additional support to this view is given by the similarity of BL Lacs and radio galaxies on the fundamental plane (see e.g. Falomo, these proceedings; Barth et al. 2002). However, due to the small number statistics of the BL Lacs, and the incompleteness of the samples, this result can not yet be considered conclusive. Furthermore, there is a clear dearth of BL Lacs with the largest $`M_{BH}`$ ($`>`$ 109 M), consistent with BL Lac hosts being biased toward less massive and less luminous host galaxies than radio galaxies (e.g. Urry et al. 2000).

## References

Barth,A., Ho,L.C., Sargent,W.L.W., 2002, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0209562)

Bender,R., Burstein,D., Faber,S.M., 1992, ApJ 399, 462

Bertola,F., Bettoni,D., Rusconi,L., Sedmak,G., 1984, AJ 89, 356

Bettoni,D., Falomo,R., Fasano,G., et al., 2001, A&A 380, 471

Bettoni,D., Falomo,R., Fasano,G., Govoni,F., 2002, A&A, in press

Djorgovski,S., Davis,M., 1987, ApJ 313, 59

Falomo,R., Kotilainen,J., 1999, A&A 352, 85

Falomo,R., Scarpa,R., Treves,A., Urry,C.M., 2000, ApJ 542, 731

Falomo,R., Kotilainen,J.K., Treves,A., 2002, ApJ 569, L35

Ferrarese,L., Merritt,D., 2000, ApJ 539, L9

Fisher,D., Illingworth,G., Franx,M., 1995, ApJ 438, 539

Gebhardt,K., Bender,R., Bower,G., et al., 2000, ApJ 539, L13

Hähnelt,M.G., Kauffmann,G., 2000, MNRAS 318, L35

Kaspi,S., Smith,P.S., Netzer,H., et al., 2000, ApJ 533, 631

Kuijken,K., Merrifield,M.R., 1993, MNRAS 264, 712

Magorrian,J., Tremaine,S., Richstone,D., et al., 1998, AJ 115, 2285

McLure,R., Dunlop,J., 2001, MNRAS 327, 199

McLure,R., Dunlop,J., 2002, MNRAS 331, 795

Merritt,D., Ferrarese,L., 2001, MNRAS 320, L30

Prugniel,Ph., Zasov,A., Busarello,G., Simien,F., 1998, A&AS 127, 117

Sargent,W.L.W., Schechter,P.L., Boksenberg,A., Shortridge,K., 1977, ApJ 212, 362

Silk,J., Rees,M.J., 1998, A&A 331, L1

Treves,A., Carangelo,N., Falomo,R., et al., 2002, Issues in Unification of AGN, eds. R.Maiolino et al., p. 303 (ASP)

Urry,C.M., Padovani,P., 1995, PASP 107, 803

Urry,C.M., Scarpa,R., O’Dowd,M., et al., 2000, ApJ 532, 816

Wandel,A., 2002, ApJ, 565, 762


text:
# Subprocess Size in Hard Exclusive Scattering

## 1 The dynamics of endpoint contributions

In the Brodsky-Lepage (BL) framework of exclusive scattering , the amplitude for a process $`A+BC+D`$ factorizes at large $`t=(p_Ap_C)^2`$ into a hard subprocess $`a+bc+d`$ times distribution amplitudes $`\varphi _{a/A},\mathrm{}`$ for each external hadron. Here $`a`$ represents the valence Fock state of hadron $`A`$ (e.g., $`a=uud`$ for the proton). The distribution amplitude is the valence Fock state amplitude at equal Light-Cone (LC) time, integrated over the relative transverse momenta of the partons up to a hard scale of $`𝒪\left(\sqrt{t}\right)`$. Hence all hadrons involved in the scattering are in transversally compact configurations. In the subprocess amplitude the momenta of the partons in each hadron are effectively parallel, their relative transverse momenta being negligible compared to the hard scale.

There are factorization theorems of various degree of rigour for QCD reactions. However, it should be kept in mind that for semi-exclusive processes and for hadronic projectiles in general, factorization is a strong assumption: no rigorous QCD proof exists. In this paper we qualitatively study which aspects of the data conform to general expectations when factorization is assumed. Our investigation builds on a physical picture rather than a precise formalism, and serves to indicate potential problems and possible solutions. This will hopefully guide the development of a more systematic formalism in future work.

The assumed factorization framework may indeed fail due to endpoint contributions in the integration over the longitudinal momentum fractions of the quarks . The longitudinal momentum of a quark with fraction $`z\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/p^+`$ of its parent hadron momentum $`p^+`$ (in a frame where the hadron moves fast along the $`z`$-axis) is no larger than its transverse momentum. Hence the quark is isotropically distributed in momentum space and outside the light-cone formed by the fast quarks of the subprocess. The virtualities of subprocess propagators decrease with $`z`$, allowing hadron Fock states of large transverse size to contribute near the endpoints.

The lifetime $`\tau `$ of a Fock state in a parent hadron of high momentum $`p^+=E+p^z`$ is inversely proportional to the difference between its energy and that of the hadron,

$$\frac{1}{\tau }\underset{i}{}E_iE\underset{i}{}\frac{k_i^2+m_i^2}{z_ip^+}\frac{M^2}{p^+},$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the parent. The second approximation between the ordinary and light-cone energy differences is valid when $`z_ip^+=k_i^+k_i,m_i`$ for all constituents $`i`$ and is thus not valid for Fock states in the endpoint region. The lifetime of the endpoint Fock states is $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, which is short compared to the typical lifetimes of $`𝒪\left(p^+/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\right)`$ of Fock states where all constituents have comparable momentum fractions $`z_i`$.

The nature of endpoint dynamics is illustrated by Deep Inelastic Scattering ($`epeX`$, DIS). In the aligned jet (parton model) regime the virtual photon with $`q^+2\nu `$ splits asymmetrically into a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, such that $`z_{\overline{q}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/Q^2`$ and $`k_{\overline{q}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ . Thus the antiquark momentum $`k_{\overline{q}}^+=z_{\overline{q}}q^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/(m_Nx_B)`$ stays finite in the Bjorken limit. The probability $`1/Q^2`$ of the asymmetric photon splitting determines the scaling of the DIS cross section, $`\sigma _{tot}(\gamma ^{}p)1/Q^2`$. The non-perturbative scattering cross section $`\sigma [(q\overline{q})N]1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ of the $`q\overline{q}`$ Fock state corresponds to the quark distribution $`f_{q/N}(x_B)`$ in the $`q^{}2\nu `$ (or Breit) frame.

The endpoint dynamics was also studied for quarkonium hadroproduction, $`\pi NJ/\psi +X`$ . QCD factorization breaks down when the quarkonium carries large fractional momentum, $`x_F1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/M_{J/\psi }^2`$. In this regime there is no hard scattering on a target parton (e.g., in a subprocess such as $`ggc\overline{c}`$). Rather, a compact Fock state in the pion projectile fluctuates into an endpoint state where nearly all momentum is carried by the heavy quark pair. The light valence quarks have transverse momenta of $`𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\right)`$ and their soft, non-perturbative scattering in the target liberates the heavy quarks, which then appear in the final state.

According to Eq. (1) all endpoint configurations have short lifetimes in spite of their large transverse size. Like compact states they thus have a low number of constituents – in particular, comoving fields that have long formation times are absent. Hence there is no enhanced forward radiation in scattering processes.

The large size of endpoint configurations favors multiple scattering in the target. This enhances their importance in diffractive processes which require color singlet exchange. The aligned jet configuration contributes at leading twist to diffractive DIS, whereas multiple scattering of the compact, symmetric $`q\overline{q}`$ configurations is power suppressed. Endpoint configurations are also enhanced in scattering on nuclear targets due to the increased importance of multiple scattering. The nuclear dependence in effect measures the size of the contributing Fock states. The apparent absence of color transparency in large angle $`epep`$  and $`pppp`$  scattering, with the target proton embedded in a nucleus, may signal dominant endpoint contributions in these processes111See Ref.  for a discussion and alternative explanations..

Quark helicity flip in hard photon and gluon interactions is suppressed by a factor $`m_q/k_{}`$. Helicity is therefore conserved at leading twist in BL factorization. On the other hand, the low $`k_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ of endpoint constituents implies that quark helicity flip is not suppressed. The relative importance of amplitudes with quark helicity flip is thus another measure of endpoint contributions.

The LC energy difference in (1) diverges when any fractional momentum $`z_i0`$. This is the reason why distribution amplitudes, which are defined at equal LC time, vanish at the endpoints . As we emphasized above, however, target scattering is soft in the endpoint regime, implying a breakdown of LC dominance and of factorization into hard subprocess and distribution amplitudes. For this dynamics it is more natural to use the difference of ordinary energies in (1) which stays finite (albeit large) in the $`z_i0`$ limit. This increases the importance of endpoint contributions in convolution integrals.

In this paper we study two processes where data indicates that endpoint contributions dominate. The perturbative QCD (PQCD) estimate for $`d\sigma /dt(\gamma p\pi ^+n)`$, obtained from the semi-exclusive process $`\gamma p\pi ^+Y`$ (Fig. 1)  using Bloom-Gilman duality , is two orders of magnitude below the data . In section 2 we show that the transverse size of the $`\gamma u\pi ^+d`$ subprocess is effectively large, and that the color transparency assumed in the semi-exclusive process is thus likely to be violated.

Recent high energy data on $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\varphi `$ meson photoproduction show a dominance of quark helicity flip out to large momentum transfer $`|t|12\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ . In section 3 we study the properties of the $`\gamma g\rho g`$ subprocess amplitude. The amplitude for longitudinally polarized $`\rho `$ mesons (which conserves quark helicity) vanishes for real external photons. The amplitude for transversely polarized $`\rho `$’s (which dominates in the data) has strongly enhanced endpoint contributions. Due to the suppression of quark helicity flip in hard scattering only the soft endpoint contributions can potentially explain the observed dimensional scaling of the cross section. We discuss qualitatively how the endpoint region might give rise to dimensional scaling.

## 2 The size of $`\gamma u\pi ^+d`$

Our study of the $`\gamma u\pi ^+d`$ process is motivated by its role as a subprocess of semi-exclusive $`\gamma p\pi ^+Y`$ scattering. Although no rigorous proof exists, the applicability of factorization is often assumed. Then, in the kinematic limit

$$st,M_Y^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2,$$
(2)
where (cf. Fig. 1) $`s=(q+p)^2=E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2`$ and the invariant momentum transfer $`t=(qP)^2`$, the semi-exclusive cross section reads

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma p\pi ^+Y)=\underset{q=u,\overline{d}}{}f_{q/p}(x)\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{dt}(\gamma q\pi ^+q^{}).$$
(3)
The fractional momentum of the struck quark is $`x=t/(M_Y^2t)`$ and the subprocess cross section is given by ($`\widehat{s}=xs`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{dt}}(\gamma u\pi ^+d)={\displaystyle \frac{256\pi ^2\alpha \alpha _s^2}{27\widehat{s}^2|t|}}(e_ue_d)^2\left[{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi (z)}{z}}\right]^2.`$ (4)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi (z)`$ is the pion distribution amplitude, i.e., its Fock state wave function for a $`u\overline{d}`$ pair at short transverse distance $`𝒪\left(1/\sqrt{t}\right)`$, with the $`u`$-quark carrying a fraction $`z`$ of the pion momentum. A color singlet $`u\overline{d}`$ pair of small transverse size does not rescatter in the proton target, giving the simple expression (3) for the semi-exclusive cross section.

There is as yet no data on $`\gamma p\pi ^+Y`$ in the kinematic region (2). Assuming that semi-exclusive processes obey Bloom-Gilman duality, one may relate the $`\gamma p\pi ^+Y`$ cross section to the one for $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$. However, the measured $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$ cross section is so large that Bloom-Gilman duality would have to fail by two orders of magnitude for the prediction of the semi-exclusive cross section to be correct .

In light of the recent experimental evidence for Bloom-Gilman duality in inclusive reactions , such a gross failure seems rather unlikely. A more plausible explanation is that (3) is an underestimate of the true $`\gamma p\pi ^+Y`$ cross section due to a lack of color transparency.

We shall use the photon virtuality as a probe of the transverse size of the subprocess (4). The cross section is independent of $`Q^2`$ when the size of the scattering region is small compared to $`1/Q^2`$. We employ the asymptotic distribution amplitude

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi (z)=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}f_\pi z(1z)$$
(5)
($`f_\pi 130`$ MeV) and neglect quark masses ($`m_q=0`$). In Fig. 2 we show the differential cross section $`d\sigma /dt(\gamma _\mathrm{T}^{}(Q^2)u\pi ^+d)`$ (solid line) for a transversely polarized virtual photon as a function the dimensionless ratio $`Q^2/|t|`$. While the real photon cross section given by (4) is finite, its slope at $`Q^2=0`$ is (as we shall see, logarithmically) infinite. Thus, however big the momentum transfer $`|t|`$ is, the transverse size of the photon scattering region remains large. For comparison we also show (dashed line in Fig. 2) that the Compton scattering $`\gamma ^{}e\gamma e`$ cross section is independent of $`Q^2`$ in the limit $`s|t|`$, as expected due to the pointlike nature of the photon.

The divergent slope of the meson photoproduction cross section has already been noted by the authors of . They concluded that the onset of the perturbative regime for the production of light vector mesons is at rather large momentum transfers, well beyond $`30\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

The strong $`Q^2`$ dependence of the $`\gamma ^{}u\pi ^+d`$ cross section is due to endpoint contributions, even though the $`z`$-integral in (4) is not enhanced near $`z=0,1`$. This may be seen from the expression for the scattering amplitude, which is a convolution of the pion distribution amplitude (5) with the $`\gamma ^{}u(u\overline{d})+d`$ subamplitude $`_{\mu ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{\nu \nu ^{}}`$ (cf. Fig. 3a),

$$_{\mu ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{AB}(\gamma ^{}+u\pi ^++d)=\delta _{AB}_0^1𝑑z\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[_{\mu ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}^+(z)_{\mu ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}^+(z)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi (z).$$
(6)
Here $`A,B`$ are the color indices of the incoming $`u`$\- and outgoing $`d`$-quark, $`\mu `$ is the photon helicity, $`\lambda (\lambda ^{})`$ is the incoming $`u`$-quark (outgoing $`d`$-quark) helicity and $`\nu (\nu ^{})`$ is the $`u(\overline{d})`$ quark helicity in the pair forming the $`\pi ^+`$. For $`m_u=m_d=0`$ quark helicity is conserved222Expressions for the helicity amplitudes for $`Q^2,m_q0`$ are given in the Appendix. and we shall only consider the $`\mu =+1,\lambda =\lambda ^{}={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ amplitude. In the semi-exclusive limit (2) ($`st,Q^2`$),

$$_{+,}^+=\frac{2\sqrt{2}e(4\pi \alpha _s)C_F}{\sqrt{t}}\left[\frac{e_u}{z\overline{z}Q^2/t}\frac{e_d\overline{z}}{z(\overline{z}zQ^2/t)}\right],$$
(7)
where $`C_F=(N_c^21)/2N_c`$ is the color factor and $`\overline{z}=1z`$. We make the following observations:

* At $`Q^2=0`$ the amplitude is $`(e_ue_d)/z`$. This endpoint behavior therefore arises both from the photon coupling to the ‘slow’ $`u`$-quark and to the ‘fast’ $`d`$-quark. On the other hand, the amplitude is finite for $`z1`$ since the $`u`$-quark helicity $`\nu ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ is opposite to that of the photon helicity $`\mu =+1`$. Thus the helicity flip between the projectile and fast outgoing particles is minimized.
* $`d/dQ^2e_u/z^2`$ for $`z0`$ at $`Q^2=0`$. The $`1/z^2`$ behavior gives a logarithmic singularity in the convolution (6) when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi (z)z`$. This is the origin of the infinite slope in Fig. 2. We also note that the singular contribution arises from the photon coupling to the slow quark.

This is distinct from the well known Feynman endpoint mechanism, where the photon couples to the fast quark.

The $`Q^2`$-sensitivity is due to the large transverse size of the $`\gamma u\pi ^+d`$ process, as can be seen explicitly from the kinematics (cf. Fig. 3a). We use the notation $`v=[v^+,v^{},𝐯_{}]`$ where $`v^\pm =v^0\pm v^3`$ for light-cone coordinates and take the photon momentum in the negative $`z`$-direction so that333For notational convenience we denote the (target) $`u`$-quark momentum by $`p`$ and the subprocess energy by $`s`$ rather than $`\widehat{s}`$.

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{s}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0}_{}],`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{s}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0}_{}],`$
$`k_u`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{(z𝐏_{}+𝐤_{})^2}{z\sqrt{s}}},z\sqrt{s},z𝐏_{}+𝐤_{}],`$
$`k_{\overline{d}}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{z}𝐏_{}𝐤_{})^2}{\overline{z}\sqrt{s}}},\overline{z}\sqrt{s},\overline{z}𝐏_{}𝐤_{}]`$
for on-shell massless quarks. $`𝐏_{}`$ denotes the pion’s transverse momentum relative to the collision axis and $`𝐤_{}`$ is the relative transverse momentum of its $`u\overline{d}`$ constituents. The pion momentum $`P=k_u+k_{\overline{d}}`$ satisfies444If the $`u`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ quarks are not on-shell (as would be the case in the pion) we have $`P^2=(k_{}^2+zk_u^2+\overline{z}k_{\overline{d}}^2)/z\overline{z}`$. Hence an off-shellness of $`𝒪\left(k_{}^2\right)`$ is sufficient to keep the pion on-shell even for $`z0,1`$. $`P^2=k_{}^2/z\overline{z}`$, where $`k_{}=`$ $`𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\right)`$, and the momentum transfer $`t=(qP)^2=P_{}^2`$.

The virtualities of the internal quark and gluon lines in Fig. 3a are

$`\mathrm{}_u^2`$ $`=`$ $`(qk_u)^2=zP_{}^22𝐏_{}𝐤_{}k_{}^2/z,`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{}_g^2`$ $`=`$ $`(p+\mathrm{}_u)^2=\overline{z}s+\mathrm{}_u^2.`$ (10)
In the semi-exclusive limit (2) we see that $`\mathrm{}_u^2`$ becomes sensitive to $`𝐤_{}`$ for

$$z\frac{k_{}}{P_{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}{\sqrt{t}}.$$
(11)
Hence the subprocess is not transversally compact: the distance between the photon absorption and gluon emission vertices in Fig. 3a is given by the inverse of $`\mathrm{}_u=|z𝐏_{}+𝐤_{}|=𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\right)`$ in the region (11). Moreover, BL factorization fails in this endpoint region since the hard subamplitude depends on the relative momentum of the quarks in the pion. These consequences of the kinematics imply the $`Q^2`$-sensitivity of the process.

We can also see why the large transverse size, i.e., the $`Q^2`$-sensitivity, arises only from the photon coupling to the slow quark. When the $`u`$-quark is fast, i.e., for $`z1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/\sqrt{t}`$, the transverse distance $`1/\mathrm{}_u=𝒪\left(1/\sqrt{|t|}\right)`$ while $`\mathrm{}_g^2s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/\sqrt{t}`$ remains large since $`st`$. Hence the distances between all interaction vertices in Fig. 3a are short for $`z1`$.

The fact that the $`Q^2`$ derivative of the subprocess amplitude (7) is more endpoint sensitive than the the amplitude itself shows that a size measurement introduces inverse factors of $`z`$ and $`1z`$. Our result does not change the fact that the $`z`$-integral of the leading twist cross section is flat (for the asymptotic distribution amplitude (5)), and thus is dominated by compact configurations. However, rescattering in the target will introduce dipole factors proportional to the transverse size and cause the convolution integral to be endpoint dominated. A failure of color transparency is thus a likely reason for the large discrepancy with data found in Ref.  for the $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$ cross section.

An analogous sensitivity to small photon virtualities can be observed for the photon-pion transition form factor , $`\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma ^{()}(Q^2)\pi ^0`$: its rate of change is logarithmically divergent as the ratio $`Q^2/Q^20`$. At $`Q^2=0`$ the pion transition form factor is given by the same integral over the distribution amplitude as appears in the cross section (4). The fact that the $`\pi ^0`$ is produced in isolation and color transparency thus is not an issue may explain the phenomenological success (see  and references therein) of the PQCD prediction in this case.

We have checked that the Sudakov effect does not change our conclusions, by applying the modified factorization approach of Ref.  to the subprocess $`\gamma u\pi ^+d`$ in the above kinematical limit. In our numerical calculation we employed the asymptotic distribution amplitude (5), and two parametrizations of the transverse momentum dependence of the pion’s LC wave function: a Gaussian of the form  $`\mathrm{exp}[a_\pi ^2k_{}^2/(z\overline{z})]`$, with $`a_\pi 0.86\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ being the transverse size parameter, and a Gaussian of the form  $`\mathrm{exp}[\beta ^2(k_{}^2+m_{\mathrm{eff}}^2)/(z\overline{z})]`$ with an effective mass $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.33\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\beta 0.94\mathrm{GeV}^1`$. In both cases we found moderate Sudakov corrections of about 5 – 10%, which shows that Sudakov effects do not play a significant role in the present discussion. Similar qualitative and quantitative conclusions about the impact of Sudakov corrections have been reached in Refs. .

## 3 Dimensional scaling with quark helicity flip in $`\gamma +p\rho +Y`$

### 3.1 The experimental evidence

The ZEUS collaboration recently published  data on $`\rho `$ photoproduction, $`\gamma +p\rho +Y`$, in the semi-exclusive kinematics specified by Eq. (2). The data cover $`80<\sqrt{s}<120`$ GeV, $`1.1<|t|<12\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and is integrated over $`x=t/(M_Y^2t)0.01`$. The scattering is believed to be dominantly diffractive and, due to the high value of $`|t|`$, to provide a testing ground for the BFKL exchange mechanism . The hard subprocess is then $`\gamma +g\rho +g`$, with the t-channel containing a two-gluon ladder and the $`\rho `$ emerging via its distribution amplitude according to BL factorization.

However, the data  pose a serious challenge to this picture. Dimensional scaling predicts

$$\frac{d\sigma (\gamma g\rho g)}{dt}\frac{I_\rho ^2}{|t|^n}$$
(12)
with $`n=3`$. Here $`I_\rho `$ is an integral over the $`\rho `$ distribution amplitude with dimension GeV. In contrast to the quark exchange cross section (4) there is no factor $`s`$ in the denominator of this gluon exchange cross section. The data agree with dimensional scaling, giving $`n=3.21\pm 0.04\pm 0.15`$ (in $`\varphi `$ production the corresponding power is measured to be $`n=2.7\pm 0.1\pm 0.2`$). Together with the fact that the $`\varphi /\rho `$ cross section ratio is consistent with the ratio 2/9 of the charge factors for $`|t|4\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, this suggests that the $`\gamma +g\rho +g`$ process is hard and perturbative.

The upper part of the subprocess is shown in Fig. 3b. The quark pair produced at the photon vertex scatters off the two gluons and forms the vector meson via its distribution amplitude. The vector meson is expected to be longitudinally polarized since its quark and antiquark constituents have opposite helicities due to helicity conservation at the photon and gluon vertices. However, the ZEUS data show that the $`\rho `$ meson inherits (to a good approximation and in the full $`t`$-range) the transverse polarization of the incoming photon. In the BL factorization framework this implies a quark helicity flip, incurring an $`m_q^2/|t|`$ suppression factor in the cross section (12), which is then expected to scale with a power $`n=4`$.

Thus, we are faced with a dilemma. The data obeys simple dimensional scaling ($`n=3`$), is consistent with the quark production process being hard ($`\varphi /\rho `$ flavor symmetry indicates insensitivity to $`m_q`$) and the semi-exclusively produced $`\rho `$ meson carries both the momentum and the helicity of the projectile. But these attractive features are mutually inconsistent within the standard factorization framework  of exclusive processes.

The authors of  consider the possibility that the production of transverse vector mesons is due to a non-perturbative, chiral-odd wave function of the photon, which is proportional to the quark condensate. This contribution is subleading at asymptotically large momentum transfers. In such an approach the dimensional scaling observed  for $`|t|12\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ would be accidental.

### 3.2 The subprocess amplitudes

To resolve the dilemma let us consider the structure of the factorized $`\gamma +g\rho +g`$ amplitude. It is a convolution of the quark pair production amplitude $`𝒢(\gamma +gq\overline{q}+g)`$ and the $`\rho `$ distribution amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^\mu ^{}`$. For example, for transversely polarized $`(\mu ^{}=+1)\rho `$ mesons,

$$_{\mu ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{ab}(\gamma +g\rho +g)=\delta _{ab}_0^1𝑑z𝒢_{\mu ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{++}(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^+(z).$$
(13)
Here $`a,b`$ are gluon color indices, the $`\mu ,\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ indices of $`𝒢`$ are the helicities of the photon, incoming and outgoing gluon, respectively, and the upper indices refer to the $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ helicities.

For simplicity we consider only the lowest order contribution to $`𝒢(\gamma +gq\overline{q}+g)`$ (cf. Fig. 3b). Higher order diagrams build the gluon ladder and are important for describing the $`s`$-dependence, but should not affect the helicity structure of the upper vertex, which is our present concern.

The transverse photon ($`\mu =+1`$) amplitude with $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}=+1`$ and no quark helicity flip is

$`𝒢_{+,++}^+(\gamma +gq\overline{q}+g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}ee_q(4\pi \alpha _s)}{\sqrt{N_c}\sqrt{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{t}}`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2z1}{\overline{z}(z\overline{z}Q^2/tm_q^2/t)(\overline{z}zQ^2/tm_q^2/t)}}.`$
This leading twist amplitude vanishes in photoproduction ($`Q^2=0`$). The quark helicity flip amplitude contributing to transverse $`\rho `$ production in (13) is at555Expressions for $`Q^20`$ are given in the Appendix. $`Q^2=0`$

$`𝒢_{+,++}^{++}(\gamma +gq\overline{q}+g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}ee_q(4\pi \alpha _s)}{\sqrt{N_c}\sqrt{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_q^2/(t)}}{z\overline{z}(zm_q^2/t)(\overline{z}m_q^2/t)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}ee_q(4\pi \alpha _s)}{\sqrt{N_c}\sqrt{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_q^2/(t)}}{(z\overline{z})^2}}\left[1+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2}{t}}\right)\right].`$
The factor $`(z\overline{z})^2`$ in the denominator enhances the endpoint regions $`z=0,1`$ in the convolution (13) causing a (logarithmic) singularity in the $`z`$-integral for distribution amplitudes which vanish linearly at the endpoints. This implies a breakdown of factorization in semi-exclusive $`\rho `$ photoproduction.

### 3.3 Endpoint behavior of the distribution amplitude

Even though factorization fails due to the strong enhancement of the subprocess amplitude in the region where one of the produced quarks carries nearly all the momentum, we may still see qualitatively how the experimentally observed dimensional scaling of the cross section can arise. As we emphasized above, this must be due to the endpoint contributions, since for finite values of $`z`$ the transverse $`\rho `$ cross section is suppressed by $`m_q^2/|t|`$, giving $`n=4`$ in Eq. (12).

The distribution amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^\mu ^{}(z)`$ appearing in the convolution (13) is the valence Fock state amplitude at equal light-cone (LC) time. Its endpoint behavior can be determined from the evolution equation, which, at leading order, corresponds to one-gluon exchange diagrams, cf. Fig. 4 . Thus, the wave function can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho (z,\mu _F)=𝑑y^{\mu _F}\frac{d^2𝐥_{}}{16\pi ^3}\alpha _s(\mu _F)\frac{𝒮(y,z,𝐥_{},𝐤_{})}{P^{}_ip_i^{}+iϵ}\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho (y,𝐥_{}),$$
(16)
where $`P^{}`$ is the meson LC energy and the sum is over all LC energies $`p_i^{}`$ of the intermediate $`q\overline{q}g`$ state. $`𝒮`$ is a momentum dependent function which is finite at the endpoints. Hence, the behavior for $`z1`$ follows from the energy denominator of the intermediate state,

$$P^{}\underset{i}{}p_i^{}\frac{k_{}^2+m_q^2}{(1z)P^+}\mathrm{for}z1.$$
(17)
An analogous behavior can be found for $`z0`$. Consequently, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho (z,\mu _F)`$ vanishes at $`z=0,1`$ because the LC energy of a parton with momentum fraction $`z`$ tends to infinity as $`z0`$. However, as we saw in the previous section, the subprocess is soft and therefore not light-cone dominated for $`zz_s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/\sqrt{t}`$. The LC energy is not relevant in this region – while the ordinary energy difference (1) obviously remains finite and is of $`𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\right)`$ as the longitudinal momentum of a parton vanishes.

This suggests that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^\mu ^{}(z)`$ (effectively) does not vanish at the endpoints. The $`z`$-integral is then linearly divergent at $`z=0,1`$. Truncating the integration region where the subprocess becomes soft we get

$$_{z_s}^{1z_s}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^\mu ^{}(z)}{z^2\overline{z}^2}\frac{\sqrt{t}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho ^\mu ^{}(0).$$
(18)
Thus we gain a factor $`\sqrt{t}`$ in the amplitude, which restores dimensional scaling, implying $`n=3`$ in Eq. (12). As already remarked above, here we only give qualitative arguments for the observed scaling. In order to predict the normalization of the cross section a more detailed analysis is necessary, which is however beyond the scope of the present work.

## 4 Summary

In this paper we have attempted to give a physical picture able to explain some qualitative aspects of the data on meson production at large momentum transfer $`|t|`$ by real, transversely polarized photons. Also, we have pointed out why some expectations based on the common assumption of factorization in exclusive PQCD studies seem to fail. Namely, we saw that the scattering is likely to be endpoint dominated and thus involve $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs of large transverse size. Hence it appears that highly asymmetric Fock states, where one quark carries nearly all the momentum, do have a significant overlap with hadron wave functions. This would explain the apparent absence of color transparency in $`eAep(A1)`$  and $`pApp(A1)`$ .

Endpoint contributions are enhanced in photoproduction since the wave function of transverse photons does not vanish at $`z=0,1`$. This also prevents factorization of the transverse photon amplitude in deeply virtual meson production at high $`Q^2`$ and low $`|t|`$ . The longitudinal photon wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^{\mu =0}(z)z(1z)`$ favors contributions from $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs of small transverse size $`1/Q`$. The color transparency observed in $`\gamma ^{}(Q^2)+N\rho +N`$  agrees with this.

Due to the short lifetime of the endpoint states their dynamics has many of the attributes of hard scattering, despite their large transverse size and soft scattering in the target. We have found that the Sudakov form factor numerically leads to a suppression of no more than about 10%, and is thus of minor importance. Furthermore, we have presented qualitative arguments suggesting that endpoint contributions may explain the dimensional scaling of the ZEUS data. The endpoint states are not color transparent, nor do they preserve quark helicity. These features make it possible to identify their contribution to exclusive processes.

###### Acknowledgments.

It is a pleasure to thank Stan Brodsky and Jim Crittenden for many helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript. This work was begun while PH was employed by Nordita, and has been supported by the European Commission under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130 and by the Academy of Finland under project 102046.

## Appendix A Appendix

### A.1 Quark production amplitudes

We present the helicity amplitudes $`_{\mu ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{\nu \nu ^{}}`$ for the subprocess $`\gamma ^{}(\mu )u(\lambda )u(\nu )\overline{d}(\nu ^{})+d(\lambda ^{})`$ for $`Q^2,m_q0`$. For transversely polarized photons we find

$`_{+,++}^+=_,^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}e(4\pi \alpha _s)C_F}{\sqrt{t}}}`$ (19)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e_uz}{\overline{z}(z\overline{z}Q^2/tm_q^2/t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_d}{(\overline{z}zQ^2/tm_q^2/t)}}\right].`$
The amplitudes $`_{,++}^+`$ and $`_{+,}^+`$ are obtained from $`_{+,++}^+`$ and $`_,^+`$, respectively, by exchanging $`z\overline{z},e_ue_d`$ and reversing the overall sign. For longitudinally polarized photons we get

$`_{0,++}^+=_{0,}^+={\displaystyle \frac{4e(4\pi \alpha _s)C_F}{\sqrt{t}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e_u\sqrt{Q^2/(t)}}{z\overline{z}Q^2/tm_q^2/t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e_d\sqrt{Q^2/(t)}}{\overline{z}zQ^2/tm_q^2/t}}\right].`$ (20)
The quark helicity flip amplitudes read

$`_{+,}^{++}=_{,++}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}e(4\pi \alpha _s)C_F}{\sqrt{t}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e_u\sqrt{m_q^2/(t)}}{z\overline{z}(z\overline{z}Q^2/tm_q^2/t)}}\right].`$ (21)
For $`_{+,++}^{++}`$ and $`_,^{}`$ we have to make the replacements $`z\overline{z},e_ue_d`$ in the above respective amplitudes. All other helicity amplitudes vanish in the kinematical limit (2). The helicity non-flip amplitudes agree with those given in Ref.  in the limit of large c.m. energies and when appropriate replacements for the charge factors are made.666In Ref.  the production of flavor-neutral mesons is considered. Also note that the normalization of the subprocess amplitudes is different than in our case. We note that in the helicity flip amplitudes (21) the photon couples only to the quark whose helicity is flipped. According to (9) the gluon virtuality in Fig. 3a is of order $`s`$. Hence to leading order in the limit (2) the quark helicity can flip only at the photon vertex.

### A.2 Gluon production amplitudes

The helicity amplitudes for the subprocess $`\gamma ^{}(\mu )+g(\lambda )q(\nu )\overline{q}(\nu ^{})+g(\lambda ^{})`$ are denoted by $`𝒢_{\mu ,\lambda \lambda ^{}}^{\nu \nu ^{}}`$. For transversely polarized photons we find

$`𝒢_{+,++}^+=𝒢_{,++}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}ee_q(4\pi \alpha _s)}{\sqrt{N_\mathrm{c}}\sqrt{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{t}}`$ (22)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2z1}{\overline{z}(z\overline{z}Q^2/tm_q^2/t)(\overline{z}zQ^2/tm_q^2/t)}},`$
and for longitudinally polarized photons

$`𝒢_{0,++}^+=𝒢_{0,++}^+={\displaystyle \frac{2ee_q(4\pi \alpha _s)}{\sqrt{N_\mathrm{c}}\sqrt{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2/(t)}(1Q^2/t)}{(z\overline{z}Q^2/tm_q^2/t)(\overline{z}zQ^2m_q^2/t)}}.`$ (23)
The amplitudes $`𝒢_{+,++}^+`$ and $`𝒢_{,++}^+`$ are obtained from $`𝒢_{+,++}^+`$ and $`𝒢_{,++}^+`$ respectively by replacing $`z1z`$. For the quark helicity flip amplitudes we obtain

$`𝒢_{+,++}^{++}=𝒢_{,++}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}ee_q(4\pi \alpha _s)}{\sqrt{N_\mathrm{c}}\sqrt{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_q^2/(t)}}{z\overline{z}}}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1Q^2/t}{(z\overline{z}Q^2/tm_q^2/t)(\overline{z}zQ^2/tm_q^2/t)}}.`$
For the above combination of quark and photon helicities, the set of amplitudes with negative gluon helicities is identical, i.e.,

$$𝒢_{\mu ,}^{\nu \nu ^{}}=𝒢_{\mu ,++}^{\nu \nu ^{}}.$$
(25)
All other helicity amplitudes vanish in the limit (2). Again, we find agreement with the results given in Ref. .


text:
# PRECISION TESTS OF QCD AT HERA

## 1 Introduction

Deep-inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering experiments have traditionally shed light on the nature of the partons within the proton and the strong QCD interactions between them.

The $`ep`$ scattering experiments H1 and ZEUS at the HERA facility at DESY have continued this tradition and have made precision measurements of both the inclusive $`ep`$ scattering cross-section and features of the $`ep`$-induced hadronic final state. The theory of perturbative QCD, as implemented in the DGLAP parton evolution equations, has been successful in describing these measurement at higher values of $`Q^2`$ (above $``$ 100 GeV2). However, the DGLAP equations resum terms in $`ln(Q^2)`$ and ignore terms in $`ln(1/x)`$ which are expected to become important in the lower $`Q^2`$, low $`x`$ domain ($`x10^3`$). Furthermore, gluon recombination effects may also be visible in the low $`x`$ domain.

In a complementary way, the hadronic final state from $`ep`$ collisions also offers a rich testing ground of QCD. High transverse momentum jet and particle production particles directly probe pQCD processes and reveal the partonic structure of the proton and photon. Hadron properties at low momentum are sensitive to the hadronisation process and can thus be used to assess the environmental dependence of fragmentation and test non-perturbative QCD models of hadron production.

This paper presents precision measurements of the proton structure $`F_2`$ and of hadronic final state observables.

## 2 The Proton Structure Function $`F_2`$ and the Gluon Momentum Distribution $`xg(x)`$ of the Proton

The reduced $`ep`$ scattering cross-section $`\sigma _r`$ can be written as a function of $`F_2`$ and $`F_L`$.

$$\sigma _r=\frac{d\sigma }{dxdQ^2}\frac{Q^4x}{2\pi \alpha ^2Y_+}=F_2(x,Q^2)\frac{y^2F_L(x,Q^2)}{Y+}$$

This quantity is dominated by the contribution from $`F_2`$ and $`F_L`$ only plays an important role at large values of the inelasticity $`y=\frac{Q^2}{sx}`$.

Precision measurements of $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ have been made by the H1 and ZEUS collaborations. The ZEUS results are shown in figure 1 and compared with earlier fixed target data. The classic scaling violations of $`F_2`$ are exhibited via the strong dependence on $`Q^2`$ for a range of fixed $`x`$ values. The low $`x`$ behaviour of $`F_2`$ is dominated by quark anti-quark pair production arising from the gluon content $`g(x)`$ of the proton which, within the DGLAP formalism, is given by $`F_2\alpha _sg(x)`$. QCD fits based on DGLAP evolution using the HERA data and the fixed target data are also shown. The fit describes the data well over several orders of magnitude in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. In the region of kinematic overlap the independent measurements from fixed target experiments and the ZEUS data agree well.

Using these precision measurements of the $`ep`$ scattering cross-section and within the DGLAP formalism the gluon momentum distribution $`xg(x)`$ has been derived. The dependence of $`xg(x)`$ on $`x`$ for different values of $`Q^2`$ is shown in figure 2. There is a strong rise towards low $`x`$ for values of $`Q^2`$ down to about 5 GeV2. Below this, the gluon distribution tends to flatten off, approaching valence quark-like behaviour.

## 3 The Longitudinal Structure Function $`F_L`$

At high values of $`y`$ the contribution from the longitudinal structure function $`F_L`$ becomes significant. In figure 3, measurements of $`F_L`$ from the H1 collaboration are presented as a function of $`x`$ at different values of $`Q^2`$.

The values of $`F_L(x,Q^2)`$ increase towards low $`x`$, consistent with the QCD calculation which reflects the rise of the gluon momentum distribution.

The values of $`F_L`$ were experimentally determined for $`Q^2<10`$ GeV2 following a procedure involving fitting straight lines in $`lny`$ to the derivative $`\frac{\sigma _r}{lny}`$ in order to estimate the contribution from the behaviour of $`F_2`$ to the reduced cross-section. For $`Q^2>10`$ GeV2, the NLO QCD fit in the low $`y`$ domain ($`y<0.35`$) is used to estimate $`F_2`$ in the high $`y`$ region and thus extract $`F_L`$.

## 4 The Rise of $`F_2`$ Towards Low $`x`$

As mentioned in the introduction, the low $`x`$ dependence of $`F_2`$ may be directly sensitive to any new physics which may be evident in this region of high partonic density.

Fits of the form $`F_2(x,Q^2)=c(Q^2)x^{\lambda (Q^2)}`$ were made to the H1 structure function data.

The co-efficients $`c(Q^2)`$ were found to be approximately independent of $`Q^2`$ and, as shown in figure 4, $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ rises approximately linearly with $`lnQ^2`$ and can be represented as $`\lambda (Q^2)=aln[\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}]`$ with co-efficients $`a=0.0481\pm 0.0013(stat)\pm 0.0037(syst)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=292\pm 20(stat)\pm 51(syst)`$ MeV.

Below the deep-inelastic scattering region, for fixed $`Q^2<1`$ GeV2, the simplest Regge phenomenology predicts that $`F_2(x,Q^2)x^\lambda `$ where $`\lambda =\alpha _{pom(0)}10.08`$. An extrapolation of the function $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ from the QCD fit gives a value of 0.08 at $`Q^2=0.45`$ GeV2.

## 5 Forward $`\pi ^0`$ Production

The presence of particles with large values of transverse momentum ($`p_T`$) is indicative of a hard partonic sub-process and thus can be used to directly test pQCD calculations. It was therefore suggested that measurements of the forward $`\pi ^0`$ cross-section could help to resolve one of the open questions at HERA: how do partons evolve from the proton ? Parton evolution based on the DGLAP  equations successfully describes all inclusive measurements of the proton structure function $`F_2`$. However, this scheme sums terms in $`ln(Q^2)`$ and ignores terms in $`ln(1/x)`$ which should play a significant role in the low Bjorken-$`x`$ domain opened by HERA and therefore BFKL  evolution which, conversely, sums terms in $`ln(1/x)`$ is expected to become applicable. Although measurements of $`F_2`$ offer no discrimination between the two schemes, the different dynamical features of the two approaches suggests that the hadronic final state may offer a means of observing BFKL effects. DGLAP evolution imposes a strong increasing ordering on $`k_T`$, the transverse momentum of the emitted parton and a weak decreasing ordering in the fractional momentum $`x`$ of the propagating parton as the “ladder” develops away from the proton. However, BFKL evolution imposes a strong ordering in $`x`$ and no ordering in $`k_T`$, allowing partons to take a ”random walk” in $`k_T`$ and thus would give rise to more high momentum parton emissions than from DGLAP evolution.

It would then be expected that measurements of particle production in the region associated with this parton ladder would be sensitive to evolution effects. In fact, a series of hadronic final state measurements on transverse energy flow and jet and particle production in the forward (ie close to the proton) direction have already been made. A recent highlight of these works is the measurement of high $`p_T`$ $`\pi ^0`$ mesons . These are made for $`\pi ^0`$ mesons with values of transverse momentum in the photon-proton hadronic centre of mass system of $`p_T>2.5`$ GeV. Values of the polar angle, $`\theta `$, measured with respect to the incoming proton direction in the laboratory system were restricted to $`5^0<\theta <25^0`$ and the laboratory system $`\pi ^0`$ energy scaled by the incoming proton energy $`(x_\pi =E_\pi /E_{proton})`$ was required to be greater than 0.01. The deep inelastic scattering (DIS) kinematic range in $`Q^2`$ and the inelasticity variable, $`y`$, was restricted to $`2<Q^2<70`$ GeV2 and $`0.1<y<0.6`$.

Figure 5 shows the forward $`\pi ^0`$ cross-section and as a function of Bjorken-$`x`$ for three different intervals of $`Q^2`$. The cross-section rises towards low Bjorken-$`x`$ for each of the $`Q^2`$ ranges. Calculations based on DGLAP evolution from the proton alone fail to describe the data. Partonic structure can also be assigned to the resolved photon thus allowing DGLAP evolution from the photon and the proton. Calculations based on this picture are also shown  and they come close to the data although these fail at the highest measured of $`Q^2`$. Calculations based on the CCFM equation which should interpolate between the DGLAP and BFKL regimes describes the data only in the highest $`Q^2`$ interval.

It is the author’s opinion that the next step for these analyses must be the exploitation of the full $`ep`$ event information. One such proposed analysis is using multi-particle correlations which are directly sensitive to the presence or absence of strong $`k_T`$ ordering in parton emissions . The H1 and ZEUS experiments are strongly encouraged to pursue this.

## 6 Summary

Results on deep-inelastic $`ep`$ scattering cross-sections in the low $`x`$ regime at HERA have been presented. Perturbative QCD calculations based on DGLAP evolution have been tested against precision results on proton structure functions and found to describe the data over many orders of magnitude in the kinematic variables $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$.