text:
# Dissecting the knee — Air shower measurements with KASCADE

## 1 Introduction

The origin of high-energy cosmic rays is among the most interesting questions in astrophysics. The origin of a structure in the all-particle energy spectrum around 4 PeV, the so-called knee, is generally believed to be a corner stone in the understanding of the astrophysics of high-energy cosmic rays. The knee is proposed to be caused by the maximum energy reached in cosmic-ray accelerators or due to leakage of particles from the Galaxy. Hence, an understanding of the origin of the knee reveals hints on the acceleration and propagation of cosmic rays. Experimental access to the understanding of the sources, acceleration and propagation mechanisms is provided by detailed investigation of the arrival directions, energy spectra, and mass composition of the ultrarelativistic particles.

While at energies below 1 PeV cosmic rays can be measured directly at the top of the atmosphere, the strongly decreasing flux as function of energy requires large acceptances and exposure times for higher energies. Presently they can be realized in ground based facilities only. There, the secondary products, generated by interactions of high-energy cosmic-ray particles in the atmosphere, the extensive air showers, are registered. It turns out that a correct description of the high-energy interactions in the atmosphere is crucial for a precise astrophysical interpretation of air shower measurements.

To investigate cosmic rays from several $`10^{13}`$ eV up to beyond $`10^{17}`$ eV the air shower experiment KASCADE (”Karlsruhe Shower Core and Array DEtector”)  is operated since 1996. The experiment detects the three main components of air showers simultaneously. A $`200\times 200`$ m2 scintillator array measures the electromagnetic and muonic components. The 320 m2 central detector system combines a large hadron calorimeter with several muon detection systems. In addition, high-energy muons are measured by an 128 m2 underground muon tracking detector.

## 2 High-energy interactions in the atmosphere

A correct understanding of high-energy interactions in the atmosphere is indispensable for a good astrophysical interpretation of air shower data. The electromagnetic part of the showers is well understood and described by QED. For the air shower development the understanding of multi-particle production in hadronic interactions with a small momentum transfer is essential. Due to the energy dependence of the coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ and the resulting large values for soft interactions, the latter cannot be calculated within QCD using perturbation theory. Instead, phenomenological approaches have been introduced in different models.

For the numerical simulation of the development of air showers the program CORSIKA  is widely used. It offers the possibility to use different models to describe low and high-energy hadronic interactions. A principal objective of the KASCADE experiment is to investigate the air shower development in detail and test the validity of the models included in simulation codes such as CORSIKA, using as much information as possible from the simultaneous measurement of the electromagnetic, muonic and hadronic components.

With these investigations already several problems in existing codes could be pointed out and some interaction models (or particular versions of them) could be shown to be incompatible with the measured data .

As an example of present activities, Fig. 1 shows the hadronic energy sum as function of the number of electrons. Presented are measured values compared to predictions of three different interaction models for showers induced by primary protons or iron nuclei. For a presentation of the data as function of the number of electrons one expects an enrichment of light primaries within the particular intervals, hence, the data should approach the values for the proton component. One recognizes that the data are compatible with the predictions of QGSJET and SIBYLL, while on the other hand NEXUS 2 predicts too less hadronic energy in most of the electron number range. From such distributions one can conclude that the present version of NEXUS is not compatible with the data. More detailed investigations of the models QGSJET 01 and SIBYLL 2.1 are presently in progress.

## 3 Arrival directions

The investigation of the arrival directions of cosmic rays improves the understanding of the propagation of the particles through the Galaxy and their sources. Model calculations of the diffusion process in the Galactic magnetic field indicate that there could be an anisotropy on a scale of $`10^4`$ to $`10^2`$ depending on particle rigidity as well as strength and structure of the Galactic magnetic field . Diffusion models relate a rigidity dependent leakage of particles from the Galaxy to the steepening (or knee) in the all-particle energy spectrum around 4 PeV. Thus, anisotropy measurements can provide substantial information on the origin of the knee.

In KASCADE investigations  attention has been drawn to a search for point sources and large-scale anisotropy. Of special interest is the search for potential gamma-ray induced showers. Since photons are not deflected in the Galactic magnetic field, they are suitable for a direct search for the sources of high-energy particles. Experimentally such an investigation is realized by the selection of muon poor showers.

A search for point sources was performed for primary photon candidates as well as for all (charged) particles. The search covers the whole sky, visible by KASCADE (declination $`15^{}`$ to $`80^{}`$). Special attention was drawn to the Galactic plane and known gamma-ray sources in the TeV region. The search was complemented by an analysis of the most energetic showers registered and an investigation of the most photon-like primary particles. None of the searches reveals an indication for a significant excess of the flux. The distributions of the significance values over the whole sky follow the expectations for an isotropic cosmic-ray flux.

The results for the analysis of the large-scale anisotropy are illustrated in Fig.2. There, the Rayleigh amplitude is plotted versus the primary energy. The upper limit derived from the KASCADE data is compatible with other measurements from the literature and also with theoretical calculations  for different elemental groups.

## 4 Energy spectra for elemental groups

The most direct experimental access to the astrophysics of cosmic rays is provided by measurements of their energy spectrum and mass composition. Investigations of the KASCADE experiment reveal that the knee in the all-particle spectrum is caused by a turn-off of the light component (protons and helium nuclei) . This is implies an increase of the mean logarithmic mass ($`\mathrm{ln}A`$) as function of energy. While it is beyond doubt that the data reveal such an increase, the absolute values of $`\mathrm{ln}A`$ depend on the observables investigated and on the interaction models used in the simulations to interpret the data . The differences amount to about $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}A1`$. This indicates that further and more detailed investigations of high-energy interactions in the atmosphere are necessary for an unambiguous astrophysical interpretation of the observed data.

Presently, the most promising approach is the unfolding of energy spectra for individual elemental groups from the data of the electromagnetic and muonic component . Systematic studies are performed with different hadronic interaction models available in CORSIKA, for both, low and high-energy ($`>80`$ GeV) interactions. Different unfolding methods are applied, in order to investigate the systematic effects introduced by the individual methods. The different methods result in similar flux values if the same code is used for the air shower simulation. But significant differences occur for different interaction models. This is illustrated in Fig. 3, where recent results of an analysis applying the Gold algorithm are depicted.

The figure also shows the flux of primary protons as obtained in an analysis of unaccompanied hadrons . The flux is compatible with the proton flux as obtained from the unfolding procedure. For comparison, also the results of direct measurements at lower energies at the top of the atmosphere  are given in the figure.

The analyses indicate that, at present, the understanding of primary cosmic rays is limited by the insufficient knowledge of high-energy hadronic interactions in the atmosphere and not by too low statistics of the measurements or the systematic uncertainties introduced by different reconstruction methods.

## 5 Conclusion and outlook

The present status of the KASCADE experiment to investigate high-energy cosmic rays in the knee region has been discussed. Continuing efforts are taken in order to improve the understanding of high-energy interactions in the atmosphere. A search for point sources of charged particles as well as gamma rays did not reveal any significant excess. Upper limits for the large scale anisotropy have been derived. The observations reveal an increase of the mean logarithmic mass as function of energy in the knee region. Energy spectra for groups of elements have been derived. To extend the investigations to higher energies up to $`5\times 10^{18}`$ eV data taking with an enlarged array  has started in 2003.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Perturbative QCD describes the short-distance interactions of quarks and gluons and can be applied to the description of hadronic reactions on account of factorization theorems. More precisely, one can calculate systematically perturbative kernels and associated anomalous dimensions that govern the evolution of hadron distribution amplitudes (DAs). These DAs parameterize hadronic matrix elements of quark-gluon currents and have to be determined by nonperturbative methods or extracted from experimental data. Recently, Schmedding and Yakovlev  have presented an analysis, based on light-cone QCD sum rules (LCSR) proposed earlier by Khodjamirian  and taking into account $`O(\alpha _s)`$-corrections, of the high-precision CLEO experimental data  that allows to extract quite restrictive constraints on the first two Gegenbauer coefficients $`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$ which control the $`x`$-dependence of the pion distribution amplitude ($`\pi `$DA). This sort of analysis was further extended and refined by us in  with the aim to take more properly into account NLO evolution effects of the $`\pi `$DA, to treat threshold effects of the effective strong coupling, and to estimate more carefully contributions resulting from (unknown) higher-twist effects. In addition, we derived directly from the CLEO data estimates for the inverse moment of the $`\pi `$DA, which is compatible with that obtained from an independent QCD sum rule, referring in both cases to the same low-momentum scale of the order of 1 GeV2.

The results of our analysis, presented here, lead to the conclusion that the Chernyak–Zhitnitsky model  for the $`\pi `$DA in the plane $`(a_2,a_4)`$ is outside the $`4\sigma `$-level, while the asymptotic DA, is excluded at the $`3\sigma `$ level. In fact, the data seem to prefer end-point-suppressed DAs as those we have previously determined using QCD sum rules with nonlocal condensates . These conclusions are further supported by contrasting the above mentioned $`\pi `$DAs with the E791 dijet data  following the convolution approach of Braun et al. . Moreover, it was found  that the CLEO data are sensitive to the value of the average vacuum quark virtuality, limiting its value close to $`\lambda _q^2=0.4`$ GeV2.

## 2 What is the pion distribution amplitude $`\phi _\pi (x,\mu ^2)`$?

The $`\pi `$DA is a central object in the deeper understanding of the pion microscopic structure in terms of quark and gluon degrees of freedom within QCD. This amplitude is defined by the matrix element of a nonlocal axial current on the light cone:

$`0|\overline{d}(z)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5E(z,0)u(0)|\pi (P)|_{z^2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`if_\pi P_\mu {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{ix(zP)}\phi _\pi ^{\text{Tw-2}}(x,\mu ^2),`$ (1)
where gauge-invariance is ensured due to the Fock–Schwinger string $`E(z,0)=𝒫e^{ig_0^zA_\mu (\tau )𝑑\tau ^\mu }`$ and $`\phi _\pi ^{\text{Tw-2}}(x,\mu ^2)`$ is symmetric with respect to $`x\overline{x}`$ ($`\overline{x}1x`$) and is normalized to unity, whereas $`\mu ^2`$ denotes the normalization scale. Fig. 1 visualizes the light-cone structure of the $`\pi `$DA.

There are also 6 pion DAs at twist-4 level, four of them contributing to the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi `$-transition as a twist-4 correction, whose value is parameterized by the scale $`\delta _{\text{Tw-4}}^20.19\text{ GeV}^2`$. In what follows we will speak mainly of the twist-2 $`\pi `$DA and for the sake of brevity we will omit its superscript $`^{\text{Tw-2}}`$ referring to it simply as $`\phi _\pi (x;\mu ^2)`$.

Due to vector current conservation, the solution of the ERBL evolution equation  (in LO approximation) in the asymptotic limit is $`\phi _\pi (x;\mu ^2\mathrm{})=\phi ^{\text{As}}(x)=6x(1x)`$. A particularly convenient way to represent the $`\pi `$DA is to use its 1-loop eigenfunctions, viz., the Gegenbauer polynomials :

$$\phi _\pi (x;\mu ^2)=\phi ^{\text{As}}(x)\left[1+a_2(\mu ^2)C_2^{3/2}(\xi )+a_4(\mu ^2)C_4^{3/2}(\xi )+\text{}\right]_{\xi 2x1}$$
(2)
with $`C_n^{3/2}(\xi )`$ being the Gegenbauer polynomials and the ellipsis denoting still higher-order eigenfunctions than displayed. In this representation all the dependence of $`\phi _\pi (x;\mu ^2)`$ on $`\mu ^2`$ is concentrated in the coefficients $`a_n(\mu ^2)`$ due to the fact that the 1-loop evolution kernel has a factorized structure $`V_{\text{1-loop}}(x,x^{};\alpha _s)=[\alpha _s/(4\pi )]V_0(x,x^{})`$. In the NLO approximation the eigenfunctions of the evolution kernel inevitably depend on $`\alpha _s`$ and therefore on $`\mu ^2`$. Note that because of the symmetry in $`x\overline{x}`$, only even Gegenbauer polynomials contribute.

The high precision of the CLEO data provides the possibility to extract these important theoretical parameters ($`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$) directly from experiment. But before we turn to this subject, let us first give some brief exposition of the theoretical method to determine the $`\pi `$DA within the QCD sum-rule approach.

## 3 QCD sum rules with nonlocal condensates

To model the nonlocality of the QCD vacuum, we assume $`\overline{q}(0)q(z)=\overline{q}(0)q(0)e^{|z^2|\lambda _q^2/8}`$, and similar expressions for other nonlocal condensates (NLCs), where a single scale parameter $`\lambda _q^2=k^2`$ was introduced in order to characterize the average momentum of quarks in the QCD vacuum :

$$\lambda _q^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.4\pm 0.1\text{GeV}^2\hfill & \text{from QCD SRs }\text{[12]};\hfill \\ 0.5\pm 0.05\text{GeV}^2\hfill & \text{from QCD SRs }\text{[13]};\hfill \\ 0.40.5\text{GeV}^2\hfill & \text{from lattice QCD }\text{[14, 15]}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The correlation length $`\lambda _q^10.3`$ Fm $`\rho `$-meson size represents the width of the NLC at small distances. Let us mention that for very large distances ($`z1`$ Fm ) one may assume another form of the condensate, given by  $`\overline{q}(0)q(z)\overline{q}(0)q(0)e^{|z|\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ at $`|z|1\text{ Fm}`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }450\text{ MeV}`$). This behavior is of no importance in the problem under investigation.

In  we have determined all coefficients up to order $`n=10`$ using QCD sum rules with nonlocal condensates. It turned out that all coefficients beyond $`n=4`$ are very small so that for practical purposes it suffices to model the $`\pi `$DA using only $`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$. So, the NLC QCD sum rules produces a whole bunch of self-consistent 2-parameter model DAs (see Fig. 2a.) at $`\mu ^21\text{GeV}^2`$:

$$\phi _\pi (x)=\phi ^{\text{as}}(x)\left[1+a_2C_2^{3/2}(2x1)+a_4C_4^{3/2}(2x1)\right]$$
(3)
with the best-fit model (bold-faced on Fig. 2a) defined by the parameters

$`a_2^{\text{b.f.}}`$ $`=`$ $`+0.188;a_4^{\text{b.f.}}=0.130.`$ (4)
The admissible regions for the parameters $`a_2`$, $`a_4`$ of the $`\pi `$DA are presented in Fig. 2b as shaded slanted rectangles and are shown for different values of $`\lambda _q^2`$.

Fig. 2a demonstrates the most striking feature of our type of $`\pi `$DAs: their end-points (i. e., $`x0`$ and $`x1`$) are strongly suppressed, the suppression being controlled by the quark vacuum virtuality $`\lambda _q^2`$. Both the asymptotic and the CZ $`\pi `$DAs are *not* end-point suppressed, as we have quantitatively shown in . Our models demonstrate by a precedent that the common statement “two-humped $`\pi `$DAs are end-point concentrated” is wrong.

## 4 $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi `$: Why Light-Cone Sum Rules?

For $`Q^2m_\rho ^2,q^2m_\rho ^2`$, pQCD factorization does not help because it is valid only for leading twist and therefore higher twists become important .

The reason for this failure can be understood by recalling that if $`q^20`$, one needs to take into account the interaction of a real photon at long distances of the order of $`O(1/\sqrt{q^2})`$, as the following Fig. 3 illustrates. To account for long-distance effects in a perturbative QCD treatment, one needs to introduce the light-cone DA of a real photon.

To this end, Khodjamirian  has shown that light-cone QCD sum rules (LCSR) effectively account for the long-distance effects of a real photon by using quark-hadron duality in the vector channel and an appropriate dispersion relation in $`q^2`$; namely,

$`F_{\gamma \gamma ^{}\pi }(Q^2,q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{s_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (Q^2,s)}{m_\rho ^2+q^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_\rho ^2s}{M^2}}\right]𝑑s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{s_0}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (Q^2,s)}{s+q^2}}𝑑s,`$ (5)
where $`s_01.5\text{ GeV}^2`$ is an effective threshold in the vector channel and the Borel parameter $`M^2`$ takes values in the range $`0.50.9`$ GeV2. Then, the real photon limit ($`q^20`$) becomes safely accessible. Here $`\rho (Q^2,s)=\text{Im}F_{\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}\pi }^{\text{PT}}(Q^2,s)`$ includes contributions from both the leading twist $`\pi `$DA as well as the twist-4 one. The latter is characterized by the twist-4 scale parameter $`\delta _{\text{Tw-4}}^2`$. This theoretical ground was extended by Schmedding&Yakovlev (SY) to the NLO accuracy .

## 5 Results from nonlocal QCD sum rules vs CLEO constraints

In  we improved the SY analysis based on LCSR (5) by taking into account ERBL NLO evolution for the $`\pi `$DA and the exact NLO running of $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$. The established relation $`\delta _{\text{Tw-4}}^2\lambda _q^2/2`$ has been also involved in the analysis. As Fig. 4a shows, we obtained reasonable agreement with established in this approach constraints just for the value of $`\lambda _q^2=0.4`$ GeV2.

More recently , we have refined this extensive analysis in several respects, notably, by obtaining from the CLEO data direct estimate for the inverse moment of the $`\pi `$DA that plays a crucial role in pion electromagnetic/transition form factors and by verifying the reliability of the main results of the CLEO data analysis quantitatively. We also refined our error analysis by taking into account the total uncertainty of the twist-4 contribution and treated the threshold effects in the strong running coupling more accurately. The main upshot of this investigation is presented graphically in Fig. 4b, where the values $`\lambda _q^2=0.4\text{ GeV}^2`$ and $`\delta _{\text{Tw-4}}^2=0.19(4)\text{ GeV}^2`$ have been employed. One can see that even with a 20% uncertainty in the twist-4 contribution, the CZ distribution amplitude () is excluded – at least – at the $`4\sigma `$-level, while other well-known models (✩, ✦ and ) with shapes more or less close to the asymptotic one (◆) are excluded at the $`2\sigma `$-level.

These findings are further supported by extracting the inverse moment of the $`\pi `$DA from the CLEO data in a two-Gegenbauer model, $`a_2+a_4=x^1_\pi ^{\text{exp}}(\mu _0^2)/31`$, at the low scale $`\mu _0^2=1`$ GeV2. The obtained constraints are presented in Fig. 5b. One should compare them with the theoretical model-independent estimate of the inverse moment $`x^1_\pi ^{\text{SR}}(\mu _0^21\text{GeV}^2)=3.28\pm 0.31`$, obtained in the special NLC QCD sum rule using again $`\lambda _q^2=0.4\text{ GeV}^2`$ , see Fig. 5a. Noteworthily, these constraints match each other and both of them comply with the value $`\frac{1}{3}x^1_\pi 1=0.24\pm 0.16`$ found in  from a LCSR analysis of electromagnetic pion form factor. From Fig. 5b it is evident that again both the asymptotic $`\pi `$DA and the CZ model are far outside the region of the CLEO experimental data.

## 6 E791: Diffractive dijet production

The Fermilab group E791 proposed  to exploit experimentally the ideas on dijet diffractive dissociation suggested in  and further developed in . Braun et al.  have used a convolution-type approach to account for hard-gluon exchanges, represented diagrammatically in the left part of Fig. 6.

Following this convolution procedure (having also recourse to ), and ignoring the distortion of our predictions caused by the detector acceptance, we found the results displayed in the right part of Fig. 6, making evident that, though the data from E791 are not that sensitive as to exclude other shapes for the pion DA (asymptotic and CZ model), also displayed for the sake of comparison, they are relatively in good agreement with our predictions. Especially, in the middle $`x`$ region, where our $`\pi `$DAs – the shaded strip – has the largest uncertainties (see Fig. 2a), the predictions are not in conflict with the data. However, before this data set can be used for a quantitative comparison, its inherent uncertainties have to be removed.

It is again worth emphasizing that because our model distribution amplitudes – exemplified by the BMS model – are end-point suppressed (see Fig. 7), they are not affected by the poor accuracy of the E791 experimental data in these regions.

## 7 Conclusions

Thanks to the recent high-precision CLEO experimental data , we can answer more questions of nonperturbative QCD than a couple of years before. On the theoretical side, the method of QCD sum rules with nonlocal condensates  provided a tool to determine more precisely than before a bunch of candidate DAs for the pion that are endpoint-suppressed due to a rather large QCD vacuum quark virtuality $`\lambda _q^2`$. On the other hand, the method of light-cone sum rules  enables us to access the pion-photon transition form factor when one photon becomes real. Taking these theoretical approaches in conjunction, we were able to analyze the CLEO data at the NLO level in order to derive restrictive constraints on the first two Gegenbauer coefficients $`a_2`$ and $`a_4`$, which control the $`x`$-dependence of the $`\pi `$DA. These parameters allow the reconstruction of the $`\pi `$DA and can be further tested against other experimental data, like those collected in the dijet production Fermilab experiment E791. The main conclusion is that both the CZ model as well as the asymptotic $`\pi `$DA are excluded—at least at the 2$`\sigma `$ level—by the CLEO data, while the two-humped end-point suppressed BMS distribution amplitude with a value of $`\lambda _q^20.4\text{GeV}^2`$ is in a good agreement with the CLEO data and not in contradiction with the E791 data.

Acknowledgments
One of us (A.P.B.) would like to thank the organizers of the Conference NAPP-2003 for the invitation and support. This work was supported in part by INTAS-CALL 2000 N 587, the RFBR (grant 03-03-16816), the Heisenberg–Landau Programme (grants 2002 and 2003), the COSY Forschungsprojekt Jülich/Bochum, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In Dirac’s “Front Form”, boundary conditions are specified at a given light-front time $`x^+t+z/c;`$ the value of $`x^+`$ is unchanged as a light front crosses a system. Thus, unlike ordinary time $`t,`$ a moment of light-front time $`x^+=\tau `$ “stands still forever” . The generator of light-front time translations is $`P^{}=i\frac{}{\tau }.`$ Given the Lagrangian of a quantum field theory, $`P^{}`$ can be constructed as an operator on the Fock basis, the eigenstates of the free theory. In the case of QCD, light-front quantization provides an alternative to lattice gauge theory for computing the mass spectrum, scattering amplitudes, and other physical properties of hadrons directly in Minkowski space.

A remarkable advantage of light-front quantization is that the vacuum state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ of the full QCD Hamiltonian coincides with the free vacuum. The light-front Fock space is a Hilbert space of non-interacting quarks and gluons, each of which satisfy $`k^2=m^2`$ and $`k^{}=(m^2+k_{}^2)/k^+0.`$ Note that all particles in the Hilbert space have positive energy $`k^0=\frac{1}{2}(k^++k^{})`$, and thus positive $`k^\pm `$. Since the plus momenta $`k_i^+`$ is conserved by the interactions, the perturbative vacuum can only couple to states with particles in which all $`k_i^+`$ = 0; i.e., zero-mode states. Bassetto and collaborators  have shown that the computation of the spectrum of $`QCD(1+1)`$ in equal-time quantization requires the construction of the full spectrum of non perturbative contributions (instantons). In contrast, in the light-front quantization of gauge theory (where the $`k^+=0`$ singularity of the instantaneous interaction is defined by a simple infrared regularization), one obtains the correct spectrum of $`QCD(1+1)`$ without any need for vacuum-related contributions.

Light-front quantization can also be used to obtain a frame-independent formulation of thermodynamics systems, such as the light-front partition function . This application is particularly useful for relativistic systems, such as the hadronic system produced in the central rapidity region of high energy heavy-ion collisions.

The light-front quantization of gauge theory  is usually carried out in the light-cone gauge $`A^+=A^0+A^z=0`$. In this gauge the $`A^{}`$ field becomes a dependent degree of freedom, and it can be eliminated from the Hamiltonian in favor of a set of specific instantaneous light-front time interactions. In fact in $`QCD(1+1)`$ theory, the instantaneous interaction provides the confining linear $`x^{}`$ interaction between quarks. In $`3+1`$ dimensions, the transverse field $`A^{}`$ propagates massless spin-one gluon quanta with polarization vectors  which satisfy both the gauge condition $`ϵ_\lambda ^+=0`$ and the Lorentz condition $`kϵ=0`$. The interaction Hamiltonian of QCD in light-cone gauge can be derived by systematically applying the Dirac bracket method to identify the independent fields . It contains the usual Dirac interactions between the quarks and gluons, the three-point and four-point gluon non-Abelian interactions, plus instantaneous gluon exchange and quark exchange contributions. The renormalization constants in the non-Abelian theory have been shown  to satisfy the identity $`Z_1=Z_3`$ at one-loop order and are independent of the reference direction $`n^\mu `$. The QCD $`\beta `$ function has also been computed at one loop . Dimensional regularization and the Mandelstam-Leibbrandt prescription  for LC gauge can be used to define the Feynman loop integrations . The M-L prescription has the advantage of preserving causality and analyticity, as well as leading to proofs of the renormalizability and unitarity of Yang-Mills theories . The ghosts which appear in association with the M-L prescription from the single poles have vanishing residue in absorptive parts, and thus do not disturb the unitarity of the theory. It is also possible to quantize QCD using light-front methods in covariant Feynman gauge .

The Heisenberg equation on the light-front is

$$H_{LC}|\mathrm{\Psi }=M^2|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(1)
The operator $`H_{LC}=P^+P^{}P_{}^2,`$ the “light-cone Hamiltonian”, is frame-independent. The Heisenberg equation can in principle be solved by diagonalizing the matrix $`n|H_{LC}|m`$ on the free Fock basis:

$$\underset{m}{}n|H_{LC}|mm|\psi =M^2n|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(2)
The eigenvalues $`\{M^2\}`$ of $`H_{LC}=H_{LC}^0+V_{LC}`$ give the squared invariant masses of the bound and continuum spectrum of the theory. The projections $`\{n|\mathrm{\Psi }\}`$ of the eigensolution on the $`n`$-particle Fock states are the light-front wavefunctions. Thus finding the hadron eigenstates of QCD is equivalent to solving a coupled many-body quantum mechanical problem:

$$\left[M^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{m^2+k_{}^2}{x_i}\right]\psi _n=\underset{n^{}}{}n|V_{LC}|n^{}\psi _n^{}$$
(3)
where the convolution and sum is over the Fock number, transverse momenta, plus momenta, and spin projections of the intermediate states. The eigenvalues $`M`$ are the invariant masses of the complete set of bound state and continuum solutions.

If one imposes periodic boundary conditions in $`x^{}=tz/c`$, then the plus momenta become discrete: $`k_i^+=\frac{2\pi }{L}n_i,P^+=\frac{2\pi }{L}K`$, where $`_in_i=K`$ . For a given “harmonic resolution” $`K`$, there are only a finite number of ways positive integers $`n_i`$ can sum to a positive integer $`K`$. Thus at a given $`K`$, the dimension of the resulting light-front Fock state representation of the bound state is rendered finite without violating boost invariance. The eigensolutions of a quantum field theory, both the bound states and continuum solutions, can then be found by numerically diagonalizing a frame-independent light-front Hamiltonian $`H_{LC}`$ on a finite and discrete momentum-space Fock basis. Solving a quantum field theory at fixed light-front time can thus be formulated as a relativistic extension of Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. The continuum limit is reached for $`K\mathrm{}.`$ This formulation of the non-perturbative light-front quantization problem is called “discretized light-cone quantization” (DLCQ) . The method preserves the frame-independence of the Front form.

The DLCQ method has been used extensively for solving one-space and one-time theories , including applications to supersymmetric quantum field theories  and specific tests of the Maldacena conjecture . There has been progress in systematically developing the computation and renormalization methods needed to make DLCQ viable for QCD in physical spacetime. For example, John Hiller, Gary McCartor, and I  have shown how DLCQ can be used to solve 3+1 theories despite the large numbers of degrees of freedom needed to enumerate the Fock basis. A key feature of our work is the introduction of Pauli Villars fields to regulate the UV divergences and perform renormalization while preserving the frame-independence of the theory. A recent application of DLCQ to a 3+1 quantum field theory with Yukawa interactions is given in Ref.  One can also define a truncated theory by eliminating the higher Fock states in favor of an effective potential . As discussed below, spontaneous symmetry breaking and other nonperturbative effects associated with the instant-time vacuum are associated with zero mode degrees of freedom in the light-front formalism .

Another important nonperturbative light-front method is the transverse lattice  which utilizes DLCQ for the $`x^{}`$ and $`x^+`$ light-front coordinates together with a spatial lattice in the two transverse dimensions. A finite lattice spacing $`a`$ can be implemented by choosing the parameters of the effective theory in a region of renormalization group stability to respect the required gauge, Poincaré, chiral, and continuum symmetries. For example, Dalley has recently computed the impact parameter dependent quark distribution of the pion .

The Dyson-Schwinger method  can also be used to predict light-front wavefunctions and hadron distribution amplitudes by integrating over the relative $`k^{}`$ momentum of the Bethe-Salpeter wavefunctions to project dynamics at $`x^+=0.`$ Explicit nonperturbative light-front wavefunctions have been found in this way for the Wick-Cutkosky model, including states with non-zero angular momentum . One can also implement variational methods, using the structure of perturbative solutions as a template for the numerator of the light-front wavefunctions. I will discuss the use of another light-front nonperturbative method, the light-front resolvent, below.

Light-front wavefunctions are the interpolating functions between hadrons and their quark and gluon degrees of freedom in QCD . For example, the eigensolution of a meson, projected on the eigenstates $`\{|n\}`$ of the free Hamiltonian $`H_{LC}^{QCD}(g=0)`$ at fixed light-front time $`\tau =t+z/c`$ with the same global quantum numbers, has the expansion:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_M;P^+,\stackrel{}{P}_{},\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n2,\lambda _i}{}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n\frac{d^2k_idx_i}{16\pi ^3}16\pi ^3\delta \left(1\underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}x_j\right)\delta ^{(2)}\left(\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{n}{}}\stackrel{}{k}_{\mathrm{}}\right)}`$
$`\times |n;x_iP^+,x_i\stackrel{}{P}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i\psi _{n/M}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i).`$
The set of light-front Fock state wavefunctions $`\{\psi _{n/M}\}`$ represents the ensemble of quark and gluon states possible when the meson is intercepted at the light-front. The light-front momentum fractions $`x_i=k_i^+/P_\pi ^+=(k^0+k_i^z)/(P^0+P^z)`$ with $`_{i=1}^nx_i=1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ with $`_{i=1}^n\stackrel{}{k}_i=\stackrel{}{0}_{}`$ represent the relative momentum coordinates of the QCD constituents; the scalar light-front wavefunctions $`\psi _{n/M}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i)`$ are independent of the hadron’s momentum $`P^+=P^0+P^z`$, and $`P_{}`$, reflecting the kinematical boost invariance of the front form. The physical transverse momenta are $`\stackrel{}{p}_i=x_i\stackrel{}{P}_{}+\stackrel{}{k}_i.`$ The $`\lambda _i`$ label the light-front spin $`S^z`$ projections of the quarks and gluons along the quantization $`z`$ direction. The physical gluon polarization vectors $`ϵ^\mu (k,\lambda =\pm 1)`$ are specified in light-cone gauge by the conditions $`kϵ=0,\eta ϵ=ϵ^+=0.`$ Each light-front Fock state component then satisfies the angular momentum sum rule: $`J^z=_{i=1}^nS_i^z+_{j=1}^{n1}l_j^z;`$ the summation over orbital angular momenta $`l_j^z=\mathrm{i}\left(k_j^1\frac{}{k_j^2}k_j^2\frac{}{k_j^1}\right)`$ derives from the $`n1`$ relative momenta. The numerator structure of the light-front wavefunctions is in large part determined by the angular momentum constraints. Thus wavefunctions generated by perturbation theory  provides a guide to the numerator structure of nonperturbative light-front wavefunctions. Karmanov and Smirnov  have formulated a covariant version of light-front quantization by introducing a general null vector $`n^\mu ,n^2=0`$ to specify the light-front direction $`x^+=xn.`$ All observables must be invariant under variation of $`n^\mu ;`$ this generalized rotational invariance provides an elegant generalization of angular momentum on the light-front .

A novel way to measure the light-front wavefunction of a hadron is to diffractively or Coulomb dissociate it into jets . Measurements by Ashery et al.  of the diffractive dissociation of pions into dijets on heavy nuclei $`\pi Aq\overline{q}A`$ at FermiLab show that the pion’s light-front $`q\overline{q}`$ wavefunction resembles the asymptotic solution to the evolution equation for the pion’s distribution amplitude. The results also demonstrate QCD color transparency – the color dipole moment of the pion wavefunction producing high $`k_{}`$ jets interact coherently throughout the nucleus without absorption . It would be very interesting to extend these measurements to the diffractive dissociation of high energy protons into trijets.

Matrix elements of spacelike currents such as spacelike electromagnetic form factors at $`q^+=0`$ have an exact representation in terms of simple overlaps of the light-front wavefunctions in momentum space with the same $`x_i`$ and unchanged parton number $`n`$ . The Pauli form factor and anomalous moment are spin-flip matrix elements of $`j^+`$ and thus connect states with $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_z=1`$ . Thus, these quantities are nonzero only if there is nonzero orbital angular momentum of the quarks in the proton. The formulas for electroweak current matrix elements of $`j^+`$ can be easily extended to the $`T^{++}`$ coupling of gravitons. In, fact, one can show that the anomalous gravito-magnetic moment $`B(0)`$, analogous to $`F_2(0)`$ in electromagnetic current interactions, vanishes identically for any system, composite or elementary . This important feature, which follows in general from the equivalence principle , is obeyed explicitly in the light-front formalism .

The light-front Fock representation also has direct application for the study of exclusive $`B`$ decays. For example, one can write an exact frame-independent representation of decay matrix elements such as $`BD\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ from the overlap of $`n^{}=n`$ parton conserving wavefunctions and the overlap of $`n^{}=n2`$ from the annihilation of a quark-antiquark pair in the initial wavefunction . The off-diagonal $`n+1n1`$ contributions give a new perspective for the physics of $`B`$-decays. A semileptonic decay involves not only matrix elements where a quark changes flavor, but also a contribution where the leptonic pair is created from the annihilation of a $`q\overline{q^{}}`$ pair within the Fock states of the initial $`B`$ wavefunction. The semileptonic decay thus can occur from the annihilation of a nonvalence quark-antiquark pair in the initial hadron. Intrinsic charm $`|b\overline{u}c\overline{c}>`$ states of the $`B`$ meson, although small in probability, can play an important role in its weak decays because they facilitate CKM-favored weak decays . The “handbag” contribution to the leading-twist off-forward parton distributions measured in deeply virtual Compton scattering has a similar light-front wavefunction representation as overlap integrals of light-front wavefunctions .

The distribution amplitudes $`\varphi (x_i,Q)`$ which appear in factorization formulae for hard exclusive processes are the valence LF Fock wavefunctions integrated over the relative transverse momenta up to the resolution scale $`Q`$ . These quantities specify how a hadron shares its longitudinal momentum among its valence quarks; they control virtually all exclusive processes involving a hard scale $`Q`$, including form factors, Compton scattering and photoproduction at large momentum transfer, as well as the decay of a heavy hadron into specific final states .

The quark and gluon probability distributions $`q_i(x,Q)`$ and $`g(x,Q)`$ of a hadron can be computed from the absolute squares of the light-front wavefunctions, integrated over the transverse momentum. All helicity distributions are thus encoded in terms of the light-front wavefunctions . The DGLAP evolution of the structure functions can be derived from the high $`k_{}`$ properties of the light-front wavefunctions. Similarly, the transversity distributions and off-diagonal helicity convolutions are defined as a density matrix of the light-front wavefunctions. However, it is not true that the leading-twist structure functions $`F_i(x,Q^2)`$ measured in deep inelastic lepton scattering are identical to the quark and gluon distributions. It is usually assumed, following the parton model, that the $`F_2`$ structure function measured in neutral current deep inelastic lepton scattering is at leading order in $`1/Q^2`$ simply $`F_2(x,Q^2)=_qe_q^2xq(x,Q^2)`$, where $`x=x_{bj}=Q^2/2pq`$ and $`q(x,Q)`$ can be computed from the absolute square of the proton’s light-front wavefunction. Hoyer, Marchal, Peigne, Sannino, and I have shown that this standard identification is incomplete ; one cannot neglect the interactions which occur between the times of the currents in the current correlator even in light-cone gauge. For example, the final-state interactions lead to the Bjorken-scaling diffractive component $`\gamma ^{}ppX`$ of deep inelastic scattering. Since the gluons exchanged in the final state carry negligible $`k^+`$, the Pomeron structure function closely resembles that of the primary gluon. The structure function of the Pomeron distribution of a hadron is not derived from the hadron’s light-front wavefunction and thus is not a universal quantity. The diffractive scattering of the fast outgoing quarks on spectators in the target in turn causes shadowing in the DIS cross section. Thus the depletion of the nuclear structure functions is not intrinsic to the wave function of the nucleus, but is a coherent effect arising from the destructive interference of diffractive channels induced by final-state interactions.

Measurements from HERMES, SMC, and Jlab show a significant single-spin asymmetry in semi-inclusive pion leptoproduction $`\gamma ^{}(q)p\pi X`$ when the proton is polarized normal to the photon-to-pion production plane. Hwang, Schmidt, and I  have shown that final-state interactions from gluon exchange between the outgoing quark and the target spectator system lead to single-spin asymmetries in deep inelastic lepton-proton scattering at leading twist in perturbative QCD; i.e., the rescattering corrections are not power-law suppressed at large photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ at fixed $`x_{bj}`$. The existence of such single-spin asymmetries (the Sivers effect) requires a phase difference between two amplitudes coupling the proton target with $`J_p^z=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ to the same final-state, the same amplitudes which are necessary to produce a nonzero proton anomalous magnetic moment. The single-spin asymmetry which arises from such final-state interactions is in addition to the Collins effect which measures the transversity distribution $`\delta q(x,Q).`$ These effects highlight the unexpected importance of final- and initial-state interactions in QCD observables—they lead to leading-twist single-spin asymmetries, diffraction, and nuclear shadowing, phenomena not included in the light-front wavefunctions of the target. Alternatively, as discussed by Belitsky, Ji, and Yuan , one can augment the light-front wavefunctions by including the phases induced by initial and final state interactions. Such wavefunctions correspond to solving the light-front bound state equation in an external field.

## 2 Light-Front Hadron Dynamics and the AdS/CFT Correspondence

A precise correspondence has been established between quantum field theories and string/M-theory on Anti-de Sitter spaces (AdS) , where strings live on the curved geometry of the AdS space and the observables of the corresponding conformal field theory are defined on the boundary of the AdS space. A remarkable consequence of the AdS/CFT correspondence is the derivation  of dimensional counting rules for the leading power-law fall-off of hard exclusive processes . The derivation from supergravity/string theory does not rely on perturbation theory and thus is more general than perturbative QCD analyses .

The corrections from nonconformal effects in QCD are caused by quantum corrections and quark masses and should be moderate in the ultraviolet region. Theoretical  and phenomenological  evidence is now accumulating that the QCD coupling becomes constant at small virtuality; i.e., $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ develops an infrared fixed point. Indeed, QCD appears to be a nearly-conformal theory even at moderate momentum transfers .

Recently Guy de Téramond and I have shown how counting rules for the nominal power-law fall-off of light-front wavefunctions at large relative transverse momentum can be obtained from the AdS/CFT correspondence . The goal is to use the AdS/CFT correspondence in the conformal domain to constrain the form of the light-front wavefunctions of hadrons in QCD. To do this, we consider the dual string theory at finite ’t Hooft coupling $`g_sN_C,`$ the product of the string constant $`g_sg_{YM}^2`$ and the number of colors. The power-law fall-off of light-front Fock-state hadronic wavefunctions then follows from the scaling properties of string states in the large-$`r`$ region of the AdS space as one approaches the boundary from the interior of AdS space.

Consider an operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{(n)}`$ which creates an $`n`$-partonic Fock state by applying n-times $`a^{}(k^+,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ to the vacuum state, creating $`n`$-constituent individual states with plus momentum $`k^+`$ and transverse momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$. Integrating over the relative coordinates $`x_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_i`$ for each constituent, we find the ultraviolet behavior of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{(n)}`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_h^{(n)}(Q)^{Q^2}[d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}]^{n1}[a^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_{})]^n\psi _{n/h}(\stackrel{}{k}_{})Q^\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(5)
where the operator $`a^{}(\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ scales as $`1/k_{}`$ at large $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2.`$ The string state scales as $`Q^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ near the AdS boundary. The dimension of the state $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ tracks with the number of constituents since each interpolating fermion and gauge field operator has a minimum twist (dimension minus spin) of one. With the identification $`\mathrm{\Delta }=n`$ (modulo anomalous dimensions), the power-law behavior of the light-front wavefunctions for large $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2`$ then follows: $`\psi _{n/h}(\stackrel{}{k}_{})\left(\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2\right)^{1n}.`$

The angular momentum dependence of the light-front wavefunctions also follow from the near-conformal properties of the AdS/CFT correspondence . The orbital angular momentum component of the hadron wavefunction is constructed in terms of powers $`|\mathrm{}_i^z|`$ of the $`n1`$ transverse momenta $`k_i^\pm =k_i^1\pm ik_i^2`$. We thus can obtain a model the hard component of the light-front wavefunction

$$\psi _{n/h}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}_i,\lambda _i,l_{zi})\frac{(g_sN_C)^{\frac{1}{2}(n1)}}{\sqrt{N_C}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(k_i^\pm )^{|l_{zi}|}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_o}{^2_i\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_i^2+m_i^2}{x_i}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_o^2}\right]^{n+|l_z|1},$$
(6)
The scaling properties of the hadronic interpolating operator in the extended AdS/CFT space-time theory thus determines the scaling of light-front hadronic wavefunctions at high relative transverse momentum. The scaling predictions agree with the perturbative QCD analysis given in Ref. , but the AdS/CFT analysis is performed at strong coupling without the use of perturbation theory. Remarkably, the usual perturbative normalization factor $`(g_{YM}^2N_C)^{n1}`$ is replaced by $`(g_{YM}^2N_C)^{\frac{n1}{2}}.`$ The normalization factor The near-conformal scaling properties of light-front wavefunctions lead to a number of other predictions for QCD which are normally discussed in the context of perturbation theory, such as constituent counting scaling laws for the leading power fall-off of form factors and hard exclusive scattering amplitudes for QCD processes. The ratio of Pauli to Dirac baryon form factor have the nominal asymptotic form $`F_2(Q^2)/F_1(Q^2)1/Q^2`$, modulo logarithmic corrections, in agreement with the perturbative results of Ref. . This analysis can also be extended to study the spin structure of scattering amplitudes at large transverse momentum and other processes which are dependent on the scaling and orbital angular momentum structure of light-front wavefunctions.

## 3 Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Light-Front Quantization

An important question is how one implements spontaneous symmetry breaking in the light-front, such as chiral symmetry in QCD or the Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model. In the case of the Schwinger model QED(1+1), degenerate vacua arise when one allows for a nonzero contribution $`x^{}`$-independent contribution to the constrained $`\psi ^{}=\psi ^{}(x^+)`$ field. Thus zero modes of auxiliary fields distinguish the $`\theta `$-vacua of massless $`QED(1+1)`$  corresponding to large gauge transformations. Zero-modes are also known to provide the light-front representation of spontaneous symmetry breaking in scalar theories . It is expected that chiral symmetry breaking in QCD arises from a $`\tau `$ independent contribution to the constrained $`\psi ^{}`$ fields when the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark masses are ignored. The existence of such vacua also leads to new effective interactions in the light-front Hamiltonian.

One can use light-front quantization of the $`SU(2)_W\times U(1)_Y`$  standard model to obtain a new perspective on the Higgs mechanism and spontaneous symmetry breaking  One first separates the quantum fluctuations from the corresponding zero-longitudinal-momentum-mode variables and then applies the Dirac procedure in order to construct the Hamiltonian. The interaction Hamiltonian of the Standard Model can be written in a compact form by retaining the dependent components $`A^{}`$ and $`\psi _{}`$ in the formulation. Its form closely resembles the interaction Hamiltonian of covariant theory, except for the presence of additional instantaneous four-point interactions. The resulting Dyson-Wick perturbation theory expansion based on equal-LF-time ordering allows one to perform higher-order computations in a straightforward fashion. The singularities in the noncovariant pieces of the field propagators can be defined using the causal ML prescription for $`1/k^+.`$ The power-counting rules in LC gauge then become similar to those found in covariant gauge theory. The only ghosts which appear in the formalism are the $`nk=0`$ modes of the gauge field associated with regulating the light-cone gauge prescription. For example, consider the Abelian Higgs model. The interaction Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+|D_\mu \varphi |^2V(\varphi ^{}\varphi )$$
(7)
where

$$D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu ,$$
(8)
and

$$V(\varphi )=\mu ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2,$$
(9)
with $`\mu ^2<0,\lambda >0.`$ The complex scalar field $`\varphi `$ is decomposed as

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}v+\phi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[v+h(x)+i\eta (x)]$$
(10)
where $`v`$ is the $`k^+=0`$ zero mode determined by the minimum of the potential: $`v^2=\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }`$, $`h(x)`$ is the dynamical Higgs field, and $`\eta (x)`$ is the Nambu-Goldstone field. The quantization procedure determines $`A=M\eta `$, the ’t Hooft condition. One can now eliminate the zero mode component of the Higgs field $`v`$ which gives masses for the fundamental quantized fields. The $`A_{}`$ field then has mass $`M=ev`$ and the Higgs field acquires mass $`m_h^2=2\lambda v^2=2\mu ^2.`$ Similarly, in the case of the Standard model, the zero mode of the Higgs field couples to the gauge boson and Fermi fields through its Yukawa interaction. The zero mode can then be eliminated from the theory in favor of mass terms for the fundamental matter fields in the effective theory. The resulting masses are identical to those of the usual Higgs implementation of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Standard Model. A new aspect of LF quantization is that the third polarization of the quantized massive vector field $`A^\mu `$ with four momentum $`k^\mu `$ has the form $`E_\mu ^{(3)}=n_\mu M/nk`$. Since $`n^2=0`$, this non-transverse polarization vector has zero norm. However, when one includes the constrained interactions of the Goldstone particle, the effective longitudinal polarization vector of a produced vector particle is $`E_{\mathrm{eff}\mu }^{(3)}=E_\mu ^{(3)}k_\mu kE^{(3)}/k^2`$ which is identical to the usual polarization vector of a massive vector with norm $`E_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(3)}E_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(3)}=1`$. Thus, unlike the conventional quantization of the Standard Model, the Goldstone particle only provides part of the physical longitudinal mode of the electroweak particles. The massive gauge field propagator has well-behaved asymptotic behavior in accordance with a renormalizable theory, and the massive would-be Goldstone fields can be taken as physical degrees of freedom. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is thus implemented in a novel way when one quantizes the Standard Model at fixed light-front time $`\tau =x^+.`$ The LF vacuum remains equal to the perturbative vacuum; it is unaffected by the occurrence of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In effect, one can interpret the $`k^+=0`$ zero mode Higgs field as an $`x^{}`$-independent external field, analogous to an applied constant electric or magnetic field in atomic physics. In this interpretation, the zero mode is a remnant of a Higgs field which persists from early cosmology; the LF vacuum however remains unchanged and unbroken.

## 4 The Non-Perturbative Light-Front T-Matrix

The light-front formalism can be used to construct the $`T`$matrix of QCD or other quantum field theories using light-front time-ordered perturbation theory. The application of the light-front time evolution operator $`P^{}`$ to an initial state systematically generates the tree and virtual loop graphs of the $`T`$-matrix in light-front time-ordered perturbation theory. Given the interactions of the light-front interaction Hamiltonian, any amplitude in QCD and the electroweak theory can be computed. At higher orders, loop integrals only involve integrations over the momenta of physical quanta and physical phase space $`d^2k_idk_i^+`$. Renormalized amplitudes can be explicitly constructed by subtracting from the divergent loops amplitudes with nearly identical integrands corresponding to the contribution of the relevant mass and coupling counter terms (the “alternating denominator method”) . The natural renormalization scheme to use for defining the coupling in the event amplitude generator is a physical effective charge such as the pinch scheme . The argument of the coupling is then unambiguous . The DLCQ boundary conditions can be used to discretize the phase space and limit the number of contributing intermediate states without violating Lorentz invariance. This provides an “event amplitude generator” for high energy physics reactions where each particle’s final state is completely labelled in momentum, helicity, and phase. Since one avoids dimensional regularization and nonphysical ghost degrees of freedom, this method of generating events at the amplitude level could provide a simple but powerful tool for simulating events both in QCD and the Standard Model.

One can use a similar method to construct the $`T`$ matrix to any given order of perturbation theory or maximal Fock number. The Lippmann-Schwinger method $`T=H_I+H_IGT`$ provides nonperturbative resummation at any stage. One can also use an elementary field to project out states with specific hadronic quantum numbers. The zeroes of the resolvent of the projected Green’s function should determine the mass and light-front wavefunctions of the bound states of the theory with the same hadronic numbers as that of the elementary field. A related method for calculating scattering amplitudes using the Lanczos algorithm has been proposed by Hiller .

## 5 Nonperturbative Anomalous Moment Calculations

One of the most challenging problems in quantum electrodynamics is to compute the anomalous magnetic moment of the leptons without recourse to perturbation theory . In recent work, John Hiller and Gary McCartor and I  have shown how such a program can be implemented using light-front methods to construct the Fock components of the physical electron nonperturbatively. The generalized Pauli-Villars method with ghost metric fermion fields $`\psi _{PV}`$ can be used to regulate the ultraviolet divergences. If one rewrites the theory in terms of the zero mode fermion fields, $`\psi \pm \psi _{PV},`$ then instantaneous fermion exchange interactions do not appear in the light-front Hamiltonian. In addition, the constraint equation for the zero-norm fermion field does not require inverting a covariant derivative. Thus one can implement light-front quantization of gauge theory in a covariant gauge such as the Feynman gauge . If one truncates the Fock space with a maximal number of constituents $`N`$, the method includes perturbative contributions to order $`n=N1.`$ The $`N`$particle truncated result for the lepton anomalous moment thus has the form

$$a_N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_i\alpha ^i+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^N$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ remains dependent on the PV masses since the mass renormalization counter term is not itself cancelled in the $`N`$particle Fock state. This residual dependence is similar to the factorization scale dependence which occurs when one separates hard and soft effects in factorization analyses. It is possible to make nonperturbative predictions by relating the anomalous moment to other observables, or to optimize the values of the cutoffs using theoretical criteria, such as minimization of estimated errors.

## Acknowledgments

Work supported by the Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC03-76SF00515. I am grateful to Simon Dalley for organizing LC2003 and to James Stirling and his staff for their outstanding hospitality at the Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology in Durham. I also thank my collaborators, including Guy de Téramond, John Hiller, Dae Sung Hwang, Volodya Karmanov, and Gary McCartor.


text:
# The helicity modulus in gauge field theories

## 1 Introduction

Consider a theory characterized by the presence of a phase transition as one parameter $`\beta `$ (the inverse temperature or some coupling of the theory) varies through some particular value $`\beta _c`$. A usual way to describe the transition is provided by the so-called *order parameter*, defined as a function of $`\beta `$ which is zero in one phase and non-zero in the other. The meaning of this definition is two-fold: on one hand, such a function has certainly a point of non-analyticity, which reflects the underlying non-analyticity of the free energy of the system (in the thermodynamic limit); on the other hand, this behavior can sometimes be used to relate the phase transition with the spontaneous breaking of some symmetry (implicitly or explicitly defined) of the model, thus providing an appealing physical picture of the transition itself.

In this paper we introduce an order parameter for the $`4d`$ compact $`U(1)`$ Abelian theory, and study it numerically for the Wilson action

$$S=\beta \underset{P}{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _P$$
(1)
where $`\beta `$ is the inverse bare coupling and $`\theta _P`$ is the plaquette angle. This theory is characterized by a strong coupling confined phase and a weak coupling Coulomb phase; in the confined phase, in analogy with ordinary superconductors, the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry is supposed to be spontaneously broken. Our order parameter will make use exclusively of the notion of electromagnetic flux (instead than the more usual magnetic monopole) which we now introduce.

## 2 The flux in Abelian theories

Let $`L`$ be the lattice size of a $`4d`$ hypercubic lattice with periodic boundary conditions (p.b.c.). Our definition of the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }`$ through a given $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ orientation is:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{L^2}\underset{\begin{array}{c}(\mu ,\nu )\\ \text{planes}\end{array}}{}\underset{P_{\mu \nu }}{}[(\theta _P)_{\mu \nu }]_{\pi ,\pi }$$
(2)
where $`[\theta _P]_{\pi ,\pi }`$ is the plaquette angle reduced to the interval $`[\pi ,\pi ]`$. A double sum is present:

* the *internal* $`_{P_{\mu \nu }}`$ is the sum over the plaquettes in a single plane, and is $`2\pi k`$ ($`kZ`$) valued because of the p.b.c. .
* the *external* average $`\frac{1}{L^2}_{\mu \nu planes}`$, over all parallel planes of the given orientation, is non-trivial because the flux through different planes can change due to the presence of magnetic monopoles (herein lies the connection with the usual picture). The allowed values for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }`$ are thus multiples of $`2\pi /L^2`$.

Monitoring the *flux distribution* $`\nu (\varphi )`$ in the two phases, one observes that $`\nu (\varphi )`$ is Gaussian (centered at $`\varphi =0`$) in the confined phase, while it is peaked around multiples of $`2\pi `$ in the Coulomb phase (defining so-called *flux sectors*); in the thermodynamic limit, *tunnelling* between flux sectors becomes completely suppressed. This behavior already provides a characterization of the phase transition.

## 3 Response to an external flux

One can now ask what is the response of the system to an external electromagnetic flux, in the two phases. The corresponding flux free energy is a straightforward extension to the Abelian case of ’t Hooft’s non-Abelian twist free energy . Like the latter , it has a characteristic behavior in each phase. We impose an extra flux $`\varphi R`$ to the following stack of plaquettes (this is only one possible choice):

$$\mathrm{stack}=\{\theta _{P_{\mu \nu }}\mu =1,\nu =2;x=1,y=1\}.$$
(3)
The partition function of the system becomes

$$Z(\varphi )=D\theta e^{\beta (_{\mathrm{stack}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _P+\varphi )+_{\overline{\mathrm{stack}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _P)}$$
(4)
where ‘$`\overline{\mathrm{stack}}`$’ is the complement of the stack, i.e., consists of all the other unchanged plaquettes. Alternatively (and more conveniently from a numerical point of view), it is possible to perform a change of variables such that the extra flux is spread through all the plaquettes with the given orientation $`(\mu ,\nu )`$, leading to

$$Z(\varphi )=D\theta e^{\beta (_{\begin{array}{c}(\mu ,\nu )\hfill \\ \text{planes}\hfill \end{array}}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _P+\frac{\varphi }{L^2})+_{\begin{array}{c}\overline{(\mu ,\nu )}\\ \text{planes}\end{array}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _P)}$$
(5)
where ‘$`\overline{(\mu ,\nu )}`$’ indicates all the other orientations, through which no extra flux is imposed.

$`Z(\varphi )`$ is $`2\pi `$ periodic in $`\varphi `$. Fig.1 shows the behavior of the free energy $`F(\varphi )=\mathrm{log}Z(\varphi )`$ of the system in the two phases. In the confined phase (where the flux can freely change) the system is insensitive to the presence of an external flux ($`F(\varphi )=\mathrm{const}.`$). In the Coulomb phase the free energy is described perfectly by the ansatz

$$F(\varphi )=\mathrm{log}\underset{k}{}e^{\frac{\beta _\mathrm{R}}{2}(\varphi 2\pi k)^2}$$
(6)
which says that around each flux-sector the dependence on the external flux is quadratic, as expected classically, and that we must consider the contribution of all the sectors at the same time. $`\beta _\mathrm{R}`$ is the only parameter in this equation. It replaces $`\beta `$ in the classical expression (6), and therefore plays the role of a *renormalized coupling* .

## 4 The helicity modulus

The last step in the construction of the order parameter is to note that the physical information contained in Fig.1 can be rephrased in a more concise way: if instead of the whole curve (as a function of $`\varphi `$) we consider only the *curvature* of $`F(\varphi )`$ at the origin (or at any other point), we get a function of $`\beta `$ which is always zero in the confined phase ($`F(\varphi )=\mathrm{const}.`$) and is different from zero in the Coulomb phase; that is, it is an order parameter. This construction was already known in the context of the $`2d`$ XY model , where the name ‘helicity modulus’ was first introduced. In our context we define the helicity modulus

$$h(\beta )=\frac{^2F(\varphi )}{\varphi ^2}_{\varphi =0}$$
(7)
which can be related to $`\beta _\mathrm{R}`$ via Eq.(6). Computing explicitly the double derivative (with $`F(\varphi )`$ defined as per Eq.(5)), one gets

$$h(\beta )=\frac{1}{V}\underset{\begin{array}{c}(\mu ,\nu )\\ \text{planes}\end{array}}{}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _P\frac{1}{V}(\underset{\begin{array}{c}(\mu ,\nu )\hfill \\ \text{planes}\hfill \end{array}}{}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _P)^2$$
(8)
In Fig.2 we plot this observable for different volumes: its behavior is qualitatively consistent with an order parameter. Moreover, it is shown in  that the drop to zero in the confined phase is exponential in $`(\beta _c\beta )`$, providing convincing evidence that the transition is $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ order.

## 5 Extension to non-Abelian theories

We now turn our attention to Yang-Mills theories, which display a finite temperature transition (say, at $`T_c`$) between a confining and a deconfined phase; here we consider the gauge group $`SU(2)`$.

If we assume that (1), following , the long range properties of the theory can be well described by an effective Abelian theory, then we expect that the Abelian gauge ensemble obtained after a suitable gauge fixing and Abelian projection must change from confining to deconfined across $`T_c`$. Therefore, the helicity modulus measured in the projected ensemble should present a discontinuity at $`T_c`$. Moreover, under the further assumption (2) that the effective action which describes the projected ensemble is Wilson-like

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}\underset{P}{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{P\mathrm{proj}.}$$
(9)
where $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is an effective coupling whose value could be determined by Inverse Monte Carlo, the helicity modulus is the same as in Eq.(8), which we rewrite for convenience as

$$h(\beta )=\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}H_1(\beta )\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}^2H_2(\beta )$$
(10)
$$H_1(\beta )=\frac{1}{V}\underset{\begin{array}{c}(\mu ,\nu )\hfill \\ \text{planes}\hfill \end{array}}{}\mathrm{cos}\theta _P$$
(11)
$$H_2(\beta )=\frac{1}{V}(\underset{\begin{array}{c}(\mu ,\nu )\hfill \\ \text{planes}\hfill \end{array}}{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _P)^2.$$
(12)
To perform the Abelian projection, we use the Maximal Abelian Gauge , defined by

$$\underset{x,\mu }{}Tr(U_\mu ^{}(x)\sigma _3U_\mu (x)\sigma _3)\mathrm{maximum}$$
(13)
where the maximum must be found over the set of all gauge transformations. Not knowing the value of $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, we measure separately $`H_1(\beta )`$ and $`H_2(\beta )`$. In fact, we can try to infer $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ from the requirement that Eq.(10) represents an order parameter. The value $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}=1.0`$ around the transition region works well, as shown Fig.3.

The similarity with Fig.2 is remarkable, but finite size effects here are more suggestive of a second order phase transition, as they should be.

This behavior can be considered as a strong support of both assumptions (1) and (2). Our measurements of the same observable Eq.(11) after fixing to another gauge do not show a similar behavior. This presumably singles out the Maximal Abelian Gauge as yielding an effective action particularly local and close to the Wilson action. Fixing to another gauge, the effective action contains sizeable additional terms, and the expression for the helicity modulus Eq.(7) differs appreciably from Eq.(10).


text:
# Limits on the evolution of galaxies from the statistics of gravitational lenses

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Currently there are about 70 multiply-imaged systems due to galactic mass scale gravitational lenses. The statistics of gravitational lenses depend on three key ingredients, namely, the cosmology, the number density of potential lenses as a function of redshift and the dynamical properties of galaxies (e.g., velocity dispersions and the surface mass densities). Gravitational lenses hence encode information of the cosmology, the galaxy mass profiles and the evolution history of galaxies. At present, the lens sample is too small to constrain all the ingredients simultaneously. Most previous studies concentrated on constraining the cosmological constant assuming non-evolving populations of lenses (e.g., Fukugita et al. 1992; Kochanek 1996; Helbig et al. 1999). Under this assumption, the most recent lens statistics study of Chae et al. (2002) finds that the lens statistics are best-fitted by a present-day matter density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m},0}0.3`$ and a cosmological constant of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}0.7`$. This result is consistent with results from a variety of other studies, including the cosmic microwave background radiation (e.g., de Bernardis et al. 2000; Spergel et al. 2003), Type Ia supernovae at cosmological distances (e.g., Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), and the large-scale structures in the universe (e.g., Peacock et al. 2001).

In light of the convergence of the cosmological model, it becomes important to use gravitational lenses for a different purpose: to study the evolution of galaxies (their number density and dynamical properties) in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m},0}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },0}=0.7`$ cosmology (hereafter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM). Lensing limits on galaxy evolution have been explored by Mao (1991), Mao & Kochanek (1994), Rix et al. (1994), and Jain et al. (2000), all of which used optically-selected lenses. Lensing is sensitive to the evolution of galaxy properties as the lensing probability is $`n\sigma ^4`$, while separations are $`\sigma ^2`$; here $`n`$ is the number density and $`\sigma `$ is the velocity dispersion of typical lenses. For example, (for a fixed cosmological model) a decreasing number density of galaxies with redshift($`z`$) lowers the lensing rate and the mean redshift of lenses while a decreasing velocity dispersion with $`z`$ lowers the lensing rate, the mean lens redshift and the mean angular size of image separations. Therefore, through a careful analysis of the lens redshifts, image separations and lensing probability we can constrain the evolution of the number density and dynamical properties of galaxies.

Most lensing galaxies are massive early-type galaxies as they dominate the lensing cross-sections due to their larger central mass concentrations. Gravitational lenses therefore provide a unique mass-selected sample to study the evolution of early-type galaxies, independent of and complementary to the traditional redshift surveys of galaxies (e.g., Fried et al. 2001; Im et al. 2002). This is a much debated research area. There exist two different views on the formation and evolution of early-type galaxies, namely a monolithic collapse model (Eggen, Lynden-Bell, & Sandage 1962) and a merger hypothesis (Toomre & Toomre 1972). In the monolithic collapse model, early-type galaxies are thought to have formed rapidly at high redshift and then evolve passively to the present-day. The merger model is a natural consequence of the hierarchical structure formation theory. Semi-analytic implementations of this model predict a continuous formation of ellipticals and hence a certain fraction of massive early-type galaxies must have formed since $`z1`$ (e.g. Kauffmann 1996; Baugh et al. 1996; Kauffmann et at. 1999); the fraction depends on the assumed cosmology and other assumptions and is typically one third or more (for more, see §4). An observational way of probing galaxy evolution is using redshift survey of galaxies. However, no consensus has been reached either with this method. For example, Kauffmann, Charlot, & White (1996) found rapid evolutions in the number density of ellipticals while Schade et al. (1999) advocated the opposite conclusion using similar samples (see §4 for more details).

The purpose of this work is to use data from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) to provide independent constraints on galaxy evolution. As we were completing this work, a complementary study has been carried out by Ofek, Rix, & Maoz (2003); their results are compared with our results in §2.

## 2 DATA, METHOD AND RESULTS

We use data from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) for our study. The survey is described extensively in Myers et al. (2003) and Browne et al. (2003). We refer the readers to those papers for details, and here we only give a brief summary. The CLASS well-defined statistical sample contains 8958 radio sources including 13 multiply-imaged sources.333The rest of $`7000`$ CLASS sources contain further 9 multiply-imaged sources which, however, do not fall into our statistical sample (Myers et al. 2003; Browne et al. 2003). The advantage of the CLASS survey is that it uses very well-defined observational selection criteria and does not suffer from the effect of dust extinction in lenses. It is also the largest completed survey for gravitational lenses, so it is the best sample for our purposes.

We assume the galaxy population is described by a Schechter luminosity function (LF),

$$n(L)d\left(\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)=n_{}\left(\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(L/L_{})d\left(\frac{L}{L_{}}\right).$$
(1)
Lensing galaxies are modelled as singular isothermal ellipsoids, which are described by two parameters, the velocity dispersion and the axial ratio (or equivalently, the ellipticity). The galaxy luminosity is related to the velocity dispersion via

$$\frac{L}{L_{}}=\left(\frac{\sigma }{\sigma _{}}\right)^\gamma .$$
(2)
We divide galaxies into two populations, namely the early-type (ellipticals and S0’s) population and the late-type population and assume that each population is described by its own LF. The parameter values we take are identical to those in Chae et al. (2002) (see also Chae 2003 for the details of the analysis and further results); we refer the readers to those two papers. In particular, we adopt the type-specific LFs based on the galaxy classifications from the Second Southern Sky Redshift Survey (SSRS2: Marzke et al. 1998); see Chae (2003) for the details. Our adaptation of maximum likelihood analyses (Kochanek 1993) is identical to that of Chae et al. (2002) and Chae (2003). Under the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{CDM}`$ cosmology we test two simple models of the evolution of early-type galaxies. The evolution of late-type galaxies is not considered, as we cannot obtain any useful limits due to the small number of late-type lens galaxies in the current sample (i.e. 1 or 2).

In the first model we adopt, we assume that the shape of the luminosity function ($`\alpha `$) is a constant given by the SSRS2 (Chae 2003) and the non-evolving (characteristic) velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{}`$ (defined in eq. 2) is a constant to be determined from the data, but the (characteristic) number density of galaxies (defined in eq. 1) evolves as a function of redshift; we choose a power-law evolutionary shape of $`1+z`$,

$$n_{}(z)=n_{,0}(1+z)^{\nu _n},$$
(3)
where $`n_{,0}`$ is the present-day value. The no-evolution model corresponds to $`\nu _n=0`$. Fig. 1 shows confidence limits on the parameter $`\nu _n`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$. The $`\chi ^2`$ in Fig. 1 refers to $`2\mathrm{ln}`$ where $``$ is the likelihood function (Chae et al. 2002; Chae 2003). As one can see, the lens statistics are consistent with a no-evolution model in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{CDM}`$ cosmology at $`1\sigma `$ level. We find $`\nu _n=0.11_{0.89}^{+0.82}`$; namely, the number density of galaxies at redshift $`z=1`$ cannot be smaller by a factor of two or larger by $`64\%`$ than the present day number density. From Fig. 1 the non-evolving characteristic velocity dispersion is $`\sigma _{}=199_{16}^{+19}`$ km s-1($`1\sigma `$). This value is in good agreement with the values from recent analyses of lensing statistics assuming no evolution of galaxies (Chae et al. 2002; Chae 2003; Davis, Huterer, & Krauss 2003).

In the second model, we allow the velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{}`$ (as well as the number density) to vary as a function of redshift:

$$\sigma _{}(z)=\sigma _{,0}(1+z)^{\nu _v},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _{,0}`$ is the present-day characteristic velocity dispersion. The no-evolution model corresponds to $`\nu _v=0`$. Fig. 2 shows the limits in the parameter space of $`\nu _n`$, $`\nu _v`$ and $`\sigma _{,0}`$. Fig. 2(a), (b) and (c) are the three projected parameter planes. Fig. 2(d) shows the limits in the plane of $`\nu _v`$ and $`\sigma _{,0}`$ based only on the image separations and the available lens redshifts (6 of them) of the nine single-galaxy induced multiply-imaged systems (see Section 3.1 of Chae 2003), namely without using the lensing rate \[see below for a discussion of the Fig. 2(d)\]. The contours shown on each plane represent 68%, 90%, 95% and 99% confidence levels for one parameter.

The contours in Fig. 2(a) are elongated parallel to a line $`\nu _n+4\nu _v=\mathrm{constant}`$. This is because along the $`\nu _n+4\nu _v=\mathrm{constant}`$ line the optical depth ($`n\sigma ^4`$) is a constant. In other words, there is a degeneracy in determining the evolutions of the velocity dispersion and the number density from the optical depth alone. Notice, however, that the degeneracy is in part broken by the observed image separations as a function of redshift. The $`1\sigma `$ limits on the two evolutionary indices are: $`\nu _n=0.7_{1.4}^{+1.3}`$ and $`\nu _v=0.4_{0.4}^{+0.5}`$. The limit on $`\nu _v`$ is particularly interesting: lensing statistics demand that the velocity dispersion for an $`L_{}`$ galaxy at $`z=1`$ must be between $`57\%`$ and $`107\%`$ of the present-day value. This implies that dynamically, the population of lensing galaxies cannot be much different from the present-day population. From Fig. 2(b) or (c) the characteristic velocity dispersion of the present-day early-type population is $`\sigma _{,0}=223_{36}^{+38}`$ km s-1 ($`1\sigma `$). This value has a relatively large uncertainty and is consistent with the value for the non-evolving case shown in Fig. 1. However, it is of interest to note that the best-fit value of $`\sigma _{,0}`$ is somewhat larger than the non-evolving value. This is then consistent with the best-fit value of $`\nu _v`$ being negative.

Recently, Ofek et al. (2003) have used the redshifts of the lensing galaxies in moderate-size source-redshift($`z_s`$)–limited samples to constrain the galaxy mass evolution. Our work is different as we use the well-defined uniform CLASS sample and we include all the lensing information (lensing rate, image separations and lens redshifts). Notice that our sample (13 lenses in total) includes 6 systems with both lens and source redshifts measured while the Ofek et al. (2003) samples have up to 17. They also conclude that there is little evidence for rapid evolution of early-type galaxies. They parameterize the evolutions in different forms from ours. But equivalently, they find that at 95% confidence level, $`\sigma _{}`$ at $`z=1`$ should be at least 63% of the present value; this is similar to our $`1\sigma `$ limit. Despite the small number of the measured redshifts in our sample our limits on the evolution of $`\sigma _{}`$ are relatively strong because of the additional constraint of the lensing rate. This can be seen from the comparison of Fig. 2(c) and (d). Without the lensing rate, we have $`\nu _v=0.2_{1.0}^{+0.6}`$ \[Fig. 2(d)\], which is significantly broader. The Ofek et al. (2003) limit on the number density evolution is given by $`d\mathrm{log}_{10}n_{}(z)/dz=+0.7_{1.2}^{+1.4}`$, translating into a $`1\sigma `$ lower limit of the number density of lenses at $`z=1`$ of 30% of the present value; our limit (57%) is significantly stronger because of the strong effects of the lensing rate. Our results are consistent with an early-formation/passive-evolution picture (e.g. $`z_{\mathrm{formation}}2`$) of early-type galaxies, as also inferred from studies of the fundamental plane of lensing galaxies (see Kochanek et al. 2000; Rusin et al. 2003).

## 3 DISCUSSIONS

We have used the statistical properties of the CLASS strong lens sample (i.e., the rate of multiple-imaging and the image separations as a function of redshift) to constrain the evolution of galaxies. The lens sample is unique as it is mass-selected and hence the constraints obtained from it are independent of those from redshift surveys. The method we use is based on Chae et al. (2002) and Chae (2003) and has some uncertainties, such as the adopted luminosity function of early-type galaxies and the redshift distribution of the source population in the CLASS survey (see Chae 2003 for details). However, these uncertainties are smaller than those arising from the moderate-size CLASS sample of lenses.

We find that the (comoving) number density of lensing galaxies at redshift $`z=1`$ must be within 50% to 164% of the present-day number density; their characteristic velocity dispersion also must be within $`57\%`$ and $`107\%`$ of the present value. The lensing statistics are therefore consistent with a slow evolution of galaxies in both their number density and their dynamical properties. These results are inconsistent with very fast evolution of early-type galaxies, where the number of early-types at $`z=1`$ is only 20%-40% or less of the present-day values (e.g., Lin et al. 1999; Fried et al. 2001; Wolf et al. 2003). Our results are, however, consistent with several other studies, in particular the study based on the Hubble Space Telescope observations of the Groth Strip (Im et al. 2002) where there find a number density evolution of $`n(z)(1+z)^{0.86\pm 0.68}`$ (see their Table 6) in the same underlying cosmology. In the Standard Cold Dark Matter model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m},0}=1`$, the number density of bright ellipticals at $`z=1`$ is predicted to be a factor of 2-3 smaller than the local value (Kauffmann 1996; Baugh, Cole & Frenk 1996), inconsistent with our results. However, the evolution of galaxies is expected to be slower in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{CDM}`$ cosmology. Indeed, our results are consistent with the modest evolution out to redshift $`1`$ predicted by Kauffmann et al. (1999; see their Fig. 9) for the same cosmology. Quantitatively, for ellipticals with a stellar mass $`10^{10}M_{}`$, the space density at $`z=1`$ is about 30% lower than the present day value in the fiducial model of Cole et al. (2000). This result is robust to changes in the amount of star formation occurring in bursts at high redshift (C. Baugh, private communication; Baugh et al. 1996). Our results are consistent with these predictions.

The effects of galaxy evolution on the lens statistics will be more dramatic for very high-redshift quasars ($`z5`$, Fan et al. 2003). For a source at $`z=5`$, half of the multiple-imaging cross-section (with separations between 0.3 to 5 arcseconds) is contributed by galaxies with redshifts greater than 1.2 if there was no evolution of galaxies. Hence the lensing probability will be reduced significantly if the comoving number density of early-type galaxies is much smaller at redshifts $`z1`$ compared with the local number density. A large sample of very high-redshift quasars is therefore an independent and effective way of probing galaxy evolution.

The lensing constraints on the galaxy evolution are already quite competitive compared with those from other methods. However, they still suffer from the small number of lenses ($`13`$) in our CLASS statistical sample. With planned upgrades in major radio instruments (such as eVLA and e-Merlin), it is possible to obtain a radio lens sample that is an oder of magnitude larger. When such a sample becomes available, the lensing constraint will become more stringent and more physical evolution (rather than our toy) models can be tested.

We thank I. Browne and C. Baugh for discussions and the anonymous referee for constructive comments. KHC acknowledges support from the Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) which was established under the KOSEF SRC program. KHC also acknowledges the hospitality provided by the Jodrell Bank Observatory during the summer of 2003.