text:
# Asymmetric jet correlations in 𝑝𝑝^↑ scattering

## I Introduction

An important goal of ongoing experiments with polarized protons at BNL’s Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider RHIC is to contribute to a better understanding of transverse-spin effects in QCD. Of particular interest are single-spin asymmetries $`A_\mathrm{N}`$, obtained from scattering one transversely polarized proton off an unpolarized one. It was found a long time ago in fixed-target experiments E704 ; AGS  that such $`p^{}p`$ collisions can yield strongly asymmetric distributions of hadrons in the final state. The most famous examples are the sizable ($`𝒪(10\%)`$) $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ found in the process $`pp^{}\pi X`$, which express the fact that the produced pions have a preference to go to a particular side of the plane spanned by the proton beam direction and the transverse spin direction. Recently, the STAR collaboration at RHIC has found that such large asymmetries persist even at collider energies STAR03 . It is fair to say that to date the asymmetries have defied a full understanding at the quark-gluon level in QCD. One reason for this is that in QCD $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ for a single-inclusive reaction is power-suppressed as $`1/p^{}`$ in the hard scale given by the transverse momentum $`p^{}`$ of the pion. This makes the formalism for describing the asymmetries rather complicated, compared to more standard leading-power observables in perturbative QCD. An attempt of an explanation for the observed $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ has been given within a formalism qs  that systematically treats the power-suppression of $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ in terms of higher-twist parton correlation functions. Alternatively, it has been proposed Sivers ; Collins-93b ; Anselmino ; Boer-00  that the dependence of parton distributions and fragmentations functions on a small “intrinsic” transverse momentum $`k^{}`$ could be responsible for the asymmetries, through the interplay with the partonic elementary cross sections that are functions steeply falling with $`p^{}`$. $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ is generated from the $`k^{}`$-odd parts of the partonic scatterings, which acquire an additional factor $`1/p^{}`$, making the mechanism again effectively higher twist. Measurements of just $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ in $`pp^{}\pi X`$ will not be sufficient to disentangle all these effects, and it has also been shown recently that for this power-suppressed observable the mechanisms are not all independent of one another BMP03 .

There is, however, a class of observables for which the $`k^{}`$-dependent distributions or fragmentation functions alone are relevant, and may actually lead to leading-power effects. These are observables directly sensitive to a small measured transverse momentum. In spin physics, the most well-known example in this class was given by Collins Collins-93b . He proposed to consider the single-transverse spin asymmetry in semi-inclusive deeply-inelastic scattering (SIDIS), $`e\stackrel{}{p}e^{}\pi X`$, where the pion is detected out of the scattering plane. This asymmetry may receive contributions from the $`k^{}`$ effects mentioned above: from the transverse momentum of the pion relative to its quark progenitor (the so-called Collins effect Collins-93b ), or from the intrinsic $`k^{}`$ of a parton in the initial proton (referred to as Sivers mechanism Sivers ). Here we propose a new observable sensitive to the latter effect.

More precisely, the Sivers effect is a correlation between the direction of the transverse spin of the proton and the transverse momentum direction of an unpolarized parton inside the proton Sivers . The Sivers effect in the process $`pp^{}\pi X`$ has first been analyzed in detail by Anselmino et al. Anselmino , who extracted the Sivers functions for valence quarks from a fit to the data under the assumption that the asymmetry is solely due to this effect. Subsequently, the single spin asymmetry for the Drell-Yan process, which is another process that belongs to the class of “leading-power” observables mentioned above, was predicted ADM .

Following in part the notation of Ref. ADM , the number density of a parton $`f=u,\overline{u},\mathrm{},g`$ inside a proton with transverse polarization $`𝑺_T`$ and three-momentum $`𝑷`$, is parameterized as

$$\widehat{f}(x,𝒌^{},𝑺_T)=f(x,k^{})+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^Nf(x,k^{})\frac{𝑺_T(𝑷\times 𝒌^{})}{|𝑺_T||𝑷||𝒌^{}|},$$
(1)
where $`𝒌^{}`$ is the quark’s transverse momentum, with $`k^{}=|𝒌^{}|`$. The function $`f(x,k^{})`$ is the unpolarized parton distribution, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^Nf`$ denotes the Sivers function. As one can see, the correlation proposed by Sivers corresponds to a time-reversal odd triple product $`𝑺_T(𝑷\times 𝒌^{})`$. Since for stable initial hadrons no strong interaction phases are expected, until recently it was widely believed that the Sivers functions had to vanish identically. It was then discovered BHS ; Belitsky ; Collins-02 ; BMP03 , however, that the time-reversal symmetry argument against the Sivers functions is invalidated by the presence of the Wilson lines in the operators defining the parton densities. These are required by gauge invariance and, as under time reversal future-pointing Wilson lines turn into past-pointing ones, the time reversal properties of the Sivers functions are non-trivial and permit them to be non-vanishing. It is intriguing that the possibility of a non-vanishing Sivers function emerges solely from the Wilson lines in QCD. Another aspect to the physics importance of the Sivers function is the fact that it arises as an interference of wave functions with angular momenta $`J_z=\pm 1/2`$ and hence contains information on parton orbital angular momentum BHS ; Ji ; Burkardt .

In this paper we will discuss a single-spin asymmetry in $`pp`$ scattering that also belongs to the class of “leading-power” observables. The reaction we will consider is the inclusive production of jet pairs, $`pp^{}\mathrm{jet}_1\mathrm{jet}_2X`$, for which the two jets are nearly back-to-back in azimuthal angle. This requirement makes the jet pairs sensitive to a small measured transverse momentum, and hence allows the single-spin asymmetry for the process to be of leading power. The asymmetry $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ for this process should give direct access to the Sivers function. Actually, in contrast to SIDIS and to $`p^{}p\pi X`$, the observable we propose here has the feature that it is rather sensitive to the nonvalence contributions to the Sivers effect, in particular the gluon Sivers function. The latter has not been considered so far in any phenomenological asymmetry study. Its precise definition has been given by Mulders and Rodrigues Joao . They define a gluon correlation function (in the light-cone ($`A^+=0`$) gauge)

$$M\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}(x,𝒌_T)\frac{d\xi ^{}d^2\xi _T}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ik\xi }P,S|F^{+i}(0)F^{+j}(\xi )|P,S|_{\xi ^+=0},$$
(2)
which can be parameterized in terms of gluon distribution functions. In particular, one has

$$M\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}(x,𝒌_T)g_T^{ij}=xP^+\left[G(x,𝒌_T^2)+\frac{ϵ_T^{k_TS_T}}{M}G_T(x,𝒌_T^2)\right],$$
(3)
where $`G(x,𝒌_T^2)`$ is the unpolarized transverse momentum dependent gluon distribution inside an unpolarized hadron. Eqs. (2) and (3) can be viewed as an explicit definition of Eq. (1) in the gluon sector, i.e., $`G_T`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^Ng(x,k^{})`$, up to a $`k^{}`$ dependent normalization factor.

As the above shows, the inclusion of transverse momentum dependent parton distributions is necessary when discussing Sivers effect asymmetries. This extension of the ordinary parton distributions that are functions of the lightcone momentum fractions only is not straightforward from a theoretical point of view. Factorization theorems involving $`k^{}`$ dependence are generally harder to derive. Also, Sudakov suppression effects become relevant. As is well-known from unpolarized hadron-hadron collisions, the average transverse momenta of pair final states, naively associated with originating from intrinsic transverse momentum, are energy ($`\sqrt{s}`$) dependent and can reach several GeV at collider energies begel ; apan1 . Clearly, such large average transverse momenta are not to be attributed to intrinsic transverse momenta alone, but mostly to the transverse momentum broadening due to (soft) gluon emissions. In our study we will therefore include such Sudakov effects, albeit within a somewhat simplified treatment. We will use experimental data to obtain estimates for the average transverse momenta of initial and radiated partons in unpolarized hadron-hadron collisions, which we will subsequently use to obtain estimates for the Sivers effect asymmetry in the azimuthal angular distribution of jets with respect to opposite side jets. We will do this without and with inclusion of Sudakov factors; one has to keep in mind that in the first case the average “intrinsic” transverse momenta we will find will effectively contain a significant perturbative (Sudakov) component. It will be instructive to compare the results of the two analyses.

Our study is also motivated by the favorable experimental situation at RHIC, where the STAR collaboration has recently presented data STAR  for a closely related back-to-back reaction. In the next section we will discuss back-to-back correlations in the unpolarized case and compare to the STAR data. In Sec. III we will then address the spin asymmetry in $`pp^{}\mathrm{jet}_1\mathrm{jet}_2X`$. Section IV presents our conclusions and a further discussion of some theoretical issues.

## II Jet correlations in unpolarized hadron collisions

We first consider the inclusive production of jet pairs in unpolarized proton-proton collisions, $`pp\mathrm{jet}_1\mathrm{jet}_2X`$. We take each of the jets to have large transverse momentum. This implies the presence of short-distance phenomena, which may be separated from long-distance ones. More precisely, the cross section for this process factorizes into convolutions of parton distribution functions with partonic hard-scattering cross sections that may be evaluated using QCD perturbation theory. To lowest order, the partonic subprocesses are the QCD two-parton to two-parton scatterings. If the cross section observable is defined in such a way that it is insensitive to transverse momenta of the initial partons or to particles radiated at small transverse momentum, the factorization is the standard “collinear” one, and the convolutions are simply in terms of (light-cone) momentum fractions. The observable we are interested in is slightly more involved. We choose the two jets to be almost back-to-back when projected into the plane perpendicular to the direction of the beams, which is equivalent to the jets being separated by nearly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \varphi _{j_2}\varphi _{j_1}=\pi `$ in azimuth. Such a configuration directly corresponds to an observed small transverse momentum of the jet pair. In the case of two-by-two scattering of collinear initial partons, the jets are exactly back-to-back in azimuth. Deviations from this may result from additional partons being radiated into the final state. If the jets have fairly large separation in azimuthal angle, the dominant contribution to the cross section will come from a single additional parton radiated into the final-state against which the two jets recoil. Closer to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$, radiation is suppressed, and Sudakov effects become relevant111 Hard three (or more) jet configurations may also contribute near $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$, if the additional hard parton happens to be almost in one plane with the two jets. Such situations are expected to be relatively rare because they are not associated with singular behavior of the perturbative cross section in the azimuthal back-to-back region. We ignore them in our analysis.. Intrinsic transverse momenta of the initial partons may become important as well.

In such nearly back-to-back situations, factorization is not necessarily lost; rather, a factorization theorem now needs to be formulated in terms of parton distributions depending on light-cone momentum fraction and transverse momentum. Factorization theorems of this type have been discussed for the simpler process $`e^+e^{}ABX`$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two hadrons almost back-to-back CS81 ; CS85e , and for Drell-Yan type processes LSV . For factorization to occur it is essential that transverse momenta of initial or radiated partons are linked to the observed small transverse momentum only kinematically, that is, by momentum conservation, but are neglected in the hard scattering. For $`pp\mathrm{jet}_1\mathrm{jet}_2X`$, factorization at small measured transverse momentum of the pair has to our knowledge not yet been proven explicitly, but here we will assume that it falls in the class discussed in Ref. LSV .

In the following we first consider only intrinsic transverse momentum of the initial partons and neglect perturbative radiation of particles into the final state and Sudakov effects. The latter will generally be very relevant and we will include them afterwards to leading logarithm for the purpose of estimating them. A treatment beyond leading logarithm is fairly complicated for $`pp\mathrm{jet}_1\mathrm{jet}_2X`$ and not within the scope of this work. Our treatment follows the same strategy as applied in Refs. Boer-00 ; Boer-01 .

In the absence of additional partons being radiated into the final state, momentum conservation implies that the sum of the transverse momenta of the two jets is equal to the sum of the transverse momenta of the initial state partons. To be more explicit, we expect the cross section to be proportional to

$$𝒰=d^2k_1^{}d^2k_2^{}\delta ^2\left(𝒌_1^{}+𝒌_2^{}𝑷_{j_1}^{}𝑷_{j_2}^{}\right)f_1(k_1^{})f_2(k_2^{}),$$
(4)
where $`𝑷_{j_1}^{}`$ and $`𝑷_{j_2}^{}`$ are the transverse momenta of the jets, and the $`f_i`$ are the transverse momentum distributions of the initial partons. In general, the $`f_i`$ will also depend on the parton lightcone momentum fractions. The factor $`𝒰`$ may be thought of as a smeared-out $`\delta ^2\left(𝑷_{j_1}^{}+𝑷_{j_2}^{}\right)`$ representing the standard transverse-momentum conservation for collinear partons.

Since the distributions $`f_i`$ are not known, we will assume Gaussian transverse momentum dependence for simplicity:

$$f_i(k_i^{})=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\left(k_i^{}\right)^2/k_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{\pi k_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}.$$
(5)
Moreover, we will assume that the average transverse momentum squared is the same for all partons in the proton and independent of $`x`$, i.e. $`k_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ for $`i=1,2`$. These simplifications may all be improved upon at a later stage, when there are data requiring a more sophisticated treatment, but here we will focus on the proof of principle rather than on making an accurate quantitative prediction. The assumption of Gaussians is for convenience and sufficient for our purpose. One obtains

$$𝒰=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{(r^{})^2/\left(k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)}}{\pi \left(k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)},$$
(6)
where $`𝒓^{}=𝑷_{j_1}^{}+𝑷_{j_2}^{}`$. One has

$$(𝒓^{})^2=P_{j_1}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+P_{j_2}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+2P_{j_1}^{}P_{j_2}^{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ),$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is the separation of the two jets in azimuth. Hence, one finds that

$$𝒰e^{K_𝒰\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )},$$
(8)
where $`K_𝒰=P_{j_1}^{}P_{j_2}^{}/k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$. This implies that $`𝒰`$ is peaked around $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$ as expected. Expansion for small $`\delta \varphi \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \pi `$ shows a Gaussian behavior near the peak.

Correlations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ for dijets have been studied in isr . Measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ distributions have also been performed both at the ISR isrhad , and in the fixed-target experiment E706 begel ; apan1 , albeit not for two-jet correlations, but rather for pairs of nearly back-to-back leading hadrons, usually pions. Recently, the STAR collaboration STAR  at RHIC (BNL) has presented precise data on hadron $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ correlations from unpolarized proton-proton collisions at $`\sqrt{S}=200`$ GeV (and from heavy ion collisions). Our study of spin effects in back-to-back reactions in the next section will be tailored to $`pp^{}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{S}=200`$ GeV at RHIC, so we will compare our approach to the STAR $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ distribution data STAR , displayed for “same-sign” hadrons in $`\pi /2\delta \varphi \pi /2`$ in Fig. 1. In the STAR analysis, the first (“trigger”) hadron was required to have 4 GeV $`P_{h_1}^{}`$ 6 GeV, and the recoiling hadron 2 GeV $`P_{h_2}^{}P_{h_1}^{}`$. The pseudorapidities of both hadrons were within $`|\eta _{h_{1,2}}|0.7`$. As can be seen from Fig. 1, the peak at $`\delta \varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \pi =0`$ is clearly pronounced and appears consistent with a Gaussian behavior in $`\delta \varphi `$. One also notices that the distribution does not decrease to zero at large $`\delta \varphi `$, which could be indicative of the perturbative tail corresponding to hard-gluon emission.

The above considerations for dijet production can be modified to apply to dihadron production. The first modification is that one needs to take into account fragmentation functions describing the probability with which a final-state parton emerging from the hard scattering will yield the observed hadron. The hadron will take a light-cone momentum fraction $`z`$ of the parton momentum $`p`$, i.e. in particular for a collinear fragmentation process:

$$𝑷_{h_1}^{}=z_1𝒑_1^{},𝑷_{h_2}^{}=z_2𝒑_2^{}$$
(9)
for the transverse components, and hence $`𝒓^{}=𝑷_{h_1}^{}/z_1+𝑷_{h_2}^{}/z_2`$ in the formulas above. For our estimate we will use in the following only average values for the hadron transverse momenta over the experimental bins: $`P_{h_1}^{}4.5`$ GeV, $`P_{h_2}^{}2.5`$ GeV. We have then determined the corresponding average $`z_i`$ in the framework of a leading-order calculation of the unpolarized dihadron cross section in $`pp`$ scattering at RHIC energy $`\sqrt{S}=200`$ GeV and find $`z_10.45`$, $`z_20.25`$. Here we have used the CTEQ-5 cteq5  set of parton distribution functions and the fragmentation functions of kkp , both at leading order.

Additionally, there will be a transverse-momentum smearing also in the final state, that is, the observed hadron may be produced at some small transverse momentum relative to the parent parton bep , implying

$$𝑷_{h_1}^{}=z_1𝒑_1^{}+\widehat{𝒌}_1^{},𝑷_{h_2}^{}=z_2𝒑_2^{}+\widehat{𝒌}_2^{},$$
(10)
with $`𝒑_i^{}\widehat{𝒌}_i^{}=0`$. This will also have an influence on the $`\delta \varphi `$ distribution of the two produced hadrons. We estimate this effect by replacing $`k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ in Eq. (8) by $`k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\widehat{k}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/z_1^2+\widehat{k}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/z_2^2`$, where $`\widehat{k}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ is the average transverse momentum broadening squared in fragmentation. We could improve this estimate by taking into account that for a final-state particle emitted at some angle only a certain projection of $`\widehat{𝒌}^{}`$ is relevant for the $`\delta \varphi `$ distribution. This modifies the functional form of the distribution in $`\delta \varphi `$. However, we found this effect to be rather insignificant for the $`\delta \varphi `$ and the widths we consider below.

Our next goal is to obtain an estimate of the average $`k_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ at RHIC energy $`\sqrt{S}=200`$ GeV from a comparison to experimental data. For this, Ref. apan  is particularly useful, where an analysis of a variety of data from fixed-target and collider experiments on transverse momenta of dimuon, diphoton, and dijet (or dihadron) pairs was performed. If one neglects radiative effects, such pair transverse momenta are directly related to intrinsic transverse momenta. The results of apan  show that the pair transverse momenta increase with center-of-mass energy. Also, they are consistently larger for dihadron pairs than for diphoton or dimuon pairs. This may be understood from the presence of $`k^{}`$ smearing in fragmentation. Additionally, in contrast to diphotons or dimuons, dihadron cross sections are dominated by scatterings of initial gluons, which may have a somewhat larger $`k^{}`$ broadening. As mentioned above, we neglect this effect. From the results shown in apan  we then estimate for dihadrons at $`\sqrt{S}=200`$ GeV

$$k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\widehat{k}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/z_1^2+\widehat{k}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/z_2^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}15}\mathrm{GeV}^2,$$
(11)
and for non-fragmentation final states

$$k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}9}\mathrm{GeV}^2.$$
(12)
From this, we estimate, assuming $`k_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`\widehat{k}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\widehat{k}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$:

$$\sqrt{k_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}2\mathrm{GeV},\sqrt{\widehat{k}_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}0.5\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(13)
Our value for the width for the initial-state broadening is larger than that found from studies of single-particle inclusive cross sections at the lower fixed-target energies in ADM . The curve in Fig. 1 shows our result for the $`\delta \varphi `$ distribution based on the widths in Eq. (13). We have fitted the overall normalization of the curve to the data, and we have also allowed an additive constant to the $`\delta \varphi `$ distribution in this fit, in order to account for the perturbative tail at larger $`|\delta \varphi |`$. The resulting curve gives a fair description of the data, even though the data appear to prefer a somewhat larger width of the peak.

The fairly large size of $`\sqrt{k_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}`$ in Eq. (13) (as compared to typical hadronic mass scales) again indicates that there are significant perturbative effects that should be taken into account in a more thorough analysis. As we mentioned earlier, Sudakov effects, related to multi-soft-gluon emission, are expected to be particularly relevant. Near $`\delta \varphi =0`$, gluon radiation is kinematically inhibited, and the standard cancelations of infrared singularities between virtual and real diagrams lead to large logarithmic remainders in the partonic hard-scattering cross sections. For the $`\delta \varphi `$ distribution, these have the form $`\alpha _s^k\mathrm{ln}^{2km}(\delta \varphi )/\delta \varphi `$ in $`k`$th order of perturbation theory, with $`1m2k`$ or, more generally, for the $`𝒓^{}`$ distribution they are of the form $`\alpha _s^k\mathrm{ln}^{2km}(\widehat{s}/|𝒓^{}|^2)/|𝒓^{}|^2`$ PP ; CSS , where $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ is the partonic center-of-mass energy. It is possible to resum these logarithmic contributions to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$. For the leading logarithms ($`m=1`$), this was achieved a long time ago PP ; DDT ; BN . Recent progress in the resummation for $`ppABX`$ at next-to-leading logarithmic level was reported in guffanti . Here we provide an estimate of the Sudakov effects by taking into account the tower of leading logarithms.

Applying the derivation of PP  to the process $`pp\mathrm{jet}_1\mathrm{jet}_2X`$, the resummation of independent soft gluon emissions to leading double logarithmic order leads to the following distribution in $`𝒓^{}`$:

$$𝒰^{\mathrm{Sud}}\frac{1}{\sigma _0}\frac{d\sigma }{d^2r^{}}=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{db^2}{4\pi }J_0(br^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C\mathrm{ln}^2(b\sqrt{\widehat{s}})\right]\stackrel{~}{f}_1(b^2)\stackrel{~}{f}_2(b^2),$$
(14)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the lowest-order cross section integrated over all $`r^{}`$, and $`C`$ is the sum of the color charges for the external legs in the partonic hard scattering, i.e., for subprocesses involving quarks and antiquarks only one has $`C=4C_F=16/3`$, for processes with two quarks and two gluons $`C=2(C_A+C_F)=26/3`$, and for $`gggg`$, $`C=4C_A=12`$. All these channels are relevant, because of the competition between the magnitude of the parton distributions and the magnitude of the Sudakov suppression. Finally, in Eq. (14)

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_i(b^2)=d^2k_i^{}e^{i𝒃𝒌_i^{}}f_i(k_i^{})=e^{b^2k_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/4},$$
(15)
where the last equality follows for our Gaussian $`k^{}`$ distributions of Eq. (5). In lowest order in $`\alpha _s`$, i.e. setting $`\alpha _s=0`$ in the Sudakov exponent, Eq. (14) reduces to $`𝒰`$ of Eq. (4).

We have used the Sudakov improved $`𝒰^{\mathrm{Sud}}`$ of Eq. (14) in a fit of the value for $`k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ to the STAR data. We find that inclusion of the leading logarithms leads to a markedly better agreement with the data, demonstrated by the dashed line in Fig. 1, and to a reasonably small value of $`\sqrt{k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}0.9`$ GeV, which is closer to a typical hadronic mass scale and to the one obtained in ADM .

We note that our treatment of the soft-gluon resummation for the $`\delta \varphi `$ distribution somewhat differs from that developed in BN ; BS , where the resummation was performed in terms of a one-dimensional integral transform. We found our approach, which is based on a two-dimensional impact parameter $`𝒃`$ PP , to be numerically very similar to the one of BN  near $`\delta \varphi =0`$, but to be better applicable out to larger $`\delta \varphi `$. A more complete study of the Sudakov effects would start from the well-known CSS  full form of the Sudakov exponent, given in terms of an integral over gluon transverse momentum. This form reduces to ours in Eq. (14) if the running of the strong coupling is neglected. For a running coupling, the Sudakov exponent becomes sensitive to the strong-coupling regime, since $`\alpha _s`$ is also probed at scales near $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. This will require the introduction of further non-perturbative contributions. It may also be important to determine next-to-leading logarithmic contributions to the exponent guffanti . The issue of matching to a fixed (next-to-leading) order calculation owens  at larger $`\delta \varphi `$ will then become relevant.

We finally note that, besides the peak around $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$, the two-hadron azimuthal correlation also shows a peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$, corresponding to the two hadrons being in the same jet. The width of this peak should be primarily related to the “fragmentation part” $`\widehat{k}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/z_1^2+\widehat{k}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/z_2^2`$ of the width in Eq. (11). One therefore expects the peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$ to be narrower than the one at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$, which indeed it is for the STAR data. We have checked that a distribution of the form (8), with only fragmentation $`k^{}`$ broadening as numerically given by Eqs. (11) and (12), fits the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$ peak well. We note that a detailed description of this region will require using two-hadron fragmentation functions as studied in Sukhatme ; Vendramin ; ddf . In the following we will not consider further the same-side peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$.

## III Jet correlations in $`pp^{}`$ scattering

We will now study two-jet correlations near $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$ in the case that one of the two incoming protons is polarized transversely to its momentum. As we discussed in the introduction, our motivation is that such correlations may offer access to the Sivers function. The basic idea is very simple. As follows from Eq. (1), the Sivers function represents a correlation of the form $`𝑺_T(𝑷\times 𝒌^{})`$ between the transverse proton polarization vector, its momentum, and the transverse momentum of the parton relative to the proton direction. In other words, if there is a Sivers-type correlation then there will be a preference for partons to have a component of intrinsic transverse momentum to one side, perpendicular to both $`𝑺_T`$ and $`𝑷`$. Suppose now for simplicity that one observes a jet in the direction of the proton polarization vector, as shown in Fig. 2. A “left-right” imbalance in $`𝒌^{}`$ of the parton will then affect the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ distribution of jets nearly opposite to the first jet and give the cross section an asymmetric piece around $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$. The spin asymmetry

$$A_\mathrm{N}\frac{\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}}{\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{}}$$
(16)
will extract this piece.

The denominator of this asymmetry will be, up to normalization, the function $`𝒰`$ discussed in Sec. II. We now define the $`y,z`$ directions as given by the polarization and momentum, respectively, of the polarized proton. The numerator may then be found by considering Eq. (4) with an additional factor $`k_1^x`$ in the integrand, corresponding to the Sivers correlation in the polarized proton:

$$𝒫=d^2k_1^{}d^2k_2^{}\frac{k_1^x}{\sqrt{\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}\delta ^2\left(𝒌_1^{}+𝒌_2^{}𝑷_{j_1}^{}𝑷_{j_2}^{}\right)\overline{f}_1(k_1^{})f_2(k_2^{}),$$
(17)
where we have introduced the bar on $`f_1`$ to indicate that $`\overline{f}_1`$ is related to the transverse momentum dependent part of a Sivers function, with Gaussian width $`\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$. The latter will in general be different from that in the unpolarized distribution (in fact, smaller to satisfy a positivity bound, see Ref. ADM ). We have normalized $`k_1^x`$ by $`\sqrt{\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}`$ instead of by $`|𝒌_1^{}|`$ as Eq. (1) suggests. This follows the analysis of Ref. ADM  (cf. Eq. (24) below) and takes care of the fact that for $`𝒌_1^{}=0`$ the Sivers effect should vanish.

In this way we obtain

$$𝒫=\frac{r^x\sqrt{\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{\pi \left(\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)^2}\mathrm{e}^{(r^{})^2/\left(\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)},$$
(18)
or in terms of the jet transverse momenta and azimuthal angles (measured w.r.t. $`𝑺_T`$),

$$𝒫=\left(|𝑷_{j_1}^{}|\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{j_1}+|𝑷_{j_2}^{}|\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{j_2}\right)\frac{\sqrt{\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}{\pi \left(\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)^2}e^{\left[P_{j_1}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+P_{j_2}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+2P_{j_1}^{}P_{j_2}^{}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )\right]/\left(\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)}.$$
(19)
As an example, for the case of $`\varphi _{j_1}=0`$, corresponding to our specific example displayed in Fig. 2, this yields

$$𝒫\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )e^{K_𝒫\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )},$$
(20)
where $`K_𝒫=2P_{j_1}^{}P_{j_2}^{}/(\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+k_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})`$.

Setting $`\kappa ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=rk^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, the resulting spin asymmetry is

$$A_\mathrm{N}=\frac{r^x}{\sqrt{k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}\frac{2\sqrt{r}}{(1+r)^2}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1r}{2(1+r)}(r^{})^2/k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}},$$
(21)
where for the denominator of this asymmetry we have taken the function $`𝒰`$ given in Eq. (6) with the assumption $`k_i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

There are, however, several different partonic channels contributing to jet production in $`pp`$ scattering. For each of these, there is a combination of parton distributions, with dependence on light-cone momentum fraction and intrinsic transverse momentum. Thus in general, there will be a weighted sum of $`k^{}`$ dependent functions in the numerator and the denominator of the asymmetry, that is,

$$A_\mathrm{N}=\frac{_{f_1,f_2}d^2𝒌_1^{}d^2𝒌_2^{}\delta ^2\left(𝒌_1^{}+𝒌_2^{}𝒓^{}\right)\frac{k_1^x}{k_1^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }^Nf_1(x_1,k_1^{})f_2(x_2,k_2^{})\widehat{\sigma }_{f_1f_2}(P_{j_1}^{},P_{j_2}^{},\eta _{j_1},\eta _{j_2})}{_{f_1,f_2}d^2𝒌_1^{}d^2𝒌_2^{}\delta ^2\left(𝒌_1^{}+𝒌_2^{}𝒓^{}\right)f_1(x_1,k_1^{})f_2(x_2,k_2^{})\widehat{\sigma }_{f_1f_2}(P_{j_1}^{},P_{j_2}^{},\eta _{j_1},\eta _{j_2})}.$$
(22)
Here, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^Nf_1(x_1,k_1^{})`$ are the Sivers functions as introduced in Eq. (1). The convolutions $``$ are over light-cone momentum fractions only. We note that since the Sivers functions correspond to distributions of unpolarized partons, the hard-scattering cross sections $`\widehat{\sigma }_{f_1f_2}`$ are the usual unpolarized ones in both the numerator and the denominator of the asymmetry. The pseudorapidities of the jets are denoted by $`\eta _{j_1}`$ and $`\eta _{j_2}`$. The hard scattering functions depend only on large scales, that is, on $`P_{j_1}^{}`$ and $`P_{j_1}^{}`$. Therefore, any dependence on $`𝒌_{1,2}^{}`$ is neglected in the $`\widehat{\sigma }_{f_1f_2}`$; in other words, one considers the first term in a collinear expansion.

One can see that a simple result such as Eq. (21) will only emerge if the $`x`$ and $`𝒌^{}`$ dependences in all functions factorize from each other, if all distributions in the numerator and, separately, in the denominator depend on $`𝒌^{}`$ in the same way, and if the $`x`$-dependence for each Sivers function is identical to that of the corresponding unpolarized one.

We will now give simple estimates for the possible size of the spin asymmetry $`A_\mathrm{N}`$. For this purpose we will need a model for the dependence of the parton distributions on the light-cone momentum fraction $`x`$ as well as on transverse momentum. We will assume that the $`x`$ and $`𝒌^{}`$ dependences may indeed be separated for each function. For the unpolarized densities we write:

$$f(x,k^{})=f(x)\frac{1}{\pi k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}e^{(k^{})^2/k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}},$$
(23)
where the $`f(x)`$ are the usual unpolarized light-cone distributions for flavors $`f=u,\overline{u},\mathrm{},g`$, for which we again use the CTEQ-5 leading order set cteq5 . For the moment, we will neglect Sudakov effects, so we will use the value $`\sqrt{k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}=2`$ GeV we found in the previous section for the initial-state broadening without resummation of Sudakov logarithms.

The parameterizations for the Sivers function we will use are taken from ADM , where they were determined from comparisons to data of Ref. E704  on inclusive single spin asymmetries for $`p^{}p\pi X`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^Nf(x,k^{})=2𝒩_f(x)f(x)\frac{1}{\pi k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\sqrt{2e(1r)}\frac{k^{}}{\sqrt{\kappa ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}e^{(k^{})^2/\kappa ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}.$$
(24)
We have chosen this parameterization and the accompanying fit values of Ref. ADM  since these are the only ones available so far. The question of universality (i.e. process independence) of the Sivers function we leave as an unresolved issue. For a further discussion of this point see Sec. IV.

As before, $`r=\kappa ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, and we use $`r=0.7`$, in accordance with the fit of Ref. ADM . This value allows for a good fit to the E704 data E704  and also to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization data, as discussed in Ref. ABDM . The $`𝒩_f(x)`$ are $`x`$-dependent normalizations, defined in ADM  as

$$𝒩_f(x)=N_fx^{a_f}(1x)^{b_f}\frac{(a_f+b_f)^{(a_f+b_f)}}{a_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{a_f}b_{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{b_f}}.$$
(25)
In Ref. ADM , only the valence $`u`$ and $`d`$ Sivers functions were taken into account, since the data of E704  are in the forward region of the polarized proton, corresponding to large momentum fractions in its parton distribution functions. For $`u`$ and $`d`$, the parameters extracted from comparison to the data read ADM :

$`N_u=0.5,a_u=2.0,b_u=0.3,`$
$`N_d=1.0,a_d=1.5,b_d=0.2.`$ (26)
For the sea quarks we assume relations identical to (25), with $`𝒩_{\overline{u}}(x)=𝒩_u(x)`$, $`𝒩_{\overline{d},\overline{s}}(x)=𝒩_d(x)`$ for simplicity. The details of these choices are not crucial.

The size of the asymmetry is, however, very sensitive to the gluon Sivers function. The reason for this is that in the kinematic regime we will investigate here, $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, $`P_j^{}10`$ GeV, contributions from gluon-gluon and quark-gluon scattering are most important, because of their large partonic cross sections and because the parton momentum fractions become as low as $`x_{1,2}0.05`$. There is so far no experimental information on the gluon Sivers function. It may be possible to obtain estimates within models of nucleon structure. This could be an interesting topic for future studies, but is beyond the scope of the present paper. To illustrate the dependence of the asymmetry $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ on the gluon Sivers function, we will simply present results for four distinct cases:

* $`𝒩_g(x)=\left(𝒩_u(x)+𝒩_d(x)\right)/2`$,
* $`𝒩_g(x)=0`$,
* $`𝒩_g(x)=𝒩_d(x)`$,
* $`𝒩_g(x)=𝒩_d(x)`$, but with $`\sqrt{k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}=2.5`$ GeV for gluons.

These choices represent a very small (scenario ii), an average (with respect to the functions for quarks, scenario i), and two somewhat larger (scenarios iii and iv) gluon Sivers functions. Other choices are clearly possible, including yet larger functions. Choice (iv) is motivated by the notion that intrinsic $`k^{}`$ smearing could be larger for gluons. We keep $`r=\kappa ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0.7`$ in all cases, although this choice does not result from the fit of Ref. ADM , where a gluon Sivers function was not included. We have found that a change in $`r`$ for the gluons of 10 % leads to a change of about 6 % in the asymmetry at its peak.

The resulting asymmetries, as functions of $`\delta \varphi `$, are shown in Fig. 3, at RHIC’s $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. For simplicity, we have chosen $`\varphi _{j_1}=0`$. We have taken into account jets with pseudorapidities $`|\eta _{j_{1,2}}|1`$ (as suitable for the STAR detector) and 8 GeV $`P_{j_{1,2}}^{}12`$ GeV. The strong sensitivity to the gluon Sivers function is evident from Fig. 3. One can see that sizable asymmetries are by all means possible. In fact, the asymmetry may easily be even much larger $`(>10\%)`$ if the gluon Sivers function is favorably close to the unpolarized gluon density. We expect asymmetries of $`1\%`$ to be easily measurable at RHIC. A typical value for the statistical uncertainty of such measurements may be estimated as rhicrev

$$\delta A_\mathrm{N}\frac{1}{P\sqrt{\sigma }},$$
(27)
where $`P`$ is the beam polarization, $``$ the integrated luminosity, and $`\sigma `$ the unpolarized dijet cross section integrated over the kinematical bin we are interested in. Using $`P=0.5`$, a moderate $`=10`$/pb, and estimating $`\sigma =610^6`$ pb, we find $`\delta A_\mathrm{N}210^4`$. It will of course be important to understand systematical uncertainties at a similar level.

It is straightforward to determine the angle where the asymmetry has its maximum. If we choose $`\varphi _{j_1}=0`$ and define $`\delta \varphi =\varphi _{j_2}\pi `$, then we find:

$$\mathrm{cos}(\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{max}})1\frac{k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(1+r)}{2P_{j_1}^{}P_{j_2}^{}(1r)},$$
(28)
which as expected is a function of the observed jet transverse momenta, and of $`\kappa ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$. For our parameters given above, this yields $`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{max}}0.48`$ (for scenarios i, ii and iii). The value of the asymmetry at this $`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ depends of course on the magnitude of the Sivers effect functions.

As in the previous section we will also estimate the effect of Sudakov factors by including soft gluon emissions at the leading double logarithmic level. Their effect on the denominator $`𝒰`$ of the asymmetry has been described in Eq. (14). A difference is now that for jet pairs (unlike the case of inclusive hadron pairs) only the initial-state broadening plays a role greco . This means that we will now have $`C=8/3`$ for processes with only initial quarks and/or antiquarks, $`C=13/3`$ for $`qg`$ scattering, and $`C=6`$ for a $`gg`$ initial state. For the numerator of the asymmetry one has to replace in Eq. (14)

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_1(b^2)d^2k_1^{}e^{i𝒃𝒌_1^{}}\frac{k_1^x}{\kappa _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\overline{f}_1(k_1^{})=\frac{i}{2}b^xe^{b^2\kappa _i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}/4}\frac{i}{2}b^x\stackrel{~}{\overline{f}}_1(b^2).$$
(29)
This leads to

$$𝒫=\frac{r^x}{r^{}}\sqrt{\kappa ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{db^2}{4\pi }bJ_1(br^{})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C\mathrm{ln}^2(b\sqrt{\widehat{s}})\right]\stackrel{~}{\overline{f}}_1(b^2)\stackrel{~}{f}_2(b^2).$$
(30)
The resulting spin asymmetry is also shown in Fig. 3, for the case (iii) above, i.e., $`𝒩_g(x)=𝒩_d(x)`$. For this curve we have now for consistency used the smaller value $`\sqrt{k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}0.9`$ GeV that we extracted from our Sudakov analysis of the STAR data in the previous section. This leads to a shift of the peak of the distribution closer to $`\delta \varphi =0`$. More importantly, it is evident that the inclusion of the Sudakov factors leads to a considerable suppression of $`A_\mathrm{N}`$. Of course, this does not rule out a sizable spin asymmetry in principle. As we mentioned earlier on, depending on the normalization of the gluon Sivers function, we could have a much larger $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ than given by models (i)-(iv). In this context, we would also like to remark that the spin asymmetry for the single-inclusive reaction $`pp^{}\pi X`$ at moderately high $`p^{}`$, from which in ADM  the valence quark Sivers functions were extracted, is also sensitive to a small transverse momentum, and hence susceptible to Sudakov effects. The analysis of Ref. ADM  did not include Sudakov factors, which means that any effects of Sudakov suppression have effectively been absorbed into the Sivers function itself. In that sense the curve in Fig. 3 may include Sudakov suppression more than once. A Sudakov improved analysis of the asymmetry in $`pp^{}\pi X`$ would therefore be desirable.

To gain statistics in experiment, one will not just select events with $`\varphi _{j_1}0`$ and vary $`\varphi _{j_2}`$; rather one will want to integrate over bins in $`\varphi _{j_1}`$. Here one has to take care not to wash out the asymmetry by simply integrating over all $`\varphi _{j_1}`$. The asymmetry will in general have the following dependence on $`\varphi _{j_1}`$ and $`\delta \varphi `$:

$$A_\mathrm{N}(\varphi _{j_1},\delta \varphi )\left[|𝑷_{j_1}^{}|\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{j_1}|𝑷_{j_2}^{}|\left(\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{j_1}\mathrm{cos}\delta \varphi +\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{j_1}\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi \right)\right]𝒜(\mathrm{cos}(\delta \varphi )).$$
(31)
One possibility is to select “jet 1” in the hemisphere of the “spin-up” direction, and to weight the asymmetry with $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{j_1})`$ over this hemisphere:

$$A_\mathrm{N}(\delta \varphi )𝑑\varphi _{j_1}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{j_1})A_\mathrm{N}(\varphi _{j_1},\delta \varphi )\mathrm{sin}\delta \varphi 𝒜(\mathrm{cos}(\delta \varphi )).$$
(32)
One has to keep in mind that this weighted asymmetry has a complicated dependence on the transverse momenta of the two jets, which differ per event. In general, it will be rather involved to extract the normalization and the width of the Sivers functions from such a weighted asymmetry, but the above is one of the ways to obtain a Sivers asymmetry that is dependent on only the angle $`\delta \varphi `$. More generally, one could project out the full $`r^x`$ azimuthal angular dependence, preferably for a fine binning in the transverse momenta of the jets.

If one were to consider leading hadrons instead of the jets, one would run into the problem that there could be additional effects generating a single spin asymmetry at leading power. In the fragmentation process the Collins effect could contribute Collins-93b , which is a correlation between the transverse spin of a fragmenting quark and the transverse momentum direction of the outgoing hadron relative to that quark. We do not, however, think that this mechanism will be very important here. First of all, the fragmenting quark would need to have inherited its spin from the transverse spin of the proton. This means that the transversity densities of the proton would be involved, and that the partonic cross sections would depend on transverse spin in the initial and final states. These cross sections are much smaller than the unpolarized ones we used in our study above sv . In addition, a major difference between the Collins and Sivers effects is that the gluon Sivers function is allowed to be nonzero, whereas a gluonic Collins functions is forbidden by helicity conservation. We are therefore confident that studies of $`pp^{}h_1h_2X`$ (with $`h_1,h_2`$ two hadrons almost back-to-back in azimuth) at RHIC, for example in the PHENIX experiment (where it would complement the Drell-Yan single spin asymmetry measurements), would also be useful for learning about the Sivers functions.

## IV Concluding Remarks

We have proposed an observable that could provide access to the Sivers effect: a single transverse-spin asymmetry in the distribution in relative azimuthal angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \pi `$ of jets in a dijet pair. Unlike the more customary single-spin asymmetries for single-inclusive final states in $`pp^{}`$ scattering, this observable is not power-suppressed in a large energy scale. It also has the advantage that it will be directly (and only) sensitive to the Sivers functions, in contrast to $`A_\mathrm{N}`$ for the process $`pp^{}\pi X`$ for which several different competing mechanisms could be at work. Using experimental information on the average transverse momentum of initial and radiated partons from dimuon, diphoton, dijet and dihadron production in hadron-hadron collisions and using results from the study of Ref. ADM  on the Sivers effect in $`pp^{}\pi X`$, we have presented estimates for this new observable. These indicate that the asymmetry could well be at the few percent level, which should make it experimentally accessible at RHIC.

Our further analysis revealed, however, that Sudakov effects lead to a significant suppression of the asymmetry. We stress that this does not necessarily mean that the asymmetry must be small. It turns out that the unknown gluon Sivers function mainly drives the size of the asymmetry. We know of no theoretical reason why this distribution function should be small. In any case, any sign in experiment of the asymmetry we propose will be definitive evidence for the Sivers effect. We also point out that the distribution in azimuthal angle between the jets is only one example of a variety of similar observables in $`pp`$ scattering. Other closely related examples, which deserve further attention and may be equally suited for experimental studies, are the total transverse momentum of the jet pair, the distribution in “$`P_{\mathrm{out}}`$” (the momentum of one jet out of the plane spanned by the beam axis and the other jet’s transverse momentum) BN , and the distribution in “$`P^{}`$-balance” $`z=𝑷_{j_1}^{}𝑷_{j_2}^{}/(P_{j_2}^{})^2`$ begel . Any of these may be obtained from different projections in the two-dimensional transverse-momentum plane and may be predicted using our formulas above.

We close with a few comments on some theoretical issues, which we hope also provide directions for future work. As we mentioned earlier on, for observables that have a hard scale but additionally involve an observed small transverse momentum, factorization theorems are rather hard to establish. For our back-to-back dijet distribution, the issue of whether or not factorization occurs still remains to be investigated. For the case of nontrivial polarization effects, such as the Sivers or Collins effects, this is a particularly relevant issue since, unlike in the unpolarized case, the effect itself already relies on the presence of non-perturbative “intrinsic” transverse momentum: the parton distribution functions need to have an intrinsically nonperturbative dependence on the transverse momentum, arising as $`k^{}/M`$ or $`k^{}/k^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$.

In case factorization does apply, another related complication is the apparent non-universality of the Sivers functions. When it was recognized that the presence of Wilson lines allows the Sivers functions to be non-vanishing Collins-02 ; BHS ; Belitsky ; BMP03 , also the remarkable result followed that the Sivers function in SIDIS differs by a sign from the one that enters in the Drell-Yan process. This process dependence is a unique prediction of QCD. It is entirely calculable, but has not been studied yet for other processes, such as $`pp^{}\pi X`$ or the reaction $`pp^{}2\text{jets}X`$ we have considered here. The color gauge invariant factorization is expected to make definitive statements here. Jet reactions may generally be easier to analyze theoretically than reactions with observed hadrons in the final state, since the latter involve also fragmentation functions that inevitably complicate the issue of gauge invariance further BMP03 ; Metz . A novel aspect in all this will also be the color gauge invariant definition of the gluon Sivers function, which has so far not been obtained (the same applies to any transverse momentum dependent gluon distribution and fragmentation functions). It will result in the proper gauge invariant version of Eq. (2). For our present study, the process dependence implies an uncertainty. We have refrained from making any ad hoc choices and simply used as a starting point the valence quark Sivers functions obtained from $`pp^{}\pi X`$ ADM .

It is evident that it will be very important to deal with these issues. A proof of a factorization theorem for the process $`pp2\text{jets}X`$ at small pair transverse momentum would be highly desirable. That said, even if factorization will be shown not to occur, the observable we have proposed is obviously still a quantity of interest. It will presumably then give us insight into novel aspects of QCD dynamics.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to J. Balewski, L. Bland, G. Bunce, D. de Florian, J. Owens, S. Vigdor, and especially J. Collins for stimulating discussions. The research of D.B. has been made possible by financial support from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. W.V. is grateful to RIKEN, Brookhaven National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy (contract number DE-AC02-98CH10886) for providing the facilities essential for the completion of this work.


format: text

text:
# Anomalous Ferromagnetism of Monatomic Co Wire at the Pt(111) Surface Step Edge

## Abstract

A first-principles investigation of the anomalous ferromagnetism of a quasi-one-dimensional Co chain at the Pt(111) step edge is reported. Our calculations show that the symmetry breaking at the step leads to an easy magnetization axis at an odd angle of $``$20 towards the Pt step, in agreement with experiment \[P. Gambardella et al., Nature 416, 301 (2002)\]. Also, the Co spin and orbital moments become noncollinear, even in the case of a collinear ferromagnetic spin arrangement. A significant enhancement of the Co orbital magnetic moment is achieved when modest electron correlations are treated within LSDA+$`U`$ calculations.

Exploring magnetism in the one-dimensional (1D) limit has been a great challenge for many years. Only recently, Gambardella et algambardella02  succeeded to observe ferromagnetism of monatomic Co wires decorating the Pt(997) surface step edge. By exploiting the element-selectivity of the x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD), the existence of long-range ferromagnetic order on Co was demonstrated below 15 K gambardella02 ; gambardella03 . Although theoretically the Mermin-Wagner theorem mermin66  forbids long-range 1D ferromagnetic order at non-zero temperatures, ferromagnetism in 1D can be stabilized by a large magnetic anisotropy energy, which creates barriers effectively blocking thermal fluctuations. The significance of such blocking mechanism was recognized earlier for the occurrence of long-range magnetic order in 2D systems hauschild98 ; schneider00 .

The experiments of Gambardella et al. revealed novel magnetic properties of monatomic Co wires at Pt step edges. An unexpected magnetocrystalline anisotropy was observed: the easy magnetization axis was directed along a peculiar angle of +43 towards the Pt step edge and normal to the Co chain. The magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE) was estimated to be substantial, of the order of 2 meV/Co atom gambardella02 . In addition, a considerable enhancement of the Co orbital magnetic moment $`M_L0.7`$ $`\mu _B`$—as compared to the bulk Co $`M_L`$ value of 0.14 $`\mu _B`$—was deduced from XMCD experiments.

In this paper we report a first-principles investigation of the anomalous ferromagnetism of a monatomic Co wire at the Pt(111) surface step edge, using state-of-the-art electronic structure calculations. We focus on the intriguing features of the quasi-1D Co wire, i.e., the easy axis rotated away from the (111) surface normal, the enhanced Co orbital moment and huge estimated MAE. The key outcomes of our study are (i) the ab initio calculation of an easy axis at an odd angle rotated towards the Pt step edge and (ii) the prediction of an intrinsic noncollinearity between spin and orbital magnetic moments of both the ferromagnetic Co wire and Pt substrate. The origin of this novel magnetic behavior, which is to our knowledge not present in known 2D and 3D itinerant ferromagnets is explained to be a consequence of the magnetic symmetry lowering at the surface step edge remark . Our calculations furthermore yield a MAE of the order of 4 meV/Co atom, and—using the LSDA+$`U`$ approach—a Co orbital moment $`M_L=0.45\mu _B`$.

Previously, several computational studies of the magnetic properties of adatoms, clusters, and monatomic chains on surfaces were reported (see, e.g., dorantes98 ; cabria02 ; spisak02 ; lazarovits03 ; hong03 ). The calculations predict in general an enhanced MAE closely related to the reduced dimensionality and enhancement of the orbital moment. However, in all of these studies only transition-metal wires or adatoms on flat surfaces are investigated, i.e., geometries that are essentially different from the metal wire at a step edge. For wires, adatoms or clusters cabria02  at flat surfaces the easy axis is either normal to the surface or in-line for some wires hong03 . So far only one ab initio study of Co at a Pt step edge was reported, in which the XMCD spectrum was computed komelj02 , but the magnetic anisotropy was not considered. Our study focuses on the unprecedented magnetic anisotropy properties observed for the quasi-1D Co chain.

Methodology. We performed supercell calculations to model the Co chain at the Pt(111) surface step edge. Supercells of various sizes were investigated. We shall discuss here particularly two supercells: one of small size, a toy model, which we name model I, and a large, realistic supercell, model II (see Fig. 1). Model I consists of one subsurface Pt layer built of 4 rows of Pt and one surface layer containing one row of Co atoms, two rows of Pt, as well as one empty row to model the step edge. Model II consists of a sub-subsurface and a subsurface Pt layer built of 6 rows of Pt atoms, while the surface step is modeled by 3 rows of Pt, one Co row, and two rows of empty Pt sites. In both supercells the vacuum is modeled by the equivalent of two empty Pt layers. All interatomic distances are adopted to be those of pure Pt. We note that while model II approaches the maximally treatable supercell size for full-potential, relativistic calculations of the MAE, the proportions of the experimental Co chain at the Pt(997) step edge are still larger, consisting of an 8 Pt rows wide terrace at the Pt step gambardella03 .

The first-principles calculations were performed using the relativistic full-potential linearized-augmented-plane-wave (FP-LAPW) method, in which the spin-orbit coupling is included in a self-consistent second-variational procedure shick97 . For most of the calculations the conventional (von Barth-Hedin) local spin-density approximation (LSDA) is adopted, which is expected to be valid for itinerant metallic systems. In order to capture better the electron correlations expected for the Co $`3d`$ electrons in the reduced dimension also the LSDA+$`U`$ approach, in the implementation of Ref. shick01,  has been applied. For further details of the calculations, see Ref. details, .

First-principles results. We first applied the conventional LSDA approach using the FP-LAPW method. To start with, the spin magnetization axis was chosen to be fixed either along the $`x`$, $`y`$, or $`z`$ axis. The essential computed spin ($`\stackrel{}{M}_S`$) and orbital ($`\stackrel{}{M}_L`$) moments are given in Table 1. Table 1 reveals that the $`\stackrel{}{M}_S`$ and $`\stackrel{}{M}_L`$ on Co and Pt are noncollinear for a spin moment fixed along the $`y`$ or $`z`$ axis, but collinear when $`\stackrel{}{M}_S`$ is along the $`x`$ axis. Noncollinearity of $`\stackrel{}{M}_S`$ and $`\stackrel{}{M}_L`$ has been predicted previously sandratskii98  for materials exhibiting a noncollinear spin magnetic structure, but this is to our knowledge the first observation of such noncollinearity for a collinear, ferromagnetic spin configuration. To understand the noncollinearity of $`\stackrel{}{M}_S`$ and $`\stackrel{}{M}_L`$ it is instructive to consider the magnetic symmetry. The symmetry operations which preserve the crystal symmetry are the identity $`E`$ and the mirror operation $`\sigma _x`$ with respect to the $`yz`$ plane (see Fig. 1). Considering now the magnetic symmetry operations, which are—for a total magnetic moment in the $`yz`$ plane—$`E`$ and $`\sigma _xR`$, with $`R`$ the time inversion, we observe that these symmetry conditions impose $`M^x`$=0, but $`M^y,M^z`$0 without any restriction. Therefore there is no particular symmetry imposed direction in the $`yz`$ plane which would force spin and orbital moment to be parallel. In other words, the magnetic symmetry in the $`yz`$ plane is the same for all magnetization directions. Along the wire the situation is different: the magnetic symmetry operations $`E`$ and $`\sigma _x`$, which conserve $`M^x`$, force $`M^y`$=$`M^z`$=0 and consequently, we must have $`\stackrel{}{M}_L\stackrel{}{M}_S`$ for a magnetization along the wire.

From Table 1 we further observe that both the Co spin and orbital moment are considerably enhanced with respect to the values for bulk hcp Co trygg95 , as expected for a dimensionality reduction leading to a more atomic-like configuration. The calculated $`M_S`$ and $`M_L`$ of Co agree well with those of Ref. komelj02, , where however only $`z`$ axis collinear components of $`M_S`$ and $`M_L`$ were considered. The Co $`M_S`$ does not change when the supercell is enlarged from model I to model II, but small changes in the orbital moments exist. Also, there is a sizable magnetization induced on the nearest neighbor Pt atoms, which is decreasing rapidly for the Pt atoms farther away (see Fig. 1). The size of supercell model II appears thus sufficient to separate the magnetic Co wires and to ensure the Pt magnetization decrease away from the step edge.

Next, we turn to the salient aspect of our investigation, the MAE calculations. We used the so-called “magnetic force theorem” to compute the MAE: starting from self-consistent charge and spin densities calculated for the spin moment aligned along the $`z`$ axis, the $`M_S`$ is rotated over angles $`\theta `$ or $`\varphi `$ (see Fig. 1) and a single energy band calculation is performed for the new orientation of $`M_S`$. The MAE, which is defined as a directional total-energy difference, is computed from the change in one-electron energies $`E`$ due to the $`M_S`$ rotation, i.e., MAE $`=E(\theta ,\varphi )E(\theta =0,\varphi =0)`$ details2 . The calculated MAE is shown in Fig. 2 for supercell II.

For a rotation of $`M_S`$ over an angle $`\theta `$ in the $`xz`$ plane the MAE dependence on $`\theta `$ is symmetric, reflecting the mirror symmetry $`\sigma _x`$, with the easy axis pointing along the $`z`$ direction and the hard axis directed along the Co wire. A MAE difference between the hard and easy axes of $``$3 meV/Co ($``$1 meV/Co for model I) is calculated, exceeding by an order of magnitude the dipolar shape anisotropy balazs .

For a rotation of $`M_S`$ over an angle $`\varphi `$ in the $`yz`$ plane, we obtain a peculiar asymmetric dependence of the MAE on $`\varphi `$ (see Fig. 2), reflecting the absence of any particular symmetry imposed direction in the $`yz`$ plane. The computed easy axis is rotated away from the $`z`$ axis by $`18^{}`$ towards the Pt step edge, in semi-quantitative agreement with the experimentally observed anomalous $`43^{}`$ easy axis gambardella02 . The calculated direction of the hard axis of $`72^{}`$ corresponds reasonably with the experimental value of $`50^{}`$ also. A notable difference appears for MAE calculations adopting model I: while the calculated MAE($`\varphi ,\theta =0`$) curve is asymmetric as well, the minimum occurs at $`50^{}`$ (not shown), thus oriented outwards from the Pt step. In contrast to supercell model II the toy model I is not valid even qualitatively for the MAE. Increasing the supercell size from model I to II improves the MAE, therefore an even better agreement with experiment can be expected for even larger supercells. The MAE difference between the hard and easy axes is $``$4.45 meV/Co for model II ($``$1.6 meV/Co for model I), which is of the same magnitude as the experimentally estimated MAE of $``$2 meV/Co at $`T=45`$ K gambardella02 . We expect a definitely higher experimental MAE and thus an even better agreement with model II for $`T=0`$ K. We note that previous studies showed the conventional LSDA theory to be quite successful for describing the uniaxial MAE of hcp Co and CoPt bulk alloy shick03 ; oppeneer98 . Here we demonstrate that the LSDA also provides a reasonable explanation of the MAE of the Co wire at the Pt step edge.

Although the LSDA works well for MAE calculations, it does not give large enough values for the orbital moment trygg95 . For example, the LSDA calculated $`M_L`$ of hcp Co is with 0.08 $`\mu _B`$ only half the experimental value of 0.14 $`\mu _B`$. The situation is even worse for the Co wire. Comparing the LSDA calculated $`M_L`$ $``$0.15 $`\mu _B`$ (see Table I) with the experimental $`M_L`$ of $`0.68\pm 0.05`$ $`\mu _B`$ gambardella02  indicates that the LSDA value is too small by a factor of 4.5! Recently, the orbital-polarization correction (LSDA+OP) was applied to a Co wire on Pt, leading to a Co $`M_L`$ of 0.92 $`\mu _B`$ komelj02 , but this value overshoots the experimental data.

To improve the $`M_L`$ one needs to account for electron-correlation effects beyond the conventional LSDA, which is currently a challenging problem of ab initio relativistic energy-band theory. To estimate this effect, we use here the semi-model but physically transparent LSDA+$`U`$ method, which was shown to correct the Co $`M_L`$ of both hcp Co and CoPt alloy with a single choice of the Coulomb $`U`$ ($`=1.7`$ eV) and exchange $`J`$ ($`=0.91`$ eV) parameters shick03 . Using the same $`U`$ and $`J`$, we compute $`M_L^z`$= 0.45 $`\mu _B`$ for supercell II when $`M_S`$ is along the $`z`$ axis ($`M_L^z=`$ 0.32 $`\mu _B`$ for model I). These values are still smaller than the experiment but we expect a larger $`M_L`$ with a further increase of the supercell, due to a related Co $`d`$-states localization. We could of course obtain better agreement with experiment by another choice of $`U`$ and $`J`$, but we prefer to use the “universal” values found in Ref. shick03, , treating thus the $`U`$ of metallic Co as a transferable, atom specific quantity. The Co spin moment hardly changes, from 2.13 to 2.18 $`\mu _B`$ when the $`U`$ is included. We note, that in the LSDA+$`U`$ method the MAE can be computed only from total energies, as it is incompatible with the force theorem. It will require highly accurate self-consistent calculations for the $`M_S`$ rotated over different angle $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, something which is numerically not a practicable approach.

To understand how the enlargement of the Co $`M_L`$ in the LSDA+$`U`$ approach comes about we consider the spin and orbitally resolved $`3d`$ densities of states (DOS) of model II, which are shown in Fig. 3. The spin-resolved LSDA DOS reveals a substantial narrowing of the band width from $``$6 eV for hcp Co to $``$4 eV for the Co wire as well as a moderate increase of the spin-splitting (Fig. 3a), as is expected for the reduced Co coordination. When the $`U`$ is included the $`3d`$ DOS broadens somewhat and significant changes in the spin-resolved DOS occur. Since the spin-up Co $`d`$-band is fully occupied, only changes of the spin-down band are essential for the $`M_L`$ enhancement. The spin-down $`m`$-resolved $`3d`$ DOS of the Co wire is shown in Fig. 3b. A major change in the LSDA+$`U`$ DOS appears as an upward shift within the $`|;m=0`$ DOS, which, however, does not contribute to $`M_L`$. The major contribution to the increase of $`M_L`$ originates from an upward shift within the $`|;m=2`$ and a downward shift of the $`|;m=+2`$ DOS. Also, downward shifts of the $`|;m=\pm 1`$ states take place, but these contribute only secondarily to the $`M_L`$ change. Thus, we conclude that the $`M_L`$ enhancement with the Coulomb $`U`$ is brought about by modifications of the in-plane spin-down $`x^2y^2`$ and $`xy`$ orbital densities and much less affected by changes in the out-of-plane $`xz,yz`$, and $`3z^2r^2`$ orbital densities. The in-plane orbitals are affected most by the missing Pt atoms at one edge side and thus most liable to localize.

In conclusion, employing first-principles calculations we have provided a microscopic picture of the anomalous magnetocrystalline anisotropy of a quasi-1D Co chain at the Pt(111) step edge. The essential symmetry breaking at the step edge leads to noncollinear spin and orbital moments as well as to an easy magnetization axis oriented at a peculiar angle towards the Pt step edge. LSDA theory is found to provide a rather good explanation of the magnetocrystalline anisotropy, yet a considerable improvement of the Co orbital moment is obtained with LSDA+$`U`$ calculations.
We gratefully acknowledge discussions with P. Gambardella, P. Novák, H. Eschrig, and W.E. Pickett. This work was supported by the State of Saxony and the Grant Agency of the ASCR Grant A1010214.


text:
# Symmetric Calorons

## 1 Introduction

Calorons are finite-action self-dual gauge fields in four dimensions, which are periodic in one of the four coordinates. Call the periodic coordinate $`t`$, with period $`\beta `$. Special cases include instantons on $`𝐑^4`$ (where $`\beta \mathrm{}`$) and BPS monopoles (where the gauge field is independent of $`t`$). The holonomy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the gauge field in the $`t`$-direction is a map from $`𝐑^3`$ to the gauge group, and as such can serve as an approximation to Skyrmions . Calorons therefore provide a link between monopoles, instantons and Skyrmions.

Skyrmions resemble polyhedral shells, invariant under appropriate subgroups of the three-dimensional rotation group O(3) . The idea of producing approximate Skyrmion configurations as instanton holonomy has motivated several studies of instantons invariant under such groups . Finally, there are symmetric monopoles  which have the same polyhedral shape as the Skyrmions of corresponding charge, suggesting a kinship between Skyrmions and monopoles . So symmetric calorons, namely calorons invariant under subgroups $`G`$ of O(3) (rotations about the $`t`$-axis), are relevant in this context. This Letter demonstrates the existence of symmetric calorons of charge $`N`$, for $`N4`$; they include, as limiting cases, symmetric monopoles and symmetric instantons.

Large classes of calorons were described some years ago ; of these, only the $`N=1`$ case admits the relevant symmetry. So one needs more general solutions. There is a construction (the ADHMN construction) which generates caloron solutions , possibly all of them (see  for a recent analysis). In the last few years, this construction has been used to investigate and interpret caloron solutions, especially those for which the holonomy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is non-trivial at spatial infinity ; but this recent work was not concerned with symmetric solutions as such. In this Letter, we shall see how symmetric calorons arise from the ADHMN construction.

## 2 Calorons, Monopoles and Skyrmions

We take the gauge group to be SU(2) throughout. The standard coordinates on $`𝐑^4`$ are denoted $`x^\mu =(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4)=(x^j,t)`$; let $`r`$ be the quantity defined by $`r^2=x^jx^j`$. The gauge potential $`A_\mu `$ is anti-hermitian, and the corresponding gauge field is $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$. A gauge transformation acts as $`A_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^1A_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^1_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A caloron  is a gauge field with the following properties:

* $`A_\mu (x^\alpha )`$ is periodic in $`x^4=t`$, with period $`\beta `$ (in some gauge);
* $`A_\mu (x^\alpha )`$ is smooth everywhere (in some gauge);
* $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is self-dual: $`F_{\mu \nu }={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$;
* $`tr(F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })=O(1/r^4)`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

A special case of this is where $`A_\mu `$ is independent of $`x^4=t`$; this is a monopole, where we make the usual interpretation of $`A_t`$ as a Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The holonomy (or Wilson loop)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(x^j)=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left[_0^\beta A_t(x^j,t)𝑑t\right]$$
(1)
in the $`t`$-direction takes values in the gauge group; under a periodic gauge transformation, it transforms as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(x^j)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^j,0)^1\mathrm{\Omega }(x^j)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^j,0).$$
(2)
The quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x^j)`$ is, in general, non-trivial at spatial infinity ; but for the examples below, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x^j)`$ tends to a constant group element (in fact the identity) as $`r\mathrm{}`$. Such a field may be viewed as an approximate Skyrmion configuration; the Skyrmion number is the degree of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the normalized Skyrme energy is

$$E=\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}\left\{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}tr(L_jL_j){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{16}}tr([L_i,L_j][L_i,L_j])\right\}d^3x,$$
(3)
where $`L_j=\mathrm{\Omega }^1_j\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Provided $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is asymptotically trivial, the topological charge (caloron number)

$$N=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}_0^\beta 𝑑td^3xtr\left(\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }\right)$$
(4)
is an integer, and is equal to the Skyrmion number of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . In the $`t`$-independent (monopole) case, it is also the monopole number, provided we take $`\beta `$ to be related to the asymptotic norm of the Higgs field by

$$\frac{1}{2}tr\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}\right)^2=\left(\frac{\pi }{\beta }\right)^2.$$
(5)
A large number of caloron solutions can be generated  by the Corrigan-Fairlie-’tHooft  or Jackiw-Nohl-Rebbi  ansatz. These express the gauge potential in terms of a solution $`\varphi `$ (periodic, in the caloron case) of the four-dimensional Laplace equation. For example, the component $`A_t`$ is given by

$$A_t=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\left(_j\mathrm{log}\varphi \right)\sigma _j$$
(6)
where $`\sigma _j`$ are the Pauli matrices. For the JNR solutions one has $`\varphi 0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, whereas for the CF’tH solutions one has $`\varphi 1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. In the case of instantons on $`𝐑^4`$, one regards the CF’tH solutions as being limiting cases of the JNR solutions, but for calorons it is the other way round: to produce an $`N`$-caloron in JNR form, one uses a $`\varphi `$ with $`N`$ poles (not $`N+1`$ as for instantons), and this is a limiting case of the CF’tH form with $`N`$ poles.

To illustrate this, let us review the $`N=1`$ case. The 1-caloron (with trivial holonomy at infinity) is generated  by the 1-pole function

$$\varphi =1+\frac{W^2\mathrm{sinh}(\mu r)}{2r[\mathrm{cosh}(\mu r)\mathrm{cos}(\mu t)]},$$
(7)
where $`\mu =2\pi /\beta `$, and $`W>0`$ is a constant. This caloron is spherically-symmetric; it depends on the period $`\beta `$ and on the parameter $`W`$. The gauge field is not affected by an overall scale factor in $`\varphi `$, so the $`W\mathrm{}`$ limit of (7) gives, in effect, the JNR-type solution with

$$\varphi =\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\mu r)}{2r[\mathrm{cosh}(\mu r)\mathrm{cos}(\mu t)]};$$
(8)
this corresponds to a 1-caloron which is in fact gauge-equivalent to the 1-monopole . Another way of viewing things is to use the dimensionless combination $`\theta =\beta /W^2`$: for $`\theta =0`$ (or $`W\mathrm{}`$) we get the 1-monopole, while for $`\theta \mathrm{}`$ (or $`\beta \mathrm{}`$) we get the 1-instanton on $`𝐑^4`$. In other words, we have a one-parameter family of spherically-symmetric calorons, with the 1-monopole at one end and the 1-instanton at the other end. The holonomy $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x^j)`$ can be computed exactly in this case ; if one restricts to spherically-symmetric gauges, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is actually gauge-invariant. The Skyrme energy (3) of this configuration $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ attains a minimum for $`\theta 7`$; this minimum is only slightly less  than the value obtained from 1-instanton holonomy.

It is straightforward to produce spherically-symmetric calorons of higher charge in this way: for example, the function

$$\varphi =1+\frac{W^2\mathrm{sinh}(\mu r)}{2r[\mathrm{cosh}(\mu r)\mathrm{cos}(\mu t)]}+\frac{\widehat{W}^2\mathrm{sinh}(\mu r)}{2r[\mathrm{cosh}(\mu r)\mathrm{cos}(\mu (tt_0))]}$$
(9)
generates a spherically-symmetric 2-caloron, for any $`t_0(0,\beta )`$ and $`W,\widehat{W}>0`$. The holonomy of this is a spherically-symmetric (hedgehog) 2-Skyrmion configuration (cf. ). The limits $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ and $`W,\widehat{W}\mathrm{}`$ are both regular; the former is a 2-instanton, but the latter is not a 2-monopole (since, unlike in the $`N=1`$ case, the $`t`$-dependence cannot be gauged away). It seems very unlikely that the CF’tH ansatz can yield any examples (other than for $`N=1`$) of symmetric calorons having symmetric monopoles as a limiting case — for that, one needs more general solutions. A way of generating such solutions is described in the next section.

## 3 The ADHMN Construction for Calorons

There is a construction which produces caloron solutions ; for gauge group SU(2), and for calorons which have trivial holonomy at infinity, it is as follows. As before, $`N`$ is a postive integer which will turn out to be the caloron charge, and $`\beta `$ is a positive number which will turn out to be the caloron period. It is convenient to use quaternion notation, with a quaternion $`q`$ being represented by the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`q^4+\mathrm{i}q^j\sigma ^j`$; in particular, $`x^\mu `$ corresponds to the quaternion $`x=t+\mathrm{i}x^j\sigma ^j`$. The unit quaternion ($`q^4=1`$, $`q^j=0`$) is denoted 1.

The Nahm data consists of four hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrix functions $`T_\mu (s)`$, and an $`N`$-row-vector $`W`$ of quaternions, such that $`T_\mu (s)`$ is periodic in the real variable $`s`$ with period $`2\pi /\beta `$, and the Nahm equation

$$\frac{d}{ds}T_j\mathrm{i}[T_4,T_j]\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\epsilon _{jkl}[T_k,T_l]=\frac{1}{2}tr_2\left(\sigma _jW^{}W\right)\delta (s\pi /\beta )$$
(10)
is satisfied. The trace is over quaternions, so the right-hand-side is an $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrix (as is the left-hand-side). Given such data, we construct a caloron as follows. Let $`U(s,x)`$ be an $`N`$-column-vector of quaternions, and $`V(x)`$ a single quaternion, such that

1. $`U(s,x)`$ is periodic in $`s`$ with period $`2\pi /\beta `$;
2. $`U(s,x+\beta )=U(s,x)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\beta s)`$;
3. $`V(x+\beta )=V(x)`$;
4. $`_{\pi /\beta }^{\pi /\beta }U(s,x)^{}U(s,x)𝑑s+V(x)^{}V(x)=\mathrm{𝟏}`$;
5. $`U`$ and $`V`$ satisfy the linear equation

$$\frac{d}{ds}U\left[\mathrm{i}(T_4+tI_n)\mathrm{𝟏}+I_nx^j\sigma ^j+T_j\sigma ^j\right]U=\mathrm{i}W^{}V\delta (s\pi /\beta ).$$
(11)

Note that both $`T_j`$ and $`U`$ are periodic in $`s`$, and have jump discontinuities at one value of $`s`$, which we have taken to be $`s=\pi /\beta `$. The discontinuities could equally well be located anywhere else; the choice in (10) and (11) is for later convenience. Note also that the overall quaternionic phase of the $`N`$-vector $`W=[W_1\mathrm{}W_N]`$ is irrelevant; so we may, without loss of generality, take $`W_1`$ to be real.

The pair $`(U,V)`$ determines the caloron gauge potential according to

$$A_\mu =V(x)^{}_\mu V(x)+_{\pi /\beta }^{\pi /\beta }U(s,x)^{}_\mu U(s,x)ds.$$
(12)
The freedom in $`(U,V)`$ is $`UU\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`VV\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a quaternion satisfying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$; this corresponds exactly to the gauge freedom in $`A_\mu `$.

By contrast, the usual formulation of the ADHMN construction for monopoles involves three matrices $`T_j(s)`$, satisfying

$$\frac{d}{ds}T_j\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\epsilon _{jkl}[T_k,T_l]=0.$$
(13)
In this case, the $`T_j(s)`$ are not periodic in $`s`$, but rather are smooth on the open interval $`|s|<1`$, with poles at the endpoints $`s=\pm 1`$. (The length of this interval sets the scale of the monopole.) In addition, the $`T_j`$ satisfy

$$T_j(s)=T_j(s)^t.$$
(14)
The idea here is that given a solution of the monopole Nahm equation (13), one may re-interpret it as a solution of the caloron Nahm equation (10), with $`T_4=0`$ and with a suitable choice of $`W`$, namely such that

$$T_j(\pi /\beta )T_j(\pi /\beta )=\frac{1}{2}tr_2\left(\sigma _jW^{}W\right).$$
(15)
We need to take $`\beta >\pi `$, so that the $`T_j`$ are bounded for $`|s|\pi /\beta `$. The symmetric part of $`T_j`$ can, because of (14), be regarded as a continuous periodic function on $`[\pi /\beta ,\pi /\beta ]`$; while the antisymmetric part of $`T_j`$ has a jump discontinuity as in (15).

The limit $`\beta \pi `$ is the original monopole, while the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ gives an instanton on $`𝐑^4`$. This instanton limit works as follows. For $`\beta \pi `$, we are solving (11) on the small interval $`|s|\pi /\beta `$, so we may approximate the solution as $`U(s)=U_0+U_1s`$. Equation (15) then gives

$$U_1=(it+x^j\sigma ^j+𝒯_j\sigma ^j)U_0=\frac{\mathrm{i}\beta }{2\pi }W^{}V,$$
(16)
where $`𝒯_j=T_j(0)`$, and where $`U_0`$ and $`V`$ satisfy the constraint

$$U_0^{}U_0+V(x)^{}V(x)=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(17)
If we write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\sqrt{\beta /2\pi }W`$, then this is exactly the ADHM construction  for instantons, with the ADHM matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }\\ x+\mathrm{i}𝒯_j\sigma ^j\end{array}\right].$$
(18)
This $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an $`(n+1)\times n`$ matrix of quaternions, satisfying the condition that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an $`n\times n`$ real matrix.

Let us now consider calorons which are symmetric under subgroups of the three-dimensional rotation group acting on $`x^j`$. For any rotation $`R`$, let $`R_2`$SU(2) denote the image of $`R`$ in the 2-dimensional irreducible representation of SO(3); in other words, $`R`$ acts on the quaternion $`x`$ according to $`xR_2^1xR_2`$. Similarly, let $`R_N`$ denote the image of $`R`$ in the $`N`$-dimensional irreducible representation of SO(3), and write $`\mathrm{\Theta }_R=R_NR_2`$. A monopole is invariant  under the group $`G`$SO(3) iff

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_R^1(T_j\sigma ^j)\mathrm{\Theta }_R=T_j\sigma ^j$$
(19)
for all $`RG`$. For the corresponding caloron to be $`G`$-invariant, we need an additional condition on $`W`$, and this is easily seen (from (10) and (11)) to be

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_RW^{}=W^{}\tau _R$$
(20)
where $`\tau _R`$, for each $`RG`$, is some quaternionic phase (namely a quaternion with $`\tau _R^{}\tau _R=\mathrm{𝟏}`$). So given a symmetric monopole, there is a family of symmetric calorons parametrized by the solutions $`W`$ (if there are any) of (15) and (20). In the $`N=1`$ case, for example, we have $`G=`$SO(3) (spherical symmetry) and $`T_j=0`$; and $`W`$ is an arbitrary positive constant, which is precisely the parameter appearing in the expression (7). In the next section, we shall see that analogous one-parameter families of symmetric calorons exist for $`N=2`$, $`3`$ and $`4`$.

## 4 Symmetric Examples for $`N=2,3,4`$

We begin with the $`N=2`$ case, taking $`G=`$SO(2) (corresponding to rotations about the $`x^2`$-axis). The solution of (13) which generates the axially-symmetric $`N=2`$ monopole is $`T_j(s)=f_j(s)\sigma _j`$ (not summed over $`j`$), where

$$f_1=f_3=\frac{\pi }{4}\mathrm{sec}(\pi s/2),f_2=\frac{\pi }{4}\mathrm{tan}(\pi s/2).$$
(21)
Then (15) and (20) have a solution $`W`$ which is unique (given that $`W_1`$ is real), namely

$$W=\lambda [\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2],\mathrm{where}\lambda =\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{2\beta }\right)}.$$
(22)
So we get a family of $`N=2`$ axially-symmetric caloron solutions, depending on the parameter $`\beta >\pi `$. It is possible to solve (11) analytically, and hence obtain exact expressions for the caloron (cf.  for the monopole case), although the expressions are rather complicated. The limit $`\beta \pi `$ is the 2-monopole, and $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ is a 2-instanton on $`𝐑^4`$, generated by the ADHM matrix

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\pi }{4}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}& \mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}\sigma _2\\ \mathrm{i}\sigma _3& \mathrm{i}\sigma _1\\ \mathrm{i}\sigma _1& \mathrm{i}\sigma _3\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ x& 0\\ 0& x\end{array}\right].$$
(23)
This axially-symmetric 2-instanton can be obtained in the JNR form, and its holonomy was used to approximate the minimum-energy 2-Skyrmion . The holonomy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the caloron gives a one-parameter family of axially-symmetric 2-Skyrmion configurations; as in the $`N=1`$ case, this gives an approximation to the true Skyrmion which is better than the instanton one, but only marginally so.

Let us now consider the $`N=3`$ case. There is a 3-monopole with tetrahedral symmetry , corresponding to the following Nahm data. (Note that the $`T_j`$ in  have to be multiplied by a factor of $`\mathrm{i}`$ to agree with the conventions used here.) Define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=2\mathrm{i}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right],\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=2\mathrm{i}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right],\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=2\mathrm{i}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right],$$
(24)
and

$$S_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right],S_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right],S_3=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right].$$
(25)
Then $`T_j(s)=x(s)\mathrm{\Sigma }_j+y(s)S_j`$, where

$$x(s)=\frac{\omega \mathrm{}^{}(u)}{12\mathrm{}(u)},y(s)=\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{3}\mathrm{}(u)},$$
(26)
with $`u=\omega (s+3)/3`$ and $`\omega =\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/6)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/3)/(4\sqrt{\pi })`$. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Weierstrass p-function satisfying $`\mathrm{}^{}(u)^2=4\mathrm{}(u)^3+4`$. The unique solution of (15), with $`W_1>0`$, is

$$W=\lambda [\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{i}\sigma _3\mathrm{i}\sigma _2],\mathrm{where}\lambda =2\sqrt{x(\pi /\beta )}.$$
(27)
Explicit calculation then verifies that (20) is satisfied for each of the elements of the tetrahedral group. So we have a one-parameter family of tetrahedrally-symmetric 3-calorons, interpolating between the tetrahedral 3-monopole and a tetrahedrally-symmetric 3-instanton. The latter is generated by the ADHM matrix

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{3}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{i}\sigma _3& \mathrm{i}\sigma _2\\ 0& \mathrm{i}\sigma _3& \mathrm{i}\sigma _2\\ \mathrm{i}\sigma _3& 0& \mathrm{i}\sigma _1\\ \mathrm{i}\sigma _2& \mathrm{i}\sigma _1& 0\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ x& 0& 0\\ 0& x& 0\\ 0& 0& x\end{array}\right].$$
(28)
A tetrahedrally-symmetric 3-instanton can also be obtained in JNR form, and its holonomy was used to approximate the minimum-energy 3-Skyrmion .

For the final example, we consider 4-calorons with cubic symmetry (so $`G`$ is the 24-element octahedral group). The Nahm data in  and  do not satisfy (14), and so we have to change to a basis in which (14) holds. Define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{3}& 0& \mathrm{i}& 1\\ 0& \sqrt{3}& 1& \mathrm{i}\\ \mathrm{i}& 1& \sqrt{3}& 0\\ 1& \mathrm{i}& 0& \sqrt{3}\end{array}\right],\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{3}& 1& \mathrm{i}\\ \sqrt{3}& 0& \mathrm{i}& 1\\ 1& \mathrm{i}& 0& \sqrt{3}\\ \mathrm{i}& 1& \sqrt{3}& 0\end{array}\right],$$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}2& \mathrm{i}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{i}& 2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 2& \mathrm{i}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{i}& 2\end{array}\right],S_1=2\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\sqrt{3}& 0& 4\mathrm{i}& 1\\ 0& \sqrt{3}& 1& 4\mathrm{i}\\ 4\mathrm{i}& 1& \sqrt{3}& 0\\ 1& 4\mathrm{i}& 0& \sqrt{3}\end{array}\right],$$

$$S_2=2\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& \sqrt{3}& 1& 4\mathrm{i}\\ \sqrt{3}& 0& 4\mathrm{i}& 1\\ 1& 4\mathrm{i}& 0& \sqrt{3}\\ 4\mathrm{i}& 1& \sqrt{3}& 0\end{array}\right],S_3=4\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2\mathrm{i}& 0& 0\\ 2\mathrm{i}& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 2\mathrm{i}\\ 0& 0& 2\mathrm{i}& 1\end{array}\right].$$

Then $`T_j(s)=x(s)\mathrm{\Sigma }_j+y(s)S_j`$, where

$$y=\frac{\omega _2}{10\mathrm{}^{}(u)},x=[5\mathrm{}(u)^23]y,$$
(29)
with $`\omega _2=(1+\mathrm{i})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/4)^2/(4\sqrt{2\pi })`$ and $`u=\omega _2(s+1)/2`$. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Weierstrass p-function satisfying $`\mathrm{}^{}(u)^2=4\mathrm{}(u)^34\mathrm{}(u)`$. The condition (14) follows from the relations

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}x(s)\\ y(s)\end{array}\right]=\frac{1}{5}\left[\begin{array}{cc}3& 16\\ 1& 3\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}x(s)\\ y(s)\end{array}\right].$$
(30)
Then, as before, (15) has a unique solution

$$W=\lambda [\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{i}\sigma _3\mathrm{i}\sigma _1\mathrm{i}\sigma _2],\mathrm{where}\lambda =\sqrt{2x(\pi /\beta )+16y(\pi /\beta )};$$
(31)
and one may check explicitly that (20) is satisfied for each element of the octahedral group. So here we have a one-parameter family of octahedrally-symmetric 4-calorons, interpolating between the cubic (octahedrally-symmetric) 4-monopole and an octahedrally-symmetric 4-instanton. This instanton is generated by the ADHM matrix

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{|\omega _2|}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{i}\sigma _3& \mathrm{i}\sigma _1& \mathrm{i}\sigma _2\\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _1\mathrm{i}\sigma _3& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _1\\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _1\mathrm{i}\sigma _3& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _1& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2\\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _1& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _1+\mathrm{i}\sigma _3& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2\\ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _1& \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _2& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{i}\sigma _1+\mathrm{i}\sigma _3\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ x& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& x& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& x& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& x\end{array}\right],$$
(32)
which may be compared with the symmetric 4-instanton example described in .

In conclusion, we have seen that, at least for charge $`N4`$, there is an intimate connection between symmetric monopoles, symmetric calorons, symmetric instantons, and (via holonomy) Skyrmions. Many open questions remain, of which the following are a few.

* Several more symmetric monopoles (of higher charge) are known — do all of these arise as limiting cases of calorons with the same symmetry? More generally, is it true that any symmetric monopole has to be a special case of a symmetric caloron?
* Similarly, does every symmetric instanton  extend to a family of symmetric calorons? Note that such families are much more general, in that there may not be a symmetric monopole at the ‘other end’.
* What is the role of harmonic maps, which are known to be related to symmetric monopoles and Skyrmions ? Does this involve the interpretation of calorons as monopoles with a loop group as their gauge group ?