text:
# A Note on Wandzura-Wilczek Relations

## Abstract

Wandzura-Wilczek (WW) relations between matrix-elements of bilocal light-ray operators have recently regained interest in connection with off-forward scattering processes. Originally derived for matrix elements over leading-twist operators, their generalization to off-forward and exclusive processes gets complicated by the presence of higher-twist operators that are total derivatives of leading-twist ones and do not contribute to forward-scattering. We demonstrate that, for exclusive matrix-elements, the inclusion of these operators into WW-relations is essential for fulfilling constraints imposed by the conformal symmetry of massless QCD.

preprint: CERN–TH/2001–055

The success of QCD as fundamental theory of strong interactions is intimately tied to its ability to describe hard exclusive and inclusive reactions, which has been tested in numerous experiments. In the corresponding kinematic regime, i.e. at large space-like virtualities, the relevant amplitudes are dominated by singularities on the light-cone, which, in the framework of a light-cone expansion LCE , can be described in terms of contributions of definite twist. The notion of twist, for local operators, has been introduced originally by Gross and Treiman GT  as twist = dimension$``$spin; it uses the irreducible representations of the orthochronous Lorentz-group and, as such, is a Lorentz-invariant concept; its generalization to non-local operators has been derived, in a mathematical rigorous way, in GL1 ; GL2  for tensor operators up to rank 2. This “geometric” twist relies solely on geometry, i.e. the properties of space-time, and is independent of the dynamics of any underlying quantum field theory. An alternative approach to twist-counting in hard reactions is based on the light-cone quantization formalism LCQ : quark fields $`\psi `$ are decomposed into “good” and “bad” components, so that $`\psi =\psi _++\psi _{}`$, with $`\psi _+=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{p}\widehat{z}\psi `$ and $`\psi _{}=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{z}\widehat{p}\psi `$ ($`\widehat{a}=a^\mu \gamma _\mu `$ for arbitrary 4-vectors $`a`$; $`p`$ and $`z`$ are light-like vectors with $`pz=1`$; $`z`$ defines the light-cone). As discussed in LCQ2 , a “bad” component $`\psi _{}`$ introduces one unit of twist; the physical interpretation of that “dynamical” twist is that, in the infinite momentum frame, it counts the powers of $`1/Q`$, with which the corresponding matrix-elements appear in physical scattering amplitudes; albeit being convenient, it is not a Lorentz-invariant concept and does not agree with the geometric twist. The mismatch between dynamical and geometric twist becomes relevant once power-suppressed higher-twist contributions are included and leads to so-called Wandzura-Wilczek (WW) relations between matrix-elements of operators of different dynamical, but identical geometric twist, the prototype of which has been derived by Wandzura and Wilczek for the nucleon distribution functions (DFs) $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ WW . A systematic study of WW-relations in forward-scattering has been done in Ref. gl01 . The decomposition into operators of definite geometric twist has also been exploited by Nachtmann to calculate exactly target-mass corrections to Bjorken-scaling in deep-inelastic forward-scattering NM . The successes of the purely geometric reasoning in applications to forward-scattering matrix-elements has prompted several authors to use it also for off-forward processes BRL  and exclusive parton distribution amplitudes (DAs)MLrhoWF ; MLWW . The purpose of this letter is to argue that, despite its apparent success in disentangling leading from higher-twist contributions to forward-scattering matrix-elements, the generalization of WW-relations to the non-forward and exclusive case requires the inclusion of operators of higher twist. These operators arise from the dynamics of the underlying quantum field theory or, more precisely, the equations of motion (EOM) and generate total translations. Their relevance for preserving gauge-invariance in deeply-virtual Compton-scattering has been discussed recently in gauge ; in this letter we demonstrate that, for exclusive processes, the inclusion of these operators is essential for fulfilling the constraints posed by the dynamical symmetry of the theory, i.e. the invariance under collinear conformal transformations in the case of massless QCD on the light-cone.

We center our discussion around the specific case of light vector-meson DAs of dynamical twist-3, which are relevant for describing light-cone dominated processes involving vector mesons like e.g. the DIS-exclusive process $`\gamma ^{}+NV+N`$ and can be expressed in terms of matrix-elements of gauge-invariant non-local operators sandwiched between the vacuum and the meson state, $`0|\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }[x,x]d(x)|\rho ^{}(P),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a generic Dirac-matrix structure and $`[x,y]`$ denotes the path-ordered gauge-factor along the straight line connecting the points $`x`$ and $`y`$. Specifying to chiral-even DAs, one can decompose the relevant vector and axial-vector matrix-elements on the light-cone $`z^2=0`$ as MLrhoWF ; MLWW

$$\begin{array}{c}0|\overline{u}(z)\gamma _\mu [z,z]d(z)|\rho ^{}(P,\lambda )=f_\rho m_\rho _1^1d\xi [p_\mu \frac{e^{(\lambda )}z}{pz}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(\xi )e_0(i\zeta \xi )\hfill \\ +e_\mu ^{(\lambda )}\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(\xi )e_1(i\zeta \xi )+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}(\xi )[e_0(i\zeta \xi )e_1(i\zeta \xi )]\}\frac{1}{2}z_\mu \frac{e^{(\lambda )}z}{(pz)^2}m_\rho ^2\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)}(\xi )[e_0(i\zeta \xi )3e_1(i\zeta \xi )+2_0^1dte_1(i\zeta \xi t)]\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(\xi )[e_1(i\zeta \xi )2_0^1dte_1(i\zeta \xi t)]+4\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}[e_1(i\zeta \xi )_0^1dte_1(i\zeta \xi t)]\}],\\ 0|\overline{u}(z)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5[z,z]d(z)|\rho ^{}(P,\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}f_\rho m_\rho ϵ_\mu ^{\nu \alpha \beta }e_\nu ^{(\lambda )}p_\alpha z_\beta _1^1𝑑\xi \widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{(3)}(\xi )e_0(i\zeta \xi ),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(d)}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{(d)}`$ contain only contributions from geometric twist-$`d`$ and we use the following abbreviations:

$`e_\mu ^{(\lambda )}=e_\mu ^{(\lambda )}p_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}z}{pz}},\zeta =pz,e_0(i\zeta \xi )=e^{i\zeta \xi },e_1(i\zeta \xi )={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{i\zeta \xi t}.`$
The same matrix-elements can also be expressed in terms of contributions of definite dynamical twist as BBrhoWF ; BBKT

$`0|\overline{u}(z)\gamma _\mu [z,z]d(z)|\rho ^{}(P,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`f_\rho m_\rho {\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\xi e^{i\xi pz}[p_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}z}{pz}}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )+e_\mu ^{(\lambda )}\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{e^{(\lambda )}z}{(pz)^2}}m_\rho ^2\widehat{g}_3(\xi )],`$ (1)
$`0|\overline{u}(z)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5[z,z]d(z)|\rho ^{}(P,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_\rho m_\rho ϵ_\mu ^{\nu \alpha \beta }e_\nu ^{(\lambda )}p_\alpha z_\beta {\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\xi e^{i\xi pz}\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi );`$ (2)
$`\widehat{\varphi }_{}`$ has twist-2, $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v,a)}`$ (dynamical) twist-3 and $`\widehat{g}_3`$ has dynamical twist-4. The relation between the two sets of DAs is given by MLWW

$`\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\xi )`$ $``$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}(\xi ),`$
$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}(\xi )+{\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{\overset{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega }}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}\right)\left(\omega \right),`$
$`\widehat{g}_3(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)}(\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{\overset{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega }}\{(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}4\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}+3\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)})\left(\omega \right)`$
$`+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\omega }}\right)(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(2)}2\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(3)}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{(4)})\left(\omega \right)\},`$
$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )`$ $``$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}^{(3)}(\xi ).`$ (3)
Similar relations can be derived for chiral-odd DAs over the tensor and pseudoscalar currents.

At this point we do observe a one-to-one correspondence between the decomposition in terms of geometric twist DAs and DAs in dynamical twist: there are four functions each. A difference does occur, however, as soon as we include information on the dynamics of the theory. This information is twofold, and is encoded in the dynamical symmetries of the theory on the one hand and the equations of motion (EOM) on the other hand. As for massless QCD at light-like distances, the relevant symmetry is the invariance under collinear conformal transformations, i.e. the group SL(2,R)$``$SO(2,1), which is exact for the free theory and valid to leading order in the perturbative expansion x ; for not too small renormalization scales, the corresponding quantum number “conformal spin”, defined as 1/2 (dimension + spin projection onto the line $`z_\mu `$), is thus a good quantum number and allows a partial-wave expansion of the corresponding amplitudes BBKT ; in the limit $`\alpha _s0`$ one obtains the so-called asymptotic DAs, which are defined as the contribution with lowest conformal spin. Theoretical calculations of the non-asymptotic corrections to the $`\rho `$-meson DAs show that they are small already at scales $``$1 GeV BBrhoWF . The EOM, on the other hand, allow one to establish relations between e.g. bilinear operators of higher twist and trilinear operators of leading twist and serve to identify the dynamically independent degrees of freedom of a given DA BBKT . In particular it turns out that the basis of higher-twist DAs is overcomplete: the number of independent degrees of freedom is less than the number of independent Lorentz-structures. This observation is of course not new; to the best of our knowledge, the EOM have first been employed by Shuryak and Vainshtein EOM  in relation with the WW-decomposition WW  of the (dynamical twist-3) spin-dependent nucleon DF $`g_2`$,

$$g_2(x_B)=g_1(x_B)+_{x_B}^1\frac{dy}{y}g_1(y)+\overline{g}_2(x_B),$$
(4)
where $`g_1`$ is the leading-twist longitudinal spin DF and $`\overline{g}_2`$ is the geometric twist-3 part. The original derivation of Wandzura & Wilczek involved only quark-quark operators, but Shuryak and Vainshtein noted that, by virtue of the EOM, the operators relevant for $`\overline{g}_2`$ can be written as quark-quark-gluon operators whose matrix-elements are expected to be small and thus can be neglected.

In general, however, the EOM do not only involve quark-quark-gluon operators, but also quark-quark operators with total derivatives, schematically $`O^{(3)}=\stackrel{~}{O}^{(3),qqG}+\widehat{}^\mu O_\mu ^{(2)},`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{O}^{(3),qqG}`$ is an interaction-dependent operator and $`O^{(2,3)}`$ are quark-quark-correlation operators of geometric twist-2 and 3, respectively. The important point is now that, although the above relation of course respects the geometric twist, matrix-elements can blur this decomposition, which happens whenever the matrix-elements over total derivatives do not vanish, i.e. for exclusive processes and off-forward scattering, where the total derivative turns into a momentum (transfer). To be specific, let us quote the formulas for the geometric twist-3 part of the vector and axial-vector currents BBrhoWF ; string

$`\left[\overline{u}(z)\gamma _\mu (\gamma _5)d(z)\right]_{\mathrm{twist}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_s{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle _u^u}𝑑v\overline{u}(uz)\left[u\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }(vz)z^\nu \overline{)}z\gamma _5(\gamma _5)ivG_{\mu \nu }(vz)z^\nu \overline{)}z(\gamma _5)\right]d(uz)`$ (5)
$`+iϵ_\mu ^{\nu \alpha \beta }{\displaystyle _0^1}u𝑑uz_\nu \widehat{}_\alpha \left[\overline{u}(uz)\gamma _\beta \gamma _5(\gamma _5)d(uz)\right],`$
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluonic field strength, $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }=(1/2)ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }G^{\alpha \beta }`$ its dual, and $`\widehat{}_\alpha `$ is the derivative over the total translation:

$$\widehat{}_\alpha \left[\overline{u}(z)\gamma _\beta d(z)\right]\frac{}{y_\alpha }\left[\overline{u}(z+y)\gamma _\beta d(z+y)\right]|_{y0}.$$

We would like to stress that, from the group-theoretical point of view, Eq. (5) is a genuine geometric twist-3 relation. Taking matrix-elements and neglecting the manifestly interaction-dependent quark-quark-gluon operators, whose numerical contribution is small BBKT , one finds the “WW-type” relations BBrhoWF

$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{dWW}}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{\xi }{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\omega )}{1\omega }}+{\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\omega )}{1+\omega }},`$
$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a),\mathrm{dWW}}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{\xi }{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1\xi }{1\omega }}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\omega )+{\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1+\xi }{1+\omega }}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\omega ).`$
A comparison with (A Note on Wandzura-Wilczek Relations) reveals that $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}`$, although manifestly of geometric twist-3, has “inherited” twist-2 contributions from the total derivative; also $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}`$ contains such terms. The important point to note is that the above WW-relations are consistent with the conformal expansion in the sense that (a) inserting the asymptotic DA $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}^{\mathrm{as}}=3(1\xi ^2)/4`$ yields the asymptotic DAs

$$g_{}^{(v),\mathrm{as}}=\frac{3}{4}\left(1+\xi ^2\right),g_{}^{(a),\mathrm{as}}=\frac{3}{4}(1\xi ^2),$$
(7)
as required by conformal expansion, cf. Ref. BBKT , and that (b) contributions of higher conformal spin to $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}`$ translate into contributions of the same conformal spin to $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v,a)}`$.The interaction-dependent operators only contribute at non-leading conformal spin.

The above relations include the contribution of the twist-3 total-derivative operator in (5). What happens if, in the original spirit of WW, one only includes geometric twist-2 operators in the WW-relations? As shown in MLWW , one finds

$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{gWW}}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\omega }}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\omega ),`$
$`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a),\mathrm{gWW}}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
which, inserting $`\widehat{\varphi }_{}^{\mathrm{as}}`$, yields

$$\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{gWW}}(\xi )=\frac{3}{8}\left(\xi ^212\mathrm{ln}\frac{\xi }{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}\right),$$
(9)
which exhibits a logarithmic singularity at $`\xi =0`$.

These results are quite different from those obtained from conformal expansion. The argument of WW for neglecting the twist-3 operators, corroborated by Shuryak and Vainshtein, was that they are equivalent to quark-quark-gluon operators whose matrix-elements can be neglected numerically. This argument, however, does no longer hold in exclusive kinematics, where twist-3 operators with total derivatives induce contributions that are as large as those from twist-2. Thus, the contributions $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )=\widehat{g}_{}^{(v)}(\xi )\widehat{g}_{}^{(v),\mathrm{gWW}}(\xi )`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{}^{(a),\mathrm{tw3}}(\xi )=\widehat{g}_{}^{(a)}(\xi )`$ are not small numerically.

In addition we have demonstrated above that the geometric WW-relations violate the restrictions imposed by conformal symmetry and yield (artificial) singularities that are cancelled exactly by total-derivative operators of geometric twist-3. We conclude that analyses based on geometric twist-2 are of rather limited use in deriving WW-relations between DAs of different dynamical twist and that it is essential to include twist-3 operators containing total derivatives in order to preserve the symmetries of the theory. This result is complementary to that obtained in Ref. gauge  that twist-3 total-derivative operators are needed to restore gauge-invariance of physical amplitudes in off-forward kinematics.

Let us finally also comment on the possible extension of WW-relations to twist-4. At this order in the twist-expansion, trace-subtractions of leading twist-2 operators become relevant and give rise to two different types of relations: one gives the geometric twist-2 part of the dynamical twist-4 DA $`\widehat{g}_3`$ and was obtained in MLWW :

$$\widehat{g}_3^{\mathrm{tw2}}(\xi )=_\xi ^{\mathrm{sign}(\xi )}\frac{d\omega }{\omega }\left\{1+2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\xi }{\omega }\right)\right\}\widehat{\varphi }_{}(\omega ).$$
(10)
This expression shows again a logarithmic singularity that is not present in the full expression for $`\widehat{g}_3`$ obtained in BBT4  using the EOM. Trace-subtractions of the twist-2 operator also give rise to so-called “kinematical” target-mass corrections. For the forward-scattering case, contributions of this type have been considered by Nachtmann. For the exclusive case, the corresponding operators have been considered in excl ; tocome , and for off-forward scattering, the resummation has been done in BM . The relevance of such a procedure remains, however, unclear. For, in addition to the geometric mass-corrections, one also has also “dynamic” mass-corrections from operators $`x^{2n}^{2n}O^{(2)}`$ which are of geometric twist-$`(2n+2)`$ and such that are “hidden” in the twist-4 quark-quark-gluon operators entering by the EOM. This is the exact analogue of what happens at twist-3: decomposition of the relevant operators in terms of irreducible representations of the Lorentz-group gives only part of the information: the EOM have to be applied in order to obtain gauge- and conformal-invariant results. Indeed, the authors of BM  observe that their results for mass-corrections violate gauge-invariance. Dynamical mass-corrections have so far only been considered for the exclusive case, Ref. BBT4 . Again, it was not possible to formulate the twist-4 analogue of Eq. (5), with a clean separation of interaction-dependent and total-derivative terms; instead, one had to rely on a cumbersome local expansion that was used to obtain results for the next-to-leading order in the conformal expansion. Numerically, these corrections turned out to be relevant. We conclude that, at least for exclusive vector-meson DAs, a resummation of mass-corrections induced by trace-subtractions in the leading twist matrix element and the higher-twist operators containing total derivatives are relevant for a good approximation.

###### Acknowledgements.

P.B. is supported by DFG through a Heisenberg fellowship. M.L. acknowledges the Graduate College “Quantum field theory” of Leipzig University for financial support and the CERN/TH-division for support during his stay in Geneva.


format: text

text:
# HD-THEP-01-13 CERN-TH/2001-080 hep-ph/0103044 Hard Thermal Photon Production in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions

## 1 Introduction

Hard real photons are, as dileptons, promising for providing a signature of a quark-gluon plasma (QGP) possibly produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions . Direct photon spectra have been measured by the WA80 (upper limit) and the WA98 collaboration at the SPS  and further data is expected from the RHIC and LHC heavy-ion experiments . For theoretical investigations on the SPS direct photon data and on RHIC and LHC predictions, prompt and thermal photon production rates must be convoluted with the space-time evolution of the fireball, while photons from the decay of hadrons after freeze-out are already subtracted in the experimental analysis.

In this work, the present status of hard thermal photon production in a QGP and a hot hadron gas (HHG) is reviewed critically. Contributions from the QGP are presented with emphasis on bremsstrahlung processes that are illustrated for the first time in their corrected form. Next, the photon producing processes in the HHG are discussed and a conservative estimate of the thermal rate is given. The review of the rates is completed by addressing the question of quark-hadron duality. With the obtained insights, the recent estimates of the rates are employed together with the well-understood Bjorken hydrodynamics  to extract the essential features of the thermal and prompt photon yield in the phase transition scenario . Comparison with other theoretical work demonstrates the competence of the simple hydrodynamical model at SPS energies and substantiates subsequent inspections of the WA98 data on direct photon production in SPS $`158\text{GeV}`$ Pb+Pb collisions. For RHIC and LHC experiments, the rate estimations with the same hydrodynamical model are used to predict the $`p_T`$-range in which the QGP outshines the HHG.

## 2 Thermal Photon Production in the QGP

The production rate for hard ($`ET`$) thermal photons111In the experimentally interesting case $`ET`$ analytic expressions can be derived since e.g. Boltzmann distributions can be used for the outgoing partons . from an equilibrated QGP has been calculated in perturbative thermal QCD applying the hard thermal loop (HTL) resummation  to account for medium effects. The Compton scattering and $`q\overline{q}`$-annihilation contribution

$$E\frac{dN}{d^4xd^3p}|_{1loop}=0.0281\alpha \alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{0.23E}{\alpha _sT}\right)T^2e^{E/T},$$
(1)
is derived from the 1-loop HTL photon-polarisation tensor , while the contributions from bremsstrahlung,

$$E\frac{dN}{d^4xd^3p}|_{bremss}=0.0219\alpha \alpha _sT^2e^{E/T},$$
(2)
and $`q\overline{q}`$-annihilation with an additional scattering in the medium,

$$E\frac{dN}{d^4xd^3p}|_{q\overline{q}aws}=0.0105\alpha \alpha _sETe^{E/T},$$
(3)
are obtained from the 2-loop HTL photon-polarisation tensor , where all three rates are listed for a two-flavored ($`N_f=2`$) QGP. Surprisingly, the 2-loop rates, (2) and (3), show up at order $`\alpha \alpha _s`$ and enhance the spectrum from the QGP phase by about a factor of 3 in the experimentally relevant $`p_T`$-range. Since earlier investigations on the importance of bremsstrahlung processes in the QGP  employed the rates (2) and (3) multiplied erroneously by a factor of 4, we present this behavior for the first time in its corrected form.222Due to a miscalculation of the two $`N_f`$-dependent constants $`J_T`$ and $`J_L`$ (exactly a factor 4 too large) in , the derivation of the rates led to Eqs. (2) and (3) both multiplied by a factor of 4. In this way, an erroneous enhancement of the spectrum from the QGP phase by about one order of magnitude was found in the experimentally relevant $`p_T`$-range . The enhancement is anticipated by comparing the rates for fixed temperatures as shown in Fig. 1 and is documented in Fig. 2, where the thermal photon spectrum from the QGP, calculated in the model discussed below, is presented.333In the QGP rates, $`\alpha _s(T)=\frac{6\pi }{(332N_f)\mathrm{ln}(8T/T_c)}`$  is applied, where the number of flavors present in the QGP is set to $`N_f=2`$ and the transition temperature is set to $`T_c=170\text{MeV}`$. Traced back to strong collinear singularities , this 2-loop enhancement substantially increased the interest in higher loop contributions. In fact, for real photons the 3-loop contribution turns out to be of the same order in $`\alpha _s`$ as the 2-loop contribution . Since this is very likely the case for higher loop contributions as well, one can conclude that thermal photon production in the QGP is a non-perturbative mechanism that cannot be accessed in perturbative HTL resummed thermal field theory. Interestingly, ascribing the quarks a finite mean free path in the QGP, which simulates the Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal (LPM) effect, does not eliminate important non-perturbative aspects but helps to disarm the collinear singularities . This points at possible destructive interferences via the LPM effect that do not allow one to interpret the sum of the rates (1), (2), and (3) as a lower limit. Adding further uncertainties such as the $`g1`$ assumption in the HTL calculations contrasted with realistic values of the strong coupling, $`g=23`$, one must consider the sum of the rates (1), (2), and (3) only an educated guess. However, it is employed in this work as the best result available. Extensions to a QGP not in chemical equilibrium, which seems realistic at RHIC and LHC, can also be found .

## 3 Thermal Photon Production in the HHG

The thermal photon production in an equilibrated hot hadron gas (HHG) is computed in effective theories with hadronic couplings inferred from experiment. A first investigation based on a model Lagrangian describing the interaction of $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, and $`\eta `$ mesons with photons found dominant contributions from the reactions $`\pi \pi \rho \gamma `$ and $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$ and from the decays $`\omega \pi \gamma `$ and $`\rho \pi \pi \gamma `$ . By considering additionally the $`\pi \rho a_1\pi \gamma `$ reaction, a strong enhancement of the rate was observed . This triggered a more complete and consistent computation using an effective chiral Lagrangian with $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, and $`a_1`$ mesons. The result was an even higher rate due to the presence of the $`a_1`$ meson also in the $`\pi \pi \rho \gamma `$ and $`\rho \pi \pi \gamma `$ reactions . Keeping the strong dependence on the model Lagrangian and the uncertainties associated with medium effects in mind, the result parameterized in  supplemented by the $`\omega \pi \gamma `$ decay  can be considered as a conservative expression for the emissivity of the HHG. It is employed in this work using the formulas listed in the Appendix. For hard photons, $`E>1\text{GeV}`$, we found a rough estimate of this sum by multiplying the parameterization given in Eq. (18) of  by a factor of two

$$E\frac{dN}{d^4xd^3p}|_{had}=4.8T^{2.15}e^{1/(1.35TE)^{0.77}}e^{E/T},$$
(4)
where photon energy $`E`$ and temperature $`T`$ are to be given in GeV to obtain the rate in units of $`\text{fm}^4\text{GeV}^2`$. Results from other Lagrangians can be found in  and medium effects are investigated in , where a significant increase of the static rate is observed by dropping the in-medium meson masses that is, however, in part compensated in the spectrum through a consequent modification of the fireball evolution. Further, the influence of finite chemical potential , finite baryon density  and additional reactions involving $`a_1`$, $`b_1`$, $`K_1`$, and other strange mesons  have been considered but are neglected in this work.

## 4 Quark-Hadron Duality

In order to test the hypothesis of quark-hadron duality in photon production , we compare the discussed QGP and HHG hard thermal photon rates for two fixed temperatures, $`T=150`$ and $`200\text{MeV}`$, as shown in Fig. 3, where the solid and dashed lines indicate the QGP and the HHG contributions respectively.

For temperatures between $`150\text{MeV}`$ and $`200\text{MeV}`$, an energy window can be found, where the steeper QGP and the flatter HHG emissivities cross. Considering the uncertainties in the rates, the validity of the classic statement ’the hadron gas shines as brightly as the quark-gluon plasma’  can neither be confirmed nor be ruled out, at least in a certain temperature regime, by taking into account the 2-loop QGP processes and the $`a_1`$ meson in the HHG. However, as indicated by Fig. 3, there is no reason to assume that the photon production rates from the two phases coincide at all temperatures. But even if the rates of the two phases agree in the relevant temperature regime, the spectrum might be changed by the presence of the QGP due to a different space-time evolution.

## 5 Thermal Photon Spectrum

The observable quantity is the spectrum of direct photons which is calculated theoretically by convoluting the prompt and thermal photon rates with the space-time evolution of the fireball produced in heavy-ion collisions. Concentrating on the effects of the thermal photon rates, we describe the thermalized collision phase in Bjorken-1+1-hydrodynamics  taking an EOS with a first-order phase transition from a QGP, modelled by a massless two-flavored parton gas, to a HHG, modelled by a massless pion gas. This well-understood, simple approach allows us to demonstrate very clearly the influences of the rates on the spectrum, and interestingly, comparison with other work shows it to be as competent as 2+1 hydrodynamical models at least at SPS energies . This means that at SPS the transverse expansion has only minor effects on the photon production.

### 5.1 Comparison with other Work

The WA98 direct photon data analysis of Gallmeister et al. obtained in a model describing a spherically symmetric expansion  can be reproduced in the simple model with the discussed rates.444The $`\omega \pi \gamma `$ decay is not taken into account since electromagnetic meson decays were subtracted in the experimental analysis of the WA98 collaboration . By assuming a thermalization time of $`\tau _0=1\text{fm}`$ and equal initial, transition, and freeze-out temperatures of $`T_0=T_c=T_f=170\text{MeV}`$ as in , i.e. only a mixed phase, this single temperature value suffices to describe the WA98 data  when the prompt photon estimation of  is added.

It is also possible to reproduce the WA98 direct photon data analysis of Srivastava et al. , which does not necessitate prompt photons but instead initial conditions that are rather extreme for SPS, i.e. a very small thermalization time of $`\tau _0=0.2\text{fm}`$ and a very high initial temperature of $`T_0=335\text{MeV}`$. Since their analysis was performed using the 2-loop QGP rates by mistake multiplied by a factor of 4, even smaller thermalization times together with higher initial temperatures are demanded when applying the corrected 2-loop QGP rates. This is due to the relative importance of the QGP rates in the high $`p_T`$-range. Concentrating on a validity-check of the simple model, a comparison using the same erroneous rates is performed. While the QGP thermal photon spectrum obtained in our simple model matches directly the one of Srivastava et al. , we must increase the effective degrees of freedom in the ideal massless pion gas from the actual value of $`g_h=3`$ to an effective one of $`g_h=8`$ in order to achieve the fit in the HHG thermal photon spectrum. This points to the rich HHG EOS employed in  having a much stronger effect than transverse expansion.

### 5.2 Thermal Photon Spectrum from the QGP

These insights into the reliability of the simple model substantiate the QGP thermal photon spectrum calculated in this model and shown in Fig. 2 to illustrate the effect of 2-loop processes in the QGP. Displaying the spectrum not only for $`g_h=3`$ (left plot) but also for $`g_h=8`$ (right plot) demonstrates additionally the effect of a richer HHG EOS, which lowers the QGP thermal photon yield by reducing the lifetime of the mixed phase.

### 5.3 Comparison with WA98 Direct Photon Data

The total thermal photon spectrum emerging from the discussed rates in the simple model can be exploited by using the WA98 measurements of the direct photon yield  to specify upper limits on the initial temperature, $`T_0^{max}`$, reached in the SPS $`158\text{GeV}`$ Pb+Pb collisions. This is presented in Fig. 4.

For typical parameters $`\tau _0=1\text{fm}`$, $`T_c=170\text{MeV}`$, $`T_f=150\text{MeV}`$, nucleon number $`A=208`$ (corresponding to Pb + Pb collisions), projectile rapidity $`y_{nucl}=2.8`$ (corresponding to a center-of-mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=17\text{GeV}`$), and with an ideal massless pion gas of $`g_h=3`$ effective degrees of freedom, even with an initial temperature of $`T_0=T_c=170\text{MeV}`$ (dotted line) the computed spectrum exceeds the experimental limits at low $`p_T`$! Simulating the richer HHG EOS by setting $`g_h=8`$, the lifetime of the mixed and pure HHG phase drops, resulting in a decrease of the spectrum that brings back the possibility of having a phase transition scenario with $`T_0^{max}=220\text{MeV}`$ (short dashed line). By reducing the critical temperature to $`T_c=160\text{MeV}`$, the mean temperature is reduced enabling also for $`g_h=3`$ the phase transition scenario with $`T_0^{max}=175\text{MeV}`$ (solid line). For $`g_h=8`$ and $`T_c=160\text{MeV}`$, $`T_0^{max}=235\text{MeV}`$ (long dashed line) is found, which might be interpreted as an upper bound on the initial temperature reached in the SPS $`158\text{GeV}`$ Pb+Pb collisions.555Due to the mentioned possible destructive interferences via the LPM effect in the QGP, the presented $`T_0^{max}`$ values cannot represent rigid upper bounds. They rather indicate the magnitude and point to the relative differences caused by different model scenarios. However, the spectra supporting the phase transition from QGP to HHG cannot describe the direct photon data for $`p_T>2\text{GeV}`$ as shown in Fig. 4. This discrepancy in the high-$`p_T`$-region demonstrates that a significant prompt photon contribution is necessary for a theoretical explanation of the experimental results within the phase transition scenario.

### 5.4 Predictions for RHIC and LHC

Finally, we employ the simple model to extract predictions for RHIC and LHC. Although earlier comparisons with  revealed a more important transverse expansion , it is interesting to locate in the above approach the $`p_T`$-range in which the QGP outshines the HHG. Assuming a three-flavored QGP, the prefactors on the rhs in Eqs. (1), (2), and (3) become 0.0338, 0.0281, and 0.0135 respectively. Further, the SPS, RHIC, and LHC parameters of  are adopted as summarized in Tab. 1.

Figure 5 shows our results for the QGP, HHG, and sum of both contributions in the dashed, dotted, and solid lines respectively.

The spectra for $`g_h=3`$ are shown on the left and the ones for $`g_h=8`$ on the right. As a reference point, the SPS result obtained with the parameters of  is also presented. For $`g_h=3`$ ($`g_h=8`$), the QGP outshines the HHG for $`p_T>3.2\text{GeV}`$ ($`p_T>2.2\text{GeV}`$) at RHIC and for $`p_T>2.5\text{GeV}`$ ($`p_T>1.7\text{GeV}`$) at LHC, while at SPS photons from HHG dominate the spectrum for $`g_h=3`$ and $`g_h=8`$ at all $`p_T`$’s. Since the employed simple model does not describe deviations from chemical equilibrium, the reader is referred to , where this issue is addressed systematically and RHIC and LHC predictions are provided for the QGP photon emissivity.

## 6 Conclusion

We have discussed the hard thermal photon production in relativistic heavy ion collisions using the most recent estimates for the photon production rates from the QGP and the HHG. For the first time, the enhancement of the QGP thermal photon rate and yield due to bremsstrahlung processes was presented in its corrected form. The consideration of these processes hinted at the recently confirmed non-perturbative nature of thermal photon production in the QGP . The derivation of a reliable rate requires now new developments in thermal field theory . For thermal photon production in the HHG, the strong dependence on assumptions regarding the thermalized hadron species, their interactions, and the role of medium effects was emphasized. We identified the best estimates available for the QGP and HHG rates and presented a convenient parameterization for the total HHG rate. Using these estimates, we could find no indication of a quark-hadron duality in the photon production rate.

Integrating the rate estimations over the space-time evolution of the fireball modelled in Bjorken hydrodynamics, we obtained the thermal photon spectrum. Comparison with other models, which describe transverse expansion of the fireball, demonstrated the competence of the simple model for the phase transition scenario at SPS energies and substantiated the subsequent investigation of the WA98 direct photon data. We found that this experimental data allows no conclusion to be drawn about the existence of a QGP phase at SPS but can be explained by a conservative thermal source plus prompt photons. Finally, the simple model was employed also for RHIC and LHC energies and predicted a QGP outshining the HHG in the high-$`p_T`$-range. If this picture is not spoiled by transverse expansion and chemical non-equilibrium or covered by dominant prompt photon contributions, the RHIC and LHC experiments might see thermal photons from the QGP in a certain photon momentum range that could provide the desired signature of the QGP.

As RHIC is already taking data and LHC under construction, a reliable expression for the thermal photon production rate in the QGP is of utmost importance. Optimistically the final result could reveal photons to be a smoking gun for the production of the QGP. In order to reduce the uncertainties concerning the fireball evolution, we recommend a combined investigation of real photon, dilepton, and hadron spectra, similar to the one of Sollfrank et al. , in which aspects such as different EOS’s, finite baryon density, chemical non-equilibrium, and transverse expansion should be addressed in a systematic way. Once such an investigation is completed in accordance with the SPS data, it should be extended to RHIC and LHC energies to obtain serious predictions.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Munshi Mustafa for helpful and interesting discussions.

## Appendix

The employed rate for thermal photon production in the HHG is composed of the exact expression for the decay $`\omega \pi \gamma `$  and the parameterizations for the processes $`\pi \pi \rho \gamma `$, $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$, and $`\rho \pi \pi \gamma `$, in which the $`a_1`$ meson is taken into account properly . For completeness and convenience, the explicit formulas are listed. By inserting $`E`$, $`T`$, and the pion mass $`m_\pi `$ in GeV, the following parameterizations for $`process`$ = $`\pi \pi \rho \gamma `$, $`\pi \rho \pi \gamma `$, and $`\rho \pi \pi \gamma `$ reproduce the corresponding rates in units of $`\text{fm}^4\text{GeV}^2`$

$`E{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d^4xd^3p}}|_{process}`$ $`=`$ $`T^2e^{E/T}F_{process}(T/m_\pi ,E/m_\pi ),`$ (5)
where

$`F_{\pi \pi \rho \gamma }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[12.055+4.387x+(0.3755+0.00826x)y`$ (6)
$`+(0.00777+0.000279x)y^2+(5.78691.0258x)/y`$
$`+(1.979+0.58x)/y^2],`$
$`F_{\pi \rho \pi \gamma }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[2.447+0.796x+(0.0338+0.0528x)y`$ (7)
$`+(21.447+8.2179x)/y+(1.524360.38562x)/y^2],`$
$`F_{\rho \pi \pi \gamma }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[6.295+1.6459x+(0.4015+0.089x)y`$ (8)
$`+(0.954+2.05777x)/y].`$
No parameterization is used for the decay of the $`\omega `$ meson since the exact expression requires only a one-dimensional integration

$$E\frac{dN}{d^4xd^3p}|_{\omega \pi \gamma }=\frac{8.93\times 10^6\text{GeV}}{E}_{E_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E_\omega E_\omega f_B(E_\omega )\left[1+f_B(E_\omega E)\right],$$
(9)
where $`E_{min}=1.03(E^2+0.14\text{GeV}^2)/E`$ and $`f_B(E)=1/[\mathrm{exp}(E/T)1]`$.


text:
# Spin transfer in high energy fragmentation processes

## Abstract

We point out that measuring longitudinal polarizations of different hyperons produced in lepton induced reactions are ideal to study the spin transfer of the fragtmenting quark to produced hadron in high energy hadronization processes. We briefly summarize the method used in calculating the hyperon polarizations in these processes, then present some of the results for $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`e^{}p`$ or $`\nu p`$ reactions obtained using two different pictures for the spin structure of hyperon: that drawn from polarized deep inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering data or that using SU(6) symmetric wave functions. The results show in particular that measurements of such polarizations should provide useful information to the question of which picture is more suitable in describing the spin effects in the fragmentation processes.

The talk was a summary of a series of papers \[1-3\] by C. Boros and ourselves. Spin transfer in high energy fragmentation process is defined as the probability for the polarization of the fragmenting quark to be transferred to the produced hadron. It is one of the important issue in connection with the spin effects in high energy fragmentation processes which have attracted much attention recentlyatt . The problem contains the following two questions: (1) Will the polarization of the fragmenting quark be retained in the fragmentation process? (2) What is the relationship between the spin of the quark and that of the hadron which contains this quark? Clearly, the answers to these questions depend not only on the hadronization mechanism but also on the spin structure of hadrons. Study of such effects provide useful information for the spin structure of hadron and spin dependence of high energy reactions. There exist now two distinctively different pictures for the spin contents of the baryons: the static quark model picture using SU(6) symmetric wave function \[hereafter referred as SU(6) picture\], and the picture drawn from the data for polarized deep inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering (DIS) and SU(3) flavor symmetry in hyperon decay \[hereafter referred as DIS picture\]. It is particular interesting to ask which picture is suitable to describe the relationship between the polarization of the fragmenting quark and that of the produced hadron which contains this quark. Obviously, the answer to this question is essential in the description of the puzzling hyperon transverse polarization observed already in the 1970s in unpolarized hadron-hadron reactionsHyp75 .

It has been pointed out thatBL98 ; LL20001  measurements of the longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations at the $`Z^0`$ pole provide a very special check to the validity of SU(6) picture in connecting the spin of the constituent to the polarization of the hadron produced in the fragmentation processes. This is because the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in this case obtained from the SU(6) picture should be the maximum among different models. There are now data with reasonably high statistics available from both ALEPHALEPH96  and OPALOPAL98  Collaborations. Their results show that the SU(6) picture seems to agree better with the dataALEPH96 ; OPAL98  compared with the DIS picture. This is rather surprising since the energy is very high at LEP thus the initial quarks and anti-quarks produced at the annihilation vertices of the initial $`e^+e^{}`$ are certainly current quarks and current anti-quarks rather than the constituent quarks used in describing the static properties of hadrons using SU(6) symmetric wave functions. It is thus interesting and instructive to make further checks in experiments by making complementary measurements. For this purpose, we have made a systematic study of hyperon polarizations in different lepton-induced reactions using the SU(6) or the DIS picture. The results we obtained can be used as further check of the pictures and now we give a brief summary of the calculation method and the obtained results.

We first summarize the calculation method by taking $`e^+e^{}H_i+X`$ as an example.

Since the longitudinal polarization $`P_{H_i}`$ of the hyperon $`H_i`$ in the inclusive process $`e^+e^{}H_i+X`$ originates from the longitudinal polarization $`P_f`$ of the initial quark $`q_f^0`$ (where the subscript $`f`$ denotes its flavor) produced at the annihilation vertex of the initial state $`e^+e^{}`$, we should consider the $`H_i`$’s which have the following different origins separately.

(a) Hyperons which are directly produced and contain the initial quarks $`q_f^0`$’s originated from the annihilations of the initial $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$;

(b) Hyperons which are decay products of other heavier hyperons which were polarized before their decay;

(c) Hyperons which are directly produced but do not contain any initial quark $`q_f^0`$ from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation;

(d) Hyperons which are decay products of other heavier hyperons which were unpolarized before their decay.

It is clear that hyperons from (a) and (b) can be polarized while those from (c) and (d) are not. We obtain therefore,

$$P_{H_i}=\frac{\underset{f}{}t_{H_i,f}^FP_fn_{H_i,f}^a+\underset{j}{}t_{H_i,H_j}^DP_{H_j}n_{H_i,H_j}^b}{n_{H_i}^a+n_{H_i}^b+n_{H_i}^c+n_{H_i}^d}.$$
(1)
Here $`P_f`$ is the polarization of the initial quark $`q_f^0`$, and is determined by the electroweak vertex; $`n_{H_i,f}^a`$ is the average number of the hyperons which are directly produced and contain the initial quark of flavor $`f`$; $`n_{H_i,H_j}^b`$ is the average number of $`H_i`$ hyperons coming from the decay of $`H_j`$ hyperons which are polarized; $`P_{H_j}`$ is the polarization of the hyperon $`H_j`$ before its decay; $`n_{H_i}^a(\underset{f}{}n_{H_i,f}^a`$), $`n_{H_i}^b(\underset{j}{}n_{H_i,H_j}^b)`$, $`n_{H_i}^c`$ and $`n_{H_i}^d`$ are average numbers of hyperons in group (a), (b), (c) and (d) respectively; $`t_{H_i,f}^F`$ is the probability for the polarization of $`q_f^0`$ to be transferred to $`H_i`$ in the fragmentation process and is called the polarization transfer factor, where the superscript $`F`$ stands for fragmentation; $`t_{H_i,H_j}^D`$ is the probability for the polarization of $`H_j`$ to be transferred to $`H_i`$ in the decay process $`H_jH_i+X`$ and is called decay polarization transfer factor, where the superscript $`D`$ stands for decay. $`t_{H_i,f}^F`$ is equal to the fraction of spin carried by the $`f`$-flavor-quark divided by the average number of quark of flavor $`f`$ in the hyperon $`H_i`$. This fractional contribution to the hyperon spin from $`f`$-flavor-quark is different in the above-mentioned SU(6) or the DIS picture. The results in the SU(6) picture can easily be obtained from the wave functions. In the DIS picture, the fractional contribution of quarks of different flavors to the spin of a baryon in the $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ octet is extracted from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^p_0^1g_1^p(x)𝑑x`$ obtained in deep-inelastic lepton-proton scattering experiments and the constants $`F`$ and $`D`$ obtained from hyperon decay experiments. The way of doing this extraction is now in fact quite standard. A brief summay can, e.g., be found in the Appendix of \[References\]. The results can be found e.g. in \[References,References\]. The decay polarization transfer factor $`t_{H_i,H_j}^D`$ is determined by the decay process and is independent of the process in which $`H_j`$ is produced.They can be extracted from the materials in Review of Particle Properties (see e.g. \[References,References,References\]).

The average numbers of the hyperons of different origins mentioned above are determined by the hadronization mechanism and should be independent of the polarization of the initial quarks. Hence, we can calculate them using a hadronization model which give a good description of the unpolarized data for multiparticle production in high energy reactions. Presently, such calculations can only be carried out using a Monte-Carlo event generator. We used the Lund string fragmentation modelAGIS83  implemented by JETSET in our calculations.

The method described above was first applied to $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }+X`$ at the $`Z^0`$ pole. We recall that among all the $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ hyperons, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is most copiously produced. Furthermore, the spin structure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the $`SU(6)`$ picture is very special, which makes it play a very special role in distinguishing the SU(6) and the DIS pictures. In the $`SU(6)`$ picture, spin of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is completely carried by the $`s`$ valence quark, while the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks have no contribution. Since the initial $`s`$ quark produced in the annihilation of the initial $`e^+e^{}`$ takes the maximum negative polarization, $`|P_\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ obtained using the SU(6) picture is the maximum among all the different models. In contrast, in the DIS picture, the $`s`$ quark carries only about $`60\%`$ of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spin, while the $`u`$ or $`d`$ quark each carries about $`20\%`$. The resulting $`|P_\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ should be substantially smaller than that obtained in the $`SU(6)`$ picture. Comparing the maximum with experimental results provide us a good test of the validity of the picture.

| Fig.1: Longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization, $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }+X`$ at LEP I and LEP II energies as a function of $`z`$. The data of ALEPH and those of OPAL are taken from \[References\] and \[References\] respectively.
 |  | Fig.2: Longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ polarization, $`P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}`$, in $`\nu _\mu +p\mu ^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^++X`$ at $`p_{inc}=500`$GeV/c as a function of $`x_F`$.
 |
| --- | --- | --- |

Using the method described above, we obtained the longitudinal polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as shown in Fig.1. A comparison with the ALEPH data ALEPH96  and the OPAL data OPAL98  shows that the dataALEPH96 ; OPAL98  of both groups agree better with the calculated results based on the $`SU(6)`$ picture. But, these available dataALEPH96 ; OPAL98  are still far from accurate and enormous enough to make a decisive conclusion. Further complementary measurements are needed. We therefore made a systematic study of hyperon produced in different lepton-induced reactions and obtain in particular the following results which can be used as further checks of the pictures.

1.$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in different subsamples of events in $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }+X`$.

We think it would be interesting to measure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in events where the following criteria are satisfied: (i) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the leading in one direction; (ii) the leading particle in the opposite direction is $`K^+`$. We expect that such $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s should mainly have the origin (a) mentioned above.

Using the event generator JETSET, we showed that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s from (a) contribute indeed substantially higher in these events than they do in the average events and the obtained $`|P_\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ is also much higher \[References\]. This should be easily be check in experiments.

2. Energy dependence of $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$.

To see the energy dependence, we calculated $`P_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }X`$ at LEP II energy. The results are also shown in Fig.1. We see a significant energy dependence due to that of $`P_f`$ of the initial quark $`q_f^0`$. This can also be checked.

3. Longitudinal polarization of other $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ hyperons.

The production rates for other octet hyperons are smaller than that for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so the statistic errors should be larger for the polarizations of these hyperons. On the other hand, decay contributions from heavier hyperons to these hyperons are also much less significant than that in case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Hence, the contaminations from the decay processes are much smaller. These conclusions can easily be checked using a Monte-Carlo event generator for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into hadrons. On the other hand, we see also that the contribution from heavier hyperon decays is also much smaller. For example, for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$’s, the decay contribution takes only about $`7\%`$ of the total rate. The situations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ are similar to that for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$. Most of them are directly produced. Hence, the theoretical uncertainties in the calculations for these hyperons are much smaller. The study of polarizations of these hyperons should provide us with good complementary tests of different pictures. We thus calculated the longitudinal polarizations of all these $`J^P=(1/2)^+`$ hyperons\[References\], i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at LEP I and LEP II energies. We found that they are all polarized and the polarizations are different for different hyperons. They are also different in SU(6) picture and the DIS picture which can indeed be used as complementary check to the picture.

4. Hyperon polarization in the current fragmentation region in lepton-nucleon deeply inelastic scatterings.

The advantages of using hyperons in lepton-nucleon deeply inelastic scatterings are the following: First, we can study here not only longitudinal polarization transfer but also to check whether it is the same for transverse polarization case. Second, flavor separation is, in some cases, automatically. But it will be more difficult to reach the same statistics as that in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at the $`Z^0`$ pole.

We calculated the hyperon polarization in different reactions and different kinematic regions . We found it is partcularly interesting that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization in these reactions are usually small and also the differences from different pictures. On the other hand, polarizations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are larger and the differences between different pictures are also larger. Hence, it should be more sensitive to use $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a check to different pictures than to use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in these reactions. As an example, we show $`P_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`\nu _\mu +p\mu ^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^++X`$ in Fig.2.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China and the Chinese Education Ministry.


text:
# Stringy gravity, interacting tensionless strings and massless higher spins

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The properties of string theory at extreme energies has been a deep puzzle for many years. In the spirit of the history of asymptotically free field theories we would expect an understanding of short-distance symmetries to be of fundamental importance for an efficient formulation of the theory and perhaps even for its consistency. Many important aspects of the problem have been illuminated, like symmetries of the $`S`$-matrix  and a stringy uncertainty principle , but progress has been hampered by a fundamental obstacle: String theory is finite rather than asymptotically free. Finiteness means that we typically have to worry about the full perturbation expansion, which diverges . A non-perturbative formulation like field theory would then save the day, but unfortunately a tractable field theory formulation is lacking for closed strings.

A closed-string field theory pending, it is still true that there has been enormous progress in the understanding of non-perturbative string physics in recent years. The increased knowledge has however usually been based on dualities between low energy field theories, generalized to the full string theories. Only Maldacena’s AdS/CFT correspondence  offers the hope of replacing an “untractable” string theory with a better known quantum field theory, but it could seem unnecessarily complicated from a high-energy perspective, because the string theory lives in a curved AdS space.

It has been argued  that a tensionless string theory should constitute the proper starting point for investigating short-distance string theory, just like massless field theories are high energy limits of massive theories. Similarly, broken gauge symmetries for non-zero tension could be expected to be restored in the tensionless limit. Quantization of tensionless strings in flat spacetime does however prove to be problematic. The method used in  does not lead to a unique diagnosis, but one possible explanation of the problems could be that the flat background which was used is in fact inconsistent. Evidence for this interpretation comes from the study of theories of massless higher spin fields . Such fields could be expected to appear in the tensionless limit of string theory, since there are fields of arbitrarily high spin in string theory and the masses of the free theory are all proportional to the string tension. Remarkably, Fradkin and Vasiliev  have observed that consistent interactions of the higher spin fields require a cosmological constant! In fact, the theories make sense precisely in AdS backgrounds. Thus Maldacena’s AdS/CFT conjecture actually seems to be a very promising tool for studying the short-distance behaviour of string theory.

The present talk addresses how the correspondence can be applied to the study of short-distance properties of string theory. It is mainly based on , which also contain more complete references, but the emphasis is different and several new observations are made.

### 1.1 AdS/CFT

The prime example of the AdS/CFT correspondence equates type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ with a constant five-form Ramond-Ramond field strength to $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory . The rank of the Yang-Mills gauge group $`U(N)`$ is directly related to the quantized RR flux $`N`$. For large $`N`$ the Yang-Mills perturbation expansion is conveniently organised in a topological expansion  where successive terms appear with powers of $`1/N`$, and the effective loop expansion parameter within each topology is $`g_{YM}^2N`$ rather than $`g_{YM}^2`$. For our purposes it is also important to keep track of the length scales of the string theory. Modulo numerical factors the correspondence gives $`g_{YM}^2N=R^4T^2`$, where $`T`$ is the string tension and $`R`$ is the radius of curvature of $`AdS_5`$ and $`S^5`$. Thus zero string tension corresponds to a free gauge theory! The remaining expansion parameter is somewhat more puzzling, but can be identified with the ratio of the Planck length to the radius of curvature, $`1/N=\sqrt{G_5/R^5}`$. Note that in contrast to what one might have expected from the conventional association of string world-sheets of different genera to the topological expansion, $`1/N`$ is *not* the ordinary string coupling (which vanishes) but a rescaled version. Clearly, finite $`N`$ SYM provides a natural resummation of the genus expansion!

Here it must be pointed out that although there is an impressive amount of evidence for the Maldacena conjecture, the original argument and most of the evidence applies to *large* $`g_{YM}^2N`$, and not to the opposite limit, which we consider here. Still, there is not yet any evidence against this strong form of the conjecture, and the discussion of thermodynamics I will present towards the end actually justifies a belief that the the dependence on $`g_{YM}^2N`$ is smooth. Furthermore, we are dealing here with the most symmetric case of the correspondence, and many relations are protected by supersymmetry.

Nevertheless, the statement that tensionless string theory is just *free* SYM theory seems too simple. Indeed, we will find both actual amplitudes that can be very complicated, and a thermodynamic behaviour which exhibits a phase transition, so something more has to be hidden somewhere in the correspondence. The answer to the riddle of course lies in the way string physics is encoded in SYM theory. The recipes for relating generating functions , and for calculating amplitudes  involve SYM correlation functions of traces of products of fields, which generically give rise to very complicated combinatorics, even if we only have to evaluate free propagators. We have a theory of *interactions without interactions*. Dynamics intimately related to statistics and combinatorics is what we want in a fundamental theory of gravity: black holes as solutions to highly non-linear equations and black holes as thermodynamic objects should appear as different sides of the same coin.

I shall end this presentation with a description of how black hole thermodynamics can be reproduced, but first I want to discuss relevant aspects of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM at weak coupling, how tensionless strings appear, and how massless higher spin theory is embedded in SYM theory.

## 2 $`𝒩=4`$ SYM AT WEAK COUPLING

In $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory scalars, fermions and vectors are all in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. All local gauge-invariant observables are polynomials in traces of products of these adjoint fields and their derivatives. Single-trace operators thus constitute basic building blocks of all local observables. In the free theory their correlation functions may be used to compute any other correlation functions of local observables. Then different fundamental fields propagate independently so it is perfectly consistent to restrict the attention to a subset of them. For simplicity we only consider conformal operators built of the six scalar fields $`\varphi ^I`$ (transforming under the $`R`$-symmetry group $`SO(6)`$).

All single-trace operators built of scalars are characterized solely by their index structure and how derivatives are distributed. We may for example write

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{IJ}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\varphi ^I\varphi ^J\right\},$$
(1)
and note that the antisymmetric part of this operator vanishes by the properties of the trace. Derivatives inside the traces are very significant unless they combine to equations of motion for the fundamental fields. In that case correlation functions vanish. Furthermore, overall derivatives on the operators produce new operators, descendants in CFT parlance, whose properties can be deduced immediately from the original operators, since they are essentially the results of infinitesimal translations. For instance, the symmetric part of

$$\left(^{10}\mathrm{\Phi }^{IJ}\right)_\mu \mathrm{Tr}\left\{_\mu \varphi ^I\varphi ^J\right\},$$
(2)
is a descendant, again by the properties of the trace. Here we have introduced a notation in which the symbolic exponent of the the derivative counts how many derivatives should be applied to the different fundamental factors in the trace. The non-trivial operator content of the theory is given by the primaries, which by definition cannot be written as descendants. The primaries can be classified in representations of the Lorentz algebra and $`SO(6)`$. The simplest operators are given in Table 1.

This table contains relevant (dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2,3`$) and marginal ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$) primaries which are important because they may be added to the lagrangian in order to deform the theory in the IR, without ruining the UV behaviour. The Maldacena conjecture gives the dimensions of all operators in the strong coupling limit from IIB supergravity in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ . They agree with the dimensions of so-called chiral primaries, which are independent of the coupling both classically and quantum-mechanically due to non-renormalization theorems. In our table totally symmetric scalar primaries belong to this class. The presence of other operators indicates that their dimensions depend strongly on the coupling and diverge at strong coupling. By continuity, operators which are relevant at zero coupling have to become marginal for some definite intermediate value of $`g_{YM}^2N=R^4T^2`$, implying the possibility of critical values of the string tension where marginal deformations can give rise to entirely new conformal field theories and to new realizations of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

## 3 SYM AND TENSIONLESS STRINGS

The single-trace operators admit a natural interpretation as strings composed of string bits constituted by the fundamental fields and their derivatives. (I use the term string bits here because it seems to capture the situation well, but there are both differences and similarities to Thorn’s use of the term .) The operators propagate to other operators, with dominant contributions for large $`N`$ corresponding to the free propagation of the individual string-bits to other strings preserving the same cyclic order111The actual order in one of the traces in the Green function is reversed, since creation and annihilation operators of the same quantum are hermitean conjugates. of the constituent fields, e.g.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^3}}<:[\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^1\varphi ^2\varphi ^3)](x)::[\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^3\varphi ^2\varphi ^1)](0):>`$
$`=|x|^6,`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^3}}<:[\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^1\varphi ^2\varphi ^3)](x)::[\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi ^1\varphi ^2\varphi ^3)](0):>`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}|x|^6.`$ (4)
This free propagation of string bits is analogous to the free massless propagation of points on tensionless strings , although the present discussion only indirectly deals with propagation in the five-dimensional curved AdS space. At any rate, the shadow of string propagation on the four-dimensional CFT world behaves as expected of a tensionless string.

The single trace operators work combinatorically like holes cut out of world-sheets in the $`1/N`$ expansion, and thus correspond naturally to closed strings in correlation functions. The cyclic property of the trace also works as a discrete remnant of the reparametrization invariance of strings, and the effective vanishing of Green functions of such strings with string-bits proportional to equations of motion presumably corresponds to another remnant of the same symmetry.

General conformal field theory correlation functions are expected to be expressible in terms of pairwise operator product expansions

$$A(x)B(y)\underset{D}{}C_{AB}^DD(y)|xy|^{\mathrm{\Delta }_D\mathrm{\Delta }_A\mathrm{\Delta }_B}.$$
(5)
A four-point function of conformal operators can expanded in three different channels, and for higher point functions the number of channels increases. In the free case one can verify explicitly that the expressions in terms of diffferent channels agree. As pointed out in , given appropriate definitions of amplitudes in AdS backgrounds , this duality of conformal field theory translates to the channel duality of string amplitudes, which was originally the defining property of string theory . In the $`g_{YM}^2N=R^4T^2=0`$ case CFT manifestly works as a string theory.

The AdS/CFT conjecture has another, very surprising consequence when applied to Table 1. Group theory of $`SO(4,2)`$ which is the conformal group of the CFT and the isometry group of AdS, dictates a relationship between mass and spin in AdS on one hand and dimension and spin in the CFT on the other hand. The bullet ($``$) in the last row denotes an $`SO(6)`$ scalar traceless symmetric rank 2 tensor, the scalar contribution to the stress tensor, which is conserved. The stress tensor corresponds to the field with the same Lorentz transformation properties on the AdS side, i.e. the gravitational field. In addition, the conservation of energy-momentum leads to the reduction of the number of degrees of freedom appropriate for a massless field. This is all quite natural, but the argument is independent of $`SO(6)`$ representation and therefore also applies to the other operators in the last row of the table, which may easily be checked to be conserved. On the AdS side one appears to get several charged gravitational fields! This sounds truly strange, but only recently have arguments been given that can rule out such spectra . This no-go theorem however relies both on locality and on a lagrangian formulation, assumptions which are not fulfilled in the present case.

## 4 MASSLESS HIGHER SPINS

Generalizations of the conserved $`SO(6)`$ and energy-momentum currents

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\varphi ^I_\mu \varphi ^J\varphi ^J_\mu \varphi ^I\right\},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{Tr}\left\{(_\mu \varphi ^I_\nu \varphi ^I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^I_\mu _\nu \varphi ^I){\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{\mu \nu }}{4}}\mathrm{trace}\right\},`$ (7)
with more Lorentz indices, higher spin currents, have been studied in the literature . For example, in the condensed notation of Vasiliev odd spin currents are

$`\mathrm{Tr}\{_{\mu (n)}\varphi ^I_{\mu (n+1)}\varphi ^J(IJ)\},`$ (8)
where $`\mu (n)`$ denotes $`n`$ symmetrized indices, and the symmetrization extends over all indices with the same label ($`\mu `$ here). Even spin currents are instead symmetric in $`I`$ and $`J`$. There are also unique improved versions of the currents which are traceless in the Lorentz indices , as appropriate in the present conformally symmetric case.

These currents are conserved for free fields, but not in other cases. Arguing in the same way as for the gravitational field we relate masslessness and gauge symmetries in AdS to conservation laws for dual CFT tensor currents. For the AdS/CFT correspondence applied to $`𝒩=4`$ SYM this means that the duals to higher spin currents should be massless at zero tension, but not for non-zero tension. In fact, to each conserved higher spin current corresponds precisely one massless higher spin gauge field in AdS . That masslessness occurs at zero coupling of the CFT agrees well with expectations, since a string tension gives mass to all string states with higher spin than two.

To form high spin operators which are conserved and correspond to massless dual fields one needs as many derivatives as possible and few fundamental fields. Essentially, spin increases with number of derivatives, and for fixed number of derivatives mass increases with the numbers of fields. Since we have found massless higher spins for quadratic operators we expect all higher order operators to have massive duals. Due to tracelessness of the generators, linear operators are absent for the gauge group $`SU(N)`$ which has been argued to be the correct group in the AdS/CFT correspondence . Then, the full set of higher spin currents are of the kind  described above.

It is interesting to compare results from the present approach based on AdS/CFT compared to the monumental earlier achievements, mainly by Vasiliev and co-workers. Among many other important facts these authors have established the structure of non-linear higher spin gauge symmetries and found interaction terms and equations of motion respecting the symmetries. The structure of the higher spin fields here is identical, including the symmetry pattern of symmetric $`IJ`$ matrices at even spin and antisymmetric at odd spin. Thus the proliferation of graviton fields is independent of the string origin of our approach. In contrast, the massive fields seem to be special to the string theory approach. The main and very serious drawback is that we cannot write down a lagrangian or even the equations of motion for the higher spin fields. We can only calculate Green functions which may be interpreted as a kind of AdS scattering amplitude. On the other hand the full perturbation expansion in terms of the parameter $`1/N`$ may be summed by just calculating Green functions for a finite rank $`SU(N)`$ gauge group. Curiously, as we shall see more in detail, the spectrum of massive AdS fields depends on $`N`$ in a complicated way. It would be interesting to know if the massive fields are more or less arbitrary additions to Vasiliev’s higher spin theories, or if they serve some purpose for consistency, perhaps at the quantum level. If a strong connection between the approaches is established, the advanced mathematical machinery of higher spin gauge theories may perhaps be applied to solve problems in large $`N`$ Yang-Mills theory.

## 5 1/N COUNTING AND STRINGY BLACK HOLES

The spectrum of a theory is conveniently encoded in its thermodynamics, which also directly probes the physical behaviour of the theory. Thermodynamics plays an even more fundamental role in theories of gravitation, because of its mysterious relation to black holes. In the AdS/CFT correspondence these relations have been exploited by Witten  who observed that the Hawking-Page transition  in AdS gravity between thermal AdS space and an AdS black hole corresponds to the deconfinement transition in Yang-Mills theory. An essential ingredient is that the dependence on Newton’s constant of the free energy of the black hole $`R^5/G_5`$ is translated in gauge theory to $`N^2`$ by the AdS/CFT relation $`1/N=\sqrt{G_5/R^5}`$. Since the Einstein gravity argument by Hawking and Page is used, Witten’s result strictly only applies to strongly coupled gauge theory. The zero coupling limit of the gauge theory which will be reviewed here was studied in  with the result that the phase transition persists! Translated back to AdS gravity, now in the guise of tensionless string theory or higher spin theory, some black hole like object survives even under these extreme conditions.

First some preliminaries. Witten’s version of the AdS/CFT correspondence relates string theory on global AdS space to gauge theory on $`S^3`$. This makes sense if we postulate that the scalar fields are conformally coupled to the curvature. Then we can go between flat space and the sphere by a conformal mapping. Conformal dimensions in flat space are mapped to energies on $`S^3`$ (in units of the inverse radius of curvature). The problem of counting states of a definite energy amounts to counting gauge invariant local operators. The crucial step in the counting for $`N\mathrm{}`$ consists in counting single trace operators or tensionless strings. This problem may be solved by applying a combinatorial theorem due to Pólya, and it results in a Hagedorn-type  divergence of the free energy at a critical temperature of the order of the inverse radius. As one may suspect the behaviour above the Hagedorn temperature can be controlled only by taking $`N`$ finite, but then other methods are needed.

In order to count all gauge singlets, single trace or not, with the appropriate statistics, the idea is to first form a partition sum keeping track of (global) $`SU(N)`$ rotations $`g`$ in terms of the eigenvalues $`R_i(g)`$ of the representation matrices $`R(g)`$. Then the rotated partition sum for bosons

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}}(1+x^{E_k}R_i(g)+x^{2E_k}R_i(g)^2+\mathrm{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{Det}(1x^{E_k}R(g))^1`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{nE_k}}{n}}R(g^n)\right)\right)`$ (9)
can be projected to singlet states by integration over the group, using the orthogonality properties of group characters $`\chi (g)`$. Taking also the fermion contribution into account yields

$$𝑑g\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta _B(x^n)(1)^n\zeta _F(x^n)}{n}\chi (g^n)\right)$$
(10)
where $`\zeta _{B,F}(x^n)`$ are partition sums of the free fundamental SYM boson and fermion fields (for $`U(1)`$ gauge group). $`\chi (g)`$ is the character of the adjoint representation

$$\chi (g)=N1+2\underset{m<n}{}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha _m\alpha _n).$$
(11)
The integrand of equation (10) then only depends on a set of $`N`$ eigenvalues distributed over the unit circle, and not on their order. By a standard large $`N`$ trick such integrals over many eigenvalues may be approximated by an integral over eigenvalue densities $`\rho (\alpha )`$. For large $`N`$ we get a steepest descent estimate of the partition sum

$$Z(x)D\rho e^{S[\rho ]},$$
(12)
by finding a $`\rho `$ which makes $`S`$ stationary. In our particular case one obtains an integral equation for $`\rho `$ with qualitatively different solutions below and above the Hagedorn temperature. Below the transition the stationary eigenvalue density is constant over the whole range of eigenvalues, while above it develops “gaps”, i.e. the density gets concentrated on a subset of the full range which shrinks with increasing temperature. Above the transition one finds222An almost identical calculation was done by Skagerstam  in a different context. for the free energy $`F=\mathrm{log}Z`$ that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2F}{N^2}}\zeta (x)1+\sqrt{\zeta (x)^2\zeta (x)}`$
$`\mathrm{log}\left(\zeta (x)+\sqrt{\zeta (x)^2\zeta (x)}\right)`$ (13)
approximately, where $`\zeta =\zeta _B+\zeta _F`$. The essential point here is of course the $`N^2`$ factor and the sharp phase transition at the critical temperature which is similar to the Hawking-Page transition. Details on the behaviour close to the transition and on the interpretation as a Hagedorn transition may be found in .

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

I have tried to demonstrate in what sense free $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(N)`$ behaves as an interacting theory of tensionless strings or equivalently as an interacting theory of massless higher spin fields in an AdS background. In comparison to standard higher spin theory one finds additional massive fields, whose numbers depend on the coupling. The construction of these theories in terms of free Yang-Mills theory provides evidence for their existence and finiteness, but the formulation is very primitive and on-shell, just like string theory. Hopefully, Vasiliev’s  more geometric formulation may improve the understanding, perhaps also of large $`N`$ gauge theory.

We have also discussed the non-trivial physics of these models, notably the existence of several massless spin 2 fields, and signs of non-perturbative bound states analogous to black holes.