text:
# Noncommutative relativistic particle on the electromagnetic background.

## 1 Introduction.

It is known that the noncommutative (NC) geometry  of the position variables in some mechanical models can be obtained \[3-7\] as the result of direct canonical quantization  of underlying dynamical systems with second class constraints. Nontrivial bracket for the position variables appears in this case as the Dirac bracket, after taking into account the constraints presented in the model. An apparent defect of the known NC models is lack of relativistic invariance, due to the fact that noncommutativity parameter is constant matrix.

In this note we discuss one possibility to resolve the problem. Namely, the noncommutative version for D-dimensional relativistic particle is proposed. We show also that it is possible to write (rather exotic) interaction with an external electromagnetic field. The interaction is consistent with the Poincare invariance, as well as with local symmetries presented in the model.

The work is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we demonstrate that a procedure used to obtain NC versions of the particular models  can be generalized to the case of an arbitrary nondegenerate mechanical system. Namely, to obtain NC version, it is sufficiently to add Chern-Simons type term to the first order Lagrangian action of the initial system. The numerical matrix $`\theta ^{AB}=\theta ^{BA}`$, originating from the Chern-Simons term, turns out to be the NC parameter of the formulation. We point also that quantization of the NC system leads to quantum mechanics with ordinary product replaced by the Moyal product.

In Sec. 3 we show that a slight modification of the procedure allows one to obtain NC version for $`D`$-dimensional relativistic particle. Chern-Simons term can be added to the first order action of the relativistic particle, which do not spoil the reparametrization invariance. As a consequence, the model will contain the desired relativistic constraint $`p^2m^2=0`$. The problem is that the numerical matrix $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ do not respect the Lorentz invariance. To resolve the problem, we consider a particle interacting with a new configuration-space variable $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left(\tau \right)=\theta ^{\nu \mu }\left(\tau \right)`$, instead of the constant matrix. The action constructed is manifestly Poincare invariant and has local symmetry related with the variable $`\theta `$. The last one can be gauged out, an admissible gauge is $`\theta ^{0i}=0,\theta ^{ij}=const`$. The noncommutativity parameter of the gauge fixed version is then the numerical matrix $`\theta ^{ij}`$. As it usually happens in a theory with local symmetries , Poincare invariance of the gauge fixed version is combination of the initial Poincare and local transformations which preserve the gauge chosen. In the case under consideration, the resulting transformations are linear and involve the constant matrix $`\theta ^{ij}`$ (see Eqs.(34) below).

In Sec. 4 interaction with an external electromagnetic field is discussed. The standard interaction term can be added, in principle, but does not lead to an interesting situation. Consistency of the term with the local symmetries presented in the model implies it’s specific dependence on the configuration space variables. As a consequence, after transition to the canonical variables, any traces of noncommutativity disappear from the formulation. As an alternative, we propose new interaction term which involve the field strength instead of the electromagnetic potential. The possibility to write the term is implied by the fact that one works with the first order Lagrangian action 222Let us note that the same interaction term can be written for ordinary relativistic particle (in the first order formulation) as well.. In the Conclusion we discuss combined interaction.

## 2 Noncommutative version of an arbitrary nondegenerate mechanics.

Our starting point is some nondegenerate mechanical system with the configuration space variables $`q^A\left(t\right),A=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, and the Lagrangian action

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑tL(q^A,\dot{q}^A)}.`$ (1)
Due to nondegenerate character of the system, there are no constraints in the Hamiltonian formulation. Let $`p_A`$ are conjugated momentum for $`q^A`$, one can write the Hamiltonian action

$`S_H={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[p_A\dot{q}^AH_0(q^A,p_A)\right]}.`$ (2)
Equations of motion which follow from Eq.(1) and (2) are equivalent (they remain equivalent for any degenerated system also , in this case the Hamiltonian includes the Lagrangian multipliers). Equivalently, one can describe the initial system (1) by means of the first order Lagrangian action

$`S_1={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[v_A\dot{q}^AH_0(q^A,v_A)\right]}.`$ (3)
Here $`q^A\left(t\right),v_A\left(t\right)`$ are the configuration space variables of the formulation 333The Lagrangian formulations (1), (3) are equivalent. Actually, denoting the conjugated momentum for the variables $`q^A,v_A`$ as $`p_A,\pi ^A`$ one finds, in the Hamiltonian formulation for the action (3), the second class constraints $`p_Av_A=0,\pi ^A=0`$. Introducing the corresponding Dirac bracket, one can treat the constraints as the strong equations. Then the Hamiltonian formulation for (3) is the same as for (1), namely Eq.(2).. The noncommutative version of the system (1) is described by the following Lagrangian action

$`S_N={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[v_A\dot{q}^AH_0(q^A,v_A)+\dot{v}_A\theta ^{AB}v_B\right]},`$ (4)
where $`\theta ^{AB}`$ is some constant matrix. It turns out to be the noncommutativity parameter for the variables $`q^A`$.

Let us analyse the model (4) in the Hamiltonian framework (see  for details). All the expressions for determining of the momentum turn out to be the primary constraints of the model ($`p_A,\pi ^A`$ are conjugated momentum for the variables $`q^A,v_A`$)

$`G_Ap_Av_A=0,T^A\pi ^A\theta ^{AB}v_B=0,`$ (5)
with the Poisson bracket algebra being of second class

$`\{G_A,G_B\}=0,\{T^A,T^B\}=2\theta ^{AB},\{G_A,T^B\}=\delta _A^B.`$ (6)
The constraints can be taken into account by transition to the Dirac bracket. After that, one can take the variables $`(q^A,p_A)`$ as the physical one, while $`(v_A,\pi ^A)`$ can be omitted from consideration using Eq.(5). The resulting noncommutative system has the following properties.
1) It has the same number of physical degrees of freedom as the initial system $`S`$, namely $`q^A,p_A`$.
2) Equations of motion of the system are the same as for the initial system $`S`$, modulo the term which is proportional to the parameter $`\theta ^{AB}`$

$`\dot{q}^A={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_A}}2\theta ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^B}},\dot{p}_A={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^A}},`$ (7)
where $`H_0(q,p)=H_0(q,v)|_{vp}`$.
3) The physical variables have the brackets

$`\{q^A,q^B\}=2\theta ^{AB},\{q^A,p_B\}=\delta _B^A,\{p_A,p_B\}=0.`$ (8)
In particular, brackets of the configuration space variables are noncommutative. One can show that other possibilities to choose the physical variables: $`q^A,v_A`$, or $`q^A,\pi _A`$ lead to an equivalent description.

To quantize the resulting system, one possibility is to find variables which have the canonical brackets. For the case under consideration they are

$`\stackrel{~}{q}^A=q^A\theta ^{AB}p_B,\stackrel{~}{p}_A=p_A,`$ (9)
and obey $`\{\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{q}\}=\{\stackrel{~}{p},\stackrel{~}{p}\}=0,\{\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{p}\}=1`$. Equations of motion in terms of these variables acquire the standard form

$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{q}}^A=\{\stackrel{~}{q}^A,\stackrel{~}{H}_0\},\dot{\stackrel{~}{p}}_A=\{\stackrel{~}{p}_A,\stackrel{~}{H}_0\},`$ (10)
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0=H_0(\stackrel{~}{q}+\theta \stackrel{~}{p},\stackrel{~}{p})`$. It leads to quantum mechanics with the Moyal product (see  and references therein)

$`H_0(\stackrel{~}{q}^A+\theta ^{AB}\stackrel{~}{p}_B,\stackrel{~}{p}_B)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\stackrel{~}{q}^C\right)=H_0(\stackrel{~}{q}^A,\stackrel{~}{p}_B)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\stackrel{~}{q}^C\right).`$ (11)
The procedure described above can be applied to some degenerated systems as well. The necessary condition is that a part of variables enter into the initial action without the time derivatives, and such that they can be identified with the Lagrangian multipliers of the Hamiltonian formulation. Then the system admits the first order Lagrangian formulation (3). The relativistic particle and the string are examples of such a system (see  for the first order formulation of the string). We suppose that the procedure can be applied to the spinning particle  and to the superparticle . It may be interesting  since both models are supersymmetric. If the relativistic invariance is presented in the initial formulation, a slight modification of the procedure is required to keep the symmetry in the NC version. The modification is presented in the next section.

## 3 Noncommutative relativistic particle.

The configuration space variables of the model are $`x^\mu \left(\tau \right),v^\mu \left(\tau \right),e\left(\tau \right)`$, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\left(\tau \right)`$, with the Lagrangian action being

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left[\dot{x}^\mu v_\mu \frac{e}{2}\left(v^2m^2\right)+\frac{1}{\theta ^2}\dot{v}_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu \right]}.`$ (12)
Here $`\theta ^2\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta _{\mu \nu },\eta ^{\mu \nu }=(+,,\mathrm{},)`$. Insertion of the term $`\theta ^2`$ in the denominator has the same meaning as for the eibein in the action of massless particle: $`L=\frac{1}{2e}\dot{x}^2`$. Technically, it rules out the degenerated gauge $`e=0`$. The action is manifestly invariant under the Poincare transformations

$`x^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}x_{}^{\nu }+a^\mu ,v^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}v_{}^{\nu },\theta ^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu {}_{\rho }{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\nu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}\theta _{}^{\rho \sigma }.`$ (13)
Local symmetries of the model are reparametrizations (with $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ being the scalar variable), and the following transformations with the parameter $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }\left(\tau \right)=ϵ_{\nu \mu }\left(\tau \right)`$

$`\delta x^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu ,\delta \theta _{\mu \nu }=\theta ^2ϵ_{\mu \nu }+2\theta _{\mu \nu }\left(\theta ϵ\right).`$ (14)
To analyse physical sector of this constrained system, we rewrite it in the Hamiltonian form. Starting from the action (12), one finds in the Hamiltonian formalism the primary constraints

$`G^\mu p^\mu v^\mu =0,T^\mu \pi ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu =0,`$ (15)
$`p_\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0,p_e=0,`$ (16)
and the Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}\left(v^2m^2\right)+\lambda _{1\mu }G^\mu +\lambda _{2\mu }T^\mu +\lambda _ep_e+\lambda _{\theta \mu \nu }p_\theta ^{\mu \nu }.`$ (17)
Here $`p,\pi `$ are conjugated momentum for $`x,v`$ and $`\lambda `$ are the Lagrangian multipliers for the constraints. On the next step there is appear the secondary constraint

$`v^2m^2=0,`$ (18)
as well as equations for determining the Lagrangian multipliers

$`\lambda _2^\mu =0,\lambda _1^\mu =ev^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta ^2}}\left(\lambda _\theta v\right)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{4}{\theta ^4}}\left(\theta \lambda _\theta \right)\left(\theta v\right)^\mu .`$ (19)
There is no of tertiary constraints in the problem. Equations of motion follow from (17)-(19), in particular, for the variables $`x,p`$ one has

$`\dot{x}^\mu =ep^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta ^2}}\left(\lambda _\theta v\right)^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{4}{\theta ^4}}\left(\theta \lambda _\theta \right)\left(\theta v\right)^\mu ,\dot{p}^\mu =0`$ (20)
Poisson brackets of the constraints are

$`\{G^\mu ,G^\nu \}=0,\{T^\mu ,T^\nu \}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta ^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu },`$ (21)
$`\{G_\mu ,T^\nu \}=\delta _\mu ^\nu ,\{T_\mu ,p_\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}\delta _\mu ^{[\rho }v^{\sigma ]}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\theta ^4}}\left(\theta v\right)_\mu \theta ^{\rho \sigma }.`$ (22)
The constraints $`G^\mu ,T^\mu `$ form the second class subsystem and can be taken into account by transition to the Dirac bracket. Then the remaining constraints can be classified in accordance with their properties relatively to the Dirac bracket. Consistency of the procedure is guaranteed by the known theorems . Introducing the Dirac bracket

$`\{A,B\}_D=\{A,B\}+\{A,G_\mu \}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta ^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\{G_\nu ,B\}`$ (23)
$`\{A,G^\mu \}\{T_\mu ,B\}+\{A,T_\mu \}\{G^\mu ,B\},`$ (24)
one finds, in particular, the following brackets for the fundamental variables (all the nonzero brackets are presented)

$`\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta ^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu },\{x^\mu ,p_\nu \}=\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\{p_\mu ,p_\nu \}=0;`$ (25)
$`\{x^\mu ,v_\nu \}=\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\{x^\mu ,\pi ^\nu \}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu },\{\theta _{\mu \nu },p_\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\}=\delta _\mu ^{[\rho }\delta _\nu ^{\sigma ]},`$ (26)
$`\{x^\mu ,p_\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\}=\{\pi ^\mu ,p_\theta ^{\rho \sigma }\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}\eta ^{\mu [\rho }v^{\sigma ]}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\theta ^4}}\left(\theta v\right)^\mu \theta ^{\rho \sigma }.`$ (27)
Let us choose $`x^\mu ,p^\mu `$ as the physical sector variables (one can equivalently take $`(x,v)`$ or $`(x,\pi )`$, which leads to the same final results, similarly to the non relativistic case ). The variables $`v,\pi `$ can be omitted now from the consideration.

Up to now the procedure preserves the manifest Poincare invariance of the model. Let us discuss the first class constraints $`p_\theta ^{\rho \sigma }=0`$. As the gauge fixing conditions one takes

$`\theta ^{0i}=0,\theta ^{ij}=const.`$ (28)
Then $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta _{\mu \nu }=\theta _{ij}\theta _{ji}`$, and the gauge is admissible if $`\theta _{ij}\theta _{ji}0`$, see Eq.(25), (20). From the equation of motion $`\dot{\theta }=\lambda _\theta `$ one determines the remaining Lagrangian multipliers: $`\lambda _\theta =0`$. Using this result in Eq.(20), the final form of the equations of motion is

$`\dot{x}^\mu =ep^\mu ,\dot{p}^\mu =0.`$ (29)
They are supplemented by the remaining first class constraints $`p^2m^2=0,p_e=0`$. Brackets for the physical variables are given by Eqs.(25).

The initial Poincare transformations (13) do not preserve the gauge (28) and must be accompanied by compensating local transformation, with the parameter $`ϵ^{\mu \nu }`$ chosen in appropriate way. It gives the Poincare symmetry of the gauge fixed version. To find it, one has the conditions ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}=\delta _\nu ^\mu +\omega ^\mu _\nu `$)

$`\left(\delta _\omega +\delta _ϵ\right)\theta ^{0i}=\omega ^0{}_{j}{}^{}\theta _{}^{ji}+\theta ^2ϵ^{0i}=0,`$ (30)
$`\left(\delta _\omega +\delta _ϵ\right)\theta ^{ij}=\omega ^{[i}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta _{}^{kj]}\theta ^2ϵ^{ij}+2\theta ^{ij}\left(\theta ^{kp}ϵ_{kp}\right)=0`$ (31)
The solution is

$`ϵ^{0i}\left(\omega \right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}\omega ^{0j}\theta ^{ji},ϵ^{ij}\left(\omega \right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}\omega ^{[i}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{j]},`$ (32)
or, equivalently

$`ϵ^{\mu \nu }\left(\omega \right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}\omega ^{[\mu }{}_{\rho }{}^{}\theta _{}^{\rho \nu ]},`$ (33)
where Eq.(28) is implied. Then the Poincare transformations of the gauge fixed version are

$`\delta x^\mu =\omega ^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}x_{}^{\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}p_\nu \omega ^{[\nu }{}_{\rho }{}^{}\theta _{}^{\rho \mu ]},\delta p^\mu =\omega ^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}p_{}^{\nu }.`$ (34)
## 4 Interaction with an external electromagnetic field.

The standard interaction term $`A_\mu \left(x\right)\dot{x}^\mu `$ can not be added to the NC action (12), since it will break the local symmetry (14). To preserve the symmetry, one needs to take the electromagnetic field depending on the gauge-invariant combination: $`A_\mu \left(x\frac{\theta v}{\theta ^2}\right)\dot{x}^\mu `$. Then, in terms of the canonical variables (9), any traces of noncommutativity disappear in the final formulation, similarly to the free particle case.

Other natural possibility, which is implied by the first order formulation, is coupling to the field strenght of the form $`\dot{v}_\mu F^{\mu \nu }v_\nu `$, where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}\left(x\right)`$. So, let us consider the action

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left[\dot{x}^\mu v_\mu \frac{e}{2}\left(v^2m^2\right)+\frac{1}{\theta ^2}\dot{v}_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu +\dot{v}_\mu F^{\mu \nu }v_\nu \right]}.`$ (35)
Note that the interaction term can not be removed by shift of the $`\theta `$-variable, due to presence of $`\theta ^2`$ in the denominator. Local symmetries of the model are reparametrizations, $`U\left(1\right)`$ gauge transformations, and the modified $`ϵ`$ transformations which look now as follow:

$`\delta x^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu ,\delta \theta _{\mu \nu }=\theta ^2\left(ϵ_{\mu \nu }+\delta _ϵF_{\mu \nu }\right)+`$ (36)
$`2\theta _{\mu \nu }\left[\left(\theta ϵ\right)+\left(\theta \delta _ϵF\right)\right].`$ (37)
Hamiltonian analysis of the model is similar to the free particle case discussed above. The interaction term leads to deformation of the constraint structure as compare with (15)-(26). The constraints of the model are

$`G^\mu p^\mu v^\mu =0,T^\mu \pi ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }v_\nu F^{\mu \nu }v_\nu =0,`$ (38)
$`p_\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0,p_e=0,v^2m^2=0.`$ (39)
The Poisson bracket algebra is deformed also and acquires the form

$`\{G^\mu ,G^\nu \}=0,\{T^\mu ,T^\nu \}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu },`$ (40)
$`\{T^\mu ,G^\nu \}=\mathrm{\Delta }_1{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu },\{G^\mu ,T^\nu \}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^T\right)^{\mu \nu },`$ (41)
where it was denoted

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }=2({\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}{\theta ^2}}+F^{\mu \nu }),\mathrm{\Delta }_1{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }^\nu F^{\mu \rho }v_\rho .`$ (42)
The only nonzero bracket of the constraint $`p_\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$ with others is the same as in (21). The Dirac bracket which corresponds to the constraints $`G^\mu =0,T^\mu =0`$ is

$`\{A,B\}_D=\{A,B\}\{A,G_\mu \}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1T}\right)^{\mu \nu }\{G_\nu ,B\}`$ (43)
$`\{A,G_\mu \}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1\right)^{\mu \nu }\{T_\nu ,B\}+\{A,T_\mu \}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1T}\right)^{\mu \nu }\{G_\nu ,B\}.`$ (44)
One takes the same gauge as in (28) for the first class constraints $`p_\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, and the gauge $`e=1`$ for $`p_e=0`$. The resulting system can be taken into account by transition to the corresponding Dirac bracket. Then the remaining variables of the theory are $`x^\mu ,p_\mu `$. Classical dynamics of these variables is described by the Hamiltonian equations

$`\dot{x}^\mu =\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1\right)^{\mu \nu }p_\nu ,\dot{p}^\mu =0,`$ (45)
which are accompanied by the constraint $`p^2m^2=0`$. Brackets for the variables are

$`\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{1T}\right)^{\mu \nu },`$ (46)
$`\{x^\mu ,p_\nu \}=\delta ^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1\right)^{\mu \rho }_\nu F^{\rho \sigma }p_\sigma ,\{p_\mu ,p_\nu \}=0.`$ (47)
One notes that in terms of the variables $`x,p`$ the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ does not enter into the equations of motion. From Eq.(45) one finds the second order equation for the position variable

$`\ddot{x}^\mu =\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1\right)^{\mu \sigma }_\alpha _\beta F_{\sigma \rho }\mathrm{\Delta }_1{}_{}{}^{\rho \nu }\dot{x}_{}^{\nu }\dot{x}^\alpha \dot{x}^\beta .`$ (48)
Interesting property of the interaction is that dynamics of NC variables in the constant electromagnetic field is governed by free equation. All the information on dynamics is encoded in this case in the noncommutative brackets (46). For the non relativistic systems the same property was discussed in . Let us point also that it may be mechanical analogy of duality relations .

## 5 Conclusion.

In this work we have presented noncommutative version (ref12)of $`D`$-dimensional relativistic particle. It couples to the electromagnetic background through the field strength, see (35). The interaction introduced is consistent with the Poincare invariance as well as with local symmetries presented in the model. Some relevant comments are in order.
1) The same interaction term can be added to the first order action of usual (commutative) relativistic particle as well. It may be interesting to study this trick in the context of higher spin particle models  (it is well known that the standard coupling is not consistent with symmetries of higher spin actions \[19-21\]).
2) Let us point that in the second order formulation, a similar interaction term could be $`F_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \ddot{x}^\nu `$. One expects that it will lead to different physical picture as compare with 1). The term involve the higher derivative, which indicates on appearance of extra physical degrees of freedom.
3) At last, we point that the standard coupling can be combined with the one considered in Sec. 4, one takes

$`S_{int}={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left[A_\mu \left(x\frac{\theta v}{\theta ^2}\right)\dot{x}^\mu +\dot{v}_\mu F^{\mu \nu }\left(x\right)v_\nu \right]}.`$ (49)
Since the bracket algebra (46) is deformed as compare with the free case (due to presence of the field strength term), this interacting system will be different from the corresponding commutative one.


format: text

text:
# Heavy Quark Photoproduction in 𝒌_⟂-Factorization Approach

## 1 Introduction

The investigation of heavy-quark production in high energies provides a better understanding of the hadron internal structure. In particular, the heavy quark masses are large enough to be taken as a hard scale, making the strong coupling constant small and allowing a perturbative QCD treatment of the process. Heavy quarks are produced in the clean $`\gamma pQ\overline{Q}`$ reaction at HERA, where the incident photon (real or virtual) probes the proton target at high center of mass energy $`W`$. There is a large amount of data on heavy flavor production at HERA, which have been a plethora on studies analyzing the interface between hard and soft regimes . However, data on open heavy quark production are limited by small statistics and the intermediate energy interval between the fixed target experiments and the high energy at HERA have not been covered yet. In hadroproduction at the $`p\overline{p}`$ Tevatron collider, the situation is slightly better, having precise measurements of the transverse momentum distribution of the produced heavy quarks .

The underlying mechanism for heavy quark production at HERA is photon gluon fusion: a photon coupled to the scattered electron interacts with a gluon from the proton by producing a quark antiquark pair, e.g. $`c\overline{c}`$ (charm) or $`b\overline{b}`$ (bottom). In the collinear QCD approach, based on the well known collinear factorization theorem , the process is described through the convolution of on-shell matrix elements, encoding the partonic subprocesses, with the parton distribution functions. At high energies, the gluon is the parton which drives the dynamics, evoluting on the virtualities obeying the DGLAP evolution equations . The transverse momenta of the incident particles are taken as zero and in the computation of the cross sections one averages over two transverse polarizations of the initial gluon. A computation of the process requires the knowledge of the gluon momentum distribution in the proton and the calculation of the $`\gamma g`$ subprocess. The gluon density as a function of the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ and virtuality scale $`Q^2`$ is known to an accuracy of a few percent from a global analysis of scaling violations of the proton structure function $`F_2`$ measured at HERA . The QCD matrix elements of the partonic process have been calculated in next-to-leading order (NLO) accuracy . Still substantial theoretical uncertainties come from the heavy quark mass and the from renormalization and factorization scales, $`\mu _R`$ and $`\mu _F`$.

The collinear factorization approach has produced a successful description of single-particle distributions and total cross sections for heavy-quark production. On the other hand, despite of many phenomenological successes, results within this approach are in contradiction with data on azimuthal correlations and on distributions in transverse momentum of the produced heavy-quark pair  (for quarkonium production see e.g. Refs. ). This problem is in general cured by introducing an intrinsic transverse momenta distribution (intrinsic $`k_{}`$) for the incident partons, parametrized using a gaussian profile. However, the mean value of intrinsic $`k_{}`$ needed to describe azimuthal correlations and $`p_T`$ spectrum can be as high as $`k_{}1`$ GeV or even $`23`$ GeV, which is not suitable from non-perturbative arguments. Moreover, recent calculations using known NLO results  of bottom hadroproduction in the collinear approach undershoot Tevatron data  by a factor $`2`$ or $`3`$, suggesting that an important contribution to the computed observables is missing.

At high energies another factorization theorem emerges, the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization or semihard approach . The relevant diagrams are considered with the virtualities and polarizations of the initial partons, taking into account the transverse momenta $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ of the incident partons. The processes are described through the convolution of off-shell matrix elements with the unintegrated parton distribution, $`(x,𝒌_{})`$. The latter can recover the usual parton distributions in double logarithmic limit (DLL) by its integration over the transverse momentum $`𝒌_{}`$. In the asymptotic energy limit, the unintegrated gluon distribution should obey the BFKL evolution equation . At the present, there is a lack of an accurate determination of this quantity at the same level as the usual parton densities. The matrix elements computed for the relevant subprocesses within the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach are more involved than those needed in the collinear approach already at LO level. On the other hand, a significant part of the NLO and some of the NNLO corrections to the LO contributions on the collinear approach, related to the contribution of non-zero transverse momenta of the incident partons, are already included in the LO contribution within the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization formalism . Moreover, part of the virtual corrections can be resummed in the unintegrated gluon function . Recently, the computation of NLO corrections to the subprocesses have been completed and full calculations at this level should appear in the near future . An important feature of the approach is the equivalence at leading logarithmic approximation with the color dipole picture , which have been used in a profuse phenomenology at HERA . Besides, a very important issue is the consistency of the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach including nonleading-log effects with the collinear factorization beyond leading order : the coeficient functions and the splitting functions providing $`q(x,Q^2)`$ and $`G(x,Q^2)`$ are supplemented with the all-order resummation of the $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ contributions at high energies, in contrast with a calculation in fixed order perturbation theory.

Two additional ingredients should be taken into account when considering the semihard approach: the infrared sector and saturation effects. The unintegrated gluon function should evolve in tranverse momentum through the BFKL evolution at high energies, leading to the diffusion on $`𝒌_{}`$ of the initial gluons in the evolution process . In this diffusion scenario the transverse momenta values are spread out into the infrared (and ultraviolet) region, where the perturbative description is not completely reliable. Therefore, the evolution should take into account properly the correct behavior in that region. The recently calculated non-linear corrections to the BFKL approach  introduce a natural treatment for these difficulties, where the saturation scale $`Q_s`$ provides the suitable cut-off controlling the infrared problems. As the longitudinal momentum fraction $`xQ^2/W^2`$ decreases, unitarity corrections become important and control the steep growth of the gluon distribution. In this domain the gluon distribution can saturate completely or acquire a mild logarithmic increasing. The most appealing approach taking into account both the notions of infrared behavior (confinement) and parton saturation phenomenon is the saturation model , which is an eikonal-type model based on the color dipole picture of high energy interactions. In this approach the physical picture is quite simplified and the expression for the saturation scale is promptly calculated. The adjustable parameters of the model are obtained from a fit to small-$`x`$ HERA data on the inclusive structure function and the photoproduction total cross section, being suitable for further applications to more exclusive quantities as open heavy-quark production.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present the main formulae for the heavy-quark photoproduction within the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach, defining the relevant kinematical variables. Furthermore, we investigate the unintegrated gluon distribution from the saturation model in comparison with the results from the derivative of the integrated gluon distribution, $`x𝒢(x,𝒌_{})`$. In Sec. (3), we present our results on the total cross section for charm and bottom photoproduction, as well as estimates for the $`p_{}`$-distribution of the produced heavy quark pair. We investigate in detail the deviations in the results when one confronts the dipole approximation and a conservative $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization procedure. Namely, the choice of scale for the coupling constant and the suitable longitudinal momentum fraction entering in the unintegrated gluon function. The predictions from the derivative of the collinear gluon function are also studied. In the last section, one presents the conclusions and final considerations.

## 2 Heavy-quark photoproduction in the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization

In this section we investigate the quasi-real photon scattering off a proton in the semihard approach. In light-quark photoproduction there is a poor knowledge concerning the effective light quark mass, which is associated with non-perturbative aspects of the process. This problem is naturally solved in heavy-quark photoproduction, because of the heavy quark mass. The semihard approach is valid in the domain where the following double inequality holds: $`s\mu ^2\widehat{s}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, i.e. the typical parton interaction scale $`\mu ^2`$ is much higher than the QCD cutoff parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, and much lower than the center of mass energy, $`\sqrt{s}`$. The $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach can resum in the leading logarithmic approximation all the contributions proportional to $`[\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)]^n`$, $`[\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)\mathrm{ln}(1/x)]^n`$ and $`[\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(1/x)]^n`$, where the first one corresponds to the collinear DGLAP resummation , the second one the double logarithmic contribution and the last one the BFKL resummation . Such resummation leads to the unintegrated gluon distribution, $`(x,𝒌_{})`$, which can also depend on the scale $`\mu ^2`$. It gives the probability to find a parton carrying a longitudinal momentum fraction $`x`$ and transverse momentum $`𝒌_{}`$. Requiring that in the DLL limit, the transverse photoabsortion total cross section written in the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach to be consistent with the same limit from the DGLAP approach, the collinear gluon distribution is given by the unintegrated one in the following way,

$`xG(x,\mu ^2)={\displaystyle ^{\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk_{}^2}{k_{}^2}}(x,k_{}^2),`$ (1)
where $`\mu ^2`$ is the scale of the process, which can be $`Q^2`$, the heavy-quark mass or the $`p_{}`$ of the produced particles, for instance. In particular, in obtaining Eq. (1), a strong ordering condition $`𝒌_{}^2𝒑_{}^2\mu ^2`$ is considered, where $`𝒑_{}`$ is the transverse momentum of the quark-antiquark loop in the photon vertex.

In order to compute the cross section of a physical process , the unintegrated gluon function should be convoluted with the off-shell matrix elements for the relevant partonic subprocesses. In these matrix elements the polarization tensor of the virtual gluon is given by $`L_{\mu \nu }^{(g)}=\overline{\epsilon _g^\mu \epsilon _g^\nu }=k_{}^\mu k_{}^\nu /|𝒌_{}|^2`$. In the following we will calculate the total and differential cross section of heavy-quark photoproduction (charm and bottom) taking into account the diagrams shown in Fig. (1). For convenience, one can define the Sudakov variables for the process $`epQ\overline{Q}X`$ at high energies,

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1P_1+\beta _1P_2+𝒑_1,q=x_1P_1+𝒒_{},`$ (2)
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _2P_1+\beta _2P_2+𝒑_2,k=x_2P_2+𝒌_{},`$ (3)
where, as it is shown in Fig. (1), $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the four-momenta of the produced heavy-quarks, $`q`$ and $`k`$ are the photon and the gluon four-momenta, respectively. The corresponding transverse momenta are $`𝒑_1`$, $`𝒑_2`$, $`𝒒_{}`$ and $`𝒌_{}`$. The electron and proton momenta are denoted by $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. In the center of mass frame of the process, one has $`P_1=(\sqrt{s}/2,0,0,\sqrt{s}/2)`$, $`P_2(\sqrt{s}/2,0,0,\sqrt{s}/2)`$, $`P_1^2=P_2^2=0`$ and $`(P_1P_2)=s/2`$, with $`\sqrt{s}`$ being the center of mass energy. From simple inspection of Eqs. (2) and (3) and using the energy-momentum conservation law, one obtains the relations,

$`p_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`p_2^2=m_Q^2,q^2=𝒒_{}^2,k^2=𝒌_{}^2,`$ (4)
$`𝒒_{}`$ $`+`$ $`𝒌_{}=𝒑_1+𝒑_2.`$ (5)
The Sudakov variables can be written in terms of the transverse masses $`m_{1,2}^2=m_Q^2+𝒑_{1,2}^2`$, where $`m_Q`$ is the heavy-quark mass, and the heavy-quark rapidities $`y_{1,2}^{}`$, in the following way

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_1^{}),\alpha _2={\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_2^{}),`$ (6)
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_1^{}),\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{\sqrt{s}}}\mathrm{exp}(y_2^{}),`$ (7)
$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2,x_2=\beta _1+\beta _2.`$ (8)
where in the photoproduction case $`q=P_1`$, the variable $`x_1`$ simplifies to $`x_1=1`$ and one can define $`\alpha _1z`$ and $`\alpha _21z`$. The $`z`$ and $`(1z)`$ variables correspond to the longitudinal momentum fraction carried by the heavy-quark having transverse momentum $`𝒑_1`$ and $`𝒑_2`$, respectively.

Having introduced the relevant definitions and variables, the differential cross section for the photoproduction process is expressed as the convolution of the unintegrated gluon function with the off-shell matrix elements ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (\gamma pQ\overline{Q}X)}{d^2𝒑_1}}={\displaystyle 𝑑y_1^{}d^2𝒌_{}\frac{(x_2,𝒌^2)||^2(\mathrm{off}\mathrm{shell})}{\pi \alpha _2}},`$ (9)
where the off-shell LO matrix elements are given by ,

$`||^2(\mathrm{off}\mathrm{shell})`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{em}\alpha _s(\mu ^2)e_Q^2[{\displaystyle \frac{z^2+(1z)^2}{[(p_2k)^2m_Q^2][(p_1k)^2m_Q^2]}}`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_Q^2}{k_{}^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{z}{(p_1k)^2m_Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1z}{(p_2k)^2m_Q^2}})^2],`$
where $`\alpha _{em}=1/137`$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant and $`e_Q`$ is the electric charge of the produced heavy-quark. The scale $`\mu `$ in the strong coupling constant will be specified latter on. In general, it is taken to be equal to the gluon virtuality, $`\mu ^2=𝒌^2`$ in close connection with the BLM scheme . In the leading $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ approximation, $`\alpha _s`$ should take a constant value. When the transverse momenta of the incident partons are sufficiently smaller than those from the produced heavy-quarks, the result from the collinear approach is recovered. The final expression for the photoproduction total cross section considering the direct component of the photon can be written as

$`\sigma _{tot}^{phot}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{em}e_Q^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑zd^2𝒑_1d^2𝒌_{}\frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)(x_2,𝒌_{}^2;\mu ^2)}{𝒌_{}^4}}`$ (11)
$`\times \left\{[z^2+(1z)^2]\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒑_1}{D_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒌_{}𝒑_1)}{D_2}}\right)^2+m_Q^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_2}}\right)^2\right\},`$
where $`D_1𝒑_1^2+m_Q^2`$ and $`D_2(𝒌_{}𝒑_1)^2+m_Q^2`$.

In Eq. (11) the unintegrated gluon function was allowed to depend also on the scale $`\mu ^2`$, since some parametrizations take this scale into account in the computation of that quantity (see, for instance Ref.  for a compilation of a number of them). We are now ready to calculate the total and differential cross sections for the process, provided a suitable input for the function $`(x_2,𝒌_{}^2;\mu ^2)`$. The practical procedure in this paper is to consider one of the simplest parametrizations available, covering a consistent treatment of the infrared region and taking into account the expected saturation effects at high energies. These features are fullfilled in the saturation model, which it is shortly reviewed in the following and it will be conveniently contrasted with the results coming from the derivative of the collinear gluon function,

$`x𝒢(x,𝒌_{}^2)={\displaystyle \frac{[xG(x,𝒌_{}^2)]}{\mathrm{ln}𝒌_{}^2}},`$ (12)
where $`G(x,\mu ^2)`$ is the integrated gluon distribution, which can be taken from the available parameterizations in the literature .

### 2.1 The saturation model

The saturation model  is based on the color dipole picture of the interaction, represented in the target rest frame where the transverse size $`𝒓`$ of the dipole quark-antiquark coming from the virtual photon Fock state fluctuations is fixed during the interaction. This representation can be recovered from the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach in the leading logarithmic approximation through the Fourier transform between the transverse size and the transverse momentum spaces. The photoabsortion total cross section is written as a convolution of the virtual photon wavefunction with the effective cross section for the interaction dipole-target,

$`\sigma _{tot}^{\gamma ^{}p}(x,Q^2)={\displaystyle 𝑑zd^2𝒓\left(|\mathrm{\Psi }_T(z,𝒓,Q^2)|^2+|\mathrm{\Psi }_L(z,𝒓,Q^2)|^2\right)\sigma _{dip}(x,𝒓)},`$ (13)
where the dipole cross section interpolates between the color transparency behavior for small size dipole configuration and the confinement features for large dipole sizes. It reads

$`\sigma _{dip}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _0\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒓^2}{4R_0^2(x)}}\right)\right],`$ (14)
$`R_0^2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{GeV}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{x_0}}\right)^\lambda ,`$ (15)
where $`R_0(x)`$ is the saturation radius which decreases when $`x0`$. The parameters $`\sigma _0`$, $`x_0`$ and $`\lambda `$ are determined from a fit to small-x HERA data. An additional parameter is the effective light quark mass $`m_q=140`$ MeV, which is needed to produce finite results on the photoproduction total cross section. The saturation scale is defined as $`Q_s^2=1/R_0^2(x)`$: when $`rQ_s/21`$ the model reproduces color transparency, $`\sigma _{dip}r^2`$, whereas when $`rQ_s/21`$ the cross section tends to a constant at large $`rQ_s`$ (it simulates confinement), $`\sigma _{dip}\sigma _0`$. In the region $`rQ_s/21`$, the model simulates the physics from the multiple scattering resummation of gluon exchanges in an eikonal-type way representing the black disk limit of the proton. In the original model, the coupling constant is considered fixed as $`\alpha _s=0.2`$ and in order to consider the formal limit of photoproduction, the Bjorken variable has been modified in the following way,

$`x=x_{Bj}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_q^2}{Q^2}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2+4m_q^2}{W^2}}.`$ (16)
Starting from the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach for the total photoabsortion cross section, but disregarding a transverse momentum dependence in the argument of the strong coupling constant and in the variable $`x`$, an analytical result for the Fourier transform between the spaces can be obtained,

$`\sigma _{dip}(x,𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌_{}}{𝒌_{}^4}\alpha _s(x,𝒌_{}^2)\left(1e^{i𝒌_{}𝒓}\right)\left(1e^{i𝒌_{}𝒓}\right)}.`$ (17)
Therefore, the Eq. (17) can be used to extract the unintegrated gluon function from the model in the $`𝒓`$-space, once the dipole cross section has a finite limit at $`𝒓0`$, denoted as $`\sigma _{dip}^{(\mathrm{})}(x)`$. It can be written as

$`\alpha _s(x,𝒌_{}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒓}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝒌_{}𝒓\right)\left[\sigma _{dip}^{(\mathrm{})}(x)\sigma _{dip}(x,𝒓)\right]𝒌_{}^4},`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rrJ_0(k_{}r)\left[\sigma _{dip}^{(\mathrm{})}(x)\sigma _{dip}(x,r)\right]k_{}^4.`$ (19)
After writting down the expression for the unintegrated gluon function to be employed in the studies of the next section, some considerations are in order. The saturation model is a quite successful approach for the small-$`x`$ region and it was also extended to simultaneously describe the diffractive DIS. However, when $`x1`$, the approach is no longer suitable and threshold correction factors should be introduced. The simplest way to implement this is to consider dimensional-cutting rules: for a subprocess having $`n_{spec}`$ spectators quarks which do not interact with the photon, the corresponding threshold factor is given by $`(1x)^{2n_{spec}1}`$ . For example, including light and charm quarks, the number of spectators is $`n_{spec}=4`$ and in our analysis we include the multiplicative correction factor $`(1x)^7`$ in the unintegrated gluon function from the saturation model. In next section, such a correction provides a correct description of the fixed target energy region, whereas the results from the original model remain unalterated at intermediate and high energies.

To our purposes in this investigation, we use the following parameters corresponding to the parameterization which includes the charm quark: $`\sigma _0=29.12`$ mb, $`\lambda =0.277`$ and $`x_0=4.110^3`$ . From Eqs. (18) and (14), the unintegrated gluon distribution from the original saturation model supplemented by the threshold factor is given by

$`(x,𝒌_{}^2)={\displaystyle \frac{3\sigma _0}{4\pi ^2\alpha _s}}R_0^2(x)𝒌_{}^4\mathrm{exp}\left(R_0^2(x)𝒌_{}^2\right)(1x)^7.`$ (20)
We illustrate in Fig. (2), shown in the plot on the left, the unintegrated gluon function from Eq. (20) as a function of the transverse momentum $`𝒌_{}^2`$ at typical values of the $`x`$ variable, covering large and small longitudinal momentum fractions. We remark that the small-$`x`$ region corresponds to $`x10^2`$. Its main features are quite clear: the function is peaked at $`𝒌_{}^2=2Q_s^2`$, with a narrow distribution around this value, being somewhat slightly asymmetric for large $`x`$. Therefore, the peak is shifted to larger $`𝒌_{}^2`$ as $`x`$ decreases. The most important feature is a large contribution from the very small transverse momentum sector, $`𝒌_{}1`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> at large $`x`$. Moreover, the unintegrated gluon distribution is strongly suppressed for large $`𝒌_{}^2`$ due to the missing parton evolution in the original model. This shortcoming is cured in the recent implementation of DGLAP evolution for the unintegrated gluon distribution .

In order to investigate the importance of a $`𝒌_{}`$-enhancement coming from a QCD parton cascade emission, we present in the plot on the right in Fig. (2) the result from the derivative of the collinear gluon distribution, $`𝒢(x,𝒌_{}^2)`$, where it was chosen the LO GRV98  gluon parametrization for the calculation. The use of this quantity gives the possibility to check the consistency of introducing elements from DGLAP evolution in the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach. That parametrization has the virtuality $`Q_0^2=0.8`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> as initial evolution scale and bellow this value one should make an assumption for the behavior of $`𝒢`$. In our analysis we apply the following procedure,

$`𝒢(x,𝒌_{}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒌_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{[xG(x,𝒌_{}^2)]}{𝒌_{}^2}}|_{𝒌_{}^2=Q_0^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(Q_0^2𝒌_{}^2)`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[xG(x,𝒌_{}^2)]}{\mathrm{ln}𝒌_{}^2}}\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒌_{}^2Q_0^2),`$
where the first term can recover $`xG(x,Q_0^2)`$ by integration over transverse momentum from 0 up to $`Q_0^2`$. However, we emphasize that such a procedure is not unique and other ansatze can be introduced. For instance, we can consider a lower integration limit $`𝒌_{min}^2Q_0^2`$, emphasizing that in the theoretical curves the cut-off mainly would affect the overal magnitude of the cross section. As expected, in our results the transverse momentum spectrum is broader, in contrast with the saturation model. At the small-$`x`$ region the deviation is huge both in behavior and in overall normalisation. The large $`x`$ region is correctly described since the collinear gluon function is adjusted on the whole kinematical range at HERA. It has been verified that by using the NLO collinear gluon distribution the deviations are negligible . A technical remark is the pronged behavior of $`𝒢(x,𝒌_{}^2)`$ above $`Q_0^2`$, which has no physical meaning, since it has to do with the grid interpolation routines used to obtain the collinear gluon function, and this effect is smoothed out in the integrated quantities and should not affect our latter results.

In the next section we investigate the saturation model in the computation of the total and differential heavy-quark photoproduction cross section, and a comparison with the derivative of the collinear gluon function will be used in order to study the effects of QCD evolution.

## 3 Results and discussions

The available data  on heavy-quark (charm and bottom) photoproduction range from energies $`W`$ of fixed target experiments about tens of GeV, up to the high energy HERA data around $`W200`$ GeV. Kinematically, the low energy data corresponds to $`x10^1`$ and the high energy ones to $`x10^4`$. The experimental errors are rather large and the intermediate region between low and high energies is not covered with measurements. Beauty production at HERA is suppressed by two orders of magnitude with respect to charm, due to the larger mass and smaller electric charge of the $`b`$ quark.

The total and differential cross section are computed from Eq. (11) and the unintegrated gluon function from the saturation model, Eq. (20). The heavy quark mass was considered as $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV for charm and $`m_b=4.8`$ GeV for bottom. In order to investigate in detail the results emerging from the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach and in an attempt to go beyond the leading logarithmic $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ approximation, we have considered in our analysis the following procedures:

1. We keep the original features of the saturation model. Namely, a fixed strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s=0.2`$ and the longitudinal momentum fraction $`x_2`$ being the photoproduction limit of the Bjorken $`x_{Bj}`$, given by Eq. (16), entering in the unintegrated gluon distribution. This procedure is equivalent to using the color dipole picture and the saturation model, as performed in the detailed study of Ref. . The result is shown in the dot-dashed curves in Fig. (3), for charm (plot on the left) and bottom (plot on the right) total cross sections. There is good agreement with the low energy data, whereas the high energy data are underestimated. The good description of the fixed target data is ensured by the threshold correction factor $`(1x)^7`$, since the original model would overestimate the data already at intermediate energies. At high energies, those threshold effects are completely negligible at $`W20`$ GeV for charm and $`W50`$ GeV for bottom. Similar conclusions are obtained in the Ref. . One small difference between the procedure above and the calculations in Ref.  is the prescription for the longitudinal momentum fraction being $`x_Q=m_Q^2/z(1z)`$ in the latter. If we consider a mean value $`z=0.5`$ for the quark momentum fraction, the results are completely equivalent. The very close similarity between our predictions and those of Ref.  corroborates our procedure of calculation.
2. We allow the argument of the strong coupling constant to run with the following scale, $`\mu ^2=𝒌_{}^2+\mu _0^2`$. This procedure is still very close to the saturation model, and it is the general procedure in calculating observables by other groups . The term $`\mu _0^2`$ is introduced in order to avoid divergencies coming from the coupling constant in the infrared region. The value $`\mu _0^2=1`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> has been used, motivated by the value of the saturation scale $`Q_s`$, ensuring that the low transverse momentum region is dominated by that scale. The result seems to spoil the previous good agreement at low energies, as shown in the dashed curves in Fig. (3). However, the high energy data are described in better agreement than in the previous procedure. In conclusion, the introduction of a running coupling in the calculation shifts the overall normalisation towards higher values at high energies, by enhancing the $`𝒌_{}^2`$-profile in the unintegrated cross section.
3. As a final aspect, we consider a conservative procedure concerning the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach. The argument of the strong coupling constant is let to run with the scale $`\mu ^2=𝒑_{}^2+m_Q^2`$, where $`𝒑_{}`$ is the transverse momentum of the produced heavy quark. Moreover, we have a different prescription for the $`x_2`$ variable than in Eq. (16). The correct value for the longitudinal momentum fraction entering in $`(x_2,𝒌_{}^2)`$ is given by the definitions in Eqs. (8) and (7). Namely, the momentum fraction is given by

$`x_2={\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{zW^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{(1z)W^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{m_Q^2+(𝒑_{}𝒌_{})^2}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_Q^2+𝒑_{}^2}{1z}},`$ (22)
where one has made use of the relations in Eqs. (6) and (7) and the energy-momentum conservation law, Eq. (5). Although Eq. (22) is well defined, it is involved for practical computations and for simplicity we rely on the following approximation. We benefit from the results on the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach applied to $`ep`$ collisions, in particular for the proton structure function, performed in Ref. . There, it was verified that for not too high virtualities $`Q^2`$ (including photoproduction), a suitable approximation is $`x_2=2x_{Bj}`$. This value is obtained from a careful investigation of the contributions in the transverse momentum integration range for the corresponding DGLAP piece and for the semihard approach. The results using the procedure above is shown in the solid lines in Fig. (3), presenting an intermediate behavior between the first and the second procedures. In particular, the fixed target data are described in good agreement and the results for high energy data are slightly improved compared to the equivalent dipole result (specially for the charm results).

A more detailed calculation considering the resolved part of the photon is beyond the scope of the present analysis. In Ref. , the resolved component is considered by including the off-shell matrix elements identical to those of heavy quark hadroproduction, convoluted with the photon and the proton unintegrated parton densities. In Ref. , where the color dipole picture is applied to heavy-quark photoproduction using the saturation model, a VDM contribution is included. In our analysis, we only consider the matrix elements of the direct component of the photon. According to the authors of Ref. , the $`\gamma c\overline{c}`$ component of the photon is automatically included in the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach, since there is no restriction on the transverse momenta along the evolution chain. Moreover, it is shown in Ref. , in particular when calculating the $`D^{}`$ (mesons) differential cross section $`d\sigma /dx_\gamma `$, that part of the resolved photon contribution is effectively included by the BFKL or CCFM  evolutions, namely this is included in the evolution of the unintegrated gluon distribution, and the off-shell matrix elements would contain only the direct component of the photon. When using such approaches in photoproduction, the resolved photon contribution is in general not included explicitly in order to avoid double counting, since the off-shell gluon from the BFKL evolution would take already into account a certain portion of this contribution.

In order to investigate the influence of the procedures above in the predictions for the total cross section and to find from where (in the transverse momentum range) comes the main contribution, we propose to consider the $`𝒌_{}`$ profile of the unintegrated cross section. This quantity, denoted by $`W(x,𝒌_{}^2)`$, is obtained by unfolding the $`𝒌_{}^2`$-integration in Eq. (11).

In Fig. (4) we show the profile functions for charm, by using the saturation model (plot on the left) and the derivative of the collinear gluon distribution (plot on the right), for fixed target energies (momentum fraction $`x=10^2`$) and high energies ($`x=10^4`$). For the saturation model, we consider two of the procedures above, namely the dipole approximation (fixed $`\alpha _s`$ and $`x_2=x_{Bj}`$) and the semihard approach ($`\alpha _s`$ running with $`\mu ^2=𝒑_{}^2+m_Q^2`$ and $`x_2=2x_{Bj}`$). At $`x=10^2`$ the profile functions are peaked around $`𝒌_{}^20.3`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>, whereas at $`x=10^4`$ the peaks are shifted towards $`𝒌_{}^21`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. As expected from results for the total cross section (Fig. 3), the semihard approach results have a larger normalization than the dipole ones. An important feature emerging from these results is the dominance of the small $`𝒌_{}^2`$ region for the charm total cross section. Indeed, at high energies the peak is of order of the saturation scale, $`𝒌_{}^2Q_s^2`$, and contributions for $`𝒌_{}^210`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> are negligible.

For the derivative of the collinear gluon distribution (usually denoted $`dGluon`$), we choose the scale $`\mu ^2=𝒑_{}^2+m_Q^2`$ and $`x_2=2x_{Bj}`$. We can notice in Fig. (4b) the effect of the discontinuity in the derivative of the gluon function, Eq. (21) at $`Q_0^2=0.8`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>: the profile function peaks in this value for $`𝒌_{}^2Q_0^2`$, whereas it has a flatter behaviour for $`𝒌_{}^2`$ below $`Q_0^2`$. We can also notice that the $`𝒌_{}`$ profile for the derivative of gluon distribution is broader than in the saturation model. Still the main contribution comes from the small $`𝒌_{}`$ region, however, intermediate values of transverse momentum give a considerable contribution. This will bring the predictions closer to data, as we will see latter on.

In Fig. (5) we present the results for the $`𝒌_{}`$ profile for the bottom, where we compare the different procedures and unintegrated gluon functions, similarly to the charm case. Some differences in comparison with charm are evident. For the saturation model calculations, the results of the dipole and semihard procedure are very similar, since the scale $`\mu ^2=𝒑_{}^2+m_Q^2`$ provides a high virtuality even at very small transverse momentum due to the large mass of the bottom. This makes the strong coupling constant to be very close to the value $`\alpha _s=0.2`$ in the whole $`𝒑_{}`$ range, as assumed in the original saturation model. The results from the derivative of the collinear gluon distribution keep the same features as the charm case, having again a broader $`𝒌_{}`$ profile in comparison with the saturation model.

The study of the $`𝒌_{}`$ profile shows the dominant region in the $`𝒌_{}`$ range and the effect of choosing distinct scales for the coupling and longitudinal momentum fractions. From the profiles discussed above, we expect that the broader $`𝒌_{}`$ spectrum for the derivative of the collinear gluon function will enhance the overall normalisation of the total cross section at high energies, improving the data description in comparison with the saturation model predictions. Motivated by this fact, we also perform a comparison at total cross section level between the two unintegrated gluon functions, namely the saturation approach and the derivative of the collinear gluon funtion. In both cases we make our default choice of scale $`\mu ^2=𝒑_{}^2+m_Q^2`$ and $`x_2=2x_{Bj}`$. This comparison is shown in Fig. (6) for both charm and bottom total cross sections. The saturation model underestimates high energy data, since the treatment of QCD evolution is not considered in the original model. Recent improvements, taking QCD evolution into account, should cure this shortcoming . The derivative of the collinear gluon distribution gives a better description of high energy data, since it includes the referred gluon emission. As expected, it is in disagreement at lower energies, since the non-singlet (valence) content was not included in the analysis. In addition, it was also verified that the corresponding unintegrated distribution function takes negative values in that region. For sake of illustration, we also show the parton model results (collinear approach) for the LO process $`\gamma gQ\overline{Q}`$, where it has been used $`m_c=1.3`$ GeV, $`m_b=4.75`$ GeV, and $`\mu ^2=\widehat{s}`$. This gives a reasonable description of data given the use of lower heavy quark masses or alternativelly considering higher order corrections to the LO calculation. In contrast, the semihard approach gives a reasonable description of data already at LO level. The energy dependence is distinct in the calculations: the saturation model provides a mild energy growth, whereas in the collinear approach the growth is steeper. The collinear approach and the semihard result using the derivative of gluon function present a similar energy behavior, with sizeable deviations only at low energies near the threshold.

As a final investigation, we compute the $`𝒑_{}`$-distribution for charm and bottom using the saturation model (using the 3 procedures discussed earlier) and the derivative of the collinear gluon distribution, at center of mass energy $`W=200`$ GeV. The predictions are shown in the Fig. (7). A remarkable feature is the finite and well controlled behavior at small $`𝒑_{}`$ for both gluon functions. One can also see the usual fall off at large transverse momentum. The finiteness at zero transverse momentum in a LO level calculation is one of the main advantages of the semihard approach. Our results are comparable with those of Refs., which consider other parametrizations for the unintegrated gluon function. Our results for the saturation model are quite similar, even using different prescriptions for the scales at $`\alpha _s`$ and for longitudinal momentum fraction, with a slightly deviation at larger transverse momentum. The growth at small $`𝒑_{}`$ is less steep in the bottom case than in the charm calculation, because of the larger bottom mass in the argument of $`\alpha _s`$. The derivative of the collinear gluon distribution ($`dGluon`$) produces a similar behavior on $`𝒑_{}`$, but with a somewhat higher overall normalization.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we investigate in detail the $`𝒌_{}`$-factorization approach (semihard approach) applied to heavy-quark photoproduction. In this formalism the cross section is given by the convolution of off-shell matrix elements with the unintegrated parton distributions, $`(x_2,𝒌_{}^2)`$. The matrix elements are at present known at LO accuracy, and include most of the NLO and even NNLO diagrams from the collinear factorization approach. This fact is advantageous in heavy-quark production, since NLO calculations in the collinear approach undershoot data (specially Tevatron data for bottom). There are several parameterizations for the unintegrated gluon function, relying on the solution of evolution equations or based on phenomenological considerations. We have investigated the application of the saturation model parameterization, which provide us a safe treatment of the infrared region and includes the onset of the parton saturation phenomenon. Moreover, the adjustable parameters of this model are extracted from the high energy HERA data, and therefore the results are parameter free.

In order to go beyond the leading logarithmic approximation ($`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$), we let the strong coupling constant run and use a suitable longitudinal momentum fraction entering on $``$. The description of the total cross section data is strongly dependent on those procedures. An additional ingredient in the calculations is a threshold correction factor accounting for the low energy behavior. The best agreement is obtained by the prescription $`\mu ^2=𝒑_{}^2+m_Q^2`$ and $`x_2=2x_{Bj}`$. However, in any case the saturation model slightly underestimate the high energy experimental results. This comes from the fact that QCD evolution is not present in the original model. In order to investigate the role played by these evolution emissions, we have considered the derivative of the collinear gluon distribution, which provides a closer connection with the DGLAP formalism. Indeed, the results for the charm and bottom total cross sections are in nice agreement in both low and high energies. Recent improvements of the saturation model considering these emissions are expected to produce similar results.

It was verified that the study of the $`𝒌_{}`$ profile provides important information where in the range of transverse momentum the main contribution for the processes is coming from. For the saturation model the most important piece is peaked at the saturation scale $`𝒌_{}^2Q_s^2`$. The $`𝒌_{}`$ spectrum is broader for the derivative of the gluon distribution, $`𝒢(x_2,𝒌_{}^2)`$. The $`𝒑_{}`$-distribution of the produced heavy-quarks is also computed, showing the effects coming from different prescriptions for the scales considered. The results for the saturation model are quite similar, even using different prescriptions for the scales at $`\alpha _s`$ and for the longitudinal momentum fraction, with a slight deviation at large transverse momentum. The growth at small $`𝒑_{}`$ is less steep in the botton case than for the charm. The derivative of the collinear gluon distribution produces a similar behavior on $`𝒑_{}`$.

The study of heavy quark photoproduction in the framework of the semihard approach improves the understanding of QCD dynamics both in the infrared and in the perturbative regions. It also sheds light on the proton structure, specially the gluon distribution. Therefore, it contributes in the understanding of the amazing interplay of soft and hard QCD phenomena.

This work was supported by CNPq, Brazil. MVTM is grateful to Prof. Nikolai Zotov (Skobeltsyn I.N.P., Moscow State University) and Antoni Szczurek (Institute of Nuclear Physics, Cracow) for useful enlightenements.

## References


text:
# Aging in a Chaotic System

## Abstract

Abstract

We demonstrate aging behavior in a simple non-linear system. Our model is a chaotic map which generates deterministically sub-diffusion. Asymptotic behaviors of the diffusion process are described using aging continuous time random walks, introduced previously to model diffusion in glasses.

Pacs numbers: 05.45.-a, 02.50-r, 05.60-k

Aging behavior is found in complex dynamical systems like spin glasses, glasses, and polymers . These systems include many interacting sub-units and are disordered. In this letter we will demonstrate that aging can be found also in low dimensional non-linear systems. Specifically we will show that deterministic diffusion generated by one dimensional maps exhibits aging. And that statistical properties of the corresponding trajectories can be analyzed using aging continuous time random walks (ACTRW), introduced by Monthus and Bouchaud  in the context of aging dynamics in glasses (see also  and Ref. therein).

There exist several methods to investigate aging. One method is to start a dynamical process at time $`t=t_a`$, then at time $`t=0`$ add a small perturbation to the system. One eventually measures the response at some time $`t>0`$. Alternatively one can measure correlation functions between physical quantities at time $`t=0`$ and time $`t`$, after aging the system in the interval $`(t_a,0)`$. We use the latter approach. A system exhibits aging if its dynamical properties depend on $`t`$ and $`t_a`$ even in the limit when both are long. Of-course many systems do not exhibit aging, namely when $`t>\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is a characteristic time scale of the problem, dynamical properties of the system are independent of the aging time $`t_a`$.

In many cases trajectories generated by deterministic systems, such as low dimensional Hamiltonians or maps, are highly irregular and noisy. For an observer these trajectories seem to be generated by a stochastic; rather than a deterministic mechanism. Hence analysis of chaotic trajectories generated deterministically is often based on random walk concepts . It is well known  that both conservative and dissipative deterministic systems may generate normal $`(\alpha =1)`$ or anomalous $`(\alpha 1)`$ diffusion for a coordinate $`x`$

$$x^2t^\alpha ,$$
(1)
where the average is over a set of initial conditions (see details below). The anomalous behavior is due for example to long trapping events in vicinity of unstable fixed points  or stickiness near islands in phase space . Here we shall investigate a deterministic system which generates sub diffusion behavior $`\alpha <1`$ and show how rich dynamical features emerge when aging is included. More generally, we demonstrate that aging can be used to probe dynamics in deterministic systems.

Probably the simplest theoretical tool which generates normal and anomalous diffusion are one dimensional maps

$$x_{t+1}=x_t+F(x_t)$$
(2)
with the following symmetry properties of $`F(x)`$: $`(i)`$ $`F(x)`$ is periodic with a periodicity interval set to $`1`$, $`F(x)=F(x+N)`$, where $`N`$ is an integer. $`(ii)`$ $`F(x)`$ has inversion anti-symmetry; namely, $`F(x)=F(x)`$. The study of these maps was motivated by the assumption that they capture essential features of a driven damped motion in a periodic potential . Geisel and Thomae  considered a rather wide family of such maps which behave as

$$F(x)=ax^z\text{for}x+0,$$
(3)
where $`z>1`$. Variations of these maps have been investigated by taking into account: time dependent noise , quenched disorder , and additional uniform bias which breaks the symmetry of the map . We use the map

$$F(x)=(2x)^z,0x\frac{1}{2}$$
(4)
which together with the symmetry properties of the map define the mapping for all $`x`$. In Fig. 1 we show the map for three unit cells.

To investigate aging, e.g. numerically, we choose an initial condition $`x_{t_a}`$ which is chosen randomly and uniformly in the interval $`1/2<x_{t_a}<1/2`$. The quantity of interest is the displacement in the interval $`(0,t)`$, $`x=x_tx_0`$ which is obtained using the map Eq. (2). Previous work  considered the non-aging regime, namely $`t_a=0`$.

In an ongoing process a walker following the iteration rules may get stuck close to the vicinity of unstable fixed points of the map (see Fig. 1). It has been shown, both analytically and numerically, that probability density function (PDF) of escape times of trajectories from the vicinity of the fixed points decays like a power law . To see this one considers the dynamics in half a unit cell, say $`0<x<1/2`$. Assume that at time $`t=0`$ the particle is on $`x^{}`$ residing in vicinity of the the fixed point $`x=0`$. Close to the fixed point we may approximate the map Eq. (2) with the differential equation $`dx/dt=F(x)`$. Hence the escape time from $`x^{}`$ to a boundary on $`b`$ ($`x^{}<b<1/2`$) is

$$t_x^{}^b\frac{dx}{F(x)}$$
(5)
using Eq. (3)

$$t\frac{1}{a}\left[\frac{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{z+1}}{z1}\frac{b^{z+1}}{z1}\right].$$
(6)
The PDF of escape times $`\psi (t)`$ is related to the unknown PDF of injection points $`\eta (x^{})`$, through the chain rule $`\psi (t)=\eta (x^{})|dx^{}/dt|`$. Expanding $`\eta (x^{})`$ around the unstable fixed point $`x^{}=0`$ one finds that for large escape times

$$\psi (t)\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}t^{1\alpha },\alpha =\frac{1}{(z1)},$$
(7)
where $`A`$ depends on the PDF of injection points. Note that when $`z>2`$ corresponding to $`\alpha <1`$, the average escape time diverges.

To consider stochastic properties of the aging dynamics we investigate now ACTRW, deriving an explicit expression for the asymptotic behavior of the Green function. Specifically we consider a one-dimensional nearest neighbor random walk. Each lattice point corresponds to a cell of the iterated maps. Waiting times on each lattice point are assumed to be described by $`\psi (t)`$. Note that after each jumping event we assume that the process is renewed, namely, we neglect correlation between motions in neighboring cells. This assumption will be justified later using numerical simulations. As mentioned start of the ACTRW process is at $`t=t_a`$ and our goal is to find the ACTRW Green function $`P(x,t_a,t)`$.

In ACTRW we must introduce the distribution of the first waiting time $`t_1`$: the time elapsing between start of observation at $`t=0`$ and the first jump event in the interval $`(0,t)`$. Let $`h_{t_a}(t_1)`$ be the PDF of $`t_1`$. Let $`h_s(u)`$ be the double Laplace transform of $`h_{t_a}(t_1)`$

$$h_s(u)=_0^{\mathrm{}}dt_1_0^{\mathrm{}}dt_ah_{t_a}\left(t_1\right)e^{t_ast_1u},$$
(8)
then according to theory of fractal renewal processes

$$h_s(u)=\frac{1}{1\psi (s)}\frac{\psi (s)\psi (u)}{us}.$$
(9)
When $`\alpha <1`$ in Eq. (7) (i.e., $`z>2`$)

$$h_{t_a}(t_1)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )}{\pi }\frac{t_a^\alpha }{t_1^\alpha \left(t_1+t_a\right)},$$
(10)
which is valid in the long aging time limit $`t_a>>A^{1/\alpha }`$. Note that Eq. (10) is independent of the exact form of $`\psi (t)`$, besides the exponent $`\alpha `$. When $`\alpha 1`$ the mass of the PDF $`h_{t_a}(t_1)`$ is concentrated in the vicinity of $`t_10`$, as expected from a ‘normal process’. In what follows we will also use the double Laplace transform of Eq. (10)

$$h_s(u)\frac{u^\alpha s^\alpha }{s^\alpha (us)}.$$
(11)
We have checked numerically the predictions of Eq. (10) for $`z=3`$, analyzing trajectories generated by the map Eq. (4) with three different aging times. In Fig. 2 we show the probability of making at-least one step in the interval $`(0,t)`$: $`_0^th_{t_a}(t)𝑑t1p_0(t_a,t)`$. The results show a good agreement between numerical results and the theoretical prediction Eq. (10) without fitting. Fig. 2 clearly demonstrates that as the aging time becomes larger the time for the first jumping event, from one cell to its neighbor, becomes larger in statistical sense.

We now investigate the ACTRW Green function. Let $`p_n(t_a,t)`$ be the probability of making $`n`$ steps in the time interval $`(0,t)`$. Let $`P(k,s,u)`$ be the double–Laplace –Fourier transform $`(xk,t_as,tu)`$ of $`P(x,t_a,t)`$, then

$$P(k,s,u)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n(s,u)\mathrm{cos}^n\left(k\right),$$
(12)
where $`p_n(s,u)`$ is the double Laplace transform of $`p_n(t_a,t)`$. In Eq. (12) $`\mathrm{cos}^n(k)`$ is the characteristic function of a random walk with exactly $`n`$ steps. Using convolution theorem of Laplace transform

$$p_n(s,u)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1sh_s(u)}{su}\hfill & n=0\hfill \\ & \\ h_s(u)\psi ^{n1}(u)\frac{1\psi (u)}{u}\hfill & n1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Hence inserting Eq. (13) in Eq. (12), using Eq. (9) and summing we find

$$P(k,s,u)=\frac{1}{su}+\frac{\left[\psi \left(u\right)\psi \left(s\right)\right]\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(k\right)\right]}{u\left(us\right)\left[1\psi \left(s\right)\right]\left[1\psi \left(u\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(k\right)\right]}.$$
(14)
We note that only if the underlying process is a Poisson process, the Green function $`P(x,t_a,t)`$ is independent of $`t_a`$.

By differentiating Eq. (14) with respect to $`k`$ twice and setting $`k=0`$, we obtain the mean square displacement of the random walk

$$x^2(s,u)=\frac{h_s(u)}{u\left[1\psi \left(u\right)\right]}$$
(15)
From Eq. (7) we have $`\psi (u)=1Au^\alpha \mathrm{}`$, when $`u`$ is small. Using Tauberian theorem one can show that for $`t,t_aA^{1/\alpha }`$

$$x^2(t_a,t)\frac{1}{A}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\alpha \right)}\left[\left(t+t_a\right)^\alpha t_a^\alpha \right].$$
(16)
For times $`t>>t_a`$ we recover standard CTRW behavior, $`x^2(t_a,t)t^\alpha `$ . For $`t/t_a<<1`$ we find $`x^2(t,t_a)t/t_a^{1\alpha }`$, hence as $`t_a`$ becomes larger the diffusion in this regime is slowed down.

This ACTRW behavior is shown in Fig. 3 for the iterated map. We show $`x^2(t_a,t)`$ versus time for different values of $`t_a`$. Good agreement between ACTRW and the numerical simulations is found. All the curves in Fig. 3 converge into $`x^2(t_a,t)t^\alpha `$ for long forward times $`t`$, while at shorter times the diffusion is clearly slowed down as the aging time is increased.

To investigate properties of the Green function $`P(x,t_a,t)`$ in the limit of long $`t`$ and $`t_a`$ we consider the continuum approximation of Eq. (14) (soon to be briefly justified). We insert the large wave length expansion $`\mathrm{cos}(k)=1k^2/2`$ and low frequency expansion $`\psi (u)=1Au^\alpha `$ in Eq. (14)

$$P(k,s,u)\frac{s^\alpha usu^\alpha }{s^{\alpha +1}u\left(us\right)}+\frac{\left(u^\alpha s^\alpha \right)}{s^\alpha \left(us\right)}\frac{Au^{\alpha 1}}{Au^\alpha +k^2/2}.$$
(17)
Inverting to the double time $`(t,t_a)`$ – real space $`x`$ domain we find that the Green function is a sum of two terms:

$$P(x,t_a,t)p_0(t_a,t)\delta \left(x\right)+$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \alpha \right)}{\pi }\frac{1}{t_a\left(\frac{t}{t_a}\right)^\alpha \left(1+\frac{t}{t_a}\right)}\frac{t|x|^{(1+2/\alpha )}}{\alpha \left(2A\right)^{1/\alpha }}l_{\alpha /2}\left(\frac{t|x|^{(2/\alpha )}}{\left(2A\right)^{1/\alpha }}\right)$$
(18)
where in this limit

$$p_0(t_a,t)\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \alpha \right)}{\pi }_{t/t_a}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x^\alpha \left(1+x\right)}.$$
(19)
The first term on the right hand side of Eq. (18) is a singular term. It corresponds to a random walk which did not make a jump in the time interval $`(0,t)`$. The symbol $``$ in the second term in Eq. (18) is the Laplace convolution operator with respect to the forward time $`t`$, $`l_{\alpha /2}(t)`$ is the one sided Lévy stable PDF, whose Laplace pair is $`\mathrm{exp}(u^{\alpha /2})`$. It is easy to see that the asymptotic solution Eq. (18) is non negative and normalized \[proof: set $`k=0`$ in Eq. (17)\]. In the limit $`\alpha 1`$ we get a Gaussian Green function which is independent of $`t_a`$, hence in the normal transport regime no aging behavior is found \[proof: set $`\alpha =1`$ in Eq. (17)\].

To justify the approximation Eq. (18) we have calculated the even moments of the ACTRW exactly, in $`u,s`$ space, using Eq. (14) \[i.e., $`x^2(s,u)`$ Eq. (15), $`x^4(s,u)`$, etc\]. Then using Tauberian theorems we can show that for long $`t`$ and long $`t_a`$, the ratio $`t/t_a`$ being arbitrary, these moments and the moments obtained directly from the approximation Eq. (18) are identical. In this way we have justified the continuum approximation. The details of this calculation and generalizations to other classes of random walks will be published elsewhere.

The behavior of the Green function Eq. (18) is shown in Fig. (4). Not shown is the behavior on the origin which exhibits a singular behavior \[i.e, the $`\delta (x)`$ term in Eq. (18)\]. The behavior of this singular term was displayed already in Fig. 2. A good agreement between simulations and the ACTRW Green function is obtained.

Using Eq. (18) we find the non-singular part of the ACTRW on the origin

$$P(x,t_a,t)|_{x=0}=t^{\alpha /2}g\left(\frac{t}{t_a}\right),$$
(20)
where

$$g(x)=x^{\alpha /2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \alpha \right)}{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\alpha /2\right)}_0^xdy\frac{\left(xy\right)^{\alpha /2}}{\left(1+y\right)y^\alpha }.$$
(21)
Hence we find the asymptotic behaviors

$$P(x,t_a,t)|_{x=0}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{t^{\alpha /2}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(23\alpha /2\right)}\left(\frac{t}{t_a}\right)^{1\alpha }\hfill & tt_a\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{t^{\alpha /2}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\alpha /2\right)}\hfill & tt_a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
In the limit of $`tt_a`$ we recover the standard CTRW behavior . Note however that the convergence of ACTRW to standard CTRW behavior may become extremely slow when $`\alpha `$ is small. For example when $`\alpha =1/12`$, and $`t/t_a=10^8`$, large deviations from the asymptotic limit are found: $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha /2)t^{\alpha /2}P(x,t_a,t)|_{x=0}=0.788`$ instead of the asymptotic value $`1`$. Since the limit $`\alpha 0`$ is important for several systems , (i.e., logarithmic diffusion as found in Sinai’s model), it is clear that aging can be important also when $`t>t_a`$.

To conclude, we have demonstrated for the first time aging behavior in diffusion generated by iterated maps. In the regime $`tt_a`$ we observe a slowing down of the dynamics as the aging time is increased. In the limit $`t>>t_a`$ we obtain previous results, the convergence towards this regime can become extremely slow when $`\alpha `$ is small. The aging dynamics of the iterated maps exhibits a universal behavior in the sense that the Green function, $`P(x,t_a,t)`$ does not depend on precise shape of $`\psi (t)`$ besides the exponent $`\alpha =(z1)^1<1`$. We believe that aging dynamics can be found also in other low dimensional deterministic systems, an issue left for future research.

Acknowledgments I thank J. P. Bouchaud for pointing out Ref.  and Yuan-Chung Cheng for helping with the numerics.