text:
# 1 Parton model and QCD

## 1 Parton model and QCD

Hadron structure functions, measurable in deeply inelastic scattering, are genuine physical observables which provide direct access to the microscopic constituents of matter and their intricate interaction dynamics. In the naive parton model , the structure function is expressed in terms of a probability density $`q(x)`$ to find a parton of a specific flavor with a certain fraction $`x`$ of the parent hadron’s momentum. The underlying probabilistic picture for the scattering process relies on the fact that the constituents in a hadron boosted to the infinite momentum frame behave as a collections of noninteracting quanta due to time dilation. This simple and intuitive description of hard reactions has found its firm foundation in rigorous field theoretical approach based on asymptotically free Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). The result is factorization theorems which separate incoherent contributions responsible for physics of large and small distances involved in hard reactions in a universal and controllable manner: The physical observables such as structure functions are calculated as a convolution of QCD parton distributions in the hadrons and parton scattering cross sections. The parton model result arises as a lowest order term in the expansion in the coupling constant and inverse power of the hard momentum transfer of QCD factorization formulas.

The QCD quark distribution follows from the factorization theorem in deeply inelastic scattering

$$q(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}}P|\overline{\psi }(\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎})\gamma _+[\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]\psi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})|P,$$
(1)
where

$`[\xi _{},𝝃;0,𝝃]P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig{\displaystyle _0^\xi _{}}𝑑\xi _{}A_+(\xi _{},𝝃)\right),`$
is the gauge link between the quark fields, which arises from final state interactions between the struck quark and the target spectators. This interaction does not ruin factorization and is in fact much needed to maintain gauge invariance. On the other hand, the presence of this gauge link seems to spoil the interpretation of $`q(x)`$ as a pure quark distribution, as the bilocal operator in the above expression is not obviously a quark number operator. The probabilistic interpretation is expected to hold only in the light-cone gauge ,

$$A_+=0,$$
(2)
since only the physical degrees of freedom remain with this choice. In this special gauge, the light-cone gauge link in the parton distribution in Eq. (1) formally vanish. The final state interaction effects between the outgoing parton and the target spectators have seemingly been removed and parton distributions depend only on the ground state wave functions. In particular, $`q(x)`$ can be calculated as the sum of the proton light-cone wave functions squared. The above observation is the basis for standard folklore that QCD parton distributions represent the density of partons in the target hadron or nucleus.

Recently, however, the authors in Ref.  questioned the validity of the standard result that the structure functions are given by the densities of partons in a target hadron. They argued that final state interactions between the struck quark and the target spectators have an intrinsic physical content and cannot be simply disposed off by a clever gauge choice. In the light-cone gauge, they found that although the final state interactions between the struck quark and the target spectators cancel after the transverse-momentum integrations, the effect remains in the interaction between the target spectators. They concluded on this ground that the parton distribution in the light-cone gauge is not given by Eq. (1): As such, structure functions cannot be just parton densities in an initial state hadron, which presumably does not know anything about final state interactions.

The light-cone gauge analysis is complicated by the fact that the condition $`A_+=0`$ alone does not remove all gauge freedom: $`x_{}`$-independent gauge transformations are still possible since they do not change the gauge condition. This leads to an difficulty in perturbation theory as the gauge propagator develops singularities in the Fourier conjugated momentum variable. In order to remove them, one has to fix the gauge completely. One way to do this is to adopt a specific boundary condition on components of the gauge potential. However, this may yield non-causal interactions, i.e., the final state interaction effects can be shifted entirely or partially either before or after the hard scattering. Moreover, the hadron wave functions do depend on the choice of the boundary conditions. The effect of the migration of final state interactions was noticed early in the analysis of shadowing , see also .

Let us briefly summarize the results of this paper in light of findings in Ref. . To fully exhibit the final state interaction effects, the Feynman parton distributions are considered as the integration of the transverse-momentum dependent parton distribution,

$`q(x)={\displaystyle d^2𝒌q(x,𝒌)}.`$
As we already emphasized above, the final state interaction effects in $`q(x,𝒌)`$ arise from the interaction between the active quark after it was hit by the virtual photon and the target remnant. We calculate it in the deeply inelastic lepton production of a jet with small transverse momentum and find

$`q(x,𝒌)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\frac{d^2𝝃}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}+i𝒌𝝃}P|\overline{\psi }(\xi ,𝝃)[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},𝝃]_C^{}\gamma _+[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]_C\psi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})|P},`$
with path ordered exponentials stretched in light-like as well as transverse directions,

$`[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},𝝃]_C[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},𝝃][\mathrm{},𝝃;\xi _{},𝝃].`$
This definition, which did not assume the vanishing of the vector potential at infinity, is completely gauge-invariant. In the light-cone gauge (2), the gauge link along the light-cone disappears, $`[\mathrm{},𝝃;\xi _{},𝝃]=1`$, and we are left with the link in the transverse direction, $`[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},𝝃]`$, which is crucial to maintain the gauge independence under residual gauge transformations. The effect of final state interactions can thus be present even in the light-cone gauge. As is clear from the above equation, the usual transverse momentum-dependent parton distributions with light-cone gauge links only are incomplete when they are used in the light-cone gauge, — they are no longer gauge invariant under different choices of the gauge boundary conditions. The transverse link in our new definition is responsible for the final state interactions which generates the Sivers distribution function: the parton transverse momentum distributions asymmetry in a transversely polarized nucleon . This distribution is responsible fully for the single transverse-spin asymmetry discovered in  and explained in . The mechanism which led to nonvanishing asymmetry was thought to be time-reversal odd and therefore prohibited in QCD. Our analysis supports the conclusion in  that time-reversal does not impose any constraint on the Sivers function and hence the rich phenomenology of transverse momentum-dependent parton distributions as related to spin physics, see, e.g., .

With different choices of boundary conditions one can shift residual final state interactions from the final to the initial state. For the advanced boundary condition under which the transverse field $`𝑨`$ vanishes at $`\xi _{}=\mathrm{}`$, the transverse gauge link vanishes as well, and the transverse momentum distributions are computable solely as a sum of the light-cone wave functions squared! Where are final state interactions now? They are now contained in the light-cone wave function due to the boundary condition on the gauge potential. Since the hadron wave function is a gauge-dependent object, it may acquire certain effects with the change of the gauge adopted to solve the bound state equation . Choosing the light-cone gauge with a specific boundary condition one mimics final state interactions by a phase $`\phi `$ in the wave function, $`\Psi =|a|\mathrm{e}^{i\phi }`$, which reproduces the effects of the gauge links if a different boundary condition is to be chosen. Therefore, the light-cone wave functions are special in that they encode not just the ground state properties of a system but also the final state interaction phases introduced through the choice of gauge conditions. This holds even though they represent stable bound state particles. This is not entirely surprising because final state interactions represented by the gauge links are quite general in nature, independent of details of the jet. In our view, this is a feature, rather than a defect, of the light-cone wave functions.

Now return back to the ordinary Feynman distributions. The transverse link at infinity cancels when integration over $`𝒌`$ is performed. Therefore, independent of the residual gauge fixing, Eq. (1) is the correct formula for the parton distribution in any gauge. In the light-cone gauge, the light-cone links reduces to unity, and the parton distribution can be calculated as the sum over the amplitude squared of the light-cone wave functions. The effects of final state interactions are partially cancelled through the transverse momentum integration and partially included already in the light-cone wave functions. So the parton distributions will be uniquely determined by the light-cone wave functions, $`q(x)|\Psi |^2`$, and may be interepreted as the parton density in the spirit of the conventional Feynman parton model. We emphasize again here that the conclusion is independent of the residual gauge fixing in the light-cone gauge.

Therefore the parton distributions do contain factorizable final state interactions. However, they can be completely hidden in the hadron wave functions if one chooses light-cone gauge and the advanced boundary condition. Then the parton distributions become densities in the sense that they can be calculated as the sum over the light-cone wave functions squared. As an example that the light-cone wave functions contain final-state intereaction effects, the light-cone amplitudes are complex when the advanced boundary condition is chosen , and they do not possess simple time-reversal symmetry properties. Hence some single spin asymmetries can be attributed to, albeit in a non-causal way, the properties of the bound-state wave functions!

A complementary view of the gauge links is to regard the (outgoing/incoming) “physical parton” as a free parton field with an attached gauge link extending from the parton position to (positive/negative) infinity. This “physical parton” field is gauge invariant and contains all the initial/final state interaction effects. The parton distributions are then the densities of these “physical partons” in a bound state.

The outline of our presentation is as follows. In the next section we introduce objects of study and spell out our conventions. Next we address the issue of the gauge invariance of transverse momentum-dependent parton distribution in deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) by deriving the gauge link. As we stated above, it extends along the light-cone direction and is accompanied by an extra scaling contribution from the transverse components of the gauge field at light-cone infinity. The latter contribution would not be present for local gauge potentials, however, it affects the distribution in the light-cone gauge which generates non-local and non-causal interactions. In section 4, we calculate parton distributions in a simple scalar QED model of Ref.  and demonstrate the effect of the final state interactions in the interplay with boundary conditions imposed on the gauge potential. We demonstrate the utter equivalence of different prescription for the light-cone pole on the amplitude level provided the transverse gauge link is accounted for. We show that with the advanced boundary conditions the final state interactions vanish and the parton distribution are defined solely by hadronic wave functions. In section 5, we show the equivalence of the dipole picture of deeply inelastic scattering in the aligned-jet kinematics, as discussed in Ref. , to the twist-two structure functions. In section 6, we address transverse momentum-dependent parton distribution functions in the Drell-Yan (DY) process and discuss violation of the naive universality with DIS distribution functions. A procedure for the complete fixing of the residual gauge freedom in the light-cone gauge (2) by imposing a set of boundary conditions is given in the appendix A.

## 2 Definitions

The main object of our study will be the structure functions which parametrize the hadronic part of the deeply inelastic scattering cross section and expressed, in turn, by the absorptive part of the forward Compton scattering amplitude

$$W_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{m}T_{\mu \nu }.$$
(3)
The latter is a matrix element of the chronological product of quark electromagnetic currents $`j_\mu =_qQ_q\overline{\psi }_q\gamma _\mu \psi _q`$,

$$T_{\mu \nu }=id^4\xi \mathrm{e}^{iq\xi }P|T\left\{j_\mu (\xi )j_\nu (0)\right\}|P.$$
(4)
Using the completeness of hadronic states $`_N|NN|=1`$, with a state $`|N`$ consisting of $`N`$ particles with the total momentum $`P_N=_{k=1}^Np_k`$ and certain quantum numbers, one gets

$`W_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{d^4p_k}{(2\pi )^4}(2\pi )\delta _+\left(p_k^2m_k^2\right)(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_lPq\right)}`$ (5)
$`\times P|j_\mu (0)|p_1,\mathrm{},p_Np_1,\mathrm{},p_N|j_\nu (0)|P,`$
where $`\delta _+(p^2m^2)=\theta (p_0)\delta (p^2m^2)`$ imposes the on-mass-shell condition for an outgoing particle and the summation over $`N`$ involves the summation over the number of particles populated the final states as well as their quantum numbers.

For an unpolarized target, the hadronic tensor admits the following decomposition into the structure functions

$$W_{\mu \nu }=\left(g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)F_1(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)+\frac{1}{Pq}\left(P_\mu q_\mu \frac{Pq}{q^2}\right)\left(P_\nu q_\nu \frac{Pq}{q^2}\right)F_2(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2),$$
(6)
which depend on the photon virtuality $`Q^2=q^2`$ and the Bjorken variable $`x_\mathrm{B}=Q^2/(2qP)`$. In the Bjorken limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ with $`x_\mathrm{B}=`$ fixed, these functions are expressed,

$$F_1(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=\frac{1}{2x_\mathrm{B}}F_2(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{q}{}Q_q^2\left(f_q(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)+f_{\overline{q}}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)\right),$$
(7)
in terms of QCD quark $`f_q`$ and antiquark $`f_{\overline{q}}`$ distribution functions, at leading order of QCD perturbation theory and neglecting power-suppressed contributions. The dependence of $`f_{q,\overline{q}}`$ on $`Q^2`$ arises only via the renormalization of the underlying composite operators and is logarithmic. In our subsequent considerations this will be irrelevant and, in order to simplify formulas, we neglect it in parton distributions. We also drop the summation over the quark flavors and set the quark charge to unity, $`Q_q=1`$.

The Bjorken kinematics sets the microscopic dynamics on the light-cone, since the photon four-vector has large $`q_{}=Q^2/(2x_\mathrm{B})`$ and small $`q_+=x_\mathrm{B}`$ component so that the integrand in Eq. (4) does not oscillate provided $`\xi _+1/q_{}`$ is small and $`\xi _{}1/q_+`$ is large. In a frame where $`q`$ does not have the transverse components, the light-cone decomposition of the external momenta reads

$$q_\mu =x_\mathrm{B}n_\mu ^{}+\frac{Q^2}{2x_\mathrm{B}}n_\mu P_\mu =n_\mu ^{}+\frac{M^2}{2}n_\mu .$$
(8)
We introduced the light-like vectors $`n_\mu `$ and $`n_\mu ^{}`$ such that

$$n^2=n^2=0,nn^{}=1.$$
(9)
For an arbitrary four-vectors $`v_\mu `$, we define

$$v_+vn,v_{}vn^{},vu=v_+u_{}+v_{}u_++v_{}u_{}.$$
(10)
We use Euclidean notations for transverse two-dimensional space with the metric $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }^{}=(g_{\alpha \beta }n_\alpha n_\beta ^{}n_\alpha ^{}n_\beta )=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$, so that

$$v_{}u_{}=𝒗𝒖.$$
(11)
Using these definitions one can easily project the hadronic structure functions via

$$F_1=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }^{}W_{\mu \nu },F_L=\frac{(2x_\mathrm{B})^3}{Q^2}W_{},$$
(12)
where we defined the function $`F_LF_22x_\mathrm{B}F_1`$. These structure functions are related to the absorption cross sections of transversely and longitudinally polarized photon by the hadron, $`F_1\sigma _T^\gamma ^{}`$ and $`F_L\sigma _L^\gamma ^{}`$, respectively. In the Bjorken limit, $`F_1F_L`$ for spin-$`1/2`$ constituents, while for scalar partons the inequality is reversed, $`F_1F_L`$.

## 3 Parton distributions

In this section we demonstrate how a gauge invariant parton densities arise in QCD description of the structure functions at leading twist. In particularly, we consider transverse momentum-dependent distributions. In QCD, the parton distributions are defined as hadronic matrix elements of quark bilocal operators. Since the parton fields enter at distinct space-time points, a gauge link is needed to make the operators gauge invariant. This gauge link is generated in a hard scattering process by the final state interactions between the struck parton and the target remnants. Since the struck parton moves with a high energy, its interaction can be approximated through an eikonal phase. We show that the conventional light-cone link is not the only scaling contribution.

A classic analysis  demonstrated that non-gauge invariant quark bilocal correlators representing parton distributions in the zero-order approximation acquire path-ordered gauge links stretched along a non-light-like direction, $`n_{\mathrm{NL}}`$, from the position of quarks to infinity, and restore in this way their gauge invariance. A naive lifting of the direction to a light-like $`n_{\mathrm{NL}}=n`$ was shown to lead to severe divergences , which cancel only for integrated densities. Although, not implied by Ref. , the following definition of the transverse-momentum dependent quark distributions has been unequivocally accepted in the literature

$$q(x,𝒌)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\frac{d^2𝝃}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}+i𝒌𝝃}P|\overline{\psi }(\xi _{},𝝃)[\mathrm{},𝝃;\xi _{},𝝃]^{}\gamma _+[\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]\psi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})|P,$$
(13)
where the path-ordered gauge link extends along the light-cone

$$[\mathrm{},𝝃;\xi _{},𝝃]P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_\xi _{}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi _{}A_+(\xi _{},𝝃)\right).$$
(14)
Since the coordinate $`\xi _+=0`$, we do not display it, for brevity, here and the following presentation. As we will see, Eq. (13) is true only in a class of gauges where the gluon potential vanishes at $`\xi _{}=\mathrm{}`$. Note that the integrated parton distribution is just

$$q(x)=d^2𝒌q(x,𝒌),$$
(15)
and generates quark and antiquark distributions $`q(x)=f_q(x)\theta (x)f_{\overline{q}}\theta (x)`$.

For the photon scattering on a single parton with momentum $`\mathrm{}`$, we have for the hadronic tensor

$$W_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{\overline{N}}{}\frac{d^4p_J}{(2\pi )^4}(2\pi )\delta _+(p_J^2)(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}\left(P_{\overline{N}}+p_JPq\right)P|j_\mu (0)|p_J,\overline{N}p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P,$$
(16)
where $`p_J`$ is the momentum of the observed final state quark (jet) after multiple rescattering with spectators $`\overline{N}`$ in the target fragments. The tree scattering amplitude corresponding to Fig. 1 (a) reads

$$p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(0)}=\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|\psi (0)|P,$$
(17)
where $`\overline{u}`$ is the Dirac spinor of the scattered quark. Substituting Eq. (17) into (16) we get, after projection with (12), the structure function $`F_1(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)`$ in the parton model

$$F_1(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=\frac{1}{2}d^2𝒑_Jq(x_\mathrm{B},𝒑_J),$$
(18)
in terms of the parton distribution

$$q(x,𝒌)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\frac{d^2𝝃}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}+i𝒌𝝃}P|\overline{\psi }(\xi _{},𝝃)\gamma _+\psi (0,0)|P.$$
(19)
As it stands the above correlation is not gauge invariant.

### 3.1 Light-cone gauge link

Consider now the contribution from the diagram in Fig. 1 (b). The one-gluon amplitude reads

$$p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(1)}=g\overline{u}(p_J)\frac{d^4k_1}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{N}|\overline{)}A(k_1)S_0(p_Jk_1)\gamma _\nu \psi (0)|P,$$
(20)
where the free quark propagator is

$$S_0(k)=\frac{\overline{)}k}{k^2+i0}.$$
(21)
Momentum conservation gives

$`p_J=q+\mathrm{}+k_1,`$
so that the on-mass-shell condition $`p_J^2=0`$ results into

$`\mathrm{}_++k_{1+}=x_\mathrm{B},`$
in the Bjorken limit $`q_{}\mathrm{}`$. By expanding all vectors in Sudakov components (10), one can easily keep track of leading contributions in the scaling limit. For instance, the struck quark propagator contains a scaling term,

$`S_0(p_Jk_1){\displaystyle \frac{q_{}\gamma _+}{2q_{}(\mathrm{}_+x_\mathrm{B})+i0}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _+}{k_{1+}i0}},`$ (22)
with the remainder naively suppressed by extra powers of $`1/q_{}`$.

Making the light-cone decomposition of the gluon field

$$A_\mu =n_\mu ^{}A_++n_\mu A_{}+A_\mu ^{},$$
(23)
one notices that the leading twist contribution comes from the first term on the right-hand side only, since the second one vanishes due to nilpotence of $`\gamma _{}^2=0`$, while the transverse component of the gauge field is of twist-three. Since the leading component in the quark density matrix $`u\overline{u}`$ comes from the large term $`q_{}\gamma _+`$ we are allowed to replace $`\overline{u}\gamma _{}\gamma _+`$ by $`2\overline{u}`$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (20). Finally, integrating with respect to $`k_1`$ we get

$$\frac{d^4k_1}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k_{1+}i0}A(k_1)=i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi _{}\theta (\xi _{})A_+(\xi _{},0,\mathrm{𝟎}).$$
(24)
Using these results, we find that the amplitude in one-gluon approximation differs from the three-level result (17) only by an extra factor, namely,

$$p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(1)}=\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|(ig)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi _{}A_+(\xi _{},0,\mathrm{𝟎})\psi (0)|P.$$
(25)
These considerations are generalizable in a straightforward manner to an arbitrary order. Namely, for $`n`$-gluon exchange, see Fig. 1 (c), we have

$`p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`g^n\overline{u}(p_J){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}\overline{N}|\overline{)}A(k_1)S_0(p_Jk_1)\overline{)}A(k_2)S_0(p_Jk_1k_2)\mathrm{}}`$ (26)
$`\times \overline{)}A(k_n)S_0\left(p_J{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}k_j\right)\gamma _\nu \psi (0)|P.`$
Making repeatedly the same set of approximations as above, one simplifies the Dirac structure to

$`p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`(g)^n{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k_{1+}i0}\frac{1}{k_{1+}+k_{2+}i0}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{_{j=1}^nk_{j+}i0}}`$ (27)
$`\times \overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|A_+(k_1)A_+(k_2)\mathrm{}A_+(k_n)\psi (0)|P,`$
where we have used the momentum conservation $`\mathrm{}_++_{i=1}^nk_{i+}=x_\mathrm{B}`$. The calculation of the momentum integrals is trivial and gives, similarly to Eq. (24),

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k_{1+}i0}\frac{1}{k_{1+}+k_{2+}i0}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{_{j=1}^nk_{j+}i0}A_+(k_1)A_+(k_2)\mathrm{}A_+(k_n)}`$
$`=i^n{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d\xi _{i+}\theta (\xi _i\xi _{(i+1)})A_+(\xi _1)A_+(\xi _2)\mathrm{}A_+(\xi _n),`$ (28)
where $`\xi _{(n+1)}=0`$. Thus,

$`p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|(ig)^n{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi _1{\displaystyle _0^{\xi _1}}𝑑\xi _2\mathrm{}`$ (29)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\xi _{(n1)}}}d\xi _nA_+(\xi _1)A_+(\xi _2)\mathrm{}A_+(\xi _n)\psi (0)|P.`$
Here, one immediately recognizes the $`n`$th term in the expansion of the path-ordered exponential. Therefore, for the amplitude resummed to all orders, one gets

$$p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(n)}=\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi _{}A_+(\xi _{})\right)\psi (0)|P.$$
(30)
Substitution of this result into the hadronic tensor yields, indeed, the conventional quark distribution (13).

### 3.2 Transverse gauge link

In the previous section we were not quite accurate and actually omitted contributions which scale in the Bjorken region. These terms survive only at a point of the momentum space and are, normally, assumed to be vanishing. However, this is not the case for all gauge potentials. And a counter-example is provided by the light-cone gauge where the potential is singular at the very same point.

In the present circumstances it is more convenient to work in a frame similar to the Drell-Yan frame as was done previously in Refs. . Namely, the four-momentum of the current jet $`p_J`$ is light-like, $`p_J^2=0`$, and can be chosen as one of the light-like vectors with the other one still fixed by the hadron momentum $`P_\mu =n_\mu ^{}`$. Thus, we define

$$\stackrel{~}{n}_\mu \frac{p_{J\mu }}{p_Jn^{}}.$$
(31)
Obviously, $`\stackrel{~}{n}^2=n^2=0`$ and $`n\stackrel{~}{n}=1`$. We decompose all Lorentz tensors via light-cone and transverse components defined in this basis

$$v_\mu =\stackrel{~}{n}_\mu v_{}+n_\mu ^{}v_++v_\mu ^{},$$
(32)
and keep the same $`+`$ index for contractions with $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$, $`v_+\stackrel{~}{n}v`$. In the Bjorken limit $`q_{}\mathrm{}`$, the difference between $`p_J`$ and $`q_{}`$ is negligible and, therefore, both frames, used before and here, coincide.

Let us discuss first one-gluon exchange contribution in Eq. (20). By looking at the denominator of the quark propagator one immediately notices that the scaling contribution in the Bjorken limit $`p_J\mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{1}{(p_Jk_1)^2+i0}\frac{1}{2p_Jk_{1+}+𝒌_1^2i0},$$
(33)
arises not only when one extracts the large $`p_J`$ component from the numerator but also when $`k_{1+}1/p_J0`$ and keeps finite contributions in the numerator. A simple algebra gives

$`\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\mu (\overline{)}p_J\overline{)}k_1)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|A_\mu (k_1)\psi (0)|P`$ $``$ $`2p_J\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|A_+(k_1)\psi (0)|P`$ (34)
$``$ $`\overline{u}(p_J)𝜸_\alpha \overline{)}𝒌_1\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|𝑨_\alpha (k_1)\psi (0)|P.`$
where we have used the fact that, when keeping the transverse part of the gluon field, $`\overline{)}p_J`$ can now be pushed through $`\overline{)}𝑨`$, giving zero when acting on the on-shell spinor due to the equation of motion $`\overline{u}(p_J)\overline{)}p_J=0`$. Thus, we find

$`\overline{u}(p_J)\overline{N}|\overline{)}A(k_1)S_0(p_Jk_1)\gamma _\nu \psi (0)|P`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_{1+}i0}}\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|A_+(k_1)\psi (0)|P`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`\overline{u}(p_J){\displaystyle \frac{𝜸_\alpha \overline{)}𝒌_1\gamma _\nu }{2p_Jk_{1+}+𝒌_1^2i0}}\overline{N}|𝑨_\alpha (k_1)\psi (0)|P.`$
The first term on the right-hand side is a contribution to the conventional light-cone link. When summed with contribution of multi-gluon exchanges it results as before into Eq. (30). We will drop, therefore, these terms completely and concentrate on effects of the second kind from transverse components of the gluon field.

As we already emphasized before, in the scaling limit of $`p_J\mathrm{}`$, a finite contribution comes from $`k_{1+}=0`$, i.e., when the exchanged gluon carries no longitudinal momentum. To see this, we exponentiate the denominator via the Chisholm representation

$$\frac{1}{2p_Jk_{1+}+𝒌_1^2i0}=i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda \mathrm{e}^{i\lambda (2p_Jk_{1+}+𝒌_1^2i0)}.$$
(36)
Substituting it into (35) and then into Eq. (20), we can perform the integrations with respect to $`k_{1+}`$ and $`k_1`$ which merely yield the Fourier transform of the gauge potential in these momentum components $`A_\mu (\xi _{}=1/(2\lambda p_J),\xi _+=0,𝒌_1)`$. Thus, in the scaling limit $`p_J\mathrm{}`$, the argument of $`A(\xi )`$ is set to $`\xi _{}=\mathrm{}`$. The integration over $`\lambda `$ can now be trivially performed giving the propagator in the transverse space,

$$p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(1)}=g\overline{u}(p_J)\frac{d^2𝒌_1}{(2\pi )^2}𝜸_\alpha \frac{\overline{)}𝒌_1}{𝒌_1^2i0}\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|𝑨_\alpha (\xi _{}=\mathrm{},\xi _+=0,𝒌_1)\psi (0)|P.$$
(37)
To proceed further, we note that $`𝑨_\alpha (\xi =\mathrm{},\xi _+=0,𝝃)`$ must be a pure gauge<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Generally, a pure gauge field is $`A_\mu (x)=g^{}(x)_\mu g(x)`$ with a group-valued function $`g(x)`$. We assume that $`g(x)`$ represents small gauge transformations which are contractable to the unit element $`g1+\varphi `$. In the Eq. (38) we kept only the leading term in the perturbative expansion.

$$𝑨_\alpha (\xi _{}=\mathrm{},\xi _+=0,𝝃)=\mathbf{}_\alpha \varphi (𝝃),$$
(38)
since the field strength vanishes. The Fourier transform of this potential to the mixed, light-cone coordinate-transverse momentum representation, is $`𝑨_\alpha (\xi _{}=\mathrm{},\xi _+=0,𝒌)=i𝒌_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi }(𝒌)`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ being the Fourier transform of $`\varphi (𝝃)`$. Substituting it into Eq. (37) we cancel the denominator $`𝒌_1^2`$, making use of $`𝜸_\alpha 𝜸_\beta +𝜸_\beta 𝜸_\alpha =2\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$, and get

$$p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(1)}=ig\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu p_J,\overline{N}|\varphi (\mathrm{𝟎})\psi (0)|P.$$
(39)
It is easy to see that $`\varphi (\mathrm{𝟎})`$ can be represented as a line integral

$$\varphi (\mathrm{𝟎})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑𝝃𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃).$$
(40)
The above expression is the first term in the expansion of an additional eikonal phase to the conventional one (25), which has been neglected in the literature. Therefore, even in the light-cone gauge $`A_+=0`$, Fig. 1 (b) does generate a non-zero contribution to the parton distribution.

The momentum space procedure just outlined cannot be easily extended beyond single-gluon exchange. Therefore, the strategy will be to transform all factors in the integrand of Eq. (37) into the transverse coordinate space and do all manipulations there. To this end, we use

$$\frac{𝒌_\alpha }{𝒌^2}=\frac{i}{2\pi }d^2𝝃\mathrm{e}^{i𝒌𝝃}\frac{𝝃_\alpha }{𝝃^2}=\frac{i}{2\pi }d^2𝝃\mathrm{e}^{i𝒌𝝃}\mathbf{}_\alpha \mathrm{ln}|𝝃|,$$
(41)
where we do not display a mass parameter which makes the argument of the logarithm dimensionless. Thus, the right-hand side of Eq. (37) can be equivalently written as

$$ig\overline{u}(p_J)𝜸_\alpha 𝜸_\beta \gamma _\nu \frac{d^2𝝃}{2\pi }\mathbf{}_\beta \mathrm{ln}|𝝃|\overline{N}|\mathbf{}_\alpha \varphi (𝝃)\psi (0)|P.$$
(42)
Next, one integrates by parts so that both derivatives act on the logarithm, $`\mathbf{}_\alpha \mathbf{}_\beta \mathrm{ln}|𝝃|`$. This is a symmetric tensor in its two-dimensional Lorentz indices so that the contracted Dirac matrices can be also symmetrized and reduced to the Kronecker symbol $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ by means of the Cliford algebra relation. Finally, since $`\mathrm{ln}|𝝃|`$ is a two-dimensional Green function, one has $`\mathbf{}^2\mathrm{ln}|𝝃|=2\pi \delta ^{(2)}(𝝃)`$. These manipulations lead to the result in Eq. (39).

For $`n`$-gluon exchanges, we have the following contribution from the transverse components of the gluon field, similarly to Eq. (37),

$`p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`g^n\overline{u}(p_J)\overline{N}|{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌_1}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{)}𝑨(\mathrm{},𝒌_1)\frac{\overline{)}𝒌_1}{𝒌_1^2i0}\frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\overline{)}𝑨(\mathrm{},𝒌_2)\frac{\overline{)}𝒌_1+\overline{)}𝒌_2}{(𝒌_1+𝒌_2)^2i0}\mathrm{}}`$ (43)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌_n}{(2\pi )^2}}\overline{)}𝑨(\mathrm{},𝒌_n){\displaystyle \frac{_{i=1}^n\overline{)}𝒌_i}{\left(_{j=1}^n𝒌_j\right)^2i0}}\gamma _\nu \psi (0)|P.`$
The Fourier transformation gives

$`p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`(ig)^n\overline{u}(p_J)\overline{N}|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d^2𝝃_i}{2\pi }\overline{)}𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃_1)\overline{)}\mathbf{}_1\mathrm{ln}|𝝃_1𝝃_2|\overline{)}𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃_2)\overline{)}\mathbf{}_2\mathrm{ln}|𝝃_2𝝃_3|\mathrm{}}`$ (44)
$`\times \overline{)}𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃_{n1})\overline{)}\mathbf{}_{n1}\mathrm{ln}|𝝃_{n1}𝝃_n|\overline{)}𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃_n)\overline{)}\mathbf{}_n\mathrm{ln}|𝝃_n|\gamma _\nu \psi (0)|P.`$
Now, exploiting Eq. (38), we integrate by parts starting with $`𝝃_1`$ and using $`\overline{)}\mathbf{}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{ln}|𝝃_1𝝃_2|=\mathbf{}_1^2\mathrm{ln}|𝝃_1𝝃_2|=2\pi \delta ^{(2)}(𝝃_1𝝃_2)`$, then with respect to $`𝝃_2`$, first noticing that

$$\varphi (𝝃)𝑨_\alpha (𝝃)=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{}_\alpha \varphi ^2(𝝃),$$
(45)
and then performing the same partial integrations as for $`𝝃_1`$. In this way one can integrate out all $`𝝃`$’s. At the end, one gets

$$p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (0)|P_{(n)}=(ig)^n\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|\frac{1}{n!}\varphi ^n(\mathrm{𝟎})\psi (0)|P.$$
(46)
As a final step, one simply notices that

$$\frac{(1)^n}{n!}\varphi ^n(\mathrm{𝟎})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑𝝃_1𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃_1)_0^{𝝃_1}𝑑𝝃_2𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃_2)\mathrm{}_0^{𝝃_{n1}}𝑑𝝃_n𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃_n),$$
(47)
so that it forms a gauge link once resummed to all orders

$$[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}]=P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑𝝃𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃)\right).$$
(48)
Therefore, restoring the light-cone gauge link, one finds the complete result for the amplitude

$$p_J,\overline{N}|j_\nu (\xi )|P=\overline{u}(p_J)\gamma _\nu \overline{N}|[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},𝝃]_C\psi (\xi _{},𝝃)|P,$$
(49)
where

$$[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},𝝃]_C[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},𝝃][\mathrm{},𝝃;\xi _{},𝝃],$$
(50)
is shown in Fig. 2.

Multiplying (49) by its complex conjugate, we deduce the gauge invariant transverse momentum-dependent parton distribution

$$q(x,𝒌)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\frac{d^2𝝃}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}+i𝒌𝝃}P|\overline{\psi }(\xi ,𝝃)[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},𝝃]_C^{}\gamma _+[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]_C\psi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})|P.$$
(51)
The unitarity implies a partial cancellation of links at light-cone infinity

$$[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},𝝃]_C^{}[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]_C=[\mathrm{},𝝃;\xi _{},𝝃]^{}[\mathrm{},𝝃;\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}][\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};0,\mathrm{𝟎}],$$
(52)
so that the definition (13) of the parton distribution, accepted in the literature, acquires an additional transverse link.

## 4 Parton distribution in scalar QED

In this section we demonstrate, with a model calculation of parton distribution functions in scalar QED , the role played by the transverse gauge link in the restoration of a gauge invariant answer on the amplitude level. In Ref. , this model was used to demonstrate the presence of non-pinched final state interactions in scaling contribution to the deeply inelastic cross section. We reformulate this in the language of parton distributions and show how the final state interaction can be shifted from the final to the initial state depending on the prescription on the spurious pole in the gluon propagator in the light-cone gauge.

The model considered in Ref.  consists of heavy $`D`$ and light $`\varphi `$ charged scalars with masses $`M`$ and $`m`$, respectively, interacting with massive U(1) gauge fields $`A_\mu `$,

$$_{\mathrm{sQED}}=\left(𝒟_\mu \varphi \right)^{}𝒟_\mu \varphi +\left(𝒟_\mu D\right)^{}𝒟_\mu Dm^2\varphi ^{}\varphi M^2D^{}D\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}A_\mu ^2,$$
(53)
via the covariant derivative $`𝒟_\mu _\mu +igA_\mu `$. Using the electromagnetic current of scalar QED

$$j_\mu =i\varphi ^{}(\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}}\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{}})\varphi ,$$
(54)
in the hadronic tensor (16), a simple calculation gives for the longitudinal structure function $`F_L`$ in the handbag approximation<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Recall that $`F_1\sigma _T`$ is zero for scalar quarks to this order.

$$F_L^{\mathrm{tw}2}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=2x_\mathrm{B}\left\{\pi (x_\mathrm{B})\pi (x_\mathrm{B})\right\},$$
(55)
with the scalar $`\varphi `$-parton distribution in the $`D`$-meson

$$\pi (x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}}P|\varphi ^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]_C^{}i_+[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎}]_C\varphi (\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎})|P.$$
(56)
Here the subscript $`C`$ denotes the path shown in Fig. 2. In practical computations we insert a complete set of intermediate states, so that the parton distribution reads

$$\pi (x)=\frac{x}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}}\underset{N}{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{d^4p_k}{(2\pi )^4}(2\pi )\delta _+\left(p_k^2m_k^2\right)𝒜_N^{}(0)𝒜_N(\xi _{}),$$
(57)
where we introduced the amplitude

$$𝒜_N(\xi _{})p_1,\mathrm{},p_N|[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎}]_C\varphi (\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎})|P.$$
(58)
In the following, we consider two-particle final state $`N=2`$ with momenta $`p_1=p`$ and $`p_2=P^{}`$. The amplitude expanded in perturbation series takes the form

$$𝒜_N(\xi _{})=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{i\xi _{}(pk)_+}(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}(k+P^{}P)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^{2n}A_N^{(n)}(k),$$
(59)
where $`k`$ is the total $`t`$-channel momentum

$$k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i,$$
(60)
transferred from the target. For the small-$`x`$ behavior, we are presently discussing, gluon $`t`$-channel intermediate states dominate, so that $`k_i`$ is the momentum of the $`i`$th gluon. Integrating out $`P_\mu ^{}`$, $`k_\pm `$ and $`p_+`$, we get for the small-$`x`$ distribution function (56)

$$\pi (x)=\frac{x}{2}\frac{dp_{}}{p_{}}\frac{d^2𝒌}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}\alpha _s^2\left|\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g^{2(n1)}A_N^{(n)}(𝒌)\right|^2.$$
(61)
The integrated components of momenta are set to

$$k_+=\frac{D(𝒑)}{2p_{}},p_+=\frac{𝒑^2+m^2}{2p_{}},k_{}𝒌^2,$$
(62)
by means of momentum conservation and on-mass-shell conditions. Here we introduced the convention

$$D(𝒑)2xp_{}+𝒑^2+m^2i0.$$
(63)
Now we are in a position to perform the computation of the amplitude $`𝒜_N`$ in different gauges in order to demonstrate the important role played by the transverse gauge link in generating a gauge invariant answer.

### 4.1 Feynman gauge

First, we turn to the Feynman gauge. One-gluon exchange, see Fig. 3, trivially yields

$$A_2^{(1)}=\frac{(2pk)(2Pk)}{((kp)^2m^2+i0)(k^2\lambda ^2+i0)}+\frac{(2Pk)_+}{(k_+i0)(k^2\lambda ^2+i0)}.$$
(64)
Employing the approximation (62), one finds

$$A_2^{(1)}=\frac{4p_{}}{(𝒌^2+\lambda ^2i0)}\left\{\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌)}\frac{1}{D(𝒑)}\right\},$$
(65)
so that the small-$`x`$ parton distribution reads to this order

$$\pi (x)=2x𝑑p_{}p_{}\frac{d^2𝒌}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{4\alpha _s^2}{(𝒌^2+\lambda ^2i0)^2}\left\{\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌)}\frac{1}{D(𝒑)}\right\}^2.$$
(66)
We now consider the one-loop contributions to the parton amplitude $`A_2`$. In the small $`x`$ region, the dominant contribution comes, as we already mentioned above, from diagrams with two-gluon intermediate states. There are six such Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 4. As in Ref. , the gauge interaction between the $`D`$-meson and the rest is dominated by static Coulomb exchanges. It is easy to see that in the small-$`x`$ limit,

$$A_{2(\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{b})}^{(2)}=ig^22p_{}\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌)}\frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌_1^2+\lambda ^2i0)(𝒌_2^2+\lambda ^2i0)},$$
(67)
where we have integrated over $`k_2`$ and $`k_{2+}`$. On the other hand, the diagrams with two eikonal interactions generate the amplitude

$$A_{2(\mathrm{c}+\mathrm{d})}^{(2)}=ig^2\frac{1}{k_+i0}\frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌_1^2+\lambda ^2i0)(𝒌_2^2+\lambda ^2i0)}.$$
(68)
Finally, we include the contribution for diagrams 4 (e) and (f)

$$A_{2(\mathrm{e}+\mathrm{f})}^{(2)}=ig^22p_{}\frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌_1^2+\lambda ^2i0)(𝒌_2^2+\lambda ^2i0)}\left\{\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌_1)}+\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌_2)}\right\}.$$
(69)
where the minus sign indicates that the interference term is destructive. Summing over all contributions and using Eq. (62), we have the one-loop contribution to the parton amplitude,

$`A_2^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2!}}4p_{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌_1^2+\lambda ^2i0)(𝒌_2^2+\lambda ^2i0)}}`$ (70)
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D(𝒑)}}\right\},`$
where $`𝒌=𝒌_1+𝒌_2`$ according to (60). When the $`𝒑\mathrm{}`$ the amplitude vanishes as $`1/𝒑^4`$ or as $`𝒓^2`$ with $`𝒓0`$ when Fourier transformed. The argument is straightforward: The Wilson line represents an infinite-energy particle which has the opposite charge as compared to the spectator. When the distance between them goes to zero the gluon does not resolve this neutral composite system and the interaction vanishes. Eq. (70) agrees with the result of Ref. .

Eqs. (65) and (70) are the first two terms in the expansion of the exponent. A computation of higher orders leads to the result for the amplitude

$`𝒜_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`i4p_{}{\displaystyle d^2𝒓\mathrm{e}^{i𝒑𝒓}\frac{1}{2\pi }K_0\left(𝒓\sqrt{2x_\mathrm{B}p_{}+m^2}\right)}`$ (71)
$`\times {\displaystyle }d^2𝑹\mathrm{e}^{i(𝑷𝑷^{})𝑹}\{1\mathrm{exp}2i\alpha _s(K_0\left((𝑹+𝒓)\lambda \right)K_0\left(𝑹\lambda \right))\}.`$
It has a factorized form of a convolution of the photon wave function $`K_0\left(𝒓\sqrt{2x_\mathrm{B}p_{}+m^2}\right)`$ and the scattering amplitude of the $`\varphi \varphi ^{}`$-pair, separated by the distance $`𝒓`$, of the struck quark, represented by the path-ordered exponential, and the spectator off the $`D`$-meson. In section 5, we reproduce this equation in the aligned-jet approximation for the dipole picture of $`\gamma ^{}D`$ scattering.

### 4.2 Light-cone gauge

In this section, we calculate the same parton distribution in the light-cone gauge $`A_+=0`$. As we already emphasized in the introduction, this condition does not fix the gauge completely since the $`x_{}`$-independent gauge transformations leave it invariant. As a result the perturbation theory is not defined due to ambiguities in contour deformation of momentum integrals due to presence of an $`1/k_+`$-singularity in the gauge propagator

$$D_{\mu \nu }(k)=\frac{1}{k^2+i0}\left(g_{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu n_\nu +k_\nu n_\mu }{k_+}\right).$$
(72)
Most attempts in the literature to address the problem were pragmatic. A prescription was invented and then tested in practical loop computations. A justification by rigorous quantization procedures came later if ever . The fixing of residual gauge degrees of freedom, or maximal gauge fixing, can be done by means of boundary conditions on the gauge potential as is spelled out in the appendix A. With this procedure one gets a set of regularization prescriptions on the light-cone pole corresponding to advanced, retarded and antisymmetric boundary conditions for the gluon potential,

$$\frac{1}{[k_+]}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Adv}:\hfill & \frac{1}{k_+i0}\hfill \\ \mathrm{Ret}:\hfill & \frac{1}{k_++i0}\hfill \\ \mathrm{PV}:\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\left\{\frac{1}{k_++i0}+\frac{1}{k_+i0}\right\}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(73)
Here only the pole associated with $`k_\nu n_\mu `$ term, where the momentum $`k`$ enters the vertex $`\nu `$, of the gluon density matrix is displayed since only this part works in calculations performed later in this section. The other contribution can be obtained by hemiticity.

In principle, any prescription for the light-cone singularity should work, so long as it is easily generalizable to multi-loop calculations. Since all of the above prescriptions are not causal, loop integrations in particular Feynman diagrams can be pinched between poles and result into regularized spurious divergences. So that off-shell Green functions and renormalization constants do depend on the prescription at hand and, therefore, contain light-cone singularities. However, for a gauge invariant set of diagrams they cancel as they should, see, e.g.,  for a two-loop computation with the principal value prescription.

In our specific computation, the amplitude $`𝒜_N`$, with the transverse gauge link, is gauge invariant by itself and independent on the regularization procedure. However, it is obvious that in the light-cone distribution (15) the extra link does not contribute in the product of the parton amplitude and its complex conjugate due to the unitarity condition $`[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};0,\mathbf{}]^{}[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};0,\mathbf{}]=1`$. In the following subsections, we verify these statements explicitly through the example of the previous section.

To start with, let us address the tree level diagrams first. The contribution from the first term in the gluon propagator is the result of Fig. 3 (a) in the Feynman gauge. The term $`k_\mu n_\nu `$ yields a null contribution because $`k_\mu `$ contracted with the scalar $`D`$-meson vertex $`(P+P^{})_\mu `$ vanishes by the on-shell condition. Contribution from Fig. 5 (a) is thus

$$A_{2(\mathrm{a})}^{(1)}=\frac{1}{((kp)^2m^2+i0)(k^2\lambda ^2+i0)}\left\{(2pk)(2Pk)(2Pk)_+k(2pk)\frac{1}{[k_+]}\right\}.$$
(74)
Next we exploit the simple fact

$$k(2pk)=(p^2m^2)((kp)^2m^2),$$
(75)
where the first term dies out by the on-shell condition, in order to cancel the pion propagator in the amplitude with the second term. In the expression for the transverse gauge-link contribution we encounter a factor handled as

$$\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{}k_+}}{[k_+]}=2\pi i\chi \delta (k_+),$$
(76)
with $`\chi `$ depending on the prescription adopted for the pole

$$\chi =\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Adv}:\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \mathrm{Ret}:\hfill & 1\hfill \\ \mathrm{PV}:\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(77)
As we expected, the advanced boundary condition, which sets the transverse link to unity, is supported by the perturbative calculation. Adding the contribution of the extra gauge link, Fig. 5 (b),

$$A_{2(\mathrm{b})}^{(1)}=\frac{(2Pk)_+}{k^2\lambda ^2+i0}2\pi i\chi \delta (k_+),$$
(78)
to (74), one gets the result of the Feynman gauge, Eq. (64).

Let us note in advance that in multi-gluon exchange diagrams, similarly to the one-gluon case, only $`k_\nu n_\mu `$ part of the gluon density matrix gives the leading contribution. The reason is that $`k_\mu n_\nu `$ part when contracted with the heavy meson line yields

$$k_i\left(2\left(P\underset{j=1}{\overset{i1}{}}k_j\right)k_i\right)=\left\{\left(P\underset{j=1}{\overset{i1}{}}k_j\right)^2M^2\right\}\left\{\left(P\underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}k_j\right)^2M^2\right\},$$
(79)
and since the dominant effect comes from the on-mass-shell $`D`$-meson intermediate states, both terms vanish independently.

#### 4.2.1 Advanced prescription

Since the advanced prescription is implied by the advanced boundary condition $`𝑨(\mathrm{})=0`$, see the Appendix A, the transverse gauge link at light-cone infinity does not contribute. This was observed in Ref.  in a computation of a transverse momentum-dependent parton distribution.

In this section, we perform an explicit calculation to reproduce the result of section 4.1 in the light-cone gauge. Instead of showing the correspondence on a diagram-by-diagram basis in different gauges, we present the result of calculations for subsets of graphs. From diagrams (a) and (b) in Fig. 6, we obtain

$`A_{(\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{b})}`$ $`=`$ $`ig^24p_{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌_1^2+\lambda ^2i0)(𝒌_2^2+\lambda ^2i0)}}`$ (80)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\left(D(𝒑𝒌_2)D(𝒑𝒌)\right)\left(D(𝒑)D(𝒑𝒌_2)\right)}{D(𝒑)D(𝒑𝒌)D(𝒑𝒌_2)}}.`$
However, this is not the complete answer. In the present case, we have to take into account an additional diagram shown in Fig. 7. It is negligible in the Feynman gauge, but not in the light-cone gauge. The contribution of this graph is

$$A_{\mathrm{ex}}=ig^22p_{}\frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌_1^2+\lambda ^2i0)(𝒌_2^2+\lambda ^2i0)}\frac{D(𝒑𝒌_1)+D(𝒑𝒌_2)D(𝒑)D(𝒑𝒌)}{D(𝒑)D(𝒑𝒌)}.$$
(81)
The sum of the above two equations is exactly the right-hand side of Eq. (70) apart from terms which integrate to zero by the symmetry property of the integrand.

The physics of the advanced prescription is that all final state interactions have been shifted to the initial state light-cone wave functions. Parton distributions are truly densities of partons. This scheme is the closest one to the original formulation of the Feynman parton model.

#### 4.2.2 Principal value prescription

Now we discuss the principal value regularization for the light-cone singularity. One virtue of this prescription is that it does not introduce an absorptive part in the light-cone wave functions. Final state scattering phases then appear only through the extra gauge link derived in section 3.2, as have been shown in the example of the single transverse-spin asymmetry in semi-inclusive deeply inelastic scattering .

A straightforward calculation gives the following expression for Fig. 6 (a) and (b),

$$A_{(\mathrm{a}+\mathrm{b})}=ig^22p_{}\frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌_1^2+\lambda ^2i0)(𝒌_2^2+\lambda ^2i0)}\left\{\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌)}\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌_2)}\right\}.$$
(82)
The diagram in Fig. 7 does not contribute. The transverse gauge link generates the diagrams (c), (d), (e) and (f) in Fig. 6, whose straightforward computation gives,

$$A_{(\mathrm{c}+\mathrm{d}+\mathrm{e}+\mathrm{f})}=ig^22p_{}\frac{d^2𝒌_2}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(𝒌_1^2+\lambda ^2i0)(𝒌_2^2+\lambda ^2i0)}\left\{\frac{1}{D(𝒑)}\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌_1)}\right\}.$$
(83)
Again the sum of the two contributions yields the same result as in Eq. (70).

The gauge link contribution in the parton distribution is unitary. When integrated over $`𝒌`$, it does not contribute. Therefore, the square of the amplitude in Eq. (83) must cancel against an interference between the two-loop gauge-link diagrams and the tree. This is indeed what has been observed in Ref. . The present discussion demystifies this cancellation.

To conclude, the new gauge link found in section 3.2 is necessary for reproducing the Feynman-gauge parton amplitude in the light-cone gauge calculation. However, it does not contribute to the integrated parton distribution. In particular, it does not play a role in modeling of leading twist “shadowing”.

#### 4.2.3 Phase due to transverse link

Actually, using the exponentiation property of soft radiation, one can compute the phase generated by the transverse link exactly in the limit of infinitely heavy mass of the $`D`$-meson, $`M\mathrm{}`$. In this situation one can approximate the $`D`$-meson propagation by an eikonal line along its four-velocity $`v_\mu P_\mu /M`$. The parton amplitude reads

$$𝒜_2\stackrel{M\mathrm{}}{}d^2𝑹\mathrm{e}^{i(𝑷𝑷^{})𝑹}p|T\left\{[\mathrm{}v,𝑹;\mathrm{}v,𝑹][\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}]\varphi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})\right\}|0.$$
(84)
Extracting the interaction of the $`\varphi `$-spectator with the target, we get

$$𝒜_2d^2𝑹\mathrm{e}^{i(𝑷𝑷^{})𝑹}a(𝑹\lambda )W(𝑹\lambda ).$$
(85)
where $`a`$ stands for the $`\varphi D`$-interaction as well as self-interactions, while

$$W(𝑹\lambda )=\frac{0|T\left\{[\mathrm{}v,𝑹;\mathrm{}v,𝑹][\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}]\right\}|0}{0|T\left\{[\mathrm{}v,𝑹;\mathrm{}v,𝑹]\right\}|00|T\left\{[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}]\right\}|0},$$
(86)
represents the very effect of the transverse gauge link on the amplitude. In an abelian theory, the correlator of Wilson lines exponentiates exactly,

$$W(𝑹\lambda )=\mathrm{e}^{i\phi (𝑹\lambda )},$$
(87)
where

$$\phi =g^2_{C_1}𝑑x_\mu _{C_2}𝑑y_\nu D_{\mu \nu }(xy),$$
(88)
is given in terms of the gluon propagator $`0|T\left\{A_\mu (x)A_\nu (y)\right\}|0iD_{\mu \nu }(xy)`$ and the integration goes over the two pieces of path $`C_1=[\mathrm{}v,𝑹;\mathrm{}v,𝑹]`$ and $`C_2=[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}]`$. A simple computation yields

$$\phi (𝑹\lambda )=\chi g^2\frac{d^2𝒌}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i𝒌𝑹}}{𝒌^2+\lambda ^2i0},$$
(89)
with

$$\chi \frac{dk_+}{2\pi i}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{}k_+}}{[k_+]}.$$
(90)
In the propagator (72) only the term $`k_\nu n_\mu `$, where $`k`$ flows into the vertex of the transverse gauge link, works. Using Eq. (77), one finds

$$\phi _{\mathrm{Adv}}(𝑹\lambda )=0,\phi _{\mathrm{PV}}(𝑹\lambda )=\alpha _sK_0(𝑹\lambda ).$$
(91)
This is an exact all-order result in the abelian theory, we are considering, and agrees with the lowest order predictions of Ref. . In a non-abelian theory, $`\phi `$ admits the web expansion

$`\phi ={\displaystyle \underset{w}{}}C_wG_w,`$
where $`C_w`$ is the maximally non-abelian color factor and $`G_w`$ is a sum of corresponding web graphs. Eq. (91) is the first term in the web expansion.

## 5 Dipole picture

This section is devoted to the demonstration of the equivalence of twist-two approximation for the structure functions at small values of the Bjorken variable and the aligned-jet kinematics of the dipole description of the $`\gamma ^{}`$-hadron scattering. In the latter formalism, at small-$`x_\mathrm{B}`$, the virtual photon splits into a $`q\overline{q}`$-pair long before the interaction with the target, due to large Ioffe time $`\tau 1/(Mx_\mathrm{B})`$. On the second stage, the dipole interacts with the hadron.

First we show this correspondence with the lowest order calculation in the scalar model alluded to above and then turn to an all-order proof in the semiclassical approach to small-$`x_\mathrm{B}`$ QCD processes.

### 5.1 Dipole scattering in scalar QED

A simple calculation of the diagram in Fig. 8 within the scalar model discussed above produces

$$F_L^{\mathrm{dipole}}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=Q^4_0^1𝑑\alpha \alpha \overline{\alpha }(12\alpha )^2\frac{d^2𝒌}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝒑}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{4\alpha _s^2}{(𝒌^2+\lambda ^2i0)^2}\left\{\frac{1}{D(𝒑𝒌)}\frac{1}{D(𝒑)}\right\}^2,$$
(92)
where

$$D(𝒌)\alpha \overline{\alpha }Q^2+𝒌^2+m^2i0,$$
(93)
with $`\overline{\alpha }1\alpha `$ and momentum variables having the same meaning as in Eq. (66). Its Fourier transformation into the coordinate space gives

$$F_L^{\mathrm{dipole}}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=\frac{Q^4}{(2\pi )^4}_0^1𝑑\alpha \alpha \overline{\alpha }(12\alpha )^2d^2𝒓K_0^2\left(𝒓\sqrt{\alpha \overline{\alpha }Q^2+m^2}\right)\sigma (𝒓),$$
(94)
where the dipole cross section in two-gluon approximation reads

$$\sigma (𝒓)=4\alpha _s^2d^2𝑹\left\{K_0\left((𝑹+𝒓)\lambda \right)K_0\left(𝑹\lambda \right)\right\}^2+𝒪(\alpha _s^3).$$
(95)
Computation of the further terms leads to the exponentiation of the one-gluon exchanges similarly to Eqs. (87) and (88). The dipole cross section can be expressed as a correlation function of two Wilson lines over the hadron states,

$$d^2𝑹P^{}|\left(1U(𝑹+𝒓)U^{}(𝑹)\right)|P=2\pi \delta (\mathrm{\Delta }_+)(2\pi )^2\delta ^{(2)}(𝚫)\sigma (𝒓),$$
(96)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=P^{}P`$. This makes the above observation on the exponentiation transparent. Here $`U`$ is the abelian Wilson line

$$U(𝒙)[\mathrm{},𝒙;\mathrm{},𝒙]=\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{}A_+(x_{},𝒙)\right).$$
(97)
There are three regions in the dipole formula for the structure function (94) which lead to scaling. The small-$`𝒓`$ region, $`𝒓^21/Q^2`$, corresponds to the genuine gluon contribution to the $`D`$-meson structure function. The aligned-jet regions :

$$\alpha ,\overline{\alpha }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}$$
(98)
is where the (anti)quark component dominates. So, to extract the leading twist-two quark contribution, we integrate in the vicinity of the end-point $`\alpha =0`$. Defining

$$\alpha \frac{2x_\mathrm{B}p_{}}{Q^2},$$
(99)
we get

$$F_L^{\mathrm{al}\mathrm{jet}}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=4\frac{x_\mathrm{B}^2}{(2\pi )^4}𝑑p_{}p_{}d^2𝒓K_0^2\left(𝒓\sqrt{2x_\mathrm{B}p_{}+m^2}\right)\sigma (𝒓).$$
(100)
This result scales as a function of $`Q^2`$ and thus defines the twist-two parton distribution,

$$F_L^{\mathrm{tw}2}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=F_L^{\mathrm{al}\mathrm{jet}}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2).$$
(101)
### 5.2 Semiclassical approach

In the previous section we have demonstrated in a model calculation that the dipole representation for the deeply inelastic structure functions in the aligned-jet kinematics is equivalent to the twist-two parton distribution functions at small momentum fractions. Here we generalize this result to all orders using the semiclassical picture of small-$`x_\mathrm{B}`$ scattering in QCD.

For the transversely polarized photon, the structure function has the form of a convolution of the photon wave function squared and dipole propagation though the target ,

$$F_T^{\mathrm{dipole}}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=4N_c\frac{Q^4}{(2\pi )^4}_0^1𝑑\alpha \alpha \overline{\alpha }\left(\alpha ^2+\overline{\alpha }^2\right)d^2𝒓K_1^2\left(𝒓\sqrt{\alpha \overline{\alpha }Q^2}\right)\sigma (𝒓).$$
(102)
The dipole cross section, after extraction of total translations, cf. Eq. (96), is determined by the correlation of Wilson line, which represent the fast-moving quarks through the gluon field of the nucleon

$$\sigma (𝒓)=d^2𝑹\frac{1}{N_c}\mathrm{tr}\left(1U(𝑹+𝒓)U^{}(𝑹)\right),$$
(103)
with $`U`$ being the non-abelian analogue of Eq. (97) with matrix valued gauge field and path ordering operation. At very high energies the color field is localized on the light cone with a profile in the transverse space. Namely, in the Feynman gauge,

$$A_+(z)=\delta (z_{})\beta (𝒛),A_{}(z)=𝑨(z)=0,$$
(104)
it has the form of a shock wave , with the only non-vanishing components of the field-strength tensor $`G_+`$. A transformation to the light-cone gauge $`A_+=0`$ with retarded boundary condition generates the pure-gauge color field of the McLerran-Venugopalan model ,

$`𝑨(z)=\theta (z_{})\mathbf{}\beta (𝒛),A_{}(z)=0.`$
In the aligned-jet kinematics (98), the structure function $`F_2=F_T+F_L`$ can be written as

$$F_2^{\mathrm{al}\mathrm{jet}}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=16N_c\frac{x_\mathrm{B}^2}{(2\pi )^4}𝑑p_{}p_{}d^2𝒓K_1^2\left(𝒓\sqrt{2x_\mathrm{B}p_{}}\right)\sigma (𝒓).$$
(105)
where we used the definition (99) and took into account that the longitudinal structure function is suppressed in this region, $`F_L^{\mathrm{al}\mathrm{jet}}1/Q^2`$.

Now we are in a position to reproduce the same result (105) computing the leading order and twist contribution to the same structure function,

$$F_2^{\mathrm{tw}2}(x_\mathrm{B},Q^2)=x_\mathrm{B}\left(q(x_\mathrm{B})q(x_\mathrm{B})\right),$$
(106)
at small $`x_\mathrm{B}`$, which is given in terms of the twist-two parton distribution

$$q(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}}P|\overline{\psi }(0,\mathrm{𝟎})[0,\mathrm{𝟎};\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎}]\gamma _+\psi (\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎})|P,$$
(107)
see Refs.  for related considerations. Anticipating infinities due to unrestricted integrations, we introduce a regularized quark distribution

$$\stackrel{~}{q}(x)\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }𝑑\eta _{}d^2𝜼\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}}P^{}|\overline{\psi }(\eta _{},𝜼)[\eta _{},𝜼;\xi _{}+\eta _{},𝜼]\gamma _+\psi (\xi _{}+\eta _{},𝜼)|P,$$
(108)
which is related to the conventional one (107) by

$$\stackrel{~}{q}(x)=2\pi \delta (\mathrm{\Delta }_+)(2\pi )^2\delta ^{(2)}(𝚫)q(x),$$
(109)
where one sets $`P^{}=P`$ in $`q(x)`$.

At very small $`x`$ the bulk of contribution comes from the gluon component of the nucleon wave function while the constituent quark component is negligible. Therefore, we can approximate $`q(x)`$ by computing the quark propagator in the external shock-wave field of the nucleon,

$$\stackrel{~}{q}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }𝑑\eta _{}d^2𝜼\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}}P^{}|\mathrm{Tr}[\eta _{},𝜼;\xi _{}+\eta _{},𝜼]\gamma _+iS(\xi _{}+\eta _{},𝜼;\eta _{},𝜼)|P,$$
(110)
where the trace is taken with respect to color and Dirac indices. The exact quark propagator in the shock-wave background (104) reads :

$`iS(x;y)`$ $`=`$ $`iS_0(xy)\theta (x_{}y_{})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4z\delta (z_{})iS_0(xz)\gamma _{}\left\{\theta (x_{})\theta (y_{})U(𝒛)\theta (x_{})\theta (y_{})U^{}(𝒛)\right\}iS_0(zy)},`$
where $`S_0`$ is a Fourier transform of the free quark propagator (21),

$`S_0(xy)={\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{ik(xy)}S_0(k)}.`$
Substitution of (5.2) into Eq. (108) and subtraction of the free propagation yields

$$\stackrel{~}{q}(x)=16N_c\frac{x}{(2\pi )^4}𝑑p_{}p_{}d^2𝒓K_1^2\left(𝒓\sqrt{2xp_{}}\right)d^2𝑹P^{}|\frac{1}{N_c}\mathrm{tr}\left(1U(𝑹+𝒓)U^{}(𝑹)\right)|P.$$
(112)
After extraction of total translations on both sides with Eqs. (96) and (109), we reproduce the result of the aligned-jet kinematics (105).

## 6 DY versus DIS: universality of parton distributions

In the Drell-Yan process, the gauge link in the parton distributions arises from the initial state interactions rather than from the final state. Using a procedure similar to the one carried out in section 3, we can show that the transverse momentum-dependent parton distributions probed in DY production are,

$$q_{\mathrm{DY}}(x,𝒌)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\frac{d^2𝝃}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}+i𝒌𝝃}P|\overline{\psi }(\xi _{},𝝃)[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},𝝃]_C^{}^{}\gamma _+[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]_C^{}\psi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})|P,$$
(113)
with the gauge link

$$[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\xi _{},𝝃]_C^{}=[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},𝝃][\mathrm{},𝝃;\xi _{},𝝃].$$
(114)
The light-cone infinity $`\xi _{}=\mathrm{}`$ has been replaced by $`\xi _{}=\mathrm{}`$, reflecting the fact that the annihilation partner (antiquark or quark) from the other hadron starts its trajectory at $`\xi _{}=\mathrm{}`$. As in deeply inelastic process we find again an extra contribution due to transverse components of the gauge potential which was not accounted for in recent treatments, see, e.g., Ref. .

In the light-cone gauge with the principal value prescription, the light-cone wave function is real. Therefore, the imaginary part in the parton distributions (51) and (113) arises from the interaction of the spectator with the gluonic field in the transverse link. Since in the DIS distribution the transverse link enters at $`\xi _{}=\mathrm{}`$ while in DY at $`\xi _{}=\mathrm{}`$ and the gauge potentials obey the antisymmetric boundary condition $`𝑨(\mathrm{})=𝑨(\mathrm{})`$, we find that DY link differs by the sign in the phase from the DIS link, cf. Eq. (48),

$$[\mathrm{},\mathbf{};\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}]_{\mathrm{PV}}=P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑𝝃𝑨(\mathrm{},𝝃)\right).$$
(115)
Therefore, one can immediately understand in the lowest order calculation the change of the overall sign of the single transverse-spin asymmetry from DIS to DY case emphasized in Refs. . The phase of the transverse link, which is a genuine source of the imaginary part in the distribution for the principal value regularization of the light-cone gauge when is interacts with the target spectators, is opposite for DIS and DY transverse momentum-dependent parton distributions, see Eqs. (48) and (115). This reflects a breakdown of the naive universality of unintegrated parton distributions: the Sivers function differs by an overall sign in DIS and DY .

When integrated over the transverse momentum, one finds the following distribution from DIS,

$$q_{\mathrm{DIS}}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}}P|\overline{\psi }(\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎})[\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎}]\gamma ^+[\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]\psi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})|P,$$
(116)
and the distribution from Drell-Yan,

$$q_{\mathrm{DY}}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\xi _{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix\xi _{}}P|\overline{\psi }(\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎})[\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎}]\gamma ^+[\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]\psi (0,\mathrm{𝟎})|P,$$
(117)
processes. The unitarity of the gauge link implies that

$$[\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎}][\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]=[\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎}][\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎};0,\mathrm{𝟎}]=[\xi _{},\mathrm{𝟎};0,\mathrm{𝟎}].$$
(118)
Therefore, both distributions are the same . In particular, this must be true in any model calculations. Therefore, although the approximation used in the derivation the DY scattering amplitude in Ref.  might be invalid for small $`𝒌xM`$, the integrated DY distribution in a full calculation must reproduce the distribution derived from DIS.

## 7 Conclusion

In the present study we have found that the transverse momentum-dependent parton distributions, as defined previously in the literature, are deficient in light-cone gauges which introduce additional singularities in perturbative calculations. We have derived their modification which consists of an extra transverse gauge link at the light-cone infinity. The regularization of spurious light-cone singularities can be related in certain cases to boundary conditions on the gauge field, some of which are consistent with the path integral quantization of the underlying gauge theory. These boundary conditions shift non-causal interactions, associated with nature of the gauge potential in the light-like gauge, into the initial or final state, or their mixture. One can get rid of the final state interactions in the light-cone gauge $`A_+=0`$ using the advanced boundary condition for the transverse components of the gauge field. With this choice, the extra gauge link in DIS parton distributions vanishes. Therefore, parton distributions are defined solely by the nucleon wave function and acquire the density interpretation of the naive parton model. Albeit, in this case the wave function is not real and apart from the structural information on the hadron it receives also the imaginary phase mimicking the final state interactions. The density interpretation is lost for other boundary conditions due to survival of the final state interactions.

The application of these non-causal prescriptions might cause a problem in explicit computations of multi-loop diagrams and one has to experience caution using them due to presence of non-integrable pinched singularities. The latter cancel however in gauge invariant quantities.

Naive universality of transverse momentum-dependent parton distribution in deeply inelastic scattering and Drell-Yan lepton pair production is generally violated due to presence of residual gauge factors even in the light-cone gauge. Setting an advanced or retarded boundary condition, the transverse link in one of them vanishes, however, it persists in the other. However, the integrated parton distribution has to obey the universality condition due to unitary cancellation of gauge effects beyond the interquark separation points in cross sections.

We would like to thank I.I. Balitsky and G.P. Korchemsky for enlightening discussions on several aspects covered in the paper and J.C. Collins, Yu.V. Kovchegov, A.H. Mueller, S. Peigné, G. Sterman and H. Weigert for useful conversations and correspondence. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-93ER40762.

## Appendix A Maximally fixed light cone gauge

Quantization of a gauge theory is hampered by an infinite redundancy of gauge degrees of freedom. To solve the problem one has to break the gauge invariance by imposing a condition on the gauge potential, $`F[A_\mu ^a]=0`$. Obvious requirements has to be fulfilled by the gauge fixing: (i) Every time one sets a constraint, one has to verify that there exists a choice of the gauge transformation matrix $`U`$,

$$A_\mu (x)A_\mu ^{}(x)=U(x)A_\mu (x)U^{}(x)\frac{i}{g}U(x)_\mu U^{}(x),$$
(A.1)
that it is realizable in practice. (ii) Next, one cannot gauge away a gauge covariant quantity like $`F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^agf^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c`$, so that $`F[A_\mu ^a]=0`$ must be consistent with this property.

Since in the light-cone gauge one ascribes a specific (zero) value to the light-cone component of the gauge potential, it is very instructive to consider an equivalent example of temporal gauge fixing in a lattice gauge theory<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3We would like to thank I.I. Balitsky for bringing it to our attention. . Actually, one can consider merely a three-dimensional gauge theory on a cubic lattice, see Fig. 9. By a gauge transformation, one can eliminate one of the components of the gauge potential, say,

$$A_x(x,y,z)=0.$$
(A.2)
This sets all link variables along the $`x`$-direction to unity, solid lines. This constraint does not fix the gauge completely since we are still free to perform $`x`$-independent transformations $`U(x_0,y,z)`$. To fix the residual freedom we can fix a subset of links oriented in the two-dimensional $`(y,z)`$ plane. By the transformation $`U(x_0,y,z)`$ we can fix

$$A_y(x_0,y,z)=0,$$
(A.3)
but one cannot set at the same time $`A_z(x_0,y,z)=0`$ since otherwise we would set all link variables in the plane $`x=x_0`$ to unity and this would imply that we gauged away $`F_{yz}(x_0)=0`$. What we can do, however, is to fix with an $`(x,y)`$-independent matrix $`U(x_0,y_0,z)`$ the component $`A_z`$ on a line

$$A_z(x_0,y_0,z)=0.$$
(A.4)
The supplementary conditions (A.3) and (A.4) together with (A.2) provide the maximal gauge fixing for the gauge theory on a cubic lattice. Therefore, the maximal gauge fixing is determined by the maximal tree , — a set of links such that adding one more results into a closed loop, forbidden by the gauge invariance of the plaquette.

In the continuum gauge theory the above residual conditions are translated into the boundary conditions on the gauge potential. Obviously, this is not the only choice for maximal gauge fixing. For instance, in the temporal gauge the auxiliary Coulomb fixing of residual gauge degrees of freedom $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}(t_0,\stackrel{}{x})=0`$ has been explored in Ref. . It would be instructive to study a similar constraint for light-cone gauge $`A_+(x)=0`$ where one may “freeze” $`A_{}(L_{},x_+,𝒙)=0`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝑨(L_{},x_+,𝒙)=0`$.

It is straightforward to extend the discussion of the lattice example to the light-cone gauge fixing in QCD. The maximal gauge fixing is achieved with a set of, e.g., retarded boundary conditions at $`L_{,1}=\mathrm{}`$:

$$A_+(x_{},x_+,𝒙)=0,A_{}(L_{},x_+,𝒙)=0,𝑨_1(L_{},0,𝒙)=0,𝑨_2(L_{},0,L_1,x_2)=0.$$
(A.5)
The reason to fix the boundary condition at $`x_+=0`$ is that in the definition of the parton distributions all fields enter at $`x_+=0`$. The maximally fixed light-cone gauge is obtained from other gauges by a series of gauge transformations. First,

$$A_+(x_{},x_+,𝒙)=0$$
(A.6)
with

$$U_+^{}(x)=[x_{},x_+,𝒙;L_{},x_+,𝒙]P\mathrm{exp}\left\{ig_L_{}^x_{}𝑑x_{}^{}A_+(x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙)\right\}.$$
(A.7)
At light-cone boundary $`L_{}`$ one performs a gauge transformation on $`A_{}`$ to nullify it,

$$A_{}(L_{},x_+,𝒙)=0$$
(A.8)
with

$$U_{}^{}(x)=[L_{},x_+,𝒙;L_{},0,𝒙]P\mathrm{exp}\left\{ig_0^{x_+}𝑑x_+^{}A_{}(L_{},x_+,𝒙)\right\},$$
(A.9)
etc.

Exploiting Eqs. (A.5), one can deduce the “inversion” formulas to express the gauge potential in terms of the field strength tensor, namely,

$`A_{}(x_{},x_+,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L_{}^x_{}}𝑑x_{}^{}[L_{},x_+,𝒙;x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙]G_+(x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙)[x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙,L_{},x_+,𝒙],`$ (A.10)
$`𝑨_1(x_{},x_+,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L_{}^x_{}}𝑑x_{}^{}[L_{},x_+,𝒙;x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙]G_{+1}(x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙)[x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙;L_{},x_+,𝒙]`$ (A.11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x_+}}𝑑x_+^{}[L_{},0,𝒙;L_{},x_+^{},𝒙]G_1(L_{},x_+^{},𝒙)[L_{},x_+^{},𝒙;L_{},0,𝒙],`$
$`𝑨_2(x_{},x_+,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L_{}^x_{}}𝑑x_{}^{}[L_{},x_+,𝒙;x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙]G_{+2}(x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙)[x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙;L_{},x_+,𝒙]`$ (A.12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{x_+}}𝑑x_+^{}[L_{},0,𝒙;L_{},x_+^{},𝒙]G_2(L_{},x_+^{},𝒙)[L_{},x_+^{},𝒙;L_{},0,𝒙]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{L_1}^{x_1}}𝑑x_1^{}[L_{},0,L_1,x_2;L_{},0,x_1^{},x_2]`$
$`\times G_{12}(L_{},0,x_1^{},x_2)[L_{},0,x_1^{},x_2;L_{},0,L_1,x_2].`$
For $`x_+=0`$, the transverse components simplify,

$`𝑨_1(x_{},0,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L_{}^x_{}}𝑑x_{}^{}G_{+1}(x_{}^{},0,𝒙),`$
$`𝑨_2(x_{},0,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L_{}^x_{}}𝑑x_{}^{}G_{+2}(x_{}^{},0,𝒙)+{\displaystyle _{L_1}^{x_1}}𝑑x_1^{}G_{12}(L_{},0,x_1^{},x_2),`$ (A.13)
and we dropped the path-ordered exponentials. Using these results we can compute the gauge propagator. For instance,

$`0|T\left\{A_{}(x_{},x_+,𝒙)𝑨_i(y_{},0,𝒚)\right\}|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _L_{}^x_{}}𝑑x_{}^{}{\displaystyle _L_{}^y_{}}𝑑y_{}^{}0|T\left\{G_+(x_{}^{},x_+,𝒙)G_{+i}(y_{}^{},0,𝒚)\right\}|0`$ (A.14)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{ik(yx)}\frac{1}{k^2+i0}\frac{𝒌_i}{k_++i0}},`$
where we have used the fact that the second term $`G_{12}`$ in $`𝑨_2`$ does not work. Analogously, we get for other components

$`0|T\left\{𝑨_i(x_{},0,𝒙)A_{}(y_{},y_+,𝒚)\right\}|0`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{ik(yx)}\frac{1}{k^2+i0}\frac{𝒌_i}{k_+i0}},`$
$`0|T\left\{A_{}(x_{},x_+,𝒙)A_{}(y_{},y_+,𝒚)\right\}|0`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{ik(yx)}\frac{2k_{}}{k^2+i0}\mathrm{PV}\frac{1}{k_+}},`$ (A.15)
where PV stands for the principal value prescription

$$\mathrm{PV}\frac{1}{k_+}\frac{1}{2}\left\{\frac{1}{k_++i0}+\frac{1}{k_+i0}\right\}.$$
(A.16)
This is actually the only components which contribute in practical calculation of section 4.2.

If we delinquently extend the results (A.14) and (A) out of the plane $`x_+,y_+=0`$, which implies that we exceed the amount of gauge fixing freedom in setting the boundary condition, we get the light-cone propagator

$$0|T\left\{A_\mu (x)A_\nu (y)\right\}|0=i\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{ik(yx)}\frac{1}{k^2+i0}\left(g_{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu n_\nu }{k_+i0}\frac{k_\nu n_\mu }{k_++i0}\right).$$
(A.17)
The gauge overfixing does not lead to complications in perturbation theory, since it boils down to the assumption $`G_{\mu \nu }(x_{}\mathrm{},x_+,𝒙)0`$. The direction of momentum flow $`k`$ in Eq. (A.17) is assumed to be from the point $`x`$ to $`y`$, see Fig. 10. The very same propagator was derived previously in the framework of path integral by means of a gauge transformation from the temporal gauge $`A_0=0`$ to the regularized gauge $`A_++\epsilon _+A_+=0`$ ($`\epsilon \pm 0`$)  and canonical quantization in Ref. . It was used more recently in the literature in the context of specific computations, see, e.g., .

If one uses the light cone gauge advanced boundary conditions $`L_{,1}=\mathrm{}`$:

$$A_+(x_{},x_+,𝒙)=0,A_{}(L_{},x_+,𝒙)=0,𝑨_1(L_{},0,𝒙)=0,𝑨_2(L_{},0,L_1,x_2)=0,$$
(A.18)
the contour deformation is moved into the opposite half-plane as compared to Eqs. (A.14) and (A). With the same reasoning as preceded Eq. (A.17), one gets

$$0|T\left\{A_\mu (x)A_\nu (y)\right\}|0=i\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{e}^{ik(yx)}\frac{1}{k^2+i0}\left(g_{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu n_\nu }{k_++i0}\frac{k_\nu n_\mu }{k_+i0}\right).$$
(A.19)
The conventional antisymmetric combination of boundary conditions (A.5) and (A.18) boundary conditions, schematically,

$$𝑨(\mathrm{})+𝑨(\mathrm{})=0$$
(A.20)
are not consistently implementable within the path integral approach. Moreover, one cannot find the corresponding gauge transformation which would result into this residual gauge fixing. However, if one accepts it in the “inversion” formulas, it results into the the propagator with $`1/k_+`$ singularity regularized via the principal value prescription.


format: text

text:
# First detection of the RGB-bump in the Sagittarius dSphBased on observations made with the European Southern Observatory telescopes, using the Wide Field Imager, as part of the observing program 65.L-0463. Also based on data obtained from the ESO/ST-ECF Science Archive Facility. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation

## 1 Introduction

The Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal (Sgr dSph) galaxy (Ibata et al., 1994, 1997) is an in vivo example of an accretion/disruption event of a Galactic satellite (Newberg et al., 2002): a process that may have been one of the main mechanisms for the assembly of the Galactic halo (Searle & Zinn, 1978; Côté, 2000). Hence, the study of the stellar content, star formation history and chemical evolution (see Layden & Sarajedini, 2000; Bellazzini et al., 1999; Smecker-Hane & McWilliam, 2002, for references) of this disrupting system is a fundamental step in order to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the Milky Way.

As part of a long-term project devoted to understand the origin and the evolution of the building blocks of the Galactic Halo, we present here the first result of a new wide-field V,I photometry of the Sgr in a region ($``$1$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$1) around the globular cluster M 54. Almost 500,000 stars have been measured in the area, allowing us to unambiguously identify, for the first time, the RGB-bump in the Sgr. This feature was identified in a relevant number of Galactic globular clusters (Fusi Pecci et al., 1990; Ferraro et al., 1999; Zoccali et al., 1999) and only in a few galaxies in the Local Group: Sculptor (Majewski et al., 1999), Sextans (Bellazzini et al., 2001) and Ursa Minor (Bellazzini et al., 2002).

The RGB-bump magnitude is mainly driven by the metal content and, to a lesser extent, by the age of the population. In this Letter we use this feature to constrain the metallicty and age of the main stellar population in the Sgr galaxy (Pop A). Such constraints are particularly useful in the case of the Sgr dSph, where the strong foreground contamination makes a clear-cut interpretation of the Color Magnitude Diagram (CMD) more difficult (see Bellazzini et al., 1999; Layden & Sarajedini, 2000, hereafter B99 and LS00, respectively) and where some inconsistency between the photometric and spectroscopic metallicity estimates has emerged (Cole, 2001; Bonifacio et al., 2000; Cseresnjes, 2001; Smecker-Hane & McWilliam, 2002).

## 2 Observations and results

The data presented here consist of a sample of images obtained at the 2.2m ESO/MPI telescope at la Silla, Chile, using the Wide Field Imager (WFI), a mosaic of eight $`2048\times 4096`$ pixels CCD arrays. The scale is $`0.238\mathrm{"}/px`$, giving a total field of view of $`34^{}\times 33^{}`$. A set of V and I images in the vicinity of the Globular Cluster M 54 were secured during an observing run on 7-8 July 2000, with typical exposure times ranging from 10 to 400 sec. To complement this data-set, we retrieved a set of public WFI images from the ESO/ST-ECF Science Archive Facility. The public data were originally obtained in the framework of the ESO pre-FLAMES survey, covering a wide region of $`1^{}\times 1^{}`$ around M 54.

The entire data-set was homogeneously treated: in short, the raw images were corrected for bias and flat-field using standard IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation. procedures, within the noao.mscred package. The relative photometry was performed with the Point Spread Function (PSF) fitting package DoPhot (Schechter et al., 1993). The stars were searched independently on each image using a spatially variable PSF. We used the large overlapping regions between adjacent WFI pointings to transform the instrumental magnitudes into a homogeneous system, eventually correcting for the zero-point differences between chips and obtaining a final catalog of homogeneous magnitudes and coordinates. Finally, the photometric calibration was performed using more than 1000 stars in common with the Sarajedini & Layden (1995) catalog (hereafter SL95).

The $`(V,VI)`$ CMD for $``$493,000 stars measured in the global field of view is shown in Figure 1. At least three main populations can be distinguished:

(i) the RGB of the Sgr’s metal-rich population at the red side of the diagram, extending to a very red color, $`(VI)2.7`$, with the corresponding, well populated red HB clump at $`V18.22`$. The RGB bump of the Sgr can easily be seen as a clump of stars along the RGB at $`V18.5`$ and $`(VI)1.2`$.

(ii) a second, much steeper RGB, barely visible at $`(V,VI)(16.5,1.3)`$, belonging to the much metal-poorer population of M 54. Its blue HB is clearly seen at $`(V,VI)=(18.2,0.2)`$.

(iii) the field population, a nearly vertical sequence around $`VI=0.8`$ and, at slighly redder colors (V-I$``$1.1), the evolved Milky Way bulge/disk stars.

The photometric properties of the Sub Giant Branch and Main Sequence Turn Off (TO) region (at $`V21.5`$) will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

## 3 The RGB-bump

The so-called RGB-bump is an evolutionary feature predicted by the theoretical models of stellar evolution (Thomas, 1967; Iben, 1968). The physical origin of the RGB-bump is well known: in the stellar interior during the first ascent of the giant branch, the H-burning shell is moving constantly outwards until it reaches the discontinuity in the H radial profile, left by the innermost penetration of the convective envelope inside the star. At the discontinuity, the luminosity of the star drops for a while, until the shell adapts to the new environment, and then it rises again in a regime of constant H content. Observationally, the RGB-bump appears as a peak in the differential luminosity function (LF), due to the non-monotonic evolution of the star in luminosity. It appears also as a jump and a change in slope of the integrated LF, due to the change in the evolutionary rate, caused by the sudden change of molecular weight of the material in which the H-burning shell is moving. According to Fusi Pecci et al. (1990), the change in the slope of the integrated luminosity function is the safest way to identify the location of the bump, since it makes use of stars contained in several magnitude bins (see also Ferraro et al., 1999, F99 hereafter).

Since its first detection in 47 Tuc (King, Da Costa, & Demarque, 1984), the RGB-bump has been identified in many globular clusters (see Fusi Pecci et al., 1990; Ferraro et al., 1999; Zoccali et al., 1999), and only recently in a few Local Group dwarf galaxies (Majewski et al., 1999; Bellazzini et al., 2001, 2002). In complex stellar populations, such as galaxies, the RGB-bump appears sometimes as a double-peaked feature in the differential LF (see the case of Sculptor and Sextans). Since the RGB-bump magnitude depends on the metal content and age of the population (F99), the double-peak has been interpreted as a signature of the existence of two main stellar populations in the galaxy stellar mix (Majewski et al., 1999; Bellazzini et al., 2001).

In Figure 2, we show the differential (lower panel) and cumulative (upper panel) luminosity functions for the RGB of Sgr, selected from Figure 1. As can be seen, more than 5000 stars have been counted along the brighter ($`V<19`$) portion of the Sgr RGB. The RGB-bump is clearly identified in both panels of figure 2: it is located at Vbump=18.55$`\pm `$0.05. This is the first detection of such a feature in the Sgr dSph. In the simplest scenario the presence of a single-peaked bump in the differential LF suggest the existence of a dominant stellar population, relatively homogeneous in metallicity and age, in the inner regions of the Sgr galaxy222It is important to recall that the present analysis refers to the center of the Sgr dSph, since a significant population gradient is present in this galaxy. The outer region hosts a more metal poor dominant population (see B99, LS00, Alard, 2001, and references therein). (Marconi et al., 1998; Bellazzini et al., 1999; Cacciari, Bellazzini & Colucci, 2001; Dolphin, 2002).

## 4 Boxing the metallicity and age of the Sgr main population

Several authors (Marconi et al., 1998; Bellazzini et al., 1999; Layden & Sarajedini, 2000) have found evidence that the dominant population (Pop A, in the nomenclature introduced by Bellazzini et al., 1999) in the central part of Sgr is similar to the globular cluster Terzan 7 (a member of the Sgr galaxy), i.e., significantly younger than the typical Galactic globular but still several Gyr old (Buonanno et al., 1995).

A first hint on the metal content of Pop A can be obtained by comparing the position and the shape of the Sgr RGB with the ridge lines of a set of template globular clusters. Such a comparison, in the $`(I,VI)`$ and in the $`(K,VK)`$ planes, is shown in Figure 3. The $`(K,VK)`$ CMD has been obtained by combining the catalog presented here with the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS)333See: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass J,H,KS dataset. We used the color transformations computed by Carpenter (2001) to convert the 2MASS magnitudes into the standard system (Elias et al., 1982). The comparison with the mean ridge lines of three reference globulars of different metallicity (NGC4590, 47Tuc, and NGC6528 from Ortolani et al., 1995; Saviane, Rosenberg, Piotto, & Aparicio, 2000; Walker, 1994, respectively) is shown in Figure 3. In both planes the ridge line of 47 Tuc (\[M/H\]$`0.6`$) reproduces well the RGB of Pop A.

Now, we can use the RGB-bump to obtain an additional, independent estimate of the mean metallicity of Pop A. In particular, we use the reddening-free and distance-independent parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$V$`{}_{HB}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{bump}`$ (see F99), namely the difference between the V magnitude of the RGB-bump and the Zero Age Horizontal Branch (ZAHB) level. To evaluate $`V_{ZAHB}`$ we followed the procedure described in details in F99: we found VZAHB=18.33$`\pm `$0.07 and finally $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{HB}^{bump}=18.5518.33=0.22\pm 0.10`$. Using the F99 database, we obtain a relation for the global metallicity as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{HB}^{bump}`$:

$$[M/H]=0.522(\mathrm{\Delta }V_{HB}^{bump})^2+1.115\mathrm{\Delta }V_{HB}^{bump}0.862$$

$$r.m.s=0.07$$

From this equation we obtain $`[M/H]=0.64\pm 0.12`$ for Pop A in the Sgr dSph.

The similarities between the Sgr Pop A and 47 Tuc allow us to perform a more detailed differential comparison between these two populations. In doing this, we shifted the CMD of 47 Tuc (from the dataset of Rosenberg et al., 2000) by 4.22 magnitudes to match the Pop A red HB. As a result, we find that the RGB-bump of Pop A is significantly brighter than that of 47 Tuc by $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{47\mathrm{Tuc}\mathrm{Sgr}}^{bump}=0.12\pm 0.07`$ mag. The result is confirmed by the comparison of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{HB}^{bump}`$ above with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{HB}^{bump}=0.33\pm 0.1`$ listed by F99 for 47 Tuc, giving $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{47\mathrm{Tuc}\mathrm{Sgr}}^{bump}=0.11\pm 0.15`$ mag. If the metallicity of the two populations is the same, then such a difference in the RGB-bump position corresponds to an age difference of $`5`$ Gyr (since $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_V^{bump}}{\mathrm{\Delta }t(Gyr)}=0.024`$, Cassisi & Salaris (1997)), Pop A being younger than 47 Tuc. This finding is in excellent agreement with the results obtained by B99 and LS00 from the study of the Main Sequence Turn Off (TO) of the Sgr galaxy.

On the other hand, since at a fixed metallicity a younger age implies bluer RGB colors, we have to conclude that the mean metallicity of Pop A should be higher than that of 47 Tuc (see, e.g. Cole, 2001). This is in good agreement with the most recent spectroscopic measures: eight of the fourteen Sgr stars observed by Smecker-Hane & McWilliam (2002) have $`0.6[Fe/H]0.3`$ and $`<[\alpha /Fe]>0.0`$ (hence $`[Fe/H]=[M/H]`$). Since it is reasonable to assume that these stars are representative of Pop A, we can deduce that the mean metallicity for this population is $`[M/H]0.4`$.

As can be seen from Figure 4, by adopting this metallicity the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{47\mathrm{Tuc}\mathrm{Sgr}}^{bump}`$ suggests an age difference of $`7`$ Gyr. In a scale in which the age of 47 Tuc is 12 Gyr (Carretta et al., 2000), the absolute age of Pop A turns out to be $`5`$ Gyr, in good agreement with the results by LS00.

## 5 Discussion

The growing wealth of independent observational material about the Sgr dSph is beginning to provide a self-consistent view of the properties of this galaxy. For instance, the presence of a metal poor population ($`2.0[Fe/H]1.4`$), first suggested by B99, has been confirmed by further photometric studies (LS00, Cole, 2001), by the analysis of the pulsational properties of the RR Lyrae variables (Cseresnjes, 2001) and also by the spectroscopic survey by Smecker-Hane & McWilliam (2002). Moreover, the existence of a significant metallicity (and/or age) spatial gradient, with the stars in the outer regions being more metal deficient than those near the center of the galaxy, has been put into evidence by different authors (B99, LS00 Alard, 2001).

Conversely, some reason of concern was provided by the estimate of the mean metallicity of the stellar population that dominates the inner region of the galaxy. While photometric estimates were tipically in the range $`1.0[Fe/H]0.5`$, the first high-resolution spectra of two member stars by Bonifacio et al. (2000) suggested a much higher metal content ($`[Fe/H]0.2`$). The larger sample provided by the spectroscopic analysis of Smecker-Hane & McWilliam (2002) suggests that, while stars having $`[Fe/H]0.2`$ are indeed present in Sgr, they do not represent the dominant population. The majority of stars in the Smecker-Hane & McWilliam (2002) sample has $`[\alpha /Fe]0.0`$ (and thus \[Fe/H\]=\[M/H\]) and $`0.6[Fe/H]0.3`$. Furthermore, previous photometric estimates based on the comparison of the RGB with template globular clusters, neglected the effects of age and the difference in the $`\alpha `$-elements enhancement, as correctly pointed out by Cole (2001).

In this Letter we have revisited the problem of the metallicity and age of the Sgr main population, taking into account all of the above considerations and adding to the usual photometric metallicity indices (i.e., the position and the shape of the RGB) an additional constraint provided by the position of the RGB-bump. The main results can be summarized as follows:

1. The mere detection of a single-peaked bump in the differential LF of the RGB confirms the existence of a dominant population (Pop A) in the Sgr dSph stellar mix.
2. The Pop A RGB is well fitted by the RGB ridge-line of the globular cluster 47 Tuc, that has $`[M/H]0.6`$. However, a significant difference in the RGB-bump luminosity between Sgr and 47 Tuc has been measured. This fact suggest that Pop A is several Gyr younger than 47 Tuc, in good agreement with previous results based on the comparison of the Main Sequence Turn Off’s (B99, LS00). Hence, $`[M/H]0.6`$ has to be considered as a lower limit to the mean metallicity of Pop A.
3. A full self-consistency among the spectroscopic and photometric constraints (including the RGB-bump) is achieved if a mean metallicity of $`0.6<[M/H]0.4`$ and a mean age of $`7age4`$ Gyr are assumed for Pop A, in good agreement with the results by LS00. Ages younger than $`4`$ Gyr are excluded by the observed morphology of the TO (see Figure 11 by B99 and Figure 16 by LS00). The detailed discussion of this region of the CMD will be the subject of a forthcoming paper in preparation.

This research is partially supported by MIUR (Ministero della Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca) and ASI (Agenzia spaziale Italiana). Part of the data analysis has been performed using software packages developed by P. Montegriffo at the Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna. We thank Ivo Saviane for kindly providing the photometric catalog of 47 Tuc in electronic form. E. P. aknowledges the ESO Studenship Programme.