text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Hadron production in the reaction $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \text{hadron(s)}`$ has been a subject of considerable interest for a long time, both from the experimental  and theoretical  points of view. The key role in QCD description of such processes is played by the QCD factorization theorem. For example, QCD factorization has been successfully applied to the reaction $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^0`$ . The $`F^{\gamma \pi }(Q^2)`$ form-factor data obtained by the CELLO and CLEO collaborations are in a good agreement with the available QCD analysis, see for example .

Recently it has been proposed  to investigate a similar process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ when the two pion state has a small invariant mass. It has been argued that QCD factorization applies to this case as well . The resulting amplitude depends on new non-perturbative objects, the so-called two-pion distribution amplitudes ($`2\pi `$DA’s). They are given by matrix elements of twist-2 QCD string operators between vacuum and the two-pion state . Moreover, $`2\pi `$DA’s can be related by the crossing symmetry to skewed parton distributions  which recently have been subject of considerable interest.

Furthermore, in the recent paper  it has been argued that experimental studies of 2$`\pi `$ production cross-section are possible with existing $`e^+e^{}`$ facilities.

Formally, dominance of the leading-twist amplitude is guaranteed only at a very large $`Q^2`$. For the process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ the bulk of the twist-2 amplitude arises from the handbag diagram. In analogy with the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi ^0`$ reaction one expects that the leading-twist contribution dominates the amplitude even for moderate values of $`Q^2410`$ GeV2. For lower values of $`Q^2`$, the power-suppressed corrections are certainly important. Note that preliminary estimates show that most of the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ events which have been seen in the CLEO data are in the region $`Q^215`$ GeV2 . In this region a reliable estimate of the amplitude including the power-suppressed contributions is crucial.

From the theoretical point of view problems encountered in an analysis of power-suppressed contributions to two-pion and one-pion production amplitudes are very similar. Terms suppressed as $`1/Q^2`$ can arise from different space-time configurations. Production of states with more than 2 partons by interaction of two electromagnetic currents at small transverse distances can be accounted for by the standard Operator Product Expansion (OPE) technique. However, as the second photon is real, there is yet another configuration which results in a power-suppressed correction. The real photon can turn into hadrons long before the interaction with the virtual one. It occurs at large transverse distances between two electromagnetic currents. Such a not-factorizable term is known in the literature as the ‘end-point’ or ‘soft’ contribution.

In this paper we use the light-cone sum rules (LCSR) method to evaluate the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ amplitude, including the power suppressed contributions. The main advantage of this technique is that it allows to take into account both factorizable and non-factorizable corrections. Recently, LCSR were successfully applied to describe different pion form-factors  in a $`Q^2`$ range from 1 to $`10`$ GeV2.

This paper is organized as follows. In the following section we present the definition of the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ amplitude and set up the notation. In section 2 models of $`2\pi `$ distribution amplitudes are introduced. Sections 2 and 3 are devoted to discussion of the LCSR to the LO and NLO accuracy, respectively. In section 4 we present numerical analysis. Finally, we summarize. The appendix contains definitions of the NLO Wilson coefficient functions.

## 2 General definitions

Kinematics of the reaction $`\gamma ^{}(q)\gamma (q^{})\pi (k_1)\pi (k_2)`$ can conveniently be described in terms of a pair of light-like vectors $`p,z`$ which obey

$`\begin{array}{c}p^2=z^2=0,pz0\hfill \end{array}`$ (2)
and define longitudinal directions. Here $`pz=p_\mu z^\mu `$. Let $`P`$ and $`k`$ denote total and relative momenta of the $`\pi `$ meson pair, respectively,

$`\begin{array}{c}P^2=(k_1+k_2)^2=W^2,k^2=(k_1k_2)^2=4m_\pi ^2W^2,Pk=0\hfill \end{array}`$ (4)
The initial and final states momenta can be decomposed as

$`\begin{array}{c}q=p{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2(pz)}}z,q^2=Q^2q^{}={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2+W^2}{2(pz)}}z,q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0\hfill \\ P=q+q^{}=p+{\displaystyle \frac{W^2}{2(pz)}}z,P^2=W^2\hfill \\ k=\xi p{\displaystyle \frac{\xi W^2}{2(pz)}}z+k_{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (8)
The longitudinal momentum distribution between pions is described by the variable $`\xi =(kz)/(pz)`$. Alternatively,

$$\xi =\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{cm}},$$

where $`\theta _{\mathrm{cm}}`$ is the polar angle of the pion momentum in the CM frame with respect to the direction of the total momentum $`P`$ and $`\beta `$ is the velocity of produced pions in the center-of-mass frame

$`\beta =\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\pi ^2}{W^2}}}.`$
The amplitude of hard photo-production of two pions is defined by the following matrix element between vacuum and two pions state:

$`T^{\mu \nu }=i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ix\overline{q}}2\pi (P,k)|TJ^\mu (x/2)J^\nu (x/2)|0},\overline{q}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(qq^{})`$ (9)
where $`J^\mu (x)`$ denotes quark electromagnetic current. Hard photo-production corresponds to the limit $`Q^2W^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ where the amplitude (9) can be represented as an expansion in terms of powers of $`1/Q`$. According to the factorization theorem the leading twist term in the expansion can be written as a convolution of hard and soft blocks. The coefficient functions can be calculated from appropriate partonic subprocesses $`\gamma ^{}+\gamma \overline{q}+q`$ or $`\gamma ^{}+\gamma g+g`$.

According to the analysis of Ref.  to the leading twist accuracy the amplitude $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is a sum of two terms

$`T^{\mu \nu }(q,q^{},P,k)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(g^{\mu \nu })_TT_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }(q,q^{},P,k)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_{}^{(\mu }k_{}^{\nu )}}{W^2}}T_2^{\gamma \pi \pi }(q,q^{},P,k)`$ (10)
where $`(g^{\mu \nu })_T=\left(\frac{p^\mu z^\nu +p^\nu z^\mu }{pz}g^{\mu \nu }\right)`$ is the metric tensor in the transverse space and $`k_{}^{(\mu }k_{}^{\nu )}`$ denotes traceless, symmetric tensor product of relative transverse momenta (53).

The leading-order, leading-twist amplitude $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ describes scattering of two photons with equal helicities, related by crossing to the photon helicity-conserving DVCS on a pion. At the NLO there is a new contribution $`T_2^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ from collisions of photons with opposite helicities, related to photon helicity-flip contribution to DVCS . In terms of the Operator Product Expansion the latter amplitude singles out a twist-2 tensor gluon operator which cannot be studied in deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) on a pion (or nucleon) target .

Note that as the amplitude $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is dimensionless, twist-2 amplitude $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ depends on $`Q^2`$ only logarithmically through the running coupling and QCD evolution effects. To see this it is convenient to develop an appropriate power counting in an infinite momentum frame. For definiteness we assume that the pion pair is moving in the positive $`\widehat{z}`$ direction and $`p^+`$ and $`z^{}`$ are the only nonzero component of $`p`$ and $`z`$, respectively. Then the infinite momentum frame can be understood as $`p^+Q\mathrm{}`$ with a fixed $`(pz)1`$. From (8) it follows that in this frame $`(kz)1`$ and $`k_{}Q^0`$. This determines the power counting in $`Q`$ for all twist-2 amplitudes and from (10) we find that $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ is $`O(1)`$ as far as powers of $`Q`$ are concerned.

In this paper we consider power corrections to the amplitude $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ only. It is expected to be the most important term numerically as it appears already at the Born level. To the NLO accuracy one has :

$`\begin{array}{c}T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }=T_0^{pert}=\left({\displaystyle e_q^2}\right){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi ,W^2)\left[C_q^0(u)+\frac{\alpha _S(Q^2)}{4\pi }C_q^1(u)\right]\hfill \\ \left({\displaystyle e_q^2}\right){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi ,W^2)\left[\frac{\alpha _S(Q^2)}{4\pi }C_g^1(u)\right].\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
Coefficient functions $`C_q^0,C_q^1,C_g^1`$ can be found in . The quark and gluon $`2\pi `$DA’s are defined as matrix elements of the light-cone string operators:

$`\pi \pi (P,k)|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_f}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\overline{q}(z)\widehat{z}q(z)|0=(pz){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi ,W^2)e^{i(2u1)(pz)},`$ (14)
$`\pi \pi (P,k)|z^\mu z^\nu G_\alpha ^\mu (z)G^{\alpha \nu }(z)|0=(pz)^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u\mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi ,W^2)e^{i(2u1)(pz)},`$ (15)
Note that distribution amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi ,W^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi ,W^2)`$ depend also on a factorization scale $`\mu `$.

## 3 Models for 2-pion distribution amplitudes

In this section we describe briefly the main properties of the distribution amplitudes introduced in (14) and (15) and discuss a model which has been used to obtain estimates for the magnitude of power-suppressed corrections.

Due to the positive $`C`$-parity of the pion pair, $`2\pi `$ distribution amplitudes have the following symmetry properties

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi ,W^2)=\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(1u,\xi ,W^2)=\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi ,W^2),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi ,W^2)=\mathrm{\Phi }^G(1u,\xi ,W^2)=\mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi ,W^2).\hfill \end{array}`$ (18)
The factorization scale dependence is governed by the ERBL evolution equations . As it is well known, in the leading logarithmic approximation their solution has a form of an expansion in terms of Gegenbauer polynomials:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi ,W^2|\mu )=6u(1u){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n=1}{\mathrm{odd}}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}B_n(\xi ,W^2|\mu )C_n^{3/2}(2u1),`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi ,W^2|\mu )=30u^2(1u)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n=0}{\mathrm{even}}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_n(\xi ,W^2|\mu )C_n^{5/2}(2u1),`$ (20)
Coefficients $`B_n`$ and $`A_n`$ mix under evolution.

In the next step one expands both distribution amplitudes in the partial waves of the final 2-pion system . As a result one introduces an expansion of $`B_n(\xi ,W^2|\mu )`$ and $`A_n(\xi ,W^2|\mu )`$ in terms of Legendre polynomials $`P_l(\xi )`$ :

$`\begin{array}{c}B_n(\xi ,W^2|\mu )={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l=0}{\mathrm{even}}}{\overset{n+1}{}}}B_{nl}(W^2|\mu )P_l(\xi )\hfill \\ A_n(\xi ,W^2|\mu )={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l=0}{\mathrm{even}}}{\overset{n+2}{}}}A_{nl}^G(W^2|\mu )P_l(\xi )\hfill \end{array}`$ (23)
Additional constraints on $`2\pi `$ distribution amplitudes are provided by soft pion theorems, see :

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi =1,W^2=0)=\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi =1,W^2=0)=0.\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi =1,W^2=0)=\mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi =1,W^2=0)=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (26)
Finally, crossing symmetry allows to relate moments of distribution amplitudes to forward matrix elements of twist-2 operators which determine moments of pion quark and gluon structure functions, see  for details. One finds, e.g.

$`\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle _0^1}du(2u1)\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi =1,W^2=0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_f}}M^Q(1\xi ^2)\hfill \\ {\displaystyle _0^1}du\mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi =1,W^2=0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^G(1\xi ^2)\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
where $`M^Q`$ and $`M^G`$ are momentum fractions carried by quarks and gluons in a pion:

$`\begin{array}{c}M^Q(\mu )={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uu{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}(q_\pi (u,\mu )+\overline{q}_\pi (u,\mu ))\hfill \\ M^G(\mu )={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑uug_\pi (u,\mu ).\hfill \end{array}`$ (32)
At asymptotically large $`\mu ^2\mathrm{}`$ only the lowest terms in (19), (20) contribute. Combining constrains (29) with (23) one easily finds:

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_{as}^G(u,\zeta ,W^2=0)=15u^2(1u)^2M_{as}^G(1\xi ^2),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{as}^Q(u,\zeta ,W^2=0)=30u(1u)(2u1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_f}}M_{as}^Q(1\xi ^2).\hfill \end{array}`$ (35)
where

$`M_{as}^Q={\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{N_f+4C_F}},M_{as}^G={\displaystyle \frac{4C_F}{N_f+4C_F}}.`$ (36)
For $`W^20`$ one writes

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_{as}^G(u,\xi ,W^2)=15u^2(1u)^2M_{as}^GB(\xi ,W^2),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{as}^Q(u,\xi ,W^2)=30u(1u)(2u1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_f}}M_{as}^QB(\xi ,W^2).\hfill \end{array}`$ (39)
Function $`B(\xi ,W^2)`$ is related to coefficients $`B_1`$ and $`A_0`$ from (23)

$`B(\xi ,W^2)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{M_{as}^G}}A_0(\xi ,W^2|\mu ^2=\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{M_{as}^Q}}B_1(\xi ,W^2|\mu ^2=\mathrm{}).`$ (40)
In the limit $`W^20`$ one finds from (29) that $`B(\xi ,W^2=0)=(1\xi ^2)`$.

In numerical calculations presented in this paper we have used a model which retains simple analytical form of asymptotic distributions amplitudes (39), but incorporates nontrivial information about pion structure at a scale of the order of a few GeV2 . Assuming dominance of the lowest conformal wave one finds

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }^G(u,\xi ,W^2)=15u^2(1u)^2M^G(\mu ^2)B(\xi ,W),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }^Q(u,\xi ,W^2)=30u(1u)(2u1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_f}}M^Q(\mu ^2)B(\xi ,W).\hfill \end{array}`$ (43)
As at present a little is known about $`2\pi `$ DA’s, the main motivation beyond the model (43) is that it incorporates all constraints arising from crossing symmetry and soft pion theorems and has a simple form which makes its treatment in numerical calculations easy. Note that dominance of the lowest conformal wave seems to be phenomenologically justified in the case of the single pion DA.

This model differs from the asymptotic DA (39) only in values of momentum fractions $`M^G(\mu ^2)`$ and $`M^Q(\mu ^2)`$. Their scale-dependence is given by

$`M^Q(Q^2)=M_{as}^Q\left(1+L(Q^2)R(\mu ^2)\right),R(\mu ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{M^Q(\mu ^2)M_{as}^Q}{M_{as}^Q}},`$ (44)
where $`L`$ is the usual evolution factor:

$`L(Q^2)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S(Q^2)}{\alpha _S(\mu ^2)}}\right)^{\gamma _+/b_0},\gamma _+={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(N_f+4C_F),b_0={\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}N_f.`$ (45)
Obviously, that $`M^G(Q^2)=1M^Q(Q^2)`$.

Explicit expression for $`B(\xi ,W)`$ can be obtained using the Watson theorem . In calculations considered here $`B(\xi ,W)`$ enters as a $`Q^2`$-independent factor and therefore its explicit functional form is not important for considerations of power-suppressed corrections to the amplitude. To remove this factor from numerical calculations we will consider the $`Q^2`$-dependence of the ratio $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }(Q^2,\xi ,W^2)/T_0^{as}`$, where

$`T_0^{as}=T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }(Q^2=\mathrm{},\xi ,W^2)={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{2u\mathrm{\Phi }_{as}^Q(u,\xi ,W^2)}{1u}}={\displaystyle \frac{15}{14}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2B(\xi ,W^2).`$ (46)
is asymptotic value of the amplitude.

In Fig. 1 we compare this ratio for the NLO amplitude $`T_0^{pert}(Q^2,\xi ,W^2)`$ for different models of $`2\pi `$ distribution amplitudes: asymptotic (39) and its minimal extension (43). Note that there is an ambiguity due to the scale-dependence of the NLO amplitude. In order to estimate this uncertainty we make the following choice for the scale $`\mu `$:

$`\mu ^2=\kappa Q^2+M^2,`$ (47)
with $`M^2=1`$ GeV2 and a parameter $`\kappa `$ which will be varied in the interval $`1/5\kappa 1`$. Such a choice is motivated by an observation  that a typical virtuality of a propagator in a perturbative, exclusive amplitude is given by a weighted sum of the hard scale $`Q^2`$ and the infrared cut-off. In the LCSR approach the latter role is played by the Borel mass $`M^2`$, see the next section. Evaluating the NLO amplitude (13) we have neglected numerically small NLO corrections  to evolution of distribution amplitudes in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme.

One finds that in the model based on asymptotic distribution amplitudes the NLO correction is numerically much larger than in the second model, where amplitudes have the asymptotic form but different, scale-dependent normalization. It can be understood by observing that the gluon distribution amplitude gives the main contribution to the NLO correction. At $`Q^2`$ of order of few GeV2 its normalization in (43), based on the momentum fraction carried by gluons in a pion according to the GRV parametrization  is much smaller than the asymptotic one. Strong sensitivity of the NLO corrections to gluon distribution amplitude is an interesting feature of the process considered here. As it follows, we have to revise one of our conclusions from , about the size of the NLO correction. Contrary to our previous claim, its magnitude turns out to be rather model dependent, and therefore it is difficult to make a trustworthy prediction unless distribution amplitudes which enter the NLO correction, in particular the gluon one, are sufficiently constrained.

## 4 Light-cone sum rules method: the LO approximation

In this section we discuss the Light Cone Sum Rule (LCSR) for the amplitude $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$. Our procedure closely follows investigation of the photon-pion transition form-factor $`F_{\gamma \pi }(Q^2)`$ in Ref. .

The first step to obtain a LCSR for the amplitude with one real photon $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ is to consider an amplitude $`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }`$ where both photons are off-shell and have large virtualities:

$`\gamma ^{}(q)+\gamma ^{}(q^{})2\pi (P,k),Q^2,Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ (48)
and find its dispersion representation in the variable $`q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$.

In the general kinematics momenta $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ can be represented in terms of vectors $`p`$ and $`z`$ as

$`\begin{array}{c}q={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2\sigma (pz)}}p+\sigma z,q^2=Q^2q^{}={\displaystyle \frac{Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2\alpha (pz)}}p+\alpha z,q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (50)
Coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\sigma `$ are functions of kinematical invariants. Using momentum conservation one finds

$`\begin{array}{c}\alpha =\frac{W^2}{2(pz)}\sigma ,\hfill \\ \sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(pz)}}(q(qq^{})\sqrt{X}),X=(qq^{})^2q^2q^2.\hfill \end{array}`$ (53)
With the help of the factorization theorem one can write $`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }`$ as a convolution of hard and soft blocks. Virtuality $`q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ enters the hard part only, where we neglect $`W^2`$ as compared with $`Q^2`$ and $`Q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$.

With $`q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}0`$ the two-photon amplitude admits naturally a reacher Lorentz structure than the original amplitude with one photon on-shell. In addition, by splitting $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ into Lorentz tensors and invariant coefficient functions it is advantageous to avoid kinematical constraints for the latter. Constraints imposed on coefficient functions result in constraints on the form of their dispersion representation.

To this end we rewrite the transverse metric tensor in terms of momenta $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ :

$`R^{\mu \nu }(q,q^{})=(g^{\mu \nu })_T=g^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X}}(qq^{}(q^\mu q^\nu +q^\nu q^\mu )q^2q^\mu q^\nu q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}q^\mu q^\nu ),`$ (54)
with $`X`$ defined in (53), and introduce a variable $`\omega `$

$`\begin{array}{c}\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{2Pq}{q^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{W^2}{Q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2q^2}{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2q^2}{q^2}},\hfill \end{array}`$ (56)
With these definitions it is convenient to introduce $`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }`$ as

$`T^{\mu \nu }=i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2}}R^{\mu \nu }(q,q^{})T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^{},\xi ,W)+\mathrm{}`$ (57)
where ellipsis denotes other possible Lorentz structures. Now, in the limit $`q^20`$ ($`\omega 1`$) $`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }`$, defined here, goes smoothly into $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ given by (13). On the other hand, factor $`\omega ^2`$ cancels singularity present in the tensor $`R^{\mu \nu }`$ as $`q^2q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},W^20`$ ($`\omega 0`$) due to the $`1/X`$ term, hence no constraints have to be imposed on $`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }`$.

To the LO accuracy and keeping $`W^2=0`$ in the hard block the amplitude $`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^{},\xi ,W)`$ is the only one which appears in $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ and one obtains:

$`\begin{array}{c}T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^{},\xi ,W)=({\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2){\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x\omega }}=\hfill \\ =({\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2){\displaystyle \frac{2xQ^2}{(1x)Q^2xq^2}}\hfill \end{array}`$ (60)
Note that the above expression depends on $`W`$ through the 2-pion distribution amplitude (14).

The LO result can be easily converted into a dispersion integral over $`q^2`$ with $`s=\overline{x}Q^2/x`$ being the mass of the intermediate state. Using symmetry properties of the quark DA one finds

$`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^{},\xi ,W)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)}{sq^2}}`$ (61)
where

$`\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)=2({\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\delta (x{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{s+Q^2}})x^2\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)`$ (62)
The next step is to rewrite the dispersion relation in the $`q^2`$ channel assuming that the spectral density can be approximated by contributions of low-lying hadron states $`\rho ,\omega `$ and a continuum of higher-mass states with an effective threshold $`s_0`$:

$`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^{},\xi ,W)=\sqrt{2}f_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{T^{\rho \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)}{m_\rho ^2q^2}}+{\displaystyle _{s_0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{cont}(Q,s,\xi ,W)}{sq^2}}.`$ (63)
Here we have introduced the following notation for the matrix elements:

$`\begin{array}{c}\rho ^0|J_\nu |0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}f_\rho m_\rho ϵ_\nu ^{},\hfill \\ \pi \pi |J^\mu |\rho ^0={\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2}}R^{\mu \nu }(q,q^{})ϵ_\nu T_0^{\rho \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (66)
$`ϵ_\nu ^{},ϵ_\nu `$ are the polarization vectors of the $`\rho `$ meson. To include $`\omega `$-meson we adopt the following approximate relations

$`m_\omega m_\rho ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}f_\omega f_\rho ,T_0^{\omega \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)3T_0^{\rho \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)`$ (67)
which follow from the quark content of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ and from the isospin symmetry.

The right-hand-side (RHS) of equation (63) involves two unknown functions: the form-factor $`T_0^{\rho \pi \pi }`$ and the spectral density $`\rho ^{cont}`$. Assuming quark-hadron duality one can estimate the continuum spectral density as

$`\rho ^{cont}(Q,s,\xi ,W)=\theta (s>s_0)\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)`$ (68)
where $`\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)`$ is the spectral density given in (62). By keeping $`q^2`$ large and combining (68), (63) and (60) one obtains a LCSR for the form-factor $`T_0^{\rho \pi \pi }`$:

$`\sqrt{2}f_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{T_0^{\rho \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)}{m_\rho ^2q^2}}={\displaystyle _0^{s_0}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)}{sq^2}}`$ (69)
After perfoming Borel transformation in $`q^2`$ one finds ($`M`$ is the Borel mass):

$`\sqrt{2}f_\rho T_0^{\rho \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)={\displaystyle _0^{s_0}}𝑑s\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)e^{(m_\rho ^2s)/M^2}`$ (70)
Finally, substituting (68) and (70) into (63) results in

$`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^2,\xi ,W)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\rho ^2q^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{s_0}}𝑑s\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)e^{(m_\rho ^2s)/M^2}+{\displaystyle _{s_0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)}{sq^2}}`$ (71)
The above representation allows to perform an analitical continuation to the point $`q^2=0`$. In this way one arrives at a LCSR for the amplitude with one real photon:

$`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{s_0}}𝑑s\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)e^{(m_\rho ^2s)/M^2}+{\displaystyle _{s_0}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}\rho _0(Q,s,\xi ,W)`$ (72)
It is convenient to rewrite this formula going back to an integral over fraction $`x=Q^2/(s+Q^2)`$. Introducing $`x_0=Q^2/(s_0+Q^2)`$ and $`\overline{x}1x`$ one finds

$`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2}{m_\rho ^2}}({\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2){\displaystyle _{x_0}^1}𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{xm_\rho ^2\overline{x}Q^2}{xM^2}}\right\}+`$
$`+({\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2){\displaystyle _0^{x_0}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x}}\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2).`$
Consider now the limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$. In this limit $`x_0=1s_0/Q^2+O(1/Q^4)`$. The integration region in the first term in the RHS (4) shrinks to the point $`x=1`$ and one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2}{m_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^1}𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{xm_\rho ^2\overline{x}Q^2}{xM^2}}\right\}={\displaystyle \frac{2s_0^2}{Q^2m_\rho ^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_x^Q(1,\xi ,W^2){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xxe^{\frac{m_\rho ^2xs_0}{M^2}}+O(1/Q^4)`$ (74)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x^Q(1,\xi ,W^2)\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W)|_{x=1}`$.

As it has been discussed at length in the literature, equation (74) can be interpreted as the so-called “end-point” contribution which arises from large transverse dinstances between two photons in the hard block . In general, the 2$`\pi `$ distribution amplitiude $`\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)`$ depends also on the factorization scale $`\mu `$ which separates large and short distances. As $`x1`$ the quark virtuality (the magnitude of the quark denominator in equation (60)) is of order of the Borel mass $`M`$. As it follows, the two pion DA in (74) should be evaluated at a low normalization point, of order of $`M`$.

In Fig.2 we show an average value of the momentum fraction $`x`$ in the integral (4) calculated as a function of $`Q^2`$. One observes that the mean value of $`x`$ in (4) is indeed close to 1.

As $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ the second term in the RHS of (4) gives

$`{\displaystyle _0^{x_0}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x}}\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x}}\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)+O(1/Q^2).`$ (75)
It reproduces the leading order, leading twist factorization formula when $`q^2=0`$ in (60) and provides correct asymptotics for very large $`Q^2`$. The power correction is suppressed as $`1/Q^2`$.

The LO sum rule (4) results in an expression for the amplitude $`T^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ which includes contributions from both the “end-point” region $`x1`$, associated with large transverse distances, and from small transverse distances where the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair is created by two photons in a compact configuration. From the sum rule it follows that the “end-point” contribution is suppressed by $`1/Q^2`$ as compared with the LO factorization result, i.e. it has the same order as factorizable higher twist corrections. Despite formal power suppression, the “end-point” contribution can be numerically important for realistic values of $`Q^2`$. Our numerical analysis suggests that the sum rule (4) can be applied for description of the amplitude $`T^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ starting from moderate momentum transfers $`Q^21`$GeV2.

## 5 Radiative corrections

In principle, the sum rule (4) can be improved in a twofold way, by including the NLO $`\alpha _s`$ and higher-twist corrections to the spectral density (62). In this section we consider the NLO contribution. Taking into account higher-twists requires knowledge of the corresponding 2-pion distribution amplitudes which are not known yet.

One-loop corrections for the real photon case have been considered in . In current situation one should calculate the coefficient functions in kinematics when both photons are vitual. One should also keep in mind that at the NLO diagrams with gluons enter the game. As in  one can use crossing symmetry to derive coefficient functions from the corresponding coefficient functions in the DVCS kinematics, as computed in . The calculation is straightforward. The NLO amplitude can be written in the standard form:

$`\begin{array}{c}T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^{},\xi ,W)={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2({\displaystyle _0^1}dx\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)[C_q^0(x,\omega )+\frac{\alpha _S(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }C_q^1(x,\omega ,\mu )]\hfill \\ {\displaystyle _0^1}dx\mathrm{\Phi }^G(x,\xi ,W^2)\left[\frac{\alpha _S(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }C_g^1(z,\omega ,\mu )\right]).\hfill \end{array}`$ (78)
Coefficient functions $`C_q^0,C_q^1`$ and $`C_g^1`$ are collected in the Appendix.

As in the LO case, virtuality $`q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ enters only through the variable $`\omega `$. It is convenient to rewrite equation (78) in the form which resembles the structure of the LO answer (60):

$`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^{},\xi ,W)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x\rho (x,\xi ,W^2)}{1x\omega }}`$ (79)
with

$`\rho (x,\xi ,W^2)=\rho _0(x,\xi ,W^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\rho _1(x,\xi ,W^2).`$ (80)
As in equation (60)

$`\rho _0(x,\xi ,W^2)=2({\displaystyle e_q^2})\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2).`$ (81)
The NLO correction $`\rho _1(x,\xi ,W^2)`$ can be obtained from the corresponding coefficient functions (78):

$`\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle e_q^2_0^1𝑑x\left[\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}_{q^2}C_q^1(x,\omega )\mathrm{\Phi }^G(x,\xi ,W^2)\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}_{q^2}C_g^1(x,\omega )\right]}=\hfill \\ =u^2\rho _1(u,\xi ,W^2)|_{u=1/\omega }\hfill \end{array}`$ (84)
where $`\text{Im}_{q^2}`$ denotes the imaginary part with respect to the variable $`q^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, considered here as a complex variable with positive both real and (infinitesimal) imaginary parts.

With such a definition the structure of the NLO LCSR for the amplitude $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ remains the same as the LO one:

$`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^1}𝑑x\rho (x,\xi ,W^2)\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{xm_\rho ^2\overline{x}Q^2}{xM^2}}\right\}+{\displaystyle _0^{x_0}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1x}}\rho (x,\xi ,W^2).`$ (85)
As in the case of the LO sum rule (4), as $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ equation (85) reproduces the perturbative expansion of the $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ amplitude, including the NLO corrections . The power correction is suppressed as $`1/Q^2`$.

As an illustration, we quote now the form of $`\rho _1(x,\xi ,W^2)`$ in the case of the ’minimal model’ (43)

$`\begin{array}{c}\rho _1(x,\xi ,W^2)={\displaystyle e_q^2B(\xi ,W^2)\left\{\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/Q^2)\rho _{10}(x,\mu ^2)+\rho _{11}(x,\mu ^2)\right\}},\hfill \\ \rho _{10}(x,\mu ^2)=(40)x(1x)(2x1)R(\mu ^2),\hfill \\ \rho _{11}(x,\mu ^2)=\rho _{as}(x)+R(\mu ^2)[\rho _{as}(x)+D(x)].\hfill \end{array}`$ (89)
Where $`R(\mu ^2)`$ is defined in (44). Function $`D(x)`$ is a shorthand notation for:

$`D(x)={\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}[2\overline{x}(16x)+x\overline{x}(2x1)(31+12\mathrm{ln}(x/\overline{x}))]`$ (90)
Taking for $`M^Q`$ the asymptotic value (36) results in $`R(\mu ^2=\mathrm{})=0`$ and

$`\rho _1(x,\xi ,W^2)=B(\xi ,W^2)\rho _{as}(x)`$ (91)
where

$`\rho _{as}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{20C_F}{N_f+4C_F}}x(1x)(2x1)(\pi ^2173\mathrm{ln}^2(x/\overline{x}))`$ (92)
In this case $`\rho _1`$ has no dependence on $`\mu `$.

Before evaluating the sum rule one has to provide an estimate of the factorisation scale $`\mu `$. This is a standard problem in a calculation based on the fixed-order perturbation theory. Note that the scale of perturbative expansion $`\mu ^2Q^2`$ is different from the characteristic scale of soft, ’end-point’ contributions $`\mu ^2M^2`$. As a consequence, the correct treatment of the sum rule requires applying various normalization scales to various terms in (85). To avoid confusion, we propose the following procedure. One separates the perturbative contribution and writes the final formula in the form:

$`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }(Q,\xi ,W)=T_0^{\mathrm{pert}}(Q,\xi ,W)+T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}(Q,\xi ,W).`$ (93)
$`T_0^{pert}`$ is the perturbative amplitude (13), which can be represented as:

$`T_0^{\mathrm{pert}}(Q,\xi ,W)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1x}}\rho (x,\xi ,W^2).`$ (94)
The scale in this term is set by the hard photon virtuality $`Q^2`$. The second term should, as a matter of fact, be considered as the proper light-cone sum rule result:

$`T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}(Q,\xi ,W)={\displaystyle _{x_0}^1}𝑑x\rho (x,\xi ,W^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m_\rho ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{xm_\rho ^2\overline{x}Q^2}{xM^2}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1x}}\right]`$ (95)
Here the integration region is restricted to $`x_0x1`$. As discussed in the previous section, this term should be evaluated at a low normalization point $`M^2`$.

Of course, when evaluated at the same normalization scale, sum of (94) and (95) reproduces the original sum rule (85).

## 6 Numerical results

In the subsequent numerical analysis the following input has been used: the threshold parameter $`s_0=1.5`$ GeV2 has been taken from the two-point sum rule . This sum rule is reliable for the corresponding Borel parameter $`M_{2pt}^2=0.50.8`$ GeV2. In the light-cone sum rules it should be larger to compensate for the fact that the effective expansion parameter is given by the inverse power of $`xM^2`$. In this case a typical choice is $`M^2M_{2pt}^2/x`$ . We assume $`0.6M^21.2`$ GeV2 as a reasonable interval. In addition we have checked that changing $`s_0`$ by $`\pm 0.2`$ GeV2 does not produce any sizeable effect.

We remind the reader that in the present investigation we have neglected higher twist contributions to the sum rule for $`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }`$. They are, as usual, suppressed by additional powers of the Borel parameter. To obtain their contribution one should know two-pion distribution amplitudes of higher twists which have not yet been studied. In the case of photon-pion transition form-factor , the contribution of such terms to the non-perturbative (power suppressed) part is about $`3035\%`$ of the leading twist contribution for the low $`Q^212`$ GeV2. Qualitatively, the same picture should hold also in the present case.

All numerical results have been obtained with the model (43) for $`2\pi `$ distribution amplitude. We have used the quark momentum fraction $`M^Q(0.6\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.63`$ taken from the GRV parametrization . We have kept $`N_f=4`$ which results in $`M_{as}^Q=0.43`$.

In all calculations we have used $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=0.204`$ GeV and one-loop running coupling $`\alpha _S(1\mathrm{GeV}^2)=0.47`$.

In the numerical analysis one has to specify the factorization scale. Since after subtraction of the perturbative amplitude $`T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}(Q,\xi ,W)`$ is dominated by the “end-point”, soft contributions, we apply here a fixed, low scale $`\mu ^2M^2`$.

To estimate the ambiguity due to the scale dependence in $`T_0^{\mathrm{pert}}(Q,\xi ,W)`$ we parametrize $`\mu ^2`$ according to:

$`\mu ^2=\kappa Q^2+M^2,`$ (96)
with a parameter $`\kappa `$ which varies in the interval $`1/5\kappa 1`$.

We consider values of $`Q^2`$ in the physically interesting interval $`1\text{GeV}^2Q^210\text{GeV}^2`$.

To cancel the influence of the overall factor $`B(\xi ,W^2)`$, in the following we always plot the ratio of $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }(Q^2,\xi ,W^2)`$ to its asymptotic value at $`Q^2=\mathrm{}`$ (46).

The Borel parameter dependence of the ratio $`T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}/T_0^{\mathrm{as}}`$ is shown in Fig. 3. We find that the $`M^2`$ dependence is sufficiently flat to justify the use of LCSR, although for lower values of $`Q^2`$, where power corrections are increasingly important, dependence on the Borel parameter becomes stronger. Assuming that the uncertainty arising from the Borel parameter dependence should not exceed 30 % for the $`T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}`$, we estimate that the sum rule (4) provides a reasonable description of $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }`$ starting from $`Q^21`$ GeV2.

In Fig. 4 we show the ratio $`T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}(Q^2)/T_0^{\mathrm{as}}`$ obtained from the light-cone sum rule (95) for different values of the Borel parameter $`M^2`$. One observes that in the whole interval of $`Q^2`$ considered here the sum rule calculation is rather stable with respect to variation of the Borel parameter within a reasonable interval. In accordance with expectations, the non-perturbative correction becomes smaller with increasing $`Q^2`$. By fitting a simple formula we found that for the value of the Borel parameter in the middle of the interval, $`M^2=0.9`$ GeV2, and in the $`Q^2`$ region $`1Q^210\text{GeV}^2`$, $`T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}/T_0^{\mathrm{as}}`$ can be parameterized as

$`T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}(Q^2)/T_0^{\mathrm{as}}={\displaystyle \frac{1.5+0.05Q^2+0.015Q^4}{1+Q^2+0.3Q^4}},`$ (97)
with $`Q^2`$ in units of GeV2, see the solid line in Fig. 4.

In Fig. 5 we present perturbative and non-perturbative contributions to the ratio $`T_0^{\gamma \pi \pi }/T_0^{\mathrm{as}}`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$. $`T_0^{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}`$ is calculated with $`M^2=0.9\text{GeV}^2`$. The non-perturbative corrections is numerically significant only in the region $`Q^24`$ GeV2. For higher values of $`Q^2`$ the amplitude is dominated by the NLO leading-twist contribution.

## 7 Summary and conclusions

The main result of this paper is the numerical estimate of power-suppressed correction to the leading-twist helicity-conserving amplitude of the process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$. Light-cone sum rules technique allows to circumvent difficulties due to non-factorizability of the power-suppressed terms. Although formally our analysis is not complete, as we have neglected contribution of higher twist operators to the amplitude of two-pion production in a collision of two virtual photons, we believe that the general picture is reliable, at least qualitatively. Power corrections are increasingly important with decreasing $`Q^2`$ for $`Q^24`$ GeV2, and become about 50% of the leading-twist amplitude at $`Q^2=1`$ GeV2.

Our final result for the helicity-conserving $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ amplitude is shown in Fig. 6. The grey bound indicates uncertainty due to the linearly combined Borel parameter and the factorization scale variations. One finds that starting from $`Q^2`$ around 4 GeV2 the twist-2 contribution approximately saturates the amplitude. This observation suggests that the cross-section of the process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ can be accurately predicted in QCD for given models of $`2\pi `$ distribution amplitudes.

Assuming dominance of the lowest conformal wave, we have found that helicity conserving amplitude is very sensitive to the normalization of gluonic $`2\pi `$ distribution amplitude. This observation, combined with crossing, makes it plausible to use $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ to constrain momentum fraction carried by gluons in a pion.

Acknowledgments: We gratefully acknowledge discussions with V. Braun, M. Polyakov, A. Belitsky and O. Teryaev. We are grateful to M. Diehl for his valuable comments. This work was supported in part by KBN grant 2 P03B 011 19 and DFG, project No. 920585.

## 8 APPENDIX: Coefficient functions

To the NLO accuracy the amplitude $`T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }`$ can be represented as a standard convolution of $`2\pi `$ distribution amplitudes with the hard scattering coefficients:

$`\begin{array}{c}T_0^{\gamma ^{}\pi \pi }(Q,q^{},\xi ,W)={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e_q^2({\displaystyle _0^1}dx\mathrm{\Phi }^Q(x,\xi ,W^2)[C_q^0(x,\omega )+\frac{\alpha _S(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }C_q^1(x,\omega ,\mu ^2/Q^2)]\hfill \\ {\displaystyle _0^1}dx\mathrm{\Phi }^G(x,\xi ,W^2)\left[\frac{\alpha _S(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }C_g^1(z,\omega ,\mu ^2/Q^2)\right]),\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.3)
where $`\omega `$ has been defined in (56). The coefficient functions in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme read

$`C_q^0(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1x\omega }},`$ (A.4)
$`C_q^1(x,\omega ,\mu ^2/Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`C_F\left[\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/Q^2)[C_q^{10}(x,\omega )C_q^{10}(1x,\omega )]+C_q^{11}(x,\omega )C_q^{11}(1x,\omega )\right],`$
$`C_q^{10}(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(1x\omega )\omega }}\mathrm{ln}(1\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{2(1\omega )}{\overline{x}\omega ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}\right)+`$ (A.5)
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega )}{1x\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x\omega )}{\overline{x}\omega ^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1x\omega )}{x\overline{x}\omega ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1x\omega }{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{1x\omega }}\right],`$
$`C_q^{11}(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x\omega )\omega }}[9+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x\omega }}\mathrm{ln}^2(1x\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{x\omega }}\mathrm{ln}(1x\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x\omega }}\mathrm{ln}(1\omega )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x\omega }}\mathrm{ln}^2(1\omega )]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\overline{x}\omega ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(1x\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{x\overline{x}\omega ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(1\omega )+`$
$`+(x11/\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(1x\omega )}{x\overline{x}\omega ^2}}+(1x+x/\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(1\omega )}{x\overline{x}\omega ^2}},`$
$`C_g^1(x,\omega ,\mu ^2/Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/Q^2)C_g^{10}(x,\omega )+C_g^{11}(x,\omega ),`$ (A.6)
$`C_g^{10}(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2)}{w^4(x\overline{x})^2}}\{(1\omega +[1x\omega ]^2)\mathrm{ln}(1x\omega )+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}+(1\omega +[1\overline{x}\omega ]^2)\mathrm{ln}(1\overline{x}\omega )(2\omega x^2\omega \overline{x}^2)(1\omega )\mathrm{ln}(1\omega )\},`$
$`C_g^{11}(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w^4(x\overline{x})^2}}\{a_1(x,\omega )\mathrm{ln}(1\omega )+a_2(x,\omega )\mathrm{ln}^2(1\omega )+`$
$`c_1(x,\omega )\mathrm{ln}(1x\omega )+c_1(\overline{x},\omega )\mathrm{ln}(1\overline{x}\omega )+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}c_2(x,\omega )\mathrm{ln}^2(1x\omega )+c_2(\overline{x},\omega )\mathrm{ln}^2(1\overline{x}\omega )\},`$
$`a_1(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`8+4\omega (x3x^2)+4\omega ^2(1x+x^2),`$
$`a_2(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2+\omega (32x+2x^2)\omega ^2(12x+2x^2),`$
$`c_1(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`8+4\omega (1+2x)2\omega ^2x(1+x),`$
$`c_2(x,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega (1+2x)+\omega ^2x^2.`$
Here we used the shorthand notation $`\overline{x}1x`$. Note that physical amplitude does not have a singularity (pole) when $`\omega 0`$ and therefore all coefficient functions must be well defined in this limit:

$`\begin{array}{c}C_q^1(x,\omega ,\mu ^2/Q^2)=C_F\left[\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(2x1)+(12x)\right]+O(\omega ),\hfill \\ C_g^1(x,\omega ,\mu ^2/Q^2)=\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/Q^2){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}+O(\omega ).\hfill \end{array}`$ (A.11)


format: text

text:
# Metamagnetism and critical fluctuations in high quality single crystals of the bilayer ruthenate Sr3Ru2O7

## Abstract

We report the results of low temperature transport, specific heat and magnetisation measurements on high quality single crystals of the bilayer perovskite $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$, which is a close relative of the unconventional superconductor $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$. Metamagnetism is observed, and transport and thermodynamic evidence for associated critical fluctuations is presented. These relatively unusual fluctuations might be pictured as variations in the Fermi surface topography itself. No equivalent behaviour has been observed in the metallic state of $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$.

Research over the past decade has shown the potential of perovskite ruthenate metals to play a pivotal role in our understanding of the behaviour of strongly correlated electrons. The position of the Fermi level in bands resulting from the hybridisation of oxygen 2p and ruthenium 4d levels leads to ground state behaviour covering a wider range than that seen in almost any other transition metal oxide series. Pseudocubic SrRuO3 is a rare example of an itinerant ferromagnet based on 4d electrons, and has a good lattice match to the cuprates . $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$ has the layered perovskite structure with a single RuO2 plane per formula unit. It is strongly two-dimensional, and shows a Pauli-like paramagnetic susceptibility . It is best known for its unconventional superconductivity , which is thought to involve spin triplet pairing . Structural distortions in Sr-based ruthenates are either small or absent, but substituting Ca for Sr introduces larger rotations of the Ru–O octahedra, causing bandwidth narrowing and changes to the crystal field splitting. Thus, although Ca and Sr are both divalent cations, the properties of the Ca-based materials are markedly different. CaRuO3 is a paramagnetic metal with a large mass enhancement , while Ca2RuO4 is an antiferromagnetic insulator . This diversity shows that the ruthenates are characterised by a series of competing, nearly degenerate instabilities, giving a clear motivation for the careful investigation of all the compounds in the series. An even more important feature of the ruthenates is that, in contrast to 3d oxides such as most manganites and many cuprates, no explicit chemical doping is required to produce metallic conduction. This gives a unique opportunity to probe a wide range of correlated electron physics in the low disorder limit, leading to considerable advances in understanding. The superconductivity of $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$, for example, is strongly disorder-dependent , and further examples of unconventional superconductivity may be expected in other ruthenates if they can be grown with mean free paths as long as those of $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$. Of particular interest is the subject of this study, $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$, which has a Ru–O bilayer per formula unit, and hence an effective dimensionality which is intermediate between those of $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$ and SrRuO3.

The synthesis of $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ in polycrystalline form has been reported by several groups over the past three decades , but investigations of its electrical and magnetic properties were not carried out until the past few years. There has been some variation in the reports and interpretation of its ground state. Cava and co-workers showed that the magnetic susceptibility ($`\chi `$) of powders obeyed a Curie-Weiss law with a maximum in the susceptibility at approximately 20K and a negative Weiss temperature, which they interpreted in a local moment picture as antiferromagnetism . Early reports on single crystals grown from a SrCl2 flux in Pt crucibles, however, gave evidence for weak itinerant ferromagnetism . Elastic neutron scattering measurements on polycrystalline materials showed no sign of either kind of long-range order .

The lack of long-range order was confirmed by Ikeda and co-workers , who succeeded in growing much purer crystals (residual in-plane resistivity, $`\rho _{\mathrm{res}}`$, of 3–4 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm) in an image furnace. The magnetic susceptibility of these crystals reproduces the basic features of the paramagnetic susceptibility reported in ref. 11, with a pronounced maximum at approximately 16K. Although the resistivity has an anisotropy ratio of several hundred, the susceptibility is much more isotropic, with an anisotropy at 16K of only $`20\%`$. At lower temperatures, below 5K, it becomes completely isotropic and temperature independent. The low temperature value of $`\chi =1.5\times 10^2`$emu/mol–Ru is over an order of magnitude larger than that of $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$, while values between 1.5 and 2.5 times larger have been reported for the electronic specific heat per Ru mole . Combined with the observation of a $`T^2`$ dependence of the resistivity ($`\rho `$) in the same temperature range, the data strongly suggest that $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ enters a Fermi liquid metallic state at low temperatures. Published electronic band structure calculations predict a Fermi surface which is very similar to that of $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$ , giving no expectation of substantial differences between the properties of the two materials.

Here, we report the results of low temperature transport, magnetic and thermodynamic measurements on the crystals studied in ref. 14 and some even cleaner ones ($`\rho _{\mathrm{res}}=2\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$). We conclude that the low temperature properties of $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ are strongly influenced by critical fluctuations associated with metamagnetism, something that has never been observed in $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$.

Several growth runs of single crystals of $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ were performed crucible-free in an image furnace in Kyoto. The resistivity of over fifty pieces taken from three growth rods was studied down to 4K using standard low frequency ac methods in a small continuous flow cryostat. Residual resistivities ranging between $`2\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ and $`15\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$ were observed, with most samples from the latter batches toward the high purity end of the range. Six of these were used for further study. Magnetisation measurements were performed down to 5K in a commercial vibrating sample magnetometer. Magneto-transport was studied at ambient pressure in both 4He systems and a dilution refrigerator in Birmingham, and in a 4He system in Karlsruhe. Specific heat measurements were performed in Kyoto using commercial magneto-thermal apparatus.

Our magnetisation results for $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ are summarised in Fig. 1. For magnetic fields applied in the $`ab`$ plane, a rapid super-linear rise in the magnetization is seen with a characteristic field of approximately 5.5 tesla at 5K. Such behaviour can be described as metamagnetism (for further discussion see below). As the temperature is raised, the metamagnetism disappears. The data give no evidence for it moving to higher field; the dominant effect is a broadening which makes it impossible to define. We have checked extensively for anisotropy with respect to the direction of the in-plane field, but none is observed within our resolution. There is some anisotropy if the field is applied along $`c`$, as shown in the inset. Although data were also taken at 10, 15 and 20K, they lie sufficiently close to confuse the plot, so have been omitted for clarity.

In order to obtain information on the metamagnetism to lower temperatures, we have studied its effects on the magnetoresistance (MR). Field sweeps to 14 tesla were performed between 50 mK and 20K for three standard configurations of the in-plane MR $`\rho :Bc,Iab;BIab`$ and $`(BI)ab`$. The results are summarised in Fig. 2, in which a small subset of representative data is presented. For $`Bc,Iab`$, the weak-field MR is quadratic in $`B`$. At higher fields, the metamagnetism is clearly seen in the MR. For $`T`$ 5K, the width of the feature is similar to that seen in the magnetisation, but at low temperatures it sharpens considerably, although there is evidence for extra structure at 11 tesla. For $`Bab`$ there is clear evidence of a split transition for both $`BI`$ and $`BI`$. The transport measurements show that the metamagnetic transition field is essentially temperature independent for any direction of the applied field.

The term metamagnetism can be applied to qualitatively different physical phenomena. In insulators, it describes changes from ordered antiferromagnetic states at low field to ferromagnetically polarized states at high field via ‘spin-flip’ or ‘spin-flop’ processes . In metallic systems such as $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$, the change in magnetization is due to a rapid change from a paramagnetic state at low fields to a more highly polarized state at high fields, via either a crossover or a phase transition. Although the distinction between a crossover and a phase transition can be an important one, in this case it is less relevant, because some of the basic physics is common to both. Firstly, the observation of itinerant metamagnetism demonstrates the existence of strong ferromagnetic coupling in the system. Secondly, low temperature critical points are likely in either scenario. A crossover might be linked to close proximity in phase space to a quantum critical point that can be reached only by the application of some other control parameter. If the metamagnetism is due to a $`T=0`$ phase transition along the magnetic field axis, the transition would be expected to be first order (since it is like a density transition of spins in the presence of a symmetry-breaking field). However, the first order transition line might terminate in a critical point at very low temperatures. A natural question, then, is whether there is evidence for critical fluctuations associated with the metamagnetism in $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$. To address this issue, we have performed measurements of the temperature-dependent resistivity and specific heat.

In Fig. 3 we show a colour plot of the power-law behaviour of the resistivity of $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ as a function of temperature and field, for $`IabB`$. At low and high field, the quadratic temperature dependence expected of a Fermi liquid is seen at sufficiently low temperature, but near the metamagnetic field, the Fermi liquid region is suppressed to below our lowest temperature of measurement (2.5K for these precise temperature sweeps). These data are strongly suggestive of the existence of a critical point at a temperature low on the scale of the measurement temperature, at a field close to the metamagnetic field. They do not constrain it to lie exactly on the field axis, but the applied field is clearly pushing the system very close to it, and its associated critical fluctuations are playing a central role in determining the properties of the metallic state.

Measurement of the specific heat gives further experimental support for the existence of critical fluctuations. Data for the electronic specific heat ($`C_{\mathrm{el}}`$) divided by temperature are shown in Fig. 4. In zero field, $`C_{\mathrm{el}}/T`$ (a measure of the quasiparticle mass) rises as the temperature falls below 20K, but then crosses over at lower temperatures on a scale similar (but not identical) to the crossover to the quadratic dependence of the resistivity seen in Fig. 3. The application of fields parallel to the $`c`$ axis suppresses this crossover, so that $`C_{\mathrm{el}}/T`$ rises steeply at low temperatures. At 9 tesla there is evidence for the divergence being cut off at low temperatures, but at 7.7 tesla, no cut-off is seen. As well as giving thermodynamic support for the critical fluctuations suggested by the transport measurements, the specific heat data emphasise the closeness of the link between the metamagnetism and these fluctuations. If the critical point dominating the fluctuations seen in Fig. 3 were primarily controlled by some parameter other than the field, then changing the field orientation would be expected to make very little difference. Here, however, we have tuned into the divergence of $`C_{\mathrm{el}}/T`$ by cooling at the metamagnetic field for $`Bc`$ (identified as 7.7 tesla by the peak in Fig. 2) rather than the value of approximately 5.5 tesla that would be deduced from Figs. 2 and 3 for $`Bab`$.

We believe that the above data give good evidence for a close association between metamagnetism and critical fluctuations in $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$. The best way to view itinerant metamagnetism is that the extra moment is generated by a polarization of the up and down spin Fermi surfaces, so our results suggest that $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ is an excellent material in which to study a very interesting form of low temperature fluctuation, that of the Fermi surface itself. Although this is a $`𝐪=0`$ picture, the polarized and unpolarized Fermi surfaces are likely to have different nesting properties in a nearly two-dimensional material, so a coupling with fluctuations at higher $`𝐪`$ is to be expected.

Itinerant electron metamagnetism has previously been observed in several systems (notable recent examples are MnSi  and CeRu2Si2 ), but this is, to our knowledge, the first time that such clear evidence has been seen for a magnetic field driving a system closer to criticality. The fact that it has been seen in a close structural relative of $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$ gives the result further significance, and provides a second motivation for more detailed investigation of the spin fluctuations in $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$. There is good and growing evidence for triplet superconductivity in $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$, but, so far, little experimental evidence for the strong low–q fluctuations that might naïvely be expected to give the underlying binding mechanism. The only structure that has been observed is a nesting feature at (0.6 $`\pi /a`$, 0.6 $`\pi /a`$) , and no metamagnetism has been observed in fields of up to 33 tesla . In $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$, our results in combination with those of ref. 14 clearly demonstrate the existence of a low $`𝐪`$ enhancement, but no superconductivity has been observed down to our best residual resistivity of 2 $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cm}`$. It will be very interesting to see if there is a significant enhancement at high $`𝐪`$ as well, and to investigate the underlying reasons for the pronounced differences in the magnetic properties between the two materials. In this respect, the orthorhombicity recently reported in $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$  may prove to be significant. More generally, continued work on $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ is likely to play an important role in efforts to understand unconventional superconductivity in the ruthenates. A search for quantum oscillations, an investigation of the effect of pressure on the metamagnetism and inelastic neutron scattering measurements are all desirable, in combination with further improvements in sample purity.

In conclusion, we have presented evidence that the low temperature properties of $`\mathrm{Sr}_3\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$ are strongly influenced by critical fluctuations associated with the presence of metamagnetism. Our observations highlight important and somewhat unexpected differences with the metallic state that exists in its well-studied structural relative, the unconventional superconductor $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$.

We are grateful to C. Bergemann, N. R. Cooper, V. J. Emery, E. M. Forgan, H. von Loehneysen, G. G. Lonzarich, A. J. Millis, A. Rosch, and D. J. Singh for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the EPSRC (UK), the Royal Society, the Leverhulme Trust, NSERC (Canada), CREST-NST (Japan) and ESF (FERLIN Collaboration).


text:
# Observation of neutral current charm production in 𝜈_𝜇𝐹𝑒 scattering at the Tevatron

## I  Introduction

Measurements of charged current (CC) charm production in deep inelastic (DIS) neutrino and anti-neutrino scattering have proven to be an excellent source of information on the structure of the nucleon, the dynamics of heavy quark production, and the values of several fundamental parameters of the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. The only evidence to date of neutral current (NC) charm production in $`\nu _\mu N`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_\mu N`$ scattering is an unconfirmed observation of $`J/\psi `$ production. Using a new Sign Selected Quadrupole Train (SSQT) beam with the high energies of the Fermilab Tevatron, NuTeV is able to perform a sensitive search for NC charm production through detection of events with wrong sign muon (WSM) final states. This occurs whenever an interaction produces a single muon and the muon has the opposite lepton number as the neutrino beam. The SSQT produced event ratios of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu /\nu _\mu `$ in neutrino and a $`\nu _\mu /\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ anti-neutrino mode of $`0.8\times 10^3`$ and $`4.8\times 10^3`$, respectively, making possible the WSM identification.

In SM NC interactions, charm quarks must be produced in pairs. As is the case for CC charm production, considerable suppression of the $`\nu _\mu N\nu _\mu c\overline{c}X`$ rate occurs due to the non-zero charm quark mass $`m_c`$. This measured suppression can be used to experimentally determine $`m_c`$. If $`m_c`$ is a fundamental parameter of the SM, then it should have the same value, up to possible quantum chromodynamics (QCD) corrections, in NC and CC $`\nu _\mu N`$ charm production, and in other physical processes such as the photo-production of charm and the spectrum of charmonium.

In the fixed-flavor (FF) implementation of QCD, NC charm pair production can be attributed completely to hard scatters between the the exchanged virtual $`Z^0`$ boson and a gluon in the nucleon sea; this process, known as boson-gluon fusion, is illustrated in Fig. 1. Other implementations of QCD envision an intrinsic charm quark parton distribution function (PDF) $`c(x,Q^2)`$, that depends on the Bjorken scaling variable $`x`$ and the absolute value of the squared momentum transfer $`Q^2`$. In addition, some have suggested  that non-perturbative QCD effects may produce an unusually large $`c(x,Q^2)`$, particularly at high $`x`$. In FF QCD, $`c(x,Q^2)0`$ over the $`Q^2`$ range probed by NuTeV. The validity of this assumption can be tested with the data.

## II Experimental Apparatus and Beam

The NuTeV (Fermilab-E815) neutrino experiment collected data during 1996-97 with the refurbished Lab E neutrino detector and a newly installed Sign-Selected Quadrupole Train(SSQT) neutrino beamline. Figure 2 illustrates the sign-selection optics employed by the SSQT to pick the charge of secondary pions and kaons which determine whether $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ are predominantly produced. During NuTeV’s run the primary production target received $`1.13\times 10^{18}`$ and $`1.41\times 10^{18}`$ protons-on-target in neutrino and anti-neutrino modes, respectively.

The Lab E detector, described in detail elsewhere, consists of two major parts, a target calorimeter and an iron toroid spectrometer. The target calorimeter contains 690 tons of steel sampled at 10 cm intervals by 84 3 m $`\times `$ 3 m scintillator counters and at 20 cm intervals by 42 3 m $`\times `$ 3 m drift chambers. The toroid spectrometer consists of four stations of drift chambers separated by iron toroid magnets. Precision hadron and muon calibration beams monitored the calorimeter and spectrometer performance throughout the course of data taking. The calorimeter achieves a sampling-dominated hadronic energy resolution of $`\sigma _{E_{HAD}}/E_{HAD}=2.4\%87\%/\sqrt{E_{HAD}}`$ and an absolute scale uncertainty of $`\delta E_{HAD}/E_{HAD}=0.5\%`$. The spectrometer’s muon energy resolution (dominated by multiple Coulomb scattering) is $`\sigma _{E_\mu }/E_\mu =`$ $`11\%`$ and the muon momentum scale is known to $`\delta E_\mu /E_\mu =1.0\%`$. With the selection criteria used in this analysis, the muon charge mis-identification probability in the spectrometer is $`2\times 10^5`$.

## III Analysis Procedure

Much of the analysis procedure follows that used for a search for flavor changing neutral currents using the same data set, and further details may be obtained from the article describing that analysis and in Ref. V.

### A Introduction and Data Selection

The analysis technique consists of comparing the visible inelasticity, $`y_{vis}=E_{HAD}/\left(E_{HAD}+E_\mu \right)`$, measured in the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ wrong sign muon (WSM) data samples to a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation containing all known conventional WSM sources and a possible NC charm signal. The NC charm signal peaks at large values of $`y_{vis}`$ because the decay muon from the heavy flavor hadron is usually much less energetic than the hadron shower produced in the NC interaction. The largest background, beam impurities, is concentrated at low $`y_{vis}`$ in $`\nu _\mu `$ mode due to the characteristic $`\left(1y\right)^2`$ behavior of interactions of the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ wrong-flavored beam background.

Events in the WSM sample must satisfy a number of selection criteria (“cuts”). The fiducial volume cut requires that event vertices be reconstructed at least 25 cm-Fe (cm of iron) from the outer edges of the detector in the transverse directions, at least 35 cm-Fe downstream of the upstream face of the detector, and at least 200 cm-Fe upstream of the toroid. Events must contain a hadronic energy of at least 10 GeV (increased to 50 GeV for the final NC charm fit), and exactly one track (the muon) must be found. The muon is required to be well-reconstructed and to pass within the understood regions of the toroid’s magnetic field. The muon’s energy must be between 10 and 150 GeV, and its charge must be consistent with having the opposite lepton number as the primary beam component. Requiring that the muon energy reconstructed in different longitudinal sections of the toroid agree within 25% of the value measured using the full toroid reduces charge mis-identification backgrounds to the $`2\times 10^5`$ level. This latter number has been verified using the muon calibration beam.

### B Source and Background Simulations

Conventional WSM sources arise from beam impurities, right-flavor CC events where the charge of the muon is mis-reconstructed, CC and NC events where a $`\pi `$ or $`K`$ meson decays in the hadron shower, and CC charm production where the primary muon is not reconstructed or the charm quark is produced via a $`\nu _e`$ interaction. Table I lists the fractional contribution of each background component. The relatively large beam impurity background consists of contributions from hadrons (including charm) that decay before the sign-selecting dipoles in the SSQT, neutral kaon decays, muon decays, decay of hadrons produced by secondary interactions in the SSQT (“scraping”), and from decay of wrong-sign pions produced in kaon decays. Table II summarizes the relative contributions of each beam source. For this analysis the beam sources can be further tuned using WSM data in $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ mode. This procedure, which yields in passing a new measurement of $`\sigma \left(pNc\overline{c}X\right)`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=38.8`$ GeV, is detailed in the Appendix.

After impurities, the next largest WSM source comes from CC production of charm in which the charm quark decays semi-muonically, and its decay muon is detected in the spectrometer. The primary lepton is either an electron, which is lost in the hadrons shower, or a muon which exits from or ranges out in the calorimeter. The $`\nu _e`$ beam fraction is $`1.9(1.3)\%`$ in $`\nu `$ ($`\overline{\nu }`$) mode, and $`22\%`$ of the CC charm events which pass WSM cuts originate from a $`\nu _e`$.

Charged current charm production produces a broad peak at high $`y_{vis}`$ that must be handled with care. The CC charm background is simulated using a leading-order QCD charm production model with production, fragmentation, and charm decay parameters tuned on neutrino dimuon data collected by NuTeV and a previous experiment using the same detector. Overall normalization of the source is obtained from the measured charm-to-total CC cross section ratio and the single muon right-sign data sample. Simulated dimuon events are passed through the full GEANT simulation of the detector. Figure 3 provides a check of the modelling of this source through a comparison of the distribution of $`y_{vis}^{}=`$ $`E_{HAD}/\left(E_{HAD}+E_{\mu 2}\right)`$, where $`E_{\mu 2}`$ is the energy of the WSM in the event, between data and MC for dimuon events in which both muons are reconstructed by the spectrometer. This distribution should closely mimic the expected background to the $`y_{vis}`$ distribution in the WSM sample. A $`\chi ^2`$ comparison test between data and model yields a value of 19 for 17 degrees of freedom.

Finally, a NC $`c\overline{c}`$ event produces a WSM when the $`c\left(\overline{c}\right)`$-quark decays semi-muonically in $`\nu _\mu \left(\overline{\nu }_\mu \right)`$ mode. To compute effects of fragmentation, heavy quark decay, acceptance, and resolution, production is simulated with a $`Z^0`$-gluon fusion model  with charm mass parameter***The choice of a low input MC mass allows for consistent re-weighting of the cross section over a wide range in the final fit procedure. $`m_c=0.5`$ GeV/c2 and the GRV94-HO PDF set. No corrections for the nuclear environment are applied, but possible effects are considered in the systematic error. The NC charm quarks are fragmented and decayed using procedures adapted from the CC charm modelling, and the resulting WSM events are then simulated with the full detector MC and processed with the data reconstruction code.

## IV Results and Interpretation

### A Fits to Data

Binned maximum likelihood fits are performed to the measured neutrino mode $`y_{vis}`$ distribution using a model consisting of all conventional WSM sources described and a possible $`c\overline{c}`$ signal. The fitter varies the NC charm contribution in shape and level by allowing the charm mass parameter, $`m_c`$, to float; it also varies the normalization of the beam impurities. Figure 4 shows the $`y_{vis}`$ distribution for the data with the background plus fitted NC charm signal superposed. The shape indicates a preference towards including the NC charm signal, and the fit yields $`m_c=1.42_{0.34}^{+0.77}`$ GeV/c2 with a beam normalization of $`1.00\pm 0.06`$, where the errors are purely statistical. The fitted value of the beam normalization validates the beam impurities model and the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ WSM tuning procedure described in the Appendix.

In Fig. 5 the $`y_{vis}`$ distribution of WSM’s is shown with the additional requirement that $`E_{had}`$ be larger than 50 GeV. This cut removes $`85\%`$ of the beam impurities while keeping 75% of the NC charm events. Performing the fit again on this reduced sample with the background normalization fixed at $`1.0`$ yields a consistent value for the charm mass of $`m_c=1.40_{0.36}^{+0.83}`$ GeV/c2, with the error again purely statistical.

### B Systematic Errors

Estimates of the systematic uncertainty are obtained by varying parameters associated with background and signal simulations and event selection criteria within known bounds. Systematic errors are assumed to be independent and thus can be added in quadrature. More details on systematic error studies may be found in Refs. V and V. The most important contributions are from modelling the level of CC charm events which reconstruct as WSM, from energy and momentum calibration uncertainties, from charmed quark fragmentation, from the choice of the gluon PDF used in the $`c\overline{c}`$ production model, from possible nuclear effects, and from the beam impurity model.

The number of dimuon events which reconstruct as a WSM can be normalized either from the total right sign muon sample and the measured charm production fraction or from the observed number of events reconstructed with two events in the toroid. These two normalizations disagree by $`3\%`$, and switching to the latter normalization shifts $`m_c`$ by $`+0.10`$ GeV/c2. Replacing the drift-chamber-tracking-based method to reject events with two muons by a calorimeter-pulse-height-based algorithm leads to a further shift $`\delta m_c=+0.04`$ GeV/c2.

Shifting $`E_\mu `$ by $`\pm 1\%`$ calibration uncertainty changes $`m_c`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{+0.05}{}_{0.02}{}^{}`$ GeV/c2. Shifting $`E_{had}`$ by $`\pm 0.5\%`$ changes $`m_c`$ by $`\pm 0.01`$ GeV/c2. A total systematic error of $`0.05`$ GeV/c2 is thus attributed to calibration.

The fragmentation model, based on CC charm analysis of the same experiment , is tested by using events with the same production kinematics and the Lund string fragmentation model. This change increases $`m_c`$ by $`0.14`$ GeV/c2.

The only possible relatively-unknown input to the boson-gluon fusion cross section model besides the charm quark mass is the gluon PDF. Changing from the GRV94HO set to CTEQ4M raises $`m_c`$ by $`0.04`$ GeV/c2. Varying the CTEQ gluon PDF according to the prescription given by its authors produced a maximum variation in $`m_c`$ of $`0.04`$ GeV/c2, and this is used as the systematic error on the gluon PDF.

It is unclear whether the EMC correction for nuclear effects should be applied to boson-gluon fusion processes, so the NC charm fit is performed with and without it. Applying the EMC correction increases the measured $`m_c`$ by $`0.12`$ GeV/c2, and this shift is included as a possible systematic error.

The final systematic error is due to the size of the beam impurities. The beam fit described in the Appendix returns a normalization value and error for each of five separate beam sub-sources. To examine the sensitivity to each individual source, each source normalization is fixed one sigma high and low of its best fit value, and the other sources’ normalizations are extracted. These alternative settings are then applied to $`\nu `$-mode beam impurities, and $`m_c`$ is re-extracted. The largest change occurs for scraping and the second largest for beam-produced charm. The sum, in quadrature, of all changes is a shift in $`m_c`$ of $`0.13`$ GeV/c2.

The sum of all systematic errors in quadrature is $`0.26`$ GeV/c2.

## V Summary and Conclusions

Wrong sign muon data in $`\nu _\mu `$Fe scattering data show clear evidence for NC open charm production. The result of a boson-gluon fusion fit with the GRV94HO gluon PDF set to the data yields $`m_c=1.40_{0.36}^{+0.83}\pm 0.26`$ GeV/c2. This value of charm mass corresponds to a production cross section $`\sigma \left(\nu _\mu N\nu _\mu c\overline{c}X\right)=(0.21_{0.15}^{+0.18})`$ fb at an average neutrino energy $`E=154`$ GeV. The $`m_c`$ governing NC neutrino charm production is consistent with the value obtained from CC neutrino charm production, from photo-production, and from charmonium spectroscopy.

Differential cross sections computed with this charm mass, the GRV94HO gluon PDF, and the gluon fusion model are compared to electro-production data in Fig. 6. Our data is sensitive in a region that overlaps the EMC experiment, and it extends to slightly higher $`Q^2`$ and slightly lower $`x.`$ It is consistent with this electro-production data within rather large errors, providing evidence that the boson-gluon fusion process is probe-independent, as expected from QCD.

Finally, since the NC charm signal can be adequately described by the boson-gluon fusion diagram, there is no evidence for the existence of either a perturbative or non-perturbative intrinsic charm sea from NuTeV data.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank the staffs of the Fermilab Particle Physics and Beams Divisions for their contributions to the construction and operation of the NuTeV beamlines. We would also like to thank the staffs of our home institutions for their help throughout the running and analysis of NuTeV. This work has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

## A Determination of Charm Production in $`pN`$ Scattering at $`800`$ GeV From $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ Mode WSM Data

Beam impurities are responsible for over $`80\%`$ of the WSM’s in $`\overline{\nu }`$-mode. The beam impurities are due to scraping, hadrons (including charm) that decay before the sign-selecting dipoles in the SSQT, neutral kaon decays, muon decays and $`K\pi \mu `$. Several of these sources are not well-constrained by previous measurements; and $`\overline{\nu }`$-mode WSM’s can be used to improve knowledge of their normalization. For the case of WSM’s from charm decay, this effectively amounts to performing a new measurement of $`\sigma \left(pNc\overline{c}X\right)`$.

Secondary $`\pi `$’s and $`K`$’s are modelled by Malensek’s parameterization of Atherton’s data. The interaction of secondaries with beam elements (scraping) is modeled by GHEISHA. The $`K^0`$ production is handled by extending Malensek’s charged kaon parameterizations using the quark counting relation $`K_L^0=\left(3K^{}+K^+\right)/4`$. The $`K\pi \mu `$ process is correctly modeled. Muon decay is a well understood process; however, there is some uncertainty in the polarization $`𝒫`$ of the beam which should lie within the range $`𝒫=0.1_{0.0}^{+0.2}`$. Two experiments measure the inclusive cross section for production of $`D^\pm `$ and $`D^0/\overline{D^0}`$ mesons with an 800 GeV proton beam(Ammar et al. and Kodama et al.). The weighted average of their production parameters are used as the starting value in this analysis.

A model of the WSM’s is constructed from the beam sources added, with adjustable weights, to non-beam sources (CC and NC charm, $`\pi /K`$ decay in the shower, and charged mis-measurement), and a binned likelihood fit is performed jointly to the neutrino energy distribution and the vertical position of WSM neutrino interactions in $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ mode . The fit constrains the weight of beam sources, other than charm production, to be consistent with 1.0 within their estimated a priori errors. Table III lists these errors and gives the fit results. The only significant deviations from unity of any source normalizations are in the scraping and charm contributions. The charm result indicates that $`_i\sigma (D_i)\times BF(D_i\nu _\mu )=(9.8\pm 2.2)\mu `$b be increased of almost 50% over the a priori estimate. Recalling that there are two mesons for each $`c\overline{c}`$ pair, using $`BF(c\mu )=9.9\pm 1.2\%`$, and assuming linear A dependence, one obtains $`\sigma (p+Nc\overline{c})=(49\pm 11)\mu b`$. Figure 7 shows the agreement between neutino energy ($`E_\nu `$) of data and MC before and after the fit.

The dominant systematic error, on $`\sigma (p+Nc\overline{c})`$, is 5.0 $`\mu `$b due to the uncertainty in $`BF(c\mu )`$. The only other large systematic error is 2.3 $`\mu `$b due to the different methods of rejecting events with two muons described in the systematic errors above. Systematic errors due to the normalization of non-beam sources, energy calibrations, parameterization of $`p_t`$ and $`x_f`$, and the use of the $`y_{vis}<0.5`$ cut are small. The total of all of these sources is 5.6 $`\mu b`$ yielding the final result of $`\sigma (p+Nc\overline{c})=(49\pm 11\pm 6)`$ $`\mu `$b.

Using PYTHIA’s fragmentation of c quarks into mesons one can transform Kodama’s and Ammar’s measurements into the measurements of $`\sigma (p+Nc\overline{c})`$ found in Table IV. NuTeV’s measurement is consistent with these previous measurements, and has smaller errors.