text:
# COSMIC SHEAR WITH THE CFHT

## 1 Introduction

Since the pioneering works by $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, gravitational lensing by large scale structure has been recognized as a potential powerful probe of the mass distribution in the Universe at scales from 1 arcmin to several degrees. The effect we are looking for consists of a small stretching of distant galaxies by the foreground matter, with an amplitude of 1-5 percents of distortion. Since the induced distortion is very small compared to the intrinsic ellipticities of the galaxies ($`0.3`$), it can be observed only statistically by measuring the averaged orientation and elongation of several galaxies. Unfortunately telescope imaging defects (like optical distortion, tracking errors, etc…) induce also a significant coherent elongation of the galaxies, very similar to the gravitational lensing effect we wish to measure. Therefore the most challenging part of the analysis is the correction of the intrinsic telescope defects (which makes the Point Spread Function anisotropic) down to a level smaller than the expected lensing signal. This problem prevented the detection of the lensing effect in the earlier searches $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Recently a significant measurement of the galaxy alignment was found thanks to the improvement of the image quality $`^\mathrm{?}`$, but the analyzed fields were small, and yet it was not clear what sort of mass distribution was responsible for the lensing effect.

The fundamental importance of a clean PSF correction pushed many groups to design specific methods of image analysis $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. During the preparation of our cosmic shear program, we tested intensively the Kaiser, Squires and Broadhurst (KSB) correction scheme on highly realistic simulations $`^\mathrm{?}`$. We found that the KSB method can easily reach the $`1\%`$ accuracy PSF correction even for severely deteriorated PSF’s as we obtain in real observations. A $`1\%`$ accuracy might be not sufficient to measure the gravitational lensing effect at the degree scale, but at the arcmin scale the gravitational lensing signal is enhanced by the non-linear evolution of the large-scale-structures $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and the variance of the shear $`\kappa ^2`$ can be as high as $`35\%`$. We are therefore confident that the present day technology is enough to detect the cosmic shear effect, even if significant improvements remain to be done to fully exploit the scientific case.

Four independent groups almost simultaneously reported a significant detection $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and a new detection is coming with VLT data $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Here, we present our own detection $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and discuss different aspects of the PSF correction and of the statistical measurement. Next we compare the measurements with the predictions and discuss their consistency. We show how our cosmic shear program will hopefully improve the situation very shortly: we outline the new measurements and the new tests of PSF correction we plan to do next.

## 2 From the data set to the galaxy catalogues

Table 1 show the list of the fields used in our cosmic shear detection. Despite the relatively large differences in the filter and the exposure time, the mean redshift depth is approximately $`1`$ according to the deepest spectroscopic surveys done so far $`^\mathrm{?}`$, with a dispersion probably very large ($`1`$). It is impossible to give a more accurate determination of redshifts as we do not have enough colors for this. A complete scientific interpretation of our signal would require the missing redshift information, but in the early stages of the work we were more interested in a detection of the cosmic shear effect rather than its scientific exploitation. As discussed in the last Section, the scientific analysis requires some crucial issues to be addressed first.

The total field covers about $`6300\mathrm{arcmin}^2`$ and has a number density of galaxies of about $`n_g30\mathrm{gal}/\mathrm{arcmin}^2`$. However, after a proper weighting of the galaxies their effective number density is about half (details are in the original paper $`^\mathrm{?}`$). Our procedure of shape measurement using IMCAT aaaSee Nick Kaiser’s home page at http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/$``$kaiser/. is described in details elsewhere $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ so it is unnecessary to give it here, therefore we assume that we have already a catalogue of PSF corrected ellipticities for the galaxies.

## 3 From the galaxy catalogues to the cosmological parameters

### 3.1 What is the relevant information?

The easiest quantities to measure for the detection of the cosmic shear effect are the variance of the shear $`\gamma ^2`$ and the ellipticity correlation functions. For a simplified cosmological model (zero cosmological constant, power law power spectrum with slope $`n`$ and normalization $`\sigma _8`$, and a single redshift plane $`z_s`$), we can show that $`^\mathrm{?}`$:

$$\gamma ^2^{1/2}0.01\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{0.75}z_s^{0.75}\left(\frac{\theta }{\mathrm{arcmin}}\right)^{\left(\frac{n+2}{2}\right)},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the density of the Universe and $`\theta `$ the measurement scale in arcmin. There are similar relations for the correlation functions, but we can define several types of correlation functions. Here we are interested in $`e_t(\theta )e_t(0)`$, $`e_r(\theta )e_r(0)`$ and $`e_t(\theta )e_r(0)`$, where $`e_t`$ and $`e_r`$ are the tangential and the radial component of the shear respectively:

$`e_t`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{gal})\gamma _2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{gal})`$
$`e_r`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{gal})+\gamma _1\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{gal}),`$ (2)
where $`\gamma _i`$ are the Cartesian components of the shear and $`\theta _{gal}`$ is the position angle of the pair of galaxies. The correlation functions mentioned above have a particular interest because of the specific signatures induced from weak lensing by large scale structures $`^\mathrm{?}`$: from the scalar nature of the gravity we can show that $`e_t(\theta )e_r(0)`$ should vanish, that $`e_t(\theta )e_t(0)`$ is positive and $`e_r(\theta )e_r(0)`$ should become negative for a finite range of scale.

### 3.2 Measurements and amplitude of the residual systematics

We assumed that we already have a catalogue of galaxy ellipticities $`𝐞`$ corrected from the PSF anisotropy. We call $`\sigma _ϵ`$ the ellipticity dispersion. From a set of $`N`$ galaxies at positions $`\theta _k`$ with ellipticities $`e_\alpha (\theta _k)`$ we can built an estimate of the variance of the shear at the position $`\theta _i`$

$$E[\gamma ^2(\theta _i)]=\underset{\alpha =1,2}{}\left(\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\alpha (\theta _k)\right)^2,$$
(3)
whose the ensemble average is $`E[\gamma ^2(\theta _i)]=\sigma _ϵ^2/N+\gamma ^2`$. The term $`\sigma _ϵ^2/N`$ can be removed either by measuring it on randomized catalogues, or by choosing and unbiased estimate equal to Eq.( 3) without the diagonal elements.

An estimate of the correlation function $`E[e_i(0)e_j(r)]`$ (where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are either $`t`$ and/or $`r`$) is built by summing $`e_i(0)e_j(r)`$ for all the possible pairs of galaxies separated by a distance $`r`$

Figure 1 shows the measured variance of the shear in our survey. The signal (thick line) exhibits the characteristic power law scale dependence as predicted from Eq.(1), and the amplitude of the signal has the correct order of magnitude. However, as we shall see in the next Section, the cosmic variance and the error bars are too large to put tight constraints on the cosmology.

We have shown in our original paper $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the corrected ellipticity of the galaxies are uncorrelated with the ellipticity of the stars, which demonstrates the low level of residual systematics present in the catalogues bbbHowever we found a constant bias of $`e_10.01`$ for all the galaxies which we corrected for. The source of the bias is still unclear.. We have reproduced in Figure 1 (thin solid lines) the variance of the shear measured when the galaxies are picked up according to the local star ellipticity instead of taking the galaxies falling into a given smoothing window. Each estimate of the shear variance is done using Eq.(3), where the $`N`$ galaxies have in common a similar PSF anisotropy amplitude on the data. It is then easy to convert $`N`$ to a scale $`\theta `$, since the number density of galaxies is roughly constant. The resulting shear variance is shown as the thin solid lines on Figure 1 for three cases of possible source of residual systematics (see caption for details). It shows that any residual systematic cannot be due to star ellipticity, optical distortion and CCD frame alignment.

A robust test of the gravitational lensing origin of the signal is to measure the correlation function as indicated above. Figure 2 shows the two relevant correlation functions $`e_t(r)e_t(0)`$ and $`e_r(r)e_r(0)`$. The third one, not shown here, $`e_t(r)e_r(0)`$ is zero as we expect from the scalar origin of the gravitational field. This results from the fact that systematics are almost non-existent in the galaxy catalogue, which is a strong supports for the cosmic origin of our signal. However the survey size is still too small to have a low noise measurement of these quantities, and to extract the useful cosmological information. Instead, we shall see this detection as a success showing the feasibility of the cosmic shear searches.

### 3.3 Cosmological constraints

Although it is hard to calculate the cosmic variance of the measured quantities at small scale, we can use ray tracing numerical simulations in order to compare our measurement with some realistic scenario. Such numerical simulations are available $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and provide several realizations for a set of cosmological models, thus allowing a first analysis of the cosmic variance. Figure 3 is a comparison of our shear variance measurement (thick solid line) with three different models: $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\sigma _8)=(1.,1.);(0.3,0.85);(0.3,0.6)`$ from top to bottom (see the caption for details). The error bars show the cosmic variance measured out of several realizations for each model. Although we can only marginally reject the two extreme models, this figure shows that the data are already in favor of cluster normalized models, as suggested by the simplified analytical estimate Eq.(1).

## 4 Future prospects

The aim of the above Section was to present a condensed view of our recent cosmic shear detection with the first stream of data obtained at CFHT. All the relevant technical details can be found elsewhere $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$; here we emphasized the control of the systematics to a reasonable level and that the signal is consistent with the gravitational lensing predictions, although we are not yet in good position to put tight constraints on the cosmology. However, we now have 9 sq. degres in I (instead of 2), ready for scientific analysis, of comparable image quality of the data discussed here, and the numerical simulations $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ indicate that this is enough to make a very significant measurement of various lensing statistics.

It is worthwhile to ask what can be done next. The next step is the confirmation of the cosmological nature of the signal over many different aspects. There are two areas with significant room for improvement:

1-Beating the systematics: following the same strategy in our cosmic shear paper, we can search for systematics by binning the data in various ways. With 9 sq. degrees we can bin the data in a much refined way than we did before. We can study the alignment of the galaxies with the stars in bins of magnitude, size or other parameter. We can also split the survey into smaller parts and analyze independently the different parts.

2-Search for specific gravitational lensing signatures: this was done with the correlation function, but we can do much more with 9 sq. degrees. Of course the signal-to-noise of the correlation function will be much better, and we can study its shape as a function of size and magnitude of the galaxies. The variance of the shear measured with another filter than top-hat will be possible: for instance the Map statistic $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ is known to have a specific angular dependence if induced by gravitational lensing. With a 9 sq. degrees survey we can also measure the skewness of the convergence $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, which is a direct probe of the cosmological parameters $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Such measure would require accurate mass reconstruction in non-trivial topologies (non-straight edges and holes in the field), and preliminary studies show that such reconstructions give stable and unbiased mass maps. Peak statistics $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is also accessible with a good signal-to-noise with such a survey size. Measurement of the shear power spectrum will be done in order to check that the power is distributed over the different scales like what weak lensing theory predicts (and do not dominate at one specific scale for instance).

It has recently been suggested that galaxies might have an intrinsic ellipticity correlation $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Although this could also be tested using specific lensing statistics (yet to be developed), we can completely get rid of the effect by measuring the correlation between different source redshift planes. Since our full survey will be 16 sq. degrees in four colors, we hope to have the luxury to work with many different redshift planes (using photometric redshifts) and to extract without ambiguity the cosmic shear information and the intrinsic correlations.

## Acknowledgments

We are very gratefull to the organisers for this interesting and lively meeting. We are particulary gratefull to Dmitri Pogosyan who was forced to attend all the talks and succeeded brillantly in the hard task to make a non-conventional and accurate summary talk. This work was supported by the TMR Network ”Gravitational Lensing: New Constraints on Cosmology and the Distribution of Dark Matter” of the EC under contract No. ERBFMRX-CT97-0172. We thank the TERAPIX data center for providing infinite computing resources for the reduction of the CFH12K and UH8K data.

## References


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Much effort has being devoted in the last years to the non-perturbative computation of the running QCD coupling constant $`\alpha _s(p)`$ . A most surprising result arising from the lattice computation of the gluon three-point Green function  is that a $`1/p^2`$ power correction is still sizeable for momenta of the order of $`10`$ GeV !!

These power corrections were qualitatively discussed in  in connection with several physics phenomena such as interquark potential, the gluon condensate puzzle, Landau pole, etc… It was also strongly stressed that $`\alpha _s(p)`$ being non-perturbatively defined on a lattice in the particular Landau gauge, a contribution to the operator product expansion (OPE) from a gauge dependent local operator should not a priori be neglected. More precisely, the $`A^2=A_\mu A^\mu `$ operator can acquire a vacuum expectation value (v.e.v.) because of the non-gauge-invariant nature of the vacuum. As a matter of fact, the authors of ref.  showed in a general way that the OPE for QCD propagators unequivocally generates non null v.e.v. of $`A_\mu A^\mu `$. The important point is that in contrast to that of the gauge invariant $`G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }`$ generating $`1/p^4`$ powers, it produces $`1/p^2`$ corrections which may be of comparable size to higher perturbative correction (three-loops, for instance) for the considered momenta.

The key remark here is that $`A^2`$ is the only dimension-two operator able to generate a non vanishing v.e.v. The purpose of the present paper is to exploit this fact according to OPE philosophy in the following manner: we will study both the gluon propagator and the three gluon vertex (two- and three-point Green functions) in order to examine whether the same $`A^2`$ condensate can consistently describe the evaluated power corrections to both quantities. For rather obvious reasons which will be explicited later, we will totally neglect $`O(1/p^4)`$ corrections.

The OPE approach consists in expanding the Green functions in inverse power series in $`p^2`$, every term corresponding to a local operator. The coefficients which multiply the operators are calculable in perturbation. In practice of course the coefficients are expanded to a given finite order, not only because the perturbative series are only asymptotic, but also because computing higher orders is a rapidly increasing task which has not yet been performed.

The potential dangers when using OPE to relate different Green functions via the same condensates has been stressed by several authors : it was claimed that the coefficients of the leading operator at any given momentum scale have to be computed to a sufficiently high perturbative order to make the perturbative uncertainty smaller than the power corrections.

Our input data are lattice computed Green functions , covering a momentum range from 2 to 10 GeV. We will analyze them according to OPE. The gluon propagator and the symmetric three-point Green function ($`p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2`$) can be expanded into perturbatively computable coefficients and the only unknown $`A^2`$ condensate. This allows to perform a test of OPE in a relatively favorable situation. Our first “ace” is indeed this wide momentum window which reduces the risk of confusion between neglected perturbative (logarithmic) contributions and the $`1/p^2`$ terms222Still it should be noted that the recent perturbative computation of $`\beta _3`$ in asymmetric MOM scheme leads to a four-loop estimate of the empiric power coefficient introduced in ref.  wich is roughly $`0.8`$ times the three-loop one. This shows that some amount of disguise of higher order perturbative terms into power corrections is difficult to fully avoid.. Our second “ace” is that $`1/p^2`$ terms are rather easy to display in the 2 \- 10 GeV window  while, for example, $`1/p^4`$ contributions would only influence the lower part of this window making the fits hazardous. Our third “ace” is the high accuracy achieved by our lattice calculations.

The leading coefficient (the coefficient of identity operator in the OPE) of the gluon propagator is known up to three loops but the symmetric three-gluon vertex is only known at two loops. To ask for an OPE consistent description when leading power coefficients are only expanded at two loops might be exposed to the danger mentioned above . We intend to check this. We will also try the three-loop consistent description by fitting the unknown perturbative information for the three-gluon vertex, the $`\beta _2`$ parameter of beta function in MOM scheme. The comparison with future perturbative computations will obviously be in order.

We have only computed at tree-level order the perturbative coefficients multiplying the $`A^2`$ operator. We will therefore perform the fits with a constant times $`1/p^2`$ term. A knowledge of the anomalous dimension of the coefficient which multiplies $`1/p^2`$ will be welcome .

The theoretical setting of our use of OPE is described in Section 2. A preliminary analysis of results from previous lattice data are presented in Section 3. We finally discuss and conclude in Section 4.

## 2 OPE for the gluon propagator and $`\alpha _s(p)`$

The purpose of the present section is to develop an OPE-based model describing the non-perturbative power behaviour of gluon propagator and $`\alpha _s(p)`$. To this goal, we will compute the first power correction in OPE (always at tree-level) for two and three gluon operators, by following the prescriptions of . Some general results for the gluon propagator in full QCD can be found in . For completeness we will describe our own calculations for both the propagator and the three gluon vertex. We have checked agreement for the propagator with .

The two- and three-point bare lattice Green functions are renormalized by imposing momentum subtraction prescriptions. Let us insist: such a renormalization prescriptions leads to the definition of a gauge-dependent coupling which consequently admits a non vanishing contribution from the non-gauge invariant OPE $`A_\mu A^\mu `$.

We work in the pure Yang-Mills QCD, without quarks. OPE yields

$`T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)\right)`$ $`=`$
$`(c_0)_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(p)1`$ $`+`$ $`(c_1)_{\mu \nu a^{}}^{ab\mu ^{}}(p):A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0):+(c_2)_{\mu \nu a^{}b^{}}^{ab\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(p):A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0)A_\nu ^{}^b^{}(0):`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{},`$
$`T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p_1)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p_2)\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c(p_3)\right)`$ $`=`$
$`(d_0)_{\mu \nu \rho }^{abc}(p_1,p_2,p_3)1`$ $`+`$ $`(d_1)_{\mu \nu \rho a^{}}^{abc\mu ^{}}(p_1,p_2,p_3):A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0):`$
$`+`$ $`(d_2)_{\mu \nu \rho a^{}b^{}}^{abc\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(p_1,p_2,p_3):A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0)A_\nu ^{}^b^{}(0):+\mathrm{};`$
written only in terms of normal products of local gluon field operators, where $`A`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{A}`$) stands for the gluon field in configuration (momentum) space, $`a,b`$ being colour indices and $`\mu ,\nu `$ Lorentz ones. The notation $`T()`$ simply refers to the standard $`T^{}`$ product in momentum space. The normal product of Eqs. (1,LABEL:OPEfield2) will be defined below in reference to the perturbative vacuum. The r.h.s. in eqs. (1,LABEL:OPEfield2) contains operators of dimension up to two. We have omitted local operators including, for instance, gluon field derivatives or ghosts. Indeed at the order $`1/p^2`$, which we consider in this letter, they have a vanishing v.e.v. (Obviously $`<_\mu A^\mu >=0`$).

### 2.1 Gluon propagator

The following step is to take the QCD v.e.v. (in our flavorless universe) in both r.h.s. and l.h.s. of equation (1),

$`T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)\right)=(c_0)_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(p^2)+(c_2)_{\mu \nu a^{}b^{}}^{ab\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}\delta ^{a^{}b^{}}g_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{4(N_c^21)}}+\mathrm{};`$ (3)
where $`A^2=:A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0)A_a^{}^\mu ^{}(0):`$. A first immediate simplification in r.h.s. of Eq. (3) with regard to Eq. (1) is the disappearance of terms containing an odd number of local gluon field operators. They contribute only at higher orders in the OPE because of the impossibility to build a Lorentz invariant tensor (with odd number of indices) without any external non-null momentum. The normal product in eqs. (1,LABEL:OPEfield2) refers to the perturbative vacuum $`|0>`$. To be more specific the non-perturbative condensate $`<A^2>`$ is defined from eq. (3) as follows 333We thank Y. Dokshitzer and G. Korchemsky for illuminating discussions on this point. : given the l.h.s computed non-perturbatively on a lattice444Being a gauge dependent quantity it cannot be accessed from experiment., given the coefficients $`c_0`$ and $`c_2`$ in the r.h.s computed perturbatively at a given order in perturbation theory and for a particular renormalization momentum scale and scheme $`<A^2>`$ is unambiguously defined.

The standard method  to compute the perturbative expansion of the OPE Wilson coefficient is to compute to the wanted order an appropriate matrix element of the l.h.s. operator of Eqs. (1,LABEL:OPEfield2). The perturbative gluon propagator

$`(G_{pert}^{(2)})_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(p^2)=0|T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)\right)|0`$ (4)
at the considered order in perturbation theory yields $`c_0`$ while $`c_2`$ may be obtained from

$`g|T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)\right)|g_{\mathrm{connected}}=(c_2)_{\mu \nu a^{}b^{}}^{ab\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}(p)g|:A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0)A_\nu ^{}^b^{}(0):|g`$ (5)
with two soft external gluons. From

$`g|A^2|g=2+O(\alpha ),`$ (6)
we may compute $`c_2`$. At tree-level order the $`O(\alpha )`$ is neglected and eq. (5) allowing to compute $`c_2`$ from the computation of the l.h.s. : 555Beyond tree-level order the radiative corrections, $`O(\alpha )`$ terms in (6), are calculable, but we will skip this issue in this paper.

$`(c_2)_{\mu \nu a^{}b^{}}^{ab\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_\tau ^t(0)\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma ^s(0)}{(G_{pert}^{(2)}(0))_{\tau \mu ^{}}^{ta^{}}(G_{pert}^{(2)}(0))_{\sigma \nu ^{}}^{sb^{}}}}.`$ (7)
The ratio in the r.h.s of Eq. (7) represents symbolically diagrams with four gluon legs where the two of them carrying zero momentum are explicitly cut. Consistently with Eq. (6), we compute in Landau gauge the tree-level diagrams shown in fig. 1 to obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu t^{}s^{}}^{ab\tau ^{}\sigma ^{}}`$ and then, for $`p^2=k^2`$, we can write:

$`T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2}}(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{k^2}})\delta ^{ab}`$
$`\times \left(k^2G_{(\mathrm{n}\mathrm{loops})}^{(2)}(k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2A^2}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}+O(\alpha ^{n+1},\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{k^2}})\right),`$ (8)
As already mentioned, there is a series of problems in the practical use of OPE tried in this paper ,. In general, the whole expansion in terms of condensates suffers from the so-called renormalon ambiguities : the resummation of the non-Borel-summable perturbative series for the leading operator Wilson coefficient is ambiguous, this ambiguity being compensated by the ultraviolet renormalon ambiguity of the matrix element of the subdominant operator $`A^2`$. By luck the infrared renormalon ambiguity cancels off when comparing the contribution of the condensate $`<A^2>`$ in both the propagator and the three gluon vertex. In this way we may simply decide to truncate the perturbative series to some order and the universality of the condensates is preserved provided this order is clearly stated.

A remnant of this renormalon problem arises from the truncation of OPE and perturbative series for the Wilson coefficients. One has to be sure to have gone far enough in perturbative expansions and in the inverse power expansion to have a coherent scheme. We will try to justify later our truncation of the power series to order $`1/k^2`$. For the perturbative series of the leading contribution we have to choose a truncation order $`n`$ according to a compromise: it should be high enough to make sure of the dominance of non-perturbative contributions compared to the perturbative uncertainty from neglected higher orders; but low enough not to destroy the good asymptotic behaviour of the series.

The gluon propagator turns out to be known up to the third loop in its perturbative expansion , but not yet the symmetric MOM coupling constant. We can thus try the exercise with both $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$, but making in the latter case some fit for the unknown three loop coefficient ($`\beta _2`$). This is not too high an order666In the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ scheme the fourth loop coefficient of the $`\beta `$ function is known and the series looks like being in its perturbative regime for momenta higher than $`3`$ GeV over the considered momentum window but it might be too low. Concerning power corrections higher than $`1/k^2`$: our fits do not show the necessity for $`1/k^4`$ terms (which would exhibit a very distinguishable functional dependence) over the large momenta window we consider. This is lucky since in practice it would be hopeless to deal with $`1/k^4`$ terms, too many operators being needed as well as, for consistency, many higher orders in the perturbative expansion of the $`c_0,d_0,c_2`$ and $`d_2`$ coefficients. Anyhow the consistency of the matching to lattice non-perturbative data for the two- and three-point Green functions will allow to test the validity of our assumptions.

In brief, within the scope of the present paper we will satisfy ourselves by modeling power contributions to our Euclidean two-point Green function,

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)=\delta _{ab}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right)G^{(2)}(p^2),`$ (9)
such that

$`k^2G^{(2)}(k^2)=Z^{MOM}(k^2)=Z_{\mathrm{nloops}}^{MOM}(k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2A^2}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}},`$ (10)
where $`Z_{\mathrm{nloops}}^{MOM}=k^2G_{\mathrm{nloops}}^{(2)}`$, $`n=2,3`$ and by studying systematically the stability of the matching of lattice results to formula (10) for different choices of the momentum window.

All the quantities in Eqs (3-10) are bare objects, where the explicit dependence on the regularization cut-off has been omitted for the sake of simplicity. However, applying MOM prescription at a certain renormalization scale $`\mu ^2`$, a renormalized version of Eq. (10) is obtained,

$`k^2G_R^{(2)}(k^2,\mu ^2)=Z_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{nloops}}^{MOM}(k^2,\mu ^2)+c(k^2,\mu ^2){\displaystyle \frac{A^2_{R,\mu ^2}}{4(N_c^21)}},`$ (11)
where, in MOM philosophy, $`A^2_{R,\mu ^2}`$ is renormalized at $`\mu ^2`$ such that the Wilson coefficient takes the tree-level value computed from the diagrams of fig. 1 : $`c(\mu ^2,\mu ^2)=3(g_R(\mu ^2))^2/\mu ^2`$. $`Z_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{nloops}}^{MOM}(k^2,\mu ^2)`$ in Eq. (11) behaves according to the three-loop (two-loop) anomalous dimension of the gluon propagator  and is such that $`\mu ^2G_R^{(2)}(\mu ^2,\mu ^2)=1`$. This last condition imposes an overall normalization which is totally irrelevant for our lattice data fitting strategy. In this respect the situation will slightly differ in the next section. By definition the running $`k^2`$ is there the renormalization point for the running coupling constant. It is then the condensate renormalized at $`k^2`$, $`A^2_{R,k^2}`$, and the coefficient accordingly renormalised at $`k^2`$ which have to be dealt with. This has to be taken into account when computing the anomalous dimension of the factor multiplying $`1/k^2`$ in each case as will be done soon . Nevertheless, the goal of the present paper is to develop the principle of an OPE testing procedure and to perform a preliminary check. In the scope of this preliminary check, where only tree-level power corrections are taken into account, we will simply take zero anomalous dimensions :

$`c(k^2,\mu ^2)A^2_{R,\mu ^2}=3g_R^2{\displaystyle \frac{A^2_R}{k^2}},`$ (12)
where $`g_R^2A^2_R`$ is taken to be a non-perturbative constant which can be fitted from lattice data.

### 2.2 Running coupling constant

In momentum subtraction schemes, in Landau gauge, the renormalized coupling constant can be defined at the renormalization momentum scale $`k^2`$ as (See for instance ) :

$`g(k^2)={\displaystyle \frac{G^{(3)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)(Z^{MOM}(k^2))^{3/2}}{G^{(2)}(p_1^2)G^{(2)}(p_2^2)G^{(2)}(p_3^2)}},`$ (13)
where $`Z^{MOM}`$ and $`G^{(2)}`$ were defined in the previous subsection, and $`G^{(3)}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_3^2)`$ is the three-point scalar form factor. Eq. (13) is directly written for an Euclidean metric. Nevertheless, as done in the previous section, we prefer to compute the scalar form factor in the more familiar Minkowskian metrics and translate the final result to Euclidean. This form factor should be obtained by projecting of the three-point Green function, $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p_1)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p_2)\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c(p_3)`$, over the transverse tree-level three-gluon tensor,

$`(T^{\mathrm{tree}})_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}=[g^{\mu _1^{}\mu _2^{}}(p_1p_2)^{\mu _3^{}}+\mathrm{cycl}.\mathrm{perm}.]{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,3}{}}(g_{\mu _i^{}\mu _i}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{i\mu _i^{}}p_{i\mu _i}}{p_i^2}}),`$
(14)
considered for a given configuration of the three momenta with an overall renormalization scale $`k^2`$. In the following we shall consider the two standard momentum subtraction kinematics: $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p_3^2=k^2`$ (MOM) and $`p_1^2=p_3^2=k^2`$, $`p_2^2=0`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}`$).

In the MOM case, the scalar form factor, $`G^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)`$, is obtained from:

$`G^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)f^{abc}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{18k^2}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p_1)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p_2)\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c(p_3)`$
$`\times \left[(T^{\mathrm{tree}})^{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}+{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1p_2)^\rho (p_2p_3)^\mu (p_3p_1)^\nu }{2k^2}}\right].`$ (15)
Then, we follow from Eq. (LABEL:OPEfield2) a procedure to obtain the OPE perturbative coefficient $`d_2`$ analogous to that to the one previously used for the gluon propagator. The diagrams to compute are those plotted in Fig. 2. In total analogy to the gluon propagator case, the result for the tree-level OPE correction of the three-point Green function, translated to Euclidean metrics, leads to

$`G^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)=G_{\mathrm{pert}}^{(3)}(k^2,k^2,k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{9g^3A^2}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}};`$ (16)
where, again, $`G_{\mathrm{pert}}^{(3)}`$ stands for the purely perturbative three-point form factor.

Then, we insert Eqs. (10,16) in the MOM coupling constant definition, Eq. (13), where the Green functions scalar form factors are automatically renormalized in MOM prescription at the scale $`k^2`$ by the $`3/2`$-power of $`Z^{MOM}`$, and finally obtain777The $`O(\alpha )`$-corrections in the second r.h.s. of Eq. (17) are of the order of the assumed theoretical uncertainty in our tree-level OPE correction.

$`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2)=\left(\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2)\right)_{\mathrm{pert}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2A^2_R}{4(N_c^21)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}(9+O(\alpha ))].`$ (17)
One interesting remark is that all the OPE contribution to $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2)`$ defined by Eq. (13) is coming from the explicit renormalization factor $`(Z^{MOM})^{3/2}`$. After amputation of the external legs, diagrams (a) and (b) in fig 2 are obviously canceled, and a direct cancellation of the irreducible diagrams (c) and (d) happens.

As already mentioned only888the two first coefficients, $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _1`$ are universal the two-loop coefficient of the beta function is known in the symmetric MOM scheme. The gluon propagator anomalous dimension is known at three loops and previous works  has revealed the important role played by the third loop in its appropriate perturbative description. Moreover, a previous analysis  including power corrections of $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}(k)`$, in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ scheme, also stressed the necessity of working at least at three-loops to get a good estimate of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$. This is why we shall add to the two loop test of OPE a three-loop one with a fitted $`\beta _2`$. The latter test is performed consistently at the three-loop level both for the gluon propagator renormalization constant, $`Z^{MOM}(k^2)`$, and for the perturbative part of $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(k^2)`$, which we will take to be the numerical inversion of

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}={\displaystyle \frac{k}{3.334}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _s^{\mathrm{MOM}}}}\right)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0\alpha _s^{\mathrm{MOM}}}{4\pi }}\right)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1\alpha _s^{\mathrm{MOM}}}{2\pi \beta _0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2\alpha _s_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{MOM}}}{32\pi ^2\beta _0}}\right)\right]^{\frac{\beta _1}{2\beta _0^2}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0\beta _24\beta _1^2}{2\beta _0^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\left[\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2\beta _1+\beta _2\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{MOM}}/4\pi }}\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2\beta _1}}\right)\right]\right\},`$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }2\beta _0\beta _24\beta _1^2`$, the unknown coefficient $`\beta _2`$ being fitted. The interplay between the ignorance of non-tree-level OPE correction and this fitted three-loop information is hoped to be controlled by studying the stability of the fits for different momentum windows.

The OPE approach used for propagator and symmetric three-point Green function is based on the factorization of the non-perturbative soft gluon contribution (related to the vacuum properties) and the perturbative hard gluons in the external legs of the Green functions. In the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ case, things are a little different. That has to be adapted since one of the external gluons of the Green function carries zero momentum. OPE large momentum expansion can nevertheless be done for the two other gluon fields carrying non-null momentum by following Eq. (1). As only an odd number of gluon field operators permits to build a Lorentz invariant v.e.v., non-null contributions will come now for terms of the Wilson expansion with an even number of local operators. Then, we will have

$`T\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^a(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu ^b(p)\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c(0)\right)=(\stackrel{~}{c}_1)_{\mu \nu c^{}}^{ab\rho ^{}}(p^2):A_\rho ^{}^c^{}(0):\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c(0)+\mathrm{}.`$ (19)
As for the propagator or the symmetric vertex, it is immediate to prove that $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_1)_{\mu \nu c^{}}^{ab\rho ^{}}(p^2)`$ takes the tree-level expression for the asymmetric three-point Green function (with the explicit amputation of the zero-momentum gluon leg). Concerning subleading OPE corrections, they should be obtained from local operators of higher dimensions, and then a “zoo” of different condensates appear. In principle, $`:A_\mu ^{}^a^{}A_\nu ^{}^b^{}A_\rho ^{}^c^{}:\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c`$, $`:_\mu ^{}\overline{c}^a^{}c^b^{}:\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c`$ or $`:_\rho ^{}A_\mu ^{}^a^{}(0)A_\nu ^{}^b^{}(0):\stackrel{~}{A}_\rho ^c`$, are all candidates to give non-null v.e.v. contributions. Furthermore, the problem due to the soft gluon in the vertex definition re-appears now in a new way: no v.e.v in the r.h.s of Eq. (19) involves directly the gluon condensate $`A^2`$. Of course, this does not forbid an explanation of power corrections in terms of OPE for asymmetric $`\alpha _s^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}`$, but their non-perturbative condensates cannot be directly put in relation with those from symmetric $`\alpha _s^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ and gluon propagator. Consequently, with no additional phenomenological assumption no consistent test shall come from the running coupling constant in the asymmetric $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ scheme and it will be left aside in our present analysis.

## 3 Fitting data to our ansätze

Our goal is now to try a consistent description of lattice data for two- and three-point Green functions introduced in ref.  from the previously developed formulas for power corrections. Details of the lattice simulations, of the elaborated procedures to obtain an artifact-safe data set or of the definition of regularization-independent objects permitting lattice regularized data to be matched to continuum quantities in any scheme, can be found in those references. We directly show here the results of the matchings.

In a previous work , a fit of both the empiric coefficient for a power contribution and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ were simultaneously performed by matching lattice data for $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}(k^2)`$ to a formula including non-perturbative additive power corrections. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ parameter thus obtained, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=237_{13}^{+3}`$ MeV, is in total agreement with the one estimated by ALPHA group, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=238(19)`$ MeV. The same kind of fit of $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}(k^2)`$ can be done by assuming the power correction to be proportional to $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}(k^2)`$ analogously to what is done in the MOM case in eq. (17). The fitted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ parameter raises in the latter fit to $`250`$ MeV. This difference coming from the assumed $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}(k^2)`$ dependence of the $`1/k^2`$ term tells us something about a certain additional systematic uncertainty, not taken into account in ref. , due to neglecting anomalous dimensions of power corrections.

We will take the central value of the estimated $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ in ref. , $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=237_{13}^{+3}`$ MeV, for $`\alpha _s^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ and gluon propagator.

#### Two loop fits

We have fitted the gluon propagator and the symmetric coupling constant according to eqs. (11,12) and (17) with the leading perturbative parts computed to two loops. In both cases we fit the condensate. The result is:

$`\mathrm{propagator}:g_R^2A^2_R=(2.32(6)\mathrm{GeV})^2;\alpha ^{\mathrm{MOM}}:g_R^2A^2_R=(4.36(12)\mathrm{GeV})^2.`$ (20)
with $`\chi ^2/d.o.f1.2`$. The clear disagreement between both estimates could be a sign that we are in the situation indicated in  that the perturbative order is too low to give an acceptable precision in the estimate of the power corrections. We need to check if going to three loops is enough.

#### Three loops fit

$`\beta _2^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ is not known. Then, our strategy will be to extract the value for the gluon condensate, $`A^2`$, from the matching of (11,12) to gluon propagator lattice data; and then, by using that value, to search whether any sensible value of the unknown MOM coefficient $`\beta _2`$ allows to reproduce data for $`\alpha _s{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{MOM}}(p)`$.

In fig. 3 we plot the best fit of eq. (11,12), for

$`g_R^2A^2_R=(2.76(4)\mathrm{GeV})^2,`$ (21)
to gluon propagator data. This error is computed by jacknife’s method. The $`\chi ^2`$ is $`0.86`$ per d.o.f. in that fit, slightly better than for the two-loop fit. It is amusing that the three-loop condensate stemming from the propagator is not so different from the two-loop one.

With this value of the gluon condensate we find that

$`\beta _2^{\mathrm{MOM}}=1.53(7)\times \beta _2^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}7400\pm 300`$ (22)
optimises the quality matching ($`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=1.1`$) of formula (17) to lattice data (see fig. 4).

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

A certain underestimation of the errors presented in the previous section should be admitted as a consequence of fixing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ to its central value 237 MeV of  without errors. We can correct for this by the same fitting strategy applied with different starting assumptions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$, within its error interval. this results in a a wider dispersion:

$`\beta _2^{\mathrm{MOM}}/\beta _2^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{MOM}}}=1.5(3).`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ and $`\beta _2^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ appear to be strongly correlated. The goal of the present paper is less to give a reliable prediction of a certain perturbative parameter, as $`\beta _2^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$, than to carry out a preliminary study of the inner consistency from a description in terms of OPE predictions of lattice data. Let us repeat, the knowledge of three-loop information in the MOM scheme and the anomalous dimensions of the power corrections are prerequisite to any firm conclusion999A very recent lattice calculation within the two-dimensional non-linear sigma model  insists on the necessity of knowing the OPE coefficients at least to one loop to reach agreement with OPE predictions.. The comparison of our estimate of $`\beta _2^{\mathrm{MOM}}`$ and the future perturbative computation of this parameter101010A computation of $`\beta _2`$ may appear soon . are totally necessary to conclude whether signs of such a consistency are present or not.

Our analysis of lattice data from gluon propagator and running coupling constant unequivocally proves power corrections ($`1/p^2`$) to be necessary to match the data. The dimension $`2`$ of power corrections clearly manifests the presence of non-gauge-invariant condensates (in particular, in our pure gauge QCD analysis, $`A_\mu A^\mu `$), if OPE is invoked to explain the results. Since we work in the Landau gauge the appearance of such a non-gauge-invariant condensate is in full agreement with all theoretical expectations. The value for $`\sqrt{g_R<A^2>_R}`$ around 3 GeV might seem unexpectedly large but this is a subjective matter. The perturbative Wilson coefficients for the OPE of the involved Green functions have been theoretically computed. Then, in order to satisfy the universality of the non-perturbative gluon condensate appearing directly in OPE of both gluon propagator and MOM coupling constant, we need to assume $`\beta _2^{\mathrm{MOM}}=7400(1500)`$. The perturbative computation of this parameter as well as that of the anomalous dimensions of the power corrections will either exclude the interpretation of power corrections just in terms of universal gluon condensates at three loops, or on the contrary throw a positive sign supporting the usual “QCD sum rules” procedure to connect non-perturbative effects for different correlation functions. All the theoretical tools for such a OPE testing procedure have been developed in the present paper.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We specially thank D. Becirevic for thorough discussions at the earlier stages of the work. We are also indebted to Y. Dokshitzer and G. Korchemsky for several inspiring comments. J. R-Q is indebted to Spanish Fundación Ramón Areces for financial support. These calculations were performed on the QUADRICS QH1 located in the Centre de Ressources Informatiques (Paris-sud, Orsay) and purchased thanks to a funding from the Ministère de l’Education Nationale and the CNRS.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The gluon Reggeization is one of the remarkable properties of QCD. It plays an essential role in the derivation of the BFKL equation , which is very important for the description of high energy semi-hard processes in perturbative QCD. A rigorous proof of the gluon Reggeization has been constructed in the leading logarithmic approximation (LLA), which means summation of the terms $`(\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}s)^n`$ . In the next-to-leading approximation (NLA) it has been observed in the first three orders of perturbation theory , but its validity to all orders of perturbation theory was only assumed in the derivation of the NLA BFKL equation. It is therefore very important to submit this assumption to careful tests.

A very stringent test of the gluon Reggeization is the requirement of its compatibility with the $`s`$-channel unitarity for the NLA elastic processes. This compatibility has been considered in Ref. , where two “bootstrap” conditions for the NLA octet BFKL kernel and impact factors were obtained. Recently, Braun and Vacca  suggested a stronger requirement, namely that the gluon Reggeization should be realized also in the (unphysical) particle-Reggeon scattering amplitude with colour octet in the $`t`$-channel and negative signature. This requirement leads to “strong bootstrap” conditions for the NLA octet BFKL kernel and impact factors.

In this paper we reformulate this strong bootstrap in a different framework. Although strictly speaking all the results of this work can be derived from those of Refs. , we think that this reformulation can be useful for at least two reasons. First, it does not rely on properties of the BFKL kernel, such as completeness of the eigenstates, which are neither evident nor easy to prove. Second, in this approach the second strong bootstrap condition can be presented in a form which makes manifest the dependence of the NLA octet impact factors on the particular process. According to this condition, the NLA octet impact factors must take a very simple form, since they can be written as the corresponding Reggeon effective vertex times a universal coefficient function. This function can be used also in the formulation of the first strong bootstrap condition for the NLA BFKL kernel in the octet state. We determine this coefficient function and check the fulfillment of the strong bootstrap conditions related to the quark and gluon octet impact factors.

The paper is organized as follows: in the next Section we introduce the relevant quantities and notations and briefly review the bootstrap for the NLA elastic processes; in Section 3 we consider the strong bootstrap by Braun and Vacca and write the related conditions in term of a universal function $`R`$; then in Section 4 we determine this function $`R`$ and check the strong bootstrap related to the quark and gluon octet impact factors.

## 2 Bootstrap conditions from NLA elastic processes

In the BFKL approach  elastic (or quasi-elastic) scattering amplitudes $`\left(𝒜\right)_{AB}^{A^{}B^{}}`$ for the processes $`ABA^{}B^{}`$ in the Regge kinematics are presented in the following form :

$$\left(𝒜\right)_{AB}^{A^{}B^{}}=\frac{is}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\underset{,\nu }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{B^{}B}^{(,\nu )}|_{\delta i\mathrm{}}^{\delta +i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \omega )}\left[\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^\omega \tau _{}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^\omega \right]\widehat{G}_\omega ^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{(,\nu )},$$
(2.1)
where $`s`$ is the squared c.m.s. energy of the colliding particles, which is assumed to be tending to infinity, the sum is taken over representations $``$ which are contained in the product of two adjoint representations and over states $`\nu `$ from full sets of states in these representations, $`\tau _{}`$ is the $`t`$-channel signature which is equal +1 (–1) for symmetric (antisymmetric) representation $``$. The parameter $`s_0`$ was introduced in Ref.  to give a convenient definition of the $`t`$-channel partial wave and is artificial in the sense that the amplitude does not depend on it in the NLA; $`D=4+2ϵ`$ is the space-time dimension in the dimensional regularization. Finally, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s are the impact factors of the colliding particles and $`G_\omega `$ is the Mellin transform of the Green function for the scattering of two Reggeized gluons,

$$\widehat{G}_\omega ^{}=\frac{1}{\omega \widehat{𝒦}^{}},$$
(2.2)
$`\widehat{𝒦}`$ being the kernel of the BFKL equation. Let us consider the transverse momentum representation, where “transverse” is related to the plane of initial particle momenta. In this representation, defined by

$$\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}|\stackrel{}{q}_i=\stackrel{}{q}_i|\stackrel{}{q}_i,\stackrel{}{q}_1|\stackrel{}{q}_2=\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\delta ^{(D2)}(\stackrel{}{q}_1\stackrel{}{q}_2),$$

$$\stackrel{}{q}_i^{}=\stackrel{}{q}_i\stackrel{}{q},A|B=A|\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}|B=\frac{d^{D2}k}{\stackrel{}{k}^2\stackrel{}{k}^2}A(\stackrel{}{k})B(\stackrel{}{k}),$$
(2.3)
the exact definitions of the impact factors and of the BFKL kernel in the NLA,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{(,\nu )}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)=\stackrel{}{q}_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{(,\nu )},𝒦^{}(\stackrel{}{q}_2,\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q})=\stackrel{}{q}_2|\widehat{𝒦}^{}|\stackrel{}{q}_1,$$
(2.4)
were given in Ref. . In the above equalities $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is the transverse momentum transfer for the amplitude (2.1), so that we have

$$t=q^2q_{}^2=\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}.$$
(2.5)
Note that throughout this paper $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is considered as a fixed parameter and has nothing in common with the operator $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}`$. In the derivation of the representation (2.1) a certain Reggeized form for the production amplitudes was assumed; in particular, for the elastic amplitude with colour octet representation and negative signature in the $`t`$-channel one needs to have

$$\left(𝒜_8^{}\right)_{AB}^{A^{}B^{}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{B^{}B}^a(s_0)\frac{s}{t}\left[\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\omega (t)}+\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\omega (t)}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}^a(s_0),$$
(2.6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s are the particle-Reggeon effective interaction vertices and $`\omega (t)`$ is the Reggeized gluon trajectory. The dependence of the vertices on $`s_0`$ was indicated explicitly to stress that it cancels the analogous dependence of the Regge factor in Eq. (2.6) (the dependence on other possible arguments not being shown). From the comparison of the term with $`=8^{}`$ in Eq. (2.1) and Eq. (2.6), two self-consistency relations (the so-called “bootstrap conditions”) have been obtained in Ref. :

$$\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\left[\frac{d^{D2}q_2}{\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\stackrel{}{q}_1|\widehat{𝒦}^{(1)}|\stackrel{}{q}_2\omega ^{(2)}(t)\right]=0,$$
(2.7)
$$\frac{2ig\sqrt{N}\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\stackrel{}{q}_1|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{a(1)}=2\omega ^{(1)}(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}^{a(1)}(s_0)+\omega ^{(2)}(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}^{a(0)}.$$
(2.8)
In the above relations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ and $`\omega ^{(1)}`$ denote the leading logarithm approximation (LLA) contributions to the vertex and the gluon trajectory, respectively. Analogously, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$, $`\omega ^{(2)}`$, $`𝒦^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$ mean the NLA corrections to the corresponding LLA quantities. We omitted the superscript (or subscript) $`=8^{}`$, assuming that here and everywhere below all the quantities belong to this representation. The conditions (2.7) and (2.8) are the bootstrap requirement in the NLA in the elastic sector. It is not yet clear whether they are sufficient to prove in the NLA the Regge form also of the inelastic amplitudes222In the leading order such form was proved ., which is used in the BFKL approach. Nevertheless, these conditions provide a strong confirmation of the self-consistency of the NLA BFKL approach. In fact, no doubts in the validity of the BFKL approach in the NLA must remain after the verification that the bootstrap conditions (2.7) and (2.8) are fulfilled.

The quark part of the first bootstrap condition (2.7) was analyzed in  and was found to be satisfied at arbitrary space-time dimension $`D`$. Recently, the gluon part of the colour octet kernel was calculated  in the NLA for $`D4`$ and the fulfillment of the bootstrap condition for this part was proved in this limit . The calculation of the kernel at arbitrary $`D`$ is in progress now .

The second bootstrap condition (2.8) was checked for the gluon and quark impact factors  and was proved to be satisfied at arbitrary space-time dimension both for the helicity conserving and non-conserving parts of the impact factors. Note, that the first bootstrap condition is universal, i.e. process independent, and even if it is a quite nontrivial problem to demonstrate its fulfillment, one has to do it just once. In this respect the second bootstrap condition looks much worse, because it is process dependent, i.e. any amplitude with gluon quantum numbers in the $`t`$-channel has its own bootstrap condition. If one uses such amplitude in the unitarity relation for a given process, one should be sure that this bootstrap condition is satisfied. For example, the NLA correction to the forward colour singlet BFKL kernel is already available  and it would be very interesting to apply it for the description of a real experiment; for this purpose we need to know the forward impact factors of colourless particles. The calculation of the virtual photon NLA impact factor is in progress now . Huge mathematical difficulties must be overcome in this calculation, so that before going on with it, it is desirable to be sure of the self-consistency of the NLA BFKL approach and, in particular, of the fulfillment of the bootstrap condition (2.8) for the impact factor describing the $`\gamma q\overline{q}`$ transition in the photon-Reggeon scattering process, which is involved in the calculation. Unfortunately, a direct check of this bootstrap condition is a not less complicated problem than the calculation of the photon impact factor itself. Therefore one should investigate as much as possible the bootstrap conditions in general form, without specifying the scattering process, in order to understand the reasons for the relations (2.7) and (2.8).

## 3 Strong bootstrap conditions

Braun and Vacca  suggested stronger bootstrap conditions than those obtained in . Their suggestion is based on the requirement of Reggeization of the unphysical particle-Reggeon scattering amplitude with colour octet in the $`t`$-channel and negative signature

$$\left(𝒜\right)_{AR}^{A^{}R^{}}=\frac{i\kappa }{2\pi }\stackrel{}{q}_1|_{\delta i\mathrm{}}^{\delta +i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \omega )}\left[\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)^\omega +\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)^\omega \right]\widehat{G}_\omega |\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^a,$$
(3.1)
where $`\kappa `$ is the particle-Reggeon squared invariant mass, in the sense that the amplitude should not contain admixture of eigenstates of the kernel different from the one corresponding to the gluon trajectory. In our reformulation we will not use the language of eigenvalues and eigenstates, because, as already discussed, this would require the justification of some properties of the kernel, such as completeness of the eigenstates, which are neither evident nor easy to prove. In the following we will show briefly how to obtain the strong bootstrap conditions not assuming these properties. The meaning of Reggeization was discussed in details in Ref.  and in the case under consideration it implies

$$\left(𝒜\right)_{AR}^{A^{}R^{}}=\stackrel{~}{R}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)\frac{\kappa }{t}\left[\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)^{\omega (t)}+\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)^{\omega (t)}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}^a(s_0),$$
(3.2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ can be called the Reggeon scattering vertex. Comparing the $`\kappa `$-channel discontinuities of Eqs. (3.1) and (3.2) we get

$$\stackrel{}{q}_1|_{\delta i\mathrm{}}^{\delta +i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi i}\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)^\omega \widehat{G}_\omega |\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^a=\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)^{\omega (t)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}^a(s_0)\stackrel{}{q}_1|R,$$
(3.3)
where

$$\stackrel{}{q}_1|RR(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \omega (t))}{t}\stackrel{~}{R}(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0).$$
(3.4)
Using the relation

$$\left(\widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\omega ^{(1)}(t)\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{a(0)}=0,$$
(3.5)
which follows from the independence of the Born octet impact factors $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q})`$ from $`\stackrel{}{q}_1`$ and from the form of the Born octet BFKL kernel (see, for example ), we have in the NLA

$$\widehat{G}_\omega |\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^a=\left(\omega \widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\right)^1|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{a(1)}$$

$$+\left(\omega ^{(1)}(t)\widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\right)^1\left(\left(\omega \omega ^{(1)}(t)\right)^1\left(\omega \widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\right)^1\right)\widehat{𝒦}^{(1)}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^{a(0)}.$$
(3.6)
Therefore we obtain for the L.H.S. of Eq. (3.3) with NLA accuracy (in simplified notations)

$$\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)^{\omega ^{(1)}}\stackrel{}{q}_1|\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}+|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)[\widehat{𝒦}^{(1)}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}+(\widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\omega ^{(1)})|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}]$$

$$+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}^{n+2}\left(\kappa /s_0\right)}{(n+2)!}(\widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\omega ^{(1)})^{n+1}[\widehat{𝒦}^{(1)}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}+(\widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\omega ^{(1)})|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}]\}.$$
(3.7)
Analogously, the R.H.S. of Eq. (3.3) takes the form

$$\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)^{\omega ^{(1)}}\stackrel{}{q}_1|\left\{|R^{(0)}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}\left(1+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa }{s_0}\right)\omega ^{(2)}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\right]+|R^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}\right\},$$
(3.8)
and therefore the compatibility relations are

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}+|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}=|R^{(0)}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\right)+|R^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)},$$

$$\left(\widehat{𝒦}^{(1)}\omega ^{(2)}\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}+\left(\widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\omega ^{(1)}\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}=0,$$

$$\left(\widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\omega ^{(1)}\right)\left[\widehat{𝒦}^{(1)}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}+\left(\widehat{𝒦}^{(0)}\omega ^{(1)}\right)|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}\right]=0.$$
(3.9)
We notice now that the third of these relations is not independent: it follows directly from the second one, taking into account also Eq. (3.5). Therefore, restoring the omitted indices of impact factors and vertices, the compatibility relations in NLA can be written in the following form

$$\left(\widehat{𝒦}\omega (t)\right)|R=0,|\mathrm{\Phi }_{A^{}A}^a=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^{}A}^a|R,$$
(3.10)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}_1|R=R(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)`$ is the universal function defined by the relations (3.2) and (3.4). Finally, there is one more condition, which is nothing but the generalization to all orders of the second bootstrap condition (2.8) for the particle-particle scattering amplitudes. Indeed, the amplitude (2.1) for the case of antisymmetric colour octet state in the $`t`$-channel can be represented as the convolution of the impact factor for the particle $`B`$ and the particle-Reggeon scattering amplitude (3.1). Using for the latter amplitude the Regge form (3.2) and then Eqs. (3.10), the comparison with the Regge form (2.6) leads to the relation

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{(2\pi )^{D2}}\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\stackrel{}{q}_1|R^2=\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \omega (t)\right).$$
(3.11)
In the next section we will see that in the NLA, with account of the second from the relations (3.10), this equation coincides with the second bootstrap condition (2.8).

The set of strong bootstrap conditions, defined by Eqs. (3.10) and (3.11) is completely equivalent to the one formulated in Refs. , but here it is rewritten in a form which fixes explicitly the process dependence of the impact factors: they turn out to be proportional to the corresponding effective vertices with the same universal coefficient function $`R`$. This function is used also in the formulation of the strong bootstrap condition for the kernel. To be precise, the Eqs. (3.10) and (3.11) can be obtained combining the Eq. (23) of Ref.  and Eqs. (7) and (8) of Ref. . It was also stressed in  that the necessity to assume the Reggeization of unphysical particle-Reggeon scattering amplitudes in order to formulate the strong bootstrap conditions can be avoided if one puts aside perturbation theory. In our approach this can be done as well, again without involving the completeness of eigenstates of the kernel. Indeed, comparing the $`s`$-channel discontinuities of Eqs. (2.1) and (2.6), one easily obtains (in simplified notations)

$$\varphi _B|\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\widehat{𝒦}\omega }|\varphi _A=1,$$
(3.12)
where

$$|\varphi _A=|\mathrm{\Phi }_A\sqrt{\frac{t}{(2\pi )^{D2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \omega \right)}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_A}.$$
(3.13)
An expansion in $`\mathrm{ln}\left(s/s_0\right)`$ powers gives

$$1=\varphi _B|\varphi _A+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}^n\left(s/s_0\right)}{n!}\varphi _B|\left(\widehat{𝒦}\omega \right)^n|\varphi _A.$$
(3.14)
Therefore, for arbitrary $`A`$ and $`B`$ (including the case $`A=B`$) we have

$$\varphi _B|\varphi _A=1,$$
(3.15)
which means that the relation

$$|\varphi _A=|\varphi $$
(3.16)
is valid for an arbitrary $`A`$ (since two unit vectors having unity as overlap coincide). Now, to remove the higher powers of energy logarithms from Eq. (3.14), we need only to put

$$\left(\widehat{𝒦}\omega \right)|\varphi =0,$$
(3.17)
which gives, together with the previous equality, exactly the strong bootstrap. Of course, we cannot claim for a non-perturbative consideration, at least in the BFKL approach. The accurate perturbative analysis of the NLA elastic bootstrap  shows that in perturbation theory the only necessary conditions are the soft ones (2.7) and (2.8).

## 4 Determination of the function $`R`$

To determine the function $`R`$ introduced in the previous section, we use the results of Refs.  (see also ) and  for the quark NLA octet impact factor and the quark-quark-Reggeon effective vertex, correspondingly. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the case of completely massless QCD. Then the quark impact factor takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q^{}Q}^a(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q^{}Q}^{a(0)}(1+\frac{\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2}[\stackrel{~}{K}_1+(\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ+\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ)\{\frac{1}{2ϵ}+\psi (1+2ϵ)\psi (1+ϵ)$$

$$+\frac{11+7ϵ}{2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)}{(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\}$$

$$+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s_0}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)+2\psi (1)2\psi (1+2ϵ)\frac{3}{2(1+2ϵ)}\frac{1}{N^2}(\frac{1}{ϵ}\frac{(32ϵ)}{2(1+2ϵ)})]),$$
(4.1)
where $`n_f`$ is the number of quark flavours and the function $`\stackrel{~}{K}_1`$ has the following integral representation:

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_1=\frac{(4\pi )^{2+ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ϵ)ϵ\left(\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\right)^ϵ}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(1+ϵ)}\frac{d^{D2}k}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{k}^2}\right)\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}_1)^2(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{})^2}.$$
(4.2)
The result of the integration of Eq. (4.2), in form of expansion in $`ϵ`$, can be found in Ref. . The corresponding effective vertex can be presented as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Q^{}Q}^a(s_0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Q^{}Q}^{a(0)}(1+\frac{\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2}[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s_0}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)+\frac{1}{ϵ}+\psi (1ϵ)+\psi (1)2\psi (1+ϵ)$$

$$+\frac{2+ϵ}{2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\frac{1}{N^2}(\frac{1}{ϵ}\frac{(32ϵ)}{2(1+2ϵ)})\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)}{(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}]).$$
(4.3)
Using also the well known expressions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}`$ (see, for example, ) we obtain from (3.10)

$$\stackrel{}{q}_1|RR(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q})=R^{(0)}(1+\frac{\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2}[\stackrel{~}{K}_1+(\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ+\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ1)$$

$$\times \left\{\frac{1}{2ϵ}+\psi (1+2ϵ)\psi (1+ϵ)+\frac{11+7ϵ}{2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)}{(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\right\}$$

$$\frac{1}{2ϵ}+\psi (1)+\psi (1+ϵ)\psi (1ϵ)\psi (1+2ϵ)]),R^{(0)}=\frac{ig\sqrt{N}}{2}.$$
(4.4)
Let us now discuss the condition (3.11). Using the expression (4.4) for $`R^{(0)}`$ and the well known integral representation for $`\omega ^{(1)}`$ (see, for example, ), it can be rewritten in the NLA as follows (in simplified notations):

$$2\omega ^{(1)}+\omega ^{(2)}=4R^{(0)}\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}R.$$
(4.5)
Then, multiplying both parts with the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one gets

$$2\omega ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}+2\omega ^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+\omega ^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}=4\left(R^{(0)}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}$$

$$+4R^{(0)}\frac{d^{D2}q_1}{(2\pi )^{D1}}\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}.$$
(4.6)
The LLA part of the above relation is evidently satisfied and the NLA one gives exactly the second bootstrap condition (2.8). It means that this condition is fulfilled automatically for any process if the conditions (3.10) and (3.11) are satisfied, that justifying the term “strong bootstrap conditions”. Let us finally note that it is not necessary to check the fulfillment of the condition (3.11) for the function (4.4); in fact, it was already done when the bootstrap condition (2.8) for the quark impact factor was checked in Ref. . Therefore, the above discussion completes our formulation of the strong bootstrap conditions. They can be presented by the relations (3.10) and (4.4). The relation (3.11) is not necessary to include anymore, because the $`R`$-function (4.4) does have the correct normalization.

We have now the chance to check the second of the strong bootstrap conditions defined by Eqs. (3.10) and (4.4) for the case of gluon scattering, because the corresponding impact factor and effective vertex are already known in the NLA and can be found in Refs.  (see also ) and , correspondingly. The result for the impact factor is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{G^{}G}^a(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)}{gT_{G^{}G}^aR^{(0)}}=\delta _+\{1+\frac{\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2}[\stackrel{~}{K}_1+(\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ+\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)^ϵ1)(\frac{1}{2ϵ}+\psi (1+2ϵ)\psi (1+ϵ)$$

$$+\frac{11+7ϵ}{2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)}{(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)})+\mathrm{ln}(\frac{s_0}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}})+\frac{3}{2ϵ}+2\psi (1)\psi (1+ϵ)\psi (1+2ϵ)$$

$$\frac{9(1+ϵ)^2+2}{2(1+ϵ)(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}+\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)^3+ϵ^2}{(1+ϵ)^2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}]\}$$

$$\frac{\delta _{}ϵ\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2(1+ϵ)^2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\left(1+ϵ\frac{n_f}{N}\right).$$
(4.7)
Here the notations

$$\delta _+=\left(e_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}e_{}\right),\delta _{}=e_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}e_{}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}\left(g_{}^{\mu \nu }(D2)\frac{q_{}^\mu q_{}^\nu }{q_{}^2}\right)$$
(4.8)
were used, with $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$ the polarizations of the incoming and scattered gluons, respectively. Eq. (4.7), together with the Eq. (4.4), gives the expression

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{G^{}G}^a(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q},s_0)}{gT_{G^{}G}^aR(\stackrel{}{q}_1,\stackrel{}{q})}=\delta _+\{1+\frac{\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2}[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s_0}{\stackrel{}{q}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}\right)+\frac{2}{ϵ}+\psi (1)+\psi (1ϵ)2\psi (1+ϵ)$$

$$\frac{9(1+ϵ)^2+2}{2(1+ϵ)(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}+\frac{n_f}{N}\frac{(1+ϵ)^3+ϵ^2}{(1+ϵ)^2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}]\}$$

$$\frac{\delta _{}ϵ\omega ^{(1)}(t)}{2(1+ϵ)^2(1+2ϵ)(3+2ϵ)}\left(1+ϵ\frac{n_f}{N}\right)$$
(4.9)
which must coincide with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{G^{}G}^a(s_0)/(gT_{G^{}G}^a)`$ if the strong bootstrap for impact factors is fulfilled. Simple inspection of the result  for the vertex confirms its fulfillment. As for the first strong bootstrap condition (the first of Eqs. (3.10)), its fulfillment in the part concerning the quark contribution follows from the results of Refs. . Of course, nothing can be stated as a fact without a check of the first strong bootstrap condition for the gluon part.

## 5 Discussion

In this paper we have considered the strong bootstrap conditions, introduced in Refs.  and , which appear as consequences of the hypothesis that the unphysical particle-Reggeon scattering amplitudes have also Regge form. Our main aims were: first, to show that strong bootstrap conditions do not need the assumption of completeness of eigenstates of the octet BFKL kernel; second, to rewrite them in a form which fixes explicitly their dependence on process under consideration. The strong bootstrap conditions rewritten in such form (see Eqs. (3.10) and (3.11)) are completely equivalent to the analogous ones of Refs. , as it was explained in the Section 3. We have then determined the universal function $`R`$ using the results for the quark NLA octet impact factor  and for the corresponding effective interaction vertex  and have shown that the complete set of strong bootstrap conditions can be presented by Eqs. (3.10) and (4.4) (Eq. (3.11) is not necessary to include, having the function $`R`$ given by Eq. (4.4) the proper normalization). Finally, we have checked the strong bootstrap condition for the gluon NLA impact factor and found that it is fulfilled.

The strong bootstrap conditions are satisfied in the LLA  and are likely to be satisfied also in the NLA, as it may be concluded from the previous section and from the results of Refs. . This fact is rather intriguing, because the strong bootstrap is evidently not necessary for the NLA Reggeization of the usual particle scattering amplitudes, being the soft one (expressed by Eqs. (2.7) and (2.8)), together with the LLA strong bootstrap, sufficient for it . The possibility that the strong bootstrap conditions are necessary for the self-consistency of NLA Reggeization in inelastic sector was mentioned in Ref. , but, in our opinion, this does not look to be the case. The assumption of the NLA Reggeization for the unphysical particle-Reggeon scattering amplitude itself cannot be considered a good explanation, since it is not yet clear why this requirement should be necessary. In any case, there is interesting physics under the strong bootstrap (if satisfied) which deserves further clarification.

From a practical point of view, soft bootstrap conditions are now more important than strong ones. However, since the soft ones are automatically verified if the strong ones are fulfilled, also the strong bootstrap can be practically used, especially because it involves one integration less and is therefore easier to check. It is also clear that the set of checks of the bootstrap conditions for all the possible processes can be replaced by the search of general arguments for the NLA Reggeization of the particle-Reggeon scattering amplitudes.

Acknowledgment: Two of us (V.S.F. and M.I.K.) thank the Dipartimento di Fisica della Università della Calabria for the warm hospitality while this work was done. V.S.F. acknowledges the financial support of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare.


text:
# Estimation of Collision Impact Parameter

We demonstrate that the nuclear collision geometry (i.e. impact parameter) can be determined with 1.5 fm accuracy in an event-by-event analysis by measuring the transverse energy flow in the pseudorapidity region $`3|\eta |5`$ with a minimal dependence on collision dynamics details at the LHC energy scale. Using the HIJING model we have illustrated our calculation by a simulation of events of nucleus-nucleus interactions at the c.m.s energy from 1 up to 5.5 TeV per nucleon and various type of nuclei.

The measurement of the collision impact parameter is a very important practical problem of relativistic heavy ion physics. A part of future experimental programmes on the LHC accelerator will be devoted to relativistic heavy ion collisions . Significant efforts will be focused on the establishment of the fundamental laws and quite general rules of nucleus-nucleus interactions, the discovery of a new state of QCD matter, i.e. quark-gluon plasma (QGP), and the study of the properties of strongly exited nuclear matter . It is expected that QGP might be produced in the central nucleus-nucleus collisions at extremely high energy density $`ϵ_0`$ 1 $`GeV/fm^3`$ (at the LHC energy scale $`ϵ_0`$ 1 $`TeV/fm^3`$).

On the other hand, for studies of diffractive phenomena, properties of a coherent pomeron and collective nuclear effects  it is necessary to select peripheral events with a large collision impact parameter. Assuming that the collision impact parameter is measured the experimentally observed effects can be compared with theoreticall predictions of expected signals of a ”new” physics: parton energy losses in nuclear matter, monojet to dijet ratio, quarkonia suppression, correlated jet and $`W^\pm `$,$`Z^0`$ production and so on.

In the present paper we demonstrate a method of estimation of a collision impact parameter in the event-by-event analysis.

As the collision impact parameter can not be measured in experiments directly, it would be necessary to find an experimentally measurable $`b`$-dependent variable. We suggest to use the total transverse energy $`E_T`$ (total energy $`E`$) produced in the one event of the nucleus-nucleus collision for the collision impact parameter estimation.

We will show that there is a correlation between the transverse energy and the impact parameter, and will present our numerical calculations performed on the basis of the HIJING model  at the RHIC and LHC energy scales. We argue that the measurement of $`E_T`$ produced in the forward direction (large (pseudo)rapidity values) allows one to avoid possible uncertainties in the $`b`$ determination.

The multiplicity and transverse energy production in the nucleus-nucleus collisions in the ultrarelativistic energy domain is considered as a combination of hard processes with $`p_Tp_0`$ and soft particle production. A transverse energy flow produced in hard processes described by perturbative QCD is associated in the main with minijet production, i.e. jets with $`p_T4`$ GeV .

The average transverse energy carried by (mini)jets in the rapidity intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ is related to the collision impact parameter $`b`$ by the formula:

$$E_T(b,\sqrt{s_{NN}},p_0,\mathrm{\Delta }y)=T_{AA}(b)\sigma _{jet}(\sqrt{s_{NN}},p_0)_{\mathrm{\Delta }y}E_T^{\mathrm{\Delta }y},$$
(1)
where $`E_T^{\mathrm{\Delta }y}`$ is the average transverse energy per a (mini)jet in $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ interval, $`\sigma _{jet}`$ is the cross-section of minijet production in the parton model at the pp-level. The differential distribution $`d\sigma /dE_T`$ is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{jet}}{dE_T}}(\sqrt{s_{NN}},p_0,\mathrm{\Delta }y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K{\displaystyle _{p_0^2,\mathrm{\Delta }y}^{s/4}}dp_T^2dy_1dy_2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}x_1f_i(x_1,p_T^2)x_2f_j(x_2,p_T^2)\times `$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^{ijkl}}{d\widehat{t}}}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^{ijkl}}{d\widehat{t}}}(\widehat{s},\widehat{u},\widehat{t})]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (E_Tp_T)}{1+\delta _{kl}}},`$ (2)
where $`p_0`$ is the pQCD cut-off parameter, $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are the fractional momenta of the initial partons $`i`$ and $`j`$, and $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ are the rapidities of outgoing partons, $`d\widehat{\sigma }^{ijkl}/d\widehat{t}`$ is the parton-parton scattering cross section. The summation runs over all parton species and the factor $`K2`$ is used to correct the lowest order pQCD rates for the effects of next-to-leading order terms. The value of $`\sigma _{jet}(\sqrt{s_{NN}},p_0)_{\mathrm{\Delta }y}E_T^{\mathrm{\Delta }y}`$ then is:

$`\sigma _{jet}(\sqrt{s_{NN}},p_0)_{\mathrm{\Delta }y}E_T^{\mathrm{\Delta }y}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K{\displaystyle _{p_0^2,\mathrm{\Delta }y}^{s/4}}dp_T^2dy_1dy_2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}x_1f_i(x_1,p_T^2)x_2f_j(x_2,p_T^2)\times `$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^{ijkl}}{d\widehat{t}}}(\widehat{s},\widehat{t},\widehat{u})+{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^{ijkl}}{d\widehat{t}}}(\widehat{s},\widehat{u},\widehat{t})]{\displaystyle \frac{p_t}{1+\delta _{kl}}}.`$ (3)
Experimentally known effects of modification of quark and gluon structure functions by nuclear medium called parton shadowing  has not been included here. To take into account the shadowing effect we should modify the formula (Estimation of Collision Impact Parameter) by multiplying parton distributions by a corresponding correction term:

$$f_i(x_1,p_T^2)f_j(x_2,p_T^2)R_i^A(x_1,p_T^2)f_i(x_1,p_T^2)R_j^A(x_2,p_T^2)f_j(x_2,p_T^2),$$
(4)
here the ratio $`R_{i,j}^Af_{i,j/A}(x,p_T^2)/f_{i,j/N}(x,p_T^2)`$, where $`f_{i,j/N}(x,p_T^2)`$ is the parton structure function for a free nucleon and $`f_{i,j/A}(x,p_T^2)`$ is the corresponding parton distribution in a proton inside the nucleus.

The nuclear density overlap function of two colliding nuclei at a given impact parameter $`T_{AA}(b)`$ calculated in the assumption of the Wood-Saxon nuclear density distribution $`\rho _A(r)`$:

$$T_{AA}(|\stackrel{}{b}|)=d^2\stackrel{}{r}T_A(\stackrel{}{r})T_A(\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is a 2-dimensional vector defining the interaction point. The nuclear thickness function is

$$T_A(|\stackrel{}{r}|)=dz\rho _A(\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{r}|^2+z^2)}.$$
(6)
The expression (1) relating $`E_T`$ and $`b`$ includes a term arisen from hard processes with $`p_t2`$ GeV only. For a more correct estimation of the collision impact parameter we should take into account in addition the part of a total transverse energy flow produced in soft interactions.

$`E_T^{total}=E_T^{jet}+E_T^{soft},`$
$`E_T^{soft}=T_{AA}(b)\sigma _{softincl.}E_T^{\mathrm{\Delta }y}^{soft},`$ (7)
where $`E_T^{\mathrm{\Delta }y}^{soft}`$ is the averaged transverse energy per particle produced by soft interactions. But soft processes can not be calculated by pQCD applications and we should to use some phenomenological models  for the estimation of a soft part of the total energy flow.

We think that a permissible pseudorapidity region for an the measuring energy is limited by the following reason. Main signatures of a possible QGP production are expected in the central (pseudo)rapidity region. One of the discussed features of such a state of nuclear matter is energy losses of scattered partons in final state interactions with a dense nuclear matter called jet quenching . Among other effects originated by jet quenching one may expect a significant modification in the distributions of the transverse energy flow and charged multiplicity $`dE_T/d\eta `$, $`dE_T^\gamma /d\eta `$, and $`dn_{ch}/d\eta `$ .

Indeed, an indication is found for ultrarelativistic energy domain concerning the appearance of a wide bump in the interval $`2\eta 2`$ over a pseudorapidity plateau of such distributions due to jet quenching. Fig.1 demonstrates the evolution of the effect with collision impact parameter variation. It is interesting to note that a secondary interaction effect such as a jet quenching modifies only the central rapidity part, while both pseudorapidity regions ($`3|\eta |5`$) remain practically unchanged. Therefore the large $`\eta `$ region can be used for the collision impact parameter estimation with minimal dependence on possible signals of new physics in the central (pseudo)rapidity region.

The total cross-section of AA collisions has been calculated in the framework of a HIJING hybrid model of nucleus-nucleus interactions , where the cross-section of hard processes has been defined by the formula (Estimation of Collision Impact Parameter). The contribution of the soft part of a produced particle spectrum, i.e. small $`p_T`$-processes has been simulated by using the FRITIOF and DPM models . In these models hadrons are considered as relativistic strings exited at hadron interactions. Calculations shows that for central PbPb collisions at the LHC energy the inclusive cross-section of soft interactions at the pp-level is equal to 57.0 mb while the inclusive cross-section of hard processes is equal to 54.3 mb. The parton shadowing effect has been taken into account.

However, it is obvious that the average transverse energy of partons produced in hard processes $`E_T^{jet}`$ (3 $`÷`$ 5 GeV for $`|\eta |`$ 0.5) is larger than the average transverse energy of soft partons $`E_T^{soft}`$ 0.4 GeV. This fact reduces more strongly the relative contribution of soft processes in the total transverse energy production. In the LHC energy domain already 80 % of the total transverse energy is calculated by perturbative QCD application. This allows one to reduce ambiguities of $`E_T`$ calculations induced by the use of phenomenology models to take into account small $`p_T`$-processes.

In the framework of the HIJING model we have simulated 10.000 events of $`PbPb,NbNb,CaCa`$ interactions at 5.5 TeV per nucleon. The dependence of the total transverse energy produced in the pseudorapidity interval $`3|\eta |5`$ on the collision impact parameter is presented in fig.2. The variable $`E_T`$ is connected with $`b`$. Some fluctuations in nucleus-nucleus collision dynamics limit the impact parameter estimation to a 1.5 fm precision.

The correlation of the same type is presented in fig.3 with variation of a collision energy. It is shown that the increase of the collision energy leads to an improvement of the accuracy the impact parameter definition.

The correlation curve for the total energy flow is of the some shape. The bulk of the energy produced in the forward direction run up to $`10÷100`$ $`TeV`$. This allows one to measure the total energy with high accuracy and to reduce experimental errors for the $`b`$ estimation.

We should remark that uncertainties are associated with the use of various parton shadowing models and the sets of structure functions lead to an ambiguity in $`E_Tb`$ correlation. In more detail the influence of these aspects on the total (transverse) energy flow is discussed in ref .