text:
# The Ratio of Jet Cross Sections at √𝑠=630 GeV and 1800 GeV

## Abstract

The DØ Collaboration has measured the inclusive jet cross section in $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=630`$ GeV. The results for pseudorapidities $`\left|\eta \right|<0.5`$ are combined with our previous results at $`\sqrt{s}=1800`$ GeV to form a ratio of cross sections with smaller uncertainties than either individual measurement. Next-to-leading-order QCD predictions show excellent agreement with the measurement at 630 GeV; agreement is also satisfactory for the ratio. Specifically, despite a 10% to 15% difference in the absolute magnitude, the dependence of the ratio on jet transverse momentum is very similar for data and theory.

preprint: FERMILAB-Pub-00/213-E, hep-ex/0008072

For reactions with large momentum transfers, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) treats complex proton-antiproton interactions in terms of simpler scattering processes involving only one constituent from each particle. Identifying these “parton” constituents with quarks and gluons, perturbative QCD calculates production cross sections for scattered partons (observed as showers or “jets” of collimated particles) that also depend on empirically-determined parton distribution functions (PDF) of the proton.

This measurement compares the production rate of jets as a function of their transverse energy, $`E_T`$, at two $`\overline{p}p`$ center-of-mass energies: $`\sqrt{s}=630`$ GeV and 1800 GeV. This comparison reduces the systematic uncertainties and minimizes the prediction’s sensitivity to choice of PDF.

In the simple parton model, inclusive jet cross sections scale with $`\sqrt{s}`$ in the sense that the dimensionless quantity $`f(x_T)=E_T^4E\frac{d^3\sigma }{d^3p}`$, as a function of jet $`x_T\frac{2E_T}{\sqrt{s}}`$, does not depend on $`\sqrt{s}`$ . In this model, the ratio of scaled cross sections for different energies is unity for all $`x_T`$. Although previous data  exhibited significant deviation from this naive scaling, the dimensionless framework provides a useful context for comparison with QCD. The DØ collaboration at the Fermilab Tevatron recently published the inclusive jet cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=1800`$ GeV using $`95700\pm 500`$ nb-1 of data . This Letter presents our complementary measurement at $`\sqrt{s}=630`$ GeV, using a sample of $`538\pm 22`$ nb-1 of data . Because the data at both values of $`\sqrt{s}`$ were collected with the same detector , many uncertainties in the results are highly correlated, and the ratio of the cross sections has greater precision than either of the absolute measurements.

The differential jet cross section, $`d^2\sigma /dE_Td\eta `$, is measured in bins of $`E_T`$ and pseudorapidity, $`\eta \mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{2}\right)`$, where $`\theta `$ is the polar angle of the jet relative to the proton beam. (In this formulation, the dimensionless cross section, averaged over azimuth, is $`\frac{E_T^3}{2\pi }d^2\sigma /dE_Td\eta `$.) The DØ reconstruction algorithm defines a jet by the total $`E_T`$ observed in calorimeter cells contained within a cone of radius $`[\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right)^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}=0.7`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle. When two such clusters of cells overlap, they are merged into a single jet if they share more than 50% of the $`E_T`$ of the lower-$`E_T`$ cluster; otherwise, they are split into two separate jets, each defined by its own $`\eta `$-$`\varphi `$ centroid and $`E_T`$ value .

The online trigger requires at least one jet above a set threshold. The offline data selection procedure, which suppresses backgrounds from electrons, photons, noise, and cosmic rays, follows the methods used in the 1800 GeV analysis . The efficiency of jet selection is approximately $`96\%`$ and is nearly independent of jet $`E_T`$. To maintain precision in jet $`E_T`$, a vertex requirement removes jets resulting from $`\overline{p}p`$ interactions more than 50 cm from the center of the detector, thereby reducing the total efficiency to $`82\%`$. The uncertainty on the cross section associated with all efficiencies is $`<0.5\%`$ .

Jet energies are corrected  for the energy response of the DØ calorimeter to hadrons, the broadening of the hadronic shower, and energy from multiple interactions, calorimeter noise, and the underlying event (fragmentation of the spectator partons). The response correction increases the $`E_T`$ of jets by $`22\%`$ for measured calorimeter $`E_T`$ of $`20\mathrm{GeV}`$, and by $`15\%`$ for jet $`E_T`$ above 100 GeV. The 1% showering correction recovers the net energy lost when hadrons from inside the R=0.7 cone deposit energy outside it as they interact within the calorimeter. Calorimeter noise, from electronics and from uranium activity, contributes on average $`1.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ of $`E_T`$ to each jet. The underlying event contributes $`0.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ of $`E_T`$ to each jet at $`\sqrt{s}=630\mathrm{GeV}`$, compared to $`0.9\mathrm{GeV}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=1800\mathrm{GeV}`$. The corrections offset one another, so that a jet’s measured $`E_T`$ typically increases by 12% to 14% after implementing all energy scale corrections. Uncertainties in the corrections for noise and response dominate the systematic uncertainty of the final result.

Both detector imperfections and random fluctuations in shower development of individual jets within the calorimeter result in the smearing of a jet’s $`E_T`$ about its true value. The finite $`E_T`$ resolution shifts the observed cross section to higher $`E_T`$, especially in the most steeply falling regions of the distribution. The measurement of jet resolution as a function of $`E_T`$ and the unsmearing procedure follow the steps described in Ref. . The unsmearing correction is larger at 630 GeV than at 1800 GeV because the cross section is significantly steeper at the $`E_T`$ values of interest.

Figure 1 depicts the inclusive jet cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=630\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the pseudorapidity bin $`\left|\eta \right|<0.5`$. Each data point indicates the $`E_T`$ at which the cross section within that bin has its average value. The bin widths are chosen to match the bins in $`x_T`$ from the $`\sqrt{s}=1800\mathrm{GeV}`$ analysis. Table I reports the bin ranges, point positions, and uncertainties. The solid line in Fig. 1 indicates the result of a calculation using the jetrad next-to-leading-order (NLO) partonic event generator  and the CTEQ3M PDFs . The renormalization and factorization scales are set to $`\mu =E_T^{\mathrm{max}}/2`$, where $`E_T^{\mathrm{max}}`$ corresponds to the $`E_T`$ of the leading jet in an event.

Figure 2 compares the cross section to the NLO QCD prediction in greater detail. The “baseline” renormalization and factorization scales are set to $`\mu =E_T^{\mathrm{max}}/2`$; additional lines in Fig. 2 indicate the predictions that result from changes in either PDF or $`\mu `$ relative to the baseline prediction specified for that pane. The shaded regions in Fig. 2 indicate the one standard deviation systematic uncertainty of the measurement, and the vertical bars indicate the statistical uncertainty. The first prediction, generated with the MRST  PDF, is shown to best reproduce the absolute magnitude of the data, but the CTEQ4HJ  curve in the second pane appears to provide the closest match in shape. Changing $`\mu `$ modifies both the normalization and the shape of the predictions, as seen in the third pane. We quantify the agreement between the data and the various predictions with a $`\chi ^2`$ comparison, as described below.

Combining the results from this Letter with those of Ref. , Fig. 3 displays the ratio of dimensionless jet cross sections as a function of $`x_T`$. The observed ratio ranges from 1.48 to 1.85, depending on the value of $`x_T`$. The largest uncertainties arise from the corrections for response and noise, and the rest primarily from resolution and luminosity. Although the systematic errors on the individual measurements range from 10% to as much as 30%, strong correlations reduce the uncertainty on the ratio to values as small as $`\pm 5.4\%`$. The two final columns of Table I provide the numerical results for the ratio.

As shown in Fig. 3, NLO QCD predictions for the ratio lie systematically above the data throughout most of the measured $`x_T`$ range, in particular between $`x_T`$ of 0.1 and 0.2, where the ratio has the smallest statistical uncertainty. Choice of PDF has little effect on the prediction — only the renormalization/factorization scales change the prediction appreciably.

A covariance matrix $`\chi ^2`$ comparing data and theory provides a measure of the probability that the theory describes the observed results. To verify that our covariance matrix, built mostly from correlated systematic uncertainties, produces results that are consistent with a standard $`\chi ^2`$ distribution with 20 degrees of freedom, we generated an ensemble of 20 million experiments using a Monte Carlo program. Each statistical and systematic error was simulated and varied randomly using appropriate correlations in $`E_T`$ and $`\sqrt{s}`$. Systematic errors were not necessarily assumed to be Gaussian distributed; some numbers were drawn from uniform probability distributions, as appropriate. The $`\chi ^2`$ comparisons (between the original input and each of the final, randomly-varied distributions) is in excellent agreement with the shape of the $`\chi ^2`$ function for 20 degrees of freedom. We find that the standard probability obtained from an integral of the $`\chi ^2`$ distribution provides an appropriate vehicle for comparing data with predictions.

Table II reports both the $`\chi ^2`$ values and the $`\chi ^2`$ probabilities for the comparison of the data with different NLO QCD predictions. The inclusive jet cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=630`$ GeV is consistent with all the tested PDFs and $`\mu `$ scales, with but two exceptions. For the ratio of cross sections, there is no significant difference in shape between data and theory, and essentially all predictions lie within an acceptable range. The overall results in Table II indicate reasonable agreement between the ratio and NLO QCD.

We performed a second test to quantify the observed difference in the absolute magnitudes of the predicted and observed ratios, without particular regard to the shapes of the distributions. Using the covariance matrix and assuming that the value of the ratio is a constant with respect to $`x_T`$, we found the best-fit horizontal line for the data. The $`\chi ^2`$ value that results from a comparison of this single point to the equivalently-calculated theory point yields the probabilities listed in the final column of Table II. In every case, discarding the information on shape in favor of a comparison of absolute magnitude results in poorer agreement between data and theory, particularly for the often-favored scale of $`\mu =E_T^{\mathrm{max}}/2`$.

In conclusion, we have measured the inclusive jet cross section at two center-of-mass energies, 630 GeV and 1800 GeV. Both the published data at 1800 GeV  and the data presented here at 630 GeV are generally well-described by NLO QCD, with the exception of predictions using CTEQ3M($`2E_T^{\mathrm{max}}`$) and MRSTGD PDFs. In the ratio of dimensionless cross sections at the two energies, experimental uncertainties are much smaller and differences in the predictions from choice of PDF are less important. NLO predictions for the ratio exhibit satisfactory agreement with the shape of the observed ratio. In terms of only the magnitude however, the absolute values of the predictions lie significantly higher than the data, especially for the standard scale $`\mu =E_T^{\mathrm{max}}/2`$.

We thank the staffs at Fermilab and at collaborating institutions for contributions to this work, and acknowledge support from the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation (USA), Commissariat à L’Energie Atomique and CNRS/Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (France), Ministry for Science and Technology and Ministry for Atomic Energy (Russia), CAPES and CNPq (Brazil), Departments of Atomic Energy and Science and Education (India), Colciencias (Colombia), CONACyT (Mexico), Ministry of Education and KOSEF (Korea), CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina), A.P. Sloan Foundation, and the A. von Humboldt Foundation.


format: text

text:
# APPLICATIONS OF QCD FACTORIZATION IN HADRONIC 𝑩 DECAYS

## 1 Introduction

The theoretical description of hadronic weak decays is difficult due to nonperturbative strong-interaction dynamics. This affects the interpretation of data collected at the $`B`$ factories and in many cases limits our ability to uncover the origin of CP violation and search for New Physics. The complexity of the problem is illustrated in the cartoon on the left-hand side of Fig. 1.

It is well known how to control the effects of hard gluons with virtuality between the electroweak scale $`M_W`$ and the scale $`m_B`$ characteristic to the decays of interest. They can be dealt with by constructing a low-energy effective weak Hamiltonian

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^{\mathrm{CKM}}C_i(M_W/\mu )O_i(\mu )+\text{h.c.},$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _i^{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ are products of CKM matrix elements, $`C_i(M_W/\mu )`$ are calculable short-distance coefficients, and $`O_i(\mu )`$ are local operators renormalized at a scale $`\mu =𝒪(m_B)`$. The challenge is to calculate the hadronic matrix elements of these operators with controlled theoretical uncertainties, using a systematic approximation scheme.

Previous field-theoretic attempts to evaluate these matrix elements have employed dynamical schemes such as lattice field theory, QCD sum rules, or the hard-scattering approach. The first two have difficulties in accounting for final-state rescattering, which however is important for predicting direct CP asymmetries. The hard-scattering approach misses the leading soft contribution to the $`B\text{meson}`$ transition form factors and thus falls short of reproducing the correct magnitude of the decay amplitudes. In view of these difficulties, most previous analyses of hadronic decays have employed phenomenological models such as “naive” or “generalized factorization”, in which the complicated matrix elements of four-quark operators in the effective weak Hamiltonian are replaced, in an ad hoc way, by products of current matrix elements. Corrections to this approximation are accounted for by introducing a set of phenomenological parameters $`a_i`$. A different strategy is to classify nonleptonic decay amplitudes according to flavor topologies (“trees” and “penguins”), which can be decomposed into SU(3) or isospin amplitudes. This leads to relations between decay amplitudes in the flavor-symmetry limit. No attempt is made, however, to compute these amplitudes from first principles.

## 2 QCD Factorization Formula

Here we summarize recent progress in the theoretical understanding of nonleptonic decay amplitudes in the heavy-quark limit.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ The underlying idea is to exploit the presence of a large scale, i.e., the fact that $`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. In order to disentangle the physics associated with these two scales, we factorize and compute hard contributions to the decay amplitudes arising from gluons with virtuality of order $`m_b`$, and parameterize soft and collinear contributions. Considering the cartoon in Fig. 1, we denote by $`M_1`$ the meson that absorbs the spectator quark of the $`B`$ meson, and by $`M_2`$ the meson at the upper vertex, to which we refer as the “emission particle”. We find that at leading power in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ all long-distance contributions to the decay amplitudes can be factorized into semileptonic form factors and meson light-cone distribution amplitudes, which are much simpler quantities than the nonleptonic amplitudes themselves. A graphical representation of the resulting “factorization formula” is shown on the right-hand side in Fig. 1. The physical picture underlying factorization is color transparency.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ If the emission particle is a light meson, its constituents carry large energy of order $`m_b`$ and are nearly collinear. Soft gluons coupling to this system see only its net zero color charge and hence decouple. Interactions with the color dipole of the small $`q\overline{q}`$-pair are power suppressed in the heavy-quark limit.

For $`B`$ decays into final states containing a heavy charm meson and a light meson the factorization formula takes the form

$$D^{()+}L^{}|O_i|\overline{B}_d=\underset{j}{}F_j^{BD^{()}}f_L\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\text{d}uT_{ij}^\mathrm{I}(u)\mathrm{\Phi }_L(u)+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}}{m_b}\right),$$
(2)
where $`O_i`$ is an operator in the effective weak Hamiltonian (1), $`F_j^{BD^{()}}`$ are transition form factors (evaluated at $`q^2=m_L^20`$), $`f_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L`$ are the decay constant and leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitude of the light meson, and $`T_{ij}^\mathrm{I}`$ are process-dependent hard-scattering kernels. For decays into final states containing two light mesons there is a second type of contribution to the factorization formula, which involves a hard interaction with the spectator quark in the $`B`$ meson. This is shown by the second graph on the right-hand side in Fig. 1. Below we focus first on $`\overline{B}D^{()}L`$ decays (with $`L`$ a light meson), where this second term is power suppressed and can be neglected. Decays into two light final-state mesons are more complicated $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and will be discussed briefly in Sect. 4. A more detailed account of the conceptual foundations of the QCD factorization approach has been presented by Beneke at this Workshop $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The factorization formula for nonleptonic decays provides a model-independent basis for the analysis of these processes in an expansion in powers and logarithms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$. At leading power, but to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$, the decay amplitudes assume the factorized form shown in (2). Having such a formalism based on power counting in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ is of great importance to the theoretical description of hadronic weak decays, since it provides a well-defined limit of QCD in which these processes admit a rigorous, theoretical description. (For instance, the possibility to compute systematically $`O(\alpha _s)`$ corrections to “naive factorization”, which emerges as the leading term in the heavy-quark limit, solves the old problem of renormalization-scale and scheme dependences of nonleptonic amplitudes.) The usefulness of this new scheme may be compared with the usefulness of the heavy-quark effective theory for the analysis of exclusive semileptonic decays of heavy mesons, or of the heavy-quark expansion for the analysis of inclusive decay rates. In all three cases, it is the fact that hadronic uncertainties can be eliminated up to power corrections in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ that has advanced our ability to control theoretical errors.

It must be stressed, however, that we are just beginning to explore the theory of nonleptonic $`B`$ decays. Some important conceptual problems remain to be better understood. In the next few years it will be important to further develop the approach. This should include an all-orders proof of factorization at leading power, the development of a formalism for dealing with power corrections to factorization, understanding the light-cone structure of heavy mesons, and understanding the relevance (or irrelevance) of Sudakov form factors. Also, we must gauge the accuracy of the approach by learning about the magnitude of corrections to the heavy-quark limit from extensive comparisons of theoretical predictions with data.

As experience with previous heavy-quark expansions has shown, this is going to be a long route. Yet, already we have obtained important insights. Before turning to specific applications, let us mention three points here:

1. Corrections to “naive factorization” (usually called “nonfactorizable effects”) are process dependent, in contrast with a basic assumption underlying models of “generalized factorization”.

2. The physics of nonleptonic decays is both rich and complicated. There may, in general, be an interplay of several small parameters (Wilson coefficients, CKM factors, $`1/N_c`$, etc.) in addition to the small parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ relevant to QCD factorization. Also, several not-so-well-known input parameters (e.g., heavy-to-light form factors and light-cone distribution amplitudes) introducing numerical uncertainties in the predictions.

3. Strong-interaction phases arising from final-state interactions are suppressed in the heavy-quark limit. More precisely, the imaginary parts of nonleptonic decay amplitudes are suppressed by at least one power of $`\alpha _s(m_b)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$. At leading power, the phases are calculable from the imaginary parts of the hard-scattering kernels in the factorization formula.

## 3 Applications to $`\overline{𝑩}_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝑳^{\mathbf{}}`$ Decays

Our result for the nonleptonic $`\overline{B}_dD^{()+}L^{}`$ decay amplitudes (with $`L`$ a light meson) can be compactly expressed in terms of the matrix elements of a “transition operator”

$$𝒯=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ud}^{}V_{cb}\left[a_1(DL)Q_Va_1(D^{}L)Q_A\right],$$
(3)
where the hadronic matrix elements of the operators $`Q_V=\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu b\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u`$ and $`Q_A=\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5b\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u`$ are understood to be evaluated in factorized form. Eq. (3) defines the quantities $`a_1(D^{()}L)`$, which include the leading “nonfactorizable” corrections, in a renormalization-group invariant way. To leading power in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ these quantities should not be interpreted as phenomenological parameters (as is usually done), because they are dominated by hard gluon exchange and thus calculable in QCD. At next-to-leading order in $`\alpha _s`$ we obtain $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$a_1(D^{()}L)=\overline{C}_1(m_b)+\frac{\overline{C}_2(m_b)}{N_c}\left[1+\frac{C_F\alpha _s(m_b)}{4\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\text{d}uF(u,\pm z)\mathrm{\Phi }_L(u)\right],$$
(4)
where $`\overline{C}_i(m_b)`$ are the so-called “renormalization-scheme independent” Wilson coefficients, and the upper (lower) sign in the second argument of the function $`F(u,\pm z)`$ refers to a $`D`$ ($`D^{}`$) meson in the final state. The exact expression for this function is known but not relevant to our discussion here. Note that the coefficients $`a_1(DL)`$ and $`a_1(D^{}L)`$ are nonuniversal, i.e., they are explicitly dependent on the nature of the final-state mesons. Politzer and Wise have computed the “nonfactorizable” vertex corrections to the decay rate ratio of $`\overline{B}_dD^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{B}_dD^+\pi ^{}`$.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ This requires the symmetric part (with respect to $`u1u`$) of the difference $`F(u,z)F(u,z)`$. We agree with their result.

The expressions for the decay amplitudes obtained by evaluating the hadronic matrix elements of the transition operator $`𝒯`$ involve products of CKM matrix elements, light-meson decay constants, $`\overline{B}D^{()}`$ transition form factors, and the QCD parameters $`a_1(D^{()}L)`$. A numerical analysis shows that $`|a_1|=1.055\pm 0.025`$ for the decays considered below. Below we will use this as our central value.

### 3.1 Tests of factorization

A particularly clean test of our predictions is obtained by relating the $`\overline{B}_dD^+L^{}`$ decay rates to the differential semileptonic $`\overline{B}_dD^+l^{}\nu `$ decay rate evaluated at $`q^2=m_L^2`$. In this way the parameters $`|a_1|`$ can be measured directly, since $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^+L^{})}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_dD^+l^{}\overline{\nu })/dq^2|_{q^2=m_L^2}}=6\pi ^2|V_{ud}|^2f_L^2|a_1(D^{}L)|^2.$$
(5)
With our result for $`a_1`$ this relation becomes a prediction based on first principles of QCD. This is to be contrasted with the usual interpretation of this formula, where $`a_1`$ plays the role of a phenomenological parameter that is fitted from data.

Using results reported by the CLEO Collaboration,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ we find

$$|a_1(D^{}\pi )|=1.08\pm 0.07,|a_1(D^{}\rho )|=1.09\pm 0.10,|a_1(D^{}a_1)|=1.08\pm 0.11,$$
(6)
in good agreement with our prediction. It is reassuring that the data show no evidence for large power corrections to our results. However, a further improvement in the experimental accuracy would be desirable in order to become sensitive to process-dependent, nonfactorizable effects.

### 3.2 Predictions for class-I decay amplitudes

We now consider a larger set of so-called class-I decays of the form $`\overline{B}_dD^{()+}L^{}`$, all of which are governed by the transition operator (3). In Tab. 1 we compare the QCD factorization predictions with experimental data. As previously we work in the heavy-quark limit, i.e., our predictions are model independent up to corrections suppressed by at least one power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$. There is good agreement between our predictions and the data within experimental errors, which however are still large. It would be desirable to reduce these errors to the percent level. (Note that we have not attempted to adjust the semileptonic form factors $`F_+^{\overline{B}D}`$ and $`A_0^{\overline{B}D^{}}`$ entering our results so as to obtain a best fit to the data.)

The observation that the experimental data on class-I decays into heavy–light final states show good agreement with our predictions may be taken as (circumstantial) evidence that in these decays there are no unexpectedly large power corrections. In our recent work $`^\mathrm{?}`$ we have addressed the important question of power corrections theoretically by providing estimates for two sources of power-suppressed effects: weak annihilation and spectator interactions. We stress that a complete account of power corrections to the heavy-quark limit cannot be performed in a systematic way, since these effects are no longer dominated by hard gluon exchange. However, we believe that our estimates are nevertheless instructive.

We parameterize the annihilation contribution to the $`\overline{B}_dD^+\pi ^{}`$ decay amplitude in terms of an amplitude $`A`$ such that $`𝒜(\overline{B}_dD^+\pi ^{})=T+A`$, where $`T`$ is the “tree topology”, which contains the dominant factorizable contribution. We find that $`A/T0.04`$. We have also obtained an estimate of nonfactorizable spectator interactions, which are part of $`T`$, finding that $`T_{\mathrm{spec}}/T_{\mathrm{lead}}0.03`$. In both cases, the results exhibit the expected linear power suppression in the heavy-quark limit. We conclude that the typical size of power corrections in class-I decays into heavy–light final states is at the level of 10% or less, and thus our predictions for the values and the near universality of the parameters $`a_1`$ governing these decay modes appear robust.

## 4 QCD Factorization in Charmless Hadronic $`𝑩`$ Decays

The observation of rare charmless $`B`$ decays into $`\pi K`$ and $`\pi \pi `$ final states has resulted in a large amount of theoretical and phenomenological work that attempts to interpret these observations in terms of the factorization approximation, or in terms of general parameterizations of the decay amplitudes. A detailed understanding of these amplitudes would help us to pin down the value of the CKM angle $`\gamma =\text{arg}(V_{ub}^{})`$ using only data on CP-averaged branching fractions. Here we briefly summarize the most important consequences of the QCD factorization approach for the $`\pi K`$ and $`\pi \pi `$ final states.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

To leading order in an expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$, the $`B\pi K`$ matrix elements obey the factorization formula shown on the right-hand side in Fig. 1:

$`\pi K|O_i|B`$ $`=`$ $`F_+^{B\pi }f_KT_{K,i}^\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Phi }_K+F_+^{BK}f_\pi T_{\pi ,i}^\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi `$ (7)
$`+f_Bf_Kf_\pi T_i^{\mathrm{II}}\mathrm{\Phi }_B\mathrm{\Phi }_K\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi ,`$
where the $``$-products imply an integration over the light-cone momentum fractions of the constituent quarks inside the mesons. Our results are based on hard-scattering kernels including all corrections of order $`\alpha _s`$. Compared to our previous discussion of $`B\pi \pi `$ decays,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ the present analysis incorporates three new ingredients: the matrix elements of electroweak penguin operators (for $`\pi K`$ modes), hard-scattering kernels for asymmetric light-cone distributions, and the complete set of “chirally enhanced” $`1/m_b`$ corrections. The second and third items have not been considered in other generalizations $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ of Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to the $`\pi K`$ final states. The third one, in particular, is essential for estimating some of the theoretical uncertainties of the approach. For completeness, we note that the predictions from QCD factorization differ in essential aspects from those obtained in the conventional hard-scattering approach.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

Following Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$, we have obtained the coefficients $`a_i(\pi K)`$ (with $`i=1,\mathrm{},10`$) of the effective, factorized “transition operator” defined analogously to the case of $`B\pi \pi `$ decays, but augmented by coefficients related to electroweak penguin contributions. Chirally enhanced corrections arise from twist-3 two-particle light-cone distribution amplitudes, whose normalization involves the quark condensate. The relevant parameter, $`2\mu _\pi /m_b=4\overline{q}q/(f_\pi ^2m_b)`$, is formally of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$, but large numerically. The coefficients $`a_6`$ and $`a_8`$ are multiplied by this parameter. There are also additional chirally enhanced corrections to the spectator-interaction term in (7), which turn out to be the more important effect. In both cases, these corrections involve logarithmically divergent integrals, which violate factorization. For instance, for matrix elements of $`VA`$ operators the hard spectator interaction is proportional to ($`\overline{u}1u`$, $`\overline{v}1v`$)

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{du}{\overline{u}}\frac{dv}{\overline{v}}\mathrm{\Phi }_K(u)\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi (v)+\frac{2\mu _\pi }{m_b}\frac{\overline{u}}{u}\right)$$
(8)
when the spectator quark goes to the pion. (Here we used that the twist-3 distribution amplitudes can be taken to be the asymptotic ones when one neglects twist-3 corrections without the chiral enhancement.) The divergence of the $`v`$-integral in the second term as $`\overline{v}0`$ implies that it is dominated by soft gluon exchange between the spectator quark and the quarks that form the kaon. We therefore treat the divergent integral $`X=_0^1(dv/\overline{v})`$ as an unknown parameter (different for the penguin and hard-scattering contributions), which may in principle be complex owing to soft rescattering in higher orders. In our numerical analysis we set $`X=\mathrm{ln}(m_B/0.35\text{GeV})+r`$, where $`r`$ is chosen randomly inside a circle in the complex plane of radius 3 (“realistic”) or 6 (“conservative”). Our results also depend on the $`B`$-meson parameter $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`\lambda _B`$, which we vary between 0.2 and 0.5 GeV. Finally, there is in some cases a nonnegligible dependence of the coefficients $`a_i(\pi K)`$ on the renormalization scale, which we vary between $`m_b/2`$ and $`2m_b`$.

We take $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.085`$ and $`m_s(2\text{GeV})=110`$MeV as fixed input to our analysis, noting that ultimately these Standard Model parameters, along with the CP-violating phase $`\gamma `$, might be extracted from a simultaneous fit to the $`B\pi K`$ and $`B\pi \pi `$ decay rates. We now summarize our main results.

### 4.1 Results on $`SU(3)`$ breaking

Bounds on $`\gamma `$ derived from ratios of CP-averaged $`B\pi K`$ decay rates,$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ as well as the determination of $`\gamma `$ using the method of Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$, rely on an estimate of $`SU(3)`$ flavor-symmetry violations. We find that “nonfactorizable” $`SU(3)`$-breaking effects (i.e., effects not accounted for by the different decay constants and form factors of pions and kaons in the conventional factorization approximation) do not exceed the level of a few percent.

### 4.2 Amplitude parameters

The approach discussed here allows us to calculate the amplitudes for $`B\pi K`$ and $`B\pi \pi `$ decays in terms of form factors and light-cone distribution amplitudes. Here we focus on decays whose branching ratios have already been measured. We write

$$𝒜(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=T\left[e^{i\gamma }+(P/T)_{\pi \pi }\right],$$
(9)
and parameterize the $`B\pi K`$ amplitudes by $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`𝒜(B^+\pi ^+K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`P\left(1\epsilon _ae^{i\eta }e^{i\gamma }\right),`$
$`\sqrt{2}𝒜(B^+\pi ^0K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`P\left[1\epsilon _ae^{i\eta }e^{i\gamma }\epsilon _{3/2}e^{i\varphi }(e^{i\gamma }qe^{i\omega })\right],`$
$`𝒜(B^0\pi ^{}K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`P\left[1\epsilon _ae^{i\eta }e^{i\gamma }\epsilon _Te^{i\varphi _T}(e^{i\gamma }q_Ce^{i\omega _C})\right],`$
$`\sqrt{2}𝒜(B^0\pi ^0K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(B^+\pi ^+K^0)+\sqrt{2}𝒜(B^+\pi ^0K^+)`$ (10)
$`𝒜(B^0\pi ^{}K^+).`$
Table 2 summarizes the numerical values for the amplitude parameters for the conservative variation of $`X`$, and variation of the other parameters as explained above. The leading-order results correspond to the conventional factorization approximation at the fixed scale $`\mu =m_b`$. They are strongly scale dependent. In comparison, the scale-dependence of the next-to-leading order results is small, with the exception of $`q_Ce^{i\omega _C}`$. We stress that the ranges shown may overestimate the theoretical uncertainty, since the parameter $`X`$ may ultimately be constrained from a subset of branching fractions. This is true, in particular, for the quantity $`\epsilon _{3/2}`$ in Tab. 2, which can be extracted from data.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

### 4.3 Ratios of CP-averaged rates

Since the relevant form factor $`F_+^{B\pi }(0)`$ is not well known, we consider only ratios of CP-averaged branching ratios here. We display these as functions of the weak phase $`\gamma `$ in Fig. 2. For comparison, we show the data on the various ratios obtained using results reported by the CLEO Collaboration $`^\mathrm{?}`$. We also indicate the very recent results reported by the BaBar and Belle Collaborations at the ICHEP2000 Conference.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ From the plots and Tab. 2 it is apparent that the corrections with respect to the conventional factorization approximation are significant (and important to reduce the renormalization-scale dependence). Despite this fact, the qualitative  pattern that emerges for the set of $`B\pi K`$ and $`\pi \pi `$ decay modes is similar to that in conventional factorization. In particular, the penguin–tree interference is constructive (destructive) in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ ($`B\pi ^{}K^+`$) decays if $`\gamma <90^{}`$. Taking the currently favored range $`\gamma =(60\pm 20)^{}`$, we find the following robust predictions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Br}(\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\text{Br}(\pi ^{}K^\pm )}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.5\text{}1.9[0.25\pm 0.10],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Br}(\pi ^{}K^\pm )}{2\text{Br}(\pi ^0K^0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.9\text{}1.4[0.59\pm 0.27],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\text{Br}(\pi ^0K^\pm )}{\text{Br}(\pi ^\pm K^0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.9\text{}1.3[1.27\pm 0.47],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{B^+}}{\tau _{B^0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Br}(\pi ^{}K^\pm )}{\text{Br}(\pi ^\pm K^0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.6\text{}1.0[1.00\pm 0.30].`$ (11)
The first ratio is clearly in disagreement with current CLEO data $`^\mathrm{?}`$ shown in square brackets. However, there is good agreement with the recent results $`^\mathrm{?}`$ reported by BaBar ($`0.74\pm 0.29`$) and Belle ($`0.36\pm 0.26`$).

The near equality of the second and third ratios in (4.3) is a consequence of isospin symmetry.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ We find $`\text{Br}(B\pi ^0K^0)=(4.5\pm 2.5)\times 10^6\times (|V_{cb}|/0.04)^2\times [F_+^{B\pi }(0)/0.3]^2`$ almost independently of $`\gamma `$. This is three time smaller than the central value reported by CLEO $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`(14.6_{5.13.3}^{+5.9+2.4})\times 10^6`$, and four times smaller than the central value reported by BELLE $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`(21.0_{7.82.3}^{+9.3+2.5})\times 10^6`$. It will be interesting to follow how the comparison between data and theory will develop as the data become more precise.

### 4.4 CP asymmetry in $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay

The stability of the prediction for the $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ amplitude suggests that the CKM angle $`\alpha `$ can be extracted from the time-dependent mixing-induced CP asymmetry in this decay mode, without using isospin analysis. Figure 3 displays the coefficient $`S`$ of $`\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}t)`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )`$ for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )=0.75`$. For some values of $`S`$ there is a two-fold ambiguity (assuming all angles are between $`0^{}`$ and $`180^{}`$). A consistency check of the approach could be obtained, in principle, from the coefficient of the $`\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}t)`$ term, which is given by the direct CP asymmetry in this decay.

## 5 Summary and Outlook

With the recent commissioning of the $`B`$ factories and the planned emphasis on heavy-flavor physics in future collider experiments, the role of $`B`$ decays in providing fundamental tests of the Standard Model and potential signatures of New Physics will continue to grow. In many cases the principal source of systematic uncertainty is a theoretical one, namely our inability to quantify the nonperturbative QCD effects present in these decays. This is true, in particular, for almost all measurements of direct CP violation. Our work provides a rigorous framework for the evaluation of strong-interaction effects for a large class of exclusive, two-body nonleptonic decays of $`B`$ mesons. It gives a well-founded field-theoretic basis for phenomenological studies of exclusive hadronic $`B`$ decays and a formal justification for the ideas of factorization.

It is our belief that the factorization formula (2) and its generalization to decays into two light mesons will form a useful basis for future phenomenological studies of nonleptonic $`B`$ decays. We stress, however, that a considerable amount of conceptual work remains to be completed. Theoretical investigations along the lines discussed here should be pursued with vigor. We are confident that, ultimately, this research will result in a theory of nonleptonic $`B`$ decays.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank M. Beneke, G. Buchalla and C. Sachrajda for an ongoing collaboration on the subject of this talk. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.

## References


text:
# Multiple vacua in two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory

## 1 Introduction

The vacuum structure in non-abelian quantum gauge theories is still far from being satisfactorily understood. Many important aspects of four-dimensional QCD, such as chiral symmetry breaking, are believed to be related to the existence of multiple vacuum states (labelled by a topological parameter, the $`\theta `$ angle) and to quantum tunnelling between them mediated by instanton effects. Unfortunately four-dimensional QCD appears too complicated to deal with. Nevertheless, in the Light-Front (LF) formulation of a Quantum Field Theory, where the theory is quantized not on a space-like surface but on a light-like one (see  for an extensive review), at least in principle, the exact ground state is described as a simple Fock vacuum. Actually, in four-dimensional gauge theories such an approach is far from being simple, due to the intricate dynamics of the so-called zero-modes. This problem does not exist in two dimensions (zero-modes are related to transverse degrees of freedom in LF quantization) and recently it has been shown  that, at the perturbative level, LF quantization encodes a complicated instanton dynamics present in the equal-time (ET) formulation. Therefore two-dimensional gauge theories candidate themselves as the simplest models in which the influence of topological parameters on physical quantities can be probed.

## 2 $`𝒌`$-sectors and instantons

The best example of a theory which admits multiple vacua and shares relevant features with four-dimensional gauge theories is $`QCD_2`$ with adjoint fermions, as noticed many years ago by Witten . What is remarkable is that adjoint matter in some sense mimics transverse degrees of freedom, thus inducing a complex behaviour. We limit ourselves to investigate the $`SU(N)`$ case when fermionic dynamics is essentially frozen, considering infinitely massive adjoint quarks and studying the static potential between them. Since Yang-Mills fields transform in the adjoint representation, the true local symmetry is the quotient of $`SU(N)`$ by its center, $`Z_N`$. A standard result in homotopy theory tells us that the quotient is not simply connected, the first homotopy group being $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(SU(N)/Z_N)=Z_N.`$ This result is of particular relevance for the vacuum structure of a two-dimensional gauge theory: in the case at hand we have exactly $`N`$ inequivalent quantizations, parametrized by a single integer $`k`$, taking the values $`k=0,1,..,N1`$. Concerning the pure $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory, the explicit solution when $`k`$-states are taken into account was presented in Ref. : their main result, the heat-kernel propagator on the cylinder, allows to compute partition functions and Wilson loops winding around a smooth non self-intersecting closed contour on the sphere $`S^2`$. Wilson loops, in this case, strongly depend on $`k`$ and, for the theory defined on the plane, read

$`𝒲_k(A)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^21}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{kN(N+2)(Nk)}{(k+1)(Nk+1)}}e^{\frac{g^2A}{2}(N+1)}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(N+1)(Nk1)}{k+1}}e^{\frac{g^2A}{2}(Nk)}+{\displaystyle \frac{(N+1)(k1)}{Nk+1}}e^{\frac{g^2A}{2}k}],`$
$`A`$ being the area singled out by the loop. The result (1) can be obtained starting from the true $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ theory on the sphere , in the decompactification limit or directly on the plane, using the procedure of , working with $`SU(N)`$ and simulating the $`k`$-sectors with a Wilson loop at infinity in the $`k`$fundamental representation.

On the other hand we checked that the very same result can be obtained through a perturbative resummation  of the expectation value of an adjoint loop enclosed in an asymptotic $`k`$-fundamental loop on the plane (at least up to $`O(g^4)`$), when the theory is quantized in the light-cone gauge $`A_{}=0`$ and on the light front (LF). Hence the perturbative LF formulation seems to capture the exact result, even in presence of a non-trivial topology.

As first pointed out by Witten , one can represent the Wilson loop $`𝒲_k`$ on $`S^2`$ as a sum over instanton contributions. By instanton we mean a non-trivial classical solution of the Yang-Mills equations on $`S^2`$, which takes the form of an Abelian Dirac monopole embedded into the non-abelian gauge group. At variance with the $`SU(N)`$ or $`U(N)`$ case, where any of such configurations is characterized by a set of $`N`$ integers $`(n_1,\mathrm{},n_N)`$, in the $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ case, by Poisson-resumming on the sphere, instanton numbers are seen to be generalized to rational values by the effect of $`k`$. The set $`(0,\mathrm{},0)`$, representing the topologically trivial solution, turns out to be reproduced if integration over the group manifold is replaced by integration over the tangent group algebra. In Ref.  it was shown, for the case of a Wilson loop in the fundamental representation of the group $`U(N)`$, that the zero-instanton sector can be obtained by a bona fide perturbative calculation for the theory quantized in the light-cone gauge by means of equal-time (ET) canonical commutators. In the case of a Wilson loop in the adjoint representation for the $`SU(N)`$ theory, with $`k`$-sectors taken into account, an intriguing interplay occurs between instantons and $`k`$-states and we expect that the truly perturbative physics ignore the existence of the $`k`$ parameter. In fact the zero-instanton limit does not depend on $`k`$ and still reproduces the ET computation (in the decompactification limit) without the loop at infinity

$`𝒲_k^{(0)}(A)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{𝒵(N+1)}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}dz_1\mathrm{}dz_N\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}z_j^2]\times `$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[ig(z_1z_2)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}}\right]\mathrm{\Delta }^2(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N),`$ (2)
where $`𝒵=𝒟F\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}F^2).`$

Next, we examined the correlation on the sphere between two non-intersecting (nested) loops, one in the adjoint representation and the other in the $`k`$-fundamental one. Our purpose in so doing was to explore to what extent this procedure reproduces the result we obtained working with a single loop in the adjoint representation on the sphere in a $`k`$-sector. We found that Witten’s conjecture, namely, in our language, that the $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ theory on the plane in a $`k`$-sector is equivalent to the usual $`SU(N)`$ theory in presence of a $`k`$-fundamental Wilson loop at infinity, is indeed verified. However this is true only for the exact solution, and only after decompactification of the sphere.

We now address the issue of singling the zero-instanton (trivial) sector out for the adjoint loop enclosed in a $`k`$-fundamental one. The result we obtained  shows the following basic features:

1. for $`k0`$, it is different from the single loop case;
2. although string tensions are independent of $`k`$, the polynomial coefficients do depend on it.

One should not be too surprised that the instanton structures of the two cases, as long as one remains on the sphere, are completely different. $`\mathrm{𝑂𝑛𝑙𝑦}`$ for the complete theory on the plane (i.e. full-instanton resummed and then decompactified) the equivalence between $`k`$-sectors and theories with $`k`$-fundamental Wilson loops at infinity holds; but there is no reason why this miracle should occur when the two (different) zero-instanton sectors are compared.

We finally checked that the zero-instanton contribution to the expectation value of an adjoint loop enclosed in a $`k`$-fundamental one on the plane is consistent, at least up to $`O(g^4)`$, with the perturbative computation where the ET propagator is used.

At this stage, we think we have set a solid ground for the most interesting future development, namely the introduction of dynamical fermions, with a particular focus on the generation and on the properties of a chiral condensate.


text:
# Induced gravity with complex metric field

## I Introduction

It is known that the metric tensor field associated with a general Riemannian space  is real by construction. Recently, the complex extension of the Einstein gravity for the non-commutative gravity  has attracted lots of attention. The complex metric may or may not be realized by our physical nature. It is, however, interesting by itself to investigate the possible existence of a complex counterpart for the real metric field in curved space . In this paper, we will take a different approach and extract a simple phase factor out of this extended complex metric field. We will hence study the possible impact of this phase field.

One can simply generalize the real metric field to a complex metric field by assuming $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{g}_{\mu \nu }+i\gamma _{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}[i\theta _{\mu \nu }]`$ with both $`\mathrm{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ indicating real symmetric tensor fields. The invariant length can be defined solely by the modulus, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ of the complex metric field $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }`$, i.e. $`ds^2g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$. In addition, the inverse metric $`𝐠^{\mu \nu }`$ can be defined as the inverse of the matrix $`𝐠`$ where $`(𝐠)_{\mu \nu }𝐠_{\mu \nu }`$. In another word, we define $`𝐠^{\mu \nu }`$ by $`𝐠^{\mu \nu }𝐠_{\nu \alpha }=\delta _\alpha ^\mu `$ with $`\delta _\alpha ^\mu `$ the Kroneker delta.

If we define the spin connection as the original Christoffel symbol with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ replaced by $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }`$, one expects that the effective linearized real Lagrangian density for the complex metric tensor field associated with the Einstein-Hilbert action $`\sqrt{𝐠}R`$ should read

$$=\frac{1}{4}𝐡^{\mu \nu }^2𝐡_{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
when one choose the Einstein gauge Re $`[_\mu 𝐡^{\mu \nu }]=0`$. Here we have assumed the expansion $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+𝐡_{\mu \nu }`$ against the Minckowski background. Note further that one can only perform gauge (coordinate) transformation with four parameters in $`4`$-dimensional real space. Therefore, one can only take care of four of the graviton fields when a gauge is chosen. In order to treat the complex metric theory similar to the real metric theory, one would have to extend the real spacetime to a complex spacetime. This is however not our approach.

In order to work on a real-valued Lagrangian density, one would have to take the real part of the complex Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian as the effective Lagrangian. The real part consists, however, of an original graviton field and another ghost field with a negative kinetic energy term according to Eq. (1). Hence it appears that a straightforward generalization of the complex-extension of the graviton field will not bring in much physical impact.

On the other hand, it is comparably easy to extract information about a real scalar field associated with the common phase factor $`\varphi `$ of the phase factors by assuming $`\theta _{\mu \nu }=\varphi `$ for all $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$. In another word, we propose to work on a simple generalization of the metric tensor by assuming $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{g}_{\mu \nu }+i\gamma _{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi ]`$ for all $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$. To be more specifically, we will assume that $`\theta _{\mu \nu }=\varphi `$ for all $`\mu ,\nu `$. The resulting effective Lagrangian can be shown to give

$$\sqrt{𝐠}𝐑=\sqrt{g}\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi ][R+\frac{3}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi ].$$
(2)
One can take the effective Lagrangian as the real part of Eq. (2) by averaging it with its complex conjugate. The final result reads

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{1}{2}[\sqrt{𝐠}𝐑+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]=\sqrt{g}\mathrm{cos}\varphi [R+\frac{3}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi ].$$
(3)
Note that the effective Lagrangian is invariant under a discrete transformation $`\varphi \varphi +2n\pi `$ for all $`n𝐙`$. In addition, we will assume that the scalar field is bounded in a cycle around some minimum $`\varphi _0`$ by, for example, $`|\varphi \varphi _0|<\pi /2`$. In fact, we need to ensure that the gravitational constant related to $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ remains finite for all era when this effective theory is in charge. One also notes that the coefficient of the inverse of the gravitational constant $`1/G\mathrm{cos}\varphi 1\varphi ^2/2`$ if $`\varphi `$ is close to zero. The theory in this limit has been the focus of recent activities .

A more detailed investigation shows that the overall common phase field $`\varphi `$ associated with the complex metric field resembles the Weyl’s measuring field . In fact, this $`\varphi `$ field behaves similar to the imaginary extension of the Weyl’s original idea. Therefore, one can introduce the associated gauge transformation by $`\varphi _\theta =\varphi +\theta `$ such that $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }^\theta =𝐠_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}[i\theta ]`$. There then requires the existence of a gauge field associated with this phase transformation such that $`A_\mu ^\theta =A_\mu +_\mu \theta `$. One must also replace all derivative in the real action with covariant derivative, namely, $`_\mu g_{\alpha \beta }_\mu g_{\alpha \beta }(_\mu iA_\mu )g_{\alpha \beta }`$. The real Hilbert-Einstein action from Eq. (2) can then be shown to give an effective quadratic interaction term of the following form $`3A_\mu A^\mu /2`$. This introduces a negative mass-square term for the gauge field $`A_\mu `$. Hence the associated gauge field is a tachyon. This indicates that the gauge extension from this method does not appear to be helpful unless a tachyon is in need. But the effective theory without gauge extension still provides a natural source of the scalar field one is looking for.

For the fermionic part, one would have

$$_\psi \frac{1}{2}[\sqrt{𝐠}(i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu 𝐃_\mu \mathrm{\Psi })+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.]=\sqrt{g}\{\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{3}{2}\varphi ][i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi +\frac{9}{4}_\mu \varphi J^\mu ]+c.c.\}$$
(4)
by writing $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}[i3\varphi /2]\psi `$ for any spin $`1/2`$ spinor field $`\psi `$. Here $`D_\mu \psi (_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^{bc}e_b^\nu D_\mu e_{\nu c})\psi `$, with $`e_a^\mu `$ denoting the vierbein such that $`e_a^\mu e_b^\nu \eta ^{ab}=g^{\mu \nu }`$ . Here $`a,b,c`$ denote flat space indices. Moreover, $`J^\mu i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$ is the charged current for the fermion field $`\psi `$.

One remarks here that by writing $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}[i3\varphi /2]\psi `$, one simply splits the fermionic field into the product of a phase factor and a physical fermionic field. We do this because there is no clear guideline for us to do the separation. The only difference will be on the coefficient of the last term in Eq. (4) if we choose, for example, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}[ik\varphi ]\psi `$ for $`k3/2`$. In fact the coefficient will be $`k+3/4`$ instead of $`9/4`$. In addition, the choice $`k=3/2`$ we made make the extracted phase factor behave similar to a complex generalization of the Weyl theory. To be more specifically, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\theta }=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}[3(\mathrm{\Lambda }+i\theta )/2]`$ under a combined complex Weyl transformation $`𝐠_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\theta }=𝐠_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{exp}[(2\mathrm{\Lambda }+i\theta )]`$ . .

Note further that the last term is a derivative coupling that has been used in the study of $`\pi `$-$`N`$ scattering  if a chiral current $`J_\mu ^5`$ is present. This kind of chiral interaction will also be induced when a $`\gamma ^5`$ coupling is present in the fermionic Lagrangian $`_\psi `$. Note that the $`\gamma ^5`$ matrix is defined to be a pseudo scalar by $`\gamma ^5ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta /4!`$. Therefore, the complex extension of the $`\gamma ^5`$ matrix does not contain any phase field ($`\varphi `$) contribution. Hence, one can directly add chiral term in above fermionic equations. Note again that he coefficient of the derivative coupling term will be different if we choose, for example, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}[ik\varphi /2]\psi `$. The similarity shown above indicates that there is something important hidden in the complex metric extension of the Einstein theory.

One can put it in another way by saying that the scalar filed can be recombined to act as a phase component of the complex graviton field. Nonetheless, we expect that the resulting scalar field can be an alternative for the physical evolution of our early universe. In order to learn more about the impact of this model, we will study a few simple models both in a spherically symmetric space and in a homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) space  .

One knows that many symmetries may not be realized by nature in the low energy regime . Hence, we will introduce an effective symmetry breaking potential $`V(\varphi )`$ to the system. In short, one will be working with the following model:

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{g}\mathrm{cos}\varphi [R+\frac{3}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi ]V.$$
(5)
One can show that the equation of motion becomes

$`\mathrm{cos}\varphi G_{\mu \nu }+(g_{\mu \nu }D^2D_\mu _\nu )\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\varphi )^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +V]`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi [R+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\varphi )^2]+3D^\mu (\mathrm{cos}\varphi _\mu \varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`V_\varphi `$ (7)
Here $`G_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }R/2R_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the Einstein tensor. One can also derive the following equation from eliminating the $`R`$-term in the trace of the $`g_{\mu \nu }`$-equation and the $`\varphi `$ equation. The result is quite similar to the conventional constraint equation in the scale invariant theory :

$$D^2\varphi =\frac{1}{3}[V_\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi +2V\mathrm{sin}\varphi ].$$
(8)
Note that a symmetry breaking potential of the form $`V=V(\mathrm{cos}\varphi )`$ will be introduced in the course of proving the no-hair theorem for a spherically symmetric space. Hence we will denote $`V^{}=V(\mathrm{cos}\varphi )/\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ and $`V_\varphi =V(\mathrm{cos}\varphi )/\varphi `$ respectively from now on throughout the rest of this paper. In addition, we will assume that the scalar field is bounded in a cycle around a minimum $`\varphi _0`$ by, for example, $`|\varphi \varphi _0|<\pi /2`$. This is to ensure that the gravitational constant related to $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ remains finite for all era when this effective theory is in charge. Following Ref. , we will assume a class of symmetry breaking potential as scaling potential if the potential $`V`$ satisfies the inequality $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi _0)[V^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi 2V]>0`$ for some constant $`\varphi _0`$, and for all $`\varphi `$. One can show that the no-hair theorem holds for this scalar field $`\varphi `$ under the effect of this sort of scaling potential. Indeed, the proof is quite similar to the proof shown in Ref. . The spherically symmetric metric is given by $`ds^2g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\mathrm{exp}[2A(r)]dt^2+\mathrm{exp}[2B(r)]dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in this paper. To be more specifically, one can show that

$$3_{r_H}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2\mathrm{exp}[AB]\mathrm{sin}\varphi \varphi ^2+_{r_H}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2\mathrm{exp}[A+B]\mathrm{sin}\varphi [\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi _0][V^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi 2V]=0.$$
(9)
Note that both integrands are positive (negative) provided that $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi >0`$ ($`<0`$). Hence, both integrands have to be vanishing throughout all space exterior to the event horizon at $`r=r_H`$ where $`\mathrm{exp}[AB]|_{r_H}=0`$. Therefore, one shows that the no-hair theorem holds for all scaling potentials provided that $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ is bounded from approaching zero. Note that one can show that the symmetry breaking potential $`V_4=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi _0)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{ln}[\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi /\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _0](\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _0)`$ are all scaling potentials. In these models one can easily constrain the scalar field from touching zeros of $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. One also notes that in the limit $`\varphi 0`$ and $`\varphi _00`$, the potential $`V_4=(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi _0)^2`$ reduces to the standard symmetry breaking potential $`(\varphi ^2\varphi _0^2)^2/4`$. Hence the symmetry breaking potential $`V_4`$ introduced here is nothing more than a simple generalization of the standard $`\varphi ^4`$ SSB potential.

On the other hand, one has

$`H_0^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0`$ $``$ $`V(\varphi _0)/6`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0[2H_0^2]+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _0\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}H_0\dot{\varphi }_0/2`$ $`=`$ $`V_\varphi /6`$ (11)
in the FRW space under slow rollover approximation such that $`H_0|\dot{\varphi }_0|`$ and $`H_0|\dot{\varphi }_0||\ddot{\varphi }_0|`$. Here the FRW metric is given by $`ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)[dr^2/(1k/r^2)+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ with $`H\dot{a}/a`$ the Hubble parameter. In addition, $`H=H_0`$ denotes a de Sitter space. Assuming that $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _00`$, one can show that $`H_0^2V(\varphi _0)/6`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }V_\varphi /9H_0`$. This is similar to the ordinary gravity system studied in the literature.

In summary, one has shown that a class of complex metric field induces a phase field that behaves very much the way conventional scalar field. The generalization of this work to a more general form is still under investigation. The model studied here is a generalization of the Weyl’s conformal theory. The associated gauge field for the phase symmetry is, however, a tachyon. Therefore, the gauge symmetry corresponding to the phase generalization of the real metric field may not be gauged unless tachyon is in need. We extract, however, the effective real action from the bosonic sector and study its implication to the no-hair theorem and inflationary universe. It is shown that, as long as the scalar field one introduced is bounded to a single cycle of the corresponding cosine functional, this effective theory behaves similar to a conventional induced gravity model. Further applications to other fields of interest will be presented in a sequel to this paper.

## II Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by NSC under the contract number NSC88-2112-M009-001.