text:
# The mechanism of core-collapse supernovae and the ejection of heavy elements

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Wilson and collaborators (wilmay88 totsat98 ) have routinely obtained delayed supernova explosions by the neutrino-heating mechanism betwil85  for more than ten years in one-dimensional simulations. In order to get a sufficiently large neutrino-energy deposition for reviving the stalled shock, they assumed that neutron-finger convective instabilities boost the neutrino luminosities from the hot neutron star. Moreover, Mayle et. al. maytav93  used a special nuclear equation of state with a high abundance of pions in the nuclear matter to reproduce the explosion energy of SN 1987A. Both assumptions are not generally accepted. Therefore investigations of the neutrino-driven mechanism should be continued with making less controversial postulats about the involved physics.

Forced by observations of large-scale anisotropies and mixing in SN 1987A and directed by the fact that the neutrino-heating layer is convectively unstable bet90 , supernova modelers began to perform multi-dimensional simulations of the post-bounce supernova evolution and discovered that violent motions set in on a timescale relevant for the delayed mechanism (herben92 Shimizu et al. ). In fact, increasing the postshock pressure by rising, outward pushing neutrino-heated matter and allowing for simultaneous accretion (thus maintaining high accretion luminosities) and shock expansion (thus enlarging the layer of neutrino-energy deposition), this postshock convection turned out to have a very helpful influence on the explosion: Models which failed to blow up in spherical symmetry were found to succeed in two dimensions.

Making use of this effect and employing an advanced version of the Herant et. al. code herben94 , Fryer has started to explore a variety of progenitors to determine whether neutron stars or black holes are left behind as compact remnants fry99 . Fryer and Heger expanded the study to rotating stars fryheg00 , and most recently Fryer and Warren have finished the first full supernova simulations in three dimensions, finding good agreement with results that were obtained in the two-dimensional case frywar02 .

Though these simulations are undoubtedly pioneering first steps, they suffer from a major uncertainty: The transport of neutrinos in the supernova core is described in a much simplified way, using grey flux-limited diffusion and ignoring Doppler-shift and gravitational redshift effects on the neutrino spectrum. This approximation is too crude to allow for serious conclusions on the explosion mechanism. The importance of an accurate numerical description of the neutrino transport has repeatedly been pointed out by Bruenn and by Mezzacappa and collaborators (e.g., Messer et al. Liebendörfer et al. \[2002a\]).

For this reason, a new generation of supernova codes has been developed in the past years with the aim to replace the widely used (multi-group) flux-limited diffusion treatments (e.g., may85 coobar92 ) by a direct solution of the Boltzmann transport equation (yamjan99 ramjan00 ,Messer et al. , Mezzacappa et al. ). Progress was also made for including the effects of general relativity (GR) in a rigorous way in neutrino-hydrodynamics codes in spherical symmetry (Liebendörfer et al. Liebendörfer et al. \[2002b\]). Although improved flux limiters for the neutrino transport jan92  or two-moment closure schemes \[smicer97 , and references therein\] have been suggested and may work better than previously used flux limiting prescriptions (for an apparently successful new development in this direction, see the results by Bruenn shown in Ref. Liebendörfer et al. \[2002b\]), any such approximation has ultimately to be compared with Boltzmann solvers applied in dynamical supernova calculations.

In this conference contribution we shall summarize our efforts to combine a Boltzmann solver for the neutrino transport with a multi-dimensional hydrodynamics code, using a state-of-the-art description of neutrino-matter interactions and an approximation of GR which is (hopefully) sufficiently accurate to model supernova explosions and neutron star formation. First results of two-dimensional simulations with this new code named MuDBaTH (Multi-Dimensional Boltzmann Transport and Hydrodynamics) will also be presented.

## 2 A NEW RADIATION-HYDRODYNAMICS CODE FOR NEUTRINOS

For the integration of the equations of hydrodynamics we employ the Newtonian finite-volume code PROMETHEUS frymue89 , which was supplemented by additional problem specific features by Keil kei97 . PROMETHEUS is a direct Eulerian, time-explicit implementation of the Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) of Colella and Woodward colwoo84 .

The neutrino transport is done with the Boltzmann solver scheme that is described in much detail in Ref. ramjan02 . The integro-differential character of the Boltzmann equation is tamed by applying a variable Eddington factor closure to the neutrino energy and momentum equations (and the simultaneously integrated first and second order moment equations for neutrino number). The variable Eddington factor is determined from the solution of the Boltzmann equation and the system of Boltzmann equation and its moment equations is iterated until convergence is achieved. Employing this scheme in multi-dimensional simulations in spherical coordinates, we solve the moment equations on the different angular bins of the numerical grid but calculate the variable Eddington factor only once on an angularly averaged stellar background. This approximation is good only for situations without significant global deformations. Since the iteration of the Boltzmann equation has to be done only once per time step, appreciable amounts of computer time can be saved ramjan02 . We point out here that it turned out to be necessary to go an important step beyond this simple “ray-by-ray” approach. Physical constraints, namely the conservation of lepton number and entropy within adiabatically moving fluid elements, and numerical requirements, i.e., the stability of regions which should not develop convection according to a mechanical stability analysis, make it necessary to take into account the coupling of neighbouring rays at least by lateral advection terms and neutrino pressure gradients.

General relativistic effects are treated only approximately in our code ramjan02 . The current version contains a modification of the gravitational potential by including correction terms due to pressure and energy of the stellar medium and neutrinos, which are deduced from a comparison of the Newtonian and relativistic equations of motion. The neutrino transport contains gravitational redshift and time dilation, but ignores the distinction between coordinate radius and proper radius. This simplification is necessary for coupling the transport code to our basically Newtonian hydrodynamics. Although a fully relativistic treatment would be preferable, tests showed that these approximations seem to work reasonably well as long as there are only moderate deviations ($``$10–20%) of the metric coefficients from unity and the infall velocities do not reach more than 10–20% of the speed of light.

As for the neutrino-matter interactions, we discriminate between two different sets of input physics. On the one hand we have calculated models with conventional (“standard”) neutrino opacities, i.e., a description of the neutrino interactions which follows closely the one used by Bruenn and Mezzacappa and collaborators bru85 , mezbru93:coll , mezbru93:nes . It assumes nucleons to be uncorrelated, infinitely massive scattering targets for neutrinos. In these reference runs we have usually also added neutrino pair creation and annihilation by nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung hanraf98 . Details of our implementation of these neutrino processes can be found in Ref. ramjan02 .

A second set of models was computed with an improved description of neutrino-matter interactions. Besides including nucleon thermal motions and recoil, which means a detailed treatment of the reaction kinematics and allows for an accurate evaluation of nucleon phase-space blocking effects, we take into account nucleon-nucleon correlations \[following Refs. bursaw98 , bursaw99 \], the reduction of the nucleon effective mass, and the possible quenching of the axial-vector coupling in nuclear matter carpra02 . In addition, we have implemented weak-magnetism corrections as described in Ref. hor02 . The sample of neutrino processes was enlarged by also including scatterings of muon and tau neutrinos and antineutrinos off electron neutrinos and antineutrinos and pair annihilation reactions between neutrinos of different flavors (i.e., $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }+\overline{\nu }_{\mu ,\tau }\nu _e+\overline{\nu }_e`$; Buras et al. ).

Our current supernova models are calculated with the nuclear equation of state of Lattimer and Swesty latswe91 . For the density regime below $`6\times 10^7`$g/cm3 we switch to an equation of state that considers electrons, positrons and photons, and nucleons and nuclei with an approximative treatment for composition changes due to nuclear burning and shifts of nuclear statistical equilibrium ramjan02 .

## 3 RESULTS: NEW 1D AND 2D SUPERNOVA SIMULATIONS

We have performed a number of core-collapse simulations in spherical symmetry and then followed the post-bounce evolution in one and two dimensions. All described calculations were started from a 15$`M_{}`$ progenitor star, Model s15s7b2, provided to us by S. Woosley. Adopting the naming, we label our models by s15N for Newtonian runs and s15G for runs with approximate treatment of general relativity, followed by letters “so” when “standard neutrino opacities” were used and by “io” in case of our state-of-the-art improvement of the description of neutrino-matter interactions. The model names have a suffix that discriminates between 1D (“\_1d”) and 2D simulations (“\_2d”).

We have varied yet another aspect in our simulations. Some of the models were computed with a version of the transport code where the velocity dependent (Doppler shift and aberration) terms in the neutrino momentum equation (and the corresponding terms in the Boltzmann equation for the antisymmetric average of the specific intensity; see Ref. ramjan02 ) were omitted. These terms are formally of order $`v/c`$ and should be small for low velocities. This simplification of the neutrino transport, our so-called “Case A”, was used in the Newtonian models and in those models with approximate GR which have names ending with the letter “a”. Models with neutrino transport including all velocity dependent terms also in the neutrino momentum equation (“Case B”) can be identified by the ending “b” of their names. Table 1 provides an overview of the computed models.

The shock trajectories of all models are displayed in Fig. 2. No explosions were obtained with the most complete implementation of the transport equations, Case B (see lines labeled with H1, H2, S1, B1, corresponding to Models s15Gio\_1d.b, s15Gio\_2d.b, s15Gso\_1d.b and s15Gso\_1d.b, respectively). The shock trajectories of this sample of models form a cluster that is clearly separated from the models computed with the transport version of Case A, which generally show a larger shock radius and therefore more optimistic conditions for explosions. Both classes of calculations differ mainly in the (comoving frame) neutrino energy densities around and outside of the neutrinosphere. In Case A these energy densities are larger, corresponding to somewhat smaller neutrino losses from the cooling layer and somewhat higher neutrino energy deposition in the heating layer behind the supernova shock. Although the differences are moderate (typically 10–30%, depending on the quantity, radial position and time) during the first 80 ms after bounce, the accumulating effect clearly damps the shock expansion and leads to a dramatic shock recession after this initial phase in all models of Case B. This demonstrates the sensitivity of the long-time evolution of the collapsing stellar core to smaller “details” of the neutrino transport.

A sufficiently large shock radius for a sufficiently long time is also crucial for the growth of convective instabilities in the neutrino-heating layer. This is visible from the two-dimensional Models s15Gio\_2d.b and s15Gio\_2d.a. The former model fails to explode because the convective activity behind the shock is suppressed when the shock retreats, despite of a high energy transfer rate to the postshock matter by neutrinos. In contrast, convective overturn behind the shock becomes strong and is crucial for getting an explosion in Model s15Gio\_2d.a. This is obvious from a comparison with the corresponding one-dimensional simulation, Model s15Gio\_1d.a. It is interesting that the Newtonian 2D run, Model s15Nso\_2d (with standard opacities) does marginally not explode, whereas Model s15Gio\_2d.a with relativistic corrections (and state-of-the-art neutrino reactions) succeeds111At the time of the conference, we had just these two 2D runs and announced the possible success of Model s15Gio\_2d.a. A later 2D computation with the full neutrino moment equations (Model s15Gio\_2d.b for Case B), however, then turned out to produce a dud.. The influence of the neutrino opacities can be directly seen by comparing Models s15Gso\_1d.b and s15Gio\_1d.b. It is not dramatic but sufficient to justify the inclusion of all the improvements described in Sect. 2. Neutrino-pair creation by bremsstrahlung makes a minor difference during the considered phases of evolution (Model s15Gso\_1d.b vs. Model s15Gso\_1d.b).

The successfully exploding 2D model, Model s15Gio\_2d.a, has very interesting properties. Figure 3 shows a snapshot at 248 ms post bounce, giving the distribution of entropy per baryon ($`s`$ in units of Boltzmann’s constant) and electron fraction. The shock is located at a radius of more than 1700 km at 300 ms after bounce and is expanding with about 10000 km/s. The explosion energy of this model might become rather low. It is only $`4\times 10^{50}`$erg at that time, but still increasing. The explosion starts so late (at $`150`$ms post bounce) that the proto-neutron star has accreted enough matter to have attained an initial baryonic mass of 1.4$`M_{}`$. Therefore our simulation does not exhibit the problem of other successful models which produced rather small ($`1.1M_{}`$) neutron stars. Also another problem of published explosion models \[e.g., herben94 , burhay95 , janmue96 , fry99 \] has disappeared: The ejecta mass with Ye

<

0.47

<

subscript𝑌𝑒0.47Y_{e}\mathrel{\vbox{\offinterlineskip\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}0.47 is less than $`10^4M_{}`$ (Fig. 2), thus fulfilling a constraint pointed out by Hoffman et. al. hofwoo96  for supernovae if they should not overproduce the $`N=50`$ (closed neutron shell) nuclei, in particular 88Sr, 89Y and 90Zr, relative to the Galactic abundances. Of course, we will have to follow the explosion for a longer time to make final statements about explosion energy and ejecta composition, and also the neutron star mass may grow by later fallback, especially when the explosion energy remains low.

## 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We have presented a set of core collapse and supernova models, which were computed in spherical symmetry and in two dimensions, using a new Boltzmann solver for the neutrino transport and improved neutrino opacities compared to the standard treatment in current supernova codes. We did not find explosions, neither without nor with postshock convection, in our most complete simulations.

Omitting the velocity-dependent terms from the neutrino momentum equation, however, leads to sufficiently large changes in the neutrino quantities and neutrino energy loss or deposition (10–30% between neutrinosphere and shock) that very strong convective overturn in the neutrino-heating region develops and drives a successful explosion. This demonstrates that the models are rather close to the threshold for an explosion, causing an enormous sensitivity of the post-bounce evolution to an accurate treatment of the neutrino transport and hydrodynamics. It also confirms the importance of postshock convection, because the 1D model corresponding to our exploding 2D case does not explode. When the neutrino heating is too weak, and the shock recedes to a small radius quickly after its has reached its maximum radius, however, convective activity behind the shock is suppressed and has no crucial influence on the evolution.

We also found that Ledoux convection below the neutrinosphere, although setting in shortly after bounce and persistent until the end of our simulations, occurs so deep inside the neutron star that its effects on the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ luminosities and on the supernova dynamics are insignificant.

Acknowledgements: We are grateful to K. Kifonidis, T. Plewa and E. Müller for updates of the PROMETHEUS hydrodynamics code, to K. Kifonidis for contributing a matrix solver suitable for parallel computer platforms, to K. Takahashi for providing routines to calculate the improved neutrino-nucleon interactions, and to C. Horowitz for correction formulae for the weak magnetism. We also thank M. Liebendörfer for making output data from his simulations available to us for comparisons. The described project was supported by the Sonderforschungsbereich 375 on “Astroparticle Physics” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The 2D simulations were only possible because a node of the new IBM “Regatta” supercomputer was dedicated to this project by the Rechenzentrum Garching. Computations were also performed on the NEC SX-5/3C of the Rechenzentrum Garching, and on the CRAY T90 and CRAY SV1ex of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC) in Jülich.


format: text

text:
# Transport in a spin polarized Luttinger liquid in the presence of a single impurity

## I Introduction

Recently, a new kind of electronics named “spintronics” based on spin polarized electrons have created a wave of excitement . The idea to build a spin diode or a spin transistor is extremely appealing. In order to make progress, one has to understand “spin ballistic transport”.

Here, we will investigate the possibility for having polarized electrons in a quantum wire. We compute the conductance of a non-magnetic impurity in the presence of electron-electron interaction with two different Fermi velocities $`v_{}v_{}`$. Our findings are the followings:

(a) In the presence of a Hubbard type interaction, the different Fermi velocities $`v_{}v_{}`$ do not give rise to a polarized gas. In particular, the conductance for the non-magnetic impurity is given by the Luttinger theory in terms of spin and charge separated parameters. If $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ is the strength of the “$`2k_F`$” impurity potential and “$`K_c<1`$”, “$`K_s1`$” are the Luttinger parameters, the conductance $`G_\sigma `$ is given by , $`G_{}=G_{}=\frac{e^2}{h}(1const.\widehat{\lambda }^2(\frac{T}{T_F})^{2(K_c1)}){}_{\stackrel{}{T0}}{}^{}0`$.

(b) For special types of two body interactions characteristic to extended Hubbard model of the form, $`\rho _{}^R(x)\rho _{}^L(x)+\rho _{}^R(x)\rho _{}^L(x)`$, we find that in the presence of two Fermi velocities $`v_{}v_{}`$ one obtains a new type of Luttinger liquid, a non-spin-charge separated liquid characterized by two exponents $`K_{}K_{}`$ and not $`K_cK_s`$. As a result we find that the conductance $`G_\sigma `$ obeys, $`G_{}G_{}`$ with $`G_\sigma =\frac{e^2}{h}(1const.\widehat{\lambda }^2(\frac{T}{T_F})^{2(K_\sigma 1)})=G_\sigma ^{(0)}+G_\sigma ^{(2)}`$. For strong anisotropy, $`1K_{}K_{}`$ we obtain at finite temperatures $`G_{}0`$ and $`G_{}\frac{e^2}{h}`$, therefore a polarized wire is obtained.

These results are relevant to “spintronics” , since it shows that the interplay between interaction, impurities and different Fermi velocities can give rise to a polarized current, $`P=\frac{G_{}G_{}}{G_{}+G_{}}`$. The plan of this paper is the following: chapter II is devoted to the microscopic model, chapter III is devoted to the numerical calculation of $`K_{}`$, $`K_{}`$ and the conclusions.

## II The Model

Using the 1-d Fermion representation $`\psi _\sigma (x)=e^{iK_{F,\sigma }x}R_\sigma (x)+e^{iK_{F,\sigma }x}L_\sigma (x)`$, $`\sigma =,`$ where $`R_\sigma (x)`$ and $`L_\sigma (x)`$ represent the right and left mover \[1, 2-6\]. We consider a situation that due to the Zeeman interaction the Fermi gas is described by $`v_F^{}=v_F+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}`$, $`v_F^{}=v_F\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}`$, $`k_F^\sigma /m=v_F^\sigma `$, $`\sigma =,`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represents the Zeeman energy. We consider the following one dimensional electronic model: $`H=H_0+H_I+H_{Imp}`$, where $`H_0=t_x_{\sigma =,}[\psi _\sigma ^{}(x)\psi _\sigma (x+a)+h.c.]`$, $`H_I=U_xn_{}(x)n_{}(x)+V_xn(x)n(x+a)`$. Here, “$`U`$” is the on-site (Hubbard) interaction and $`n_\sigma (x)=\psi _\sigma ^{}(x)\psi _\sigma (x)`$, while “$`V`$” is the nearest neighbor (extended Hubbard) interaction and $`n(x)=_\sigma n_\sigma (x)`$. For the $`2k_F`$ impurity, $`H_{imp}=_xU_\sigma (x)\psi _\sigma ^{}(x)\psi _\sigma (x)`$, where $`U_\sigma (x)`$ is the $`2k_F`$ impurity potential. As a result, the Hamiltonian for the 1-d interacting Fermi gas with the $`2k_F`$ impurity takes the form $`H=H_0+H_I+H_{imp}^{(2k_F)}`$,

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xv_F^{(\sigma )}\left[R_\sigma ^{}(x)i_xR_\sigma (x)L_\sigma ^{}(x)i_xL_\sigma (x)\right]}`$ (1)
$`H_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}=,}{}}{\displaystyle }dx\{g_1R_\sigma ^{}(x)L_\sigma ^{}^{}(x)R_\sigma ^{}(x)L_\sigma (x)+g_2R_\sigma ^{}(x)L_\sigma ^{}^{}(x)L_\sigma ^{}(x)R_\sigma (x)`$ (2)
$`+g_4(1\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}})[R_\sigma ^{}(x)R_\sigma ^{}^{}(x)R_\sigma ^{}(x)R_\sigma (x)+(RL)]\}`$
$`H_{Imp}^{(2k_F)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}{\displaystyle }dxU_\sigma (x)[e^{i2k_{F,\sigma }}R_\sigma ^{}(x)L_\sigma (x)+h.c.]`$ (3)
where $`R_\sigma `$ and $`L_\sigma `$ are the right and left mover, respectively. Here, the $`g_1`$ term represents the backward scattering which transfers momentum from $`(k_F,k_F)`$ to $`(k_F,k_F)`$. The $`g_2`$ term represents the forward scattering: $`(k_F,k_F)(k_F,k_F)`$. \[3-5\]

Using $`R_\sigma (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}e^{i\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _{R,\sigma }(x)}`$ and $`L_\sigma (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}e^{i\sqrt{4\pi }\theta _{L,\sigma }(x)}`$, we bosonize the Hamiltonian in eqs 1-3.

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xv_F^{(\sigma )}\left[\left(_x\theta _{R,\sigma }(x)\right)^2+\left(_x\theta _{L,\sigma }(x)\right)^2\right]}`$ (4)
$`H_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_2^{}g_1^{}}{2\pi }}\right)[(_x\theta _R(x))(_x\theta _L(x))+(_x\theta _R(x))(_x\theta _L(x))]`$ (5)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_2^{}}{2\pi }}\right)\left[(_x\theta _R(x))(_x\theta _L(x))+(_x\theta _R(x))(_x\theta _L(x))\right]`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_4}{2\pi }}\right)\left[(_x\theta _R(x))(_x\theta _R(x))+(_x\theta _L(x))(_x\theta _L(x))\right]`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_1^{}}{2(\pi d)^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{4\pi }(\theta _R+\theta _L\theta _R\theta _L)+\mathrm{\Delta }({\displaystyle \frac{k_F}{v_F}})x]\}`$
$`H_{Imp}^{(2k_F)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\lambda _\sigma \delta (x)\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{4\pi }(\theta _{R,\sigma }(x)+\theta _{L,\sigma }(x))\right)},\lambda _{}=\lambda _{}`$ (6)
The parameter $`g_2^{}`$, $`g_2^{}`$, $`g_1^{}`$, $`g_1^{}`$ and $`g_4`$ are related to the Hubbard interaction “$`U`$” and intersite interaction, $`g_2^{}=g_2^{}U+2V`$, $`g_1^{}=g_1^{}=U+2V\mathrm{cos}(k_Fa)U2V`$, and $`g_2^{}g_1^{}=4V`$.

For a Hubbard model $`V=0`$, we have $`g_2^{}g_1^{}=0`$. The presence of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_F/v_F)x`$, $`k_F=(k_F^{}+k_F^{})/2`$ gives rise to strong oscillation which allows us to neglect the last term in eq. 5 at large distances . $`v_F^\sigma `$ is the velocity corresponding to different spin components $`\sigma `$. In eq 6, we have used $`U_\sigma (x)=\lambda _\sigma \delta (x)`$ with $`\lambda _{}=\lambda _{}`$, which represent a non-magnetic impurity located at $`x=0`$. By applying an external magnetic field to the system, we can get two different velocities for different spins, i.e. $`v_{}=v_F+\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ and $`v_{}=v_F\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Zeeman energy. For a next nearest neighbor interaction $`V0`$, $`g_2^{}g_1^{}=4V0`$. We denote $`g_2^{}g_1^{}g_0`$ for simplicity. Notice that this $`g_0`$ term is the only parameter relevant to the polarization of the magnetic wire. All other terms are not sensitive to the externally applied magnetic field. It is equivalent to the inclusion of the nearest-neighbor interaction.

Now we transform the right and left moving fields into spin-up and spin-down fields: $`\theta _{R\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}(\theta _\sigma +\varphi _\sigma )`$, $`\theta _{L\sigma }=\frac{1}{2}(\theta _\sigma \varphi _\sigma )`$. We can further transform the spin-up and spin-down fields into spin and charge fields: $`\theta _c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\theta _{}+\theta _{})`$, $`\theta _s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\theta _{}\theta _{})`$, $`\varphi _c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _{}+\varphi _{})`$, $`\varphi _s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _{}\varphi _{})`$. Let $`P_c(x)=_x\varphi _c(x)`$, and $`P_s(x)=_x\varphi _s(x)`$, after some algebra, our Hamiltonian becomes $`H(P_c,\theta _c;P_s,\theta _s)=𝑑xh(P_c,\theta _c;P_s,\theta _s)=H_c+H_s+H_{c/s}^Z+H_{Imp}`$ where

$`H_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{v_c}{2}\left[K_cP_c^2(x)+\frac{1}{K_c}(_x\theta _c)^2\right]}`$ (7)
$`H_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{v_s}{2}\left[K_sP_s^2(x)+\frac{1}{K_s}(_x\theta _s)^2\right]}`$ (8)
$`H_{c/s}^Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[P_c(x)P_s(x)+(_x\theta _c)(_s\theta _s)\right]}`$ (9)
and

$$K_c=\sqrt{\frac{1\frac{1}{4\pi }(g_0+g_2^{}g_4)}{1+\frac{1}{4\pi }(g_0+g_2^{}+g_4)}},v_c=\sqrt{(1\frac{1}{4\pi }(g_0+g_2^{}g_4))(1+\frac{1}{4\pi }(g_0+g_2^{}+g_4))}$$

$$K_s=\sqrt{\frac{1\frac{1}{4\pi }(g_0g_2^{}+g_4)}{1+\frac{1}{4\pi }(g_0g_2^{}g_4)}},v_s=\sqrt{(1\frac{1}{4\pi }(g_0g_2^{}+g_4))(1+\frac{1}{4\pi }(g_0g_2^{}g_4))}$$

We keep $`H_{Imp}`$ in its original form of equation (6) and perform the Renormalization Group analysis .

In order to solve the Hamiltonian in equation (7),(8) and (9) for the entire spectrum, we need to transform our model into the Lagrangian formalism. One can still solve this problem by diagonalizing the above Hamiltonian , but the solution is subjected to certain restrictions. The Lagrangian density $``$ is defined as

$$(\theta _c,\dot{\theta }_c,\theta _s,\dot{\theta }_s)=P_c\dot{\theta }_c+P_s\dot{\theta }_sh(P_c,\theta _c,P_s,\theta _s)$$
(10)
Since $`\dot{\theta }_c=\frac{\delta }{\delta P_c}H`$ and $`\dot{\theta }_s=\frac{\delta }{\delta P_s}H`$, we have $`\dot{\theta }_c=v_cK_cP_c+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}P_s`$ and $`\dot{\theta }_s=v_sK_sP_s+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}P_c`$. We can write $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{\theta }_c\\ \dot{\theta }_s\end{array}\right)=\text{M}\left(\begin{array}{c}P_c\\ P_s\end{array}\right)`$, where $`\text{M}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_cK_c& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}& v_sK_s\end{array}\right)`$. Therefore, $`\left(\begin{array}{c}P_c\\ P_s\end{array}\right)=\text{M}^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{\theta }_c\\ \dot{\theta }_s\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{det\text{M}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_sK_s& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}& v_cK_c\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{\theta }_c\\ \dot{\theta }_s\end{array}\right)`$. Let $`z^1=det\text{M}=(v_cK_c)(v_sK_s)(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2`$, we should require that $`z^10`$. Notice that the $`z^1=0`$ case corresponds to the fact that the fields $`\dot{\theta }_c`$ and $`\dot{\theta }_s`$ (or $`P_c`$ and $`P_s`$) are linear dependent.

Provided the above discussion, after some algebra, we obtain the Lagrangian density as

$$(\theta _c,\dot{\theta }_c,\theta _s,\dot{\theta }_s)=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\theta }_c,\dot{\theta }_s)\text{M}^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{\theta }_c\\ \dot{\theta }_s\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{2}(_x\theta _c,_x\theta _s)\text{M}\left(\begin{array}{c}_x\theta _c\\ _x\theta _s\end{array}\right).$$

We can write the action in terms of Fourier components of the above Lagrangian density as

$$S=\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{dq}{2\pi }(\omega ,q)$$

where

$$(\omega ,q)=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\theta }(\omega ,q)\left(\text{A}^1\right)\stackrel{}{\theta }(\omega ,q)$$

and

$$\text{A}^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \gamma \\ \gamma & \beta \end{array}\right)$$
(11)
Here we denote $`\stackrel{}{\theta }=(\theta _c,\theta _s)`$, and the elements of matrix $`\text{A}^1`$ are given as

$`\alpha (\omega ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`(zv_sK_s)\omega ^2+({\displaystyle \frac{v_c}{K_c}})q^2`$
$`\beta (\omega ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`(zv_cK_c)\omega ^2+({\displaystyle \frac{v_s}{K_s}})q^2`$
$`\gamma (\omega ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}(z\omega ^2+q^2)`$ (12)
In order to compute the conductance due to the impurity we add to eqs 7-9 the impurity potential $`H_{Imp}^{(2k_F)}=𝑑x\lambda _\sigma \delta (x)\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{2\pi }(\theta _c(x)+\sigma \theta _s(x))\right)`$ with the condition of $`\lambda _{}=\lambda _{}`$. Due to the electron-electron interaction, the bare impurity strength get renormalized. At length scale $`a^{}=ba`$ where $`b=e^{\mathrm{}}>1`$, we find that $`\lambda _\sigma (\mathrm{})=\widehat{\lambda }_\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}[(1K_\sigma )\mathrm{}]`$, i.e. when $`K_\sigma <1`$, $`\lambda _\sigma (\mathrm{})`$ increases. On the contrary, $`\lambda _\sigma `$ decrease when $`K_\sigma >1`$. The scaling equation of $`\lambda _\sigma =\widehat{\lambda }_\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is

$$\frac{d\widehat{\lambda }_\sigma }{d\mathrm{}}=\widehat{\lambda }_\sigma (1K_\sigma )$$
(13)
and $`K_\sigma `$ is given by

$$d\mathrm{}K_\sigma \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{2\pi })^2\left[\delta \theta _c^2(x)+\delta \theta _s^2(x)+2\sigma \delta \theta _c(x)\delta \theta _s(x)\right]2\pi \delta \theta _\sigma (x)\delta \theta _\sigma (x)$$
(14)
Using the Lagrangian in eqs 11-12 we will compute the correlation functions $`\delta \theta _\sigma (x)\delta \theta _\sigma (x)`$. These correlation functions will be expressed in terms of the parameters $`\alpha `$,$`\beta `$,$`\gamma `$ (see eq. 12).

Denote that $`i,j(c,s)`$, we can transform the correlation function back to the space-time coordinate. We have

$`\theta _i(x,t)\theta _j(0)={\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{dq}{2\pi }e^{i(qx\omega t)}\theta _i(\omega ,q)\theta _j(\omega ,q)}`$
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{dq}{2\pi }e^{i(qx\omega t)}\text{A}_{ij}(\omega ,q)}i\text{A}_{ij}(x,t)`$ (15)
Since for any function $`f(|q|)`$, the integral in the momentum shell gives $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/s|q|\mathrm{\Lambda }}f(|q|)𝑑q=_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/s}+_{\mathrm{\Lambda }/s}^\mathrm{\Lambda }=2f(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, we can obtain the correlation functions at the same space point as

$$\delta \theta _i(x,\tau )\delta \theta _j(x,0)=\frac{id\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{i\omega \tau }\text{A}_{ij}(\omega ,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(16)
Since $`\delta \theta _{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\delta \theta _c+\delta \theta _s)`$ and $`\delta \theta _{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\delta \theta _c\delta \theta _s)`$, we have

$`\delta \theta _{}\delta \theta _{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta \theta _c\delta \theta _c+\delta \theta _s\delta \theta _s+\delta \theta _c\delta \theta _s\right]`$ (17)
$`\delta \theta _{}\delta \theta _{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta \theta _c\delta \theta _c+\delta \theta _s\delta \theta _s\delta \theta _c\delta \theta _s\right]`$ (18)
Or

$`\delta \theta _{}\delta \theta _{}={\displaystyle \frac{id\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}e^{i\omega \tau }f_{}(\omega ,\mathrm{\Lambda }),\text{where}f_{}(\omega ,\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta 2\gamma }{\alpha \beta \gamma ^2}}`$ (19)
$`\delta \theta _{}\delta \theta _{}={\displaystyle \frac{id\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}e^{i\omega \tau }f_{}(\omega ,\mathrm{\Lambda }),\text{where}f_{}(\omega ,\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\beta +2\gamma }{\alpha \beta \gamma ^2}}`$ (20)
Now we need to carry out the definite integrals in equation (19) and (20). These can be done by using the Cauchy Residue Theorem. By following the requirement that $`\alpha \beta \gamma ^2=0`$, we can obtain four different poles. They are $`\omega _1=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}\sqrt{u_1+u_2}`$, $`\omega _2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}\sqrt{u_1+u_2}`$, $`\omega _3=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}\sqrt{u_1u_2}`$, $`\omega _4=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}\sqrt{u_1u_2}`$, where $`u_1=2(v_c^2+v_s^2)+\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and $`u_2=2[(v_c^2v_s^2)^2+(K_cK_sv_c+v_s)(K_sK_cv_s+v_c)\mathrm{\Delta }^2/(K_cK_s)]^{1/2}`$. Notice that these poles are located on the real axis and that $`\omega _2=\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _4=\omega _3`$. Due to the factor $`e^{i\omega \tau }`$ inside of both integrals, $`\tau >0`$, we need to choose the contour around the upper hemisphere and shift $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _3`$ by a small positive imaginary number and $`\omega _2`$, $`\omega _4`$ by a small negative imaginary number. Thus, only the poles at $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _3`$ are included in the chosen contour. We get

$`\delta \theta _{}\delta \theta _{}={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi }}\left[Res\{f_{}(\omega _1)\}+Res\{f_{}(\omega _3)\}\right]`$
$`\delta \theta _{}\delta \theta _{}={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi }}\left[Res\{f_{}(\omega _1)\}+Res\{f_{}(\omega _3)\}\right]`$
By carefully calculating the residues of $`f_{}`$ and $`f_{}`$, one can obtain that

$$\delta \theta _{}\delta \theta _{}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}K_{}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}\left[\frac{a}{2u_2}(\sqrt{u_1+u_2}\sqrt{u_1u_2})\frac{2b}{u_2}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_1+u_2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_1u_2}})\right]$$

where $`a=(K_cv_c+K_sv_s+\mathrm{\Delta })`$, $`b=(\frac{v_s}{K_s}+\frac{v_c}{K_c}\mathrm{\Delta })/z`$. And

$$\delta \theta _{}\delta \theta _{}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}K_{}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}\left[\frac{c}{2u_2}(\sqrt{u_1+u_2}\sqrt{u_1u_2})\frac{2d}{u_2}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_1+u_2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{u_1u_2}})\right]$$

where $`c=(K_cv_c+K_sv_s\mathrm{\Delta })`$, $`d=(\frac{v_s}{K_s}+\frac{v_c}{K_c}+\mathrm{\Delta })/z`$. We can now write the $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$ as

$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2u_2}}(\sqrt{u_1+u_2}\sqrt{u_1u_2}){\displaystyle \frac{2b}{u_2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u_1+u_2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u_1u_2}}}),`$ (21)
$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2u_2}}(\sqrt{u_1+u_2}\sqrt{u_1u_2}){\displaystyle \frac{2d}{u_2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u_1+u_2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u_1u_2}}}).`$ (22)
By increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (the magnetic field), we have found that $`K_{}K_{}`$ when $`g_00`$. The conductances for spin up and spin down electrons due to a weak impurity (i.e. $`\widehat{\lambda }_\sigma `$ small) is then given by

$`G_{}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}\left(1|\widehat{\lambda }_{}|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_F}}\right)^{2(K_{}1)}\right),`$
$`G_{}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}\left(1|\widehat{\lambda }_{}|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_F}}\right)^{2(K_{}1)}\right).`$
For a weak link, on the other hand, the conductances are given by

$`G_{}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{\lambda }_{}}}|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_F}}\right)^{2(\frac{1}{K_{}}1)},`$
$`G_{}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{\lambda }_{}}}|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_F}}\right)^{2(\frac{1}{K_{}}1)}.`$
At low temperature, i.e. $`T_F/T1001000`$, we can find that one of the conductances is strongly suppressed which gives rise to a situation that only one spin polarization is conducting. Consequently, a polarized wire is obtained.

## III Numerical Results

Based on the exact result from equation (21) and (22), we have plot our resultant $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$ as a function of the external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in figures 1 and 2. In both figures, we have set $`g_4=0`$. In order to demonstrate that only the $`g_0`$ term is important for causing $`K_{}K_{}`$, we set $`g_2^{}=0`$ in figure 1 and $`g_2^{}=1`$ in figure 2.

One can understand these two figures from locating in each of the them three pairs of curves starting from $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. In figure 1, the top most pair of curves are $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$ represented by “$`\times `$” and “$``$”, respectively. These are the results of $`g_0=4V=0`$ which correspond to the case when there is no e-e interaction. With an arbitrary increase of the external magnetic field, there is no polarization of the electron gas. In this case, $`K_{}=K_{}=1`$. Next, we increase $`g_0`$ (or $`4V`$) to $`g_0=0.5`$. The $`K_{}`$ and the $`K_{}`$ curves are represented by “$`+`$” and “$`\mathrm{}`$”, respectively. One can see that at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the values of $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$ are equal and are a little bit smaller than 1. By increasing the external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we can see that $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$ splits, thus giving rise to a polarized electron gas. Furthermore, the third pair of curves correspond to the case when $`g_0=1`$. The $`K_{}`$ and the $`K_{}`$ curves are represented by “$``$” and “$`\mathrm{}`$”, respectively. One can clearly see that the $`K_{}`$ and $`K_{}`$ curves split further which gives rise to a more polarized electron gas.

In order to show that the $`g_2^{}`$ term is indeed not playing a significant role in the polarization effect, we have plot figure 2 by taking $`g_2^{}=1`$. By simply comparing these two figures, one can easily see that the polarization effect is not affected by the inclusion of the $`g_2^{}`$ term. Notice that the first pair of curves in figure 2 at $`K_{}=K_{}=1`$ does not split at all, even if we take $`g_0=0`$ and $`g_2^{}=1`$. For this reason, we can conclude that only in the presence of the $`g_0`$ term and $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ can we obtain a polarized wire.

Furthermore, in order to show that the difference between $`G_{}`$ and $`G_{}`$ increases when an external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is applied, we have prepared figure 3 to figure 6 illustrating the dependency of polarization $`P|\frac{G_{}G_{}}{G_{}+G_{}}|`$ versus the external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the extended Hubbard interaction $`g_0=4V`$.

In the case of a weak impurity potential, the resultant polarization is shown in figure 3 and figure 4. In figure 3, a 3D diagram of the polarization $`P`$ is plot. The external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is taken as the x-axis, while the extended Hubbard interaction $`g_0=4V`$ is taken as the y-axis. The range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is between $`0.`$ to $`1.6`$, while the range of $`g_0`$ is between $`0.`$ and $`1.`$, where $`g_2^{}=0`$, $`T=T_F/500`$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }_\sigma =0.1`$ are taken as typical values. As shown, the larger the external magnetical field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is applied to the wire and the more the extended Hubbard interaction is turned on, the more the wire is polarized. Note that the external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ here is taken in the unit of $`v_F=1`$. In figure 4, a contour plot of figure 3 is provided. The x-axis represents the external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the y-axis represents the extended Hubbard interaction $`4V`$. Starting from the lower left side of the figure, the contour lines represents the polarization of 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, and so on. According to our result, the electron gas in the weak impurity potential case is significantly polarized only when the the external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the extended Hubbard interaction $`4V`$ are large.

On the other hand, the resultant polarization for the case of a weak link is shown in figure 5 and figure 6. Similarly, we take the external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the x-axis and the extended Hubbard interaction $`g_0=4V`$ as the y-axis. The range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is between $`0.`$ to $`1.6`$, while the range of $`g_0`$ is between $`0.`$ and $`1.`$, where $`g_2^{}=0`$ and $`T=T_F/500`$. In figure 5, the 3D diagram clearly shows that the electron gas is significantly polarized when the external magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or the extended Hubbard interaction $`4V`$ is greater than zero. In figure 6, a contour plot of figure 5 is provided. Starting from the lower left side of the figure, the contour lines represent 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, etc., of polarization, respectively. By comparing the results of the weak potential case and that of the weak link case, we can conclude that the stronger the impurity potential, the more the electron gas is polarized.

In real systems and large temperatures, inelastic scattering will give rise to spin relaxation. As a result, our effect will be drastically reduced. However, in the ballistic regime, where the length of the wire $`L`$ is comparable to the thermal length $`L_T`$, $`LL_T10^6m`$ ($`T2K^{}`$), our “spin polarizer” can be realized.

In summary, the possibility for a magnetic wire and the possibility for a “spin polarizer” caused by magnetic field, interaction and impurity are suggested. This effect might play a significant role in spintronics.

## IV Acknowledgement

This work is supported by the DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-01ER4909.


text:
# Instanton corrections to quark form factor at large momentum transfer

## I Introduction

The various aspects of the instanton induced effects in high energy QCD processes had been addressed at the very beginning of the instanton era (see, e.g., Ref. EL ), and this study has been continued in later decade BAL . Recently, the interest in them has been revived Sh ; KKL ; RW ; SRP ; DCH , and the hope of the direct detection of the instanton induced effects has appeared RH . One of the important questions in the description of hadronic exclusive processes is the behavior of the form factors in various energy domains. The present paper is devoted to the analysis of the corrections to the elastic quark form factor at large momentum transfer induced by the infrared (IR) renormalon REN  and instanton effects, treating the latter within the framework of the instanton liquid model of the QCD vacuum REV .

From the theoretical point of view, the form factor analysis requires a perturbative resummation procedure beyond the standard renormalization group techniques, since it exhibits a double-logarithmic behavior. In addition to this, the resummation techniques developed for this particular case can be applied to the study of many other processes which possesses the logarithmic enhancements near the kinematic boundaries. On the other hand, in addition to this obvious theoretical use, the computation of the quark form factor has important phenomenological applications. A similar resummation approach is also used in study of the near-forward quark-quark scattering and evaluation of the soft Pomeron properties where the nonleading logarithmic contributions are quite important KRP . The application of this formalism in heavy quark effective theory can be also useful KRH . The quark form factor itself enters into the various cross sections of high-energy processes HARD . In particular, this quantity finds the most straightforward phenomenological application in the total cross section of the Drell-Yan process in the deep inelastic scattering (DIS) scheme, which is proportional to the ratio of the timelike and spacelike form factors PAR ; STER ; MAG . In this case, the exponentiated quark form factor is expressed in terms of the evolution equation, and can be evaluated, in principle, to any order in perturbation theory. The analysis shows that this is the high-energy asymptotic behavior that is important, and all the logarithmic contributions must be taken into account equally, while the power corrections could be neglected MAG . The investigation of the electomagnetic quark form factors in moderate and low-energy domains can shed light on the problem of scaling violation in DIS and the structure of constituent quarks SCAL .

The color singlet quark form factor is determined via the elastic scattering amplitude of a quark in electromagnetic field

$$_\mu =F_q\left[(p_1p_2)^2\right]\overline{u}(p_1)\gamma _\mu v(p_2),$$
(1)
where $`u(p_1),v(p_2)`$ are the spinors of outgoing and incoming quarks. The kinematics of the process is described in terms of the scattering angle $`\chi `$:

$$\mathrm{cosh}\chi =\frac{(p_1p_2)}{m^2}=1+\frac{Q^2}{2m^2},Q^2=(p_2p_1)^2>0,p_1^2=p_2^2=m^2.$$
(2)
It is known that the leading large-$`Q^2`$ asymptotics of the quark form factor is given by the exponentiation of the one-loop term DL

$$F_q^{(1)}(Q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }C_F\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{Q^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)+O\left(\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^{2n1}\frac{Q^2}{\lambda ^2}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\lambda `$ is an IR cutoff parameter. In general, for a correct consideration of the non-leading asymptotic contributions one has to resum all perturbative (such as $`O\left(\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^{2n1}Q^2\right)`$, $`O\left(\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^{2n2}Q^2\right)`$, etc) as well as nonperturbative terms. An effective framework for resummation of perturbative and nonperturbative contributions is provided by the Wilson integral approach NACH . Within this framework, the resummation of all logarithmic terms coming from the soft gluon subprocesses allows us to express the quark form factor (3), in terms of the vacuum average of the gauge invariant path ordered Wilson integral MMP

$$W(C_\chi )=\frac{1}{N_c}\text{Tr}0|𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_{C_\chi }𝑑x_\mu \widehat{A}_\mu (x)\right)|0.$$
(4)
In Eq. (4) the integration path corresponding to considering process goes along the closed contour $`C_\chi `$: the angle (cusp) with infinite sides. The gauge field

$$\widehat{A}_\mu (x)=T^aA_\mu ^a(x),T^a=\frac{\lambda ^a}{2},$$
(5)
belongs to the Lie algebra of the gauge group $`SU(N_c)`$, while the Wilson loop operator $`𝒫\text{e}^{ig{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑xA(x)}}`$ lies in its fundamental representation.

In our recent paper DCH , we applied the Wilson integral formalism to evaluation of the perturbative and nonperturbative contributions to the color singlet quark form factor at the low normalization point $`\mu `$ of order of the inverse instanton size within the instanton liquid model. In the present work, considering the renormalization group (RG) evolution equation we extend the analysis to the limit of large momentum transfers focusing on the asymptotic behavior. We show that the nonperturbative effects determine the initial value for the perturbative evolution, find their general structure by analyzing the renormalon ambiguities of the perturbative series, and establish the correspondence between them and the instanton induced contribution.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we reproduce the known results of the perturbative one-loop calculation, and derive the evolution equations taking into account the nonperturbative contribution as the initial value for perturbative evolution. In Sec. III, we study the consequences of the IR renormalon ambiguities of the perturbative series and show how the latter prescribes the form of the nonperturbative corrections to the asymptotic behavior of the form factor at large $`Q^2`$. In Sec. IV, these nonperturbative effects are estimated in the weak-field approximation within the instanton model of the QCD vacuum. Finally, the large $`Q^2`$ behavior of the form factor is analyzed taking into account the leading perturbative, IR renormalon, and instanton induced contributions. The latter are found to be determined by small factor expressed via the parameters of the instanton liquid model.

## II Analysis of the perturbative contributions to the Wilson integral

The Wilson integral (4) can be presented as a series

$$W(C_\chi )=1+\frac{1}{N_c}0|\underset{n=2}{}(ig)^n_{C_\chi }_{C_\chi }\mathrm{}_{C_\chi }dx_{\mu _n}^ndx_{\mu _{n1}}^{n1}\mathrm{}dx_{\mu _1}^1$$

$$\theta (x^n,x^{n1},\mathrm{},x^1)\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{A}_{\mu _n}(x^n)\widehat{A}_{\mu _{n1}}(x^{n1})\mathrm{}\widehat{A}_{\mu _1}(x^1)\right]|0,$$
(6)
where the function $`\theta (x)`$ orders the color matrices along the integration contour. In the present work, we restrict ourselves with the study of the leading order (one loop—for the perturbative gauge field and weak-field limit for the instanton) terms of the expansion (6) which are given by the expression

$$W^{(1)}(C_\chi )=\frac{g^2C_F}{2}_{C_\chi }𝑑x_\mu _{C_\chi }𝑑y_\nu D_{\mu \nu }(xy),$$
(7)
where the gauge field propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }(z)`$ in $`n`$-dimensional space-time $`(n=42\epsilon )`$ can be presented in the form

$$D_{\mu \nu }(z)=g_{\mu \nu }_z^2\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\epsilon ,z^2,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_2(\epsilon ,z^2,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2).$$
(8)
The exponentiation theorem for non-Abelian path-ordered Wilson integrals KR ; ET  allows us to express (to one-loop accuracy) the Wilson integral (4) as the exponentiated one-loop term of the series (6):

$$W(C_\chi )=\mathrm{exp}\left[W^{(1)}(C_\chi )+O(\alpha _s^2)\right].$$
(9)
In general, the expression (7) contains ultraviolet (UV) and IR divergences, that can be multiplicatively renormalized in a consistent way BRA . In contrast to the previous paper DCH , we use the dimensional regularization in order to work with UV singularities, and define the “gluon mass” $`\lambda ^2`$ as the IR regulator and the parameter $`\mu ^2`$ as the UV normalization point. The dimensionally regularized formula for the leading order (LO) term (7) can be written as DCH

$$W^{(1)}(C_\chi ;\epsilon ,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2,\alpha _s)=8\pi \alpha _sC_Fh(\chi )(1\epsilon )\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\epsilon ,0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2),$$
(10)
where $`h(\chi )`$ is the universal cusp factor,

$$h(\chi )=\chi \text{coth}\chi 1,$$
(11)
and, in case of the perturbative field,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\epsilon ,0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left(4\pi \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^\epsilon \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )}{1\epsilon }.$$
(12)
The independence of the expression (10) of the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ is a direct consequence of the gauge invariance. Then, in the one-loop approximation,

$$W(C_\chi ;\epsilon ,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2,\alpha _s(\mu ))=1\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{2\pi }C_Fh(\chi )\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon }\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}4\pi +\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right),$$
(13)
and the cusp dependent renormalization constant BRA , within the modified minimal subtraction scheme, reads

$$Z_{cusp}[C_\chi ;\epsilon ,\alpha _s(\mu )]=1+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{2\pi }C_Fh(\chi )\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon }\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}4\pi \right).$$
(14)
The detailed description of the renormalization procedure within the present approach has been made in DCH  and will be omitted here for brevity.

Using Eq. (10), one finds the known one-loop result for the perturbative field, which contains the dependence on the UV normalization point $`\mu ^2`$ and IR cutoff $`\lambda ^2`$ (e.g., KR ):

$$W_{pt}^{(1)}(C_\chi )=\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{2\pi }C_Fh(\chi )\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}.$$
(15)
Therefore, in the leading order the kinematic dependence of the expression (7) is factorized into the function $`h(\chi )`$, which at large-$`Q^2`$ is approximated by

$$h(\chi )\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{m^2}.$$
(16)
In this regime, the dependence of $`W`$ on the UV normalization scale $`\mu `$ (which can also be treated as an arbitrary factorization scale dividing the hard and soft subprocesses KRC1 ) is governed by the renormalization group (RG) equation

$$\left(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\beta (g)\frac{}{g}\right)\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}\left[\alpha _s(\mu )\right],$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}(\alpha _s)`$ is the universal cusp anomalous dimension evaluated in the perturbation theory. In Eq. (17), we take the logarithmic derivative in $`Q^2`$ in order to avoid problems with light-cone singularities at $`m^2=0`$ KRC1 . The solution of the RG equation leads to the evolution equation

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=_{\lambda ^2}^{\mu ^2}\frac{d\xi }{2\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}\left[\alpha _s(\xi )\right]+\frac{dW_{np}(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2},$$
(18)
where the function $`W_{np}`$ gives the initial condition at $`\mu ^2=\lambda ^2`$ and has to be found by the nonperturbative methods KRREN ; TAF . Solving Eq. (18), we take the arbitrary upper bound for the squared momenta of soft gluons equal to the hard scale $`\mu ^2=Q^2`$ and find

$$\mathrm{ln}\frac{W(Q^2)}{W(Q_0^2)}=_{Q_0^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dx}{x}\left[_{\lambda ^2}^x\frac{d\xi }{2\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}\left[\alpha _s(\xi )\right]\frac{dW_{np}(x)}{d\mathrm{ln}x}\right],$$
(19)
which immediately leads to the conclusion that the leading large-$`Q^2`$ behavior of the quark form factor $`F_q(Q^2)`$ including all logarithmic corrections is controlled by the universal cusp anomalous dimension (17) and can be expressed in the following form (for comparison, see KRC1 ):

$$F_q(Q^2)=W(Q^2)$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left[_{Q_0^2}^{Q^2}\frac{d\xi }{2\xi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}\left[\alpha _s(\xi )\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}_{\lambda ^2}^{Q_0^2}\frac{d\xi }{2\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}\left[\alpha _s(\xi )\right]+W_{np}(Q^2)\right]W_0,$$
(20)
where $`W_0=W(Q_0^2)`$ contains both perturbative and nonperturbative contributions. From the one-loop result (15), the cusp anomalous dimension which satisfies the RG equation (17) in one-loop order is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}^{(1)}(\alpha _s(\mu ))=\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }C_F.$$
(21)
Substituting the anomalous dimension (21) in the one-loop approximation for the strong coupling into the Eq. (20), one finds

$$F_q^{(1)}(Q^2)$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2C_F}{\beta _0}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\left(1\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(\lambda ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)\right)+W_{np}(Q^2)\right]F^{(1)}(Q_0^2),$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the QCD scale. The singularity in Eq. (22) originates from the region where the IR cutoff approaches $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, i. e.,  where the coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ increases, and then may have a nonperturbative nature.

## III Effects of the IR renormalons

In order to determine the structure of the nonperturbative function $`W_{np}`$ in Eqs. (20, 22), it is instructive to study the corrections due to IR renormalons REN . In the present situation, one can expect the corrections proportional to the powers of both scales $`\mu ^2`$ and $`\lambda ^2`$. However, taking into account the evolution in $`\mu ^2`$ to the hard characteristic scale of the process $`Q^2`$ (19), we treat the power $`\mu ^2`$ terms to be strongly suppressed, and focus on the power $`\lambda ^2`$ corrections. To find them, let us consider the perturbative function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(\epsilon ,0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)`$ in the Eq. (10). The insertion of the fermion bubble 1-chain to the one-loop order expression (7) is equivalent to replacement of the frozen coupling constant $`g^2`$ by the running one $`g^2g^2(k^2)=4\pi \alpha _s(k^2)`$ KRREN :

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1(\epsilon ,0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)=4\pi \mu ^{2\epsilon }\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\alpha _s(k^2)\frac{\text{e}^{ikz}\delta (z^2)}{k^2(k^2+\lambda ^2)}.$$
(23)
For the sake of convenience, we work here in Euclidean space. Using the integral representation for the one-loop running coupling $`\alpha _s(k^2)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/k^2)^{\sigma b}`$, $`b=\beta _0/4\pi `$, we find

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1(\epsilon ,0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{\beta _0(1\epsilon )}\left(4\pi \frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^\epsilon _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+x+\epsilon )}{(x+\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon )}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^x.$$
(24)
To define properly the integral on the right hand sided of Eq. (24), one needs to specify a prescription to go around the poles, which are at the points $`\overline{x}_n=n,n`$. Of course, the result of integration will depend on this prescription giving an ambiguity proportional to $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\lambda ^2\right)^n`$ for each pole. Then, the IR renormalons produce the power corrections to the one-loop perturbative result, which we assume to exponentiate with the latter KRREN ; TAF . Extracting from Eq. (24) the UV singular part in vicinity of the origin $`x=0`$, we divide the integration interval $`[0,\mathrm{}]`$ in two parts $`[0,\delta ]`$ and $`[\delta ,\mathrm{}]`$, where $`\delta <1`$. This procedure allows us to evaluate the ultraviolet and the renormalon-induced pieces separately. For the ultraviolet piece, we apply the expansion of the integrand in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ in powers of small $`x`$ and replace the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ functions by $`\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _E\epsilon )`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^{UV}(\epsilon ,0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{\beta _0(1\epsilon )}\underset{k,n=0}{}()^n\frac{\left(\mathrm{ln}4\pi \gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^k}{k!\epsilon ^{nk+1}}_0^\delta 𝑑xx^n\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^x,$$
(25)
which after subtraction of the poles in the modified minimal subtraction scheme becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^{UV}(0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{\beta _0(1\epsilon )}\underset{n=1}{}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^n\frac{()^n}{n!}_0^\delta 𝑑xx^{n1}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^x.$$
(26)
In analogy with results of Ref. Mikh98 , this expression may be rewritten in a closed form as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^{UV}(0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{\beta _0(1\epsilon )}_0^\delta \frac{dx}{x}\left[\text{e}^{x\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\text{e}^{x\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right].$$
(27)
Substituting

$$\frac{dW^{(1)}(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=2C_F(1\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^{UV}(0,\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)$$
(28)
into Eq. (17) one finds

$$\left(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\beta (g)\frac{}{g}\right)\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W^{(1)}(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}^{(1)}(\alpha _s(\mu ))\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left[\delta \frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _s(\mu )}\right]\right).$$
(29)
The second exponent in the last equation yields the power suppressed terms $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/Q^2\right)^\delta `$ in large-$`Q^2`$ regime. In the leading logarithmic approximation (LLA) Eq. (28) is reduced to

$$\frac{dW^{(1)}(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{2C_F}{\beta _0}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(\lambda ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right).$$
(30)
The last expression obviously satisfies the perturbative evolution equation (17).

The remaining integral in Eq. (24) over the interval $`[\delta ,\mathrm{}]`$ is evaluated at $`\epsilon =0`$ since there are no UV singularities. The resulting expression does not depend on the normalization point $`\mu `$, and thus it is determined by the IR region including nonperturbative effects. It contains the renormalon ambiguities due to different prescriptions in going around the poles $`\overline{x}_n`$ in the Borel plane which yields the power corrections to the quark form factor.

After the substitution $`\mu ^2=Q^2`$ and integration over $`d(\mathrm{ln}Q^2)`$, we find in LLA (for comparison, see Eq. (22))

$$F_q^{ren}(Q^2)$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2C_F}{\beta _0}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\left(1\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(\lambda ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\varphi _{ren}(\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\right]F^{ren}(Q_0^2),$$
(31)
where the function $`\varphi _{ren}(\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)=_{k=0}\varphi _k(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\lambda ^2)^k`$ accumulates the effects of the IR renormalons, as well as the other nonperturbative information. The coefficients $`\varphi _k`$ cannot be calculated in perturbation theory and can be treated as the minimal set of nonperturbative parameters. It is worth noting that the logarithmic $`Q^2`$ dependence of the renormalon induced corrections in the large-$`Q^2`$ regime is factorized, and thus the Eq. (31) reproduces exactly the structure of nonperturbative contributions found in the one-loop evolution equation (22) with respect to the large-$`Q^2`$ asymptotic behavior.

## IV Large-$`Q^2`$ behaviour of the instanton induced contribution

Let us consider the instanton induced corrections to the perturbative result. The instanton field is given by

$$\widehat{A}_\mu (x;\rho )=A_\mu ^a(x;\rho )\frac{\sigma ^a}{2}=\frac{1}{g}\text{R}^{ab}\sigma ^a\eta _{}^{\pm }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{b}(xz_0)_\nu \phi (xz_0;\rho ),$$
(32)
where $`\text{R}^{ab}`$ is the color orientation matrix $`\left[a=1,\mathrm{},(N_c^21),b=1,2,3\right]`$, $`\sigma ^a`$’s are the Pauli matrices, and $`(\pm )`$ corresponds to the instanton, or anti-instanton. The averaging of the Wilson operator over the nonperturbative vacuum is reduced to the integration over the coordinate of the instanton center $`z_0`$, the color orientation and the instanton size $`\rho `$. The measure for the averaging over the instanton ensemble reads $`dI=d\text{R}d^4z_0dn(\rho )`$, where $`d\text{R}`$ refers to the averaging over color orientation and $`dn(\rho )`$ depends on the choice of the instanton size distribution. Taking into account Eq. (32), we write the Wilson integral (4), which defines the instanton induced contribution to the nonperturbative part in Eq. (20), in the single instanton approximation in the form

$$W_I(C_\chi )=\frac{1}{N_c}0|\text{Tr}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\sigma ^a\varphi ^a\right)|0,$$
(33)
where

$$\varphi ^a(z_0,\rho )=\text{R}^{ab}\eta _{}^{+}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{b}_{C_\gamma }𝑑x_\mu (xz_0)_\nu \phi (xz_0;\rho ).$$
(34)
We omit the path ordering operator $`𝒫`$ in Eq. (33) because the instanton field (32) is a hedgehog in color space, and so it locks the color orientation by space coordinates. Although in certain situations, the integrals of this type (Eq. (34)) can be evaluated explicitly Sh , the calculation of the total integral (34) for a given contour requires an additional work, so we must restrict ourselves with the weak-field approximation. In contrast to our previous paper DCH , here we use the cutoff $`\lambda ^2`$ to regularize the IR divergences in the instanton case, while the UV divergences do not appear at all due to the finite instanton size. Then, in case of the instanton field, the LO contribution reads

$$W_I^{(1)}(C_\chi )=2h(\chi )𝑑n(\rho )\mathrm{\Delta }_1^I(0,\rho ^2\lambda ^2),$$
(35)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1^I(0,\rho ^2\lambda ^2)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\text{e}^{ikz}\delta (z^2)\left[2\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}(k^2;\rho )\right]^2.$$
(36)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(k^2;\rho )`$ is the Fourier transform of the instanton profile function $`\phi (z^2;\rho )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{}(k^2;\rho )`$ is it’s derivative with respect to $`k^2`$. Note, that for the instanton calculations, it is necessary to map the scattering angle $`\chi `$ to the Euclidean space by the analytical continuation EUC  $`\chi i\gamma `$, and perform the inverse transition to the Minkowski space-time in the final expressions in order to restore the $`Q^2`$ dependence. In the singular gauge, when the profile function is

$$\phi (z^2)=\frac{\rho ^2}{z^2(z^2+\rho ^2)},$$
(37)
one gets

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1^I(0,\rho ^2\lambda ^2)=\frac{\pi ^2\rho ^4}{4}\left[\mathrm{ln}(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)+\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)\right],$$
(38)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)=\frac{1}{\rho ^4\lambda ^4}_0^1\frac{dz}{z(1z)}[1+\text{e}^{\rho ^2\lambda ^2}2\text{e}^{z\rho ^2\lambda ^2}],\underset{\lambda ^20}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)=1$$
(39)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)=\underset{n=1}{}_0^1dxdydz\frac{[\rho ^2\lambda ^2(xz+y(1z))]^n}{n!n}\text{e}^{\rho ^2\lambda ^2[xz+y(1z)]},\underset{\lambda ^20}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)=0$$
(40)
are the IR-finite expressions. At high energy the instanton induced contribution is reduced to the form

$$\frac{dw_I(Q^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}𝑑n(\rho )\rho ^4\left[\mathrm{ln}(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)+\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\rho ^2\lambda ^2)\right]B_I(\lambda ^2).$$
(41)
Here we used the exponentiation of the single-instanton result in a dilute instanton ensemble DCH :

$$W_I=\mathrm{exp}\left(w_I\right),$$
(42)
and took only the LO term of the weak-field expansion (7): $`W^{(1)}w_I`$.

In order to estimate the magnitude of the instanton induced effect we consider the standard distribution function tH  supplied with the exponential suppressing factor, which has been suggested in Ref. SH2  (and discussed in Ref. DEMM99  in the framework of constrained instanton model) in order to describe the lattice data LAT

$$dn(\rho )=\frac{d\rho }{\rho ^5}C_{N_c}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\alpha _s(\mu _r)}\right)^{2N_c}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\alpha _s(\mu _r)}\right)\left(\rho \mu _r\right)^\beta \mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \sigma \rho ^2\right),$$
(43)
where the constant $`C_{N_c}`$ is

$$C_{N_c}=\frac{0.466\text{e}^{1.679N_c}}{(N_c1)!(N_c2)!}0.0015,$$
(44)
$`\sigma `$ is the string tension, $`\beta =\beta _0+O\left[\alpha _s(\mu _r)\right]`$, and $`\mu _r`$ is the normalization point MOR . Given the distribution (43) the main parameters of the instanton liquid model—the mean instanton size $`\overline{\rho }`$ and the instanton density $`\overline{n}`$—will read

$$\overline{\rho }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta /23/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta /22)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma }},$$
(45)
$$\overline{n}=\frac{C_{N_c}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta /22)}{2}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\alpha _S(\overline{\rho }^1)}\right)^{2N_c}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma }}\right)^\beta (2\pi \sigma )^2.$$
(46)
In Eq. (46) we choose, for convenience, the normalization scale $`\mu _r`$ of order of the instanton inverse mean size $`\overline{\rho }^1`$. Note, that these quantities correspond to the mean size $`\rho _0`$ and density $`n_0`$ of instantons used in the model ILM , where the size distribution (43) is approximated by the delta function $`dn(\rho )=n_0\delta (\rho \rho _0)d\rho .`$

Thus, we find the leading instanton contribution (41) in the form

$$B_I=K\pi ^2\overline{n}\overline{\rho }^4\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\pi \sigma }{\lambda ^2}\left[1+O\left(\frac{\lambda ^2}{2\pi \sigma }\right)\right],$$
(47)
where

$$K=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta _0/2)[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta _0/22)]^3}{2[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta _0/23/2)]^4}0.74,$$
(48)
and we used the one loop expression for the running coupling constant

$$\alpha _s(\overline{\rho }^1)=\frac{2\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\overline{\rho }\mathrm{\Lambda }},\beta _0=\frac{11N_c2n_f}{3}.$$
(49)
The packing fraction $`\pi ^2\overline{n}\overline{\rho }^4`$ characterizes diluteness of the instanton liquid and within the conventional picture its value is estimated to be $`0.12,`$ if one takes the model parameters as (see Ref. REV )

$$\overline{n}1fm^4,\overline{\rho }1/3fm,\sigma (0.44GeV)^2.$$
(50)
The leading contribution to the quark form factor at asymptotically large $`Q^2`$ is provided by the (perturbative) evolution governed by the cusp anomalous dimension (21). Thus, the instantons yield subleading effects to the large-$`Q^2`$ behavior accompanied by a numerically small factor

$$B_I0.02,$$
(51)
as compared to the perturbative term $`2C_F/\beta _00.24`$.

Therefore, from Eqs. (41) and (31), we find the expression for the quark form factor at large $`Q^2`$ with the one-loop perturbative contribution and the nonperturbative contributions (the function $`W_{np}`$ in Eq. (22)) which include both the IR renormalon and the instanton induced terms

$$F_q(Q^2)$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2C_F}{\beta _0}\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\left(1\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(\lambda ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\left(B_I+\varphi _{ren}\right)\right].$$
(52)
It is clear, that while the asymptotic (double-logarithmic) behavior is controlled by the perturbative cusp anomalous dimension, the leading nonperturbative corrections results in a finite renormalization of the next-to-leading (logarithmic) perturbative term. From the formal point of view, the evolution equation (20) describing the large-$`Q^2`$ asymptotic is valid even at the low scales $`Q^21GeV^2`$, since the only condition of applicability of the Wilson integrals approach is $`Q^2>>\lambda ^2,m^2`$. However, in the low-energy domain the perturbative one-loop cusp anomalous dimension $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{cusp}(\alpha _s)`$ (21) should be supplemented by higher loop corrections, and thus the explicit formula (52) would include additional logarithmic terms. The relevance of the instanton induced part (41) in the low-energy domain calculated in the dilute gas approximation can be questioned, and the additional consideration within more proper framework may help one to verify it. Indeed, the corrections to the single instanton approximation may be large at sufficiently low momenta (see for recent discussions, e.g. Ref. Faccioli:2002wr  and references therein). At the moment, we can say confidently that the evolution equation is valid at $`Q^21GeV^2`$.

We have to comment that the weak field limit used in the instanton calculations may deviate from the exact result. Nevertheless, we expect that using of the instanton solution in the singular gauge, that concentrate the field at small distances, leads to the reasonable numerical estimate of the full effect. Thus, the resulting diminishing of the instanton contributions with respect to the perturbative result appears to be reasonable output. It should be emphasized that in the present paper, all the calculations have been performed analytically while the evaluation of the instanton contribution beyond the weak field approximation requires a numerical analysis, which will be the subject of a separate work. Moreover, the use of the singular gauge for the instanton solution allows us to prove the exponentiation theorem for the Wilson loop in the instanton field DCH  which permits one to express the full instanton contribution as the exponent of the all-order single instanton result (42).

## V Conclusion

We analyzed the structure of the nonperturbative corrections to the quark form factor at large momentum transfer. In order to model the nonperturbative effects, we studied the quark scattering process in the background of the instanton vacuum. The instanton induced contribution to the color singlet quark form factor is calculated in the large momentum transfer regime. It was shown that the instanton induced corrections correspond to the leading term proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$. The magnitude of these corrections is determined by the small instanton liquid packing fraction parameter, and they can be treated as finite renormalization of the subleading perturbative part (52). In addition to this, the minimal set of the nonperturbative parameters is found considering infrared renormalon ambiguities of the perturbative series. Within this approach, it is shown that the leading large-$`Q^2`$ behavior of nonperturbative contributions should also be determined by the logarithmic term $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$, what is consistent with the instanton analysis.

Let us emphasize that our results are quite sensitive to the prescription how to make the integration over instanton sizes finite. For example, if one used the sharp cutoff then the instanton would produce strongly suppressed power corrections such as $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q)^{\beta _0}`$. However, we think that the distribution function (43) should be considered as more realistic, since it reflects more properly the structure of the instanton ensemble modeling the QCD vacuum. Indeed, this shape of distribution was recently advocated in Refs. SH2 ; DEMM99  and supported by the lattice calculations LAT .

Finally, we think that the instanton induced effects are more interesting for theoretical investigation and more important for phenomenology in the hadronic processes which possess two energy scales, such as the total center-of-mass energy $`s`$ (hard characteristic scale), and the squared momentum transfer $`t`$ which is small compared to the latter: $`t<<s`$. One of the most interesting examples of such processes is the parton-parton scattering and the soft Pomeron problem Sh ; KKL ; KRP . Another important situations where the nonperturbative (including instanton induced) effects can emerge are the transverse momentum distribution of vector bosons in the Drell-Yan process (see, e.g., Refs. KRREN ; TAF ), and the phenomenon of saturation in deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) at small x SCHUT . The explicit evaluation of the instanton effects in these processes will be the subject of our forthcoming study.

## VI  Acknowledgments

We are grateful to A. P. Bakulev, N. I. Kochelev, O. V. Teryaev and especially to S. V. Mikhailov for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by RFBR (Grant Nos. 03-02-17291, 02-02-81023, 02-02-16194, 01-02-16431), the Heisenberg-Landau program (Grant No. HL-2002-13), the Russian Federation President’s Grant No. 1450-2003-2, and INTAS (Grant no. 00-00-366). One of the authors (I.Ch.) is grateful to the Theory group at DESY (Hamburg), and especially to F. Schrempp, for invitation, financial support, and numerous fruitful discussions.