text:
# QCD and Nuclei

## I  Introduction

There are broadly two ways the fundamental theory of strong interactions, QCD, can figure importantly in nuclear physics: The first is to legitimize the place that nuclear physics occupies within the framework of the Standard Model and the second is to enable one to make precise predictions for processes involving nuclei that play a crucial role in certain fundamental processes. In this talk I will not dwell on the first issue although it has attracted most of the recent efforts and simply refer to a recent review beaneetal . I shall instead focus on the second issue. It turns out that it is in the latter where several Korean theorists have made significant contributions. I am particularly proud of their contributions and feel honored to talk about them at this occasion of the 30th anniversary of Nuclear Physics Division of the Korean Physical Society.

I shall discuss two issues of fundamental nature here. One is the precise calculation of the weak processes that take place in the Sun that are relevant to the solar neutrino problem and the question of neutrino masses. Here we are dealing with light nuclei dilute in number density. The other is the property of hadronic matter under extreme conditions of high temperature and/or high density. The high temperature property is connected with the Early Universe and the high density with the interior of compact stars. QCD should describe what happens under such conditions, some which are currently accessible to the usual laboratory conditions and some not. In principle QCD should describe both – the dilute system and the dense system – within the same framework. However performing such a feat starting from QCD in its elegant form is impossible at the moment. Hence we are forced to resort to a certain number of strategies that rely on effective theories, in particular effective field theories (EFTs). Now in effectuating EFTs, the two cases I mentioned above require somewhat different strategies which in principle should be connected but how they are related is not well understood at the moment.

In a nut-shell, the notion of EFTs that I shall exploit here is summarized by Weinberg’s “theorem” wein-theorem  which in the present context states that at low energy/momentum, QCD can be encapsulated in an effective field theory with a suitable set of colorless fields subject to the symmetries and invariance required by QCD. This “theorem” has not yet been proven but it seems highly unlikely that it cannot be correct. In what follows, I will assume that doing an EFT at low energy in the spirit of Weinberg’s theorem does indeed amount to doing QCD and discuss how it can be implemented in confronting Nature.

## II Effective field theories (EFTs)

### II.1 Setting up an EFT

In QCD, an effective field theory is defined below an arbitrary but suitably chosen scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of a set of effective degrees of freedom that delineate the EFT from a fundamental theory defined above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of fundamental degrees of freedom. Below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the relevant degrees of freedom are hadrons with masses less than the cutoff scale and above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ they are the quarks and gluons of QCD. In order for an EFT to accurately represent QCD, it has to be matched to QCD at the scale, say, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. This can be done by matching physical observables, say, the current-current correlators, expressed in terms of the relevant degrees of freedom in both sectors. How this can be done has been developed and explained in detail by Harada and Yamawaki in HY:PR  using hidden local symmetry Lagrangian. One of the important points that one learns from this development is that when the correlators are matched in medium at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, that is, at a finite temperature and/or finite density, the parameters of the effective Lagrangian are parametrically dependent on temperature and/or density as well as of course on the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. In what precise form the dependence takes is not known within the framework of EFTs. They may be determined either on lattice or by experiments if available. We note that most of the EFT calculations that start with an effective Lagrangian defined in the matter-free vacuum do not have this “intrinsic dependence” whereas the approach based on Brown-Rho scaling BR91  does. This intrinsic dependence turns out to play a pivotal role for the arguments given below. The other important point is that the (Wilsonian) matching with QCD leads to the result that in the chiral limit (that is, when quark masses are set to zero) the system must flow to what Harada and Yamawaki call “vector manifestation (VM)” fixed point HY:VM ; HY:PR  as the critical temperature or density is approached. At the VM, the mass of the vector mesons vanishes with the gauge coupling $`g`$ and the pion decay constant $`f_\pi `$ going to zero and the longitudinal components of the vector mesons $`\rho _{}`$ (i.e., the de-Higgsed scalars) joining, for three flavors 111For two flavors, the situation is a bit more subtle. We will ignore this subtlety here., the octet pseudoscalar Goldstone bosons, $`\pi `$. The bottom line of this observation is that at least in the chiral limit, the chiral restoration phase transition à la VM is basically different from the standard sigma model one. There is no lattice QCD confirmation of this scenario but it is likely that it will be tested. In this talk, I will assume that the vector manifestation is a viable mechanism and discuss what comes out of the picture. It will turn out that one can make some interesting predictions ranging from light nuclear systems to dense stellar systems.

### II.2 More effective effective field theory or MEEFT

The ultimate goal of an EFT would be to start with an effective Lagrangian as defined above and derive all properties of few-body as well as many-body systems in a systematic power counting scheme, without the necessity to resort to empirical data once a minimum (initial) set of parameters are fixed. Such a program would have to deal with not only the basic two-nucleon interactions but also many-body interactions, accounting for the formation of the Fermi sea which is in a sense a quantum critical phenomenon and arriving at a Fermi liquid structure at normal nuclear matter density. The ultimate objective would then be to arrive at the chiral phase transition expected in QCD in the chiral limit. Such an ambitious program does not yet exist and perhaps makes no sense just as it makes no sense to attempt to derive crystals starting from QED.

Now even in the framework of EFT, if one were to adhere strictly to the order-by-order power counting of the EFT series (one might call this “purist EFT”), one could not make much progress. All that has been accomplished up to now is to postdict things on two-nucleon systems and perhaps a little bit of three-nucleon systems but doing anything beyond in the mass number, unless one relaxes the strict rule of power counting, is at present out of reach. Even for the few-nucleon systems that can be handled, I do not see much more than just reproducing the phenomena well understood in the standard nuclear physics approach based on realistic potentials. It is not clear that this line of efforts would lead to anything new or even useful in deeper understanding of complex nuclear dynamics.

We take an alternative approach that takes full advantage of the tremendous accuracy achieved by the standard nuclear physics approach (SNPA). The sophisticated SNPA which has been unquestionably successful in correlating a large number of nuclear phenomena SNPA  is based on “realistic” nuclear potentials – typically two- and three-nucleon interactions – that are fit to a large number of scattering as well as spectroscopic data over a wide range of nuclei. By realistic nuclear potentials, I will understand those potentials that have the long-range part constrained by chiral symmetry, that is, pionic properties and the short-range part determined by experiments. Since low-energy/momentum processes should not be sensitive to the detailed structure of the short-range part, the short-distance part of the interaction could not be uniquely determined by low-energy data. The issue is how to formulate the EFT such that transition matrix elements that sample $`also`$ short-distance components – though with much less importance – can be made accurate. The way to accomplish this is to incorporate the SNPA into the framework of effective field theories, while preserving the power counting of the EFT. This allows one to carry over the immense success of the SNPA and make the scheme as model-independent and unambiguous as possible. Note that the SNPA by itself does not lend itself to a systematic assessment of errors committed in the calculation. This is because there is no clear way to establish that what is obtained is not subject to uncontrolled corrections. The power of an EFT is precisely in providing the means to assess the error committed in making approximations and making it possible to systematically correct the errors. Let me call this version of EFT which combines the powers of the SNPA and EFT more effective effective field theory (MEEFT) 222I must mention here as a side remark that this terminology is entirely mine, merely meant to tickle, and not to “anger,” the aficionados of the “purist EFT.” My coworkers like to call it EFT\*.. What it means will be clearer later.

## III EFT predictions for light nuclei

### III.1 Solar fusion process

As a case where one can work with an effective Lagrangian constructed in the vacuum at zero temperature and density matched to QCD at the chiral scale near $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 4\pi f_\pi 1`$ GeV, consider the solar fusion processes

$`pp:`$ $`p+pd+e^++\nu _e,`$ (1)
$`hep:`$ $`p+{}_{}{}^{3}\text{He}{}_{}{}^{4}\text{He}+e^++\nu _e.`$ (2)
These two processes represent the lowest- and highest-energy neutrino production processes. The MEEFT enables one to treat these processes involving different numbers of nucleons on the same footing PMetal2001 ; PMetal2 ; PMetallong  and further to make theoretical error estimates. The reactions (1) and (2) figure importantly in astrophysics; they have much bearing upon issues of great current interest such as, for example, the solar neutrino problem and non-standard physics in the neutrino sector. Since the thermal energy of the interior of the Sun is of the order of keV, and since no experimental data is available for such low-energy regimes, one must rely on theory for determining the astrophysical $`S`$-factors of the solar nuclear processes.

Since the momentum transfer involved is small, these processes are dominated by the Gamow-Teller matrix element given by the long-wavelength limit of the spatial component of the axial current operator. It turns out that the Gamow-Teller operator is particularly difficult to pin down if its matrix element is “accidentally” suppressed as in the case of the $`hep`$ process. One can understand this in terms of what is known as “chiral filter mechanism” KDR ; chiralfilterMR . In an effective field theory in which chiral symmetry plays an essential role as in nuclei, corrections to the leading single-particle process in the transition matrix elements are strongly dominated by soft-pion exchanges whenever they are allowed by symmetry and kinematics. A consequence is that the subleading corrections remain small compared to the leading term and can be estimated reasonably well by going to one order higher: the total amplitude can be computed with a great deal of accuracy. The space part of the vector current PMR  and the time part of the axial current KDR  belong to this class of operators. However if the soft-pion exchanges are suppressed by symmetries independently of kinematic conditions as in the case of the time component of the vector current and the space component of the axial current, then leading corrections to the single-particle operators are sensitive to effects of short-distance nature that are not easily accessible by low-energy theorems and hence require chiral non-perturbative treatments. This chiral filter mechanism has been given a justification in terms of a chiral expansion at low orders of chiral perturbation chiralfilterMR  and also in a different and more general approach serot-walecka .

It is the lack of the chiral-filter aspect that has made the calculation of the $`hep`$ process notoriously difficult for a long time. The main operator for both (1) and (2) – which is the Gamow-Teller operator – is unprotected by the chiral filter. It turns out however that the leading GT single-particle matrix for (1) – which is unsuppressed by symmetry considerations – accounts for the bulk of the transition matrix element, so the short-distance corrections uncontrolled by chiral symmetry remain in the range of only a few percents at most. This is not the case for the $`hep`$ process. Because the leading single-particle matrix element involved here is highly suppressed “accidentally” by the symmetry mismatch between the initial and final wave functions, the corrections play a very important role, making orders of magnitude uncertainty in the $`S`$ factor depending on how they are computed as explained in detail in PMetallong .

Let me quote the results here for the $`pp`$ and $`hep`$ for the sake of completeness as they are the values to be used by astrophysicists for solar neutrino issues and explain in the next subsection for nuclear and hadron physicists how the MEEFT proposed above can resolve this difficulty and allow the calculation of the $`pp`$ process with an unprecedent accuracy and that of the $`hep`$ process within $`15`$% accuracy which represents a giant improvement over the past results 333I would like to reiterate my challenge to the aficionados of the “purist EFT” to come up with a parameter-free prediction for the $`hep`$ $`S`$-factor. The first person who succeeds in doing so within the coming year will be offered a bottle of a great French wine.:

$`S_{pp}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`3.94\times (1\pm 0.004)\times 10^{25}\text{MeV-b},`$ (3)
$`S_{hep}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`(8.6\pm 1.3)\times 10^{20}\text{keV-b}.`$ (4)
### III.2 The strategy of MEEFT

Before I go into the details of this subsection, let me do away with other terms that enter mainly into the $`hep`$ calculation. In the weak matrix elements that contribute to both (1) and (2), the vector matrix elements are without any uncertainty: They are protected by low-energy theorems. However in the axial current sector, the time component of the axial current does make a significant contribution for the $`hep`$ whereas it is negligible for the $`pp`$. In most of the past works with the exception of the recent SNPA calculation of marcuccietal , the axial charge component has not been properly treated. This component, however, is protected by the chiral filter as mentioned above, so its calculation can be made fairly reliably. Thus I will focus on the Gamow-Teller operator which is the only difficult operator to handle for the processes involved.

To set up the strategy, one first has to pick the relevant degrees of freedom. Since the nucleons are the essential ingredient of the nuclear systems, they figure in the theory although the mass scale involved is of the same scale as the chiral scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 1`$ GeV. The pion is the lightest excitation whose mass is non-zero because of the explicit chiral symmetry breaking due to the quark masses. Its actual mass is $`140`$ MeV. Now if one is interested in very low-energy and low-momentum processes, say at most a few MeV, like (1) and (2), then the pion mass can be considered “high” and in this case, one might integrate out the pion as well beaneetal . If the pion is integrated out with its effect incorporated into higher dimension terms in the effective Lagrangian, we lose however the power of the chiral filter consideration and thereby lose certain predictivity associated with current algebras. We shall therefore keep the pion in the theory. If the matter density is high, then as we shall see below, the vector degrees of freedom (such as the $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$) cannot be ignored since their masses become small due to the “vector manifestation” of chiral symmetry HY:PR . However the systems that figure in (1) and (2) are dilute and hence the vector mesons remain massive, so can be integrated out. But this does not mean that they are not important, particularly if the process is not protected by the chiral filter. Nuclear processes generically experience a wide range of scales as nucleons in strong interactions sample all distances with varying degrees of importance and hence when the massive particles are integrated out their effects transferred to higher-dimension operators cannot be ignored à priori. How those effects are taken into account differentiate various approximations made in EFT calculations.

The computation of a transition matrix element between the initial $`|i`$ and final $`|f`$ states involves the full account of interactions between the nucleons and one insertion of an external field or current. In the Weinberg scheme weinberg , this amounts to computing the interaction potential and the current vertex in a series of “irreducible graphs” and summing to all orders the “reducible graphs” with the potential appearing as the kernel. The power counting goes into the irreducible graphs which are then computed to a certain order $`N`$. If one were to compute to all orders in the irreducible sector, then the procedure would give an exact answer 444There could be a problem of consistency in power counting if this program is executed to a finite $`N`$ as discussed in beaneetal  but if summed to all orders, this problem would be avoided by fiat.. One is however limited to a finite $`N`$ because of the proliferation of high-order diagrams and of the number of consequent counter terms that cannot be fixed (a feature that is characteristic of the so-called non-renormalizable theory). This limitation is circumvented in MEEFT by resorting to the potentials that are phenomenologically fitted to an ensemble of experiments. Such a “realistic potential” must have the correct feature at long distance required by chiral symmetry of QCD, namely one and possibly two-pion exchanges constrained by low-energy theorems associated with chiral symmetry. The short-distance components of the variety of realistic potentials fitted to a set of low energy data, say, $`E300`$ MeV, can however differ widely from one potential to another. It is also in these parts where off-shell ambiguities could figure strongly. This means that when one probes short-distance effects with such potentials one would obtain widely different results. It is not obvious then that when one uses these potentials in computing the transition matrix elements that involve low external energy/momentum, one is not getting different answers depending upon which short-distance properties are involved in the potentials. This is the difficulty that the SNPA cannot control by itself.

The MEEFT resolves, albeit approximately, this difficulty as follows. We start with the wave functions for the initial and final nuclear states computed in many-body techniques SNPA  using a potential that is fit to a large set of scattering and transition data. Such a potential typically possesses the long-range tail given by the pion exchange constrained by chiral symmetry – i.e., consistent with low-order chiral expansion – and the short-range parts determined by the fit to experiments. While the long-range part is unique, the short-range part may not be since a variety of short-distance components can give the same physical low-energy observables. The wave functions obtained with such different potentials would possess different short-distance properties, so the matrix element of an arbitrary operator computed to a finite order will differ depending upon how sensitive the operator is to the short-distance physics. What is needed to get the correct matrix element that is independent of short-distance ambiguities is the additional terms in the operator that compensate the short distance behavior in the wave functions. The way to do this is as follows. Since the current appears only once in the matrix element, one can focus on the irreducible graphs that in chiral perturbation theory contribute to a finite order $`N`$. In calculating the loop graphs, one puts a cutoff in the loop integrals, say, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ 555How to do this at higher loop order while preserving chiral symmetry is a tricky matter when one uses the cutoff procedure. To avoid this problem, one might use the dimensional regularization suitably generalized for the problem at hand, e.g., power divergence subtraction. and integrate out above $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. What is integrated out gives a set of contact terms and make up the counter terms in the renormalization procedure. Those counter terms are mostly unknown unless the theory is renormalizable or “defined” by a fit to experiments. In any case, they will depend on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Suppose now that the matrix element of the operator so computed to the order $`N`$ with the wave functions described above is fit to experiments, thereby fixing the counter term coefficients for given $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. This may or may not be possible depending upon how many counter terms there are and how many experimental data are available. Suppose that we can determine $`all`$ the counter terms in this way. Then one can use the same set of operators to compute transitions in other systems, that is to say, make predictions. Since the long-range parts are unambiguously fixed by chiral symmetry and the zero-range interactions are $`universal`$ in that they should not differ from an $`A`$-body system to $`A\pm 1`$-body system, if one has the operator for the $`A`$-body system in this way, we can compute the corresponding transition matrix elements for the $`A\pm 1`$-body systems without any unknown parameters. If the procedure is correct, then the result should not depend sensitively on the cutoff chosen as long as it is within a reasonable range dictated by the degrees of freedom that intervene.

The price to pay in the MEEFT is that the strict power counting is sacrificed at the order $`(N+1)`$ since the potential is most likely to contain not only the terms that are consistent with chiral symmetry up to order $`N`$ but also terms which go beyond. The counting error that shows up at $`(N+1)`$-st order will then be in the regime of short-distance physics and the role of the MEEFT regularization is to largely, if not completely, compensate for this error.

What happens in the case at hand is very much like the situation with $`V_{lowk}`$ discussed by Bogner et al kuo  that figures in the half on-shell T matrix for low-momentum effective nuclear interactions: There it is found also to be remarkably independent of the short-distance uncertainty.

In the case of the processes (1) and (2), it is possible to reduce the only two unknown two-body contact terms present in the theory into one combination in the Gamow-Teller operator effective for the two-nucleon, three-nucleon and four-nucleon processes in question (three-body and higher-body terms are suppressed compared to the terms calculated). The resulting single unknown constant can then be fixed once and for all by the accurately measured triton beta decay for $`given`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$’s. This allows one to predict, totally parameter-free, the matrix elements for the $`pp`$ and $`hep`$ processes, i.e., the results (3) and (4). The constant depends on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ but the total Gamow-Teller matrix element is not. I find this result truly remarkable. It will be of help in the future work on solar neutrinos.

## IV EFT for dense matter

Let me turn now to dense hadronic matter. We will consider dense matter, ranging from nuclear matter all the way to that relevant to chiral restoration. For this purpose, we will need what I would call “double decimation” strategy which consists of first going to nuclear matter density and then to higher density near the chiral phase transition. Here the crucial role is played by the notion of “vector manifestation of chiral symmetry” introduced by Harada and Yamawaki HY:VM ; HY:PR . The significance of this notion is best appreciated if one recognizes that it in essence provides the mechanism by which the mass of the nucleons – which makes up 99% of the mass of ordinary matter wilczek  – can be made to “disappear.”

### IV.1 Vector manifestation

In going to nuclear matter and beyond, we must keep the vector-meson degrees of freedom $`explicit`$ because of the vector manifestation (VM) mentioned above. To understand the VM, we consider the HLS Lagrangian bandoetal  in which the pion and vector mesons are effective degrees of freedom. For the moment, we ignore fermions and heavier excitations as e.g., $`a_1`$, glueballs etc. To make the discussion the most transparent, we consider three massless flavors. Masses and symmetry breaking can be introduced with attendant complications. The relevant fields are the (L,R)-handed chiral fields $`\xi _{L,R}=e^{i\sigma /F_\sigma }e^{i\pi /F_\pi }`$ where $`\pi `$ is the pseudoscalar Goldstone bosons and $`\sigma `$ the Goldstone scalar absorbed into the HLS vector field $`\rho _\mu `$ coupled gauge invariantly with the gauge coupling constant $`g`$. If one matches this theory to QCD at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ below the mass of the heavy mesons that are integrated out but above the vector ($`\rho `$) meson mass, it comes out – when the quark condensate $`\overline{q}q`$ vanishes as in the case of chiral restoration in the chiral limit – that

$`g(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})0,a(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})F_\sigma /F_\pi 1.`$ (5)
Now the renormalization group analysis shows that $`g=0`$ and $`a=1`$ is the fixed point of the HLS theory and hence at the chiral transition, one approaches what is called the “vector manifestation” fixed point. The important point to note here is that this fixed point is approached regardless of whether the chiral restoration is driven by temperature $`T`$ or density $`n`$ or a large number of flavors. At the VM, the vector meson mass must go to zero in proportion to $`g`$, the transverse vectors decouple and the longitudinal components of the vectors join in a degenerate multiplet with the pions 666One might wonder whether the decoupled transverse vectors require chiral partners to be consistent with the Wigner mode of chiral symmetry. If so, then, there would be a difficulty as there are no massless axial vectors that belong to the same multiplet. The answer is that there is no need for them. The transverse vector fields must transform invariantly under chiral transformation. How this can happen is suggested in MR:Taiwan . I am grateful for discussions with M. Harada, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki on the status of the transverse vectors.. Specifically

$`m_\rho ^{}/m_\rho g^{}/g\overline{q}q^{}/\overline{q}q0`$ (6)
as the transition point $`n=n_c`$ is reached HKR  777We will specialize in density. Qualitatively the same argument holds also in temperature but the details can be different away from the chiral restoration point.. This result can be understood as follows. Near the critical point the “intrinsic term” $`g^{}F_\pi ^{}`$ in the vector mass formula drops to zero faster than the dense loop term that goes as $`g^{}H(n)`$ where $`H`$ is a slowly (i.e., logarithmically) varying function of density. So the dense loop term controls the scaling. Now it seems to be a reasonable thing to do to assume that near the VM fixed point, we have the scaling

$`m_\rho ^{}/m_\rho g^{}/g\overline{q}q^{}/\overline{q}q.`$ (7)
Our conjecture BR-DD  is that this holds from nuclear matter density to the chiral restoration point.

### IV.2 Double-decimation conjecture

Let us now turn to the low-density regime, that is, density below nuclear matter density. At near zero density, one can apply chiral perturbation theory with a zero-density chiral Lagrangian. Using the HLS Lagrangian matched to QCD at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$, one can establish that

$`m_\rho ^{}/m_\rho f_\pi ^{}/f_\pi \sqrt{\overline{q}q^{}/\overline{q}q}.`$ (8)
This result follows from an in-medium GMOR relation for the pion with the assumption that at low density the pion mass does not scale (as indicated experimentally yamazaki ), that the vector meson mass is dominantly given by the “intrinsic term” $`\sqrt{a}F_\pi g`$ with small loop corrections that can be ignored and that the gauge coupling constant does not get modified at low density (as indicated by chiral models and also empirically). We will now simply assume that this relation holds from zero density to nuclear matter density. An important ingredient to interject here is that normal nuclear matter is a many-body fixed point, known as Fermi-liquid fixed point, so we are essentially summarizing the phase structure by two fixed points, namely, the Fermi-liquid fixed point and the vector-manifestation fixed point. This suggests a double-decimation approximation. It may be too simplistic to approximate the complex phase structure by only two decimations but we find that we can go a long distance with this approximation.

## V Predictions

A variety of evidences that lend support to the scaling behavior given above are discussed in BR:PR01 . Here I would like to discuss a few recent developments.

### V.1 $`Parametric`$ density dependence

The one feature that distinguishes the HLS/VM theory from other EFTs is the $`parametric`$ dependence on the background of the “vacuum” – density and/or temperature – which controls the fixed point structure of the VM. At low density, this dependence is relatively weak but in precision experiments, it should be visible.

Consider a chiral Lagrangian in which only the nucleon and pion fields are kept explicit with the vectors and other heavy hadron degrees of freedom integrated out (say, from the HLS/VM Lagrangian). The relevant parameters of the Lagrangian are the “bare” nucleon mass $`M(\mathrm{\Lambda }_M,n)`$, the “bare” pion mass $`m_\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_M,n)`$, the “bare” pion decay constant $`F_\pi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_M,n)`$, the “bare” axial-vector coupling $`g_A(\mathrm{\Lambda }_M,n)`$ and so on. The structure of this Lagrangian is the same as the familiar one apart from the $`intrinsic`$ dependence of the parameters on $`n`$. In the usual approach, the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is fixed at the chiral scale and the dependence on $`n`$ is absent. Suppose that one does a chiral perturbation theory with the HLS/VM Lagrangian. The power counting will be the same as in the conventional approach. Now if the density involved in the system is low enough, say, no greater than nuclear matter density, then one could work to leading order in chiral expansion. Suppose that one does this to the tree order. To this order, the parameters of the Lagrangian can be identified with physical quantities. For instance, the bare pion decay constant $`F_\pi `$ can be identified with the physical constant $`f_\pi `$ etc. Now in the framework at hand, the only dependence in the constants on density will then be the $`intrinsic`$ one determined by the matching to QCD living in the background of density $`n`$.

If we apply the above argument to the recent measurement of deeply bound pionic atom systems yamazaki , we will find that the measurement gives information on the ratio $`f_\pi ^{}/f_\pi `$ at a density $`nn_0`$. We have from (8)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(n)f_\pi ^{}/f_\pi \sqrt{\overline{q}q^{}/\overline{q}q}(m_\rho ^{}/m_\rho ).`$ (9)
The scaling quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has been obtained from nuclear gyromagnetic ratio in FR ; BR:PR01 . At nuclear matter density, it comes out to be $`\mathrm{\Phi }(n_0)=0.78`$ with a small error bar. Thus it is predicted that

$`(f_\pi ^{}/f_\pi )^2(n_0)0.61.`$ (10)
This agrees with the value extracted from the pionic atom data of yamazaki , $`(f_\pi ^{}/f_\pi )^2(n_0)=0.65\pm 0.05`$.

It is perhaps important to stress that this “agreement” can be taken as an evidence neither for the validity of the tree approximation nor for the signal for “partial chiral restoration.” If one were to go to higher orders in chiral expansion, the $`parametric`$ pion decay constant cannot be directly identified with the physical pion decay constant since the latter should contain two important corrections, i.e., quantum corrections governed by the renormalization group equation as the scale is lowered from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ to the physical scale and dense loop corrections generated by the flow. At the chiral restoration, it is this latter that signals the phase transition: The parametric pion decay constant with the scale fixed at the matching scale does not go to zero even at the chiral restoration point HY:PR . Thus when one does higher-order chiral perturbation calculation of the same quantity, one has to be careful which quantity one is dealing with.

### V.2 Effective degrees of freedom at the chiral phase transition

Let me go near the chiral transition point and ask what new physics is introduced by the VM. I will do this for high temperature. There are lots of interesting phenomena triggered by high density in the present framework but this will be a topic for next publication.

Let me start by recalling the standard scenario of the chiral phase transition driven by temperature. The standard scenario assumes that in the heat bath, there are no other low-energy degrees of freedom than pions to consider, so all other mesons and all baryons can be integrated out with their imprints lodged in the coefficients of higher-dimension operators in the Lagrangian. In making this assumption, one is disregarding the possible relevance of the VM fixed point. Consider now the vector susceptibility (VSUS) and axial-vector susceptibility (ASUS) defined in terms of Euclidean QCD current correlators as

$`\delta ^{ab}\chi _V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}V_0^a(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})V_0^b(0,\stackrel{}{0})_\beta },`$ (11)
$`\delta ^{ab}\chi _A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}A_0^a(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})A_0^b(0,\stackrel{}{0})_\beta }`$ (12)
where $`_\beta `$ denotes thermal average and

$`V_0^a\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}\psi ,A_0^a\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}\psi `$ (13)
with the quark field $`\psi `$ and the $`\tau ^a`$ Pauli matrix the generator of the flavor $`SU(2)`$. These SUS’s can be readily computed via chiral Lagrangians defined in a heat bath with the sole assumption that the effective Lagrangian $`_{eff}`$ can be written in terms of local fields and their derivatives only – an assumption which is standard in EFTs. Indeed, Son and Stephanov son  computed the ASUS, $`\chi _A`$, and found at the critical temperature and in zero density that

$`\chi _A={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\mu _A^2}}_{eff}|_{\mu _A=0}=f_{\pi }^{t}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (14)
where $`f_\pi ^t`$ is the time component of the pion decay constant. The principal point to note here is that as long as the effective action is given by local terms, this is the entire story: There are no other contributions to the ASUS than the temporal component of the pion decay constant. Now at the chiral phase transition, the vector SUS and the axial-vector SUS must be equal to each other, $`\chi _V=\chi _A`$ and the lattice data on $`\chi _V`$ gottlieb  clearly indicates that

$`\chi _V|_{T=T_c}0,`$ (15)
which leads to the conclusion son  that

$`f_\pi ^t|_{T=T_c}0.`$ (16)
On the other hand, it is expected and verified by lattice simulations that the space component of the pion decay constant $`f_\pi ^s`$ should vanish at $`T=T_c`$. One therefore arrives at

$`v_\pi ^2f_\pi ^s/f_\pi ^t0,TT_c`$ (17)
where $`v_\pi `$ is the pion velocity. This is the main conclusion of the pion-only theory.

This elegant result is unfortunately marred by the caveat that the same formalism applied to the VSUS does not work. In fact, one can see easily from the effective Lagrangian that the same theory predicts $`\chi _V=0`$ for $`all`$ temperature which of course cannot be correct and is ruled out by the lattice result. Son and Stephanov attribute this failure to the possibility that a diffusive mode in hydrodynamic language, which is not described by the chiral Lagrangian, contributes to the VSUS. In the standard picture, this is not surprising since there are no other degrees of freedom than the pions and it must be nonlocal effects involving pions that must intervene. This situation is entirely different when the vectors are present as relevant degrees of freedom as in the VM.

In the VM scenario, the vector mesons with a dropping mass must enter near the phase transition. In addition, one can conceive of quasiquarks with a similarly dropping mass also contributing. It is rather straightforward to compute the VSUS and ASUS at one-loop order. The results obtained by Harada, Kim, Rho and Sasaki HKRS  are

$`f_\pi ^t|_{T=T_c}=f_\pi ^s|_{T=T_c}=0,v_\pi |_{T=T_c}=1`$ (18)
and

$`\chi _A|_{T=T_c}=\chi _V|_{T=T_c}=2N_f\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{12}}T_c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6}}T_c^2\right].`$ (19)
These results are not difficult to understand. Both the time part and space part of the pion decay constant go to zero with the ratio going to 1. Thus the pion velocity approaches the speed of light, which is completely opposite to the Son-Stephanov result of vanishing velocity. The vector mesons and the quasiquarks contribute to the vector and axial-vector SUS’s, the latter bigger than the former by a factor of 2. It is easy to see how the two SUS’s come out equal here. Both are given by quasiparticles, the vector mesons and constituent quarks. There is no need to invoke diffusive modes.

It is interesting that both pion decay constants go to zero simultaneously giving the pion velocity equal to the light velocity. It appears to restore Lorentz symmetry broken by the medium. It is however counterintuitive: one could think of the pion as an analog to the sound in condensed matter, the velocity of which is known to go to zero on critical surface. The VM result looks elegant and simple but is puzzling at the moment.

There is also a caveat here. The result obtained for the pion velocity is in one-loop approximation. One might wonder what happens at higher-loop orders. We expect the $`f_\pi ^s`$ to remain zero at the critical point to all orders. This is because it is the order parameter for the chiral restoration. The question is what happens to the time part, $`f_\pi ^t`$, at higher orders. It is possible that the VM fixed point protects it so that it remains zero but this has not been proven. If however there is an additional contribution at higher order that does not vanish, then we will go over to the Son-Stephanov result of a vanishing pion velocity. More work needs to be done to clarify this issue.

On the other hand, if (18) does turn out to be correct, then the implication will be that the phase structure at the chiral transition is entirely different in the HLS/VM from that of the standard picture. In fact it indicates that there can be a much richer structure in the phase diagram than the standard one. In particular, it indicates that a certain number of degrees of freedom hitherto ignored must be taken into account and the transition will be a lot smoother than imagined in the standard scenario since the number of degrees of freedom below the critical point will be considerably increased. I expect that future lattice and experimental developments will validate or invalidate this beautiful VM scenario.


format: text

text:
# HIP-2002-61/TH DO-TH 02/20 hep-ph/0212047 Effects of Universal Extra Dimensions on 𝐵⁰-(𝐵⁰)̄Mixing

## Abstract

We study contributions coming to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ from one or more universal extra dimensions (UED) in which all the Standard Model fields can propagate. In the model with a single UED, the box diagrams for mixing are convergent and therefore insensitive to the cutoff scale of the theory. In the case of two UEDs, the result is not very sensitive to the cut-off scale due to GIM mechanism. Within the present range of the parameters at $`1\sigma `$ level, the lower bound on the compactification scale $`1/R`$ has been estimated to be 165 GeV for one UED and 280 GeV for two UEDs. The bound increases drastically if one can have a better determination of the $`B`$ meson decay constant $`f_B`$ and the QCD correction parameter $`B_B`$. For example, it rises to 740 GeV (for one UED) if the error (at $`1\sigma `$) in the determination of $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ from quenched lattice calculation is reduced to one-third from its present value. The UED contributions to the $`K`$ system are strongly suppressed.

PACS number(s): 11.25.Mj, 12.15.Ff, 14.40.Nd

Inspired by the string theories, a possible solution to the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model (SM) may be the higher dimensional scenarios. These scenarios get additional motivation from the potential to solve some of the open problems of the SM: gauge coupling unification , supersymmetry breaking , neutrino mass generation , and the explanation of fermion mass hierarchies . The observation of four dimensional world in our everyday life ensures that the extra dimensions are compactified. The simplest way is to compactify them on a circle of a radius $`R`$ ($`S^1`$). A nice feature of these theories is that the compactification radius can be large so that $`1/R`$ can be as low as a few hundreds of GeV . One might argue that in the most natural framework all the SM fields should be allowed to propagate in the extra dimensions. Care, however, must be taken to obtain chiral fermions in four dimensions (4D) from such universal extra dimension (UED) models.

In this letter we confine ourselves to the UED model formulated in . In 4D effective theory, the existence of these extra dimensions are felt by the appearance of towers of heavy Kaluza-Klein (KK) states having masses quantised in units of the compactification scale $`1/R`$. The key feature of UED models is the conservation of momentum in extra dimensions which leads to KK number conservation in the effective 4D theory. Such theories naturally lead to the existence of a lightest KK particle which is a viable dark matter candidate . One should note in this context that orbifolding, which is necessary to forbid wrong-chirality fermions at the lowest level, generates KK number violating interactions through boundary terms . Though these interactions have interesting phenomenological implications in the decays of such KK modes, we put them to be equal to zero by hand and do not consider them any further in our study of the virtual effects of those modes. Consequently in our calculations, there are no vertices which violate the KK number conservation. This forbids production of isolated KK particles at colliders and tree level contributions to the electroweak observables. In the non-universal case, where the fermions (and maybe some of the bosons) are confined to a 4D brane, the presence of a localising delta function in the Lagrangian permits KK number violating couplings, which is not true for the UED models, and hence none of the existing bounds on non-universal extra dimensional models from single KK productions at colliders  and from tree as well as loop level electroweak constraints  are applicable for UEDs. In UED, apart from the direct KK pair production at colliders , one may get indirect bound on the compactification scale $`1/R`$ from the virtual effects of KK modes at loop level . It is natural to look on processes which are sensitive to radiative corrections even in the absence of KK modes in order to study the dominant loop effects induced by the exchange of them. In the SM, the most important loop effects are those enhanced by the heavy top quark mass. Thus one may get valuable information on the size of the extra dimension through the one loop KK mode contributions to the processes, $`Zb\overline{b}`$ , $`bs\gamma `$  and $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing. The lower bound on the compactification scale ($`1/R`$) from collider phenomenology , Higgs physics , electroweak precision measurements , and flavour changing process $`bs\gamma `$  has been estimated to lie between 200 and 500 GeV.

In this letter, we mainly address the effects of only one spatial UED at the one-loop level to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing. The bound on the compactification scale is derived taking into account all input uncertainties (and we also show what happens if these uncertainties come down) and hence can be regarded as a robust one. A brief qualitative discussion for more than one extra dimension is also presented, and we comment on the $`K`$ system too. As a starting point, we consider the relevant part of the five dimensional ($`5D`$) Lagrangian:

$$_5(x,y)=i\overline{Q}\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD_MQ+\lambda _5^U\overline{Q}U(i\sigma _2H^{})+\lambda _5^D\overline{Q}DH+h.c.$$
(1)
Here $`M`$ (1 to 5) is the Lorentz index. The covariant derivative $`D_M`$ can be expressed as

$$D_M=_M+i\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}g_5^iT_i^aA_{iM}^a,$$
(2)
where $`g_5^i`$s are the $`5D`$ coupling constants associated with the SM gauge group $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, and $`T_i^a`$s are the corresponding generators. The parameters $`\lambda _5^U`$ and $`\lambda _5^D`$ are the 5D Yukawa couplings. The 5D Dirac matrices are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^M(\gamma ^\mu ,i\gamma ^5)`$ (see, e.g., ) and $`y`$ denotes the coordinate along the extra dimension. The fields $`Q`$, $`U`$ and $`D`$, all functions of $`x^\mu `$ and $`y`$, describe 5D generic quark doublet, up type quark singlet, and down type quark singlet, respectively. Unlike in the Standard Model, they have both chiralities, and are of vector type. The field $`H`$ is the 5D Higgs doublet, and the generic 5D gauge bosons for each gauge group are denoted by $`A_{iM}^a`$. The component of the gauge bosons along the extra dimension is the pseudoscalar $`A_{i5}`$. In order to derive the 4D Lagrangian we must expand the five dimensional fields into their KK modes. To project out the zero modes of the wrong chirality (i.e., $`Q_R`$, $`U_L`$, and $`D_L`$) and the fifth component of the gauge field, $`A_5^i`$, the fifth dimension $`y`$ is compactified on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold ($`Z_2:yy`$). The KK decompositions of the 5D fields are:

$`H(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}\left\{H^{(0)}(x)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}H^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{cos}(ny/R)\right\}`$
$`A_{i\mu }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}\left\{A_{i\mu }^{(0)}(x)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_{i\mu }^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{cos}(ny/R)\right\}`$
$`A_{i5}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_{i5}^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{sin}(ny/R)`$
$`Q(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}\left\{Q_L^{(0)}(x)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[Q_L^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{cos}(ny/R)+Q_R^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{sin}(ny/R)\right]\right\}`$
$`U(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}\left\{U_R^{(0)}(x)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[U_R^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{cos}(ny/R)+U_L^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{sin}(ny/R)\right]\right\}`$
$`D(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}}\left\{D_R^{(0)}(x)+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[D_R^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{cos}(ny/R)+D_L^{(n)}(x)\mathrm{sin}(ny/R)\right]\right\}`$ (3)
Here the factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ is due to the different normalizations of the zero and higher modes in the KK tower; it would not have been there if we run the sum over both positive and negative values of the KK number $`n`$. The fields which are even under the $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry have zero modes, and they correspond to the SM particles in usual four dimensions. Fields which are odd under $`Z_2`$ do not have zero modes and hence are absent in the SM spectrum.

Using the KK expansions of the 5D fields and integrating out the 5D Lagrangian over the extra dimension $`y`$, the effective 4D Lagrangian is obtained. Apart from the usual mass term coming from the vacuum expectation value of the zero-mode Higgs, KK excitations also receive masses from the kinetic energy term in the 5D Lagrangian. The mass of the $`n`$-th level KK particle, where $`n`$ is the KK excitation number that quantises the momentum along the extra dimension $`y`$, is given by $`m_n^{KK}=\sqrt{m_0^2+m_n^2}`$ where $`m_0`$ is the zero mode mass and $`m_n=n/R`$. Thus the KK spectrum at each excitation level is nearly degenerate except for the heavy SM particles ($`t,W,Z,h`$). This degeneracy is removed by the radiative corrections of KK mode masses  which play an important role in collider phenomenology. However, this has only a negligible effect on our results, and so we can take the KK excitations of all the light particles to be degenerate. The couplings $`g_5^i`$, $`\lambda _5^U`$ and $`\lambda _5^D`$ are dimensionful and they have to be rescaled as $`g^i=g_5^i/\sqrt{2\pi R}`$, $`\lambda ^U=\lambda _5^U/\sqrt{2\pi R}`$ and $`\lambda ^D=\lambda _5^D/\sqrt{2\pi R}`$ to obtain the proper dimensionless SM couplings.

The zero mode and the KK Higgs doublets can be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^{(0)+}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v+h^{(0)}+i\chi ^{(0)})\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^{(n)+}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(h^{(n)}+i\chi ^{(n)})\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
Here $`h^{(n)}`$s are neutral Higgs KK excitations. The charged scalars $`\varphi ^{\pm (n)}`$ combining with the $`W^{\pm 5(n)}`$ form longitudinal components of the $`W_\mu ^{\pm (n)}`$. The orthogonal combinations yield physical charged Higgs KK tower. Goldstone KK modes for $`W^{\pm (n)}`$ are

$$G^{\pm (n)}=\frac{m_nW_5^{\pm (n)}\pm im_W\varphi ^{\pm (n)}}{\sqrt{m_n^2+m_W^2}}$$
(5)
and the physical charged Higgs KK tower is

$$H^{\pm (n)}=\frac{m_n\varphi ^{\pm (n)}\pm im_WW_5^{\pm (n)}}{\sqrt{m_n^2+m_W^2}}.$$
(6)
Similarly, the $`\chi ^{(n)}`$ together with the $`Z^{5(n)}`$ generate additional physical neutral Higgs tower and longitudinal components of the $`Z_\mu ^{(n)}`$. However, they do not contribute to our study and have consequently not been discussed further. In the unitary gauge which we will use for our calculation, Goldstone KK modes are eaten up by the longitudinal parts of the gauge boson KK modes. The fields $`W_\mu ^{\pm (n)}`$ and $`H^{\pm (n)}`$ have the same mass as $`m_{W,n}=\sqrt{m_n^2+m_W^2}`$, since we are neglecting the loop corrections to the KK modes.

Rotating the quark fields to the mass eigenbasis from the weak eigenbasis is similar to that in the SM and leads to a universal CKM matrix, same for all KK levels. Furthermore, one generally performs a chiral transformation to get the 4D mass terms with the correct sign:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}U^{(n)}\\ Q^{(n)}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _5\mathrm{cos}\alpha _n& \mathrm{sin}\alpha _n\\ \gamma _5\mathrm{sin}\alpha _n& \mathrm{cos}\alpha _n\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}U^{(n)^{}}\\ Q^{(n)^{}}\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
with the mixing angle $`\mathrm{tan}2\alpha _n=m_q/m_n`$. Obviously, the mixing angles can be neglected for all quarks except the top.

For $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, we need the vertices involving one zero mode and two non zero KK modes, $`W^{+(n)}\overline{d}u_i^{(n)}`$, $`W^{(n)}\overline{u}_i^{(n)}b`$, $`H^{+(n)}\overline{d}u_i^{(n)}`$ and $`H^{(n)}\overline{u}_i^{(n)}b`$, to calculate the relevant box diagrams in UED. The vertices $`H^{+(n)}\overline{d}u_i^{(n)}`$ and $`H^{(n)}\overline{u}_i^{(n)}b`$ have two parts, one coming from $`\varphi ^{\pm (n)}`$ interactions, while other part from $`W_5^{\pm (n)}`$. All these relevant vertices are obtained from the four dimensional Lagrangian $`_{\pi R}^{\pi R}_5(x,y)𝑑y`$. The 5D integrations $`\frac{1}{(2\pi R)^{3/2}}_{\pi R}^{\pi R}2\mathrm{cos}^2(ny/R)𝑑y`$ and $`\frac{1}{(2\pi R)^{3/2}}_{\pi R}^{\pi R}2\mathrm{sin}^2(ny/R)𝑑y`$ are just $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}`$, and combining them with $`g_5^i`$’s we get just the ordinary 4D gauge couplings $`g^i`$. Thus these vertices are exactly identical to the SM ones in weak basis. The only point to note is that the mass terms appearing in the Yukawa couplings of the $`\varphi ^{\pm (n)}`$ (relevant for charged Higgs KK mode interactions) are the zero-mode and not the excited level masses of the corresponding quarks. The box diagrams relevant for $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing in UED are shown in Fig. 1, to which one must add the crossed diagrams with intermediate boson and quark lines interchanged. In the case of SM, the box diagram is mediated only by the exchange of the $`W`$ boson in the unitary gauge, while in the UED case, the exchange of the KK modes of the charged Higgs will give extra diagrams in addition to that by the KK excitations of $`W`$.

The UED contributions to the effective Hamiltonian for $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ transitions responsible for $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, which come from the box diagrams shown in Fig. 1, are

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}^{UED}=\frac{G_F^2\lambda _t^2}{4\pi ^2}\left(\frac{m_W^4}{m_{W,n}^2}\right)\left(\overline{d}\gamma _\mu \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}b\right)^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[S(X_t,X_t)+S(X_u,X_u)2S(X_t,X_u)\right]$$
(8)
where

$$S(X_i,X_j)=S^{WW}(X_i,X_j)+S^{HW}(X_i,X_j)+S^{HH}(X_i,X_j)$$
(9)
with $`X_i=m_{i,n}^2/m_{W,n}^2`$ and $`\lambda _i=V_{ib}V_{id}^{}`$. The functions $`S^{WW}(X_i,X_j)`$ come from the box diagram mediated by two excited $`W`$s and is of the same form as in the SM  with the appropriate modification of masses:

$$S^{WW}(X_i,X_j)=X_iX_j\{[\frac{1}{4}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{1X_i}\frac{3}{4}\frac{1}{(1X_i)^2}]\frac{\mathrm{ln}X_i}{X_iX_j}+(X_iX_j)\frac{3}{4}\frac{1}{(1X_i)(1X_j)}\}.$$
(10)
$`S^{HH}(X_i,X_j)`$ and $`S^{HW}(X_i,X_j)`$ are the contributions coming from the charged Higgs KK box and the mixed boxes (with one $`W^{(n)}`$ and one $`H^{(n)}`$) respectively:

$`S^{HW}(X_i,X_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_n}{(1+x_n)^2}}(1x_i)(1x_j)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F_1(X_i,X_j)}{2}}2F_2(X_i,X_j)\right]`$ (11)
$`S^{HH}(X_i,X_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(1+x_n)^2}}(1+x_ix_n)(1+x_jx_n)F_1(X_i,X_j)`$ (12)
with $`x_i=m_i^2/m_W^2`$ and $`x_n=m_n^2/m_W^2`$. The functional forms of $`F_1(X_i,X_j)`$ and $`F_2(X_i,X_j)`$ are given by,

$`F_1(X_i,X_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[X_j^2(1X_i)^2\mathrm{log}X_jX_i^2(1X_j)^2\mathrm{log}X_i+(1X_j)(X_jX_i)(1X_i)]}{(1X_i)^2(1X_j)^2(X_jX_i)}}`$ (13)
$`F_2(X_i,X_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[X_j(1X_i)^2\mathrm{log}X_jX_i(1X_j)^2\mathrm{log}X_i+(1X_j)(X_jX_i)(1X_i)]}{(1X_i)^2(1X_j)^2(X_jX_i)}}`$ (14)
In the limit $`X_i=X_j`$, the expressions $`S^{WW}(X_i,X_j)`$, $`F_1(X_i,X_j)`$ and $`F_2(X_i,X_j)`$ become

$`S^{WW}(X_i,X_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{X_i(415X_i+12X_i^2X_i^36X_i^2\mathrm{ln}X_i)}{4(1X_i)^3}}`$ (15)
$`F_1(X_i,X_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1X_i^2+2X_i\mathrm{log}X_i}{(1X_i)^3}}`$
$`F_2(X_i,X_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{22X_i+(1+X_i)\mathrm{log}X_i}{(1X_i)^3}}`$
In eq. (8), we have considered box diagrams with all combinations of the three excited up type quarks ($`i,j=u,c,t`$). The terms are then rearranged by eliminating $`\lambda _u`$ in favour of $`\lambda _c`$ and $`\lambda _t`$ using the unitarity relation and thus the GIM mechanism of the SM is restored. The terms containing $`\lambda _c^2`$ and $`\lambda _c\lambda _t`$ are $`[S(X_c,X_c)+S(X_u,X_u)2S(X_c,X_u)]`$ and $`[2S(X_c,X_t)2S(X_u,X_t)+2S(X_u,X_u)2S(X_c,X_u)]`$ respectively and vanish as $`X_cX_um_n^2/m_{W,n}^2`$.

The UED contribution to the mass difference for the $`B^0`$ mesons ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$) is given by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m_B)^{UED}=\frac{|B^0|_{\mathrm{eff}}^{UED}|\overline{B^0}|}{m_{B^0}}.$$
(16)
The matrix element for $`B^0|(\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b)(\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b)|\overline{B^0}`$ is calculated in the usual vacuum insertion approximation, and we have

$$B^0|(\overline{d}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b)(\overline{d}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)b)|\overline{B^0}=\frac{8}{3}B_Bf_B^2m_B^2$$
(17)
which gives,

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m_B)^{UED}=\frac{G_F^2}{6\pi ^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{m_W^4}{m_{W,n}^2}|\lambda _t|^2[S(X_t,X_t)+S(X_u,X_u)2S(X_t,X_u)]B_Bf_B^2m_B\eta _B,$$
(18)
where the bag factor, $`B_B`$, is introduced to parametrize all possible deviations from the vacuum saturation approximation. The quantity $`B_Bf_B^2`$ has been evaluated from QCD studies on lattice. The next-to-leading order (NLO) short distance QCD correction is given by $`\eta _B`$.

Let us also comment on the case when one has more than one UED. The electroweak observables are known be convergent for one UED, but diverges when the number of UEDs is two or more . The SU(3) gauge coupling also becomes nonperturbative at high scales for two UEDs, so one has to use a cut-off scale $`M_s`$ in the multi-TeV range upto which such perturbative calculations make sense. This means a natural truncation of the KK mode sum at $`n=n_s`$ ($`n_sM_sR`$) where $`R`$ is the common compactification radius. The effect mainly arises due to a crowding of KK states for more than one UED. However, it is gratifying to note that the lower limit on $`1/R`$ is fairly insensitive to the exact value of $`n_s`$ since the terms which do not decouple vanish due to GIM cancellation.

Now we shall comment on the reliability of the parameters we need for $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing. The short distance QCD corrections $`\eta _B`$ are well determined , while the long distance corrections are estimated to be small, unlike in the case of $`K`$-$`\overline{K}`$ mixing. Major uncertainties come from quantities like $`V_{td}`$, $`f_B`$ and $`B_B`$. We have used the value of $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ at a scale of order $`m_b`$ obtained by UKQCD collaboration  in quenched lattice calculation. In the widely used generalised Wolfenstein parametrisation of the CKM matrix, the CKM matrix elements are expressed in terms of the four parameters $`\lambda `$, $`A`$, $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$. Of these, $`\lambda `$ and A are presently known at $`1\%`$ and $`5\%`$ levels respectively, whereas $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ are the least known CKM parameters. The uncertainty in $`V_{td}`$ is solely due to the broad allowed range in the $`(\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane. However, one should note that since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ is affected by UED, the SM fit values of quantities like $`V_{td}`$, mainly determined from $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mass difference, may not be used any further.

The models with UED do not have any new local operators beyond those already present in SM. In UED, the flavor changing transitions and CP violation are solely governed by the CKM matrix. Furthermore, these models do not contribute to inclusive and exclusive $`K`$ and $`B`$ decays due to the absence of KK number violating interactions. These properties specify the so-called universal unitarity triangle (UUT) scenario , which has been constructed from $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ extracted from the CP asymmetry in $`B^0\mathrm{\Psi }K_s`$ where all dependence on $`1/R`$ cancel out. We have performed a complete analysis for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ in UED by varying all parameters in their UUT-allowed range, which is specified at the $`1\sigma `$ interval in Table 1 . The result is shown in Fig. 2 where we have plotted the points in the $`1/Rf_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ plane compatible with the experimental prediction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ at $`1\sigma `$ level. The lower bound on the compactification scale comes out to be at 165 GeV from the analysis. This is compatible with bounds coming from other processes, but definitely not better.

Now let us comment on possible future theoretical and experimental improvements which may modify this bound drastically. Note that the full range of the Wolfenstein parameters as mentioned in Table 1 is strongly curtailed by the allowed range of $`|V_{td}|`$, and it is unforeseen in near future to have such an improvement in these four parameters as to put a better constraint on $`|V_{td}|`$ than that coming from $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing. Anyway, the bound does not change much for a marginal improvement of $`|V_{td}|`$. The case of $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ is, however, different. The obtained lower bound is strongly sensitive to the value of $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ as shown in Fig. 2. If in the future, the error in $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ is reduced to $`1/3`$ of its present value, keeping the central value fixed, the lower bound on $`1/R`$ will be pushed up to 740 GeV. (Only the dark region in Fig. 2 will remain allowed.) If we use the CKMfitter  value for this quantity, viz., $`230\pm 28\pm 28`$ MeV, the lower bound is close to the present value, but an improvement by a factor of 3 will only push up the bound to 400 GeV.

In the case of two UEDs, the lower bound on the compactification scale (assumed same for both the dimensions) is estimated to be about $`280`$ GeV for $`n_s=5`$. This is fairly insensitive to the exact value of $`n_s`$ since the contributions from higher $`n`$ states are decoupling in nature due to GIM cancellation. This bound shots up to 1 TeV if the error bar on $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ is again reduced threefold.

It is interesting to note that the UED contribution is always positive, increasing the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ from its SM value. Thus, if the lower bound on $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ goes past 222 MeV, the UED models will be ruled out or at least $`1/R`$ will be pushed up to the multi-TeV range. The other side of the coin is that if UED has to contribute in a non-trivial way to $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing, lowest-lying KK excitations are going to be detected hopefully at Tevatron run II, and definitely at the LHC.

Let us now discuss the related process $`K`$-$`\overline{K}`$ mixing induced by box diagrams in the context of UED. This process is governed by $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ effective Hamiltonian. The contribution from the KK excitations of UED is proportional to $`\{\lambda _t^2[S(X_t,X_t)+S(X_u,X_u)2S(X_t,X_u)]+\lambda _c^2[S(X_c,X_t)+S(X_u,X_u)2S(X_c,X_u)]+\lambda _c\lambda _t[S(X_u,X_u)S(X_u,X_t)+S(X_c,X_t)S(X_c,X_u)]\}`$. Here $`|\lambda _t|`$ (relevant for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=2`$ interactions) is suppressed by order $`\lambda ^4`$ ($`\lambda 0.22`$ being the expansion parameter of the CKM matrix) compared to $`|\lambda _c|`$. In the context of CP violation, the term with $`\lambda _t^2`$ may be important as $`V_{td}`$ only contain the CKM phase at $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$. The terms proportional to $`\lambda _c^2`$ and $`\lambda _c\lambda _t`$ almost vanish as $`X_uX_cm_n^2/m_{W,n}^2`$. Furthermore, in $`K`$-$`\overline{K}`$ mixing there are large long distance contributions in which the intermediate states in the transition $`K\overline{K}`$ are mesons instead of up type quarks and bosons. The short distance corrections are not well under control even at NLO due to the renormalisation scale ambiguity. Furthermore, there is still a large uncertainty in the determination of the bag factor $`B_K`$ for the $`K`$ system. Thus the study of $`K`$-$`\overline{K}`$ mixing in the light of UED models is not promising.

To summarize, we have studied the $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing in a UED model. We find lower limit for the compactification scale (165 GeV), which is close to the limits from other processes. In addition, we note that even modest theoretical improvements will have a considerable effect on the bound. With the error on $`f_B\sqrt{B_B}`$ reduced to one third, the bound is pushed up to 740 GeV. Thus, $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing may provide us with a useful tool to discover or strictly constrain the UED models. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the $`K`$ system.

Note added. After this work was completed, a paper came to the archive  where the authors have discussed the same effect in the context of UED and pointed out an error in our calculation. Their results are in agreement with our corrected calculation.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank K. Agashe, A.J. Buras, M. Spranger and A. Weiler for useful discussions and comments. They also thank the organisers of WHEPP-7 in HRI, Allahabad, where this work started. DC and KH thank the Academy of Finland (project number 48787) for financial support. AK’s work has been supported by the BRNS grant 2000/37/10/BRNS of DAE, Govt. of India, the grant F.10-14/2001 (SR-I) of UGC, India, and by the fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


text:
# Diffractive Hadroproduction of Dijets and W’s at the Tevatron Collider and the Pomeron Structure Function

## I Introduction

Regge phenomenology is well known for providing a suitable and economical theoretical framework for the description of soft hadron diffractive processes at high energies. Single Pomeron exchange plus a few secondary Reggeon contributions are enough to describe a variety of hadronic reactions (see, for instance, covolan  and references therein).

The situation becomes much more intricate when one considers hard diffractive processes by which, according to the Ingelman-Schlein (IS) picture ingelman , the Pomeron structure itself is probed. Difficulties arise when one tries to obtain a unified description for diffractive processes starting with both electron- or positron-proton ($`ep`$) and antiproton-proton ($`\overline{p}p`$) collisions, respectively, studied at the DESY $`ep`$ HERA and Tevatron colliders. Although several theoretical approaches have successfuly been employed to describe different aspects of hard diffraction revealed by the $`ep`$ HERA reactions halina , some of them based on Regge theory, diffractive hadroproduction continues to be one of the most challenging topics in hadron dynamics.

In effect, most of the theoretical approaches which are able to describe the HERA data are not readily translatable to diffractive hadron physics. Models based on the Regge theory, in particular, are presumably affected by a lack of validity for QCD factorization in the hadronic diffraction domain collins . In spite of these difficulties, such models establish the phenomenological picture most of the event generators currently employed in data analysis of hard diffractive hadroproduction are based upon. Probably this is so because these models have been able to provide an effective description for such processes. In fact, that is one of the underlying assumptions of the present paper.

This Brief Report is a sequel to a previous work mara  in which we have tried to perform a global analysis by a modified version of the IS model, including processes initiated by both $`ep`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions. By that time, the available data were not so stringent such that one could speculate about an unique model to be sufficient. Since then, more and more precise data of diffractive deep inelastic scattering (DIS) have imposed severe restrictions on the Pomeron structure function making more evident the impossibility to readily transfer the partonic densities so obtained to hadronic process calculations.

Our group’s analysis of the diffractive DIS data have shown that, at low values of the QCD evolution scale, the Pomeron is predominantly composed by gluons with a hard distribution, in agreement with other studies (see batista  and references therein). This result is corroborated by the calculations of diffractive cross sections for photoproduction foto  and electroproduction eletro  of dijets, which yield good agreement with the data once a hard gluonic Pomeron is assumed.

The advent of new data produced by the D0 Collaboration dzero  have motivated us to perform a new analysis, this time restricted to the Tevatron data.

Thus, we report here results of a study on diffractive hadroproduction of dijets and W’s by using the IS model, with Dokhshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) evolution dglap  included, but disconnected from the HERA data analysis just mentioned batista . In fact, in spite of our efforts it was impossible to reconcile both analyses. We take this failure to produce a unified description as an additional indication of the theoretical problems alluded before.

The interesting point, however, is that if one takes the Pomeron as predominantly composed by quarks at a low QCD evolution scale, a reasonable overall description of diffractive hadroproduction data is achieved. This is what is shown below.

## II Cross Sections

Our starting point is the generic cross section for a process in which partons of two hadrons, $`A`$ and $`B`$, interact to produce jets (or $`W`$s), $`A+BJets(W)+X,`$ that is

$`d\sigma =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b,c,d}{}}f_{a/A}(x_a,\mu ^2)dx_af_{b/B}(x_b,\mu ^2)dx_b`$ (1)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{abcd(W)}}{d\widehat{t}}}d\widehat{t}.`$
From this very basic expression we derive all of the others necessary to describe the specific processes we are interested in.

### II.1 Diffractive dijet production from a single Pomeron exchange

In the case of dijet production, the cross section can be put in terms of the dijet rapidities ($`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$) and transversal energy $`E_T`$:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\eta }}\right)_{jj}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{partons}}{}}{\displaystyle _{E_{T\mathrm{min}}}^{E_{T\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑E_T^2{\displaystyle _{\eta _{\mathrm{min}}^{}}^{\eta _{\mathrm{max}}^{}}}𝑑\eta ^{}`$ (2)
$`\times x_af_{a/A}(x_a,\mu ^2)x_bf_{b/B}(x_b,\mu ^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }}{d\widehat{t}}}\right)_{jj}`$
where

$$x_a=\frac{E_T}{\sqrt{s}}(e^\eta +e^\eta ^{}),x_b=\frac{E_T}{\sqrt{s}}(e^\eta +e^\eta ^{}),$$
(3)
with

$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{E_T}{\sqrt{s}E_Te^\eta }}\eta ^{}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}E_Te^\eta }{E_T}}`$ (4)
and

$`E_{T\mathrm{max}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{s}}{e^\eta +e^\eta }},`$ (5)
being that $`E_{T\mathrm{min}}`$ and the $`\eta `$ range are determined by the experimental cuts.

Equations. (2)-(5) express the usual leading-order QCD procedure to obtain the non-diffractive dijet cross section (next-to-leading-order contributions are not essential for the present purposes; see Ref. mara ). In order to obtain the corresponding expression for diffractive processes, we assume that one of the hadrons, say hadron $`A`$, emits a Pomeron whose partons interact with partons of the hadron $`B`$. Thus the parton distribution $`x_af_{a/A}(x_a,\mu ^2)`$ in Eq. (2) is replaced by the convolution between a putative distribution of partons in the Pomeron, $`\beta f_{a/𝙸𝙿}(\beta ,\mu ^2)`$, and the “emission rate” of Pomerons by $`A`$, $`f_{𝙸𝙿}(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)`$. This last quantity, $`f_{𝙸𝙿}(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)`$, is the so-called Pomeron flux factor whose explicit formulation in terms of Regge theory is given ahead. The whole procedure implies that

$`x_af_{a/A}(x_a,\mu ^2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_{𝙸𝙿}𝑑\beta 𝑑tf_{𝙸𝙿}(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)}`$ (6)
$`\times \beta f_{a/𝙸𝙿}(\beta ,\mu ^2)\delta (\beta {\displaystyle \frac{x_a}{x_{𝙸𝙿}}}),`$
and, defining $`g(x_{𝙸𝙿})_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑tf_{𝙸𝙿}(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)`$, one obtains

$`x_af_{a/A}(x_a,\mu ^2)={\displaystyle 𝑑x_{𝙸𝙿}g(x_{𝙸𝙿})\frac{x_a}{x_{𝙸𝙿}}f_{a/𝙸𝙿}(\frac{x_a}{x_{𝙸𝙿}},\mu ^2)}.`$ (7)
By inserting the above structure function into Eq. (2) one obtains the cross section for diffractive hadroproduction of dijets via a single Pomeron exchange as

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{SPE}}{d\eta }}\right)_{jj}={\displaystyle \underset{a,b,c,d}{}}{\displaystyle _{E_{T_{min}}}^{E_{T_{max}}}}𝑑E_T^2{\displaystyle _{\eta _{min}^{}}^{\eta _{max}^{}}}𝑑\eta ^{}{\displaystyle _{x_{𝙸𝙿_{min}}}^{x_{𝙸𝙿_{max}}}}𝑑x_{𝙸𝙿}g(x_{𝙸𝙿})\beta _af_{a/𝙸𝙿}(\beta _a,\mu ^2)x_bf_{b/\overline{p}}(x_b,\mu ^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }_{abcd}}{d\widehat{t}}}\right)_{jj},`$ (8)
where $`\beta _a=x_a/x_{𝙸𝙿}`$ with $`x_a`$ and $`x_b`$ given by Eq. (3), and $`x_{𝙸𝙿_{min}}`$ and $`x_{𝙸𝙿_{max}}`$ established by the experimental cuts.

### II.2 Diffractive Hadroproduction of $`W^\pm `$

$`W^\pm `$ diffractive production is here considered by the reaction $`p+\overline{p}p+W(e\nu )+X.`$ It is assumed that a Pomeron emitted by a proton in the positive $`z`$ direction interacts with a $`\overline{p}`$ producing $`W^\pm `$ that subsequently decays into $`e^\pm \nu `$. The detection of this reaction is triggered by the lepton ($`e^+`$ or $`e^{}`$) that appears boosted towards negative $`\eta `$ (rapidity) in coincidence with a rapidity gap in the right hemisphere.

By using the same concept of the convoluted structure function, the diffractive cross section for the inclusive lepton production for this process becomes nota1

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{SD}}{d\eta _e}}\right)_{lepton}={\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_{𝙸𝙿}}{x_{𝙸𝙿}}g(x_{𝙸𝙿})𝑑E_Tf_{a/𝙸𝙿}(x_a,\mu ^2)f_{b/\overline{p}}(x_b,\mu ^2)\left[\frac{V_{ab}^2G_F^2}{6s\mathrm{\Gamma }_W}\right]\frac{\widehat{t}^2}{\sqrt{A^21}}}`$ (9)
where

$$x_a=\frac{M_We^{\eta _e}}{(\sqrt{s}x_{𝙸𝙿})}\left[A\pm \sqrt{(A^21)}\right],$$
(10)
$$x_b=\frac{M_We^{\eta _e}}{\sqrt{s}}\left[A\sqrt{(A^21)}\right],$$
(11)
and

$$\widehat{t}=E_TM_W\left[A+\sqrt{(A^21)}\right]$$
(12)
with $`A=M_W/2E_T`$. The upper signs in Eqs. (10) and (11) refer to $`W^+`$ production (that is, $`e^+`$ detection). The corresponding cross section for $`W^{}`$ is obtained by using the lower signs and $`\widehat{t}\widehat{u}`$ (see the Appendix in mara ).

### II.3 The Pomeron Flux Factor

An important element of this approach is the Pomeron flux factor, introduced in Eq. (6). It has some peculiar aspects that deserve to be pointed out.

First of all, the expression for this term was originally proposed to be taken from the invariant cross section of (soft) diffractive dissociation processes as it is given by the Triple Pomeron model ingelman . The rationale for that can be put in terms of an analogy with the photon flux factor, this one derived from QED. The basic idea is that, similarly to what happens to the electron (or positron) in photoproduction, the proton in a diffractive interaction is scattered at very small angles and practically does not take part in the effective reaction. Analogously to the emission of photons and to the idea of equivalent photon flux defined in QED, one can think of hadron diffraction in terms of Pomeron emission and the “Pomeron flux factor”. This picture (and the IS model as a realization of it) has been successfully employed to the hadron vertex in some HERA diffractive processes, such as leading baryon production and diffractive DIS batista , photoproduction foto , and electroproduction eletro .

However, such an approach is affected by a problem which is mostly concerned with its energy dependence. As it is theoretically well known from very long, the Triple Pomeron integrated cross section violates unitarity pdbcollins , although its $`x_{𝙸𝙿}`$ and $`t`$ dependences seem to be in good agreement with the available data dino2 . In order to overcome this unitarity violation issue, we follow here the “renormalization” procedure originally proposed in dino  and further discussed in dino2 , that is

$`f_{𝙸𝙿}(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)={\displaystyle \frac{f(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)}{_{x_{𝙸𝙿_{\mathrm{𝚖𝚒𝚗}}}}^{x_{𝙸𝙿_{\mathrm{𝚖𝚊𝚡}}}}_{t=0}^{\mathrm{}}f(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)𝑑x_{𝙸𝙿}𝑑t}}.`$ (13)
For the “unnormalized” flux factor $`f(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)`$, we take the Donnachie-Landshoff parametrization donna ,

$$f(x_{𝙸𝙿},t)=\frac{9\beta _0^2}{4\pi ^2}F_1^2(t)x_{𝙸𝙿}^{}{}_{}{}^{12\alpha _{𝙸𝙿}(t)}$$
(14)
where $`F_1(t)`$ is the Dirac form factor,

$$F_1(t)=\frac{(4m^22.79t)}{(4m^2t)}\frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{0.71})^2}.$$
(15)
Notice that, by choosing the renormalization procedure, $`\beta _0`$ does need to be specified since it is crossed out as well as the other constant factors appearing in Eq. (14). Yet about this equation, our choice for the Pomeron trajectory has been $`\alpha _{𝙸𝙿}(t)=1.2+0.25t`$, which is compatible with both Tevatron and HERA data.

### II.4 The Pomeron Structure Function

The Pomeron structure function has been established as a three-flavor quark singlet at the initial scale, chosen to be $`Q_0^2=2GeV^2`$, with the gluon component being generated by DGLAP evolution. Thus, no initial gluon distribution has been assumed. The parametrization used for the initial quark distribuition was

$`\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }(\beta ,Q_0^2)=`$ $`[A_1\mathrm{exp}(A_2\beta ^2)+B_1(1\beta )^{B_2}]\beta ^{0.001}`$ (16)
$`+C_1\mathrm{exp}[C_2(1\beta )^2](1\beta )^{0.001},`$
which includes different amounts of soft, hard, and superhard profiles according to the chosen parameters. The results presented below were obtained with the following parameters: $`A_1`$ = 4.75 and $`A_2`$ = 228.4 for the soft part, $`B_1`$ = 1.14 and $`B_2`$ = 0.55 for the hard one, and finally $`C_1`$ = 2.87 and $`C_2`$ = 100 for the superhard term.

Wherever necessary, DGLAP evolution of the Pomeron parton densities has been processed by using the program QCDNUM qcdnum . For the proton (or antiproton, when was the case), the parton densities were taken from the parametrizations given in Ref. gluck .

## III Results and Discussion

In the following, we present our predictions for hard diffractive production of W’s and dijets based on the previous discussion. These predictions are compared with experimental data from Refs. dzero ; wcdf ; rapgap  in Tables I-III.

In Table I, the difficulty in obtaining a perfect and simultaneous description of both W and dijet production is evident. The situation is much better, however, when one considers only jets. Besides the agreement exhibited in Table I for the CDF experiment, consistency is also found with the D0 results (Tables II and III).

In Table II both forward and central dijet production at two energies are considered. For all cases, one sees that the model predictions are close to the data, but slightly above. This sort of discrepancy is expected since effects of experimental acceptance were not taken into account in these predicitions. Such effects would certainly reduce these theoretically predicted rates, but it is difficult to estimate to what extent.

In Table III is where the agreement between theory and data is generally better. In this case, two kind of ratios are calculated: ratios between rates at different energies but at the same rapidity range and the reverse, ratios between rates taken at the same energy but different rapidity ranges. The better agreement here could be attributed to the fact that these ratios would cancel the normalization and acceptance effects to some extent.

In summary, we have shown that it is possible to obtain a reasonable overall description of hard diffractive hadroproduction by a model based on the Ingelman-Schlein approach once a quark-rich Pomeron structure function is assumed and its DGLAP evolution performed. This result, i.e. the predominance of quarks in the Pomeron “valence” distribution, already obtained in mara , is in conflict with the parametrizations independently established from HERA data batista ; foto ; eletro . This discrepancy may be seen as an additional indication of factorization breaking collins  in hadronic diffraction. However, if that is the real reason, it is quite intriguing that the consistence between the data and theory shown here is possible at all.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Brazilian governmental agencies CNPq and FAPESP for their financial support.