text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of event shape variables in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and in deep inelastic scattering continues to provide important insights into the structure of QCD. On the theoretical side, the state-of-the-art perturbative predictions comprise exact next-to-leading order calculations and (for the distributions) a resummation of large logarithms. In addition to the predictions of perturbation theory, large non-perturbative contributions must also be included. These often take the form of power corrections, which are terms behaving as $`1/Q^n`$ where $`Q`$ is the hard scale of the process and $`n`$ is some power.

It has long been known that totally inclusive QCD observables, including for example the total $`e^+e^{}`$ cross-section, possess operator product expansions that may be applied to the calculation of non-perturbative contributions . However, no such expansion is available for event shape variables, so some physically reasonable (and experimentally testable) assumptions are required before progress can be made. Either renormalon methods are employed (for a review see ) with the assumption of ultra-violet dominance , or else assumptions are made concerning the behaviour of the non-perturbative strong coupling in the infra-red, leading to the dispersive approach . In practice the two methods give consistent results, but in the calculations that follow the dispersive approach will be adopted.

We consider the resummation of loop insertions into a gluon propagator, which gives rise to a QCD effective charge. (Strictly speaking, this is valid only for fermionic loop insertions, but gluon loops may also be included using ‘naive non-abelianisation’ , or using the 1-loop pinch technique -.) This perturbatively-defined effective charge diverges in the infra-red near the Landau pole, leading to an ill-defined perturbative prediction. But if it is postulated that the full non-perturbative coupling does not have this pole, but rather is well-defined and analytic throughout the complex plane except for a branch cut along the negative real axis, then well-defined predictions can be made. A dispersive representation for this coupling is adopted, in which the dispersive variable plays a role formally similar to that of a gluon mass. The non-perturbative contribution is defined to be the difference between the full prediction and that already included in the fixed-order perturbative result: for event shape means the leading correction is found to be proportional to $`𝒜_1/Q`$, where

$$𝒜_1=\frac{C_F}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu ^2\mu \delta \alpha _s(\mu ^2)$$
(1.1)
is the first half-integer moment of the non-perturbative component of the coupling, $`\delta \alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$.

It was however quickly pointed out  that the direct application of this method fails to take sufficiently into account the details of the gluon splitting, and that a more sophisticated application is required which treats this splitting correctly. Exact calculations in the abelian limit have been performed for the $`1/Q`$ corrections to the longitudinal cross section  and the mean value of the $`C`$-parameter  in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, while a more general analysis of the most commonly used variables, including non-abelian terms, was performed using the soft approximation in -. It is found that the effect of non-inclusiveness is simply to enhance the amplitude of the $`1/Q`$ corrections by a universal ‘Milan factor’, thus leaving the universality pattern unchanged. The extraction of the non-perturbative parameter $`𝒜_1`$ (or, more usually, the related quantity called $`\alpha _0`$) from a variety of event shape means and distributions is thus a stringent test of the model (as performed for example by ). It is pleasing to find that universality of the coupling approximately holds.

In the present paper we extend the exact $`e^+e^{}`$ $`C`$-parameter calculation to include all non-abelian real emission terms, using the 1-loop pinch technique as a convenient tool for the separation of contributions. Virtual contributions are not calculated here, but are included in the same manner as in . We recover the Milan factor of , which we present in closed form.

The layout of the present paper is as follows: the relevant existing results are recalled in section 2, while the calculation of the real non-abelian diagrams is presented in section 3. A discussion follows in section 4, in which we include the contributions from virtual diagrams and comment on the results.

## 2 Recollection of existing results

### 2.1 The $`C`$-parameter

The $`C`$ parameter  is defined by

$$C=\frac{3}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{|𝐩_i||𝐩_j|}{Q^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{ij}$$
(2.1)
where the sums run over all final-state particles, with $`𝐩_i`$ being the 3-momentum of the $`i`$th particle in the centre-of-momentum frame of the collision (i.e. $`_i𝐩_i=0`$), and $`\theta _{ij}`$ is the angle between $`𝐩_i`$ and $`𝐩_j`$. The hard scale is $`Q=_i|𝐩_i|`$.

An equivalent frame-independent definition is

$$C=3\frac{3}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(p_ip_j)^2}{(p_iq)(p_jq)},$$
(2.2)
where the $`p_i`$ are the 4-momenta of the $`n`$ final-state particles, and $`q`$ is that of the decaying virtual photon, $`q=_ip_i`$. It is seen that $`C=0`$ for a pencil-like event, and $`C=1`$ for a spherical event. In particular, $`C`$ vanishes at Born level, so the first non-trivial order in perturbation theory is $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$.

At first order in $`\alpha _s`$, let $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ and $`k`$ be the respective momenta of the outgoing quark, antiquark and gluon. Then $`C`$ takes the form

$$C=6\frac{(1x_1)(1x_2)(1x_3)}{x_1x_2x_3},$$
(2.3)
where $`x_{1,2}=2p_{1,2}q/q^2`$ and $`x_3=2kq/q^2`$ are the energy fractions carried by the quark, antiquark and gluon respectively, and $`_ix_i=2`$ by energy conservation. The leading-order result for the mean value of $`C`$ is then

$$C=\frac{1}{\sigma }𝑑\sigma C=\frac{C_F}{2\pi }\alpha _s(4\pi ^233)+𝒪(\alpha _s^2).$$
(2.4)
In order to calculate power corrections in the dispersive approach, we need to consider the gluon to be slightly off-shell. First we use the massive gluon scheme, which treats the gluon decay inclusively, and then we consider in more detail the splitting of the gluon into a quark-antiquark pair or into two gluons.

### 2.2 Massive gluon scheme

Suppose we estimate the $`1/Q`$ power corrections to the mean value of $`C`$ using the massive gluon prescription. Although this is known not to be a complete calculation, since it treats the gluon decay inclusively, it is a good first approximation and a necessary starting point for the full calculations below.

If the outgoing gluon is slightly off-shell, with virtuality $`k^2=ϵQ^2`$, the expression for $`C`$ becomes

$$C=33\frac{(1x_3+ϵ)^2}{x_1x_2}3\frac{(1x_2ϵ)^2}{x_3x_1}3\frac{(1x_1ϵ)^2}{x_2x_3}6\frac{ϵ^2}{x_3^2}.$$
(2.5)
Then the expectation value of $`C`$ is given to $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ by

$`C_{\text{mg}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma C}`$ (2.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{16\pi N_c}}{\displaystyle _0^{1ϵ}}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle _{1x_1ϵ}^{\frac{1x_1ϵ}{1x_1}}}𝑑x_2W^{\mu \alpha }W_{\mu \alpha }^{}C,`$
where $`(ie)(ig)W^{\alpha \mu }`$ is the tree level matrix element for the decay of the virtual photon with polarisation index $`\mu `$ into a quark, an antiquark, and a gluon with polarisation index $`\alpha `$, and we implicitly sum over fermion spins. Current conservation then implies that $`q_\mu W^{\mu \alpha }=0`$ and $`k_\alpha W^{\mu \alpha }=0`$.

In terms of the variables $`x_i`$ we have

$$W^{\mu \alpha }W_{\mu \alpha }^{}=8N_cC_F\left[\frac{(x_1+ϵ)^2+(x_2+ϵ)^2}{(1x_1)(1x_2)}\frac{ϵ}{(1x_1)^2}\frac{ϵ}{(1x_2)^2}\right],$$
(2.7)
and so from (2.6) we obtain

$$C_{\text{mg}}=\frac{C_F}{2\pi }\alpha _s\left[4\pi ^23312\pi \sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ)\right].$$
(2.8)
Note that in the limit $`ϵ0`$ we recover the first-order perturbative result (2.4), while the $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ term gives rise to a leading power correction of

$$\delta C_{\text{mg}}=12\frac{𝒜_1}{Q},$$
(2.9)
where the non-perturbative parameter $`𝒜_1`$ is given by (1.1).

In fact we obtain the same result whether we use the massive definition of $`C`$, (2.5), or the massless definition (2.3) with the mass entering only via the phase space (2.6). This is not always the case: in some cases the two conventions give different results, for example the longitudinal cross section $`\sigma _L`$ in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation - or the $`C`$ parameter in DIS . The Milan factor formulation is based on the massless shape variable with massive phase space, so this is the approach we must take when we wish to make comparisons.

### 2.3 Abelian gluon splitting

Suppose now the virtual gluon splits into a “secondary” quark-antiquark pair, with momenta $`k_{1,2}`$, as in figure 1. The mean value of $`C`$ now becomes

$`C_{\text{ab}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_Rn_f}{8\pi N_c}}|\alpha _s(k^2)|^2{\displaystyle _0^{1ϵ}}dx_1{\displaystyle _{1x_1ϵ}^{\frac{1x_1ϵ}{1x_1}}}dx_2W^{\mu \alpha }W_\mu ^\beta \times `$ (2.10)
$`{\displaystyle }d\text{Lips}[kk_1,k_2]\text{Tr}[\gamma _\alpha k/_1\gamma _\beta k/_2]C.`$
Here we have factorised the four-particle phase space into the massive-gluon phase space over $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, the Lorentz-invariant phase space for the gluon splitting, and an explicit integral over the gluon virtuality $`k^2`$, which plays the role of dispersive variable. The running coupling $`\alpha _s(k^2)`$ is generated by making renormalon insertions into both gluon propagators.

For $`C`$ we take the full expression (2.2) for four outgoing particles, which we decompose into four pieces:

$$C=C^{(3)}+C^{(p)}+C^{(m)}+C^{(s)}.$$
(2.11)
The first contribution is just $`C^{(3)}=3`$, the contribution from the first term of (2.2), which gives just three times the total cross-section. $`C^{(p)}`$ contains the remaining “inclusive” terms, which are insensitive to the details of the gluon splitting and involve the momenta of the primary fermions only:

$$C^{(p)}=3\frac{(p_1p_2)^2}{(p_1q)(p_2q)}.$$
(2.12)
$`C^{(s)}`$ is the term involving the momenta of the secondary fermions only:

$$C^{(s)}=3\frac{(k_1k_2)^2}{(k_1q)(k_2q)};$$
(2.13)
while $`C^{(m)}`$ is the sum of all mixed terms. Using the symmetries of the integral we may replace $`k_2`$ by $`k_1`$ and $`p_2`$ by $`p_1`$ such that

$$C^{(m)}=12\frac{(p_1k_1)^2}{(p_1q)(k_1q)}.$$
(2.14)
We also make manifest the connection with the dispersive approach by writing for each of the contributions

$$C^{(i)}_{\text{ab}}=\frac{C_F}{2\pi }\frac{dk^2}{k^2}\frac{T_Rn_f}{3\pi }|\alpha _s(k^2)|^2𝒞_{\text{ab}}^{(i)}(k^2/Q^2).$$
(2.15)
The factor $`(T_Rn_f/3\pi )|\alpha _s(k^2)|^2`$ is none other than $`\rho _s(k^2)`$, the spectral function in the large $`n_f`$ (Abelian) limit. Thus we can compare with the ‘naive’ dispersive treatment, with the functions $`𝒞^{(i)}`$ corresponding to the usual characteristic functions.

These were calculated in , where the total contribution to the $`C`$ parameter from abelian gluon splitting was found to be:

$$𝒞_{\text{ab}}(ϵ)=4\pi ^233\frac{45\pi ^3}{32}\sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ).$$
(2.16)
Again we retrieve the standard result (2.4) in the limit $`ϵ0`$, but the coefficient of $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$, giving the magnitude of the $`1/Q`$ power correction, is modified by the full treatment of the gluon splitting. Indeed the exact calculation generates an enhancement of the naively-calculated result by a factor $`15\pi ^2/128=1.157`$.

## 3 $`C`$-parameter from $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}gg`$

Now let us consider the splitting of the virtual gluon into two real gluons. In order to achieve gauge invariance we must include all tree-level diagrams that contribute to the process $`\gamma ^{}q\overline{q}gg`$: we cannot just take the loop insertion diagram shown in figure 2(a).

For the purposes of calculation, some prescription must be chosen concerning the gauge-dependent contributions to the diagrams; this usually takes the form of a definite gauge choice. It is helpful here to use the one-loop pinch technique on the squared Feynman diagrams, in order that the cut loop insertion diagram 2(a) generates the non-abelian contribution to $`\beta _0`$, behaving analogously to the abelian contribution above, with the remaining diagrams giving additional contributions. Indeed if one recalls the result of inclusive integration over soft gluon emissions given in :

$$\frac{1}{2!}_0^1𝑑z_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }\left(M_{gg}^2+M_{qq}^2\right)=\frac{1}{m^2(k_{}^2+m^2)}\left(\beta _0+2C_A\mathrm{log}\frac{k_{}^2(k_{}^2+m^2)}{m^4}\right),$$
(3.1)
with $`m`$ the invariant mass and $`k_{}`$ the transverse momentum of the gluon pair, we see that, using the pinch technique, the contribution from figure 2(a) generates the term proportional to $`\beta _0`$, while the diagrams like those of figure 2(b, c) correspond to the additional logarithmic divergence.

Note that, for the purposes of this calculation, the pinch technique is used simply as a means of reassigning gauge-dependent terms between diagrams, as explained in appendix A, and no particular significance is attributed to any particular subset of terms.

### 3.1 Non-abelian splitting (I): contribution to $`\beta _0`$

The contribution to $`C`$ from the cut loop insertion diagram, figure 2(a) using the pinch technique, is given (see appendix A) by:

$`C_{\text{na1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^4}\frac{C_A}{8\pi N_c}|\alpha _s(k^2)|^2_0^{1ϵ}𝑑x_1_{1x_1ϵ}^{\frac{1x_1ϵ}{1x_1}}𝑑x_2W^{\mu \alpha }W_\mu ^\beta 𝑑\text{Lips}[kk_1,k_2]}`$ (3.2)
$`\times \left\{8(k^2g_{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha k_\beta )+2(k_{1\alpha }k_{2\alpha })(k_{1\beta }k_{2\beta })\right\}C.`$
This is very similar to equation (2.10): apart from the symmetry factor $`1/2!`$ and the different colour factor, the only difference is in the coefficients of the two terms inside the curly brackets — recall that in (2.10) we had:

$$\text{Tr}[\gamma _\alpha k/_1\gamma _\beta k/_2]=2(k^2g_{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha k_\beta )2(k_{1\alpha }k_{2\alpha })(k_{1\beta }k_{2\beta }).$$
(3.3)
Thus the integration proceeds in precisely the same manner as in section 2.3, yielding the result:

$$C^{(i)}_{\text{na1}}=\frac{C_F}{2\pi }\frac{dk^2}{k^2}\frac{11C_A}{12\pi }|\alpha _s(k^2)|^2𝒞_{\text{na1}}^{(i)}(k^2/Q^2),$$
(3.4)
where the total characteristic function is now

$$𝒞_{\text{na1}}(ϵ)=4\pi ^233\frac{261\pi ^3}{176}\sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ).$$
(3.5)
For completeness the individual components $`𝒞_{\text{na1}}^{(i)}(ϵ)`$ are listed in appendix B.

The factor $`(11C_A/12\pi )|\alpha _s(k^2)|^2`$ is the ‘spectral function’ for $`n_f=0`$, which is negative in this case. The running coupling $`\alpha _s(k^2)`$ is generated by making renormalon insertions into both gluon propagators, as it is possible to do using the one-loop pinch technique . As before, the characteristic function reproduces the first-order perturbative result (2.4) in the limit $`ϵ0`$, and gives a modification to the naive value of the $`1/Q`$ correction because of the non-inclusive nature of the observable.

This contribution gives an enhancement of $`87\pi ^2/704=1.220`$ over the ‘massive gluon’ calculation: the reason this is different from that found in the splitting $`gq\overline{q}`$ is because the splittings have different geometry, which in turn is due to the different coefficients in equations (3.2) and (3.3).

### 3.2 Non-abelian splitting (II): logarithmic divergence

The diagrams that give rise to the logarithmic term in equation (3.1) are those with only one or no internal gluon propagator, of which examples are given in figure 2(b, c). These diagrams are considerably harder to evaluate than the cut loop insertion diagrams, for two reasons. Firstly, they are collinear divergent: an internal quark propagator can be made to go on-shell when one of the real gluons becomes collinear with either the quark or the antiquark. Thus we need a regulator, so we introduce a quark mass $`m_q^2`$ where

$$m_q^2/Q^2=\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ$$
(3.6)
and we neglect terms that vanish as $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. The divergent terms must however cancel in the sum of all real and virtual diagrams.

Secondly, the squared matrix element does not as previously factorise into a tensor $`W^{\mu \alpha }W_\mu ^\beta `$ independent of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ and a tensor representing the bubble. Thus the integrals become more complicated.

First we consider the 24 diagrams with a single internal gluon propagator, an example of which is given in figure 2(b). We write

$$C_{\text{na2}}=\frac{1}{2!}\frac{dk^2}{k^2}\frac{C_AC_F}{16\pi }\alpha _s^2_0^{1ϵ}𝑑x_1_{1x_1ϵ}^{\frac{1x_1ϵ}{1x_1}}𝑑x_2𝑑\text{Lips}[kk_1,k_2]|M|^2C,$$
(3.7)
where the total amplitude contribution from these diagrams evaluated using the pinch technique is

$$\left(\frac{1}{2}C_AC_FN_c\right)e^2g^4\frac{|M|^2}{k^2}.$$
(3.8)
We again use the decomposition (2.11) of $`C`$ into primary, secondary and mixed terms, choosing to write

$$C^{(i)}_{\text{na2}}=\frac{C_F}{2\pi }\frac{dk^2}{k^2}\frac{11C_A}{12\pi }\alpha _s^2𝒞_{\text{na2}}^{(i)}(k^2/Q^2).$$
(3.9)
The details of the pinch technique require (see appendix A) that

$$|M|^2=\left\{(k_2k_1)^\gamma g^{\alpha \beta }2k^\alpha g^{\beta \gamma }+2k^\beta g^{\gamma \alpha }\right\}\text{Tr}\left[p/_1\gamma _\alpha \frac{1}{p/_1+k/_1}\gamma _\beta \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\gamma ^\mu p/_2\gamma _\mu \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\gamma _\gamma +\mathrm{}\right]$$
(3.10)
where the ellipsis represents 23 similar terms and the factor in curly braces arises from a modified triple-gluon vertex. (The contributions from the remainder of the triple-gluon vertex have been assigned in the pinch technique to other diagrams.)

It is convenient to perform the integral over $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ in the rest frame of $`k`$, in which we may write:

$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{k^2}(1,0,0,0)`$ (3.11)
$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{k^2}(1,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ (3.12)
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{k^2}(1,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ (3.13)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`(q^0,0,0,q^3)`$ (3.14)
$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`(p_1^0,0,p_1^2,p_1^3)`$ (3.15)
and

$$d\text{Lips}[kk_1,k_2]=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi /(32\pi ^2).$$
(3.16)
It is in performing these integrals over $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ that the collinear divergence appears: in order to regulate it we substitute

$$\frac{1}{p/_1+k/_1}=\frac{p/_1+k/_1}{(p_1+k_1)^2}\frac{p/_1+k/_1}{(p_1+k_1)^2m_q^2}=\frac{p/_1+k/_1}{2p_1k_1}|_{p_1^2=m_q^2},$$
(3.17)
and similarly for the other terms. The integral then converges, with the divergences appearing as terms in $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

In order to integrate over $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, it proves convenient to make use of the substitutions

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_2`$ (3.18)
$`v+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{v}}`$ $`=`$ $`2x_1x_2=x_3.`$ (3.19)
After performing the integral over $`u`$ we find we need to evaluate an integral over $`v`$,

$$_\sqrt{ϵ}^1𝑑vf(v,ϵ),$$
(3.20)
for some complicated function $`f`$ involving logarithms and dilogarithms of rational functions of $`v`$ and $`ϵ`$. A direct expansion of the integrand in powers of $`ϵ`$ is not valid, but may be done by first dividing up the integration range

$$_\sqrt{ϵ}^1𝑑vf(v,ϵ)=\sqrt{ϵ}_1^{1/\kappa }𝑑yf(\sqrt{ϵ}y,ϵ)+_{\sqrt{ϵ}/\kappa }^1𝑑vf(v,ϵ),$$
(3.21)
where $`\kappa `$ is a small parameter, $`\sqrt{ϵ}\kappa 1`$, on which the final result does not depend. (In practice we perform the calculation in the limit of small $`\kappa `$.)

The second term may now be evaluated by expanding in powers of $`ϵ`$. Non-integer powers of $`ϵ`$ come only from the lower limit and always appear in the combination $`\sqrt{ϵ}/\kappa `$. In order to avoid having to keep track of terms $`ϵ^m(\kappa /\sqrt{ϵ})^n`$, where $`m`$ and $`n`$ are large, we finally expand the result in $`\kappa `$ and neglect all terms that vanish as $`\kappa 0`$. We obtain

$$_{\sqrt{ϵ}/\kappa }^1𝑑vf(v,ϵ)=a(\mathrm{log}ϵ)+\frac{\sqrt{ϵ}}{\kappa }b(\mathrm{log}\kappa )+𝒪(ϵ),$$
(3.22)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are polynomials.

The first term of (3.21) may be evaluated by expanding the integrand directly in powers of $`ϵ`$. This gives

$$\sqrt{ϵ}_1^{1/\kappa }𝑑yf(\sqrt{ϵ}y,ϵ)=\sqrt{ϵ}\left[\frac{b(\mathrm{log}\kappa )}{\kappa }+c\right]+𝒪(ϵ),$$
(3.23)
where the constant $`c`$ does not depend on $`ϵ`$ or $`\kappa `$. Adding this to the result (3.22) gives the total contribution:

$$_\sqrt{ϵ}^1𝑑vf(v,ϵ)=a(\mathrm{log}ϵ)+c\sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ).$$
(3.24)
The individual components $`𝒞_{\text{na2}}^{(i)}(ϵ)`$ are presented in the appendix; the total contribution from the 24 diagrams with a single internal gluon propagator was then found to be:

$$𝒞_{\text{na2}}(ϵ)=\frac{12}{11}(4\pi ^233)\mathrm{log}(ϵ\mathrm{\Delta })\frac{1350}{11}+\frac{1440}{11}\zeta (3)\sqrt{ϵ}\left(\frac{36\pi ^2}{11}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{144\pi ^2}{11}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ)$$
(3.25)
where $`\nu 89.556`$ is defined in equation (B.9).

Note that:

1. The most divergent $`\mathrm{log}^3`$ and $`\mathrm{log}^2`$ terms found in the individual components have cancelled in the sum of contributions. There however remain $`\mathrm{log}ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ divergences, which will cancel if we sum all real and virtual diagrams. The leading divergence is again proportional to $`(4\pi ^233)`$, the leading-order value of $`C`$.
2. The coefficient of $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ in (3.25) is simply the quantity $`c`$ in equation (3.23). Thus an easy way to extract the coefficient of the $`1/Q`$ correction without performing the full calculation is to evaluate the integral

$`(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{1/\kappa }}𝑑y\underset{ϵ0}{lim}f(\sqrt{ϵ}y,ϵ)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{704}}{\displaystyle _1^{1/\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{(y^21)dy}{2y^2}}{\displaystyle _{(y1/y)}^{(y1/y)}}𝑑z{\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\sqrt{ϵ}|M|^2C,`$
which is obtained by combining the definitions (3.7) and (3.9) with the changes of variable (3.16), (3.18) and (3.19), and by making the substitutions $`v=\sqrt{ϵ}y`$ and $`u=\sqrt{ϵ}z`$. The coefficient of the $`1/Q`$ correction is obtained by subtracting off the pole at $`\kappa =0`$, just as in (3.23). The integrand thus becomes identical with that obtained using soft matrix elements, as in , but the phase-space boundary is more carefully defined in terms of the small arbitrary quantity $`\kappa `$.

The final diagrams are those such as figure 2(c), diagrams which have no internal gluon propagator. There are 36 such diagrams, 18 of which have colour factor $`C_F^2`$ and 18 of which have $`C_F^2\frac{1}{2}C_FC_A`$. Let us choose to write the contributions to the mean value of the $`C`$ parameter from these diagrams respectively as

$`C^{(i)}_{\text{na3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2}\frac{11C_F}{6\pi }\alpha _s^2𝒞_{\text{na3}}^{(i)}(k^2/Q^2)}`$
$`C^{(i)}_{\text{na4}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2}\frac{11(2C_FC_A)}{12\pi }\alpha _s^2𝒞_{\text{na4}}^{(i)}(k^2/Q^2)}.`$ (3.27)
The integration is performed in the same manner as above. The individual components are listed in appendix B, and we find evaluate the total characteristic functions to be:

$`𝒞_{\text{na3}}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{ϵ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^3}{11}}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na4}}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{11}}(4\pi ^233)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{648}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{576}{11}}\zeta (3)`$ (3.28)
$`+\sqrt{ϵ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^3}{11}}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
Again the leading divergence is as expected proportional to $`(4\pi ^233)`$.

Now that all the diagrams have been calculated, we are in a position to write down the total real contribution to the $`1/Q`$ correction to $`C`$.

### 3.3 Total real contribution

The total real contribution to the mean value of the $`C`$-parameter, expanded in powers of $`ϵ`$, is, by simple compilation of the results above,

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk^2}{k^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0}{4\pi }}|\alpha _s(k^2)|^2\{(4\pi ^233){\displaystyle \frac{12\pi \sqrt{ϵ}}{\beta _0}}({\displaystyle \frac{87\pi ^2}{704}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}C_A{\displaystyle \frac{15\pi ^2}{128}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}T_Rn_f)\}`$ (3.29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{11C_A}{12\pi }}\alpha _s^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{12}{11}}(4\pi ^233)\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{702}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{864}{11}}\zeta (3)12\pi \sqrt{ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi 3\pi ^2}{11}}\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2C_F}{\pi }}\{(4\pi ^233)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }54+48\zeta (3)\}+𝒪(ϵ)],ϵ=k^2/Q^2,`$
where the first line comes from the insertions into the gluon propagator, (2.16) and (3.5), and the second and third lines from the remaining diagrams (3.25) and (3.2).

The factor $`(\beta _0/4\pi )|\alpha _s(k^2)|^2`$ is naturally interpreted as the spectral function $`\rho _s(k^2)`$, generated by making renormalon insertions into the gluon propagators. It is not clear that the same assignment can be made with the remaining contributions, since there is not a simple diagrammatic way of generating the running in diagrams without propagators in which to insert renormalons. If naive non-abelianisation gives the terms in the first line of (3.29), the terms on the second and third lines are extra. Nevertheless, the Milan factor is calculated on the assumption that this assignment is valid, and thus we obtain for the real part of the Milan factor

$`_{\text{real}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _0}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}C_A\left({\displaystyle \frac{12\pi 3\pi ^2}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{87\pi ^2}{704}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}T_Rn_f{\displaystyle \frac{15\pi ^2}{128}}\right\}`$ (3.30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{(256\pi 35\pi ^2)C_A10\pi ^2T_Rn_f}{11C_A4T_Rn_f}}.`$
## 4 Discussion

In the preceding sections we have calculated the mean value of the $`C`$-parameter in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation from 2-loop real emission diagrams as a function of the invariant mass $`k^2=ϵQ^2`$ of the two secondary partons. The coefficient of the $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ term in the series expansion is then assumed to determine the magnitude of the $`1/Q`$ power correction.

There are a number of points to note here. The first is that virtual contributions have not been calculated exactly. We include them here in the same manner as in , using the soft approximation:

$$_{\text{virt}}=\frac{2\pi (1\mathrm{log}2)C_A}{\beta _0}$$
(4.1)
Details of how this number is extracted from  are found in appendix C. Thus we predict the total $`1/Q`$ correction to the $`C`$-parameter to be

$$\delta C=12\frac{𝒜_1}{Q},$$
(4.2)
where the 2-loop enhancement factor is:

$$=\frac{3}{64}\frac{(128\pi +128\pi \mathrm{log}235\pi ^2)C_A10\pi ^2T_Rn_F}{11C_A4T_Rn_F}$$
(4.3)
Putting $`n_f=3`$ yields $`=\frac{2}{3}\pi (1+\mathrm{log}2)\frac{5}{24}\pi ^21.49`$, in agreement with the existing numerical calculations . The use of the soft approximation in calculating such enhancement factors is therefore shown to be valid.

It may not at first sight be totally clear exactly how the virtual diagrams, which do not have any phase-space restriction, could contribute to the $`1/Q`$ correction in the full two-loop approach adopted here. However a term proportional to $`\sqrt{\mu ^2}/Q`$, where $`\mu ^2`$ is a dummy variable in the loop integral, might well appear even without a phase-space restriction if the integrand happens to be of the correct form.

It is also not clear exactly how the spectral function $`\rho _s(k^2)`$ is generated diagrammatically — in the large $`n_f`$ limit this is achieved by quark-loop renormalon insertions into the gluon propagator, which can be extended to gluon-loop insertions using the pinch technique. This reconstructs the correct value for $`\beta _0`$, and is a diagrammatic expression of naive non-abelianisation. But there are left-over contributions to which this does not apply. Whether or not these can truly be said to contribute on the same basis as the renormalon-type contributions is an open question.

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Mrinal Dasgupta and Lorenzo Magnea, the co-authors of , and also Yuri Dokshitzer, Giuseppe Marchesini, Gavin Salam, Jay Watson and Bryan Webber, for helpful advice. The author also acknowledges the use of computing facilities at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, and at CERN.

## A Appendix — diagram decomposition

We use the pinch technique - to reallocate certain gauge-dependent terms between diagrams. We first write the diagrams in the simplest gauge for the process, a naive Feynman gauge with external ghost fields to cancel the unphysical degrees of freedom, and then apply pinch technique manipulations and re-assignments. Of course by gauge independence the same results may be obtained with any gauge choice (for a detailed analysis, see ).

The diagrams in figure 2(c) are (except for the colour factor) the same as those that appear in QED. With this gauge choice these diagrams become simply:

$$\left(C_F^2N_c\right)e^2g^4\text{Tr}\left[p/_1\gamma ^\alpha \frac{1}{p/_1+k/_1}\gamma ^\beta \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\gamma ^\mu p/_2\gamma _\mu \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\gamma _\beta \frac{1}{p/_1+k/_1}\gamma _\alpha \right]+\mathrm{}$$
(A.1)
where the ellipsis represents the remaining 35 diagrams. We calculate these diagrams just as they are, without further modification.

The diagrams containing a single triple gluon vertex and gluon propagator, such as in figure 2(b), are given in this gauge by:

$`\left(\frac{1}{2}C_AC_FN_c\right)e^2g^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\{(k_2k_1)^\gamma g^{\alpha \beta }(k+k_2)^\alpha g^{\beta \gamma }+(k+k_1)^\beta g^{\gamma \alpha }\}\times `$ (A.2)
$`\text{Tr}\left[p/_1\gamma _\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/_1}}\gamma _\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}}\gamma ^\mu p/_2\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}}\gamma _\gamma +\mathrm{}\right].`$
Here we split the triple gluon vertex into two pieces:

$`\left\{(k_2k_1)^\gamma g^{\alpha \beta }(k+k_2)^\alpha g^{\beta \gamma }+(k+k_1)^\beta g^{\gamma \alpha }\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(k_2k_1)^\gamma g^{\alpha \beta }2k^\alpha g^{\beta \gamma }+2k^\beta g^{\gamma \alpha }\right\}`$ (A.3)
$`+\left\{k_1^\alpha g^{\beta \gamma }k_2^\beta g^{\gamma \alpha }\right\}.`$
The contribution from the first term on the right hand side is that used in the calculation of the diagrams, equation (3.10). The contributions from the second term (such contributions are called the ‘pinched parts’ of the diagrams) are manipulated using identities such as:

$$k_2^\beta \left[\mathrm{}\frac{1}{p/_1+k/_1}\gamma _\beta \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\mathrm{}\right]=\mathrm{}\left(\frac{1}{p/_1+k/_1}\frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\right)\mathrm{}$$
(A.4)
to bring it finally into the form

$$4\left(C_AC_FN_c\right)e^2g^4\frac{1}{k^4}\left(k^2g_{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha k_\beta \right)\text{Tr}\left[p/_1\gamma ^\alpha \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\gamma ^\mu p/_2\gamma _\mu \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\gamma ^\beta +\mathrm{}\right].$$
(A.5)
The Dirac trace appearing here is identical to that found in the calculation of diagrams 2(a): it contains 4 terms in total. This contribution will be added in due course to the conventional loop insertion diagram.

These loop insertion diagrams, figure 2(a), are given by

$`\left(C_AC_FN_c\right)e^2g^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}\{(k_2k_1)^\rho g^{\alpha \beta }(k+k_2)^\alpha g^{\beta \rho }+(k+k_1)^\beta g^{\rho \alpha }\}\times `$
$`\left\{(k_2k_1)_\sigma g_{\alpha \beta }(k+k_2)_\alpha g_{\beta \sigma }+(k+k_1)_\beta g_{\sigma \alpha }\right\}\text{Tr}\left[p/_1\gamma _\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}}\gamma ^\mu p/_2\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}}\gamma ^\sigma +\mathrm{}\right]`$
which reduces to

$`\left(C_AC_FN_c\right)e^2g^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}\{4(k^2g_{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha k_\beta )+2(k_{1\alpha }k_{2\alpha })(k_{1\beta }k_{2\beta })(k_{1\alpha }k_{2\beta }+k_{2\alpha }k_{1\beta })\}\times `$ (A.7)
$`\text{Tr}\left[p/_1\gamma ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}}\gamma ^\mu p/_2\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}}\gamma ^\beta +\mathrm{}\right].`$
The only remaining contribution is from the cut ghost loop, which may be written

$$\left(C_AC_FN_c\right)e^2g^4\frac{1}{k^4}\left\{k_{1\alpha }k_{2\beta }+k_{2\alpha }k_{1\beta }\right\}\text{Tr}\left[p/_1\gamma ^\alpha \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\gamma ^\mu p/_2\gamma _\mu \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}\gamma ^\beta +\mathrm{}\right]$$
(A.8)
and thus the total contribution to the cut loop insertion diagram, using this prescription for rearrangement of gauge-dependent terms, is just the sum of (A.5), (A.7) and (A.8):

$`\left(C_AC_FN_c\right)e^2g^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}\{8(k^2g_{\alpha \beta }k_\alpha k_\beta )+2(k_{1\alpha }k_{2\alpha })(k_{1\beta }k_{2\beta })\}\times `$ (A.9)
$`\text{Tr}\left[p/_1\gamma ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}}\gamma ^\mu p/_2\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p/_1+k/}}\gamma ^\beta +\mathrm{}\right].`$
It is this combination of terms that is represented by the diagram 2(a) and the calculation corresponding to it.

## B Appendix — individual contributions to $`C`$

Here are presented the individual contributions to $`C`$, denoted $`𝒞^{(i)}(ϵ)`$ in the text:

1. In the massive gluon scheme, we find:

$`C_{\text{mg}}^{(3)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{log}^2ϵ+9\mathrm{log}ϵ\pi ^2+15+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`C_{\text{mg}}^{(p)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{log}^2ϵ17\mathrm{log}ϵ+\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{223}{6}}+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`C_{\text{mg}}^{(m)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`8\mathrm{log}ϵ+4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{65}{6}}12\pi \sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`C_{\text{mg}}^{(s)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(ϵ),`$ (B.1)
which give the total

$$C_{\text{mg}}(ϵ)=4\pi ^23312\pi \sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ).$$
(B.2)
2. For gluon splitting into a secondary $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, we obtain:

$`𝒞_{\text{ab}}^{(3)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{log}^2ϵ+9\mathrm{log}ϵ\pi ^2+15+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{ab}}^{(p)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{log}^2ϵ17\mathrm{log}ϵ+\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{223}{6}}+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{ab}}^{(m)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`8\mathrm{log}ϵ+4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{65}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{45\pi ^3}{32}}\sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{ab}}^{(s)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(ϵ),`$ (B.3)
with total

$$𝒞_{\text{ab}}(ϵ)=4\pi ^233\frac{45\pi ^3}{32}\sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ).$$
(B.4)
3. From the cut loop diagrams such as in figure 2(a), we get:

$`𝒞_{\text{na1}}^{(3)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{log}^2ϵ+9\mathrm{log}ϵ\pi ^2+15+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na1}}^{(p)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{log}^2ϵ17\mathrm{log}ϵ+\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{223}{6}}+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na1}}^{(m)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`8\mathrm{log}ϵ+4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{65}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{261\pi ^3}{176}}\sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na1}}^{(s)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(ϵ),`$ (B.5)
with total

$$𝒞_{\text{na1}}(ϵ)=4\pi ^233\frac{261\pi ^3}{176}\sqrt{ϵ}+𝒪(ϵ).$$
(B.6)
4. The diagrams such as in figure 2(b) yield

$`𝒞_{\text{na2}}^{(3)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{11}}\mathrm{log}^3ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{36}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}^2ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{54}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2ϵ`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{108}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{36}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{30\pi ^2261}{11}}\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi ^2171}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{39\pi ^2}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{477}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{270}{11}}\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}2{\displaystyle \frac{24}{11}}\mathrm{log}^32+{\displaystyle \frac{144}{11}}\text{Li}_3(\frac{1}{2})+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na2}}^{(p)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{11}}\mathrm{log}^3ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{36}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}^2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{102}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2ϵ`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{204}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{54}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{30\pi ^2507}{11}}\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi ^2409}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`+7\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1042}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{270}{11}}\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{12\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}2+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{11}}\mathrm{log}^32{\displaystyle \frac{144}{11}}\text{Li}_3(\frac{1}{2})+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na2}}^{(m)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{48}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{96}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{48\pi ^2150}{11}}\mathrm{log}ϵ`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{48\pi ^2158}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{38\pi ^2}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{785}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1440}{11}}\zeta (3)`$
$`\sqrt{ϵ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{144\pi ^2}{11}}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na2}}^{(s)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(ϵ),`$ (B.7)
which have total

$`𝒞_{\text{na2}}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{11}}(4\pi ^233)\mathrm{log}(ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }){\displaystyle \frac{1350}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1440}{11}}\zeta (3)`$ (B.8)
$`\sqrt{ϵ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{144\pi ^2}{11}}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ).`$
The number $`\nu 89.556`$ is given by the expression

$$\nu =\frac{288\pi }{11}_{\pi /6}^{5\pi /6}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}d\theta \frac{432\pi }{11}_{\pi /3}^{2\pi /3}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}d\theta \frac{96\pi ^2\mathrm{log}2}{11}.$$
(B.9)
5. The diagrams such as that of figure 2(c) which have colour factor $`C_F^2`$ give the contributions:

$`𝒞_{\text{na3}}^{(3)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{22}}\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{24\pi ^29}{22}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi ^2}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{22}}{\displaystyle \frac{108}{11}}\zeta (3)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na3}}^{(p)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{48}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{73}{22}}\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{24\pi ^273}{22}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{22}}+{\displaystyle \frac{108}{11}}\zeta (3)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na3}}^{(m)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{30}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{11}}\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{32}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{10\pi ^2}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{11}}`$
$`\sqrt{ϵ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^3}{11}}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na3}}^{(s)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(ϵ),`$ (B.10)
which have total

$$𝒞_{\text{na3}}(ϵ)=\sqrt{ϵ}\left(\frac{36\pi ^2}{11}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{36\pi ^3}{11}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ).$$
(B.11)
6. And finally those diagrams with colour factor $`C_F^2\frac{1}{2}C_AC_F`$ provide:

$`𝒞_{\text{na4}}^{(3)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{36}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}^2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{108}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{36}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2135}{11}}\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi ^2171}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{48\pi ^2}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{711}{22}}+{\displaystyle \frac{252}{11}}\zeta (3)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na4}}^{(p)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{36}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}^2ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{204}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{54}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2219}{11}}\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi ^2409}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{86\pi ^2}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1487}{22}}{\displaystyle \frac{252}{11}}\zeta (3)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na4}}^{(m)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{96}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{18}{11}}\mathrm{log}^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{84}{11}}\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{48\pi ^2158}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{38\pi ^2}{11}}+{\displaystyle \frac{260}{11}}{\displaystyle \frac{576}{11}}\zeta (3)+\sqrt{ϵ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^3}{11}}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`𝒞_{\text{na4}}^{(s)}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(ϵ),`$ (B.12)
with total

$`𝒞_{\text{na4}}(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{39648\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{648576\zeta (3)}{11}}`$ (B.13)
$`+\sqrt{ϵ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^2}{11}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{36\pi ^3}{11}}+\nu \right)+𝒪(ϵ).`$

## C Appendix — extraction of virtual contribution

In order to compare our real-emission result (3.30) with the Milan factor we have to note that the latter as derived in  includes a contribution from virtual diagrams as well as real diagrams. This is a part of the inclusive piece $`r_{\text{incl}}=c^{(i)}C_A/\beta _0`$, where from equation (3.8) of  we have

$$c^{(i)}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{2x}{1+x^2}\left(\sqrt{1+x^2}x\right)\mathrm{log}\left[x^2(1+x^2)\right]=84\mathrm{log}22\pi (1\mathrm{log}2).$$
(C.1)
Here the contribution involving $`\sqrt{1+x^2}`$ is the contribution from real emission diagrams, while the virtual contribution is represented by the $`x`$ term. The combined integral converges at large $`x`$.

In the full calculation (i.e. without using the soft approximation) the real and virtual contributions represented here arise from integrals of the form:

$$𝒦_{\text{re/vi}}=_0^1𝑑\xi h_{\text{re/vi}}(\xi ,ϵ),$$
(C.2)
where the kinematical integration variable is $`\xi =k_{}/Q`$. Using (3.1) and the argument of  we have in the soft (small $`\xi `$) region that

$`h_{\text{re}}(\xi ,ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{\xi ^2+ϵ}}\sqrt{\xi ^2+ϵ}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2(\xi ^2+ϵ)}{ϵ^2}}`$
$`h_{\text{vi}}(\xi ,ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{\xi ^2+ϵ}}(\xi )\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2(\xi ^2+ϵ)}{ϵ^2}}.`$ (C.3)
It is therefore clearly not permissible to evaluate the integrals $`𝒦_{\text{re/vi}}`$ by a naive expansion of the integrand in powers of $`ϵ`$. Instead we divide up the integration region according to

$$𝒦_{\text{re/vi}}=\sqrt{ϵ}_0^{1/\kappa }𝑑xh_{\text{re/vi}}(\sqrt{ϵ}x,ϵ)+_{\sqrt{ϵ}/\kappa }^1𝑑\xi h_{\text{re/vi}}(\xi ,ϵ),$$
(C.4)
where the total cannot depend on $`\kappa `$.

Neglecting terms that vanish as $`\kappa 0`$, the first term on the right-hand side gives

$`{\displaystyle _0^{1/\kappa }}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{1+x^2}}\sqrt{1+x^2}\mathrm{log}\left[x^2(1+x^2)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\kappa }}(1\mathrm{log}\kappa )+84\mathrm{log}2,`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{1/\kappa }}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{2x^2}{1+x^2}}\mathrm{log}\left[x^2(1+x^2)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\kappa }}(1\mathrm{log}\kappa )2\pi (1\mathrm{log}2),`$ (C.5)
while in the second the $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ terms can come only from the lower limit, and thus appear as $`\sqrt{ϵ}/\kappa `$. The $`1/\kappa `$ terms in (C) are therefore exactly cancelled, leaving the total $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ contributions from real and virtual parts respectively as

$$c_{\text{real}}^{(i)}=84\mathrm{log}2c_{\text{virt}}^{(i)}=2\pi (1\mathrm{log}2).$$
(C.6)


format: text

text:
# Flat-Fielding BATSE Occultation Data for use in a Hard X-Ray All Sky Survey

## 1 Introduction

The Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) consisted of eight 2025 cm2 NaI(Tl) Large Area scintillation Detectors (LADs), sensitive from 20 keV - 2 MeV. BATSE monitored the whole sky continuously from April 1991 - June 2000 as an experiment aboard the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO). The continuous whole sky exposure makes BATSE an ideal facility for the production of the first all sky hard X-ray survey since HEAO A-4 of 1977-1978 (Levine et al. (1984)). A survey performed with BATSE will not only be the first in the few hundreds of keV band but will have the ability to detect weak persistent sources and continuously monitor variable and transient sources. The BATSE CONTINUOUS data set contains usable count rates in 15 energy channels recorded in 2.048 s time bins.

## 2 BATSE Earth Occultation Observations

BATSE was developed primarily to detect and locate $`\gamma `$-ray bursts. The individual BATSE detectors have no positional sensitivity, hence to locate the position of a source of $`\gamma `$-rays the relative count rates from several detectors are combined, along with the point spread function of each detector (Pendleton et al. (1999)). Prior to launch however it was realised that that the instrument could also be used as a sensitive all sky monitor of point like $`\gamma `$-ray sources by using the Earth to modulate the flux at the CGRO orbital period (Paciesas et al. (1985)). Sharp steps are seen in the count rate profile of the detectors as point sources rise and set over the Earth’s limb, the size of which give the source flux (Harmon et al. (2000)). About 70% of the whole sky is occulted twice per 90 minute orbit. The precession of the orbit is such that the whole sky undergoes occultation every 53 days. The key to measuring the flux values correctly is in accurately determining the varying background count rate. Ling et al. (2000) have recently published a catalogue of 34 moderately strong $`\gamma `$-ray sources observed with BATSE during the first three phases of the CGRO mission (May 1991 through October 1994). They use an empirical fit to find the background, which is hampered by systematic errors and large computation time (Harmon et al. (2000)), and make no attempt to image the sky.

## 3 Southampton BATSE Background Model

The BATSE model is based on The INTEGRAL Mass Model (TIMM), which is a GEANT based Monte-Carlo simulation code devloped at Southampton to investigate the performance of the instruments aboard the INTEGRAL mission pre-launch (Lei et al. (1999)). It considers three components to the background; cosmic rays, cosmic diffuse gamma rays and $`\gamma `$-rays from interactions of cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere. These same techniques are easily extended to other experiments and has been proposed for use with the BAT burst monitor aboard SWIFT.

### 3.1 Dynamic Generation of Background Components

With BATSE we are interested in the dynamical behaviour of the background within the CGRO orbit. The background is a complicated function of the pointing of the detectors, the position of CGRO in the Earth’s magnetic field and its irradiation history. A novel two step method has been developed to account for the background at any point in the CGRO lifetime. Firstly CGRO is assumed to be in deep space without any interference from Earth. Here it receives isotropic fluxes of cosmic rays, cosmic diffuse $`\gamma `$-rays and atmospheric $`\gamma `$-rays and a database, containing information about all the events interacting in the BATSE modules is created. The second stage filters the database with the physical criterea corresponding to CGRO’s position and pointing. This information is used to create the background for any orbital position and pointing. The component due to the atmospheric $`\gamma `$-rays is found by scaling and sampling of the detector pointings and finally the radio-activation of the detector materials is simulated. The first stage is computationally very intensive, but only needs to be done once for the whole lifetime of the experiment. To compute the second stage of the background simulation requires only a few hours for all of the eight BATSE modules for one day. Figure 1 shows the excellent agreement between the modelled data and the count rate profile in the BATSE LADs for three energy channels.

## 4 Production of Sky Images

Sky images are produced using a maximum likelihood method originally developed by J. Knödlseder at CESR (Knödlseder (1999)). This method has been adapted at Southampton for use with the flat-fielded CONTINUOUS data and developed into the LIMBO code (Likelihood Imaging Method for BATSE Occultation).

### 4.1 Flat-Fielding of Data

The data is flat-fielded by subtracting the modelled background and the result passed to a simple differential filter of width $`f`$ bins, given by

$$d_i^{}=\frac{_{j=i}^{j=i+f}d_j_{j=i}^{j=if}d_j}{f+1}.$$
(1)
The filtered data, $`d_i^{}`$, is transformed from a count rate containing occultation steps to a set of occultation peaks. A square step at bin $`i`$ will be transfromed to a triangular peak of width $`2f`$. The choice of $`f`$ has implications for the sensitivity and angular resolution of the imaging technique; larger $`f`$ will give a more significant occultation peak and improve sensitivity, smaller $`f`$ returns less significant but sharper peaks that will lead to better angular resolution. The gain in sensitivity from increasing $`f`$ begins to level out as the steps from other sources enter the filter. Table 1 summarises the sensitivity and angular resolution obtained from images made from one day’s observation of Cygnus X-1 using energy channel 2 ($``$25 - 35 keV). The creation of images is discussed further in section 4.2. The raw BATSE data contains occasional gaps where, for example, the instrument is turned off during passage through the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) or where contact is lost between CGRO and telemetry relay satellites. Left untreated the gaps cause large artificial peaks in the data near each gap so a linear interpolation is used to fill the gaps in the background subtracted data. The gap data is not used further in the analysis.

### 4.2 Maximum Likelihood Imaging

The imaging method used here differs from the Radon transform method used by other groups (e.g. Zhang et al. (1993)) in that it produces the results of statistical tests for emission at each point in the map rather than a deconvolution of the data. The occultation peak dataset, $`\stackrel{}{o}`$, is fitted to a response vector, $`\stackrel{}{e}`$, which describes the expected position, shape and amplitude of the peaks as a function of source strength and position on the sky. The fit determines a scaling factor of the response vector, which is proportional to the flux received from each point in the sky for all eight LADs. The scaling factor, $`\alpha `$, is given by

$$\alpha =\frac{_i\frac{o_ie_i}{\sigma _i^2}}{_i\frac{e_i^2}{\sigma _i^2}},$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _i`$ is the statistical error on $`o_i`$. A maximum likelihood ratio test is used to determine the significance of the flux detection and returns a skymap for a given grid of source positions (Cash (1976)). The maximum likelihood ratio, $`\lambda `$, is distributed as $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ with $`\nu `$ degrees of freedom. It is calculated from the difference $`C_oC_{src}`$, the $`\chi ^2`$ statistics for the null (no source is fitted to $`\stackrel{}{o}`$) and source (a source with free strength is fitted to $`\stackrel{}{o}`$) hypotheses respectively, where

$`C_o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{o_i^2}{\sigma _i^2}},`$ (3)
$`C_{src}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(o_i\alpha e_i)^2}{\sigma _i^2}}.`$ (4)
When searching for a known source $`\nu =1`$ and hence the detection significance, in gaussian $`\sigma `$, is given by $`\sqrt{\lambda }`$. For searches of new sources of $`\gamma `$-rays $`\nu =3`$ (Knödlseder (1999)). The image is built up from the superposition of the arcs caused by the occultation of point sources by the Earth’s limb. The angular resolution perpendicular to the limb depends on $`\beta `$, the angle at the geocentre between the orbital plane and the source. Sources seen with $`\beta `$45 yield good information since the rising and setting limbs are almost orthogonal.

The maximum likelihood method has an advantage over the Radon transform method in that there is no limit to the size of map that can be generated. The Radon transform is not well behaved for regions much larger than $``$20$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$20 (Harmon et al. (2000)). Likelihood maps can be made for short periods of time and then added together to increase source significance whilst retaining the ability to investigate variability on short timescales. The total likelihood ratio from a total of individual daily maps, indexed by $`d`$, is $`\lambda _T=_d(\lambda _d\mathrm{\Delta }_d)`$ where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_d=(\alpha _T\alpha _d)((\alpha _T\alpha _d)D_d2F_d)$$
(5)
and $`F_d`$ and $`D_d`$ are the daily values of the numerator and denominator of equation 2 respectively. The quantity $`\alpha _T`$ is the total flux for all days being considered, i.e. $`\alpha _T=_d\alpha _d=_dF_d/_dD_d`$.

## 5 Results

Figure 2 shows the total likelihood map for the whole sky created from channel 2 CONTINUOUS data for 60 days between Truncated Julian Days (TJD) 10840 - 10900. The energy calibration of BATSE channel 2 is such that the range of photon energies it detects is approximately constant at $``$9 keV with a lower limit of $``$25$`\pm `$5 keV. The Crab, Cygnus X-1 and several Galactic Centre sources have been identified along with other faint sources as summarized in table 2. Some artifacts remain around the brighter sources, which we aim to reduce by removing the brighter sources iteratively. The 3$`\sigma `$ flux sensitivity of the map is 14 mCrab. The map was created using a 2$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$2 sky grid and $`f=20`$. Table 1 suggests that it would be worthwhile increasing the grid resolution to 0.5$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$0.5, which would increase the computation time and disk space requirements by a factor of 8. The current maps are $``$600 kB in size per day and energy channel and LIMBO takes $``$45 mins to run on a PentiumIII Linux workstation, although the code is not fully optimised as yet. On the basis of this preliminary analysis LIMBO shows a lot of promise as a method of surveying the sky. We will continue to develop LIMBO with the aim of creating a database of daily maps in each energy channel for the entire BATSE observation. Sources found in the surveys will be studied in more detail for location, variability and spectroscopy (see also presentations by Dean and Westmore at this meeting).


text:
# Special Functions, Conformal Blocks, Bethe Ansatz, and 𝑆𝐿(3,ℤ)

## Abstract.

This is the talk of the second author at the meeting ”Topological Methods in Physical Sciences”, London, November 2000. We review our work on KZB equations.

1 Supported in part by NSF grant DMS-9801582

Departement Mathematik, ETH-Zentrum, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland,

felder@math.ethz.ch

Department of Mathematics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3250, USA,

av@math.unc.edu

November, 2000

KZB equations.

The Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov-Bernard (KZB) equations are a system of differential equations arising in conformal field theory on Riemann surfaces. For each $`g,n_0`$, a simple complex Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, $`n`$ highest weight $`𝔤`$-modules $`V_i`$ and a complex parameter $`\kappa `$, we have such a system of equations. In the case of genus $`g=1`$, they have the form

$`\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v}{z_j}}={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}h_\nu ^{(j)}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\lambda _\nu }}+{\displaystyle \underset{l,lj}{}}r(z_jz_l,\lambda ,\tau )^{(j,l)}v,j=1,\mathrm{},n,`$
$`4\pi i\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v}{\tau }}=\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}s(z,\lambda ,\tau )^{(i,j)}v.`$
The unknown function $`v`$ takes values in the zero weight space $`V[0]=_{x𝔥}\text{Ker}(x)`$ of the tensor product $`V=V_1\mathrm{}V_n`$ with respect to the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ of $`𝔤`$. It depends on variables $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$, modulus $`\tau `$ of the elliptic curve and $`\lambda =\lambda _\nu h_\nu 𝔥`$, where $`(h_\nu )`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`𝔥`$ with respect to a fixed invariant bilinear form. In the equation, $`r,s𝔤𝔤`$ are suitable given tensor valued functions, \[FW\].

The second equation is called the KZB-heat equation.

Example. For $`𝔤=sl_N,n=1,V=S^{mN}^N,𝔥=^N/(1,\mathrm{},1)`$, the weight-zero space $`V[0]`$ is one dimensional, the KZB equations are scalar equations $`v/z_1=0`$ and

(1) $`4\pi i\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2v}{\lambda _i^2}}+2m(m+1){\displaystyle \underset{1i<jN}{}}\rho ^{}(\lambda _i\lambda _j,\tau )v.`$
Here  denotes the derivative with respect to the first argument and $`\rho `$ is defined in terms of the first Jacobi theta function,

$`\theta (t,\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{\pi i(j+\frac{1}{2})^2\tau +2\pi i(j+\frac{1}{2})(t+\frac{1}{2})},\rho (t,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{}(t,\tau )}{\theta (t,\tau )}}.`$
Notice that $`\rho ^{}=\mathrm{}+c`$ where $`\mathrm{}(t,\tau )`$ is the Weierstrass function, $`c=c(\tau )`$ a function of $`\tau `$, and we recover in the right hand side of the KZB-heat equation the Hamilton operator $`H_{N,m}`$ of the elliptic Calogero-Moser quantum $`N`$-body system,

$`H_{N,m}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda _i^2}}+2m(m+1){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\rho ^{}(\lambda _i\lambda _j,\tau )`$
with coupling constant $`m(m+1)`$.

In particular, if $`𝔤=sl_2`$, then the Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ can be identified with $``$, and $`\lambda `$. For the irreducible $`2m+1`$ dimensional module $`V`$, the KZB-heat equation takes the form

(2) $`2\pi i\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v}{\tau }}(\lambda ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{^2v}{\lambda ^2}}(\lambda ,\tau )+m(m+1)\rho ^{}(\lambda ,\tau )v(\lambda ,\tau ).`$
A remarkable fact about all forms of the KZ equations is that they can be realized geometrically. They have solutions defined as hypergeometric integrals depending on parameters.

Example. Consider the function

$`v(\lambda ,\tau )={\displaystyle _0^1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta (t,\tau )}{\theta ^{}(0,\tau )}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (\lambda t,\tau )\theta ^{}(0,\tau )}{\theta (\lambda ,\tau )\theta (t,\tau )}}g(\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}t,\tau )𝑑t`$
where $`g(\lambda ,\tau )`$ is any solution of the heat equation

$`2\pi i\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{g}{\tau }}(\lambda ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{^2g}{\lambda ^2}}(\lambda ,\tau ).`$
For instance, $`g(\lambda ,\tau )=e^{\lambda \mu +\frac{\mu ^2}{2\pi i\kappa }\tau }`$ for $`\mu `$. Then $`v`$ is a solution of the KZB-heat equation (2) with $`m=1`$ \[FV1\].

Remark. Simplest KZ equations have the classical Gauss hypergeometric function as their solution. It is natural to consider solutions of all KZ type equations as generalized hypergeometric functions. Thus there are hypergeometric functions associated with curves of any genus. The function $`v(\lambda ,\tau )`$ is the simplest elliptic hypergeometric function.

The Gauss hypergeometric function is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}}F(a,b,c;z)={\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}t^{ac}(t1)^{cb1}(tz)^a𝑑t.`$
The functions

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta (t,\tau )}{\theta ^{}(0,\tau )}}\right)^a\text{and}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (\lambda t,\tau )\theta ^{}(0,\tau )}{\theta (\lambda ,\tau )\theta (t,\tau )}}`$
are elliptic analogs of the functions $`t^a`$ and $`1/t`$, respectively. The hypergeometric solutions to the KZB equations were discovered through this analogy.

Remark. If $`\kappa `$ tends to $`0`$, we are dealing with the eigenfunction problem. Find eigenfunctions of the elliptic Calogero-Moser Hamiltonian,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2v}{\lambda _i^2}}+2m(m+1){\displaystyle \underset{1i<jN}{}}\rho ^{}(\lambda _i\lambda _j,\tau )v=Ev.`$
The stationary phase method applied to hypergeometric solutions of the KZB equations gives eigenfunctions. For instance, application of the method to the function $`v(\lambda ,\tau )`$ implies that for every $`\mu `$, the function $`v(\lambda )=e^{\lambda \mu }\theta (\lambda t_0,\tau )/\theta (\lambda ,\tau )`$ is an eigenfunction of the operator

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda ^2}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\rho ^{}(\lambda ,\tau )`$
if $`t_0`$ is a critical point of the function $`e^{\mu t}\theta (t,\tau )`$. This is a Bethe ansatz type formula, see \[FV1, FV2\]. For $`𝔤=sl_2`$, the Bethe ansatz formulas reduce to Hermite’s 1872 solution of the Lamé equation, see \[WW\].

The fact that solutions have the form of explicitly written integrals is a tool to study solutions as well as equations, for instance , the monodromy properties of solutions or their modular properties with respect to changes of $`\tau `$.

Modular symmetries of KZB.

For any $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)SL(2,)`$, the elliptic curves with moduli $`\tau `$ and $`(a\tau +b)/(c\tau +d)`$ are isomorphic, the corresponding KZB equations are related. Having a family of solutions one can ask about monodromy properties of solutions with respect to transformations of the lattice $`+\tau `$.

Example. Consider equation (2) for $`m=0`$,

(3) $`2\pi i\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v}{\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{^2v}{\lambda ^2}}.`$
If $`v(\lambda ,\tau )`$ is a solution, then $`\stackrel{~}{v}(\lambda ,\tau )=v(\lambda ,\tau +1)`$ and

$`\stackrel{~}{v}(\lambda ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau }}}e^{\frac{\pi i\lambda ^2}{2\tau }}v({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\tau }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }})`$
are solutions too. If $`\{v_\mu (\lambda ,\tau )\}`$ is a family of solutions depending on a parameter $`\mu `$, then one can ask about ”monodromy” relations of the three families of solutions: $`\{v_\mu (\lambda ,\tau )\}`$, $`\{v_\mu (\lambda ,\tau +1)\}`$, and $`\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau }}e^{\frac{\pi i\lambda ^2}{2\tau }}v_\mu (\frac{\lambda }{\tau },\frac{1}{\tau })\}`$.

The KZB-heat equation as a flat connection. One can consider equation (2) as the equation for horizontal sections of a connection on a vector bundle over the upper half plane $`_+`$ whose fiber $`F(\tau )`$ over a point $`\tau `$ is the space of functions of $`\lambda `$.

If $`\kappa `$ is a positive integer not less than $`2`$, then the bundle has a finite dimensional sub-bundle (of conformal blocks) invariant with respect to the connection and consisting of certain theta functions of level $`\kappa `$, \[EFK, FW, FV1\].

In this paper we address the following

Problem. Quantize the KZB heat equation, study modular properties of the quantization.

It turns out that the KZB-heat equation is quantized to a difference qKZB-heat equation (with step $`p`$) in such a way that the $`SL(2,)`$ symmetry of the KZB-heat equation related to the lattice $`Z+\tau `$ is quantized to an $`SL(3,)`$ symmetry related to the lattice $`Z+\tau +p`$.

A quantization of the heat equation is a discrete connection over $`_+`$ with the same fiber, i.e. a linear operator $`T(\tau ,\tau +p):F(\tau +p)F(\tau )`$. This linear operator tends to

$`1+\text{const}p({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda ^2}}+m(m+1)\rho ^{}(\lambda ,\tau ))+\mathrm{}`$
as $`p0`$.

For methodological reasons we describe first a quantization of equation (3). For a nonzero $`\eta `$, introduce linear operators

$`U`$ $`:`$ $`f(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{4i\eta }}}{\displaystyle _\eta }e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \mu }{2\eta }}f(\mu )𝑑\mu ,`$
$`\alpha `$ $`:`$ $`f(\lambda )e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda ^2}{4\eta }}f(\lambda ).`$
Define

(4) $`T(\tau ,\tau +p)=\alpha U\alpha :f(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{4i\eta }}}{\displaystyle _\eta }e^{\pi i\frac{(\lambda +\mu )^2}{4\eta }}f(\mu )𝑑\mu .`$
The translation operator $`T(\tau ,\tau +p)`$ in this case is basically just the Fourier transform.

The qKZB-heat equation is the equation for flat sections,

(5) $`v(\lambda ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{4i\eta }}}{\displaystyle _\eta }e^{\pi i\frac{(\lambda +\mu )^2}{4\eta }}v(\mu ,\tau +p)𝑑\mu .`$
Set $`p=2\kappa \eta `$. Let $`\eta 0`$ and $`\lambda ,\tau ,\kappa `$ fixed.

Theorem. Let $`v_\eta (\lambda ,\tau )`$ be a family of solutions of (5) with asymptotics $`v_\eta (\lambda ,\tau )=v^0(\lambda ,\tau )+\eta v^1(\lambda ,\tau )+\mathrm{}`$ Then $`v^0(\lambda ,\tau )`$ satisfies (3).

Proof. The stationary phase asymptotic expansion of the right hand side of (5) is

$`v^0(\lambda ,\tau )+\eta v^1(\lambda ,\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{i\eta }{\pi }}(2\pi i\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v^0}{\tau }}(\lambda ,\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{^2v^0}{\lambda ^2}}(\lambda ,\tau ))+O(\eta ^2)+\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

Introduce a function

(6) $`u(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,p,\eta )=e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \mu }{2\eta }}.`$
For every $`\mu `$, the function $`u`$ is a projective solution of the qKZB-heat equation (5),

$`u(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,p,\eta )=e^{\pi i\frac{\mu ^2}{4\eta }}(T(\tau ,\tau +p)u)(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau +p,p,\eta ),`$
in particular, $`v(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,p,\eta )=e^{\pi i\frac{\mu ^2}{4\eta }\frac{\tau }{p}\pi i\frac{\lambda \mu }{2\eta }}`$ is a true solution.

Remark \[FV3\]. Let $`\kappa `$ be a positive integer. The functions

$`\theta _{j,\kappa }(\lambda ,\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{r+j/2\kappa }{}}e^{2\pi i\kappa (r^2\tau +r\lambda )},j/2\kappa ,`$
form the space $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\kappa (\tau )`$ of theta functions of level $`\kappa `$. Let $`E(\tau )=\{f\mathrm{\Theta }_\kappa (\tau )|f(\lambda )=f(\lambda )\}`$ be the space of odd theta functions. The translation operator $`T(\tau ,\tau +p)`$ maps $`E(\tau +p)`$ to $`E(\tau )`$ if $`p/2\eta =\kappa `$.

This statement is based on the identity

$`\theta _{j,\kappa }(\lambda ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{4i\eta }}}{\displaystyle _{2\eta }}e^{\frac{i\pi }{4\eta }(\lambda +\mu )^2}\theta _{j,\kappa }(\mu ,\tau 2\eta \kappa )𝑑\mu .`$
The space $`E(\tau )`$ is the quantization of the finite dimensional space of conformal blocks.

Modular properties of the q-heat operator (in this case of the Fourier transform).

The group $`SL(3,)`$ is generated by the elementary matrices $`e_{i,j}`$, $`ij`$. The elementary matrix $`e_{i,j}`$ is the element of $`SL(3,)`$ which differ from the identity matrix by having the $`i,j`$ matrix element equal to $`1`$. The relations can be chosen \[M\] to be

$`e_{i,j}e_{k,l}`$ $`=`$ $`e_{k,l}e_{i,j},il,jk,`$
$`e_{i,j}e_{j,k}`$ $`=`$ $`e_{i,k}e_{jk}e_{i,j},`$
$`(e_{1,3}e_{3,1}^1e_{1,3})^4`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$
Consider $`^3`$ with coordinates $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$. The group $`SL(3,)`$ acts on $`^3`$ in the standard way. Consider the trivial bundle over $`^3`$ with the same fiber $`F`$ over a point $`x^3`$. We define a projectively flat connection over the orbit of a point. Namely, for any generator $`e_{i,j}`$, we define a linear operator

$`\phi _{i,j}(x):F(e_{i,j}^1x)F(x)`$
so that all relations in $`SL(3,)`$ are projectively satisfied. That means that the linear operator corresponding to the left hand side of a relation is equal to the linear operator corresponding to the right hand side of the relation multiplied by a number.

Remark. The operator $`\phi _{2,1}(p,\tau ,\eta ):F(p,\tau p,\eta )F(p,\tau ,\eta )`$ will correspond to the qKZB-heat operator.

Introduce linear operators

$`U(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`:`$ $`f(\lambda ){\displaystyle _{x_3}}e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \mu }{2x_3}}f(\mu )𝑑\mu ,`$
$`\alpha (x_3)`$ $`:`$ $`f(\lambda )e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda ^2}{4x_3}}f(\lambda ),`$
$`\beta (x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`:`$ $`f(\lambda )e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda ^2}{4}\frac{x_1}{x_2x_3}}f(\lambda ).`$
Set

$`\phi _{1,3}(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`\phi _{2,3}(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`\phi _{1,2}(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (x_3),`$
$`\phi _{3,2}(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (x_1,x_2x_3,x_3),`$
$`\phi _{2,1}(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (x_3)U(x_2,x_2x_1,x_3)\alpha (x_3),`$
$`\phi _{3,1}(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (x_1x_3,x_3,x_2)^1U(x_1x_3,x_3,x_2)^1\beta (x_3,x_2,x_3x_1)^1.`$
Theorem. The operators $`\phi _{i,j}`$ define a projectively flat connection over orbits of the $`SL(3,)`$ action.

Remark. Consider $`^3`$ and the projectivization of the dual space, $`P(^3)^{}`$. Consider $`X(0)^3\times P(^3)^{}`$ where

$`X=\{((x_1,x_2,x_3),(y_1:y_2:y_3))|x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3=0\}.`$
The natural projection $`X^30`$ is a projective line bundle. The group $`SL(3,)`$ acts on $`X`$, $`g:(x,y)(gx,(g^t)^1y)`$ for any $`gSL(3,)`$. Fix an affine coordinate on fibers, $`t:(y_1:y_2:y_3)y_2/y_1`$. Then for any $`i,j`$, $`ij`$, we have

$`e_{i,j}:(e_{i,j}^1x,t)(x,f_{i,j}(x,t))`$
where $`f_{1,3}(x,t)=f_{2,3}(x,t)=t`$, $`f_{1,2}(x,t)=t1`$, $`f_{3,2}(x,t)=(tx_3+x_1)/(x_3x_2)`$, $`f_{2,1}(x,t)=t/(1t)`$, $`f_{3,1}(x,t)=t(x_3x_1)/(tx_2+x_3)`$.

The $`SL(3,)`$-action on $`X`$ is closely related to the projectively flat connection described in the Theorem. Namely, set

$`G(\lambda ;x_1,x_2,x_3;t)=e^{\frac{\pi i}{4}\lambda ^2\frac{t}{x_3}}.`$
Call a Gaussian in the fiber $`F(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ a function of the form const$`G(\lambda ;x_1,x_2,x_3;t)`$ for some number $`t`$. The linear operators $`\phi _{i,j}(x):F(e_{i,j}^1x)F(x)`$ preserve the Gaussians. Moreover, for all $`i,j`$, we have

$`\phi _{i,j}(x):G(\lambda ;x_1,x_2,x_3;t)\text{const}G(\lambda ;x_1,x_2,x_3;f_{i,j}(t,x)).`$
Remark. The Theorem easily follows from the following two main equations satisfied by the Fourier transform, which we call

the q-heat equation,

(7) $`\alpha (x_3)U(x_1,x_1+x_2,x_3)\alpha (x_3)U(x_1+x_2,x_2,x_3)\alpha (x_3)=U(x_1,x_2,x_3),`$
and the modular equation,

(8) $`U(x_3,x_2,x_1)\beta (x_3,x_2,x_1)U(x_1,x_3,x_2)=`$
$`\beta (x_2,x_3,x_1)U(x_1,x_2,x_3)\beta (x_1,x_2,x_3).`$
Proof of the q-heat equation.

$`e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda ^2}{4x_3}}{\displaystyle e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \nu }{2x_3}}\left(e^{\pi i\frac{\nu ^2}{4x_3}}e^{\pi i\frac{\nu \mu }{2x_3}}e^{\pi i\frac{\mu ^2}{4x_3}}f(\mu )𝑑\mu \right)𝑑\nu }=`$
$`{\displaystyle \left(e^{\pi i\frac{(\lambda +\mu \nu )^2}{4x_3}}𝑑\nu \right)e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \mu }{2x_3}}f(\mu )𝑑\mu }=`$
$`\text{const}(x_3){\displaystyle e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \mu }{2x_3}}f(\mu )𝑑\mu }.`$
Proof of the modular equation.

$`{\displaystyle e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \nu }{2x_1}}e^{\pi i\frac{\nu ^2}{4}\frac{x_3}{x_1x_2}}\left(e^{\pi i\frac{\nu \mu }{2x_2}}f(\mu )𝑑\mu \right)𝑑\nu }=`$
$`{\displaystyle \left(e^{\pi i\frac{1}{4x_1x_2x_3}(x_1\mu +x_2\lambda +x_3\nu )^2}𝑑\nu \right)e^{\frac{\pi i}{4}(\lambda ^2\frac{x_2}{x_1x_3}+2\frac{\lambda \mu }{x_3}+\mu ^2\frac{x_1}{x_2x_3})}f(\mu )𝑑\mu }=`$
$`\text{const}(x_1,x_2,x_3)e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda ^2}{4}\frac{x_2}{x_1x_3}}{\displaystyle e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \mu }{2x_3}}e^{\pi i\frac{\mu ^2}{4}\frac{x_1}{x_2x_3}}f(\mu )𝑑\mu }.`$
Similarly, one can quantize equation (2) for $`m=1`$,

(9) $`2\pi i\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v}{\tau }}(\lambda ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{^2v}{\lambda ^2}}(\lambda ,\tau )+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\rho ^{}(\lambda ,\tau )v(\lambda ,\tau ).`$
Introduce a function

(10) $`u(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,p,\eta )=e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda \mu }{2\eta }}{\displaystyle _0^1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{2\eta }(t,\tau ,p){\displaystyle \frac{\theta (\lambda +t,\tau )\theta (\mu +t,p)}{\theta (t2\eta ,\tau )\theta (t2\eta ,p)}}𝑑t`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_a(t,\tau ,p)={\displaystyle \underset{j,k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1e^{2\pi i(ta+j\tau +kp)})(1e^{2\pi i(ta+(j+1)\tau +(k+1)p)})}{(1e^{2\pi i(t+a+j\tau +kp)})(1e^{2\pi i(t+a+(j+1)\tau +(k+1)p)})}}.`$
This is the analog for $`m=1`$ of function (6).

Define the translation operator for $`m=1`$ as

$`T(\tau ,\tau +p):f(\lambda ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{i\eta }}}e^{\pi i\frac{\lambda ^2}{4\eta }}{\displaystyle _\eta }u(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,\tau +p,\eta )`$ $`\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (4\eta ,\tau +p)\theta ^{}(0,\tau +p)}{\theta (\mu 2\eta ,\tau +p)\theta (\mu +2\eta ,\tau +p)}}`$ $`e^{\pi i\frac{\mu ^2}{4\eta }}f(\mu )d\mu .`$
The qKZB-heat equation is the equation

(11) $`v(\lambda ,\tau )=(T(\tau ,\tau +p)v)(\lambda ,\tau +p).`$
It turns out that the translation operator for $`m=1`$ has properties analogous to the properties of the Fourier transform, see \[FV3, FV4, FV5\]. Namely,

1. The semiclassical limit of equation (11) is equation (9).
2. For every $`\mu `$, the function $`u`$ in (10) is a projective solution of the qKZB-heat equation (11),

$`u(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,p,\eta )=e^{\pi i\frac{\mu ^2}{4\eta }}(T(\tau ,\tau +p)u)(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau +p,p,\eta ),`$
in particular, $`v(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,p,\eta )=e^{\pi i\frac{\mu ^2}{4\eta }\frac{\tau }{p}}u(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,p,\eta )`$ is a true solution.
3. The integral operator $`T`$ has an $`SL(3,)`$ symmetry similar to the $`SL(3,)`$ symmetry of the Fourier transform.

Remark. The fact that $`u`$ is a ( projective ) solution of the qKZB-heat equation is a relation of the form

(12) $`u(\lambda ,\nu ,\tau ,p)=u(\lambda ,\mu ,\tau ,\tau +p)u(\mu ,\nu ,\tau +p,p)`$
where $``$ is a suitable convolution. If $`\tau ,p`$ tend to infinity, then the function $`u`$ has a trigonometric limit. In this limit, equation (12) becomes a simplest example of the Macdonald-Mekhta identity which has the form $`u(\lambda ,\nu )=u(\lambda ,\mu )u(\mu ,\nu )`$. The theory of the qKZB-heat equation is an elliptic analog of Macdonald’s theory, see \[EV1\].

Remark. We have

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_a(t,\tau ,p)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t+a,\tau ,p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ta,\tau ,p)}}`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\tau ,p)={\displaystyle \underset{j,k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\pi i(t+(j+1)\tau +(k+1)p)}}{1e^{2\pi i(t+j\tau +kp)}}}`$
is the elliptic gamma function. The elliptic gamma function has an $`SL(3,)`$ symmetry \[FV5\] based on the following two main equations, which we call

the q-heat equation,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t+\tau ,\tau ,\tau +p)\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\tau +p,p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\tau ,p),`$
and the modular equation,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{t}{p}},{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{p}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}})=e^{i\pi Q(t;\tau ,p)}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{tp}{\tau }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }},{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\tau }})\mathrm{\Gamma }(t,\tau ,p),`$
where

$`Q(t;\tau ,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\tau p}}t^3{\displaystyle \frac{\tau +p1}{2\tau p}}t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2+p^2+3\tau p3\tau 3p+1}{6\tau p}}t`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(\tau +p1)(\tau ^1+p^11),`$
cf. (7), (8).

The q-heat and modular equations for the gamma function imply the $`SL(3,)`$ symmetry of the translation operator for $`m=1`$.