format: text

text:
# Remarks on perturbation theory for Hamiltonian systems

## 1 Introduction

The following contribution is concerned with finite perturbation series characterized by bounded remainders in properly chosen compact domains of phase space. We are, however, not interested here in estimating the rest terms. As has been known since Poincaré, infinite perturbation series for Hamiltonians, in general, do not converge in compact domains. Or more precisely, if convergence takes place according to the KAM theorem, then it generally occurs in an invariant subset of phase space whose complement is open and dense .

Let us assume that the Hamiltonian can be brought into the form $`H=h+ϵV`$ where $`h`$ refers to $`n`$ uncoupled harmonic oscillators and $`ϵ`$ is the smallness parameter. Then the main differences of a perturbative treatment by normal forms and mixed variable generating functions, respectively, can be characterized as follows. In the latter method one uses action angle variables $`I𝐑^n,\varphi 𝐓^n`$ and tries to find a canonical transformation $`(I,\varphi )(J,\psi )`$ which makes the transformed Hamiltonian independent of $`\psi `$ in a certain domain $`D`$ of phase space. For an elementary introduction into this method, including the main ideas of the proof of the KAM theorem, the textbook  is recommended. In the normal form case, on the other hand, one adopts complex canonical variables $`(u_\nu ,v_\nu )`$, and tries to make $`H`$ canonically equivalent to $`n`$ harmonic oscillators given by

$$h=i\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega _\nu u_\nu v_\nu .$$
(1)
Both strategies fail, because terms with resonance denominators occur to any order, in general, which cannot be transformed away. Thus, even if one accepts a finite cutoff at order $`ϵ^N`$, it is not possible, in general, to transform a Hamiltonian into an integrable form. There seems to be at least one advantage with normal forms: they straightforwardly provide us with a third integral. As a consequence, in the case of two degrees of freedom, for instance, the cutoff part of the Hamiltonian which is normalized up to order $`N`$, is integrable within the definition domain of the normal form transformation. In the case of the Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian  this was first demonstrated by . As a further advantage, the normal form transformation can be carried out very efficiently by Lie series and thus by symbolic computer algebra .

As a power series in $`ϵ`$, both perturbation schemes should be equivalent. However, it does not seem to be obvious, how the third integral can be detected in the action angle variable picture. We will adopt an iterated transformation scheme where new canonical variables are introduced at each perturbation order. Eventually, an elementary linear canonical transformation will make coming forth the additional integral. For demonstration, the Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian is considered. The results are generalized to the case of $`n`$ perturbed harmonic oscillators.

The existence of a third integral up to order $`ϵ^N`$ may be useful in Nekhoroshev-like estimates ,, . For instance, in the three body problem an approximate integral, in addition to energy and angular momentum, should help to get sharper bounds for the remainders. We make use of this occasion to remark, that a former study by the present author  on the three body problem in celestial mechanics, essentially, was a failure because of explicitly and tacitly (eq.(77)) adopted adiabatic assumptions; the rigorous estimates in the Appendices C and D of , on the other hand, may be helpful elsewhere for similar problems. The N-body problem of celestial mechanics was recently examined more rigorously by  within the Nekhoroshev scheme.

In the next section we will briefly introduce to the Lie series formulation of time dependent perturbation theory for Hamiltonian systems. Most numerical integrators are based on time series with small time step. Section 2 also serves to prepare the Lie series method for normal forms in section 3. In section 4 the perturbation method by action angle variables will be discussed. In appendix A we present a proof of a recursive formalism for Lie series , and in appendix B an exact canonical transformation is presented which brings the Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian into an integrable form up to the second order of the perturbation parameter.

## 2 Time dependent perturbation

We assume finite dimensional systems. The Hamiltonian field generates a flow which, during the time $`t`$, maps a phase space domain $`D_0`$ of initial points into the domain $`D_t`$. If the field is sufficiently smooth in the image domains $`D_\tau `$ for $`\tau (0,t)`$, then $`D_t`$ is diffeomorph to $`D_0`$. In particular, inner points of $`D_0`$ are mapped into inner points of $`D_t`$, and the boundaries of $`D_t`$ and $`D_0`$ are equally smooth. Moreover, by the Liouville theorem, the domain volumes are preserved. Chaotic behaviour, clearly, develops for such systems, if at all, as an asymptotic property. Its observability depends on the adopted degree of resolution.

Lie series are tied to the time evolution of a function $`f(p,q)`$ where $`\{p,q\}\{p(t;p_0,q_0),`$ $`p(t;q_0,q_0)\}`$ are the generalized momentum and position at time $`t`$ of a trajectory with initial point $`\{p_0,q_0\}𝐑^{2n}`$. We are interested in the development of $`f`$ along a trajectory with given initial point, and write therefore $`f(p,q)=:F(t;p_0,q_0)`$ with $`F(0;p_0,q_0)=f(p_0,q_0)`$. The Taylor expansion in the time interval $`t(0,\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ reads

$$F(t)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{t^k}{k!}F^{(k)}(t=0)+O([\mathrm{\Delta }t]^{N+1}).$$
(2)
Defining the linear operator $`L_H`$ by the Poisson bracket

$$L_Hf:=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{H}{p_k}\frac{f}{q_k}\frac{H}{q_k}\frac{f}{p_k}\right)$$
(3)
and making use of the canonical equations, we can write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df}{dt}}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{p_k}}\dot{p}_k+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{q_k}}\dot{q}_k\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{p_k}}({\displaystyle \frac{H}{q_k}})+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{q_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_k}}\right)=L_Hf.`$ (4)
As a consequence, the Taylor expansion can be expressed in terms of the following Lie series

$$F(t)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{t^k}{k!}\left(L_H^kf(p,q)\right)_{(p,q)=(p_0,q_0)}+O([\mathrm{\Delta }t]^{N+1}),$$
(5)
and in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ we can write in compact form

$$F(t)=\mathrm{exp}[tL_H]f(p,q)_{(p,q)=(p_0,q_0)}.$$
(6)
For small enough time steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the time evolution of any dynamical variable, in particular $`fp`$ or $`fq`$, can be approximated by iterated truncated Lie series. A cutoff at $`N=4`$ corresponds to a fourth order Runge-Kutta integration. If $`H`$ and $`f`$ are given analytically, the coefficients of the Lie series can also be determined analytically, e.g. by means of symbolic computer calculators. However, in each step symplecticity is fulfilled only up to an error of order $`[\mathrm{\Delta }t]^{N+1}`$. In numerical problems, it may be more adequate to adopt so-called symplectic integrators which are canonical in every step within the number precision of the computer, see e.g. . The remainder of the truncated Lie series, on the other hand, can be rigorously expressed through (if $`f`$ is scalar)

$$O([\mathrm{\Delta }t]^{N+1})=\frac{F^{N+1}(t^{})}{(N+1)!}[\mathrm{\Delta }t]^{N+1}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{t}^{}(0,\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{t}),$$
(7)
or

$$O([\mathrm{\Delta }t]^{N+1})=\frac{f^{N+1}(p^{},q^{})}{(N+1)!}[\mathrm{\Delta }t]^{N+1}$$
(8)
with $`(p^{},q^{})=(p(t^{}),q(t^{})).`$ From a priori or a posteriori knowledge on the domain of $`(p,q)`$, the remainder can be estimated by upper bounds.

## 3 Normal form and third integral

For demonstration, let us consider the Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian

$`H=h+ϵV\mathrm{with}\mathrm{h}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_1^2+q_1^2+p_2^2+q_2^2),`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`q_1q_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}q_2^3`$ (9)
where $`(p_\nu ,q_\nu )𝐑^2`$ with $`\nu =1,2`$ are canonical variables. We assume that the variables have been made dimensionless, in particular H=1, which implies that the smallness parameter $`ϵ`$ is proportional to the square root $`\sqrt{E}`$ of the energy of a given trajectory. With the aid of the linear canonical transformation $`(p_\nu ,q_\nu )`$ $`(u_\nu ,v_\nu )`$ where

$$u_\nu =(q_\nu ip_\nu )/\sqrt{2},v_\nu =i(q_\nu +ip_\nu )/\sqrt{2},$$
(10)
we obtain

$`h`$ $`=`$ $`i(u_1v_1+u_2v_2);`$ (11)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_2iv_2}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left[(u_1iv_1)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(u_2iv_2)^2\right],`$
which has the suitable form for being subject to a normal form transformation.

In section 2, from the time evolution $`(p_0,q_0)`$ $`(p(t),q(t))`$, we had derived as generator of a canonical transformation the operator $`\mathrm{exp}[tL_H]`$. Clearly, any function $`H(p,q)`$ which does not explicitly depend on time, gives rise to such a generator. Moreover, the variable $`t`$ in $`\mathrm{exp}[tL_H]`$ does not need to be identified as time, it can be any real parameter. This is seen e.g., when symplecticity is inferred from the Poisson bracket $`L_pq`$ calculated with respect to $`(p_0,q_0)`$. It is therefore legitimate to adopt $`ϵ`$ as parameter of the generating function . The point of view adopted here is to generate, at any given time $`t`$, a canonical transformation $`(p(t;ϵ=0),q(t;ϵ=0))`$ $``$ $`(p(t;ϵ),q(t;ϵ))`$ , which is parametrized with respect to the interaction parameter $`ϵ`$. The transformed Hamiltonian is written as a power series

$`H(p(t;ϵ),q(t,ϵ))=h(p(t;0),q(t;0))+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}H_k(p(t;0),q(t;0))ϵ^k`$ (12)
with $`h`$ being the unperturbed Hamiltonian. Clearly, such canonical transformations can be achieved by means of arbitrary scalar functions. In the following it is convenient to write the generating function in the form

$`\chi ^{}(p(t;ϵ),q(t;ϵ)):`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dϵ}}\chi (p(t;ϵ),q(t;ϵ))`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{dϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{dϵ}}`$
where we assume

$$\frac{dp}{dϵ}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{h}}{dq};\frac{dq}{dϵ}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{h}}{dp}$$
(14)
for some scalar function $`\stackrel{~}{h}(p,q)`$ which we do not need to specify.

The canonical transformation of an arbitrary scalar function $`g`$ is defined by the constituent equation (we omit writing the time parameter)

$$\frac{d}{dϵ}g(p(ϵ),q(ϵ))=L_\chi ^{}g(p(ϵ),q(ϵ)),$$
(15)
which gives rise to the power series representation

$$g(p(ϵ),q(ϵ))=\mathrm{exp}[ϵL_{\chi _0^{}}]g(p(0),q(0))$$
(16)
with $`\chi _0^{}=\chi ^{}(p(0),q(0))`$.

When $`\chi `$, too, is expanded in a power series

$$\chi (p(ϵ),q(ϵ))=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ^k\chi _k(p(0),q(0)),$$
(17)
then the arbitrary functions $`\chi _k`$ will be at our disposition to simplify the Hamiltonian coefficients $`H_k`$. Henceforth we will write simply $`(p,q)`$ for the phase space variables $`(p(ϵ=0),q(ϵ=0))`$. As is shown in Appendix A, the transformed terms, $`H_k`$, can be determined recursively as follows

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`h;L_h\chi _1+H_1=V_0;`$ (18)
$`L_h\chi _k+H_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}V_{k1}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{j}{k}}L_{\chi _j}H_{kj},`$ (19)
$`k=2,3,\mathrm{}`$, where $`V_j`$ is defined through the power series of the transformed potential, namely $`\mathrm{exp}[ϵL_\chi ^{}]V=_{j=0,1,..}V_jϵ^j`$.

Let us start with the term $`k=1`$. Then we have, with $`V_0V`$,

$$L_h\chi _1+H_1=V,$$
(20)
and we try to set $`H_1=0`$ with the implication that $`\chi _1`$ has to fulfil the relation $`L_h\chi _1=V`$. To discuss, whether $`V`$ is in the range of the homology  operator $`L_h`$, we adopt the canonical variables (10) together with the representation (1) of $`h`$. Furthermore, we exploit the fact that $`V`$ is a linear combination of monomials of the form $`U^m:=u_1^{m_1}v_1^{m_2}u_2^{m_3}v_2^{m_4}`$ with $`|m|:=m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4`$ $`=3`$ and $`m_j𝐍_0`$ for $`j=1,2,3,4`$. Now, each monomial is an eigenfunction of $`L_h`$, because

$`L_hU^m`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1,2}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h}{u_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{U^m}{v_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{v_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{U^m}{u_\nu }}\right)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`i(m_1m_2+m_3m_4)U^m.`$
As a consequence, the set of resonance monomials defined by

$$\{U^m|m_1+m_3=m_2+m_4=0;m_i𝐍_0\}$$
(22)
are not in the range of $`L_h`$, and therefore cannot be removed by the generating function $`\chi _1`$. Clearly, the resonance case is possible for monomials of even order $`|m|`$ only. Since $`V`$, according to (11), consists of third order terms, eq.(20) is solvable for $`\chi _1`$ with $`H_1`$ set equal to zero. The general solution includes an arbitrary part of the kernel of $`L_h`$ consisting of resonance monomials. If, as usual, this kernel part is set equal to zero, $`\chi _1`$ is uniquely given by a linear combination of the monomials occurring in $`V`$. Furthermore, $`V_1=L_{\chi _1}V`$ is now determined in terms of 4-th order monomials.

We examine the next iteration, which will be sufficient to reveal the general structure of the normalized Hamiltonian:

$$L_h\chi _2+H_2=\frac{1}{2}V_1+\frac{1}{2}L_{\chi _1}H_1=\frac{1}{2}V_1.$$
(23)
Here, $`V_1`$ contains both types of monomials, nonresonant ones which are in the range of the operator $`L_h`$ and resonant monomials. The latter must be compensated by $`H_2`$, while the nonresonant terms are transformed away by the proper choice of $`\chi _2`$. This is typical of all orders. Thus, an optimal simplification is achieved when the generating function is disposed of in such a way that the transformed Hamiltonian terms $`H_k`$ contain resonant monomials only.

When this normalization is carried out up to order $`N`$, then the truncated Hamiltonian

$$H^{(N)}:=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^kH_k$$
(24)
is a constant of motion up to a rest term of the order $`ϵ^{N+1}`$. Moreover, by the definition (22) of the resonance monomials and because of (21), we have the property

$$L_hH^{(N)}=0$$
(25)
which tells that $`h`$ is in involution with $`H^{(N)}`$ and therefore a further constant of motion. As should be remarked, the remainder $`R_{N+1}`$ in general is finite within properly chosen domains of phase space .

Let $`E`$ and $`h`$ be the integral constants of a given trajectory. Going back to the original variables and choosing as Poincaré surface of section the plane $`q_2=0`$, one eliminates the variable $`p_2`$ from the energy integral through

$$p_2=p_2(p_1,q_1,q_2=0;E),$$
(26)
and inserts $`p_2`$ into the third integral

$$h=h(p_1,q_1,p_2(p_1,q_1,E)).$$
(27)
The latter equation implicitly defines one-dimensional manifolds $`M(p_1,q_1;E,h)=0`$ which for constant energy $`E`$ and different values $`h`$ were first plotted in reference . The manifolds turned out as closed curves corresponding to the intersection of 2-tori with the Poincaré plane and thus demonstrating the integrability of the approximated Hénon- Heiles Hamiltonian. For small enough energies $`Eϵ^2`$, as is well known, this picture is confirmed by numerical integration of the model. A compact symmetrized form of the normalized Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian can be found in

## 4 Mixed variable generating function

In terms of action angle variables $`(I_\nu ,\varphi _\nu )(p_\nu ,q_\nu )`$ defined by

$$p_\nu =\sqrt{2I_\nu }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _\nu );q_\nu =\sqrt{2I_\nu }\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _\nu ),$$
(28)
$`\nu =1,2`$, the Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian reads

$`H=h+ϵV;h`$ $`=`$ $`I_1+I_2,`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V(I_1,I_2,\varphi _1,\varphi _2).`$ (29)
In order to reveal a third integral in the truncated part of the perturbatively transformed Hamiltonian, we stepwise introduce generating functions as follows

$`F^{(n)}(J_1,J_2,\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=J_1\varphi _1+J_2\varphi _2+`$
$`ϵ^nS^{(n)}(J_1,J_2,\varphi _1,\varphi _2),`$ (30)
$`n=1,2,..,`$ which implicitly define new canonical torus variables $`(I_1,I_2,\varphi _1,\varphi _2)(J_1,J_2,\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ through the relations

$$I_\nu =J_\nu +ϵ^n\frac{S^{(n)}}{\varphi _\nu };\psi _\nu =\varphi _\nu +ϵ^n\frac{S^{(n)}}{J_\nu }.$$
(31)
In the first step, one substitutes the old action variables in terms of the new ones as usual to obtain

$`H^{(1)}=J_1+J_2+ϵ\left[{\displaystyle \frac{S^{(1)}}{\varphi _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S^{(1)}}{\varphi _2}}\right]+`$
$`ϵV(J_1+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{S^{(1)}}{\varphi _1}},J_2+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{S^{(1)}}{\varphi _2}},\varphi _1,\varphi _2).`$ (32)
Now we try to remove the potential term $`V`$ to first order in $`ϵ`$ by choosing the Fourier components of $`S=_{n_1,n_2𝐙}S_{n_1n_2}(J_1,J_2)\mathrm{exp}(in_1\varphi _1+in_2\varphi _2)`$ as follows

$$S_{n_1n_2}^{(1)}(J_1,J_2)=i\frac{V_{n_1n_2}(J_1,J_2)}{n_1\omega _1+n_2\omega _2}.$$
(33)
Here, with the unperturbed oscillator freqencies $`\omega _1=\omega _2=1`$, this is possible, because resonance components of $`V`$ with $`n_1+n_2=0`$ do not exist. With this, the transformed Hamiltonian reads

$$H^{(1)}=J_1+J_2+ϵ^2V^{(2)}(J_1,J_2,\psi _1,\psi _2;ϵ)$$
(34)
where, due to the elimination of the old angle variables $`\varphi _\nu `$ in terms of $`\psi _\nu `$, the potential $`V^{(2)}`$ now is an infinite power series in $`ϵ`$.

Proceeding to second order, with the canonical transformation $`(J_1,J_2,\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ $``$ $`(\stackrel{~}{J}_1,\stackrel{~}{J}_2,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2)`$ defined by $`F^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{J}_1,\stackrel{~}{J}_2,\psi _1,\psi _2)`$, we obtain the transformed Hamiltonian (omitting the tilde, for simplicity)

$`H^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`J_1+J_2+ϵ^2h_2(J_1,J_2)+`$ (35)
$`ϵ^2R^{(2)}(J_1,J_2,\psi _1\psi _2)+`$
$`ϵ^3V^{(3)}(J_1,J_2,\psi _1,\psi _2;ϵ)`$
where

$`h_2(J_1,J_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi _1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi _1V^{(2)}(J_1,J_2,\varphi _1,\varphi _2;ϵ=0).`$
It is important to realize that the angle dependence of the resonance term $`R^{(2)}`$ is special and given through the difference $`\psi _1\psi _2`$, because it contains only Fourier components with $`n_1+n_2=0`$.

As a consequence, if we truncate at second order in $`ϵ`$, we can apply the linear canonical transformation $`J_1,J_2,\psi _1,\psi _2`$ $``$ $`J_1^{},J_2^{},\psi _1^{},\psi _2^{}`$ with

$$J_1^{}:=J_1+J_2;J_2^{}:=J_2;\psi _1^{}:=\psi _1;\psi _2^{}:=\psi _2\psi _1$$
(37)
to arrive at an effectively one-dimensional Hamiltonian with $`J_1^{}`$ being a constant of motion. With respect to the remaining degree of freedom, $`(J_2^{},\psi _2^{})`$, it is standard to achieve the integrable form, see e.g. . The corresponding canonical transformation is given in Appendix B.

In order to see that this property continues to higher orders, it will be sufficient to go one perturbative step further. With the aid of the generating function $`F^{(3)}(\stackrel{~}{J}_1,\stackrel{~}{J}_2,\psi _1,`$ $`\psi _2)`$ we obtain in terms of mixed variables

$`H^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{J}_1+\stackrel{~}{J}_2+`$ (38)
$`ϵ^2\left[h_2(\stackrel{~}{J}_1,\stackrel{~}{J}_2)+O(ϵ^3)\right]+`$
$`ϵ^2\left[R^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{J}_1,\stackrel{~}{J}_2,\psi _1\psi _2)+O(ϵ^3)\right]+`$
$`ϵ^3[{\displaystyle \frac{S^{(3)}}{\psi _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S^{(3)}}{\psi _2}}+`$
$`V^{(3)}(\stackrel{~}{J}_1,\stackrel{~}{J}_2,\psi _1,\psi _2;ϵ=0)+`$
$`O(ϵ)].`$
In the last bracket the remainder of order $`ϵ`$ stems from the expansion of $`V^{(3)}(;ϵ)`$ as a power series in $`ϵ`$. The decisive point is that, by the chosen $`ϵ`$-dependence of the generating functions (30), the frequencies remain unrenormalized. This is also the case in the normal form method. As a consequence, we have the same resonance condition $`n_1+n_2=0`$. Taking into account that $`\psi _\nu =\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\nu +O(ϵ^3)`$, we obtain the third order transformed Hamiltonian (once more omitting the tilde) in the form

$`H^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`J_1+J_2+ϵ^2h_2(J_1,J_2)+ϵ^3h_3(J_1,J_2)+`$ (39)
$`ϵ^2R^{(2)}(J_1,J_2,\psi _1\psi _2)+`$
$`ϵ^3R^{(3)}(J_1,J_2,\psi _1\psi _2)+`$
$`ϵ^4V^{(4)}(J_1,J_2,\psi _1,\psi _2;ϵ)`$
with the resonance terms $`R^{(2)},R^{(3)}`$ depending on the angle difference as claimed. This property, obviously, carries to the higher orders, and thus leads to an integrable truncated Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian in agreement with the normal form.

In every perturbation step one has to keep track of the definition domain of the new action variables. For instance, if the original variable $`I_1`$ is defined in the positive interval $`[0,d_1]`$, then by (31) $`J_1+ϵ^nS^{(n)}/\varphi _1`$ is confined to the same domain. As a consequence, we have to restrict $`J_1`$ to $`J_1[0,d_1\delta ^{}]`$ where

$$\delta ^{}=ϵ^n\underset{\varphi _1[0,2\pi ]}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{S^{(n)}}{\varphi _1}\mathrm{if}\delta ^{}\mathrm{d}_1;$$
(40)
If $`\delta ^{}>d_1`$, then the transformation is ill defined.

## 5 Generalization

The above reasoning can be immediately extended to the case of $`n`$ perturbed harmonic oscillators. We first discuss the normal form method. With the generalized multi-index notation $`U^m:=u_1^{m_1}v_1^{m_1^{}}\mathrm{}u_n^{m_n}v_n^{m_n^{}}`$, the eigenvalue relation (21) becomes

$`L_hU^m`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h}{u_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{U^m}{v_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{v_\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{U^m}{u_\nu }}\right)`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`iU^m{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\omega _\nu (m_\nu m_\nu ^{}),`$
which gives rise to the resonance monomials

$$\{U^m|\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega _\nu (m_\nu m_\nu ^{})=0;m_\nu 𝐍_0\}.$$
(42)
As is remarked, even if the frequencies are all rationally independent, there are possible resonances with $`m_\nu =m_\nu ^{}`$ for $`\nu `$ =1,2,..n. Since, by the normal form method, the truncated normalized Hamiltonian $`H^{(N)}`$ consists of resonance monomials only, eq.(41) implies the commutation of the Poisson bracket, namely $`L_hH^{(N)}=0`$, and thus establishes a third integral $`h`$ in addition to the energy $`H^{(N)}`$.

In the action angle variable picture the Hamiltonian (1) reads

$$h=\omega _1I_1+\omega _2I_2+\mathrm{}\omega _nI_n.$$
(43)
It is convenient to consider the angle variables $`\varphi _\nu `$ not on the $`n`$-torus but on the half open $`n`$-cube with $`\varphi _\nu [0,2\pi )`$. Adopting new canonical variables $`(J_1,\psi _1;\mathrm{}J_n,\psi _n)`$ defined by the scaling (we assume, for simplicity, that all $`\omega _\nu 0`$)

$$I_\nu =J_\nu /\omega _\nu ;\varphi _\nu =\psi _\nu \omega _\nu \nu =1,2,\mathrm{}n,$$
(44)
we obtain $`h=J_1+J_2+..J_n`$, and the Fourier representations

$$S^{(k)}=\underset{(\mu _1,\mu _2,..\mu _n)𝐙^n}{}S_{\mu _1,..\mu _n}^{(k)}(J_1,..J_n)\times $$

$$\mathrm{exp}(i\mu _1\omega _1\psi _1+\mathrm{}+i\mu _n\omega _n\psi _n);\psi _\nu [0,2\pi /\omega _\nu ).$$
(45)
From the resonance conditions $`\mu _1+\mu _2+\mathrm{}+\mu _n=0`$, we may eliminate e.g. $`\mu _1=\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _n`$ in the phases of the resonance terms of the transformed Hamiltonian with the result that these terms depend on the following $`n1`$ differences only

$$\omega _2\psi _2\omega _1\psi _1,\omega _3\psi _3\omega _1\psi _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n\psi _n\omega _1\psi _1.$$
(46)
Now, after the elementary canonical transformation $`(J_\nu ,\psi _\nu )`$ $`(J_\nu ^{},\psi _\nu ^{})`$ with

$`(J_1^{},\psi _1^{}):`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1}{\omega _\nu }}J_\nu ,\psi _1)`$
$`(J_\nu ^{},\psi _\nu ^{}):`$ $`=`$ $`(J_\nu ,\psi _\nu \psi _1\omega _1/\omega _\nu ),`$ (47)
$`\nu =2,3,..n,`$ the resonance terms do not depend on the new angle variable $`\psi _1^{}`$. Therefore $`J_1^{}`$ is a constant of motion of the truncated transformed Hamiltonian in consistency with the normal form method.

As a final remark, the Hamiltonian of the three-body problem in celestial mechanics (and straightforwardly also the $`N`$-body case) can be expressed in terms of suitable action angle variables which avoid (chart dependent) singularities at small inclinations and eccentricities, see e.g. . It would be interesting to find out, whether a third integral can be worked out in a finite order perturbation procedure. This may be helpful in estimating upper bounds over finite time intervals of the order of the age of the planetary system.

## Acknowledgements

The author thanks Frank Buss for a critical reading of the manuscript.

## Appendix A: Recursive Lie series

We prove here the recursion relations (18) and (19) in a different way as compared with reference . First we show that the coefficients $`g_k`$ of an arbitrary function $`g(p(ϵ),q(ϵ))`$ = $`_kg_kϵ^k`$ can be determined by the following recursive system

$`g_0`$ $`=`$ $`g(p,q);g_n=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{n}=1,2,..;`$
$`g_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{j}{n}}L_{\chi _j}g_{nj}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{n}=1,2,..,`$ (48)
where the expansion coefficients $`g_k`$ and $`\chi _k`$ have to be taken at the point $`(p,q)`$ := $`(p(ϵ=0),q(ϵ=0))`$. To show that (15) follows from the recursion system, we multiply with $`ϵ^n`$ and sum over $`n`$

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ^ng_n=g_0+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ϵ^n}{n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}jL_{\chi _j}g_{nj}.$$
(49)
On the left hand side we have $`g`$. Differentiating with respect to $`ϵ`$, transforming the double sum on the right hand side and making use of the fact that $`L_\chi `$ is linear in $`\chi `$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg}{dϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ϵ^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}jL_{\chi _j}g_{nj}`$ (50)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ϵ^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}jL_{\chi _j}g_{nj}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ϵ^{m+j1}jL_{\chi _j}g_m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ϵ^{j1}jL_{\chi _j}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ϵ^mg_m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ϵ^{j1}jL_{\chi _j}g=L_{\frac{d\chi }{dϵ}}gL_\chi ^{}g,`$
which is (15) as was claimed.

For the final step we transform the Hamiltonian as follows

$$\mathrm{exp}[ϵL_\chi ^{}]H=\underset{k=0,1,..}{}H_kϵ^k,$$
(51)
and on the other hand

$`\mathrm{exp}[ϵL_\chi ^{}]H\mathrm{exp}[ϵL_\chi ^{}](h+ϵV)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0,1,..}{}}h_kϵ^k+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2..}{}}V_{k1}ϵ^k.`$ (52)
Comparing coefficients we obtain

$$H_0=h_0=h;H_k=h_k+V_{k1}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{k}=1,2,..$$
(53)
Making use of the recursion formulas (48), we can write

$$H_k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{j}{k}L_{\chi _j}h_{kj}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{j}{k1}L_{\chi _j}V_{k1j}$$
(54)
for $`k=2,3,..`$. Taking out the summand $`j=k`$ from the first sum, and combining the remaining sums, we find

$`H_k=L_{\chi _k}h+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{j}{k}}L_{\chi _j}\left(h_{kj}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{k1}}V_{k1j}\right)`$
$`=L_{\chi _k}h+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{j}{k}}L_{\chi _j}\left(h_{kj}+[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k1}}]V_{k1j}\right)`$
$$=L_{\chi _k}h+\frac{1}{k}V_{k1}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{j}{k}L_{\chi _j}\left(h_{kj}+V_{k1j}\right)$$
(55)
where the second term of the last equation is a consequence of the recursive system for the coefficients $`V_j`$. The term in the last bracket is just $`H_{k1}`$. In view of the commutator property

$$L_{\chi _k}hL_h\chi _k$$
(56)
we arrive at the desired recursion system (19)

$$L_h\chi _k+H_k=\frac{1}{k}V_{k1}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{k1}{}}\frac{j}{k}L_{\chi _j}H_{kj};k=2,3,..$$
(57)
## Appendix B: Integrable second order form of the Hénon-Heiles Hamiltonian

We start from the transformed Hamiltonian (35), neglect the remainder $`V^{(3)}`$, and write at first the resulting Hamiltonian $`H_{trunc}^{(2)}`$ in terms of action angle variables as defined in (37). We will abbreviate the constant of motion $`J_1^{}`$ by $`J`$. When the action angle variables $`(J_2^{},\psi _2^{})`$ are expressed by (28) in terms of cartesian symplectic magnitudes $`(p,q)`$, we can write after some efforts

$$H_{trunc}^{(2)}=J+ϵ^2[\frac{5}{96}J^2+\frac{7}{48}Jq^2\frac{7}{96}q^2(p^2+q^2)].$$
(58)
This is one-degree of freedom Hamiltonian which can be brought into integrable form in a standard way, see e.g. . The corresponding, exact canonical transformation from $`(p,q)`$ to action angle variable $`(I,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is found as

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi })\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(JI)I}{J2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi })\sqrt{I(JI)}}}};`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2IJ}{\sqrt{J2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi })\sqrt{I(JI)}}}};JI.`$ (59)
With this we achieve the integrable form

$$H_{trunc}^{(2)}=J+\frac{ϵ^2}{48}\left(14I^214IJ+J^2\right)$$
(60)
in terms of the action variables $`J`$ and $`I`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years a formalism has been developed which highlights the close connection between exclusive and inclusive strong interaction processes. The cornerstones of this formalism are the concepts of generalized parton distributions and generalized distribution amplitudes. These quantities contain valuable information on the non-perturbative transition between partons and hadrons, whose understanding remains one of the great outstanding tasks in QCD. They can be accessed in several exclusive reactions that are within the reach of current and planned experimental facilities. In this contribution I will first give a brief overview of the formalism and the physics behind it, and then report on the status of the calculation of radiative corrections in this context.

A key process in the development of the QCD improved parton model has been inclusive deep inelastic scattering, $`epeX`$, which via the optical theorem is conveniently expressed in terms of the imaginary part of the forward Compton amplitude, $`\gamma ^{}(q)+p(p)\gamma ^{}(q)+p(p)`$. In the Bjorken region of large photon virtuality $`Q^2=q^2`$ and c.m. energy $`(p+q)^2`$, this amplitude factorizes into a perturbatively calculable scattering process at the level of quarks and gluons and process independent matrix elements

$$p(p)|𝒪(\lambda )|p(p).$$
(1)
Here $`𝒪(\lambda )`$ stands for quark or gluon operators $`\overline{\psi }(0)n_\mu \gamma ^\mu \psi (\lambda n)`$, $`\overline{\psi }(0)n_\mu \gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\psi (\lambda n)`$, $`n_\mu n_\nu F^{\mu \alpha }(0)F^\nu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}(\lambda n)`$, $`n_\mu n_\nu F^{\mu \alpha }(0)\stackrel{~}{F}^\nu {}_{\alpha }{}^{}(\lambda n)`$, whose fields are separated by a light-like distance $`\lambda n`$ (i.e., $`n^2=0`$). These matrix elements, represented by a blob in fig. 1a, are parameterized by parton distributions; they describe the transition between hadronic and partonic degrees of freedom.

This factorization into short- and long-distance dynamics is actually more general. It also holds for the nonforward Compton amplitude, $`\gamma ^{}(q)+p(p)\gamma ^{}(q^{})+p(p^{})`$, in a generalization of Bjorken kinematics, namely if the c.m. energy $`(p+q)^2`$ and at least one of the photon virtualities $`|q^2|`$, $`|q^2|`$ are large while the invariant momentum transfer $`(pp^{})^2`$ is small . In the particular case where the outgoing photon is on shell, one speaks of deeply virtual Compton scattering, which can be accessed in the physical process $`epep\gamma `$, i.e., in exclusive electroproduction of a photon. The non-perturbative physics is now described by matrix elements with the *same* operators as before, but between *different* hadron states,

$$p(p^{})|𝒪(\lambda )|p(p).$$
(2)
The nonzero momentum transfer to the proton implies that the momenta of the two parton lines attached to the blob in fig. 1a must differ as well. A simple calculation shows that in particular their momentum fractions with respect to the hadrons cannot be equal. For this reason, the generalized parton distributions which parameterize the matrix elements (2) are often called “skewed”.

A completely analogous type of factorization occurs in the crossed channel, i.e., in $`\gamma ^{}(q)+\gamma ^{}(q^{})p(p)+\overline{p}(p^{})`$, if at least one of the photon virtualities is large, in particular compared with the invariant mass $`(p+p^{})^2`$ of the produced hadron pair . A corresponding diagram is shown in fig. 1b. Matrix elements

$$p(p)\overline{p}(p^{})|𝒪(\lambda )|0$$
(3)
with again the same operators as before now parameterize the non-perturbative transition from a quark-antiquark or gluon pair to the final state hadrons. In addition to the $`p\overline{p}`$ system one can consider a wide range of hadrons, say $`\pi \pi `$ or $`KK`$, which are not easily available as beam particles in Compton scattering. The production mechanism represented in fig. 1b is the same as in the process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi `$, where the nonperturbative input is represented by the quark-antiquark distribution amplitude of the pion. Data on this process have in fact provided one of the best available constraints so far on this important quantity . The matrix elements (3) are a direct generalization of usual distribution amplitudes, where $`p\overline{p}|`$ is replaced by a single-meson state.

## 2 Some physics aspects

As a consequence of the finite momentum transfer to the proton, generalized parton distributions admit two different kinematical regimes. In the first, they describe the emission of a parton with momentum fraction $`x+\xi `$ from the parent hadron and its reabsorption with momentum fraction $`x\xi `$, see fig. 2a. In the limit where $`p=p^{}`$ one has $`\xi =0`$ and recovers the usual parton distributions. In a second regime, which does not exist for $`p=p^{}`$, one has the coherent emission of a quark-antiquark or gluon pair from the parent hadron of momentum $`p`$, leaving the hadron with momentum $`p^{}`$, see fig. 2b. One is thus sensitive to aspects of the proton structure that cannot be accessed by the ordinary parton densities. The second regime is reminiscent of a distribution amplitude, shown in fig. 2c, where there is no hadron left behind after emission of the partons. We will encounter an important manifestation of this similarity in section 4.1.

It has long been known that the usual parton distributions can be represented in terms of light-cone wave functions, which completely specify the structure of a hadron in terms of quark and gluon configurations . In this representation, depicted in fig. 3a, the wave functions appear *squared*, which reflects the crucial parton model feature that parton densities can be understood as classical probabilities for the emission of a parton from a hadron. The wave function representation of generalized parton distributions  provides a key to their physical interpretation: they are not probabilities but *interference* terms of wave functions for different parton configurations in a hadron. In this sense they contain characteristic information on the quantum fluctuations of QCD bounds states, going beyond the classical probability picture of the parton model.

Generalized parton distributions have a rich structure in spin, since the helicities of the partons and the hadrons can be varied independently. Of particular interest are those combinations where the helicity difference on the hadron side is not compensated on the parton side: in that case angular momentum conservation must be ensured by a transfer of orbital angular momentum, which is possible if there is a finite transfer of transverse momentum. Thus, generalized distributions carry information on the orbital angular momentum of partons—information that is hard to access otherwise. If one takes moments of the generalized distributions in the momentum fraction $`x`$, the operators in the matrix elements (2) are transformed into local operators, i.e., one obtains form factors of various local currents. A sum rule due to Ji  states that the second moment of a particular combination of generalized distributions gives a form factor whose value at zero momentum transfer is the *total* angular momentum of quarks in the proton, consisting both of a spin and an orbital part.

The generalized distribution amplitudes of fig. 1b are intimately connected with generalized parton distributions by crossing symmetry. Their moments are in fact related by an analytic continuation in the Mandelstam invariant, i.e., $`t=(pp^{})^2`$ for distributions and $`s=(p+p^{})^2`$ for distribution amplitudes. On the other hand, generalized distribution amplitudes contain physics quite distinct from that of parton distributions: they involve not only the partonic structure of a single hadron, but also the interactions between hadrons. They parameterize what one might call the “exclusive limit” of fragmentation, i.e., of the transition between parton and hadron degrees of freedom. It is interesting to note that one can make a connection with phenomenologically successful pictures of hadronization such as the Lund string model .

## 3 Processes

As we saw in the introduction, generalized parton distributions can be accessed in deeply virtual Compton scattering, measurable by electroproduction $`epep\gamma `$. Another class of processes where they occur is exclusive electroproduction of a meson instead of a photon, $`epep\rho ^0`$, $`epen\pi ^+`$, etc. Example diagrams are shown in fig. 4. Notice that for vector mesons both quark and gluon distributions contribute at leading order in $`\alpha _s`$. This is in contrast to Compton scattering, where gluons only appear at the level of one-loop corrections, as they do in inclusive deep inelastic scattering.

To date, we have no experimental determinations of generalized parton distributions. However, first measurements of the above processes in the relevant kinematical domain have been performed, in particular by HERMES, H1, and ZEUS at DESY. Further and more precise investigations are planned Jefferson Lab and at CERN (COMPASS), and several future accelerator projects would be well suited for in-depth studies of these processes.

Generalized distribution amplitudes can be accessed in $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ or $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ processes at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, and cross section estimates  indicate that the production of pion pairs $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ should be well in the reach of BABAR, BELLE, and CLEO.

## 4 Radiative Corrections

As in all applications of QCD factorization, radiative corrections in our context manifest themselves in two ways. The process independent hadronic matrix elements depend on a factorization scale via evolution equations, whose kernels can be calculated in perturbation theory. On the other hand, there are radiative corrections to the hard scattering subprocesses for each individual reaction.

### 4.1 Evolution

The evolution of generalized distribution amplitudes is exactly the same as the one of the usual distribution amplitudes for mesons, described by the ERBL equations . This is not surprising, since evolution arises from the renormalization of the bilocal operators $`𝒪(\lambda )`$ and is insensitive to whether the matrix elements (3) involve a single meson or a two-particle state with the same quantum numbers.

The evolution of general parton distributions on the other hand, is more complex and of considerable theoretical interest. It is in fact this aspect on which the earliest studies of these quantities have focused on . In the regime of fig. 2a, the evolution is similar to the standard DGLAP evolution of parton densities, with a kernel that depends on the parameter $`\xi `$ describing the longitudinal momentum transfer to the partons (see fig. 2). In the regime of fig. 2b, evolution acts in a similar way as ERBL evolution, which highlights the close analogy between figs. 2b and c. The evolution equations for ordinary parton distributions and for distribution amplitudes, although acting in quite different ways, are thus intimately related, which stems from the fact that these quantities are defined through the same bilocal operators $`𝒪(\lambda )`$. The evolution kernels for generalized parton distributions, called “extended ERBL kernels”, contain the usual DGLAP and ERBL kernels as limiting cases; in this sense the evolution of generalized parton distributions *interpolates* between the two extremes of DGLAP and ERBL evolution.

The extended ERBL kernels have been calculated to LO by many groups. They can be found to NLO accuracy in , where conformal and supersymmetric constraints were employed in order to reconstruct them from the known NLO DGLAP kernels. A numerical study (limited to parton helicity independent distributions) showed that the effect of NLO evolution was moderate compared with LO evolution . For the model distributions used there, the difference between NLO and LO evolution was a few percent for non-singlet distributions and not more than 10 to 30% in the singlet sector.

### 4.2 The two-photon processes

The one-loop corrections to deeply virtual Compton scattering have been independently calculated by three groups . In addition to diagrams like the one in fig. 1a they involve diagrams with the generalized gluon distributions in the proton. In  one finds the NLO results for the general nonforward amplitude $`\gamma ^{}(q)+p(p)\gamma ^{}(q^{})+p(p^{})`$; in the limit $`q=q^{}`$ their imaginary parts reduce to the well-known expressions for unpolarized and polarized deep inelastic scattering. In  a numerical study for $`\gamma ^{}p\gamma p`$ was performed, making an ansatz for the yet unknown generalized quark and gluon distributions. It was found that the NLO corrections can be large, up to about 50%, and depend sensitively on the value of the Bjorken variable $`x_B=Q^2/(2pq)`$.

By an analytic continuation of the hard scattering kernel, the one-loop corrections for $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \pi \pi `$ have been obtained from those for the general nonforward Compton amplitude . Numerical studies show that the size of the corrections is very sensitive to the relative size of the two-gluon and the quark-antiquark distribution amplitudes . In other words, this process may offer an interesting way to investigate how strongly the two-pion system couples to $`gg`$ in comparison with $`q\overline{q}`$.

### 4.3 Power corrections

The factorized description discussed so far is valid in the limit of infinitely large photon virtuality $`Q^2`$, and at finite $`Q^2`$ there are as usual corrections suppressed by powers of $`1/Q`$, up to logarithmic terms.

An estimation of $`1/Q^2`$ corrections to deeply virtual Compton scattering and to pion electroproduction has been made in  with the help of the renormalon technique, resumming vacuum polarization insertions in the gluon lines of figs. 1a and 4b. The corrections, evaluated at $`Q^2=4`$ GeV2, were found to grow with $`x_B`$ and to be important (of order 10 to 50%) for the Compton process. For pion production they came out substantially larger (100% and more), with a strong dependence on the ansatz made for the generalized quark distributions.

The structure of the $`1/Q`$ corrections to the Compton process  and its crossed counterpart in $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ collisions  has been completely classified in the framework of the operator product expansion. These corrections factorize into a hard scattering subprocess and generalized parton distributions of twist 3, in contrast to the twist-2 distributions discussed so far. The evolution equations of the twist-3 distributions are known , in part to LO and in part to NLO, whereas the NLO corrections to the hard scattering have not been calculated as yet. It is worth mentioning that the $`1/Q`$ suppressed terms contribute only to amplitudes where the helicities of the two photons differ by 1, whereas the leading contributions only feed amplitudes where the photon helicities are equal or differ by 2. The corresponding helicity amplitudes can be separated using appropriate angular distributions ; the two-photon processes might therefore provide a window on twist-3 effects that are not masked by large twist-2 pieces.

### 4.4 Meson production

For meson electroproduction, the one-loop corrections to the hard scattering kernels have not yet been evaluated. In the case of pion production, they are closely connected with the one-loop corrections to the pion form factor in the hard-scattering formalism of Brodsky and Lepage. In fact, the Feynman diagrams for the latter can be obtained from those for pion electroproduction (see fig. 4b) by replacing the quark distribution in the proton with the pion distribution amplitude. The NLO corrections to the pion form factor can but need not be important, depending crucially on the choice of renormalization scale in $`\alpha _s`$ .

For the production of vector mesons, the additional calculation of the one-loop corrections to the gluon exchange diagrams (see fig. 4a) is necessary for a complete NLO evaluation. It would be very interesting to know the size of these corrections. Frankfurt et al.  have studied the tree level diagrams, including in the hard scattering process the transverse momentum $`k_T`$ of the quark-antiquark pair in the vector meson, i.e., replacing the meson distribution amplitude in fig. 4a with the $`k_T`$ dependent light-cone wave function. This inclusion of this finite $`k_T`$ effects led to a very strong suppression of the amplitude when a meson wave function was taken that decreases as slowly as $`1/k_T^2`$ at large transverse momentum. This large-$`k_T`$ falloff is, however, mediated by hard gluon exchange between the quark and antiquark forming the meson, and as such should be included not in the meson wave function but in the hard scattering process, where it is a *part* of the NLO corrections.

## 5 Summary

Generalized parton distributions and distribution amplitudes provide novel tools to study the interplay between partons and hadrons in QCD. They connect several well-studied concepts such as parton densities, distribution amplitudes, form factors, and light-cone wave functions, and contain information beyond what can be learned from each of these.

These novel quantities can be studied in certain exclusive processes at large momentum transfer, whose investigation is in reach of present-day and future experiments. The description of these processes relies on factorization theorems and thus has a solid basis in QCD.

A quantitatively reliable extraction of generalized parton distributions and distribution amplitudes will require a sufficient understanding of and control over radiative corrections. The logarithmic evolution of these quantities is well studied and the kernels are known to NLO. As to the corrections to the hard scattering subprocess, they are known to NLO in the case of Compton scattering and of $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ collisions, but a deeper understanding of when and why they are large is still to be achieved. Not much is known about the NLO corrections to meson production, but some pieces of evidence exist that they may be important in certain kinematical situations.

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of RADCOR–2000 and of the SLAC theory group.