text:
# Nonperturbative corrections to the Drell-Yan transverse momentum distribution

## 1 Introduction

Transverse momentum distributions of the vector bosons produced in the Drell-Yan process is one of the classical examples of successful QCD description of the phenomenology of hadron-hadron processes at high energies . Increasing accuracy of the experimental data combined with the state-of-art resummed perturbative calculations allow to test perturbative QCD predictions and, at the same time, estimate nonperturbative corrections to them associated with the confinement effects. It was proposed a long ago to parameterize the latter corrections by introducing additional phenomenological parameters into perturbative formulas . Their values were extracted from the comparison with the experimental data . Despite the fact that the obtained QCD predictions agree well with the experimental data  throughout a wide interval of invariant mass of the vector bosons, $`Q^2`$, and their transverse momentum, $`q^2`$, the understanding of nonperturbative effects in the Drell-Yan process is still missing. This should be compared with the situation with hadronization corrections to the deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) and inclusive observables in $`e^+e^{}`$annihilation. There, the operator product expansion (OPE) allows to organize the nonperturbative corrections in inverse powers of hard scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2n}/Q^{2n}`$ and identify the corresponding nonperturbative scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2n}`$ as universal matrix element of composite local operators in QCD like gluon condensate in $`e^+e^{}`$annihilation and higher twist operators in DIS. Since the OPE is not applicable to the Drell-Yan production, the physical interpretation of the measured nonperturbative scales remains unclear. Different approaches have been proposed to describe these scales within QCD .

In this paper we shall follow the approach developed in  and consider nonperturbative corrections the transverse momentum distribution $`d^2\sigma /dQ^2dq^2`$ in the end-point region describing the production of the vector bosons with large invariant mass $`Q^2`$ and small transverse momentum $`q^2Q^2`$. It is well known that both perturbative and nonperturbative corrections are enhanced in this region. Indeed, perturbative QCD analysis shows that the cross section gets large perturbative corrections $`\alpha _s^n/q^2\mathrm{log}^{2n1}(Q^2/q^2)`$. These corrections are associated with multiple soft and collinear gluon emissions and they need to be resummed to all orders in the coupling constant . Applying the Collins-Soper-Sterman resummation formalism one gets

$$Q^2\frac{d^2\sigma }{dQ^2dydq^2}=\sigma _0\underset{j}{}e_j^2\frac{d^2b}{(2\pi )^2}\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{q}}\text{e}^{S(b^2,Q^2)}C_{jh}(x_1,Q,b)C_{jh^{}}(x_2,Q,b)+Y(Q,q,x_1,x_2).$$
(1)
Here, $`x_1=Q/\sqrt{s}\text{e}^y`$ and $`x_2=Q/\sqrt{s}\text{e}^y`$ are momentum fractions of parton with relative rapidity $`y`$ and the invariant energy of colliding hadrons $`s`$, $`\sigma _0=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{9s}`$ is the Born level partonic cross-section and $`C_{jh}`$ are given by convolution of partonic distributions $`f_{a/h}(x)`$ with perturbatively calculable coefficient functions $`c_{ja}`$

$$C_{jh}(x,Q,b)=\underset{a}{}_x^1\frac{d\xi }{\xi }c_{ja}(x/\xi ,b,Q)f_{a/h}(\xi ,b_0/b)$$
(2)
with $`b_0=2\text{e}^{\gamma _E}`$ and $`\gamma _E`$ being the Euler constant. Integration over two-dimensional impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ ensures that the total transverse momentum of the vector boson equals $`\stackrel{}{q}`$. In Eq. (1), the large perturbative contributions due to soft gluons are factored out into the Sudakov form factor given by

$$S(b^2,Q^2)=_{b_0^2/b^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dk^2}{k^2}\left(A(\alpha _s(k^2))\mathrm{log}\frac{Q^2}{k^2}+B(\alpha _s(k^2))\right)$$
(3)
with the coefficient functions $`A(\alpha _s)`$ and $`B(\alpha _s)`$ known to two-loop order . The function $`Y(Q,q,x_1,x_2)`$ describes the part of the cross-section (1) regular at $`q^2Q^2`$. It is obtained by subtracting the logarithmically enhanced part from the fixed order result.

The Sudakov form factor (3) resummes large perturbative logarithms $`\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^{2nm}(Q^2b^2)`$ and it suppresses the large $`b^2`$, or equivalently small $`q^2`$ region of the distribution. Although it is defined for arbitrary $`b^2`$ it was realized that the perturbatively resummed formula (1) should be modified at large $`b^2`$.

Firstly, the expression (3) was found by summing of all large logarithms $`\mathrm{log}(b^2Q^2)`$ in the region $`Q^21/b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ where perturbative QCD works. However, since in (1) the integration goes over all values of $`b^2`$ the modification of the resummation formula is needed for $`1/b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$. To this end it was proposed  to introduce the scale $`Q_0`$ below which the perturbation QCD fails to replace the impact parameter $`b`$ by the function

$$b^{}=\frac{b}{[1+b^2Q_0^2]^{1/2}}$$

in the expression for the Sudakov form factor, $`S`$, and for the distribution function, $`C`$, in (1). Then, at large $`b`$ thus defined function $`b^{}`$ approaches its maximum value $`b^{}=1/Q_0`$ and perturbative expressions remain well defined.

Secondly, we expect nonperturbative corrections become equally important at small transverse momentum $`q^2`$, or large $`b^2`$. The latter corrections appear suppressed by powers of both scales, $`Q^2`$ and $`q^2`$. However, for small transverse momentum $`q^2Q^2`$ it becomes reasonable to neglect all power corrections on the larger scale, $`Q^2`$, and restrict consideration to nonperturbative effects on the smaller scale $`q^2`$. The standard way to incorporate leading nonperturbative effects into (1) amounts to replacing the Sudakov form factor in (1) by the following expression .

$$S_{\mathrm{PT}}(b^2,Q^2)S_{\mathrm{PT}}((b^{})^2,Q^2)+S_{\mathrm{nonPT}}(b^2,Q^2)$$
(4)
with nonperturbative part given by

$$S_{\mathrm{nonPT}}(b^2,Q^2)=\varphi (b)\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{2Q_0}+\varphi _{j/h}(b,x_1)+\varphi _{j/h^{}}(b,x_2).$$
(5)
Here, $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _{j/h}`$ are some phenomenological functions whose form should be fitted to the experimental data. The simplest parameterization of the functions looks as follows

$$\varphi (b)=g_2b^2,\varphi _{j/h}(b,x_1)+\varphi _{j/h^{}}(b,x_2)=g_1b^2,$$
(6)
The values of the scales $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ cannot be calculated in perturbative QCD and one finds them from comparison with the experimental data as

$$g_1=0.24{}_{0.07}{}^{+0.08}(\text{GeV})_{}^{2},g_2=0.34{}_{0.08}{}^{+0.07}(\text{GeV})_{}^{2}.$$
(7)
There exist other proposals for the parameterization of nonperturbative effects in this process .

In the present paper we study nonperturbative corrections to the resummation formula (1) and calculate the power suppressing factor (6) using the notion of QCD vacuum condensates. The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we consider the origin of the Sudakov form factor in the resummation formula (1). Using factorization properties of soft gluons we express this form factor as the expectation value of the Wilson loop operator built from soft gluon fields. In Sect. 3 we show that the lowest order perturbative calculation of the Wilson loop expectation value reproduces known expression for the form factor (3). At the same time, as shown in Sect. 4, to higher orders in perturbation theory this expectation value contains ambiguity associated with the contributions of infrared renormalons having the form of the power correction $`𝒪(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ . In Sect. 5 we calculate the nonperturbative power corrections to the Wilson loop by taking into account interaction of partons with vacuum gluon fields parameterized by nonlocal QCD condensates. In Sect. 6 we analyze the resummation formula for transverse momentum distribution with nonperturbative effects taking into account and compare it with the phenomenological ansatz (5)-(7). Sect. 7 contains concluding remarks.

## 2 Factorization of soft gluons

The factorization formula (1) is valid up to corrections suppressed by a power of high scale $`Q^2`$ and it takes into account both perturbative and nonperturbative corrections on a smaller scale $`q^2`$ for $`q^2Q^2`$. The different factors entering the factorization formula (1) take into account contribution from different physical subprocesses - hard, collinear and soft - and have the following interpretation. All emissions of quarks and gluons with momenta collinear to incoming hadron momenta $`h`$ and $`h^{}`$ are factorized into two distribution functions $`f_{a/h}(x_1,b_0/b)`$ and $`f_{b/h^{}}(x_2,b_0/b)`$. Hard emissions are described by the coefficient functions $`c_{jh}`$ which, in general, are not universal and depend on the produced vector boson. The soft subprocess describes both the initial state interaction between partons and final state radiation of soft gluons. It is factorized into the Sudakov form factor and will be the central object of our consideration. Its perturbative expression is given by (3) and we anticipate that nonperturbative effects will modify it at the level of power corrections $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{2n}b^{2n})`$ which we shall sum over all $`n`$.

Let us demonstrate that the Sudakov form factor can be calculated in QCD as an expectation value of the Wilson loop operator built from soft gluon fields . Interaction of soft gluons with quarks can be treated using the eikonal approximation. In this way, one can obtain the perturbative expression for the Sudakov form factor by calculating the Feynman diagrams order by order in perturbation theory and replacing quark propagators and quark-gluon vertices by their approximate eikonalized expressions. However, in order to go beyond the perturbation theory one should find an operator definition of the Sudakov form factor that does not refer to the Feynman diagrams and that is given entirely in terms of gluon and quark fields. Such definition exists and it is based on the Wilson line operators defined as

$$W[C]=P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_C𝑑z_\mu A^\mu (z)\right)$$
(8)
with $`A_\mu (z)`$ being the gauge field describing soft gluons and $`C`$ being an arbitrary integration path $`C`$ in the Minkowski space.

The appearance of the Wilson line operators can be understood as follows . It is well known that in the eikonal approximation the interaction of quark with soft gluons leads to the appearance of the eikonal phase of the quark wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_p[\mathrm{},x]\mathrm{\Psi }(x)$$
(9)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_p=1`$. The phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p[\mathrm{},x]`$ is given by the Wilson line operator (8) evaluated along the classical trajectory of quark. For quark with momentum $`p_\mu `$ this trajectory is a straight line that can be parameterize as $`z_\mu =p_\mu s+x_\mu `$ with $`s`$ being a proper time

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p[\mathrm{},x]=P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑sp_\mu A^\mu (ps+x)\right).$$
(10)
Going over to the momentum representation, it is straightforward to verify that (9) and (10) reproduce well known expression for the eikonalized amplitude of soft gluon emissions.

In the case of the Drell-Yan process, the Sudakov form factor appears as a contribution of real and virtual soft gluons interacting with incoming quark and antiquark before their annihilation. Applying the eikonal approximation (9) we find that both quark and antiquark acquire eikonal phases which are factorized from the amplitude of the process into

$$U_{\mathrm{DY}}(x)=T\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{p_2}[\mathrm{},x]\mathrm{\Phi }_{p_1}[x,\mathrm{}]\right\},$$
(11)
where $`p_1^\mu `$ and $`p_2^\mu `$ are momenta of quark and antiquark, respectively, $`x_\mu `$ denotes the annihilation point and $`T`$ stands for time ordering of gluon field operators. Projecting out the total eikonal phase (11) onto all possible final states consisting of an arbitrary number of soft gluons, $`N0`$, with the total transverse momenta $`(q)`$ we can write the soft gluon contribution to the Drell-Yan cross-section as

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{eik}}=\underset{N}{}|0|U_{\mathrm{DY}}(0)|N|^2\delta ^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{k}_N+\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{d^2b}{(2\pi )^2}\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{q}}W_{\mathrm{DY}}(b),$$

where

$$W_{\mathrm{DY}}(b)=\underset{N}{}0|U_{\mathrm{DY}}(0)|N\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{k}_N}N|U_{\mathrm{DY}}^{}(0)|0$$
(12)
and $`|N`$ is the final state of $`N`$ soft gluon with the total momentum $`k_N^\mu `$. Using the translation invariance property $`U_{\mathrm{DY}}(b)=\text{e}^{iPb}U_{\mathrm{DY}}(0)\text{e}^{iPb}`$ with $`P^\mu |N=k_N^\mu |N`$ being the total momentum operator, one can perform summation over all possible intermediate states to get

$$W_{\mathrm{DY}}(b)=0|U_{\mathrm{DY}}(0)U_{\mathrm{DY}}^{}(b)|00|P\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_{C_{DY}}𝑑z_\mu A^\mu (z)\right)|0.$$
(13)
The integration contour $`C_{DY}`$ entering this expression is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of two similar parts having the form of an (infinite) angle which are separated in the transverse direction by the impact vector $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. They belong to the plane defined by the quark momenta, $`p_1^\mu `$ and $`p_2^\mu `$, and correspond to the eikonalized amplitude of the process and its conjugated counterpart. Two cusps located at the space-time points $`0`$ and $`b`$ define the annihilation points. The cusp angle $`\chi `$ is equal to the angle between quark momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ in Minkowski space

$$\mathrm{cosh}\chi =(p_1p_2)/p^2=\frac{Q^2}{2p^2}1,$$
(14)
where $`Q^2=(p_1+p_2)^2`$ is the invariant mass of produced vector boson and we put $`p_1^2=p_2^2=p^2`$ to regularize light-cone singularity that appear for $`p^20`$. We find that for $`Q^2/p^21`$ the cusp angle scales as $`\chi =\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{p^2}`$ and therefore the (kinematical) dependence of the Wilson loop on the cusp angle is translated into $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$dependence of the eikonalized cross-section (2).

We would like to notice that the Wilson loop in (13) should be averaged with respect to the state describing the spectator partons of both incoming hadrons. In this way one takes into account the possibility for quark and antiquark participating at the partonic subprocess to exchange by soft gluons with constituents of both hadrons before their annihilation. In what follows, we shall neglect such effects for the sake of simplicity and average (13) with respect to the vacuum state. There are few reasons why such an approximation is reasonable. First, it is known  that all perturbative effects of interaction between hadron constituents and particles participating in short distance partonic subprocess cancel in sum of all Feynman diagram up to corrections suppressed by a power of the hard scale $`Q^2`$. Second, analysis of nonperturbative corrections to the transverse momentum distributions of jets produced in $`e^+e^{}`$annihilation and deep inelastic scattering indicates  that the scale $`g_2`$ parameterizing nonperturbative corrections in Eqs. (6) and (7) is approximately universal and does not depend on the initial hadronic state.

## 3 Perturbative contribution

Using the expression (13) for the Sudakov form factor we may try to take into account both perturbative and nonperturbative effects. The Sudakov form factor depends on $`Q^2`$, lepton pair invariant mass of produced vector boson, and $`b^2`$, impact parameter conjugated to transverse momenta $`q`$. In the Wilson loop representation (13), this dependence follows from the properties of the integration path $`C_{DY}`$ in Fig. 1. In particular, the impact parameter $`b`$ controls the transverse size of the integration contour. As a consequence, putting $`\stackrel{}{b}=0`$ and using unitarity of the eikonal phase one finds that

$$W_{\mathrm{DY}}(\stackrel{}{b}=0)=1$$
(15)
provided that all perturbative (light-cone and short-distance) singularities are appropriately regularized. This suggests to look for an expansion of the Wilson loop expectation value around $`\stackrel{}{b}=0`$. We expect that perturbative expansion will generate $`\mathrm{ln}b^2`$corrections whereas nonperturbative effects will give rise to corrections in powers of $`b^2`$.

Let us start with perturbative calculation of (13) and show that the expression (13) reproduces the Sudakov form factor (2) in perturbative QCD at small $`b^2`$. Using the definition (13) we get the following expression for the gauge invariant Wilson loop to the lowest order of perturbation theory:

$$W^{(1)}=1+\frac{(ig)^2}{2}_{C_{DY}}𝑑x^\mu _{C_{DY}}𝑑y^\nu 0|A_\mu (x)A_\nu (y)|0=1\frac{g^2}{2}C_F_{C_{DY}}𝑑x^\mu _{C_{DY}}𝑑y^\nu D^{\mu \nu }(xy)$$
(16)
with $`C_F=(N_c^21)/(2N_c)`$ and $`D_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ being a free gluon propagator. To evaluate this integral we have to fix a gauge for a gluon field and, in addition, take care of possible divergencies of the integral. To this end we choose the Feynman gauge and introduce the dimensional regularization with $`D=42\epsilon `$ being the dimension of the $`x`$space. Substituting the gluon propagator in the Feynman gauge and integrating it twice over the path $`C_{\mathrm{DY}}`$ we get the following expression for $`W^{(1)}`$

$$W^{(1)}=1+g^2\mu ^{4D}C_F\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}2\pi \delta _+(k^2)\left(\frac{p_1}{(p_1k)}\frac{p_2}{(p_2k)}\right)^2(\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{b}}1),$$
(17)
where $`\mu `$ is a dimensionful parameter of the dimensional regularization, $`d^Dkdk_+dk_{}d^{D2}\stackrel{}{k}`$ with $`k_\pm `$ being light-cone components and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ being $`(D2)`$dimensional transverse momentum of gluon. Integration over $`k_\pm `$ leads to:

$$W^{(1)}=1+4\alpha _sC_F(\chi \mathrm{coth}\chi 1)\mu ^{4D}\frac{d^{D2}\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^{D2}}\frac{\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{b}}1}{\stackrel{}{k}^2},$$
(18)
where the cusp angle $`\chi `$ was defined in (14). We notice that this integral does not have infrared divergences at small $`\stackrel{}{k}^2`$ but it has ultraviolet divergence coming from large transverse momentum. Dimensional regularization provides a natural cut-off $`\mu `$ on maximal momenta of soft gluons and, as a consequence, the final expression for $`W^{(1)}`$ contains a pole in $`\epsilon `$

$$W^{(1)}=1\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C_F(\chi \mathrm{coth}\chi 1)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\epsilon )}{\epsilon }(\pi \mu ^2\stackrel{}{b}^2)^\epsilon .$$
(19)
Note that this divergence has nothing to do with conventional UV divergences in perturbative QCD since the residue of a pole in (18) depends explicitly on the cusp angle $`\chi `$ which, by the definition (14), is a function of the kinematical invariants of the process. This divergence is introduced by the factorization procedure which separates the contribution of soft gluons from the exact amplitude of the process . Applying the eikonal approximation to the amplitude we correctly describe its IR behavior but change its UV asymptotics. Since by the definition only soft gluons contribute to the Wilson loop expectation value (13), we should put an upper bound on the value of the transverse momentum in (18). In the dimensional regularization this cut-off is given by $`k_{\mathrm{max}}^2=\mu ^2`$.

Specific UV divergences which we observed to one-loop order are general feature of Wilson lines. These divergences, the so-called cusp singularities, appear due to the fact that the integration path $`C_{\mathrm{DY}}`$ entering the definition (13) of the Wilson lines contains cusps with angle $`\chi `$. The renormalization properties of the cusp divergences were studied in detail. It was shown that cusp singularities are renormalized multiplicatively and the corresponding anomalous dimension $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\alpha _s,\chi )`$ was found to the lowest orders in perturbative QCD .

Subtracting UV pole in the $`\overline{MS}`$scheme we get the one-loop renormalized Wilson line as

$$W^{(1)}=1\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C_F(\chi \mathrm{coth}\chi 1)\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu ^2\stackrel{}{b}^2}{b_0^2}$$
(20)
where the constant $`b_0`$ was defined in (3). Substituting expression (14) for the cusp angle $`\chi `$ we encounter another singularity. Performing calculations of the partonic cross sections in perturbative QCD we neglect quark virtualities by putting $`p_1^2=p_2^2=0`$. In this limit the integration path in Fig. 1 goes along the light-cone and one expects additional singularities to appear. Indeed, using the definition (14) we find that the angle $`\chi `$ is infinite at $`p^2=0`$ and the one-loop expression for $`W^{(1)}`$ is divergent. As was shown in , this singularity originates from soft gluons propagating along the light-cone. The renormalization properties of light-like Wilson lines were studied in . It was found that the renormalized Wilson loop having both light-cone and cusp singularities obeys the following renormalization group equation:

$$\left(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\beta (g)\frac{}{g}\right)\frac{\mathrm{ln}W(b^2\mu ^2,Q^2/\mu ^2)}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\alpha _s)$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\alpha _s)`$ is the cusp anomalous dimension

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\alpha _s)=\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }C_F+𝒪(\alpha _s^2).$$
(22)
The general solution to this RG equation is given by

$$W(b^2\mu ^2,Q^2/\mu ^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_{b_0^2/b^2}^{\mu ^2}\frac{dk^2}{k^2}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\alpha _s(k^2))\mathrm{log}\frac{Q^2}{k^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _s(k^2))\right)\right)W_0(b^2,Q^2)$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the integration constant and $`W_0(b^2,Q^2)`$ is the boundary value of the Wilson loop at the normalization scale $`\mu ^2=b_0^2/b^2`$. Since $`\mu `$ has the meaning of the upper limit on the energy of soft gluons we can put $`\mu ^2=Q^2`$ in (23). Then, the resulting expression for the Wilson loop expectation value (23) is given by the product of two factors. One of them resummes all large perturbative logarithms in $`b^2`$ coming from integration over soft gluon transverse momenta above the IR scale $`1/b^2`$. It coincides with the Sudakov form factor (3) provided that the coefficient functions $`A(\alpha _s)`$ and $`B(\alpha _s)`$ are given by the anomalous dimensions, $`A(\alpha _s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\alpha _s)`$ and $`B(\alpha _s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _s)`$.

## 4 IR renormalons in Wilson loops

The solution to the evolution equation (23) is defined up to the factor $`W_0(b^2,Q^2)`$ which gets contribution from soft gluons with transverse momentum below the scale $`1/b^2`$ and, therefore, cannot be calculated in perturbative QCD. It is this factor that provides nonperturbative contribution to the transverse momentum distribution, Eqs. (4) and (7), and that we expect to be of the following form

$$W_0(b^2,Q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi (b)\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{2Q_0}+𝒪(\mathrm{ln}^0Q)\right).$$
(24)
Here, $`\varphi (b)`$ is some function of the impact parameter $`b^2`$ which can not be calculated perturbatively. In order to justify (24) and to determine the explicit form of the function $`\varphi (b)`$ one has to perform a nonperturbative calculation of the Wilson loop expectation value (13). This will be done in the next Section. However, before going through an explicit calculations it becomes instructive to examine the general structure of nonperturbative corrections to $`W_0(b^2,Q^2)`$ by calculating the contribution of the IR renormalons to the Wilson loop expectation value (13). The IR renormalons describe perturbative contribution to $`W(b^2\mu ^2,Q^2/\mu ^2)`$ coming from soft gluon with momenta $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. The later turns out to be ambiguous at the level of power corrections $`\mathrm{exp}(n\beta _0/\alpha _s(1/b^2))=(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2)^n`$ with the exponent $`n`$ uniquely fixed by large order behaviour of the perturbative series. For the physical result (23) for the Wilson loop to be uniquely defined, this ambiguity should be absorbed into the nonperturbative power correction to the boundary condition $`W_0(b^2,Q^2)`$.

To estimate the IR renormalon contribution to the Wilson loop we shall apply the renormalon technique and calculate (13) in the so-called single renormalon chain ($`1`$chain) approximation . Applying the Borel transformation we can write the perturbative contribution to the Wilson loop as

$$W^{(1\mathrm{chain})}1=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u\mathrm{exp}(u/\alpha _s\beta _0)B[W](u)$$
(25)
where the Born term was subtracted in the l.h.s. Calculating $`W^{(1\mathrm{chain})}`$ we start with the lowest-order expression for the Wilson loop, replace the gluon propagator by the chain of fermionic bubbles and then apply naive nonabelianization to promote the quark contribution to the full one-loop expression for the $`\beta `$function. In this way, one finds the following representation for the Borel transform

$$B[W](u)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi u)}{\beta _0\pi u\alpha _s}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda ^2\left(\frac{\lambda ^2\text{e}^C}{\mu ^2}\right)^u\frac{d}{d\lambda ^2}W^{(1\mathrm{chain})}(\lambda ^2)$$
(26)
where $`C`$ is a renormalization scheme constant and $`C=5/3`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$scheme. Here, $`\lambda ^2`$ is the dispersive parameter which enters into perturbative expression for the Wilson loop in the form of a fictitious gluon mass. This allows us to write $`W^{(1\mathrm{chain})}(\lambda ^2)`$ in the form (17) with $`\delta _+(k^2)`$ replaced by $`\delta _+(k^2\lambda ^2)`$. Integration over longitudinal components $`k_\pm `$ leads to the expression

$$W^{(1\mathrm{chain})}(\lambda ^2)=1+4\alpha _sC_F(\chi \mathrm{coth}\chi 1)\mu ^{4D}\frac{d^{D2}\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^{D2}}\frac{\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{b}}1}{\stackrel{}{k}^2+\lambda ^2},$$
(27)
which should be compared with (18). Similar to (20), it suffers from collinear singularities as $`p^20`$, or $`\chi \mathrm{}`$. To avoid these singularities it suffices to consider the following logarithmic derivative

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}W^{(1\mathrm{chain})}(\lambda ^2)=C_F\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\left(2\left(\frac{2\pi b\mu ^2}{\lambda }\right)^\epsilon K_\epsilon (b\lambda )\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)^\epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\right)$$
(28)
where $`K`$ is the Bessel function of the second kind and $`D=42\epsilon `$. Then, substituting (28) into (26) we obtain after some algebra

$$B\left[\frac{dW}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}\right](u)=\frac{C_F}{\beta _0\pi }(\pi b^2\mu ^2)^\epsilon \left(b^2\mu ^2/4\text{e}^C\right)^u\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1u\epsilon )}{(u+\epsilon )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+u)}.$$
(29)
This expression for the Borel transform of the Wilson loop in the single chain approximation coincides with the similar expression obtained in  using different approach. Finally, substituting (29) into (25) and assuming that the contribution of a single renormalon chain exponentiates one arrives at

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _0}(\pi \mu ^2\stackrel{}{b}^2)^\epsilon _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{du}{u+\epsilon }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1u\epsilon )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+u)}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2\stackrel{}{b}^2/4\text{e}^C\right)^u$$
(30)
Let us analyse the Borel singularities of (29) and (30). We notice that at $`\epsilon 0`$ the r.h.s. of (29) contains a pole at $`u=0`$. It has a UV origin and comes from integration over large transverse momentum in (27). As was explained in the previous section, the appearance of this pole is an artefact of the factorization procedure used to separate the contribution of soft gluon. Away from small $`u`$ we put $`\epsilon =0`$ and observe that (29) and (30) acquires a series of IR renormalon poles located at integer positive $`u`$. This suggests to divide the integration region in (30) into two parts, $`0u1/2`$ and $`u>1/2`$, and look for the solutions to (30) in the following form

$$\mathrm{ln}W=\mathrm{ln}W^{(\mathrm{PT})}+\mathrm{ln}W^{(\mathrm{IRR})}$$
(31)
with $`W^{(\mathrm{PT})}`$ getting a well-defined contribution from small $`u`$ and $`W^{(\mathrm{IRR})}`$ taking into account IR renormalon poles.

Integrating over small $`u`$ in (30) we expand the integrand in powers of $`u`$ to get

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W^{(\mathrm{PT})}}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _0}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\frac{(\pi \mu ^2b^2\text{e}^{\gamma _E})^\epsilon }{\epsilon ^n}_0^{1/2}𝑑uu^{n1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2b^2/b_0^2\text{e}^C)^u$$

Subtracting poles in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$scheme and summing up the series we find

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W^{(\mathrm{PT})}}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{C_F}{\pi \beta _0}\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(b_0^2\text{e}^C/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2\stackrel{}{b}^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2\text{e}^C/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)}$$
(32)
where we assumed that $`\mu ^2,1/b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$. It is easy to check that the perturbative contribution to (23) satisfies this evolution equation and, as a consequence, $`W^{(\mathrm{PT})}`$ coincides with the first factor in the r.h.s. of (23).

Integrating in (30) for $`u>1/2`$ we deform the integration contour around integer positive $`u=n`$ and estimate the contribution of the IR renormalons to the Wilson loop as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W^{(\mathrm{IRR})}}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n^{\mathrm{IRR}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2\stackrel{}{b}^2/b_0^2)^n\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{\mathrm{IRR}}(b)$$
(33)
with arbitrary coefficients $`c_n^{\mathrm{IRR}}`$ depending on the prescription that one uses integrating the Borel poles and the thus defined $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{IRR}}(b)`$ being a function of $`b^2`$ regular at $`b=0`$. Comparing (31) with (23) we notice that in order for the Wilson line expectation value $`W`$ to be well-defined, the IR renormalon ambiguities of $`W^{(\mathrm{IRR})}`$ should be absorbed into the definition of the boundary value $`W_0(b^2,Q^2)`$. The general form of the IR renormalon contribution can be obtained from (33). It matches (24) and $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{IRR}}(b)`$ provides IR renormalon contribution to the nonperturbative function $`\varphi (b)`$.

## 5 Wilson loop in vacuum fields

As was shown in the previous section, we expect nonperturbative effects to contribute to the power $`𝒪(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ corrections to the Sudakov form factor. To estimate these corrections we shall use the representation of the Sudakov form factor as Wilson loop vacuum expectation value (13). The calculation of Wilson loops in QCD has a long history. It is known that for small (Euclidean) size contours we may apply the perturbation theory to calculate the Wilson loop, while for large contours we expect essentially nonperturbative “area law” behavior. There were attempts to justify this behavior using different models of the QCD vacuum . Trying to apply these approaches to the particular Wilson loop shown in Fig. 1 we notice the following important differences. First, the specific feature of the Wilson loop in Fig. 1 is that it has essentially Minkowski light-cone geometry whereas the calculation of a Wilson loop is usually performed in the Euclidian QCD. Second, the integration contour in Fig. 1 is formally of an infinite size, but, at the same times, its definition involves a natural small parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}^2`$. At $`\stackrel{}{b}=0`$ the integration path is shrunk into a point and the Wilson loop takes trivial value (13). Then, for small $`b^21/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ the perturbation theory provides a meaningful approximation to $`W(b)`$ whereas for $`b^21/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$ nonperturbative corrections become important.

Following , we shall assume that for small $`b^2`$ nonperturbative corrections to $`W(b^2)`$ come from interaction with vacuum fields. To evaluate the Wilson loop (13) we have to fix a gauge and then express the correlator of vacuum gauge fields in terms of gauge invariant quantities. This can be done most easily in the Fock-Schwinger gauge or fixed point gauge

$$(xx_0)A(x)=0.$$

The special feature of this gauge is that the gauge potential can be expressed in terms of field strength tensor $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ as

$$A^\mu (x)=(xx_0)_\nu _0^1𝑑\alpha \alpha F^{\mu \nu }(x_0+\alpha (xx_0)).$$
(34)
Here, the fixed point $`x_0`$ is a free parameter of the gauge and the $`x_0`$dependence should cancel in gauge invariant quantities. To simplify the calculations we choose

$$x_0^\mu =\xi b^\mu $$
(35)
with $`\xi `$ being an arbitrary gauge parameter. We will demonstrate that the final expression for the Wilson loop does not depend on $`\xi `$.

Let us introduce the parameterization of the integration path of Fig. 1 as follows: $`C_{\mathrm{DY}}=C_I+C_{II}+C_{III}+C_{IV}`$, where

$$C_I=p_1s,C_{II}=p_2t,C_{III}=bp_1t,C_{IV}=b+p_2s,$$
(36)
as $`\mathrm{}<s0`$ and $`0t<\mathrm{}`$. Then, using the relation (34)-(36) we evaluate the integral

$$ig_{C_I}𝑑xA(x)=ig_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑sp_1^\mu A_\mu (p_1s)=ig\xi _{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑s_0^1𝑑\alpha \alpha p_1^\mu b^\nu F_{\mu \nu }(p_1s\alpha +b\xi (1\alpha ))$$

and changing the integration variables $`ss/\alpha `$ and $`\alpha 1\alpha /\xi `$ we obtain the relation

$$ig_{C_I}𝑑xA(x)=ig_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_0^\xi 𝑑\alpha p_1^\mu b^\nu F_{\mu \nu }(p_1s+b\alpha )$$
(37)
in which $`\xi `$dependence enters through the upper integration limit. Similar calculation of the integral along the part $`C_{II}`$ , $`C_{III}`$ and $`C_{IV}`$ leads to the following expressions

$`ig{\displaystyle _{C_{II}}}𝑑xA(x)`$ $`=`$ $`ig{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^\xi }𝑑\alpha p_2^\mu b^\nu F_{\mu \nu }(p_2t+b\alpha )`$
$`ig{\displaystyle _{C_{III}}}𝑑xA(x)`$ $`=`$ $`ig{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _\xi ^1}𝑑\alpha p_1^\mu b^\nu F_{\mu \nu }(p_1t+b\alpha )`$
$`ig{\displaystyle _{C_{IV}}}𝑑xA(x)`$ $`=`$ $`ig{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _\xi ^1}𝑑\alpha p_2^\mu b^\nu F_{\mu \nu }(p_2s+b\alpha )`$ (38)
which depend separately on $`\xi `$. Combining together the expressions (37) and (38), we obtain the following relation

$$ig_C𝑑xA(x)=ig_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_0^1𝑑\alpha b^\nu \left(p_1^\mu F_{\mu \nu }(p_1s+b\alpha )p_2^\mu F_{\mu \nu }(p_2s+b\alpha )\right)$$
(39)
in which the dependence of the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ disappears.

Finally, substituting (39) into (16) we find that to the lowest order in a gauge field expansion the vacuum averaged Wilson loop is given by

$$W=1\frac{1}{4N}0\left|g^2\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_0^1𝑑\alpha b^\nu \left(p_1^\mu F_{\mu \nu }^a(p_1s+b\alpha )p_2^\mu F_{\mu \nu }^a(p_2s+b\alpha )\right)\right]^2\right|0$$
(40)
Although this expression is $`\xi `$independent, it is not gauge invariant. To restore the gauge invariance, two field strength tensors should be connected by a Wilson line to form a nonlocal correlator $`F_{\mu \rho }^a(x)[P\mathrm{exp}(ig_y^x𝑑zA^c(z)t^c)]_{ab}F_{\nu \lambda }^b(y)`$ with the group generators $`t^a`$ defined in the adjoint representation of the $`SU(N)`$ group. Here, the integration path can be an arbitrary and we choose a straightforward line for simplicity. Any other choice leads to the expression for the Wilson loop which is different from (40) by terms containing higher powers of gauge fields. Thus defined gauge invariant field strength correlator depends on the difference $`(xy)`$ and it can be decomposed onto two Lorentz tensors :

$`0|g^2F_{\mu \rho }^a(x)[P\text{e}^{ig_0^x𝑑zA(z)}]_{ab}F_{\nu \lambda }^b(0)|0`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{\mu \nu }g_{\rho \lambda }g_{\mu \lambda }g_{\nu \rho })\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x^2+iϵ)`$
$`+`$ $`(g_{\rho \alpha }_\mu g_{\mu \alpha }_\rho )(g_{\lambda \alpha }_\nu g_{\nu \alpha }_\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x^2+iϵ)`$
Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are gauge invariant functions that receive both perturbative and nonperturbative corrections. In the special case of abelian gauge group the Bianchi identity $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }_\mu F_{\nu \rho }=0`$ implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x^2)=0`$. Although it is not the case for QCD, this property leads to vanishing the lowest order perturbative QCD correction to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. It is convenient to introduce the following representation

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x^2+iϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\sigma \text{e}^{i\sigma x^2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(i\sigma ),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x^2+iϵ)}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\sigma \text{e}^{i\sigma x^2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(i\sigma ),`$ (42)
where we took into account that eq. (5) defines the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ up to an arbitrary constant and it is the derivative of this function that should enter into the final expressions for the Wilson loop. The correlator (5) receives both perturbative and nonperturbative corrections. To the lowest order of perturbation theory we use the definition (5) to calculate the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(\mathrm{PT})}(\sigma )=0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2^{(\mathrm{PT})}(\sigma )=\frac{g^2}{4\pi ^{D/2}}(N^21)\mu ^{4D}\sigma ^{D/21}.$$
(43)
Let us substitute the correlator (5) into the expression (40) for the Wilson loop. Contracting the Lorentz indices, using the identities $`(p_1b)=(p_2b)=0`$ and performing integration over $`s`$ in (40) one arrives at

$$(p_1p_2)_0^1𝑑s𝑑t\text{e}^{i\sigma (p_1s+p_2t)^2}=\frac{1}{2i\sigma }\chi \mathrm{coth}\chi $$
(44)
where $`\chi `$ is the angle between quark and antiquark momenta defined in (14). Here, we put quark momenta off-shell, $`p_1^2=p_2^20`$, in order to avoid light-cone singularities. The remaining integral in (40) is given by

$$f(i\sigma b^2)i\sigma b^2_0^1𝑑\alpha _0^1𝑑\beta \text{e}^{i\sigma b^2(\alpha \beta )^2}$$
(45)
and it can be expressed in terms of the error function $`\mathrm{erf}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^x𝑑t\text{e}^{t^2}`$ as

$$f(x)=2x_0^1𝑑\alpha (1\alpha )\text{e}^{x\alpha ^2}=\text{e}^x1+\sqrt{\pi x}\text{erf}(\sqrt{x})$$
(46)
for an arbitrary $`x`$. Finally, we obtain the following expression for the Wilson loop (40)

$$W=1\frac{i}{4N}(\chi \mathrm{coth}\chi 1)_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma ^2}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(i\sigma )f(i\sigma \stackrel{}{b}^2)2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(i\sigma )(1\text{e}^{i\sigma \stackrel{}{b}^2})\right],$$
(47)
where the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2`$ parameterize the correlator (5). The following comments are in order.

The dependence of the Wilson loop on the invariant mass $`Q^2`$ and impact parameter $`b^2`$ is factorized in (47) into two different factors. The $`Q^2`$dependence is given by a “cusp factor” $`(\chi \mathrm{coth}\chi 1)`$ which coincides with an analogous factor in the perturbative expression (18). At the same time, to evaluate the $`b^2`$dependence of $`W`$ we need to know nonperturbative functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2`$. Notice that in the original expression for the Wilson loop (40) the nonlocal gluon correlator was integrated over both space-time and like-like separations $`x^2`$ corresponding to the distance between different points on the contour $`C_{\mathrm{DY}}`$, whereas the final expression (47) contains the integral over parameter $`\sigma `$ and depends on the space-like vector $`b`$. This suggests to perform the Wick rotation: $`\sigma i\sigma `$ and rewrite (47) in the limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ as

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=\frac{1}{4N}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma ^2}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )f(\sigma \stackrel{}{b}^2)2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )(1\text{e}^{\sigma \stackrel{}{b}^2})\right].$$
(48)
The advantage of this representation with respect to (47) is that the light-cone singularities cancel out in the r.h.s. of (48) and therefore it has a well defined limit as quark momenta go on-shell, $`p_1^2=p_2^2=0`$.

The above mentioned properties of the Wilson loop (47) and (48) can be understood as follows. As was shown in the previous section, leading nonperturbative $`b^2`$ corrections to the Wilson loop come from the region of small transverse momenta whereas collinear logs $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2/p^2`$ appear from integration over small angles between gluon momentum and one of the quark momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. Since integration over small angles and small transverse momenta can be performed independently, the $`Q^2`$dependence of perturbative and nonperturbative expressions, Eqs. (18) and (47), respectively, coincide. The remaining integration over transverse momenta of gluon is translated into $`\sigma `$integration in (47) with nonperturbative corrections absorbed into the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )`$.

Expression (16) defines first two terms in the expansion of the Wilson loop over vacuum gauge field. Natural question arises about the contribution of the remaining terms in this expansion. It can be estimated by applying the nonabelian exponentiation theorem  which allows to distinguish higher order terms according to their color structure. It leads to the following general expression for the Wilson loop

$$W=\mathrm{exp}(w_1+w_2+\mathrm{}),$$
(49)
where $`w_n`$ is the total contribution to the Wilson loop $`W`$ with “maximally nonabelian” color factors, $`w_nC_FN_c^{n1}`$, the so-called “webs”. Expanding this expression one can express the contribution to the Wilson loop with arbitrary color factor in terms of maximally nonabelian webs which can be defined without reference to a perturbative expansion. Comparing (49) with (47) we find that obtained expression for $`W`$ provides a lowest order contribution to the web $`w_1`$. Then, applying the nonabelian exponentiation theorem we may exponentiate the lowest order expression (47) and write the Wilson loop in the form (49) modulo corrections coming from higher webs. According to (18), $`w_1`$ has the following asymptotics in large $`Q^2`$ limit: $`w_1=𝒪(\mathrm{ln}Q^2)`$. It can be shown following , that this is a general property of the webs corresponding to the Wilson loop shown in Fig. 1, $`w_n\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$. Therefore, being combined together in the exponent of (49), higher order webs $`w_n`$ renormalize the coefficient in front of collinear logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ in lowest web contribution $`w_1`$. This property implies that the derivative $`d\mathrm{ln}W/d\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ does not contain collinear logs and, therefore, it is $`Q^2`$independent as $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ in agreement with (48).

Substituting (43) into (48) and subtracting pole in the $`\overline{MS}`$scheme, one finds that perturbative contribution to the Wilson loop satisfies the following evolution equation

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}W^{(\mathrm{PT})}(Q^2b^2/b_0^2)}{d\mathrm{ln}Q^2}=_{b_0^2/b^2}^{Q^2}\frac{dk_{}^2}{k_{}^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\alpha _s(k_{}^2))$$
(50)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ given by (22). The higher order webs provide a higher order perturbative contribution to the anomalous dimension $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$. Integrating (50) one reproduces perturbative contribution to (23). Applying the nonabelian exponentiation theorem to calculate nonperturbative contribution to the Wilson loop we arrive at the evolution equation (48) which is valid up to higher web contribution. The evolution equation (48) allows to calculate the coefficient in front of $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ but it does not fix the corresponding scale $`Q_0^2`$

$$W_0(b^2,Q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4N}\mathrm{log}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma ^2}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )f(\sigma \stackrel{}{b}^2)2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )(1\text{e}^{\sigma \stackrel{}{b}^2})\right]\right).$$
(51)
This expression was first obtained in . It is valid up to higher order webs contribution and it is assumed that perturbative contribution is subtracted from the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. One finds similar expression for the Wilson loop using the stochastic model for the QCD vacuum . There, it corresponds to the neglecting the contributions of higher cumulants of gauge strength fields.

## 6 Asymptotic behavior of Wilson loop

Let us consider the properties of nonperturbative contribution to the Wilson loop (51). As follows from (51), the $`b^2`$asymptotics of the exponent is determined by the properties of the function $`f(\sigma b^2)`$ defined in (46).

### 6.1 Small $`b^2`$ behavior

Using the definition (42), we find that $`f(x)`$ takes positive values for $`x>0`$ and for small $`x`$ it has the following asymptotics

$$f(x)=x\frac{x^2}{6}+\frac{x^3}{30}\frac{x^4}{168}+\mathrm{},\text{for}x1.$$
(52)
Thus, the exponent of the Wilson loop (51) admits the following expansion in powers of $`b^2`$

$$W_0=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\left[c_1b^2+c_2b^4+c_3b^6+𝒪(b^8)\right]\right),$$
(53)
where the coefficients $`c_n`$ are defined as moments of the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )`$:

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )\right)`$
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24N}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\sigma \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )6\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )\right)`$ (54)
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{120N}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\sigma \sigma \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )10\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )\right)`$
The expansion (53) is in agreement with analysis of the IR renormalon ambiguities of perturbative series for $`W`$ performed in Sect. 4. Dimensionful parameters $`c_n`$ are related to the nonlocal correlator (5). The explicit form of these relations can be found from the definition (42) as

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\stackrel{}{x}^2\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\stackrel{}{x}^2)+2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}(\stackrel{}{x}^2)\right]`$ (55)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24N}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0)+6\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}(0)\right]`$ (56)
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{120N}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}(0)+10\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{\prime \prime }(0)\right],`$ (57)
where prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`x^2`$. These equations imply that all dimensionful coefficients $`c_n`$ except of $`c_1`$ are related to the short distance asymptotics of the nonlocal correlator (5). Expanding the l.h.s. of (5) in powers of $`x^2`$ one can calculate the first few terms of the small $`x^2`$ expansion of the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x^2)`$ in terms of local vacuum condensates as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2F^2}{12}}+x^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^3fF^3}{48}}+𝒪(x^4),`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x^2)}{dx^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`x^2{\displaystyle \frac{g^4j^2}{288}}+𝒪(x^4)`$ (59)
where $`g^3fF^3g^3f^{abc}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\nu \rho }^bF_{\rho \mu }^c`$, $`g^4j^2g^4j_\mu ^aj_\mu ^a`$ and $`j_\mu ^a`$ is a quark current. Using these relations we evaluate the coefficients $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ as

$$c_2=\frac{g^2F^2}{288N},c_3=\frac{1}{1152N}\left(\frac{g^3fF^3}{5}\frac{g^4j^2}{3}\right)$$
(60)
We would like to stress that, in general, the scale $`c_1`$ is not related to local vacuum condensates.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This is in agreement with the fact that there are no local gauge invariant operators in QCD of the dimension $`2`$. To find its value one needs to know the behavior of the correlator (5) at large (Euclidean) distances.

### 6.2 Large $`b^2`$ behavior

The expansion (52) and (53) has a finite radius of convergence and it is not applicable at large $`x`$, or equivalently large impact vectors $`\stackrel{}{b}^2`$. Using the definition (42) we find the asymptotic behaviour of the function $`f(x)`$ at large $`x`$ as

$$f(x)=\sqrt{\pi x}1+\text{e}^x\left(\frac{1}{2x}\frac{3}{4x^2}+\mathrm{}\right),\text{for}x1.$$
(61)
Its substitution into (51) yields

$$W_0(b^2,Q^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\left[c_0\sqrt{\stackrel{}{b}^2}+𝒪(b^0)\right]\right),$$
(62)
where the dimension $`1`$ coefficient $`c_0`$ is defined as

$$c_0=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4N}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \sigma ^{3/2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )=\frac{1}{2N}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{}{x}^2(\stackrel{}{x}^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\stackrel{}{x}^2).$$
(63)
We notice that the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x^2)`$ does not contribute to $`c_0`$ and the large $`b^2`$ behavior of the Wilson loop is governed entirely by the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x^2)`$.

Summarizing, we conclude that the Wilson loop has different behavior at small and large impact vectors $`b^2`$:

$$\mathrm{ln}W_0(b^2,Q^2)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}c_1b^2,\text{for }b^2\lambda ^2$$
(64)
and

$$\mathrm{ln}W_0(b^2,Q^2)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}c_0\sqrt{b^2},\text{for }b^2\lambda ^2$$
(65)
where $`\lambda `$ is the characteristic length defined by the properties of the nonlocal correlator (5). The nonperturbative scales $`c_0`$ and $`c_1`$ are given by (63) and (55), respectively. We recall that the expressions (51), (64) and (65) were obtained by solving the evolution equation (48) and therefore they are valid up to corrections independent on $`Q^2`$. In the expressions (5) and (6) the later corrections are parameterized by the scale $`g_1`$.

### 6.3 Ansatz for the nonlocal correlator

Calculating the scales $`c_1`$ and $`c_0`$ we shall rely on particular nonperturbative ansatz for the nonlocal correlator (5). Since their values depend on the behavior of the nonlocal correlator (5) at large euclidian distances $`x^2<0`$, we may apply the results of lattice calculations of this correlator.

According to , the nonlocal correlator (5) is exponentially decreasing function of the space separation $`\stackrel{}{x}^2`$ which can be parameterized at large distances as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\stackrel{}{x}^2)\mathrm{\Phi }\text{e}^{\frac{|\stackrel{}{x}|}{\lambda }},\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_2}{dx^2}(\stackrel{}{x}^2)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\text{e}^{\frac{|\stackrel{}{x}|}{\lambda }}$$
(66)
with $`\lambda `$ being the correlation length, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ being the overall normalization scales. This ansatz leads to the following expression for the function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\sigma )`$ defined in (5)

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(\sigma )=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{4\pi \lambda ^2}}\sigma ^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4\sigma \lambda ^2}\right)$$
(67)
and to similar expression for the function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(\sigma )`$. The lattice determination of these scales gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=7.2\times 10^8\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^4,\lambda =1/(183\mathrm{\Lambda }_L)$$
(68)
with the lattice QCD parameter

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_L=(0.005\pm 0.0015)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(69)
In addition, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }/10`$ and therefore we may neglect the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$function to (51). Then, substituting the ansatz (66) into the definition (61) and (63) we get the following expressions for the coefficients

$$c_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^2}{2N}=3584\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^2,c_0=\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^3}{N}=78\mathrm{\Lambda }_L.$$
(70)
Their values depend strongly on the lattice scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$. Choosing this scale at the upper boundary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L=0.0065\mathrm{GeV}`$, or equivalently $`\lambda =0.17\mathrm{fm}`$, and using (68) we estimate the scales (70) as

$$c_1^{(\mathrm{latt})}=0.15\mathrm{GeV}^2,c_0^{(\mathrm{latt})}=0.51\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(71)
Let us compare our predictions with the phenomenological parameterization Eqs. (5)–(7). To this end we rewrite (5) in equivalent form keeping the $`\mathrm{ln}Q`$dependent part only

$$\mathrm{ln}W_0^{(\mathrm{phen})}(b^2,Q^2)=S_{\mathrm{nonPT}}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\frac{g_2}{2}b^2.$$
(72)
We observe that this phenomenological expression matches (64) at small $`b^2`$ as

$$c_1^{(\mathrm{phen})}=\frac{g_2}{2}=0.17{}_{0.04}{}^{+0.04}(\mathrm{GeV})_{}^{2}.$$
(73)
This expression is in agreement with our calculation (71).

It follows from our analysis that the parameterization (6) and (72) of nonperturbative corrections to the Sudakov form factor is correct only for small $`b^2\lambda ^2`$, or equivalently for the transverse momenta $`q^2\lambda ^2`$. We would like to stress that although the numerical expressions (68) are sensitive to the particular ansatz for the nonlocal correlator (5), the general form of the small $`b^2`$ expansion (53) is uniquely fixed. According to (65), we expect that at large $`b^2`$ (or small transverse momenta $`q^2\lambda ^2`$) the asymptotic behaviour of the Wilson loop, and as a consequence nonperturbative correction to the Sudakov form factor, should have different form (65) with the scale $`c_0`$ given by (63) and (68).

To summarize, the nonperturbative corrections to small momentum distribution of lepton pairs in the Drell-Yan process are described by the expression (51) which is valid up to $`Q`$independent corrections. The asymptotic behavior of the exponent of (51) at large and small impact vectors is given by (64) and (65), respectively. Combining together (51) with nonperturbative ansatz for the nonlocal gauge field correlator, (66), one can find the expression for the nonperturbative factor that is valid for an arbitrary $`b^2`$. Another advantage of the ansatz (67) that integration in (51) can be performed explicitly leading to the following expression for the nonperturbative factor

$$\mathrm{ln}W_0(b^2,Q^2)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^4}{N}w(b/\lambda ),$$
(74)
with the profile function

$$w(x)=\text{e}^x\left(3+x\right)3+2x$$
(75)
which is plotted in Fig. 2. Going over to the transverse momentum space we define nonperturbative weight function $`f_{\mathrm{nonPT}}(k^2,Q^2)`$ as

$$f_{\mathrm{nonPT}}(k^2,Q^2)=\frac{d^2b}{(2\pi )^2}\text{e}^{i\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{k}}W_0(b^2,Q^2)$$
(76)
Then, inserting the factor $`W_0(b^2,Q^2)`$ into the integrand of (1) we find that nonperturbative effects produce a smearing of the perturbative $`q`$distribution, Eq. (1), with the weight function $`f_{\mathrm{nonPT}}(k^2,Q^2)`$. Substituting (51) into (76) and taking into account (66) we obtain the $`k`$dependence of the weight function $`f_{\mathrm{nonPT}}(k^2,Q^2)`$ as shown in Fig. 3.

## 7 Conclusion

In this paper we have studied nonperturbative corrections to the transverse momentum distribution of vector bosons in the Drell-Yan process. Factorizing out the Sudakov effects due to soft gluons we were able to express their contribution to the distribution in the form of the vacuum averaged Wilson loop operator. We have demonstrated that the Wilson loop take into account both perturbative and nonperturbative corrections. The former are resummed through the evolution equation whereas the later define the boundary conditions for their solutions. Analyzing large order perturbative corrections to the Sudakov form factor we found that perturbation theory provides an ambiguous contribution to power corrections $`(b^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)^n`$ associated with the IR renormalons. The IR renormalon contribution suggests the general structure of nonperturbative corrections and it can be absorbed into nonperturbative boundary conditions for the Wilson loop.

We calculated the nonperturbative contribution to the Sudakov form factor using the expansion of the Wilson loop over vacuum fields supplemented with the expression for nonlocal gauge invariant field strength correlator. Although the Wilson loop is defined in an essentially Minkowski kinematics, the part of the nonperturbative contribution depending on the invariant mass of the produced vector boson $`Q^2`$ is governed by asymptotics of the correlator at large space-like (Euclidean) separations and therefore can be calculated using conventional nonperturbative methods. Applying the results of lattice calculations we found that the obtained expression for the nonperturbative power corrections is in qualitative agreement with known phenomenological expressions at large transverse momenta and deviate from them at small transverse momenta.

## Acknowledgements

I am most grateful to G. Korchemsky for numerous stimulating discussions and suggestions. I would also like to thank T. Binoth, J.-Ph. Guillet and E. Pilon for useful conversations and G. Sterman for critical reading of the manuscript.

This work was supported in part by the EU network ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’, contract FMRX–CT98–0194.


format: text

text:
# On the Contribution of Unresolved Galactic Stars to the Diffuse Soft X-ray Background

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Motivation

Recent advances in the study of the soft X-ray background have attempted to place limits on the amount of emission from diffuse extragalactic sources. Cen & Ostriker (1999) suggested that such a background might exist in the $`\frac{1}{4}`$ keV and $`\frac{3}{4}`$ keV range as a result of gas accretion on sub-cluster size objects forming filamentary structures on cosmological scales, the exact form of these structures being sensitive to the cosmological model. At higher energies (above $`1`$ keV) truly diffuse extragalactic X-ray emission is ruled out as such gas would produce unacceptably large perturbations in the microwave background (Wright et al. 1994). Such considerations do not hold at $`\frac{1}{4}`$ keV, but the multiplicity of backgrounds (at least two diffuse Galactic backgrounds, as well as unresolved Galactic point sources, and unresolved extragalactic sources) make the detection of a diffuse extragalactic background difficult. ROSAT observations have been used to attack the problem on several different fronts.

The extragalactic background due to unresolved point sources can be characterized as a power-law at E$`>`$1 keV, and a variety of results, including recent Chandra observations (Mushotzky et al. 2000) suggests that this power-law extends, without a break, to lower energies. Snowden et al. (2000) and Kuntz & Snowden (2000), following the work of Snowden et al. (1998), have studied the emission that is not due to unresolved extragalactic sources. Snowden et al. (1998) separated the $`\frac{1}{4}`$ keV emission originating from beyond the Galactic absorption from that due to the Local Hot Bubble, and this work was extended by Kuntz & Snowden (2000) to the remainder of the ROSAT band. Although Kuntz & Snowden (2000) characterized the emission originating beyond the Galactic absorption in the $`\frac{3}{4}`$ keV band, they were not able to effect a separation of the emission from beyond the Galactic absorption into its various components: the Galactic halo, the diffuse extragalactic emission, and unresolved Galactic point sources. Thus, although there is almost no doubt that there is a Galactic halo, the upper limit to the diffuse extragalactic emission in the $`\frac{3}{4}`$ keV band remains the total emission originating beyond the Galactic absorption. Included in the measure of the emission originating beyond the Galactic absorption was the bulk of the contribution due to unresolved Galactic point sources. It is thus necessary to calculate that contribution to further tighten the limits on the diffuse extragalactic background.

From the model of Cen & Ostriker (1999), the diffuse extragalactic background will not be smooth, and the clumpiness is a function of the cosmological model. Kuntz (2000) sought to place limits on the spatial fluctuations that might be due to the diffuse extragalactic background, thus it was necessary to determine the degree of fluctuation due to unresolved Galactic point sources.

It is thus particularly interesting for the study of the diffuse extragalactic background to study the luminosity function of Galactic point sources, which, at high Galactic latitudes, are stars.

### 1.2 Previous Work

A stellar log N-log S relation in the form of a cumulative luminosity function (CLF, the number of sources, N, with fluxes greater than S) has been calculated by Guillout et al. (1996) from a mixture of Einstein IPC and ROSAT PSPC data, using the Bienaymé et al. (1987) model of the spatial distribution of stars. The Guillout et al. (1996) study concentrated on comparing the model distribution of stellar sources with observed count rates as a function of position, the complement of the information required for studies of the diffuse X-ray background.

There are a number of difficulties in applying the published Guillout et al. (1996) CLF to the problem of unresolved stellar sources. First, the Guillout et al. (1996) study published the CLF for the entire ROSAT PSPC band-pass. Since the angular structure of the diffuse X-ray background is strongly energy dependent, studies of the diffuse X-ray background are generally confined to only some portion of that band-pass. Given the strong differences in the absorption by the ISM from one end of the band-pass to the other, no simple scaling can be applied to the published relations to obtain the relation for any sub-band. Second, as can be seen in Guillout et al. (1996), and again in our Figure 1, although older stars have lower X-ray luminosities, they form such a large fraction of the total stellar population that they dominate the luminosity function, especially at lower flux levels. However, this is the population that is the least well characterized in the Guillout et al. (1996) study; they were forced to take data from Einstein IPC studies of field stars. Far superior ROSAT studies have since become available (Schmitt et al. 1995; Schmitt 1997)

The following model calculation uses the best current data to derive the luminosity function at high Galactic latitude, which will be of greatest interest to those studying the diffuse extragalactic background. Rather than the CLF, we calculate the more useful form,

$$N(S)d\mathrm{log}S,$$
(1)
which allows the calculation of

$$_0^S^{}SN(S)d\mathrm{log}S,$$
(2)
the flux in unresolved sources. The model is, in principle, capable of calculating the stellar contribution at low Galactic latitudes, but some poorly determined input parameters, the intrinsic luminosity probability distribution for young stars, greatly increase the uncertainties near the Galactic plane. The irregularity of the spatial distribution of the ISM also introduces some uncertainty, more in softer bands than in harder, and more at lower Galactic latitudes.

## 2 Data

In order to calculate the contribution of stellar sources, the stellar populations were binned by spectral type $`𝒮_T`$ and age $`𝒜`$. We used the spectral-type divisions of Schmitt et al. (1995) and Schmitt (1997) and the age divisions of Guillout et al. (1996), all of which are listed in Table 1. The division by age is as follows: the 0-0.15 Gyr class is represented by the Pleiades (171 ROSAT detected members, $`0.1`$ Gyr, 127 pc), the 0.15-1.0 Gyr class is represented by the Hyades (191 detected members, $`0.6`$ Gyr, 45 pc), and the 1.0-10.0 Gyr class is represented by the field population.

The data are insufficient to determine the X-ray luminosity functions for subsamples of the 1-10 Gyr field population, which, especially for the later type stars, will be nearly uniformly distributed through the age range. However, stars in the 1-2 Gyr age range will have a very different z-height distribution than stars in the 5-10 Gyr age range. Thus, for calculation, the stars in the 1-10 Gyr age class are subdivided into the age ranges used by Bienaymé et al. (1987) (see Table 2) although the same X-ray luminosity function is used for all the age sub-divisions in the 1-10 Gyr age class.

A number of other well-studied clusters could be included with the Hyades for a sample of stars in the 0.15-1.0 Gyr group; Coma Berenices (42 detected members, $`0.5`$ Gyr, 80 pc) and Praesepe (56 detected members, $`0.6`$ Gyr, 160 pc). X-ray emission from Coma Berenices members is similar to that from Hyades members (Randich et al. 1996), while that from Praesepe members is lower than that from (coeval) Hyades members (Randich & Schmitt 1995). Given that the Hyades would seem to be representative of its age class, and that there is a relatively larger sample available from the Hyades cluster than from other clusters, the other clusters have not been included in this age class. However, it should be borne in mind that the Hyades luminosities may need to be adjusted downwards to truly represent its age class.

Although X-ray emission has been detected from nearly every spectral type, the dominant contribution by stellar sources is from low-mass main sequence dwarfs, due both to intrinsic luminosity and the number of sources.

Stars of spectral type A have been excluded from the model. The intrinsic X-ray luminosity probability distribution is poorly determined for the younger age classes, and is currently undetermined for the 1-10 Gyr age class, which would dominate the emission from the A spectral type. The intrinsic X-ray luminosities, where measurable, are about an order of magnitude below those of F stars, and the mid-plane number density is lower than F stars, by a factor of 0.005 for the 1-10 Gyr age class. Since the younger age classes will have low z-heights, the error introduced will be minimal for high Galactic latitudes. Guillout et al. (1996) estimate the maximum contribution from A stars to be $`2`$%.

White dwarfs have also been excluded from the calculation as their contributions are typically two orders of magnitude below that of main-sequence stars in the $`\frac{1}{4}`$ keV band, and significantly lower in the $`\frac{3}{4}`$ keV and 1.5 keV bands.

RS CVn systems have also been excluded from the calculation. Although they have high luminosities, the median intrinsic luminosity, $`\mathrm{log}L_x30.3`$ (here, as in the remainder of this paper, $`L_x`$ is in ergs s-1 in the 0.1-2.4 keV band) (Dempsey et al. 1993), their number density is quite low, probably less than $`1\times 10^4`$ pc-3 (Ottmann & Schmitt 1992) as is their scale height ($`325`$ pc). At high Galactic latitudes, any RS CVn system is likely to be close enough to be detected and not contribute to the “diffuse” background. Giants and super giants have been excluded from the calculation as their proper calculation would require extensive analysis beyond the scope of this paper. Nearly all giants earlier than K3 are X-ray sources with $`\mathrm{log}L_X27.3`$, similar to solar type stars (Schröder et al. 1998; Hünsch et al. 1998) but the source population is much smaller, and more closely restricted to the plane.

We have also excluded Population II stars from the calculation. If a comparison between disk RS CVn systems and Population II binaries is any indication of the relative emission from single Population I and Population II stars, then the Population II stars should have emission that is more than an order of magnitude below that of Population I stars (Ottmann et al. 1997).

### 2.1 Model Inputs

For each spectral-type/age-class bin, the contribution to the luminosity function is determined by four parameters: $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$, the mean and dispersion of the intrinsic luminosity probability function, $`c`$, which describes the $`z`$ distribution of the stars, and $`n_0`$, the mid-plane ($`z=0`$) density of stars.

Following Schmitt et al. (1995) and Schmitt (1997), we have assumed that the intrinsic luminosity function for a spectral-type/age-class bin is given by the log-normal distribution,

$$P(\mathrm{log}L_x)=\frac{1}{\sigma \sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{log}L_x\mu }{\sigma }\right]^2.$$
(3)
The parameters $`\mu (S_T,𝒜)`$ and $`\sigma (S_T,𝒜)`$ were derived from the ROSAT data sets listed in Table 1.

Since these data sets contain points with upper limits, the parameters were determined by fitting the Kaplan-Meier estimator (Schmitt 1985) of the cumulative distribution function, where the uncertainty in the Kaplan-Meier estimator was taken from Fiegelson & Nelson (1985). The uncertainties were derived using a bootstrap method (Babu & Feigelson 1996). We corrected for binaries in the same manner as Schmitt et al. (1995): we have divided the flux equally between members of binary systems. Guillout et al. (1996) showed that correction for binaries made little difference to the luminosity function.

Since there were no late M stars detected in the surveys of the Hyades or Pleiades, we have extrapolated the $`\mu `$ for the the 0-0.15 Gyr and 0.15-1.0 Gyr age classes from the $`\mu `$ for the 1-10 Gyr age class using the general trend observed in the other spectral classes; a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}L_X=0.92`$ decrease between the 0-0.15 Gyr and 0.15-1.0 Gyr classes, and a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}L_X=0.98`$ decrease between the 0.15-1.0 Gyr and 1.0-10.0 Gyr classes. For the late M stars the same value of $`\sigma `$ was used for each age class, that of the oldest age class; this tends to increase the number of sources with high fluxes, but not significantly.

To convert from the listed X-ray luminosities to count-rates, we used the inverse of the conversion used by the original authors. Stern et al. (1995) used the conversion $`6.0\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 \[counts s-1\]-1. Stauffer et al. (1994) used a conversion of $`8.4\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 \[counts s-1\]-1 (for $`N_H=0`$), characteristic of $`\mathrm{log}T=7.06`$. Due to the shape of the conversion curve, this is also the conversion factor for $`\mathrm{log}T=6.88`$. Schmitt et al. (1995) used the conversion factor111 This relation was derived for a Raymond & Smith model two component corona fitted to a small number of high S/N spectra. See Fleming et al. (1995) for a complete description. $`(5.30HR+8.31)\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1 \[counts s-1\]-1, where $`HR`$ is defined by (R47-R82)/(R47+R82) and R$`XX`$ is the count rate in band $`XX`$ and the bands are defined in Snowden et al. (1997) and again in Table 3.

From the band R17 count rates it is neccessary to derive count rates in narrower bands for this study to be of use. To divide the band R17 into the R12 and R47 bands, one can use the $`\mathrm{log}L_x`$-$`HR`$ developed by Schmitt (1998). Schmitt suggested that for each spectral type, $`HR`$ is a linear function of the log of the luminosity,

$$\mathrm{log}L_x=aHR+b;$$
(4)
the slopes of these relations seem to be the same for all spectral types, but the intersections are different. The parameters of these relations were determined for the field stars from the data of Schmitt et al. (1995) and Schmitt (1997) by Kuntz (2000).

The applicability of these relations to younger stars is not clear. Extracting the Hyades members identified by Stern et al. (1995) from the ROSAT Bright and Faint Source Catalogues (Voges et al. 1999, 1996), we found that the field star relations fit the Hyades stars well for spectral types F and G. For the M stars, the slopes of the relations appeared consistent, but the field star offsets were too large (i.e., too hard) for the Hyades stars. Since there is a substantial dispersion around the relation for both the field stars and the Hyades, and there may be significant biases in the selection of sources for the Bright and Faint Source Catalogues, we have used the field star relations for the younger stars as well. There are not enough Pleiades stars in the Faint Source Catalogue to attempt a similar analysis.

To further subdivide the flux, we investigated the relation between $`HR`$ and the spectral shape. From the HEASARC archive of ROSAT PSPC exposures we extracted the spectra of all single field dwarfs of spectral classes A through M that had more than $`400`$ counts, about 16 stars. To these spectra we used XSPEC (Arnaud 1996) to fit two Raymond & Smith (1977) components with temperatures $`T_S`$ and $`T_H`$ and normalizations $`N_S`$ and $`N_H`$. We found that the temperature of the softer component, $`T_S`$, did not vary with $`HR`$ ($`\mathrm{log}T_S6.23`$), but that for stars in an individual spectral type, the temperature of the harder component, $`T_H`$, varied linearly with $`HR`$222 We found that the F and G stars followed one $`T_H`$-$`HR`$ relation while the M stars followed another. There were only two K stars in the sample, one of which fell on the relation for F and G stars, the other of which fell between the FG and M relations. Of the M stars, half were dM and half were dMe, so the difference between the FG and M relations is not due to selecting the brighter M stars.. Given the $`T_H`$ for a given $`HR`$, we then solved for the $`N_S/N_H`$ ratio that would produce the correct value of $`HR`$. This relation between $`T_H`$ and $`HR`$ restricts the range of allowable $`HR`$ to $`>0.86`$ and $`<0.37`$ (for M stars) and $`<0.22`$ (for F and G stars).

We checked this $`T_H`$, $`N_S/N_H`$, $`HR`$ relation against the Hyades stars extracted from the Bright and Faint Source Catalogues using (R47-R82)/(R47+R82) vs. (R67-R45)/(R67+R45) graphs, and found that within the large uncertainties of the data, the relations derived from field stars also described the Hyades stars.

Thus, for a given X-ray luminosity, we used the Schmitt relation between the X-ray luminosity and the hardness ratio to determine $`HR`$, and then use these relations between $`T_H`$, $`N_S/N_H`$, and $`HR`$ to derive a spectral energy distribution that can then be used to divide the total number of counts into the counts for each of the ROSAT bands. Since the $`\mathrm{log}L_X`$-$`HR`$ relation can produce values of $`HR`$ ouside the range allowed by the $`T_H`$, $`N_S/N_H`$, $`HR`$ relation, values of $`HR`$ outside this range were replaced by the closest extreme.

The spatial distribution of each spectral-type/age-class was assumed to be given by equations A1 and A2 of Bienaymé et al. (1987), where $`c(𝒜)`$, the axial ratio for ellipsoids describing the disk populations, were taken from the “best fit” column of their Table 1 and are listed in our Table 2.

To maintain some consistency between the initial mass function (IMF), the stellar formation rate (SFR), and the $`\sigma _z`$-Age relation, the mid-plane density of each spectral-type/age-class bin, $`n_0(S_T,𝒜)`$, was derived in a manner similar to that used by Guillout et al. (1996). The disk was assumed to have an age of 10 Gyr, a constant SFR, and an invariant IMF. The IMF was taken from Haywood et al. (1997):

$$dN=m^{(1+x)}dm$$
(5)
where

$`x=0.7\text{for}`$ $`m<m_{\mathrm{}}`$
$`x=1.5\text{for}`$ $`1m_{\mathrm{}}m<3m_{\mathrm{}}`$ (6)
$`x=2.0\text{for}`$ $`m3m_{\mathrm{}}.`$
The total number of stars was normalized by comparing the number produced by the above formula with $`r<7`$ pc in the $`8<M_V<15`$ range (i.e., the K and early M stars) with the number actually observed (79). The fraction of the number of stars in each age-class was calculated using the main-sequence lifetimes listed in Scalo (1986) and the mass-absolute magnitude-spectral type relations of Kroupa et al. (1993).

### 2.2 Method

For each spectral-type/age-class bin, the intrinisic luminosity distribution was evaluated for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}L_X=0.1`$ intervals. For each distance interval, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=10`$ pc, from 0 to 3000 pc, the value of $`\mathrm{log}L_X`$ was adjusted for $`r^2`$ diminution, absorption by the ISM, and converted to count rates in a given band. The probability of finding a star with flux $`S`$ in a given band, as a function of S, was then interpolated to a standard $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(S/\text{counts s}^1)=0.1`$ spacing, and scaled by the size of the volume element and the relative stellar density for that $`z`$-height. The luminosity function for each spectral-type/age-class was then summed over $`z`$-height, and scaled by the total number of stars

The vertical distribution of the ISM was taken from Lockman (1984), and was assumed to be plane-parallel. The absorption cross-sections were taken from Morrison & McCammon (1983). The absorption was calculated using the spectral energy distribution described above. Although the bulk of the stars lie beyond the bulk of the absorption (see Figure 2), only the R12 band reaches column densities for which $`\tau =1`$. (The next most sensitive band is R17, for which $`\tau =1`$ at $`5.5\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2.) Thus, the luminosity function is not too sensitive to absorption by the ISM at high Galactic latitudes.

The aggregate luminosity function for band R17 is shown in Figure 1 for the north Galactic pole. As might be expected, the luminosity function is dominated by the older age classes because, although their intrinsic luminosities may be an order of magnitude smaller than the younger age classes, they account for the bulk of the number of sources. For similar reasons, the luminosity function is dominated by the longer-lived spectral classes. The high-count-rate end of the luminosity function is strongly influenced by the younger age-classes as they have larger intrinsic luminosities and smaller scale-heights.

Figure 3 shows the effect of the uncertainties of the parameters on the luminosity function (top third), unresolved flux (middle third), and cumulative luminosity function (bottom third) for a single spectral-type/age-class (early M, 1-2 Gyr) in band R47 (the most interesting band for cosmological purposes). In this band, the effects of Galactic absorption are minor. The parameter uncertainties are their typical formal uncertainties. For typical survey limits, $`4<\mathrm{log}S(R47)<2`$, the predicted unresolved flux is uncertain to a factor of two due to the formal uncertainties. The largest sources of uncertainty are the $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$ of the intrinsic luminosity distribution function. Although the $`b`$ paramter of the $`\mathrm{log}L_x`$-$`HR`$ relation also appears to contribute a significant uncertainty, the true uncertainty is likely smaller than the value shown here, which includes what may be a significant intrinsic scatter around the relation. Uncertainties in $`c`$ cause little change.

The true uncertainty in the amount of unresolved flux is much less than that shown in Figure 3; as will be seen, the model can be checked against the observed $`N(S)`$ over several orders of magnitude in source flux, and good agreement between the model and the observed $`N(S)`$ implies a smaller error in the unresolved flux.

## 3 Comparisons

The current model agrees fairly well with that of Guillout et al. (1996) except for the “late M” class. For this class we find a factor of $`10`$ more sources. Only a small amount of this difference can be attributed to the difference in luminosity distributions; the luminosity distribution used here ($`\mu =27.22`$,$`\sigma =0.49`$) is surprisingly similar to that derived from Einstein data ($`\mu =27.7`$, $`\sigma 0.42`$) by Barbera et al. (1993). It is not clear whether the difference in number counts for the late M class is due to a different IMF, a different low-mass cut-off for X-ray emission (0.08 M was used here), or merely a different mass-to-spectral-type conversion. All of these quantities are, of course, quite uncertain for the low mass end of the main sequence.

We have checked our model against the number of stellar point sources found in surveys and against the stellar log N-log S relation of Krautter et al. (1999). These comparisons are listed in Table 4 and shown in Figure 4. The predicted number listed in the Table is the number of sources with flux above the survey limit at the $`(\mathrm{},b)`$ position of the survey, in degrees-2, multiplied by the survey area and the fraction of sources for which identifications have been made (the “ID completeness”).

As can be seen, the model predicts well the band R47 source counts for fluxes below $`\mathrm{log}_{10}S2.5.`$ At higher fluxes we can compare our model to the wide-field (each field has $`144`$ square degrees) data of Krautter et al. (1999) which is complete in band R17 to 0.03 counts s-1, (and thus must be complete to at least that level in the sub-band R47). We find that in band R47, that for their field IVac ($`b=79\mathrm{°}`$), the model is consistent with observations for fluxes below 0.1 counts s-1. However, below that threshold, the model over-predicts at low latitudes ($`30\mathrm{°}<|b|<40\mathrm{°}`$, their fields I, II, III, and VI). Above this threshold, the model under-predicts the source counts at all latitudes. A similar trend is seen in the band R17 source counts; the model somewhat under-predicts the counts at high Galactic latitudes and over-predicts at low Galactic latitudes for fluxes greater than 0.03 counts s-1. Given the shape of the luminosity functions (Figure 1), this error is likely due to the poorly determined $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$ of the youngest age group. (Nota Bene: the caveat given in §2 concerning the Hyades luminosity function, as well as our use of a $`\mathrm{log}L_x`$-$`HR`$ relation for the M stars that may be too hard, decreasing the effect of absorption, §2.1.)

The problems with the model at bright fluxes do not cast serious doubt upon our prediction at lower fluxes; as can be seen from Figure 3, the brighter fluxes are much more sensitive to uncertainties in $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$, and the brighter fluxes are much more sensitive to the younger age groups. It should also be noted that the uncertainties in the unresolved flux at the brighter fluxes will be significantly smaller than those of the source counts.

## 4 Model Description

It is instructive to see how the luminosity function changes with detection band, Galactic latitude, and Galactic longitude.

Figure 5 shows the stellar luminosity function at the north Galactic pole for several ROSAT bands. The R12 band is substantially different from the R45 band due both to the different instrumental response (which produces a horizontal shift in the curves) and the differing effects of absorption (which increases the number counts below the peak and decreases them above the peak, though not at the highest fluxes). The anomolous behavior of band R67 is due to the discontinuity of the $`\mathrm{log}L_x`$-$`HR`$ relation at $`HR=0.86`$; the rate of decrease of the band R67 flux with decreasing $`HR`$ is greater than for the other bands, thus the discontinuity is more pronounced for band R67 than for the other bands. As the anomolous behavior occurs two orders of magnitude below the peak of the luminosity function, it does not cause significant errors.

Figure 6 shows the ratio of the stellar luminosity function at $`b=30\mathrm{°}`$ to that at the Galactic pole for the R12 and R47 bands. We have assumed a plane-parallel absorption model. For typical deep ROSAT surveys, there is a factor of $`2.5`$ greater number of sources at $`b=30\mathrm{°}`$ than at $`b=90\mathrm{°}`$ in band R47. The increase in number counts for band R12 is less severe due to absorption. As can be seen from the Figure, at $`b=30\mathrm{°}`$ the effect of the Galactic radial density gradient is negligible.

## 5 Results

Figure 7 shows the luminosity functions in PSPC bands R12 (dotted) and R47 (solid) for main-sequence stars, white dwarfs333 The white dwarf luminosity function for single white dwarfs is shown to demonstrate its inconsequentiality. It was calculated using the data of Fleming et al. (1996) with the assumption that the intrinsic X-ray luminosity of white dwarfs extends down to at least $`\mathrm{log}L_X=27.5`$, and the extragalactic luminosity function derived by Hasinger et al. (1998). For band R47, above the RASS detection limits, stellar sources account for one third to one half of point sources, in agreement with studies such as those listed in Table 4, while for band R12, the fraction depends upon the total absorbing column.

Figure 8 shows the contribution to the RASS of unresolved stellar sources as a function of Galactic latitude. Table 5 shows the model prediction for the contribution of the unresolved Galactic stars to the diffuse X-ray background at the north Galactic pole for $`N_H=2.1\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2. The conversion of count rates to energy use the spectral shape of the unresolved flux and the energy ranges listed in the table. At the RASS point source detection limit in band R45 the unresolved flux has R12:R45:R67 =1.51:1:1.09, and those ratios are similar for the unresolved flux at the RASS point source detection limits in the other bands. The unresolved flux in the R47 band (0.44-2.04 keV) is $`3.64(3.51)\times 10^{13}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 deg-2 at the RASS band R45(R67) point source detection limit.

In bands R12, R45, and R67, the unresolved stellar sources can account for, at most, 2%, 10% and 51% of the flux that is thought not to be due to the Local Hot Bubble or the unresolved extragalactic point sources (essentially the component that Kuntz & Snowden (2000) attribute to the Galactic halo, but which can be distributed between the Galactic halo and diffuse extragalactic emission). The variation of the contribution from unresolved stellar sources with Galactic latitude would be unnoticeable in the RASS given the uncertainty in the RASS and, more importantly, the variable effects of Galactic absorption.

The deep band R47 surveys discussed in §3.2 suggest that the predicted unresolved flux for surveys at high Galactic latitudes with limits $`\mathrm{log}S(R47)<2.5`$ is correct. At higher fluxes the comparison of the model with observations is more equivocal, but the high Galactic latitude source counts in band R47 do seem to be correct, (at least for $`S0.3`$ counts s-1) and thus the unresolved flux should be correct. Due to the uncertainties introduced by the younger stars, the model is not adequate at lower Galactic latitudes ($`|b|<30\mathrm{°}`$), particularly for the high flux source counts as these are dominated by younger stars. It should also be noted that both the younger stars and the Galactic absorption will be distributed in a much more clumpy manner than used by this model, so a great deal of field to field variation is to be expected.

We would like to thank T. Fleming for several useful discussions about stellar X-ray emission, and for his patience as a referee, J.H.M.M. Schmitt for a discussion of the $`\mathrm{log}L_x`$-$`HR`$ relations, P. Guillout for guidance on the stellar distribution, and S. Drake for discussions about selection effects in the data from which we constructed our empirical model of the stellar X-ray emission.


text:
# Some geometrical aspects of Microcanonical Distribution.

## I Introduction

In the last years we have been witnesses of the development of a new extension of the Statistical Mechanics for non extensive systems: the Microcanonical Thermostatistic of D.H.E. Gross$`\left[1\right]`$. This theory do not invoke the thermodynamical limit, and in this way, it permits to extend the Thermodynamics for the study of the small systems. For this, it appeals to the definition of entropy given by Boltzmann as function of the conserved extensive variables. The topology of the curvature of entropy is arising as an order parameter showing all the possible varieties for the phase transitions. The same is essentially a geometrical formulation, characteristic that makes it very elegant and transparent.

In the present work is presented some considerations for a possible generalization for this theory: the Multimicrocanonical Distribution. The same is motivated during the study of the self-confined small systems, for which the macroscopic state should be necessarily described by several integrals of movement. This is the case of the nuclear systems, the atomic, molecular clusters and the selfgravitating astrophysical systems$`[2,3]`$.

Let $`(I,N,a)`$ the representation of the macroscopic state of the system, where $`I\{I^1,I^2\mathrm{}I^n\}`$ are the set of integrals of movement of the distribution, $`N`$ the particle number and $`a`$ represents an external parameter. Fallowing the general ideas of the Microcanonical Thermostatistic, the probability phase density is given by:

$$\omega _M(X;I,N,a)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)}\delta \left(II_N(X;a)\right)$$
(1)
generalizing the ordinary microcanonical distribution, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the state density. The choice of equal-probability hypothesis allows to take a totally geometrical version for the statistic mechanics without the introduction of artificial elements in the theory.

Similarly, we assumed the Boltzmann’s definition of entropy:

$$S_B(I,N,a)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)\delta I\right)$$
(2)
where $`\delta I`$ is a suitable elemental volume. The Boltzmann definition of entropy does not require to satisfy the concavity and extensity conditions that ordinary exhibits the information entropy. How we can see, this definition is essentially geometrical and transparent in its sense.

Easily we can show the following result:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_B(I,N,a)}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{_I}\stackrel{}{F_a}(I,N,a)+\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{F_a}(I,N,a)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)}}\stackrel{}{_I}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)\stackrel{}{F_a}(I,N,a)\right)`$ (4)
where $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=\stackrel{}{_I}S_B`$ is the canonical parameter and $`\stackrel{}{F_a}=\stackrel{}{\frac{I(X;a)}{a}}_{M\text{ }}`$ , the generalized force.

The similar ordinary expression is:

$$\frac{S_B(E,N,a)}{a}=\beta f_a(E,N,a)$$
(5)
where $`\beta =\frac{S_B(E,N,a)}{E}=\frac{1}{T}`$ the inverse of temperature and $`f_a=\stackrel{}{\frac{H(X;a)}{a}}_\text{ }`$the generalized force.

In order to probe the above result, let us to introduce the Generating Functional of the Multimicrocanonical Distribution, $`G(k;I,N,a,)`$:

$$G(k;I,N,a,)=dX\mathrm{exp}\left(ikX\right)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)}\delta (II_N(X;a))$$
(6)
The quantities mean values comes give by:

$`O(I,N,a)=O\left(\widehat{p}\right)G(k;I,N,a,)|_{k=0}`$

where $`\widehat{p}=i\frac{}{k}`$ . It is easy to show that this functional is the solution of the operational equation:

$$I^s(\widehat{p};a)G(k;I,N,a,)=I^sG(k;I,N,a,)$$
(7)
$`G(k;I,N,a,)|_{k=0}=1`$

This functional satisfy the relation:

$$\frac{}{a}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)G(k;I,N,a,)\right]=F_a(\widehat{p};a)_I\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)G(k;I,N,a,)\right]$$
(8)
where $`F_a(X;a)=\frac{}{a}I(X;a)`$ is the generalized force. Let us probe this relation.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)G(k;I,N,a,)\right]={\displaystyle }dX\mathrm{exp}\left(ikX\right)[{\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}I(X;a)]_I\delta (II_N(X;a))`$

Introducing the operator $`F_a(\widehat{p};a)`$ and extracting all the operators outside the integral:

$`F_a(\widehat{p};a)_I\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑X\mathrm{exp}\left(ikX\right)\delta \left(II_N(X;a)\right)}\right]`$

we arrive to the final result:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }G\right]=\widehat{F}_a_I\left[\mathrm{\Omega }G\right]`$

From this relation is derived the Generalized Gibb Identities. Acting on this relationship the operator of any physical magnitude, $`O\left(\widehat{p}\right),`$ we find:

$$\frac{}{a}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{O}\right]=_I\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{OF_a}\right]$$
(9)
In particular, if $`O=1:`$

$$\frac{}{a}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\right]=_I\left[\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{F_a}\right]$$
(10)
Therefore:

$$\frac{}{a}\left[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }\right]=_I\overline{F_a}+_I\left[\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }\right]\overline{F_a}$$
(11)
As we can see, here it appears the term of the divergence of the force. If we assume the Boltzmann definition of entropy given in Eq. (2), considering $`\delta I`$ constant, we arrived finally to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}S_B=_I\overline{F_a}+_IS_B\overline{F_a}`$

We can see that the generalized force and a $`\beta `$-canonical parameter become now in vectors. The presence of the divergency of the force is an effect of the non-extensive nature of the system. Ordinarily this term vanishes in the thermodynamical limit:

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{F_a}}{\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{F_a}}\frac{1}{N}0$$
(12)
but, we can not ignore it here.

As we can see before, in this formulation appears the concepts of scalar product and divergency of vectors belonging the geometrical approach. It motived to develop a geometrical formalism for to work with this distribution.

## II Geometrical Aspects

The geometrical aspects of the theory are summed up by the fallowing facts:

* Any function of the movement integrals is itself a movement integral. If we have a complete independent set of functions of the movement integral of the distribution, then this set of functions is equivalent to the other set of movement integrals, representing the same macroscopic state of the system. That is why it is more exactly to speak about the abstract Space of movement integrals of the multimicrocanonical distribution, $`\mathrm{}_N`$. Therefore, every physical quantity or behavior has to be equally sketched by any representation of the space of macroscopic state, $`(\mathrm{}_N;a)`$ .
* It is easy to show that the multimicrocanonical distribution is a reparametrization invariant. Let $`\mathrm{}_I`$ and $`\mathrm{}_\varphi `$ $`\left(I\{I^1,I^2\mathrm{}I^n\}\text{}\varphi \{\varphi ^1\left(I\right),\varphi ^2\left(I\right)\mathrm{}\varphi ^n\left(I\right)\}\right)`$ two representations of $`\mathrm{}_N`$. By the property of the $`\delta `$-function we have:

$$\delta \left[\varphi \left(I\right)\varphi \left(I_N(X;a)\right)\right]=\left|\frac{\varphi }{I}\right|^1\delta \left[II_N(X;a)\right]$$
(13)
hence:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\varphi ,N,a)=\left|\frac{\varphi }{I}\right|^1\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)$$
(14)
and therefore:

$$\omega _M(X;\varphi ,N,a)=\omega _M(X;I,N,a)\omega _M(X;\mathrm{}_N,a)$$
(15)
* The state density allows to define the invariant measure of the space :

$$d\mu =\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)d^nI$$
(16)
although this is the most important measure for the space, this is not the only one, because there are others like them derived from Poincare invariants, when we project the N-body phase-space to the space $`\mathrm{}_N`$.
* The movement integrals are defined by the commutativity relation with the Hamiltonian of the system. In the case of closed systems, the Hamiltonian is the energy of the system, and this is a conserved quantity. In the multimicrocanonical distribution it represents one of the coordinate of the point belonging to $`\mathrm{}_N`$, in an specific representation. When we change the coordinate system, the energy lose its identity. Since we can not fix the commutativity of the energy with the others integrals, it would be more correct that all movement integrals commute between them in order to preserve these conditions. Thus, we make consistently the reparametrization invariance with the commutativity relations. As we see, still from the classical point of view, the reparametrization invariance suggests that the set of movement integrals have to be simultaneously measured. In the quantum case, this is an indispensable request for the correct definition of the statistical distribution. This property is landed to the classical distribution by the correspondent principle between the Quantum and the Classic Physic.

This reparametrization freedom is very attractive, since we can choose the representation of the macroscopic state space more adequate to describe the statistical system. There are many examples in which an adequate selection of coordinate system helps to simplify the resolution of one problem.

Let us move now to the Boltzmann’s definition of entropy. Obviously it has to be an scalar function. Its value can not depends on the coordinate system that we use to describe the macroscopic state. It is our interest that this function characterizes the macroscopic state of the system, it have to allows us to get information about the ordering of it. In this case, $`\delta I`$ can not be arbitrary. It has to be a characteristic of the representation of the space $`\mathrm{}_N.`$

The physical meaning of the state density lead that this function have to be positive, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)0`$ . If the point $`I`$ is not a permissible value for the integrals of distribution, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)=0`$ . But, when we perform the calculations we have to smooth the $`\delta `$-function. It provokes that the state density may be analytically continued and therefore vanishes or is negative in that point. The points on the boundary of accessible region satisfy the condition:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)=0$$
(17)
When we change the coordinate system, these points remain satisfying the same condition:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\varphi ,N,a)=\left|\frac{\varphi }{I}\right|^1\mathrm{\Omega }(I,N,a)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\varphi ,N,a)=0$$
(18)
so, we can write before as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{}_N,a)=0$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{}_N`$ are the boundaries of accessible regions.

The existence and topology of these regions do not depend on the representation of the space. We are interested in describing this kind of geometrical and topological characteristics because all of them represent general features of the behavior of the system.