text:
# Quark model predictions for 𝐾^∗ photoproduction on the proton

## I  Introduction

The availability of high-intensity photon and electron facilities at JLAB, ELSA, ERSF and SPring-8 has revived both experimental and theoretical interest in searching for “missing resonances”  in meson photo- and electroproduction processes. Baryon resonances excited by electromagnetic probes can be investigated through their various meson-nucleon and meson-hyperon decay channels. The exclusive study of meson photo- or electroproduction provides insights into the internal structures of the intermediate states. For $`K^{}`$ photoproduction JLAB and ELSA have recently taken the first ever exclusive measurements in the resonance region.

The photoproduction of $`K^{}`$ vector mesons intersects on the one hand with other strangeness production reactions, such as $`\gamma pK\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\gamma pK\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and on the other hand with the field of non-strange vector meson production. Much work has been done in recent years on the former reactions . At quark level, both $`(\gamma ,K)`$ and $`(\gamma ,K^{})`$ contain clear information about the production of an $`s\overline{s}`$ pair from the vacuum. At the hadronic level these reactions are related to each other since one reaction contains the meson produced in the other one as the t-channel exchanged particle, thus constraining the range of available couplings. With regard to the field of non-strange vector meson photoproduction, only recently have there been theoretical efforts devoted to the processes $`\gamma N\rho N`$ and $`\gamma N\omega N`$ in the resonance region . Sharing the same observables, the $`(\gamma ,K^{})`$ process can benefit from work on the structure of and the relationship between helicity amplitudes, vector meson multipoles and polarization observables . In contrast to the $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$, $`\gamma p\omega p`$ and $`\gamma p\varphi p`$ reactions, the t-channel Pomeron exchange is not possible for the $`\gamma pK^{}Y`$ process, where $`Y`$ denotes the hyperon. In this respect it shares similar features with charged $`\rho `$ photoproduction, thus simplifying the study of intermediate resonance excitation.

The reason we choose a quark model approach is to avoid the uncertainties arising from a lack of knowledge about the $`K^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }N^{}`$ couplings. A recent study of $`N^{}K^{}Y`$ by Capstick and Roberts , using a quark-pair-creation model, suggests that most $`K^{}Y`$ decay branching ratios are small due to the high threshold for these channels. Only a few low-lying negative-parity states were predicted to be strongly coupled to the $`K^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channels, including $`N[\frac{1}{2}^{}]_5(2070)`$ (established in pion production), $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\frac{3}{2}^{}]_3(2145)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\frac{1}{2}^{}]_3(2140)`$. Note that only those resonances above the decay threshold can be predicted by Ref. , the vector meson production could be the place where those below-threshold-resonance couplings to $`K^{}Y`$ can be investigated. In our model, apart from the commonly-used quark model parameters, there are only two free parameters relating to the $`K^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }N^{()}`$ couplings that appear in the quark model symmetry limit. These are the vector and tensor couplings for the quark-$`K^{}`$ interaction. Meanwhile, the SU(3)-flavor-blind assumption is made in this model and suggests that these parameters should have values close to those used in the $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ meson photoproductions. In this study, we shall adopt the most recently extracted information from the $`\omega `$ meson photoproduction as an input.

In this work, we present quark model predictions for the $`K^0`$ and $`K^+`$ photoproductions: $`\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$. It is the first theoretical attempt to study nucleon resonance excitations in these two channels. Low-lying resonances within the $`n2`$ harmonic oscillator shells will be included explicitly in the formalism, while higher-mass resonances with $`n>2`$, for which there is little information, are treated as being degenerate by summing over all states for the same $`n`$, which are taken to have the same mass and width . As listed in the Particle Data Group , baryon resonances above 2 GeV generally have widths around 300-400 MeV, and large mass-overlaps make this approximation a reasonable one. Taking such a scheme, we will concentrate in this paper on the following points: (i) the magnitude of the differential and total cross sections predicted by such a model, (ii) the differences between neutral and charged $`K^{}`$ photoproduction and (iii) the effects of a t-channel kaon exchange in analogy with our study of the non-strange $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ meson photoproductions . These results will be tested by forthcoming data from JLAB and ELSA in the near future.

This paper is arranged as follows. In Section II, the $`K^{}`$ photoproduction formalism with an effective Lagrangian is introduced. Section III presents the kaon exchange contributions for both reactions. Numerical results and discussions are given in Section IV.

## II $`K^{}`$ photoproduction at tree level

The $`K^{}`$ meson photoproduction involves the creation of $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks in the SU(3) quark model. With the effective Lagrangian of Refs.  adopted for the $`K^{}`$-$`qq`$ vertex, the $`s`$ quark will couple to the meson in the same way as the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, apart from its different mass ($`m_s=500`$ MeV, $`m_u=m_d=330`$ MeV). That is to say, the SU(3)-flavor-blind assumption of non-perturbative QCD is adopted in our model.

Following the convention of Ref. , the transition amplitude can be expressed as the sum over the t-, s\- and u-channels,

$$M_{fi}=M_{fi}^t+M_{fi}^s+M_{fi}^u,$$
(1)
where the resonance excitations enter the s\- and u-channels explicitly as follows,

$`M_{fi}^s+M_{fi}^u`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_f|H_m|N_jN_j|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_i+\omega _\gamma E_j}}H_{em}|N_i`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_f|H_{em}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_i\omega _mE_j}}|N_jN_j|H_m|N_i`$
$`=`$ $`iN_f|[g_e,H_m]|N_i`$ (7)
$`+i\omega _\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_f|H_m|N_jN_j|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_i+\omega _\gamma E_j}}h_e|N_i`$
$`+i\omega _\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}N_f|h_e{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_i\omega _mE_j}}|N_jN_j|H_m|N_i,`$
with the quark-meson coupling,

$$H_m=\overline{\psi }_l(a\gamma _\mu +\frac{ib}{2m_q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu )V^\mu \psi _l$$
(8)
and the quark-photon electromagnetic interaction,

$$H_{em}=\overline{\psi }_l\gamma _\mu e_lA^\mu \psi _l$$
(9)
where $`\psi _l`$ ($`\overline{\psi }_l`$) is the quark (anti-quark) field, and $`V^\mu `$ is the vector meson field; $`e_l`$ is the charge operator for the $`l`$th quark; $`\omega _\gamma `$ and $`\omega _m`$ denote the energy of the incoming photon and outgoing meson in the c.m. system, respectively, while $`E_i`$ and $`E_j`$ are the energy of the initial state proton and intermediate baryons (or hyperons). The summation should run over all the intermediate states $`|N_j`$, which can be explicitly described by the symmetric quark model wavefunctions.

In the second equivalence of Eq. (2), a standard transformation has been used (see Eqs. (14)-(19) in Ref.  for explicit deduction), where the electromagnetic interaction is transformed into, $`g_e_le_l𝐫_l\mathit{ϵ}\text{ }e^{i𝐤𝐫_l}`$, and $`h_e_le_l𝐫_l\mathit{ϵ}\text{ }(1𝜶\text{ }𝐤/\omega _\gamma )e^{i𝐤𝐫_l}`$. Thus, we re-define the second and third term as the s\- and u-channel transition, respectively, while the first term is identified as a “seagull” term. In Ref. , it was shown that the seagull term accompanied by the t-channel transition amplitude was essential for recovering gauge invariance for the theory.

An interesting feature arising from the effective Lagrangian is that the t-channel vector meson exchange $`M_{fi}^t`$ and the seagull term are proportional to the charge of the outgoing $`K^{}`$ meson. Thus, they will vanish in the neutral vector meson production but play a role as background in the charged meson production. Meanwhile, the diffractive process is absent in the $`K^{}`$ photoproduction due to the strangeness production. These two features together make the neutral $`K^0`$ production an opportunity to study the s\- and u-channel contributions in the absence of those nonresonant processes.

The two parameters, $`a`$ and $`b`$ in Eq. (8), represent the vector and tensor couplings at the quark-meson interaction vertex, and are the basic parameters in this model. At present, no experimental data for $`K^{}`$ photoproduction can be used to constrain them. As mentioned above, the SU(3)-flavor-blind approach suggests that apart from the different quark mass, the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ should have the same magnitudes as those derived in the photoproduction of the non-strange $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ mesons. Therefore, we shall adopt the parameters used in the $`\omega `$ meson photoproduction  as a first test.

## III  Kaon exchange terms

Our study of $`\omega `$ and $`\rho ^0`$ meson photoproduction showed that the s\- and u-channel contributions from the effective Lagrangian are not sufficient to describe the corresponding vector meson photoproduction reactions. Apart from diffractive Pomeron exchange in neutral vector meson production , scalar or pseudoscalar meson exchange terms are needed to reproduce the small angle forward-peaking behavior. For example, in $`\gamma p\omega p`$, the $`\pi ^0`$ exchange dominates at small angles and accounts for large fractions of the cross section from threshold up to around 2.2 GeV. With the pion exchange as the main unnatural-parity exchange process, it plays an important role in parity asymmetry observables. Similarly, in the reaction $`\gamma p\rho ^0p`$, a t-channel $`\sigma `$ meson exchange must be introduced as well.

On the other hand, studies of kaon photoproduction with isobaric models  showed that $`K^{}`$ exchange terms were needed to reproduce forward peaking at higher energies. A chiral quark model study  arrived at similar conclusions. Recent data from SAPHIR  for $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ clearly showed a forward-peaking in both of these channels as well. This set of data provides interesting information to compare with the $`K^{}`$ photoproduction, where kaon exchange might play a similar role, since the $`K^{}K\gamma `$ vertices are the same in both processes.

Taking into account the above features in $`K`$ photoproduction on the one hand and $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ photoproduction on the other, it is reasonable to assume that a t-channel leading-order light meson exchange is needed for the $`K^{}`$ meson photoproduction as well. This kind of information, even if only based on phenomenological considerations, may help in shedding more light on the hadron duality hypothesis .

The kaon exchange is introduced in with a pseudoscalar coupling for the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ vertex, which has the same form as a pseudovector coupling at tree level,

$$_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}=ig_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\gamma _5\psi _p\varphi _K,$$
(10)
where $`g_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ is the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ coupling constant; $`\psi _p`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the initial state proton and final state $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryon, respectively; $`\varphi _K`$ denotes the kaon. The $`K^{}K\gamma `$ vertex is,

$$_{K^{}K\gamma }=e\frac{g_{K^{}K\gamma }}{M_K^{}}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha A^\beta ^\gamma V^\delta \varphi _K,$$
(11)
where $`A^\beta `$ and $`V^\delta `$ are the photon and vector meson fields; $`g_{K^{}K\gamma }`$ is the coupling constant; $`M_K^{}`$ denotes the $`K^{}`$ mass.

We determine the $`K^{}K\gamma `$ coupling from $`K^{}`$ radiative decay, $`K^{}K+\gamma `$. Adopting the partial decay width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(K^0K^0+\gamma )}=116`$ keV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(K^+K^++\gamma )}=50`$ keV , we obtain $`g_{K^0K^0\gamma }=1.134`$ and $`g_{K^+K^+\gamma }=0.744`$, respectively for the neutral and charged decay channels. A quark model constraint is adopted for the relative sign between these two couplings, i.e. a sign difference exists. For the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ coupling, there is more uncertainty over the value that should be used. The most recent studies  suggest that $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}/\sqrt{4\pi }=1.2`$ can be regarded as a reasonable value. ***It was also found in Ref.  that a free-parameter-fitting of data gave $`g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}/\sqrt{4\pi }=0.37`$, which would produce negligible effects in this calculation.  Isospin symmetry is taken into account and gives the following relation,

$$\frac{g_{K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p}}{g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}}=\frac{g_A(\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)}{g_A(\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)}=\sqrt{2},$$
(12)
where the $`g_A`$ is the axial vector coupling constant in pseudoscalar meson photoproduction. The ratio of the two values of $`g_A`$ is derived in the SU(3) quark model.

From Eqs. (10) and (11), the t-channel kaon exchange amplitudes can be written as,

$`M_T^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}g_{K^{}K\gamma }}{2M_K^{}(tm_K^2)}}e^{(𝐪𝐤)^2/6\alpha _k^2}`$ (14)
$`\times \{\omega _\gamma \mathit{ϵ}\text{ }_\gamma (𝐪\times \mathit{ϵ}\text{ }_v)+\omega _m𝐤(\mathit{ϵ}\text{ }_\gamma \times \mathit{ϵ}\text{ }_v)\}𝝈\text{ }𝐀,`$
for the transverse transition, and

$`M_L^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{eg_{K\mathrm{\Sigma }N}g_{K^{}K\gamma }}{2M_K^{}(tm_K^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_K^{}}{|𝐪|}}e^{(𝐪𝐤)^2/6\alpha _k^2}`$ (16)
$`\times (\mathit{ϵ}\text{ }_\gamma \times 𝐤)𝐪𝝈\text{ }𝐀,`$
for the longitudinal transition, where $`𝐀=𝐪/(E_f+M_\mathrm{\Sigma })𝐤/(E_i+M_N)`$ and $`t=(qk)^2`$. The factor $`e^{(𝐪𝐤)^2/6\alpha _k^2}`$ comes from the spatial integral over the initial state nucleon and final state $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryon, and plays the role of a form factor for the t-channel kaon exchange. The parameter, $`\alpha _k`$, in the harmonic oscillator potential is treated as a free parameter such that it will partly take into account the form factor at the $`K^{}K\gamma `$ vertex. Here we fix $`\alpha _k=290`$ MeV, which is the same as used in $`\omega `$ meson photoproduction .

## IV Results and Discussions

We adopt the following values for the two basic parameters in the quark-meson coupling vertex, $`a=2.8`$ and $`b=5.9`$, derived from $`\omega `$ meson photoproduction  using preliminary polarized beam asymmetry data from GRAAL .

Fig. 1 shows the differential cross sections for $`\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ (left column) and $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ (right column) for four energies, $`E_\gamma =1.88`$, 2.10, 2.40 and 2.60 GeV. The solid curves denote the results without the t-channel kaon exchange.

For the $`K^0`$ production, due to the absence of the seagull term and $`K^0`$ exchange, the solid curves represent contributions from s\- and u-channel processes, and thus reflect the magnitudes of resonance excitations. For the $`K^+`$ production, although the near-threshold cross section is compatible with the $`K^0`$ production, strong forward peaking is found above threshold. The change of story is due to the dominant contribution from the seagull term as well as the t-channel $`K^+`$ exchange, which shifts the peaks even much forward. The flattened angular distributions in both reactions are produced by the large mass widths for higher mass resonances, which generally belong to $`n>2`$ harmonic oscillator shells, and are treated as degenerate for each $`n`$ since little is known about them. The off-shell low-lying resonances contribute only through their wave function tails, far from their mass positions. Near threshold, the cross section for the $`K^0`$ production slightly increases at large angles which is found to come from the u-channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ transitions.

Compared to the seagull term and nucleon pole terms, the resonance contributions belong to higher orders, and generally have flattened distributions. Because of this, the dominance of the seagull term and t-channel $`K^+`$ exchange will put a strong constraint on the parameters when experimental data are available.

Calculations including the t-channel kaon exchanges are represented by the dashed curves in Fig. 1. Comparing these two reactions, it is clear that the near-threshold region is not sensitive to the possible kaon exchange. However, above threshold, strong forward-peaking is produced by $`K^0`$ exchange for the $`K^0`$ production, while only a small enhancement occurs at forward angles for the $`K^+`$ due to the $`K^+`$ exchange. An interesting feature of the kaon exchanges in this two reactions is that the $`K^+`$ exchange is relatively suppressed in comparison with the $`K^0`$ exchange. It can be seen by the couplings. Namely, $`g_{K^0K^0\gamma }=1.525g_{K^+K^+\gamma }`$, due to the larger radiative decay width for $`K^0`$; and $`g_{K^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p}=\sqrt{2}g_{K^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0p}`$ given by the SU(3) flavor symmetry. This feature is very similar to the charged $`\rho `$ meson production, where the $`\pi ^\pm `$ exchanges were found to be negligible.

Total cross sections for these two reactions are shown in Fig. 2. The dotted and solid curves denote the predictions with and without the t-channel $`K^+`$ exchange for $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, while the dot-dashed and dashed curves denote with and without the t-channel $`K^0`$ exchange for $`\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$. Again we find that cross sections for $`K^0`$ photoproduction are much lower than for $`K^+`$ production. The effects of t-channel kaon exchange are significant for $`K^0`$ photoproduction, but rather small for $`K^+`$ production.

Next we study the influence of t-channel kaon exchange on the beam polarization asymmetries. These unnatural parity exchanges and their interferences with the s\- and u-channel transitions are expected to be particularly important at forward angles. Following the convention of Ref. , the beam polarization asymmetry can be expressed, in terms of the density matrix elements $`\rho _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^\alpha `$ of the vector meson decay, as

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_A\frac{\rho _{11}^1+\rho _{11}^1}{\rho _{11}^0+\rho _{11}^0}=\frac{\sigma _{}\sigma _{}}{\sigma _{}+\sigma _{}},$$
(17)
where $`\sigma _{}`$ represents the cross section of the vector meson decay with the decay particles in the photon polarization plane, while $`\sigma _{}`$ represents the cross section with the decay plane perpendicular to it. In Fig. 3, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_A`$ is calculated at two energies, $`E_\gamma =1.88`$ and 2.10 GeV. Comparing the solid and dashed curves, one can see that this observable is very sensitive to the kaon exchanges, whose exclusive contribution would result in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_A=1`$. For $`K^+`$ production, small contributions from the $`K^+`$ exchange produce significant effects at forward angles that shift the asymmetries to smaller values. For $`K^0`$ production, the effect is relatively strong and changes the sign of the asymmetry at $`E_\gamma =1.88`$ GeV. Thus, with increasing energy, the large angle region will be dominated by the transitions from the effective Lagrangian, while the forward angle asymmetries are determined by the $`K^0`$ exchange.

In summary, this paper presents the first $`K^{}`$ meson photoproduction calculations for both isospin channels, $`\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$, using a quark model with effective Lagrangian. Overall, the predicted cross sections are much smaller by at least an order of magnitude compared to either $`K`$ or $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ photoproduction. Adopting quark-meson vector and tensor couplings, $`a=2.8`$ and $`b=5.9`$, we find that $`K^+`$ production is significantly larger than $`K^0`$ production due to the presence of the seagull term and the t-channel $`K^+`$ exchange contribution. The effects of pseudoscalar kaon exchange are studied in both reactions. We find that using a standard value for the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ coupling will produce clear forward-peaking behavior in $`\gamma pK^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, while only small enhancements are found in $`\gamma pK^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$. This sensitivity of $`K^0`$ production to t-channel $`K^0`$ exchange might provide an additional constraint on the $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ coupling, a valuable “by-product” from the measurement of $`K^{}`$ photoproduction. We note that at present the sign between the kaon exchange terms and the s\- and u-channel $`K^{}`$ production terms is unknown, due to our lack of knowledge of the $`K^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ couplings. Spin observables, rather than the differential cross section, would be more sensitive to this interference.

Also we note that this sensitivity is almost independent on the degenerate approximation for the $`n>2`$ states since their contributions are generally small. Although the quark-$`K^{}`$-meson couplings are compatible with the non-strange-quark-meson couplings, suppressions of higher partial resonances from the quark model form factors and large mass overlapping effects result in small cross sections for the $`n>2`$ terms. Meanwhile, since the forward-peaking t-channel dominates at small angles, while the s\- and u-channels (excluding the seagull term) generally have flattened behavior and dominate at large angles, the degenerate approximation turns out to be reasonable. At this stage. the calculations presented here should be regarded as a first step that provides a description of collective resonance excitations, rather than showing effects arising from individual resonances. With regard to our original motivation of searching for “missing resonances”, future work needs to include the high-lying states individually in order to assess their importance in these reactions. Also, a study of the SU(6)$``$O(3) symmetry violation would be necessary.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank Z.-P. Li for valuable comments on this work.


format: text

text:
# Ramification in 𝐶-extensions of local fields of characteristic 0

## 0. Ramification and arithmetically profinite extensions.

We recall some basic notion of ramification theory, for finite extensions see \[Ser\], and for infinite extensions see \[FV\]. For a general introduction to APF extensions see \[DuFe\].

Let $`L/K`$ be a totally ramified finite Galois $`p`$-extension of local fields with finite residue field and with Galois group $`G`$. Let

$$i_G(\sigma )=v_L(\frac{\sigma \pi _L}{\pi _L}1);$$

where $`\pi _L`$ is a uniformiser of $`L`$ and $`\sigma `$ an element in $`G`$. The ramification filtration in the lower numbering of $`G`$ is defined by (see \[Ser1, Chap. VI\])

$$G_i=\{\sigma G;i_G(\sigma )i+1\}.$$

This filtration does not behave well with quotients. To define ramification for infinite extensions, there is another filtration defined via the Herbrand function $`h_{L/K}`$ whose explicit formulation in the case of totally ramified $`p`$-extensions is as follow :

$$h_{L/K}(x)=\{\begin{array}{c}x\text{ if }xi\\ (p1)i+px\text{ otherwise}\end{array}\text{ if }[L:K]=p;$$

and for a general finite extension the function is obtained with the equality :

$$h_{L/K}=h_{L/M}h_{M/K}$$

where $`M/K`$ is a subextension of $`L/K`$. Let consider a group $`G`$ of wild automorphisms of a local field of characteristic $`p`$ with finite residue field, we can define the ramification filtration in a similar way, we write $`h_G`$ for the Herbrand function.

Then the ramification filtration in the upper numbering is given by

$$G^u=G_{h_{L/K}(u)}.$$

Let $`H`$ be a normal subgroup of $`G`$, then

$$(G/H)^u=G^u.H/H.$$

Now we can define the upper ramification filtration for infinite p-extensions :

Let $`L/K`$ be an infinite Galois extension such that $`L=_iK_i`$, then

$$G=Gal(L/K)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}Gal(K_i/K)$$

and

$$G^u=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}Gal(K_i/K)^u.$$

###### Definition 0.1

The totally ramified extension $`L/K`$ is arithmetically profinite (APF) if for all $`x0`$, the normal subgroup $`G^x`$ is non trivial and open in $`G`$

If the extension $`L/K`$ is APF, then we can again define the Herbrand function :

$$h_{L/K}(x)=\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}h_{K_i/K}(x),$$

and the ramification filtration of $`G`$ in the lower numbering is well defined.

Fontaine and Wintenberger have defined the field of norms $`N(L/K)`$ for an APF extension $`L/K`$ (\[FW\]) :

$$N(L/K)^\times =\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}K_i^\times ;N(L/K)=N(L/K)^\times \{0\}$$

where $`\{K_i\}`$ is an ordered family of finite subextensions of $`L/K`$ such that $`L=K_i`$ and the connecting maps are the norm. If $`L/K`$ is APF, then the valuation defined in \[W2, 2.1.2.\], addition defined in \[W2, 2.1.3.\] and the natural multiplication give to $`N(L/K)`$ a structure of local field of characteristic $`p`$ with residue field isomorphic to the the one of $`K`$ and we have the following result on the action of $`G`$ on $`N(L/K)`$ and the ramification (\[W2, 3.3.4.\]) :

###### Proposition 0.2

$`G`$ acts faithfully on N(L/K) and can be identified to a closed subgroup of $`Aut(N(L/K))`$. Moreover the ramification filtration of $`G`$ can be read in its image in $`Aut(N(L/K))`$, i.e. if $`N_{L/K}(\sigma )`$ is the image of an element $`\sigma G`$ in $`Aut(N(L/K))`$, then

$$G_i=\{\sigma G;i_{N(L/K)}(N_{L/K}(\sigma ))i\}.$$

The following notations will be used in the sequel :

\- The ramification break $`i`$ of a finite $`p`$-extension or an APF $`p`$-extension with Galois group $`G`$, or a group of automorphism $`G`$ of a local field of characteristic $`p`$ is defined by

$$i=sup\{x>0,G=G_x\}.$$

\- The upper ramification break of $`G`$ is $`u(G)=h_{L/K}^1(i(G))`$.

## 1. Definitions and basic properties

A pro-$`p`$-extension $`L/K`$ can be defined as a tower of extensions $`K_n/K`$ such that $`[K_n:K_{n1}]=p`$. If the extension $`L/K`$ is Galois they correspond to a central series of the Galois group. In order to construct explicitly a pro-$`p`$-extension with a given Galois group it is convenient to describe the Galois group in term of generators for the quotients of two consecutive terms in a central series.

Let recall how a $`p`$-group can be presented by powers and commutators (see \[Jo, 13.2\]).

Let $`G`$ be a $`p`$-group of order $`p^n`$ and take a central series

$$G=G_0G_1\mathrm{}G_n=1$$

such that $`|G_i/G_{i1}|=p`$. Take $`a_i`$ a non trivial element of $`G_{i1}G_i`$ for all $`1in`$. There is a power-commutator presentation of $`G`$ :

$$G=<a_1,\mathrm{},a_n|P,C>$$

where the relations are :

$$P:a_j^p=\underset{k=j+1}{\overset{n}{}}a_k^{\alpha (j,k)},1jn,1\alpha (j,k)p;$$

$$C:[a_j,a_i]=\underset{k=j+1}{\overset{n}{}}a_k^{\beta (1,j,k)},1i<jn,1\beta (1,j,k)p.$$

We call the $`a_i`$’s the PC-generators (not to confuse with the group minimal set of generators).

The notion of PC-presentation can be extended to pro-$`p`$-groups by taking the inverse limit of PC-presented $`p`$-groups

###### Definition 1.1

Let $`G`$ be a pro-$`p`$-group with the PC-presentation

$$G=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_k<a_1,\mathrm{},a_k|P_k,C_k>,$$

The set $`\{a_i\}`$ of elements of $`G`$ is called a set of PC-generators.

$`C`$-extensions are defined by the nature of a PC-presentation of their Galois group.

We need to define the lower central series of a group. Let $`\gamma _1(G)=G`$ and $`\gamma _{i+1}(G)=[\gamma _i(G),G]`$. This series is strictly decreasing, i.e $`\gamma _i(G)/\gamma _{i+1}(G)`$ is trivial if and only if $`\gamma _i(G)`$ is trivial.

###### Definition 1.2

The length of an element $`a`$ in $`G`$, is the greater integer $`i`$ such that

$$a\gamma _i(G).$$

A filtration of a pro-$`p`$-group by open subgroups can be defined as follow (for a finitely generated pro-$`p`$-group) :

$$P_0(G)=G,P_1(G)=G^p[G,G],P_{i+1}(G)=P_i^p(G)[P_i(G),G].$$

It is called the lower $`p`$-series.

###### Definition 1.3

Let $`G`$ be a pro-$`p`$-group with a set of PC-generators

$$J=\{a_1,a_2\mathrm{},a_k,\mathrm{}\}.$$

A $`C`$-tower in $`G`$ is a subset noted $`(a_{n_k})`$ of $`J`$, satisfying

$$a_{n_3}=[a_{n_1},a_{n_2}],\text{ for certain }n_1\text{ and }n_2;$$

$$a_{n_4}=[a_{n_3},a_{n_2}],a_{n_{k+1}}=[a_{n_k},a_{n_{k1}}].$$

###### Definition 1.4

a. A $`C`$-group is an infinite pro-$`p`$-group $`G`$ which has a set of PC-generators $`I`$ containing a $`C`$-tower $`C`$, and if $`N`$ is the subgroup of $`G`$ PC-generated by $`IC`$, then

$$\underset{gG}{}g^1Ng=1$$

b. A $`C`$-extension is a Galois pro-$`p`$-extension whose Galois group is a $`C`$-group.

Let $`L/K`$ be a $`C`$-extension and $`G`$ its Galois group. We will note $`N(E)/K`$ the normal closure of an extension $`E/K`$ and $`M=L^N`$ will be called the extension of $`K`$ defined by the $`C`$-tower $`C`$. Also we will note $`K_i`$ the subfields of $`M/K`$ such that $`Gal(K_i/K_{i1})=<a_i>`$ (where we identify $`a_i`$ with its image in $`Gal(K_i/K_{i1})`$).

We call an extension of $`C_n`$-type an extension $`E/K`$ such that there exists a $`C`$-extension $`L/K`$ such that $`L^N=K_i`$ as above and $`E=K_n`$. If $`E`$ is an extension of $`C_n`$-type, we will note $`N(E)`$ the normal closure of the extension $`E/K`$

Remark. The existence of $`C`$-extensions will be proved in Section 2.

The purpose of the next lemma is to describe the elements in the Galois group of a $`C`$-extension which are not in the $`C`$-tower.

###### Lemma 1.5

The elements $`b_k`$ in $`Gal(N(K_k)/K_kN(K_{k1}))`$ are such that

$$a_k=[b_k,a],\text{ and }b_k<[a_{k1},a_j],2jk_2>$$

with $`a`$ an element in $`Gal(N(K_k)/K)`$ which does not belong to

$$Gal(N(K_k)/K_kN(K_{k1})).$$

###### Demonstration Proof

The assertion $`a_k=[b_k,a]`$ comes from the fact that $`K_kN(K_{k1})/K`$ is not a normal extension, therefore

$$Gal(N(K_k)/K_kN(K_{k1}))$$

is a subgroup of $`Gal(N(K_k)/K)`$ which is not normal. For all $`b_k`$ in

$$Gal(N(K_k)/K_kN(K_{k1})),$$

there is an element $`a`$ in $`Gal(N(K_k)/K))`$ with a non trivial image in

$$Gal(N(K_{k1})K_k/K)$$

such that

$$[b_k,a]Gal(N(K_k)/K_kN(K_{k1}))$$

and as $`N(K_k)/N(K_{k1})`$ is a normal extension of $`K`$, we have that

$$[b_k,a]=a_k.$$

We recall how a normal subgroup of a $`p`$-group is generated (see \[Jo\]). Let $`G`$ be a $`p`$-group and $`H`$ be a normal subgroup. Let $`I`$ be a set of representative in $`G`$ of elements in $`G/H`$ (Schreier transversal). Let $`J`$ be a set of generators of $`G`$. A generating set of $`H`$ (not necessarily minimal) is the following

$$\{tx(\overline{tx})^1,xJ,tI\}$$

where $`\overline{tx}`$ is the representative in $`I`$ of the image of $`tx`$ in $`G/H`$. The element $`a_k`$ is a generator of the normal subgroup $`H_k=Gal(N_k/N_{k1})`$, but the normal subgroup of $`H_k`$ not containing $`a_k`$ define a subextension of $`N_k/K`$ which is not normal. So there is an element $`b_{k,1}`$ such that

$$a_k=[b_{k,1},a]Gal(N_k/K)$$

with $`a`$ a lift of an element in $`Gal(N_{k1}/K)`$. If the normal subgroup of $`H_k`$ not containing $`b_{k,1}`$ define a subextension of $`N_k/K`$ which is normal then $`\{a_k,b_{k,1}\}`$ define a system of generators of the normal subgroup $`H_k`$ of $`Gal(N_k/K)`$. If not, there exists an element $`b_{k,2}`$ such that

$$b_{k,1}=[b_{k,2},a]Gal(N(K_k)/K).$$

This process is finite because $`H_k`$ is a finite group. Now we have to show that the set of generators can be taken as in the lemma : Writing explicitly the commutators we obtain the following equality, by assuming that whenever a commutator was of length greater that the length of $`a_k`$ it was trivial in $`Gal(N_{k1}K_k/K)`$ by the above :

$$a_k=[a_{k1},a_{k2}]=[a_{k1},[a_{k3},a_{k4}]]$$

$$=[a_{k1}^1,a_{k4}^1][a_{k4}^1,[a_{k1}^1,a_{k4}^1]][a_{k4},[a_{k3},a_{k1}]][a_{k1}^1,a_{k4}][[a_{k1}^1,a_{k4}],a_{k3}].$$

The elements

$$[a_{k3},a_{k1}]\text{ and }[a_{k1},a_{k4}]$$

are non trivial if and only if $`a_k`$ is non trivial. Similarly we obtain that $`[a_{k3},a_{k1}]`$ is non trivial if

$$[a_{k5},a_{k1}]\text{ and }[a_{k1},a_{k4}]$$

are non trivial. And therefore $`a_k`$ is non trivial if for all $`2ik2`$, $`[a_{k1},a_i]`$ is non trivial. ∎

###### Proposition 1.6

Let $`L/K`$ be a $`C`$-extension with Galois group $`G`$. The pro-$`p`$-group $`G`$ is just infinite, i.e. all proper closed normal subgroups of $`G`$ are open.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`H`$ be a closed normal subgroup of $`G`$. If $`H`$ contains $`a_i`$ an element in the $`C`$-tower, then all $`a_j`$, $`j>i`$ are in $`H`$. Indeed, by normality of the subgroup $`[a_i,a_{i1}]=a_{i+1}`$ is in $`H`$ and the result is obtained by induction. In Lemma 1.5, we saw that all the PC-generators of $`G`$ which are not in the $`C`$-tower are elements in the group spanned by $`\{[a_{k1},a_j],2jk_2\}`$. If almost all $`a_i`$’s are is in $`H`$, then almost all $`[a_{k1},a_j]`$ is also in $`H`$ by normality of $`H`$ and then almost all PC-generator of $`G`$ is in $`H`$. Therefore $`H`$ is an open subgroup of $`G`$.

Now assume that no element of the $`C`$-tower is in $`H`$. $`H`$ contains a PC-generator $`b`$ of $`G`$ which is not in the $`C`$-tower, such that $`a_k=[b,a]`$ for a certain integer $`k`$ and $`a`$ is an element of $`G`$. By normality of $`H`$ $`a_k`$ is in $`H`$ and as above $`H`$ is open.

The direct consequence of this result is that it will be rather simple to check if a $`C`$-extension is APF, as it is enough to check the unboundedness of the sequence of upper ramification breaks.

###### Corollary 1.7

A $`C`$-extension $`L/K`$ is APF if and only if it is deeply ramified, i.e. if the sequence of upper ramification breaks of $`L/K`$ is unbounded.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`G=Gal(L/K)`$. If $`L/K`$ is APF then it is deeply ramified. Assume that sequence of upper ramification breaks of $`L/K`$ is unbounded then every upper ramification group $`G^u`$ for $`u>0`$ is non trivial. By Prop. 1.6 all $`G^u`$ for $`u>0`$ is also open. ∎

We show that these extensions will give examples of APF extensions where the unboundness of the sequence of upper ramification breaks will not be the consequence of a $`_p`$-quotient in an open subgroup.

###### Proposition 1.8

All open subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$ contains no normal closed subgroup $`N`$ such that

$$H/N_p.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`H`$ be an open subgroup of $`G`$ and there exists an element $`a`$ which is a generator of $`H`$ and an element of infinite order (\[Ze\]). But the principle of the proof is to show that for all open subgroup $`H`$ the derived group $`[H,H]`$ is of finite index. Therefore there are no quotient of $`H`$ isomorphic to $`_p`$ which is an infinite abelian group. We show that the lower central series are equal to the lower $`p`$-series, i.e

$$i,\gamma _i(G)=P_i(G)=P_{i1}(G)^p[P_{i1}(G),G]$$

We have to show that

$$\gamma _i^p(G)[\gamma _i(G),G].$$

Let $`a`$ be an element in $`G`$ of length $`\mathrm{}`$. There is a commutator $`[b,c]`$ of length $`\mathrm{}`$ such that $`a=[b,c]a^{}`$.

$$a^p=[b,c]^pa_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}\mathrm{}$$

the $`\mathrm{}`$ stand for commutators of higher length.

$$[b,c]^p=[b^p,c][b,[b,c]]^{p1}\mathrm{}$$

as we have proved in Lemma 1.5 that there are no subgroup of any finite quotient of $`G`$ generated by an element $`a_i^p`$ such that the length of $`a_i^p`$ is the length of $`a_i`$. So either $`b^p=1`$ or we can decompose again in the same way, and after a finite number of time we obtain that the length of $`a^p`$ is strictly greater than $`\mathrm{}`$.

$`G`$ being a finitely generated pro-$`p`$-group such that $`G^p`$ is included in the derived group $`[G,G]`$, this last subgroup is of finite index in $`G`$. Let $`H`$ be an open subgroup of $`G`$, there exists an integer $`i`$ such that

$$\gamma _i(G)H.$$

Therefore

$$[\gamma _i(G),\gamma _i(G)][H,H].$$

To show that the derived group $`[H,H]`$ is of finite index in $`H`$ it is enough to show that for all $`i`$, $`[\gamma _i(G),\gamma _i(G)]`$ is of finite index in $`G`$.

There is an inclusion

$$[\gamma _i(G),\gamma _i(G)]\gamma _{2i}(G).$$

The quotient

$$\gamma _{2i}(G)/[\gamma _i(G),\gamma _i(G)]$$

contains only elements in

$$[G/\gamma _2(G),\gamma _{2i1}(G)/\gamma _{2i}(G)],[\gamma _2(G)/\gamma _3(G),\gamma _{2i2}(G)/\gamma _{2i1}(G)],\mathrm{},$$

$$[\gamma _{i1}(G)/\gamma _i(G),\gamma _{i+1}(G)/\gamma _{i+2}(G)].$$

All these groups being finite, the quotient

$$\gamma _{2i}(G)/[\gamma _i(G),\gamma _i(G)]$$

is finite. The subgroup $`\gamma _{2i}(G)`$ is of finite index in $`G`$, and so is $`[\gamma _i(G),\gamma _i(G)]`$. For every open subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$, the derived group $`[H,H]`$ contains a subgroup which is open in $`G`$ and we have proved the result. ∎

The last result of this section shows that if a $`C`$-tower is APF, this is not due to the result of Sen on $`p`$-adic Lie groups.

###### Proposition 1.9

The Galois group of a $`C`$-extension is not a $`p`$-adic analytic group.

###### Demonstration Proof

It is enough to show that there are open subgroups with an arbitrary large number of generators, i.e we show that the pro-$`p`$-group $`G`$ is not of finite rank (see \[DDMS\] Prop. 3.1 and Cor. 8.34). Consider the subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$ containing

$$a_2,a_3,\mathrm{},a_{2k1},a_{2k+1},a_{2k+2},\mathrm{}$$

ie. for $`i<2k+1`$ even, $`a_i`$ is not in the subgroup and for any $`i2k+1`$ $`a_i`$ is in the subgroup. Then the elements

$$a_2,a_3,\mathrm{},a_{2k1},a_{2k+1}$$

are topological generators of the open subgroup $`H`$. Indeed, none of this elements are in the Frattini subgroup $`\varphi (H)`$ or are equal to another one modulo an element in $`\varphi (H)`$ :

$$a_{2i+1}=[a_{2i},a_{2i1}],a_{2i}H,a_{2i1}H.$$

## 2. There exist APF $`C`$-extensions

In this section we assume that $`K`$ is a finite extension of $`_p`$ of degree at least 3. We construct a totally ramified $`C`$-extension and show that there exist $`C`$-extensions of $`K`$ which are APF.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`K`$ be a finite extension of $`_p`$ of index of ramification $`e(K)`$. For all $`n>0`$ there exists an extension of $`C_n`$-type with maximal upper ramification break satisfying

$$u_n>ne(K)v_n\text{ where }\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}v_n<\mathrm{}.$$

First we prove a lemma.

###### Lemma 2.2

i. Let $`K_1/K`$ and $`E/K_1`$ be cyclic extensions of order $`p`$ such that $`E`$ is not normal over $`K`$. Then there exists a cyclic extension $`K_2/K`$ of order $`p`$ such that $`K_2E/K`$ is a normal extension of order $`p^3`$ with Galois group having the presentation :

$$Gal(K_2E/K)=<a_1,a_2|a_1^p=a_2^p=[a_1,a_2]^p=1,[a_1,[a_1,a_2]]=[a_2,[a_1,a_2]]=1>$$

ii. Let $`K_1/K`$ be a cyclic extension of order $`p`$ and $`E/K_1`$ an extension of $`C_n`$-type. We have one of the following cases :

a. there exist a cyclic extension $`K_2/K`$ of order $`p`$ such that $`K_2E/K`$ is a normal extension of $`C_{n+2}`$-type ;

b. there exists two cyclic extensions $`K_2/K`$ and $`K_3/K`$ of order $`p`$ such that $`K_2K_3N(E)/K`$ is a normal extension and if we note $`b`$ and $`c`$ a lift of the generators $`Gal(K_2/K)`$ and $`Gal(K_3/K)`$ in

$$Gal(K_2K_3N(E)/K)$$

then we have the relations in $`Gal(K_2K_3N(E)/K)`$

$$[a,b]=a_1\alpha _1;[a,c]=a_2\alpha _2$$

where $`(a_1\alpha _1,a_2\alpha _2)`$ define a minimal system of generators of

$$Gal(K_2K_3N(E)/K_1K_2K_3)$$

and $`a`$ is a lift of a generator of $`Gal(K_1/K)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

i. Let take $`E(K)`$ the normal closure of $`E/K`$ and consider a generator $`b`$ of $`Gal(E(K)/K)`$ which has a trivial image in $`Gal(K_1/K)`$. We note $`a`$ (resp. $`c`$) a lift of a generator of $`Gal(K_1/K)`$ (resp. $`Gal(E/K_1)`$) in $`Gal(E(K)/K)`$. Then the subgroup generated by $`b`$ is not a normal subgroup. It means that one can choose the generators such that there is one of the relations which is

$$[a,b]=c\text{ or }[b,c]=a.$$

We note that the subgroup generated by $`b`$ and $`c`$ is normal so the second relation is not possible and we get the result.

ii. We obtain two extensions $`K_2/K`$ and $`K_3/K`$ by considering two cyclic independent subextensions of $`E/K_1`$ as in case i. Let call $`b`$ and $`c`$ the two generators obtained. There are two possibilities : either $`K_2`$ and $`K_3`$ are linearly independent in which case we are in case b. or $`c=b^i`$ $`i1`$ and we are in case a, indeed we have that $`a_1=[a,b]`$ and

$$a_2=[a,b^i]=[a,b]^i[[a,b],b]$$

and therefore

$$[a_2,a_1]=[[[a,b],b],[a,b]].$$

###### Demonstration Proof of Proposition 2.1

Let show first that for all $`K`$ non trivial extension of $`_p`$, there exists an extension $`E_3/K`$ of $`C_3`$-type satisfying the condition on the ramification. Let take an extension $`K_1/K`$ with ramification break $`i_1(3)`$ and an extension $`E/K_1`$ with ramification break $`i`$ all of them cyclic of order $`p`$ such that $`i>i_1(3)`$ and we put

$$u_3=i_1(3)\frac{p1}{p}+\frac{i}{p}.$$

Moreover we want $`E`$ not to be normal over $`K`$. For this it enough to take $`i`$ such that $`p`$ does not divide $`ii_1`$. By Lemma 2.2, there exists a normal extension $`E_3/K`$ of $`C_3`$ type for which the bigger upper ramification break is $`u_3`$.

Let $`K_1/K`$ be a cyclic extension of order $`p`$ with ramification breaks $`i_1(5)`$. We showed that there exists an extension $`E_3/K_1`$ with bigger upper ramification break $`u_3`$. We put

$$u_5=i_1(5)\frac{p1}{p}+\frac{u_3}{p}.$$

By Lemma 2.2 we have two possibilities either $`c=b^i`$ and we have the result or $`Gal(E(K)/K)`$ is a $`p`$-group with exactly three generators.

We show for all $`n`$ that $`Gal(E(K)/K)`$ contains a subgroup $`N`$ such that the subextension $`E(K)^N/K)`$ is the subextension of an extension of $`C_n`$-type.

Take the normal subgroup $`N`$ of $`Gal(E(K)/K)`$ generated by $`c[a,b]`$. The group $`N`$ also contains

$$a^1c[a,b]a=c[c,a][a,b][[a,b],a]\text{ and}$$

$$b^1c[a,b]b=c[c,b][a,b][[a,b],b]$$

which will define relations in $`Gal(E(K)^N/K)`$.

The map

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Gal(E(K)/K)& & Gal(E(K)/K)/N\\ a& & \overline{a}\\ b& & \overline{b}\\ c& & [\overline{b},\overline{a}]\\ a_1& & [\overline{a},\overline{b}]\\ a_2& & [\overline{a},[\overline{a},\overline{b}]]\\ b^1c[a,b]b& & 1\\ a^1c[a,b]a& & 1=[\overline{b},\overline{a}][[\overline{b},\overline{a}],\overline{a}][\overline{a},\overline{b}][[\overline{a},\overline{b}],\overline{a}]\\ \mathrm{}& & \end{array}$$

shows that $`E(K)^N/K`$ is the subextension of an extension of $`C_n`$-type because the relation

$$[\overline{b},\overline{a}][[\overline{b},\overline{a}],\overline{a}][\overline{a},\overline{b}][[\overline{a},\overline{b}],\overline{a}]=1$$

is trivial :

$$a_3^1[a_3^1,a_2]a_3a_4=a_2^1a_3^1a_2a_3a_4=a_2^1a_3^1a_3a_2a_4^1a_4=1$$

Let consider the extension of $`C_n`$-type which has $`E(K)^N`$ as a subextension. We proceed with the construction. The bigger ramification break in that extension is $`u_5`$ defined above. Now we proved the result for $`n=5`$ and we assume we can show it for any odd integer $`n`$ and show that then for all finite extension $`K`$ of $`_p`$ there exists an extension of $`C_{n+2}`$-type with bigger upper ramification break $`u_{n+2}`$.

Let $`K_1/K`$ be a cyclic extension of order $`p`$ with ramification break $`i_1(n+2)`$. By assumption there exists an extension of $`K_1`$ of $`C_n`$-type with biggest upper ramification break $`u_n`$ then put

$$u_{n+2}=i_1(n+2)\frac{p1}{p}+\frac{u_n}{p}.$$

By Lemma 2.2, the situation is similar to the case $`n=5`$. Either there exists an extension $`K_2/K`$ such that $`E_nK_2/K`$ is of $`C_{n+2}`$ type or we have to take a quotient of $`Gal(E_n(K)/K)`$ by the same normal subgroup as in the previous case.

It remains to show that the ramification breaks $`i_1(3),i_1(5),\mathrm{},i_1(2n+1),\mathrm{}`$ can be taken such that upper ramification breaks $`u_3,..,u_n,\mathrm{}`$ satisfy the condition in the proposition, i.e there exists a convergent sequence $`v_n`$ such that

$$u_n>ne(K)v_n.$$

For $`n=3`$ take any $`i_1(3)`$ and $`i`$.

Then for $`n=5`$, we take

$$i_1(5)=\frac{pe(K)}{p1}\epsilon _5$$

where $`\epsilon _5`$ is an integer, such that

$$u_5=e\frac{p1}{p}\epsilon _5+\frac{u_3}{p}.$$

For $`n=7`$, we take

$$i_1(7)=\frac{pe(K)}{p1}\epsilon _7$$

such that

$$u_7=e\frac{p1}{p}\epsilon _7+\frac{u_5}{p}=e\frac{p1}{p}\epsilon _7+\frac{pe(K)}{p}\frac{p1}{p^2}\epsilon _5+\frac{u_3}{p^2}$$

$$=2e[\frac{p1}{p}(\epsilon _7+\frac{\epsilon _5}{p})\frac{u_3}{p^2}].$$

Note that for $`n+1`$ we have that the value $`e(K_1)=pe(K)`$ By taking for all odd integer $`k`$,

$$i_k=\frac{pe(K)}{p1}\epsilon _k$$

we obtain

$$u_{2n+1}=(n1)e[\frac{p1}{p}(\epsilon _{2n+1}+\frac{\epsilon _{2n1}}{p}+\mathrm{}+\frac{\epsilon _5}{p^{n1}})\frac{u_3}{p^{n1}}].$$

Take all the $`\epsilon _k`$ in a bounded interval, then

$$v_n=[\frac{p1}{p}(\epsilon _{2n+1}+\frac{\epsilon _{2n1}}{p}+\mathrm{}+\frac{\epsilon _5}{p^{n1}})\frac{u_3}{p^{n1}}].$$

is a convergent sequence.

###### Corollary 2.3

There exist APF $`C`$-extensions.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`L/K`$ be a $`C`$-extension and note $`\{a_i\}`$ a $`C`$-tower defining its Galois group. We assume that this extension is not APF. Take a family $`E_n`$ of extensions of $`K`$ linearly independent of $`L/K`$ such that for all $`n`$ $`E_n/K`$ is an extension of $`C_n`$-type and its greater upper ramification break $`\stackrel{~}{u}_n`$ satisfies

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_nke\text{ where }n=2k\text{ or }n=2k1.$$

This family exists by Proposition 2.1 and one can check that the extensions taken are linearly independent of $`L/K`$ by checking that the compositum of the $`L^{ab}/K`$ and the subextensions $`E_{n,1}/K`$ of $`E_n`$ of order $`p^2`$ which is not normal remains not normal. We will note $`\{\stackrel{~}{a}_{i,n}\}`$ the $`C`$-tower defining the extension $`E_n/K`$. Let $`u_n`$ be the sequence of upper ramification breaks in $`L/K`$. This sequence is convergent as we assumed that the extension is not APF. We modify the extension $`L/K`$ in order to obtain a $`C`$-extension $`\stackrel{~}{L}/K`$ which is APF. Consider the compositum $`M`$ of $`L`$ with all the finite extensions $`N(E_n)/K`$ and take $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ the fixed field of $`M`$ by the normal subgroup generated by $`a_1\stackrel{~}{a}_{1,n}^1`$ and $`a_2\stackrel{~}{a}_{2,n}^1`$ for all $`n`$. We show that this is a well defined $`C`$-extension and that it is APF, i.e. that the sequence of upper ramification breaks in $`\stackrel{~}{L}/K`$ is unbounded (see Cor. 1.7).

The Galois group $`Gal(\stackrel{~}{L}/K)`$ is defined by the surjective map

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Gal(M/K)& & Gal(\stackrel{~}{L}/K)\\ a_1& & \overline{a}_1\\ a_2& & \overline{a}_2\\ a_{1,n}& & \overline{a}_1& n>2\\ a_{2,n}& & \overline{a}_2& n>2\\ a_k& & \overline{a}_k(\overline{a}_1,\overline{a}_2)& n>2\\ a_{k,n}& & \overline{a}_k(\overline{a}_1,\overline{a}_2)& n>2\end{array}$$

where $`\overline{a}_k(\overline{a}_1,\overline{a}_2)`$ is the $`k^{th}`$ element is the $`C`$-tower generated by $`\overline{a}_1`$ end $`\overline{a}_2`$. This a group homomorphism. So $`\stackrel{~}{L}/K`$ is a $`C`$-extension. The upper ramification breaks $`\overline{u}_k`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{L}/K`$, for $`k`$ large enough satisfy:

$$\overline{u}_kSup\{u_{L/K}(a_k),u_{E_n/K}(a_{k,n}),nk\}.$$

Indeed, this is not the case if for all $`nk`$

$$u_{L/K}(a_k)=u_{E_n/K}(a_{k,n})\text{ and }u_{M/K}(a_ka_{k,n})>u_{L/K}(a_k).$$

If $`L/K`$ is not APF, for $`k`$ big enough

$$u_{L/K}(a_k)<u_{E_k/K}(a_{k,k})$$

as the first sequence is convergent and

$$u_{E_k/K}(a_{k,k})>([\frac{k1}{2}]1)e(K).$$

With the hypothesis made on the greater upper ramification break in the extension $`E_n/K`$ we obtain that for $`n`$ big enough

$$\overline{u}_n([\frac{n1}{2}]1)e(K).$$

and therefore the extension $`\stackrel{~}{L}/K`$ is APF. ∎

## 3. There exist non arithmetically profinite $`C`$-extensions

We want to show that unlike extensions whose Galois group is a $`p`$-adic Lie group, the structure of the Galois group of $`C`$-extensions does not implies that the extensions is APF. Indeed, we show how to construct a $`C`$-extension which is not APF.

###### Proposition 3.1

There exist $`C`$-extensions which are not deeply ramified .

We construct a $`C`$-extension $`L/K`$ such that $`L^N/K`$ has bounded ramification. Let $`L/K`$ be a $`C`$-extension such that $`L^N=K_n`$ as defined in Section 1. Consider the (not normal) closed subgroup $`H`$ of $`G=Gal(L/K)`$ such that only the elements of the $`C`$-tower $`a_{2i+1},i0`$ are not in $`H`$ and take $`M^{}=L^H`$ the fixed field of $`L`$ by $`H`$. Then $`M^{}/K`$ is an infinite extension with $`M^{}=M_n`$ such that for all $`n`$ $`M_n/M_{n1}`$ is a cyclic extension of order $`p`$ and $`M_n`$ is not a normal extension of $`M_{n2}`$. Moreover we assume that for all $`n`$ we have that the ramification breaks satisfy :

$$p(i(M_n/M_{n1})i(M_{n1}/M_{n2})).$$

This is possible to obtain by the methods used in Section 2.

We are going to construct a family of extensions $`E_n/K`$ of $`C_n`$-type for all $`n>1`$ such that there exists a subextension of $`L(N(E_n))`$ which is a non APF $`C`$-extension.

First we show that we can construct a tower of extensions $`E_i^{}/K`$ such that for all $`i`$ the extension

$$M_iE_{i1}^{}E_i^{}M_{i1}/M_{i1}E_{i1}^{}$$

contains a cyclic subextension of order $`p`$ with a given ramification break

$$i_n<i(M_iE_{i1}^{}/M_{i1}E_{i1}^{}).$$

We show a general lemma on the existence of Galois extension of order $`p^2`$ with given ramification breaks :

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`L/K`$ be a cyclic extension of order $`p`$ with ramification break $`i`$. Let $`j`$ and $`s`$ be two positive integers not divisible by $`p`$ such that if $`si`$ then $`sj`$ and $`i+p^1(si)j`$ otherwise ; and $`j{\displaystyle \frac{pe}{p1}}`$ where $`e`$ is the absolute index of ramification of $`K`$. If $`ij`$, take $`s=h_{L/K}(j)`$. There exists a cyclic extension $`L^{}/K`$ of order $`p`$ with ramification break $`j`$ such that the ramification break of the cyclic extension $`LL^{}/L`$ is $`s`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Suppose that $`ij`$.

There exists a cyclic extension $`K_1/K`$ of order $`p`$ totally ramified with ramification break $`j`$ if and only if $`j{\displaystyle \frac{ep}{p1}}`$ (\[FV, Prop. III2.5\]). As $`ij`$, the ramification in $`LL^{}/L`$ is $`s=h_{L/K}(j)`$.

Suppose that $`i=j`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be a root of the polynomial $`X^pX\alpha `$ with $`v_K(\alpha )=i`$ and $`L=K(\lambda )`$ and $`<\tau >=Gal(L/K)`$. We show that there exists an element $`\beta `$ in $`K`$, $`v_K(\beta )=i`$ and $`\mu `$ the root of the polynomial $`X^pX\beta `$ such that there is an element $`A`$ in $`K(\lambda ,\mu )`$ stable by $`\tau \sigma `$ where $`\sigma `$ generates $`Gal(K(\mu )/K)`$ satisfying the conditions :

. $`v_{K(\lambda ,\mu )^{\tau \sigma }}(A)=s`$

. $`v_{K(\lambda ,\mu )^{\tau \sigma }}(\sigma (A)A1)>0`$.

It is enough to show that $`i(Gal(K(\lambda ,\mu )^{\tau \sigma }/K))=s`$ and therefore

$$i(Gal(K(\lambda ,\mu )/L))=s.$$

If $`p=2`$ take

$$A=\mu \tau (\lambda )+\lambda \sigma (\mu ),$$

if $`p>2`$ take

$$A=\underset{0i<jp2}{}\tau ^i(\lambda )\sigma ^j(\mu )\tau ^j(\lambda )\sigma ^i(\mu ).$$

First we show that $`\tau \sigma (A)=A`$.

$$\tau \sigma (A)=\underset{0i<jp2}{}\tau ^{i+1}(\lambda )\sigma ^{j+1}(\mu )\tau ^{j+1}(\lambda )\sigma ^{i+1}(\mu ).$$

We conclude by the fact that $`Tr_{K(\mu )/K}(\mu )=Tr_{K(\lambda )/K}(\lambda )=0`$ which allows to replace $`\tau ^{p2+1}(\lambda )`$ by $`({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{p2}{}}}\tau ^i(\lambda ))`$ and $`\sigma ^{p2+1}(\mu )`$ by $`({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{p2}{}}}\sigma ^i(\tau ))`$.

For $`p=2`$, the result is clear.

We show that the second condition is always valid. We have that

$$v_{K(\lambda )}(\tau ^j(\lambda )\tau ^i(\lambda )1)>0$$

and

$$v_{K(\mu )}(\sigma ^j(\mu )\sigma ^i(\mu )1)>0$$

for $`j>i`$. For $`p>2`$

$$\sigma (A)A=\underset{0i<jp2}{}\tau ^i(\lambda )(\sigma ^{j+1}(\mu )\sigma ^j(\mu ))\tau ^j(\lambda )(\sigma ^{i+1}(\mu )\sigma ^i(\mu ))$$

$$\sigma (A)A=\underset{0i<jp2}{}(\tau ^i(\lambda )\tau ^j(\lambda )+\mathrm{})$$

where the dots mean terms of higher valuation. The above sum is then equal to

$$\sigma (A)A=1p+B$$

where $`B`$ is of positive valuation, which gives the result.

In the case $`p=2`$ one has

$$\sigma (A)A=(\sigma (\mu )\mu )(\tau (\lambda )\lambda ),$$

so we can conclude in a similar way.

Let $`M=K(\lambda ,\tau )^{\tau \sigma }`$. By a similar method as above we obtain :

$$v_M(A)=v_M(\underset{0i<jp2}{}\tau ^i(\lambda )(\sigma ^j(\mu )(\sigma ^i(\mu ))\sigma ^i(\mu )(\tau ^j(\lambda )\tau ^i(\lambda )))$$

$$=v_M(\underset{0i<jp2}{}(\tau ^i(\lambda )\sigma ^i(\mu ))).$$

From the equality of the valuations

$$v_M(\tau ^i(\lambda )\sigma ^i(\mu ))=v_M(\tau ^i(\lambda )^p\sigma ^i(\mu )^p\alpha +\beta )$$

we deduce that $`v_M(\tau ^i(\lambda )\sigma ^i(\mu ))=s`$ if

$$v_K(\alpha \beta )=s$$
$``$
and if this last equality is valid then $`v_M(A)=v_K((p2)(\alpha \beta ))=s`$. So take $`\beta =\alpha +\pi _K^s`$ and we have proved the existence of the extension $`K(\mu )`$ with the required properties. For $`p=2`$ we obtain the condition $`v_M(A)=s`$ if $`v_K(\alpha +\beta )=s`$. ∎

The lemma gives the existence of an extension $`F/M_{i1}E_{i1}^{}`$ satisfying the property, but we have to make sure that this correspond to an extension of $`E_{i1}^{}`$. For this take an element $`\beta `$ in $`E_{i1}^{}`$ such that (see (\*) in the proof of the lemma)

$$v_{M_{i1}E_{i1}^{}}(\alpha \beta )=s.$$

It remains to check that the extension obtained is not normal over $`E_{i1}^{}`$. This is clear with the assumption on the lower ramification breaks of the extensions $`M_n/M_{n1}`$ made at the beginning of this section.

We have a tower of extensions $`E_i^{}`$ such that $`E_{i+1}^{}/E_{i1}^{}`$ is not normal. We construct the extensions $`E_n/K`$ in a similar way that we constructed the extensions $`E_n/K`$ in the previous section. The extension $`E_3/K`$ is obtained as in Section 3 by taking the normal closure of $`E_2^{}/K`$. Then we obtain $`E_5`$, we start by taking the normal closure of $`E_3^{}/E_1^{}`$ to obtain a Galois extension $`F_5/E_1^{}`$ which is not normal over $`K`$ and then take the the normal closure of this extension. We get $`E_5/K`$ as in Section 2. We can repeat this process for all $`n`$ and obtain the required family of extensions. Now we look at the ramification in the subextension $`L^{}`$ of $`L(N(E_n))`$ which is the fixed field of $`L(N(E_n))`$ by the normal subgroup generated by $`a_1\stackrel{~}{a}_{1,n}^1`$ and $`a_2\stackrel{~}{a}_{2,n}^1`$ for all $`n`$ keeping the notation of Section 2. We saw that it was a $`C`$-extension. We note that for all $`i,n`$ and $`m`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{2i,n}=\stackrel{~}{a}_{2i,m}`$. In the construction of the tower of $`E_n^{}`$, we can choose the ramification breaks $`i_n`$ to be small enough so that the sequence of upper ramification breaks in the extension $`L^{}/K`$ converges.

## 4. Construction of some APF extensions whose Galois group is not a $`p`$-adic Lie group

First we discuss deeply ramified extensions. We know that all totally ramified extensions whose Galois group contains an open subgroup with a $`_p`$-quotient are deeply ramified. In this paper we have shown that :

###### Proposition 4.1

i. All pro-$`p`$-groups that contains a $`C`$-tower can be realized as the Galois group of a deeply ramified extension.

ii. The fact that the Galois group of a totally ramified extension contains a $`C`$-tower is not enough to say that the extension is deeply ramified.

Now we look at arithmetically profinite extensions.

The result obtained in Section 2 can be extended to construct more APF Galois pro-$`p`$-extensions

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`E/K`$ be a totally ramified Galois pro-$`p`$-extension such that

. $`Gal(E/K)`$ is a pro-$`p`$-group over two generators ;

. $`E`$ is the compositum of a finite number of extensions $`E_i/K`$ each of them containing a subextension $`L_i/K`$ such that $`E_i/L_i`$ is a $`C`$-extension. Then for all subextension $`L/K`$ of $`E/K`$ which is infinite, $`Gal(N(L)/K)`$ contains a subgroup which is generated by a $`C`$-tower (i.e there is a finite extension $`K^{}/K`$ such that $`L/K^{}`$ is a $`C`$-extension.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let call

$$\{a_{k,i},i>0\}\text{ for }1kn$$

the $`C`$-towers generating a lift of $`Gal(E_i/L_i)`$ in $`G=Gal(E/K)`$. Let $`H`$ be a normal subgroup of $`G`$ of infinite index. We show that at least one $`C`$-tower is not contained in $`H`$. Suppose that

$$a_{k,i}H$$

for a certain pair $`(k,i)`$ and

$$a_{k,i1}H.$$

then as $`H`$ is normal we have

$$a_{k,i1}^1a_{k,i}a_{k,i1}=a_{k,i}a_{k,i+1}H$$

and therefore

$$a_{k,i+1}H.$$

So as there are only a finite number of $`C`$-towers and nothing else there is a $`C`$-tower which has a non trivial image in $`G/H`$. We show that there is an open normal subgroup of $`G/H`$ which is generated by a $`C`$-tower. Let $`\{\overline{a}_i\}`$ be the image of a $`C`$-tower in $`G/H`$. As $`G`$ is the union of a finite number of $`C`$-towers, there are a finite number of $`\overline{a}_i`$ such that there exists an element $`\overline{b}`$ in $`G/H`$ which is not in the subgroup generated by $`\{\overline{a}_i\}`$ which does not commute with $`\overline{a}_i`$. So there exists $`i_0`$ such that the subgroup generated by the $`C`$-tower $`\{\overline{a}_i,i>i_0\}`$ is an open normal subgroup of $`G/H`$.

The sequence of upper ramification breaks in a quotient depends on the relations that define this quotient :

###### Proposition 4.3

Let $`E/K`$ be as in Prop. 4.2. Let $`H`$ be a closed normal subgroup of infinite index. Let $`\{\overline{a}_i\}`$ be a $`C`$-tower in $`G/H`$. The upper ramification breaks of the elements in $`\{\overline{a}_i\}`$ for $`i`$ big enough are given by :

$$u_{G/H}(\overline{a}_i)=Max\{u_G(a_{k,i}),\phi (a_{k,i})=\overline{a}_i\}.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

To see this we have to show that if there exists a $`C`$-tower $`\{a_{k,i}\}`$ which is send to $`\{\overline{a}_i\}`$ in $`G/H`$, then either no other $`C`$-tower is mapped to this one or if there is then $`a_{l,i}\mathrm{}`$ is mapped to $`\overline{a}_i`$ where the dots stand for elements $`a_{l,j}`$, $`j>i`$. This comes from the fact that if

$$a_{k,i}\underset{lI,jJ}{}a_{l,j}H$$

then the towers $`\{a_{l,i}\}`$ have a non trivial image in $`G/H`$ if an elements that does not commutes with $`a_{l,j}`$ is mapped to $`\overline{a}_i`$. We can show that this element can only be $`a_{l,j1}\mathrm{}`$. And by going down until there are no more elements in $`G/H`$ which commute with one of the elements, we see that we must have $`i=j`$

We have the following result on the ramification in the extension $`L/K`$ :

###### Corollary 4.4

If for all $`C`$-towers in $`G`$ we have that

$$u_G(a_{k,i}a_{l,i})=Inf\{u_G(a_{k,i}),u_G(a_{l,i})\}$$

and all the $`C`$-extensions $`E_i/L_i`$ are APF. Then $`E/K`$ is APF.

A consequence of this result is that we can construct an APF extension with a Galois group as in Proposition 4.3

###### Proposition 4.5

There exists extension $`E/K`$ as in Proposition 4.2 which are arithmetically profinite.

###### Demonstration Proof

To construct extensions $`E/K`$ which are APF we use the same method as in Section 2. By Corollary 4.4, it is enough to take all the $`C`$-towers having distinct upper ramification breaks.

Take an extension $`E/K`$ as in Prop. 4.2. We can modify it so that all the $`C`$-extensions $`E_i/L_i`$ are APF as done in Section 2. In order to have the condition of Cor. 4.4 we have to modify them so that they have all distinct upper ramification breaks sequences which can be done because there is a finite number of $`C`$-extensions to consider. ∎

A similar result can be obtained for the compositum of infinitely many $`C`$-extensions over the same two generators if we restrict to such group in which every elements in a $`C`$-tower commutes with almost all elements in $`G`$. But even in that case there are infinite Galois subextensions whose Galois group does not contain any $`C`$-tower. Namely one can take the normal subgroup that contains all the $`a_{k,i}`$ for $`i`$ greater that a given $`i_0`$, for all $`k`$. We can show that there no other Galois subextensions than those and the one which we looked at the beginning of that section but we have to make sure that such subextensions are also APF.

We discuss briefly how to generalize the construction made in Section 2, in order to obtain APF extensions of this type.

Let $`K_1/K`$ be a cyclic extension of order $`p`$ and let $`K_2/K_1,\mathrm{},K_p/K_1`$ be $`p1`$ distinct cyclic extensions of $`K_1`$ with different ramification breaks such none of them are normal over $`K`$. Then the result obtained in Lemma 2.1 extend and therefore there is a quotient of the normal closure of the extension $`K_2K_3\mathrm{}K_p/K`$ whose Galois group is PC-generated by $`a_1,a_2,a_3,\mathrm{}a_{p+1}`$ with $`a_3=[a_2,a_1]`$ and $`a_i=[a_{i1},a_1]`$ for $`i>3`$.

Now we have to check that, in this type of construction, we can take the ramification to be hight enough so that the whole extension is APF. By considering the number of generators in an open subgroup of a free pro-$`p`$-group with two generators, the bound on the upper ramification and the fact that we want the upper ramification breaks to be unbounded, we can’t simplify our problem by taking all ramification distinct because there would not be enough integer available. But as seen in Section 3, we can control the extensions so that the ramification breaks would not collapse in certain quotients.


text:
# Tests of QCD in two photon physics at LEP

## 1 Introduction

Two photon physics is performed at e+e- colliders such as LEP via the interaction of two virtual photons, as shown in Fig. 1. The energy spectrum of the virtual photons is sharply peaked at low energy, so that the final states produced are predominantly at low energy. However, the cross section for the process rises logarithmically with the e+e- centre of mass energy, so that at LEP II, with no $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ resonance to compete with, it is the dominant process. The following standard variables are defined.

* $`Q^2`$ = -(4 momentum $`\mathrm{transfer})^2`$ of photon 1
* $`P^2`$ = -(4 momentum $`\mathrm{transfer})^2`$ of photon 2
* $`Q^2>P^2`$ by definition
* $`W`$ = Invariant mass of final state
* $`x=\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+W^2}`$

A number of facts make the experimental measurements in two photon physics difficult. The first of these is that one does not have a monoenergetic beam of photons. Instead, all measurements must be extracted from a measured e+e- process. Secondly, in general the observed invariant mass $`W_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ is less than the true one $`W_{\mathrm{true}}`$. This is due to the tendency for much of the final state energy either to be deposited in the forward luminosity spectrometers, which are poor at measuring hadronic energy, or even be lost along the beam pipe.

From the theoretical point of view, the photon, as a fundamental particle of the Standard Model, should allow precise calculations to be performed. This is indeed the case, provided it is probed with sufficiently large a scale that perturbative QCD calculations can be performed. However, many of the photons in two photon collisions have small four momentum, which can not be described by perturbative QCD. In these cases, we are forced to adopt a phenomenological model, Vector Meson Dominance, where the photon is assumed to behave like a vector meson. This means that, in order for measurement made at LEP to test QCD, they have to be limited to processes which include at least one large scale. The scales available are

* Four momentum of photon(s)
* Transverse momentum of final state
* Mass of produced quark
* Mass of produced hadron pair.

The following sections discuss recent advances in measurements using the first three of these. Most of these results were reported at the PHOTON 2000 conference, the proceedings of which will be published by AIP in 2001. Prior to publication, they can be seen at http://www.photon2000.lancs.ac.uk/proceedings/.

## 2 The Photon Structure Function

The photon structure function $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ is measured directly in so-called single tagged events, in which one of the electrons is scattered sufficiently to be detected. This results in the $`Q^2`$ of the associated photon being significantly different from zero. In this arrangement, it is then acceptable to distinguish this photon as a probe of the properties of the other photon, whose four momentum transfer will be close to zero, and which is treated as the target. This in turn means that the full machinery of deep inelastic scattering can be adopted. The cross section for the process is expressed in terms of two structure functions $`F_1^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ and $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y}=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2s(e\gamma )}{Q^4}[(1y)F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)+xy^2F_1^\gamma (x,Q^2),$$

where

$$y=1\frac{E_{\mathrm{tag}}}{E}\mathrm{cos}^2(\frac{\theta _{\mathrm{tag}}}{2}).$$

However, as $`y`$ is very much less than one in any practical measurement, only $`F_2^\gamma `$ is eperimentally accessible.

When $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ is calculated, it falls naturally into two parts, one part known as the point-like part is calculable exactly in QCD and depends only on $`\lambda _{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. The second, so-called hadronic part is not calculable and has to be approximated by some flavour of VDM. A number of different authors have attempted to calculate $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, resulting in sets of parton distribution functions (PDFs) which can be compared to data.

While measurements of the Photon Structure Function have been made since the late 1970’s, there continue to be improvements at LEP II. In addition to much larger data sets, higher $`Q^2`$ and lower $`x`$ than ever before, there has been progress in two areas aimed at reducing the large systematic errors that plague the measurement. These arise from the problem of unfolding the true final state invariant mass distribution from the observed one. This requires a good model of the final state, which has been lacking for many years, resulting in large model dependance of the result. Two approaches have been taken to attack this. The first is the improvement of the Monte Carlo models by the production of standardized hadron level distributions by three of the four LEP experiments. This is intended to make it easier for program authors to tune their programs. The other new approach is the use of two-dimensional unfolding techniques to reduce the model dependance of the result by using additional information that is available in the data. This approach has been adopted by ALEPH  and OPAL.

## 3 High $`p_\mathrm{t}`$

In the production of high transverse momentum jets, or particles, it is the transverse momentum scale which ‘probes’ the structure of a photon. Calculations are performed by convoluting matrix elements for the hard scattering process with flux factors of photons produced by electrons, and photon PDFs. Photons are classified as ‘Direct’ if the photon enters the hard scattering process itself or ‘Resolved’ if it is a parton from the photon which is involved. Events are classified as Direct, Single Resolved or Double Resolved, depending on how many photons in the event are resolved. Apart from kinematical effects, these three processes are all of the same order of magnitude in cross section.

Very recently, two authors  have provided code to allow NLO QCD calculations to be performed in a Monte Carlo manner which allows experimental cuts to be applied to the calculation. This greatly improves the possibilities of comparing data and theory, though it should be noted that such comparision is still between theory calculated with massless quarks, and data corrected to the hadron level.

Recent experimental results include the first measurement of jet production in tagged events by a LEP experiment  allowing access in principle to the virtual photon structure function. They agree well with the NLO predictions in $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ distributions. A new approach from OPAL  is an attempt to get a more direct probe of differences between the various photon PDFs. These show greatest difference at low $`x`$, however these differences are largely lost when measuring $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ distributions. Instead, OPAL have plotted $`x_\gamma `$ which is defined as $`x_\gamma ^\pm =\frac{_{\mathrm{jets}}(E\pm p_z)}{_{\mathrm{hadrons}}(E\pm p_z)}`$ (both entries ($`x_\gamma ^+`$ and $`x_\gamma ^{}`$) are included in distributions). Comparing to the equivalent distributions in Monte Carlo shows some direct sensitivity to the PDF at low $`x`$, however comparing to NLO calculations emphasizes the difference between calculations done with partons and hadron level measurements, as very poor agreement is found. The NLO calculation produces far too large a spike at $`x=1`$ with correspondingly too low a cross section at lower $`x`$ values.

## 4 Heavy Flavours

From the theoretical point of view, the measurement of heavy flavour production in two photon physics has much to recommend it. The only processes that contribute significantly are the direct and single resolved ones. The contribution of the latter is dominated by processes including initial state gluons and thus directly probes the gluonic part of the photon PDFs, which is not directly measured in photon structure function measurements. The scale of the process is set by the heavy quark mass. In tagged measurements the situation is even more favourable, as the direct and resolved components do not mix and are scheme independent up to NLO. For $`x>0.2`$, the pointlike part dominates and is exactly calculable in QCD. Below this, the hadronic part, and hence the gluon part of the photon, is probed.

Performing the measurement is made difficult by the lack of a good high statistics tag for charm or beauty in two photon physics. The lifetime tagging techniques which have been so succesful in e+e- annihilation events have not turned out to be useful. Two heavy flavour tags have been used, the ‘$`\mathrm{D}^{}`$ mass trick’, which has the advantage of being a clear unambiguous charm tag, but with low statistics, and lepton tagging, which suffers from large poorly understood backgrounds. Early measurements of charm production were presented as total cross sections. These suffer from large errors, when extrapolating from the observed visible cross section to the total cross section. The results are consistent with NLO QCD predictions, but these predictions have large mass and scale dependancies. Recently, more differential calculations have become available, and it turns out that these also have smaller theoretical uncertainties. As a result, LEP measurements are now presented in limited $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ and rapidity corresponding to experimental acceptances. Current measurements from L3  and OPAL  agree well with each other and with a massless calculation, while ALEPH  preliminary measurements show a flatter $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ dependance, and agree better with the massive calculation. L3 also show the charm cross section as a function of invariant mass and find a NLO calculation reproduces the slope of their data, but not the normalisation which is a factor of two above the calculation.

In lepton tagged data, both L3  and OPAL  observe an excess at high $`p_\mathrm{t}`$ which they ascribe to b-quark production. The rate observed by each experiment is consistent but 2$`\sigma `$ above the theoretical expectation.

A first measurement of tagged charm production has been presented by OPAL. There are two bins in $`x`$. The high $`x`$ bin is consistent with the NLO calculation, but the low $`x`$ point suffers from too large errors to make any meaningful comparisons.

## 5 Double Tagged Measurements

Untill recently, the lack of statistics has meant that little attention has been paid to double tagged events. However, the large amount of data available at LEP means that this is now a feasible area of study and allows to test the obervation  that for events with $`W_{\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}}^2>>(Q_1^2,Q_2^2)`$ the BFKL calculations are considerably larger in certain areas of phase space than those using the DGLAP approach. This was seen as a clean way to distinguish the two. Early results from L3  were clearly above the predictions of models such as PHOJET although not as large as the LO BFKL prediction. Recently, it has become clear that NLO corrections to BFKL are large, reducing the difference between them and DGLAP calculations. In addition, OPAL  have shown that there is a possibility of large radiative corrections being required when calculating the final invariant mass from the tagged electrons. The corrections go in the direction of reducing the cross section just in the kinematical region where large deviations from DGLAP were apparently observed by L3. It would seem premature at this stage to say whether BFKL calculations can really be tested in the LEP double tagged data.

## 6 Conclusions

The great success of the LEP machine at CERN has provided us with an unrivalled sample of two photon physics events to study. The analysis of these events remains challenging, but in recent years the greater collaboration between the experiments and theorists has led to much improvement in the detail to which the data can be used to probe QCD. It is to be hoped that the end of LEP does not lead to too rapid an end to this effort as there is still much to be learned.