format: text

text:
# x Factorization in leptonic radiative 𝐵→𝛾𝑒𝜈 decays

## I Introduction

Recently, there has been substantial progress in the notoriously difficult theoretical treatment of exclusive hadronic decays of $`B`$-mesons. One one hand, it was shown that in the heavy quark limit and in low orders of QCD ’factorization’ holds in certain processes BBNS1 ; BBNS2 ; on the other hand, the soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) formulated recently in Refs. bfl ; bfps ; cbis ; bpssoft  promises a new systematic way to tackle all orders in the strong coupling. Such applications were discussed in bpsfact ; ChayKim ; BCDF ; bpssoft ; bfprs .

Beside purely hadronic two-body decays such as $`BK\pi `$, also the simpler exclusive radiative decays are of great interest. For instance, the rare radiative weak decays $`b(s,d)\gamma `$ are an important source of information about the Standard Model and may provide a window to possible ’New Physics’. For this reason their study has received a great deal of attention, both experimentally and theoretically.

While the theory of inclusive $`b(s,d)\gamma `$ decays is relatively well under control, the corresponding exclusive decays are less understood, although several model calculations of the matrix elements exist (see, for instance, Refs. sumrules ; wa ; aaw ) and some progress towards the factorization of these matrix elements has been achieved recently befe ; BeFeSe ; BoBu ; AliParkh  in the framework of the QCD factorization for exclusive processes.

The simplest $`B`$ decay involving a hard photon is the radiative leptonic decay $`B\gamma e\nu `$. This decay is not only a testing ground for the various new methods of tackling exclusive decays, but is also interesting in its own right because it is a clear probe of some of the $`B`$ meson properties and weak couplings BuGoWy ; CoFaNa ; EHM ; GLZ ; KPY ; HNLi . The motivation for the present study is connected with the fact that many ingredients required for the hadronic decay $`\overline{B}V\gamma `$ already appear in this case but in a simplified setting.

The goal of the present paper is therefore to present a complete all-order (in $`\alpha _s`$) proof of the factorization ansatz,

$`A(\overline{B}\gamma e\overline{\nu })=C(E_\gamma /m_b)J\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$ (1)
using the soft-collinear effective theory formulated recently in Refs. bfl ; bfps ; cbis ; bpssoft . Here, $`C`$ stands for the Wilson coefficients of the SCET operators and encode the hard gluons effects, $`J`$ are the so-called jet functions and take into account contributions from collinear loop momenta, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$ is the $`B`$-meson wave function and includes ultra-soft gluons effects; $``$ denotes a convolution along the light-cone component of the spectator momentum ($`k_+=nk`$). This decay was first considered in QCD factorization in KPY , and more recently in Ref. DGS , where a factorization formula of type (1) is proved at one-loop order.

The effective theory greatly simplifies factorization proofs of perturbative QCD, by reducing a complicated diagrammatic analysis to simple field transformations on operators in the effective Lagrangian bpssoft ; bfprs . Using SCET methods, we first identify the operators contributing to this decay and then prove the factorization of the hadronic matrix elements for this process in a form similar to (1) to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$.

The contents are organized as follows. The effective theory is briefly summarized in Sec. II, where we recapitulate the basic notions needed for the rest of the paper. In Sec. III, we consider the leptonic radiative $`B`$ decay $`\overline{B}\gamma e\nu `$. We show, in particular, that the form factors describing this decay can be written as a product of hard, collinear and soft factors. The symmetries of the effective theory give symmetry relations among $`B\gamma `$ form factors, to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$. We find that the five form factors describing these decays reduce at leading order in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/E_\gamma `$ to just one independent function, proving a result conjectured in KPY  from a one-loop computation. Necessary technical details are presented in the Appendix.

## II Basics of the soft-collinear effective theory (SCET)

The effective theory developed in bfl ; bfps ; cbis ; bpssoft  describes particles (quarks and gluons) relevant for decays of a heavy meson into fast light hadrons. The relevant scales in this problem are $`Q,Q\lambda `$ and $`Q\lambda ^2`$, where $`Q`$ is the large energy of the final fast hadron $`m_b`$ and $`\lambda ^2p_{}^2/Q^2`$ with $`p_{}`$ the typical transverse momentum of the particles. The goal is to obtain an expansion in powers of $`\lambda `$; to this extent, the $`\lambda `$-scaling of momenta and fields is important.

Referring to the papers bfl ; bfps ; cbis ; bpssoft  for a detailed explanation of the theory, we present here the few basic points that will be required in the following. We take the hadrons moving with large momentum and small invariant mass in a light-cone direction, $`n`$. The other light-cone vector, $`\overline{n}`$, is chosen such that $`n^2=\overline{n}^2=0`$ and $`n\overline{n}=2`$. Momenta are decomposed along the light cone as $`p=(np,\overline{n}p,p_{})=(p^+,p^{},p_{})`$ with

$`p^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{np}{2}}\overline{n}^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}p}{2}}n^\mu +p_{}^\mu ,`$ (2)
In the effective theory one introduces distinct fields for each relevant momentum region. These include the following: collinear modes for quarks ($`\xi _{n,p}`$) and gluons ($`A_{n,q}^\mu `$) with momenta scaling as $`Q(\lambda ^2,1,\lambda )`$; ultra-soft modes ($`A_{\mathrm{us}}`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{us}}`$) with momenta scaling as $`Q(\lambda ^2,\lambda ^2,\lambda ^2)`$ and soft modes whose momenta scale as $`Q(\lambda ,\lambda ,\lambda )`$. The fields also have a well definite scaling in powers of $`\lambda `$: $`A_{n,q}(\lambda ^2,1,\lambda )`$, $`A_{\mathrm{us}}\lambda ^2`$, $`\xi _{n,p}\lambda `$ and $`q_{\mathrm{us}}\lambda ^3`$.

The collinear fields are related to the full theory fields by 333See Ref. BCDF  for a somewhat different treatment of the collinear fields.

$`\varphi (x)={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{p}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{p}x}\varphi _{n,p}(x)`$ (3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{n}p)n+p_{}`$ is the large part of the momentum, treated as a label on the collinear field. Although in the following we will for convenience often write $`p`$ instead of $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ in the exponents, one should always keep in mind that algebraic manipulations of exponents (and fields) should only involve the appropriate components.

It is convenient to introduce a ‘label’ operator $`𝒫`$ cbis  which acts on the collinear fields and picks up their large momentum $`𝒫^\mu \xi _{n,p}=(\frac{\overline{n}p}{2}n^\mu +p_{}^\mu )\xi _{n,p}`$. We will frequently use a special notation which associates a well-defined momentum label index to an arbitrary product of collinear fields. This is defined according to

$`[\varphi _n^{(1)}\mathrm{}\varphi _n^{(j)}]_p\delta _{\overline{n}p,\overline{n}𝒫}[\varphi _n^{(1)}\mathrm{}\varphi _n^{(j)}]`$ (4)
where $`\delta _{\overline{n}p,\overline{n}𝒫}`$ acts only inside the square brackets. In this and in the following expressions, we usually omit the momentum labels of the collinear fields $`A_{n,q}`$ and $`\xi _{n,p}`$. Moreover, appropriate summation over the (omitted) labels of the fields is usually implied.

The longitudinal component of collinear gluons moving in the $`n_\mu `$ direction, $`\overline{n}A_{n,q}`$, appears only in the combination $`W_n=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{g}{\overline{n}𝒫}\overline{n}A_n)`$ which is essentially a Wilson line along the $`\overline{n}`$ light cone direction. The most general gauge invariant collinear operators can be built using the $`\xi _n`$, $`A_n`$, $`W_n`$ and $`𝒫_\mu `$ building blocks.

Particular products of collinear fields appear often; for convenience of writing we will sometimes use

$$\chi _nW_n^{}\xi _n,\mathrm{\Phi }_nW_n^{}(𝒫/_{}+gA/_n)\frac{\overline{n}/}{2}\xi _n.$$
(5)
The precise definition of the expansion parameter $`\lambda `$ is specific to each problem. For the $`\overline{B}\gamma e\overline{\nu }`$ decay discussed in Sec. III, $`\lambda `$ is defined by the typical virtuality of the light quark struck by the emitted photon, $`p^2Q^2\lambda ^2E_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ with $`E_\gamma `$ the photon energy in the rest frame of the $`B`$ meson, which gives $`\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/E_\gamma `$. With this definition, the typical momentum of the spectator in the $`B`$ meson is of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}Q\lambda ^2`$, such that its momentum is ultra-soft. On the other hand, for the $`\overline{B}D\pi `$ decay, the typical virtuality of the collinear partons in the pion is of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$, leading to $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_b`$; in this case, the momenta of the $`B`$ constituents are soft bpsfact ; bpssoft .

The interactions among the effective theory fields are described by an effective Lagrangian. It consists basically of the most general combination of fields and/or suitable products of fields (such as in Eq. (5)), compatible with gauge invariance and reparameterization invariance ChayKim ; mmps . This Lagrangian is organized in increasing powers of $`\lambda `$. Similarly, the currents of the full theory are matched onto operators in the effective theory, and can be obtained by matching to the full theory, order by order in $`\lambda `$.

The couplings of the collinear quark field $`\xi _{n,p}`$ to ultra-soft and collinear gluons $`A_{us}`$ and $`A_{n,p}`$, respectively, are described by the soft-collinear effective Lagrangian. At leading order $`O(\lambda ^0)`$, this is given by bfps

$`^{(0)}=\overline{\xi }_n\{niD+gnA_n+(𝒫/_{}+gA/_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}𝒫+g\overline{n}A_n}}(𝒫/_{}+gA/_n)\}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}/}{2}}\xi _n.`$ (6)
Here, the covariant derivative $`D_\mu =_\mu igA_\mu ^aT^a`$ contains ultra-soft gauge fields $`A_\mu `$ only.

The form of operators in the effective theory is severely restricted by collinear gauge invariance. These constraints have been discussed at length in cbis ; bpssoft  for the case of operators contributing to semileptonic and non-leptonic weak decays. For processes containing one hard photon we will find it useful to consider invariance under the combined $`SU(3)`$ and $`U(1)_{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ collinear gauge transformations. Although we work only to first order in the electromagnetic coupling, this provides a convenient way of automatically incorporating electromagnetic couplings in a gauge invariant way.

To this extent, we consider the couplings of a charged collinear quark moving along the $`n`$ direction $`\xi _n`$ to collinear gluons $`A_n`$ and photons $`𝒜_n`$ moving along the same direction. A simple extension of the argument presented in cbis ; bpssoft  shows that the latter must appear at lowest order in the combination

$`W[\overline{n}A_n,\overline{n}𝒜_n]=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}𝒫}}(g\overline{n}A_neQ\overline{n}𝒜_n)\right],`$ (7)
where $`Q`$ is the electric charge matrix defined in flavor space. Under a general e.m. $`n`$-collinear gauge transformation

$$U=\underset{P}{}e^{iPx}U_P(x),$$
(8)
with $`U_P`$ a matrix in flavor space, the charged $`n`$ collinear fields transform according to

$`\xi _{n,p}^{(q)}`$ $``$ $`U_{pP}^{(q)}\xi _{n,P}^{(q)},WU_PW.`$ (9)
Finally, the heavy quarks are treated according to the heavy quark effective theory. We write the generic heavy quark field with four-velocity $`v`$ as $`Q(x)=\mathrm{exp}(imvx)Q_v(x)`$ and decompose it into a large and small component $`Q_v=h_v+H_v`$, with

$`h_v={\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}Q_v.`$ (10)
## III Factorization in $`B\gamma e\nu `$ decays

The simplest $`B`$ decay involving a hard photon is the radiative leptonic decay $`\overline{B}\gamma e\overline{\nu }`$. Our main result will be to show that the $`\overline{B}\gamma e\overline{\nu }`$ amplitude factorize according to

$$A(\overline{B}\gamma e\overline{\nu })=C(E_\gamma /m_b)\frac{\text{d}nk}{4\pi }J(nk)\mathrm{\Psi }_B(nk)$$
(11)
where $`C(E_\gamma /m_b)`$ is an effective theory Wilson coefficient, $`J`$ is a collinear function and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$ is the usual light-cone $`B`$ meson wave function. Using the effective theory formulation we will prove also symmetry relations between form factors parametrizing $`B\gamma `$ transitions.

The $`B\gamma e\overline{\nu }`$ amplitude is given in QCD by

$`A(B^{}(v)\gamma (q,\epsilon )e\overline{\nu })`$ $`=`$ (12)
$`ieQ_q{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}0|\text{T}([\overline{q}\gamma _\mu P_Lb](0),[\overline{q}\epsilon /^{}q](x))|\overline{B}(v)[\overline{u}(p_e)\gamma _\mu P_Lv(p_\nu )]}`$
with $`P_L=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$.

We fix the kinematics by taking the photon momentum as $`q_\mu =E_\gamma n_\mu `$ with the light-cone vector given by $`n=(1,0,0,1)`$. The direction orthogonal to $`n`$ along the light-cone is parameterized by $`\overline{n}=(1,0,0,1)`$. The electromagnetic current $`\overline{q}\epsilon /_{}^{}q`$ takes the ultra-soft spectator anti-quark in the $`B`$ meson carrying momentum $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ into a collinear quark with a large momentum component along the $`n`$ light-cone direction $`qk`$.

The weak current $`\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }b`$, coupling a heavy quark to an energetic light quark, is matched in SCET according to bfps

$`\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }b={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}C_i(\overline{n}p,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,p}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ih_v+O(\lambda )`$ (13)
with $`C_i(\omega ,\mu )`$ Wilson coefficients. The explicit choice of the Dirac structure in these operators differs from that used in bfps , but they are simply related by algebraic manipulations. To leading order in $`\lambda `$, the vector and axial currents are matched onto the effective theory operators (with $`\omega =\overline{n}p`$)

$`\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b`$ $`=`$ $`C_1^{(v)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }\gamma _\mu h_v+C_2^{(v)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }v_\mu h_v+C_3^{(v)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }n_\mu h_v`$ (14)
$`\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b`$ $`=`$ $`C_1^{(a)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5h_v+C_2^{(a)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }v_\mu \gamma _5h_v+C_3^{(a)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }n_\mu \gamma _5h_v.`$ (15)
Explicit results for the Wilson coefficients $`C_i^{(v,a)}(\omega ,\mu =m_b)`$ at one-loop order can be found in Eq. (33) of Ref. bfps . Only two of these Wilson coefficients are needed in the following

$`C_1^{(v)}(\omega ,m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_1^{(a)}(\omega ,m_b)=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\{2\mathrm{log}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m_b}}\right)+2\text{Li}_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m_b}})`$
$`+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m_b}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3\omega 2m_b}{m_b\omega }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}}+6\}`$
For completeness we give also the matching of the tensor current $`\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b`$, which contributes to the amplitude for the rare decay $`B_se^+e^{}\gamma `$ Bse+e- . This is given at leading order in $`\lambda `$ in terms of four Wilson coefficients $`C_i^{(t)}(\omega ,\mu )`$ defined as

$`\overline{q}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }b`$ $`=`$ $`C_1^{(t)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }i\sigma _{\mu \nu }h_v+C_2^{(t)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }(n_\mu \gamma _\nu n_\nu \gamma _\mu )h_v`$
$`+`$ $`C_3^{(t)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }(v_\mu \gamma _\nu v_\nu \gamma _\mu )h_v+C_4^{(t)}(\omega ,\mu )\overline{\chi }_{n,\omega }(n_\mu v_\nu n_\nu v_\mu )h_v`$
The corresponding matching conditions at one-loop order are bfps

$`C_1^{(t)}(\omega ,m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\{2\mathrm{log}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m_b}}\right)+2\text{Li}_2(1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m_b}})`$
$`+2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m_b}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\omega m_b}{m_b\omega }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12}}+6\}`$
$`C_2^{(t)}(\omega ,m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega }{m_b\omega }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{m_b}}\right)`$
$`C_3^{(t)}(\omega ,m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`C_4^{(t)}(\omega ,m_b)=0.`$
The matching of the light quark photon vertex $`\overline{q}\epsilon /_{}^{}q`$ onto SCET operators is slightly more complicated. In addition to a local term as in the case of the heavy-light current, this matching contains also a non-local term:

$`(\overline{q}\epsilon /_{}^{}q)(x)=\epsilon ^\mu 𝒥_\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}e^{ipx}(\overline{q}\epsilon /_{}^{}\chi _{n,p})(x)+i{\displaystyle \text{d}^4y\text{T}(𝒥_g(x),_{q\xi }^{(1)}(y))}.`$ (19)
The local term describes contributions in which the energetic photon itself turns the ultra-soft quark $`q`$ directly into a collinear quark $`\xi _n`$. The nonlocal term, on the other hand, describes the process in which the $`O(\lambda )`$ subleading Lagrangian $`_{\xi q}^{(1)}`$ merely turns the ultra-soft quark into a collinear quark; its coupling to the photon is then described by a new current $`𝒥_g`$. The right hand side must be evaluated in the presence of the interaction (6).

The expression for the subleading Lagrangian $`_{q\xi }^{(1)}`$ has been obtained in Ref. BCDF  and reads

$$_{q\xi }^{(1)}(y)=[\overline{q}W_n^{}(𝒫/_{}^{}+gA/_n)\xi _n](y)+h.c.$$
(20)
The explicit form of $`𝒥_g`$ can be obtained by coupling the photon as a collinear field and expanding the Lagrangian (6) to linear order in $`e`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,p}`$ as defined in (5))

$`𝒥_g(x)={\displaystyle \underset{p_1,p_2}{}}e^{i(qp_1+p_2)x}\left\{[\overline{\chi }_{n,p_2}\epsilon /_{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}𝒫}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,p_1}](x)+[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n,p_2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}𝒫\overline{n}q}}\epsilon /_{}^{}\chi _{n,p_1}](x)\right\}.`$ (21)
Note that, despite the $`O(\lambda )`$ suppression of $`_{q\xi }^{(1)}`$, both terms in (19) contribute to the same order in $`\lambda `$. The first term scales like $`\lambda ^4`$ by simple power counting of the fields bpspc . In the second term, $`𝒥_g(x)`$ scales like $`\lambda ^3`$ and $`_{q\xi }^{(1)}`$ like $`\lambda ^5`$. Taking into account a factor $`\lambda ^4`$ from the $`y`$-integration yields a total scaling of $`\lambda ^4`$ for the second term as well. We have not added any new Wilson coefficients in (19) since the form of the operators is restricted to all orders by the arguments in BCDF . This is also checked by direct computation in the Appendix, where we show explicitly that, at one-loop order, Eq. (19) reproduces correctly the IR behavior of the full QCD.

Inserting Eqs. (19) and (13) into the time-ordered product that appears in Eq. (12) one obtains the hard-collinear factorization of the matrix element

$`A(\overline{B}(v)\gamma (q,\epsilon )e\overline{\nu })=ieQ_q{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{n}p}{}}C_i(\overline{n}p)A_{\mathrm{eff}}^i[\overline{u}(p_e)\gamma _\mu P_Lv(p_\nu )]`$ (22)
where the decay amplitudes in the effective theory are given by time-ordered products of ultra-soft and collinear fields

$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{i(qp_2)x}0|\text{T}([\overline{\chi }_{n,p_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ih_v](0),[\overline{q}\epsilon /_{}^{}\chi _{n,p_2}](x))|\overline{B}(v)}`$
$`+`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4xd^4y0|\text{T}([\overline{\chi }_{n,p_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ih_v](0),𝒥_g(x),_{q\xi }^{(1)}(y))|\overline{B}(v)}.`$
In the next step the ultra-soft fields are decoupled from the collinear fields $`\xi _{n,p}`$ and $`A_n`$. This is achieved via the field redefinitions bpssoft

$`\xi _{n,p}(x)Y_n(x)\xi _{n,p}^{(0)}(x),A_n(x)Y_n(x)A_n^{(0)}(x)Y_n^{}(x)`$ (24)
where $`Y_n`$ is a Wilson line along the light cone direction $`n`$ containing the ultra-soft gluon field

$`Y_n(x)=\text{P}\mathrm{exp}\left(ig{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{x_{}/2}}\text{d}\lambda nA_{\mathrm{us}}(\lambda n)\right).`$ (25)
The collinear fields with a $`(0)`$ superscript do not couple to ultra-soft gluons anymore, and only interact with other collinear fields. Expressed in terms of the $`\chi _{n,p}`$ field, the transformation (24) reads simply $`\chi _{n,p}(x)Y_n(x)\chi _{n,p}^{(0)}(x)`$. Similarly, the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,p}`$ introduced in Eq. (5), transform as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,p}Y_n\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,p}^{(0)}`$. This simple transformation lies at the heart of the factorization. After applying the field redefinition (24) to Eq. (III), the time-ordered product can be factored into the product of a collinear and an ultra-soft matrix element.

We start by considering the first term in Eq. (III) which is written explicitly as

$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}^{i(1)}=`$
$`{\displaystyle }\text{d}^4xe^{i(qp_2)x}\text{Tr}\left[0|\text{T}(\chi _{n,p_2}^{(0)}(x),\overline{\chi }_{n,p_1}^{(0)}(0))|0\mathrm{\Gamma }_i0|\text{T}([Y_n^{}h_v](0),[\overline{q}Y_n](x))|\overline{B}(v)\epsilon /_{}^{}\right].`$ (26)
The integration over $`x`$ allows to express the label momentum $`\overline{n}p_2`$ in terms of the photon momentum as $`\overline{n}p_2=\overline{n}q=2E_\gamma `$.

The collinear factor is the propagator of the $`\chi _n`$ fields, which, in momentum space, reads bpssoft

$`0|\text{T}(\chi _{n,p_2}^{\alpha (0)}(x),\overline{\chi }_{n,p_1}^{\beta (0)}(0))|0=i\delta _{\overline{n}p_1,\overline{n}p_2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ikx}J(\overline{n}p_1;nk)\left(\frac{n/}{2}\right)_{\alpha \beta }}.`$ (27)
This function was introduced in Ref. bpssoft  in connection with the factorization of the photon energy spectrum in the endpoint of $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay. The discontinuity of $`J(\overline{n}p;nk)`$ across its cut gives the jet function appearing in the factorization formula for $`BX_s\gamma `$. Here we need the function $`J(\overline{n}p;nk)`$ itself in a region away from the cut, where it can be computed in perturbation theory provided that the virtuality $`p^2=\overline{n}pnk`$ is sufficiently large, i.e. $`p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$. The explicit result at one loop order is bfl ; bfps  (with $`L=\mathrm{log}(\overline{n}pnk/\mu ^2)`$)

$`J(\overline{n}p;nk)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{nk}}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}(2L^23L+7{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}.)].`$ (28)
Note that the collinear function $`J(\overline{n}p;nk)`$ depends on $`k`$ only through $`nk`$ to all orders in perturbation theory since the soft–collinear Lagrangian contains only the $`n`$ derivative bpssoft : this implies that the coordinate $`x`$ in Eq. (III) is constrained to be on the light cone (i.e. $`x_{}=nx=0`$). We obtain, finally, the factorized form of the first term in Eq. (III) as a one-dimensional integral

$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}^{i(1)}=i\delta _{\overline{n}q,\overline{n}p_1}\delta _{\overline{n}p_1,\overline{n}p_2}{\displaystyle }\text{d}\overline{n}x{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}nk}{4\pi }}e^{\frac{i}{2}nk\overline{n}x}J(\overline{n}p;nk)\text{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n/}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_B(\overline{n}x)\epsilon /_{}^{}\right].`$ (29)
The ultra-soft matrix element on a $`B`$ meson defines its light-cone wave function

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_B^{\alpha \beta }(\overline{n}x)`$ $``$ $`0|T(\overline{q}^\beta ({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}x}{2}}n),Y_n({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}x}{2}}n,0),h_v^\alpha (0))|\overline{B}(v)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}nk}{4\pi }e^{\frac{i}{2}nk\overline{n}x}\mathrm{\Psi }_B^{\alpha \beta }(nk)}`$
with $`Y_n(x,0)=Y_n^{}(0)Y_n(x)`$.

In the heavy quark limit, the most general parameterization for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_B`$ involves two functions $`\psi _\pm (nk)`$, which are usually defined as BBNS1 ; BBNS2 ; grne ; befe

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_B(nk)={\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n/\overline{n}/}{4}}\psi _+(nk)+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}/n/}{4}}\psi _{}(nk)\right)\gamma _5.`$ (31)
With this definition, the light cone wave functions $`\psi _\pm (nk)`$ are normalized as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dnk}{2\pi }\psi _\pm (nk)}=f_Bm_B.`$ (32)
Expressed in terms of the momentum space wave functions, the first term in the effective theory amplitude (III) is given in terms of one of the two functions $`\psi _\pm (nk)`$ and is written as

$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}^{i(1)}(\overline{B}\gamma e\overline{\nu })=i\delta _{\overline{n}q,\overline{n}p_1}\delta _{\overline{n}p_1,\overline{n}p_2}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dnk}{4\pi }}J(2E_\gamma ;nk)\psi _+(nk)\text{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n/}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i{\displaystyle \frac{1+v/}{2}}\gamma _5\epsilon /_{}^{}\right].`$ (33)
The factorization of the second term in Eq. (III) can be proved in a similar way. After the field redefinition (24) the relevant collinear matrix element is (the collinear field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,p}`$ is defined in Eq. (5))

$`i{\displaystyle \text{d}^4xe^{i(qp_1+p_2)x}0|\text{T}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,0}^{(0)\alpha }(y),𝒥_g^{(0)}(\overline{n}p_2,\overline{n}p_1,x),\overline{\chi }_{n,p}^{(0)\beta }(0))|0}`$ (34)
$`=i{\displaystyle \text{d}^4x0|\text{T}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,0}^{(0)\alpha }(y),𝒥_g^{(0)}(\overline{n}p_1\overline{n}q,\overline{n}p_1,x),\overline{\chi }_{n,p}^{(0)\beta }(0))|0}`$
$`i\delta _{\overline{n}p,\overline{n}q}\delta _{\overline{n}p,\overline{n}p_1}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}e^{iky}J_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{n}p;nk)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}/n/}{4}}\epsilon /_{}^{}\right]^{\alpha \beta }.`$
This defines a new collinear function $`J_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{n}p;nk)`$, similar to $`J(\overline{n}p;nk)`$ introduced in (27). The operator $`𝒥_g^{(0)}`$ is related to $`𝒥_g`$ introduced in (21) by the field redefinition (24) and is given explicitly by

$`𝒥_g^{(0)}(\overline{n}p_2,\overline{n}p_1;y)=\overline{\chi }_{n,p_2}^{(0)}\epsilon /_{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}𝒫}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,p_1}^{(0)}+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{n,p_2}^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}𝒫\overline{n}q}}\epsilon /_{}^{}\chi _{n,p_1}^{(0)}.`$ (35)
In contrast to the function $`J`$ which starts at tree level, $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ starts at $`O(\alpha _s)`$ since the sub-leading operator $`_{q\xi }^{(1)}`$ has only Feynman rules with at least one collinear gluon. The three graphs contributing to $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ at lowest order are shown in Figs. 1(e)-(g). Their computation is described in the Appendix, and the result reads (in Feynman gauge)

$`J_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{n}p,nk)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{nk}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\left(L^2+3L8+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\right).`$ (36)
Note that, using the same argument as in the $`J(\overline{n}p;nk)`$ case, the collinear function $`J_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{n}p;nk)`$ also depends on $`k`$ only through $`nk`$ at all orders in perturbation theory.

Inserting Eq. (34) into the factorized matrix element (III), multiplying with the ultra-soft matrix element on the $`B`$ meson, and performing the integration over $`x`$ gives $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}^{i(2)}`$ similar to $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}^{i(1)}`$ but with the replacement $`J(2E_\gamma ,nk)J_{\mathrm{}}(2E_\gamma ,nk)`$. This determines $`A_{\mathrm{eff}}^i=A_{\mathrm{eff}}^{i(1)}+A_{\mathrm{eff}}^{i(2)}`$ to be given by an expression similar to (33) with the replacement $`JJ+J_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The final result for the $`\overline{B}\gamma e\overline{\nu }`$ decay amplitude is obtained by inserting the factorized soft-collinear matrix elements as in Eq. (33) into the expansion (22) and performing the sum over all Dirac structures for the current in the effective theory. One defines separate form factors $`f_{V,A}(E_\gamma )`$ for the vector and axial currents in QCD by (with the convention $`\epsilon ^{0123}=1`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\gamma (q,\epsilon )|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu b|\overline{B}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \delta }\epsilon _\alpha ^{}v_\beta q_\delta f_V(E_\gamma )`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\gamma (q,\epsilon )|\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5b|\overline{B}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`[q_\mu (v\epsilon ^{})\epsilon _\mu ^{}(vq)]f_A(E\gamma )`$
$`+(v\epsilon ^{})v_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{vq}}f_Bm_B.`$
The second term in the matrix element of the axial current is required by gauge invariance gauge  and cancels the photon emission amplitude from the charged lepton line. With these definitions, one finds the following explicit results for the $`B\gamma `$ form factors at leading order in $`1/E_\gamma `$

$`f_V(E_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`C_1^{(v)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{Q_q}{E_\gamma }}I(\mu ),`$ (39)
$`f_A(E_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`C_1^{(a)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{Q_q}{E_\gamma }}I(\mu ),`$ (40)
where the usoft-collinear part of the matrix element is contained in the integral

$`I(\mu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dnk}{4\pi }(J(2E_\gamma ;nk)+J_{\mathrm{}}(2E_\gamma ,nk))\psi _+(nk)}.`$ (41)
The results (39)-(41) can be summarized at one-loop by writing

$`f_V(E_\gamma )=f_A(E_\gamma )={\displaystyle \frac{Q_q}{E_\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{dnk}{4\pi }\frac{1}{nk}\left\{1+\frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }T^{(1)}(nk,\mu )\right\}\psi _+(nk,\mu )}`$ (42)
where the one-loop correction to the hard scattering kernel $`T^{(1)}(nk,\mu )`$ is given by

$`T^{(1)}(nk,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_b^2}}\right)+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_b^2}}\right)\left(2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2E_\gamma }{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\right)2{\displaystyle \frac{3E_\gamma m_b}{m_b2E_\gamma }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2E_\gamma }{m_b}}`$
$`+\mathrm{log}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2E_\gamma nk}{\mu ^2}}\right)2\mathrm{log}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2E_\gamma }{m_b}}\right)2\text{Li}_2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2E_\gamma }{m_b}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4}}7.`$
This expression coincides with the one-loop results presented in Ref. DGS .

Similar results are obtained for the form factors of the tensor current, which can be defined as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\gamma (q,\epsilon )|\overline{q}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b|\overline{B}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`g_+(E_\gamma )i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\alpha (p+q)^\beta +g_{}(E_\gamma )i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\alpha (pq)^\beta `$
$``$ $`2h(E_\gamma )(\epsilon ^{}p)i\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\alpha q^\beta `$
The explicit leading order results for these form factors are

$`g_+(E_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{C_1^{(t)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu )+C_2^{(t)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu )+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{E_\gamma }{m_B}}\right)C_3^{(t)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu )\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_q}{E_\gamma }}I(\mu )`$ (45)
$`g_{}(E_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{C_1^{(t)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu )+C_2^{(t)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu )+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{E_\gamma }{m_B}}\right)C_3^{(t)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu )\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_q}{E_\gamma }}I(\mu )`$ (46)
$`h(E_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_B^2}}C_3^{(t)}(2E_\gamma ,\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{Q_q}{E_\gamma }}I(\mu )`$ (47)
Writing the form factors in this form makes explicit their factorization into a hard ($`C_i`$), collinear ($`J`$) and ultra-soft ($`\psi _+`$) components. This result gives a field-theoretical interpretation of the contributions coming from different momentum regions. Corrections to factorization can be expected from subleading operators in the matching of the currents and Lagrangian insertions, for which the field redefinition (24) fails to decouple ultrasoft from collinear fields bpssoft .

In the numerical evaluation of the form factors, a convenient choice for the scale $`\mu `$ is $`\mu ^22E_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, for which the logs appearing in the collinear functions $`J,J_{\mathrm{}}`$ are minimized. With this choice, these logs are shifted instead into the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(2E_\gamma )`$, where they can be resummed using renormalization group (RG) methods. It has been shown in bfl ; bfps  that the Wilson coefficients $`C_i(\overline{n}p,\mu )`$ satisfy RG equations of the form

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}C_i(\overline{n}p,\mu )=\gamma (\overline{n}p/\mu )C_i(\overline{n}p,\mu )`$ (48)
with a universal anomalous dimension $`\gamma `$. The form of the resummed result has been discussed in detail in bfps  to which we refer for explicit results. A similar resummation can be performed using the methods of GPK ; KS , which are equivalent to the effective theory approach. At leading order, the resummation of the Sudakov double logs $`\mathrm{log}^2(2E_\gamma /\mu )`$ has been given in KPY  using the approach of GPK ; KS , and a next-to-leading analysis was done recently in DGS  using SCET methods.

The factorized form (39)-(40) exhibits a symmetry relation between radiative leptonic form factors of different currents. At $`O(\lambda ^0)`$, the only difference between $`f_V(E_\gamma )`$ and $`f_A(E_\gamma )`$ comes from the Wilson coefficients of the heavy light currents. However, it has been shown in bfps  that, for massless collinear quarks, the Wilson coefficients $`C_1^{(v)}`$ and $`C_1^{(a)}`$ are equal to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$ as a consequence of the chiral symmetry of the effective theory. This proves the symmetry relation $`f_V(E_\gamma )=f_A(E_\gamma )`$ to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$, confirming a result conjectured in KPY  from an explicit one-loop computation. Analogous relations can be given for the form factors of the tensor current following from (45)-(47).

Finally, we comment on the relation of our results to a factorization formula for $`B\gamma e\nu `$ conjectured in KPY  from a one-loop computation. The main difference is the simpler one-dimensional form of the convolution formula for the form factors (39), (41) (and also in DGS ), compared to the three-dimensional factorization formula proposed in KPY . This is due to a different definition for the B meson wave function adopted in KPY , which shifts part of the usoft matrix element ($`k_{}`$-dependent) into the hard scattering amplitude $`T`$.

Another difference which must be taken into account when comparing with the results of KPY  is the hierarchy $`m_b2E_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ adopted in that paper. This corresponds to expanding the hard scattering kernel $`T`$ in $`2E_\gamma /m_b`$ and keeping only the leading term. On the other hand, the more general approach used here allows $`m_b,2E_\gamma `$ to be of comparable magnitude, subject only to the condition $`m_b,2E_\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied in this paper the consequences of the presence of two considerably different scales, $`2E_\gamma m_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Although this is a general feature of radiative $`B`$ decays involving an energetic photon, the basic physical features of such a problem can be seen on the simpler case of the leptonic radiative decay $`B\gamma e\nu `$. The presence of a small parameter $`\lambda `$, where $`\lambda ^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_b`$, suggests using the soft-collinear effective theory which is tailored to systematically treat the expansion in $`\lambda `$.

We discussed in this paper the most general form of the SCET operators contributing to the leptonic radiative decay $`\overline{B}\gamma e\overline{\nu }`$ at leading order in $`\lambda `$. Using this result, we showed that the form factors describing this decay factorize into hard, collinear and soft factors to all orders in perturbation theory. Further work is needed to complete the proof of the factorization relation for a generic radiative B decay. One can hope that the application of the soft-collinear effective theory along the lines of the present paper can be fruitful in unravelling the general form of such a result.

## V Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Grisha Korchemsky and Iain W. Stewart for useful discussions. We thank Andri Hardmeier for many discussions and suggestions. E.L. acknowledges financial support from the Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation. The research of D. P. has been supported by the DOE under Grant No. DOE-FG03-97ER40546 and by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grant PHY-9970781. E. L. and D. W. are supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

## Appendix A One-loop matching of the ultra-soft–collinear current

We consider here in some detail the coupling of an energetic photon $`\gamma (q,\epsilon )`$ to an ultra-soft quark $`q`$, turning it into a collinear quark $`\xi _n`$. Proceeding in analogy to the heavy-light current bfl ; bfps  one would be led to match this coupling onto a local operator in the effective theory. At order $`O(\lambda ^0)`$ the most general operator compatible with collinear gauge invariance is $`\overline{\xi }_nW\epsilon /^{}q`$. In Sec. III it was shown that the complete matching can include also a nonlocal term and it reads

$`\overline{q}\epsilon /_{}^{}q\overline{\xi }_n\epsilon /_{}^{}Wq+iT\{𝒥_g,_{\xi q}^{(1)}\}.`$ (49)
The operators appearing in the nonlocal term are defined as

$`𝒥_g`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\xi }_{n,pq}[\epsilon /_{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}𝒫+g\overline{n}A_n}}(𝒫/_{}+gA/_{})+(𝒫/_{}+gA/_{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}𝒫\overline{n}q+g\overline{n}A_n}}\epsilon /_{}^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}/}{2}}\xi _{n,p}`$
$`_{\xi q}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\xi }_n(𝒫/_{}+gA/_{})Wq.`$ (50)
The SCET diagrams involving collinear gluons that describe the one-loop matching of the ultra-soft-collinear current are given in Fig. 2; we do not draw the diagram with one ultra-soft gluon since it has the same topology as in full QCD. The graph in Fig. 2(a) is the contribution analogous to the one present in the heavy-light correction; it stems from the first term in Eq. (49) and the two vertices denote, respectively, an insertion of the $`\overline{\xi }_n\epsilon /_{}^{}Wq`$ operator (the blob) and of the leading order Lagrangian $`^{(0)}`$. The two remaining graphs, Figs. 2(b)-(c), appear only for the light-light case and contain one insertion of the sub-leading Lagrangian $`_{\xi q}^{(1)}`$ and one insertion of the operator $`𝒥_g`$ (the diagram in Fig. 2(b) contains also an insertion of the leading order lagrangian). Using Eqs. (49) and (50) it is immediate to extract the Feynman rules for the various vertices that appear in Fig. 2.

In the explicit computation of the diagrams we assume that the photon moves along the $`n`$ direction with light cone momentum components $`q=(nq,\overline{n}q,q_{})=(0,\overline{n}q,0)`$. The momenta of the ingoing ultrasoft quark and of the outgoing collinear quark are $`p`$ and $`p^{}=pq`$, respectively. The ultrasoft quark is taken on-shell with $`p^2=m^2`$.

The contribution of the local term in (49), Fig. 2(a), is identical to the one-loop correction to the heavy-light vertex bfl , and its computation gives (we use everywhere in the following the Feynman gauge)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{C}^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`2ig_s^2C_F\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\overline{n}(kq)}{(pq+k)^2\overline{n}kk^2}[\overline{\xi }_n(p^{})\epsilon /_{}^{}u(p)]}`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(22ϵ)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{np\overline{n}q}{\mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ[\overline{\xi }_n(p^{})\epsilon /_{}^{}u(p)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2L2}{ϵ}}+L^22L{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}+4\right)[\overline{\xi }_n(p^{})\epsilon /_{}^{}u(p)]`$
where $`d=42ϵ`$, $`L=\mathrm{log}(np\overline{n}q/\mu _E^2)=\mathrm{log}(p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/\mu _E^2)`$ and $`\mu _E^2=\mu ^2e^{\gamma _E\mathrm{log}4\pi }`$. The result contains a double logarithm bfl . In an analogous way we compute the contributions from the nonlocal term in (49), Figs. 2(b)-(c), and obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{C}^{(b+c)}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{32L}{ϵ}}L^2+3L+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}8\right)[\overline{\xi }_n(p^{})\epsilon /^{}u(p)].`$ (52)
Finally, the sum of the three diagrams reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{C}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mu _E^2}}\right)4\right)[\overline{\xi }_n(p^{})\epsilon /_{}^{}u(p)]`$ (53)
where we restored the logarithm. Note that in Eq. (53) the double logarithms cancel.

To complete the computation of the vertex correction in SCET we need to include also the usoft diagram that comes at one-loop order only from one insertion of the local term in (49), and is equal to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{S}`$ $`=`$ $`2ig^2C_F\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{[(k+p)^2m^2+i\epsilon ](k^2+i\epsilon )}[\overline{\xi }(p^{})\epsilon /_{}^{}u(p)]}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)}{12ϵ}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)^ϵ[\overline{\xi }(p^{})\epsilon /_{}^{}u(p)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu _E^2}}\right)+4\right)[\overline{\xi }(p^{})\epsilon /_{}^{}u(p)]`$
where $`m`$ is the mass of the ultrasoft quark that we use as IR regulator.

The total SCET contributions to the usoft-collinear vertex is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{SCET}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _sC_F}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\mu _E^2}}\right)2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu _E^2}}\right)\right][\overline{\xi }(p^{})\epsilon /_{}^{}u(p)]`$ (55)
Finally, computing the vertex correction in full QCD, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{QCD}}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_s^2C_F\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\gamma ^\mu (p^{}/+k/+m)\epsilon /^{}(p/+k/+m)\gamma _\mu }{((p+k)^2m^2)k^2((p^{}+k)^2m^2)}}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{SCET}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{(\overline{n}q)^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{(\overline{n}q)^2}}).`$
This exercise shows that the IR behavior of QCD is exactly reproduced in the SCET at the one-loop order; moreover, it also shows to what extent the effective theory computation reproduces the full QCD result.

Before concluding this appendix let us describe briefly the computation of the jet functions $`J`$ and $`J_l`$ introduced in Eqs. (28) and (36). The diagrams that produce the latter are exactly those drawn in Figs. 2(b)-(c) in which the ultra-soft field on the left is dropped and a collinear propagator is inserted on the right (as can be readily seen expanding explicitly the T-product in Eq. (34)). In fact, after subtracting the divergences (remember that $`J_l`$ is defined as the vacuum-to-vacuum matrix element of a T-product of effective theory fields) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{C}^{(b+c)}`$ exactly reproduces Eq. (36).

The leading order contribution to $`J`$ is simply the propagator of the collinear field while the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ correction is given by the sum of three graphs. The first diagram is given by the diagram in Fig. 2(a) in which the ultra-soft field on the left is dropped and a collinear propagator is inserted on the right. The second diagram is obtained from the first one by moving the collinear propagator to the left side. These two diagrams yield identical results and their contribution to $`J`$ is $`1/(nk)\alpha _sC_F/(4\pi )(2L^24L+8\pi ^2/3)`$. The third diagram is simply the one loop correction to the quark propagator (analogous to QCD). Its contribution was computed in Eq. (36) of Ref. bfps  and yields $`1/(nk)\alpha _sC_F/(4\pi )(L1)`$. The sum of the three graphs reproduces Eq. (28).


text:
# References

Deformations of the Poincaré algebra allowing for the existence of a fundamental length (energy) scale have recently been the subject of several investigations . Their interest is motivated by the fact that theories of quantum gravity seem to imply the existence of a minimal length scale of the order of the Planck length .

One may wonder whether the framework of deformed Poincaré algebra can be extended to include gravitational interactions, giving rise in this way to an effective modification of general relativity at small scales. As is well known, a theory of gravity can be obtained in general by gauging the spacetime symmetry group, and this approach was adopted in  for constructing a two-dimensional gravitational model invariant under the specific deformation of Poincaré algebra introduced in ref. .

In this letter we go a step further, extending the model of  to the case where a dilaton potential is present . This class of two-dimensional theories includes between others (anti-)de Sitter , or extended Poincaré models . Finding suitable deformations of the algebras of  compatible with the assumptions of  is not trivial, because the Jacobi identities impose constraints on the form of the deformed algebra.

The deformed Poincaré algebra of  is given in two dimensions by the commutation relations

$$[P_a,P_b]=0,[J,P_0]=P_1\frac{P_0P_1}{\kappa },[J,P_1]=P_0\frac{P_1^2}{\kappa },$$
(1)
where $`P_a`$ are the generators of translations and $`J`$ that of boosts and $`a=0,1`$. Tangent space indices are lowered and raised by the tensor $`h_{ab}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$. We also make use of the antisymmetric tensor $`ϵ_{ab}`$, with $`ϵ_{01}=1`$. The deformation parameter $`\kappa `$ has the dimension of a mass and can be identified with the inverse of the Planck length. The algebra (1) can be considered as an example of nonlinear algebra .

A gravitational model which is invariant under the local symmetry (1) was studied in  and is described by a lagrangian

$$L=\eta _2R+\eta _aT^a+\frac{\eta _1}{\kappa }\eta _a\omega e^a,$$
(2)
where $`R=\mathrm{d}\omega `$ is the curvature and $`T^a=\mathrm{d}e^a+ϵ_b^a\omega e^b`$ the torsion and $`\eta _a`$, $`\eta _2`$ are a triplet of scalar fields in the coadjoint representation of the algebra. $`\eta _2`$ is often called dilaton.

We want to generalize this two-dimensional model to include dilaton-dependent potentials $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta _2)`$, analogous to those studied in  in the Lorentz-invariant case. Simple special cases were de Sitter gravity , corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda \eta _2`$, or extended Poincaré gravity , corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda `$. In these models, the commutation relation between the generators of translations $`P_a`$ is of the form

$$[P_0,P_1]=\mathrm{\Lambda }(J),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the same function as the potential, and $`J`$ is the generator of boosts.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to simply change the momentum commutation relation in (1) to the form (3) because the set does not satisfy the generalized Jacobi identities of nonlinear algebras . The simplest generalization of the algebra (1) is to admit a relation of the form $`[P_0,P_1]=f(P_a)\mathrm{\Lambda }(J)`$. A simple calculation shows that the Jacobi identities are in fact satisfied if $`f(P_a)=\left(1\frac{P_0}{\kappa }\right)^3`$. Hence, we shall consider the nonlinear algebra

$$[P_a,P_b]=\left(1\frac{P_0}{\kappa }\right)^3\mathrm{\Lambda }(J),[J,P_0]=P_1\frac{P_0P_1}{\kappa },[J,P_1]=P_0\frac{P_1^2}{\kappa }.$$
(4)
For $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$, the algebra reduces to that obtained in  for the Lorentz-invariant limit. The algebra (4) admits a Casimir invariant

$$C=\frac{P_1^2P_0^2}{\left(1\frac{P_0}{\kappa }\right)^2}+2\mathrm{\Lambda }(J)𝑑J.$$
(5)
In order to construct a gauge theory for this algebra, we proceed as in  and adopt the formalism of Ikeda . Given an algebra with commutation relations $`[T_A,T_B]=W_{AB}(T)`$, one introduces gauge fields $`A^A`$ and a coadjoint multiplet of scalar fields $`\eta _A`$, which under infinitesimal transformations of parameter $`\xi ^A`$ transform as

$`\delta A^A=\mathrm{d}\xi ^A+U_{BC}^A(\eta )A^B\xi ^C,`$ (6)
$`\delta \eta _A=W_{AB}(\eta )\xi ^B,`$ (7)
where $`U_{BC}^A`$ and $`W_{AB}`$ are functions of the fields $`\eta _A`$ which satisfy

$`U_{BC}^A={\displaystyle \frac{W_{BC}}{\eta _A}}.`$ (8)
In our case $`A=0,1,2`$, and we identify $`T^a`$ with $`P^a`$ and $`T^2`$ with $`J`$. In analogy with , we can then also identify $`A^a`$ with the zweibeins $`e^a`$ and $`A^2`$ with the spin connection $`\omega `$, and obtain a gauge theory for gravity in two dimensions. A gauge-invariant lagrangian can then be obtained with the methods of , and reads

$$L=\eta _2R+\eta _aT^a+\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{\eta _0}{\kappa }\right)^3\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta _2)ϵ_{ab}e^ae^b+\frac{\eta _1}{\kappa }\eta _a\omega e^a,$$
(9)
with field equations

$`\mathrm{d}\eta _0=\left(\eta _1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1\eta _0}{\kappa }}\right)\omega \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0}{\kappa }}\right)^3\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta _2)e^1,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{d}\eta _1=\left(\eta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1^2}{\kappa }}\right)\omega +\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0}{\kappa }}\right)^3\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta _2)e^0,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{d}\eta _2=\left(\eta _1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1\eta _0}{\kappa }}\right)e^0\left(\eta _0{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1^2}{\kappa }}\right)e^1,`$ (12)
$`T^0=\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1}{\kappa }}e^0+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\kappa }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0}{\kappa }}\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta _2)e^0e^1,`$ (13)
$`T^1=\omega \left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0}{\kappa }}e^0+{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta _1}{\kappa }}e^1\right),`$ (14)
$`R=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _0}{\kappa }}\right)^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\eta _2)e^0e^1.`$ (15)
For solving the field equations it is useful to use the Poisson sigma model formalism. We shall not give here the details of this formalism and refer the reader to the vast literature on the subject . For our purposes it is sufficient to define a new set of variables (target space coordinates),

$$X_1=C(\eta _A),X_2=\mathrm{arccosh}\frac{\eta _0}{\sqrt{\eta _1^2\eta _0^2}},X_3=\eta _2,$$
(16)
where $`C(\eta _A)`$ is the Casimir invariant (5) written in terms of the $`\eta _A`$, $`C(\eta _A)=\left(1\frac{\eta _0}{\kappa }\right)^2(\eta _1^2\eta _0^2)+2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta _2)d\eta _2`$. The transformation (16) holds when the value of the function $`\gamma =C2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta _2)𝑑\eta _2`$ is negative. For positive values of $`\gamma `$, one must perform instead the transformation

$$X_1=C(\eta _A),X_2=\mathrm{arcsinh}\frac{\eta _0}{\sqrt{\eta _1^2\eta _0^2}},X_3=\eta _2.$$
(17)
For definiteness, in the following we shall consider the case $`\gamma <0`$.

The new variables satisfy the commutation relations

$$[X_1,X_2]=[X_1,X_3]=0,[X_2,X_3]=1,$$
(18)
and in term of them, the $`\eta _a`$ can be written as

$$\eta _0=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{cosh}X_2,\eta _1=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{sinh}X_2,$$
(19)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{\left|X_1+2\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_3)dX_3\right|},\mathrm{\Delta }=1+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }\mathrm{cosh}X_2.$$
(20)
In these variables, the field equations take a very simple form :

$$\mathrm{d}X_1=0,\mathrm{d}X_2=B_3,\mathrm{d}X_3=B_2,\mathrm{d}B_i=0,$$
(21)
whose solutions are given by

$$X_1=\mathrm{const},B_1=2\mathrm{d}\varphi ,$$
(22)
$`\varphi `$, $`X_2`$ and $`X_3`$ being arbitrary functions. One can then go back to the original variables. Defining $`X_1=c`$, where $`c`$ is the constant value of $`C`$, $`X_2=\theta `$, $`X_3=\eta `$, one obtains

$`e^0=\mathrm{\Delta }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta +\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{cosh}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }})\mathrm{d}\varphi )],`$ (23)
$`e^1=\mathrm{\Delta }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta +\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi )],`$ (24)
$`\omega =\mathrm{d}\theta +\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{d}\varphi `$ (25)
where, in terms of the new variables, the functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ read $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{|c2\mathrm{\Lambda }d\eta |}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{cosh}\theta /\kappa `$.

One is still free to choose a gauge. The most interesting choices are $`\theta =0`$ or $`\theta =\varphi `$. The first choice may be considered as the ground state of the model and yields

$$e^0=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\kappa ^2}\right)\mathrm{d}\varphi ,e^1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }\right)\mathrm{d}\eta ,\omega =\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{d}\varphi ,$$
(26)
with

$$T^0=\frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }\right)\mathrm{d}\varphi \mathrm{d}\eta ,T^1=0,R=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{d}\varphi \mathrm{d}\eta .$$
(27)
In particular, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda \eta _2`$, one obtains a deformation of (anti-)de Sitter space with constant curvature, but nonvanishing torsion.

In the second case,

$`e^0=\mathrm{\Delta }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta +\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }}\right)\mathrm{d}\theta \right],`$ (28)
$`e^1=\mathrm{\Delta }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta +\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{d}\theta \right],`$ (29)
$`\omega =(1+\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{d}\theta ,`$ (30)
and the components of the torsion and the curvature are

$`T^0=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\kappa }}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta ,`$ (31)
$`T^1={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta ,`$ (32)
$`R=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta .`$ (33)
The solutions corresponding to $`\gamma >0`$ can be obtained from the previous ones by simply interchanging $`\mathrm{sinh}\theta `$ with $`\mathrm{cosh}\theta `$ everywhere.

For a discussion of the properties of the solutions, it may be useful to define a line element $`ds^2=h_{ab}e^ae^b`$, although this is not gauge invariant. The possibility of defining a gauge invariant metric will be discussed elsewhere . Alternatively, one may interpret the lack of invariance assuming that Planck-energy particles experience different metrics depending on their state of motion. One has

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta ^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(12\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }\mathrm{cosh}\theta +\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\kappa ^2}\right)\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }\mathrm{sinh}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta \mathrm{d}\theta \right]$$
(34)
for $`\gamma <0`$, or

$$ds^2=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta ^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\left(1+2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }\mathrm{sinh}\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\kappa ^2}\right)\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\kappa }\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{d}\eta \mathrm{d}\theta \right]$$
(35)
for $`\gamma >0`$, with $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=1+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{sinh}\theta /\kappa `$.

The discussion of the properties of the solutions is in general quite complicated. First of all, we notice that the volume element is $`e^0e^1=\mathrm{\Delta }^3\mathrm{d}\eta \mathrm{d}\theta `$, which is positive definite when $`\gamma <0`$. In this case, the only singularities (at least for well-beaheved $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) are horizons occurring at the zeroes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. When $`\gamma >0`$, instead, torsion singularities can occur at $`\mathrm{sinh}\theta =\kappa /\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ vanishes, and the discussion of the solutions becomes more intricated.

It can be interesting to consider as an example the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda \eta _2`$, which corresponds to de Sitter ($`\lambda <0`$) or anti-de Sitter ($`\lambda >0`$) in the undeformed limit. Let us start from the case $`\gamma <0`$. In this case the coordinate $`\eta `$ is spacelike, and the solutions are time-dependent deformations of the static de Sitter or anti-de Sitter solutions, depending on the sign of $`\lambda `$. When $`\lambda `$ and $`c`$ have the same sign, a horizon is present at $`\eta =\sqrt{c/\lambda }`$, but curvature and torsion are regular everywhere.

For $`\gamma >0`$, the coordinate $`\eta `$ is timelike when $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}>0`$, and the solutions can be interpreted as space-dependent deformations of the two-dimensional cosmological de Sitter or anti-de Sitter solutions (see for example ). Again a horizon is present when $`\lambda `$ and $`c`$ have the same sign, but now also a singularity of the torsion occurs where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=0`$.

A more accurate discussion of the properties of the solutions would require the definition of a gauge-independent metric or an interpretation of its gauge dependence, which we leave for further investigations.

We have investigated a model of gravity in two dimensions, invariant under a deformation of the (anti)-de Sitter algebra or of more general algebras corresponding to dilaton-dependent potentials. We have defined the action and obtained the general solutions of the field equations. All solutions imply the presence of nontrivial torsion.

To conclude, we notice that a deformation of the (anti-)de Sitter algebra compatible with the algebra of ref.  in the $`\lambda 0`$ limit can be obtained also in four dimensions, using a procedure analogous to the one adopted above. The deformed algebra reads

$`[P_i,P_j]=\lambda \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{\kappa }}\right)^2\left(ϵ_{ijk}M_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}(N_iP_jN_jP_i)\right),`$
$`[P_0,P_j]=\lambda \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{\kappa }}\right)^3N_j,[M_i,P_j]=ϵ_{ijk}P_k,[M_i,P_0]=0,`$
$`[N_i,P_j]=\delta _{ij}P_0{\displaystyle \frac{P_iP_j}{\kappa }},[N_i,P_0]=P_i{\displaystyle \frac{P_0P_i}{\kappa }},`$
$`[N_i,N_j]=ϵ_{ijk}M_k,[M_i,N_j]=ϵ_{ijk}N_k,[M_i,M_j]=ϵ_{ijk}M_k,`$
where $`i,j,\mathrm{}=1,2,3`$, $`N_i=M_{0i}`$, $`M_k=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}M_{ij}`$.

Unfortunately, however, an action principle for nonlinear gauge theories is not known in four dimensions. Nevertheless, we believe that our low-dimensional model can give some hints for addressing this problem, and also other open questions, as the definition of a gauge-invariant metric and/or a suitable coupling for point particles.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Boltzmann equation for the velocity distribution $`f(\stackrel{}{v},t)`$ of particles of a gas has been derived with the use of the molecular chaos assumption, which implies that all correlations between the velocities of particles may be neglected?. This equation was also a starting point to build up a kinetic theory of dissipative gases where the particles collide inelastically (for an overview see, e.g.?). Whereas the molecular chaos assumption is justified for dilute molecular gases, there are two reasons for its violation for the case of moderately dense dissipative gases: First the positions of the particles are not independent due to excluded volume effects which gives rise to the Enskog factor.? A second source of correlations is the dissipative nature of particle interaction. Since dissipation concerns only the normal component of the relative velocity of colliding particles, the angle between their velocity vectors after the collision is always smaller than the angle just before the collision. The latter effect leads to aligning of the trajectories of adjacent particles which contradicts the molecular chaos assumption. Obviously this effect increases with increasing inelasticity, expressed by the coefficient of restitution $`ϵ`$ which relates the normal component of the relative particle velocity after and before a collision. This expectation has been confirmed by studies of randomly driven Granular Gases?, where it was shown that the molecular chaos assumption becomes less accurate with increasing degree of particle inelasticity. Instead, the velocities of the colliding pair are noticeably correlated; this effect depends on the restitution coefficient and on the gas density.? On the macroscopic (hydrodynamic) scale these velocity correlations cause vortex structures in the velocity field of a spatially homogeneous dissipative gas.?

In spite that obviously the microscopic correlations of the velocities of adjacent particles play an important role for the kinetics of dissipative gases, the particular form of the multi-particle velocity distribution function, which describes these correlation is not known. It is the aim of this paper to present the first (to our knowledge) attempt to construct the two-particle correlation function of a simple dissipative gas.

## 2 Boltzmann-Enskog equation for hard spheres

In kinetic gas theory the evolution of the velocity distribution function $`f(v,t)`$ is governed by the Boltzmann equation?

$$\frac{}{t}f(\stackrel{}{v}_1,t)=I(f,f)$$
(1)
with the collision integral

$$I(f,f)\sigma ^2𝑑\stackrel{}{v}_2𝑑\stackrel{}{e}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\stackrel{}{v}_{12}\stackrel{}{e}\right)\left|\stackrel{}{v}_{12}\stackrel{}{e}\right|\left[\chi f(\stackrel{}{v}_1^{\prime \prime },t)f(\stackrel{}{v}_2^{\prime \prime },t)f(\stackrel{}{v}_1,t)f(\stackrel{}{v}_2,t)\right].$$
(2)
The velocities $`\stackrel{}{v}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_2`$ are the pre-collision velocities of the direct collision, and the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ points from the center of particle 2 with velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_2`$ to the center of particle 1 with velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}_1`$. Here $`\stackrel{}{v}_{12}\stackrel{}{v}_1\stackrel{}{v}_2`$, $`\sigma `$ is the particle diameter and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside step-function. The velocities $`\stackrel{}{v}_1^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\stackrel{}{v}_2^{\prime \prime }`$ correspond to pre-collision velocities of the inverse collision, which ends up after the collision with the velocities $`\stackrel{}{v}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_2`$.

For a gas of inelastically colliding particles the function

$$\chi \frac{\left|\stackrel{}{g}^{\prime \prime }\right|}{\left|\stackrel{}{g}\right|}\frac{𝒟(\stackrel{}{v}_1^{\prime \prime },\stackrel{}{v}_2^{\prime \prime })}{𝒟(\stackrel{}{v}_1,\stackrel{}{v}_2)}$$
(3)
accounts for the Jacobian of the transition from the pre-collision velocities $`\stackrel{}{v}_1^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\stackrel{}{v}_2^{\prime \prime }`$ of the inverse collision to those of the direct collision $`\stackrel{}{v}_1`$, $`\stackrel{}{v}_2`$ and for the ratio of the lengths of the collision cylinders of the inverse and the direct collision. These are proportional to the normal components of the relative velocities, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{g}\left(\stackrel{}{v_{12}}\stackrel{}{e}\right)\stackrel{}{e}`$ for the direct collision, with the analogous expression for the inverse collision. The ratio

$$ϵ\left|\stackrel{}{g}\right|/\left|\stackrel{}{g}^{\prime \prime }\right|$$
(4)
defines the coefficient of restitution $`ϵ`$ which describes the inelasticity of the particles. Using this coefficient the velocities of two colliding particles before and after a collision can be related. In particular, these relations read for the inverse collision

$`\stackrel{}{v}_1^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{v}_1{\displaystyle \frac{1+ϵ}{2ϵ}}\left(\stackrel{}{v}_{12}\stackrel{}{e}\right)\stackrel{}{e}`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{}{v}_2^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{v}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1+ϵ}{2ϵ}}\left(\stackrel{}{v}_{12}\stackrel{}{e}\right)\stackrel{}{e}.`$ (6)
The coefficient of restitution is the central quantity in the theory of granular gases. Experiments? as well as theory ?,?,? show clearly that the coefficient of restitution is not a constant but depends on the impact velocity. Nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity of calculation it is frequently assumed that this coefficient is a material constant. With the assumption $`ϵ=\mathrm{const}.`$ from (3) we find $`\chi =ϵ^2`$.

## 3 Correlations in dissipative gases

The most important precondition for the derivation of (1,2) is the assumption of molecular chaos (Stoßzahlansatz) which expresses the two-particle distribution function as a product of the one-particle distribution functions

$$f_2(\stackrel{}{v}_1,\stackrel{}{v}_2,t)=f(\stackrel{}{v}_1,t)f(\stackrel{}{v}_2,t)$$
(7)
which is identical with the assumption of vanishing correlations between successive collisions of each particle. For gases of particles of finite sizes this assumption is violated due to finite volume effects (i.e. two particles can not occupy the same volume). This gives rise to the Enskog factor? $`g_2(\sigma )`$

$$f_2(\stackrel{}{v}_1,\stackrel{}{v}_2)g_2(\sigma )f(\stackrel{}{v}_1,t)f(\stackrel{}{v}_2,t)$$
(8)
which accounts for the increasing collision frequency in such gases. This quantity equals the contact value of the pair correlation function $`g_2(\sigma )`$. For systems of hard discs it reads:?

$$g_2(\sigma )=\frac{1\frac{7}{16}\eta }{(1\eta )^2},$$
(9)
where $`\eta =\pi n\sigma ^2/4`$ is the packing fraction, $`n=N/V`$ is the number density with $`N`$ being the number of particles in the system and $`V`$ is the two-dimensional volume (area). The Enskog factor obviously accounts only for static spatial correlations. Any dynamic correlations between the velocities of particles are still ignored.

For the case of dissipative gases there is an additional source of correlations. These arise since the restitution coefficient affects only the normal component of the relative velocity of a colliding pair, leaving the tangential relative velocity unchanged. If two inelastic particles collide with a (pre-collision) angle $`\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$ the angle $`\alpha `$ after the collision will be smaller, $`\alpha <\alpha ^{\prime \prime }`$ (see Fig. 3).

As a consequence subsequent collisions lead to more and more aligned traces of neighboring particles. It has been shown?,? that these correlations give rise to convection cells in an otherwise homogeneous granular gas, i.e., to macroscopic correlations in the velocity field even in absence of spatial inhomogeneities.

Since the particles are aligned in macroscopic vortices, such velocity correlations lead to a reduced collision frequency as compared with the collision frequency of a gas of elastic particles of the same temperature. The reduction of the collision frequency leads in its turn to a reduction of the cooling rate, i.e., to a retarded decay of temperature even in the stage of homogeneous cooling. Therefore, to estimate the importance of velocity correlations we analyze the cooling rate of a dissipative gas.

## 4 Temperature decay of dissipative gases

Assume a homogeneous dissipative gas of particles with velocities which obey a distribution function $`f\left(\stackrel{}{v}\right)`$. For $`ϵ=\mathrm{const}.`$ the Boltzmann equation decouples into a set of simpler equations?, one for the time dependent temperature

$$T(t)\frac{m}{3n}𝑑\stackrel{}{v}v^2f(\stackrel{}{v},t)$$
(10)
and another one for the time independent (normalized) distribution function. With the assumption that the velocities obey a Maxwell distribution it has been shown by scaling arguments that temperature decays due to dissipative collisions as

$$T(t)=\frac{T_0}{\left(1+t/\tau _0\right)^2}$$
(11)
with $`T_0`$ being the initial temperature and $`\tau _0`$ being a scaling factor which will be discussed in detail below. Equation (11) is known as Haff’s law?. Later deviations from the Maxwell distribution have been found?,?, however, the temperature decay law is still correct.

Let us compare the analytical results for the temperature evolution with the temperature decay as obtained by an event driven Molecular Dynamics simulation. Haff’s law was derived with the molecular chaos assumption, therefore, in order to obtain results which are comparable with theory we apply a special numerical procedure which destroys the collision-induced velocity correlation of colliding particles. This procedure is illustrated in Fig. 4. We shuffle the velocities of the colliding particles with the velocities of randomly selected particles. It is easy to understand that the shuffling procedure is unique since the condition for the after-collision normal relative velocity to be positive must be fulfilled.

The solid line in Fig. 4 shows the evolution of temperature for a system of $`N=5,000`$ inelastically colliding spheres in two dimensions with periodic boundary conditions where the described shuffling procedure has been applied (randomized simulation). The reduced density was $`n=N\sigma ^2/V=0.05`$ (with $`\sigma =1`$), where $`V`$ is the area of the quadratic box and the coefficient of restitution is $`ϵ=0.93`$. In the entire range of $`t`$ the curve is identical up to the line width with Haff’s law (11) where the relaxation time $`\tau _0`$ is a fit parameter. Repeating the same simulation without the shuffling procedure we obtain a temperature decay as drawn by the dashed line in Fig. 4. The curves are close to each other until $`\mathrm{ln}t6`$. At this time instant for the unshuffled system we observe formation of spatial inhomogeneities (clusters) which leads to a reduced collision frequency. The cluster formation in dissipative gases due to a pressure instability is a well understood phenomenon which was described first in?.

Obviously, our randomization procedure suppresses the formation of density inhomogeneities which can be understood from mode-coupling analysis.? We know that the space inhomogeneities arise in two steps: first vortex patterns appear due to interparticle velocity correlations induced by the collisions, then clusters develop owing to interaction between the density modes and the flow-velocity modes. Thus, the collision-induced correlations play a clue role in the formation of spatial inhomogeneities. Therefore, since clustering or vertex formation is not possible in the randomized simulation due to suppression of the collision-induced velocity correlations we find almost perfect agreement with Haff’s law.

Figure 4 shows that in the region $`\mathrm{ln}t6`$ Haff’s law describes the temperature decay of the dissipative gas with and without randomization up to a good degree of accuracy. Having a closer look to Fig. 4 (inset) one recognizes, however, a small but systematic deviation between these two temperature curves. We have checked spatial homogeneity of the particle distribution for the both gases and did not observe any difference in the time span where Haff’s law is applicable. Thus we conclude that this difference may be attributed only to velocity correlations of the particles of the gas.

It is possible to fit the value of the relaxation time $`\tau _0`$ in Haff’s law to reproduce the simulation data (dashed line) up to the same accuracy as done before for the randomized gas. The numerical value of $`\tau _0`$ which depends on the coefficient of restitution and on the density of the gas may, therefore, serve to characterize the velocity correlations of the particles. We will return to this issue in Sec. 6.

## 5 Beyond the concept of molecular chaos

To develop a theory beyond the concept of molecular chaos we introduce the reduced velocities

$$\stackrel{}{c}\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{v_0}\text{with}v_0\sqrt{\frac{2T}{m}},$$
(12)
where $`v_0`$ is the thermal velocity and the reduced velocity distribution function $`\stackrel{~}{f}\left(\stackrel{}{c}\right)`$ which is defined by

$$f(\stackrel{}{v},t)=\frac{n}{v_0^3(t)}\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{}{c},t).$$
(13)
In the equivalent way we define the reduced two-particle distribution function $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2(\stackrel{}{c}_1,\stackrel{}{c}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_{12},t)`$ with $`\stackrel{}{r}_{12}\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2`$.

Correlations of the particle velocities are taken into account by assuming the following form of the two-particle velocity distribution function:

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_2(\stackrel{}{c}_1,\stackrel{}{c}_2,\stackrel{}{r}_{12},t)=\stackrel{~}{f}\left(c_1\right)\stackrel{~}{f}\left(c_2\right)[g_2\left(r_{12}\right)+\chi \left(r_{12}\right)\widehat{D}\left(\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}\right):\stackrel{}{c}_1\stackrel{}{c}_2]$$
(14)
The first term in the brackets in the right-hand side of Eq. (14) accounts only for static correlations, while the second term accounts for dynamic correlation of a pair of particles with the reduced velocities $`\stackrel{}{c}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{c}_2`$. The traceless dyad of the unit vector $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}=\stackrel{}{r}_{12}/r_{12}`$ is defined as

$$\widehat{D}\left(\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}\right)3\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}\widehat{U}$$
(15)
with $`\widehat{U}`$ being the unit tensor and we use the conventional notation of vector algebra, i.e., $`\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{a}`$ denotes the dyad and

$$\widehat{D}\left(\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}\right):\stackrel{}{c}_1\stackrel{}{c}_23\left(\stackrel{}{c}_1\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{c}_2\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{c}_1\stackrel{}{c}_2\right).$$
(16)
This is one of the simplest forms which may be built up from three vectors and which features the requested symmetry with respect to vectors $`\stackrel{}{c}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{c}_2`$. The function $`\chi \left(r_{12}\right)`$ expresses the dependence of the velocity correlations on the particle distance which, obviously, vanishes for infinite distance, i.e., $`\chi \left(r_{12}\right)0`$ for $`r_{12}\mathrm{}`$.

At the instant of a collision, i.e., when $`r_{12}=\sigma `$ (or $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{r}}_{12}=\stackrel{}{e}`$) Eq. (14) reads

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_2(\stackrel{}{c}_1,\stackrel{}{c}_2,\sigma \stackrel{}{e})=\stackrel{~}{f}\left(c_1\right)\stackrel{~}{f}\left(c_2\right)g_2\left(\sigma \right)\left\{1+b\left[3\left(\stackrel{}{c}_1\stackrel{}{e}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{c}_2\stackrel{}{e}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{c}_1\stackrel{}{c}_2\right)\right]\right\},$$
(17)
where $`b\chi \left(\sigma \right)/g_2\left(\sigma \right)`$. For the one-particle distribution function we use its representation in terms of the Sonine polynomial expansion with the first non-vanishing Sonine coefficient $`a_2`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{f}\left(\stackrel{}{c}_1\right)=\varphi \left(c\right)\left[1+a_2S_2\left(c^2\right)\right],$$
(18)
where for the two-dimensional case the second Sonine polynomial reads,

$$S_2(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^22x+1.$$
(19)
With the distribution function given by Eqs. (17,18,19) all necessary quantities which describe the kinetic properties of the gas can be obtained, e.g., the second moment of the collision integral

$$\mu _2=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\stackrel{}{c}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{c}_2𝑑\stackrel{}{e}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\stackrel{}{c}_{12}\stackrel{}{e}\right)\left|\stackrel{}{c}_{12}\stackrel{}{e}\right|\stackrel{~}{f}_2(\stackrel{}{c}_1,\stackrel{}{c}_2,\sigma \stackrel{}{e})\mathrm{\Delta }\left(c_1^2+c_2^2\right),$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(c_1^2+c_2^2\right)`$ denotes the change of the quantity $`c_1^2+c_2^2`$ at the dissipative collision.

The importance of the second moment $`\mu _2`$ follows from the fact that it characterizes the dissipation rate due to inelastic collisions. Indeed, the factor $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\stackrel{}{c}_{12}\stackrel{}{e}\right)`$ in the integrand guarantees that particles with velocities $`\stackrel{}{c}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{c}_2`$ do collide. The factor $`\left|\stackrel{}{c}_{12}\stackrel{}{e}\right|`$ characterizes the length of the collision cylinder, which multiplied by the factor $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2(\stackrel{}{c}_1,\stackrel{}{c}_2,\sigma \stackrel{}{e})`$ characterizes the number of collisions between particles with velocities $`\stackrel{}{c}_1`$, $`\stackrel{}{c}_2`$ and the intercenter vector $`\sigma \stackrel{}{e}`$, occurring per unit time. The last factor in the integrand $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(c_1^2+c_2^2\right)`$ characterizes the energy loss in such collisions. Integration over all possible velocities and intercenter vectors yields the quantity which characterizes the energy loss per unit time, i.e., the decay rate of the gas temperature.

Straightforward calculations yield

$$\mu _2=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2\pi }\left(1ϵ^2\right)\left[1+\frac{3}{16}a_2\frac{63}{40}b\right].$$
(21)
This expression shows that $`\mu _2`$ depends on both coefficients $`a_2`$ and $`b`$ in a similar way.

## 6 Influence of the velocity correlations on the temperature evolution

Originally, Haff’s law (11) was derived by scaling arguments with the assumption of the Maxwell distribution for the particle velocities.? From this derivation it is not possible to obtain the relaxation time $`\tau _0`$ in terms of the microscopic particle properties. Starting with the Boltzmann-Enskog equation, however, the temperature evolution?, i.e. Haff’s law, and expression for the relaxation time $`\tau _0`$ in terms of the second moment of the collision integral can be found:

$$\tau _0^1=\frac{1}{3}g_2(\sigma )\sigma ^2n\sqrt{\frac{2T_0}{m}}\mu _2.$$
(22)
With expression (21) for $`\mu _2`$ we obtain

$$\tau _0=\frac{1}{1ϵ^2}A(ϵ),$$
(23)
with

$$A^1(ϵ)=\omega _0\left[1+\frac{3}{16}a_2(ϵ)\frac{63}{40}b(ϵ)\right],\omega _0=\frac{1}{3}g_2(\sigma )\sigma ^2n\sqrt{\pi \frac{T_0}{m}}.$$
(24)
The second Sonine coefficient for a two-dimensional gas of inelastic discs as a function of the coefficient of restitution has been obtained with the molecular chaos assumption (i.e. ignoring particle correlations)?:

$$a_2=\frac{16(1ϵ)\left(12ϵ^2\right)}{5725ϵ+30ϵ^2(1ϵ)}.$$
(25)
Using Eqs. (23,24,25) the (macroscopic) relaxation time $`\tau _0`$ is expressed in terms of microscopic quantities which characterize the particle collisions.

Analyzing Eqs. (24,25) it turns out that the dependence of $`A(ϵ)`$ on $`ϵ`$ is very weak: In the interval $`ϵ(0.8,1.0)`$ it varies within less than $`0.6\%`$. From Eq. (24) follows that the velocity correlations, expressed by $`b`$ preserve the functional form of the temperature decay, but change the value of the relaxation time. Moreover, it also follows that the more pronounced the velocity correlations (i.e. the larger the coefficient $`b`$) the more the relaxation time $`\tau _0`$ differs from the relaxation time of a gas where the velocity correlations are suppressed. Taking into account that $`a_2`$ is small and that $`b`$ is also not large, we can write for the factor $`A(ϵ)`$:

$$A=\omega _0^1\left[1\frac{3}{16}a_2(ϵ)+\frac{63}{40}b(ϵ)\right]=A_{\mathrm{rand}}+\frac{63}{40}\omega _0^1b(ϵ)$$
(26)
where $`A_{\mathrm{rand}}`$ is the factor $`A`$ that corresponds to a gas without velocity correlations, i.e., a randomized gas.

This theoretical prediction can be checked by numerical simulations: again we perform event driven Molecular Dynamics simulations, measure the temperature as a function of time and determine the value of $`\tau _0`$ as a fit parameter due to Eq. (11). According to Eq. (23) the function $`A(ϵ)`$ can be obtained by drawing $`\tau _0\left(1ϵ^2\right)`$ over $`ϵ`$. The results are shown Fig. 6 for two values of the density $`n`$.

The squares corresponds to the randomized gas and do not exhibit any noticeable dependence on the coefficient of restitution $`ϵ`$. As it has been already mentioned this is a consequence of the very weak dependence of $`A`$ on $`ϵ`$ via the second Sonine coefficient $`a_2`$. The triangles show the same data for simulations where the randomizing procedure has not been applied. The lines show linear least square fits to the numerical data. Figure 6 shows that the dependence of $`A`$ on $`ϵ`$ via the correlation coefficient $`b`$ can be approximated by a linear function of $`ϵ`$.

## 7 Conclusions

We study microscopic particle velocity correlations in dissipative gases. Taking into account velocity correlations preserves the functional form of the temperature decay, which still obeys Haff’s law but changes the temperature relaxation time. Going beyond the assumption of molecular chaos we suggest the functional form of the two-particle distribution function which accounts for velocity correlations and calculate the temperature relaxation time for this distribution function. We performed Molecular Dynamics simulations of dissipative gases and suggest a randomizing procedure which suppresses the velocity correlations but leaves all other properties of the gas dynamics unchanged. From the comparison of the results of the simulation of the randomized gas with traditional simulations we obtain the dependence of the correlation coefficient on the coefficient of restitution.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via grant (Po472/6).

References